Posts
By DR A. H. KHAYAL
Almost every part of the country is infected with neurosis. Almost every citizen is mentally sick. Unfortunately, we don't have the resources for establishing a mental hospital of the size of Pakistan.
The current political turmoil is the mother of the people's mental manfully upheaval. Some of the sick keep manfully for their survival. But most of the Pakistanis are living dead-bodies. There is utter uncertainty about the very survival of the country.
Any moment could be the last moment of its life. If, God forbid, the country were to collapse, only the masses would be the real sufferers.
The rulers would be absolutely unaffected. The tragedy would not dare to even touch the rulers. The rulers are a mysterious species. They rule the country mysteriously. For them neither the survival nor the extinction of the country is of any significance whatsoever. Actually, for them the country is a 5-star hotel which they use for picnicking. It is not their motherland. Their motherland lies far beyond the seas.
The government has failed to deliver to the masses what it had promised to deliver. Our skies are overcast with national depression. Rumours are rife that new elections are round the corner.
In the past, we have had numerous general elections and numerous governments. All the governments were utter fiascos. Would the new election breed something radically different from what the elections bred in the past? Only a miracle can do so. But our past history warns us that we have banned the entry of miracles in our country.
General elections are a very expensive affair. So far we have spent billions upon billions of rupees on our elections in the past. Actually, we have burnt this gigantic amount of money. We love electioneering because we love burning the national money. And for us there are no fireworks more entertaining than burning the people's money recklessly.
We love electioneering. But we detest reforming our political, economic and social chooses. The election periods are our orgiastic periods. When elections are over, we become depressed. We keep passionately waiting for the next elections. Elections have followed elections. But not an iota of change for the better has ever followed the elections.
Presidents have come and gone. prime ministers have come and gone. But when the economic misery of the masses came it came with a determination never to go. And it has stuck to its determination. What a determination!
Our political affairs have been regularly declining. Our economic affairs have been regularly declining. Our social affairs have been regularly declining. Almost everything has been regularly declining. But there is a mighty exception. It is the misery of the masses. This misery has been incessantly growing and growing. If we are ashamed of the regular general decline, we must be proud of the regular growth of the misery of the masses.
A poor man has only one problem. It is his stomach. On the contrary, the rich man has as many problems as he has external and internal bodily organs. Each organ is a very demanding creature. If the demands of an organ are not met, it makes the life of the rich man extremely miserable perhaps more miserable than the miserable life of the extremely poor man. The rich man's survival depends upon a regular increase in his wealth. A regular increase is his very oxygen. The moment an increase becomes impossible, his heart starts missing beats. Actually, Pakistan is inhabited by two nations the phenomenally rich and the phenomenally poor.
The president's impeachment is in the balance. There is a rumour that if the impeachment turned out to be a victory for the coalition, the coalition would celebrate the victory by distributing lots and lots of peaches amongst the masses.
For a long time, the masses have been asking the president to surrender power. The masses are ignorant. They just don't know that the president doesn't have power. Actually, it is power which is holding him. One has power only when one can surrender it and capture it again. If one cannot recapture it then it is not he who holds it but it is the power which holds him. . If the president were to surrender power, would he be able to recapture it? Thus the masses are asking him to surrender what he doesn't have. Poor ignorant masses!
When the president was a soldier, most probably he was not ambitious to become the country's president. It was Destiny which flung Pakistan into his pocket. He did not have the courage to offend Destiny. But he could have used Destiny's gift for the well-being of the masses. He did not. Perhaps Destiny has got offended. Perhaps it is destiny which is now infuriating the masses against the president.
Showing posts with label thenation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thenation. Show all posts
Friday, August 15, 2008
Corruption and inefficiency
By Dr Ijaz Ahsan
I have just read that Chief Minister has ordered a crackdown on hoarders of wheat. As a farmer who grows wheat, I would like to Mr CM that the primary responsibility for the wheat crisis rests not with hoarders. They are certainly a part of the problem. However, the most important cause of the wheat shortage in the country has to do with inefficiency and corruption in different government departments, as I shall now explain. Some time ago I decided to sell my wheat to the government - to PASSCO in fact - and I shall never forget what I went through. If one takes a few hundred maunds of wheat to the grain market, they fill it into bags, weigh it, and within an hour or two, hand you the cash and send you home. But dealing with the concerned government officials was an extended nightmare.
I was told to take the following actions, at almost every one of which I had to grease palms: Firstly, provide proof of ownership of land. Secondly, apply for permission to sell to them the precise quantity of wheat I desired to dispose of. Thirdly, buy from them empty bags, whose price would be refunded to me after they had received my wheat. Fourthly, take my wheat to Minichinabad Centre, forty kilometres away, rather than Bahawalnagar, which was close to my land. Fifthly, open an account at a bank in Minchinabad. Sixthly, deliver my wheat to them and receive a chit. Seventhly, come all the way to the Minchinabad Centre once again and receive a pay order in payment. Now I ask Chief Minister: why would a person sell to PASSCO unless he was out of his mind? The result, over the years, has been that the government departments fail to procure enough wheat. And new another sad story starts.
Punjab produces 85 percent of the country's wheat. It, therefore, has the responsibility of keeping adequate reserve of this staple food. Because of the incompetence and corruption of the procuring departments, not enough reserves are built up. On the other hand, because of incompetence and corruption in the department meant to prevent smuggling, hundreds of thousands of tons is smuggled to Afghanistan from NWFP, creating food shortage in that province. When Punjab fails to give them more and more wheat because its reserves are insufficient, then the ministers of the NWFP government hold out threats that they will come to Punjab, lift wheat by force, and will see who can prevent them. Please note how corruption and inefficiency in government departments leads to strained relations between provinces, destroying national integration and cohesion.
