In our society, ‘I’ specialists have done great damage. It’s time they learnt a lesson or two from history
AGAINST the backdrop of General Pervez Musharraf’s unflinching desire to cling on to two posts, that of chief of the army staff and the president of Pakistan simultaneously, let us discuss man’s inborn attachment to the treacherous ‘I’. It lures. It entices. It tempts. ‘I can’t be wrong.’ ‘I have my fingers on the pulse of time.’ ‘I judge the events with infallible accuracy.’ ‘I am not prone to committing mistakes.’ Many a notable in history has succumbed to the tragic self-betrayals in their inflexible attachment to ‘I’.
‘I’ affects almost every one of us in our daily life. Friends have entered into long-lasting feuds for the supremacy of ‘I’. They have fought on the choice of colours, clothes, songs, poets, writers, politicians, branded bread, vegetables, leaders etc. “I hate brinjals (eggplant).” “I like brinjals.” Fight between the two friends ensues for the supremacy of ‘I’. A group of friends were discussing development of cinematography in the subcontinent. One friend opined, “Dilip Kumar is all time superstar of the Indian film industry.”
“No, he is not,” the other friend said. “In my opinion Amitabh Bachchan is the greatest star not only in Asia, but in the entire world.”
They entered into fiery arguments not for establishing status of the two artists, but for the personal triumph of ‘I’. Many people believe a person’s fondness for ‘I’ manifests his self-confidence. Thus, ‘I’ and ‘self’ are inseparable unities or entities. Arguably, fondness for ‘I’ is very often confused with self-confidence. We are discussing a person’s overindulgence in ‘I’ that traps him in overconfidence. Invariably, overconfidence deludes a person in overindulgence that ultimately proves disastrous for him. How confident a batsman may be, he won’t wag his bat each ball for a four or a six. But, an overconfident batsman would. Thus he succumbs to overindulgence.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s is a classical example of a man’s falling prey to the treacherous ‘I’. He was overconfident; therefore, he was proud, and arrogant. He believed the rest of the politicians and the people who really mattered for him were mediocre. All along he was so self-assured that he set aside advice from his genuine well-wishers not to trust the sycophants. Without realizing Zulfikar Ali Bhutto remained surrounded by the creeps and the crawlers. Down to earth people like Mairaj Mohammed Khan bade goodbye to him, and the turncoats like Maulana Kausar Niazi who purposely put him in a disastrous conflict with clergy, clung on to him like parasites till he was left with no drop of blood in his body. To crown it all, his favourite General, Ziaul Haq saw him die at the gallows.
Many years ago, the Punjab government on the advice of strategists and psychologists came up with a novel idea for discouraging the drivers from rash driving on the highways. They put on display smashed buses, trucks, and other vehicles on display along the highway. The objective was to create fear among the drivers by showing them the result of rash and careless driving. The exercise had no effect on the number of accidents taking place daily. The baffled strategists and psychologists conducted a study on the failure of the well thought of ploy. The findings of the study affirmed man’s inherent weakness for the alluring ‘I’. Almost all the reckless drivers interviewed had identical answer: “I am an excellent driver.” Each driver said, “I am not prone to committing silly mistakes. The drivers of the ill-fated vehicles were either novices or fools to have succumbed to the fatal accidents.”
Affliction of ‘I’ doesn’t let a man learn. It is a disguised curse.
In the inventory of the subjects most interesting and absorbing subject that broadens the vistas of man is history. The subject history is not restricted to the record of rise and fall of the rulers, and their countries. In its scope, history encompasses almost all the subjects that have altered for the betterment of life on earth. Read the history of evolution of man; history of religions; history of development of customs, traditions, and culture; history of formation of societies; history of philosophy; history of inventions that revolutionized man, and his society; and history of ailments and their treatment.
Our national history reveals a not-so-savoury record of the generals who dismissed elected governments, became our controversial rulers and spent the rest of their life in proving to the world that they were the true champions of democracy. They all have gone down in history as military dictators. Around the 10th death anniversary of the Quaid-i-Azam, General Ayub Khan took it upon himself to become the ruler of Pakistan on his own. He, for 10 years, relentlessly safeguarded the notorious One Unit, the united front of West Pakistani feudal politicians against the Bengalis that ultimately disintegrated Pakistan, and culminated East Pakistan into Bangladesh.
General Ziaul Haq became the ruler of Pakistan on his own, and clung on to power for 11 years. He flirted with tribal feuds in Afghanistan, and converted Pakistan into heaven for the smugglers of weapons, drug barons, and millions of unskilled dubious Afghan refugees who never went back home.
General Pervez Musharraf has been with us for the last five years. I wish, he refers to the history of his forerunners. His remaining in uniform or in sherwani won’t alter his preordained destiny in history. Wearing a different cap doesn’t make a person different.
