|
Collective amnesia
By M.P. Bhandara (Dawn, 22 Nov 2000)
"...do not ask me where you are going. The road goes nowhere... no pray
for the narrow brain of a cow, and its thick leather hide....where am I going
Prometheus?"
-Lowell
A SPECTRE is haunting the land: it is the spectre of collective amnesia. We
appear to move like a man in the fullest possession of all faculties - smell,
speech, hearing and intellect - but without memory. And, if you talk to a man
without any memory of an incident in which he was a principal participant -
such as a birthday party of yore, when he burst all the balloons in a fit of
angst - he looks queerly at you; and, you return the look with remorse and
pity.
A la recherche du temps perdue - remembrance of things past - was the title
given by Marcel Proust to one of the great literatures of the 20th century. A
memory of the past recollected in the ruby light of yesteryear may appear
sweet, idyllic, bitter or tragic or a combination of these feelings. Memory
is human treasure - footprints in the deserts of time. A loss of memory or
amnesia by obliterating the desert landmarks creates a loss of direction, an
imbalance, dependence on another to find the polar star and other signposts
in the heavens or on terra firma.
We in Pakistan - or at any rate the 'establishment'
- appear to be suffering from a collective amnesia. Having lost remembrance
of our past - we are unsure of where we are in the present, and the future
appears like a blind alley to the thousands, nay millions, of our compatriots
seeking ways fair or foul to leave the country in search of gainful
employment which in some cases is a modern form of slavery.
First, let us pierce the curtain of amnesia to see as to how Pakistan came about. It did not come about
as school curricula books suggest like a guided missile homing to its target
or as an arrow flying straight to the bull's eye? Pakistan arrived in convoluted fashion
after many twists and turns and accidents of fate. Pakistan owes its existence more to the
person of one man than any other nation state of the 20th century. Indeed,
the Quaid was the sole spokesman for the Musalmans of British India.
The Quaid had fully accepted a confederal united India - a confederation somewhat
similar to the Swiss confederation - as the successor state to British India. It was the Congress - and in
particular Jawaharlal Nehru - who reneged on the British brokered agreement
on the confederal structure. Nehru's insistence for a strong federal centre
in New Delhi made Pakistan possible. In the process, Punjab and Bengal were vivisected, millions
displaced and killed and Kashmir will
probably straddle the fault-lines between Pakistan and India for a century or more. Other
fallouts include Karachi being on the seismic fault-line
of Pakistan itself.
This is not to suggest that a confederal India might have worked better than two - and now three - separate nations;
but, simply the thought that it was a quirk of history that led to the
creation of Pakistan. What might have happened
otherwise is a purely hypothetical question: but a question it is, and
perhaps left best unanswered.
The founder of Pakistan did give a Constitution to the
new country, which is his much-celebrated speech to the Constituent Assembly
of Pakistan of August
11, 1947. The rulers
of Pakistan (read armed forces and the
politico-religious establishment) have always felt uncomfortable with this
speech. A part of the speech was deemed so threatening that it was officially
suppressed by the establishment.
The words of the President of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan that most
rankled officialdom were "Now I think we should keep that in front of us
as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to
be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense
because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political
sense as citizens of the state."
The answer of officialdom to this incendiary talk by the Quaid is amnesia. A
total loss of memory. And the same applies to his lofty ideas of justice,
equal treatment to minorities and democracy. The Quaid may have founded Pakistan but is certainly not responsible
for our present bigoted and begotten state.
Another subject that is walled by a thick barrier of collective amnesia is
the break-up of united Pakistan. We behave now as if East Pakistan never existed or as if the
separation of East
Pakistan was bound
to happen some day. Our explanations for this great tragedy have always been
skin deep. If only Mr X was not a traitor and Gen. Y less of a drunk and Gen.
Z less of a coward, might our eastern half been "saved."
This attitude of officialdom is reflected in the terms of reference given to
the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission to determine responsibility for the 'fall' of
East Pakistan as if it was a piece of crystal on the mantelpiece and the
accidental brush of the elbow led to its fall and break into little bits. So
even if the Hamood-ur-Rehman Commission report withheld in the so-called
"national interest" (who determines what the national interest is,
any way) not much will be gained by naming the drifters and the derelicts,
heroes and cowards, patriots and traitors.
What we need to know is what was wrong in the system of governance -
particularly in the Ayub Khan and Yahya years - which led to the total
alienation of the people of East Pakistan.
