| |
Pakistan
Resolution Day
From
United India to Pakistan Resolution
Professor Sharif al Mujahid |
The Pakistan
Resolution of March 1940 and its subsequent adoption by the
Muslim League was an answer to the Congress's consistent
attempts to deny the Muslim community a religio-political
entity of their own. There had been a tussle for power
between the Congress and League since 1937, and the crux of
the issue had been whether India was a uni-cultural,
bi-cultural, or multi-cultural state.
The
controversy began when, on September 18, 1936, Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru said: "The real contest is between two
forces - the Congress which represents the will to freedom
of the nation, and the British Government in India and its
supporters who oppose this urge and try to suppress it.
Intermediate groups, whatever virtue they may possess, fade
out or line up with one of the principal forces . . . . The
issue for India is that of independence. He, who is for it,
must be with the Congress and if he talks in terms of
communalism he is not keen on independence."
Nehru
later referred to his "two-force" formula in
January 10, 1937 too. This stance indicated a paradigmatic
shift in the Congress's erstwhile policy. Since 1910, the
Congress had always treated Jinnah as representing an
influential and progressive, if not always a major, segment
of Muslims. In tandem, since 1915, the Congress had always
considered the Muslim League as the most authoritative
Muslim body, but for over two decades now, whenever Congress
negotiated the Hindu-Muslim problems, it was always with
Jinnah and the Muslim League.
This
unexpected change had been brought about by Nehru's desire
and determination to swamp all other political parties prior
to the impending provincial elections under the 1935 Act.
In a
sense, Nehru's strategy did pay off immensely. The Congress
scored a sweeping majority of the seats, and established its
government. But Nehru's calculations went awry, and of all
the Muslim seats available, the Congress won only 26. Out of
these seats, 19 of them were in NWFP alone, where Abdul
Ghaffar Khan had given the Congress a decisive hold.
In
contrast, the League had won 112 out of 492 Muslim seats,
approximately 23%, the rest going to the Unionist Party
(Punjab), the Krishak Proja Party (Bengal), and some minor
Muslim, regional parties. Though by no means impressive, the
League's score was still the highest. More importantly, it
had won seats in seven out of eleven provinces. Therefore,
it alone could claim to speak on behalf of the Muslims of
India.
With the
Nehru Report (1928-29) and the Communal Award of 1932,
attempts were made to reach some sort of understanding with
regional or minor parties on a provincial basis, which met
with some success. But grabbing at this chance of the
provincial option's working out, the Congress started
demurring at having to deal with the Muslim League and its
leader, Jinnah.
Thus,
Nehru's "two-force" dictum could by no means be
considered a stray declaration, out of sync with mainstream
Congress thinking.
Interestingly
though, Jinnah's response to Nehru's onslaught was
surprisingly conciliatory. Of course, he disputed the
Congress's claim, in his speech at Calcutta's Mohammad Ali
Park election meeting on January 4, 1937, saying: "I
refuse to line up with the Congress. I refuse to accept this
proposition. There is a third party in this country and that
is Muslim India .
. . . We are not going to be camp followers of any
party."
But at the
same time, he held out the olive branch, saying "We are
willing as equal partners to come to a settlement with our
sister communities in the interest of India." For the
next six months, when the Congress, assuming power in the
provinces, seriously began to implement its 'uni-national
and uni-cultured India' dictum, Jinnah reaffirmed his
conciliatory stance repeatedly. Thus, in his May 21, 1937,
speech at Bombay he reiterated that his idea was still to
"form a progressive, independent, nationalist group to
work with the Congress for the good of the country",
and insisted that the Muslims "are prepared to fight
for the country's freedom as equals with other parties, but
never as camp followers, nor shall we submit to anybody's
dictation."
The deep
divergence that characterised Hindus and Muslims, the
Congress and the League's style of reasoning in 1937,
centred round the issues of whether Indians were uni-national
or bi-national, and whether or not the country was uni-cultured
or bi-cultured.
In denying
the intermediate groups the right to existence and in
denying "all 'third parties', middle and undecided
groups" any "real importance" in the
historical sense, Nehru was not only denying the Muslim
League the right to exist or its due importance, but he was
also denying them the right to organise themselves
politically on a platform of their own, other than that of
the Congress, besides ignoring their identity in India's
body politics as a religio-political entity.
As opposed
to this idea, Jinnah felt that India was multi-national and
multi-cultural country, that the Muslims had the right to
maintain their separate identity since they represented the
"third party" in India's body-politics, that it
should refuse to be "camp followers of any party",
and that, above all, Muslims should organise themselves
politically, to make the third party claim a fait accompli.
As a corollary to this claim, the Quaid demanded equality of
status for the Muslims and he offered to coalesce with
Congress in the struggle for freedom provided the Muslims
were "assured of their political freedom."
Two
speeches in particular, besides the January 4, Calcutta
address, indicate the trend of Jinnah's thinking. Addressing
the AIML Council six weeks earlier, he had explained that it
was impossible for the Muslims to merge with the Hindus
because "their language, culture and civilisation are
quite different". National self-government, he said,
was his creed; but Muslims "must unite as a nation and
then live or die as a nation".
In
attempting to explain the increasing alienation of Muslims
from the Congress since its ascension to power in the Hindu
majority provinces in 1937, historians have generally
dilated upon, and attributed it to, various Congress
policies, and listed various items in its programme which
forced the Muslims up the wall - and along the path of
confrontation. For, these policies and programmes assumed
their real significance only in the "uni-national and
uni-cultured India" framework and it was only in the
context of this framework that the Congress policies and the
various items in its programme could fall into place.
This
framework alone explains why the Congress opted for
unitarianism as opposed to a Muslim federalism in the
formation of ministries, why it offered
"absorption" instead of "partnership"
to the Muslim League, why it called for the
disbandment of Muslim League parties in the legislatures,
and why it insisted upon Muslim members of the legislatures,
signing the Congress pledge before being sworn in as
ministers. This framework also explains why the Congress
sought to impose the tri-colour flag, the Bande Mataram,
Hindi and the Wardha Scheme educational system as items of
national importance. This act also shed light on why the
Congress tried to isolate the third major political party in
India, the Muslim League, and Jinnah, its leader, by sucking
in minor, but influential, parties such as the
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Hind, the Ahrars and the Khudai
Khidmatgars into its fold and mounted a mass contact
campaign amongst the Muslims in collaboration with its
"client" parties.
Once the
Congress President denied the existence of a Hindu-Muslim
problem, and the need for safeguards for Muslim religion,
culture and language, the Congress was bound to initiate and
implement policies and programmes that were suicidal to the
concept of Muslims being a separate political entity.
Some
participants in the UP ministry formation talks, such as
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad (1889-1958) and Chaudhry
Khaliq-uz-zaman, attribute the beginning of the
Congress-League confrontation in 1937 to the breakdown of
their negotiations at Lucknow. Azad also attributed the
breakdown on the number of places to be given to the League
nominees. In actual fact, however, the talks broke down not
on the number of League nominees to be accommodated in the
ministry but on Azad's refusal to include a clause in the
agreement that "communal matters such as questions
relating to the Communal Award, language, culture, religious
observances, etc. will be outside the scope of the
agreement".
Till 1937,
the Muslims believed in a composite Indian nationhood and a
composite nationalism, which would allow them to retain
their identity. It was their cardinal belief in a Muslim
identity that had led them to insist upon federalism and
autonomy of the provinces in the Delhi Muslim Proposals
(1927), the All Parties Muslim Conference Resolution of
January 1, 1929, the Fourteen Points (1929), and in the
demands put forth at the Round Table Conferences (1930-32).
The
abandonment of the separate electorates' principle in Delhi
Muslim Proposals caused a split in the League, and the
Muslim consensus on its retention in Jinnah's Fourteen
Points underscored their deep and sincere concern of keeping
their political entity intact. For the first time in 1937,
they realised, as a result of their bitter experiences under
the Congress Raj, that even a composite nationhood in the
Congress dictionary meant, very simply, majority rule.
History is
a witness that majorities are apt to oppress minorities
under them. Yet, even worse, in India majority meant Hindu
rule, and the Hindu record of tolerance of other religious
groups was not very optimistic either.
It is true
that the Muslims of the Congress provinces, especially the
UP Muslims, were the first to apprehend "the dangers of
Hindu ascendancy under a Congress Raj" and react. But
the "absorption" edict, which had serious
implications on an all-India level and on a long-term basis,
alarmed the Muslims living in majority provinces. For,
"if the UP sample was to be the pattern of Congress's
political conduct, what would be the position of Muslims
when a federal government for all India was formed? There
would be no room on the throne of India save for Congress'
stooges", remarked Penderal Moon.
An echo of
what Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-98) had predicted some fifty
years earlier when he had posed the critical query: "Is
it possible that under the circumstances two nations, the
Mohammedans and the Hindus, could sit on the same throne and
remain in equal power was again felt across India." It
was obvious to all that one would conquer the other and
thrust it down. To hope that both could remain equal was to
desire the impossible, and the inconceivable."
To
Muslims, then, the Congress rule in the provinces, during
1937-39 portended precisely the sort of dispensation they
had been trying to save themselves against since Syed Ahmed
Khan's days. This eventually led to the adoption of the
Pakistan Resolution which formally and unreservedly declared
India as bi-national and bi-cultured.
In this
instance, Jinnah argued the case for Muslim nationhood,
which constituted the basis of the Pakistan demand, cogently
and eloquently when he asserted, "We are a nation with
our own distinctive culture and civilisation, names and
nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and
moral code, customs and calendar, history and traditions,
aptitude and ambitions; in short, we have our own
distinctive outlook on life and of life. By all canons of
international law we are a nation."
.
Back
to TOP
|
The
reward of strong leadership
By Mahmudul Aziz |
March 16, 2009-a landmark in Pakistan's history-will always
be remembered as a great day for the revival of the rule
of law, rejection of legacy of a military dictator, reaffirmation
of people's power and demonstration of national consensus
that dispensation of justice is the main pillar of democracy.
The call for Long March and dharna (sit-in) till the restitution
of pre-3rd November judiciary proved to be a great leap
forward as the government of the day and establishment were
left with no choice but to yield before the will of the
people. The emergence of a new Pakistan on March 16, 2009
was, symbolically, the renewal of the spirit of Lahore Resolution
of March 23, 1940-establishment of a State for the welfare
of people with assurance of justice to all. If March 23,
1940 paved way for independence and separate homeland for
the Muslims of sub-continent after long-drawn struggle against
colonial rule, March 16, 2009 brought victory for justice-for
the first time the establishment suffered a humiliating
defeat at the hands of masses. Interestingly, both the events
originated from Lahore.
In its 62 years of existence, the State of Pakistan faced
a daunting challenge of establishing a true democratic polity
based on constitutional supremacy, rule of law and equity.
The long military rules-backed by foreign masters-and in
between the experiments of 'controlled democracy' denied
the people of Pakistan their sovereign right of self-governance,
for which a long struggle was waged to secure independence
from the British raj. We did get a 'homeland' on August
14, 1947, but failed to make it 'free land' where the will
of the people rules and their rights are respected and protected.
The challenge to restore people's rule was, nonetheless,
taken up by anti-establishment forces since 1947 but vested
interest with the help of foreign masters foiled all their
efforts-in the process we lost a part of homeland and many
leaders, political workers and social activists. The dictatorial
rules muzzled all the state organs-especially judiciary,
that became an approving arm for many unconstitutional rules.
However, the defiance that started on March 9, 2007, was
a starting point and March 16, 2009, proved to be a culmination
of the journey-from denial to freedom, hope for an era of
independent judiciary and rule of law.
The people will now have to guard their great achievement.
The events of March 15, 2009 to March 18, 2009 from the
resisting and defying the naked use of power by the government
to ultimate victory of masses and issuance of notification
of restitution of Chief Justice of Pakistan and others,
testify the valiant struggle waged by all segments of society,
most notably by lawyers, media, social and political activists.
These forces in future will have to act as a watchdog to
ensure that judiciary plays its role within the constitutionally-defined
limits and people get their rights. Judiciary should be
free from all external pressures including the so-called
street power to perform its duties strictly in accordance
with law.
Our history is marred by anti-people and autocratic rules-both
military and civilian alike - which were most of the time
welcomed by the political elite. Besides various socio-politico-economic
factors behind the failure to establish a sustainable democracy
and responsible rule, the role of judiciary was subjected
to severe criticism for validating coups d'etat. Like all
others institutions and organs, judiciary in the post-independence
period suffered due to weak democratic traditions, fight
between economic vested interests, rivalry of influential
politicians and a bitter power struggle between the landowner
cliques and civil-military bureaucracy. If the press and
nation rise and fall together, the same is true for judiciary.
