Mecca or Mohenjodaro?

Believe me Sahai ... you are living under some false pretexts .... Lahore`s streets were never empty when Doordarshan aired mahabaharata. As a matter of fact it was one of the most boring shows on TV. With Indian Movies you have a case but ``Mahabaharata`` ... I never remember ever keeping it on for more than three minutes. A lot of people in Lahore wont even know what Maabaharata is !!!

If you never been to Pakistan please dont make assumptions!!!!!!!

All this hear say is nothin but ....

I ll tell you how our heritage is different.

In our History books Muhammad bin Qasim and Mahmud Ghaznavi are heroes ... and by the way these are the Indo pakistani history books I was taught in a British school.

The whole perspective changes. Mahabaharata is far from our heritage.Please take your Hindu pride somewhere else....

For a constructive statement from me please refer to my earlier post!

Pakistan Zindabad

Quaid e Azam zindabad,

Jiye Bhutto

-Yasser Hamdani

In fact whole of the article has been written without any respect for any logic or reasoning.

Take Mr Azams argument on Urdu being the language of Pakistan and Islam. He quotes Jinnah in his defence :

// * We are a nation with our own distinctive culture and civilization, language ….. *//

Which language was Jinnah talking about – Sindhi, Punjabi, Bengali, Urdu or what ?. He himself mostly spoke English

Urdu is an Indian language spoken by common people. This is the same language known as Hindustani. Urdu was the name given to it by the Moghul rulers because they called it the language of common masses. Like all live languages Urdu has borrowed words from Farsi, Arabic, Sanskrit and other languages. Urdu grammer has nothing in common with Arabic or Farsi grammer. The grammer is almost same as Hindi, Punjabi and other languages of the same lineage. Being written in Farsi script does not change the language. In Pakistan even Punjabi is written in that script whereas in India it is written in Gurmukhi script. During the British period the Indian army wrote Hindustani in Roman script.

In Pakistan Urdu is the mother Tongue of a minority which migrated to Pakistan from certain other parts of India. These are the people who after more than 50 years of Pakistan’s existence are even today known as Muhajirs ( I think that means Refugees). Urdu is not the Language of Lahore but of Lucknow. When I was a child my whole village (in Indian Punjab) used to listen to ‘Radio Lahore’ every evening because they spoke the most beautiful Punjabi. No doubt sections of educated elite use Urdu to be different from the ‘commoners’ just as in Indian Punjab such people try to use ‘Hindi’ (And both these elites are replacing these languages with English very very fast)

By Mr Azams logic all those Sufi Saints who wrote beautiful poetry in Punjabi were not true muslims.

He disowns Mohanjodaro because it may have associations with India.

He is more at ease with Baabar, Gazni or King Faisal for his heritage rather than Baba Nanak, Baba Farid or Bulley Shah.

It is such fanaticism and bigotry of people like Mr Azam which inspired a Punjabi poet (A Pakistani Punjabi poet) to write:

Aao aapaaaN ik saudaa kareeye

TusiN aapney Gazni lai Lao

TusiN aapney Baabar lai lao

Saarey dhaaRhvee jaabar lai lao

Saanoo saadey Mirzey dey dio

Saanoo saadey Dulley dey dio

Waaris Shah tey Bulley dey dio

(

Let us make a deal

You have your Gaznis, You have your Baabars, You have all the Invaders and Tyrants

Give us our Mirzas, Give us our Dullas (Dulla Bhatti), Give us our Waaris Shah and Bulley Shah

)

Can anyone comment about Bulleh Shah? Was he a religious figure and part of a `Pakistani` tradition?

In a popular Hindi song

``Beshak mandir masjid todo, Bulleh Shah yeh kehta,

Par pyar bharaa di kabhi na todo, jis dil mein dilbar rahtaa``

Sadhana

Just like to add the following to Bilal Ahmad’s response #19

Why is it that Urdu speaking Pakistanis living abroad feel culturally closer to Hindi speaking Indians (whether they be Hindus, Muslims or Bhuddists)rather than Arabs or Iranians or African Muslims? Punjabis from Zahra’s Lahore feel at ease with Sardars of East Punjab who are Sikhs…Why don’t they seek out Muslims from Turkey, or Lebanon, Or Egypt, or any other place with a “Muslim” culture?

