Negotiating Peace in Kashmir
Ahmad Faruqui June 18, 2000
#70 Posted by mohajir on October 10, 2000 11:52:47 am
October 10, 2000
LAHORE JOURNAL
A Jihad Leader Finds the U.S. Perplexingly Fickle
By BARRY BEARAK
Barry Bearak/ The New York Times
LAHORE, Pakistan, Oct. 2 — The professor uses henna to redden his long beard, and that, along with a natural smile, makes him appear somewhat jovial, an unexpected cheerfulness from someone who commands what many believe to be a group of terrorists.
Killing, of course, is a pious man`s obligation, ``to destroy the forces of evil and disbelief,`` explained the professor, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. His rapidly growing organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Army of the Pure), is duty-bound to ``bring death to oppressors.``
With that in mind, he sends hundreds of Pakistanis to fight in the jihad against India in Kashmir, he said. First the young men are taught to recite the Koran and to reflect on the virtues of a reverent Muslim society. Then, as with almost any other army, they are taught how to fire automatic weapons, set off explosives and slit throats.
But these days the killing by Lashkar is too often confused with killing by others, the professor said testily. He is distressed by ``Indian propaganda`` that falsely accuses the Army of the Pure of slaying the purely innocent, as in the massacre of 35 Sikh villagers in March on the day President Clinton arrived in India for a visit.
And this concerns him: the State Department is considering Lashkar for Washington`s roster of the world`s most wicked, the blacklist of ``foreign terrorist organizations.``
``This would be a grave injustice,`` said Mr. Saeed. ``We do not kill civilians, only aggressors. We don`t believe it right to kill even a non-Muslim unless he is an aggressor.``
The interview was conducted in one of Lashkar`s many offices in the historic city of Lahore. Cookies and dried fruit were brought in on silver platters. The politeness was exemplary, though in serving an American guest, the graciousness did not extend to removing a wall poster that showed the American flag in flames, along with the Indian flag.
``Destroy the nonbelievers,`` the placard read.
The professor`s anxiety about the opinions of the State Department was a bit puzzling. Why does he care? The punitive effect of being on the blacklist would be minimal, he admitted. Lashkar has little need for American visas. It has no assets to freeze in American banks.
Mostly, he said, he is offended by the simple gall of it. ``Who is America to judge us?`` he said. ``We don`t trust America, and we certainly do not see it as a champion of justice.``
He has fired off a letter of protest.
Mr. Saeed is 53, retired now as a professor of Islamic studies at an engineering college. In the 1980`s he went off to fight in the jihad that chased Soviet invaders out of neighboring Afghanistan.
``America supported us with guns,`` he said. ``If we were not terrorists then, why are we terrorists now? How can Americans stand for such double standards?``
To him, the 53-year-old custody battle for the Himalayan territory of Kashmir is an open-and-shut case, with Pakistan in the right. He likens the Indian ``occupation`` of the disputed territory to the imperialism of the Soviets.
Not only does he want Kashmir to become a part of Pakistan, but he also wants Pakistan to become a part of a global Islamic state. ``Muslims throughout the world are one country,`` he said.
Mr. Saeed`s vexation with America is hardly uncommon in this nation of 150 million. Uncle Sam is perceived to favor India, the emerging regional superpower and a potential market with one billion consumers. Pakistan, on the other hand, is near financial collapse.
In addition to jihad, men like Mr. Saeed provide schools to the masses, places where the poor can send their children to be both educated and fed. Those are services that Pakistan`s relentless tag team of military and civilian governments has been unable to provide.
Mr. Saeed sits atop more than the Army of the Pure. In 1989 he began the Markaz Ad-daawah Wal Irshad, the Center for Preaching. It has more than 130 schools and a modern- looking university that rises out of the wheat fields near Lahore.
Lashkar is now a political force within Pakistan, just as it is a guerrilla army in Kashmir. The money behind the group, the professor said, comes entirely from private donors. He denied widely held suspicions that Lashkar is on the payroll of Pakistan`s government, whose intelligence agencies have been a willing sponsor of the 11-year-old Kashmir jihad.
``People who send their sons to fight in jihad also give money for that purpose,`` the professor said vaguely, uncomfortable with the subject. ``Do not ask me about numbers.``
Mr. Saeed had selected the group`s media center for the meeting. Only a single guard was stationed out front, a machine gun in his hand, an ammunition belt across his shoulder. Inside, young men were hunched over computer keyboards, writing for Lashkar`s various magazines. An escort enforced a ban on photographing people. The professor said the capture of human images is forbidden by Islam.
Lashkar has proven itself a clever self-promoter. Its posters are bright and arresting. Its magazines are enticing, with articles like ``Koran and Astronomy`` and ``Prophet`s Medicine: Olive Is the Cure for 70 Diseases.`` The last page in the international edition of Voice of Islam is a recruitment pitch for jihad: ``Learn how to use swords, spears, daggers and how to attack disbeliever forces, how to set up an ambush and lay siege to the camps and cantonments of the enemy, how to protect yourself and other oppressed Muslims during crackdowns and blackouts. Learn all these things through the Koran.``
The professor made a gift of a bound volume of back issues of the magazine. He was tiring of all this talk about terrorism, though his interest slightly revived when the subject turned to Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal. He said those apocalyptic bombs were good to have, but only as a means to deter an enemy.
``To use such weapons in jihad would be un-Islamic,`` he said, pointing his finger. ``To use them: that is terrorism. And what is the only country to use them?``
The answer left him with a triumphant smile.
``America,`` he said. ``So who is the terrorist?``
LAHORE JOURNAL
A Jihad Leader Finds the U.S. Perplexingly Fickle
By BARRY BEARAK
Barry Bearak/ The New York Times
LAHORE, Pakistan, Oct. 2 — The professor uses henna to redden his long beard, and that, along with a natural smile, makes him appear somewhat jovial, an unexpected cheerfulness from someone who commands what many believe to be a group of terrorists.
Killing, of course, is a pious man`s obligation, ``to destroy the forces of evil and disbelief,`` explained the professor, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed. His rapidly growing organization, Lashkar-e-Taiba (the Army of the Pure), is duty-bound to ``bring death to oppressors.``
With that in mind, he sends hundreds of Pakistanis to fight in the jihad against India in Kashmir, he said. First the young men are taught to recite the Koran and to reflect on the virtues of a reverent Muslim society. Then, as with almost any other army, they are taught how to fire automatic weapons, set off explosives and slit throats.
But these days the killing by Lashkar is too often confused with killing by others, the professor said testily. He is distressed by ``Indian propaganda`` that falsely accuses the Army of the Pure of slaying the purely innocent, as in the massacre of 35 Sikh villagers in March on the day President Clinton arrived in India for a visit.
And this concerns him: the State Department is considering Lashkar for Washington`s roster of the world`s most wicked, the blacklist of ``foreign terrorist organizations.``
``This would be a grave injustice,`` said Mr. Saeed. ``We do not kill civilians, only aggressors. We don`t believe it right to kill even a non-Muslim unless he is an aggressor.``
The interview was conducted in one of Lashkar`s many offices in the historic city of Lahore. Cookies and dried fruit were brought in on silver platters. The politeness was exemplary, though in serving an American guest, the graciousness did not extend to removing a wall poster that showed the American flag in flames, along with the Indian flag.
``Destroy the nonbelievers,`` the placard read.
The professor`s anxiety about the opinions of the State Department was a bit puzzling. Why does he care? The punitive effect of being on the blacklist would be minimal, he admitted. Lashkar has little need for American visas. It has no assets to freeze in American banks.
Mostly, he said, he is offended by the simple gall of it. ``Who is America to judge us?`` he said. ``We don`t trust America, and we certainly do not see it as a champion of justice.``
He has fired off a letter of protest.
Mr. Saeed is 53, retired now as a professor of Islamic studies at an engineering college. In the 1980`s he went off to fight in the jihad that chased Soviet invaders out of neighboring Afghanistan.
``America supported us with guns,`` he said. ``If we were not terrorists then, why are we terrorists now? How can Americans stand for such double standards?``
To him, the 53-year-old custody battle for the Himalayan territory of Kashmir is an open-and-shut case, with Pakistan in the right. He likens the Indian ``occupation`` of the disputed territory to the imperialism of the Soviets.
Not only does he want Kashmir to become a part of Pakistan, but he also wants Pakistan to become a part of a global Islamic state. ``Muslims throughout the world are one country,`` he said.
Mr. Saeed`s vexation with America is hardly uncommon in this nation of 150 million. Uncle Sam is perceived to favor India, the emerging regional superpower and a potential market with one billion consumers. Pakistan, on the other hand, is near financial collapse.
In addition to jihad, men like Mr. Saeed provide schools to the masses, places where the poor can send their children to be both educated and fed. Those are services that Pakistan`s relentless tag team of military and civilian governments has been unable to provide.
Mr. Saeed sits atop more than the Army of the Pure. In 1989 he began the Markaz Ad-daawah Wal Irshad, the Center for Preaching. It has more than 130 schools and a modern- looking university that rises out of the wheat fields near Lahore.
Lashkar is now a political force within Pakistan, just as it is a guerrilla army in Kashmir. The money behind the group, the professor said, comes entirely from private donors. He denied widely held suspicions that Lashkar is on the payroll of Pakistan`s government, whose intelligence agencies have been a willing sponsor of the 11-year-old Kashmir jihad.
