Pakistan’s identity crisis

by Shafqat Aziz

Flawed and imaginary Arabized identity has become the biggest curse for Pakistani nation. The sickening ideologies emanated from this flawed identity are now posing grave threats to world peace and the very existence of the country itself 
“These walls are funny. First you hate 'em, then you get used to 'em. Enough time passes, you get so depended on them. That's institutionalized.” --Morgan Freeman as Red in Shawshank Redemption
Pakistan is the primary and worst victim of institutionalized falsehood. How ironic is the fact that the ‘fabrication gurus’ had to concoct so-called ‘Ideology of Pakistan” long after the inception of Pakistan. The chauvinistic and undemocratic mindset, right from the beginning, had a realization the powers will have to be conceded to people if a genuine democracy takes root in newly emerged state.
To keep a tight grip on power and to keep the masses enslaved, a mind control strategy was sought through systematic and institutionalized indoctrination by the crooks at helm of the affairs, especially feudal cum politicians and civil bureaucracy. At that particular time, the military and mullah were ‘dragged into game’ as junior partners, where the later was to act us ‘paid propagandist’ to divert people from real to ‘non-issues’.
The unscrupulous feudal cum politicians had to rely on the ‘muscle power’ of military while confronting the challenge of growing dissenting voices. Thus, it provided an opportunity to military establishment to take the plunge and modify its role from a ‘junior partner’ to a ‘big boss’.
The civil and military establishments both resorted in appeasing the mullah to consolidate their illegitimate regimes. Consequently, the mullah exploited the situation to advance his own agenda. This agenda was (is) based on pan-Islamism and it was the very reason that the mullah had opposed the separation of the Sub-continent earlier. Furthermore, he deemed it a perfect opportunity to avenge his earlier defeats.
However, it was not only typical mullah who played religious cards to advance his agenda. It was a great irony of the history that Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founding father of the nation and a man with all the secular credentials and liberal in life style resorted in religious rhetoric to popularize his movement for a separate Muslim state. The history repeated itself when Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, another man in modern outlook betrayed his progressive supporter and thus, opened ‘hell gates’ of extreme religiosity, inflicted on the people by then military dictator Gen. Zia.
While refusing to learn a lesson from the separation of Bangladesh which was also a big blow to the notion that religion can be a binding force of diverse ethnic and cultural groups, the Pakistani establishment thus intensified its institutionalized efforts of carving out a flawed and concocted identity of the country as well as its people.
The establishment was desperate to paint a false identity fearing that the flourishing democracy on the other side of the border may ultimately devour their hegemonic rule. The power hungry establishment was also aware of the fact that the religious euphoria could not really cater to the needs of the all ethnic and cultural groups living in its territory.
Therefore, it was decided to instill this false identity by means of all sorts of coercion and manipulation, including enactment of discriminatory and draconian laws against the minorities and women, changing curricula with infusion of hate speeches, violence and extremely bigoted and intolerant worldview and patronizing violent extremist religious groups.
Besides, the state initiated ruthless Arabization (as newly found identity) of society on the cost of the Baloch, Sindhi, Pashtoon, Punjabi, Saraiki and other indigenous identities. The new imposed Arabized identity had some distinct features i.e. 1-detachment from South Asia and attachment with Middle East, 2-self-hatred (showing distain towards South Asian ancestry and obsessed efforts of tracing genealogy in Arabia, Central Asia or Iran) and love for foreign invaders of the past and sympathies with global jihadists of the present.
Today, this flawed and imaginary Arabized identity has become the biggest curse for Pakistani nation. The sickening ideologies emanated from this flawed identity are now posing grave threats to world peace and the very existence of the country itself. But the people of Pakistan are still not ready to determine who their real enemy is. They are totally oblivious of the history of Sub-continent prior to Arabian invasion on this soil led by Mohammad bin Qasim.
This flawed identity is one of the biggest contributors in widespread confusion in the society about the real enemy. The people of Pakistan, in general, have developed sympathies for Jihadist terrorists as they have a feeling of shared identity with them. Thus, the nation is fighting this battle half heartedly. This identity crisis has produced a population which is falling fast into hypocrisy and double standards.
The people of Pakistan want to emulate Arabs in every sphere of life but at other hand, their social ethos, family system and values all are deeply rooted in their South Asian identity and they have a strange love-hate relationship with this identity. The collective guilt of living “immoral” or un-Islamic (on South Asian ethos) lives is pushing them towards more religiosity and thus more isolation and self-hatred.
As a result of this identity crisis, deliberate disconnect with the past, twisted and biased history and being part of illusionary ‘Umma’, majority of the Pakistanis are living in a state of deep confusion and denial. Thus, they resort in supremacist religious ideologies and glorification of the invaders, just to soothe their bruised but inflated egos. This persistent state of denial, bigotry and confusion is resulting as irrational, extreme and violent behaviors.

The inability to comprehend the concepts of a nation state, modernity, equality and pluralism has made the perplexed Pakistani nation incompatible with modern world. Hence, the only areas where they are far ahead of other nations are massive corruption, extremism, violence and terrorism. The feature scenario also seems bleak as any critical thinking is immediately threatened with life. There is a serious and dire need to revive local (South Asian) identities and to return to a pluralist society which has a history of thousands of years in the Sub-continent.

Shafqat Aziz a socio-political analyst based in Islamabad. He is founding member of the online community “Liberal Pakistan”.

