New Leaders and Tense Times

By M. M. Ali

The British relinquished their 150-year colonial rule over the Indian subcontinent in August 1947. The subcontinent was divided into two sovereign states: India and Pakistan. The 1930s and 1940s produced leaders that steered the independence movement to its culmination. They included Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Valabh Bhai Patel, Maulana Azad, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Abdur Rab Nishtar, Fazlul Haque, Khawaja Nazimuddin, Maulana Bhashani and Husain Shaheed Suhrawardi. The political movements were led by the National Congress in India, and the Muslim League in Pakistan. Both states were administered by large bureaucracies trained under the British. Sandhurst-trained generals controlled the defense services.

Those leaders left the stage in Pakistan and in India in the 1950s. The vacuum created in much smaller Pakistan was filled quickly by the military officers, fully supported by the entrenched civil service. Larger India maintained its one-party (Congress) democracy. In December 1971, Pakistan had to part with one-half of its geographically separated country when Bangladesh was created out of East Pakistan as a third major sovereign state in the subcontinent.

The next phase witnessed a spate of assassinations and one execution of the top leaders in the three countries. Rajiv Gandhi, Shaikh Hasina, and Benazir Bhutto are the progeny and Khalida Zia a widow of the deceased leaders. Each one of them has capitalized on the connections. Such political capital could be exploited in Pakistan and Bangladesh because of the intermittent military interventions that obstructed the growth of democratic tradition and practice. India is presently faced with recurrent political instability because the Congress has lost its former hold and more than one party is required to make a majority in the Lokh Sabha.

Each of the three countries is going through one crisis or another at present. There are few visible signs of outstanding and broadly based leadership taking meaningful control of the reins of government. The civil service in all three states keeps a low profile, but plays an extraordinary role in keeping the three ships of state afloat.

This is the general backdrop to the individual dramas being played out in the three major nations of the subcontinent, where history is being made in Bangladesh, a prime minister has surprised India with a preemptive resignation, and clouds of political uncertainty are gathering in Pakistan.

Bangladesh

Bangladesh may be scoring a first in recorded human history by swearing in a woman prime minister and inducting another woman as the leader of the opposition. Although both of these women had the courage to challenge a military ruler, Gen. Mohammed Ershad, and launch successful political campaigns, a word of caution needs to be added about their respective electoral victories, and what they reveal about the nascent democratic process in Bangladesh.

The new prime minister, Khalida Zia, leader of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP), owes her victory to the memory of her deceased husband, President Ziaur Rehman, who was assassinated in 1981. Shaikh Hasina, leader of the opposition Awami League, invoked the memory of her father, Shaikh Mujibur Rehman, the first president of the country, who was assassinated in 1975. In the time leading up to the election, military governments muzzled the media and severely curtailed political freedoms in the country. Schools and universities that traditionally produced the young leadership remained mostly closed, or political activity on the campuses was banned. Political ideologies and/or platforms were not available to the general public.

In this suffocating environment, people were desperately looking for leaders to defy authority and bring change. Shadows of two dead men, Mujib and Zia, provided the needed rallying point. Hasina and Khalida capitalized on it. There are close parallels in the cases of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, Rajiv Gandhi in India and Corazon Aquino in the Philippines. Each points at a vaccuum left behind. Each tells a story of its own.

Bangladesh is a poor country with more than 10 million people, 85 percent of whom are Muslims. Average life expectancy is barely over 50 years. Annual per capita income is less than US $200 and the country falls in the lower rungs of the world's less developed countries. Besides the man-made tragedies that have visited Bangladesh in recent years, it is also one of the areas of the world that most often suffers such serious natural calamities as floods and hurricanes.

In the absence of prior experience, Khalida will face challenges that will require strong leadership. She will be surrounded by people who will help her and wish her well, but there are others who want her to fail.

The two ladies, during their election campaigns, had General Ershad as the issue. They now have to contend with each other. Whether a parliamentary form of government evolves or the presidential system is maintained, neither of the new leaders can afford to create too many waves too soon. In the same vein, it would be a mistake to concentrate on Ershad's transgressions, rather than dealing with the pressing economic questions which necessitated the change in the first place. Benazir Bhutto's bad experience in this regard may serve as a warning. Bangladesh, in any event, is at a crossroads. With the return of democracy, there can be exciting times ahead for the country.

The Turn of Events in India

The sudden resignation of Prime Minister Chandra Shekar, whose week-old beard depicts a trimmed attention to detail and symbolizes a state of careful carelessness, probably surprised Rajiv Gandhi more than anybody else. However, Shekar is not to be blamed. Rajiv, who had helped Shekar form the government, wanted more time for his Congress (1) Party to consolidate its position while he chose an advantageous time for new elections. Chandra Shekar, who was living on borrowed time, could not take the pressure of uncertainty any longer, and at the same time would not let Rajiv capitalize on his weakness. In a pre-emptive strike, he has plunged the country into unpredictable midseason elections.

Thus far, everything is democratic. However, in a country with a population of over 800 million persons espousing sharply opposing political and religious philosophies, repeated general elections do not augur well for the health of the nation. This is especially pertinent in light of the widespread communal and regional disturbances that have taken place recently. Wounds are not yet healed and the issues are still unsettled. Elections in normal times settle disputes without bloodshed; elections in a different environment can produce unwelcome surprises.

Indications are that no single party is likely to emerge as the clear majority party in the Lokh Sabha, the lower house of the Indian legislature. If the sample polls are to be relied upon, Rajiv Gandhi may lose big, Chandra Shekar may lose, Sundarlal Patwa may make some gains and V.P. Singh may come out as the real gainer. Once again horse-trading will start and splinter groups will become the determining factor. Anyone who controls 50 seats or more may become a power broker.

At such critical times, delicate questions arise. Many wonder if India is heading toward recurrent political crisis. And, will this play to the advantage of centrifugal forces? Is that what a federation should be all about, or will the trend be inimical to the integrity of the country? Perhaps the questions are premature. Nonetheless, there is much at stake in the coming Indian elections, and the world will be, or should be, watching events there thoughtfully in the coming weeks and months.

Gathering Clouds Over Pakistan

Some countries, like some people, perform best under pressure. Where problems don't exist, they are created so that the nervous energy building up inside can be expended. Pakistan appears to be a case in point.

It is one of only two countries brought into being in this century on the basis of a religion. The other is Israel. The conditions under which Pakistan was born in 1947 were not very conducive to normal growth. It has had more than its share of early difficulties.

Orphaned by the quick disappearance of such founding leaders as Jinnah and Liaquat, it landed in the care of military nannies more concerned about their own welfare and reputations than the health of the baby. Development has consequently been slow.

The country is not a medieval state. Its people are a vibrant populace capable of dealing with the challenges of the modern era. After each military interlude, they have reverted back to democracy. Unfortunately, like the rest of the subcontinent today, it abounds with politicians and lacks statesmen.

The Soviet attack on Afghanistan, which proved to be a Russian misadventure, faced Pakistan with a new regional challenge. Through the Khyber Pass, the historic point of entry from the north, poured half a million Afghan refugees. They brought with them an illegal arms trade and narcotics smuggling.

From the reftigee camps on the outskirts of the rugged city of Peshawar, the Afghan Mujahedeen launched the armed struggle to liberate Afghanistan. From the northernmost part of Pakistan, the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), however, smuggled arms and drugs trickled down to the southern port city of Karachi.

A gun-toting Kalashnikov culture was introduced into the peaceful Indus valley. The Sindhi cities and countryside were dangerously polarized, resulting in open hostilities between different ethnic groups. By now, the Soviet Union has withdrawn from Afghanistan, and the US has revised its Afghan policies. The turmoil continues, however, in Sindh, to the detriment of the health of the country.

The unresolved Kashmir issue also has been destabilizing to Pakistan. Saddam Hussain sided with India on the question. The United States, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have not only been the traditional friends but benefactors of Pakistan.

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, however, the Pakistani commander-in-chief, General Aslam Baig, considered Saddam Hussain the hero! The government of Pakistan, headed by President Ishaq Khan and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, took a different approach. Nevertheless, the GOP had to do a lot of explaining to its allies. It would be interesting to know what transpired in General Baig's subsequent meetings with Saudi King Fahd and US General Norman Schwarzkopf.

Bangladesh, India and Pakistan all are the inheritors of great cultures and rich histories, and have the potential to be leaders in a peaceful new world order. Instead, all seem to be absorbed in the resolution of selfinflicted and petty problems and fears.

Priorities are, unfortunately, mixed up. Shadows are confused with substance. In Pakistan, for instance, military promotions, transfers and retirements are dutifully followed by the general public with mesmerized attention. Routine operational activities in the military are studied like tea leaves to forecast the future. Benazir Bhutto, it is rumored, is cozying up politically with Nawaz Sharif. Ishaq, who stays close to his civil service club, and not too far away from the Army gymkhana, is watching. The country holds its breath.

M. M. Ali is a professor at the University of the District of Columbia.