Pakistan and Civil Society

Shahid Burki`s take on the root cause of troubles in Pakistan, esp. Karachi.

http://www.dawn.com/2004/text/op.htm

Excertpt:
``The stage for the mohajir politics of the last quarter century in Karachi with all the attendant conflict and violence was set by the 1947-1950 transfer of population.

While the impact on the politics of Karachi of the influx of refugees has received considerable academic attention, what has totally escaped notice is another effect: the ``Muslimization`` of the population of Pakistan as a consequence of the demographic trauma of the 1940s.

In 1941, the areas that were to become first West Pakistan and later, in 1971, today`s Pakistan had a population of 32.6 million people. Of these 6.3 million or nearly one-fifth of the total were non-Muslims.

In 1951, with an addition of two million people to the population as a result of migration in and out of the country, the country`s population reached 39 million. Of these, the non-Muslims constituted only a tiny proportion, 3.2 per cent. Partition and its aftermath had thoroughly cleansed Pakistan of almost all non-Muslim population.

For instance, at the time of partition, ``the Hindu-Muslim ratio of population [in Sindh] was roughly 30:70.`` According to one estimate, based on the 1951 census, only 140,000 Hindus were left, mostly in Sindh. In other words, Sindh`s Hindu population was reduced to only 1.9 per cent of the total. The same was the case in Punjab.

The Muslimization of our population resulted in Pakistan`s departure from Jinnah`s original dream - to create a country in which Muslims would have a large majority but in which people of all other religions would have complete political, social and economic rights.

Instead, the post-partition transfer of population set the stage for the pressure to Islamize Pakistani society. It also created the environment in which Islamic extremism could throw deep roots - one of the four problems General Musharraf says engage him the most these days.``

Well I would partially agree. Those in teens and twenties have read tailored history and are still into too many generalisations. I feel this optimism is more with those who have studied the correct history and can carry out comparative analysis of the case histories of the past with the present and future.

I feel that many observers tend to look at Pakistan through a very coloured lens. Life is not that difficult. Consumerism is one indication that people are not fed up. Maybe we are still, despite much pessimism, better off than all other countries of South Asia.

Hi Ijaz, I agree with your optimist scenario. However, based on a short visit to Pakistan as well as interaction with Pakistanis everywhere in the world over the past decades, I want to put a hypothesis to you for your views:- ````the optimism scenario for Pakistan lies in the hands and minds of the generation of Pakistani middle class who are currently in their teens and twenties.````

I have some inputs and reasons to believe this, but I am keen to hear what the board here says/thinks.

D`accord.

Ijaz:

Political parties - NATIONAL parties have played a huge role in development of a people and society and bringing a sense of national identity.

Often we discount their significance or fail to mention it- perhaps because there is really only one national party in Pakistan.

Seeing how the non-party elections at the local level have created factions based on `biradari` one realizes the significance of national parties and their ability to promote inclusiveness and national character.

This point should have also been mentioned and addressed in your essay.

And yes, there is no choice but to be an optimist!

Just like a country has two components viz a viz nation and state, society is the most discernable part of the nation.

In the perspective of liberalism, the most rational actor is an individual and therefor civil society in USA is supra national. OneWorld movement and CIVICUS are a manifestation of this. This model does not suit Pakistan as the modernity levels therein do not suit Pakistan. Its most advanced form is the Corporate America that wishes to rule the world.

In the nation state perspective, the nation state is considered the most rational actor. In case of Pakistan cultural values and religion play an important part. Was national character of Pakistan in 1947 to 1956 sponsored by the government. Was creation of UCH Lahore in 1947, to cater for refugees, sponsored by the government.

