Honour!

It is not fair to malign Islam for misdeeds of bad muslims.

Only an ignorant (too light a word) to the extreme can link honour killing to Islam. Islam and Muslims can be two different things. It can be that a follower of Islam misinterprets, intentionally or otherwise, but the Islamic laws do not allow cruelty to ANY LIVING BEING. What to think of a human being. People all over have used religion to their end. Man first created god to scare and to extort from fellow beings. Teachings of Hazrat Muhammad,(S), do not anywhere justify any kind of revenge for honour. Can any body be any equal to him and his honour. His Seerat, life as he lived, is filled with incidences in which he had been ill treated. He never ever resorted to revenge. Unfortunately Isalm is not understood and has become more of a ritual. It is ritual to recite the holy Quran. We have learnt by heart the verses from the holy Quran and recite them like a parrot without knowing what we are reciting and so not practising. Islam is not a conglomeration of rituals. Quran is not for reciting. It is for reading, understanding practising, adopting the encoded way of life. Without which of course the congregations for Namaz and recitations are a mere façade, commerce, for which the trademark is mullahism. What else can it be termed, offering prayers in which Quaran is recited and coming out and not believig and practising what we recited! Ironically there is no room for that either in Islam. It is ritual to go to the mosque five times, alas without understanding and practising a word. Thus we make a mockery of Islam and ourselves. One sholud try to find why it is Islamic to ask the bride her permission before the Nikkah, ceremony, contract, and one person, chosen to be her advocate is not enough, two witnesses are required by interpretation of a sect. Only after she has given her permission (or as the practice is still with some among the illiterates, forced to nod by nudging on her head) the nikkah ceremony is solemnised.

As regards the attempt in passing of the bill to justify honour killing, it is yet another attempt to giving a transfusion to feudalism. One can foresee a scene in a courtroom in not very distant a future depicting an argument justifying mass killings:

?Sir, after all I am an honourable man and I had to kill all these people to save my honour, they did not accept me as their chieftain?!

Let us hope the Shariat Court, established for the very purpose of eradicating unislamic law makings gives its view.

tariqlodi

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

Dear Goga:

You have touched upon some extremely important, but poorly understood, dualisms. wo of these are: (1) secularism vs. fundamentalism; and (2) the core (the West) vs. periphery (anything but the West).

In the context of Pakistan, our inability to deal with such dualisms has created immense difficulties for our state, civil society, and economy. At present we are passing through an exceptionally important phase of Pakistani (and South Asian) history where it seems imperative that we reject the approach of ``either/or`` and find appropriate and effective ways of dealing with our problems. Pakistani society cannot be essentially religious or essentially ecular, since neither religion nor secularism is sufficient to understand the nature of our society and its problems. Although we need to learn from the European and the American knowledge and experience, we cannot and should not jump over (or reject) such developments due to their Western origins. We, thus, need to develop a critical understanding of both ``us and them`` and anything pertaining to the world of ``us and them.``

Goga, you have made three interesting observations. I wonder if these are based on just heresay or something much more concrete. Could you please illustrate your response with a few examples?

Pakistani scholars tamed in the West are quite hostile to traditional view of Islam and Islamic state.``

``Poor things have to develop thesis such as ``Quaid-e-Azam wanted Pakistan to be a secular state`` to gain the acceptance and respect of the Western scholarship.``

``The ``successful`` Pakistani scholars are now standing side by side with Western scholars and poking fun at a traumatized Pakistan in their language.``

To Bilal,

Pl donot take it so personally and so pedantically. In the general context of the discussion, read by a few more than both of us, the words I have used reflect the wider feeling and may be provocative. It is again the very nature of a discussion (at least my opinion) that one has to take views in tune with your `position`, not necessarily ones personal views.

To statesman,

When I talked about the `great` indian history, it was in no way hindu history. To many, at least that was taught in those days, that Moghuls were great indian emperors. Tipu sultan and Hyder Ali where great indian freedom fighters. Through out Kerala in south india, ven today in the school books, Kunghali Marikkar, a muslim is exalted as a great naval war strategist who faught the portugese.

