Servitude par excellence

Observing the total submission to the ruling janta by the politico-bureaucratic elite in countries like ours, one wonders how such subservient practices have survived in modern times. A closer look at Pakistan’s echelons of power indicates that even today, bureaucracy and political leaders have silently taken a leaf from Mahabarta to revolve their entire public lives around it. Taken aback dear reader? Kindly bear with me a little and allow me to present my case and lead evidence in this regard. I may, however, add here that the sophistication and delicacies added by Western experts to the principles outlined in Mahabarta are all but absent in our environment.
Mahabarta contains remarkable lessons from one Guru Dhaumya. These are crucial fundamentals for the servants of the king. Arguably, modern day rulers of societies like ours conduct themselves in a kingly fashion. It follows that their advisers, assistants and public servants adjust accordingly.
Historically the kings have seldom tolerated any voice of dissent. The same remains true for the Pakistani-style of democracy. Governance by cabinet is clearly provided in the law. However, this nation’s prime ministers, over time, are known to have acted like kings. One of them actually confided in a foreign journalist that he admired Mughal style of governance.
Notwithstanding their all-encompassing power, kings had to place heavy reliance on compliant servants. Even in today’s environment, such compliance has to be absolute, through all means of communication, postures, prostrating included.
Guru Dhaumya vividly laid down the golden principles for the servants of the king. So universal is the acceptance of these principles that the exceptions are there just to prove the rule.
Lo and behold. Rule number one states: “Those who are engaged in service under a king should always be vigilant. They must serve without talking too much. They may give their counsel only when asked, and never obtrude it.” Adding any commentary would only spoil the taste of the reader.
The second rule states: “They should praise the king on befitting occasions.” When did one hear a minister or public servant speak about anything without mentioning that all the Herculean feats are being performed by him or his ministry in the light of the vision of the all-knowing leader?
We should not complain when no one is applying his or her mind independently. We must appreciate that they are just following the third rule: “All things, no matter how small, may be done only after informing the king, who is a veritable fire in human form.” How many examples of the public servants are there volunteering any advice contrary to the expressed or perceived wishes of the competent authority?
The ‘stars’ who survive palace intrigues and rise, know how to compute the optimal distance that is maintained between themselves and the chief executive. They know that the ruler has no friends and no enemies. If a meeting is started without waiting for the boss, a hell is certain to break loose, as it did in the heydays of the “awami” government. The once beloved, jolly occupant of the red building also fell from grace, in line with the same rule, in relatively more recent times. The rule was aptly stated by the great Guru, as the fourth rule for the servants: “Do not go too near him, nor yet appear to avoid him. Even though a person may be trusted by the king and have great authority, still he should always behave as if he can be dismissed immediately.”
In modern day parleys, term “face-time” with boss aptly summarises this. As for the “unceremonious dismissal”, we all remember there was this retired ex-military bigwig gentleman heading the National Security Council: remember his dismissal sacking through a telephone call to a private TV channel.
Lying and going back on one’s words is nearly a norm for the heads of governments in countries like ours. That “the prime minister himself assured me about this” is not a firm ground to place one’s foot on. This is well known by the Who’s Who everyone who is someone, of is politics and the bureaucracy in of this land of the holy. Thus so speaks the Guru in the fifth rule: “It would be foolishness to place too much confidence in a king.” If the testimony of the great Chaudhries from the city of fans and furniture is anything to go by, they appear to have themselves broken the canon and suffered. This scribe feels that they should be forced to take politics as a minimum penalty.
Momentary favours by the boss should all not be taken to mean anything at all. Riding with him in his car or sitting with him on a stage during a public gathering does not mean anything. This is the sixth rule: “One may not sit in the conveyance, seat or chariot of the king, presuming on his affection. A servant of the king should ever be active and self-restrained. He should not be excessively elated, or unduly depressed, by being honoured or dishonoured by the king.”
Many, only in Sindh, bear modern examples of the efficacy of this rule and the results of violating it. The former mayor of an urban party, or the lawyer-turned-judge-turned-politician of the league or the maverick politician from Muzaffargarh are only a glimpse of thousands of examples scattered around our “proud” history.
When a powerful adviser to one of our prime ministers spoke to British television and washed their dirty laundry in public, he was removed instantly under the seventh rule, (“read in conjunctions with other regulations”): “He may not reveal the secrets confided to him, nor may he receive anything in the form of gift from the citizens.”
Sufis prescribe their disciples to shun all feelings of jealousy towards their fellow human beings. But this rule is for spiritual uplift. The great guru prescribed a similar rule for more mundane reasons – like for the very survival! “He should not be jealous of other servants. The king may place fools in positions of authority, leaving aside the wise. Such waywardness should be ignored.” Any cabinet in Pakistan is arguably replete with the examples of “fools” and “sane” that have been appointed and the circus that results from the jealousies.
One wonders if, in order to legalise existing servitude par excellence, it would be wise to replace the present codes for civil servants and politicians with the golden rule expounded by the Great Guru in Mahabarta. One advantage this in adopting this course is that the classes we are referring to may be entitled to a better treatment in the hereafter as infidels (kafirun) and would have a less condemned status there than hypocrites (munafaqun), if this is some solace!
(Junaid Ghazi is a freelance, living in Islamabad; jayaka@)gmail.com)