A State of Confusion

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

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

to studebaker

Before the articles vanishes into the eternal oblivion of cyberspace archives, you have raised the explanatory and the predictive power of the operational two nation theory. I have a post #214 in the good/bad format. Peace was supposed to break out with the continuation of vajpaye and mianji, the US trip was to contain the military elements and to prevent a coup. I declared that the good has won, no the bad has won. This I believe is a decisive victory. Military rule will continue for a long time, more than two years, there will be a civilian care taker to deal with the banks. Islamic extreme elements will have increased voice, stronger links with taliban. Talks with india will be stalled and lowered to official levels. Infiltration to kashmere will increase.

History repeats, mianji tried to be zia, by banishing bhutto and trying to accomodate the extremists, but as a folly he wanted to secure peace with india. The military coup will correct the error, the threat of india will sustain the military and will give something to do for the steadily increasing output of the madrassas. When i first read about the madrassa, it was total disbelief, in this day parents sending their children to an exclusive religious education. I have lived my formative years in an area of muslim majority, even in those days madrassa operated only at night, devoted to koran teachings, because it was obvious that with out a proper education jobs wont be forth coming.

The increasing army of these religion educated youths will have a proportionate role in the shaping of pakistan.

In response to jay (Reply #: 225):

Dear jay:

I am not sure if you have really addressed the issues raised by me in Reply #223. In your posting, you have raised a few additional issues (some of which may be linked with what you have been trying to say all along).

First, nobody in Pakistan denies the scholarship of some very fine scholars and journalists in India (thanks to a relatively free environment and better educational institutions in India). You, however, seem to believe that all Indian analysis of the situation in Pakistan is ``on the dot.`` Although the Indian scholars are entitled to their opinions and analysis, we cannot simply assume that all of their analyses and opinions about Pakistan are accurate (or are on the spot). I think, we need to analyze the merit of each analysis separately.

Issues like Kargil are not a product of the Mujahedeen`s desire to cross any border (even if disputed) unless planned and supported by the government and/or army. A lot of statements made by the politicians are for the consumption of simple-minded common people. The events of yesterday (October 12, 1999) suggest that there in fact was a rift between the executive branch (particularly Nawaz Sharif) and the army (particualarly Pervez Musharraf). What was the nature of the rift? When it started? How it too different forms? These are questions that cannot be explained in terms of the Kargil incident only. Kargil (particularly the dealings in Washington between Sharif and Clinton) and the internal crisis may be two main interrelated reasons for the army action. Let me ask you a simple question: Are you sure that your understanding of the affairs of Pakistan is really better (more accurate) than those who have lived all their lives in Pakistan? If your answer is no, then why you are so interested in imposing your (mis)perceptions on the Pakistani contributors of the Chowk?

No knowledgeable (and honest) Pakistani will ever claim that there is no extreme element in Pakistan. The people who engage in sectarian killings are extremists. Likewise, a lot of Neem Mullahs are extremists. We can identity many additional extremist elements in Pakistan. Such identification, however, is no evidence of the claim that the entire Pakistani society is extremist, especially in a sense that bothers many Indians like you.

On the issue of Kashmir, most Pakistani find the Indian position unacceptable (please refer to my last posting). This issue goes back to the draft/decision of the Partition where the fate of the princely states was not clearly decided. This is another example of the failure of Indian politicians (Muslim and non-Muslims alike). It is, however, difficult to say that there was some malicious intent. The issue of the princely states, like Kashmir, is related with the notions of sovereignty (Who is the real sovereign?) and self-determination (see Sumantra Bose`s study).

In electoral politics, Jamaat-e-Islam and several similar political parties have historical fared poorly. These parties may not do so badly in the next election (if and when held). Nobody has ever said that these parties never had a few seats in the National Assembly or the Senate.

