A Critique of Philosophical Thought in Pakistan

Freddy_Krueger #8: I think you have some valid points. But you are exaggerating quite a bit also. I think you are greatly mixing the views of a small minority of religious activists in Pakistan with the general population. If the specimen in your study is Mullah Umar, then your views are accurate. If it is a normal Pakistani, then they are not. My guess is because you are letting your personal opinions interfere with an objective analysis. It is impossible to carry out a balanced analysis on an issue, if one has an open dislike of it. Such an analysis would be ignored completely by people whom you are attempting to communicate with. It will only be accepted by those who already agree with you.

My guess is that the hamidm/NHKs etc will agree with you emphatically. While Urstruly/Naqshbandis will disagree with you. Each will abuse the other, as usual. And nothing productive will have been accomplished.

People who want to rid the world of religion need to do just two things a) Provide an answer on the meaning of life: why were we born? b) Provide information on what will happen after death. Once those two are answered, religion will finish. Until then, religion will survive (and continue to grow), because it is the inherent nature of an inquisitive mind to attempt to find answer for these two questions.

Another factor is that the poorer a person happens to be, the more fatalistic he/she becomes. It is very easy for you and I to accept and unaccept philosophies, as we wish. We have nothing else to worry about, financially. However, a person who has been born weak, poor and disenfranchised has to have some hope in an aftrer-life that will balance out the injustices that he/she is facing in this life. If that does not exist, then the world is (or would seem to the disenfranchised) to be an extremely unfair place, for him/her.

Most of the discourse on religion on this site, and in the Pakistan press, is dominated by two types of individuals: those who consider religion to be the solution to everything and those who consider it the problem for everything. These two groups, in reality, are a small minority of Pakistanis. In every survey I have read on Pakistan, the theories of these two groups enjoy very little importance. Pakistan’s condition will not improve, if everyone started going to a madrassah, nor will it improve if everyone started speaking Punjabi and stopped going to madrassahs (with no other options available to them). These are mostly pipe-dreams pushed by people who have a different agenda, i.e. not the improvement of conditions in Pakistan but the removal or institutionalization of religion in a society.

I don’t think too many people long for a revival of 7th century Islamic civilization. I work for an NGO in Pakistan, which provides scholarships to needy students at levels starting from high-school to college. It gets a lot of applications from the remotest parts of Pakistan. These are from individuals who cannot even afford a couple of hundred to a thousand rupees for their education. I have yet to see a single application for any madrassah. They are all for places like Hasan Abdal school, UET, Fatima Jinnah Medical, Govt. run primary schools, etc. Why haven’t any of them applied for a madrassah (many of which are actually free) if your theory of people longing for the historical greatness of Islamic civilization are true?

If the govt. builds an Beaconhouse school next to every community of madrassah, where do you think the people will send their kids?

Muslim countries, specifically Pakistan, have been harmed far more by individuals who went to Oxford, Harvard and Sandhurst, then by individuals who went to a madrassah. The madrassah-goers have yet to gain power over Muslim countries. Who knows what they will do? But one cannot conveniently pass on the failiures of the former (who have been running every country from Morocco to Indonesia) onto the later. It is nothing more than a case of denial.

People long for economic growth. For personal security. For jobs. For infrastructure. For education for their children. For entertainment. This is what drives every person. It is what even drives animals, what to talk of people. This is what the main discourse of any successful society should be on. Unfortunately, on this site, we have an overdose of articles on why religion is the solution and why it is the problem, i.e. the views of two minorities dominate the views of the majority.

If everyone had spent a 1/10 of their energy on debating economic theories, educational policies, how to build a canal, how to introduce electricity to a village, how to finance a school, the strengths and deficiencies of the Karachi Stock exchange, the standard of IT in Pakistan, how to improve fertilizer delivery to farmers etc., that they spend on useless debates on how the madrassahs are the problem, and Punjabi is the solution, all of us here on Chowk would be much well-informed and enlightened…….

I think Chowk should now think of doing away with articles that repeatedly debate religion and secularism and religion and secularism and religion and secularism. They are a waste of time, because they are generally written by people who barely understand these philosophies in detail. Hence it is impossible to debate anything with them, since they will never acknowledge the deficiencies in their respective theories. Most have an agenda, they are pushing. And the ones who do understand the philosophies seem to be convinced that most people in Pakistan seem to give religion and/or secularism the same importance that they do………

Personally, I would be much more interested if you could provide us with the details of Waris Shah or on how to improve the cotton crop in Southern Punjab than on why Islam is the problem or the solution. And if surverys are anything to go by, so would an overwhelming percentage of Pakistanis………..

