Glasgow's Pakistani Community
The final item of business today is a members' business debate on motion S3M-868, in the name of Bashir Ahmad, on standing united with Glasgow's Pakistani community. The debate will be concluded without any questions being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament is united with members of the Glasgow Pakistani community who protested outside the Pakistan Vice-Consulate's office in Glasgow in November 2007; shares their concerns over the emergency rule imposed by General Musharraf in Pakistan; joins in their calls demanding that the rule of law is adhered to, the judiciary is reinstated and free and fair elections are held as scheduled in January 2008, and considers that representations should be made to Westminster on their behalf and that appropriate pressure be applied to General Musharraf to comply with the democratic wishes of the Pakistani community.
We have all been watching closely the events that have unfolded in Pakistan over the past month, since President Musharraf imposed emergency rule on 3 November. I lodged the motion because it is an issue that affects not only those who are living in Pakistan, but the global Pakistani community. In addition, the motion is for everyone who wants to secure democracy in areas that currently lack it.
On 15 November, Glasgow's Pakistani community protested outside the Pakistan vice-consulate's office. They were there to express their feelings towards the emergency rule that had been imposed by President Musharraf. It is with them that I wish to show solidarity. Immediately after declaring a state of emergency, President Musharraf arrested over 3,000 people. Many of them are lawyers, many of them are politicians, and almost all of them want a more democratic Pakistan. Those actions have affected many people in my Glasgow constituency. Some people's family members and friends have been arrested for no apparent reason.
People who gathered outside the consulate office clearly directed their displeasure at President Musharraf. They were displeased at his attempt to undermine the democratic process. His attempt to disguise his actions as part of the war on terror seems far-fetched. Was it necessary to sack the judiciary in the war on terror, or was that to do with the announcement that the judiciary was about to make on the President's legitimacy as head of state?
We are disappointed not only by President Musharraf. I have talked with many fellow Glasgow Pakistanis, and none of us has been surprised by the undemocratic actions of someone who came to power as a result of a military coup. However, there is also resentment at the United Kingdom Government's response—or lack of it—to what has happened. A state of emergency was declared, but the Foreign Office simply expressed grave concern—almost the weakest reaction of all the international reactions.
Members should compare the situation in Pakistan with that in Burma. As Burma does, Pakistan faces a state of emergency under military rule and thousands of innocent protesters have been arrested there. In Pakistan, as in Burma, the media have been suppressed. However, there have been completely different reactions to what has happened in those countries. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, made no speech on Pakistan. There were no immediate calls to reverse the emergency rule and no calls for democracy to be restored. An overdue call to do so was made only after Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth. I have talked to my fellow Pakistanis who have made Scotland their home, and they are frustrated about the glaring double standards that the UK Government and the Foreign Office have shown.
Many of us have seen the story of Pakistan unfold in front of our eyes from the very beginning. It has been under military rule for 33 years in its 60-year history. We should not be misled into thinking that there is now a civilian President simply because he has changed his attire. Emergency rule is scheduled to be lifted in a few days, but many opponents of President Musharraf will be banned from taking part in the elections in January, or will take part in them under protest. It may be easy to ignore calls from within Pakistan, but we cannot and should not ignore the voices of angry Scots-Pakistanis in our constituencies.
We welcome the removal of the state of emergency on 15 December. However, we, too, must join in the call for Pakistan's original judiciary to be reinstated; for all political prisoners to be released; for free and fair elections to be held; and for the basic democratic rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and a free press to be restored without delay. I hope that Parliament will send out the clear message that we are supportive of democracy wherever it exists and that we are similarly opposed to dictatorship wherever and whenever it exists.
I congratulate Bashir Ahmad on having his motion selected for debate. We have all regarded the situation in Pakistan over recent months with concern, and there are clear lessons that must be learned from the events there.
Members will have heard me say before that I am fully supportive of the military when the military operates in defence of a particular country. However, although the military may have a role to play in government, I do not think that a country that is run by the military is in a very healthy position. History is littered with similar situations that have ended pretty disastrously for the countries concerned.
Although the matter will not be voted on today, I will be careful in what I say, as I do not wish to be seen to want to intervene in any respect in the affairs of another sovereign state. However, I see a danger in the fact that a conflict arose between the Executive and the judiciary in Pakistan. Labour members, especially, will have heard me talk on this theme many times. In any democracy, there must be a clear separation of the powers of the Government and the powers of the judges. When those powers become confused, or if a situation arises—as in Pakistan—in which judges are arrested and incarcerated because their judicial decisions do not accord with the Government's policies, that is a serious matter. Again, I point out that history is littered with similar situations that have ended disastrously for the countries concerned.
