MyWorks

سقوط ڈھاکہ پر کچھ خیالات

2011-12-17T21:14:00.000+05:00

اگر کوئی صاحب دانا المیوں کی ایک فہرست ترتیب کرنے بیٹھے تو اول شمارے پر کون سا المیہ آئے گا؟ کیا وہ سقراط ۳۹۹ قبل از میلاد کی موت کو سب سے اوپر لکھے گا؟ کیا وہ ہینری ھستم کے طلاق کو اولیت دے گا؟ کیا وہ جنگ پانیپت میں ابراہیم لودھی کی شکست کو سر نوشت کرے گا؟ کیا وہ سکندر کی اچانک موت کو مقام نخست بخشے گا؟ کیا وہ ھمدان تا بغداد مغلوں کے حملوں کو سب سے بڑا المیہ قرار دے گا؟ کیا وہ ایک ماھیگیر اور نقش کار کا بعد از آں صدام حسین اور ہٹلر کے روپ ڈھالنے کو سب سے بڑا المیہ قرار دے گا؟

میں صاحب دانا تو نہیں مگر میرے خیال میں تاریخ کا سب سے بڑا المیہ یہ ہے کہ ہم المیے کو المیہ کہنا ہی چھوڑ دیں۔ ہم المیہ کو کسی سازشی مفروضے، یہود و ھند کی چال یا پاکستان کی خدائی ریاست کے خلاف طاغوتی طاقتوں کا نام دیں دے۔ المیہ کو تاریخ کی مجبوری کہنا بھی اس کی اہمیت کو گھٹانے کے مترادف ہے۔

ہماری قریب کی تاریخ میں ایک ایسا ہی خون آشام واقعہ پیش آیا ہے۔ تقسیم کا المیہِ دوم۔ اور اس بار اس المیہ پر بات کرنا ہی جرم ٹھرا۔ بنگلادیش کمیشن کی رپورٹ بھارت میں بہت پہلے چپھی پر پاکستان میں اس کو شائع کرنے پر پابندی رہی۔ اگر کسی جاوید ہاشمی نے آواز بھی اٹھائی تو اسے جیل کی سلاخوں کے پیچھے ڈال دیا گیا۔ نصابی کتب میں اس واقحے پر یکطرفہ اور سرسری نظر ڈالی گئی۔ اس واقعہ سے سبق سیکھنے کے بجائے فوجی اسٹبلشمنٹ نے کچھ اور ہی رنگ دیا۔ بقول بی بی سی کے عابد علی رضوی ادیبوں نے بھی وہ شور برپا نہیں کیا جس کی ضرورت تھی۔ مشرقی پاکستانیوں پر جو ظلم ہوا اس کی ایک طویل داستان ہے۔ گر کہ میرے لفظ تیرے درد کا مرہم نہ تھے، کم از کم اس کہانی کو زندہ رکھنا اور مسخ ہونے سے بچانا ہر پاکستانی کا فرض ہے۔

جالب تو یہ کہتے کہتے تھک گئے ، 'محبتیں گولیوں سے بو رہے ہو، وطن کا چہرا خون سے دھو رہے ہو'۔ لیکن یہ بات کسی کو سمجھ نہ آئی کہ گولیوں کے ذریعہ یہ کام ممکن نہ تھا۔ تکا خان، جو بعد میں بنگالیوں کے قصائی کہ شعار سے 'نوازے' گئے، کا مشہور جملہ ہے، "مجھے زمیں چاہیے، آدمی نہیں"۔ فوج یہی سمجھتی رہی کہ چند باغی ہیں جن کو طاقت سے کنٹرول کر لیا جائے گا۔ ویسے بھی ان بنگالیوں کی کیا اوقات کے پاک فوج سے لڑئیں!

اس قتلِ عام کو ٹائیمز مجلہ نے پولیند کے بعد سب سے بڑی نسل کشی قرار دیا۔ ویسے بھی افواج کی نفسیات دنیا کی تاریخ میں ایک جیسی ہی رہی ہے۔ بقول افتخار عارف، 'فرات کے ساحل پر ہوں یا کسی اور کنارے پر، سارے لشکر ایک طرح کے ہوتے ہیں، سارے خنجرایک طرح کے ہوتے ہیں'۔ یہ لشکر و جنجر کسی کام کہ اگر دشمن کہ بجائے مجھ پر ہی استعمال ہوں۔ یہاں پر اس کوہاٹی نوجوان، احمد فراز، کے اشعار بےساختہ لب پر آ جاتے ہیں، 'میری بستی سے پرے بھی میرے دشمن ہوں گے، پر یہاں کب کوئی اغیار کا لشکر اترا، آشنا ہاتھ ہی اکثر میری جانب لپکے، میرے سینے میں سدا اپنا ہی خنجر اترا'۔ یہ کشت و خوں کس کے ایما پر آ غازیوں! بجائے یہ کے افواج بنگالیوں کو ان کا جمھوری حق دلوانے میں ان کی مدد کرتی، بجائے یہ کہ وہ مغربی پاکستان کے شکست خوردہ لیڈر، جناب بھٹو، کا ساتھ دیتی، فوج کو چاہیے تھا کہ فاتح کا ساتھ دے۔ مگر انھوں نے الٹا مشرق کو ہی کچلنا چاہا۔

معروف موراخ ایل فشر نے کہا تھا کہ تاریخ ایک کے بعد دوسری اور پھر تیسری ایمرجنسی کا نام ہے۔ ملک بننا اک ایمرجنسی ، پھر ملک ٹوٹنا ایمرجنسی اور پھر ہتھیار گرانا بھی ایک ایمرجنسی! سر جھوکی فوج کو دیکھ کر رونا آیا! جنرل نیاز نے تو کہا تھا کے اگر بھارت نے حملہ کیا تو ہم کلکتہ تک پہنچ جائے گے۔ لیکن ایسا کچھ نہ ہوا۔ کلکتہ تو دور کی بات، ڈھاکہ بھی ہم سے گیا۔ ۹۰،۰۰۰ فوجیوں نے ہتھیار گرا دیے اور یوں ملک دولخت ہوگیا۔ اس قیامت کی گھڑی کو میجر صدیق سالک نے اپنی کتاب 'میں نے ڈھاکہ ڈوبے دیکھا' میں باخوبی بیان کیا ہے اور اختیتام اس انٹرویو پر کیا جو انھوں نے جنرل نیاز کے ساتھ زمانِ اسیری میں کیا۔ جنرل صاحب نے ہتھیار گرانے کی وجہ یہ بتائی کے وہ ہزاروں بیواوں کی بددعا اپنے سر نہیں لینا چاہتا تھا، اس لیے انھوں نے ہتھیار گرانے کا حکم دیا! بقول فراز:

'تم نے جاں کہ اوز آبرو بیچ دی'

(جاری ہے)

Liberal values and liberal politics

2011-03-05T22:10:00.006+05:00

Two days ago, 2nd March 2011, an horrendous act of terrorism took place in the capital city of Pakistan. This time the target was the minister of minority affairs, Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti. I have deep condolence for the decease and his culprits should be brought to justice as soon as possible.

But here we have a chance to discuss a very important question. This question is not about the recent murder but about the pro-activeness of all liberal states in this specific murder. In Pakistan, especially in Karachi, dozens of people are killed in the name of politics every week. In tense situations, this figure reaches abnormal heights. The blood of innocent people colors the city's landscape and the economic cycle of the country comes to an immediate halt. Where are all these liberal states when these innocent people are being killed? Why don't they speaks out in the same vehement way as they are speaking out for Mr. Bhatti's unjust murder. Yesterday MQM's leader, Mr. Altaf Hussian, said that the killing of Mr. Bhatti has badly damaged Pakistan's image abroad. Prime minister Yousuf Raza Galani in tandem with the president also repeated these words. Why is this single murder of such international importance in a country where hundred of people die in the name of politics everyday? Why doesn't the killing of these innocent Pakistanis affect our image abroad? Why is this single murder of such an importance that the whole international community has started speaking against it and is asking for speedy justice?

We are going to see these questions in a different paradigm. Is this a paradox that the killing of uncounted Pakistanis doesn't attract political and international attention, while a single murder causes an international fiasco for the state?

It has to be understood that Mr. Bhati was killed for one of most pinnacle value of the human right's framework. This is the right of the freedom of speech. Mr. Bhatti was an outspoken critic of a man made blasphemy law. He was also on the international scene because of his criticism. His killing, in liberal western states, was seen as an attack on this fundamental right of man, the freedom of speech. So indirectly it can be said his dead was synonymous to the killing of all liberal traditions. Although, it could be conjectured that the person who killed the minister might be a psychopath. Unfortunately, such a conjecture is ridiculed.

A few days ago, a female senator was killed in the United States. Her killing was taken in a completely different fashion. The killer was instantly called a psychopath by the locals and due judicial process started. A question may arise why doesn't the west considers this murder as an attack on liberal values? The answer has to be sought from the society itself. The murder in Pakistan was seen as an attack on secular values in a religious state. This attack is psychologically considered an act of sheer terrorism in the west. Killing a secular value in a religious arena is literally an attack on a liberal man by a savage. The situation in the United States is totally different. The murder took place in a secular country. The person was declared a psychopath and not a terrorist by the commoners. No media person called the murderer a terrorist, although it was again an act of terror. This intrinsic societal difference results in two different outputs.

To conclude, it can be said that liberal politics is all about the protection of the liberal thought. The grief is not on the murder of an innocent man but the real grief is about the murder of liberal tradition in Pakistan. Whenever the human right framework is challenged, liberal force have no choice other to defend the framework.

What's the prime motto of the human right framework will be discussed later.

Feudalism in Pakistan

2010-09-20T00:15:00.004+05:00

"It has been 63 years and this country is still in the hands of feudal".
'Jagirdar' is what they are called in Urdu. 'Vadera' in Sindhi. 'Malik' and 'Chaudries' are what they are called in Pushtu and Punjabi respectively. In a country where the feudals control the land, the idea of democracy is a sham.

Individualism is an essential ingredient of democracy. A man has to become free from all chains and allowed to vote according to his will and demand. In a feudal culture this can never happen; people are treated like born slaves and constituencies are miniature kingdoms.

Everyone kingdom has a supreme head and no one dares the higher excellence. People working under the king are called mazaris. These people are given essential food and clothing. No education is given, which in case might help in bringing a revolution. There are private Jails present and constitution is what the king demands. This system is gaining strength with the passage of time. It has became a huge hegemony and like a incurable disease it is eating us.

The reason for such a strong and formidable feudal system dates back to the creation of Pakistan. On the 14th of August 1947 the subcontinent was decolonized and two independent states India and Pakistan came into existence. On the Indian side, in was clearly known that the Congress party would never tolerate a feudal India. The first step which Pundit Jawalnar Nehru, the first prime minister of India, took was to abolish feudalism. All land was now controlled be the government of India. There were no miniature kingdoms present and hence India was saved from the scars of a feudal culture.

The situation on the Pakistani side was different. Firstly, Muslim League had no a priori plan to rule the country. Secondly, a majority of Muslim League members were feudal lords themselves. These feudal lords later became part of the Pakistani political elite. They got access into the parliament and hence became legislators. No legislation was ever passed which may reduce the power of a feudal. Infact, they became the demi-gods of their regions.

Today, the situation is no different. Nepotism and politics of inheritance is the norm of the day. Constituencies are family businesses. A daughter wins on a specific seat while her uncle wins from an adjacent constituency. The co-commander of the region, in some cases, can also be from the same family.

This is the state of affairs and how Pakistan is ruled. I think this system is never going to change.

The following is an example of the prevailing feudal culture:

Good Reads:

A new perspective on Race

2010-06-21T23:54:00.003+05:00

[The following is a summary of the discussion I had on 'the concept of race in a multicultural paradigm']

The talk was given by a professor from the department of International Relations at the University of Karachi. The focus of the whole discussion was a research dissertation written by two eminent American psychologists; the title of the research was:

"Race as biology is fiction - Race as a social problem is real."

The paper presented an anthropological and historic perspective on the issue of race in the United States. In the US, the black-men and white-men divide goes back in history. Slaves were brought in ship to the 'free land' and they were forced to work in new and harsh conditions. Africans were by law not treated as human beings. Slavery was also made kosher by the contemporary Christan church. This 'religo-political harmony' meant that there was no stopping to the slavery business. Blacks were caught from the African continents and were brought back to the developing United States, the free-world. They were not allowed to marry the whites and in some cases they even couldn't marry in their own communities. This might help in establishing a permanent family system. A family system never suited the whites and black men and women were often segregated. No great black revolt is record in the history. The most important reason is that when blacks seemed to disobey their new masters, they were severally punished. Punishment for the act of treason was in some cases equal to death. Due to this the black men never tried to disobey whites.

This was the history of the white-black divide. We can speculate that capital was the driving force behind this horrendous crime of slavery.

The American psychologists have tried to prove that the foundation of racism in the US is scientific. Previously, there was an idea that a taxonomy of supremacy exists in different races. Some races are higher than other, some normal and some below normal. The Asian race is at the top of the ladder, then comes the European and lastly Africans. This conception was very strongly promoted and naturally it allowed the exploitation of one race by the other.

The American psychologists have tried to prove that although racism has scientific grounding but no race is superior to the other. Supremacy of a single dominating race can never be proved.

The basic assumption made is that race has nothing to do with biology. Race and biology are inclusive in nature. These are two incomparable ideas which cannot overlap each other.

The new concept presented in the paper says that race is acquired through ethnicity. The normative position is now taken up by a particular ethnicity rather than the old taxonomic structure. This means that a person can change his race overtime. As a person travels from the African continent to the United States, he has changed his ethnic background. As culture is considered to be external, so does is ethnicity. This black African slave might change his ethnicity as he is now brought in a new cultural environment. Hence this proves that race isn't a static constant norm. It's a collection of ethnic traits learned overtime and passed from one generation to the other. If an African has major traits of an American, then he surely is an American.

Lastly, the psychologist also discussed that, in history, race is used as a political tool. Even today, around the world, electoral constituencies are divided on the basis of class, colour, creed, language and religion. This discrimination can be subdued if we consider race as a social variable rather than something external and never changing.

Just to conclude the whole topic. The three fundamental thought are following:

1) Race is a mean of enforcing social order.

2)It is a lens through which differential opportunities and inequalities are structured.

3)Scientific methods are problematic. Science with its emphasis on identifying immutable differences between racial group as caused racial inequality.

غیرت کی بات

2010-06-18T12:34:00.006+05:00

انور مقصود: جناب آپ کو تو صرف بہانہ چاہیے حکومت کو برا بھلا کہنے کا۔ حکومت کچھ بھی کرے ، آپ تنقید ہی کریں گیں۔ اس ہی مثال کو لیجیے، حکومت نے آپ کے فائدہ اور حفاظت کے لیے، آپ سے کہا کے چند دن کے لیے کلفٹن سے کہی اور چلیں جائے، سیلاب اور طوفان کا خطرہ ہے۔ آپ اس پر بھی تنقید کرتے ہیں۔

معین آختر: میاں انور! کیا بات کرتے ہو؟ ہماری حفاظت کے لیے خالی نہیں کرایا، اصل مقصد زمین پر قبضہ کرنا ہے۔ لوگ گھر چھوڑے گیں اور ہم ان کی زمین آپس میں بانٹ لے گیں۔ رہے نام اللھ کا!!!۔

انور مقصود: (غصے سے) جناب کلفٹن میں تو وزیر اور مشیر بھی رہتے ہیں! وہ بھی تو ڈوب جائیں گیں۔ ان کی جان کو بھی تو خطرہ ہے۔ آپ کیسی بات کر رہے ہیں! گھر تو وہ بھی خالی کر رہے ہیں، وہ بھی آپ کی طرح ہیں۔

معین آختر: (تھوڑی خاموشی کے بعد) میاں انور! وہ نہیں ڈوبے گیں کیونکہ ڈوبنے کے لیے غیرت چاہیے ہوتی ہے۔

Rainbow come near

2010-06-06T19:48:00.003+05:00

A real rainbow in Karachi. I won't do a commentary.

A Rainy Day

2010-06-06T17:19:00.003+05:00

Sitting on the edge of the door, trying to peek out in the dark, sounds of droplets one after the other colliding the thirsty earth; It was raining. The night sky hid most of the beauty. Rains have there own aesthetics, something which one grabs only by observing. An unending sequence of events unfolded as I tried to grab my own basket of experiences. The formation of ripples; the circular waves formed on the surface, waves which are circular to perfection; the uninterrupted sound of droplets pouring; the flash of thunder making the night sky as bright as day. I was trying to get a hold on it. As I tried to get a feel of the sound, my eyes distracted me. When my eyes were focused, my ear overpowered the scenery which my eyes sketched. But this constant battle of senses really kept me alive.

Strong winds were making the trees dance. They were dancing with the winds. A pure symphony with the rain, as if the rain was directing the whole drama ans all the tree and flowers merely acting accordingly. The sounds produced by this dance of nature, overwhelmed me and for a moment I thought they have some senses similar to human beings. The oscillations of trees, the swinging of leaves, the alternating movements; everything was simply mesmerizing. They were cheering and playing like children on the street.

This dance said me, "Join Us"! I came out from the room onto the terrace. sitting at the edge I saw my street. It was like River Indus. Water following as if it will never end, gaining strength every passing second. I remembered my childhood when I used to place paper ship on the same street. The ship was sent to a journey to infinity and I was never going to meet it again. As I was thinking I saw some white paper ships, a mystical retreat to childhood. The tradition was still alive but time moved ahead. The maker of the ship was unknown - as always is the case with paper ships - but history continues. The white color of the ship was in sheer contrast with the darkness of night. One ship following the other on an undefined journey.

