Dadyal politics

It is perhaps just as well that Dadyal does not register on any radar of international significance. The way its politicians have behaved does not show them, to understate the matter, in a blaze of glory. Any semblance of principle and integrity has gone out of the window. Ideology is a word not even understood by the actors; more modestly, even a vague vision of the direction the participants would like Dadyal to travel in is absent. It is all about making alliances of convenience and winning over vote banks. The protagonists have followed the principle that my enemy’s enemy is my friend; so a ridiculous game of musical chairs has played, as people move from one party to another.

To be fair, even in mature democracies ideology has been sidelined. However, it has been sidelined more in public utterances than in reality. Ten years of Labour in the UK saw massive injections of cash into the public services. That was presented as common sense, but equally it could have been presented in left-right language. In Dadyal and AJK, there are no such distinctions. There are no policy documents and manifestos. All we have to go on is the rhetoric delivered at public gatherings.

So what can we hope? I am an inveterate cynic in matters Dadyal and Mirpur. I do not believe that politicians can do much there, even given the best of intentions. That is not to say that ad hoc good things will not be done, but there will be no overall development strategy. Even if there were, it would remain on paper. However, although good deeds are difficult, good intentions notwithstanding, it is easier to do ill to people. So my advice is to vote for someone least likely to do ill; someone who can control his supporters and see beyond them. In brief, someone whose name is not used by supporters laying unmeritorious claims to Shamlat lands.

On the Azad Kashmir election

Back to the AJK election. It seems neither the public nor the parties are fired by much enthusiasm. Barely three weeks to go and some candidates have yet to be declared. In my constituency of Dadyal, the senior MC incumbent is wavering. There is confusion about whether he will stand for re-election or hand the mantle over to someone else. Hopefuls are claiming he has promised to back their bid for the party ticket. The fact that he is a seasoned politician who no doubt understands the counter-productivity of raising hopes places a question mark over such claims. He is wavering because party loyalty is paper thin. There are few ideological candidates anywhere. Today’s liberal can be tomorrow’s conservative.

In the grand scheme of things, not much is at stake: it will not make a huge difference who wins. The land will not flow with milk and honey. What matters there is that no one should be harmed; injustice should not be done to anyone. This is not uncommon in Pakistan generally. All kinds of people surround politicians, including village level rogues who use their political links to settle scores, harass opponents and for personal gain. Land ownership disputes are also linked with politics. As a minimum, we need assertive politicians who can see beyond their immediate coterie of supporters.

PCOs vs. Mobile phones

When I went to AJK in 1999, Public Call Offices (PCOs) were everywhere. It was a booming business in an area which has sent emigrants to Europe and the Middle East. In my visit this year, I couldn’t find a single PCO, all having been supplanted by the mobile phone. It is a sign of progress that mobile phone ownership has penetrated all sections of society.

In the Sufi Shrine at Khurrie, I came across a beggar with a mobile phone in one hand. Back in Chattroh, a poor day labourer from Mardaan was negotiating a pay rate for his next job over the phone. Wide phone ownership is also reflected in the rise in the number of service providers in Pakistan. However, it is probably unfair to use Mirpur as a yardstick for progress in Pakistan as a whole. Mirpur’s deep link with the UK make it a special case.