Even a loner like Jogi has views on the rights of an individual for dissent
In the later part of this column, you will peruse excerpts from the private notebook of my friend, Jogi. A loner who keeps no profile, he has allowed me to reproduce extracts from some of the abstractions he jots down in his notebook. I am Jogi’s only privileged friend who occasionally looks at his notebook. Although not one of many secrets, he keeps it concealed from the world. Jogi doesn’t like friends and relatives to have access to his notebook. It is absolutely a private document of a person who doesn’t mix up with people. He occasionally roams alone in his favourite vicinities in old Karachi, once frequented by him when he was young and devil-may-care type of a person. What events transformed a swashbuckling man into a withdrawn person is worth telling a tale that I would narrate at some other time.
Jogi doesn’t sort out subjects he writes about. From origin of man, man’s faith under different phases in history, life before and after death, dwindling ethics, pomp and pageantry, and man’s uncontrollable ancient desire for owning more women, wealth and land, grabbing absolute power and politics, Jogi expresses his unreserved comments and opinions on any subject that upsets him.
Today, I reproduce here some of the extracts from his views on the rights of an individual for dissent.
I remember to have once inserted few passages from Jogi’s notebook in this space, but that was a long time ago. I, therefore, deem it necessary to make you familiar with Jogi’s way of writing. Instead of the first person, he prefers narration in the third person. An example will make it clear for you. Instead of ‘I do not like inclusion of LFO in the Constitution’ he would write ‘Jogi doesn’t like inclusion of LFO in the Constitution’. Now, a few extracts from his assorted views on dissent of an individual:
“Beginning from his birth as an infant, a person appears on this earth as an individual. He departs from this world as an individual. Between the phenomenon of birth and death, man integrates with the social environment he is born in. But then, there always are exceptions to a rule. Conglomeration and togetherness of individuals constitute a society. Even after becoming integral members of a society, some individuals do not dissolve their individuality in the social setup engineered by a clever few through consensus. They refuse to be carried away by the popular flow of social and political events and happenings. Thus, Jogi wonders, does a society or a country recognize an individual’s natural right to dissent!”
“A person, who stealthily enters your house from the back door, no matter what status he assumes in your home later on, shall always be reckoned an intruder. By marrying your daughter he may become your son-in-law, but he would everlastingly remain a gatecrasher and a trespasser in the memory of some members of your family. You may own him, but history would disown him. In the opinion of history, he shall always remain a usurper. History doesn’t forget and forgive wrongdoers.”
“A General’s act of entering into politics from the back door, and his taking over of Pakistan is declared legal by the judiciary. Thereafter, he obtains Pakistanis’ nod in a referendum for becoming their undisputed ruler. His contrived democratic Assemblies give him the vote of confidence. The Assembly members generously insert in the Constitution the dictatorial orders he issues from time to time during the initial period of his taking over Pakistan. Formalities for his becoming a legal and Constitutional ruler are completed. Like his worthy predecessors, the Martial Law Administrator becomes the democratic, legal and Constitutional President of Pakistan.”
“Concurrence in totality is improbable. Jogi feels that one hundred per cent acceptance of an issue or subject is not possible anywhere in the world. There always would be dissidents to an assent. Some dissidents fearing State backlash keep their disagreement concealed. Some dissidents do not hide their disapproval of popular ordinances that bear the stamp of approval from the highest authority in the country. However, being die-hard democrats, such individuals respect the will of the majority. They stand upright, and make their dissent known without becoming agitators. They simply claim their natural right of not to agree. Does the State differentiate between a dissident and an agitator?”
“Like instinctive feelings such as love and hate, man, in his individual capacity, is preordained for dissension. He would keep rejecting things whether conceptual or real, finite or infinite that he feels were thrust upon him. Why do the State administrators impede his right to dissent when they themselves are prone to rejection?”
“Three decades ago, having a soft corner for communism and communists in Pakistan was an unpardonable sin and a heinous crime. Numerous writers, poets, teachers and students were tortured and grilled in the name of interrogation, and were rendered incapacitated for the rest of their life. Some of them were incarcerated, or removed from the scene in a callous way, never to be seen again. The State administrators who were instrumental in perpetrating State crimes against writers, poets, teachers and the students got away with their official offences. They have retired. Most of them are dead. Why doesn’t a State tolerate the presence of a few individuals who hold on to their independent views that happen to be different from the views of the State?”