I hear what Bashir Ahmad says about the current state of emergency in Pakistan. The state of emergency perhaps became necessary because of the Government's decision to confront the judiciary as it did. When that happens, people feel that they are not being listened to, that there is no independence in law and that democracy itself is under attack, so there is an instinctive reaction. We saw the results of that in the fairly riotous behaviour that caused the state of emergency to be imposed. The optimistic aspect is the fact that the state of emergency will end shortly, as Mr Ahmad said. However, I return to the point that a state of emergency being imposed in a country on the basis of a conflict between the judiciary and the Executive is a very disturbing situation.
It is not for me nor, with respect, is it for anyone here to intervene in the sovereign affairs of another country. That is a matter for that country. Pakistan is independent of the United Kingdom, and although we obviously retain a close affection for the people of Pakistan—many people in Bashir Ahmad's community in Glasgow have a particular affinity with them—it is still not for us to intervene. Nevertheless, we very much hope that the state of emergency ends, that the conflict between the Executive and the judiciary is over, that Pakistan reverts to the normal course of any democracy, whereby the rule of law is imposed by judges and not by Government, and that the elections that are due to follow will be free, democratic and devoid of military threat. I am sure that that is the unanimous view of all members who are present tonight.
I, too, congratulate the member on securing the debate.
Those of us with an interest in history, ancient and modern, will know that Pakistan's history has often been bloody and turbulent. From the invasions of Alexander the Great, through the time of the White Huns and then, ultimately, the British, Pakistan's struggle for independence has been long. It can reasonably be argued that the emergence of the country as an independent force can be traced back to the mutiny of 1857 and the collective will and desire of the Muslim population to have their own state. Even Gandhi associated himself with that in relation to the khalifat movement.
What is going on today is not good. That is a mild way of describing it. Using the war on terror—such as it is—as a mechanism to retain yet another military dictatorship in a country that is struggling with its own democracy, and has done for much of its history, is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable for western Governments to be light in their criticism. That area of Asia has always been part of the great game, as Kipling called it. It has always been a tool, and it continues to be a tool. I am very disappointed that Governments, including the United Kingdom Government, have not been more vociferous about what happened—fearing, I suspect, that they might impede their own agendas on a wider front. That is sad.
Members of the Pakistani community in Glasgow, some of whom are friends and acquaintances of mine, have relatives, including close relatives, in Pakistan. In many ways, they have their hearts and roots in that country. Seeing an emerging democracy yet again being curtailed in such a way grieves us all.
The motion says the right thing. The debate is worthy. I lend my support to the motion and to the people who are affected by the situation in Pakistan.
I congratulate the member on securing the debate, and I thank him for doing so. This is a very important subject that has caused great concern not just in the Pakistani community in Glasgow, but throughout Scotland.
I wish to pick up on an issue that Bill Aitken raised. I know that members' business debates tend to be conciliatory, but I cannot let this pass. Bill Aitken said that it is not for us to intervene in another country's affairs, which are for the people there. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned—we did intervene in other countries' affairs not that long ago, and we are suffering the terrorism aspects of that now. I feel that I had to say that.
Hugh O'Donnell touched on the history of Pakistan. I, too, want to give a wee bit of background. We are all aware that the country has had a troubled past since its creation through the partitioning of British India. More than 100,000 people died in the early days after partition, through communal violence. The Indo-Pakistan war followed in 1947, as a direct result of the flawed partition. It was the first of four wars between India and Pakistan over territorial disputes, which are still a source of great tension today. The last, in 1999, was considered an unmitigated disaster for Pakistan, and many people believe that it led General Musharraf to stage a coup, after receiving criticism for his part in the Kargil war. It was claimed that he went on to bury a report on the conflict.
It is essential that the Pakistani people's faith in their right to determine their future is restored. The people have suffered a great deal in their desire for democracy. As Hugh O'Donnell and I have mentioned, we are a part of that history on account of the time of the British empire—which I would put in inverted commas. Because of that, we have a duty to support the Pakistani people's call for free democratic elections. It is important that we highlight the present situation.
I express my concern about reports, which I learned about today, that suggest that prospects for a free and fair general election in Pakistan next month are very poor, and that a rigged result could lead to more instability and play into the hands of Islamist militants. It seems that although the international pressure to hold a general election has been bowed to, it will not be free and fair, as the motion rightly calls for it to be. That is very worrying for the future of Pakistan, as it could fuel unrest and lead to a rise in support for other groups.
We have had assurances from President Musharraf that there will be a fair election, but a weak caretaker Government such as his, a tame judiciary and restricted media freedom do not bode well for the election or for the future of Pakistan. I think that we can do something for the people of Pakistan, and I hope that by our actions today we can send out a clear message to the UK Government that more action must be undertaken to ensure that the general election is fair and transparent. Anything short of that will be a real disaster.