``People who send their sons to fight in jihad also give money for that purpose,`` the professor said vaguely, uncomfortable with the subject. ``Do not ask me about numbers.``
Mr. Saeed had selected the group`s media center for the meeting. Only a single guard was stationed out front, a machine gun in his hand, an ammunition belt across his shoulder. Inside, young men were hunched over computer keyboards, writing for Lashkar`s various magazines. An escort enforced a ban on photographing people. The professor said the capture of human images is forbidden by Islam.
Lashkar has proven itself a clever self-promoter. Its posters are bright and arresting. Its magazines are enticing, with articles like ``Koran and Astronomy`` and ``Prophet`s Medicine: Olive Is the Cure for 70 Diseases.`` The last page in the international edition of Voice of Islam is a recruitment pitch for jihad: ``Learn how to use swords, spears, daggers and how to attack disbeliever forces, how to set up an ambush and lay siege to the camps and cantonments of the enemy, how to protect yourself and other oppressed Muslims during crackdowns and blackouts. Learn all these things through the Koran.``
The professor made a gift of a bound volume of back issues of the magazine. He was tiring of all this talk about terrorism, though his interest slightly revived when the subject turned to Pakistan`s nuclear arsenal. He said those apocalyptic bombs were good to have, but only as a means to deter an enemy.
``To use such weapons in jihad would be un-Islamic,`` he said, pointing his finger. ``To use them: that is terrorism. And what is the only country to use them?``
The answer left him with a triumphant smile.
``America,`` he said. ``So who is the terrorist?``
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#69 Posted by bahmad on June 29, 2000 1:41:19 am
In response to Ferozk (Reply # 67)
Thank you for your kind words.
It is great that many Pakistanis have started to put their thoughts in writing on the internet, particularly on the Chowk. I fully endorse your statement that “education is the sina qua non for Pakistan’s continued and sustained development.” As a first step, let us continue to educate each other with the power of our minds and our writing skills. Let us negotiate peace in our inner souls and empower ourselves through the power of education.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Thank you for your kind words.
It is great that many Pakistanis have started to put their thoughts in writing on the internet, particularly on the Chowk. I fully endorse your statement that “education is the sina qua non for Pakistan’s continued and sustained development.” As a first step, let us continue to educate each other with the power of our minds and our writing skills. Let us negotiate peace in our inner souls and empower ourselves through the power of education.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#68 Posted by ferozk on June 28, 2000 12:26:05 pm
Re: Shankar #66
That is a definate scenrio which is worrying the Yanks, because if you read between the sound bites, you will notice that India is under tremendous pressure to talk with Pakistan on this issue.
The Yanks are under pressure from their big business donors, who want to see their investments in India safe, and if India and Pakistan do a Dr. Strangeglove, guess who will be the ultimate loser and I am not refering to the human costs!
Who is running the American info economy...IT folks form where? Can the Yanks replace all the Indian held jobs and all the IT created jobs with their own IT guys if India goes boom?
Yes, there is a reason why the Yanks are having nightmares, which largely explains why Washington will never agree with India to isolate Pakistan and declare it as a terrorist state, because who loses if Pakistan knows that it is going down and decides to take a few others with it too?!
Ciao!
That is a definate scenrio which is worrying the Yanks, because if you read between the sound bites, you will notice that India is under tremendous pressure to talk with Pakistan on this issue.
The Yanks are under pressure from their big business donors, who want to see their investments in India safe, and if India and Pakistan do a Dr. Strangeglove, guess who will be the ultimate loser and I am not refering to the human costs!
Who is running the American info economy...IT folks form where? Can the Yanks replace all the Indian held jobs and all the IT created jobs with their own IT guys if India goes boom?
Yes, there is a reason why the Yanks are having nightmares, which largely explains why Washington will never agree with India to isolate Pakistan and declare it as a terrorist state, because who loses if Pakistan knows that it is going down and decides to take a few others with it too?!
Ciao!
#67 Posted by ferozk on June 28, 2000 12:16:49 pm
Re: Vicky
Vikram, I think you have hit a vein! You are right. My definition of the word “Indian” seems to be slightly different. When I say Indian, I am generally referring to the Indians who live in the major cities and are professionally employed. By your definition, my reference to Indians certainly does not constitute the vast majority who live outside of the urban environs of the major Indian cities and it only applies to a very narrow socio-economic strata of the Indian society. On that score, I stand corrected and you do have a point! Thanks for clearing this little confusion.
As to why I opted to describe the Indians this way, the answer is, because since I am an IR guy, I tend to see trends ‘n’ intents within the prism of an IR lens. IR, as you probably know, is based more on perception than reality and the IR perception is that India is moving ahead economically, because of its IT-software prowess. I think therein lies our “perceptional” disagreement on this issue. Yes, India might have domestic problems, in a real sense, but the perception still is that India is forging ahead economically and that is why Bill was in New Delhi signing checks worth billions! On the flip side of the coin, our government’s argument that Pakistan is not an isolated or a failed state might be absolutely right, but the IR perception is that Pakistan is isolated and it is a failed state and hence, the lack of investment in Pakistan.
I think we seeing the same abstract picture, but drawing different conclusions!
Re: Bilal
Thanks for the detailed reply. If I sounded too harsh, I am sorry. I agree with you that these questions need to be debated and a consensus agreed upon. I think, the question of “why” is the most important, because the other two, in an oblique sense, stem from it also. Bilal, like I was telling Vikram, I think our basic disagreement is in our interpretative backgrounds, but other than that, I am in agreement with what you have to say. You are viewing this problem within your set of well defined parameters, and I am seeing this problem through my set of parameters, but in the end, we do agree on the fact that these questions can no longer to be put on the back-burner anymore and have to be, sooner or later, addressed!
In the end, the debate reverts back to the question of education in Pakistan, because like you said, the Pakistani public needs a basic understanding of these terms, before it can even debate them! I think, education is the sina qua non for Pakistan’s continued and sustained development. Before we as a nation try to answer these questions, we have to be educated enough to separate the chaff from the wheat in our discussions, because we know perfectly well how the ignorance of the people in Pakistan is exploited for political gain!
Hope this clears the puddle of doubts, which my interacts might have created!
Ciao!
Vikram, I think you have hit a vein! You are right. My definition of the word “Indian” seems to be slightly different. When I say Indian, I am generally referring to the Indians who live in the major cities and are professionally employed. By your definition, my reference to Indians certainly does not constitute the vast majority who live outside of the urban environs of the major Indian cities and it only applies to a very narrow socio-economic strata of the Indian society. On that score, I stand corrected and you do have a point! Thanks for clearing this little confusion.
As to why I opted to describe the Indians this way, the answer is, because since I am an IR guy, I tend to see trends ‘n’ intents within the prism of an IR lens. IR, as you probably know, is based more on perception than reality and the IR perception is that India is moving ahead economically, because of its IT-software prowess. I think therein lies our “perceptional” disagreement on this issue. Yes, India might have domestic problems, in a real sense, but the perception still is that India is forging ahead economically and that is why Bill was in New Delhi signing checks worth billions! On the flip side of the coin, our government’s argument that Pakistan is not an isolated or a failed state might be absolutely right, but the IR perception is that Pakistan is isolated and it is a failed state and hence, the lack of investment in Pakistan.
I think we seeing the same abstract picture, but drawing different conclusions!
Re: Bilal
Thanks for the detailed reply. If I sounded too harsh, I am sorry. I agree with you that these questions need to be debated and a consensus agreed upon. I think, the question of “why” is the most important, because the other two, in an oblique sense, stem from it also. Bilal, like I was telling Vikram, I think our basic disagreement is in our interpretative backgrounds, but other than that, I am in agreement with what you have to say. You are viewing this problem within your set of well defined parameters, and I am seeing this problem through my set of parameters, but in the end, we do agree on the fact that these questions can no longer to be put on the back-burner anymore and have to be, sooner or later, addressed!
In the end, the debate reverts back to the question of education in Pakistan, because like you said, the Pakistani public needs a basic understanding of these terms, before it can even debate them! I think, education is the sina qua non for Pakistan’s continued and sustained development. Before we as a nation try to answer these questions, we have to be educated enough to separate the chaff from the wheat in our discussions, because we know perfectly well how the ignorance of the people in Pakistan is exploited for political gain!
Hope this clears the puddle of doubts, which my interacts might have created!
Ciao!
#66 Posted by shankar on June 28, 2000 12:14:15 pm
FerozK
Post# 63
I understand you have some expertise in politics & international diplomacy. If that is true, I have to take your post seriously. Your thoughts about the future of Pakistan are most disconcerting, to say the least.
From an Indian viewpoint, I pray your predictions arent true. An unstable Pakistan with nuclear weapons is dangerous for the entire world, especially India.
In such a scenario, any Pakistani leadership would be tempted to galvanise national unity & patriotism by blaming the country`s problem on RAW & start hostilities with India. The logic would be simple ``we have nothing to lose, might as well take those hated Indians down with us``
Any thoughts?!
Post# 63
I understand you have some expertise in politics & international diplomacy. If that is true, I have to take your post seriously. Your thoughts about the future of Pakistan are most disconcerting, to say the least.
From an Indian viewpoint, I pray your predictions arent true. An unstable Pakistan with nuclear weapons is dangerous for the entire world, especially India.
In such a scenario, any Pakistani leadership would be tempted to galvanise national unity & patriotism by blaming the country`s problem on RAW & start hostilities with India. The logic would be simple ``we have nothing to lose, might as well take those hated Indians down with us``
Any thoughts?!
#65 Posted by bahmad on June 28, 2000 2:07:05 am
In response to Ferozk (Reply # 58)
Dear Feroz:
In your opinion, I do not provide straight-forward answers of various questions of our common interest. Perhaps easy and workable answers are no so easy to provide. If so, then we need to address such questions discursively. You have now asked three important questions: Who are we (Pakistanis)? Where are we heading? Why? You also maintain that we could not really answer these questions during the past 53 years of our national history. If your argument has some merit, then we need to ask: Why we could not really answer them?
Temporal, howerver, has provided a few simple answers of your questions. You question: Who we are? Tempral answers: Desis. You question: Where are we heading? Temporal answers: Downhill. You question: Why? Temporal anwers: Ask Allah. And he doesn’t answer ask Hezb ul lah. Temporal’s answers are simple, witty, and piercing. But, do they really take us anywhere? I wonder if they really do.
The question of “Who we are?” is one of identity. Our identities are complex, hierarchical/nested, contradictory, situated, and changeable in various time and space contexts. An average Pakistani’s identity may be roughly defined by his/her homeland (Pakistan), ethnolinguistic background (Sindhi, Punjabi, Pakhtoon, Mohajir, Saraiki, Hazara, etc.), religious orientation (Shia Muslim, Sunny Muslim, Ahmadi, Christian, etc.), and by a few other factors. People, however, often prioritize one factor over another to describe their identity. For example, some people argue that they are a citizen of the world first, Muslim second, Pakistanis third, and Sindhi/Punjabi etc. last. In contrast, some other people are Punjabi/Sindhi etc. first, Pakistanis second, Muslim third, and a citizen of the world last. As a Pakistani, I have no problem with any one of these or any other combination as long as the Pakistani nationals, in describing their identity, maintain some sense of belonging with Pakistan and the world at-large. However, many Pakistanis (myself included) fail to take any sense of pride in their Pakistani identity (or Pakistan-ness) if they cannot exert their citizenship and human rights and if they find these rights violated routinely by the de facto custodians of the state of Pakistan.
Feroz, I believe that the citizens of Pakistan do know who they are. They also know where they are heading and why. I believe, the people of Pakistan are behaving in light of their capacities and a gamut of opportunities offered to them by the social relations of Pakistani state, civil society, and economy. If we believe that there is a need to bring social change in Pakistan, then we need to offer a different set of opportunities to our people based on some commonly accepted principles/values.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Feroz:
In your opinion, I do not provide straight-forward answers of various questions of our common interest. Perhaps easy and workable answers are no so easy to provide. If so, then we need to address such questions discursively. You have now asked three important questions: Who are we (Pakistanis)? Where are we heading? Why? You also maintain that we could not really answer these questions during the past 53 years of our national history. If your argument has some merit, then we need to ask: Why we could not really answer them?
Temporal, howerver, has provided a few simple answers of your questions. You question: Who we are? Tempral answers: Desis. You question: Where are we heading? Temporal answers: Downhill. You question: Why? Temporal anwers: Ask Allah. And he doesn’t answer ask Hezb ul lah. Temporal’s answers are simple, witty, and piercing. But, do they really take us anywhere? I wonder if they really do.
The question of “Who we are?” is one of identity. Our identities are complex, hierarchical/nested, contradictory, situated, and changeable in various time and space contexts. An average Pakistani’s identity may be roughly defined by his/her homeland (Pakistan), ethnolinguistic background (Sindhi, Punjabi, Pakhtoon, Mohajir, Saraiki, Hazara, etc.), religious orientation (Shia Muslim, Sunny Muslim, Ahmadi, Christian, etc.), and by a few other factors. People, however, often prioritize one factor over another to describe their identity. For example, some people argue that they are a citizen of the world first, Muslim second, Pakistanis third, and Sindhi/Punjabi etc. last. In contrast, some other people are Punjabi/Sindhi etc. first, Pakistanis second, Muslim third, and a citizen of the world last. As a Pakistani, I have no problem with any one of these or any other combination as long as the Pakistani nationals, in describing their identity, maintain some sense of belonging with Pakistan and the world at-large. However, many Pakistanis (myself included) fail to take any sense of pride in their Pakistani identity (or Pakistan-ness) if they cannot exert their citizenship and human rights and if they find these rights violated routinely by the de facto custodians of the state of Pakistan.
Feroz, I believe that the citizens of Pakistan do know who they are. They also know where they are heading and why. I believe, the people of Pakistan are behaving in light of their capacities and a gamut of opportunities offered to them by the social relations of Pakistani state, civil society, and economy. If we believe that there is a need to bring social change in Pakistan, then we need to offer a different set of opportunities to our people based on some commonly accepted principles/values.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#64 Posted by Vicky on June 27, 2000 7:25:54 pm
FerozK
Nobody denies that the informed are happy about the developments in IT. There is also a lot of hope in these circles, that the success in IT will touch their lives. Non-residents take a lot of pride in the respect and recognition they are getting as individuals and as Indians.
But, when I disagree with you that Indian Nationalism is not defined by IT and FDI, it is with the disadvantage of having traveled within most of the states of India and having interacted with (close to) every social and economic group.
Consequently, to me, the word ``Indian`` has probably a different meaning.
Vikram
Nobody denies that the informed are happy about the developments in IT. There is also a lot of hope in these circles, that the success in IT will touch their lives. Non-residents take a lot of pride in the respect and recognition they are getting as individuals and as Indians.
But, when I disagree with you that Indian Nationalism is not defined by IT and FDI, it is with the disadvantage of having traveled within most of the states of India and having interacted with (close to) every social and economic group.
Consequently, to me, the word ``Indian`` has probably a different meaning.
Vikram
#63 Posted by ferozk on June 27, 2000 1:50:05 pm
Re: Temporal # 60
Temporal, you said it well as to where we are heading and why! I think the best thing to happen would be an open debate on this issue, because there is a growing sense of loss in the Land of the Pure as more and more people realize that we are heading into a cul-de-sac and that turning back would be a problem because of the forward momentum pushing us into the cul-de-sac from behind!
It is only an isolated opinion presently, but it is being said openly and fingers are being pointed willingly, which is even more dangerous than a few silent mutterings of disquiet. Our man in Islamabad has his hands full; the documentation et al, but there is a gradual perception that once this is all taken care of, he will address this problem too, because if you read the Pakistani newspapers, you will find him expressing ideas and uttering certain buzz-words, which a Pakistani has no clues about. It was PM who inoculated the idea of an IT industry in Pakistan. Before him, Shahbaz Sharif was the only who knew about the IT’s potentials to create a base in Punjab.
The fact is that that our collective leadership has never placed education on an urgent list and which is why our political chameleons never cared for the newly emerging information world and the knowledge economy that is gradually sustaining it. They, in their greed and idolization of money, never could understand that information industry-IT could be a milchcow, because they still think in industrial terms; factories, plants etc. If they had known otherwise, their greed would have definitely exploited this opportunity.
I think you are on the right path, when you mention the word “default”. Temopral, one of these days, when I have a bloc of time set aside, I am thinking of penning an article on nationalism and why the South Asian sense of nationalism is different from the European and I think, the answer lies in the historical development of the two societies. I think we are conditioned to behave, politically, in a certain way and we just cannot change, hence the aptness of your term “default” to describe our state accepting any political logic, which is the prevalent idée fixe in the mainstream.
As to their silence when the choice would be their wives and daughters that would have to wait, because before that happens, they will be lucky if they could afford a decent meal. I am slowly coming to the realization that the present state of affairs in Pakistan cannot go on any longer, and there has to be a crisis. Everyone one in Pakistan knows that the gunpowder is ready and waiting to explode, and the only question left unanswered is who or, and what event will light the fuse? It is going to be High Noon in Pakistan sooner rather than later!
Temporal, the barrel is pointing towards all our heads and we are all hostages to our own shortcomings and sins of tolerance; of greed, corruption, abuse of power, influence peddling, financial-real estate inbreeding and burning all the bridges between the privileged and the down trodden. The problem, which our mandarins in power refuse to accept, is that there is a growing chasm between the leaders promises to the people and the publics’ own sense of expectations, which have never materialized. The political history of Pakistan can be summed up in the following words (from the lyrics of the musical Evita): another picture on another wall…another suitcase in another hall…don’t ask too many questions… Every time the nation asks a question, its only response has been a Pakistani flag being waved in its face! Like the Victorian mothers used to tell their daughters on their wedding nights, “dear, just close your eyes and think of England”, so too is our fate. We have to suffer for the greater good, but when the greater good never materializes in a tangible sense, then the utility of the sacrifice becomes questionable.
It is the questioning, and not the answers, which is the worst fear of an orthodoxy.
The problem is that we, as a nation, can no longer get by the answers given to us and there is emerging, gradually, a limit to our patience. The Pakistani society has, in a historic sense, all the tell-tale traits of the Pre-Revolution France. The French revolution broke on July 14, 1789, because the social conditions were so bad that death was preferable to instead of living under those conditions. In another sense, the French revolution happened, because the middle class shared a common idea and they were, despite the Bourbons’ best attempts, able to circulate their ideas and get a consensus of opinions that change had to happen.
