Monday, September 13, 2004
Saturday, August 28, 2004
How admirable are we?
By Amar Jaleel
There are certain attributes that reveal basic traits of a country. They tell you why certain countries are rated highly, and why certain others are rated lowly.
Selani by profession is a seafarer. He keeps travelling, and has seen the countries, people and their varied cultures all over the world. He once told his friends, "There are a few attributes that reveal basic traits about a country. They tell you why certain countries are rated highly, and why certain countries are rated lowly."
I have always wondered why men with limited resources nurture unlimited desires! My cherished desire is to see the world, and be at different places all over the globe. But, it is like chasing shadows. I want to eat pizza in an Italian restaurant in Venice. I want to watch a Test match between England and Australia at Melbourne Cricket Club ground in Australia. I yearn to see Kerala, Shimla, Poone, Chirapunji, Banglore, Goa, Assam and other wonderful places in India. I, not being able to afford tours abroad, read travelogues, and in my imagination I join the authors in their journeys in the distant lands. But, listening to Selani is like sharing a great experience. He abhors writing. Therefore, he has not written safarnamas. Some bureaucrats proceed abroad on government expenses to attend a seminar, workshop or a conference in an alien country for a few days and churn out a voluminous safarnama. Selani, a professional seafarer simply talks about the life he spends in the fold of the people with diverse cultures and the countries he loves to be there.
Selani returns from abroad every time with fresh and amazing stories. He doesn't tell you concocted stories. The girls do not fall in love with him in Venezuela, or Vienna. He never refurbishes you with sermons on the moral decadence in the West. During the African safaris he never grapples lions and savage tigers with bare hands. He never indulges in ridiculous comparison of cultures and values among different people living in the different parts of the world. He doesn't suffer from the ailment that, 'we are simply the best.'
Selani was here recently. Friends drenched him with queries. He smiled and said, "There are certain attributes that reveal basic traits about a country. They tell you why certain countries are rated highly, and why certain countries are rated lowly."
He then elaborated the attributes that reveal the prestige of a country in universal ranking. If you are eager to know how neat and clean is a country and its people, simply watch their public toilets at bus-stops, railway stations, airports, offices and markets. If you discover neat and clean toilets, rest assured the country and its people are relatively neat and clean. In case their toilets stink, and are filthy, and choked then you should be on your guard. You are among the dirtiest people on the earth. If you are interested to know how disciplined is a nation, watch their vehicles on the roads. Well-disciplined traffic hints at the existence of a disciplined and an organized nation. Erratic traffic betrays an undisciplined and a chaotic nation.
Of all the factors that lift a country in the world estimation, political system is of prime importance. Frequent military take overs, recurrent dissolution of elected governments, everyday amendments in the constitution, disrespect for law drops a country to the lowest estimations in the world.
Flourishing tourism is singular indicator for determining popularity of a country. Vibrant tourism indicates how respected you stand among the estimate of the international community. The tourists always prefer to visit countries they hold high in their opinion based on the bare facts. They refrain from going to the countries where they feel unsafe.
Are our public toilets at the bus-stops, railway stations, airports, offices, and the markets neat and clean? Is our traffic disciplined? Have we ever experienced political stability and sagacity in Pakistan during the last 57 years?
Tourists throng Maldives, one the poorest countries of yesteryear. Maldives now is one of the most desired tourist destination in the world. It is situated not far away from Sri Lanka, a heaven for the tourists from all over the world. So is India. The country throbs with tourists from abroad. From archaeological sites to monuments, hotels, restaurants, indigenous markets, art galleries, operas, theatres, cinema houses, temples and hill stations, you will find tourists every where in India.
I have not been to Switzerland. There are people who claim with authority that Gilgit, Skurdu, Baltistan and Swat in our Northern Area, are equally attractive. We have remains of Gandhara civilization. We have seven thousand-year-old ruins of Indus-valley civilisation, called Moen-Jo-Daro. We have attractive archaeological sites for the Buddhists at Taxila. We have rich heritage of Moghul monuments. We have beautiful beaches. We have colourful handicraft bazaars. But somehow, tourists do not come to us. They refrain from visiting Pakistan.
Why?
There are certain attributes that reveal basic traits of a country. They tell you why certain countries are rated highly, and why certain others are rated lowly.
Selani by profession is a seafarer. He keeps travelling, and has seen the countries, people and their varied cultures all over the world. He once told his friends, "There are a few attributes that reveal basic traits about a country. They tell you why certain countries are rated highly, and why certain countries are rated lowly."
I have always wondered why men with limited resources nurture unlimited desires! My cherished desire is to see the world, and be at different places all over the globe. But, it is like chasing shadows. I want to eat pizza in an Italian restaurant in Venice. I want to watch a Test match between England and Australia at Melbourne Cricket Club ground in Australia. I yearn to see Kerala, Shimla, Poone, Chirapunji, Banglore, Goa, Assam and other wonderful places in India. I, not being able to afford tours abroad, read travelogues, and in my imagination I join the authors in their journeys in the distant lands. But, listening to Selani is like sharing a great experience. He abhors writing. Therefore, he has not written safarnamas. Some bureaucrats proceed abroad on government expenses to attend a seminar, workshop or a conference in an alien country for a few days and churn out a voluminous safarnama. Selani, a professional seafarer simply talks about the life he spends in the fold of the people with diverse cultures and the countries he loves to be there.
Selani returns from abroad every time with fresh and amazing stories. He doesn't tell you concocted stories. The girls do not fall in love with him in Venezuela, or Vienna. He never refurbishes you with sermons on the moral decadence in the West. During the African safaris he never grapples lions and savage tigers with bare hands. He never indulges in ridiculous comparison of cultures and values among different people living in the different parts of the world. He doesn't suffer from the ailment that, 'we are simply the best.'
Selani was here recently. Friends drenched him with queries. He smiled and said, "There are certain attributes that reveal basic traits about a country. They tell you why certain countries are rated highly, and why certain countries are rated lowly."
He then elaborated the attributes that reveal the prestige of a country in universal ranking. If you are eager to know how neat and clean is a country and its people, simply watch their public toilets at bus-stops, railway stations, airports, offices and markets. If you discover neat and clean toilets, rest assured the country and its people are relatively neat and clean. In case their toilets stink, and are filthy, and choked then you should be on your guard. You are among the dirtiest people on the earth. If you are interested to know how disciplined is a nation, watch their vehicles on the roads. Well-disciplined traffic hints at the existence of a disciplined and an organized nation. Erratic traffic betrays an undisciplined and a chaotic nation.
Of all the factors that lift a country in the world estimation, political system is of prime importance. Frequent military take overs, recurrent dissolution of elected governments, everyday amendments in the constitution, disrespect for law drops a country to the lowest estimations in the world.
Flourishing tourism is singular indicator for determining popularity of a country. Vibrant tourism indicates how respected you stand among the estimate of the international community. The tourists always prefer to visit countries they hold high in their opinion based on the bare facts. They refrain from going to the countries where they feel unsafe.
Are our public toilets at the bus-stops, railway stations, airports, offices, and the markets neat and clean? Is our traffic disciplined? Have we ever experienced political stability and sagacity in Pakistan during the last 57 years?
Tourists throng Maldives, one the poorest countries of yesteryear. Maldives now is one of the most desired tourist destination in the world. It is situated not far away from Sri Lanka, a heaven for the tourists from all over the world. So is India. The country throbs with tourists from abroad. From archaeological sites to monuments, hotels, restaurants, indigenous markets, art galleries, operas, theatres, cinema houses, temples and hill stations, you will find tourists every where in India.
I have not been to Switzerland. There are people who claim with authority that Gilgit, Skurdu, Baltistan and Swat in our Northern Area, are equally attractive. We have remains of Gandhara civilization. We have seven thousand-year-old ruins of Indus-valley civilisation, called Moen-Jo-Daro. We have attractive archaeological sites for the Buddhists at Taxila. We have rich heritage of Moghul monuments. We have beautiful beaches. We have colourful handicraft bazaars. But somehow, tourists do not come to us. They refrain from visiting Pakistan.
Why?
Friday, August 13, 2004
What, then, was partition all about?
By Ayaz Amir
As another independence day is about to be commemorated with fake sentiment and false speeches - we having fine-honed the talent of turning national holidays into the most boring events imaginable - the toughest question our history throws up can no longer be shirked: if Pakistan was to be a country dedicated to permanent dictatorship, what was the point of it all?
Did we go through the blood-drenching and mass migration accompanying partition - more than a million people killed and about 8-10 million people uprooted from their homes - so that Pakistan should be a country dedicated to the permanent usurpation of power? Was Pakistani independence meant to be a synonym for authoritarianism? Harsh questions? Not if you consider the mess our history has been or, more to the point, if you consider our apparently unshakeable determination to keep making a mess of it. Pakistan was created for the people of Pakistan. This at least is the orthodox line turned into cruel myth by the steady march of authority figures on the Pakistani stage, our consistent specialty, the extra-constitutional take over. It bears branding into our collective consciousness that not a single peaceful transition of power marks the 57 tempestuous years of our history. Yet, and savour the paradox, the bonds of nationhood (the sense of belonging to a nation) remain strong. Not because of Pakistan's rulers who constitute a dismal club but because of the Pakistani people, most of whom, although not all, have nowhere else to go, no place else to call home.
If the flame of patriotism still burns in Pakistani breasts, and it does, it is a tribute not to blinkered and often downright stupid leadership but to the resilience and fortitude of the Pakistani people. So, is there still something that we can call the Pakistani dream? There is but in the minds of the poor and the defenceless, not in the passions or pocketbooks of the rich and well-placed who long ago made a virtue of swimming with the tide and, in the process, exchanging the power of hope and striving for the armour of an all-weather cynicism. But to recap the usual factors held responsible for the founding of Pakistan, Islam was not in danger in pre-1947 India. Indeed, considering the sectarian violence and religious bigotry we face today, it was in better health then. Nor was democracy the issue because even if partition had not happened, India was getting democracy once the British left. The Indian Independence Act promised that. So what was the compelling reason for the Muslims to insist on a separate homeland especially when there was no going around the uncomfortable fact that, no matter how generously the frontiers of the new state were drawn, an uncomfortably large number of Muslims would remain in India?
The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory. For eight centuries Muslim warriors - lured by tales of India's wealth and, I daresay, the beauty of its women, and crossing the same Hindukush passes through which, centuries before, Aryan hordes had marched - invaded, conquered and ruled India, putting the impress of their culture and thought upon the land they colonized and receiving something from that land in return. In the process, both invader and invaded were transformed. After eight centuries of intermingling and assimilation the Muslim in India, however hard he clung to his historical memories, was no longer a Turk, a Persian or an Arab but something else: an Indian Muslim. The land was transformed too, post-Muslim India not being the same as pre-Muslim India. With the coming of the British, however, another transformation was also underway. Muslims lost their pre-eminent status, a process beginning with the disintegration of the Mughal Empire but carried much further as the British consolidated their hold on India. Knocked off their pedestal, Muslims were now amongst the subjugated. But another discovery awaited them too.
Outnumbered by the Hindu population, even amongst the subjugated they were not of the first rank. Their overall position in India was thus relegated to number three, after the British and the Hindus, this being a measure of the shift in the historical calculus. From mid-19th Century onwards, beginning with the first stirrings of a modern Muslim consciousness as expressed by the Aligarh school, Muslims may have agitated for jobs and special safeguards, such as separate electorates, but informing and indeed fuelling their quest was a vision of the past when they were great and the whole of India, not just a part, was their happy hunting ground. At odds with the reality of Muslim impotence, this vision, this harking back to the past, reduced the Indian Muslim leadership to fighting a rearguard action: seeking to play the new game, of which the British were now the umpires, not across the entire field, because they felt it not in their power to do so, but asking that a patch be reserved for them so that in that reserved patch they should be able to ride unchallenged. In a crucial sense, then, the Pakistan movement signalled a retreat from the heartland of empire to its outer edges, the final evacuation from Delhi and Agra to new centres of power in Punjab and Bengal.
But even then it was for the new state, Pakistan, to create a historical justification for itself by emulating and rivalling, in achievement and glory, even if on a reduced scale, the success of its historical model, the Mughal Empire (in a 20th Century setting, it goes without saying). In other words, breaking away from India, for that's what partition did, the justification for Pakistan lay not in merely existing but in showing the spark, vitality and vigour of a new organism, like America to the old world, Israel to its decadent surroundings, the breakaway part, in short, proving better in all that qualifies for civilized achievement than the erstwhile whole. Against this scale of measurement how on earth do you place the kind of farce regularly staged in Pakistan: mediocre figures (no successors to Babar or Akbar, excuse me), meddling in politics when it is not their business to do so, adept neither at peace nor war, not understanding their own business or that of others, a succession of hopeless figures conspiring to make a mockery of a not-so-bad country? Mughal Empire indeed. Islamabad seems more like a replay of the last days of the Oudh dynasty.
The principal strengths of Muslim rule in the subcontinent were war, the consolidation of conquest, politics and administration. In all these fields Pakistan has not distinguished itself. Wars that should never have been fought started and then lost. About politics the less said the better. It's not as if Pakistan lacked promise or potential. It did not. But it has been betrayed by its stars and a succession of cardboard figures who would have received short shrift at Akbar's court. Is it all hopeless? Of course not. It's not too late to turn the ship around. But we'll have to go back to the drawing boards and, instead of taking Pakistan for granted which we often do, try to understand why this country was created. For rule by a few? To be lorded over by an oligarchy at once inept and corrupt, heedless of history and out of sync with the times? Come off it. Pakistan was meant for better things which it can still reach provided we stop making a mess of our politics.
By Ayaz Amir
As another independence day is about to be commemorated with fake sentiment and false speeches - we having fine-honed the talent of turning national holidays into the most boring events imaginable - the toughest question our history throws up can no longer be shirked: if Pakistan was to be a country dedicated to permanent dictatorship, what was the point of it all?
Did we go through the blood-drenching and mass migration accompanying partition - more than a million people killed and about 8-10 million people uprooted from their homes - so that Pakistan should be a country dedicated to the permanent usurpation of power? Was Pakistani independence meant to be a synonym for authoritarianism? Harsh questions? Not if you consider the mess our history has been or, more to the point, if you consider our apparently unshakeable determination to keep making a mess of it. Pakistan was created for the people of Pakistan. This at least is the orthodox line turned into cruel myth by the steady march of authority figures on the Pakistani stage, our consistent specialty, the extra-constitutional take over. It bears branding into our collective consciousness that not a single peaceful transition of power marks the 57 tempestuous years of our history. Yet, and savour the paradox, the bonds of nationhood (the sense of belonging to a nation) remain strong. Not because of Pakistan's rulers who constitute a dismal club but because of the Pakistani people, most of whom, although not all, have nowhere else to go, no place else to call home.
If the flame of patriotism still burns in Pakistani breasts, and it does, it is a tribute not to blinkered and often downright stupid leadership but to the resilience and fortitude of the Pakistani people. So, is there still something that we can call the Pakistani dream? There is but in the minds of the poor and the defenceless, not in the passions or pocketbooks of the rich and well-placed who long ago made a virtue of swimming with the tide and, in the process, exchanging the power of hope and striving for the armour of an all-weather cynicism. But to recap the usual factors held responsible for the founding of Pakistan, Islam was not in danger in pre-1947 India. Indeed, considering the sectarian violence and religious bigotry we face today, it was in better health then. Nor was democracy the issue because even if partition had not happened, India was getting democracy once the British left. The Indian Independence Act promised that. So what was the compelling reason for the Muslims to insist on a separate homeland especially when there was no going around the uncomfortable fact that, no matter how generously the frontiers of the new state were drawn, an uncomfortably large number of Muslims would remain in India?
The purpose of Pakistan, transcending anything to do with safeguarding Islam or promoting democracy, was to create conditions for the Muslims of India, or those who found themselves in the new state, to recreate the days of their lost glory. For eight centuries Muslim warriors - lured by tales of India's wealth and, I daresay, the beauty of its women, and crossing the same Hindukush passes through which, centuries before, Aryan hordes had marched - invaded, conquered and ruled India, putting the impress of their culture and thought upon the land they colonized and receiving something from that land in return. In the process, both invader and invaded were transformed. After eight centuries of intermingling and assimilation the Muslim in India, however hard he clung to his historical memories, was no longer a Turk, a Persian or an Arab but something else: an Indian Muslim. The land was transformed too, post-Muslim India not being the same as pre-Muslim India. With the coming of the British, however, another transformation was also underway. Muslims lost their pre-eminent status, a process beginning with the disintegration of the Mughal Empire but carried much further as the British consolidated their hold on India. Knocked off their pedestal, Muslims were now amongst the subjugated. But another discovery awaited them too.
Outnumbered by the Hindu population, even amongst the subjugated they were not of the first rank. Their overall position in India was thus relegated to number three, after the British and the Hindus, this being a measure of the shift in the historical calculus. From mid-19th Century onwards, beginning with the first stirrings of a modern Muslim consciousness as expressed by the Aligarh school, Muslims may have agitated for jobs and special safeguards, such as separate electorates, but informing and indeed fuelling their quest was a vision of the past when they were great and the whole of India, not just a part, was their happy hunting ground. At odds with the reality of Muslim impotence, this vision, this harking back to the past, reduced the Indian Muslim leadership to fighting a rearguard action: seeking to play the new game, of which the British were now the umpires, not across the entire field, because they felt it not in their power to do so, but asking that a patch be reserved for them so that in that reserved patch they should be able to ride unchallenged. In a crucial sense, then, the Pakistan movement signalled a retreat from the heartland of empire to its outer edges, the final evacuation from Delhi and Agra to new centres of power in Punjab and Bengal.
But even then it was for the new state, Pakistan, to create a historical justification for itself by emulating and rivalling, in achievement and glory, even if on a reduced scale, the success of its historical model, the Mughal Empire (in a 20th Century setting, it goes without saying). In other words, breaking away from India, for that's what partition did, the justification for Pakistan lay not in merely existing but in showing the spark, vitality and vigour of a new organism, like America to the old world, Israel to its decadent surroundings, the breakaway part, in short, proving better in all that qualifies for civilized achievement than the erstwhile whole. Against this scale of measurement how on earth do you place the kind of farce regularly staged in Pakistan: mediocre figures (no successors to Babar or Akbar, excuse me), meddling in politics when it is not their business to do so, adept neither at peace nor war, not understanding their own business or that of others, a succession of hopeless figures conspiring to make a mockery of a not-so-bad country? Mughal Empire indeed. Islamabad seems more like a replay of the last days of the Oudh dynasty.
The principal strengths of Muslim rule in the subcontinent were war, the consolidation of conquest, politics and administration. In all these fields Pakistan has not distinguished itself. Wars that should never have been fought started and then lost. About politics the less said the better. It's not as if Pakistan lacked promise or potential. It did not. But it has been betrayed by its stars and a succession of cardboard figures who would have received short shrift at Akbar's court. Is it all hopeless? Of course not. It's not too late to turn the ship around. But we'll have to go back to the drawing boards and, instead of taking Pakistan for granted which we often do, try to understand why this country was created. For rule by a few? To be lorded over by an oligarchy at once inept and corrupt, heedless of history and out of sync with the times? Come off it. Pakistan was meant for better things which it can still reach provided we stop making a mess of our politics.
Saturday, July 24, 2004
The Company Bahadar
British in India Called `Company Bahadar’ by the Indians and known as `John Company’ in Britain, the British East India Company was a unique commercial enterprise that developed to a nation status having a standing army, negotiating and making agreements with other states. In its 250 years, it expanded to rule most of India, founded Hong Kong and Singapore, began tea cultivation in India, held Napolean a prisoner on Saint Helena and had something to do with the Boston tea party. Its officers invented the games of badminton, polo, squash and snooker. After the civil war or the sepoy mutiny (1857), the Company was ablished by the British crown. Then began the rule of the `Saab Bahadars’ of the Crown for the next 100 years before the British left of their own free will out of their own domestic compulsions. This all began in London (1600) in a small office with 7200 pounds and 125 employees; and when Queen Elizabeth gave a Royal Charter to the Company to do business in spices in East Indies. Company Bahadar’s main adversay in India were the Mughals. For its first 100 years, it dealt with well known Emperors like Jehangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. After Aurangzeb, in the next 150 years, it saw another 15 non-discrept Mughal Kings who only kept the Dehli throne warm. Basically, it was Akbar, Jehangir’s father, who had put the Mughal empire on a strong footing by his sagacious policies. Though illetrate, his concepts were quite modern. His empire covered about 70% of South Asia; and, more important, it was at peace with itself. He had established a system of rule by which he either secured the allegience of smaller independent rulers or directly ruled the territory through a system of appointing Mansabdars who collected revenue and also provided soldiars for the throne.
The system worked so well that it took the Company 100 years to go beyond its three main stations like Surat, Calcutta and Madras. By then, it had 23 factories and 90 employees. Later, Bombay came to it in dowry for the Catherine de Braganza of Portugal (1668). When Sir Thomas Roe visited Emperor Janhangir (1615) as an emissionary of King George to get trade concessions, Jehangir gave the British full access with a view to counterbalance other Europeans like the Portugese and the French traders. His reply to King George reads like a village Nambardar writing to a Deputy Commissioner. It read `` When your Majesty shall open this letter, let your royal heart be as fresh as a sweet garden…..blah… blah, blah….let your throne be advanced higher; amongst the greatness of the kings of the prophet Jesus…blah…blah…blah.. I desire your Majesty to command your merchants to bring in their ships of all sorts of rarities and rich goods fit for my palace… that neither Portugal nor any other shall dare to molest their quiet…… Your Majesty is learned and quick-sighted as a prophet, and can conceive so much by few words that I need write no more…’’
The Mughals had their good and bad aspects. The worst in them came out close to the time of succession. They invariably went through a gory charade of eliminating all possible contenders to the throne not even sparing the parents. Taking the eyes out was one of the favourite techniques. The Mughals were also pompuous and believed in extravaganza at the expense of a common man. Jehangir (1605-1627) was mostly busy spending quality time with the Persian Noor Jahan who was always intriguing to get more Persian influence into court. Jehangir also went after the Jains and executed Guru Arjun Das, the fifth Sikh Guru. Shah Jahan (1627-1658) was a decent person but had an opulent taste. He frittered away his energies by sending campaigns in Deccan and Khyber pass. Building of Taj Mahal is commendable but a thought should have crossed his mind to send some subjects to Europe which was into an industrial revolution with fundamental new discoveries like inertia, Earth as a magnet, theory of lenses, laws of hydrostatics etc. Finally, Aurangzeb’s policies created a deep wedge in the society seriously weakening the empire. Meanwhile, the Company officers were having a jolly good time, getting familiar with local customs and languages. They lived like the Indians, freely intermingled and even intermarried. Some never returned home. Those who returned established sprawling estates back home to the envy of others. Their intimate knowledge of India and close relationship with Indian traders gave them an edge over other European colonialists. Britain itself was going through a period of prosperity and getting to a high standard of living.
The Company had become a big player in the British global business with a say in the parliament. The business had expanded to include cotton, silk, indigo, saltpeter and tea. In 1670, King Charles II gave the Company the right to acquire territory, to mint money, to have its own troops, form alliances and exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction over its territories. By 1689, Company had established vast fortress type presidencies in Bengal, Madras and Bombay and had its own formidable military force. The Company only needed a person like Aurangzeb to come and soften the ground for its expansion. Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was only too willing to oblige. When Principia Mathematica was coming out of Europe, Aurangzeb was busy in not only alientating the non-muslims but also persecuting the muslims for their wordly ways. He banned drinking, gambling, prostitution, music in the court, reintroduced jazia, forbade building of temples, destroyed temples and persecuted the Sikhs. As a consequence, there were uprisings in Deccan, by Maratthas in Maharashtra, Bijapur and Golcanda. The Mansabdars and the allied states also began to show their independence. The Company was fully prepared to fill the vaccume by using all available means like diplomacy, coersion, intrigue, show of force or a simple battle. It began to swallow the Empire piece by piece. History may have been different if Hira Bai, Aurangzeb’s infatuation and a Deccanese, had not died untimely. She very nearly turned him into a hedonist. Finally, the Company Raj began when Robert Clive defeated (1757) Siraj Ud Daulah at Plassey in Bengal. Later, when Shah Alam, the ruling emperor, gave the Company the administrative rights over Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, its influence increased many fold. Next to fall was Tipu Sultan of Mysore (Carnatic) in 1777. Finally, after the Maratha wars, the Company secured vast areas surrounding Bombay. The French and the Portugese were now confined to small enclaves of Pandicherry and Goa. The only remaining parts of India out of its jurisdiction were the northern regions of Delhi, Oudh, Rajputana and Punjab. By offering dubious offers of protection against each other, the Company was successful in preventing the local rulers from putting up a united front. It employed two strategies for its expansion. First was to reach an agreement (sanad) with the local ruler, under which the control of foreign affairs, defense, and communications was transferred to the company and the ruler was permitted everything else. This created what is known as the Princely India of the maharajas or nawabs who exceeded 500. By this ingenious method, the Company made the rulers barter away their real responsibilities for some visible sovereignty.
The second method was outright conquest or annexation; and these areas were called the British India. Despite their best efforts, many Hindu and Muslim rulers eventually lost their territories like Mysore (1799), the Maratha Confederacy (1818) and Punjab (1849). Finally, Lord Dalhousie brought about a "doctrine of lapse" by which if a ruler had no heir, his territory would automatically go to the British. The Company annexed the estates of deceased princes of Satara (1848), Udaipur (1852), , Jhansi (1853), Tanjore (1853), Nagpur (1854) and Oudh (1856) under this doctrine. In hindsight, it appears incredible how successfully the Company managed to manipulate the Indian rulers one by one. By now the Indians were also getting restive and this anger came out in the form of civil war or the sepoy mutiny (1857). The annexation of states, harsh revenue policies and famine in Bengal, which killed one-sixth of population, caused the unrest. Some believed that the Company was planning to replace the local princes. The leader of the Marathas, Nana Sahib, was denied his titles in 1853 and his pension was stopped. The last of the Mughal emperors, Bahadar Shah Zafar II, was told that he would be the last of his dynasty. The British had also abolished child marriage and sati which was not liked. Some believed that the British intended to convert them to Christinanity. There was also a rumor of a prophecy that the Company`s rule would end after 100 years. Plassey was in 1757. The most famous reason was the use of cow and pig fat in Patten Enfield rifle cartridges which had to be peeled off by mouth. In 1857, Company had 34000 British of all ranks in the army and 257,000 local sepoys. First the Bengali units in Meerut mutinied. It is said that the town prostitutes made fun of their manhood and when goaded, they went to the prison and released some chained sepoys. Then they attacked the European cantonment where they killed all Europeans and any Indian Christians they could find. This included all women and children from master to the servant. Then they burned the houses and marched towards Dehli. Next day in Delhi, they were joined by others from the local bazaar. They attacked the Red Fort, killed five British including a British officer and two women; and demanded Bahadar Shah Zafar to reclaim his throne who reluctantly agreed to became the nominal leader of the rebellion. Then the sepoys proceeded to kill every European and Christian in the city. In Kanpur, Nana Sahib promised free passage to Gen. Wheeler. When the British sat in the boats, the boatmen jumped off and all the British were massacred. Some British women and children who were left behind were put into a Bibi Ghar where the mob came with knives and hatchets to cut them to pieces. The civil war was limited to the area of Bengal and North India. Common Indians joined the sepoys to restore both the Moghul and the Maratha rulers. Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi, which had been annexed by the British, led a strong rebellion. There were calls for jihad by some leaders like Ahmedullah Shah. But there was no unified leadership to lead the war. Many Indians supported the British as well. The Sikhs did not like the idea of returning back to the Mughal rule. Sikh and Pathan units from the Punjab and North West Frontier suppported the British. These supporters proved to be crucial to the eventual victory of the British. In Oudh, Sunni Muslims did not want to see a return to Shiite rule so they refused to join what they thought to be a Shia rebellion. Most of the south of India remained passive and unconcerned.
The British were slow at first but eventually they proceeded towards Delhi; and fought, killed and hanged numerous Indians along the way. The British fought the main army of the rebels near Delhi in Badl-ke-Serai and drove them back to Delhi. The British established a base on the Delhi ridge to the north of the city and the siege began. However, their encirclement was not effective since the rebels could easily receive resources and reinforcements. Then the British were joined by the Punjab Movable Column of Sikh soldiers and elements of Gurkha Brigade. Eventually they broke through the Kashmiri gate and a week of street fighting began. When the British reached the Red Fort, Bahadur Shah had already fled to Humayun’s tomb. The British retook Dehli. They arrested Bahadur Shah; and next day British officer William Hodson shot his sons Mirza Moghul, Mirza Khizr Sultan and Mirza Abu Bakr by his own hands. Their heads were presented to their father the next day. The retaliation of the British was violent and without mercy. Whole villages were wiped out for just pro-rebel sympathies. The British adopted the old Mughal punishment by lashing the rebels to the mouth of cannons and blowing them to bits. The Indians were called and made to lick the blood off the walls of the women and childeren massacred in Bibi Ghar. Gwaliar and Lucknow were last to be recaptured. It was the crudest war India had seen in a long time and both sides resorted to worst kind of barbarism. The Indians called it `Devil’s Wind’. After the war, the British Crown took over India and East India Company was disbanded. Queen Victoria became the Empress of India. The Viceroy of India cancelled the `doctrine of lapse’; and about 40 percent of Indian territory and 25 percent of the population remained under the control of 562 princes of all religions (Islamic,Sikh, Hindu, Others).
By 1910s, the British reluctantly began to employ the Indians into the officer cadre. After the civil war, the British attitude changed from relaxed openness to aloofness even for the Indians of comparable standing and stature. The British families and their servants began to live in cantonments at a distance from the Indian settlements. Private clubs where the British gathered for social interaction became symbols of exclusivity and snobbery that has still not disappeared from South Asia. Some other aspects of the life style like the stiff-necked Brown Saab, whisky-soda, hill stations etc also continue. The British perceptions of India changed from general appreciation to condemnation of India`s past achievements, its heritage and customs. The next 90 years of the rule by the `Saab Bahadar’ of the Raj saw modernization of India in terms of railways, telegraph, canals, colleges and transplanting of some aspects of the British Government system. Queen Victoria promised an equal treatment under the British law but the Indian mistrust was now deep. Denial of equal status to Indians became a trigger for the formation of the Indian Political parties (Indian National Congress).
The Indian National Congress (1885) was initially loyal to the Empire but asked for increased self-government in 1905 and, by 1930, was asking for an independence. Muslim Leauge was another party that came up later. The day the British accepted separate elecotrorate system in India, a foundation had been laid for the partition. The British left leaving behind a divided India embroiled in its own conflicts. And soon everyone forgot about the Raj which had exploited South Asia for nearly 350 years.
Epilouge:
(a) To what extent, did the Mughals rule (400 years) benefit South Asia? The Mughals came as run-of-mill conquerors and decided to settle down. They did introduce a Turko-Persian culture and life style with a new language (Persian), architecture and literature. Todar Mal, during the Akbar’s reign, devised a revenue system that is still in vouge. But the Mughals miserably failed to connect the 4000 year old knowledge-based heritage of India with the European Industrial revolution of the time. The Mughals were also not able inter-faith managers. They did not do much for the common man.
(b) To what extent did the British presence/rule (350 years) benefit South Asia? The British came to India for commercial reasons. They left India when they could not afford to keep it. They discarded the Indian heritage and attempted to replace it with the European technology and sytems. Their effort for modernization (railways, telegraph, canals, cantonements etc) were more for commercial and security reasons rather than any love for India. Their failing is that they left India at the level of baboos, petty bureacracy, lawyers and engineers before the European culture of high learning (reseacrh etc) could be introduced. They also did not do much for a common man.
British in India Called `Company Bahadar’ by the Indians and known as `John Company’ in Britain, the British East India Company was a unique commercial enterprise that developed to a nation status having a standing army, negotiating and making agreements with other states. In its 250 years, it expanded to rule most of India, founded Hong Kong and Singapore, began tea cultivation in India, held Napolean a prisoner on Saint Helena and had something to do with the Boston tea party. Its officers invented the games of badminton, polo, squash and snooker. After the civil war or the sepoy mutiny (1857), the Company was ablished by the British crown. Then began the rule of the `Saab Bahadars’ of the Crown for the next 100 years before the British left of their own free will out of their own domestic compulsions. This all began in London (1600) in a small office with 7200 pounds and 125 employees; and when Queen Elizabeth gave a Royal Charter to the Company to do business in spices in East Indies. Company Bahadar’s main adversay in India were the Mughals. For its first 100 years, it dealt with well known Emperors like Jehangir, Shahjahan and Aurangzeb. After Aurangzeb, in the next 150 years, it saw another 15 non-discrept Mughal Kings who only kept the Dehli throne warm. Basically, it was Akbar, Jehangir’s father, who had put the Mughal empire on a strong footing by his sagacious policies. Though illetrate, his concepts were quite modern. His empire covered about 70% of South Asia; and, more important, it was at peace with itself. He had established a system of rule by which he either secured the allegience of smaller independent rulers or directly ruled the territory through a system of appointing Mansabdars who collected revenue and also provided soldiars for the throne.
The system worked so well that it took the Company 100 years to go beyond its three main stations like Surat, Calcutta and Madras. By then, it had 23 factories and 90 employees. Later, Bombay came to it in dowry for the Catherine de Braganza of Portugal (1668). When Sir Thomas Roe visited Emperor Janhangir (1615) as an emissionary of King George to get trade concessions, Jehangir gave the British full access with a view to counterbalance other Europeans like the Portugese and the French traders. His reply to King George reads like a village Nambardar writing to a Deputy Commissioner. It read `` When your Majesty shall open this letter, let your royal heart be as fresh as a sweet garden…..blah… blah, blah….let your throne be advanced higher; amongst the greatness of the kings of the prophet Jesus…blah…blah…blah.. I desire your Majesty to command your merchants to bring in their ships of all sorts of rarities and rich goods fit for my palace… that neither Portugal nor any other shall dare to molest their quiet…… Your Majesty is learned and quick-sighted as a prophet, and can conceive so much by few words that I need write no more…’’
The Mughals had their good and bad aspects. The worst in them came out close to the time of succession. They invariably went through a gory charade of eliminating all possible contenders to the throne not even sparing the parents. Taking the eyes out was one of the favourite techniques. The Mughals were also pompuous and believed in extravaganza at the expense of a common man. Jehangir (1605-1627) was mostly busy spending quality time with the Persian Noor Jahan who was always intriguing to get more Persian influence into court. Jehangir also went after the Jains and executed Guru Arjun Das, the fifth Sikh Guru. Shah Jahan (1627-1658) was a decent person but had an opulent taste. He frittered away his energies by sending campaigns in Deccan and Khyber pass. Building of Taj Mahal is commendable but a thought should have crossed his mind to send some subjects to Europe which was into an industrial revolution with fundamental new discoveries like inertia, Earth as a magnet, theory of lenses, laws of hydrostatics etc. Finally, Aurangzeb’s policies created a deep wedge in the society seriously weakening the empire. Meanwhile, the Company officers were having a jolly good time, getting familiar with local customs and languages. They lived like the Indians, freely intermingled and even intermarried. Some never returned home. Those who returned established sprawling estates back home to the envy of others. Their intimate knowledge of India and close relationship with Indian traders gave them an edge over other European colonialists. Britain itself was going through a period of prosperity and getting to a high standard of living.
The Company had become a big player in the British global business with a say in the parliament. The business had expanded to include cotton, silk, indigo, saltpeter and tea. In 1670, King Charles II gave the Company the right to acquire territory, to mint money, to have its own troops, form alliances and exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction over its territories. By 1689, Company had established vast fortress type presidencies in Bengal, Madras and Bombay and had its own formidable military force. The Company only needed a person like Aurangzeb to come and soften the ground for its expansion. Aurangzeb (1658-1707) was only too willing to oblige. When Principia Mathematica was coming out of Europe, Aurangzeb was busy in not only alientating the non-muslims but also persecuting the muslims for their wordly ways. He banned drinking, gambling, prostitution, music in the court, reintroduced jazia, forbade building of temples, destroyed temples and persecuted the Sikhs. As a consequence, there were uprisings in Deccan, by Maratthas in Maharashtra, Bijapur and Golcanda. The Mansabdars and the allied states also began to show their independence. The Company was fully prepared to fill the vaccume by using all available means like diplomacy, coersion, intrigue, show of force or a simple battle. It began to swallow the Empire piece by piece. History may have been different if Hira Bai, Aurangzeb’s infatuation and a Deccanese, had not died untimely. She very nearly turned him into a hedonist. Finally, the Company Raj began when Robert Clive defeated (1757) Siraj Ud Daulah at Plassey in Bengal. Later, when Shah Alam, the ruling emperor, gave the Company the administrative rights over Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, its influence increased many fold. Next to fall was Tipu Sultan of Mysore (Carnatic) in 1777. Finally, after the Maratha wars, the Company secured vast areas surrounding Bombay. The French and the Portugese were now confined to small enclaves of Pandicherry and Goa. The only remaining parts of India out of its jurisdiction were the northern regions of Delhi, Oudh, Rajputana and Punjab. By offering dubious offers of protection against each other, the Company was successful in preventing the local rulers from putting up a united front. It employed two strategies for its expansion. First was to reach an agreement (sanad) with the local ruler, under which the control of foreign affairs, defense, and communications was transferred to the company and the ruler was permitted everything else. This created what is known as the Princely India of the maharajas or nawabs who exceeded 500. By this ingenious method, the Company made the rulers barter away their real responsibilities for some visible sovereignty.
The second method was outright conquest or annexation; and these areas were called the British India. Despite their best efforts, many Hindu and Muslim rulers eventually lost their territories like Mysore (1799), the Maratha Confederacy (1818) and Punjab (1849). Finally, Lord Dalhousie brought about a "doctrine of lapse" by which if a ruler had no heir, his territory would automatically go to the British. The Company annexed the estates of deceased princes of Satara (1848), Udaipur (1852), , Jhansi (1853), Tanjore (1853), Nagpur (1854) and Oudh (1856) under this doctrine. In hindsight, it appears incredible how successfully the Company managed to manipulate the Indian rulers one by one. By now the Indians were also getting restive and this anger came out in the form of civil war or the sepoy mutiny (1857). The annexation of states, harsh revenue policies and famine in Bengal, which killed one-sixth of population, caused the unrest. Some believed that the Company was planning to replace the local princes. The leader of the Marathas, Nana Sahib, was denied his titles in 1853 and his pension was stopped. The last of the Mughal emperors, Bahadar Shah Zafar II, was told that he would be the last of his dynasty. The British had also abolished child marriage and sati which was not liked. Some believed that the British intended to convert them to Christinanity. There was also a rumor of a prophecy that the Company`s rule would end after 100 years. Plassey was in 1757. The most famous reason was the use of cow and pig fat in Patten Enfield rifle cartridges which had to be peeled off by mouth. In 1857, Company had 34000 British of all ranks in the army and 257,000 local sepoys. First the Bengali units in Meerut mutinied. It is said that the town prostitutes made fun of their manhood and when goaded, they went to the prison and released some chained sepoys. Then they attacked the European cantonment where they killed all Europeans and any Indian Christians they could find. This included all women and children from master to the servant. Then they burned the houses and marched towards Dehli. Next day in Delhi, they were joined by others from the local bazaar. They attacked the Red Fort, killed five British including a British officer and two women; and demanded Bahadar Shah Zafar to reclaim his throne who reluctantly agreed to became the nominal leader of the rebellion. Then the sepoys proceeded to kill every European and Christian in the city. In Kanpur, Nana Sahib promised free passage to Gen. Wheeler. When the British sat in the boats, the boatmen jumped off and all the British were massacred. Some British women and children who were left behind were put into a Bibi Ghar where the mob came with knives and hatchets to cut them to pieces. The civil war was limited to the area of Bengal and North India. Common Indians joined the sepoys to restore both the Moghul and the Maratha rulers. Rani Lakshmi Bai of Jhansi, which had been annexed by the British, led a strong rebellion. There were calls for jihad by some leaders like Ahmedullah Shah. But there was no unified leadership to lead the war. Many Indians supported the British as well. The Sikhs did not like the idea of returning back to the Mughal rule. Sikh and Pathan units from the Punjab and North West Frontier suppported the British. These supporters proved to be crucial to the eventual victory of the British. In Oudh, Sunni Muslims did not want to see a return to Shiite rule so they refused to join what they thought to be a Shia rebellion. Most of the south of India remained passive and unconcerned.
The British were slow at first but eventually they proceeded towards Delhi; and fought, killed and hanged numerous Indians along the way. The British fought the main army of the rebels near Delhi in Badl-ke-Serai and drove them back to Delhi. The British established a base on the Delhi ridge to the north of the city and the siege began. However, their encirclement was not effective since the rebels could easily receive resources and reinforcements. Then the British were joined by the Punjab Movable Column of Sikh soldiers and elements of Gurkha Brigade. Eventually they broke through the Kashmiri gate and a week of street fighting began. When the British reached the Red Fort, Bahadur Shah had already fled to Humayun’s tomb. The British retook Dehli. They arrested Bahadur Shah; and next day British officer William Hodson shot his sons Mirza Moghul, Mirza Khizr Sultan and Mirza Abu Bakr by his own hands. Their heads were presented to their father the next day. The retaliation of the British was violent and without mercy. Whole villages were wiped out for just pro-rebel sympathies. The British adopted the old Mughal punishment by lashing the rebels to the mouth of cannons and blowing them to bits. The Indians were called and made to lick the blood off the walls of the women and childeren massacred in Bibi Ghar. Gwaliar and Lucknow were last to be recaptured. It was the crudest war India had seen in a long time and both sides resorted to worst kind of barbarism. The Indians called it `Devil’s Wind’. After the war, the British Crown took over India and East India Company was disbanded. Queen Victoria became the Empress of India. The Viceroy of India cancelled the `doctrine of lapse’; and about 40 percent of Indian territory and 25 percent of the population remained under the control of 562 princes of all religions (Islamic,Sikh, Hindu, Others).
By 1910s, the British reluctantly began to employ the Indians into the officer cadre. After the civil war, the British attitude changed from relaxed openness to aloofness even for the Indians of comparable standing and stature. The British families and their servants began to live in cantonments at a distance from the Indian settlements. Private clubs where the British gathered for social interaction became symbols of exclusivity and snobbery that has still not disappeared from South Asia. Some other aspects of the life style like the stiff-necked Brown Saab, whisky-soda, hill stations etc also continue. The British perceptions of India changed from general appreciation to condemnation of India`s past achievements, its heritage and customs. The next 90 years of the rule by the `Saab Bahadar’ of the Raj saw modernization of India in terms of railways, telegraph, canals, colleges and transplanting of some aspects of the British Government system. Queen Victoria promised an equal treatment under the British law but the Indian mistrust was now deep. Denial of equal status to Indians became a trigger for the formation of the Indian Political parties (Indian National Congress).
The Indian National Congress (1885) was initially loyal to the Empire but asked for increased self-government in 1905 and, by 1930, was asking for an independence. Muslim Leauge was another party that came up later. The day the British accepted separate elecotrorate system in India, a foundation had been laid for the partition. The British left leaving behind a divided India embroiled in its own conflicts. And soon everyone forgot about the Raj which had exploited South Asia for nearly 350 years.
Epilouge:
(a) To what extent, did the Mughals rule (400 years) benefit South Asia? The Mughals came as run-of-mill conquerors and decided to settle down. They did introduce a Turko-Persian culture and life style with a new language (Persian), architecture and literature. Todar Mal, during the Akbar’s reign, devised a revenue system that is still in vouge. But the Mughals miserably failed to connect the 4000 year old knowledge-based heritage of India with the European Industrial revolution of the time. The Mughals were also not able inter-faith managers. They did not do much for the common man.
(b) To what extent did the British presence/rule (350 years) benefit South Asia? The British came to India for commercial reasons. They left India when they could not afford to keep it. They discarded the Indian heritage and attempted to replace it with the European technology and sytems. Their effort for modernization (railways, telegraph, canals, cantonements etc) were more for commercial and security reasons rather than any love for India. Their failing is that they left India at the level of baboos, petty bureacracy, lawyers and engineers before the European culture of high learning (reseacrh etc) could be introduced. They also did not do much for a common man.
Monday, July 19, 2004
Are Maulvis the hurdles in the way of progress?
Mufti Shafi (rahimahullah) used to humorously call Maulvis as ‘Malamati Firqa’ (censured group). The reason behind this was that some people consider Maulvis, their every move and action as objectionable and condemnable. They have always been censured for their wealth, their poverty, their culture, their dressing and their appearance. If they take a side and cut off relations with the world, they are criticized. If they take part in the national politics and stay active in the field of journalism, they are not spared. There is a spate of criticism for Maulvis from worldly people, particularly the modern and educated class.
Here we shall analyze only one objection. Main criticism on Maulvis is that they are the hurdles in the way of progress and prosperity. It is said: “The world is progressing fast but the Maulvis are hindering the developments. The time has changed, there are new opportunities, new avenues, new demands. Man has stepped on the moon. Computer and Internet have turned the whole world into a village. But, Maulvis are repeating the old stories. Prayers, fasting, beard, turban, mosque, madrasah, recitation of Holy Quran, Halal and Haram, purity and impurity, loose dressing, Shalwar above ankle, centuries-old views and practices, opposition to TV, singing and dancing, making women observe Hijab.” After these remarks, they say with great regret: “In such a situation, how can the country progress well?” It gives an impression that the Maulvis have misguided the people, rendering the country backward and conservative and from the hut of a religious man to the luxurious bungalow of wealthy people, religious codes are being followed; every rich person is paying Zakat; every man has grown beard, every head has a turban, every house is purified and there is no TV in any residence; recitation of Holy Quran can be heard from each house; every lady is observing Hijab; un-Islamic gatherings have stopped and every individual has said ‘no’ to the interest-based system of economy; anti-humanity representatives of World Bank and IMF have been expelled from the country. Nothing of this sort has happened, absolutely not. As these people claim that preaching by the Maulvis have been a cry in the wilderness which can be heard by the animals in the jungle but not by the people living in cities, then the country should have made good progress, there should have been zero unemployment and there should have been rapid industrial development, no child should have been deprived of easy access to the education, each and every person should have access to potable water, no-one should be sleeping hungry, no man should have committed suicide on seeing his family on starvation, no patient should have been left unattended, none of the city road should have looked like a dent-ridden path, we would have defeated India at least in the field of computer, we should have locally manufactured vehicles, weapons and medicines. But this did not happen, absolutely not. Why? …
Did any Maulvi prevent us from making progress? The voice of the poor Maulvi does not go outside the mosque and madrasah. He has nobody in his circle except the poor, uneducated and needy people. Scientists, engineers, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, doctors and professors are “immune” from the Maulvis. Then, why our beloved country could not lead the world in the fields of science, medicine and engineering? Due to the misdeeds of the rulers, corruption of bureaucrats, betrayal of leaders, bribery of administration, partiality of judiciary, infighting of power-hungry politicians, greed of government officials and indifference of the public, the country could not make progress. But the blame of decline was put on the Maulvis. Unfortunately, the people consider beard, turban, prayer, haj, mosque, madrasah and hijab as the causes of non-progress. Actually it is presumed that the progress and development, which prevails in Europe and America, is due to freedom from parental bonds, ignoring the religion, eliminating difference between right and wrong. This sort of thinking is wrong. The reason behind west’s so-called progress is different. They have a system and discipline in their all affairs, while we are victim of mismanagement in every field from politics and governance to industry and education. Every project of ours is erratic and based on ad-hocism. Despite the passage of 55 years of the establishment of our country we could not decide whether we should have presidential system or parliament system; whether we should adopt Marshall Law permanently or look for a modern form of kingship. The Europeans are constant-minded and committed people while we get tired very soon. That is the reason no country has confidence in us. The world is of the view that the Pakistanis change their mind very frequently. It is apprehensible that they are adherents of Islam, but the other side of the picture is that they do not take time in adopting the non-Islamic culture. Neither their friendship is stable nor their enmity is based on any principles. It was in the recent past that they were settling the Afghans in the country, and the same day it was seen that they were providing logistic support bombing the Afghans. Developed nations know the worth of each passing moment while in our society time is the cheapest thing. For us, time has no importance. It is like a tap of water that is left open without knowing whether the water is benefiting the barren land or it is going in vain. Developed nations think before they take any step while we think after taking a step. Developed nations keep in view the national interest while planning a project and we give preference to the individual and personal benefit. Everything is in a haphazard manner. It seems as if the Day of Reckoning has approached and every Pakistani is struggling for self-protection. Nobody bothers about the national benefit and interest. Every influential person is trying to do something for himself and for his own family. People in the developed world never damage the respect and honor of their fellow citizens. The developed nations provide justice to the common people without any discrimination. They provide unemployment allowance if anyone is not in job. Jobless people are provided all sort of help including free treatment and free education. The parents of disabled children do not have to worry because their government is there to support them.
Contrarily, Pakistani rulers and agencies are always bent upon damaging the honor of common people. People at the helm of affairs enjoy luxurious lifestyle on the basis of taxes, and consider the common men as their slaves. An appeal by Pakistani mujahideen languishing in Haripur jail was published in a section of the press in the past week. In their appeal, they described the atrocities and torture being meted out to them in the jail and sought the help of human rights organizations and influential people to get them out of there. They wrote in their appeal that they were kept under subhuman conditions and are made to go without food and water for many days. They are subjected to severe torture by the jail officials. They are asked question about the ladies of their families. This is the height of atrocities being meted out to the Muslims by the people of the same country and the same religion. Under such a situation, scholars and high officials ask why the country is not progressing well? Why the youth of the country are hesitant to volunteer along with the Pak military as was done in the past. People who raise this question know the reply to this question, but they still hold the Maulvis responsible for the miserable state. Government department like banks, telecommunications, electricity, railways and judiciary are NOT controlled by the maulvis. Corruption is the most dangerous thing in a country as it undermines the institutions. The evil has damaged Pakistan’s image in the world. Police are backing the robbers and criminals. Law and justice is put for sale in the courts. Journalists are indulged in unfair affairs. Horse Trading is common on the floor of upper and lower houses. In all such affairs no Maulvi is involved in any way. The country that had two hands – East and the West – lost one hand in just 25 years of its independence. Did this happen because of any Maulvi? There are so many such questions which can be raised anytime. But at present we are discussing just the reality and propaganda by friend-like enemies. Some people are of the view, “Had there been no Maulvi, Karachi and Lahore would have become Paris or New York.
Mufti Shafi (rahimahullah) used to humorously call Maulvis as ‘Malamati Firqa’ (censured group). The reason behind this was that some people consider Maulvis, their every move and action as objectionable and condemnable. They have always been censured for their wealth, their poverty, their culture, their dressing and their appearance. If they take a side and cut off relations with the world, they are criticized. If they take part in the national politics and stay active in the field of journalism, they are not spared. There is a spate of criticism for Maulvis from worldly people, particularly the modern and educated class.
Here we shall analyze only one objection. Main criticism on Maulvis is that they are the hurdles in the way of progress and prosperity. It is said: “The world is progressing fast but the Maulvis are hindering the developments. The time has changed, there are new opportunities, new avenues, new demands. Man has stepped on the moon. Computer and Internet have turned the whole world into a village. But, Maulvis are repeating the old stories. Prayers, fasting, beard, turban, mosque, madrasah, recitation of Holy Quran, Halal and Haram, purity and impurity, loose dressing, Shalwar above ankle, centuries-old views and practices, opposition to TV, singing and dancing, making women observe Hijab.” After these remarks, they say with great regret: “In such a situation, how can the country progress well?” It gives an impression that the Maulvis have misguided the people, rendering the country backward and conservative and from the hut of a religious man to the luxurious bungalow of wealthy people, religious codes are being followed; every rich person is paying Zakat; every man has grown beard, every head has a turban, every house is purified and there is no TV in any residence; recitation of Holy Quran can be heard from each house; every lady is observing Hijab; un-Islamic gatherings have stopped and every individual has said ‘no’ to the interest-based system of economy; anti-humanity representatives of World Bank and IMF have been expelled from the country. Nothing of this sort has happened, absolutely not. As these people claim that preaching by the Maulvis have been a cry in the wilderness which can be heard by the animals in the jungle but not by the people living in cities, then the country should have made good progress, there should have been zero unemployment and there should have been rapid industrial development, no child should have been deprived of easy access to the education, each and every person should have access to potable water, no-one should be sleeping hungry, no man should have committed suicide on seeing his family on starvation, no patient should have been left unattended, none of the city road should have looked like a dent-ridden path, we would have defeated India at least in the field of computer, we should have locally manufactured vehicles, weapons and medicines. But this did not happen, absolutely not. Why? …
Did any Maulvi prevent us from making progress? The voice of the poor Maulvi does not go outside the mosque and madrasah. He has nobody in his circle except the poor, uneducated and needy people. Scientists, engineers, judges, lawyers, bureaucrats, doctors and professors are “immune” from the Maulvis. Then, why our beloved country could not lead the world in the fields of science, medicine and engineering? Due to the misdeeds of the rulers, corruption of bureaucrats, betrayal of leaders, bribery of administration, partiality of judiciary, infighting of power-hungry politicians, greed of government officials and indifference of the public, the country could not make progress. But the blame of decline was put on the Maulvis. Unfortunately, the people consider beard, turban, prayer, haj, mosque, madrasah and hijab as the causes of non-progress. Actually it is presumed that the progress and development, which prevails in Europe and America, is due to freedom from parental bonds, ignoring the religion, eliminating difference between right and wrong. This sort of thinking is wrong. The reason behind west’s so-called progress is different. They have a system and discipline in their all affairs, while we are victim of mismanagement in every field from politics and governance to industry and education. Every project of ours is erratic and based on ad-hocism. Despite the passage of 55 years of the establishment of our country we could not decide whether we should have presidential system or parliament system; whether we should adopt Marshall Law permanently or look for a modern form of kingship. The Europeans are constant-minded and committed people while we get tired very soon. That is the reason no country has confidence in us. The world is of the view that the Pakistanis change their mind very frequently. It is apprehensible that they are adherents of Islam, but the other side of the picture is that they do not take time in adopting the non-Islamic culture. Neither their friendship is stable nor their enmity is based on any principles. It was in the recent past that they were settling the Afghans in the country, and the same day it was seen that they were providing logistic support bombing the Afghans. Developed nations know the worth of each passing moment while in our society time is the cheapest thing. For us, time has no importance. It is like a tap of water that is left open without knowing whether the water is benefiting the barren land or it is going in vain. Developed nations think before they take any step while we think after taking a step. Developed nations keep in view the national interest while planning a project and we give preference to the individual and personal benefit. Everything is in a haphazard manner. It seems as if the Day of Reckoning has approached and every Pakistani is struggling for self-protection. Nobody bothers about the national benefit and interest. Every influential person is trying to do something for himself and for his own family. People in the developed world never damage the respect and honor of their fellow citizens. The developed nations provide justice to the common people without any discrimination. They provide unemployment allowance if anyone is not in job. Jobless people are provided all sort of help including free treatment and free education. The parents of disabled children do not have to worry because their government is there to support them.
Contrarily, Pakistani rulers and agencies are always bent upon damaging the honor of common people. People at the helm of affairs enjoy luxurious lifestyle on the basis of taxes, and consider the common men as their slaves. An appeal by Pakistani mujahideen languishing in Haripur jail was published in a section of the press in the past week. In their appeal, they described the atrocities and torture being meted out to them in the jail and sought the help of human rights organizations and influential people to get them out of there. They wrote in their appeal that they were kept under subhuman conditions and are made to go without food and water for many days. They are subjected to severe torture by the jail officials. They are asked question about the ladies of their families. This is the height of atrocities being meted out to the Muslims by the people of the same country and the same religion. Under such a situation, scholars and high officials ask why the country is not progressing well? Why the youth of the country are hesitant to volunteer along with the Pak military as was done in the past. People who raise this question know the reply to this question, but they still hold the Maulvis responsible for the miserable state. Government department like banks, telecommunications, electricity, railways and judiciary are NOT controlled by the maulvis. Corruption is the most dangerous thing in a country as it undermines the institutions. The evil has damaged Pakistan’s image in the world. Police are backing the robbers and criminals. Law and justice is put for sale in the courts. Journalists are indulged in unfair affairs. Horse Trading is common on the floor of upper and lower houses. In all such affairs no Maulvi is involved in any way. The country that had two hands – East and the West – lost one hand in just 25 years of its independence. Did this happen because of any Maulvi? There are so many such questions which can be raised anytime. But at present we are discussing just the reality and propaganda by friend-like enemies. Some people are of the view, “Had there been no Maulvi, Karachi and Lahore would have become Paris or New York.
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Causes of terrorism
By Amar Jaleel
Terrorism can only be eliminated if the causes that breed terrorism are first terminated.
A simple and easily comprehensible method for explaining a maxim is to narrate a relevant story. Ensuing true story in the following paragraphs reveals the causes that transformed an ordinary person into a terrorist.
Way back in 1952 Mohammed Alam Khoso, alias Almo Khoso, was a normal student in the Government College, Hyderabad. Son of a poor farmer, Almo belonged to a backward territory within the interior of Sindh. His father, apart from his own five acre land tilled the soil of the landed aristocrat who by virtue of his vote-bank rubbed shoulders in the corridors of power. The clever manager of the landlord, called kamdar in Sindhi language, grabbed the five acre land of the poor farmer on the plea that he had failed to return the loan the farmer had borrowed from the landlord which in fact he had never borrowed. The ever-busy landlord had hardly any time to listen to the grievances of his farmer. Whenever he tried to contact the landlord he was insulted and humiliated by his personal servants.
Finding no way out the old farmer went to the police station to lodge a complaint against the kamdar, the manager of the landlord. The SHO was under countless obligations to the landlord, and was chum of the kamdar. He refused to register a case against the kamdar. The old farmer lost his patience, and turned violent. He abused the system, and cursed the kamdar and the landlord. Obviously, he landed in grave trouble. He was beaten, incarcerated in the lockup, and was charged with rebellion against the state and the rulers.
Hearing about their father's plight the two daughters of the farmer came running to the police station. They couldn't withstand the miserable condition in which they saw their father. He was lying sprawled on the floor of the lockup, and was profusely bleeding from the nostrils. His one arm was broken. The girls cried as they cursed the SHO and the constables. The old man opened his eyes and looked at his daughters clinging to the iron bars of the lockup. In a feeble voice he said, "Run away. They are savages."
The SHO pushed the girls in the lockup, and talked to the old man, and asked, "Would you still insist on registering a case against the kamdar, and the zamindar?" "No." The old farmer trembled, and said, "No, I won't." "But, we would." The girls said, "We insist that justice should prevail."
The girls were stripped, and dishonoured in front of the old man. The father gasped, and died. Thereafter, the girls were allowed to go. Instead of going back to their house, two sisters plunged into a well and committed suicide.
The horrible story was communicated to Almo Khoso in Hyderabad. He abandoned studies, and headed for the village. After the burial of his father and two sisters Almo Khoso went to the police station. Incidentally the SHO was not around. Almo snatched a rifle from the cop who in company of three other constables had dishonoured his sisters. He killed them, and blew their heads off.
Almo Khoso then mounted a horse, and galloped to the house of the kamdar. He pumped several bullets into the body and brain of kamdar. The circumstances (causes) converted a student into a terrorist.
The SHO and the landlord went into hiding. During his search for the SHO and the landlord Almo Khoso killed several of their henchmen and accomplices. After a year or so he spotted the SHO travelling in a jeep on the Indus highway along with his four armed constables. He killed the four constables when they tried to engage Almo in an encounter. He dumped the once dreaded SHO in a boat, and rowed him in deep waters. He tied him to the mast, and subjected him to slow, painful death with a dagger. After several hours the SHO gave up his ghost. Subsequently, Almo disfigured the SHO's face with bullets.
As a terrorist Almo Khoso lived for about five years, and died in a shootout with the police.
Human attitudes, behaviours, and reactions are governed by a simple maxim, cause and its effect. No sane person would take up a gun, and go on a killing spree just for nothing. All forms of revenge and personal vendetta can't be excluded from the aphorism. Causes do have their effects. While dealing with 'effect' (terrorism) it is essential to unearth the 'cause' for it. Simply vowing that you intend to terminate terrorism won't work. You will have to terminate the causes first that breed terrorism. If you indulge in any operation for eliminating terrorism without addressing its causes, you are bound to indulge in counter-terrorism.
Injustice, social inequity, economic disparity, hegemony of the 'haves, over the 'have-nots', ploy of the powerful over the powerless, invasion of other people's lands, properties, and countries on flimsy grounds, and growing exploitation of the poor countries by the rich countries are some of the few causes that culminate into terrorism.
Let me conclude our session today by telling you a true tale. Incidentally, it was published last month in a leading newspapers of Karachi. Fourteen years ago a lady doctor Fouzia working at the Jinnah Hospital, Karachi was allegedly murdered in the apartment of MPA Raheem Buksh Jamali. He was apprehended, and was subsequently granted bail. The honourable court took fourteen years in determining whether or not the accused Raheem Buksh Jamali had murdered Dr Fouzia. The honourable court honourably acquitted the accused Raheem Buksh Jamali. He had not murdered Dr Fouzia. Who killed Dr Fouzia then? Who will find out, and in how many years?
By Amar Jaleel
Terrorism can only be eliminated if the causes that breed terrorism are first terminated.
A simple and easily comprehensible method for explaining a maxim is to narrate a relevant story. Ensuing true story in the following paragraphs reveals the causes that transformed an ordinary person into a terrorist.
Way back in 1952 Mohammed Alam Khoso, alias Almo Khoso, was a normal student in the Government College, Hyderabad. Son of a poor farmer, Almo belonged to a backward territory within the interior of Sindh. His father, apart from his own five acre land tilled the soil of the landed aristocrat who by virtue of his vote-bank rubbed shoulders in the corridors of power. The clever manager of the landlord, called kamdar in Sindhi language, grabbed the five acre land of the poor farmer on the plea that he had failed to return the loan the farmer had borrowed from the landlord which in fact he had never borrowed. The ever-busy landlord had hardly any time to listen to the grievances of his farmer. Whenever he tried to contact the landlord he was insulted and humiliated by his personal servants.
Finding no way out the old farmer went to the police station to lodge a complaint against the kamdar, the manager of the landlord. The SHO was under countless obligations to the landlord, and was chum of the kamdar. He refused to register a case against the kamdar. The old farmer lost his patience, and turned violent. He abused the system, and cursed the kamdar and the landlord. Obviously, he landed in grave trouble. He was beaten, incarcerated in the lockup, and was charged with rebellion against the state and the rulers.
Hearing about their father's plight the two daughters of the farmer came running to the police station. They couldn't withstand the miserable condition in which they saw their father. He was lying sprawled on the floor of the lockup, and was profusely bleeding from the nostrils. His one arm was broken. The girls cried as they cursed the SHO and the constables. The old man opened his eyes and looked at his daughters clinging to the iron bars of the lockup. In a feeble voice he said, "Run away. They are savages."
The SHO pushed the girls in the lockup, and talked to the old man, and asked, "Would you still insist on registering a case against the kamdar, and the zamindar?" "No." The old farmer trembled, and said, "No, I won't." "But, we would." The girls said, "We insist that justice should prevail."
The girls were stripped, and dishonoured in front of the old man. The father gasped, and died. Thereafter, the girls were allowed to go. Instead of going back to their house, two sisters plunged into a well and committed suicide.
The horrible story was communicated to Almo Khoso in Hyderabad. He abandoned studies, and headed for the village. After the burial of his father and two sisters Almo Khoso went to the police station. Incidentally the SHO was not around. Almo snatched a rifle from the cop who in company of three other constables had dishonoured his sisters. He killed them, and blew their heads off.
Almo Khoso then mounted a horse, and galloped to the house of the kamdar. He pumped several bullets into the body and brain of kamdar. The circumstances (causes) converted a student into a terrorist.
The SHO and the landlord went into hiding. During his search for the SHO and the landlord Almo Khoso killed several of their henchmen and accomplices. After a year or so he spotted the SHO travelling in a jeep on the Indus highway along with his four armed constables. He killed the four constables when they tried to engage Almo in an encounter. He dumped the once dreaded SHO in a boat, and rowed him in deep waters. He tied him to the mast, and subjected him to slow, painful death with a dagger. After several hours the SHO gave up his ghost. Subsequently, Almo disfigured the SHO's face with bullets.
As a terrorist Almo Khoso lived for about five years, and died in a shootout with the police.
Human attitudes, behaviours, and reactions are governed by a simple maxim, cause and its effect. No sane person would take up a gun, and go on a killing spree just for nothing. All forms of revenge and personal vendetta can't be excluded from the aphorism. Causes do have their effects. While dealing with 'effect' (terrorism) it is essential to unearth the 'cause' for it. Simply vowing that you intend to terminate terrorism won't work. You will have to terminate the causes first that breed terrorism. If you indulge in any operation for eliminating terrorism without addressing its causes, you are bound to indulge in counter-terrorism.
Injustice, social inequity, economic disparity, hegemony of the 'haves, over the 'have-nots', ploy of the powerful over the powerless, invasion of other people's lands, properties, and countries on flimsy grounds, and growing exploitation of the poor countries by the rich countries are some of the few causes that culminate into terrorism.
Let me conclude our session today by telling you a true tale. Incidentally, it was published last month in a leading newspapers of Karachi. Fourteen years ago a lady doctor Fouzia working at the Jinnah Hospital, Karachi was allegedly murdered in the apartment of MPA Raheem Buksh Jamali. He was apprehended, and was subsequently granted bail. The honourable court took fourteen years in determining whether or not the accused Raheem Buksh Jamali had murdered Dr Fouzia. The honourable court honourably acquitted the accused Raheem Buksh Jamali. He had not murdered Dr Fouzia. Who killed Dr Fouzia then? Who will find out, and in how many years?
Saturday, July 10, 2004
Bush and Mush.
Bush: Hey Perve. Ssup?
Mush: Oh nothing much. I’m sitting here twiddling my thumbs. Changing prime ministers is like changing the furniture. It’s that easy.
Bush: You shoulda dunnit a whole lot sooner. How’s what’s-his-name?
Mush: Who, Jamali?
Bush: No, the other one.
Mush: Shujaat?
Bush: Heck no, the other guy.
Mush: Shaukat?
Bush: God, no … Manolo … Mango … Manhattan Singh. That’s it! Manhattan Singh! Isn’t he yer noo prime minister? How’s he doin’? Are you gonna be sackin’ him soon too, Perve? Coz if you are, you kin betcha bottom dollar that the State Department spokesman is just gonna say with a straight face that it’s Pakistan’s own internal matter but whatcha gonna do about Mrs Benazir Gandhi who, I’m told, is the power behind the throne kinda like Rummy ’n Condi and …
Mush: HELLO? HELLO? CAN I SAY SOMETHING HERE?
Bush: Sure, Perve. Go right ahead. What’s yer pet peeve? Heh heh heh. Ain’t that clever? Perve’s Pet Peeve. Kinda smart a me ta think a sompn as clever as that, right?
Mush: Sigh.Forget it.
Bush: I hear you bin on a state visit to Scandalnavia. Aren’t they the guys who’ve named their rivers after the greatest American tycoon of all time, Henry Fjord. Whatsit like ta visit the place? I hear there’s lotsa scandal in Scandalnavia like naked women an’ whippin’ an’ blue movies and lotsa M&Ms.
Mush: You mean S&M.
Bush: Whatever. But what I’d like ta know is why doesn’t Al-Qaeda target them Godless sinners in Scandalnavia? I mean why don’t they like fly airplanes inta their Fjord car factories?
Mush: Perhaps Al-Qaeda has other issues with the US which it doesn’t have with SCANDINAVIA …
Bush: Oh yeah? Like what? They’re rich too, they’re free too, they’re democracies too, they’re —
Mush: (Off line) [BUT THEY DON’T THINK THE SUN SHINES OUT OF ARIEL SHARON’S BACKSIDE!!]
Bush: Fergit Scandalnavia, Perve. How’s this fer a helpful suggestion? Seein’ as you’ve bin havin’ all this trouble with yer prime ministers, why dontcha bring Manhattan Singh ta the US for this great surgical procedure they’re now doin’ at the Washington Adventist Hospital which’ll remove every trace of a spine and guts from his body without any side effects. Condi nearly persuaded me ta try it on Colin Powell when he objected ta the Iraqistan war but then the doctors said he might not regain consciousness and I thought what’s wrong with that and in fact that’d be just fine but then Condi said the press’d git a hold of it and so I kinda dropped it …
Bush: Hey Perve. Ssup?
Mush: Oh nothing much. I’m sitting here twiddling my thumbs. Changing prime ministers is like changing the furniture. It’s that easy.
Bush: You shoulda dunnit a whole lot sooner. How’s what’s-his-name?
Mush: Who, Jamali?
Bush: No, the other one.
Mush: Shujaat?
Bush: Heck no, the other guy.
Mush: Shaukat?
Bush: God, no … Manolo … Mango … Manhattan Singh. That’s it! Manhattan Singh! Isn’t he yer noo prime minister? How’s he doin’? Are you gonna be sackin’ him soon too, Perve? Coz if you are, you kin betcha bottom dollar that the State Department spokesman is just gonna say with a straight face that it’s Pakistan’s own internal matter but whatcha gonna do about Mrs Benazir Gandhi who, I’m told, is the power behind the throne kinda like Rummy ’n Condi and …
Mush: HELLO? HELLO? CAN I SAY SOMETHING HERE?
Bush: Sure, Perve. Go right ahead. What’s yer pet peeve? Heh heh heh. Ain’t that clever? Perve’s Pet Peeve. Kinda smart a me ta think a sompn as clever as that, right?
Mush: Sigh.Forget it.
Bush: I hear you bin on a state visit to Scandalnavia. Aren’t they the guys who’ve named their rivers after the greatest American tycoon of all time, Henry Fjord. Whatsit like ta visit the place? I hear there’s lotsa scandal in Scandalnavia like naked women an’ whippin’ an’ blue movies and lotsa M&Ms.
Mush: You mean S&M.
Bush: Whatever. But what I’d like ta know is why doesn’t Al-Qaeda target them Godless sinners in Scandalnavia? I mean why don’t they like fly airplanes inta their Fjord car factories?
Mush: Perhaps Al-Qaeda has other issues with the US which it doesn’t have with SCANDINAVIA …
Bush: Oh yeah? Like what? They’re rich too, they’re free too, they’re democracies too, they’re —
Mush: (Off line) [BUT THEY DON’T THINK THE SUN SHINES OUT OF ARIEL SHARON’S BACKSIDE!!]
Bush: Fergit Scandalnavia, Perve. How’s this fer a helpful suggestion? Seein’ as you’ve bin havin’ all this trouble with yer prime ministers, why dontcha bring Manhattan Singh ta the US for this great surgical procedure they’re now doin’ at the Washington Adventist Hospital which’ll remove every trace of a spine and guts from his body without any side effects. Condi nearly persuaded me ta try it on Colin Powell when he objected ta the Iraqistan war but then the doctors said he might not regain consciousness and I thought what’s wrong with that and in fact that’d be just fine but then Condi said the press’d git a hold of it and so I kinda dropped it …
Monday, July 05, 2004
On secularism.
A definition of secularism is as follows:
"1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
3. a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations" (www.dictionary.com)
Secularism in no way allows different ideologies to exist peacefully together. All it does is to separate religion from civil affairs or rejects religious considerations all together. This may result in peaceful coexistence, or it may not. There are too many examples of countries where it has resulted in the positive and too many in which it has resulted in the negative.
Iraq was a very secular country under Saddam, yet so many communitities were targeted - specifically Shias. Turkey is a fanatically secular country, yet a Kurdish lady was put in jail for eight years, for using a line of Kurdish in the Assembly. Turkey continously kills Kurds. Pakistan was quite secular under Ayub etc., but look at what happened in 71. Most of the colonialism and the WWs was done and fought by secular states.
In fact, far far more violence. human rights violations, slavery etc. has occured in the 20th century by secular forces than non-secular forces. This is a fact, with statistical evidence. And thus cannot be denied.
This, of course, does not mean secularism is bad. It just means that it is incorrect to automatically equate it with humanism or goodness, as a political concept. In fact, by doing so, you are doing the same thing that religionists do, i.e. taking a social concept, and equating it with a utopian solution.
I really don't think secularism as we see it today will last too long. Secularism, as we see it today, is a very new concept (barely a few centuries old), with its foundations in a European interpretation of Christianity, and its separation from the State. It has become popular, amongst a select group, due to the economic and social progress made by European countries. People tend to equate that progress directly with secularism. When, in fact, many other factors were involved, like democarcy, distrubution of power, literacy rates, free market economy, end of monarchies, an exhaustion with massive wars, industrial revolution, discovery of new lands, colonization and exploitation of non-European peoples, etc.
Even today, no country is purely secular. There is religion in their laws. This is now reaching a critical point due to the debates around gay marriage. These debates will spread to polygamy, and other forms of unions. And will alter the socieites completely. Either people will move back towards religion as in the USA. Or they will move towards athiesm, as in Europe.
I have always felt that it is only possible to have pure secularism in an athiest society. For example, how many individuals with secular concepts, in Pakistan, are willing to support gay marriages. Marriage is purely a religious concept, and in a secular society, the state should have nothing to do with it. There are, after all, more gays in Pakistan, than Ahmedis. Why not fight for gay rights also? Do you support gay marriages?
Within the Pakistani society, secularism and religion are heavily politicized. People use them to hide their faults. An MMA leader will push religion to hide his shortcomings. And BB will push herself as the crusader of secularism, to hide her corruption scandals, as well as the other faults in her party.
If this is not the politicization of religion and secularism, then what exactly is it?
A definition of secularism is as follows:
"1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
3. a doctrine that rejects religion and religious considerations" (www.dictionary.com)
Secularism in no way allows different ideologies to exist peacefully together. All it does is to separate religion from civil affairs or rejects religious considerations all together. This may result in peaceful coexistence, or it may not. There are too many examples of countries where it has resulted in the positive and too many in which it has resulted in the negative.
Iraq was a very secular country under Saddam, yet so many communitities were targeted - specifically Shias. Turkey is a fanatically secular country, yet a Kurdish lady was put in jail for eight years, for using a line of Kurdish in the Assembly. Turkey continously kills Kurds. Pakistan was quite secular under Ayub etc., but look at what happened in 71. Most of the colonialism and the WWs was done and fought by secular states.
In fact, far far more violence. human rights violations, slavery etc. has occured in the 20th century by secular forces than non-secular forces. This is a fact, with statistical evidence. And thus cannot be denied.
This, of course, does not mean secularism is bad. It just means that it is incorrect to automatically equate it with humanism or goodness, as a political concept. In fact, by doing so, you are doing the same thing that religionists do, i.e. taking a social concept, and equating it with a utopian solution.
I really don't think secularism as we see it today will last too long. Secularism, as we see it today, is a very new concept (barely a few centuries old), with its foundations in a European interpretation of Christianity, and its separation from the State. It has become popular, amongst a select group, due to the economic and social progress made by European countries. People tend to equate that progress directly with secularism. When, in fact, many other factors were involved, like democarcy, distrubution of power, literacy rates, free market economy, end of monarchies, an exhaustion with massive wars, industrial revolution, discovery of new lands, colonization and exploitation of non-European peoples, etc.
Even today, no country is purely secular. There is religion in their laws. This is now reaching a critical point due to the debates around gay marriage. These debates will spread to polygamy, and other forms of unions. And will alter the socieites completely. Either people will move back towards religion as in the USA. Or they will move towards athiesm, as in Europe.
I have always felt that it is only possible to have pure secularism in an athiest society. For example, how many individuals with secular concepts, in Pakistan, are willing to support gay marriages. Marriage is purely a religious concept, and in a secular society, the state should have nothing to do with it. There are, after all, more gays in Pakistan, than Ahmedis. Why not fight for gay rights also? Do you support gay marriages?
Within the Pakistani society, secularism and religion are heavily politicized. People use them to hide their faults. An MMA leader will push religion to hide his shortcomings. And BB will push herself as the crusader of secularism, to hide her corruption scandals, as well as the other faults in her party.
If this is not the politicization of religion and secularism, then what exactly is it?
Friday, July 02, 2004
main ney jana hey k...
mohabbat mousam nahin..
apni muddat poori karey aur..
rukhsat hoo jayaee..
mohabbat sawan nahin..toot ker barsey
mohabbat aag nahin..sulgey barhkey..
aur bujh jayaee..
mohabbat aaftab nahin..ubhrey..chamkey aur dhal jayaee..
Mohabbat Too Chand Ki Manind Hai.....
jo barhta hey..ghat-ta hey
nikalta hey..chupta hey..
magar kabhi fana nahin hota....
mohabbat mousam nahin..
apni muddat poori karey aur..
rukhsat hoo jayaee..
mohabbat sawan nahin..toot ker barsey
mohabbat aag nahin..sulgey barhkey..
aur bujh jayaee..
mohabbat aaftab nahin..ubhrey..chamkey aur dhal jayaee..
Mohabbat Too Chand Ki Manind Hai.....
jo barhta hey..ghat-ta hey
nikalta hey..chupta hey..
magar kabhi fana nahin hota....
Monday, June 28, 2004
EDITORIAL: Dispensing with poor Mr Jamali
Someone is giving General Pervez Musharraf bad advice. Yesterday, even as Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali’s words that ‘I’m going nowhere’ were reverberating, news came in that he had been nudged to resign. This newspaper had already reported in its June 26 issue that Mr Jamali would resign the same day. But we are not happy to be proved right because we have consistently opposed this move for many reasons. But now that this has happened, let us see why it happened and what may lie in store for General Musharraf’s ‘democracy’.
Mr Jamali’s sacking will certainly breed uncertainty and may even lead to instability. We shall have an interim prime minister in Chaudhry Shujaat and then General Musharraf will move heaven and earth to get Shaukat Aziz elected from a ‘safe’ National Assembly seat so that he can become prime minister and dance to General Musharraf’s tune. Meanwhile, the opposition will join hands to thwart this move and allegations of ‘rigging’ will rent the air and boycotts will follow in the assembly. In the end we shall have not one (General Musharraf) but two ‘leaders’ who will have been thrust on the nation by reason of the brute force that General Musharraf enjoys because Mr Aziz will be even more of a party ‘loner’ than Mr Jamali ever was.
We hear that General Musharraf was unhappy with Mr Jamali’s inability to deliver and reduce the level of political opposition to him. If this is true then we are surprised at General Musharraf’s reasoning. First, he created a system where the prime minister is less than even a figurehead; then he handpicked Mr Jamali because the latter was thought to be most pliable; now he was peeved at Mr Jamali’s seeming inability to deliver. And pray, how might Mr Aziz be better at delivering General Musharraf’s political agenda where Mr Jamali failed because General Musharraf was not prepared to give to the prime minister what is due him in a parliamentary system?
Take a look at a whole range of issues from the negotiations on the Legal Framework Order to the peace process with India. Did anyone see Mr Jamali’s imprimatur on anything? He was there simply to do as the ‘boss’ wished and he did this admirably. Then how can his ‘performance’ or the ‘lack of it’ be used to indict him?
But there may be another perspective to this whole affair. General Musharraf seems disinclined to honour his legal and constitutional commitment to shed his uniform by December this year. That is clear by now even though he has tried to be circuitous on the issue every time the question has been put to him. It seems that he thinks, or has been made to think, that this would require a re-booting of the system. Seen from this perspective, Mr Jamali’s sacking should merely be the first step towards ‘other’ measures that might follow.
The foremost opposition to General Musharraf on the issue of the uniform will come from the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal with whom he made the commitment as part of the deal on the LFO. Now, while General Musharraf has made it clear that he does not think he is beholden to the MMA because the alliance has not kept its end of the bargain by opposing the NSC, the fact is that General Musharraf’s commitment is now legal and he cannot simply shrug it off without precipitating a constitutional crisis. The MMA has already refused to participate in the proceedings of the NSC and the only way, going by this logic, would be to decapitate its government in the NWFP and, by extension, the alliance itself. The move itself would entail sacking the NWFP government, ordering re-elections in that province and ensuring that the MMA does not win by playing on the internal fissures of the alliance and rigging the rest.
But the question is: Since much of this is to be done by General Musharraf himself, why get rid of Mr Jamali? The only answer that makes sense is that Mr Jamali was not 100 percent with General Musharraf on the schemes that the latter might want to hatch, from the NSC to the issue of the uniform. General Musharraf likes to clear the decks before the battle and it would make sense from his point of view to pack off anyone who was not fully with him.
But does all this add up to something? For a start it shows how General Musharraf’s much-flaunted system is both arbitrary and frail. He has been in the driver’s seat for over five years now. He has exercised unfettered powers to do as he wished. He has tempered with the system as he pleased. He had all the time in the world to tailor-make it for himself, which is exactly what he has done. In doing this he has put down political opposition and shown complete disregard for legal-normative criteria. But to what end, we may ask?
The system remains riven with inconsistencies and contradictions. The irony is that no matter how much more General Musharraf may try to make it work, it won’t. Why? Because no political system can be made to work without allowing the real and natural political actors to play their role unhampered. The desire to oversee the conduct of the politicians and monitor and corral the political parties simply does not work.
In the event, we cannot help but suspect that there may be a larger and longer-term agenda at stake. Is Mr Shaukat Aziz going to be groomed as General Pervez Musharraf’s ‘running mate’ in a new round of select provincial or general elections next year in which the Muslim League under General Musharraf’s helmsmanship is going to try and whip up a two-thirds majority in parliament to amend the constitution radically and manufacture a hybrid presidential system that fits General Musharraf like a glove? Two clichés come to mind: there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip; and the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.
Someone is giving General Pervez Musharraf bad advice. Yesterday, even as Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali’s words that ‘I’m going nowhere’ were reverberating, news came in that he had been nudged to resign. This newspaper had already reported in its June 26 issue that Mr Jamali would resign the same day. But we are not happy to be proved right because we have consistently opposed this move for many reasons. But now that this has happened, let us see why it happened and what may lie in store for General Musharraf’s ‘democracy’.
Mr Jamali’s sacking will certainly breed uncertainty and may even lead to instability. We shall have an interim prime minister in Chaudhry Shujaat and then General Musharraf will move heaven and earth to get Shaukat Aziz elected from a ‘safe’ National Assembly seat so that he can become prime minister and dance to General Musharraf’s tune. Meanwhile, the opposition will join hands to thwart this move and allegations of ‘rigging’ will rent the air and boycotts will follow in the assembly. In the end we shall have not one (General Musharraf) but two ‘leaders’ who will have been thrust on the nation by reason of the brute force that General Musharraf enjoys because Mr Aziz will be even more of a party ‘loner’ than Mr Jamali ever was.
We hear that General Musharraf was unhappy with Mr Jamali’s inability to deliver and reduce the level of political opposition to him. If this is true then we are surprised at General Musharraf’s reasoning. First, he created a system where the prime minister is less than even a figurehead; then he handpicked Mr Jamali because the latter was thought to be most pliable; now he was peeved at Mr Jamali’s seeming inability to deliver. And pray, how might Mr Aziz be better at delivering General Musharraf’s political agenda where Mr Jamali failed because General Musharraf was not prepared to give to the prime minister what is due him in a parliamentary system?
Take a look at a whole range of issues from the negotiations on the Legal Framework Order to the peace process with India. Did anyone see Mr Jamali’s imprimatur on anything? He was there simply to do as the ‘boss’ wished and he did this admirably. Then how can his ‘performance’ or the ‘lack of it’ be used to indict him?
But there may be another perspective to this whole affair. General Musharraf seems disinclined to honour his legal and constitutional commitment to shed his uniform by December this year. That is clear by now even though he has tried to be circuitous on the issue every time the question has been put to him. It seems that he thinks, or has been made to think, that this would require a re-booting of the system. Seen from this perspective, Mr Jamali’s sacking should merely be the first step towards ‘other’ measures that might follow.
The foremost opposition to General Musharraf on the issue of the uniform will come from the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal with whom he made the commitment as part of the deal on the LFO. Now, while General Musharraf has made it clear that he does not think he is beholden to the MMA because the alliance has not kept its end of the bargain by opposing the NSC, the fact is that General Musharraf’s commitment is now legal and he cannot simply shrug it off without precipitating a constitutional crisis. The MMA has already refused to participate in the proceedings of the NSC and the only way, going by this logic, would be to decapitate its government in the NWFP and, by extension, the alliance itself. The move itself would entail sacking the NWFP government, ordering re-elections in that province and ensuring that the MMA does not win by playing on the internal fissures of the alliance and rigging the rest.
But the question is: Since much of this is to be done by General Musharraf himself, why get rid of Mr Jamali? The only answer that makes sense is that Mr Jamali was not 100 percent with General Musharraf on the schemes that the latter might want to hatch, from the NSC to the issue of the uniform. General Musharraf likes to clear the decks before the battle and it would make sense from his point of view to pack off anyone who was not fully with him.
But does all this add up to something? For a start it shows how General Musharraf’s much-flaunted system is both arbitrary and frail. He has been in the driver’s seat for over five years now. He has exercised unfettered powers to do as he wished. He has tempered with the system as he pleased. He had all the time in the world to tailor-make it for himself, which is exactly what he has done. In doing this he has put down political opposition and shown complete disregard for legal-normative criteria. But to what end, we may ask?
The system remains riven with inconsistencies and contradictions. The irony is that no matter how much more General Musharraf may try to make it work, it won’t. Why? Because no political system can be made to work without allowing the real and natural political actors to play their role unhampered. The desire to oversee the conduct of the politicians and monitor and corral the political parties simply does not work.
In the event, we cannot help but suspect that there may be a larger and longer-term agenda at stake. Is Mr Shaukat Aziz going to be groomed as General Pervez Musharraf’s ‘running mate’ in a new round of select provincial or general elections next year in which the Muslim League under General Musharraf’s helmsmanship is going to try and whip up a two-thirds majority in parliament to amend the constitution radically and manufacture a hybrid presidential system that fits General Musharraf like a glove? Two clichés come to mind: there’s many a slip between the cup and the lip; and the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Cat Walk
tazleel-e-niswaan ko nia he naam dia hay
ab ik biddat ko jiddat ka muqaam dia hay
atta jis ko kia kahliq nay muqam-e-zeenat
uss ko he ab nilaam barsar-e-aam kia hay
maqsad to batya hay pehnavay ki namood
par uriaan yahaan siraf jisamon ko kia hay
lehraa kay, bhal kha kay, phir muskura kay
khillat-e-haiya ko kaisey bay hijaab kia hay
parchaat nakafi hain sarsarahat ko yahaan
manzar main moseeqi ka ihtamam kia hay
roshan qum qumay, aur lapkay hain bijliaan
her andaz ko tasveer main mehfooz kia hay
kassar na reh jye koi fun-e-paisha gari main
chun chun kay naginoan ka intakhab kia hay
ankhon ki haiya to ab thehri nayaab yahaan
dil khoal kay peech-o-kham ka izhar kia hay
daad to hay bohat ehbab-e-mehfal ki magar
kia kisi ko libas-e-malboos ka ihsas hua hay
makhsoos tha jo dhanpanay ko baddan kay
ussi boaj he say to uriaani ka izhaar kia hay
tarash-e-poshaak to bahana hay kahnay ko
tazkara to sirf husan-o-andaz he ka hua hay
baykhud hain kaisey sab ehbabab to daikho
jaisey nazaron ko jisam kay aar paar kia hay
hay gar ye izhaar-e- azadi-e-niswaan to kia
kisi nay behan aur baiti ko andia be dia hay
yakjaa hain ab bint-e-hawa aur ibn-e-adam
ye kaam dono nay bohat mil jul kay kia hay
kis ko day rahey hain ham ab fariab yahaan
kia kissi nay khud say be ye sawaal kia hay
-Izzah-
tazleel-e-niswaan ko nia he naam dia hay
ab ik biddat ko jiddat ka muqaam dia hay
atta jis ko kia kahliq nay muqam-e-zeenat
uss ko he ab nilaam barsar-e-aam kia hay
maqsad to batya hay pehnavay ki namood
par uriaan yahaan siraf jisamon ko kia hay
lehraa kay, bhal kha kay, phir muskura kay
khillat-e-haiya ko kaisey bay hijaab kia hay
parchaat nakafi hain sarsarahat ko yahaan
manzar main moseeqi ka ihtamam kia hay
roshan qum qumay, aur lapkay hain bijliaan
her andaz ko tasveer main mehfooz kia hay
kassar na reh jye koi fun-e-paisha gari main
chun chun kay naginoan ka intakhab kia hay
ankhon ki haiya to ab thehri nayaab yahaan
dil khoal kay peech-o-kham ka izhar kia hay
daad to hay bohat ehbab-e-mehfal ki magar
kia kisi ko libas-e-malboos ka ihsas hua hay
makhsoos tha jo dhanpanay ko baddan kay
ussi boaj he say to uriaani ka izhaar kia hay
tarash-e-poshaak to bahana hay kahnay ko
tazkara to sirf husan-o-andaz he ka hua hay
baykhud hain kaisey sab ehbabab to daikho
jaisey nazaron ko jisam kay aar paar kia hay
hay gar ye izhaar-e- azadi-e-niswaan to kia
kisi nay behan aur baiti ko andia be dia hay
yakjaa hain ab bint-e-hawa aur ibn-e-adam
ye kaam dono nay bohat mil jul kay kia hay
kis ko day rahey hain ham ab fariab yahaan
kia kissi nay khud say be ye sawaal kia hay
-Izzah-
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Thursday, June 17, 2004
even with this distracted mind
i detect you in fragmented details
you take credit for my smallest triumph
and also in every fall from grace
as you raise, then drop me
i am blinded by the streaking lights
that mark my ventures
yet i see you
despite this garishness
of desire and deceit
you dwell in a desert
you planted in my soul
and it is here i roam
longing for life
whose sparseness makes me burn
standing here, shaded by your temperance
i stare in amazement
at the pilgrims in your house
safe in the niche between your hands
bathed in your mercy
drunk with your allowances
they circle and cease
certain of being heard
with outstretched arms
and i, unable to even lift my gaze
without your favor, am struck
by the ease you have granted your creatures
that they tread on the hem of your robe
praying for your nearness
i detect you in fragmented details
you take credit for my smallest triumph
and also in every fall from grace
as you raise, then drop me
i am blinded by the streaking lights
that mark my ventures
yet i see you
despite this garishness
of desire and deceit
you dwell in a desert
you planted in my soul
and it is here i roam
longing for life
whose sparseness makes me burn
standing here, shaded by your temperance
i stare in amazement
at the pilgrims in your house
safe in the niche between your hands
bathed in your mercy
drunk with your allowances
they circle and cease
certain of being heard
with outstretched arms
and i, unable to even lift my gaze
without your favor, am struck
by the ease you have granted your creatures
that they tread on the hem of your robe
praying for your nearness
Monday, June 14, 2004
Know Your Enemy(shandana)
Mullah bashing is a popular sport amongst the English-speaking people generally lumped together under the ‘liberal’ banner. For nearly a decade, I too have been one of its staunchest adherents. Writing a fact-based piece on a religious minority? Note to self, highlight the jahil maulvi’s role in maintaining the status quo. Winging a fluff opinion piece? Do throw in an insult or two for the bearded ones. Kind of pointless, that, especially considering that most mullahs wont be reading it. Who am I writing it for then? Why, my English speaking brethren of course, so that, in the unlikely event that we all recognize a common language does not a common philosophy make, we can huddle together in the warm glow of our hatred for something we do not understand.
As I grow older, I am beginning to learn to reserve my righteous indignation for the things that really matter, like broccoli. Mullahs and hijabis are beginning to bother me less and less, partly because as I grow more comfortable in my own skin I am no longer compelled to flay others who are so different from me. Interestingly, what I am beginning to feel more and more bothered by are the very English speaking Pakistanis I feel most similar to. Like the mullahs, they had little to do with the creation of Pakistan but now keep suggesting they are the best interpreters of its maladies (sorry Ms.Lahiri). Like the mullahs they prefer to float in a sea of rhetoric rather than doggy paddle to the (much tougher) shores of reality and walk a mile or two. Like the mullahs they prefer a multitude of little parties (with carefully vetted guest lists) and cannot seem to put aside their misplaced sense of superiority long enough to gather under any truly awami banner. Like the mullahs, they preach the worth of a woman but continue, through personal and financial practices, to perpetuate the worst kind of misogyny. They shred the bearded for insisting men are entitled to more, but pay male drivers double what they’d pay a female domestic who works the same hours.
Lots of take, very little give.
Those are just the habits in common. There are other beliefs and practices unique to liberals that are not widely seen in mullah circles, though there is always hope that they will cross over and breed with mullah silliness and spawn a new, deadly, super silliness that will prune both ranks. The first, of course, is the constant complaining.
Now complaining isn’t always a bad thing. Properly applied, a focused, insightful complaint can help pinpoint a problem and even lead to a solution that doesn’t require any atom splitting at all. Rhetorical complaining, however, is an entirely different thing. If only they hadn’t, if the government just, here you have to bribe everyone, all these servants are the same, all these politicians are alike, we’ll never have a good leader so lets just settle for the one we have, why do the same idiots keep getting elected…
The thing is, they did. And they got away with it. Our government, top heavy and half addled, is frighteningly similar to most governments in most countries. You don’t HAVE to bribe anyone, you choose to. Servants are simply people with tiny salaries not job requirements with faces attached. And idiots keep getting elected because a democratic government is a representative government. Why don’t we stop reciting the litany of woes and start composing the melodies that will lift us out of our stupor?
If you’re an educated, English speaking Pakistani, you probably wax lyrical about the many limits to personal freedom in the motherland. The rights of the individual, the importance of a strong self, these are all too familiar refrains in gatherings of the deodorized. Not many, however, have any real clue as to what exactly they would do with limitless personal freedom once they got it. Its all very well to want to ‘be yourself’, but surely our selves should be of some worth before we are granted the right to inflict them on others. And while there might be abundant restraints on some physical freedoms, the chains binding the inner life are usually self-imposed. Probe a little deeper into the minds of most of those who claim to champion individualism in this country, and you might just walk away thinking the brain is simply cranial stuffing meant to keep the ears from sticking together. Why don’t we stop shrieking of winds that barely ruffle the leaves on our rose bushes and work on how best to positively impact the workings of our inner lives? Why is personal responsibility something that should only happen to bad people? And if we must insist on the right to shake our booties on some random beach, can we at least figure out a way to convert that energy into something more productive than fat burning?
There is a dazzling array of Ivy League graduates who take well-deserved pride in their scholastic achievements but cannot seem to apply them to practical life. The fruits of their education are apparently ample enough for only a single serving of Russian salad. I know many intelligent young people who spend the hours they’re not at work playing gimp to their paymasters bemoaning the lack of cultural depth, intellectual life, something…anything…to do, yet shy away in horror when I suggest they try and do something about it then. If I had a pimple for every person who has told me they don’t have time to read a book I’d be part of a local circus (freak section, right behind moth eaten eastern European acrobat). Doesn’t anyone go to the bathroom anymore? And if you really don’t have time to read how come you’ve memorized the cliff notes to books that are suddenly ‘hip’? Does preparing for a rave or a ball involve removing chunks of your brain and freezing them in saline solution beforehand? Did your English challenged cook prepare those by mistake?
Mullahs are often accused of hijacking discussions and steering them to non-issues, but liberals are just the same. Although they have lately begun dropping names like Eqbal Ahmed and Edward Said, Khaled Ahmed and Najam Sethi, what most people are really interested in is news and gossip about the same tired faces in the popular music and entertainment world. When I was younger, I thought it was just a phase. People would get tired, evolve, there would be more publications and they’d veer off the mainstream. We’d get tired of jaded fashionistas and demand an English literary quarterly instead. I was so wrong. There are more publications but they’re all variations on a theme, and that theme is Image. Image is everything. Image is power. Articulate women write scholarly essays on fashion trends. Twits spout forth on dancing from dusk to dawn and others fall upon their words like it’s manna from the heavens. Ad men are courted over writers, stylists over filmmakers, and models over musicians. Make up technicians are called artists and artists scrape by as set designers.
When it all comes down to it (one day I’ll figure out what that means exactly), it’s all about desire. Mullahs don’t want us to have any (men can’t handle it and women misuse it). Liberals want nothing but. Thanks to this stark polarization, life for the rest of us has been whittled down to ‘what I want’ or ‘what you cannot have’. And the ubiquitous ‘what’s best for you’ rammed down our throats by our khaki uncles. Faced with the selfishness’ of both the liberal and mullah positions, is it any wonder so many have tolerated that third option for so long? Which is better, believing in something that is wrong or not believing in anything at all?
Well done, my friends, colleagues and peers. No one will ever be able to accuse you of not doing your bit for the status quo. I’ll do my little bit now shall I? Have you heard the one about the mullah and the goat…
Mullah bashing is a popular sport amongst the English-speaking people generally lumped together under the ‘liberal’ banner. For nearly a decade, I too have been one of its staunchest adherents. Writing a fact-based piece on a religious minority? Note to self, highlight the jahil maulvi’s role in maintaining the status quo. Winging a fluff opinion piece? Do throw in an insult or two for the bearded ones. Kind of pointless, that, especially considering that most mullahs wont be reading it. Who am I writing it for then? Why, my English speaking brethren of course, so that, in the unlikely event that we all recognize a common language does not a common philosophy make, we can huddle together in the warm glow of our hatred for something we do not understand.
As I grow older, I am beginning to learn to reserve my righteous indignation for the things that really matter, like broccoli. Mullahs and hijabis are beginning to bother me less and less, partly because as I grow more comfortable in my own skin I am no longer compelled to flay others who are so different from me. Interestingly, what I am beginning to feel more and more bothered by are the very English speaking Pakistanis I feel most similar to. Like the mullahs, they had little to do with the creation of Pakistan but now keep suggesting they are the best interpreters of its maladies (sorry Ms.Lahiri). Like the mullahs they prefer to float in a sea of rhetoric rather than doggy paddle to the (much tougher) shores of reality and walk a mile or two. Like the mullahs they prefer a multitude of little parties (with carefully vetted guest lists) and cannot seem to put aside their misplaced sense of superiority long enough to gather under any truly awami banner. Like the mullahs, they preach the worth of a woman but continue, through personal and financial practices, to perpetuate the worst kind of misogyny. They shred the bearded for insisting men are entitled to more, but pay male drivers double what they’d pay a female domestic who works the same hours.
Lots of take, very little give.
Those are just the habits in common. There are other beliefs and practices unique to liberals that are not widely seen in mullah circles, though there is always hope that they will cross over and breed with mullah silliness and spawn a new, deadly, super silliness that will prune both ranks. The first, of course, is the constant complaining.
Now complaining isn’t always a bad thing. Properly applied, a focused, insightful complaint can help pinpoint a problem and even lead to a solution that doesn’t require any atom splitting at all. Rhetorical complaining, however, is an entirely different thing. If only they hadn’t, if the government just, here you have to bribe everyone, all these servants are the same, all these politicians are alike, we’ll never have a good leader so lets just settle for the one we have, why do the same idiots keep getting elected…
The thing is, they did. And they got away with it. Our government, top heavy and half addled, is frighteningly similar to most governments in most countries. You don’t HAVE to bribe anyone, you choose to. Servants are simply people with tiny salaries not job requirements with faces attached. And idiots keep getting elected because a democratic government is a representative government. Why don’t we stop reciting the litany of woes and start composing the melodies that will lift us out of our stupor?
If you’re an educated, English speaking Pakistani, you probably wax lyrical about the many limits to personal freedom in the motherland. The rights of the individual, the importance of a strong self, these are all too familiar refrains in gatherings of the deodorized. Not many, however, have any real clue as to what exactly they would do with limitless personal freedom once they got it. Its all very well to want to ‘be yourself’, but surely our selves should be of some worth before we are granted the right to inflict them on others. And while there might be abundant restraints on some physical freedoms, the chains binding the inner life are usually self-imposed. Probe a little deeper into the minds of most of those who claim to champion individualism in this country, and you might just walk away thinking the brain is simply cranial stuffing meant to keep the ears from sticking together. Why don’t we stop shrieking of winds that barely ruffle the leaves on our rose bushes and work on how best to positively impact the workings of our inner lives? Why is personal responsibility something that should only happen to bad people? And if we must insist on the right to shake our booties on some random beach, can we at least figure out a way to convert that energy into something more productive than fat burning?
There is a dazzling array of Ivy League graduates who take well-deserved pride in their scholastic achievements but cannot seem to apply them to practical life. The fruits of their education are apparently ample enough for only a single serving of Russian salad. I know many intelligent young people who spend the hours they’re not at work playing gimp to their paymasters bemoaning the lack of cultural depth, intellectual life, something…anything…to do, yet shy away in horror when I suggest they try and do something about it then. If I had a pimple for every person who has told me they don’t have time to read a book I’d be part of a local circus (freak section, right behind moth eaten eastern European acrobat). Doesn’t anyone go to the bathroom anymore? And if you really don’t have time to read how come you’ve memorized the cliff notes to books that are suddenly ‘hip’? Does preparing for a rave or a ball involve removing chunks of your brain and freezing them in saline solution beforehand? Did your English challenged cook prepare those by mistake?
Mullahs are often accused of hijacking discussions and steering them to non-issues, but liberals are just the same. Although they have lately begun dropping names like Eqbal Ahmed and Edward Said, Khaled Ahmed and Najam Sethi, what most people are really interested in is news and gossip about the same tired faces in the popular music and entertainment world. When I was younger, I thought it was just a phase. People would get tired, evolve, there would be more publications and they’d veer off the mainstream. We’d get tired of jaded fashionistas and demand an English literary quarterly instead. I was so wrong. There are more publications but they’re all variations on a theme, and that theme is Image. Image is everything. Image is power. Articulate women write scholarly essays on fashion trends. Twits spout forth on dancing from dusk to dawn and others fall upon their words like it’s manna from the heavens. Ad men are courted over writers, stylists over filmmakers, and models over musicians. Make up technicians are called artists and artists scrape by as set designers.
When it all comes down to it (one day I’ll figure out what that means exactly), it’s all about desire. Mullahs don’t want us to have any (men can’t handle it and women misuse it). Liberals want nothing but. Thanks to this stark polarization, life for the rest of us has been whittled down to ‘what I want’ or ‘what you cannot have’. And the ubiquitous ‘what’s best for you’ rammed down our throats by our khaki uncles. Faced with the selfishness’ of both the liberal and mullah positions, is it any wonder so many have tolerated that third option for so long? Which is better, believing in something that is wrong or not believing in anything at all?
Well done, my friends, colleagues and peers. No one will ever be able to accuse you of not doing your bit for the status quo. I’ll do my little bit now shall I? Have you heard the one about the mullah and the goat…
Saturday, June 12, 2004
On Pakistani Muslims Living In US..
The clear answer is that I have decided to leave US preferably by the end of this year. My taxes are something that I have no control over. The government takes it at source and I have no political power to redirect their spending. The only option that I have is to address the conscience of American people and tell them that it is wrong to exterminate human life elsewhere in the world using this money. I am a law abiding citizen and tend to obey the law of the land. My disagreement with policies, however, is a different matter. I can disagree with a government in a democracy while still abiding by the law. Currently, I see no law, that directly effects me, which goes contrary to my system of beleifs. I stand clear of paying interest, don`t use my credit cards, except in dire needs, don`t mortgage, and give my interest earnings through my savings account to charities. I disagree with abortion policies and beleive in preservation of human life at all costs. I believe marriage is a union between man and women and any other arrangement is a sure recipe to disintegrate social structure of the society. But these are the things millions of other Americans also belive in.
As long as I am alone in US I do not feel much threatened. Heck, I have survived a civil war and ethnic cleansing in Karachi. It is not as bad as yet. But America is absolutely not a place anymore where to raise one`s family. And as the time goes by it is going to get worst for Muslims here than getting better. The change of government in November will have no bearing on American policies towards Muslim countries because the events in the past two and half years since 9/11 have set them on an irreversible course. Now thhere can only be two outcomes of this confrontation - either Americans will succeed, quash any and all resistance in the Muslim lands, and subjugate them completely thru their proxies or direct occupation or there is a chance that Americans will have to make huge sacrifices of their vested interests and grant Muslim lands the freedom from their clutches and equality that they long deserve. Either way the Americans will be bitter and unaccomodating for as long as my natural life goes and beyond. But currently Americans are losing morally and also militarily and they are becoming bitter. Just wait until this loss will start translating itself into economic terms. As the urdu proverb goes - If you keep spending even Qaroon`s treasure gets emptied - similarly all wars come with economic costs and global wars come with economic costs of global proportions.
In all honesty I want America to hold the torch of justice and equality in this world. And for that they will have to make sacrifices and take their glasses of prejudice and hatered off. It is a tall order but it has happened in history before. I don`t want America to go down in the history as an empire that lost to its own bigotry, greed, and hatered. The shred of hope that I have in America is quickly dwindeling away though. It is law of nature that what goes up must come down. And only if wishes were horses.....
Most preferably I will move to a Scandanevian country. The whole of Muslim world and especially Paksitan has been turned into Dar-al-Harb from where I escaped persecution in the first place. The place, in all those years, has gotten worst than getting better. Leaving one`s country - his own or adopted - is not an easy task for a human being in such short span of a life time. It took me decades to leave my own country of birth - the country that has ravaged me emotionally and physically and yet not a day goes by when my heart doesn`t ache remembering its dusty roads. Only God knows when this perpetual migration that I am cursed with, will end.
I am sorry but it can`t get any simpler than that, now can it?
(asad)
The clear answer is that I have decided to leave US preferably by the end of this year. My taxes are something that I have no control over. The government takes it at source and I have no political power to redirect their spending. The only option that I have is to address the conscience of American people and tell them that it is wrong to exterminate human life elsewhere in the world using this money. I am a law abiding citizen and tend to obey the law of the land. My disagreement with policies, however, is a different matter. I can disagree with a government in a democracy while still abiding by the law. Currently, I see no law, that directly effects me, which goes contrary to my system of beleifs. I stand clear of paying interest, don`t use my credit cards, except in dire needs, don`t mortgage, and give my interest earnings through my savings account to charities. I disagree with abortion policies and beleive in preservation of human life at all costs. I believe marriage is a union between man and women and any other arrangement is a sure recipe to disintegrate social structure of the society. But these are the things millions of other Americans also belive in.
As long as I am alone in US I do not feel much threatened. Heck, I have survived a civil war and ethnic cleansing in Karachi. It is not as bad as yet. But America is absolutely not a place anymore where to raise one`s family. And as the time goes by it is going to get worst for Muslims here than getting better. The change of government in November will have no bearing on American policies towards Muslim countries because the events in the past two and half years since 9/11 have set them on an irreversible course. Now thhere can only be two outcomes of this confrontation - either Americans will succeed, quash any and all resistance in the Muslim lands, and subjugate them completely thru their proxies or direct occupation or there is a chance that Americans will have to make huge sacrifices of their vested interests and grant Muslim lands the freedom from their clutches and equality that they long deserve. Either way the Americans will be bitter and unaccomodating for as long as my natural life goes and beyond. But currently Americans are losing morally and also militarily and they are becoming bitter. Just wait until this loss will start translating itself into economic terms. As the urdu proverb goes - If you keep spending even Qaroon`s treasure gets emptied - similarly all wars come with economic costs and global wars come with economic costs of global proportions.
In all honesty I want America to hold the torch of justice and equality in this world. And for that they will have to make sacrifices and take their glasses of prejudice and hatered off. It is a tall order but it has happened in history before. I don`t want America to go down in the history as an empire that lost to its own bigotry, greed, and hatered. The shred of hope that I have in America is quickly dwindeling away though. It is law of nature that what goes up must come down. And only if wishes were horses.....
Most preferably I will move to a Scandanevian country. The whole of Muslim world and especially Paksitan has been turned into Dar-al-Harb from where I escaped persecution in the first place. The place, in all those years, has gotten worst than getting better. Leaving one`s country - his own or adopted - is not an easy task for a human being in such short span of a life time. It took me decades to leave my own country of birth - the country that has ravaged me emotionally and physically and yet not a day goes by when my heart doesn`t ache remembering its dusty roads. Only God knows when this perpetual migration that I am cursed with, will end.
I am sorry but it can`t get any simpler than that, now can it?
(asad)
The funny thing is that the Faujiz(Army) have divided the house so much, they can't put anything together now. The degree to which people despise this government- specifically the Faujiz - is quite remarkable.
Just go down the list, these Faujiz have given red-carpet receptions to every criminal politician as long as they lick Fauji feet. Sherpao is now the water minister, Ishratul Ibad the man who personally enjoyed torturing his adversaries by drilling holes in their knee-caps is the Governor of Sindh, Shujaats and Elahis have been forgiven for their numerous corruption cases, Manawar Manj, the former MNA from Sheikhupura – the biggest narcotics smuggler in the country who’d been sentenced to death – is released with the help of his son who finally manages to strike a deal with the government if he switches loyalties to the Faujiz…and the list of bribed MNA’s and MPA’s goes on and on. We’ve always had corrupt politicians and turn-coats. But I don’t recall when there was such a set-up where the politicians had been so effectively divided and where each of these criminals was totally sure that political life depended on not what the people chose but on how you licked Fauji feet as those are the real people engineering the outcomes of elections.
We have multiple layers of powers and no one knows who is to do what. Whereas the federal and provincial level politicians are bribed into supporting the Faujiz, the nazims and local level representatives elected on a non-party basis have taken the country backwards by appealing to the medieval ‘biradari’ system- which is bound to happen when you take away national political parties which despite all their faults actually help bring people of different castes, religions, and ethnic background together.
Despite ruining what little political process this country had, it’s mind-boggling how ineffective and totally disoriented the current Fauji-lead government is. It is only a matter of time before they go back to their barracks licking their wounds after drawing a face-saving compromise with the politicians. The sad thing is four years were wasted. Once again the country’s political development will begin from ground zero and the shenanigans of politics will leave much uncertain as the various political parties and decaying institutions try to once again find their own respective spaces on the national scene.
Institutional development needs the security of a continuing process- no matter how messed it may be.
(Izzah)
Just go down the list, these Faujiz have given red-carpet receptions to every criminal politician as long as they lick Fauji feet. Sherpao is now the water minister, Ishratul Ibad the man who personally enjoyed torturing his adversaries by drilling holes in their knee-caps is the Governor of Sindh, Shujaats and Elahis have been forgiven for their numerous corruption cases, Manawar Manj, the former MNA from Sheikhupura – the biggest narcotics smuggler in the country who’d been sentenced to death – is released with the help of his son who finally manages to strike a deal with the government if he switches loyalties to the Faujiz…and the list of bribed MNA’s and MPA’s goes on and on. We’ve always had corrupt politicians and turn-coats. But I don’t recall when there was such a set-up where the politicians had been so effectively divided and where each of these criminals was totally sure that political life depended on not what the people chose but on how you licked Fauji feet as those are the real people engineering the outcomes of elections.
We have multiple layers of powers and no one knows who is to do what. Whereas the federal and provincial level politicians are bribed into supporting the Faujiz, the nazims and local level representatives elected on a non-party basis have taken the country backwards by appealing to the medieval ‘biradari’ system- which is bound to happen when you take away national political parties which despite all their faults actually help bring people of different castes, religions, and ethnic background together.
Despite ruining what little political process this country had, it’s mind-boggling how ineffective and totally disoriented the current Fauji-lead government is. It is only a matter of time before they go back to their barracks licking their wounds after drawing a face-saving compromise with the politicians. The sad thing is four years were wasted. Once again the country’s political development will begin from ground zero and the shenanigans of politics will leave much uncertain as the various political parties and decaying institutions try to once again find their own respective spaces on the national scene.
Institutional development needs the security of a continuing process- no matter how messed it may be.
(Izzah)
Thursday, June 10, 2004
I am not using rhetoric but only stating the obvious - the flying of planes into the buildings and blowing oneself up was not only the next logical step but also the inevitable consequence of the years of suffocation. Imagine a pressure cooker on fire whose all vents have been sealed shut. The dictators in the Muslim world would not survive a day unless they are supported by their foreign masters. Just take the example of Pakistan where Musharaf's removing himself from power was inevitable since this regime was seen as a paraih regime isolated by the whole world. The economic cost for army to stay in power was becoming unbearable and then 9/11 happened and military sold their soul to the devil. Now the dictator is treated as a state guest by those very people who are destroying one country after the other in the name of democracy. Same thing with Qaddafi - as soon as he agreed to fight the fight for West against those who are resisting West, he has become a friend. Take another example of Palestinians. As long as they were fighting Americans by hijaking their planes and attacking their military bases in middle east they were accorded with 1984 peace accord and then Oslo peace accord. But as soon as they "made friends" with Americans and concentrated their struggle only on Israel, they are being murdered by the dozen everyday literally for past so many years and in the whole wide world there is no one heeding their plight, not even those who are destroying country after country in the name of democracy and human rights. The point, in short is that, there is evil and then there is this root of the evil. The evil cannot be stopped until the source of this evil is stopped first. It is like a tree; as long as its roots are in the ground no matter how many branches you chop off, it will keep shooting new branches but when you cut the roots.....
Your next point is about the "non-ummah" places where democracy has happened successfully. The point is valid but out of context. Muslims are different from "non-ummah" in a sense that the religion that they subscribe to has an integrally unseparable political ideology component as well. This political ideology can only be separated from a Muslim when you take his religion away from him and leave him with rituals. Islam is a religion that is anti-ritual; it is something that you live and breath with your every breath it is not a buffet from where you pick those things which suite your life style and leave those which don't. That is exactly the reason those "Muslims" who advocate secularism also advocate that Islam be rejected at all levels as well because they understand that two cannot go hand in hand. Islam as a political ideology is currently the only common sense ideology that challenges the global in-equality and injustice - the two root causes of deterrent to peace - extending beyond the barriers of nationalism, religion, colour and creed. Those who have stake in this inequality and injustice will not only oppose it but they will also make sure that this ideology is contained, restricted from evolution, and stripped off of any political power. That is the reason we have dictators who are supported vhemently by West, they want our education system controlled, they want our natural resources controlled, they keep our bureaucracy and politicians corrupt and they want to keep our economy dependent thru their agents and dictators. And if thru their dictators they have allowed us to exercise some form of political ideology (aka Islamization) these dictators have made sure that it is not let evolved and thus it has taken the most virulent form (e.g. Hadud and Blasphemy laws in Paksitan) .Muslims by nature are timid, peaceful, and easy going people on one hand but on the other hand raising voice agaisnt the injustice is the part of their religion. A time has eventually come that now some of them have started saying - enough is enough.
++
people's back have been pushed against the wall and in order to fight back they are flying planes into the buildings and blowing themselves up in the cars.
++
Govt threatens to bulldoze Wana bazaar
Your next point is about the "non-ummah" places where democracy has happened successfully. The point is valid but out of context. Muslims are different from "non-ummah" in a sense that the religion that they subscribe to has an integrally unseparable political ideology component as well. This political ideology can only be separated from a Muslim when you take his religion away from him and leave him with rituals. Islam is a religion that is anti-ritual; it is something that you live and breath with your every breath it is not a buffet from where you pick those things which suite your life style and leave those which don't. That is exactly the reason those "Muslims" who advocate secularism also advocate that Islam be rejected at all levels as well because they understand that two cannot go hand in hand. Islam as a political ideology is currently the only common sense ideology that challenges the global in-equality and injustice - the two root causes of deterrent to peace - extending beyond the barriers of nationalism, religion, colour and creed. Those who have stake in this inequality and injustice will not only oppose it but they will also make sure that this ideology is contained, restricted from evolution, and stripped off of any political power. That is the reason we have dictators who are supported vhemently by West, they want our education system controlled, they want our natural resources controlled, they keep our bureaucracy and politicians corrupt and they want to keep our economy dependent thru their agents and dictators. And if thru their dictators they have allowed us to exercise some form of political ideology (aka Islamization) these dictators have made sure that it is not let evolved and thus it has taken the most virulent form (e.g. Hadud and Blasphemy laws in Paksitan) .Muslims by nature are timid, peaceful, and easy going people on one hand but on the other hand raising voice agaisnt the injustice is the part of their religion. A time has eventually come that now some of them have started saying - enough is enough.
++
people's back have been pushed against the wall and in order to fight back they are flying planes into the buildings and blowing themselves up in the cars.
++
Govt threatens to bulldoze Wana bazaar
