In his book 'Great Contemporaries' first published in 1937, Winston Spencer Churchill, statesman and master of English prose, devotes a chapter to the German Emperor William II, and at the outset asks his reader to ask himself, 'What should I have done in his position?', and then tells him why he poses such a question.
Because, day after day, year after year, it was dinned into the Kaiser by those around him that he was 'the All-Highest, the Supreme War Lord,' who when the next war came would lead to battle all the tribes of his nation, and at the head of the strongest, finest army in the world would renew on a still greater scale the former martial triumphs of his country. It was for him to choose the chancellor and ministers of state; it was for him to choose the chiefs of the army and navy.
There was no office great or small throughout the empire from which he could not dismiss the occupant. Each word he uttered was received by all present with rapture, or at least respect. He had but to form a desire and it was granted. Hundreds of glittering uniforms filled his wardrobes. When he wearied of the grosser forms of flattery, far more subtle methods were applied.
Statesmen, generals, admirals, judges, divines, philosophers, scientists and financiers stood eagerly to impart their treasured knowledge and to receive with profound gratification any remark upon their various spheres which he may have made. Intimate friends were at hand to report day by day how deeply impressed this or that great expert was with the Kaiser's marvelous grasp of his particular subject.
The general staff seemed awed by his comprehension of the higher strategy. Diplomats were wonderstruck by his manly candor or patient restraint, as the case may be. The artists gathered in dutiful admiration. Foreign nations vied with his own subjects in their welcomes. And thus it was, hour after hour, day after day.
WSC then asks his 'gentle reader' whether in the Kaiser's position he could have withstood the treatment, remained humble-minded and with no exaggerated idea of his own importance, with no undue reliance upon his own opinion, practiced the virtue of humility and striven always for peace. His answer : "Had you done so, a discordant note would have mingled with the chants of praise......".
And within twelve years of the outset of the Kaiser's glory days, the man sat hunched in a railway carriage, hour after hour, at a Dutch frontier station awaiting permission to escape as a refugee from the execration of a people whose armies he had led through measureless sacrifices to measureless defeat, and whose conquests and treasures he had squandered. "An awful fate ! Was it the wage of guilt or of incapacity? There is a point where incapacity and levity are so flagrant that they become tantamount to guilt."
"The union of both the pomp and the power of state in a single office exposes a mortal to strains beyond the nature and to tasks above the strength even of the best and greatest men," wrote Churchill. However, "Something may be said for dictatorships, in periods of change and storm; but in these cases the dictator rises in true relation to the whole moving throng of events. He rides the whirlwind because he is a part of it. He is the monstrous child of emergency. He may well possess the force and quality to dominate the minds of millions and to sway the course of history. He should pass with the crisis. To make a permanent system of dictatorship, hereditary or not, is to prepare a new cataclysm."
No one could have put it better. Why cannot men and women learn from history?
Gross flatterers surround our President, General Pervez Musharraf. Subtle flattery is beyond them. A story is told of how once when our general coughed, a courtier leapt forward with a Vicks coughdrop in his hand, bent his knees, looked up pleadingly and said, 'Jernail Sahib, Jernail Sahib, next time you feel like coughing, allow me to cough for you.'
Why is the general striving so hard to lose the advantage he has gained by the little good work he has been able to do with the support of the time-serving Americans, now totally in thrall to the ongoing terrorism in the Middle East, who have unequivocally stated that the referendum he insists on holding is an internal matter.
Our great friend of so many years standing, China, has stated the same. More than half the European Union have followed suit; the rest are unconcerned. The Indians, who do not want Musharraf around and would much prefer a wobblier individual, have given the referendum negative support.
If he must hold his referendum, what is the compulsion that makes him rely on our discredited, despised, third-rate politicians of the past? And why on earth did he allow a man of the calibre of Tariq Aziz to speak for him on his Lahore platform, a man who has changed his political allegiances umpteen times, a man who is renowned as a 'goonda', a man who was at the forefront of the Nawaz Sharif organized storming of the Supreme Court, and who glibly lies after having sworn upon his holy book to speak the truth?Who has advised him to rely on men like the Chaudhry of Gujrat and his clan in Punjab, and upon the notorious Sheikh clan in Sindh? He has rightly and correctly banned Nawaz and Benazir from a comeback (and we must hope he holds to his word on this); but what about all the others who should be banned, all those who bear collective guilt, who have sat in our assemblies since 1988 and have been dismissed four times, whose corruption has been confirmed more than once by the highest court of the land?
And, if he must have his referendum, can he not do so without inconveniencing the public in the cities and towns where he holds his organized public meetings? Much rancour has been aroused by the requisitioning of public transport for the administration and the army in order to do the necessary rounding-up. In Sindh, at least, this should not happen. We have here a court order banning the unlawful practice.
In 1993, at the time of the general elections organized to bring back BB, the administration of Karachi indulged in the wholesale requisitioning of public transport vehicles for the purposes of electioneering. The then joint chief of Karachi's Citizen Police Liaison Committee, Nazim Haji, filed a petition in the Sindh High Court challenging the right of the provincial government to requisition private vehicles and the petition was heard by the then Chief Justice of Sindh, Nasir Aslam Zahid.
The petition was allowed (PLD 1993 Karachi 79) and Justice Zahid's ruling was clear,. In terms of Article 24 of the Constitution it is ordained that no person can be deprived of his property other than in accordance with law. By requisitioning private vehicles the provincial government was depriving people of their property, albeit for a temporary period. No property can be compulsorily acquired or taken possession of other than for a public purpose and with the authority of law which provides for compensation.
He declared that the requisitioning of private vehicles by the Sindh government was wholly illegal and without lawful authority, and the administration was restrained from any future such requisitioning. He instructed that copies of the order were to be sent to the Sindh home secretary who was to issue necessary instructions to the concerned functionaries, including the Inspector General of Police, magistrates, superintendents of police and station house officers.
To prevent him from flouting any further laws, someone should tell the general that as far as his meeting in Karachi is concerned he should not even contemplate holding it at Mr Jinnah's mazar. An act of parliament was passed in June 1976 entitled the 'Quaid-i-Azam's Mazar (Protection and Maintenance) (Amendment) Act' amending Ordinance XXVII of 1971.
According to Section 6 of the act and the Ordinance: "Meetings etc. prohibited. No person shall organize, convene or take part in any meeting or demonstration or procession or engage in political activity of any kind within the Quaid-i-Azam's Mazar or within a distance of ten feet from the outer boundary thereof."
This law has been infringed upon by our politicians, of whom Musharraf is so disapproving. We hope that he and his military men will not ape them in at least this respect.
Fifteen days to go. Does the general remain sufficiently strong and nimble to be able to call off his programme, to stop wearing fancy, funny hats and clowning around the country? We thank him for having a free press.