“Lost in the loneliness, we turn inwards- with a knife in our hands and a lump in our throats”, 

The experience of long-drawn colonial rule across Muslim lands intensified the nostalgic longing for a lost glory as well as the need to hold on ever more strongly and exclusively to religious fundamentals as a means of self-preservation and protection of religio-cultural identity. This exacerbated the disconnect between ‘deen’ and ‘dunya’ in Muslim consciousness in general and education in particular. Aurangzeb Haneef notes in his article, ‘Learning from the Past’, that one of the most important effects of European imperialism in Muslim society was that the pursuit of rational sciences (maqulat) was abandoned in favour of transmitted sciences (manqulat)in the spirit of preservation in an attempt to re-center and standardize the traditions of religious knowledge. Madrassas ceased to be the training grounds for the intellectual and cultural elite and increasingly came to be identified with religious education only, which was an aberration from the tradition.

The rising popularity of Salafism is a reactionary response out of a prevailing sense of defeatism, victimhood, vulnerability and insecurity over what is seen as the encroachment upon Muslim identity and culture by an ascendant Western civilization. The call for a puritanical ‘return to the sources’ down to the letter shunning the accretions of theology and jurisprudence over centuries is distressingly ahistorical, uncreative and mimetic. It refuses to recognize the need to creatively and rationally respond to the exigencies of the times. Ironically while it claims fidelity to authentic Muslim tradition, it actually betrays the essential dynamism of the same. This dynamism is the defining trait of Islamic jurisprudence which traditionally accorded space to diversity. Muslim jurists were remarkably tolerant of ‘ikhtilaf’(difference of opinion), and were adept at the ‘adab’ (etiquettes) of ikhtilaf. Towering jurists of the sunni school like Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik discouraged blind following (taqleed) of their opinions, encouraging critical thinking and research.

These Muslim groups demonstrate all or most of the traits of fundamentalism, that is:‘a sense of chosenness tied to the demonizing or damnation of all others who refuse to get behind the truth subscribed to by the subject himself.’ (Farid Esack) By refusing to defer to historical understandings of Islam in theology and law, these Muslim groups place themselves at the fringes of Islamic tradition they claim to be guardians and restorers of.

Due to a radical subjectivism that confers quasi-divine authority to a certain set of literalist opinions these innovation-resistant groups refuse to subject their opinions to rational inquiry. In so doing, they implicitly refuse to recognize intrinsic human diversity as well as the status of individuals as rational subjects imbued with the Divinely-bestowed gift of intellect and free will. “Unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto, you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ.” (5:48)

At a subconscious level, the deep realization of the untenability of opinions that refuse to defer to critical examination has resulted in an inward-looking stasis characterized by an uncompromising exclusivism and exceptionalism.

Muslim exceptionalism betrays the Quran’s universal embrace of humanity with its consistent appeal to mankind as the creation of God, a single family. ‘O men! Behold, We have created you all out of a male and a female, and have made you into nations and tribes, so that you might come to know one another. Verily, the noblest of you in the sight of God is the one who is most deeply conscious of Him. Behold, God is all knowing, all aware.” (49:13) The Quran attaches sanctity to all humankind when it narrates how God blew of His own spirit into the first created person. Muslim exclusivism refuses to recognize the fact that our well-being as a species on a finite planet is tied to the well-being of all others we share it with, and that in the face of this reality, all labels and artificial boundaries are secondary. It is only the extremely narrow-minded and short-sighted who would refuse to recognize the fact that our well being is inextricably tied to the well being of all others.

A further corollary of such exclusivism is the tendency to view ideas as mutually exclusive, with an either/or approach. The middle ground, the many grey areas of overlap are lost sight of. This generates a characteristic intellectual extremism that infects Muslims en masse. It is not understood that neither of the extremes is an acceptable alternative to the other, hence the world appears all black and white, like an arena for a clash of ideas. The ‘Us versus Them’ psyche translates into ‘Islam versus The West.’ This is dangerous as it understands both Islam and the West as monoliths and glosses over the many instances both historical and contemporary, of coexistence, intercultural exchange, common grounds and shared values. It denies the universality of commonly held values, viewing them as ‘Western’ or ‘Islamic.’ The actual confrontation as recognized by Islam, is between Haqq and Baatil (Truth versus Falsehood), and before deciding if anything that passes for Islam is the whole truth, we need to ask ‘whose Islam?’, given the fact that the Quran and sunnah are open to diverse readings and interpretations and the self-appointed spokespeople of Islam are as many as the possible interpretations. Nor is Falsehood equivalent to all that the West is about, given the fact that the military-industrial complex and the clique of influential policy-making elites are responsible for the highhandedness of foreign policy decisions and the injustices that have wreaked havoc and provoked backlash among Muslim populations.

Muslims often invoke the ideal of Islam comparing it to the reality of Western society which often betrays its own values such as freedom and liberty, to show the degeneracy of the latter as compared to the Divine system they have been denied- unmindful of the many ways Muslim societies consistently betray the values of Islam.

The myth of ‘Islam versus the West’ also denies the collective heritage of Islamic and European civilizations and the instrumental role Islam had in making the Enlightenment possible. “Arab science altered medieval Christendom beyond recognition. For the first time in centuries, Europe’s eyes opened to the world around it- Arab science and philosophy helped rescue the Christian world from ignorance and made possible the very idea of the ‘West.’” (Jonathan Lyons, ‘House of Wisdom’) Aime Cesaire beautifully and powerfully reminds us of this collective human heritage and that attempts to claim a monopoly over the achievements of human civilization are a form of intellectual dishonesty, whether done by scholars in the West or the Muslim world. ”But the work of man is only just beginning, and it remains to conquer all the violence entrenched in the recesses of our passion, for no race possesses the monopoly of beauty, of intelligence, of force. And there is a place for all at the rendezvous of victory.” - Aimé Césaire 

In the same vein, there are other binaries like ‘Islam versus Democracy.’ In the recent Pakistan elections numerous religious groups propagated that casting a vote was an act of ‘kufr,’ because democracy is based on the sovereignty of the masses over the sovereignty of God. While the system of electoral politics in Western societies has elements that are incompatible with Islam, the values of democracy are universal and are part and parcel of Islamic governance. Following the majority opinion a standardized practice in Muslim tradition (‘Ijma’ has many forms, the last of which sanctions general voting by the public to settle questions that bear upon the interests of the general masses and can be put to a public vote). Moreover, respecting popular sentiment and being accountable to the public are fundamental Islamic political values. The procedural rules of electoral politics can and should be reformed to conform to Islamic standards and shari’ rulings made exclusively the job of a panel of qualified ulema, beyond the purview of general voting- and it no more is ‘an affront to God’s sovereignty.’