I have recently had the good fortune of discussing issues with Raza Kazim, Pakistan`s leading lawyer, who has dedicated a considerable amount of his time, wealth and and effort to philosophy. He does not fall into the same trap. He speaks of a ``dialectics of the mind``... and in doing so manages to go beyond the existing parameters as we know them in philosophy.

Allama Iqbal was a great poet philosopher, but he was the poet of the middle class, and a philosopher concerned with Islam and its role in the modern world. Mr. Kazim`s philosophy goes beyond it, as it does not suffer any such pretensions.

Freddy Kreuger (a.k.a SameerJB?)

I suggest you read what Romair is saying closely. If you can look past his attrocious simplicity... perhaps you will see that what he says in real terms might not be so bad.

For years now we have been frustrated by his obfuscation and strawman fallacy of Islam vs. secularism (Islamic Republic vs. Secular Republic, as if any secular Republic ever made ``Secular`` the part of their official name).

But the fact is that we should accept his definition as is... for this is how he chooses to define the two. The fact of the matter is that when Romair says he is more interested in Waris Shah or the cotton crop in South Punjab ... he is actually accepting the twin headers of your ideology... 1) Punjabi literature 2) The very secular Agricultural Economics.

I accept it... but I also hope that some one will pay some attention to institutional discrimination that exists against minorities in Pakistan. I am sure Romair does not support the constitutional discrimination against them.

-YLH

#8,
Sameer,
A good and well put post.

Freddy,

``Actualy the reasons are not that complicated to understand. As the author pointed out and I repeat here are simply the result of mytholigizing Islam, Islamic history, Islamic dogma and absolute belief in the inherent goodness of Islam.``

If one were to objectively analyze Western philosophers, then you will see that they do not engage in the questioning of certain fundamentals. There is a Western mythos, a special emphasis on Western history, a dogma of sorts surrounding axiomatic notions such as freedom, and a belief that the West is not only inherently good, but the best. There are definitely more `intellects` in the Muslim world who criticize Islamic thought than Western intellects who take stock and seriously challenge the academic establishment in the West.

Why? Because this is how it works. You have a body of work, and a paradigm for thinking. Paradigm shifts are few and far between. But what is important about Western thought is that it is self contained, and does not (in a paranoid fit) compare itself to any others. In fact, there is a complete obliviousness of any other world view. This is good and neccessary to come up with a self-consistent mode of thought. Muslim Intellects (especially the secular ones) are too busy ``reconciling`` to do any original thinking. The religious ones do it only in reference to their own mode of thought, and so obviously Western thought will loose out since it can`t bridge the conceptual gaps that are taken as established truisms. Vice versa, for that matter.


``When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech...``

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Basically, they see a successful West, in particular technologically and economically powerful. Then they go on to attribute every and all things good to it. Thus, the first thought that comes to mind is that if we walk the walk just like they do, then perhaps we can be successful like they are. Of course, success has little to do with how you walk.

The problem here is that it will take lots of work, and not just changing the way we ``think`` which is rather easy and takes but seconds to do. Further, it implies that we can do nothing unless we all think a certain way, and act in unison. More rubbish. There is a common good that can be worked towards, even if you are working along side someone who`s ideology you despise. This, however, never happens in our part of the world. NEVER. And this is the true strength of the West.

``First it assumes with 100 percent certainty that there was a golden age of Islam (which was actually measured in territorial and power terms than anything else) and then it links it without proof to the inherent goodness of Islam.``

Bzzzt. Wrong. The idea is that we were once ``leaders`` in the various fields of study, and in economics...and we can be again. It was, in fact, a golden age. Not exactly the best political set-up, certainly nothing to emulate today. But worthy of remeberence, and not to shy away from. If I only had a dime for eveyrtime someone who is so dissociated from Muslim thought that they would actually think this is some kind of valid point...

``However, if this is the extract of inherent goodness responsible for the golden age of Islam, it is absolutely useless in modern times of technology, education and brain power.``

Oh, and if I had a penny every time someone brought this up as if it was a novel idea. DUH!

``Muslims, more than any other nation or people believe in the reversibility of time and coming back of the so-called golden age of Islam.``

Nope. See above. The idea is we were once great, we can be again. That`s just useless sloganeering, though. Fact is, every Muslim knows they don`t know what to do...and that no one else really has a good idea either. What they do take for granted is that in order to ``succeed`` we need to be left alone. So what you have, in fact, is a growing xenophobia....very difficult for a missionary people to reconcile btw. It is this shutting out the world that is doing us harm...

``Are all of these people today dreaming about recreating the golden age?``

You`ve obviously NOT talked to a Persian or a Greek lately. Or an Italian, for that matter. The pride is undeniable. The fact is, they are now a part of the EU, so they have a sense of progress. So they don`t need to fallback on memories of the past to assuage their contemporary feelings of hopelessness.


``It sounds funny but promotion of native languages and cultures could actually help change philosophical thoughts. For example, Islamic madrassah system is not available in most Pakistani native languages. There are no equivalent words of murtid, mulhid, dehriya etc in Punjabi. Most punjabis use them as such from Arabic or Urdu and most uneducated villagers dont know the meanings of these words. ``

No, Pakistani native cultures are primitive and not very cosmopolitan. The fact is, it is a sure fire way to have the state disintegrate. Promotion of the native cultures over any concept which transcends them (whether it is Pakistani nationalism, or Islam, or whatever) will encourage racism and sectarianism. This is foolish. Swallow your pride and look at India, not the West.

