By Amir Mir, The Frontier Post, 9 July 2006.
Alexander Pope, eighteenth century poet writes in his poem, Rape of the Lock: Favours to none, to all she smiles extends; oft she rejects, but never once offends.
“The Rape of the Lock is a mock-heroic narrative poem written by Alexander Pope in 1714. Pope’s mock-heroic treatment in The Rape of the Lock underscores the ridiculousness of a society in which values have lost all proportion, and the trivial is handled with the gravity and solemnity that ought to be accorded to truly important issues. The society on display in the poem is one that fails to distinguish between things that matter and things that do not. Very few possess the characteristic of keeping the emotions of masses at rest even after usurping their rights. Yet the fact remains that the rights of the people can only be usurped when they themselves are ignorant. That is why every dictator wants his people to remain blindfolded with ignorance. However, whatever a dictator thinks of his people, the fact of the matter remains that they are not that foolish and mindless”.
The above paragraph is actually an extract from an article written by Prof Waris Mir almost two decades ago in June 1987 for Urdu daily Jang in a bid to vocalize his sentiments against the dictatorial rule of General Ziaul Haq. A top flight Urdu writer and analyst of his times and the Chairman of Journalism Department (now renamed as the Institute of Communication Studies) at Punjab University Lahore, Waris Mir died of a sudden heart attack at the young age of 48 on July 9, 1987.
He wrote extensively on a variety of political issues, be it the military intervention in Pakistan politics or the mutilation of the 1973 Constitution through amendments aimed at strengthening the dictator, stifling of the national press, dual motives enveloped in a cover of religion and all the what-not of the military dictators who somehow feel that it is their right to trample the law of the land whenever they feel like.
However, Prof Waris Mir and the issues he had penned down do not seem to be a story of the past despite the fact that these words were inked 20 years ago. The relevance and applicability of Waris Mir’s words to the current times of General Pervez Musharraf can be gauged from one of his articles, which is a part of his book ‘Fauj ki Syasat’ (Politics of the Army). The article is actually meant to educate the masses about how to fight off a military dictatorship. Waris Mir does not coerce them to dart off a dictator but tries to revive in them an urge for political freedom once and for all – not directed towards one man or one dictatorship but for the cause of liberation itself. Waris Mir juxtaposes democratic atmosphere with tyranny – the former in abundance of basic human rights and the latter replete with anarchy. These words, actually written two decades ago for General Zia seem to fit well for General Musharraf and his regime.
Here goes Prof Waris Mir’s June 1987 column about how to fight off dictatorship: “The world famous Italian writer, Albein Count Yittonio writes in his celebrated book Lella Ummide, ‘Tyranny has made people to believe that those demanding their due rights are traitors while those letting go of them are patriots.’ It is a bitter reality that Pakistan is still being ruled by the Army and the bureaucracy. According to twentieth century intellectuals, the governance that is formed with the force of the army can never be toppled down as it is strengthened day by day with the Martial Law. Pakistan and all those Islamic countries where the army is ruling the roost, the dictators never step down from their pedestal of authority until and unless the masses guarantee a permanent place for them in the realms of power.
People usually tend to exemplify Chandar Gupt Moriya’s vizier Changya (the name translated cunning) and Italy’s political theorist Machiavelli when the issue of gaining power and thence maintaining it under one’s thumb is discussed. Both had authored books: Changya’s creation being Earth Shaster and Machiavelli’s being The Prince. Many dictators of the twentieth century used The Prince as political langue to suit their interests to such an extent that the political culture of the twentieth century is often referred to as the politics of Machiavelli. Another son of Italy, Albein Count Yittonio, had penned down a publication around three centuries back about dictatorship – Lella Ummide. The Arabic version of this book was translated by Abdur Rehman Koakbi. Afterwards, some fellow leaders snipped around a few corners of the book and softened the harsh portion related to the acquisition of religion.
Though the book in question rarely seeks a place among present day discussions, the fact is that Machiavelli and Changya’s protagonist and narration was that of a ruler while Yittonio’s voice emerges that of the people – the common man. The writer, instead of focusing upon instructing guidelines of proper governance to the rulers has made an attempt to educate the people about the ills and vile of dictatorship. While providing an opportunity to his readers to tutor themselves about how to rid themselves of authoritarianism, Yittonio has simultaneously given to them a chance of thoughtful exercise. Therefore this eighteenth century thinker, while drawing a comparison and contrast of the Western and Eastern dictatorship has written with profound melancholy that if and when the eastern dictatorship takes its flight, a worse mode of tyranny makes its way through to the despotic throne – the reason being the thought pattern of the Eastern community: they think more of the life thereafter rather than the future that lies ahead.
The Pakistani nation had paved way for the third Martial Law in 1977 and the masses still seem to be grappling on the road leading to two paths: one towards a Martial Law and the other towards semi-authoritarianism that would further solidify the army intervention into political hemispheres. No sane political mind can ever come through the conflict of these two pathways and thus choose one. Instead, all such people of Pakistan are actually pleading to the government as well as the opposition not to damage the country for their own ulterior motives. Please, they say, sit down for a tête-à-tête to amicably your internal differences. If undemocratic governance persists in the country, move ahead to uproot that evil but not the entire country itself!
However, the million-dollar question remains: how to uproot the despotic rule in Pakistan? Can we expect the Zia regime to itself demolish the skeletal frame of its totalitarian governance or do the intellectuals and political leaders have to take the front foot and eliminate dictatorship with such grace that it never manages to spring back? A nation which does not feel the twinge of dictatorship collectively cannot deserve freedom. Dictatorship has to be dealt with patience and sanity and not with power and terror. Before proceeding to eliminate the authoritarian rule, it is essential to work out a model of governance that is to be replaced by the former.
