A story for my Grandson to read when he grows up; of the times he was born

Ah! Boy you wish to know about the India in the timed you were born? You say you have come across many versions of times and events and it has roused your curiosity. All versions, you find are partisan accounts, you say. All accounts emotional and abusive of some one or the other, confounding the confusion, you discover. Well, let me narrate to you my bias of the times.

 Well, those were, indeed, bewildering times. India was in transition, economically and morally. We humans tend to believe that morality and justice make for good literature to be read, in times of distress or leisure and then left to adorn the display shelves. People in 2014 were no different. Excuse me, I sense I am rambling.

     The change was quick and had acquired, can I say unmindful of the inset contradiction, permanence, making people lose their moorings. The goal that remained was self aggrandizement. Ah! I mean, not quite though; for there were as many people who lived substantially the by values dear to them. If I am ambivalent then please do not chaff at me. You see, I too lived those times and continue to suffer from then contemporary symptoms of confusions and suspicion.

Actually the times were not bad at all.

 Well! On second thoughts, times were really bad. You say that that does not make for any degree of clarity! Well, you see, those were enigmatic times with no clarity of bearing and I am also getting on. Let me try again.

Political discourse had cease to generated informed debate to establish the right course for the national activity. Unsubstantiated accusations were hurled thick    fast and fast and worst, people were enjoying such slanging matches. Obnoxious and     vicious literature was considered witty and propagated over the social media.   Leaders had stopped to explain their vision to the nation. Instead they sought popularity by mimicking their rival. The times were bad because the parliament would not be allowed to function. Gone were the days when a Shyama Prasad Mukherjee would tell a miffed Nehru who has offered to quit that the parliament had made him the Prime Minister and Nehru would have to continue doing both, remain Prime Minister and listen to his chastisements, for the MPs had elected Nehru and he could go only when the MPs so desired. Several bills of national importance failed to receive approval which would have helped improve the fortune of the country, in the time of worldwide recession. The Parliament no more a forum for debate had become the forum for the expression of hatred and derision and sectoral demands. Was it like the Jats take over in the dying hours of the decadent Moghul Empire- India fragmenting and withering away? Let me think again.

I suspect that I am becoming a prisoner of my own rhetoric. It was not as dark as I paint. Though the parliament was stalled, its select committees worked feverishly and earned the admiration of the professionals who were called upon or chose to depose before the committee. Many important laws were legislated. Several measures of potential for transformation of the society were implemented, some substantially others partially depending upon the states which were the agency of implementation. Several measured pooh poohed then, proved their intrinsic worth, later.

Times were bad for the government under attack from various quarters, including sniping from within, who had, for a time, all but abdicated. Most activity by the government was stayed and made subject to prolonged legal scrutiny and it appeared as if the courts had taken over the governance. Height of a dam or if an under the sea range is the remnants of the bridge built by Lord Ram and his monkeys, to go to Lanka to reclaim his stolen spouse, became the subjects of adjudication by their learned lordships, increasing their backlog of work by several years and increasing the misery of the other litigants.  The parliament, unwilling to legislate, was inclined to investigate instead. National accountancy had stopped to pin point correctives to government accounts and taken to compute presumed losses to the delight of the political opponents of the government. No institution was doing what it was supposed to do but vying to do what the other institution was expected to do.

Well! Perhaps it was not as bad as I make it sounds. The young nation had just experienced a decline after a high rate of economic growth. In the first rush of economic redistribution and political activism bad coin was driving away the good coin. Yet it cannot be said that all was so moribund. The government after the first shocks had revived itself to an extent it could for the fresh elections had been announced. The courts under severe criticism from several sources had begun to murmur need for corrective action. The parliament was expected to function normally after the elections.

 For the hopeful it was a much needed renaissance and for the skeptic, the end of the world. Stories are born of desolation and history records renaissance. As the story telling is a favorite human pastime, skeptics ruled the discourse.

