India’s Communal Gamble

After Ayaz Amir and Khalid Hasan -- here is the Friday Times editorial on -- institutionalized cheating -- by the ``corruption crusaders`` of Musharraf Brigade.

Disgraceful

Editorial by Najm Sethi

(Friday Times)

To prove a point, one of our reporters cast four votes in the “presidential” referendum yesterday, all in favour of General Pervez Musharraf, in four different polling stations within a kilometre radius.

Another outwitted her by stamping six votes in the general’s favour.

The story is much the same across the country. One could vote as many times as one desired and many did.

This is adult franchise taken to preposterous limits for dubious ends. Think of it, 71 percent turnout of which 97.5 percent voted ‘yes’. So much for the credibility of the exercise.

If ever there was a case of deliberate institutional rigging, this was it.

No formal ID was required for voting. There were no constituency lists. The opposition wasn’t allowed to canvass votes against the referendum.

Billions were doled out to hire crowds for pro-Musharraf rallies and lug pro-Musharraf voters to the polling stations.

The number of polling booths was increased tenfold.

And the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18 years so that millions of new voters without any memory of the military’s disastrous interventions in 1958 and 1977 could be added to the kitty.

Worse, much worse, tens of millions of low and middle level civil servants, factory workers, school teachers, peons, janitors, jail inmates, soldiers, paramilitary troops, policemen etc were ordered by private and public employers to shape up or ship out.

This is unprecedented even in Pakistan’s flawed electoral history.

Just think of it. Wardens ordering prisoners to stamp “yes” on ballot papers. Department heads taking roll calls and lining up subordinates at special polling station on the premises.

Policemen on the streets and rangers on border patrol, even as their votes were being stuffed in ballot boxes and winging their way to headquarters.

The most appalling aspect of this sordid affair was the despicable role of the private sector. Of capitalists, bankers, factory owners, school/college owners/principals, traders and businessmen ordering their employees to queue up for General Musharraf.

Of multinationals that went overboard in rustling up their workers. “Captive” voters in the hands of capricious elites. Disgraceful. If April 30 was a sad day for democracy, the complicity of civil society should not go un-remarked.

Why did General Musharraf go for an overkill when every pundit with even a remote memory of the farcical presidential referendum held by General Zia ul Haq in 1984 had advised against it?

The question of legitimacy haunts every dictator and General Musharraf is no exception, however benign his attitude towards the press or however cooperative his response to the international community’s war against terrorism.

Thus the common perception is that an overwhelming “yes” in the presidential referendum should give General Musharraf a degree of civilian legitimacy that is sorely lacking in him. This is buttressed by the fact that the Supreme Court of Pakistan has said that he is perfectly entitled to hold such a referendum. But the facts belie this argument.

The Supreme Court has not said that this referendum is a constitutional substitute for a presidential election.

In fact, it has left that issue to be resolved by the parliament that comes into being after the next general elections in October.

Nor does a referendum, however credible or successful, under a provisional constitutional order legitimizing a military coup (which is the legal umbrella under which General Musharraf is currently operating), eliminate the requirement for a parliamentary endorsement after the constitution has been fully restored.

Indeed, every action that General Musharraf has taken in the last three years will require a constitutional sanction by means of a two-thirds majority in the next parliament.

So what is the point of a referendum today if, in the ultimate analysis, General Musharraf’s fate lies in the hands of a parliament that is yet to be born?

The answer is that the referendum was never meant to be an exercise in acquiring legitimacy.

Instead, it is an attempt to flex muscle and browbeat intransigent political opponents to join the Musharraf camp so that a King’s Party or Alliance can be cobbled to win the next general elections and become a dutiful parliamentary appendage to President General Musharraf.

Indeed, General Musharraf admitted as much when he said that he was conducting this exercise because he wanted “to get the fence-sitters off the fence”, alluding to the many political stalwarts in the country who had not yet deserted the two mainstream parties led by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

Has he succeeded in his objective of ensuring, as he put it once, an “upper hand in parliament”?

No.

Whatever the government may claim, the opposition will certainly be emboldened by the referendum’s lack of credibility at home and abroad.

Indeed, an element of defiance could creep into the main opposition parties, forcing General Musharraf to adopt repressive policies, which in turn would hurt his benign image and undermine his credibility further.