On Chowk, there is an article highlighting the revolution in Iran, nearly 200 years later, but no one ask the questions why did it happen? Khomeini did not deliver anything as much as exploiting an already latent, simmering situation for his political ambitions. The revolution happened, not because Khomeini spearheaded it, but because the common Iranians finally said “enough is enough” just the like the French said the same words in 1789. When the Pakistani nation finally musters up the courage to repeat the very same words, which shattered the nearly 900 years of French Bourbon rule and the Shah’s imperial decadence, they would become, in the words of Robert Oppenheimer, “death”, the destroyers of everything, which the Pakistani elites hold dear as being the sina qua non of their own idealized world views.
In other sense, the counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, which managed to keep Gorbachev as a prisoner in 1991and finally ended communism, started in early 1980s when Macintosh computers along side with fax machines were first introduced into the Soviet Union. Eleven years later, it was the inability of the Soviet coup leaders to manage the information, which lead to Boris Yeltsin standing atop a tank and promising on CNN to resist the coup. In a similar sense, if the internet spreads in Pakistan, it could offer a medium of sharing thoughts and ideas, which could prove to a problem, because all orthodoxies thrive on their ability control the dissemination of information and once they lose that control, they become accountable for their actions.
Information increases geometrically and once the flood gates are opened, it is akin to Shakespeare’s Mark Anthony saying:” mischief thou art afoot, take what course thou mayst”.
In this sense, coming back to the square one, the government does not seem to realize what it is doing when it seeks to encourage the information technology in Pakistan. In other words, it is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, because of its monetary greed to capitalize on the IT bonanza. It would be far better, if it re-read Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, because as Wilde says,” you destroy the thing which you love and that which you love, will destroy you!”
In its blind pursuit of greed, it is encouraging IT industry in order to line its own pockets and in doing so, it is opening a Pandora’ Box, which it can never really close and its love of money, will eventually prove to be the final nail in its coffin. In this sense, the powers that be will destroy both their power and money, which they love and the loss of these two will destroy them, because without them, they cannot sustain their timocratic grasp on the reins of the state.
Can anything be done? Nothing needs to done, because like the song, what will be, will be. The political logic in Pakistan has progressed beyond a fail-safe point and with each further act of excess it will experience the law of diminishing returns; a process, which has already started. However, the decline will long, slow and a painful process, because death will be lingering and not merciful in any sense of the word.
Temporal, the moderates have a simple choice before them: confront or die. The only question is when will they have the courage to say enough is enough and presently, many moderates in Pakistan share the sentiment expressed by Joseph Heller (I hope I got his name right) in his book Catch-22, when one of the characters says that it is better to live on ones knees than to die on one feet! Hence, when the reality confronts the moderates that they will, due to their own inactions, die on their knees also, they react. In any case, there is no need to pin ones hopes on the army, because the people are disenchanted by the army, especially since it said it will not bring serving officers into the accountability net.
In the case of Pakistan, its history has repeatedly shown that the army is not the solution; it has always been a problem. There will be no need for the army, when the people are starving; when they see their children starve and come out on the streets, demanding not their share of justice, but their right to live! Right now, things are bad in Pakistan, but they will get progressively worse.
The present day Pakistan is like the Holmesian dog, which did not bark in the night! The present interregnum is the lull before the storm. Many in Pakistan, see the present political hallucination and it’s three-year hiatus as the last viable hope for Pakistan and are willing to give it a chance. What happens after three years is hard to predict, but one thing is certain and that is, it will be after three years that the silent mutterings will swell into a vocal cry of the heart and will be finally audible enough to be heard as saying, “enough is enough”.
Again like the lyrics from Evita come to mind: enjoy it fools while you can… the queen is gone and the king isn’t coming back!
My humble apologizes to all for this boring, and extremely long post. I will accept the blame for its length, but once I started, the thoughts just kept pouring out. Thanks Temporal for the opportunity to dissipate some steam!
Ciao!
Temporal, you said it well as to where we are heading and why! I think the best thing to happen would be an open debate on this issue, because there is a growing sense of loss in the Land of the Pure as more and more people realize that we are heading into a cul-de-sac and that turning back would be a problem because of the forward momentum pushing us into the cul-de-sac from behind!
It is only an isolated opinion presently, but it is being said openly and fingers are being pointed willingly, which is even more dangerous than a few silent mutterings of disquiet. Our man in Islamabad has his hands full; the documentation et al, but there is a gradual perception that once this is all taken care of, he will address this problem too, because if you read the Pakistani newspapers, you will find him expressing ideas and uttering certain buzz-words, which a Pakistani has no clues about. It was PM who inoculated the idea of an IT industry in Pakistan. Before him, Shahbaz Sharif was the only who knew about the IT’s potentials to create a base in Punjab.
The fact is that that our collective leadership has never placed education on an urgent list and which is why our political chameleons never cared for the newly emerging information world and the knowledge economy that is gradually sustaining it. They, in their greed and idolization of money, never could understand that information industry-IT could be a milchcow, because they still think in industrial terms; factories, plants etc. If they had known otherwise, their greed would have definitely exploited this opportunity.
I think you are on the right path, when you mention the word “default”. Temopral, one of these days, when I have a bloc of time set aside, I am thinking of penning an article on nationalism and why the South Asian sense of nationalism is different from the European and I think, the answer lies in the historical development of the two societies. I think we are conditioned to behave, politically, in a certain way and we just cannot change, hence the aptness of your term “default” to describe our state accepting any political logic, which is the prevalent idée fixe in the mainstream.
As to their silence when the choice would be their wives and daughters that would have to wait, because before that happens, they will be lucky if they could afford a decent meal. I am slowly coming to the realization that the present state of affairs in Pakistan cannot go on any longer, and there has to be a crisis. Everyone one in Pakistan knows that the gunpowder is ready and waiting to explode, and the only question left unanswered is who or, and what event will light the fuse? It is going to be High Noon in Pakistan sooner rather than later!
Temporal, the barrel is pointing towards all our heads and we are all hostages to our own shortcomings and sins of tolerance; of greed, corruption, abuse of power, influence peddling, financial-real estate inbreeding and burning all the bridges between the privileged and the down trodden. The problem, which our mandarins in power refuse to accept, is that there is a growing chasm between the leaders promises to the people and the publics’ own sense of expectations, which have never materialized. The political history of Pakistan can be summed up in the following words (from the lyrics of the musical Evita): another picture on another wall…another suitcase in another hall…don’t ask too many questions… Every time the nation asks a question, its only response has been a Pakistani flag being waved in its face! Like the Victorian mothers used to tell their daughters on their wedding nights, “dear, just close your eyes and think of England”, so too is our fate. We have to suffer for the greater good, but when the greater good never materializes in a tangible sense, then the utility of the sacrifice becomes questionable.
It is the questioning, and not the answers, which is the worst fear of an orthodoxy.
The problem is that we, as a nation, can no longer get by the answers given to us and there is emerging, gradually, a limit to our patience. The Pakistani society has, in a historic sense, all the tell-tale traits of the Pre-Revolution France. The French revolution broke on July 14, 1789, because the social conditions were so bad that death was preferable to instead of living under those conditions. In another sense, the French revolution happened, because the middle class shared a common idea and they were, despite the Bourbons’ best attempts, able to circulate their ideas and get a consensus of opinions that change had to happen.
On Chowk, there is an article highlighting the revolution in Iran, nearly 200 years later, but no one ask the questions why did it happen? Khomeini did not deliver anything as much as exploiting an already latent, simmering situation for his political ambitions. The revolution happened, not because Khomeini spearheaded it, but because the common Iranians finally said “enough is enough” just the like the French said the same words in 1789. When the Pakistani nation finally musters up the courage to repeat the very same words, which shattered the nearly 900 years of French Bourbon rule and the Shah’s imperial decadence, they would become, in the words of Robert Oppenheimer, “death”, the destroyers of everything, which the Pakistani elites hold dear as being the sina qua non of their own idealized world views.
In other sense, the counter-revolution in the Soviet Union, which managed to keep Gorbachev as a prisoner in 1991and finally ended communism, started in early 1980s when Macintosh computers along side with fax machines were first introduced into the Soviet Union. Eleven years later, it was the inability of the Soviet coup leaders to manage the information, which lead to Boris Yeltsin standing atop a tank and promising on CNN to resist the coup. In a similar sense, if the internet spreads in Pakistan, it could offer a medium of sharing thoughts and ideas, which could prove to a problem, because all orthodoxies thrive on their ability control the dissemination of information and once they lose that control, they become accountable for their actions.
Information increases geometrically and once the flood gates are opened, it is akin to Shakespeare’s Mark Anthony saying:” mischief thou art afoot, take what course thou mayst”.
In this sense, coming back to the square one, the government does not seem to realize what it is doing when it seeks to encourage the information technology in Pakistan. In other words, it is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, because of its monetary greed to capitalize on the IT bonanza. It would be far better, if it re-read Oscar Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray, because as Wilde says,” you destroy the thing which you love and that which you love, will destroy you!”