It is only recently, in fact on the chowk, that I came to know of the version of history which underpinns the pakistani claim to `glory`. Pakistanis are decendents of the rulers of india and hence should be `superior` to indians. All that I can say is, this notion and reinterpretation of history is fantastic, I wish the pakistanis good luck.

Some times a reality check is helpful. After the latest kargill, there were several articles about how pakistan lost the media war. Many in pakistan seem to believe that adequate publicity would have convinced the world that a bunch of mujahideen can take on the `mighty` indian army simply by the moral support of the pak govt. I am fairly certain that version of history being pushed in pakistan will need one hell of a lot of publicity to convince the people of pakistan, let alone the world.

Your final comment that before india can attain `greatness`, it will have to solve the pakistani problem is very true. To me the problem stems from the above version of history. To some extend,as you have stated, the history of islam and the `accepted` superior aspects of islam are contribute and support the pak version of history.

There are various reasons why pakistan at present cannot tag on to the islamic history, and become a great islamic country.

The need of the hour is an impassioned look at history. Look at the other south asian countries, latin american countries, EU countries except france and germany, and find out how they view their role in the regional context.

In response to Jay (Reply # 65):

Dear Jay:

Please read the following excerpt from my Reply # 57:

``A South Asian peace plan may not have much worth unless it is willingly reached by India, Pakistan, and other South Asian countries, and unless it is actively supported by China, Russia, and the United States.``

Now read your responses:

``To find the pakistani space under the sun, you believe that there has to be peace in south asia, brockered by china, russia and the US. Yes, in a way you have summed up the pakistani way of thinking in the last 50 years`` (Reply # 60).

Yes, India lost in the last 250 years, but I do believe that a nation that account for 20% of the humanity, with distinguished past and 200 years of colonial rule cannot accepot another version of neocolonialism. For pakistan, as succintly put by Bilal, a peace intiative `approved` by russia, Us and china is acceptable. For an indian it is not`` (Reply # 65).

My Comment:

I wrote ``actively supported by China . . . .`` You have misread and/or misinterpreted my notion of ``active support`` as ``brokered by. . .`` and, in the next reply, ``approved by.`` How accurate and justified are you in your misreading and/or misinterpretation of my statement (and my intent, given my views on the global world order)?

Sincerely,

Bilal Ahmad

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

To Iris,

I admire your forth right response with out mincing words. I also wont fall short on this count.

I am a firm believer in the notion of collective identity, historical evolution of societies and cultures. I also believe that the identity is created by history, the past, however one may chose to recreate it.

With that preamble, as an average indian may be biased by the version of history taught to me, I dia had a glorious past, the istitutional structure, science and technology were one of the best, definitely better what the west had in comparable times. China was probably the only comparable culture. I do believe that the hindu religious frame work, which seek oneness with all was not conducive for the version of science and technology that developed in the west, oriented towards domination of the nature. This led to the industrial revolution in the west and the colonialism.

Yes, India lost in the last 250 years, but I do believe that a nation that account for 20% of the humanity, with distinguished past and 200 years of colonial rule cannot accepot another version of neocolonialism. For pakistan, as succintly put by Bilal, a peace intiative `approved` by russia, Us and china is acceptable. For an indian it is not.

Now the notion of hegemon. Pakistan is willing to accept the hegemony of the US. During afghan operation pakistan was run by americans. Only a couple of months ago, mianji rushed to china in hope of getting approval and finally ended up in US to declare that the troops will be with drawn from kargill.

So, culturally, pakistan can accept hegemon, they are in fact looking for one. What they wont accept is India as a hegemon. This where the problem lies, I do believe that india will emerge as a mojor power, I treat that as an enevitable copurse of history, it is for the other countries to accept it, whether you call it hegemon or not.

I do recognise the problem of pakistan, the problem with history. I know intimately about the Philippines, a country without history, where every thing pre-colonial has been destroyed by the americans and the spaniards, I know about Australia where they are now trying to glorify the convict past. I have read a little about the pakistani efforts to reinterpret history, to glorify the `invaders` of Gazni and Lodhi.

In conclusion, I do believe that pakistan hant got much of any choice. All the south american countries have accepted US as the hegemon, pakistan looks forward to the approval of US hegemon and naturally, why not india.

