Prof. G.L.Peiris Lecture at JNU

Professor Gamini Laksman Peiris
Former Minister of Justice, Constitutional Affairs & National Integration
The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

VENUE: School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University

How do you reconcile ethnic and cultural diversity with the concept of mature and cohesive nationhood? Certainly in South Asia this is a perennial problem. In many of our countries there are people who speak different languages, profess different religions, come from different cultural backgrounds. How do you construct political and economic institutions which enable this range of diversity to be readily compatible with the perception of belonging to a single country, without any element of exclusion from decision-making processes?

I think that is a central challenge facing many of the countries of the developing world.
In Sri Lanka we are experimenting with certain ideas which will enable us to devolve substantial power to different regions in the country. The whole thrust of this is empowerment of people; making it possible for them to play a more active and vigorous role in the making of decisions which touch their daily lives.

How do you do this within the framework of a single state? In Sri Lanka, as we proceed with this initiative we find ourselves facing a particular problem. We are told that if you look at the history of federalism in the world the typical model of federalism is that of regions coming together, regions that were earlier independent. But they come together for certain limited purposes. That has been the traditional pattern. Now, Sri Lanka, by contrast, has always been a unitary state. Federalism has not at any time been part of the political experience of my country.

What we are now contemplating is the changing of that unitary structure to admit of a degree of power-sharing, which is generally associated with quasi-federal structures. Now the question that is asked is: We're all familiar with the phenomenon of independent entities coming together within the framework of a federal state, but is it possible, is it feasible, to envisage a country which has always been a unitary state now adopting, as a result of a political process, quasi-federal structures and mechanisms? That has been a question which has been put to us, very pointedly, in the course of the constitutional initiative which is taking place at the present time in my country.

I need to tell you that one of the problems that we face here is an emotional problem. Not people being cerebral, reflective, thinking consciously about these matters, but an intuitive and emotional response to these very mixed and convoluted issues. The problem there is this: Many people feel, in our part of the world, that federalism is the precursor to the physical dismemberment, or the disintegration of the nation state. If you proceed in that direction the end result would be the break-up of a national state. Now many people are suspicious of federalism in our country. They are suspicious because they feel that this is the thin end of the wedge. Once you begin travelling in that direction how do you stop short of the physical disintegration of the state?

So it is the emergence and the consolidation of structures which have enabled people coming from a diversity of cultural backgrounds to feel at home in their respective nations. It is these mechanisms that have enabled the survival of these entities as unified countries. Now, that may be self-evident when you put the proposition in that way, but one has to overcome a high degree of emotion and convince people of the reality of that position. In doing so I think we have to jettison labels; nomenclature is not the most important thing. There are many countries in the world which do not fall neatly into this category of unitary or federal. There are hybrid structures. So I do not think that we should be slaves to stereotypes or to labels.

In my own country most of the problems are in the northern and the eastern regions where the majority of the people speak the Tamil language. That is, those are regions dominated by a minority. There is a similar situation in Canada, in Spain, and in other countries. Do you then solve the problem in this way: a duopoly approach that greater powers need to be devolved to those regions where the most acute problems arise in every day experience?

Now, in Sri Lanka we have found that one of the reasons why that approach is difficult is a degree of emotional resistance. If the majority feel that some kind of completely special and disparate treatment is meted out to a particular region, which is inhabited by a group of people who belong to the racial minority, then psychologically there's a high degree of resistance to the adoption of those models and structures. But whichever solution you adopt, symmetrical or asymmetrical, it is important to insist, in keeping with the contemporary Sri Lankan experience, that there must be power-sharing also at the centre.

Now the situation is complicated in a country like my own where the minorities do not live exclusively in a particular part of the country. They do live in the northern and the eastern provinces, but then there are large numbers of Tamil-speaking people who live in the capital city and its environs. So a viable structure cannot consist simply of the devolution of power to regions. You have to look at the problem of power-sharing at the centre and develop appropriate mechanisms to accomplish that objective.

Then there's this one other element that I need to refer to. These problems in our part of the world cannot be analyzed solely in terms of majority versus minority. What imparts a particularly complex dimension is the minority versus minority aspect. In Sri Lanka there are two minorities: there are the Tamils; there are the Muslims. So if in the northern and the eastern regions you devolve very substantial powers to the Tamil-speaking minority then the Muslims ask that their own fundamental rights be suitably entrenched by constitutional arrangements to prevent the Muslims from being overwhelmed by the Tamil community. So that is a dimension that we need to bear in mind.

It is also important, I think, to make the point that in our part of the world, certainly in South Asia, we have a serious problem of political polarisation. The disappearance of middle ground. People are not willing to compromise. Some of these issues are tarnished with emotion. In that kind of situation we have made provision in our constitutional arrangements for the regional governments to consist not only of the party that has been successful at the polls, but proportionately the party in opposition will be entitled to a number of seats in the board of ministers of the region. So we have departed from the traditional principle of winner takes all. We have made it possible for the party in opposition also to make a constructive input into the making and the implementation of policy and we think that that is a constructive contribution to diminishing the tradition of political confrontation and polarisation which is the bane of the political culture of a great part of the sub-continent.

There must be a high degree of public awareness of the value systems that are sought to be embodied in the constitutional arrangements. You need a vigorous press. You need trade unions. Political parties. You need democracy within political parties. You need certain regulatory mechanisms with regard to the finances of political parties. There must be access to justice. The ombudsman or the equivalent of the ombudsman must have a significant role to play. So some degree of egalitarianism is necessary in order to make a success of some of these principles, so one is to have a holistic conception of human development, and the political and economic structures that come into being must reflect that commitment to pluralism, secularism, and the functioning of representative democracy.

South Asian Parliament

The modern parliament was born in England, after four centuries of steady progress, in the 17th century as ‘an instrument of the rising bourgeoisie for controlling the monarchy’. It later reached America, continental Europe and subsequently to the rest of the world. Yet again, the first significant supranational parliament was the European Parliament that, in the words of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, “represents the peoples of the States brought together in the European Community.” The last five decades have shown a striking increase in the growth of regional parliaments. Till June 2004, membership to the Inter Parliamentary Union accounted for five associate members such as the Andean Parliament, the Central American Parliament, the European Parliament, the Latin American Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In addition, the Joint Parliamentary Commission of Mercosur is an embryonic institution that deserves closer scrutiny.

Recently by instigating the idea of a South Asian parliament, South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA) urged South Asian countries to follow the ‘European model of first creating inter-state economic dependencies and then moving ahead with plans of political cooperation’. The demand was made at the inaugural session of SAFMA Parliamentary Forum: South Asian Parliament, with its theme being ‘Evolving South Asian Fraternity’. This raises some questions: first, why should region-makers mind about establishing a regional parliament, when democratic set up itself is going on a toss in the South Asian scenario? Second, is the idea for South Asian parliament genuine or is there any hidden agenda? Third, how has it developed exclusively in the two world areas, namely Europe and Latin America, and what are the drawbacks at the South Asian level?

Historically speaking, the idea was first mooted academically during the early 1990s, and was elaborated upon in 1995 by academics and analysts who projected the idea of SAARC parliament as a strategic mechanism for 'crisis management and resolution', and as a law-making body to monitor the 'economic and security interests of the region’. But politically it was India's then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao who primarily mentioned the idea of a South Asian Parliament in his inaugural address at the 10th Anniversary of SAARC in New Delhi on December 8, 1995. The then Bangladesh Foreign Minister endorsed it in the form of a 'non-legislative South Asian parliament'. Recently, support for the idea of a South Asian parliament received a boost when India's Congress leader Mrs. Sonia Gandhi endorsed it and has repeated the idea of a South Asian Parliament on various occasions. This even led the Congress Party to endorse the idea in its ‘agenda for the April-May, 2004 elections’.

Parliamentary representation at regional level is an integral part of representative democracy. We know now for sure that of all regional parliamentary initiatives, the European Parliament is the only one that has developed real decisional powers and has become a central piece in the complex decision-making structure of the European Union. While the EU is already a common market and is consolidating an economic union, the institutional structure needed for the type of a political organization fit well with the requirements of its member countries. Also, most European countries feature parliamentary or semi-parliamentary regimes; therefore they are conceived of as the supreme institutions where governments are ultimately made and unmade.

