Pakistan- Wishes, Failures and Successes

It is reported that soon after the announcement of independence of South Asia by the
British, Pandat Jwahar Lal Nehru met the last British viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, and
confessed that All India Congress severely lacked expertise in governance. Therefore he
requested him to stay in office after the independence till the Congress is able to manage
affairs of statecraft. The incident highlights the importance of practical aspect of running
government of an independent state. In Pakistan this problem was aggravated due to lack
of interest on the part of our ruling class in learning this art after death of its founder.

Independence is not just hoisting a national flag and chanting a national anthem. It means
to live peacefully without fears and opportunities guaranteed by law and organs of state
to develop potentials of each individual. On the day of independence we had readymade
well codified law, requisite structure of public administration and a nice model of
democracy developed by British through long and painful process of history that we, in
South Asia or Islamic world, could not develop.

After independence we successfully settled millions of refugees. In view of antagonizing

and awe inspiring posture of India that deprived us our due share of territory and waters
of Himalayan glaciers, we cobbled alliance with the West and consequently bore the
burden of Cold War, Afghan War and War Against Terror. Was it a success or failure? It
is yet to be decided. Similar is the case of building military and nuclear deterrent.
Whenever there was a respite from political turmoil, we were able to build our industrial
base from scratch. Numerical advancement in the in the field of education, beginning
with only one university in 1947, is not bad. Considering the acute shortage of food
during the first decade after independence, our progress in agriculture may also be termed
as commendable.

Our record of copping with calamities is also brilliant. People in the war arena of 1965
behaved in a dignified manner. Orderly re-settlement of population effected by
earthquake in 2005, military action in Swat, tropical cyclone along the coast of
Balochistan and Sindh in 2010, and floods in 2010 stand witness to the ability of masses
in facing and sharing disasters.

But now, after more than six decades after independence, we have so much to wish.

“We envision a stable, democratic, economically prosperous Pakistan.

We seek to empower all of Pakistan’s citizens, regardless of gender, faith, class or creed,
to achieve their aspirations for the future.

We need guarantees, unreservedly and absolutely, all the fundamental rights that our
citizens deserve and demand…”

A very long list! The newspaper articles, TV discussions, political speeches, debates and
manifestoes are full of wishes, demands, promises and pledges. Everybody is waiting for
some messiah to deliver and fulfill them. Quite many leaders are trading and making
profit out of this business of selling dreams.

Many groups and individuals emerge from time to time who announce and claim their
utmost sincerity and ability to realize these wishes. Some of them were sure that once
they come to power they will simply command “become, and behold, it will be there!”
Fortune did conduct some of them to the corridors of power, but they could perform no
miracle. Now common people like me are quite disenchanted and simply won’t believe
such slogans. They don’t even go to polling stations and prefer to leave the “game” of
electioneering to its players. Nobody reads the manifestos except the rival parties and a
handful of TV anchors.

We are not prepared to buy the simplistic idea that things do not change because the
leaders are bad. We have seen that truthful, straightforward and pious leaders have
equally failed. Leaders ask to give them power and rest assured that their miraculous
benediction shall grant our wishes. We know it will not happen. You have to tell us how
you will manage to provide.

Perhaps it is the unconscious hereditary trait of the very remote past that many people are
in a habit to consider a leader as a god-king. They expect him to perform miracles and
ask him as devotees. Or it is our feudal attribute that we “beg” our lords. May be the
distorted religious preaching, that a pious leader possesses magical powers, has
contributed to this tendency. Similarly our leaders appear to become God almighty when
they boast "I will give you that...” A democratic leader is not a monarch with absolute
powers. Alms and condescendence is a disgrace, an insult to the people. No mortal
human being should assume the role of God. A leader is there to lead, to show the better
path. His attitude should be "let us achieve that in this way" He must not take unlimited
powers like gods to grant every wish.

