This writer resisted temptation to use the plural, ‘pieces’, as against the singular, largely to zero in on a few of the missing pieces and not all of them. The jigsaw is very large, with small and large pieces; the loss or absence of the pieces is from both the categories of small and large pieces.
How are nations built? Is it a one-time transaction? Or, is it a simple, but an extremely complex activity, that intertwines several aspects of activities that involve history, culture, society and economics?
In history, individuals by sheer dint of brute force (physical, mostly) and strength, coupled with vision have built great political dynasties and empires that ruled large parts of the map of this world. But almost all are, today, part of history, some recorded and remembered, but a large many have been vanished by the fury of time. They don’t exist.
The powerful dynasties that ruled the world, say in the past three centuries, have long been laid to rest in the cemetery of time and history. These operated from the East to the West. The 19th century took a toll on the Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Indian, Turkish (Ottoman) and European dynasties. There are but few remnants, which are also largely for the purpose of keeping them “alive” as symbols to attract tourism—the ceremonial roles most living monarchs in Europe and the Isles play are essentially those who have a toothless presence. People love to live in fantasy and fairyland.
From Queen Victoria to King Charles, the purpose of monarchy is to retain them as “Royalty in the showcase for promoting tourism.” People throng to see the change of guards ceremony at the Buckingham Palace. People queue up at museums by paying a hefty fee to see the used items of clothing, jewellery and even stationery of the Royalty. I recently saw in Tehran the wardrobes of Reza Shah Pahlavi and Empress Farah Diba; the former lived all his life under the illusion that he was a direct descendent of King Cyrus the Great — what a frame of mind, full of fallacy.
Post-WW II began the departure of most monarchies from Japan to the heartland of Europe. They just disappeared. Thanks to people’s power. Nobody today talks about the Romanian royal family, who fled in 1947, leading to the abolishment of monarchy; so is true of all other monarchies of the West, inclusive of the Czars of Russia.
People’s revolution, starting with the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, spread like wildfire, replacing monarchies either with civilian/military dictatorships or democracy and democratic institutions. The period between 1945 till about the late 1970s was one of liberation; from both, the rule by aristocracy and from the yoke of imperialist powers of Europe and the UK. The monarchies of the Middle East that were set up for the locals by the colonialist powers still abound.
These have survived because of the deep bonds the ruling families established with the common man. The exploitative nature of monarchical form of government and governance has been replaced by democratic conventions of accountability by the common man to the powers that be. In developing this facade, the system of impartial justice has been a major reason for its survival thus far. Further, laws are framed that are applied universally, with no exceptions. Princes are fined in Saudi Arabia and the UAE for traffic violations. That’s how leadership helps in building nations.
In the wake of rebuilding of Europe of 1945 and the gaining of independence from imperialist powers in Asia, and later in Latin America, new nation states came to existence. All of the newly-independent countries since 1945 have progressed well; the exceptions are few. Regrettably, we also appear to be lying in the zone of exception.
So, what exactly has been responsible for the growth of nations, both new and old? The answers lie in the fact that it is the inter-play of the complex elements of history, language, culture, accompanied by the development of strong and independent institutions, involving governance, commerce, trade and industry and all of its related legal framework of operations.
People (read leaders) like Charles de Gaulle, Mao Tse-tung, Chou en Lai, Chiang Kai-shek (he fled to Formosa following the communist takeover of China), Konrad Adenauer, Kamal Ataturk, MA Jinnah, MK Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Park Chung-hee, and the more recently are the likes of Deng Xiaoping, Dr Manmohan Singh, Lee Kuan Yew, Dr. Mahatir Mohammed, Shaikh Zayed bin Sultan Al- Nahayan set the ball rolling for bringing in a shared vision, representing aspirations of their people, and this led to the economic growth and emancipation of these nations.
The Middle East developed to our cost. Karachi was destroyed as the centre for all economic activities.
Nations are built through a common slogan and goals of creating unity within its rank and file. The development of a common narrative, whether it be of a political nature or based on economic ideals, is essential for the economic growth of a nation. Political stability is of course an important pillar for the growth of our nation.
The leadership of these new states are into establishing clearly defined rules of laws (Constitution, party’s manifesto); bringing in a system to bring into the arena talent and skills for the nations’ economic development. Charles de Gaulle of France and Konrad Adenauer had inherited ravaged and economically destroyed nations. They sat down to put time-lines for growth and development. It was followed in the East by some nations; they replicated the economic gains that were being made by Europe.
From 1970s onwards, the world witnessed the emergence and growth of the newly industrialised countries that are economically formidable today and command control over several multi jurisdictional markets. The innate need to command and control others takes the cake as the quid pro quo of taking extreme actions to bring order out of chaos and for ensuring stability in terms of politics, economics and social development initiatives.
The common feature that underlies the strategy of growth and development is harboured in infrastructure development of roads, highways, motorways, etc, to facilitate movement of goods; communication networks and of developing export markets for their surpluses in the economy.
Regrettably since 1947, we have remained in a state of confusion of where we wish to be. From desire to becoming the citadel of Islam and then to be ranked amongst the lowest on the global index of honesty and corruption-free society, we have been swinging between these two extremes. The result is a nation mired in the distrust of its own making. Our religious beliefs remain on shifting plates; our democracy is always on tenterhooks; our processes of accountability are immersed in the potion of retaliation and vindictiveness and, above all, leaders in every segment of the social fabric have been found with their hands soaked in unacceptable practices, betraying all the noble standards that we had vowed to maintain back in 1947; a sad woeful tale of self-betrayal.
I find the common denominator as a student of history and management that what emerges as a single most important element and characteristic is “leadership”.
Leadership is to know where you are. And where you want to go? And for what purpose? If the leader has hazy answers to these fundamental questions he or she surely will lead the nation to a wholesale peril of disasters.
Leadership is all about having a vision. It then asks for ability and competence of the leadership to realise the vision. However, both ability and competence are not meant to connote here that leaders must be “know-alls”, nay it is about having ability to identify talent and competence, and then be able to divert these units of energy towards the cherished common goal.
Leadership is about honesty and integrity. Robin Hood, the uncrowned Prince of Sherwood Forest was a leader too; so was Ali Baba at least of the Forty Thieves that he commanded. Both robbed Peter to pay to Paul, stealing from the nobility and to give the booty to the underprivileged sections of society. The purpose was noble, the means ignoble.
Leadership is to remain confined within the existing laws, regulations, customs, mores and traditions. To achieve noble ends through acts of ignobility can never be classified to represent “leadership”. I have, like my compatriots, made remarks either in seriousness or in humour that “khaate hain tow lagaate bhi hain” (if someone is considered corrupt it is considered acceptable if some of the corrupted money is deployed to the betterment of society). What a vulgar thought it is to possess and then to say it. It is almost a social expletive.
Leadership is the other name of honesty. Lee Kuan Yew (as far as the biographies and partial autobiographies I have read of him) was not a Muslim but he was an epitome of integrity, honesty, with deep social values of universal appeal and applicability. He exhibited no fluctuation in his behavior whether in storm or in placid conditions. Uprightness is not an aspect of negotiability; no room there is for expedient duplicity. Jinnah was honest all his life. He only spoke the truth.
This one piece of jigsaw that needs to be fixed into the over 250 million pieces (constituents), which has been either missing in action or is not available or it has in the last seven decades, due to deliberate neglect, become extinct.
Decades are drops in the ocean of time. We can still pick up the pieces and steer the wheel by navigating with clarity of purpose. Hope is still alive; it flickers too often but then resiliently it gathers back its full glow.
Leadership is responsibility. Let’s find that peg- once in place, our picture will look good and complete as imagined by the Quaid-e-Azam.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The writer is a Senior Banker & Freelance Contributor
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.