From Jinnah to Musharraf, the personality cult has survived the vagaries of time. This, at least in part, explains our inability to build institutions. It is the individual at the top who is expected to put things right with a magic wand, so we may all live happily ever after!
WHO are we? What is our national identity? What is our national character? What is the set of norms or values that we live by? I have been asking this question to myself and to other people for a number of years, but I have not been able to come up with any satisfactory answer.
There are many partial answers: our Islamic culture and identity; our devotion to religion; the richness of our culture, going back to the Moenjodaro period (what little we know about it, by the way?); the thousands of years old legacy of Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan and the Frontier; the rich legacy of Persian literature; the architecture, painting and music of the Mughals; our distinct lifestyle as separate from the Hindus ...
And, of course, the immortal words of the Quaid-i-Azam, “We are a nation, with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language and literature, art and architecture, names and nomenclature, sense of values and proportion, legal laws and moral codes, customs and calendar, history and traditions, aptitudes and ambitions. In short, we have our own distinctive outlook on life and of life.”
Before proceeding further, let’s try to have a few concepts in place:
CULTURE: According to sociologists, culture is the “learned set of beliefs, values, norms and material goods shared by group members”. It encompasses everything that we have learned as a group during the course of our life; from the moment we are born to the moment we die.
The language we speak, the food we eat or don’t eat, the clothes we wear, the books we read, the music we listen to, the games we play; are all part of our culture, as are the beliefs we hold, our social organization, our attitude towards authority and our moral and social codes.
Social scientists are agreed on certain facts about culture.
Firstly, the patterns that guide and define thought and behaviour of the members of a certain society are learned and are not inborn. They have no relation to race or to the intellectual level of a certain people.
Secondly, the cultural patterns of a particular people are not deliberately formed but, the principles and values that they subscribe to lie below their consciousness level and are the result of indoctrination. Thus, any attempt to impose particular cultural patterns, or to ‘improve’ the culture of a people, are doomed to failure.
Thirdly, our attitudes, values and norms — our way of looking at or judging particular actions — are shaped by our cultural background. Two groups of people living in the same place may have a completely different way of looking at the same thing — from their own different perspectives, and neither can be said to be right or wrong.
Fourthly, there are no superior or inferior cultures. They are just different. Thus, no people, whether they belong to the jungles of Africa or the plains of Australia or the deserts of Rajasthan, can be said to be backward, simply because their patterns of behaviour are different from what we assume should be the norm.
And now a bit about attitudes.
Attitude can be defined as a relatively stable, learned, emotionalized predisposition to respond in some consistent way toward one or a group of objects, persons or situations.
Thus, our attitude is our evaluation of, or our reaction to, any person, object or situation that we encounter in our social life. Research has shown that traits that were once thought to be inborn — a part of a person’s biological nature or genetic makeup, such as a tendency to be selfish or generous, prejudiced or tolerant, cooperative or hostile — are, in fact, not so, but are attitudes that are learnt and assimilated in early life. Thus, the culture plays a basic role in defining our attitudes.
Now coming to Pakistani society, we find that it is an amalgam of various influences — geographic, historical, religious, social and economic. Our peculiar geography; the characteristics of the myriad races that have lived in this land; the kings, the generals and the feudal lords who have ruled over the region since generations; the different religions that were born in this fertile soil or which were brought by holy men from other areas; the spiritual and mystic philosophies from the land and beyond; even the system of land ownership and methods of cultivation through the centuries have played their part and have made us what we are today.
Historically, there have been four dominant influences on our cultural life: the indigenous Indian or Hindu culture; the early Arab or Islamic culture; the Central Asian or Mughal culture; and the British or contemporary Western culture. Let us take some of our dominant behaviour patterns or cultural traits, and see where they have come from. AUTHORITY: As a nation, we have a strange characteristic. We are always looking for a hero; a strong and masterful character who will come to rule over us and will solve all our problems. However, the trait is not peculiar to us. It is found in some form or the other in every area of the world — Superman, Batman, and Spiderman are good examples. But we have gone to the extent where this yearning has played a big part in the making, or not making, of our institutions. The Quaid-i-Azam, for instance, is a good example; a revered personality who could have no weaknesses and could do no wrong. But he is not alone, Form military generals to civilian politicians, all have had their share of mass adulation.
This personality cult is one reason why we have not been able to build institutions. In every case — whether it is the country itself or merely a sports body — it is the man at the top who is expected to put things right with a magic wand; and we will all live happily ever after!
This attitude has its origin in the 900 years of kingship that we the Muslims had over India. As all history books are normally commissioned by the kings, they are full of the exploits of individual rulers. Thus, Babar, Akbar, Aurangzeb, Mahmood Ghaznavi, Qutubuddin Aibak are household names for us, and their exploits, the stuff of history taught to us as children.
Not only that, we have always worshipped warriors and conquerors. Mohammad Bin Qasim was great; Mahmood Ghaznavi, despite his professed intolerance, was great; Alexander the Great, in spite of being a non-Muslim has been adopted as one of our own; and from Islamic history every child is aware of the exploits of Khalid bin Waleed and Tariq bin Ziad.
This attitude has also shaped our political culture. Every politician once he reaches the top position starts acting as if he is the king of his personal fiefdom, and adopts a highly personalized system of ruling with no regard for institutions. This has been the case invariably with all our rulers, whether civil or military. The Quaid-i-Azam, Liaquat Ali Khan, Ghulam Mohammad, Iskander Mirza, Ayub Khan, Z.A. Bhutto, Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Pervez Musharraf, there have been no exceptions.
From the pre-partition Muslim League onwards, there has been no concept of party elections, of a party hierarchy or of a leadership training. It is not the party that makes the leader, but the leader who makes the party. The party is known by the name of the leader who remains the head for as long as he, or she, is alive. If another person within the party feels like becoming a leader in his own right, he simply makes a new party or a new faction of the old party under his own name. If a general or a bureaucrat or a businessman wants to become a leader, he simply creates his own party. And if a party leader dies — no problem. His wife or his son or his daughter or his brother or any other relative steps in to take his place. The newcomer may have no experience of politics, but it makes no difference to his or her leadership. Thus, the party is the personal fiefdom of the man at the top, and the party workers are the serfs who have no hope of ever reaching the coveted position of the leader.
This kingly attitude is also reflected in the assemblies. There are family seats of the feudals, which remain in their hands regardless of the party affiliation. At any given time, there are several members of the same family — fathers, sons, uncles and cousins — sitting in the house, even on different sides.
Another legacy of kingship is the politics of patronage. The leader has to be personally seen to be helping the people — bypassing merit and the institutions. Prime ministers hold open kutcheries, where they pass arbitrary orders; MNAs and MPAs get lavish amounts in the name of ‘development funds’ that they can spend as they please; not only that, they also get a quota of jobs to which they can appoint ‘incompetent’ people. Ministers can recommend everything, from import licenses to college admissions to telephone connections. In fact, recommendation without regard to merit seems to be the primary concern of any person who is in any kind of position or authority.
CIVIL SERVICE: Here we see another syndrome, the colonial mentality. This is a legacy from the British times when the civil servants or bureaucrats used to be for the most part Britishers, or their brown emulators, and used to treat the ‘natives’ with disdain. This attitude continued even after independence, and instead of being the public servants, our bureaucrats are still the public masters.
Thus, instead of facilitating the public, every attempt is made to put hurdles in their way under the pretext of official procedures. This attitude was to a large extent responsible for the loss of East Pakistan. But we have not learnt any lesson.
SUBSERVIENCE TO AUTHORITY: Subservience to authority and the long period of kingship have given us another trait, acceptance without questioning. Our educated classes are a good example of this. Read and memorize whatever is in the textbook, reproduce it exactly, and get high marks. No objective analysis, no questioning, no critical enquiry. No wonder we haven’t produced many scientists, theorists or original thinkers.
The father tells the child, ‘do as I say because I say so.’ The teacher says, ‘don’t question me. I know the best.’ The moulvi says, ‘It is a sin to question or ask reasons for the word of God. Just accept blindly.’ The military ruler says, ‘I know what is best for you. I will free you from the problems created by the politicians. Just don’t question what I do.’ And so we are led throughout our life. Blind, unquestioning, accepting without argument whatever the authority figure says, knowing that any deviance or dissent will lead to troubled.
In fact, our dominant traits of sycophancy, flattery and pleasing the boss are directly linked to the culture of the king and his courtiers.
FEUDALISM: Our legacy of feudalism has also come directly from the 900 years of kingship. When the Turkish sultans came here from Central Asia, they brought with them a large number of nobles, relatives and friends to whom they gave away large ‘fiefs’ or tracts of land on which they were made the virtual kings. The lords had the powers to raise their own private armies, impose taxes on the people, pass judgments against ‘law-breakers’ and ‘transgressors’, and act as petty tyrants, throwing out the poor landless tenants, at their whim, putting them in dungeons or putting them to death for actual or imagined disobedience or defiance.
The British, when they took over, continued with this system, and even 50 years after independence the system continues drawing a clear line between the haves and the have-nots of society, and spurring on the tyranny that unresisting authority brings. Panchayats, jirgas, private jails, torture chambers, are all legacies of this system to which there is no end in sight.
POMP & OPULENCE: The style of the court and the courtiers has become the desired norm of our people. ‘This is our past, this is the way we were,’ we think, and we strive on to emulate the ways of the kings. Even if we have to borrow money, even if we have to sell our skimpy assets, we have to show our prosperity, specially at weddings and funerals. We have to entertain, whether we can afford it or not. We have to have new clothes for every occasion; how can we be seen twice in the same outfit? And so on and so forth. This is one reason for the spread of corruption in society.
CLASS SYSTEM: The class system in our society has a double base — the original caste system of the Hindus as well as the legacy of the Mughals. As the Muslim emperors and their courtiers were land-owners, land became the prevalent standard of respectability. And so it continues to this day.
The old landed or feudal families enjoy influence and respect in every field of life. Business money is now respectable, but the ‘family’ factor still counts. Businessmen are still derisively known as banias. And the workers, the weavers, the cobblers, the carpenters, the butchers; in keeping with the best Hindu traditions, they and their descendants are still the ‘lower classes’, as are the electricians, plumbers, motor mechanics and so on. There is no concept of ‘untouchables’ in Islam, but the sweepers still continue at the lowest rung of the ladder.
Interestingly, our weakness for fair skin and light hair also has its origin in the class syndrome. The nobles of Central Asia had fair skin — the Indian local population was dark-skinned. Thus, being fair denoted class — noble blood. And the dark were the low classes. And the pattern continues.
RELIGION: Our attitude to religion is the strangest of all that defies description or explanation. This has degenerated into a blind following of rituals and observances, completely ignoring the spirit. Traditional observance of prayers and fasting, holy days, ceremonials, recitation of Holy Quran, beards, caps, scarves, hijab are all that religion has been reduced to. We are emotional about Islam. As someone said, ‘each of us is ready to die for our religion, but none of us is ready to live it’. How true!
The ethical and moral values don’t count for us any more. Corruption, dishonesty, cheating, swindling, fraud, looting, killing are all permitted as long as we say the prayers and purify ourselves by once-a-year Haj and Umra.
One peculiarity of our religious observances is the Dargah, or the Pir, culture. Visits to the tombs and asking the dead to intercede with God on our behalf is a direct offshoot of the Hindu culture. The ambience of the Hindu temple, the offerings to the gods and the requests for their favour are all reflected in these tombs.
FORM & MATTER: The conflict between form and matter has always been a concern for philosophers. Pages have been written discussing the relationship between form and substance. But it seems that we have made our choice. Whether in religion, politics, education, economy or society, things must seem to be so without actually being so.
We must have a beard and say our prayers regularly — no matter how black our doings; we must spend lavishly and give a great dowry to our daughters whether we have the money or not; we must pay lip service to our norms and traditions; we must not have old people’s homes — ‘even if our old people are mistreated and insulted, at least people know they are with us’. We must continue to live with husbands who ill-treat us or are violent with us — ‘What will people say if we take a divorce?’ Our lives are full of examples like these. Appear to be good, pious and socially acceptable; no matter what you are like inside.
VALUES: What are the values that we teach our children? Truth, honesty, sincerity, fairness, justice, uprightness, generosity, loyalty, tolerance, empathy. These are the answers we get when we ask parents and teachers. But is it true? No, it is not.
The biggest virtue we impart to our children is hypocrisy. Appear to be something you are not. Speak high and noble things — do the opposite. See to yourself first and to your own benefit. Your material wellbeing is all in all. Take short cuts; use every means to get benefit from others. Give benefits to and please those who can help you. Suppress and oppress those who are weak. Money and power — they are all important. Nothing can ever hurt you or your family if you have these two things and know how to retain them.
Our feudalistic, class-based society; our dual educational system which is totally geared to widening the class gap; our authoritative, oppressive system of governance; our easily manipulated politicians ... they are all contributing to deepening and further entrenching these values in society.
Ideology is a thing of the past; something found only in books. Our young people do not even know the difference between the Right and the Left; or between the conservatives, the liberals and the progressives. In fact, we have created an apolitical society, an ideology-less society, again through a deliberate process.
When the army took over in 1958, their media managers embarked on a deliberate process to discredit politicians. The process has continued since then, if anything in a more blatant and stronger form, and now it has produced its fruit in a society where people say proudly that they are not interested in politics; where people don’t read newspapers because ‘it is only full of politics’; where people do not vote and are proud of it; where there are no students unions; where trade unionism is a dirty word; and where there are no training grounds for future politicians.
Of course, it is true that some politicians are corrupt. But aren’t some businessmen, executives, civil servants, and the generals corrupt? Why, then, have these professions not been given a dirty name? Why this special ‘favour’ to politicians? Because politics makes you aware, makes you think, makes you question, makes you criticize.
Thus, our generation should be proud. We have created a society of ideology-less, apolitical, non-thinking, non-critical, selfish, materialistic, uncaring, unsympathetic, conformists and we can be reassured that the status quo will remain for several generations.
There will be no rebellions, no revolutions, no uprisings, no violent movements, no insubordination. Nothing to disturb our happy tranquil, peaceful life.
But what can we do to change this state of affairs? That is for all of us to think about, and to do something about it, to contribute to the change, to do anything, no matter how small to change the prevalent situation, the prevalent attitudes. Because otherwise there is no future for us. We are dead, and dead we will remain.
From Jinnah to Musharraf, the personality cult has survived the vagaries of time. This, at least in part, explains our inability to build institutions. It is the individual at the top who is expected to put things right with a magic wand, so we may all live happily ever after! 
