The Political Kingdom of Pakistan

The Government of India Act 1935 declared “Pakistan” only as an independent dominion. Then in the constitution of 1956, the state was named as the “Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” However, when the constitution of 1962 was promulgated, the state of Pakistan found a new name, “Republic of Pakistan” with the prefix “Islamic” dropped. The same was restored to its original position in 1963. Down the road, the constitution of 1973 retained this nomenclature for the state of Pakistan; so the name resonates to this day.

But one question has perennially been raising its head through the 7 decades of the history of Pakistani state: Did this naming, renaming, i.e. conversion and neutralization of the state of Pakistan make any difference to the life of the ordinary citizens of Pakistan? Has the politics which produced, abrogated, suspended or put in abeyance these constitutions been able to provide the ordinary citizens with what a state is in any case is required to provide them with as its first and the foremost duty? Did the state of Pakistan regardless of its nomenclature protect life and property of its citizens? Did it help them live a life of their choice? Did it help them live in freedom? Did it help them realize their dreams?

The answer to all such questions is a big and desperate NO! In fact, from the very beginning, the politicians set to build a kingdom of their own. This was despite the controversy which entrenched its feet even earlier than the death of the Father of the Nation. This controversy survives to this day and revolves around the crucial question concerning the nature of the state of Pakistan, i.e. what kind of a state Muhammad Ali Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be? After about 68 years, this question is being debated probably more forcefully now than in the early days. What is strange and rather magical is that both the politics and polity of Pakistan are oblivious of that debate; what little difference it could make and made may be seen written in the constitution and other books of laws, which are again have nothing to do with the real day-to-day life of the ordinary citizens.

How this political kingdom came to be established is a long-winded story which may be summarized thus: Political parties monopolized politics by politically enslaving their workers, sympathizers, and voters; this they do by inculcating in them personality cult of their leaders; the political leaders in their power politics never espouse any values and principles and these characterizations of their politics trickled down not only to their lower cadres but found a fertile soil in the populace also; political parties solely focus on their own party interests (read personal agendas of their leaders) and they never think of political evolution of Pakistan which is borne out by the unfinished debate about the nature of the state of Pakistan; political parties divided the country into their political principalities (read geographical delimitation of vote banks) and use them as the support-base of their political kingdom; political parties use all of their politics just to keep their hold intact on their political principalities so that they are always able to seize political power; political parties always befool their workers and voters under the guise of deceptive slogans which never come to serve the interests of the people; political parties always opt for the politics of non-issues such as problems of personality, family, larger and bigger shows and processions, etc; political parties never do the politics of real issues which the people miserably face daily; they never tell the people how they would be taxing them and regulating their life, and how they would be spending their tax-money; etc.

No doubt, if one deciphers that manual of Paki political parties some of the rules of which have been listed above, one may see how the political kingdom was built and maintained, and how it perpetuates. All this trickery is performed under the pseudonym of Democracy. This magical democracy provides politicians with alibis to violate morality, rules and laws and social values. It is this character of the political kingdom which this specialty of the politicians explains well: they live, behave and act like kings and princes with no fear of accountability; they submit to no rules and laws; whenever such a fear takes shape, they would manipulate the relevant rules and laws; they put themselves above all rules and laws and morals, and in their ultimate existence they are law unto themselves.

This political kingdom of Pakistan seems like a fantasy, but it’s more than real. Its existence was very much noticeable a few weeks earlier when the Azadi and Inqilab Marches of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek respectively were making headlines in the newspapers and TV channels. Actually this political kingdom has no vital and reciprocative relation with the ordinary citizens; it descends down only when it is in an emergency in the face of challenges (read threats) from the elements external (read security establishment) to it; but this kingdom’s ambivalent relationship with the security establishment is too obvious to be legitimized; it needs to be understood in the context of a power tussle, and not in the context of what the constitution of the country dictates. That highlights the unconstitutional character of this political kingdom.

It is in this perspective that the politics of all the political parties needs to be explained and understood. No matter it is Muslim League-N, Peoples Party, Muslim League-Q, PTI, Jamat-e-Islami, Awami National Party, Jamiat-a-Ulema-e-Islam-F, or others, all of them are part and parcel of this political kingdom. And a kingdom can never be devoid of intrigues and conspiracies on the one hand, and treacheries and betrayals on the other; that is what History tells. Who’s a friend today may be an enemy tomorrow, i.e. the parties which support democracy today may be undermining it tomorrow. Asif Ali Zardari who is standing with Nawaz Sharif today may be abandoning him tomorrow in his bid to conquer back PPPP’s principality in the province of Punjab. It’s a political kingdom, where nobody knows what’s going to happen the next moment; it’s not a constitutional state, where whatever is going to happen tomorrow is constitutionally predictable!

This article was completed on October 13, 2014, and was originally posted in November 2014.           

Malala’s Peace Prize, cynics and ashraafists

The case of 2014 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Malala Yousafzai, which she shares with an Indian Kailash Satyarthi, who has devoted himself to the cause of child slavery, may be used as a litmus test should we want to know the bent of mind of any Pakistani fellow. This will help us know whether someone is a cynic or an ashraafist or both. Ask someone what he thinks about the Nobel Peace Prize for Malala; if he tells you, ‘Please, no joking!,’ be assured that he is both a cynic and an ashraafist. Some of the refined souls may be so artful that they would argue they are not this or that and are different from the lot; but their rhetoric reveals whether they are exclusively cynic or ashraafist only.

As cynics are souls in anguish who in their mysterious, unknown, and unknowable perfectionism find fault with everything and view everything from a standpoint of negativity, it seems with the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize for Malala they have been thrown out of the frying pan into the fire, i.e. into a world which may be dubbed perfectly imperfect. So how come in such a world an honor like that of Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to Malala! The cynics will never be able to be in harmony with this fact; they cannot reconcile with this “strangest” thing. What the heck it has been given to a Pakistani, a girl, and a young girl, and a Pakhtun girl!

So much so that one friend who is thoroughly a cynic, and in his deepest perceptions maybe an ashraafist too, was so much outraged that he rang me and questioned me the same evening as if it was I who made this happen. He was completely puzzled, and quizzed me: “Why, but why she has been awarded this? Is it so? Why?” So the Paki cynics think, and they believe it too, that the young girl has done nothing. She has wrongly been awarded this prize; she doesn’t deserve that. Even if she has done something; it’s not such that she be given that award. They mean: It’s all politics behind this; they are capitalists, Americans, and such, who are behind her, and it is this politics because of which she has been awarded this Nobel Peace Prize. That’s a big conspiracy. She is not worth that honor; her work is far below the prestige of the Prize. Who the hell they are who make such decisions! The Paki cynics feel helpless in the face of that “injustice;” they would stop it by force if they could!

All that rhetoric that revolves not only around the opposition of Malala Yousafzai but has found an impetus, albeit negative, in the awarding of the Peace Prize permeates with another hidden tendency. That is Ashraafism (Urdu: Ashraafiyat, or Ashraaf-Pasandi). Let it be noted here that the English term “Elitism” may somewhat be nearer Ashraafism as far its meaning is concerned; however, it is far from conveying the full range of the meanings the Urdu term carries. The Urdu word Ashraaf has a history of its own; it has two connotations: one is its moral implications; and the other, its social, political and economic implications. It’s antonym in Urdu is Ajlaaf, which similarly has the same connotations.

In its moral sense, Ashraaf means persons who are considered with high moral standing in a society; whereas Ajlaaf are such persons whose moral standing is measured at a lower or the lowest level, or they are with no moral standing. In English, they may be translated as Noble and Ignoble people. However, the social, political and economic senses of both terms are of immense significance; and in some ways, it is in these senses that Ajlaaf or the ignoble persons were considered with low or lowest moral standing or with none at all, and the Ashraaf with high moral standing.

As a matter of fact, the Ashraaf were such persons who were placed at a higher level in a society, not only socially and economically, but politically also. They were the rulers and custodians of that society. Opposed to them were their subjects, the Ajlaaf, whom the fate has situated at a lower or the lowest level of that society, and they had no power over their lives and bodies. They were the ruled and the stuff of that society.

What is remarkable about the Ashraaf or Ashraafiya is that not only was the whole of its Ashrafi paraphernalia based on but survived also via the concept of racial superiority and racial purity. Most of Lughaats and dictionaries tell that Ashraaf are ‘the people of noble birth.’ That puts a lot of emphasis on the ways marriages and blood relations were seen and conducted in an Ashraafi society. That did help Ashraaf contain property and privileges within their families and classes. For them, women were part of their property.

As against this, the Ajlaaf were such unfortunate people who were of ignoble birth. They were racially inferior and impure; they were originally, i.e.by birth ignoble. Not surprising that labor and physical work came to the share of the Ajlaaf. Thus occupations created castes, and both symbolized the Ajlaafi classes. That shuts all the doors for the Ajlaaf to go and move right or left or upward. That’s a closed society. It’s mainly two movements, Humanism and Democratism, that transformed that closed society into a Karl Popper’s open society. But the remnants of that Ashraafi closed society still survive and thrive as well in Pakistan.

Hence the Ashraafists argue how a girl from a non-Ashraaf can be honored with such a Prize. Let it be won by a daughter or son of an Ashraafiya, and they would be all praise for him or her. Once a friend whose family lived in Gowalmandi, Lahore, denigrated Nawaz Sharif thus: “Trash him; he just used to play in the streets of Gowalmandi!” In the same vein, Paki cynics and Ashraafists feel denigrated by this Peace Prize as being awarded to an ordinary girl; they do not see and commend her courage and work; nor her fortune! In their cynicism and ashraafism, they represent a closed society as well as closed minds!

Note: This article was completed on October 11 and was originally posted in October 2014.