September 03 , 2010
Altaf Hussain's Call for a Revolution
The Muttahida Quami Movement’s chief, Altaf Hussain, called on August 22/10 for a French Revolution type putsch in Pakistan, to be led by ‘patriotic’ army Generals, in order to jettison the grueling feudalistic oligarchy. This call has caused a lot of flak from political leaders with the exception of Pir Pagara and Imran Khan. All of them have vehemently condemned his invitation to the army Generals to take the reins of power to rid the country of the basic structural folly that has brought to the fore a coterie of ego-centric, corrupt, callous and criminal elements.
Notably, even the most vociferous critics of his statement have not supported the continued hold of the feudal barons and their cohorts over the levers of power in the society. They have, however, upheld strongly the current power structure on the ground that the voters had endorsed it. Fact of the matter is that feudalism was not an issue in the manifesto of any major political party. For, land-owning aristocrats or business tycoons who subscribe to feudal values dominate the higher echelons of most political parties.
Feudalism was common in Europe during the medieval age. It breathed its last in the French Revolution of 1789. Perhaps that prompted Altaf Hussain to call for a French type revolution in Pakistan.
The British nurtured in India 562 princely states based on feudal structure. Indian National Congress had on its manifesto the abolition of these entities on Independence, putting an end to the vestiges of an anachronistic system of governance. Pakistan had just a few such semi-autonomous princely states and therefore its founding fathers did not treat it as a major issue. Yet the country had vast land holdings whose owners found easy access to political power and consequent pelf, particularly after the secession of East Pakistan in mid-December 1971 and the nationalization of crucial industries in January 1973 that pushed into insignificance the newly emerging capitalist class.
Such landholdings became the base for establishing permanent hold over the lives of the farmers and turning the holdings into serfdoms. Some landlords went to the extent of turning the serfs into chain and ball gangs totally at the command of their lords. Some years back a detailed and illustrated account of one such lord, Muhammad Husain Khokar, appeared in a Karachi magazine. During the Zia regime, another land baron made all women of one of his villages (Ranipur was perhaps the name) march naked through that village for the simple reason that some members of that group had defied his orders.
Instances are wanting of the obnoxious system having produced even a few landlords who took concrete steps for the education, welfare and advancement of their tenants. On the contrary, they have been totally opposed to setting up schools in their domain as an educated youth was likely to question the landlord’s hold on his life. But, they arranged good education, including stints in foreign institutions, for their own progeny.
During the medieval age (800-1350) Europe was in the firm grip of feudalism. But, even during that period, several instances were recorded of leaders who had commanded the availability of education to even the poorest under their watch.
Emperor Charlemagne, the most prominent intellectual and king of the age of feudalism, who ruled over Europe for almost half a century (769-814) considered literacy and learning essential to the rebirth of the Roman Empire of his dream. He commanded every cathedral and monastery of his kingdom to set up schools.
Even in modern times, in some princely states of India, enlightened rulers laid considerable emphasis on education. The Nizam of Hyderabad state, for instance, arranged for his subjects inexpensive educational facilities up to the highest university level.
The grueling feudal system of Pakistan can hardly produce any such example. Instances are, lamentably, galore of even good running schools turned into ghost schools.
The land reforms of Ayub Khan and Z.A. Bhutto merely tinkered with the problem.
The feudal aristocracy has continued to consolidate and expand its hold. So much so that in his first address to the nation, premier Zafar Jamali made a firm commitment that there would be no land reform during his five-year tenure of office. In his first public address the present PM, Yousuf Reza Gilani, declared that Pakistan was an agricultural state and therefore the agrarian sector (landowners) deserved preference in government support. One of the first decisions of Mr. Zardari was to do away with the college degree requirement for all members of parliaments. A good number of feudal barons had acquired fake degrees to retain their seats in the concerned Assemblies.
Their conduct during the current devastating floods has generally been deplorable. There has been a lot of media and public umbrage over the diversion of floodwaters from their lands to the shantytowns and mud-brick villages of the people, which were totally inundated and many were washed away. Can there be a more cruel and mean conduct?
Feudalism is, no doubt, the biggest bane of the society now. Hence, Altaf Hussain’s denigration of the system has not been found faulty. The main target in the spate of criticisms has been his invitation to the army generals to step into the seat of power, impose martial law and abolish feudalism and do away with the looters of public funds.
The timing of his call has certainly been wrong. It is merely three years since a civilian government took over power in the country. People’s trust in the regime has fast waned but is perhaps not yet exhausted.
The utter failures of civilian rulers have, in the past, prompted the men in uniform to take over the reins of power. And, the people have invariably welcomed such military takeovers, as the men in uniform had held out the prospects of eradicating corruption, putting the economy on the growth path, and providing basic amenities of life to the people.
The men in uniform had to lean against the civil servants for achieving these objectives. The civil servants succeeded in measuring up to the expectations during the Ayub era. But the removal of the chapter on Civil Services from the Constitution of 1973 and other structural changes turned the “Steel Frame of the British Empire” into a docile horde of sycophants looking for opportunities to make a fast buck and share it with their political bosses. The chapter formed a part of all constitutions till it was knocked out in the 1973 version. It had given constitutional security of service to all civil servants. Once, it was removed, a civil servant could be kicked out of service by the political leader on any pretext. Thousands were actually fired by the Bhutto regime.
The current situation, no doubt, calls for a Herculean task of cleansing the Augean stables. The French Revolution (1789) that Mr. Altaf Hussain has mentioned succeeded because it had the massive backing of the people at large. Pakistan’s media, the TV channels in particular, are fostering public awakening, but men of conscience in leadership positions have also to awaken the people to their miserable lot and the possibility of better days. Hercules had cleaned the stables by diverting river waters through the filthy stables. The calamitous floods in Pakistan have awakened the people to the reality of the ruling elites’ stance during the catastrophe. For instance, it took Mr. Zardari no less than two weeks merely to reach a flood-affected area! He had been on a tour of Europe.
It should be easier now to articulate the genuine feelings of the masses towards the self-serving, if not pernicious, feudal lords and their cohorts among the ruling elites. A widespread awakening at the grassroots level and a burning desire for a change are the sine quo non for any revolutionary shift in the shape of things.
As Victor Hugo, the eminent 19the century thinker and writer, has said: “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not of an idea whose time has come”. Has the time of a revolution in Pakistan come? Perhaps not yet.
