I just returned from Pakistan last week and one of the conversations I had with my relatives was about the statement made by one of Pakistan's cricket players that no one in their right mind would ever attack Pakistani cricket as its too sacred an institution in the country.
And with that I express my deep sorrow and even deeper anger at what just happened in Lahore, a few blocks from where my parents used to live.
I have only two possible explanations for what took place:
I am convinced, as are so many that I've spoken to, that a serious effort is afoot to destabilize Pakistan and render it a failed state. That would benefit too many bigtime players in the international scene - US (who would gain control of Pakistani nukes), Russia (who badly wants to get revenge on Pakistan for its role in Russia's Afghan debacle), India (self-explanatory), and even Afghanistan (who blames Pakistan for its failures). The Mumbai attacks, the constant US cross-border attacks into Pakistani territory, the kidnapping of a UN worker in Balochistan, and Pakistan's recent economic woes (it almost collapsed Iceland-style late last year) lead me to my conclusion.
The other possibility is the Pakistani military and its intelligence service, the ISI. They yearn for the days of military rule and are looking for reasons to bring back martial law and military dictatorship.
I'm also convinced that the jihadi elements are just not that stupid to carry out such brazen attacks on Pakistan's other religion, its beloved cricket. Pakistanis from all facets of life were rejoicing and ever grateful to the Sri Lankan team for having made the dangerous venture to their home country and such an attack would forever alienate the jihadis.
Things in Pakistan are not as black and white, good vs evil as many would like us to believe.
WAW
3 days ago
38 comments:
excellent post,plz continue with them and may Allah reward you for your sincerity.
excellent post,plz continue with them and may Allah reward you for your sincerity.
Do we really think that they give two hoots about messing up the cricket?
They will try and destroy, cricket or no cricket.
http://jjutol.blogspot.com/
Check out this post: India's Revenge: RAW Attacks Cricketers in Pakistan
As'salamu aleikum Brother Naeem,
Nice to hear that your are doing ok, and I hope you family as well, Insha'Allah.
I am afraid the situation in Pakistan will get much worse than what we have seen so far, unfortunately.
btw, that was me, gess
March 3, 2009 4:42 PM
JDsg,
I don't think India is that stupid to conduct such idiotic act. Indians have enough problems in their country -- from North to South and from West to East. And there is election in April/May.
gess
AA-
@Jman, my point is not whether the jihadis care for cricket or not. Of course they don't. But they surely do care about public opinion (note how Mullah Omar recently called for Pakistani Taliban to cease attacking fellow Pakistani troops as that is hurting them with the masses).
And any attack that would cripple Pakistani cricket would immediately turn the entire nation against them.
@JD, interesting article, but I don't buy it. I find it hard to believe that the author was able to access such details as the model and make of the guns and grenade launchers in such a short time. Also, the writer clearly is biased pro-Pakistani anti-Indian - see how he rags on the Indian forces and praises the Pakistani forces.
@Gess, I agree. India isn't that stupid to arm them with Indian standard issue arms.
Naeem,
Since you are much versed about the situation in Pakistan, how much does Religion - Islam (I mean implanting Sharia court etc..) play?
I don't think that it is Black/white as the Western media likes to present, but we are missing the major factors like Tribalism (loyalty to once Clan), culture (class, and immigrants from India, land reforms) and let us not forget distribution of wealth. And there is of course the unsettled problems that caused from the Cold War and British colonialism.
gess
I meant "implementing"
gess
I have ordered this book this morning" Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror" by Mahmood Mamdani. Just read how it mirrors the situation in Pakistan/Afghanistan and Sudan(Darfur)/Chad. You could almost say that there is some kind of Blueprint:
In Saviors and Survivors, Mahmood Mamdani explains how the conflict in Darfur began as a civil war (1987—89) between nomadic and peasant tribes over fertile land in the south, triggered by a severe drought that had expanded the Sahara Desert by more than sixty miles in forty years; how British colonial officials had artificially tribalized Darfur, dividing its population into “native” and “settler” tribes and creating homelands for the former at the expense of the latter; how the war intensified in the 1990s when the Sudanese government tried unsuccessfully to address the problem by creating homelands for tribes without any. The involvement of opposition parties gave rise in 2003 to two rebel movements, leading to a brutal insurgency and a horrific counterinsurgency–but not to genocide, as the West has declared.
Mamdani also explains how the Cold War exacerbated the twenty-year civil war in neighboring Chad, creating a confrontation between Libya’s Muammar al-Qaddafi (with Soviet support) and the Reagan administration (allied with France and Israel) that spilled over into Darfur and militarized the fighting. By 2003, the war involved national, regional, and global forces, including the powerful Western lobby, who now saw it as part of the War on Terror and called for a military invasion dressed up as “humanitarian intervention.”
Incisive and authoritative, Saviors and Survivors will radically alter our understanding of the crisis in Darfur.
gess
AA brother Naeem.
In my opinion, it is time to stop blaming other people for one's own faults. Pakistan has lot of fractures and problems even before this event. Yet, once again people are blaming India, West (!) for a brazen terrorist attack.
Pakistan has a corrupt, morally deficient, ruthless leader and an equally corrupt and power hungry army. On other side they have people who will implement their version of Shariah by hook or by crook.
The fact is, Pakistanis have attacked their second religion - cricket. They don't care if it harms their support - they seem to have plenty of it in the northern areas of Pakistan. You were commenting on the Americans during their election and how their system is corrupt and it was useless to vote. Now perhaps is a good time to talk about reform that is needed in Pakistan.
We can start by people's idea of what Islam is and what should be forced on people and what freedom people are entitled to in Pakistan. When just repealing the unfair Hudood law is impossible due to protests, Pakistan has bigger problems than just no cricket for the next 10 years.
AA- Gess,
"how much does Religion - Islam (I mean implanting Sharia court etc..) play? "
Interestingly enough, I too am beginning to feel that Islam is not the primary motivating factor for the insurgency in the northern areas. This article provides a good understanding of the root of the problem. Basically, its a revolt against the failed governance of the Pakistani leadership. I especially like this line:
"If this were Nepal this would be a Maoist uprising. If this were a Latin American country it would be a peasant or a Guevarist uprising. Since it is Pakistan, the revolt assaulting the bastions of the established order comes with an Islamic colouring, Islam reduced to its most literal and unimaginative interpretations at the hands of those leading the Taliban revolt."
AA- Mezba,
I really appreciate your thoughts. I think if you've read my past posts, you'll know that I'm a strong proponent of fixing the Ummah, starting with the individual. We have for too long pointed fingers at others (the West, our leaders, the Jews, etc.).
At the same time, let us not be so ostrich-like that we turn a blind eye to such obvious incursions by outside, meddling forces. I believe the Lahore attacks was one such instance.
"The fact is, Pakistanis have attacked their second religion - cricket."
What are you basing this 'fact' upon?
"Now perhaps is a good time to talk about reform that is needed in Pakistan."
I've been calling for this discussion for quite some time. The problem is not with the system of governance, its with the people themselves. The rot that started from the top has found its way to the core.
"We can start by people's idea of what Islam is and what should be forced on people and what freedom people are entitled to in Pakistan."
This is where you and I diverge in thought. I don't believe the solution is to transplant the western way of life onto Pakistan (or any Muslim land). The freedoms and associated way of life in the west are not necessarily shared by the people in the east.
welcome back bro... let's meet up soon insha'Allah...
I don't think that Islam or religion has to do with the situation. The country is based unshakeably on Islamic principles, and the majority of the people want to be ruled by Islamic law. So what we have in Pakistan is a struggle to maintain power influence among different players [tribal leaders, the elites, military, drugs barons and others] and let us not forget those outside of the country, but they have no chance unless Pakistanis bring their country in order first.
Even some Western journalists realize that the issue is not to "talabanize" the country:
The more you look, the less you see in Swat sharia deal
Posted by: Tom Heneghan
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2009/02/26/the-more-you-look-the-less-you-see-in-swat-sharia-deal/
I don't know anything about this writer but it seems he got the right analysis:
"Pakistan is clearly in tremendous upheaval right now, facing a real existential crisis. It’s tragic to be in this downward spiral, and I simply don’t see what force can halt it. I think we might have to go through some kind of a purification by fire, and that’s quite likely to happen soon enough. My book isn’t overtly political, but I have certainly tried to show the fading of the old feudal aristocracy and the rise of a much more ruthless business class."
-Daniyal Mueenuddin
Oh please.....can you be anymore irrational with your speculations?
Fact of the matter is, few radical factions in Pakistan are out of control and the government is just inadequate in maintaining law and order.
Instead of acknowledging the problem within and fixing it, the Pakistani government and people come out blaming other countries.
Hmmm. More to most things that meet the eye. Esp when it concerns Pak.
Well, gess seems very certain of that "the majority of the (Pakistani) people want to be ruled by Islamic law."
Is that down to personal interviews conducted with the majority of Pakistanis living in Pakistan or just another assumption made based on a few articles? Or maybe gess has divine powers and can simply tap into peoples hearts and minds.
It never ceases to amaze me, when people who do not even live in the place, can make judgements on what Pakistanis want or don't want.
Naeem, liked your post. Some comments.
This "Way of life" you refer to, is relative and it know no colour, race, creed, caste, gender, and even those who share the same religion have different perceptions of "way of life".
Instead of dividing perceptions and way of life into West (evil) and East (good), it would serve us all better if instead we thought of these things as being universal. If the western way of life, just to use your words, is so bad, why are then muslims flocking to be there? Why are they not leaving even when they can? There appears to be a double standard in motion.
In socalled "muslim countries" or just Pakistan, people are diverse. You have gays, conservatives, liberals and so on. Freedoms are important because each individual should be allowed to pursue their way of life.
Without tolerance, there is no chance of unity or success. Division, riots, terror, crime, unrest, persecution, suppression of basic rights will be the order of the day.
I hope your family along with all Lahoris are safe.
Anon,
I think I understand what you're getting at. The east vs west dichotomy is not clean cut and the usage of such a division is not fruitful.
I agree to an extent. My usage of terms such as west and the muslim world is not absolute. Of course, there are crossover elements (globalization is, after all, a global phenomenon...heh). However, I still believe that core fundamental differences exist between the two societies.
The saudi driving the bmw talking on his iphone with his buddies about a trip to the swiss alps is NOT the same as his western counterpart. They have differing worldviews. The same goes for the gay Pakistani, the Malaysian feminist, and the Lebanese actress.
"If the western way of life, just to use your words, is so bad, why are then muslims flocking to be there? Why are they not leaving even when they can?"
I posted on this before. Here is what I wrote: "The Muslim (as well as non-Muslim) immigrants who continue to make their way to the North by the millions every year are NOT, through their acts of migration, endorsing the West and its values. What they are laying claim to is their own human survival instincts...The vast majority are simply trying to find a way to give their families a better life."
Anon, with all due respect, please refrain from such weak logic. Your comments show you to be a much wiser person.
"Freedoms are important because each individual should be allowed to pursue their way of life."
But freedom, as understood in the West, is different than freedom in the east. Let's not impose our understandings onto others, no matter how 'backwards' they may be.
"Without tolerance, there is no chance of unity or success. Division, riots, terror, crime, unrest, persecution, suppression of basic rights will be the order of the day."
Not sure what you're getting at here my friend.
"I hope your family along with all Lahoris are safe."
I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you.
Well this is not imposing on people any type of value set og belief system. Backward or not. But I do believe that each man, woman, irrespective of religion, race, ethnicity, has a right to pursue their happiness. This is just an example but many people in the east do not understand or endorse homosexuality. Many think it is unnatural. For many it is their only way of a natural life. There is a conflict. If you suppress these people (gays) you will have them practising this is secrecy and not always in a good way nessecarily. According to your logic then eastern people should continue to negate the existance and rights of gays because it does not "fit into" their idea of right and wrong.
This is about perceptions, Naeem. Perceptions change. Even the East has changed albeit slowly and not simply due to the British colonization. With the internet perceptions are further vulnerable to change.
Therefore as long as we, you, or I, or others seek to impose one set of belief and thus refusing to acknowledge the diversification of eastern countries, then we will continue to have problems.
Unity has to come and this through tolerance. Even if we do not believe it is right or natural or whatever. The examples are many. Gays was just one. The reason Muslims can even be in the West is due to human rights conventions, national equality acts and constitutions ensuring all equal rights to all citizens - hence the importance of tolerance.
"Anon, with all due respect, please refrain from such weak logic. Your comments show you to be a much wiser person."
No my logic is not weak. It uis in fact relevant and obvious. Let me elaborate further on this and also on why, your logic is flawed and selfcontradictory:
"I posted on this before. Here is what I wrote: "The Muslim (as well as non-Muslim) immigrants who continue to make their way to the North by the millions every year are NOT, through their acts of migration, endorsing the West and its values. What they are laying claim to is their own human survival instincts...The vast majority are simply trying to find a way to give their families a better life."
It is not merely about survival - any longer. I know of families who are wealthy and extremely privileged who sought to the West. Their application was based on false documents and false statements pertaining to their safety. Some even renounced their faith in order to be considered as fugitives. So all people are not fugtives and asylum seekers. All are not in dire need. But even if we hold your assumption true for sake of illustration, then the question arises why people seek to the West? There are many Arab (muslim) developed and wealthy countries with the financial stability, job prospects and some freedoms more in line with that many muslims advocate. Even some Asian countries fall into the same catagory of stability. Why are such countries then not desirable as destinations?
Those people who migrate or flee to the West do make heavy use of the same freedoms, which they, however, do not want to endorse in their country of origin. Womens rights, rights of minorities and those different, tolerance, the freedom to practise your faith, have places of worship without fearing it burnt to the ground, enjoying same equal rights under the same law without any segregation. That is a double standard because if you practise it, then you are endorsing it.
People choose West for many reasons and the question of why they can not achieve the same freedoms and lifestyle in their home country is an important one. So in fact your arguement actually proves that only the West can give them what they need which then questions the prolonged viability of their home countries and that society.
Kindly refrain from making assumptions. I would much rather you asked for an elaboration, when unclear, rather than assuming something is weak because it does not coincide with your opinion. That is why people debate afterall.
There are many minorities in Pakistan who are being persecuted daily based on religion, ethnicity, gender, you name it. Just womens safety is a big issue. And the fact remains muslim females remain safer and respected in Western socities.
I do not identify any great fundamental differences exist because at the end both societies are created by people and despite everything else, basic needs of people remain the same. Yes both societies could perhaps learn from each other. In order to develop, socities must change and it is not secret that Western societies in many ways are an inspiration to the East.
Maybe you can be more concise about what freedoms you think are in clear contradiction and indisputable?
Perception is understanding and understanding is subject to the individual you ask. Many of the things happening in the West happen in the East too. The only difference being in the East people hide it. Tolerance is not the same as accepting something. It just means you tolerate which I think is a ground pillar if any society must survive.
AA- Anon,
You've covered many points, so let me try and bring it all back to your original contention - that constructing some artificial barrier between east and west is divisive and detrimental to understanding the dynamics of the global scene.
Eventhough I disagree (I maintain that fundamental differences exist), let's say you are right. However, one major mistake in your analysis is that the east must accept its culturally subservient role to the west and allow western values and principles to simply seep into their lives, as if its some cultural free trade zone (with only western exports allowed).
You talk about values such as tolerance, human rights, and freedoms as they are championed by the west, but you ignore any positive that may exist in the east.
And that is what cultural and intellectual imperialism is all about. It dominates the mind and hearts without chains and rifles. It supplants them with these new-age gods of 'freedoms' and 'tolerance' as if the heathens in the rest of the world never heard of these terms before.
So much more needs to be said, but I'll get to your questions:
"the question arises why people seek to the West? "
I'm sorry but I think you didn't read my post. I mentioned that its not only the west that people are running to. If it was freedoms that people were striving for, then what explains the millions of Pakistanis and Philippinos and Indians who rush to the Gulf, sadly giving up many of their freedoms? Its an economical decision, pure and simple. The examples you cite are the clear minority.
"Maybe you can be more concise about what freedoms you think are in clear contradiction and indisputable?"
Freedom to dress as you want. Freedom to say what you want. Freedom to do with your body what you want. Etc. The western concepts differ from the non-western. Not making any judgments, just saying they are different. Why must they be the same?
@ Naeem: Its an economical decision, pure and simple. The examples you cite are the clear minority.
"Pure and simple?" Not quite, but I do agree with your basic premise. I've come across this argument that Anonymous makes before; it's a simplistic notion popular with many Westerners (especially Americans) that people migrate to the West (and the US) because of mostly irrelevant things like "our freedoms." However, the vast majority of people who move from one country to another (or even from one city to another within the same country) is due to economics. People move to where the money is. Heck, even I moved to Asia primarily for economic reasons: I was hired by a Korean company to work in Korea, and I went there.
People like Anonymous don't see just how many people move to other countries for work and money. They forget the reasons why most of their ancestors moved from, say, Europe, to North America in the great migrations of the 1700s through the early 1900s. But for some of us the effects of modern migrations are very apparent, even intimate and personal. You mentioned the case of "...the millions of Pakistanis and Philippinos and Indians who rush to the Gulf..." All too true. Here in S'pore, we see huge numbers of men and women from other countries who have come here for work and money. Thousands of maids from the Philippines and Indonesia who work for families (my wife and I have a live-in maid, a girl in her early 20s from Indonesia). Thousands of men from South Asian countries who work in construction and estate management (cleaning the public housing blocks, doing the landscaping, etc.). Even the (mostly) Burmese men who try to swim the strait separating Malaysia and Singapore at night in order to come into the country illegally (the coast guard catches quite a few of them). There are also the news reports out of China every January or February, which tell of the vast migrations within that country, of millions of people making their way back home for Chinese New Year, which is usually the only trip they make per year away from the jobs they migrated to get in the first place.
What people like Anonymous should do is start studying the subject of remittances, especially the countries where they're coming from, the countries that they're going to, and just how important that money is for the economies of the countries receiving the money.
Anonymous,
I am not a Pakistani, and btw Br. Naeem, I am sorry if I offended your native country or said something that was non of my business.
Back to you Anonymous. How do I know that the majority of Pakistani people want to be ruled by Islamic law? Well, look at the creation of the country. What was the objective to portion from India? And why has the country never had a Shah of Pakistan similar to Iran? Even if the secular political parties exist, how popular are they?
On the subject of Talabanization, I don't think the Talabanization is the issue. In the wake of Afghan war, there were significant support of the West among Afghan people and they were hopping a better time after more than 20 years of civil/proxy war, but eventually the Afghan people saw the West just as another occupational force.
This war on terror has many similarities with fight against communism / Communist China after WWII (as if China was USSR's lapdog or even a Communist). That time the Western media/Hollywood/McCarthyism told their audience that if they don't go into war in Vietnam, Cambodia, protecting Twain etc., the communists will hit down in San Francisco and take the whole country - our freedom our way of life.
Back to you gess,
Just by reading online about what Pakistan is or is not, does not legtimize making a broad and ill-informed judgement of what the majority wants. I would also strongly argue, that having a shah is not indicative of having progressive, secular, moderate or such forces. We have had politicians such as Bhutto (her father) who more or less resembled the Shah of Iran and that is what paved th way for those of more totalitary views rooted in religion.
I recommend you read the background history or details on what brought on the partition of Pakistan and the goals of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder. I would argue, the goals and dreams of Jinnah are not what constitutes Pakistan today. Far from.
Majority of Pakistanis do not want to be ruled by Islamic law. In fact, laws allegedly derived from Islam, are sought to be removed. I.e. the infamous Hudood Ordinance. It has been revised but not removed due to islamic party representatives in the parliment.
Pakistan is not exactly a place where progressive forces can easily express themselves. One of the human rights lawyers had her daughters obducted and sexually assualted. Why? Because of the work being done.
There are groups but they also operate carefully and as low key as possible. Blasphemy laws and laws such as these are in place to ensure the weak, poor majority can not speak or act.
Perhaps people like Jdsg should also then hold true, if my argument is too simple, that if one is willing to move to environments often in clear contradiction of what is morally right or wrong, then perhaps those socalled principles are not that important to maintain afterall.
When you live in a society, then inevitably you give and take. You can not not be coloured by where you raise your kids and they will be coloured and pressumably hold a different outlook depending on where they grow up and what they are exposed to.
Maybe people like JDsg should take that into consideration.
Anon,
Just wanted to quickly address your Jinnah point. I debunked this common argument in this post here. I don't believe that Jinnah's secular beliefs mean much when talking about the creation of Pakistan. Too many of his contemporaries (as well as the majority of the new nation) felt the country must be ruled by the injunctions of Islam.
Not sure what people are attempting to get at by arguing the point for Jinnah's secular values.
Anonymous,
Yes, I am not Pakistani, but I am not sure if you are one.
Bhutto? Hmmm, was she not the godmother of Talaban in Afghanistan?
On Jinnah, he was infact the closest you can come to the Shah of Iran. He only got the job because he betted his money on the British in WWII, and lucky for him, the British won, and he got the job; the chief of the new country.
Gess
Well then if you are not a Pakistani nor do you live in Pakistan then perhaps it would be a good idea to not make ill informed guesses based on your personal bias favouring islamic states? Now you may wish to live in an islamic state and that is great for you. But too assume an entire country wants to live under islamic state when this is in fact not true, is not futile.
Again I do not see the relevance of the Shah.
And Bhutto was about not the Godmother for Taleban. Again I do not know what you base that on nor is it relevant to the topic at hand. Try to focus on this topic.
As for your highly biased and wrong analysis of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, again that is simply not true. I would advise you to study the man and try a variety of sources. He was the founder of Pakistan and no way resembled the Shah of Iran. Why do you keep dragging the Shah into the discussion. You do realize that Pakistan and Iran are two different countries in two different geographical places. If you are very fixated on the Shah of Iran, maybe you can talk about that in a topic thread where it actually is relevant.
And mind you, Jinnah was supported by his people. So that would go against your vision that Pakistanis want to live under islamic rule. In fact Pakistanis want stability, safety for the girls and women on the streets, jobs, combat illeteracy, further women rights, ensure financial and economical safety. Religious rule remains the last thing on their minds. This goes for the man on the street to the man high in the political heirachy.
Naeem,
I will read the thread you recommended when I do have some more time on my hands. I am just busy and caught a cold!
As for your last reply to me.
I disagree because your fundamental premises is flawed. You maintain a division between East and Weast as being inherently a division between good and evil. I don't.
Many of the things inherently percieved as being Western are actually Global and universal. They exist even in countries like Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, but the main difference being they take place underground or in secrecy.
"You talk about values such as tolerance, human rights, and freedoms as they are championed by the west, but you ignore any positive that may exist in the east."
I insist that such values are existing in the West but these are also Eastern values. I have never argued there are no positives in the East. You are misreading what I wrote. I am simply identifying the barreier you see as non existing down to politics. I think more people want to be free to live their lives whether it is a buddist in Nepal or a Shia muslim in Pakistan.
I did read your post although due to time contraints I have not had the time to read your entire thread which you referred to.
I agree that economics has been the main factor in the beginning. We are talking about several decades ago and economics remain an important factor. However, the fact that many people are willing to change their religious status, or even denounce it, or in fact move their entire families to a society which you probably (if I read you correctly) see as heathen, immoral or such, then there are other factors than just the economics. It is not pure and simple economics. Because in theory then these families could accummulate enough wealth to move to a country of origin or in the gulf to ensure their eastern values. But they do not. They persist to live in a society where you feel they are in disagreement with the value set. I think they agree and many people feel that western countries are the closest one can come to muslim/islamic stats. This can not be ignored. In fact if you are willing to bargain or sell out something like religious convictions or values for something like money and materialism, then one can argue that these values are not that important in the first place. I know you moved from the US to Saudi Arabia pressumably because you identified more with the values in KSA then in the US. That is fine but all dont agree. Also look at a country like the US, which claims to be champion of the West, yet has serious problems with human rights (i.e.Guantanamo) but also officially displays a puritan and conservative outlook, when in fact that is just not the whole reality. So it is nbot clear cut as you want it.
As for contradictive freedoms which I asked you to specify:
"Freedom to dress as you want. Freedom to say what you want. Freedom to do with your body what you want. Etc. The western concepts differ from the non-western. Not making any judgments, just saying they are different. Why must they be the same?"
I dsiagree. I think this is down to your reading of what Eastern values are. The East encompasses countries ranging, from Pakistan, Indian, Burma, to China, Singapore, Taiwan and they all have different interpretations of what is a value of the east or not. However I do identify some values which seem inherent to most of the countries. Family values, collectiveness etc. People in the East do not have a single consensus on what is East and what is West. At all. There are so many groups and you must know that.
If you are saying that the freedom to move, live and dress, freedom to live your life and do with your body as you please is not in line with eastern values, then you are in for a rude awakening. These things are taking place in conservative countries like the Pakistan, but the development is slow and of course subject to regulations which are being lobbied against.
You are free to hold your opinions of course, but they are not nessecarily in line with reality for these countries. Or just Pakistan which is the topic at hand. What you read in the media, online and what actually is happening in the households and sprivate communities - are much of what you see as Western.
I think the main difference between you and I, is, that I see the values of freedom as not eastern or western but universal. However it is also true that the east and America (West) has been slow in implementing these values but they do exists but in moderation. And people are no silent but working towards these values.
As long as you maintain West and East being irreconcilable until then we will will disagree. I dont think geographical locations have a patent for what is right or wrong valuewise. It just appears the West has developed faster than the East.
AA- Anon,
"You maintain a division between East and Weast as being inherently a division between good and evil. I don't."
Not true. I don't believe that at all. I see good in both and evil in both. My contention is that there are fundamental values (born from western liberal thought) that are incompatible to eastern, traditional society.
These are not cut and dry geographical divisions. South America which is located in the west is more traditional and eastern in its social structure. On the other hand, Australia and Japan have many western values eventhough they are situated in the East.
Let's move beyond the physical location, shall we?
Its about ideals and principles. And more specifically the presumption that the value system being exported by the West has some sort of innate superiority to the value system found in the rest of the world.
I think our experiences of Pakistan are very different. You seem to be extrapolating your experience (which I'm assuming to be more liberal, more upper class) onto the rest of the country. Is your experience valid for the vast majority of impoverished Pakistanis?
While I see the slow modernization of Pakistani society, I still believe that the core fundamental principles will never change. Same applies to Saudi Arabia.
Religion plays a big role. Family plays a big role. Feminism is rejected. Freedoms are not absolute. Responsibilities take precedence over Rights. And so on.
These are the values I speak of.
Can 'East' and 'West' ever reconcile? Of course. But not at the expense of eastern values, which is what is currently happening (and what you seem to be proposing).
Oh and one more thing. Why the need to reconcile east and west? What is so wrong with simply leaving each to its own?
IMO, I simply don't believe the western lifestyle is sustainable. One of their own (a UK feminist) has basically said the same.
Naeem,
I don't agree with you when you say I am supposedly trying to extrapolate my experience onto the rest of the country. And then you take things to a personal level suggesting I must be liberal upperclass. I am neither. I am human and I identify the human suffering taking place in Pakistan in the name of "values", "islam", "culture". All I am saying, is that people interpret these things differently. Just because people are in one country does not mean they have the exact same understanding or opinion.
Maybe you can stick to the topic and we can talk around that. I am sure you would not like it if I made assumptions about you and your background.
First of all I would suggest that you are the one seeking to extrapolate what you define is constant namely values and culture. Unfortunately it is a fact that culture, perceptions and values are changable. They dont stand still. They move and DO change with time. Whether you think it is right or wrong, is really not of interest.
I can also find several people in Pakistan who object to the idea you seek to project of Pakistan. This is not a division of liberals, conservatives or others.
"Not true. I don't believe that at all. I see good in both and evil in both. My contention is that there are fundamental values (born from western liberal thought) that are incompatible to eastern, traditional society."
Wrong. You are indeed holding a firm and rigid division of West and East as being Evil and Good respectively. I would recommend you take a look at your previous posts as well as other threads. This division is a red thread. The difference between you and me are this:
I would at any given time fight for your right to live your life as you please (keeping responsibility and laws in mind). However you will not extend that same tolerance to others, judging from your optic where everybody is not entitled to live freely.
Feminists are people too. And the idea is not rejected. Islam, Pakistan, KSA, you have feminists. NOw just because many feel threatened by them, or fail to understand them, does not mean their views are less valid.
I am not a feminist. And what you call "your experience" is my life. My identity. I am not making comments based on talks with a handful of people only.
You forget that the West was not far from the East in terms of values if you look back a 100 years. Forced or arranged marriages, gender segregation, lack of rights for women to vote, education, dress, patriarch societies, slavery, child workers, poverty, iliteracy etc. - well they all existed in the West. You can find the trail through history books and accounts, literature, art, politics and economics. All ihn the name of culture, values and religion.
They changed. Whether for the good or bad, I do not wish to comment. I think the West can certainly learn things from the East and the East can certainly learn things from the West. Change is a two way street.
Just because the change is slow, does not mean it is less or of no importance. As long as you have even one single voice, you have a situation. You are forced to listen and negotiate, or you must kill it.
You have conveniently evaded all the points I made. Pressumably because they not fit your perception.
Unfortunately as long as you maintain this division we will continue to disagree. West, East is not the issue. If you dont believe in human rights, then there is nothing left. Turning a blind eye to those in suffering, assuming they are just not in line with societys perception has never brought any good with it. Times change, cultures and values change, socities changes. People change. Unavoidable. There is no ifs, buts or such. This is a fact of life.
"Can 'East' and 'West' ever reconcile? Of course. But not at the expense of eastern values, which is what is currently happening (and what you seem to be proposing)."
There you have your division again. I am not proposing anything else than tolerance. I do not believe that a certain groups perceptions should override the life and rights of other individuals. Eastern values are NOT a constant. They change and are changing. Rome was not built in one day but every country takes inspiration from others.
You also forget the fact that everything you seem so opposed of (because you percieve it as western) are already taking place in Pakistan. Take fornication, adultery, lewdness, prostitution, alternative dresscode, feminism (What do we do with the muslim feminists?), secularism, liberalism, intoxications, drugs, homosexuality (not an eastern value (correct?) - so should we kill them of or just imprison all the muslim homosexuals?) etc. The only difference being that in Pakistan they happen in seclusion, underground, away from the public eye. So it is ok as long as it is being suppressed and people forced to live double lives? If you only knew half the truths of what happens in Pakistan. If only.
