Re: HOW WELL HAS PAKISTAN DONE?
A very good read, cannot thank enough to have a homeland.
http://www.dawn.com/2007/08/14/op.htm
Profiling Pakistan at 60
By Shahid M. Amin
THE achievement of Pakistan was something of a miracle. The demand for a
separate Muslim homeland was opposed tooth and nail by the Hindu majority,
which had India’s best organised party, the Congress, led by the formidable
Mahatma Gandhi, and was also dominant in commerce, education, and the news
media.
On the other hand, Indian Muslims suffered from disunity and were fragmented
on parochial and provincial lines. The British colonial administration at
that time, under the Labour Party, had close links with the Congress. In the
international arena, there was scepticism about the wisdom of breaking up
India on religious lines.
And yet, Pakistan was achieved after a relatively brief struggle of seven
years when the Muslim masses forged an unprecedented unity under the flag of
the Muslim League. It was one great man, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah,
who made it possible. His matchless leadership galvanised the Muslims and
Pakistan emerged on the world map on August 14, 1947.
The Pakistani people greatly love and esteem their Quaid-i-Azam. But it is
ironic that many of the ideals that he stood for have been all but forgotten
in the years that have followed since independence. In fact, some quarters,
notably the religious parties that had opposed the very idea of Pakistan,
have been trying to distort the Quaid-i-Azam’s legacy and have been seeking
to rewrite history according to their own predilections and preferences.The
fact is that the Quaid was a democrat, a liberal, a progressive and a
modernist. He was appalled by the politics of “gherao and jalao” and he did
not believe in strikes, civil disobedience and the breaking of law for any
purpose.
** The Quaid sought to protect the national rights of the Muslims of South Asia
and he can be described as a Muslim nationalist. His approach was secular
and he was the very antithesis of a typical mullah. He was a product of
modern, western education and had a cosmopolitan outlook. He believed in
emancipation of women and their equal participation in all spheres. He was
passionate in advocating the rights of minorities and had always assured
them of fair treatment as equal citizens of Pakistan. In foreign policy
matters, the Quaid-i-Azam wanted friendship and cooperation with neighbors
like India and with all other nations of the world. **
This was the legacy of the Quaid-i-Azam. In this context, his speech of
August 11, 1947 - on the eve of the creation of Pakistan - is highly
relevant. On that occasion, he had also said that he wanted to make Pakistan
“one of the greatest nations in the world.” It is evident that we have not
lived up to the example of the Quaid and his ideals and expectations.
On this 60th anniversary of the creation of Pakistan, many even have a sense
of foreboding and despair about where the country is heading for. Across the
country, we have suicide bombers, violent sectarianism, extremism,
provincialism, corruption and nepotism. The writ of the state is being
challenged not only in the tribal areas and in some parts of Baluchistan but
also in incidents like that of the Lal Masjid in the heart of the federal
capital. The opposition leaders keep issuing calls for strikes every other
day for one reason or the other, unmindful of the loss to the national
economy and the hardship caused to the daily wage earners and others.
Pakistan’s political evolution has been disappointing. There has been poor
governance and arbitrary rule. Corrupt and inefficient democratic regimes
have invited military takeovers all too often. The blame has to be placed on
politicians as well as Bonapartists in the armed forces. It was the charade
of democracy from 1953 to 1958 that led to the first military takeover,
which many had welcomed. In 1977, opposition politicians like Asghar Khan
openly invited the armed forces to overthrow the government, which was
accused of vote rigging. Some of these politicians became cabinet Ministers
after the military takeover. In 1999, Benazir Bhutto, Imran Khan and other
politicians welcomed the military takeover. Many leading politicians are a
part of General Pervez Musharraf’s administration.
However, the fact remains that whatever might be its achievements in the
short run, military rule is always an aberration. The periodic derailment of
the constitutional process by the military has stunted Pakistan’s political
evolution.
World opinion has now turned decisively against autocratic rule. Moreover,
the political situation Pakistan makes an unfavourable contrast with India,
with whom comparisons are inevitable.
In Pakistan itself, pro-democracy sentiment has been growing notably. The
news media and the intelligentsia have mobilised public opinion in favour of
democracy. The two leading opposition parties - the PPP and the Muslim
League (N) - signed a Charter of Democracy last year demanding democratic,
constitutional rule and return of the army to the barracks. It is a welcome
development that everyone is now swearing by democracy. No doubt, the
spirited movement launched recently by the lawyers to uphold the
independence of the judiciary has strengthened the cause of constitutional
rule.
** But democracy can succeed only when the people in general and the
politicians in particular possess a democratic temperament. This means that
the political parties must show tolerance and a willingness to coexist with
each other. They must accept election results gracefully: there has to be a
willingness on the part of the losers to let the winners run the
administration for the stipulated term. Moreover, differences of opinion
must not weaken the national spirit and there must be a strong commitment to
protect the country’s independence and integrity. **
The mainstream parties must also be unequivocal in opposing extremism and
coercion in politics and any attempt at making a state within a state, such
as the present attempts by religious zealots to impose Talibanisation on the
country, which represents the negation of much that the Quaid-i-Azam stood
for.
