Daily Times

The plan was to begin this article with a posthumous apology to Sun Tzu for modifying the title of his masterpiece The Art of War, until the internet revealed that this title is fairly common and has already been used for a book, for lectures and there is even an organisation with this name. The approach is hence modified by paying a direct homage to the master tactician.

“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious” — Sun Tzu.

And you can only know when you think.

The origins of thinking can be traced to the beginning of humanity, the brain being the enabling technology. Considering this device is common in all humans, the reasons for differing intellect, all else being equal, can only be attributed to the miracle of creation. Axiomatically, thinking is not about having a brain, it is about how you use it.

Thinking is the progenitor to imagination, invention, conflict, adventure and in fact, all human achievements, failures and actions. As per doctrine, intent begets action, but what is intent, if not a mere culmination of a thought process? It is probably impossible to explain the thinking process; the humble intent today is to highlight the importance of thinking.

While sufficient literature is available to develop almost all subsets of thinking, such as creative, positive, long term, focused and objective-driven, its efficacy entices scepticism.

As an example, Thinker Toys by Michael Michalko, a personal favourite, which provides a plethora of thinking techniques, is probably not available at bookstores in Pakistan. For the record, the book suggests slicing, dicing, splitting, inverting and mapping the problem statement and available information in order to arrive at various alternatives.

Which brings us to Edward de Bono and his famous six thinking hats; blue for the process, white for the facts, red for feelings and emotions, green for creativity and alternates, yellow for gains and benefits and black for caution. A formidable arsenal for thinking and problem solving, the question is how common is its application.

Remarkably, even in ‘no-brainer’ situations, where complete information is available and outcome is dependent, but certain, on controllable actions, good or bad intent motivated by greed, selfish interests and the devil’s favourite — ego — predicate unthinkable action. The aforementioned emotions seem to have the amazing capacity of blinding out hurdles and nudging thinking towards a singular direction without consideration of the consequences. Everybody forgets the age old, historically proven, always right, universal truth ‘Jo bo gay wohi kato gay’, but then again nobody thinks!

Conversely, in scenarios where complete information is not available and outcome is dependent upon uncontrollable actions of counterparties, the need to think ascends to a critical level. “The brain that doesn’t feed itself eats itself,” Gore Vidal said.

Only leaders, supposedly at least, have the courage and capacity of taking reasonable decisions arrived at by contemplating probabilities and materiality based on minimal information and devoid of bad intent. Instincts are but experiences gained from prior thinking, a leader and a visionary proactively uses both the cerebrum and instincts. Except that the devil’s arsenal of greed and ego can cloud thinking at this level as well.

The rest in any case tries to pass the buck upward, downward, sideways and anyways to avoid taking difficult decisions. Culturally, outside of formal situations such as occupation, seniority provides the desired exit from the decision making process. Elders fortunately have the prerogative to make bad decisions and get away with it, with unwanted outcomes being subjected to the blame game. Unfortunately, sometimes fate is unforgiving, resulting in fatal outcomes, as in the case of air crashes or country crashes, and blaming others cannot turn back the clock.

For instance, take the current political saga; some quarters should be desperate to reverse time while others might be befuddled by the strange turn of events, which landed them unexpected fame and probably fortune for the moment. Neither seems to have thought the strategy through. Applying logic, all of what happened and the outcome to date cannot be attributed to rational motivated actions of any player. Even the conspiracy theories are unable to identify the final winner who stands alone.

The simple conclusion is that nobody thought the dictum through, deliberately jumping on mud will ensure splashes on self. At any level, strategies that verge on or have the potential of being chaotic are always uncontrollable. They can be instigated but not managed. The dilemma is that Pakistan can ill afford a continued domestic political strife, spotlighted by a hyperactive media especially when facing economic and security challenges of the fatal kind.

But herein lies the paradox: rational experienced men, such as elders by virtue of age, leaders by virtue of political acumen, businessman by virtue of having the capacity to make money and intelligentsia by virtue of knowledge are expected to take rational decisions preceded by a selfish interest-based thinking process.

Jo dikhta hai who hota nahi. Things are never as they appear to be.

Somebody definitely stands to gain; the quandary is whether the gain is in the best interest of Pakistan or not. An answer to this requires extensive thinking. Wonder whether a think tank can sift through all the conspiracies and ‘insider information’ and arrive at a conclusion, which can stand up to logic. Maybe the electronic media can sponsor and encourage this exercise if they think it is in their interest!

Further reflection brings the need of the art of thinking to the forefront on matters that are more crucial. Some of us have remained unable to determine the thinking or identify the interest and motivation behind various actions in our hostile neighbourhood. The eventual outcome of the global economic meltdown and its impact on Pakistan remains bewildering. The reason behind Pakistan following economic policies opposite to the west, when the west’s economic indicators are worse, is more than confusing.

Most in the business world can probably recall how Shell’s economic scenario building exercise was able to predict the oil crisis somewhere in the 1980s and reaped significant gains from this knowledge. The optimistic belief is that Pakistan’s corridors of power have also built up such a think tank facility that ensures educated action and gains. The constant apparent failures and persistent inexplicable silence turns everybody into a pessimist.

Silence is acquiescence, and persistent silence in challenging scenarios is highly de-motivating. The nation needs to know and the nation needs motivation. Patriotism is the only known remedy in times when nations face adversity.

There is a definitive need to encourage and develop the art of thinking, and set up high-end think tanks to analyse publicly all threats to Pakistan and recommend solutions. Fragmented thought is just not enough.

The writer is a chartered accountant based in Islamabad and can be reached at syed.bakhtiyarkazmi@gmail.com