The Intellectual Imperative

THE INTELLECTUAL IMPERATIVE

- We need a military intellectual to draw

up a new doctrine that involves cut

in defense expediture of at least 40%.

The intellectual imperative:

I think the intellectual blueprint is now being

defined right here on this site as pragmatism, education and modernity of the best and the brightest of this generation of Pakistanis is finding a medium hitherto denied in the administrative state that they rose from. The Pakistani intellect in the post partition period has only served the bureaucratic imperative. by

bureaucratic one must today understand that

the civil and military establishment has

appropriated the surplus to the extent that

the country has finally reached bankruptcy.

Unfortunately we cannot find old sages. Plus

we cannot rely on one specific individual or

contract out our responsibilities to on man

to start defining an age. A generation of Pakistanis allowed themselves to fall for

the Faiz nonsense. Weedling out a diploma in

NCA was one thing - allowing an entire nation

to be hijacted is another matter.

I fail to understand what Pakistanis found in

the likes of Faiz Ahmed Faiz. I consider Faiz Ahmed Faiz a rank stalinist who pandered to the fond fantasies of an establishment that saw the totalitarian regime in the SovietUnion as the ultimate model. Well, he has also found favour with those carrying residual nostalgia of the indo-muslim culture- that component of the Pakistani elite dispossed,in a relative sense, by partition and threated by the new elite generated through opportunities createdby trade, industry and commerce. That he found special favour with Mr. Bhutto`s regime was but natural as he attempted to turn the clock back. This is was the

the Paki version of what Jean-Fancois Revel called

the Totalitarian temptation.

The clock cannot be turned back. The right to

economic activity and freedoms fundamental to

creativity in a technology driven 21st century

is undeniable and irreversable. The Pakistani

bureaucracy has to transform. Large parts of

this deficit creating monster will now need

complete dismantling. The imperatives of security

of the Pakistani state demand this. The military now has to decide whether it wants to save the

country by working out new doctrines and new

policies within the resources available. They,

the military and civil bureacracies have to leave enough for us to build rebuild our manpower and

educate our children who are the final guarantors

of our future. Whoever provides the intellectual

blue print will have saved the day.

PROJECT PAKISTAN 2025

Excellent idea Wasiq.

Perhaps Chowk should put this on the main page, like the ONE HUNDRED VOICES,
or the Medical Advice, so we can access them once this article is removed from this page.

One of the basic pre-requisite to get our house in order is to remove the massive foreign debt.
The endless pilgrimages to the Beltway must stop. Then only can one seriously ponder the Action Plan.

I would like to hear from an economist on this.
Can a nation go in Chapter 11? What would happen if GoP refuses to accept Any foreign aid. As a consequence they would not be able to service the debt. Can the GoP renegotiate the loans, paying back 2,3 or 5 pennies to the dollar?

regards

Wasiq, what should an ``intellectual’s`` goal in life be? Should he/she seek material comfort or should he/she sacrifice that comfort for the sake of a larger vision? What is wrong with making the former choice? Are the choices mutually exclusive? What does ``doing something`` mean for intellectuals? Isn’t talking and writing about issues what ``intellectuals`` do best? So, what may be expected then, is for them to develop a national vision for Pakistan. Some have done that - yet there is little progress - for it is the rare intellectual who goes beyond formulating a vision - who tries to implement that vision.

What you are asking is, who can be that person? What makes somebody rise above the fray - are leaders born, or are they made by circumstances or are they both, unique and complex accidents of history ? Can one person really make a difference ? They have in the past, and they do today (Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel come to mind), so why does the challenge appear so daunting to us? Why do we feel so helpless? Why do we feel that we can’t do anything except talk? Why do people laugh at someone who says they want to go back to Pakistan to ``do something`` as an example of extreme naiveté and stupidity - doomed to fail? That in itself is a harsh dose of reality. They laugh because for every Nelson Mandela there are a 1000 who dreamed, struggled, and were killed. Who in their right minds would be ready to face such odds - how do they make this decision? Do they even make it consciously, or do they believe in their vision so intensely that the risks they face become meaningless, a price worth paying?

I like your idea of Chowk Project Pakistan - 2025. Let’s do it - with ideas from all - the economists, political scientists, social development specialists, educationists, public health folks among us. That can be our little contribution to the cause.

Anita

RE: Wasiq & Amin & BG

Excellent down to earth suggestions on turning our awareness and idle talk on chowk`s interacts into something meaningful for the land and people of
Pakistan we all love.  How do we coordinate such
an effort?  Perhaps, Chowk staff can be the catalyst and facilitators? 

