Democracy in Pakistan: The Missing Link?

TAhmed #380

If you remember Mushahid Hussain, he got fame during Zia`s time, when he leaked the news of atomic bomb possessed by Pakistan (probably by a tip from Military itself). He was regarded as a very credible figure and his writings were insightful.

I don`t remember exactly when he started propagating that a journalist should be partisan, if he thinks so. And for his services to Nawaz Sharif to this end, he was selected the Information minister. During his ministership he was one of the most partisan person and ran his ministership in the most unjust manner.

So he is what he is.

If he believes what he believes, it is his right.

It is my right to tell that a scum is a scum.

To give you an example. I have no grudge against Javed Jabbar. The reason when he was given power, he utilized it in the most fair fashion.

Another example is Irshad Ahmed Haqqani. Although, I never agreed to his logic of joining interim Government of Laghari, but when given the job of information minister, he performed his duties in most professional manner.

When a person is at the helm of affairs, he has to bear the heat, even though he is performing his duties faithfully.

Scum like Mushahid needs to be loathed, for their desire to take charge of country.

ahmadb #396

Dear Bilal,


“(4) Musharraf amends constitution to give military a permanent “guardianship” role in the politics of Pakistan… thereby ensuring his own position as well as of his “rufaqa.” This may mean an end to coup de tats in Pakistan… However, in my view this would pave the way for further disintegration of Pakistan.”

If the above is an elaboration/specification of your point number 1, then I have the following questions:

Do you think politicians would agree to such an arrangement? I guess military would “buy” certain politicians to go along with this kind of arrangement… but wouldn’t it make the nationalists/ethno-politics in Pakistan even stronger?

Why can’t the military and the hundreds of so-called “intellectuals” who surround the current regime understand the multicultural, multinational nature of our society?
Are they underestimating the likelihood of break-up of Pakistan?

I hear statements such as “Pakistan is here to stay!” quite often on this site. Historically, geo-political maps in South Asia and elsewhere in the world have experienced frequent changes. 53 odd years ago there was no such thing as “Pakistan”. What makes us believe that “Pakistan is here to stay!”? What is going for us as a nation? Are we prosperous? Do we have an identity matrix, which appeals to an overwhelming majority of Pakistani citizens? Do we have justice? Do we have law and order in the society? Are there prospects/opportunities for our children in Pakistan? Do we feel safe, and protected in Pakistani society? Do we see moral and ethical values in our society worth holding on to?

A commoner in Pakistan who does not have any connections, and who does not wish to indulge in corruption stand any chance of living a decent life? … I can give you the example of my father… all his life he was determined not to pay bribe for anything whatsoever… he ended up loosing everything. His property, his land, his pension…. Everything… His selfless service (I witnessed his selflessness myself… he would buy food and medicine for his patients from his own pocked… he bought and kept drugs for which the government hospitals, where he worked, demanded money from his patients) was rewarded with demands for huge amounts of bribe to have his pension released. He fought valiantly all his life against the established norms of corruption and cronyism… but in the end he lost everything… My mother (a devoutly religious lady) finally came to the conclusion that we should live elsewhere. According to her wherever one can make an honest living is the place where Muslims can really live according to the tenant of Islam. There is no need to live in an Islamic state for us to be good Muslims. At age 76, she is found of the freedom in Western societies. According to her, western societies have embraced the spirit of Islam where as we have perfected the art of manipulating religion to suit our own selfish goals. Why should we feel reverence for Pakistan? Are we not making an idol out of this place where the society practices evil? Why should Pakistan stay?

In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 395)

Your statement: ``(4) Musharraf amends constitution to give military a permanent “guardianship” role in the politics of Pakistan… thereby ensuring his own position as well as of his “rufaqa.” This may mean an end to coup de tats in Pakistan… However, in my view this would pave the way for further disintegration of Pakistan.``

My reply: Your (4) is ``one`` though accurate specification/elaboration of my ``(1) He stays in power after 2000.``

Your statement: ``(5) It is just rhetoric.``

My reply: Your are once again correct. But, the military is a lean (perhaps not so lean) and mean (perhaps not so mean) machine. Historically, it has taken ``direct control`` for almost one-half of our existence.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

ahmadb #390

Dear Bilal,

(4) Musharraf amends constitution to give military a permanent “guardianship” role in the politics of Pakistan… thereby ensuring his own position as well as of his “rufaqa.” This may mean an end to coup de tats in Pakistan… However, in my view this would pave the way for further disintegration of Pakistan.

(5) It is just rhetoric.

B.B. Atashband

Probably, because we have stopped talking to and talking on behalf of the most down-trodden. We write theses and compile books just to convince each other of our intelect. What good is it when nobody is listening to you. And you dont want to talk to those who want to listen to you and heard by you.

