Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

[Oracle]

An amateur bomber in New York
By Sami Shah

May 13, 2010

I am seriously upset with Faisal Shahzad. His amateurish attempts at terrorism are ruining Pakistan's image. It wasn't easy building a reputation as the top exporter of worldclass terrorists. The Middle East had that market cornered for most of the latter half of the last century (with the Venezuelans making a respectable bid for the title in the 70s with Carlos the Jackal). For a very long time, it seemed like the Arabs were the Apple computers of terrorism. They exported both quantity and quality.

When James Cameron finally recognised their efforts by casting generic Arabs as trouble-makers in True Lies, the rest of the world thought the game was over. The gold medal had gone to the Middle East. Then, like Usain Bolt breaking his own record, the Arab world produced Osama Bin Laden. He became an overnight sensation. Soon teens with terrorist aspirations had his posters up on their walls and his audio and video releases topped the charts. The sinister Saudi combined charisma with wealth, CIA training with Afghan tenacity. He turned the whole terrorism industry upside down, transforming it from a bloated bureaucracy rife with nepotism into a 21st century open source meritocracy.

That's when we Pakistani's made a legitimate grab for top slot. Aimal Kansi had made a good first impression on the judging committee, combining ingenuity and initiative as far back as 1993. Unfortunately for him, there was no follow up act.

Not this time though. Our terrorists worked hard. They took their jobs seriously and never complained. Long hours, terrible working conditions, constant travel, drone attacks and a Pakistani government that treated them with all the consistency of a schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder. Yet they persevered. Now, in 2010, we could finally say we were the envy of terrorists everywhere. With training institutes that churn out graduates who always make their instructors explode with pride, Celebrity terrorists who can return from the dead and a disregard for civilians that would make American Presidents envious, we had finally arrived. In 2010, if you wanted to be respected as a terrorist, you had better be from Pakistan. Just look at the number of international students our terrorist training institutes receive. Their admissions department must be flooded with applications. Whole teams of frustrated senior suicide-bombers spending hours pouring over personal statements. The Pakistani textile industry may be declining in terms of exports, our IT services may be crippled because of PayPal's refusal to acknowledge our existence, but dammit, we did terrorism right!

That is, until Faisal bloody Shahzad. You have to be a truly terrible terrorist when the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan refuses to acknowledge you. This is an organisation that is on the verge of claiming responsibility for the Hindenberg disaster and the Apollo 13 problems. They have, of course, since backtracked and claimed to have trained Faisal but even they don't sound like they believe themselves. It's more a case of trying to buy some brand presence on a new celebrity. Faisal, for his part, could not have done more damage to the terrorism industry if he visited Mullah Omar, Hakeemullah Mehsud and Osama bin Laden while wearing a tracking device that was pinging his GPRS coordinates to a drone flying directly overhead. His claims of having attended bomb-making classes in South Waziristan are blatantly a case of lying on one's resume. It's safe to say, the first lesson taught on the first day of classes in North Waziristan, the Harvard of bomb-making, is "Don't lock the keys to your getaway car inside the car that's supposed to blow up."

Too many people blew themselves up in too many creative ways for this buffoon to so callously ruin it all. We can't afford to be known as the country that put the 'error' in 'terrorism.'

Published in the Express Tribune, May 13th, 2010.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/12759/an-amateur-bomber-in-new-york/

 

[nitesh]

hmmmm so this is there culture:

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=239940

Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Abdullah Hussein in his letter titled "Cricketing cheats" (May 11) has compared the behaviour of Pakistani batsman Salman Butt with a player of the New Zealand cricket team. The Pakistani player shirked to reveal if his bat had touched the ball whereas the New Zealander voluntarily signalled that the ball had touched the ground though the umpire could have been misled in their team's favour. This incident should not be taken lightly, as it reflects the ethical standard of a majority of Pakistanis.=xy

There is also a message for our preachers in this who make futile efforts to reform society. They must understand that ethical norms are determined by social values and strong culture, and not by filling one's heart with fear of punishment in the hereafter. It appears that the religious indoctrination overseen by many former players for so long has failed to bring about any improvement in the ethics of the players.=Z

Dr Najeeb A Khan

Islamabad

 

[ajtr]

No regarding culture they are still confused ..is it middle east culture they follow or Turkish or central asia or Greeks or Persian its the khichidi of all so ultimately they look towards india and wanna follow their original indian culture of their forefathers but then that make them more Indian like which sure attacks their 2 nation theory and people of different cultures.So they rejected it but in their conscious they follow the same indian culture.Now they are upto adopting the western culture but that too for them is pagan culture.So pakistanis are totally confused about their identity and culture.

Cultural invasion


NADEEM GEELANI, WAH CANTT


I was shocked to see a Pakistani actress in knee-long Western styled skirt on a local TV. As an informed member of the society, definitely I would like to know something about the 'cultural invasion' launched against our civilisation. An organized campaign is in progress for total transformation of our society. I do realize that in the process of undermining, neglecting and even insulting our own values, standards and culture, our governments have been most supportive and multinational companies have been most instrumental and many in our own society have slowly and gradually fallen a prey to the trap.

Despite this all, my family belongs to that majority of Pakistani people who love and are proud of our own civilization and culture. We are by no means extremists yet we wish to live by our own customs, values and standards, which we honestly believe to be the best and irreplaceable. I would definitely not want my daughter to believe, when she grows up, that a dress revealing all but a few parts of body is acceptable rather preferable and my son to feel inferior if he does not have a girl friend. Watching drama followed by news has been a family tradition at our home, like many others, since the time I got my senses. We had unanimously decided to disallow even the advantages of private TV channels and stick only to the national TV. We had to be further selective when dramas like sehra aur samandar were telecast and we had to stay alert with remote control in hand to mute or even to shift to the only second choice. If this keeps on increasing, we shall have only one of the two choices i.e. either to further disassociate ourselves or to react strongly to safeguard our way of life.

 

[ajtr]

VIEW: Kital and jihad – Gulmina Bilal Ahmad​

Jihad, as is well known, is a constant struggle against one's will or, in the terms of psychology, against one's own id, i.e. the part of the self that is wilful and without any restraint

What motivates a militant Taliban who is not fraught with poverty? The answer to this question is complex. There is no easy answer. However, at a dialogue organised to discuss the possibilities of peace, an interesting answer was given by a psychiatrist-turned-religious-scholar, Dr Muhammad Farooq. This gentleman is involved in the army-supported and led Swat Taliban children rehabilitation project called 'Sabawoon', literally meaning in Pashto 'a new dawn'. He was of the opinion that a basic difference between a conservative Muslim and a militant Taliban who takes it upon himself/herself to adopt violent means is the latter's understanding of jihad.