I think, your claim that the army coupe in Pakistan is ``in support the mujahideen`` is simply amusing. It is a incredibly gross exaggeration of the situation.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Jay:

As I stated in an earlier reply, your information about Pakistan seems to be based on what you read in the newspapers, and in the press. Could you let me know whether you have ever been in Pakistan, and lived there? I do not mean any disrespect to you. However, the reason I ask this question is that you seem to be coming up with views on Pakistan without really having an authoratative information on Pakistan. I feel this is what leads to misunderstandings between Pakistanis and Indians. They rely on second hand information to form their views.

I try my best to not make any conclusive statements about what is going on in India. Although I have worked with quite a few Indians, I have I have never actually been in India. The only area I comment on is Kashmir, and that is becuase I have extensive knowledge of that area, because my family is from there.

Your analysis of the whole Pakistan-India scenario is way off the mark, because although you understand the Indian motiviations, you do not understand the Pakistani viewpoints. Nawaz Sharif seems to be quite popular with you. The only reason I can see for this is that he pulled back from Kargil. The fact that he has completely screwed the Pakistani populace seems to carry no weight with you. The reasons for his pulling back from Kargil are not yet known. Maybe he had personal interests. India carried out a similar kind of operation in Siachen. If you look at the Simla accords, and extend the line of demarcation along Siachen, it actually falls under Pakistani territory (even though it is not specificaly marked, the rules imply an extension of the line, at a certain angle). The actual aim of Kargil was to cut the supply routes to Siachen, from India. Would you support a back out of the Indian army from Siachen, just like you would support a back out of the Pakistani army from Kargil? Would Vajpayee be popular in India if he pulled out Indian troops from Siachen? Obviously not. I would support a pullout of Indian troops from Siachen, as well as a pullot of Pakistani troops from Kargil. You need to be fair to both sides, and not just look at the Indian point of view. Indian occupation of Siachen is as much an aggresion as Pakistani occupation of Kargil. The only difference is that India has yet to pull out.

To insist that Nawaz Sharif was kicked out only because of Kargil is extremely naive. It indicates you are looking at only the issue that effects India, without looking at the many issues regarding Nawaz Sharif that effect Pakistan. This will only create misunderstandings, that should be avoided. Please do not try to become an expert on Pakistani affairs with only half-baked and second hand knowledge of the country. I try my level best to avoid that when I am discussing India.

to studebaker,

We will never know the `reason` behind kargil, one has to distill the essence out of the morass.

The remark by Niaz Naik that sheriff became aware of it at the same time as the indians sound credible. Further the report that mianji was playing cricket minutes before boarding a plane to US to announce the withdrawal shows that he is not a person to be bogged down by details, he has a broad picture, and he was for peace, a kind of pace that would have made the military weak and all the past wars looked futile, a peace that would have resulted in borders in kashmir with minor adjustments and tha vanishing of LOC.

This would be an anathema to military, it would have left the mujahideen with out a cause, the history revisionist decendents of Gaznavi with out a country to invade, the unifying theme of pakistan reduced to a fable.

I do agree, sheriff would have destroyed pakistan as we know it today, but along with that the chance of creating a new one, a metamorphised one with not much resemblane to the past, as though out of a crysalis, is also gone.

Now it is the same cycle, seen thrice before. It is not a life cycle, it is a viscious circle.

Rx. a chota pegg is recomended with my posts

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

To bilal,

I respect and may be even envy your maturity and restraint and the wider knowledge about the south asian history, but i am no masochist to conceal my glee about the events in pakistan since yesterday which shows that the indian analysis of the pak events are on the dot, among the indians please let include myself.

It was infact the indian defence minister who stated that the events in kargill represent a rift between sheriff and the military, a fact denied as can be expected by the pak govt, but unfortunately not even entertained by the chowk pakistanis.

The flight of fantacy of the chowk walas about the non-extremist nature of the pak society has come down with a thud, the oft argued view that extreme parties have no seat in the parliment is a pyrhic claim, now there is a coupe in support of the mujahideen.

