THE more one delves into Muslim history, the less one is surprised by Pakistani history. Indeed seen in the light of the past, the seizure of power by the Khan-i-Khanans of Pakistan (General Pervez Musharraf being the fourth in this distinguished line) seems less an aberration and more the iron norm.

Except for the first Caliphate, power throughout Islamic history has been won and lost by the sword. This is true of other civilizations as well but while the world of Christendom was able to make the transition from kingdoms and empires to nation-states, the world of Islam was unable to do the same on its own. The nation-states that constitute the Islamic ummah or commonwealth today came into being as a result or under the impact of colonialism.

The question of succession was never an orderly affair in the kingdoms of Islam with brothers killing brothers, sons rising up against fathers and more often than not a bloodbath preceding a change on the throne. The achievements of the Moghuls were great - none greater than the fact that for the first time in the history of India they created a continuous political tradition which people came to think of as a necessary condition of social existence. But their history with its fratricidal blood-letting and never-ending wars of succession makes for depressing reading. Even as the reader follows the triumphs of the emperors, he or she is beset by the gnawing feeling that the seeds of decay and destruction are also being sown.

The collective memory of the Muslim world therefore harks back to a tradition steeped in sword-play and authoritarianism. To the extent that democratic concepts exist in the Islamic world (and for that matter even in India) they have come from outside sources. And because they did not arise from within, these concepts have been but a veneer on the surface of our real existence.

Nothing proves this more than our own history. India before the advent of the British knew nothing of liberalism or democracy. Into the Indian body politic these came as imports from across the seas. The educated political class of India, Hindu and Muslim alike, learnt these concepts by rote without, I think, imbibing their substance. This is why in both countries, but more so in Pakistan, such a hash has been made of democracy.

In India the parroting of democracy and the rule of law is at least carried on with a modicum of sincerity. In Pakistan it does not take long for the ruling classes to betray their contempt for democracy. When a constitutional government is in place politicians subvert it by conducting themselves like squabbling ravens. When democracy is replaced by the cult of the strongman, as is happening for the fourth time now, strange theories are heard which have nothing to do with democracy. In either case what our ruling class reveals is the poverty of its political talent - which is the first condition for running any polity wisely and effectively.

In any event we got the trappings of democracy not because we demanded them, fought for them or even understood what they meant. We received them as a gift because we happened to be a British colony and the British voluntarily, a point we do our best to ignore both here and in India, chose to hand over power to us in a "constitutional" manner. If we had been a Dutch or a French colony our political progression would have taken place on different lines.

What is the purpose of this recital? Only to demonstrate the futility and irrelevance of mounting the house-tops and crying over the subversion of democracy when a constitutional government is overthrown. What constitution and what democracy? General Zia-ul-Haq was not far wrong when he said that the constitution was a document of so many pages which he could tear up whenever he wanted. Perhaps in a rash moment he truly expressed what he felt, otherwise every khan-i-khanan in Pakistan's history has subscribed to the same unvarnished opinion.

Another similarity with our past should also be noted. Throughout Islamic history theologians, jurists and political thinkers have tried to resolve the dilemma presented by Imarat al-Istila or "Amirate by seizure". Thus just as Pakistani khan-i-khanans can claim a connection with Islamic history, Pakistani jurisconsults like Sharifuddin Pirzada whose duty it becomes to look for arguments to justify the seizure of power also can claim descent from a rich historical tradition. The 'doctrine of necessity' at whose altar Chief Justice Anwarul Haq sanctified Zia's martial law was not his own invention. This doctrine is as old as the first struggle for power in Muslim history.

Military strongmen always take pride in saying that the people have welcomed them forgetting that the people of the Indo-Gangetic plain, throughout their history, have been submissive before every conqueror and resigned before every natural disaster. Resignation and fatalism are the outstanding qualities of the subcontinent. They remain strong to this day. We people who inhabit this land have never been masters of our destiny. We live by our hopes and wishes but rebellion is alien to our temperament.

The Afghans are different. They have always been an unruly race, a fact which even Babur noted: "These Afghans remain very rustic and tactless." According to Bernier, a foreign chronicler of the Moghul Empire, the Afghans were "an intractable race...even the menials and carriers of water belonging to that nation are high-spirited and warlike." Even in our times the Afghans have exhibited a genius for war and insurrection (with no little help, it should be noted in passing, from the godless CIA) but very little talent for political organization, which is why, despite their triumph against the Russians, their country remains desolate and ruined.

We are not Afghans. Our genius consists in accepting the dictates of fate.

Pakistani rulers, however, even though they are always able to conquer power easily suffer from a sense of insecurity. Not content simply with the passivity or acquiescence of the people, they crave two more gifts: (1) the stamp of legitimacy from the Qazis of the day (which is where the Sharifuddin Pirzadas come in); and (2) a suspension of disbelief on the part of the people so that they take at face value whatever the rulers say.

The first is readily achieved but the second is more difficult. Every ruler in history who has overthrown another says that he has done so for the larger good of the nation or the people. In other words, if General Musharraf has a seven-point agenda, every ruler in his position also has a similar agenda, whether of seven points or of fourteen. This is a standard line to take because no ruler ever says he has seized power for himself. But enunciating this altruistic line is one thing; expecting people to swallow it is asking for too much.

It is true that whenever power forcibly changes hands, the general public lets its imagination take flight as a result of which expectations soar. This happened in the case of General Musharraf. This happened in the case of all three of his military predecessors. But after some time reality reasserts itself and the feeling takes hold that the dulcet sounds being heard are no different from similar sounds heard all too often before. This is a natural process of disenchantment but it goes down ill with all rulers.

So what conclusions are to be drawn from this tale? Judging by our history, the democratic impulse, for whatever it is worth, will remain weak in Pakistan for the foreseeable future. So safeguarding democracy is not the problem because democracy, if and when it resurfaces, will remain a threatened entity. The problem has to do with the quality of our strongmen.

About the conquistadors of the Islamic world, Nirad Chaudhri for one has this to say: "Yaqub ibn-al Layth al-Saffar, Mahmud of Ghazna, Muizz-ud-din Muhammad bin Sam of Ghur, Timur, Babur - Islamic society continued to shoot up these rocket-like personalities even down to the eighteenth century, and two of the last but of the very greatest were Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali."

If our lot is to be ruled by strongmen let us at least have someone on the lines of these "rocket-like personalities". What do we have instead? The likes of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-Haq (discretion preventing me from going any further). It is enough to make the heart sink.