COMMENT: The republic of fear

[fatman17]

COMMENT: The republic of fear —Dr Syed Mansoor Hussain

It is this ‘fear’-based environment that allows the terrorists to work their evil so successfully. They realise that the safety and welfare of the average Pakistani is not really the major concern of the ruling elite

A few weeks ago I wrote in these pages that one of the major problems in Pakistan is a lack of respect. Respect for each other as well as that for institutions and this lack of respect even extends to how different institutions of state feel about each other. As I have thought more about it, it seems that what holds this society together is not respect but fear. Fear is what motivates most people as well as their actions in the present environment.

It might seem a stretch but the more I look at the situation in Pakistan, the more it resembles Thomas Hobbes’ ‘state of nature’ where life as he described was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Written more than 300 years ago, these words described a society where there was no rule of law. The enlightenment philosophers developed the notion of a ‘social contract’ between the rulers and the ruled that eventually produced some order and predictability in the life of ordinary people.

Perhaps what we are seeing happen in Pakistan is the breakdown of this social contract if it ever indeed existed. A drive down almost any city street illustrates this point perfectly. The traffic is utterly disorganised and it is literally ‘every man for himself’. It is not respect for any traffic rules but fear for personal safety that prevents accidents. The same ethos pervades the rest of our society.

The great disappointment is that even with an elected government in place that supposedly governs by the will of the people, what we see is an ascendant ‘feudal attitude’. The ruled and the rulers are completely divided and those that rule us are imbued with the idea that they are superior and as such the laws that apply to ordinary people do not apply to them. As far as they are concerned the law is an instrument available to them to coerce people into complete subservience.

Pakistan is really governed today as it has always been by the permanent superior bureaucracy including the police forces. This is a gift to us from our former British masters. Before independence, the Indian Civil Service — the precursor of the present day senior civil service — ruled India and Pakistan in the name of the ‘King Emperor’ and even though it had towards the end many ‘native’ officers, these ‘Indians’ were entirely subsumed by the ruling ethos of the superiority of the rulers and the inferiority of those that they ruled.

As far as the feudal classes are concerned they also thrive on the memories of the rights they were given during the times of the Raj when every feudal lord, big or small, could function literally like a ‘monarch’ in his domain. Even though most of the royal states and big feudal estates have disappeared, that noxious ethos of inherited superiority still exists and has as a matter of fact poisoned the well of public life.

Almost any person who does well financially now takes on the airs of a feudal lord, lives with a retinue of subservient servants and drives around with a private army of armed guards. This includes many of our ‘liberal’ elite as well as our ‘maulanas’ — the modern ‘princes of the church’.

The feudal ethos and the bureaucracy’s inherited disdain for the ordinary people now permeates society at all levels. Even our supposed ‘representatives’ elected by the people, once elected, fall into this mind set. That many of them are descendants of the once ascendant feudals does not help the situation. As far as the rest of the people are concerned, the poor and the disadvantaged can expect neither any protection nor help from the powers that rule them and therefore essentially live in a world where fear is their daily bread.

It is this ‘fear’-based environment that allows the terrorists to work their evil so successfully. They realise that the safety and welfare of the average Pakistani is not really the major concern of the ruling elite and as such they can terrorise the people and the rulers will not really come down hard against them as long as they themselves are safe. Personal safety of our rulers is guaranteed by the retinue of armed guards that they surround themselves with and that also at public expense.

Often I have wondered what it is exactly that the terrorists want. There are the usual explanations. Some on the Left think that the terrorists want a truly ‘Islamic’ society; others of a more conservative bent insist that the terrorists are really ‘foreign’ agents bent upon undermining the existing order so that the Pakistani ‘nukes’ can be taken over by ‘infidels’ and this the ‘bastion’ of Islam left at the mercy of marauding invaders.

The truth is probably simpler. The terrorists as well as their fellow travellers in the religious establishments are just taking advantage of the breakdown of the ‘social contract’ to drive the proverbial wedge deeper into the existing chasm between the rulers and the ruled. Once all semblance of law and order disappears, society they hope will then descend into a state of chaos. And from this chaos will in their opinion arise a system that they will control.

Interestingly, in this precarious environment the two forces that can possibly pull us back from the brink are the Pakistani army and the superior judiciary, two institutions that do not have a very pristine past. But in the present situation, the army is for all practical purposes totally committed to fighting the terrorist threat and the superior judiciary seems to have finally woken up to its responsibility as the arbiter of the rule of law.

If these two institutions continue to perform their appointed functions then the previously ineffectual civil society can perhaps find the gumption to reinvigorate the social contract and restore the right of all Pakistanis to be treated as equals under the law. But then, “if wishes were horses...”

