The Millenium Manifesto or ’Ikeesween Sadi Dastoor’
Zeemax January 8, 2000
#252 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
For some friends who were curious about a proposed interest-free system in Pakistan, the ``sham-ness`` of same is detailed in the following article. Thankfully since any verdicts of the courts have no durable legal writ at the moment due to the suspension of the constitution, the judgement of shariat appellate bench of the supreme court will be filed away in due course.
[Why the economy cannot be interest-free :
Dr Aqdas Ali Kazmi
The Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgement of December 23, 1999 have declared all types of bank interest as riba and thus prohibited, resurrecting the age-old controversies related to evolving an interest-free banking and economic system.
In the Islamic world, interest remains one of the most misunderstood concepts. Therefore, the judgement is the natural consequence of the jurists` failure to correctly comprehend the nature of interest and their inability to appreciate the substance of riba on the other. It is to remove the universal misconception and apprehensions about the norm of interest that we pose the question: Can interest be abolished?
In order to answer this question we have to deal with two basic but inter-related questions. What is meant by interest? And what is implied by an economy or a financial system with a zero interest rate?
As Alfred Marshall has put it, ``Interest, being the price paid for the use of capital in any market, tends towards an equilibrium level such that the aggregate demand for capital in that market, at that rate of interest, is equal to the aggregate stock forthcoming at that rate``. According to this definition, interest is the price paid for hiring the services of capital, comparable to the prices of other factors of production such as wages for labour services, rent for land use, and profits as the reward for entrepreneurship.
In technical parlance, interest is the rate of return (yield) on capital. Capital claims interest or return because it is productive and as such is a primary source of value addition. According to Professor Samuelson, ``The yield of capital is the interest rate per annum, which is pure percentage per unit of time--independent of dollar or other value unit``. This definition makes it unambiguously clear that ``rate of interest`` can be identified as the ``rate of return`` on capital and therefore these two terms broadly convey the same meaning in the theory of capital pricing: the reward for services of capital.
In the light of these definitions which identify interest as a price variable and a rate of return on capital, it is not difficult to show that interest cannot be eliminated from the economy, whether it is a Robinson Crusoe economy, a mature capitalistic one or a centrally planned socialistic economy.
To support the above contention, we have to see that the natural inference of abolishing interest is that capital becomes a ``free good``, because only free goods have zero prices. Now the basic characteristic of free goods is that given a level of demand, their supply has to be infinite. Here the question invariably arises: can the supply of capital be made infinite? To answer this question we need to understand the nature and structure of capital itself.
Capital, which in its broader sense is defined as the produced means of production, constitutes of three basic categories: a) the real capital which consists of buildings, machinery, stocks and inventories, etc; b) liquid capital comprising monetary assets (currency and bank deposits, etc); and c) financial capital which is constituted by government bonds, securities, saving certificates and stock market shares. From this configuration, it must be obvious that capital represents a vast array of highly heterogeneous set of goods and products and to suggest that these be made ``free`` (such that owners of capital claim no price for these categories) is obviously an impossibility.
Interest being a price, there is a large number of factors operating both from demand and supply side, which affect its determination. Because capital can assume multifarious forms, interest rates can also assume a wide spectrum of values. Time being the most important element in the structure of capital, interest rate would assume varying magnitudes depending whether capital is being borrowed for the short-, medium- or long-term period.
A significant factor in the determination of interest rate is the ownership of capital or the sources of supply of a particular type of capital assets. Let us suppose that the capital market operates under conditions of perfect competition with the sources of supply of capital widely dispersed and its ownership in the hands of a large number of individuals, households and institutions. Under such a scenario of ownership, the price of capital (or interest rate) would be near the market equilibrium level, which could be termed as the ``normal rate of interest``. If the market conditions allow the normal price of capital to prevail, there is nothing un-Islamic in that case.
On the other hand, if the supply of capital is in the hands of a monopolist, or a cartel formed by the suppliers of capital, the rate of interest charged may be abnormally high, which may be termed as ``monopoly price.`` The monopoly price of capital is fairly close to what is termed as riba (or usury) in the Qur`aan. This is because ``monopoly price`` is exploitative while the normal price does not reflect any exploitation.
Islam believes in commensurate reward for the services of all factors of production including capital. Therefore a movement towards the objective of a riba-free society does not require abolition of interest as a precondition as this would be an act of gross injustice. However, to remove usury or riba, Islam recommends elimination of all sources of monopoly, whether it is a case of capital ownership or land ownership. This is because only a broad-based ownership of capital and other means of output would ensure the emergence of a riba-free society.
The vacuity and futility of developing a paradigm of zero-interest-rate-economy can be gauged from a simple example. Let us imagine that in a city there are a few sellers of a given commodity X. Suppose, on a random check up, the city`s controller of prices discovers that one of these sellers, say, Mr A, is selling the good X at double the price prevailing in the market. Should the controller of prices suggest a punitive action against Mr A, such as imprisonment or imposition of heavy fine or should he order that in future no seller of commodity X would charge any price? Obviously, the first choice is not only rational but is consistent with the Qur`anic injunctions against riba. However, if the controller of prices makes the second choice and the price of X is abolished (ie, X is made a free good), the controller will have to ensure almost an infinite supply of X to satiate the infinite demand resulting from the zero-priced good X.
