To say that the last few weeks have been eventful will be an understatement. Explosive may be a more appropriate adjective to describe the turbulence that a series of unexpected turn of events has created in the status quo of our national politics.
A determined protest by the families of 82 blast victims of the Hazara community in Quetta joined by the people nationwide forced the government to show the door to the Chief Minister and impose Governor’s Rule in Balochistan. A long march and sit-in in Islamabad by an obscure lone ranger and his thousands of followers shook the coalition government that has the strength of almost two-thirds majority votes in Parliament. After five days of ultimatums and drama, Dr Tahirul Qadri was able to score a victory by extracting concessions from the government delegation at his territory of siege. The Supreme Court ordered investigation and possible arrest of the sitting Prime Minister on charges of corruption. Doesn’t it make one wonder if our government exercises control over anything at all?
The regular occurrence of such improbable incidents has turned us into a nation of cynics. Most of us look at each other with suspicion, find it difficult to accept anything on face value, relish other people’s failures and are always searching for hidden sinister motives and conspiracies. We commence demolishing our heroes and forget them no sooner than we had built them. Our young and old are thus left in a vacuum with no role models to emulate and derive inspiration from.
It is small wonder that the founder of our nation Mohammed Ali Jinnah had survived our self-destructive instincts this far - until the MQM chief Altaf Hussain initiated an unprovoked misrepresentation of the Quaid’s status of citizenship and allegiance to the King and Queen of England. In order to justify his choice of retaining dual nationality and prolonged stay in Britain, he drew a parallel to an era when all inhabitants of India were British subjects and the Republic of Pakistan did not exist. The effort could not belittle the Quaid-i-Azam, but reflected the thinking pattern of a notable leader, who appears to have raised himself to such a level that he could say or do as he pleases with no fear of reprisal.
Perhaps, the autocratic attitude of our political leaders and the sycophancy and total submission expected of the followers have something to do with our history of being the descendants of the numerous invaders and Muslim dynasties that ruled in the subcontinent. The Muslims lived mainly on the handouts of the Emperor’s court and at the pleasure of the other descending cadre benefactors. Each exceeded the other in proving his loyalty by flattery, character assassination and perpetual palace intrigues to diminish others in order to attain favourable status.
Among the Hindu communities of India, the nature of work for each section of the society was well defined in the ancient caste system that was divided into four categories. The Brahmins were the principal high caste followed by the Kshatriyas (marshal warriors), Vaishyas (merchants) and Shudras (artisans and menial work) other than the untouchables that were the lowest form deprived of any human dignity. The British rulers carefully studied and developed an in-depth understanding of the religious, caste and social divisions in the subcontinent. They ruled the diversified and vast Indian empire by successfully playing one against the other with carrot and stick to their full advantage. Some of these cunning ways are also to be found in our leaders.
The majority of the conservative Muslim community had never felt the need to develop any skills that were considered to be below their dignity. Their education was limited to religious, Urdu and Persian. The British rulers found the Hindu community more pliant, relatively open-minded and willing workers and used them for their skills. It was not till after the rebellion of the Muslim soldiers in 1857 (that was violently crushed by the British forces) that a few forward-looking Muslims like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan dared to violate the religious taboos, established schools and universities and commenced movements to convince the Muslims to learn English and other subjects of science and craft and to compete with others for gainful employment.
Meanwhile, the Hindu, Parsi and various other communities had made considerable progress in their specialist fields and had established themselves as industrialists, bankers, traders and builders. The British found the Muslims of the regions of Punjab, NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and Sindh suited for the armed forces and these areas appropriate to develop agriculture. A vast innovative canal irrigation network was introduced to bring water from the mighty rivers to the rain-dependent agriculture of these areas. Large tracts of lands were distributed among a few influential local families that were loyal and subservient to their colonial masters, whose interests they served by keeping their people suppressed and voiceless. The landlords reaped the earnings from the crops without having to work for it, while their minions toiled in the fields with minimum subsistence. Two classes of ‘Masters’ and ‘Servants’ and a mindset were created that refuse to go away in our Islamic democratic state.
Among the very first steps that the Indians took after the partition of subcontinent in 1947 was to bring drastic land reforms and abolish the princely states. Their lands were distributed among the peasants, marginalising the influence of the numerous maharajahs, nawabs and landowners that helped their parliamentary democracy to flourish. In the newly-born Pakistan, the feudal lords and tribal chiefs (other than the military) emerged as the most potent and dominant force - a status that they have jealously guarded during the last six decades and that has prevented any system to take root.
The same qabza group largely monopolised industry, commerce and trade by exercising its political influence, resulting in an uneven distribution of wealth. Since they lacked the expertise, vision, business acumen and entrepreneurial skills to compete and survive in open markets, they looked for shortcuts and government protection to generate wealth unfairly and to maintain their monopoly. The various political systems experimented in our country have thus been held hostage primarily by the three generations of these few hundred landowner families supplemented by a few business houses with newfound wealth. The majority of ordinary people still remain poor, uneducated and under their absolute influence.
However, the emergence of a vibrant and independent media and the age of internet are quietly revolutionising the political and social structures of our country and assisting real democracy to prevail for the first time. The incompetence, greed and corruption and malpractices of our government functionaries and political leaders have filtered down across the board.
Democracy, however defective, has survived for the full term of Parliament. An independent Election Commission appointed by consensus will hold the 2013 general elections and oversee the transition for which all political parties are on the same page, as they are about terrorism. Dialogue, however crude or unprincipled, is in vogue to settle differences. The army supports democracy. These are great steps forward that promise to usher in a brighter future.
The writer is an engineer and an entrepreneur. Email: k.a.k786@hotmail.com