The New Nation - Internet Edition

Dr. M. S. Haq

As at today (14 November 2007), it appears certain political parties in Pakistan are either worried or expressing their concerns about plans for holding upcoming elections under the ongoing state of emergency. Interesting though, Pakistan has had the experience of conducting elections under the state of emergency on a number of occasions in the past against the backdrop of a variety of situations and circumstances. At the global level, besides Pakistan, the state of emergency (hereinafter: emergency or emergencies, unless indicated otherwise in the article) is - at present - in force in a number of other countries including inter alia Bangladesh. It will not, however, be out of place to mention here: the nature, the scope, the purpose, the operation and the ramification (to mention a few) of those emergencies have so far found to be sharing among them in pertinent areas - similarities and dissimilarities - as appropriate and relative to time, space and other variables.

A brief analysis of present day emergencies (used in a wider sense) would reveal, they are, among other things and as appropriate, declared for meeting objectives such as: one, protecting and preserving territorial integrity, national security, and national assets including facilities (for example, nuclear facilities, if applicable) from 'alarming' levels of risk, threat and vulnerability; two, protecting human beings and others from natural and other disasters; three, containing deteriorating law and order situations due to anti-people activities or anti-state activities or other unlawful and illegitimate activities (or a combination of them) by political parties, by anti-social elements, by terrorist formations, by extremist groups, by state bureaucracies, and by others - both in and ex-country origins, as applicable; four, rescuing democracy from a major set back or a near collapse situation or destroying it (I mean, democracy), in a calculative manner; five, fighting or promoting or both rampant corruption and other social evils (including inter alia racial, as well as religious discriminations) at local, national and other levels; six, promoting and sustaining various forms of democracy or autocracy including inter alia paternalistic autocracy or a mixture of autocracy and democracy; seven, initiating and implementing reforms or sustaining reform outcomes or both in areas of such competing priorities as, politics, development, minority rights, rights of women, trade, media, and environment - whether operating environment or not; eight, improving rich-poor transactions or promoting vicious cycles of economy; nine, promoting images and futures - at individual, collective, state and other levels - by for example, enhancing developmental gains or building upon those gains or both at local, national, global and other levels; ten, assisting or forcing or both politicians and concerned others to board the train of strategic thinking and learning, modernity, globalization, tolerance, and competition; eleven, creating or restricting or both opportunities for self-seekers, opportunists (including inter alia all timers), hypocrites, cronies and others; twelve, fulfilling self-actualization needs or other kinds of need of prime movers (used in an engineering sense) of emergencies, per se; and thirteen, protecting, sustaining and accelerating (as applicable) well-being of people and others - whether or not they are capable of understanding and realizing that (I mean, the well being) either in part or in full, whether or not that represents or is capable of representing the popular will of the people, whether or not that is sustainable, whether or not that enjoys maximum ownership and support of people; whether or not that could help fulfill expectations, to a maximum possible extent, at local, national, global and other levels, to mention a few.

It has been observed from relevant aspects of anatomy and physiology of power bases of most of the present day emergencies in poor countries, military bureaucracies are holding and controlling those bases - either directly or otherwise and in a manner that is, overt or covert or a mixture of both. It has also been observed, those bases plus their civilian outfits, supporters and beneficiaries are in relevant ways and in varying degrees subservient to for example, desires or expectations (or both) of external powers - whether or not neighbors - at a given time in an increasingly interdependent, competitive and uncertain world. It should, however, be noted here: such things are not only happening in countries under emergency but in other countries - whether or not poor - due to a variety of reasons.

One of them could perhaps be attributable to a kind of outcome arising out of conscious efforts towards shaping, strengthening, streamlining and sustaining (as appropriate) demand-supply mechanisms at local, national, global and other marketplaces and towards enhancing competitions in those marketplaces for say, sustaining above mechanisms in a progressively healthier form (I mean, in an average sense) with the help of measures like, capacity improvements, institutional developments and a more goal-centered per capita utilization of available, as well as usable resources - all for benefits of all concerned at proportionate, disproportionate and other rates, relative to time, space and other variables. In other words, the efforts are, in a sense, towards creating and sustaining a sort of minimal breathing space for poor countries in the domain of competition through ensuring some kind of pulling up approaches (I would like to call it in that way) to areas of collective survival and continuity through the WTO era, per se. One of the underlying assumptions here is: a purposeful rich-poor transaction at people and country levels will be required for, among other things, making globalization a profitable and satisfactory venture at this stage of world development. It may, however, be noted here: a near absence of globalized mindset, globalized culture, globalized habit and globalized tradition at individual and collective levels in areas say, production, productivity, competition and prosperity has been constraining the transaction in a significant way. In short, some kind of standardization for globalization is required, among other things.

