Pakistan: Sunrise beyond the silence?

Mir Adnan Aziz

"In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the 'silence' of our friends": Martin Luther King.

Most of what happens to us in our lives hardly seems life changing. Then there are times which change us deeply forever. The images from the last few days – our own on both sides of the guns – the unearthly rattle of gunfire – a mosque complex smelling not of musk but cordite – the triumphant flashing of victory signs – then the eerie silence. Does this ‘silence herald a new sunrise’ or the dawn of yet another tragic day?

What some call an inevitable action may yet be seen as a government attempt at pleasing the West. This perception has previously ignited the passions of religious ‘extremists’ and may further divide the society. In a climate where mistrust has been actively encouraged by the powers that be, conditions for violent conflict, were naturally always ripe – communities divided, suspicions nursed grievances resurrected, and retaliation invited. It is, however, the mishandling of the whole affair that may now become an increasingly serious cause for concern.

As it is, evidence surrounding the recent bloody conflict, in fact, seems alarmingly suggestive of deliberate government negligence! Was it not the appointed responsibility of the state to swiftly act at the onset and prevent tragic loss of so many lives? Why and how did a mosque in the heart of the capital come to be what is being described as a fortified bunker with a large cache of weapons?

The growing religious trend here is unfortunately even more complex. The tragic circumstances mentioned above can be traced to an absolute failure of the state and an increasing lack of social cohesion due to the absence of national moral authority. Such lack of moral authority always results in further disintegration of social fabric, as we now find ourselves increasingly fragmented by the void of credible religious/political leadership.

In a state, as in Pakistan, where the elite rule, there are several features. One is that this elite regard themselves as superior on a variety of dimensions, most notably a belief that they are more intelligent, wise kind and morally developed than their ‘subjects’. Another salient psychological characteristic is their heavy-handed attitude to the population. They view themselves as all knowing beings who have to guide and cajole rebellious populations for their own good.

While the people may protest, they lack their “elite’s” wisdom and visions, therefore forced to accept its will. This in turn, they think, gives them carte blanche to do anything. What unfortunately they end up with is proving themselves as rulers sans benevolence, 'a cruel bedlam, willing to dash our brains out'.

This contrasts with genuine democracy, unfortunately we have had stage-managed ones so far. In a genuine democracy there are leaders selected by the people on a popular mandate. Candidates whose views are popular and shared by the majority of the people are placed in power. These people rule by the consent of the people. If and when they displease the masses this consent can be withdrawn, and the office holders are replaced with others who are given a chance.

Contrarily in an elitist state all figures, as our cabinet, share ‘similar’ views, attitudes and values. These views are largely formed by the ‘elite’, source of the hidden knowledge, which we mere mortals cannot understand in this system over which they have a strangle hold. These moral and intellectual giants do not need the approval of the subjects they govern. They rarely bother to ask them, even if they do, they simply ignore their wishes if it contrasts with their own.

As in the Lal Masjid episode, what most of us would regard as common sense is little more, than a knee jerk, simplistic reaction to a problem they insist needs long drawn out “solutions”. They regard views that oppose their own as not deserving of discussion or meriting debate.

State violence is, of, course, held in check by numerous factors, including law, tradition, institutions, political and economic costs, calculations of self-interest. also – not least in importance – considerations of morality and religion Should any of these militate in other directions, the likelihood of violence increases accordingly.

Among the most dangerous of situations is that in which a state bent on conquest finds and deploys arguments that encourage its aggressive tendencies and ambitions. A state develops the capacity to persuade itself, it's citizens or subjects, and perhaps also others, that the world is divided between the forces of good and evil; the extremists and enlightened moderates. As an occasional fantasy, this is bad enough. As a core belief, sustained through a well-wrought body of discourse, broadcast widely through all available media and genres, it becomes infinitely more, dangerous.

The exercise of power – causing some to submit to the will of others – is necessary in any functioning state, organisation or relationship. This power may shift, but it always exists. Power is not evil, but one should be cautious about the form it takes. Power controlled by the ego is something to be fearful of; tempered by humility and character it is a gift.

One of the glaring factors to our societal degradation is the conscious destruction of quality public education. This leaves young people politically passive, without the knowledge of history or the critical skills they need to interpret the world around them. As a result, they can be easily led by whosoever desires. The private schools affordable only for some, have not been destroyed in the same way. This has lead to a chasm between the public and private school systems. The public system barely even pretends to educate anyone. The effect is to kill initiative, instilling a sense of resignation through which young people can be easily led. The rich are preparing their children to rule the country, and the children of the poor are being prepared for obedience.

The media, positively pivotal in so much, plays a role by distracting the well off young with consumerism. Whatever they have is spent on mobile phones, branded rip-offs, pirate DVDs or chatting on the internet. In one way or another, it all flows into the pockets of the rich. Unable to understand the causes of their predicament or make meaningful plans for the future, they dream of escape to the land of abundance they see in the movies.Left behind are the products of our madressas and public schools, a generation which finds itself totally alienated and at odds with the new found ‘enlightenment’ we have, discovered.

Then their is the generation which was not so long ago, indoctrinated, trained and given a license to kill by the then adoring West harbingers and touted as saviours of the free world. Mythical warriors with auras of invincibility, the West’s knights in shining armour of yesterday, the outcast pariahs of today.

Religion is often experienced as a source of deeply endorsed values and of fundamental life projects. Shared religious beliefs and traditions bind, people together into communities that bridge gulfs of race, ethnicity and nationality. Such communities tie the generations together in networks of mutual support and reciprocal obligations. This is the practical significance of religious belief. Once you have them, a whole new normative and social order opens up. Lots of good has been done both for and by the inhabitants of such normative and social orders.

What has to be understood is whether our political policies and processes build or destroy our common life. We have to choose between chaos or community. By rejecting the latter we are now faced with the former. The breakdown of community in our nation forces us to reweave the seriously eroded fabric of life and relationships.

We should ensure character of our public discourse and decision making, and the participation of ordinary people in the political process. In any progressive country, tolerance and compassion are core societal values.

Headway can only be made if we acknowledge and draw lessons from the wrongs of the past. We must acknowledge where and how we have erred, not to twist the knife in the wound, but to better acknowledge that their lethal germs still persist. We are not here to humiliate anyone, but we as a nation can only take a decisive step forward if the whole truth is brought to light.

If we want to overcome religious and ethnic discrimination as well as intolerance, we must restore truth and dignity in our society. Of supreme importance is to engage those of us who find themselves alienated and wronged morally or spiritually.

Inflexibility and dogmatism can unleash centrifugal forces, resentment, conflicts and strife. Dialogue on spiritual and societal values will prepare the unifying field of our togetherness, well-being and prosperity.

It is pertinent that we do not let our virtues become our fatal flaws through ironic reversal. Overextending our commitments, among other things the autonomy of reason, to an overtly zealous ‘surge’ by the West can be detrimental for us as a nation.

No unilateral commitments, as long as we find a way to embody that which is not self undermining, self destructing. Let us all, with our heart and minds dwell in the present moment, accept our past – painful though it may seem, and let a tolerant and compassionate future unfold.

(miradnanaziz@gmail.com)