Running from awards

That sanctions, positive or negative, are intended to encourage or deter an action and its outcome; that sanctions in all their manifestations aim to make society a better place through positivity, morality and integrity; and that rewards or positive sanctions contribute to prosperity and productivity have held considerable significance throughout history. As a social mechanism in sociology, sanctions enforce laws to promote conformity, maintain social order and regulate behaviour. In other words, as a form of social control, sanctions promote legal conformity, teach norms of behaviour and help maintain social order.

They can be positive, rewarding conformity with awards, praise, recognition or promotions, or negative, punishing violations with fines, imprisonment, social ostracism or criticism. The institutionalisation of positive rewards and reinforcement of negative ones in the name of administering justice and penological practices manifests the sanction system today. To produce their potential social impact, sanctions require dispensation based on established tenets of merit and ability. That is, rewarding conformity to societal norms and punishing delinquency with sanctions fulfil their intended purpose in society.

This way, the societies that reward individuals and practices based on defined laws reap significant benefits, including higher productivity of human and material resources, strong ethical standards, an honest socio-economic and political culture and inclusive prosperity. The growing global influence of the world's economic powerhouses is both a cause and a manifestation of a merit-based reward system. However, societies systematically shaped and evolved under a fixed sanctioning cultivate the desired outcome: exclusion, immorality, illegality, evil, corruption, parasitism and desperation. That is, the slack enforcement of laws and their subordination to power and money — such as rewarding bad behaviour and failing to reward, or even to punish, good behaviour — make delinquency more pursued and reduce society to a crowd that thrives on delinquent acts.

The sanctioning system in Pakistan is rarely an exception; it largely rewards socio-economic malpractice, unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and exclusionary practices, as well as parasitism, while punishing anything that threatens this system. These rewards include, but are not limited to, periodic awards, appointments on key positions, promotions, postings, transfers and support in committing excesses against public. This often makes earning awards in our society easier than securing legitimate living. The former may merely require trading one's soul, oath, conscience, Constitution or public trust, or wielding a tainted pen, intellect or faith. The latter, however, demands relentless labour, blood and sweat.

From political, ethnic and sectarian allegiances to mutual vested interests, connections, corruption, kleptocracy, ill-earned wealth, sycophancy and excesses against society often qualify for positive sanctions or rewards. Today, most might empathise with the likes of Chahat Fateh Ali Khan; the bureaucracy in its entirety; traditional civil society activists; cunning clergy; feminists; 'intellechawals'; media professionals and journalists; feudal and tribal warlords and parasitic pirs; literary figures; compromised or biased judges heading the top court; and the dacoits of katcha — for their Übermensch-like services in their respective fields.

While awards enhance the prestige of their recipients, granting them to most in Pakistan diminishes the awards' and the recipients' prestige. Therefore, the few who survive hypocrisy and barbarity might be praying against being declared qualified for awards, or against any potential animosity from the system in nominating them for rewards, and the consequent loss of their hard-sustained integrity. For they may not wish to bear the sin of having 'innocent' medals strangulated around their necks and asphyxiated in their chests.