Pakistan - The Way Forward

MARTYR AND HERO,

TO

Sameer JB#

Although, your discussion of life is sacred and worth living for is very good.

But its application would be possible only if world was a more just place.

Like the war imposed on Vietnam.

Like the old scottish women having to have first night with king before being with husband.

In this world of plenty, everyday some people suicide because of economic reasons. Some nations are doomed to a continuous cycle of poverty inspite of hard work.

As long as injustices are there, struggle will continue. May be if not for my life, but a better life of my children, who are in a way continuation of myself.

Re: PM

``Cowards die many times before their deaths/ The valiant never taste of death but once``

Julius Caesar, act II scene ii. Spoken by Caesar himself.

According to Sir Syed Ahmad Khan a society always get the kind of government that is reflective of itself. So if a society is corrupt it will get corrupt a government. It doesn’t work the other way around. If people do not have a collective vision they will get governments that lack in vision. When people think that now the things are getting out of hand and ``koi danday waala ayay aur sab ko seedha kar day``, they get ``danday waalas``. Unfortunately people start expecting from these ``elected`` or ``self-appointed`` governments to change the system for them. How can it be possible? How can a government, that is an offspring of a particular system, change the system that brought it into power. Why would such a government close loophole when the same loopholes let slip such an incompetent government in the first place. If you closely observe the lawful societies in this world you will see everybody obeying law not because their governments make them obey the law but because it’s the people who make the governments obey the law.

So in response to Mr. Rehan Babar`s article I would like to bring this ugly reality in the light, that any government elected by the people or any government that came in power because of power or by manipulating a loophole in the system will not change the system. It is impossible. It may sound crazy but people have to change themselves. People must bear the burden of leadership. Only people can change their destiny.

There seems to be no way out of this predicament. However, it’s the law of nature and it also applies to the dynamics of a society that it always tends to be stable. The anarchy and chaos, no matter how prevalent, tend to stabilize. But this is not always good news. The forces that bring about this stability may very well be outside forces than inside ones. Usually, in such cases the chaotic society is overpowered by a more stable outer society. On the other hand, when internal forces take charge it is not good news either. When societies lack vision one of the faction from with in the society overpowers the rest and brings stability to the chaos. But tyranny brings oppression and not the law and order. That is the reason we see a superficial stability during martial laws. But as soon as any one of the past martial laws became dear departed the society finds itself in a greater chaos than before. But when a society has vision and ``awareness`` it produces great leaders for itself, who lead the society to stability and lawfulness. As Lennon once said that no leader can articulate circumstances for a revolution, the circumstances already exist that create a leader that in turn makes a revolution possible.

So the key word is ``vision``. ``Right kind of Education`` may be conducive to form a society that has a vision. The process of educating the people with ``right kind of education`` may get ``accidentally`` set off by a government who might be unaware at the time what it is doing and what it may result. Or it may be set off by a group of people who have a vision and an iron will to convey what they know.

So should we start praying?

Sameer (re.#31)

You say: ``There are no such things as worth dying for whiile there are plenty of things worth living for. Such phrases were invented for marketing or propaganda tools by the elite to dupe the masses into sacrificing for elite-beneficial (read noble) causes...Being alive is once-in-the-lifetime-of-the- universe opportunity and every effort should me made to prolong it as much as possible. ``

Yes, life is for living, and I agree that very often the the Martyr in history might have have furthered his/her cause by living to ``fight`` another day. Nevertheless, I think there are times when the pursuit of the Good Life, when one has transcended self-interest and -preservation, will demand the risk of sacrifice of one`s own.

We moderns have good reason be suspicious of the matrydom spirit. As you point out, it has all too ofen exploited by the elites for their own selfish ends. But love and other emotions are also exploited all the time (by the media, for one). Does that render them artificial in themselves?

I think the tragedy of us moderns (too inlcusive??) is that we have come to distrust all strong, natural emotions to the extent that we often throw the baby put with the bathwater. (reading today about the Phillipines hostage massacre, I can understand why we are so apt to do this). But as a corollary, we order out lives around abstractions that often sound `sensible` but disregard out true nature.