In the case of South Asia, the authority and survival of the government are independent from the parliamentary will in most of the countries, despite the ‘fragility of parliamentary democracy’. According to Prof. S.D. Muni, the South Asian region ‘does not stand for strong parliamentary institutions’. Even in stable democracies like India and Sri Lanka, socio-political dynamics have evolved in a manner that ‘healthy political culture has not been reflected in the functioning of parliaments and its associated institutions’. Added to it are the Political defections, indiscipline, corruption and power struggles that ‘have not allowed healthy norms and traditions of parliamentary functioning to take roots’. For months on, ‘oppositions have boycotted parliaments to make trivial political points and in the process, have also not allowed parliaments to transact legislative business’. Henceforth, it would be unreasonable not to think that the Heads of South Asian States may replicate, at the regional level, a feature that fits them well at the domestic level.

Regional parliaments may lend a hand to accomplish harmonizing aspirations such as constructing a regional identity amongst political elites, strengthening the emblematic presence of the regional organization with the public opinion and third countries, and facilitating intra-regional communication. However, these functions are neither exclusive nor characteristic of a parliamentary institution as such. If the idea of South Asian parliament is to be enhanced, then the distinction between its constitutive and complementary functions should not be neglected. As history teaches, endorsing unrealistic proposals, whether based on ingenuous emulation or on insufficient understanding, would most likely doom the enterprise to failure or –at best— irrelevance.

Afro-Asian Summit

(This article got published in IPCS website)

‘If you want to settle a thing, you see your opponent and talk it over with him. The last thing to do is write him a letter’ said Lloyd George as a precursor to Summit level meetings. It was only in 1950 that the word ‘Summit’ gained political or diplomatic meaning when Winston Churchill introduced it into international parlance by calling meetings between the great powers as ‘Summit meetings’. Against this background, it should come as no surprise that the just concluded Afro-Asian summit showcased the solidarity of major powers in Asia and Africa. Dozens of dignitaries - including Chinese President Hu Jintao, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Pakistani President Musharaf, South African President Thabo Mbeki and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan - gathered to sign the summit declaration. Leaders from 100 Asian and African countries have also signed a new Strategic Partnership to ensure ‘peace, stability and security in the two continents’. However this summit has to be remembered by the Indian policy makers for the twists and turnouts that have actually helped India to gain prominence in the ongoing Asian Drama.

● Firstly, the participation of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in the summit holds special significance since India has ‘emerged as an economic powerhouse in the past decade’. India, which welcomed the Chinese premier, Wen Jiabao, and Pakistani President Pevez Musharraf in New Delhi earlier this month is now getting ready to receive the Japanese prime minister, Koizumi. At this crucial juncture India’s footing in the Asian stage is prominent. This is obvious when Mr.Singh was selected as the Head of the Afro-Asian Summit.

● Secondly, India has committed to deepen its economic linkages with Africa. Through the ‘Technical And Economic Cooperation Programme’, India has proposed to assist monetary value of technical assistance, including training, deployment of experts and projects, which it has extended under this Programme of about US dollar one billion. It should be remembered that India has already embarked on an initiative with eight West African countries, known as the Team Nine Initiative.

● Thirdly, India had used this summit to emphasize the need for a comprehensive reform of what has come to be known as the ‘Yalta Order of international political institutions’. Calling for an inter-continental political resolve to refashion the U.N., including the Security Council in particular, Singh said it was necessary to reform not only the U.N. but also the Bretton Woods institutions so that they would “reflect the realities of 2005”.

● Fourthly at the South Asian level, it is a success of Indian diplomacy, when for the first time ever at a speech in an international forum, Pakistan PM raised relations with India in a completely positive tone. Singh also complimented Musharaf for his positive statement at the Summit. "It is perhaps the rare occasion that Pakistan has not indulged in India-bashing at a multilateral fora," he noted.

● Fifthly, the Summit meet had provided India and Nepal an important opportunity to deliberate on the situation in Nepal during the ‘frank and cordial meeting’. It is the first meeting between the two leaders since the Nepalese monarch seized direct control of the Government in Kathmandu during February. India reconfirmed that, ‘it is not just a question of “re-energising” the political process, it is a question of allowing multi-party democracy to come into full play’. Earlier India refused to attend the Dhaka SAARC summit in February due to Royal coup in Nepal and security problem in Bangladesh. But during a meeting on the sidelines of the summit, the Indian and Bangladesh Foreign Ministers have agreed to work out a new timetable for the aborted SAARC summit.

It may be obvious, but still serve as a useful reminder, to underline that the summit is not an isolated event. As Hans Morganthau defined the early days of modern summitry: ‘as the classic conception of drama, where in the will of the actors was confined in the shackles of determinism. The outcome at the final curtain was predetermined by the opening up of the drama in the first act, accounting for all the conditions and causes of later developments’. It is not untrue that the outcome of this summit was predetermined and it must be understood by analyzing the series of changes that has taken place in Asian politics in general and South Asian Politics in particular.

To conclude, the future multilateral summit is becoming increasingly a place where politicians will be increasingly convinced that their public image depends on the extent to which they address the interests of their domestic constituencies. This Afro-Asian summit will be remembered as the defining moment not only for India, but also for the world, if both Asia and Africa establish the goal of ‘a positive and enlightened ethic of globalization, built on democratic foundations and a genuine commitment to the cause of pluralism’.

Bangladesh, Sri Lanka & China

(This article is unpublished)

In recent times, China’s sphere of influence on what was essentially the Indian Territory – namely Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal–is greatly expanding in leap and bounds. In relation to her smaller South Asian nations, China has pursued cheque-book diplomacy in return for moral support for issues confronting her. This article argues that Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal must realize that China expects their total and unconditional support in return for her generosity. This was obvious from the recent visit in April of Chinese premier to revive the bilateral relationship with South Asia and if possible further deepen and strengthen it. From then onwards there is a clear-cut pattern of positive response from the South Asian countries especially Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka towards China. King of Nepal visited China in July, followed by Prime Minister of Bangladesh and President of Sri Lanka in August 2005.

The recent State visit of Bangladesh Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia to China was not given due attention because of the serial bomb blasts in Bangladesh which diverted international notice. But the developments taking place in Sino-Bangladesh relationship during this visit were too important to be ignored. The visit marked the completion of three decades of the establishment of Dhaka-Beijing diplomatic ties. In fact, this was the third visit by Khaleda Zia, first in December 2002 and the second time in July 2004. Before the latest Khaleda’s visit, Bangladesh hastily signed an agreement with China to acquire 16 fighter planes at a cost of $118 million. This deal is the biggest single procurement by the Bangladesh Air Force and will allow COSTIND, a Chinese government agency, to handle the modalities of the sale. The fleet includes 12 F-7 Type-III and four FT-7 aircraft, all of Chinese make. It was also reported that China had agreed to give assistance to Bangladesh for peaceful use of nuclear energy for medicine and electricity generation. It will provide assistance for Rooppur Nuclear Plant.

Interestingly the recent State visit by Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga to China in the last week of August 2005 acknowledged the precious assistance of the Chinese government in many fronts to the island nation over the past 50 years. China's economic assistance to Sri Lanka and its development cooperation with Sri Lanka have reached unprecedented heights with China's material inputs figuring very prominently in several vital development projects. The Sri Lankan President made special reference to two joint venture projects, namely the Hambantota Port and the phosphate mining and fertilizer Project. The President observed ‘the Port in Hambantota would be the first major harbor constructed by any government since independence and the phosphate mining and fertilizer project, is the first time mining will be done in a scientific manner”. Apart from this there were several bilateral agreements in the fields of finance, tourism and culture signed in the Chinese capital between Sri Lanka and the Peoples Republic of China. Important agreements include- Establishment of a Sri Lankan Consulate in Shanghai ; Memorandum of Understanding for 3X30 MW Puttalam Coal Power Plant in Sri Lanka etc.

One can draw parallels in the bilateral cooperation signed by China, be it with Bangladesh or with Sri Lanka.

• The trade deficit of both Sri Lanka and Bangladesh with China soared to more than 700 million US dollars and 990 million US dollars respectively. The Chinese counterpart Wen said China will take measures to solve the imbalance in bilateral trade with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. During their respective meetings, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh stressed about narrowing the trade gap with China, reducing tariff rates and encouraging large-scale investment and joint ventures in various sectors between the two countries.

• The importance of the visits lies in the joint communiqués issued at the end of the visits stressing that UN reform should be based on the principle of ‘widest possible consensus’. This is seen as a clear-cut China towing by both the countries, at a time when India is striving for its permanent membership in the UNSC. Sri Lanka towing with China is also witnessed in the recent Iran nuclear imbroglio. Sri Lanka abstained from voting in favor of the resolution passed by the IAEA to refer the Iran’s case in the UNSC with China. Bangladesh also supported China on the UNSC reforms. The two countries also accepted China’s view that the next Secretary General of the United Nations should be a representative of the Asian Region.

• Another new venture initiated by the Chinese government is to construct friendship villages as a part of their engagement. China also concluded an agreement with these governments on the construction of a China- Bangladesh Friendship Village and China –Sri Lanka Friendship Village.

• The two countries welcomed strengthening of ties between China and South Asian States following exchange of high-level political and other visits and discussed the possibilities of setting up institutional links between the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and China.

Pakistan under Musharaf

Lecture by: Prof. Kalim Bahadur

Ever since Pakistan became independent 58 years ago, the country was under the direct military regime for more than half the time and the rest of the period it was under indirect military control. India as we know is and has been a flourishing democratic country with viable democratic set up. In contrast, Pakistan is struggling in itself to build its own secular stable democratic system.

It is important to note the development post II world war period, where in most of the newly independent countries could not build a viable democratic system of government. Be it in Africa, Latin America or in South Asia. It is also pertinent to ask as to why the military intervention in the political system is common in the third world countries? If we take the sum and substance of the various political systems in the third world countries, we come to a view that the military had intruded and dominated the political set up. Many scholars have written on ‘military intervention in politics’; notable among them are Samuel Huntington, Schlesinger and Hamsa Alvi. An intriguing question is why do some militaries dominate the state or continue to exercise considerable political influence while others have abstained from or terminated their political role?

The common theory is that where the democratic system is weak, the army is the only organized and cohesive structure that can modernize the society. There are others who argue that the problem of the legitimacy of the system, the control of the armed forces etc may also be responsible. In cases of tribal society, where there is a lack of democratic set up, military intervention is possible.

According to Hamsa Alvi, the third world countries do not fall in to the category of classical Marxist interpretation. The traditional Marxist conception is not right in many newly independent countries for the simple reason that they are above such classical interpretation.

It is imperative to note that in Muslim countries democracy is not or has not been successful. There are hardly three Muslim countries that are under democratic setup.

Type of Pakistani Society:

Pakistan is composed of provinces, such as Baluchistan, Sindh, NWFP and Punjab, which had tribal society than a middle class. Baluchistan is still a tribal society. So is NWFP. At that time, there was relatively strong middle class in East Pakistan. The influence of Pakistan Movement was not strong West Pakistan. In the 1946 election, Muslim League was not elected. In NWFP Congress government won.

When Pakistan came in to being, mostly the Indian migrant held the power Eg. Jinnah and Liaqut Ali Khan. It is only later the dominant Punjabi’s took the power in the Pakistan politics. There were general slogans on religious lines ‘ased on Islam’, ‘based on Quran’. No clear view on democracy and system of government was observed. This had possibly led to the rise of four military rulers in the history of Pakistan. In 1948, after the first of its four wars with India, Pakistan plunged into political instability, culminating in military rule dominated by Ayub Khan (1958), Yahya Khan (1969) , Zia-ul-Haq (1977), and more recently Musharraf (1999). This early militarization of Pakistani society shaped the Pakistani nation-state for the past 55 years.

For 50 years, the generals alternated with political leaders. Jinnah’s most prominent political successor, Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, was assassinated in 1951 and was eventually followed by the rule of Generals Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan. Later, the populist Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, tried to impose an “Islamic socialist” regime that was neither religious nor leftist. The military hung him in 1979, leading to Zia ul-Haq’s 10-year interregnum, which ended in a still-mysterious 1988 plane crash. Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif then alternated as prime minister in the 1980s and 1990s. Nawaz overreached himself, and the military deposed him in another of Pakistan’s bloodless coups. It must be remembered that the earlier 3 coups were a result of a political crisis where as the recent military coup was not under any political crisis. This coup violated all the basic principles of the Pakistani constitution. There was no reason for Nawaz Sharif to get deposed by a coup. However, unlike other coups, the constitution was not abrogated, but it was suspended for a brief period. Also Martial law was not declared. Another interesting feature of this coup is that it did not ban any political parties.

This political instability also manifested itself in Pakistan’s failed efforts to establish a functioning constitution or hold regular and consequential elections. In 55 years, Pakistan has had three constitutions—created in 1956, 1962, and 1973—and in 1985 Zia ul-Haq fundamentally altered the constitution with his introduction of the Eighth Amendment establishing a president-dominated executive. Then, in 1998 Nawaz Sharif repealed this amendment. Musharraf and his military colleagues (backed by legal advisors skilled in such endeavors) appear ready to undertake a fresh attempt to create a new constitutional order. National elections in recent years were held in 1985, 1988, 1990, 1993, and 1997, but no elected Pakistani government has succeeded another in 55 years—all have been deposed by the military or dismissed by presidential fiat.

Dr. Kalim Bahadur then briefly outlined the parameters of his speech. He intended to examine the impact of Musharaf’s coup on the National Assembly, Political Parties and the Judiciary.

National Assembly:

On October 15, 1999, General Musharaf assumed the position of Chief Executive, declared a nation wide state of emergency and suspended the constitution, national assembly, the senate, the 4 provincial legislatures and all the political officials, except the President and the Judiciary.

In November 1999, Nawaz Sharif and six other senior officials (including Mohammed Shahbaz sharif, the brother of the ousted PM and the former Punjab CM) were arrested on the charges of criminal conspiracy and attemped murder in relation to the alleged refusal of landing rights to the commercial aircraft carrying Gen.Musharaf from Sri Lanka to Karachi on 12 October.

During early 2002 Musharaf reiterated his commitment to returning the country to democracy, beginning with the parliamentary elections scheduled for October. According to the 2002 Legal Framework Order and the 2003 17th Constitutional Amendment Act, the number of seats in the lower house of the Federal Legislature, called the National Assembly , was increased from 217 to 342. In this 60 seats were reserved for Women and 10 for non-muslims. Musharaf however insisted that a formal role for the military in governing the country was necessary to ensure a stable transition to democracy and to forestall a potential military coup.

Political Parties:

There are about 73 parties in Pakistan. However in the 2002 elections three alliances contested : the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy (Chair: Makhdom Hashmi; includes the PML-N and PPPParliamentarians), the National Alliance ( Chair: Ghulam Jatoi; NPP, Sindh National Party, the National Awami Party) and the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (Chair: Qazi Hussain; Jamait-e-Islami Pakistan, JeUePak, JeUeI(S), JeUeI(F) etc). Surprisingly MMA won by securing 45 seats, PML(Q) won 77 seats. On 21 November the PML (Q) candidate Zafarullah Khan Jamali was elected PM by the National Assembly. Meanwhile Musharaf agreed to transfer power to the elected government, but emphasized that he would continue to carry out his ‘important role’.

Recently he announced that he would renounce his uniform. In exchange the MMA agreed the amendments the Pakistan military wanted. Finally after the amendments, Musharaf denied to renounce his uniform.

Judiciary:

Pakistan has a poor Judiciary record. Let me provide two points to strengthen my point.

1. In March 1996, the Supreme Court in Karachi ruled that the government no longer had the exclusive mandate to appoint judges to the higher courts; these appointments would, in future be required to have the consent of the Chief Justices of High Courts and the Chief Justice of Pakistan. This ruling aroused considerable controversy since it deprived the executive of substantial authority within the national judicial system.

2. In late Jan 2000, Gen Musharaf was accused of undemocratic conduct and of attempting to erode the independence of the judiciary when he dismissed the country’s Chief Justice, Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, together with 5 other judges of the Supreme Court, following their refusal to swear allegiance to the military regime under a new boat. In May Gen. Musharaf’s regime was strengthened by a unanimous decision by the pro-military Supreme Court to validate the October 1999 coup as having been necessary to spare the country from chaos and bankruptcy.

Future of Pakistan:

The future of Pakistan lies in the strength of the public support, President Musharaf is wielding. As a saying goes, ‘ It is easy to mount a tiger ,but it is difficult to dismount it’, so is the politics of Pakistan. Even Musharaf is in a state of complex crux from which he is trying to come out safely, but the reality is that, he could not.

