WALKING TO ISLAMABAD

The Boston Globe editorialized that the Pakistan state is tottering, a position that, for example, Juan Cole disputes. 

The Globe made the following observations:

THE POWER STRUGGLE between Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif took a welcome turn toward compromise and the rule of law Monday. Zardari bowed to popular protest and agreed to reinstate the high court chief justice, who had been dismissed in 2007 by then-President Pervez Musharraf. The action avoided a crisis of legitimacy in the nuclear-armed nation, at least for the time being.

In truth, Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Butto, had little choice but to back down as a great throng of protesters marched on the capital. Zardari had refused to reinstate the judge, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, no doubt because he feared that the independent chief justice would rule that Musharraf’s grant of amnesty to Zardari on corruption charges was invalid.

This broken promise is what Zardari’s rival, former prime minister Sharif, seized upon as the rallying cry of the mass protest that brought together Sharif’s followers from his base in the Punjab – Pakistan’s wealthiest and most populous province – with members of the legal profession, an Islamist political party, and unaffiliated supporters of an independent judiciary. Sharif’s immediate political motive was to force Zardari to rescind his imposition of federal rule over Punjab; Sharif’s brother, Shahbaz, had been the chief minister of the province, which their clanlike party rules like a family fiefdom. 

 
As far it goes, this is an accurate, politically savvy account of recent events in Pakistan, but it misses an important element of purposive, nonviolent, political action that evokes the tradition of Indian Independence. Manan Ahmed at Informed Comment Global reports on “The Long March in Pakistan”, and observes that it reflects the Gandhian legacy of nonviolence, filling in the missing dimension. Ganhdi was a “god-botherer” but he was also a political strategist. He described himself as a “practical idealist”, a person with a vision and how to get there. His religion was integral to his politics – my pejorative comment aside. His campaigns were strategic and mapped out in which means were intertwined with ends. So it is very encouraging and hopeful that the Gandhian tradition lives on in Pakistan as demonstrated by this march to restore the Supreme Court and the rule of law.

Manan Ahmed writes:

The Long March of March 12, 2009, leading up to a sit-in at the capital on March 16th, is the only way that the people of Pakistan can produce pressure on the civilian and military regime to pay attention to justice, to accountability and to democracy.

What shouldn’t escape anyone’s attention is that _THIS_ is what democratic, nonviolent, resistance looks like. This is fine. This is normal. This is what we should expect in a society where the government and the people are out of step. This is not a coup, nor the ’79 revolution.

It is fair to observe, much to Gandhi’s disappointment, that the program of nonviolence was not observed by either independent India or Pakistan. The nonviolent method can be used as strategy rather than as principle. In his diary entry of 3rd October 1947, Gandhi had some thoughts on this distinction:

Today I am getting news of satyagraha being started in many places. Often, I wonder whether the so-called satyargrah is not really duragraha. Whether it is strikes in mills or railways or post offices or movement in some of the states, it seems to me as if it is a question of seizing power.

. . . [people] do not stop to consider that means and ends are convertible terms.

Truth is always self-evident and it is everybody’s duty to abide by it at all costs. But those that resort to satyagraha should search their hearts and find out whether it is Truth they are seeking. If not then insistence becomes a mockery. I affirm that those who are seeking to get what is not in reality theirs cannot possibly abide by ahimsa [nonviolence], and Truth cannot be found without it.

The Boston Globe editorialized that the Pakistan state is tottering, a position that, for example, Juan Cole disputes.

The Globe made the following observations:

THE POWER STRUGGLE between Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif took a welcome turn toward compromise and the rule of law Monday. Zardari bowed to popular protest and agreed to reinstate the high court chief justice, who had been dismissed in 2007 by then-President Pervez Musharraf. The action avoided a crisis of legitimacy in the nuclear-armed nation, at least for the time being.

In truth, Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Butto, had little choice but to back down as a great throng of protesters marched on the capital. Zardari had refused to reinstate the judge, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, no doubt because he feared that the independent chief justice would rule that Musharraf’s grant of amnesty to Zardari on corruption charges was invalid.

This broken promise is what Zardari’s rival, former prime minister Sharif, seized upon as the rallying cry of the mass protest that brought together Sharif’s followers from his base in the Punjab – Pakistan’s wealthiest and most populous province – with members of the legal profession, an Islamist political party, and unaffiliated supporters of an independent judiciary. Sharif’s immediate political motive was to force Zardari to rescind his imposition of federal rule over Punjab; Sharif’s brother, Shahbaz, had been the chief minister of the province, which their clanlike party rules like a family fiefdom.

As far it goes, this is an accurate, politically savvy account of recent events in Pakistan, but it misses an important element of purposive, nonviolent, political action that evokes the tradition of Indian Independence. Manan Ahmed at Informed Comment Global reports on “The Long March in Pakistan”, and observes that it reflects the Gandhian legacy of nonviolence, filling in the missing dimension. Ganhdi was a “god-botherer” but he was also a political strategist. He described himself as a “practical idealist”, a person with a vision and how to get there. His religion was integral to his politics – my pejorative comment aside. His campaigns were strategic and mapped out in which means were intertwined with ends. So it is very encouraging and hopeful that the Gandhian tradition lives on in Pakistan as demonstrated by this march to restore the Supreme Court and the rule of law.

Manan Ahmed writes:

The Long March of March 12, 2009, leading up to a sit-in at the capital on March 16th, is the only way that the people of Pakistan can produce pressure on the civilian and military regime to pay attention to justice, to accountability and to democracy.

What shouldn’t escape anyone’s attention is that _THIS_ is what democratic, nonviolent, resistance looks like. This is fine. This is normal. This is what we should expect in a society where the government and the people are out of step. This is not a coup, nor the ’79 revolution.

It is fair to observe, much to Gandhi’s disappointment, that the program of nonviolence was not observed by either independent India or Pakistan. The nonviolent method can be used as strategy rather than as principle. In his diary entry of 3rd October 1947, Gandhi had some thoughts on this distinction:

Today I am getting news of satyagraha being started in many places. Often, I wonder whether the so-called satyargrah is not really duragraha. Whether it is strikes in mills or railways or post offices or movement in some of the states, it seems to me as if it is a question of seizing power.

. . . [people] do not stop to consider that means and ends are convertible terms.

Truth is always self-evident and it is everybody’s duty to abide by it at all costs. But those that resort to satyagraha should search their hearts and find out whether it is Truth they are seeking. If not then insistence becomes a mockery. I affirm that those who are seeking to get what is not in reality theirs cannot possibly abide by ahimsa [nonviolence], and Truth cannot be found without it.

The Gandhian path of political nonviolence does not allow for just lip service. Still, it seems to me that expedient nonviolence is better than expedient violence.

Of course, mention should be made of the Islamic tradition and practice of nonviolence, which only seems surprising in the backwash of the propaganda associated with the war of terror. Internal cohesion and identification can be created by an external threat. Furthermore, for example if England and Holland are engaged in a naval-trade struggle, at least in the short term that must increase the cost and uncertainty of business.

The intriguing question in these matters of comparative religions is: Why was the Christian West so violent? Current behavior might be seen as the perpetuation of a long established pattern.

ELSEWHERE:

Musafa Qadri at ABC’s Unleashed has historical background on Pakistan’s formation, and argues that the nation still has intrinsic merit, and is worth supporting.

Advertisements