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

In response to jay (Reply #: 222):

Dear jay:

You have an interesting way of legitimizing events, facts, ideas, etc. A good example of this is your distinction between the scriptural and operational value systems. I have no contention with this distinction, but the separation between the two is only analytical. Isn`t it?

I envision a similar difficulty in your treatment of the notions of secularism as theoretical (ideological) and as operational. You seem to be believe that anything secular is fine. In fact your focus is on the notion of procedural justice (and you seem to treat it as sufficient based on the main tenets of Indian democracy). I also believe in procedural justice but I don`t stop there since I also believe in distributive justice. Most Indians often talk very positively about the India`s essentially secular political system that theoretically ensures the procedural justice. But, the procedural justice is only a first major step toward justice. Permit me to take this a little further and argue that the Indian society and politics is both secular and religious. It was a lack of appreciation of this very fact, in the pre-Partition days, that partly led to the demand of Pakistan (and the two nation theory) in a fairly late phase of the Indian freedom movement.

The chaotic history of the pre-Partition India cannot be explained in terms of the notion of the two nation theory only. After the Partition, the bloody memories and the need to develop a sense of nationhood in Pakistan created a justification for constructing a sense of otherness with India. The adversarial relations between India and Pakistan were reproduced and reinforced by the way India handled the issue of the princely states, particularly Kashmir. Here I want to draw your attention toward a book on Kashmir by: Bose, Sumanta (1997). The Challenge in Kashmir: Democracy, Self-Determination and a Just Peace. New Delhi: Sage. Bose has made five main arguments: (1) Kashmiri secessionism, which erupted into a violent insurgent movement in 1989, was prompted very largely by India`s denial of democracy to the people of Kashmir; (2) the repressive counterinsurgency practices of Indian security forces in Kashmir, including such things as routine cordon-and-search operations, arbitrary detention of thousands of youths, extended curfews in major towns and cities, looting, rape and torture are at least inevitable extensions of a systematic policy; (3) Pakistan`s intervention in Kashmir, ``dogmatically irredentist`` and ``virulently communal`` in content, has seriously alienated the Kashmiris, who are now unambiguously and unequivocally committed to independence from both India and Pakistan; (4) the Kashmiri separatist movement, while obviously dependent on ``a deeply-felt collective Muslim identity``, is essentially noncommunal in inspiration and is not all a product of an underlying Hindu-Muslim animosity; and (5) the solution to the Kashmir imbroglio has to be sought, at one level, in the renewal of Indian democracy and, at another level, in the ``skillful renegotiation and complex redefinition of the concept and practice of state-sovereignty in South Asia.`` In practical terms, Bose endorses strengthened autonomy for Kashmir within the Indian Union. As you can, Bose has presented one, moderate, Indian viewpoint. But, Bose`s book demonstrates that the problem of Kashmir and its impact on the South Asian plight is a product of India`s political failure. I would go a step further and argue that the Partition of India was also a product of the inability of Indian leaders (Gandhi, Jinnah, Nehru, Patel, etc) to amicably deal with the political reality of the 1930s and 1940s.

Jay, your insistence on the two nation theory and your inability to even barely explain it depresses me. Moreover, your partial reading of Pakistani history and politics from a narrow perspective (and an apparently undefined objective) creates further intellectual tensions (at least in my mind).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

To bilal,

In olden days, as late as 30 years ago they used to prepare and advertise an ayurvedic preparation, `karimkurangu rasayanam``, made from black monkies, allegedly good for muscular strength. Now it is not there, may be the monkies have vanished, or it has become unpopular.

In studies on religious values, there are two distinct concepts, one is operational value system and the scriptural value system, which are self explanatory. The important aspect is, in the later, one only looks at the manifestations, there is no need to look at the books, history its twists and turns. To give an exaple, even today there are sholars who debate about whether caste system is ordained by hinduism, or whether meat eating is prohibitted by hinduism. To me these debates have great theological value, may they will have practical uses, but today it is adequate to know and one has to act on the basis that caste system and non-meat eating are part of hinduism, they are the operational values.

