National Advisory Council on South Asian Affairs

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 strug-
gle of a majority of Bangladeshis to prevent the government from turning
their country into an Islamic state.

Conference, Symposium, and Panel Reports 175



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 peace-
ful co-existence, democratic values, economic justice, and meeting the peo-
ple’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 empha-
sis 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 presen-
tation 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 follow-
ing 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 fun-
damental consensus of what the problems are and how to solve them.

Ambassador Robin Raphael (former assistant secretary of state for South
Asia) encouraged South Asians, both here and abroad, to explain the region
to the United States, which knows very little about its progress. Right now,
she claimed, Washington is concentrating on the Middle East (especially
Iraq), which is moving in a democratic direction – an “alignment of forces”
– that allows Washington to push for democracy there. While there are some
policy contradictions, Washington no longer has an either/or policy or feels
that it has to sacrifice democracy to realize its strategic interests. 

Syed Akhter (Marquette University) spoke on ethnic diversity and its
effect upon a nation’s economic development. He said that it works in some
cases (e.g., Canada and the United States), but not in others (e.g., Africa).

176 The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 22:3



Japan, which has no ethnic diversity, underwent great economic growth and
development in the 1970s; however, since 1990 it has stagnated. India has
tried to accommodate ethnic diversity, with some success. In Pakistan, the
army controls 40 percent of the economy and has economic, political, and
street power. So, how can market forces prevail? The result: Pakistan is
lower in the human development indices than both Bangladesh and India;
its policies have not worked; it has low marks in health, education, and
access to life’s amenities; and it has very little trade (there is more trade
between Bangladesh and India). He suggested that South Asia’s borders be
opened, that mutual trade be increased, and that transparency be imple-
mented to lessen bureaucratic corruption.

Bishnu Poudel (council member) said that NACSAA representatives
regularly visit South Asian capitals to acquaint American ambassadors with
their activities in the United States (since 1979); meet with foreign minis-
ters for the same reason; meet with some think tank people in the capital to
share ideas; and have a country advisor in each capital to keep both sides
informed each other’s concerns. He urged South Asians to forget about
their particular identities and look at the region as American citizens, for
such an example might help South Asia solve some of its problems. 

During their presentations and the lively question-and-answer sessions,
the speakers raised questions that could be a seminar in themselves: Does
the majority political party, elected democratically, have the right to disen-
franchise the minority communities, as happened in Sri Lanka? Why did
democracy survive in India, yet never become rooted in Pakistan? Based on
the recent history of Russia, China, and India, is democracy always the best
option? Should democratic parties be allowed to appeal to religious senti-
ments, as in India, to promote their own agendas? What is the difference in
democratic practice in a nation that became democratic through education
and its own efforts (Nepal), one that inherited it (Sri Lanka) from the for-
mer colonial master, and one that has given it only lip service (Pakistan)?

Jay Willoughby
AJISS Managing Editor

Herndon, Virginia

Conference, Symposium, and Panel Reports 177