Looking Without; Looking Within

“Was the death of perhaps 500,000 Pakistanis in August 1947 so trivial? “

You forget to mention the Hindus, Sikhs, and others your forefathers butchered in ’47. I believe the Partition death toll estimates range between 1and 2 million.

“Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return

To plague the inventor”

Your quote from Shakepeare is very apt, although I am thinking of a country other then America.

Pakistan has played with fire in bringing up the Islamic militants to fight in Kashmir. Now as Pakistan faces the threat of its own Talibanization, the hatred you first gave geographic reality to in 1947 is coming back to plague you and it is time for your country to reap the whirlwind.

Although your writing is decent, in true Pakistani fashion, your premise is fundamentally flawed. When examining the sorry state of the Islamic world of today, America falls low on the list of parties to ascribe blame to. I think the Muslims themselves have the honor of first place on that list.

sadna,

Is there anything Musharraf can do or say that will completely satisfy you and other Indians?

y...a...w...n

Ref Romair #: 11

[I consider Pakistan, despite its historically pathetic and corrupt leadership, a more sophisticated populace with more potential than both Arabia and Turkey (look at the way the Saudis treat their women, and the Turks treat the Kurds).]

Absolutely. Just look at the way the Pakistanis treat the Ahmediyyas or the Shias. It is a vast improvement over how they treat their Hindus and how the Saudis treat their women.

Romair, I can understand how and why you need to take your solace from how bad the Saudis are and how worse the Taliban is. Next, you will compare Pakistan to Myanmar and say Pakistan is better.

Just remember: when the Taliban comes to rule Pakistan -- as it definitely will, because you guys think that the jihadi who goes to Kashmir is a different kind than the one who goes to Afghanistan or the ones who flew the planes into the WTC towers -- you can start thinking of how at least Pakistan is warmer than Greenland.

Very nice article

Imam Mehdi is mentioned in this article. I

understand that reference is made to THE PROMISED

MEHDI. He has come and gone. He was born in

Juanpur, Utter Pradesh, India on 14 Jamadi-ul-

awwal 847 hijri and died in Afghanistan on

19 Ziqaida 910 hijri.

Re: Akhtar

A timely article.

The idea of secularism should not be dismissed as casually as you have done. After all even the founder of Pakistan claimed to work for a secular Pakistan. A state being secular does not in any way mean in curtailing citizens rights to have and practice religious beliefs at the individual level. All it means that religion and state should not intermix with each other. The mixing of the two inevitably results in the state/ploiticians using and misusing ( mostly misusing) religion to further political ends, which invariably results in a more divisive society and a tendency to move towards fundamentalism. And religion being something strong on sentiments, it is always easy to mislead people in the name of religion than other creeds. Therefore it is important that while looking for answers to Pakistan’s ( or India’s for that matter) problems the need for secularism is kept in mind.

scout #8
``I think you missed the point where President Musharraf said he would like to slowly integrate the Madrassahs into reformed schools.``

No I didnot miss that point at all. The difference is you seem to believe him, I donot. Its not the first time such a statement has been made by him or his government. A similar announcement of action was last made almost an year ago? Similar promises of good intentions were made on deweaponziation and cracking down on sectarian terrorists. I think even as recently as last week, there were sect-based murders.

Its easy to make such statements, more difficult to actually deliver. IMO, until Musharraf and the Pakistani Army junk the `jihadi` paradigm, their interdependence on religious parties, clerics and the madarassas they run will prevent them from delivering on these promises. Its a long and deeprooted association, to the extent that even the Pakistani constitution was amended to introduce Islamic provisions even during `democratic` regimes to keep these groups happy.

If US actions in Afghanistan lead to this interdependence between Pakistani rulers, the jihad factories and their foreign & domestic sponsors being broken comprehensively, well, great. My point is I donot see any sign that this has to happen or is even considered desirable by Musharraf and co. And I donot see any sign that the so-called moderates in Pakistan have any say in the matter.

Very nice. My views exactly.

``I believe this a time for us to search for a synthesis that avoids both the recidivist trap of the fundamentalists who would like nothing better than to turn back the clock a millennium or so as well as the simple minded secular-is-better mantra. This would be a synthesis that embraces our culture and religion and yet engages with and ultimately tames modernity to our own ends. This will not be created in any grand vision from a few men of wisdom. Rather our actions, in living and creating a vibrant cultural and spiritual life fully existing in here and the now, will be the bedrock of this approach.``

I think this paragraph states exactly what Pakistan needs. I am very scared of two groups in Pakistan: the Amir-ul-Momineens and the Ata-turks, i.e. the Fazl-ur-Rahmans and the Shahs of Iran. If either one of these groups gets in power, and starts implementing their ideas, Pakistan has had it. Both these groups sit on the borders of the Pakistani society. They have absolutely nothing in common with the average Pakistani, who does not want religion removed from the society, a-al Ata-turk, but does not want it shoved down his throat, a-la Amir-ul-Momineen. And most of all these two groups show the ultimate sign of ignorance, i.e. they think everyone except themselves to be unenlightened.

Why Pakistanis search for solutions in 8th century Arabia and 19th century Turkey is beyond me. Both Ghazali and Mustapha Kamal are alien to Pakistan, and I pray to God they stay alien. Infact, I feel more comfortable talking to a Sikh that to a Turk or Arab. I am still attempting to figure out Gandhi, however, I would be much more interested in his solutions for Pakistan, than the solutions offered by a Turkish or Arab leader with whom I share nothing, except my religion. Ideally, I would be interested in solutions offered by a Pakistani.

I consider Pakistan, despite its historically pathetic and corrupt leadership, a more sophisticated populace with more potential than both Arabia and Turkey (look at the way the Saudis treat their women, and the Turks treat the Kurds). In the two professions I have been involved in, IT and military, Pakistanis have a much better reputation in the international circles than the Turks and Arabs. Why not search for solutions in 21st century Pakistan?

When Zia-ul-Haq started a parallel, ``shariah`` system in Pakistan, I was quite concerned. He was turning Pakistan into his own personality. Ironically, while he, ``shoved his shariah`` down the throats of Pakistan, he did not tinker with the British traditions in the military, to a great extent. For example, there is no Shariat Military court, just the same old court martial proceedings based on British manuals. Due to this, people like Musharraf and Asif Nawaz continued to rise in the Army (which is a good thing). However, when Musharraf picked up his two dogs and stated he admired Ata-Turk, I was equally worried. I thought he would now attempt to shape Pakistan in his own personality. Luckily, he wisely decided against it.

Pakistan needs to take the pragmatic approach to solve its problems. The debate for secularism vs. religion can be left for a later date. Bhuttos were secular, what good did they do? Zia was religious, what good did he do? The debate should be on education vs. ignorance, food vs. famine, corruption vs. honesty, feudalism vs. land reform, etc. It should be done within the context of the average Pakistani, who rightly or wrongly, wants some religion in his/her life and in his state, and rightly or wrongly, never votes for the politico-religious leaders.

Unfortunately, the people, at both extremes, who want to give solutions for the, ``average`` Pakistani, actually provide solutions which suit themselves, and not the average Pakistani.

``Hence, we see the support for the Taliban as yet more of what the Islamic world specializes in: what Winston Churchill rather brutally called, “the rage of impotent sheep”.``

How true.

``It is more than a little depressing to ponder how much we value the lives of American citizens (which should be valued) and how we devalue of our existence.``

So true again. Only a nation with an inferiority complex looks towards Arab, Turkish and American leaders to solve its problems.

Very nice article.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: jalebi # 2

I haven`t read the article yet, but your ideas are on the mark.

very thorough and well thought out article...

Like you, I hope Pakistan comes out of this a better country for good, not just till the dough runs out.

sadna,

I think you missed the point where President Musharraf said he would like to slowly integrate the Madrassahs into reformed schools.

That`s a pretty practical approach if you ask me.

Mr. Akhtar,

Interesting article; your analysis of the Palestinian/Iraqi/undemocratic Arab govts. was well stated. However, I wouldn`t quite dismiss the model of secular democracies so easily. While both secular and unsecular societies face the constant duty of ensuring the well being and inclusion of its less than equal citizenry (i.e. women, religious/ethnic/political minorities), it seems that religious societies slide much more readily into institutionalized intolerance/inequity. In addition, there are people of the Islamic faith who don`t feel that religious heritage is part of their political/social identity. I believe there are many Pakistanis who fit into this category.

regards

``c)the pragmatic: the Pervez Musharraf school of thought. We have to do what Uncle wants us to. But while we are at it, lets try and milk the situation for all that we can.``

``Or is this a more fundamental opportunity? To dramatically rethink the core question that haunts this dialectic: Who are we as a nation and how do we choose to conduct ourselves? ``

Good that you make the distinction between `pragmatic` and the `fundamental rethink`.

There is no sign ( even in Musharraf`s CNN interview with Amanpour) that Musharraf, the Pakistani Army or the ISI have given up on the jihad-madarassa paradigm as the chosen method of dealing with Afghanistan, Central Asia and India. Pragmatism hasn`t required this of Musharraf yet.
There is also no sign that Pakistanis as a nation are being offered any choice by Musharraf and co. in the matter.

A very reflective piece Salman. I would add a third view here called ``Looking Around``.

From the limited Muslim thought that I have read of individual scholars of Islam in the past 300 years, the ideas put forth by Sir Syed and of Dr. Ali Shariati have made the most sense.
I have a great deal of faith in the Aligarh Model.

Ras