I prefer to take a similar approach to two nation theory. I have read some where that creation of a seperate country was not part of the two nation theory, it is only a bastardised version of it, jinnah vision was that of a `secular` pakistan with out seperate electorates for hindus etc. To me these are important, only from a `scriptural` historic point of view, but not a manifest reality to be grappled, but could be at worst a shadow from the past, at best a guidence to the future.

To me the central, operative theme of two nation theoryis that the muslims in india are suffering under the hindu yoke, pakistan is a heaven for the muslims. Pkistan by its very creation is bound to help these muslims. Muslims of hyderabad, kerala and bihar are far away, muslims of kashmir have a common border and they can be helped. 70,000 kashmiris have been killed, there 700,000 indian troops enforcing the missery on kashmiris. It is interesting that the above numbers are consistant all through pakistani writing, hasnt increased in the last one year.

Helping the fellow kashmiri muslim is a noble objective, it is religious dictate, it is jihad.

I consider the above as an outcome of the two nation theory. From an operational theory perspective there are two ways to contrdict it. One is to show that all of the above is untrue. The second is to provide an alternate explanation, with no link to two nation theory.

Quoting the words of the architects and scholars of the two nation theory does not disprove it. Should we go to Bertrand Russel and Karl Popper for the foundations of scientific refutation, no, better not.

In response to jay (Reply #: 216):

Dear jay:

An interesting allegory. Is this just a story? Please tell us an alternative moral of the story. Of course the monkey dies, but why engage in such an inhuman practice?

You seem to suggest that the problem of Kashmir is of Pakistan only. Even if we assume that the Indians are justified in their efforts to maintain law and order in Kashmir (and Pakistan has no legitimate claim over Kashmir), how long should it take to eliminate resistance (and/or terrorism) from this part of the world. How much resource to the means of violence is necessary?

You often criticize the two nation theory. I also do. But our reasons and basis for the same seem to be very different. You seem to outrighly reject the two nation theory, I don`t. I have tried to engage you in further discussion on this aspect of the South Asian history, but you do not go beyond a simplistic critique of the demand for Pakistan. Whether the two nation theory is right or wrong (or justified or unjustified), Pakistan is a reality. It has survived for over one-half century in the midst of a lot of difficulties. You seem to believe that Pakistan will never escape the monkey trap. I think, it requires a little bit creativity and ingenuity to deal with the trap. I think, the monkey may decide to turn the coconut shell upside down and catch the nut. Monkies also have a lot of learning power. Love and hatred may be two sides of the same coin, but a Sikh priest once so wisely said: ``Give love to get love.`` I think, love is a two-side game/reality.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Amit (Reply # 213); sequel to #218:

Dear Amit:

Your statement: ``What you see in Pakistan today is a complete opposite of that early spirit of Islam. There is constant paranoia that everyone is against Islam, and every tribal custom is considered Islamic tradition. Any new idea is frowned upon. All diversity in thought, opinions, ethnicity and religion is considered an attack on Islam. It is almost that society wants to regress to a corner where no light is shined on any aspect of life. Interestingly, hindus were in such a situation in the middle ages. Thankfully we have managed to come out of that to a certain extent.``

Comment: Your statement describes the situation in Pakistan very well. Yet, this image represents only a part of Pakistan, and is a product of both internal and external factors. A lot of people have read the history of Muslims (so-called Islamic history) fairly uncritically. Most Pakistanis have been indoctrinated in the view that the past history of the Muslims was very glorious (which is only partly true) without paying much attention toward the reasons that led to the growth and decline of such historic moments. During the heyday of the Muslims (particularly rulers like Haroon-ur-Rashid), the Arabs borrowed knowledge from the Greeks and took it a step further. Then, the Europeans learned from the Arabs and took it several steps further. At present, the global conditions have changed significantly. The world is highly competitive, interdependent, and continuously shrinking. The present age is one of information, knowledge, creativity, speed and efficiency.

