Author: M. S. N. Menon
Publication: Tribune India
Date: October 18, 2002
URL: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20021018/edit.htm#5
No, not in a thousand years!
India took a thousand years to get
into the spirit of democracy. That spirit has stayed with us. Today, it
is part of our reflex, part of our character, part of our civilisation.
We are told that the recent election
in Pakistan was "free and fair." But what triumphed was not democracy,
but fundamentalism - to be precise, Talibanism. This was, of course, feared
when the Al-Qaida and Taliban forces took shelter in Pakistan.
Washington is, perhaps, alarmed.
But it could have anticipated. It failed to heed the warning. For the first
time, religious parties have made an impressive showing in Pakistan. Thanks
to Uncle Sam's ineptitude.
But we will be making a serious
mistake if we surmise that the infection is confined to NWFP and Baluchistan.
It has infected half the armed forces, the intelligence services and a
good part of the bureaucracy.
And yet we were told that, under
American pressure, Musharraf was engaged in combatting fundamentalism.
That was, of course, a lie. How can it be true when he is the patron of
the jehadis in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Only the US State Department can
fool itself to believe that he is engaged in promoting democracy. But,
then, the USA has always been partial to dictators.
Much has been made of the war against
terrorism. What are the facts? Operation Enduring Freedom has not gone
beyond Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan is still Taliban and Al-Qaida territory.
Will NWFP, Baluchistan and the Pashtoon territories of Afghanistan strike
for independence? If they do, Punjab will be isolated. And Sindh may like
to break loose from Pakistan.
Today the Taliban (mostly Pashtoons)
and Al-Qaida forces are re-grouping in Afghanistan and Pakistan to take
over the region. And Bin Laden and Mullah Omar are still there to guide
these forces. The future of Pakistan is indeed bleak. Hence the continuing
danger to India.
How is it that democracy failed
to take root in Pakistan? For good many reasons: because, for one, for
more than half its life, it has been under military rule. And the military
rulers not only suppressed democracy, but also encouraged the anti- democratic
forces.
But there are more profound reasons
for the failure of democracy. And it has to do with Pakistan's genesis.
The region of Pakistan was notorious for its feudal and tribal background.
More so the Punjab. It provided soldiers to the British empire. Naturally,
the British extended special patronage to these feudal elements. The region
was rich and fertile, had the best irrigation system and was dominated
by Muslims. They did not support the demand for Pakistan. Why should they,
when they were already masters of the region?
The demand for Pakistan came from
areas where the Muslims were in a minority. That is from the Gangetic plain
and peninsular India. If they had migrated to the Pak region, they would
have perhaps changed the dynamics of Pakistan. But they did not. When partition
did take place, only a few million left. But even they were not welcome
in Pakistan. They had to live in ghettoes and were called mohajirs. Thus,
they had no impact on the character of Pakistan. Jinnah's dream turned
into a nightmare.
So, the areas which fell to Pakistan
remained feudal and anti-democratic. It has remained so even to this day.
Parties and politicians were equally
responsible for the failure of democracy. Even after Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
was executed by the military regime, his daughter, Benazir, did nothing
to curb the power of the army and the intelligence services.
As for Nawaz Sharif, he encouraged
the growth of the very forces - the fundamentalists - who were anti-democratic.
For their want of gumption, they are cooling their heels in foreign lands
today.
True, twice there were "fair" elections
in Pakistan: once in 1953 when the Bengalis threw out the Muslim League
from East Pakistan. Naturally, the Punjabi establishment was so enraged
that it dismissed the East Pakistan government. The second time was in
1970, when Mujibur Rahman won the national election. Again, the western
wing of Pakistan could not permit the ascendence of the East.
The military rulers have made a
mockery of democracy. Thus both Zia-ul-Haq and Musharraf held fraudulent
"referendums" to establish their legitimacy. But only 5 per cent of the
electorate voted for Zia and 10 per cent voted for Musharraf!
But in the final analysis, the failure
of democracy in Pakistan has to do with the nature of Islam and the role
played by religion ins society.
Musharraf told mediamen on May 4,
2002, "Allah has placed me in this position." Naturally, what God had proposed,
no man could set aside. It is as simple as that in Pakistan. And he claimed,
he was carrying out the "vision" of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of
Pakistan!
One would think that the Pakistanis
are deeply religious. This is by no means the case. Justice Munir of Pakistan
posed the question: "What is Islam and who is a Muslim?" during an enquiry.
This is what he writes after his extensive talks with the Ulemas and Maulanas:
"No two learned divines agreed on this fundamental." No wonder, Pakistan
is a highly arbitrary society. There can never be any consensus (Ijma)
although Muslim societies are based on Ijma. Ijma is thus a fraud in these
circumstances.
By insisting on the finality of
the Prophet's revelation and the immutability of both the Koran and the
Sunnah, Islam has denied itself self-renewal. Early Islam, however, did
produce an intellectual class - the Mutazilites. There was growth of philosophy
and science. But all these were suppressed when free enquiry led to loss
of faith. By emphasising the primacy of the Umma, the individual was devalued,
and Ijma was misused to suppress dissent.
Indeed, the concept of democracy
can threaten both Umma and Ijma, for it encourages individualism. But individualism
is taboo in Islam. But where there is no individualism, there can be no
democracy.
