Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

Ref HisStupidity #26

[And finally, the misconception that India is pro-peace and Pakistan is pro-War. Let me remind you of 1971.

Pakistan and India had already signed a bilateral agreement at Tashkent 5 years ago. Both countries were at peace. Cricket matches were being played, the spirit of friendship was in full swing, Indo-Pak relations couldn`t be better. Then suddenly Indian intelligence engineered the hijacking of an Indian Airliner. The intent was to cancel overflights from West Pakistan to East Pakistan.

The big neighbour was conspiring to breakup the little neighbour all through the 5 years from Tashkent. Mukhti Bahni was funded and given shelter in West Bengal. Indira Gandhi suddenly started making speeches about ``cracks in Two nation theory``. Instead of letting Pakistan take care of its internal problem, India attacked the status quo and broke all rules of Tashkent.]

There was this simple problem of 10 million Bangladeshis in refugee camps in India eating up the **entire** development budget of the Government of India. We weren`t going to give up OUR future for the sake of continued Punjabi rule over Bengalis.

Ref jamshed #78

Kashmir doesn`t need any Butts, Fakhrs or Butt-Fakhrs. Therefore they`re free to go back to Pakistan. They`re required in Pakistan. There`re lots of Pathans who are looking for peach-bottomed boys.

Pundits know how to manage without Fakhrs. They`ll certainly have no problem without them. However, if Fakhrs fear that they`ll be in some problem in Pakistan, then they should speak out honestly and request Pundits to accomodate them. They shouldn`t have adopted the criminal plot of tribal invasion with the help of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Pakistan Army and Liaquat Ali Khan. I still hope that Pundits can forgive them.

Pandit Nehru promised a plebiscite in the UN general assembly only because he failed to convince the world community with the crap all these Indians are repeating again and again on this forum.

I don`t know why they still think that they`ll be able to convince Paks with all this nonsense. Their leaders know that they`re nothing but cheats that`s why they don`t dare to discuss this issue in a civilized manner. As a result, it`s them who are at the recieving end of the kicks of Kashmiris and the laugh of the international community. Indians will keep getting it but Kashmir. Pakistan is loosing nothing.

Many Indians try to prove themselves as a big authority on Kashmir and they teach Kashmiris about their language and culture to justify Indian occupation of their land. Their governtment seems to know nothing about Kashmir and is facing hardships and disgraceful defeats in the hands of Kashmiris. Indian leaders don`t want to discuss Kashmir issue on table because they know the facts. Why don`t common Indians learn the facts about Kashmir from the actions of their leaders instead of learning from their false propaganda.

Kashmiris don`t need any pundits for themselves. Therefore they`re free to go back to India. They`re required in India. There`re plenty of sacred cows in India for them to play with.

Kashmiris know how to manage without pundits. They`ll certainly have no problem without them. However, if Pundits fear that they`ll be in some problem in India, then they should speak out honestly and try to correct Indians instead of trying to correct Kashmiris. They shouldn`t have adopted the criminal plot with the help of Maharaja Hari Singh, Pundit J L Nehru and Lord Montbaten. If Indians are ready to accomodate them in India then it`s their own fault.

I think temporal aims to twist the facts. He started his article with the following note:

‘Kashmir is the key, let us discuss it first,’ says one side. ‘Let us discuss all bilateral issues,’ says the other.

Indian leaders have never meant to discuss all the bilateral issues. If they`re sincere then why don`t they start discussing all bilateral issues? Why did they get angry when Musharraf asked them to modify their statement as , ``Let us discuss all bilateral issues including Kashmir?``

When Indian leadership is not ready to include the word Kashmir in any of their statements regarding Pakistan then what kind of radical approach you want to suggest?

Do you want to befool others or just yourself?

In 1947, India and Pakistan went to war over Kashmir. During the war, it was India which first took the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations on 1 January 1948 The following year, on 1 January 1949, the UN helped enforce ceasefire between the two countries. The ceasefire line is called the Line of Control. It was an outcome of a mutual consent by India and Pakistan that the UN Security Council (UNSC) and UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) passed several resolutions in years following the 1947-48 war. The UNSC Resolution of 21 April 1948--one of the principal UN resolutions on Kashmir—stated that “both India and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite”. Subsequent UNSC Resolutions reiterated the same stand. UNCIP Resolutions of 3 August 1948 and 5 January 1949 reinforced UNSC resolutions.

