|
Political developments in the subcontinent
Hasnat Abdul Hye
The sub-continent offers an interesting study on political develop-ments after the curtain came down on British Raj in 1947. The two countries, India and Pakistan, that became independent, resulting in a rump sub-continent did not take the same route for nation buildings; rather they went their different ways over determination of the polity and the manner of governance. One of these two independent states, Pakistan, broke-up after twenty four years, in 1971, bringing the number of sovereign countries in the sub-continent into three. This break-up was, in no small measure, the outcome of political development. The evolution of politics and development of political institutions have taken different routes in all three countries as a result of which there are very few similarities in the way political culture has developed in these countries and the manner they are being governed.
It would be of little interest to find the difference in the political development in the three countries that comprise the sub-continent had it not been for the fact that all three had the Westminster type of parliamentary democracy as a model to follow after independence in 1947 (and in 1971 for Bangladesh). After all, most of the leaders who took the helm of affairs in the newly independent countries were educated and trained in the country that boasts of having the 'mother of parliament.' During the struggle for independence the leaders used arguments and concepts that became familiar to them under the colonial rule. They talked of self-determination, democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights and welfare state; ideas, values and institutions that were imbibed on them by the metropolitan country. It would have been natural for the two countries, India and Pakistan, to shape their political system based on the institutions and practices in Great Britain. Though Great Britain was an imperial power that exploited colonies, democratic principles were formally embedded in the polity of the country ever since Magna Carta was adopted. It is interesting that Great Britain has been governed not on the basis of a written constitution but by conventions and common laws; it has no written constitution. Whenever differences of opinion or conflicts arise, the court as the final arbiter, decides the matter.
India and Pakistan had the example of their erstwhile master as well as the aspirations of the people to adopt democracy as a model of political governance, which they did. But they decided to have written constitution because conventions and common laws, prevailing in Britain, were not wholly and adequately applicable in these countries. Nor was there a tradition of democratic governance dating before the advent of the British as colonial rulers. So in both India and Pakistan democratic governance was something they heard and saw elsewhere but was absent in the pre-colonial sub-continent. In India, the exercise in drawing up a constitution was brief and quick. There was no controversy about the goals and the basic principles; the country would be a federation with provincial states and princely estates enjoying powers delegated to them under the constitution. Being a country with different religions and also because of the commitment of the major party, Congress, to secularism there was separation between the state and religion. For economic development, a modified model of Soviet style planned economy was adopted which allowed private sector to co-exist alongside a dominant public sector. It was not to be a socialist state with a command economy but neither would it allow laissez fair. Again, like the democratic model of Great Britain, the welfare state economy in place there since the mid-Forties was accepted as the goal. Thus India emerged a parliamentary democracy with President as a titular head and the prime minister as the chief the government; the basic principle of socialism was used to manage the economy with in the guidelines of five year plans. The central government was powerful and it was dominated by the Hindi-speaking states in the north which gave raise to grumbling in the south; the north-east, on the other hand, chafed under the domination of non-locals who controlled administration, business and mining. The diversity of a large country like India did not, however, result in centrifugal forces undermining the unity of the country. The idea of a nation, having common interests and aspirations, was firmly rooted firm the very inception of the statehood.
In contrast to India, constitution making in Pakistan was a long-drawn out and controversial affair. Though consensus was reached on the federal character of the state, there was disagreement over representation in the national assembly and the central government by the provinces. West Pakistani politicians were chary to give weight to the majority status of East Pakistan on the basis of population. Anxious and eager to hold the key to power in running the country they forced East Pakistani politicians (few in number and low in stature) to accept West Pakistan as one unit, making it equal to East Pakistan in terms of representation. Right from the beginning the interest of West Pakistani politicians, backed by civil and military bureaucrats, was to dominate over East Pakistan. This undermined the idea of nationhood as East Pakistanis gradually realised that they were being given the short end of the stick and felt alienated. The issue of state language and discrimination in economic development using public resources further aggravated the situation, making the divide between East and East Pakistan stark. In West Pakistan; itself the dominance by Punjabis over Sindhis and Beluchs gave rise to discontent, with the latter becoming the haven of rebels who started hit and run clashes with government forces in and around their strongholds. Sindh was docile but sulked and maintained a low grade agitation. In East Pakistan the public, led by students was more vocal and critical. Pakistan took more than ten years to frame a constitution and when it was announced it was revealed that the country was to be an Islamic republic though not tied to Sharia law; even though it was a parliamentary form of government the president was given sweeping powers to dismiss prime minister and to dissolve parliament. So, unlike India the political character of the state in Pakistan assumed more of a strong presidential form, which paved the way for future interference and manipulation by the president. Unlike India, Pakistan was small and more homogeneous in terms of religion and culture but ironically the policies adopted were so divisive that nationhood, based on common interests and aspiration, could not strike firm roots. The tug of war between the president and the prime minister, on the other hand, made for political instability. Government came and went out of power as through a revolving door. Meanwhile, grievances of East Pakistan over discriminatory treatment by West Pakistani politicos and bureaucrats kept on growing; the central government was staffed with more West Pakistanis than East Pakistani Bengalis and therefore, policy decisions were skewed in favour of West Pakistan. This strengthened the demand for autonomy for East Pakistan which ultimately led to the break-up of Pakistan and creation of independent Bangladesh in 1971. Political domination coupled with economic exploitation made the break-up inevitable. In this break-up both politicians and students played important role as they launched movement for autonomy and failing to achieve that started the war of liberation in which India helped.
India also faced demand for autonomy in the north-eastern part but instead of suppressing this, the demand was conceded to. The north-east was divided into new states along ethnic and linguistic lines which though not fully satisfactory to those demanding independence calmed the agitating and rebellious groups. Thus, while Pakistan used force, India used diplomacy and conciliatory measures to meet the demand for autonomy. The reason there were differences in approach to the issue by the two countries was the dominant role of army in Pakistan and the supremacy of civilian rule in India. While in India, politicians talked and negotiated for settlement, in Pakistan, the army running the government used brute force to put down agitation and repress legitimate demand.
The above brings up the issue of army and politicians in the role of rulers. In India, army has kept close to their role as the defender of the country and shunned politics; in Pakistan it was the reverse in so far as politics was concerned. Army perceived its role both to defend the country and to rule on the ground of incompetence and corruption of politicians. Since 1958 to date, the country has been under military rule for half the time. During this period political institutions like parties, election and parliament, even judiciary were manipulated and controlled by the ruling army. At present President Musharraf has taken oath as a civilian but his source of power remains the army. There is little doubt that the moment army will think that he is a spent force and is not able to serve its interest, it will throw him away and assume power. The politicians are now agitating against his election as president because they know that it is martial law under civilian garb. In the event that Musharraff manages to hang on to power and a new assembly is elected with a prime minister heading an elected government, it would be interesting to see how power is shared among the army, the president and the prime minister. It is almost certain that president Musharraf, backed by the army, will try to appoint a prime minister of their choice. If they fail and chaos results in the street, army will take over ostensibly to restore law and order, and promise to hold election as soon as the situation is normal. Of-course, whether the situation is 'normal' will be judged by them. If this happens political development will receive setback once again and the country will be ruled by army with a civilian president of their choice. The President in turn will handpick a prime minister. Given the thirst for power even as a lackey, there will be no dearth of candidates to fill up the post.
In Pakistan, political development has been turbulent and unstable because of weakness of politicians (failure to agree with each other) and ambition of the army backed by their feeling of superiority. Political development in Pakistan has followed a circular route with civilian rule/semi civilian rule alternating with military rule. Democratic institutions like political parties, election and parliament have not been able to grow in strength and capacity because of the absence of a linear progress in political affairs. Politically Pakistan has remained where it was in the late Fifties when Ayub Khan took over and broke up a political party to co-op some of its members. President Musharraf will not be able to improve upon this controlled democracy of old vintage. Much, however, depends on street agitation; the lawyers and party workers have taken to streets in the recent past. But the street agitation in Pakistan lacks the militancy that was seen in East Pakistan and also in Bangladesh during President Ershad's regime.
In India there was a temporary lapse from democratic governance when emergency was declared by prime minister Indira Gandhi in mid-Seventies. It was a civilian 'coup' and instead of military dictatorship, civilian autocracy was exercised. For this wayward and indiscreet conduct Indira had to pay a heavy price; she and her party were thrown out of power. For the first time in India's history Congress, which led the struggle for independence, had to sit and wait in the wings, sulking. It was a chastened Indira and a wiser Congress when they returned to power to form the government at the centre. Returning from political wilderness, Congress behaved cautiously, using pragmatism. The exception was the way the Khalistan movement was handled. Use of force, instead of 'diplomacy' and patient negotiation led to a bloody showdown in the Golden Temple at Amritsar. In reprisal the Sikhs assassinated Indira and her death unleashed mob fury that took the lives of many Sikhs. This was a dark chapter in the histroy of political development in India. Another error of judgement was the abolition of special status to India-held Kashmir which has turned the state into a hotbed of insurgency and a target of cross-border incursions by armed elements.
The Naxalite movement in West Bengal and now in Bihar, Orissa and a few southern states is not the outcome of political miscalculation. It is the result of unequal development that has left many of the young generation alienated and disgruntled. The only failure of politicians here has been to see this as a law and order problem, rather than an economic one. The continuing insurgency in Assam and the bloody attacks by Maoists do not pose a threat to the central government nor to the government in the states but these disrupt normal life from time to time and thereby thwart development. The existence and operation of the Naxalites and eithnic insurgents indicate the failure of politics to address issues for peaceful resolution.
Political developments in India have been positive for the backward classes, though they had to wait for this. Apart from the constitutional safeguard to give preferential treatment to the scheduled castes, the recent provision to maintain quota in admissions in educational institutions and in government employment has gone a long way in redressing the grievances of these classes. Even before this affirmative action, the backward class had access to opportunities, not the least in politics. A Dalit (low caste Hindu) is the chief minister of the biggest state in India and one day her party may call the shots to determine which party/parties form government at the centre.
An interesting development in politics has been the rise and growing power of regional parties in India which have either ousted congress-led state governments or formed coalition with congress to form governments. The incumbency factor, responsible for this trend, manifested itself in the centre where a BJP-led coalition replaced Congress and formed government. The present central government is a congress-led coalition based on a common minimum programme. Coming in the wake of the BJP coalition it indicates that in future it will be unlikely for a single party to form government at the centre. Coalition government have both merits and demerits and which one outweighs the other depends on issues that face such a government. For instance, the current rift between the Congress and the Communist Party is over the nuclear deal with America. For lack of unanimity this major agreement may have to be abandoned or the left parties may withdraw from coalition which will either result in a different configuration of parties forming the central government or a mid-term election may be called. But disagreement among coalition partners also work as a restraint over the majority party, which is a good thing because thereby autocratic tendencies may be curbed or nipped in the bud. The most pernicious development in Indian politics in recent years has been the rise of Hinduttva-based party, BJP and its supporting organizations like RSS and Biswa Hindu Parishad. This is a worrying development because it is divisive in nature and severely undermines communal harmony. Unfortunately, the so called secular parties, instead of taking head on parties like BJP, have found it expedient to play the religious card to woo voters. Of all the developments in Indian politics this is the most egregious because it threatens the very basis of nationhood based on common interest and aspirations. As long as religion will be a factor in politics, progress of democracy will be problematic. The more religions obscurantism becomes popular, greater will be the harm caused to democratic principles and institutions. Unless religion is separated from state, political maturity will be slow in its progress.
Bangladesh is a case study of failed democracy for which both politicians and some ambitious people among army were responsible. While it was a great blunder, even a betrayal of public trust, to go for one party system in 1975, abolishing all political parties, involvement of some elements of army in the assassination of Sk. Mujibur Rahman and his family and their subsequent assumption of power under martial law set the clock of democracy back by many years. Here too, incompetence of civilian politicians, coupled with ambition of some army officers were responsible for the setback to democratic development. Following the tradition of military rulers in Pakistan, two erstwhile army chiefs floated their own party at the beginning of their political career, co-opting politicians from other parties, and introduced their versions of democracy. Both preferred a strong presidential form of government which made parliament ineffective and more of a showpiece. After a prolonged movement for the restoration of democracy, the political parties succeeded in taking up the mantle of power from the second army general-turned politician (the first general-turned politician was assassinated by his own men) but they lost no time and showed their ineptitude through naked thirst for power and use of violence. To prevent election rigging the concept of caretaker government was incorporated in the constitution and for at least two elections it worked satisfactorily. But the animosity between two major parties reached such height or reached such a low that even the institution of caretaker government became the bone of contention and the two sides were poised for a final show-down after drawing the battle lines; a total anarchy loomed on the horizon. An emergency was declared and a new caretaker government came to office backed by the army. It is preparing the ground for the next election and is also carrying out various reform measures, the most important of which is to rid politics and governance of corruption and muscle power. The reform measures have found the major parties divided into groups and at least one of the party is likely to be seriously decimated. The upshot of this is likely to be less corruption in politics but no single majority in the elected parliament to form a government. Under the circumstances, a coalition government is almost inevitable after the next election. But whether this will be a natural and spontaneous coalition or a 'managed' and 'guided' one, remains to be seen. It will depend on the motivation of the present government and its agenda. In any case, political development in Bangladesh has not been robust and is in a limbo at the moment. The politicians do not have many choices; they cannot go for agitational movement not only because there is emergency rule but also for the loss of credibility for their misdeeds that have now come into the open. For their predicament they have only themselves to blame. Had they behaved rationally, adhering to common ground rules and did not opt for rampant corruption there would be an elected government now in Bangladesh. More, importantly with each election, democratic politics would have gained strength and move towards permanence. On the basis of present development, the future of politics in Bangladesh is likely to be a mirror image of Turkey. It should be remembered that Bangladesh army was not keen to be involved in politics this time, if they were they would have intervened as soon as political unrest raised its ugly head. But once they decided to salvage the situation when it went to the extreme, they may not be willing to allow matters to go to status quo ante. Hence the idea of a National Security Council a la Turkey. But Turkish democracy has undergone change after it applied for membership in the European Union. Since no country is an island these days, Bangladesh may be under pressure and experience political developments that may be different from the Westminster model but neither is it likely to be an exact replica of the Turkish model where army is empowered under the constitution to intervene and dismiss government to safeguard the constitution. Be that as it may, political parties have to change their attitude to each other and agree on rules of engagement. Political parties will not find it business as usual when the moratorium on political activities is withdrawn, election is held and a government is formed.
In the recent past religion played an important part in Bangladesh politics as the 4-party alliance that formed the last government had religion-based parties as partners. At present there are demands from some of the secular parties to 'ban' religion-based parties from politics. One cannot expect that this demand will be met by the authorities. However, what is important is not to ban the religion-based parties but to prohibit them from announcing establishment of a theoretic state as their goal because it is not in the Constitution. This can be ensured by making a declaration to this effect a condition for registration as a political party and to be eligible to participate in election.
To sum up: Out of the three countries in the sub-continent, India has made significant progress in making democracy work, though the rise of religious fundamentalism is a cause for concern. In Pakistan the role of army and the religious militants is likely to make political development and democratic governance unstable and lacklustre. In Bangladesh a modus vivendi is set to be reached between the army and the politicians which may be fragile if religious militancy is not held in check and students become restive.
 ^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^
|