Pakistani politicians have taken many ad hoc decisions, to deal with our immediate problems, with the help of a highly centralized, coercive, and unresponsive state. The lack of freedom of mind and spirit (to think freely, critically, and creatively), in addition to a poorly developed educational system and a poor economic base, has produced and reproduced a culture of dependence-deference-submission to our ruling elites who have often diverted our attention from the main sources of our plight. The politics of Islamization has been governed mainly by the desire to make the rich Arab rulers happy for various economic-political gains, while the development of the Deeni Madaris was governed mainly by our inability to provide free and compulsory education till the age of 14-18. As a lot of the Deeni Madaris are run by Neem Mullahs, the students of these indigenous institutions are made to believe that only an Islamic revolution can bring social change in Pakistan. These Neem Mullahs strongly, though inaccurately, believe that the period of Khulfa-e-Rashdeen was endowed with a great economy, civil society, and government.

As a nation, we need to change our priorities and invest for the education of our coming generations. We need to educate them, not just make them literate.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Amit (Reply # 213):

Dear Amit:

Your statement: ``Bilal`s views on ``Neem Mullahism`` also does not explain the situation. Islam has been around in Pakistan and Afghanistan for more than 1000 years. One would expect more ``Neem Mullahism`` or Talibanization in the medieval ages, rather than the 20th century.``

Comment: I distinguish between a ``poorly educated Mullah`` and a ``learned Mullah.`` Most Mullah`s are poorly educated. While I personally know a few kind, honest, and learned Muslims who fall in the second category.

Muslims around the world are in a lot of hot water. Part of the difficulty is self-produced, particularly by the actions of Neem Mullahs and their supporters. Another part is a result of some external forces. I personally believe in developing an internal corrective first. Muslims need to stick to the basic, universal teachings of Islam. An Islam that is believed to be a catalyst for global harmony, peace, and justice. Islam is a set of some strict rules, values, and virtues about both ordinary everyday life and extra-ordinary situations (such as a religious war). A learned Mullah (or a good ordinary Muslims) will always try his/her best not to violate such rules, values, and virtues. There is a proverb in Urdu: ``Neem Hakeem Khatra-e-Jan and Neem-Mullah Khatra-e-Emaan.`` In fact, Neem Mullahism has brought a lot of disgrace to the Muslims. Part of this is merely propaganda of non-Muslims that affects both Muslims and non-Muslims. Since a lot of people do not distinguish between Islam and the Muslims, Neem Mullahs have become a threat to Islam (contrary to their intended project of safeguarding Islam and the Muslism).

Neem Mullahism and Talibanization are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive categories. I have no first hand knowledge of the Talibans. In an article published in the Frontier Post, Abid Ullah Jan argues that people around the world have a lot of misconceptions about the Talibans. Of course, this is his personal view based upon his first-hand knowledge of them, his worldview, and his collective identification with them as a Pathan/Afghan (and a Muslim). Talibanization is a recent phenomenon, while Neem Mullahism is plausibly very old. I don`t know, how Amit knows (it seems) that there was less Neem Mullahism in our relatively distant past? Perhaps Neem Mullahism was alive and well throughout the entire history of the Muslims.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Amit, I have also studied the so-called Islamic history (a misnomer) fairly extensively. Most accounts are top-down histories of the Muslim (predominantly Arab) rulers. Little is known about the history of common Muslims, though such histories are not impossible to construct. A critical reading of the history of Muslims provides a better sense of the problems faced by the Muslims throughout their history. Having said this, we cannot undermine the role of the Muslims in the development of art, architecture, music, knowledge, etc. The role of Sufism in India is also recognized by Amit himself.

How has everyone been? I was out for a few days. Seems like the discussion has shifted from Kashmir to Pakistan; more in line with the actual topic of the article. A lot of reasons are being put forward as the cause of the different problems that are currently occuring in Pakistan.

