Democracy not in our blood

Islamabad diary
On slender historical foundations we are trying to create a modern republic, one reason why the task seems so difficult, at times almost insuperable. Our memories are of warrior-kings: Mahmud, Aibak, Babar, Akbar and, a bit later, Abdali, not of law-givers or philosopher-kings.
Akbar, it is true, laid the foundations of empire, and a magnificent empire it was, but imperfect too: no law of succession, no political structures – the kind being created in Europe at the time – no judicial code, no universities that history can recall. The phenomenon we know as the Renaissance never came to the shores of India.
European seafarers and traders came to India. The Mughals had no interest in far-off lands. An insular empire which, when it started to decay, was helpless before foreign invaders.
Modern politics, the kind that led in time to Pakistan – we like to think God’s special hand was at work – came to us not through intuition or self-engendered knowledge but courtesy another race.
Since those values – written laws, democratic trimmings, participatory government – were imports and not native to us, we never truly imbibed them. Our elite classes took to European dress and spoke English and parroted the right phrases. But in what is now Pakistan, British rule lasted for only 98 years – from 1849 to 1947 – enough to bring about a surface change, but not enough for a change of culture.
And Muslim India suffered from another disadvantage: 800 years of Muslim domination had not wiped out Hinduism, far from it, but it had erased the memory of the past – the pre-Muslim past – from the Hindu mind. On that relatively clean slate it was easier to write a fresh calligraphy. Non-Muslims, consequently, took more readily to British ways. The Muslim mind, on the other hand, was cluttered by memories of greatness, some true, some glorified through the prism of exaggeration. The slate was not clean. It was difficult to write anything fresh on it.
And Sir Syed Ahmed Khan’s teaching proved to be a double-edged sword. Even as he urged the benefits of modern education, he taught the virtues of obedience to his co-religionists. It was not in their interest to oppose the British, he said.
In the aftermath of the uprising of 1857 this may have been the right thing to do, in order to mitigate British hostility towards the Muslims whom the British held responsible for the uprising. Over the long-term the consequences were pernicious. Long after the Congress leadership was talking of freedom and democracy, the leaders of the Muslim community were beating the drums of loyalty and obedience.
Small wonder then that, compared to the Muslim League, the Indian National Congress was the more progressive organisation. The Congress fought the British. The Muslim League fought the Congress. This history is not irrelevant because it had an impact on the future.
India had a better start, not because it was the larger country but because its post-independence leaders – not just Nehru but so many others – had seen the inside of British jails and acquired experience through bitter struggle. The Muslim League’s rite of passage was a bit different. Jinnah was a towering political figure, recognised as such by one and all but the rest of the League leadership was not of the same class. Compared to the jokers of today they were giants. Ah, there is no comparison. But compared to the Patels and the Azads and the Ambedkars, they fell woefully short in many ways.
And from the start we were bedeviled by religion. We should have worked out a constitution as the Indians were quick to do. Instead we tried out our eloquence on a lecture to the nation called the Objectives Resolution. This has been the story of Pakistan: always outlining objectives, never actually getting there.
The Pakistani intellect fails to grasp a simple thing. India is as religious a country as Pakistan – perhaps more so. Superstition there matches, if not surpasses, superstition here; more Ramdevs and Sathya Babas, what Indians call godmen, there than pirs, religious quacks and suchlike characters on this side. But India’s founding fathers were wise enough to keep religion away from the affairs of the state. Somehow we managed to equate secularism with the shortest road to hell.
All of us are entitled to save our souls the way we please – in mosque, church, temple or synagogue. There’s no arguing over such things. But a thousand years of history teaches us that religion is best kept at home and that politics and religion do not mix well together. We have not learned this lesson and look at the way we have ended up distorting the face of Pakistan. As if the attack on Malala wasn’t enough, we now have polio workers killed at the altar of someone’s perverted idea of righteousness.
Pakistan is not coming apart at the seams. It is not a failing state. In playing out our acquired habits of thought and action, we are succeeding only too well. No, this is not a failing state, just an irrational state, one that just refuses to abide by the laws of normality.
Why should there be an end to prohibition? Not because bacchanalian orgies would erupt in the streets – fat chance of that happening – but because prohibition is not normal, not enforceable and leads to a surge in hypocrisy and crime. But how do we have a rational debate on this issue? Doctors of divinity will begin by denouncing you for heresy. A modern country indeed – the Middle Ages seem benign by comparison.
And because democracy is not in our blood, we lack the patience that is essential for its success. Look at the present climate...elections just ahead and no shortage of patriots letting out loud moans about postponing elections and expecting miracles at the hands of mythical caretakers. Some things we will never learn. We’ll learn nothing from our own history.
Elections will not throw up saints or angels, they rarely do. More likely another turn of the wheel, but putting institutions in place and changing cultural habits takes time. And while elections can be messy, there is no alternative. We have tried other things and look where they took us. Anything happens to elections and we go back to the beginning.
And those who moan about the economy, rightly no doubt, should not forget that politics sets economic direction, not the other way round. Unless we raise the level of politics, bring more competence and expertise to its service, we won’t get the right economic decisions.
Save not politics, save the state – a catchy slogan. The adman who came up with it deserves the highest praise. But the Sheikh-ul-Islam riding this slogan – where’s he getting the money for his expensive campaign? What’s he trying to achieve? Is he on his own or, familiar story, is someone pulling his strings?
The chattering classes are spreading cynicism. Let them spread it a bit more. Let disenchantment with politics rise higher than what it is today. But no adventurism please, no shortcuts, or we are undone.

Email: winlust@yahoo.com