This year the situation has reached such a nadir that for the first time in my life, the police has been raiding farmers' residences to snatch wheat. These people are not hoarders. The small farmers always have to sell all their wheat at once. The somewhat bigger farmers sell some, and keep some, in order to sell it later at a better price. No government department in the past has been raiding farmers' residences, certainly not within a couple of months of the wheat harvest having come in. This shows the horrendous stage that has been reached due to the incompetence and corruption in the departments.
Another important reason for the wheat shortage is the failure of the Planned Parenthood department to check the increasingly rapid growth of our population. In 1947, the population of the Pakistan was not more than 3 crores. In the last sixty years, this has been allowed to increase to sixteen crores. The bellies of the five times greater number of people on the same area of land are a bottomless pit, which is impossible to fill. The people believe our religion forbids family planning, and hence shy away from it. Faced with such a situation, the Bangladeshis sent their biggest religious leaders abroad to attend international conferences on family planning. There they discovered that not only the Bangladesh government, but other governments were also worried about the rate at which the population was increasing in their countries. When the religious leaders returned to Bangladesh, they stopped opposing family planning programmes, and advised their followers in the villages and towns to do likewise. This helped immensely, and therefore the population of Bangladesh has been controlled.
Dear Mr CM, you are occupying a very high post in the government. Kindly try to have our top maulanas also sent to Planned Parenthood conferences. You wil1 be pleasantly surprised by the results. Further, force the wheat procurement agencies to put their act together or else face the axe. God bless you.
The writer is a former principal of King Edward Medical College, and president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Pakistan
E-mail: drijaz@nation.com.pk
I have just read that Chief Minister has ordered a crackdown on hoarders of wheat. As a farmer who grows wheat, I would like to Mr CM that the primary responsibility for the wheat crisis rests not with hoarders. They are certainly a part of the problem. However, the most important cause of the wheat shortage in the country has to do with inefficiency and corruption in different government departments, as I shall now explain. Some time ago I decided to sell my wheat to the government - to PASSCO in fact - and I shall never forget what I went through. If one takes a few hundred maunds of wheat to the grain market, they fill it into bags, weigh it, and within an hour or two, hand you the cash and send you home. But dealing with the concerned government officials was an extended nightmare.
I was told to take the following actions, at almost every one of which I had to grease palms: Firstly, provide proof of ownership of land. Secondly, apply for permission to sell to them the precise quantity of wheat I desired to dispose of. Thirdly, buy from them empty bags, whose price would be refunded to me after they had received my wheat. Fourthly, take my wheat to Minichinabad Centre, forty kilometres away, rather than Bahawalnagar, which was close to my land. Fifthly, open an account at a bank in Minchinabad. Sixthly, deliver my wheat to them and receive a chit. Seventhly, come all the way to the Minchinabad Centre once again and receive a pay order in payment. Now I ask Chief Minister: why would a person sell to PASSCO unless he was out of his mind? The result, over the years, has been that the government departments fail to procure enough wheat. And new another sad story starts.
Punjab produces 85 percent of the country's wheat. It, therefore, has the responsibility of keeping adequate reserve of this staple food. Because of the incompetence and corruption of the procuring departments, not enough reserves are built up. On the other hand, because of incompetence and corruption in the department meant to prevent smuggling, hundreds of thousands of tons is smuggled to Afghanistan from NWFP, creating food shortage in that province. When Punjab fails to give them more and more wheat because its reserves are insufficient, then the ministers of the NWFP government hold out threats that they will come to Punjab, lift wheat by force, and will see who can prevent them. Please note how corruption and inefficiency in government departments leads to strained relations between provinces, destroying national integration and cohesion.
This year the situation has reached such a nadir that for the first time in my life, the police has been raiding farmers' residences to snatch wheat. These people are not hoarders. The small farmers always have to sell all their wheat at once. The somewhat bigger farmers sell some, and keep some, in order to sell it later at a better price. No government department in the past has been raiding farmers' residences, certainly not within a couple of months of the wheat harvest having come in. This shows the horrendous stage that has been reached due to the incompetence and corruption in the departments.
Another important reason for the wheat shortage is the failure of the Planned Parenthood department to check the increasingly rapid growth of our population. In 1947, the population of the Pakistan was not more than 3 crores. In the last sixty years, this has been allowed to increase to sixteen crores. The bellies of the five times greater number of people on the same area of land are a bottomless pit, which is impossible to fill. The people believe our religion forbids family planning, and hence shy away from it. Faced with such a situation, the Bangladeshis sent their biggest religious leaders abroad to attend international conferences on family planning. There they discovered that not only the Bangladesh government, but other governments were also worried about the rate at which the population was increasing in their countries. When the religious leaders returned to Bangladesh, they stopped opposing family planning programmes, and advised their followers in the villages and towns to do likewise. This helped immensely, and therefore the population of Bangladesh has been controlled.
Dear Mr CM, you are occupying a very high post in the government. Kindly try to have our top maulanas also sent to Planned Parenthood conferences. You wil1 be pleasantly surprised by the results. Further, force the wheat procurement agencies to put their act together or else face the axe. God bless you.
The writer is a former principal of King Edward Medical College, and president of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Pakistan
E-mail: drijaz@nation.com.pk
Impeaching the president
By M.A. Niazi
The coalition partners finally seem to have reconciled their positions, as is supposed to be done in all good coalitions. The PML-N insisted that its core position included the restoration of the judiciary to its pre-Emergency position.
