‘Our Liberals’ and Minority Psyche

Please highlight the `ideological foundations` in detail.

{A sizable portion of them also falls under the category of conspirators. They are working against the ideological foundations of the country and have aligned, under the leadership of Musharraf, to transform the society according to the political, economic but above all cultural agenda of the west.}

Classic JI propaganda, blame everything on the evil western empire and demonize everything and anybody found sympathizing with their (evil west) viewpoint.

Mr Kamrani, you accuse `Paki-liberals` being hypocrits because they cannot accept differing ideas, yet you have no qualms in calling them as conspirators working against the very foundation of Pak ideology which by the way is nothing but JI propaganda.

I think we lack a common definitions of various terms to be on the same wavelength. Follwoing terms need to be clarified before understanding the article and what authoris trying to say.

Liberal means ``being open to new ideas`` while conservative means ``resistant to new ideas``.

Example: A bearded muslim can be a liberal at his office work place if he comes to realize from one of his junior colleague that the marketing strategy needs to be changed in a certain way. While an atheist who has tried a certain marketing approach many times and found it working is a conservative if that person rejects a new proposal by his junior without taking it into consideration.


A person who embraces Islam in the west is most likely to be a liberal as he was open to some new idea and embraced it after analyzing it by himself.
Similarly, a person who draws cartoons against some religion because it is traditionally considered good to be a non-religious person in his country, this approach can be considered a conservative approach by such a person.


Secular means ``any idea, any action, any option, that is not effected by religious issue, binding, bias etc.``

Example: if a doctor treats a patient no matter what is the religion of his patients. It is a secular action of a doctor even if he claims to belong to a religion.
On the other hand, if an atheist doctor doesn`t treat a bearded patient because he thinks that ``bearded fundos`` don`t deserve to be treated, it is a non-secular approach of an apparenbtly secular person.


Capitalism and communism are two economic systems. They don`t have any relationship with religion/anti-religion or liberal/secular stuff.



Now, it is not a dilema in Pakistan only, it is happening all over the world that the people claiming to belong to a certain school of thought really don`t belong to it.

Many socalled pakistani liberals are the ones who have once reached to the conclusion that west has got a better system and there is no alternative to it. (Strong point in their favor is that west has proved itself to be better as compared to existing societies: their social welfare system, standard of life etc.)

This approach of socalled Pakistani liberals however seems childish when we see how the world evolved. Democracy is the modern system of the world. But it is a result of evolution for thousands of years. Isn`t it possible that it will again evolve to a better system. Shouldn`t there be a door kept open for discussion that takes us to even a better system? Same is true for cultural preferences of the west and their economic system.

Lastly, Unlike liberals, Conservatives in pakistan are what they claim to be. They are not open to newer ideas. If they are religious conservatives, they have stuck to the point that a system proposed 1400 years back is implementable even today. If they are Cultural conservatives, they are stuck at the point that our women are a matter of our honor. Our traditions want them to remain indoors. No change in social fabric is allowed.

While I am slightly disappointed by Pakistani liberals, I have no hope from Pakistani conservatives either religious or cultural.

To me this sounds like a critique of Jinnah and his ideology. Let me quote the following, for example:

>>>>Unlike a true modernist, who must believe in rationality, objectivity and common sense, our liberals rely on ‘their life-style prejudices’ to criticize the religious and cultural patterns of the society. They suffer from the difficulty of their being a minority. Although they enjoy all the benefits of the society, they are the people who do not identify themselves with the majority of the people dwelling the country. Our liberal class is an island of the western world, based in the heart of what they regard as ‘an inferior, dependant and backward society’.<<<<

#3: I agree. In addition the article is a rambling pile of incoherent thoughts.

Re: # 2, rf786: What is JI ? Please explain: ``the very foundation of Pak ideology which by the way is nothing but JI propaganda. ``

Re: # 6

JI: Jamat e Islami, political party founded by Maulana Mawdudi who nopposed Muslim League and Jinnah`s concept of Pakistan. After partition, Mawdudi migrated to Pakistan and continued his political acitivities and was instrumental in re-defining political debate and imposition of religion based on their extreme interpertations. Mawdudi is credited by fundamentalist for providing Hasan Al Banna and Muslim Brotherhood their political ideology and has made deep inroads into Pak army, think tanks and Government functionaries. JI finds most of their support in middle class, educated Pakistanis and religious military personnel. Post 9/11, Qazi Hussein and JI leadership have been leading the charge against America and Musharraf`s liberalization of the state, yet have no problem in supporting Musharraf in his quest to stay in power by voting in the much despised LFO accord in parliment. Pakistans political ideology has been hijacked by this minority religious fundamentalist in collusion with establishment/military who would use any excuse to malign initiatives taken by the liberals/modernist who challenge status quo.

rf786....

Well said ...

Actually this is a frankly a novel approach by our self styled defenders of faith... I have never met any person who completely fits any definition... The Jamaat-e-Islami wallahs have a penchant of trying to put society in tight compartments...


Kulharee mian...

Perhaps you ought to read Jinnah`s speeches made where he opposed blasphemy law in the central legislative assembly, worked for the Child Marriages Restraint Act, Indianisation of the Royal Indian Army officer corp and for women`s rights and equality, his opposition of Khilafat Movement because it was an extra-territorial matter ... both as an Indian nationalist and later as a Muslim nationalist... that hardly fits your caricature that you have so smugly put up.


Kamrani...

You seem to be reacting to Ishtiaq Ahmed`s articles... there are many people who may well fit the picture... but blanket statement about all ``liberals`` - whatever that godawful word means- is hardly fair.

Infact reading through Tahir Mirza article... I am struck by the similarity of the two arguments... I am a bit surprised that Kamrani is criticising Mirza...

Kamrani Sahib,
First let me commend you on a brief yet interesting article. I must, however,object to your introduction of yet another divide among Pakis - the so-called liberals and so-called conservatives. You are somewhat right in that there is nothing liberalizing that emanates from these phony liberals and the Paki conservatives are not about conserving anything - least of all Islam or Pakistan.

Having said that, I think that the liberal/conservative debate is an imported one meant to add spice to the boring politics of Pakistan. The one and only division that has been there from inception is that between Paki Punjus and everyone else. Any attempt to confuse the main issue by introducing nonsense such as Shia/Sunni, leftist/rightist, liberal/conservative, or religious/secular is bound to deflect our energies from the main evil - Paki Punju hegemony over the truncated rump Pakistan. Thanks.

Re: # 7, rf786:
Thanks. I greatly appreciate your explanation.

Re: # 10:
I do not know about the first para but the second one is right on the point.

Re: # 7

rf786
``After partition, Mawdudi migrated to Pakistan and continued his political acitivities and was instrumental in re-defining political debate and imposition of religion based on their extreme interpertations.``

if his ideology may have been incompatible to jinnahs vision of pakistan. but how come he was instrumental in re-defining the future of pak?

how come people of pak were fine with his ideology. its very difficult to believe that maudodi could have done that against the wishes of pakis.

i think what jinnah did (unintentionally) was: sow seeds that were harvested by maudodi.

Charlie:
Good post. I`ll bet you are or were a teacher by profession. If not, you missed your calling :)

Dear Netizen...

There we go again ... apportioning blame on who started what? If I were to divulge who sowed the seeds for the harvest aka who encouraged the Khilafat Movement, the first truly Pan-Islamic Movement of South Asia, you would not be very happy... Could we say that that particular sowing of seeds was unintentional as well? So lets keep this discussion objective... and to the point- applying the simple rules of evidence ...

Maududi`s ideology was imposed by the state in the 1980s under a military dictatorship...
So you are being very presumptuous when you say Pakistanis have accepted Maududi`s ideology... the common Pakistani doesnt give two hoots about Jamaat-e-Islami or Maududi. Instead I`d say that politicians and army men that ruled Pakistan since Jinnah`s demise have tried to beat the Maududians at their own game... otherwise how do you explain the actions of men like Liaqat Ali Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto? The fact of the matter is that Jinnah`s vision that he expressed on 11th August 1947 is an evolutionary ideal... and 60 years is hardly a long period in the life of nations... Imagine where the US was after 60 years? It was an exclusivist state, Jeffersonian ideals notwithstanding, which even in the 1860s ... 70+ years after the constitution was unveiled ... the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in the Dredd Scott Case that the US Constitution did not envisage the ``slaves`` as ``citizens`` and therefore Mr Scott was property of his master. The situation I submit, is much much much better in Pakistan. A lot is being done to undo what General Zia-ul-Haq`s official imposition of Maududian ideas.

Now how would you explain for example that Bangladesh, which incorporated rigidly defined secularism as its founding ideology in its constitution, reverted to lip service to
Islam? Again it was the leadership in Bangladesh trying to outmaneuvre the Mullahs.

The truth is that common Pakistani (and Bangladeshi) remains strongly committed to Islam-as is his god given human right- but does that mean this common Pakistani necessarily wants to discriminate against Non-Muslim Pakistanis? I don`t think so...

-YLH

Re: # 15,

``the common Pakistani doesnt give two hoots about Jamaat-e-Islami or Maududi``

Oh yeah? You are now again as objective as when you issued stupid blanket statements like this one, ``The fact that Harish Mian represents the majority of Indians is in of itself indicative of the fact that my estimate of the success of Hindu reformers like Ranade is misplaced.``

The problem Mr. YLH is, that, you are so blinded with your admiration for one person, and his failed legacy that Pakistan is.