India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made a pledge to resolve the Kashmir dispute in accordance with these resolutions. The sole criteria to settle the issue, he said, would be the “wishes of the Kashmir people”. A pledge that Prime Minister Nehru started violating soon after the UN resolutions were passed. The Article 370, which gave ‘special status’ to ‘Jammu and Kashmir’, was inserted in the Indian constitution. The ‘Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly’ was created on 5 November 1951. Prime minister Nehru also signed the Delhi Agreement with the then ‘ruler’ of the disputed State, Sheikh Adbullah, which incorporated Article 370. In 1957, the disputed State was incorporated into the Indian Union under a new Constitution. This was done in direct contravention of resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP and the conditions of the controversial Instrument of Accession. The said constitutional provision was rushed through by the then puppet ‘State’ government of Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed. The people of Kashmir were not consulted.

nakhok (152 and various others)

Rminds me of my old Bengali friend Datta...

Will lock horns with you at some other time.


Ras

# 140

HisExcellency wrote:
``.....India would break its promises made before UN Security Council, reject all UN resolutions, interfere in Pakistan`s internal affairs in 1971, violate Simla Agreement by snatching Siachin, provoke terrorist activities in Karachi through RAW and Pakistan....``

What a long list of pre-posterous claims. HisExcellency is either suffering from paranoia or is recklessly playing ducks and drakes with facts:

+++
(1) India would break its promises made before UN Security Council, reject all UN resolutions:
+++

It was Pakistan that failed to live up to the demands of the Security Council when it failed to withdraw all tribal militias and Pak regular army personnel from PoK.

+++
(2) interfere in Pakistan`s internal affairs in 1971
+++

The 1971 genocide was Pakistan army`s internal affairs?!! And even that pretence should ring hollow if HisExcellency would only care to remember that the genocide had terrorized over ten million East Pakistanis in scurrying into India for refuge.

+++
(3) violate Simla Agreement by snatching Siachin
+++

HisExcellency doesn`t seem to be fully acquainted with the LoC that was agreed upon in the Simla Agreement signed on 2 July, 1972. The LoC extends from Thaku Chak/Munawar in the South of Kashmir to Map reference NJ 9842 in the North, a distance of 750 kilometers. Beyond NJ 9842 the area was left undelineated. Hence moving ito Siachen did not violate the LoC in any way.

HisExcellency should keep in mind that:

(a) It was Pakistan that first sought to disturb the status quo by unilaterally claiming Siachen as its own and trying to make money from foreign mountaineering groups.

(b) By unilaterally claiming Siachen as its own, Pakistan failed
to ``prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any
acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.``

When Indian army moved into Siachen, it was not just a tit for tat
situation, but a pre-emptive one as well. Pakistan was all set
to occupy Siachen. Pakistan cried foul only when the Indian army beat
it to it.

+++
(4) provoke terrorist activities in Karachi through RAW and Pakistan
+++

Can HisExcellency give any credible reference for his pre-posterous claim?!!

In the meantime, HisExcellency might over to mull over a simple fact. The international community is time and again issuing statements that it expects the Pakistan regime to stop cross-border terrorism. Even the American Ambassador to Pakistan has publicly said so on the soil of Pakistan. And President Clinton had lectured the Pak regime on Pakistani TV about the evil of trying to redraw the boundaries with force.

Pakistan has had to endure such lecturing because it is universally accepted that the Pak regime sponsors terrorism.

HisExcellency should not forget that the Valley has been emptied of the Pundits ever since Pakistan`s ruling elite decided to inject the veterans of the Afghan war into the Valley. Pakistan`s ruling elite has become a victim of its own obsession and its own propaganda. There is little incentive for it to communicate, let alone to sympathize with the Pundits who have fled their ancestral home. Pakistan`s ruling elite won`t ask even the Muslims of the Valley how they feel about the exodus of their fellow Kashmiris with whom they had lived together in peace for centuries in spite of their religious differences.

