By: Ayesha Siddiqa

Dawn: December 14, 2007

A COUPLE of days ago I had a chance to see Ajoka Theatre’s play ‘Bulleh’ in Islamabad. The stage play was made on the life and spiritualism of the famous Sufi saint Bulleh Shah who grew up in the town of Kasur near Lahore where some of the modern-day rulers of the country come from.

The Sufi was forced to leave his hometown on several occasions as he struggled against the local religious and power orthodoxies.

In fact, in his speech scriptwriter Shahid Nadeem drew a parallel between Islamabad and Bulleh Shah’s Kasur. The audience applauded the writer’s comment as they could relate to the rise of orthodoxy and extremism in society. Equating Islamabad with Kasur made a lot of sense to the spectators, particularly in the backdrop of the Red Mosque incident in the capital city.The play expressed a latent desire to shift the emphasis of society from orthodox Islam to Sufi Islam which traditionally had a secular flavour and did not necessarily distinguish amongst religions. The foundation of Sufism, which some also call the folk religion of the region, is love and respect for humanity rather than division on the basis of sect, creed, gender, colour, race and ethnicity. The message went down well with the liberals of Islamabad who are generally apprehensive of the extremism and militancy growing around them.

However, what was equally interesting was the fact that the audience seemed to have missed the larger point of Bulleh Shah’s message and Sufism — his struggle was not just against orthodoxy or the mullahs and muftis of his time but also against the rulers and holders of state power. Throughout the play there were references to the constant struggle and battle between the Mughals and the Sikhs and it talked about the sorrow and pain of the common man.

I would probably not entirely blame the audience because most of the crowd belonged to a class which usually conducts itself in fluent English in everyday life. It is appreciable that they saw and enjoyed a performance in Punjabi including the Sufi’s poetry which was in Punjabi and Seraiki. It was hilarious to hear some of the comments after the play finished. The height of excitement for some of the viewers was that they could understand most of the words spoken in Punjabi. This is certainly great considering that the majority of the elite in Islamabad and Lahore shy away from both Urdu and Punjabi.

Surely it is not right to be critical of an anglicised crowd especially when the commentary is in English and for this very crowd. However, it is important to know if the ruling elite thought beyond the message of secularism of folk religion and looked into the deeper issue of how woeful is the life of the common man and it is this that must be changed. The elite shy away from creating institutional mechanisms to ameliorate the problems of the poor.

The resistance to creating institutions for the masses is central to the judicial crisis as well. The diplomats in Pakistan are not impressed by the lawyers’ movement because of the absence of a mass movement. It is a fact that what we see in the streets is the struggle of the fledgling middle class in the country, part of which is protesting because of its exclusion from decision-making and redistribution of resources.

So when Chaudhry Shujaat says that the issue of the judiciary does not bother the people he is partially correct. The common man’s life does not necessarily change, especially in the short term, if there is one set of judges or the other. After all, who ever comes out and protests for the common man when he is picked up and brutalised by the state, its agents or other members of the power elite.

A glance at the election manifestos of all political parties actually shows that there is almost no ideological difference between them and the various parties have nothing to offer to the man on the street. The PML-Q’s five Ds opposed to the PPP’s five Es do not ameliorate the hardship of the dispossessed classes. Conditions do not improve even under military governments which are as much a part of the elite as the feudal in other elite groups. The rulers will continue to chant slogans in favour of economic policies which do not bring any relief to the common man. The brilliant macroeconomic indicators of the previous government have only resulted in increasing the financial burden of the poor.

The streets have already begun to struggle with the shortage of wheat and sugar. This is in addition to the food inflation which has made people generally critical of the regime, especially General Musharraf and his team of foreign economists. It will not be surprising if problems proliferate due to bad planning such as the government’s ill-thought consumer financing.

Poor economic planning, however, is not regime-specific. All governments during the 1990s have pursued neo-liberalism without thinking the policy through which does not bode well for the common man. This commonality is because policies are generally made for the benefit of the elite rather than the poor masses.

The aforementioned description brings us back to the issue of the restoration of the judiciary which is vital from the point of view of the need for keeping a psychological balance in society. With nothing else working for the masses, at least the common man and woman must have the assurance of being heard or having a door to knock at. The very fact that there is no longer any institution which could come to the common man’s rescue will increase the general level of frustration in society. It will only cause anxiety which is not beneficial for anyone.

Furthermore, it is this anxiety which often lead people to orthodoxy and militancy. Ask anyone who demands shariah to explain the concept. Most of the time people are searching for justice and a favourable redistribution of resources. It is necessary for the exploitative elite to leave some breathing space for the dispossessed. Blocking all avenues just manifests the suicidal instinct of the ruling classes more than anything else. Unfortunately, this is a predatory elite which is known for chasing short-term gains rather than long-term objectives. The manner in which the president tried to protect the police and intelligence officials, and rated their honour higher than that of citizens, is one of the many examples of the myopia of the elite.

The behaviour of some segments of the elite towards the state is another example. For instance, a glance at the list of people who have joined the caretaker government or those who have helped military dispensations in the past shows how divided civil society has come to be. Or take the issue of the media. Some sections of the media that now complain of the state’s extremist behaviour had happily served the state and its agencies without any concern for the people or rule of law until the axe fell on them. Finally they are trying to mobilise the masses, thinking that the people are ready to sacrifice.

The fact is that any new leadership that wants the support of the people will have to stop playing games with the powerful and the masses at the same time. The common man will only back a Bulleh Shah who can truly challenge the powerful and question all forms of coercive power.

The writer is an independent analyst and author of the book “Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy”.
ayesha.ibd@gmail.com