The ascendancy of bigots

But the elections held this month, even though described as flawed by every observer, foreign or Pakistani, would indicate that the trend has changed. There is now an upsurge of religiosity. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), a conglomerate of six religious parties, is No 2 in a 272-member

National Assembly. The No 1 is, naturally, the General Pervez Musharraf-inspired set-up, the Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid-e-Azam), generally known as the King’s Party. The MMA is also the largest party in legislatures in the North Western Frontier Province (NWFP) and Baluchistan. The two states had Congress governments in power before Partition. In fact, till the advent of Musharraf, both had liberal Muslim parties in tow.

To infer that religious fervour is sweeping the areas bordering Afghanistan is not wrong. The MMA has harnessed the people’s resentment against the demolition of the apparatus of fundamentalism which the Taliban and al-Qaeda had built next door. The MMA’s victory is also a strong denunciation of Musharraf’s policy, whatever that is, to contain theocracy and revivalism. But, above all, the verdict is against the Americans for ousting the Taliban government. No wonder the first demand by the MMA is to close down the US bases in Pakistan and oust American soldiers.

There is no doubt that the ISI has played a major role. Since the Soviet invasion on Afghanistan in December 1979, the agency has dug itself deep into the area. Islamabad knows how jittery Washington is over even a semblance of evidence of Islamic revivalism. But it is apparent that the MMA has been allowed to go thus far and not further so that US President Bush is convinced that there is no alternative to Musharraf. Washington’s reaction after the polls confirms this. The US state department spokesman, Richard Boucher, said that the election was ‘an important milestone in Pakistan’s ongoing transition to democracy’.

Whatever America’s certificate, it will be hard for democracy to return to Pakistan. This election itself is a boon given by the Supreme Court, which fixed October 2002 as the deadline by which Musharraf should hold the polls. Still the military junta did everything possible not to have a fair election. Both the European team and the Commonwealth team have pointed out dishonest practices. The low participation of voters, around 31 per cent, itself shows that people were disgusted over the pre-poll rigging. Except for a few pockets, there was no enthusiasm. And there was no issue, not even the favoured whipping boy, India.

It was known before the polls that the PML(Q), the King’s Party, would be No 1. All government efforts were directed at getting it a clear majority. If it has not happened, the fault is not that of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, politicised to the fingertip, but of the PML (Q) candidates, whose reputation deterred voters.

The ascendancy of bigots is not surprising. It happens in Pakistan when the military takes over. The maulvis and the mullas came back in a big way during the 12 long years of Zia-ul-Haq’s rule. He, in fact, started the system of paying them from the government treasury. Musharraf pandered to religious elements to keep the liberals down so that the military coup would have some support. He also had to reckon with the fundamentalist groups within the armed forces. After he switched over to the American side, abandoning the Taliban regime he had built, General Musharraf tried to put a squeeze on fundamentalists. But by then they had turned into Frankenstein’s monsters.

Still he could use them against India because he gave cross-border terrorism the name of jehad. If Washington ever expressed concern over the instances of terrorism in India, he would lessen the infiltration. America felt satisfied that its ‘pressure’ worked. What America did not see was that Musharraf could turn the terrorism tap at will. So long as he played the game with America, he was all right and President Bush was happy. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee is quite right when he says that the West has double standards on terrorism.

New Delhi has faced similar situations in the past. But its reaction to Musharraf’s doings has been panicky. There was no need to position the armed forces right up to the border when it was an open secret that there would be no war. Partial or substantial unilateral withdrawal of troops, although belated, is a welcome step. But New Delhi’s moves were directed towards Islamabad, knowing well that the government there is not kindly disposed towards it. Why not do something to placate the people?

What I have in mind is the resumption of air and bus services between India and Pakistan. Contacts on the popular level had begun to pay dividends, however limited. It is quite possible that Islamabad may not respond to India’s gestures as it has done in the case of allowing Pakistan aircraft to fly over the Indian airspace. But the pressure on Pakistan and the force of international opinion will be so strong that Islamabad cannot but reciprocate. The only way to fight fundamentalism is to be more liberal.