A Rumor Of Lies

Creation of Pakistan on the basis of `Two-Nation theory` (TNT) was wrong.

http://www.dawn.com/2000/06/22/top15.htm

Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) chief Altaf Hussain has said that the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 proves that the Two-Nation Theory of Pakistan`s founders was a ``farce`` and ``it was the biggest fraud played with the Muslims of India.``

``Events after the creation of Pakistan have proved that it was a wrong theory,`` he said, adding that if the theory was correct, he would be convinced only when the government agreed to open borders and allow Indian Muslims to settle in Pakistan and repatriated stranded Pakistanis living in Bangladeshi camps.

Talking to a delegation of intellectuals and professors from the Sub-continent, which visited the MQM International Secretariat, Mr Hussain claimed that history had proved that the Two-Nation Theory was wrong.

No name of the delegation members, or from which city they had come, was mentioned in a press release issued on Wednesday from the MQM International Secretariat.

Saying that there was no future of Pakistan, which was disintegrated in 1971 and whose remaining part is ``on the verge of catastrophe,`` the MQM chief said that East Bengal was the first to support the creation of Pakistan based on the Two-Nation Theory.

But the same part rectified its mistake by separating itself in 1971 thus ``proving that the theory was a farce``.

He said the supporters of the theory were now asking the stranded Pakistanis in Bangladesh to opt for Bangladeshi citizenship or settle in any Muslim country instead of inviting them back to Pakistan.

``On what ideological basis are you offering such an advice to the stranded Pakistanis? Does this advice relate to the concept of the Two-Nation Theory or does it negate the very concept?,`` he asked.

He said that if we analyse the history of the Pakistan Movement, it emerged that virtually all Muslim majority provinces of the present-day Pakistan had opposed the creation of Pakistan. He said only the Sindh Assembly had supported the creation of Pakistan and that too with a majority of only one vote.

Mr Hussain said that all those who had supported the concept of the Two-Nation Theory and Pakistan, including Mr GM Syed, had been labelled as ``traitors`` in Pakistan.

``Mr Fazl-i-Haq, the Lion of Bengal, who had presented the Pakistan Resolution, was labelled as a ``traitor,`` the Sindhis were labelled as ``traitors``, the Balochs were labelled as ``traitors``; and now the Mohajirs have also been labelled as ``traitors,`` he said.

The MQM chief said that the Pakistan army had forced the people of East Pakistan to separate by carrying out their massacre in 1970 and raping their women. Similarly, he said, the army had marched against Balochs and Sindhis and now it had been targeting Mohajirs for last eight years.

``The army operation against Mohajirs, which commenced on June 19, 1992, was also a negation of the Two-Nation Theory,`` he said.

Mr Hussain also said that the formation of a nation on the basis of religion was fundamentally wrong because if the religion was the basis for nationhood then more than 45 independent and sovereign Muslim states would not have been the members of the United Nations as separate and independent states.

He said though it was claimed that Pakistan was being created for 100 million Muslims of India, it became the homeland of Muslims of the Muslim majority provinces only.

``Today, if we compare the population of Muslims living in Pakistan with that of the Muslims living in India then we see that the population of Muslims in India is much more than the total Muslim population of Pakistan.

It means that the Two-Nation Theory has failed to provide protection and security to the majority of Muslims of the Sub-continent because the number of Muslims living in India is greater than the total Muslims of Pakistan,`` he said. ``If the Muslims of India were to remain under the Hindu majority then why were they taught the doctrine of the Pakistan Movement and the Two-Nation Theory,?`` he asked.

Government Rhetoric and Social Change

In his opinion piece ``The numbers game,`` Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal concludes: ``Those who are playing the numbers game must know that years of empty rhetoric has taught Pakistanis at least one lesson: mere rhetoric is not going to transform their lives. They know well that these promises are not going bear anything. Pakistanis have been cheated, stung and deprived of their legitimate rights so many times that they do not believe in anything anymore, much less the fantasies of a magical rise in country`s GDP merely ``through high value addition of goods and import substitution.````

For details, please see:

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2000-daily/10-06-2000/oped/o3.htm

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Government Rhetoric and Social Change

In his opinion piece ``The numbers game,`` Dr. Muzaffar Iqbal concludes: ``Those who are playing the numbers game must know that years of empty rhetoric has taught Pakistanis at least one lesson: mere rhetoric is not going to transform their lives. They know well that these promises are not going bear anything. Pakistanis have been cheated, stung and deprived of their legitimate rights so many times that they do not believe in anything anymore, much less the fantasies of a magical rise in country`s GDP merely ``through high value addition of goods and import substitution.````

For details, please see:

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/jun2000-daily/10-06-2000/oped/o3.htm

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal,

Read and appreciated your last reply. Thank you.

