What's new

Age of madness

What we need to do is open our eyes and confront them.

Only when the one way traffic of violence is reversed will we have begun to confront them - Pakistanis cannot count on the state to do this - The state and it's cynical armed forces and it's criminal police are not, cannot be part of the solution, they are in fact apathetic to the peoples and pursue their own personal and corporate interests.

So, how do the people begin to confront these radicals? There's just one way, organize, big things can have small beginnings -- Soon, there will be voices asking whether you understand the implication of organizing for such and that such a thing could tear the country apart -- but isn't it your and the state's apathy that has already torn the country apart?? You want to give them more opportunities to screw you and yours???

Begin by showing yourself that you don't need them, they need you, the politicians need you, those armed forces, they need you, those police forces, they need you - in order for you to be the center of these whose reason for being, for existing, is your protection and prosperity, you must show them that you are willing to drop them, that you are willing to by pass them, that Pakistan belongs to you, not them.
 
VIEW: Are we a nation of murderers?

Daily Times
Marvi Sirmed
March 06, 2011

Never had I felt so dejected and heartbroken throughout my life of activism and movements I had ever been a modest part of, the way I did when a friend called me to be careful. These ‘be careful’ messages have become a routine after each of my media appearances. “No dammit, you have to remain at your home today,” the frantic voice at the other end insisted with unusual fray of fear, concern and shock. Something had finally happened that we have been apprehending for over a month. Not even eight weeks had passed since the Governor of Punjab’s brutal assassination by his own security detail, when an exceptionally fine, committed, courageous member of the federal cabinet, Federal Minister for Minorities Shahbaz Bhatti had been killed by ‘unknown’ assailants.

We were still contemplating ways to challenge the extremist blitzkrieg directed towards every voice of dissent post-Salmaan Taseer’s assassination when we were given this irreparable blow to the movement for sanity. People were still fighting their fear after January 4 when the voice of Governor Taseer was silenced, when they were once again pushed to an even deeper sense of dread and reticence. It could only happen in an environment where every institution, every responsible functionary, just everyone was shifting the responsibility onto each other’s shoulders and shoulders unknown.

No one in the Punjab government took a stern decision to remove the salaried cleric of Badshahi Masjid when he refused to lead the funeral prayers of the slain governor based on a media-created false notion of alleged blasphemy by him, which he had never committed. No one else could teach a lesson to the clerics and media persons who had been inciting violence through their irresponsible pulpits located in mosques and in TV channels’ studios. No one could act sternly against those hurling fatwas (edicts) against Sherry Rehman (MNA from the PPP who had moved a bill to amend the blasphemy laws) and anybody who supports Aasia Bibi, the alleged blasphemer, sentenced to death for the same.

Someone could not come on the streets against the shouting mullahs belonging to banned extremist and terrorist outfits’ readily joined by the religious political parties. Someone could not ensure that these banned outfits are shunned before coming openly on the streets and inciting people. Someone could not highlight the public sentiment against religion-based violence; in favour of an extremist viewpoint, which was being overly glorified 24/7. Someone maliciously moulded and falsely depicted the orchestrated viewpoint of minority urban confused youth as being representative of Pakistan. Someone did never let it come to light that there have been no rallies in support of Salmaan Taseer’s killers in any rural areas of Punjab, all of Sindh, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The viewpoint of just three cities was presented as that of the entire country.

Someone could not say loudly that Salmaan Taseer died for a right cause, which must be owned by the institutions, people and those who run the country. Someone did not deal with the elements that have permeated the structure of state in the shape of Qadri, his associates, those who were sitting in institutions like Pakistan Television (PTV) and PEMRA who changed the word “Shaheed” (martyr) for Salmaan Taseer by a milder “murdered” within an hour of his assassination. Someone could not come forward in paying tribute to his sacrifice. Someone ducked in even participating at the tribute events organised by common (and few) citizens. Someone made a mockery of justice by appointing an arch-enemy of Shaheed Salmaan Taseer as the in-charge of prosecution in his murder case. Someone could not cancel the licences of lawyers who openly pledged their support — not professional, but ideological and moral — to the lunatic killer. Someone could not take action against jail employees who refused to open the jail gates for the cursed murderer, Qadri.

There is a long list of those who could not do what they needed to do. But one thing we all kept doing with commitment, i.e. pointing fingers at someone else for not doing the needful. One did not see any banner, poster, public media display of the support to what Salmaan Taseer gave his life for, or to pay tribute to him. But we all saw hundreds of expressions from the opponents fearlessly displaying their support for the killers. One did not see even one statement from anybody who had pointedly condemned those who kept on coming on the streets and threatening all of those courageous activists and media persons who were still condemning the murder. One could not see any verbal attack on the banned terrorist organisations by anyone — politicians, media, lawyers, liberals, and civil society. No banner to condemn the enemy. Seems even our hatred is being controlled by those who do not want us to turn against them, but against a wrongly perceived enemy.

Give a cursory look at the list of these “someones” and you would find out that all of us are accomplices in the situation that resulted in the murder of Shahbaz Bhatti. He was not a minor minister. He had accomplished rare achievements while being a part of the cabinet. One can recall the minority ministers under the last dictator, Pervez Musharraf, who had greatly damaged the cause by being timid and in many cases, by being collaborators in keeping not only the blasphemy laws but other highly discriminatory laws safe. Shaheed Shahbaz Bhatti was undoubtedly a voice of change not only for the minorities but also for the country at large. He had announced August 11 as the day of the minorities. Recognising the fact that the blasphemy laws of Pakistan authored by a military dictator (not divine by any means) had proved the most flawed of all laws to have eaten up the lives of Muslims, Ahmedis, Christians and Hindus alike, Shahbaz Bhatti remained committed to the changes that would allow relief to all the citizens of Pakistan.

Despite these vicious laws, over 33 people have been killed out of court as a result of public vigilantism. If religious fanatics have to decide the fate of every alleged blasphemer, where is the need for these laws at all? And if every voice of dissent, every voice committed to modernity, sense, logic and compassion has to be silenced like this with the state’s tacit consent, where is the need to call us a republic? Declare it a khilafat (caliphate) and do away with parliament, the so-called free judiciary and executive branches. Let’s confess that we have become a nation state of murderers who murder their heroes by being insensitive enough to let it happen every two months.

The writer is a freelance columnist and rights activist.
 
Only when the one way traffic of violence is reversed will we have begun to confront them - Pakistanis cannot count on the state to do this - The state and it's cynical armed forces and it's criminal police are not, cannot be part of the solution, they are in fact apathetic to the peoples and pursue their own personal and corporate interests.

So, how do the people begin to confront these radicals? There's just one way, organize, big things can have small beginnings -- Soon, there will be voices asking whether you understand the implication of organizing for such and that such a thing could tear the country apart -- but isn't it your and the state's apathy that has already torn the country apart?? You want to give them more opportunities to screw you and yours???

Begin by showing yourself that you don't need them, they need you, the politicians need you, those armed forces, they need you, those police forces, they need you - in order for you to be the center of these whose reason for being, for existing, is your protection and prosperity, you must show them that you are willing to drop them, that you are willing to by pass them, that Pakistan belongs to you, not them.
Muse, you know and I know we ordinary people are hardly a match to the battlefield-hardened religious extremists, they will wipe us out.

I believe our armed forces with the unbending determination of our people and with the support of political parties (I know you hate politicians :D) can defeat them. Swat is a good example, there, the people, armed forces and politicians worked together to defeat the barbarians.

But unfortunately, that will never happen as long as our Generals fight a selective war on terrorism and follow Zia’s evil (military/mullah alliance) legacy.
 
MNA Asiya protesting in the Nation Assembly against the brutal assasination of Shahbaz Bhatti:


Very emotional speech!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pakistan: Silence has become the mother of all blasphemies​

Two months ago, after Governor Salmaan Taseer's murder and the jubilant support for the policeman who killed him, religious scholars in Pakistan told us that since common people don't know enough about religion they should leave it to those who do – basically anyone with a beard.

Everyone thought it made a cruel kind of sense. So everyone decided to shut up: the Pakistan Peoples party (PPP) government because it wanted to cling to power, liberals in the media because they didn't want to be the next Taseer. The move to amend the blasphemy law was shelved.

It was an unprecedented victory for Pakistan's mullah minority. They had told a very noisy and diverse people to shut up and they heard back nothing but silence. After Pakistan's only Christian federal minister, Shahbaz Bhatti – the bravest man in Islamabad – was murdered on Tuesday, they were back on TV, this time condemning the killing, claiming it was a conspiracy against them, against Islam and against Pakistan. The same folk who had celebrated one murder and told us how not to get murdered were wallowing in self pity.

In a very short span of time, Pakistan's mullahs and muftis have managed to blur the line between what God says and what they say. The blasphemy law debate was about how to prosecute people who have committed blasphemy against the prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an. Since repeating a blasphemy, even if it is to prove the crime in a court of law, is blasphemous, no Pakistani has a clear idea what constitutes blasphemy. Taseer had called the blasphemy law "a black law" and was declared a blasphemer. The line between maligning the Holy Prophet and questioning a law made by a bunch of mullahs was done away with. What would come next?

During the last two months sar tan se juda (off with their heads) has become as familiar a slogan as all the corporate songs about the Cricket World Cup. Banners appeared all over Karachi and Islamabad last week demanding death for a Pakistani writer. The only problem is that nobody quite knows what she has written. Her last book came out more than eight years ago and, if it wasn't so scary, it would be ironic that it is called Blasphemy. It was a potboiler set mostly in religious and spiritual leaders' bedrooms. The banners condemning her say that not only she has insulted the prophet, she has insulted religious scholars.

So now disagreeing with anyone who has a beard and armed bodyguards can get you killed. The PPP government has tried to appease this lot by silencing the one-and-a-half liberal voices it had. What it didn't realise is that you can't really appease people who insist their word is God's word, their honour as sacred as the Holy Prophet's. In Pakistan, silence is the mother of all blasphemies. Most Pakistanis are committing that blasphemy and being punished for it.

Mohammed Hanif is a journalist and author of the novel A Case of Exploding Mangoes

Pakistan: Silence has become the mother of all blasphemies | Mohammed Hanif | World news | The Guardian
 
Muse, you know and I know we ordinary people are hardly a match to the battlefield-hardened religious extremists, they will wipe us out.

I believe our armed forces with the unbending determination of our people and with the support of political parties (I know you hate politicians ) can defeat them.


You will note that the one way traffic was interrupted yesterday (Madni) --- all readers are invited to please review the response to unfortunate events :

Religious scholar, son killed in Karachi
Yesterday
DAWN.COM

KARACHI: Unknown gunmen assassinated a leader of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat and his son on Saturday night.

According to police, Maulana Ahmed Madni, founder of Jamia Mehmoodia in Bufferzone, was killed when armed men open fire on his car in the area of North Karachi.

Panic spread in adjacent areas after airing of news of the killing and people closed their businesses in Nagan Chorangi, North Karachi and other areas.


The article does not state it but Madni was Maulana Azam Tariq (of Sepah e Sahaba SSP fame) -- Rabzon, we have no choice, the Pakistani state and the Pakistani armed forces have left the people with no other choice --- really I think Pakistan are not learning from events in their larger neighborhood - the war between the politicians and the security apparatus of the state, over the state works to the detriment of the people, it's entirely inappropriate and trust me on this, money is "Daard ki Daava" - the security apparatus may regret the insensitivity with which they have played this game.
 
The piece below was printed in today's "The News International" -- It is not just some people on Defence.pk who call on peoples to awaken to action --- One can only hope that the dignity the Tunisian and the Egyptian have recovered may be a contagion Pakistanis are susceptible to:




Apathy and abandonment

Nosheen Saeed
Friday, March 11, 2011


This article is dedicated to Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer and my dear colleague Minorities Affairs Minister Shahbaz Bhatti who became victims of government “apathy and abandonment” but stood tall in the eyes of their countrymen as “men of substance” and raised the bar for all of us, to uphold the voice of reason and sanity in the country.

Pakistanis were visibly shaken and upset over the horrific assassinations of Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti and it was expected of President Zardari that he would address the nation, condemn the brutal killings explicitly, pay homage to the deceased for their services and urge the people to show fortitude but lo and behold! The president purportedly wrote an article in the Washington Post seeking the “trust and confidence of our international allies” asking them not to lose patience.

It was shocking to read the president blaming Bhatti’s murder on extremists tied to al-Qaeda and the Taliban without any substantial proof. It seems to have become fashionable nowadays to blame security lapses and one’s own “slip-ups and incompetence” on al-Qaeda, the Taliban and religious intolerance. The million dollar question is what steps has the government taken to bring to justice the handful of extremists; which the president calls a small but increasingly belligerent minority?

Saying that extremists’ acts will not deter the government from its calibrated efforts to eliminate extremism, is nothing but a “performer playing” to the gallery. The buzz in the streets is that successive governments have raised the bogey of Muslim extremists just to stay in power. And if one is so concerned about the “future of Pakistan” then one needs to end unbridled crime, callous corruption, and damaging cronyism that have become existentialist threats for Pakistan.

For Pakistanis, life now seems like a never-ending curse and wherever one goes and whoever one meets, the topic seems to be the same; the Zardari-Gilani led government has failed on all counts and Pakistan needs a saviour to rescue it from further damage, preferably a man like the Quaid-e-Azam; and I find myself thinking how naïve can they be? If a man with Jinnah’s secular, progressive, moderate vision, espousing values such as religious freedom, equality of citizenship, social justice, human rights and women’s empowerment walked the country today, someone would surely take his life.


The Pakistani “ruling clique” possesses such an insatiable appetite for power-quests, and greed that it would trample under its feet anyone challenging the status quo and the ulema having obtained a firm grip in the affairs of the state would consider “reversal or fine-tuning” profanity. Having no distinguishing character or quality they have unfortunately crossed the line from sanity to madness and Pakistan has become the victim of their psychosis.

History bears witness that the capture of Jinnah’s Pakistan by those whom Jinnah reportedly described as “khottey sikay” was achieved during his lifetime. While thousands had thronged to greet Quaid-e-Azam at the Mauripur Airport in 1947, including cabinet ministers and members of the diplomatic corps, on his arrival at the same airport a year later from Ziarat, there was no one at the airport but Colonel Geoferry Knowles, his Military Secretary.

The ambulance taking the critically unwell governor general from the Mauripur airport to his house mysteriously stalled after covering just four miles and ran short of petrol. In the unbearable heat, Pakistan’s founding father lay on a stretcher in the broken-down ambulance, parked on a deserted railway level-crossing, waiting helplessly for help to arrive. While two hours from Quetta to Karachi were tiring enough for someone in poor health, the delay, neglect and two hours from Mauripur airport to the governor-general’s house unquestionably hastened his end.

After reaching the governor general’s residence Quaid-e-Azam died within a few hours.
In the words of Akbar S. Ahmed, “I thought of Jinnah old, sick and dying, so vulnerable in the capital of his own state. The broken-down ambulance was a pathetic reflection on those who had benefitted the most – the Pakistanis in power

Three days before Pakistan came into being, Quaid-e-Azam’s speech, phenomenally secular, talked of his dream of Pakistan, “all citizens are equal citizens... Hindus will cease to be Hindus... Muslims will cease to be Muslims... any religion, caste, creed would have nothing to do with the business of the state.” His address to the nation on August 11, 1947 to the members of the first Pakistan Constituent Assembly which held the status of a national covenant was not only distorted in print but vanished and later surfaced after nearly five decades. The press was prohibited to report it for three days because Jinnah’s deputy Liaquat Ali Khan ordered its censorship considering it fearfully secular.

And to this day our rulers who claim to be “liberal and progressive” don’t have the courage and political will to make the Quaid’s speech part of the Constitution of Pakistan, and are bent on appeasing the religious lobbies who have time and again desecrated our founding father’s political thoughts. The very ulemas who had openly opposed Quaid-e-Azam and denounced Pakistan have claimed time and again that the whole fight for Pakistan was on religious grounds and that they alone should be entrusted with the task of shaping its polity.

A study of the Pakistan movement clearly indicates that the Islamic state did not figure prominently during the period of struggle. The propelling slogan during the struggle for Pakistan was to establish a homeland that safeguards Muslim interests, rights, economic opportunities, equality and social justice. Islam was the unifying and motivating force no doubt but the method to achieve the goal was not a religious movement but political agitation. The struggle for Pakistan was led by men of politics rather than religion. The Muslim League leadership came entirely from the Western educated, secularised Muslim professionals of Cambridge and the Inns of Court who had studied not theology and Islamic law but politics and common law.


Tragically, the forces that had already chalked out their post-Jinnah agenda, those hostile to Jinnah and the Muslim League, the Pakistan movement and the two-nation theory vowed to establish an Islamic state based on traditional Shariah law and waged an incessant struggle “without interruption” and every successive government willingly surrendered to gain political advantages or legitimacy.



The writer is an MNA. Email: nosheensaeed58@hotmail.com
 
VIEW: March 12: death anniversary of ‘Jinnah’s Pakistan’

Daily Times
Marvi Sirmed
March 13, 2011

The week starting March 7 to March 12 had very special consequences for the Pakistan that was going to start its journey post-1949. The non-representative First Constituent Assembly of Pakistan started debate on the document that laid down the aims and objectives of the future constitution(s) of the country. The infamous Objectives Resolution, presented on March 7, passed on March 12, 1949, generated alarm among the minority members as well as Muslim members believing in secular ideals. The resolution called for Islam to be made the basis of the future constitution and statutes while guaranteeing the rights of minorities.

The resolution, although in line with the demands of Abul Ala Maududi, the founder head of the orthodox Jamaat-e-Islami and the strongest opponent of the idea of Pakistan, did not please religious groups completely. The right hand man of Jinnah and his most trusted lieutenant, Liaquat Ali Khan, made sure to drift the business of the Constituent Assembly away from what Jinnah had laid down as the guiding principles in his address to the first session of the same assembly on August 11, 1947. Jinnah had clearly said: “You may belong to any religion or caste or creed; that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” Before this address, Jinnah had made the point clear on a number of occasions.

If we go back to All India Muslim League’s Annual Session on March 23, 1940, in the entire proceedings, none of the speakers made any reference to Islamic system, shariah law or Islamic government — not even Muslim government. The discussion revolved around two main points, i.e. settling the constitutional question of united India through readjustment in its geographical units by making sets of Muslim majority states (please note the plural) as separate administrative units for Muslims; secondly, appropriate, effective and obligatory measures were demanded for the minorities in such territorial readjustments. The explanation of ‘minorities’, it goes without saying, was not restricted to Muslims (who by default would be in majority in such readjustments), but comprised diverse religious communities living in these parts of India.

In 1946 again, when the newly elected members of parliament from All India Muslim League adopted the word ‘state’ instead of ‘states’ in the Lahore Resolution of 1940, no reference to an Islamic system or theocracy could be traced in their discussions and documents relating to the objectives of the League or aims of partition. On April 11, 1946, Jinnah, while speaking to All India Muslim League’s (AIML) Convention in Delhi, said, AIML’s aim was not theocracy: “... neither do we want a theocratic state. None of us could deny the existence of religion as an important factor of our individual lives but there are other things that are very important for life”. He further elaborated it by giving examples of people’s social life and economic life, which he placed as more important things than theocratic considerations. Remember, it was 1946, just a year from his making that speech to the first Constituent Assembly of 1947. It may also be noted that for such views, Jinnah had to face edicts of being a kaafir (non-believer) from religious leaders in 1938.

Now let us get back to what happened in 1949 in a clear divorce from Jinnah’s principle of representative democracy, which should have had nothing to do with religion or theocracy. The session on March 7 starts with the recitation of the Holy Quran (it may be noted that under Jinnah’s presidentship it never started with it, which he viewed as dominance of one religion and against the principles of equality — the very principle for which Muslims had fought in united India for Pakistan) followed by Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan’s speech, at the end of which he presented the 10-liner Objectives Resolution that laid down the foundations of present Pakistan and buried the one Jinnah had envisioned and mobilised the Muslims of India to fight for.

The resolution sparked instant reaction and alarm among the minority members who started proposing amendments to it that very day. The 10 points of the Objectives Resolution reposed the sovereignty of the entire universe in Allah Almighty and delegated authority upon the state of Pakistan through chosen representatives of the people as “enunciated by Islam”, where Muslims would be enabled to order their individual and collective lives in accordance with the teachings of Islam set out in the Quran and sunnah with “adequate provisions for minorities to freely profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures”.

The debate that followed the tabling of this resolution shows almost all the minority members shrieking the dying principle of all-encompassing and egalitarian democracy. The opposition in the first Constituent Assembly comprised the 11-member Pakistan National Congress, all Hindus from East Pakistan. The pressure for Islamic provisions on the Pakistan Muslim League, the party in government, did not come only from its partners Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (led by Maulana Shabeer Ahmad Usmani), Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif from the then NWFP, etc, but was also from some of its own members from provincial chapters of PML according to the research paper written by Kauser Perveen on the Objectives Resolution debate. This pressure also came from the historical baggage of All India Muslim League that had portrayed itself as the sole representative of all the Muslims of united India, thus losing the ability to talk against religious considerations openly and categorically in the absence of the only strong leader who had led it without being able to create a second line leadership capable enough to spell out the secular principles.

Many leading historians and legal experts have been accomplices of the religious right-wing, within the PML and outside the Constituent Assembly, in distorting the spirit of a non-theocratic state Jinnah had been advocating for so long. Hamid Khan is not an exception when he writes his voluminous Constitutional and Political History of Pakistan. In this one-sided account of the Objectives Resolution debate, Hamid Khan picks up Jinnah’s quotes out of context, which are made to appear as supportive of what the resolution claimed, while conveniently ignoring every reference of Jinnah that he had been categorically spelling out against theocracy before and after Pakistan’s birth. Hamid Khan is not alone in this distortion; scores of Pakistani authors have done it on purpose and in utter ignorance.

The resolution, although differed from Maududi’s demands in not including the sentence “sovereignty belongs to Allah Almighty alone and government of Pakistan has no right other than to enforce the will of Allah”. Maududi also called for the shariah as basic law of Pakistan and revocation of all laws that were, in his view, repugnant to Islam. He had also proposed that no law should ever be passed in Pakistan that goes against shariah and that the government should exercise authority within the limits prescribed by Islamic shariah. There was no mention of minorities in the demands made by Maududi though.

Whereas the orthodoxy demanded by Maududi did not become part of the Objectives Resolution, the spirit of the resolution remained the same, which was adopted with increasing tilt towards Maududiisation in subsequent constitutions of Pakistan. The Islamic provisions kept on increasing with every coming constitution till 1973 that made the state of Pakistan, finally, an Islamic state, followed by the interventions of military dictator Ziaul Haq, who made this resolution an integral part of the constitution as against the previous ones that included it as a mere preamble. There matures Maududi’s Pakistan, the seeds of which were sown on March 12, 1949 when the Objectives Resolution was passed. Rest in peace Jinnah’s Pakistan!


The writer is an independent researcher and rights’ activist in Islamabad.
 
My Pakistan is a progressive Pakistan: Shehrbano Taseer

Published: March 13, 2011

Shehrbano-Taseer-REUTERS-2-640x480.jpg

Salmaan Taseer's daughter Shehrbano Taseer speaks about her father's assassination. PHOTO: REUTERS


Shehrbano Taseer, speaking on the Express 24/7 show “Faceoff with Munizae Jehangir”, which aired on Friday, said that everyone is collectively to be blamed for the assassinations of Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer and Federal Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti.

She said that if it was not for the current government or the previous government appeasing terrorists, then these incidents would not have taken place.

Taseer said the rallies that took place after her father’s death made her see the ugly face of extremism in the country however the people who held those demonstrations were not a majority. “They are certainly loud, well armed and well funded but they are not a majority,” she said.

The late governor’s daughter said that she felt the media was also responsible for Salmaan Taseer’s assassination because it acted irresponsibly. She said the media gave undue space to “hot-headed right wingers, screaming bloody murder,” instead of starting a debate on the blasphemy laws.

“In a country that calls itself a democracy, the frontiers of expression have shrunk,” said Taseer commenting on the murders of the Punjab governor and the minister for minority affairs.

Taseer said that certain people have made her father out to be an evil man, but they cannot shame him; “he was a great man,” she said.

She said that she does not live in fear because that is what the terrorists capitalise on. “I am not going to give my county to them on a silver platter,” said Taseer.

Taseer informed that her family had received several threatening letter after her father’s assassination and despite requests from friends to them urging them to leave the country, Taseer said “we are Pakistanis; we will build our lives in Pakistan; we will live to better the lives of Pakistanis. We will not go anywhere.”

Taseer said she sees “unwavering hope in Pakistan,” and if everyone was to work for a better Pakistan, they would not see the fruits of it tomorrow, but they will in the next 20 years or so.

She said that her Pakistan “is a progressive Pakistan” and it will move forward.
 
VIEW: At ideological crossroads

Daily Times
Yasser Latif Hamdani
March 14 2011

Pakistan, as a state, has always been conscious of its Muslim identity but till 1977, at least, this Muslim identity was not at odds with modernity, democracy and human rights. The 1956 and 1962 constitutions significantly did not have a state religion. The 1973 constitution made that concession but, in the pre-Zia form, it was still arguably a liberal Islamic constitution. Bhutto’s compromises notwithstanding, it was General Ziaul Haq who laid the foundations for a rabidly fundamentalist society by confusing Pakistanis about their history. A generation of Pakistanis grew up believing, quite inaccurately, that Pakistan was achieved so that Muslims could establish an Islamic theocracy and be governed by shariah law.

It is not uncommon to hear the argument that Pakistan must be an Islamic theocracy because Pakistan was founded on religion, not nationalism. Indeed, this fallacious argument has been accepted by the courts in the Zia era and beyond. It is also argued that if not for the establishment of an Islamic theocracy, why did the Muslims of the subcontinent opt for a separate country? While these assertions require proper rebuttals, they also betray infirmity on the part of those making them.

First of all, undeniably, Pakistan was created on the basis of group nationalism and not religion. Group nationalism can contain many elements including common religious beliefs and common historical experience. If Pakistan were to be founded on religion, there would be no need to articulate the Two Nation Theory, especially in terms of culture, history, customs and language. Ostensibly, it would have been enough to say that we wanted to create an Islamic state but, strangely enough, that was never claimed by the Muslim League. In fact, one Muslim Leaguer who made a claim of this kind was expelled from the League by Jinnah himself. The one occasion that the idea of the League being committed to the establishment of an Islamic state was presented as a resolution, Jinnah vetoed it, calling it a “censure on every Leaguer”. As a politician, Jinnah of course attempted to speak in a language that was comprehensible to his constituency. Hence he spoke of the Islamic principles of equality, fraternity and justice and claimed that democracy was ingrained in Islamic theory and practice. Yet, as a statesman, he ensured that references to Islam were kept out of resolutions and constitutional documents. So long as he was alive, the first president of the constituent assembly did not allow a single move to Islamise the then largest Muslim country in the world.

It is for this reason that Maulana Maududi summed up his opposition to Pakistan by saying that the “objective of the Muslim League is to create an infidel government of Muslims”. Yet today his party, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), is in the forefront of the claim that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam. The underlying concern for those working to establish Pakistan was the economic and political future of Muslims, who they feared would be marginalised in a united India. Today, thanks to the religious right-wing of Pakistan, our economic and political future looks bleak anyway.

MJ Akbar, an Indian author, recently said that for there to be a peaceful and prosperous Pakistan, the children of Jinnah must defeat the children of Maududi. For this to happen we need to revisit social studies, Pakistan studies, history and Islamiat curricula first and foremost. A concerted effort has to be made to better explain the historical events leading up to Pakistan but for that to happen, the state must drop its excess ideological baggage and instead opt for ideas that are universally acceptable as the basis for nation building.

Indeed, that is the battle line that has now been drawn. Here one may add that the current wave of fundamentalism and extremism is, in any event, unsustainable over a longer period of time. The world is in the throes of a grand global information revolution. In an integrated world where information travels in seconds and not minutes, to continue to espouse retrogressive notions of religiosity is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.

The recent assassinations of Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti are indicative of an increasingly frustrated mentality that is acting out in desperation. No bullet, no army and no state can stop an idea whose time has come. The question before us Pakistanis is whether we want to delay the process and make it painful for us as a nation or if we want to reform sooner rather than later and make the process painless.

Historically, those who have delayed the process of reform have always ended up at the other extreme end. France took 100 years to rescind the concordat that Napoleon had entered into making Catholicism the official faith of France. When it did though, it espoused a militant version of secularism, which bordered on persecuting religion. It was Sultan Abdul Hamid’s decision to undo the constitutional reforms of the 19th century, which led to the Young Turks Revolution and later the Turkish Revolution, which founded the modern Republic of Turkey. Pakistan, much like Turkey, is the sick man of South Asia today. Let this be a fair warning.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at Pak Tea House | Pakistan – past, present and future
 
The Pakistani spirit​

We have witnessed decline, failures, and ineptitude of the ruling classes of Pakistan in the past couple of decades, but that is not the whole story. Rational and constructive self-critique is necessary for the self-evaluation of a society. It helps us know what our progress is, what we can achieve and why we are not doing well compared to our past record or to other nations at the same/comparable level of development. Such cold-blooded analysis can wrest our decline, and could help us chart a better course.

There are many factors, both internal and external, at play. For instance, one relates to the fact that two superpowers have occupied Afghanistan during the last three decades or so and have, as a result, shaped its state and society according to their vision. Internally, there is the issue of institutional imbalances, in particular between the civilians and the military. There is also the existence of a feudal mindset, which is driven by arrogance and a winner-takes-it-all attitude. Even with these problems, we have made tremendous progress, though lesser than our potential, and far lesser than we could imagine, given our human and natural resource factors. It is important that we celebrate our successes, build on them and change what is not working in the system by pragmatic and practical reasoning.
There needs to be a serious debate on the progress of Pakistan in every field of national life — from agriculture, industry to education. Progress in these areas will take us forward. It is remarkable that while our population has more than quadrupled, we export wheat, rice, cotton and sugar. And by some estimates, we are now the fifth-largest milk-producing country in the world. There have been periods of remarkable growth, but also slackness. There were times when our GNP and GDP growth rate were faster than that of India. Today, the reverse is true. The point is that we can rise and we can rebuild as we have tremendous potential. At the moment, it is a flawed vision of public policy on critical national issues, political polarisation and a climate of insecurity that our new enemy, terrorism, has imposed on us which is holding us back. It is crucial that the government provides direction and a sense of leadership to the nation.

Our failure, I believe, is neither collective nor so grave as to pull us down — the way some of the national and foreign experts tend to believe. No society can be judged solely through the performance of the government or its elite. Not always, and not on every issue, has the Pakistani elite or the government, now democratic in form if not entirely in substance, has failed. We blame our political leaders for many failings. Sometimes we overextend the limits or our freedom, but they have delivered on provincial autonomy and have restored the original spirit of the Constitution with remarkable consensus. And even in the face of the harshest of criticism from the media and public intellectuals, governments have not reacted with power or overt coercion the way they used to a couple of decades ago. This is no small progress compared to most of the Muslim nations struggling with dictators, monarchies and personalised rule in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Most important of all, it is the Pakistani spirit, the resilience of a Pakistani person and historic bonds of solidarity and pluralism that have kept our society moving forward. The bouts of power struggles and mismanagement of our elected leaders and public officials have often been frustrating, but haven’t destroyed the spirit. In private and societal spheres, our achievements are second to none. It is this sphere that we need to enlarge and empower to force the governments to do better. Democracy and its substance will grow with public pressure, vigilance and by moving the Pakistani spirit to the public sphere.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 14th, 2011.

The Pakistani spirit – The Express Tribune
 
very difficult times for pakistan. nothing gonna change until and unless we pakistanis don't want to solve our problems. on the other hand problems cannot be solved before recognizing them.
 
THINKING ALOUD: The return of jahiliyah​

With the known ‘infidels’ out of the way, religious fundamentalists needed new enemies to keep their fires stoked and their hateful hunger satiated. So they turned on themselves, creating a whole new set of heretics, apostates, blasphemers and infidels

At a time when enlightenment is seeping through the Islamic heartland in the Middle East, jahiliyah (stubborn arrogance) is taking Pakistan by the throat. If the founder of the country, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, were alive today, he would live in fear, like the millions of others who share his secular ideology.

Murderous thugs control the country in the name of Islam, from Khyber to Karachi and from Lahore to Lasbela. This is no accident; it has been a long time coming. The chain of actual events and the process of constitutional and mental regression that have led to this can be traced back to Pakistan’s beginnings.

Intolerance and bigotry first began to creep rather innocuously into Pakistan’s body politic with the passage of the Objectives Resolution under Liaquat Ali Khan. It gathered pace under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s politically expedient concessions to the Islamists. Ziaul Haq’s constitutional amendments and propaganda on the pretext of Islamisation turned it into a fearsome juggernaut.

At the mundane level, followers of a religion that means ‘submission’ and ‘peace’ and preaches tolerance first systematically got rid of the Hindus and Sikhs who chose to live in Pakistan after partition. Then they began to bay for the blood of Ahmedis, a minority sect of Islam at the time, and did not rest until they were put at par with infidels or worse.

With the known ‘infidels’ out of the way, religious fundamentalists needed new enemies to keep their fires stoked and their hateful hunger satiated. So they turned on themselves, creating a whole new set of heretics, apostates, blasphemers and infidels.

The Wahabi/Deobandi sect, organised variously as Jamaats, Jamiats, Taliban and Lashkars, went after Shias, Christians and Barelvis. Now it is the Barelvis, organised as Tehriks, Jamiats, etc, who have vowed to physically liquidate all real and alleged blasphemers — Sunnis, Christians, Hindus, Shias and Ahmedis. Only Allah knows where and when this will end.

Secular minded, peaceful and tolerant people, even if they constitute the majority, are no match for these fanatical, armed marauders when the state itself cowers before them. Not that the majority can claim to be totally blameless in the acceleration of this descent into mayhem. As long as Pakistan’s blasphemy laws were primarily directed against non-Muslims, the majority did not care and even welcomed these laws. But soon it turned into a Frankenstein ready to devour its own creators. Over half of the nearly one thousand persons charged under the blasphemy laws are mainstream Sunni Muslims. Some accused have been killed in jail or outside the court. Many rot in jail for years before they are released without a conviction, only to be killed later.

A qari (cleric) was burned alive some years ago after being thrown out of a police station where he had taken refuge to escape a lynch mob. A doctor has recently been arrested for trashing the business card of a medical salesman, part of whose name happened to be Muhammad. Even as I write, a Muslim who had been aquitted by a court about a year ago after being accused of blasphemy, has been shot dead near Rawalpindi.

Leaders of mainstream Islamic parties represented in the federal and provincial parliaments and cabinets openly extol murderers and suicide bombers, government ministers and security officials blame the ‘foreign hand’, and Urdu newspapers and TV anchors rant against the West.

It has to be admitted that the so-called silent majority is in general agreement with them as far as the ‘vile’ West is concerned, somewhat ambivalent on the issue of suicide bombings since it began to hit home, a little embarrassed about the harassment of our poor Christians but in total agreement on the persecution of Ahmedis and the physical liquidation of alleged blasphemers.

One recoils even to think that in the country founded by Jinnah, tens of thousands of people would join processions led by politico-religious parties demanding the death sentence for a Christian mother of four for some words she is alleged to have uttered but which she denies, and that lawyers would applaud the cold-blooded murderer of a provincial governor as a hero.

Contemporary Muslims, one and all, like to boast about the contribution of earlier Muslims to science and civilisation. Not many know that the Muslim scientists who give them a sense of pride in their past were invariably secular minded rationalists who were able to pursue their chosen interests under enlightened caliphs or kings.

A London-based Wahabi journal has denounced them for precisely that: “The story of the famous Muslim scientists of the Middle Ages, such as Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Ibn al Haytham and Ibn Sina shows that, aside from being Muslims, there seems to have been nothing Islamic about them or their achievements. On the contrary, their lives were distinctly un-Islamic. Their achievements in medicine, chemistry, physics, mathematics and philosophy were a natural and logical extension of Greek thought.”

Add to the list the name of Al Razi, called the “most brilliant genius of the Middle Ages” for his contribution to medicine, and that of Ibn Rushd, the great rationalist Muslim philosopher. All the above-mentioned suffered persecution at the hands of fundamentalist rulers and religious bigots.

In India itself, the brightest periods of Muslim rule are associated with secular emperors like Akbar and Shah Jahan. The decline of the Mughal Empire commenced when Aurangzeb began to push orthodoxy, punishing free thinkers and persecuting minorities.

There is a famous statement attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller that tries to explain how the Nazis were able to purge all who opposed them one by one, while everyone who was not immediately affected remained silent. It goes like this:

“First they came for the communists; and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists; and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews; and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me; and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Unless the majority immediately and forcefully speaks out against the religious inquisition and witch-hunting, for the acceptance of religious diversity, and in support of tolerance of dissenting and minority viewpoints, Pakistan is fully on course to push itself into the dark pit of jahiliyah.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
 
Say no to intimidation — II

By Sana Saleem
Published: March 17, 2011

Sana-Saleem-New-133443-640x480.jpg


In the cases of both, the murder of Salmaan Taseer and that of Shahbaz Bhatti, the murder itself was committed in broad daylight, it was televised and documented. We know them and their supporters. We know them by their names. Our silence now will only mean more blood.

Citizens for Democracy (CFD), a group comprising civil society members organised shortly after Taseer’s assassination, has stepped up to call for action. Their demands are simple: Upholding of rule of law; arrest and punishment to murderers of both Taseer and Bhatti; and no to intimidation. A letter campaign recently arranged by CFD members managed to get 15,000 people to sign a petition to the chief justice, the prime minister and heads of all political parties to take action against the brutal murders. This is perhaps the largest number of people that have showed their support with regards to this issue.

Criticism is inevitable. In this case, it is the question of a petition being the solution to our arduous problems. It’s true, a petition is not the only solution. It is, however, an initiation point for a much bigger action plan. These 15,000 people defied all labels and cliches. It was not about the liberals or the conservatives, but about Pakistanis uniting against violence and fear. It is symbolic of the fact that, contrary to popular perception, we are not a nation of vigilantes. The atmosphere of intimidation can only be countered by courage.

The next thing now is to strategise a way forward. We understand that it is zeal that gives the extremists an upper hand, and to counter that we must identify our driving force. Our support system is then our political parties. Much of the criticism after the assassinations has been aimed at the PPP, when, in fact, all political parties need to step up to the crisis. The assassinations are not just displays of vigilantism and lack of security but most of all they show is a failure of governance.

In fact, the PML-N needs more of our attention for it’s failure to counter hate campaigns against minorities in Punjab.

This brings me to the point about perseverance. In the wake of Taseer and Bhatti’s assassinations, we ought to realise that it is one bumpy ride from here on. We cannot allow ourselves to be reduced to labels or engulfed by pessimism. The call for upholding the rule of law and the stance against intimidation is a basic humanitarian right. It is a cause that is meant for and must appeal to all Pakistanis alike.
 
The ugly truth

Dawn
Irfan Husain
Mar 19 2011

ON a brief visit to Karachi last week, I attended a mass dedicated to Shahbaz Bhatti, the assassinated minorities minister, with my brother.

Held in St Patrick’s Cathedral, the ceremony was dignified and deeply moving. I had half-expected to see a few politicians, diplomats and members of our civil society at the occasion, but spotted just one old friend.

I first saw this lovely old cathedral when I enrolled at the nearby St Patrick’s School in the mid-1950s, and recall being awestruck when a Christian friend confidently told me that the statue of the Virgin Mary occasionally wept tears of blood. In those days, the entire Saddar area of downtown Karachi was an eclectic mix of Christians, Muslims, Parsis and Hindus, and this balance was reflected in our school. Catholic priests laid down the law at St Pat’s, and caning was frequent. Discipline was tough, and the standards high.

So going to the cathedral was a bit like travelling back in time. Except that this occasion was a sad reminder of how far Pakistan has moved away from its liberal, secular early days. Now, non-Muslims live under the Sword of Damocles that the blasphemy laws have come to represent for them.

In his eulogy for the slain Bhatti, the bishop of Karachi said that Pakistani Christians were used to martyrdom. He was not exaggerating. Large numbers of his flock have been killed in recent years just because of their faith. Hundreds of thousands face daily persecution and prejudice.

Although none has yet been executed by the state for alleged blasphemy, at least a dozen have been killed in custody either by the police, or by other prisoners. So when Qamar Davis, a 51-year old Christian, died in Karachi jail recently, it was hardly surprising that few believed the police version that he had died due to a heart attack. His crime? He was convicted of having blasphemed against the Quran and the Holy Prophet [PBUH] in text messages he is supposed to have sent a business rival.

This entire grim episode reveals yet again how open the present blasphemy laws are to misuse against the hapless minorities. But even Muslims are not exempt. Recently, there was the bizarre case of a doctor in Hyderabad who chucked a medical company representative’s calling card into the wastepaper basket without even glancing at it. Unfortunately for him, his visitor’s name contained ‘Mohammad’, and this was enough for him to be locked up for a couple of days. Had he not been a Muslim, I’m sure he would still be in jail.

This raises a theological problem: if I delete an email that contains a revered Muslim name, would I be guilty of blasphemy? Indeed, people send out passages from the scriptures via the Internet all the time. Does hitting the delete button, or consigning the message to spam as soon as you see the subject tag render you liable to prosecution under our blasphemy laws?

Both Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti were killed for suggesting that these laws, being man-made, could be amended so that they are not misused. First imposed by the British in a mild form that gave equal protection to all faiths in 1860, they were given their present shape by Gen Zia in 1986. So surely a discussion about the need to amend them is hardly an unthinkable notion.

There are many other indications of Pakistan’s rapid slide into a ‘Muslim-only’ country. Ancient Hindu and Jain temples in Sindh are being stripped of old stones, according to an email I received recently from an organisation called the Association for Water, Applied Education and Renewable Energy (AWARE).

One old mandir, in particular, has caught the attention of vandals: situated in Tharparkar district, the beautiful Durga Mata is being robbed of the stone skirting near its base by a contractor who was apparently issued an excavation licence by the government of Sindh. As this is the focal point of many Hindu yatrees in the area, many have protested, to little avail. Surely even our crass politicians can see how much damage this act is doing to our cultural heritage.

With this SOS from AWARE came several emails from concerned Pakistanis. One of them reads: “The campaign to preserve the temple can be symbolic of so much in today’s context — a reclaiming of secular values of equality and freedom and a right to preserve cultural and historical identities. The demolition must be seen as an attack of our culture, not someone else’s religious sensibilities or their site of divinity.”

The ugly, unadorned truth is that unless you are a Muslim, you cannot claim full citizenship in today’s Pakistan. And even faith in Islam is no longer a guarantee of equality: you have to be the right kind of Muslim. Sadly, this is the guiding principle in the increasingly intolerant country Pakistan has become.

In the immediate aftermath of Salman Taseer’s brutal murder by his extremist guard, my inbox was full of anguished messages from people who were shocked and bewildered by the killing. Many well-meaning bloggers urged protest meetings. While there were a few muted demonstrations, they were dwarfed by the thousands of religious zealots who took to the streets to express their satisfaction over the assassination, and their support for the killer.

It would appear that more and more, Pakistan’s civil society is channelling its protests into cyberspace where members comfort each other, and register their activism. While this is no doubt cathartic, I fear their expressions of outrage have little impact in the real world. Here, the streets have been captured by the extremists who, despite their relatively low numbers, can set the public agenda through violence and full-throated slogans.

This public agitation is captured and amplified by our largely irresponsible TV channels. As chat shows have shown time and again, sane, liberal voices are drowned out by loud, intemperate clerics who have no compunction about concocting any lie to win an argument. Our TV anchors are either biased in favour of their extremist guests, or too ignorant and intimidated to interrupt. Whatever the cause, the voices of reason are being silenced. Migrating into cyberspace won’t help.

On this depressing note, I’d like to wish my Hindu readers a very happy Holi.
 

Back
Top Bottom