No institution or organ of the State exists or works in
isolation from socio-economic and political conditions.
It is thus not something unusual that during the last 62
years, judiciary also got divided on political lines when
deciding important cases, especially when legitimacy of
supra-constitutional takeovers disrupting the democratic
process was called in question.
November 3, 2007 was a unique day when a dictator imposed
judiciary-specific martial law - this time the victims were
not politicians but the judges. In this backdrop, the issue
of restitution of judges assumed great importance as it
was to determine whether as a nation we would progress or
retard. After much resistance by the Co-chairman of the
ruling party and renunciations of written agreements, it
was finally conceded by him that illegally removed judges,
in fact, never ceased as judges. In reality, the question
was not that of mere reinstatement of a few judges but restoring
of status quo ante existing on November 2, 2007-undoing
unlawful acts of Pervez Musharraf.
In post-March 16, 2009, scenario, the onus is on the Parliament
to undo all the actions taken by Musharraf on November 3,
2007, as well as to remove all the distortions made in the
Constitution of Pakistan since 1973. If fact, the time is
now ripe to enter into a new social contract amongst all
the federating units of Pakistan by thoroughly revisiting
all the provisions of the Constitution and making them acceptable
to everyone in the changed circumstances. Political consensus
through deliberations and debates inside and outside the
Parliament is the need of the hour. It is the only way to
address the challenging issues of terrorism, regional insurgencies,
poverty and growing economic inequalities.
Needless to say that the higher judiciary should also play
its vital role of curtailment of arbitrary exercise of powers
by any organ of the State, including itself. It must protect
the fundamental rights of citizens under all circumstances
as was done in a number of cases e.g Sabir Shah vs Federation
of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 738), Mohammad Nawaz Sharif sv
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1993 SC 473), Federat ion of
Pakistan vs Aftab Ahmad Sherpao (PLD 1992 SC 723), Ahmad
Tariq Rahim vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1992 SC 646),
Hakim Khan vs Government of Pakistan (PLD 1992 SC 595),
Federation of Pakistan vs Mohammad Saifullah Khan (PLD 1989
SC 166) and Benazir Bhutto vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD
1988 SC 416).
The critics of higher judiciary of Pakistan should also
realise that it is the people's will and power that alone
forces the barrel of gun to renounce unlawful rule. Nowhere
in the world has this task ever been performed by the judiciary.
It is basically a political question and not a legal issue.
Even if judiciary declares a coup detat illegal (as was
done by seven-member bench of apex court on November 3,
2007, how can it force the usurper to abdicate power? Judiciary
has no power (physical) to get its order implemented by
force. The responsibility for failure of political leadership
in Pakistan to counter intervention of civil-military bureaucracy
cannot be shifted to the judiciary. Only reliance on people's
power can avert unconstitutional rule-the politicians must
have learnt this lesson on March 16, 2009.
The effectiveness of people's power has been proved-historic
struggle waged by the legal fraternity, supported by political
parties and members of civil society has won victory for
all. It was all due to masses of Pakistan that the periods
from March 9, 2007 to July 20, 2007, from November 3, 2007
to March 16, 2009 have become landmarks in our legal and
political history. The second restoration of the Chief Justice
of Pakistan on March 22, 2009 which is not triumph for an
individual but a victory for justice is a first step towards
revival of true democratic rule and independence of judiciary
in Pakistan.
In the wake of this historic day, it is now the duty of
all political parties, intelligentsia, media and representatives
of civic society to act actively and responsibly to work
towards revival of true democracy and constitutional rule
in the country. Instead of entering into polemics and rhetoric,
they should strive to evolve a national consensus on a one-point
agenda i.e. supremacy of constitution and independence of
judiciary.
It is time that through national consensus and reconciliation
we establish a democratic rule, which is not possible without
a free and independent judiciary. Political turmoil, social
unrest and violence are the direct result of undemocratic
rule and lack of dispensation of justice.
Back
to TOP
|
23
March 1940: A forgotten spirit?
By Dr Naeem Ahmed
|
Miracles happen and March 23,
1940, was one such day when the efforts of the Muslim
leaders and thinkers materialised in the form of a miracle
known as the Pakistan Resolution.
This
historically significant resolution also became the basis of
the Two-Nation Theory. In the words of Quaid-i-Azam,
"Hindus and the Muslims belong to two different
religions, philosophies, social customs and literature. They
neither inter-marry nor inter-dine and, indeed, they belong
to two different civilisations that are based mainly on
conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their concepts on life
and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and
Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of
history. To yoke together two such nations under a single
state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a
majority, must lead to growing discontent and final
destruction of any fabric that may be so built up for the
government of such a state".
Straight
forward in nature the Resolution clearly stated the basic
demand of the Muslims of the sub-continent, "No
constitutional plan would be workable or acceptable to the
Muslims unless geographically contiguous units are
demarcated into regions which should be so constituted with
such territorial readjustments as may be necessary. That the
areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in
the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be
grouped to constitute independent states in which the
constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign".
It was on the basis of this Resolution that the AIML
accelerated its struggle for Pakistan as it had now got a
clear roadmap and plan of action to follow. Thus, it was
only within approximately seven years of the passing of the
Resolution that the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent
successfully but after enduring many hardships achieved
their destiny -Pakistan.
By this
time, the Quaid-i-Azam had truly emerged as the leader of
the Muslims in their movement for freedom. His mission was
to establish internal unity and to constitute a Muslim
nation, based on the ideals of liberal and social democracy.
Having acquired education in the West and representing
Secular Muslim Nationalism, Jinnah did not want a theocratic
state and this is obvious from the August 11, 1947, speech
that he gave at the Constituent Assembly, clearly stating,
"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you
are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of
worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any
religion or caste or creed-that has nothing to do with the
business of the state...We are starting in the days when
there is no discrimination, no distinction between one
community and another, no discrimination between one caste
or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental
principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one
state."
With their
path set and their strategy fixed the Muslim leaders
ultimately led the Muslims of the sub-continent to victory.
The situation however changed once again after the creation
of Pakistan as problems started arising immediately after
the death of the Quaid, much of it over the role of Islam in
Pakistan's politics. This battle had arisen between the
liberal-secular elements. In the midst of this a very
difficult situation arose for the government as on one hand,
it had no intention of implementing Shariah, while on the
other hand, it could not explicitly take this position.
Thus, under extreme pressure, a compromise was reached in
the form of a passage stated in the 'Objectives Resolution'
in March 1949, which institutionalised the role of Islam in
the Pakistani politics.
Though it
is a fact that the struggle for the creation of a separate
homeland for the Muslims of the Indian sub-continent was
motivated by religion, but on the other hand, most of the
Ulema parties nitially opposed the creation of Pakistan. In
reality, they were worried about the fate of Islam in the
newly-born country. Once Pakistan was created, these Ulema
became the great champions of Islam and found for themselves
a great opportunity to play an effective political role to
Islamise the state and society of Pakistan.
The
ideology became a divisive force. The religio-political
parties in the wake of asserting their position in the
Pakistani politics also started promoting their own version
of Islam according to their sectarian beliefs and thus,
divided the nation on sectarian lines.
Meanwhile,
the Afghan war also strengthened the sectarian forces in
Pakistan when the madaressahs associated with the Deobandi
school of thought started playing a frontline role in
recruiting and sending the jihadis to Afghanistan for war
against the Soviet forces. On another front, Pakistan, under
Zia-ul-Haq, established strong bilateral relations with the
Arab countries, particularly Saudi Arabia, which provided
financial assistance not only for the Afghan War but also
encouraged establishing mosques and madaressahs in Pakistan
in order to promote the Wahabi faith. As a direct
consequence, in this process, close links also developed
between the government of Saudi Arabia and
religious-political parties, as the former provided direct
funds to the latter for their madaressahs.
Soon a
triangle evolved among the military regime of Zia, the Saudi
government and the religious-political parties of Pakistan,
the theater for their activities being both Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
In the
backdrop of these activities the government of Pakistan
remained as unstable as ever. However, the 9/11 terrorist
attack in America gave the then President Pervez Musharraf
an opportunity to tackle the issues of religious extremism
and sectarianism in the Pakistani society. Unfortunately, he
was unable do anything amidst the power of the sectarian
groups and their links with the religious-political parties.
He had given an early indication of this thinking on the
subject in his very first major policy speech on October 17,
1999, in which he had asserted that "Islam teaches
tolerance not hatred" and had categorically asked the
clergy to "curb elements which are exploiting religion
for vested interests and bring bad name to our faith."
Despite many efforts he failed to effectively materialise
his policies and thus his commitment to achieve these goals
remained questionable.
Similarly,
the present government of the Pakistan Peoples Party has
also been unsuccessful in controlling the menace of
sectarian violence. Presently, our society is more prone to
radicalism and extremism and this increase in the rigidity
for religion is because of the growing influence of the
Islamists in the Pakistani society. Another reason is the
failure of the State to provide basic necessities of life to
the masses, which has provided an opportunity to these
Islamists to present themselves as a better alternate.
It is an
irony that a country which was created in the name of
ideology failed to achieve the destiny laid down by its
founders, who with vigorous struggle and spirit secured the
country for their future generation. In such a scenario, a
progressive and liberal interpretation of religion, which
was the main uniting force behind the creation of Pakistan,
would help make the country strong and lead to its
development.
Back
to TOP
|
Ensuring
justice for all
By Huzaima Bukhari & Dr Ikramul Haq |
The true
spirit of the Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940 was the
establishment of an egalitarian state for the welfare of the
Muslims of India together with the assurance of justice for
all. After nearly 63 years of independence, people are still
struggling for the same. The existing judicial system, the
worst reminder of colonial legacy, is still persisting.
Slogans like 'independence of judiciary' and 'justice for all
at their door steps' have proved to be mere clichés even
after the restoration of the pre-November 3, 2007 judiciary.
The much-publicised
National Judicial Policy 2009 was merely an attempt to cure
the symptoms and yet till today, no efforts have been made to
make effective structural changes to improve the country's
judicial system. It is an irrefutable reality that justice is
not available to the poor, they cannot afford to pay lawyers
and therefore wait for years to get orders. The prevalent
judicial system seemingly protects only the rich and mighty.
The main
crisis of Pakistan is the perpetuation of anti-people power
structures in all areas whether it is the executive, judiciary
or legislation. The 'reformers' of the system are not
supportive of any radical change, as it will deprive them of
all their privileges, benefits and perquisites. As
stakeholders in the exploitative system, they would never
willingly participate in restructuring the judicial system of
the country and establishment of people's courts for the
benefit of the common man. Thus the existing system is
inherently exploitative and anti-people-the ruling elite
thrive on the common man's money and use the force of police,
taxation and judiciary to keep the masses under 'control'. For
people's democracy, the sine qua non is accountability of all
and this accountability must commence from the judges who
adjudge others. These judges must be men of integrity and
honour, God-fearing and free from all prejudices. Through
their decisions, judges should make it amply clear that
justice for all is freely available in the country.
Accountability
of all organs of the State should be the starting point of
reforms in Pakistan. In
a State where the politicians, high-ranking civil and military
officials and judges do not even declare their assets and tax
publicly there cannot be hope for true democracy, rule of law
and responsible governance. The civil society and media should
come forward to force the parliament to abdicate all laws of
secrecy and enact a comprehensive legislation for the right to
information. In this regard, the judges should be amongst the
first to be asked to place their declarations at relevant
websites.
For instance
in India, the government, after great public pressure and many
campaigns, introduced a bill in the parliament providing for
asset disclosure of judges, but with a protection clause that
the same would not be accessible to the people and that judges
would not be made liable for any action on the basis of their
disclosure. This led to quite a commotion in parliament, and
the MPs rising above party lines vehemently and collectively
condemned this clause, forcing the government to pull out the
bill. As a result of debate in parliament and public campaign,
a number of High Court judges made their assets public,
dissociating themselves from the stand of the Chief Justice of
India that "asset disclosure would lead to harassment of
judges at the hands of disgruntled litigants".
In what
followed, eminent former judges and leading jurists joined the
civil society, openly and publicly demanding public
declaration of assets by the present judges. The entire civil
society and media, unanimously and vocally, opposed the stand
of the Chief Justice of India. Succumbing to opposition-both
from inside and outside-the Chief Justice ultimately announced
that the asset declarations of the judges would be placed at
their official website. Soon thereafter, twenty-one judges of
the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice of India KG
Balakrishnan, declared their assets, giving details of movable
and immovable property owned by them and their spouses.
In Pakistan
also we have laws regarding the declaration of assets and
liabilities by government servants and politicians, but the
public knows nothing about them. In these declarations the
present value of the property and how they were acquired are
seldom revealed. To achieve a transparent system of governance
in our country, these must be made public along with their tax
declarations. In India there was vehement criticism over the
asset disclosures of the judges and their spouses. It was
demanded that information about the assets of other close
relatives including that of children, was also important in
the Indian context.
However, the
declarations, made under the Supreme Court resolution of May,
1997, were only in partial conformity with the requirements
laid down. On the contrary the original declaration underlined
the need for a law that made disclosure mandatory and open to
public, at the same time laying down in detail, what assets
were to be declared, how the disclosure was to be made and who
should come under its purview. It was clearly emphasised that
the consequences of wrong declarations should also be
specified.
Over the
years, the campaign for judicial accountability and reform in
India has assumed great public importance. The issue is no
longer only confined to public disclosure of assets of judges.
The public and media have made it clear that the
right-to-information legislation, being a significant
legislation of recent times, should be implemented in its true
spirit since that alone can pave way for true democracy. A
similar law and campaign in Pakistan is also needed, if all
the four pillars of state-legislation, judiciary, executive
and media-are to be accountable to the public at large.
The right to
information, access to public records and free availability of
details of what is owned by privileged classes must be assured
as this alone can help fight corruption in all domains.
We are in
dire need for a comprehensive programme for judicial
accountability and reforms, including setting up an
independent and credible institution for the appointment of
judges, entertaining complaints against them, and criminal
investigation of judges if they indulge in corruption,
amendment of the Contempt of Courts Law by eliminating "scandalising,
and lowering the authority of the Court" from the
definition of "contempt" and the implementation of
right-to-information law to all organs of State, including the
judiciary. These steps could effectively stonewall information
about the administrative functioning of the judiciary.
Back
to TOP
|
Jinnah:
the leader of modern times
By Haya Fatima Iqbal
|
The period
between March 23, 1940 and August 14, 1947 can play an
integral part in helping Pakistanis realise the importance of
certain ideas in life; whether it's the life of an individual
or of an entire nation. To understand all of this, just
reading about the steps that the Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali
Jinnah took during these seven vital years can be sufficient
enough.
The Pakistan
Resolution passed on this very day in the year 1940 bears
testimony to the fact that the Quaid had a vision and he was
fearless not only to declare it but also to work upon
realising it despite numerous hurdles that came in his way.
When Jinnah delivered his speech at Minto Park, Lahore and
emphasised that by any definition of international law,
Muslims of the United India were a separate entity; millions
in India identified with his message. Only true leaders can
expect to receive this kind of response from the masses.
In 1942,
when the British initiated the Cripps Mission, Jinnah and his
Muslim League associates were vigilant so as not to fall for
the loopholes in that proposal. Through the Cripps Mission,
the British had proposed that they would grant full dominion
status to the Indian Union, right after the then ongoing
Second World War ended. More importantly, it was also said
that some provinces would be given the choice to opt out of
this perceived Union. While the Congress rejected the proposal
for giving this choice of withdrawal to some provinces, the
Muslim League also resisted it. The reason for doing so was
that Jinnah's men outrightly stated that the proposal was only
suited to provinces and the choices they could exercise
whereas the majority of Muslims in India were pursuing nothing
less than a separate state.
A leader is
one who has immensely powerful foresight. While Gandhi is
known the world over for waging a civil disobedience movement
against the British and starting the Quit India Movement in
1942, Jinnah was careful in taking sides at that time. Hence,
the Muslim League preferred to neither support nor oppose the
British and did not press for the British quitting India so
quickly and haphazardly that the demand of the Muslims -- for
a separate homeland -- remained unmet and neglected.
When the
Gandhi-Jinnah talks took place in 1944, Gandhi put forward the
idea that at that point in time, Congress and Muslim League
should work together to make the British leave India first and
later work upon the technicalities of a separate state for
Muslims. However, he also stated that even when the British
would leave, areas such as defence and foreign policy should
remain with the central authority. Jinnah eyed this dual
policy on the part of Congress and reiterated that Muslims
demanded a separate country at all costs, and they were not
ready to be the part of an Indian federation in future. The
Quaid also told Gandhi explicitly that by initially stating
that the creation of Pakistan could be worked upon and then
talking of a central authority, Congress had itself clearly
exhibited the low strength of its promise towards Muslims and
Pakistan. In the
1945-46 elections in India, it took a man of unfazed
dedication and strength such as Muhammad Ali Jinnah to obtain
the overwhelmingly positive results for Muslim League.
Election results showed that Congress had been able to obtain
91 per cent of the general votes whilst the Muslim League had
won 87 per cent of the Muslims vote, grabbing every single
Muslim seat in the Central Legislature. It must be noted here
that people often tend to label Gandhi as the peoples' leaders
while Jinnah is usually referred to as the legal-minded
individual. However, this massive victory of the Muslim League
shows just how popular he and his party were.
In 1946, it
was the Cabinet Mission plan which tested Quaid-i-Azam's
persistence again. The Cabinet Mission put two options in
front of him: Either accept Sindh, West Punjab, North West
Frontier Province, Balochistan and East Bengal as a separate
state or agree to a loose federation constituting the whole of
Punjab and Bengal provinces with portfolios such as defence,
communications, and foreign policy lying with the centre.
Jinnah had the courage to reject both these options. According
to him, Pakistan would be mutilated from its very beginning if
major provinces such as Punjab and Bengal were not included in
their whole forms with Pakistan. The latter option of a loose
federation was again totally unacceptable for Indian Muslims.
It must have required a great deal of perseverance and a dash
of risk-taking from Jinnah to keep refusing all these offers
in order to acquire a Pakistan which was the exact replica of
how he had imagined it to be for his people.
August 1946
arrived, with little hopes of anything concrete and positive
happening for Muslims in the coming days. With every passing
day, the feeling that the British might leave India without
tackling Muslims' issues increased and thus created
uncertainty among India's Muslim population. This was when
Jinnah decided to use people's power as the last and final
resort. Muslim League gave a call for Direct Action Day on
August 16, 1946 with the fact that they would attain
independence exactly a year from then unbeknownst to them. The
Direct Action Day was observed to get Muslim force registered
in the minds of Hindus and British alike. Demonstrations took
place across India, with riots taking place in Calcutta,
leaving thousands of people dead; of them more Muslims than
Hindus.
This action
immediately spelt trouble for the Muslims. The British
government, just ten days after these protests, announced that
an interim government was to be made within a month's time and
it would not have any representative from Muslim League in it.
By May 1947,
considerable progress had been made and Jinnah's Pakistan was
slowly inching closer towards Muslims. The last Viceroy of
India, Lord Mountbatten announced that India would be
partitioned by June 3, 1948 and by default, the constitution
of both separate states India and Pakistan would be the 1935
Government of India Act. It was announced that a Boundary
Commission would be established for demarcating boundaries
officially and princely states would have the liberty to join
India, Pakistan or even stay independent.
Controversies
abound to this day. The first one is that just a couple of
days after the announcement of the June 3 Plan, it was
suddenly announced that the British would leave India much
earlier; as early as August 15, 1948. The demarcation of
boundaries did not take place as had been formally planned,
leaving Pakistan in a quite weak position strategically. The
division of financial and military assets was not up to the
mark as well.
Still,
Jinnah took all of this in his stride and did not complain,
for that would have lowered the morale of his followers.
Instead, he insisted that Pakistanis must remain positive and
look ahead. Despite all these injustices, there was never a
streak of negativity in any of his speeches. In his words, it
is evident that he wanted to give Indian Muslims a country of
their own and at the same time never sound prejudiced against
people of other religions. His demand appears clear: Give
Muslims their due rights and let others coexist peacefully,
whether in Pakistan or on the other side of the border.
It takes
centuries to produce people who are so apt at exploiting time
to its utmost potential. Jinnah was given just seven years to
actualise the words he had spoken at Minto Park, Lahore and he
showed us all that it was both possible and achievable.
Back
to TOP
|
The
lost spirit of 23rd March among youth
By Fazal Ali Butt
|
Nearly a
decade ago, national days like Quaid-i-Azam's birth
anniversary, Allama Iqbal's birth anniversary, Pakistan
Resolution Day and Independence Day formed some of the most
important days in an average Pakistani's calendar. Not only
did individuals celebrate these days with national fervour,
but the festivities were an essential part of the normal
proceedings in schools, colleges, and universities.
Special
importance was given to August 14 and March 23. Quizzes,
debate competitions, lectures, seminars, discussions, singing
competitions and sing-alongs featuring national songs were
held at the educational institutes to commemorate these two
important national days. Heads of various institutions,
high-ranking government officials, even people who had lived
through the times of the Pakistan Movement, were invited as
chief guests at these events, and students would be wild to
hear their stories, and their words of wisdom. In this way
students were able to learn, and relate to the history of
their homeland, and were taught valuable lessons even while
they were enjoying an event held to celebrate a national
holiday.
Students
took these unconventional lessons so much to heart that they
remembered them the rest of their lives. Approximately 10 to
20 years back it was not unusual to meet students, about to
graduate, discussing the latest book on the history of
Pakistan, like Syed Hassan Riaz's book 'Pakistan Naguzeer tha',
and discussing it with such dedication, that these students
would even seem to feel the conditions which forced an ardent
devotee of Hindu Muslim unity, like the Quaid-i-Azam, to part
ways and struggle for a separate Muslim state. Unlike children
of today, nobody had to rote-learn "important" dates
and events, like when the Khilafat movement took place, when
the Pakistan Muslim League was formed, or what Iqbal said in
his famous Allahabad address, before sitting for a Pakistan
Studies exam. These events had been so frequently talked over
and discussed that people automatically knew them on their
fingertips. Without having ever seen them, people knew about
Raja sahib Mehmoodabad, Sir Abdullah Haroon, Nawab
Waqar-ul-Mulk and Nawab Mohsan-ul-Mulik, A. K. Fazalul Haq,
Chaudhry Khaliquzaman and the others.
On the
contrary, children today will very easily tell you who won the
latest round of the 'Nach Baliye' dance competition, the
leading singer of 'Jo Jeeta Wohi Superstar', 'Chhote Ustad'
and any number of other such programmes, but are rendered
speechless when questioned about who presented the Pakistan
Resolution, who Nawab Waqar-ul-Mulk was, or when Allama Iqbal
died. The children of today know when, how and why Valentine's
Day is celebrated, they can talk to you in detail about
Halloween celebrations, the traditions regarding the
celebration of Holi, Basant and any number of other festivals,
but when asked about their own culture and traditions, they
are silent.
Since
festivals and national-day(s) celebrations reveal the history,
culture, beliefs and values of any nations, it may be surmised
here that one of the main reasons why our children know
nothing about their own country or the sacrifices that went
into creating it, is because they never celebrate their
national holidays.
Judging by
the way we enjoy celebrating alien traditions, it becomes
obligatory on us to think on why our youth have become so
indifferent to everything, whether from the past or the
present that had once been a source of national pride. Why are
they so eager to celebrate every new festival made available
to them whether it's Basant or Valentine, Holi or Halloween?
Sociologists,
politicians, religious leaders, and influential people of
Pakistan need to make a conscious effort to gauge the level of
vitality and decay that we, as a nation, have reached. These
past few years have shown two very contrasting tendencies
apparent in our society, now more than ever before. The first
is a kind of aloofness from and abhorrence for our cultural,
social, and religious ideals and festivals and a detachment
from and decrease in the celebrations of national days. The
second is a colossal boost in the trend of commemorating
special days, or festivals of other nations, some of which are
not only obviously pagan, but are culturally and religiously
opposing and challenging the ideology of our nation. Nowhere
are these trends more evident than in our educational
institutions and our homes, both places responsible for
teaching our younger generation the social, cultural, moral,
and religious values of our society, and inculcating in them a
sense of belonging, confidence and pride in being a Pakistani.
Educational
institutions and parents have failed miserably in teaching the
youth the worth and the need of the splendid, everlasting, and
deep-rooted values that Pakistan has inherited. In the
never-ending race to accumulate more wealth, and give children
more material comforts, parents have overlooked the
responsibility of passing on the proper ideals to their
offspring. Educational institutions and teachers have done no
better. In the race to become richer, teachers have lost the
dedication and professional integrity that they once
possessed, and which made them instruct their students not
only about their subject matter, but also about the culture
and traditions they had inherited from their forefathers.
The younger
generation is unaware of its roots, moral values, and the
splendid past which we have all inherited from our
forefathers, the struggle for, and the eventual achievement of
Pakistan as a homeland for the Muslims of India. All this
information has been relegated only to books which are only
opened at exam time to learn for a paper. This March 23, the
day the historical resolution to demand a separate homeland
was passed, should now forge a new resolution: to educate our
children about our history before their current aloofness from
our values, history, and religion takes them so far away from
their traditions that there remains no point of return.
Back
to TOP
|
Making
a new resolve on the Pakistan Resolution Day
By Sidrah Gufran and Mohammed Ammar Bin Yaser
|
Seventy
years ago, on this very day, a group of visionaries stood in
front of a crowd in what is now Iqbal Park at Lahore and
resolved to carve out a nation from within the Indian
sub-continent. Seven years after that declaration, history was
made as their very words turned into reality. Despite utterly
difficult circumstances, the goal that had been set was
achieved and it took a firm resolve to make it happen.
If we
analyse our past, we find that one of the perpetual forces,
which has carried us through the thick and thin of history, is
the unflinching faith of the Pakistani youth in the spirit of
the declaration made on March 23, 1940. As a crucial segment
of the country, every young Pakistani since 1940 has treasured
the significance of this idea which lies at the core of our
identity and defines for us the meaning of nationalism. It was
this belief in the ideology of Pakistan that steered the
nation forward with an inexhaustible supply of optimism in the
darkest of times and to date continues to nourish Pakistan.
Pakistan has
moved well beyond its golden past and some argue that in
today's changed scenario the youth doesn't cherish the same
aspiration about the Pakistan Resolution as their ancestors.
However,
notions are deceiving and there is more to this theory than
seems otherwise. At a glance it may appear that over the years
the Pakistani youth has abandoned its ideology and mannerism
and has adopted the western culture but the fact remains that
even the mere mention of Pakistan's name stirs in them the
same emotions as were seen in the past generations.
In fact,
Pakistan's current standing in the world and the unfortunate
criticism that the country is presently braving has made the
youth more sensitive towards the overall image and well-being
of the country.
The dynamic
youth of Pakistan is brewing with creative yet practical ideas
to serve their country. The positivity and the will to improve
the current situation that the youth displays not only
reinstates the hope and courage that our forefathers bestowed
on us, but also makes one feel proud of being a part of the
present generation.
When asked
about his personal resolution on Pakistan Day, Zia Siddiqui an
undergraduate student of IBA said, "I want to abolish the
medieval tradition of feudalism as it is a major hurdle in the
progress and enlightenment of Pakistan's population. I believe
the scourge of feudalism has to be scrubbed clean from the
face of the Pakistani society if we are to aspire for a better
tomorrow."
Ahsan Reza,
a final year student of Mass Communication at the University
of Karachi (KU), strongly voiced the opinion of many students
and thinks that discrimination on the basis of language is a
key issue and needs to be given due attention as it is a major
factor that is keeping the social fabric of Pakistan divided.
"We need to decide who we are" says Ahsan,
"Officially there should be a single language of
instruction, at all levels, be it English or Urdu. There is a
need for uniformity so that the Pakistani society is not
linguistically stratified." Ahsan feels that the language
gulf between the social classes causes more rifts in our
society than Pakistan is prepared to tolerate.
Improvement
however, doesn't always have to start on a macro-level. Ammara
Adnan, a student of NED, is all for micro-level improvement.
She believes that the young generation of Pakistan should
first bring about positive changes at the individual level.
"We need to think sincerely first" she argues,
"I resolve to take my society and whatever challenges
it's facing seriously from this day on and set an example for
my peers". "I am not saying I have the cure for
every social ill that grips Pakistan today, but I staunchly
believe that as young Pakistanis if we start to look at our
problems with the pure intention of tackling them, we will
definitely find solution" she adds.
Such a high
dose of optimism serves as a ray of hope in the current crisis
stricken state-of-affairs. Though efforts are continuously
being made on both small and large scale to improve the
condition of the country many are still hopeless about the
political process. "We need a series of reformations in
our political process" says Sharjeel Khan. "We have
to work out a process that leaves no rooms for 'personality
worship' in our political set-up, democracies are run by
parties and not individuals" says Khan, who works at a
local TV Channel.
The youth of
today is not just concerned about the political up-lift but
also about other issues facing Pakistan. Among these
considerations the sorry state of the environment is also a
major concern for many, as Sidra Rizvi, a student of English
Literature at KU puts it "Pakistan is one of the most
hard-hit victims of global warming and pollution today, but
little is being done on this front. I as an individual would
like to see my country clean therefore this year I resolve to
use recycled papers for all purposes and will also encourage
my friends to do the same"
Working to
alleviate poverty and illiteracy has almost become a cliché
that everybody blurts out when asked about ideas to solve the
real problems of the Pakistani society. However, on a more
positive note and on a more practical front it has been
observed that the youth who are actually involved in community
development efforts are contributing a lot to their society
through their efforts in various fields.
An example
of this is an initiative of a group of students from KU who
have come forward to teach the children of sweepers and
cleaners of the university twice a week in the afternoons.
This step has received much appreciation by the parents of
these children as well by the students and teachers of various
departments of KU, who are willing to volunteer in the program
too. This small expression of 'concern' tells us a lot about
the zest of the youth of Pakistan.
It must be
pointed out here that despite all the exuberance of our youth
and brimming optimism, one can't ward off the sense of looming
pessimism that seemingly runs all over Pakistan. Every other
day we hear shallow rumors about our country that instigates
one, especially, the youth to run away and settle abroad.
Running away
from reality, however, is no solution instead stepping forward
and helping in building a stronger nation should be our goal.
Positive thinking, effort and instilling optimism in others
are the only factors that can help us in this journey.
Back
to TOP
|
The
chequered political history of Pakistan
By Muttahir Ahmed Khan
|
The
pre-partition Muslim leaders envisioned a homeland for the
Muslims of the sub-continent. This beautiful vision was
announced on the eve of March 23, 1940, in the form of a
resolution which later culminated into a homeland for the
Muslims of the sub-continent, on August 14, 1947.
However, the vision which was presented in the
Resolution, in all its essence, never materialised. Bad
governance and successive martial laws thwarted the
constitutional, democratic, political and, above all,
socio-economic development of this newly born country at a
very early stage. 
In
discussing the genesis of Pakistan's growing socio-political
crisis and its repeated constitutional failures, many analysts
assert that the creation of Pakistan was premature, accidental
and without any pre-determined goal and a feasible planning by
the leaders. They argue that the duration between the
launching of awareness campaigns, to creating knowledge
amongst the Muslims about their rights, the initiation of the
freedom movement and the fruition of these efforts was not as
long as most other nations faced before gaining independence.
Consequently, achieving independence so soon after launching
the independence movement was fatal to the success of the new
country because the Muslims did not get a chance to get used
to the idea of a separate homeland or decide on the best
method of governing it. The issue remains however, that how
could a nation which was able to pass such a vivid and
comprehensive resolution as early as 1940 could yet remain so
directionless in 2010 as to be unable to take any positive
action to set their country on the path of progress despite
the lapse of 63 years?
Keeping in
view our performance and progress, during these years, one is
reality-bound to say that the "time factor" that
analysts refer to when speaking of Pakistan's slow progress,
is important only for those nations that wish to learn from it
and mend their ways accordingly. We had enough time and
resources during the last six decades to emerge as a
progressive state, while learning from other developing
nations like the Chinese, Japanese, Malaysians and Koreans yet
we wasted time and resources.
After
independence, the two newly established states of India and
Pakistan adopted completely divergent courses of action: On
the basis of its seasoned and shrewd political leadership,
India embarked on the path of constitutional development, land
reforms, electoral and democratic progress. On the contrary,
Pakistan fell a prey to political anarchy, lack of vision,
undemocratic and unconstitutional tactics of ousting high
profile leaders and officials. Indian leaders bridled the
horses of feudalism and civil-military bureaucracy at a very
early stage, but the Pakistan Muslim League leadership
mistakenly continued to rely on both these wings to run the
administrative affairs of the country.
The first
jolt for the newly created country was the sudden demise of
the Quaid in 1948, at a crucial point in Pakistan's history,
when the nation was in dire need of his able leadership and
judicious planning. A tug-of-war was now underway amongst the
politicians for holding the rein of power and the whole
political set-up was derailed. The first Prime Minister of the
country, Liaqat Ali Khan was assassinated on October 16, 1951,
thus effectually giving another blow to the parliamentary
setup and the political leadership of the country. Those who
came to power after the Quaid-i-Azam and Liaqat Ali Khan no
longer had any emotional affiliations with the masses.
With the
outburst of religious and sectarian clashes and riots in
Punjab, the first martial law was imposed in the country by
the Prime Minister Khawaja Nizamuddin in 1953. Similarly, this
transition from the political a set up to the military set up
in 1953 paved the way for future martial laws in Pakistan.
Dismissal of
Khawaja Nazimuddin from the office of the Prime Minister by
Governor General, Ghulam Mohammad Malik aggravated the
situation and pushed the country further into the quagmire of
political instability. The first constitution of Pakistan
which was formed on the pattern of England's constitution was
enforced on March 23, 1956. However, it failed to produce
satisfactory results because of the political instability in
the country and the lack of consensus on various issues of
national importance. Although Liaquat Ali Khan declared the
Objective Resolution of 1949 as the foundation for the first
constitution of Pakistan, some members of minority communities
and from East Pakistan, showed their reservations regarding
the resolution. Declaration of the "Sovereignty of
God" and Urdu as the national language of Pakistan were
two points which were the subject of dissent.
Within a
short span of just two years, four ministries had been made
and unmade at the centre as well as in West Pakistan. Cabinet
reshuffles were the order of the day.
Prime
Minister Muhammad Ali resigned on September 8, 1956, and H S
Suhrawardy tendered his resignation on October 17, 1957. One
failed government followed another and I I Chundrigar's
government fell on December 8, 1957. After this Malik Feroz
Khan Noon was overthrown on October 7, 1958, when President
Sikandar Mirza decided to take a drastic political action to
save the country from further political chaos by imposing
martial law whereby, General Mohammad Ayub Khan was appointed
the Chief Martial Law Administrator.
President
Ayub Khan had to face unpopularity and hatred of the masses
(who were once indifferent) in his term as the 'civilian
elected president'. Eventually, the nation yet again paid a
heavy price in the form of another martial law imposed by
President Ayub whereby General Yahya stepped up as the Chief
Martial Law Administrator. Despite these changes, it seemed
that Pakistan was moving from a bad to worse. General Yahya
Khan also failed to put Pakistan on a road to recovery. This
ultimately culminated into fall of Dhaka and the creation of
Bangladesh in 1971-perhaps the biggest blow that Pakistan
faced after its creation.
Unfortunately,
Pakistan was to see political turmoil for many years to come
and such state of affairs continued even after Zulfiqar Ali
Bhutto assumed power. On July 5, 1977 Bhutto's government was
overthrown by the then Chief of the Army Staff, General
Zia-ul-Haq.
Much to
Bhutto's dismay the military coup d'état by Zia-ul-Haq at the
expense of democracy was well-received by the public.
From then on
the legacy of ups and downs continued for years to come and
following the footsteps of his predecessors General Musharraf
emerged as the "Chief Executive" of the country
after the coup that removed the twice elected Prime Minister
Nawaz Sharif from power, on October 12, 1999.
After ruling
the country for more than eight years, Musharraf, with his low
and high popularity graph at different point in time, resigned
from his post in 2008. After Musharraf's dismissal, fresh
elections were held, bringing in power Asif Ali Zaradri and
Yousuf Raza Gilani on the two coveted posts of President and
Prime Minster respectively.
It is a sad
reality that even after numerous changes in the government,
the people of Pakistan could not get any relief. The simple
reason is that none of the governments have ever tried to
address their problems and grievances with sincerity and
honesty. Moreover, the masses also have no say in any issue or
decision of national or global significance. In such a
scenario where even the basic problems and needs of the people
are not met, how can we expect the masses to actively
participate in the political process? It is but obvious that
the people are bound to be indifferent towards the government
or may be this is what the successive governments wanted so
that they could live according to their whims.
Back
to TOP
|
|