The same argument applies to the supply of capital at zero interest rate. Unless the supply of capital is made infinite, the interest rate cannot fall to a zero level.
One of the implications of a zero-interest economy is quite obvious. The capital will not earn any rate of return. Therefore, anyone who is making a case for an interest-free economy must simultaneously accept that in such an economy, capital will not be entitled to any return as such. However, all Islamic economists are caught up in a contradictory situation when they claim that zero interest rate does not mean ``a zero rate of return,`` a stance which completely contradicts the fundamental principles of economic theory. In other words, so long as capital is productive and is able to earn a positive rate of return, it must earn a non-zero rate of interest.
The serious paradox in which exponents of interest-free banking are entrapped can be seen by statements such as the following:
``An Islamic bank is a financial and social institution which identifies itself with the principles of Shariah, as laid down by the holy Qur`aan and Sunnah, as regards its objectives, principles, practices and operations. An Islamic bank does not normally lend money except interest-free loan which is earned as qarze hasana. Islamic bank is a partner in trade, industry and agriculture for production and development financing. This, therefore, implies that an Islamic bank should also share in the risk with the entrepreneurs which is in sharp contrast with interest-based bank. Islamic banking implies zero rate of interest but not zero rate of return as Islamic banks do not deal in money but deal with money``. (Shahid Hasan Siddiqui in ``Islamic Banking``. p49)
The above statement creates ample confusion by claiming that Islamic banks ``do not deal in money but deal with money.`` Is this an apt description of an Islamic bank and what is its exact significance, are controversial issues. But there can be little doubt that the contention that ``Islamic banking implies zero rate of interest but not zero rate of return`` is a contradiction in terms. Since zero rate of interest is an impossibility, the Islamic economists are bringing in the norm of interest rate through the co-equal norm, namely, the rate of return.
Exactly the same dilemma is enshrined in the assertions of another eminent proponent of interest-free economic system:
``(T)here are certain people who feel that perhaps elimination of riba may lead to the collapse of economy…still I think we should not go by scare-mongering. Instead, we should try to analyse things in their perspective. After all elimination of riba does not mean zero-return on capital. What Islam has forbidden is a fixed predetermined return for a certain factor of production--one party having assured return and the whole risk of entrepreneurship to be shared by others. Islam has not denied the productivity of capital. This does represent a fresh approach in which the factors receive variable return based on actual performance. Capital entrepreneurship shares both the real contribution and real profitability.`` (Professor Khurshid Ahmad in ``Elimination of riba from the economy,`` Institute of Policy Studies. p6).
An unbiased and critical examination of the above statement immediately reveals the difficulties in eliminating interest from the economic system. As soon as it is accepted that ``elimination of riba does not mean zero-return on capital,`` it follows instantaneously that the grounds for a ``zero-interest-rate-economy`` are being given up for all practical purposes. In this `fresh approach`, it is being suggested that since capital is one of the factors of production, it is entitled to a ``variable return``. But this is a complete departure from the popular Islamic approach that suggests that capital should be earning a zero rate of interest/return as should be the case under an interest-free economy.
Finally, the conclusion is reached in the statement that ``capital entrepreneurship shares both the real contribution and the real profitability``. The quintessence of this conclusion is quite startling in the sense that it basically expounds what the basic economic theory identifies as the ``axiom of marginal productivity of factor reward``, such that capital is rewarded according to its marginal contribution in the total output. However, when capital is allowed a return commensurate with its productivity, the idea of zero-interest-rate evaporates in thin air.
The Supreme Court judgement fails to appreciate that by supplanting the
parameter of ``interest-rate`` with the parallel parameters such as ``mark-up``, ``profit rate``, ``rate of return``, ``variable return``, ``productivity rate of capital,`` etc, interest is not being eliminated but is reinstated as the very foundation of the economic system.
There is hardly any economy in the world in which capital is transacted at a zero cost. At the same time, there is no banking system in the world based on zero rate of return or zero interest rate. These facts provide a testimony that interest-free banking systems or interest-free economic systems are illusory concepts.
The government of Pakistan would be well-advised to solicit the guidance of the honourable Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court on modalities of eliminating interest from the economic system.
[Why the economy cannot be interest-free :
Dr Aqdas Ali Kazmi
The Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgement of December 23, 1999 have declared all types of bank interest as riba and thus prohibited, resurrecting the age-old controversies related to evolving an interest-free banking and economic system.
In the Islamic world, interest remains one of the most misunderstood concepts. Therefore, the judgement is the natural consequence of the jurists` failure to correctly comprehend the nature of interest and their inability to appreciate the substance of riba on the other. It is to remove the universal misconception and apprehensions about the norm of interest that we pose the question: Can interest be abolished?
