Military–bureaucratic dominance has been made a menacing reality of Pakistan by delaying the drafting of the constitution for long, and postponing general elections since the bloody birth of the nation in 1947. This was done to marginalize the majority (above 50%), who were Bengalis against dominant minority of Punjabis. System of representative democracy would have given far greater share of power to the Bengalis in the eastern wing of Pakistan. Punjabi dominance in bureaucracy and army, therefore, was never so serious for democratic processes. Non accommodative and authoritarian spirit resulted into fragmentation of the nation in two parts. The eastern wing got a bloody birth in 1971, called as Bangladesh. While geographical distance between the eastern and western wing was definitely n important reason for this disintegration, the above mentioned factors were the important ones. No effort at building a party based political system capable of reflecting Pakistan's linguistic and cultural diversities. Contrast it with India, which accommodated linguistic aspirations and provinces began to be carved out along linguistic lines since early 1950s. The process continues till date. The Congress led mass based anti colonial struggle had envisaged this goal as early as 1920 at its annual session in Nagpur. Whereas the Muslim League, in its attempts to create Pakistan, by dividing India, did not have any such socially accommodative ideological programmes. Small wonder then that, the political parties functioning in Pakistan don't have effective bases of popular support. While the military dictator marginalized the industrial labour and intelligentsia, one of the most revealing tales about it has been narrated by outstandingly famous Urdu poet, Josh Malihabadi's autobiography, Yaadon Ki Baraat, who migrated, only to repent it pathetically, to the 'Khuda Ki Basti' (God's Own Land), despite being persuaded by J.L. Nehru not to do so.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (Prime Minister, 1971-77), while claiming to have Left-progressive leaning ideology of reforms for the underprivileged, packed his Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) with landed notables and had scant respect for civil liberties. He vigorously pursued the politics of taking revenge against political rivals and gave a serious blow to the provisions of provincial autonomy in 1973, thereby subverted democracy.
General Ziaul Haq (1977-88), a military authoritarian, enlisted the support of the Jamaat-e-Islami-e-Pakistan and the Jamiatul Ulema-e-Pakistan and had support base among neo- rich trading classes of urban centres. Having got support from ostensibly Islamic groups, he could unleash repressive legislations against women in 1979, besides remaining ruthless against the political opponents. He attempted to contain rising social unpopularity with showing an exaggerated external threats and enhancing budgetary outlay for defence and armament, which resulted into extreme economic crisis and military control on the state apparatus. His regime also witnessed fierce Punjabi –Sindhi divide. While the social transformation in rural Sind became a volcanic site, the urban Sind gave birth to the Muhajir Qaumi Movement (MQM), and its important towns like Karachi and Hyderabad turned into linguistic (Urdu versus Sindhi) battle zones.
The beneficiaries of the political patronage of the Zia era gave birth to Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League (PML), who ruled it during 1990-93 and 1997-99. But during this period both ruling PML and opposition PPP miserably failed to come out with a concrete economic programme. How could they do it? Even the political formation (the Muslim League) that created the nation called Pakistan could never come out with a defined economic programme. Let it be contrasted with the Karachi Resolution (1931) of the Congress led anti colonial struggle, where a concrete programme of Fundamental Rights and economic programme aimed at bringing socio economic justice was put forward as a blue print of the independent India. Moving ahead, in 1936 at Faizpur, it also promised an agrarian programme to fight the feudal domination through land proprietorship for tenants. It clearly talked of land reforms, redistribution of all kinds of wealth, nationalization of industries. In 1938, it formed the National Planning Committee, and it kept displaying its sincere commitment to civil liberties, minority rights, social justice, secularism, socialism and believed extraordinarily in politicizing people through mass movements. For the sake of actualizing this objective, it always maintained a relationship with the socialist and communist parties, workers and peasants' parties. Whereas, the Jinnah led Muslim League always entered into backdoor negotiations with the imperial power, when it was under pressure from the Congress led mass assertions. In short, strength and aspiration of the common masses were always insignificant for the creators of Pakistan. During 1937–47, they did enlist mass support, but the mobilizing issues were divisive and hate mongering, based on religious exclusivism. This is not to say that all was/ is well with the Congress and other political formations. But the way Pakistan politics has been moving, since its birth, is definitely an outcome of the way they defined and practised their nationalism. This is the reason, why military dictators get an advantage of not encountering fierce mass assertion even in this age of all pervasive, unrestrained reach of media. Even a backward, feudalized, fiercely caste-segregated Indian province like Bihar can bring the state to its knees when an 'ordinary' media-man is beaten by a warlord politician,can be subjected to punishment, but the nation called Pakistan can black out the media so easily. One may counter this line of argument by citing the examples of:
(a) Imposition of Emergency in 1975 by Indira led government. Even though it was outrageously anti democratic, it was not a military dictatorship.
(b) Massacres like anti Muslim pogroms in Gujarat, where rule of law has just vanished. But, one redeeming aspect of Indian democracy is still there, the judiciary and human rights activists are able to extract at least some space for justice. Institutions are still expected to deliver the goods. Limitastions and criticisms apart, resilience and endurance of the Indian democracy is precisely because of the fact that programmes of socio-economic justice are constantly moving ahead. Maoism, Naxalism, secessionist insurgencies and other such organized or unorganized violence are raising their heads mostly in those pockets where they are being denied disproportionately.
Unsurprisingly, the existing political formations of Pakistan are just not able to define and practice enduring programmes of social justice, balanced regional development, and federalism/ provincial 'autonomy', and above all of them, a political economy oriented towards the emergence of a civil society where democratic institutions don't get discredited or de-legitimized. Regardless of when the elections are held and who comes to power, a substantive democracy will keep eluding Pakistan for some more times to come. This is a great worry for the neighbouring India and rest of the world.
Dr M S
No comments:
Post a Comment