Bilal Ahmad #57:

I think that the present scholarly ambiance is conducive to Indians because when they are writing about India they deal modern ideals of democracy and secularism etc. Pakistani scholars have to get into things like religion and religious identity which are quagmires given that the modern Western scholarship is either devoid of such terms or do not accept them as legitimate basis of a ``healthy`` social structure. This is why scholars like Alama Iqbal are to a large extent ignored by Westren scholarship except for few orientalists dealing with South Asia. Alama stayed within the framework of classical Islamic and Quranic themes. Some of his poetry is even sarcastic toward the Western norms.

This is one of the reasons that Pakistani scholars tamed in the West are quite hostile to traditional view of Islam and Islamic state. Poor things have to develop thesis such as ``Quaid-e-Azam wanted Pakistan to be a secular state`` to gain the acceptance and respect of the Western scholarship. A Quaid-e-Azam trying to form a religious state is worthless to the Western secular needs except for to use his creation Pakistan as an example of ``to what horrors such an effort lead.`` I think that is the basic reason that you think ``they are definitely far behind in many society-centered social sciences and humanities`` and that ``Pakistan has recently made some significant strides in this direction.``

The ``successful`` Pakistani scholars are now standing side by side with Western scholars and poking fun at a traumatized Pakistan in their language. So much for the purpose of the scholarship which in my view is to uncover the truth.

In response to Amit (Reply # 58) and Jay (Reply # 60):

Dear Amit, Dear Jay and All Chowkwalas:

Amit and Jay have looked at my Reply # 57 from two different positions. While Jay has not disappointed me with his tendency to twist words and statements to suit his myopic perception of the South Asian reality, Amit has once against demonstrated his preference for a relatively sensible reading of our history.

Jay, a relatively conciliatory approach is in no way a sign of weakness. It rather helps us to avoid a meaningless chain of arguments and counter-arguments.

Amit, we need to understand why many (perhaps most) Pakistanis have a negative obsession with India. We also need to find the ways and means to slowly and gradually weed out such obsession.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: ALL

I thought I`d throw this little interesting piece of triva into this discussion.

A few months ago, a group of United Nations` member countries got together in Switzerland and passed and created a UN resolution that made human rights a political right, which all members states are to honor. This piece of resolution states that people have a right to life as they chose to without the fear from bodily harm or persecution due to their individual believes. I think this September, the General Assembly will vote this resolution as an amendment to its orginal charter, further defining the context of political rights within the defination of the UN articles.

What does this mean for Pakistan? Well, it means that Pakistan has to either sign this or risk losing aid monies, because of its non-compliance with such a law. The European Union has already established a commission, which ties economic aid with human rights abuses and the person in Pakistan, who is encouraging this position is none other than Asma Jenghir! In fact, Holland has already decided to stop all its development aid to Pakistan due to reasons of ``a non-conducive political environment``.

In other words, Pakistan has a choice to carry on with its state sponsered terrorism on its own citizens or face some serious questions from the IMF next time our lords and masters come abegging to Washington, London, or Paris! In case the Pakistanis are counting on Saudia Arabia, they will find Saudis cool due to our support of the Taliban and the fact that the Saudis have suffered two years of budget deficits. Hence the increase in gasoline prices in the United States and need money to pay off their Gulf War debts! Iran, on the other hand, is not too keen on helping us considering how we treat our Shi`a population!

The wheels of Justice grind on, but they grind excruciatingly slow!

Attn: Jay and Amit (only towards the end)

Jay: You’re right about your nagging doubt, and there may not be many takers for the conclusions you drew, although there is truth to the facts you state. Yes Pakistani news does cover events in India…news that has the remotest effect on Pakistan is given coverage. Let’s see if we can sort the term ‘news’ though, as that is too general. Obviously the news on the borders will be covered and news of India’s defense and strategic policies will and should also be given coverage as they concern Pakistan directly. Given we agree till now…it seems you feel, there is enough extraneous coverage given to Indian events, that Pakistan’s ‘obsessive’ tendency should be addressed.

Since you casually point to Pakistan’s blatant obsession with India, as a problem…you should also think further as to why this problem is so prevalent. Two reasons come to one’s imagination. Either India is bordering a nation of 130 million paranoid fools (which is not too far-fetched for many protagonists of the “why are Pakistani’s obsessing over India all the time” argument) or there is substance to this ‘obsession’ and India actually has given Pakistan reason for being so on guard (on guard being a nicer alternative to the term obsession).

If the former were to be assumed true then there is no more discussion and we all agree and are awaiting massive destruction…because a nation of paranoid fools with a nuclear device does not give much hope to any of us.

If however there were truth in the latter…then the Pakistani guard towards India is due to the historic relationship between the two countries since inception. Since I happen to be of the latter frame of mind and have some hope for the future…I happen to find some justification as to why Pakistan appears to be so obsessed with India and Indian politics….please bear with my obviously biased stance in the next few lines. To me, it is very straightforward and I would welcome suggestions to help me think differently. There is a glaringly obvious high-handed stance taken on by India in the subcontinent. Sorry to be sounding crude and judgmental, but India’s desire to have hegemony in South Asia is obvious in her foreign and trade policies towards Sri-Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal…but fortunately not Pakistan. It is the only country in the subcontinent that, despite it’s minute size and unending structural and economic illnesses, has had the ability to stand up to India militarily and economically (which by the way has partly resulted due to this so-called obsession with India). If you’re quick to state that I’m assuming too much when I say India has hegemonic designs…please help me, as I completely fail to understand why India intervened in 1971. Yes there was a civil war in Pakistan and India’s involvement cannot be excused by saying simply that “India took advantage of it” (as Amit pointed out in one of his recent postings). How could India walk into Pakistani territory and fight its own army out. (I’m aware of our own problems in Bangladesh, but at this moment I’m only trying to understand what Indian policy makers were thinking when they intervened). If anyone finds merit in the justification to the tune of: India was asked for help by the Bangalis and thus the Indian army marched right through the international borders. Then the presenter of such an argument should find complete justification in Pakistan just as easily, walking right into Kashmir, on the grounds that the Kashmiris want Pakistan to help them fight Indian occupation. Anyway…my point being that India came to the rescue as the power in the region, ready to help the damsel in distress (don’t mean to disrespect Begalis and their plight…purely as a figure of speech) against Pakistan. This actually shows India’s own obsession with the internal affairs of Pakistan. The resultant mirror effect of such events in the past is what you so casually point to as ‘Pakistan’s obsession with India’.

Amit: I really respect what you’d written and I’ve found your analysis of situations generally very perceptive. I do hope in the long run that Pakistanis’ energies are channelled in the right directions (even my own). It really is in the best interest of Pakistan to have peace in South Asia. But you also are affected by this ‘obsession’ Pakistanis appear to have:

“My main point was that Pakistan`s needless obsession with India is hurting Pakistan badly. Since a lot of attention and resources is focussed on India, Pakistan is not able to unleash positive forces for improving its conditions. I can understand political and military obsession, but look at any Pakisatni newspaper. Articles on water supply and rural electrification end with a comparison with India`s statistics.”

Since you understand the political and military obsession, you can spare yourself the above paragraphs addressing Jay…I would however only like to point out that normally in doing analysis of projects of such large scale (water supply and electrification) the evaluation does entail assessments of similar projects. And due to India’s proximity (geographic, climatic etc.) it is rational to use figures as a proxy for evaluation purposes. (e.g. the electricity rates when being negotiated at IPPs for example, are always compared to similar existing projects in other developing countries)…a concept that is not so far-fetched. Not so far as to calling it an obsession.

Re:bahmad #57

I agree with you that India is ahead in some areas of scholarship but that is entirely a result of our investment in education. There is no difference in our inherent abilities or weaknesses. If Pakistan lags behind in some fields, it can easily catch up.

Since you bring up Indo-Pak wars, it is commonly accepted that the 1965 war was started by Pakistan in Kashmir and India retaliated in Punjab resulting in a stalmete. 1971 was basically a civil war in Pakistan and I admit India took full advantage of the situation. However, it is not fair to predicate all our actions on the past 50 years. If you look at the broader historical context, the lands of India and Pakistan have mostly been politically separate. Ancient historians speak of Sindh and Hind as two entities. The people in Pakistan embraced Buddhishm and Islam. However, one thing never changed. They always had cordial, friendly relations with India and strong cultural bonds. Very rarely did one side try to subjugate the other. Islam has been around for a 1000 years in Pakistan and it did not suffer from exposure to India and hindus. That is why the present hostilities are an aberration and do not make any sense.

My main point was that Pakistan`s needless obsession with India is hurting Pakistan badly. Since a lot of attention and resources is focussed on India, Pakistan is not able to unleash positive forces for improving its conditions. I can understand political and military obsession, but look at any Pakisatni newspaper. Articles on water supply and rural electrification end with a comparison with India`s statistics. Why not compare with Islamic countries like Iran or Turkey ? If Indian culture is polluting Pakistan, why not popularize Arabic and Persian languages and middle eastern culture ? At least it will give the people something positive to strive for. Now you have millions of people growing up on Hindi movies/music, feeling guilty about it and abusing India all the time. As a result, you end up strengthening fanatical forces in India.

Your suggestion of a peace initiative is good but I don`t believe we are ready yet. A more feasible option is to stop hurting each other, focus away from each other and concentrate on internal development. India has done reasonably well on this matter. Consider India`s situation in 1947. We were coming out of 1000 years of imperialism, we had just had a brutal partition, we had a multi-ethnic, multi-religios nation of mind boggling diversity. We did not get into a hostile relationship with Turkey, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Iran or Britian for past problems. Instead, we chose to focus on our internal development and we have good relations with all these nations.

to Bilal,

To find the pakistani space under the sun, you believe that there has to be peace in south asia, brockered by china, russia and the US. Yes, in a way you have summed up the pakistani way of thinking in the last 50 years. There are numerous manifestations of this mind set, the most baffling and the one that can be easily corrected is the news reporting aspect of it.

Any casual glance at any of the pak, english news papers, one is stuck by the enormous coverage to the events in india. I am taliking about the head line news, the ones reported by pak.org, the pakistan govt web site.

May be itis time for Pakistanis to ask the question, is it important, should we be so obscessed with india that at least 25% of the head lines are about india. If this singular topic is removed out of the news, there could be more to report about pakistan and other countries.

Removing india from the head lines is something the expat pakistanis can contribute to, they can at least start a campaign of emailing the news papers, may the web master at Pak.org.

I have a nagging doubt, there may not be many takers for this.

The theme of this article is quite disturbing. No matter there is sarcasm. But Sarcasm is not the only way of handling this issue. Just writing against will not help either. Next time, the killers will use another way rather than letting any case become common to all and sundry.

Will another lady come forward and write an awakening article ? How many will write ? And for how long ?

Government will never go and teach people or suddenly change rules. WHo are we kidding, we have Ilaqae Ghair where no rule is applicable ?

Then who will CREATE A CHANGE ? People themselves!

While we talk about Honor ? Has anyone ever wondered who inculcates this in a child ? In my opinion it is a woman as well. In most of the murderous cases the mothers and family women never mourned the death/murder of their daughter but stood by their Jahil men. How can we blame men only ?

Why do we forget that behind every great man there is a woman(mother or wife or sister or a daughter)A saying! Do not know how true it is but still holds some place.

Probably our women need to put special emphasis on the upbringing of their offsprings. Giving superior treatment to their male off-springs and providing extra protection to their female offsprings SHOULD FINISH. This may lead to less Jahalut.

Probably it should also involve the religious education aspect. The education I am quoting here is not the Mudrissa and Reading a Qai`daa. I am referring to the fear of God aspect.

Had religion ever been truly observed then folks would have realized that life is granted by God and can only be taken away by God only. None of the human beings should even think they have the right to kill someone. Where there is no fear of God and there is more personal derangements the results are pretty evident.

Unfortunately such communities may read and write all the Holy words but probably are unaware of the meanings. Honor is not living in a Charr Deewaree of melancholy and anguish.

Probably Honor should replace ``Fear of God`` then situation will be far better. And this fear should be evolving in oneself without any outside intrusion and should be applicable to men as well women equally.

I feel very bad reading such derogatory stories on the stance of women. Personally I have come across women from my soil who are role models to all the women. And such stories simply add to the misportrayed picture of women from our culture.

Note: My above thoughts should not imply that I am criticizing the writer. I am just against the idea of giving a lot of air to the concern and not thinking about the solution.