Pakistan’s State of Nature

By AA Khalid
The Hobbesian Narrative
Hobbes is perhaps the most important political philosopher Pakistanis concerned about their country should be reading. Of course it will require a ‘’Desification’’ (or ‘’Pakistanization) of the man’s central work, ‘’The Leviathan’’. The Islamic tradition too has works of political philosophy, we think of Al Farabi, who applied the utopian understanding of Plato’s Republic (the rule of the Philosopher King) to the prophetic experience of the Prophet of Islam as a pre-eminent example.
Ibn Tufayl and Ibn Bajja were more realistic if not pessimistic about politics than Farabi’s enthusiastic application of political Platonism. In fact Tufayl and Bajja seek to return to another strand of the Platonic tradition which is more pessimistic and realistic. For Plato knowledge was power and that is why the Philosopher the individual who possessed that greatest of intellect should rule and be king. However, in another tradition of Platonic theorizing, it is realised the great Philosopher is corrupted by the machinations of politics and inevitably his ideals are sacrificed at the altar of political power. Ibn Bajja’s The Governance of the Solitary is such a work, which is concerned about securing the happiness and integrity of the philosopher in the midst of corruption and strife. Or what about that great philosophical novel, ‘’Hayy ibn Yaqazan’’, where the hero of the philosopher Hayy realises that the greatest and most profound truths of philosophy and faith can never find practical application in the real world because as is the case in modern politics the politican will always manipulate simplistic and populist emotion against the beautifully constructed systems of the philosopher. Both Ibn Tufayl and Ibn Bajja conclude that the philosopher must isolate himself from the world and inevitably the great truths of the sages, philosophers, mystics and rationalists will never find true expression in the real world. To pursue the ‘’Platonic Ideal’’ is a vain pursuit.
There are other great philosophers to consider such as Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Rushd and Ibn Sina. Likewise, we should consider the Islamic tradition as part of the Greek tradition of political philosophy.
But Hobbes’s work speaks with a profound resonance that one can find etched into Pakistan’s political history. Hobbes ‘’philosophical anthropology’’ shaped his pessimistic consideration of human nature and gave the moral substance of his liberalism. Whereas liberalism is always associated with an optimistic faith in human progress and reason, Hobbes’s liberalism is born out of the trials and tribulations of human suffering and existential pessimism.
This passage that Hobbes wrote in the Leviathan postulating about the existence of mankind in a ‘’State of Nature’’ has profound meaning for Pakistanis struggling to make sense of the anaemic civic and democratic organs of the Pakistani State:
‘’Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’’
And:
‘’ Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man.’’
But we can take issue with Hobbes’s assertion that life is ‘’solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’’. Life in Pakistan is anything but solitary, in a country where clan, tribe and ethnicity as well as feudal and class status (not to mention the existence of the Pakistani caste system) life is a constant trial of membership and trust that one must invest with their respective social group to make any sort of living. Life therefore is poor, nasty, brutish and short but it is not solitary. In Pakistan life is communal and it is from this communality that we derive the brutality, the destruction and the conflict. It is a constant conflict between different groups of the social structure rather than individuals.
As such with the absence of the modern nation state and the rule of law these groups operate virtually in a state of war as seen in the ethnic sectarianism tearing apart Karachi. Pakistan internally is in a neo-Hobbesian state of war. Neo-Hobbesian because the communal dimension of Pakistani public life is something not touched upon by Hobbes, but it is a perfectly logical extension to make.
Absence of Ideology
The failure in Pakistan is a failure of ideology – because there never has been a free exchange of ideas in Pakistan, there never has been any ideological contestation. The major sources of party conflicts in politics are found in family feuds, feudal rivalries and ethnic division. The major conflict in Pakistani politics is between the Zardari/Bhutto clan and the Sharif brothers. There is no universal ideological narrative – everything is constructed on the basis of family name, feudal affiliation and ethnic status. In Pakistan civil war is played out in the democratic process – it is perhaps the formality of the electoral process which prevents outright intra-warfare between different social groups. The party system in Pakistan reflects the essentially tribal nature of Pakistani political culture.
As such labels such as ‘’secular’’, ‘’liberal’’, ‘’progressive’’, ‘’democratic’’ and other categories of modern political philosophy make no sense when applied to Pakistani politics. It is fruitless to talk about ‘’liberals’’ v ‘’conservatives’’ because that was never the conflict in Pakistan.
As such the reductive and simplistic schemes put forward by some commentators on the role of religion in Pakistani public life is unfounded. The great strife and crisis of the Pakistani State has never been to do with religion directly but rather the failure to establish a civic identity and a workable nation-state. It is the machinations of clan, tribe, ethnicity, feudalism and class that determine the major urban conflicts in Pakistan. Religion has been fused with the Machiavellianism of the Pakistani Army to stay in control – religion has always been used cynically in Pakistani society. But if we even imagined a Pakistan without Islam the same problems would still exist today. That is because religious extremism in Pakistan is something not organic to traditional Pakistani society – it has taken a generation of social engineering by the Pakistani Army to produce the sort of religious extremism we see today and still the religious parties in this country do not have any success in the political process. Observers such as Tariq Ali have noted that it is amazing that a theocratic Islamist revolution has not taken over Pakistan given the socio-economic crippling of the Pakistani state, the theological depravity and social engineering of the Army.
Religious radicalism in Pakistan is anarchic it simple exists not only to overthrow the State but undermine the whole structural logic of the Pakistani Hobbesian scheme. The religious radicals can never be successful in taking over Pakistan because of the culture of feudal, ethnic politics and patronage that not only acts as a buffer against religious extremism but also against liberal reforms.
From Geneva to Islamabad
Pakistan is neither a theocracy, a democracy nor any other discernable modern political organism. It is a neo-Hobbesian creature that trundles along with the social glue provided by ethnicity, provincialism, feudal patronage, Army intervention, tribal affiliation and all the associated pre-modern forms of deliberation, negotiation and conflict that defines everyday Pakistani life.
The real crux of the matter in Pakistan is not the unsustainable and in many ways imported religious radicalism from the hard shores of the House of Saud – because this form of extremism is anarchic and in many ways resembles the untenable experiments of European puritans such as Calvin.
Today we see the city of Geneva as the quintessential embodiment of European secularism and social democracy. But Geneva was once the theocratic stronghold of the Protestant Reformation under Calvin. Calvin’s new and charismatic brand of Protestant faith challenged the clerical authority of the Catholic Church but only so that he could implement his vision of clerical rule.
In Calvin’s theocracy we find the same sort of puritanical measures carried out by the modern day Taliban and Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia. A ban on the arts, culture, freedom of expression and an emphasis on strict religious observance which was forced and an insistence on keeping to laws of blasphemy. Calvinism too was based on an absolute and literal understanding of the sovereignty of God and in many ways this deviated from classical Christian understanding as does the understand of the Wahabbi theologians today which echoes the anarchistic theology of the early Kharijites.
The Kharijite understanding was shunned by the classical tradition of Islamic philosophy and law but it nevertheless has had influence on the modern theocratic Islamists such as Sayyid Qutb and Maududi. Where else did the popular slogan of, ‘’ ‘La hukm illa lillah’’come from, which was the essential creed of the Kharijites. This completely went against the teaching on human agency, human fallibility and the imperfection of human nature taught not only by the Sufi mystics, later Islamic philosophers but also by legal theorists like Abu Hanifa who always accepted that his judgements were only fallible opinions and that people could always challenge his legal rulings.
This brief comparative illustration indicates that modern Islam is undergoing a crisis of authority and many of the actions and beliefs seen today in the Muslim World go against the conclusions and scholastic method of the classical Islamic tradition.
From Utopian Ashes To Religious Secularism
Today we are seeing a total breakdown of classical Islam and we should accept that the classical Islamic tradition is all but dead. What has replaced it is a scary and shallow populist charisma espoused by the likes of Maududi and Qutb who never received rigorous classical Islamic training. In many ways the memberships of the theocratic Islamist followers surprisingly come from secular backgrounds. The vast majority of Islamist movements today are not made up of clerics but rather from Muslims with a secular background who are doctors, lawyers and middle class professionals.
But out of the failures of Protestant utopianism and I believe out of the ashes of Pakistan’s unusually violent brand of anarchic theocratic Islamism will arise a religious secularity. American theologians like Roger Williams and European religious intellectuals like John Locke realised out of experience and applying Hobbes philosophical anthropology that Church and State had to be separated to save religion from power hungry tyrants. In the end what can and what is emerging throughout the Muslim World is a distinctly religious understanding of secularism.
A religious logic of secularism arises out of the ashes of religious utopianism. The European experience and more so the American experiences document how religious traditions articulated the powerful moral intuitions associated with liberty, democracy and secularism. It was the success of the theologians and religious intellectuals of America particularly that popularised an accessible understanding of democracy, secularism and liberty.
It is a fact of life as Bertrand Russell said, ‘’ The theoretical understanding of the world, which is the aim of philosophy, is not a matter of great practical importance to animals, or to savages, or even to most civilized men.’’
The social contract theory of the Enlightenment theorists and philosophers is not the reason why most Americans have a deep moral attachment to democracy and liberty. It is because the religious traditions of American have powerfully articulated the moral values required for democratic practice, citizenship skills and given ideas of liberty and secularism a deep moral significance for many Americans. For many like de Tocqueville in his work ‘’Democracy in America’’, it is the biblical theory of Covenant rather than social contract theory which affirms democracy in the hearts and minds of many Americans.
Fundamentalism – A Product of Modernity
As Ashish Nandy has remarked modern day religious fundamentalist movements mark a total break from the scholastic and theological traditionalism of classical religious learning. Hindutva, Zionism , theocratic Islamism are all expression of identity politics couched in religious imagery by individuals who essentially come from secular backgrounds.
Theodor Herzl (the father of Zionism) and Maududi (father of Pakistani theocratic Islamism) were both journalists who came from secular backgrounds but gravitated towards being amateur theologians who mixed powerful religious imagery with clearly secular political goals. Fundamentalism as Khaled Abou El Fadl remarks is a an ‘’orphan of modernity’’.
We are passing through a period of breakdown in the history of Islam in the Pakistani region of the sub-continent. In India and other parts of the Muslim World the story is completely different. In other parts of the world such as Tunisia we have liberal theology flourishing with the likes of Rachid Al Ghannouchi who promote a form of Islamic liberalism. Egypt is more complex – because there are competing theologies such as the Salafis, Islamic liberals, Islamic constitutionalists, legalists, conservatives, pragmatists, reformers and followers of televangelists such as Amr Khaled. The conclusion is that every Muslim society is experiencing some sort of transformation but there are no grand sweeping narratives that can be imposed on each one. Pakistan is in many ways an anomaly in the Muslim World – there is only a crude form of religious anarchism, because the religious liberals and moderates have been persecuted through the instruments and proxies of the Army.
The Army’s State of Nature
The real problem in Pakistan is the role of the Army in public life. This is the elephant in the room that not many Pakistanis talk about. In the English press there are plenty of articles found on criticising the religious establishment but you will not find many criticising the Army directly.
The clerics and madrassas have marginal influence on the daily political discourse in Pakistan. The areas of concentrated political power do not reside with the clerics but within the fierce competition between different social groups. The decline and decay of Karachi is testament to this fact where ethnic sectarianism has destroyed the civic fabric of that city.
We have been looking at the wrong things. The powers of the clerics today, the rise of religious radicalism are all symptoms not causes. The causes lie in the peculiar logic of Pakistani political culture that frustrates and blocks any liberal reform, the causes lie in the failure of the political parties in Pakistan which are nepotistic and despotic, the cause lies in the failure of Pakistani democracy and with the fantastical success of the Pakistani Army that has managed to stay in power through any means necessary. The brutish and neo-Hobbesian nature of the Pakistani political and social fabric is the cause. The reason for today’s ills is because Pakistan has been in a ‘’State of Nature’’, where the sovereignty of the State has been replaced by the Machiavellian logic of Pakistani Army. The Army has played its role in staying in power magnificently by clearly understanding the social logic of the Pakistan and by manipulating the Islamist movements. But of late that tightrope of deceit that the Army tread along has unravelled but for all intents and purposes it seems the Army will consolidate its position again.
The sort of religious thinking present in Pakistan is a symptom of what has gone wrong rather than a cause. It is symptom of the post-colonial failures in Pakistan. When we speak to the older generation they remark with great astonishment the social transformations that have taken place when it comes to faith in Pakistan. The Army’s social engineering has fundamentally altered and distorted religious discourse in this country. Add to this new information from the Wikileaks cables which suggest that clerics in the Punjab have received millions of dollars of funding from the Saudis and UAE and you realise that much of the social transformations that have taken place with regards to faith have been all imported rather than the result of indigenous organic evolution.
The new Wikileaks Pakistan Papers documents the neo-Hobbesian nature of this nation in its full and unrelenting glory. Kayani calls for more drone attacks, Zardari treats the PPP as a play-thing and whoever pleases can come and buy up the allegiance of the Army for the right price of course. How else can we explain the millions of dollars pouring in from the Saudis and UAE into clerical institutions – this can only happen under the auspices of the Army.
Questioning needs to be directed at the centres of concentrated power in Pakistan – it is only recently that the clerics have become such a centre after decades of being sponsored by the Army. Pakistan is a hard country where the real dynamic forces are those of manipulation, ruthless power grabbing and cold calculated political consolidation. The Army and its Generals are ruthlessly utilitarian when it comes to how many Pakistani lives are lost – for them Pakistani lives are mere pennies in the grand calculus of profit.
Beyond the chaos there is a frightening control exerted by the Army, with General Kayani sitting as the unquestionable Pharaoh of Pakistan, who merely chuckles at the bickering of the civilian politicians and humours the democratic system. For all those calling for the Army to enter into a political settlement with civilian there is absolutely no incentive for the Army to do such a thing.