Bangladesh: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Lecture by: Prof. Imtiaz Ahmed, Dhaka University

The speaker raised concerns over the inconsistencies of change and causation that led to the general perception of a small state syndrome about Bangladesh. Prof Imtiaz started his lecture by articulating a set of logical paradoxes regarding motion by a student of Parmenides called Zeno, which is referred as Zeno paradox. Zeno of Elea (490-430 BC) argued that if we see things in motion and our theory does not allow motion, then our senses must lie. Thus rather than seeing a solid object, an arrow, existing at definite points in its trajectory, the correct view is to see a wave of energy following the arrow's trajectory with much greater mass/energy presence at certain instances of space time. The speaker gave two examples of how Sunrise and Sunset appears to be factual but not real. He set the introductory observation on existence of contradictions and realities about Bangladesh, where in the reality is generally not understood.

During yester years, Bangladesh resulted out of three phases – Geo political phase, Geo economic phase and Military regime phase.

• Geo political phase is characterized by Territorialization based on artificial boundaries, Bangladeshi Nationalism and Language movements. Due to the territorial bottle-up, the country is facing continuous disasters in the form of severe floods.

• Geo economic phase is characterized by the increase in non-state actors such as smugglers, traffickers, small arms traders etc who have increased in tempo and magnitude. This had given rise to sub-altern globalization.

• Military regime phase is characterized by the increase in nationalistic and religious fervor.

• Today, Bangladesh is characterized by – Small state syndrome, Power of non-governmental actors and Mastanocrazy.

• Though the country occupies 8th position in overall demography, it is termed to be ‘a small state’, because of its territorial extension.

Non-Governmental actors play an important role in the development of Bangladesh. Eg. Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee (BRAC) is one of the largest NGO that takes care of developmental activities in the country. It is true that NGO’s has stepped up in the field of education, health and women empowerment.

The politics in Bangladesh is characterized by Mastanocracy. The overwhelming power of money and muscle made its appearance with the advent of military rule in the country. Muscle power in politics these days, however, is essentially a problem in the developing countries.

Tomorrow, Bangladesh will be characterized as a ‘soft state’. Soft state in terms of de-masculanised representation in politics, de- governmentalised representation in developmental activities and dealing with disasters. Not to rule out the fact that, Bangladesh is one of the few countries where in a powerful women leader reigns, where in the NGO’s work hand in hand with the government, where in the people learned to mitigate themselves in times of severe floods.

Discussions:

• Bengali people had to pay the highest price for religion during Pakistan period. This was one of the major reasons that secularity was adopted as one of the four state principles in our constitution. After the independence, issues of undertaking program to encourage people about secularity was raised before Banga Bandhu Sheikh Mujibar Rahman. Aftermath of the `75 coup d'état saw the rise of reactionary politics in Bangladesh. Military figures, sometimes in their uniform or in civil dress clutched power for nearly 15 years till 1990. They attempted to make themselves credible using religion. In this way Islam, the religion of the majority, started to be utilized in politics.

• The overwhelming power of money and muscle made its appearance with the advent of military rule in the country. Military or quasi-military rule is inevitably arbitrary and that is where the fault lies. Military governments invariably depended on the two-pronged strategy of coercion and bribery to secure legitimacy. Spreading money was extensively used for degenerating politics. "Money is no problem" became a catchy slogan in so poor a country. Corruption is endemic in Bangladesh and greed seems to be limitless. Public service in this social environment has become a victim of deal-making. In politics the power of money has assumed an unprecedented level of importance.

• The multiple identity has given rise to three forms of globalization – economic globalization, where in ‘production’ is globalized, Reverse globalization, where in culture is transmitted across boundaries, and sub altern globalization where in there exists a strong nexus between illegal traders through out the world.

• For Bangladesh, the terrorism let loose by organized thugs and goons widely reported to be assisted by the government agencies has long term implications for the country. Here the fear psychosis is being used, though rather crudely, with a long-term agenda in mind.It is assumed that a sizable number of Taliban cadres are present in Bangladesh. Most of them are reported to have taken arms training in Afghanistan.

• There are a total 225 identified Indian enclaves where in 119 are exchangeable and 11 are non –excahngeable. There are a total 95 Bangaldesh enclaves, where in 72 are exchangeable and 23 are non-exchangeable. This made nearly 200,000 people living in Indian enclaves along the Bangladeshi border stateless. Providing multiple citizenship might resolve the problem.