Finding the principal contradiction

Side-effect

The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad.

‘On Contradiction’ is one of those theoretical works by Mao Zedong, the great communist leader and founder of modern China, that is considered significantly important by students of Marxism.

Mao says that while there are many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, one is in fact the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of all the other contradictions. Meaning thereby that at every stage in the historic development of a political or social process there is only one principal contradiction which plays the leading role.

Mao stresses that in order to understand a complex process we must apply ourselves to the full in trying to find that principal contradiction within that process. Once this contradiction is understood and subsequently resolved, all other problems and issues that have actually emanated from this principal contradiction will be easily resolved.

Pakistan’s outstanding economic, social and political issues not only continue to remain unresolved, they become more complex and as a result more difficult to resolve with time. There are multiple contradictions at work when we look into different areas. For instance, in our economy – as is the case in so many other countries – the gap between the haves and the have-nots is widening and posing a challenge to the dominant market-led global economy.

With sustained poverty and rising inequality, the contradictions between different social classes of the rich and the poor, those with means and those who are dispossessed, are sharpening at a phenomenal pace in Pakistan. In our social sphere – from the academia to the media to private offices and living rooms – the differences between the conservative and the liberal outlooks towards the world are at daggers drawn to each other.

In our political realm, the contradiction between the soldier and the citizen remains valid to this date, eight years after the end of a martial rule. There is a constant tension between the elected civilian leadership and the appointed military leadership – less over their view of the world and more over exercising political power, making decisions on behalf of the state, controlling key resources, determining foreign policy and defining national interest.

Historically, Pakistan has seen many contradictions between different segments of society, sets of people, vested interests and opposing ideologies. Some took permanent shapes and some were fluid. Different people looked at these contradictions from different angles. These angles were largely determined by the lenses through which people analysed their social and political environs. They all had a lot of evidence to prove that the contradiction they identified was actually the real, the key, the principal contradiction of Pakistan.

There may have been some evidence which challenged the findings, but that remains true with most theories. However, in case of Pakistan, if the issue identified as the principal contradiction was such that nothing could be done about it, it became abstract. And for a contradiction to be resolved, it has to be tangible. One may observe that an initially abstract contradiction also became tangible with time, but during the course of that time it did not remain the principal contradiction.

Before I come to the process of finding the principal contradiction in the Pakistan of today, let me take stock of what were seen as contradictions by different people over the course of our history. After its creation, the fundamental issue of Pakistan’s economy and polity was considered to be the divide between the native and the immigrant. It was argued that the native population of Pakistan was, in fact, overpowered and dominated, if not outright colonised, by the sheer presence in numbers, cultural ideas, societal norms and conservative politics of the immigrants from what is now India who came to what is now Pakistan at the time of the partition of the Subcontinent in 1947.

The tussle for domination stayed between the elites and educated but the tangible form it took was the galvinisation of the underclass in the immigrant strongholds of Karachi and Hyderabad. But with the formation of the MQM and with time and passing generations, the contradiction remains but is not the principal contradiction. Understanding what happened in 1947 and in later years is important but it has more academic and emotional value in the real politic of today’s Pakistan.

Similar to the native-immigrant divide is the diversion of interests and control over resources between the federating units of Pakistan, the native-native divide, so to speak. The contradiction between East and West Pakistan came to an end in 1971. Although we accepted Bangladesh in 1974, ‘West Pakistan’ had become ‘Pakistan’ with the simple promulgation of an ordinance after the fall of Dhaka.

The other four units in Pakistan have similar issues to those that were there between the two wings. In case of the realisation of the rights of the Baloch within Pakistan, there is a major resolution that needs to take place between the federation and the province. However, due to a large number of economic, cultural, political and practical reasons, even when the fissures are sharp the territorial integrity of the country is not drastically challenged. Therefore, further secessions are not the principal contradiction we face at the moment.

The sharpest contradiction to emerge in our political history within almost a decade of the creation of Pakistan was between military generals and the political leadership. There is no denying that General Ayub Khan was inducted in the cabinet by civilians and the military was given undue space by the West Pakistani political leadership to undermine and control East Pakistan and the East Pakistani leadership – since the military was essentially from West Pakistan – but Ayub and his coterie of commanders had enormous ambition. Besides, the military rule was supported by the West, particularly the Americans.

Pakistan saw four direct martial rules, spanning over 33 years, and indirect interventions where civilian governments were toppled and elections called. These direct rules and indirect interventions, coupled with the commercial and economic interests of senior officers, created a permanent stake of the military in political decision-making.

Political parties marred with serious inter and intraparty rifts and lacklustre performance when in government increased the space for an institution which is both monolithic and equipped. Not just armed but equipped, which means that it has the capability of undermining civilian politicians through forging alliances with other civilians and creating an atmosphere of distrust for the political process. Whether that capability is used to its fullest possibility or in somewhat measured terms to keep the pressure on politicians, or is not used at all, is the choice that the military commanders would make.

However, as time goes by and democracy takes roots, political parties mature and a more professional military develops as an institution, things will change for the better with complete regard for the constitution of the republic taking roots and consequently more economic, social and political stability. However, the civil-military divide remains a close contestant for being the principal contradiction in Pakistan.

Which contradiction is the other contestant for being the principal contradiction? You may call it a contradiction between conservatism and liberalism, between exclusion and inclusion, between essentialism and pluralism, between theocracy and secularism, between orthodoxy and modernity, between enlightenment and myopia and so on and so forth. What I simply call it is the contradiction between being an extremist and being normal.

It is not even about being enlightened and liberal in your view of the world and the way you conduct yourself. It is about being able to think and express your opinions like a normal human being, hold normal conversations, treat people normally and live a normal life without fear.

You find this contradiction pervasive across all social strata and state institutions, academic environments and cultural spaces. In my humble view, this is the principal contradiction of today’s Pakistan. Unless people are able to think, express, question and propose fearlessly, no change can be brought about in the economic, political and social spheres.

Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com