Rushdie and the British Establishment The timing of knighting Salman Rushdie is critical. But this is not all about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The hatred of Muslims towards West is mainly due to the imperialist policies of the latter. Incidentally the fatwa came from Iran. The same Iran which had a democratic government under the leadership of Dr. Mossadeq who nationalized the Anglo-Iranian oil company (British Petroleum) in 1953. CIA staged a coup against him and the Islamic revolution in Iran was a result of highhandedness of the Shah of Iran. Thus British establishment is not only responsible for knighting Rushdie but also for the Islamic revolution in Iran.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mossadeq

Citizenship and Identity in Pakistan A very informative, insightful and nicely written article Mr. Yasser. Though The Cabinet Mission Plan was rejected by the Congress but it would also have been prejudicial to the interests of Muslims. In this article you have compared the confederate arrangement envisioned in the cabinet mission plan with the EU but the constituent states of EU hold more power than the confederation itself because they have existed as independent states in the past and they give up some of their powers to the confederation voluntarily. The case of confederate arrangement of EU is different even from a federation such as the US because the states constituting the US never existed as independent entities. Therefore the federation is much more stronger than its constituent states. And when the southern states of US tried to secede from the federation in the middle of nineteenth century on the issue of slavery they had a civil war. My point is that it’s a good thing that we are an independent state now and even if we make a regional alliance now we can do it without surrendering our sovereignty. Secondly, had we accepted the cabinet mission plan, which we did but fortunately Congress rejected it, there was no mechanism to ensure the sovereignty and independence of constituent entities except a constitution but who would’ve ensured that the constitution of such an arrangement will be adhered to in letter and spirit without having an army and defense mechanism of our own?

Finally I agree with your viewpoint that we must accept and acknowledge the multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-linguistic and multi-cultural nature of the Federation of Pakistan and we must implement the true spirit of federalism with maximum provincial autonomy so that any ethnic or linguistic group doesnot feels that it’s land, resources or people have been exploited by the Federation.

Militant Liberalism [Remaining within the mainstream I opted to be a fighter-pilot in this “seminal” work of mine and vowed to defend the aerial frontiers of my country. Needless to say, my elder brother had expressed the same wish a year or two earlier as had many of his class mates as this was the “hot job” in Zia’s little jihad world where like Hitler’s Nazi youth every adolescent had the dream of somehow getting into Army/Air Force and slaughtering hordes of filthy infidels having filthy thoughts about the land of the pure before embracing death and going to heaven. Time my dear readers has passed but the seeds of internal social and politico-religious discord that Zia had sown have brought out a crop of hatred and conflict that is being harvested in Pakistan since the mid 90s.]

It is totally absurd to compare Zia’s Jihad with Hitler’s Fascism. Hitler’s fascism was racism based on the notion of the superiority of German race over all other races. It would’ve been more appropriate had you compared Brezhnev’s Bolshevism with Hitler’s Fascism. Before 1979 Afghanistan was a peaceful country prospering under the monarchy of King Zahir Shah and Sardar Daud. Had Soviet Union not invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 1979 by now Afghanistan could’ve been just like any other developing country. But out of nowhere a thought crossed the mind of an evil despot that Soviet Union should occupy Afghanistan and such was the system of checks and balances in that bastion of “liberal, socialist, Marxist, militant, pseudo-doctrinaires” that nobody could’ve stopped him from taking this reckless decision.

Intelligentsia talks about building institutions. They say that an individual however charismatic and powerful he may be can’t do enough. I am not sure whether an individual can do enough in a creative sort of way (though Einstein and Darwin single-handedly laid the foundations of modern Physics and Biology) but I know for sure and I can offer examples where individuals brought terrible disasters to the humanity and the foremost among the long list of such men are Hitler, Brezhnev and Bush. Millions of people suffered for generations and are still suffering due to some blunders committed by some megalomaniacs. In the end all it takes is “one man in the right position” to decide the fate of millions. No matter whether you live in a totalitarian state, a democratic one or a republican one.

People have short memories they don’t remember things. With the benefit of the hindsight you can say that such and such person should’ve done such and such thing. I am not sure whether Pakistan will disintegrate in 2015 or 2020 but the existence and sovereignty of Pakistan was in immense danger in 1979 when “The Red Storm” gathered at its frontiers. The intentions of Bolsheviks could’ve been to reach the “warm waters” of Arabian Sea or simply to quell the rebellion in its Central Asian States but they underestimated the courage, bravery and resolve of our Afghan brothers. At that time, under the leadership of President Zia, Pakistan took a principled stand to help our Afghan brothers liberate their homeland and to nip in the bud the expansionist designs of Soviet Imperialism. It was an act of self-defense and violence is justified in self-defense. You need to meet force with force as you very aptly put it “For killing a beast demands stooping to a level of barbarism fit for the beast otherwise the beast would tear anything in its way apart or into parts.”

Both Afghanistan and Pakistan suffered from this decade long war (1979 to 1988). Afghanistan was totally devastated. We had to take the burden of millions of Afghan refugees and the Kalashnikov culture and religious extremism sprouted. But what we could’ve done? It was not our own doing. It was not a natural catastrophe. Nature is cruel but sometimes man is even more cruel than nature. It was not a choice it was a necessity.

Shakespeare says that all is well that ends well. Well, Shakespeare was a poet, a playwright, a romantic, detached from realities on ground, but the ground realities are sometimes harsh, the wound may heal but sometimes it leaves behind an ugly scar. The Red Army left Afghanistan in 1988 but so did our allies. Afghanistan, a country devastated by a decade long war, its infrastructure, communications, rails, roads, everything completely devastated. No industry, no agriculture except poppy, left to itself. At that time there was a desperate need to rebuild and reconstruct Afghanistan and to rehabilitate the Afghanis. But for some reasons, and you can blame Pakistanis and Afghanis to some extent, our allies left us in the middle of nowhere only to return again in 2001 for their own reasons.

It’s a selfish world and man is selfish by nature. Okay, let’s be selfish but at least have a long term strategy instead of taking short term measures. What do we want to gain from these short term measures? Want to fool ourselves? Or take out our anger on the weak? Pluck the leaves of a tree, the tree is still there and new leaves will grow. Cut the branches and new branches will grow. We need to uproot the tree and for this purpose first we need to identify the roots. Once the roots are identified and taken care of only then can we hope for a lasting peace and a just and tolerant world.

Nietzsche – the Overman and the Three Metamorphoses [The overman for Nietzsche is the truest, most pure form of humankind. This form can be achieved by humans only when and if they liberate themselves from 1) their internal thresholds and 2) the external thresholds. Deep down inside of every human is hidden the overman. The thresholds contain the restrictions made of ‘fixed patterns’ and I find there to be interdependence between the restrictions that both thresholds contain. To put it simply, an internal (self) restriction may have to be imposed because of an external (society’s) restriction in that regard.]

A very interesting article. But how can you overcome the “internal” and “external” thresholds? The way I see it “man is a product of his society”. I’ve used the word “society” here in its broadest sense meaning the “sum of all influences and stimuli acting on his mind”. Someone very aptly said that even the loftiest of idea is merely a capstone on the pyramid built by previous generations. So when Einstein comes up with the theory of relativity or Darwin with natural selection they couldn’t have made it without reading and building upon the works of earlier scientists. Thus it is a circular kind of a process where society shapes the ideas of men and some extraordinary men in turn come up with something novel which radically (or sometimes gradually) changes the opinions and beliefs of society, society being nothing more than an assemblage of individuals.

It may not be necessary to break or overcome every “external threshold”. Traditionalism is of two kinds, deliberate and unconscious. Deliberate traditionalism is a set of traditions, customs and laws which are meditated upon and are made for the good of an individual and society. Though deliberate traditionalism may not be the right course to follow in each and every instance but as a general rule people should follow it unless in exceptional circumstances where it is proven beyond doubt that some particular set of traditions is not valid anymore in the light of new discoveries. Thus deliberate traditionalism is a general rule with certain exceptions to it. Here I must stress that all kind of laws and traditions are time bound. What we believed in past may not be valid today and what we believe today may not be valid for future. And the only criteria for making laws and norms should be “the good of an individual and the society”. By “good” I mean something which is beneficial and advantageous for individuals physically, ethically, emotionally, intellectually and socially.

[A human’s internal thresholds are the confinements of religion which are usually reinforced by teachings of morals and ethics. Belief in God, virtue and a fixed pattern of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ in the eyes of the Supreme Power limits a human because of the fear of punishment. A human’s ‘true, actual’ self is repressed by fear. If some part of an overman emerges in a human in this regard, it is considered immoral.]

In my opinion religion serves three purposes. One, it explains the formation of Universe and creation of life. Though now we have the theory of cosmological and biological evolution but there are many flaws (or unanswered questions) in these theories. So the Creation vs. Evolution debate is still open and one is free to choose what he likes to believe, the prophets of God or the prophets of science? Two, religion provides meaning to life. It gives people “Hope”. That there is an afterlife and a person’s unique existence will continue ad infinitum.

Finally and most importantly in practical terms, it provides us a morality and ethics, a standard of right and wrong. According to the theory of “moral relativism” right and wrong are subjective terms. If you take religion out of the picture what standards do we have for judging what is right and what is wrong? The best that the ethicists have come up with is the utilitarian maxima which classifies all actions in terms of pleasure and pain. What if the pleasure of one individual is derived at the cost of pain of another individual? Who is going to be the judge?

Some utilitarian may argue that in such a case the rule of “greatest happiness for the greatest numbers” should be applied. But unless that “greatest number” includes “all” this rule is nothing more than “majoritarianism”. Secondly how are you going to convince an individual that he should care more for the good of mankind than his own individual good? A person like Neo may retort that if the purpose of life is to help others to help others to help others, it becomes an infinite loops which leads us nowhere.

Finally we may make laws and norms which guide our behavior vis-à-vis other individuals but what about our conscience? A religious person has a conscience. He knows that his God is watching not only his actions but also his thoughts and intentions. But if a person doesnot believes in God then you can govern his outward actions but you cannot govern his thoughts, intentions and inner conscience. To a certain extent even his inner conscience can be molded by imparting proper education and training in his formative years but still it is a difficult task without God watching you every step of the way :)

Sanskritization, de-Sanskritization and Colonial Rule I am glad that I read this article because from its name “Sanskritization” I thought it has something to do with the Sanskritization of Urdu language. While having a conversation with an Indian friend she asked me that she loves Faiz and can I recommend some good translation of his works? I responded that why don’t you read “Nuskha-hai-Wafa” in original Urdu or Hindi? She told me that she cannot read Urdu/Hindi in Arabic script because she can only understand English and Sanskrit alphabet. Then it occurred to me that probably after independence (or before?) the Indian government has changed the alphabet from Arabic to Sanskrit. Majority of the people of India belong to Hindu civilization and they probably want to revive their ancient civilization. Therefore my objection to this change of alphabet will be undemocratic, but from my perspective it’s a pity that most Indians now can’t read the original works of Ghalib and Faiz. Translations can convey the meaning and substance in prose but poetry is mostly about words and if you change the letter, the beauty of words is lost.