Pathar sulag rahe thay koi naqsh-e-paa na tha
Hum Jis taraf chalay udhar rasta nah na tha

AaeenoN kay shehr ki tanhaaiaN nah pooch
apne siwa jahaN koi doosra nah tha.

URstruly,

#384

Come one yaar, nobody is using Chowk to tout their resumes, run for election or a popularity contest:)

Jay & Solitute are the same person; Sadna & Mohajir are the same person!! OK OK , Farangi_Kush & I are actually the same person.. Man you are one paranoid puppy!!:))

If I understand your post, you say what comes to your mind at the moment. When people shoot from the hip, the bullet usually passes through the brain. I`m glad you want to keep your mind open; especially dont judge a whole community or country because of the rantings of a few.

To Sarwari:

If I am not mistaken, the root in ``Desi`` is Desh, which is Sanskrit. Now we know that the battle camp pigdin Urdu draws heavily from both Sanskrit & Persian. So should you desire to be excluded from a term that is unholy enough to include the despicable Hindus, may I humbly suggest you come up with a word with sufficiently Persian- and therefore holier- roots?

May I also draw your erudite attention to Fairdinkum`s post #382? It appears that heathen Allama Iqbal had the unmitigated temerity to sing praises of a Hindu god!! Do you think we can go after his posthumous ass under the statutes of the great and glorious blasphemy law?

Your opinion is eagerly awaited.

Latif Chappu

REFORMS WILL STAY?

General has recently said: ``Let me tell you today that even after 2002 there will be checks and balances and nobody can reverse the process of reforms and restructuring (Dawn, December 25, 2000)``

Comment: Yes, Musharraf`s prophecy will become true if: (1) he remains in power after 2002; (2) another military regime takes charge after 2002; (3)a new government decides not to dismantle them; or (4) ..... (any suggestion)!

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Urstruly ( Reply #: 388)
Dear Urstruly:

Your statement: “Could you please not use the word ``Subaltern``, it tears my heart apart. We are talking about our own people for crying out loud.”

My reply: If they are “our own people” (which they are and should be) then why do we have so much inequality in Pakistan. Well-known American sociologist C. Wright Mills argues that a democratic intellectual should always seek to challenge the powerful and cultivate democratic publics. As long as we do not continuously challenge the powerful and cultivate democratic publics, what else could describe our subordinate and oppressed common people better than the “Subaltern.”

By the way, the Indians pioneered “Subaltern Studies” (inspired by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci) to understand “history from below” and to contest “elite” history writing by Indian nationalists. Later Subaltern project shifted away from this position to draw upon eclectic thinkers such as Edward Said, Roland Barthes, Michael Foucault and Jacques Derrida. The Subaltern group has produced one of the finest studies of the Indian peasants and their struggles.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal Ahmad

Could you please not use the word ``Subaltern``, it tears my heart apart. We are talking about our own people for crying out loud.

In response to Urstruly (Reply # 354) Part I
Dear Urstruly:

Your statement: “My reply number # 365 should be read in connection with your # 354. The catalyst that triggered me to write #365 was your references to certain people who fit the profile given in #365. Bilal, personally I don’t know you, I don’t know about your past, and I have never read you outside of Chowk. I don’t even know if you are a liberal or not. Despite all that I do appreciate your efforts to educate Pakistanis on the subjects of governance etc. Even if you are liberal I respect you because you always talk about the progress of Pakistan, which is a common goal-and that is the way the liberals should be.”

My reply: In my reply # 354, I named three persons: Jinnah, Minto, and Jalal. I also said something based upon my understanding of the Pakistani history and historiography. This triggered you to write your diatribe -- an unfortunate piece (Reply # 365).

Discussion never progresses and takes a sufficiently mature form in a state of unnecessary confrontation and our failure to understand the reality. I am neither as learned as some people make me believe nor as naive and ignorant as some others want to believe. I present ideas on the Chowk for mutual-learning and mutual-understanding of some extremely difficult and complex topics which we either neglect or just take for granted. It does not matter whether I am a liberal or conservative or a communist or what as long as I am making a positive/constructive contribution for the better the betterment of society/humanity.

We often use expressions like conservative, liberal, progressive, and radical as if they are unchaotic and concrete categories. What am I? I think, I am all of the above. Does this mean that I have no power to make up my mind (as some people would love to conclude)? My answer is: No, not really. All these categories in practice are relational and contextual. My declaration (that I am all of the above) does not mean that I treat these categories equally (whatever they mean).

A person who often talks about Marx cannot be less than a radical in some aspects of his thoughts and actions. Let me clarify something before someone prematurely jumps at me. Marx is not easy to understand. I distinguish between Marx’ method, his theory, and his praxis.

Marx’s theory and praxis belong essentially to the nineteenth century: His praxis has become out of fashion; his theory still provides some remarkable insights into the nature of unfettered capitalism (process; logic). As far as Marx’s method is concerned, it is a useful tool to grasp some fundamental aspects of the reality around us.

Urstruly, I don’t want to entertain any more question on this topic on this board. We need to focus on the issue of democracy in Pakistan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Your focus on the subaltern is well placed. I will address this in my next post.

Urstruly #385

``Lets say that I am coming to you with an open mind, open heart, and open arms this time. Would you like to establish a clear line of communication with me? What do you suggest?``

I suggest you stay that way. Rest will dawn on you in due course!

RE: Fairdinkum # 378

Nice try bud, but how will it enable me to change my perception about ``scholars`` of the past 55 years. I am referring to my post # 365. All I get is a bickering in return for my objections. Lets say that I am coming to you with an open mind, open heart, and open arms this time. Would you like to establish a clear line of communication with me? What do you suggest?

(The terms ``you`` and ``me`` in the post doesnt mean me and you as persons)

Shankar # 371

Lets just say that I am a person who doesnt care about his resume. I prefer to say the `right` thing instead. It is true that it makes me `self-righteous` but aren`t we all? Whereas most people use their discretion while they try to express their self-righteousness I do too but you can say that I dont care about my image as long as I think that I am saying the right thing.

What kind of coward would hold back his true feelings even on this anonymous forum; even though I have an option to save my face by being Sadna and Mohajir at the same time, by being Jay and Solitude at the same time, and by being Solitde and his evil twin and AlRawandi all at the same time........

Bahmad #366

Dear Bilal,

Now I realize that I should have replied your #366 earlier but I preferred to sleep on it (it was 1 am by then). Let me get some things out of the way first before I answer your inquiry in # 366.

My reply number # 365 should be read in connection with your # 354. The catalyst that triggered me to write #365 was your references to certain people who fit the profile given in #365. Bilal, personally I don’t know you, I don’t know about your past, and I have never read you outside of Chowk. I don’t even know if you are a liberal or not. Despite all that I do appreciate your efforts to educate Pakistanis on the subjects of governance etc. Even if you are liberal I respect you because you always talk about the progress of Pakistan, which is a common goal-and that is the way the liberals should be.

There are two main points that we are going to discuss in the rest of the post:

1. Your question regarding my assessment on your understanding of democracy.
2. Need for Liberal-Conservative Dialogue.

Point# 1

As explained in first paragraph I do not have any doubt in my mind regarding your integrity and the honesty of your efforts (I have said it several times on other boards too). However, I strongly disagree with the method that you adopt. The main problem is that you always address your thesis to the elite of the society. In other words you adopt a top-down approach. Tell me one good reason why elite would change a system which suites them and benefits them in all respect. Why would they try to control corruption when this corruption brought them in power in the first place? You make unrealistic assumptions that elite will change themselves out of the goodness of their heart or you will be able to convince them by your logic (which is excellent BTW). Bilal! It ain’t gonna happen.

In other words you suggest means to achieve goals while remaining vague on the goals. Well, if you don’t know where are you going then chances are that you probably will never get there.

May I suggest ‘bottom-up’ approach instead? It is not distant past when slogan of ‘Roti, Kapra, Makan’ swept the nation off its feet. 30 years have passed by and people still remember it. The person who made that promise is revered as a legend despite the relentless efforts of his enemies to tarnish his image. Have you ever considered why the above three words were so powerful and how the message touched peoples’ hearts? Because that was the bottom-up approach. The goals were clear, apparently they looked achievable too. The logic was as clear as it could be. All we needed to do was to have ‘control’ over the means. We failed at that.

I don’t think that a person who actually votes, has voting power, works all day just to feed his children, provide food and clothing for them cares anything about Islamization, or democratization, or socialism, or even the Martial Law. If someone says that it is short-sightedness on his part then I will have to agree with him. But is it? So why not try teaching our lessons of democracy to the very down-trodden. Shouldn’t we tell him how democracy enables him to make an honest living, how it protects his rights, how it turns bureaucrats from vultures into public servants? Bilal! I assure you, you will find one gung-ho audience there. The logic will appeal them. They will listen to you. They will even be willing to sacrifice their lives for the democracy.

Point # 2

My post # 365 was a common Pakistani’s case against ‘Liberals’. So much water has been flown under the bridges by now. Our nation is presently at the crossroads of history where it needs ‘us’ the most. Is there a way we can stop this eternal bickering and start thinking about the nation first? Can liberals do anything to change the perception of common Pakistani about them as being anti-state and anti-religion? The past is gone and future is not here yet. The only living moment is NOW. What would it take liberals to find a common ground with conservatives (and vice versa)? Can we make Pakistan our common ground?
We must also establish a clear line of communication and we need it so badly as we never did before.

Ps. Don`t ask me for translation of Iqbal`s poetry... the last poem is in praise of Ram (the Hindu god).