Patrick

In response to PM (Reply # 34)

Dear Patrick:

Let me begin with a clarification. A slow, gradual, and uninterrupted process of social change must be based on a master plan that is constructed (and reconstructed) discursively.

Your ask: Who/what the agents will be to foster the new course? In my view, all of us. I and you and all others who are interested in the future of our coming generations. I don`t expect the ruling elite to volunteer their services, unless we play our roles. Democracy cannot be established unless we (the people) become a part of the democratic process. Our rights cannot be respected unless we (the people) decide to protect them. A sense of social justice cannot be institutionalized unless we (the people) struggle for it. However, in any society, only a few people start a struggle while the others simply follow/support them.

What are we doing on this board? I argue that we are discursively trying to figure out the nuts and bolts of our (alternative) national discourse. Our effort on the Chowk is simply to develop a sense of collective consciousness. The more we engage in such efforts the more clear we may become over time.

Are we powerless? Yes, apparently. We, however, will remain powerless (apparently or otherwise) as long as we allow the ruling elite to usurp our rights. In a democratic political system, the source of power are the people, nothing but the people. An effective use of such power depends essentially upon the recognition of the power of ``we the people.`` In my view, the Pakistani state is an essentially neocolonial state. Realistically, I am not sympathetic to the notion of a benevolent dictator. Too much power simply corrupts. The pervasiveness of hoplessness, cynicism, and selfishness are a product of the social relations of our neocolonial state structues and a (re)colonized people and civil society. To effectively reduce these problems, we need to foster ``an alternative national discourse`` and educate our people for the much needed social change. We, the people of Pakistan, are the agent of social transformation in Pakistan (though our task is not at all easy).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal,

I fully agree with your basic thesis that Pakistan needs to ``foster a national discourse that prioritizes the principles/values of freedom, justice, and peaceful coexistence [and that a] second related step would be the instutionalization of respect for the citizenship and human rights of all people in every part of Pakistan.`` I am even willing to reluctantly agree that (as I think you suggest) the way out of the quagmire will necessarily be a slow, gradual one.

However, given my (admittedly possibly naive) understanding of political realities on the ``ground-level`` (lack of infrastructure, and lack of will on the part of even the `cheated` public to change these realities), I cannot help but wonder who/what the agents will be ``to foster the new discourse``. If it is to be an elected govenrment, then it seems to me to be so much of wishful thinking. History certainly is not on the side of suppporting such change.

The second step would could only ever follow the first, realistically speaking and can be dealt with once the first hurdle is crossed.

My question, I guess, is this: Paradoxical as it may seem, may not the only agent/s to foster a discourse on peaceful, justice etc., be a (temporary) dictator (not necassarily an army General)?

What are the alternatives, realistically speaking (say, keeping in mind Prof. Ghulam`s (?) assessment of the Pakistani people, and the pervasiveness of hoplessness, cynicism and therefore selfishness)?

best regards,

PM

Beyond talking tough on terrorism

Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/06/05/fp9s2-csm.shtml

In response to PM (Reply # 30)

Dear Patrick:

I see society (social relations) as a product of a complex interplay of agency and structure. I don`t deny the role of agents. Of course, one could easily identify the role of a good number of individuals who have made a significant dent upon the course of human history.

The notion of the duality of agency and structure (a la Marx) rests upon the view that, once human actions lead to the establishment of structures (through a long and complex process), structures are inherently difficult to transform.

In Pakistan, a certain set of social relations are deeply structured. One good example is the police bhutta. Another similar practice is bribery (or money for Mithiayee, as they call it). A third example is the use of connections (in conjunction with bribery) to seek lucrutive employment. A fourth example is the practice of subcontracting (or constrained subcontracting) for the purchase of goods and services (particularly the purchase of arms and ammunition from the foreign markets). All these examples are nothing but exploitative, at least. How could we transform these practices and the structures associated with them? I would argue, as you have rightly noted, through the empowerment of the people of Pakistan. If Pakistan wants to get out of its quagmire, it needs to start a process of slow, gradual, and uninterrupted social change based upon a vision and a social contract that is generally supported by the people of Pakistan. In my view, a first step in this direction would be to foster a national discourse that prioritizes the principles/values of freedom, justice, and peaceful coexistence. A second related step would be the instutionalization of respect for the citizenship and human rights of all people in every part of Pakistan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Please let me know if my response has failed to answer your concerns adequately.

fairdinkum #27

Wrt district administration in India, from my incomplete knowledge, there are generally three elements, the rep of the state government ie. the district collector, the local legislative machinery or municipal corporators or village councils, and sometimes some NGOs.

From what I can gather, the district collector, while exercising dicretionery powers in areas of responsibility like law and order, government acquisitions of land, exercise of development funds, etc, is also generally responsible for monitoring government schemes.

He is held in check a. by central audit of all financial transactions b. by political leaders/press for corruption/law and order c. other internal checks and balances I am not very aware of.

Its still possible for a DC to be pandering to local political masters in office who have the power of making his life miserable through transfers and confidential reports. It is also possible for the DC to be doing hera-pheri in awarding contracts or other financial transactions, or shielding criminals.

However, his post is just not dispensable at present, in my opinion. There is no other stable backbone for information-gathering, monitoring, and implementing government policy at present.

Obviously when local governments get more and more power, financial and otherwise, and become more effective and less corrupt, the role of the DC may get more and more redundant, but not yet. I think its still an advantage for the state governments to have eyes and ears of a highly educated and well-trained functionary in the more backward districts.

The districts where local government has really succeeded(and drives like literacy drives) has been so far where all three entities I mentioned( the District collector, the local politicians and the cooperative organisations) have supplemented each others efforts. The DC generally facilitates and monitors activities of village councils, disbursement of development funds, he and NGOs also get involved in training programmes for local government and obviously the local politicians/populace have to be encouraged by both to be involved.

If you look at ``Panchayati Raj`` sites on the web, you will see the well-planned and structured training programs that the govt. has consciously planned(but is unable to implement everywhere, thats where NGOs can come in).

These may be of interest:

1. The Civil Service In Transition

by B. K. Nehru

http://www.indiastar.com/nehru.html

2. Rural women demand better work by district administration

http://members.tripod.com/sdnp_india/gender/news/toi-28-6-ruralwomen.html

Sadhana

Dear Bilal (re.#25)

Your thoughts on social justice and how it may be achieved were insightful. I think it fait to say that a constant strain of your arguments here has been that ``Social transformation requires... an active participation of the common people over a long time period.``

This rings true. At the same time, though, you seem to suggest that any reliance on ``a`` person as (principal) agent-of-change will only serve to perpetuate the status quo. As I see it, this is the main point of divergence between yours and Feroz`s viewpoints.

Bilal, don`t you think that if we look for historical precednets of transfer of power to the people, more often than not, we find inspirational (or just plain pragmatic) individuals central to the political shift. Attaturk is the most commonly cited such doyen. But why look beyond the sub-continent? We have Gandhi, Jinnah, and Nehru (readers may add to this list) -- mere individuals, yet personas without which there specter of freedom (from whatever/whomever) would`ve always remained distant. Bhutto is another such person who, even if he didn`t deliver, certainly was in a position to effect change that would ensure good devolution of power to the masses. Nehru, in implementing land reforms early on in India`s statehood, I think provided the crucial shift in balance of power that has never occured in Pakistan. Ironically, in doing so, he had to look beyond mere political expediency, something Pakistani democratic rulers cannot seem to get themselves to do.

Fifty-two years of musical chairs between bad democracy and equally visionless dictatorship has produced a nation that I think, feel is not capable of pulling itself up by it`s bootstraps. Ironically, it would take either a charismatic or hard-nosed, pragmatic leader (with all the dangers therein) or hitting rock bottom (economically or in the form of a militant religionist `takeover`) to shake the common man up out of a complacency make him start speaking with his feet.

Although I don`t share Ferozk`s pessimism (then again, I might be one of those delusional, complacent, fools), and agree that many states suffer lack-of-identidy problems, I do feel that Pakistan`s case is more acute, what with the bayonets of a bellicose `brotherhood` moving ever closer to blood-thirsty bureacracy, while the while the bonded and the bourgeois alike find their crumbs quickly dwindling, yet dare not, or simply will not, demand their fair share.

Bilal, in such a setting of complacency, where do you see the change being affected, realisitically, if not from the top? (at least in the short run)

Would appreciate some practicable suggestions.

regards,

PM

Ref fairdinkum #: 27

You quote {The chief implementer of the policies of controlling the people and maintaining the status quo of the rule of the establishment over

them (people of Pakistan) is the deputy commissioner of a district who also exercises the awesome powers of the district magistrate and the collector.}

One of the first things done in India was the separation of the executive from the judiciary. Thus, the district collector (or commissioner, depending on the province/state, the title varied) is no longer a magistrate and when you file a lawsuit against the executive authorities, it is heard by an independent judiciary.