In its blind pursuit of greed, it is encouraging IT industry in order to line its own pockets and in doing so, it is opening a Pandora’ Box, which it can never really close and its love of money, will eventually prove to be the final nail in its coffin. In this sense, the powers that be will destroy both their power and money, which they love and the loss of these two will destroy them, because without them, they cannot sustain their timocratic grasp on the reins of the state.
Can anything be done? Nothing needs to done, because like the song, what will be, will be. The political logic in Pakistan has progressed beyond a fail-safe point and with each further act of excess it will experience the law of diminishing returns; a process, which has already started. However, the decline will long, slow and a painful process, because death will be lingering and not merciful in any sense of the word.
Temporal, the moderates have a simple choice before them: confront or die. The only question is when will they have the courage to say enough is enough and presently, many moderates in Pakistan share the sentiment expressed by Joseph Heller (I hope I got his name right) in his book Catch-22, when one of the characters says that it is better to live on ones knees than to die on one feet! Hence, when the reality confronts the moderates that they will, due to their own inactions, die on their knees also, they react. In any case, there is no need to pin ones hopes on the army, because the people are disenchanted by the army, especially since it said it will not bring serving officers into the accountability net.
In the case of Pakistan, its history has repeatedly shown that the army is not the solution; it has always been a problem. There will be no need for the army, when the people are starving; when they see their children starve and come out on the streets, demanding not their share of justice, but their right to live! Right now, things are bad in Pakistan, but they will get progressively worse.
The present day Pakistan is like the Holmesian dog, which did not bark in the night! The present interregnum is the lull before the storm. Many in Pakistan, see the present political hallucination and it’s three-year hiatus as the last viable hope for Pakistan and are willing to give it a chance. What happens after three years is hard to predict, but one thing is certain and that is, it will be after three years that the silent mutterings will swell into a vocal cry of the heart and will be finally audible enough to be heard as saying, “enough is enough”.
Again like the lyrics from Evita come to mind: enjoy it fools while you can… the queen is gone and the king isn’t coming back!
My humble apologizes to all for this boring, and extremely long post. I will accept the blame for its length, but once I started, the thoughts just kept pouring out. Thanks Temporal for the opportunity to dissipate some steam!
Ciao!
#62 Posted by bahmad on June 27, 2000 12:00:37 pm
In response to Fuzair (Reply # 57)
Dear Fuzair:
My writings are generally based upon my understanding of the world around me and my epistemological and ontological positions. In my scholarly ventures, I tend to keep my options open (and thus tend to avoid crude determinism). Following Marx, I view the Pakistani society as a social formation (and/or a set of social formations). One, however, need not be a Marxist to conceptualize a social formation as a product of the duality of agency and structure (see in particular the contribution of Anthony Giddens, a well-known British social theorist).
My critique of the state of Pakistan is a product of my theoretically informed and informing understanding of Pakistan as my homeland. See, in particular, the contributions of scholars like Hamza Alavi and Ranajit Guha. Among the non-academics, Dr. Mubashir Hasan’s writings concerning the state and civil society in Pakistan often appeal me.
Fuzair, permit me to state that I sense some frustration at your end. I have no reason to believe that it is a result of my writings. However, it is important for all of us to avoid one-sided communication which tends to divert our attention from a more harmonious collective understanding. I wonder, if I and you are currently thinking on the same plane. Please explain, what is so wrong to state that: “Nationalism, in its modern form, is a Western construct.” You, however, seem to believe that the West is the prime source of human civilization. Hence, you maintain that “our history has produced nothing but Oriental despotisms” and “[our] true heritage is more repressive and worse than any British colonialist state ever was.” Although the West has made remarkable progress during the past five hundred years or so, particularly after the development of “print capitalism,” I humbly decline to agree with your contention.
You ask: “What are the alternatives to the authoritarian colonialist state? How do you propose to keep out the religious fundamentalists who, again, are worse than any evil perpetrated by the colonialist oppressors.” I would argue, let us look into our history and try to find how and why our state has become so highly centralized, authoritarian, and [neo]-colonialist. In Pakistan, the religious fundamentalists are partly a product of the nature of our state and the dominant national discourse. Please refer to my Chowk article, “Pakistan: A Failed State?,” where I argue that the crisis of Pakistani nation-state rest essentially in a failure of her dominant discourse (ideology; worldview), which not only allows the reproduction of elitism but fails to prepare our youth to deal with the political, economic, and cultural complexities of the world we live in. In short, the phenomenon of so-called fundamentalism needs to be viewed in light of the larger crisis of Pakistani state, civil society, and economy. Let us try to understand our larger crisis and find ways to deal with it, if we really want to save Pakistan as a (multicultural/multinational) nation-state.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Fuzair:
My writings are generally based upon my understanding of the world around me and my epistemological and ontological positions. In my scholarly ventures, I tend to keep my options open (and thus tend to avoid crude determinism). Following Marx, I view the Pakistani society as a social formation (and/or a set of social formations). One, however, need not be a Marxist to conceptualize a social formation as a product of the duality of agency and structure (see in particular the contribution of Anthony Giddens, a well-known British social theorist).
My critique of the state of Pakistan is a product of my theoretically informed and informing understanding of Pakistan as my homeland. See, in particular, the contributions of scholars like Hamza Alavi and Ranajit Guha. Among the non-academics, Dr. Mubashir Hasan’s writings concerning the state and civil society in Pakistan often appeal me.
Fuzair, permit me to state that I sense some frustration at your end. I have no reason to believe that it is a result of my writings. However, it is important for all of us to avoid one-sided communication which tends to divert our attention from a more harmonious collective understanding. I wonder, if I and you are currently thinking on the same plane. Please explain, what is so wrong to state that: “Nationalism, in its modern form, is a Western construct.” You, however, seem to believe that the West is the prime source of human civilization. Hence, you maintain that “our history has produced nothing but Oriental despotisms” and “[our] true heritage is more repressive and worse than any British colonialist state ever was.” Although the West has made remarkable progress during the past five hundred years or so, particularly after the development of “print capitalism,” I humbly decline to agree with your contention.
You ask: “What are the alternatives to the authoritarian colonialist state? How do you propose to keep out the religious fundamentalists who, again, are worse than any evil perpetrated by the colonialist oppressors.” I would argue, let us look into our history and try to find how and why our state has become so highly centralized, authoritarian, and [neo]-colonialist. In Pakistan, the religious fundamentalists are partly a product of the nature of our state and the dominant national discourse. Please refer to my Chowk article, “Pakistan: A Failed State?,” where I argue that the crisis of Pakistani nation-state rest essentially in a failure of her dominant discourse (ideology; worldview), which not only allows the reproduction of elitism but fails to prepare our youth to deal with the political, economic, and cultural complexities of the world we live in. In short, the phenomenon of so-called fundamentalism needs to be viewed in light of the larger crisis of Pakistani state, civil society, and economy. Let us try to understand our larger crisis and find ways to deal with it, if we really want to save Pakistan as a (multicultural/multinational) nation-state.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#61 Posted by ferozk on June 27, 2000 2:00:32 am
Re: Vicky
Thanks for the post and the info.
Just one question: who is fueling the current Indian economic growth? The one percent IT people or the rest of 99 percent Indians? What is the international criteria India is known by in today` world? The IT software engineer or the slums of Mumbai? Which Indian export is bringing in the largest amount of money into India? IT or tea or something else?
Vicky, you maybe right and I could be wrong, but Indian nationalism is being identified in an economic sense, because economically India is racing ahead in the region and that economic clout is making others like the G-7 or any other alphanumberic group pay attention to India and this economic clout is going to be India`s political passport in the newly emerging world of globalizations and political economic issues!
Re: Temporal
I will post my thoughts later...
Ciao!
Thanks for the post and the info.
Just one question: who is fueling the current Indian economic growth? The one percent IT people or the rest of 99 percent Indians? What is the international criteria India is known by in today` world? The IT software engineer or the slums of Mumbai? Which Indian export is bringing in the largest amount of money into India? IT or tea or something else?
Vicky, you maybe right and I could be wrong, but Indian nationalism is being identified in an economic sense, because economically India is racing ahead in the region and that economic clout is making others like the G-7 or any other alphanumberic group pay attention to India and this economic clout is going to be India`s political passport in the newly emerging world of globalizations and political economic issues!
Re: Temporal
I will post my thoughts later...
Ciao!
#60 Posted by temporal on June 26, 2000 12:37:52 pm
Ferozk #58 (and Bilal and Fuzair and Sameer)
You asked:
The question still remains, first of all, who are we? ---DESIS
Secondly, where are we heading? ---DOWHNILL
Lastly, Why? ---ASK ALLAH. AND IF HE DOESN’T ANSWER ASK HEZB UL LAH.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
I know you can expect a serious scholarly response from the dominant discourse man soon.
But if I can throw in my tuppence....
The key word to fully understand the Pakistani psyche is ‘default’. (And here I am referring to the majority not the minority elite of the right, left or priviledged classes.)
By default they have continued to give credence to the prevailing dictums. They went with Jinnah’s egalitarian and secular outlook, as they did with progressively rigid interpretations of Islam by the succeeding usurpers. Their passive acceptance knows no limit. Their penchant for standing by passively and silently when their rights are raped by the power usurpers is legendary. Wonder if they would still be silent spectators when their daughters and wives will be ‘taken’ by the next set of bearded usurpers? God forbid! (if past experience of these marauders is anything to go by.)
And this ‘default’ is an all enveloping default covering all ethnic, provincial and most social backgrounds nation wide.
And now the ill bred, un-knowing, imbeciles of the me-and-my-Allah variety commonly bandied about as Talibaans and their slightly less uncouth cousins known as ‘Jamaatis’ are knocking on the threshold. Good news only for the blind, lame, deaf and dumb ‘naik namaazi’ types. And yet we find fans -- short for fanatics -- who rub their hands in glee to usher in this Daur-e-Jahilya.
Maybe the spineless deserve the hunchbacks.
Can anything be done?
Yes, something can be done (a) before and (b) after the thrust for power is made.
(a) Before the fans arrive, fear of Allah should be imparted to them. How? Through the same source they are using. The barrel should be pointing at their heads. Can it be done? Possibly not. I do not have sufficient information about ground zero realities. Feroz?
(b) After the dawn of Daur-e-Jahilya. The moderates have to break out of their shield of default and take on these fanatics head long. This is serious in that the Army may have been cowed down by them by then. But within the Army there must be units that can be won over. The moderates will have their work cut out for them. Is there a will? Do they have any choice? Will they do it, Feroz?
regards,
temporal
You asked:
The question still remains, first of all, who are we? ---DESIS
Secondly, where are we heading? ---DOWHNILL
Lastly, Why? ---ASK ALLAH. AND IF HE DOESN’T ANSWER ASK HEZB UL LAH.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
I know you can expect a serious scholarly response from the dominant discourse man soon.
But if I can throw in my tuppence....
The key word to fully understand the Pakistani psyche is ‘default’. (And here I am referring to the majority not the minority elite of the right, left or priviledged classes.)
By default they have continued to give credence to the prevailing dictums. They went with Jinnah’s egalitarian and secular outlook, as they did with progressively rigid interpretations of Islam by the succeeding usurpers. Their passive acceptance knows no limit. Their penchant for standing by passively and silently when their rights are raped by the power usurpers is legendary. Wonder if they would still be silent spectators when their daughters and wives will be ‘taken’ by the next set of bearded usurpers? God forbid! (if past experience of these marauders is anything to go by.)
And this ‘default’ is an all enveloping default covering all ethnic, provincial and most social backgrounds nation wide.
And now the ill bred, un-knowing, imbeciles of the me-and-my-Allah variety commonly bandied about as Talibaans and their slightly less uncouth cousins known as ‘Jamaatis’ are knocking on the threshold. Good news only for the blind, lame, deaf and dumb ‘naik namaazi’ types. And yet we find fans -- short for fanatics -- who rub their hands in glee to usher in this Daur-e-Jahilya.
Maybe the spineless deserve the hunchbacks.
Can anything be done?
Yes, something can be done (a) before and (b) after the thrust for power is made.
(a) Before the fans arrive, fear of Allah should be imparted to them. How? Through the same source they are using. The barrel should be pointing at their heads. Can it be done? Possibly not. I do not have sufficient information about ground zero realities. Feroz?
(b) After the dawn of Daur-e-Jahilya. The moderates have to break out of their shield of default and take on these fanatics head long. This is serious in that the Army may have been cowed down by them by then. But within the Army there must be units that can be won over. The moderates will have their work cut out for them. Is there a will? Do they have any choice? Will they do it, Feroz?
regards,
temporal
#59 Posted by Vicky on June 26, 2000 2:47:54 am
FerozK #52,
You say that nationalism in India is increasingly being associated with IT, FDI…etc. You and some others too on chowk must remember that, a minuscule part of the Indian population is involved in IT and a very minor percentage reads the business news. It is therefore factually incorrect to say Indian nationalism is defined in these terms. It is a ridiculous thought.
As a matter of fact, even Indians in IT (such as me) don’t think our identity as an Indian is defined by India’s IT success. People alive to the developments in IT, FDI, .. etc., celebrate it like any other national or individual achievement, no more no less. What we are, is unchangeable. What we can do, is for ever evolving.
Vikram
You say that nationalism in India is increasingly being associated with IT, FDI…etc. You and some others too on chowk must remember that, a minuscule part of the Indian population is involved in IT and a very minor percentage reads the business news. It is therefore factually incorrect to say Indian nationalism is defined in these terms. It is a ridiculous thought.
As a matter of fact, even Indians in IT (such as me) don’t think our identity as an Indian is defined by India’s IT success. People alive to the developments in IT, FDI, .. etc., celebrate it like any other national or individual achievement, no more no less. What we are, is unchangeable. What we can do, is for ever evolving.
Vikram
#58 Posted by ferozk on June 26, 2000 2:08:04 am
Re: bahmad and Fuzair
Bilal, I think that Fuzair is more on the point, because in all your posts, you have not answered the questions, but sought shelter behind a discussion of history.
The question still remains, first of all, who are we?
Secondly, where are we heading?
Lastly, Why?
In the last 53 years we could not really answer this question and the result can be seen in the interacts of Salman`s article!
Ciao!
Bilal, I think that Fuzair is more on the point, because in all your posts, you have not answered the questions, but sought shelter behind a discussion of history.
The question still remains, first of all, who are we?
Secondly, where are we heading?
Lastly, Why?
In the last 53 years we could not really answer this question and the result can be seen in the interacts of Salman`s article!
Ciao!
#57 Posted by fuzair on June 25, 2000 11:30:48 pm
Re: Bahmad #54
While I agree with you about the difficulties of Pakistan being the product of an authoritarian, colonial, etc. etc. etc., I have a couple of questions to ask of you:
1 Isn`t your critique and a proposed multicultural state also a product of a Eurocentric view? After all, our history has produced nothing but Oriental despotisms, hardly the stuff of enlightened multi-this and multi-thats. Akbar is a potential counterexample that comes to mind but he is a very bad one. Attempting to institute Emperor-worship is not exactly accepting accepting the diversity that is us.
The very concept of muticulturalism and liberal democracy is as much a Western import as the colonial state, or the idea of the nation state. As are things like gender equality, rule of law, constitutional government, modern medicine, and whatever else one cares to name that makes life other than nasty, brutish and short. Our true heritage is more repressive and worse than any British colonialist state ever was.
2 What are the alternatives to the authoritarian colonialist state? How do you propose to keep out the religious fundamentalists who, again, are worse than any evil perpetrated by the colonialist oppressors. I believe it was Gandhi who said that the British could be shamed into doing the right thing. That to my mind is a great compliment actually. Pray tell how does one shame any mullah into doing the right thing? Or for that matter Nawaz Sharif? Or ZAB? Or Zia?
The Western Nation State was as multicultural and multilingual as any Third World society. It is only brutal repression and centuries of repression that gave us modern France or Spain or any other Western State. And many of these states are now fracturing along their pre-assimilation linguistic lines--e.g., Spain and Catalan and, probably, the Basques.
The colonial state`s solution to its failure to assimilate/integrate is again a Western one: Federalism or Confederation. However, haven`t we tried the former? In theory if not in fact?
So if the evil West was the cause of the disease, it is also the cure. However, we refuse to accept the medicine and, instead, prefer to blame it for our own faults.
While I agree with you about the difficulties of Pakistan being the product of an authoritarian, colonial, etc. etc. etc., I have a couple of questions to ask of you:
1 Isn`t your critique and a proposed multicultural state also a product of a Eurocentric view? After all, our history has produced nothing but Oriental despotisms, hardly the stuff of enlightened multi-this and multi-thats. Akbar is a potential counterexample that comes to mind but he is a very bad one. Attempting to institute Emperor-worship is not exactly accepting accepting the diversity that is us.
The very concept of muticulturalism and liberal democracy is as much a Western import as the colonial state, or the idea of the nation state. As are things like gender equality, rule of law, constitutional government, modern medicine, and whatever else one cares to name that makes life other than nasty, brutish and short. Our true heritage is more repressive and worse than any British colonialist state ever was.
2 What are the alternatives to the authoritarian colonialist state? How do you propose to keep out the religious fundamentalists who, again, are worse than any evil perpetrated by the colonialist oppressors. I believe it was Gandhi who said that the British could be shamed into doing the right thing. That to my mind is a great compliment actually. Pray tell how does one shame any mullah into doing the right thing? Or for that matter Nawaz Sharif? Or ZAB? Or Zia?
The Western Nation State was as multicultural and multilingual as any Third World society. It is only brutal repression and centuries of repression that gave us modern France or Spain or any other Western State. And many of these states are now fracturing along their pre-assimilation linguistic lines--e.g., Spain and Catalan and, probably, the Basques.
The colonial state`s solution to its failure to assimilate/integrate is again a Western one: Federalism or Confederation. However, haven`t we tried the former? In theory if not in fact?
So if the evil West was the cause of the disease, it is also the cure. However, we refuse to accept the medicine and, instead, prefer to blame it for our own faults.
#56 Posted by bd on June 25, 2000 11:30:48 pm
Ferozk #52
If I could put my 2 ``paisa`` into the discussion of nationalism and apologies for interjecting. Feroz, you compared India to Pakistan with reference to ``nationalism``. I would like to expound a bit on that. First of all, we have to realize the constituents of India. First is the vast village hinterland (including lower town class), most of which is isolated and the political/nationalism aspect is very very diffuse and vague since existence is so hard. Second is the growing middle class who reside in the towns and cities for whom education and economic welfare is paramount, with nationalism definitely confused with the political process and role of religion.
