Imran Khan: Pakistan’s Next PM?

I have published the following letter in the Frontier Post (August 17; today). Please note my prefered tiltle for this letter ``Imran Khan: A Visionary Leader?`` has been modified by the FP editor.

Regards, Bilal Ahmad

Imran Khan the visionary

The destiny of Pakistan has long been in the hands of corrupt and unresponsive ruling elites. I recently coaxed the political leadership in Pakistan to draw a new vision for Pakistan and draft a social contract for a state and civil society partnership that all people willingly endorse (Frontier Post, July 21 and August 1). To my surprise, only Imran Khan has shown the courage to issue a 30-page document outlining the nuts and bolts of his social contract with the people of Pakistan.



We, Pakistanis, still view Imran Khan as a former cricketer and our political commentators have not yet scrutinised his document. I urge all political commentators in Pakistan to do some justice to this budding politician, who is apparently prepared to risk his popularity, honour, and integrity for the sake of the people of Pakistan. If worst came to worst, he would simply join the club of other despicable politicians.



Bilal Ahmad,

USA.

 

In response to Firaq (Reply #67) and Ferozk (Reply # 68):

I am also thankful to Firaq for pointing out the complex nature of reality. Of course, different people see reality in different ways. The sense of reality of even a single person tends to vary in different spatio-temporal contexts.

I agree with Firaq`s class-based nature of early American politics. American social and labor history is full of subordinate people`s struggles. Dawley (1991: viii) writes: ``The truth is that dominant and subordinate groups constrain one another at every turn. Time and again pressure from below--whether mass migration, labor upheaval, or welfare demands--forced decisions upon elites that they would have preferred to avoid. Thus the destiny of modern America was in the hands of the meek as well as the mighty.``

Ferozk`s view of Pakistani politics is essentially top-down. His view is diametrically opposite to that of mine. We cannot, I think, bring any significant change in Pakistan without the empowerment of the common people. I, however, do not visualize the end of existing social relations of dominance and subordination as long as we remain integrated with an essentially capitalist global economy.

Ideas and people evolve in specific contexts. Good examples are Ghalib`s poetry, Dicken`s novels, Mozart`s symphonies, Gandhi`s philosophy of non-violence, Rousseau`s social contract, Marx`s critique of political economy, and Lincoln`s Emancipation Proclamation to end slavery in America.

Ferozk wrote: ``The rights of the masses, in Pakistan, do not matter and will not matter as long as there is no system of government instituted to guarantee those rights.`` Comment: Well said! I agree. But, who would institute a system of government to guarantee the rights of masses? Ruling elite (politicians, bureaucrats, feudal lords, businessmen and industrialists, army officers)? How, when, and why?

Ferozk wrote: ``Right now in Pakistan, the debate is not focused on a lack of civic rights and obligations. . . .`` Comment: Who is engaged in the debate? Where? How about the lack of other rights?

Ferozk, the question of provincial autonomy/decentralization/devolution is only barely considered in Pakistan. These issues need to be considered critically. At present, the center is too powerful (in a military sense) to kill any serious movement for devolution in most parts of Pakistan. However, it is too weak (in an economic or administrative sense) to really resolve its crisis of legitimacy. The crisis of state legitimacy needs to be addressed seriously. But, effective and responsive governance requires some sort of decentralization of power and the empowerment of common people within a federal setup. Moreover, the question of rights (and obligations) in not merely political. It is economic and cultural as well. Pakistani people are not only a victim of the politics of scarcity but are surrounded by a cultural politics of identity. A simple recourse to the Federalist Papers would be as inadequate as Ayub Khan`s system of basic democracy.

Ferozk`s understanding of Rousseau seems to be different from that of mine. Ferozk is right that we have not clearly articulated, what Rousseau called, the social contract between the government and the people. Following this, he writes ``. . . before discussing the political rights and obligations of the people of Pakistan, we need to define what those criteria [sic] are. More importantly than that, [common?] Pakistanis need to define their own sense of civic responsibility first from whence all their subsequent political rights will derive from and be based upon.`` Ferozk, would you please spell out ``those criteria`` and let us know why the common people of Pakistan need to ``define their own sense of civic responsibility first``? In Rousseau`s social contract, sovereignty not only originates in the people, it ought to say there. Rousseau wrote: ``Sovereignty cannot be represented, for the same reason that it cannot be alienated . . . the people`s deputies are not, and could not be, its representatives; they are merely its agents; and they cannot decide anything finally. Any law which the people has not ratified in person is void; it is not law at all. The English people believes itself to be free; it is gravely mistaken; it is free only during the election of Members of Parliament; as soon as the Members are elected, the people is enslaved; it is nothing (The Social Contract, p. 141). Hence, Rousseau not only rejects the political doctrines of Hobbes and Locke but the so-called representative democracy. In Rousseau`s account, the idea of self-rule is posited as an end itself. He visualizes the formation of a society in which the affairs of the state are integrated into the affairs of ordinary citizens. In treating the role of the citizen as the highest, he argues that the citizen must create and be bound by a publicly generated conception of the common good.

Ferozk has consistently argued for a political ideology that accepts the domination of rich and powerful. In this sense, he rejects Rousseau`s social contract. Further support for this conclusion is evident from Ferozk`s statement: ``Remember, in politics there are always two options: do something or do nothing. Doing nothing has fewer risks attached to it and it is because of this reason that the Madisonian and Hamiltonian approach will be the favored one in case of Pakistan. As to empowering the masses and allowing them to grasp the reins of government, it may sound like a good idea, but the fact of the matter is that the masses in Pakistan are not ready for that kind of civic responsibility.`` Allowing them? By whom? The corrupt and unresponsive elite who have plundered Pakistan and have untiringly humiliated (at least) the honest, hard-working, and conscientious people of Pakistan? And, how do you know that the masses in Pakistan are not ready . . . ? If they are not ready now, when will they be ready? How would we know?

The destiny of Pakistan has long been in the hand of despots and tyrants. It is now high time for the so-called meek to realize their true power and use it in the greater interest of Pakistan. Only the people of Pakistan can ensure a stable, prosperous, and respectable Pakistan for their coming generations. Only they can check the misuse of power by the ruling elite.



-- Bilal Ahmad

Ayaz Amir has made several interesting observations in the following write-up. Some key observations are:

(1) The people of Pakistan tend to excuse the ruling elite for their foolishness and humiliating actions.

(2) Pakistani ruling elite untiringly test the patience of common people with their baseless/meaningless rhetoric. The present regime, in particular, is engaged in a makeshift or ad hoc kind of politics and governance.

(3) The acquiescence of the people of Pakistan is a sign of a lack of ``hope, vigour and enthusiasm.``

(4) Pakistani people do not have stamina for any more political experiment.

(5) Some permanent members of Pakistan`s politburo who willingly served every despotic regime are currently concerned about the plight of Pakistan, as if they were not the source of problem. For example, Roedad Khan asks: ``Who will light a candle in the gloom of our morale?`` [Roedad Khan and other bureaucrats can easily shrug their shoulders and argue that they had served the State of Pakistan and its interests. They had no choice.]

(6) The intellectual and moral caliber of the ruling elite (particularly Nawaz Sharif) and their supporters poses additional threat to the future of Pakistan.

(7) Critical scholarship is lacking in most recently published memoirs of the ruling elite.

A critical examination of Ayaz Amir`s piece seems necessary for understanding the past and present developments in Pakistan.

-- Bilal Ahmad

DAWN - the Internet Edition

06 August 1999 Friday

Getting on with life

By Ayaz Amir



THE people of Pakistan, or such of them as are foolish enough to take some interest in national affairs, would gladly leave the recent saga of foolishness and humiliation behind them and get on with life. But only if their betters would let them.

Not a day goes by without a fresh utterance to test the nation`s patience. Occupied Kashmir is soon going to be ours (Nawaz Sharif). India will be forced to the negotiating table (Nawaz Sharif). When the armed forces and the people are one no harm can come to Pakistan (General Musharraf). There are then the information and foreign ministries which can be trusted to come up with their own absurdities. The only person who has stopped being inventive is Ishaq Dar who keeps saying that fresh taxes will not burden the common man.

After the nuclear tests last year the nation was informed that the PM`s secretariat, an enduring monument to our aesthetic sensibility, was to be vacated for reasons of austerity. Now it transpires that it is to be re-occupied. To show the government`s love for the Northern Areas, the cabinet is slated to meet in Skardu. Then it is announced that after all it will meet in Islamabad.

Amidst this hectic activity the prime minister decrees the construction of a new state guest house at Bhurban, Murree. In Lahore he inspects the model of the new airport terminal, whose outlines resemble the mock-Mughal facade of the PM`s secretariat, and orders that it be completed by next year. Meanwhile, in the name of road development, the vandalization of Lahore continues, with age-old trees being pulled down and ever wider malls being built to accommodate the traffic sense peculiar to this country.

Things have been brought to such a pass that ordinary people (as opposed to drawing room literati) are past caring. Weary of sights and sounds which keep recurring like scenes from a bad dream, and their last illusions lying broken and scattered over the landscape, they are past caring and, to the government`s infinite joy, past protesting. Burning tyres, erecting barricades and braving police lathis after all are functions of hope, vigour and enthusiasm. When from the body-politic these vital qualities are drained, from whence should arise the spirit of protesting?

The people of Pakistan have tried everything: repeated dictatorships, experiments with different brands of democracy, the rise and fall of Benazir, the glittering summits of the heavy mandate. They have raised monuments to the Chaghi hills, hailed Dr A.Q. Khan as their deliverer and believed with all the fervour of their emotional souls that the defence of the country had become impregnable. The lies and absurdities they have put up with would have caused an upheaval in any country similarly placed. But their stamina for more experiments now lies exhausted.

It is a strange country indeed where a ghost from the past such as Roedad Khan should emerge from the mists to preach, of all things, a revolution. Every despotic regime in recent memory he faithfully served. The burden of the infamies then gathered by the country he valiantly bore but the infamy of Kargil has cut him to the quick and made him write a frenzied piece in the News with gems such as this: ``What a terrible burden of guilt our rulers bear. One day this treachery shall be avenged and out of all this would come the politics of the future.`` He goes on to ask, ``Who will light a candle in the gloom of our morale?`` The answer should be obvious: another Zia-ul-Haq with Roedad Khan as his secretary-general of the interior.

An invaluable insight into the intellectual calibre of our governing classes is afforded by the spate of memoirs to have come out in recent years. While not a few of them are badly written, virtually all of them are self-serving, making their writers out to be infallible individuals who held aloft the banner of rectitude while everything around them was collapsing. In some cases, it is true, these writings are a useful addition to the historical record but the reader who might be looking for any traces of grace, modesty or humanity in them is likely to be disappointed.

If such be the state of the brightest and heaviest stars in the national firmament, of what account are Nawaz Sharif`s reputed limitations? He has been false to no one, least of all to the masses who put their trust in him. The foolishness was that of the masses if they saw wonders in him which never existed.

Endlessly restless and therefore flitting from here to there, fascinated with gewgaws and gimmicks, believing that somewhere through the woods lies a golden short-cut which if discovered would turn the burden of governance into a perpetual holiday, are vintage Nawaz Sharif traits which at least the members of Pakistan`s permanent politburo (Roedad Khan being an erstwhile member of this club) should have fully known when they went about creating him as a counter-weight to Benazir Bhutto. But they were blinded by their prejudices, hating Benazir more for being her father`s daughter and less for her presumed failings.

Indeed when it was discovered that Benazir was quite unlike her father and that her reigning passion was to feather her nest rather than to rock the national boat, many of the politburo members who had earlier thought her to be the very personification of fickleness and evil gladly took up service under her. The history of Pakistan is replete with such ironies.

It is also instructive to remember that while Benazir cut her populist moorings and became a child of the civil-military establishment, Nawaz Sharif moved in the opposite direction. From being a creation of the establishment he became his own man, especially after his falling out with President Ishaq Khan in 1993. In other words, he freed himself from the clutches of the English-speaking establishment and successfully created a Punjabi or a desi mass constituency for himself which ultimately culminated in the heavy mandate of 1997.

The tragedy is that while the intellectual and moral calibre of the English-speaking governing classes was always low, that of the desi crowd which has assaulted Islamabad on the strength of the heavy mandate is even lower. Between them Pakistan`s goose is being cooked.

Seen in this perspective, Kargil was not an aberration which occurred suddenly, out of the blue, because of someone`s folly or a momentary lapse of judgment. The manner we lurched into it, unthinkingly and on the basis of a set of false assumptions, reflected the intellectual bankruptcy which holds sway in our corridors of power. The attendance at Clinton`s court put the spotlight on our moral bankruptcy.

The point to note is that both these qualities did not develop overnight. They are rooted in the ethos and temper of our ruling classes.

-- The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 1999

re: firaq #: 67

Could you tell me the number of that essay, which you have quoted, from the Federalist Papers?

You are right, I am partial to the idea of noblese oblige in certain cases and in case of Pakistan, it only makes sense till the time the majority of the population is ready for self-governace. Yes, the American experiment was orginally created by rich, middle aged farmers for their own benefit, but over the years that ``experiment`` has evolved and is no longer applicable to what Hamilton and Madison once thought as being the perfect system of government.

After re-reading my post # 60, its intent was more to shed light on a system of government, which could rule Pakistan, than it was about civic rights of the ruled. The rights of the masses, in Pakistan, do not matter and will not matter as long as there is no system of government insitituted to gurantee those rights. Right now in Pakistan, the debate is not focused on a lack of civic rights and obligations, but on how to enshrine those rights and obligations in the polity of Pakistan.

It was with this in mind that I suggested the Federalist Papers and more so, because in a sub-textual sense, the debate in the Federal Papers was also about whether these rights can be best served from the federal level or the state level and this develves right into the issue of provincial autonomy from the Federal center (Islamabad)as that debate is presently being argued in Pakistan.