Hopes soared for those who believed that Modi was about to sweep the national elections and sweep away the much derided Man Mohan Singh government. His supporters had begun early, prepared well and spent humongous amounts of money on advertising and the deployment of man power. Modi had taken to the dictum that to be famous, make people laugh. In his speeches he would caricature the prime minister and others adversaries aggressively, indeed impolitely. By the time he had finished his speech no one had the thought or the patience to ask him, how he proposed to right the national wrongs. Media had taken to Modi because he provided sound bites which kept TRP healthy and did not require them to strain their faculties. Modi had even pre-empted the national verdict. He had proclaimed that the nation had decided to make him the prime minister. Manmohan Singh had already been consigned to history. And yet, the tall claims of the Modi group notwithstanding, his party was missing from large tracks of the land. Many sects and communities preferred to lay trust with their own, ignoring complex concerns of the political analyst and the inevitable, the self proclaimed intellectuals, commonly known as the journalists. After the exhaustive publicity over a sustained period, people where getting bored of Modi, even the media had begun to ask questions.

Times were not good some claimed because there was corruption in the government offices and the government. This upset the people much. They would collect at Jantar Mantar make all kinds of speeches condemning the government and its official without giving up on stealing on the taxes themselves or bribing to get their work done without suffering the queue. Their leader, one Kejriwal, had caught the imagination of the people. He received much adulation and approval. He began by making allegations against the government official and in time converted it into his pass time, casting aspersions upon all and sundry, without fear or favor. Me think; without reasonable proof too. But soon people got fed up of him also and began to ignore him. Notwithstanding his penchant to hurl invectives at the powers that be, which was enjoyed much by the people, he had no prescription for the national ills except unimaginative palliative of free water and electricity to those who could afford to pay for it for they alone had the connections for water and electricity. We will never know the extent of wrongdoing by the powerful or the McCarthyism of this sect. Yet, the Kejriwal phenomenon had  swept away the complacence of the national political spectrum       

The times were bad, really bad. There was lawlessness. Female foeticide as well as the killing of brides for dowry was often reported in the country. There were reports in increase of the number of rapes, murders and other felonies. Fatwas by the mullahs were common and khaps frequently liquidate young lovers, married or otherwise who did not follow the customs of the khap. Honour killings too had been reported. Jean clad girls visiting pubs or restaurants would be harassed by the Hindu chauvinists. Mullahs would shriek through the loudspeakers atop the minarets and Jagaran and rat-jaga were popular.

On the other hand the fatwa by the mullahs were commonly flouted and Khaps under pressure from the law as well as the media had begun to exhibit weariness and a tendency to succumb. Honor killing, rapes and dowry were being now reported, investigated and punishment meted out to the felons. Ladies had taken to jeans and pubs with a vengeance.

It was distressful to see young people not on the football fields or the tennis courts but in the Dhabas and the Mall. They would rather play computer games than move their limbs. And yet the cricket had caught the imagination of many and  the six pack abs popularized by the film stars had persuaded several to join the gymnasiums which were appearing in larger numbers in the cities.

India had begun the mission to Mars and mastered the cryogenic technology, polio had been eradicated though Japanese encephalitis was the new terror, e governance had begun to take shape. The much criticized and less debated poverty line had been crossed by a large number of poorest Indians. India had several modern industries including the much admired information technology industry and the pharmaceutical industry, telecom had reached every nook and corner and financial inclusion was running apace. Airports, metros and roads were being built.The national economy was third largest in the world. So perhaps times were not too bad after all.

 I apologise to you if I have confused you some more. But one thing I can assert with object clarity, that lot had changed and more change, and at a lot quicker pace, was manifest.

More of Akbar Allahabadi

Iniquitous! How can the preacher sacrifice the rhetoric, give up his nature,
Renounce religios qurrels and at risk, put his career
In his grief, Farhad when counselled restarint,
Asked,'' Tell me, what shall I do with the spade.

