Should Pakistan Honor the Lahore Resolution?

ON NATIONAL INTEGRATION: I

I wrote this article with the intention that we shall debate the issues of national integration and their political resolution. To take advantage of the fact this article will take some time to disappear from the computer screen, I will introduce ideas from existing published works. Zia Jullandhuri (1990) writes:

“Irrespective of the fact whether a nation is young or old, it has to constantly endeavour to promote understanding and cohesion among its people. It is a continuous process and no nation can afford to ignore this basis requirement. In one respect, it is easier for old nations to promote National Integration, because of old traditions, heritage and history. But even so, goals continue to change, ideologies get transformed and circumstances within and beyond the country, may require a fresh look at the established premises and patterns. By far now countries like, Pakistan, in the absence of National Integration, the very basis of their existence can be challenged.”

Comment: The goal of promoting understanding and cohesion is important. The idea of taking a fresh look is also important. I also agree that National Integration is a much needed objective and the absence of it might challenge our national raison d’etre.

In my next post, I will inform what Jullandari’s proposes in this regard.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Source: Jullandari, Z. (1990). “Aspects of National Integration” in Hussain, R. M. and Azam, I. (eds.). “Pakistan 2000 A.D.” Islamabad: The Pakistan Futuristic Foundation and Institute.

In response to fairdinkum (Reply # 294)
Dear Fairdinkum:

Altaf Husain (as per your clipping) asks: Does the 1973 constitution define or describe the correct definition or meaning of Pakistan ideology? An adequate answer of this question may or may not be found from a careful perusal of the Constitution. I suspect, the Constitution is silent about it (otherwise Altaf would not have raised this question).

Fairdinkum, the correct answer of the first question would be either yes or no or maybe. You maintain that “the correct definition of Pakistan’s ideology is: Might is Right!” To understand the power of this statement, we may need to understand that official Pakistani ideology is under a crisis. This is an argument that Najam Sethi had made in his New Delhi speech. I think, my whole emphasis on the “dominant” and “alternative discourses” also revolves around a crisis of Pakistan ideology (see “Pakistan: A Failed State?”

The meaning of the word ideology is frequently debated. Scholars have suggested scores of definitions, and each of them has been challenged and contradicted. Scholars do not even agree on whether ideology is a positive, negative, or neutral feature of modern society. In a few societies, particularly the United States, a lot of people tend not to view political issues ideologically. Impatient with theoretical arguments, they consider ideologies idealistic and impractical concepts. Yet the can’t escape from some sort of ideological undercurrents. This is also true with a lot of budding Pakistani elite who tend to remain under American influences. In short, we know that political theory gives us statements of objectives by which to guide our actions and to assess our accomplishments.

I want to identify six main properties of ideology. First, ideology is an essentially political term which means that it is neither value-free not conflict-free. Second, ideology consists of a view of the present and a vision of the future. Ideology provides hope. Third, ideology is action-oriented and, thus, provides specific directions about the steps that need to be taken to attain a particular goal. Fourth, ideology is directed toward the masses to motivate them toward a desired goal. Fifth, ideologies are simple expressed for the consumption of common people. Sixth, and finally, ideologies are context-dependent, though they can be applied in other contexts. Examples of a few well-know ideologies are Nazism, Fascism, racism, etc.

If your definition of ideology as “might is right” has some merit, then perhaps a policy of might and right is a part source of our existing difficulties and chaos. I have touched on this issue in somewhat different terms in my above mentioned article. But, chaos is possible under other manifestations of a particular ideology. How about “Pakistan is an Islamic Republic”? This statement is ideological and we know how Islam has long been misused to sustain power and to create the geographies of dominance/subordination and human rights violations. Thanks to Fuzair for drawing attention toward to the notion of “illiberal democracy.”

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

RE: ahmadb #310

Dear Bilal!
Dont flatter yourself; remeber the three strategies?

1. Pavlovian Response
2. Bad Cops
3. Good Cops

Regards

In response to ylh (Replies # 315 and 316)
Dear Yasser:

I am so glad about your good decision. Look this is what I have alway said about you. With minor modification you could turn into a great person. By the way, you are so predictable. I expected you to say ``I don`t wear glasses.`` Good luck!

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

shammi #296 I think you are too negative about the military. Let me present five positive things from the coup:

5. Zardari stays in jail, NS and company are put in jail, a large number of thieves (some of whom disgraced the Pakistani military uniform) are fearful of joining this club of jailbirds.

4. BB/Altaf remain out of Pakistan.

3. The military stood behind it`s chief who happens to be urdu-speaking, and put NS (the great Lahorite) behind bars. The gives the lie to those, like MQM, who would cause divisions among our people. Such actions speak louder than words, and the military deserves great credit for this.

2. Gives rise to community-level democracy (OK, this remains to be seen, but at least they are trying).

1. Peacefully conducts elections (OK, this too remains to be seen, but I am betting this as the likely outcome).

This does not mean that the negative aspects are insignificant, or that the above five actions will address all significant issues. However, my point is - if you get stuck with a lemon, it is better to try and at least make some lemonade.

Re: Umairr #232

I am no admirer of military dictatorships (even ones who grant a limited reprieve to the press). I salute the writing of the miniscule minority in Pakistan who have not yet been completely silenced and are still allowed (for how long, I do not know) to carefully write the truth as they see it(with guarded criticism of their government). In the end, I am convinced that a lot of what is wrong today with Pakistan is due to its military -- including the recent flexing of muscles by the jehadists. The jehadists cannot be tamed by the military -- only a broad-based political party can. The lack of a political process is causing the society fall precipitously close to being hijacked by the jehadists.

“…He (Musharraf) has to ask himself why the international press is writing what it is writing about Pakistan? Could he be a part of the problem? After all that is a genuine question…Most of Pakistan`s troubles are linked not to the political process, as military rulers always insist they are, but to the lack of it. And behind most of the crucial decisions has always lurked the military even when the country has ostensibly been governed by civilian rulers. This is a fact for which one does not need to marshal arguments. From the military pacts in the fifties to the wars against India to the war effort in Afghanistan to the continuing Afghanistan policy to the Kashmir policy to the conflict in Kargil, decisions have been taken by the military and within the narrow calculus of military security. If the media images put more emphasis on Samiul Haq`s seminary rather than on information technology college, it is because Pakistan has gotten itself in a bind because of certain policies that even civilian governments have had to perpetuate because of the military`s interest in them. How can then the country build up on its strengths? “

- Ejaz Haider, The Friday Times, October 27, 2000

“General Musharraf is scared: A partial comparison with Egypt will help to explain this point. President Mubarak has kept democracy away from the country but allowed its socio-political space to be filled by the Islamists. All the courts and teaching institutions are manned by people supporting the militant Islamists who use terrorism to force Egypt to become more Islamic. Mubarak uses force against the militants to keep them down, but there are very few people in Egypt who like what he is doing. The liberals who should love him actually hate him for letting the Islamists rule all state institutions. In Pakistan, the socio-political space has been completely filled by Islamisation, but the fury of the Islamic militant has been dulled by democracy… The army, like other institutions, has been much more Islamised at levels lower than the generals. Its elements interface with the militant Islamists fighting the Kashmir jehad and are leery of the civilian order. After being compelled to overthrow democracy, General Musharraf squarely faces a situation comparable to Mubarak`s with the added irritant of a free press which he has so far allowed to function. If he clamps down on the militant clergy, he might be forced to deploy the army against them. He is scared that the army might not like this war and turn on him instead… Pakistan`s army is not known for the quality of its generals. It is true that they are warriors but the other ingredients, that of vision and intellect, have always been rare. A close look at the articles written by most retired generals who jostle for space in the daily press will disclose the low level of comprehension and innovation that exists in the minds of the military leadership.”

- Khaled Ahmed, The Friday Times, October 27, 2000

and I dont wear glasses :)

To my Indian friends,

Mr Ahmad is right. This quite unrelated to the topic. I have already posted the information up but please if you have any questions or comments please email me at beligible@hotmail.com

ahmadb

Thankyou for your most encouraging comments and I apologize for digressing.

Yasser

CORRECTION:

In my reply to shammi (# 296), I wrote: ``In Pakistan, they are more used to looing inwards.``

The word ``looing`` should read ``looking.`` I am sorry for the typo. Getting old, I suppose.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Umair (Reply # 312)
Dear Umair:

Another interesting post! Could you please explain how this is related to the spirit, purpose, content, and the questions raised in my article?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. I know that you don`t interact with me voluntarily.

I think people need to differentiate between individuals and the communities and institutions they belong to. Putting everyone in one bucket ethnically, provincially or professionally is a big generalization. The most important qualities in a leader are part and parcel of the individual, not the community he/she belongs to nor the training he/she received. The later are important, and do have an effect on one`s character, however they are never the defining factor.

It is also useless to singularly rely on historical factors to reach present day conclusions. History does play a part in developing solutions for present day problems. However, history should never be the deciding factor. Just because something was good or bad twenty years ago, doesn`t necessarily mean it will be good or bad today. People need to get out of living in the past to solve present day problems.

The primary factors behind finding a resolution should be based on present day realities, combined with the available options. It should not be colored with one`s personal biases about ethnicities, provinces, religions and institutions. If a person has decided from the get-go that something or someone or some group is inherently bad or harmful, then they will never be able to come up with a correct unbiased solution to a problem.

One should also know the boundaries of one`s own knowledge about other people(s), institutions, arenas etc. If one`s own knowledge is limited in some capacity, then one should default to someone who has greater knowledge about the subject. Subjective criticism may appeal to a supporting crowd, but it never results in the solution of a problem.

I think if people want to discover solutions for the problems in Pakistan (or in any country), they need to stop crying over spilt milk. They need to look at individuals as individuals, and judge them on thier performance, not on in-built discriminatory biases. Otherwise, a Punjabi will always look bad to a Sindhi, a Sindhi to a Muhajir, a Muhajir to a Pathan, a civlian to a military man, a soldier to a civlian, and on and on.

The criterion for determining the performance of an individual, or a group of individuals, must only be an objective comparison with the rest of the options available at that time. All criticism and analysis should be directed towards this. Generalizations based on factors unrelated to performance basically amount to discrimination.

CHOWKWALLAS:

Please don`t engage in unnesessary and unwarranted Indian-Pakistan cyber war. This approach hurts people and it doesn`t help us in becoming good Indian, good Pakistanis,or good human beings.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to ylh (Reply # 305)
Dear Yasser:

Your statement: ``Bilal Ahmad is your defeatism really doing any good? Is this really intellectualism? I would imagine that when we are accused of things that are untrue you would come to our defense most eloquently... does your reputation as intellectual matter so much that you are willing to undermine the truth?``

Comment: I think, the difference between me and you is basically our age and experience. Please be rest assured that I am no less Pakistani than you. I, however, do not believe in narrow nationalism. In your case, I regret to say, this is what you are victim of.

On many occasions, I have shown my admiration of you and your efforts. You indeed are great and want to possess all the good qualities of Jinnah, Mustafa Kamal Pasha, Z. A. Bhutto, and many others. In my humble opinion, you need to learn where to begin and where to stop.

After reading one or two of you posts about the Sikhs and their Gurdawaras in Pakistan alongwith the responses from others, I developed a pretty good idea where you guys were heading to. I didn`t interject thinking that you may stop yourself.

Let me ask you, humsab, and others: Are you posting information that is in anyway relevant to my article? If not, please stop this. This is a personal request.

I know that I cannot stop you. I also know that, in view of my conviction about the freedom of expression, I ``will not ask`` the Chowk staff to take any action. So, please use discretion.

As far as my defeatism or intellectualism is concerned, I wonder if you are right. I will think about it. At present, I feel that you are overreacting.

Please don`t forget that you wished ``Happy Diwali`` only yesterday.

Let me ask you one final question: Why the Indians treat me differently? Why I am normally spared even by the Chowk`s greatest Pakistani critic ``Jay``? Do you think it is due to my alleged ``defeatism``? Please think.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. As far as I am concerned, I come from a family of fighters (I will not plead you to accept it; you have to clear the fog off from your glasses yourself to see clearly).

and Hamsab one last thing,

Those who know me know that I will never ever give up the Pakistani Passport for any passport... I might be in the US for another 4 to 5 years but that is it... and this is a promise which I had made to myself 2 years ago when I came here first.

Yasser

PS Hum Pakistan mein bhookay nahin mar rahe ....

Please see for yourself.... it is sad how Indians try to make all Sikh and Hindu issues Indian issues whereas in Kashmir it denies the population the right to self determination!

http://khalsa.ihcom.com/news.htm

TITLE:

L. K. Advani and Amritsar-based SGPC make an ass of themselves by attacking the newly formed Pakistan Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee.

Date:

11/12/99

News

Washington, DC: August 25, 99: ``People always overdo the matter when they attempt deception`` is an adage India’s uppity Home Minister L. K. Advani, forgot

when he met the meek SGPC (Sharomani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee) Quislings in India Occupied Punjab, Khalistan, a few weeks ago.

According to Indian press reports, he suggested to the members of the Amritsar-based Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee to nominate an 11-member team

which could meet with Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and demand that Pakistan dissolve the newly constituted Pakistan Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee or

lose the Sikh Jathas which visit Pakistan from time to time. In his desire to create a Sikh/Muslim misunderstanding Advani forgot another adage that; ``We are never

so easily deceived as when we imagine we are deceiving others.``

In this case the ‘enthusiastic’ reporting (reprinted elsewhere in this newspaper; ``SGPC TEAM TO PAKISTAN CLEARED – To ask Sharif about disbanding

PGPC`` from Varinder Walia, Tribune News Service) by the third conspirator, the English Tribune, Chandigarh newspaper of August 19, 1999 exposed the

conspiracy by the obedient reaction of the Badal – dominated SGPC whose spokesperson went to the extend of making an ass of herself by saying that ``SGPC``

could not tolerate the formation of the Pakistan Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee at any cost`` as if Pakistan is beholden to the SGPC. This let the cat out of the bag,

so to speak, and has triggered a sharp response from the prestigious COMMITTEE FOR A VATICAN – LIKE STATUS FOR GURDWARA NANKANA SAHIB,

A US – based interfaith organization, which just held (on August 14, 99) a very successful international convention in New York attended by delegates of the Sikh and

Pakistani Diaspora from all over the world. The Committee’s expose of the SGPC/Advani conspiracy is printed verbatim below so that our readers become aware of

the modus operandi of the crafty Swastika worshipping Brahmins rulers in Delhi who are very concerned about the developing Sikh/Muslim brotherhood so evident

in New York during the international seminar on August 14, 99: -

Committee for Vatican - like Status for Gurdwara Nankana Sahib

958 National Press Bldg., Washington DC 20045 USA

Tel: 202-637-9212: Fax: 703-567-7134

Editor, CHARHDI KALA,

SURREY, BC, CANADA

Sir:

Will be much obliged if you could publish-prominently-the TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN letter of the COMMITTEE appended below. The letter challengers the

impudence, and condemns the shameless audacity, of the latest decision (reported by the English TRIBUNE, Chandigarh in its August 19, 1999 issue) of the

Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) executive committee which met in Guru Nanak Niwas, Amritsar. The SGPC is an Amritsar – based puppet Sikh

organization which after fifty two years of ‘independence’ still remains subservient and a ``slave``, as it is legally answerable to a lowly bureaucrat, the Deputy

Commissioner of Amritsar, and is currently totally beholden to the whims of the feudal Badal gang.

The English TRIBUNE, Chandigarh, and other Punjabi newspapers of Sikh Punjab, report that the SGPC (Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee) in a meeting

held in Amritsar on August 18, 99, 4 days after the very successful August 14 Sikh Diaspora New York meet, decided to give a practical shape to Indian Home

Minister L. K. Advani’s earlier Machiavellian suggestion of nominating 11 delegates who would try to meet Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and serve him

with an ultimatum that he disband the newly formed Pakistan Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee or else. A befitting reply by the COMMITTEE to the Advani/SGPC

mischief, is given below: -

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

August 20, 1999

THE COMMITTEE FOR VATICAN-LIKE STATUS FOR GURDWARA NANKANA SAHIB

CONDEMNS THE SGPC MOVE TO SEND

AN 11 MEMBER TEAM TO DEMAND FROM PAKISTAN PRIME MINISTER NAWAZ SHARIF THAT HE DISBAND THE NEWLY CONSTITUTED

PAKISTAN GURDWARA PRABANDHAK COMMITTEE

The Committee supports the new Pakistan Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee

COMMITTEE FOR VATICAN – LIKE STATUS FOR GURDWARA NANKANA SAHIB, which just organized a very successful international convention – a

first of many – of the 3 million strong Sikh Diaspora, on August 14, 99 in New York, USA, strongly condemns the Badal – controlled Executive Committee of the

Amritsar – based Shromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, for its reported (TRIBUNE, Chandigarh – issue of August 19, 99 – Punjab section) decision to send

an eleven – member delegation to deliver an ultimatum to the Sikh – friendly ``Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, and all concerned, demanding that the newly

constituted Pakistan Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee be disbanded.``

The COMMITTEE assures Sikh – friend Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, and all concerned in Pakistan, of its

appreciation and support for the steps that Pakistan has taken, and may take in the future, to improve the condition of the Sikh Gurdwaras located in Pakistan. It

further recommends to the Pakistan government that visas are denied to the 11-member SGPC delegation of Sikh Quislings and puppets whose intentions are other

than honorable and who represent only themselves and no one else. The COMMITTEE believes that the recent establishment of the Pakistan Gurdwara Prabandhak

Committee by the Pakistan government, most of whose members are Pakistani Sikhs, is a good step in the right direction which should be supported by the Pakistani

Sikhs, is a good step in the right direction which should be supported by the Pakistan – friendly 3 million strong Sikh Diaspora, which unlike the Amritsar – based

SGPC, breathes FREE and is not subservient to the likes of Mr. L. K. Advani, the Indian Police Minister, who is the ``grandmother`` of the mischievous idea that the

SGPC send an 11-member Sikh delegation to intimidate Pakistan and its Sikh – friendly Prime Minister with an ultimatum that the SGPC would stop sending Sikh

Jathas to Pakistan if the PGPC is not disbanded. Dr. Ranjit Singh

AND sorry ... the Pajero is either grey or blue.

Harpeet, I definitely feel the same way about the issue as you do. To me Nankana Sahib is as sacred as the Badshahi Mosque.

Hamsab

Thanks for your interesting analysis but please also care to inform me as to how I have contradicted myself? This new campaign that you chaps are starting is not getting anywhere because if you read my posts from day one I dont contradict myself at all. I urge you not to make it a personal issue between me and the Indians. Let us stick to the debate.

I have brought up very valid points. I did not contradict myself. The Calcutta killing stopped by

the end of the August 1946 and unlike the impression given ... figures show that twice as many muslims died. I believe I have given you the necessary references.

In my original post I had made it clear that I was talking about the new wave of violence that started closer to the partition time. So I dont think there is a contradiction there. You probably had assumed that I dont know enough about Calcutta killings and proceeded with your argument and made some fallacious statements. Unfortunately for you I was

quick to respond with figures and you couldnt handle it so you decided to take up name calling.

Yasser