fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
The absence of morality
Reality check
Friday, January 29, 2010
Shafqat Mahmood
The demons residing within our society are frightening. What would account for a lawyer, senior enough to be a past president of the Lahore Bar Association (LBCA), casually and cruelly inflict injuries on a 12-year-old girl or stand by while she is tortured by family members?
And, what kind of behaviour is it for a group of lawyers to raise a ruckus and generally threaten everybody, when the accused is produced in court? Have we reached a point where intimidation and coercion are the only weapons left in our collective arsenal?
It suggests to me that at some level of consciousness, our collective conception of a state ordered by law has broken down. Otherwise, why would lawyers, who more than anyone else should bow before the 'majesty' of law, resort to beating up journalists or intimidating the courts?
They obviously do this because they believe it is the most potent weapon to get what they want. They could, for example, have chosen to argue the case in a court. They could have spent their energy and ardour in digging up legal precedents and marshalling fine points of law. They are lawyers, aren't they? Yet they chose to behave like hooligans.
We have transcended the normal legal and governance discourse. Anyone who has a grievance knows only one thing. Come out on the roads, shout and scream and if possible, slash and burn. This includes our revered legal community. It appears to them to be the only way to get attention or have a desired result. This is as vivid an example as any, of a state and society in deep crisis.
What happened to poor Shazia, or to many others, unnamed and unsung, is reflective of a moral vacuum within our society. The alleged crime was committed by people who should have understood the difference between right and wrong. By saying this, I am presuming that education allows one to make this distinction but I could be wrong.
This should also have been true of their supporters. But, they have not stopped to consider the enormity of the crime. They have not been affected either by empathy for the poor girl or by the horrendous nature of the incident. In other words, they refuse to take a moral position on it. Or it is not in their mental make-up to do so. All they know is that they have to support their friend, colleague, relative, mentor, leader, come what may. Loyalty takes precedence over morality or legal norms.
This debate between moral/legal and a feudal conception of loyalty is not uncommon in our homes and offices and among friends. It is argued that if a relative or a friend is in trouble, even if he or she has committed a morally despicable crime, it is our duty to stand by them. The notion of a personal bond and the duty that this imposes is of a far greater value than the right and wrong of the act done.
One can understand this when it comes to close relatives; between parents and children, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives and even friends and lovers. Human emotions have an enormous capacity to triumph over legal or societal norms. But, it is the suspension of morality at a collective level that is troubling.
I don't want to keep beating up on President Zardari but his example raises many of the tricky issues that are reflective of our social norms. He may or may not have been convicted of the various acts of corruption he is charged with. He also without a doubt has been legally and constitutionally elected as President of Pakistan. But, does anyone; his close associates, friends and admirers, the political and journalistic elite, and the ordinary people, have any doubt where his enormous fortune has come from.
This is not only true of him but of many other people in politics, military, judiciary and the bureaucracy. It is also the case with other prominent people whom we, the elite, usually meet socially. Everyone knows where their money has come from. Some actually have been convicted and have spent time in jail. Leave alone any kind of social disapproval; they are often looked at enviously as people who have made it to the good life.
And those that have been left behind or chose not to partake of the goodies that were before them are seldom approved of. They are often considered to be cowards or plain idiots even by their near and dear ones. The lack of moral content in our social mores particularly among the elite is frightening.
Some would argue that it is also true of the people. Why do they keep electing people, again and again, who are demonstrably corrupt or criminal? This is not just true of our country. Apparently, a small but significant proportion of Indian MPs have a criminal background or have been accused of serious crimes. It may also be true of other South Asian countries.
The people who keep electing these crooks are, of course, largely poor. Does this mean that while we do have laws and a constitution, the morality inherent in these pieces of paper, has not seeped into the norms of society?
A particularly poignant observation has been made by columnist Nazir Naji, comparing turn out at the funerals of revered journalist Irshad Ahmed Haqqani and a gentleman known as Tipu Truckanwala, who was shot dead at the Lahore airport parking lot.
The said Tipu was widely known as underworld figure, innately familiar with guns and their uses. Irshad Haqqani wielded an authoritative and eloquent pen. Yet, the attendance at his funeral was a few dozen while large hordes thronged to the last rites of the aforesaid Tipu. What does this say about our society?
We are a deeply religious people. We even have it in our Constitution that no law would be made that is not in conformity with Holy Quran and Sunnah. And we don't just leave it to a verbal commitment. The attendance in mosques for prayers and at other religious occasions is large and growing. And yet, how do we explain this moral vacuum within?
The only explanation I can come up with is that poverty and a generally tough life in a poor country, overrides innate morality that is present in everyone. Simple demands of existence become more important than desirable but impractical moral values.
Politicians are elected because they get things done not because they live a saintly life. Irshad Haqqani is respected but his pen only preaches. Tipu Truckanwala has power to make things happen. It is a crucial difference in a place where nothing works.
The lawyers are banding together and suspending morality because they know they too will need each other, sooner or later. President Zardari will keep getting elected and hold his office not because of a higher moral principle. It is convenient for many that he remains there.
Morality is a luxury in our society. Pragmatism a necessity.
Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
Reality check
Friday, January 29, 2010
Shafqat Mahmood
The demons residing within our society are frightening. What would account for a lawyer, senior enough to be a past president of the Lahore Bar Association (LBCA), casually and cruelly inflict injuries on a 12-year-old girl or stand by while she is tortured by family members?
And, what kind of behaviour is it for a group of lawyers to raise a ruckus and generally threaten everybody, when the accused is produced in court? Have we reached a point where intimidation and coercion are the only weapons left in our collective arsenal?
It suggests to me that at some level of consciousness, our collective conception of a state ordered by law has broken down. Otherwise, why would lawyers, who more than anyone else should bow before the 'majesty' of law, resort to beating up journalists or intimidating the courts?
They obviously do this because they believe it is the most potent weapon to get what they want. They could, for example, have chosen to argue the case in a court. They could have spent their energy and ardour in digging up legal precedents and marshalling fine points of law. They are lawyers, aren't they? Yet they chose to behave like hooligans.
We have transcended the normal legal and governance discourse. Anyone who has a grievance knows only one thing. Come out on the roads, shout and scream and if possible, slash and burn. This includes our revered legal community. It appears to them to be the only way to get attention or have a desired result. This is as vivid an example as any, of a state and society in deep crisis.
What happened to poor Shazia, or to many others, unnamed and unsung, is reflective of a moral vacuum within our society. The alleged crime was committed by people who should have understood the difference between right and wrong. By saying this, I am presuming that education allows one to make this distinction but I could be wrong.
This should also have been true of their supporters. But, they have not stopped to consider the enormity of the crime. They have not been affected either by empathy for the poor girl or by the horrendous nature of the incident. In other words, they refuse to take a moral position on it. Or it is not in their mental make-up to do so. All they know is that they have to support their friend, colleague, relative, mentor, leader, come what may. Loyalty takes precedence over morality or legal norms.
This debate between moral/legal and a feudal conception of loyalty is not uncommon in our homes and offices and among friends. It is argued that if a relative or a friend is in trouble, even if he or she has committed a morally despicable crime, it is our duty to stand by them. The notion of a personal bond and the duty that this imposes is of a far greater value than the right and wrong of the act done.
One can understand this when it comes to close relatives; between parents and children, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives and even friends and lovers. Human emotions have an enormous capacity to triumph over legal or societal norms. But, it is the suspension of morality at a collective level that is troubling.
I don't want to keep beating up on President Zardari but his example raises many of the tricky issues that are reflective of our social norms. He may or may not have been convicted of the various acts of corruption he is charged with. He also without a doubt has been legally and constitutionally elected as President of Pakistan. But, does anyone; his close associates, friends and admirers, the political and journalistic elite, and the ordinary people, have any doubt where his enormous fortune has come from.
This is not only true of him but of many other people in politics, military, judiciary and the bureaucracy. It is also the case with other prominent people whom we, the elite, usually meet socially. Everyone knows where their money has come from. Some actually have been convicted and have spent time in jail. Leave alone any kind of social disapproval; they are often looked at enviously as people who have made it to the good life.
And those that have been left behind or chose not to partake of the goodies that were before them are seldom approved of. They are often considered to be cowards or plain idiots even by their near and dear ones. The lack of moral content in our social mores particularly among the elite is frightening.
Some would argue that it is also true of the people. Why do they keep electing people, again and again, who are demonstrably corrupt or criminal? This is not just true of our country. Apparently, a small but significant proportion of Indian MPs have a criminal background or have been accused of serious crimes. It may also be true of other South Asian countries.
The people who keep electing these crooks are, of course, largely poor. Does this mean that while we do have laws and a constitution, the morality inherent in these pieces of paper, has not seeped into the norms of society?
A particularly poignant observation has been made by columnist Nazir Naji, comparing turn out at the funerals of revered journalist Irshad Ahmed Haqqani and a gentleman known as Tipu Truckanwala, who was shot dead at the Lahore airport parking lot.
The said Tipu was widely known as underworld figure, innately familiar with guns and their uses. Irshad Haqqani wielded an authoritative and eloquent pen. Yet, the attendance at his funeral was a few dozen while large hordes thronged to the last rites of the aforesaid Tipu. What does this say about our society?
We are a deeply religious people. We even have it in our Constitution that no law would be made that is not in conformity with Holy Quran and Sunnah. And we don't just leave it to a verbal commitment. The attendance in mosques for prayers and at other religious occasions is large and growing. And yet, how do we explain this moral vacuum within?
The only explanation I can come up with is that poverty and a generally tough life in a poor country, overrides innate morality that is present in everyone. Simple demands of existence become more important than desirable but impractical moral values.
Politicians are elected because they get things done not because they live a saintly life. Irshad Haqqani is respected but his pen only preaches. Tipu Truckanwala has power to make things happen. It is a crucial difference in a place where nothing works.
The lawyers are banding together and suspending morality because they know they too will need each other, sooner or later. President Zardari will keep getting elected and hold his office not because of a higher moral principle. It is convenient for many that he remains there.
Morality is a luxury in our society. Pragmatism a necessity.
Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com
