Cynicism and the politics in Pakistan

Here is the 1st part of this article: Cynicism in Pakistan

Cynicism and the politics in Pakistan

Among other things, political cynicism destroys whatever little chance may exist for dialogue in a deteriorating situation. This I learned from our own company of friends. Frankly, that learning came at the cost of that company’s dissolution.

Actually we were three to five friends who used to gather in a restaurant for chatting after a week or so, regularly. One friend was too adamant to sustain a dialogue. It was really next to impossible to converse with him. You say one thing and he will trash it without any consideration. No doubt, he was fond of conspiracy theories, and thus for him it was so easier to reject our views without having any recourse to reason. His manner of rejecting our views was so scornful that one could only bear it by blowing it in a laugh.

Most of the times, he would put himself in a high position and judge upon us. He would ascribe all the negativity and all the faults happening anywhere in the world to us. Surprisingly, he had lost all the sense of humor also. When someone related a joke, instead of enjoying it he would retort with a negative opinion of any of the issues that the joke made fun of. He would make us express our opinions about the matters which did not interest us, and in case we declined, he would censure us for not being consistent.

At times, he would try to test our knowledge. In case, we admit our deficiency, he would denounce us for not being knowledgeable. If we tried to avoid his question, he would dub us as illiterates. Sometimes he would put a question to us, if we treated it lightly, he would frown at us; and after a lot of teasing, tell the answer but to belittle us.

Despite such troubles, our gatherings continued. We tried to settle ourselves with this type of mannerism of his. Now and then, a serious quarrel would break out, and it would appear the things were moving to their logical end. I remember that last meeting of ours. We were discussing that ultimately it is rule of law which may help resolve many of the issues Pakistanis are facing. He argued like this: a law is enacted by the vote of majority, and not by all of the representatives’ nod; hence, it must not be called law, because there are certain representatives who did not vote for it, and certain people also who do not accept it; and that strips rule of law of the meaning and significance we attach to it. We tried to explain that the objection is valid and that the representatives and people who do not accept such a law, they are free to lobby and campaign against it, and that by gaining majority, they may repeal that law and propose another of their choice and a better one.

His adamancy was so hardened that he snubbed us and told us not to talk of rule of law anymore. I tried to explain to him it is this talk for which we gather here; despite our differences we should be open to dialogue; but to no avail. He judged upon us like a tyrant. We made a decision to the effect that it’s useless to gather here if we are not open to talk out our differences. After that whenever we were together, it was minus him.

Now when I think of him, he appears to me like a mirror in which cynic images of Imran Khan (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf), and Najam Sethi, Ayaz Amir, Ayesha Siddiqa reflect with varying degrees of clarity. He had contained in him most of the traits Pakistani political cynics most of the times exhibit.

For an exposition of Pakistani cynicism, see my article: Cynicism in Pakistan, where I tried to show that cynics generally exhibit two characteristics: first, they are negative; and second, they are faultfinding. In addition, some of the specific traits of Pakistani cynics were also identified. First, Pakistani cynics believe they are not negative and not faulty all the times. In contrast to that, every thing is negative and faulty all the times. Second, Pakistani cynics believe that whatever negativity and whatever faultyness exist responsibility for that rests with all the other Pakistanis, and they themselves are never ever to be blamed a bit for that. Third, Pakistani cynics believe only they have an exclusive claim to the possession of the truth. Also, it’s quite possible that a cynic may be a perfect arrogant; however, it may not be identified as another attribute characterizing Pakistani cynicism. Actually, cynics are inherently arrogant.

Let it be clarified here that be it Imran Khan, or Najam Sethi, or Ayaz Amir, or Ayesha Siddiqa, in their political opinion, they are cynic, i.e. negative and faultfinding. Likewise, they appear to believe that they are not negative and faultfinding, whereas all or most of the things are negative and faulty. To them, in fact, it is others who are negative and faultfinding. Also, all the times or most of the times, they believe that only they possess the truth exclusively. That makes them inherently arrogant, whether they show it or not.

Naturally no one of the above personalities is a perfect cynic. They only exhibit this or that trait and that too in varying degrees. For instance, Najam Sethi’s analysis presents a post-mortem like demonstration of the issue under consideration, however, in spite of listing an array of opinions, he commits to none as if he is beyond all that and sitting very high in a judging position. As for Ayesha Siddiqa, she appears to be solely obsessed with the so-called all-powerful institution of the Pakistan Army. For her, nothing exists beyond that, which may allow something to happen in Pakistan without the involvement of Pak Army; hence her negativity. So far as Ayaz Amir’s cynicism is concerned, he would find fault with everything, you just name it. You ask him for something which is faultless, and he would find fault with you. (How the political cynicism has distorted the political evolution of Pakistan would be the topic of another piece!)

Note: This article was completed on July 31st, 2014.

Paki philosophers and politics

The two noblest professions are teaching and politics. [Aristotle]

Back in 2002 when the 35^th Annual Session of Pakistan Philosophical Congress held in the Bukhari Auditorium, Government College (now G. C. University), Lahore. Dr. Naeem Ahmad was Secretary of the PPC (Dr. Naeem had been Chairman Department of Philosophy, University of the Punjab, Lahore),  and well before the start of the proceedings I had time and time again requested him to allow me to present a Resolution in its General Body meeting. He was positive. On March 16, while the proceedings ended, late in the evening meeting of the General Body of the Congress was in progress. When all the items on the agenda, such as issues relating to the next Congress, elections of the office-bearers, stood settled, Dr. Naeem announced the closing of the Congress.

I was dumbstruck; yet in a second I decided: it’s now or never. Based on the past experience, nobody knew when the next Congress would be held. I went up on the stage, occupied the rostrum and expressed myself thus: ‘Dr. Naeem sahib promised me and I had requested him to allow me to move a Resolution here.’ Meanwhile, Dr. Ghazal Irfan intervened and assured to give me time to speak. After a while she invited me; I read out the Resolution making the following demands:

“I) Since its inception, Pakistani State has been repeatedly failing in protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens. It has suppressed even the liberties ensured to them in the various constitutions of the country, too. 

II) Likewise, it has usurped its citizens’ right to Education of their liking. From the first grade to the intermediate level, the State has monopolized the development and implementation of curricula which it uses for whole-scale Indoctrination. 

III) With the provincial text-book boards working as its tentacles, the Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education has been instrumental in strengthening the cause of Propaganda and Indoctrination. 

IV) For instance, according to the 1994 Curriculum Wing Document for Social Studies (5^th class), children were to be taught “Hindu-Muslim differences”, “India’s evil designs on Pakistan”, “India’s wars of aggression against Pakistan”, and to learn to make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat.

V) That is like supplying the content of Education right from the State’s inventory in the form of finished goods. Same is the case with the aims and objectives of Education. Under the yoke of national and collective objectives, there is no room for the individual citizen, his rights and his freedoms. 

VI) By denying Education, the State has denied its citizens their rights to free inquiry, free thinking and free speech; and, thus, has dehumanized them. 

VII) With the help of Indoctrination, the State has tried to become intellectual progenitor of every mind. It has resorted to the science of cloning to beget intellectual and ideological Dollies.

To restore their humanity and individuality back to its citizens:

a) the State should stop telling the citizens what to think and what not to think, and what to do and what not to do;

b) the State should ensure its citizens their individual rights and freedoms, and should abstain from interfering in their private lives;

c) the State should divert its resources and energies to the fulfillment of its basic duties, i.e. protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens;

d) the State should focus upon establishing and maintaining the Rule of Law in the country.

In view of the above considerations, it is demanded that 

1) Indoctrination be eliminated from Education; 

2) Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education be abolished; 

3) Provincial text-book boards be dismantled; 

4) Academic Freedom be restored to educational institutions; 

5) Electronic and Print Media be freed from State’s control; 

6) Protection of life, liberty and property along with freedom of religion, press, assembly and association be assured to every citizen.”

The moment I finished, there was uproar in the hall. I tried to make sense of it, and saw one old lady standing and arguing haughtily; she was Jocelyn Ort Saeed, an Australian poet settled in Pakistan. Her argument ran like this: ‘How come that you want the Curriculum Wing abolished! What would we teach our children, then? What are you up to?’ As she concluded, another lady stood up: ‘We are philosophers, and we have nothing to do with politics? You want us to be embroiled in politics; why?’ She was Dr. Arifa Farid from the Department of Philosophy, University of Karachi.

It was quite noiseful in the hall. I was unable to see what had I done which caused such an outrage. Then, Dr. Iqbal Amiri, another fellow from the Department of Philosophy, University of Karachi, came up and grabbed the microphone. He was counter-arguing in favor of the demands made in the Resolution. I remember the gist: ‘How could you say that Philosophers have nothing to do with politics; it’s everything is politics. What the state is doing, how come that it has got any right to do that? Philosophers need to stand up against it.’

By now, there emerged two groups: one favoring and the other opposing the Resolution. It was quite an intellectual commotion there. In the midst of that, Dr. Ashraf Adeel, who became the new President of the PPC the same evening, tried to hush up the matter. He wanted the discussion on the Resolution be put off now and take it up again when the 36^th Congress was held. That was like killing it. However, the group in favor of the Resolution demanded a Vote, which was conceded by way of raising hands.

As the 35^th Congress was hosted by the Department of Philosophy, G. C. Lahore, a good many number of students present there belonged to the same Department, which Mirza Athar Baig, now a well-known Urdu novelist, was the Chairman of. The Resolution was defeated by one vote; 19 votes polled in its favor; 20 against. Mirza Athar Baing voted against the Resolution. The President of the Congress, Dr. Ashraf Adeel, did not cast his vote; I reminded him, but he shrugged off. At the dinner, Mirza Athar Baig came to me and said: ‘Why didn’t you tell me about it earlier?’ I explained: ‘What was there to tell beforehand? It was all happening before you!’

The Resolution could not be carried through; but it succeeded in view of the fact that most of the demands made in it were raised first time in the history of Pakistan, especially about the abolition of the Curriculum Wing and dismantling of the provincial text-book boards. It proved to be the first step towards disseminating a spate of ideas in Pakistan bringing the fundamental rights of the citizens to the fore! Note: The facts narrated above are for the sake of putting the record straight!

Note: This article was completed on January 1, 2015.

Depoliticization and its causes

Here is the first part of this article: A depoliticized Pakistan on the rampage

The 2nd and the final part: Depoliticization and its causes

What’s a depoliticized Pakistan; how is it different from a politically apathetic Pakistan; how is it damaging both for the society and its state; who does now represent it, such questions were discussed in A depoliticized Pakistan on the rampage. In the present piece, some other questions will be dwelt on such as: why doesn’t a depoliticized India or Bangladesh exist in India or Bangladesh, for example?  Why that’s so only with Pakistan? Why is Pakistan so fecund for such elements? What are the elements that feed milk and butter to a depoliticized Pakistan?

Since long it has been my contention that the main culprit for the backward Pakistan is Politicians. In this case also, the main culprit for a depoliticized Pakistan is again Politicians. The previous article argues that it is barren politics that among other things may have caused Political Apathy to take root. That’s natural. Decades of experience made people learn: ‘Politics, Sir, is a cow that will yield such people no more milk, and so they are gone to milk the bull.” (Samuel Johnson used Truth in the place of Politics!) Though sort of a “Development Politics” entered the political arena, but it could not change the political paradigm. In the midst of present Islamabad Dharna, one must have noticed the top leadership of the Pakistan Muslim League-N harping on its development projects in vain.

It’s no denying that Political Apathy contributed to the solidification of a depoliticized citizenry. Moreover, it is consecutive martial laws which banned political activities, curbed political liberties, surgically operated political parties, built up artificial political structures, and last but not least, destroyed an independent political culture. Whoever ventured in politics made it a point that in order to succeed he needs to be part and parcel of the so-called establishment! It was the most successful short-cut to power in Pakistan. That it inspired a depoliticized Pakistan to love no-politics is evident.

Despite the voluminous charge-sheet against the imposers of martial laws, it may be argued that no martial law did ever succeed without the complicity of politicians. Let the generals impose martial law, and let no political party come to their aid, you will see the generals running back to their barracks! It is politicians who partner with the generals and give them constitutional cover. It is like reprieving a murderer from the gallows. In response to an objection that politicians are an amorphous entity and thus are vulnerable to insinuations, one may retort that politicians are well-organized in political parties with a devout following, and may prove an invincible citadel if they plan to act so; however, they always choose the path of submission and subservience. In this sense martial laws did not create such conditions which proved conducive to the growth and spread of a depoliticized citizenry, but it is the political opportunism and political cowardice on the part of political parties which helped a depoliticized citizenry most in fortifying its depoliticized vision for Pakistan.

Also, it is political parties which did not create an independent political culture in Pakistan; they always let their trees grow in the lawns of in-service or retired generals. Practically they behave in a manner as if the source of power lies in the General Head Quarters (GHQ). It’s strange and at the same time perplexing that no political party ever seems to believe in the constitution which unequivocally declares power as residing with the people of Pakistan. They do vie for the people’s mandate but never abide by its implications. Once they come to power, they do not remain in contact with the people whose mandate makes them rule the same people. That does strengthen the depoliticized Pakistan.

Another factor is the same old refrain: political parties did not deliver, political parties do not deliver. That translates into a fact that politics do not deliver; so let it be passed, let it be part of the past. Surprisingly it is characteristic of a depoliticized Pakistan that it does not delve into the past; it focuses its eyes only on the future. It is in this sense that a depoliticized Pakistan discards all that is part of a political past; it lives in the future. This especially explains the politics of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf: Imran Khan and his followers have no inkling of Pakistan’s political past and they present the PTI as the first true political party of Pakistan, trashing all others. That’s not mere arrogance of an ignoramus; it is inherent in the politics of PTI that it’s the only true political force, whereas all other parties are just corrupt entities. That’s depoliticized Pakistan in action!

One more thing requires some elaboration as it is far more confusing. That’s about the number of people who participate in the PTI Dharnas, meetings and rallies, the latest one held in Rahim Yar Khan on Nov 9. Actually, numbers must not be mixed up with principles. Hitler had much following in Germany; but at the end of the day he was a fascist, who finally set out to conquer the world. Imran Khan has a substantial following of those sections of a depoliticized Pakistan which believe in political power legitimately belonging to them, and as their privileged right like divine right of the Kings of medieval world. It is fascism pure and simple. Imran Khan also wants to conquer the whole Pakistan, but what is characteristic of him and his politics and a depoliticized Pakistan also which he represents is his non-political politics, or his anti-political politics (a contradiction in terms). He seeks power in non-political ways.

As for India, there may be a depoliticized citizenry too weak to be noticed; it may be more vibrant in Bangladesh; but for the same reasons a depoliticized citizenry seems stronger and more damaging in Pakistan. It means it is not in martial laws (Bangladesh has had its share of which) that the rationale for a depoliticized citizenry may be found; it is in the quality of politicians that the process of depoliticization grows it stuff and substance. It is politicians themselves who depoliticized Pakistan, who fed it with milk and butter; now they are condemned to face the same depoliticized Pakistan!

Note: The 2nd part of this article was completed on October 1st and was originally posted in December 2014.

A depoliticized Pakistan on the rampage

The pivot of politics is always seeking power, so that a political party is able, so to say, to implement its program on the basis of which it wins voters’ mandate. That’s an ideal statement of an ideal polity! In reality it doesn’t happen like that. There are betrayals, treacheries, and opportunism on the part of political parties. There is perennial interference, for instance in the case of Pakistan, by the players who are external to the political realm but are always intent upon unleashing political instability and uncertainty in the country. Also, there are other elements different from both of the above, who now and then venture to seek power but in non-political ways. For such elements the society of Pakistan has always proved unimaginably fertile. That’s what may be termed a depoliticized Pakistan!

Let’s try to understand what it is that’s called being depoliticized! In Pakistan, everyone who has a bit of interest in politics knows well a term, Political Apathy, the usual use of which stopped probably after the Lawyers’ Movement (2007-09); though the Apathy still exists. Maybe because it’s that Movement that refreshed the interest of the people in the political affairs of the country! Prior to that, the term, Political Apathy, stood to mean people’s insensitiveness to matters political, and it was also argued that it was this factor which kept the voter turnout in Pakistan too low.

As far as causes of the Political Apathy are concerned, one is more important than others. First, regardless of the fact which party is in power, no civilian political government ever tried to deliver, so people became impervious to whatever was happening in the political arena. They turned to themselves and to their homes. Here it may be of interest to point out that with the introduction of “Development Politics” in the nineties, the credit of which goes to Pakistan Muslim League-N, the interest of the people in politics got a boost at least in Punjab. The Development Politics, however, did not succeed in changing the political paradigm; it’s too slow to make inroads. It’s in the general elections of May 2013 that the construction of Metro Bus Service may be said to have PML-N won the vote from Lahore.

Indeed, presently there is no talk of Political Apathy; but that doesn’t mean there is none, it is there. The voter turnout in the last elections is 55%. But the argument of the present writer does not base on the concept of Political Apathy. It lays its whole emphasis on the notion of a depoliticized citizenry of Pakistan. It may both be non-political and/or anti-political. The concept of Political Apathy is altogether different from the notion of a depoliticized citizenry. The Political Apathy is a reaction from the people to a fruitless and barren politics. It leaves politics on its own; it withdraws its interest from such politics. In contrast to that, a depoliticized citizenry is something very dangerous; simply because it overrides politics. It outdates politics; it predates politics. It does not lose its interest in politics; rather it is overwhelmingly interested in politics. However, it’s concept of politics is sort of unique. It’s sort of a supra-politics.

As in Political Apathy, people are least interested in what’s happening in the political realm; a depoliticized citizenry is most interested in whatever is happening and may happen both in the present and the future political realms. The overriding interest of a depoliticized citizenry is more fatal for a society and its state than the insensitivity of a politically apathetic citizenry. A depoliticized citizenry may destroy and dismantle whatever political culture a society enjoys and whatever political structure a state consists of and stands on. Since a politically apathetic citizenry has nothing to do with politics, it may damage it in an indirect manner; whereas a depoliticized citizenry positively and intentionally damages the polity of the country.

In a nutshell, a politically apathetic citizenry is indifferent to whoever seeks power and whoever comes in power, it knows it’s not going to change their fate. A depoliticized citizenry, as it is ardently and desperately interested in politics, does not believe in seeking power through political means; it derives its inspiration from an imagined future. It is in this sense, that it is said to be depoliticized. It is the essence of depoliticized elements, whatever their form is: they always seek power hungrily and seek it in non-political ways. As a matter of principle, political elements, their betrayals, treacheries, and opportunism aside, somehow come to believe in political ways while seeking political power. As against this, depoliticized elements are naked power seekers; they want power at any cost by any means. That’s their substance and hallmark as well.

One more explanation may help understand the nature of a depoliticized Pakistan the politics of which is being witnessed in the shape of Imran Khan (Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf), Tahir-ul-Qadri (Pakistan Awami Tehreek), Chaudhry Shujat Hussain and Pervaiz Elahi (Pakistan Muslim League-Q), Sheikh Rashid Ahmad (Awami Muslim League). They are all seeking power in non-political ways, whatever their excuses and slogans are. In fact, it is all the martial laws which veritably nursed such power seekers. They crafted ever newer ways for non-political power seekers; and opened a whole new world for such non-political politicians. In addition, a constituency for such politics also emerged. That created a depoliticized Pakistan, which think and act non-politically. It derides politics. Some of the political parties learned a lesson or two not to seek power in non-political ways; but there is no dearth of newcomers and the old stalwarts who are still clinging to the old habits of seeking power. 

Imran Khan’s would have proved to be a promising party for the politically apathetic citizens also, had it gone for seeking power in a political manner. Unfortunately it has opted for an alignment with a depoliticized Pakistan, which believes in non-political ways only. Political problems require political solutions. Likewise, in seeking political power in non-political ways, one party may succeed, but in the process what damage it wreaks to the state and society it may never realize. Now it is PTI which represents a depoliticized Pakistan; it’s strengthening it also. It’s on the rampage to destroy a political Pakistan, it must come back to! 

Note: This article was completed on October 1, and was originally posted in November 2014.

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.           

Islamabad sit-ins – who is the culprit

In the matters of running the state of Pakistan, penetration of politics, politicians and political considerations have marred the capability of the state to think clearly, act accordingly and punish promptly; which has weakened it to such an extent that in most of the cases the state is conspicuous by its absence, resulting in increasing anarchy in the country. It was back in 1953 that Justice Munir Inquiry Report concluded thus: “And it is our deep conviction that if the Ahrar had been treated as a pure question of law and order, without any political considerations, one District Magistrate and one Superintendent of Police could have dealt with them. Consequently, we are prompted by something that they call a human conscience to enquire whether, in our present state of political development, the administrative problem of law and order cannot be divorced from a democratic bed fellow called a Ministerial Government, which is so remorselessly haunted by political nightmares. But if democracy means the subordination of law and order to political ends – then Allah knoweth best and we end the report.” (Justice Munir Inquiry Report 1954, P. 387)

The problem has now complicated so much so that a thick layer of confusion prevails from the highest courts to the lowest functionary of the state. The diagnosis Justice Munir Report made is though still valid; however, the effects of the disease the Report diagnosed have shifted the ailment to another vital area; i.e. the earlier disease has given rise to another one more fatal, i.e. how to fix responsibility. Let it be stated here that the fault lies not with laws as such, but more with their implementation. All the thinking regarding the implementation of laws, rules and regulations that exists now in every organ and institution of the state lacks clarity as far as fixing of responsibility is concerned.

With this preamble, this piece tries to analyze the political discourse taking place on the issue of Islamabad sit-ins of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek. The other day, after the disclosures of Javed Hashmi regarding the involvement of both PTI and PAT in a conspiracy to topple the present government of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, which allegedly had the sponsorship of certain retired officials of Army and ISI, General Mirza Aslam Beg (R) managed to present himself to a prime time TV talk show to expose another bigger conspiracy behind the sit-ins. The Big Bang he may have hoped to make by his revelations failed to release any impact. His utterances were no different from the statements of religious politicians who now and then see the hand of India, or America or Israel behind any noticeable occurrence happening in Pakistan. He tried to name US, UK, Canada and Iran as the conspirators behind the Islamabad sit-ins; he said these countries wanted martial law and anarchy in Pakistan and that the incumbent Chief of the Army Staff foiled their plot. That at best may be termed as an attempt to deflect the burden of responsibility which Javed Hashmi’s revelations put on the Army via retired security officials.

Since Azadi and Inqilab Marches of PTI and PAT started, elements in civil society and the media, and some politicians expressed their belief that the same was sponsored, as they dub it, by the establishment. Thus every development that took place in the Red Zone, be it the coming of the marchers to the Red Zone, their forcible entry into the premises of the Parliament building, their attack on the Prime Minister House, their short but significantly symbolic occupation of the Pakistan Television Headquarters, their leaders’ daily tirades tarnishing the every semblance of the writ of the state, was interpreted in the light of that belief. Thus according to such elements the culprit is the establishment, or , the retired officials of the establishment.

I have every so often reiterated that the Pakistani mind has lost a very precious function, i.e. the function of common sense. While fixing responsibility, it does not see who is the perpetrator of an act, what it tries to focus its attention on is who is behind him, as if the perpetrator is not the one who is responsible for that act, the responsible for that act is one who is behind him and has exhorted him to do the act. No doubt, law takes into account the one also who exhorted and / or abetted one to commit a crime, but it puts the burden of responsibility mainly on one who commits the crime.

It’s a social and moral case: I use an example to illustrate this fallacious thinking; that if a person asks another person to jump into a well, and he jumps into the well, who is one who should be framed with responsibility for jumping into the well? Practically, the most prevalent view in Pakistani society is: one who asked him to jump into the well! That view has taken over the commons sense thinking in every domain of the state and social life. It is like that mother who puts the blame of making his son an addict on others, and treats her son completely an innocent soul. That’s the way responsibility is put and fixed in Pakistan. One may object in Pakistan responsibility is never fixed. That’s another chronic malady the state of Pakistan is afflicted with from the day one. The present piece tries to highlight the fact that a new ploy has been developed to thwart the issue of fixing responsibility: put responsibility on everyone or on one who is not the main culprit. That’s the state aristocracy’s way of avoiding responsibility for anything done!

Hence, whether or not, it is the retired officials of the Army or any intelligence agency as Javed Hashmi blamed, or the USA, UK, Canada or Iran, or the establishment as is alleged, or any other conspirators, who are behind the the PTI and PAT’s sit-ins; whether or not PTI and PAT coalesced with any other conspiring power, that’s not the real issue. The real culprit is one who is before us, not one who is behind the mountain. The culprit is who has organized the sit-ins. It is PTI and PAT who are the culprit. It is their leaders who are the culprit!

Note: This article was completed on September 23, and was originally posted in September 2014. 

The politics of PTI / PAT: an aesthetical analysis

Everything has an aesthetic aspect. Politics is one of them. The political aesthetics appears, among other things, in two forms: Mannerism; and, Language. The others may be: the beauty of political ideas; the way a politician connects his/her ideas; the reality of political ideas in contrast to wishful political slogans; the beauty of a political vision; the beauty of words and terms chosen by a politician; consistency in the ideas of a politician, etc. The second list is controversial; it’s useless to discuss it here. The first one is sort of methodical, and I would dwell on it. One may raise objections on this or that type of Mannerism or Language; however in Pakistan too there exists a consensus in this regard.

Let it be stated here that certain political leaders did not spare the methodical things also. To them in politics everything, good or bad, is permissible. They exploited them for their own political purposes and build their images. Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and Cuba’s Fidel Castro are prominent among them. For instance, where it is required that one ought to be in formal attire they appeared in informal and casual dresses. They exhibited a mannerism that is not formal and against the etiquettes, but which was used to deliver a message to other party that they had not taken them seriously, rather denigrated them.

With this startup, let’s focus on the present political scene. Never have I felt so much ugliness about the politics of Pakistan that is being thrown now upon the face of the citizens from the lush green capital city of Islamabad. The two political parties, Pakistan Tehreek-e-insaf and Pakistan Awami Tehreek, sitting in the center of Islamabad, are day and night churning out ugliness by way of their Mannerism and Language. It seems leaders of both parties have gone crazy in their political pursuits so much so that they have lost every semblance of aesthetic sense. Did they ever possess such a thing, in the first place, one must ask?

No one from the PTI or PAT is minding his Mannerism or Language. In their desperation, Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri are using the language of thugs and blackmailers. Likewise, their Mannerism is so outrageous that no sane and civilized person may see them and listen to their tirades for long. It is this Mannerism and Language of Imran Khan especially that he has been likened to Sultan Rahi, a legendary actor, who invented an original style of acting of his own, and in his private life, was a far better person and human being than all the politicians combined together.

Obviously the leaders of both the parties have an air of arrogance about them. Their Mannerism and Language is reminiscent of fascists, but with one difference: the fascists may be counted as the most disciplined. But the fascism of PTI and PTA is most conspicuous in their desperation and arrogance towards other politicians and their target, the prime minister particularly. That puts an ugly face on the politics of both parties!

As for Imran Khan, his demeanor, his way of talking, his choice of words, his gestures, his deep-seated contempt for others present him as a man who is outrageous and has never been trained in manners! It’s a horrible experience to see and listen to him speaking. He has no trace of sobriety, rationality and humanity let alone of a concerted and consistent stream of thought running through his speeches, which are replete with volleys of abuses and scorn for his imagined enemies.

Same is the case of Tahir-ul-Qadri. Despite his scholarship in religious sciences, he seems to have no inkling of moral sensibility. Though, his tirades are much less uglier than his rival Imran Khan; but Tahir-ul-Qadri is equally harmful and destructive to political aesthetics. Hence, the politics of both of them requires more of a psychological and aesthetic analysis than a political one!

Also, PTI and PAT may be compared with the Taliban, who were/are a lot of thugs and blackmailers, practically believing in creating ugliness by executing by force their fascist scheme of things. They relax/relaxed in ruthlessness and killings and blood-letting: the ugliest remnants of a tribal culture. In the same vein, PTI and PTA may also be likened to Sikandar Malik, who successfully managed a one-man-show for hours in Islamabad. Just because he had in his company a woman and a kid, and a loaded gun in his hands! That created an ugly scene for the whole country to watch!

In comparison, PTI and PAT have their followers, living individuals, as their loaded guns to blackmail the government and the state. That’s the logic of mob, which through unleashing chaos is always fatal to the beauty of order, and thus in its rampage trample every value and norm. However, as Sikandar Malik was and the Taliban are being finally dealt with sternly, the PTI and PAT may not be, because they are political parties. That means if you are a religious or political leader, you are absolutely free to say anything and to do anything! In a nutshell, both parties are behaving like thugs and blackmailers. That’s how the beauty of rule of law and equality of all before law is being sacrificed. That’s creating ugliness and defacing the beauty of rules and laws which bring order into chaos.

Thus it may not be far-fetched to propose that Pakistan is an unfortunate state as both at home and abroad it remains associated with the ugliest values of terrorism and feuding politicians fighting since day one for the capture of the state. The gist of Pakistani politics paints an ugly picture of starved vultures intent upon eating living human beings. As of now the only way left for Imran Khan and Tahir-ul-Qadri is to get dozens of dead bodies to save their ugly faces: i.e. ugliness breeds ugliness.

So for the Pakistani citizens who possess an aesthetic sense the most crucial question facing now is: how to cope with the Ridiculous and Ugly Politics? Centuries back, Greeks defined beauty as residing in proportion; and the ugliness in disproportionateness. In the social chaos and disorder, it were rules and laws which helped bring order and beauty, without which no aesthetic pursuits could be possible. However, as in arts it is said that breaking rules is permissible only for masters. Likewise, it is not for duds like Imran Khan and Tahir-ul- Qadri to bring order out of the disorder they are intent upon creating. Thus negotiating with such political thugs will encourage other such groups to adopt the same ways to get what they want. That will set a rule in motion for everybody to take recourse to in order to create ugliness by breaking all the rules and norms on which depends the beauty of a social and political order!

Note: This article was completed on August 19 and was originally posted in August 2014,

Mr. Khan! Let’s have a candid talk

Mr. Khan now be serious! Somehow the circumstances have made you a political leader. Now you lead a political party, which has a considerable following; no matter which class or classes it consists of. The followers of your party, they are all Pakistanis, and enjoy the same political choices as the followers of other political parties do.

It was just non-serious and out of sync when recently you spoke in Islamabad, and said, ‘I was boring; New Pakistan was not anywhere on the scene coming into being. Then I thought something had to be done.’ Regarding this, you need to ask yourself: Is it political? Is there in politics anything like boring, and that it exhorts you to do something, such as organizing rallies and doing “political fun.”

It’s quite a pertinent question that must be put to you and you must answer it clearly; no hanky-panky, please! What you and your party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, stand for. As it may not be a difficult task to see what other parties stand for. But, mind it, it’s next to impossible to decipher what you and your party stand for. What’s the unique message you have set up a new political party to deliver?

Here are two issues you and your party took up just for nothing, and, it appears, then left them as they were, just for nothing. Raymond Davis case; and the Nato-supply blockade case. It may be asked why in the first instance these cases were taken up, and how they fitted in with your total political outlook and the PTI’s political philosophy, if any.

In the same vein, it may be asked why the PTI and you have gone for a tirade against a media-house. What political gain will it bring to the PTI is not clear? Contrary to it, it tells about the untrustworthiness of your political acumen. As a matter of political grounding, every politician keeps his / her eyes focused on the intended and unintended consequences of his statements as well as his / her actions; he / she knows if he / she says “Yes” to something, at the same time he / she means “No” to something. So by targeting a media house, you have exposed your siding with the security agencies.

That’s the politics of the moment which even a novice politician knows well. Mr. Khan, you know your recent outbursts, regardless of the fact whether it has been caused by some personal injury to you or it’s a matter of PTI’s policy, have earned you and your party a negative rating, even in the eyes of those who voted for your party. Mr. Khan, have a moment of reflection and calculate what your party is gaining out of it.

So, be it known to you that whatever you say and do is political and has political implications; i.e. it will earn you some voters and at the same time lose some voters. So be so gracious to yourself and to your party so as to make an estimate of political loss and gain before you go for anything.

Let’s come back to the point: what is it the PTI stand for. Ah, you might retort, ‘we stand for a welfare state!’ Fine, that’s a good answer. But you see all other parties want Pakistan to be a welfare state. How your party is different from them? Or, you see that your party is not a notch different from other political entities!

So, is your party that belongs to the same ilk? Or if different, kindly prove that by your actions: this is how in thinking and in practice you are not like the lot of the politicians the citizens of Pakistan are having and tolerating! Do something that brings credibility to your views and actions, and makes you stand out of the crowd.

Mr. Khan, try to reflect why you so often change your positions. Or if you change your position, try to make others understand why you changed it! That will make you credible! Also, Mr. Khan, political positions once taken should not be altered on whimsical grounds. Your followers and others are rational beings; they have every right to question you on your changing of your stances regularly.

But, then again, the question is what political position you or PTI has taken that you both stand for over a long term perspective. That aims at trying to understand what unique identity PTI possesses and you enjoy as its lone leader. And that means what political contribution you and your party is capable of making to the polity of Pakistan. And that amounts to asking also how you and the PTI may be able to partake in the political evolution of Pakistan.

Ji, Mr. Khan! that implies a negative judgment too. In case, you and your PTI has no program which may push forward the political and constitutional evolution of Pakistan, what else you and your party is in the political arena for then. Let it be clarified here that political and constitutional evolution is what nations and countries strive for and they strive for it so that the citizens are free to enjoy fruits of their talent and efforts, their lives and their freedoms.

Or would you mind enlightening the electorate, what else is there you and your party has in store for the hapless people of this country! Mr. Khan, be positive and try to give the electorate something they may be proud of, such as dignity of their persons and self-respect, which other political parties do not have on their agenda; and mind that for this to achieve one do not need to be a prime minister, or in the government.

For this to achieve, you and your party needs to do politics with responsibility by espousing and following certain principles. For instance, while in opposition in the center you and the PTI may opt for exposing the merciless day-to-day exploitation of the ordinary citizens by the machinery of the state of Pakistan, which you are so eager to be chief executive of. And you and the PTI, while in power in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhawa, should exemplify this is how the provincial machinery facilitate the citizens with due respect instead of degrading and exploiting them.

But, for this to achieve, you and the PTI need to get your act together; try to do it. Best of luck, Mr. Khan!

Note: This article was completed on May 18 and was originally posted in June 2014.

Mr. Prime Minister! It’s time to act

Mr. Prime Minister! You are better placed than any other Pakistani citizen, since you are sitting in the center of the state. The office you occupy by virtue of your electoral mandate is where the state authority converges, and it is from where authority flows to other institutions of the state in accordance with the dictates of the constitution of the country.

Mr. Prime Minister! You are the Chief Executive of the state of Pakistan, and as far as flow of information regarding the affairs of the state is concerned, in comparison to you this writer is merely an ignoramus. In case the present government of your party is toppled, the first casualty will be you, the prime minister; that means whatever future plans are being hatched anywhere, or whatever conspiracies are being woven in any quarters of the corridors of the powers against your government, you must be in the know. Also, I may assume that being the prime minister some of the intelligence agencies might directly be reporting to you.

However, the writer feels apprehensive, though his sources of information are only those common outlets of news and news-analysis which somehow do not pass on the truth as it is to their readers / audience; but no doubt some of the crumbs make their way to us. This writer reads daily newspapers diligently and tries to see what analyses are available on various websites, and how the political analysts on the TV talk shows are seeing the situation prevailing in the country. That helps him to form a view of what is happening and what may be going to happen in the days or months to come. On the basis of all that, the writer feels something bad is brewing in the higher echelons of the state, and as Iqbal the poet has said: Teri barbadaiyon kay mashwaray hain aasmanon mein (In the heavens are going on consultations for your destruction).

Mr. Prime Minister! In view of these developments it’s time to get your act together, and take a stock of the situation which is getting from bad to worse day by day.  This writer may not be all that correct, but there are conflicting signals coming from the members of your cabinet and functionaries of the government who smell a rat. That means all is not well that seems running well, and the opinionated commentators feel it may not end well too.

Mr. Prime Minister! Pakistan is already 66 years old and is yet to be identified as a state run strictly by the book. You know the reasons well, since you worked with them who do not wanted it to be a constitutional state, and at the same time you tasted their wrath when they overthrew your government and trampled the constitution.

Mr. Prime Minister! No doubt you were courageous enough then to keep the dictates of the constitution intact and took certain daring steps such as dismissal of General Pervez Musharraf, the then chief of the army staff. But at that moment, the constitution of the country, which is ultimately a moral document, was defeated by them who are endowed with the might of the gun in accordance with the same constitution which they violate, suspend and abort.

Mr. Prime Minister! You know well, and it is just to remind you, that why the constitution failed then and suffered a defeat at the hands of unruly state actors. As the generals and war experts suggest time is of essence! It was time which defeated both of you and the constitution of the country since you didn’t act in time or on time. The anti-constitution forces acted first and got the situation in their hands. You took too much time to think and act, and when you acted it was already too late. So technically it was time which defeated you, i.e. the time you took to think and act.

Yeah, Mr. Prime Minister! There is another argument which talks of gradual change and slow improvement. That argument cites the increasing awareness regarding the sanctity of the constitutionalism as a step forward. But at the same time it may also be argued that the last 66 years have witnessed many steps forward which finally converted into two steps back.

Mr. Prime Minister! The situation has worsened to the last the point, though there always remains a possibility of more and more worsening of it. Evil knows no end. That’s why just minor surgeries won’t do now; the time for such small cuts and incisions already belongs to the past. Radical and major surgery is the need of the hour; you must act here and now!

Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the greatest military leaders, said: “Take time to deliberate, but when the time for action comes, stop thinking and go in.” Mr. Prime Minister! You take too much time to think and deliberate; that doesn’t augur well for your actions. As for the unconstitutional acts of the state actors are concerned, Pakistan does not require slow and gradual taming; it needs a thumping blow so that all the anti-constitution forces learn a lesson.

Mr. Prime Minister! It is time to act before it’s too late. Before someone else trashes you, your government and the constitution, trash him by taking recourse to the provisions of the constitution which empowers you as its highest executive authority.

Mr. Prime Minister! Advise the president to call for a joint sitting of the parliament and order live telecast of the proceedings of that sitting, and take both the representatives and the citizens of the country into confidence. Share with them whatever is being woven around you and being hatched here and there against a constitutional government, and expose all such actors and take decisive action against them and show your mettle and authority to all who are intent upon violating the constitution. Not only is this the proper time to do the needful, it’s a do or die choice for the constitution of Pakistan also!

Note: This article was completed on June 15, and was originally posted in June 2014.

Politics and the destruction of our cities

Years back, I sent an article titled, “Nationalization of social and moral values in Pakistan,” to a newspaper. It did publish but with entirely a different title. The new title, “A state that took over society” aptly described what that article was about. Now when I want to write about the destruction of our cities by the political elites in their bid to impress the citizens as voters, I cannot think of a better title than the present one. First I thought of this one: “Preserving the older cities.” However, both the titles communicate what this article argues about. First, the political elites are destroying our cities; and, second, we need to preserve our cities and their age-old soul.

As far as the concept of cities prevailing in our society is concerned, it needs to be reminded that cities are not a complex of roads, buildings, houses, streets, schools, colleges, universities, markets, hotels, restaurants, parks, gardens, libraries; in fact, they are a complex of conceptual environment in which people are born; where they are brought up; where they play, study, comingle, make friends, indulge in love; where they do business, politics; where they organize in various associational initiatives; where they build their world of dreams; where they wage struggle for the improvement of their life or others’ life; where they marry, settle in new homes and beget children; where they pass their old age completely in harmony with their cities; and finally where they are buried. And cities are such places where after their death, they are remembered and visited and prayed for a peaceful afterlife by their survivors. Ultimately cities are made of the stuff dreams are made of.

But as the Pakistani state has taken over its society; along with it, it has grabbed that environment of our cities also where the citizens used to be part of the city’s conceptual environment, and now they feel stranger in their own cities. Now when I go about in Lahore here and there, I miss so many things that were the part of my existence, and like me part of millions of Lahoris’ existence; however, they are no more there. Flyovers, underpasses, overhead bridges, metro-bus have encroached upon the canvas of Lahore. I really feel lost. Just go in front of the MAO College, and see how that Muhammadan Anglo Oriental College has lost its look and image under the ugly shadow of the elevated road for the metro-bus. Not only the MAO College, but just opposite to it another old red-brick building of the erstwhile government college of education stands eclipsed by the same elevated road.

That may mean that one is despising the progressive work meant for the benefit of the people at large, and he may be diagnosed of having a retrogressive mindset. For example, metro-bus is such a good facility that saves time and money of the thousands of commuters. Flyovers, overhead bridges, or underpasses, they all facilitate smooth flow of vehicles and do not allow for any traffic jams. That it’s a great achievement seems to be a truism.

However, the underlying story is quite different. As far as Lahore is concerned, its population has increased manifold and it lacks many of the civic facilities. Good roads and smooth traffic are two big issues. But the question is how to solve these issues; by running metro-bus (which consumed so muc of the space), building flyovers, overhead bridges, underpasses; or by improving the roads and managing the traffic as is required by the traffic laws. It cannot be controverted that in Lahore and in other cities also, rules and laws of traffic are not implemented. Nobody in the department of the traffic police, and up to the chief minister, bothers about controlling the traffic mess that’s a daily suffering for millions of people. While a number of flyovers, overhead bridges, underpasses do not witness much traffic using them, one is forced to ask why so much money has been spent on such “political marvels.”

Clearly, it is political economy working behind these, in most of the cases, un-needed and un-wanted projects. And, no doubt, they are to prove that the government is doing a lot, and surveys and studies are misled by this illusion of progress and development. In Lahore, there has been built an overhead bridge where the Shalimar Link Road crosses the Canal Road; one can stand there for one hour and count only dozens of vehicles use this bridge; and just beneath this bridge, there is almost always a painful traffic mess facing the people. That shows what is needed is management of traffic on the roads by strictly implementing the rules and laws of traffic, not these political impressive!

It reminds me of a short-story which narrates the ordeal of a simple woman from a suburban village coming to one of the biggest city hospitals to have her daughter treated by the specialist doctors. The first day she has to go back unattended by the doctors; because she has to face a complex network of doors, corridors, floors, stairs on the one hand, and on the other, complicated system of availing various medical services provided by the hospital. She was not familiar to that complicated style of building housing the complicated way of providing services. It takes whole of her second day to know where to go for this and where to go for that.

The gist of the matter is that progress and development means facilitation; not complication; simplicity, and not complexity. Sure, that means simple cities imbued with their soul and spirit. That amounts to saying that development in cities doesn’t mean disfiguring of the face of those cities. Politicians and rulers must understand this simple truth that their mandate to rule is just for 5 years, and they have no authority or right to destroy the 500 years old existence of our cities. In many cases, these cities of ours, like Lyallpur, Gujrat, Karachi, Peshawar, Lahore and so many others may be much older than a period of 500 hundred years.

The politicians and rulers must not impose their dreams on our cities; they should go and develop new cities and do whatever they like, just as they did in Islamabad. Our cities are the dreams of our ancestors as well as ours. We want our cities back. O politicians and rulers leave our cities alone to us, the civil society which can better take care of them. O politicians do not destroy our cities for your temporary political gains! Do not politicize our cities! Let our cities be ourselves!

Note: This article was completed on June 9, and was originally posted in June 2014.

My new book, "Pakistan's Democratic Impasse: Analysis and the Way Forward" published / released

Here is the media release:

New book - “Pakistan’s Democratic Impasse” published

The book indicts politicians as the main culprit for failing the state of Pakistan

The book falsifies the myth of blaming the Pakistan Army for the ills Pakistanis facing

Author argues constitution authorizes politicians to rule, not the Army 

 Lahore April 8, 2014: Alternate Solutions Institute released today Dr. Khalil Ahmad's new book, Pakistan’s Democratic Impasse – Analysis and the Way Forward. Already this in 2012 and this February, he has published three books, "Pakistan Mein Riyasti Ashrafiya Ka Urooj" (The Rise of State Aristocracy in Pakistan, February 2012), “Siyasi Partian Ya Siyasi Bandobast: Pakistani Siyasat Ke Pech-o-Khum Ka Falsafiyani Muhakma” (Political Parties Or Political Arrangements: A Philosophical Critique of the Intricacies of Pakistani Politics, July 2012), and, Pakistani Kashakash: Tehleel-O-Tadeel aur Aagay Barhany ka Rasta (Pakistani Armageddon: Analysis, Resolution and the Way Forward, February 2014).

The book elaborates the above-stated position which the author took in three of his books and in a number of articles already published in newspapers and on his blog (www.NotesFromPakistan.blogspot.com). He holds that after so many stumbles through the 65 years of its existence, Pakistan has finally come to be: a government of the criminals, by the criminals, for the criminals. He singles out politicians as the main and the lone culprit not only for failing the citizens of Pakistan, but betraying their trust also.

The author says his book derives its rationale and insight from a reading of the constitution of Pakistan which considers the fundamental rights and the articles protecting these rights and freedoms as the core value of the constitution. His book looks beyond those articles and books, or that specific approach, which analyzes the democratic failure of Pakistan in a historical, sociological, economic, or political perspective only or in a way combining them all, and tries to see the history, sociology, economics and politics of Pakistan with an eye focused on the scheme of things the constitution of the country put in place to run the state of Pakistan.

Also, the author has tried to see the past, present and future role of politicians or political parties and Pakistan Army through the lens of the constitution, and thus his standpoint which is unprecedented and goes against the prevailing wisdom of putting the responsibility for the failure democratizing the society of Pakistan wholly and solely on the shoulders of Pakistan Army, may seem pleading the innocence of those Generals who imposed Martial Laws and disfigured the constitution; however, this book in addition to castigating the anti-constitutional acts of the Generals of the Pakistan Army holds that it is the inherent inability of the political civilian governments which did not prosecute and punish them, and in that sense vehemently censures that approach of absolving the politicians totally as unconstitutional and derisive to the constitutional manner of bringing order in a society.

The author concludes that his book not only sees bits of an already delayed indictment of the Pakistani politicians, but an opportunity also to conduct, on the basis of the same book, a thorough political audit of the performance of the political leaders and the political parties as the sole culprit who misled the political evolution of Pakistan, and constantly breached the trust of the citizens of Pakistan, as a result of which people of Pakistan were deadlocked into an impasse with no way out or forward to live their life as they wish but to live in servitude to the politicians.

In addition to suggesting ways to overcome this impasse, the author says that by putting all the burden of failures on politicians, constitutionalism and civilian supremacy in Pakistan may be strengthened, and this in due course will bring rule of law as an established norm in the country, and will bring a political culture never ready to tolerate any unconstitutional acts of any actors and flouters of the law of the land, and thus will ultimately help prepare ground not only for a decriminalized democratic polity but for democratic culture and values also to take root and flourish, overcoming the Pakistan’s chronic democratic impasse.

The author of the book, Dr. Khalil Ahmad, has been teaching Philosophy, and presently is mainly devoted to Political Philosophy. He is one of the founders of the Alternate Solutions Institute, a think tank dedicated to the strengthening of fundamental rights and rule of law in Pakistan. His most important works are "Pakistan Mein Riyasti Ashrafiya Ka Urooj" (The Rise of State Aristocracy in Pakistan), and "Charter of Liberty.”

http://asinstitute.org/node/426

Note: This was originally posted in April 2014.