He had no Choice!

Dear Bilal Ahmad ( # 1008):

(The issue of human rights is very tricky. Every society has some good points and some bad points. Traditional societies need to transform. The questions are: Why? For what purpose? With what speed? How?)

Your statement is quite agreeable to me. The traditional societies should transform if there is a desire through consensus about a particular change with a speed acceptable to the majority. But this is absolutely not the point I was making in my previous post. My point was about forced implementation of these traditional values on the folks who live outside the bounds of these traditional values, e.g., Uzbeks, Shiites of Hazara and the liberals of Kabul and its vicinity. The transformation of any society is moving-forward phenomenon but in the case of Afghanistan it is moving-backward for liberals, working women, Uzbeks and other minorities.

(The Western critique of traditional societies, however appropriate, is not situated in the historical-geographical context of those societies. Planned social change must be based upon a vision and direction. It should be slow, gradual, and uninterrupted. Otherwise, it may entail a lot of unnecessary and unproductive conflicts. I don`t believe that Talibans` way of life is contrary to the basic human rights. It is a different form of social order with a different way of looking at the rights of human beings. This, however, does not mean that there aren`t some universally recognized human rights violations in such social orders.)

Again I agree with your statement until I raech,``I don`t believe that Taliban`s......``. The Talibans` impose their way of life arrogantly and sometimes violently on those who disagree; forced wearing of burqah or forced growing the beards. They will beat up the people found walking around during the prayer time. The Uzbeks of Mazar-e-Sharif and surrounding areas have traditionally been very liberal and young men unbearded. I agree that Talibans` deobandi dogma may be acceptable to most Pashtuns but others have the human rights too. The biggest problem with any religious fundamentalist autocratic government is the belief in the holiness of their dogma, and any deviation from it is a sin and severly punishable crime.

Thank you for the web address of dawn-usa. I was trying under newspaper site, dawn.com. You have been taking part very actively in other very interesting discussions. Please tie this one up or just ignore it, as you wish.

Sincerely,

Sameer

Zeemax #1007

Dear Friend:

By this time all zee-hosh people in Pakistan should realize that the country runs on rumour and gossip as `information` which ciculates in it as bonafide body of facts.

The job of the clarifier, then, reduces her/him to an individual in misery and agony who has to first prove the falseness of the rumours [i.e., demonstrate them as being so], and then `prove` the correct facts.

Problem with the-rumours-as-factual-information scenario is that by the time one successfully, or otherwise, deals with one, there are ten more that have raised their head, as it were!

One has to choose wisely where/when to conclude this effort. As my jannati mother used to say, it is like pouring ghee over a pile of sand. One should learn soon about its futility and know when to stop.

I am, for you, and for everybody else involved, going to cite three or four examples which demonstrate `scientific` as well as `folk wisdom` in these matters:

--In psychology -- as every tenth grade text in the area tells us -- in clinical experiments, a story, a news item, or something such, is told to one individual, in a group of, let`s say twenty, individuals with the instruction that it be conveyed to the next person.

By the time the `item` reaches the last person, the researchers find that it was an exaggerated thing which had no relation to the nature or body of the original `item`. This is the process of birth of rumour and its circulation. This is what our folk wisdom called, `paran (khambanh) dey kaan, tey kanwaan diyan daraan`.

--When young, I used to eat at a large dining hall in a hostel. In the hall there were very large round tables that could accomodate ten or so diners. Not really friends but good acquaintances, the same group of us used to sit at the table at lunch time.

Once, when I was very upset with the Premier, I said to the fellow on my left that the premier was uneducated, what would he know about... . At this, the fellow said that the premier had a B.Com degree. ``Sure``, I said, ``got it through correspondence``.

A week or so later, the fellow on my right leaned towards me and whispered in my ear asking me if I knew that the premier was ``chitta unparrh?`` To which I responded, ``yes, I know, I started it (the rumour).`` I realized, then, that in the interim this had circulated as factual piece of information among the attendees at our table if not across the entire dining hall!

