Demeaning. Insulting. Shameful.

Pakistan was a dream that downtrodden Muslim were made to believe by the sincere passionate leadership of the Quaid. People’s expectations and optimism were high and they felt that in Pakistan, their own country, there will be justice, education, safety, health facilities, industrial development, jobs, international respect and general well-being. These hopes were not unfounded from the state of Pakistan in the first few years after 1947, albeit with restricted resources. Pakistan, in spite of its severe limitations, was taking strides in its early years, and people were optimistic of the emerging wave and certain that they will grow and prosper in the future.

It is the bureaucracy that failed to understand the critical need and failed the nation.

Of course, all this was not without the challenges. Immediate challenge was the task of rehabilitation of migrants and worsening India-Pakistan relations which continued in the 50s and 60s including the water dispute with India. Jinnah felt that a country’s very existence depended upon its ability to safeguard its borders. Money, which was scarce anyway, had to be diverted to strengthen the armed forces at a cost of almost 62% of Pakistan’s budget. Since the linchpin of the conflict between Pakistan and India was Kashmir, the ensuing war between the two nations over Kashmir again consumed money and reinforced the determination to strengthen our security.

The first 5-year plan, based on the USSR model, was launched in 1948, focusing on the country’s much-needed economic development. Perhaps it was wrongly expected that with an improved economy and per capita income, which was the thrust of the plan, people will be able to meet all their needs. However, nowhere in the world does a high per capita income replace a nation’s provision of justice, health facilities, education, security, job creation etc. Politicians come and go. It is the responsibility of the bureaucracy, as the technical experts in governance, to help prioritise, develop, propose, and then implement the national vision, strategy, policies and procedures. In my opinion, it is the bureaucracy that failed to understand this critical need and failed the nation.

Years went past. What was Pakistan’s leadership embroiled in, in the formative years that followed?

Passed in 1949, the ‘Objectives Resolution’ of Liaquat Ali Khan undermined national cohesion by compromising the status of non-Muslim minorities while the declared intent of the Quaid was a secular Pakistan. Thereafter, Pakistan tried to play the role of a ‘big brother’ for the rest of the Islamic states, a diplomatic approach which backfired and resulted into worsening of the country’s own socio economic conditions. Meanwhile, the Urdu and Bengali language riots of the 50s took up attention and resources, while the imposition of the ‘one unit system’ by Prime Minister Bogra in 1954 crystallised the ideological differences between East and West Pakistan and encouraged the Balochistan separatist tendencies. There were a host of other factors that played their part in undermining the nascent state from the word go. Those factors were: the conflicts between Huseyn Suhrawardy and Iskandar Mirza emerging after the 1956 constitution, the massive arrests ordered by Iskandar Mirza in East Pakistan to restrict the growth of communism, the wooing of the US and interjection of the ISI in countering USSR efforts in Afghanistan, the events and power struggles of the whole Suhrawardy, Maulana Bhashani, I. I. Chundrigar, Sir Feroz Khan Noon Nurul Amin era, Iskandar Mirza’s firing four prime ministers, the declaration of emergency, the appointment of Ayub Khan as Commander in Chief and calling for the 1958 elections, along with the backfiring of Iskander Mirza’s attempt to dismiss Ayub Khan leading to Ayub’s 1958 Martial Law, and the litany goes on and on.

In fact, the initial 10-year period had gone by, largely driven by intellectual corruption, power struggles, protecting Pakistan’s borders, managing water threats, wheeling and dealing in Afghan affairs, and managing diplomatic relationship with the US, the USSR, Britain, China and India. There was never a dull moment indeed, but the needs, aspirations and expectations of the people remained unaddressed and things soon started to crumble.

Being vital to the nation’s socio-economic development, the judiciary is the nucleus from which such key functions and attributes as good governance, transparency and public sector effectiveness radiate. Let me cite a personal incident that truly reflects the level of justice available in Pakistan, then and even now. Talking about the provision of justice, a senior member of judiciary once said, “At district court level, there is around 20% justice and 80% injustice, and the overriding reason for injustice is 80% corruption and 20% influence. At the session court level, according to him, there is 50% justice and 50% injustice and the reason for injustice is 50% corruption and 50% influence, while at the supreme court level, there is 80% justice and 20% injustice, because of influence and political pressures, not to exclude threats to family, blackmailing, etc. as well as heavy financial corruption.”

Unfortunately while Individuals were outstanding, the institution of judiciary and the jurisprudence, which could have prevented the rot and relied upon to do so, did not mature and the heavy-handed dictates of the beneficiaries of the rot gradually undermined the vital confidence in justice itself. Not enough sleep was lost over it. Gradually and progressively, hopes were quashed and people left in utter disillusionment against the dreams of their own homeland, their own Pakistan.

It is human nature and instinct for survival, as summarised in Abraham Maslow’s ‘Hierarchy of Needs,’ to first make sure there is ‘bread on the table’ and provide for the future needs of family, old age retirement and even death, followed by safety, belongingness and love, esteem and lastly, self-actualisation. In Pakistan, unfortunately, institutions didn’t provide such support and left the people with the inevitable conclusion: nothing or very little has changed; so do and grab what you can today, as tomorrow is uncertain.

Corruption thus became the norm and permeated every walk of life, be it person to person dealings, community management, bureaucracy, politics, business, etc. I cannot forget three statements made by two very senior members of our business community and a third who was a government servant. When I asked these senior and socially respected businesspersons that “as taxes have been reduced (in the 90s), your businesses will now flourish”? He replied, quite unashamedly, “No, it will make no difference, as we never paid any taxes before, so reduction makes it no better!” Another business person said, “bhai kaam wo kero jis mein excise duty and sales tax ho.. roz k do (two) truck nikal do bas kaam ban jayega.” Buying a ticket to go abroad, another colleague of my CSS days met me at the American Express office in Lahore. When I asked him the reason for leaving the country permanently, he laughed and said, “I joined the government with a target of making 5 crores, that’s done and so I’m leaving.” He was a vehicle inspector in Faisalabad. The numbers of such people kept growing and today Pakistan’s socio-economic fabric is infested with the ‘rats’ and the country suffers the consequent ‘plague’.

I think there are two kinds of corruption: one at the street level and the other at the policy-making and intellectual levels where national assets are being invested. Where did Pakistan’s foreign debt of over USD100 billion go? Was it invested wisely? I am reminded of what Philip Kotler said in his book ‘Marketing of Nations’. He said that nations are hurt when corruption leads to national assets getting invested in what suits personal pockets rather than national priorities. One can read the story of Pakistan in this succinct statement.