A Nation Challenged By Dr. Akmal Hussain

Published in the Daily Times on

21 December 2014

A Nation Challenged

By
Dr. Akmal Hussain

The recent massacre of school children as they sat in their classrooms, by an armed militant group that seeks to take over the state, has articulated with tragic clarity the critical challenge that the nation faces. Critical in a two-fold sense: first there is a threat to the survival of the state within whose geographic domain the nation functions. Weber has defined a state as an organisation which has a monopoly over the legitimate use of violence. The non state armed groups which have emerged in Pakistan as rival powers to that of the state within its sovereign territory, therefore pose a mortal threat to the existence of the state. At the same time these armed groups by killing innocent citizens with impunity seek to undermine the very legitimacy of the state. This legitimacy based on what Rousseau calls the "Social Contract" is drawn from the capacity of the state to guarantee the fundamental rights of citizens, with the most important being the protection of their lives.

The second aspect of the critical challenge faced by the people of Pakistan is that the shared values in terms of which a people become conscious of themselves as a nation have been violated. The literature of the four provinces bears testimony to the fact that underlying Pakistan's cultural diversity is a unifying sensibility: the loving heart combined with reason as a mode of knowing the self and the world. For example the mythical lover- hero, Ranjha is seen by Shah Hussain as one who transforms society by seeking his path through love but guiding it with reason: "Haathi Ishq, muhawat Ranjha, Unkuss De de Horriye". For Sir Muhammad Iqbal the development of our human consciousness, the creative potential, enables us to reach transcendent heights. This rise of Man through love and reason completes Creation. In a poignant couplet he says, "The rise of earthbound Man is awaited, by these mountains, these stars, these azure skies. "(Arooj e Khaki e Adam ke muntazir hain tamaam, ye kehkashaan, ye sitare, ye neelgoon aflaaq").

The consciousness of love and reason that lights up the human potential of our community is counter posed by the demonic mind set of the protagonists. Their actions signify hate and bigotry amidst a darkness in the soul wherein they are divorced from their humanity. They have turned religion into its antithesis. Religion, from the Latin, religio, is re-establishment of the ligament with God. The most frequent characteristic in terms of which God reveals himself in the Quran, is Rehman-arr-Rahim. The One who is merciful and exercises mercy. The well known scholar of Islam, Syed Reza Kazem argues that God's mercy is drawn not from pity but love. Indeed the root of the Arabic word Rehm is drawn from the idea of loving care. So the ligament with God is love. This is why in the literature and folklore of cultures in Pakistan, the path of experiencing the transcendent is love. This is why the core values of our nation are diametrically opposed to the ideology of the violent extremists.

Thus it is that those who massacred our children in Peshawar pose a critical challenge to the state as well as the sensibility through which we apprehend our nationhood.

There comes a time in the history of a people when they are faced with a challenge to their very existence as a society and state. Such a time is upon us now. How we respond to this challenge will shape our future. Victory in this war of national survival will require bringing to bear the finest elements of national consciousness and mobilising the entire human and material resources of the nation. Toynbee in his magnum opus traces the rise and fall of nations in terms of the dynamics of challenge and response in history.

The bloodbath of children in the Peshawar school has united the nation in its outrage. As John Barrington Moore has argued, outrage occurs when a value a people hold dear has been violated. This indeed is the case in Pakistan. There is a spontaneous popular expression of the national will as never before: an iron determination to defeat the militant extremists who threaten their country and all that is of value to humans. The first to give expression to this great resolve were some of the children who survived the attack on their school. One student came in his smart school uniform, green and white as the national flag and declared on camera that he wished to return to his classroom as an act of defiance against the killers. Another child not yet in his teens, spoke with an inspiring resolve, challenging the terrorists to come and fight him bare handed if they dare. Still another said that he was not afraid of the terrorists and he would join the army and avenge the death of his school mates. Such is the mettle of this nation.

The political leadership better wake up and give expression to the great potential and passion of a people to live by and fight for the highest principles of human civilisation. School children with their blood have drawn the line clearly between us the people of Pakistan and the militant extremists. The people are ready to fight the aggressors. Those worthies amongst our political leadership who regarded the extremists as "our own people", or to negotiate a peace must learn from the courage and clarity of our people. There is no middle ground left after the Peshawar outrage. We must fight in every valley, in every street in every school, for all that we hold to be of value. Amidst this war of survival, the political narrative must also change. Those who sympathise with the ideology of the enemy, or facilitate their evil designs are on the other side of the battle lines. Ours are the universal values of human civilisation, of love, tolerance, reason, a sense beauty. Theirs is the ideology of hate, ignorance, an ugly brutality. Each Pakistani now has to make a choice.