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective #494 Salim Chauhan
[I disagree with you that I would probably be categorized as supporting Step 4. Ideally, I would hope that I support Step 1 or even Step 2, but certainly not Step 3. I could be a pragmatist and compromise with Step 4 - as long as you change the statement ``and the world should be divided accordingly`` to ``and the world should be united accordingly - recognizing both democracy and the protection of the rights of all minorities from the tyranny of the majority.]

Sorry Mr. Chauhan for categorizing you in the wrong category. These sort of classifications and categorizations are always oversimplification of facts and they do more evil than good. To save the minorities from the tyranny of the majority I suggest that we should educate our citizens and inculcate the spirit of tolerance, moderation and balance in them.

#495 Kaalchakra
[Beej has a solid model of all socio-politics: All humans are alike, being roughly equally good and equally evil. They have different linguistic, cultural, religious, professional associations, but compete primarily for material resources. Occasionally some greatly evil men (and women) come along who focus their talents on breaking existing bonds and highlighting existing differences. The natural way to do that, is of course, by spreading hate.]

Bolsheviks tried to create a classless and stateless society. In the name of unity and lofty goals they tyrannized and oppressed people from 1917 to 1991 (74 years). The goal of a nation state is the well being of its citizens when this goal changes to “national aggrandizement” then nationalism gives birth to fascism. They united the people of Russia, Eastern Europe and Central Asia and fought a cold war from 1945 to 1991. Instead of utilizing its resources for the betterment of its citizens they built ICBMs and H-Bombs. In the end it collapsed under its own weight and all that unity forced upon a religiously, ethnically, linguistically and culturally diverse population evaporated in thin air. It is always better to accept the differences and reach an understanding than blaming others for our own misdoings.

#496 BJ Kumar:
[(1) What is the likelihood of the Manto actually being able to convince the vast masses of Pakistanis to his viewpoints and getting elected to a position of power?
(2) What is the likelihood of a liberal, progressive, Pakistan - where women have equal rights and all religions are treated as equal - developing within the next 20 years or so?]

The answer to your first question is that we need to educate our citizens and instill the spirit of tolerance, moderation and balance in them. The answer to your second question is a bit lengthy and I am going to copy/paste one of my essay which I wrote while interacting with Mr. Masadi:

Traditionalism is of two kinds, deliberate traditionalism and unconscious traditionalism. Deliberate traditionalism is a set of rules, customs and traditions made by people for the benefit of the individual and the society with conscious effort and the application of our reasoning faculties. Unconscious traditionalism, on the other hand, is something which creeps into our minds unconsciously and sometimes we are not even aware of it, but it shapes our ideas and ways of thinking.

I consider religion to be a “reformed tradition”. In the 7th century Islam was a step forward from the primitive nomadic culture of Arabia. It united Arabia under one leadership and made it a force to reckon with. Because of this unity Arabs were able to conquer half the world. It gave women their rights. Though slavery was not abolished because it was impossible to do that at that time but the slave owners were ordered to take good care of their slaves and it was considered a virtuous act to liberate slaves. Certain rights were guaranteed to the minorities in an Islamic state. Islam even managed to prohibit gambling, prostitution and liquor which are always and everywhere regarded as immoral and a social nuisance. These were the examples of deliberate traditionalism. A set of laws, customs and moral values which were made for the good of an individual and the society.

But today we live in 21st century. 1400 years have elapsed since the establishment of the first Islamic state in Medina. The society, politics and economy of today’s nation state is much more complex than those simpler times. We cannot find the solutions to all our problems in the Sharia. Neither can we interpret and apply Islamic laws without going into their merits and demerits and using our reasoning faculties. Though Sharia are a set of deliberate traditions but even deliberate traditions are time bound. What holds good today may not hold good for all times and ages.

For example Islam liberated and emancipated women from the primitive tribal customs of Arabia and though it allowed polygamy but discouraged it. Today we cannot allow a male member of the society to have more than one wives because it will be unfair to more than half the population of the world. Similarly today we believe in secularism and the rights of the minorities. We cannot discriminate on the basis of caste, creed and religion. All citizens of a modern nation state must have equal rights and equal opportunities irrespective of their beliefs and religions. By applying our reasoning faculties and the golden rule “do unto others as you have them do unto you” it becomes clear that if you don’t want to get persecuted yourself or the people who hold views similar to your own in a society where they are in a minority then you must not force your views on others who hold opposite or dissimilar views in a society where you are in a majority. This is the essence of secularism. You can persuade people to adopt your views but you can not force people for this purpose.

Finally, I don’t have “an unconditional love for white man and his system of oppression”. The West is facing its own dilemma in the form of disintegration of the institution of family and social and moral evils like drugs, alcoholism, prostitution and pornography. Here in the East we respect our elders and sons continue to live with their parents even after getting married. They donot send their parents to Old Houses when they grow old instead they take care of them. I am not advocating that prostitution and alcohol should be legalized. Not because my faith dictates so. But because I know by using my reasoning faculties that prostitution, pornography, drugs and alcohol are bad for an individual and the society.

Society is in a state of evolution. We have not reached a state of perfection yet and we may never reach that stage. But this doesnot means that we should take a retrogressive stance. We should adopt what is best in time tested traditionalism and also what is good in modernism by applying our reasoning faculties.

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective #454 BJ Kumar:
Mr. Kumar, You are an articulate and eloquent person and you have the ability of presenting your case in the best possible manner. In this respect you resemble MA Jinnah. But you are different from Jinnah in a sense that he relied more on common sense and his approach was more pragmatic and appealing to a common man. You, on the other hand, are a more intellectual sort of a person. Your reasoning is based on idealism but it doesnot goes all the way to the logical culmination of idealism, i.e. an utopia of humanism.

[Yaar, that is one exceptionally well-written post! Needless to say – you have rightly pointed out that the power of the pocketbook overrides all. You also indirectly (and perhaps unintentionally) prove that in the absence of economic bonding, other factors (religion, etc.) can hold out only for so long as uniting agents of a country.]

Without doubt the economic factor is the single most important factor in any social or political phenomena. But is it the only factor? What do you want for yourself? Is it all about money? If you as an individual desire more than mere economic well being then the society is nothing but an assemblage of individuals and it may also have some other goals besides economic well being of its members.

[Is Pakistan more likely to break up now than in 1972 – you tell me! if the answer is no more or no less – then it also proves that the presence of such integrity did not help create much in terms of any bonding of the national identity!]

I agree that we are going through a difficult time due to rampant fundamentalism and provincialism but in my humble opinion, all the provinces of Pakistan being territorially contiguous, and all its citizens bonded together by common history, religion and civilization, there is no chance of any further break up. Actually Pakistan is a federation and we need to implement the true spirit of federalism to remove the grievances of smaller provinces.

[This “will of the majority” business to break-up a country has no less legitimacy when applied to the distinct Pakistani provinces than how it applied between the Hindu and Muslim “constituencies” prior to partition – when even the geographical separation was diffused!]

This is the gist of your argument but I am afraid it falls short of the ultimate idealistic concept of an utopia of humanism and internationalism with maximum autonomy at a parish or municipality level. I would like to formulate an equation here:

Step-1 All humans are alike and there is no difference between individuals on the basis of geography, religion, ethnicity, language and culture.

Step-2 People are different on the basis of geography. And all territorially contiguous areas should be merged together to form a nation state irrespective of religion, ethnicity, language or culture.

Step-3 People are different on the basis of geography, religion and civilization and those territorially contiguous areas where people from one religion or civilization have a dominant majority should constitute a nation state.

Step-4 People are different on the basis of ethnicity, language and culture and the world should be divided accordingly.

You’ve drawn a line on step-2, I have drawn a line on step-3 and Mr. Salim Chauhan would probably like to draw a line on step-4.

I haven’t met anyone yet who would accept the step-1 except a few Marxists. I like the ends that the Marxists seek, i.e. a classless and stateless society but I abhor the means applied to that end, i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat.

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective #429 by Salim Chauhan:
[In reality, true democracy does not mean ``mob rule.`` In the US and other democratic societies, there are clear-cut guarantees against the tyranny of the majority.]

Mr. Chauhan, I accept and admire your view that democracy is actually not a “will of the majority” but a “government by consensus”. But just for argument’s sake, can there be any “clear-cut guarantees” against the tyranny of the majority? 1800 Americans died due to Katrina but the US government did not declare “war against hurricanes”. 3000 Americans died as result of tragic incident of 9/11 and the US government declared a “war on terror”. Two sovereign nations were invaded and occupied with the approval of the Congress, i.e. the will of the majority. 6,50,000 Iraqis got massacred as a direct result of this war and the anarchy and instability created by this war. Was it the revenge of those 3000 American lives? Or the weapons of mass deception? Or the Iraqi oil in an energy starved world? Or simply because the “national ego” of a super power got hurt pretty bad? The right course could’ve been to improve the efficacy of intelligence gathering and law enforcement agencies. How did invasion and occupation of two sovereign nations help root out the scourge of terrorism? I am sorry for getting a bit sentimental but the actions of US and other “democratic societies” these days are no different than mobocracy.

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective #394 by Kaalchakra:
[Was it possible for Muslims to live peacefully together with the rest of the Indians, like all non-majority other communities, or not? Or, did Islam erect, as you compellingly argued earlier, an impossible barrier to cooperative, non-majority cohabitation with all others (non-Muslims in general and, for some reason, Hindus in Particular?]

Though it looks a bit odd answering questions with other questions but I am also going to ask a few questions after answering your question.

Yes it would’ve been possible for Muslims to live peacefully in India in the same manner that 140 million Muslims live today in India. In fact many millions of Muslims and Indians live peacefully in France, UK, USA and many other developed countries despite their religious, cultural and civilizational differences.

Now its my turn to ask a few questions. Was it possible for Hindus and Muslims to live peacefully together, like all “non-majority” communities, under the British Imperialism forever? Or, did the era of modern nation states, the concept of democracy, self-determination and the “will of the majority” made it impossible to live under a perpetual imperialism, be it of foreign masters or a permanent numerical majority of another religion and a civilization?

I apologize if my questions sound a bit harsh but you’ve questioned the very foundation of our nationhood. I don’t associate any ill will on your part but there is an intrinsic flaw in the idea of democracy, i.e. the will of the majority. And if the government has to be conducted by a majority then the Muslims of sub-continent had every right to demand a territorially contiguous area where they constituted a majority.

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective #339 by BJ Kumar:
[Namuman72, I must disagree with Salim on one specific issue. Physical contiguity is not a requirement for a nation to exist as a strong entity. Neither Alaska nor Hawaii is physically connected to the mainland USA and yet neither has shown a tendency to break away! The real bonding needs to take place between the people – in their hearts and in their minds, so that they can develop a shared vision and work together toward the same.]

Thanks for bringing the analogy of Alaska and Hawaii to Pakistan and Bangladesh debate. I knew beforehand that some wise person will bring it up. Now the total population of Alaska is 600,000 and Hawaii 1.2 million. The population of USA being 300 million, the ratio of population of Alaska and Hawaii would be 0.2% and 0.4% respectively.

Demographics: Hawaii 41% whites and 57% Asians, Alaska 75% whites and remaining are Asians, blacks and others.

Religions: Hawaii 63% Christians, 9% Buddhists and others, Alaska 78% Christians, 10% Buddhists and others.

Languages: As of the 2000 U.S. Census, 73.44% of Hawaii residents age 5 and older speak only English at home. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the most widely spoken languages in Alaska, apart from English, are Spanish (2.88%), Yupik (2.87%), Tagalog (1.54%), and Iñupiaq (1.06%).

So you can see that majority of Alaskans and Hawaiians speak the same language, profess the same religion and have an ethnically diverse population even within their respective territories. Secondly both these states can easily be accessed by sea from the mainland USA. Alaska is the only non-contiguous state in North America; about 500 miles (800 km) of Canadian territory separate Alaska from Washington State.

Add to these the economic advantages and other privileges associated with being a part of USA. Let me ask you a question. Why do many Pakistanis and Indians want to emigrate to the US when they have historical, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious links with their compatriots? What incentives do they have leaving their homes and hearths, their families, children and relatives, and leaving for a foreign land to live among foreigners? The union of Alaska and Hawaii with the USA is analogous to the case of those immigrants.

Now coming back to the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh, Bengalis never had any economic advantages or other privileges by remaining a province of Pakistan. We also had our ethnic and linguistic differences. The kind of differences that still exist between the multiethnic and multilingual provinces of Pakistan, i.e. Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Balochis, Siraikis and Mohajirs. But these provinces are bonded together by common religion, common history, common civilization and territorial contiguity. All these people and provinces have the capacity of integration. Leaving aside a few parochialists, we have mutual love, respect and goodwill for each other. Even now when I talk to a few Bangladeshi friends no doubt they condemn the Punjabi hegemony over Bangladesh before 1971 but still we share a lot of commonalities with our Bangladeshi friends.

I am not implying that with our Indian friends there can be no rapprochement simply because we profess a different religion and belong to different civilizations. Pakistanis also has cultural, ethnic and linguistic ties with India. The case of India and Pakistan is like that of an elder and a younger brother. Where the elder brother asserts his right of primogeniture and wants a joint family system. But the joint family system gives rise to friction and conflicts especially when the brothers derive their inspiration from different sources of history, religion and civilization. And when in the light of new discoveries and the era of modern nation states it is a proven fact that “nuclear family” works much better than “joint family system” then the younger brother insists that his separate and independent status should be recognized and acknowledged by the elder brother with an open heart. Not in mere words but it should also be supported by deeds. The elder brother must not resort to some “divide and rule” conspiracy by a paternal uncle. And the younger brother also demands that the status of the legacy of the partition should finally be determined to the satisfaction of all concerned parties. Especially when the “partition principle” was accepted by the elder brother and not only accepted but also applied by him for the division of the provinces of Bengal and Punjab.

Finally I would like to say that we sometimes try to apply simple logic to complex problems. A complex problem has many facets and dynamics of its own. You cannot say that if religion and common civilization is a strong dividing or uniting force then let us divide or unit together the entire world on the basis of religion alone. In fact ethnicity and language are also important factors but these dividing factors can be overcome by adhering to the true spirit of federalism. Here you can argue that we can also overcome religious and civilizational differences by adhering to the true spirit of secularism. But secularism is a political concept. No society can be truly secular. Society is an assemblage of individuals and individuals have religions therefore a society also has a religion, i.e. the religion of the majority. Here I’ve used the word religion in a broader sense, i.e. beliefs and moral standards. If we have people from different faiths living side by side in a society, the best we can do is to inculcate the spirit of tolerance and moderation among them.

After religion and civilization the second most important factor to constitute a stable nation state is “territorial contiguity”. The case where 0.2% (Alaska) and 0.4% (Hawaii) of the population lives in non-contiguous areas is totally different from the case where half the population of a nation state is divided by a 1000 miles of another state which wanted both these states, to the east and the west, to be a part of it.

[The problem with Jinnah’s approach was that once you start accepting that groups of people are inherently different from and immiscible with other groups of people – which is the essential basis of the concept of segregation – which we have seen fail again and again - as in apartheid South Africa and pre-civil war American South (and indeed in much of the USA until the US Supreme Court outlawed segregation) – once you accept the legitimacy of a segregationist mindset, the same can be reapplied at “finer” levels of detail. So, if it is legitimate to make a conscious distinction in the way one is to treat Hindus from Muslims, it also legitimizes the different treatment of Bengali from Urdu language, Punjabi ethnicity from Sindhi ethnicity, and so forth! There is no stopping the process – because differences are endless – going all the way down to the level of each individual!]

It is precisely because of this reason that Gandhi is considered as a great leader all around the world and Jinnah only in Pakistan. Gandhi wanted to keep India united that’s why he stressed the similarities between Hindus and Muslims. Jinnah knew that these differences are deep rooted and irreconcilable that’s why he demanded a separate homeland for the Muslims of the sub-continent and to this end he highlighted the differences between Hindus and Muslims. The approach of Gandhi was idealistic but Jinnah knew the realities on ground. Gandhi argued his case from a moral high ground because it suited his national interest. I wonder what Gandhi would’ve done had Muslims constituted a majority in undivided India? Jinnah was a modern westernized barrister and also a firm believer in the Hindu-Muslim unity but he must’ve noticed something which made him change his earlier stance and become a leader of an independence movement. Did he do it simply to become a founder of a new born nation so that his name can be written in golden words in the books of history? His strength of character, his integrity and his self esteem would not have allowed him to do so. As a matter of fact he was a realist and he knew that there are irreconcilable differences between Hindus and Muslims. And he demanded a separate homeland for the Muslims of sub-continent for the larger interest of humanity.

Now getting back to your argument the demand for Pakistan was not based on the “segregation concept”. The term “segregation” applies when the differences are ethnic in nature and the minority is discriminated against within the boundary of a nation state. The demand for Pakistan was based on religious, cultural and civilizational differences between Hindus and Muslims. And it was made not for segregating Hindus and Muslims within the boundary of a nation state but for a separate homeland for Muslims where they occupy the territorially contiguous areas and constitute a majority. Within the boundary of these two respective nation states, i.e. India and Pakistan, it was an accepted principle that nobody will be discriminated against on the basis of caste, creed, religion, ethnicity or any other ground. But it is easier said than done. Secularism and pluralism are ideals. We must strive to realize these ideals as much as we can. But living in the real world we know that differences exist between people. Some of these differences are bridgeable others are not. We know that the best possible form of government is a democracy. Democracies are governed by the “will of the majority”. And if the will of the majority should prevail in the affairs of the state then why shouldn’t Muslims have demanded a nation state where they constituted a majority?

As I said earlier we cannot apply simple logic to complex phenomena. By your line of reasoning why do we have 200 plus nation states in the world today? Basically we are all human beings and our needs, desires, aspirations, goals and sufferings are the same then what is the need of identifying oneself as Indian, Pakistani or American? Why can’t we unite the whole world together and identify ourselves as human beings first and foremost? And if there are no differences between Hindus, Muslims and Christians then why did Indians demanded freedom from the clutches of British Imperialism? If the demand of Hindus for an independent nation state is justified then so is a demand of Muslims to have their independent state where they constitute a majority.

As to your question about the differences between Hindus, Christians and Muslims vis-à-vis the differences between Bengalis, Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis and Mohajirs, I’ve discussed it at length in my essay titled “Pluralism and Secularism, An Ideal or a Compromise?” You can read it in my blog.

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective Reply to #298 by Salim Chauhan:
[Pakistan broke into two in 1971. It`s well on its way to break up again, this time purely from internal strife and the continuing and insatiable Punjabi thirst for domination, hegemony, and usurpation of others` rights and freedoms.]

Mr. Chauhan, You are committing a mistake by drawing an analogy between the separation of East and West Pakistan and the differences between the Hindus and Muslims on the basis of which the demand for Pakistan was made in 1940. The differences between Bengalis, Punjabis, Pathans, Sindhis, Balochis and Mohajirs are of minor ethnic, linguistic and cultural nature. While the differences between Hindus and Muslims are of major religious and civilizational nature. The separation of East and West Pakistan is not the end of two nation theory. I agree that we have the common bonds of religion, civilization and history with the Bangladeshis but we were separated by a 1000 miles of hostile Indian territory. To form a stable nation state you have to have “territorial contiguity”. Otherwise why not join together Pakistan and Albania? After all we also share common religion with Albanians. And if we cannot unite Pakistan and Albania together does this means that the demand for a separate nationhood on the basis of religion and civilization was wrong?

With or Without Musharraf – A Mohajir’s Perspective [In 1947, much against the advice of real Muslim leaders like Azad, Kidwai, and Zakir Hussain, many of our grandparents placed their trust in one party, one man, and one goal. They were surprised by Jinnah’s acceptance of a “moth-eaten” Pakistan that sucked out the very air they were breathing.]

I am amused to find out that you consider Azad, Kidwai and Zakir Hussain as the “real” Muslim leaders and not Jinnah. Never in history you will witness where someone single handedly created a nation. And had he lived long enough after the creation of Pakistan he may have been able to solve the intractable Kashmir dispute and could’ve furnished a stable democratic foundations for Pakistan just like Nehru did in India. And why do you call Pakistan a “moth-eaten” Pakistan? Just because the Congress leaders applied the same partition principle for the division of the provinces of Bengal and Punjab and the Anglo-Indian conspiracy where Radcliffe awarded two contiguous Muslim majority tehsils, or subdistricts, Gurdaspur and Batala in Gurdaspur district to India along with Pathankot tehsil to provide a link between India and the State of Jammu and Kashmir? This was not Jinnah’s fault. “From the very beginning he demanded that the issue of boundary demarcation should be put in the hand of the United Nations, but Nehru objected, on the grounds that this would involve cumbersome procedure and unacceptable delay. Then Jinnah asked for three Law Lords from the United Kingdom to be appointed to the boundary commission as impartial members. But he was told that the Law Lords were elderly persons who could not stand the sweltering heat of the Indian summer. Had it not been for the decision to transfer power within two months, Jinnah could’ve insisted that his suggestion be accepted.” (The Emergence of Pakistan by Chaudhri Muhammad Ali).

So you can see that there was no lack of faith from Jinnah’s side but Nehru and Mountbatten had other plans. I always wonder that how can you apply a principle without accepting it first? In the case of “partition principle”, i.e. Muslim majority areas would form Pakistan and Hindu majority areas would constitute India, the Indian side accepted this principle by applying it to the division of the provinces of Bengal and Punjab then howcome they refuse to apply this principle to the case of Kashmir?

We now live in an independent and free state where Muslims constitute 95% of the population that’s why we take freedom for granted. The strongest support for Pakistan came from UP and other Indian provinces where Muslims were in a minority because they knew how its like to be a minority. I can understand that you may like to equate the differences between Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans, Balochs and Mohajirs with the differences between Hindus and Muslims. But you are committing a fallacy. The differences between the former are of a minor ethnic, linguistic and cultural nature. But the differences between Hindus and Muslims or between Christians and Muslims are of a major cultural, civilizational and religious nature. The former are bridgeable if we are a bit educated and show a little tolerance. The latter are unbridgeable and deep rooted. In the words of Jinnah, “It is extremely difficult to appreciate why our Hindu friends fail to understand the real nature of Islam and Hinduism. They are not religious in the strict sense of the word, but are, in fact, different and distinct social orders, and it is a dream that the Hindus and Muslims can ever evolve a common nationality, and this misconception of one Indian nation has gone far beyond the limits and is the cause of most of your troubles and will lead India to destruction if we fail to revise our notions in time. The Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs, literatures. They neither intermarry nor interdine together and, indeed, they belong to two different civilizations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions. Their aspects on life and of life are different. It is quite clear that Hindus and Muslims derive their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics, different heroes, and different episodes. Very often the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single state, one as a numerical minority and the other as a majority, must lead to growing discontent and final destruction of any fabric that may be so built for the government of such a state.”

Here I must stress that Jinnah envisioned a modern, progressive, democratic and secular Pakistan, not a theocracy. There is a difference between a Muslim majority state and an Islamic state. An Islamic state is governed by Sharia and Islamic law. A Muslim majority state, on the other hand, is a secular state for all practical purposes, where minorities have equal rights and freedoms and laws are made by applying human reasoning faculties and not some old dogma. But secularism is an ideal and in practice every society derives its inspiration from some religion. A society is an assemblage of individuals, and individuals have religions, therefore it will be futile to argue that any society can be truly secular. The gist of secularism is tolerance, moderation and balance between citizens having divergent opinions and viewpoints.

[Kashmir is not our problem. It already has democratic institutions and self-government. If for some God-forbidden reason, it becomes a part of Pakistan, Kashmir can become a problem for us. It will put our Indian relatives in a precarious position once again and will only add to the numbers among the “Sons of the Soil” ready for our persecution.
Pakistan, at best, is an exercise in futility. In a worst case analysis, it holds the prospect for further strife, degeneration, continued attempts at more hegemony by a single province, more dismemberment, increased oppression, incessant terrorism, more bloodshed, and a catastrophic civil war.]

“Kashmir is not our problem” I would say that Kashmir is our “biggest” problem. It is the unfinished agenda of Pakistan. It is the logical culmination of “two nation theory” and “partition principle”. Besides Kashmir what other dispute do we have with India? If this dispute can be resolved to the satisfaction of Kashmiris, Pakistanis and Indians then and only then can we talk about regional alliances. How can you form a regional alliance when there is a history of distrust and enmity? When one side feels that it was cheated right at the inception? When you feel that an injustice has been done to you from the very beginning then peace initiatives and confidence building measures can’t be long lasting. I wonder that if our Indian friends accept and acknowledge the existence of 200 plus nation states in the world then why do they have problem accepting the existence of Pakistan as an independent nation state in its own right? And if they do accept the right of Pakistan to exist as an independent nation state then why do they object to the foundation on which Pakistan was built, i.e. two nation theory and partition principle? And if they accept the two nation theory and partition principle then why do they reject the internationally accepted right of self-determination of Kashmiris?

Like you I am also concerned about the status and condition of Indian Muslims. But the resolution of Kashmir dispute will not add to their troubles in fact it will improve the condition of all concerned parties. The only obstacle to durable peace and mutual good will between India and Pakistan is the Kashmir dispute. If this dispute can be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned parties it would mean that the Indians accept and acknowledge the foundation and independent status of Pakistan. Then there will be no reason for conflict and hostility between India and Pakistan.

[Reunification with India is a pipedream left to the romantic foolishness of those who have illusions of a Pak Muttahid Hindustan, Akhand Bharat, or Bharat Mata. Such an endeavor requires the absence of jingoism and a presence of common sense, vision, and modernity exhibited by the founders of the EU. Perhaps future generations of Indians and the citizens of what will be left of Pakistan can attain that level of maturity.]

If you look at the composition of the EU you will find that all its members are Christian majority states. One argument against the inclusion of Turkey in the EU is that it will disturb the homogeneous Christian cultural nature of the EU. The Turkish Cyprus was also denied the right to enter the EU even though the majority of Turkish Cypriots voted in favor of unification and entry in the EU in a referendum. But the Greek Cypriots vetoed the right of Turkish Cypriots to enter the EU in order to punish them and Turkey. On the other hand if you look at the case of Eastern European states, as soon as the Soviet Union broke up, all these states were given the opportunity to join the EU simply because they share the same religious and cultural values. Secondly, EU is a confederation and there is a big difference between a confederation and a federation. The constituent states of a confederation hold more power than the confederation itself because they have existed as independent states in the past and they give up some of their powers to the confederation voluntarily. Federations, on the other hand, especially quasi-federations like Pakistan and India for all practical purposes constitute a unitary form of state. And the powers of a federation vis-à-vis provinces or states are unlimited.

Finally Pakistani nationalism is not a “Jingoistic Nationalism”. Most of us still think in terms of Punjabis, Pathans, Sindhis, Balochis and Mohajirs. We have not yet evolved a common feeling of “nationalism” then how can you say that our nationalism is “jingoistic”? If by “jingoistic nationalism” you are referring to the case of Kashmir then I would say it is not jingoism it is patriotism. Our cause is just and our principle is accepted internationally as a right of self-determination. If East Timor can gain independence from Indonesia in 1999 because East Timorese are Christians and Indonesia is a Muslim majority state, if the former Yugoslavia can split up on religious and ethnic lines, i.e. Serbs (Orthodox), Croats (Catholics) and Bosnians (Muslims), and if we demand a two state solution for the Palestine dispute because otherwise Palestine and Israel combined together as one nation state, the Arabs will constitute a majority, then why can’t we accept the right of self-determination of Kashmiris?

In the Line of Fire, A Review Arjun (37): If the leaders aren`t responsible, you hold them accountable by voting them out...what`s so difficult about that to understand?

Reply: There are only two mainstream political parties on a national level, People`s Party and Muslim League. People have a choice to choose only between the candidates of these two parties. Leadership of both these parties was elected twice and rejected twice. In a developed country if a leader of a political party makes a serious mistake or his major policy decision is defeated in the parliament either he resigns from both offices, i.e. premiership and as a head of the political party, or new elections are held within a political party and a new candidate is chosen as a new party leader. As I said earlier that elections are not held within a political party in Pakistan so the elections at a national level become meaningless. Our political leaders handle their political parties like fiefdoms and then they cry foul when military intervenes.

In the Line of Fire, A Review Mr. Hasan there is some difference of perspectives in our approach to the problem. You said ``in my book hijacking of an elected civilian government at gunpoint is the MOTHER OF ALL CORRUPTIONS! -- it is an evil act that supercedes all corruptions.``

So your main concern is with the ``form`` of the government and I am mostly concerned with the ``substance``. Dictatorship is always a stable and sometimes an effective form of government. There is no denying the fact that democracy is the only `responsible` form of government but no one advocates democracy for stability and efficiency. Sole emphasis on `responsibility and accountability` may work very well for a developed nation but the specifics of Pakistan`s political, social and economic situation also demand stability and efficiency.

Thus if you demand democracy as a `responsible and accountable` form of government and we don`t see any responsibility or accountability of the political leadership in practice then the very purpose for which democracy is advocated fails. So if we can be content with mere `form` of democracy without its `substance` then even President Musharraf`s administration has a democratic denomination.

In the Line of Fire, A Review As I mentioned in my article there are two aspects of democracy ``First, assuming the power by democratic means, i.e. by elections. And second, governing the country democratically. Our politicians are most vocal about the first aspect of democracy but they rarely think about governing the country democratically.``

Someone raised a very valid point here that had there been democracy in Pakistan Nawaz Sharif and Benazir would not have been elected for their second terms. The election of 1997 was the proof of people`s disappointment with politicians as the turnout was very low. Fact of the matter is that there is no democratic infrastructure in Pakistan. Even though we have a `two party system` but elections are not held within the party to choose the most popular leaders or at least the kind of leadership which is less corrupt and not already rejected by the public. Mr. Hasan mentioned ``a crowded cabal of corrupt quislings around Musharraf`` but same goes for Nawaz Sharif and Benazir too. Unless we are able to evolve true democracy within the political party structure its futile to hope for a democratic setup on a national scale. There are various models of elections within a political party like the Labour Party of UK, or Republican or Democratic Party of US.

In the Line of Fire, A Review Mr. Hasan: I agree with most points that you`ve raised. But you know being a skeptic is always easy and it is difficult to build a system or to govern a country of 160 million people with myriads of social, economic and political problems. Even democracy itself ``Will of the majority`` is not a perfect system of government but no doubt it is the best possible one. So if you criticize a person or a theory then you should offer its substitutes. What`s substitutes do we have in Pakistan`s political scenario? Benazir and Nawaz Sharif? Both corrupt and inefficient. The brother of the prime minister is killed by her husband and she can`t give justice to her mother, how can we expect that she will give justice to the people? Another elected despot wins a two thirds majority, passes amendments to the constitutions without debate and in the matter of minutes, fires army chief, and his lackeys attack the Supreme Court, are these constitutional and legal means?

Zeena: My answer is the same. If Musharraf is a dictator, do you think that our kleptocratic politicians truly believe in democracy, democratic norms and democratic culture?

Ballukhan: The whole world admits that Musharraf`s press conferences are interesting he is honest, frank, intelligent and has a good sense of humor. And he did not pay me any money or some other reward to write this article. It was just my opinion and in a tolerant society opposing viewpoints are respected not condemned.