Pakistan and Civil Society

Fab article !
I think we Pakistanis are stuck between nationalism and religion ;we are a divided nation in terms of social and economic develoupment we need to address this in ordre to restore confidence in the state of Pakistan. We should try to be a bit positive ( is my request)

This is a very well-written article. Hardly any one will disagree with carefully crafted suggestions although agreeing or disagreeing mean little when likelihood of these series of steps taking place is quite low. Additionally, the history of civil society in the making for a long time is not as praiseworthy as you have mentioned; it is no way an ``A`` grade performance.

Since you have proposed a series of steps that are necessary towards bulilding a better civil society than the current level, which might take long time on a coarse path or never take place, I also suggest easy and quick step which will not take much time but is not likely to happen as well. Pakistan needs a constitutional amendment that transfers power to appoint COAS and all the justices of the Supreme Court including Chief Justice - invoking membership of British Commonwealth - to Queen of England with the conditions that all appointees should be non-Pakistanis and preferably of British origin. Few other appointments like Governor of State Bank, Finance czar and Cheif Secretary (as chief bureaucrat) should also be appointed by Her Majesty from non-Pakistanis, preferably British, Canadians, Australians or New Zealanders. This will certainly bring some character at the top and help improve Pakistani governments` standing among masses.

Izas,

It is time that people like you stop writing crap. Pakistan was created by one man and his idea of TNT fitted the designs of the colonial masters. It is only now, that pakistan is finding its roots as a nation. It is built from the ground up, by the ordinary people of pakistan.

``a random sample in Gujranwala, local business contributions in Zakat to both registered and unregistered civic bodies were four times the amount paid as taxes.``

As you correctly point out, it is the people who want the madrassas and the jihadic way of life. In pakistan, a new version of islam is taking shape, the jihadic islam. It is founded in the madrassas and the k for kafir education of the other schools. At last the children of TNT are reaching a mature age, they are attacking the military, they founded the taliban and the al quida.

The formation of pakistan as a nation started only after 1947. At last now the foundation has been laid and when the jihadis sieze the military, that is when the superstructure will be built.

It is an opportunity for the pakistanis to celebrate. Look at the hard facts, look at the evenets in karachi, the attacks on the military, the still missing osama in the jihadic labyrinths of pakistan, it is a nation in formation, the jihadic republic of pakistan. There is nothing wrong with it, that is what the people of pakistan wants and it is for the rest of the world to eliminate it.

jay:

It is time that people like you stop writing crap.

wise man follow their own advice

(hope you don`t mind my senile friend...like you i have nothing to do today;))

rgds,

t

i am confused by the term `undiluted nationalism`. is there such a thing? as for one of the responses talking about us being stuck between religion and nationalism, religion IS a form of nationalism. religion and nationalism go hand in hand. religion is what ultra nationalists have invoked in places such as the balkans, cyprus, nazi germany in the 30`s, and yes, even in pakistan and one of our neighboring countries.

perhaps i am confused by the definition of civil society. i have always understood civil society to be separate from the apparatus of the state. .which just so happens to be a part of the nation-state. the nation-state in pakistan, has tended to crush participation of various elements of civil society. women`s groups for example are an essential part of civil society, are they not? is it the role of civil society to be part of what can be the coercive nature of the state. or is it rather the role of civil society to keep a check on the coercive nature of the state, and by extension, nationalism?

this is a well-crafted essay, of that there is no doubt. i just find it problematic, and as sameer has said, the likelihood of any of these steps taking place is quite low. . .especially as long as the current `government` is in place, and nationalism, even in its `undiluted` form excludes groups of people.

sameerjb,

..... i second your proposal for ammendment to the constitution with a small change - all her majesty`s appointments, in addition to being from the west, should also be white .........it wouldn`t make any difference if she appointed sir ghulam rasool from manchester as the governor of sindh - the chances are he will go native and apeshit as soon as he lands in karachi .......... as t.e. lawrence and other dead orientalists have pointed out, the brown man is incapable of ruling himself ............ a couple of years ago i saw this phenomenon at a diler mehdi concert in chicago ............ there was sheer chaos and pandemonium as a crowd of five thousand desis armed with phd`s and md`s fought over seats like doodh-walas from gujranwala - everyone quickly shut up and sat down as soon as a couple of seven dollar an hour white men in security uniforms yelled at them ............ it is in the genes

