National Advisory Council on South Asian Affairs

Abstract

On May 19-20, 2005, at the Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C., the National Advisory Council on South Asian Affairs (NACSAA) held its first bi-annual seminar to discuss democracy in South Asia. Given the large number of speakers, I mention only those that dealt with Muslim countries. Abdul Momen (University of Massachusetts) stated that the outlook for democracy in Bangladesh is promising, because it has achieved multiparty democracy after military rule, has had positive growth rates since it became democratic, is self-sufficient in food, and is no longer a global basket case. However, the current government is facing major social problems, the flight of multinational corporations, increased political and religious violence, the growing influence of madrassahs, corruption, and non-enforcement of the rule of law. However, the government is very careful not to involve the army in such things. Zillur Khan (University of Wisconsin–Oskhosh) spoke about identity and balance in Bangladesh vis-à-vis development and democracy. He stated that the root of Bangladesh is secular, not Islamist. In fact, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) rose against Pakistan (then West Pakistan) due to its desire for freedom, tolerance, equity, and justice, not Islam. He then traced the struggle of a majority of Bangladeshis to prevent the government from turning their country into an Islamic state. Vijay Sazawal (The Indo-American Kashmir Forum) stated that the outsiders who have entered Kashmir are not really open to the Kashmiris, who want a people-centered, as opposed to a land-centered, solution. According to him, the four pillars of any just and lasting solution are peaceful co-existence, democratic values, economic justice, and meeting the people’s needs. Since 2004, there has been a change in the policy mindset. He claimed that economic justice is the biggest issue in both parts of Kashmir, that the leadership on both sides is totally corrupt and wedded to slogans, and that the real problem is the between the haves and the have-nots. Ambassador Teresita Schaefer (Center for Strategic and International Studies) talked about Washington’s promotion of democracy in South Asia, noting that it has been fairly selective and not really a priority. The emphasis now is on Iraq and the Near East, western Europe, and Australia. There has been some interest in South Asia, especially India and Sri Lanka. Surprisingly, she stated that it is not in Washington’s interest to have true democracy in Pakistan. Faruq Ahmad (political counselor, Embassy of Pakistan) said that democracy and development are important in Pakistan. His upbeat presentation portrayed a Pakistan that gets along with India, Afghanistan, and its other South Asian neighbors, as well as being engaged in a “more realistic” dialogue with India over Kashmir. It is a “popular misconception” that Islamabad is reneging on its commitment to democracy; rather, it is following the existing roadmap. There is a lot of debate in Parliament – a “rowdy democracy” – but with few results. But this is a good sign, for people can talk and criticize the government. According to him, Pakistan has recognized the weakness in its educational system and Musharraf is trying to correct this by reforming the madrassah system. More importantly, there is now a fundamental consensus of what the problems are and how to solve them ...