-- there is a story, of a New York mayor, in the 1930s, who was re-running for the Office for the third time. He was a crafty fellow and is still known as such in the history of the city.

Now, while his opponent was running throught the length and breadth of the city indicating the blunders, the corruption and inepness during the incumbent`s tenure as a mayor, the incumbent was sitting home, listening to sports on the radio, and playing with his grandchildren. His friends and advisors warned him that unless he came out in the public and started a counter attack he was

going to lose.

But the mayor was calm, cool and unperturbed. He told his friends that he had a plan of attack ``but, all in good time.`` Finally, just two days before the election, the advisors and supporters were hysterical and despondent. The mayor called a press conference for that night. At the press conference he said that he had been listening to his opponent mud slinging all over the place,

attacking the mayor`s administration, his family, and even the mayor himself. ``But,`` he said, ``I have kept quiet and not said a word in response to this mud slinging and personal attacks because that`s all a civilized man could do.`` Now, ``I have come to the end of my patience, still, all I am going to ask of him ``, he continued, ``is, to come before the voters and tell them where he was and what he was doing on the night of July, 27th!``

The opponent was an innocent man and spent the next day trying to clear up the situation. Telling every body that he was with his family at home having dinner etc., etc. He did that till he was hoarse in the throat and half-dead by fatigue.

Next day the crafty mayor got elected.

So you see, friend(s), it is easy for people to put others to work to clear up the rumour and then establish the truth. Some of these people are genuinely ignorant, others are deliberately mischievous. The problem is how to tell one apart from the other.

What I do is this: Oh, Is that right? How interesting? Now prove it? At least that way there is a division of labour; the labour

that they would be very careful to shield/save themselve from.

Best wishes, Sincerely, A Gnostic

Rumour or fact! There is no treatment for ``I don`t accept``.

The case of Al-Taufeeq, to which Sharif`s owed billions and did not pay is decided by court in England (about which Churchill once said that as long as these courts are providing justice nobody can beat them in WW2). The decision is out by an impartial court and final decision is soon to come because of stay order. Alas there is no Saifur-Rahman to terrorize nor is Tariq Aziz and company to raid the court.

I think rumor mill is not for charges of corruption against corrupt, which will come with time soon. Like a meagre Wealth tax and meagre income tax shown on filing for candidacy for Parliament by Sharif`s etc.

I think the rumor mill is on opposite direction where by one context or another like Why is Musharraf pro-American or changes in NAB ordinance etc to divert the attention to the crime.

Is there any problem with you regarding changes in NAB ordinance. Are these changes to provide loopholes which was norm at the time of NS. Or to provide accountability which was long overdue (And incidently was the top slogan by NS in previous election and apart from apathy to BB was the top reason to vote for NS). If memory of our intelligent writers is not faltering, there were few slogans given by NS.

1- Ehtesab. Which became Intiqam. To the point that paper of Jang newspaper was stopped and people have to come out on streets. The reason was few stories of corruption, including Al-Taufeeq Scandal and Flats of NS in England and regarding other people doing Ehtesab.

2- Qarz Utaro Mulk Sanwaro. And all the money collected was minted by the most pious leadership of the whole human history meaning NS and co.

3- Making Pakistan into Asian Tiger. If Pakistan means NS, he was probably successful. If Pakistan means people of Pakistan, then he failed utterly and highest number of people in history of Pakistan burned themselves alive at the hand of poverty. This is only tip of iceburg.

In response to SameerJB (Reply # 1009)

Dear Sameer:

I think, my comments were relatively general, and not a reaction to any specific part of your post. I generally don`t dwell in the specifics unless it is necessary. My focus remains on abstraction and consciousness-raising.

Violence and the violation of human rights (which in itself is a violence) takes different forms in different societies. There is no society in the world where the social order remains a true reflection of even the universally accepted values and rights. In organized (and economically fortunate) societies, it is relatively easy to legally guarantee a basic set of social, economic, and political rights. But, why the traditional and transitional (mixed) societies are unable to establish even procedural justice (let alone distributional justice)?

