A New Pakistan?

     Five years ago, when the Zardari-Gilani civilian administration came into being in Pakistan, Prof. Ashutosh Varshney wrote that 'Democracy in Pakistan will continue to disempower these two groups （religious political parties and the military).  The critical issue is whether democracy will last. (IIC Quarterly, Winter 2008-Spring 2009)
     That administration completed its full five years since then.  It was really for the first time in this country, something of a miracle indeed.  It is another matter if it had done a good job to the satisfaction of the voters.  The answer to that lies in their devastating defeat, and the return of Mr.Nawaz Sharif to power.
     This is the third time he will be saddled with a heavy task.   On both of the previous occasions he was squeezed out by the military, and by a coup at that on the second occasion.  Naturally, therefore, his relations with the military is bound to crop up sooner rather than later.  This will in its turn inevitably bring in the question of India-Pakistan relations.
     Ashutosh Varshney was also writing that Sharif expressed the hope, just as Jinnah had done before, that India and Pakistan would live like the US and Canada.  Coming from the man who ordered Pakistan's nuclear test as against India's, in 1998, and who was at least nominally responsible for the war of Kargil in 1999, it is not easy to believe it.  But if he really believes so it is well within his reach.
     Writing in the same journal, and in more or less the same tone,  B.G.Verghese says that 'A significant and growingly assertive democratic tendency is discernible(in Pakistan) and anxious to build liberal democratic institutions and live as good neighbours with India'.  He thus talks of a possibility of 'two estranged brothers' coming together.
     These words are reminiscent of Gandhi.  There is still an unfinished debate on whether Gandhi was really against the Partition or not.  But at least the so-called "C.Rajagopalachari's Formula", agreed to by Gandhi was a proposal for a peaceful partition of India.  Its fourth clause said 'In the event of separation, mutual agreements shall be entered into for safeguarding defence, and commerce and communications and for other essential purposes'.
     One would think that the clause would have made the India-Pakistan relations much closer to the actual US-Canada relations.  But it was rejected by Jinnah, mercilessly, probably not because of this clause but a previous one on 'a plebiscite of all the inhabitants'.
     The present Indo-Pakistani relations leave much to be desired, which means that there are also possibilities for improvement.  Mr.Sharif is said to have made a long telephonic conversation to Mr.Manmohan Singh.  There are theories that the present tension is man-made in that both the military are in need of it.  The responsible politicians on both sides should prove that it is a lie.  For that they should tackle the crux of the matter, Jammu and Kashmir.            
           

"Sadeeq Bale",a Fantastic Taiwanese Movie

     Last week I went to see a Taiwanese Movie "Sadeeq Bale"(2011) at a cinema in Tokyo. These days Cinema viewers in Japan are on the decline. Moreover this one is, to us, on a gloomy topic, a rebellion against the occupying Japanese.  It is also a long one, almost five hours including an intermission. I have not, therefore, expected to see a large crowd. But that is exactly what I saw. It was a comparatively small cinema, but its 145 seats were full and some viewers were standing on the wall.
     I kept wondering why, but I got no answer. An easy one would be that some of them are from Taiwan itself, and it is difficult to tell a Taiwanese from a Japanese. But this is not very convincing, since it was not prohibited in Taiwan.
     The story concentrated on what happened at a place called Musha(in Japanese) in the interior, and therefore, mountainous part of the Island on 27 October 1930. It was a massacre of the Japanese who gathered there for the children's athletic meeting.
     But who rose in a rebellion? The Island had been under the Japanese for a third of a century at that time. The Japanese gradually infiltrated the mountainous regions inhabited by the indigenous peoples of Taiwan, not the Han Chinese. The Japanese tried to give them letters and language, school and postal systems, industries such as cutting timbers, in short tried to civilize  and assimilate them, ignoring their own culture and way of life.
     Prejudice, discrimination, and outrageous arrogance on the part of the Japanese were the order of the day. The indigenous peoples were a very proud stock. The Sadeeq was one of the tribes. They valued the defending of their hunting ground in the hills. The tattoo on the man's face is a sign of bravery. A man hopes to be a true man(Bale), and it is a woman's duty to make a man like that. They have also in mind the idea of 'crossing the bridge of rainbow' to go near their ancestors. These are their values and the colonial rule comes in conflict with them and try to crush them. They, the 'barbarians', have been in the end cornered, and ultimately rose against the oppressors.
     The second half of the movie is the story of attacks and counter-attacks. The rebels, or rather the legitimate residents of the land, fought bravely, just like the Vietnamese during their anti-American war, making use of the jungles, streams, etc. The Japanese mobilized guns. They used poison gas. Only the tanks and warships were not to be deployed.  Most of the people committed suicide, but the supreme leader of the tribe, saying that 'I do not afford to be captured', was not to be located by his pursuers.
     One difference between this story and the Vietnamese fighting is that while the latter was led by the modernized elements and the modernized thinking of the society, the former was not.  For one thing the former took place at a much more isolated region, and one generation earlier. But these characteristics will pose some more questions to the social scientists.

