It is horrible. It is unbelievable. It is shocking beyond words. She didn't deserve to die like this. Despite all her faults, she was a popular leader. She was worshipped by many. She was followed like a guru. She was intelligent; she was shrewd, she was fearless. She was a LEADER.
Once again, the people of Pakistan have been wronged. Their wisdom has been challenged; they happen to be the worst losers yet again. The country is simmering with discontent and the police, found very active when it comes to peaceful protests is actually asking people to stay indoors while the cities are left at the mercy of angry protestors who have gone on a rampage, especially in Karachi. It was bad enough for the UN to convene a special meeting on the 12th May incident calling for all the countries of the world to come together to handle the situation in Pakistan, worse for Pope Benedict to call Pakistan a "tortured" region amongst others such as Afghanistan, Somalia to name a few and today UN once again has convened a special meeting to discuss the situation in Pakistan. Recently while talking to an American friend preparing to go to Africa with the Peace Corps, I wished that he would come here too "obviously and hopefully, not with the peace corps...". This addition to my statement expressed a dread of such a possiblity, particularly in these circumstances. Now, i am even more shattered, that dread nagging my mind even harder than before.
It's very heartening to hear that Nawaz has announced a boycott. Better late than never. Probaably sad tragedies like these can run home some points. But in the disconcerted circumstances of today, it's even more clear that whoever maybe behind this incident, dictatorships cause unrest eventually. I used to hear about colleges shutting down for weeks on ened because of unstable political situations. I grew up in the 90s era; such a scenario in comparison to these times felt so distant. Despite one period of lawlessness that was rife in one point in time in the 90s, there was no particular major issue in the country. Despite the economy and the political rivalries, the country wasn't divided. Political heavy weights didnt fear for their lives as much as they do today, the bullet proof podiums and indoors 14th August and 23rd March ceremonies being introduced in Musharraf's time. I remmebr how Nawaz Sharif used to mingle with the crowd after his 14th August address in Islamabad and how we mocked the Indian primeminister's high stage and shielded dais. Today, we suffer from the same turmoil; infact a more pronounced state of affairs because of the small size of our country.
Elections are not the issue. One man rule has to end. We cab't afford another Bangladesh kind tragedy. For this country to survive, some issues have to be settled once and for all. Elections are just a cosmetic step.
We can wait to vote till elections become a symbol of empowerment; when all of us start owning pakistan; when leaders do not feel threatened, when this country is not talked about in hushed tones behind closed doors by the powers-that-be.
Let us all march to the same tune today.
Aur raj karegi khalq-e khuda
--------------------------......
hum ahle safa mardud-e haram
masnad pai bithaiay jaian gai
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Friday, December 14, 2007
...contd
My response went like this. It hasn't been published so far, I dont think it will be. I am forcing myself to believe that it's because the newspaper editor wanted to close the debate but I also have a hunch that probabaly the last laugh was already booked. Anyways here goes,
"This is with referance to the letter by Ms Huma in reply to a few letters, including mine that appeared in your magazine against the article “ Covered up Fashions”. Before commenting on the arguments presented, I’d like to say that Ms Huma’s letter would have been taken in as just another academic argument to a constructive debate had it not been for the accusations of “orchestrated attacks” and “brash dogmatism” that she has hurled on those who beg to differ from her viewpoint. “Dogmatism” would rather be described by the attitude of “not (being) obliged to read the article after a few lines”, having found the article offensive, an attitude that she so graciously suggests. Though she doesn’t offer any counter arguments to my letter, I’d still like to comment on some of the points deliberated upon so extensively by her.
Firstly, no one supports or defends the treatment meted out to “those who do not subscribe to the view point of Ms Sana Baloch…” or in the most extreme of cases the beheading of women to satisfy the chauvinist tendencies of a society, in the garb of Islam . All that most of the letters advocated was tolerance of each others’ views and practices as long as they don’t hurt the society. There will be numerous cases of social boycott that can be cited by the “other” divide in peculiar environments and circumstances. And screwing someone’s views that differ from one’s own, to stereotype society into small cliques such as the “moral brigade” is another expression of the intolerance that pervades our society from left to right. And though there may not be one Islam, as interpretations of the faith may vary and which itself is provided for in the religion to accommodate human individuality and unique expressions that ensue from that, there isn’t any brand either. The identity issue as explained by the writer through the words of Dr Manzoor Ahmed is an apt representation of the insecurities that are so evident in writings such as this letter and the article in question. Why and how on earth does a “10 inch piece of cloth” cause such a reflex action in great intellectuals and insightful people to go all out on a rampage against the hijab? And then to talk about the “dread” whatever it may be, in muslim societies, is such a contradiction. As Ms Huma would probably know, many nations have turned back on symbolic representations of their national character especially in times of crises, African Americans being one case in point where “blacks” and “nigger” was proudly replaced by African. Nevertheless for me, identity issue is not that strongly linked to the hijab, as wrongly construed by the writer as much as it is about religious conviction. Lastly, without going into the merits and demerits of the Indian and “Islamic” culture just a short comment that Pakistan wasn’t just a matter of chance; we chose to break away from that Indian identity for reasons I’d rather accept, as were of the majority of those who opted for Pakistan, the “secular” versus “ideological” debate being a very recent one. Also, there’s nothing wrong in being ashamed of one’s culture if one disagrees with the value system it advocates. How would the modern world respond if the Germans started taking pride in their Nazi history, which by the way wasn’t as unrepresentative of the German sentiment at that time, or comment about the advent of religions over history that were meant to do away with immoral, despicable cultural practices, or the heinous crimes such as satti, karo kari, swara or even the jirga system which in most cases acts as a parallel judicial system which are an integral part of the culture of those peculiar areas. The image problem that the writer mentions at the end of her letter is not because of the bearded and the hgijab donned muslim population; it’s because of the desperate attempts by the “modernized” elite to disparage the hijab and the beard with greater ridicule than done even by the detractors of Islam."