In order to answer this question we have to deal with two basic but inter-related questions. What is meant by interest? And what is implied by an economy or a financial system with a zero interest rate?
As Alfred Marshall has put it, ``Interest, being the price paid for the use of capital in any market, tends towards an equilibrium level such that the aggregate demand for capital in that market, at that rate of interest, is equal to the aggregate stock forthcoming at that rate``. According to this definition, interest is the price paid for hiring the services of capital, comparable to the prices of other factors of production such as wages for labour services, rent for land use, and profits as the reward for entrepreneurship.
In technical parlance, interest is the rate of return (yield) on capital. Capital claims interest or return because it is productive and as such is a primary source of value addition. According to Professor Samuelson, ``The yield of capital is the interest rate per annum, which is pure percentage per unit of time--independent of dollar or other value unit``. This definition makes it unambiguously clear that ``rate of interest`` can be identified as the ``rate of return`` on capital and therefore these two terms broadly convey the same meaning in the theory of capital pricing: the reward for services of capital.
In the light of these definitions which identify interest as a price variable and a rate of return on capital, it is not difficult to show that interest cannot be eliminated from the economy, whether it is a Robinson Crusoe economy, a mature capitalistic one or a centrally planned socialistic economy.
To support the above contention, we have to see that the natural inference of abolishing interest is that capital becomes a ``free good``, because only free goods have zero prices. Now the basic characteristic of free goods is that given a level of demand, their supply has to be infinite. Here the question invariably arises: can the supply of capital be made infinite? To answer this question we need to understand the nature and structure of capital itself.
Capital, which in its broader sense is defined as the produced means of production, constitutes of three basic categories: a) the real capital which consists of buildings, machinery, stocks and inventories, etc; b) liquid capital comprising monetary assets (currency and bank deposits, etc); and c) financial capital which is constituted by government bonds, securities, saving certificates and stock market shares. From this configuration, it must be obvious that capital represents a vast array of highly heterogeneous set of goods and products and to suggest that these be made ``free`` (such that owners of capital claim no price for these categories) is obviously an impossibility.
Interest being a price, there is a large number of factors operating both from demand and supply side, which affect its determination. Because capital can assume multifarious forms, interest rates can also assume a wide spectrum of values. Time being the most important element in the structure of capital, interest rate would assume varying magnitudes depending whether capital is being borrowed for the short-, medium- or long-term period.
A significant factor in the determination of interest rate is the ownership of capital or the sources of supply of a particular type of capital assets. Let us suppose that the capital market operates under conditions of perfect competition with the sources of supply of capital widely dispersed and its ownership in the hands of a large number of individuals, households and institutions. Under such a scenario of ownership, the price of capital (or interest rate) would be near the market equilibrium level, which could be termed as the ``normal rate of interest``. If the market conditions allow the normal price of capital to prevail, there is nothing un-Islamic in that case.
On the other hand, if the supply of capital is in the hands of a monopolist, or a cartel formed by the suppliers of capital, the rate of interest charged may be abnormally high, which may be termed as ``monopoly price.`` The monopoly price of capital is fairly close to what is termed as riba (or usury) in the Qur`aan. This is because ``monopoly price`` is exploitative while the normal price does not reflect any exploitation.
Islam believes in commensurate reward for the services of all factors of production including capital. Therefore a movement towards the objective of a riba-free society does not require abolition of interest as a precondition as this would be an act of gross injustice. However, to remove usury or riba, Islam recommends elimination of all sources of monopoly, whether it is a case of capital ownership or land ownership. This is because only a broad-based ownership of capital and other means of output would ensure the emergence of a riba-free society.
The vacuity and futility of developing a paradigm of zero-interest-rate-economy can be gauged from a simple example. Let us imagine that in a city there are a few sellers of a given commodity X. Suppose, on a random check up, the city`s controller of prices discovers that one of these sellers, say, Mr A, is selling the good X at double the price prevailing in the market. Should the controller of prices suggest a punitive action against Mr A, such as imprisonment or imposition of heavy fine or should he order that in future no seller of commodity X would charge any price? Obviously, the first choice is not only rational but is consistent with the Qur`anic injunctions against riba. However, if the controller of prices makes the second choice and the price of X is abolished (ie, X is made a free good), the controller will have to ensure almost an infinite supply of X to satiate the infinite demand resulting from the zero-priced good X.
The same argument applies to the supply of capital at zero interest rate. Unless the supply of capital is made infinite, the interest rate cannot fall to a zero level.
One of the implications of a zero-interest economy is quite obvious. The capital will not earn any rate of return. Therefore, anyone who is making a case for an interest-free economy must simultaneously accept that in such an economy, capital will not be entitled to any return as such. However, all Islamic economists are caught up in a contradictory situation when they claim that zero interest rate does not mean ``a zero rate of return,`` a stance which completely contradicts the fundamental principles of economic theory. In other words, so long as capital is productive and is able to earn a positive rate of return, it must earn a non-zero rate of interest.
The serious paradox in which exponents of interest-free banking are entrapped can be seen by statements such as the following:
``An Islamic bank is a financial and social institution which identifies itself with the principles of Shariah, as laid down by the holy Qur`aan and Sunnah, as regards its objectives, principles, practices and operations. An Islamic bank does not normally lend money except interest-free loan which is earned as qarze hasana. Islamic bank is a partner in trade, industry and agriculture for production and development financing. This, therefore, implies that an Islamic bank should also share in the risk with the entrepreneurs which is in sharp contrast with interest-based bank. Islamic banking implies zero rate of interest but not zero rate of return as Islamic banks do not deal in money but deal with money``. (Shahid Hasan Siddiqui in ``Islamic Banking``. p49)
The above statement creates ample confusion by claiming that Islamic banks ``do not deal in money but deal with money.`` Is this an apt description of an Islamic bank and what is its exact significance, are controversial issues. But there can be little doubt that the contention that ``Islamic banking implies zero rate of interest but not zero rate of return`` is a contradiction in terms. Since zero rate of interest is an impossibility, the Islamic economists are bringing in the norm of interest rate through the co-equal norm, namely, the rate of return.
Exactly the same dilemma is enshrined in the assertions of another eminent proponent of interest-free economic system:
``(T)here are certain people who feel that perhaps elimination of riba may lead to the collapse of economy…still I think we should not go by scare-mongering. Instead, we should try to analyse things in their perspective. After all elimination of riba does not mean zero-return on capital. What Islam has forbidden is a fixed predetermined return for a certain factor of production--one party having assured return and the whole risk of entrepreneurship to be shared by others. Islam has not denied the productivity of capital. This does represent a fresh approach in which the factors receive variable return based on actual performance. Capital entrepreneurship shares both the real contribution and real profitability.`` (Professor Khurshid Ahmad in ``Elimination of riba from the economy,`` Institute of Policy Studies. p6).
An unbiased and critical examination of the above statement immediately reveals the difficulties in eliminating interest from the economic system. As soon as it is accepted that ``elimination of riba does not mean zero-return on capital,`` it follows instantaneously that the grounds for a ``zero-interest-rate-economy`` are being given up for all practical purposes. In this `fresh approach`, it is being suggested that since capital is one of the factors of production, it is entitled to a ``variable return``. But this is a complete departure from the popular Islamic approach that suggests that capital should be earning a zero rate of interest/return as should be the case under an interest-free economy.
Finally, the conclusion is reached in the statement that ``capital entrepreneurship shares both the real contribution and the real profitability``. The quintessence of this conclusion is quite startling in the sense that it basically expounds what the basic economic theory identifies as the ``axiom of marginal productivity of factor reward``, such that capital is rewarded according to its marginal contribution in the total output. However, when capital is allowed a return commensurate with its productivity, the idea of zero-interest-rate evaporates in thin air.
The Supreme Court judgement fails to appreciate that by supplanting the
parameter of ``interest-rate`` with the parallel parameters such as ``mark-up``, ``profit rate``, ``rate of return``, ``variable return``, ``productivity rate of capital,`` etc, interest is not being eliminated but is reinstated as the very foundation of the economic system.
There is hardly any economy in the world in which capital is transacted at a zero cost. At the same time, there is no banking system in the world based on zero rate of return or zero interest rate. These facts provide a testimony that interest-free banking systems or interest-free economic systems are illusory concepts.
The government of Pakistan would be well-advised to solicit the guidance of the honourable Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court on modalities of eliminating interest from the economic system.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#251 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 56, 89 fairdinkum
I could only now find your post # 56. In the strange episode which occured at Chowk on 13 Jan which Gnostics had mentioned, many posts disappeared and were replaced by others.
I have often been inside rural sindh having driven twice from Karachi to Lahore. I even had a friend at the Ghotki Railway junction so have even seen the amazing shifting sand dunes - the size of hillocks - from rides on a rail-track inspector`s trolley. They would be there one day, and the next day completely gone !
I found a strange phenomenon in interior Sindh. I found the elite extremely aware, knowledgable, sophisticated, affluent; in fact more so than interior Punjab elite; but the common villager equally backward, servile, superstitious - and poor. I also sadly found very little concern amongst the elite for the plight of their people. Indeed, I found some contempt for servility of their serfs by the very landed gentry to whom they`re servile. There`s still bonded labour and private jails, as is sponsorship of bandits and kidnappers by prominent figures who obviously use these outlaws as their private guards.
I can only speculate upon the reason for above that even though Sindhi leadership as well as beurocracy have always been powerful at the very top levels of national affairs, they never intended do do anything for the common Sindhi. They perhaps bargained for and got a trade-off between educational facilities & jobs quota for their rural elite in return for letting revenue funds going to urban Sind cities. As a result, Mohajirs gained industry and infrastructure but lost out on higher educational institutions and choice Govt jobs, while the Sindhi elite gained both of the latter as well as preservation of their lifestyle without federal interference. The common Sindhi however lost out on all counts.