Re: # 21
I agree with most of your repudiation of Freddy`s points. Very well said, but one comment of yours is puzzling. I would appreciate it if you would explain it further.
````When Akbar S. Ahmed says, ``I see Islam everywhere in USA but no Muslims and Islam nowhere in Islamic countries but mostly Muslims`` he is essentially saying the same thing that Iqbal said in his Reconstruction of Islamic thoughts and the excerpt from his speech...``

Sounds like a cop-out to me. Basically, they see a successful West, in particular technologically and economically powerful. Then they go on to attribute every and all things good to it. Thus, the first thought that comes to mind is that if we walk the walk just like they do, then perhaps we can be successful like they are. Of course, success has little to do with how you walk.`` Vertex

#8 Freddy,
Sameer, is it - i liked your big picture. It is a rather devastating comment that - assuming you`re right - that it was women pilots who rained down bombs on a masculine army in afghanistan.. The conflict is multidimensional.

Romair and Mantolives:

While you both are partly right that my last post relied heavily on the midset of a certain segment of Islamic societies but you must also remember that various levels of symapthy exist in the larger Muslim societies for the zeal, principles and modes of operation of these elements. Therefore, the societies have taken no steps to single out, isolate, marginalize or weed out these elements from within.

However, the gist of my contention seemed to have lost to both of you. I contended that a system (religion or civilization) does not have to be perfect to succeed. It is the edge in certain important areas that matters now as it always mattered. None - Islam, West, Hinduism, Christianity etc - are perfect but West enjoys edge in education, technology, social contract and generating wealth areas. Similarly Hinduism has been enjoying edge over Islam in education and the role of women in society in subcontinent for almost 2 centuries now. Islam also enjoyed edge in certain areas like raising large faithful, dedicated and determined soldiers which helped creating empires and territorial expansion. Islam still enjoys the edge over others just as it once enjoyed during the so-called golden age of Islam in the same areas of able to bring forth large number of able male to defend in addition to low rate of pre-marital or ``illegitimate`` sex. But the Islamic edge in modern times is not only meaningless/ obsolete but detrimental also due to their effects on the society.

What I just wrote is not rejected only by the hardcore fundametalists as you people suggested but almost by all of the mainstream Muslims would object to edge theory over perfect/ inherent goodness theory. The belief that Islam, in its original form, is all good and perfect. Islam mukammal zabita-e-hayat hae (in Urdu): Islam hamara deen hae; Wordly success is not important compared to eternal bliss in heaven and hense, following Islam in its purest form guarantees eternal bliss. Are these the beliefs of hardcore fundamentalists and mullah omer or majority of Muslims?

The perfection of original Islam is infallable for Muslims because it is linked with the message of all good and powerful god directly. Perfect Islam means its edge in all important areas which is just not true in the real world. Muslims must accept that Islam is not perfect like every other system, to begin with and stop this nonsense of corruption by mullah and elites theory. They must agree unconditionally that four wives per man, lightly beating your wives and them relegating to half a witness status is absurd and stop making excuses to justify these absurdities. They must also agree that for generating wealth, interest-free banking is crazy idea with no empirical data to support it in addition to accepting the fact that Islam is heavy with rituals costing much more time and energy per person per week, per month, per year and per lifetime thus leaving comparably less time per person to succeed in wordly matters. Well, I have just laid out few imperfections in the original, pure and inherently good Islam - key to eternal bliss in heavens. These are just tip of the iceberg. Once you start looking at it critically, you can write a book about inherent imperfections.

In modern times to succeed, the edge to have is same for all faiths, nations and people. Muslims are wrong to believe that once inherently good, original, pure and perfect Islam is implemeted, they would enjoy edge over the rest. Rest of the world is just not stupid to not know the areas where edge matters. The edge for all of humanity lies in education, technology, generating wealth, civil liberties and most important edge going forward from here would be enjoyed by the people who lead the way in accepting (and practicing) women to absolute equal level with men.

So, stop the mantra of Islam is perfect and Muslims are imperfect due to corrupting Islam.

....various levels of symapthy exist in the larger Muslim societies for the zeal, principles and modes of operation of these elements. Therefore, the societies have taken no steps to single out, isolate, marginalize or weed out these elements from within......

Far from weeding out these weeds, these factions are exalted and worshipped by large number of coreligionists

The world is bored with the ``hijacking of Islam`` conspiracy theory, amongst other rumors that these people want the world to gulp without questioning.

Re: # 22

ShoreSahib,

The idea was not to disaproove of the compliment being paid to the West, but rather to point out that the comparison is on such a superficial level. The fact is , no matter where you think you see Islam, the fact is the Westerners have and worked hard to get where they are and we Muslims have done very little work at all.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the intension of the quote, however I think progress is truely independent of thought at such an idelogical level. Whole-sale `westernization` (which I think is what is being advocated) is therefore at best a superficial suggestion.

Q:``Why not question``?
A:Because there IS no question!

This is what the preface/preamble says.
``The Book (Qura`an Al-`furquan is for those who have not an iota of doubt`` ( zaal`i Kal kitaab--``)

No need to proceed any further. You`ve been cautioned! Caveat emptor! Read No further! Scram!

You have a CHOICE!