Third is the business class which was quite heavily involved with the BJP (surprising in my opinion) and have a strong classical nationalistic foundation and finally we have the political / bureaucratic class who are driven by the 3 sets of classes. The interlinks between these classes is very clear and obvious (regionalism as a factor does not exist within this argument). The political/bureaucracy links in with all the 3 other classes, in addition, the middle class links in with the business. That, in sum total, in a very generalized and simplified way, is India`s social dynamics. Each class relates to nationalism in a different way. Feroz, your hypothesis is relating to the business/middle classes, and you are quite accurate in your statement.
So, who is the guardian in India? who determines nationalism? and what is the definition?. A short historical trip may be of use to determine this. IMHO, nationalism in India had some defining moments. The entire freedom struggle first defined India as an entity, but on a very vague and fundamental level and this permeates across India without any exception whatsoever. As the freedom fighters die out, other factors have started taking importance. The 1962 war was the first violent poke into the nationalism fire. That drew people together and raised national consciousness like nothing else. Lata`s immortal song in 1962. That, I believe, represents the perfect representation of India`s Nationalism. People, who were not even born then, still stop to listen to that song and think of boundaries and enemies and the nation state. 1971 was the next defining moment when India took a step forward followed closely with Buddha smiling in 1974. 1977 was when the entire populace rose against the emergency. Next time something happened was in 1990 when the gold reserves were sent to London and final defining moment was the rise of BJP when the freedom fight was laid to rest and India started looking at itself as an independent nation-state. People may disagree with the sequence of events and the importance level thereof, but this just my opinion which may very well be wrong.
The free and independent media is, IMHO, the guardians. I would highlight 2 newspapers in particular, first the Indian Express and second the Hindu. These 2 papers have, over the past 50 years, provided the bedrock of Indian civilisation. The Hindu is more calm and rational while the Indian Express is more feisty, but there you have it. The role of the film industry is also significant but not to that extent. The films do perform a vital function of transferring national consciousness from the bureaucratic class and media to the vast village hinterland. Between the actors dancing around the trees, the hinterland does get an idea of what is the state of the nation or what are the issues faced by the middle classes and the political class.
Finally we come to the definition part which is more difficult. These are just my thoughts and please feel free to disagree :-). Its anchored firmly within the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Hindu Religion (its very difficult to separate these two - since both provide the history as well as the culture backing up Indian Nationalism). I would also risk opprobrium by saying that the Muslim culture within India is heavily tinged with aspects of Hinduism or the national culture. People may disagree, but I can back this up.
Right now, if you go into the street of any Indian middle level town and ask any person, the chances are high that they would define themselves as Indian first (specially if you were a foreigner), other aspects are the religion (Hindu Muslim..), culture / language (Sindhi / Gujrati / Bengali Tamil..), and profession. Besides the first point, I think its the same as what you were mentioning. Because of the historical events mentioned above, India has a classic nationalistic framework with a good guardian and checks and balances to root out the extreme elements.
Sincerely
bd
If I could put my 2 ``paisa`` into the discussion of nationalism and apologies for interjecting. Feroz, you compared India to Pakistan with reference to ``nationalism``. I would like to expound a bit on that. First of all, we have to realize the constituents of India. First is the vast village hinterland (including lower town class), most of which is isolated and the political/nationalism aspect is very very diffuse and vague since existence is so hard. Second is the growing middle class who reside in the towns and cities for whom education and economic welfare is paramount, with nationalism definitely confused with the political process and role of religion.
Third is the business class which was quite heavily involved with the BJP (surprising in my opinion) and have a strong classical nationalistic foundation and finally we have the political / bureaucratic class who are driven by the 3 sets of classes. The interlinks between these classes is very clear and obvious (regionalism as a factor does not exist within this argument). The political/bureaucracy links in with all the 3 other classes, in addition, the middle class links in with the business. That, in sum total, in a very generalized and simplified way, is India`s social dynamics. Each class relates to nationalism in a different way. Feroz, your hypothesis is relating to the business/middle classes, and you are quite accurate in your statement.
So, who is the guardian in India? who determines nationalism? and what is the definition?. A short historical trip may be of use to determine this. IMHO, nationalism in India had some defining moments. The entire freedom struggle first defined India as an entity, but on a very vague and fundamental level and this permeates across India without any exception whatsoever. As the freedom fighters die out, other factors have started taking importance. The 1962 war was the first violent poke into the nationalism fire. That drew people together and raised national consciousness like nothing else. Lata`s immortal song in 1962. That, I believe, represents the perfect representation of India`s Nationalism. People, who were not even born then, still stop to listen to that song and think of boundaries and enemies and the nation state. 1971 was the next defining moment when India took a step forward followed closely with Buddha smiling in 1974. 1977 was when the entire populace rose against the emergency. Next time something happened was in 1990 when the gold reserves were sent to London and final defining moment was the rise of BJP when the freedom fight was laid to rest and India started looking at itself as an independent nation-state. People may disagree with the sequence of events and the importance level thereof, but this just my opinion which may very well be wrong.
The free and independent media is, IMHO, the guardians. I would highlight 2 newspapers in particular, first the Indian Express and second the Hindu. These 2 papers have, over the past 50 years, provided the bedrock of Indian civilisation. The Hindu is more calm and rational while the Indian Express is more feisty, but there you have it. The role of the film industry is also significant but not to that extent. The films do perform a vital function of transferring national consciousness from the bureaucratic class and media to the vast village hinterland. Between the actors dancing around the trees, the hinterland does get an idea of what is the state of the nation or what are the issues faced by the middle classes and the political class.
Finally we come to the definition part which is more difficult. These are just my thoughts and please feel free to disagree :-). Its anchored firmly within the Indus Valley Civilisation and the Hindu Religion (its very difficult to separate these two - since both provide the history as well as the culture backing up Indian Nationalism). I would also risk opprobrium by saying that the Muslim culture within India is heavily tinged with aspects of Hinduism or the national culture. People may disagree, but I can back this up.
Right now, if you go into the street of any Indian middle level town and ask any person, the chances are high that they would define themselves as Indian first (specially if you were a foreigner), other aspects are the religion (Hindu Muslim..), culture / language (Sindhi / Gujrati / Bengali Tamil..), and profession. Besides the first point, I think its the same as what you were mentioning. Because of the historical events mentioned above, India has a classic nationalistic framework with a good guardian and checks and balances to root out the extreme elements.
Sincerely
bd
#55 Posted by Ras Siddiqui on June 25, 2000 8:05:42 pm
(Another human face of this historic tragedy as
only Khalid Hasan can express it)
From The News International
Sunday, June 25, 2000 -- Rabi-ul-Awwal 21, 1421
The dividing line
By Khalid Hasan
Before the advent of e-mail, news, both good and bad, took its time in reaching the
intended addressee, especially if he was living abroad. So when you learnt of something
that had happened two or three weeks earlier, its impact was lessened. If the news was
good, your rejoicing was less effusive and if the news was bad, your sense of loss was less
devastating. That is no longer so. E-mail is like being in a ringside seat with the action
taking place at the other end of the earth. Within minutes you know what has happened,
but speed of communication has neither brought more happiness nor greater wisdom. In
fact, it has taken away the comfort that only time lapsed can provide.
And so it was that I learnt within hours of the event that my friend Nasim Akhtar had died
in Lahore of a heart attack that he did not initially think was a heart attack but a pinched
muscle between the shoulder blades. Why is this lethal means employed by nature to
reclaim the living so deceptive, almost dishonest, as it often does not appear to be what it
is? The devil is a dissimulator, many holy texts believe. If that indeed is so, then the heart
attack has to be his very own handiwork.
It is strange that Nasim, who we all thought was half a doctor himself, should have been
fooled by the pain he experienced during a visit to Muzaffarabad (the nearest to homegoing
for those of us who come from the luckless state of Jammu and Kashmir) where a wedding
had taken him. Had he followed Ghalib`s advice, he might be alive today. In one of his
letters, Ghalib writes that there are two things he never attends: weddings and funerals,
adding, ``May there be dust in my mouth, but had Hazrat Ali himself invited me to Hussain`s
wedding, as God is my witness, I would have declined``.
I think the jamboree that weddings have become go back to Ziaul Haq`s times. They were
like an escape hatch from the brutality of his rule but though he has been gone a dozen
years, the habit persists. It is one of his less deadly legacies, when you consider
madrassahs (written as madaris in the English press, which I always read as madaris or
conjurers).
Nasim`s family, like many from Jammu, came across in the wake of independence, in ones
and twos, making Sialkot its home in the hope that once the troubles were over, everyone
would go back to where everyone had always lived. While those from East Punjab did not
take long to realise that there would never be any going back, the people of Jammu and
Kashmir kept hoping for years that they would go back. It was the myth of return which
kept some of them alive. My father, for instance, always talked about settling down in a
cool, comfortable suite at the Nedous Hotel in Srinagar.
While most of us went to Murray College after finishing school, among them, Nasim`s
brother Kalim Akhtar who must have written hundreds of thousands of words on Kashmir
but to no avail as it changed nothing, Nasim, who was always a little different from others
(ussi haan banday zara wakhri type de, as expressed by a character in a Punjabi film), went
to Gordon College. He would come off and on and regale us with stories. There were two
houses among which the student body was divided, he told us, Minerva and Bar (wonder
what they are called now; the second must surely have been closed down by central
excise). It was from him that I first heard of Prof Khwaja Masud and Prof AQ Daskawie and
Prof Mal. He told us that one day in class, as Prof Daskawie began to read from a textbook,
beginning with the line ``We the Americans``, a backbencher stood up, ``Sir, is Daska in
America?``
At some point after a few years, Nasim returned to Sialkot. He was always a natty dresser:
off white sharkskin jackets and maroon neckties with a perfect dimpled knot (nobody could
do a tie better), highly polished shoes and a key chain in his right hand which he liked to
twirl.
When KH Khurshid, my cousin, became the president of Azad Kashmir, he chose Nasim Akhtar as his private secretary. And so Nasim went off to Muzaffarabad and travelled around with Khurshid. In those days, all the president had was an old American car and two beat-up Land Rovers which followed his Chevvie. I compare that to today and think of the Barrister who has never practiced law and the 500 Pajeros and Mercs that lie parked in
his garages and those of his freedom-fighting friends. He has so many of these rugged
4-wheel drives that without the help of the Pakistan army he could launch an armour-led
invasion of Kashmir. Nasim always remained proud of the fact that he had been private
secretary to the man who had been private secretary to the Quaid-i-Azam (though that did
not stop Ayub Khan from jailing him in Dalai Camp; he was its first prisoner for demanding
that the Government of Azad Kashmir seek international recognition).
Nasim came to Lahore and found work at the old Batala Engineering Company when it still
was one of the great industrial models of Asia. Like all good things that some men of vision
and drive had built, BECO was destroyed by the so-called nationalisation of 1972. Like all of
us, Nasim knocked around for a few years, doing nothing in particular but finally found his
haven at Service Industries where he stayed until the end, operating out of a tiny but
comfortable office in the old Ganga Ram Mansions on Lahore`s Mall.
Nasim left his imprint on those he met. He was a marvelous storyteller and had a tremendous sense of humour. Not everyone can tell a joke well, but when you heard it from Nasim, its effect was enhanced. He had a way with words and half the time, his expressive face obviated their need.
With him gone, the second generation of those who were uprooted in the maelstrom of 1947 from Jammu has begun to fade. Only a few of either generation have ever been able to return to Jammu or Srinagar, as neither of the governments has been too keen on it. I recall that in 1969 when I went to the telegraph office in Sialkot to send telegrams to Srinagar (to Sheikh Abdullah among others) that Dr Noor Hussain, my father and their friend, had died, the telegrams were not accepted since Srinagar did not exist as we did not recognise it as being a part of India. My efforts to assure the clerk that Pakistan would not lose Kashmir which it had lost anyway in 1947) because of these telegrams, had no effect on him.
Finally, I sent a telegram to Mirdula Sarabai in New Delhi who informed Abdullah and others in Srinagar. But Nasim was younger and there are not many people on the other side except some cousins who would have needed to be informed. The dividing line divides and it divides forever.
only Khalid Hasan can express it)
From The News International
Sunday, June 25, 2000 -- Rabi-ul-Awwal 21, 1421
The dividing line
By Khalid Hasan
Before the advent of e-mail, news, both good and bad, took its time in reaching the
intended addressee, especially if he was living abroad. So when you learnt of something
that had happened two or three weeks earlier, its impact was lessened. If the news was
good, your rejoicing was less effusive and if the news was bad, your sense of loss was less
devastating. That is no longer so. E-mail is like being in a ringside seat with the action
taking place at the other end of the earth. Within minutes you know what has happened,
but speed of communication has neither brought more happiness nor greater wisdom. In
fact, it has taken away the comfort that only time lapsed can provide.
And so it was that I learnt within hours of the event that my friend Nasim Akhtar had died
in Lahore of a heart attack that he did not initially think was a heart attack but a pinched
muscle between the shoulder blades. Why is this lethal means employed by nature to
reclaim the living so deceptive, almost dishonest, as it often does not appear to be what it
is? The devil is a dissimulator, many holy texts believe. If that indeed is so, then the heart
attack has to be his very own handiwork.
It is strange that Nasim, who we all thought was half a doctor himself, should have been
fooled by the pain he experienced during a visit to Muzaffarabad (the nearest to homegoing
for those of us who come from the luckless state of Jammu and Kashmir) where a wedding
had taken him. Had he followed Ghalib`s advice, he might be alive today. In one of his
letters, Ghalib writes that there are two things he never attends: weddings and funerals,
adding, ``May there be dust in my mouth, but had Hazrat Ali himself invited me to Hussain`s
wedding, as God is my witness, I would have declined``.
I think the jamboree that weddings have become go back to Ziaul Haq`s times. They were
like an escape hatch from the brutality of his rule but though he has been gone a dozen
years, the habit persists. It is one of his less deadly legacies, when you consider
madrassahs (written as madaris in the English press, which I always read as madaris or
conjurers).
Nasim`s family, like many from Jammu, came across in the wake of independence, in ones
and twos, making Sialkot its home in the hope that once the troubles were over, everyone
would go back to where everyone had always lived. While those from East Punjab did not
take long to realise that there would never be any going back, the people of Jammu and
Kashmir kept hoping for years that they would go back. It was the myth of return which
kept some of them alive. My father, for instance, always talked about settling down in a
cool, comfortable suite at the Nedous Hotel in Srinagar.
While most of us went to Murray College after finishing school, among them, Nasim`s
brother Kalim Akhtar who must have written hundreds of thousands of words on Kashmir
but to no avail as it changed nothing, Nasim, who was always a little different from others
(ussi haan banday zara wakhri type de, as expressed by a character in a Punjabi film), went
to Gordon College. He would come off and on and regale us with stories. There were two
houses among which the student body was divided, he told us, Minerva and Bar (wonder
what they are called now; the second must surely have been closed down by central
excise). It was from him that I first heard of Prof Khwaja Masud and Prof AQ Daskawie and
Prof Mal. He told us that one day in class, as Prof Daskawie began to read from a textbook,
beginning with the line ``We the Americans``, a backbencher stood up, ``Sir, is Daska in
America?``
At some point after a few years, Nasim returned to Sialkot. He was always a natty dresser:
off white sharkskin jackets and maroon neckties with a perfect dimpled knot (nobody could
do a tie better), highly polished shoes and a key chain in his right hand which he liked to
twirl.
When KH Khurshid, my cousin, became the president of Azad Kashmir, he chose Nasim Akhtar as his private secretary. And so Nasim went off to Muzaffarabad and travelled around with Khurshid. In those days, all the president had was an old American car and two beat-up Land Rovers which followed his Chevvie. I compare that to today and think of the Barrister who has never practiced law and the 500 Pajeros and Mercs that lie parked in
his garages and those of his freedom-fighting friends. He has so many of these rugged
4-wheel drives that without the help of the Pakistan army he could launch an armour-led
invasion of Kashmir. Nasim always remained proud of the fact that he had been private
secretary to the man who had been private secretary to the Quaid-i-Azam (though that did
not stop Ayub Khan from jailing him in Dalai Camp; he was its first prisoner for demanding
that the Government of Azad Kashmir seek international recognition).
Nasim came to Lahore and found work at the old Batala Engineering Company when it still
was one of the great industrial models of Asia. Like all good things that some men of vision
and drive had built, BECO was destroyed by the so-called nationalisation of 1972. Like all of
us, Nasim knocked around for a few years, doing nothing in particular but finally found his
haven at Service Industries where he stayed until the end, operating out of a tiny but
comfortable office in the old Ganga Ram Mansions on Lahore`s Mall.
Nasim left his imprint on those he met. He was a marvelous storyteller and had a tremendous sense of humour. Not everyone can tell a joke well, but when you heard it from Nasim, its effect was enhanced. He had a way with words and half the time, his expressive face obviated their need.
With him gone, the second generation of those who were uprooted in the maelstrom of 1947 from Jammu has begun to fade. Only a few of either generation have ever been able to return to Jammu or Srinagar, as neither of the governments has been too keen on it. I recall that in 1969 when I went to the telegraph office in Sialkot to send telegrams to Srinagar (to Sheikh Abdullah among others) that Dr Noor Hussain, my father and their friend, had died, the telegrams were not accepted since Srinagar did not exist as we did not recognise it as being a part of India. My efforts to assure the clerk that Pakistan would not lose Kashmir which it had lost anyway in 1947) because of these telegrams, had no effect on him.
Finally, I sent a telegram to Mirdula Sarabai in New Delhi who informed Abdullah and others in Srinagar. But Nasim was younger and there are not many people on the other side except some cousins who would have needed to be informed. The dividing line divides and it divides forever.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- stuka: Jang: Borivilli Express has... Pleas For Sanity as
- TOLKININ: Re: # 11 ACheema bhai... Nothing Queer About It
- laddu: indians need to understand... The Future of Indo
- dharma: The police should lose... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: If everytime mob goes... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: Re: # 202 "Yes Modi... Pleas For Sanity as
- KHYBER: RE # 101...THANKS FOR... Pleas For Sanity as
- tahmed32: #199 om prakash: GT... Pleas For Sanity as
