Kon bachaye ga Pakistan?
Tulaba, mazdoor aur kisaan!
Who will save Pakistan?
Students, workers, and peasants!
Credit: DAWN
Youth activism has always been an effective means of change.
Even in the “dark” ages before the days of social media activism, students fought for their rights with knives, stones, and their fists. As early as 1229, students at The University of Paris went on a strike which lasted more than two years and led to a reformation of the medieval university. This strike would go on to form the foundation of student-led activism, influencing the development of democracy for centuries to come.
Long before Partition, this trend reached the Indian subcontinent too. One of the earliest manifestations of a formal student union in colonial India was the student wing of the Muslim League, known as the Muslim Students’ Federation. It was formed to assist the League in recruiting students across India and help achieve its goal of attaining a separate country.
In doing so, it was quite successful. More students began unionizing on campuses and a separate Muslim country was eventually constituted. What followed, however, was a decades-long love-hate relationship between the state and student unions, ultimately leading to a tear in the democratic fabric of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Unions in Pakistan have historically taken various stances to protest the state. Socialism, Marxism, and liberalism still echo in the colorful remnants of graffiti from the Lahore of the 1970s, rejecting capitalism and reading “Russian Revolution Zindabad”. Other unions, such as the Muslim Students’ Federation and the Islami-Jamiat-i-Taleba, adopted purely Islamic and populist ideologies to advocate for religious rights and policies at the grassroots.
Credit: http://links.org.au / ‘Comrade Sherbaz’
As student unions grew more influential, things came to a head during Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s tenure. After a long Machiavellian play of power politics, the National Students Federation (NSF) was banned by Ayub in 1958, ending with the imposition of martial law in Pakistan for the first time. This ban was partially lifted in 1960, but continued until 1974 when the government introduced the Student Union Ordinance calling for democratically elected student unions in college campuses. The ordinance – coupled with support from the charismatic Z.A. Bhutto – led to a revival in the democratic power held by the public, until General Zia-ul-Haq imposed a permanent ban on student unions in 1984 (with a ban that already existed in Sindh since 1979). Both Benazir Bhutto and Yousef Raza Gillani realized the unconstitutional nature of this ban and made efforts to lift it, but these were short-lived.
These draconian measures taken by Zia slowly allowed the vices of fundamentalism, sectarianism, ethnic discrimination and other reactionary tendencies to seep into society. The ban on student unions hindered campus development and the prioritization of student issues. Without them, students were robbed of a healthy discourse and were subject to a sense of false consciousness instilled in them by the ruling elite – that they could not impact their circumstances or enact change.
This false consciousness continues to spread a sense of apoliticism in students. A choice to be apolitical is, in fact, a product of our own elitism, and a rejection of the fact that politics defines everything around us. People do not realise the responsibility they owe to those around them, and do not feel the need to act unless they are directly affected.
But recent events have made the importance of student unions undeniable.
Just recently, a professor in Bahawalpur’s Government Sadiq Egerton College was stabbed by a student who confessed to doing so because the professor supported an “obscene” event involving the mixing of girls and boys. Most commentary on the issue questions the attempts of universities to curb extremism in campus spaces. In the absence of campus administration tackling these topics, study circles and talks carried out by unions on campuses can prove to be extremely useful, and can even curtail problematic ideologies.
Apart from curtailment, these unions also help students feel safe and represented. The amount of unions that base themselves on ethnicity (such as the Hazara Students Community), religious identity (Muslim Students Organisation Pakistan), and gender (Women Empowerment) are a testament to this. Not only does representation help individuals engage more in student and academic life, but it also gives them the security of a platform to voice their views. Unions become an integral part of civil society and act as pressure groups in obtaining policy demands. They are grounds for cultivating responsible citizens who hold those in authority accountable for any misuse. In doing so, unions bridge the wide range of cultural ethnicities in Pakistan and carry forward the religious beliefs of various communities.
Currently, student unions operate as underground, informal entities – only a limited number of unions have formal memberships. They serve as organizations with chapters, not on their own, but as specific unions for their respective institutions. Unions do not have any formal role on the boards of their universities (with the exception of the University of the Punjab) and cannot influence policy through formal means. Meeting spots are limited; funding mainly comes from members or donations.
