The Immoral Family

#12 by r.a.janjua on March 3, 2004 0:39am PT

A personal attack of such intensity and such intimacy is un called for. Could this be a deep seated insecurity of yours? Could this be a projection on your part? Remember attacks come when you cannot come up with a rational argument of your own. How about an argument then? I am sure you can say something better than hurl bitter accusations of being an unloved child?

#10 by moulabux on March 2, 2004 10:22pm PT

The poor fellow tried to bring attention to rampant child abuse in Pakistan and you start speculating on how his parents ought to have beaten him up? Or ought not to have beaten him up? Physical abuse of children is prescribed in our religion where the Prophet Mohammad urges parents to beat children above 9 who forget their prayers. Such abuse is incongruent with the child rearing skills of the modern parent. But then we are talking about a third world country here. Strangely Muslims in general and Pakistanis in particular feel superior to the developed countries of the world merely because the civilized world doesn`t follow the same religion (Islam). It would be tragic if it was not ridiculously funny. There is hope however that people like you can actually find it funny and joke about our weaknesses and our flaws. Don`t let it get to you. Keep on moving against tyranny until the Jahils from the 6th century begin to wish they were with their creator.

#13 by M.B.Z.Isphahani on March 3, 2004 8:27am PT

You claim to have invented things in your brief bio , but its hard to follow what you are writing since you seem to also have gone ahead and invented another language. What are you writing about? My dear fellow if you are really 64 years old you may want to give the following a try: give your grandchildren a hug and beg forgiveness of your own children for trying to follow the ways of Gengis Khan (a person you apparently admire). Don`t you know Genghis Khan was a ruthless barbarian infidel who heaped mountains of skulls of the Momineen? It never amazes me when I hear a ``pakka`` Musalman talk about his love for Hitler or Genghis Khan or Osama Bin Ladin or Saddam Hussain or Zia Ul Haq. For a person who claims to be creative please try to think outside the box when it comes to social issues. It does not mean you make psychopaths and psychotic people as ``the person who influenced me the most``. Quoting Hitler and Genghis Khan ought to be an example of what NOT to do.

#11 by soysauce on March 2, 2004 10:22pm PT

Dear Mr./ Ms. Sauce, as much as Islamists hate George Bush for once again sticking it to the terrorists he did not make it to the Presidency because of nepotism or family ties.

But I have a feeling that my saying it will not influence your opinion. You may continue to wallow in your paranoia of the Jewish conspiracy and the Satanic west and the evil US etc. but think for a moment that most perhaps, maybe, (is it not possible) that Pakistanis may want more than a job at Office Max or McDonalds?

I realize its hard for you to think of anything beyond a corner grocery store (and if that is not possible then the next logical step for Muslims ought to be :the ENTIRE earth should become part of the Islamic Empire!) but I feel most Pakistanis would like to get jobs BEYOND the local office supply store. Most Pakistanis wish to be evaluated based on their own merit. They don`t wish to get a job through ``sifarish``, nor through ``pawwa``, nor through ``my uncle is financing my green card by giving me job at 7 Eleven``. Most Pakistanis feel in my opinion that networking is different from nepotism (look it up in the urdu-english dictionary). Another attempt at ``melding`` meanings and justifying nepotism.

By implying that Bush became President because of his father - you are taking justification of nepotism to new heights! Why? If Bush and his family can (allegedly) do it so can Pakistanis! Again this entire scenario is just playing in your head and is totally disconnected with reality.

To to try to glorify nepotism and to try to twist the meanings of words is now an Islamic pastime. For example according to Islamists the suicide bombers are NOT terrorists, Bush is a terrorist! It is ``freedom`` to live the live of a Muslim woman but it is ``slavery`` to live the life of a western woman! I realize these Islamists love to take words into new realms of meanings, twisting them around and then hurling it back onto the utterer. It can get so ridiculous that a point comes where if someone were to say ``AlQaeda is a terrorist organization``, the Islamist`s translating machinery will kick into action and immediately scream ``NO!! US is a terrorist organization, Allahuakbar!`` and if someone were to say ``AlQaeda is an Islamic organization`` the Islamist interpreter would immediately respond ``NO!! USA is an Islamic organization! Allahuakbar!``.

This is a reflection of the desperation with which you are trying to hold onto the old system. Make life easier for yourself and those around you.

Interesting article. However, who do you criticise to about your country and religion? Being a Pakistani, I know that we are very good at criticising everyone under the sun; putting constructive criticism to work is where we lack. We talk bad about the government while we don`t pay our taxes. All this doesn`t really result from a close family; you`re talking about abuse, critically analyzing you country and religion among other things and blaming it all on a close knit family system. That`s a bit extreme. Even if you have a close knit family system, it should help in getting honest critical advice. It shouldn`t be a restriction to growing yourself and becoming an individual. That results from an overbearing family, not necessarily a close knit one.

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

moulabux #10 - No I was not the victim of ``spare the rod; spoil the child`` philosophy. However, for us to turn a blind eye on this irrational social evil which afflicts ``other`` people`s children would be obscenely irresponsible. We tirelessly parrot the mantra that ``children are our future``, yet we destroy this future when we use rod as a mode of progress in child.

And yes I agree with you that this parental abuse issue will remain unresolved for a long time to come, however this does not absolve us of our responsibility to do something about it right now.

Each young parent needs to ask this question before employing extreme forms of discipline on their children: ``Am I doing this to make my child a better person, or am I doing this because my own life sucks and this is the only way I know how to take the frustration of my own failures out?``

poor excuses to justify the great dissapointment you must be to your parents.

Pretty shoddy economic analysis.
First off your argument correlating value systems & economic strength is rather weak. Secondly, how do you think George Bush got where he is today? What of the numerous CEOs who hire their offsprings to succeed them?
I was at an Officemax store yesterday. Except for the sales people, the rest of them, the floor manager, the guy in the office and a few other administrative types were all desis. How could this be? My guess is it`s friends putting in a word for each other when a poistion opens up. Maybe the capitalists at Officemax corporation don`t have quite your wisdom when it comes to hiring what sort of people they should be hiring.

The author has addressed one of the more traditional aspects of our culture, and such an effort deserves praise. Yet, he has allowed his subjective reality to influence the article, taking much of the sting out of it. No matter how individualistic one becomes, especially after doses of Ayn Rand, there are certain filial obligations that have their roots not in traditions, but in love. Therefore, one cannot be completely absolved of this income tax. Neither am I advocating the depositing of the paycheck in your parents account, but there needs to be a balance, the elusive balance which has eluded our society since god knows when.

malik99,

Were you the victim of ``spare the rod; spoil the child`` philosophy? Hah. That is the case in most families, though, and any sort of refusal on part of the child is tantamount to rebellion. Then the rod enters the equation, and the child lives in perpetual fear of the rod, and becomes a sod. And rest assured, the parental abuse issue will remain unresolved for a long time to come, as it cannot possibly be abolished from our culture, but maybe curbed, if the right steps are taken.

Not that it would make much of a difference. Laws were never our nations top priority.

Cheers.

To Those who have decided to take upon themselves the burden of individuality, congratulations !

Do not change yourself. TRANSFORM yourself! Yes you will make mistakes but life is about making mistakes. Don`t forget to learn from them because the smart always acknowledge their mistakes and are smart enough to identify the better method and act upon it. It is the stupid and the insane who continue to do the same things again and again and again , just like they used to do in the 6th century!

Thank you all for bringing your concerns and interpretations. I am really happy that you liked it.

As for #8 :

Hernando-De-What? vs. Francis Fukuyama ?

Your economist`s assertions are unclear. You want to make a law banning hiring of cousins?
Is there such a law in any of the developed countries of the world? No. Do they need this law? No. Why don`t they need this law? Because they have a different value system.

What should we do? Should we introduce another law? Don`t treat the symptoms, come up with a cure. Cure Pakistan of the feudal- religious tyranny by tackling the almost incestuous familial houshold of Pakistanis.

This article is based on very false premises. It has mistaken correlation with causation.

You should read the work of the famous economist Hernando De Soto to understand this
problem.

The reason Scandinanavian countries are less corrupt is because - of strong personal property rights and legal identity which is transferrable.
In societies which do not have such property rights, there is more ``corruption``.
ALso, In most of the developing societies, laws are not geared towards how the local culture operates - that is why there is more ``corruption``.

Corruption is basically an ``unofficial`` system which comes about because the cost of doing business legally is rendered high because of outdated laws and lack of transparency in property rights.

Francis Fukuyama had claimed that somehow ``Protestant`` societies have more trust and this they are better than the rest. All that is crap - the reason they have trust is because of a strong and transparent property rights system with a legal system to enforce it.

So, dont believe the crap that ``families -bad`` and ``individual-good`` - be skeptical of theories that pronounce that one kind of normative-behavior is better than the other.

The author A.Shiraz has naively fallen for superficial theorizing without thinking through
the implications.

In third world countries, like Pakistan, the most common complaint is ``Rishwat`` (bribery) and ``Sifarish`` (also known as ``pawwa``) otherwise known as nepotism. Believe it or not out of about 6,000 high officials more than 4,000 are brothers, nephews, nieces, and in-laws of CSP officers. ......

This is something which i have been coming across since i was born ..and people like you who write about it talk about it ...(no offence) ...but people should try to change themselves ...and i think its better not to make any blunt statements like that (although it might be true), but without any substantial backing ...anyways a coherent and informative article for my trivial knowledge ..;P

This well written article brings into light one of the taboo subjects in our society: the physical absue of children by parents in the name of instilling ``discipline``.

While growing up in Pakistan in 80s, i was well aware of the physical beatings of children that took place in my neighborhood. These beatings were as `light` as a slap on face, to as much as repeatedly hitting a child with some object (for example a shoe) for an extended period of time. The premise of this `tashadad` was that these beatings would make a better person out of child. This abuse was usually the result of some indiscretion the child did - perhaps he did not do well in school; did not do what he was asked to do; indulged in something he should not have; or had shown some disobedient tendency.

I once confronted a mother who was hitting her child. Her response was that she is mother and she knows how best to raise her child. That left me wondering how this child will grow up and still respect this devilish woman who feels she has the right to beat by the virtue of her being the mother.

OUr soceity accepts and condones this physical abuse because of the wrong and unhealthy emphasis it puts on the ``respect to parents``. There is little or no help available to helpless victims who as a result of abuse grow up shy, reserved, and often with crushed personalities.

In this ``obedience oriented`` society we fail to understand that like all other human beings, parents also have their own interests to take care of. They perhaps beat the child who is not a good student because they want him to study hard and become a doctor. However they do that not just with child`s interest in their mind but their own as well. How envious the neighbours would be of them when they have a son who is a prosperous doctor ! So they beat their son out of their inner fear that one day they might be known as parents of a failure son, while neighbors or other relatives sons will be driving new cars and making their parents proud.

There needs to be more awareness about this social ill. There also need to be laws to punish parents who are found guilty of this evil practice. Our religious leaders should talk about this issue in friday sermons.

Most of all, parents should learn this simple lesson that if a child should pay for his mistakes and shortcomings by getting beaten, then parents should also get this treatment when they themselves make a mistake. If beatings can correct a child, they can certainly correct a parent too.

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

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

Really, i was astonished after studying this article.I must say to write on such a critical subject , sometimes may create a negative response for your thinking..Indeed , it was a very positive approach on such kind of a topic about which our typical society even not dare to think.A line of this article that gave me an appeal is `` unqulified respect for elders``.It raised a simple question in my mind that should an evil character or corrupt father or flirt mother be respected and obeyed by their children in the way as our society and morals teach us?
Moreover, we shoud not leave our parents in nursing houses in their old age but parents should realize that their children are not an automatic money machine in which you would insert a credit card and then would soon get money.I am agreed with A.shiraz that our parents should left this orthodoxy that their chlid would pay back all of their money which they had spent on him. Dont prepare your children like a cheque for your old age.PARENTS ought to be selfless especially for their children.

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

Individuality is not an admirable virtue. Who cares if we all stifle to death?