Address by Mr Sajjad Ashraf, High Commissioner of Pakistan
to the Singapore Press Club-Raffles Hotel on 19 June 2008
Mr. Patrick Denial, President Singapore Press Club, Mr. Narendra Aggarwal, Honorary Secretary, excellencies and my good friends. It is an honor to be invited to speak at the Singapore Press Club, a club where thankfully I have made some of my most valuable friendships in Singapore.
Understanding Pakistan: Domestic and Foreign Policy Complexities is a difficult topic to speak on. This is s topic that is open to different interpretations and can generate a lot of debate. So I take the risk of transcending into un-chartered waters. And what I say today is not necessarily my belief; these are my observations. With the idea of making it an interactive session, I plan to speak for about 20 minutes and leave the rest of the time for the Q and A.
My presentation will therefore be split into three broad sections. The part on understanding Pakistan will set up a backdrop for the complexities we face as a nation. And mind you, there are a hundred and sixty million of them. I will list out only a few, in the second part. In the third part, from my standpoint in Singapore, I shall speak very briefly on the two of our important relationships.
Now, individual human experiences shape societal experiences and behavior. After all, what is a country-a collection of individuals? Pakistan’s early character, like any other country, was shaped by the beliefs, experiences and hopes of the founding generation.
Each society lives with its own identity. There are people in Pakistan who profess that Pakistan constitutes a territorial and cultural unity which was in the making as far back as 4,500 years ago with the dawn of Indus Valley civilization. There are others, who feel uncomfortable with the idea of linking the antecedents of a Muslim nation to the non-Muslim past. They trace the roots of nationhood to the Arab conquest of Sindh in the 7th century.
Pakistan was nonetheless, created on the basis of an idea within a society known for its similarities than its differences. The post independence generation felt the need to demonstrate the differences that led to Pakistan’s separation from the larger sub-continent. But as we moved, globalization and rapid means of communication have eroded barriers. People in distant lands have become aware of the others life style, events, and sorrows. Expectations to match the other have arisen all over adding pressures for change in societies and Pakistan is no different. People are much more in a position to celebrate diversity rather than always crow about what is different amongst us. And that, in my view, breeds much complexity and conflict within our society as it does in many others, especially in the developing world.
Pakistan therefore, has more than its share of complexities that keeps the country off its fulcrum even after 60 years of independence. I am not going to rewind history to the days of the dinosaurs to try and discover our complexities. You cannot yet deny the impact of previous events that shape the current state of any society. I will only refer to the past events fleetingly and then touch upon complexities and fears.
This communication revolution also means that we diplomats cannot lie anymore for our country. We cannot change instant pictures beamed across the world. But that is not the only thing we have to show of Pakistan. Those pictures do not convey the warmth of the people, the touch of generous, willing hospitality and friendliness that comes with it. In a way as a consequence of our large heartedness we still continue to host arguably the biggest refugee population in the world.
It was useful for the media and its managers in the west to convey pictures of rugged, moustached, bearded fighters who were created as a good brand of Mujahideen by the media when the Afghans fought the Soviets. This was the image that attracted believers from far away lands into areas that are still a battle ground. And now, you have the same channels showing pictures of the same people and creating bad brands like Talibaan and Al-Qaeda. So, that is the brand of Pakistan which the media, especially western, is projecting of my country and I reject that completely.
Look at the nature of our neighborhood. We have had relatively unsettled relations with India for many years. Thankfully there is movement towards normalization that should immensely benefit the two societies.
Our Western borders-Afghanistan has remained in the state of war for the last 30 years. Consequently, we are a society that continues to pay an abnormally high price for being the front line of such a protracted struggle. With 40 per cent of Pushtun population on our side it is naive to imagine that there will be no spillover beyond the “front line” and there will be no reaction from the people, ethnically so similar.
And let us not forget Iran, again in a state of revolution for 30 years-what it is going through and the response of specially the western world towards its revolution and it aftermath. Look at Iran-Iraq war thrust on Iran soon after the revolution. The first Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq are the kind of events that affect Pakistanis intensely.
Palestine is very close to our heart. The pictures of what the Palestinians are going through when beamed into Pakistani homes cause a lot of stress into Pakistani psyche and are a reason of many of the complexities we face as a nation. In short Pakistan lies within a very troubled region. With all these pressures coming onto us how do you think people of Pakistan should react?
To any casual observer Pakistan's domestic ills are daunting. State institutions are viewed by people as corrupt and partial. Fewer and fewer people vote in each successive election. Law and order situation is not the best in the world. We have a mangled constitution, much of our time we have mixed civil-military-Islamic law, weakened state institutions, fragmented political parties, innocent masses, a disinterested middle class, a judiciary with a questionable reputation and performance.
These days history is repeating itself in Pakistan. In its sixty years of independence, Pakistan's politics has almost always been in conflict with state institutions. The military and the bureaucracy have taken a dim view of politicians, who in turn have treated these institutions as impediments to their programs and prerogatives. State institutions have not had it easy. The simple concepts of representation, political participation and honest constitutionalism are so eroded that Pakistan's history is usually narrated as a contest between those who seek power and those who wield authority.