If the foregoing conditions were not met, it would be naïve to hope that
everything would settle down once the army withdraws to the barracks and
politicians take charge. Let us suppose that Benazir becomes prime minister
again. Will this end the Taliban phenomenon in the Pukhtoon tribal areas,
and the sectarian violence fanned by religious fanatics all over the
country? Will not the mullah parties start a fresh agitation to impose their
obscurantist ideas on the state? In fact, other opposition parties will also
probably continue the politics of disruption.
This vicious cycle can end only if the main political parties agree to adopt
policies of moderation and mutual accommodation. The media has to play a key
role in this regard. In the more recent past, a section of it has often been
found glorifying extremists and giving them prime-time coverage. This
greatly harms the image of Pakistan and fuels fanaticism and anarchy. Some
journalists seem to think that they must criticise the government in order
to prove their independence. But far more important is what is in the
national interest. Clearly, the media has to show a balance in reporting.
The intelligentsia and the educated middle classes too must play an
increasingly effective role for the stability of the country. They can
mobilise public opinion in favour of making Pakistan a forward-looking
country with an emphasis on modern education and technology. The country
cannot isolate itself from the rest of the world by turning its back on
modernisation or becoming a narrow-minded, regressive and fanatical society,
allowing safe havens to terrorists.
While the foregoing critical analysis of Pakistan’s political evolution is
essential, one must not go to the other extreme and fall in the pit of
despondency and despair. Over a period of time, disgruntled politicians in
Pakistan have made a habit of building up public discontent against the
rulers of the day by painting a totally negative picture of all developments
in the country. Their purpose has been to stir up a countrywide agitation to
secure a change of regime. It is very unfortunate that such sustained
negative propaganda seems to have produced a national culture of cynicism
and disenchantment.
** Looking at the bright side of the picture, the first and foremost point that
needs to be made is that we are free; we have a homeland and we have a
national identity. Secondly, most people in Pakistan are better off than
what they or their forefathers were before independence. In pre-partition
India, few Muslims ever made it to high positions in any sphere, whether in
government, commerce, industry, education or sports. Here, after
independence, the field has been open in all areas. Thirdly, Pakistan has
made significant progress in industrialisation, commerce, agriculture,
banking, education, news media and in gender equality.
Pakistan has become one of the world’s eight nuclear powers and the only one
in the Islamic world, thanks to the brilliance of its scientists. Pakistanis
are excelling in nearly all disciplines, and millions of them working abroad
are admired for their talent and hard work.Living standards in Pakistan
today are definitely better than what they were in 1947 and this applies to
the poorer sections of society as well. At the time of independence, the
typical poor family had neither electricity nor running water, whereas these
facilities are more or less taken for granted today. Unlike India, even the
poorest people in Pakistan wear shoes and clothes and many possess watches,
radios and television. Out of a population of 160 million, over 60 million
now possess cell phones. In fact, things could be much better if we could
curtail the growth of our population, as has already been done by several
Muslim countries like Bangladesh ad Indonesia.
Pakistan has had a higher per capita income than India since the 1960s. The
Asian Development Bank’s latest report says that Pakistan has a per capita
annual income of HK$ 13,230 as against China’s HK$ 11,502 and India’s HK$
9,346. (Dawn, 1-8-2007) This is quite commendable. Pakistan also attracted a
record foreign investment of six billion dollars this year. Exports have
risen from about one billion dollar in 1971-72 to over $17 billion today and
foreign exchange reserves and remittances are at an all-time high.
Pakistan’s infrastructure has been growing impressively with new airports,
ports, flyovers, motorways, bridges, hospitals, schools and colleges coming
up all over the country. Agricultural production has made big strides.
Pakistan is now producing four times more wheat, rice, cotton and sugarcane
than in 1947. The news media has expanded beyond expectation in terms of
newspapers, radio and television stations. The quality of journalism has
also improved significantly. Literature, culture, fashion, music and sports
are flourishing.
Pakistani women have better representation in parliament and other elective
bodies than in most other countries in the world. Women head some Pakistani
political parties. There are women getting commission in the army and some
are flying jets in the Air Force. A woman is Governor of the State Bank.
Much has yet to be done to improve the lot of women in Pakistan, but surely
they have come a long way since independence.
In the realm of foreign affairs, Pakistan’s strategic location and its key
position in the Islamic world have made it a much-sought-after country in
global politics. Indeed, few countries in the Third World have such a
high-profile role as Pakistan.
In sum, there is no need to despair or write off Pakistan. Once we get our
political act together - which is possible if the main parties and the army
reach a consensus - we are capable of realising the Quaid-i-Azam’s dream of
making Pakistan one of the greatest nations in the world. **
The writer is a former ambassador.
)