The feudal mentality is not confined only to actual feudal lords. It is spread all over the
society with the attitude that respect is associated with power to give or snatch. We feel
that the basic human need of esteem can only be fulfilled through such power. The result
is that people strive for wealth or power or both. Politics is also considered to be one of
effective tools for this end.

It appears that nation is dominated by religious sentiments. But this impression is created
by a limited minority that is relatively more vocal. Vast majority behaves in a different
way. Throughout the history common people have been more attracted by liberal saint-
like Sufis than by mullahs. When folk poetry was the only means of expression, they
gathered around Sufi poets like Bulley Shah, Bhatai and Rehman Baba etc who had
predominantly humanitarian outlook and sharply critical of narrow-minded religious
fanatics. During Pakistan movement there were many religious parties like Jamaat Islami,
Jamiat Ulama, Khaksar, and Ehrar e Islam. But the only personality that won real
confidence of people was Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who had a secular outlook and personal
appearance. After his death, his party, Muslim League, acquiesced to the demands of
right wing religious elements and lost public support within a few years. The other person
that achieved devotion of the masses in Pakistan’s history was Z. A. Bhutto who emerged
as a strong political figure in spite of stormy opposition of religious parties. Ironically, his
religious steps to appease religious sentiments after coming to power could not add
anything worth mentioning to his popularity. General Zia, during his decade of absolute
power, succeeded in forcefully obliterating the liberal way of thinking and nurtured the
youth in an atmosphere devoid of independent thinking. Still, whenever allowed to vote,
the people never entrusted the destiny of the nation in the hands of religious parties.

There is a story that British, after subduing resistance in the area, strapped up all local
tribal chiefs in the buggy of the British governor, in the place of horses, in the Sibbi
Durbar in presence of local crowed. This was done to overawe the public and humble
down the vanity of their chiefs. This describes the role of feudal lords who crush every
trace of rebellion from their subjects by extreme humiliation, exploit their labor and bow
their heads against central authority of powerful emperors, rulers and invaders. They have
been left intact throughout the history as an instrument of controlling the people. They do
not relax their hold even for an instant lest the people rise up and defy their authority.
They were loyal to the British until their departure became quite clear. After
independence they resumed their former oppressive role in Pakistan as intermediary
between people and government. In fact they became even more powerful. During the
British period they had developed close relationship with establishment. Even the
elaborate system of justice introduced by British could not harm their authority because it
depends on evidence and no one among the common people could even dream to testify
against their brutalities. Democracy only legitimized their oppression because after
elections they became leaders by grabbing votes of helpless people and held public
offices. Now all the government departments became under their sway. No police officer
can dare to put himself, his job and career at stake. The military rule only saves them of
the trouble to go to elections. Their authority remains unchecked and intact.

Pakistan inherited a very efficient civil administration system from the British rule.
Designed for colonial objectives, it had the capacity to implement political will of the
government. It needed a government with a clear vision and governance skills. But after
independence the governments lost their vision due to fruitless debate of role of religion
and failure to answer the basic question of provincial autonomy in the constitution. When
the founder political party of Pakistan, Muslim League, leaned towards dogmatic groups,
it lost popular support. But it unduly clung to power by refusing to appeal to the
electorate. The status quo that resulted rendered the civil establishment directionless and
inefficient within a decade. Gradually it became subservient to the interests of feudal
lords and local power centers because it was no more required to remain strictly subject
to law.

Another legacy of Imperial rule was army, disproportionably larger than peacetime
requirements. Army of this size was raised for the critical needs of Second World War.
All the warring nations cut their armies to size after peace was achieved. But Pakistan
and India remained in the state of war and opted to continue drainage of precious
resources towards arms. In the absence of strong collective will of the nation taking shape
of a constitution, army became the most important center of power above and beyond law
and constitution. This promoted lawlessness that trickled down to the society. The masses
became helpless even more than in colonial rule.

This is the gloomy perpetuated picture of oppression. Not only the hereditary feudal lords
but anyone who comes to power or aspires to become a leader assumes the similar
disposition. Leadership is considered to be the power to get above and beyond law.