"This is with referance to the letter by Ms Huma in reply to a few letters, including mine that appeared in your magazine against the article “ Covered up Fashions”. Before commenting on the arguments presented, I’d like to say that Ms Huma’s letter would have been taken in as just another academic argument to a constructive debate had it not been for the accusations of “orchestrated attacks” and “brash dogmatism” that she has hurled on those who beg to differ from her viewpoint. “Dogmatism” would rather be described by the attitude of “not (being) obliged to read the article after a few lines”, having found the article offensive, an attitude that she so graciously suggests. Though she doesn’t offer any counter arguments to my letter, I’d still like to comment on some of the points deliberated upon so extensively by her.
Firstly, no one supports or defends the treatment meted out to “those who do not subscribe to the view point of Ms Sana Baloch…” or in the most extreme of cases the beheading of women to satisfy the chauvinist tendencies of a society, in the garb of Islam . All that most of the letters advocated was tolerance of each others’ views and practices as long as they don’t hurt the society. There will be numerous cases of social boycott that can be cited by the “other” divide in peculiar environments and circumstances. And screwing someone’s views that differ from one’s own, to stereotype society into small cliques such as the “moral brigade” is another expression of the intolerance that pervades our society from left to right. And though there may not be one Islam, as interpretations of the faith may vary and which itself is provided for in the religion to accommodate human individuality and unique expressions that ensue from that, there isn’t any brand either. The identity issue as explained by the writer through the words of Dr Manzoor Ahmed is an apt representation of the insecurities that are so evident in writings such as this letter and the article in question. Why and how on earth does a “10 inch piece of cloth” cause such a reflex action in great intellectuals and insightful people to go all out on a rampage against the hijab? And then to talk about the “dread” whatever it may be, in muslim societies, is such a contradiction. As Ms Huma would probably know, many nations have turned back on symbolic representations of their national character especially in times of crises, African Americans being one case in point where “blacks” and “nigger” was proudly replaced by African. Nevertheless for me, identity issue is not that strongly linked to the hijab, as wrongly construed by the writer as much as it is about religious conviction. Lastly, without going into the merits and demerits of the Indian and “Islamic” culture just a short comment that Pakistan wasn’t just a matter of chance; we chose to break away from that Indian identity for reasons I’d rather accept, as were of the majority of those who opted for Pakistan, the “secular” versus “ideological” debate being a very recent one. Also, there’s nothing wrong in being ashamed of one’s culture if one disagrees with the value system it advocates. How would the modern world respond if the Germans started taking pride in their Nazi history, which by the way wasn’t as unrepresentative of the German sentiment at that time, or comment about the advent of religions over history that were meant to do away with immoral, despicable cultural practices, or the heinous crimes such as satti, karo kari, swara or even the jirga system which in most cases acts as a parallel judicial system which are an integral part of the culture of those peculiar areas. The image problem that the writer mentions at the end of her letter is not because of the bearded and the hgijab donned muslim population; it’s because of the desperate attempts by the “modernized” elite to disparage the hijab and the beard with greater ridicule than done even by the detractors of Islam."
All in all, just a reminder that "At the end of the day, a woman who wears hijab is veiling her beauty, she's not veiling her brain..." as noted by Dr Faeghehs Shirazi, an Iranian American scholar in her lecture at Forman Christain College in Lahore on the 13th of December.
*smirks*
P.S. I still had the last laugh!
An interesting debate
An article titled "covered up fashions" apppeared in a weekly magazine run by an English daily. Its link is given below,
http://dawn.com/weekly/review/archive/071115/review2.htm
Having fpund the article greatly disturbing and offensive, i wrote this letter to the newspaper which was published and the link is given,
http://dawn.com/weekly/review/archive/071129/review9.htm
Reading all these letters I got a little excited thinking that there were probably lots who prescribed to the viewpoint I so strongly hold. All didnt present the same arguments but atleast the crux of most of the letters was similar in nature; tolerance and acceptance of each others' ideals and values. However, the very next week this appeared in the magazine,
http://dawn.com/weekly/review/archive/071206/review13.htm
This letter elicited a response...
CONTD
http://dawn.com/weekly/review/archive/071115/review2.htm
Having fpund the article greatly disturbing and offensive, i wrote this letter to the newspaper which was published and the link is given,
http://dawn.com/weekly/review/archive/071129/review9.htm
Reading all these letters I got a little excited thinking that there were probably lots who prescribed to the viewpoint I so strongly hold. All didnt present the same arguments but atleast the crux of most of the letters was similar in nature; tolerance and acceptance of each others' ideals and values. However, the very next week this appeared in the magazine,
http://dawn.com/weekly/review/archive/071206/review13.htm
This letter elicited a response...
CONTD
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)