In every society, agents of change play an important role to rescue it from slumber and stagnation. If they are active and energetic, they challenge the old system and make attempts to convince people that change in every aspect of life is the need of the time. If they are weak and reluctant to take bold steps and compromise with the status quo, they lose their importance and integrity.
Among the agents of change are intellectuals, students, workers, peasants, women, minority groups, political parties, and pressure groups. If we study history, we can evaluate how these agents have brought change in their respective societies and endured all kinds of troubles and sufferings as a result of challenging and criticising outdated and corrupt systems endorsed by the ruling classes who were their direct or indirect beneficiaries and wanted to crush any movement against the system which upheld their privileged position. However, in spite of difficulties, these agents changed despotic political systems and popularised democratic institutions. They struggled for freedom of expression and protection of human rights. They contributed to the establishment of welfare states in European societies. They fought against racism and created religious tolerance. There is success and failure in their attempt to change the mindset of people but if they remain active and continue to play their role, they keep society ready for change and prevent it from stagnation.
Keeping in view this background, we have to analyse the role of the agents of change in Pakistan. First of all, the question is that what is the contribution of our intellectuals towards the process of change? Unfortunately, the intellectual tradition in our society is very weak. Intellectuals are not independent and always act in a subordinate role. To control them, successive governments have established organistaions like ‘The Writers’ Guild’ or ‘Academy of Letters’, and instituted some prizes for them. Some writers, over the course of our history, have sold themselves for such cheap trifles. The few who have challenged the status quo were isolated and abandoned by their community. The result of this intellectual poverty is that we have not produced any prominent thinker, philosopher or social scientist and, as a result, there are no new ideas which could change the thinking of society and initiate debate on critical issues.
Journalists and columnists, again with a few exceptions, are ready to sell their writings in exchange for plots in housing societies or for some other benefits. Both intellectuals and journalists have lost their credibility. They are not capable of bringing any constructive change in the society. Not only has their integrity been compromised, they have become champions of outdated traditions and institutions and support them shamelessly.
Universities are not only seats of learning but are also centres for creative knowledge. Both teachers and students are always in search of new ideas and thoughts which could open new political, social and economic avenues. If universities fail to produce any new knowledge, obsolete ideas cannot aid the process of bringing about change. We inherited the colonial educational system which continued after independence without any change. The teaching community was docile and adhered to the policies of the government, whether good or bad, and did not come forward as champion of any radical ideology.
In the early period of Pakistan history, the student community was politically very active and raised their voice against social injustice and religious discrimination. When Ayub Khan imposed martial law in 1958, the student community challenged it. To curb their movement, the martial law regime took a number of steps. First of all, student unions were banned; then police raided university campuses and arrested the leaders. Some active leaders were exiled from Karachi. It was also proposed that the government could withdraw the degree of those students who were found active in politics. This policy was continued with some changes by the coming governments. To fill the gap of union, political parties organised their groups in the campuses. It gradually changed the character of student unions and had an impact on the way students engaged in politics. When a political party in power supported its student’s organisation, they dominated and dictated their own terms to the administration.
At present, these students’ organisations threaten teachers, patronise cheating in the examinations and getting bhatta from shopkeepers on campus. The public image of student politics has changed. Where once they were considered crusaders for change, they are now merely considered hooligans who are not interested in gaining knowledge. They are interested in socio-political issues no more. They have lost their status as agents of change.
Trade unions of workers have met with a similar fate. Successive martial laws imposed such laws which made them inactive. The considerable political impact they wielded in the earlier days ebbed away with time to become virtually non-existent. The introduction of pocket unions curtailed their activities. Besides the government’s hostility, corruption prevailed among the leaders of the trade unions. Workers were no longer politically and socially conscious of the problems of society. Their role as an agent of change also came to an end.
Women’s organisations emerged with full energy during the period of Zia-ul-Haq and challenged the anti-women measures of the government by organising conferences and public demonstrations, and publicising their views. However, gradually, these organisations failed to build on the momentum and slowed down their activities.
Religious minorities, who can also be agents of change, are excluded from the mainstream of politics and legally discriminated against. They are active but they are confined only to their communities. Generally, the public is not ready to listen to their grievances. Peasants, too, are no longer a potent force for change. In a strong feudal culture, they are not in a position to raise their voice against exploitation. Examples like that of the Okara peasant movements can be cited but these movements were partly successful because of their location and all such movements lack political organisation and proper mobilisation.
As far as political parties are concerned, their leaders are not interested in changing the basic structure of society. They are adherents of continuity and not proponents of change. Different political, social, and literary pressure groups are there who are active in limited areas but these groups are scattered and therefore heir impact is not widespread.
Recently, the media has emerged as an active agent of change. But its primary weakness is that it can create awareness but it has no power to implement programmes of social or political change. To exploit awareness, again there is a need for political activists. Mere awareness cannot play any role in transforming society.
Thus when there are no effectual agents of change, we have to wait for a longer period for any radical change to come about.
The writer is one of the pioneers of alternate history in the country.