The religious people simply live in and breathe out remote past. Anything has to pass
through the test of being in accordance with past conduct and knowledge of a specific
group before it is worth acceptance for them. They appeal and strengthen group instinct
which dictates that anything that belongs to their imagined group is right and everything
else is wrong. It is interesting to see that while upholding piety, they cannot tell the truth
about merits of their opponents, especially in politics. Everything can be sacrificed,
including human beings, for the sake of what they hold as sacred. One cannot hope for
justice from them based upon universality of values. History has shown their inability to
resolve differences for want of any common ground. Many differences have hardened
into sects. They tend to defer final decisions even for centuries because nobody can dare
to review and revise their stand which will be considered as weakness of faith.

Situation, in brief, is that;

Our leaders, with all their energies, are interested (with their feudal-cast mind) only and
only in perpetuation of unlimited and unchallenged authority in their constituency or area
under control. They are not willing to learn governance skills, let alone any positive
vision for change.

Focus of attention of each and every government servant is on his career, opportunities to
amass wealth and for this purpose look after interests of their guardian leaders.

Army has become a distinct class looking after its own interests and likes to remain
above law as an ultimate authority. Efficiency in public service is not their priority. Army
is not meant for and trained in political vision. Religious indoctrination has made it
dangerous and, at least a section of it is willing to hand over the country to fanatics who
can devastate the world in the name of Jihad without any benefit to the humanity.

Judiciary, apart from the fact that it also suffers from the maladies of civil establishment,
cannot be expected to bring about a political change. Lately it has begun to assert itself.
But it is only to conserve its right-of-the-centre composition developed to counter liberal
tendencies.

As regards the masses, they are hostage to the feudal-mullah collaboration. Mullah is a
specialist in telling us what is un-Islamic. The list begins with personal appearance and
gradually covers everything and everyone. As a result his follower hates everything and
loses capacity to look for alternatives for the challenges of life.
Nations survive through flexibility and adaptability in copping with fresh situations. This
is the process of learning. Those who fail to learn or take undue length of time in this
process face dreadful consequences. Abbasid Empire could not respond to the internal
sectarian challenges and was trampled by Mongols. The Ottoman Empire failed keep
pace with the time and was disintegrated. Only its successor Turkey adopted modern
democracy when it was too late. South Asia, during decline of Mughal Dynasty, could
not formulate a suitable social contract and was easily grasped by the British.

Pakistan succeeded in adopting its first constitution by political consensus only after
disintegration into two parts. The cost of learning was too much. However there are some
more signs of learning in recent history. Broad consensus of two largest parties over
future mode of action, formation of government by national consensus, agreement over
provincial autonomy and distribution of resources and disillusionment of the nation
regarding religious fanatics are positive signs.

What should be the future course of action? Time seems to be ripe to educate the people
that it is absurd to wait for angels to descend from heaven and govern with super human
qualities of character. The emphasis should be on principles and practical methodologies
to implement them rather than persons to rule. No human being has right to rule other
human beings. Only the principles and law should rule. Political parties and their leaders
should undertake and convince the electorate to ensure rule of law by a well defined
mechanism. If ever we succeed in reforming the police station, the common people will
be liberated of the shackles of feudal culture. Rest of the process of progress will follow
on its own. 180 million brains, if liberated, are gifted enough to bring about prosperity.
Here the simple announcement that the police will be baptized and cleansed of corruption
is insufficient and misguiding. There will always be human beings in police and other
departments. A creative and innovative system is required. It is not impossible. Already
some sections of police have proved that they can act responsibly if suitable environment
is provided. People should be aware that the ruling class intentionally leaves scope of
corruption to keep the unlimited powers in their hands. A sincere political party should
have a one-point agenda and a workable program in this regard so that voters may
understand adequately.

There is no doubt that recent surge of fanaticism as a direct outcome of undue use of
religion in Afghan war of 1980s, is the gravest test of history for Pakistanis. If we come
out of it safe and sound, a brilliant future awaits us.