Many critics, at the time of partition thought that Pakistan would not survive. They had good reason to think so. Pakistanis inherited the worst part of the Sub-Continent, both economically, industrially, and educationally. Added to this, they were neighboring a much more powerful adversary, i.e. India. However, Pakistan achieved quite a bit of success, relative to India and other third world countries, after partition. Within twenty years of independence, Pakistan had achieved a much higher sustained growth rate than India (around 2% higher). So much so, that many economists concluded that in the late sixties, Pakistan had reached the, ``take-off`` point to leap out of the third world. India has yet to reach that point (although many people are predicting that it may reach that point soon). Unfortunately the take-off never occurred. The economy was completely nationalized in the 70s. My research indicates this was the worst decision, of any kind, ever made in the history of the country. Many economists predict that had the economy not been nationalized, Pakistan would be where Malaysia is today (despite the martial laws and other problems).

The progress Pakistan made in the sixties, was sustained to some extent, in the 70s and 80s, by the remittances from overseas Pakistanis . So inspite of the nationalization, Pakistan was able to keep an official per capita income around 70% higher than India, and an unofficial per capita income (including drug money etc.) over 100% higher than India (World Bank report).

The nineties have seen a complete change in the scenario. I will write more about this in a reply, later. The Pakistanis are now realizing that the momemtum built up through the 60s industrialization, and 70s and 80s overseas cash influx cannot sustain the country any longer. As I write this, the average Pakistani (even without taking into account the illegal money circulation) is wealthier than the average Indian. However, this trend is changing, and will be reversed soon, if the Pakistani economy does not pick up.

Pakistan has many social problems. I think the newspapers magnify them too much. People whose only window into Pakistan is through the newpapers, seem to generalize the views of the whole country, based on the views of a few extremist individual and groups whose names are mentioned regularly in the newspapers.. But the problems do exist, all the same. However, these problems even now, have not entrenched themselves in the average Pakistani citizen (I am only referencing social problems here). They are generally limited to certain groups, i.e politicians, religious fanatics, ethnic leaderships, beaurecrats etc. The average Pakistani does not hate or want to kill the average Pakistani Shia, or vice versa. The average Pakistani Punjabi does not hate a Sindhi, and vice versa. However the more the govt. ignores the groups mentioned above(because it serves the politicians personal interests to do so), the closer these problems are begining to get to the average Pakistani citizen. The danger is that issues like secretarian violence, ethnic killings, etc. may soon go beyond the selected groups, and engulf the entire society.

It is interesting to read the inputs of the replies of our Indian friends regarding the situation in Pakistan. I am sure they are all well-wishers, but they seem to trace most of the Pakistani problems back to Kashmir, and India. They main cause of the current problems in Pakistan are not the above two issues. The average Pakistani is very concerned about Kashmiris, but not as nearly as concerned about India, and Indians as you seem to think. The only concern about India is that it is a much larger neighbor that has hostile intentions towards Pakistan. So Pakistan must arm itself and be careful. This is very logical. If Pakistan goes weak, India could divide and even take over the country; regardless of how weak India is, Pakistan cannot dominate it, because India is too big. However, this is not a part of the day to day thinking, and hence not the major cause of the problems in Pakistan. The major cause of the Pakistani problems are the extremeley corrupt politicians, and the weak political system. They have no interest in solving the problems of Pakistan, since their own interests are contrary to the interests of Pakistan.

The religious, and ethnic problems are still not deeply entrenched in the general populace. They can be solved, if the political leadership has the will to do so.

I think the next elections will be the do-or-die elections for Pakistan. Pakistan, in my opinion, is one good honest govt. away from a lot of progress, and one dishonest corrupt govt. away from disaster.

In my response to Amit (Replies # 213 and 218), I wrote: `` I don`t know, how Amit knows (it seems) that there was less Neem Mullahism in our relatively distant past? ``

Please disregard this statement/question. Amit said something opposite to this. I regret for my sloppiness. Sorry, Amit.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad