The gullible nation hailed all. But destiny was less kind. Ayub was sent into oblivion, a broken man. ZAB, unbroken, was made a 'horrible example' of. Zia went with his boots on, leaving behind a crying newsreader. Musharraf counts his days in exile.
Ironically, disillusionment is the progenitor of hope. As you get buffeted from one disappointment to another hope gets revived. Hitting rock bottom is an illusory concept. You never know. The ballad of hope must go on, waiting for Godot.
The last disillusionment was, no, not with the economy. It was with our political system, dominated by entrenched interests cloaked in the tattered burqa of democracy. The script kept changing but never the plot, nor the actors - unless of the same lineage.
The disillusionment was with the status quo ordained by the elite. Each regime, dominated by the elite, perpetuated the obscene disparity between the top and bottom of the pyramid.
The frustration was with the social contract that had broken down under the weight of those whose belief in their might to suppress people's rights so nakedly clashed with their pretentions to be in the service of the same people.
But, then, we had a dream. We saw this star of hope flashing across our murky firmament; the star that had blazoned past fame and glory, scorched by neither. Imran was the star that we could hitch our wagon to. He embodied our hopes.
His liability - inexperience, not a day of public service - was his strength. He came untainted, unburdened by the baggage of office. His asset, delivering what he promised - the world cup, the hospital, the university - was gold standard.
We were not so naïve as to believe tabdeeli will come overnight. We heard him promise the welfare state modeled on Medina and Sweden, or the ten million jobs and five million houses, but fully understood the enormity of the challenge. We knew it will take time and refused to abandon the audacity of hope.
Such was our belief in the Kaptaan that we chose to ignore the early warning signs. When he took into the fold people whom we doubted we saw it as a move to outflank the forces of status quo. When he went 'fund raising' abroad we saw it as a personal sacrifice for our sake. When he started to take all those U-turns we saw them as tactical moves to secure the destination that we had wanted and he had promised.
When the ninety days that were to have set the tone passed we said it is not a limited over game. When he signed the dotted line with the IMF we said it was an unavoidable atonement for the sins of the last government. When he made those friendly overtures to India we said it was statesman-like.
We welcomed the 'technocraticization' of his administration and chose not to ask what kind of stakes these worthies had in the future of the country or if they were accountable to us. We shed no tears for the sidelining of those we had elected.
We applauded when those unsavoury political opponents were put where they belonged. We thought the media, with its dubious antecedents, had no right to act holier-than-thou and that societal rights came before personal liberty. We were happy to see both powers 'on the same page' without questioning who wrote that page.
When four hundred days passed since his truly inspiring victory address (where he pledged no political victimization, responsibility for the weaker classes, national unification, human development, supremacy of law, and fixing dysfunctional institutions to set the economy right) we thought it was time to do a quick review. Not a reality-check, not because of any crisis of faith, but merely to calibrate the compass.
Hopefully, the lot of the weaker classes will improve one day but today, clamped between inflation and fewer job opportunities, it is not easy for them to make ends meet. The number of out of school children that he talked about is growing, as is the incidence of stunting.
On national unification, the flip side of political victimization, the jury is out. Yes, we can count on cricket and Indian adventurism to give us a semblance of unity, but we need greater inclusivity - stemming from tolerance of dissent, no matter how abhorrent.
The biggest test of supremacy of law is before the Supreme Court in the references against Justices Isa and Agha. Fundamental issue of independence of judiciary, the ultimate guarantor of supremacy of law, has been raised in the petitions filed by the Supreme Court and Pakistan Bar Councils.
Meanwhile, the common perception of law being the same for all but enforced discriminately at the 'people level' remains unchanged.
The 'dysfunctionality of institutions' is too evident to be dilated upon. Civil Service reforms is more of the same, as exemplified by the unceremonious removal of Chairman FBR only then to be promoted to a more critical position. Indeed, mysterious are the ways of the government!
Dysfunctional institutions also manifest themselves in working at cross purposes. The PM was all excited at the tourism prospects, towards which end the government proposed a 'visa on arrival' regime. Nothing came of that but our foreign business partners complain of their phones getting blocked upon arrival.
Foreigners coming into Lahore have to make a circuitous route, unless picked up by the hotel shuttle, as they are not allowed to go through the normal route - the Cantonment comes in the way!
All that said, we look upon these as nothing more than pit stops on the exciting journey to Naya Pakistan. We still have faith in the Kaptaan. Perhaps the fault lies with us if the faith is weakening.
We hope Kaptaan won't let our caption (adapted from Coelho's troubling story of struggle between faith and human frailty) happen. We want to be by Banigala with tears of happiness and gratitude - not hanging our harps on the willows.
[email protected]