Recruitment is restricted by the stigma that surrounds student unions. Protestors, when giving out flyers or asking people to join, are often criticized and ridiculed for taking up issues that are deemed irrelevant to them, “un-Islamic” or completely untrue. This feeds into the popular public view that protests are unnecessary and occur unnecessarily. The recruitment that does happen occurs through open mics, protests, charity drives, and other events, or through internship programs similar to those carried out by non-profits. Unions also publish their manifestos to attract like-minded students for recruitment, highlighting the complex beliefs of their members and the diversity that exists within the union.
There is also an internal limit to participation within these unions. Once an individual graduates, they can no longer be a member and cannot operate as one. Consequently, individuals looking to stay in the activist space must move on to form full-fledged movements focusing on wider societal issues. This is where the aforementioned idea of unions acting as breeding grounds comes into play as most people leading these movements are products of the training provided to them from their experience unionizing, organizing and facing opposition.
Credit: DAWN
The fact that a large number of influential ministers, politicians, and thinkers in Pakistan were members of student unions proves this. This includes Nawaz Sharif, singer-turned-politician Jawad Ahmed, former members of the Muslims Students Federation, in addition to Altaf Hussain and former minister Dr. Farooq Sattar, who were members of the All-Pakistan Muttahida Students Organisation.
This is not to say that all activists emerge from unions, but that unions develop a social consciousness within the youth that they carry forward with them. Just recently, protests carried about by the Haqooq-e-Khalq movement and the People’s Solidarity Forum mostly consisted of and were led by ex-student union members – drawing the same activist crowds, but at a larger scale, due to the organisations’ inclusivity for non-students as well.
All of these examples refute the widely-held idea that money and influence is necessary to make a change. They make it apparent that a group of individuals passionate about a matter can create social uproar and form a wave.
Many influential figures have spoken out on the need for unions, including the current Prime Minister and activists such as Jibran Nasir and the late Asma Jahangir.
Despite this expressed support, institutionally there still remains a clear bias against unions. Even today, the list of banned organisations in Pakistan includes student unions such as the Baloch Students Organization (BSO), who hold grievances against the state in their fight for an independent Balochistan. The ban has been condemned by the Asian Human Rights Commission for its suppression of free speech and the right to a political voice. While talking to the BSO, they claimed that the state has a bias against students and that students are the main targets of the state. According to them, students can become the biggest challenge for the state, but only if students break away from the “colonial education system” and realize their freedoms and liberties.
It is no secret that the state has suppressed and distorted certain narratives for a long while; the narratives surrounding unions are one of these. By making false promises to lift bans and restricting past efforts to lift it, the state effectively restricts the voices of students. The infamous example of “Unsilencing Balochistan”s forced cancellation at LUMS proves that the state prevents campuses from acting as platforms of free speech, and aims to keep a monopoly of discourse on campuses. Sadly, it is apparent that they would rather keep the masses fed on a diet of inane TV anchors, corporate media statements and distorted histories, rather than reinvigorate the youth with fresh ideas, and activism.
An argument often made by the state against unions is predicated upon their dark history. Many have resorted to violence to achieve their goals causing civil unrest. In the 1970s, the Islami-Jamiat-i-Taleba assumed a more self-styled police role. It reactivated its militant group known as “Thunderbolt” for the purpose of crushing their opponents. Hockey sticks and cricket bats were no longer used on the field but carried by notorious groups to “cleanse educational institutions of immoral activities”. Apart from clashes with other unions on campus – usually left-leaning – the militant group attacked nightclubs and wine shops in Karachi, and showed open support for the Islamic Jihadist ideology in Afghanistan.
Soon, Afghan dealers were selling ammunition to various student groups and – with guns replacing hockey sticks and bats – “Kalashnikov culture” began to spread inside campuses. At the time, an anti-Zia guerilla outfit was forming in Afghanistan, known as the Al-Zulfikar Organisation, which primarily consisted of students from the People’s Student Federation trained by the Afghan intelligence agency. This eventually led to the hijacking of a PIA flight in 1981 when a member of the PSF, Salamullah Tipu, killed an army officer, and demanded the release of a number of PSF and NSF activists. Gunfights between unions followed this new power that they had on campuses, and many promising activists were casualties in the crossfire.
The hijackers getting off of the plane (March 1981)
Credit: DAWN
Those against unions will cite these violent events to dominate the conversation, but fail to understand that with regulations on student elections, laws to curb violence, and support from mainstream political figures, unions can be regularised to promote, rather than hurt, democratic progress. Universities might not solely be prepared to stand up to such violent organisations but alternative methods of holding them accountable, as aforementioned, can be strengthened through institutions such as the legal system.
