HVK Archives: Destruction of Pak's culture prevents ties with India
Destruction of Pak's culture prevents ties with India - Rediff On Net
Fuzail Jafferey
()
21 Aug 1997.
Title: Destruction of Pak's culture prevents ties with India
Author: Fuzail Jafferey
Publication: Rediff On Net
Date: Aug 21, 1997. (Around)
The euphoria created over the 'people-to-people contact' between
India and Pakistan received a jolt on the night of Thursday,
August 14, when not a single Pakistani turned up at Wagah, Punjab,
to celebrate the golden jubilee of the Independence of India and
Pakistan.
Veteran journalist Kuldip Nayar, who led the Citizens for Democracy
team to Wagah, blamed the Pakistani government. "It is the Pakistani
government which has been restraining its people from participating
in such joint ventures. The people in Pakistan, by and large, extend
full support to our cause." For one who is yet to see any public
demonstration of such 'support', Nayar's assessment is subjective,
though one does share his optimism and belief that a network of
reciprocal relationships must be developed to neutralise the present
hostile atmosphere.
The problem lies not with Nawaz Sharief or any individual, but with
the Pakistani society as a whole. While in India, a farmer, H D Deve
Gowda, could become the prime minister of the largest democracy of
the world and a member of the so-called scheduled castes, Mayawati,
can rule Uttar Pradesh -- the most populous and politically important
state in the country -- the same is not the case in Pakistan. Since its
creation in 1947, Pakistan has been ruled either by the wealthy elite
and the feudal lords, or by the army generals.
The middle and lower classes have been wilfully and systematically
denied the chance to emerge as a political force of any consequence.
The civil society has practically nothing to do with the political
power in Pakistan. Little wonder then that hardly 30 per cent of the
Pakistanis exercised their franchise in the last general election which
saw Nawaz Sharief re-elected prime minister.
Indian leaders and people have been always deeply and sincerely
interested in building bridges with Pakistan, and were pleased that
Nawaz Sharief, Benazir Bhutto, and the non-starter Imran Khan did
not make Kashmir the main plank of their election campaign.
Thereafter, we were enthralled when the newly elected premier
declared he wanted to resolve all pending issues, including Kashmir,
with India amicably and through peaceful, mutual dialogue.
India, perhaps, read too much in Sharief's initial utterances.
Subsequent developments, including the boycott of the celebrations
at Wagah, have been quite disappointing. Sharief's main achievement
over the past few months has been self-aggrandisement of power.
Through the 13th amendment in the Pakistan constitution, he
removed the omnipresent threat article 582(B), by which the Pakistani
president could sack him or dissolve the national assembly. Similarly,
the amendment of articles 101 and 243 have reverted to the prime
minister the authority of appointing the governors of provinces and
chiefs of the armed forces. In short, the Pakistani prime minister is
back in power.
However, General Zia-ul Haq's shadow looms large over Pakistan
even a decade after his death in the Bawahalpur crash. The question
of the Zia legacy and its impact on Indo-Pakistani relations is
complicated, and needs to be answered squarely. As long as the Zia
doctrine continues to dominate the political and social scene of
Pakistan, the concept of friendship between the peoples of the two
countries will continue to fall short of its purpose. A few dozen
Pakistani intellectuals, who regularly attend seminars on 'Indo-Pak
Friendship' in New Delhi or Lahore, may have the best of intentions,
but they do not represent the vast majority of Pakistanis who still
look upon India with suspicion and distrust.
Pakistani journalist Mazhar Zaidi was right when he remarked:
"History will perhaps await the revelation of hitherto concealed
information for analysts and researchers to assess the actual damage
that those fateful years under Zia have done to Pakistani society.
But the results of a number of vital political decisions that the late
military dictator enforced are already obvious."
>From the Indian point of view, the biggest barrier raised between the
people of the two countries was the process of the so-called
Islamisation initiated by Zia as soon as he appropriated political
power on July 5, 1977, after dislodging the elected prime minister
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Till then and in spite of the three wars the two
countries had fought, the people of Pakistan believed there were no
cultural differences between them and those on the other side of the
border.
The general, who liberally used Islam for his personal benefits and
who successfully bought the loyalties of the right-wing mullahs by
distributing among them large amounts of money through the ISI,
changed the cultural ethos of Pakistan to a large extent.
The Zia government took complete control of the media under the
false pretext that it wanted to bring it, specially radio and television,
in line with the theme of Nizam-e-Mustafa. Pakistani poets, writers
and artistes who believed in a composite Indo-Pak culture were
banned from writing scripts for the electronic media and appearing
on the screen. In the name of promoting family values, only such
plays were telecast which portrayed women as "ideal wives and
sacrificing mothers" Well-known Pakistani columnist Sarwat Ali
recently pointed out that the women playing negative roles were
always shown in Indian clothes (read sari and choli) while the
"good ones -- devout and pious -- wore a salwar kameez with the
dupatta affixed on their head."
Classical Indian music and dance were banned and colleges were
told to close down their music societies.
Unfortunately, the Zia legacy has been continued by his
successors -- Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharief. Not only Indian
films and plays are banned from the official media, but even
renowned Indian poets such as Ali Sardar Jafri and Kaifi Azmi are
not allowed to appear on Pakistani television. Can there be a
greater mockery of the fact that while Urdu is Pakistan's national
language, the most prominent names in Urdu poetry in the whole
of the subcontinent are treated with and disgrace?
Fateh Ali Khan, the popular Sufi singer who died in London on
Saturday, was termed a kafir a few months for his remark that both
Allah and Ishwar spoke through the swara or sur. A section of the
Pakistani press has lately described Zee TV as "far more lethal
than Prithvi" because it is trying to invade "the cultural and
ideological boundaries" of Pakistan by telecasting Indian
programmes through satellite.
Besides, the army top brass, who remain influential in Pakistan,
remain hawkish and have so far shown no inclination in fostering
friendship with India. The Inter-Services Intelligence is not only
trying its best to disturb the internal peace of India but is
simultaneously busy spreading rumours in Pakistan about the
imaginary atrocities committed on Indian Muslims by the
government and people (read majority community) of India.
In short, the concept of people-to-people contact will remain a
chimera unless democracy is fully restored in Pakistan and the
mindset of its people changed. Pakistani rulers have over the
years created a number of psychological hurdles and emotional
barriers for the common man in Pakistan. Unless these are
removed, the people of Pakistan will never be able to reach
Wagah and participate in the types of celebrations we continue
to organise from time to time.
However, Pakistani leaders are doing little in this regard. While
Nawaz Sharief is busy consolidating his position, former prime
minister Benazir Bhutto now wants a coalition government
comprising army generals and representatives of the intelligence
agencies. This Harvard-educated 'Daughter of the East' has
forgotten that it was during Zia's rule that Pakistani culture and
literature became static.
In the larger context, culture, literature and democracy
correspond to the heart, soul and mind of a nation. If the
government of Pakistan has restrained its people from joining
the celebrations at Wagah, it only means it is not interested in
liberating its people whose mind and soul were enchained by
the military dictators of Pakistan.
Fuzail Jafferey
Back
Top
|