Pakistan`s ruling elite has no respect for Jammu & Kashmir`s multireligious ethos which is at the very core of Kashmiriyat. It is hell bent on imposing PoK`s religious homogeneity on the whole of Jammu & Kashmir. Pakistan`s ruling elite deems nothing sacred in its inexorable quest for more real estate.

# 136

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``If Kashmiris were so averse to Pakistan Army`s dominance in politics, they would certainly have revolted in PoK. ``
+++

Now how Azad is ``Azad`` Kashmir which is better described as PoK? About as Azad as Pakistan itself. It ``elects`` its President from the same pool of talent, namely, Pakistan`s military:

+++
http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/09/op.htm

DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
09 February 2003 Sunday 07 Zilhaj 1423

Governors in politics
By Kunwar Idris

``Last year an army general was asked to resign one day to take over as president of Azad Kashmir the next day. That may not have violated a law but inevitably caused dismay. Pakistan stands for the right of self-determination for all of the people of Kashmir but here even the free and unsuspecting among them were given no say in choosing a leader of their own.``
+++

Pandit Nehru promised a plebiscite in the UN general assembly only because he failed to convince the world community with the crap all these Indians are repeating again and again on this forum.

I don`t know why they still think that they`ll be able to convince Paks with all this nonsense. Their leaders know that they`re nothing but cheats that`s why they don`t dare to discuss this issue in a civilized manner. As a result, it`s them who are at the recieving end of the kicks Kashmiris and the laugh of the international community. Indians will keep getting it but Kashmir. Pakistan is loosing nothing.

# 136

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``A property snatcher accusing the victim`s attorney of land-grabbing. ``
+++

So HisExcellency feels that Pakistan`s ruling oligarchy is an attorney! If it is indeed so, then this attorney has been lifted straight from the pages of a Charles Dickens novel.

And, yes, I did notice that HisExcellency has artfully dodged some very pertinent questions about this Dickensian attorney. Here are a couple:

(a) If Pakistan`s ruling elite can let a quarter million stranded ``Biharis`` (who consider themselves Pakistanis) to rot in refugee camps for decades, how can it claim with any credibility that it cares for Kashmiris who don`t even call themselves Pakistanis?

(b) If Pakistan`s ruling elite doesn`t care for a government of the people, by the people and for the people even for Pakistanis, how can it claim with any credibility that it cares for self-determination of Kashmiris who don`t call themselves Pakistanis?

Some attorney!!

And as for property-snatching, it was Pakistan that went for it with gusto. Pakistan was the aggressor in Jammu & Kashmir. It was Pakistan that violated the standstill agreement it had reached with the kingdom of Jammu & Kashmir by unleashing tribal militias on the kingdom.

United Nations recognized the fact that the tribal militias and the Pak army were in PoK illegally. That is why it had insisted on the complete withdrawl of all Pakistani forces from Jammu & Kashmir as a pre-requisite for a plebiscite. Pakistan never fulfilled the pre-requisite and never will.

This is what Altaf Gauhar (the powerful information secretary in
the regime of ``Field Marshal`` Ayub Khan) writes about the Pakistan`s property snatching:

+++
The Nation
(Reprinted in Pakistan Link of 9/10/99)

Four Wars, one Assumption
Altaf Gauhar

``.....the Kashmir invasion, planned by hoardes of lawless tribesmen of
the NWF, who indulged in murder and looting as they moved into the
territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Khurshid Anwar, an ex-army officer,
who was killed in the operation, was supposed to be the main organiser
of this operation. The tribesmen were assured that the Indian army was
too ill-organised to offer any counter offensive, so they could fight
their war of freedom without fear. No one remembered that frontier
rebels do not fight wars of freedom on behalf of other people. They
settle their tribal disputes through looting, murder and devastation.``
+++

And here`s how a DAWN article describes the genesis of the LoC:

+++
DAWN, Karachi, Pakistan
27th July, 1999

Kargil - before and after

By Zafar Iqbal

``MILITARILY, the critical point which was supposed to have created the
Kashmir problem was the hiatus in the tribesman`s march towards
Srinagar when they stopped for a bit of ``rest and recreation`` (R&R) at
Baramulla about a dozen miles from Srinagar airport. Their concept of
recreation included a diversion into some looting and pillage and
possibly a bit of rape on the side.``

``Anyway, whatever the truth, this window of opportunity permitted the
Indians to capture Srinagar airport and bring in reinforcements; at
least so the story is told. The ultimate result was the cease-fire
line.``
+++

Lastly, I would like HisExcellency to mull over a very frightening fact. Pakistan`s army murdered some three million Muslims from among the majority ethnic group in pre-1971 Pakistan. The number murdered in East Pakistan was more than the entire Muslim population of the Kashmir Valley in 1971!!

Pak military is no attorney, it`s a Mafia. In fact, it is the biggest body of organized crime in Pakistan. Its primary goal is to ensure that the army remains the ultimate arbiter in pakistan about who gets to steal and how much.

# 136

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``If Kashmiris were so averse to Pakistan Army`s dominance in politics, they would certainly have revolted in PoK. ``
+++

Is HisExcellency trying to say that if ordinary Pakistanis were so averse to Pakistan Army`s dominance in politics, they would certainly have revolted in Pakistan?!!

Here`s Jay Leno joke for HisExcellency:
+++
Turkey voted not to allow U.S. troops into their country and Saddam Hussein asked in astonishmet, `You can do that?```
+++

I can see that there are too many children staying up beyond their bed-times and bragging about how strong their dad is. It would be funny if indians were not being killed every day in J&K. I notice that not one of our heroes has so far commented or the bloody newsreports I have posted here.

Fortunately, there appears to be some signs of adulthood growing even in Pakistan. And, yes, let us never forget that Vajpayee went to Lahore and visited Jinnah`s mazar three years ago. That was also a sign of adulthood.

Here is some adult commentary from Jang:


A new foreign policy?

M B Naqvi

The writer is a well-known

journalist and freelance columnist

mbnaqvi@cyber.net.pk

Fears of Pakistan becoming the next target in the Terror war notwithstanding, the fierce missiles race between India and Pakistan has gone on, with one missile testified by each recently. The context was yet another incident of grisly murder of 24 Hindu men, women and children in Doda district, with familiar mutual accusations. Independently, religious parties are demanding a new foreign policy. Their case is simple: it was wrong to dump Taliban and actively side with the US. That apparently made the Iraq War possible. Ergo, let`s stop pro-US policy and get the four air bases, now in US use, vacated. On Iraq, Pakistan must take a more forthright stance and denounce the War. Details of the desired change are not clear.

This Musharraf-Jamali government is, on the contrary, proud of what it has achieved with its `Pakistan First` notion: Americans are constructively engaged in restraining India from an adventurist course; they have arranged for nearly $1.6 billion grants or concessional aid and have been helpful in persuading the Paris Club and IFIs (international financial institutions) to be far more forthcoming in debt rescheduling, acceptance of new aid programmes from IMF and other poverty reduction loans from ADP and WB. The economy is, as usual, ready to takeoff. Meantime, Pakistan has built up $ 10 billion in Monetary Reserves -- an all time record.

Few outsiders agree that the economy has actually turned the corner or that America`s remaining engaged can be relied upon to produce the results that the government fondly imagines. While carrying on an anti-American campaign based on the hoary pan-Islamist sentiment, the divines remain paranoid that one-day the Bush, or his successor`s, Administration will turn on Pakistan. They know the basis: Pakistan has WMDs with means of delivering them; it is intensely pan-Islamist; it is equally anti-Israel; it is veritably the world headquarters of Taliban-al-Qaeda kind of Islamic Revolution; all the al Qaeda boys arrested anywhere display Pakistan Pakistan; and its militant Islamists mean to bleed India white by their Jihad. The US will not like all that. Ergo, it will move against them.

Well, Islamists are not alone in this fear. The government too can see these facts. Observers with no rightwing sympathies who realise that grounds for such a fear do exist. They also realise that the government`s eyes and ears might have been vitiated by less than wholly objective perceptions. At any rate, it has to depend on its own machinery and agencies for implementing changes, with possible risks of distortion or even failure. Moreover, it is also not free from all illusions and tendencies that had led to the policies of nurturing and supporting Taliban. Its ability to shed all those illusions can be doubted. But a change has certainly become necessary because the present policy is going nowhere.

What precisely is the government doing today? It goes along as much with the US as it dares, does not say too harsh things about its War on Iraq and is carrying on a high trapeze balancing act in PR terms: firm declarations of not participating in the War while soothing American nerves. And yet Prime Minister Zafarullah Jamali had had to postpone his US and UK visits. He has however rushed to Beijing where he was sure to be received warmly. He has promises of eternal Chinese friendship. Less than a $ 100 million aid for Gwadar Port development and many big promises besides the description of Sino-Pak relationship being strategic in nature, with clear dimensions of continued military cooperation. Pretty solid it seems. But aren`t there any limits to this friendship?

Sino-Pakistan friendship has especially helpful features. It is one sided; China does not expect much in exchange, not even doing as Beijing may desire. Pakistan has regularly ignored the Chinese advice in every major crisis -- the Chinese usually advise against adventurism and political means -- but that has neither impacted on economic or military aid that Beijing gives. Pakistanis get this aid for being who they are and where they are. It is for balance of power in South Asia and even the Americans do not look askance at it. But for all that, the Chinese will never fight Pakistan`s wars on its presumptions and purposes. It advises against Jihad in Kashmir and a resolution of Kashmir problem by amicable negotiations. We have seen that in 1971. Pakistanis can certainly have some aid; but cannot hope to seriously influence the extra-prudent Chinese policies. Thus if it helps the Pakistani rulers` morale, such visits are useful.

Pakistan is really engaged today with three powers: the US (to which it has given all it wanted), India and China. Look closely. Pakistan`s basic business is with India. The latter holds Kashmir in its military grip while Pakistan wants Kashmiris` accession to Pakistan, if possible. Otherwise -- what? It is wholly unclear. Maybe Pakistan might settle for the third option as once or twice indicated. Maybe it will even accept Kashmiris` Azadi whatever is meant by Kashmiris or Azadi.

Since Kashmir`s Jihad has lasted 12 years and more, India has repeatedly threatened war; it had in fact served notice even in 1986-87 (Brass Tacks) because of Pakistan`s nuclear programme and its implications for Kashmir. Since Jan 1, 2002 India has refused to talk altogether and has cut off all communications as in actual war. It is a total deadlock and a flare up is still possible, though it remains rather unlikely. Why? Because the reasons that made India desist in 2002 will continue to operate in 2003 and perhaps subsequently also. Nevertheless, a near war situation does obtain and the possibility of an almighty clash remains.

Why war has to be avoided at all costs need not to be argued at length. Wars are fought for a purpose; they are politics by military means. In this case, nuclear weapons` mischief is that they destroy trust and peace and in a possible nuclear war would lead to what would in fact be defeat for both sides. It has become totally senseless. No cause is worth a nuclear war, not even Kashmir. The fact is that military means can achieve nothing positive for either country -- except to lead to each other`s devastation.

A hint recently dropped by Shaikh Rashid Ahmed, the Information Minister, that a solution of the Kashmir problem looks likely within two to three years but it will satisfy the wishes of neither India nor Pakistan assumes some significance. The ferment in the Pakistani mind is shown by the recent advice of Jamaat-e-Islami`s Qazi Hussain Ahmed to Pakistan`s Foreign Office. He correctly assumed that America is benefiting from the Indo-Pak hostility and that the best way to tackle the US now is for Pakistan to talk to India -- implicitly by doing what it takes. What will it take is clear: Jihad has to be ended for good; only then Indo-Pak talks would proceed. Remember Hizbul Mujahideen, the main Jihadi group in Kashmir associated with Qazi Hussain Ahmed`s Jamaat-e-Islami. It once offered a unilateral cease-fire to India. Talks were to follow. That the talks did not come through was because of Indian politics. Qazi did tour major capitals of the world and was received at the highest levels; he was obviously lobbying for something definite. Good that he has revived the idea.

To think that India would not negotiate is silly. It has to. There are issues that require discussion and give and take. War is not an option for India too. But it also wants a price; it looks it has to be paid for various reasons: The Jihad is going nowhere; Kashmiris, after sacrificing 70,000 young men and 14 years of penury, are not an inch nearer to their Azadi. Pakistan also remains helplessly caught in the coils of international crises because of that fruitless Jihad, with no initiative. These are too good reasons for change.

Let`s admit Pakistan is not in a position to force a desired Kashmir solution on India. Nor can India make Pakistan forget its stand, though it can deny a reasonable solution of the problem because war is not an option. Therefore, it is much better to accept the advice given to non-official Pakistanis -- though perhaps intended for Islamabad -- by India`s former Naval Chief Admiral Ramu Ramdas two weeks ago. It is an opening.

What he said was that both countries are still committed to the Lahore Process and documents exist that bear the signatures of two elected Prime Ministers. India cannot, in reason, refuse to talk on the basis of those documents. Why not use this opening -- of course with a flexible mind that is free from adventurism -- and Islamabad will probably see that both Beijing and Washington, not to mention others, would support and may ensure that the dice is not unnecessarily loaded against Pakistan in the ensuing talks. India too needs to get off the hook just as much as Pakistan does.

Pakistan-India relations need not only normalisation but also improvement, if we all have to grow up into adult citizens of free countries living cheek by jowl in a rich natural region. There is no reason why the region cannot be normalised and harmonised to make economic progress and achieve some political harmonisation. Let`s anchor the originally-visualised Indo-Pak friendship, based on a true people-to-people rapprochement, in the integration of a freely and preferentially trading region -- Saarc.

# 137

HisExcellency wrote:
+++
``Do you sensibly believe that Pakistan will ever perform a unilateral about turn on Kashmir? ``
+++

I can separate the wheat from the chaff, ergo, I can see that it is the mainstream Pakistani columnists like the Naqvis, the Husains, the Cowasjees and the Amirs that are articulating the voices of the ordinary Pakistanis rather than HisExcellency.

Perhaps Pakistan will not ``perform a unilateral about turn on Kashmir`` as long as the military can retain its stranglehold on power in Pakistan. The military has just too much to lose. It would have had to invent Kashmir if it didn`t exist!!

But military dictatorships cannot survive the challenges of the 21st century for ever. I doubt that Pakistan`s military dictatorship will last beyond this decade. When the peoples` representatives gain power in Pakistan, its government will inevitably have an agenda where the interests of the ordinary citizens comes before feathering the nests of military officers. And when that happens, Pakistan`s government will indeed ``perform a unilateral about turn on Kashmir`` to conform to the wishes of the ordinary citizens.

tahmed #141:

enjoy this: para 7 is relevant;)


The way it was: Not for faith but for sport

Mian Ijaz Ul Hassan

Ibn Khuldun was wise not to enter into a controversial debate and left matters touching divinity to the divines and pursued his study of human history without metaphysical distractions

There was a time I believed most poets were bad. They never ceased to run down others and brag about their own achievements. Today I am convinced that painters can be worse.

In the sixties when most writers only attended the funerals of their fellow writers, the painters made an effort to be present at exhibitions. Those were good days even though paintings rarely sold. A small Chughtai etching was priced at two to three hundred rupees in the fifties. If ever an artist managed to sell a painting at a show it would instantly transform into a spirited evening. The artists never hesitated to criticise the works on display. Sometimes a close friend would even go so far as to rebuke the artist and say that things had not worked out. The main purpose of hanging a show was not just to sell, but make an impression on the avant-garde. Criticism was frank and candid, though even then there was no dearth of a few mean remarks in private.

