VIEW: Supreme national interest —Naeem Tahir

There is a very wide gap between the priorities of the ‘people’ at large and the ‘leaders’ at large. This may be the cause of the failure of many regimes, including the so-called democratic as well as non-democratic ones

‘Supreme national interest’…
I have heard this expression or something to this effect, several times. Each time it had an ominous sound to it. Most of the time the expression has been used to justify an action that could otherwise not be justified. This sentence is a favourite of the dictatorial mindset and now it is being used by some ‘democratic’ leaders as well. In particular, it has been used by a ‘leader’, who neither heads a party, nor is he a member of the assembly, but manages to have all his orders obeyed. He declared that his recent actions to suddenly stall the working of the parliamentary committee two weeks ago were in the “supreme national interest”. Perhaps now the ‘supreme national interest’ has been served. What was it? This is not necessary for us to know.

A long time ago, in March 1949, the Objectives Resolution was steamrolled through the constituent assembly, despite reservations of the minority communities. It was said to be done in the ‘supreme national interest’. In many ways, the said resolution opened the way for those who had a ‘Taliban’ line of thought. It contradicted the spirit of the federation as explained by the Father of the Nation who promised equal rights for all citizens of Pakistan.

Later, the resolution was made a substantive part of the constitution and mysteriously the word ‘freely’ about the religious practices of minorities was omitted. Probably this was also meant to be in the ‘supreme national interest’.

In 1954, the appeal of Maulvi Tamizuddin was dismissed by Justice Munir and the note by Justice Cornelius was ignored. This decision changed the course of Pakistan’s history. Was the change made in the ‘supreme national interest’?

Then we experienced several shaky democracies and martial laws. The performances of these questionable governments is not the subject of discussion here, but most of the time the phrase ‘in the supreme national interest’ was used to tell the questioning people to ‘shut up’ because the ‘leaders’ knew better. On April 6, 1979, General Ziaul Haq, in an interview to BBC said that he was convinced that his order to hang Bhutto was in the “supreme interest of the nation”, reminding again that we, the people of the land who think otherwise, are dumb and stupid.

There can be many more examples where the so-called leaders have used the phrase under discussion. In fact, this phrase has become a cliché and lost its meaning. A well-read ‘leader’ would want to avoid it. But where is that kind of leader?

Let us try to guess, after all, what is included in the ‘supreme interest of the nation’?

Is providing food and ensuring the existence of Pakistan citizens something in this category? Does providing shelter, literacy opportunities, and healthcare fall in this category? Is the necessity to provide job opportunities, law and order and security something we could include in the ‘supreme interest of the nation’? Is any effort to provide electric power and gas for industry and normal life activities something ‘in the supreme national interest’? Is preservation of heritage and culture, the most important instrument of image building for a nation, to be considered ‘in the…’? Is availability of water to drink and for agriculture, something of such importance?

The list is long; it includes eradication of discrimination on the basis of gender, age, colour, or religion, and so many other issues, which the common people are convinced, should be in the august list of matters of ‘supreme national interest’.

However, one hardly hears the leaders assigning that kind of priority to these issues. They attach such priority only when they find an action to be in their own interest to gain, or to retain power. They may also believe that amassing billions of dollars outside the country by questionable means as personal assets is also ‘in the supreme interest of the nation’?

The fact seems to be that there is a very wide gap between the priorities of the ‘people’ at large and the ‘leaders’ at large. This may be the cause of the failure of many regimes, including the so-called democratic as well as non-democratic ones.

If any leader is listening, I would like to share a feeling with him/her: the people of Pakistan have lived on dreams for a very long time. They have patiently heard of your ‘sacrifices’, on umpteen occasions, and even sympathised. They have repeatedly heard of the bad things done by every ‘previous regime’, and they have also supported you on asking for more time to set things right. Now, Sir/Ms, much water has flown under the bridges, people have waited far too long, and it is not going to be good for you if you stretch their patience too far. There are limits to tolerance, forbearance and waiting. Please bridge the gap between your set of priorities in the category of the ‘supreme national interest’ and share what the people in the street consider to be in the ‘supreme national interest’. If these do not match, a change is inevitable and in a democracy people will have to take the final decision and show that they also have some wisdom.

Naeem Tahir has been associated with performing arts for over 40 years. He was the Chief Executive/Director General of Pakistan’s apex cultural organisation, the Pakistan National Council of the Arts (PNCA). He can be reached at naeemtahir37@gmail.com