LETTER FROM ISLAMABAD
Blame the founding fathers
Ayaz Amir
WHY did the Father of the Nation, and those who thought like him, talk of things like democracy and the rule of law? They could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble had they known what we would do with these concepts.
They had vision (which all great men in some measure possess) but hardly the gift of foretelling the future. Could Mohammad Ali Jinnah in his worst nightmares have dreamt of the amazing constitutional experts being thrown up by the Q League, wizards like the parliamentary affairs minister Dr Sher Afgan Niazi, law minister Wasi Zafar and now even the Q League’s resident intellectual, Mushahid Hussain, who are preparing the nation for Gen Musharraf’s re-election as president by the present assemblies?
If Jinnah could have foreseen all this, if he could have visualized the three or four horsemen of the apocalypse who between them, have made of Pakistan the mess that it is, if through some crystal ball he could have taken in the jokers packing the national stage, could he not — heresy though it be to say this — have had second thoughts about many things?
‘Re-election’? Not having been ‘elected’ in the first place, the question of ‘re-election’ in the case of our fourth horseman of the apocalypse doesn’t really arise. But this is quibbling over small matters. The president wants to be ‘re-elected’ for another five-year term, not knowing when to quit simply not being in our genes, our psyche or indeed the collective sum of Islamic history. So let us go along with his explanation of the constitutional landscape.
Let us stick to the fiction that he is up for ‘re-election’ and the leading lights of the Q League are burning midnight oil poring over the Constitution to see how he can be ‘elected’ ‘constitutionally’, strictly in accordance with the Constitution. Indeed, the line being taken by the Q League’s constitutional experts — Sher Afgan and company — is that
if the soldier-president is not ‘elected’ by the present assemblies, the
latest by Sep/Oct next year, it would be a grave violation of the Constitution.
Who could have imagined that a military regime and its henchmen would become such sticklers for constitutional propriety? But then stranger things have happened. Consider also that if the devil can cite scripture for his purpose — and he does so all the time, there being no more assiduous reader of the holy texts than him — there’s not much wrong with Sher Afgan and Wasi Zafar, and now friend Mushahid Hussain, throwing the Constitution at the nation in order to pave the way for the general’s ‘re-election’ in the safest possible manner.
For six and a half years (it is getting to be a bit more than that now) we have been told that there’s no braver man around than the soldier-president, and no one more popular and beloved than him. Which makes it all the more incomprehensible that a man of such sterling courage and great popularity should be so petrified at the thought of a reasonably honest election process.
So what is the prospect ahead? This being a game of power and not of anything connected to the letter or spirit of the law, chances are that the general and the constitutional clowns attending on him will have their way. Let us not forget that we are a tame nation, having proven more than once that we can put up with a lot. Still, with what they are now about to inflict on the nation these clowns may do nothing else but they will drag both the nation and the Constitution through another needless storm and crisis.
Not that Pakistan won’t survive the storm. If it could survive Field Marshal (self-appointed) Ayub, Gen Yahya and Gen Zia — not to mention the folly of the ‘65 war and the break-up of the country in 1971 — it will survive Musharraf’s ‘re-election’ as president by the present assemblies. But that so much of national energy should be consumed by such over-the-top political trickery says something about our skewed sense of priorities and the national talent for creating avoidable problems.
What these masters of slapstick are saying has already crossed all limits of audacity: that this or that Article of the Constitution allows Musharraf to remain president-in-uniform, that this and this reading of the Constitution allows him to be elected by the present assemblies. Is it a Constitution we have or a piece of rubber capable of being stretched in any direction?
This is courage with military trimmings, courage dressed in uniform. That’s what we are told. Although the question arises that if this is courage, one can only wonder at the colour and shape of timidity.
All the same, the soldier-president should be counting his blessings. There’s no flock of sheep on the planet more tame and loyal than the political specimens collected in the ruling alliance: the Q League and assorted allies — MQM, Sindh front, such comic figures as Leghari and Jamali, and the secret weapon in the military’s arsenal, Maulana Fazlur Rehman. Anyone with his senses about him would get ‘elected’ from this soap opera rather than run the risk of anything resembling a reasonably honest election.
