A Waste of National Resource

Nazar 38:`` TNT, right or wrong, was about Muslims & not Islam. Pakistan was supposed to be a Muslim country & not an Islamic country with Islamic Code. ``

I doubt that any historian can disagree with you on this one ... succinctly put.

The point gentlemen is that despite the confusion and despite Islam Pakistan will survive.

As for Romair sadly he has never actually tried to understand what these various words mean... especially `secularism` .. he will keep repeating the dictionary definition which he chooses to selectively misinterpret.

On the one hand he says Economics is NOT secular (God knows what that means) and on the other hand he keeps telling us that PPP (which gave us the 1973 constitution which Islamic and the slogan `Islam is our religion`) is secular. I am confused... Rsidhar is confused ... half the chowk populace is confused....

To paraphrase Jinnah (since that is the approach ferozk is using) ``Romair is Peter Pan he never learns or unlearns anything`

-YLH

re: Romair`s last post
``Statistically speaking, the 47 Muslims` opinions turned out to be correct, as the economic living standards of Pakistanis (and their physical and political security) is quite a bit higher than that of Indian Muslims.``
If you are speaking of statistics, quote the statistics, Idiot.
This guy keeps inserting this seemingly innocuous statements which are not accurate. Pakis need to know the truth if they are to redeem themselves and save their country.
I have strongly argued that this ``India is shining`` thing is a BJP propaganda but even i wil concede that India of today is doing much better than Pakistan: economically. Many of us in Chowk have posted statistics and i will not repeat those again. Romair can choose to be blind but even he cannot be this stupid.
As far as physical security is concerned, some muslims (i won`t say all because India has more muslims today than Pak and if all muslims had migrated, India should not be having any muslims left) felt they may not be secure in India after 1947 and migrated to Pak. But is every Paki secure in Pak? How about the Shias who get targetted and killed in Karachi? How about the Ahmadiyas?
No doubt many Pakis have prospered in Pak but many have also perpetuated a system of exploitation that died swift and fast in India viz the Feudal system. Feudals or Zamindars are still a force in Pak while, barring Bihar and some parts of UP, they are gone from India. Pak also harbors the highest number of illeterates in South Asia. And, i am not even talking about the condition of women.
My advice to Romair: smell the coffee everytime you write a post. He will be respected more if he is objective. I as an Indian (NRI) have no problem accepting that there are a lot of scars on the face of India. Will Romair do the same?
Sridhar

re: Romair`s fantasies

``Thus, if you go outside the domains of Chowk and of living rooms conversations, you will notice that no one in Pakistan is bothered about secularism and religion. They practice both equally, depending on which part of Pakistan they are from``
Again, not accurate.
Pak has 98% muslim population and is an Islamic theocratic state. Pakis do not know what secularism means. Respect for other religion does not amount to secularism. Secularism is : non-interference in religious matters by the State. It happens all the time in Pak.
Sridhar

ferozek #39: ``As to the issue of economics being equated with secularism, which you and Romair seem to suggest, and credit the idenity of Pakistan within an econmic reason, that assumption runs contary to the logic of the Pakistani constitutions of 1956, 1960 and 1973.``

Please read my reply #35. I stated the following:

``Economics (and security) are neither a religious nor a secular concept. They are instinctive and in-built human needs, developed over thousands of years of evolution. Religious people want economic and personal security as much as secular people, and vice-versa. What to talk of human beings, even animals want economics and personal security, as a natural instinct. And one would have to agree that animals do not have the intelligence to differentiate between the concepts of religion and secularism.``

So I don`t equate economics with secularism (nor with religion). It is infact a concept independent of both. Which has been the basis of my whole argument. Pakistanis` interest in Pakistan is as an economic entity, not as a religious or secular one. Their immigration patterns to more religious and more secular countries indicate that. These patterns are always based on economic reasonings and not on religious or secular (or democratic) ones.

Thus secularism and religion are two concepts that are just given importance by a small minority, in Pakistan, which already has its economic needs taken care of.