Following is an abstract from Dr.Mubashir Hasan`s article ``Refining the devolution plan-III: Restoring trust between state and the people`` published in The Dawn on 26-May-2000.

``The chief implementer of the policies of controlling the people and maintaining the status quo of the rule of the establishment over them (people of Pakistan) is the deputy commissioner of a district who also exercises the awesome powers of the district magistrate and the collector. The deputy commissioner has at his command almost the total power of a sovereign except that over the military and of issuing his own transfer orders.

To control the people, to rule over them, in other words to maintain law and order, the colonial state in Pakistan acts as a great subverter of people`s collective power. It is a state which feels totally insecure against its people. Nothing has weakened, indeed, disintegrated the social and political fabric of the country more than this rivalry between the colonial state and the people``

Interesting, and relevant to our discussion here.

Sadhna,

Perhaps “Deputy Commissioner Nahin Chaaheeyay” rally would be a good start :)

#: 14

cheraym

Dear Observer:

Here you are contradicting yourself from your earlier post when we encouraged Mohajir to post the useful sites... .

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

May-31-00 9:56:8 EST Reply #: 70

[From the board `Where did Pakistan go Wrong?`]

Observer

Re. Cheraym #68

URLs are enough. We don`t need both the URL //AND// the reproduction. It is redundant. ... .``

Dear Madam: Do you really see a contradiction?

Sincerely,

Observer

In response to Ferozk (Reply # 16)

Dear Feroz:

Thank you for another good/interesting article. I think, a good article becomes better only when its readers develop a reasonable critique of it. A good critique needs to be informed by a vision that is grounded in ideals/values as well as ground realities. I wonder if Pakistani people generally lack such a vision.

Your present response to Urstruly and Sadna reflects your utter, though somewhat premature, hopelessness regarding Pakistan and its problems. Please consider the following points:

First, you maintain that “nothing happens in Pakistan or will happen in the future, because of implementation.” What is the basis your argument? Do you really mean it?

Second, you link the issue of social justice to a lack of civil society (including the institutions), deplore the unjust culture of AK-47, and identify the need to rebuild civic culture. I agree that the issue of social justice is very complex. Social justice is a notion/condition that is actually sensed, desired, and struggled for. A politics of acquiescence generally creates a crisis of state legitimacy and any top-down attempt to reform removes some minor hurdles for the re-establishment of status quo. Social transformation requires, I believe, an active participation of the common people over a long time period.

Third, you seem to suggest that “a” person (Urstruly or otherwise) with some ideas for the implementation of social justice would be acceptable to you as the Prime Minister of Pakistan. I see some problem here. I believe, you are still working within a top-down political mode where the common people play (or allowed to play) a negligible role.

Fourth, with reference to the question of national identity, you state that the people in Pakistan “value their provincial ties first, their religious sects second and their country lastly. Unless Pakistanis become Pakistanis first, this country will always be riven by an internal discord, which will undermine its very foundations.” The centralized state of Pakistan has tried to vaguely impose a sense of national identity without adequately addressing the problems of everyday life in most parts of Pakistan. A sense of belonging is often constructed naturally/organically. In view of an uneven politics of scarcity and existing dominant/subordinate social relations, we cannot expect the people to behave other than what they normally have done within various social and spatio-temporal contexts. Do you realize that our assessments of a collective sense of belonging are often based upon our limited experiences?

Fifth, you argue that Pakistan (and Pakistanis) cannot “articulate a vision of its own raison d’etre” because of internal contradictions/confusions. Hence, “nothing ever gets done or implemented here with the result that the country is caught up in a timewarp and still exists in the past and that past is all it has . . . .” All countries in the world are embroiled in some kind of internal contradictions/confusions. It seems that you are inadvertently trying to impose a predominantly Eurocentric conception of nationalism upon a non-European multicultural society. We, however, need to rethink our dominant national discourse and try to figure out how and why “the future is gradually slipping away as we debate, decide, announce, declare, and promise to move Pakistan forward.”

Sixth, you argue that we have moved backwards during the past eight month. If so, we need to understand why the army and the so-called experts have failed so miserably. Maybe the army lacks the capacity to bring necessary change? Maybe the army itself has become a major part of the problem? Maybe there are some additional structural problems too? Maybe there is a need to search for some alternative ways of looking at our problems? Maybe we need to use a common sense to come to grips with our difficulties?

Seventh, and finally, how do you propose to remove the life-support apparatus for the ultimate death of Pakistan? Please explain.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Ref Urstruly #20:

Regarding the inheritance and continuation of the British-Indian civil service and its callous disregard for the common people of India, I have no quibbles with the harsh characterization of that system.

However, glimmers of change are beginning to emerge. Here is one such change. You can also look at Chandrababu Naidu`s determination to change the bureaucracy in Andhra. You might want to visit a Ney York Times article on the internet`s reach into India`s villages. I posted the reference to that article on the board ``A Nation of Beggars``.

I am touched to the quick only by any assertion that democracy is not good for developing countries. I suggest you come to India and ask the common man what he thinks of the need to hold elections and then proclaim ``the truth`` from the rooftops. (Ignore the middle-class. They are all closet fascists.)

`Freed` panchayats change Kerala landscape

By Chandrika Mago

The Times of India News Service

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: A local labour bank guaranteeing 20 days of employment to the jobless. A panchayat with all its data computerised and its 70-year-old president who spends 10 minutes each day on the new-fangled machine. Children`s sabhas reporting to a gram panchayat on teachers who smoke, drink and gossip the whole day and on parents who drink and get violent. It`s all happening in Kerala, where a ``bold`` experiment of decentralisation seems to be taking root.

In 1996, without waiting for a legal and administrative framework, the ruling Left Democratic Front devolved financial powers to local bodies, giving them up to 40 per cent of the state`s annual Plan - about Rs 1,000 crore - as ``untied grants-in-aid`` and ``pure development fund`` for roads, houses, buildings, sanitation, water, and more.

Local bodies` revenues rose, on an average, from Rs 7 lakh to Rs 45 lakh. Panchayats were trained to prepare plans, projects and strategies, and decide priorities, people learning slowly to take charge.

Last week, it was time to take stock as the state gets set to institutionalise the process. And - says T M Thomas Isaac, state planning board member and the ``miracle man`` behind the plan implementation - ready for a crucial transition as panchayat elections near (October).

This, broadly, is how it works: Each of about 1,200 local bodies, nearly a thousand of them panchayats, sets up nearly a dozen task forces, each for a different sector. A general body meeting discusses plans they come up with.

The selected plans go to block expert committees for technical sanction and then to district planning boards. From there, it`s back to panchayats. Committees of beneficiaries are formed to build, or contribute to, and monitor projects. The process of planning is as significant as the outcome - participation, accountability and transparency being the key principles.

There are four musts in all this: 40 per cent of the money should be for production, employment and income-generation schemes. Of the rest, half for the social sector and the rest for infrastructure. At least 10 per cent of the whole plan is for projects directly benefiting women.

The difference has begun showing. Perhaps the most visible change, says a zoology professor and one of many volunteers, is the empowerment of women, ``their courage to stand up and speak.``

Figures say it all: 6,000 houses were built in the first three years of the Eighth Plan for the SCs and STs; the figure has risen to 48,000 in the Ninth Plan. No extra money; the change is in the performance.

But the structure is still taking shape - performance audits, public scrutiny, an ``ombudsman`` body of judges, public men and officials. And there are instances of non-performance and corruption, a need to improve the quality of participation and of projects - many are still ``rehashed`` versions of departmental programmes. One thorny issue is ``redeployment`` of staff from departments to panchayats - and resistance from politicians and bureaucrats unwilling to relinquish control.

The official estimates indicate how long the road ahead is: One-fifth of the local bodies have done well, an equal number haven`t. ``The rest are neither here nor there. The struggle over the coming years is to win over this group.``

The Muslim discrimination is a fantasy

Omar Khalidi

http://www.expressindia.com/ie/daily/19990825/iex2

5059p.html

Most Pakistanis think that Muslims in India are discriminated. Here`s an article which says much about it.

Every so often one hears of discrimination against Indian Muslims in state employment, particularly with regards to civil service, police and the armed forces. Around election time, ``minority cells`` of all political parties surface through the newspapers demanding ``justice`` and fair treatment to the minorities by the Indian state. Is there real discrimination against Muslims just because they are Muslims? Can the alleged discrimination be established in a court of law? Or is this merely a case of fantasy versus reality?

More on Omar Khalidi

Omar Khalidi an Islamic Studies scholar at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on a Agha Khan scholarship.Email: okhalidi@MIT.EDU http://libraries.mit.edu/people/okhalidi.html