Look at chowk, why is it that we don`t have Jordanians, for example, discussing ``Islamic`` culture with us? Why did RMS Azam approach chowk to publish his rebuttal of Mr. Mufti`s thesis? Why didn`t he publish this on a Sudanese site?

The article is another attempt by the beleagured, down but not out elite of the Pakistani establishment to give some legitimacy to the rocky foundations for its reason to be. This is the same elite that discusses the relative merits and demerits of Bharat Natyam and Manipuri in its drawing rooms. They have no qualms in showing their collection of Gandhara artifacts to all and and sundry and then waxing eloquent about the cultural messages emanating from each of the carefully preserved pieces. This is the same elite that sings the praises of the Indian Civil services in the days of the Raj and the ``rot`` that has set in the land of the pure today. All this over bottles of Johny Walker drowning out the voices of Muezzin in the background. For the trodden down masses all that is left is the ``musalla`` and some fixed cricket matches on the telly. Let the sages duke it out on Chowk and let me go play Polo!!

Dear RMS Azam:

Your statement: “. . . in the context of Pakistan, the Islamic culture is the dominant culture whereas the other culture, the Indian culture, is an indominant [subordinate?] culture, or rather a sub-culture.”

Comment: Assuming that “culture” means a “way of life,” it is somewhat demeaning to suggest that the Pakistani way of life is predominantly Islamic. I think, the culture of Pakistan (which consists of several semi-autonomous subcultures) is a product of the interplay of divergent social forces and practices. Is Pakistan still struggling for her cultural/national identity? If yes, why? Perhaps the answer lies in our linear way of looking at the world around us.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I (a la Marx) consider Pakistan as a social formation. The notion of social formation helps us to avoid the kind of problems identified and replicated by RMS Azam in his article.

zahra (#21)

``Is it a natural tendency to assume that everything a Pakistani writes is related to India somehow or other?``

Am I wrong in this case? When the author says Mohenjedaro or the Indus Valley Civilzation, is he not really referring to India (a name which comes from Indus by the way)? Otherwise, why is it an issue? The Turks are non-Arabic Muslims and I`m not aware of anyone questioning their cultural identity. The same can be said for the Iranians. Why so with the Pakistanis?

You may not want to admit it but you are in a tough spot (and I think most of the latest generation of Pakistanis know this) because if you renounce the ideas of the author, then you fall back on a culture which is identical and shared with those hated desis accross the border, the indians. if you embrace the ideas of the author, you fall into a very narrow frame of mind which forces you to revise and supress your history, indoctrinate each new generation with ``official state`` history, and alienate your society to a far greater extent then poverty or war. To see evidence of the latter, just look at the current state of affairs.

Now a question for you: ``Eventhough I am an Indian, is it possible that what I say is true?``

Regards,

Harish

A commentary,

The post by mukalaff # 22 is a fitting post script to the original article. The article sort of provides the rationale, while the post is a time line of how the TNT has evolved.

It is time for the minority pakistanis to accept the reality. A country created by the TNT for the TNT so that TNT shall flourish through out the world cannot afford to waste resources teaching engineering and IT. All that is needed to sustain and nourish TNT is in the book.

Mr Azam, educated in england is an ideal candidate to open the eyes of the few chowk pakistanis, education in no way implies the abrogation of TNT in ones life, it gives modern paradigms to interpret the TNT.

A good example is the gun culture in pakistan. I have read many stating the it is part of the tribal culture, and apparently this view has won the day. The reality is tribal culture is carrying may be bows and arrows, may be daggers. The educated of pakistan have interpreted that the culture is carrying AK47s, and need to be preserved.

One can imagine the situation in India, the sikhs upgrading their kripans to M16 and the Gurkhas their kukhry to AK 47, all in the name of culture.

The tragedy of pakistan is that it is a country created on hatred, quite a hostile ambience for any one to think, even education loses its relevance. Pakistanis cannot think, they can only react to events in india.

I have read more articles in pak newspaper about security council seat for india than in any indian papers. For the indians it is only an outcome, a recognition of the country and not a tag that one strives to get. Pkaistanis can only react.

Or talk of the POI, person of indian origin card, quickly pakistan has come out with a similar one, similar name. Sorry, where was pakistan before 1947. Time for the chowk pakistanis to think along TNT and make a contribution to pakistan, rather than being mere bystanders to a jihadic pakistan.

MURIDKE or MALIHABAD (or MANHATTAN)


Wonder if the writer knows the shaheed Indian freedom fighter who used the initials RMS
with Azad as a nom de guerre?

Since the author is missing in action thus far let me sum up.

Ferozk #1, iahmad #3, SameerJB #3, Mujnooh #6, nsuleman #7, Zahra #12 sigalph #8 & 14, baloch1 #17bahmad #19, scout #23, aikrindd #24 and sahai #25 have generally spoken against Mr. Azam.

farangi #10, shamyl #11, and sherdil #16 have generally supported Mr. Azam.

My views? I will be a recusant. In all fairness this is a critique -----”This article is being written as a rejoinder to the thesis presented by the Pakistani writer and thinker, Uxi Mufti, entitled ``Roots of National Identity``.``

Whoever made the assumption that all of us are familiar with ‘Roots of National Identity’ erred badly.

Not being ‘privy’ to this article I cannot ascertain in all fairness the context of quotes Mr. Azam lifted from there.

Noting that Mr.Azam is a lawyer of some sort in Lahore I was struck by an irony. He does not mention the legal dichotomy in Pakistan. The prevalent confusion over the primacy. We have the Sharia, Hudood, Tribal (Biradari) and their various incarnations and clones of Government of India Act 1935. And their direct and indirect effect on the cultural mixed bag (khichri).

regards

rms temporal

Dawn, The Magazine: May 7, 2000

http://www.dawn.com/weekly/dmag/dmag1.htm

In Search of Identity

By Mubarak Ali

SINCE its inception Pakistan has faced the monumental task of formulating its national identity separate from India. Partitioned from the ancient civilization of India, Pakistan has struggled to construct its own culture; a culture not just different and unique from India, but one appreciable by the rest of the world.

The overshadowing image of the Indian civilization also haunted the founders of Pakistan, who channeled their efforts in making the differences between India and Pakistan more tangible and obvious.

The fundamental difference between India and Pakistan was based on the Two Nation theory, strengthening Pakistan`s Islamic identity. At the same time, a necessity was felt to outline the geographic differences between India and Pakistan. It was pointed out that West Pakistan had always remained a separate region geographically and historically, and, therefore, it had to be autonomous. Recently, Aitezaz Ahsan in his book The Indus Saga and the Making of Pakistan has emphasised the geographical and historical exclusiveness of Pakistan from the Indian subcontinent.

The collapse of Russia and the emergence of Central Asian Republics inspired most intellectuals and government circles to revive the cultural links with Central Asia. There have been a number of newspaper articles tracing the cultural relationship between Pakistan and Central Asia, claiming that Pakistani people have more affinity with the Central Asians rather than with the Indians.

In its initial years, the ideology of Pakistan was conceptualized in national terms rather than religious because it was the country (division between East and West Pakistan) and not Islam that was in danger. However, religion remained a strong basis of Pakistan`s ideology. In 1971, Radio Pakistan broadcast the speeches of eleven eminent scholars on the Ideology of Pakistan with the purpose of providing ``an analysis of the recent happenings in East Pakistan and expose the designs of anti- Pakistan forces, who have been conspiring since long to strike at the very roots of our nationhood``

The tragedy of 1971 brought a shock to the people and also a heavy blow to the ideology of Pakistan. Under those circumstances, it was believed that the ideology of Pakistan was misused by the ruling classes and never implemented in its true spirit. More or less convinced of their Islamic heritage and identity, Pakistan`s government and intelligentsia consciously attempted to Islamize the country. Historically, the process of Islamization was the outcome of the promises and declarations of the Muslim League leadership, which had vowed to put in place an Islamic system in Pakistan. Therefore, after the creation of Pakistan, it was logical to make Pakistan an Islamic state as it was achieved on the basis of religious nationalism. However, a few days before the physical Partition had to take place, Jinnah delivered his famous speech to the Constituent Assembly on August 11. The secular tone of the address created problems in the Muslim League leadership as well as in the circle of bureaucracy. An attempt was, therefore, made to censor Jinnah`s speech. This, however, failed.

After the passage of the Objective Resolution in 1949, it was argued that the Resolution automatically repudiated Jinnah`s speech as it provided the Islamic basis to the new country. However, later on more arguments were given to reject this speech. It is said that the speech was just an `aberration` ; and delivered at a time when Jinnah was very sick. However, in spite of all such arguments, the speech is used by the secularists to put the conservative elements at bay.

Liaquat`s attempt to make Objective Resolution the preamble of the constitution, setting up the Board of Islamic Teaching in order to advise the Basic Principles Committees on the Islamic aspects of the constitution was the use of Islam to strengthen centralization and to curb provincialism. At this stage, though, the bureaucracy remained in opposition to the ulema and resisted to recognize them as the final authority in matters of politics and administration. That is why the proposal to establish the Ministry of Religious Affairs was rejected in order not to give them any space in the sphere of administration.

The history of islamization can be traced to the Bhutto era when he attempted to set up the Ministry of Religious Affairs and coming up with a Haj policy by terminating the lottery system. The process was further accelerated after the general elections of 1977 when the opposition launched a countrywide campaign against Bhutto. The slogan of Nizam-e-Mustafa and Bhutto`s counter-balancing efforts are major marks in that direction.

Zia-ul-Haq furthered the process to buy legitimacy for his military regime. The element of communal and sectarian hatred in today`s society are a direct consequence of the laws that the dictator had put in place.

Contrary to expectations, the process of Islamization did not stop after Zia. Benazir in her two tenures maintained the status quo, while Nawaz Sharif added his own bit, like mandating death penalty to the Blasphemy Law.

The happenings on the Islamization front, in fact, shed light on the intentions of the country`s leadership, the way it has used Islam to its convenience and requirements. With the failure of the ruling classes to deliver the goods to the people, religion was exploited to cover up corruption and bad governance. Moreover, the process of Islamization not only supports but protects the fundamentalists in their attempts to terrorize and harass society in the name of religion. There are published accounts of the kind of menace that is spread by religious schools run by these fundamentalists. The political failure of the ruling classes is giving them further hope that the time is not far when they would be at the helm of affairs, like their counterparts did in Iran and Afghanistan.

In any ideological state, efforts are made not only to protect the ideology, but also to disseminate it. Therefore, the state indoctrinates through media and education. The same process is being followed in Pakistan. Zia-ul-Haq, during his military dictatorship, coined the phrase ``geographical and ideological boundaries`` and made it the responsibility of his government to defend the same from external and internal enemies. This declaration made all secular and liberal-minded people enemies of the countries. They were warned again and again of severe consequences in case of any violation of the Ideology of Pakistan.

To make the young generation conscious of the Pakistani ideology, the University Grants Commission of Pakistan made Islamic Studies and Pakistan Study compulsory subjects at all levels of the education system, even for the professional students. The Zia government also made the two subjects compulsory for `O` an `A` level students. This gave the government an opportunity to teach the students its own version of history, especially the Pakistan ideology, which is described as something like this: ``The struggle was for the establishment of a new Islamic state and for the attainment of independence. It was the outcome of the sincere desire of the Muslims of the subcontinent who wanted Islam to be accepted as the ideal pattern for an individual`s life, and also as the law to bind the Muslims into a single community.``

In asserting this identity, Pakistan is in a state of dilemma: in case of rejection of the ideology, it has to repudiate the very basis of its separation from India; to keep and preserve the ideology means to alienate the non-Muslim minorities to become a part of the Pakistani nationhood.

On the other hand, as the ideology has been used by successive political and military leaderships for their own domination by means of maintaining over-centralization, it has disillusioned the small provinces. They see the ideology as a tool that is used to snatch their political rights and to deprive them of their regional and cultural identity. The alternative that is suggested by some Pakistani scholars is to reconstruct the Pakistani identity on the basis of territorial, rather than religious, nationalism.

Hamza Alavi has rightly suggested that by doing so, ``we will free ourselves from our present day hang-ups about the so-called Pakistan ideology and its confusing appeal to religion, which only has effect of promoting vicious sectarian conflict``. So true, but who cares?

The article brings up a lot of stuff which is just plain misleading.

The references to the Americas are particularly misleading. Contrary to the article`s insinuations, people in the Americas generally give a lot of weight to the culture of their ancestors. Most people in the USA are originally from Europe, and so you will find that aspects of European culture permeate their every move. Europe may have been converted to Christianity between 1 and 2 thousand years ago, but that doesn`t meant that people have disavowed their own culture. For example, just today NBC started a miniseries based on ``Jason and the Argonauts.`` Schoolchildren read the Illiad and the Odyssey. Zeus and Hera are recognized by the people even though practically nobody here worships them anymore. But it is a part of their European heritage along with Druids, Ghosts, Vampires, Gnomes, Elves, Pixies, Faeries, Valkyries, etc. Watch TV sometime or hang around during Halloween and you`ll see them all. None of this takes away from their religion.

Latin America is not that different. Villages with Native blood will continue to tell stories from pre-Christian days and have incorporated elements even into their Christian worship. I remember after the 1989 San Francisco earthquake, some of the workers refused to work on the Bay Bridge without installing a guardian statue first. It`s still there I believe.

The point is that changing religion doesn`t have to mean abandoning your culture. This remains true even in many Islamic countries. Look at Indonesia and Malaysia. A few years ago, Indonesia`s official entry in the Tournament of Roses parade in Los Angeles was a Float depicting scenes from the Ramayana. They have their own version of the Ramayana and Mahabharata and consider them a part of their culture. It doesn`t matter to them that many people in India worship Lord Rama and Krishna just as it doesn`t bother most people in the USA that some people used to worship God Zeuss or Poseidon.

I`ve never visited Pakistan, but from what I was told, the streets of Lahore were as empty as those of Delhi when India`s Doordarshan aired the Mahabharata. It makes sense. The Mahabharata is as much a part of Pakistan`s cultural heritage as it is for India.

On to more minor things. Any linguist will tell you that while spoken Farsi or Urdu might have borrowed a few words from Arabic, neither is ``derived from Arabic.`` Both are Indo-European languages though from different branches. Farsi is a descendant of Avesta while Urdu traces its history back to Sanskrit and Prakrit. Besides, languages don`t have religions, people do.

Conflating things together and setting up false dichotomies doesn`t do anybody any good.

I would like to dissect Mr. Azam`s argument a bit more though severeal Chowkies (SameerJB, Mujnooh, Zara etc.) have already pointed out the inconsistencies Mr. Azam wishes to overlook in the `Islamic` zeal.

First of all, historically, the Latin American, Australian and American examples are not parallel with Pakistan and the subcontinent. The former`s `indigenous` culture has been overtaken by Christianity mostly because of migrant populations that settled there and either mixed in with the locals or pressed them out as non-entities thereby establishing their own culture as the dominant one. In the subcontinent, there was no migration nor an easing out of any people. Muslims were converts who retained most of their hindu ancestors rituals of living (as an aside: muslims of the subcontinent didn`t borrow anything from the hindus- they merely RETAINED their hindu heritage). Islam added it`s own tinges and flavors to the culture. It did not and has not displaced it. Mr. Azam makes it seem as if we can only choose one: Mohenjodaro (symbolizing the larger indus culture) or Mecca. Muslims are neither. And attempts to impose one over the other will inevitably fail.

Question for Mr. Azam: You say you are more impressed by the elegant domes of mosques, rather than the `ruins` of Mohenjodaro. If that is one of your `basis` for the argument for the necessity of choosing one over another, then I am more impressed by the glittering glarring neon lights of Las Vegas and the West rather than the blaring minarets of mosques. Should I now reject my muslim heritage?