The wheat mountains of the Indian Punjab

M. S. Swaminathan

The Hindu In this file photo workers cover bags of wheat at a godown in Fatehgarh Saheb district of Punjab. Farmers in Punjab contribute nearly 40 per cent of the wheat and 26 per cent of the rice needed to sustain the public distribution system.

The arrival of large quantities of wheat in the grain markets of the Punjab-Haryana region is a heart-warming sight, while poor storage is a matter of national shame.

It was in April-May 1968, that the country witnessed the wonderful spectacle of large arrivals of wheat grain in the mandis of Punjab like Moga and Khanna. Wheat production in the country rose to nearly 17 million tonnes that year, from the previous best harvest of 12 million tonnes. Indira Gandhi released a special stamp titled “Wheat Revolution” in July 1968, to mark this new phase in our agricultural evolution. The nation rejoiced at our coming out of a “ship to mouth” existence. Later in 1968, Dr. William Gaud of the U.S. referred to the quantum jumps in production brought about by semi-dwarf varieties of wheat and rice as a “green revolution.” This term has since come to symbolise a steep rise in productivity and, thereby, of production of major crops.

Wheat production this year may reach a level of 85 million tonnes, in contrast to the seven million tonnes our farmers harvested at the time of independence in 1947. I visited several grain mandis in Moga, Khanna, Khananon and other places in the Punjab during April 23-27, 2011 and experienced, concurrently, a feeling of ecstasy and agony. It was heart-warming to see the great work done by our farm men and women under difficult circumstances when, often, they had to irrigate the fields at night due to a lack of availability of power during the day. The cause of agony was the way the grains produced by farmers with loving care were being handled. The various State marketing agencies and the Food Corporation of India (FCI) are trying their best to procure and store the mountains of grains arriving every day. The gunny bags containing the wheat procured during April-May 2010, are still occupying a considerable part of the storage space available at several mandis. The condition of the grains of earlier years presents a sad sight. The impact of moisture on the quality of paddy is even worse. Malathion sprays and fumigation with Aluminium Sulphide tablets are used to prevent grain spoilage. Safe storage involves attention to both quantity and quality. Grain safety is as important as grain saving. Due to rain and relatively milder temperature, grain arrivals were initially slow, but have now picked up. For all concerned with the procurement, dispatch and storage of wheat grains in the Punjab-Haryana-Western U.P. region, which is the heartland of the green revolution, the task on hand is stupendous.

Farmers in Punjab contribute nearly 40 per cent of the wheat and 26 per cent of the rice needed to sustain the public distribution system. The legal entitlement to food envisaged under the proposed National Food Security Act cannot be implemented without the help of the farm families of Punjab, Haryana and other grain surplus areas. Farmers are currently facing serious problems during production and post-harvest phases of farming due to inadequate investment in farm machinery and storage infrastructure. The investment made and steps taken to ensure environmentally sustainable production and safe storage and efficient distribution of grains will determine the future of both agriculture in Punjab and national food security.

On the production side, the ecological foundations essential for sustainable food production are in distress. There is an over-exploitation of the aquifer and nearly 70 per cent of irrigated area shows a negative water balance. The quality of the water is also deteriorating due to the indiscriminate use of pesticides and mineral fertilizer. Over 50,000 ha of crop land in the south-west region of Punjab are affected by water logging and salinisation. Deficiencies of Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Zinc are affecting 66, 48 and 22 per cent of soils in Punjab respectively. No wonder factor productivity, i.e., return from a unit of input, is going down. Unless urgent steps are taken to convert the green revolution into an ever-green revolution leading to the enhancement of productivity in perpetuity without associated ecological harm, both agriculture in Punjab and our public distribution system will be in danger. Worried about the future fate of farming as a profession, the younger generation is unwilling to follow in the footsteps of their parents and remain on the farm. This is the greatest worry. If steps are not taken to attract and retain youth in farming, the older generation will have no option but to sell land to real estate agents, who are all the time tempting them with attractive offers. Global prices of wheat, rice and maize are almost 50 per cent higher than the minimum support price paid to our farmers. Our population is now over 1.2 billion and we can implement a sustainable and affordable food security system only with home-grown food.

A disturbing finding of Census-2011 is the deteriorating sex ratio in the Punjab-Haryana region. The female-male ratio among children has come to its lowest point since independence. Already, women are shouldering a significant portion of farm work. If the current trends of youth migrating from villages coupled with a drop in the sex ratio continue, agricultural progress will be further endangered. The prevailing preference for a male child is in part due to the fear of farm land going out of a family's control, when the girl child gets married. I hope the loss of interest in taking to farming as a profession among male youth will remove the bias in favour of male children. I foresee an increasing feminisation of agriculture in the green revolution areas. While the drop in the sex ratio should be halted, steps are also needed to intensify the design, manufacture and distribution of women friendly farm machinery.

Tasks ahead: The first task is to defend the gains already made in improving the productivity and production of wheat, rice, maize and other crops. For the purpose of providing the needed technologies, it will be advisable to set up soon a Multi-disciplinary Research and Training Centre for Sustainable Agriculture at the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. This centre can be organised under the National Action Plan for the Management of Climate Change developed under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister, which includes a Mission for Sustainable Agriculture. Such a centre should initiate a Land and Water Care Movement in the Punjab in association with the farming community. The other urgent task is the promotion of appropriate changes in land use. Over 2.7 million ha are now under rice leading to the unsustainable exploitation of the ground water. Our immediate aim should be to find alternative land use for about a million ha under rice. This will be possible only if farmers can get income similar to that they are now earning from rice. Possible alternative crops will be maize and arhar (Pigeon pea). Quality Protein Maize will fetch a premium price from the poultry industry which is fast growing in the Punjab. Arhar being a legume will also enrich soil fertility as well as soil physical properties. Other high value but low water requiring crops like pulses and oilseeds can also be promoted. At the same time, there could be diversified basmati rice production in over a million ha. In addition to Pusa Basmati 1121 which occupies the largest area now, Pusa Basmati-I (1460) and Pusa Basmati 6 (1401) can be promoted. These have resistance to bacterial leaf blight. Varietal diversity will reduce genetic vulnerability to pests and diseases.

For handling the over 26 million tonnes of wheat which will be purchased during this season, a four-pronged strategy may be useful. First, distribution through railway wagons could be expanded and expedited. One wagon can handle 2,500 tonnes. Currently 30,000 to 40,000 tonnes of wheat are being dispatched each day through wagons. With advanced planning, this quantity can be raised to over 1 lakh tonnes per day. They can be dispatched to different States for meeting the needs of PDS, Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), School Noon Meal Programme, Annapoorna, etc. Second, the present Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and godown storage systems can be improved with a little more investment and planning. In Punjab there are 146 mandis and 1,746 Purchase Points. They could be grouped and their infrastructure improved. Third, storage in modern silos, like the one put up at Moga by Adani Agri-logistics, and another one coming up in Amritsar, should be promoted. This will help to adopt an end- to-end system from the point of view of procurement, cleaning, quality assurance, safe storage and distribution. The cost of building silos to store a million tonnes of food grains may be about Rs.600 crore, if the required land is made available by state governments. An investment of about Rs.10,000 crore would help to establish a grid of modern grain storages with a capacity for storing, in good condition, over 15 million tonnes in the Punjab-Haryana-Western U.P. region. Lastly, export options can be explored after taking steps to make food available to the hungry, as suggested by the Supreme Court. Also, we should ensure that adequate food grains will be available for implementing the proposed Food Security Act. Export should be done only if the global food prices are attractive and if the profit made is distributed as bonus to our farmers, as suggested by the National Commission on Farmers.

It is time that we organise a National grid of grain storages, starting with storage at the farm level in well designed bins and extending to rural godowns and regional ultra-modern silos. Post harvest losses can then be minimised or even eliminated and food safety ensured. Unless the prevailing mismatch between production and post-harvest technologies is ended, neither the producer nor the consumer will derive full benefit from bumper harvests.

(M.S. Swaminathan is Chairman, MSSRF, and Member of Parliament of the Rajya Sabha.)

Myth-busting the Bangladesh war of 1971

An author discusses her new book about the historical narratives of the 1971 civil war that broke up East Pakistan. Sarmila Bose

Guerilla fighters of the Mukti Bahini prepare to bayonet men who allegedly collaborated with the Pakistani army during East Pakistan's fight to become the independent state of Bangladesh [GALLO/GETTY] Last month, Al Jazeera published an article entitled Book, film greeted with fury among Bengalis. Here, Sarmila Bose, author of Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, responds to the criticism levelled at her work. In all the excitement about the "Arab spring" it is instructive to remember the 1971 war in South Asia. Then too there was a military regime in Pakistan, easily identified as the "baddies" -  and a popular uprising in its rebellious Eastern province, where Bengali nationalists were reported to be peacefully seeking freedom, democracy and human rights. When the regime used military force to crush the rebellion in East Pakistan, India intervened like a knight to the rescue, resulting in the defeat of the bad guys, victory for the good guys and the independence of Bangladesh... Or so the story went for forty years. I grew up with it in Calcutta. It was widely repeated in the international press. Several years ago I decided to chronicle a number of incidents of the 1971 war in-depth. I observed that many Bangladeshis were aggrieved that the world seemed to have forgotten the terrible trauma of the birth of their nation. Given the scale of the suffering, that lack of memory certainly appeared to be unfair, but there did not seem to be many detailed studies of the war - without which the world could not be expected to remember, or understand, what had happened in 1971. My aim was to record as much as possible of what seemed to be a much-commented-on but poorly documented conflict - and to humanise it, so that the war could be depicted in terms of the people who were caught up in it, and not just faceless statistics. I hoped that the detailed documentation of what happened at the human level on the ground would help to shed some light on the conflict as a whole. The principal tool of my study was memories. I read all available memoirs and reminiscences, in both English and Bengali. But I also embarked on extensive fieldwork, finding and talking to people who were present at many particular incidents, whether as participants, victims or eye-witnesses. Crucially, I wanted to hear the stories from multiple sources, including people on different sides of the war, so as to get as balanced and well-rounded a reconstruction as possible. As soon as I started to do systematic research on the 1971 war, I found that there was a problem with the story which I had grown up believing: from the evidence that emanated from the memories of all sides at the ground level, significant parts of the "dominant narrative" seem not to have been true. Many "facts" had been exaggerated, fabricated, distorted or concealed. Many people in responsible positions had repeated unsupported assertions without a thought; some people seemed to know that the nationalist mythologies were false and yet had done nothing to inform the public. I had thought I would be chronicling the details of the story of 1971 with which I had been brought up, but I found instead that there was a different story to be told. Product of research My book Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War, the product of several years of fieldwork based research, has just been published (Hurst and Co. and Columbia University Press). It focuses on the bitter fratricidal war within the province of East Pakistan over a period of a little more than a year, rather than the open "hot" war between India and Pakistan towards the end. It brings together, for the first time, the memories of dozens of people from each side of the conflict who were present in East Pakistan during the war. It lets the available evidence tell the stories. It has been described as a work that "will set anew the terms of debate" about this war. Even before anyone has had the chance to read it, Dead Reckoning has been attracting comment, some of it of a nature that according to an observer would make the very reception of my book a subject of "taboo studies". "Myth-busting" works that undermine nationalist mythology, especially those that have gone unchallenged for several decades, are clearly not to be undertaken by the faint-hearted. The book has received gratifying praise from scholars and journalists who read the advance copies, but the word "courageous" cropped up with ominous frequency in many of the reviews. Some scholars praised my work in private; others told me to prepare for the flak that was bound to follow. One "myth-busting" scholar was glad my book was out at last, as I would now sweep up at the unpopularity stakes and she would get some respite after enduring several years of abuse. Scholars and investigative journalists have an important role in "busting" politically partisan narratives. And yet, far too often we all fall for the seductive appeal of a simplistic "good versus evil" story, or fail to challenge victors' histories. So far the story of valiant rebels fighting oppressive dictators in the so-called "Arab spring" has had one significant blemish - the vicious sexual attack and attempted murder of CBS foreign correspondent Lara Logan by dozens of men celebrating the downfall of Hosni Mubarak in Tahrir Square in Cairo. It initially vanished from the headlines and has still not led to the kind of questioning of the representation of such conflicts that it should have generated. "Tahrir Square" became shorthand for freedom and democracy-loving people rising up against oppressive dictators. People in other countries started to say they wanted their own "Tahrir Square". Logan has given a brave and graphic account of what happened to her at the hands of those supposedly celebrating the fall of a dictator and the coming of freedom, democracy and human rights. Her life was saved by burqa-clad Egyptian women and she was rescued by soldiers. Her account endows "Tahrir Square" with an entirely different meaning. It should caution us against assuming that all those opposing an oppressive regime are champions of non-violence, democracy or human rights. It should alert us to the complexities of political power struggles and civil war, and stop getting carried away by what we imagine is happening, or would like to happen, rather than what the evidence supports. Such was the impact of the 1971 war on South Asians that the year has transformed into a shorthand for its particular symbolism: 1971, or ekattor, the number 71 in Bengali, has come to stand for a simple equation of a popular nationalist uprising presumed to embody liberal democratic values battling brutal repression by a military dictatorship. But was it really as simple as that? Over time, the victorious Bangladeshi nationalist side's narrative of Pakistani villainy and Bengali victimhood became entrenched through unquestioned repetition. The losing side of Pakistani nationalists had its own myth-making, comprising vast Indian plots. Pakistan had been carved out of the British Empire in India as a homeland for South Asia's Muslims. It was a problematic idea from the start - a large proportion of Muslims chose to remain in secular and pluralistic India, for instance, and its two parts, West Pakistan and East Pakistan, were separated by a thousand miles of a hostile India. In 1971 the idea of Islam as the basis of nationhood came apart in South Asia along with the country of Pakistan, after a mere 23 years of existence. What went wrong? And what do the memories of those who were there reveal about the reality of that war? The publication of Dead Reckoning has spoiled the day for those who had been peddling their respective nationalist mythologies undisturbed for so long. Careers have been built - in politics, media, academia and development - on a particular telling of the 1971 war. All the warring parties of 1971 remain relentlessly partisan in recounting the conflict. As the dominant narrative, which has gained currency around the world, is that of the victorious Bangladeshi nationalists and their Indian allies, they stand to lose the most in any unbiased appraisal. Unsurprisingly therefore, the protests from this section are the shrillest. Mixed reaction The reaction to the publication of Dead Reckoning by those who feel threatened by it has followed a predictable path. First, there has been an attempt to damn the book before it was even available. Apart from random rants on the internet - which provides opportunity for anyone to rail against anything - reports have been written by people who haven't read the book, citing other people who also haven't read the book. The reason for this may be summed up as the well-founded fear of "knowledge is power". When people read the book they will be far better informed as to what really happened in 1971. Hence the desperate attempt by those who have been spinning their particular yarns for so long to try to smear the book before anyone gets the chance to read it. A few people also seem to be trying to laud the book before reading it, an equally meaningless exercise. These commentaries are easy to dismiss: clearly, those who haven't read the book have nothing of value to say about it. Second, detractors of the book claim that it exonerates the military from atrocities committed in East Pakistan in 1971. In reality the book details over several chapters many cases of atrocities committed by the regime's forces, so anyone who says it excuses the military's brutalities is clearly lying. The question is - why are they lying about something that will easily be found out as soon as people start reading the book? The answer to this question is more complex than it might seem. Of course the detractors hope that by making such claims they will stop people from reading the book. Part of the answer lies also in that the book corrects some of the absurd exaggerations about the army's actions with which Bangladeshi nationalists had happily embellished their stories of "villainous" Pakistanis for all these years. But an important reason for falsely claiming that the book exonerates the military is to distract attention from the fact that it also chronicles the brutalities by their own side, committed in the name of Bengali nationalism. The nature and scale of atrocities committed by the "nationalist" side had been edited out of the dominant narrative. Its discovery spoils the "villains versus innocents" spin of Bangladeshi nationalist mythology. A key question about the "controversy" over Dead Reckoning is why this book is stirring such passions when other works do not. One reason for this is that there are precious few studies of the 1971 war based on dispassionate research. This is the first book-length study that reconstructs the violence of the war at the ground-level, utilising multiple memories from all sides of the conflict. Two eminent US historians, Richard Sisson and Leo Rose, published the only research-based study of the war at the diplomatic and policy level twenty years ago. Their excellent book, War and Secession: Pakistan, India and the Creation of Bangladesh (University of California Press, 1990), challenged the dominant narrative, but their work does not seem to be known among the general public as much as within academia. However, a crucial reason for the special impact of Dead Reckoning has to do with who the author is. I am a Bengali, from a nationalist family in India. As Indians and Bengalis our sympathies had been firmly with the liberation struggle in Bangladesh in 1971. The dominant narrative of the 1971 war is the story as told by "my side", as it were. My reporting of what I actually found through my research, rather than unquestioningly repeating the partisan narrative or continuing the conspiracy of silence over uncomfortable truths, is thus taken as a "betrayal" by those who have profited for so long from mythologising the history of 1971. It is important to note that not all South Asians subscribe to the myth-making. One eminent Indian journalist thought that my "courage, disregard for orthodoxy and meticulous research" in writing Dead Reckoning made me "the enfant terrible of Indian historians". A senior Bangladeshi scholar has found it "fitting that someone with Sarmila's links with Bengali nationalism should demonstrate that political values cannot be furthered by distorting history." South Asians are prone to conjuring up all manner of conspiracy theories when faced with unpleasant realities, but those looking for one for Dead Reckoning are at a loss, as the only explanation for what it contains is that it reconstructs what really happened on the basis of available evidence. The process of dismantling entrenched nationalist mythologies can be painful for those who have much vested in them, but the passions stirred by the publication of Dead Reckoning has sparked the debate that the 1971 war badly needed - and set on the right course the discussion of this bitter and brutal fratricidal war that split the only homeland created for Muslims in the modern world. Sarmila Bose is Senior Research Fellow in the Politics of South Asia at the University of Oxford. She was a journalist in India for many years. She earned her degrees at Bryn Mawr College (History) and Harvard University (MPA and PhD in Political Economy and Government.) Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War is published by C. Hurst and Co. and Columbia University Press. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Tampering with history

