Disrespect to the names of Quaid and Bhutto

Contributing Editor Vice Admiral (Retd) Iqbal F Quadir protests the lack of respect for our late leaders.

Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto must be turning over and over in their graves. Their spirits too, high up in heaven, must be trembling with rage, seeing at what their followers of the day were up to under the guise of their exalted names. Just imagine, would any one of the two, the Quaid or the Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto, ever have even dreamt of democracy under the shadow of brass hats leave alone. May God be merciful to the two and save them this mortification if not downright affront, the self-professed followers have deemed fit to inflict upon their illustrious elders? More distressing is the fact that so few of the one hundred and forty million or more Pakistanis have had the time to appreciate that the political situation created by those striking for power; the establishment, the politicians of self-interested breed and their likely beneficiaries; has brought the nation to this pass where the thin line between the good and the bad has been dimmed and ideological as well as worldly principles have been floated down the Indus into the sea.
Events of the recent past, outside and inside of Pakistan, remind me of two fine books I had read in the library of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich during 1951. The first by a historical society stated that around the 10th Century AD the English king, I do not remember his name or the exact date, fearing an invasion from the continent, requested the Muslim king of Spain for financial assistance. In return for this favour he indicated his willingness to convert to Islam. However, the King of Spain refused any assistance. (This is no fairy story). Ever since then, English literature and history books are full of derogation, dislike and even acrimony for the followers of the same faith as that of the Spanish kings of that era. As for the Continent, Papal Europe escaped Islamic domination due to dissensions within the Spanish Muslims, while the post-Papal Europe again missed Islamic domination when the Turkish Sultan diverted his attention and troops from Vienna in Central Europe towards fighting the King of Iran a thousand miles to the East. The great European affection for her Southeastern neighbours could thus easily be deduced. I remember the Bulgarian Military Attache calling on me in Paris immediately after the Turkish forces landed in the seventies to assist the people of Northern Cypress to find out if Turkey could have any intentions to assist the large Turkish minority in his country as well? As a matter of principle, people in power who know or read history do not forget events of the past, even centuries old. In the case of Europe and North America, the threat to ‘Western Civilization’ from Islam has been kept alive in their historical, cultural and literary books as well as traditions. True, the changing demography of the world and its shrinking dimensions in terms of speed and diversity of communications since the middle of the twentieth century has started impacting those entrenched perceptions about Islam. However, what final impact this flow and intermingling of populations, cultures and ideas would have is yet to be observed. One thing though is certain; the number of Pakistani leaders willing to act the English king is unlimited though the conversion now a days is usually limited to the facade of cultural and part religious values only.
The second book stated that on consolidating his power in Greece, Alexander the King of Macedonia was reminded that three hundred years before him, Greek Asia Minor (present Turkey) and parts of Greece had been attacked and occupied by the Persian (Iranian) kings. Alexander then decided to occupy all those areas of the world from where troops had participated in the Persian campaigns against Greek City States, then under Alexander’s occupation. Since the contributory areas included present Egypt in the West and present Pakistan in the East, the latter being called the Twentieth Satrapy by the Persian kings, Alexander finally reached the Indus. There, on hearing of the large well trained army of Porus across the Indus and considering the tired state of half his army (the other half being fresh replenishments from Greece), while thousands were settled on occupied territories much in the fashion of Israeli settlements in areas designated for the future Palestinian State; he wished to stop any further advance and return home. However, Alexander’s advisors; who had read the accounts of Greek subjects of Persian kings, who had traveled to the region of present Pakistan either in king’s service (one of whom had traveled down river Indus in a boat all the way down to the Arabian Sea around 600 BC) or on business or as mere travelers; prevailed on the king not to turn back but camp on the West bank of the river and await events. The advice was soon justified as local Rajas (feudal) and Maharajas (the bigger feudal) soon started approaching the Greek King offering assistance against Porus, provided their fiefdoms were left intact and they were suitably rewarded. Alexander was surprised to see so many willing to join him against their own kith and kin, but remained wary till some generals of Porus also indicated their willingness to join Alexander with their followers when he attacked Porus. These favourable tidings finally induced Alexander to cross the Indus that led to subsequent history of this region that we know.
Keeping options open so that the slide towards the winning side becomes easy, is a trait that is well established in our genes and sadly, has been a constant refrain under foreign rulers of this region and even after independence since 1953, when Ghulam Muhammad decided that bureaucracy could perform better governance at all levels of administration than the politicians. The love of governance without responsibility is another trait inborn in the region; being considered the right of a privileged few. These two characteristics of Pakistani people have helped the Establishment greatly in trouncing the politicians before, during and after the recent national and provincial elections. So far, almost three weeks after elections were over, General Musharraf is the clear winner; not in terms of number of votes or seats won by the pro-Musharraf candidates, but in the perceptions created thus far abroad and within the country. In American eyes, the most ardent admirer and pusher for democracy, he has handled the situation superbly and earned US government’s full approbation, including for the plethora of rapid-fire amendments to the constitution introduced in the last few weeks that leaves the army in full control of the situation. Domestically, Musharraf’s simple strategy of making the political parties and leaders suspect each other and then fight it out amongst themselves has saved him much work. It has also sown the seeds of doubt and dismay in public mind about the quality, ability, efficacy and sustainability of their recently elected respected representatives. Un-appreciated by all, General Musharraf has achieved a further great victory. We all know fully well, through the words of certain retired generals, the role certain agencies of the government had previously played during elections. It seems now General Musharraf has been able to make the leopard change its spots. If that be the case, it is an immensely happy sign, which one hopes would become of a permanent nature.
Returning to our political parties, groups or people who have differing views on what democracy should mean to the country and how it should be practiced, such is their right to do so. But they should have made these views clear to the voting public before elections in the form of a manifesto so that they could intelligently choose their representatives to the assemblies. Even so, knowing well the types of democracy
Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto were in favour of and wanted to flourish in the country, it is far from proper that their names or parties created by them; who wanted a complete unfettered democratic dispensation in the country under a civilian elected parliament; be continued to be utilized for achieving aims that are completely differing and even opposite. Nothing could be more discourteous, disrespectful and wounding to their names and memories. This ludicrous and unwelcome position requires to be rectified at the earliest. Those concerned must, therefore, either retrace their steps or in the least change their nomenclatures. According to the Quran, which provides raison
d’etre for Pakistan’s existence, God dislikes hypocrisy the foremost. Let us, therefore, not tempt Him again and again.