Where do we send the used books?  Is there a list of organizations that Chowk can post from where one can select the favorite charity?  Seems like to me there is sincere energy amongst us expatriates, but what we seem to be lacking is synergy.  I have no idea who is who on the chowk staff; perhaps you folks do.

Wasiq Bokhari

A good summation of the course of action for the intellectuals.

However, I think persons in the West need not move permanently to Pakistan in order to be, as you put ``actions where the mouth is``.

There are a number of things that we can do.

1) When we take a vacation in Pakistan, we can be a visiting professor at one of the Universities

2) We spend a lot of money on the books over here and at the end of the course we don`t even get one tenth of the money we paid for it.  If we were to register a charitable institution, that would take the books, issue tax receipts and send the books to libraries in Pakistan (where the average publishing date of the books is in the late 60s to early 70s).

There are a number of public libraries (like Defence Authority Library) or University Libraries (GIK Institute of Technology, IBA, NED, etc.)

This will go a long way in improving the availability of knowledge in Pakistan.

Lets take small steps to go a long way.

Re wasiq

Wasiq, you are absolutely right that conversations among and between intellectuals doesnt achieve much. but your proposal also aims at intellectuals speaking with each other and `the powers that be`. I think (and I could be wrong) that the only useful intellectuals are those that are able to speak to the majority of the people, in this case, pakistan. the powers that be dont need to be educated. they are doing exactly what they should be doing: serving their own self interest. the only way they can change is when there is enough pressure from the people for change.

lets face it: chowk is a drawing room so far. unless some of us are willing to get together and start listening to and talking to the `masses` of pakistan we will remain one.

Saad:

Thanx for reminding me of the origin of the label that Muzaffar `borrowed` from you. I distictly recall that you had written it several weeks ago in one of your replies elsewhere. I stand corrected. However, to clear him of any blame I must add that Muzaffar did put it in quote marks while addressing you so he cannot be accused of having attempted to usurp credit.

Not a problem at all about the delay. I am pretty relaxed about this late 20th century Western obssession with `time`. Inspite of having been away from The Indus Valley for 18 years I still operate on PST (Pakistani s-t-r-e-t-c-h time). I guess they must be a bit more anal retentive about punctuality in Harvard. I never have any such compunctions, so take all time you need.

...SR

Saad you have written this article so beautifully that even while in disagreement with your “synthesis of the three tributaries” theory, I couldn’t throw any coherent argument your way. The replies are also of such a high caliber that its been a sheer pleasure reading. There is hardly anything worthwhile that I can think of after what others have already said. (Muzaffar, I especially enjoyed your, as you called it, “half-learned liberal rhetoric.”)

rmn : Mon Apr 27 21:28:34 1998

(“...Israel ... is a ``religious`` state with no separation of church and state....”)

Neither is the Great Britain. The Church of England is integral to the state. The secular attitudes in these countries are an outcome of economic and intellectual advancement.

(“...the raison d’être of both [Pak & Israel] was ``religion``,...question is: what accounts for vast economic disparity between the two nations with almost similar history and bigotry?...”)

The likeness between Israel and Pakistan is not even skin deep. In theory, both were supposedly based on ‘religion’ but the similarity ends there.

In the case of Israel religion (or more appropriately, religious ethnicity) was a ‘UNIFYING’ force, whereby a state was created from a collection of many different racial and linguistic groups of people (mostly East European) who were transported to a far off land (which only legend told them belonged to their remote ancestors) and where they were all more or less equal.

The similarity of Israel, if any, is with the Muslim state in Spain (711 AD) and not with Pakistan of 1947 - 71, nor its extension state of ‘71 - present.

In Pakistan’s case religion was a ‘DIVISIVE’ force, whereby people who shared a common race, language and geography were segregated on the principle of hatred and rejection of that which was dissimilar.

In the Subcontinent the common peasant (whether Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian or Parsi) was no better off as a result of this ‘dividing of the Raj’ because for them only their gora sahibs were replaced by nawab sahibs. In Pakistan’s case, the Muslim elite of Northern India was the only beneficiary. The rest is all hog wash. I believe that the state as we know it today is an anachronism and any heroic measures, intellectual or otherwise, are too little too late. My hope for the future is that something else may rise from these ashes that will be good for the common people of that part of the world. All the institutions of the existing state are, by design, not going ANYWHERE. I hope the Big Guy upstairs wakes up and hits CTRL-ALT-DEL.

