The long betrayal
Abdul Baseer Qazi

Now that the dust on the caravan of Dr Tahirul Qadri’s long march has settled, it is time to focus on the lessons learnt. Without exaggeration, it was one of the longest and most enchanting political dramas of this country’s recent history and therefore there should be a lot to learn from it for everyone. Being a student of engineering management, and not political science, I would like to come forward with a brief analysis of the ‘engineered’ and not-so-well-managed aspects of the standoff.
The good: Though the role of the protestors, those hundreds of thousands of men, women, the elderly and children has been lauded much already, I think a few things need to be further highlighted. Some anchors, attempting to undermine the protestors, counted and compared their numbers with the voters of any single constituency of Pakistan. This, in my opinion is utterly unfair, for the simple reason that voters in this country are well known to be direct beneficiaries of their political participation. They vote while either returning a past favour or expecting something in future.
In the case of the protestors, though, most or many of them (yes, exclude the Minhajul Quran students and workers) had no favours to return and were not even aware of what, and how, to gain from the outcome. For that matter, they were even unaware of what ‘outcome’ awaits them (here also exclude the Minhaj lot as they perhaps were). Their sole motivation was ‘change.’ They were the true representation of hundreds of millions of downtrodden Pakistanis in search of justice, equality and fundamental rights.
Looking at those people I could identify with each one of them. The moral high ground was visible in the form of the suffering of the protestors who were ready to disrupt their routine lives for days to demand ‘change,’ braving the severe cold. They firmly believed that something was wrong with the system but were not able to point their fingers to exactly what.
Expecting them to do so would have been unrealistic anyhow, given the complexity of the problems, the gullibility of the masses and the inclination to follow religious ‘Pied Pipers’. Moreover, the conduct of these people during their long and tough stay, and also of those of the surrounding areas who proved to be generous hosts, serving the protestors with food items, medicines and clothing, was exemplary.
In short, it was an eye-opener for all those ‘Pakistani-bashers’ who malign and talking down to their own people.
The bad: In stark contrast to the people, the conduct of the self-proclaimed messiah was shameful. Yes, security threats are real and many leaders, contemporary and in the past, have used means to ensure that they are not exposed to avoidable risks. Wearing bulletproof vests, speaking from behind bulletproof rostrums and using bulletproof cars are all what high-value targets have come up with in the past.
But here Dr Qadri had multiple-tiered security belts around him, comprising of his personal guards, Minhajul Quran security personnel and a loyal following. Why, then, was he indifferent to the dual standards he established between the living and security conditions for himself and the rest of the protestors?
If secular leaders like Benazir Bhutto and Bashir Ahmed Bilour have laid down their lives in the not so distant past when they could have easily gotten away with similar levels of security and seclusion, what was this religious leader who was preaching equality, justice and martyrdom afraid of? Was it the cold, the wet weather or the inconvenience altogether that made him stay in a shahadat-proof five-star bunker, as many called it?
Misgivings started when, in order to up the ante, the rhetoric morphed from ‘reform’ to ‘revolution,’ from ‘change of people’ to ‘change of the system’ and from ‘long march’ to ‘lashkar.’ It didn’t take a genius to figure out that the demands were not tantamount to a call for revolution, and neither was the final outcome. Still, we should judge the demands on their own merit, and while doing so one realises that, except for Dr Qadri getting a veto in the choice of the caretaker prime minister, there is not much to it.
Nothing substantial has been added to convince the sceptics why and how the election commission would now enforce Article 62 and 63 any more than it has been doing in the past.
The ugly: Now, coming to the ugly side of the drama, let me begin with a simple analogy. Assume that someone dear to you has been wrongly implicated in some crime and for that has been jailed for life. If you were to protest, what would it be for? To have an honest and sincere jailer posted to the jail who would disburse the daily meals without deducting anything and the daily punishments on time and measure? Or, would you demand a free and fair trial? No doubt an honest and sincere jailer is nice to have in such a situation, but isn’t it more fundamental to protest against the plot of which your loved one has involuntarily become a part?
All of those calling for radical change across the Muslim world and in Pakistan see this current system as incapable of delivering even in its purest form. They don’t restrict themselves to the micro details of this system but also point to the larger canvas of geopolitical interests of the western countries without which, according to them, no analysis is complete. It is hard to refute this argument when seen in the context of the decade-long war on terror, or before that the decade-long Soviet-Afghan war. Isn’t it true that in these two history-shaping events the ‘jailer’ had no role to play at all, so it really doesn’t make any substantial difference whether he is honest or corrupt.
Therefore, those truly calling for radical change must have felt betrayed by the half-truths of Dr Qadri. He kept on pointing out the corruption of the jailer (all of which was true and therefore mesmerising) but conveniently forgot to even mention both the internal and external forces, which at the same time have implicated your loved one and handed down the life-sentence verdict.
Dr Qadri’s error of omission is worse than any of the errors of commission he might have ever committed, because societies have something called ‘collective memories’ and in there the thought of being betrayed again by a false inqilab will live on for a long time. As a result, it will be tougher to mobilise the masses again, even the one crying wolf is not lying.
The ugliest of it all, though, was the ending which suggests that the self-proclaimed saviour and the alleged villain will live together happily ever after (or at least for another four years).
The writer is a doctoral fellow at United Nations University MERIT in the Netherlands.