Polls on the Constitution

     Third May is the Constitution Day in Japan, as the present Constitution was promulgated on this day in 1947.  It has been customary for the media to publish on or around this day the result of the polls they have conducted on the Constitution.  Since in the present Japan it is becoming a very hot issue, as I have discussed in the past week, the media this year seem to allot more time and space to the Constitution.  I would like to pick up some features from the polls published by the Asahi newspaper on 2 May.
     The most important question they have asked, after showing the text of the Article 9, is whether the respondent is in favour, or not, of changing it.  39% is in favour, 52% is not.
     The gap between the two groups may not appear as large, but look at the answers to the following several questions.  One is, How strongly does the respondent feel that Japan should not go to war again, and 72% feel strongly and another 18% feel somewhat strongly.  So 90% are against their country going to war again, in effect under any circumstances, and only 6% do not feel so.  Relatedly, 77% think that Japan should maintain the three principles of her nuclear weapons policy of Not possessing, not manufacturing, not letting others to bring them, which is remarkable under the North Korean intimidation.  Besides, 71% are against the expansion of the export of weapons from Japan, which is also remarkable given that the country is still in an economically bad shape.
     It is by now fairly known that the ruling LDP is proposing to transform the present Self Defence Forces into a regular Defence Forces.  62% is against, and only 31%, just half, support it, which is also remarkable taking into consideration the high(still high) supporting rate for PM Abe and his government.  It is also becoming known that the US is outright pressing Japan to make her right of collective self defence exercisable, meaning that Japan should be able to send fighting forces on the side of the US. However, only 33% think that it should be exercisable, and 56% do not think so. As to the crux of the matter, so to speak, which is the question of whether the LDP's proposal of amending Article 96, so that it becomes easier for the Parliament to put a draft amendment for the referendum, only 38% is in favour, with 54% against.             

To Celebrate Japan's Regaining of Independence?

     On the day before yesterday, 28 April, Mr.Abe Shinzo's government convened a meeting to celebrate Japan's regaining her independence 63 years ago.  It was the first of its kind.  There was a counter-meeting in Tokyo, and a huge gathering of people in Okinawa opposing it.
     It is true that Japan became independent again on this day in 1952, in the sense that the Peace Treaty, concluded at San Francisco in previous September, took effect on this day.   But there was hardly any atmosphere of celebration.  I was a student on this day, and the students may be called the most sensitive section of a society.  As I recall, this lack of celebrating mood came from two reasons.
     First, many countries in Asia, most familiar to us, including China, had been excluded from the peace process.  The Korean Peninsula was in the midst of a bloody and endless war.  The Soviet and the East European countries also did not join it, and this gave us the strong feeling that the Peace Treaty itself would intensify the Cold War.  It took us a long time afterwards to reestablish  relations with these nations.  Even now we do not have a Peace Treaty with Russia, and at this time of writing Mr.Abe is in Moscow conferring with their government on how to speed up the process.
     Secondly, and related to the above, the foreign troops were continuing to be stationed in the country.  The Allied Potsdam Declaration, in terms of which the occupation of Japan had been conducted, said that after the country was democratized the occupation forces would withdraw from Japan.  But now in terms of the US-Japan Security Pact, signed on the same day as the Peace Treaty but the contents of which were not fully known to our people, the occupation forces would stay on, under a different name but with little change in substance.  Even today there is little change.
     Nowhere was this feeling as strong as in Okinawa, which had been cut off from Japan proper by the Peace Treaty and was not returned until 1972.  Therefore it was declared at the gathering that this was their Day of Subordination and Humiliation, and they demanded the government should cancel the meeting it had convened.
     The mechanism by which Okinawa was separated was the planned transfer of Okinawa to an American-administered Trust Territory.  Fortunately it was given up.  But how?  Japan joined the UN in 1956.  The UN Charter says that a member country cannot be a trust territory.  Does it apply to a part of such a country?  I think it does.  Why, on what basis, then, was Okinawa under the occupation from 1956 to 1972?
     One more thing about the government meeting.  To the surprise of many, the Emperor and the Empress were present.  I think it is unconstitutional, as it does not fit in with any of what is stated in the Constitution as the Emperor's functions.  There presence, apparently sponsored by the government, is therefore politically motivated.  We are reminded that the LDP's draft Constitution wants to give a greater, perhaps much greater, political role to the Emperor.  When the meeting was over, those present, about 390 in all, mostly the conservative elements on the political spectrum, said "Hurrah" to the Emperor and the Empress.  Is this going to be the shape of things to come?  No, it is not, although opinion would be deeply split if a poll is taken.  It is the same with almost any thing, Constitution, security issues, relations with the US/Asian neighbours, even "Abenomics".      

Japan's Position on Nuclear Weapons

     We will come back to the US-Japan military alliance and see how it really damages Japan's relations with her neighbours.
     Three days ago, on 24 April, the Japanese government refused to sign a South African-sponsored resolution before a meeting of a committee, held at Geneva, in connection with rethinking of the NPT(Non-Proliferation Treaty).  The resolution said that it would be in the best interest of the humanity not to use nuclear weapons 'under any circumstances', and it was to these words that Japan opposed.  It startled and angered many countries who signed it.  It also startled and angered many people in Japan.  Countries like the US, Russia and China also failed to sign.  Japan therefore put herself together with them, particularly with the US.
     Japan's Cabinet Secretary(a politician and not a bureaucrat) said in explanation of the decision that it was taken considering the difficult security environment in Asia.  He is suggesting here the possibility of the US using such weapons against some Asian country/countries.  He is also implying that in case hostilities begin Japan would automatically support such action.  Therefore the government is not conforming to that resolution.
     Let me tell the readers here a very strange thing.  Mr.Abe Shinzo's ruling LDP(Liberal Democratic Party)has published their draft Constitution.  The Article 9 of the present Constitution, with its provision of non-possession of war potential, has been made almost unrecognizable, as they want to introduce a provision for a National Defence Forces.  What is strange is that nowhere in the draft is stated who has the right to declare war.  Does it mean that the said Forces are supposed to fight on the side of the US Forces as their auxiliary?  That is the only plausible explanation.
     With this in mind they want to revise first Article 96, which says that an amendment, before it is placed before a referendum, should be approved by a two third majority in both Houses of the Parliament.  Their draft says that a simple majority is enough, justifying it by saying that it would bring the Constitution nearer to the people.  What a hypocritical way of saying it!  Their real target is Article 9, and in order to reach there Article 96 is, in their view, blocking the way.  More haste, less speed?