Human rights activist Asma Jehangir has a point when she regrets the silence of Indian civil society on the happenings in Pakistan. Although there is a groundswell of sympathy - and concern - in the country for the people facing the emergency-cum-martial law, yet visible public response is lacking. There has been no demonstration, no protest rally, not even a meeting to express solidarity.
Lawyers should have passed a resolution at every Bar Association in the country. Only a couple of high courts have done so. Aitaz Ahsan was a guest when he visited Delhi High Court some years ago. Still the bar has not held any meeting to recall his visit or issued statement when he languishes in solitary confinement.
The press and TV networks are the only ones to keep the Pakistan story alive, running pictures of people's protest and the police suppression. The Editors Guild of India has issued a strong statement condemning the gagging of the media.
A few political parties have also criticised the emergency. The ruling Congress has only gone on record with a subdued statement.
On the whole, the response is mute. In contrast, the outrage over the hanging of Zufikhar Ali Bhutto was expressed widely despite the discouragement by the Morarji Desai government at that time. A large procession had gone to the Pakistan High Commission in New Delhi to register the protest. During the days of Jawaharlal Nehru, India would speak against injustice and the role of dictators. I was in the press gallery when he interrupted the proceedings of the Lok Sabha to say that General Ayoub Khan had taken over the administration in Pakistan. It was a naked dictatorship, was how Nehru commented.
People-to-people contact means little when we on this side keep quiet after the brutal suppression of basic rights of the people on the other side. Democracy means the same all over the world. Its abrogation should automatically be condemned by free societies. Detaining people without trial, imposing censorship on the media or dismissing judges is no more an internal matter of any country. It concerns people wherever they are because this debases human beings and snuffs out freedom.
Essential
The mere expression of "regret" by New Delhi on squeezing out even the semblance of democracy in Pakistan does not say anything. India's voice counts today and is listened to with attention in international gatherings. It becomes essential, therefore, that we should fashion our policy accordingly and speak out.
After having learnt the lesson of losing liberty and basic rights during the emergency, we should have come out openly in favour of restoration of democracy in Pakistan. Our traditions have laid down the principle which must govern our action in times of danger to the basics of democracy in other countries, at least in our neighbourhood. The mere enunciation of a principle is not enough when a positive policy and constructive action become necessary.
It is strange that the largest democracy in the world keeping quiet when a neighbouring country is gasping for democracy. One reason given is that people do not want to do anything which Islamabad might exploit to tell its people that India was making yet another effort at destabilising Pakistan. I do not think that the Pakistanis would be taken in by such arguments. They would want all freedom lovers to stand by them at the time of their need. At present we have failed them in their darkest hour. Indian civil society has become self-centred over the years. Today, it is engrossed in cornering benefits of economic growth. Its sights are set on careerism, luxurious living and the celebrities in film or cricket world. The society is not bothered even about the 70 per cent of its own countrymen who are living in dismal poverty. How would it find time to think about the sufferings in Pakistan?
"When peace is threatened and aggression takes places, we will not and shall not be neutral," said Nehru at the joint session of the US Congress and the Senate. Yet, India cultivates Myanmar and does not publicly support Aung Sung Su Kyi because it wants the military junta to stop the use of its territory by the militants in the northeast. The people of Myanmar were once part of our struggle for independence. But that does not make New Delhi relent.
India's attitude towards Nepal betrays the same contradiction. Till today it has never made clear whether it is for or against the monarchy, an institution which the preponderant majority of Nepalese has rejected. When nearly 2.5 million of them came on the streets to demand for the establishment of a republic, Indian civil society kept quiet.
Intervention
It is more or less the same story of lack of interest in Sri Lanka. President Mahinda Rajpakse has pleaded with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh more than once to intervene to bring peace in his country. Rajpakse's problem is that the Tamil Nadu government continues to help LTTE which is banned in India.
Pakistan, therefore, should not feel horrified over the lack of response from our civil society. It is a hide-bound society of consumers. It may one day return to values and feel for the sufferings that affect human beings. When will that happen is difficult to say because at present the political parties are hell bent on destabilising the democratic system itself.
Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the UK and a former Rajya Sabha MP.