As to the difference of opinions, I would have to agree with you, because my sense of political histrography is likely to be different from others: for example, Bilal`s et als. As to this idee fixé being the ``de riguer`` of my political ideology, it has more to do with an awareness of considerations and limitations than aspirations of a political intent or an idea.

Remember, in politics there are always two options; do something or do nothing. Doing nothing has fewer risks attached to it and it is because of this reason that the Madisonian and Hamiltonian approach will be the favored one in case of Pakistan. As to empowering the masses and allowing them to grasp the reins of government, it may sound like a good idea, but the fact of the matter is that the masses in Pakistan are not ready for that kind of civic responsibility.

In a representative democracy, the critical responsibility of the electorate is not just to elect a goverment, but to be responsible towards that goverment by making certain that it serves those who elected it in the first place. There is a contructual agreement between the governed and the governors, from which a goverment derives its legitimacy to govern over a people and that legitimacy rests on the consent of the governed.

In the case of Pakistan, we have not clearly articulated what Rosseau called the ``social contract`` between the government and people it seeks to rule. Consequently, before discussing the political rights and obligations of the people of Pakistan, we need to define what those criterias are. More importantly than that, Pakistanis need to define their own sense of civic responsibility first from whence all their subsequent political rights will derive from and be based upon.

Hence, before we start discussing political rights and obligations, we need to seriously dicuss and settle the issue of what kind of system of governance do we, as Pakistanis, want for our polity, because the implication of political rights, obligations and responsibilities will be radically different under a democractic goverment than it would be under a government based on the principle of shariat or Islamic law in Pakistan.

Re: Ferozk #60

Atleast you are consistent in your political ideology...you say you find yourself more in sync with Hamilton and Madison...here is what Hamilton wrote in the Federalist papers that you mention:

``All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people...Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the government``. The US constitution, which was written by 55 rich white men, set up a government by the rich, for the rich...the phrase ``life, liberty and persuit of happiness`` which appeared in the Declaration of independence, was changed in the

constitution to ``life, liberty or property``. The founding fathers, be it Hamilton, Madison or Jefferson were very clear on one thing...to maintain the class heirarchies and the unequal distribution of weath...Jefferson may have a slightly more liberal rhetoric but his views were not significantly different.

The difference between Bilal or others that you label ``liberal`` and you is in the point of view when you read history...you look at events and history from the point of views of the ruling class, the rich, the powerful, generals, battles, victories etc. These ``liberals`` look at history from the point of view of the masses of oppressed and dispossessed peoples. When you label them as not being realistic, you forget that may true only according to your version of reality...reality is very complicated and your version of reality and what is possible may be very different from mine and someone elses...realise that your version of reality is derived from the society that you have grown up and that reality may be drilled into your head to protect the interest of a select class of people that you may be part of.

before we make this idiot PM or even think of making him PM, can we get the panwallah in Gulberg for the job first?????????

Reply to Wasiq #63.

My dear you raised a question, ``Shouldn`t we decide such an important issue rationally and not emotionally? Down here we don`t decide any thing, may be from up there you do! And the list of why nots was provided just prove that. Even if you get the impression of being accused you should not mind. Here we have a free licence to accuse any body of any thing- and one is not bound to prove-from small acts of treason to any thing. No body is spared. No hard feelings.

I did not pass Imran qualified for becoming next P.M. I compared the lot, in my “why nots”. And since the masses did never have any thing to do in their installation a mule would be a better choice. I do not know for how long you have been away. I can visualise you going through the media electronic and otherwise, eagerly whenever you can. People get time and space to say what they are paid for, not necessarily what they see and believe! I pray for longevity of CHOWK/ its loiterers, with their caution, hidden identities.

I have come across a single person in my whole career as a pseudo journalist who was bold enough to say ” I am not going to say what you want me to say, and what I want to say you are not going to consume, so, please excuse me! And the other Nawab siddiq Ali Khan, Private Secretary to Quaid e Millat Late Liaquat Ali Khan who refused to receive payment as fees for services of telling the Nation what Liaquat was and achieved!

Imagine the torture of a person who in one breath says:

Love is a bargain of its kind

There is no take

Only give – give – and give more

All is not enough!

And is forced to utter in the next:

They talk of austerity and life simple

Full of greed and pomp and hate

They fleece us and rule our fate

Bring me a preacher “wiry and nimble!

Mirza Adeeb has expired recently, having seen the “Apa’s Gharara produce a hidden cannon, which once saved his character’s life by having been used as a parachute! But this is absurd and out of context!

In response to Ferozk (Reply #60):

I am thankful to Ferozk for stressing the need to learn from the Federalist debate. I wonder if any scholar has shown clear ideological and contextual links between the American and the Pakistani contexts.