Seeing this whole natural drama, I got myself wet. I was feeling cold but I didn't wanted to get interrupted. So I took off my shirt, wrung it and put it over again. I focused again on the trees; their incessant dance. I noticed a new phenomena, old leaves were following down and space for new leaves was being created. The process of death for one means life for the other. The trees were going round this metaphysical for centuries but I noticed it today. For a second I thought myself of being Newton, gravity was there for thousands of year but the world never noticed. But today I was the only person in the world, so I was the world. The old leaves fulfilled their duties and now new one were coming to take their place. A monotonous cycle was about to start and I was the first one to witness it.

It was raining continuously, but I was feeling cold. I had to go back inside and now sitting inside the house I'm again experiencing the pleasures of rain....

From The Holocuast to Gaza

2010-06-02T12:57:00.007+05:00

Reading newspapers, watching BBC or surfing the internet- I noticed how the world has spoken over the Israeli attack on the ship 'fotilla'. Tagged as the 'armada of terror' by the Isreali foreign minister, the ship was carrying basic food items for the people in Gaza strip. A land which is occupied by the Israeli authorities against all international jurisdiction.

Why do we have to see the same Middle East again and again? The Middle East of blood, tears and sorrow. Why is the blood so profane? Or is it really kosher to kill Jews, Muslims or Christians? Is it a Jewish-Muslim problem or a Jewish-Arab problem? Why do we hear human cry, the shear human agony and pain which transcends the limits of human language and uttered words?

The utter 'forlorn' of the Holocaust continues to reverberate itself with a change in geography and ethnicity. Six million innocent men, women and children were killed by the Nazis on the bases of ethnic discrimination. Hitler called them 'The Impure Race'. The Fuhrer of the Third Reich gave out 'creative plans' for the killing of Jews, including the 'March of Death', 'Gas Chambers', 'Concentration Camps' and 'Forced Labours'. Men were denigrated and humanity millions of time. But has something change; wasn't the 'Plan D' similar to what Hitler did? Wasn't it a 'ethnic cleansing' of the Palestinian Arabs? Women were raped, families massacred. The whole Palestinian civilization was at stack. The Holocaust repeated itself, but this time not the 'Insane Fuhrer' but the 'Holocaust survivors' themselves. How on earth can they forgot the pain they themselves confronted. 'History repeats itself' as the mantra goes and the Middle East is looped inside a whirlpool which seem to be monotonous. The whirlpool of 'red wine' and 'red blood'.

The whole Middle East crisis centres around a city. A city which dates back in time immemorial. Every patch and every bit of the city has a story to tell. From the destruction of the First Temple to the conquest by Ayubi and then up till the Crusades; the City seems to have stored everything in it lap. This city is known as the 'Jerusalem' or 'Yerusalem'. Near it Prophet Jesus(pbuh) was born, Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) went on the journey of 'Miraj' and Jews have there Solomon Temple right at the heart of the city. The Abrahamic religions seem to have a common denominator. But is 'common denominator' is nothing different from today's Gaza. Same stories of innocent massacre, people die without any reason except that they are born in Jerusalem. The noise of bullets and rocket fire overwhelm all other holy rhymes and recitations, people pray in a sacred warzone with hundred of check-posts and armed personal watching each and every activity being performed. The solace of guns and arms diminishes the solace of love and religion.

"Let the children of Abraham intermingle together", said the president of the united states at the university of Cairo. Sir, who is stopping them? Who is stopping the Jews and Arab to live together? Who give a 'peace road-map' and than another 'peace road-map' and than another? Who is playing with their lives? Let them intermingle! and please don't the latest Israeli Terrorism as you don't support the rocket attacks on southern Israel.

As far as the Arab world is concerned, they should accept the world as it is. Gone are the days of Arab Imperialism. No more 'King Abdullah' play. Expansionism is neither coin of this age and nor it will help the of Gaza. Consider Palestine a land which transcends the geographical boundaries of the Arab world. Until then, no solution is possible. A unified Arab force is not a solution, we have seen then in the Arab-Isreali war. The Arab couldn't get even a meagre piece land in the seven wars they fought.

The people of Gaza need our help. But the Palestinians which are in their mother's womb need a Middle East which is more secure and peaceful than today. Gaza is as large as Singapore, let Gaza be the Singapore of the Middle East. The Israeli should know that 'There is a tomorrow after today' and history always repeats.

the problem of induction

2009-07-12T20:51:00.013+06:00

As I wrote that this blog won't only talk about rubbish politics of my country. So I remain obliged to my words. وہ وعدہ ہی کیا جو وفا نہ ہو. Today I read a very important topic which I thought worth discussing. We teenagers, especially those who have two three books on science, have a feeling that science is 100% rational and as humans progress science would also progress and at the end every thing would be demystified. So it's just a matter of time that science would be the final and only touch-stone of truth. Anything "scientific" will be true and anything "non-scientific" would be false.سچ تو صرف وہ ہے جس کو عقل سچ کہے۔. This is the whole idea which engrosses us as if it's a religious dogma. We don't read, so we are led astray.

If we look at the history of science we will see that science uses specific tools through which it deciphers fact or logic. On the most fundamental level these method include induction and deduction. I won't discuss what deduction is leaving it as a question for the reader. Just one sentence, it has inherent problems if you look at it.

Our discussion focuses on induction. Induction is a method through which scientists generalize an idea and expanding it over space and time. I might explain this through a "non-scientific" example, شاہد ہر جمہ کو نماز پڑھتا ہے، اس لیے وہ اس جمہ کو بھی پڑھے گا. The problem is that even if shahid offers prayer on every friday we cannot conclude that he will offer it on this friday. He might be going on a dance party or her sister's marriage! We cannot generalize this result. the result has a 50-50 probability.

Similarly, scientific induction works on a principle know as UN, not united nations but uniformity of nature. for example, let us take the newton's law of universal gravitation. Newton say's that if two bodies are in close proximity than will apply a force on each other which is (G*M1*M2)/r^2. where the constant G is again termed as the "universal" gravitational constant. Newton only tested his result on apples, stones and the heavenly bodies which could be seen through his telescope. But what he said was,"Because my laws apply equally good on apples, stones and few heavenly bodies, they are equally good for the whole universe". (An inductive statement similar to shahid friday prayer). Similar is the case with Coloumb's law, farady's law of electro-magnetism, et cetera. All these scientist use the the idea of uniformity of nature. All these laws take this for granted that nature is uniform. This idea was challenged in the 18th century by the philosopher David Hume.

Hume asked a very simple question. Many scientist use the method of induction but how can they prove induction to be itself a truth? A person might answer, "because induction has been working for the last 5000 year so can induct that it will continue to work in the future". But this is "begging the question", a logical fallacy. No can can say "I speak truth because i speak truth" similarly no one can say "I believe in induction because I inducted this result that i believe in induction". This is a circular argument.

This thought of Hume, known as the problem of induction, attacks at the root of science. Because if the way to truth is irrational then how can the truth by rational!

Many scientist tried to prove Hume wrong, most notably Karl Popper, but no one succeeded. Today the philosophers of science don't consider science to be rational. In fact science is no reality, it's an interpretation of reality.

Many people nowadays try to prove religion through science, but i think they don't know what the West itself is thinking . We shouldn't use science to prove religion as irrationality cannot prove religion. Akbar ala-badi correctly said:

فلسفی کو ڈھونڈنے سے خدا ملتا نہیں
ڈور سلجھا رہے ہیں، اور سرا ملتا نہیں۔

reference
1)philosophy of science
2)http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

Leadership and Pakistan

2009-07-07T11:01:00.005+06:00

This has been one of my favourite topic to discuss on. But the urge to write this came from a Urdu prose:

امیرِشہر غریبوں کو لوٹ لیتا ہے
کبھی بحیلِ مذیب، کبھی بانامِ وطن

"The Rich plunders the belongings of the poor
sometimes on the name of religion and sometime through nationalism"

If you look on the pages of history this is the simplest theory of Pakistani leadership. I would leave Liaquat Ali Khan. (I'm afraid I would be caught under the blasphemy act of the constitution of Pakistan!). After him the story is similar if not the same. Khwaja Nazimuddin, Chaudhri Mohammad Ali, Iskander Mirza, Malik Feroz Khan Noon and then towards martial law.

Field marshal Ayub Khan, the self-nominated field martial, was the first person who made the illusion that civilians can't give anything of good to the nation. He took on the country and his first action was to abrogate the constitution presented by the civil government. Just imagine, an army man saying that politicans don't know how to run a country but a solider knows this. Even Aristotle would be crying in the Limbo! Than Ayub Khan presented his own constitution where he gathered all powers in himself. No law would be passed even if the whole parliament has a consensus. The president(i.e. Ayub Khan) had the power to dissolve the whole parliament with a single stroke of a pen. Then Ayub Khan went on war with the Indians in 1965. The war was on the Kashmir dispute and war experts say that we were wining the war. But as I said, army man are not politicians, Ayub Khan took a wrong diplomatic move by signing a treaty at Taskant, USSR. Ayub Khan also signed the Indus water treaty with India, which was simply selling our rivers without calculating the future implications of the deal. 2012 is being seen as a doomsday for Pakistan as our country is facing severe water shortages. In the end Field Marshal Ayub labeled his 10 years, again self-labeling, as the golden era.

The reason for writing upon President Ayub was not that I have some enmity against him, but other Army chiefs were similar. Even there opening remarks are similar:

اسلام وعلیکم میرے عزیز ہم وطنوں۔۔۔۔۔ آج پاکستان ایک نازک موڑ پر ہے۔۔۔۔۔

And then the story goes on. Everyone brings his own democracy, Aristotle might be crying. General Zia ul Haq, The leader of the Muslims! brought in 'Islamic democracy' and General Musharraf brought in 'Sustainable democracy' . Everyone rules for 10 years on average. Everyone brings his own constitution. Everyone wants war with India. The similarities are endless.

In the end everybody gives his long list of economic figures which even Adam Simth can't understand.

Though the Army rule broke the nation and caused unrepairable on the nation's psychology, the civil rulers were as bad as they were.

Starting with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was in Ayub's convention league but later made up his own party, the PPP was the first civilian chief martial law administrator. Mr. Bhutto divided Pakistan in "West" and "East". His politics was in west only. It was the army which later finished the job of creating Bangladesh. Mr. Bhutto started an Army operation in Balochistan which continues till today. The Balochis were suppressed and alienated. His education reforms totally destroyed education in Sindh. Though he is remembered for creating the constitution but he himself brought in five amendments.

Than the ten year period between 1988-1999 was a shear misery. It was like a ping-pong ball match. Two years Nawaz and 2 years Benazir and so on. The power play caused a great rift between Sindh and Punjab. It caused economic turmoil, political turmoil and social turmoil. The facts of these year are deplorable. Just to present some, HRCP tagged Benazir's first term as the "Darkest year of Human Right", Nawaz Sharif in his second term started a military operation in Karachi killing thousands of teenagers.

Hasan Nisar, a prominent columnist in Jang, says that the future of any nation can be calculated from its immediate past. We have seen what Pakistani leadership has done with us. It is our time to understand this 'power - psychology' and to crush the feudalistic, centrist, autocratic and nepotism which is prevailing in this power class. What's the use of a nation in which you don't have a share. Is this what our founding fathers had dreamed of? Ending with a beautiful poetry, as that's the only thing which we are left with!

خدا کرئے میری ارضِ پاک پر اترے
وہ فصلِ گل جسے اندئیشہِ زوال نہ ہو

یہاں جو پھول کھلے، کھلے رہے صدیوں

یہاں سے خزاں کو گزرنے کی مجال نہ ہو

خدا کرئے کے میرے ایک بھی ہم وطن کے لیے
حیات جرم نہ ہو، زندگی وبال نہ ہو۔

Note: Pictures taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/abro/380285185/

Islamism and Empire

2009-07-06T12:34:00.003+06:00

یہ میرا پہلا انگریزی سے اردو ترجمہ ہے۔ اگرکوہی غلطی ہو تو براے مہربانی کمنٹ کردیے۔ شکریہ۔

یہ مضمون آصف بیت نے لکھا ہے۔

ایک بحث کا آغاز ہو گیا ہے۔ یہ بحث ہے اسلام اور جدیدیت کے درمیان ہے اور اس میں دائیں جانب، بائیں جانب اور اسلام پسند تینوں ہی حصہ لے رہے ہیں۔ دائیں بازو کا خیال ہے کے اسلام ایک جدیدیت مخالف، جنونی نظام ہے اور 'آزاد دنیا' کے لیے سب سے بڑا خطرہ ہے۔ ان کی نظر میں اسلام مطلق العانیات کی فلسفی بنیادیں فراہم کرتا ہے ، یہ کمیونیزم اور فاشیزم کا ساتھی ہے، جو آزاد سرمایہ دار دنیا کے لیئے ایک خطرہ ہے۔ اس ضمن میں 'تہذیبوں کے درمیان تصادم کا فلسفہ' حقیقت اختیار کر جاتا ہے۔ یعنی اسلام اور مغربی جدیدیت دو مخالف نظام ہیں۔

البتہ، بائیں بازو والے منقسم نظر آتے ہیں۔ چن کا خیال ہے اسلام ' فاشیزم کے مماثل' ایک نظام ہے۔ شوشلئستوں کا خیال ہے کے ہم چند اسلام پسندوں کو توڑ کر جدیدیت پسندی کے دائرے میں لا سکتے ہیں۔ دوسری طرف، چن بائیں بازو والے اسلام کو 'استعمار مخالف' طاقت مانتے ہیں۔ وہ یہ بھی سمجھتے ہیں کے اس نقتہ پر اسلام اور بائیں بازو میں اشترق ممکن ہے۔ مثلاَ، برئٹش لیبر پارٹی ، کا کہنا ہے کے 'اس دور میں یہ ہماری بیں لاقوامی ذمہ داری ہے کے ہم استعمار اور نسل پرستی کے خلاف مسلمانوں کے ساتھ کھڑے ہو۔' اس کے لیئے برئٹش لیبر پارٹی اور مسلم اسوسیئشن آف برٹن میں ایک سکیولر اشترق ضروری ہے۔ مسلم اسوسیئشن آف برٹن ایک قدامت پسند تنظیم ہے جو عورت مخالف جزبات رکھتی ہے۔ پر اس مسلئے کو
تہذیبی ' کے ضمن میں رد کر دیا جاتا ہے۔Relativism'

Karl Marx - In Short

2009-07-04T20:31:00.000+06:00

Life
Marx is considered one of the greatest philosophers on the 19th century. Marx was born in an orthodox Jewish family which had a long chain of rabbis on both side. Later Marx converted to Christianity to penetrate in the German Middle Class. His father also became a Christian to save himself from the Nazi's persecution.

Work
The biography is deliberately kept short, because our focus is on his work rather than his life. Marx work can be understood as an evolutionary model. In fact, Marx was so inspired by Darwin that he once said, "I would like to dedicate my book(Das Kapital) to Darwin, if only he answers in affirmative". I guess Darwin never answered!
Marx theory works on the principal which is know as 'Dialectical Materialism'. Marx was a Hegelian. The idea of dialectics was created by Hegel. (This idea was also present in the Greek philosophy but it is ascribed to Hegel). The idea of Materialism is taken from Fuerbach.

Dialectics is a method of argument. In this method a person presents a thesis, an anti-thesis and lastly a synthesis. To understand this take an example. Person A says that due to industrialization comfort level are increasing, economy of scale is being reach, more efficiency, more time for leisure and better work-hour compared to the pre-industrial revolution. This is the thesis. Person B says that he disagrees. he says that through industrialization pollution has increased which leads to more diseases, unemployment has increased as machine are replacing human, life has become more like a robot as everything is meachanized. This is an anti-thesis. Now you read both of them and try to find out a middle way. This is called synthesis. Informally, when a thesis and anti-thesis collide a synthesis is created. This process is dynamic in nature. It never stops. This is because that every synthesis would later became a thesis which will again collide with some anti-thesis and make a synthesis.

Materialism is not a new concept. Matrialism says that the only thing which exsist is matter. There is no conception of soul. A man is simply a combination of flesh and blood and nothing else. There is nothing such as a duality of mind and body. A man works simply to fulfill the desires of his body and even his heart is a piece of flesh any nothing else. Marx basically points towards historical materialism.

Marx is of the views that it is economies which derive a human acts not ideologies. It is through money that man buys shelter, clothing and food. A man must work in some sort of economic paradigm to get these basic necessities. According to Marx, and other materialist, it is the man's act of acquiring money which leads to the formation of law and society.

When we combine both of these ideas we reach to the conclusion of 'dialectical materialism'. According to Marx, any social formation consists of two branches. This is the infrastructure and super-infrastrucutre. The super-infrastructure provide the ideology which drives a society. It provide the framework according to which the infrastructure would gain its characteristics.

The infrastructure includes the ways of production. This might include technology and labour.
The infrastructue basically leads to the creation of wealth and this is where dialectic comes into play.

According to Marx as there are two types of values(wealth). Captial value and labour value. As labour value tends to zero, this leads to a class war as rich become richer and poor become poorer. This causes a problem in the infrastruture which question the super-infrastructure. This clash between the two can be considered as a collision of thesis and anti-thesis. This infact results in a synthesis which leads towards a new social formation.

Some Questions?

2009-07-04T01:28:00.000+06:00

What's the purpose of life?
Who are you?
Is man the measure of truth?
What is the importance of meta-physics?
Which way is humanity heading?

These are some of the questions we are going to discuss on this blog.