The PPP did not spell out, but made clear from its behaviour, that it did not want the president to suffer any embarrassment, which he insisted he would suffer in the event of a full restoration, so it avoided the restoration, leaving the PML-N to do its second worst and leave the Federal Cabinet (the worst was leaving the Punjab government, which it did not do).
The solution was to impeach the president, which has not just been announced, but has been recommended by three provincial assemblies, and will be recommended by the fourth. The equation was simple: find a president who will not be embarrassed by the restoration of the judiciary. For that, it was necessary to create a vacancy in the office, which meant the removal of the incumbent.
Since the incumbent had been re-elected only last year and thus had virtually the whole of the five years of his second term to run, this meant impeaching him. The PPP decided purely according to the logic of the situation, and there is no malignity towards the president visible in the move, at least from the PPP.
This is not the case with the PML-N, which on the other hand, saw an opportunity to fulfil another of its agenda items. The removal of the president is actually on the PPP to-do list, and after the February 18 election, which was more or less a referendum against Musharraf, it probably made sense to the PPP to place itself at the head of the movement for his removal.
It appears that the foreign powers and the military have decided to remain neutral, but the president is determined to tough it out. He has to ensure the semblance of support from them, not necessarily actual support, if he hopes to defeat the move.
The foreign powers have a historical record of letting down their Third-World allies when they lose support among their own people, and thus the number of American surveys appearing, that showed Musharraf as enjoying little support, assume significance, as does Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's meeting both with the British PM and the US President. The Americans in particular will not support anyone who does not enjoy a plurality in a survey after being in power and office since 1999, yet it is American support that Musharraf has been courting ever since 9/11.
The president appears determined to go through with the impeachment, which follows a quasi-judicial procedure, as in the American model on which it is based. The big difference is in the voting. In the USA, an impeachment's framing is done by the lower House of Congress, the House of Representatives, but the impeachment itself is heard by the Upper House, the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding.
In Pakistan, there is no role for the chief justice, and the charges are determined by the federal government, or the movers of the motion of impeachment, in the shape of the motion itself. The joint committee tasked with drafting is working on this motion, and once their work reaches the House, the 'bill of impeachment' becomes public property, just as does any bill in the USA.
Unlike the USA, where there is a clear Representatives-Senate division, Pakistan allows the impeachment to originate in either House moved by half of that House, and then for it to come before a joint sitting for consideration.
At the joint sitting, there may be an investigation, but only if there is, will the president get the right to legal representation. The motion of impeachment must be passed by two-thirds of the senate (in the USA, and the chief justice does not have a vote) or two-thirds of the total membership of the joint sitting (in Pakistan).
In short, considering that American senators and Pakistani members of parliament (both MNAs and senators) are both political animals, this vote is devoted to whether they like the face of the president or not. They are supposed to apply their minds to whether the incumbent violated the constitution or not, but they will not bother. In the USA, they will vote according to how it will sound in their next election, and in Pakistan, according to the party whip, which is crucial for the National Assembly and all-important for the senate.
Yet Musharraf has a way out, though only if the agency chiefs cooperate. If members abstain, they are voting for the sitting president.
The motion does not require a majority-against to be defeated, but will be defeated if it fails to attract the requisite number of votes, which is two-thirds of the total membership. Since the agencies have ensured the election of many of those on the Treasury benches (at least, to them), the agencies can make them abstain, and thus vote for the president.
Such a presidency would be double-edged. Already, Pervez Musharraf is going to set a record, as a president who was the first to be impeached. Both of the presidential impeachment's in the USA that went to the senate, that of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 and of Bill Clinton in 1998, failed, while Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than face impeachment, in which he was a virtual certainty to be convicted, not because he was guilty (which he was), but because the senators were under constituency pressures.
Impeachment is no defence against further trial, and it is not clear in Pakistan what the status is of the evidence adduced. The pension rights of the president are sacrificed, though it is hoped that Musharraf would avoid this loss of what is a generous package, including free accommodation and transport by resigning. However, even if he loses these rights because he has been impeached, as a former chief of army staff, he gives up nothing, and this is a sufficiency for him.
It must be said that the nation is going through a trauma as severe as the president, who is a mere channel. Just as a president is impeached only once, a nation witnesses a presidential impeachment for the first time only once. Pakistan is undergoing a stressful time, and it is to be hoped that it comes through successfully.
E-mail: maniazi@nation.com.pk
The coalition partners finally seem to have reconciled their positions, as is supposed to be done in all good coalitions. The PML-N insisted that its core position included the restoration of the judiciary to its pre-Emergency position.
The PPP did not spell out, but made clear from its behaviour, that it did not want the president to suffer any embarrassment, which he insisted he would suffer in the event of a full restoration, so it avoided the restoration, leaving the PML-N to do its second worst and leave the Federal Cabinet (the worst was leaving the Punjab government, which it did not do).
The solution was to impeach the president, which has not just been announced, but has been recommended by three provincial assemblies, and will be recommended by the fourth. The equation was simple: find a president who will not be embarrassed by the restoration of the judiciary. For that, it was necessary to create a vacancy in the office, which meant the removal of the incumbent.
Since the incumbent had been re-elected only last year and thus had virtually the whole of the five years of his second term to run, this meant impeaching him. The PPP decided purely according to the logic of the situation, and there is no malignity towards the president visible in the move, at least from the PPP.
This is not the case with the PML-N, which on the other hand, saw an opportunity to fulfil another of its agenda items. The removal of the president is actually on the PPP to-do list, and after the February 18 election, which was more or less a referendum against Musharraf, it probably made sense to the PPP to place itself at the head of the movement for his removal.
It appears that the foreign powers and the military have decided to remain neutral, but the president is determined to tough it out. He has to ensure the semblance of support from them, not necessarily actual support, if he hopes to defeat the move.
The foreign powers have a historical record of letting down their Third-World allies when they lose support among their own people, and thus the number of American surveys appearing, that showed Musharraf as enjoying little support, assume significance, as does Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani's meeting both with the British PM and the US President. The Americans in particular will not support anyone who does not enjoy a plurality in a survey after being in power and office since 1999, yet it is American support that Musharraf has been courting ever since 9/11.
The president appears determined to go through with the impeachment, which follows a quasi-judicial procedure, as in the American model on which it is based. The big difference is in the voting. In the USA, an impeachment's framing is done by the lower House of Congress, the House of Representatives, but the impeachment itself is heard by the Upper House, the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the United States presiding.
In Pakistan, there is no role for the chief justice, and the charges are determined by the federal government, or the movers of the motion of impeachment, in the shape of the motion itself. The joint committee tasked with drafting is working on this motion, and once their work reaches the House, the 'bill of impeachment' becomes public property, just as does any bill in the USA.
Unlike the USA, where there is a clear Representatives-Senate division, Pakistan allows the impeachment to originate in either House moved by half of that House, and then for it to come before a joint sitting for consideration.
At the joint sitting, there may be an investigation, but only if there is, will the president get the right to legal representation. The motion of impeachment must be passed by two-thirds of the senate (in the USA, and the chief justice does not have a vote) or two-thirds of the total membership of the joint sitting (in Pakistan).
In short, considering that American senators and Pakistani members of parliament (both MNAs and senators) are both political animals, this vote is devoted to whether they like the face of the president or not. They are supposed to apply their minds to whether the incumbent violated the constitution or not, but they will not bother. In the USA, they will vote according to how it will sound in their next election, and in Pakistan, according to the party whip, which is crucial for the National Assembly and all-important for the senate.
Yet Musharraf has a way out, though only if the agency chiefs cooperate. If members abstain, they are voting for the sitting president.
The motion does not require a majority-against to be defeated, but will be defeated if it fails to attract the requisite number of votes, which is two-thirds of the total membership. Since the agencies have ensured the election of many of those on the Treasury benches (at least, to them), the agencies can make them abstain, and thus vote for the president.
Such a presidency would be double-edged. Already, Pervez Musharraf is going to set a record, as a president who was the first to be impeached. Both of the presidential impeachment's in the USA that went to the senate, that of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 and of Bill Clinton in 1998, failed, while Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 rather than face impeachment, in which he was a virtual certainty to be convicted, not because he was guilty (which he was), but because the senators were under constituency pressures.
Impeachment is no defence against further trial, and it is not clear in Pakistan what the status is of the evidence adduced. The pension rights of the president are sacrificed, though it is hoped that Musharraf would avoid this loss of what is a generous package, including free accommodation and transport by resigning. However, even if he loses these rights because he has been impeached, as a former chief of army staff, he gives up nothing, and this is a sufficiency for him.
It must be said that the nation is going through a trauma as severe as the president, who is a mere channel. Just as a president is impeached only once, a nation witnesses a presidential impeachment for the first time only once. Pakistan is undergoing a stressful time, and it is to be hoped that it comes through successfully.
E-mail: maniazi@nation.com.pk
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Understanding Iqbal's 'dream' of Pakistan
By DR RIFFAT HASSAN
Allama Muhammad Iqbal is the spiritual and intellectual founder of Pakistan. No poet or philosopher in the history of the world has inspired and energised millions of people as Iqbal did. He was the last and greatest thinker of the historic Aligarh Movement which brought about a paradigm shift in the consciousness of the Muslims of India, and transformed their destiny. But Iqbal's place in history is not limited to his role as a modernist, reformist Muslim thinker in India. He is the most outstanding poet-philosopher of the world of Islam, and of the world in general, since the death of Jalaluddin Rumi in 1273.
Poet, philosopher, educationist, lawyer, political activist, social reformer, Iqbal is unmatched in his versatility and the breadth of his knowledge and vision. His message is more relevant and important to contemporary Muslims than the message of any other Muslim thinker of the past or present. This is due not only to the fact that Iqbal faced the challenges of both traditionalism and modernity fearlessly, but also - and more importantly - because he had a profound understanding of the integrated vision of the Qur'an which he made the basis of his philosophy.
What is unique about Iqbal's philosophy is that it offers concrete guidance about how a Muslim can attain "the good life" which is the goal set before humanity whom God has created "in the best of moulds" (Surah 95: At-Tin: 4). The opening line of Iqbal's Preface to his famous Lectures on The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam points out that "The Qur'an is a book which emphasises 'deed' rather than 'idea'." Likewise, Iqbal's philosophy, rich as it is in ideas and concepts, is fundamentally action-oriented.
It is often proclaimed by Pakistanis that Pakistan was Iqbal's "dream" but few know that this "dream" was the outcome of a lifetime of deep thinking and feeling, of study, of creativity, and of prayer. Iqbal died in 1938, nine years before the creation of Pakistan, but his role in the Pakistan Movement was so pivotal that it is not an exaggeration to say that if there had been no Iqbal, there might well have been no Pakistan.
