Sense of direction

With JUI (F), MQM, and PML (Q) once again out to test their gamesmanship, and ANP, PML (N), the Army, and the political-religious parties outside waiting in the wings, it seems Pakistan is all set to brace for another bout of political crisis - leaving us the people bewildered what the hell is the direction they are all moving Pakistan into!

That there is no sense of direction in what is happening or cooking to happen is not far from the truth. An 18th Amendment, a 7th NFC Award, autonomous status for Gilgit-Baltistan, or the Reconciliation mantra appear like in-connectible jots on a maze of unattended urgencies.

This is an attempt to refresh memories of us all, especially the politicians and the Armymen, with the sense of direction reached in 1973.

A constitution is never a political document. It is not to be used, or manipulated politically. Nor is it for the politicians to amend or suspend at their will. At best, a constitution is a theory of conduct both for individuals and institutions. In this sense, it is a moral document. Taking it otherwise is fatal to the soul of a constitution.

Thus, if a constitution is used and manipulated for political purposes, its moral tenor is lost. Likewise, if a constitution is amended and suspended at will, it is reduced into a political statement. This is the case in Pakistan.

Historically, in the sub-continent Muslim and Hindu communities’ leaders could not agree on a theory of conduct to rule their people. That constitutional failure led to the making of Pakistan and India.

In Pakistan, again its leaders proved they lacked moral insight and could not reach a theory of conduct. Instead, they continued fighting for political interests. So much so that in 1971, the chronic fighting of individuals and institutions dashing all the hopes to reach an agreed theory of conduct to rule both the wings finally resulted in the formation of another country out of Pakistan.

The period from 1947 onward witnessed ‘constitutional’ anarchy let loose. After about fourth of a century and an unhappy separation of half the Pakistan, the rest of the country came to have a Constitution in 1973. In this case, it was always late to mend.

But, the ruling party that gave (West) Pakistan a Constitution is the very party that disfigured the same constitution most. The constitution that was adopted on April 12, 1973, from May 8, 1974 to January 4, 1977, underwent seven amendments, six by the same assembly and the seventh by the next short-lived assembly of the same party. Obviously, from the very start the constitution could not achieve the status of a moral document and a theory of conduct as well. The acts belied the intentions.

Then, there was the Army, an all powerful institution, which never subscribed to any theory of conduct whatsoever. They created a moral vacuum in the country. The greatest damage they caused to this nation is not through the suspension or partial/total abrogation of the constitution; it’s the destruction of moral and social values. They are the perfect immoralists.

After them, it was leaders of the political parties who used their parties as pressure groups to achieve their motives. They were the political agents of various Pakistani elites who were out-and-out immoralists. They used the constitution to further their political and elitist interests.

Another party to this crusade against the constitution was the judiciary. They were the thoroughgoing immoralists and champions of a new theory of misconduct. For them, under necessity everything could be validated. No theory of conduct or no moral code could stop them from fulfilling the demands of the immoralists. The moral document was immorally brutalized by its very custodians.

However, with the emergence of an independent judiciary, supremacy of the constitution, rule of law, and fundamental rights were dug up and started to be upheld. Not only the theory of conduct but the code of conduct also became a matter of everybody’s concern. Somehow, if that awakened a civil society from its “directionless” slumber, on the one hand, on the other it did resuscitate the moral conscience of the people also.

Many a coalition made and broke after the February 2008 elections. These or any other coalitions are not an end in-themselves. What matters is whether this practice strengthens the constitution or weakens it as a moral statement. If a coalition breaks down such as the recent one, quitting of the JUI (F) from the government, there is little for the constitution to gain. In fact, all such moves trash the constitution into political triviality.

Though, the rule of law movement set the constitution of Pakistan to emerge as a moral document embodying a theory of conduct for all individuals and institutions strictly to follow, but no political party or no state institution and especially the Army sees it as such. Old habits die hard!

In view of this sense of a direction, the conduct of political parties and the Army is going to decide the fate of the constitution as a moral document is a misreading. It is for them to realize that it is the constitution which is going to decide their fate in the long run. Willy-nilly they will have to revert to the constitution as a moral document to compass their sense of direction if they want to survive. Their politics should have to be subservient to the theory of conduct the constitution represents.

The last three decades, especially, of trampling the constitution by the civilian and military usurpers prove that politics without a theory of conduct and without a moral code is worse than robbery and murder, and more than what was condoned under the National Reconciliation Ordinance. Hence, in order to prove their worth, political parties and the Army must check with their political sense of direction. Otherwise, they are in a moral vacuum and may meet moral death!

Note: This article was completed in December 2010.

Why taxes are not a political issue in Pakistan?

Note: I sent this piece of writing to all the newspapers one by one; none bothered to see it or use it, that I am justified to conclude!

Why taxes are not a political issue in Pakistan?

All the politics is about collecting and spending taxes; but unfortunately that reality does not translate into political issues in Pakistan.

What it translates into is power-politics pure and simple! See the arrogant issueless politics of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf; see the pseudo-development politics of Pakistan Muslim League (N); see the outdated Roti-Kapra-Makaan politics of Pakistan Peoples Party (P); see the identity-less politics of Awami National Party; and also see the self-centered religious politics of Jamat-e-Islami, Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (F). At the end of the day, all of their politics is about seeking power and state-benefits; or it is politicking on pseudo-issues ranging from anti-Americanism and pro-Palestine rallies to this or that religious or sectarian wrangling.

The political parties of Pakistan never ever take up any issue which directly concerns the ordinary citizens; such as the cruel state-machinery; deplorable conditions of social services; police brutalities; unavailability of prompt justice; protection of life and property, and most importantly taxes. For the last 68 years, these parties are constantly trying to protect “democracy,” which in fact is in danger by the very politics of the same political parties. And this “democracy” has delivered nothing to the people, but the crumbs.

Likewise, no political party minds the imposition of a new tax or an increase in an already existing tax; since they would be following the same practice while in the government. Probably for the same reason, no political party makes an issue of the taxes imposed, taxes increased or unjustified taxation. They may be objecting and debating it, now and then, in the national or provincial assemblies and resorting to a cosmetic walk-out or a boycott; however, they would never make it a political issue and educate their voters. Are they not the representatives of the people, who are required to take care of their interests? Or they are not the true representatives of the people!

For instance, take the case of Withholding Tax (0.3 % and 0.6 %) levied in this year’s budget. It got through the parliament smoothly; the opposition, a very active for that matter, having taken no notice of it. Only the middle-level traders, who are an organized community, and whom this tax affects directly, have come out against it. The other sections of society, which are not organized, such as pensioners, widows, ordinary savers, National Savings’ customers, it seems have no voice. It is in this context that question arises on the legitimacy of the role of the representatives sitting in the parliament. One must ask: Whose interests they are supposed to protect? And, whose interests they are protecting?

Crueler than this Withholding Tax, there is another arbitrary and unjust tax imposed years back on cash withdrawals from banks. Without any justification and starkly against the principles of taxation, it too penalizes those who use banking channels. Ironically, this tax also defies its purpose, i.e. promoting of banking channels and thus formal economy.

Isn’t is surprising and at the same time instructive that no parliamentarian and no politician or no political party took up the case of Withholding Tax on cash withdrawals and spoke against it let alone making it a political issue! Also, no court bothered to take “suo motto” notice of it. The same is happening as far as the Withholding Tax on all the banking instruments is concerned. No political party is ready to make it a political issue. They announced their support for the traders and sympathized with their cause; but that’s part of their power-politics!

As is the case, all the taxes ultimately trickle down to the end-consumers. Is it the reason no political party make them a political issue in which case they are not the true representatives of the people. But for the same reason, all the political parties must make the taxes a political issue in which case they may come to truly represent the people. Are the political parties of Pakistan are ready to play role of the true representatives of the people? Or they are there to vouch for their own special Ashraafi interests? Then the people must not vote them in power!

Political use of religion in Pakistan

In Pakistan, everything stands politicized. So is religion. Those who are clever enough make hay while the sun shines. Tahir-ul-Qadri is one of them and is famously know as a religio-political power seeker. He is more of a religious leader; trying his luck in politics. Since the Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) was founded about two decades ago, it has constantly been failing in winning the voters’ mandate. It never made any headway in any general elections. So the PAT is a party, like so many others having this or that much of following in various parts of Pakistan, which has been forced to indulge in politics outside the parliament.

No doubt, it’s such a phenomenon which has yet to attract the attention of the social and political academics. How such parties survive and behave which remain outside the parliament since they succeed in obtaining only a few or no seats in the national or provincial assemblies. There are a number of such parties; Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan (JIP) and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-F (JUI-F) are on the top of the list. What is characteristic of them is that they all are basically religious in their appearance; in reality, however, they all are politically crazy power-seekers. When they happen to win a small number of seats in a situation which puts them in a bargaining position vis-à-vis other parties needing their support to form the government, they fully take advantage of that opportunity. JUI-F excels in that gamesmanship.

In contrast, JIP is a player before the play starts. It sells its street power to negotiate as many seats from a winning-horse party as is possible. This time in the last year general elections, Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) pierced the myth of its street power, possibly once and for all. Thus JIP lost whatever clout it enjoyed outside the parliamentary politics. It may be surmised that it is this significant factor which has softened its political stance towards constitutional politics. Another important factor is its apparent delinking from the security establishment the symptoms of which emerged last year under the leadership of Munawar Hasan, its former Amir. The authenticity of its present pro-constitution posture and politics, under the leadership of Siraj ul Haq, is yet to be tested against the forthcoming realpolitik.

Coincidentally, such parties share a commonality: they all evolved out of the teachings of (almost) purely religious scholars. JIP’s intellectual progenitor is Maulana Abulala Maududi; and JUI-F’s Allama Shabbir Ahmad Usmani. These parties contracted political ambitions later. The case of Tahir-ul-Qadri and the PAT is no different. As the chain of events tells, Tahir-ul-Qadri started solely as a religious scholar. It is after sometime when he had developed a substantial following that he appeared to be nurturing political aspirations, and it is then that he founded the Pakistan Awami Thereek (Interestingly its official website is a commercial domain: http://www.pat.com.pk/english/index.html).

Could it be otherwise? Could it be a case of political parties which were to be founded expressly for political purposes without involving religion? Why they happened to be inclining towards using the religious sensitivities of their followers?  Why is it so that almost all the political parties, seeking political power in the name of religion, are initially religious entities and it is only later that they thought of converting their religious following into their political following? And more than that, why is it so that these parties try to exploit the religious convictions of voters for political purposes? Be that as it may, the question is: Is it religion or is it politics that they value most? In case they value religion most, they ought not to be indulging in politics then. In case they value politics most, they should abandon political use of religion and come out openly as political parties.

It is in that spirit that I love to imagine a party forming and flourishing in Pakistan which would prefer to convert its political following into its religious following! As far as my scant knowledge of history is concerned, never ever such a party existed in any part of the world. The history is replete with such examples, however, where a religious organization when came to seize political power, it was this political power by which it stood seized later itself. The crux of the matter is that when it is politics, whether it is valued most or not, i.e. vis-à-vis religion, it is politics, from A to Z. That means seeking and holding political power is in itself an exhaustive cause; that is why it is habitually believed that everything is justified in politics.

It is here that politics miserably needs a bit of guidance from morality; otherwise, it remains mired in its own vicious cycle of seeking and holding political power at any cost and by any means, to which Pakistani citizens are a patient witness to. Morality teaches: Ends never justify means. So whatever their ends, if they come to adopt immoral and unfair means to achieve them, they lose their moral core and moral appeal. The same applies to all those parties which make political use of religion; i.e. when in order to seek political power they use religion, they lose whatever moral sensibility they possessed. Also, in the end, they come to lose whatever religion they espoused. Out of such ventures, only political tyranny comes out!

In conclusion, it may be said that whenever any religion is put to political use, not only is it drained out of its true religiosity, but its moral principle also, on which it has been built. Hence, those who claim to be the real followers of a religion and in that spirit try to use it for their political purposes verily prove to be those who are the real enemies of that religion. At best, they are politicians in disguise who might use anything, be it a religion, faith or creed, to seek political power. It is in that sense that there is no difference between Tahir-ul-Qadri and Imran Khan. Both are Machiavellian! Both are seeking political power! At any cost! By any means!

Note: This article was completed on August 7, and was originally posted in August 2014.