The historic role, and end, of Pakistan’s student politics
https://arab.news/bvfc4
About half a century back, Pakistan was generally a better society, a smaller population about one-fifth of what it is today, cleaner cities, honest politics and efficient government services. It was then a rising country, spirited and full of dreamers and idealists that wanted to build a democratic, prosperous and progressive new Muslim majority state.
The poets, the youth and politicians of all shades and opinions pursued different ideas and were inspired by competing ideologies but had many things in common: a better future, creative energy, eager to build Pakistan according to their image of a good country. Being a student in a college, university or a professional institution then was a great privilege.
Being a college student in the mid-60’s, I remember quite vividly and with fond memories, the sports, poetry reading sessions, debates, declamation contests and inter-college football and hockey matches. One of the most remarkable character of college and university life was the students unions—a popularly elected body with a president, secretary, treasurer and a general council. Charismatic, socially connected and highly motivated students could aspire to become leaders. They had to be outstanding public speakers, present a manifesto, of which the most attractive part was cheaper education and attractive events throughout the year. Election day would turn each college and university into a big festival with walls pasted with colourful posters of the candidates, enthusiastic supporters distributing fliers, canvass with non-committed voters, make offers of sweet milky tea with cake rusks. The winners would throw a big party that everybody would attend, and in a few days’ time, a new student government would formally be sworn in.
Even in times when radio printed newspapers and magazines were the main sources of information, students were well informed about dominant ideologies---socialism, democracy, religion and other movements around the world. Interestingly, the large body of college and university students came from villages and rural areas, and had hugely benefitted from the material progress and modernisation programme under the military regime of General Muhammad Ayub Khan (1958-69). Among the social and cultural effects of modernity were political consciousness and student activism. Weakened by the 1965 war with India and internal dissention within his government, the general began to lose his grip on power when political parties and student groups reacted to his celebration of the ‘decade of development.
The military regime of Zia ul Haq (1977-88) banned student unions, and no successive elected government ever has thought of reversing it, fearing political violence. So much has changed, and so have students—de-politicized, grade-conscious, careerist, and uninspired by the politics of dynastic elites.
Rasul Bakhsh Rais
The democratic movement to unseat Ayub Khan started with college and university students that were organised mainly into leftist and rightest ideological groups—socialists and Islamists. They met a violent response from the government, but police baton charges, and in a few cases bullets and imprisonment didn’t deter them. Actually, they paved the path to popular protests on which walked the political parties later.
One more thing, the youth rebellion was a global phenomenon, a political consequence of counter-culture movement in the United States and socialist radicalism in the developing world. As the student movement gained strength and the Ayub regime failed to suppress it, political parties began to win over popular student leaders on to their side, and failing it, they formed their own political parties. Why? The parties had weak popular support, were organizationally underdeveloped and lacked trained workers to bring them into the streets.
Jamaat-i-Islami was an exception; about a decade earlier, it had raised a cadre of dedicated student wings with regular training and indoctrination camps by taking a page from ideological parties. The leftist and ethnic parties had engaged students too to propagate their ideologies and political programs.
The entry of political parties—mainstream, ethnic, religious and sectarian-- ended the autonomy of the student bodies and had a big negative effect on student unions. They were desperate to use student power for street agitation to press for their demands or political show of force. The government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (1971-77) was very keen to dominate the student union politics and wished to ouster the well-entrenched Jamaat-i-Islami in Punjab, Karachi and major cities of the country. While student bodies continued to engage in intellectual conversation over competing ideas of time and political choices, the parties forced their way into campuses with money, weapons and paid thugs to intimidate rival student groups.
Election days often became killing fields. A new breed of student leaders emerged with money from parties, abundance of fire arms and political patronage. Resultantly, students became fragmented into violent rival groups, their autonomy and real power vanished away and the campuses lost peace and social solidarity.
The military regime of Zia ul Haq (1977-88) banned student unions, and no successive elected government ever has thought of reversing it, fearing political violence. So much has changed, and so have students—de-politicized, grade-conscious, careerist, and uninspired by the politics of dynastic elites.
- Rasul Bakhsh Rais is Professor of Political Science in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, LUMS, Lahore. His latest book is “Islam, Ethnicity and Power Politics: Constructing Pakistan’s National Identity” (Oxford University Press, 2017).
Twitter: @RasulRais
