Last week I attended a roundtable organised by Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom in Berlin. The theme was “Shaping the Future of Pakistan: Loose, Fail, or Win“. I delivered a presentation (link ->> Berlin presentation Pakistan) and discussed the short to medium prospects for Pakistan. Most importantly, how regional instability was likely to impact Pakistan notwithstanding its impressive democratic trajectory.

THE publication of Basti’s translation is an important literary milestone. The author, Intizar Husain, is perhaps the greatest living Urdu writer and his genius rightly deserves a wider audience than just readers of Urdu or Hindi fiction. Intizar Sahib’s stories have been translated earlier and they showcased his taut, lyrical, hauntingly evocative prose to those who were not familiar with the world of Urdu. However, the novel as a genre and as a kaleidoscope of society conveys a discreet vision of the world. This is why Basti’s publication by New York Review Books is a landmark with respect to globalising the beauty and intricacy of Urdu literature.

Earlier, Qurratulain Hyder had translated her own novels (Aag ka Darya and Aakhir-i-Shab ke Hamsafar among others); her many admirers had been quick to point out that in the English translations she had been unfair, above all, to herself. The original Urdu novels are far more majestic than their translations. Except a few other novels, such as Abdullah Hussain’s Weary Generations (Udas Naslain), there is little that the world knows about Urdu literature. The Urdu short story has had a better deal in terms of translations, but the Urdu novel has largely been ignored.

Basti, at the outset, is the tale of a reminiscing Zakir, the novel’s protagonist who is a professor of history and a migrant to his new homeland from across the border. The novel primarily relates the various stages of his life.

Zakir lives in a dynamic, conflictual and contradictory world. There is no Hardyesque feeling of an individual pitted against the larger forces at work. Instead, throughout the novel, there are threads of nostalgia, displacement and ruptured continuities. The Partition of India in 1947 is the centre of the novel’s sombre, impressionistic landscape. That year turns everything topsy-turvy, and more so, it transforms the fate of the basti (settlement). Unlike other Partition literature, Basti avoids direct, graphic reportage on the psychological and physical violence inherent to Partition. The political chaos at one level is also interiorised by Zakir. There is, then, an intense feeling of alienation and emptiness that Zakir, as a migrant in a new country, feels. It should be remembered that Husain, now considered a torchbearer of progressive thought in Urdu language and literature, was never a firebrand revolutionary in the way that other luminaries in Urdu are known as. In fact, Zakir’s ambivalence towards politics and resistance is partly reflective of Intizar Sahib’s ideological moorings in the new discourse on jadeediyat or modernism.

Basti was criticised when it was first published in Urdu. Critics, often driven by ideological imperatives, considered it to be a lesser novel for its evident refusal to apportion blame or affix responsibility. However, the novel has proved to be a formidable work of art. Almost like “rocks beneath” (to borrow a phrase from Emily Bronte), it is a narrative that is neither noisy, nor voluminous or polemical. Its melancholy mood, layered plot and composite portrayal of human emotion ensure its timelessness and universal appeal. (more…)

On peace with India for The News on Sunday

After the recent LoC fiasco, there has to be long-term commitment and readiness to install shock absorbing measures as the trust grows gradually and not without dangerous chances of reversal

The recent escalation of tensions between India and Pakistan comes after an uninterrupted peace process for two years during which both the countries made a substantial progress in burying the hatchet and moving on. For many cynics, hawks, and naysayers on both sides, events of 2012 were alarming. Beyond the regular continuation of high-level parleys, three concrete achievements were made in the bilateral relations.

First, the hardline position on terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir dispute by India and Pakistan was pushed and amended to achieve an atmosphere conducive to dialogue. India showed flexibility on its rigid position on the ghastly Mumbai attacks of 2008; and Pakistan showed maturity in admitting Pakistani citizens had crossed into India and were part of the larger plan to cause mayhem in Mumbai. More importantly, the festering dispute of Jammu and Kashmir was relegated to one of the more difficult issues to be dealt in the future.

Secondly, Pakistan did the unthinkable by announcing it would grant the Most-Favoured Nation (MFN) status to India for the purposes of trade. Satisfactory progress on this front also took place during 2012 and the trade liberalisation is already underway generating more and more stakes into the peace process.

Third, the visa accord signed between India and Pakistan changed the cold war culture created by both the states since 1965. In particular, visa liberalisation for businessman, setting up of banks in both the countries and allowing investments was a historic landmark.

