Independence 2.0?

Pakistan has turned 79, with its independence anniversary marked by the usual zeal. The National Day events featured speakers occupying the podium, recounting the struggles of the founders while stressing the importance of freedom from the British Raj. The speakers seized the moment and recalled their own "contributions" more than recollecting the founders' vision. Perhaps they have been naïve. Or dithered. Ergo, 79 years on, many biting questions remain unanswered, and answered questions unquestioned. Did the freedom, for Jinnah, only mean the partition of the subcontinent? Is servitude only imposed from outside, and does its salvation from the colonisers count as the culmination of freedom for the people? And do the fruits of freedom get evenly delivered?

Unlike the dominant narratives of the victors of colonial projects in modern history and the externally imposed slavery in societies throughout the ages, the ones that evolved or were installed from within have received shallow coverage in history - perhaps because they were indigenous, institutionalised and legalised. That is, though slavery might have been near universal throughout history, the indigenous slavery stems from exclusive policies, coercive power structures, stratification, debt and criminality - with the local power elite implicitly enslaving their own people.

Internal systems of slavery often outlast the ones imposed from outside for many reasons: first, they have been made to be viewed as normative within their cultures. Second, for all its implicitness, people accept it as a fait accompli. Third, slavery becomes institutionalised and legalised over time. Fourth, indigenous chains are often painted and presented as freedom and patriotism.

Societies that largely remain immune to foreign occupations gradually evolve and install an indigenous restriction on minimal freedom in the name of security and tradition and often meet one of three fates: solidifying the authoritarian system, dismantling the system, or reforming and sustaining the system for collective good. Those who remain under occupation often learn lessons and gradually reform, undoing most of the vestiges of servitude. The decades of weariness make them pursue internal liberty. This doesn't suggest external slavery is a prerequisite for internal liberty. It suggests that externally imposed slavery wears people's patience thin more than internal slavery does.

Pakistan's case, however, defies almost all canon, lessons and narratives evolved for ages. Much like a staggering octogenarian, Pakistan, approaching the eighties, is largely defined by internal tumult - so much so that most people call minimal survival "freedom". They're ready to trade all freedoms, in all their shades, for meals and minimal survival. Not because people don't wish to live a life of freedom envisioned by the founders, but because today's trials make mere survival a luxury for many. As the country ages, so do the hopes. This is not an accident but a design.

The ruling system has not learned a pragmatic lesson despite being under colonial clutches for nearly a century. Instead, it has largely repackaged colonial slavery and loaded the people's freedom onto a few institutions that also remained beneficiaries of the British Raj. Notwithstanding the role of post-partition forces, the rewinding of colonial culture in the system has largely reduced the definition of freedom to salvation from the British.

The people on the podium hate the British Raj, yet they love their system, with the Constitution and democracy frequently get recoloured to protect the interests of the powerful. Naqvi's assertion of the system's collapse holds a fraction of truth: the system's delivery to the people has collapsed. The Constitution stands mutilated. Democracy smells foul. Freedom decomposes. The proposed units and 28th tweak mean adding more crutches.

Back in the day, Pakistan got independence from the British. Fast forward to today, the country vies for the same from the system. The Renaissance. An independence 2.0.