In relevant cases, it has been found maximization of good sides of emergencies (used in a relative sense) and minimization, if not elimination, of bad sides of emergencies (used in a relative sense) could be instrumental in creating, sustaining and promoting good futures or bad futures or mixed futures for concerned countries and people over a period of time.

In light of aspects discussed and not discussed (so far in the article) about emergencies, it has now become incumbent upon Pakistanis and their leaders (to whom it may concern) to undertake a soul searching mission focusing on matters such as and as appropriate: What were the real motive behind the present day emergency and competing priorities for the declaration of emergency? Was there any other viable, acceptable (to majority of Pakistanis) and highly pro-Pakistan alternative besides the option of emergency for tackling challenges that had posed to the country prior to the emergency or have been posing to it since the emergency? What the people and leaders should have done under circumstances that led to the declaration of emergency in Pakistan? Why did not they come up with - in a proactive and constructive manner - alternatives that could hopefully be instrumental in at least mobilizing people's opinion against the emergency in a more forceful and result-oriented manner - at home and in abroad? What was holding them back from doing that in a peaceful manner particularly, when the media was enjoying a full freedom in the country? Now that the emergency is in force in the country, that the people, the political parties and others opposing the emergency have failed to help stop the declaration of emergency due to a variety of reasons like, lack of support or lack of unity or lack of sound or convincing reasons or lack of pretexts or lack of contexts or otherwise and that the demonstrations of muscle power of lawyers, political parties and government have so far been instrumental in exacerbating inter alia fear and confusion in the country without significant breakthroughs in areas of emergency - the ground realities are: the emergency has been declared for meeting emergencies; the emergency will remain in force up to and including upcoming elections, as planned (as per today); and the continuation of emergency could depend on the existence of those emergencies (in a real term) for which it was declared or on a change in the state power by violent or other means during the future period of emergency or on the strength of people's support in favor of the emergency for protecting the good work of Musharraf administration or on a drastic improvement in law and order situations - both existing and evolving - in the country, or on how best and quickest the emergency will be instrumental in serving the immediate and the best interest of Pakistan, Pakistanis and others, or on the future of forthcoming elections or on a full or a phase-wise lifting of the emergency prior to the election on the basis of consensus reached (to be) between and among concerned parties on matters pertaining to emergency or on a combination of one or more than one of above developments - as appropriate, to mention a few.

The people of Pakistan, leaders of Pakistan, friends of Pakistan including inter alia the US, neighbors of Pakistan and others including inter alia the UN could assist Pakistan, either directly or otherwise (as applicable), in the effort towards creating and sustaining a more enabling environment for upcoming elections in the country and holding the election in a free, fair and acceptable (to at least majority of Pakistanis) fashion. In that respect, it appears to me, certain measures would need to be taken or certain things would need to be put in place, among other things. For example:

1. The decision concerning the candidacy of President General Pervez Musharraf should be taken by Supreme Court of Pakistan at the earliest opportunity. Contingency plans should be in place to deal with emergencies that might arise out of the decision and matters pertaining to it or in the process of decision-making or both. The possibility of another bout of martial law or another coup d'etat in Pakistan cannot, in a sense, be ruled out at this point in time.

2. Pakistan could explore the possibility of relaxing rigid implementation of at least certain provisions of the emergency rule similar to one which is currently in force in Bangladesh. I would like to call it a relaxed emergency. President Musharraf could take the lead role, as part of his and his administration's effort towards promoting national reconciliations, in initiating and negotiating, in a transparent and accountable manner (as far as practicable), a political contract between government of Pakistan and political parties of Pakistan in pursuits of accommodating reasonable and legitimate demands of parties concerned in connection with facilitating a more pro-people election in the country.