Numberless Islamic scholars have talked of the compatibility between democratic principles and Islamic politics. Sameen Sadaf notes the irony in ‘The Dynamism of Islam”: The alternative, they say, is ‘Khilafat’ (which in many ways is democratic in its ethos). However, since there is no comprehensive system and candidature for khilafat at the time, one can suppose that all we can do is wait for a savior while the forces of actual ‘Kufr’ take over and ruin us.” Pro-Sharia activists seem to assume that mainstreaming the Islamic way of life through dialogue and dawah can be discounted without any loss and they can march straight to an Islamic Khilafah state that will somehow miraculously tame the Muslim masses into believing slaves of God.

The binary thinking pattern and exclusivism has made Muslim consciousness be preoccupied with narrow, parochial concerns considered ‘Islamic.’ It is forgotten that being slaves of Allah means being good human beings first and that as Muslims everything in the universe is our business. Zaid Hassan writes of the need to ‘reclaim our relationship to the whole’ in his wonderful article, ‘Notes towards an Incomplete Manifesto for Liberating the Muslim Mind.’ The growing distance between ‘deen’ and ‘dunya’ in Muslim consciousness has made Muslims unconcerned about aspects that belong to the secular domain as profane and unworthy. Hence there is an intellectual degeneracy, and a clear absence of contemporary Muslim discourse in science, philosophy and the humanities, a near-absence of Muslim contribution to research.  In the recent elections, Islamic parties in Pakistan exclusively talked of the need for a return to rule by Islam, invoking Shariah, the Islamic identity and ethos of Pakistan. Talking of issues that resonate with the masses like poverty or the energy crisis was considered redundant given their ‘Islamic’ credentials. The growing unpopularity of these parties and their less-than-expected performance comes as no surprise.

This ghettoization of Muslim thought threatens to make us dwindle into a cult at the margins of civilization. Religious discourse that fails to take account of the modern mind and appeal to the youth with their voracity for rational argument cannot be shoved down people’s throats. It is condemned to survive as no more than a fringe-cult.

Still more lamentable is the fact that Muslims are failing to realize the need to introspect in these critical times. Any manifestation of the deep crisis in Muslim consciousness is dismissed as ‘unrepresentative of Islam’ at best, and ‘propaganda against Islam’ at worst. Self-criticism is noble, highly needful and the essential trait of the faithful. Muslims have abandoned it altogether, and any voice helping us to examine ourselves critically or calling for a reform is disdainfully rejected with suspicion and sneering self-righteousness. The belief that terrorists or criminals or misogynists ‘use’ the name of Islam to justify their deeds is comforting but unhelpful because it does not recognize the fact that many interpretations of the Quran and sunnah actually give some grounds to sanction such acts and that therefore there is great responsibility on Muslim thinkers to expose and oppose the textual basis of such arguments.

The stasis of the Muslim mind is a daunting project before us. Muslim society is terribly fragmented and polarized between the extremes of the secular and the religious. So much of Muslim scholarship today is pitiably out of touch with the vicissitudes of contemporary society, rationally indefensible, in a language far removed from and inaccessible to the mass man and incognizant of the psychology of modernity and post-modernity. ‘Maqulat’ must be brought at par with the ‘Manqulat’ as central to a holistic Muslim education, precisely because that is how it had always been and was supposed to be before things went awry. The need today is for Muslim scholars to negotiate between entrenched extreme positions, address issues of the here and now in a language that appeals to the common man, and to appeal to modern sensibility in a manner that is faithful to the ethos of Islamic tradition. Such voices need to collate, organize and rise to a crescendo that can drown out the clamour of extremisms. It is a grand project and an urgent one, but cannot be begun until we first realize the need for such effort today and cease to live in denial of the terrible crisis that threatens to rob our faith of its very soul and reduce it to perpetual irrelevance.

The post The Stasis of the Muslim Mind appeared first on My Bit for Change.

While Tarek Fatah has rightly pointed out this inadequacy in his article ‘UK Beheading Shows It’s Time to Fight the Doctrine of Jihad’, and reminded Muslims of the need to take on such criminal elements within their ranks, the rest of the article teeters on presumptions that are ignorant at best and dangerous a worst: ignorant because of a complete inability to understand the ground realities of contemporary international politics and dangerous for the ideologization of terrorism that lends credence to the idea that Islam is inherently violent and Muslims inherently predisposed towards violence.

The writer makes the same error many neoconservatives calling for a ‘War on Terror’ made, with disastrous consequences: accepting the motives and objectives of terrorism as interpreted and explained by American rhetoric. He tells us that such elements wish to ‘sow fear into the soul of British people’ and are ideologically motivated ‘by one powerful belief of the doctrine of Jihad against the kuffar…’ Readers are asked to make some leaps of faith here as this denies any possibility that such dastardly acts may be a crazed protest out of desperation and frustration, driven by vengeance over what is seen to be unfair and brutal, such as unfair occupations, drone strikes and brutal torture in illegal detention camps. By ideologizing the motives, attention is deflected away from the policies that provoke extreme and desperate reaction. Moral culpability is ruled out and the inaccurate and dangerous idea that the problem is with the ideology believed in by these people is given credence. Hence an image is conjured up of a clash between Islam and the West: a false and pernicious idea that makes the world madly careen towards a clash of civilizations.

The fallacy of the premise of this ideologization of terrorism and whose interests it serves, need to be exposed. Terrorism, in fact, is a tactic used by disaffected individuals and communities, not an ideology. It is not inspired by a hatred of all that the West stands for, but is a reaction to policy and actions of Western nations.

Michael Scheuer states: “There is no record of a Muslim urging to wage jihad to destroy democracy or credit unions, or universities. What the US does in formulating and implementing policies affecting the Muslim world is infinitely more inflammatory.” The smokescreen of rhetoric, however, keeps a dispassionate analysis of the real grievances that fire such acts at bay.