``Announce or Renounce``!--echoboom.
[Its a `free` country--is`nt it)

---

``The Muhammadan Law, which is binding on all from the crowned head to the meanest subject, is a law interwoven with a system of the wisest, the most learned and the most enlightened jurisprudence that ever existed in the world.``

- Edmund Burke ``Impeachment of Warren Hastings``

Vertex:

In the light of the topic and contents of the article by Mohammad Gill, a comparison with the west and the rest is the most appropriate mean of discussion on this subject. A debate about suffocation and arrest of philosophical thoughts in Pakistan against null background is only meant to transfer the blame to anybody but Islam and Muslims and Urstruly is master of doing it. Comparison with the better is an incentive for striving whereas comparison with the worse off is meant to feel good, proud and satisfied. If you and ShoreSahib wish to feel good, proud and believing in the perfection of Islam, I have no problem in stating that Islam is inherently good and perfect religion compared to savage lifestyle of neanderthals.

echoboom:

.....ba ba black sheep....have you any wool? Where is the beef? Where is the edge? How does covering head with hijab by all Muslim women and growing beards without moustache by all Muslim men create an edge over the rest in any spehre of interest? May be thick padded/ insulated hijabs, like helmets, absorb the lightly beatings on the head from husbands?

Romair:

I hope you understand the difference between all good, inherently good and perfect from that of having an edge. Here is an example you should understand well. Pakistan military establishment has an edge over civilians and politicians due to trained and professional army with weapons. However, not all would agree that they were perfect to rule and inherent goodness urged them to overthrow civilian governments in Pakistan.

I see nothing wrong in accepting not having an edge and not perfect yet be happy, content and even proud of being a Muslim for you. Islam is a religion and being a Muslim becomes part of your identity. As in my case, I have no doubt that Punjabi language has no edge over English in my situation and it is not perfect becasue it lacks expressing scientific and technical world, but I am happy and content with this being my identity of choice instead of any other identity related to subcontinent. You just dont let anything not having an edge and not perfect to stand in the way of lawful persuit of happiness and success.

Freddy,

``Comparison with the better is an incentive for striving whereas comparison with the worse off is meant to feel good, proud and satisfied. If you and ShoreSahib wish to feel good, proud and believing in the perfection of Islam, I have no problem in stating that Islam is inherently good and perfect religion compared to savage lifestyle of neanderthals``

To paraphrase Westerners, the philosophy espoused by Islamic thinkers may not be perfect, but it is the best for Muslims.

The very notion that one can compare two philosophies without even a common frame of reference to conduct this comparison is absurd. The fact is, when such comparisons are done, it is with a preconceived answer in mind...`to feel good` as you put it. There is no honesty in that. You seem to recognize this when Muslims do it, but yet have no problem when you do it.

Who better to learn from than the immensely successful, highly respected, belonging to the ``elite`` people of the WEST ( who have no NEED for anything or anyone); The ones who know the TWO worlds, East & West, much better than the * The crow/swans, number 2 maal, the fakes, the imitations, the copy-right infringers, the patent purveyors, or the trade-mark thieves*

*In short: The Ba Ba Blacksheep of the Ummah*

Can`t love them,
Can`t leave them.

``Am I a Yo-Yo?
or a pendulum
This back and forth
and up and down
is shaking up my brain``

No matter how much science I do
I just can`t stop thinking of their `God`

Am I still in His control?
Am I still with unfree-thoughts?
Echoboom say renounce or announce
But its God always that I denounce.

O Allah! why are You so much in my thoughts?
H--E--L--P!``

---

Snippets from (mostly) MarmaDuke Pickthall


The standard of Islam in every sphere of human action or human intercourse, is certainly not lower than the highest standards of today. It is Muslims who fall short of the Islamic standard today. This downfall and decay, far from shaking the face of Muslims in the Shari`ah , have strongly confirmed it. For they now see clearly that the cause of their humiliation has been neglect of some of the injunctions of the Sacred Law:

* ``To obtain education is a religious duty for every Muslim, male and female.``
* ``Seek knowledge even though it be in China.``
* ``An hour`s contemplation and study of God`s creation is worth a year of adoration.``
* ``Trust in God but tie your camel.``

and many other sensible and plain commands.

Muslims now see clearly that the material success of western nations is due to their adoption of that part of the Shari`ah which guards material progress and prosperity, and which the Muslims have so foolishly neglected.

which were present in Islam from the beginning, and are embodied in the Sacred Law - have gradually one by one, become accepted by the people of the West. The duty of free-thought and free-inquiry; the duty of religious tolerance; the idea that conduct not creed or class distinction must be the test of a man`s worth in law and social intercourse; woman`s right to full equality with men before the law, her right to property; the license to divorce and remarry; the duty of personal cleanliness; the prohibition of strong drink - all these well-known ingredients of the Sacred Law of Islam, which were all anathema [obscenities] to Christian in Europe. They are still regarded by the church as either irreligious or purely secular, that is, outside the purview of religion and have been incorporated in the ideology of western civilisation.

It can be proved, and has been proved by Christian writers, that all these modern ideas were derived from the Muslims of a bygone day. But they were of course adopted by the Europeans on the strength of daleel-aqli (the argument of reason alone), not on [al-daleel al-shara`i] (the argument of divine sanction); which alone commended them at first to Muslims.

The Muslims, from belief in their divine sanction, proceeded to acknowledge the arguments of reason in favour of these ordinances. Is it possible that having accepted them on the evidence of reason that the West may come to eventually believe in their divine sanction? I hardly think so, until the West can recognise the divine sanction which is behind human reason Until the people come to know that all these things (which the Christians rank as `secular,`) are of such vast importance to the welfare of mankind, and form part and only part of an existing code of religious Law and claim to be of divine revelation. Until they come to realise their need for the remaining portion of the Shari`ah, the part which Muslims still hold firmly, the part which guards political and social stability and progress.


This the Muslims have held tenaciously on the strength of (divine) shariah only for the past two or three centuries; but human reasoning alone can bring non-Muslims to adopt it, and human reasoning today is lacking in the only form in which it could appeal to the materially-minded - a bright example of the whole Islamic polity [nation] and practice, upon modern lines.

Freddy #24: At an abstract level, your theory is correct. However, at the specific level, in regards to Muslims, it may or may not be, for the following reasons: You have based your theory, regarding Muslims, on the following two premise:

- Muslims are trying to revive the ancient golden centuries of Islam
- The main reason the Muslims are not advancing is that they are lost in trying to revive their golden age

Nowhere in your thesis, have you provided any facts to back up these two assumptions. You have just assumed them to be true. If either of them turns out to be false, then your argument becomes null and void. How do you know that Muslims are lost in reviving 7th century Islam? Is there a survey that you can point us to? How do you know that is what is keeping them back, even if they are trying to revive their golden age? Maybe it is making them work harder and having the opposite effect? Maybe it isn’t. How can one even quantify such an assumption?

This is why I keep saying that your thesis will not have any affect on anyone else, other than those who already agree with your assumptions. Unquestioning agreement with your train of thought and opinion, is a pre-requisite for agreeing with your thesis. Thus it will have no effect on those who do not agree with your assumptions.

A solid argument is one that cannot be discredited and disputed, even by those who want to disagree with it. Such an argument that is based on logic and on provable statistics. Otherwise it is nothing more than an opinion, which more than likely is biased.

I think the factors that relate to the advancement of a civilization have more to do with what you mentioned at the end of your last reply: “The edge for all of humanity lies in education, technology, generating wealth, civil liberties and most important edge going forward from here would be enjoyed by the people who lead the way in accepting (and practicing) women to absolute equal level with men.”

However, I cannot agree with your premise, “Muslims are wrong to believe that once inherently good, original, pure and perfect Islam is implemeted, they would enjoy edge over the rest.” until your provide more factual information justifying that most Muslims actually think this. For example, I don`t think it is even possible to implement any kind of Shariah, even if one tried. And in Pakistan, there never has been one. In fact, there is hardly any Muslim country in the world that has one. Yet, barring a tiny minority, the Muslims aren`t trying to implement one. And even where they are trying, it is more due to the failure of all other options that have ruled over them.........

I think most Muslims are worry about same things others are worried about: jobs, health care, security, education, prosperity etc. This is what is indicated in every survey that I have read in Pakistan. This is what is indicated by the migration patterns also. I have never seen return to 7th century Islam as a top priority. Discussions on this topic are limited to those on the fringes, who keep attacking each other on this issue, because of their personal feelings about religion………

So you need to substantiate your assumptions to justify that Muslims actually think the way that you say they do………And even if they do, this is what is keeping them back..........

In addition, some of your historical information is inaccurate. For quite a few centuries, scientific thought was actually dominated by Muslim scientists. I believe it was much more than, “raising large faithful, dedicated and determined soldiers which helped creating empires and territorial expansion.” Though that is a different debate.

As I have always stated, you have a lot of knowledge, from which everyone could benefit.. But much like Urstruly, you tend to let your biased opinions on religion and its perception amongst Pakistanis cloud your views and thesis..........

Philosophic ideals develops as a function of void, injustice and resources present in the society. Philosophy in this environment may take different route and evolve in their due time. Their ideas may vary greatly with what the likes of Karl Marx , Nietche, Hegel, Karl Popper or Wittgenstein have to say. This article does well in identifying the each of the dependent variables but assumes that the functional philosphy must be `exact` mirror of the western counter parts. Or perhaps we are , as the past hundred or so years have shown us, in a time where we should not concern with producing something indigenous .
Mustapha Kemal set the `tone` in harmony of future development of any `muslim` state. Following Kemalian [ no pun intended] tone, why stop at the constitution which was based on wetsern model, Pakistan should `allocate resources` send some students abroad to learn philosophy and come back and breath life into stagnant situation. After all Pakistan has scholarships for students studying nuclear physics and rocket science [I have personally met with at least a couple of such nationally, as opposed to naturally, endowed individuals ]. But such policies do not seem to be in allignment with national policy. As far as individuals are concerned they are tied to `khudi of `roti` rather than love of knowledge viz:philoophy.

khudi ko bus parrha aisey
ki har nokri sey pehley
khud aa aur khud hi pooch
`beta meri meri `roti` kahan hai?`