**************************************************
To the armies of the Sultan, Akbar never capitulated
But of the gibes of the wife dear, lay decimated.

**************************************************

Shall I divulge to you, what after death happened?
Friends dined and the Koran was canted.

****************************************************************

Laila and Majnoon the legendry lovers put in modern perspective.

 by the poet Akbar Allahabadi

Whispered Mother of Laila to Majnoon

Son! If you pass the M.A., soon

Without more ado, I will marry Laila to you                                         

And be gracious mother in law, to you too

Sayeth Majnoon;  Pity old woman!  You do not differentiate

The baloney and the ambience passionate

Between the natural ardour of an admirer

And the tedious explanations of the lecturer

What has gone wrong with you! Thou lady old

A deer is not made to carry load

Indeed poor appreciation of my personality

Like Harchran Das, I cannot be

I come to sacrifice my heart, and my intent make plain

But refuse to let you con me or strain my brain

If this be the condition of engagement

With hope and regret, I tender, herewith, my resignation

ये क्या हो रहा है, ये क्यों हो रहा है .
 
यह क्या माजरा है, यह कैसी सबा है.
निगाहों में उलझन, दिलों में धुआं है .
कुछ ऐसी भी मुश्किल नहीं दास्ताँ है.
कई अंजुमन हैं, कई रस्ते हैं .
न जाने ये क्यों, फिर, समा बदगुमां है.
ये किस मोढ़ पर आज, मेरा हिन्दोस्तां है.
यह क्या माजरा है, यह कैसी सबा है.
 
यह मोदी की हवा है, य राहुल की सदा है.
मन मोहन की दवा है, समझ में न आए ये क्या सिलसिला है.
ये सुषमा के नाले, लो अब तो जेटली भी खफ़ा है.
औ, लोगों का क्या हाल हम तुमको बताएं.
उसी उस ने लूटा, जिसको अवसर मिला.
जो कुछ भि है, हिन्दोस्तां बदगुमाँ है.
यह क्या माजरा है, यह कैसी सबा है.
 
यह स्कैम में हुकूमत य, फिर,हुकूमत में स्कैम है.
किस किस क नाम हम तुमको गिनाएं, न इससे कोई भी अछूता रहा है.
ये यू पी औ एम पी, बंगला भी ए पी भी.
ये सियासी दियारे, औ अफसर के दफ्टर भी.
चोरों कि बजती है सारे में तूती.
जो कुछ भी है, बस हिन्दोस्तां बदगुमाँ है.
यह क्या माजरा है, यह कैसी सबा है.
 
टी वी दिखए सियासी तमाशे,
स्टूडियो के माहिर इनक़लाबियों की जलवे.
रिटायर्ड अफसरों के जवांमार्दी के क़िस्से.
जजों की हिकायत, वकीलों की नसीहत.
इन तमाशों से सुधरी, वतन की न हालत.
इसी सब से शायद वतन बदगुमाँ है.
यह क्या माजरा है, यह कैसी सबा है.
 
चले पोछने सबके आंसू, भारत के रतन थे.
मिली राह में जब सुबह की किरण.
सुबह ने दिखाया धनो का द्वार.
रहबर बन गए रहज़न, बे-शुमार.
मुश्ल्किलें तो बहुत हैं, पै इरादे जवानां बुलंद.
यही है बस हिन्दोस्तान का मरम.
पै, अब तो मंज़र ये है, हिन्दोस्तां बदगुमाँ है.
यह क्या माजरा है, यह कैसी सबा है.

 

 

Vagary of an old and idle mind-2

A drop, in bosom of the river, I flow from birth to the end.