The fear is that in the ensuing tussle for the hearts and minds of Pakistanis in the run-up to the October elections, General Musharraf may be erroneously advised to postpone the elections on some pretext or the other or try and rig them massively to thwart his opponents.

In the event, the loss won’t be his only. It will be Pakistan’s too.(FT)

And here is our Irfan Husain with his personal experience of referundum and his incomparable analysis.

Hold the champagne

By Irfan Husain

As the official media bombards the nation with statistics indicating a massive victory in the referendum for General Musharraf, both the opposition and the public are questioning the validity of these claims.

Speaking for myself, all the polling booths I saw in Karachi last Tuesday were practically deserted, and I must have driven past at least a score of them on my way to and from work.

When I went to vote in the morning, there were half a dozen men in line ahead of me, and none of our thumbs were marked with any kind of ink.

Clearly, the sudden MQM boycott in Karachi had been highly effective in keeping voters away.

The pattern in the rest of the country was fairly similar.

However, the government managed to garner a heavy turnout in state organizations, factories and prisons. The problem is that public and media perceptions have been shaped by the forlorn polling stations and the bored election staff.

And in politics, it is perceptions that count.

Thus, in a stroke, Pervez Musharraf has suffered a sharp loss of credibility, his most precious asset.

Unfortunately for the general, the damage has been entirely self-inflicted.

Although his victory was a foregone conclusion, this referendum was always about the size of the turnout: Pakistanis remember all too well Zia`s farcical referendum of 1984 in which barely 5% of the electorate bothered to vote, and the government claimed that 60% of the voters had supported the dictator`s bid to hang on for another five years.

Now we are faced with a situation in which the results are again controversial with a corresponding loss of credibility.

According to newspaper reports and independent observers, many incidents of bogus voting were seen.

One young man claimed to have voted 18 times; a school teacher stamped 350 ballot papers because, according to her, she had been given a target of 500, but only 150 women turned up the whole day, so she made up the difference; scores of cases of underage boys voting at several booths were reported.

_____________________________________________

One reason it was so easy to stuff the ballot boxes is that as there were no competing candidates, there were no polling agents present to protect their candidates` interests.

_______________________________________________

With this background in mind, those in power should go easy on the champagne while celebrating this Pyrrhic victory.

Indeed, perhaps in a day or so they will count the cost of the whole exercise, and I do not mean the horrendous expenditure incurred on this entire surreal business.

Apart from the inflated numbers being put out by the Election Commission, Musharraf has suffered a serious erosion of respect and affection through his bizarre campaign. Most people wondered why he was aping the very politicians he professes to despise when he had no opponents.

Surely his long, convoluted televised speech in early April was enough to set the stage for the referendum: if anything, his rallies, with their forced requisitioning of public transport, their rent-a-crowd and their attendant inconvenience to the public, switched voters off.

Another major loss General Musharraf has suffered is that his long honeymoon with the press has come to an end. Ever since he seized power through a coup in October 1999, the independent print media has been highly supportive of the general and his reforms.

But this crude circumvention of the constitutional process to elect the president has alienated many of his supporters.

Predictably, the Supreme Court has legitimized the process, thus living up to its reputation in public eyes as well as in the legal fraternity.

Since September 11, General Musharraf has been the darling of the West. His support to the US-led `war against terror` won him many friends in Washington and other western capitals.

From being a pariah, he became a welcome friend overnight. This goodwill has stilled some American criticism of the referendum, but the western press has been almost uniformly hostile to the whole concept.

How long it will take for this disenchantment to work its way into policy will be determined in part by the needs of the battle against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but clearly, Musharraf`s image in the West has lost its sheen.

Both internally and externally, Musharraf was perceived as a straight-talking, well-meaning soldier who was very different from the politicians who have caused so much damage to both the economy and to whatever institutions that had remained intact.

In short, he held the moral high ground. But if the real results of the referendum are perceived to be at odds with those announced by the Election Government, a crisis of confidence could well shake the seemingly firm foundations of the military government.

Even assuming that the general has won by the stated majority of around 98% with a turnout of 44 million, what next?

With general and provincial elections due in October, a very strained relationship between the president and the elected prime minister and his party seems inevitable.

Indeed, given the low credibility of the Election Commission after the referendum, it is doubtful that the opposition will accept its supervision of the October polls.

