Should Pakistan be more diverse like India?

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
1

Should Pakistan be more diverse like India?

Democracy’s Root: Diversity
Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalink

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 11, 2007
Last Tuesday, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia met Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican — the first audience ever by the head of the Catholic Church with a Saudi monarch. The Saudi king gave the pope two gifts: a golden sword studded with jewels, and a gold and silver statue depicting a palm tree and a man riding a camel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11friedman.html?hp

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Thomas L. Friedman

The BBC reported that the pope “admired the statue but merely touched the sword.” I think it is a great thing these two men met, and that King Abdullah came bearing gifts. But what would have really caught my attention — and the world’s — would have been if King Abdullah had presented the pope with something truly daring: a visa.

You see, the king of Saudi Arabia, also known as the Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques of Mecca and Medina, can visit the pope in the Vatican. But the pope can’t visit the king of Saudi Arabia in the Vatican of Islam — Mecca. Non-Muslims are not allowed there. Moreover, it is illegal to build a church, a synagogue or a Hindu or Buddhist temple in Saudi Arabia, or to practice any of these religions publicly.

As BBCnews.com noted, “some Christian worship services are held secretly, but the government has been known to crack down on them, or deport Filipino workers if they hold even private services. … The Saudi authorities cite a tradition of the Prophet Muhammad that only Islam can be practiced in the Arabian Peninsula.”

I raise this point because the issue of diversity — how and under what conditions should “the other” be tolerated — is roiling the Muslim world today, from Lebanon to Iraq to Pakistan. More churches and mosques have been blown up in the past few years than any time I can remember.

A senior French official suggested to me that maybe we in the West, rather than trying to promote democracy in the Middle East — a notion tainted by its association with the very Western powers that once colonized the region — should be focusing on promoting diversity, which has historical roots in the area.

It’s a valid point. The very essence of democracy is peaceful rotations of power, no matter whose party or tribe is in or out. But that ethic does not apply in most of the Arab-Muslim world today, where the political ethos remains “Rule or Die.” Either my group is in power or I’m dead, in prison, in exile or lying very low. But democracy is not about majority rule; it is about minority rights. If there is no culture of not simply tolerating minorities, but actually treating them with equal rights, real democracy can’t take root.

But respect for diversity is something that has to emerge from within a culture. We can hold a free and fair election in Iraq, but we can’t inject a culture of diversity. America and Europe had to go through the most awful civil wars to give birth to their cultures of diversity. The Arab-Muslim world will have to go through the same internal war of ideas.

I just returned from India, which just celebrated 60 years of democracy. Pakistan, right next door, is melting down. Yet, they are basically the same people — they look alike, they eat the same food, they dress alike. But there is one overriding difference: India has a culture of diversity. India is now celebrating 60 years of democracy precisely because it is also celebrating millennia of diversity, including centuries of Muslim rule.

Nayan Chanda, author of a delightful new book on globalization titled “Bound Together: How Traders, Preachers, Adventurers, and Warriors Shaped Globalization,” recounts the role of all these characters in connecting our world. He notes: “The Muslim Emperor Akbar, who ruled India in the 16th century at the pinnacle of the Mughal Empire, had Christians, Hindus, Jain and Zoroastrians in his court. Many of his senior officials were Hindus. On his deathbed, Jesuit priests tried to convert him, but he refused. Here was a man who knew who he was, yet he had respect for all religions. Nehru, a Hindu and India’s first prime minister, was a great admirer of Akbar.”

Akbar wasn’t just tolerant. He was embracing of other faiths and ideas, which is why his empire was probably the most powerful in Indian history. Pakistan, which has as much human talent as India, could use an Akbar. Ditto the Arab world.

I give King Abdullah credit, though. His path-breaking meeting with the pope surely gave many Saudi clerics heartburn. But as historic as it was, it left no trace. I wished the pope had publicly expressed a desire to visit Saudi Arabia, and that the king would now declare: “Someone has to chart a new path for our region. If I can meet the pope in the Vatican, I can host Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Shiite and Buddhist religious leaders for a dialogue in our sacred house. Why not? We are secure in our own faith. Let us all meet as equals.”

Why not?

2

Re: Should Pakistan be more diverse like India?

Tom Friedman gets a whiff of the truth sometimes and b*****shes it like someone who rarely has ever seen it. Which is exactly who he is. I remember him spending half an hour acting surprised that the Chinese and the Indians “don’t want to work for Microsoft or Apple, but want to be Microsoft and Apple”. Anyone from Asia already knows this, but apparently it was a huge shock to Tom Friedman. I don’t think he wouldn’t be surprised but the British or the Russians trying to do the same thing, but that he was surprised at the Indians(he spent a year in Asia)shows some prejudice. I thought he was a thickheaded. His book, “The world is flat” is also a great book for someone trying to understand the new world since 1999 if that someone had spent the last 17 years of their life in the fabulous career of cheer leading. I could not finish it.