Let me say something on a few of our complexities.
Pakistan belongs to the South Asian region generally considered to comprise of seven SAARC states, which in addition to Pakistan are India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Maldives. Many in Pakistan believe that we belong to the Middle Eastern region comprising of Iran and Gulf States-and we are not there. With the break up of Soviet Union we thought we belonged to Central Asia. The point I make is that even though we are physically located in the South Asian region big sections of Pakistanis still attempts to find moorings elsewhere which brings its own confusion and conflicts. That is our fundamental complexity.
Pakistan puts its geo-strategic location as one of the strong points while determining and pursuing its foreign policy options. We take pride in being an excellent transit country between South and Central Asia-Middle East-China and the Far East. Yet we suffer from a tremendous sense of insecurity in the region, which actually stunts our potential. This insecurity prevents full use of our location to our advantage. Vast resources need to be transported through Pakistan to and from China, Central Asia and India and yet, because of circumstances and beliefs we continue to deny ourselves the advantage of our location. This is our complexity number two.
The first generation of leaders was committed to secular, democratic principles. Pakistan, they envisaged, was not to become a theocratic Islamic state. Belief in Western constitutionalism was strong. The state of Pakistan, so the early leaders thought would be the instrument by which to achieve a just and humane society. In reality it has increasingly turned into a state where instead of justice and equality based on Islamic principles, interpretation of Islam itself has become a central issue of state’s foundation. This is complexity three.
Death of two of our front ranking leaders within four years of independence allowed diverse groups representing particular interests and exploiting sense of fear and insecurity attacked the founding principles early in the state’s life. We had a leadership vacuum soon after independence. Consequently, we saw disregard for constitutional principles and the rise of a nexus that derails our constitutional process every few years. Inability of politicians to find a common ground on some of the basic issues of state structure like constitution allowed these groups to push in and create space for themselves. That is complexity four. This is more of our dilemma.
I must honestly accept that I did not know why a country needs strong institutions or why, institutions are needed to make a country strong. I believed it and said it because everybody says so. And also because countries that are generally well off are known to have strong institutions. I found the closest answer to this age old question only last month when here in Singapore, I went to listen to the Rwandan President Mr. Paul Kegame. In response to a question as to why Africa has failed to develop institutions leading to its backwardness and there is a danger he too will fall in the trap like his predecessors, he said, “for creation and growth of institutions you need to treat people equally and fairly.” You cannot, he suggested, have pockets of privilege before law and have strong institutions. Equality before law is therefore, a pre-requisite if institutions are to be made powerful and credible. And there lies the answer; institutions develop only when an ordinary citizen can trust in the rule of law. And, once a society gets that sense of justice, it becomes a part of its needs to sustain and grow the institutions.
There is s school of thought in Pakistan as I am sure it is all over the world, which believes with considerable justification that frequent military interventions and prolonged military rule is the major reason why state institutions in Pakistan have not blossomed. Frankly, I do not intend going into this debate. But, it is true that democratic institutions need unbridled growth path. Interruptions and hiccups, mean that you have to start with full rewind and re-run the whole thing again and then what happens in the meantime? And remember we are dealing with human beings. You cannot pause and start again. In process positions harden and it becomes more and more difficult for players to rationalize the next move. The military in this milieu acquires a position of privilege, which is not easy to give up and that is what the Rwandan President meant by equality before law and not having pockets of privilege.
The long period of military interruptions, blocking political activity means that politics is centered on network of alliances to topple the military ruler or the opposition rather than spending time on institution building, policy development, implementation and leadership. Obviously training like this effects governance pattern whenever the politicians come into power. That is our complexity six.
There are at least two broad layers of education system in Pakistan. One-the educational system for upper landlord and ruling classes has its roots in the colonial structures obtaining at the time of independence. This has shifted to meet the needs of commercial, industrial bourgeois structures. There are the local medium state schools where facilities and standards are so poor that it has failed to bring masses to participate as full citizens in social construction of their society. The first layer now includes the mushrooming private English language schools which are now considered as the ticket to higher possibilities in the future. The difference between the two, starkly reflects the chasm between the divided Pakistani society. Unless a broad based educational system aimed at promoting human development is provided Pakistan will not attain the cherished goal of a just and egalitarian society. This is our complexity number seven, which unless resolved is perhaps a big time bomb in our society.
Pakistan’s superior judiciary has the history of obliging the government in power by upholding the extra-constitutional steps and later indemnifying actions taken during the periods of extra constitutional rule. This began with Ayub Khan’s take over and continues till today.
Against this backdrop most people believe that the generals and bureaucrats between them have been ruling the country aided by judges for reasons which do not stand the test of the rule of law nor of democratic norms. That is complexity number eight.
The latest episode concerning judiciary is an extra-ordinary situation. While the sacked court stood its ground the replacements have legalized all actions hitherto considered unconstitutional.
For many years, Pakistan has been a piece in a global chess game. We became an easy pray in the Cold War. This was the time when the United States and its allies were arrayed against the Soviet Union and its allies, Pakistan was often seen by the US as a South Asian counter to the Soviet influence in the region. Due to our sense of insecurity we allowed ourselves to be exploited by the major players in the big power game. Instead of developing ourselves economically and politically we took an easy route. We became dependent upon the others. Weak governments with questionable legitimacy allowed Pakistan to remain a pawn in this big power game.
The semi-autonomous tribal areas of Pakistan, home to tribes that straddle a border delineated in 1893 is today the center for Pakistan's security and governance. When the mighty British Empire failed to subjugate the warrior tribes of the region and when they drew a line called Durand Line on the map the British Indian administration agreed to ease the movement of people, money, goods and services between the two sides of the Durand Line. These are the same people who do not understand a line that can divide them from their families and friends. Pakistan being the successor state to British Empire undertook the same obligations.
On independence of Pakistan in 1947, only Afghanistan because they did not recognize the Durand Line as the international border, voted against Pakistan’s admission into the United Nations. The Afghan side has always insisted on keeping the borders open. The story is much more complicated. When the Afghan resistance against the Soviets started the Kabul regime wanted to close the border to extent that could prevent supply of men and material resources to those fighting the Soviets. This is un-natural. The supporters of Afghan resistance wanted it to remain open. And let me fast forward to post 9/11- the same supporters in the shape of US led NATO wants the border to be closed. Again, this is un-natural. On our part we have deployed nearly a hundred thousand troops to fulfill our side of the bargain. We expect the US led NATO to fulfill theirs. But there is another twist to the story. The Afghans, in my view cannot close this border for it will imply de facto recognition of Durand Line as international frontier.
This is a place where foreign and domestic politics of Pakistan converge. Its population and economy reflect centuries of migration of people and capital, particularly in the past three decades, and political allegiances span not only the formal boundaries of neighboring states but also the informal phenomena of mobility peculiar to porous frontiers. I want to ask the international community to understand the realities as they exist – the other side does not want to close the border for the fear of turning it into an international border. This is our complexity number nine.
With India, in my view we have the most important and complex relationship. To explain my view I’d like to take you to a philosophical tangent. I believe, this universe moves on the basis of laws of nature. Science is only a discovery of what would otherwise remain a mystery. Natural disasters occur and within minutes whole cities and parts of countries are uprooted. Tsunami; the recent Myanmar cyclone; the Chinese earthquake. All the devastation occurred in minutes. It will take years rebuilding the devastation. The human void will never be filled. Most historical fault lines appear within short time but then it takes a long time repairing the divide. Similarly, the creation of Pakistan and the way it all happened was no less than a tsunami or an earthquake. No one thought it will happen the way it did. This is not the first time international borders changed nor is it the last time. The suspicion and fears that resulted in creation will not go away overnight. This is akin to a natural disaster that occurred, as they do, within a short time and will take some decades to repair.
Strangely some sections of people emphasize the differences rather than many similarities that bind our people. Bollywood is perhaps as much watched in Pakistan as it in India. I hear our TV plays have a large following in India. Some of our ghazal singers draw more support in India than in Pakistan. The spontaneous show of friendship and generosity that resumption of cricketing ties unleashed are not an act of robotics. In fact both countries need to untangle this complexity allowing South Asia to move on. The good news is that the dialogue is on track and we can remain optimistic for the future.
Singapore-Pakistan
Now, let me briefly touch upon a subject that is totally unrelated to today’s topic. I will take a broad sweep at recent growth in economic relations between Singapore and Pakistan. Our relations are old and enduring. But, there was practically no economic depth in these relations. Pakistanis were happy to be allowed visa on arrival. That was the benchmark of how close a country is considered to be. It all changed after 9/11 when visa regime changed worldwide.
I had to basically start anew here. And, as I said we are a misunderstood country, when I arrived I wanted to make a conscious decision how I wanted to move in bringing our two countries closer. One alternative was to make individual approaches and try and impress upon my interlocutors. I realized that people are smart. People need to feel comfortable with the choices they make. I decided to make people “feel good” about Pakistan. If they feel good, they will make choices when they want and on their own will. I must acknowledge tremendous support I have received from some of the friends sitting in this room in enabling me to reach out to people in Singapore. And, I should admit I am lucky. I had a prime minister whose name is a strong currency in Singapore-Mr.Shaukat Aziz. I am honored to disclose he is in Singapore for the last two days and is expected to be here for the next two days.
In conclusion, I admit people paint doomsday scenarios on Pakistan. Yes, we fell short of many benchmarks last financial year. But, despite all the political hiccups we went through, we still achieved nearly 6 per cent growth rate. The per capita income in dollar terms has increased from $926 in 2006-07 to $1085 in 2007-08, showing an increase of 18.4 per cent. Real private consumption expenditure grew by 8.5 per cent in 2007-08 as against 4.8 per cent last year. What does this show? It shows that it is a society full of life, full of vibrancy that is ready to spend, spend and spend. And spending spurs growth. We have equally suffered from higher fuel and food prices.
So there is the complexity and dilemma that a country with so much going against it continues to do well.
Thank You!
