Pakistan’s ailments are many: they however all stem from religion or rather the misinterpretation and misuse of it, and secondly, it has all along been a power-game even at the cost of screwing up our Country. We even lost half of it based on someone’s insatiable appetite for power..
 
The religion angle goes back to even pre-partition. Our historians have always given a constipated view of history – their perspective has always been restricted, never objective and never critical. The Quaid, we have never acknowledged, never had a political constituency. His view had always been a pan-indian view as opposed to anything based on a provincial outlook, and that was reflective of the fact that he did not have his own constituency. His point of view, and rightly so, was that India was one great country and that is how it should always remain. Unfortunately other politicians differed on that account. When Mr. Jinnah realized that his political clout was ebbing, he brought in the religion card and tried and successfully created his political constituency out of the Muslims of United India. I must acknowledge that that was to our good fortune and the chagrin of the Gora and the Hindu element. That is where the seed of religion was first used.
 
The Quaid never had a second line of successors in place. That is a fact too. He had a motley of faces there, but no one person you could place a finger on as his successor. Have we ever thought why ? Never I guess. Probably, he never wanted one and probably because this suited his way of operating – no second line to challenge his decisions (power hungry) or no second line to hold back decisions where instant decisions were needed (sincerity). I am no historian, so I would leave this question hanging in the air. As opposed to this, the Congress was well set. But this is actually where the power angle comes into play as far as Pakistan is concerned.
 
Come partition: The Quaid died a year later. His policy regardless of what his reasoning was left us a power vacuum and no one person to step in. The consequences were disastrous. The fifties saw us making a mockery of ourselves. No one government stayed long enough to give Pakistan a face of seriousness that the World should respect and give weightage to. We made a circus of it, and unfortunately, that same circus in continuing – albeit with a different set of characters and ring masters.
 
The power hungry chapter continued. The first naked example of this came in the late fifties when General Ayub Khan took over. What he did afterwards is history and recorded well enough for all to see. One thing that however has surprised me all along is whenever we have had a military dictator, the following has happened:-
 
1.       There has been political stability.
2.       There has been economic growth. The sixties and the 2000s have been the best for us.
3.       Law and order has been relatively better – rather much better – than when a democratic set of clowns have been in place.
4.       And the general populace has actually preferred a dictatorship. It has only been the likes of the politicians who, seeing their opportunity to gain ebb away, have wished these dictators away.
 
Having said the foregoing, one thing cannot be missed – even these military dictators indulged in power-play and took steps to attempt to perpetuate their hold on power. The way the Field Marshall managed the presidential elections and kept Ms Fatima Jinnah out, Zia’s “ Islami nizam chahtay ho ? Then I am President” and Musharraf’s taking on the Chief Justice, are glaring examples.
 
Going back. When the Field Marshall’s hold on power began ebbing, in steps Mr. Bhutto with his charm and charisma (and I must admit, one fine leader who actually could have done tremendous wonders for Pakistan). Then come the 1970 elections (I hope I have the year right). The results are obvious for all to see. The Awami League took 167 out of 169 seats in the United Pakistan assembly, and by virtue of that one fact alone, managed to garner a majority in the United Assembly. Democracy demanded that they be handed over reins of government. For reasons beknown to all, Mr. Bhutto refused to oblige – we lost half the country, a lot of blood and tones of goodwill with our Eastern brethren. The seeds of Bengali discontent begun being sown in the 50s through various steps and measures that West Pakistan was taking – that is a different subject altogether, and I would like not to step off onto a different tangent altogether.
 
Anyway, one thing must be highlighted that is not relevant to this chapter but has relevance in a wider context. When Pakistan was granted independence in 1947, the slogan or our singular basis for claiming independence was “a land for the Muslims where we could live our lives according to the tenets of Islam and our social customs and practices”. If that is the case, then would someone kindly explain why East Pakistan was partitioned off and Bangladesh created ? Was that too based on Islam or did the Islam angle expire on August 14th, 1947 which actually it should have when the Quaid addressed the Constituent Assembly and announced that we were free to profess our religions ? And then again, if that was the case, was the land for the Muslims merely a slogan ?
 
Anyway back to the original trail of thought. Bhutto Sahib then takes over and establishes Government and gives us our first unanimous constitution. Then he began wooing the religious elements to perpetuate power. Though the Quaid in that first address had divorced religion from politics (and yet gave us the first paragraph of our constitution when The Objectives Resolution was passed by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in March, 1949, and was made a substantive part of the Constitution of Pakistan, Bhutto Sahib made it a part of the Constitution. Question is why. Then the Ahmadis were ostracized from Islam – once again religious sentiments were played upon. Then liquour was banned though it was widely and still is, being consumed. Why ? Come elections in March 1977 and their aftermath. What happened is etched in our memories.
 
Once again a power game was played unfortunately not to our benefit though. First the elections were rigged – then the religious elements were wooed because once again the Clergy wanted power. And finally the Army won out – once again power play. And to perpetuate his power, General Zia wooed the religious element, allowed the Afghan refugees into Pakistan though the late Abdul Wali Khan had advised the General thereagainst and created problems for us which have assumed the proportions of a monster today.
 
Then came the decade or so of democracy. They fared even worse. Power play became the name of the game. Both MNS and BB were absolutely no exceptions. MNS went after an army chief and a chief justice, and got away with it. General Musharraf proved to wily for him. And the story goes on
 
I think I have already overkilled the topic: our country has been unfortunate all along. It has either been religious swings or power hunger or at times lethal combination of both. All the problems we are currently beset with stem from these two philosophies. It is that simple !!!
 
And when we complain that the world is treating us with minus zero respect, that is obvious. Pakistan’s theatre right now features a circus of comedians and criminals. From the top, our political spectrum and the face of the country highlights criminals, ex-criminals, conmen, people with a past or people who have their name to clear. Do you seriously think that the World will respect us ?
 
And finally before I close, Imran Khan is not an option – I would look at it from the perspective that he never has had the chance.
 
But let me assure you of one thing: NOTHING WILL EVER HAPPEN TO PAKISTAN. WE HAVE TRIED OUR LEVEL BEST TO SCREW THIS COUNTRY BUT HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO SO PROPERLY. THAT ACTUALLY SHOWS HOW CAPABLE WE ARE. WE CANNOT EVEN DO THAT PROPERLY.