(more…)

There seems to be a serious dearth of imagination while searching for solutions on Balochistan

As Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy recently wrote, “Men like Rohrabacher are no friends of the Baloch. But what can stop their meddling? The answer can only come once we dump the myth of Pakistan being one nation, one people”. The continuous undermining of Pakistan’s pluralism, citizenship rights and quest for self-rule has led to a situation where Pakistani flag is not welcome in many parts of its largest and most neglected province.

This is not the first time that the country has faced a dire situation. In 1971, we were faced with a similar dilemma and the civil-military elites of West Pakistan bungled. Their mishandling was exacerbated by an external intervention and for years we have been fed with stories of how all was hunky dory in the more populous wing of Pakistan until the evil ‘Hindu’ India destroyed the ‘Muslim’ Pakistan.

It takes a questionable resolution tabled in the US Congress by Dana Rohrabacher, an extremist republican with a dubious past, to alarm the mainstream Pakistani politicians and media about the plight of Baloch people. Yet again, a “conspiracy” to disintegrate the land of the pure has been reiterated. The good part is that Balochistan issue — something that the media was afraid to talk about — has become a subject of prime-time, and sometimes ill-informed, discussions on national television.

We cannot absolve ourselves of the decades-long discrimination that the province and its people have faced due to a variety of reasons. Whether it is the misuse of its natural resources such as natural gas, gold, etc, or its leverage in the federal power structure, the scorecard is pretty grim. In real terms, the issue of provincial autonomy has only been resolved recently via the 2010 eighteenth amendment. But even that seems to fit the clichéd description of being “too little and too late” given how the Baloch nationalists view it. (more…)

By Raza Rumi

Published today by Jinnah Institute, Islamabad:

Notwithstanding the contradictions inherent to pre-1947 Muslim politics, Jinnah was clear about certain fundamentals. Pakistan was to be a secular, democratic state. It was not destined to be a national-security obsessed and a paranoid military-intelligence complex.
Pakistan was to be a federation and Jinnah’s advocacy in the 1930s and 1940s was majorly focused on achieving a de-centralized governance paradigm. Finally, the new state was envisioned as a peaceful country, which would interact and establish relations with its neighbour India following the US-Canada model. Jinnah indicated that he would not mind settling down in his native city Bombay after his retirement. All of these facts are on public record and not fantastic or imagined tenets of his vision. What was so alarming about Jinnah’s vision for Pakistan that had to be virtually undone by the custodians of a Praetorian state? Not unlike Pakistan’s history, Jinnah’s legacy is a contested and fractured narrative.

After successive victories, the right wing of Pakistan won a significant battle under General Zia-ul-Haq (1977-1988) when it officially established the “ideology of Pakistan”. However this victory was not limited to official pronouncements but significant institutional changes were also effected to achieve a colonial archetype from South Asian history i.e. a “permanent settlement” of ideological contours. Lord Cornwallis may have undertaken such a settlement for Bengal’s fertile land but Pakistan’s education system, the media and the public discourse finally declared such a settlement as the sacred “truth”.

This sacred “truth” nullified Jinnah’s vision and historic struggles to achieve a fair deal for the Muslims of India, which had culminated in the creation of a truncated and “moth-eaten” Pakistan.

In terms of domestic governance of the new polity, Jinnah’s speeches to civil servants, firm advice to military officers and even to some of his errant politician colleagues were clear. The bureaucracy and the Army had to operate within the legal boundaries and a new direction for the post-colonial state had to be negotiated without undermining the rule of law and the imperative of creating a citizen-responsive state. To the military men Jinnah said the following in June 1948:“…I should like you to study the constitution which is in force in Pakistan at present and understand its true constitutional and legal implications.” And, to the civil service, (more…)

China and Taiwan are sworn enemies. In 2009, the total volume of their trade was 110 billion dollars. India’s trade is expanding with China, and the current volume is nearly 60 billion dollars per annum. On the other hand, the total volume of formal trade between India and Pakistan is around a billion dollars. What does this say about keeping rational economic interest over emotional narratives of nationalism and politics? The politics and troubled past has ruined South Asia’s present and potentially its future. It is time to review the situation and reverse this trend.

True, we have unresolved issues with India. It is also well-known that India has not respected the United Nations’ resolutions on Kashmir. But our mercurial rulers have not been consistent in their stance either. The last of our long list of dictators, General Musharraf announced his willingness to forego our conventional position on Kashmir. However, due to various factors he could not translate his statements into action. The Indian side also displayed its lack of foresight in engaging further with Musharraf and preferred pandering to the shrill hate-and-crush-Pakistan domestic lobbies.

