Our rulers claimed to have been chosen, or blessed, by God. They exercised power like God. They declared to be accountable only to Him. God, instead of the voters, removed most of them
The British Labour politician, Mr Tony Benn, recently framed a set of questions to be asked to those in power. Some of those questions are: What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interest do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?
The Pakistani nation has never felt the need to put such questions to its rulers in the past 55 years. On the contrary, the rulers have themselves been volunteering the stock one-word reply to each of these questions: “God”. They claimed to have been chosen, or blessed, by God. They exercised powers like God. They declared to be accountable only to Him while serving His interests. God, instead of the voters, removed most of them. The people never figured in this arrangement.
This mock-celestial factor in the dirty terrestrial politics has given a strange ethereal character to Pakistani history. It cannot be felt, smelt and measured, by human constitutional norms. It is the bewildering story of a gullible nation blindly following perfidious leaders in a dream-like pursuit of mirages. Governance without a coherent constitution, democratic slogans without a democratic soul and oppressed people without a voice are the only vaguely discernible features. Due to this ethereal character, our history is usually viewed in fragments. The writers focus on personalities, events, regimes and periods of their choice based on ringside view or inside knowledge. The emerging picture shows a sustained tussle between politicians and military dictators, or their proxies.
A total view of 55 years from a bird’s eye, however, presents a very different, and a very tropic, picture. It is ironic as God’s involvement in our history comes out to be more real than that projected by our rulers and operates very differently. While these viceroys from heaven have been breaking all moral, ethical and constitutional laws, God has been systematically applying the immutable laws of nature to this land of the self-styled pure. To understand this we have to look as far back as 1951.
The feudal Prime Minister and the feudal-dominated Constituent Assembly had successfully wasted three valuable years by deliberately dragging their feet in making our constitution. (India had abolished feudalism and Princely states, framed its constitution in 1949, and held the first simultaneous provincial and national elections in 1951). The receding priority of the constitution, and the consequential dilution of its sanctity, gave new ideas to the other undemocratic elements in the country, leading to the Rawalpindi conspiracy to capture power through a military coup. It was conceived as early as 1949. The residual British-trained vigilance got wind and, in March 1951, Maj. General Akbar Khan, with 11 military officers and four civilians, was arrested.
A special tribunal, established under an Act of the Constituent Assembly, tried them in camera. In October 1951, Prime Minister Liaquat All Khan was assassinated. The murderer was killed on the spot and expert from the Scotland Yard could not find those behind him. Everyone was thus free to hazard a guess. Having mastered the art of survival under the British rule, the feudals sensed, in their own judgment, the rise of a new challenge and tried to appease the perceived challenger.
In 1954, Gen. Ayub Khan, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, was “accommodated” in the Prime Minister’s cabinet as the Defence Minister in uniform. An unusual arrangement, but it was in line with God’s first law of Nature: a trespasser of property will make an adjustment with a stronger intruder by ceding a part of property to keep the real owner away. In this case, the property was power, the owners were the people of Pakistan, the primary trespasser was the feudal mind set, and the secondary intruder was fully armed. This led to two results: (a) the proverbial camel had thrust his head in the tent of the Arab master; (b) the seed of army-feudal axis had been sown.
In his book, Friends, not Masters, Gen. Ayub Khan has mentioned that he started his planning in 1954, and the suggestion of the Agha Khan that “you are the one man who can save” Pakistan, (Pages 18 to 193). This was in line with the second law of nature: two trespassers will have uneasy coexistence till one is ousted. On page 37, the author sums up this uneasy situation, when Mr. H.S. Suhrawardy was taking over as the Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1956 (and retaining the portfolio of defence). Ayub did not like him because “he could not forgive him for harsh cross-examination of army officers” in the Rawalpindi conspiracy case, and writes: “I told him that I knew his feelings towards me and that, no doubt, he knew my feelings towards him. But as C-in-C I would carry out whatever legitimate and lawful orders were given to me. At the same time, I would expect that there would be no interference in the internal affairs of the army. Suhrawardy found that an acceptable arrangement, and we shook hands on it”.
The final came with the martial law, in 1958. The feudals were declared corrupt and thrown overboard. The proverbial camel was now the sole occupant of the tent. For some time President Ayub tried a solo flight with the help of bureaucracy, but soon became apprehensive of a possible collusion of the ousted party with the real owner. The feudals were reinvited on board, and the Convention Muslim League started nurturing the so far stunted growth of the feudal-army axis. With time, it evolved into a strange partnership.
It was strange because the two separate and visibly antagonistic faces of the partners thrived on an invisible common soul. Outwardly they quarrelled like enemies, but inwardly they strengthened each other like close allies. The idea was to deceive the real owner into guessing as to which of the two faces would compel the other to step down. The ruse grew to work very well. On the one hand, the military dictators would loudly brand all politicians as corrupt, inefficient and dishonest, except those who agreed to thrive under their wings (and most of them did). On the other, a chorus of the fallen politicians during civilian regimes would keep on inviting the army to take over and “do its duty” (and they came). It helped both the groups to fully enjoy power, like the seesaw game, by indemnifying the sins of each other at the time of change.
Within this broader strategy, many tactical understandings grew in time, and both military and civilian rulers followed exactly the same identical policies. There would be no education for the masses, no human resource development, no land reforms, no serious accountability, no improvement in political culture, and no regard for human rights. There would be contemptuous disregard of constitution, institutions, merit and state structure. Plundering of national wealth and resources by the “other side” would be publicized but not checked. Regional, provincial, ethnic and sectarian tendencies would be allowed full play. Supporters would be protected for siphoning off the benefits of the freely flowing foreign aid. Elitism and poverty would be allowed to grow together. Non-feudal, non-military, vocal and patriotic majority province of East Pakistan would be “encouraged” to secede to reduce the potential threat to the army-feudal axis.
After the successful ‘jettisoning’ of East Pakistan, the ruling partnership grew over-confident. The nation groaned, suicides mounted and faith crumbled under the high spiralling intensity of the above policies, as the scenario entered the third law of nature: God gives a long rope to the wrongdoers (to hang themselves). So they had a long inning, spread across about three decades after 1971. The end of the century brought in sight the end of rope and the beginning of the fourth law of nature: any unhealthy competition will always end in a fight among the competitors.
Many European trespassers fought among themselves for making India a slave country. Wars of succession for the throne are common in non-democratic lands. High seas routinely witness such fights among allied pirates over sizable booty. The law is universal. God shall not make an exception in the ‘God-given land’ of Pakistan after a logical run of three previous laws.
Perceptions of political analysts may differ, but can the data on the ground be denied? The minister-in-uniform, in 1954, is now the president-in-uniform in 2002, who is willing to “accommodate” the benefactors of 1954 in his scheme of things. Through a long interplay of wits and follies, the roles of the two protagonists have been gradually reversed. But that alone would not have strained the partnership if sizable benefits (even if unequal) were available to both the partners.
The problem has arisen because one of the partners, in a flush of self-deception and arrogance, has decided to reap all the benefits, leaving only a few crumbs for the other, as and when available. “The heads I win and the tails you lose” type of relationship is being worked out forever. The Arab master is expected to permanently stand in waiting outside the tent, except when granted an audience in a corner. One of the two wants to be the ringmaster. Can the other take it, not for once but on a permanent basis? Unless a new working arrangement (for the joint control and plunder of national resources) can be found, the two trespassers are bound to clash in line with this law of nature. When? Nature follows its own timetable.
This brings us to the fifth law of nature, which governs the reaction of the persistently deprived people to prolonged injustice. The ruling partners, and most of the ruled, think it is too early, too unrealistic and mere wish to even entertain such a distant idea. But human views notwithstanding, when winter comes, can spring be far behind?