Things are tidier now. No one opens his mouth either in praise or in reprove. Artists come to a show and saunter around measuring the gallery floor. They accost familiar forms and discuss inane issues, which have not the remotest relevance to the exhibits. The charitable few shuffle up to the exhibiting artist and make a few wise cracks or compliment him for the good frames. Most artists slip out without a word. A word of praise could upgrade the sales of the artist on display, which could lead to losing one’s own customers. But public criticism is shunned because others can counter-attack and devalue the sale of one’s own stuff. It is safer to murmur and mutter in absentia.

Most art criticism is without substance. The media can easily upgrade, downgrade, laud or spurn anything. Words are so amenable and promoting puerile art is no big deal. Art criticism in our press is usually inundated with high-flaunting phrases and adjectives. Most writers responsible for these columns cannot even size the backside of a berry. Their writing is presumptuous and obscure. Soap ads are better because at least their intentions are clear. They promise to make you fair and beautiful. Contemporary art criticism on the other hand is intended to baffle. It lays ambiguous claims for the artist who finds it more profitable to remain silent.

I wish artists would come out and debate and defend their views in the open. The artists’ observation is obviously more valuable than that of unbaked critics and half-baked intellectuals. Without denying the valuable role of intellectuals in encouraging the arts, what the artist and writers have to say about themselves or about art and literature is intrinsically more pertinent to creative expression. Unfortunately we seem to have lost our understanding of the value and purpose of debate and discourse.

Long ago discourse was replaced by manazaraz; in other words, debate was replaced by duel. The purpose of discourse and dialogue is to exchange ideas to bring about a better understanding of an issue. The spirit of a duel is to take a stance, to run through and eliminate opposition. Unfortunately, today, we have even lost the courage to fight duels. We prefer to shoot in the back. In an open discourse, where the intention is to share and refine individual knowledge, everyone gains. No one is the loser. Truth is always far more than the sum-total of individual knowledge. By challenging an opposition to a duel one can kill it, but it is only through intellectual dialogue and discourse that a stride forward can be taken.

It is not, I confess, easy to abandon one’s perceptions. It is a trifle difficult and can even be painful to forsake inherited beliefs and ideas acquired over decades of reflection and social practice. It amounts to abandoning a precious personal possession, which has been traditionally considered a valuable measure of virtue. I have known people getting sad on replacing old possessions even when it is only a worthless wristwatch strap. If a person can develop intimacy with an inanimate utilitarian object, surely it is much more difficult to discard shared social prejudices and held beliefs, howsoever outdated. Often a person rejects a counter argument because of personal vanity or self-interest. Comprehension is based on self-interest. A person will find issues beneficial to him much easier to comprehend than propositions which are to his disadvantage. Consciousness after all rests on the bedrock of class interest.

The Catholic Church spurned evidence presented by Galileo because it was contrary to the Church’s own doctrine of the universe according to which, the sun revolved around the earth with the Pope being its centre. Imagine what must have happened in Rome when they were told that contrary to what Pope believed the earth was not the centre of the universe but circled the sun. From being right in the centre of things to be flung far away into a dark cold nook was naturally considered a blasphemous act by the Pope. The perpetrator of this heinous crime was instantly sent to the Inquisition and tortured. In order to continue with his scientific work Galileo recanted and was subsequently released. Ibn Khuldun was wise not to enter into a controversial debate and left matters touching divinity to the divines and pursued his study of human history without metaphysical distractions. He is however sometimes criticised for his duplicity for not taking a firm position against religious orthodoxy.

In our country the very idea of debate and discourse has been stifled. I remember when I was pursuing my postgraduate studies in 1960 at Lahore’s Government College, most students liked to carry books under their arm. This was their way of showing off that they were better scholars than others. A few years later I learned that to make an impression, students now carried guns. During my studies at Government College, I never once saw anyone getting into fisticuffs. Muscles were flexed, hot words were exchanged, but no one ever attempted to catch anyone by the collar. Using physical force meant the person had lost the argument. Today we don’t waste our precious breath in an argument and instead proceed to kill not for faith but because it has become a popular national sport.

Talking of sport, for an aside I must tell you what my five-year-old grandson Mustafa asked the other day, when he saw his father once again glued to the television, ‘Are they still hitting Baghdad?’

Prof Ijaz-ul-Hassan is a painter, author and a political activist