मैं क़तरा हूँ लेकिन बआगोशे दरिया अजल से अबद तक बहा जा रहा हूँ

If life moved in a salient then one would do well to be master of his trade and avoids the risk of being Jack of many trades and lose out on core competency. Therefore, should one concentrate on a good career and earn lots of money or should one also widen his horizons, acquire knowledge of topics other than one’s trade, have hobbies; interest himself in art and culture, stress good health and good relationships? Does life follow the pattern of modern day specialist, a heart specialist or a rocket scientist? Is it important for individual to bother himself with these questions or it is a charade because lives are unique and follow no patterns.

Can a life said to be well led if it is spent pursuing single course and one remains oblivious of other splendors and beauties surrounding life and living? Will contentment elude a person who is so focused? The point is what makes for completeness in life; all of a solitary feature or substantial aspects of man. If latter then in what proportions or the mathematics of proportions, here, is in fructuous. Would you agree, I do subscribe to the idea that one may, indeed legitimately conjure up a sense of achievement, yet the euphoria it will remain ephemeral. It would be like eating something you cherish but once you have chewed it and swallowed it, it is all over. The after taste does not linger for long. Even if it is so, so be it? Why deny one that sense of elation for the fear of its being is transitory? Further, question arises that if so, then why one must not strive for more achievements in his chosen field, a continuum of achievements to create reasonable degree of permanence through a series of transients rather than scare himself into dividing his energy in to several areas This issue does not appear important and the argument appears fallacious to me because the point is not to deny any thing to one self but to recognize that life itself is made up of various elements. Therefore, even single minded pursuit of an idea will need inputs from several other disciplines for neither the life nor the society in which sustains life, can continue upon fractions. The life appears to be focus of numerous the radiations.

 Thus, I deem it that sense of satisfaction will come by getting to lead a more rounded life where there is input from several welcome sources. In the Hindu thought, emphasis is laid on सन्तुलन, the nearest inadequate English expression, to my mind, would be balance. I think the word has stronger connotations of optimal amalgam rather that balancing the powers.  I accept that it is perfectly legitimate to seek more money so that efforts are not diluted and development is not stunted. However, when this desire for more riches becomes a craving and entirely over powering, it must disturb the सन्तुलन.

Another aspect is personal needs and relationships. Relationships need extra care because in pursuit of everyday activities and career one tends to take relationships for granted or just ignore relationships. If such a relationship even barely sustains then it is either efforts of the others or sheer providence. Whatever the reason, it shall hang by a thread and certainly not be a reason for sustained satisfaction of life well led. How does one nurture relationships? True it takes two to tango yet, to my mind, it can be achieved by not giving much or at least secondary importance to one self and giving more importance to others without professing covertly or overtly, ones exertion. Is there danger that the people tend to take you for granted? Well then perhaps one can practice it at least in closer circles and take the loss to sustain relationship. This effort will also mature one and prepare him to extend the idea to a larger group. Nurturing of relationship requires love and not treatise by Hersey and Blanchard. In this, there has to be a degree of surrender; not technical precision nor contractual exchange. One can practice it only when one enjoys doing so.

 It also implies an ability and desire to internalize everyday problems. ‘Kicking the dog’ syndrome will not serve the purpose. It will involve inculcating in oneself strength to look the issue in the eye and start to search for the solution without getting overwhelmed by the issue itself.

Lucknow Mangos-Akbar Alahabadi

Neither memo nor no dispatch mate send,

In this festive season only mangoes send.

For awhile I will enjoy and devour,

So twenty be ripen and ten not mature.

You know the address of yours truly ,

Send the consignment to me directly .

Hope not, you convey in reply,

It shall be done but mail the cash firstly.

Akbar Alahabadi-shayari-translation

(Alas, Curzon has done it!)

Watch the mug of the womanly guys,

Esteem men by their fashionable ways.

If truth be told, at the storey top, people, lightened,

Campaign with the beard began, with the moustache concluded.

Vagary of an old and idle mind-1 Governance, leadership and corruption

The widely prevalent corruption in the Indian nation has left the people insensate and, paradoxically, seething inside. However, the recent media coverage of CWG and 2G scams and the judicial pronouncements, thereon, brought the issue forth into public focus. The conniving, for the antagonist, or hapless, for the sympathetic, government of Dr. Manmohan Singh was jolted out of its stupor of ambivalence and take note of the public anger.

The Anna Hazare team, fixated on its own version of ombudsman, Jana Lokpal, bill, spearheaded the agitation to force a bewildered government to abandon its reluctantly drafted bill, which was labelled  ‘toothless’ and angrily dubbed  ‘jokepal’. The rhetoric was reinforced with threat of fast unto death by Anna Hazare. This technique of protest was resorted to, effectively, by Mahatma Gandhi, during British occupation of India and pronounced unsuitable in independent India, by the Mahatma himself. There has been a lot of debate about the alleged intrinsic governmental apathy to fight corruption and the role of the civil society to force the government to accept its prescriptions for the social ills through methods which are not necessarily envisaged in the Constitution of India. It is argued that as all political parties come to close ranks on the issue and have a vested interest in perpetrating corruption from which they gain immensely. Therefore, people of India, as represented by the civil society of Mr Hazare, have no other recourse but to accept and support the discourse of the group. The agitating group, in fact, received immense emotional response from the people of India. The ills were not categorised and a simple and single cure was sought by the harassed population. The people also did not recognise the difference between corruption which can be addressed by an institution like the Lokpal and corruption due to maladministration which indeed hurts general public much more and may require humongous infrastructure for detection, training of personnel and provision of equipment et cetera over a considerable period of time and therefore, may have to be tackled differently. They also ignored the possibility of an omnibus Lokpal turning out to be Frankensteinian monster, in the course of time. The hope of Eldorado here and now has pushed back the possible scenarios of future. Be as it may, the popular response put a faltering government on the back foot.  The political opposition smelt blood and several riff-raff also jumped in to the fray.

The issue has been discussed on TV and other media ad nauseam.  However, I suspect that the role of the government in the modern society and the concepts of leadership which are also involved have not received the attention that it deserves as more radical views and exotic solutions caught more eye balls.

The cliché, ‘of the people, for the people and by the people,’ is often repeated with considerable vehemence and passion in order to remind the government that it must carry out the wishes of its masters, the people. People's wish it is implied must reflect in governments policies. However, it is important to realise that governance per se involves coercion. People’s will and governance, is, perhaps, dichotomy of democracy, yet inseparable. There is an element of juxtaposition in governance and reflecting the passing moods of the people. If everyone is doing what one ‘should do’ then where is the need for government? If social good is aggregate of maximum good for an individual then there is no scope for conflict. Each one of us will, without any compunction, pursue what one perceives is best for him or her. (since aggregate of individual good is hypothesised to be the good of the nation then we need not pursue any grudge against a Raja or a Kalamadi!)  If it is presumed that individual action can never   impinge adversely upon the interest of other members of the society then elaborate rules, laws, courts and other instruments of governance become redundant. Therefore, the important question is, if this concept of ‘godly person’, who would always do what gels with the general social needs, is correct and acceptable? The planet Earth is not Eldorado yet: as such a modicum of governance, albeit minimal, with the consent of the governed and which respects individual liberty, is requisite. It will be naive to presume that every person or a group of persons can be granted complete freedom of action and the liberty to pursue what he or they may consider good for themselves or even good for the people at large without audit. Passionate rhetoric and intemperate language must not take the place of considered and informed arguments. Noise is not music and as Shaw said, ‘sneers are no arguments.’

 In the milieu of national governance who can be this auditor? I believe it can be the representatives of the people duly elected by them and ultimately people themselves who would express themselves at the time of elections. There may be no short cuts to this and no group proclaiming to be the voice of the people can appropriate to itself the right to represent them without their consent.

A nation state will require a government and the people must ensure that this government is a good government but they must not circumscribe it into incapability.

 Political leaders are much reviled lot who constitute, probably, the largest group who are the butt of the most cruel of jokes and gossip. God knows, several of them have earned it for themselves. However, the politicians are drawn from the same society as the rest of us and, therefore, as a class, must have good people as well as the bad ones, in the same proportion as in any other trade, indeed in the society itself. To contend the MPs are villains and the rest of the society which elects them is Lilly white, is naive. Indeed politicians, even the bad ones, are the instruments through which the various interest groups interact and arrive at an optimum share of benefits for the groups. This process fulfils the aspirations of the people and ensures inter-group peace and harmony. Therefore it will not be wise to decry the institution of the political leadership entirely.

 In a democratic setup people are supreme but almost, for the governments cannot function by the Gallup polls. It is well argued that the politicians must project and carry out the wishes of their constituents. However, the politicians have a role, apart from being one of them and representing the people, that of being a leader; a role which a society can deny to them only at its cost and peril.  Obviously, a leader should be a person of acumen with ideas for future direction. He must be able to communicate with people and persuade them to accept his paradigms.  Perhaps, a tall order but that is what is requisite. The society needs to assume responsibility to elect such people instead of berating its own choice, at all the times.  A leader cannot be a mere mouthpiece for the multitude. And politicians cannot be replaced with any number of wise Judges, heads of tribunals or commissions lest the nation is lost to a dictator or an oligarchy of dictators.

(This was  written during the first Anna agitation)                                      

More of Iqbal-Sher

Be it the majesty of monarchy or the distraction of democracy,

Divorced from politics, there remains, but tyranny.

*********************************************************** 

Ay Qais*! Why has your passion gone cold?

(though) Laila** still has the same flair of being Laila.

*Legendary lover Majnoo

** Legendary beloved

Muaarri

It is said, Muaarri never par-took of meat,

He survived on flower and fruit.

A friend sent to him partridge baked ,

The virtuoso, by the dodge, perchance, be plagued.

Muaarri, spied the appetizing fowl baked,

The poet of gurfan-o-lajumaat, thus, mused.

 Tell me, what was your crime, O bird wretched,

 For which you deserved punishment so wicked?

Alas, a hundred times,alas you were not born an eagle,

 thy eye did not perceive the nature’s signal. 

From the time of creation, the Dispenser of fates has ordained,

The penalty is abrupt death, for the crime of being faint and drained.

Jibrael and Iblees............

Jibraeel (Gabriel)and Iblees, both, were angles, together in the heaven. Iblees was turned out of the heaven for disobeying God and turned into Devil
Jibraeel," Old friend! How is the world of colour and fragrance?"
Iblees,"    Full of heat of heart, of pain, wound, quest and
                aspiration."
Jibraeel," Of you, often in the heaven, angles mull over,

                Is it not possible, bygones ignored and your damaged wear be
                put back together?"
Iblees,"    Alas! Jibraeel! You are not aware of the secret profound,
                My broken glass of wine, truly, has bestowed upon me vision unbound.
                Impossible now my habitation here! Impossible here now my
                habitation! 
                How subdued is this place, without streets and bastion.
                The exuberance of universe, diminished by pervading nothingness,
                For such a place, neither despair nor hope, is goodness."
Jibraeel, " Repudiation has lost to you the pinnacles lofty,
                What appeal remains in eyes of God, for angles holy?"
Iblees, "   It is my fortitude that advancement fascinates man, of dust made,
                By my endeavour, the clothes of wisdom’s fibre made.
                Sitting on the shore, the war of good and bad, you eye,
                But who is receiving the blows of storm, you or I.
                Without hand and feet, helpless, are the wise and the prophet,
                My struggles from moment to moment span from river to river
                and from rivulet to rivulet.
                Enquire of God, if granted audience ever,
                Whose blood made the life of Man so full of colour?
                I am, niggling, like a thorn, in the heart of God,
                And you merely whine,” Oh God! Oh God! Oh God!”

Intones the Preacher............

Intones the Preacher, renunciation, here, fulfilment bestow!  
Renounced the world? Then, renounce the heavens too.
Commendable to die than to follow without question,
Find your path! Give up the refrain of Preacher’s exhilaration
The sacrament of love, is to rest away from the assembly,
Renounce the temple, the gratifying and the holy.
It is no deal making, it is worship of God,
O gullible! Renounce also the desire of reward.

The Confused Idea of Pakistan

The idea of Pakistan was, perhaps, initially articulated by Md. Iqbal, a brilliant poet, inconsolablely pained at the plight of Muslims for which he blamed almost everyone on the planet and beyond with, possibly, singular inability to introspect. Yet it was a poet's imagery and no more. He was what Rt. H'oble Hacker would call a closet Islamist It was taken up later by others, Jinnah being one among them.

Jinnah was a brilliant lawyer but not a devout Muslim or a Muslim scholar or fiercely anti British to be chosen leader of, which may be described as a national Islamic movement, for independent statehood. He was a suave and a successful) lawyer comfortable in the dinner parties thrown by the British official as well as with the Indian aristocracy. The hoi polloi was not his concern. Jinnah was accepted and allowed to lead the Muslim League party because he was the best known Muslim face with interlocutory ability with the British patrons. The Muslim league was a party of the Muslim landed aristocracy devoted to preserve their self interests.

Jinnah was a member of the congress party, initially. When Gandhi attempted to turn congress into a mass based political party Jinnah did not comprehend the import of the endeavour. He was chary of getting involved with the vulgar. When Gandhi gained ground in the congress, perhaps, Jinnah felt that a status which should have been his was slipping away from him. He became disdainful of Gandhi and ever remained so and competed to gain equal status. Eventually and frustrated, he joined the Muslin league. The Muslim league which purportedly espoused the cause of Indian Muslim was in indeed more concerned with cause of the Muslim land lords than Muslims per se. Although, he made the most of the tenuous communal situation in India to consolidate his position yet personally he was not a communal partisan. This is obvious from his life style and from his speeches, in India and after he took over Pakistan. He was emphatic that the Pakistani state will not be influenced by the religious propensity of its citizen. How could he have hoped so when he demanded Pakistan on the basis of religion? Thus Pakistan was begat in contradiction and political naivety, peppered liberally with Jinnah's ambition.

Pakistan was not the creation of the indigenous people who inhabited the areas which now is Pakistan. It was created by the Land lords of the central and northern area of modern India. Jinnah was from Bombay and his number two, Liaquat Ali Khan from the central province. Pakistan was created by these groups with the benign acquiesce of British government of India. In a way, Pakistan never got its freedom. The British were replaced by Jinnah and his cohorts.

It is noteworthy that Jinnah or his colleagues of the Muslim league were never arrested or sent to the jails by the British. The British government of India was not too uncomfortable with the party which did not take any direct action that could strain the administration. Hardly, approach of a leader or a party seeking independence from an alien power.

The nett result of this manoeuvre was that though British gave Pakistan to Jinnah, Pakistan had no polity rooted in the masses which could provide stable leadership or give conceptual content to the idea of Pakistan.

The idea of Pakistan, borne in confusion and fear remained nebulous. If the land lords were not willing to contemplate upon economic, political, administrative or geopolitical issues the Mullas were not capable of it. Both had separate agenda and both were fighting for their personal turf with tacit support of then government.

Thus the idea of Pakistan was

1. A mixture of religious chauvinism,

2. An attempt to safe guard privileges by the land lords who were uncomfortable with mass politics,

3. Induced fear of Hindu domination in Independent India and

4. A simple notion that the religion alone can be basis of a nation. Islam is monolithic and will overpower the issues relating to economics, ethnicity, language, geography culture etc.

A situation tailor made to create chaos but not develop the concept on which a nation can be built.

Jinnah was appointed head of Pakistan. He was never elected and did not even get the time to do so. When he died, Liaqat Ali took over. His rule too was never legitimised by the people. When he was assassinated a series of bureaucrats and generals ruled the directionless country.

By the middle of fifties the army had taken control and lost it for a few years when Bhutto was in power in the seventies. This Machiavelli of Pakistan was in India till 59 or so claiming privileges of an Indian from the courts in Bombay. He had migrated to Pakistan and rose quickly in political stature. He gained power after the breakup of Pakistan. He was no political thinker. He was but a political opportunist. He did not nurture democracy but used the same old methods to silence his mildest of critics. Aptly, though tragically, he met his nemesis in Zia ul Haq. Thereafter, Pakistan has never seen democracy. The two stints of Nawaz Sharif and Mrs. Bhutto at the helm were under the regency of the army.

Pakistan also failed to develop a credible or effective civil society. A large unlettered, poor, heterogeneous society ruled through the heavy military boot is not the fertile soil where tender plant of civil society can grow.

Indo-Pak trouble had to be sustained to ensure that the people see the army as the saviour of the country and let it rule. The army cannot compromise on its rule because the stakes for the army are extraordinary. The army commands the government and the economy of the country. The army officers own the 12% of the national assets it also usurps the major part of the national budget. The army has to be sustained not only because the generals willed it so but also because the American government who bank roll the country. Intellectually feeble and too powerful, American have always have been comfortable with dictatorships around the world. It is always easy to deal with a centralised power than a country where there may be many centres of power and numerous checks upon the administration.

In the present uncertainty one thing is certain which is peoples always survive. Therefore, redemption will happen. I believe it will rest in the following: (whatever route the relationship with India eventually takes.)

1. The lawyers' movement and the ascent of judiciary signify rule of law and dispersion of power.
   
2. Modern technology will prove to be crucial in the political change which we shall see in Pakistan. The immense power of the television to communicate will rouse the popular expectations as it will inform the citizens and empower them to dream of bright future for themselves and their children. This will discourage the army in to any adventure in pursuit of it political and economic interests. The power of internet to communicate and the difficulty of administration to stop it, will compliment what TV alone may not be able to do.
   
3. Willy-nilly, the middle class has increased. It will demand more share of power and privileges.
   
4. The Pakistani military are no Taliban. Elite anywhere and Pakistan can be no exception, are seldom zealots; their stakes in status quo are too high. They are unlikely to accept the Taliban on the mainland; shariat etc in the far-flung tribal north which does not affect them, is another matter.
   

The American author, Cohen in his readable book says that it is in American interest to sustain democracy in Pakistan but do the American government think so? At one time the Latin America and the Middle East etc. were in total American influence. Countries there remained kingdoms/dictatorships (many still do) as long as they were under American spell. Some of these later turned in to republics after they were able to substantially reduce American interference. It appears that American Governments think of democracy as well reasoned treatise on morality; to be sermonised and perhaps to be sworn upon but not to be practiced, beyond America and the Western Europe!

The Pakistani military and administration can deliver. They are competent and the Americans can force the issue with them. Without American backing the army cannot sustain. The Americans could also stop indulging in Rambo politics. They are now flogging Bin Laden. What is important is his organisation. It is important to tackle the circumstance and the process of thought which create terrorists organisations. The Americans shy away from such analysis because they know that they themselves are to be substantially blamed for the scourge of Al-Qaida and the Taliban. It is indicative of bankruptcy of rationality that every new ruler in Pakistan is termed by the American establishment as 'the last best hope'. They can learn to deal with issues.

Circa 1954, Nehru once said to the effect that the people of Pakistan got freedom without paying for it. They are not able to value it. They will also have to go through what India had suffered in the wake of the struggle for freedom and make similar scarifies. Then they will understand the value of freedom and achieve it too.