Society is a evolving process. Your pipedream comment emanates from a distant tunnel vision. I live in the tunnel described by you. As for your question, it is already happening.
Surprisingly even today the most active group involved in development in Pakistan remains the Christian Community. Look at FC College, the first Christian University, Sargoda Technical Institute, the best technical institution of the country, CARITAS, one of the best and least corrupt NGO in the country. See the 7th Day Adventist centre and their hospital in Karachi. The list goes on and on. This is just to mention a minority. Otherwise, see Rehmatullah Trust, NED, Shaukat Khanum, Shalimar Hospital, Anjuman e Himayat ul Islam, SOS Villages et al.

Forever, I am an optimist

ijaz,

perhaps we are on the same page, but then again. . .

when you say `civil society must evolve in a manner that it strengthens the state` i find that interesting. the nation is a construct, but you appear to be separating that from the state, and in the world that we live in today, that seems rather implausible. . .the `nation` and the `state` are inextricably linked to one another and have been so since the creation of nation-states.

the `national character` of a country should not be sponsored by a state. agreed. but the reality is that the state will impose on its people what the character of a nation-state is. quite few of us as part of a state have already been internalizing the aspirations of the coercive `state` which has lead to our continuing disintegration.

so when you say that `civil society must evolve in a manner that it strengthens the state.` we cannot exclude the nation from the state. for it is true that civil society, when it flourishes does strengthen the nation-state, while remaining distinct from it. THAT is a given. elements of civil society have strengthened us, as a nation, as a people in the past. judging from well for quite a while now, the same cannot be said about the state. the aspirations of many pakistanis, as well as well as some elements of civil society have been and continue to be crushed by the state. the onus cannot be on civil society. . .alone. as long as the current nature of `the state` continues which is also inextricably linked to nationalism, your desired goal of `undiluted` nationalism in pakistan, is, forgive me, a pipedream. once the state stops interfering coercively with civil society in pakistan. . .it will flourish even more. the question is when is that going to happen, if at all?

regards,
n~

#34 by Urstruly
Teenager? HA Ha Ha!!

As people who can write a few words and analyse a bit, an element of romanticism permeating into a vision is not a bad preposition. Like a fish into and out of water, I have seen and experienced the fortes nad foibles of the state and the society at close hand.

As someone keeps saying on ARYOneWorld,

Mein aiseu saksh ko zindon mein kiya shamar karoon
Jo sochta bhe nahi, khwab dekhta bhi nahin.

I said it is a very modest wish list, very practical and can be implemented. Specially the part on Socio Economic development is simple and straight. The only thing needed is deregulation. Just see the boom in private TV channels, Cell phones and Universities. Have not the citizens of this country performed? Have not Geo, ARY and Indus disscussed issues facing Pakistan threadbare? This is a very important aspect of nation buliding. Look at our very own informal sector.

Indian civil society faces similar challenges as us. In fact during my research, some of the best sources came from Indian writers. With common backgrounds, we share similar problems. Many a times I was left wondering whether I was reading a book on Pakistan or India. I do not want to go into specific examples as it may result in a Indo-Pak mud slinging affair.

Anyhow, thanks for your comments.

Cheerios

Ijaz

This is a very well written thesis but with an optimism of a teenager. I don`t think a civil society in Pakistan is going to emerge very soon as long as gun totting criminals are ruling this country. I think in this respect India is light years ahead of us. We on the other hand will have to go thru a civil war first in order to sow even the seeds of civility. Now when I talk about the possibility of a civil war, I be an optimist as a teenager as well. On normal days I think Pakistan will implode into non-existence instead. Possibility is not far fetched - you yourself have quoted the exmples of USSR and one that directly relate to us - the East Pakistan.

Adam Smith
I have attempted this essay without biases. Being a Pakistani, my only comment is that the civil society must evolve in a manner that it strenghtens the state. As you have talked of a CONSTRUCT, I see nation as a construct. It is unlike the State, something intangible and incalculable. As Morghentaeu said, `` national power rises out of a relatively stable form of geography. to the fleeting opportunities of national character and morale`` I feel that this national character and morale cannot be sponsored by a state. It is the domain of the citizen participation. The end state of the Pakistani society that I suggest is one that internalises the aspiarations and interests of the state. This is something cognitive and a hyperactive state leaving no space for citizen participation is detrimental to it because there is no inclusivity.

Exordial forces in Pakistan exist in the form of extremism, the issue of sub nationalities, ethnicity, sectarianism and the most dangerous; failure of federalism to function. Socio economic forces can lock most of these divisive forces into a shared economic objective anf thus looking beyond from narrow interests to more nationalistic objectives. Hence every citezen`s gain also becomes the gain of the country. This is what I call intrumentalism, pluralism and inclusivity.

Though this is an abridged form, I have explained in the main paper that the Pakistani Nation was very strong after the partition and the construct was formed much earlier than the partition. Slowly, as the State has over indulged, the role of society has also decreased, which has created fissures in the nationalism

I dont think, you or Noor disagree with me on any point.
Cheerios

Daily Times, 6/26/04

EDITORIAL: Don’t keep Bihari refugees in a black-hole

Press reports from Bangladesh say thousands of Bihari refugees protested in Dhaka on June 24 and demanded that they either be repatriated to Pakistan or given Bangladeshi nationality. The refugee leaders also said they wanted a tripartite meeting among Pakistan, Bangladesh and the representatives of the refugees to sort out this issue immediately. Nearly 250,000 ‘Bihari-Pakistanis’ remain stranded in Bangladesh and live in abject poverty in 66 camps scattered in 13 districts of that country. How should Pakistan respond to their plight?

In all fairness to Dhaka, the onus of responsibility for these Bihari-Pakistanis lies with Islamabad while much of the blame for their present plight must also be apportioned to the Bihari-Pakistani leaders themselves. But before we go any further, let’s take a look at the genesis of the problem.

Some one million Biharis first came to Bangladesh, then East Pakistan, in October-November 1947 after nearly 30,000 were killed in what came to be known as the ‘Great Bihar Killing’. Most of them were from the eastern Indian states of Bihar, West Bengal, Assam, Orissa, Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and Sikkim, according to a South Asia Forum for Human Rights report quoting official BD documents on the refugees. Until 1971, it is generally accepted that these refugees did not assimilate and remained a distinct cultural-linguistic group. To that extent they were closer to and identified with West rather than East Pakistan’s Bengali (now Bangladeshi) culture. There is evidence that they also enjoyed official patronage. Later, with the Urdu-Bengali controversy emerging, the Biharis definitely got the upper hand after the Pakistan government announced Urdu as the official language of the country. On the language issue too (and the riots that would break out periodically) the Biharis sided with West Pakistan. Similarly, on the political front, in the 1954 provincial elections as well as in the 1970 general elections, they supported the Muslim League.

Things came to a head in 1970-71. The Biharis supported the military action against Bengali insurgents and some even participated actively against the Mukti Bahini. The resentment that was growing among the Bengalis (Bangladeshis) against them resulted in the killings of Biharis by the Bengali nationalists during and after the 1971 India-Pakistan war. Most of them were displaced and their properties taken over by the Bengalis. It was not until mid-1972 that nearly a million of them were domiciled in camps through a presidential order.

Later, the same year, Dhaka offered them citizenship through a Presidential Order. Bangladeshi official records say some 600,000 accepted this offer while 539,669 Biharis “registered with the International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) opting to return to their ‘country of nationality’ — Pakistan” (SAFHR report). Under international law, henceforth they were Pakistanis. But Islamabad did not show much interest in the issue then. However, it was forced to look at it seriously when Dhaka linked diplomatic relations with Islamabad to repatriation of those Bihari refugees that had opted for Pakistan. Under the 1973 Delhi Agreement as well as in the Tripartite Agreement of 1974 Pakistan agreed to receive these refugees. As part of this agreement, the “United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) facilitated the return of 108,750 Bihari refugees by June 1974” but had to suspend operations for lack of funds. The issue could also not be resolved in the 1974 Bhutto-Mujib summit and has since then hung fire. It is periodically visited but nothing has come out of it.

At this point it is important to go back to the question of what can be done. Pakistan needs first to feel responsible for these refugees. However, taking them in at this stage is a difficult though not impossible option for a number of reasons, not least because of Pakistan’s internal problems. An attempt was made by the Nawaz League government in the early 1990s to get some of these refugees and settle them in the Punjab. But that did not work because there are no jobs in the Punjab and because of ethnic, linguistic, economic and cultural reasons these refugees will always tend to drift to Karachi in the south. But that city has already become a tinderbox. Its infrastructure is crumbling under the weight of irresponsible governance and migration to it of Pakistanis from across the country. Thus there is no way it can accommodate these refugees without further sociological upheaval. Already, nearly 100,000 Biharis have illegally migrated to Pakistan and are living on the fringes of socio-economic life in Karachi.

After decades of living in Bangladesh, it is realistic to make efforts to get these people to assimilate in that country. Those Biharis who refused in the seventies to take up Dhaka’s offer now realise they may have made a mistake. Given their plight they cannot be made to suffer the consequences of it any more. They may not be averse to accepting a similar offer now. This is where Pakistan needs to start shouldering its responsibility not only in terms of helping Dhaka bear the financial burden of these Biharis but also in finding money from international sources to help Bangladesh absorb them. In the final analysis, of course, Pakistan must make arrangements to receive those among them who still insist on coming to Pakistan, despite any demographic problems that they may unwittingly create in their chosen homeland (Pakistan).

The stranded Biharis represent a human tragedy and neither Dhaka nor Islamabad can allow so many people languish in a black-hole. The Awami League government in Bangladesh has generally tended to flog this issue to score points against Pakistan. It will perhaps be easier for Pakistan at this point to take up this issue seriously with the present government of prime minister Khaleda Zia. There are of course problems on all sides but the gravity of the situation demands that a process be initiated in good faith that aims at ending this human tragedy. *

The tragedy of Bihari-Pakistanis

Sir: This is in reference to your editorial ‘Don’t keep Bihari refugees in a black-hole’ (Daily Times, June 26). While there are a number of things that can be done to ameliorate the plight of the Biharis, it should be clear to all parties that inaction is not an option. As your editorial cogently points out, the effort to help these stranded Pakistanis has to be a collaborative one between the governments of Pakistan and Bangladesh, International Organisations and NGOs. However, the lead on the issue has to be taken by Pakistan, and this crucial factor has sadly been missing in the last few decades.

Some organizations have been formed specifically to deal with this issue. One such recently formulated charitable organisation is the Texas-based ‘Stateless People in Bangladesh’ (www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net). In and of themselves, these organisations cannot solve the issue. They can, however, be very useful in raising awareness and money. They can facilitate the process to a great degree. The Pakistan government would do well to form a department to oversee the ‘Bihari’ issue and coordinate with all the different organisations working on this issue.

It is imperative that the Pakistan government realised the gravity of the situation and its own responsibility. It must initiate a serious process that seeks to rectify this unacceptable situation that has been allowed to persist for more than three decades. A solution would obviously require compromises from all parties and may include repatriation of a number of people and financial packages (to help in the integration process) for others who wish to stay in Bangladesh.

Before speaking out for Palestinians, I would urge Pakistanis to look at their own region and concentrate on ending this human tragedy. This is not a favour we should be doing to the Biharis; it is our duty to help them, and their right to live in their own country, a right which has been denied them. As they continue to yearn for the land that has denied their very existence, it is up to all of us to undo this great injustice and give them what they deserve; a place to call home.
TAIMUR KHAN
Philadelphia

OP-ED: Change of PM and the future of democracy —Dr Hasan-Askari Rizvi

An entrenched presidency may manipulate the weak political forces to its advantage but it cannot give enough resilience to the political process to cope with the challenges which range from political alienation, economic deprivation, religious and cultural intolerance and terrorism

Nobody was surprised at the June 26 resignation of Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali. For the last two months, the presidency was planning to replace Jamali with a new favourite. What surprised most observers during this period was that the presidency did not frame any specific charges against the Jamali government. It seems that some key people in the presidency got alienated from Jamali and decided to get rid of him without taking into account the injurious implications of such a move for the polity. The parliament or the ruling coalition was not involved in initiating this move, although they endorsed it when President Pervez Musharraf decided to nudge Jamali out.

Jamali’s removal reflects three aspects of Pakistan’s current political scene. First, despite the restoration of civilian constitutional rule the president and his army-intelligence affiliates and advisors hold the high cards in the political system. The president occupies a pivotal position in the political system. Strongly believing in the ‘unity of command’, Musharraf makes sure that there is no doubt about who commands the state power. He became quite active in managing state affairs during the last couple of months. The change of prime minister demonstrates his continuing hold on power.

Second, the ruling coalition played no direct role in deciding Jamali’s fate. Although the PML president, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, was in contact with the presidency and knew about its political agenda, the key leaders of the ruling coalition and most parliamentarians did not know the dynamics of the politics of change. The decision to remove Jamali was made in the presidency and the ruling coalition went along. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s nomination as prime minister with the approval of the presidency helped create the consensus on the change. There was hardly anybody in the meeting of the parliamentary party of the ruling coalition that asked Jamali to stay on or give reasons for his resignation.

Third, the national assembly was not relevant to the change. The decision was made outside the NA without the active involvement of the ruling party. However, it would approve the decision when the matter is referred to it on June 28. The irony is that the prime minister had to quit two days after the approval of his government’s budget by the NA even though the approval of the budget is always considered a vote of confidence in the government. Many members of the Jamali cabinet are expected to join the cabinet of the new prime minister.

Jamali’s removal can be compared with the dismissal of Khawaja Nazimuddin by Governor General Ghulam Muhammad in April 1953 soon after he got his budget approved by the central legislature. The ruling Muslim League did not object to his removal and reposed confidence in Muhammad Ali Bogra who was summoned from the US to become prime minister. Several members of Nazimuddin’s cabinet joined the new cabinet. Now, Jamali has got a raw deal at the hands of Musharraf and most of his ministers are keen to join the new cabinet.

Jamali was selected prime minister by the presidency in November 2002 to head the first government under the post-military rule political arrangements. He had the qualifications to become prime minister under these arrangements that protected the centrality of Musharraf (president and army chief) to the political process. Jamali had no independent political base and he openly acknowledged his dependence on the president, whom he described as his boss. He maintained a low profile and did not object to Musharraf’s efforts to expand his role in political management and governance. And he did not hesitate to resign when the presidency advised him to do so because he knew that the ruling PML listened to the president rather than to him.

Jamali’s exit can also be interpreted as a setback to the political arrangements crafted by the presidency and its army-intelligence affiliates to civilianise the military rule in October-November 2002. The elections were carefully managed to enable the pro-military PMLQ to emerge as the largest party at the federal level. The presidency was instrumental in creating the ruling coalition led by the PMLQ. Jamali was also its choice. Now, the presidency has abandoned him and wants to bring in a more trusted person.

There was no known political crisis in the country or revolt in the ruling coalition that warranted the change of the prime minister. However, press reports indicated in April 2004 that the presidency wanted to change the prime minister which created uncertainty in Islamabad. The president gradually built pressure on the prime minister and began to spend time in his chamber in the parliament house and held consultations with parliamentarians of the ruling coalition. He also consulted his military colleagues and summoned the first meeting of the National Security Council. The president took these steps to demonstrate that he was in full command of the situation and had the capability to undercut the support of the prime minister, if he defied him.

Initially, the PML leaders like Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain had reservations about the political change. However, he and has close associates could not afford to annoy the president. A dialogue between him and some key personnel of the Presidency removed these reservations and they agreed on Jamali’s successor. Press reports indicate that Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain’s elevation to premiership is an interim arrangement. The presidency will select a prime minister in a month or so. This means the aspirants for the top political job would be cultivating the presidency and some degree of uncertainty would prevail in Islamabad until a prime minister is finally selected.

This episode removes whatever façade of democracy existed in Pakistan. The civilian institutions that came into existence after the 2002 general elections have not been able to acquire autonomous role and depend heavily on the presidency and its strong army-intelligence affiliates and advisors. This was the main reason that nobody in the ruling coalition questioned the role of the presidency in changing the prime minister. They do not want to alienate the presidency by questioning its political management. Some of them do not hesitate to publicly demonstrate their loyalty to Musharraf in parliament and outside.

In this situation, the future prospects of democratic institutions and processes do not seem bright in Pakistan. It is now firmly established that access to power and influence is possible only through co-optation by the presidency and the army-intelligence establishment. The availability of this option makes it difficult for civilian institutions and processes to acquire salience and sustainability.

An entrenched presidency may manipulate the weak political forces to its advantage but it cannot give enough resilience to the political process to cope with the challenges which range from political alienation, economic deprivation, religious and cultural intolerance and terrorism. When the political institutions cannot address the key challenges and are unable to cope with the participatory pressures, they suffer from the crisis of legitimacy which makes it difficult for them to acquire sustainability. This appears to be the fate of the current Pakistani political system.

Dr Hasan Askari Rizvi is a political and defence analyst

Well put Nur.

This is exactly right.

Civil society was at its best when it struggled against sovereiengty and nationalism in the enlightenment period. Men and women of all nationalities came together on the basis of intellectual, cultural and commercail awakening to develop all aspects of life. Since then civil society has been at its best only when people have been similarly moved to reach out and rise above other trends such as naitonalism that seek to divide.

As I mentioned in my earlier post nations are a reality and a consturct that we all live in and must, but strong nationalism seeks to empower the state. For civil society to thrive, the state must butt out. Any intrusion of the state is contrary to the development of civil society. Hence I do nto buy state sponsored civil society.

Enlightnement civil society developed beyond the pale of the state and in cities of florence, Venice and Naples. Additonally it thrived in Scotland where the state had totally withdrawn. National states like their predecessors the monarchies seek to unite many diverse areas by means of seeking common unifying themes. These often amount to the lowest common denominator and very often as Nur says are based on ``exclusionary`` ideas. Civil society when it develops on those lines can become fascistic. After was that not he basis of Nazi Civil society.

By the way Ijaz, I do not know what exordial was in your last respose to Nur. Can you please explain the concept.

Thanks for a thought ful piece that inspired a good discussion.

Like Nur, I respect your worthy intentions for our country.

ijaz gul:

i believe i have read what you`ve written more than a few times, and the fault lies not with my lack of grasp, but with my understanding of what nationalism and civil society are. perhaps you are correct in stating that `as pakistanis, the ultimate goal of our civil society should be the attainment of undiluted nationalism`, but as worthy as that goal is, unfortunately i don`t see it being attained. nationalism, be it diluted or undiluted is problematic because it has not always been inclusive. the EU is overcoming their previous challenges and struggles with nationalism which they had as individual `nation-states`.

and i do not believe that civil society should be linked with the state, or be state-sponsored. that would change the nature of civil society, with its varying definitions.

your intentions are noble, and i wish pakistan the best!
n~

There is hope,

At last there is concensus, ramging from romair to hamidm that pakistan need to be rules by the whites. This is not going to happen by a constitutional amendment, it has been amended before only to make it more jihadic. the only hope for pakistan is the irquisation, then the rulers of pakistan will be apponted. the dream of hamidm can come true only after iraquisation and that can happen only after the jihadis have siezed power and there is no way that any one is going to tolerate an islamic bomb. Already, mushy is protected by the yanks and he has proved himself to be an obedient servant through the wana operations.
The true iraquisation can come only after the bearded generals take over.