Anita Zaidi : Fri Apr 24 14:32:48 1998

(“...ISLAMIC HUMANISM?...”)

Would that be something like “Islamic Banking” with no ‘interest’ but only GUARANTEED ‘profit’? Or, as MNI wondered, is it like “Islamic Socialism”?

How about having an “Islamic Lottery” to address the state revenue shortfall? Or better yet, an “Islamic Casino” where we (and not Monte Carlo or Las Vegas) could milk all the Arab Sheiks? :)

...SR

secularism and Islam

The issue remains though is the kind of ``islam`` that we are talking about. While the ``masses`` do not have access to the likes of Asghar Ali Engineer, or Dr. Soroush, or some the others mentioned, in my view, to the extent that I`ve seen in karachi, the ``masses`` do know that they do not want the mullahism of the fanatics.

The fear that many have, including myself, though very much a muslim, is that once the gates are open to the idea of Islam as being part of the country`s constitution, where is the drawing line? Those on the ``right`` will insist that this is ``Allah`s law`` and it has to be over and above any man made constitution. This is a very dangerous issue, and there is no drawing line, in my view... The way out of this is perhaps some civilized way of raising the standards of living of people, be that civilized industrialization, or some sense of remaining agriculturalist, without the feudals. ... Another way is a democratic system where people can live as they want to, and no one is forced to live a certain lifestyle. If people want, say capital punishment, or cutting of hands, that can be instituted through the approval of the people, and through a consensous that does not have to be fixed in time or any particular interpertation of ``Allah`s laws``. Rather, if people change their minds they can have a referendum (propositions here in califronia) and do away with this... Just as what has taken place with capital punishment in the US, allowed, disallowed, and then allowed again... if the consensous moves towards not allowing it again, most probably legislation would be passed to reflect this view. -I know that democratic systems don`t always work that well. However, it is, in my view, currently the best system we have that gagues the will of the people, and avoids to an extent particular interpertations of religion, and absolutism.

altaf

http://www.wco.com/

Re: Kafir, BG, Muzaffar

Muzaffar, you make the excellent point about the definitional problem of the word secularism. It means different things to different people. And that in Pakistan it is a bogey word, equated with what is the worst about Western culture. Most of us (``the educated elite``) agree that secularism is a desirable goal for Pakistan. It is in how we approach the problem of secularism vs. Islam that I perceive the difference of views. Btw, turkey is not the only whipping boy for secularism, we can add Algeria to the list, and we can`t ignore Iran - two other countries that tried the secular experiment.

I am of the opinion that the entire question of looking at secularism (vs. Islam) as the only possible option to get out of our mess is flawed. It is the wrong question to pose, and it won`t fix the problem of our backwardness. The people of Pakistan do not overwhelmingly vote for secularism as opposed to Islam. They vote for whoever they ``hope`` is going to make them economically better-off. But, at the same time, I wonder often, if as a true measure of how many people in Pakistan actually support secular values, such as freedom of religion to all minorities, we could survey the length and breadth of Pakistan and find out how many people want to rule Shias and Ismailis as non-Muslims, how many people would support restricting women`s clothing and activities outside the house etc? Meanwhile, as I write madrassahs continue to flourish and indoctrinate multitudes.

Our societies are in dissolution - there can be no doubt about that. However, I think that our religiosity is not the cause of our decline, it is a symptom of it. The cause is the double whammy of lack of industrialization (we never recovered from the Mongol defeat in an intellectual sense) and colonization. Secularism is not the cure for this malady - it is industrialization. Once the ``structure`` is there, the existence of conducive conditions will lead to the inevitable secularization of Islam. In considering this matter (whether secularism should precede industrialization), I like to think of the analogy of treating typhoid fever with tylenol first, instead of antibiotics. Initially the decrease in fever will make the patient feel better, but meanwhile, the Salmonella typhi continue to multiply unabatedly, and soon we have overwhelming sepsis and death - Voila! We have Iran or Algeria. No secularization has to be a slow, insidious process, that creeps in quietly over decades , as part of an over-all economic uplift - accelerating its pace unnaturally by imposing it overnight is inviting disaster.

Incidentally Muzaffar, I agree that part of the problem in not having any intellectual guidance to speak of, among Pakistanis is the culture of orthodoxy that currently prevails, but part of it is also that all creative effort is stifled by our schooling system, and the inevitable shunting of students towards safe and certain career paths. Conformity is encouraged to an extreme degree - originality is not tolerated.

AZ

anita, no one is asking anyone to give up their religious identity in a secular state. a (non-fascist) secular state gives ALL its citizens EQUAL rights, irrespective of their religious presuasion, gender or sect. No one is going to beat people up for saying their prayers if pakistan becomes a secular state. if the pakistani masses want to do their namaaz, roza, zakat and hajj, they would be welcome to it in a secular state. the only difference (hopefully) would be that women arent put into jail for zina and little christian boys arent given the death sentence.

the struggle against a secular state is not headed by the pakistani masses. it is led by the misogynistic, bigoted elite like judges, senators, the president, imran khan, etc. they have the most to lose becuase:

1)they substitute religious rhetoric for a vision for pakistan;
2)they use religion to oppress those who are vulnerable
3)they use religion to reinforce their own power and privilege.

what progress can we hope for if we take an islamic state as a given? its like saying yeah, women, religious minorities, athiests and homosexuals are inferior and shouldnt have the same rights as a sunni, heterosexual male. how far can you go? its like getting married to a sexist man and saying well even if you dont consider me your equal, at least dont beat me up -- :o0 --?? (but he can invoke the famous quranic verse to that also!)

Re: Anita

Your point is well-taken that we can make of Islam what we want of it, as has been done repeatedly in the past. You then go on to describe your vision of an ideal Islamic democracy. However, nowhere in your description does Islam as a political institution play a role. Why unnecessarily inject ``Islamic`` into your vision of democracy? All those great goals you hope for can be achieved without using Islam or any other parochial system. To be sure, any political system should be grounded in universally accepted ethical and moral principles, but why taint such a system with a particular religious aspect that necessarily excludes religious minorities and imbues a dogmatic rather than dialectical nature to political discourse?

Also, you argue that the apparent (as you see it) contradiction between secular humanistic values and Islamic values can be resolved. But you don`t challenge the point clearly stated by MNI, Bad Girl, and me that these two sets of values are based on contradictory assumptions, on opposing epistemologies. I`d like to hear how you would resolve the contradiction, given that you agree with the argument.

Finally, you write: ``If the secular elite would really start caring for the masses, working to decrease their socio-cultural divide, instead of insulating themselves in another world, the masses would not feel the need for orthodoxy in religion - for a full stomach and an educated mind, is the cure for many ills.`` Amen to that! Maybe then people would finally come to the consensus that religion ( *not ethics *) needs to be kept out of state affairs and left to the realm of individual moral and spiritual development.

Re: Saad Shafqat

who writes: ``You echo the fractured thinking that has taken root in our intelligentsia after the mental rape of colonization. You are asking those questions of your background that our former masters would want us to ask. You are seeing Islam as they want you to see it: immutable, archaic, rooted in mindless ritual, stagnant and stultifying. This is the classic orientalist trap and you have stepped right into it.`` Sir, you seem to know me so well without ever having met me! As much as I`d like to congratulate you on your brilliant diagnosis, I have to tell you that I came to harbor the attitudes you mention above through my own experience of having to sit through mind-numbing Islamic school, embarrassingly sophomoric khutbas by supposedly learned wisemen at jum`ah namaaz, reading thoughtless, chillingly dogmatic religious texts, and other disillusioning events. No Orientalist brainwashed my mind with these attitudes and beliefs. The fruits of Islam were clearly laid out for me to see.

And why can`t I ask these questions? Why can`t you tolerate criticism of your beliefs and ideas from within? Why can only antagonistic Westerners and ``mentally raped`` Easterners challenge you?

Also, please don`t put words in my mouth. I never said anything about the worth or futility of religious ritual. By all means, be as religious and ritualistic as you like, just don`t force your particular beliefs and practices on an entire nation that may not agree with you. My argument is so simple: Keep Islam (or any religion for that matter) out of state affairs and out of any national vision that is supposed to include ALL the the diverse elements of that nation. That`s all. :0)

Finally, you still haven`t answered my question about the role Indian culture should play in forming an intellectual vision of Pakistan`s future.

Bad Girl, perhaps you missed the gist of my arguments. To reiterate, my view is that secularism (strictly defined as separation of religion from state) is not something you force on a population from the top. It happens from within, a product of a complicated social evolution - as a people mature from a preindustrial society to an industrial one, as people no longer feel the need for orthodoxy in thought and action, as people develop an appreciation for scientific and rational knowledge and directly experience its benefits, as people come to realize that their identity represents much more than a strictly religious one - that they can also be humanists, feminists, pacifists, and all those other liberal monikers we all aspire to, without detriment to their Islamic identity.

Do I think the educated elite of the Muslim world in general, and Pakistan in particular desire secularism? Yes, I do. Admittedly, my personal experience is anecdotal, but the phenomenon appears quite pervasive, and is extensively written about. The works of Samuel Kodjo, Bassam Tibbi, Bahram Nirumand, Fazlur Rahman, and Asghar Engineer come to mind, and are worth looking up.

AZ

re anita: ``MNI, you say this yourself. Turkey is not a humanistic secular society, it is a fascist secular society. Unfortunately, until we continue to have a Westernized elite that believes in secular values, and poor masses that believe in Islamic values, that is the only kind of secularism that is possible in Muslim countries. It has to be forced upon an unwilling people. Its a complex problem that demands complex local solutions - not knee-jerk reactions.``

1) Just because Turkey is secular and fascist does not mean that any other muslim country that is secular must be fascist. This argument is logically flawed. its like saying joe is a christian and an engineer, therefore all christians are engineers. are you arguing that secularism and islam are incompatible?

2) I dont think that a secular state means that people`s `islamic values` will not be respected. for instance, if muslims want to engage in something that is not detrimental to others, lets say, fasting and celebrating eid-ul-fitr (an `islamic value`)well, then a secular state would basically say, go ahead, enjoy yourselves. on the other hand, if some muslims argue that persecuting ahmadi`s is an `islamic value`, a secular state, that enshrines equal rights for all religions/sects, would provide the legal and constitutional framework to prohibit such persecution. a state that actively supports and engages in such persecution -- like paksitan-- is fascist and pretty heinous.

but, secularism and fascism can go hand in hand, as can religion and fascism. fascism is an ideology that divides nations into the right kind and the wrong kind of people and religion is generally easier to invoke in such cases. the problem with theocracies is that the ideology is difficult to challenge because it is considered divine and beyond criticism. the state, by using religious rhetoric or the rhetoric of divinity tries to make itself divine and therefore beyond reproach. the conflation and abuse of divinity with those who invoke it is very real. furthermore, what about the poor sods who are not muslims or who do not believe in the quran and allah? where are they to go? what are they to do if they are born in muslim countries?

3) i am not sure that the westernized elite in pakistan believes in secular values and the poor masses believe in islamic values. how do you know that? what do these terms mean? that was the situation in Iran before the revolution, but the iranian elite was celebarting a western-capitalist-monarchist-secularism. it wasnt a homegrown variety of secularism, which you are right, is what is required.

A very intereting article.

While reading this article, I thought about the various philosophies that sort of prevail in this world.

The first is the materialistic philosophies which emanate from the fact that we, the mankind, have the power to make our lives better, if we work hard/smart then we can make our lives more productive and easy. Religion and governments, have a small, if any role to play.

The second one is the communist / socialist which believes that man is nothing more than a selfish being and pursue only his self interest. Any changes that need to be made will only be made by force - revolution or autocratic.

The third is prevalent among the persons with defeatist philosophy. These persons do not have any drive for changing their destinies and hope than an external factor - like God, comes and changes their lives for the better. They believe that if they perform religious rites they will be absolved with all their problems.

Furthermore, I seem to think that those, whether persons or communities, not successful (success being relative) tend to bend more towards religious rites while those that are more successful tend to shun religion.

However, I believe, religion should and does give purpose to man`s life. The problem is that man focuses on his success than on his fellow beings and communities. While this may improve his material well-being, materiality is a volatile substance.

Everybody living on this planet takes decision everyday and any one of them may lead to self-destruction. Those who take solace in financial wealth should realize that the value of that wealth depends on economic growth, which in turn depends on individuals demanding goods and services.

Japan is currently facing this problem. Its citizens, already have the goods they need and are no longer interested in buying new products this has lead to a slowdown in the economy which in turn has led to financial crisis.

If people were to invest in human capital (education, health and economic opportunity) rather than financial capital, the demand would be created which would lead to a better economic environment. Japan, has no immigration policy, so it cannot change the tide of pessimism among its people from external factors.

But Pakistan, has been seeing that more and more overseas Pakistanis are returning to Pakistan. This wave of optimism will hopefully change the pessimistic views of the current population. And it will give a more sustainable religious base.