Ferozk maintains that the Federalist Papers would be a better reference to the discussion of citizenship rights and obligations than Marx. I don`t seem to agree with Ferozk because a discussion of citizenship rights would be meaningless without paying attention to its specific context (or what Marx calls social formation or social relations).

I don`t judge Marx`s political theory (and political economy) by the policies and performance of the so-called socialist countries. In recent years, an increasing number of scholars have argued that Marx`s contribution (and method) has never been more relevant for not only understanding the growth of capitalism but a host of contemporary political debates in political philosophy, democratic theory, historiography, geography, and other related disciplines.

How relevant is Marx to the Pakistani situation? Existing Pakistani scholarship provides only a few clues.

Regards, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I will be away from my computer/home for a week or so. It would be an interesting exercise to discuss the Federalist papers.

Ref: No escape from politics-July 17th.1999.

Mr.Irfan Hussain makes quite an interesting reading. He is critical of the Pakistanis any where, as to why they are so engrossed in politics that what ever they may be talking their discussion takes an inauspicious turn to commenting on political events, hearsay and gossip back home, unlike the other so many nations. And a discussion on the net comes to him as anger/intolerance oriented I am amused why he has not himself given a thought to the reasons. It is not true a statement that they, the Pakistanis do not have any other thing to do. Any Pakistani, who has seen the making of Pakistan, or has gone through the wisdom of making Pakistan a reality or has any idea as to what the word Pakistan stood for, will have some thing to say in negation of whatever is happening. Which for obvious reasons may appear anger filled to barons of our media. Mr. Irfan Hussain is an analyst of repute. He knows, I am sure that ever since the inception of Pakistan, every change in the government, PIECEFUL or violent, has brought tremendous change in their lives unlike the other nations?, Mr. Irfan would like to compare with. There the change in government does not bring whirlwind change in the over all policies of the government. They are not thrown out of /taken in a job as a result. In most western countries he should have noticed that even the budget is not paid any heed. I have astonishingly experienced that some commodities could be bought after increase in tax for quite some time. On enquiry I was given the reply ?we have not paid the extra tax levied and we would charge the new price when we get fresh stock and pay additional tax! They have governments in whom the masses have trust and confidence. In 1983 I was at Dacca for a very short while. In that short span two things impressed me most. 1. I got an impression that their leaders utter what they have in mind, try to do what they say, so the result is that in just less than 15 years they are financially better off than we have been. In 1983, a Pak Rupee would fetch 2 Takkas, making the U.S. $ nearly twice as expensive compared with value in Pakistan. And nearly two years ago the U.S. $ was at par with value in Pakistan! They banned betting and horse racing-bulldozed the race ground altogether and turned it into a children?s park. They banned liquor, it is not available through the Jamadars! Can we boast of banning any thing relatively but the human rights? 2. I read in a daily there that the government had ?TAKEN concrete steps to curb and deter hoarding of essential supplies and flooded the market with food grains! A phrase never heard of other than ?will be done?, will not be allowed, (if some body bothered to seek permission). Comparatively speaking, can Mr. Irfan say, that tomorrow his pocket money would sustain the cigarette or cup of tea he so badly needs while writing his columns, or can he be sure of rising out of bed still a patriot and his editor willing to pay for the space! He is lucky to have the opportunity of a lucrative job and extra income from writing about Politics in his columns. The poor man has only two sides of bread to butter. He can certainly not afford to be angry. Carry on the lullaby.

Re: bahmad # 58

Bilal, the reason why labelled your writings as being populist is, because of your political views and the prism through, which you seem to review political events. These comments, more than anything else, are reflection of my own perspectives and do not shed any implications on your writings. I was merely offering those observations based on my own experiences and my own historical readings, which seem to suggest a different result of popular movements, be they violent or non-violent.

Bilal, the fulcrum on which my opinion hinges suggests, to me, that what Madison once told Jefferson was true. In replying Jefferson once during a debate, Madison said to him, ``sir, your people are a beast``. His reference was not meant to ignoble the people, but was intended to question their wisdom to decide matters. I refered you to Jefferson, because he also believed in the empowerment of the masses and he was a populist democract in comparsion to Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who were federalists.

I, as political philosophy, am more attuned to what Madision and Hamiliton were preaching than I am in support of Jefferson`s views. As to your pertinent question about the revelance of the Federalist Papers to the Pakistani situation, the answer is a very simple one. The essays in the Federalist Papers were penned during a time, after the revolution and Declaration of Independence (1776) and leading upto the signing of the American Consititution in 1787. The issues raised and debated were intended to fashion some sort of an idea on what the political institutions and the nature of political participation in the Uniited States would be like.

Pakistan, by a quirk of history, is in a similar position, because the debate in Pakistan is being held along similar reasons and it is a debate, which is focused on shaping the political intentions of Pakistan and the avenues of political discourse in such a system. The economic and social indicators, which you listed are the same, because this debate is Pakistan, like the American one, is being inflluenced by a small core of elites for the benefit, rightly or wrongly, of the general masses.

What is the nature of the debate in Pakistan?

The present political debate in Pakistan, upon whose final conclusion the institutions of Pakistan will be fashioned, revolves around the issues of participating in the political decision making appartus of the state. In other words, the question is, whether Pakistan should have an insititutional framework of decision making or should it rely, as it does presently on the philosophy of noblese oblige, rational, which dominates the Pakistani political thinking.

This issue in turn will justify the level of ``public empowerment``. It was for these reasons, why I suggested that you read the Federalist Papers. Since your article was about citizenship rights and obligations, I thought this would be a better reference to the discussion than Marx.

The question of leadership in Pakistan is of utmost importance, particularly due to the nature of power relations in Pakistani politics, in particular, and South Asian politics, in general. I have recently published two letters which deserve your attention and critical appreciation. Additional letters on the issue of leadership need to be written and published in Pakistani or non-Pakistani newspapers. Here is what I wrote:

Frontier Post

July 21, 1999

Needed: Visionary Leaders



Malcolm X, a well-known African-American leader, once remarked that: ``You can`t separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom`` (Speech on 7 Jan. 1965, New York City).

A Pakistani of average intelligence would quickly reject Malcolm X`s insight by arguing that: ``We gained freedom some fifty-two years back, yet we lack peace in Pakistan.`` Assuming that both statements are wholly or partially true, we need to look at the root of this contradiction. The problem, in fact, lies in the way we conceptualize freedom. Freedom is a loaded word. One important dimension of freedom is ``the freedom of mind and spirit.`` Are our minds and spirits free or colonized? Is the issue of freedom somehow linked with the question of citizenship and human rights?

In the Western World, there has been a significant enlargement of freedom as a result of the acquisition of various civil, political, and social rights. People acquired these citizenship rights as a result of numerous collective struggles. A case in point is the American Civil Rights Movement. Do we have visionary leaders in Pakistan who have the capacity and willingness to learn from such collective struggles? Do they have the ability to mobilize the citizens of Pakistan to wage an honest, well-conceived, and peaceful struggle for their citizenship rights? If yes, it is high time that they come forward and take concrete steps to win the confidence and support of the common people of Pakistan. As a matter of strategy, they need to first chalk out their ``visions`` in black and white and share them with the people of Pakistan.

Bilal Ahmad

USA

Frontier Post

August 1, 1999

A question of leadership?



I recently coaxed the political leadership in Pakistan to ``come forward and take concrete steps to win the confidence and support of the common people of Pakistan`` (``Needed: Visionary Leaders,`` FP, July 21). I also suggested them to chalk out their ``visions`` for a better future for our coming generations. A visionary leader is one who has the willingness to learn quickly, the wisdom to choose between right and wrong, the courage to speak his/her mind, and the ability to win the support of common people.

The government needs to learn from the wisdom of common people who occasionally diagnose the malaise and bring it to attention. One such person is Mr. M. Aslam Khan (an eighty-five-year old Pakistani) who once wrote: ``The large army that we maintain as a deterrent against the Indians is nothing but a bottomless pit that eats all the resources the country should be spending on development schemes`` (FP, May 13, 1999). Our leaders need to learn, and learn quickly, that a peaceful Pakistan is our only hope for the defense of our homeland and our people.

In a recent writeup, Air Marshall Asghar Khan made a bold and courageous appeal for ``spending our meager resources on the well-being of our people and not on building a powerful war machine`` (The Nation, July 29, 1999). I commend him for saying what every Pakistani of reasonable intelligence should say loudly and clearly.

We need to think clearly and do everything possible for making Pakistan a peaceful, prosperous, and enviable country. Do we have leaders who have the willingness, courage, and intelligence to draw a new vision for Pakistan and draft a social contract for a state and civil society partnership that all people willingly endorse?

Bilal Ahmad

USA

In response to Ferozk (Reply # 55):

Dear Ferozk: I did notice your sarcasms, but I couldn`t believe it. As we have apparently resolved, I want to ask two friendly questions:

1.

What is your conception of populism? Why my writings/views are essentially populist? Do you think that I undermine power relation (particularly class relations)? If yes, then why did I focus upon reading Marx and Wallerstein?

2.

How the writings of the American founding fathers (particularly the debate between Jefferson and Madison) have some sort of direct relevance to the Pakistani situation (feudalism, despotism, centralization or power, respect for the rule of law, neglect of rights, poor economic base, abject poverty, corruption, chaos, little or none experience of class politics or antisystemic social movements)?

Sincerely,

Bilal Ahmad

Ref:Wasiq/#48.

It is more than fifty years that the poor hard working masses have been brushed aside denouncing them to be illiterates, irrational, emotional and what not. The very same people who elected Muslim league of the past and made Pakistan a possibility. I put to the saner, When has the people’s verdict been honoured? When people rose against Ayub Khan there was a clamour “ who is there to replace him”? Pity, the mothers who used to give birth to leaders like Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Liaquat Ali Khan, Sardar Nishtar, Kiani,Sahibzada yaqoob, Raja saheb of Mahmood Abad, Mumtaz Hussain, Muhammad Khan Junejo etc. etc. have all long been buried now and unfortunately are the present ones only giving birth to hippies? Where have all these people thrust on the fate of Pakistan, sprung? Whose is the hand that has been manipulating the ballot box, ever since the 1962 elections of the basic democracies? Results from the remote areas were available in a jiffy when it took three days’ journey on camel back (that being the only mode of transportation to such remote areas then) to get to the first telephone line and not from the next door? Who did not witness the elections, “Fair” in 1970! Even if they were, what happened to rational verdict of the people! What happened to the rational verdict of the people in 1977, or for that matter to any afterwards. When the masses were on the streets disclaiming the false results? If one is ignorant or the memory is short or is taken by the NEWS now spelt hearsay or mud in the eyes, they were greeted with bullets- not sparing even the mothers of children who ran out to clinch their toddler from the streets- the toddler and the mother had defied Curfew Order! Therefore they were Shot Dead. You talk of evaluating the choice the masses have. Instead I should say, ask Dr. Mubbashir, certainly he has been sounding a rational and literate a person, as to why did he go to the masses that he describes so, people voted for his party because Dr.Mubbashir, J.A. Rahim and people like Qasuri were there. What did J.A. Rahim/Qasuri go through, and why Dr. was spared? His master used to say, “my strength comes from the masses”. The bureaucracy created conditions and used the same strength against him. Only that the bureaucracy had to part a share, an ever increasing one too, much to the amusement of the masses! Haven’t the hard working masses of Pakistan turned lethargic by the labour policy he presented? The preachers of social justice purchase palaces! Wasn’t he along with his leader out to dupe them once again behind Roti Kapra aur Makan. Why couldn’t he with all his wisdom judge his fellow travellers when he was boarding the boat? Poor Sherpao, a young man with not so many gray hair, found guilty of creating difficulties and was…… How could the Blue Eyed Boy and the Talented Cousin, still weaning, be afforded on the job training of running their provinces and the same could not be afforded to Atta ullah Mengal, the Chief Minister of Baluchistan. His fault was that although being a Sardar himself, heading an assembly of 40 out which 11 were Sardars, he had got them to resolve to abolish Sardari (feudal) system, and Shishak, (6th. part of income collected by the Feudal from his tribesmen).

It is all too easy to blame the masses. They don’t have the megaphone, while the usurpers keep blowing their trumpet. and they sound very sweet from celestial distance.

To my mind, the masses are neither emotional, irrational nor ignorant of what is going on (they may not be able to read and write), but have and are continually, under one or the other pretext, been weakened very cleverly. They are being kept busy licking their own wounds lest they should draw strength and fight the usurpers. They will one day, because the middle class is fast diminishing which absorbs all the pressures of the society and thus creates hurdles in the revolutionary march to the crown by the lower class.

Tariq Lodi.

A Citizen`s View of Pakistani Politics: From Imran Khan to MQM

DAWN - the Internet Edition

31 July 1999 Saturday

No escape from politics

I refer to Mr Irfan Husain`s article ``No escape from politics`` (July 17). While I have seldom had any occasion to disagree with Mr Husain I do dispute his statement that ``either you are with one party or another or against it``.

I think, the silent majority of right thinking people are against all parties. These parties are all led by dishonest and self-proclaimed politicians who have nothing but their own personal gains in mind. Even those who are, so far, presumed to be honest like Imran Khan want to lead millions who are older and wiser than their parents. He built his own one and a half inch brick mosque. He had no need to set up a new party without having any experience of politics just because of his belief in his importance. Why could he not persuade the only honest politician in this country Asghar Khan to lead his party?

The less said about the fundos and the mushroom Sindhi nationalist parties, the better. The latter only produce abbreviations and both only spread poison. I have always had little respect for Benazir and started feeling the same about Nawaz Sharif when he exposed himself during his second term. I and many Parsis, Hindus and Christians also voted for MQM twice but all of us are totally disillusioned by this party after seeing it in action. Moreover it is said that MQM was created by Ghous Ali Shah and G.M. Syed.

E.A. NOMANI

Karachi

Re: bahmad # 54

My retort on Mein Kamfp was meant to be sarcastic and I would urge you not to make it a supplementary reading, because it is really turgid to read as a book. I think it was your sense of populism that prompted me to make the cynical observations.

As to the questions you have raised, I would encourage you to read the Federalist Papers, in which Jefferson and Madison both debate the issues you have raised on what consitutes as the best polity. I think the essays in Federalist Papers are apt to the situation in Pakistan, because it was penned by a group of elitist land owning rich men on how to to fashion a political system for the masses, which would govern the recently founded nation and evenly distribute blessings of life, liberity and justice for all of its citizens.

In response to Ferozk (Reply # 53; see also Reply #52):

Ferozk`s reply has perplexed me a little bit. I wonder if our thoughts are really very different.

I wrote: A good understanding of the evolution of great powers . . . requires a good grasp of capitalism, colonialism, and all forms of imperialism. The writings of Marx, Wallerstein, Tilly, and Said are useful basic readings.

Ferozk replied: ``I am surprised that you did not include Mein Kemp in your list of required readings!

My response: This response suggests that my reference to Marx, Wallerstein, Tilly, and Said has offended Mr. Ferozk. If so, I want to assure him that my reference was not for his consumption. It was just a general remark. Perhaps Mein Kampf could be adopted as a supplementary reading.



I wrote: ``We . . . need to focus on the issues of food, clothing, shelter, education, health and sanitation, and good governance in light of a ``vision`` that rests upon the fundamental values of freedom, peace, equality, and fairness. Progress in these matters will slowly and gradually enhance our real worth in relation to other parts of the world.``

Ferozk replied: ``Are these not the same things we, as a nation, have been waiting for the last 52 years and our leaders have been promising us for 52 years? What makes you think this [miracle] will happen in the next few years?``

My response: Yes, we have been ``waiting`` for the last 52 years, and our leaders have occasionally made some indirect ``promises.`` My focus is not upon the waiting-promising game. I think, we have rarely made serious and effective demands. In my article on ``Citizenship Rights for a Better Future``, I wrote: ``The people of Pakistan need to protect their citizenship rights by learning about their rights, by recognizing their power vis a vis the coercive state apparatus, by overcoming their feelings of fear, and by mobilizing adequate support for their struggles.`` I don`t expect miracles to happen during the next few years, and I do not want the struggles to become unnecessarily bloody. A good case in point is the MQM movement which we could support and oppose ruthlessly. In my above-mentioned article, I wrote: ``The history of common people`s struggles . . . suggests that such movements are lost instantly when the struggles fail to remain nonviolent. Of course, a peaceful approach is slow to bear its fruits. Are we prepared to struggle for our citizenship rights fearlessly? Can we keep our struggles focused and peaceful? Do we believe in fairness and the protection of right of all Pakistanis irrespective of their class, gender, ethno-linguistic background, religious orientation, and other bases of individual and collective identities? Are we prepared to create a good balance between our personal interests and our national interests? If the answer to these questions is in affirmative, then we will ensure a much better future for our coming generations.`` Mr. Ferozk: Where did I say that a miracle will happen (with or without struggle) in the next few years?

Ferozk wrote: ``You believe in the empowerment of the masses. . . .``

My response: Yes, I do. I believe very strongly. Yes, it would imply democracy – not merely representative democracy. It would require some sort of participatory democracy and grassroots politics. My focus is not on the rule of unscrupulous and unresponsive politicians, bureaucrats, and other power elite. I believe that things will take a relatively different turn when the people will start struggling for their rights. I think the ruling elite are a ``part`` of Pakistan`s dilemma. And, there are many more privileged, underprivileged, and unprivileged people who are also a ``part`` of the problem. There are many more variables that have historically contributed to our difficulties. In my article, I wrote: [Pakistan] has become . . . a ruthless and chaotic autocracy where the feudal lords, urban-based elite, and bureaucracy (particularly the army) have taken refuge in the dominant ideology and the perceived threat to national security to quell dissent and resistance. Moreover, too much power in the hands of the corrupt and unresponsive ruling elite (supported by the rule of danda and monopoly over the means of violence), an unjust system for the distribution of resources, poor economic performance, conspicuous consumption, a very high rate of population growth, and an overall lack of appreciation of nonviolent means of resolving domestic and international conflicts has created enormous difficulties for the evolution of society that recognizes and values its rights and duties.``

Ferozk wrote: ``No one can save the people of Pakistan unless they, themselves, are prepared to save themselves.``

My response: I agree 100 percent. Mr. Ferozk seems to be critical of an element of idealism and utopian thinking in my views. He is right, but I see nothing wrong with it. I think, there is always a gap between what we wish to achieve and what we actually achieve. How could we bridge this gap unless we struggle? And, how could we struggle effectively unless we possess the knowledge of the way people have actually struggled in other parts of the world?

Regards, Bilal Ahmad