While writing about the Talibans, I wasn`t trying to unnecessarily support them. I, however, feel that the Western discourse on human rights needs to be carefully and critically evaluated before we, under its influence, start judging other traditional (or non-traditional societies) and start imposing our violence upon them. I don`t support the Taliban nor envy their way of life (as compared to what I am currently leading), yet I believe that the negative aspects of the Talibani (Afghani; Pakhtooni; Wahabi Muslim) practices get far more media attention than the positive aspects of their simple and traditional lifestyle. In this respect, I sympathize with Abid Ullah Jan`s position about the Talibans. Yet there are several aspects of his writing where I fail to develop solidarity with him.

Social change is both backward- and forward-moving in all societies. In simple, traditional, and relatively poor societies, its is extremely difficult to maintain a balance once such societies come in contact with other parts of the world. The interplay of traditional and non-traditional values, life-styles, and worldviews generally leads to tensions which are not so easy to deal with. In such a state, our critique of societal crises needs to be based on the principles of fairness, understanding, tolerance, and patience. This, however, does not mean that we shouldn`t show our concern over the violation of universally recognized human rights. The question is: How? This, I think, is vitally important.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Dear Bilal Ahmad (#1015): I appreciate your clarification with respect to Abid Ullah Jan`s article. There is another opposing point of view by Ahmad Rashid in the Nov.-Dec. issue of ``Foreign Affairs``. He has also written a chapter in a book titled ``Fundamentalism Reborn`` by Richard? Maley.

Thanks again.

Sincerely,

Sameer

In response to Fuzair (Reply # 1014)

I can understand your disappointment. In my previous posts, the part that you found distasteful was perhaps the one where I said: ``I don`t believe that Talibans` way of life is contrary to the basic human rights. It is a different form of social order with a different way of looking at the rights of human beings. This, however, does not mean that there aren`t some universally recognized human rights violations in such social orders.``

In this passage, I first referred to a way of life. I have no reasons to believe that the way of life of Taliban`s, on the whole, is against the basic human rights. Then, I argued that human rights are differently conceptualized and practiced in different societies. The last sentence clearly suggests that there are some violations (say gross violations) of human rights in Taliban`s Afghanistan. I would urge you to consider this clarification, in light of my Reply # 1015 (addressed to Sameer). Perhaps this would ease your disappointment.

As far as the question of what I am? I myself don`t know, except that I am a human being who believes in fairness to all. In this sense, I am more of a humanist who lives in an extremely complex world and who has some sense of widespread social inequalities.

Your statement that ``basic human rights are incompatible with Islam, or with the fundamentalist interpretation of any Judaeo-Christian religion`` is beyond my expertise to address to. However, Islam is a set of values, teachings, and practices that are imagined and interpreted in many different ways by different people across the world.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Zeemax #1013

Of course, Hope springs eternal.

Dreams must never be extinguished since it is dreams alone which, in my opinion, relate us to the future, bright and worth living and fighting for.

What I had suggested was to create a division of labour. Just respond so that the proof for the assertions of assertors becomes their burden; not yours to disprove.

Yes, I remember Jeevay`s stories. I went back and looked at his/her posts again yesterday after seeing your reference to them. I noticed a certain degree of emotions in his posts. Did you feel the same way?

Sincerely,

A Gnostic

bahmad #998

Dear Bilal Ahmad:

I am way behind in reading and commenting on the recent posts. I have reached #998 so far (except Zeemax`s post).

Mr Abid Jan`s piece is a very bright piece. I think he seems to be quite well read on recent academic and research literature. His only problem is that while he decries, in the entirety of the essay, the problems of culturalal relativism, he falls victim to it himself without realizing it and that is the undoing of his premiere premesis! The argument fails.