As for whether division of Sindh will deprive rural Sindh of essential revenue, I again ask what proportion of Karachi revenue is being spent on rural Sindh for welfare of it´s people? I honestly think the Sindhi elite decided to forego that a long time ago.
Sugarcane and rice need not be the sole sources of income for Sindh. The only modern container terminal and sea port is at Bin Qasim in rural Sindh with not enough business, so is the Steel Mills of Pakistan - the largest industrial enterprise of the country struggling for survival, as is the Nooriabad industrial area which failed despite incentives just because of kidnappings on the Karachi-Hyderabad highway. All these issues if addressed with application and sincerity could mean improvement of the lot of the rural Sindhi.
Rgds.
I could only now find your post # 56. In the strange episode which occured at Chowk on 13 Jan which Gnostics had mentioned, many posts disappeared and were replaced by others.
I have often been inside rural sindh having driven twice from Karachi to Lahore. I even had a friend at the Ghotki Railway junction so have even seen the amazing shifting sand dunes - the size of hillocks - from rides on a rail-track inspector`s trolley. They would be there one day, and the next day completely gone !
I found a strange phenomenon in interior Sindh. I found the elite extremely aware, knowledgable, sophisticated, affluent; in fact more so than interior Punjab elite; but the common villager equally backward, servile, superstitious - and poor. I also sadly found very little concern amongst the elite for the plight of their people. Indeed, I found some contempt for servility of their serfs by the very landed gentry to whom they`re servile. There`s still bonded labour and private jails, as is sponsorship of bandits and kidnappers by prominent figures who obviously use these outlaws as their private guards.
I can only speculate upon the reason for above that even though Sindhi leadership as well as beurocracy have always been powerful at the very top levels of national affairs, they never intended do do anything for the common Sindhi. They perhaps bargained for and got a trade-off between educational facilities & jobs quota for their rural elite in return for letting revenue funds going to urban Sind cities. As a result, Mohajirs gained industry and infrastructure but lost out on higher educational institutions and choice Govt jobs, while the Sindhi elite gained both of the latter as well as preservation of their lifestyle without federal interference. The common Sindhi however lost out on all counts.
As for whether division of Sindh will deprive rural Sindh of essential revenue, I again ask what proportion of Karachi revenue is being spent on rural Sindh for welfare of it´s people? I honestly think the Sindhi elite decided to forego that a long time ago.
Sugarcane and rice need not be the sole sources of income for Sindh. The only modern container terminal and sea port is at Bin Qasim in rural Sindh with not enough business, so is the Steel Mills of Pakistan - the largest industrial enterprise of the country struggling for survival, as is the Nooriabad industrial area which failed despite incentives just because of kidnappings on the Karachi-Hyderabad highway. All these issues if addressed with application and sincerity could mean improvement of the lot of the rural Sindhi.
Rgds.
#250 Posted by fuzair on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Zeemax:
You are probably correct. My post was in response to Digit (#98) when s/he said that Jinnah would probably have been in favor of an Islamic identity.
The gist of my post is not really important. Suffice it to say that my argument was that Jinnah was (essentially) an Englishman, a highly cultured and enlightened one, and probably saw religion in Pakistan playing the same role as it did in England. The Anglican church is the official church and the Queen is the head of state and church but religion is irrelevant to the formulation of state policy. Just as any well bred Englishman would be recoil with horror at the thought of disestablishing the Church of England, Jinnah would probably have reacted the same way to a suggestion of making Pakistan a virulently secular state a la Turkey. But, by the same token, he would not have agreed to any religious litmus test either in Pakistan.
This attitude to religion also helps explain his unhappiness at his only daughter, Dina Wadia, marrying a Parsi. Just as our hypothetical well-bred Englishman--who pays a perfunctory lip-service to religion--would have been extremely unhappy with his daughter marrying a Jew or a low church whatever, Jinnah was unhappy with his daughter marrying outside Islam.
No one who ate ham sandwiches (as opposed to just drinking whisky) could have any but the most perfunctory level of religious feeling. Jinnah probably viewed Islam as a part of his ethnic identity not as a matter of personal choice. In this sense, he was not ``born again,`` to mix religions here.
I believe Wolpert, in his biography of Jinnah, cites impeccable sources for Jinnah`s ham consumption. Personally, it doesn`t matter to me in the least what Jinnah ate (or didn`t eat) but it really bothers some Pakistanis.
Incidentally, having read Jalal`s ``The Sole Spokesman,`` I have to admire her scholarship and condemn her writing style. Why is it that so few academics can write even passably well? Jalal`s writing style is almost as bad as Wolpert`s.
You are probably correct. My post was in response to Digit (#98) when s/he said that Jinnah would probably have been in favor of an Islamic identity.