``You and I may agree to secularized history of Pakistan`s birth, but we are a minority viewpoint. The rest of the nation does not share our version of history on the issue of creation of Pakistan.``

This is a huge misconception. I just finished a book on the Shahi Mohalla of Lahore. It goes into the details of the lives and history of the dancers and prostitutes who live there. I have lived in feudal Punjab, as an adult, as well as in backward parts of NWFP.

There is one thing I can tell you. Nowhere in these places did I ever hear a debate on secularism or religion, or on what the reason of creation of Pakistan happened to be. The Shahi Mohalla book is interesting in the sense that it points out how lives of Pakistanis for generations are based on the cultural and socio-economic systems of, not their country, not their province, not even their own city (Lahore), but their own mohalla (neighborhood).

People in all these areas have one thing on their mind: how to ensure their economic survival. It is economics that drives them. Not some abstract concepts of religion or secularism. And that is why they are in feudal Pakistan and in the Pakistani Shahi Mohalla and not in the ones in the neighboring country. They are still economically better off in Pakistan.

Thus, if you go outside the domains of Chowk and of living rooms conversations, you will notice that no one in Pakistan is bothered about secularism and religion. They practice both equally, depending on which part of Pakistan they are from. Not because they are taught that, but because that is a part of their culture. The girls in Shahi Mohalla have sex in a completely Westernised and secular manner (with no religious overtones), with different partners every month, and seem to dislike maulvis. Yet they mention the world God in every conversation, and regularly go to Data Darbar and carry out, ``mannats`` as a main part of their lives. Much of their answers about what they do, is based on the simple fact, that this is where God put them.

The lifestyles of all of the above are tackling the economic realites of life; not religious or secular ones.

It is only a small minority that has tried to turn everything into a debate on religion, and into a debate on secularism. In my opinion, both groups have equally hijacked the real debate, which should be on economics and personal security. Primarily because they have nothing better to do (since they are wealthy enough to survive in both systems) and because it makes a good political agenda.

Every survey in Pakistan (and its mainstream culture itself, as shown above) indicates that Pakistanis do not want to be a maulvi state, nor do they want to be a secular state. And hardly any of them can remember what they were taught in the Pakistan Studies books in school (2/3rd are too illiterate to have even studied TNT). What they want are jobs and physical security. I can make a bet people will vote for anyone who fixes the roads and gives them electricity, without worrying much about his religious or secular credentials.

So I doubt anyone in mainstream Pakistan debates TNT or Jinnah, and secularism and religion, everyday, like it is done on Chowk. Most people have too many economic problems to think off.

Since we`ve suddenly become so enamoured with ECONOMICS 101, lets start respecting economics by first calling for the elimination of the most UNPRODUCTIVE element of society- the soldiers.

secondly, economics has no religious basis. however, one may as well say that the difference between `secular economics` and `islamic economics` is the same as the difference between `gaye soap` and `sufi soap`.

at the three or four election rallies i`ve been to, i`ve never heard or seen any of the people petition to their representatives to build a new mosque, or a madrasa, or a koranic learning center. it`s always fix sewerage, bring furniture to schools, electricity, clinics. these are all issues more important then those closer to religion.

meaning of TNT,

so many ranging from ylh tp nazar have tried to interpret the intent and meaning of TNT. The amazing fact is that no one cares to understand the meaning in terms of what has happened in pakistan. There is no point in devining the meanings from, the words of the dead, it has to be understood from the living reality of pakistan.

The hoododo and blasphemy laws and jihad have survived the military rule, a democratic rule and even a female prime minister. The meabibg of TNT is simply islam. Pakistan has done very little to improve the economics of pakistan, the military spending is testimony to TNT, the nadrassas are the re creators of TNT, shis akilling are the continuation of TNT, the hordes coming in from chechniya to australia are the revalidation of TNT.

There is only one hope for pakistan, and repudiation of TNHT and the men associated with it is the beginning.

re: nazarhayatkhan # 38

There is no denying the fact that army has been a problem. India is doing Pakistan a great service and it is forcing Pakistan to open up and liberalize trade/economics. Once Kashmir is setttled or solved, Pakistani army will have no reason to consume Pakistan and it will die a natural death of its own. Pakistani army will leave politics on its own.

