The legend is no longer among us. He was a witness to, as well as a participant in, many turbulent periods in our history. He served the country as a young district administrator, head of a number of permanent constitutional institutions, cabinet minister, chief minister, and political adviser to several presidents and prime ministers.
He was an apostle of honesty. While developing Sukkur Barrage irrigated land, he could have allotted land to himself but he did not. He even tactfully refused to facilitate Ayub Khan in getting a plot, desired by his wife, in Karachi.
One can draw insights from his book Pakistan: A Dream Gone Sour and his two-volume Collected Works.
Roedad Khan desired judiciary not to dabble in politics. He mentions in his book Pakistan: A Dream Gone Sour, “Justice Muhammad Munir, shortly before pronouncing his infamous verdict on the notorious Dosso case, said: “… when politics enters the portals of justice, democracy, its cherished inmate, walks out by the backdoor”.
He quotes French jurist Jean Bodin’s dictum ‘majesta est summa in civas ac subditoes legibusque salute potestas highest power over citizens and subjects is unrestrained by law’ [There is a Latin quip; who will guard the guardians?]
He reminisces: “Jinnah envisioned Pakistan as a modern, progressive, democratic country drawing its inspiration from the true, dynamic, pristine, revolutionary Islam of its early years with its emphasis on egalitarianism, social justice and accountability. Jinnah was a fervent believer in the sovereignty of the people, the inviolability of the constitution, supremacy of civilian rule, an absolutely independent and incorruptible judiciary, the rule of law, and a strong, neutral and honest civil service.”
Quaid abhorred exploitation. In an address before the Partition, the Quaid said: ‘The exploitation of the masses has gone into their blood. They have forgotten the lesson of Islam. Do you realize that millions have been exploited and cannot get one meal a day? If this is the idea of Pakistan, I would not have it.”
The Quaid upheld the Constitution. He visited Staff College Quetta and told them: “I should like you to study the constitution which is in force in Pakistan at present and understand its true constitutional and legal implications when you say you will be faithful to the constitution.”
The Quaid cautioned the civil servants in Peshawar: “Governments are formed, governments are defeated. Prime ministers come and go, ministers come and go, but you stay on and, therefore, there is a very great responsibility placed on your shoulders. You should have no hand in supporting this political party or that political party or this political leader or that political leader — this is not your business. Your duty is not only to loyally serve whatever legitimate government is in office, but at the same time fearlessly maintaining your high reputation, your prestige, your honour and the integrity of your service.”
“If they [leaders and politicians] ever try to interfere with you [the civil servants] and bring political pressure to bear upon you which leads to nothing but corruption, bribery and nepotism — they will be doing a disservice to Pakistan. Maybe some of you may fall victim to not satisfying the whims of ministers. Sacrifices have to be made for Pakistan to give it a complete sense of security”.
Roedad Khan was not happy with most post-Partition leaders Bolman and Deal say `Great leadership begins when a leader’s world view [Weltanschanschauung] and personal story, honed over years of experience, meet a situation that both presents challenges and opportunities’. They add, `Great leaders test and evolve their story over time, experimenting, polishing, abandoning plot lines that don’t work, and re-inventing those that do. Bad stories often lead to disaster, but good ones conjure magic’ (Lee G. Bolman and Terrence E Deal, How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing).
Unlike the Quaid, our leaders lacked a Weltanschauung, a `world view’. The word combines German Welt (“world”) with Anschauung (“view”), which ultimately derives from the Middle High German verb schouwen (“to look at” or “to see”). It is a particular philosophy or view of life; the world views of an individual or group. It is a concept fundamental to German philosophy and epistemology and refers to a wide world perception. Additionally, it refers to the framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which an individual, group or culture watches and interprets the world and interacts with it.
Hitler, otherwise viewed as a psychopath, explains his world view in Chapter 1 of his autobiography (Weltenschauung and party) Mein Kampf (My Struggle). He says `Thus we brought to the knowledge of the public those first principles and lines of action along which the new struggle was to be conducted for the abolition of a confused mass of obsolete ideas which had obscure and often pernicious tendencies’. In his autobiography (written in prison), Hitler reviews all aspects of German life, the World War I defeat, collapse of the Second Reich, `the mask of Federalism’, `propaganda and organisation’, `German post-War policy of alliances’, and Germany’s policy in Eastern Europe’. His efforts to forge alliances with adversaries reflect that he was a rational, flexible man.
Napoleon’s `world view’ (like Julius Caesar’s) is less pronounced than his lust for `power’ and contempt for `constitution’ (like ZA Bhutto, Zia, et al). Pakistan’s prime ministers and prime-ministers-to-be forgot French jurist Jean Bodin’s dictum majesta est summa in civas ac subditoes legibusque salute potestas, that is ‘highest power over citizens and subjects is unrestrained by law’ (Roedad Khan, Pakistan: A Dream Gone Sour). Napoleon told Moreau de Lyonne, “The constitution, what is it? But a heap of ruins. Has it not been successively the sport of every party?” “Has not every kind of tyranny been committed in its name since the day of its establishment?”
During his self-crowning in 1804, Napoleon said, “What is the throne, a bit of wood gilded and covered with velvet. I am the state. I alone am here, the representative of the people”. Take General Zia. While addressing a press conference in Teheran, he said, “What is the Constitution?” “It is a booklet with 10 or 12 pages. I can tear them up and say that from tomorrow we shall live under a different system. Is there anybody to stop me? Today the people will follow wherever I lead them. All the politicians including the once mighty Mr. Bhutto will follow me with their tail wagging. Dicey said, “No Constitution can be absolutely safe from a Revolution or a coup detat”.
Today, we have no leader, like Quaid-e-Azam, with a `world view’, no `story line’ of sustained committed struggle. MJ Akber rightly observes `The [Pakistani] political leaders act like sand dunes. They move in the direction the wind blows’ (Akber, In Pakistan Today). John R. Schmidt agrees, “The mainstream political parties in Pakistan can best be viewed as patronage networks, whose primary goal is seeking political offices to gain access to state resources, which can then be used to distribute patronage among their members.” (The Unravelling, Pakistan in the Age of jihad). Why it is so? Stanley A. Kochanek unpuzzles the conundrum by pointing out `Parties in Pakistan are built from the top-down and are identified with their founders. The office holders are appointed by the leader. Membership rolls are largely bogus and organizational structure exists only on paper’ (Interest groups and Development). `Most political parties are non-democratic in their structure, character and outlook. The process for leadership selection is not by election, but by nomination. Political parties have no links with policy process as personalities rather than issues matter’ (Saeed Shafqat, Contemporary Issues in Pakistan Studies).
