oaindupastry:

It`s good that you took my post in the right spirit. Thanks for your explanation also. I am also sick of taking too many personal ``uncalled for`` barbs. Occasionally, I lose my cool and go overboard. I have `dirtied my hands` in my time frequently for doing the things that I was better equipped for. I don`t have to do the things which you can do better than myself. I spent better part of my life in learning and doing engineering and that is the best that I could do. I left politics for others who were better trained than myself.

You`re young as you said and if you think your country can get better by your actions, go ahead and do it. I wish you well.

Mohammad Gill

``I wish you guys best of luck. I know you mean well. Hope you understand well what you plan to do in Pakistan. ``

Sadly, the more i think about it the more i realize, i dont. wish i find the wisdom and experience of others to guide me. wish i had more than the moral support of those who wish me well.

``To your question: ``Will you remain hidden in your thoughts?`` etc., I have this much to say. I have no reason to hide from you or from anybody else. I spill my thoughts every so often at chowk and provide you opportunity for interacting. Had I been hiding, you wouldn`t be addressing your post to me. ``

as for that comment, it really didnt come out the way i wanted it to. im young and foolish. consider it an error in expressing myself. u`ve been one of my favorite writers at chowk. have read thru ur articles on every topic u wrote on and found them very educational. i appreciate and thank you for that.
but im tired now. im tired of listening to ppl expressing what they think is right and what they think has led to pakistans current quagmire and what can lead them out of it. sure thinking and expressing ones thought is a necessity for any reformatory process but im tired of listening. i want some action to follow it up. i agree we need ``scientists, engineers, thinkers and freethinkers`` but we seem to have a lack of HR for all of these at the moment. for the few that are capable they shud focus on what is more important and i feel ``rabble rousers`` are whats needed most. maybe im wrong, in which case i hope i learn soon.

paindupastry:

On the whole, when I look at my life I`m quite satisfied that I did my part. A country doesn`t only need rabble rousers; it also needs scientists, engineers, thinkers and freethinkers, not only within the country but outside also. And you know what I had never indulged in politics in my life. I had single-mindedly devoted my work to engineering. And I don`t have any ambitions to `dirty my hands` where they don`t belong.

I wish you guys best of luck. I know you mean well. Hope you understand well what you plan to do in Pakistan.

To your question: ``Will you remain hidden in your thoughts?`` etc., I have this much to say. I have no reason to hide from you or from anybody else. I spill my thoughts every so often at chowk and provide you opportunity for interacting. Had I been hiding, you wouldn`t be addressing your post to me.

I wish you well.

Mohammad Gill

Romair : ``My conclusion is that there are too many people defining it and preaching it, and not enough willing to fight for it. No one wants to get his/her hands dirty. They want others to do it.
This is where the Western societies and Pakistan differ. In the Western societies, there are activists, at large levels, who get their hands dirty. ``


Absolutely true. I hope i can be a part of the changing trend which will focus on action and protest (get our hands dirty) to all that we find wrong. I return to pakistan in a month. The reason is almost solely to do something for Pakistan rather than myself. Romair, ur words are a source of inspiration and i hope to pursue the goals they identify. Im just one person but i hope i find a few more along the way.
As for you Mr. freethinker...are you willing to do as you think, or will you remain hidden in your thoughts! I do know without a doubt that you desire to help pakistan. Is what romair defines as personal action and protest not the right way or is Pakistan just a hopeless cause.

freethinker #100: ``What about you? I think you`re a younger person than I am (I am about to retire from active work), and you seem to have a good political savvy. If you`re suggesting I shouldn`t write on such topics because I cannot put them into practice by my own hand, you`re sorely mistaken.``

I have never suggested that you should not write about these topics. I think people should write about anything they want to write about.

And my remarks aren`t specifically directed at you. I am making a general statement, and trying to find out, and/or highlight, any strategy for implementing secularism in Pakistan. And why this idea has failed.

My conclusion is that there are too many people defining it and preaching it, and not enough willing to fight for it. No one wants to get his/her hands dirty. They want others to do it.

This is where the Western societies and Pakistan differ. In the Western societies, there are activists, at large levels, who get their hands dirty. They are in the trenches. Take the issue of gay marriages, for example. In any secular system, gay marraiges should obviously be legal. Yet in the USA, the majority population of not a single state approves it. They give all kinds of reasons against it, while simultaneously claiming to be secular.

However, there are people still fighting for gay marriage, in large numbers. And sooner or later, they will win out, in a secular system (like they are winning in Canada). Or the USA will have to limit its secularism.

One doesn`t see that kind of a fight in Pakistan, for secularism. A lot of talk, but no action. And as I said, this is where the religious forces excel. They are fighting it out in the streets. They are very passionate about thier cause, and do get their hands dirty. And they are very focused.

Another reason could be that the secularists, themselves, in Pakistan are quite religious. There own belief in secularism, as a philosophy, is not pure. It is limited within certain religious boundaries. Their interests seem to be just to keep the theocrats out of power. Not to implement a purely secular philosophy, which will expand beyond issues like mullahs and discuss issues as far ranging as gay marriage etc.............

Until the above happens and the secular forces get their hands dirty, I really cannot see how they can be successful.

Rgds,

Gill Sahab,

You chose a very pertinent topic to discuss and laid it out quite well. But as I`d said earlier, anything on this board regarding secularism raises a dust cloud within the pakistani community. There would be none of this, if at least some kind of foundation was laid early on in the life of pakistan.

``As an example of secularism with a local spin, Indian secularism is a good instance. According to wikipedia (2), “In India........... ``

Here again we see the development of a system that went hand and glove with the way the founding fathers fought the british. Before independence the literacy level of india was pathetically low and the concept of secularism alien to their thinking and culture. There was no way in hell, gandhi could have rallied the masses in the name of a concept unkown to them. Hence he appropriately used the concept of equal recognition to all religions, which later on becomne our version of secularism.
I think the clamour for uniform civil code is more from BJP and allies. That has been one of their election manifestos always. Congress has always shied away from it. But hopefully, with increasing literacy and awareness of rights, people will seek for a uniform civil code.

Adios

Romair:

I had devoted my working life to civil engineering and I am quite satisfied that I did well in it. But man`s life is not limited to only one sphere of creative activities. I am satisfied that I am trying to disseminate creative ideas by writing about them. Others who are better suited for doing political work can use some of them if they think they are practical, modify them or do whatever they want; even ignore them. One person cannot do everything.

I remember in early 1980s, Professor Salam was severely criticised in Pakistan. He is only a theoretical physicist, what good can he do to Pakistan? Pakistan needs experimental scientists. Such criticism was mostly lame and malicious. Salam could not excel both in theoretical and experimental physics. What he did for physics is the envy of the whole world. I am using him only as an example; I do not have any pretensions of my own, please don`t misunderstand me.

What about you? I think you`re a younger person than I am (I am about to retire from active work), and you seem to have a good political savvy. If you`re suggesting I shouldn`t write on such topics because I cannot put them into practice by my own hand, you`re sorely mistaken. By bringing up these topics for discussion, all of us (you and I included) are learning a great deal. Before anybody thinks of using a secular system, he/she should understand what it is.

Wishing you well,

Mohammad Gill

freethinker #88: ``I do not know the answers to the questions that you`ve raised regarding Pakistan and its politics. I`m not uptodate with it.``

I think this is where the disconnect is. It is one thing to define secularism. It is quite another to promote and implement it. There seem to be a lot of people defining it. But no one has any plan for how to implement it in Pakistan.

By that I mean a practical long term plan. Where are the secular political forces in Pakistan? Where are the secular social forces? Where are the streetfighters? Barring a few English newspapers whose editors keep writing on this, I have not seen much. And their audience consists of the already convinced. Much like the audience on this site.

This is where the religious forces outperform the secular forces in Pakistan They tend to be in the trenches. Their leadership lives in Pakistan and sticks to its agenda. Their kids go to study abroad and then return.

As an example: Would you be willing to return to Pakistand and try to fight for implementing secularism? Are you passionate enough to do that?

What is, thus, more important than defining secularism, is to define a practical strategy for making it popular in Pakistan.........And then have the passion to participate in its implementation..........If that is lacking and/or not done, then the blame goes to the people who want to implement it, but do not have the passion to pursue their cause..........

Re: # 97
If just is not timeless and boundless then you must not call ``Changez khan`` a barberian. It was very acceptable bahaviour at that time and in that culture. Same is the case with ``honour killings``. This behaviour is very much acceptable and preferred in the culture of the tribes who practice it. If just in not timeless and boundless then you must not judge them with the laws and rules of your time and geography, but theirs.

``And what do we say about those countless who were burnt at stake because they proclaimed the earth to be moving around the sun???........was that a piece of enduring justice?...``. According to your theory that is very acceptable behaviour. They burnt them because they were saying something that was not norm in that society, so they must be punished for their sin.

I will again insist, Just must be timeless and boundless, else it ceases to be just. it must not be subjective either.

I have another dillema for you. In Western world 21 and above can vote, discrimination based on age. In Saudi Arabia only men can vote, discrimination based on gender and in Islamic society only ``learned`` people can vote, discrimination based on knowledge. Why is it that the discrimination based on age is acceptable but discrmination based on gender or knowledge is not??

regards,
sohail.

#93 by sohail_rao on March 20, 2005 11:31pm PT

``...... Should a gay not be punished now? If you think he must not be then you are doing injustice to the person who was punished for the same crime 20 years back. Justice must not only be consistent in space, it must also be consistent in time. .....``

Unfortunately there is no immutable or timeless content of what is `just`.......the only immutables that we can think of are the apriori principles of social communication (Habermas)....a theory of justice can then evolve out of the collective discourse where the relations of power are evened out........

And what do we say about those countless who were burnt at stake because they proclaimed the earth to be moving around the sun???........was that a piece of enduring justice?....and what about stoning of people and amputating their hands to deliver retribution?? Is that again enduring and timeless?? It makes a complete hash of all the fantastic correctional facilities that the western world has built for those who contravene laws............
Let us accept the fact that `justice` is a social phenomena and depends upon the shared percepts of what is `good` and `bad` in a particular society.....it remains relative to a social order..........the religious idiots would love to dole out retributive punishment......and the liberal and secular would certainly prefer `corrective` measures.....

And the faster we stop looking at the timeless moral precepts of any religious books the earlier and the better we would try to improve out lot through re-engineering of our society..........................

re: sohail_rao # 93

``The problem with this approach (secularism) is that the ``right`` and ``wrong`` change with time.``

Shouldn`t that be the case? Ever?

re: Gill

An excellent article.

I should point out one historical fact, in the evolution of European secularism, which is perhaps not known commonly. The term and the concept of secularism was defined by Cardinal Richelieu of France immediately before and during the Thirty Years Wars. Richelieu was a Catholic, but he was also a French nationalist and he resented the power and the influence of the Papacy in the affairs of Europe. Richelieu`s France was an active supporter of the principalities of Mitteleuropa, which were resisting the power of the Spainish Habsburgs and the Catholic Church.

There is a very famous quote by Richelieu, which explains his desire to break away from the control of the church and to make France chart its own political destiny. According to Richelieu, man was immortal, because his salvation lay in the next world, but a nation was mortal, because its salvation lay in the present world. Since, there was no ``after life`` for a political state, it had to exist in the present world and that meant that it had to remove the restrictions of religion from its policy.

The problem was, as Richelieu explained, that religion in politics forces politics to accept the religious morality of actions and consequences, but the art of politics is not about morality; it is amoral in the sense that what ever secures the continued existence of a nation`s interests is justified. Nicolo Machievelli`s misunderstood statment that end justifies the means is an Italian exposition of this French dictum of Richelieu`s. Hence, there was a need to seperate religion from politics, because religion was limiting political choices and not because religion was bad per se.

Therefore, European secularism was a purely political contruct created to gain political power and resist the political power of the Catholic Church under the guise of a religious authority. The seperation of state and church was made necessary by the inability of the church to share its political power with the state and to compromise, with the state on political issues. Thus, the state found it necesary to create a new paradigm to excerise political power and it opted for secularism in its politics.

In this sense, the role of religion was not denied, but the influence of religion to vocalize political choices was denied and this is, what the debate on secularism in Pakistan needs to understand. Secularism seeks to expand the political choices available to the state by removing religion from politics and allowing the state more room for political flexibility in its temporal political interactions, with other states.

Ciao

Re: Mantolives # 69

Bravo, Yasser! That is a very good question! Ironic but then again, irony escapes most of our co-religionists in the far away lands.

Ciao

``fundamental principle of Secularism is that in his whole conduct, man should be guided exclusively by considerations derived from the present life itself. Anything that is above or beyond the present life should be entirely overlooked``

The problem with this approach is that the ``right`` and ``wrong`` change with time. Giving you few examples.

Being gay is more acceptable now than was in past.
Nudity is not only more acceptable but is favoured more now than was in the past.

There are many other examples but I will suffice with these two only. Now the question is:

The person who was gay 20 years back was punished for being that. Should a gay not be punished now? If you think he must not be then you are doing injustice to the person who was punished for the same crime 20 years back. Justice must not only be consistent in space, it must also be consistent in time. So the definitions of right and wrong must persist in time as well as in geography. But if we follow what you have said at the start of the article, that is not possible, because an act that is unacceptable now will be more than acceptable in few years, and an acceptable act will be unacceptable in few years/decades time.

I have another point to make. Do you think a Muslim can be a bishop? Why cant he be? Is it discrimintaion based on religion? I say that if a gay can be bishop so can be a Muslim. Gay is not a good Christian, so is a Muslim.

To be modernist we forget very basis of a law or norm. Giving you example of a gay bishop in the U.S. It was a big issue that a person can not be disqualified from being a bishop due to his sexual preferences. That I accept. But the point here is that the post of a bishop is a religeous post and to qualify for the post the basic requirement is that the contestant must be a good Christian, else he/she lacks very basic requirements of the post. So to be modernist we forget what is discrimination and what is not.

Why cant a person who is under 18 consume alcohol, have sex or smoke? Is this not discrimination based on age? why do we accept these discriminations and do not accept others?

will look forward to a discussion on the qeustions i posed here.

regards,
sohail.

Excellent Article in the context of the Chowk audience!!
However, what is apalling that it runs in a parallel direction to the rich discussions on liberalism, democracy and secularism that exists in the contemporary political theory in the contemporary western intellectual tradition- pretty much like it happens with the existing poltical theorizing in the Pakistani Universities!! Need I say anything more about these self proclaimed intellectuals in their theocratic wells and their army university degrees???

Those from Madressas are ALWAY respected & admired EVERWHERE.

Hope he turns it down.
Let`s see.

---

Ali Sistani should be given Nobel Peace Prize:

New York Times columnist Friedman

Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, spiritual leader of Iraq`s Shiites, should be given the Nobel
Peace Prize for helping smoothe was road toward democracy in the country, influential New YorkTimes columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the newspaper.

Friedmannoted that US President George W. Bush`s name will likely be bandied
about a contender for the prestigious prize, as the democracy takes hold there following legislative elections earlier this year.

But, Friedman said, ``if some kind of democracy takes root there, it will also be due in large measure to the instincts and directives of the dominant Iraqi Shiite communal leader, Ayatollah Sistani.``

A Shiite Muslim worshipper carries a portrait of Grand Ayatollah Ali Al SistaniEnlarge