Elephants and tigers can learn from each other
New Straits Times (Columns)
3 Sep 2007
Mahendra Ved 

IT was celebration time last month in three nations across Asia having strong ancient cultural ties cemented by a common legacy of being part of the British Empire.
Pakistan and India turned 60 on Aug 14 and 15. At the end of the month, it was Malaysia’s turn to celebrate 50 years of independence. Together, they provide an interesting study.

The two South Asian elephants and a Southeast Asian tiger represent two differing patterns of development on many fronts, though not all. It is a story of their success or failure in evolving institutions, of opportunities seized or lost, and of efforts at deciding the destiny of people, with varying results.

Historically, Bangladesh separated from India on Aug 14, but has shed its reasons to celebrate 1947. It rejected the ideology that it pioneered with the birth of the Muslim League in Dhaka in 1906. Although a part of Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s quest, it was unhappy being East Pakistan.

The denouement came in 1971. If Pakistan was billed as the nation born to give Muslims of South Asia identity, self-respect and prosperity, Bangladesh separated to preserve its language and reassert a distinct culture.
Time magazine once said: "India is the only country in the world which celebrates its division every year during mid-August." So take a look at last month’s events in the subcontinent.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government came to the brink, and remains there. The issue at stake, a deal with the United State, involves issues ranging from nuclear technology and proliferation, energy economics and the development-versus-environment debate.

Amid economic strides that are unable to undo the negative human development indicators, India remains a vast cauldron. But its institutions are strong, its direction clear.

In Pakistan, the judiciary on one hand and on the other, religious extremists, buffeted President Pervez Musharraf’s regime. Under pressure, with the chief justice himself attacked, the judiciary opened the gates for the return of politicians in exile, whether self-imposed or under some deal. The army’s predominance has been checked.

Jinnah’s actions and poet Muhammad Iqbal’s vision led to Pakistan’s nationhood. But columnist Ayaz Amir laments: "The republic we aspire to, the one envisioned vaguely by Iqbal and Jinnah, is still far away."

Political scientist Hasan Askari believes Pakistan "can no longer be described as a moderate and tolerant society".

In Bangladesh, mid-August assumes a different significance. Its faltering march towards democracy halted abruptly on Aug 15, 1975 when founding father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated in a military coup.

Then followed 15 years of military or military-guided governance, when another president and freedom fighter, General Ziaur Rahman, was assassinated.

Today, Mujibur’s daughter and Zia’s widow, leading opposing political legacies, are under pressure from a government that is working to "restore democracy", but wants to determine who should practise it. Elections are 16 months away as per the government’s timetable.

Six decades after they quit, the British are blamed for many Asian woes. Among them is the divide-and-rule policy among communities.

While India and Malaysia are multireligious and multiethnic, Pakistan and Bangladesh have been relatively more homogeneous, overwhelmingly Muslim nations.

Yet, in the South Asian context, questions persist: Why could Islam not keep Pakistan intact? Why did Bangladesh separate?

India and Pakistan retain much of their past baggage and have failed to resolve tensions among different faiths and, if one includes Sri Lanka, among ethnic groups.

Comparisons can be odious. But while the South Asians are still catching up in the post-Cold War era, and India belatedly "looks east", Malaysia has definitely done better on the economic front. Was it the choice of the model?

There is much to be contrasted between Pakistan and Malaysia: Mal-aysia got it right, while Pakistan failed miserably.

For one, five Malaysian prime ministers did not tinker with the constitution that, in essence, is premised on an abiding faith in a functioning parliamentary system, civilian governance, rule of law, pluralism and a market-based economy. Democracy and the market economy are working in tandem.

Pragmatism, not ideology, remains the foundation of Malaysia’s policy-making. Also, massive investments in rural development, education and health-care were made.

Malaysian leaders were not only development-oriented and people-centred, but also rejected the "winner take all" or "victor-vanquished" formula of political governance in favour of power-sharing through coalition.

Malaysia is unique in that coalitions are formed before an election. No post-polls marriage of convenience.

On this score, it has done better than most democracies, including India.

By contrast, Pakistan’s leaders tinkered with its constitution. Their ethos remains largely feudal and military.

Jinnah envisioned a modern, democratic state. In his much-debated Aug 11, 1947 speech, he visualised a secular Pakistan where Muslims, Hindus, Christians would be free to practise their faiths, while being good Pakistanis.

But his successors first surrendered democracy to the civil-military oligarchy, and finally to the men in uniform.

Jinnah, like Malaysia’s founding fathers, envisaged a modern, democratic and progressive state to deliver peace and betterment for all citizens. Pakistan’s civilian and military rulers alike have consistently flouted his ideals.

The result has been 31 years of military rule.

For 10 years, between 1988-1999, the performances of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, too, were dismal.

Elephants and tigers need to learn from each other.

Copyright © 2007 NST Online