From interviews of children studying at the centre, it has been gauged that they were taught that jihad in terms of armed struggle is mandatory on them and that an individual can wage armed jihad. However, a moderate Muslim's understanding is that armed jihad is the prerogative of a state and not that of an individual. Jihad, as is well known, is a constant struggle against one's will or, in the terms of psychology, against one's own id, i.e. the part of the self that is wilful and without any restraint. Misunderstood globally as meaning only armed struggle, jihad, as any elementary Islamic lecture would tell you, is about the struggle against self-urges and injustice, etc. Famously, in the words of the Prophet (PBUH), "The greatest jihad is the one against your own desires."

This is not to say that the Quran does not mention armed struggle. Armed struggle is referred to as kital in the Quran. However, it is clearly mentioned in the Quran that kital is only the responsibility of the state. An individual cannot wage kital; s/he can only wage jihad through non-violent means against self or untruth. The injunction to take up arms for a cause is only the prerogative of the state.

This is an important difference to understand. While debriefing children trained to be suicide bombers in Swat at the Sabawoon Rehabilitation Centre, this important difference came to light. The Taliban taught the children that kital could be waged by an individual. In fact, since according to the Taliban teachings, there is no shariah in Pakistan and that Pakistan is governed by 'infidels' as exemplified by the local brown sahib or the gora, i.e. the foreigners, it is the obligation of every child to wage kital against them.

While the audience at the dialogue listened attentively to Dr Muhammad Farooq's inputs, I could not help but wonder how many people actually knew the difference between kital and other forms of jihad? Those of us who have been educated at government or even private schools and made to rote-learn ayats from the Quran, do we know about kital and who can wage it?

We repeat ad nauseam that Islam is a complete code of life. It covers political, social, economic and, of course, personal aspects of our lives. The market is full of pocketbooks that have all sorts of duas for every action that an individual takes in his/her life. However, how many of us can differentiate between the individual and social parts of the Quran or Islam? How many of us are cognizant of the fact that Islam being a religion and thus a personal regulator, has injunctions focusing mostly on the individual's life and not of a state? This is where we incorrectly understand Islam, in my opinion, as we look it as a collective code of life rather than an individual one. Hence, the more overzealous amongst us take it upon themselves to 'check others' and even take up arms to implement their understanding of religion or the world.

In fact, we go a step further. We refer to various political and historical events as injustices against Muslims. Analyst after analyst elaborates the real and alleged global injustices against Muslims. Palestine is on top of the grievances list. Closer at home is, of course, Kashmir. However, how have we equated disputes over land with religious disputes?

The struggle of the Palestinians and the Kashmiris is a political one, just as the cause of the Taliban is a political one. It actually speaks volumes about the communication skills of the Palestinian and Kashmiri fighters that they have successfully painted their political demands in religious colours. Or perhaps the skills of the political governments and other political actors behind the Palestine and Kashmir issues. The Taliban and al Qaeda are trying to do the same. For instance, the Swat Taliban also taught the children that there are six pillars of Islam instead of five. The sixth one being jihad, defined as armed struggle against the state, the government functionaries and, of course, the western world.

It is important for thinking Muslims to consider the difference between religious and political struggles. We also need to proactively educate ourselves about religion and determine its footprint in our daily lives. The decision to say a prayer before a meal is a personal one. It should not be binding upon all people of a Muslim majority country, just as it is not the task of the government to regulate who fasts in the month of Ramadan and who does not. Similarly, an insurgent and a militant, whether he is fighting for the cause of South Waziristan or Swat against the state, is a terrorist and an individual motivated by his individual understanding of Islam. To refer to such people as shaheed or hold them in reverence (reference Hamid Mir's alleged reference to such terrorists) is the sign of a confused mind. For the Quran clearly states, "Do not kill yourself. God is merciful to you. If someone does so through oppression or injustice, We shall cast him into hell" (4:29, 30).

The writer is an Islamabad-based consultant. She can be reached at [email protected]

 

[hit&run]

 

[ajtr]

Who's afraid of Dara Shikoh's ghost?​

It is now a given that the Pakistani state is a playground for Islamism and extremism under various guises and forms. Since the passage of the Objectives Resolution in 1949, the state by design and sometimes by default has surrendered to the phantoms of the orthodox Islamic interpretation of the world. It is true that religion was central to the sloganeering for Pakistan, but the post-1947 architecture of the Pakistani state was meant to be secular and democratic. Whatever the proponents and apologists of a jihadi state might have to say, Jinnah's words and deeds were clear. Iqbal's vision, inspired by Islamic philosophy and strands of mystical thought, was also clearly anti-Mullah.

This was hardly surprising, as a majority of Indian Muslims, not unlike South Asians of today, were averse to orthodoxy. From the Bhakti movement to folk and Sufi traditions, mullahs and pundits have not enjoyed popular legitimacy, as their alliance with power was resented and rejected by the populace. It is also well known that Mr Maududi and his ilk were bitterly opposed to Pakistan and accused the Muslim League leadership of being un-Islamic. Even stranger is the fact that this essential truth is rarely discussed in the public domain, and excessive coverage and importance given to the orthodox champions of Pakistani nationalism in the media and in textbooks, betrays how the age-old nexus between Pakistani monarchs and the Mullahs has survived the test of time.

Ajoka theatre based in Lahore has been attempting to challenge the status quo. Its plays rooted in the folk and street traditions of the subcontinent have raised political themes and placed political mobilisation at the centre of any discussion for social change. Recently, its play Dara Shikoh was staged in Lahore, and this marked a watershed in our cultural and political landscape. Dara Shikoh, the elder son of Emperor Shahjehan, despite his brutal murder at the hands of his Mullahesque brother Aurangzeb, continues to represent a fault line that runs through the past and the present of South Asia, especially in Pakistan.

To present a play on a prince who argued – with reason and reference – that there was little difference between the Upanishads and the tenets of mystical Islam, is not an ordinary feat in a country where powerful forces within the state and society are hell-bent on turning the Land of the Pure into a haven for cultural fascism. Above all, Dara's stiff resistance to a militant version of Islam and its exclusionary theological constructs is perhaps most relevant in these times.

However, Ajoka's effort to take the play to our culturally desertified and politically bankrupt Islamabad, for a presentation at the Pakistan National Council of the Arts (PNCA), has been thwarted by officialdom, as it challenges the state complexion and orientation. One wishes that such a comment were merely speculation, but it seems that there is enough evidence to suggest that a female MNA from the Jamaat-e-Islami wrote to the PNCA earlier. Apparently, she believed that Ajoka was guilty of making fun of Islamic values and represented a threat to the republic of the believers and munafaqeen alike.

How ironic that this is no different from the late 1970s when a senior bureaucrat, now a media personality and scholar (of sorts), authored an article where General Zia ul Haq was compared to the austere and God-fearing Aurangzeb, and Dara was portrayed as a precursor to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The maverick civil servant argued that in the clash of ideology, Zia's coup was symbolic of religious power. Pakistan suffered from Zia's assumed divine right to rule in the name of Islam for eleven long years, during which intolerance, bigotry, sectarianism and dictatorship shook the foundations of this country. Intellectual voices and activist groups such as Ajoka have to constantly contend with Zia's legacy, and the wily servants of the state are always eager to provide legitimacy to retrogression.

Ajoka's earlier play Burqvaganza explored another explosive subject, that of purdah, and its literal interpretation at the expense of the metaphorical and spiritual meaning. The female MNA referred to above, who also happens to be the daughter of the former Amir of the Jamaat, even raised the issue in the National Assembly and protested that Ajoka's legitimate questions about the burqa were tantamount to demeaning Islam. History and politics move in cycles, and this outcry in the Parliament was not different from the earlier assaults on the secular vision of Pakistan. All our rulers, except perhaps Ayub Khan, pandered to the orthodox lobby. Under General Zia ul Haq, Islamisation became an official policy and its instruments the un-uniformed part of the national security apparatus.

A small theatre group therefore is pitted against far larger forces of orthodoxy and regressive medievalism. This is shameful, given that an elected government is ruling Pakistan, and the ruling party has been hostile to the ideology of Zia ul Haq. But Zia seems to be alive as much as his nemesis Bhutto. Whilst the jiyalas may chant zinda hai Bhutto, the institutions are pretty smug and happy to articulate zinda hai Zia. Small wonder that JI, whose lack of electoral worth has time and again been exposed, has the audacity to become a guardian of our faith and nationalism.

When Ajoka's executive director Madeeha Gauhar called the other day to share the recent phase of her 'struggle' in the democratic era, she was obviously disturbed. And given her penchant for speaking the truth she was also not too charitable about the Mullah brigade. While she was talking on the phone, her voice faded and a recording of a Hamd (a eulogy for the Almighty) emerged from nowhere. This was amusing, yet quite unnerving. Our Constitution and laws prohibit anyone to monitor citizens' expression and speech in the public and private spheres. And, to experience this intrusion was not pleasant at all.

Interestingly, the minions of Big Brother played a popular Hamd, that begins with the verse Koi tau haye jo nizam-e-hasti challa raha haye. Muzaffar Warsi, who apparently was Zia ul Haq's favourite poet, had composed these verses. In view of his special place in the Zia kingdom, he was accorded with various state honours and also a cushy state job. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan later rendered this piece in his magical voice.

I clearly remember a discussion that took place in the presence of the late Ahmed Nadeem Qasimi, a twentieth century literary giant. Many senior poets critiqued this Hamd for being a problematic hymn for God Almighty, since it did not express absolute belief in God but worked through an inference: there must be Someone who was managing the universe! Thus the element of doubt marred a believer's chant in praise of his Creator.

More importantly, the bugged phone line sent a clear message: that la-deen (irreligious as secularism is understood by the clerics) Madeeha Gauhar had to be 'censored' even in a private conversation, and reminded that there is a God. And, the chosen, self-appointed representatives were managing the show in His name.

This is not limited to the minions of the state apparatus. Such attitudes are now embedded in our curricula, modes of instruction, thousands of madrassas and more dangerously, elements of the media who were trying to convince us of the glories of the Taliban until the Pakistan Army valiantly took on the miscreants.

A journey that commenced with the Right's struggle to capture political space in the 1940s, and with the state's cynical support, has culminated in capitulation to such forces. The gradual erosion of Jinnah's Pakistan has also led to the ascendancy of all that Pakistan was not supposed to represent. The Ahmedis are hounded on a regular basis, the Shias are being murdered, and even the Barelvi majority feels unsafe given the high-profile murders of their leadership. What we have is a curious mix of a Wahabi-Salafi variant of Islamism with several local offshoots, which are not averse to using violence and butchery as weapons.

The propagation of Islam in the subcontinent was the handiwork of Sufis and sages who showed the path to a large number of people through the message of tolerance, harmony and reconciliation. Violence simply did not deliver in this part of the Islamic world.

This is why recognising the roots of our indigenous cultures is important. It is now the only weapon that Pakistan's intelligentsia possesses. To encourage the airing of alternative messages and interpretations such as Dara's worldview, and challenging the burqa's form over the spirit are crucial to sustain our plural culture. If Zaid Hamid can have access to state institutions such as the Iqbal Academy in Lahore, then why is Ajoka denied a space? Is it not a brazen indicator of Zia's legacy hounding our generations well into the future? Pakistani youth are already despondent, as all the surveys reveal, about the country's future. They have to be educated about our history and the ways in which we can co-exist as a heterogeneous country.

Education reform and mass-awareness campaigns are also needed to challenge Zia's Pakistan. The systemic collapse in the education sector will need to be arrested immediately if we have to survive as a viable polity. A plural culture also needs secular education and an inclusive political system that provides avenues for all voices and opinions. It is about time we became unapologetic in dealing with the narrow-mindedness of the Mullah and reclaimed Iqbal's message, that called for ijtihad in line with the changed times.

In this twenty-first century onslaught of medievalism, Pakistanis will have to bitterly oppose any form of violence – from censorship to target killings – and exclusion. The religious parties who opposed Pakistan cannot be allowed to continue blackmailing us in the name of a universal, peaceful religion based on equality and tolerance. The state has to reinvent itself, and only Pakistan's citizens, its intelligentsia and secular political parties, can help achieve this. The other option is too violent to imagine.

 

[ajtr]

The Ostrich Syndrome: A Teacher's Perspective​

Jump to Comments
By Nabiha Meher Shaikh

As someone constantly exposed to the so-called "youth" of this country, I do believe I have some insight and some valid criticism of the recent ban on facebook, which, ostensibly, has to do with blasphemous content.

Firstly, what is the "youth" of this country? And why are they lumped into a monolithic entity? Why is it assumed that they are all one and the same when their realities are different in many ways. To assume that our "youth" is living air-conditioned lives, constantly logged on to the internet, chatting away etc. is purely delusional. The truth is, the vast majority of the "youth" are very poor and cannot access websites. The "youth" is actually the majority of our population. And we are constantly trying to box them into holes on what they should be, what they should do, how they should think, how they should behave, killing off any diversity that exists"¦ this has lead to an increase in intolerance which I have noticed in my less than three decades of existence, despite the fact that sensitivity towards women's issues has increased as compared to my generation (I'm only talking about educated people here though. I do acknowledge that the ground realities for women have become even more horrific). Sounds contradictory? It's not. Read on. It's all connected to religion and wanting to desperately prove that their religion is not barbaric towards women, a criticism that has very valid roots since, let's face it, the status of women in the Muslim world is far from decent. So even though I see an increase in gender sensitivity, I also see an increase in linear thinking, mostly intolerant, reeking of a severe persecution complex ("the world is out to get us and destabilise Islam!"), which is very, very dangerous.

The "youth" have grown up in a post 9/11 world so they have little or no living memory of a time when the world wasn't obsessed with us. I remember people scratching their heads, perplexed about where this Pakistani I speak of was. India was all they knew. And now"¦ well"¦ we're everywhere, one of the most recognisable countries in the world, a hub of terrorism, a country on the forefront of the oxymoronic "war on terror", perhaps on the verge of self-destruction, "the most dangerous country in the world". Our grief has become the world's entertainment. The world watches as we are bombed, killed, destroyed, humiliated and demonised. And sadly, it truly feels like no one cares. We all know, for sure, that our lives are worth less than any other lives, truly worthless. These kids have always known that. What's worse is that as more and more innocent people die in their own country, these beliefs get strengthened. As the privileged ones travel the world, and are tortured at airports thanks to the colour of their skins and passports, they face humiliation which angers them for good reason. Why wouldn't being called a "rag-head who will pray to his sand ****** god to destroy us" enrage someone? They have grown up in a country full of unrest and at war with itself. They have grown up in a world that constantly reminds them they are the "other" in every sense. They have grown up in a world where "Muslim" has become a synonym for "terrorist." Imagine what it does to their psyche. Imagine growing up like that. It saddens me immensely because, as a teacher who is close to her students, I see the toll it takes on them. I see their anger and I sympathise with it. I don't agree that this is a war on Islam per se since that is just too simplistic an explanation, but I do understand why they would feel this way.

As a teacher of critical thinking, I have a frustrating job. I love it because it is very rewarding, but teaching critical thinking to kids who have been taught NOT to think is quite challenging. They come to me with blinkers on. And, obviously, there is much resistance to thinking about multiple perspectives at first. The majority don't want their worldview shaken. Most don't want to hear that there is another valid perspective at first. It's hard to digest and I know that because I remember the IB TOK classes which I model some of my classes on. It wasn't easy. But then again, critical thinking is never easy, nor should it be. It should be constant tool used for one's personal growth, and it is absolutely necessary in order to evolve and become tolerant. This is why I feel the recent ban on facebook is dangerous and promotes a culture of intolerance.

As a teacher who often jokes that her class should be called "How to Grow a Brain" I strongly believe that banning facebook sends out a counter-productive and frightening message. And no, this is not a slippery slope. This country suffers "The Ostrich Syndrome" and this ban is proof. We like to stick our heads in the sand, like kids sticking their fingers in their ears screaming "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!" I'd like to ask all those constantly wanting to censor this that or the other what kind of message they think they are sending out. Because this is how I see it: if you don't like it, ban it. If you don't agree, pretend it doesn't exist. Everyone else is wrong anyway, since they're all out to get us. There is no need for productive dialogue, there is no need to have a healthy discourse; heck there's no need to turn the other cheek and ignore it. This is the message: stick your head in the sand until it's over. Oh, but it'll never be over since the world is out to get us.

And I ask you: why do I HAVE to be offended? Is our faith so weak that a cartoon will destroy it? And even if I am offended, why am I not being given the option to boycott facebook voluntarily? A voluntary ban would have been much, much more effective in order to send a message out. A blanket ban has only lead to exactly what we like to cry about so much: negative publicity in the world press and many outraged Pakistanis protesting the ban such as me. How conveniently we pick and choose from religion! Lest we forget, I would like to remind the Muslims reading this of the incident of the woman who used to throw garbage at our prophet. The prophet, in whose name we claim we are protesting, was a peaceful, cooperative man who forgave people who pelted him with garbage and rocks. Responding with an intelligent dialogue, responding with patience is, in my opinion, the best way to protest one's concern. Think about it: why is this competition going on? Why are we responding in exactly the manner the world expects us to? Why are so hell bent on proving that we are not tolerant? Responding with anger, with outrage, will only strengthen Islamophobic beliefs, which will, by the way, make these Islamophobes happy since we are playing right into their hands and giving them the reaction they expect and probably want.

As for me, I am going to go change my "Restore Judiciary" shirt to "Restrain the Judiciary" adding the neglected article whose absence has so peeved me since I first bought it during the lawyer's movement. The fact that the courts are acting like tyrannical parents is something I strongly object to. The fact that they are entertaining demands by catering to the religious parties is abhorrent, especially since these religious parties are incapable of winning in democratic elections. I protest this ban on facebook and my objection to the competition doesn't count since it's not voluntary. Without the freedom to offend, free speech ceases to exist. And as someone who grew up in Zia's oppressive regime, I know how dangerous it is to censor and ban things based on religious sentiments. Intolerant religious interpretations should not be immune to religion, nor should we allow religion to be used to promote intolerance. For those who have witnessed it, we do not wish to see it again.

I may not agree with the venom being spewed through the media, but I'd rather get multiple perspectives than just one, leaving me no choice but to think only the way I am apparently supposed to. And the fact that we let our media go ahead and spew this venom in the first place reeks of hypocrisy. While we think it's perfectly all right to demonise the world, promoting intolerance and hatred for the West, creating Hindu-Zionism conspiracy theories, we strongly object when the world responds in kind. Again, I ask, why is it ok for us and not anyone else? Are we all meek little innocents? And again, what kind of message is this sending the "youth" we are oh so very concerned about? I'll tell you what it leads to because I battle with it constantly. It leads to essays that are rants on how evil the world is, full of hate speech, and with absolutely no sensitivity to the other perspective. It has, like I said, lead to a persecution complex so strong that it's very hard to break. It has lead to people like Faisal Shahzad. Now you tell me. Do we want more of him? Or more of those who are willing to debate peacefully instead of resorting to violence? Because at the rate we're going, no one will need to bomb us into the stone ages. We're going there ourselves.

 

[ajtr]

Jihadi public schools?​

Interestingly, the theme of hatred and militancy in the curriculum can be clearly distinguished between the pre- and post-1979 educational contexts. There was no mention of these in the pre-Islamisation period curricula, while the post-1979 curricula and textbooks openly eulogise war and militancy and urge students to become mujahideen and martyrs. But the target is not only India or Hindus. The curriculum targets all non-Muslims and countries and seeks to teach a particularly virulent version of radical and militant Islam to Pakistan's children.

He even addresses to kuldip nayar type who think peace between ind-pak is possible???

All this hatred and indoctrination should also serve as a reality check for those who delude themselves into believing that, somehow, India and Pakistan can live together in peace. This is not possible until there is a complete overhaul of the educational curriculum in Pakistan and the process of reverse indoctrination is completed. Going by what is being done to the Pakistani children — not only in madrassas but also in schools runs by the Pakistani state — the entire educational curriculum needs to be seriously monitored and altered on a war-footing

 

[ajtr]

Fatal illusions —Salman Tarik Kureshi​

Conformity was imposed on the pluralism prized by Jinnah and a unitary state, belying his crusades for provincial autonomy, was created. In place of our rich and diverse heritage, cultural uniformity was imposed. Ideological formulations were trumpeted, dissent discouraged

"The challenge of modernity is to live without illusions and without becoming disillusioned" — Antonio Gramsci.



In the smokescreen of secondary
issues and non-issues with which we are daily blanketed by the media, it is easy to lose sight of the central importance of the counter-insurgency campaigns being waged to save the citizens and the state of Pakistan, and the simultaneous political processes under way for the establishment of democratic, federal rule in the country. These are the most fundamental and critically urgent issues of our national history. For, whether destruction of the insurgency or construction of a political system, failure along either axis can lead to the disintegration into savage anarchy of our state and society.

Today's brief essay is about delusions, the kinds that drive individuals and nations to folly. As any psychiatrist will tell you, delusions and the delusionary behaviour patterns they engender are precisely what we mean when we talk about pathological psychoses.

In Buddhist mythology, Gautama Buddha was assailed by the demon Mara when meditating under the sacred Bo tree. Mara appeared in the form of a gigantic ruler, mounted on an elephant 150 leagues high. The demon sprouted 1,000 arms, each of which brandished a deadly weapon. The point of the story is that this immense demon Mara was in fact Gautama's own shadow self, an emanation of his mind, whose name meant 'Delusion'. And it was necessary for Gautama to confront the immensity of his own delusions before he could see through them to the truth and become the Buddha. Truly, the delusions born from our fantasies and unfulfilled desires are colossal, bigger than ourselves, and capable of consuming us entirely.

Such a set of deadly delusions exists in the Pakistani political psyche. I ask my readers to connect four specific newspaper images to identify the connecting link between the different persons pictured there. The most recent is that of Maulana (how was this honorific earned?) Fazlullah. This young man from a village in Malakand became transformed into such a monster of violence and savage cruelty that the world is celebrating the news of his being probably put down like a rabid animal.

Hailing from the same province, but from an utterly different milieu — economically, socially and educationally — is a mild-looking 30-year-old former business executive from Connecticut. No two people could be more different than the socially severely disadvantaged Fazlullah and the American-educated son of an Air Vice-Marshall, Faisal Shahzad. But, it seems, the same kinds of compulsions drove both the former warlord of Swat and the 'Idiot Bomber' of Times Square.

Look now at the picture of a young man from a Punjabi village. Ajmal Kasab's plain, fully shaven face is an ordinary one that could have been seen on a million young men. But (and this is what really disturbs) there is a grin on his lips as if he were in a transport of orgasmic delight as he fires his automatic weapon. Observe the frightful grin of a fiend, a ghoul, a blood-lusting monster, on the face of an ordinary-seeming young man!

An image from eight years ago, which I have previously described in these pages, is next. This is of an aging Mohajir father beside the body of his son, killed in Afghanistan and returned dead to Karachi. The face of the old man could have been expected to be a face of rage, or of grief, or even of sad resignation. But, no, this face is expressionless, the eyes tearless. His son is a shaheed (martyr), he says, and should not be mourned. He will now send his remaining sons, one after the other, to their respective trysts with martyrdom. Now, one can accept that the father could believe sufficiently in a cause to be consoled for his son's death. But it is hard to accept that he could eagerly will a similar destiny on his other sons. More, that this bereaved father is unmoved to any word, sign or expression of grief, is beyond understanding. Grief for the dead is normal. Even animals show it. In psychiatric terms, this Karachi father's lack of sorrow, his 'absence of affective response', is pathological.

And that is precisely my point. The set of delusions connecting these four ethnically, educationally and socially far apart persons is just that: pathological.

To trace the beginnings of this national psychosis, one goes back to Hamza Alavi's concept of 'the over-developed state', the well trained and organised civil and military institutions created by British rule in the subcontinent. In Pakistan, political parties, peopled in the main by representatives of the rural elite or by populist spell-binders of dubious intellectual depth, failed to gain control over these, the real wielders of power. The civil-military oligarchy assumed an autonomous role, independent of the interests of the dominant classes, resulting in a dichotomy between a weak 'democratic' political culture and a stronger 'administrative' political culture.

It is this latter group, comprising the bureaucrats, officers and professionals of the Pakistani power elite, which proceeded to contrive a post facto national narrative for the country. Jinnah's liberal, inclusive vision was converted into a faux Islamic exclusivism. Conformity was imposed on the pluralism prized by Jinnah and a unitary state, belying his crusades for provincial autonomy, was created. In place of our rich and diverse heritage, cultural uniformity was imposed. Ideological formulations were trumpeted, dissent discouraged.

Antonio Gramsci, who witnessed the rise of the fascists in his native Italy, identified two quite distinct forms of political control: domination, which referred to direct physical coercion by the police and armed forces, and hegemony, which referred to ideological control and, more crucially, consent. By hegemony, Gramsci meant the permeation throughout society of an entire system of values, attitudes, beliefs and morality that has the effect of supporting the status quo in power relations.

Such a hegemonic narrative was thrust onto Pakistan. It multiplied greatly in strength on July 5, 1977, when the usurper of the day snarled over the media about what he called 'an Islamic system'. The institutions he promoted and the retrograde educational systems he erected have polluted the intellectual atmosphere of the land and given birth to today's bigoted, obscurantist political culture and its poisonous fallouts of violent insurgency, terrorism and cold-blooded mass murder.

Today, the spurious 'national ideology' promoted by the establishment to maintain an unconstitutional control, has spun out of control. As a result, both the citizens and the state remain in mortal peril.

 

[ajtr]

Let It All Hang Out—In Urdu!
A fascinating two-facedness seems to prevail when it comes to the English and Urdu print media in Pakistan


On May 24, Dr. A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear engineer, published a column entitled "May 28, 1998," in the English language daily, The News (Karachi), where he is a regular contributor. The title commemorated the date of Pakistan's nuclear explosions. After a brief introduction, describing Z. A. Bhutto's role in that project and the state of things after his death, the column consisted entirely of excerpts from the congratulatory letters Dr. Khan had received at the time from various Pakistani dignitaries, civil and military.

The same day Dr. Khan also published a column in Urdu, in the Urdu journal Jang, with the title: "28 May – Kis Bat ki Khushi?" ("28 May – Happy about what?"). Both journals are published by the Jang Group, which also owns and runs four television channels. The Urdu column was most likely written first—Dr. Khan writes Urdu felicitously—and then translated by Dr. Khan or someone else into English. In either case, the two were carefully crafted to cater to distinctly separate readerships.

Here is the introductory section in The News:

Even before India exploded its first nuclear weapon on May 18, 1974, Mr. Bhutto had warned about this happening and had vowed to respond appropriately, even if Pakistanis had to eat grass to protect their sovereignty. I started the programme at Kahuta in July 1976 after coming back from Holland. Within the short span of eight years this country was in a position to explode a nuclear weapon at short notice. The government took 14 years to actually demonstrate this capability.

Had Mr. Bhutto been alive to see those tests, he would have exploited our invaluable position and achievement for the benefit of the people and the country. However, once the giant was eliminated, the pygmies did not benefit from this achievement, and we managed to turn it into something of a curse. In addition to the many difficulties brought down on us, the worst thing we did to ourselves was the freezing of foreign currency accounts. Not only did it hurt our economy, but we also lost international trust. We are still suffering the after-affects.

And here is the same in Jang (in my translation):

Much before India's nuclear test on May 18, 1974, Mr. Bhutto had repeatedly warned the world of the threat, but Western leaders were secretly making India a nuclear power to get it prepared against China. When, in July 1976, I was given the responsibility of making the Pakistani atomic bomb, I never once stopped to look back. In the brief span of eight years, my able and patriotic co-workers and I made this poor and backward nation first a nuclear power and then a missile power. On May 28, 1998, Pakistan conducted its atomic explosions. It was a time when India, by conducting its atomic explosions on May 11, had us lined against a wall, with its guns aimed at our breasts. The fact is we had a nuclear bomb ready at Kahuta by the middle of 1984, and on December 10 of that year I had informed Gen. Ziaul Haq in writing that we could explode the bomb at a week's notice. But for political reasons he postponed the matter, and after him no one found the necessary courage until the time came when India grabbed us by the neck. It was indeed a miracle that despite many opponents and our backwardness we had built nuclear bombs. It is most unfortunate, therefore, that on review after twelve years we find to our grief that we had allowed to go to waste the many opportunities created by our extremely important achievement. Only one particular section of the society benefited from it, and that section, in the guise of [Gen.] Musharraf, squeezed tight the country's throat.

Had Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto been alive then he would have transformed this country. We would have for sure progressed like Malaysia and China, and our status internationally would have been very high, particularly in Islamic countries. In fact, we would have been the undisputed leader of the Muslim world. Unfortunately, when that giant of a man passed away, pygmies got a chance to revel. They acted as suited their size, and turned our great achievement into a curse instead of a great boon. Besides countless wrong decisions, the worst and most accursed was their decision to freeze, and then plunder, all bank accounts held in foreign currency. The world then lost trust in Pakistan, and we are still suffering the consequences. No civilized country or people could imagine that any country would indulge in such robbery. Now the same robbers are going around raising slogans of democracy.

Anyway, we failed to put our house in order on May 28, 1998. We did not establish new industrial institutions; we failed to get Islamic countries to invest in Pakistan; and we did not put aright our social and educational structures. The truth of the matter is that our condition is now much worse. An ignoramus professor who belongs to a minority group and lives off foreign fellowships speaks continuously against that miraculous achievement; he also utters all kind of nonsense about me. It too is our country's great misfortune that such people live in luxury here but are not true to their salt. The fault lies not with the nation but the rulers, who did not possess the ability to draw benefit from that achievement. And so, like blind people, we go on doing a bhangra as we celebrate the "Day of Takbir."

Leaving aside issues of verbosity and self-aggrandizement, one can clearly see in the two introductions a depressing two-facedness frequently found in Pakistani print media. The English journal presents a face that is obverse of the one revealed in Urdu. Here, of course, the publisher (or the author) crafted two faces of the same person.[1] But even otherwise, what is not allowed in the English papers The News and The Nation is gleefully put on display in the columns published in their sister journals, Jang and Nawa-i-Waqt, respectively. Pakistani Urdu journals feel no qualms when it comes to nasty personal attacks, ugly innuendoes, blatantly sectarian or communal remarks, rabble-rousing language, and much more in that vein, not to mention grand conspiracies, and amazing prophecies. Urdu men sab chalta hai!

C.M. Naim is Professor Emeritus, University of Chicago

1. On another occasion last year, Dr. Khan thrilled his Urdu readers with the disclosure: "According to the media, [Barack] Obama had earlier said, 'Tear down the Ka'ba, for it is the root of every trouble.'" His English readers, however, were denied that excitement.

 

[ajtr]

 

[Vinod2070]

Terrorism, Shameless Religious Bigotry and Pakistani Mindset​

As I write these sentences, the details of the most shameful attack on thereligious sites of Ahmedis in Lahore are unfolding. However, this is not new as Pakistan has been the victim of this brazen behavior repeatedly. The thirty years of state sponsored "true" Islam is showing its colors. In Pakistan all the minorities are constantly harassed and state's protection has often proved completely ineffective when a serious attack occurs. Although the counterargument can also be made that state is not also able to protect even when Muslims are attacked.

In case of Ahmedis it is a well known fact that they have been victims of state induced discrimination also apart from being openly hated by the public. In fact even today as this most in human barbarity was unfolding I had the opportunity to actually hear people in my office saying that though terrorism is bad Ahmedis deserved it. Muslims are an extremely intolerant group and yet extremely sensitive when it comes to their own religious sensitivities. And when such minorities are under attack the state protection has often been particularly inadequate and public condemnation virtually absent.After all we all remember Gojra where the government was completely unable to provide protection to the Christians when attackers attacked their houses and literally burnt people alive. In that incidence, there was no "sudden' attack but mob actually first assembled after being provoked by the religious clergy and then systematically executed the attack. But even much more horrific was the aftermath where instead of widespread condemnation, the public response was apologetic. That incidence was not a political failure alone. It was national shame and depicted weakness at every level of our society's moral fabric.

What is really dangerous is the complete inability of the media as well as general public to even effectively condemn, let alone stop, horrific acts like religious violence and even general terrorism. The aftermaths of every shameless incidence of hate filled religious bigotry as well as terrorism follows more or less similar pattern. A few sporadic and weak protests are raised while the majority either calls it a grand conspiracy of the West to defame Islam or gives even more hypocritical apologetic defense. Ours is a shallow society which is ready to get enraged over cartoons and Facebook but completely impotent when something far more sinister happens. Killing of so many innocent people should draw far more condemnation and yet all we do is to knit conspiracy theories. In fact our intellectual abilities are generally geared towards knitting conspiracy theories and providing apologetic defense to monsters like Taliban.

In my opinion the failure to condemn and criticize is even more horrifying than the actual tragedy because this insensitivity provides the conducive environment for future sustenance of this hate filled behavior. Our society features rabble rousers and bigots like Zaid Hamids and Dr. Amir Liaqat as the media stars who are actually patronized by mainstream media and promoted by the corporate sector through advertisements. Such characters have openly incited hatred against the Ahmedi community and have also given apologetic defense to terrorism. In civilized countries such people are hated and in our side these are actually adulated. It is this shameless insensitivity, not the grand conspiracies of the West, which breeds terrorism and religious bigotry.

There will be people who would say that in Pakistan even the Muslims are target of terrorism and so therefore this time reference to religious bigotry should not be made. After all, the incident is likely to have been carried out by Pakistani Taliban who have also conducted suicide attacks in the Sunni majority areas. MY RESPONSE WOULD BE THAT WE ARE NOT EVEN ABLE TO CONDEMN THESE MONSTERS WHEN THEY ATTACK US. Therefore to expect that our public will condemn when they attack minorities is actually expecting too much and in fact I know that when it comes to minorities like Ahmedis and Shias, actually such incidences are not even construed as something wrong. Due to hatred against the minorities such incidence would actually find little to no condemnation.

And even when such attacks are conducted against the general public they are conveniently blamed on the grand conspiracy of USA. THE CENTRAL ISSUE IS OF OUR MINDSET WHICH IS DELUSIONAL AND HAS BEEN NURTURED THROUGH ISLAMIC MYTHOLOGY ACCORDING TO WHICH MUSLIMS ARE SUPERIOR IN CALIBRE AS WELL AS VIRTUE AND THEREFORE CANNOT INDULGE IN ANYTHING SINISTER LIKE TERRORISM. In Pakistan, this pattern of thinking is also supplemented by a strong dose of ultra nationalism which assumes Pakistan with its nuclear arsenal to be spearheading the revival of the lost glory of Islam. Primarily this mindset is outward looking and assumes that due to Pakistan's "supreme" importance in the above context, all the non Muslim forces are jealous and therefore trying to create a conducive environment to purge our nuclear arsenal through planting extremism. According to this delusional mindset, the key conspirator is USA which due to its Jewish appeasement and own insecurities against resurgence of glorious Islam is trying to destabilize Pakistan to find an excuse to purge its nuclear arsenal. INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY IS ALSO STRONGLY IMBEDDED IN THIS MINDSET BECAUSE OF ASSUMED SUPERIORITY OF "PURE" MUSLIMS AND DEEP SUSPICION OF NON MUSLIMS. Consequently even those sects such as Ahmedis who identify themselves as Muslims are often called agents planted by the British and later on USA to wreck havoc in the Islamic world's "unity". Hatred against non Muslims and conspiracy theories become the main paradigm through which we see the world.

This mindset has become particularly vigorous after 9/11. Throughout the post 9/11 period, I have just listened to non sense conspiracy theories and complete irrational apologetic defense. Everything is generally blamed on USA and in this process we end up strengthening dark nihilist forces of terrorism and religious extremism. In fact I remember when these monsters attacked Islamic International University, after two day students were protesting not against Taliban but against Kerry Luger bill!

In near past, just because USA was forcing us to take a timely action against the militants, we were all against it because in our heads it was against us and our "own" people. Those delays eventually enabled the militants to have a complete foothold in places like Swat. When news regarding the Taliban atrocities started to emerge, we refused to believe them because some of the western channels were also airing them.

As late as 2009, when flogging video went on air, instead of being appalled, the entire media thrust was on proving that it was a fake. It had to be propaganda against Islam and us. The Nazam-e Adl deal was virtually endorsed by our media and a large section of sensation loving romantic nationalist urban middleclass. And when ANP successfully maneuvered the situation to expose that militants were indeed animals, almost overnight they became bad Taliban who had been created by USA. We conveniently overlooked the fact that in fact USA had been pressurizing us to take action earlier and only a few days before we were reacting violently to opposition to Nazam-e-Adl by calling it interference in our internal affairs. And not surprisingly when reality dawned about Taliban by virtue of a live speech of Sufi Muhammad, we were quick to point out to the possibility of emergence of "Bad" Taliban. In this parallel universe every fact had to be spun to be consistent with the original premise.

Our irrational and hypocritical hatred of the West which is characterized by chanting slogans against them while begging for their visas and foreign aid has now reached such gigantic proportions that even when clearer evidence is presented in front of our eyes about what creed of people Taliban are, we are completely unable to condemn them. Instead we are either calling barbarism a reaction or trying to bifurcate them into good and bad Taliban. A "strategic" asset, created by our own armed forces and defended to madness by our own media, is now believed to be partially bought over by USA. USA the devil becomes our sole point and in that hatred we completely overlook where we are heading. As blood litters our streets, rather than collectively denouncing the ideology of hate and barbarism, our sole reaction is pointing to the same premise in one way or the other. This sole reaction shows the depleted soul of the nation.

We are ready to hold rallies when a few are killed due to a drone attack but speechless when literally hundreds are killed by the Taliban monsters. Rather than trying to fight the miserable creed of monsters we are coming up with new spins of national sovereignty, reaction to US policies, nuclear arsenal, grand conspiracy of US and God knows what else. Consequently, it is becoming exceptionally difficult for the government to muster the political will to sustain this fight which is no longer physical. The hatred is misplaced, the enemy is within, but we are totally oblivious to it and in the process strengthening the forces of extremism through appeasement, apologetic defense or outright denial

Right now it has to be understood that despite differences, at least in one critical aspect, USA's and our interests are common: we face a common enemy. And yet just because they are saying it, we are opposing it and in the process treading on a self destructive path. Our every new interpretation is contradictory to the previous one, but it does not matter; because irrational instincts are driving our introspection. It stretches beyond that. Anyone who opposes Taliban vehemently and does not buy these wild theories is labeled as an unpatriotic, liberal elitist or someone who is a sellout.

The effects of this mindset, if unchecked, will go beyond the current battle against Taliban. As the anti US rhetoric is whipped into frenzy and becomes a popular rallying point, the politics will no longer be an art of identifying core issues and striving to address them but merely expanding the borders of this parallel universe

Terrorism, Shameless Religious Bigotry and Pakistani Mindset Pak Tea House

 

[Iamanidiot]

may be because ahmadiyas are a very well off community and the average pak jabi is using the mullahs sanction as a refuge to vent his frustrations.Are Ahmmaddiyas ,bohras and khoja Shia's the same community

 

[Vinod2070]

Are Ahmmaddiyas ,bohras and khoja Shia's the same community



No, they are all different as far as I know. Some of the 200+ sects in Islam.

 

[Iamanidiot]

jinnah is a khoja Shia

 

[ajtr]

 

[ajtr]

The extremist mindset​

BY SANA SALEEM ON 06 22ND, 2010 | COMMENTS (26)

The incidents that have unfolded in the past couple of weeks have been real eye-openers. Whether it was the issue of internet censorship or the Ahmedi killings, I feel the reactions to such incidents have taught me a lot about understanding intolerance.