I would not take an issue with his scholarship; only with his logic. Or his inability to reign in his `own` cultural relativism; something a set of slightly delimiting premises could have achieved easily. Without, that is, making him sound like a crazy mullah, or disappointing us with the fallacy with we feel hurt after having read his analysis.

Sincerely,

A Gnostic

In response to SameerJB (Reply # 1009)

Dear Sameer:

Your statement: ``The Talibans` impose their way of life arrogantly and sometimes violently on those who disagree; forced wearing of burqah or forced growing the beards. They will beat up the people found walking around during the prayer time. The Uzbeks of Mazar-e-Sharif and surrounding areas have traditionally been very liberal and young men unbearded. I agree that Talibans` deobandi dogma may be acceptable to most Pashtuns but others have the human rights too. The biggest problem with any religious fundamentalist autocratic government is the belief in the holiness of their dogma, and any deviation from it is a sin and severely [sic] punishable crime.``

Comment: In view of Fuzair`s disappointment, I went back to our interactions. What you have described above is sad, and to some extent deplorable (and in some cases condemnable). I don`t support and/or condone universal human right violations. We, however, cannot bring a change by ``merely`` protesting and condemning the violation of human rights (particularly if we are inconsistent in our actions). The current events in Afghanistan are basically a product of the nature of a tribal way of life, the long and bloody war with the Soviet Union, power struggle and a virtual non-existence of organized democratic institutions, the politics of scarcity, and a particular theocratic-interpretation of Afghanistan`s past and present.

We live in an unequal and unevenly developed world. A universally-developed covenant of a new world order is needed to bring significant changes in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan. One major step in this regard would be the democratization of global institutions, such as the United Nations.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bahmad #1020

Dear Bilal,

I think it would be interesting to know where the funding of the current regime in Afghanistan comes from. It requires hard money to sustain any society whether traditionally tribal or liberal and even more to wage armed conflict. The various current sources of funds I have seen mentioned in the press include narcotics trade and Arab organizations and individuals. I would have more respect for the ideological or religious purity of the current regime and its traditional bent if it disowned its links to narcotics.

Sadhana

In response to sadna (Reply # 1021)

Dear Sadhana:

You are right about some of the sources of earning. These may be major sources. The question of narcotic is not easy. First of all, narcotics have long been a source of earning in Afghanistan, when most countries of the world had no problematic relations with Afghanistan. I wonder if somebody has done an authentic historical study of this factor. The issue of narcotics cannot be dealt with in a linear, one-sided fashion (not that I am not opposed to the drugs). Narcotics are widely, though illegally, sold and consumed in the United States. The issue of the production of narcotic needs to be dealt in the same manner as we need to deal with the issue of the production of the mean of mass destruction. For simplicity, Afghanistan produces and exports narcotics where as the United States produces and exports the means of mass destruction (or so-called defense). Hence, in my Reply # 1009, I wrote:

``We live in an unequal and unevenly developed world. A universally-developed covenant of a new world order is needed to bring significant changes in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan. One major step in this regard would be the democratization of global institutions, such as the United Nations.`` Shouldn`t the Security Council of the United Nations be based on the principle of democracy (rather than permanent dictatorship of a few)?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Please don`t get me wrong I support the main thrust of your post. Unfettered capitalism that entails accumulation for accumulation sake is a major source of unevenness and inequalities in the world. The question is: How to tame it effectively in the greater interest of humanity around the world (an utopian thought!). Aren`t we silly?

In response to sadna (Reply # 1021)

Dear Sadhana:

You are right about some of the sources of earning. These may be major sources. The question of narcotic is not easy. First of all, narcotics have long been a source of earning in Afghanistan, when most countries of the world had no problematic relations with Afghanistan. I wonder if somebody has done an authentic historical study of this factor. The issue of narcotics cannot be dealt with in a linear, one-sided fashion (not that I am not opposed to the drugs). Narcotics are widely, though illegally, sold and consumed in the United States. The issue of the production of narcotic needs to be dealt in the same manner as we need to deal with the issue of the production of the mean of mass destruction. For simplicity, Afghanistan produces and exports narcotics where as the United States produces and exports the means of mass destruction (or so-called defense). Hence, in my Reply # 1009, I wrote:

``We live in an unequal and unevenly developed world. A universally-developed covenant of a new world order is needed to bring significant changes in many parts of the world, including Afghanistan. One major step in this regard would be the democratization of global institutions, such as the United Nations.`` Shouldn`t the Security Council of the United Nations be based on the principle of democracy (rather than permanent dictatorship of a few)?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Please don`t get me wrong I support the main thrust of your post. Unfettered capitalism that entails accumulation for accumulation sake is a major source of unevenness and inequalities in the world. The question is: How to tame it effectively in the greater interest of humanity around the world (an utopian thought!). Aren`t we silly?

#990Ϫ

Brideram Rashid: In historical perspectives the hypothetical questions are useless hypotheses since they cannot be substantiated. They are not falsifiable. Max Weber, an historian and a sociologist (author: Protestant Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism), also said it in anticipation of my pronouncement.

Pakistan, in the past fifty years, was never in a position to benefit from the theoretical research of the calibre that Professor Salam was doing. Nor, was Dr. Salam interested in taking a civil service post, ``position of Authority``, in place of his world-class stature in science. There is no alternative to that ``authorithy`` for a distinguished scientist in this world.

Therefore, the hypothetical scenario indicated by you contains inherent `impossibilities`.

Best regards,

A Gnostic

SameerJB # 997

Dear Sameer: I felt your post to be clear, lucid and in consonance with my thinking.

1. You have introduced Elman. R. Service`s theory of colonization and subjugation (of any kind i.e., political, economic etc.) of nations from an anthropologist`s viewpoint. The idea is simple: In societies that have well-developed, and advanced stratification systems, for external powers to establish control, all they have to do is to ``win over``, subjugate or enter into ``treaties`` with the rajas, maharajas, religious leaders, or other political chiefs of such settled societies. Their subjects need not be fought and subjugated. They follow their ``lords`` in servility, or occupation.

Professor Service was analysing the colonization of South America by the conquistedores, but you would notice that this strategy was also most successful in India, Canada, and most of Africa. As, of course, elsewhere. This is also one of the reasons that the tribal areas in Northern India could never be subjugated properly in the British Empire. (Remember, ``Into the valley of death, rode the six hundred!)

It will also explain why the U.S., and every other Western Colonial power prefers to deal with dictators rather than Western style democracies. In dictatorships one has to deal only with one individual, whereas in democracies one has to wait for a proposal`s presentation in an assembly, parliament or a similar body, discussed, voted upon and the passed (cf. U.S. Senate`s vote on CTBT for the nth time of prior consultation), with twenty ``riders``, and/or amendments by `independent` members and the opposition. This takes months and the result for the ``powers`` may be moth-eaten, even if favourable.

Take Mutt, or Zia : An American ambassador in one afternoon can get a matter settled with the dictator. Would we have gotten involved in the Afghan imbroglio, or, in this manner, if it had to go through a parliament?

[For decades I have wondered about our naiveté in asking the question, why the U.S. deals with dictators. Who else should they deal with? Should we expect them to go out in the world to spread democracies, on moral grounds? Which state ever got out to spread `universal` morality? Have we never heard the expression, `realpolitique`?]

So, a dictator in the form of the Mutt is far more preferable than an elected government. It would be in the interest of the United States to have dictators, hereditary rulers (Kuwait), tribal and hereditary rulers (Saudi Arabia)in place to deal with. The argument can be lengthened and examples multiplied but I think the point has been made.

International Agencies, eg., IMF, and particularly the World Bank are under tremendous U.S., influence. I would accept your argument of their expectations of getting their money back. Yes, and no. Campbell Soup Company sold two billion dollars worth of chicken soup alone in 1997. How much more soup must have been sold by them in all? Plenty. General Electric and General Motors paid taxes last year which amount to twice the amount of Pakistan`s ``defaulted``, loans (VERY preliminary figures of total taxes; I shall look further into it; if problems, I`ll simply add Micrisoft). I do not feel that U.S.`s interest in the WB(in so far as they literally own it), is being jeopardized. Or they are worried about the return of this play-money amount. The real question is what is their agenda. [Does anybody remember that on the morning after Mrs. Gandhi announced her intention to nationalize India`s banks, the United States informed her that they would pull out all their PL-480 funds if she proceeded with her plan. Mrs. Gandhi announced the withdrawl of the plan most promptly. Or, for that matter, how did PL-480 funds come into being when the wheat so `donated` by the U.S., cost India more than had it bought its equivalent amounts from other surplus-wheat nations e.g., Argentina, Brazil, Australia?]

In principle alone U.S. itself is not a stranger to being a defaulter. They still owe huge amounts in back, unpaid, dues to the United Nations. In fact, on the night of their war against Iraq I called the U.N., H.Q. (Budget) and found out that the U.S. was 3/4 of a billion dollars in default. I thought that a nation with that big and long a default does not remain a `member in good standing`, and, therefore, could not start a war no matter how much U.S. SC had given permission to take action. Next day I learned that I was right but just look where that `powerful` weapon of a knowledge got me!

I also feel that your introduction of a conception of a continuum and `dimentions`, or `aspects` of variables is a very apt and valuable. Since this correspondence has reached to 121 at this time -- and I intend to deal with most of them -- I am hopeful that they should benefit me as analytical or heuristic tools.

Sincerely yours,

A Gnostic

Zeemax #1025

Thanks for the information. It seems to me to confirm the belief that when the `purity` or `literal nature` of any ideology is unevenly applied, claims of purity look insincere and self-serving, specially if on one hand women are physically punished in the name of purity for inadvertantly showing a tiny bit of their arm or leg, but meanwhile the state profits from drug production.

bahmad #1023

Dear Bilal,

I agree, profiting from selling arms is not much different from profiting from selling drugs. However, arms sales are always open to many types of scrutiny, political and legal in many advanced countries, as is usage of drugs. As far as destroying society in Central and South Asia,(and to some extent in the US) I would agree, illegal drugs and legal/illegal arms are equivalent. However, the use of those arms is regulated in many countries, and misuse can be punished through law.

Also, the funds obtained from sale of arms in advanced countries is not directly or indirectly used to physically `subjugate` a local population as is done in Afghanistan.

I am sure all have heard stories of Afghan women forced into prostitution after being denied other now- proclaimed `dishonorable` means of livelihood. I cannot believe that there is any ideological merit or traditional element worth preserving in such a situation.

I feel running a government however traditional or tribal, is about taking care of your people. In the past, perhaps a cruel tribal leader could have been overpowered or murdered. Now with `modern` institutions like taxes, governments and foreign funding, a population suffers without any means of redressal.

Sincerely,

Sadhana

In response to Sadna (Reply #: 1028)

Dear Sadhana:

My position is a little different from yours. In your case, you seem to justify the production of the means of mass destruction. In my case, I consider it a major of source of trouble in world affairs. Despite our being good human beings, our worldviews are not at par in this respect. You may consider my position as utopian. I, however, believe that utopias provide a focus for an ideal position that we need to strive to achieve. In Hindu religion and philosophy, Nirvana provides a similar focus for leading a nice, clean, and good human life.

There are several aspects of your post that require much more understanding. For example, neither I nor you seem to understand first hand why many Afghan women were forced into prostitution. In almost all parts of the world, women are in one way or another forced (and lured) to prostitution. We both want an eradication of such degrading practices, but our ways of understanding, explaining, and interpreting the processes involved are different. Likewise, arms and ammunition are developed to maintain unequal social relations locally, regionally, national, and globally. Hence, I find various explanations concerning the regulation of the sale and/or use of arms as somewhat unsatisfactory.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad