The un-Sadiqs and un-Ameens

There’s a long chain of factors that creates such characters

Take the not so humble patwari for example, he who makes strong men wilt like lettuce. Why does this happen?

A patwari (with relevant exceptions) is a dangerous combination of a (very) low paid government official who provides an indispensable service. He is indispensable because he evaluates land for ownership, possession, value, etc, all information necessary for land allocation and tax collection. His time spent in the field surveying and calculating and the ancillary drudgery of photocopying, obtaining documents and records is a time consuming and expensive process, and it is performed by this individual who is officially paid a pittance. This naturally places a patwari in the best position for becoming a necessary evil… an extremely powerful necessary evil.

To get his job done, he has to grease palms at every level, and he with such a meagre salary. Imagine the temptation, and review the opportunities. Why (and how) should he pay for this? So of course, he doesn’t. He makes you pay instead, you, his client, over and under the table. By such means some patwaris manage to employ several persons to help them in their work. Since this is all unofficial, he charges at will, and boundaries are demarcated in favour of the highest bidder. Corruption? You bet.

But is this the patwari’s fault, or the fault of higher officials who never bothered to improve the system, simply because their own capacity to place the highest bid was assured?

Who is unSadiq and unAmeen in that case, and who should be penalised if a patwari is nominated for election, and is pronounced corrupt? Who should be disqualified, the patwari or his bosses higher up the food chain?

It is the same in other instances, such as the un-loveable ‘thanedar’ (once again, with relevant exceptions), an official who is as not provided with the essential expenses for his job and office as the patwari, yet is expected to detain suspects, and the police is expected to patrol the streets; but detainees have to be fed, and patrol vehicles fuelled, and the officials find it hard to subsist on their slender income anyway. The cost of living, remember, is spiralling out of control in Pakistan. So who eventually pays? Guess.

The list goes on to include every kind of wrong in a society brought to its knees morally and financially by a rich and powerful segment of society that does not discharge its dues, both moral and financial. Out goes the education, the healthcare and every other social programme and in comes the desperation and corruption. As before, the trail can be followed right into those air conditioned offices to the fat officials in waistcoats arriving at work in black Pajeros and Land Cruisers around midday.

The interesting question is why these officials never attempted to remove the ridiculous Section 62 and 63 of the constitution while they could. It was probably because: 1) a factor more threatening than loss of office was involved: a loss of life. Any person questioning something with religious overtones as per certain persons’ perception is liable to be killed or charged with blasphemy. Since these Sections contain the words ‘Sadiq’ and ‘Ameen,’ they come under the umbrella of religion in the opinion of those who hasten to cover their heads if the Dalda advertisement is aired in Arabic.

The religious fanatics, in short, are the ones who possess the actual clout in this country. 2) Powerful officials do not feel threatened in any case, used as they are to doing as they wish, whilst allowing others to take the rap. With no accountability and little justice, the butler is always held guilty of the crime, so why make waves? Let all funny clauses remain. 3) They genuinely believe, these guys, just as Musharraf touchingly did (and probably still does) in a fan base that turns out to be a lot leaner than they imagined. That every powerful official loses his teeth as soon as he loses office is lost on such deluded persons. 4) Some people genuinely think that Sadiqs and Ameens can be identified (and clearly labelled with an ‘S’ and an ‘A’) here, in these conditions, by such tribunals, by means of such rules. Here let me own up to finding myself in agreement with our ex Home Minister Mr Malik for the first time in my life, when he said that there is no politician who would fit the requirements laid out in Sections 62 and 63 in this country. But, it is, as Conan O’Brien said, ‘When all else fails, there’s always delusion,’ and there’s plenty of that going around.