The main opposition leaders have already stated that they will protest against an unfair result. That could lead to severe civil unrest in Pakistan. I echo Bashir Ahmad's call for the state of emergency to be lifted this weekend. That could be used as an ideal building block to restore faith in the upcoming election, and I support the calls that we have heard today for the UK Government to put pressure on the president to ensure that that happens.
I, too, thank Bashir Ahmad for securing the debate, and I will address my comments to the motion.
I have worked, sort of, with Bashir Ahmad in the past through my own relations with the Pakistani community. Bashir Ahmad will know that that work has been more with Mohammad Sarwar than perhaps directly with him, but we have both genuinely worked together to support the Pakistani community in Glasgow. He will know that Mohammad Sarwar has worked hard both to educate Scots about the issues in Pakistan and to support democratic movements within Pakistan itself.
From my experience—and I am sure that the minister will agree—I know that, if we consider the work of women's organisations in Pakistan, we can begin to understand some of the challenges that face Pakistani people in trying to develop and deepen the roots and practices that democratic institutions must have to allow democracy to grow and stabilise.
Sandra White and Bill Aitken alluded to the many tragedies that there have been along the way as democracy has tried to develop. The practices of the judiciary, free and independent elections, and the protection of the political process are all central to that. We have seen the challenges along the way.
I say in passing that one of the great achievements of the Atlee Government, alongside the establishment of the national health service, was that it led the anti-colonial movement. It forced the issue on the independence of India, which in the context was not particularly easy to do but was nonetheless important—notwithstanding some of the difficult issues that we have seen.
Like Bashir Ahmad, I will address remarks to the issues facing the Pakistani community in Glasgow. Many members of that community maintain close links to Pakistan, and we would want to support them, ensuring that we have solidarity with our friends who are in Pakistan and people who have continuing communication there.
It is important that we recognise in this Parliament the Pakistani community's contribution both to that on-going solidarity and to Scotland. In some ways, it has a dual contribution—to progressive and democratic politics in Scotland and to progressive and democratic forces in Pakistan. Many people, across different political parties in Scotland, support that strongly, and we should continue to do that. The Pakistani community has made an enormous contribution to our appreciation of democracy and democratic practices in Scotland.
Hugh O'Donnell referred to many forces in Pakistan recognising the challenge of the terror that we face in the world, and they should be recognised as playing a vital part in resisting fundamentalist extremism and the forces of terrorism.
When I was a minister, we placed great emphasis on tackling Islamophobia in Scotland and ensuring that the progressive democratic role of the Pakistani and other Muslim communities was recognised. There was wide support from members for that and it remains important.
We must look at Bashir Ahmad's motion in that context. We need a comprehensive approach to dealing with those issues while properly showing solidarity with others who are facing enormous threats to their own well-being. We must ensure that we properly stand side by side with those who want democracy and human rights throughout the world.
Like others, I congratulate Bashir Ahmad on bringing this debate to Parliament. As he pointed out, there are concerns about the dual standards that are applied to various dictatorships around the world. Quite rightly, the British Government and many in this Parliament condemn the atrocity that passes for a Government in Burma. However, we should also be as strong in the statements that we now make about the situation in Pakistan under the Musharraf regime.
The explanations that General Musharraf gives for his claim to be Pakistan's head of state are fascinating. The general more or less admits that he broke the constitution, but claims that he did so to "save the country". Evidently, the rule of law was inadequate for that purpose, so he had to resort to other methods. As has been said, he decided to get himself sworn in as head of state all over again, this time in a suit rather than a uniform, in a desperate attempt to make his claim to constitutionality a bit more convincing.
What is more important, we all know that any regime that locks up judges when they disagree with the Government has something fundamentally wrong with it. The judges were, of course, among many thousands of people who have been arrested in recent months, which has led to the international community—particularly the Commonwealth—losing faith in the Government of Pakistan.
Some people have been squeamish about the idea of this Parliament expressing views on international affairs and on matters that are reserved to another place. However, we can all agree that we should be coming to a view and expressing that view in relation to the situation in Pakistan, partly because Scotland is part of the world and the wrongs that are inflicted on people in Pakistan ultimately affect us all, but, more specifically because, as has been said, Scotland has a substantial Pakistani community whose relatives are suffering as a direct consequence of the uncertainty of the situation in Pakistan. That community seeks a clear indication from Scotland and this Parliament that Scotland stands with them in that concern and suffering. It is worth putting on the record that that concern exists in Parliament.
Regrettably, Pakistan is now a dictatorship. Although General Musharraf no longer has to explain away that situation in court—even in the presumably compliant courts that now exist—he still has to explain it to us and to the world.
These are difficult international times. As others have pointed out, the threats of terrorism and extremism are real. However, the war on terror—a phrase that has been rather misapplied throughout the world in recent years—is nowhere used with more unconscious irony than in Pakistan, where General Musharraf uses it as an explanation for imprisoning people without any good reason and for dismantling constitutional government, not to mention hand picking who can and cannot stand in elections, if they ever happen.
I am sure that the Parliament will want to join Bashir Ahmad in making it clear that Scotland has no pet dictators.
I would like to thank Bashir Ahmad for bringing this motion to the Parliament. I would also like to thank those who have contributed to the debate, during which there was not a lot of disagreement.
Bill Aitken talked about an essential element of democracy that we all recognise: the need for the Government and judiciary to have a clear separation of powers. Hugh O'Donnell and Sandra White talked about the history of the Indian subcontinent and the turbulence that it has experienced over the centuries. Finally, Alasdair Allan brought us up to date by talking about the current regime and the turbulence that still exists. All members picked up on the revulsion that is felt in this chamber, in this country and beyond at the events that we witness on our television screens and read about in our newspapers.
As Margaret Curran said, the Government and the Parliament support the Pakistani community in Scotland regardless of who forms the Government. That is something precious about our country; we support the community's concerns about the imposition of the state of emergency in Pakistan, and the suspension of the constitution. It is difficult for us, who have the privilege of living in a generally peaceful place, to understand the awful helplessness that people who have moved here, and second and third-generation members of the community who were born here, feel when they watch such terrible events unfold. Although they now call Scotland their home—and it is—they still love and care about the place with which they have a shared history, and the people who live there.
Many members of the Pakistani community in Scotland still have close connections with Pakistan and have family there. The situation is very difficult for them, as they are terrified about what is happening to people who are not just part of their community, but members of their family for whom they have a deep love. That is an on-going, precious feature of the Pakistani community. Margaret Curran spoke about the work that leading representatives of the community, including Bashir Ahmad and Mohammad Sarwar, have been doing for years.
This year, we have been celebrating the 60th anniversary of the founding of Pakistan as a sovereign state. It is particularly regrettable that, at what should have been a happy anniversary time, a state of emergency has been imposed on the people of Pakistan. As well as the state of emergency, there is a new provisional constitutional order, a key feature of which is the suspension of constitutional articles guaranteeing security of the person; safeguards on arrest and detention; freedom of movement, assembly, association and speech; and equality of citizens. Another was the removal of the Supreme Court's authority to issue any order against, or to challenge in any way, the President, the Prime Minister or any person exercising powers or jurisdiction under their authority.
Alasdair Allan referred to President Musharraf's actions. Separate ordinances have been issued to tighten up regulations for print and electronic media, forbidding them from criticising the head of state, military or judiciary. Those are fundamental rights that all democratic Governments should safeguard for their citizens. The Pakistan Government has robbed its citizens of those rights.
The international community condemned the imposition of the state of emergency and requested that President Musharraf resign as head of the Pakistan army. It said that media restrictions should be lifted, that political prisoners should be released, that basic constitutional order should be restored and that free and fair elections should take place.
We have heard from Mr Ahmad and others that, when the Commonwealth ministerial action group met to discuss the situation, Pakistan ended up being suspended from the Commonwealth. The reason for that suspension was the Government of Pakistan's failure to implement the series of measures that the Commonwealth ministerial action group had requested. On 3 November, President Musharraf abrogated completely Pakistan's constitution.
Some members think that what we call the west has been rather light in its criticism of the regime. Following his statement of 3 November, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made a statement in the House of Commons on Wednesday 7 November, in which he condemned the Pakistan Government's decision to impose a state of emergency and to suspend the constitution. He advised that he had spoken to the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Pakistan and to Opposition leaders, and that he had requested that the restrictions on the people of Pakistan be lifted. He also advised that he had spoken to the British high commission in Islamabad, to get a wider understanding of the situation.
We have heard that the situation in Pakistan seems to be changing and that the state of emergency is likely to be lifted this weekend. That has not happened yet, but we all hope that it will.
The Pakistan Government has announced that elections will take place on 8 January 2008. On the surface, we welcome that. The people of Pakistan have a democratic right to take part in full and fair elections, but we have heard understandable concerns today, and previously, about whether those elections will be free and fair.
We need Pakistan to move forward towards democracy and the rule of law, and to build on the work that has been done over the years. For more than half its existence, it has been under military rule. There is a unanimous view from the international community that democracy, human rights, political freedoms and constitutional rule are absolutely necessary for the security and future stability of Pakistan.
I can say to Mr Ahmad that I am at one with his concerns. We will ensure that the strong feelings that have been expressed in the debate will be relayed without delay to the Foreign Secretary at Westminster.
Meeting closed at 18:20.