The influence that Iqbal wielded was phenomenal. His personal reputation - not only as an outstanding poet and philosopher - but also as a person of unswerving conviction and incorruptible honesty, had contributed greatly to the rallying of Muslims under the banner upheld by the Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. All these facts notwithstanding it must be kept in mind that Iqbal was a visionary philosopher and not a politician. Politics constitutes the primary interest of many politicians who are often driven by motives of political expediency. However, Iqbal's interest in politics was secondary, not primary. He explained his reasons for becoming involved in politics, in his Presidential Address delivered at the Annual Session of the All-India Muslim Conference at Lahore in 1932: "Politics have their roots in the spiritual life of man. It is my belief that Islam is not a matter of private opinion. It is a society, or if you like, a civic Church. It is because present day political ideals as they appear to be shaping themselves in India, may affect its original structure and character that I find myself interested in politics."
Iqbal's "dream" was that the Muslims of India have a State in which they could preserve "the culture of Islam inspired by a specific ethical ideal." It is important to note here that to Iqbal "the culture of Islam" was not the cultural practices of Muslims. To him it was an ideal value-system, "a system of life and conduct," which was based upon the ethical principles of normative Islam.
In his memorable Presidential Address at the All-India Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930, Iqbal reiterated that Islam was "an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity," and said, "I would like to see the Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sindh and Balochistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North West India."
Deeply conscious of the multi-faceted challenges and difficulties with which Indian Muslims were faced at that time, Iqbal pointed out in the Allahabad Address, "Never in our history has Islam had to stand a greater trial than the one which confronts it today." However, his faith in the efficacy of his faith remained steadfast amid this grim realisation and he affirmed that he was "a man who is not despaired of Islam as a living force...who believes that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the life of individuals as well as States, and finally who believes that Islam is itself Destiny and will not suffer a destiny."
Refuting the idea that religion is "a private affair" of an individual, Iqbal went on to put some rhetorical questions to the Muslim Assembly that he was addressing. "Would you like to see Islam, as a moral and political ideal, meeting the same fate in the world of Islam as Christianity has already met in Europe? Is it possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and to reject it as a polity in favour of national polities, in which religious attitude is not permitted to play any part?"
Iqbal believed that in Islam it was not possible to bifurcate ethics and politics and he contrasted the separation of the spiritual and the temporal that he saw in Christianity with "the nature of the Prophet's religious experience, as disclosed in the Qur'an." Referring to this experience, Iqbal said that it was "creative of a social order. Its immediate outcome is the fundamentals of a polity with implicit legal concepts whose civic significance cannot be belittled merely because their origin is revelational. The religious ideal of Islam, therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other. Therefore, the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim."
Here it is useful to note that the failed rebellion of 1857 had made the Muslims the particular target of the wrath of the British rulers who instituted openly discriminatory policies against them. This resulted in Muslim fortunes reaching their lowest ebb in the 1860s and 1870s. The disturbing events of 1857-58 were a turning point not only in the thought and life of Sayyid Ahmad Khan who founded the Aligarh Movement, but also of many other Muslims who became wary of associating Islam with politics and limited it to a practice of personal piety and righteous behaviour.
Iqbal was deeply concerned about this state of affairs and considered it extremely important to demonstrate to his fellow Muslims that Islam could not be limited in such a way, and that its religious and ethical teachings necessitated the emergence of a social and political order which was based upon them. Ironically, if Iqbal was alive today his challenge would be to persuade many Pakistanis that Islam cannot be limited to politics which is disconnected from the religious and ethical principles of their faith.
In the light of Iqbal's views stated in the above-quoted passages, it is clear that his "dream" of Pakistan was of a Muslim State in which there would be an integral or organic relationship between the religious and ethical foundational principles of Islam and the political system which derived from them. If the latter was not an outcome of the former, it would lead to unbridled injustice and brutal oppression, as Iqbal pointed out in his well-known lines from Bal-e-Jibril: "Whether it is the pomp of monarchy or democracy's show, if religion is separated from politics, what results is the tyranny of Changez!"
Concluding his Presidential Address at the All-India Muslim League Annual Session at Allahabad, Iqbal said, "One lesson I have learnt from the history of Muslims. In critical times in their history it is Islam that has saved Muslims and not vice versa. If today you focus your vision on Islam and seek inspiration from the ever-vitalising idea embodied in it, you will be only reassembling your scattered forces, regaining your lost integrity, and thereby saving yourself from total destruction."
Iqbal's words spoken in 1930 are profoundly relevant to contemporary Pakistanis who refer to Pakistan as Iqbal's "dream." The first step toward actualising this "dream" is to understand Iqbal's vision of Islam which gave birth to this "dream."
His message to us today would be the same as the one he delivered to the Allahabad Assembly. The only way that Iqbal's "dream" can be made a reality is by striving to live up to the highest ethical ideals and the best ethical practices of Islam."
The writer is a leading hyperlink "/wiki/Islamic_feminist"Islamic feminist scholar, professor of Religious Studies in USA, and president of The Iqbal International Leadership Institute (Lahore)
Allama Muhammad Iqbal is the spiritual and intellectual founder of Pakistan. No poet or philosopher in the history of the world has inspired and energised millions of people as Iqbal did. He was the last and greatest thinker of the historic Aligarh Movement which brought about a paradigm shift in the consciousness of the Muslims of India, and transformed their destiny. But Iqbal's place in history is not limited to his role as a modernist, reformist Muslim thinker in India. He is the most outstanding poet-philosopher of the world of Islam, and of the world in general, since the death of Jalaluddin Rumi in 1273.