A refreshing example of this can be seen through Pakistan’s modern campus societies that effectively act as unofficial unions. FEMSOC, for example, the feminist society at LUMS, has recently taken charge against multiple issues regarding rape, harassment and the objectification of women. Staging sit-ins outside the administration offices to make themselves and their demands known, female students congregated to fearlessly chant slogans and combat the pervasive sentiment of helplessness.
Outside the Pakistani context, student unions are deemed necessary on campuses. Being politically correct is not a choice but a requirement, as “cancel culture” thrives. Talking to the leadership of the student-run Amherst College Political Union (APU), I learnt that it is deemed essential that spaces where students can openly engage in political discussions exist. People with different backgrounds are finding it increasingly difficult to talk about the problems that they face, and – much as the unions in Pakistan – the APU allows students from diverse ideological backgrounds to discuss important issues.
The union does not shy away from difficult topics but does ask its members to be respectful. The process of encouraging students to bring up new issues and letting those with more experiences and knowledge on the issue lead the conversation is one that is very similar to the democratic way that study circles and meetings go about in Pakistani student unions. When asked about the impact unions can have, the APU replied with a swift “absolutely”, citing examples where actions taken by students have changed campus policy.
To conclude, it would be unfair to say that the mentality of students is still the same as it was years ago when the aforementioned horrid acts of violence took place. These instances were neither inherent to student unions nor inevitable results of their mobilization, but rather the misuse of student unions by political parties. And it seems as if the public is noticing this. The language in the 2017 Senate resolution on student unions backs this (http://www.senate.gov.pk/uploads/documents/resolutions/1504602620_524.pdf) and social media is only helping in organising and spreading awareness. Unions now even conduct activities to show solidarity with international movements (Black Lives Matter, #TimesUp, Sudan, etc.).
Students showing solidarity for the anti-war movement in Yemen.
Credit: Omer Imran Malik / Democratic Students’ Alliance
Student unions can only go so far while they are considered illegal and struggling for their usurped legitimacy and autonomy.
Hence it is imperative that this ban be lifted, and that the spirit of youth reclaim itself from those who come to dance and mingle at rallies, to individuals looking to make a change.
Tulaba, mazdoor aur kisaan!
Who will save Pakistan?
Students, workers, and peasants!
Credit: DAWN
Youth activism has always been an effective means of change.
Even in the “dark” ages before the days of social media activism, students fought for their rights with knives, stones, and their fists. As early as 1229, students at The University of Paris went on a strike which lasted more than two years and led to a reformation of the medieval university. This strike would go on to form the foundation of student-led activism, influencing the development of democracy for centuries to come.
Long before Partition, this trend reached the Indian subcontinent too. One of the earliest manifestations of a formal student union in colonial India was the student wing of the Muslim League, known as the Muslim Students’ Federation. It was formed to assist the League in recruiting students across India and help achieve its goal of attaining a separate country.
In doing so, it was quite successful. More students began unionizing on campuses and a separate Muslim country was eventually constituted. What followed, however, was a decades-long love-hate relationship between the state and student unions, ultimately leading to a tear in the democratic fabric of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Unions in Pakistan have historically taken various stances to protest the state. Socialism, Marxism, and liberalism still echo in the colorful remnants of graffiti from the Lahore of the 1970s, rejecting capitalism and reading “Russian Revolution Zindabad”. Other unions, such as the Muslim Students’ Federation and the Islami-Jamiat-i-Taleba, adopted purely Islamic and populist ideologies to advocate for religious rights and policies at the grassroots.
Credit: http://links.org.au / ‘Comrade Sherbaz’
As student unions grew more influential, things came to a head during Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s tenure. After a long Machiavellian play of power politics, the National Students Federation (NSF) was banned by Ayub in 1958, ending with the imposition of martial law in Pakistan for the first time. This ban was partially lifted in 1960, but continued until 1974 when the government introduced the Student Union Ordinance calling for democratically elected student unions in college campuses. The ordinance – coupled with support from the charismatic Z.A. Bhutto – led to a revival in the democratic power held by the public, until General Zia-ul-Haq imposed a permanent ban on student unions in 1984 (with a ban that already existed in Sindh since 1979). Both Benazir Bhutto and Yousef Raza Gillani realized the unconstitutional nature of this ban and made efforts to lift it, but these were short-lived.
These draconian measures taken by Zia slowly allowed the vices of fundamentalism, sectarianism, ethnic discrimination and other reactionary tendencies to seep into society. The ban on student unions hindered campus development and the prioritization of student issues. Without them, students were robbed of a healthy discourse and were subject to a sense of false consciousness instilled in them by the ruling elite – that they could not impact their circumstances or enact change.
This false consciousness continues to spread a sense of apoliticism in students. A choice to be apolitical is, in fact, a product of our own elitism, and a rejection of the fact that politics defines everything around us. People do not realise the responsibility they owe to those around them, and do not feel the need to act unless they are directly affected.
But recent events have made the importance of student unions undeniable.
Just recently, a professor in Bahawalpur’s Government Sadiq Egerton College was stabbed by a student who confessed to doing so because the professor supported an “obscene” event involving the mixing of girls and boys. Most commentary on the issue questions the attempts of universities to curb extremism in campus spaces. In the absence of campus administration tackling these topics, study circles and talks carried out by unions on campuses can prove to be extremely useful, and can even curtail problematic ideologies.
Apart from curtailment, these unions also help students feel safe and represented. The amount of unions that base themselves on ethnicity (such as the Hazara Students Community), religious identity (Muslim Students Organisation Pakistan), and gender (Women Empowerment) are a testament to this. Not only does representation help individuals engage more in student and academic life, but it also gives them the security of a platform to voice their views. Unions become an integral part of civil society and act as pressure groups in obtaining policy demands. They are grounds for cultivating responsible citizens who hold those in authority accountable for any misuse. In doing so, unions bridge the wide range of cultural ethnicities in Pakistan and carry forward the religious beliefs of various communities.
Currently, student unions operate as underground, informal entities – only a limited number of unions have formal memberships. They serve as organizations with chapters, not on their own, but as specific unions for their respective institutions. Unions do not have any formal role on the boards of their universities (with the exception of the University of the Punjab) and cannot influence policy through formal means. Meeting spots are limited; funding mainly comes from members or donations.
Recruitment is restricted by the stigma that surrounds student unions. Protestors, when giving out flyers or asking people to join, are often criticized and ridiculed for taking up issues that are deemed irrelevant to them, “un-Islamic” or completely untrue. This feeds into the popular public view that protests are unnecessary and occur unnecessarily. The recruitment that does happen occurs through open mics, protests, charity drives, and other events, or through internship programs similar to those carried out by non-profits. Unions also publish their manifestos to attract like-minded students for recruitment, highlighting the complex beliefs of their members and the diversity that exists within the union.
There is also an internal limit to participation within these unions. Once an individual graduates, they can no longer be a member and cannot operate as one. Consequently, individuals looking to stay in the activist space must move on to form full-fledged movements focusing on wider societal issues. This is where the aforementioned idea of unions acting as breeding grounds comes into play as most people leading these movements are products of the training provided to them from their experience unionizing, organizing and facing opposition.
Credit: DAWN
The fact that a large number of influential ministers, politicians, and thinkers in Pakistan were members of student unions proves this. This includes Nawaz Sharif, singer-turned-politician Jawad Ahmed, former members of the Muslims Students Federation, in addition to Altaf Hussain and former minister Dr. Farooq Sattar, who were members of the All-Pakistan Muttahida Students Organisation.
This is not to say that all activists emerge from unions, but that unions develop a social consciousness within the youth that they carry forward with them. Just recently, protests carried about by the Haqooq-e-Khalq movement and the People’s Solidarity Forum mostly consisted of and were led by ex-student union members – drawing the same activist crowds, but at a larger scale, due to the organisations’ inclusivity for non-students as well.
All of these examples refute the widely-held idea that money and influence is necessary to make a change. They make it apparent that a group of individuals passionate about a matter can create social uproar and form a wave.
Many influential figures have spoken out on the need for unions, including the current Prime Minister and activists such as Jibran Nasir and the late Asma Jahangir.
Despite this expressed support, institutionally there still remains a clear bias against unions. Even today, the list of banned organisations in Pakistan includes student unions such as the Baloch Students Organization (BSO), who hold grievances against the state in their fight for an independent Balochistan. The ban has been condemned by the Asian Human Rights Commission for its suppression of free speech and the right to a political voice. While talking to the BSO, they claimed that the state has a bias against students and that students are the main targets of the state. According to them, students can become the biggest challenge for the state, but only if students break away from the “colonial education system” and realize their freedoms and liberties.