Syed Mansoor Hussain has practised and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com

 

[sparklingway]

Since the author went on the usual and beaten to death feudalism and bureaucracy argument (which is not necessarily wrong) and left the military establishment (suggesting sympathies and subjective historical view), I though it would appropriate to post a thoughtful blogpost by my friend Umair Javed:

Town Mouse and Country Mouse​

For the longest time, 'feudalism' was described as the number one problem in the country. Only the existentialist threat emanating from an exploding bomb has managed to knock it off from its 63-year old perch. Apart from the ill-advised usage of the word itself, the term stands as a catch-all phrase for describing all that is wrong with the country. Fledgling democracy? Feudalism. No industrialization? Feudalism. Poor social service delivery? Feudalism. No Land reform? Duh. The obsession with this word is a classic example of how urban society views the rest of the country. For the longest time, urbanites constantly reminded themselves of the fact that they were the liberated few in a country of oppressed millions. That their cities were tiny islands surrounded by vast swathes of pre-modern society. Town mouse is smart, educated, and capable. Country mouse is an idiot who's swayed by traditional notions of mai bap, sarkaar, and sayeen.

The curious thing is that this notion pervades all of urban society - not just the educated classes. The other day i was at the mechanic, when the guy fixing my car asked his assistant to fetch him something that mechanics use to fix cars. The assistant, brought him something else. After a quick dressing down, the assistant was sent again, this time armed with a more careful description. Mr. Mechanic looked up at me with an exasperated expression and said:

'Sir jee ainoo chakwal tu aain halaay 2 haftay huay nay..paindoo nu wee vaareee dasna painda hay..'

'Sir, it's only been 2 weeks since he migrated from Chakwal. You have to tell this villager the same thing 20 times..'

Anecdotes like these reinforce the view that urban existence is thought to be a form of liberation in and of itself. The problem however is how urban society views itself in relation to the rest of the country. Before Deshat-gardi became the primary source of our social ills, feudalism dotted the everyday conversation on Pakistani politics. Landlordism (not 'feudalism'), no doubt, is a major problem, and it does give rise to a retrogressive political culture, but does it deserve to occupy the same status of impediment-in-chief (or the deputy impediment-in-chief) that it did perhaps 30 odd years ago?

The answer is no. While official urbanization figures hover around 30 to 35 percent, reality is probably closer to 40 percent - the disjunct existing thanks to an outdated census. Even villages, wholly classified as rural, are no longer static in terms of their socio-economic landscape. Despite previous deep-seated reservations, i now grudgingly admit that urbanization has well and truly arrived in this country, and it's important to shift discussion in terms of what this means for our politics.

There are two levels at which the discussion can be viewed. The first level concerns the characteristics of urban politics, i.e., the kind of people involved, the relationships that determine elections, the role of occupations and the economy, the role of violence and criminal activity etc. The second level concerns the relationship between local urban politics and the national agenda, i.e., what does increased urbanization mean for policy-making, for economic growth, for foreign policy, for domestic social policy etc.

The very explosive nature of urban contestation in Karachi, makes it a more attractive case-study for understanding the dynamics of third-world urbanization. However, the unhealthy mix of rapid modernization and an ethnically heterogenous population produce a brand of volatility unlikely to be replicated anywhere else in the country. So how do we go about understanding the urbanization taking place in Punjab? I'm forming my own opinions on this matter so i don't have much of a direction. But as something to think about, some of the questions raised in the second last paragraph need to be fleshed out in order to gain a better understanding of where the country is heading.

Regardless of how many landlords currently occupy space in the parliament, the fact of the matter remains that urbanization, and its political consequences, cannot be perceived as an irrelevant phenomenon for much longer.

Moreover, it is often funny to see people who have the privilege of having completed education in universities abroad and living in gated communities to consider themselves "middle class". This term too has become over-abused from the self-righteous urban upper middle class. The middle class, in all its glory, does not include the upper interval of the middle class (i.e. the upper middle class whose entry into the elite class in not guaranteed but who won't fall towards the lower middle class anytime soon). The "middle class" is aptly defined to be the average kirayana wala (not the departmental store), the BPS-14 clerk, the patwari (forget the bribes here) and the administrative staff in offices. The middle class does not include Babu angrezi with his morning peruvian coffee and Honda Civic. To steal the label middle class and to apply it to yourself is along the lines of complaining to be the victim, absolving yourself of your complacency of the crimes (by virtue of your association with the state apparatus - the jananay wala syndrome) and your apathy.

 

[sparklingway]

Also I need to remind people why feudalism hasn't been tackled through land reforms. I can state with utmost authority that >95% of the assertive, vocal and apathetic urban middle class political drawing room discussionaries who blame lack of land reforms do not know whether they were ever applied and what happened to them. Since it is appropriate to bring that into discussion, here's an old rant of mine.

Land reforms were applied in three succession. First in '59 (500 acres un-irrigated) were the most basic and rudimentary ones. Then came the big ones in '72 (300 acres un-irrigated) and finally the last in '77 (100 acres un-irrigated).

Since the creation of Shariat Courts which declared a ceiling on land holdings to be repugnant to Islamic beliefs, all re-distribution of land was reversed and it sent back the small number of peasants that had become free to become serfs again (yes tenant-farming in Pakistan is like serfdom).

The Federal Shariat Court dismissed the petitions based on technicalities and did not complete hearings from the complainant, in three different cases. (Last case in the series was Ameen and others Vs. The State PLD 1981 FSC-23 but it set the stage of the Qazalbash Waqf case adn the judge in that case wrote one of the most disgusting arguments I have ever read)

The appeal with the Shariat Appellate Branch lay for 10 years before being picked up in 1990.

In 1990, the final appeal of the case was heard in the Shariat Appellate Branch of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Qazalbash Waqf Vs. The State (PLD 1990 SC 99), and the appeal was upheld. Ceiling on land holdings and re-distribution was found to be repugnant to Islamic beliefs by Taqi Usmani, Afzal Zullah and Pir Karam Shah, JJ and the ones who wrote a dissenting note were Nasim Hasan Shah and Shafiur Rahman, JJ (the two out of the three "classically" trained judges on the bench).

It was thus held by the Supreme Court that the Provisions of the Land Reforms Regulation of 1972 and the Land Reforms Act of 1977 whereby the maximum holding which a landowner could own and provision for the vesting of all land in excess of the aforesaid ceiling in the Government were invalid and the restrictions were repugnant to the injunctions of Islam.

We can't do anything about it now, thanks to the "learned" decision of the judges who upheld "Islamic" law and denied people the right to be given freedom from their serfdom. As there is no appeal possible against the decision of the highest appellate court, the only way is to either circumvent this decision would be to close down the FSC and the Shariat Appellate Branch and declare this judgment to have been nullified.

OR

Proof somehow that land was acquired illegally and then the re-distribution becomes possible. But this is not possible in 99.9% of the cases since land was rewarded by British for services to the crown (read treachery against your people) and there existed no private ownership before that (communal ownership, emperor's land, etc.). The issue of Kharaji or Ushri has been brought up by some as a possible answer but has been found to lack any sustenance to practical reforms possible under law by everybody who has spent some time studying this matter.

Thank you learned Mufti Taqi Usmani for nullifying land reforms and making them impossible in this country. The learned Mufti sb ignored the modern day context, the abuse of land holdings and its negative effects on society in all its forms altogether. There you have it, no possibility of further land reforms in this "Islamic" system whatsoever. And please don't give the "true Islamic law hasn't been applied" argument either. The leading judgment written by Taqi Usmani is one of the best written and argued decisions from the apex court (this does not mean that it is morally right). The decision has serious grounds in Islamic law and the judges found that while it is necessary to eliminate the problems faced by serfs, Islamic law does not allow for land holding ceilings and some other way should be found. It thus paved way for the further expansion of land holdings resulting in thousand after thousands of acres being owned by a single person (they even stopped benami ownership as it's now legal and there's no agricultural income tax anyways)

PS:- Please don't give me the politician-won't-do-it-argument as it was done by a politician and nullified by a mufti sb.

 

[fatman17]

Since the author went on the usual and beaten to death feudalism and bureaucracy argument (which is not necessarily wrong) and left the military establishment (suggesting sympathies and subjective historical view), I though it would appropriate to post a thoughtful blogpost by my friend Umair Javed:



Moreover, it is often funny to see people who have the privilege of having completed education in universities abroad and living in gated communities to consider themselves "middle class". This term too has become over-abused from the self-righteous urban upper middle class. The middle class, in all its glory, does not include the upper interval of the middle class (i.e. the upper middle class whose entry into the elite class in not guaranteed but who won't fall towards the lower middle class anytime soon). The "middle class" is aptly defined to be the average kirayana wala (not the departmental store), the BPS-14 clerk, the patwari (forget the bribes here) and the administrative staff in offices. The middle class does not include Babu angrezi with his morning peruvian coffee and Honda Civic. To steal the label middle class and to apply it to yourself is along the lines of complaining to be the victim, absolving yourself of your complacency of the crimes (by virtue of your association with the state apparatus - the jananay wala syndrome) and your apathy.

looks like you have a 'axe to grind' here somewhere!

 

[sparklingway]

looks like you have a 'axe to grind' here somewhere!

I've got too much to write. I've got a half book-load of rant on the morality and self righteousness of the urban upper middle class and their shenanigans. If you're thinking it's something related to an old debate, then you're a bit misguided. I just consider upper middle class to be the bane of our society, especially since they speak out a lot and the author had the usual beaten to death arguments of drawing rooms, only written in sequence and without the shouting chacha who interrupts others.

 

[Condor]

I've got too much to write. I've got a half book-load of rant on the morality and self righteousness of the urban upper middle class and their shenanigans. If you're thinking it's something related to an old debate, then you're a bit misguided. I just consider upper middle class to be the bane of our society, especially since they speak out a lot and the author had the usual beaten to death arguments of drawing rooms, only written in sequence and without the shouting chacha who interrupts others.

The shouting CHACHA who interrupts others - Hahahahahahah