Not my country, so don`t particularly care, but I would like to dispute that there was a nation before partition. I have also had an argument previously with someone on chowk because I don`t believe Pakistanis can claim inheritance of the Indus valley civilisation-whoever the other was would not agree the mother goddess was worshipped there.Good luck to the country that now exists, but why start talking about something like this, where you know there will be a sharp divide-what`s the point of provoking another slanging match? It was not needed to make your point. Don`t look at me, I`m not the one who slags off the extended families and partners of Chowk members.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ijaz

Even your subtitle is a contradiction.....``An Engine for Undiluted Nationalism.``

Civil society is the most developed in Europe precisely because nationalism has been subdued.

American civil society suffers because of jingoistic nationalism.

We subcontinentals are hung up on nationalism of the 19th century European kind. This idea is an import and not a locally generated idea.

I repeat civil society needs to be dissociated from nationalism. It is the community, the people and their networks of trust that are different from nationalism.

Please do not misunderstand this to mean that the nation state must go. It is there and will be there. But it should not subsume all, especially not civil society. This is what has gone wrong with Pakistan.

All the best

Ijaz
Valiant effort.

However, you still write from the perspective of a nation state led by a government. We may live within national boundaries because the world forces us to but should we truly seek to have one identitiy, on vision within that nation state.

Civil society will not develop unless there is a plurality of ideas and a plurality of visions within the nation state.

When you say ``The role of the Non Profit Organisations also needs to be regulated and monitored within the premise of a nation state. In the existing hype, there is probability that many of these organisations could form a nexus with the civil servants and become hot beds of corruption.`` You are seeking to empower the government which has so stifled civil society.

The only way for civil society to develop is to return the government to its main function--law and order. Which means it should withdraw from everytheng else that it does, including education and regulation. Currently the government cannot give us security because it is invlolved in the violence, yet it wants to regulate our lives in every way. All this is done in the name of the nation state.

All the best

I liked the essay.

Everytime a Pakistani writes and does not conjure up some new defense supporting burqa, terrorism, discrimination against religious minorities, or proclaim great scientific facts embedded in Holy Quran, a giant intellectual leap occurs.

Beyond that the article adds nothing of value, and displays intellectual barrenness. Quite as expected.


M.B.Z.Isphahani # 6

Good post, studes.

Hamidm

Lets not confuse migrant secondary citizen mindset (which i assume from your proclamation, you share) with real administration issues on mainland. Although you might feel that the Colonial experiance for the sub continent was the most efficient system of rule todate, a large majority will disagree, because where your forefathers might have inherited Lands and titles for subsurviance to the British , ours fought against the Imperialist rule.

Therefore yes we agree it is in your genes.

Wajahat,

Just curious, what exactly is the ``migrant secondary citizen mindset`` and what does it have to do with an inability to form queues in an orderly fashion?

Very good analysis.

But the political/social advice presented is weak. Firstly, the desire for nationalism to emerge is forced- much like the state has been trying to force a sense of `pakistaniat` in all for decades. This may be wrong, but the days of `nationalism` are over in the practical sense. One can still thump chest and become inspired by `sohni dharti` and all, but everything else is rather forced for most Pakistanis as it is a banana republic.

My advice would have been that the various entities in the society- political parties, institutions etc. all be given the time and be allowed to struggle to find their own respective space without interference from anyone else.

The economic advice is better as this country has survived due to the spirit present in the informal sector.

Dear Curious Fuzair

A Migrant Secondary Citizen Mindset is that which automatically assumes itself to be somehow on a lower existential level than of the Goras whose land they have the opportunity and great luck to be living in.

As far as your point about forming queues go, anyone can see that I am not trying to refute that yes we south asians have a problem in managing order amidst ourselves.

