Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

[Rage]

Analysis

Commentary: Surreal Pakistan

Published: Dec. 23, 2009 at 10:54 AM
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large


WASHINGTON, Dec. 23 (UPI) -- In a satirical piece on Pakistan's "New Media Dictionary," Nadeem Paracha described "Conspiracy Theory" as "A theory that is not a theory at all but a hard fact on Pakistan's TV channels," where anything goes and where 90 percent of Pakistanis get their news.

For America's television coloratura of right and left, the MO is to mold rather than inform. In Pakistan, they do more than mold; they fake it. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis believe Sept. 11, 2001, was the work of two co-conspirators -- Mossad and the CIA.

In World War II, Tokyo Rose was tame compared to some of the outpourings on Pakistan's 50 TV channels. And "anyone disagreeing with the hard and loud factoids," adds Paracha, "is a Mossad/CIA/RAW (Indian) ... agent and a possible swine flu carrier who would be lined up against the walls of Delhi's Red Fort and shot dead during Ghazwa-ul Hind in 2012" -- the year of the forecast conquest of India by Muslims, which is also the year of a growing pile of apocalyptic warnings and anxieties about the end of the 5,125-year Mayan calendar. Armageddon is around the corner.

Hardly surprising that Pakistan's politics tend to dabble in the surreal.

A 2007 deal between former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and President Pervez Musharraf spawned the National Reconciliation Ordinance -- with 8,041 political names guilty of corruption, financial bungling, misuse of authority and various and sundry criminal charges -- that pardoned everybody. One provincial minister had 16 cases against him for murder and attempted murder.

The pardons were short-lived. The Supreme Court has now revoked the NRO, and 248 high-profile beneficiaries, now subject to prosecution, are no longer allowed to leave the country. The defense minister, about to board a flight to Beijing, was told to return to his office. Several Cabinet ministers canceled official trips abroad.

The Supreme Court also reopened a case filed against President Asif Ali Zardari in Switzerland for money laundering, which the Swiss dismissed after he was elected president, releasing $60 million, now his money again. He also enjoys immunity as long as he is president. Zardari spent more than 11 years in prison on charges of corruption and murder, but no case against him was ever proved. Yet highly paid lawyers still couldn't get him out of jail.

The NRO debacle explains why Pakistanis have little faith in their politicians and why the country has fallen under military rule four times in its 62-year history. Today the military calls the tune -- especially against the Taliban. It also controls the country's nuclear arsenal.

A cartoon in the International Herald Tribune shows a soldier crouching behind an armored vehicle labeled the Pakistani army. Standing atop a village wall, a black-bearded Taliban fighter is shouting through a megaphone, "Friend or foe today?" The question is pertinent because one branch of the Taliban is the enemy that occupied the Swat Valley and got to within 60 miles of Islamabad, the capital. And the other Taliban, fighting U.S., NATO and other allied forces in Afghanistan, is potentially friend again. But not before the United States and its allies tire of fighting the Afghan war.

The United States is pressuring Pakistan military commander Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani to continue and extend the offensive against Taliban/Pakistan, based in South Waziristan, to Taliban/Afghanistan that use North Waziristan as their safe haven, both in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. As long as they can operate from these privileged sanctuaries, the Afghan war is unwinnable. Stepped-up U.S. drone attacks with unmanned Predators and Rapiers will not dislodge them, but they fuel still growing anti-U.S. sentiment in Pakistan. Visa extensions and new visas for U.S. diplomatic personnel are held up, a form of protest against "unrealistic" U.S. demands and the paucity of U.S. aid ($7.5 billion over the next five years). Polls show seven out of 10 Pakistanis are anti-American.

High-ranking U.S. officials take it in turn to visit Kayani to reassure him of U.S. support. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and CENTCOM commander Gen. David H. Petraeus are frequent visitors. Defense Secretary Bob Gates and national security adviser Jim Jones also came calling recently. Trouble is, Pakistan's military leader cannot concede the ulterior strategic calculation: Pakistan was safer after aiding and abetting the Taliban's conquest of Afghanistan in 1996.

Last summer the Taliban in Pakistan got to within 60 miles of Islamabad, which was clearly a signal for a major counterattack that drove them back to South Waziristan. There they were pummeled by three Pakistani divisions until heavy snowfalls stopped major operations pending the spring thaw. But suicide bombers continue widely scattered attacks in major cities.

The Afghan Taliban, on the other hand, was originally created by Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence agency to put an end to the civil war that had racked Afghanistan following the end of the Soviet occupation in 1989. And with covert Pakistani assistance, the Taliban took over in Kabul in 1996 until evicted by the U.S. invasion five years later. Since then, Pakistan's ISI has never lost contact with Mullah Muhammad Omar, the elusive Taliban overlord, underground for the past nine years.

Pakistan's leaders, both military and civilian, are convinced the United States will soon tire of blood and treasure expended in Afghanistan because, contrary to President Obama's belief, that is not where al-Qaida is these days. It's not safe for al-Qaida, therefore undesirable. Kayani and his generals want to make sure the post-NATO and then post-U.S. phase, as they see it, is not taken over by the pro-Indian Northern Alliance.

For Pakistani strategists, this could spell the end of Pakistan, caught in a gigantic pincer by India, still the only real enemy. Its 1971 conquest of East Pakistan, 1,000 miles east of West Pakistan, turned it into Bangladesh. In Pakistan's strategic eyes, Afghanistan must have a friendly regime in charge, as the country to their west is their defense in depth against India.

Meanwhile, the United States is stuck attempting to prop up both Pakistan and Afghanistan, both governed by unpopular presidents of dubious probity.


Commentary: Surreal Pakistan - UPI.com

 

[ppgj]

Money for nothing

By Dawn.com Staff
Thursday, 24 Dec, 2009

The rupee has enjoyed a decidedly interesting history.— Photo from File

THE Pakistani rupee came into existence on the stroke of midnight on August 14, 1947. Given the chaos that characterised the time, it is not surprising that for the first few months of this country’s existence, legal tender remained Indian rupee notes and coins with the words ‘Government of Pakistan’ stamped on them.

Formally established under the State Bank of Pakistan Order 1948, the central bank soon began work in earnest on its mandate to regulate the issue of bank notes and ensure monetary stability. The first official set of notes and coins were issued soon thereafter and the Pakistani rupee truly arrived.



Probably the most interesting feature of the early rupee (at least to modern sensibilities) was that it was divided into 64 paisas instead of the current 100. This followed from the currency in circulation under the Raj, with each rupee divided into 16 annas, and each anna being the equivalent of four paisas. This system stayed in place until 1960, when the current decimal system was adopted.



While the rupee began its life at parity with the Indian rupee, its path soon diverged from that of its larger neighbour following the State Bank’s decision not to devalue the currency in response to India’s devaluation following the Korean War boom in the early 1950s. This led to the first major series of trade deficits and a consequent monetary expansion. When large imports of food became necessary, deficit financing reared its head.



This was a pattern which would persist and worsen throughout the 1960s, when General Ayub Khan’s policy of rapid industrialisation translated into monetary growth of some 10 per cent, and eventually a balance of payments crisis.



However, it was not until the 1970s that capital flight reached truly huge proportions. In the wake of the 1965 war with India, and the secession of Bangladesh in 1971, rupees continued to fall out of favour, a trend perhaps accelerated by demonetisation in June 1971.



While the rupee officially remained pegged to the dollar at around 4.76 to the US dollar, according to some estimates, illegal curb-side rates had soared to Rs 25 during this period, forcing the government to enact long-overdue exchange-rate reform in 1972. The rupee was now re-pegged at 10 to the dollar, approximately the level the currency would stay at for close to a decade.



It was during this period that financing government spending through direct borrowing from the central bank became a regular feature. Following a push to nationalise industries under an effort to control the ‘commanding heights of the economy,’ the State Bank itself was nationalised in 1974, removing one of the few checks on deficit spending.



As a result, the government began to turn directly to the State Bank to finance spending, effectively printing money to pay its bills. These developments were at least partly to blame for the mounting inflationary pressures that continued to dog the country.



Some efforts were made to correct this dangerous development, most notably under restructuring as part of International Monetary Fund bailouts during the 1990s, and the Fiscal Responsibility and Debt Limitation Act, 2005, which enjoined the government to reduce all borrowing from the State Bank by June 30, 2008. These programs met with limited success. In fact, as recently as the 2008 fiscal year, the government obtained close to 90 per cent of its total revenue needs by borrowing from the central bank, according to State Bank figures.



Just as the modern Pakistani economy is in many ways completely unrecognisable from its origins in 1947, the rupee too has undergone tremendous change. Banknotes have seen several major design changes and reissues over the course of their 62-year history, perhaps none as controversial as those enacted in the 2000s.



In 2005, the five rupee note was officially demonetised, and replaced with a five rupee coin. The State Bank claimed that the move would help to remove damaged notes from circulation and promote transactional efficiency, but angry citizens complained there were never enough coins to go around.



The State Bank also came under heavy criticism for its redesigned banknotes in 2006. The notes were designed to be smaller and packed with several new security features, including window security threads and electrotype watermarks. However, many people on the street were put off by the smaller notes, claiming they didn’t ‘feel real.’



Even worse, the design of the new Rs 1,000 note led to an official enquiry, after claims that it displayed the Turkish rather than the Pakistani flag and that bundles of fresh notes were being tied with rubber bands rather than stapled, as had been done in the past.



The commission eventually found that the red colour of the notes were to blame for the misunderstanding over the design of the flag, while the change in packaging was carried out in accordance with current international standards. But conspiracy theories continue to abound.



The rupee’s history in many ways mirrors that of the country: having emerged virtually overnight and having seen repeated changes in government, monetary policy has been forced to evolve continuously to meet changing demands. For all the crises that have plagued the currency and the economy, perhaps the biggest achievement is that it is still very much alive and kicking, and that shopkeepers everywhere are very happy to accept your hard-earned rupees for their goods.

DAWN.COM | Art & Culture | Money for nothing

 

[ppgj]

interesting. not wholly related.

..........................

The new face of racism

Posted by Nadeem F. Paracha in Featured Articles, World on 12 24th, 2009

The common typecast of a racist is a fat, white man hurling abuses at ‘******s,’ ‘Pakis,’ Jews, and gay people. Whereas once communists too figured on the hate list of white supremacists, they have now largely been replaced with Arabs. By Arabs, of course, these racists mean Muslims.

Thanks to organisations like the Ku Klux Klan, the British National Party and groups associated with what is called neo-Nazism, such racists are now sitting ducks. In fact, if one sees a parade of neo-Nazis or a Ku Klux Klan member today, these groups, with their silly looking hoods, costumes, and salutes, look no more than parodies and caricatures of the stereotypical racist.

Theirs is a racism that has become a costume drama, largely harmless. This is especially due to the way western security agencies have dealt with these organisations and also because of the evolving success of the civil rights movement and its many revolutionary initiatives since the 1950s.

However, political, economic and cultural disturbances perpetuated by neo-liberal economics and politics in the last many years are now dragging out a form of racism that has absolutely nothing to do with white power as such. It is not coming from loud white folks. On the contrary, and ironically, it is mostly coming from some of the races and creeds that have historically been under the hammer of white man’s racism: Jews, Muslims, and Asians.

One must also remember that this racism is not really a new invention. It’s been there, strongly engrained in the minds and sociology of its perpetuators for many years. However, it is only now that we have started seeing it raising its ugly head from the depths and cultural undercurrents that it has been brewing in, unchallenged and unquestioned.

The most obvious has been the anti-Arab racism practiced as a state policy by Israel. Its political make-up has always been starkly evident, but it is the way this political policy has gradually shaped the social and psychological mindset of the Jews living in Israel that is worrying. Israeli politicians are very conscious of this mindset and the hold it now has over the majority of Jews living in Israel and elsewhere. That’s why every time an opportunity is afoot for a peaceful settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, this anti-Arab mindset deforms the Israeli response.

It is also this mindset that makes a majority of Israelis vote for men and women who want to continue with Israel’s barbaric raids and incursions into poverty-stricken lands populated by dispossessed Palestinians, and then look towards rigid political myopia and the construction of walls in the face of counterattacks by Palestinian insurgents. It was this mindset that violently ended the most promising deal between Israel and the Palestinians in 1995, when an incensed radical Jew assassinated former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin after he had signed a breakthrough deal with Yasser Arafat.

Further down the undercurrent of this racism lies a form of bigotry that has been part of India and Pakistan’s sociology long before they were two separate countries. It is deeply rooted in India’s ancient caste system, part of which then influenced social relationships between native Hindus and Muslim settlers in the subcontinent. It is a racism exercised by not one perpetuator over the other, but by both. Now hundreds of years old, even to this day, many Hindus and Muslims living in India do not eat from the same plate or drink from the same glass. Both of them classify the other as sub-human.

The most disturbing aspect of this form of racism is the way it is blindly accepted as a matter-of-fact social norm. For example, many offices in India still hire Muslims and the ‘untouchables’ to do the most demeaning chores, and it is an unwritten rule that these employees are not allowed to use cutlery that is being used by other office employees. In Pakistan, such treatment is meted out by Muslims to ‘underclass’ Hindus and Christians. It is an understood rule that they will not be allowed to share cutlery used by their Muslim counterparts and neither will they be allowed to prepare and serve tea or food to their Muslim co-workers.

Even though due to the legacy of the caste system in India, a Hindu discriminating against another Hindu is a well-known social reality. But this nature of racism has not been alien to Pakistani Muslims either. It is as old as Muslim history in the subcontinent, and today it is still alive in even the most educated Muslim households in Pakistan as well.

Domestic servants in Pakistan, even if they are Muslims, will always have separate cutlery. They will have a separate glass, plate, spoons and are always required to sit on the floor. Some believe such actions are mainly due to the ‘unhygienic’ make-up of the class of people who become servants. This may have a grain of truth, but it is obvious that basically this bigotry is yet another expression of the historical racism practiced between Muslims and Hindus of the subcontinent. It has more to do with a deeply engrained and inherent racist mindset that many Muslims and Hindus of the region, sometimes instinctively, have carried into the modern age.

Recently out of such inherent cultural and social racist tendencies, a more conventional form of racism has emerged in India and Pakistan as well. In 2007, Australian cricket captain, Ricky Ponting, complained about some Indian spectators who let out monkey noises at the Australian team’s only aborigine player, Andrew Symonds. If this wasn’t bad enough, the very next day, the South African cricket captain, Gerham Smith, accused a bunch of Pakistani spectators of making ape sounds at some of the South African squad’s black players.

Can you imagine ‘brown’ Asians hurling trashy racist taunts at blacks? This may seem outlandish, but if one closely looks at the class make-up of the racist pretenders, one understands their stupidity. A bulk of them (both the Indian and Pakistani batches), were from well-to-do, middle-class backgrounds. It is this section of the bourgeoisie that has benefited the most from the no-holds-barred, neo-liberal capitalist initiatives in both countries. They are a warped cross between social liberalism and orthodox religious and political conservatism. Perhaps this is why, this class is also known to back quasi-fascist parties like the BJP in India, and the prejudiced nouveau-rich setups in urban Pakistan, most of whom are known to support equally warped conservative characters which we can now see so often on popular television.

In this day and age when material wealth is the main indicator of cultural and social trends (through advertising and the eventual ‘dumbing down’ of trendsetting cultural pursuits), this is a worrying matter. Many will conveniently miss the irony and the self-inflicting comedy associated with the act of Indians and Pakistanis being racist towards blacks. Instead, they will think of it as something to do with ‘patriotism’ or worse, Islam and/or Hinduism.

It needs to be stubbed out at once, before this too becomes part of the contradictory set of racist mindsets already deeply embedded in the people of the subcontinent. It is a case of victims of racism not only becoming racist themselves, but becoming something even worse by cleverly decorating this nauseous frame of mind with distorted religious declarations sometimes in the name of Hindutva and sometimes Ghazwa-ul-Hind.

Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

The new face of racism — The Dawn Blog Blog Archive

 

[nitesh]

must read:

Pakistan in Crisis

Pakistan: Origins of a Failed State

Pakistan: It Could Not Succeed Unless India Failed

Pakistan: A Mecca for Radical Islam

Pakistan’s Army: Building a Nation for Jihad

Pakistan: American Weapons in the Service of Jihad

Pakistan’s Army: Waging Jihad Against Other Muslims

Pakistan’s Descent into Genocide

Pakistan: Committing Genocide Against Fellow Muslims

 

[ppgj]

Grow up, and smell the coffee

By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 26 Dec, 2009

While individuals can indulge in daydreams, nations do so at their own peril. So wake up and smell the coffee. —APP/File Photo

THE late Enid Blyton enriched my childhood with tales of adventure and derring-do, as she did for millions of kids around the world. I am happy to see her Famous Five and Secret Seven series still on sale, an indication that some things, at least, have not changed.

However, I did not associate the author with serious, philosophical views until I came across this quotation attributed to her: “Growing old is compulsory; growing up is optional.” The more I reflected on these words, the more I saw how relevant they were for Pakistan as a nation.

In the 1950s, the constant refrain I heard was how young a state Pakistan was as an excuse and an explanation for the new country’s many failings and shortcomings. Gradually, this mantra has faded as Pakistan grew older, even though things have got worse, not better, with the passage of years.

As I look around, I see many signs of a country that has grown older, but has failed to grow up. For one, we remain too immature as a nation to reflect on where we have gone wrong, and what needs to be done to set matters right. We live from one day to the next, confident in the expectation that generous adults will look after us, no matter what transgressions we commit.

In the event, foreign aid has propped us up, relieving us of the tough decisions we need to take in order to make Pakistan a viable, prosperous state.

Other examples abound. When we see we can’t have something, we tend to throw a tantrum and dig in our heels instead of moving on. For over 60 years, we have been fixated over the Kashmir issue. Whatever the legal rights and wrongs of the matter, the harsh truth is that India is not going to budge, and there is nothing Pakistan can do to change this reality.

Hundreds of billions of rupees and thousands of wasted lives later, we are where we were decades ago. In fact, we have lost whatever diplomatic support we once had. The world is heartily sick of the dispute, and wishes we could just put the matter to rest and move on.

We are aggressive and touchy to the point of paranoia. Take the recent furore over the Kerry-Lugar law as a good example. For weeks, the media and the military were in hysterics over the evil intentions of the Americans who were bent on throwing billions of dollars in our direction.

Pundits and TV anchors fulminated and frothed at the mouth, insisting that somehow ghairat or our national honour had been affronted. Then suddenly, as though a switch had been turned off, this crescendo of irrational argument ceased. What had changed? Probably the dollars had started coming in, and nothing shuts up a needy teenager like a fistful of cash.

Like most young boys, we love playing with toy guns, only in Pakistan’s case, they take the shape of lethal weapons, including nuclear ones. All nations have armed forces and arsenals, but they do not generally take such pride in them. In Pakistan, derelict jet fighters are mounted in public squares; models of missiles decorate parks; and mock-ups of Chagai where our first nuclear tests were conducted, sprout in open spaces.

Kids usually hate being mocked or criticised, and take umbrage at the smallest slight, whether it is real or imagined. So, too, do our leaders. A few months ago, a law was seriously being considered to prevent people from passing around jokes about the president on the Internet, or by SMS. This move drew much derision internationally, and was mercifully dropped.

More often than not, children are intensely self-absorbed, caring little for the needs of those around them. Similarly, our well-to-do tend not to think about the rest of their countrymen, focusing only on their immediate families. And when they do give to charity, they are concerned only about how their alms will buy them a place in heaven. Partly as a consequence of this callousness, poverty continues to stalk the land. Illiteracy, hunger and disease are endemic. Nevertheless, enclaves of obscenely ostentatious wealth flourish amidst a vast ocean of poverty.

Impatience is another attribute of the young. Living only in the present, they want everything now. So, too, do our politicians demand regime change whenever they are not in power. Unwilling to wait for a government to complete its term of office, they plot with the military or the judiciary to overthrow the ruling party so they can grab power. More often than not, the army uses these discontented politicians as levers to upset the political applecart.

This refusal to follow the rules and allow a government to complete its tenure is rife among the media as well. Thus, we can see the feeding frenzy among TV chat show panellists and their hosts in the wake of the NRO judgment that has dealt the PPP government a severe blow. In fact, we can almost see these people salivating at the prospect of more political upheaval.

Like children with a short attention span, we get bored with the same ministers saying the same thing after a year or so. We just cannot understand that above all, we need a period of political stability and tranquillity. And we desperately need a consensus to fight the jihadis who are threatening to tear down the foundations of our state. Despite these dangers, we continue to squabble like kids; far from developing a common front, we are doing everything we can to destroy our political rivals, destabilising the entire system in the process.

Faced with harsh reality, many kids escape into fantasy. We, too, continue nursing dreams of a united Muslim ummah that would be able to take on the hated West. In Pakistan, various extremist groups are committed to restoring Muslim rule over the entire subcontinent.

But while individuals can indulge in daydreams, nations do so at their own peril. So wake up and smell the coffee. Above all, let’s please try and grow up.

[email protected]

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Grow up, and smell the coffee

 

[thakur_ritesh]

No Madam Indira never said that she said "We have" thrown two nation theory in to Arabian sea". They have habit of lying

two nation theory was always a failure.

staring from 14th august, 1947, when pakistan was created, the concept was a failure since a good 33% of indian muslims decided not to go to either west or east pakistan and the biggest slap was when a good number of muslims residing in these two parts of pakistan traveled back to their motherland along with the hindus.

out of many such muslims who traveled back to motherland "hindustan" was a pathan who traveled from nwfp, whose grandson today happens to be india's leading bollywood star - shah rukh khan!

creation of bangladesh did away whatever little was left of the two nation theory and as the sun sets in on pakistan in this cold winter evening the shouts for an independent baluchistan are growing louder by the day, who have never ever called themselves pakistanis, who as a matter of fact pride being called a baluchi, and they term pak army as an "occupying force".

come to nwfp, fata, and other tribal areas, and pak army is called an army of kafirs.

so is the story of a land which once boasted itself to be a "home to indian subcontinent muslims"!

 

[ajtr]

Would like to post Irfan hussainarticle in response to it

a good read.
Clear and present danger
By Gul Bukhari
Monday, 14 Dec, 2009

Demagogues like Zaid Hamid are playing the game unchecked and unchallenged. The political and military leadership, including President Asif Zardari, Interior Minister Rehman Malik and army chief Gen Parvez Kayani, is being painted as a traitor for fighting militancy.
DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Clear and present danger

Grow up, and smell the coffee

By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 26 Dec, 2009

THE late Enid Blyton enriched my childhood with tales of adventure and derring-do, as she did for millions of kids around the world. I am happy to see her Famous Five and Secret Seven series still on sale, an indication that some things, at least, have not changed.

However, I did not associate the author with serious, philosophical views until I came across this quotation attributed to her: “Growing old is compulsory; growing up is optional.” The more I reflected on these words, the more I saw how relevant they were for Pakistan as a nation.

In the 1950s, the constant refrain I heard was how young a state Pakistan was as an excuse and an explanation for the new country’s many failings and shortcomings. Gradually, this mantra has faded as Pakistan grew older, even though things have got worse, not better, with the passage of years.

As I look around, I see many signs of a country that has grown older, but has failed to grow up. For one, we remain too immature as a nation to reflect on where we have gone wrong, and what needs to be done to set matters right. We live from one day to the next, confident in the expectation that generous adults will look after us, no matter what transgressions we commit.

In the event, foreign aid has propped us up, relieving us of the tough decisions we need to take in order to make Pakistan a viable, prosperous state.

Other examples abound. When we see we can’t have something, we tend to throw a tantrum and dig in our heels instead of moving on. For over 60 years, we have been fixated over the Kashmir issue. Whatever the legal rights and wrongs of the matter, the harsh truth is that India is not going to budge, and there is nothing Pakistan can do to change this reality.

Hundreds of billions of rupees and thousands of wasted lives later, we are where we were decades ago. In fact, we have lost whatever diplomatic support we once had. The world is heartily sick of the dispute, and wishes we could just put the matter to rest and move on.

We are aggressive and touchy to the point of paranoia. Take the recent furore over the Kerry-Lugar law as a good example. For weeks, the media and the military were in hysterics over the evil intentions of the Americans who were bent on throwing billions of dollars in our direction.

Pundits and TV anchors fulminated and frothed at the mouth, insisting that somehow ghairat or our national honour had been affronted. Then suddenly, as though a switch had been turned off, this crescendo of irrational argument ceased. What had changed? Probably the dollars had started coming in, and nothing shuts up a needy teenager like a fistful of cash.

Like most young boys, we love playing with toy guns, only in Pakistan’s case, they take the shape of lethal weapons, including nuclear ones. All nations have armed forces and arsenals, but they do not generally take such pride in them. In Pakistan, derelict jet fighters are mounted in public squares; models of missiles decorate parks; and mock-ups of Chagai where our first nuclear tests were conducted, sprout in open spaces.

Kids usually hate being mocked or criticised, and take umbrage at the smallest slight, whether it is real or imagined. So, too, do our leaders. A few months ago, a law was seriously being considered to prevent people from passing around jokes about the president on the Internet, or by SMS. This move drew much derision internationally, and was mercifully dropped.

More often than not, children are intensely self-absorbed, caring little for the needs of those around them. Similarly, our well-to-do tend not to think about the rest of their countrymen, focusing only on their immediate families. And when they do give to charity, they are concerned only about how their alms will buy them a place in heaven. Partly as a consequence of this callousness, poverty continues to stalk the land. Illiteracy, hunger and disease are endemic. Nevertheless, enclaves of obscenely ostentatious wealth flourish amidst a vast ocean of poverty.

Impatience is another attribute of the young. Living only in the present, they want everything now. So, too, do our politicians demand regime change whenever they are not in power. Unwilling to wait for a government to complete its term of office, they plot with the military or the judiciary to overthrow the ruling party so they can grab power. More often than not, the army uses these discontented politicians as levers to upset the political applecart.

This refusal to follow the rules and allow a government to complete its tenure is rife among the media as well. Thus, we can see the feeding frenzy among TV chat show panellists and their hosts in the wake of the NRO judgment that has dealt the PPP government a severe blow. In fact, we can almost see these people salivating at the prospect of more political upheaval.

Like children with a short attention span, we get bored with the same ministers saying the same thing after a year or so. We just cannot understand that above all, we need a period of political stability and tranquillity. And we desperately need a consensus to fight the jihadis who are threatening to tear down the foundations of our state. Despite these dangers, we continue to squabble like kids; far from developing a common front, we are doing everything we can to destroy our political rivals, destabilising the entire system in the process.

Faced with harsh reality, many kids escape into fantasy. We, too, continue nursing dreams of a united Muslim ummah that would be able to take on the hated West. In Pakistan, various extremist groups are committed to restoring Muslim rule over the entire subcontinent.

But while individuals can indulge in daydreams, nations do so at their own peril. So wake up and smell the coffee. Above all, let’s please try and grow up.

 

[Energon]

Very good articles. I really do think however that the topic of conspiracy theories and their effects in this particular setting is a separate topic that deserves its own thread and some genuine discussion/debate.

And I'll reiterate my hypothesis: The future of Pakistan will depend upon the winner of the clash between the rational and the irrational (conspiracy theorists), particularly the educated youth and maybe even the diaspora.

 

[ppgj]

a good read...

The scholar, the sufi, and the fanatic

Posted by Nadeem F. Paracha in Featured Articles on 12 31st, 2009 | 10 responses

Roughly speaking, the political and social aspects of Islam in Pakistan can be seen as existing in and emerging from three distinct sets and clusters of thought. These clusters represent the three variations of political and social Islam that have evolved in this country: modern, popular and conservative.

The modern aspect of Islamic thought in Pakistan has its roots in the ‘Aligarh Movement’ – a nineteenth century effort launched by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.

His analysis convinced him that the Muslims of India had failed to come to grips with the new zeitgeist emerging from the rise of western colonialism – a power driven by breakthroughs in modern scientific thought and economics, and pragmatic politics based on rational and dispassionate self-interest, all of which stemmed from the many doctrines and socio-political upheavals witnessed in the West during the ‘Age of Reason/Enlightenment.’

Ahmed strived to reinterpret the teachings of Islam so they could be brought in harmony with modern science and philosophy, helping the educated Muslims to continue holding on to their religion but through a rational and enlightened view of life.

Though accused of heresy by conservative Islamic scholars, Ahmed managed to lay the foundations of a modern college in Aligarh in an attempt to draw young Muslims away from the traditional madrassahs towards a place of learning where religious studies would be supplemented by the teaching of modern ‘secular subjects.’

The Aligarh College, that later became a university, soon spawned what came to be known as the ‘Aligarh generation’ – groups of young educated Muslims who would go on to lay the initial foundations of the Pakistan Movement and also become the intellectual engines behind the movement’s central ideological thrust.

Though the Aligarh generation was trained in western law, politics and science, it also held dear Ahmad’s notion that the Muslims of India were a separate cultural community; a thought that was molded into the Two Nation Theory by the All India Muslim League. Much has been contemplated about Jinnah’s ideological orientation, but it is rather clear that the new country was founded on an understanding of Islam that was steeped in Ahmed’s modern Islamic tradition.

The Aligarh tradition that was carried into the corridors of the state and governance of Pakistan pointed towards the new country as being a modern Muslim majority republic, as opposed to a theocratic Islamic State. In fact, the Pakistani state and governments between 1947 and 1977 used (in varying degrees) the above rationale to keep at bay the religious parties’ demand for a theocratic state. But it is also true that the modern Aligarh Muslim mindset was largely an urban phenomenon, associated with the urban middle-class elite of the Punjab and Karachi.

The majority of Muslims in what became Pakistan remained ensconced in the region’s popular variations of Islam. The so-called Barelvi Islam that became the mainstay belief of a majority of Muslims in the subcontinent (from the nineteenth century onwards), was, as a movement, the reassuring enshrinement of the traditional hybrid-Sufism that prevailed among the Muslims due to the long periods of interaction between Sufi Islam and Hinduism.

This hybrid-Sufism, or Barlevi Islam, became the folk religion of the rural peasants, the urban proletariat and the semi-urban petty-bourgeoisie of the country. It incorporated the anti-clergy elements of Sufism, the jurisprudence doctrines of the more flexible Sunni Hanafi fiqh and, as had been the traditional practice of popular folk Islam of the region, fused these with the concept of overt religious reverence of divine concepts and people, and the accommodating forms of worship found in various shades of Hinduism.

The result was an Indian/Pakistani Muslim polity repulsed by the dogma of puritanical strains of the religion, open to the idea of modern reinterpretation of Islamic law, permissive in its sociology, and largely non-political in essence. At the same time, Barlevi Islam is criticised for being willingly embroiled in superstition and doctrinal ‘innovations.’

Though being populist and agrarian in its world view, Barlevi Islam did not negatively react to Ahmed’s modern Islamic reform. What’s more, it was the constant failure of the political exponents of puritanical Islamic thought to penetrate the thick veneer of Barlevi Islam surrounding the rural and urban masses of Pakistan that in turn facilitated the moderate Aligarh Muslim thought and tradition within the Pakistani state to continue deflecting theocratic maneuvers in the country’s overall political polity.

As various forms of Ahmed’s modern and rational Islamic notions continued to dictate the Pakistani state’s (albeit anti-pluralistic) politics, the masses-oriented make-up of Barlevi Islam became the chosen venue of populist politics in Pakistan.

The left-leaning Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) became the first Pakistani political party to set the tone of its manifesto and rhetoric according to the populist imagery of Barlevi Islam, in the process managing to attract the urban working classes and the rural peasantry towards its socialist program. Consequently, not only did the PPP chairman, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, became one of the first major Pakistani political figures to start being seen indulging in rituals associated with Barlevi Islam (such as visiting Sufi shrines), PPP rallies themselves started radiating an aura of the colourful and musical activity found outside many Sufi shrines of the region (such as the dhamal).

The 1970s in Pakistan thus became an era of populist extroversion. With Barlevi Islam adopted as a populist political expression by the ruling PPP. This saw a further hybridisation of Barlevi Islam. This form of expression eventually became the cultural and religious connect between the country’s secular political parties, the working classes and the peasants.

However, as the popular variation of Islam in Pakistan peaked in the 1970s, the modern variation (tied to the Aligarh thought) started to erode. Though the popular variation remained very much the focus of the populist Z A. Bhutto regime, things started to change at state level when after the 1971 East Pakistan debacle, a move was seen afoot in the army towards conservative (and elitist) variations of Islam, especially those advocated by renowned Islamic scholar and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) chief, Abul Ala Maududi.

The JI was an early advocate of what became to be known as Political Islam – a modern political theory that forwards the ‘historical’ and theological arguments for an evolutionary instatement of an Islamic state (or a modern-day caliphate) run on the dictates of the Shariah as an alternative to the capitalist-democratic system and socialism/communism.

Political Islam first emerged as an opponent of secular/socialist Muslim nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s. After Egypt, Syria and Jordan’s defeat at the hands of Israel in 1967, secular Muslim nationalism started to give way to Political Islam.

Since the theological aspects of Political Islam were opposed to the more populist strains of the faith (such as Barlevi Islam), the JI in Pakistan was eventually successful in converting the urban middle-classes to its cause after these classes stopped resonating with the modern reformist variations of Islam in Pakistan. Thus, the urban bourgeoisie and the petty-bourgeoisie became the main players against the populist Bhutto regime during the 1976 PNA movement (led by the JI).

But it wasn’t until the arrival of the Ziaul Haq dictatorship and the anti-Soviet ‘Afghan Jihad’ that Political Islam managed to find state approval. Furthermore, as both the US and Saudi Arabia pumped in billions of dollars of aid so that Zia could construct an effective jihad against the Soviet Army in Afghanistan, the more aggressive and puritanical strains of Islam (such as the Deobandi and Wahahbi) too began finding official sanction.

Conscious of the hold Barlevi Islam had in Pakistan, the Zia regime also attempted to penetrate and regulate Sindh and Punjab’s shrine culture, trying to align Barlevi thought with the clergy and jihad-heavy strains of conservative Islam that he was advocating.

The results were devastating. The corruption emerging from the large amounts of financial aid and state patronage Political Islam was able to enjoy in Pakistan during the Afghan jihad, steadily clipped away the intellectual aspects of the theory, and by 1989 (at the end of the Afghan war), Political Islam had become an empty shell in the hands of various Pakistani intelligence agencies who then filled this shell up with what would eventually surface as sheer fanaticism in the shape of sectarian organisations and phenomenon like the Taliban.

This fanaticism is now not only the militant mainstay of anti-intellectual and fanatic Islamist organisations, but, as a rude social discourse, it is being attracting a large number of the urban middle-classes as well who now seem completely detached from their early moorings towards the modern variations of Islam, and as well as from the faith’s more populist base.

Political Islam suffered from its overindulgence in an unpopular and puritanical theological feast that came attached with the patronage it got from conservative Muslim monarchies and dictatorships. By the early 1990s, it was as good as dead due to the many failures it faced to transform Muslim countries into living Islamic states.

However, it regenerated itself as a far more brutal, literalist and anti-intellectual fascist battle cry (in the shape of ‘Islamism’), which has not only been able to find support among the most desperate sections of the Pakistani society, but, unfortunately, also in the seemingly intellectually bankrupt edifice of urban middle-class Pakistan.

Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.

The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.

The scholar, the sufi, and the fanatic — The Dawn Blog Blog Archive

 

[ppgj]

a decent and realistic article.

Resume talks with India

By I.A. Rehman
Thursday, 05 Nov, 2009

That Pakistan needs peace along its border with India in order to be free to deal with the conflict in its tribal areas is only part of the argument for establishing peace in the subcontinent. —AP/File Photo

REGARDLESS of the views of the establishment’s hawks and howsoever strong they may be, Islamabad must give a positive response to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s offer of peace.

Normal relations and mutually beneficial cooperation between the two closest South Asian neighbours has always been desirable for many reasons but their urgency has been increased many times over by the extremists’ challenge to the Pakistan state.

No sane person on either side of the border can deny that the threat to the stability of Pakistan is also a threat to India’s vital interests, and their joint efforts are needed to ensure victory over the terrorists.

That Pakistan needs peace along its border with India in order to be free to deal with the conflict in its tribal areas is only part of the argument for establishing peace in the subcontinent. Much more urgent is the need for India-Pakistan cooperation for winning the battle for democracy, tolerance and social justice. Losses in this battle will plunge the people of both India and Pakistan into unimaginable ordeals.

Hitherto a common view in Pakistan has been that India is ignoring the threat to itself posed by the terrorists’ campaign against Pakistan. There was reason to believe that the pro-confrontation lobby in India saw in Pakistan’s predicament an opportunity to squeeze it for concessions it might not be willing to make in normal times. Such elements should not be expected to stop undermining the Indian prime minister’s initiative. It is in Pakistan’s interest to ensure that he is not forced by anyone to withdraw his offer.

The Pakistan government too will be under pressure from hardliners in its ranks and outside. Any compromise with such elements will cause Pakistan irreparable harm. Islamabad should therefore press for the earliest possible resumption of the composite dialogue with India.

Unfortunately, several new factors have fuelled tension between India and Pakistan. One of them is the way the Ajmal Kasab affair has been dealt with by both sides. The unnecessarily prolonged haggle over Kasab’s confessional statement merely exposed the size of the trust deficit. Was it impossible for India to supply Pakistan with an English translation of the court and police record in Marathi and was it impossible for Pakistan to get this work done?

Questions regarding the admissibility of a text not officially admitted by India could have been sorted out in due course. The two sides have to act in a spirit of cooperation to put the Mumbai outrage behind them. Pakistani authorities have been accusing India of interference in Balochistan and the tribal areas. One hopes they have much more credible evidence to support their charges than the use of Indian-made weapons by the Taliban in Waziristan or the receipt of some funds by the Baloch nationalists from Afghanistan.

The extremists’ access to arms manufactured in a particular country is no decisive proof of that country’s support for their cause and experts in money-laundering have considerable experience in using channels through any country. In any case, these complaints should be addressed on an urgent basis at India-Pakistan joint meetings.

This matter will assume greater seriousness as India’s relations with Afghanistan are likely to grow with faster speed than at present. If Pakistan succumbs to the temptation of opposing India’s overtures to Afghanistan it will only reduce the chances of normalisation of relations with both Afghanistan and India.

A better way of protecting Pakistan’s interests in a democratic Afghanistan would be to grant the latter its due place in South Asian councils and develop a regional response to the twin curse of foreign intervention and civil war that are perpetuating the Afghan people’s three decades-long tribulations. No single power can guarantee Afghanistan’s recovery and peaceful progress; the task can only be accomplished by countries in Afghanistan’s vicinity (all of them including Pakistan and India) acting in concert.

The significance of the fact that Mr Manmohan Singh chose to extend his hand of peace while on a visit to Srinagar is unlikely to be missed by Pakistani hawks. They will again advance settlement of the Kashmir issue as a precondition for normal relations with India.

Nobody can deny the importance of the Kashmir issue, especially to the people of Jammu and Kashmir who have been wronged by both India and Pakistan. But the disastrous consequences of sustaining a costly confrontation until the Kashmir issue is resolved are too apparent to permit persistence in this policy.

While talks to move towards a Kashmir settlement acceptable not only to India and Pakistan but also, and more essentially, to the people of Jammu and Kashmir, should continue, progress or setbacks in this area must not obstruct other initiatives for cementing India-Pakistan friendship and cooperation. More and more people are realising that a Kashmir settlement will follow India-Pakistan friendship and not precede it.

Above all, peace-loving people in both India and Pakistan are getting weary of meetings and talks that do not result in increasing India’s stakes in a stable and prosperous Pakistan and Pakistan’s stakes in a stable and prosperous India. Apart from giving a boost to India-Pakistan trade it is necessary to think of joint industrial ventures and meaningful cooperation in the fields of agriculture, education, health and culture.

It is possible that the current political crisis in Pakistan will be advanced by one side or another to put India-Pakistan bilateral talks on hold. The time for using such arguments has passed. In today’s situation the only sensible course is to press on with establishing peace in the subcontinent regardless of the political crises in either country or a change of regime here or there.

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Resume talks with India

 

[ppgj]

a good read..

Smokers’ Corner: A short history of the BMM

By Nadeem F. Paracha
Sunday, 03 Jan, 2010

The most devastating weapon of the BMM remains the device called Breaking News Grenade. It is actually a small size version of the Chattering-Bomb.

Babble Media Mujahids (BMM, and also called, BAAM!) is a group of superheroes operating in Pakistan. They advocate religious tolerance through the killing of heretics and glorification of an independent judiciary. The BMM was formed through divine intervention when in 2005 God invoked a devastating earthquake in Kashmir to punish the people watching Indian movies and indulging in local brews.

The BMM gained a burst of popularity, asking the people to repent, repent, repent… and buy new 657 SL mobile phones and Nofone connections. The outfit has shown great concern for the country’s political, social, economic, cultural, moral, sporting, judicial, nuclear, digital, physical, mental, intellectual, psychological, physiological, geographical, biological, chemical and puritanical state of affairs. Anyone disagreeing is an infidel on the payroll of Asif Ali Zardari, Barack Obama, Madonna, et al.

The BMM’s biggest weapon is a devastating exploding device. It is called the Chattering-Bomb. It is constructed with tons of anarchic talk, cheesy innuendos, fact-free gabble, paranoia, and awe-inspiring gossip. When these ineffectual, I mean, intellectual, compounds are mixed they generate a reactionary effect that helps produce the most vital condition used in infidels: nausea. So, unlike conventional exploding devices that go ‘ka-boom,’ the Chattering-Bombs go ‘ka-blugghhh!’ But I must add that the Chattering-Bomb is a fascinatingly unique device because it may kill the victim but never the bomber. It only makes him/her fatter and louder.

The BMM superhero group’s heroes are: Ka Ka Kami who is an expert at making fast-talking jaws that explode every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned but drop in awe every time Bharvi Minion’s picture appears; Dr. Shaddi Mashud, who has an invisible beard that explodes every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned but shreds every time he talks to Kashnama Farigh on his show. Ansi Bhai (also known as Sansar Chaprasi), has a sleeping disorder that induces nightmares and explodes every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned, but these nightmares turn into sweet lullabies every time the Swat girl flogging video is shown;

Then there are Narmeen Naswari (also called Hasseena Atom Bomb) who has diamond rings on her fingers that are actually tiny, baby atom bombs that explode every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned but sparkle every time Immy Bravo flexes his tribal panther biceps at the many jirgas that he loves to hold in London and Mumbai; Yaqeen Sepahi who makes pens, also explodes every time Asif Ali Zardari’s name is mentioned but he runs out of ink every time there’s a suicide bombing.

Another effective weapon that BMM possesses is intriguingly called Chhoti Si Break. Though its immediate translation is ‘a short break,’ this weapon’s technical name is Coatis Commercialus Interruptus. This device pops more than explodes, both suddenly and rudely. Their fuse may be short but the break that they induce in the infidels’ patience can be devastatingly long.

However, the most devastating weapon of the BMM remains the device called Breaking News Grenade. It is actually a small size version of the Chattering-Bomb. It is indiscriminately hurled at infidels even more suddenly and rudely than the Coatis Commercialus Interruptus. Though highly destructive, the Breaking News Grenade is surprisingly made with nothing more than hot air! Thus, it makes a lot of noise and is mainly used to impede an infidel’s senses and bring everything to a stand still, making him feel that the day of judgment has arrived and it’s time to repent, repent, repent… and change your shampoo.

Over the years the BMM has gathered great power, presence and popcorn. It believes that a revolution is at hand and that it is the BMM that will be bleeding it, I mean, leading it. That’s why most BMM leaders are wonderful speakers, passionately speeching instead of speaking, gallantly deforming instead of informing, and declaring jihad against infidel concepts such as objectivity and commonsense.

Contrary to popular belief, the BMM has a lighter and a tad more liberal side to it as well. It has a cultural wing consisting of sirens in the shape of trendy looking androids that are fed burgers and French fries to further fatten their complete ignorance of reality. They talk in strange tongues called ‘minglish,’ and ‘Hinglish.’ One of the biggest successes in this respect has been the conversion of Zion Wamid who was once an uncaring, burger-popping DJ at a Tora Bora disco. Today he is a hero of the BMM.

Speaking on the issue, Wamid said: “Yo, man, like, I was a no-good dude, until the I-mess-I, I mean, the BMM, picked me up, and, like, far out, man, like, repent, repent, repent!”

The BMM’s history has been short but eventful. It believes it is on the verge of a nervous breakdown, I mean, intellectual meltdown, I mean mental showdown, I mean showdown with the infidels that will lead to a glorious Islamic/ Marxist/ judicial/ fundamentalist/ Bollywoodist revolution that will save Pakistan from the wrath of George, Gog, Magog and Rehman Malik’s curly hair.

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Smokers? Corner: A short history of the BMM

 

[ppgj]

A fading symbol

By Zeresh John
Monday, 04 Jan, 2010

The visibility of the cross in Pakistan is now restricted to architectural elements of churches, including the prominent monument at Karachi's St. Patrick's Cathedral. - White Star

The cross is the most widely recognised religious symbol of Christianity. Down the years, the emblem has faded from the public eye, rarely seen in the humdrum of everyday life in Pakistan. Born and raised a devout Protestant Christian and a part of the country’s largest religious minority, the increasing invisibility of the cross, despite its ascent about two decades ago, seems unsettling to me.

There was a time in Pakistan when it was common to see cross pendants around the necks of people on the streets. But now, that sight has been reduced to a rare glimpse in Karachi’s Bohri Bazaar, only when Christmas is around the corner. The decreasing visibility of the cross here underscores the challenges the Christian community is facing.

Indeed, in view of recent anti-Christian violence, there is an even smaller fraction of people who hang a cross on the rearview mirrors of their cars or display their religious identity on the entrance doors of their homes — a sight that was previously common. The cross seems to be fast disappearing from local jewelry shops too. When inquired about this change, Pakistani Christians voice concerns about their security and dubiously ponder their future. “Not many people come to buy them anymore. We have some samples, but they are rarely requested,” says the owner of a small jewelry shop in Saddar.

Churches once adorned with decorative lights on festive occasions are now accompanied by security guards and metal detectors. Christian processions through the streets of Karachi before sunrise on Easter and at midnight on Christmas have altogether stopped. Images of the cross are now only seen at few and far between photo exhibitions of churches or historical landmarks of the country in elite and well cloistered galleries.

Photographer Stephan Andrew admits to lesser opportunities now than before to photograph the cross in Pakistan. For his first solo exhibition two months ago, Andrew had just one photograph capturing the Christian presence in the country — an image of the monument in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

“Christians are hesitant to display their religious identity now. It is believed that if you are a Christian, you are either associated with the Americans or are a foreigner,” Andrew adds.

Salman Chand, a Karachi-based banker who is a part of the youthful social scene, says he doesn’t wear a cross for different reasons: “I’m not too keen on putting my faith on display, only because I feel the cross is sacred and sometimes conflicts with my lifestyle. I don’t wear a cross only because I don’t want it to be disrespected or associated with things that my religion does not preach.”

Despite such reservations, young Christians do long for some acknowledgement of their faith in Pakistan’s public sphere. Andrew recounts a recent visit to Karachi’s Empress Market, where he came across some roadside shops selling cross pendants on black thread. “Perhaps it is more style than any sort of religious declaration, but seeing those crosses felt good. It just shows how some part of Pakistan is still very liberal and forthcoming,” he explains.

Indeed, many Pakistani Christians continue to value the symbolism of the cross. Guitarist, composer and music producer, Shallum Xavier, who wears a cross pendant around his neck in all his music videos, says that he does not wear it to represent his faith, but because of what it signifies: the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. “I wear the cross because of my memories from my childhood. It is more of a personal thing. A big part of it is because of my love for Jesus Christ,” says the pop celebrity.

Meanwhile, Nabeel Dean, a senior sales and marketing manager in an insurance company, points out that it is not just the Christians who are scared of professing their identity in Pakistan. “People from other castes are generally keeping a low profile also. With sectarian violence on the rise and internal clashes between various political parties, caste and religion automatically become explosive subjects. You never know what will offend who,” he says.

Better days

In the years after Partition, Pakistani Christians used to have no qualms displaying their identity. The community’s confidence and self assurance was at its peak between the 1950s and 1970s, when Pakistani Christians were respected members of society. They were patriotic citizens and qualified professionals, contributing as educationists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and even popular radio jockeys. Back then, Pakistani society encouraged a dynamic mix of cultures, nationalities and religions. This congenial respect for diversity gave birth to acceptance for all minorities.

Before Xavier and other contemporary Christian pop icons, including the legendary drummer Gumby, had to justify their regard for the cross, the sound of religious harmony was heard loud and clear across Pakistan. In the late 1970s, the Benjamin Sisters, a singing group comprising three sisters – Nerissa, Beena and Shabana – achieved immense popularity in both Pakistan and neighboring India in what began to be referred to as the Benjamin Sisters Phenomenon. In fact, the Benjamin Sisters symbolised what Jinnah’s Pakistan was supposed to be, singing patriotic national songs such as ‘Is parcham kay saye tale hum ek hai.’

The mass migration

However, General Ziaul Haq’s wave of Islamisation in the 1980s brought about a stark change in Pakistan’s social and political scenarios. The nation’s Christians, one of the most highly regarded minorities, bore the brunt of this social transformation. Those who were affluent emigrated, leaving behind a majority of Pakistani Christians to make their peace with being regarded as second-class citizens in their own country.

“The mass migration of Christians in the eighties explains the absence of the cross today,” says Minerva Rebecca, a human resources manager in a non-profit organisation. “There’s nobody around to wear it anymore.” She also points out that the Christians who remain in Pakistan are socially marginalised and disenfranchised, and therefore not confident enough to display their religious identity. “They’re not part of higher social strata for them to be seen at gatherings where the cross may be noticed.”

Since the mass migration of Christians in the 1980s, the only overt display of the cross in the 1990s could be seen when one tuned in to catch a cricket match. Yousuf Youhana, the third Pakistani batsmen to score more than 6,000 runs in Test cricket, made the sign of the cross after completing every century. It was a proud moment for Pakistan, the green and white of the flag represented truly with both a Christian and a Hindu (Danish Kaneria) playing for the national team on the field.

In 2005, however, Pakistani Christians across the country, who prayed fervently for Youhana during every cricket match, were disappointed following his conversion to Islam. Confused by rumours and controversies surrounding his conversion, young Christian boys who looked up to Youhana for inspiration felt let down.

“He was my role model,” says Eleazar Mikhail, a student at the St. Patrick’s High School. “Everyone is subjected to discrimination at some point in their lives, whether it’s about religion or the way you look. I used to think if Yousuf Youhana didn’t succumb to the pressure, neither would I.”

Owing to these setbacks, Pakistani Christians are now trying to find a footing in society. Most are reduced to menial labour. And many are frequently subjected to forced conversions or accused of desecrating the Quran.

Bahadur Khan, who sweeps the streets of Karachi’s PECHS area early every morning, admits to facing hardships being a Christian in Pakistan. “I had to change my name from Pervaiz Masih to land this job – what does that tell you?” he asks. “I am not proud to do it, but I have a family to feed.”

In the evenings, however, when the sweeper is off duty, he looks forward to a cup of tea with friends from the Christian community in Mehmoodabad, where he lives. He finds the transition back to his faith a comforting one: “With my friends, I will always be Pervaiz Masih,” he adds cheerfully.

The law of the land

To a large extent, Masih’s insecurities about being openly Christian in Pakistan can be traced back to a single piece of legislature. Since the 1980s, Christians have increasingly become victims of humiliation and persecution through false allegations made under the notorious blasphemy law. Unfortunately, the Pakistani Penal Code (PPC) provides little guidance on what exactly constitutes blasphemy.

The law, a remnant of the 1860 British colonial criminal law, was revised in 1986 by General Haq in accordance with the Sharia. It was revised again in 1992 when the death penalty was made mandatory for convicted blasphemers under the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.

In its earlier incarnation, the law applied equally to all religions. But in the revised version, the death penalty only applies to those who blaspheme against Islam. According to a 2001 US State Department report titled ‘International Religious Freedom,’ 55 to 60 Christians have been charged with blasphemy each year. Currently, more than a hundred accused are languishing in Pakistani jails, awaiting trial.

Admittedly, the number of arrests under the blasphemy law has decreased since former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto approved two PPC amendments designed to reduce the abuse of Section 295-C. General Pervez Musharraf too suggested mild changes to the blasphemy law in April 2000, but withdrew his recommendations the following month. As a result, the law remains largely intact.

Following his visit to riot-hit Gojra in August 2009, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani hinted at changing the blasphemy law in a bid to facilitate ‘religious harmony’ in the country. Moreover, there is increasing acknowledgement that the blasphemy law is usually invoked in cases of political vendetta or rivalry or land disputes. Human rights activists continue to campaign for the law to be completely repealed.

A proud legacy

The current position of Pakistan’s Christians is a sharp departure from their subcontinental legacy. Karachi and Rawalpindi saw the first churches in Pakistan when Christianity was introduced to the region by the British rulers of India in the late eighteenth century. St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Karachi is considered to be Pakistan's largest church and is the most prominent Christian landmark in the country.

Most Christians who came to Pakistan were resident officers of the British Army and the government. During the development of Karachi’s infrastructure, a large Catholic Goan community was established by the British and the Irish before World War II. Christians, in Sindh and Punjab particularly, had been active pre-independence in their support for Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s Muslim League. Encouraged by the Quaid’s promise of complete equality of citizenship, they rendered their services as journalists and propagandists to the movement.

In fact, Christians did their best to contribute in a positive way to society. For that reason, the cross in Pakistan has been mainly associated with education, healthcare and philanthropy.

A large portion of Pakistan’s elite owe their success to a solid educational grounding at St. Patrick's High School and St. Joseph's Convent School in Karachi and the Forman Christian College and St. Anthony’s High School in Lahore. Similarly, the Holy Family Hospital and the Marie Adelaide Leprosy Centre in Karachi and the Lady Reading Hospital in Peshawar were founded at a time when few healthcare facilities existed in Pakistan. All Christian institutions across the country portray a strong sense of nation building, rendering invaluable services to the people of Pakistan irrespective of caste, creed, and colour.

Being both, a Christian and Pakistani

In the context of current unrest within Pakistan, as religious fundamentalism has grown beyond proportions, Pakistani Christians find themselves in the midst of a grave situation. The increasing frequency and brutality of religious riots anger them, yet they remain optimistic about a system they hope will make things better. That hope is inspired by the very symbol that is shunned by Pakistanis – the cross, a symbol of strength, perseverance and endurance for Christians.

“One day we hope to see a Pakistan which will not differentiate between caste and creed as was promised by the Quaid,” says Jennifer Marshall, an ESL trainer in Karachi. “We are hopeful because the cross symbolises salvation for us.”

Meanwhile, constant and repeated demands for the repeal of the blasphemy law prove that Pakistani Christians are adamant to fight to keep the cross visible in their country.

DAWN.COM | Art & Culture | A fading symbol

 

[ppgj]

Patting down Pakistanis

By Rafia Zakaria
Wednesday, 06 Jan, 2010

US Transportation Security Administration officer Robert Howard signals an airline passenger forward at a security check-point at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Monday, Jan. 4, 2010, in SeaTac, Wash. – Photo by AP.

In the frenetic aftermath of the thwarted bombing attempt on a Northwest Airlines flight, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has issued a new set of screening guidelines. In effect from Jan 4, 2010 the new guidelines will be applied to all passengers on flights to the US and will subject those from “countries of interest” to special scrutiny.

Included in the notorious list are not only countries that have been listed as “state sponsors of terrorism” but also others which include Pakistan, Nigeria and Yemen.

According to the new regulations, citizens of these countries travelling to the US will be subject to extra scrutiny because of their national origin and asked to undergo a pat-down search in addition to an inspection of all their personal belongings. In addition, everyone travelling to the US from these countries, regardless of their national origin, will also be subject to the additional security measures.

In sum, all those with a passport from any of the listed countries will be a marked individual and presumed to be a potential terrorist unless a search of their person and belongings can prove otherwise. In practice, citizens of the listed countries are already being singled out for individual interviews and manual baggage searches upon their arrival at a US port but the new regulations will move them from discretionary procedures to mandatory ones.

The stepped-up security measures are unsurprising; travellers to the US have been subject to all manner of indignities for nearly a decade now. However, the formalisation of these rules along with the unapologetic pinpointing of certain nations as inherently suspect is notable for several reasons.

The emergence of these guidelines in the aftermath of a botched attack and with the inclusion of Nigeria on the list of suspicious countries, suggests the superficiality of anti-terror measures employed by the TSA.

Specifically, it emphasises the fact that screening measures meant to thwart potential terrorists are developed in response to particular attacks rather than based on independent intelligence-gathering and an understanding of the modus operandi and potential threats posed by terrorist groups.

Indeed, the shoe bomber created the imperative that shoes be taken off at all US airports, and now the underwear bomber has condemned all those from certain maligned nations to undergo full body scans that will expose every physical contour to a screener seated in an undisclosed back room.

Undoubtedly, the next bombing attempt whether it is via shoes or underwear will mark yet another set of people as potential terrorists.

The institutionalisation of suspicion in the form of the new TSA directives is thus an unequivocal statement of what has been known by the citizens of these unfortunate countries for decades. President Obama may say that he has faith in the Pakistani people (and ostensibly in the Yemeni and Nigerian people), but apparently this is not good enough for the TSA to treat them like everyone else. This chasm between the rhetoric of alliance and the tactic of scrutiny illustrates the vaudeville nature of ties between the US administration and the Pakistani public.

By subjecting any and every Pakistani (even those who may have lived abroad for decades) to heightened scrutiny the US is demonstrating that while it can trust the Pakistani military to fight a war for it, it cannot trust a Pakistani entering the country. In presuming that they may be terrorists, the US is backing the political statement that there is no need to develop profiles based on actual threat. Instead, it prefers to rely on profiling shortcuts that discriminate rather than yield law-enforcement results.

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all human beings are free and equal in dignity and rights. Article 2 prevents against “distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs”.

While the value and application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been severely questioned in recent years of war and terrorism, the emergence of these new guidelines suggests a far more visible abandonment of precepts that have been venerated as cornerstones of the universal commitment to human dignity and that could potentially be the antidote to terror and fundamentalism.

Forcing those from the global south to sacrifice their dignity at the altar of US national security throws into stark focus how the dignity and rights of these men and women are easily done away with to preserve an esoteric sense of security in the global north.

Yet it is not dignity alone that has been sacrificed. On the day that President Obama made a statement about the thwarted attack by the Nigerian bomber, Karachi had been hit by a blast that left more than 40 people dead. Days later the Lakki Marwat attack killed many more. None of these were even mentioned.

Amid the usual finger-pointing and sabre-rattling that has become a sadly familiar routine, not a single US politician is willing to own the fact that the ‘security’ supposedly provided to the individual American following 9/ 11 is largely illusory. Like income disparity between the rich and poor nations, the recent episode illustrates the chasm between security expectations of affluent citizens in the global north versus the security breakdowns in the global south that witnesses daily suicide bombings. While the TSA may be focused on the narrow goals of assuring the security of America’s transportation system, labelling entire nationalities as suspect exposes the fiction of the very values for which the war on terror is being fought. In forcing the administration to be reactive and blindly discriminatory in the aftermath of the bombing attempt, Al Qaeda may have scored an even more significant ideological victory than would have been afforded by an attack on a plane.

The writer is an attorney and director at Amnesty International, US.

[email protected]

DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Patting down Pakistanis

 

[ppgj]

Howling at the moon

By Irfan Husain
Saturday, 09 Jan, 2010

The only civilians who have been killed are the family members of the militants in whose houses other terrorists have gathered, Dr. Farhat Taj writes in her article. –File Photo

Many of us in the punditry profession are guilty of making generalisations about what is happening in the tribal areas without having visited them in recent times. Thus, when we hear about the anger and outrage supposedly sweeping though the people of Fata over the frequent drone attacks, we tend to accept this as the gospel truth.

This myth was recently exploded by Farhat Taj in her article ‘Drone attacks: challenging some fabrications’, published recently in a national daily. Dr Taj is an academic at the University of Oslo, but more importantly, she comes from the region and has a degree of access to tribal Pakhtuns that is rare.

Over the last couple of years, the air has been thick with charges that the US drone campaign is ‘counter-productive’ as it is supposed to have caused the death of many non-combatants. The Pakistani government has lodged numerous protests with the Americans over the collateral damage their attacks have caused, and how they are destabilising the Zardari administration. The hypocrisy inherent in these protests is little short of breathtaking, considering that many of these remote controlled aircraft are said to operate from runways located in Pakistan.

However, as Dr Taj explains in her important article, ordinary people in Fata are delighted that at least somebody is killing the ruthless thugs who have seized control of their villages and their lives. She says that Pakistani and US media have tossed around the figure of ‘600-700 civilian casualties’ without citing any evidence.

According to Dr Taj, “…after every attack the terrorists cordon off the area and no one, including the local villagers, are allowed to come even near the targeted place. The militants themselves collect the bodies, bury the dead and then issue the statement that all of them were innocent civilians.”

Dr Taj goes on to explain that the only civilians who have been killed are the family members of the militants in whose houses other terrorists have gathered. In effect, these killers are using these women and children as human shields, hoping their presence will deter drone attacks. In any case, it is impossible to make even a rough estimate of how many civilians have been killed in the drone campaign.

The writer goes on to say: “The people of Waziristan are suffering a brutal kind of occupation under the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It is in this context that they would welcome anyone, Americans, Israelis, Indians or even the devil, to rid them of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Therefore, they welcome the drone attacks. Secondly, the people feel comfortable with the drone attacks because of their precision and targeted strikes. [People prefer them to] the Pakistan Army’s attacks which always result in collateral damage.…”

Dr Taj makes perfect sense: after all, why would the people under Taliban and Al Qaeda occupation and oppression not cheer when these murderers are killed? What does not make sense is the chorus of protests over these drone attacks emanating from people like Imran Khan and Hamid Gul — to name only two — who claim to speak for the people of the tribal areas. What exactly is their agenda, and why are they acting as cheerleaders for these terrorists?

The breach of our supposedly sacred sovereignty has been cited as the reason for this outrage over the American campaign of targeting terrorists seeking shelter in the tribal areas, and attacking western forces over the border in Afghanistan. However, why should the Americans wait passively for their soldiers to be picked off by militants who use our territory as a base for cross-border attacks?