On National Consciousness

On National Consciousness

Dr. Akmal Hussain

Newspaper: The Daily Times Dated: Thursday, October 29, 2003

The debate on the Grundnorm has now happily shifted beyond the issue of whether or not the Grundnorm can be equated with the constitution. I had argued that the Grundnorm represented the core values, in terms of which a nation defined itself, while the constitution, which manifested these values was a set of rules that conditioned the use of state power. The usefulness of this distinction lay in the fact that the absence of a Grundnorm could explain why Pakistan’s constitution had been repeatedly violated in the past, and ceteris paribus, could well be violated in the future. Therefore the distinction between the Grundnorm and the constitution helped identify the need to tap into our core values as a nation and consciously achieve the necessary political consensus, which could give future stability to the constitution. With the two articles by my friend, Anjum Altaf (DT October 19 and 26, 2003), the debate has now shifted to the question of whether the concept of national consciousness is a useful political category at all in explaining and predicting political outcomes. Taking an empiricist position, he proposes that my concept of national consciousness is “deeply flawed”, as is Hegel’s related concept of the “spirit of a nation”. In this article I will briefly argue why Anjum may wish to reflect more deeply on his position. Anjum has rejected my proposal that Hegel’s concept of the ‘spirit of a nation’ with its ‘own defining principles’, could be used as one of the three philosophical sources to interpret the Grundnorm. (The other two being Kelsen’s theory of legal meaning and Hayek’s organizational theory). His rejection, drawn from the empiricist tradition, is quite understandable and is based on the view that it cannot be grounded in “any specific reality”. However, this cannot be an adequate basis for rejecting Hegel since all theory is an abstraction designed to understand phenomena whose essential nature is not spontaneously apparent from their concrete detail. Economists who make models or physicists who theorize are doing this all the time, not to divorce themselves from “reality”, but to be able to deal with it. After all Keynes’s ‘General Theory’ or Einstein’s Theory of Relativity had quite concrete consequences: The former resulted in greater government spending and increased employment, the latter enabled the development of nuclear energy. Of course Hegel’s conception of the spirit of a nation could be rejected like any other theory, on grounds that it is not useful either for explanation or prediction. Having done so, Anjum then logically, is obliged to also reject the concept of national consciousness, and further to brush aside all poets, since they are not grounded in “reality” either. It can be argued on the contrary that the concept of a nation cannot be posited without the concept of national consciousness. It is a fact of contemporary history that nations exist with certain specific national identities. Each national identity is constituted by language (and the world it implies), culture, forms of apprehending their humanity, a shared experience of the past or solidarity for a common purpose in the future. These elements of national identity feed into national consciousness. Indeed they enrich broader identities spanning regional groupings of countries and the global community in general. National consciousness is therefore the experiential dimension of historical bonding amongst a group of people, in terms of which they apprehend their identity and pursue shared goals for the future. Let me illustrate the concept of national consciousness, first with reference to the recent Dimbleby lecture by Monsieur Dominique de Villepin. Subsequently a few lines from Pakistan’s poets will be used to elaborate the concept further. Monsieur Villepin, the scholarly French Foreign Minister, in his lecture on October 19, 2003 on BBC, talked of the specific national identities of France and Britain respectively, explicated on the spirit, which moved each of these nations and the broader European identity. He explained how for several centuries France and Britain had undergone similar ordeals: The struggle for democracy against absolute monarchy, de-colonization, and the resistance against the Nazis. All this “forged a common heritage”, and reinforced a national consciousness manifested by a “…..fierce sense of independence, a certain national pride, the refusal to surrender, and an absolute faith in justice and freedom”. He stylized the British national identity in terms of their “art of brevity and pregnant pauses” and the French national identity in terms of “a liking for theoretical debate”. He declared a profound respect for the “acute awareness” of the British of their identity. Yet, precisely because of these specific national identities, a dialectic of mutually fertilizing growth was at play: “that otherness which helps to discover something new in themselves”. As national identities fertilize each other a broader European consciousness takes shape, composed of the common values of freedom, and justice. He argues that in this way Europe can become one of the pillars of the new world because “it embodies the universal values which must underpin a legitimate world order”. So while the concept of national consciousness may not be concrete, it is nevertheless real enough to be apprehended and deployed in international relations today by the French Foreign Minister. (In Anjum’s terms he could be called a practical man, yet significantly he loves poetry). National consciousness can be understood as a nation’s collective experience of itself, or the cadences of its specific creativity. It has features, which though real cannot be encapsulated in empiricist language forms (which eliminate ambiguity). However, they can be evoked through the resonance of poetic metaphor. Wittgenstein, the greatest linguistic philosopher of the 20th century perhaps referred to this when he said: “Of that which we cannot speak about, we must be silent” (Tractatus). That is why in some cases national consciousness is articulated through poets who strike a chord in the hearts of a nation. Take Sir Muhammad Iqbal who enabled the Muslims of India in the early 20th century to experience their creativity, freedom and authenticity as human beings: KHUDI KO KAR BULAND ITNA KE HARR TAQDEER SAY PEHLAY KHUDA BANDAY SAY KHUD PUCHAY BATTA TERI RAZA KAYA HAI “Actualize your creative identity to such a level that before articulating every destiny, God Himself may ask Man what is your will?” (Very rough translation) Faiz Ahmed Faiz wove from the specific images of nature and social life in the sub-continent, the tapestry of love and social transformation. He too evoked national consciousness in terms of a shared dream for a more humane society: RAAT YUUN DIL MEIN TERI KHOYE HUI, YAAD AIYE, JAISAY HALKAY SE CHALE BAAD-E-NASIM… “Last night your thought traversed the terrain of my heart, like some lost whisper of an evening breeze….” (Very rough translation) Najam Hussain Syed, articulated national consciousness in terms of the love and rebellion of the oppressed peasantry. He articulates the longing for change, and the sense of relatedness with the community by evoking the “unsaid” in our collective consciousness: KITAY DHOOR BUKALLIAN JHOKAAN VICHON, KIYOON AANDA AI NIGH HANGAARA MEINOON UNN AAKHI DA “Amidst the dust enveloped Hamlets, why do I feel the beckoning warmth of the unsaid?” (Very rough translation) Poets and artists are vital to articulating and developing national consciousness. They combine the specific images of a land and its people to evoke the aesthetic experience of a collective identity that may be national, or regional but is yet inseparable from the universal. No my dear friend Anjum, we cannot banish our poets and artists from the discourse of politics. They are essential to national consciousness as much as they are vital to our experience of being human. Roger Penrose, the Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University in his recent book on computers mind and physics (The Emperor’s New Clothes), has proposed that it is human consciousness which makes the human mind unique. This consciousness is a combination of emotion, thought and intuition. He argues that therefore it is impossible in principle to replicate human intelligence through a computer. Research work on Neural Physiology by Dr. Ayoub Ommaiya, using brain imaging techniques has traced in pictorial form the heat signature of the electro chemical impulse that flows through the brain during the human thought process. Interestingly he has shown that the most abstract thought of the Cerebral Cortex originates in the emotional centres of the brain. Dr. Ommaiya has shown through his clinical work that human thought is integrally linked with emotion and thereby provides support to the work of Professor Penrose on human consciousness. In this physiological sense, my dear friend, Anjum, please remember that human consciousness is not only real but is a concrete fact. If this is so, then national consciousness, which is the shared experiential dimension of a group of people living as a nation, must also be real. For a long while national consciousness may lie dormant in the dreams of poets. However, it can emerge more fully and become concrete through education, and an open and tolerant society: A society where people can interact with love and reason, where they can actualize their creative potential and thereby develop a common stake in citizenship. Their hearts will then pulsate together and this experience need not be banished to the realm of poets as Anjum has proposed. As Marcuse put it, “the sensuous, the playful, the calm and the beautiful can become forms of social existence”.

Power and Political Government: The Lessons Of Recent History

Power and Political Government: The Lessons Of Recent History

Dr. Akmal Hussain

Newspaper: The Daily Times Dated: Thursday, July 31, 2003

The current conflict between elements of the parliamentary opposition and the government (on issues such as the LFO, and the National Security Council) is essentially about the institutionalization of the role of the military in the formal political structures of the State. In this sense the contention is about the formal features of Pakistan’s democracy rather than its actual functioning. Historically there has been a gulf between the formal and the actual, in successive democratic dispensations in Pakistan. The military has been a protagonist in the informal power structure (called the Troika) that has characterized democratic governments in the past. At the same time politicians within democratic governments have sought the political influence of the military in their internecine power struggles. The current political conflict is focused on the formal aspects of the practice of power as opposed to its legitimacy. Yet Pakistan’s history has demonstrated that the legitimacy of a democratic government is drawn not so much from the formal or legalistic structures of power, but by its ability to improve the material conditions of the people, to provide security of life and property and the establishment of institutions through which our pluralistic society could find a voice in national decision making. To cast light on this phenomenon we will in this article briefly trace the actual practice of power within a formally democratic regime that became a prelude to the present political conjuncture. The government headed by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in its second term came with a two third majority in the National Assembly. This parliamentary strength could have been used to deepen democracy by reviving the economy, establishing transparent governance, bringing extremist militant groups within the law, and ensuring the independence of the judiciary. Instead an attempt was made to enhance the relative power position of the Prime Minister within the structure of state institutions. A systematic attempt was made to undermine and control institutions such as the Presidency, the Parliament, the Judiciary, the Press and (in the end) the Army, in order to lay the basis of authoritarian power within the democratic structure. An attempt was made not only to weaken the office of the President and relegate it to a purely ceremonial role but also to control members of the ruling party in parliament. This was done by passing the constitutional amendments thirteen and fourteen. Under the thirteenth Amendment the dreaded Article 58-2 (b) was withdrawn. (This article of the constitution gave the President powers to dismiss the government and hold fresh elections in case of extreme misgovernance). Under the fourteenth amendment the ability of elected members of the majority party to vote or even speak against the official position of the majority party in Parliament, on any legislative issue, was also withdrawn. Conflict between the government and the Judiciary soon followed. Tensions between these two institutions began when the government asserted its claim to judicial appointments, a claim that was resisted by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court on grounds of the independence of the judiciary. A political campaign against the Judiciary was launched during which disparaging remarks were made against it, both inside and outside the parliament. Subsequently, the Supreme Court decided to hear a writ petition for contempt of court against the Prime Minister and some of his associates, which if it had been decided against the Prime Minister, could have resulted in his disqualification. According to independent observers, an attempt was then made to “engineer a division within the apex court”. Inspite of the consequent division and conflict amongst judges of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice resolutely went ahead with the trial of the Prime Minister. On the day fixed by the Supreme Court for the hearing, the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML) transported thousands of its supporters to stage a protest against the Chief Justice. The charged mob broke the gate of the Supreme Court building and ransacked it, forcing the Supreme Court Judges to abandon the trial and retire to their chambers. The unprecedented mob attack on the Supreme Court by a ruling political party brought in its wake a major constitutional crisis. President Leghari accused the Prime Minister of inciting the attack and warning that “he would not allow the law of the jungle to prevail”. The Prime Minister retaliated by moving an impeachment notice against the President in Parliament and also sending him a summary advising him to sack the Chief Justice. The President was now faced with the choice of getting impeached or signing what he regarded as an illegal order against the Chief Justice. In a situation where the Army appeared unwilling to step in to resolve the crisis, the President decided to resign. Thus the powers that were earlier distributed between the Chief Justice, the President and the Prime Minister, were now concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister. After the Judiciary the next target became the Press. The Government began to harass journalists who had exposed a series of corruption scandals. This harassment reached a dramatic stage when the Jang Group of newspapers (one of the largest in the country) which had been critical of the Prime Minister, was targeted by his regime. The publisher of the Newspaper was specifically pressurized to dismiss nine journalists from its staff, whom the government found “unacceptable”. The Press in Pakistan received another shock when the regime abducted the editor of an influential weekly newspaper, the Friday Times in a midnight raid on his home. After enhancing the power of the Prime Minister relative to some of the other institutions, focus now shifted to the Army. The Chief of Army Staff, General Jehangir Karamet, voiced the Army’s concern at the deteriorating economic, political and law and order situation in a letter to the Prime Minister. As the contention for power within the State structure continued, the underlying crisis worsened. On October 5, 1998 in his annual address at the Pakistan Navy War College in Lahore, General Karamet expressed his worries publicly as a prelude to stepping down rather than initiating military intervention. He argued that Pakistan could not afford “the destabilizing effects of polarization, vendettas and insecurity driven expedient policies”. The Prime Minister responded by indicating his intent to order premature retirement of the Army Chief. General Karamet chose to leave gracefully and tendered his resignation. Not long after the appointment of the new COAS General Musharraf, tensions between the Prime Minister and the Army intensified. In August 1999, matters came to a head when an attempt was made to appoint a new Army Chief without consulting with the existing one. Having given appointment orders to a new Army Chief (General Zia ur Rehman) while the existing one was in Colombo on an official trip, action was initiated (unsuccessfully as it turned out) to prevent the landing in Karachi of the PIA aircraft on which General Musharraf was returning. This brought to a dramatic head, the confrontation between the Prime Minister and the Army. The Army swiftly launched a coup d’etat that brought the military government of General Pervez Musharraf into power. It is perhaps indicative of the level of gravity the national crisis had reached, that there was no significant public protest at the overthrow of the popularly elected government. The Supreme Court in its validation of the military take-over referred to the crisis explicitly: “On 12th October 1999 a situation arose for which the constitution provided no solution and the intervention of the Armed Forces through an extra constitutional measure became inevitable which is hereby validated…”. In establishing the grounds of its verdict, there were three key elements in the Supreme Court judgment: “……all the institutions of the state were being systematically destroyed and the economy was in a state of collapse due to the self serving policies of the previous government…..”. “….. a situation had arisen where the democratic institutions were not functioning in accordance with the provisions of the constitution……” and “……there was no real democracy because the country was by and large under one man rule”. “……. An attempt was made to politicize the Army, destabilize it and create dissension within its ranks, and where the judiciary was ridiculed……..”. Governance during the late 1990s intensified to a critical level the three key elements of the crisis that threatened the state: (i) A collapsing economy. (ii) The threat to the life and property of citizens resulting from rampant crime, and the emergence of armed militant groups of religious extremists. (iii) The erosion of many of the institutions of democratic and effective governance. Given the dynamics of Pakistan’s power structure and the greater strength of the military relative to other institutions within it, when a democratic regime fails to deliver on these issues, power would be expected to flow to the military. Inspite of the adverse international environment for a coup d’etat, in October 1999, power did flow to the military when the crisis of the state had reached a critical level and the democratic government was seen to be exacerbating rather than resolving the crisis. Thus the institutionalization of the role of the military in the current political dispensation signifies the space that was lost by civilian politicians within Pakistan’s power structure. They cannot now expect to win on the negotiating table what they had lost on the political battlefield. To quote from Shakespeare: “The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings.” The issue of the relative power enjoyed by civilian politicians in Pakistan’s political structure may be resolved by overcoming poverty, providing security to citizens and through the development of institutions and democratic culture in Pakistan’s political system. It cannot be resolved by undermining the political system (however unsatisfactory it may be) and creating another crisis of the State.

Questioning The Poverty Figure

Questioning The Poverty Figure

Dr. Akmal Hussain

Newspaper: Daily Times [Front Page] Dated: Monday, June 14, 2004

The government can take due credit for its growth performance this year. The GDP growth for the first time in more than a decade has reached 6.4 percent, and unlike last year it is supported by an increase in the investment rate from 16.7 percent last year to 18.1 percent this year. The fiscal deficit was reduced to 3.3 percent and State Bank reserves continued to rise. These figures are consistent and credible. What is not plausible however is the Finance Minister’s claim that the percentage of population below the poverty line has declined by 4.2 percentage points compared to the level in the year 2000. There is a fudge in this figure and the reasons are as follows: The composition of growth is contrary to the official claim of poverty reduction: The agriculture sector where the majority of the poor subsist has shown a sharp decline in growth from 4.1 percent last year to 2.6 percent this year. It is the large-scale manufacturing sector with a growth rate of 17.1 percent, which has determined the overall GDP growth performance. Even in this sector, growth is predicated on a relatively small group of industries, namely consumer durables, automobiles, textiles and cement. These are industries with low employment elasticities and where highly skilled and relatively well-paid workers are employed. Therefore these are hardly the industries whose growth could be expected to reduce poverty so quickly. Much less can they be regarded to be producing goods for the poor. Income inequality between the richest 25 percent and the poorest 25 percent of the population has been increasing over the last decade. Even though data for the last two years is not available, yet the composition of growth suggests that income inequality has remained acute. The fact that inflation in the prices of the poor person’s basket (food items), has increased at a higher rate than the average inflation rate, provides further indication that the distribution of real income between the rich and the poor may have become more unequal. When income inequality is high and increasing, a small increase in GDP growth cannot be expected to lead to such a sharp reduction in poverty as claimed by the Finance Minister. The claim of poverty reduction is being made on the basis of a small sample survey of only about 5000 households, selected without regard to provincial coverage and conducted for only one quarter, April to June this year, when earnings from wheat harvesting enable a larger consumption expenditure by the poor. The results of this small sample survey are being compared to sample results in the base year drawn from the standard and periodic Pakistan Integrated Household Survey (PIHS). This has a much larger sample (14,000 households) with representation from each province, and averages out the seasonal variations in household expenditure by covering four quarters (one year). Given the quite different design of the sample surveys in the year 2000 and the year 2004 respectively, the results are technically incomparable. It would be like comparing apples with oranges. The specific differences in design of the two surveys indicated above, are such that a reduction in poverty would tend to arise from the differences in sample design rather than a change in the real magnitude of poverty. A professionally sound assessment of changes in the levels of poverty over the last four years would have to wait till the next round of the PIHS is conducted. Given the level of income inequality and the composition of growth, the recent increase in the GDP growth rate can at best provide grounds for the hope that poverty may have stopped growing. There is certainly neither adequate evidence nor any analytical reason to suggest such a sharp reduction in poverty (4 percentage points), as the Finance Minister in cavalier fashion proclaimed before an incredulous populace. He can take well-deserved credit for his achievements in terms of overall investment, growth and financial stability. Not for having substantially reduced poverty. To do so would be to assume out the very problem that is to be confronted, now that we have the fiscal space.

Structuring The Peace Dialogue

Structuring The Peace Dialogue

Dr. Akmal Hussain

Newspaper:The Daily Times Dated: Thursday, 14th August 2003

The South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) has made a significant contribution to Track-II diplomacy by organizing a conference earlier this week in Islamabad, on the Indo Pakistan peace dialogue. On this occasion parliamentarians of the major political parties, prominent journalists and experts from both India and Pakistan conferred on why and how to move forward. In a remarkable demonstration of the popular will, a consensus for peace was reached amongst public representatives from across the political spectrum in both countries. From the flamboyant religious rhetoric of Maulana Fazlur Rehman of the right wing, to the grave tones of Chaudhary Shujaat’s carefully worded statement in the centre, and the passionate iconoclasm of Abid Hassan Minto on the left, inspite of differing premises, the common denominator was peace. Similarly on the Indian side Laloo Prasad used pre-modern imagery of the munn (heart), while Swaraj Kaushal combined cold analytical logic with Amrita Preetam’s poetry. MJ Akbar in his post-modern style wove resonant human images into a rich tapestry of historical discourse. As in the case of the Pakistanis, the common refrain from the Indian speakers was to replace the pain of the past with a healing process of peace. A significant section of the Indian delegates argued that the prerequisite for the peace process is the creation of a “conducive” atmosphere. This is a euphemism for the view of some Indian government officials that an end to cross border terrorism should precede the peace talks. My argument during the conference was that placing pre-conditions to a dialogue is inconsistent with the invitation for a dialogue. Clearly India’s most important concern is the issue of cross border terrorism while that of Pakistan is the unresolved Kashmir dispute. Essential to the idea of an India-Pakistan dialogue is that both sides would address each other’s concerns. Thus, during the dialogue Pakistan should address India’s core concern about cross border terrorism, while India should address Pakistan’s core concern of the Kashmir dispute. Clearly, it is illogical for one side to demand the resolution of what it sees as the most important issue of contention, prior to the dialogue. For India to demand a resolution of the problem of cross border terrorism before a dialogue on other issues, is equivalent to Pakistan’s earlier position that the Kashmir dispute should be resolved before a dialogue on economic cooperation. If a “conducive” atmosphere has to be created before a dialogue begins, then even if Pakistan does its best to control cross border terrorism, the two sides could continue to argue indefinitely, whether adequate efforts have been made in this regard and what constitutes a “conducive” atmosphere. In such a situation the dialogue would never begin. Therefore for a dialogue to begin and end successfully it must have four features: (i) It must be unconditional, i.e. there should be no pre-conditions attached to starting it. (ii) If it is not to become a dialogue of the deaf, both sides should be prepared to address each other’s concerns. These concerns must be simultaneously addressed so that the sequencing of the discussion does not reflect the priorities of any one side. (iii) The dialogue should be uninterrupted and as Mr. Manishanker Iyer so wisely pointed out, it should be uninterruptible. An uninterrupted dialogue is necessary for success to provide confidence to both sides that all issues will continue to be discussed until resolution, even though the time scale of resolution of various issues is necessarily quite different. Similarly an uninterruptible dialogue is necessary in view of the possibility that exogenous factors (such as terrorist acts to derail the dialogue by entities hostile to the dialogue but uncontrollable by either side) could end the dialogue before its successful completion. (iv) Both sides should be prepared to negotiate all issues and allow the dialogue to have its own dynamic without demanding preconceived outcomes i.e. both sides should seek to persuade and be prepared to get persuaded by the other on the basis of logical argument and a spirit of give and take. As Wittgenstein postulated, “all philosophy is an act of persuasion”. Perhaps the same holds true for diplomacy. The above four features of an India-Pakistan dialogue imply that the commitment to start a dialogue should be as total as the commitment to see it through to fruition. The question that now arises is, why should a dialogue with these four features be on the historical agenda for India and Pakistan? The answer may lie in the recognition of the following three propositions by State and society on both sides: A balance of military power exists between Pakistan and India at both the conventional and nuclear levels, thereby making any military initiative by either side infeasible. This is illustrated by the fact that the Kargil initiative by Pakistan was counter productive just as was the Indian attempt at “coercive diplomacy” through large scale mobilization of conventional forces in a war like posture. A state of no war, no peace with a simmering Kashmir dispute between nuclear armed neighbours creates two grave dangers that are unacceptable for both sides in particular and by the international community in general: (a) An unacceptably high risk of an accidental nuclear war resulting from a misconception about the adversary’s intent at any moment during a continued state of military tension. (b) A low threshold of a conventional conflict escalating into a nuclear exchange. The imperative to escalate military expenditure in a state of continued confrontation between the two countries would make the conventional and military deterrence in the long run unstable. This is because the pace of up-gradation of weapon systems may differ between the two sides.  At the same time such an arms race would draw away such a large proportion of the economic resources of the two countries that their ability to overcome poverty and provide economic well being to their people would be undermined. In such a situation where a significant proportion of the population does not have an economic stake in citizenship, the resulting social polarization and violence could place an unacceptable stress on society and State. Thus, at the current moment in history, national security in the sense of security of both the Citizen and the State, requires peace between India and Pakistan. The deliberations at the SAFMA conference earlier this week clearly showed that there is a consensus to pursue peace amongst the citizens and their elected representatives in India and Pakistan. The change in mindset that one has been advocating in these columns appears to be occurring amongst public representatives as well as professionals. The imperative of the economic and political forces impelling the two countries towards peace is also apparent. Now is the time to bring our respective civilizations to bear to remove the shadow of war and enhance life. This is the moment to lay the foundations of a lasting peace in the Sub-continent and a better life for the next generation. Will the governments of both countries have the courage and wisdom to grasp this opportunity?

The Constitution and The Nation

The Constitution and The Nation

Dr. Akmal Hussain

Newspaper: The Daily Times Dated: Thursday, October 16, 2003

Ejaz Haider (DT Oct 7) and Jan Sitwat Mil (The Nation Oct 3) have both made valuable contributions to what is becoming a fertile debate. Fertile, because it may help in both understanding why in Pakistan, attempts at constitutional stability have met with repeated failure, and in developing a consensus on core values, which could ensure such stability in the future. As a humble contribution to this process of understanding, I will in this article, briefly discuss the source of a constitution at three levels: (1) The nature of legal meaning inherent in a constitution (2) The nature of organizational rules and (3) The ‘spirit’ of a nation. As a point of departure it may be helpful to clarify the distinction between a constitution and what Kelsen calls a Grundnorm. The problem with Mr. Haider’s argument (see DT Sept 5 and Oct 7) originates in the fact that he uses these two distinctly different terms as if they were the same. The constitution is a legal document specifying what Hayek calls a “set of rules” concerned on the one hand with the internal organization of the state and with constraints on its actions on the other. By contrast the Grundnorm as I had argued in my article (DT Sept 25) is that particular consensus which is organic to a nation’s essential nature, and which ensures that no entity (“endogenous” or “exogenous”), would undermine the constitution. I had suggested that the very fact that the essential character of Pakistan’s constitution had been repeatedly violated by both elected governments and the military, was evidence of the fact that a Grundnorm has not yet emerged in Pakistan. Mr. Mil (see The Nation, Oct 3) in his subsequent article has further reinforced the distinction between the constitution and the term Grundnorm, when he says, “Kelsen’s Grundnorm was neither the constitution nor an ideal … It is a norm that lies at the foundation of a society. It is what societies held sacred and dear at their very core and from which flow all other norms.” By identifying the constitution with the Grundnorm, Mr. Haider has in fact assumed out the problem of explaining the repeated undermining of the constitution resulting from the actions of elected governments on some occasions and by the military on others. The second consequence of using the terms ‘constitution’ and ‘Grundnorm’ synonymously, is that the issue of interventions against the constitution can only be treated through his injunction that the constitution must not be violated, if the ‘system’ is to function. Mr. Haider’s injunction is a tautology, even though an extremely important one. It translates into the axiom: The necessary condition for the functioning of a system is, that the rules in terms of which it is defined, must be followed. However, this axiom needs to be developed into a theoretical construct, on the basis of a distinction between the constitution and the Grundnorm. (A theoretical construct has both explanatory and predictive power, while an axiom does not). This would enable us to explain in Pakistan’s case, why the constitution has been so frequently replaced by new documents in the past, and is likely to happen in the future again, ceteris paribus. Such an explanation is important in order to identify the necessary conditions for achieving a sustainable constitution. It is also important in the practical sense of initiating the social and political process through which the necessary conditions for sustainability can be brought into existence. In understanding the vital distinction between the constitution (a legal document), and the Grundnorm, one may ask the question, what gives meaning to law? Is law (as some scholars hold) simply a set of orders backed by sanctions? Take the example of a person held up by gangsters who command him to give up his wallet or get shot. This is certainly a command backed up by sanctions. The poor fellow may actually give up his wallet for pragmatic reasons. Yet his compliance is not a legal obligation. Thus the question of a legal obligation is more than merely the fact of a command backed up by sanctions. Kelsen argues that acts have legal meaning in the context of norms. It is linked with the idea of what one ought or ought not to do. People normally do not steal because of the norm that one ought to follow criminal statutes. This depends upon the norm that one ought to follow the constitution. The question is what is the norm in terms of which it is obligatory to follow the constitution? This is the Grundnorm, which is part of the civilizational content of a nation, the core values in terms of which a nation experiences its identity or defines its common purpose. Let us examine the concept of a constitution as a set of organizational rules. In this context F.A. Hayek, the Nobel Prize winning Austrian economist, distinguishes between a “spontaneous order” and an organization. While in a spontaneous order individuals are bound only by “general rules of just conduct”, in an organization they are subject to “specific directions by authority”. It can be argued that while a constitution constitutes a set of organizational rules governing the conduct of the state, the source of a constitution is embedded in what Hayek calls a “spontaneous order” and Kelsen calls a “Grundnorm”. The third level at which the source of a constitution can perhaps be determined is what G.W.F. Hegel calls the “spirit” of a nation. Hegel in his lectures on the Philosophy of World History, argues that the spirit of a nation when it becomes fully developed, becomes aware of itself. It is a consciousness of “its own ends and interests, and of the principles which underlie them”. For Hegel, the spirit of each nation has its own specific defining principles, and each nation seeks to realize its own end. Yet the “substance of the spirit is freedom”. The issue in Pakistan is not of condoning military intervention in the structure of the constitution. Of course it is unacceptable to all those who wish any constitution to function. But then we would also have to confront the fact that destabilization of the constitutional order has repeatedly occurred through the unbridled pursuit of power by elected politicians as much as by the military. The challenge is to reach a consensus on the Grundnorm so that whatever constitution is constructed on its basis will be sustainable. The Grundnorm pulsates in the heart of a nation fully conscious of itself. We are not there yet. A process of education, enlightenment, and reasoned debate is needed. Such a process that combines love with reason will lead to it. The national consciousness embodied in the Grundnorm is the source of the constitution and gives it legal meaning. It is the bottom line in our psyche, which prevents us from undertaking certain actions, and validating others. If such a Grundnorm does not exist, the constitution would be (as General Zia ul Haq once put it) “just a piece of paper”. It would be violated whenever it is feasible in terms of power play to do so. On the other hand if the Grundnorm existed, not as a set of abstract principles but as values organic to our nationhood, then it would not be possible for any individual or group of individuals whether armed or unarmed, to do so. They would have to face popular resistance.

