If This be Treason, then Make the Most of It

Dear mshergill and mitran,
I really enjoyed reading the comments. I have read every bit of it very seriously and carefully. I am just unable to write in detail in response to the same because of my work load. But you guys are really doing a wonderful job by giving insight.
Benjamin Disraeli once said that, `` It is much easier to be critical than to be correct``.
I personally think, that the way you guys are getting your points across is a right way to discuss issues in order for one to draw a conclusion.
Kind regards
Mohammad Asim Raza

Raza..


If democracy would refer to the will of the people and if the will of the people of Pakistan is fully represented by its ruler/s , then is it not democratic? On the other hand if you are referring to openness and tolerance for differing political ideas it is possible that democracy is only as successful as politics and religion are apart.Another key factor may be the presence of significant minorities.

You have mentioned countries such as Turkey , Bangladesh and Malaysia.

Turkey is a wannabe European country while the population is predominantly religious. The political elite of this country are esentially descendants of Europeans whereas the vast majority of its population especially in east is more traditional. The elite have managed to divorce politics and religion to some extent .

Bangaldesh is probably not your typical Muslim country given that the deriving culure is Bangla which is more tolerant than an austere form of Islam , again only time will tell if the austere form wins out over the tolerance.

Malaysia is a multi-ethnic country where other ethnic groups actually outperfomed the Bhumiputras till nationalistic governments sought to redress the issue. Regardless the presence of this minority will probably prevent Malaysia from sliding into religious anarchy.

With regard to Bangladesh and Malaysia please note the influence of Indian civilisation on these countries cultures as well , Hindu religion has been apolitical for several centuries and is tolerant of outside influences.

The end of world war 1 started the process of the ending of kingdoms and start of Nationalism. The Ottomon, Austia-Hungarian and the Prussian empire came to an end and gave way to countries on the basis of religion and language in Europe. In some countries, this process got delayed because of the spread of communism, but with the ending of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia etc. became broken up intocountries along religious and language lines.

After Independence of India in 1947, there was a strong movement by the southern states in India to form their own country. They felt that they had nothing common in culture with the North Indians, spoke a totally different language and their features were totally different. Religion was not powerful enough for them to stay together. I have forgotten the name of the person who led this movement, but it was a strong movement with a lot of support at grassroot levels. Under the Indian constitution, Seccession of a state or states was not against the law at that point of time.

What changed the movement was the Chinese war. After India suffered tremendous losses and humiliation in 1962, this South India leader was very effected and Nationalistic pride was awakened in him. He immediately negated what he had done earlier and started working to keep the southern states within India. Then the law was changed and it became illegal for a state to engage in seccession activities.

The problems in the North east have been there for a long time, and the government has not done much to solve it. however the place is sparsly populated, and there are bigger crises in India like Kashmir that has to be sorted out. So I will not talk much about it.

Then was the Punjab terrorism problem. This was a political crises started by the Congress (Mrs. G) and it was particularly difficult for me as I have a Hindu mother and a Sikh father. The militants were for the most part, were just hooligans who tasted power. Pakistan used the situation to their advantage to arm, encourage and train them. To my Pakistani friends I would say that I am just stating facts. The Indian state armed the LTTE and Mukti Bani, so India also has its share of dirty laundry. Some of the terrorists families had been raped and murdered during the 1984 Sikh riots (4000 killed), so they were doing it for revenge. However most of them were in it to make money through extortion. It was the aggressive capable policies of KPS Gill, the police cheif who managed to end this terrorism. His acheivement is stupendous and today we have a peaceful and prosperous Punjab.

Kashmir was a sad case. The government had been misusing the state machinery (Again Congress) to maniplate elections. That led to resentment and excesses by the security forces. I have a press friend who is posted there. The typical situation would be that a `Dalal` would come to a locality and identify the rich houses. Then the police would come and arrest the rich mans young son. The Dalal would scare the rich man by telling him wild stories about police atrocities. He would then offer to `Help` and the consideration would be 20-30 lakhs to get the innocent son free from the clutches of the police.

However after the last times free elections in kashmir, things have improved and these excesses have come down or stopped. However what a lot of people in pakistan do not seem to know is that most of the Kashmiri militants are not religious at all. My defination of a religious person is not someone who prays 5 times and has a beard etc., but someone who tries to fashion himself into a good human being, which is an important aim of the religion.(One who believes Allah malik hai and all his actions stem from that) They (Kashmiri Militants)extort money from the people, the rape indiscriminately and have started killing people who they suspect of being informers in a real brutal way. If a policeman rapes a woman there is a really big hue and cry, but if the militants rape a girl, people are too scared to talk about it. Again Pakistan has spent a lot of money and effort formenting trouble, and because of the Indian government insincerity, they have succeeded quite well. However at times the snake can attack the person who feeds it milk, and that is a problem that Pakistan will have to face when these people make problems in Pakistan.

Riots are a very ugly thing that happens in India. Its the innocent who usually get killed. I for one am a firm believer that if one day there were no Muslims left in India, you would still have the same amount of riots. People would find other kinds of criteria to differenciate people and would find new victims. I am also sure that in Pakistan if you would have only Sunni Muslims you will still have the violence that you are seeing. Its only that the victims will change and the ways of clssifying and differentiating people will change.

However I think and believe that the vast majority of people of India and Pakistan want peace and this silent majority has to ensure that their agenda does not get hijacked by extremests on both sides.

dear amit, I can hear you. Appreciate the comments.
Mohammad Asim Raza

dear M.B.Z.Isphahani, Ethics have nothing to do with any religion. But I really appreciate your comments. Thanks.
Mohammad Asim Raza

Vertex, I enjoyed reading your comments. Thanks.
Mohammad Asim Raza

amit,

Pakistan had it`s origins as a very heterogeneous state along ethnic and linguistic lines. Even when Bangladesh had won independence, the West still remains very diverse. Where Pakistan has failed is in key areas of developing strong central government, land reform, and of keeping the military in check. Fundamentalism is also a new headache.

India`s democracy functions in good part thanks to the fact that the central government is much stronger than Pakistanis. India does not rely on the support of tribal fiefdoms, or of corrupt feudal, for it`s state to function properly. That is, although both Pakistan and India are heterogeneous, India has successfully managed to bridge the differences whereas Pakistan continually has to pander to the differences.

Mr. Raza,

I think India has managed to retain its democracy mainly because of the heterogeneous nature of its society. There is no dominant group of people who can control everything, given the vastness of the country. The majority religion hinduism is itself highly heterogeneous in nature. Hindus are highly fragmented along caste, region, language basis as well. The net result is that either the country falls apart or it sustains a system that allows everyone to participate. Given that for the past 57 years, there was an enemy at the western front i.e. Pakistan, Indians had no choice but to hold on together via democracy, or get broken up and subjugated by Pakistan. Of course, India`s founding fathers gave it a good start, but then nearly every country in the post-colonial era started with good founding fathers but faltered along the way.

Even then, I think India came very close to the precipice in the late eighties, when the economy was nearly bankrupt and there were agitations all over the place such as Kashmir, Punjab etc. The system was just not working for anyone. Thankfully, the country was lucky to pull itself together and reach a position of strength as it has today.

In most post-colonial third world countries, the presence of a very homogeneous majority community is both a positive and a negative. The positive aspect is that a homogeneous majority has a vested interest in holding the country together for e.g. Punjabis in post-71 Pakistan which they dominate. The negative is that a homogeneous majority wants to dominate and control all the resources, especially in a poor country where resources are limited. The urge to dump democracy comes up because in a free for all, the dominant majority has the ability to corner all resources without sharing anything for e.g. Punjabis in post-71 Pakistan controlling everything in Pakistan. The lack of a proper democracy works to its advantage in this case.

mshergill, thank you very much for your comments. I really enjoyed reading it.

Inquirer ,
Still, in many of the countries, most people see Colonialism as a core reason and cause, which has impeded the transition to free, democratic and modern societies in the Muslim world.

---

I exactly tried to say the same thing, infact that`s why I pointed out what ambassador had said. Appriciate your insight.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

I am a non Muslim from India and I just visited Turkey a few weeks ago, so I can give you some of my impressions. They are a very divided society. 20-30 % of the women are othordox and wear hijabs, but the remaining 70-80% of the women are very modern, wearing short skirts and I could not distinguish them from any other Western European country.

Firsty the army is very powerful, and a strong `keeper` of secularism. In France there is a great issue about the head scarf being banned recently in schools, but now this law has been in place in Turkey for many decades.

The Koran is taught in Turkish, and not in Arabic, so that the common people can understand it. The Mullah has to get a license from the Government to preach and is not allowed to give any sermons on ANY political issues.

Many of the important Mosques, or churches which were converted to Mosques have been made into Museums. The most important one is `Sofia` Mosque / Church in Istanbul. I went to the Tomb of the famous sufi saint Rumi, but there was no place to pray out there as it had been turned into yet another museum.

In one of the mosques that I visited, our guide explained that the place for women was behind the men (The mosques are coed), so that when they kneel, the men should not get tempted. However when I narrated this to another guide, she just laughed and asked me about women getting tempted by men bending in front of them. She said that the earlier explanation was rubbish.

Turkey is almost a democracy, since the army intervenes once in a while. You do not have a Blasphamy law, but if you say anything against the founding founder Ataturk, you will be put into jail. Human rights is another issue there, but it is far better than what we have in the subcontinent.

A funny thing happened towards the end of our stay. I have a friend who is a Shia in India, whose family originated from the eastern part of Turkey and they had kept their blood line intact by marrying amongst themselves. I happened to mention this to our Travel Agent, who was a very friendly, fun loving guy. (Women, wine, you name it !!!) I was horrified when his tone changed and with an angry disgusting look in his face told me, `They are dirty and disgusting people, these Shia`s`. The whole change in his behaviour and expression frightened me, specially since he said it with so much aggression.

So for once I thanked myself that I was not a `wrong` type of muslim !!!!

