It is sixty three years now since we first celebrated the independence of Pakistan. Year after year, since, its anniversary is observed with "due solemnity" and routine rituals. A riot of flags, big and small all over private homes, public buildings and all sorts of transport, and illuminations mark the occasion.
Speakers at seminars recapitulate the history of the struggle for independence and dwell on its significance. The president and the prime minister issue messages exhorting people to rededicate themselves to the service of the country. Crowds gather at Quaid-i-Azam's mausoleum to watch the changing of the guard, lay wreaths, offer Fateha, or just participate in the revelry. Such activities are confined, though, to the federal and provincial capitals and some other big cities.
The euphoria hardly percolates to the countryside. It is expected of everybody on this day to go over the year that has ended to take stock of what he or she contributed towards reinforcing Pakistan's foundations and embellishing its image.
This exercise is especially required of the rulers, politicians, businessmen and industrialists. There are not many still alive who saw the Quaid-i-Azam driving with Viceroy Mountbatten through Karachi on August 14, 1947. But those that are, recall with a deep sigh, the wild exultation with which people had greeted the event, even though many of them had lost lives and property at the hands of Hindu fanatics due to Partition.
They remember, too, the spirit of "We shall overcome" that had infused the pioneers who did the ground work to ensure a stable and viable country against daunting odds and destroyed Pundit Nehru's dream that Pakistan, being hamstrung for resources, would feel driven to sue for reunion.
Much has changed since then. For example, today, the glitzy Porsche cars, at Rs 52,000 apiece, are a rage. In one month since the sale began in April 30 units were already sold out. A Rolls Royce outlet is opening shortly and two cars have already been booked, says a Guardian report. One industrialist "bought a Porsche Cayman S for Rs 72,000." Last year Pakistan's economy grew by 8.4%, "second only to that of China's." But the change is not due to natural evolution denoting progress.
The signs are cosmetic. The report quotes a noted economist as saying, "Pakistan is in the grip of a "casino culture" and is showing symptoms of financial crisis." As well, the State Bank recently issued a stern warning on the dangers of inflation which hovers round 8 percent currently.
The change with growing chasm between the rich and the poor is retrogressive. Today, therefore, the independence hardly stirs the heart. Instead, there are people who even doubt the survival of Pakistan. Today it is on the cheeks of school children that one can have a glimpse of the spontaneous euphoria associated with a feeling independence.
In fact erosion of the spirit that had ignited the urge for independence and sustained the struggle for Pakistan started quite early, almost just as its founder and hero departed the stage.
There is an explanation for it, though. Pakistan's independence was achieved under quite different circumstances that India's Congress had struggled for many years during which it had raised a number of dedicated, battle-hardened workers. Through long years of work it had instilled at least a vague idea of independence among the masses. And most importantly, when they talked about India, people could understand what it meant. India had an identity.
By contrast, the real struggle for Pakistan gathered steam literally after the elections in 1937. The Muslim League lacked adequate number of dedicated cadres. It had no mass contact in the areas that were to become Pakistan. Indeed, it had greater visibility in the Hindu majority provinces of India. Moreover, whereas the Indians knew "India," for the people of the future Pakistan their country's name was new and unfamiliar, with which they could not easily identify. Sincere and vigorous effort was, therefore, imperative to instill the concept of Pakistani nationhood, which received scant attention from the policy-makers. Consequently, Pakistan did not become an entity for its people to relate to or feel any emotional attachment with.
The Muslim League had made no preparations for running the affairs of an independent State. But it could not even if it had tried due to the fluid political situation. How could it, when the actual contours of Pakistan were established only "after" partition. Punjab and Bengal were partitioned. So any administrative scheme drawn up on the basis of entire Bengal and Punjab would have had to be scrapped. Moreover, certain territories were adjusted between the countries two days after Independence; a chunk of Assam (part of the Sylhet district) also came to Pakistan and even the NWFP (now Khyber Pakhtunkhwa), though a predominantly Muslim province, could not be taken for granted.
Quaid-i-Azam, too, was aware of this problem. At the same time he believed that the Congress would never agree to partition, come what may. So he went on bargaining in order to arrive at some workable arrangement for peaceful co-existence between Muslims and Hindus under a common flag.
So the Mountbatten-Nehru clique foisted a "truncated" Pakistan on Jinnah to punish him for his "audacity." That is also why Mountbatten brought the final date of partition suddenly down by a full 10 months from June 1948 to August 1947.
As Nehru admitted later, "The truth is that ... we were getting on in years... The plan for partition offered a way out and we took it," (Mosley, British Raj, quoted Asim Roy India's Partition). When, Mountbatten discharged the bombshell of August 1947, there was not even breathing time for the Muslim League High Command. Everything had to be sewn up in just a few months.
The situation required everybody to put their shoulder to the wheel, rise above self and give their best to the country. Pakistan, indeed, needed far more effort than India because it started literally from scratch. But alas, for people who came to run the affairs of the new state, barring very few, independence was a windfall.
The Quaid-i-Azam laid down the guiding principles for the new state in his August 11, 1947 speech. But, this country, whose 'ideology' is trumpeted about from house tops, could not promulgate a constitution until 1956. And since then several new constitutions have been drawn up and abrogated. The last one, introduced in 1973 stands mangled beyond recognition. Democracy, which was closest to the Quaid-i-Azam's heart, became a casualty very early. But the first blow to democracy was struck not by a general but by Ghulam Mohammad, a civilian governor-general. And the Supreme Court became an accessory to his undemocratic acts.
Actually, the area that came under West Pakistan was politically backward, with a primitive, tribal culture and institutions, with feudal lords exercising droit de signeur over their serfs. The people never knew they had any rights. They were happy with obeying their liege. That is why Pakistan dictatorships have lasted longer in Pakistan than elected governments. Sensing this popular mood, Pir Ali Muhmmad Rashdi had recommended to Ayub Khan to assume the title of king.
By contrast, in East Pakistan, the people had much greater political awareness because they had witnessed political struggle for many years and were conscious of their rights. That is why in East Pakistan zeminadary was abolished without any compensation and tax on agricultural income was imposed only in a couple of years after Independence. In West Pakistan, which is now Pakistan, it has still not happened.
The Pakistan Quaid-i-Azam founded was split within just 25 years. Even today, it lives on day-to-day basis. Its prosperity is elusive, depending on the US billions which it earned as remuneration for participating in American's quixotic war on terror. Two of its provinces, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, remain plagued by insurgency. Jinnah had preached inter-communal tolerance. His successors are engaged in inter-sectarian bloodletting.
Without acknowledging that democracy and feudalism are incompatible, there are people who cry for democracy but do not raise a finger to abolish feudalism. So Pakistan remains politically instable even as it enters the 64th years of its Independence.
Comments
Comments are closed.