The tensions and strains that will surface will hardly lead to a more stable Pakistan, although that is Musharraf`s goal.

Until the army chief announced the referendum three short weeks ago, most Pakistanis were quite happy to let him continue.

He had handled the economy well; he took the only sane route open to him in the aftermath on the terror attacks on the United States last September; and his generally liberal approach was welcomed by the majority.

But by opening the Pandora`s box of the referendum, he took a big gamble that might backfire.

One major cost we cannot quantify immediately is the unification of virtually every political party across the spectrum on the anti-referendum platform.

Now that Musharraf has openly stated his intention to stay for at least five more years and completely dominate the scene, he has left the entire political class no option but to oppose him.

In the words of an editorial in the current issue of The Economist of London:

``....It would be better, for clarity`s sake, for Mr Musharraf to remain the dictator he is, and step down when his job is done, than indulge in this bogus referendum.

Such exercises serve only to give democracy a bad name.`` (DAWN)

Zafar Al-Talib #78, scout #60 ylh #68
This article (and the braindead responses like scout #60 and ylh #68 and ali1 as always) typify the problems India faces in the Hindu-Muslim issue.

Firstly, that the very legitimate grievances/concerns of Indian Muslims donot get the objective and factual airing which they so urgently need and deserve. This because of the airtime demanded by the larger `agendas` which consider facts are secondary to ideologies of hatred.

Secondly, some of the children of these larger agendas/ideologies aka hatreds like the ignoramuses from the Land of the Pure. They jump up and down in their efforts to pose as spokesmen for Indian Muslims about whose real problems they have absolutely no clue (apart from the fundamental one, namely the highly regrettable existence of Hindus).

I pity those Indians who consider these people from Pukistan to be their spokesmen. For example, the Pukis(I never appreciated the term so much) havenot recognised the Srikrishna report even though they are being hit in the face with it, it will be a few centuries (and a few nukes dropped on infidels) before they even realise that India`s secualr credentials require that it be acted upon(which it isnot currently, but hey its obvious they neither know nor care).

I really understand now about Nehru, he knew what he was doing. Nehru Zindabad!


scout #60
`Fiza` can be used to prove India is secular? I didnot know, you tell me, I havenot seen it except for a few scenes here and there. I am surprised the author hasn`t seen it, though, neither the movie Bombay. He seems to read only the New York Times.


ylh #68
``How is this relevant to Pakistan??``

Ignorance is relevant to Pakistan. The author isn`t from Malaysia, thats for sure.

ali1 #84
`` The RSS types believe that muslims and christians are getting what they deserve and the liberals think that falana commission and falani report will actual make a difference in the miserable lives of Indian minorities.``

`` The reality of the Indian muslims, terrorized, hounded, humiliated, brutalized and marginalized.``

ali1, in your stupidity you donot realise, the reality of the Indian muslims, terrorized, etc is only the first or beginning part of the reality.

The second part of the complete reality towards which we Hindus are working is that PAKISTANIS will be terrorized, humiliated, brutalized and marginalized also. And on that part of the program, both RSS-types and liberal Hindus have exactly the same views and no one-man commission or paper reports will come to your rescue. I have tried to warn you about it repeatedly, but you are like a stuck record on Indian Muslims.

re arrested development

I think you`re upset because I called your bluff about Jinnah being Governor and Prime Minister. MOst of your post addressed to me makes little coherent sense. The point about the percentages of Muslims in India vis-a-vis Bengalis in Pakistan was to illustrate(to another interactor)the imprudence of comparing such vastly different statistical samples. Nonetheless, you`ve chosen to create a ``Bengali Muslim`` thing out of it(creative, I must admit). Which leads me to refute a few glaring things in your post.

``Bengali muslims were concentrated in one corner of East Bengal ``

Huh? Bengali Muslims were all over Bengal, mostly in East Bengal but I doubt `concentrated` in any portion of East Bengal in particular.

``...,they never became refugees ,yet twice they got there wish.Once East Pakistan & then 72 Bangladesh .What about the muslims from rest of the India ,``

Bengali Muslims DID become refugees in the hundreds of thousands. When my grandparents moved from Murshidabad to Chittagong, trust me it was not as weekend tourists. In that regard they were no different from millions of Muslims and Hindus and Sikhs all over the South Asian sub-continent.