My point however was to refute the hamidm type humour about goras and genes, if you couldnt see that, it has to be my fault somehow. I wait for your excellent far right reply to this.

wajahat:

Your assertion of secondary existential level than the whites, of desi diaspora in the west is nonsence. hamidm and Fuzair, and me too, have been critical of the failure of desis to adopt civilized behavior and behave responsibly. You or anybody else should not take this criticism of the collective southasians wisdom and behavior as personal. I can give you here examples after examples of the failures of collective southasian wisdom and behavior, which means that either majority is directly responsible, tacitly approves, ineffective in improving or dealing with it, receptive of uncivilized behavior, lack of inner strength to deal with, indifferent to uncivilized behavior and so on, mostly due to rationality and logic taking back seat over romanticism, emotionalism, traditions and beliefs. hamidm has never suggested that whites have superior genes; instead he contends that culture and environment make them behave more responsibly. Again you can point to individual cases of stupidiity, uncivilized behavior and ineffectiveness of white individuals as well as weak points of their culture easily but it is about collective western wisdom that is more rational and logical since the enlightenment period. To make the long story short, collective western wisdom wins despite plenty of individual failures and weaknesses whereas in the case of Pakistanis or desis in general, colective wisdom often fails despite many civilized, upright, intelligent and rationally thinking individuals.

sameerjb

So what you are in effect telling me is that because, and I accept that the western system is more efficient, they have the right to somehow supervise me, which hamidm, for sake of humour, pointed out. I do accept your points about the rational differences between Western and Eastern Social Setups, yet what i disagree about is the self-asumed right of the ``now civilised`` desi to look down upon their brethren in the motherland and somehow pronounce them ``uncivilised`` and therefore in need of Western Guidance and Western Principles.

To be honest with you, I was pissed off with one particular point that because we are rooted in a history of Imperialist rule, it is somehow in our genes to react to the White Man as a figure of authority. I disagree, and as a matter of sarcasm, blamed this on the south asian diaspora, of which Hamidm is a part. I know for a fact that although this secondary citizen mentality was part of the mindset of the first generation immigrants specially in UK, the second generation is quite opposite, and it never was the case in the US due to the type of professional based immigration there in the 80s.

My question to you is this, Why does a civilised Desi in the west who conforms to all the social boundaries in the West, Goes back home and conducts all the uncivilised activities there? This implies that it is the system that governs a person`s action, not genes, and hamidm`s historicizing of this particular point is wrong.

Thats all that I am contesting....

SameerJB #2: ``Pakistan needs a constitutional amendment that transfers power to appoint COAS and all the justices of the Supreme Court including Chief Justice - invoking membership of British Commonwealth - to Queen of England with the conditions that all appointees should be non-Pakistanis and preferably of British origin.``

hamidm #8: ``..... i second your proposal for ammendment to the constitution with a small change - all her majesty`s appointments, in addition to being from the west, should also be white``

Would it be correct to assume that you are, like I am, overjoyed about the appointment of Shaukut Aziz as Prime Minister. He is neither the Queen, nor White. But he is the next best thing. He is about as White and as Westernized as anyone can be, without being White and a subject of the Queen. And he does roam around in the same circles, and has beaten them at their own game.....

Assuming that the Queen, herself, is not going to run Pakistan. Neither will she appoint a Viceory. Shouldn`t we go with the favorites deputies of Sandy and Citibank. A CEO and institution, respectively, far more White and powerful than Britain and the Queen every will be?

wahajat mian,

....... you ask ``Why does a civilised Desi in the west who conforms to all the social boundaries in the West, Goes back home and conducts all the uncivilised activities there? ``

......... the obvious answer of course is that there are no ``white`` people there ......... and by white i don`t mean pigment challenged folks like michael jackson, i mean people who think like the white man who has gone through the reformation, the renaissance and the enlightenment ......... the japanese, koreans, singaporeans and chileans are white ......... the chinese and the south indians are slowly changing their complexion even though it is difficult for me to imagine a dravidian from tamilland ever being able to pass off as an aryan ......................

