“I hate it in friends when they come too late” — Euripides
HISTORIANS of the Mughal era relate an incident that I can neither substantiate nor refute but which, I am sure, highlights the importance of punctuality.
Emperor Aurangzeb, as we all know, was a devout Muslim who offered prayers five times a day at the right hour regularly with the congregation in a mosque. On one occasion, after the muezzin had called for prayers, Aurangzeb was a bit late and the imam patiently waited for the emperor, allowing the prayer time to pass. When Aurangzeb joined the assembly, the imam conducted the prayers. After it was all over, Aurangzeb sent for the imam. Expecting a commendation and reward for his loyalty, he presented himself before the emperor with all humility and deference. Aurangzeb asked him what was the exact time for morning prayers. When he got the answer, Aurangzeb asked the imam what specific reason he had for deviating from the correct time. The imam meekly answered that he was waiting for His Majesty to join the assembly, whereupon Aurangzeb asked if the imam offered prayers to him or to Allah, and if to Allah why he allowed the appointed hour to pass. The imam was dumbfounded and was punished for his action.
Historians may have fabricated the event to have a feather in their cap; but I remember an anecdote that I read in Reader’s Digest: A foreigner lady, on a visit to Pakistan, had some business in a government office. Having knowledge of the working hours, she reached there at exactly 9am. Much to her surprise, not a single soul was present. After almost an hour, a staff member, perhaps a departmental in charge, sauntered in and took his seat. Fatigued as the lady was, she moved up to him and asked, “Sir, don’t these people come in the mornings?” The in charge looked up and quite seriously replied: “Ma’am, they don’t work in the mornings and they don’t come in the afternoon.”
While the first incident had a purpose’ the second is simply devoid of any motive whatsoever. It is, to all appearances, a deliberate action inculcated and practised as a matter of habit that, in due course of time, becomes a routine and pervades all our activities — personal, social, official and, like a virus, infects our relations, friends, colleagues and even fellow partisans in the political arena. As it is devoid of a cause, it defies any correction or cure, only because the resulting embarrassment is considered a transitory phase that is shared by most of the kind. Only undaunted will-power backed by a determined persistent effort can cause a dent in the practice and regularize the routine.
The distressing aspect of the drill is that the lethargy so depicted is camouflaged by innumerable excuses and explanations, with the least realization that “one of man’s greatest failings is that he looks almost always for an excuse” (Cardinal De Retz Memories — 1718). However, the resourcefulness of human ingenuity is unique, marvellous and admirable.
In this case, to cover up the shame suffered, it can spin out as many excuses or explanations as the situation demands, ranging from the most serious attributable to Allah’s will (death, birth, heart attack) to the most frivolous (untimely visitors, traffic jams, baby’s tantrums). As the indulgence is a regularly repeated routine, it becomes immaterial weather the explanations offered are considered plausible or incredible. It is almost never realized that “an ideal reason lessens the weight of the good ones you gave before” (Jonathan Swift Thoughts on Various Subjects — 1711).
Tolerance of the malaise on the grounds of friendship, relationship, officialism has caused its cementation to such an extent that not only the present but the entire future generation seems to have assimilated it as a normal way of life. In Pakistan, the degree of tolerance is at its peak. Elsewhere, more particularly in the West, its tolerance is extremely negligible as it is considered a wilful irresponsible behaviour trait and is severely disapproved. As such, the perpetrators are penalized according the principles practised by the affected person(s) or organization.
Friends, for instance, may be censured or friendship estranged. A British girl broke off an engagement with my Pakistani friend who failed to keep the appointment on the pretext of torrential rains while the girl kept hers in the same situation. In a commercial setup, habitual latecomers are denied promotion or increment, and even penalized by wage deduction. Thus, every level of society has its own system of condemnation that is conspicuously wanting in Pakistan.
On the social front, it is the ego satisfaction attained by the salams of those already seated. In officialdom, being late puts you in the category of executives who prefer to show their bearing to those already present. In politics, the principle is “for a thicker crowd, better late than never”. It is scarcely understood that whatever the supposed advantages may be, our image in the eyes of the cultured and the civilized society is tarnished because as the French proverb goes: “Men count up the faults of those who keep them waiting.”
Would it not be prudent then to mend our ways a little, wind our alarm clocks with a good margin to help us keep our appointments, and then proudly pronounce “We are not saints, but we have kept our appointment. How many people can boast as much?” (Samuel Beckett Waiting for Godot — 1952).
“I hate it in friends when they come too late” — Euripides