You say: ``Being alive is once-in-the-lifetime-of-the- universe opportunity and every effort should be made to prolong it as much as possible.``

SR has already emphasized the primacy of `quality`, as opposed to longevity. What `d like to add is that for us humans at least, the essence of the good life transcends considerations of time-- Eternal Life is not what it has come to mean in today. It`s a experience that requires the abandonment of tradtional conceptions of time. At the risk of trying to explain colour to a blind person (not to be taken personally :)), one could say that at least while it`s experienced in certain way, life IS eternal. Time is seen for the artificial construct it is.

As one interested in eastern philosophies, I`m sure none of this is new to you, Sameer, is it? Here`s a `koan` not from the East but rather from the Middle East, circa 2000 (as far as I know):

``Whoever loves his life will only lose it; `tis only savrifice that brings one gain``

And from the bard: ``Fools die a thousand times...``

(can`t seem to remember the end if that one. anybody? anybody?

best regards,

PM

In response to baber (Reply # 38)

Dear Rehan:

Your statement: “I am only disagreeing with the approach of imposing democracy without giving sufficient thought to the societal differences and uniqueness. The system (regardless of what we call it) needs to evolve indigenously . . . . I am putting the onus on the people who I believe can play a catalyst role . . . .”

Comment: Imposition is antithetical to the philosophy of democracy. A political system needs to be consensual, persuasive, and sensitive to the social realities. Of course, democracy needs to be evolved domestically at local, regional, and national levels. The source of power (sovereignty) lies and should lie in the people. No democracy is possible if the common people do not realize their power and if they don’t assert/struggle for their fundamental rights. I think, both of us agree on these points.

In your paper, however, you seem to discard democracy, military dictatorship, even Islam (based upon your understanding of ground political realities). Following this, you bring forward a kind of compromise solution of “supervisory democracy” without sufficiently looking into the causes of Pakistani political see-saw. We all know that army did not engage in a coup to relieve Pakistan from her troubles. We are also made to believe that the coup started with General Musharraf’s plane saga. I wonder if your “supervisory democracy,” if successfully implemented/imposed, would sustain the existing unity of Pakistan. Please comment.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

re: SameerJB #31

[``...Being alive is once-in-the-lifetime-of-the- universe opportunity and every effort should me made to prolong it as much as possible...``]

Very well said, sir! Life (in all its forms, from the procaryocytes to the whale) is indeed, the most precious thing in the universe. Human life is sacred. No political, social, religious or philosphical ideology is worth sacrificing human life over. Initiation of ANY ideologically motivated violence is evil. Period.

Any socially sanctioned taking of human life (be it in war, self-defense, capital punishment or abortion) is an extremely serious matter and must never be viewed lightly.

I would, however, like to add that `preservation` of life is the highest goal. This includes quality of life as well. Sometime to merely prolong life may lead to a diminuation of quality of life.

...SR

Re: SameerJB #31

Following is an excerpt from Jihad & Shahadat by Dr. Ali Shariati. He was one of the principal architects of Iranian revolution. The reason I am quoting this here is because the discussions relating to Jihad & shaheed on chowk seem to revolve around terrorist activities that some Muslim groups seems to be involved in. However, the philosophy of Jihad and shahadat is not sense less barbarism or violence. Also, it might make you think that some things (even if you are not a religeous person) are really worth dying for.

“There is no doubt that in every religion, school of thought, and national or religious attitude, a shahid (martyr) is sacred. This is true, even though the school of thought in question may not be religious, but materialistic. The attitude and feeling toward the shahid embodies a metaphysical sacredness. In my opinion, the question from whence the sacredness of a shahid comes needs hair-splitting scientific analysis.

Even in religions and schools of thought in which there is no belief in sacredness and the sacred, there is however belief concerning the sanctity of a shahid. This status originates in the particular relation of a shahid to his school. In other words he develops a spring of value and sanctity. It is because, at any rate, the relationship of an individual with his belief is a sacred relationship. The same relation develops between a shahid and his faith. In the same way, yet indirectly, the same relationship develops between an adherent to a belief and its shuhada. Thus the origin of the sanctity of a shahid is the feeling of sacredness that all people have toward their school of thought, nationality, and religion. In existentialism, there are discussions which are very similar, in some parts, to our discussions concerning wilayat and its effects.

Man has a primary ``essential`` character and a secondary ``shaping character.`` In respect to the former, every person is the same. Anyone who wears clothes exists! But in the true sense of the term, what makes one`s character, that is to say, makes him distinct from other beings, are the spiritual attributes and dimensions, feelings, instincts, and particular qualities—the things that, once a person considers them, he senses (himself) as a particular ``I``.`` He realizes himself, saying, ``Sum`` (I am).

From whence do the particular characteristics of ``I`` come? ``I,`` as a human being, after being born, developed characteristics, attributes, and positive and negative values. Gradually I developed a knowledge of myself. Where does this come from. Heidegger says, ``The sum of man`s knowledge about his life`s environment makes his character, that knowledge being the conscious relation of the existence of `I` with an external `thing`, `person`, or `thought.``` When I establish a mental and existential relationship with individuals, movements, phenomena, things, thoughts, etc., this relationship finds a reflection in me. This reflection becomes a part of my essence and shapes my character. Thus man`s character is the sum of all his relations with other characters. Consequently my virtue and vice is relative to the virtues and vices of the sum of the individuals, characters, ideas ... which surround me and with which I have a relation.

This relation can be with a historical entity (if, for example, I read history). We have not had a [direct] relationship with Imam Husayn. But when we intellectually meet him through a book or words, he becomes a part of our knowledge, and then a part of our personal characteristics. In this sense, everyone exists relative to his knowledge and ideals. Likewise, when we give a part of our existence for a cause, that part becomes a part of that cause. For example, in our mind, justice has sacredness. It is one of those values which has become a part of us thanks to our relationship and contact with it. If I donate a thousand dollars of my own money for the establishment of justice, that thousand dollars absorbs the sacredness of justice. As long as it was in my pocket, it was merely one thousand dollars. When I negate it in the way of justice, it is affirmed in another form, because it transforms into the essence of justice. Or for example, we have some money and we feed a group of poor people. If feeding the poor has

the attribute of sacredness, the amount of money which has come out of our pocket for the feeding develops a particular value. In otherworlds, it develops a non-monetary value and adopts a spiritual value. If we had spent the same amount of money for promulgation of spiritual food, [for example, for] the writing, translating, of publishing of a book, the money finds a new value depending on how sacred the act in question is. In other words, the money negates its existence in a sense, but obtains a new existence and value. In fact, money is an external measure of energy and power. If it is spent on ``partying,`` the energy develops a profane value or, as some may think, a sacred value! Money is like kerosene or gasoline, which can be used to move a machine or to light a lamp. Once it is spent and once it is burned, it turns into a spiritual energy, depending upon the purpose for which it has vanished. What is spent does not have an

independent value. The value belongs to me who has spent it. That amount of money was a part of me. Thus the sanctity of the cause for which the money is spent reflects on me. Its value comes back to me. I earn it; because that amount of money was a portion of my existence. The hundred dollars that I have paid for the cause of justice transforms itself into ``the sanctity of justice.`` The sanctity of justice is transformed into ``the money,`` that is to say, something absolutely materialistic and economic. Likewise, if it is spent for feeding the poor, the value of such feeding transports its value to the money

spent. But the same amount of money, once spent for filthy partying, does not adopt a value. It rather becomes less than its materialistic value.

At this point, we reach a principle: ``everything obtains a similar value to that for which it has been spent.`` As it is negated, it is affirmed. In other words, as its existence is negated, its value is affirmed. In self-annihilation, it reaches the permanence of the purpose, provided that the purpose is something permanent, such as an ideal, a value, freedom, justice, charity, thought, or knowledge. Money, once spent for the sake of knowledge, goes out of one`s pocket and becomes zero; but at the same time it changes into the values of knowledge for which it is spent. Just as money is a part of my existence, so my existence, my animal life, my instinct, and my time are parts of me. Suppose I spent an hour of my time to earn money. Because the earning of money has no value, the one hour cannot obtain any value, because I have sacrificed that hour for the sake of what does not have value or sanctity. But if I spent the same hour teaching someone something or guiding him without charging him anything, I have sacrificed that hour for a value. That hour takes on the value of the cause for which that hour was spent.

A Shahid is the one who negates his whole existence for the sacred ideal in which we all believe. It is natural then that all the sacredness of that ideal and goal transports itself to his existence. True, that his existence has suddenly become non-existent, but he has absorbed the whole value of the idea for which he has negated himself. No wonder then, that he, in the mind of the people, becomes sacredness itself. In this way, man becomes absolute man, because he is no longer a person, an individual. He is ``thought.`` He had been an individual who sacrificed himself for ``thought`` Now he is ``thought`` itself. For this reason, we do not recognize Husayn as a particular person who is the son of Ali. Husayn is a name for Islam, justice, imamat, and divine unity. We do not praise him as an individual in order to evaluate him and rank him among shuhada. This issue is not relevant. When we speak of Husayn, we do not mean Husayn as a person. Husayn was that individual who negated himself with absolute sincerity, with the utmost magnificence within human power, for an absolute and sacred value. From him remains nothing but a name. His content is no longer an individual, but is a thought. He has transformed himself into the very school [for which he has negated himself].

An individual who becomes a shahid for the sake of a nation, and thus obtains sacredness, earns this status. In the opinion of the ones who do not recognize a nation as the sum of individuals, but recognize it as a collective spirit above the individuals, a shahid is a spiritual crystallization of that collective spirit which they call ``nation.`` Likewise, when an individual sacrifices himself for the sake of knowledge, he is no longer an individual. He becomes knowledge itself. He becomes the shahid of knowledge. We praise liberty through an individual who has given himself to liberty; we do not praise ``him`` because he was a good person. This is not of course in contradiction with the fact that, from God`s perspective, he is still an individual, and in the hereafter, he will have a separate destiny and account. But in the society, and by the criterion of our school, we do not praise him as an individual; we praise the thought, the sacred. At this point, the meaning of the word ``shahid`` is all the more clear.

When the belief in a sacred school of thought is gradually eroding, is about to vanish or be forgotten in a new generation due to a conspiracy, suddenly an individual, by negating himself, re-establishes it. In other words, he calls it back again to the scene of the world. By sacrificing his existence, he affirms the [thitherto] vanishing existence of that ideal. For this reason, he is shahid (witness, present) and mashhud (visible). He is always in front of us. The thought also obtains presence and permanence through him. It becomes revived and obtains a soul again.”

And suddenly Premji has been told to be on his guard. ``And that is a bit worrying,`` he says, not even making any conscious references to the enormous wealth that he has created (he holds 75 per cent stock in the company and none of his family members are on the board of directors) across the world. I was told that even when he travels abroad (he flies business on long hauls, economy on domestic tours), he even packs a travel iron and detergent powder to wash clothes on his own. He is not comfortable with branded wear (I could not make out what brand his blue shirt was, considering that I turned up in an Allen Solly and a Ralph Martin tie). His wristwatch was Indian -- no fancy Swiss brands. Even his shoes were ordinary. Where in the world does one hide his billions of Rupees if you are not going to live it in true aristocratic extravagance?

But, Premji is of a different stock (his late father even refused Pakistan leader Jinnah`s tempting offer to make him finance minister during the Partition). ``I have to keep the Indian flag flying high in the world,`` he says. And the colours of the rainbow in the company`s sunflower brand (designed by a Paris-based designer Sen Gupta) are an expression of his faith in globalising his strengths.

If the man is not affected by the lure of the lucre, he must be indeed a great man. And therein lies the strength of this white haired classical music buff and mountain trekker. Like most billionaires we hear, including Rockefeller, Gates and Hughes, Premji is a man of few words (at least with the media). He has employed public relations personnel who do a good job of stonewalling. While he is obsessed with quality, integrity and excellence (which pay him richly), he is also an unfortunate victim of his own wealth: uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. At the end of the day, what matters is dear life. ``At the moment I am rather concerned about the security to my family,`` says Premji, standing atop the tenth floor opposite the Taj Residency Hotel on a balmy evening but his feet firmly on the ground. Terra firma. ``Not to worry, Mr Premji, you`ll be fine,`` I tell him. ``Smile, say cheese,`` bawls our Delhi lensman Bandeeep Singh. Smile. Click. Over. And the world`s richest Indian, takes a brisk walk, back to his 90-hour-a-week regimen.



(Stephen David is a Principal Correspondent with INDIA TODAY. He is based in Bangalore. Write to Stephen David)

This could be a way forward,

Pak, India plan to protect basmati jointly

Islamabd

(IANS)

PAKISTAN AND India are considering joining hands to thwart the United States` bid to capture a patent on a strain of basmati rice, senior government officials here said.

A team of British scientists from Nottingham University is conducting a DNA test on the genetic composition of basmati as U.S. authorities are trying to prove that their `Texmati` is the real basmati, not the variety grown in the subcontinent.

My dear PM,

Thank you for the two posts. A country`s destiny can be changed by a few. Wish you a role in it.

Regards and best wishes.

Jayaprakash.

Dear Rehan:

Your statement: “If we ask a Pakistani belonging to the masses who is probably slaving in a carpet shop or laden bent-backed as a porter struggling through the market that does he prefer a democratic System of government, he will probably say – “I bloody don’t care. .!!”

Comment: In this statement, you have captured an important dimension of Pakistani politics and society. However, in an attempt to discard democracy you seem to imply/hypothesize that democracy is inappropriate for: (1) the people who are unable to define democracy; (2) the societies where some social groups remain indifferent toward politics/democracy; (3) the societies that are different from the Western nations/societies in terms of religion, culture, morals, ethics, and socio-political and economic problems.

These hypotheses/implications need to be informed by the theory and practice of democracy (and any alternative political system) in both Western and non-Western societies (particularly in Pakistan). Shouldn’t we first try to adequately understand a political system before we simply discard it? Please comment.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

AI(#29): The dominant discourse in Pakistan has almost always been a zero-sum game; either win or lose. They do not think of non-zero-sum, win-win policies--be it Siachin, Kargil, Kashmir, Afghanistan, education, economy or democracy. In Pakistan: If politicians win, banks lose; if Generals win, democracy loses; if mullahs win, humanity loses; if Islamists win, Pakistan loses and if Taliban win, women lose. Both India and pakistan have been playing zero-sum bilateral win-lose game and end up in a lose-lose situation.

PM (#30): There are no such things as worth dying for whiile there are plenty of things worth living for. Such phrases were invented for marketing or propaganda tools by the elite to dupe the masses into sacrificing for elite-beneficial (read noble) causes.

Being alive is once-in-the-lifetime-of-the- universe opportunity and every effort should me made to prolong it as much as possible.

re. jay#26

``Just post your interpretation of why death is so much prime news in pakistan, death in other countries, far and wide. That is the only way to stoke the jihadic fires...``

Here`s one possible interpretation: Maybe it`s because there are still people in Pakistan and elsewhere who still believe there are things worth dying and killing for -- and not only when their oil supply or self-serving economic world order is threatened.

Whether or not what they`re fighting for is really just, or whether fighting is indeed the best means to those ends, are separate issues more in the intellectual realm rather than moral.

but since you asked...

regards,

PM

STRONG ECONOMIC MEDICINE COMING

``If a part of your body is infected you don t simply cut it off and throw it away- No - you try and cure it - you try and fight the infection. Likewise consider that the body of Pakistan has some infected parts and you being Pakistanis and being part of it has a duty not to simply detach yourself and think that others will solve it and disown Pakistan``...

- Well that is precisely being planned for Pakistan !. The country is probably being readied for the ``strong economic medicine`` prepared by the IMF. The house is going to be set on fire and then they will come in to extinguish the blaze. The scam is meant to make nice money for them and the people of Pakistan will be left with more impoverished people, more industries closed down and more and more forced bankruptcies....They will pick up the choice assets at bargain basement prices and we remain happy that they will bring investment and technology and nice cushy jobs for chachas and mamas. I think we have to rise up as a nation, reinvent ourselves, order our priorties, get our education system going...

Yesterday on Indian news, I saw a clip about a delegation of Pakistani women on a peace mission to India. What struck me most forcibly was the comment by an English speaking, apparently well-to-do member that peace talks with Pakistan were essential otherwise ``...WE would go, but India would have to bear the repercussions``.

And it is true, maybe, that there are two Pakistan locked in a final battle with each other. The one which is well-educated, elite and forward-looking, and the other Pakistan which they dread: uneducated, deprived and angry.

-narain