by Dr. Khalil Ahmad
This article argues that people are not made of flesh only; they do need economic progress, but they do need freedom. They need freedom to think, imagine, experiment with ideas, to speak their mind, to write down their stream of thought, to express themselves, to publish themselves, to discuss and debate with other people, to be what they want want to be. These freedoms have been ensured to him in the Constitution of 1973.
It is the foremost duty of the state to secure these freedoms to every individual citizen, and in addition to this, it is the second most important duty of the state to make it unequivocally clear that no individual or group or community or party has any right or can be allowed to infringe theses freedoms of any individual irrespective of his status. This is what is meant by rule of law. But if the state fails in upholding the rule of law and works against the interests of the citizens, it is for the higher courts of the country to rein it in and provide relief to the citizens. But when both constitution and courts are wrapped up on any pretext, the people have no protection of their lives, their freedoms, and no access to information and no door to knock at for justice. This amounts to their complete enslaving and may force them to resort to the law of the people, i.e. a rebellion against the ruling elites.
--------
It was Ludwig Feuerbach, a German philosopher, who said, "Man is what he eats." Then it was Karl Marx who rebuked him in his Theses on Feuerbach. Marx termed such a vulgar materialistic view of man as the poverty of philosophy. Though afterwards both Marx and Engels, his ideological colleague, crafted explanations which aimed at making room for the intellectual and non-materialistic aspect of man, but in the final run what came out of both Marx and Marxism is the point of view that the whole being of man, including his consciousness, is determined by his economic being. That’s not much different from Feuerbach’s thesis.
This view of man has proved to be a formidable obstacle in understanding man. It not only debased him to the level of lower forms of life but proved to be such a hurdle without overcoming which no betterment in the condition of man could be effected. That was a stopover never to be left behind. It was claimed that first of all poverty be reduced; i.e. let poor be elevated. Then, they will be able to climb the ladder of humanity. Then they will be eligible to enter the realm of consciousness, the realm of ideas. This was complete negation of the consciousness of man, or more truly, a man of consciousness.
The remnants of this view of man have made the intelligentsia and ruling elites of Pakistan incapable of apprehending the prevailing situation in Pakistan. No doubt, it is this view which is fervently espoused by all of the liberals, progressives, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Welfarists, Modernists, enlightened ones (moderates included), human rights activists, and likes of these on the one hand, and on the other by all of the political and religious parties, civil and military governments and their spokesmen alike. It is to them that the simplified version of this concept of man owes its currency in Pakistan. It is they who are holding back the intellectual evolution of the people of Pakistan. It is these Feuerbachs of Pakistan who want the people of Pakistan to be what they eat.
The most recent issue that once again invoked a flurry of such theses, analyses, recommendations, suggestions, solutions, tips, etc, and finally emergency-cum-martial law on the part of an already "settled" military government in Pakistan is none other than what’s happening in Swat etc, meaningfully connected with Lal Masjid/Jamia Hafsa episode. Though the debate had already been incited by the 9/11 tragedy; the feeling of insecurity spurred by the acts of terrorism within Pakistan gave it a fresh push. Now in the wake of suicide blasts especially targeting security forces and irreparable loss of innocent lives, it is acquiring the form of a serious dialogue: how to fight terrorism?
But the thrust of this dialogue is mis-targetted. Without an exception, all of the men and women of opinion, from the authors of books and articles to the writers of letters to newspaper editors, are one in holding that in order to change and eliminate the terrorist mind-set people be provided first with employment, modern education, and a better standard of life. No doubt, they presume that employment, modern education, and a better standard of life will change the ideas and beliefs of these people. Isn’t it the other way round? What is commonly held is: change your thoughts; you will change your world. This is just the opposite, and in the final analysis strengthens the welfaristic/parasitic state, and without making any headway towards the resolution of the problem.
What these intellectuals both in uniform and without uniform direly need to be reminded of is that people whom they consider made of flesh only are instead made of the stuff ideas are made of. They are not more important than their ideas. It is these people who live and die as well for their ideas. It is these people, more than those intellectuals, who need ideas to live by.
Surely, it is not a place to contest the adequacy/inadequacy of their ideas. The question which is more important than their ideas is whether these people are free to hold and believe whatever they hold and believe true. The answer is a flat NO. In fact, when a state espouses an ideology, the first casualty is this freedom of people to hold, express and debate their ideas and beliefs freely. The most obvious example of such an ideologue-state is Pakistan itself. Being a state with an ideology, it suppressed this basic freedom and left its own citizens at the mercy of persecuting groups; rather it created such warring groups. This let loose a ‘witch-hunting’ campaign from the early days of country’s coming into existence.
This attitude of the state or of those elites who grabbed the resources of the state or of those groups who held the state hostage proved beyond any doubt that the country was made for such people who couldn’t/didn’t have any ideas; they only needed food, clothing and shelter. That is why every government boasts of making this or that much economic progress and indulges in meaningless statistics. What it never comes to see is that more than anything its citizens need their fundamental rights secured and ensured to them. Most important of all their freedom to hold, express and debate their ideas. This fatally marred the intellectual evolution of the people of Pakistan.
It was this statist mind-set imbedded in the materialistic concept of man that instilled the concept of ideological frontiers of the country into the people’s minds, and turned them into these frontiers’ guards, and ultimately did not let them grow as free agents. The state instead of protecting this freedom of holding, expressing and debating various strains of ideas of its citizens, became a party itself. It clung fast to a specific ideology. Not only it resorted to the indoctrination of this ideology, but persecuted the people also who differed from this ideology. Herein lies the seed of the problem whole of Pakistan is facing today. The November 03 act of wholesale blocking of independent TV channels among other things ensues from this thinking.
All this was and is quite outrageous to the dignity of free people. People are not what they eat, wear or live under. They eat, wear and live under in accordance with their ideas. Their whole life struggle is to live a life they think, imagine and wish to live. They are made more of ideas which require freedom to flourish. A hundred flowers cannot blossom under the tyranny of an ideological state whatever this ideology is.
No doubt, man is not merely a conscious being. But it may safely be asserted that man is what he wants to be. For this he needs freedom. He needs freedom to think, imagine, experiment with ideas, to speak his mind, to write down his stream of thought, to express himself, to publish himself, to discuss and debate with other people, to be what he is and what he wants to be. These freedoms have been ensured to him in the Constitution of 1973. It is the foremost duty of the state to secure these freedoms to every individual citizen, and in addition to this, it is the second most important duty of the state to make it unequivocally clear that no individual or group or community or party has any right or can be allowed to infringe theses freedoms of any individual irrespective of his status.
This is what is meant by rule of law. But if the state fails in upholding the rule of law and works against the interests of the citizens, it is for the higher courts of the country to rein it in and provide relief to the citizens. But when both constitution and courts are wrapped up on any pretext, the people have no protection of their lives, their freedoms, and no access to information and no door to knock at for justice. This amounts to their complete enslavement and may force them to resort to the law of the people, i.e. a rebellion against the ruling elites.
--------
Dr. Khalil Ahmad is associated with Alternate Solutions Institute, Pakistan's first free market think-tank
This article appeared in The Frontier Post on November 16, 2007.
