National Advisory Council on South Asian Affairs
Authors: Willoughby Jay 
Published: January 2025

On May 19-20, 2005, at the Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C., theNational Advisory Council on South Asian Affairs (NACSAA) held its firstbi-annual seminar to discuss democracy in South Asia. Given the largenumber of speakers, I mention only those that dealt with Muslim countries.Abdul Momen (University of Massachusetts) stated that the outlook fordemocracy in Bangladesh is promising, because it has achieved multipartydemocracy after military rule, has had positive growth rates since it becamedemocratic, is self-sufficient in food, and is no longer a global basket case.However, the current government is facing major social problems, the flightof multinational corporations, increased political and religious violence, thegrowing influence of madrassahs, corruption, and non-enforcement of therule of law. However, the government is very careful not to involve the armyin such things.Zillur Khan (University of Wisconsin–Oskhosh) spoke about identityand balance in Bangladesh vis-à-vis development and democracy. He statedthat the root of Bangladesh is secular, not Islamist. In fact, Bangladesh (thenEast Pakistan) rose against Pakistan (then West Pakistan) due to its desire forfreedom, tolerance, equity, and justice, not Islam. He then traced the struggleof a majority of Bangladeshis to prevent the government from turningtheir country into an Islamic state.Vijay Sazawal (The Indo-American Kashmir Forum) stated that theoutsiders 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 peacefulco-existence, democratic values, economic justice, and meeting the people’sneeds. Since 2004, there has been a change in the policy mindset. Heclaimed 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 InternationalStudies) talked about Washington’s promotion of democracy in South Asia,noting that it has been fairly selective and not really a priority. The emphasisnow is on Iraq and the Near East, western Europe, and Australia. Therehas been some interest in South Asia, especially India and Sri Lanka.Surprisingly, she stated that it is not in Washington’s interest to have truedemocracy in Pakistan.Faruq Ahmad (political counselor, Embassy of Pakistan) said thatdemocracy and development are important in Pakistan. His upbeat presentationportrayed a Pakistan that gets along with India, Afghanistan, and itsother South Asian neighbors, as well as being engaged in a “more realistic”dialogue with India over Kashmir. It is a “popular misconception” thatIslamabad is reneging on its commitment to democracy; rather, it is followingthe existing roadmap. There is a lot of debate in Parliament – a “rowdydemocracy” – but with few results. But this is a good sign, for people cantalk and criticize the government. According to him, Pakistan has recognizedthe weakness in its educational system and Musharraf is trying to correct thisby reforming the madrassah system. More importantly, there is now a fundamentalconsensus of what the problems are and how to solve them ...