Back to 1947

FROM a day of pure joy for Pakistan’s citizens, Aug 14 has gradually become an occasion for reflection. Over the past many years, reflection has assumed the form of a somewhat worrisome reappraisal, and the room for celebration has been shrinking.

The principal reason for this is the common citizen’s perception that today’s Pakistan is not what its founders had set out to establish. Apart from the fact that the country’s map is not what it originally was and that it has not become one of the greatest nations of the world the Quaid-i-Azam had said on Aug 11, 1947 it could become, the majority has still not received the promised fruits of freedom.

The main features of the Pakistan dream were that the country would be the homeland of a Pakistani nation whose members were equal regardless of their caste or creed; that it was to be a federation whose constituent units were autonomous and sovereign; that its constitution would be what the people decided; that its form of government would be a people’s democracy and in any case it was not going to be a theocracy; that the people would be free to shape their lives in accordance with their culture and traditions. The realisation that this dream has remained largely, if not wholly, unrealised is of no consequence if the causes of this predicament are not thoroughly analysed.

Conventional wisdom identifies several occasions when the state of Pakistan got derailed but it may be more appropriate to admit that state-building efforts left much to be desired. What happened on Aug 14, 1947 was no more than the laying of the foundation stone of a new state. The task of constructing the state was not begun for many years, and later on, the political engineers proved insincere or lost their way.

The Pakistan dream was shattered during the nine years the country was governed in accordance with the Government of India Act of 1935, wrongfully christened as the new state’s provisional constitution. The damage done to the state-in-the-making under the then scheme of things has yet to be fully assessed. The unitary form of government envisaged by the Act was, over time, adopted by the ruling elite as the only possible norm and the need to raise a federal structure was ignored. This strained the fragile bonds of unity the struggle for Pakistan had forged.

The failure to appreciate the elementary rights of the provinces led to the abandonment of democratic imperatives. By the middle of the 1950s, Pakistan had become a vulgarised copy of the colonial state headed by an absolute ruler who relied wholly on chicanery and was incompetent to boot. That this system could easily be pushed over by another brand of absolute ruler, one who derived sanction from armed might and could claim slightly better service delivery, was soon confirmed.

Perhaps the greatest disservices done to Pakistan in those years were, firstly, the transformation of a fledgling democracy into a quasi-theocratic garrison state. The Objectives Resolution and the belief-related provisions of the 1956 Constitution were thought of as essential props for a state locked in a colonial mould. Further, state security was installed as the ruling deity in the national pantheon. The state could become impregnably strong, it was asserted, if it had guns in abundance even if its people went hungry, remained illiterate and became sick in body and mind. Eventually the people’s plight came to be rationalised as an unavoidable (even if unbearable) cost of freedom.

Secondly, the period 1947-56 saw the consolidation of an authoritarian mindset. The governor-general repudiated the basics of Pakistan by functioning like a viceroy of pre-Partition India. The system of one-man rule became fairly well entrenched by 1956 and it was further streamlined by military rulers, from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf. So deep has the system of one-man rule struck root in Pakistan that civilian rulers, who have been inducted as watchmen or clerks appointed to fill leave vacancies, have also tended to function as authoritarian despots who are subject neither to the constitution nor the wishes of the people. They have been responsible for convincing most people that an elected leader and a military ruler are one and the same thing.

Thus, after four constitutional initiatives and four spells of extra-democratic rule Pakistan has barely survived. It has been reduced to an anaemic polity. A federation it never became and now its status as a state has become debatable since it does not exercise a monopoly of power throughout the land — an essential attribute of a state. Yet Pakistan has the basic ingredients of a natural state. A large majority of the population apparently wishes to revive the state. The question is where does one begin?

The state cannot be constructed or reconstructed along the models tested over the past 50 years. The assumptions underlying the state created by the 1956 Constitution were knocked out by the emergence of Bangladesh. The state envisaged by the Ayubian scheme of 1962 was an illegitimate entity as it lacked the people’s sanction. The state established by the 1973 Constitution was no doubt based on a national consensus but it had a very brief life and the 1973 document, even if can be revived in its original form, no longer enjoys the nationwide support it did 35 years ago.

Gen Ziaul Haq remodelled the state during 1977-85 and in the process repudiated Pakistan’s foundational principles — democracy, parliamentary government and federalism. Gen Musharraf too has remodelled the state and shared Zia’s guilt. (One hopes there is no difficulty in appreciating the fact that each time a new constitution is imposed, or an existing basic law is radically changed, a state different from the previous one is created.)

Thus, the only viable option is to begin the exercise that should have been started in 1947 — to establish a democratic, parliamentary federation. This is the meaning of the demand for a new social contract that has lately gained considerable ground. However, besides drawing upon the Pakistan dream of 1947 it will also be necessary now to make a special effort to rule out two models — that of a garrison state and a theocracy. For this reason Gen Musharraf’s exit and an end to the insurgency in the north are essential prerequisites to the building of a state the people may be proud to own, happy to nourish and willing to die for.

Changing concept of independence

FOR 61 years, Pakistan has been celebrating its independence. However, with the passage of time the concept of independence has changed for us.

It is no more the same as it was before. For example, under the British Raj, when the people of the Indian subcontinent were fighting against foreign rule, the colonial documents referred to the resistance movements challenging the rulers as “rebellions against the legitimate government”.

The uprising of 1857 was termed by the British as a mutiny and not a war of independence against their rule. By denying the legitimacy of resistance movements, the colonial government sought to justify its harsh and oppressive policies against them. However, after 1857, the emergence of nationalism and the struggle of political parties to win their basic rights changed the political perception of the people. These movements became a national struggle against colonial hegemony.

As democratic methods such as demonstrations, strikes, agitations and picketing were adopted, the British stopped calling them rebellions or insurgencies and accepted them as a political struggle.

The national struggle, which united the people of the subcontinent irrespective of their religion and caste, was an expression of their sentiments to win freedom from colonial bondage. It was a symbol of unity. A joint struggle for freedom. The national struggle, however, came to be divided when the All India Muslim League drifted away from national politics and raised the slogan of two nations and demanded a separate homeland for the Muslims.

After Partition, in Pakistani historiography, the role of the national struggle against colonialism has been downplayed and the ‘Pakistan Movement’ has received more importance. The major achievement of this movement was not only its success in ridding India of British rule but also liberating Muslims from the domination of the Hindu majority. Therefore, the Pakistan Movement became more anti-Hindu than anti-British.

How did the concept of independence change after Partition? This can be traced from the historical developments in Pakistan. The first case was that of East Pakistan. Just after 1947, the Bengalis complained about the arrogant behaviour of the West Pakistani bureaucrats who were posted there and treated the locals as their subject. These grievances accumulated until 1971 when Bangladesh split from Pakistan and declared its independence. In Bangladeshi historiography, the concept of Pakistani independence of 1947 has no place. Instead it contains a historical narration about ‘the war of liberation’ from Pakistan.

On the other hand, the independence of Pakistan soon disillusioned the small provinces which were forced to forget their regional identity and absorb it in a national one. There was strong reaction against this policy, which further strengthened the provinces’ strong resistance to a powerful centre and its institutions. The establishment of One Unit in 1955 was viewed as a step to eliminate regional identity. The result was that they lost faith in democracy and G.M. Syed even went to the extent of declaring that for Sindh it was a useless system because the Sindhis could not come to power in the presence of the Punjabi majority.

It was the same argument which was presented by the Muslim leadership in India — namely, that the Muslims of India, as a minority, could not get their political rights, therefore, democracy was not an appropriate political system. On the basis of this argument, they demanded a separate homeland. So, in Sindh slogans were raised for ‘Sindhudesh’, a separate homeland where the Sindhis could have freedom to handle their own affairs.

The nationalist elements of Sindh are not happy with the present political situation and seek autonomy if not separation for their province. The case of Balochistan is very critical because the Baloch leadership was betrayed again and again by the Pakistani ruling classes. Their resistance movements were crushed brutally and their leaders were imprisoned, tortured and assassinated. Finding no solution within Pakistan, the Baloch have been raising the slogan, ‘Liberation of Balochistan’. To them the concept of independence is no more relevant.

The situation in the tribal areas of the NWFP is also changing rapidly and they are drifting away from the national mainstream.

When the question of independence is raised in any society, we find institutions and groups of people demanding freedom from the clutches of coercive institutional authorities. For example, there is a strong movement for the independence of the judiciary because judges have played a role in legitimising all military dictators. The ruling classes are not in favour of an independent judiciary because it would be a check on their misuse of power. However, the movement has become popular and gained the support of the people. But it appears that there is little hope of the judiciary becoming independent in view of the betrayal by the politicians.

There are other groups and parties that are struggling for their independence. For example, haris or peasants who are languishing in the private jails of the landlords who have set up these jails in blatant violation of the laws. It is their basic right to be free. They are helpless and are at the mercy of their tormentors. The same is the case with women, domestic workers and other subordinate classes. They all want their independence and freedom.

So, the question is: who benefited from independence? The simple answer is that the elite and the privileged classes who are free to exploit the people and squander the resources of the state. To them, the concept of independence is the freedom to do what they like. In the absence of law and order, industrialists, feudal lords, smugglers and the crime mafia are free to fleece people, be involved in all sorts of illegal business and collect money and take it away outside the country.

For them, Pakistan is a paradise. They are happy to celebrate Independence Day. But to the common man who is suffering in poverty and misery, whose children have no access to education, who has no security against lawlessness, or medical facilities in case of illness, or financial support when he loses his job, the question remains: should he celebrate independence or mourn it?

Psyche of the nation under stress

WHATEVER has been happening in Pakistan in recent months is presented in horrific terms by the western media. Not surprisingly, when I was planning my visit to Pakistan in July, my western colleagues at work cautioned me about the dangers I would encounter and the risks involved.

The international media has televised extensively human right violations, the murderous frenzy of the militants and the violence and terrorism that have been unleashed on the people of Pakistan. Unofficial estimates give a high ratio of people here who are exposed to extreme stress that is responsible for their psychological fragility.

When I landed here, the first impression I got was quite different. People appeared to be busy with their lives. They continued with extravagant feasts and merrymaking. Hotels and eating places were flooded. It was difficult to believe that an air of despondency prevailed.

However, on scratching the surface, you find the situation to be quite different. Many people expressed feelings of hopelessness and despair to me. Every second person I met spoke of a sleep problem and difficulty in concentrating and focused thinking. Many medical colleagues who are senior and have reached a high status in their careers spoke of escaping to a place that gave a greater sense of security.

A businessman reluctantly revealed that his nephew was kidnapped six weeks ago and that the matter had not been resolved for want of the demanded sum of ransom money. Another businessman developed clinical symptoms of severe depression after his son was kidnapped for the second time. He said this was a common problem and a number of businessmen felt threatened.

A general medical practitioner was looted at gunpoint in front of his patient and the incident led to his social withdrawal. As he approaches his clinic, he starts sweating, his heart thumps and he gets a full-blown panic attack. This has disabled him, and a large number of patients who were benefiting from his expertise have lost a good doctor.

The uncertain and volatile situation in Pakistan has caused great emotional turmoil for the people and has affected all sections in a variety of ways. According to behavioural scientists, when the situation goes beyond human control, one develops ‘learned helplessness’. This causes a person to leave everything to the mercy of fate — even to the extent of accepting doom.

However, a number of mental aberrations may also develop that result in several behavioural problems. What we see today in our society in terms of psychological repercussions is a state of denial, low frustration tolerance, aggressiveness and violence. There is an acute upsurge of physical ailments for which psychosomatic reasons cannot be excluded. Sudden deaths are often reported. Reactionary overeating and subsequent obesity is common. Disinhibition, an unacceptable social behaviour, manifests itself in communication, corruption and immoral acts of all kinds.

Economic disparity, inflation and the high cost of living have intensified the problem. As reported earlier by the World Bank, poverty, advancing age and violence are major indicators of increasing mental illness. Pakistan already has two factors in abundance.

Reportedly, depression which is a serious mental illness has a prevalence rate in the range of 10-44 per cent and this only includes the studied cases, and excludes a majority that does not go to any therapist at all. A local study conducted in Karachi, Lahore and Quetta reports the very high prevalence of household depression. It is said that 15 per cent of all depressives eventually commit suicide. Assuming that the reported magnitude of depression is true one can imagine the incidence of mortality associated with suicide.

Though genetics play a very important role in the etiology of mental illness, it is the environmental factors that are responsible for triggering a full-blown illness. Each life event has a threshold for initiating mental illness and when adverse events multiply and continue every day, it becomes practically impossible for the majority to remain sane.

Pakistan with all its current social adversities is at the brink of a psychological meltdown. Unfortunately, the psyche of those at the helm of affairs appears to be in the doldrums. On the one hand, the perpetrators of social adversities are in a wild frenzy. In order to satisfy their ego, they are playing havoc with the emotions of the nation and creating an environment that is highly non-conducive for mental wellbeing.

On the other hand, the nation as a victim is fast descending into a state of denial, negativism and violence, and succumbing to a variety of mental illnesses. Is there any ray of hope or light at the end of the tunnel?

amin.muhammad@med.mun.ca