It is interesting to see the Muslim`s mentality. I mean the subcontinental Muslim`s. On the one hand they are physicaly `indian` in every sense. But at the same time, they also FEEL the connection with Muslims elsewhere in the world. Mr. Azam`s `nationalist-like` references with regards to Islam are valid to this extent. But he manipulates it by saying that with this `islamic-nationalism`, we should naturally ignore the indigenous values. These self-righteous outburts are filled with insincerety to the muslims of the subcontinent. But the Muslims will always be blamed by both the hindu fanatics who blame them as having become `arabized` and the muslim fanatics who blame them as being not muslim enough. The dual (indian-muslim) mentality will always exist among the muslims of subcontinent. And Fanatics will always try to sway the mind to one side and thus weaken the subcontinental muslim.

Either we take the dual mentality, voice it, accept it, believe in it and make it a strength OR we can allow these fanatics to run us over with their self-righteous spit. When Qaid-e-Azam says `we have our own outlook on life and of life` he rejects a purely `arab` culture as well as rejecting a purely `hindu` culture. It is a distinct one. Amir Khusrao and Sultan Bahu and Faiz and Noor Jehan are the beautiful products of the synthesis achieved by Islam fusing in with the local indian heritage. And it is a synthesis very much present in the majority and, I believe, strong enough to withstand the onslaughts of one-sided fanatics` minority.

PS) I would appreciate it if somone could tell me how I can access Uxi Mufti`s articles/books as well as Mr. Dani`s.

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

which came first? Religion or culture?

same question, same answer

BOTTOM LINE: RELIGION AND CULTURE GO HAND IN HAND, INSEPARABLE ENTITIES. SO LIVE WITH IT AND STOP ARGUING ABOUT IT.

fussy people, sheeshhhhh!

a message for FARANGI KUSH: undue anger and bitterness towards people with different ideas only breeds hatred, negativity, and no productivity. hating the english alphabet won`t get you anywhere. if it irks you so much, why don`t you work on an Urdu script Chowk, or just plain retaliate and write your messages in roman urdu.

harish (Post # 13):-

Is it a natural tendency to assume that everything a Pakistani writes is related to India somehow or other ?

Or it is a given ? I assume you follow the latter and take it as a given. Please correct me if I am making a wrong assumption on your behalf.

If I am not, then i would sincerely like to enlighten you that it`s not the case. You need to broaden your horizon.

Take Care

As far as the question of secular vs Islamic is ... I believe an Islamic State would essentially have to be secular. If we are to say Pakistan should be a secular state ... we are not denying that Islam has a strong cultural impact. However much like the United States where its christianity and I am sure Mr Azam will agree with me... Pakistan`s civic religion will be Islam or otherwise the state will indulge in benign neglect .....

I absolutely agree with what the writers says ...

and I cant help it ... I have to quote Zulfikar Ali Bhutto at this inauguration of the PPP in 1967 ....

``Our slogan has Islam, because that parties who does not include Islam in their slogan is not a Pakistani party.

Islam is our religion, Democracy is our Polity

Socialism is our Economy and all power to the people``

As for people like Jay ....

I have just one thing to SAY ...

PAKISTAN IS HERE TO STAY INSHALLAH ... SO DEAL WITH IT!!!!!!!

and leave us alone!!!!!!

Dear Chowkwallas:

After a casual reading, I am unable to form an opinion about the power of RMS Azam’s rebuttal of Uxi Mufti’s thesis. Let me provide an example to explain my difficulty.

RMS Azam states: “No other religion in the world, except Judaism, has the ‘nationalistic’ feature of belonging to one nation. Indeed the Qur’an says that the Muslim community, the Ummah, is one.”

I have no problem with the notion of Ummah (Muslim brotherhood; Muslim nation; Muslim imagined community). I am, however, somewhat puzzled by the way the word of Allah/God concerning the Ummah has been actually and legally rejected/constrained by the present Saudi regime. Why the Saudis do not recognize our right to enter the so-called Saudi Arabia without a passport and/or visa? Why, after living and/or working in the Saudi Arabia, an overwhelming majority of Muslims of foreign origin are not entitled to the Saudi nationality? Why even children born in Saudi Arabia are not entitled to the Saudi Arabian nationality? Aren’t we a part of the Ummah? And, why the birthplace of Islam is called “Saudi” Arabia? May be there is a difference between the ideology/imagination and reality?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad