"People are trapped in history and history is trapped in them."- James Baldwin. In a swiftly changing political and governmental scene, subsequent to the oath taking under the 1973 constitution, how far should one stretch the mileage that optimism will bring, or has brought, as some of us may contend? How much of good will trickle down to the common man? And how soon?
From what we have been seeing on the TV channels, and what has been happening behind the scenes, there is a very high degree of skepticism regarding the welcome change that has come, with the outcome of the 18th February 2008 general election.
What the enthusiastic public saw in the live coverage of the oath taking ceremony of the National Assembly members on Monday (17th March) brought hope, with thoughts revolving around successes that could come to Pakistani society if the next government was to able to deliver.
But there were some images that made people ask questions related to the large luxury vehicles in which the new members of the National Assembly arrived at the Parliament House. In fact one TV channel had its anchor person wondering whether people in such vehicles reflecting affluence, would ever comprehend the problems of the common man.
There is not the slightest doubt that the Pakistani people have been promised so much and for so long that they will be watching with impatience what steps are taken to bring some the earliest possible relief. They have suffered acute, embarrassing, humiliating hardship in the last one year, and food prices and fuel prices have been the new sources of depression. The question being asked is: what problems will the new government solve, and within what time scale?
The people are aware of the problems that the country faces, and have demonstrated a certain level of maturity and restraint in terms of their expectations.
But for how long shall they have to wait? There is a sense of relief at the signs that dictatorship is being replaced by a democracy that will make them realise the dreams they cherish of this society being fair and just. There is a sense of participation that has come about as a result of the role that the print and electronic media has played in the last one year in particular.
And the struggle of the lawyers for the restoration of the deposed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, and 60 others who refused to take oath under the PCO on November 3, 2007 has not only been historic, and heroic, but has created a new awareness in Pakistani society. An awareness that will, and has contributed towards making people feel that their dreams and demands for justice are worth crusading for.
The elected representatives of the people are bound to be under the subtle and not so subtle pressure of the Pakistani electorate, which does understand the infrastructure and the establishment within, which all democratic dispensations have to operate, deliver or be damned.
It must be a rare experience to be had when a Valima reception followed the schedule that was given on the invitation card. That the time mentioned on the invitation for the dinner was real, not imagined yet so unusual. That the guests also showed up on time, or arrived a few minutes after the designated time for the dinner. A result of all this being that the mood and the atmosphere of the wedding was relaxed, so leisurely, even graceful. People ate in peace. Those who did overeat, would do that anyway.! Come what may!! Time does not matter for those who live to eat.
All this happened at Valima reception that was hosted by Mr and Mrs Shakil Dehlavi to celebrate the marriage of their son engineer Saqib Shakil with Dr Lubna Liaquat on Saturday 15th March 2008 at the Gulistan-e-Anees (Shaheed-e-Millat Road). The invitation card said that the "gathering" would take place at 10 pm and the dinner at "10.29 pm (sharp)."
When we received the card it was amusing and unusual to read 10.29 pm for the dinner and cynical as we are about timings at marriages this one too appeared far-fetched. There was a goodness of intention. That's all. It wouldn't happen, we said to ourselves. Even if the hosts are serious the guests would not arrive on time. Something or the other would fail, in a society not accustomed to any governance, good governance being pious rhetoric from officialdom. There were a hundred reasons going against the 10.29 pm proposition.
I was able to reach there by 10 pm sharp and at least half the people had arrived already, in what was a segregated gathering. And within the next fifteen minutes almost 90 percent of the guests had arrived. The arrangements for the 10.29 pm dinner being served were proceeding swiftly, and guests watched keeping their fingers crossed. Their appetites quietly building up. Some guests appeared doubtful as the scheduled time came.
At 10.29 pm the dinner was ready with the vigilant waiters standing at the tables ready to take the large lids off the ready-to-serve food. Here came a delay of about ten minutes or so, apparently because some guests had been held up due to a road closure as a VVIP resident of the area was passing by. But there was every possible evidence that the meal was ready at the scheduled time. And around 10.45 pm we found ourselves eating in an orderly manner. By 11 pm or some minutes after most people had eaten, and were beginning to leave. I am told that by 12.30 am the hosts were homebound.
Excellent. That's truly the word for this entire Valima administrative experience. There are many lessons to learn from this one. The bottom line is perhaps a respect for time, which is almost always disgustingly absent at marriages and Valimas.
A friend of mine insists that everybody should go to weddings and Valimas about two hours after the printed time on the invitation card. What Shakil Dehlavi has done is an exception to the rule.
Back to the constitution and new constitutional system: It is interesting to read this quote from George Bernard Shaw on the subject of constitution. It reads as "It is very doubtful whether man is enough of a political animal to produce a good, sensible, serious and efficient constitutional the evidence is against it."
Comments
Comments are closed.