Poet, philosopher, educationist, lawyer, political activist, social reformer, Iqbal is unmatched in his versatility and the breadth of his knowledge and vision. His message is more relevant and important to contemporary Muslims than the message of any other Muslim thinker of the past or present. This is due not only to the fact that Iqbal faced the challenges of both traditionalism and modernity fearlessly, but also - and more importantly - because he had a profound understanding of the integrated vision of the Qur'an which he made the basis of his philosophy.
What is unique about Iqbal's philosophy is that it offers concrete guidance about how a Muslim can attain "the good life" which is the goal set before humanity whom God has created "in the best of moulds" (Surah 95: At-Tin: 4). The opening line of Iqbal's Preface to his famous Lectures on The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam points out that "The Qur'an is a book which emphasises 'deed' rather than 'idea'." Likewise, Iqbal's philosophy, rich as it is in ideas and concepts, is fundamentally action-oriented.
It is often proclaimed by Pakistanis that Pakistan was Iqbal's "dream" but few know that this "dream" was the outcome of a lifetime of deep thinking and feeling, of study, of creativity, and of prayer. Iqbal died in 1938, nine years before the creation of Pakistan, but his role in the Pakistan Movement was so pivotal that it is not an exaggeration to say that if there had been no Iqbal, there might well have been no Pakistan.
The influence that Iqbal wielded was phenomenal. His personal reputation - not only as an outstanding poet and philosopher - but also as a person of unswerving conviction and incorruptible honesty, had contributed greatly to the rallying of Muslims under the banner upheld by the Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. All these facts notwithstanding it must be kept in mind that Iqbal was a visionary philosopher and not a politician. Politics constitutes the primary interest of many politicians who are often driven by motives of political expediency. However, Iqbal's interest in politics was secondary, not primary. He explained his reasons for becoming involved in politics, in his Presidential Address delivered at the Annual Session of the All-India Muslim Conference at Lahore in 1932: "Politics have their roots in the spiritual life of man. It is my belief that Islam is not a matter of private opinion. It is a society, or if you like, a civic Church. It is because present day political ideals as they appear to be shaping themselves in India, may affect its original structure and character that I find myself interested in politics."
Iqbal's "dream" was that the Muslims of India have a State in which they could preserve "the culture of Islam inspired by a specific ethical ideal." It is important to note here that to Iqbal "the culture of Islam" was not the cultural practices of Muslims. To him it was an ideal value-system, "a system of life and conduct," which was based upon the ethical principles of normative Islam.
In his memorable Presidential Address at the All-India Muslim League at Allahabad in 1930, Iqbal reiterated that Islam was "an ethical ideal plus a certain kind of polity," and said, "I would like to see the Punjab, North West Frontier Province, Sindh and Balochistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North West Indian Muslim State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Muslims, at least of North West India."
Deeply conscious of the multi-faceted challenges and difficulties with which Indian Muslims were faced at that time, Iqbal pointed out in the Allahabad Address, "Never in our history has Islam had to stand a greater trial than the one which confronts it today." However, his faith in the efficacy of his faith remained steadfast amid this grim realisation and he affirmed that he was "a man who is not despaired of Islam as a living force...who believes that religion is a power of the utmost importance in the life of individuals as well as States, and finally who believes that Islam is itself Destiny and will not suffer a destiny."
Refuting the idea that religion is "a private affair" of an individual, Iqbal went on to put some rhetorical questions to the Muslim Assembly that he was addressing. "Would you like to see Islam, as a moral and political ideal, meeting the same fate in the world of Islam as Christianity has already met in Europe? Is it possible to retain Islam as an ethical ideal and to reject it as a polity in favour of national polities, in which religious attitude is not permitted to play any part?"
Iqbal believed that in Islam it was not possible to bifurcate ethics and politics and he contrasted the separation of the spiritual and the temporal that he saw in Christianity with "the nature of the Prophet's religious experience, as disclosed in the Qur'an." Referring to this experience, Iqbal said that it was "creative of a social order. Its immediate outcome is the fundamentals of a polity with implicit legal concepts whose civic significance cannot be belittled merely because their origin is revelational. The religious ideal of Islam, therefore, is organically related to the social order which it has created. The rejection of the one will eventually involve the rejection of the other. Therefore, the construction of a polity on national lines, if it means a displacement of the Islamic principle of solidarity, is simply unthinkable to a Muslim."
Here it is useful to note that the failed rebellion of 1857 had made the Muslims the particular target of the wrath of the British rulers who instituted openly discriminatory policies against them. This resulted in Muslim fortunes reaching their lowest ebb in the 1860s and 1870s. The disturbing events of 1857-58 were a turning point not only in the thought and life of Sayyid Ahmad Khan who founded the Aligarh Movement, but also of many other Muslims who became wary of associating Islam with politics and limited it to a practice of personal piety and righteous behaviour.
Iqbal was deeply concerned about this state of affairs and considered it extremely important to demonstrate to his fellow Muslims that Islam could not be limited in such a way, and that its religious and ethical teachings necessitated the emergence of a social and political order which was based upon them. Ironically, if Iqbal was alive today his challenge would be to persuade many Pakistanis that Islam cannot be limited to politics which is disconnected from the religious and ethical principles of their faith.
In the light of Iqbal's views stated in the above-quoted passages, it is clear that his "dream" of Pakistan was of a Muslim State in which there would be an integral or organic relationship between the religious and ethical foundational principles of Islam and the political system which derived from them. If the latter was not an outcome of the former, it would lead to unbridled injustice and brutal oppression, as Iqbal pointed out in his well-known lines from Bal-e-Jibril: "Whether it is the pomp of monarchy or democracy's show, if religion is separated from politics, what results is the tyranny of Changez!"
