| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Jihadistan or Pakistan? |
| 2008-08-22 |
| By Prafull Goradia Islam and democracy are not made for each other Logically, a democratic Government in Pakistan should be less anti-India than a military dictatorship. For the simple reason that the latter needs an alibi to justify its essentiality for the country. And what better than an 'inimical' India, a threat which only a strong Army led by a powerful leader can counter. I realised this difference when I met four Pakistani members of the National Assembly at Colombo in 1999. Three of them belonged to the Nawaz Sharif-led Muslim League; they were all in favour of normal India-Pakistan relations for the sake of trade and the resulting prosperity. They were quite happy with the idea of dividing Jammu & Kashmir along the LOC. The fourth was a Baluch who wanted Indian help in his struggle against Islamabad. Prima facie, the departure of Gen Pervez Musharraf should be of no particular concern to India. In any case, he was suspected to have engineered Kargil, to have boycotted Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee's Lahore visit, et al. Moreover, he was perceived as Washington's ally and hence could be a possible impediment to India-US relations. He favoured the peace process only after 9/11 and at American instance. It could also be argued that a democratic Pakistan would be militarily less effective and hence more desirable than a General at the top. The India-Pakistan syndrome, however, is not so uncomplicated. Can Pakistan be relied upon to remain democratic for any length of time? The factual record is that since 1947, Pakistan has been ruled more by military dictators than otherwise -- from Gen Ayub Khan to Gen Zia-ul-Haq to Gen Musharraf. Another truth is that few Muslim countries are governed by democratic regimes. Malaysia is more an Islamic oligarchy than a democracy although only about 52 per cent of its population is Muslim. Indonesia had a long spell of Sukarno, a non-soldier dictator and then Gen Suharto. Bangladesh has struggled with democracy but not consistently. The history of Iran since 1979 is one of Ayatollahcracy and before that monarchy. The central Asian republics are yet to settle down; their tradition is dictatorial -- first sultans, then czarist and thereafter Communist. The Islamic heartland, namely Arabia, is not democratic even by pretension. Turkey has a military spine, a secular judiciary and day-to-day electoral democracy which is subject to Army intervention. All this despite the Ataturk revolution, Europeanisation and the general Turkish desire to join the EU. The likes of Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia and Kosovo are in a state of flux. Egypt and Libya have had the same rulers for decades, as has Algeria with an occasional violent election. Morocco is a monarchy while little Tunisia experiments sincerely with elections. Muslim West Africa has a variety of regimes but none democratic. At the fundamental level, Islam and democracy are a contradiction in terms. A devout Muslim, in the course of the namaaz, declares five times a day that there is no god other than Allah. The last prophet delivered the final message 14 centuries ago. For the last 10 centuries, it is all taqlid (traditions); the gates of ijtehaad (reinterpretation) were closed with the end of the Abbasid dynasty of caliphs at Baghdad. Anyone who claims to be a messiah is expelled from Islam as was Ghulam Ahmed Jilani, who founded the Ahmadiya denomination. A section of the Sunni ulema in Pakistan has proposed that even the Shias should be declared as non-Muslims. How can one god, one faith, one collective will coexist with democracy wherein each voter has the right to believe and think his own way? In his book, The Future of Muslim Civilisation, Ziauddin Sardar drives home the point that modernism is un-Islamic. There is no Arabic or Urdu synonym for the word democracy. Jamhouriat, which means the people's collective will, is often touted as the Islamic concept of democracy. Hence the question arises, how long can Mr Asif Ali Zardari and Mr Nawaz Sharif be expected to last in power and provide stability? With the advent of the Taliban, Al Qaeda and extremism, that stability is equally important to India. If the mullahs take over Pakistan, their next target will be India where they will find any number of supporters. |
| Posted by:john frum |
| #3 Democracy versus Islam? Over the centuries, people have tried a wide variety of governments. For the last two centuries, the most successful system has been democracy. During the twentieth century, a large number of countries converted to some form of democracy. I can't think of one country that has kept an older system, that has prospered. Japan is a good example of a country that has grown immeasurabily richer, more powerful, and less militant among it's neighbors by changing within a generation to democracy. Countries that cling to an eighth century system for organizing and maintaining people is doomed. The more efficient and productive system will evenually win out - every time. |
| Posted by: Richard of Oregon 2008-08-22 09:58 |
| #2 STARS-N-STRIPES OP-ED > MUSHARAFS EXIT FROM POWER MAY NOT MEAN IMPROVEMENT/SECURITY; + WAFF.com > ARUNDJHAT ROY:KASHMIR NEEDS FREEDOM FROM INDIA [ditto India from Kashmir] + CRACKS APPEAR IN THE SEPARATISTS CAMPS [Muslim-Islamist]. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-08-22 01:30 |
| #1 If the mullahs take over Pakistan... It won't be long before somewho has to go over and kick their asses. As for Jihadistan or Packistan, you say tomato... |
| Posted by: SteveS 2008-08-22 01:07 |