I had no idea what was in store for me when I wrote about the Facebook controversy. In fact, I wrote about it before the actual ban and of course, took a strong stance against internet censorship after the ban was implemented. Little did I know, that it was because of my stance on the topic I was declared a 'blasphemer,' 'liberal apologist' and my personal favourite, 'a hijabi CIA, RAW, MOSSAD agent.' Even worse was the fact that people, whom I would normally interact with on social media, joined the bandwagon and questioned my faith. It had come to a point where a stance against censorship was being put in the same league as being against the Prophet (pbuh).

More than once I was asked to clarify 'whether I was with the Prophet (pbuh) or with Facebook.' Such reactions highlight the extremist ideology that has been brewing inside many of us for years, the kind of ideology which otherwise remains dormant but resurfaces at the slightest of issues. Even more shocking were the reactions that came after the Ahmedi killings. Denying that a certain persecuted section of the minority was targeted only reflects the fact that we continue to live in denial.

For years now, there has been talk about the need for a platform where people, mainly the youth, can engage and develop a better understanding of our history, culture and religion. Over the years, we have seen many such reformist movements that ironically either end up getting hijacked for political means or die out altogether. A little apprehensive, given past history,I decided to attend the 'Khudi-The Awakening' launch. Khudi is a social movement that aspires to counter extremist ideologies. As part of the movement, Khudi has also launched an academic magazine.

The man behind the movement, Maajid Nawaz was previously a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir – the aim of that organisation being to unite Muslim countries across the world under a single caliphate. The ideology of the organisation was an extremist one, not to be confused with terrorism. What makes Khudi even more appealing is the fact that Nawaz's efforts stem from his own past of dealing with extremism. It is his journey as a young teenager – fighting against racism and then, joining and propagating the message of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which has led to his reformation. Nawaz's experiences make his ideas on counter-extremism even more practical and applicable. Here is a man who has survived the ordeal and is now ready to not only narrate his experiences but to help others deal with it. The most important aim about the campaign is acknowledging the need to differentiate between an extremist and a terrorist. It is true that while we tackle terrorist organisations, factors that incite terrorism and extremism keep brewing underneath, making it a never-ending war.

With the absence of a counter-terrorism strategy the only strategies we have are reactive (fighting against militant organisations) rather than pro-active (looking at the root cause). Factors that continue to incite intolerance and hate speech remain hidden, never brought to the forefront. The process of identifying such a mindset is crucial and this is where social movements such as Khudi can play a vital role.

Nawaz has initiated the Khudi movement which promises to promote democratic culture and considers that as the antidote for extremism. However, it might take more than just one such movement to address conflicting ideologies that have been ingrained into our mindset.

There is no doubt that we desperately need to promote democratic culture, the kind that allows us, as a society, to respect individual rights and diverse opinion. After all, democracy is not only limited to using our rights to vote; it is about tolerance and co-existence, it is about celebrating our heroes, it is about standing in solidarity with the victims irrespective of their belief and it is about being humanitarians.

As Nawaz pointed out: "Democracy must forever remain prisoner to human rights. Democratic culture is about respecting human rights, freedom of speech and individual choice."

 

[ajtr]

US report ties militancy to Pakistan school woes​

WASHINGTON: Pakistan's poor public education system helps stoke militancy, while the religious schools often cited as a cause of extremism appear not to be a major risk factor, says a report by a Washington think tank.

The report, set to be released by the Brookings Institution on Wednesday, examined a raft of studies to assess links between militancy and education, a priority area for the Obama administration as it boosts development aid to Islamabad.

The researchers said low enrolment rates were a risk factor for violence and demand for education inside Pakistan far exceeded the government's ability to provide it.

In addition, Pakistan's public school system was highly corrupt with positions handed out for political favours and teachers paid whether they turned up for class or not.

"The way the education system is set up is contributing to support militancy," said Rebecca Winthrop, with the Center for Universal Education at Brookings.

"Historically education in Pakistan has been used as a tool by successive regimes in pursuing narrow political ends," she added.

The curriculum and teaching methods in public schools helped create intolerant views and also did little to prepare students for the labour market, frustrating youngsters and increasing the pool of militant recruits, the report said.

Winthrop and fellow conflict specialist Corinne Graff said the religious schools, or madrassahs, that were frequently cited by the West as causing militancy, were not as numerous as suspected. Far less than 10 per cent of the full-time, school-going population went to them.

"Madrassahs account for a tiny fraction of student enrolment and they can hardly be cast as the main obstacle to high quality education and stability," they wrote.

"The almost exclusive focus on madrassahs as a security challenge — which is especially prevalent in the West — needs to be corrected," the researchers added.

Sobering statistics

Education statistics in Pakistan are "sobering", they said — just 54 per cent of the population is able to read and 6.8 million children between the ages of 5 and 9 are not in school.

Less than a quarter of the girls complete elementary school and only one-third of Pakistani children get a secondary education, with many dropping out.

"The data shows that lack of access to schooling is a risk factor for conflict or militancy. We know that Pakistan has extremely limited access (to education)," said Graff.

The Obama administration has promised to put more money into improving education in Pakistan and has made it a focus of the $1.5 billion in non-military aid allocated annually by Congress for Pakistan over the next five years.

"Undoubtedly, a high-quality education system prepares its students to participate in and contribute to economic growth, which leads towards security and stability," said Rajiv Shah, who heads the US Agency for International Development.

"Improvements in education are critical to reducing violence," he said in an email response to questions.

USAID's total education budget in Pakistan for fiscal year 2010 is $335 million — with $265 million for basic education and the remainder for higher education. Since 2002, USAID has invested $682 million for education projects in Pakistan.

One way in which the money is being used is to offer stipends to families as a temporary measure to offset the cost of education for the poor.

The Brookings researchers cited problems with the curriculum in many schools, with historical facts altered and hatred towards archrival India and Hindus prominent in texts.

Shah encouraged Pakistan's government to implement a new curriculum announced in 2007, which he said addressed many problems with previous content but had not been put in place.

For example, with the new curriculum, science and math were treated as secular subjects and Islamic studies was a stand-alone topic, he said.

 

[Zaki]

Are Ahmmaddiyas ,bohras and khoja Shia's the same community



No, they are all different as far as I know. Some of the 200+ sects in Islam.

no there are not 200 sects in Islam. Only a few that you can count on your finger tips and please do not mention Ahmedis in the same sentance as other sects of Islam. They are completely a different nation with different religion. Their ideology might be similar to us but they do not qualify for the basic criteria to become Muslim.

They only use our identity and their foundations collide with the basic pillars/principles of Islam

Thanks

 

[nitesh]

worth read:

BEYOND MADRASAS ASSESSING THE LINKS BETWEEN EDUCATION AND MILITANCY IN PAKISTAN