......................the one people who have no hope of ever becoming white are muslims in general, and the arabs in particular ........ and the reason is that they are mired in their ``glorious`` past ......... they see nothing wrong with the patriachal societies they live in and the only thing they respect is sheer brutal force ......... that`s how we were raised - in homes and societies that were ruled by characters like al-sayyid ahmad abd al-jawad and hazrat omar ............ that is the only model we know, understand and respect ......... so, we are quite incapable of governing ourselves and creating a civil society without the help of the white man .............

Hello Ijaz,

Good reading, but I think the first thing that Pakistan has to do is to separate religion from governance. Only then can you start talking about a civil society. Otherwise, where the ideology of a State falls supine in front of a static religious ideology, then what ideology are you talking about?

Next, everybody in the State, women and minorities included and not just restricted to feudals and existing inertia levels, . . . everybody needs to have an equitable role in society. Where is Pakistan on that?

Thank you,

mog

Hamid Sahib

``the only model we know, understand and respect ......... so, we are quite incapable of governing ourselves and creating a civil society without the help of the white man ............. ``

Two things, I can see what you mean by the term ``White``. I am saddened however for the fate of us Muslims, where our own intellects have resigned the will to change. Where our thinkers are giving up on us, opting out for a model and governance which has done nothing for us in the past , but Divide and Rule.

All I am saying is that in full view and knowledge of the decadence and social abyss that we are in, the change has to come from within. The Revolution has to start from the inside, we dont need cosmetic revolutions, we have had far too many already and they have resulted in further complications. Most off all what we need is action from those ``intellects and Thinkers`` who mourn the most about the terrible state of the land.

I know at the end we are all Laptop warriors who are here to prove a point, but there has to be a belief in our ability to change and adopt tajdeed. To you and Romair, I will say this, There needs to be this revolution and reconstruction of the social system in the Muslim world, but whats most important is the balance that we need in moderation and religion. I wholly disagree that the Western Model should be emulated in its entirety, there is a lot to learn from the West, but we should be clear about the difference between Imposed modernity and a truly revolutionary change in the Socio-reliogious thought of the Islamic World.

#1 by labyrinth1.
I appreciate your remarks. We are indeed stuck between nationalism and religion. The emphasis on religion has come from people who opposed the partition of India.
#2 by sameerJB
Yes, the modern nation state is a European phenomenon. After Hegal et al, various notions of nationalism came to for. The French nationalism, Nazism, British and Turk are but a few in this evolution. US Civil War was perhaps the watershed that gave birth to a very strong and independent civil society. With Marx we saw the rise of the Soviet civil society based on Leninism which collapsed for wrong reasons. The nation state also ushered modernity and thereafter took many diverse routes. In USA it excluded religion but retained the same in very strong values like freedom, equality and justice. Such a notion has an ingrained concept of collective security and that is why US geo strategy is always expeditionary. The European nations have not allowed it to grow beyond nationalism because it suits their mercantilism/neo imperialism. Though there is talk of euro nationalism etc, it will never acquire the same potency as the US model. Yes Bretton Woods did put up a system of financial regulation. So instead of the Gora Sahib, we have the World Bank, IMF, ADB etc looking down our throats. It has ensured that no viable economic challenge comes up from the bubble economies of South America. Hence it is these masters that have become the new Gora Sahib.
#3 by jay
Zakat or a tithe in Christianity or Judism is a religious indulgence with no links to terrorism. Much of this money ends up in Shaukat Khanum, Shalimar Trust, Anjumman e Himayat ul Islam etc. Minorities have made their contribution too like very good hospitals, universities like NED, educational institutions etc. CARITAS Pakistan is right now one of the best NGOs. Zakat does not support terrorism. Even within the local complex it is distributed to destitute.