Family matters, respect for your elders matters, but respect and love should not override rights. Honour killings are taking place daily in the name of culture and values (honour, shame you know the drill). So then should we then respect that and allow it to continue without helping the victims?
Females are already wearing burkas not because they think they are better muslims. Not all of them. Some do it because they have this naive notion that the burka will protect them from public random fondling and groping.
People are demanding eye for eye. Should we then turn the blind eye? Afterall this is part of culture too.
How about corruption? Which is deeply embedded in the Pakistahni culture and perceptions of justice? Afterall this has been going on since Pakistan was created. Then it is inherently part of culture (and also a result of political leaders failure to constitute stability, system and justice).
You see Eastern is a lot of things. But you have Easteners living permanently in the West. You also have the opposite. The two are reconcilable at the expense of each perception. Because change, Naeem, can be fought, but defeated. It is as sure as the breath of air we take.
Religion plays a role - but not to the extent you wish to think. I noticed on your blog elsewhere, you denoted that being born a muslim is a not enough. You percieve your adherence to Islam as product of the "conversion" you actively went through in your adult years. Great well that conversion is still to hit majority of muslims in Pakistan. The only religion appears to be Pakistani culture, values and norms which are far from Islam.
I am sure we can argue this topic for ages, but with your rigid division of East and West with a preference for East, will simply result in a repetitive streams of arguments.
You said you did not think, Western culture is sustainable.
In what way? Because reality indicates the quite opposite. Namely that western culture is sustainable. But it too changes. I predict a turn back to conservatism sometime soon actually. And let us not forget. God plays a role to westerners too. Western muslims, christians, buddists, jews, sikhs, hindus - should I continue? Religion, Naeem, is a personal matter and people/persons, do interpret religion differently.
But maybe you can elaborate why you do not feel it is sustainable? I pressume this is why you left the US to go to KSA?
Also do you think Eastern culture is sustainable. Now you are in KSA, which is more Middleeastern than Eastern, and even I know that Arab culture (again depending on what arab country we talk about) differs from Pakistani heritage and culture. Greatly. Don't you think? Or is the emphasis on Islam, which you agree with?
AA- Anon,
Again, your comments are very much appreciated. I agree that we simply have to agree to disagree on some of our points of discussion. I do have one question for you. When you state that the East is changing, how so? What changes are you referring to?
With respect to your question on the sustainability of the west, I don't believe that in its current form, where materialism/capitalism, militarism and racism (the three-headed monster described by Martin Luther King Jr.) dominate the western landscape, such a model for society is sustainable.
The citizenry can't tolerate it. The economy can't tolerate it. The environment can't tolerate it. Other nations can't tolerate it.
Do I believe they are doomed to self-destruction? Not necessarily. Just like the British Empire sized itself down from its pompous stature ("Sun never sets on the British Empire"), so too I hope the US will do the same.
And when that happens, the west will cease to be the west as it exists right now. The military escapades will decrease. The capitalistic greed will be tempered. Cultural imperialism will weaken. And so on.
Making for a much better, safer world! :-)
Greetings Naeem
I also appreciate your comments. I guess we do have to agree to disagree.
As for the East changing - well just take Pakistan - there are things happening. As you may or may not know, a a recent victim for the Taliban militia was brutally lashed allegedly for being in the company of a male - her father in law.
Unfortunately this is not the only or last case. The only difference is somebody recorded the whole thing and released it.
This unleased protests. People opposing both to sharia regulations or penalties as well as the atrocities committed daily against women. I see a change. Change is slow - though. But it is there. Change can not be avoided and certainly with the world growing more globalized and the onset of the internet as a gateway to the world even if you are sitting in some remote area in Pakistan. There ARE traditional values which are also maintained. But the change is there. It is in the appearences, the lobbies, in the streets, in the media, in the litterature, the talk, the homes, the hearts and minds. Time colours us. I dont believe any society is rigid. East or West. Both are changing and adjusting. It has always been like that.
If there was no change, then a coloured man would not be president. A woman could not rule the state. And so on.
Anyways take care.
I think they are just getting a taste of there own medicine. they harnessed all these psychos, now they are crying foul on the acts commited by these fools. may be now they will understand how people in India might be feeling.
Post a Comment