Writers, thinkers and intellectuals see ahead of their times. They perceive things better than the common man. But do our rulers give any importance to them?
DURING the third week of Ramazan, President General Pervez Musharraf invited a good number of writers, scholars and intellectuals from all over the country to break one of the fasts with him at Islamabad. The president sent them air tickets, and made their brief stay in the capital of Pakistan comfortable. Substantial amount was spent on the get-together of the people who keep their eyes open. They see what others do not see. They watch what others do not watch. They clearly catch sight of years to come. They vividly visualize long shadows of the coming events.
The rulers, throughout the ages, are on record to have befriended, lured, bribed and cajoled writers to win them over. Every ruler, ancient or modern, maintains a good number of writers under his umbrella. In their write-ups whether economic, social or political they assure the ruler that he is doing fine for the country: “Keep it up, sir.” They go to the extent of telling a ruler, “Qdam barhao Badshah salamat, hum tumharay sath hain,” (go ahead king, we are with you). Sycophants persistently convince a ruler that never before in history has a more sagacious, wise and all-knowing ruler been bestowed upon this country by Almighty Allah!
But, at times, writers are grilled and persecuted for holding fast unto their independent views and their refusal to compromise on principles. Gul Khan Naseer was a nonconformist Balochi poet of considerable merit and standing. He was a household name in Balochistan. So, to humiliate him, he was sent to the prison for stealing a goat. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto then was at the helm of affairs. It backfired and shook the foundation of the establishment in Islamabad. The bureaucrat, who was more loyal than the king, was sacked. Bhutto always lamented that his efforts to befriend Gul Khan Naseer after the unfortunate incident did not bear any fruit.
Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was the only ruler of Pakistan who was a voracious reader. He read extensively and always highlighted phrases, sentences, paragraphs and pages in books. He had the habit of taking down exhaustive notes while reading a book. S.R. Ghouri, the fearless columnist of the Dawn was an avowed analytical critic of Bhutto’s policies, particularly his later softening on the zamindars and the jagirdars of Pakistan, and the induction of radical fundamentalists in his party. Once in his blue moods Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was heard saying, “Let Ghouri alone be on my side, and the rest of the columnists in the country against me.”
It is a welcome gesture on the part of our rulers that they invite writers to dine with them once in a while. We do not have a Sartre and a Camus among us. We do not miss such occasions, and rush to Islamabad to enjoy presidential hospitality. We forget that a writer must maintain a distance from the people in authority. Eating from the same plate will tempt you to seek personal favours from them. An obliged person fails to evaluate the performance of a person who obliges him.
Have you ever taken the trouble of assessing writers’ position in Pakistan? Who reads them in a country where concocted literacy figures are dished out to hoodwink the aid-giving agencies! According to the statisticians 70 million people out of a population of 150 million Pakistanis are literate (48 per cent)! Sounds fantastic! What do the 70 million people read? A random assessment reveals that 25 books in English, 200 books in Urdu, and 50 books in Sindhi are published annually. Cumulatively, 275 books (new titles) are published in a year. If a thousand copies of each book are printed, it would mean 275,000 books are marketed for 7,000,0000 (seven-crore) literate people of Pakistan! I am talking about books on literature (short-stories, novels, poetry, and literary criticism), social, cultural and political history, archaeology, anthropology, and tourism.
By the way, would our statisticians tell us the number of books published annually on the technical subjects like computer-technology, pure sciences, medicine, economics, banking, public and business administration, geology, nutrition, and agriculture? We in Pakistan do not have even one monthly magazine dedicated to English literature! For that matter not a single monthly magazine exclusively dedicated to literature is published in Urdu. For the so-called 70 million literate population of Pakistan far less than one million copies of English, Urdu, and Sindhi newspapers together are put into circulation daily.
Though few and negligible in number, the writers remain the most conscious and sensitive segment of society. They assess the performance of a government from their own independent perspective. President General Pervez Musharraf frittered away rare opportunity of listening to the writers’ assessment of his five-year reign. Instead of telling them what he has achieved for Pakistan, he ought to have asked them what they thought of his five-year performance. Instead of explaining Pakistan’s involvement in the Middle East conflicts, it would have been beneficial for the general to have known from the writers what other options were open to Pakistan for finding a safe way out from the US-led conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan. He should have collected writers proposed solutions to the Kashmir issue. How do writers look at his desire for clinging on to two posts simultaneously? Does he know?