I was reading that one of the pillars of Islam is that there should be decentralisation of power. However the opposite seems to be the case in all Islamic countries. Unless the Mullahs give up political ambitions and restrict themselves to prayer and moral teachings, only then progress will be made. However maybe that is asking for too much.

Nasseer took the Suez Canal back from the Brits. The Qadafis, Saddams nationalized Western oil assets.

Even though there are serious deficiencies in the write-up, the subject is worth pursuing because it seems to be an effort by a sincere Muslim to understand the mess that almost all Islamic countries are in. Even Turkey, the best of the sample, as admitted by the author is having a severe doubts about the feasibility of democracy.
I come from the ``limpid exception`` and care about the murky mess in Pakistan which was once a part of India so, I suppose, it is understandable that I would like to have an opinion on what is the source of the chaos and possibly what can ameliorate the situation in Pakistan in particular and Mulim countries in general.
I would like to comment on certain excerpts of the essay and that hopefully will illustrate my thoughts.

****The sense of Democracy in those countries has been used as a movement for change, rather than building up strong, sustainable and free social, political, and constitutional institutions with independent judiciary and system of checks and balances. ****
The important thing that a people need to consider is polling the view of all sections of a country`s population. Particularly its minorities. Religious as well as ethnic. Unless the entire population of a nation is considered crucially important a balance development of a society can not start. Change is subsidiary, the flowering of the will of ALL people in a nation is important.

****Still, in many of the countries, most people see Colonialism as a core reason and cause, which has impeded the transition to free, democratic and modern societies in the Muslim world.****
This is merely an excuse to hide the ulterior motives which the dominant community/dictator have and divert the attention of the population from the contribution that a king/dictator /majority of people make. Remember the leaders are there to make the best for themselves rather than the masses for which they profess to work unless there are checks and balances that do work.

****Still, those who accuse Western Colonialism of the cause for the backwardness and inability of the Muslim countries to embrace Democracy, should go back into the history and find out the facts for themselves, in order to set the record straight. ****
I totally agree. They will find that the causes of the misfortune are only affected by outsiders in a minor way. The most important flaws are of the society itself. But an enlightened and courageous leadership is needed to bring this out and propose changes that would benefit the totality of the inhabitants of a country.

****India, the world largest democracy in the third world, had been invaded and conquered by the Persians, the Turks, the Afghans, Alexander the Great and the Arabs before it was invaded and conquered by the British. If India can emerge as a democracy, then why can’t other countries of the Middle East and South East Asia? The population of Muslims in India is more than the population of Muslims in Pakistan.****
India was very fortunate that it was led by Gandhi, Nehru and Patel in contrast with Jinnah and Liakat Ali of Pakistan. Indian leaders were inclusive people. They drew longterm lessons from the operation of democracies in Britain and US and balanced them with the specific needs of the Indian People. They initiated improvements within Hindu masses and the laws that governed them. They were not handicapped by blind faith in outmoded sanskrit scriptures.

****One may ask, is that Democracy incompatible with Islam? The answer to that would, of course, be certainly not. Islam and Democracy can exist together.****
This is a very pertinent and important question. I am not sure the answer is as emphatic ``no`` as the author implies. Muslim people HAVE to revise Koran to strip it of outmoded and unjust parts. Islam is INDEED anti-democratic, obfustcating and coercive. The finality of the Paigambar has to be diplomatically and wisely upturned and adoption of the principles of modernity is a MUST otherwise the Islamic people will ultimately commit harakiri among themselve. You can already see that the rest of the world will unify to uproot the unjust parts of Islam.

****The problem with the lack of popular constituencies in the Muslim World is not an Islamic matter. Therefore, it should not be dealt in that perspective. The fact of the matter is that, today, the Muslim World is stuck between despotic regimes and intolerant societies.****
As stated above, while all of Islam is not despotic, enough elements of it ARE irrational and people believing in Islam can be modernized only when they CONVINCE THEMSELVES that there has to be a reformulation of the religious principles. Unless it is done there is noalternate path away from exploitative despotism that composes foreign dominations and the exploitative Kings.

****Thus, became the root-cause of Islamic fundamentalism, which has engulfed the Middle Eastern as well as the South-East Asian countries. ****
Fundamentalism is logically derived from Koranic intolerance and you can escape it unless you revise the Koran. Not direspectfully as Kamal Ata Turk tried but in a systematic fashion to make religious attachments more positive AND inclusive.

****In short, from closed societies to the lack of judicial system and from lack of democratic institutions to the absolute powerful dictators are the actual reasons that impede the concept of constitutional liberalism and Democracy to flourish. ****
Spread of secular, scientific and masjid-independent education and free trade are essential for preventing illegal and - for masses - suicidal surrender of power to individuals be they King, military dictators or religious clerics.

Any concurring or opposing views are welcome.

God bless Patrick Henry :)

Pakistan is muslim majority; why is it one of the worst places to live for human beings...
dude...cut back on the hashish...its killing ur already dwindling number of brain cells.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts