The rule of wrong

The fine line between right and wrong has been obliterated due to the kind of leadership the state has suffered from.

What hope has a nation, misled by a state devoid of ethics that has, since its inception perpetrated so much wrong that the people, at least in the much larger number are bereft of any concept that differentiates between what is right and proper and what is wrong and improper?

From the very beginning, the fine line between right and wrong has been obliterated due to the quality of leadership from which the state has suffered. When the leadership, purely because of selfish, self-serving actions put into play for the purpose of self-perpetuation, indulges in massive wrongdoing, there is, and has to be, a definite trickle effect.

The general reaction to wrongdoing, or the blatant flaunting of illegal acts, mainly by leading luminaries, is ‘well, so-and-so does it so why should not I?’ There are laws galore, meaningless because they are not applied. There is a Constitution that sets out the wrongs and rights of governance, not always in a manner crystal clear as it has suffered at the hands and minds of the leadership of the day, which has wished to mould it to suit its particular desires. And, of course, who amidst the mighty mass reads it?

So inured is the nation to wrong that if perchance, on rare occasions, someone happens to fall right, the general populace is startled out of its mind and the media holds it up as a latter-day miracle. One trivial case in point, but which has all the basics. As narrated: a citizen of Karachi, ploughing through the chaos of the city’s roads upon which the upholding of neither rule nor regulation is mainly the norm, found himself behind an SUV, with a government number plate and an escort vehicle bristling with men and arms (presumably licensed). The SUV arrived at a red light, with nothing ahead of it. It stopped. The citizen behind it was so taken aback that he leapt out of his car, approached the SUV, went up to the window of the official riding in it, who politely opened his window, and fulsomely congratulated the government officer for having observed a traffic rule.



And so, when Asif Zardari completed his five-year term in office, on his leaving in due time and quite constitutionally, the nation applauded him for doing what he should do. That he survived the five years is quite another matter and is a dismal reflection on the state of the state that it was considered to be a great political achievement that an unpopular man managed to remain in office for a full term. (An aside: now that he is ex-president citizen Zardari, would he just undo one disgusting wrong in which he has indulged and give back to the public and the snarled up traffic the road that runs past his Karachi home, demolish the absurd wall and do something right for a change.)

And it is the same with General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. That he has now done what he should have done three years ago is hailed as ‘historic’. That he has finally righted a wrong and retired has brought upon him massive praise to high heaven. It is said to be ‘historic’ also that he allowed a civilian government to exist without any coup-making, and that he is said to have ‘restored’ the morale of his army, and deployed it to confront the internal enemies of his country. Was all this not what he was supposed to do, was it not within his mandate, is it not what us miserably few taxpayers pay him to do?

Besides, he is not the only army chief who has restrained himself. Out of a total of 14, four have been coup-makers. Moving from post-Ziaul Haq downwards, Aslam Beg could have taken over with the greatest of ease. He refrained, as did Asif Nawaz, Waheed Kakar and Jehangir Karamat.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 19^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.