Apropos the Maulana, he’s about the cleverest performer we have on the national stage: smooth, articulate, cool. But not very convincing because he seems all things to all men, running with his own bearded crowd and giving every appearance of hunting with the generals. He is much too smooth for his own good. The soldier-president is at least predictable. He wants to get ‘re-elected’, indeed emulate the example of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak who has been around forever. The Maulana is not predictable. In a crunch no one can say for sure what he will do.
We are a nation not only plagued by lawyers (there being too many of them around) but also afflicted with lawyerly arguments. We go for a dubious reading of the Constitution when we should have our eyes focused on what the old communists of the Soviet school used to call ‘the balance of forces’. The soldier-president will get himself ‘re-elected’ president not because of the Constitution but because of GHQ and its divisions. Why doesn’t he take off his uniform? Because his uniform, and not the comic opera of the Q League, is the only insurance policy he has going for him.
The Constitution is subservient to this ‘balance of forces’. Only people’s power — the kind we saw recently in Nepal — can create a new dynamic by liberating the Constitution from the stranglehold of GHQ. What are Sher Afgan, Wasi Zafar and others of their kind? Their master’s loyal voices, nothing more. They will do what is expected of them. They will sit on a block of ice if that is what the presidential dispensation commands.
If the wind changes direction they will stun everyone by singing a different tune. But the wind must shift before they do that. The weather must change before the Constitution can come into its own.
So the question really is not what the soldier-president wants — we all know what he wants and if we forget there is always Dr Sher Afgan to remind us — but what the assorted opposition to the soldier-president is capable of doing. Can they adopt a unified and clear stand on the all-important question of the soldier-president’s ‘re-election’? And after this can they mobilise people’s power?
Can Pakistan become Nepal? That is the crucial question.
We print this article by arrangement with Dawn
The future of Nepal as
envisioned by the Maoists
The future of Nepal, constitutionally, politically, economically and socially, will depend much on how good or bad goes the cooperation between the Seven-party Alliance and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) in running an interim government, electing a constituent assembly and transforming the polity of Nepal based on the Eight-point Agreement reached between the two sides on June 16.
The chairman of CPN-Maoist, Prachanda, gave a long interview to Kishor Nepal before the June 16 summit between the Seven-party Alliance and the Maoists. Excerpts of the interview were, however, posted by the Nepali web site Kantipur.com on June 20.
Prachanda talked about the distinctive politics of his party. He said: 'Mao Zedong's People's Republic cannot fulfil the needs of today's world. It cannot address today's political awareness appropriately. Mao said cooperative party theory; we called it competitive party theory. We have said let's move ahead from the conventional People's Republic and develop it as per the specialties of the 21st century.' In reply to a question whether or not they follow the old concept of communism, Prachanda said: 'Definitely not. What happened without competition? In the USSR, Stalin gave no place to competition and went ahead in a monolithic way. What was the result?'
On liberalisation and globalisation, Prachanda said: 'The economy should not be given a free rein in the name of a free market. We should take the middle way. Words like liberalisation and globalisation are being much touted these days. But if you look at it closely, the very supporters of these theories have not implemented it in their own countries. The most powerful countries and America themselves have not implemented it. They have referred it to the poorest countries. Competition has been referred to undeveloped countries. We are against that policy. It's not right.'
Prachanda disclosed in the interview that India had played a crucial role in forging the unity between the Seven-party Alliance and the Maosists. Excerpts of the interview
Q. Which name do you prefer to be addressed by -- Chairman, Prachanda or Puspa Kamal Dahal?
Prachanda: I prefer Chairman and Prachanda. The name Puspa Kamal Dahal represents a certain culture while the name Prachanda represents a feeling and ideology that intends to take the whole country forward independently. Therefore, I want that all of my friends and the Nepali people recognise me with the name Prachanda.
Q. Your name has caused a big shake-up in the political arena. You remained underground for 25 years. Now you have abandoned the underground life and entered public life. How do you feel?
Prachanda: I had a different life before I went underground. I used to teach Science in High School. I was involved in politics as well. I was a member of the Party. We boycotted the Panchayat elections of 2038 BS. Then I went completely underground. My situation after the 1990 popular movement was almost like it is today. I was open to the media and was not completely underground. A totally new process began after the start of the People's War (in 1996). Now the situation is somewhat similar to 1990.
Q. You have suddenly landed on the liberal political ground from a violent political base, especially after the 12-point understanding with the seven parties. What were the reasons behind the understanding?
Prachanda: Our political base was not that rigid. Ours is a party which had to wage a People's War for just rights despite entering Parliament. We were the third largest party in Parliament.... We lawfully tried to raise some issues — issues related to nationality, people's daily requirements and democracy -- even back then. We are not rigid. What we said even after starting the People's War is that we are not communists of the traditional type. Even after the start of the People's War, we have always been ready to accept the people's verdict. We had told the government during the very first peace talks let's hold constituent assembly elections; that the solution to our problem lay there. We were never into rigid politics. We were very much wide and flexible.
Q. You took up arms for political change. Isn't that rigid?
Prachanda: To take up weapons is just a form of politics. I don't think you become rigid once you take up arms. Taking up weapons is also a form of flexibility.
Q. While talking about dialogue and sustainable peace, you once said, in a different context though, that even the king was acceptable.
Prachanda: I didn't say this in that sense. What I had said is we are ready to accept what the people decide through constituent assembly elections. We are ready to accept if the people's verdict is in favour of the king or monarchy...The situation was different when Birendra was the king. In our understanding, the relevance of king and monarchy ended after the royal palace massacre.
Q. You said the relevance is over. But you twice held talks with the governments of the same irrelevant king. What was the compulsion?
Prachanda: The relevance is over indeed. Right after the royal palace massacre, we said the institutional development of republicanism was necessary in Nepal. We are still firm and clear on this stand. As regards to the issue of talks, a war was on between two forces. The initiatives for talks had been taken to avoid further bloodshed between the two sides. It didn't mean we accepted the relevance of monarchy.... When the UML and Deuba were in power last time, we said we would hold talks with the master not with the servants. Because we thought talks would mean something only if we knew who had the real power. Enough talking was done with the parties. But nothing happened.
Q. Who first saw the need for the 12-point understanding after the king began his direct rule — you or the seven parties?
Prachanda: On our part, we had seen the historic importance of the unity between our party and the parliamentary parties right after the royal palace massacre. But the seven parties didn't listen to us. We had said also in the Siliguri (India) meeting that a working unity was needed between the parties and us. On their part, the seven parties, too, couldn't do much for the people in the democratic period. The parliamentary parties were so much indulged in their power games that they could not grasp what we were trying to say, or let's say we could not make them understand properly. Their situation was totally different after February 1, 2005. Then the seven parties came and we signed the 12-point understanding.
Q. Had any international power pushed you or the seven parties towards each other?
Prachanda: It's both. If you talk negatively, Gyanendra pushed us towards each other. His negative actions pushed us towards each other. I doubt if this change would have come, hadn't some international powers, mainly India, urged us (Maoists and parties) to 'do something' jointly. Had the seven parties somebody who could think independently, the country would have been different right after the royal palace massacre. The country would not have suffered this much, had there been leaders who could think for themselves. This time, India helped the 12-point understanding in a positive way.
Q. To the seven parties?
Prachanda: Let's not say seven parties; mainly the UML and the Nepali Congress.
Q. But no understanding seems to be building between you and the UML?
Prachanda: It is building as per the need. They, too, are in the seven-party alliance, apparently. Let's say it's building. But they might be thinking that they would lose their ground if we enter peaceful politics. In our opinion, it's a narrow-minded thought. Let me tell you one thing, our talks team was in Kathmandu during the first round of talks. We were raising the issue of constituent assembly. There was a wave of encouragement among the people. The then Prime Minister Deuba was not in a position to do anything on the issue of constituent assembly. After we realised that the peace talks were going nowhere, we planned to attack Dang. After the attacks in Dang, the UML leaders became happy. May be they thought that it would be a great loss to the UML if we entered peaceful politics. But this was not on our mind. We were concerned about giving an outlet to the crisis and taking the country forward. They thought 'Thank God! You saved us' when we attacked Dang.
Q. A huge shakeup took place after the 12-point understanding. The House of Representatives was restored and it took a lot of decisions. You have come out in public and look very calm and relaxed. It seems as if you are eagerly enjoying the talks. What is the truth?
Prachanda: This is not the truth. Though it looks that way, it's not like that. The 12-point understanding was reached after a lot of hard work. This is something our party had been thinking about for the past four years. Our Indian friends had contacted and talked with us before the king's coup. We were in Rolpa then. But the right environment for it was created only after Gyanendra took over on February 1. There isn't that much brainwork done by the seven parties behind the 12-point understanding. It would have been great had this understanding been built on their (seven parties') own vision. The understanding lacks depth as it was formed amidst the negative moves of Gyanendra and India's advice (to the seven parties and Maoists) to move ahead positively. We had told the seven parties when they put forward the House restoration issue that this will provide the king and monarchy a back door. Even among the seven parties, six were not in favour of House restoration. But the Nepali Congress could not give up this slogan. Girijababu could not abandon it. We knew that a design was hidden in this (House restoration) slogan...We knew this a year before the 12-point understanding was reached. We went ahead with the understanding despite knowing this. We had no other alternative to agitate the Nepali people to a new level of awareness.
Q. Dialogue with India was on while you were still in Rolpa, before the King's coup?
Prachanda: We were in direct contact. Indian friends were there. They said the House should be restored. We said House restoration had no relevance. It is our conclusion that the people have stood up now in this fashion because of the 10-year long People's War and the 12-point understanding. The people stood up under the cover of the 12-point understanding because a direct confrontation through the People's War would lead to much bloodshed. House restoration was not the people's demand. This was not even on their mind. We have taken it (House restoration) as a recurrence of what happened in 1951. Therefore the people still need to be alert.
Q. But the mass movement has stopped?
Prachanda: Rather than saying the movement stopped, let's say it was time to change its form. There was no situation for the movement to go on the way it was going. It was slightly divided as well. There was a change in the political situation.
Q. How can the talks move forward in such an artificial environment?
Prachanda: This thing is very important. We will stick to the dialogue process till the end. It is our objective that a peaceful outlet is found. But the seven-party leaders are creating an artificial environment. They are doing the opposite. Not respecting the people's feelings. We want to keep the pressure on from the ground... If the talks fail, there will definitely be an October Revolution of its own kind in Nepal. We are ready to lead that revolution.
Q. This means you are ready to wait till October?
Prachanda: What I mean, in clear words, is that if the seven parties do not understand by October, then the situation will move towards an October Revolution.
Q. How optimistic are you? Do you doubt Girija Prasad Koirala's honesty?
Prachanda: Rather than Koirala's honesty, how he will run the politics is the major thing. In my first meeting with him three years back, I had told him 'You accept a republic, we will accept multiparty. Then the country will become new. Let's make a new Nepal.' He had replied immediately, 'Congress cannot go for a republic right now.' He is still where he was three years back. He mentioned ceremonial king only yesterday. But this ceremonial thing doesn't work in Nepal. This proves how much rigid he is. This concept of a ceremonial king will not work -- one, because of the army, and two, because of the king's own character.
Q. Do you personally feel that the talks will be successful?
Prachanda: I don't think the seven-party leaders are in favour of making the talks successful. And I don't think the international power centres, too, are in favour of giving Nepal and Nepalis a forward-looking exit from the current crisis by making the talks successful. To tell you directly, I haven't seen the signs for the talks to be successful. But again, the Nepali people want the talks to be successful and our party, too, wants the same. It depends on how much the people's and our party's initiatives can be taken forward. The talks will be successful if the pressure can be increased.
Q. What kind of republicanism is it that you have been talking about?
Prachanda: There shouldn't be the parliamentary republicanism, which is in practice in other countries, in Nepal. That doesn't solve the problem. There's no question of an autocracy. We need a republicanism of our own kind.
Q. You have envisioned a people's republic, no?
Prachanda: Mao Zedong's People's Republic cannot fulfil the needs of today's world. It cannot address today's political awareness appropriately. Mao said cooperative party theory; we called it competitive party theory. We have said let's move ahead from the conventional People's Republic and develop it as per the specialties of the 21st century.
Q. You do not follow the old concept of communism?
Prachanda: Definitely not. What happened without competition? In the USSR, Stalin gave no place to competition and went ahead in a monolithic way. What was the result?
Q. Let's talk about the economy. The 21st century world is a free-market world. How do you see the open market economic policy?
Prachanda: The economy should not be given a free rein in the name of a free market. We should take the middle way. Words like liberalisation and globalisation are being much touted these days. But if you look at it closely, the very supporters of these theories have not implemented it in their own countries. The most powerful countries and America themselves have not implemented it. They have referred it to the poorest countries. Competition has been referred to undeveloped countries. We are against that policy. It's not right.
Q. The country's resources haven't increased. The number of mouths to feed has. In such a situation, do you think the country's development is as easy as you are saying?
Prachanda: I think development is not that difficult a thing. The main thing is what policies and plans the state adopts and what kind of programmes it brings forward for the millions of people. This is the main thing. One hundred years back, we were very much self-dependent. We were not economically weaker than others. If you compare us with many countries of the world, you will know that we are not weak. Others kept progressing and we kept going downhill. We have serious problems in the policies adopted by the state. What I think is if the state has the right programmes and vision, then there are only 200 million mouths but 400 million hands. If the 400 million hands are put to work in the right way, imagine where this could take the country in 10 years.
However, we have to cut down certain things to save money. I have been saying that we do not need this 90 thousand-strong army. We can cut it down by 80 thousand. 10 thousand is enough. And then see how much capital we will have. It's not out of any personal grudge that we want to abolish the monarchy. They have amassed hundreds of billions of rupees. Imagine the kind of capital we will have if that is nationalised. Won't miracles happen if we then mobilise the 400 million hands? We can earn millions from our herbs. We have so much Yarchagumba. Let's open processing factories where it is found. Thousands will get jobs and we can earn hundreds of millions of rupees. Money will start growing there.
Q. You just mentioned about decommissioning the army. What will happen to your army?
Prachanda: The same for the Liberation Army. I have also been training them now. There is no use of increasing the number of our army, either. We don't have the status to beat the Indian or the Chinese army even with our 30 thousand and the 90 thousand-strong royal army. We don't have the status to beat anyone. You go through history; the only thing the Nepali Army has done after the Sugauli Treaty is to kill the people. We can ensure security by forming the people into a militia. If all citizens are made to undergo a five-year military training, there will be 250 million soldiers ready. Once that army is ready, even if India or China attacks, we can save the country. But even if we make a 500 thousand-strong army and keep it in barracks, it cannot fight anyone. What's the use of it?
Q. That means the management of arms and armies will not be a stumbling block on the way to a constituent assembly?
Prachanda: In my opinion, it will not and should not. If the seven-party leaders are really serious about the country, peace and development, this problem will not come. It will not come from our side. We are going to put forward this proposal. I have already talked about it. Let's cut down the armies of both sides. Let's train the people into a militia. The militia will maintain law and order. Let's keep the army only to train the people.
Q. Business people, industrialists and entrepreneurs are a little concerned about you. Their fear is if you can give them so many problems as a powerful party, you will squeeze them once in power.
Prachanda: We encourage those who want to develop industries in the country, create jobs, make profits and invest the profits in the country. We are organising a national meet of the capitalists. There, we will invite even those who disagree with us. We want that Nepal's capital does not go outside. We are clear that there will be no development in Nepal unless the capitalists can make some profit. But let that profit not be through exploitation and let it also not go abroad. We are also going to propose to the capitalists to invest where the most profit can be made. We should introduce a strict law to stop those who earn here and deposit the money in America or India.
Source : Internet
Twenty years ago, the hand
of God smote England
by Jorge Valdano
My entire qualification for writing this column is that on that day, at that time, I was there. And I must say that I was bored stiff because we couldn’t get a grip on the match. When we wanted to play fast we were inaccurate, when we wanted to be accurate we were tedious. Eleven functionaries on each side trying not to make a mistake.
On a day like that nobody expects a visit from history, but in that office full of bureaucrats there was one crazy man capable of anything. A crazy Argentinian, to boot. It is important to consider the nature of that person because, from that day on, Maradona and Argentina became synonymous. We are talking about a country with a clearly extravagant relationship with football, a country which made a deity of a footballer with a decidedly extravagant relationship with football. And that afternoon, which began so boringly, Maradona made extravagant through football and through Argentinian character.
Divine intervention
It all began with a long slalom, which was Maradona’s natural way of running with a ball. Just before he reached the area, he found only opposition legs in his way and, seeing no way forward, knocked the ball up to me and looked for the return.
The problem I had playing with Diego as a team-mate was that he turned you into a spectator and, when he passed you the ball, it took a moment to remember that you were like him - a footballer. Well, perhaps not like him, but a footballer none the less.
The fact is that when I woke up, I shook a leg to try to play the one-two but did it so unskilfully that the ball was knocked forward by my marker. Looking at it in perspective, it was a smart move on my part because if I had touched it Maradona would have been offside. The fact is that nobody recognised my singular contribution, partly because I fell to the ground so clumsily that it embarrasses me to remember.
Fortunately, the eyes of the people were not on me. Because from the ground myself, and the rest of the world, from wherever they were, saw that ball rise in slow motion and then begin to come down on the edge of the six-yard box where Peter Shilton and Maradona went to challenge for it in the air. There something happened which I couldn’t understand but which was called a goal and had to be celebrated as wildly as such an unpleasant match, a World Cup, England deserved. Maradona ran and celebrated without much conviction, as if his cry contained a doubt within. Strange goal, strange cry - I still didn’t understand much until I got to the huddle and found out why.
From my position I suspected that Diego could not have reached up there with his head but at no point did I see his hand, nor God’s. Any ethical scruples? Twenty years on we can have them, but at that moment we only felt joy, relief, perhaps a forced sense of justice. It was England, let’s not forget, and the Malvinas were fresh in the memory.
In the days before the game I said that we had “a good opportunity to confound the idiots” but that was just playing the intellectual. When emotions come into the equation, nearly all of us are idiots. Also we shouldn’t forget that we were Argentinians, representatives of a country that rationalises with the word “exuberance” what in other places is called cheating.
The other goal
The office was now turned upside down but the crazy man had only just begun. Shortly afterwards he received a very difficult ball in the middle of the pitch with his back to goal. He turned, took off and got into a series of tight scrapes from which he escaped perfectly.
I was accompanying him level with the far post as if I were a television camera tracking him. Diego assures me that he meant to pass to me several times but there was always some obstacle that forced him to change plans. Just as well. I was dazzled and I thought it was impossible (it still seems that way to me) that in the middle of all those problems he would have had me in mind.
If he had passed me the ball as it seems Plan A called for, I would have grabbed it in my hand and applauded. Can you imagine? But let’s not deceive ourselves, I am convinced that Diego was never going to release that ball. Throughout those 10 seconds and 10 touches, he changed his mind hundreds of times because that’s how the mind of genius in action works.
That celebration that put intelligence, the body and the ball in tune was an act of genius - but also in the most profound way, in footballing terms, of being Argentinian. What Maradona was doing was making Argentinians’ football dream a reality: we love the ball more than the game and, for that reason, the dribble more than the pass.
When the ball went into the net I knew, in that instant, we were present at a moment of great significance: Maradona had just put on Pele’s crown. Aware of the historical moment in which I was living, I did something that humanity has still not recognised. I, ladies and gentlemen, took the ball out of the net where Maradona had put it. The focus, fortunately, was still elsewhere. In fact, 20 years on, the ball keeps going into the net time and again in the memories of those who love football . . . and there was me thinking I’d taken it out.
— The Guardian
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
