Revenge of the Secularists

What happens when all the leaders we know die? All the politicians that currently make the headlines, who create and de-create controversy, and happily send themselves into exile whenever Pakistan gets too hot for them -- Who will take their place? Or more precisely, will the people who take their place believe in the same ideologies?

Turns out that with every generation, thinking and ideologies change. According to dictionary.com ideology is…

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

Taking the first definition, we have keywords like social needs, aspirations, individual, group, class, and culture. The generation that is currently ruling the country are those that were most severely affected by partition. It was perhaps, for most of them, the single most important event of their lives. It was at least an axis around which their life turned around for all of them. Political parties today are extremely self absorbed, to the extent of being ridiculous.

This writer has himself seen the websites of all the principal political parties, and has noticed one thing, that they all sincerely advocate themselves as being the only party in Pakistan that is the people's salvation. Such selfishness is obvious, and clearly idiotic. What is incomprehensible is how one person can claim to believe that they believe in Islam (which strictly promotes humility and respect for others) and on the other hand claim that they are really beautiful people whom everyone loves. The real issue, ladies and gentlemen, is that the coming generation can see right through it. That’s why they don’t vote (unless by force).

Is it indeed possible that the people who do vote are imbeciles? Or do they actually believe that their party is the one true Jesus of democracy? Can they not see that the same lines, the same words are being used by all of them? If indeed all the political parties are to be believed, then they all pretty much want the same thing, democracy, rights for the people at grassroots, and an Islamic state. That is their concept of social needs, all internal factors. Perhaps what we need to do is to broaden our thinking to take the fuller picture into perspective. How does our country fit into the international perspective?

For most individuals now, who are students or junior professionals, the basis for decision making isn’t what happened so many years ago (in 1947). What they keep their sights on is what is going to happen in the future. For someone born in the eighties, or the nineties, the world started with movies, with the Internet, and with a blatant, often desperate need to communicate in an international language. All mediums that transcend the national barriers. With the memory of independence fading, it is no longer important whether the person offering me a job is a Hindu, Christian or a Jew, what really matters is what he is paying me. Relations between India and Pakistan are increasingly cordial as far as the public is concerned. True, there are a few black sheep here and there, but then they are more mischievous than ideologically motivated.

In the current scenario, it has become increasingly important for anyone aspiring to be a future leader of Pakistan to keep an open mind. If you don’t believe in the freedom of women, then please confine your views of one group that agrees with your philosophy. That would probably be in rural areas of this country. To lead a whole nation means to inadvertently believe in what they believe. That’s how the world evolves, and someone who refuses to evolve with the world is forced to stay behind. Considering how fast mindsets from around the world are merging, it seems viable that national boundaries are no longer the background on which to argue. Groups of people are not Pakistanis, Indians or French anymore, instead they are leftists, Sunnis, Shias or political conservatives etc. The virtual network of human beings leaves room for no nationalist thought. That is what we are heading for.

The above mentioned facts are apparent from a single piece of evidence, that there are differences between people of the same nation. They may or may not be nationalistic differences, or on the basis of language, but mostly they are based on cultural influences, which in turn develop differing morals and ethical thoughts. These morals appear sacred to some and repugnant to others. The only way two people of different moral beliefs, even though they may belong to the same religion, can coexist, is because of democracy. Even then, regional diversity is required in order to make sure people from one place believe in the same thing. If the majority people of a certain place are vegetarians, yet the greater society of that country is carnivorous, a civil war is bound to erupt. Such is the case with separatist militants and guerrillas, which have existed from time immemorial and will stay probably till the Day of Judgment. They are a sizeable minority and have the will and the means to make their presence felt. Undoubtedly, if Sun Tzu’s strategic philosophies are to be given any credibility, such a threat of separatists or revolutionary ideologies from inside the borders of a nation must be controlled, at least, streamlined, at all costs.

Fortunately for us, since we are considering him, Sun Tzu believes in wars without actual combat. This is a beautiful concept unknown to much of Europe because of their tactical scholarship in the bloody and gory battlefield ideals of Karl von Clausewitz. Tzu believes in preemptive strikes at the core of the concept of what leads men to war. If a ruler understands what actually it is that drives men against him, and address that problem, no doubt the rebellion will finish before it even starts. In case of political separatists, the problem, more of often than not, is that they feel wronged. The reason for this may be linguistic, religious, political or of any nature. Rebellions start because most leaders are either too proud of too lazy to address the issue, which they think is a passing fancy of some minority or regional community to gain political attention. However, this deliberate ignorance often leads to a full scale military and militant war that not only uses up valuable military and state expenses, but also creates a negative image of the country abroad. It is of course, ridiculous to think why image is so important. Very few countries are either self-sufficient enough, like Saudi Arabia, or economically strong enough to have other countries dependant on them, like China. Besides this, once the image is destroyed, only the shell of a nation’s integrity and sovereignty remains. Inside there is nothing, just a vast emptiness of imagined strength that exists solely on propaganda.

To recap, firstly that there is often a generation gap between the rulers and the ruled, leading to a gap in moral, political and ideological beliefs, and secondly, this gap, if not addressed in time, can lead to problem for the state which might require use of force, which in turn will lead to problems of its own.

There are two steps to solve the above mentioned problems. For one thing, a ruler must be vigilant enough to keep track of the changes in thoughts that occur in his nation. For this it is necessary for the nation’s leaders to regularly address universities and seminars where not only the same tired old bunch, but new blood also speaks. This will give the nation’s leader an idea of where his nation is going.

The leader does not have to publicly declare what his ulterior motives are, but must create new avenues and issues to be discussed in his nation and then quietly watch them. Secondly, if the ruler notices prospective problem brewing in his nation, he must take action as soon as possible. If nothing else, he should address the leaders of the rebellion both publicly and professionally, in both cases with the utmost care and without threats. Only an idiot will make a threat to his own nation irrespective of who is the problem creator. If these two steps are taken, not only will the rulers know what the changes are in the publics mind, but also adjust themselves to these changes, and perhaps, if preempted well enough, may bring negotiate between the new ideology and old, and thus keep their position as leader in tact.

It turns out that the secularists are winning, not because they are forcing their way through a threatening minority, but because theirs is the way of the future. It has to be, because with a generation change new ideas come to light, and whether the existing ideas are correct or not doesn’t matter. The current fad becomes the new reality. The revenge of the secularists is simple, ‘our way, or the highway’.