This is why granting of Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status is more of a political and national security issue than a clear cut economic choice that a sensible country makes while choosing its development trajectory. Trade between India and Pakistan is a joke compared to trade between India and its other global partners. There is a consensus that India-Pakistan trade is a win-win situation for the two countries only if the Indian and Pakistani states were to find a mechanism where effective dialogue takes place and the politics of bickering gives way to a rational discourse.

The SAARC member countries including Pakistan and India concluded the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) treaty in 2004 which allowed for freer trade and aimed to reduce trade barriers and tariffs in two phases. The World Bank studies also estimated that both Pakistan and India by entering into a ‘preferential trade system’ like SAFTA were likely to gain. But the conflict and political differences have prevented from this to happen. Despite the limits trade has been increasing due to sheer necessity.

For centuries trade has taken place in the region. Today the routes between the two Punjab[s], between Karachi and Mumbai and from Rajasthan and Gujarat into rural Sindh are still valid. Asad Sayeed, a reputed economist based in Karachi states that if normal trade resumes, “regional economic benefits that can accrue on either side will have a multiplier effect.” In fact informal trade that takes place is unknown but quite significant. Yasir Khan writing for The News (July 10, 2010) also highlighted the World Bank estimates of 2002 whereby Indo-Pak trade could expand Pakistan’s Gross National Product by 1.8%. Khan also quoted a study by Peterson Institute of International Economics which estimated informal trade between two countries in the range of $3 billion per annum. The potential therefore is immense.

India will also gain as Pakistan will provide a viable land route for its trade with Central Asia. Most importantly, given India’s energy deficits, normal trade will meet its energy demands and Pakistan can make impressive gains in foreign revenues through rents. It has already been estimated some years ago by the State Bank of Pakistan that the proposed gas pipeline to India could make us earn upto 700 millions dollars per annum.

The exaggerated fears of Indian domination are now a matter of history. Pakistan is already a dumping ground for Chinese goods. Uncompetitive sectors of our economy are already closing down. Pakistan’s private sector is also ready for improved trade relations. During the 1990s, the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry formally supported the granting of MFN status to India. In the previous decade, increased interaction between the business lobbies has resulted in a strong articulation of normal and economically feasible trade with India. Nearly all political parties and prominent voices from the civil society are also in favour of trading with India. Rarely has there been such a consensus in the domestic framework of Pakistan’s mainstream politics.

This brings us to the well known variable – the national security apparatus – which remains dominant in terms of policy process. Many voices in the mainstream media have urged a paradigm shift. For instance, Khaled Ahmad’s recent op-ed published in the Daily Express-Tribune (November 14, 2010) states: “It is time we changed the paradigm of defence in Pakistan and returned to the normalcy of trade and trade routes. Pakistan’s revisionism vis-à-vis India must give way to compulsions of self-correction; and Pakistan must become open to international finance as an important adjunct to South Asia’s rising economy.” This is not a lone voice anymore. Big business of Pakistan is also backing such a demand. Similarly, Indian business lobbies are also ready to make profits given the low transportation costs. A huge market for our exporters, technological gains (such as textile design innovations) and cost saving for consumers and producers are potential gains that Pakistan’s policy makers need to debate.

Public discussions in Pakistan unfortunately are hostage to the half-truths that we follow like parrots. On the other side, the debate is hostage to the terrorism mantra and finding a scapegoat for misgovernance by the post-colonial state. Thus we are locked between two states that have now created populist Frankenstein[s] of public imagination. An imaginary enemy is vital for the realisation of nationhood.

Pakistan is facing an unprecedented crisis: Its state is at war and stagflation is likely to escalate social unrest. The recent floods have resulted in losses of over 10 billion dollars. Our high growth rates, which we prided ourselves for under military regimes, are tales of bygone eras. We need immediate and feasible solutions. Increased trade with India will boost our light engineering and small scale manufacturing sectors and also generate employment. We have to seriously think of this route and not solely depend on the life support systems devised by international finance institutions.

By trading with the enemy, we will not be compromising our principled stand on Kashmir (we could very well have a more reasoned dialogue in a congenial environment) nor give up on our demands with respect to water or the Siachen issue. Political negotiations can continue. But we have to join the South Asian economic progress and share the gains made with millions of Pakistanis.

It is therefore critical that our political parties instead of playing petty politics consider the serious issues of economic recovery and forge a consensus that the security establishment cannot ignore. In any case, dialogue is required between the civil and military institutions where the short term strategy should be conditioned by our long term interests. For this to happen, the civilian democratic forces need to be united. If they have been able to work together on the 18th Amendment, then they are capable of resolving issues and taking joint positions.