Concluding his Presidential Address at the All-India Muslim League Annual Session at Allahabad, Iqbal said, "One lesson I have learnt from the history of Muslims. In critical times in their history it is Islam that has saved Muslims and not vice versa. If today you focus your vision on Islam and seek inspiration from the ever-vitalising idea embodied in it, you will be only reassembling your scattered forces, regaining your lost integrity, and thereby saving yourself from total destruction."
Iqbal's words spoken in 1930 are profoundly relevant to contemporary Pakistanis who refer to Pakistan as Iqbal's "dream." The first step toward actualising this "dream" is to understand Iqbal's vision of Islam which gave birth to this "dream."
His message to us today would be the same as the one he delivered to the Allahabad Assembly. The only way that Iqbal's "dream" can be made a reality is by striving to live up to the highest ethical ideals and the best ethical practices of Islam."
The writer is a leading hyperlink "/wiki/Islamic_feminist"Islamic feminist scholar, professor of Religious Studies in USA, and president of The Iqbal International Leadership Institute (Lahore)
61st Independence Day: the Hindu mindset
By R.A. KHAN
This year Pakistan's 61st Independence Day has come at a time when the country is faced with a number of challenging issues: restoration of judiciary, good governance, galloping inflation, energy crisis, militancy in FATA, NATO threats, US demands and Indo-US nuclear deals. While the issues cited above will be resolved in the foreseeable future, there is one issue that defies resolution; The Kashmir Issue. And all because of the hostility, fear and distrust that lie buried deep in the psyche of the Hindu community. No wonder Bharat has always failed to reach an understanding with Pakistan. All Pak- Bharat summits - General Ayub Khan: Jawaharlal Nehru, Benazir Bhutto: Rajiv Gandhi, Nawaz: I K Gujral, General Musharraf: Atal Behari Vajpayee - have failed or remained inconclusive.
Pakistan's 61st Independence Day should remind us that the Hindu mindset has not changed. Hindus bitterly opposed the Pakistan idea when it was first enunciated. They called it a " vivisection of their motherland." They refused to acknowledge that the Muslims of South Asia constituted a nation. Gandhi said, "I find no parallel in history for a body of converts and their descendants claiming to be a nation apart from their parent stock. If India was one nation before the advent of Islam, it must remain one in spite of the change of faith of a very large body of her children."
The Congress also gave ample evidence of its hostility towards the Muslims. The excesses of the Congress provincial governments of 1937-39, the Pirpur Report and Fazlul Haq's "Muslims suffering under Congress rule" unveiled the true face of this so-called national party. Quaid-e-Azam saw through the malice and duplicity of the Congress." The Congress", he said, "is a Hindu organisation and wanted the Muslims to come within the ken of the Congress and Hindu Raj."
Most Hindu leaders spoke publicly of driving the Muslims from India as the Spaniards have driven the Moors from Spain. Such threats aroused feelings of deep insecurity among the Muslims and were convinced that they would never get a fair deal at the hands of Hindus.
The arrogance of the Congress, its rapport with the militant forces of Hindu revivalism and its deep animus towards Muslim history and culture compelled the Quaid to take a fresh look at the Hindu- Muslim question. He was convinced that in a United India, Hindu philosophy would reduce the Muslims to an abject state of slavery. He was convinced that the Muslims could save themselves from Hindu domination only by establishing an Independent and sovereign state.
It was hoped that with the division of the sub-continent things would fall into place and the legacy of hatred would fade away. But that was not to be. The Hindu psyche remains as twisted today as it was yesterday. The Hindu leadership has not reconciled itself to the creation of Pakistan .As a big neighbour and as a senior partner in SAARC, it is Bharat's task to remove past suspicions and give credible evidence of its good intentions. But Bharat's record in this respect is not very inspiring. It has repeatedly flouted UN Declarations and refused to recognize the legality of Pakistan's stand. It has waged three wars against Pakistan and spared no means to destroy the very existence of this country. In 1971, it succeeded in mutilating Pakistan and separating its eastern wing. Even today it is trying to crush the defenceless Kashmiris and deprive them of their right to self-determination. Of late, especially after the INDO-US deal, Hindu leadership has become more arrogant and pontifical in its tone.
Behind Bharat's inflated self-assessment lie its ago-old dreams of a Greater Bharat, the revival of the ancient Hindu civilisation and its emergence as a dominant country on the political horizon of the world. That these dreams have not faded and are very much alive can be gauged from a book Defending India, written not long ago by Jaswant Singh. In his view, the South Asian subcontinent-minus China is a distinct strategic unity, comprising countries, as far apart from Delhi as Afghanistan, Tibet and Myanamar. Pakistan and Bangladesh need not be mentioned, as they are two sons of the same soil. In fact, Pakistan is only technically foreign.
Bharat subscribes to a double-faced policy; on the one hand it goes through the motions of negotiating with Pakistan while on the other hand it pursues anti-Pakistan polices and foments trouble in Balochistan and FATA. With its delusion of grandeur, hegemonic ambitions and craving for regional supremacy, Bharat will not descend from its pedestal to parley as an equal with Pakistan. Bharat's syndrome is not new. The Quaid had spotted it 60 years ago. To a question by a Swiss journalist on whether there was any hope of India and Pakistan coming to a peaceful settlement, the Quaid replied, " Yes, provided the Indian government will shed the superiority complex and will deal with Pakistan on an equal footing."
