Lahore
March 11, 2007
A couple of days ago I read an appalling piece of news. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has announced that by paying a fee at the airport, visitors can be whisked through immigration, baggage claim and customs. Will anyone be surprised when existing service, already poor by all standards, gets worse for people who cannot or will not cough up the additional dough? Will people ever get fed up of this and refuse to be discriminated against? Is there a part we can play? Why is this system so resistant to change, in spite of significant opposition from within (see, for example, columns by Drs. Khayal and Bari)? Following are my thoughts on these questions.
The social order that prevails in Pakistan is called a colonial system. The society in this order is geared towards serving the colonial master. We, in Pakistan, particularly in the areas east of the Indus, know this very well and have perfected the art of servitude. Starting from the Central Asian kings, through the Moghuls and then the British, the system has changed little. Some masters were better than others but overall society’s main purpose was to serve the ruling class. Masters are, of course, reluctant to give up their privileged position and in general, have to be thrown out either by a new master class (change of dynasty) or by popular movements (independence through revolution or war). The events leading to Pakistan’s independence in 1947 certainly did not fall into the latter category. It was a change of dynasty in the guise of independence. The indigenous elite [1] in India recognized that the old order is falling apart. The inevitability of eventual British withdrawal from India must have been evident to the sharp intellects of the indigenous elite during the First World War. The slumbering masses in the areas now in Pakistan, though, had no great desire for change and no inclination to go through a painful revolution of independence. Whatever little enthusiasm they mustered was a direct consequence of hard canvassing by the elite [2]. So, when after independence, the indigenous elite seamlessly slipped into the shoes of the departing masters, there was hardly a whimper by the commoner, the old faithful. For a colonized nation, most of the things generally identified with stability and prosperity, such as a strong military and bureaucracy, good infrastructure, good schools and hospitals etc., act towards strengthening the status quo. Therefore, the more economically prosperous today’s Pakistan becomes, the firmer will be the grip of the ruling class [3]. For the common man to share this potential prosperity self-rule is a prerequisite.
The masters are not about to relinquish their privileges voluntarily. Do we now wait for a revolution and while queued up for the guillotine (if you can read this you are likely to on the wrong side of the falling blade), lament how we became unfair victims of society’s wrath, or do we start or join a movement ourselves and make the privileged class realize that it is in their long-term interest to stop acting like colonial masters? My vote is for the latter in the hope that it is not too late to avoid the bloodshed that accompanies all revolutionary wars of independence.
A few months ago, I touched upon the moral repugnance of encouraging and perpetuating the class system by keeping servants. But I sold my soul to the devil – we now have a maid, a janitor, a gardener and a chauffeur. I succumbed – and I was told by wise men that it was inevitable. This is a clear example – changing the system threatens the lifestyles of everybody who is in any position to affect change. Let me say that in a different way; only the relatively privileged, people like us, have the full stomachs to worry about issues that go beyond basic survival. But these people would be working against their master status by standing up for social and judicial equality. Hence, in my opinion, there is scant possibility that internal social movements will bear any fruit. That is why exhortations of Drs. Khayal and Bari get nothing but a sympathetic nod of the head even from the most progressive.
The independence movement (I don’t know what else to call it) has to be launched from outside the country. And what better place can there be than the United States [4]. Leadership of this mandate falls naturally on the Pakistani-Americans who see on a daily basis how a relatively classless society functions and how an egalitarian distribution of public services and of disbursement of justice strengthens the civic fabric.
Here is a sample of what we can do:
Break the Feudal-Military Alliance
Lobby the American government to stop all military aid to Pakistan. The only purpose of the military is to keep the privileged in power by throttling and exploiting the common man. I won’t say more – speaking out against the army is a dangerous business unless you have the literary gifts of Javed Hashmi and can use the time in confinement to churn out a new book every six months.
Lobby for an increase in economic aid, which should be disbursed to private charities with an established track record of helping the common man. No money, public or private should flow to any government agency. An example of abuse was the disbursement of aid, sent mostly by overseas Pakistanis in the aftermath of the Earthquake. Local feudals lobbied the government to hand them the cash. They wanted the power to disburse funds according to their wishes. That is bad; our charitable contributions should not end up in the hands of the military (government) or the feudal landlord.
Help the Common Man
– Encourage, through friends and family in Pakistan, charitable work that directly benefits the common man. We must stay away from “The President’s Fund” or other such hoaxes.
– Prepare a list of Pakistani companies that treat their employees well. Conversely, identify the bad guys – companies that use semi-indentured men, women or children. Then lobby to encourage the good guys and publicly admonish and boycott the bad guys.
– Avoid, like the plague, anything that even smells of child labor.
– Treat servants (when in Pakistan) like you would treat your employees or subordinates in the US. They should have a set of job responsibilities, not an open-ended mandate of servitude. For example, they should be under no obligation to carry out the orders of your guests and visitors.
Activism for Political Change
– Make it known that the Pakistani government cannot rely on the Diaspora for unconditional support. We should stop identifying with the ruling elite, and eliminate the feeling of shame which propels us to hide governmental shortcomings and to blindly support their policies in the media and on public for a, sometime against our better judgment. The Pakistani-Americans should give visiting Pakistani government officials “hell”. During interactions with them, focus should be on the many shortcomings not on the few achievements.
– Agenda for specific political reform leading to good governance, such as emphasis on accountability, should be made and publicly pushed.
– Specific vigilance should be set aside for identifying abuse of power. Those instances should be widely publicized to the global media unapologetically.
The new idea here is to start acting like dissidents and not ambassadors of the current system. If you wish Pakistan well, work for its people, not for its rulers.
————————————
[1] The indigenous elite is referred to in popular lingo as the Brown Sahibs.
[2] Among pre-independence Indian Muslims, the only places where the Movement had popular support were Uttar Pradesh and Bengal. Considering provinces currently in Pakistan, my statement above remains factual without exceptions.
[3] The obvious assumption here is that the ruling class will not let the benefits of good schools, hospitals and economic wealth percolate down to the common man. It is certainly true in Pakistan.
[4] A strong case can be made for leadership of this movement to come from British-Pakistanis, who are more likely to identify with the common Pakistani. I focused on Pakistani-Americans due to my own ties with that community.