Most importantly, Pakistan Army’s survival and strength are linked to a vibrant and growing economy. Long term reforms will take five to ten years to bear fruit. But trade can happen within months provided there is a shift in the policy and a willingness to learn from the China-Taiwan or India-China examples.

India will also need to reassess its over-use of the terrorism card. Pakistan is suffering due to internal conflict and global war in its neighbourhood. Pakistan’s civil and military leadership can only operate out of the box if the Indian bureaucracy allows its political class to make bold strides. The two countries as a start must continue the dialogue even if does not meet the sensational standards of the corporate media.

It would be naïve to expect that the trade-issue will be resolved overnight. However, capitulation to irrational and self-defeating policy paradigm is even worse. We need to take a leap forward simply in our own national interest.

First published in The Friday Times (November 19  2010)

Published here: The recent hullabaloo over the Delhi Commonwealth Games has been followed with much interest in Pakistan. Many have gloated over the inability of the creaky Indian state machinery to deliver in time and address the issues of quality that became apparent with the collapse of an overhead bridge. South Asia now lives in the new information age where despite the distortions created by the mainstream media, it is difficult to hide state failures

Each story of corruption in Delhi has been greeted with a strange familiarity here. Essentially, all narratives of shining and marching India aside, the two nations remain hostage to a postcolonial state and embedded corruption. To cite Pankaj Mishra who wrote a rather scathing piece on the Games’ saga (New York Times, Oct 2, 2010):
“Two weeks ago, a huge footbridge connected to the main stadium collapsed. The federation that runs the games has called the athletes’ housing “uninhabitable.” The organizers have had to hire an army of vicious langur monkeys to keep wild animals from infesting the venues. Pictures of crumbling arenas and filthy toilets are circulating more widely than the beautiful landscapes of the government’s “Incredible India” tourism campaign.”

These issues of self-image and imagined greatness are shared woes of new nation states – India, Pakistan and Bangladesh – as they all suffer from this grandiose complex, of military and economic might over others. This is what makes such narratives so troublesome for they distort the essentials of freedom, Independence and the two Partitions of 1947 and 1971 which were all meant to lead to a poverty free and better environment for the ‘masses’. (more…)

This morning arrived with the shocking news of the recent barbarity played out in Pakpattan (formerly known as Ajodhan) when two criminals left bombs outside the shrine of Baba Farid. Eight innocent people, returning from morning prayer, lost their lives and about 2o were injured.

Baba Fariduddin Ganje Shakar’s shrine was the latest victim of terrorism. We have now entered into a decisive phase of the ongoing battle. What is the purpose of attacking a shrine other than the fact that it defines the historical reality of a peaceful and secular Punjab. Baba Farid is revered by Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus of the subcontinent. He is the leading light of Chishti school of Sufism in Indo-Pak subcontinent. Other than his status as a mystic, Baba Farid is the pioneer of modern Punjabi language as it was innovated and refined in the 12th century. The Punjabis across the world consider him as a cultural and spiritual master.

We condemn this brutal attack, this sheer cowardice and barbarity. It is time to fight against this menace of sectarianism and scaring the people of Pakistan. We have lunatics – now dangerous criminals – who are hellbent to destroy our centuries’ old culture.

I am reproducing sections of an article from Manzur Ejaz which narrates the contribution of Baba Farid to the Punjabi language and how times were a commentary on the changing social contours of the Punjab. (more…)

My contribution for Jinnah Institute’s secular space

What are we fighting for? What are we aiming at? It is not theocracy, not for a theocratic state – Mohammad Ali Jinnah

Sixty-three years after the country was created, the term secular remains the most contested and misunderstood political concept in Pakistan. Mention the word secular and there is a litany of protests. The right wing thinks that secularism is an outright blasphemy of sorts, while the liberals hold that the genesis of Pakistan was through an anti-secular process. It is amazing that this happens in a country which was founded by a genuinely secular leader of the subcontinent. Until the 1930s, Jinnah was an undisputed ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity and even in 1946 he was willing to make political bargains within the context of a secular and decentralized India.