With the concept of sovereignty comes the responsibility to exercise control over territory. Successive Pakistani governments have failed to seal our borders, and the entire region is suffering from terrorism as a result. All our neighbours have complained publicly and privately over the Pakistani state’s inability or unwillingness to effectively prevent cross-border attacks of the kind we have been witnessing for over two decades now. Indeed, we have been accused of using our lawless borders to further our establishment’s agenda.

In any case, sovereignty is never absolute. Just as nations have the duty to prevent effluents from their factories from contaminating rivers that flow down to lower riparian neighbours, so too do they have the responsibility of halting terrorists from crossing into other states.

Dr Taj concludes her article thus: “Moreover, Al Qaeda and the Taliban have done everything to stop the drone attacks by killing hundreds of innocent civilians on the pretext of their being American spies. They thought that by overwhelming the innocent people of Waziristan with terror tactics they would deter any potential informer, but they have failed…. Interestingly, no one in Pakistan has raised objections to killings [sic] of the people of Waziristan on charges of spying for the US. This, the people of Waziristan informed, is a source of torture for them that their fellow Pakistanis condemn the killing of terrorists, but fall into deadly silence over the routine murders of tribesmen.…”

I have often wondered about this callous hypocrisy too. If we condemn the Americans so vociferously over the drone campaign, should we not be more critical of the thugs who are killing far more Pakistani civilians? And yet, it seems that our more popular Urdu anchorpersons and TV chat show guests reserve their outrage for Washington, while giving the Taliban and Al Qaeda a free pass over their vicious suicide bombings that have taken hundreds of innocent lives in recent weeks.

Why then are we silent over the daily killings of fellow Pakistanis by the TTP and other terror groups, while frothing at the mouth over the drone attacks? Clearly, this irrational and double-faced reaction is based in the anti-American sentiment that has taken root in Pakistan.

However, if we are to win the war against extremism, we need to analyse where our best interests lie. First we need to face the fact that the war is not going well. Even though the army has cleared most of South Waziristan of the TTP, it does not have the manpower to both hold the area it has wrested from the terrorists, and to take them on in the other regions they have fled to.

We need to wake up to the reality that the enemy has grown very strong in the years we temporised and tried to do deals with them. Clearly, we need allies in this fight. Howling at the moon is not going to get us the cooperation we so desperately need. A solid case can be made for more drone attacks, not less.

[email protected]

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Howling at the moon

 

[nitesh]

well one more example of twisting the facts and helping in creation of terrorists:

DAWN.COM | Columnists | Smokers? Corner: Can?t be us, or can it?

The space here does not allow one to analyse the number of such ‘history books’ being taught in Pakistani schools, so I will take a single example in this respect to hit home the point. The Illustrated History of Islam by Abdul Rauf is an example. Published in 1993, it is said to be offered by schools as an ‘important side reading’. The cover is a watercolour painting depicting a Muslim warrior on horseback, wielding a heavy sword against what, I’m sure, are infidels.

Not surprisingly, the book uncritically uses the usual (and clearly polemical) Arab sources (that started emerging some two to three hundred years after Islamic conquests). Insisting on portraying the religion as a culturally homogenous entity (with all other variations being heretical innovations), the author, it seems, uses a war drum instead of a thoughtful pen to jot down his thoughts.

Then, as is typical of such history books, the author laments the downfall of the Muslim empire and squarely bases the reasons of this downfall on the theological innovations of Muslims that made them move away from true Islam and indulge in luxurious living and social laxities of the infidels. Of course, the author never touches upon the stark economic and political reasons that can explain the fall of empires in a more rational and thoughtful manner. That would require a pen, instead of the sword he seems to be using here.

My favourite section of the book is a sub-chapter called ‘The Four Anti-Islam Elements.’ This is what the author writes: “Currently Islam faces grave dangers from the following four elements: Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists.” In other words, everyone who’s not Muslim is a threat to Islam.

If such are the books being taught to children, is there any element of surprise left in watching certain TV personalities, politicians and their largely urban middle-class fans nodding in uncritical approval to what is simply a convoluted charade peddled as history and analysis?

The scary thing is, the bulk of young, educated middle-class men and women are lapping up these one-dimensional and black and white ‘historical’ tirades, and then using them to understand the issue of terrorism and extremism haunting Pakistan. No wonder then that even in the face of some stark proofs of the local Taliban’s involvement in terrorist attacks and religious coercion, our minds, as if on hypnotic cue, shut down and let the irrational instincts studded with paranoia and denial rule the roost.

‘Can’t be us’, becomes the mantra. Has to be some Christians/ Jewish/ Hindu or other such ‘anti-Islam’ abomination.

 

[mech-e]

how can an intelligent human being relate the religion to "extremism". only a misguided person can refer the presence of "extremism" to religion. a man cannot blame extremism is born because status of religion in pakistan when he knows that americans were the first to even think about jihad in afghaistan during soviet invasion. so it was first americans who supported these people.( vir sanghvi)

many people who know little about the history of ideology of pakistan would say all the things, that its a flawed idea and blah blah blah, but the truth is that, the idea is very strong, its only the presence of weak governance that is responsible for all damages today.

 

[nitesh]

how can an intelligent human being relate the religion to "extremism". only a misguided person can refer the presence of "extremism" to religion. a man cannot blame extremism is born because status of religion in pakistan when he knows that americans were the first to even think about jihad in afghaistan during soviet invasion. so it was first americans who supported these people.( vir sanghvi)

many people who know little about the history of ideology of pakistan would say all the things, that its a flawed idea and blah blah blah, but the truth is that, the idea is very strong, its only the presence of weak governance that is responsible for all damages today.

well well welll
cross posting:
DAWN.COM | Columnists | Smokers? Corner: Can?t be us, or can it?

The space here does not allow one to analyse the number of such ‘history books’ being taught in Pakistani schools, so I will take a single example in this respect to hit home the point. The Illustrated History of Islam by Abdul Rauf is an example. Published in 1993, it is said to be offered by schools as an ‘important side reading’. The cover is a watercolour painting depicting a Muslim warrior on horseback, wielding a heavy sword against what, I’m sure, are infidels.

Not surprisingly, the book uncritically uses the usual (and clearly polemical) Arab sources (that started emerging some two to three hundred years after Islamic conquests). Insisting on portraying the religion as a culturally homogenous entity (with all other variations being heretical innovations), the author, it seems, uses a war drum instead of a thoughtful pen to jot down his thoughts.

Then, as is typical of such history books, the author laments the downfall of the Muslim empire and squarely bases the reasons of this downfall on the theological innovations of Muslims that made them move away from true Islam and indulge in luxurious living and social laxities of the infidels. Of course, the author never touches upon the stark economic and political reasons that can explain the fall of empires in a more rational and thoughtful manner. That would require a pen, instead of the sword he seems to be using here.

My favourite section of the book is a sub-chapter called ‘The Four Anti-Islam Elements.’ This is what the author writes: “Currently Islam faces grave dangers from the following four elements: Christians, Jews, Hindus and atheists.” In other words, everyone who’s not Muslim is a threat to Islam.

If such are the books being taught to children, is there any element of surprise left in watching certain TV personalities, politicians and their largely urban middle-class fans nodding in uncritical approval to what is simply a convoluted charade peddled as history and analysis?

The scary thing is, the bulk of young, educated middle-class men and women are lapping up these one-dimensional and black and white ‘historical’ tirades, and then using them to understand the issue of terrorism and extremism haunting Pakistan. No wonder then that even in the face of some stark proofs of the local Taliban’s involvement in terrorist attacks and religious coercion, our minds, as if on hypnotic cue, shut down and let the irrational instincts studded with paranoia and denial rule the roost.

‘Can’t be us’, becomes the mantra. Has to be some Christians/ Jewish/ Hindu or other such ‘anti-Islam’ abomination.

 

[mech-e]

this is a misguided view, pakistanis consider them selves to be pakistanis neither indian neither arab. not indian because of religion and some culture differences(majority pakistanis dont drink alohol, gamble). and not arab due to obvious reason of language difference. pakistanis consider them to be like arabs because a common pakistani/north indian is like a common arab complexion, and they share same religion. the question is iran is some times mistaken to be an arab nation which is entirely false. a person of common sense who is a non pakistani would differentiate pakistan from arabia and pakistanis from arabs likewise any pakistani whould would not hesitate to say that pakistan is in south asia and not in the middle east. its a very basic common sense.

the intermixing of indian and non indian influence has generated a society different from either parties, but its a reality that i would say pakistani society in 80% indian than non indian.

this is culture generated by the principles of religion that is islam which mislead people to think all muslims are arabs esp the countries bounded by religion like turkey, iran and pakistan as compared to malaysia, indonesia etc

 

[mech-e]

plzz dont post from this maniac paracha guy, some times i mistake him to be a non pakistani.

some time ago this fool was in support of communism and now only his main mission is to talk about so called religious extremism in pakistan and he supports capitalism. hes a pure disgrace to pakistan like some people pervez hudbhoy and asma jahangir are.

 

[nitesh]

So according to you there is nothing like manipulation of text book happens? And according to you who are true pakistanis