The euphoria created over the 'people-to-people contact'
between India and Pakistan received a jolt on the night of Thursday,
August 14, when not a single Pakistani turned up at Wagah, Punjab, to
celebrate the golden jubilee of the Independence of India and Pakistan.
Veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar, who led the Citizens
for Democracy team to Wagah, blamed the Pakistani government. "It is the Pakistani government
which has been restraining its people from participating in such joint
ventures. The people in Pakistan, by and large, extend full support
to our cause." For one who is yet to see any public demonstration of such 'support', Nayar's assessment is subjective, though one does share his optimism and belief that a network of reciprocal relationships must be developed to neutralise
the present hostile atmosphere.
The problem
lies not with Nawaz Sharief or any individual, but with
the Pakistani society as a whole. While in India, a farmer, H D Deve Gowda, could become the prime minister of the largest democracy
of the world and a member of the so-called scheduled castes, Mayawati, can rule Uttar
Pradesh -- the most populous and politically important state
in the country -- the same is not the case in Pakistan. Since its
creation in 1947, Pakistan has been ruled either by the wealthy
elite and the feudal lords, or by the army generals.
The middle and lower classes have been wilfully and systematically
denied the chance to emerge as a political force of any
consequence. The civil society has practically nothing to do with
the political power in Pakistan. Little wonder then that hardly 30
per cent of the Pakistanis exercised their franchise in the last general
election which saw Nawaz Sharief re-elected prime
minister.
Indian leaders and people have been always deeply
and sincerely interested in building bridges with Pakistan, and were
pleased that Nawaz Sharief, Benazir Bhutto, and the non-starter Imran Khan did not make Kashmir
the main plank of their election campaign. Thereafter, we were
enthralled when the newly elected premier declared he wanted
to resolve all pending issues, including Kashmir, with India amicably
and through peaceful, mutual dialogue.
India, perhaps, read too much in Sharief's initial utterances. Subsequent developments, including the boycott
of the celebrations at Wagah, have been quite
disappointing. Sharief's main achievement over the past few months has been self-aggrandisement of power. Through
the 13th amendment in the Pakistan constitution,
he removed the omnipresent threat article 582(B), by which the Pakistani president could sack him or dissolve the national assembly. Similarly, the amendment of
articles 101 and 243 have reverted
to the prime minister the authority of appointing the governors
of provinces and chiefs of the armed forces. In short,
the Pakistani prime minister is back in power.
However, General Zia-ul Haq's shadow looms large over Pakistan even a decade after his
death in the Bawahalpur crash. The question of the Zia
legacy and its impact on Indo-Pakistani relations is complicated, and needs to be answered squarely. As long as the Zia doctrine continues to dominate the political
and social scene of Pakistan, the concept of friendship between
the peoples of the two countries will continue to fall short of
its purpose. A few dozen Pakistani intellectuals, who regularly
attend seminars on 'Indo-Pak
Friendship' in New Delhi or Lahore, may have the best of intentions,
but they do not represent the vast majority of
Pakistanis who still look upon India with suspicion and distrust.
Pakistani journalist Mazhar Zaidi was right when he remarked: "History will perhaps await the revelation of hitherto
concealed information for analysts and researchers to assess the
actual damage that those fateful years under Zia have done
to Pakistani society. But the results of a number of vital political
decisions that the late military dictator enforced are already
obvious."
From the Indian point of view, the biggest barrier raised between
the people of the two countries was the process of the so-called
Islamisation initiated by Zia as soon as he appropriated
political power on July 5, 1977, after dislodging the elected
prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Till then and in spite of the
three wars the two countries had fought, the
people of Pakistan believed there were no
cultural differences between them and those on the
other side of the border.
The general, who liberally used Islam for his personal benefits
and who successfully bought the loyalties of the right-wing mullahs
by distributing among them large amounts of money through the
ISI, changed the cultural ethos of Pakistan to a large extent.
The Zia government took complete control
of the media under the false pretext that it wanted to bring it,
specially radio and television, in line with the theme of Nizam-e-Mustafa.
Pakistani poets, writers and artistes who believed in a composite
Indo-Pak culture were banned from writing scripts for the electronic
media and appearing on the screen. In the name of promoting family
values, only such plays were telecast which portrayed women as
"ideal wives and sacrificing mothers" Well-known Pakistani columnist Sarwat Ali recently
pointed out that the women playing negative roles were always shown in
Indian clothes (read sari and choli) while the "good ones -- devout
and pious -- wore a salwar kameez with the dupatta affixed on their
head."
Classical Indian music and dance were banned and colleges were
told to close down their music societies.
Unfortunately, the Zia legacy has been continued by his successors -- Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharief. Not only Indian films and plays are banned from
the official media, but even renowned Indian poets such
as Ali Sardar Jafri and Kaifi Azmi are not allowed to appear on
Pakistani television. Can there be a greater mockery of the fact that while Urdu is Pakistan's national language,
the most prominent names in Urdu poetry
in the whole of the subcontinent are treated with contempt and disgrace?
Nusrat Fateh Ali
Khan, the popular Sufi singer who died in London on Saturday, was termed a kafir a few months for his remark that
both Allah and Ishwar spoke through the swara or sur. A section
of the Pakistani press has lately described Zee TV as "far
more lethal than Prithvi" because it is trying to invade
"the cultural and ideological boundaries" of Pakistan by telecasting
Indian programmes through satellite.
Besides, the army top brass, who remain influential in Pakistan, remain hawkish and have so far shown
no inclination in fostering friendship with India. The Inter-Services Intelligence is not
only trying its best to disturb the internal peace of India but
is simultaneously busy spreading rumours in Pakistan about
the imaginary atrocities committed on Indian Muslims by the
government and people (read majority community) of India.
In short,
the concept of people-to-people contact will remain a chimera
unless democracy is fully restored in Pakistan and the mindset
of its people changed. Pakistani rulers have over the years created a number of psychological
hurdles and emotional barriers for the common man in Pakistan.
Unless these are removed, the people of
Pakistan will never be able to reach Wagah and participate in
the types of celebrations we continue to organise from time to
time.
However, Pakistani leaders are doing little in this regard. While Nawaz Sharief is busy consolidating his position, former prime minister Benazir Bhutto now wants a coalition government
comprising army generals and representatives
of the intelligence agencies. This Harvard-educated 'Daughter of
the East' has forgotten that it was during Zia's rule that Pakistani culture and literature
became static.
In the larger context, culture,
literature and democracy correspond to the heart, soul and mind of
a nation. If the government of Pakistan has restrained its people from joining
the celebrations at Wagah, it only means it is not interested
in liberating its people whose mind and soul were enchained by
the military dictators of Pakistan.
Tell us what you think of this column