If anything, the Indian National Congress despite its rhetoric of secularism failed the ultimate test of being accommodative of the Muslim demands. Here ‘Muslim’ was not a religious identity but a broad banner for a community’s cultural, economic and political interests. It would be naïve to suggest that there was no religious motivation in Pakistan’s creation. In fact there were many who interpreted Pakistan as an Islamic country. However, Jinnah was categorical in his stance. There is enough evidence to suggest that he shunned the notion of a theocracy. Yet the contradiction of creating a country for Indian Muslims posed a challenge to the new state-project. For instance Jinnah is said to have told Raja Saheb of Mahmoodabad as to whose Shariah would Pakistan follow. Iskandar Mirza’s version is even starker when he quoted Jinnah: “Shariah? Whose shariah? No. I shall have a modern state.”
Whatever doubts on Jinnah’s intentions or political rhetoric employed by the Muslim League, Pakistan was meant to be a polity where state was separate from religion. Jinnah was unequivocal about the vision of the state when he spoke on the floor of Pakistan’s first constituent assembly on August 11, 1947: (more…)

Manmohan Singh whom I have always held in high regard, disappointed millions in South Asia with his distastefully ill-timed hard talk during his Independence day address. As if Pakistan’s current misery was a time to blow India’s trumpet. He surely was also unaware of what his patriotic Indian poet, Ali Sardar Jafri had written years ago -Dialogue Souldn’t Cease. Here is an Urdu version with a full translation. Perhaps, someone should pass a copy of this poem to the exalted Prime Minister of India.

GUFTGOO BAnD NA HO
BAAT SE BAAT CHALEY
SUBH TAK SHAAM-E-MULAAQAAT CHALEY
HUM PE HAnSTI HUEE
YE TAAROn BHARI RAAT CHALEY (more…)

By Subhojit Goswami

Kolkata, Aug 1: “A dialogue process is not about ‘who wins’ but about empathetic understanding”, came the strong words from Pritha Kejriwal, the Editor-in-Chief, Kindle Magazine, as she started on a solemn note with a critical evaluation of what has taken place with India and Pakistan and what hasn’t in the last 60 years. She was speaking at the Round Table organized by Kindle at the Kolkata Town Hall. The panel discussion riveted on the ongoing Indo-Pak talks and the future that we look up to.

Addressing the ongoing Indo-Pak dialogue as ‘deliberately redundant’, Pritha went on to add that there are forces existing in both India and Pakistan who have systematically instructed people to “confuse mutual hatred with patriotism.” (more…)

Raza Rumi

The elusive quest for peace between India and Pakistan remains hostage to the military-industrial complex at both the global and regional levels. Such is the dynamic unleashed by two imagined “nations” that their existence as states is dependent on a perpetual state of confrontation. More so for Pakistan, given its deeply embedded paranoia, which has assumed a reality of its own. Sixty-two years ago, it was hardly envisioned that the two states would erect an iron-curtain and fight forever. From actual wars to propaganda campaigns the task seems complete now. The oft-repeated phrase ‘trust deficit’ is a natural culmination of this ugly process. Of late, another dimension has been added, i.e. information-deficit as India had marched towards a new phase of its economic development, it has stopped taking interest in transitional Pakistani society and kept the time-warped framework of understanding Pakistan. However, the situation cannot remain static. Policymakers are slow to catch up on both the sides.

Mumbai factor: Twenty months ago, the Mumbai attacks changed the atmosphere created by President Zardari’s unprecedented offers of peace, dialogue and cooperation. The day Zardari made his remarks in a conclave organised by the Hindustan Times in 2008, many observers saw a Mumbai coming. The jihadis of Pakistan and perhaps their counterparts in India were quick to stop this process. Ironic that PPP, a party fed on the Pakistani nationalist rhetoric, thirty years down the road had read the writing on the wall. Pakistan’s future and survival is dependent on a reduction of hostilities with India. More importantly, this also holds the key to correcting the endemic civil-military imbalance. (more…)

My op-ed today for Express-Tribune

Once again, the fragile peace process between India and Pakistan has commenced. It is too early to say whether it will lead to an amicable settlement of seemingly intractable issues. What is clear is that the peoples of the two countries want peace, security and progress. The elites, which agreed on the messy Partition and raised nation-states and huge militaries, have surely flourished at the expense of people. A causal look at India’s poverty and Pakistan’s social indicators proves this point.

As a confidence building measure, a group of Pakistani journalists visited Delhi, Mumbai and Bangalore to meet their counterparts, think tanks and selected top-level officials. This was a timely and fruitful visit and reminded us that there is a formidable peace constituency in India. After the Indian home minister it is the turn of the Indian foreign minister to visit Islamabad from today for a three-day tour. Regardless of the outcome, sensible neighbours must continue to talk. (more…)