By Shahid Javed Burki
ECONOMISTS have a term for what I will discuss today. They call it ‘path dependence’; how what has happened in the past can influence the present and define the future. The influence of the past can be benign, positive or negative depending on what happened in the past.
In Pakistan’s case the impact is mostly negative. The country has had a troubled history and this has had an influence on the way it has developed over the past six decades. These are difficult times and it is appropriate to weigh some of the burdens history has placed on the Pakistani people and the Pakistani state.
What we need to explore with reference to history are the several aspects of the development of Pakistan. In order to break this dependence on the past we must first do two things: list the main problems the country faces at this time and then see how they have been impacted and infected by the past.
There are half a dozen issues on which we need to reflect in a historical context in order to shape the future.
One of the more important subjects is the role of religion in politics and how its various interpretations have influenced society. We need also to examine why there is an absence of civility in public discourse and in that context why we are so unwilling to treat with compassion and understanding the minorities in our midst.
We have become progressively less tolerant towards the people we consider different from us in some respect. The shabby treatment of minorities is an amazing development in a country that was founded on the basis of protecting the rights and privileges of a community — the Muslims of British India — which was afraid it would be poorly treated at the hands of the Hindu majority. But by minorities I mean more than those that follow a different religion from the majority. I also mean those groups that speak a language or follow practices or have different ethnicity from the majority.
We should also debate the role of politics in building a durable structure of the Pakistani state. In that context what is very important is to devise ways for ensuring the accountability of elected officials who occupy positions of power. We should analyse the impact on politics, economics and society of increasing income and wealth inequalities.
As I will suggest in a later article the chain of causality that led towards the cold-blooded murder of Governor Salman Taseer includes not only a clash of two points of view concerning the role of religion. It was also abetted by a clash between two classes — the very rich and the not-so-poor.
Let me turn to the way history has been perverted to advance a certain point of view regarding the first of these many issues: the role of religion. In an earlier article titled ‘History must not lie’ published in this space on Nov 9, 2010 I suggested that Pakistan was not created to advance Islam in South Asia; it was founded to protect the economic and social rights of a distinct community that felt threatened by the transfer of political power to the majority.
But that is not what we teach our children in public schools. Some of the country’s rulers have deliberately distorted history to suit their own purposes. General Ziaul Haq did the most damage in this respect by ordering the retelling of history in the textbooks taught in public schools. The government has a monopoly over the writing and production of textbooks. There is no outside peer review of what gets written. Whatever the government of the day believes in — and whatever the establishment of the day wants the people to believe — gets written.
Zia ordered the rewriting of history to assign a greater role to religion than was justified by facts. But as is vividly portrayed in Mohammad Hanif’s The Case of Exploding Mangoes — a fascinating fictional account of the Zia years — the military leader did not confine his attention to the writing of textbooks that told a historical lie. He used the unconstrained power he wielded to affect many other changes, including replacing the wording in the insignia worn on the uniforms of army personnel. The words ‘unity, faith and discipline’ were dropped in favour of a commitment to the waging of jihad.
It was President Zia’s assumption that by adopting these measures he would be able to change the mindset of the people who served in the armed forces. Did he succeed? How much have religious beliefs permeated the military? To what extent are the personnel in uniform likely to follow their religious views in carrying out their duties? These are important questions that can only be answered by carefully surveying the opinions of those who serve in the military and associated services. But that some parts of the security establishment have been penetrated was in chilling display in the assassination of Gov Taseer.
There are many reasons why the Pakistani people were prepared to accept this retelling of history. The most obvious one is the quality of education in the public school system, in which rote learning is the basis of imparting what can only be loosely described as knowledge. This unquestioning approach to life is also the reason for the lack of tolerance in public discourse.
It is extraordinary that the assassination of a liberal politician for expressing views that caused discomfort in some quarters was applauded not only by some religious scholars. It drew support from a section of the legal community. It was the same community that had bravely fought the establishment on the question of the independence of the judiciary. It is the same community that is agitating in the courts to hold the government and its agencies accountable for the plight of ‘missing persons’.
Now some of its members have no trouble in countenancing murder to silence an influential political voice. The legal community is expected to protect citizens against the use of arbitrary means to suppress dissent. Nothing can be more arbitrary than murder. By distorting our history we have distorted our worldview.
The writer is chairman of the Lahore-based Institute of Public Policy, a former finance minister of Pakistan and former vice president of the World Bank.