An objective inquiry now is by no means an academic exercise as it has a
direct bearing on present times. Indeed, to save not only the honour and soul
of this country but to save Pakistan
itself, we need to know the perceptions of the people of Bangladesh, of those who are old enough to
remember as to what was wrong between us. Such an introspective exercise is
needed not to reclaim the past but to secure our future by facing the truth
about ourselves.
Some of the perceptions that we hear from our erstwhile colleagues in
Bangladesh - who incidentally counted themselves as loyal Pakistanis till the
very end - were (1) The Ayub Khan rule though progressive and benign was
basically 'imperial' or colonial in character. (2) The federal government in Islamabad was far too centralized. (3) The
foreign exchange earnings of East Pakistan
should have been retained where earned. (4) The solo fixation of West Pakistan, i.e. the mainly Punjabi-Pathan
establishment, with India in regard to Kashmir tended to fritter away scarce
resources; the prolonged tension finally shattered the internal balance
between the east and the west. (5) And last but not the least; the so-called
'basic democracies' did not give Bengali pluralism a place under the Pakistan sun.
The Ayubian period between 1959 and 1964 was perhaps Pakistan's golden summer. The green
revolution, land reform, industrial expansion along with a progressive
outlook on birth control and family laws were not the only outstanding
features of this period. Pakistan was
highly respected in practically all the important capitals of the world.
Ayub Khan had his share of detractors, both local and foreign, but he had one
big failing, which in the end over-arched his good rule; he was an elitist
with a military mindset; in pursuit of social and economic progress he
overlooked the fact that only a people's democracy with its many failings
such as its tendency to go one step forward and two backwards; its propulsion
of the corrupt to high office; its weightage in favour of the parochial,
uncouth and semi-educated of the elected, provides the invisible glue for a
diverse people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds to meet and
discover their commonalities. In a word to build a nation out of
heterogeneous human material.
We cannot over-emphasize this conclusion. Are we not sleep walking into the
grooves of solutions repeatedly tried with little success? Do we give up
banking because there are counterfeiters and forgers that may swindle our
bank money, or give up boxing or playing cricket because serious head
injuries can also occur; likewise must we give up the vibrancy of politics
because our politicians are venal and corrupt to the core? A bad democracy is
best cured by more not less democracy. The Philippine president is being
tried this week by the Senate of the Philippines for corruption. Politics in the Philippines is said to be as corrupt as in Pakistan. Is this not evidence that a bad
democracy has the dynamics to cure itself?
Our rulers - and this expression includes the entire apex establishment in
civil government, armed forces and the judiciary - have conveniently
insulated themselves by devising very tedious and difficult procedures from
facing corruption charges when in office. Corruption will never be reduced so
long as the person in full power of office cannot be brought to book. A
special bench of the Supreme Court or a bench of a reinvented Supreme
Judicial Council should have the power to appoint independent counsel to
investigate and hear the petition of the humblest citizen if he can provide
sufficient evidence of malfeasance against the high and mighty of the land.
It is futile to imagine that corruption can be reduced by periodic martial
laws or army takeovers. Corruption flourishes today as before because the NAB
is concerned mainly with past corruption. Is it possible for the NAB to take
up a corruption case against a high ranking serving general? This is not to
suggest that such a case exists but if a citizen were to make such a petition
he would be laughed out of court as would have been the fate of such a
petition made in the time of the Zardari's or Sharif's time in power. But in
good cowardly fashion we only hold our rulers accountable when they have
fallen from grace.
Speaking objectively, military rule has a cleaner record than civilian rule.
I doubt if any of our military rulers (barring one) can match even a tenth of
the wealth accumulation of the Bhuttos, Zardaris and Sharifs - or even their
middle rank sidekicks. The culture of the armed forces demands discipline,
quick decisions and a rough and ready justice. The militaries are motivated,
hard working and patriotic. There are nagging spirits who think all their
motivation, hard work and patriotism is misdirected. The truth may lie
somewhere in between.
My subjective view is that on the whole the militaries are fairer, more
accessible and highly motivated. But all this virtue misses the essential
point: humans are funny animals. The human spirit is roused not by what is
necessarily right and proper but by a feeling of participation no matter how
illusory it may be. A popular leader can feel the pulse of people's desires
and motivate them, for good or for bad, much better than any military ruler.
By and large common people have fully supported the current accountability
drive, the crackdown on the Baras (and lament the fact that it has been
quietly shelved) and the documentation of the economy. They do not support
the confrontational foreign policy postures of this government, which has
isolated us in the world. Do people desire us to be another insular Burma (Myanmar) or a Dubai? We
well know the answer. And little do our khakis realize what impetus military
rule provides for the coming battle in Pakistan: beware the sub-nationalist groups are sharpening their knives for
this battle.
|
