The Decline and Fall of Pakistan

This is a really strange article, a chronic absence of what Pakistan movement actually was. First, Pakistan was not created by Mullahs and has never been ruled by them. Infact the most prominent Mullahs were against the creation of our country. Pakistan was the result of a liberal modern Islam. Like all societies Islam always had modernists and traditionalists. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Allama Iqbal and Jinnah, they all had one thing in common they were modernists and fierce protectors of Islamic Identity.

In this present era traditionalists often violently argue that they have the solution to the demise of Islamic scholarship which is ofcourse incorrect. They can`t even run their madrassah`s properly and free of corruption and ineptitude.

As a people we must realize that Islam is not only about the five pillars. Its a whole value system. It is based upon love of your fellow human being, doing of good deeds and the quest for knowledge. The five pillars were a means of institutionalizing these ideals. I ask any so called mullah here why Quran stresses good conduct and the ability to read over keeping a beard. If the Prophet had not been kind and loving to the infidels who would have converted to Islam and where would the religion be.

Finally, there is no religious class in Islam. There is no priesthood as our `maulvis` try to assert. In Islam everyone is equal in the sight of God. So in our country we have feudalism everywhere from land, people to religion. We have to fix all.

As for identity from Khyber to Karachi Pakistanis take pride in their traditional shalwar kameez, their tasty and exotic cuisine and their central and west asian roots. We civilized India and created what India is most proud of today, whereas whatever they could conjucture was a caste system and enmity and hatred amongst men.

Feroz Khan:

I was not a member of Chowk when you wrote the article and i have read only the final paragraph of your essay.

It is a tragedy that there are not enough number of people like you in Pakistan. How can there be? You and Pakistan are logical contradictions!!

Yes, Mantlives, #25, I totally agree with your assessment of alizadeh2000, #24 but he in delusion uttered the correct sentence, namely, ``Pakistan has no reason to exist and therefore must be disbanded and amalgamated back into India.``

BUT REST ASSURED NO SANE INDIAN, EXCEPT CRAZIES LIKE ME, WOULD WANT PAKISTAN BACK.

ha! Decline. This doom and gloom senario is the favorite for some of our Pakistani elite. Sitting in the comfy couches of the West, they tell us how bad the situation in Pakistan has become. For umpteenth time, hello, Pakistani`s have their identity and Pakistan will survive the ugly attacks of pseudo-intellectuals.

here is more to read:
http://longlivepakistan.blogspot.com/2005/06/mistri-munshi-and-sipahi.html

alizadeh2000

You are an idiot.... people like you are the cause of Pakistan`s decline.

-YLH

You are suggesting that Pakistan has no reason to exist and therefore must be disbanded and amalgamated back into India.

Pakistan`s reasons for existence are not evident today. But they may be evident tommorrow.

Don`t forget that Pakistan was created on 27th of Ramadan, widely accepted to be the date of Laila tul Qadar or the Night of Power as mentioned in the Holy Quran. This says a lot about Pakistan.

Pakistan is the future hope of the Muslims of the world. I need not elaborate further, those who will understand this implication are those who will prevail.

Re: Godot

We should not worry about British or any other identity, but our own! Those examples have nothing to do with the situation in Pakistan. In those countries, they have assimilated their national differences quite well, but in Pakistan we have periodically used our various identities to create strive and turmoil. In the nations, which you mentioned this issue is not a problem, but it is a problem in Pakistan.

The Canadian or New Zealander or any other national experience will not help Pakistan and Pakistan needs to determine what it is; theocracy, secular state, a moderate Muslim, a democracy on western principles etc. What is the true nature of the Pakistani polity?

Re: Feroz, #24

Hey, if you thought that I was going to let you have the last word on this, you`ve another thing coming!

However, your article is to recede into the oblivion very soon. No time left to take this debate between you and me any further.

So, till the next time we face-off on this issue, au revoir!

Re: Feroz, #22

``The ``we`` was a collective noun and was not meant to include you!``

You should`ve been more specific, like, Note: ``we`` includes all Pakistanis, current and former, except for Godot!

``the term ``identity`` was used in a political sense and was not intended to be inferred as being ind[ivi]dual specific.``

Well, that`s how I took it. I don`t, therefore, know what you`re talking about.

``that still does not mean that Pakistan has a clear idea of what it is as a nation! … could you please tell me what a Pakistani idenity is?``

Let me answer your question with a question. What is a British identity? Nepal identity? Japan identity? Maldives identity? New Zealand identity? Canada identity? Brazil identity? Botswana identity? Bora Bora identity? Trinidad identity?...

Re: Godot # 21

The ``we`` was a collective noun and was not meant to include you!

It was more of a generalization, but the fact that Pakistanis take exception to it makes for an interesting observation. Also, the term ``identity`` was used in a political sense and was not intended to be inferred as being indvivdual specific.

Most Pakistanis are concerned with the basics of life, but that still does not mean that Pakistan has a clear idea of what it is as a nation!

You seem well informed on this issue, so could you please tell me what a Pakistani idenity is?

Re: Feroz, #20

I don`t know why you`re so obsessed with Pakistan`s identity. This question never arose in the 1960s, the Martial law decade. I was a little boy in Pakistan back then and it appears that it was the best of times: innocent and most people with only mundane worries.

``identity`` is an idea that has blown out of proportion in Pakistan. A vast majority in Pakistan does not give a hoot about ideology. It wants to live their lives in peace and security with a good future for their children. This ``ideology`` crap is a tool in the hands for the ignorant and the corrupt to advance their own intolerant agendas.

Next time, please use the word ``I`` and not ``we``.

Re: Amit # 19

We, Pakistanis, are so obsessed with defining our sense of identity, because a lack of its defination is the well spring from which a majority of our problems stem from. I do not advocate either secularism or a theocracy for Pakistan as a solution to its problems and that is an issue, which Pakistanis have decide for themselves, but I urgently want this question to be answered. What ever we decide as a nation will determine our national value system, which will eventually translate into our judical intent and thus, flavor our political outlook of what Pakistan wants to become and what it can accomplish.

In many ways, a lack of resolution on this question has kept Pakistan hostage and we are still debating Pakistan`s raison d` être fifty-two years later. Nothing in Pakistan can happen unless this question is answered and Pakistanis know for a fact who they are as a people. Most nations are indeed a collection of various groups, but even in those nations there is a central idea, which acts a political glue and holds them together. There is no such central idea, in Pakistan, of what consitutes Pakistan.

We need to determine who we are, because that will allow us to attain our maximum potential as a people and that is why we are so obsessed with this question.

Re: Ferozek and Godot

It is difficult to understand why Pakistanis are so obsessed with defining an identity. When did India define its identity or for that matter most of the nations who achieved independence in this century ? Most nations are a collection of ethnic and religious groups of people anyway. The basic problem in Pakistan is that it was formed by the Muslim League which was essentially an opposition party to Congress in British India. That opposition mindset has not disappeared after partition and Pakistan continues to behave as if it were a part of India that is ruled permanently by an opposition party. This is very sad because the confrontation was supposed to end with partition.

I think it would be very healthy for Pakistan if its people demand that for a period of time, say 10 years, there will be no mention of India by anyone in government, media, social groups etc. In other words, behave as if India does not exist. Indian movies, TV etc. should be completely banned and there should be no interaction on any issue including Kashmir. This time period will give Pakistan the chance to focus on its own problems and setup closer relations with the Islamic world. After this isolation phase, there can be renewed contact with India on all issues. Hopefully this pause will give Pakistan the time to formulate a proper strategy for the future. This will also be very helpful for India as it will be able to settle down to a proper relationship with Pakistan.

Re: Godot

--- Projection ?

Rishi

A charismatic crusader

By Edward Said

EQBAL AHMAD, one of the most brilliant and unusual political thinkers and activists of the last thirty five years, died on May 10 in

an Islamabad hospital of complications following an operation for colon cancer a week earlier. A man of enormous personal

charisma, incorruptible ideals, unfailing generosity and sympathy for others, Ahmad was a prodigious talker and lecturer and,

although his gifts best expressed themselves either in dazzlingly eloquent speech or incisive journalism, he was perhaps the shrewdest

and most original anti-imperialist analyst of the post-war world, especially in the dynamics between the West and the post-colonial

states of Asia and Africa.

His life was an epic and poetic one, full of wanderings, border crossings, and an almost instinctive attraction to liberation movements,

movements of the oppressed and the persecuted, causes of people who were unfairly punished whether they lived in the great

metroplitan centers of Europe and America or in the refugee camps, beseiged cities, and bombed or disadvantaged villages of Bosnia,

Chechnya, South Lebanon, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran and of course the the Indian subcontinent. He had a prodigiously detailed knowledge

of history, whether that of the United States, the Islamic world, or the newly independent countries, always severely measuring the

generous promise of religion and nationalism against their depredations and abuse as their proponents descended into

fundamentalism, chauvinism and provincialism.

Radiating an aura of profound peace and the understanding that comes with inner reconciliation and harmony from his small, trim

figure, Ahmad was nevertheless a fierce, often angry combatant against what he perceived as human cruelty and perversity. An

indefatigable teacher, during the last years of his life he dedicated himself - quixotically it would sometimes appear - to the creation

of an alternative university in Pakistan - Khalduniyah - named after the great Arab polymath and historian whose comprehensive

view of the human adventure Ahmad sought to embody in a new curriculum solidly based in the modern humanities, social and

natural sciences. Many of his friends all over the world were conscripted into prospective service as professors and trustees, everyone

fully convinced that the ideal was both impossible and attainable.

His life always bore the traces of the travails of pre-independence Indian nationalism and the country`s later partition. Born in

Bihar, he and his siblings left for Pakistan in l948; before that, his father was murdered in bed over a land dispute as the boy lay next

to him, a traumatic event Eqbal would occasionally cite when he attacked material acquistiveness of any kind, a passion that more

than anyone I have ever known he had completely purged from his soul. In Lahore he attended Foreman Christian College, became

an army officer for a short period, then came to the US in the mid-50s as a Rotary Fellow in American History at Occidental

College, California. From there he entered Princeton in l958 as a graduate student with a Proctor Fellowship and a double major in

polictical science and Middle Eastern Studies under Philip Hitti. In the course of his Princeton years (Ph.D. l965) he went to Algeria,

joined the FLN and became an associate of Frantz Fanon, was arrested in France, established a cultural centre in Tunis, and first

travelled in Morocco, where he is still remembered by leading intellectuals.

During the sixties he taught at Cornell for three years, as well as at Chicago, but ever the unconventional scholar, he was among the

first Fellows of the anti-war Washington Institute of Policy Studies (IPS), a progressive think-tank. In l969 he married Julie

Diamond, a teacher and writer from New York; their daughter Dohra, now a graduate student at Columbia, was born in l971.

Between l973 and l975 Ahmad established and headed the IPS`s offshoot in Amsterdam, the Transnational Institute.

He was an early and prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and rather spectacularly in l970 was indicted and put on trial along

with the Berrigan brothers for a (trumped up) conspiracy to kidnap Henry Kissinger.

His defence cost him dearly, even though he and his alleged co-conspirators were aquitted of all charges in the spring of l972. In

addition to his outspoken support of unpopular causes (especially Palestinian rights), his uncompromising politics kept him an

itinterant, untenured professor at various universities until l982 when Hampshire College, a small institution in Massachusetts made

him a professor; he taught there until he became emeritus professor in l998, splitting his time between there and Pakistan.

During those years he managed to travel all over the world, including Iran, the Israeli-occupied territories, Lebanon, Pakistan,

Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, Europe, and all over the United States. Everybody wanted him to lecture, do interviews, lend support

and unfailingly, he never turned down any opportunity to help; he was always stirred into service by passion, unending solidarity and,

most important, the need for perceptive and dispassionate critical analysis, which he supplied courageously. Arabs for example,

learned more from him about the failures of Arab nationalism than from anyone else. In l980 in Beirut he was the first to predict the

exact outlines of the l982 Israeli invasion ; in a memo he wrote to Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad he also sadly forecast the quick defeat

of PLO forces in South Lebanon.

He was a relentless opponent of militarism, bureaucracy, ideological rigidity and what he called ``the pathology of power,`` especially

(and fearlessly) so far as his friends were concerned. Alert to every nuance of political process, he was consulted by hardened

journalists and international civil servants about abstruse currents in contemporary Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, India, Pakistan,

Angola,Cuba,Sri Lanka; he had an encyclopedic knowledge of the US, based on wide reading and travel livened with an easy,

indefatigable social grace. No one who saw him sitting bare-foot and cross-legged on a living room floor conversing genially till the

early hours will ever forget the sight or the sound of his voice as he announced ``four major points,`` but never got past two or three.

His courtly politeness and uncondescending manner especially captivated the young everywhere he went.

Politics were his central concern, especially during the last decade when he began writing regular columns for journals in Pakistan,

Europe, the US and the Arab world. But it was unlike any one else`s politics. He loved literature, especially poetry, and the sensitive

and precise use of language, whether it was Urdu, English, French, Arabic or Farsi, meant as much to him as it did to any artist; in

return, poets, playwrights, filmmakers and novelists, from Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Agha Shahid Ali to Elias Khoury, Mahmoud Darwish,

and Grace Paley, loved him.

He had a graceful pen, was never seduced by cliches or deterministic formulas, and preferred short, incisive sentences to long-winded,

jargon-filled disquisitions about theory or grand syntheses. No one more than Eqbal Ahmad captured and understood the human

suffering and distorted vision that produced the reckless violence of people or movements who, in his memorable phrase, were radical

but wrong. Whether it was the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, or India and Pakistan, he was a force paradoxically for a just

struggle but also for just reconciliation. Everyone who knew him turned to him for advice, wise council, encouragement. He never

spoke about his own problems, his failing health, or his frustrations.

He was that rare thing, an intellectual unitimidated by power or authority, a sophisticated man who remained simply true to his ideals

and his insight till his last breath, a companion in arms to such examplary and diverse figures of our time as Noam Chomsky, Howard

Zinn, Tariq Ali, Ibrahim Abu-Lughod, Richard Falk, Fred Jameson, Alexander Cockburn, and Daniel Berrigan, all of whom

admired him greatly.

Bantering, ironic, sporty, unpendantic, gracious, immaculate in dress and expression, faultlessly kind, Eqbal`s themes in the end were

always liberation and injustice, or how to achieve the first without reproducing more of the second.

He saw himself perceptively as a man of the eighteenth century - modern because of enlightenment and breadth of outlook, not

because of technological or quasi-scientific ``progress.`` Somehow he managed unostantatiously to preserve his native Muslim

tradition without succumbing either to the frozen exclusivism or to the jealousy that has often gone with it. Humanity and genuine

secularism in this blood-drenched old century of ours had no finer champion. His innumerable friends grieve

inconsolably.-Copyright Edward W Said

To Goga:

``The other flaw comes from completely missing the real problem in Pakistan which is a total break down of values. I think at this point any kind of values system including a secular one will help. However to say that Islam is the problem is an absurd notion. Islam has never been established in Pakistan in a true sense so how could it be the problem.``

What is real Islam? Please substantiate your definition with real examples of times and place when such a society existed.

I left Pakistan nearly 25 years ago - when I go back, I see with amazement that there is a lot of Namaz. I would say may be 15 to 20 times more then when I was there. Similarly today people fast more then before. There is zakat, I find a lot more people dedicated in giving to the poor. Whereas before going for Haj was only for the older folks, today young people go in droves for Haj. Talk about Jihad - well we have the Sipah Sahaba and Firqa e Jaffriah then we have others who go for jihad in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kashmir etc. You may consider these folks misdirected but I am certain that you would agree that they are sincere in their conviction that they are practicing Islam the best way they know how.

So my friend all the 5 pillars of Islam are blooming in Pakistan. Now let us look at the other side.

Is corruption higher today then in my time. Yes it is - may be 15 - 20 times more then before. Is there rule of law there today more then before - no ofcourse not. Like you said, there has been a complete break down in the value system. Has that been caused by those who do not practice the 5 essentials of Islam? No the break down in values has no relationship to the practice or non practice of these essentials. In other words moral values have no connection to the practice of the essentials of Islam.

So to build back a value system and a better society in Pakistan, we need to do what ever it takes to create that. What we cannot afford is to allow any body to shut us up by saying that our remedies are un-Islamic etc. In other words create a secular society.

Re: Kant Patel # 12

I am not suffering from a hangover of past as you suggest, but my intention in writting this article was to force a debate on the idenity of Pakistan. If you read Ejaz Haider`s comments in ``Stand Up and Disapprove Sethi`s Thesis`` as published in The Friday Times (on www.dawn.usa.com/tft), you will understand why we Pakistanis need to answer and resolve this question!

Re: Goga # 9

Thank You! You have asutely made the point I was making in my article! Anyone who questions the ideology of Pakistan is branded as a Islam hater and that is the reason why the government wants Islamic theocracy in Pakistan. It is the intent of the government to use the cloak of Islam to silence all forms of political dissent, against its policies, as ant-Islamic. Islamic rule in Pakistan is in reality just a facade for denying freedom of political expression and legitimizing an opressive regime in Pakistan!

Re: narin # 5

Yes, I agree with you. 52 years should have been enough to fashion a sense of a national idenity, but it was not and that is why we must revive this question and discuss it. We, Pakistanis, can no longer deny the dilemma of Pakistan and we must answer the question of what Pakistan is and what it wants to become.

Anita # 4 and Wasiq # 2

Anita, I agree with you. There is an information gap and it serverly impacts the growth of democracy in Pakistan, because as we move forward into the infomation age, Pakistan will still continue to be at disadvantage with the rest of the world.

Wasiq, as usual you have made excellent points. There is nothing I can add to what you have suggested and I can only stress the points you have already made! Thanks!

Extract from ``A Thousand Suns - Witness to History``. Dominique Lapierre writes in the Chapter - The last Proconsuls of Victoria`s Glorius Empire. (Page 358-359) on creation of Pakistan. He feels if Jinnah would have died earlier there would have been no Pakistan.

Mohammed Ali Jinnah, a sort of Asia de Gaulle an inflexible and arrogant individual, who managed to procure Pakistan for the Muslim minority of India. Lord Mountbatten did not the divide of India because only the Urdu speaking people were wanting it. During their research they found a Doctor`s note on Jinnah`s health.

`` We never failed to discuss the often unexpected findings of our research with Lord Louis. One day we showed him a report of our meeting with the Indian doctor who in 1947 had treated the founder of Pakistan, Mohammed Ali Jinnah. Reading it made him blanch suddenly.

``I cant believe it !`` he gasped. `` Good God!``.

When he looked up again, the blue eyes tgat were usually so calm were shining with intense emotion, He swiped the air several times with our sheets of paper.

``If I`d only known all this at the time, the course of history would have been different. I would have delayed the granting of independence for several months. There would have been no partition. Pakistan would not have existed. India would have remain united. Three wars would have been avoided ...``

Lord Loius was astounded.

The report described in detail a chest X-Ray report we had discovered with Jinnah`s doctor. The plate confirmed the advance stages of tuberculosis. In the spring of 1947 Jinnah, the inflexible Muslim leader, who had quashed all Mountbatten`s efforts to preserve Indian unity, knew that he had only a few months to live. (Page: 358, 359)

Hudhud sahib:

please tell me who is this `elite` in pakistan? How do I recognize this `elite` if I see him, talk to him, etc.

Feroz,

I stongly disagree with you regarding your anlysis of Islamic identity, democracy in Pakistan, etc. I am sorry to observe that you suffer from the same `hangover`(a 47 + year old) concept of `only if the father of the nation had survived a few more years!` I am short of time right now, and, hence, come back at a later date to expound on this. Meantime, as the following news as reported in TOI, I do not think, the way Islamic identity is defined and practiced in Pakistan, any semblance of democracy, or even civility (a prerequisite for democracy), is possible in a foreseeable future, if ever. The subject report,btw, is understandably absent in Dawn. I am posting the here, hope it works.

http://www.timesofindia.com/today/13worl14.htm

A very familiar theme, among the Pakistani elite !

The viability of Pakistan etc...

Mr Khan expresses sorrow for the passing away

of the father of our nation so soon after the nations birth, a young lad in Pakistan of a less

fortunate background is quoted ina recent National

Geographic as saying ``Maybe God wanted us(Pakistanis) to find our own path and thus took

away the father of our nation at such an early stage``

A refeshing perspective, unfortunately one finds

little refreshment among our drawing room bound elite. We have collectively failed to interact

with the common man in our country, our perspectives have served only us, thus the

youth of our country turn to the Taleban like elements...

An anthropologist who lived in

Pakistan made the following statement at the University of Pennsylvania: ``Nowhere in the world

have I seen a country with more potential, yet nowhere in the world have I seen an elite so distanced from its own people, and unconcerned

with their fate``

Same person: ``Pakistan is definitely a nation,

a very distinct identity, its a pity the elite

of Pakistan don`t realize it. I have not come across one politcal commentator for example who

keeps up with what the Urdu press writes.``

I also heard with great sadness of the death of

Eqbal Ahmad ...whom I only recently became a fan off for his brilliant style of writing .I`m sure that his family have all our prayers in getting through this difficult period .

As far as the article ..as usual the writer has put across his usual insightful point of view ...( careful some Indian chowk walla might be reading this and you could get arrested for anti-pakistan ..remarks !)

I have a few crticisms though ...it comes across in the article that you believe that if Jinnah had survived ..Pakistan would have been a great country ..one of Jinnahs first acts as Governor General was the dismissal of the Provincial govt.she didn`t like ...he set the precedent that the gov general had all the powers ( setting the system up for Nazimuddin`s dismissal )

The language controversy was another legacy ..which was instrumental in causing the 1970 secession ..the imposition of Urdu as the national language ..is something which has effected us till this day ( despite jinnahs inability to speak more then a few words of the language )

Another serious question is about secularism ...I think the belief that secularism is agood way ..and the Pakistan way is wromg ..is not true ..look at Turkey ..the Islamist parties women members are fighting for the right to cover their heads !

About this question of identity ..it is funny that except for probably the Army there is no other instituition where ppl can ave frank discussions in Pakistan without killing each other ..Islam does not give a sense of a nation state ..since Islam transcends that concept ..after all every Pakistani doesn`t ahve to be a Muslim ..

I read a similar essay in last Friday`s New York Times by Rosenthal, an arrant Zionist and an Islam hater. He tries to prove that democracy cannot be established in an Islamic state and presents the U.S. as model of a secular democratic perfection that is humanly achievable and then cleverly inserts Israel in the same category. I can understand Rosenthal`s hatred for an Islamic system since he is a non-Muslim who has an insolent attitude towards Islamic thought and scholarship.

However, it surprises me the see same things coming from people who seem to have Muslim names. I do not know why God let people like Mr. Khan born in ``Muslim`` families; they might be happier to be Rosenthals. But at the same time He has done so many other things that are incomprehensible to me. Sometimes, it is also funny to see people with no or little intellectual training and severe bias say something and then showered with adulation by their likes--sort of self-congratulatory phenomenon goes on there.

All Mr. Khan is able to prove is that he hates Islam. I do not think that Mr. Khan has seriously searched through Islamic scholarship, though he might have looked at Talibanic ideology as Islam. The other flaw comes from completely missing the real problem in Pakistan which is a total break down of values. I think at this point any kind of values system including a secular one will help. However to say that Islam is the problem is an absurd notion. Islam has never been established in Pakistan in a true sense so how could it be the problem. Mr. Khan has ignored the historic phenomenon of the feudal system, the colonial relic of a snobbish bureaucracy and ethnic inequalities. There he could have found real problems that is trickling down Pakistan. Mr. Khan, it is the people not just a system of beliefs that make a society. Bad people make even a good system bad and Pakistan`s problem is that it has just too many bad people, ``religious`` or ``non-religious.``

Pakistan was never meant to be an ``Islamic`` or a ``theocratic`` state. It was always meant to be a ``homeland`` for the Muslims of India, not any different than Israel. That was the intent of its founder, M A Jinnah.

That Pakistan is a ba_tard child of the result of Muslim invaders screwing Mother India is how one can view Pakistan. It should matter not (in fact, Mother India should love Pakistan just as any mother loves her child whether legitimate or not!).

Pakistanis, while being aware of their history, have absolutely no choice but to look forward, and make Pakistan a part of the modern and enlightened world. Look at Australia: a Land of the Criminals. Does anyone care about that? No! And why is that?

On another note and not to distract the readers
from this article but:

The BBC Urdu Service has reported with sadness that
Eminent Pakistani Scholar, humanitarian and fighter on behalf of the oppressed Dr. Eqbal Ahmed passed away in Islamabad today.

It is with great spirit that this great crusader of peace from Pakistan
served the just causes of Algeria, Palestine and the Left in the USA and ALL of South Asia.

On a more personal note I want to add that I learnt a lot from the
writings of this great Pakistani and join in saying a prayer for
his departed soul and join in the sadness of his family.

A leading light of the free thinking movement in Pakistan has gone out.

Ras H. Siddiqui

Feroz:

Quite a tour de force. Wonderful read, and good analysis highlighting the various ills.

Your lament is all to simple too answer. The ``Pakistani political leadership`` does not have the political courage to save Pakistan.

In the next millennium the battle will be fought out in the open between the hardliners led or influenced by the Talibaans and hopefully by a forced coalition of pushed-too-far-once-too-often alliance of moderate forces. In my wishful scenario the moderates would prevail but the cost to de-construct the last half century my prove to be insurmountable.

Caveat-my track record of hopeful dreams coming true is not too great!

regards

A very interesting article. However I feel that

you are not ascribing enough weight to sheer

inertia: the very fact that Pakistan has existed

for fifty years should have been enough to allow

a new Pakistani identity to develop, one which

transcends the dilemmas about the states origins

and nature, that you have highlighted. I don`t

know how important this factor is, but I sure do

hope that it is true. Only then can the

sub-continent be at peace with itself and with

the rest of the world.

narain

Well-written Feroz. However, in my opinion, this whole debate of secularism versus theocracy is premature in the Pakistani context. Secularism is not something that one can impose from the top - it creeps up on a nation insidously, when most people realize that an ideology based on love and respect of fellow human beings is much more powerful and compelling than one based on worship of an omnipotent and fierce diety. And we can only get on that road with education - the ability to read - that is the crying need of the moment!

In this context it is ironic that the Internet is widening the differential between the literate and non-literate, and spawning a new kind of poverty - information poverty. This is why the arrest of someone like Najam Sethi will never start mass protests. The common person in Pakistan does not see his value because the common person in Pakistan does not read. And those who can, do not have the numbers or the courage to start anything.

Also, did you come across the Dawn report from May 8, reporting that UNESCO rejected the government`s findings on the state of literacy in the country, implying that most of the data were cooked, to please donor agencies that enough is being done.

It is imperative upon us, the citizens of Pakistan to take public education in our own hands, form organizations like the Citizens Foundation, and the rest will follow.

AZ

A very interesting and thought provoking article. Ironically mistakes of past are admitted every few years. Every government expounds on the evils committed by the previous government. I understand that this was not the main theme of the essay; however, the author`s categorization of Pakistani system of government as either secular or theocratic is a little misleading.

On one hand the founders of Pakistan didn`t want Pakistan to be a theocratic state. On the other hand the ``moulvi`s`` wanted something other than a system of government that resembled the colonial masters. That does not mean that the people wanted either a theocratic or a secular government.

It seems like Pakistan has tried almost kinds of systems of government out there. I believe that we will come out of our current situation, not by discarding previous practices, but by learning from each system. All of us (conservatives, liberals, capitalists, socialists, etc.) need to look beyond ideologies (or terminoligies) and figure out a system that incorporates what we want.

Many may say that there is no such thing as ``the system we want.`` I agree, that is why one needs to be created. Dictatorship is bad because it takes away the ``people`s rights.`` One may argue that ``people`` don`t have any rights in our democracy either. More than anything, dictator ship provides security and stability; who cares about freedom of expression when you are afraid of getting shot walking down a street in Karachi.

``Basic democracy`` was a bad idea because it took power out of people`s hands and placed it in selected few. But one could argue that in a society like Pakistan, majority don`t know the least bit about what qualities are required for a good government. Isn`t it better to pick some respected people from each community...

A theocracy is better than what we have now, just look at the society of the first four caliphs, was that not ideal?

My point above is not to convince people to give up democracy, but to make them think that perhaps sticking to systems of government, established years ago by different societies is not going to cut it for us any more.

As mentioned before, we need to invent our own system of government; because the British parliamentary system, dictatorship, any oligarchy will not work for us. I think most of the liberal elites (such as the patrons of this forum) system based simply on the will of the majority, constrained by a constitution (such as America`s) would be the ideal system for Pakistan. However, the religious ``class`` will never agree to a system that does not involve scrutinization of laws according to the tenants of the Quran and Hadith--probably rightly so. On the other hand, using the ``clergy`` to run our affairs according to their interpretation of divine law would be against the founders` vision of Pakistan--as well as against Islam itself. Obviously a compromise needs to be worked out. I am not too familiar with the role of sharia courts in Pakistan, but I would think that the final solution will not too different from the current one. Ironic, isn`t it. Except that our ``final solution`` will have to be implemented in a planned fashion; instead of the haphazard and arbitrary manner it exists now. The new system will have to formed by cocensus. If it is formulated by a small majlis of alams, or a committee of western educated scholars, the solution will not be a lasting one.

In order for Pakistan to out of current hell hole, it, indeed, needs to stop using old rhetoric and formulate a society as a nation. Although, that may just mean that we come back to our old idea of Pakistan. I don`t believe that will be a problem, as long is it is done through national dialog--instead of subjugation of one group or another.

These are just some thoughts off the top of my head after a quick read of the essay. This essay deserves to be read more carefully and deserves well thought out responses. I`ll try to do that later :)