http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_26-10-2004_pg3_4
The Daily Times, Lahore, Pakistan
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
[India remains a complex, many-layered, diverse, plural society.
Governing it requires the accommodation of all. Secularism therefore
was not only the creed of the founding fathers of independent India,
it is a sine qua non for governing this vast and complicated land.
India has no fewer problems than Pakistan but the existence and
consolidation of democratic institutions has made it possible to
mediate all]
...... A recent visit to India afforded an opportunity to rediscover
the neighbour. There is no one India. In fact, it could be argued,
there are at least five or six Indias, an idea contradicted by friends
across the border, who add one or two Indias of their own. There are
class, caste, religious, communal and ethnic divides, to name just a
few. Poverty, despite the rapid economic advances of the last decade,
is still palpable. There is a growing middle class (300 million
estimated at last count). The elite are coming into their own,
imbibing all the finery and frippery of the international bourgeoisie.
In the context of the change in government after the recent general
elections, there appears to be a steady, incremental rollback of the
Hindutva brigade that so dominated the Indian political, cultural and
social scene over the past six years or more. Cultural institutions
are being ‘purged' of BJP appointees, albeit not without controversy.
The removal, for example, of Bollywood actor Anupam Kher as Censor
Board chief has given the Right a new ‘martyr'. The Left and liberal
lobbies are contesting this ‘victimisation' avatar of Kher as not
jibing with his record in office of being a partisan and prejudiced
Censor. The Left Front, comprising the CPI(M), CPI, etc, is steadily
pressuring the government to remove BJP political appointees from the
head of all cultural institutions. The Left is also demanding a
rollback of the ubiquitous influence of the World Bank and IMF from
economic planning and policy.
The sharpest manifestation of the rollback of Hindu fundamentalism is
to be found in the results of the Maharashtra State elections. In what
was regarded for many years as the fiefdom of the Shiv Sena, RSS and
BJP, the Congress-National Congress coalition won. The credit for this
victory, as well as the victory in the general elections, must rest
with Mrs Sonia Gandhi. Her stock as an organiser, campaigner and
leader is at an all-time high. Her refusal to accept the prime
ministership, hers for the taking, took the wind out of the sails of
BJP's ‘foreigner' campaign. Her rally in Mumbai on the eve of the
Maharashtra vote was an event to see. The one exception to this
general trend remains Gujarat, where controversial Narinder Modi's
chief ministership is still intact, and has in fact made inroads into
Congress's vote bank by winning back one or two seats in by-polls held
simultaneously with the Maharashtra elections.
The Congress government has initiated a series of talks with the spate
of insurgencies raging in India for many years. The oldest, the Naga
movement in the northeast, has found the space in the new dispensation
to return to the negotiating table. So too have other insurgent groups
in the northeast, the Assamese, Bodos, Manipuris, etc. The Congress
government of Andhra Pradesh has opened talks after the declaration of
a mutual ceasefire with the Maoist rebels. This initiative has perhaps
inadvertently persuaded two major Maoist groups, the People's War
Group and the Maoist Centre, to merge and form the Communist Party of
India (Maoist). The Congress initiative to bring the insurgents back
to the negotiating table has gone down well by and large throughout
India.
India remains a complex, many-layered, diverse, plural society.
Governing it requires the accommodation of all these fissiparous
forces and tendencies. Secularism therefore was not only the creed of
the founding fathers of independent India, it is a sine qua non for
governing this vast and complicated land. This is what the BJP too
discovered while in office. Its inflammatory communal rhetoric while
in the opposition had to be toned down to ensure sustainable
governance. So while India has no fewer problems than Pakistan as a
society (some may argue it has even more), what has made it possible
to mediate all these potential and actual conflicts is the existence
and consolidation of democratic institutions.
There lies the contrast between us and our neighbour. We have the same
or similar problems, but not the democratic institutions to match. The
result is that every issue on which there is political dissonance
here, acquires a sharp edge that borders on impending catastrophe. To
see the truth of this you do not have to look further than the
imbroglio surrounding the bill allowing General Pervez Musharraf to
retain two hats or the manner in which the government handled the
no-trust motion against the speaker of the National Assembly. This
should be cause not for breast beating (we have plenty of that, to not
much effect), but for soul-searching. The wisdom of the people of
Pakistan has not been allowed to be brought to bear on the problems
confronting the country. Had that been permitted, and without
interruption, we would now be living in a different (better) country.
================================================================================
Farrukh Saleem's sentiments in following article seem
to mirror those of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in "If I Am
Assassinated" written when he was on death row. It was
indeed quite touching to read Bhutto's (no friend of
India) tribute to democracy's cacophony in India:
www.thefridaytimes.com
The Friday Times, Lahore, Pakistan
October 4 - 10, 2002
Why is India intact?
by Farrukh Saleem
[author wonders how India, more diverse than any other country in the
world, has survived undivided]
Here are some statistics on India. More than a billion people spread
over a land mass of nearly 3 million sq km (the size of four
Pakistans); twenty-eight thousand dialects spoken across 28 states and
7 union territories; fourteen official languages including Urdu,
Punjabi, Sindhi, Bengali, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Sanskrit, Marathi,
Telugu, Tamil, Malayalam, Kannada, Oriya and Assamese.
The population comprises 800 million Hindus, 120 million Muslims, 25
million Parsis, 23 million Christians, 19 million Sikhs, besides
Buddhists and Jains. Hindus are further divided among 2,800 unique
communities. The caste system has Brahman, Kshatriya, Vashya, Sudra,
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.The
Scheduled Castes are further divided into 450 distinct communities.
The Scheduled Tribes have 461 distinct communities and Other Backward
Classes are divided into 766 distinct communities.
This is a division like in no other country. All the possible
fault-lines exist: religious, ethnic, linguistic, geographic and
communal. And these divisions run deep. On top of that, for the past
half-century there have been at least nine significant centrifugal
movements seeking autonomy, secession or independence from India.
Among them: Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF); Dalitstan
Organization that seeks "independence for the Dalits, or black
Untouchables, also know as Dravidians, the original inhabitants of the
Indian subcontinent before the arrival and dominance of the Caucasian
Hindus"; Free Tamil Nadu that "seeks independence for the Tamil people
of south India and perhaps a union with the Tamils of Sri Lanka";
United Liberation Front of Assam that seeks independence of the State
of Assam; National Socialist Council of Nagalim that seeks the
independence of Nagaland and surrounding areas in the Northeast;
Revolutionary People's Front of Manipur (RPF) that seeks the
independence of Manipur; People's Revolutionary Party of Kangleipak
(PREPAK); eighth, there has been a Declaration of Independence of the
Sikh Homeland; ninth, National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT) in
the state of Tripura.
Some of the above secessionist movements continue to allege that India
is an example of "Brahmanist Imperialism" or that India is becoming a
"de facto Brahman state". In 1947, many had predicted that India,
because of its uncounted diversities, would not be able to survive as
a sovereign state. India, it was said back then, would be divided up
in several small perhaps more homogenous states. They have all been
proven wrong.
The Pakistan the Quaid gave us was practically all Muslim. We had one
official language. But, within 24 years of Independence, we managed to
lose half of what the Quaid gave us. General Yahya violated the basic
principles of democracy and Bangladesh now celebrates March 26 as
Independence Day and December 16 as Victory Day.
India is pathetically poor and so is Pakistan. India is the 29th most
corrupt country while Pakistan is the 25th most corrupt. India is
marginally more literate than we are. India has had 14 prime
ministers; Pakistan has had 20. India has had 12 presidents (three
were Muslim); Pakistan has had 11. We have had four military
governments. India has had none. Pakistan has been split into two.
India should have been split into four.
Just what has really kept Brahmans, Sudras, Muslims, Christians,
Tamils, Dalits and Assamese together? What has kept India united?
India is democratic we are not. Could that be it?
================================================================================
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
April 22, 2000
Why democracy didn't take roots
By Ghulam Kibria
AN intensive debate is raging in the country about revival of
democracy.
What is missing in this debate is an indepth analysis to identify real
reasons because of which democracy did not work in Pakistan but in
India
it did. .....
......Democracy didn't take roots in Pakistan due to a number of
reasons
...... hardly any one of the national political leaders is, or ever was
from among the people. They were, and still are, elites - top
barristers,
title holders, bureaucrats, waderas and now also crony capitalists.
...... Another reason for democracy not taking roots in Pakistan is the
absence of democratic political process. .....
...... All India National Congress was more or less like Muslim League
but inner party democracy was slightly more practised in it than in
the League. Nonetheless, India does have a developing and evolving
democracy. Why? Because after independence constitution was quickly
formulated and enforced and national elections regularly held. That
triggered a political process of sorts which went on taking roots
because national elections have their own dynamics. In 1990s, India's
election commission ensured that only those political parties take
part in national elections which follow democratic political process
and hold regular party elections.
The result is that majority of members in national and state
legislatures are working politicians, who come from middle and
working classes and even from lower castes. A substantial number of
central and state ministers are from lower castes or working class.
Many states have had low caste chief ministers while others being
from middle class. The incumbent president is from scheduled caste.
Had the constitution been quickly made and enforced in Pakistan and
elections held regularly after independence the political process
would have taken roots here as in India. That process was subverted
first by Ghulam Mohammad by dissolving sovereign constituent assembly,
then by Ayub Khan seizing power by ousting legal government, followed
by Yahya and Zia, and the practice still continues.
================================================================================
.
|