Like it or not Pakistan is a reality and has come to stay.
#5 by nooralain
When sub nationalism, ethnicity, sectarianism and elite interest work counter to the interests of a nation state, nationalism gets diluted and breaks up into exordial forces. See what happened to USSR and Yugoslavia. In Europe, the concept of religious nationalism has lost to modernity. As for civil society, please re read my opening paragraphs. This is a subject that needs multiple readings for comprehension. Yes the danger to civil society is from the state as well as exordialism.
#8 by hamidm2
Conrats for you fortune telling. Citibank Corporate has arrived.

10 by AdamSmith
As my premise to noor indicates, it is not a contradiction. Opinions all over the world vary. As a Pakistani, I feel that its epitome should be Nationalism or Pakistaniat. A good civil society as I wrote must pass the solidity test with the state. Please re read my parts in which I tried to elucidate the state sponsored part and the society sponsored parts of civil society.

I wonder when chowk will remove your name.

#11 by Ralph
In a society starved for ideas and dynamism, writers at best can be visionaries and conscience. That is their contribution for a change. When Faiz wrote

Jo Koo e yar se nikle to koo e dar chaley

Who knew what he was predicting?

#12 by wajahat
Migrant issue relates to transplantation of cultures and colonising of self. This is the vulnerability to modernity. You will see South Asians breaking queues and rowdism in USA and UK, but you will not find such attitudes in Mandirs and Mosques.

Secondly we are not rooted in imperialist rule. We ruled the world in 5000BC, 200Bc and again from Taxila in times of Ghandhara/ Maurya. Please read my lines on the transplantation of knowledge.

Resistance to Raj precipitated from within the civil society after 1857, once the British imposed their concept of a European nation state that suited colonialism. People like Sir Syed, Qaid, Faiz, Iqbal and progressive Pakistanis did not vie for such an end state. They were soon set aside by the elites produced by the Raj and so the story goes on.

#14 by rozaiba
You have always been inspiring. But you must realise that you have a strong influence of USA on your thinking. US civil Society is at loggerheads with the Europeans. The turf war is visible in political economy terms like Globalism, trans nationalism and regionalism. Just go through the perspectives on Political Economy. If a change comes to Pakistan, it will come through the informal sector. This is where the middle and low middle class is and where philanthropy is the strongest. CitiBank Corporate will further alienate this sector, but for how long?

#18 by Romair
I have already given you my date and time on a post on Jamali. I stand by it.

wajahat #17:

[To be honest with you, I was pissed off with one particular point that because we are rooted in a history of Imperialist rule, it is somehow in our genes to react to the White Man as a figure of authority. ]

How conveniently you ignore the earlier 700 years of imperialism resulting in our pride to be Muslims and remember the later 100 years of colonialism only because they were non-Muslim white europeans. Nothing I can do to change your imagination of looking at people who are comfortable living among whites instead of uneasy living with constant bashing them in private. The humor in mine and hamidm posts aside, had we both included Japanese, Koreans or Singaporeans in that list of men-of-character executives running affairs of Pakistan, your line of argument would have collapsed without any serious modification to our humorous posts...it is not whites per se but more like giving up on reforms from within...the point missed in the humor is that no matter who COAS or CJ of SCP are, their undesirable behavior would be predictable with higher degree of confidence than the desired behavior......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#23 by mog
(Where is Pakistan on that?)

Pakistan`s civil society exists but perhaps out of sight of many. Donations and charity are still a forte from both cultural values and religious point of views. The most vibrant exists in the informal sector and people who light their own candles. The problem is that the hyperactive state leaves very little space for citizen participation. The state and social hierchies at the top are very rigid. That is why I have talked of pluralism, instrumentalism and inclusiveness. This is how citizen participation can be ensured. To me this a very modest wish list and not an out of box scenario.

Cheerios

Izas,

Pakisyan is like a building, the foundation is sinking, the walls are weakened by the wetness of blood, there is stench emnating from the filth of those trapped inside and what do you expect the neighbours to do with this building... well implode it to make way for another.

That is what is going on in pakistan, unfortunately a slow implosion.

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.

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~

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.

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

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

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. *

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

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.

#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,

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~

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:

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!

D`accord.

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.

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.

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.``