During the last 60 years, there have been individuals and groups who waged struggles with a view to transforming society but they were not able to mobilise and rally the masses around them Pakistan is at a crossroads.
There are challenges to its internal and external security. The armed forces have successfully destroyed the terrorists’ network in Swat and Malakand Division and one can hope that with gaining complete control over South Waziristan — the fountainhead of terrorism — there will be a let up in terrorists’ attacks, as their source of weapons and funding would dry up. On the economic front, the situation is dismal, partly because of the global recession and partly due to a perennial fiscal deficit, trade deficit and current account deficit. Corruption of all descriptions and dimensions at all levels has spread like a cancer in the structure and vitals of society. Factionalism has decimated national cohesion and society is divided vertically, horizontally as well as diagonally on ethnic, sectarian and regional lines — presenting the scenario of a divided house. This is an extraordinary situation and needs extraordinary measures. Some people are of the opinion that revolution is the answer to these problems. During the last few months, Chief Minister Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif has quite a few times warned that if the poor are not given a fair deal, there could be a bloody revolution in the country. Speaking at an award ceremony for position holders in various examinations, he presaged a bloody revolution if national resources are not spent on the poor to improve their lives. The question is: who is going to lead the revolution? Perhaps he means anarchy because revolution has a different connotation and it needs a revolutionary party to bring about a fundamental change in the system. Since he is neither considered a revolutionary nor his party has any ideological base, there is not a speck of a chance that the masses and the progressive elements would rally around him and his party. It is possible that he is trying to draw the ruling elite’s attention to the writing on the wall. But that he could have done by having a discourse with members of the ruling elite in private. True that spiralling inflation, widespread unemployment, rising poverty, deteriorating law and order situation are ‘ingredients’ to create a stir, but revolutionary changes can take place only with the conscious efforts of a party that has credible and visionary leadership, which unfortunately is not there at the present. During the last 60 years, there have been individuals and groups who waged struggles with a view to transforming society but they were not able to mobilise and rally the masses around them. They also failed to formulate new strategies to match the imperialists’ innovative methods, new techniques and new tactics to crush the anti-status quo forces. Leftists in Pakistan could not unite the progressive elements, as they were divided in pro-China and pro-Russia groups and remained oblivious to the ground realities in Pakistan. However, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and China and Russia taking the capitalistic road disillusioned the leftists of the developing countries, including Pakistan. There were many sincere leaders and workers in the left but unfortunately most of them looked for a ‘prince’, so they joined political parties with socialist agendas and could not use the contradictions in society. “For a revolution to happen it is not sufficient that the mass of the people is unwilling to go on living in the old order; it must have become impossible for the old order to carry on in the old fashion,” said Lenin. The term revolution generally refers to a fundamental change in the character of a country’s system of economy and governance, which may or may not be violent. The expulsion of James II from the British throne was considered as a revolutionary step, as it had a great bearing on the future course of action in England. The French Revolution indeed had some ideological content, and the spadework was done by philosophers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and others, who had prepared the ground for Enlightenment and created consciousness against the tyranny of the system. Nevertheless, the French Revolution broke the chains of feudalism and despotism, but since there was no organised party that could have led the revolution, the country faced anarchy and civil war. In 1776, there was the American Revolution — change from the condition of British colonies to national independence declared by the thirteen states of the American Union. In 1789, the French Revolution overthrew the monarchy and absolutism. In 1917, the world witnessed the October Revolution under the leadership of the Communist party, which replaced the monarchy and the economic system in Russia. Historical evidence suggests that the mode of production and the relations of production determine the form of government, but whenever the ruling elite tried to stem change, there was economic turbulence, social upheaval and anarchy. With the persistent struggle and sacrifices of the people over a period of time, slavery and feudalism were abolished. In Pakistan, though feudalism does not exist in its classical form, the feudal mindset pervades all strata of society. Because of incompetent, inept and corrupt leaderships, people in general have become indifferent to the affairs of the state. This leaves the field wide open to the oligarchs with their feet in sliver spurs that become masters of the people’s destiny. Unless the vast majority of disgruntled and disappointed citizens are inspired to take interest in national affairs and help reform society, no change can be brought about in either the state of society or in the contours of national uplift. Not through the mechanics of coercion, nor through incentives, but by instilling fresh and matter of fact feelings of the obvious in the thoughts and psyche of the people can they be roused to march onwards. The mere existence of contradictions, discrepancies, inequities do not cause a stir in society unless these are fed into the feelings and consciousness of the people. All flaws and hurdles in the development of a nation that exist in objectivity must enter subjectivity in order to cause movement among the people. In Pakistan, jagirdars, waderas and sardars still wield enormous power. They enjoy political clout and in cahoots with the nouveau-riche industrial class and the bureaucracy control everything. They are master political strategists who ride the tide and turn the surge to their advantage. But the hearts of patriotic Pakistanis bleed to find the nation divided on various planes, destroying the very fabric of national cohesion. To bring about a basic change in the system, we need visionary leaders committed to ensure socio-economic justice that could inspire confidence in the people of the federating units. It is not the intention here to disgrace politicians and political parties, but the fact remains that we do not see any leaders with wisdom, vision and statesmanship who could unite the people with a view to strengthening the federation and achieving stability of the country and prosperity for the people. There are leaders with dedicated followers, material resources, hardworking people and above all a wealth of cultural, historical and philosophical resources, but both the state and society remain clueless as to how to capitalise on these rich resources, release the immense latent energy and reach the ultimate goal of prosperity, social cohesion and solidarity of the people.
There are challenges to its internal and external security. The armed forces have successfully destroyed the terrorists’ network in Swat and Malakand Division and one can hope that with gaining complete control over South Waziristan — the fountainhead of terrorism — there will be a let up in terrorists’ attacks, as their source of weapons and funding would dry up. On the economic front, the situation is dismal, partly because of the global recession and partly due to a perennial fiscal deficit, trade deficit and current account deficit. Corruption of all descriptions and dimensions at all levels has spread like a cancer in the structure and vitals of society. Factionalism has decimated national cohesion and society is divided vertically, horizontally as well as diagonally on ethnic, sectarian and regional lines — presenting the scenario of a divided house. This is an extraordinary situation and needs extraordinary measures. Some people are of the opinion that revolution is the answer to these problems. During the last few months, Chief Minister Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif has quite a few times warned that if the poor are not given a fair deal, there could be a bloody revolution in the country. Speaking at an award ceremony for position holders in various examinations, he presaged a bloody revolution if national resources are not spent on the poor to improve their lives. The question is: who is going to lead the revolution? Perhaps he means anarchy because revolution has a different connotation and it needs a revolutionary party to bring about a fundamental change in the system. Since he is neither considered a revolutionary nor his party has any ideological base, there is not a speck of a chance that the masses and the progressive elements would rally around him and his party. It is possible that he is trying to draw the ruling elite’s attention to the writing on the wall. But that he could have done by having a discourse with members of the ruling elite in private. True that spiralling inflation, widespread unemployment, rising poverty, deteriorating law and order situation are ‘ingredients’ to create a stir, but revolutionary changes can take place only with the conscious efforts of a party that has credible and visionary leadership, which unfortunately is not there at the present. During the last 60 years, there have been individuals and groups who waged struggles with a view to transforming society but they were not able to mobilise and rally the masses around them. They also failed to formulate new strategies to match the imperialists’ innovative methods, new techniques and new tactics to crush the anti-status quo forces. Leftists in Pakistan could not unite the progressive elements, as they were divided in pro-China and pro-Russia groups and remained oblivious to the ground realities in Pakistan. However, the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and China and Russia taking the capitalistic road disillusioned the leftists of the developing countries, including Pakistan. There were many sincere leaders and workers in the left but unfortunately most of them looked for a ‘prince’, so they joined political parties with socialist agendas and could not use the contradictions in society. “For a revolution to happen it is not sufficient that the mass of the people is unwilling to go on living in the old order; it must have become impossible for the old order to carry on in the old fashion,” said Lenin. The term revolution generally refers to a fundamental change in the character of a country’s system of economy and governance, which may or may not be violent. The expulsion of James II from the British throne was considered as a revolutionary step, as it had a great bearing on the future course of action in England. The French Revolution indeed had some ideological content, and the spadework was done by philosophers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot and others, who had prepared the ground for Enlightenment and created consciousness against the tyranny of the system. Nevertheless, the French Revolution broke the chains of feudalism and despotism, but since there was no organised party that could have led the revolution, the country faced anarchy and civil war. In 1776, there was the American Revolution — change from the condition of British colonies to national independence declared by the thirteen states of the American Union. In 1789, the French Revolution overthrew the monarchy and absolutism. In 1917, the world witnessed the October Revolution under the leadership of the Communist party, which replaced the monarchy and the economic system in Russia. Historical evidence suggests that the mode of production and the relations of production determine the form of government, but whenever the ruling elite tried to stem change, there was economic turbulence, social upheaval and anarchy. With the persistent struggle and sacrifices of the people over a period of time, slavery and feudalism were abolished. In Pakistan, though feudalism does not exist in its classical form, the feudal mindset pervades all strata of society. Because of incompetent, inept and corrupt leaderships, people in general have become indifferent to the affairs of the state. This leaves the field wide open to the oligarchs with their feet in sliver spurs that become masters of the people’s destiny. Unless the vast majority of disgruntled and disappointed citizens are inspired to take interest in national affairs and help reform society, no change can be brought about in either the state of society or in the contours of national uplift. Not through the mechanics of coercion, nor through incentives, but by instilling fresh and matter of fact feelings of the obvious in the thoughts and psyche of the people can they be roused to march onwards. The mere existence of contradictions, discrepancies, inequities do not cause a stir in society unless these are fed into the feelings and consciousness of the people. All flaws and hurdles in the development of a nation that exist in objectivity must enter subjectivity in order to cause movement among the people. In Pakistan, jagirdars, waderas and sardars still wield enormous power. They enjoy political clout and in cahoots with the nouveau-riche industrial class and the bureaucracy control everything. They are master political strategists who ride the tide and turn the surge to their advantage. But the hearts of patriotic Pakistanis bleed to find the nation divided on various planes, destroying the very fabric of national cohesion. To bring about a basic change in the system, we need visionary leaders committed to ensure socio-economic justice that could inspire confidence in the people of the federating units. It is not the intention here to disgrace politicians and political parties, but the fact remains that we do not see any leaders with wisdom, vision and statesmanship who could unite the people with a view to strengthening the federation and achieving stability of the country and prosperity for the people. There are leaders with dedicated followers, material resources, hardworking people and above all a wealth of cultural, historical and philosophical resources, but both the state and society remain clueless as to how to capitalise on these rich resources, release the immense latent energy and reach the ultimate goal of prosperity, social cohesion and solidarity of the people.
Comments
Post a Comment