The crucial question is: will Pak-Bharat relations ever become friendly? No, not in the true sense. There may be a semblance of normalcy, a veneer of cordiality but nothing more. The psychic chasm is too wide to be bridged. The Kashmir stalemate will persist. Bharat will continue to drag its feet and offer the flimsiest justification for doing so. Recall its knee-jerk reaction to last months attack on its embassy in Kabul. It promptly accused Pakistan of the crime and warned that provocations could scuttle the peace process. Bharat, in fact, wants Pakistan to freeze the issue! But Pakistan cannot do so. Kashmir is etched on its heart. It cannot erase it at will.
This year Pakistan's 61st Independence Day has come at a time when the country is faced with a number of challenging issues: restoration of judiciary, good governance, galloping inflation, energy crisis, militancy in FATA, NATO threats, US demands and Indo-US nuclear deals. While the issues cited above will be resolved in the foreseeable future, there is one issue that defies resolution; The Kashmir Issue. And all because of the hostility, fear and distrust that lie buried deep in the psyche of the Hindu community. No wonder Bharat has always failed to reach an understanding with Pakistan. All Pak- Bharat summits - General Ayub Khan: Jawaharlal Nehru, Benazir Bhutto: Rajiv Gandhi, Nawaz: I K Gujral, General Musharraf: Atal Behari Vajpayee - have failed or remained inconclusive.
Pakistan's 61st Independence Day should remind us that the Hindu mindset has not changed. Hindus bitterly opposed the Pakistan idea when it was first enunciated. They called it a " vivisection of their motherland." They refused to acknowledge that the Muslims of South Asia constituted a nation. Gandhi said, "I find no parallel in history for a body of converts and their descendants claiming to be a nation apart from their parent stock. If India was one nation before the advent of Islam, it must remain one in spite of the change of faith of a very large body of her children."
The Congress also gave ample evidence of its hostility towards the Muslims. The excesses of the Congress provincial governments of 1937-39, the Pirpur Report and Fazlul Haq's "Muslims suffering under Congress rule" unveiled the true face of this so-called national party. Quaid-e-Azam saw through the malice and duplicity of the Congress." The Congress", he said, "is a Hindu organisation and wanted the Muslims to come within the ken of the Congress and Hindu Raj."
Most Hindu leaders spoke publicly of driving the Muslims from India as the Spaniards have driven the Moors from Spain. Such threats aroused feelings of deep insecurity among the Muslims and were convinced that they would never get a fair deal at the hands of Hindus.
The arrogance of the Congress, its rapport with the militant forces of Hindu revivalism and its deep animus towards Muslim history and culture compelled the Quaid to take a fresh look at the Hindu- Muslim question. He was convinced that in a United India, Hindu philosophy would reduce the Muslims to an abject state of slavery. He was convinced that the Muslims could save themselves from Hindu domination only by establishing an Independent and sovereign state.
It was hoped that with the division of the sub-continent things would fall into place and the legacy of hatred would fade away. But that was not to be. The Hindu psyche remains as twisted today as it was yesterday. The Hindu leadership has not reconciled itself to the creation of Pakistan .As a big neighbour and as a senior partner in SAARC, it is Bharat's task to remove past suspicions and give credible evidence of its good intentions. But Bharat's record in this respect is not very inspiring. It has repeatedly flouted UN Declarations and refused to recognize the legality of Pakistan's stand. It has waged three wars against Pakistan and spared no means to destroy the very existence of this country. In 1971, it succeeded in mutilating Pakistan and separating its eastern wing. Even today it is trying to crush the defenceless Kashmiris and deprive them of their right to self-determination. Of late, especially after the INDO-US deal, Hindu leadership has become more arrogant and pontifical in its tone.
Behind Bharat's inflated self-assessment lie its ago-old dreams of a Greater Bharat, the revival of the ancient Hindu civilisation and its emergence as a dominant country on the political horizon of the world. That these dreams have not faded and are very much alive can be gauged from a book Defending India, written not long ago by Jaswant Singh. In his view, the South Asian subcontinent-minus China is a distinct strategic unity, comprising countries, as far apart from Delhi as Afghanistan, Tibet and Myanamar. Pakistan and Bangladesh need not be mentioned, as they are two sons of the same soil. In fact, Pakistan is only technically foreign.
Bharat subscribes to a double-faced policy; on the one hand it goes through the motions of negotiating with Pakistan while on the other hand it pursues anti-Pakistan polices and foments trouble in Balochistan and FATA. With its delusion of grandeur, hegemonic ambitions and craving for regional supremacy, Bharat will not descend from its pedestal to parley as an equal with Pakistan. Bharat's syndrome is not new. The Quaid had spotted it 60 years ago. To a question by a Swiss journalist on whether there was any hope of India and Pakistan coming to a peaceful settlement, the Quaid replied, " Yes, provided the Indian government will shed the superiority complex and will deal with Pakistan on an equal footing."
The crucial question is: will Pak-Bharat relations ever become friendly? No, not in the true sense. There may be a semblance of normalcy, a veneer of cordiality but nothing more. The psychic chasm is too wide to be bridged. The Kashmir stalemate will persist. Bharat will continue to drag its feet and offer the flimsiest justification for doing so. Recall its knee-jerk reaction to last months attack on its embassy in Kabul. It promptly accused Pakistan of the crime and warned that provocations could scuttle the peace process. Bharat, in fact, wants Pakistan to freeze the issue! But Pakistan cannot do so. Kashmir is etched on its heart. It cannot erase it at will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)