No saviour in sight?
The Kasur incident where people looted chairs is not something that should be laughed away. This is a very serious message from the neglected, bereft and hapless public to the ruling classes. It was disappointing to hear the comment from Imran Khan – who is emerging as a leader of the present times – that what else would people sick and tired of the tide of inflation do. He is an aspiring candidate for PM. If this heavy burden falls on his shoulders, will he say such things as the chief executive? Should every thief, dacoit, scallywag, bribe-taker and wayfarer be pardoned on this ground?
Shouldn’t a politician and an erudite ponder about what happened and why it did so? Is there nothing here that incites one to think? Doesn’t it say something about the state society is in? That something is rotten and nobody’s trying to find out what it is. No one knows what the outline and delineation of the ‘change’ that Imran Khan purports to bring will be? But the extent to which the people can go to bring a ‘change’ was illustrated by them when they nicked chairs with abandon. This isn’t just a message to Imran Khan – but to all of Pakistan’s politicians, generals and officialdom. The message: Enough!
The comments of the PTI workers present at the rally were run-of-the-mill. The common man when witnessing fights, disorder and such a muss would condemn it and that’s what they did. But I want to analyse this incident in a framework in which it should be situated and analysed.
I was watching the reviews on TV talk-shows last night. Some people were reminiscing about Bhutto’s time and said that it was he who showed people the way of looting. If we look at history, this is a lie. Bhutto did indeed coax people to rise up against injustice and oppression. But he detested disorder and anarchy.
When the national movement of journalists started in the 70’s, some over-enthusiastic started snatching bundles of newspapers and some leaders of the PPP barged into the PPL’s central office as Mukhtar Rana shouted slogans about occupying it, Bhutto sahib sent a stern message and said that he would not tolerate such disorderly conduct. He said that the movement should be carried out peacefully even though he was in the opposition at the time and no newspaper was inclined to publish his statements and/or present him in a good light.
Similarly, when there was inordinate delay on the part of Yahya Khan in the transfer of power, Awami League’s workers in East Pakistan started occupying government offices and institutes. Following suit, some passionate PPP workers also started doing the same in Lyallpur and created the atmosphere of a revolution in the city. At this juncture, Bhutto sahib again sent a stern warning to the workers and told them to immediately desist from their activities and anybody who does not obey should consider them no longer part of the party. Within a matter of hours, the atmosphere of the city had changed again and the danger to the peace of the city passed.
After Bhutto sahib came into power, some labourers in Karachi occupied a mill. When they did not vacate, the police dealt with them firmly and the matter was resolved. This was a message that the movement for the rights of the poor which had been started by ZAB was supposed to be peaceful and would not be allowed to degenerate into anarchy. It’s a separate issue that later Bhutto sahib fell prey to bureaucrats, feudals and opportunist and lost track of his mission. But it cannot be denied that at any point in his political struggle, neither did he encourage troublemaking tactics nor did he justify them saying that the impoverished public had no option but a recourse to violence.
Leadership would’ve been that Imran Khan jump into the fray and stopped the looters himself even if he was injured in the process. There are many such examples in history where leaders have done that.
The independence movement’s leader Gandhiji had organised his movement on the basis of non-violence. Congress’ workers, which included Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians, were stopped by British forces when they tried to stage protests. But they would keep on going. As they marched forward, the British police would warn them not to go forward but they soldiered on. Even in the case of baton charge, these people bore the blows peacefully, such was their training. Those injured would be picked up to be taken away but nobody would raise arms or resist violently.
When incident s of police violence against peaceful protesters grew, Gandhi, Nehru and other leaders would join the protesters to stop the police. This often caused them to be injured by the charge of their own workers but it meant that they were able to control their enraged workers. Lala Lajpat Rai gave his life in Lahore attempting to stop protesters. He succumbed to the injuries he sustained while attempting to curb protesters as the police beat them. This is leadership. It should be remembered here that Lahore’s Gulab Devi Hospital was established by Lala Lajpat Rai in honour of his mother who dies of tuberculosis.
The trouble is that the constant interruption of the political process has hampered the nurturing and grooming of political leaders in Pakistan. Politics is confined to offices and darbars. The ruling generals had their pick of people and included whomsoever they wanted. If they wanted to work behind-the-scenes, they handed the government over for show. We started thinking of these props as politicians. Even though these so-called politicians did not have the ability to function in an independent and fair political environment. For them, politics merely comprised of bootlicking generals and the patronage of bureaucrats.
These ‘politicians’ didn’t ask for votes on some ideology but on the basis of baraderi, caste and other associations. This is what has continued till date. Which is why people who understand the forces of history and politics have said that real democracy cannot come to Pakistan for decades yet. There is little chance of the conditions taking root that are conducive to democracy.
Our politicians do not have the requisite experience of independently dealing with people’s problems, unrest and social fissures. They have to get each decision approved by the establishment. It has become such a force of habit that these people have lost the ability to take decisions independently sans approval from the powers that be. These hapless people who think they are in power after only having power in name cannot reach the root of public discontent. They can’t even see the gathering storm; how will they even begin to face it? The slumber we were forced into after 1958, only this could have been our wretched end. As Mir puts it:
(What slumber keeps you, O sorrowing eyes
Open and behold, the deluge on your city)
The writer is one of Pakistan’s most widely read columnists.