Being in Consulting where it is a major task to identify problems. I feel it is also very important to provide recommendations on how to tackle the problem, the steps to take and finally how to implement them. If there are no recommnedations suggested then we are still where we started from. Why waste time ?

In response to Amit (Reply #: 54):

Your suggestion that Pakistanis and Indians ``are probably equal in competence or incompetence.`` If we are not comparing apples and oranges and if competence is a product of the quality of education and if Indian educational institutions are generally better than Pakistani, then I must disagree with you. Historically, Pakistani scholars have performed much poorer than their counterparts in India. The quality of scholarship in Pakistan has improved considerably during the past decade or so. Pakistani scholars may be equally good in the fields of physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, economics and a few other disciplines, though they are definitely far behind in many society-centered social sciences and humanities. The superiority of Indian social scientists is evident from the quality of their publications (see for example Aijaz Ahmad`s In Theory, Ranajit Guha`s Dominance without Hegemony, and Partha Chatterjee`s The Nation and Its Fragments). I think, it is this quality of society-centered scholarship and its production and reproduction that has enabled India to gain an edge over Pakistan. Scholarship, in addition, depends on the freedom to think critically and act freely. Pakistan has recently made some significant strides in this direction.

Amit, there is some element of truth in your view that Pakistanis are very emotional people and they seem to always overreact to isolated incidents. Don`t you think too much emotionalism and overreaction is a manifestion of our inability to think and act wisely? However, you then maintain that in Pakistan`s entire history ``it has been very seldom that someone from the Indian side attacked or conquered any part of Pakistan.`` In fact, India has attacked and invaded some parts of Pakistan in both 1965 and 1971 Wars (whatever the justification of such actions). This is something that many Pakistani cannot digest to date. This is part of the basis of Pakistani people`s emotionalism and overreaction.

Amit, you have advised the people of Pakistan to give up their negative obsession with India and channel their formidable resources into building and developing Pakistan. A good advise, but it may not take a definite shape unless we start a process of peace and harmony between all South Asian countries, particularly between India and Pakistan. A South Asian peace plan may not have much worth unless it is willingly reached by India, Pakistan, and other South Asian countries, and unless it is actively supported by China, Russia, and the United States.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Iris started an interesting tangent which reminds me of another anecdote which I recently discuss with another Chowkwalla in suburban Toronto.

Henry Kissinger once wrote (White House Years, I think) that even paranoids have enemies. This is indeed more true for some than for others. Pakistani patriots usually have a healthy component of paranoid ideological built in. Its a reflex. But it does not mean that it is without merit. Now the anecdote:

In 1992 Morgan Stanley and others got the Pakistan Investment Fund approved and it was eventually launched in 1993. It was a close ended fund that traded as a ``pseudo-stock`` on the NYSE. The IPO came out at a total market cap of $177 million, at $15 a share, but it traded down to $14.50 on opening day (the fund had been over-subscribed by several million shares and Morgan ISSUED the extra several million shares, so no one was turned down - naturally it traded down on opening). It eventually traded down to UNDER $2 (even though the currency-adjusted book-value is aroud $5) a share at the end of 1998 and the initial $177 million was now barely over $20 million in market cap. Well, smart Money magazine had an article in the April issue (or was it March) about ``the Confessions of a Fund Manager``. The now fired fund manager exposed what had happened. The short version of it was that he was an unqualified, incompetent, kid who was picked for this job by the managing director of foreign (`emerging markets`)funds at the time (in Morgan Stanley). In other words it was as if the emerging market`s head had `delibrately` put this nit-wit in charge of the Paki fund (so that it would be screwed up?!?!).

And now comes the punch line...conspiracy theorists and Pakistani patriots listen up:

That managing director`s name was Madhur Dharr. Yes, the son of Mr. D. P. Dharr. Yes, the same D. P. Dharr who was chairman policy planning commission and advisor to Indirs Ghandhi in 1971. The archetect of India`s successful policy against Yahya Khan`s Pakistan. Pakistan fund`s fate was decided by the son of the archetect of Pakistan`s dismemberment. And the rest, of course, is history.

...SR

(This was more tongue-in-cheek than not, even though the emperical facts are correct)