Dr.
Zafar Altaf
Our
mighty President General Pervez during his recent visit to USA told
a gathering there that he would not like to be a powerless president
like his Indian counterpart who was, according to his judgement,
a " powerless man" with no powers whatsoever.
I could
not resist my feeling to write a piece on who is actually powerful,
in the real sense of the word and what does actual power mean in
this world full of knowledge and information, though many may put
troubling questions as to why was I making any difference between
an elected president of a democratic country and a president in
uniform! 
But,
the two neighbours, India and Pakistan, provide a fascinating study
and contrast in Presidential personalities. I had always been excited
by these personalities since I had the opportunity to meet Ramakrishna
at Raj Bhavan in 1960-61 tour of India by the Pakistan Cricket Team.
I was one of the beneficiaries of meeting and talking to most of
the Indian politicians including Nehru, Swaran Singh, Krishna Menon
and Indira Ghandhi who, at that time, was the understudy to Swaran
Singh.
The
comparison of the two present leaders is a study in personalities.
Both have been head of destructive forces. Both of them have reached
the pinnacle of their lives, one through his brilliant education
system, the other through his military career. Whereas I have met
my President on numerous occasions, the personality of the Indian
President I have made out of his autobiography ˜Wings of Fire”.
One
has reached that pinnacle through a process. The other through his
vantage of situations. One will play a major part in the country
and its destiny while the other will work through a democratic institutional
system. The contrasts and the paradoxical situations that the two
will face will be totally different. One will work through the constitutional
framework and is responsible for the upkeep of the constitution.
The other has been making changes in the constitution at will. He
is the one man constitution for with him are the coterie of cabinet
ministers whose slave mentality can never be doubted. The other
has no one to fall back upon except his seasoned bureaucrats. The
political questions and answers lie elsewhere.
One
believes in being a strong man. The other believes in the scientific
nature of his work. One has begun from humble beginnings and in
his book indicates the house from which he emerged and gives credit
to his teachers for what they did for him. The other gives no credit
to anyone. In the entire book there is no reference to the egoist
“I” while the other arrogates to himself the right to
do anything that he considers in the public and the nations interest.
It is a peculiarity of our system.
While
posted as Deputy Commissioner, Sahiwal I once received from the
Martial law authority [Gen. Iqbal in this case, commander of 10th
Div] an order of the day in which there was a considerable amount
of rhetoric as to how to look a tyrant in the eye and as matter
of constant reminder I had circled all the “I”s, there
were 19 of them. On a surprise check of the office, the General
saw what I had done and asked me the reason. I told him that this
was a very egoistic order of the day. He had come to show me the
way. That put him a bit out of sorts but not before he did his best
to sort me out.
We
are given to power play. Our cricket team reflects our attitudes
in an excellent way. When we are in winning ways our fast bowlers
are generally doing well. Remember Fazal Mahmood, Khan Mohammad,
Mahmood Hussain, Imran khan and lately Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis
and when we are out of sorts these guys are supposed to have gambled
their reputation away. The Indians are more on guile. They have
deception on their side. Their spin attack has always been superior
to Pakistan’s and their winning ways are dependent on their
spin attack. Through the ages Mankad, Bedi and Kumble, to name only
a few, provide evidence of what I am saying.
Their
politics is also full of guile and the Pakistan contingent will
never be able to best them in negotiations. We are short on dialogue
while they believe in it. We have always abrogated the democratic
institutions while they have had no such history. Is it because
of the leadership difference or is it some personality aberrations
in either of the leaders?
My
good fortune as having served the Secretary of Agriculture with
President Musharraf in recent years has given me an idea and an
insight in to his decision-making. Late General Zia brought in the
concept of “summaries” for the President while this
President has brought in the concept of presentations. Every Secretary
has to make these presentations. I made two and witnessed many more.
There is a two-fold purpose of these presentations. One was to get
educated and be aware of what is happening, and the other was to
keep the bureaucrat on his toes and under duress. On my summaries,
the decisions taken were opposed by the then Cabinet Secretary and
the Secretary General Finance. So the outcome was a considerable
of waste of time.
In
a peace-time army there is a lot of time for these kinds of presentations
but it is another matter in civilian life. As much as 10 to 15 days
were spent on these presentations. The culture has caught on at
all levels because it is now felt that that it is an easy route
to knowing what is happening. Convenience is laziness. The Indian
President will never have the opportunity of presentations.
In
a democracy the ills and the weaknesses are covered by the legislature.
Not so in a totalitarian regime. The Indian President has his tenure
cut out for him. He will finish it as required. That is the outcome
of stable political systems. The procedure for the succession system
is laid down.
In
our present set up, before every Cabinet meeting there is a “zero
meeting”. This includes only the favorite Ministers and they
fill the President with details. On one occasion four of them got
together and were filling the already filled ears of the President
with diatribe against one of the bureaucrats. And this seems to
be the pattern that has been set. It is done subtly and with a lot
of pre-meeting discussions. The joy at decimation of the individual
is a source of delight to them.
On
the Indian side I would not know but gauging from the President’s
book I can only quote “Any one who has taken responsibility
to lead a team can only be successful if he is sufficiently independent,
freedom and responsibility is the only sound basis for happiness.”
And he then gives two techniques for building this. “First
by building your education with skills. Knowledge is a tangible
asset [not so here, for in Pakistan infrastructure is a tangible
asset]. The more updated knowledge you possess the freer you are.
Knowledge cannot be taken away by anyone except by obscelescence.”
And
the second way is to develop a passion for personal responsibility.
The sovereign way to personal freedom is to help determine the forces
that determine you. “... Work for the things you believe in
[not bulldoze them]”. We can combat forces that threaten to
oppress us [uses martial language]. We can fortify ourselves with
the qualities and conditions that promote individual freedom. In
doing so we can create a stronger organization capable of achieving
unprecedented goals.” [Comments in parenthesis are mine].
A scientist
lives in truth and not glibly but with substance on his side. He
starts with doubt but ends in truth. Till such time that he achieves
what he has set out to achieve he will live in doubt. Why this transition
from nuclear activity to political and social activity. Can he make
the transition? He can and he will. His book gives enough evidence
of what he is likely to achieve. His mind is strong and he is eminently
suited for the job. There is no one behind him to serve his interests.
He will have to make it through the regular democratic institutions.
Our
President has strength all his own kind. We are a different set
of people and a different khamir (nature) and with a different Qibla
(Direction). Our cultural base has been distorted of late. We have
yet to come to terms with our legacy and our history and learn from
it. Are we ashamed of our legacy?
We
have for a leader an aristocrat in the making while the other has
come up the hard way. One on the basis of hard functionalism, the
other through creativeness. The contrast between the two is obviously
pretty wide though both were dealing in destructive forces. One
stands for democracy the other stands for democracy of his kind.
It is also clear that the Indian president was his own responsible
man with a considerable degree of mental toughness. He may not be
suave in his mannerism as our President is for he can swiftly show
his charm and captivate his audience. One had grown in a democratic
tradition the other had not.
Who
is capable of self-deception? Who is the truer self and who can
self-deceive? Deception that has elements of selectivity in them
is bound to fail and set up earth shattering consequences. Justifying
attitudes requires a process of integration whose normative power
cannot be reduced to subsystems. Can we then be presumptuous as
to what is likely to be the fate of the two nations given their
leaders?
Is
our wish desperate and presumptuous? Can we reconcile these almost
two opposing and contrasting personalities in such a manner that
the best of the best is visible? I cannot sit on judgment on the
other side but let me close with a remark on eminence and prominence.
While introducing Lord Edward Heath at the Birmingham University
the Vice Chancellor introduced him thus “My Lord Edward Heath
is both eminent and prominent. Eminent because he is man of letters
and prominent because he has been the Prime Minister of England.”
One
will go back to his house after the end of his tenure. The other
may not. Which one will and which one won’t! God save both
of them for I am a man of peace. Enough of blood. Let us get to
it. This can be a great subcontinent.
Email Story | 
Discuss Story