Ciao

re: Yasser # 31 & Romair 37

There seems be some misunderstanding.

The reasons behind the creation of Pakistan were constitutional and economic and had nothing to with Islam. I am not arguing this fact, as you seem to wrongly assume. The fact is that majority of the Pakistanis think and believe that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam for the Muslims of India. Our history for the last 56 years has stressed this point and this rationale forms the basis for the ideology of Pakistan. There is a believe that Pakistan is and was supposed to be an Islamic state. No one has bothered to educate the average Pakistani that Pakistan was supposed to be a Muslim state, where Muslims of India could enjoy their constitutional and economic rights without fear of being dominated and marginalized by a non-Muslim majority.

The argument is if as a nation accept your conclusions about a nation state not needing ideologies to survive and we argue that Pakistan was a result of a constitutional requirement, then we have questioned the basic believe/values of what an average Pakistani thinks to be the reason for the creation of Pakistan. You and I may agree to secularized history of Pakistan`s birth, but we are a minority viewpoint. The rest of the nation does not share our version of history on the issue of creation of Pakistan. Therefore, we have to convince them that what they were taught is wrong and we have to teach them the real reasons behind the creation of Pakistan. Once we do that, we have questioned and rejected the TNT version of Pakistani history based on religion and in that sense, we have negated our own historic explanation of 1947 and the basis for Pakistan existing since then.

On the other hand, if what you suggest is true, then the question is: why do we still maintain the fiction over TNT and religion and not tell the truth; what is preventing us from telling the truth? The truth being that Islam was simply used as a political slogan to unify the Muslims of India in order to secure their political, constitutional and economic rights. The idea behind 1947 might not be flawed, but since 1947 there are many contradictions which have originated as a result of the hypocricy, by which Pakistan has evolved as a nation state and how its origins have been explained to justify its existence. 56 years later, the contradictions and their lack of explantions are making the idea of 1947 look flawed, because the lies are not reflecting the truth; for the last 56 years, we have been trying to push a square peg into a round hole.

As to the issue of economics being equated with secularism, which you and Romair seem to suggest, and credit the idenity of Pakistan within an econmic reason, that assumption runs contary to the logic of the Pakistani constitutions of 1956, 1960 and 1973. The Pakistani constitution maintains that no law or practice, which is against Islam or sunnah, will be allowed in Pakistan. The idea of secular economics would not work, because the economics of Pakistan will have to be within the ambit of Islam and sunnah and thus, the Islamic and religious nature of Pakistan makes it impossible to have an identity of Pakistan based on the principle of secular economics. To paraphrase Jinnah - what secular economics, whose secular economics are you two gentlemen talking about?

If on the other hand, Pakistani economics are secular, then why is Pakistan still trying to abolish interest based banking on the basis of religion and why is Pakistan still attempting to bring its economy under Islamic guidelines and practice its economy as said in Islam and sunnah? If the economy of Pakistan is being influenced by religion and religion is the motivating factor in Pakistani economy, then the term secular economics or Pakistani economy is secular is meaningless. Economics is a secular concern in the rest of the world, but it not a secular concern in Pakistan, because Pakistani economy is being influenced by Islam and ispo facto through religion.

If the pedestrian understanding of secularism is the seperation of religion from politics, then it assumes that secular economics will mean the seperation of religion from economics. This defination does not apply to Pakistan because of Pakistan`s constitutionalism which seeks to create a theocracy under the principles of Islam and hence, you gentlemen need to further fine tune your arguments, because of the contradictions which are cropping up as a result of your theoretical argument od secular economics and the reality of Pakistan based on a theocratic constitutionalism of Islam.

Therein lies the problem. Pakistan has too many contradictions, which do solve themselves easily, because there is gap of incoherence between the reality of our past and the theorized nature of that past and how it is justified.

Ciao

Romair # 37, Ferozek

That was a good post. Muslims in the Muslim Majority Provinces (Pakistan -1940 Resolution) have done well economically.

However, I have my doubts whether they got the full political freedoms, another objective of the Resolution. (half the time under Army)

In fact, Bangla Desh separated just in 24 years because of this lack of political SAY.

Breaking off of Bangla Desh did not necessarily show a failure of TNT. Because the Lahore Resolution talked of STATES & not STATE.

But since we are not in the habit of analysing our failures, we continue to misunderstand the TNT. TNT, right or wrong, was about Muslims & not Islam. Pakistan was supposed to be a Muslim country & not an Islamic country with Islamic Code.

Our biggest misfortunes have been the ARMY`s meddling in the politics - its fixation with India and its bringing in the radical Islam.

Anyway, now there is no need to dig up old graves. Finally, we seem to be on the right course. We made our U-turns against Taaliban & Radical Islam.

And we made our biggest and most beneficial U-turn in our relations with India - and that too at the SOURCE - the Army going for the normalization.

One only lingering black spot is the Army`s still nosing in politics.

But, all in all, the going is good. We simply did not have a couragous stateman who could rectify our wrong directions years back. The civil society, intellectuals & media has been calling for these U-turns for years.

The poor man has no say and does not matter in Pakistan. He only slugs out the foolishness of its leaders.

Ferozek #various: I think I will have to agree more with Mantolives, than you, on this one. As I have pointed out many times before, the main thrust of my arguments is always based on economics, and not on religion/secularism, India/Pakistan, democracy/dictatorship etc.

So I will look at the creation and current existence of Pakistan, from an economic point of view, i.e. have the Pakistanis accepted Pakistan as an economic entity. If they have, then that (at least to me) is the definition and identity of Pakistan.

Going back to the creation of Pakistan, it was basically an economic occurence. It was a state primarily for Muslims. But not because they were Muslims (otherwise Pakistani Muslims would be demanding a state in USA and Canada and Dubai, as well). But because they felt that their economic and physical security would be better protected in a state separate from India (specially after Nehru would not agree to a Montreal-like status for Muslims).

Statistically speaking, the 47 Muslims` opinions turned out to be correct, as the economic living standards of Pakistanis (and their physical and political security) is quite a bit higher than that of Indian Muslims.

I have thus always felt that this comparison between the economic condition and personal security of Indian Muslims vs. Pakistanis is the true justification of the creation of Pakistan, i.e. the day the living standards and physical security of Indian Muslims (not Indian Hindus, but Indian Muslims) is higher than that of Pakistanis is the day the reason of creation of Pakistan will be proven wrong. I don`t see that happening any time soon.

Secondly, do Pakistanis accept Pakistan as an economic entity. Yes they do. Regardless of whether they accept it as a religious or ethnic entity (or even a political entity). There are no major or minor separation movements going on in Pakistan. And as hard as any leader tries, he/she cannot get people to follow him/her for one.

The Pakhtunistan movement is long dead. Baluch separation is long dead. The Jinnahpur idea never took off. Sindudesh is dead. This is despite the fact that Punjab dominates Pakistan, like no other state/province dominates any other country in the world. In fact, the issues that the smaller provinces and ethnicities have had have never been with Pakistan. They have been with Punjab.

At the same time, it should be highlighted that when a group of Muhajir Generals took out a fully Punjabi establishment, no one in Punjab complained. And even now, there isn`t a single Punjabi in the main power positions in Pakisan, yet Punjabis aren`t complaining. The PM is a Baluch. The Chairman Senate is a Sindhi. The COAS is a Muhajir. As is the President (same guy). The leader opposition will be a Pathan or Sindhi.

So people of all provinces have accepted Pakistan, in whatever form it exists.

Why have they done so?

Because they know that as poor as Pakistan maybe, it is economically still their best option. Pakistanis Punjabis are more empowered than Indian Punjabis (a major portion of this group actually tried to separate from India) and dominate the country, while Indian Punjab is a tiny part of a huge country. Pakistani Pathans are much better off economically than their cousins in Afghanistan. Pakistani Muhajirs are better off economically than their cousins in India. Pakistanis Sindhis are better off than the Muslim versions of their ethnicities across the border. (Don`t know how Baluchis compare to Iranis). And Pakistani Kashmiris are far better and safer than their cousins across the border.