The gist of my post is not really important. Suffice it to say that my argument was that Jinnah was (essentially) an Englishman, a highly cultured and enlightened one, and probably saw religion in Pakistan playing the same role as it did in England. The Anglican church is the official church and the Queen is the head of state and church but religion is irrelevant to the formulation of state policy. Just as any well bred Englishman would be recoil with horror at the thought of disestablishing the Church of England, Jinnah would probably have reacted the same way to a suggestion of making Pakistan a virulently secular state a la Turkey. But, by the same token, he would not have agreed to any religious litmus test either in Pakistan.
This attitude to religion also helps explain his unhappiness at his only daughter, Dina Wadia, marrying a Parsi. Just as our hypothetical well-bred Englishman--who pays a perfunctory lip-service to religion--would have been extremely unhappy with his daughter marrying a Jew or a low church whatever, Jinnah was unhappy with his daughter marrying outside Islam.
No one who ate ham sandwiches (as opposed to just drinking whisky) could have any but the most perfunctory level of religious feeling. Jinnah probably viewed Islam as a part of his ethnic identity not as a matter of personal choice. In this sense, he was not ``born again,`` to mix religions here.
I believe Wolpert, in his biography of Jinnah, cites impeccable sources for Jinnah`s ham consumption. Personally, it doesn`t matter to me in the least what Jinnah ate (or didn`t eat) but it really bothers some Pakistanis.
Incidentally, having read Jalal`s ``The Sole Spokesman,`` I have to admire her scholarship and condemn her writing style. Why is it that so few academics can write even passably well? Jalal`s writing style is almost as bad as Wolpert`s.
#249 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 123 bahmad
Re JN Mandal, thanks for resolving the mystery of his early departure. An eye opener no doubt. I find your research efforts priceless.
Re JN Mandal, thanks for resolving the mystery of his early departure. An eye opener no doubt. I find your research efforts priceless.
#248 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 124 Fuzair
Chowk sometimes has technical problems, but I doubt it censors anything except what falls outside their pretty straightforward editorial policy. What was that post again? Could you please reproduce it alongwith your source ?
Chowk sometimes has technical problems, but I doubt it censors anything except what falls outside their pretty straightforward editorial policy. What was that post again? Could you please reproduce it alongwith your source ?
#247 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 127 bahmad
But that`s exactly the point that how does one increase the per acre yield or bring arid land into agriculture, without maintaining and improving upon the irrigational network ? I quote below excerpt of an article which is pretty self-explanatory but questions are welcome.
[ ...Dams don`t consume any water. Instead these store water during flood season and then make it available on crop demand basis for the remaining dry periods of the year. The real demonstration of this came after full comissioning of Tarbela Dam in 1976. During pre-storage period of 1960-67, the average annual canal withdrawals of Sindh were 35.6 million acres feet (MAF). After the Tarbela Dam started functioning the corresponding figure rose to 44.5 MAF with over 22% increase in the Rabi season. In fact, Rabi diversions alone increased from 10.7 to 15.2 MAF. It is estimated that after the completion of Kalabagh Dam, canal withdrawals of Sindh would further increase. Most of this increase would come in the crucial early Kharif cotton sowing season. Thus the oft-repeated apprehensions regarding desertification of Sindh defies even the basic logic of a storage reservoir.
The Water Apportionment Accord (WAA) of 1991 has allocated, on the average, about 12 million acre feet additional supplies to the provinces almost all of which is in Kharif season. On the other hand, surplus water is available only within 70-100-day flood period. It is estimated that to provide additionally allocated water over the year, a storage of
about 3.6 MAF would be needed (out of this, 2.2 MAF would be in the early Kharif season of April to July).
By the turn of the century, the three storage facilities would lose about 3 MAF of live capacity. In lieu of these two requirements about 6.6 MAF of surplus water would become available. Against this, live storage capacity at Kalabagh is 6.1 MAF. Hence there should be absolutely no doubt that surplus water would
not be available to fill the reservoir.
The energy generated at Kalabagh would be equivalent to 20 million barrels of oil per year. Kalabagh would reduce the frequency and severity of flooding along the Indus, particularly between the dam site and Indus/Panjnad confluence, 300 miles downstream. For the riverain areas lower down in Sindh, it would enable conversion of the existing `Sailaba` areas to the year round tubewell irrigation.
On a conservative basis, the overall direct benefits of Kalabagh Dam would be around Rs20 billion per annum. Thus the investment cost of the project would be thus used for sowing and final maturing of the Kharif crops and entire Rabi crops.
Irrigation-oriented operation of the project gives the highest overall economic return. Thus the full live storage of 6.1 MAF would be
available, guaranteeing assured irrigation supplies throughout the year, including replacement of the storage loss on the three existing reservoirs.]
But that`s exactly the point that how does one increase the per acre yield or bring arid land into agriculture, without maintaining and improving upon the irrigational network ? I quote below excerpt of an article which is pretty self-explanatory but questions are welcome.
[ ...Dams don`t consume any water. Instead these store water during flood season and then make it available on crop demand basis for the remaining dry periods of the year. The real demonstration of this came after full comissioning of Tarbela Dam in 1976. During pre-storage period of 1960-67, the average annual canal withdrawals of Sindh were 35.6 million acres feet (MAF). After the Tarbela Dam started functioning the corresponding figure rose to 44.5 MAF with over 22% increase in the Rabi season. In fact, Rabi diversions alone increased from 10.7 to 15.2 MAF. It is estimated that after the completion of Kalabagh Dam, canal withdrawals of Sindh would further increase. Most of this increase would come in the crucial early Kharif cotton sowing season. Thus the oft-repeated apprehensions regarding desertification of Sindh defies even the basic logic of a storage reservoir.
The Water Apportionment Accord (WAA) of 1991 has allocated, on the average, about 12 million acre feet additional supplies to the provinces almost all of which is in Kharif season. On the other hand, surplus water is available only within 70-100-day flood period. It is estimated that to provide additionally allocated water over the year, a storage of
about 3.6 MAF would be needed (out of this, 2.2 MAF would be in the early Kharif season of April to July).
By the turn of the century, the three storage facilities would lose about 3 MAF of live capacity. In lieu of these two requirements about 6.6 MAF of surplus water would become available. Against this, live storage capacity at Kalabagh is 6.1 MAF. Hence there should be absolutely no doubt that surplus water would
not be available to fill the reservoir.
The energy generated at Kalabagh would be equivalent to 20 million barrels of oil per year. Kalabagh would reduce the frequency and severity of flooding along the Indus, particularly between the dam site and Indus/Panjnad confluence, 300 miles downstream. For the riverain areas lower down in Sindh, it would enable conversion of the existing `Sailaba` areas to the year round tubewell irrigation.
On a conservative basis, the overall direct benefits of Kalabagh Dam would be around Rs20 billion per annum. Thus the investment cost of the project would be thus used for sowing and final maturing of the Kharif crops and entire Rabi crops.
Irrigation-oriented operation of the project gives the highest overall economic return. Thus the full live storage of 6.1 MAF would be
available, guaranteeing assured irrigation supplies throughout the year, including replacement of the storage loss on the three existing reservoirs.]
#246 Posted by amit on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
zeemax:
Your ideas are highly commendable but they are utopian. A more practical option would be to steer Pakistan`s Kashmir policy from supporting militancy to supporting a political movement. Militancy in Kashmir is not achieving anything except for a lot of bloodshed for everyone. Instead if Pakistan supports a political party and funds a political movement, it would be acceptable to the Pakistani public and it would elevate the Kashmir problem to a political level. Kashmiris would be able to determine their genuine representatives and India can negotiate with them. It would also curb militancy in Pakistan.
On trade and regional cooperation, I support your views. However, it seems that Musharraf is firmly in the pocket of hardline elements such as Hamid Gul, Javed Nasir etc. Hence I do not believe Pakistan is ready to cooperate with India or vice-versa. If they can leave each other alone, it would be a blessing.
Your ideas are highly commendable but they are utopian. A more practical option would be to steer Pakistan`s Kashmir policy from supporting militancy to supporting a political movement. Militancy in Kashmir is not achieving anything except for a lot of bloodshed for everyone. Instead if Pakistan supports a political party and funds a political movement, it would be acceptable to the Pakistani public and it would elevate the Kashmir problem to a political level. Kashmiris would be able to determine their genuine representatives and India can negotiate with them. It would also curb militancy in Pakistan.
On trade and regional cooperation, I support your views. However, it seems that Musharraf is firmly in the pocket of hardline elements such as Hamid Gul, Javed Nasir etc. Hence I do not believe Pakistan is ready to cooperate with India or vice-versa. If they can leave each other alone, it would be a blessing.
#245 Posted by fuzair on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
To the Chowk staff:
Did you lose my post or did you take offense at my reference to Mr. Jinnah`s fondness for ham sandwiches?
Did you lose my post or did you take offense at my reference to Mr. Jinnah`s fondness for ham sandwiches?
#244 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 102 Umairr
India would not have crossed the LOC because it wasn`t required. The Indian strategy was a naval blockade of Karachi in the international waters if Pakistan hadn`t backed down. Pakistan had no defence to that strategy. A naval blockade would have saved India from international condemnation for crossing the LOC and at the same time crippling Pakistani civil and military structure through their vastly superior Navy.
India would not have crossed the LOC because it wasn`t required. The Indian strategy was a naval blockade of Karachi in the international waters if Pakistan hadn`t backed down. Pakistan had no defence to that strategy. A naval blockade would have saved India from international condemnation for crossing the LOC and at the same time crippling Pakistani civil and military structure through their vastly superior Navy.
#243 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Jogindar Nath Mandal ? How come I never heard of him ..was it because he was Hindu that he was expunged from Pakistani history ? The first Law Minister of Jinnah .. I wonder what he would have said about the Tayyara case.
#242 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 86 concerned
Yes I was a bit taken aback too by Bilal`s observation, but then I understood Paindoo wisdom is looked down upon. Although the answer lies in simple things, we always miss the simple and the obvious. I can come up with the most intellectual arguments either For or Against, but Let me tell you a little story !
A group of people wanted to discover the `Truth`. They devoted their lives to it. All took a different route towards the Truth. One was an artist, another a physicist, another a literary genius and a writer, another a mathemetician. They couldn`t find the Truth so they took to drugs. In their collective LSD induced trip they found the answer lay on top of the highest mountain in the world. So they decided to find that mountain and climb it.
When they reached the top, they found an old baba sitting there. The baba asked .. why did you go to all this trouble ? The people said .. We want to know the Truth. The baba said `` But the Truth is within you.. you didn`t have to climb this mountain for that ! `` The people said `` Oh.. was it that simple ?`` The baba said yes .. it`s that simple .. you only wanted to take the most difficult route around.
On economy and the interest-free system .. later ..
Yes I was a bit taken aback too by Bilal`s observation, but then I understood Paindoo wisdom is looked down upon. Although the answer lies in simple things, we always miss the simple and the obvious. I can come up with the most intellectual arguments either For or Against, but Let me tell you a little story !
A group of people wanted to discover the `Truth`. They devoted their lives to it. All took a different route towards the Truth. One was an artist, another a physicist, another a literary genius and a writer, another a mathemetician. They couldn`t find the Truth so they took to drugs. In their collective LSD induced trip they found the answer lay on top of the highest mountain in the world. So they decided to find that mountain and climb it.
When they reached the top, they found an old baba sitting there. The baba asked .. why did you go to all this trouble ? The people said .. We want to know the Truth. The baba said `` But the Truth is within you.. you didn`t have to climb this mountain for that ! `` The people said `` Oh.. was it that simple ?`` The baba said yes .. it`s that simple .. you only wanted to take the most difficult route around.
On economy and the interest-free system .. later ..
#241 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 75 rajanjua
`` Roti Kapra aur makan .. mang raha hey har insaan !
`` Ghar rehney ko chota saa .. mein bhi Musalman hoon wallah ..!
``Pakistan ka matlab kya .. La Ilah`a Illa_lah !
I will answer your queries about Jam Sadiq Ali a bit later ..
Rgds.
`` Roti Kapra aur makan .. mang raha hey har insaan !
`` Ghar rehney ko chota saa .. mein bhi Musalman hoon wallah ..!
``Pakistan ka matlab kya .. La Ilah`a Illa_lah !
I will answer your queries about Jam Sadiq Ali a bit later ..
Rgds.
#240 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 70 temporal
No I don`t know .. who was it ?
No I don`t know .. who was it ?
#239 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Reply #: 71 rajanjua
This was an extempore` speech .. yes I feel some words may have been left out .. what were the real words Janjua ? As it is what Jinnah said was a vision of secularism .. all the mosques and tremples would be secure .. at that time he hadn`t mentioned Unity Faith and Discipline. Why ? Was it an afterthought ? Was it that Jinnah felt later it was not going to work out without Unity Faith and Discipline ? My heart goes out to Jinnah for his well intentioned attempt at creating a nation .. I don`t see any nation right now.
This was an extempore` speech .. yes I feel some words may have been left out .. what were the real words Janjua ? As it is what Jinnah said was a vision of secularism .. all the mosques and tremples would be secure .. at that time he hadn`t mentioned Unity Faith and Discipline. Why ? Was it an afterthought ? Was it that Jinnah felt later it was not going to work out without Unity Faith and Discipline ? My heart goes out to Jinnah for his well intentioned attempt at creating a nation .. I don`t see any nation right now.
#238 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
The only correct thing Musharraf has said so far is that Pakistan is not a poor country. Pakistan is a very rich country. Yes .. he knows that .. and yet he`s pushing the country into depths of poverty and darkness ? We will never allow that .. by We I mean the citizens of this country
..!
..!
#237 Posted by zeemax on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
PST Reply #: 68 bahmad
Dear Bilal, Please tell me why a brilliant Mohajir Girl passed out in First Division with an MA in Political Science cannnot find a job other then a school teacher in a primary school with a salary of Rs. 1700 ?
Dear Bilal, Please tell me why a brilliant Mohajir Girl passed out in First Division with an MA in Political Science cannnot find a job other then a school teacher in a primary school with a salary of Rs. 1700 ?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- usmi: It is quite interesting... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: nkg... dead hindoos :)... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: Zarrar Said are you... Nothing Queer About It
- nkg: HP.... If the world would... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: :) dead hindoos ...... The Future of Indo
- Levitate: :) dead hindoos... Pleas For Sanity as
- borivili_express: jang its a very... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: Re: # 217 "dharma says... Pleas For Sanity as