In such an event, the implementation and continuation of relaxed emergency will be contingent upon for example, behaviors and activities of all concerned during the continuation of relaxed emergency.

One of the underlying assumptions here is: a satisfactory performance of all concerned during the relaxed emergency could culminate in a full lifting of the emergency prior to the election. The onus is, however, upon the parties concerned to make those things happen in the nearest future in the greater interest of the country and its people. The US and others might elect to assist Pakistan in above areas.

3. Political parties such as, PPP, Muslim League and Jamat-e-Islam should take upcoming elections both as a challenge and an opportunity in pursuits of taking democracy to a new height, for an instance. Election boycotts by one or more than one political party could be instrumental in inter alia depriving Pakistanis of their legitimate rights and expectations concerning democracy in the country - especially, when it comes to a meaningful realization of those rights and expectations through for example, collective political will and greater political accountability under present and evolving circumstances.

Political parties should be more forward looking, more opportunity grabbers, less self-seekers, more pragmatic and more reasonable, as well as objective when it comes to maintaining and promoting overall well-being of Pakistan and the world at large. Do not use political power for promoting self-interest and the interest of a few. Do not use political power for short-term limited gains at the cost of longer term and higher gains. Liberate movements for democracy from classic anti-democratic activities. Demonstrate a wider and meaningful use of entrepreneurial skills and maturity in solving for example, democracy related problems. Do not lose patience and set examples for leading the nation through an increasingly knowledge-driven world.

4. The military bureaucracy of Pakistan should not lose sight of facts that they are, among other things, oath bound and not above accountability when it comes to say, their role in protecting and promoting national security and development. The cases of former chief judge and other judges should be dealt with as per the law of the land. Persons arrested merely on political grounds should be released, as applicable.

5. The matters relating to media (both print and electronic) freedom need to be attended to on an urgent basis and to the satisfaction of all concerned, as practicable, in pursuits of for example, facilitating transparent and accountable elections in Pakistan. It may be noted here, no person should be allowed to do harm to Pakistan and to other world countries in the name of media freedom, per se.

The last word: Pakistanis need to be more united than ever in the collective effort towards a more prosperous, more progressive and more democratic Pakistan. Wishing luck to President Musharraf and other Pakistanis in the days ahead!

Abu Rawsab

It has largely become an integral part of our national psyche to associate our identity and existence with the war of liberation in 1971. We found it nothing wrong as our national independence came because of long struggle and paramount sacrifice. However, when we began to understand our national history, we came to realize that many contentious issues remained not only unsolved, but have also been kept alive. What we found is that a significant part of our population politically opposed the idea of separation, which is common to every liberation war and civil justice movement all over the world. What makes us so puzzled is that we-as a generation born after our liberation-have no clear answer from the history as to why a quarter of our population opposed the idea of a separated independent Bangladesh. Historians largely and lazily tried to not to uncover that mystery. Since it's a question of our identity and existence, we passionately feel that we need to have a clear understanding of not only "how" but also "why" a portion of our population did not subscribe to the idea of an independent Bangladesh.

Rather than having a clear historical account of our liberation, the whole realm becomes so diluted and vague that most often we have trouble in separating facts from fictions. We still suffer from a lack of consensus on some fundamental issues such as who declared independence, how many people were killed and raped, who opposed the war, why and in what way. One of the conspicuous reasons behind this diluted atmosphere is, as we observed, using the "liberation war" for political purpose. The political culture of last three decades was largely fraught with lies, fabrications, concoctions and emotional dispositions; and since liberation war has been one of the key issues in the realm of politics, our national identity has become diluted and contaminated. What we observed is that people-mostly political leaders-engrossed and embedded in that contaminated politics gradually became emotional and fanatic in attacking their political opponents and began to lose their objective disposition and fairness. So much emotions, exaggerations, concoctions, obduracy and extreme rebuffs towards political opponents are some of the traits that our political leaders and their hard-core supporters have been maintaining and nurturing for last three decades. Consequences are also apparent. It has divided the whole nation into two: pro and against liberation. They use this "forged and discursive construction" for political gain a is if liberation (shadhinata) is their personal and political property. They use this construction in most of their speeches, wrongly attack their political opponents, and brand them with some negative terms. They become blind as to how they are damaging the nation. As the issue of 1971 becomes their main political agenda, they use the emotions and dispositions of people for their own interest. They do not resolve the issue of 1971 as they will lose their political agenda. Sometimes they become so fanatic and lose every iota of objective thinking that they do not hesitate to even brand "Razakar" to those who were born after 1971, and those who were freedom fighters but subscribe to different political ideology. And other people, whatever role they had in 1971, become great "freedom-fighters" if they come to the fold of their political party. In this way, being or not being in the political party becomes a "yardstick" as to who is a freedom fighter and who is not. They constantly focus on division, rather than cohesion. There are some conspicuous negative consequences of this construction, which we have witnessing for last three decades:

First, it makes people "retrogressive". As 1971 becomes the focal point and subsequently occupies all of their imaginations, it makes a great hindrance for moving further. Who is pro-liberation and who is not becomes the main political and individual agenda, and consequently national development, social cohesion and progress always remain a secondary priority. It not only leads to stagnation, but also constantly drives us to go backwards. Consequently, our nation remains lagged behind economically, socially, and culturally. Second, it makes a clear-cut and sometimes ambivalent division of the nation as expounded before. Many nations of the world faced almost similar juncture, and unlike some politicians of Bangladesh, the great politicians of those nations had different strategies to move forward as they had far-sighting vision to build their nations. They all focused on cohesion, rather than difference or division. Abraham Lincoln, for example, became famous as he devoted his utmost efforts to erase the dichotomy of white masters and black slaves. Noble peace prize laureate Nelson Mandela of South Africa did the same. Even the founding father of Bangladesh, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, offered a "general amnesty" to all who opposed the liberation movement with a view to moving forward with harmony and cohesion among people. The biggest example we find in the case of the "Victory of Makka" by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). The people of Makka who once tried with all of their efforts to hurt and eventually kill the prophet, which forced him to migrate to Medina and waged several battles against the prophet himself. However, the prophet (peace be upon him) vehemently declared to the people of Makka, "Today you are free and independent, I do not have any complain against you." After that he never focused on division, rather one of the aims of his mission was to create cohesion and peaceful coexistence among the people even with different faith.

Finally, it creates a culture of hatred, division and emotion. They regard the whole nation as their own property. It eventually makes them arrogant, lusty of power by any means. Well-being of the country becomes the secondary agenda. If the politics with liberation fails, they never hesitate to create a global awareness against the country, and its own people.

The people who collaborated with Pakistani army to serve their interest were known as "razakars". They were both opportunists and paid agents and comprised of both Bangalis and non-Bangalis (especially Biharis). In the similar vein, we also witness a small but strong cohort of people who are collaborating with India, Israel and the United Stares to serve the interest of these countries at the expense of our national unity and progress. It has become a lucrative career for a quarter of so-called journalists and intellectuals these days. Though they identify themselves as "the real patriots" and harbinger of independence to our nation to occlude their real faces, they are actively engaged in anti-state activities by exploiting the current political situation. Though Bangladesh is a great example of communal harmony and social cohesion, these people discursively concoct different fabricated stories and problematise different contentious issues such as communalism, talibanism and religious terrorism or fundamentalism to invite foreign intervention; and this is exactly what Bangladesh is currently suffering from. Because of their active anti-state activities, these people appeared as "neo-razakars."

Liberation is a continuous process. We got liberation from Pakistani oppression in 1971 with a hope that we would liberate ourselves from poverty, corruption, tyranny, foreign dependence and intervention and all forms of injustices. Rather than liberating ourselves from all these, our nation unfortunately went deeper into the quagmire of all these. After our liberation from Pakistan, those who took responsibility in liberating our nation from all these problems and in bringing progress; they often use 1971 as an ideological guise and 'political property' not only to hide their gross failure and massive corruptions during their regimes but also to stigmatise their political opponents branding them as anti-liberation and with other derogatory terms. As a generation in post liberation era, we strongly feel that Bangladesh needs further liberation from the shackle of these neo-razakars.

(Abu Rawsab writes from Canada. He can be reached at: aburawsab@gmail.com )