All of this is not to put down India or Afghanistan. Many Indian communities are doing much better than any community in Pakistan. Just to show why the particular communties in Pakistan are still sticking with Pakistan.

Hence, Pakistanis adopt only two economic options. Option one (the prefered economic option) is to get out of the country, towards the West, if you can. Anyone who can leave, generally leaves. However, option two is not to demand a provincial or ethnic separation, nor to migrate to bordering countries. It is to be a part of the economic entity called Pakistan.

Pakistanis have thus accepted that while they may drown in Pakistan, they would drown faster if there was no Pakistan. In today`s world, it is not any, ``ism`` or religion or ethnicity that decides nationhood. It is economics. In the new world, economic unions are stronger than any other kind of union (be they religious, cultural, secular, ethnic etc.). And I think all Pakistanis have accepted Pakistan as a viable economic home and unit. So whether they accept it as a religious or ethnic home, becomes immaterial - at least based on my views, which state that all personal decisions are made on the basis of economic and physical security.

So if a Sunni kills a Shia, and a Muhajir kills a Sindhi and a Punjabi slaps a Pathan, it is a sign of mismanaged country. Not a sign of a country that does not have an identity.

#30

`Karachi is to Bombay what Delhi is to Lahore is a good analogy. I am from Karachi and I still think that Lahore is small provincial backwater capital. . . .`

eeeeeeeshhhhh. there are some positive things to be said about `small provincial backwater capitals`. . .khair, am too tired to defend a lahore that no longer exists anymore!

Mantolives #29: ``Generally agreed ... however Economics is a secular concern ... and so according to you an average Pakistani is secular in his concern.``

This seems to be a sensitive point amongst many on Chowk.

Economics and personal security are the two driving forces for human beings, in my opinion. They rank far higher than religion/secularism or anything else, including democracy. In Pakistan (and in India`s) case, this can be seen by the migration patterns of its inhabitants. When they immigrate to countries, they only look at economics and security. Hence maulvis will go to USA. And secular Hindus will go to Saudi Arabia.

The above has been the basis of every debate I get into on this site, regarding religion/secularism or democracy/dictatorship.

Economics (and security) are neither a religious nor a secular concept. They are instinctive and in-built human needs, developed over thousands of years of evolution. Religious people want economic and personal security as much as secular people, and vice-versa. What to talk of human beings, even animals want economics and personal security, as a natural instinct. And one would have to agree that animals do not have the intelligence to differentiate between the concepts of religion and secularism.

Generally, people who are leaders in pushing the ideas of secularism or religion are themselves quite secure economically (otherwise they would be concentrating on economics). Hence secularism or religion does not affect their two basic needs.

The mistake they make is that instead of tying their religious or secularist ideas explicitly into a higher economic standard for their voters, they stop short. The religious folks argue that if one follows Islam, things will get better. They point to 7th century Arabia. How will that happen? They don`t bother to explain. Similarly, the secular folks argue that if a country becomes secular, things will get better. They point to 21st century USA. How will that happen? They don`t bother to explain either.

So religion and secularism is presented as the, ``end,`` when it should be presented as a means to an end, while specifically defining the steps needed to get to that end, i.e. economic growth through sound economic policies, practiced by an honest leadership. Neither parties do a good job of explaining these steps.

The reason is that these steps are not based on religion or secularism. They are based on ecnonomics and good governance. Two concepts that are almost completely independent of secularism and religion.

Pakistan will obviously not turn into 21st century USA, just by beocoming secular. If that were the case, it would have been well on its way, since, other than Zia`s time, it has been generally a secular state. It may well turn into 21st century secular Iraq. Moreso, India has been completely a secular state, and it should have been USA by now. Interestingly, India is experiencing its highest growth rates, under probably the most non-secular regime in the world.

Similarly Pakistani will not turn into the successful society of Muslim history, if it implements Shariah. It may well turn into 21st century Afghanistan. If Shariah was the end (and not a potential means to an end), then all the countries that have some form of Shariah would be thriving.

