In the absolute forms of government disgruntled elements and dissatisfied groups either rebel or form secret societies to topple government. Rebellions and uprisings are considered treason against kings or dictators who treat people as subjects and not as citizens. However, the situation changes when
democratic institutions and tradition emerge and provide different methods such as agitation, boycott, strikes, and demonstration to mobilize people and pressurize governments to accept their demands. Politics no longer remains a taboo but becomes a part of life.

In India, the first reaction of people against the policies of the East India Company was the revolt of 1857 that was ruthlessly crushed. However, the political condition changed after 1857 when India was ruled by the crown and parliament. After the constitutional reforms were introduced, the Indians
slowly learnt how to use democratic methods for demanding their rights and formed political groups and parties.

A new chapter of politicization of the Indian society began when the government under viceroy Curzon decided to partition Bengal in 1905. It shocked the Bengali nationalists who saw in partition a blow to their unity and their nationalist aspirations. There was a strong reaction against it. In order to pressurise the government they boycotted the English goods. The main motive of the movement known as 'swadeshi' was to hit the British textile mills and at the same time help the Indian industrialists to manufacture cloth for the Indians. In the first stage the agitation was peaceful and methods of petition, memoranda, delivering speeches in public meetings, publishing articles and letters in newspapers were used. Parallel institutions such as private schools were set up to boycott the government ones. Art was used to in promote political consciousness. Rabindranath Tagore wrote his famous song 'Amar sonar Bengal' -- now the national anthem of Bangladesh -- during this agitation.

When these peaceful methods failed to achieve anything, then different Bengali groups resorted to violent activities. Secret societies were organized with the aim to destabilize the government. The British government reacted strongly -- imposing censorship, banning political organizations, students
unions, and political demonstrations, and not allowing training in martial arts -- and harshly sentenced those who were found involving in agitation.

In the end, King George V announced the annulment of the partition in 1911 in a coronation darbar held at Delhi which, consequently, proved the success of political agitation. The Congress party supported the agitation throughout India that made the government uneasy. But it had quite a different reaction
among the Muslims.

The Muslims were disillusioned by the decision because they benefitted by the partition in East Bengal. So far, they had remained loyal to the British but this loyalty was now being questioned. It also intensified their differences with the Hindus, already sour as result of the Hindi-Urdu conflict.

By that time though the old leadership which preached loyalty and aloofness from politics was replaced by the young educated generation who learned their political lesson from the recent political development and realised that they should also adopt the same methods for the fulfillment of their demands. 
Hasrat Mohani, Muhammad Ali Jauhar, Dr. Ansari were the young leaders who emerged as anti-British Muslims, became conscious of their minority status in India and the attachment with Pan-Islamism, indicated their fear of insecurity in India. This led to their involvement in the Khilafat movement. But when
Mustafa Kamal abolished the khilafat in 1924, they lost the last symbol of their unity and power. One positive impacts was that they concentrated their efforts on their own problems in India. This attitude led them to 'two Nation' concept and the demand for a separate homeland.

After partition in 1947, a major political change occurred which was not noticed either by politicians or by people; with the collapse of the colonial state, the status of people transformed from 'subject' to 'citizen'. Now, as a citizen, a Pakistani has all fundamental rights that are ensured in all constitutions of nation states. The problem was that with the change of status of people, the structure of the state remained colonial thus creating a gap between people and the state.

Although, the Muslim masses were charged by political activities and ready to take part in the building of newly independent country, they were soon disappointed because the new leadership was conscious of its own political interests and did not like people to take any part in political process. Change of governments took place not because of elections but because of intrigues and behind the curtain political activities. The first constitution was drafted in 1956 that was abrogated by the military government in 1958. And all political parties were banned. After the 1970 election, there was a brief
period when the masses were politicized but again the coming of military government ceased the process and a campaign began to depoliticise people. This process has gone on ever since.

The pertinent question here is: why did people become depoliticised? The reason perhaps is that whenever people tried to act strong, hoping to bring about a change, successive failures made them lose all interest in political activity. This explanation generates another question: why did political
parties fail to mobilize people and use their strength and energy for restructuring society?

The reason is the structure of Pakistan's political parties -- the Muslim League, the parent party, built its structure purely on elitist lines. People were mobilised only when it was in the interest of the Muslim League. This interest diminished after partition. Thenceforth, it remained in power by using intrigues and conspiracies. Its leadership, with the exception of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, belonged to the feudal class. Other political parties picked up the same model. Those who headed the party treated it as their jagir rather than democratizing it.

If the condition of political parties is so dismal and appalling, then who is going to change the society? There are different social, cultural, literary, and charitable groups, but their scope is limited. Their argument being that any involvement in politics would create problems in their social work There is a need of a political party that could challenge the present social, political, and economic structures. It should have leadership from below and its activities must be supported by intellectuals, writers, scholars, artists,  musicians, industrialists and traders. Only such a political party could create
political consciousness among the masses, and if there is strong will, the vision could materialise.

Courtesy The News