Having said that it is a huge problem that Most Muslim countries have this PROBLEM that they are religiously homogeneous. One of the few secular countries from the otherwise overwhelmingly Muslim area was Iraq, and now it might take a few years for it to even reach the same religious neutrality at the state level that it was at a couple of decades ago. The pope seems to be talking about the Philippine laborers working in KSA. I was surprised to find out there were 1.2 million of them there. However its no surprise there are not as many non-muslims in the near east as there are Muslims in Europe. I think the reasons are economic and should be clear to everyone.

Diversity is a great thing, but I don’t see how you can “make” Pakistan diverse. The only option is for people from Pakistan and India to be able to cross over the border freely without visas and that would in effect be a ready made diversity solution. Even a SARC free trade or visa free region would acomplish the same and more.

Since your topic seemed to talk about religious diversity, I wont even touch the problem of racial diversity that people in Pakistan need. I have seen many people come from Pakistan and fell they have free license to make jokes about Chinese/Koreans or Africans. That of course is an entirely different problem.

3

Re: Should Pakistan be more diverse like India?

Lessons to be learned from India?

Key differences in ideology, leadership may explain why Indians succeed where Pakistanis often fail

Nov 15, 2007 04:30 AM
Sonya Fatah
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

LAHORE, Pakistan–Why has India thrived as a democracy for nearly six decades, while neighbouring Pakistan has been plagued by chronic military coups since British India was partitioned in 1947?

Sharp differences in political leadership, ideology and social institutions help explain why India has largely succeeded where Pakistan has perennially failed.

The intensely secular and staunchly democratic Jawaharlal Nehru led India for the first 17 years of its existence, arguably the most difficult period in the country’s history. There were others too – men like Sardar Vallabhai Patel who cut across caste and class lines and formed the core of India’s leadership.

By contrast, Pakistan lost its founding father, the secular-minded Mohammad Ali Jinnah, within a mere 13 months of its existence. Its first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated in October 1951.

“Pakistan died with Jinnah,” says Ardeshir Cowasjee, 81, a newspaper columnist who has spent much of his life pressing for the rule of law in Pakistan.

Into the breach stepped a succession of military men.

Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan took the country’s reins in 1958 and stayed in charge for 11 years. After a turbulent decade following Jinnah’s death, people welcomed Khan, who gave the country much-needed stability.

Close on Khan’s heels came Gen. Yahya Khan, whose four-year stint oversaw the country’s disastrous 1971 war that ended with the loss of East Pakistan and the birth of Bangladesh.

After a rare few years of democratic rule, Gen. Mohammad Zia ul-Haq staged a coup and began a U.S.-backed 11-year reign marked by the Islamization of the country that haunts Pakistan till today.

In his recent hefty book on India’s contemporary history, India After Gandhi, historian Ramachandra Guha wonders “what would (Jinnah and Liaquat Ali) have done if they had enjoyed power as long as Nehru, and if they had had the kind of supporting cast that he did?”

India’s leaders propelled the country forward through radical land reform, particularly in the states of Punjab and Haryana. Those reforms broke the traditional grip of landlords who had massive holdings and ran political fiefdoms, exploiting low-caste groups.

It wasn’t a success everywhere. In India’s Bihar state, for instance, the government’s failure to implement reforms gave steam to the often-violent Naxalite rebel movement. Despite that, India’s diversity has thrown up leaders from outside the elites, even in Bihar state, demonstrating that in India politicians can represent the disenfranchised.

Pakistan’s story is very different.

Although reforms were attempted during two different governments, they were never implemented. Most of Pakistan’s political class, including Oxford-educated Benazir Bhutto, represents its feudal aristocracy – large families in possession of thousands of hectares of land, who run their estates as absentee landlords.

In this nation of 160 million, it is hard to think of an influential leader who has risen from Pakistan’s largely poor masses.

Instead, there remains a brittle alliance between the military, industrialists, Islamists and feudals.

India’s other advantage was the former colonial administrative machine that bound the nation through a unified civil structure.

“The Indian Administrative Service had all the paraphernalia that goes with government – administration, tax collection, law and order,” says retired Brig. Rao Abid Hamid, who now works at the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

“It allowed for a healthy transition.”

Across the border, Pakistan didn’t have enough qualified officers to outfit its civil service. It had lost its Hindu and Sikh elite, who had previously staffed the bureaucracy.

“The only functioning, healthy institution in Pakistan was the army and that was misused.”

That tradition of misuse continues in Pakistan today.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf is flexing his military muscle to prevent popular political parties from campaigning, demonstrating or organizing themselves.

In India, the independent election commission has pushed hard to ensure elections are free and fair.

When India’s Uttar Pradesh held its election recently, the commission sent in 72,000 paramilitary troops to prevent political gangs from disrupting the polling process for the state’s 190 million people.

Not surprisingly, Indians cherish their ability to vote their leaders into or out of power.

“India has got into the habit of democracy,” said Khushwant Singh, 92, one of India’s best-known authors and political analysts.

“We were lucky to have prime ministers who were committed to democracy … Today, we have politicians who are second-rate people but they are at least honest by the constitution.”

Sonya Fatah is a freelance journalist based in South Asia.

Timepass
4

Re: Should Pakistan be more diverse like India?

Whatever type of politicians have entred the arena today, but one thing is certain that the 'system' in India has worked.