Issue 58 Vol III, February 29, 2008

A N A L Y S I S

A Game of Numbers
Ishtiaq Ahmed

A 46-percent voter turnout in spite of the fear of suicide bombers, the elections being conducted peacefully, and in a free and fair manner – all these are great gains for the people of Pakistan. President Musharraf and his PML-Q do not enjoy the confidence of the people of Pakistan. Had he waited for the new assemblies to be elected first he stood no chance of being elected president of Pakistan for the next five years.

When the BJP for the first time in 1996 won most seats in the Indian Parliament, it was short of a majority to form a government. It tried for 13 days to muster a coalition but could not. On that occasion Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee uttered this famous sentence: "Democracy is a game of numbers, and we do not have numbers on our side." He therefore resigned. Musharraf should also consider an honourable exit. I see no way how the deposed chief justice of Pakistan and other honourable judges of the Supreme Court can any further be denied their right to return to the benches.

However, it is in place to pay compliments to Musharraf for making some very correct decisions. By joining the war on terror he made it impossible for the United States to direct its wrath against Pakistan. His other noteworthy achievements include the abolition of separate electorates for non-Muslim Pakistanis.

Separate electorates was supplanted by a progressive reform whereby 10 seats for non-Muslims and 60 for women were reserved, but the parties in parliament shared these seats in proportion to their strength in the national and provincial assemblies. This way integration rather than segregation of non-Muslims and women was instituted. Perhaps even more important has been the decision to reform the rape law, which was based on the ludicrous practice of the victims -- women -- being disqualified to give evidence.

However, he did not move decisively and resolutely to reform or repeal the blasphemy law, which has served no purpose but to embolden fanatics to attack the already beleaguered Christians and other minorities. Musharraf's failures included a lack of ideas and initiatives to tackle poverty and illiteracy. Although the economy grew impressively, the rich got richer while the poor were crushed by inflation and lack of employment opportunities.

The PPPP has secured most seats in the National Assembly, but not a majority. It will be able to form the government in Sindh, and has done impressively in Punjab, the NWFP and even Balochistan. The tragedy of the PPPP is that it is led by Asif Ali Zardari, whose reputation as Pakistan's most corrupt politician may come to haunt the party.

The second party to win mass support is the PML-N. It was always expected to do well in Punjab, and that has been confirmed beyond any doubt. Elsewhere it has won only some seats, as in the NWFP. I have had the privilege of going to the same school in Lahore as Mian Nawaz Sharif: The St Anthony's High School. I must confess, however, that I don't remember him because he was a year or two junior, and in the B section while I was in the A section. His friends tell me he is fond of music, adores filmstars, and can sing quite well. He is also a keen cricketer. All that should cut him out to be a liberal, with a strong sense of humour and a weakness for amusement.

In the NWFP, the secular ANP has done very well, while the Islamist MMA has been wiped out. However, the PML-Q's emerging as the main winner in Balochistan is somewhat surprising. In India the two main rivals, the Congress and the BJP, are now used to forming coalitions with smaller parties in opposition to each other, but the two Pakistani rivals, the PPPP and PML-N, will have to do it together. This may not be easy as their relations in the past have been essentially confrontational. The Charter of Democracy agreed by them in 2006 could serve as the minimum basis for forming a national government, however.

It would be in Pakistan's interest to wind up jihad outside its borders, including that beyond the Line of Control. All disputes with our neighbours should be resolved in a spirit of give and take and through negotiations. Now is the moment to build peace within and without Pakistan. Times and circumstances have changed fundamentally and irreversibly. We better be a part of successful and prosperous Asia that is emerging to our east.

The writer is a professor of political science and a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS), National University of Singapore. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg courtesy News Pakistan

BACK

Naxalism: India’s Trojan Horse?
Micky Sharma

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy? - M.K. Gandhi

EVERY Indian, even if at times sheepishly, takes a lot of pride in being recongnised as a citizen of Gandhi’s land; the man who made a wound on the body look like potion for the soul.

But this rosy picture turns a bloody red the moment the word Naxal gets a mere mention. For a nation besotted with teaching the world the relevance and need for non-violence in today’s day and age, we probably over-looked the growing unrest in our own back yard. Naxalism began in 1967, in Naxalbari, a small village in West Bengal. On May 25, 1967 when a peasant in Naxalbari was attacked over a land dispute, the peasants hit back by attacking the landlords. Naxalism as preached by Charu Majumadar, the brain behind the movement, was finally born as the voice of an India that was yet to be freed from feudalistic shackles.

In 1967 Naxals organised the All India Coordination Committee of Communist Revolutionaries (AICCCR), and gradually broke away from the CPI (M). In 1969 the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) sprung up as an off-shoot of the AICCCR.

During the 1970s the Naxal movement was believed to be running out of ideology and steam. And so the movement broke up resulting in various factions. By 1980, as per an estimate there were around 30 active Naxal groups, with a combined membership of 30,000. In 2004 the home ministry estimated their numbers to be as “9,300 hardcore underground cadre with around 6,500 regular weapons beside a large number of unlicensed country-made arms.

These government estimates might not be exactly accurate and their numbers are widely believed to be anywhere between 15,000 and 20,000. The Naxal menace means that today they control an estimated one fifth of India’s forests, and are active in 160 of the country’s 604 administrative districts.

In December 2007, almost 300 naxals broke a prison after beating up the prison guards and looting the weaponry in Dantewara, Chattisgarh. In October 2007, a Naxal attack in Jharkhand killed almost 20 people including former CM Babu Lal Marandi’s son. Earlier in the year they had shot dead the general secretary of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) and MP Sunil Mahato in Ghatshila near Jamshedpur. The Naxals then torched the MP’s vehicle before fleeing the scene by taking advantage of the commotion set off by the attack. The list continues as one types, and on 16th February, 2008 Naxals lay siege to a coastal town in Orissa and killed 14 people, including 13 policemen, besides injuring 10 others and looting the district armoury. The ultras targetted a police training school, armoury and a police station in Nayagarh and another police station at Daspalla.

Where exactly is India going wrong? Or is it a problem with its solution lying beyond our country’s reach? It is a known fact that the Naxal ideology floated by Charu Majumdar, who was extremely impressed with Mao, was initially backed by China. Although there have been denials on the Chinese part since, but to be sure might take some more convincing. Security forces in recent times have also claimed that Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, has been backing the ultras and providing them with weapons and other aid as well.

Officers like K.P.S Gill, former DGP Punjab Police, argued there was no point spending crores on building bridges and roads if the fear of Naxals won’t even let us use them. He has a point that probably the problem of Naxalism has crossed the conventional limit of “Let’s talk ourselves out of this”. But does this mean that a military offensive is the only possible way out? The answer to that are a yes and a no. These Naxals are resorting to extreme measures, bordering the limit of being anti-national but that is because they have been shown a very different side of society. When rest of the country went to school, they were tilling fields; when others got jobs, they got the landlord’s ire; when the IT revolution broke, they still had no electricity. The reasons for them being genuinely frustrated are too many to be written down let alone understood. The country let them down, and now they are trying to drag the country down. Not because they are anti-national, but because they were never made to feel a part of the country. Freedom is not a geographical phenomenon, it is psychological.

Yes, there is a need to check the armed breakouts, but at the same time, consolidation is the key. An all-out rampage would be a disaster as it still is the best way to alienate a neutral (if any). The government needs to own up to its past follies and instead of going at the Naxals, the government needs to go towards them. There needs to be an understanding of the fact that these are our own people, who have been put off the mainstream due to decades of neglect. The amount of time and energy being put in to drag them out and hunt them down would be better of by owning up to the facts and just saying, ‘Maybe, we went wrong, but lets make it work now’. It is time to break free from conventions, and instead of an offensive mindset, let’s open ourselves to a position where we don’t want to tell them what to do; we ourselves are ready to listen to what they have been trying to say for the last 60 years. After all that’s what our country was based on, understanding the reason behind all our differences, and making it the strength that keeps us together.

BACK