There will always be minority groups in every country, that will cling to religion or anti-religion, as their most important voting factor. In the USA, the Christian Coalition will always vote Republican, regardless of what is going on. And the liberal (in the US sense) will always vote Democrat. However, the deciding votes (mainstream) will always come from how well the economy is doing.

Similarly in Pakistan, the overwhelming majority will not worry about secularism or religion (once again look at immigration patterns to places like Saudi Arabia). They will vote for the person who can get their kids a job and provide electricity to their village. Politics, specifically in poor countries, is always about local potholes and lightbulbs. Rarely about abstract high-level concepts like religion and secularism. It only reaches that stage in places where either secularism or religion is the main cause of potholes not being fixed. Or where all the potholes have been fixed.

So if the religious JI fixes the potholes in the poor neighborhoods of NWFP, better than the secular ANP did, then I think they will win even more. If religous JUI gets the peasants of Baluchistan out of the control of the secular tribals, then they will win more also. And if JI in Karachi creates more physical security for the people than the secular MQM, then it will win more.

Not because people are voting for religion, or against secularism. But because they are voting for economics and security. In such cases, only those people will continue to vote for secular parties, who are not affected by potholes and jobs, i.e the ones like us, who are quite well off, and can afford to vote solely on secularism or religion.

Similarly, eventually, the rise and fall of secular parties like PPP and ANP etc. will be based on how well they solve economic problems. So far, they have a disastrous record of solving such problems. PPP, primarily because it is feudal and corrupt. No amount of secularism is going to help them solve such problems. This is what is leading to the rise of religious parties. The rise is not due to religion, but due to the economic corruption and mismanagment of the secular parties.

This brings us to economic policy. This (and human rights - of not only the minority, but the majority, as well) should be the driving force of every debate on govt. And in case of third world countries, I think this is even more important than democracy.

That is why, those making secularism and religion the deciding factor in politics are completley missing the point. Those are not major issues with poor poeple. All surveys in Pakistan indicate that. Those can only be issues in countries where the basic human needs of its citizens have already been taken care of. Pakistan does not fall into that category.

a waste of chowk space,

Here we have ferzok giving advice to the pak govt to focus on education,a new rip van winkle, unaware of the reality of pakistan.
The govt schools of paqkistan are remaining vacant, used as goat sheds, no teachers are appointed so taht the ilks of tahmed can say that children go to madrassas because no govt schools. This represent part of the govt policy, to provide fodder for the jihad, to support the notions of strategic depth and bleeding by a thousnd cuts. There is no point in telling what is good for pakistan, the problem is that your notion of goood is not what the pak abduls want, that is not what the very ideology of pak creation demands.

The ferzoks are simply echoing the sounds of the yanks, the madrassas are the source ov terror,. In fact they are the source of lot more, terror is the only aspect that the yanks and indians are bothered about.
It is the madrassas that has created the blasphemy legislation, the hoodood ordinance and alot more. The madrassas are only teaching the essence pf pak creative idea, the original ideological contribution, the TNT.

What is in pakistan is a world view, a TNT-islamic view. The wahabism existed for a long time, it flourishes in saudi, but it did not produce the taliban, the chechniyan and kashmir terrorists. It is a new strain from pakistan, TNTism, and that is the root ccuase of madrassas, that is what is guiding the pak society. That is what is preventing the people like you frojm mentioning that thousands of pakistanus have died in afghanistan and kashmir. For a so called educated like you, ahaheed never dies, and you support themn , you believe in the ideology, even though you never went to a pak madrassa, you are part of the TNTism that guides pak society.

Ferzok,

Instead of writing advice on what pak govt should do, it may be very informative if you could reflect on the Kashmir day holiday coming up on 5the february in pakistan.

That is the source of all pak problems that you talk about, that is the most popular manifestation of TNTism, the TNT starin of islam that supports and sustains the nadrassas. You have to accept the essence of kashmir day, the symbol that muslims cannot live in peace with any other religionists. Madrassas only produce woriiers that enforce the TNt idea.

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