The Imminent Peace

The Imminent Peace

Dr. Akmal Hussain

Newspaper: The Daily Times Dated: Thursday, 25 December 2003

As President Musharraf undertook the daunting task of overcoming Pakistan’s multi faceted crisis, he realized early on that peace with India is an essential element to his effort. Given the gathering storm of a deepening economic crisis, rising violence by religious extremists and institutional tensions within the state structure, bringing the ship of state to an even keel required boldness and flexibility. President Musharraf has demonstrated both. Boldness was required to make the protagonists realize that this is a historic moment when there is a real opportunity for peace and building a better future for both Pakistan and India. Flexibility was required to maximize the gains for Pakistan in a rapidly changing situation. The logic of both boldness and flexibility at the tactical level can only be grasped in a strategic perspective. Hence in this article we will examine the implications of Pakistan’s new foreign policy initiative in the changed strategic context faced by Pakistan and India respectively. A series of initiatives were taken by President Musharraf to break the deadlock: The first was an offer for unconditional talks with India. The second was the offer to cooperate with India in together combating terrorism in the two countries. The third was recognition of the reality that the principal threat to the integrity of Pakistan was not external i.e. from another state, but internal i.e. from the forces of religious extremism within the country. The fourth is the latest statement during an interview with Reuters News Agency (December 18) that the UN resolutions on Kashmir could be set aside in the process of negotiating the Kashmir dispute, provided both sides showed flexibility. As a result of these initiatives, Pakistan is gaining the support of the international community for the maturity and sagacity of its foreign policy with the attendant prospect of acquiring additional leverage in negotiations on the Kashmir issue. The tactical foreign policy initiatives also set the stage for a possible breakthrough during the SAARC Summit when a number of key decisions could be taken for the economic welfare of the peoples of the region. The most important of these is an agreement on a South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAPTA), which could be a step towards a South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA). During the days of the SAARC Summit there is also the possibility that the process of bilateral talks between India and Pakistan may begin with an informal exchange between the leadership of the two countries. When the President in his Reuters interview last Friday said he was prepared to be “bold and flexible” in an attempt to resolve the Kashmir dispute, it was clearly an approach to the process of negotiations and not any particular unilateral concession prior to the process. Let us make a simple proposition on the nature of negotiations: If India and Pakistan wish to negotiate, then the very decision to negotiate signifies the willingness of both parties to set aside their stated prior positions. Further more if a resolution of the dispute is to be achieved, clearly at some point in the negotiating process, a common ground must be found that is different from the initial conflicting standpoints. It is in this context of negotiations that “boldness” and “flexibility” provides the advantage of speed and efficacy for gaining ground. By contrast, diffidence and inflexibility by one party during negotiation would result in it losing ground as the other party runs circles around it. The initiatives taken so far, have been executed with skill and sagacity by Pakistan’s able Foreign Minister, Mr. Kasuri. They indicate that we now have for the first time in 5 decades, a Kashmir policy rather than a mere stand. A stand is a rigid statement of principle in a deadlock within which there is verbal repetition but no progress and no practical gains on the ground. A policy is a nuanced series of steps to break the deadlock and make progress in optimizing real gains for the country. The present moment in the sub-continent’s history is defined both by objective circumstances and the individuals at play. It provides an opportunity for establishing a lasting peace because it is now a strategic imperative of not only society but also the state in both India and Pakistan. Let us see how this is so in each case. At the economic level India having established the industrial base for indigenous technological change and a high growth trajectory, needs to sustain its high GDP growth into the future. This creates the imperative of (i) establishing an efficient infrastructure for the supply of oil, gas and electricity and (ii) developing markets for its manufactured exports in South Asia and abroad. Both these strategic needs impel India to seek peace with Pakistan. Oil and gas pipelines from Central and West Asia to be economically feasible would have to pass through Pakistan, just as surplus electricity from Pakistan can be imported by India. Similarly, if an integrated South Asian market is to emerge for the welfare of all South Asian countries Indo-Pak peace is essential. Peace and economic cooperation with Pakistan is necessary for India not only to secure its strategic economic interests but also to maintain its secular democratic polity. A high growth, open economy framework for India today is inseparable from a liberal democratic political structure. Therefore the growing social forces of Hindu nationalism, intolerant of its minorities will undermine India’s secular democratic structure as much as its economic endeavour. Continued tension between India and Pakistan, will only fuel extremist religious forces in both countries, to the detriment of their economy and polity. While India needs peace to graduate into an advanced industrial economy, Pakistan with its relatively fragile economy needs peace for its very economic survival. Its economy is growing far below its potential, has stagnating exports, a fragile exchange rate, a major poverty problem, and incipient social forces of religious extremism that can grow rapidly if poverty persists and tension with India continues. Peace with India will mean a substantially improved environment for domestic and foreign investment. Those Pakistani industries that can achieve international competitiveness will grow rapidly within the large regional market of SAFTA. At the same time the capital costs of investment in Pakistan will be reduced as cheaper capital and intermediate goods from India (compared to imports from Europe and the U.S.) become available, thereby accelerating GDP growth. The real incomes of Pakistan’s middle and low-income groups will also increase as they get cheaper consumer goods from India. Electricity costs for Pakistani consumers will fall as Pakistan’s thermal power plants achieve better capacity utilization through export of electricity across the border to India. I have argued that through peace, both India and Pakistan can reap economic benefits for their people, secure their respective democratic structures against the forces of religious extremism, and provide security to their citizens. Thus, for the first time in the post independence period the economy and the polity of India and Pakistan (although in differing ways) are at a turning point. The pursuit of development, democracy and national security impel both countries towards making peace. In August 1947, Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru in his moving speech referred to independence as India’s tryst with destiny. Today we are in another moment of destiny. The dreams of the people of India and Pakistan at independence for a better life can be fulfilled by living together in peace within two independent states. The people in both countries, already aware of this fact, beckon their leaders to grasp this moment. Will they?