Warped in time

By Saroop Ijaz “IS this Jinnah’s Pakistan?” is by far the most frequently posited question in Pakistani public discourse. The question has now reached absurd dimensions in the aftermath of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer’s assassination, with both sides of the ideological divide vehemently claiming Mohammad Ali Jinnah to be their own.
For a nation as deeply divided by ethnicity and sectarianism and as limited by a narrowness of perspective as Pakistan is, building unity and consensus is perhaps the most significant challenge that needs to be overcome to address our existential crisis. The standard response to major societal crisis in Pakistan has been to invoke Jinnah’s legacy, and in recent times, with the unprecedented polarisation of our society, an effort has been made to intensify his tradition. The result has been the attribution of dedication, loyalty and timeless wisdom to Jinnah, whose personality ostensibly exemplifies the challenges of creating the ideal Pakistani society.
This response of invoking him does not seem to be working any longer. Maybe it has never worked. Max Weber distinguished three types of political power: charismatic authority, traditional authority and legal or rational authority. According to him, authority is power accepted as legitimate by those subjected to it. States progress from charismatic authority to traditional authority and finally reach the state of legal authority that is a characteristic of a modern liberal democracy.
Charismatic authority grows out of personal charm, the strength of an individual personality. According to Weber, “Men do not obey [the charismatic ruler] by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him.” While Jinnah was alive he evoked this sense of belief in many. The next stage is traditional authority, where legitimacy comes from tradition or custom, and the final stage is legal authority, in which individuals or institutions exert power by virtue of the legal offices they hold. Once they leave office, their rational-legal authority is lost. Weber identified “rationally created rules” as the central feature of this form of authority. Pakistan remains at the second stage of this linear progression, with Jinnah being used liberally as an argument to end all arguments.
In the United States the predominant debate regarding constitutional interpretation has for almost a century been between originalism — discerning the original intent of the framers — versus understanding the constitution as a living and evolving document. This debate is different from ours in that it is about a document and not the personal, out-of-context opinions of an individual, albeit a great individual; it takes place within the context of legal-rational authority. Yet there are parallels.
The primary criticism of orginalism has been that at some level it is not about discerning the intent of the now-dead authors of the constitution, but instead about pretending that their beliefs coincide with one’s own and then assuming that one’s own belief about their beliefs is grounds enough for disregarding or modifying the law.
“Is this Jinnah’s Pakistan?” also resonates closely with the oft-posed Catholic question, “what would Jesus do?” In Muslim theology, too, there is often speculation about what Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) would have done. Yet the hypothetical question pertaining to Jinnah is distinguishable from those regarding the two prophets since we do not accord him any transcendental qualities, or at least most of us don’t. Jinnah was a phenomenal statesman and an exceptional leader. He never claimed to have all the answers to every potential problem that may plague the nation till the end of time. He was too intelligent and perceptive to either believe or make such an incongruous claim.
It reminds me of a former governor of Texas, who, when asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that “if English was good enough for Jesus, then it’s good enough for me.” The narrative constructed around Jinnah has now been reduced to the Latin phrase mutato nomine et de te fabula narrator (change only the name and this story is about you).
The problem with appealing to his authority on every issue is not that it is merely redundant. It is counterproductive. Once an argument regarding the secularism or religiosity of Jinnah’s vision is made, the opposing side feels compelled to present evidence from his opinions and anecdotes and at times to fabricate evidence. Debate is stifled as the parameters of the discourse are severely constrained, often leading to ridiculous, dishonest claims.
The condemnation of Taseer’s brutal assassination and the argument against the current blasphemy laws can be made perfectly well without an appeal to Jinnah’s authority. It is disturbing when a society has to search for and appeal to precedents to condemn vicious acts of violence. The argument against the current blasphemy laws can and should be made on the grounds of constitutional and humanitarian principles. Liberals who cite isolated historical precedents often fall into the trap of playing by the rules of the narrow-minded.
To claim that something was believed by someone at some point in time and to argue as if the assertion itself has automatically become an argument is textbook fundamentalism. Additionally, they do not stand a chance of winning, as their enemy is infinitely more familiar with this turf. If the fight for liberalism in Pakistan is to be successful, it has to be fought on the basis of the principles of liberalism and not as apologists. Jinnah was a great man and all of us are indebted to him. But he has done his part; let him rest in peace now.
The author is a lawyer.

This is Jinnah’s Pakistan

ayesha.siddiqa@tribune.com.pk

One hopes that after January 4, the ruling elite will realise that the majority of people are not peaceful onlookers, but a mob which will happily condemn people to death without understanding their logic. Salmaan Taseer was against a law which targeted the poor and the powerless. The fact is that it was a miniscule minority which came forward to mourn his death. The support of the killer’s action, on the other hand, is widespread.
I will exclude the PPP vote-bank from the above classification due to the fact that, while they have protested the killing, it is not certain how much of this is out of conviction for what Taseer was trying to achieve — a change in the notorious blasphemy law that punishes the powerless. The law is based on a problematic system of evidence and this seems to allow a mob to punish defenseless minorities.
Interestingly, the numbers of the silent supporters of the blasphemy law far exceed the vocal minority who support change in laws that supposedly have sanction of religion. While the PML-N and PML-Q comprise a majority of those that consider man-made laws such as Hudood and blasphemy as untouchable, there are many in the PPP itself who don’t think any differently. For example, the group of pirs are silent on the issue of how the government will deal with the law.
The silence of the pirs, especially Yousaf Raza Gilani, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Makhdoom Amin Fahim and others, is understandable considering that they don’t want to annoy their spiritual-cum-political constituency. Notwithstanding the claim that the silent majority follows the more peaceful Barelvi and Sufi Islam, the fact of the matter is that the majority of ulema and pirs do not really take alternative positions on such issues. The pirs definitely don’t have a new thinking, mainly because of their ignorance of religion. Interestingly, two out of three of the Federal Shariat Court judges that opposed changes in the Hudood laws were also appointed as judges by the PPP.
Salmaan Taseer’s murder could not have been avoided, considering that mainstream Islamic discourse in Pakistan is influenced by the Saudi brand. This also includes the Barelvi and Sufi school of thought. This could have changed through ijtihad and ijma. However, the ulema, mashaikh and pirs are all reluctant to review laws for the benefit of the common man. The fact that the educated elite were not conversant in religious discourse and, in fact, kept itself aloof from religion did not help either.
The elite group’s knowledge of religion and active involvement in setting the pace of religious discourse was necessary in a country which was formed in the name of religion. Irrespective of the secular claims about Jinnah’s August 11, 1948 speech, it was not possible to keep a state, which drew its legitimacy from religion, secular. Unfortunately, the elite took refuge in their secularism and left religious discourse at the behest of clergy.
Moreover, the elite continued to strike a Faustian bargain with the clerics every time it ran short of political legitimacy. Most seemingly secular leaders pretended to clothe their policies in religion to seek greater legitimacy. They acted in Jinnah’s footsteps, who had borrowed the concept of Muslim identity without thinking about the rest of the package.
Sixty-three years hence, it is immaterial to argue whether the country was made in the name of Islam or for the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent. The educated, liberal elite had no role in giving direction to religious discourse which was always determined by clerics. Educated people’s intervention made by, for example, Allama Iqbal, was totally missing after 1947.
The marriage of religion with politics also meant that the clerics stuck to the status quo and spent more time thinking of wrangling state power from non-religious leaders. It also seems that in the past couple of decades or a bit more, the clergy shifted its focus from winning elections to capturing the main state narrative. They are in a comfortable position since they were the only ones defining religion and religious norms.
Now, we must await more killings and bloodshed.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 9^th, 2011.

The Ilm-ud- Din Narrative and Murder of Salman TaseerPak Tea House

Pak Tea House

by Raza Habib Raja
Around 4 30 today, I received a call from my friend while sitting in the office informing me about the murder of Salman Taseer by one of his security guards. Besides informing me about the tragic episode he also warned me not to condemn the murder and more importantly not to criticize blasphemy law openly as fanaticism has really seeped into the society. He reminded me that when such a powerful figure such as Salman Taseer was not able to survive how ordinary people like us could remain safe. The words of my friend are an exact reflection of how much we have descended into madness and also on the virtual absence of state’s writ when it came to religious inspired violence.
I have heard a number of times that in Pakistan the religious parties hardly get any vote and that their appeal is in the fringes and therefore Pakistan would ultimately come out of this self reinforcing circle of hate and violence. However, I beg to differ here. Religious fanatics do not need mass support to execute their agenda. They are not trying to bring Islam through electoral process. All they need is a critical mass and a few impressionable men and women who are willing to die. This is all what is needed to ensure that anyone speaking against bigotry and misuse of religion is exterminated. And considering the fact that those who speak against controversial religious laws and tools of oppression are very few in numbers, it becomes alarmingly easy task to make a horrible example of them. Salman Taseer was punished for his outspokenness and for calling the current form of  Anti Blasphemy law, a Black law.  
His murder also shows that you do not even need to hatch a deep conspiracy to make an impressionable young man do the unthinkable. You just need freedom to breed and spread hatred which in a twisted way emanates out of extraordinary reverence of Islam. When people (rather pests) like Amer Liaquat are given full freedom to preach violence for the protection of honour of the Holy Prophet, frankly what happened today will by no stretch of imagination be just a one off event. Let’s not forget that a year ago, some of our “brave” Muslims burnt some Christians alive on similar “sin” of blasphemy and Ahmedis were also killed.
Every country and society has some heroes whose deeds are glorified so that the young can hopefully emulate them. In a society where Ilm-ud-Din has been made into a legend and a “Shaheed” rather than being called a murderer, murder of Salman Taseer is hardly a surprise. Mumtaz Qadri, in his head was going to Heaven and on his way to attaining the same legendary status when he fired shots at Salman Taseer.

The incident has shown that we need to reevaluate freedom of expression and the way it is regulated. Why do we allow the perpetuators of the religious propaganda to breed freely? Why do we try to narrate story of murderers like Ilm-ud-Din in a consecrated manner? By such narrations, we may not be converting the entire population into fanatics but nevertheless a critical mass is getting radicalized. And all what the hardliners need is that critical organized mass which is ready to even adopt violence.
Salamn Taseer even within his own party was an exception. He was one of the very few individuals who dared to out rightly criticize the blasphemy law and his opposition was coming at a time when even the Prime Minister had started to appease the hardliners. If and only if, all the moderate elements had supported Salman Taseer openly instead of bracketing his point of view as merely “personal”, at least concrete signals would have been given to the hard line elements.
Every grave accident also gives us an opportunity to have a look at the situation. Right now despite everything, I can still sense horror in many people. There are many who have been shocked and are realizing that things are really spiraling out of control.  For God sake let’s rescue ourselves from this hatred. Let’s try to understand that religion is a way to connect with God, it should not be allowed to be misused to inflict bigotry. For the workers of PPP who are out on the street and registering their protest, my advise would be to direct it at the religous fanatic parties rather than Punjab Government. We need that anger to be rightly directed. Democratic forces need to unite here. Leaders of two mainstream parties, PPP and PML (N), need to come up with some sort of a united front instead of indluging in third class political point scoring.
To all others , for God sake let’s show collective courage. Majority is still moderate but totally helpless in front of an organized militant religious minority. And let’s not try to make heroes out of murderers like Ilm-ud-Din. We need a new set of heroes and ideals.

1. Majumdar

   January 5, 2011 at 4:59 pm

   Ranjit bhai,
   beyond simplistic notions of blaming a generic mullah
   If you have read Skeptical mian and particularly FRK sahib very closely lately, you will observe that they have done just that.
   Regards
   
2. Straight-Talk

   January 5, 2011 at 6:30 pm

   Time has gone for request and petition, now time is for some blitzkreig by secular, liberal and open minded people else they also be targeted one by one. Religiously indoctrinated public is too god fearing to oppose anything that is slightly related to god and expecting from them to come out in open is useless. Same is true for ruling party. They although voted to power by liberal people, too scared to act against these fanatics else they too be called anti-islamic. There is only way out from this mess is a secular’s revolution, just like what did Kemal Ataturk in Turkey and then make such constitution which ban use of religion in totality in any form governance. But question is, whether secularist has it in them, to show some courage against these powerful fundamentalist and start anything like that? Or army will come into their support? Answer of these questions will decide the future of Pakistan.
   
3. Subcontinental

   January 5, 2011 at 6:55 pm

   Straight-Talk
   Let’s not delude ourselves. Soon the cadre uwas recruited during Zia ul-Haq’s rule would gain control of the Army. These would be a lot more Islam-pasand than even the current ones.
   One is deluding oneself, if one thinks that there will be support from the Armed Forces for the Pakistani Liberals. None of it is going to be forthcoming. Now that one bodyguard has seen how much praise Mr. Mumtaz Qadri is getting, every bodyguard would look for ways to earn similar praise AND money.
   Pakistan did not want to touch Hafiz Saeed after Mumbai 26/11, let’s see what Pakistan can do about Mr. Qadri. I don’t expect him to be punished. There will be many copycats.
   Once the suicide bombings started, there was no stopping them. The case is similar. Now the Islamists feel emboldened. Now they will come after the ‘Liberal’ politicians. Where will the politicians hide? They are so much dead meat!
   
4. Samachar

   January 5, 2011 at 7:17 pm

   Subcontinental,
   Pakistani antagonism towards India didn’t necessarily have to lead to the embrace of jihadis and extremists as foreign policy which is now consuming Pakistan internally. For example, Pakistan instead could have done a South Korea or Taiwan.
   Asking Pakistan to make peace with India is like Salman Taseer trying to amend the blasphemy laws. **However**, moving to a different and more productive expression of enmity is certainly feasible.
   
5. sid

   January 5, 2011 at 7:17 pm

   Where is hope with people like these:
   http://www.rediff.com/news/report/punjab-governors-killer-a-holy-warrior-say-pak-clerics/20110105.htm
   
6. Straight-Talk

   January 5, 2011 at 7:42 pm

   @ Subcontinental When one sees sadly that the killer of Ms Butto are still not brought to justice while her own party and her husband is in power, it is quite foolish to expect anything better for Mr Taseer. Even the role and action of present government is smells foul. It seems that they are in connivance with fundamentalists or they’re spineless.
   
7. simply61

   January 5, 2011 at 8:00 pm

   I fail to see the connection between Taseer’s murder and his anti-India stance…and, subcontinental, shouting about ‘muslim chauvanism’ every two lines doesn’t clarify things either.
   Contrary to your opinion,Pakistanis(atleast a large number of them) do realise the mess thay are in and the reasons for it(Arab influence,oil money,American connection,mullahs etc etc)but sometimes getting out of the mess is a lot messier and harder than we think…it might get a lot worse before it gets better.:(
   
8. Chalta

   January 5, 2011 at 8:16 pm

   Ranjit’s point is valid.
   take this line “What do you think that taunting and making fun of islam will reform them?” the clear answer is YES! Shock therapy enmasse within Pakistan is what is required. The moderates of pakistan haven’t the intestinal fortitude to stand up and fight the islamists. This ridiculous need to protect the religion as something beyond reproach only fuels the bravado of the fundos. It is no silent opposition…it is silent compliance when you don’t stand up and fight. How many one-man marches are being organized for decrying the fundamentalism in pakistan? How many thousands are attending? It is the quom!!!!!!
   
9. watanyar

   January 5, 2011 at 8:36 pm

   Salman Taseer dies no worries we have the a large number of politician than any other country
   
10. Samachar

    January 5, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    Pakteahouse writers were bemoaning the bombing of Data Darbar and so on.
    “A leader of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party’s ‘ulema’ or clerics wing led Taseer’s funeral prayer on Wednesday afternoon after several leading clerics of Lahore, including the imams of the Data Darbar shrine and the Shahi Masjid, refused to do so.
    The cleric of the mosque at the Governor’s House, who is a Barelvi, refused to lead the prayer, sources said.
    —
    The clerics said in a statement issued on Tuesday night, “There should be no expression of grief or sympathy on the death of the governor, as those who support blasphemy of the Prophet Mohammed are themselves indulging in blasphemy.”
    Hailing Malik, the clerics said he had killed Taseer for calling the blasphemy law a ‘black law’.
    Hailing the ‘courage and zeal’ of Qadri, the clerics and scholars said his action had made all Muslims proud.
    The statement issued by the Jamaat-e-Ahl-e-Sunnat Pakistan was endorsed by the grouping’s ‘ameer’ or chief Syed Mazhar Saeed Shah Kazmi. It was also endorsed by over 500 scholars and clerics like Allama Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, Shah Turab-ul-Haq Qadri and Pir Ghulam Siddiq Naqshbandi.
    Those ‘favouring the person who indulged in blasphemy are themselves blasphemous’, the scholars and clerics said in the statement.
    Paying tribute to Taseer’s assassin and his courage, the statement described Qadri as a lover of the Prophet Mohammed and a Ghazi or Islamic warrior.
    Qadri had “revived the 14-century-old traditions of Islam” and made Muslims around the world proud, it said.
    The clerics and scholars asked intellectuals, ministers, politicians and media personalities who oppose the blasphemy law to learn a lesson from Taseer’s death.
    These personalities should “save their faith by announcing that they would desist from attempting to amend the blasphemy law,” they said.
    
11. iman

    January 5, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    someone needs to organize country wide protests of the disorganized liberal majority. It needs to be apolitical. unfortunately the PML-N will never speak up against extremism because in essence it is a “maulvi” party. We need to stand up and root out these assholes ourselves, NO party will take a stand on this issue. All madrasas need to be shut down-good or bad. There is a very thin line between a good madrasa and a bad madrasa. All Imam’s need to be screened and passed through some central training center which is closely monitored. A state approved sermon should be pre-recorded and played at all mosques. Tough measures need to be taken, and we the silent disorganized liberal majority need to wake up, shake off the indifference, and get out there, to take these sons of guns down!
    
12. Milestogo

    January 5, 2011 at 10:17 pm

    Let jihadis Or
    be jihadis or
    fight jihadis
    pick one…I say pick the last one…
    
13. thomas

    January 5, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    “Tough measures need to be taken, and we the silent disorganized liberal majority need to wake up, shake off the indifference, and get out there, to take these sons of guns down!”
    What about the drones, isn’t that what they were going to do….. Perhaps what is really needed is for Pakistan to be governed for Pakistan and not the U.S. or Islam…… The drones kill without trial or even offensive statement..! Do you think the killing of Drone victims is just? If so then you debase justice and will reap the justice you sew…
    
14. Hasnat Chohan

    January 6, 2011 at 3:49 am

    Moderates are moderates because they dont want to fight for anything infact many of them dont believe in anything so it is naive to expect them to stand up and fight. If someone else starts the fight, they might join in but on their own they cannot start anything. Who is that someone else going to be? The Pakistani left which numbers in few lacs? Most lefties in Pakistan and elsewhere love nothing more than their life so dont expect them to put their lives on the line especially if they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the fanatics. Sorry to see Mullahs taking over my motherland and guess what we deserve it…RIP Sohni Dharti…I have very fond childhood memories from the 70′s and 80′s…Whatever happens I hope eventually the people of Pakistan will be free of repression someday.
    
15. MilesToGo

    January 6, 2011 at 4:28 am

    Bengalis ejected out of the crashing jet…Now is the time to part ways forthe rest – Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochs and Pathans to tackle the extremist monster at the provincial level. If one thinks hard – a break up will break the back of extremist ideology and at the same time will pave way for a new moden and liberal Pakistani Union to emerge.
    
16. Watty

    January 6, 2011 at 6:19 am

    Re: Samachar [January 5, 2011 at 8:44 pm ]
    ["Qadri had “revived the 14-century-old traditions of Islam” and made Muslims around the world proud, it said..."]
    The world is rapidly progressing towards the next century while these self-righteous actors seem bent on hijacking an entire nation back to the 14th century! What Muslims around the world are proud? This shocking level of ignorance intoxicated with fervent hyper-religiosity that celebrates the needless taking of life is most certainly a growing existential threat – not just to Pakistan! Difficult times lie ahead.
    
17. skarlok

    January 6, 2011 at 6:53 am

    @Talha (January 5, 2011 at 2:51 pm)
    
    All we need now is for an alchoholic prostitute killing poet to label the killer of Salman Taseer a ‘matchless warrior’ and give more fule to the bigot brigade for decades to come.
    
    Are you referring to Allama Iqbal. He is said to have been indulging in drinking and paying an occasional visit to the kottha.
    
18. yasserlatifhamdani

    January 6, 2011 at 9:54 am

    There were several comments made about me which I need to respond to:
    1. My criticism of Gandhi is not based on any irrational hatred. I keep editing Majumdar’s posts for abuse against Gandhi. My point about Gandhi’s support for Khilafat Movement is valid and will remain valid. It was the original starting point for the domino effect of religious fundamentalism. Majlis-e-Ahrar and Jamiat e Ulema Hind emerged from that … and incidentally these parties were also opposed to Pakistan’s creation. That said Gandhi’s assassination was a great tragedy for the entire subcontinent …. my criticism of Gandhi is on an entirely different plane from BJKumar and other Hindu fanatics who have an irrational hatred for Jinnah.
    2. Someone at some point – now edited- suggested that I should take up the case of Mumtaz Qadri because well Jinnah had appeared in appeal for Ilmdin in 1929. This is also nonsense. Ilmdin’s issue was of a young impressionable pot-smoking kid of barely 19 years(unlike Mumtaz Laanti who was 26 years old, trained Elite force guard and a father of two and who acted in cold blood after which he confessed) who killed someone after being riled up and Ilmdin repeatedly claimed in defense that he had not done it. Jinnah was not the trial court lawyer and his defense of Ilmdin was in no way a defence of the barbaric act that the young boy had committed …. and after it was proven that Ilmdin had indeed murdered Rajpal, Jinnah asked for the commutation of death sentence of his client on the grounds that he was 19-20. This I have discussed in detail in my article “Ilamdin fiasco and lies about Jinnah”.
    3. There was also a different minority-majority dynamic at work. As for Allama Iqbal… his own son and grandson are opposed to such bigotry. Salman Taseer’s father M D Taseer a renowned leftist poet was also involved in the agitation in favour of Ilamdin.
    4. I am not a criminal lawyer… but for what its worth… I will defend in a court of law any Shia or an Ahmadi or a Christian or a Hindu in Pakistan who kills a Sunni Mullah who has inflamed him and provoked him into an act of mindless violence.
    
    Jamil Khan
    

    January 6, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    ہمیں آخر اپنے ملک میں دو فیصد سے بھی کم غیر مُسلموں سے اتنا خوف کیوں آتا ہے؟ آخر ہمیں اُس مہربان نبّی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی عزت کے نام پر گلے کاٹنے کا اِتنا شوق کیوں ہے جِس نے ایک قتل کو ساری انسانیت کا قتل قرار دیا تھا۔ آخر غازی عِلم دین ش…ہید کو غازی اور شہید کہہ کر اپنے کونسے ڈر کو چھپا رہے ہیں اور اپنے اندر چھپے کس مجاہد کو دلاسا دے رہے ہیں؟
    آخر ہم روزہ رکھنے سے لے کر سورج گرہن کے اسباب جانے کے لیے مفتی منیب الرحمٰن کے پاس کیوں بھاگے بھاگے جاتے ہیں؟
    آخر ہمیں کس نے یقین دلایا کہ قوم کی بیٹی ڈاکٹر عافیہ کو بچانے کے لیے قوم کی بیٹی آسیہ کا سر تن سے جدا کرنا ضروری ہے؟
    اُسی اِسلام آباد شہر میں جہاں سلمان تاثیر کا قتل ہوا صِرف دو ہفتے پہلے ناموسِ رسالت کانفرنس میں کون کون شامل تھا۔ کیا اُس میں وہ لوگ شامل نہیں تھے جن کے پارٹی منشور میں ہر شیعہ، احمدی، ہندو، یہودی کو قتل کرنے کا عندیہ نہیں دیا گیا۔