Top Story

  Editorial

  Metro

  Kashmir

  Business

  Sports

  Scoop

  Societal

  Health

    Cartoon

WOULD Pakistan have come into being had there been no Quaid-i-Azam? The best and succinct answer to this question has been given by H.V.Hodson in THE GREAT DIVIDE. This is what he says: “Of all the personalities in the last act of the great drama of India’s rebirth to independence Muhammad Ali Jinnah is at once the most enigmatic and the most important. One can imagine any of the other principal actors replaced by a substitute in the same role – a different Congress leader, a different Secretary of State, a different representative of this or that interest or community, even a different Viceroy – without thereby implying any radical change in the final denouncement. But it is barely conceivable that events would have taken the same course, that the last struggle of three, not two well-balanced adversaries, and that a new state of Pakistan would have been created but for the personality and leadership of one man, Mr Jinnah.” This assessment gives the lie to the modern determinist philosophy, which holds that history, is ‘made’ by material conditions and institutions and not by thoughts, words and acts – in sum, by the character – of outstanding men. There can be no question that the destiny of Muslim India depended, at that crucial moment, on Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Without him the course of twentieth century Muslim history would have been vastly different.

Compared to the work of nation-builders like Washington, Bismarck or Kamal Ataturk, the task of the Quaid was a more uphill one. America, Germany and Turkey had a territorial, political, cultural and ethnic existence in history but Pakistan was not even a ‘geographical expression.’ There was no nation called Pakistan before 1947. Stanley Wolpert, perhaps, had this dimension of the Quaid’s work in mind when he wrote: “Few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-State. Muhammad Ali Jinnah did all three.”

The Muslims were, indeed, fortunate to possess a leader of Quaid-i-Azam’s calibre during the struggle for Pakistan. It was he who rescued a dispirited and demoralised people from the abyss of despair, reminded them of their glorious heritage and galvanised them into action; assembled them on a single platform and animated them with a messianic zeal and finally led them to the land of hope and promise. “The whole world,” said the Quaid, “is wondering at the unprecedented cyclonic revolution …… it has no parallel in the history of world.”

Quaid-i-Azam was a man of many dimensions – a powerful negotiator, a total realist, a skilled politician, a superb tactician and exceptional strategist. But the dimensions of the Quaid, which are of supreme relevance to us today, are his attributes as a brilliant constitutionalist, a great civil libertarian and a staunch democrat. We must forthwith turn to the Quaid’s guidelines to set our political course in order. His firm belief in democracy can be gauged from his address to the Sibi Darbar in February 1948. He said: “I have one underlying principle in mind, the principle of Muslim democracy. It is my belief that our salvation lies in following the golden rules of conduct set for us by our great law-giver, the Prophet of Islam. Let us lay the foundation of our democracy on the basis of truly Islamic ideals and principles. Our Almighty has taught us that ‘our decisions in the affairs of the State will be guided by discussions and consultations.’” The Quaid’s respect for fundamental rights and tolerance was integral to his firm belief in the principles of democracy and representative government.

He fought and won his first battle of democracy in 1918 when he demonstrated his courage and resentment against the British Governor of Bombay, Lord Wellington, when a meeting was called to bid him farewell. The Quaid and his supporters opposed the move to give Wellington an honourable send-off because the Governor had earlier called into question the sincerity of the Home Rule leaders, of which the Quaid was one, in the war effort. Thwarted in his purpose by the police, he led the crowd to Apollo Street to address the people on the significance of the occasion. He roared: “Gentlemen, you are the citizens of Bombay. You have today scored a great victory for democracy. Your triumph has made it clear that even the combined forces of bureaucracy and autocracy could not overcome you. December the 11th is a red-letter day in the history of Bombay. Gentlemen, go and rejoice over the day that has secured us the triumph of democracy.”

It is, indeed, a great irony that democracy has not been allowed to take root in the very country that the Quaid called into being. On the contrary, the system has been undermined time and again. Even after the passage of 56 years our democracy is in a shambles. Despite our leaders’ assurances, ‘sham democracy’ has not been replaced by ‘true, genuine, real’ democracy. A year has gone by since the elections but a democracy-starved nation still awaits the advent of ‘genuine’ democracy.

The fact is that the Legal Framework Order (LFO) deadlock has severely damaged the democratic process. The unfortunate tug of war shows no sign of abating. The Prime Minister lacks power to accept the demands of the Opposition. The Opposition, consequently, refuses to budge from its principled stand on the supremacy of the constitution. This has hurled the judiciary and the legislature into a State of inertia and cramped the right of the Prime Minister to exercise his powers as the chief executive. The sooner this cycle of uncertainty is broken, the better it would be for the nation and the future of democracy. Recent reports indicate that the two sides are now close to clinching a deal. But you never can tell. There’s many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip.

Had democracy been allowed to flourish, Pakistan would not have been confronted with the dark forces of dogmatism and extremism. It is hard to conceive that medieval compulsions still rule our minds and manifest themselves in violence, sectarianism, ethnic and racial discrimination and cultural hostility. It is sad to note that these evils have taken root in a land whose architect and founder was a pillar of humanity and a staunch believer in tolerance and freedom from bigotry and prejudice. What better proof need one offer of his liberality and open-mindedness than his August 11 speech in which he said: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the State.” Democracy is our only road to salvation. A democratic culture would bring political, economic and cultural emancipation; freedom from authoritarianism, political legitimacy and the rule of law. It would teach the people and the rulers the virtues of tolerance, flexibility, moderation and restraint. Hence, the sooner the nation realigns itself with the democratic world the better it would be.

Our failure to hold honest elections, set up genuine democratic institutions, establish a strong legislature and tolerate Opposition has exposed us to criticism. The European Union and the Commonwealth question our democratic credentials. Nancy Powell, the US Ambassador to Pakistan, also made pointed references a month ago to the democratic imperative and the establishment of a ‘stable, moderate, Islamic State.’ She said that America wanted to see strong Pakistani democratic institutions and practices, including a National Assembly that played a vigorous and positive role in governance and an independent judiciary that promoted rule of law.

The question is can genuine democracy ever take root in Pakistan? Yes, it can, in spite of what a handful of jaundiced pundits have to say. Pakistan itself came into existence through a democratic process. Moreover, who could be so arrogant and ungrateful as to ditch an ideal that was so dear to the Founder of the State? “Never think in terms of anything but democracy for Pakistan,” he told an ultra-enthusiast who had called him ‘Shahinshah-e-Pakistan’. Otherwise, too, the developing world is today in the grip of a democratic revolution. The people are clamouring for their rights. The future of democracy is bright though a few dark shadows still cloud the horizon. But these are fleeting phantoms. Sooner or later true democracy has to come because democracy is the destiny of Pakistan.

The writer is Chairman, Jinnah-Rafi Foundation. He can be reached at jrf_lhr@hotmail.com