The rule that the nation that becomes indifferent to the brutality of a dictatorship does not deserve freedom can be explained: such people become habitual of spending a life full of dishonour and lowliness and they never speak out for the sake of freedom. It is a possibility though that they voice out sudden gushes of hatred and passion but that can never be translated as a will to dispose off tyranny as such gushes are directed only towards one person – the dictator and not the ill – dictatorship itself. It goes without saying that such emotionalism provides no relief or cure to the people because if, one dictatorship is finally brought to an end, it is quite possible that it will be replaced by another.
A nation can’t achieve freedom in its true sense after the expatriation of one tyrannical rule. It often happens that a nation is perked up by one despotic ruler against the other and in such circumstances, if victory does not turn out to be worse that loss, it at least runs parallel to it. This is so, because the one who triggered the nation also turns out to be a dictator and possess all those heinous characteristics that his predecessor did. Such a nation, even if offered freedom on a platter, would make a waste out of it. They cannot benefit a bit out of such liberty because easily won freedom is often taken over by such ruthless authoritarianism that outshines any barbaric governments.
The rule to fight off dictatorship with sanity and patience and not with force or terror is debated though one phrase: feeling for the nation. This is quite easily said than done. The masses never prefer commotion over their own comfort. It is not an easy task to wake up such a species of people from long deep slumber, arouse them, inject thoughts into their brains and motivate them, slather their emotions with nationalism and patriotism. It takes years and years of conditioning such people to open their eyes. And when finally, the film from their eyes is washed off, it is not an intelligent move to rush towards eradicating dictatorship as the latter is always prepared for such commotion.
Dictatorship has various modes of brutality and viciousness. It commands the army. It affords to mortgage the conscience of people through bribery. They are backed by that segment of the religious clergy which tends to make a profit by trading faith for political alliance. Hence, with so much weaponry on their side, public opinion is left with a very humble share of fighting material. Moreover, if the movement is not based upon strong fundamentals, it has the weakness of fizzling out – if people have been motivated in a year, they will be cooled down in the following year. If their emotions have reached boiling point in a day, they will freeze the next day. Therefore, it is vital to keep on the struggle consistently in such a manner that the victory eventually sides with the people when the battle begins.
Dictatorship should not be dealt with force so that such discrepancy does not destroy the country. Undoubtedly, the coercion of a dictatorship rises to such an extent that one might lose grasp of patience and riots might volcano forth uncontrollably. But in such times, the intellectual elite of a country keeps putting out the fire and that also to such an extent that when the spark fizzles out, they begin their excursion towards the eradication of tyranny. People usually flare up occasionally when the ruler irritates them to a certain level. However, idiotic the dictator is, he is always ready for such irritants. And how brutal he might be, he never fails to secure himself. So much so, that his associates are also well aware of such deep pits he could fall into and keep cautioning him. Yet, if an enemy resides among the cronies, he will push the dictator into the spotlight from where he can easily be pushed into a pit. That the reason why it is said, that a dictator’s prime minister or commander-in-chief belonging to the religious clergy is most eminent in his downfall. The dictator is himself aware of the dangers he faces from all these and that’s why he keeps dipping their fangs in butter. Yet, when he decides to topple any of them, he does it in a single stroke: quick and sudden so as to avoid any reaction.
Finally, the formulae, that a framework should be designed of that mode of governance that is to be replaced by the prevailing dictatorship, can be explained as: chalking out the motive of any movement is essential – unavoidable and natural. Rather it should be said that no movement that has its fundamentals etched out properly can be carried out successfully. In the war against dictatorship, the goal should never be kept unexplained. It is necessary for victory that the objective of the movement be elaborated in such manner that it is found agreeable and convincing to the entire nation. If the objective is remained obscure, or if it is painted unparalleled to the nation’s requirements, the movement in the first place will never set off and even if it does, most of the marchers will back out and seek solace in the lap of the dictator, thus the final straw of hope shall drown those who accelerated the movement.
No one shall ever pronounce the word “liberty” and foundations of dictatorship will eventually become rock solid. The process of formulating an alternative mode of governance is not an easy task – it is rather more difficult than fighting off dictatorship. This formulation cannot be completed in discussion of an hour or two or with the exchange of ideas thrown in by a couple of intellectuals. The task requires a brainy disposition and need not be confined to the elite of the country rather be made common to the masses. The seed of democracy should be sown in such manner that the people first learn and realize about the destruction that a despotic rule has caused in their lives. After that, they should show interest in political debates to such an extent that their participation subsequently leads to a passion for the liberation of their country.
If people are willing to delve into tough conditions and prepare themselves for hard core punishments, it should be registered that such a nation has hardened. And thus can take up the task to govern itself. At such a time, the people will have the right to either discard off the dictator or coerce the ruler to bring about a desired change in his style of governance. At such a time the ruler will have no option other than either to succumb to the demands of the people or to get done with his job altogether. They will be under tumultuous pressure to pay heed to the public opinion and act accordingly. In this way, way for a natural revolution will be paved instead of a revolution coloured with gore. This height although shall be achieved with great passage of time, yet it will be most successful and shall bring innumerous blessings for the nation
Albein Count Yittonio has actually laid out the philosophy of bringing a change within the minds of the people before proceedings with objects of terrorism, blood and weapons in hands. In addition to all this, motivation in the realm of liberty needs not be taken as explained by the naïve evolutionists. From this point of view, during the metamorphosis of destiny, the count of twenty years is not more than that of a single day. However, afterwards there might come a time when one day shall be considered equal to twenty years. Can we expect of those forces trying to bring a quick and superficial change to Pakistan to think about bringing a fundamental revolution to the country?”
Note: This article was written in July 2006 when General Pervez Musharraf was ruling Pakistan.