It is no secret that the state has suppressed and distorted certain narratives for a long while; the narratives surrounding unions are one of these. By making false promises to lift bans and restricting past efforts to lift it, the state effectively restricts the voices of students. The infamous example of “Unsilencing Balochistan”s forced cancellation at LUMS proves that the state prevents campuses from acting as platforms of free speech, and aims to keep a monopoly of discourse on campuses. Sadly, it is apparent that they would rather keep the masses fed on a diet of inane TV anchors, corporate media statements and distorted histories, rather than reinvigorate the youth with fresh ideas, and activism.
An argument often made by the state against unions is predicated upon their dark history. Many have resorted to violence to achieve their goals causing civil unrest. In the 1970s, the Islami-Jamiat-i-Taleba assumed a more self-styled police role. It reactivated its militant group known as “Thunderbolt” for the purpose of crushing their opponents. Hockey sticks and cricket bats were no longer used on the field but carried by notorious groups to “cleanse educational institutions of immoral activities”. Apart from clashes with other unions on campus – usually left-leaning – the militant group attacked nightclubs and wine shops in Karachi, and showed open support for the Islamic Jihadist ideology in Afghanistan.
Soon, Afghan dealers were selling ammunition to various student groups and – with guns replacing hockey sticks and bats – “Kalashnikov culture” began to spread inside campuses. At the time, an anti-Zia guerilla outfit was forming in Afghanistan, known as the Al-Zulfikar Organisation, which primarily consisted of students from the People’s Student Federation trained by the Afghan intelligence agency. This eventually led to the hijacking of a PIA flight in 1981 when a member of the PSF, Salamullah Tipu, killed an army officer, and demanded the release of a number of PSF and NSF activists. Gunfights between unions followed this new power that they had on campuses, and many promising activists were casualties in the crossfire.
The hijackers getting off of the plane (March 1981)
Credit: DAWN
Those against unions will cite these violent events to dominate the conversation, but fail to understand that with regulations on student elections, laws to curb violence, and support from mainstream political figures, unions can be regularised to promote, rather than hurt, democratic progress. Universities might not solely be prepared to stand up to such violent organisations but alternative methods of holding them accountable, as aforementioned, can be strengthened through institutions such as the legal system.
A refreshing example of this can be seen through Pakistan’s modern campus societies that effectively act as unofficial unions. FEMSOC, for example, the feminist society at LUMS, has recently taken charge against multiple issues regarding rape, harassment and the objectification of women. Staging sit-ins outside the administration offices to make themselves and their demands known, female students congregated to fearlessly chant slogans and combat the pervasive sentiment of helplessness.
Outside the Pakistani context, student unions are deemed necessary on campuses. Being politically correct is not a choice but a requirement, as “cancel culture” thrives. Talking to the leadership of the student-run Amherst College Political Union (APU), I learnt that it is deemed essential that spaces where students can openly engage in political discussions exist. People with different backgrounds are finding it increasingly difficult to talk about the problems that they face, and – much as the unions in Pakistan – the APU allows students from diverse ideological backgrounds to discuss important issues.
The union does not shy away from difficult topics but does ask its members to be respectful. The process of encouraging students to bring up new issues and letting those with more experiences and knowledge on the issue lead the conversation is one that is very similar to the democratic way that study circles and meetings go about in Pakistani student unions. When asked about the impact unions can have, the APU replied with a swift “absolutely”, citing examples where actions taken by students have changed campus policy.
To conclude, it would be unfair to say that the mentality of students is still the same as it was years ago when the aforementioned horrid acts of violence took place. These instances were neither inherent to student unions nor inevitable results of their mobilization, but rather the misuse of student unions by political parties. And it seems as if the public is noticing this. The language in the 2017 Senate resolution on student unions backs this (http://www.senate.gov.pk/uploads/documents/resolutions/1504602620_524.pdf) and social media is only helping in organising and spreading awareness. Unions now even conduct activities to show solidarity with international movements (Black Lives Matter, #TimesUp, Sudan, etc.).
Students showing solidarity for the anti-war movement in Yemen.
Credit: Omer Imran Malik / Democratic Students’ Alliance
Student unions can only go so far while they are considered illegal and struggling for their usurped legitimacy and autonomy.
Hence it is imperative that this ban be lifted, and that the spirit of youth reclaim itself from those who come to dance and mingle at rallies, to individuals looking to make a change.
Comments
Post a Comment