Fatah goes on to state that Muslim terrorists have been ‘emboldened’ by the West’s ‘passivity’ towards terrorism, implying that Western nations are victims too infirm to take on the horrifying, audacious enemy consolidating its ranks in the wings. There clearly is in this a criminal oversight of the glaring and undeniable reality that wars, occupations, kidnappings, tortures, detentions have been carried out by Western nations on the pretext of pre-empting and countering terrorism; that Guantanamo still detains thousands without charge, that only 2% out of the many thousands killed in drone operations against terrorists have any suspicion against them.

While what happened at Woolwich was grotesquely inhuman, refusing to acknowledge similar grotesque wrongs at the hands of powerful occupying armies in other parts of the world is diabolical. While Woolwich is unjustifiable, one cannot lose sight of the connection between the actions of armies abroad and the psychology of vengeance. In all honesty, one may also be reminded of the fact that barely weeks ago an unarmed seventy-five year old was similarly hacked and butchered to death in Birmingham while on his way home. The reason no one heard of it was because the victim being a Muslim on his way back from the local mosque made the story not newsworthy enough. Islamist terror is the in-thing- other acts of violence and terrorism are relegated to individual criminality or insanity.

The writer reminds us that the tactics used by the Woolwich attackers were ‘straight from medieval times’, recklessly making a direct link with Islamic doctrine and tradition. Anyone with a basic understanding of terrorism would know that desperate tactics like this one are used when the might of perceived enemies is too great and invincible, defying conventional tactics. Reading more than that into it and connecting it to medieval Islamic doctrine is grossly irresponsible for the devastating social and inter-subjective consequences in an atmosphere of great prejudice and hostility against Muslims and Islam. The UK Muslim community is already targeted for hate-speech by white supremacist groups like the English Defence League, and Mr. Fatah’s proclamations serve to keep this atmosphere of hate and suspicion charged.

It is vital and urgent that Muslims take responsibility for such elements and tendencies within their community and the writer did well to highlight this, but to interject ‘Islam is the enemy!’ when the religion and its practitioners already stand much stereotyped and pigeonholed, misunderstood, mistrusted and maligned is highly irresponsible and reckless.

However, such reform has to come from within the Muslim community from authentic representatives and spokespeople of Islamic tradition. The gusto for ‘fixing Islam’ from the West is misplaced, insincere, uninsightful and comes loaded with malafide agendas and political interests.  Tarek Fatah’s exhortation to Western leaders to take on the Jihadic ideology and defeat it, is a fatal nonsense.

Having said that, Fatah’s disappointment with liberal Muslims rubbing in the fact that ‘Islam is Peace’ and keeping mum about the doctrine of physical Jihad as part of Islam, is valid- but for different reasons. Liberal Muslims desperately try to deny and eclipse this aspect of Islam and in so doing, implicitly accept the ignorant allegation that physical Jihad is a violent doctrine. Mr. Tarek Fatah too shares this inability to understand and appreciate the concept of Jihad with its contemporary ramifications in a holistic and insightful manner. This explains his enthusiastic call for rejecting Jihad altogether, and his great disappointment that Islamic scholars are not too excited about jettisoning the murderous idea once and for all.

Liberal Muslims often either deny or denigrate Jihad, as if it was an embarrassment. Jihad, standing for struggle spanning all means to resist injustice, evil and falsehood is to safeguard and protect the sanctity of human life, not to violate it. It aims at protecting the weak, the suffering and the sinned-against. Jihad purged the concept of war from excesses. The first Quranic exhortation to fight came with the emphasis to ‘be not aggressive.’

The Quran and the example of the Sunnah clearly and categorically lay down the conditions when Jihad should be resorted to. Simply, all is not fair in war, and rulings for protecting non combatants and those not directly engaged in confrontation are explicit. Besides, its objectives are clearly laid down: it is neither for territorial aggrandizement nor national power nor spreading the faith, but for resisting oppression and injustice and helping in the establishment of a just and peaceful social order. Fatah makes an ignorant and misleading connection between the senseless butchery at Woolwich and the concept of Jihad: the same criminal mistake that the perpetrators themselves made.

Mr. Fatah makes a pathetic attempt to validate his claim that Jihad is a savage expansionist ideology by quoting an inaccurate and false definition of Jihad from ‘A Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam’ which makes the unforgivable error or defining Jihad as ‘the spread of Islam by arms’, a claim unsubstantiated by any Islamic text or source of authority.

The need of the hour, contrary to Mr. Fatah’s prescription, is to rediscover and elucidate the concept of Jihad in contemporary context and expose its distortion, misperception and abuse by those hostile to Jihad as well as those claiming to wage it. The silence on this from Muslim scholars leaves the misconceptions and confusions to proliferate and hence provide justification to fringe extremist and criminal elements like those who carried out the brutal display at Woolwich in the name of Jihad.

This said, Mr. Fatah needs to be reminded that resistance to wrong and defence of the weak and marginalized against oppression and injustice is a basic virtue attested to by all spiritual and moral doctrines, hence the Jihadic philosophy is not an invention of Islam even though it may be a culmination of this universal idea. Stripping Islam off this beautiful crowning glory is a preposterous and revolting idea he can never find any support for. Both Mr Fatah and his ilk as well as sheepish Liberal Muslims need to be reminded of the fact that Islam extols and idealizes peace but also accepts the idea that when the rhetoric and pretense of peace hides the demons of injustice, it must be exposed and rejected and resisted.

Farid Esack writes, “When peace comes to mean the absence of conflict on the one hand and when conflict with an unjust political order is a moral imperative on the other, then it is not difficult to understand that the better class of human beings will be deeply committed to disturbing the peace and creating conflict.”

What is important to realize, however, is that in the absence of this understanding of Jihad and the spineless, fragmented state of the Muslim world, resistance to the great wrongs by Western nations at present is febrile, maniacal and as vicious as the actions of the powerful perpetrators. Yeats lamented, ‘The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.’  Esack writes, ‘The problem with Muslim fundamentalism is that it is as totalitarian and exclusivist as the order that it seeks to displace. It seeks to create an order wherein they are the sole spokespersons for a rather vengeful, patriarchal and chauvinistic God.’ That is a judicious and vital understanding we as Muslims must acquire in order to reclaim the Jihad for our time.  

Incidents like Woolwich as well as the great wrongs that engender such sickness – stemming from both Western policy as well as Muslim degeneracy- are to be rejected and actively opposed. The underlying logic of wars of powerful Western nations against “terrorism” and terrorist attacks provoking or provoked by them is the same: both punish human beings for the actions of their governments or of individuals or groups sharing religious or ethnic identity. We are left with an important question: If terrorism is the direct and intentional killing of innocent people with the purpose for achieving a greater goal they are not directly linked with, are not both terrorism? While we correctly acknowledge Woolwich as savage terrorism, why are similar instances in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Yemen or Iraq also not recognized as equally unacceptable, intensely provocative and deeply damaging? As long as contemporary politics continue to operate on the premise of ‘some are more equal that others’, such ugly outrages will keep happening at the hands of the psychologically vulnerable. The need is an all-out struggle- a progressive ‘Jihad’ (struggle) if you will- against all wrongs that fuel the vicious cycle, regardless of who the perpetrators may be.

The post Reclaiming The Jihad: A Response to Tarek Fatah appeared first on My Bit for Change.

That sun-drenched afternoon, 2 days before the election, history repeated itself in Multan; like the Taseers’, a Gilani son got abducted. The public sentiments varied from the crude poetic justice to sagacious sympathy. Emotions ran high in the family and party supporters alike and desperate outbursts from the Gilani brothers graced the TV screens and disgraced law enforcement agencies yet again. To date, the young Gilani remains missing with a few credible leads leading to some arrests. This is marginally better progress than the Taseers’ case and infinitely better progress than most of us could have dreamt of seeing if we were put in a similar nightmare.

On the day, the clamour of this unfortunate event could have taken the whole city and eventually the whole election process into a downward spiral. The right focus from the media, the right nerve, the right note from PPP at that precise time and a whole lot of wrong would have entailed. Who is to know our Tehrir Square might have started from the sweet, loving people who converse in melodious Seraiki?

However, Gilani Saab’s prudent handling of the matter remains, to date, is his most desirable memory in the minds of most. We have all forgotten and forgiven what had come to pass for 4 years. For a father to lose a son in such manner is most painful. Spare a thought, as well, for the missing persons’ families going through similar ordeals without any closure for years. Our prayers go out to the whole Gilani family for now; to console them and to give them hope that no more wrong will happen to them. We appeal for the safe release of Ali Haider Gilani.

So, for the time being, let’s bow in to the goldfish instinct of short term memory and let our criticism of mediocrity be shrouded by the emotion of pity. We forgive you Gilani Saab but, in our next hour of need, please don’t ask us to leave Pakistan; remnants of that sinister smirk laden image of you still remain. I am quite sure you had better words of consolation for your bereaved sons on 09th May 2013. Yes, blood is thicker than water but you were, after all, a foster parent to an orphaned nation.

The post The Foster Parent of an Orphan Nation appeared first on My Bit for Change.

Why is it that Muslims and Muslim organisations are expected to apologise for actions of two individuals?  Why is it that Muslim organisations do not even need to be prompted to condemn; they are readily condemning actions that have nothing to do with them.  There has been no attempt by Muslim organisations to discuss the causes of the attack, no attempt to question the mainstream media narrative that imposes labels on Muslims.

Muslim leaders have been scared into silence.  Prevent officers visiting mosques and community leaders frighten them.  They are told that if Muslims display any political opinions outside the mainstream then they are extremists, that if they do not inform on them, that their bank accounts can be frozen, mosques closed and they could face prison.   Muslims are afraid.  Muslim organisations and leaders are subservient to the state, scared to mention foreign policy as a radicalising factor just in case they are harangued for justifying the murder.  It has got to such a state that we do not even realise that our minds have been conditioned through years of media misrepresentation and widespread Islamophobia.  Questioning the reason for a murder does not mean condoning or justifying it.  Condemning something that has nothing to do with you feeds into the narrative that this is a Muslim problem, that this is something that the Muslim community are responsible for, at least in part.

In turn so-called Muslim leaders stifled debate and discussion in mosques, too afraid to discuss anything political.  For too long they have played a subservient role to the state, asking for a seat at the table and hoping for crumbs to be passed to them.  I have not met a Muslim that has condoned the actions in Woolwich, but let’s not ignore what radicalises.  British foreign policy radicalises, double standards radicalise, making Muslim youngsters feel like their opinions are not legitimate radicalises, stifling debate and discussion radicalises, not giving people a conduit to vent their opinions and frustrations radicalises, a lack of identity in Britain radicalises, we are either extremists or moderates.

The post Woolwich and the Muslim Response appeared first on My Bit for Change.

As a Muslim convert featured in your article, I would like to request an explanation for several statements which appeared alongside my photo;

In your editorial, on UK converts to Islam, you claimed that ; ‘Most converts were particularly critical of the concept of Sharia Council or courts operating in Britain, seeing them as a threat to women’s rights.’

In response, I refer you to the following substantive report issued in 2011 by Faith Matters. The first section of the Faith Matters report clearly states; ‘The majority of converts feel that there is no natural conflict between being a devour Muslim and living in the UK’. Also, ‘The vast majority of women changed their appearance after conversion with a significant majority adopting the hijab (either straight away or after some time)’. These findings are at odds with your spurious claim that ‘we’, as converts to Islam, fear our new faith and reject Sharia-based concepts. I have never met a convert to Islam to state such a thing and would request the basis on which you make such a statement.

The post My Response to Inaccuracies About Islam in ‘The Hindu’ Article appeared first on My Bit for Change.

Out of leaden sleep, Out of slumber deep. Arise! –Iqbal

Our elections are no different than our cricket matches. ‘The boys played well’ but the match was fixed. While PML-N takes the trophy home, MQM becomes the party of the series by Mr. Abdul Waseem and Mr. Nabil Gabol getting approximately 370 votes/minute and 314 votes/minute respectively, PTI was that new team which walked onto the playing arena and everyone booed because nobody ever thought PTI would last a single inning but they just did not last but emerged as the second largest party of Pakistan. Khan Sahab is no doubt our Man of the Match.

While Pakistan’s youth is demoralized and depressed over the rigged elections, they fail to realize what just happened to them. We have finally woken up from our deep slumber. We shrugged off our indifference. This is Imran Khan’s biggest achievement that he actually preached what he firmly believed in – Iqbal’s philosophy. He made us remember what Iqbal had said about us:

 “Tu shaheen hai, parwaz hai kaam tera‘ 

You are a shaheen, your work is to fly.

Also,

 ‘Naheen tera nashayman Qasr-e-Sultani ke gumbad par

Tu shaheen hai, basayra kar paharon ki chattanoon main‘

Your abode is not on the dome of the palace of kings

You are a shaheen, live on the mountain-cliffs

Imran Khan made us realize our potential and urged us to use it to its fullest. His tsunami made this stagnant nation strive. For once, our lives completely revolved around the fate of our country and we could and would not think or talk about anything else.

Harper Lee’s character, Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mocking Bird says:

 “Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand (In our case, the na-malum afraad). It’s knowing you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.” 

I feel this quote perfectly fits our situation. The fact that PML-N won should not be surprising. It was very much predictable. PML-N spent money like water and it seeped through many organisations and officials who scripted these elections. There was no possible way that PTI could have had clean swept the elections. Those who believed that it would were being blindly optimistic. Yes, Imran Khan claimed to sweep the elections but it was not the politician inside him talking, it was that sportsman and captain who told his team that they will take the cup home in the 1992 World cup when everyone thought that Pakistan does not stand a single chance. He did not make claims as a politician; he gave pep-talks as a sportsman. While it raised our hopes, but somewhere along the line it gave us too many hopes to handle. We actually started to visualise a ‘Naya Pakistan’, without  realising that it took years and many sacrifices to build Pakistan in the first place so a ‘Naya Pakistan’ cannot be created overnight and after just one successful election campaign.

As the saying goes that every thousand mile journey begins with a single step, we should be proud and grateful that we finally took the first step and laid the first brick.

We need to understand that Pakistan is still a malnourished child because soon after its creation, it was denied the right to grow and prosper. Feudalism, corruption, nepotism, hunger for power and various other factors act as shackles to deter Pakistan from flourishing. These factors cannot be eliminated overnight.

There is a reason why the literacy rate in Pakistan is so low. The people high above do not want the average Pakistani villager to be educated. The day he gets educated, he will stop to bow down in front of ‘Baba Saien’ and vote for the candidate his village’s Wadera orders him to vote for. That day the young men belonging to various militant wings will sit down and contemplate over what they really get out of the dirty work they do for those above them, e.g., sending text messages to shopkeepers to close down their shops, assassinating people, rigging the elections, etc. The na-malum afrad will question the malum authorities that how are their lives getting any better by doing all this while their bosses lead comfortable lives in countries abroad. That day the average Pakistani will stop to fall for loans and laptops and will realise that first of all he/she deserves basic human rights and amenities.

The only way to fight them is education, awareness and constant struggle. Also, most importantly, during these elections, I feel the leaders did a lot of damage to nationalism. The election results are a proof of that. It’s about time we get out of these racial and ethnic biases. Stop blaming the Punjabis for voting for PML-N. It is not their fault. They voted for the development in their province, however I fail to grasp how they could ignore the Badami Bagh and LDA building incidents, but we cannot blame them if they failed to realise how important their vote is for Pakistan on the whole because we ourselves sowed the seeds of racial and ethnic enmities.

 Tabdeeli agayi hai, but it needs time to completely manifest. I do not need to remind anyone how amazing all Pakistanis proved to be on election day when they went out to vote despite the na-malum forces making that difficult. This is change. When 60% of the population voted because for once they had a party and not a mafia or a family trust to vote for. When people who did not want to vote for anyone but at least went out and used their vote and left it blank so that it does not get used. When we had independent candidates like Mr. Jibran Nasir who educated us and gave us food for thought instead of begging for votes.

So let’s keep calm and try to renovate the purana Pakistan. And remember:

“Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”

The post Out of Leaden Sleep, Out of Slumber Deep. Arise! appeared first on My Bit for Change.

The post A Brave New Pakistan Under Construction appeared first on My Bit for Change.

Erosion of Independence and Sovereignty: First, as a result of all the above mentioned predicaments, the country is confronted with aspects of an existential crisis: erosion of independence and sovereignty, loss of national honor and neglect of vital national interests. Our independence, our autonomy and our identity as a nation are at risk. In view of this we have to search for a new security paradigm in the proposed ‘Agenda for 2013 and Beyond’. That security paradigm must have independence, sovereignty of the country, national interest and national honor, as our key concerns, to be protected and promoted within the context of availability of resources. We must realize that whether we are strong or weak, whether we are small or large, there is a core set of national interests that has to be protected at all cost.  Security is not merely a military phenomenon. It is multidimensional: having human, military, political, cultural and economic dimensions. As such protection of independence, sovereignty and national interest is an overriding concern and must be integral to our Security Paradigm.

Ideological, Moral and Cultural Identity: The second key issue relates to our country’s ideological, moral and cultural identity. That too has been compromised, tarnished and marginalized. A people cannot be inspired and motivated to rise up and sacrifice everything only for petty political and economic concerns. They live and die only for higher ideals. So along with security and independence, the ideological, moral and national identity of the nation is a matter of vital concern. Hence the cardinal importance of Islam as a source of our national identity.

Even a number of Western strategists are now recognizing that Islam is integral to a Muslim society. And if this aspect is ignored or allowed to be disfigured, peace within and peace with the rest of the world would remain elusive. This fact must be recognized that Islam is the basis of our identity, notwithstanding the narrative of the secular lobbies or vested interests. If this identity is ignored, camouflaged or compromised, the people and the rulers would never be on the same page. Consequently a country torn from within as a result of such a conflict would never achieve good governance.

Economic Dimension: The third one is the economic dimension. Power of a nation, political as well military, depends very much on its economic strength. It is of critical importance in respect of protection of independence and honour and promotion of national identity and well being. Security and economy go hand in hand. People’s welfare is the source of a nation’s real strength. During the last few years our economy has unfortunately gone down the drain. All major economic indicators are in the negative. Yet, if we have survived it is because of inherent resilience of the people. People’s will and presence of a large informal sector have come out as the hidden source of strength of our economy. That is how we have survived despite grossly flawed government policies, acute energy shortages, and rampant corruption.

The way economy has been handled since 2008 smacks of extreme incompetence and mismanagement. High rates of inflation, unemployment, and poverty; erosion in the value of money, both domestically and in world markets; low levels of production; flight of capital; mounting debts; escalating levels of debt servicing; precarious state of reserves — all have driven the economy towards brink of disaster.

It is the inherent resilience of the non-public sector that has enabled the country to survive. There is no doubt that people have suffered and every sector of economy has been affected. Only a certain elite wallows in prosperity and affluence. Common people suffered most. It is a sad commentary on the performance of the Government that public sector enterprises (PSE) have been a constant drain on the economy. Some energy shortages were there before 2008 but during the last five years shortages have snowballed, disrupting the economy and worsening the living conditions. The volume of domestic and international debt has increased from Rs6 trillion in 2008 to over Rs15 trillion in 2012. Capacity to repay debt has not been created. Debt servicing has become item number one in public expenditure. In 1970s and 1980s, defence expenditure was used to be the largest component of government spending. Now debt servicing is almost double the defense expenditure. It is eating away more than three times what is spent on development. This is a grave situation and a huge challenge which can be met only if the country gets a capable leadership. What is the economy needs is a paradigm shift: an economic path focusing on growth, human resource development, elimination of corruption, along with effective mobilization of domestic resources and also those of the expatriates—this coupled with good governance and shift of focus towards self-reliance and people’s welfare as centre-piece of all policies and programs.

‘War on Terror’: The ‘War on Terror’ is not merely a question of security and foreign policy. It is also a question of economy, as also of trust between the people and the rulers. Protection of life, honor and property are sine qua non of civilized existence. If security is to be privatized, it is a vote of no confidence in the Government and the institutions responsible for law and order in the country. The economic cost of the war on terror is horrendous. Poor people of Pakistan have financed this American war to the extent of over $100 billion which is the direct economic cost. Indirect costs are much higher. Deterioration of law and order is directly related to our involvement in the ongoing war. Our country is also suffering at the hands of terror mafias, criminal groups, sectarian outfits and secessionist forces. Foreign agencies too are engaged in overt and covert operations. This is over and above another direct cost in the form of loss of life of over six thousand armed and security forces personnel, over  forty thousand civilians, injuries to more than double those numbers, and displacement of over three million Pakistanis.

How to bring this war to an end is the most urgent issue. There cannot be only one way of dealing with all of the multifarious aspects of this challenge. There has to be a multidimensional strategy. War on Terror has to be brought to an end in a manner that does not aggravate terrorism. It is also important to ensure that the current war on terror is not replaced by another era of civil war in Afghanistan. If there is no real peace in Afghanistan we in Pakistan cannot live in peace.

Relationship between Federation and Provinces: Relationship between the federation and the provinces, and between the provinces and the local governments is also an extremely important issue. Genuine decentralization without compromising the foundations of federation is one of our existential needs. Serious work has to be done in this respect by developing a clear roadmap taking care of the genuine concerns of the federation as well as the provinces, particularly in Balochistan, in a manner that all stakeholders participate in this effort and ultimately arrive at consensus. Structural changes in the monetary and fiscal system are also required. We have a fiscal system which does not conform to principles of federalism. What we have is a kind of pseudo federalism.

There is a structural problem as almost all revenue collection is done by the Federal Government as is the case in a unitary state. But expenditure processes are in a different mould. Those who manage expenditure are not responsible for taxation. This lies at the roots of a lot of fiscal irresponsibility. Unless taxes are also decentralized, principles of fiscal responsibility cannot be promoted at all levels. The financial structure has to be redesigned and restructured. The fact that federation collects and provinces spend is recipe for indiscipline. That is why the task of development of a proper and responsible federal system demands major changes in structures, policies and processes of governance, political and financial. The 18th Constitutional Amendment was a step in the right direction, but only a first step. Successive steps required have not been taken yet. That is why we are faced with structural as well as political issues in this respect.

Role of Private Sector: Despite all economic constraints, if we can set our priorities right and mobilize our resource potential, particularly in the social sector and public sector development, we can inaugurate a new era of economic development and social welfare. Private enterprise should play a key role. It is borne out by history that whenever private sector was given proper opportunity it has played its role positively and constructively. But because of corruption, lack of good governance, real and contrived clash of interests, absence of clarity of vision, neglect of accountability, and failure of regulatory mechanisms, private sector has not been able to make its full contribution. A balanced approach is needed with a vibrant private sector, and responsible and supportive public sector. The role of the state particularly in the realm of infrastructure development, provision of social services, and bringing the lower strata’s of society into the mainstream of economy is of critical importance.

State’s responsibility to ensure education and health for all and adequate infrastructure development at the grassroots levels and financial structures that can provide lifeblood for all the layers of economic activity such as agriculture, small and cottage industry, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are very important. Key targets must be set for macro-economic stabilization, as well as economic development ensuring social well-being for all members of the society and their active participation in economic processes. This calls for a different economic model. Development of such a model should be our immediate objective. If we are able to identify our real national objective, expound that vision with clarity and spell out a roadmap to move in that direction, we can help our future political leadership to lead the country out of this difficult situation.

Click here for Part I and Part II

The post Agenda for the Nation 2013 and Beyond-3 appeared first on My Bit for Change.

What is the real nature and extent of the domestic crisis? Let me try to highlight some of its major dimensions. First and foremost, it is a ‘crisis of legitimacy’. For any country’s good governance, legitimacy is essential. Military general turned president Pervez Musharraf lacked legitimacy, and the outgoing government, despite having the semblance of democracy, also lacked moral and political legitimacy.

There is a. lack of trust between the people and the leadership, as also between state institutions and the stake-holders. The government was an arrangement of convenience, lacking unity of thought, commonality of vision and concerns. The spirit and substance of co-participation, co-operation and co-sharing did not exist. Key institutions were either at loggerheads or in a state of uneasy coexistence.

Higher judiciary is perhaps the only exception. Media has generally played a positive role. Army, which has always enjoyed the trust of the people as defenders of our borders, has become disputed because of its involvement in the ‘War on Terror’, and also because of people’s apprehensions about the role of intelligence agencies in civil, political and regional affairs.

This crisis of legitimacy is a matter of deep concern. This situation calls for fresh elections, fair and with utmost transparency. It is only with the emergence of a new political leadership, that enjoys people’s trust, that a new beginning can be made.

CRISIS OF INTEGRITY: The second dimension of the crisis can be described as a crisis of integrity. It is more than a natural corollary of the crisis of legitimacy. While integrity includes legitimacy it is more than that. Integrity is achieved on the basis of vision, character, trust and incorruptibility. The incumbent political regime has failed to demonstrate any of these. The ongoing ‘War on Terror’ has seriously dented the integrity of the ruling classes. A large number of people think that their leadership is not making decisions on the basis of what constitutes Pakistan’s national interest.

There is a trust deficit between the army and the people. An alarming symptom of this was the official instruction issued to military personnel during the Musharraf regime not to travel in public transport in uniform. This was the lowest watermark. The role assigned to army viz-a-viz internal counter-terrorism is unavoidable. The essential part of a strategy of deterrence has its darker side. Undoubtedly, terrorism is a threat yet it has to be tackled in an effective manner, focusing upon the causes of the malaise and its origin and not merely its symptoms and expressions. There can be no military solution to an essentially political problem as the Parliament had recommended in its three resolutions. It had suggested having an independent foreign policy and a political solution of the problem based on dialogue, development and deterrence. The government painfully failed to follow that path. The imposed strategy it followed has failed even to contain terrorism, what to say of its elimination. Unfortunately, this strategy has dented army’s integrity viz-a-viz the people.

Unfortunately, the US has played a role in it by making the people feel that army and the political leadership are following American roadmap, not a truly Pakistani policy. This has a direct role in aggravating the crisis of integrity. It would be appropriate to suggest that a way out cannot be found without a well thought out political decision which is possible only if there is change in political leadership. Unless a new leadership comes up with a new vision and a fresh strategy to serve Pakistan’s interests we may not be able to come out of this crisis. This new strategy must take on board all the stakeholders as partners.

The political scene is clouded but there certainly are some positive developments. The government, despite all its failures and compromises, had not resorted to naked political vendetta and victimisation, as had been the case during military rules. However poor their performance was, major constitutional institutions, even though they had failed to fulfil the people’s expectations, were operational.

In this regard, at least three positive aspects can be noted: One, at the constitutional and legal level, major constitutional distortions which had destroyed the balance of power as envisioned in the original Constitution have been removed and a new balance achieved through a national consensus. All the problems have not been resolved yet, but a framework has certainly been agreed upon, which can take care of issues at the federal level and can lead to improvement in relations between the federation and provinces. It is a big failure that the provincial-local relationship could not be addressed so far although at federal and provincial levels, some developments are positive as far as the constitutional framework is concerned. Similarly, there is some improvement in the area of legislation through proper parliamentary process. Legislation by ordinances, although present, has decreased.

Secondly, there have been some positive developments as far as the higher judiciary is concerned. Independence of the Judiciary was achieved through a heroic struggle of the people and the legal community. The post-2008 government showed great reluctance, even resistance, to restore independent judiciary, but the will of the people prevailed and, while the independence of Judiciary had been achieved, tensions between the Executive and the Judiciary escalated.

Many of Judiciary’s decisions remain unimplemented. At times it seemed that there was a tug of war between the Executive and the Judiciary. Judicial activism becomes necessary because of the failure of the Executive to deliver and operate within the framework of the Constitution and Law. The Judiciary had to fulfil its normal responsibilities as also respond to people’s grievances caused by Government’s failure to do its duty fairly and honestly. In such cases it had to resort to its constitutional role as the defender of human rights. This has been due to an abnormal situation.

Judicial restraint must remain as important as judicial activism. A balance between the two is necessary. The whole idea of fundamental rights and the Supreme Court to be the guardian of fundamental rights was a very important contribution of the original 1973 Constitution. Embedded in this constitutional provision is the view that if fundamental rights are violated as a result of a faulty executive action, it becomes the duty of the Supreme Court (not any other court) to intervene. That is how a political issue becomes an issue of fundamental rights. And as such it comes under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Frequent use of this right is taking place because the executive had failed to deliver. But still, while we recognise the positive contribution of judicial activism, the danger is that if it becomes a norm that would not be helpful to promoting institutional balance and safeguarding structural equation as established in the Constitution. That leads us back to the core issue of good governance. Courts cannot play the role of the Executive and its different organs. It can only act as a source of restraint and guide, not as a substitute.

The third positive development relates to the freedom of media and its enhanced role both as a source of information and as a forum promoting debate that could influence policy-making. It has also a role to play to promote greater accountability in the society and polity. Unfortunately, there have been a number of excesses in this area as well, particularly because of the role of certain lobbies, both domestic and international; and also because of covert influence of certain cultural groups, political mafias and power elites who have also used advertisements to achieve their vested interests. Despite these failures and weaknesses, free media is a source of strength and whatever has been achieved has been a positive development.

CRISIS OF GOVERNANCE: The third challenge that we face relates to a serious, all-pervading crisis of governance. It is a central issue. Along with the crisis of legitimacy and integrity, it is the crisis of governance that has to be the centerpiece for an ‘Agenda for the Nation 2013 and Beyond’. Legitimacy and integrity are essential but not enough. Without good governance a country cannot make real progress. If the leadership and institutions lack the capacity to deliver, the governance would be at low ebb. And when a lack of capacity is coupled with corruption, all is lost.

Our failure of governance can be traced to many factors: lack of legitimacy and credibility, failure on the count of rule of law, disregard of the principle of merit, absence of transparency, and wanton violation of standing operational procedures, abuse of power and wealth-aggrandisement for personal ends. Some SoPs may also be flawed but whatever is there has to be respected. And if rules are openly and persistently violated good governance can never follow. It is because of this rampant culture of incompetence and corruption that has driven governance to near collapse. This is so throughout the length and breadth of the country. If a change for the better has to take place, both incompetence and corruption, would have to be addressed firmly.

I put incompetence and corruption as twin disasters because in my view corruption is antithetical to capacity. It is also a gateway to the destruction of capacity and credibility. Corruption is not merely monetary embezzlement, which is only one gruesome form of it. Each and every form of misuse of power is corruption. That destroys every fabric of the state and pollutes all those processes that produce capable leadership in a country. So the menace of corruption has to be fought at the foundational levels (legitimacy and integrity) and also at the operational levels (competence, capability, rule of law and respect for merit). An aggressive anti-corruption crusade can result in substantial reduction in corruption in the first phase and its ultimate eradication in due course of time. This should be one of the primary objectives in this National Agenda.

CRISIS OF CREDIBILITY: Primarily a moral phenomenon based on conformity between word and deed, policy and action, law and respect of law, the crisis of credibility is another aspect that needs to be urgently addressed as it affects every activity in every sphere of governance.

It is a pity that no serious steps have been taken to set things right, and the conditions allowed to go to such abysmal depths that all these crises are now considered the hallmarks of this government. All the forces, local and global, responsible for bringing about such a pass stand in the dock of history, charged with bringing about the worst form of governance in our history.

(To be continued)

Click here for Part I

The post Agenda for the nation 2013 and beyond-2 appeared first on My Bit for Change.

The next government, which is expected to be in power sometime this year, shall have to formulate a national agenda for the next five years in the context of global, regional and domestic scenarios.

On the global scene, with haunting shadows of 9/11 still lingering, the real issue remains the need for an effective exit strategy. The way out is not yet clear and the costs of confusion and inaction are increasing, even multiplying. Despite some serious efforts, exit strategies are still in limbo. While this process has been unfolding, a new catastrophe in the form of a global financial crisis has cast its gloomy spell over the whole world.

The financial crisis began in September 2007 but the year 2008 was the worst hit. It was hoped that 2009 would be a year of recovery but even in the beginning of 2013, recovery remains a distant hope. During these five years, the financial predicament has impacted all the sectors of economy, attaining the proportions of an economic catastrophe.

Another important aspect is that a crisis emanating primarily in the private sector (banking, property and real estate), gradually affected other sectors having devastating consequences for production, trade, public debt, employment and budgetary deficits. State bailouts to save the system are beginning to change the role of government within the current capitalistic economic system. This has snowballed into an all-engulfing crisis. Greece, Spain and Italy are faced with crisis at the national levels. Other Western countries too have not been totally immune. Germany has so far been able not only to safeguard itself but also helped others, yet there is an increasing unease. France is in a difficult position.

In the US, national debt has crossed the 16-trillion-dollar limit and now they are trying to seek a new ceiling. The two-pronged strategy of tax cuts and state intervention to promote economic recovery has not been successful so far. It is now being realized that the economic crisis has the capacity to turn into a civilizational crisis exposing the weakness relating to the moral, political, structural and institutional dimensions.

In this context, the symptoms of a shift of global economic balance of power are also becoming visible. The role of Asia and Latin America is increasing. Even the developing countries, despite their problems, are searching for new roles. They are beginning to be looked upon as a source of strength in the future instead of a burden. China, Japan, Brazil, India and Turkey are being looked at as relatively more important players in the future. That is one scenario.

The second scenario relates to Arab Spring. From Pakistani point of view, two aspects are very important. One is that hegemonistic neo-colonial post-WWII arrangements that have so far been calling the shots in the region are crumbling. There is a universal urge for change. Secondly, this urge for change also reflects a new, assertive mood of the people, the real stakeholders, who were marginalized in the past. They are reasserting themselves to play a more decisive role. An unintended byproduct of these developments has a significant ideological dimension.

Whenever any genuine democratic process has unfolded in the Muslim World, it has also meant greater role of religion in general and Islam in particular. I recollect a very succinct observation by two Western scholars, of course in different contexts and with different objectives.

Wilfred Cantwell Smith mentions in his books, Islam in Modern History and Pakistan as an Islamic State, that whenever there would be democratization in Pakistan and other Muslim countries, Islamization would emerge as a corollary. Kissinger, also, in one of his speeches in the sixties, expressed this idea in with a deep concern. He was concerned that democratization in the Arab World may lead to a new role of Islam in politics that could be a challenge to the West and its interests. With this worry in his mind, Kissinger suggested stressed the need for balkanization of the Arab World, suggesting strategies for support of ethnic and sectarian movements. In his view, following a policy based on this strategy could also act as insurance to protect Israel. Promotion of ethnic and sectarian movements amongst the Kurds, Arabs, Iranians and Turks was part of this strategy. A similar game is being fostered in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Arab World today. This scenario must be kept in view when planning a future agenda for our country.

Regional Scenario

The third one is the regional scenario. Pakistan is at the receiving end of what is happening in Afghanistan. It is also being directly affected by America’s role in Iraq and US alignment with India. China’s current efforts to evolve a more assertive and multidimensional strategy has also its implications for Pakistan-China relations. While continuing its earlier development-specific efforts towards self-reliance, it is now making serious efforts to play a more active role in Asia and Africa, on its way to an emerging global power. The most immediate challenge that we face comes from the expected exit of the US and NATO forces from Afghanistan. This is unavoidable. Yet the way this is coming about is very lopsided. France has withdrawn abruptly. So did Italy. Spain had done that earlier. The UK is on the verge of withdrawal. And the US, too, has no other option. The post American scenario in Afghanistan is going to have crucial consequences for Pakistan. As also the Iran-Israel-America tension whose escalation would have very serious consequences for Pakistan and the Middle East. We cannot afford to ignore all these challenges.

Domestic Situation

The fourth scenario relates to the domestic situation. Even if we do not go very far back, the last fourteen years are very important. These years can be grouped into two periods: (a) the Musharraf period (1999-2008) and (b) the Zardari-PPP period (2008-2013). The former period witnessed reversal of the democratic process, re-establishment of military rule, subordination of all constitutional organs to the will of the military ruler, promotion of an elitist capitalistic economy, weakening of the country’s ideological identity and serious compromises on issues of independence and sovereignty of the state.

The tragic events of 9/11 and abject surrender of Pakistani leadership to the US pressure changed the whole equation of Pak-US relationship and resulted not only in seriously denting our national sovereignty and independence but also caused huge losses in life, property and economy. India-Pakistan relationships also took a new turn to the disadvantage of Pakistan with the core issues of Kashmir and water dispute sidelined. Out-of-the-box solutions became favorites; yet they ended up in fiascos. In short, Pakistan suffered in all respects: politics, economy, law and order, national cohesion, culture and ideology.

(To be continued)

Click here for Part II and Part III

The post Agenda for the Nation: 2013 and Beyond-1 appeared first on My Bit for Change.