``Twice they became REFUGEES.Once when they were in E.Pakistan & then again when they had to leave it BECAUSE of bengali muslims.``

Now I am lost. What Muslims had to `leave` because of Bengali Muslims?

re jay 71

That sometimes your passion outruns your grasp of balanced facts is evident from the part on honor killings. Yesterday, the Lahore High Court sentenced a man to death for a double honour killing case. In this instance, the high Bench was revewing and revising a lower case judgement of seven years. That does not negate the same High Court`s earlier and shameful silence on a previous honor killing case. But it does tell me that you can be selective in your facts.

The rest of your post is full of hypotheses and innuendos and plain intolerance. I never shy away from strongly questioning the practices in many Islamic/Arab countries or India. Attacking a national group or faith tradition ad hominem, however, is something that smacks of border-line bigotry as is clear from your

``A couple of honour killing is the routine life task of any respectable pakistani, and that should be the proof enough of the essential equality of a religion that forms the foundation of pakistan. ``

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

Reply Ali1 # 84

Arre abh suraj kahan se nikala?

Reply Reason # 82

I agreed with almost everything in your post, but must say that Gowardhan does not hate Muslims.

Reply Rsridhar # 75

Sridhar

To be honest I find it hard to believe that Makhfi is from Delhi – the holes in his knowledge about Indian affairs and Hinduism are just too great. (Frankly it’s on a par with an article I read on Chowk comparing India’s Brahminical Raj with Pakistan’s secularism, written by some uninformed Italian clown whose alleged enrollment at Rutgers reduced my respect for the institution.) You un-necessarily dignify the article with your attempt to discuss the issues with him.

Re: RJB/BM – like most Indians, most Indian Muslims are concerned with day to day roti kapda makan type issues. Conflicts over places of worship (the one thing which India has no shortage of whatsoever) do not overshadow our lives (though they are a convenient vehicle for frauds like Bukhari to defend their status as big fish in small uneducated ponds).

These issues only become relevant if they are indicative of how Indian Muslims themselves are viewed and treated in India. (When they are “proxy wars”, if you will, and they often are.) That’s why it is vital that the conflict be settled in court, in accordance with the law. And that the court’s judgement (whatever it turns out to be) is enforced.

Zafar

PS Frankly I find RJB/BM a totally false issue – nobody’s life is going to be improved by it reverting to mosque or temple. In my opinion the site should be made into a school or a hospital – or failing that, a parking lot.

Reply Romair # 74

Romair

“I would be interested in knowing whether the following scares anyone in India? While it is common for everyday folk to attempt to threaten the places of worship of other religions,”

It is not common. (Urstruly says otherwise but has been unable to provide facts to back up his pov so far.) That’s why when it happens there is (very rightly) such a fuss.

“…it takes on a whole new level, when the ruling party makes such a claim.”

True. It is appalling and worrying.

“This is not an attempt to get into a, ``we are better than you,`` contest (to avoid that, lets assume from the get-go that Indians are better and more civilized than Pakistanis).``

Aap ke munh men ghee shakkar!

``However, I am interested in why Indians seem so concerned about religious extremism in Pakistan, but not too concerned about the changes in their own society (which will have far larger negative and violent consequences, in my opinion).”

But we are. And also, what happens in Pakistan also affects India, so of course we`re concerned.

Zafar

Reply Scout # 58

“Seriously, if I even criticize the color of grass in India…”

Now please leave our drugs out of this.

“…so now you`re turning to Bollywood trash to prove how secular India is”

Unfair, Scoutji. Bollywood trash is vulgar, crass, tasteless, crude, ugly, and..er..trashy, but it IS an accurate reflection of what’s happening in Indian society and to India’s aspirations. (Hai, yeh main ne kya kaha…)

Zafar

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

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

Zafar for Prime Minister!

A banned Marxist group bombed a Coca Cola

plant in Andhra Pradesh, protesting the

American bombardment of Afghanistan.

The New York Times (Oct 22) quotes ``Irfan

Khan, Vice President for Coca-Cola India`s

corporate affairs``, as saying that the company

would not succumb to these attacks, but ``we

are worried about the security and safety of

our staff and plants``.

----

If Mr. Irfan Khan could not operate effectively in

the supposedly oppressive Indian

circumstances, why would the multinational

hire him ?

----

-Arun Gupta