Letter to an American Muslim soysauce, since you asked a direct and valid question, I do feel I should answer. I do not see a great ``Muslim grievance``, but it is true that many Muslims who have lived a long time in this country suddenly feel insecure. I think that their insecurity at this point is exaggerated but understandable. I just want them to move beyond that and start looking at things from a longer perspective.

As others have pointed out, the American public`s response to 9-11 has, in fact, been quite measured relative to what might have occured (and has occured) in other places. But it would be idle to pretend that there are no issues that peculiarly affect Muslims in America today. In this, they are no different than any other societally identified group. Whether it is discrimination by employers or the taunting on children at school, harassment of women who wear the hijab or profiling at airports - individuals have suffered civil rights violations because they were identifiable as Muslims. Not because it is sanctioned by US law, but because it is sanctioned by some segments of society. As long as the Michael Savages of America have vast and approving audiences, the Muslims (and many other immigrant groups) in the US *do* need organization to protect their interests. Also, at least in the time following 9-11, there were gross violations of civil rights by law-enforcement agencies, where people were beaten up, locked up without access to lawyers, and abused in other ways. These things might be understandable - and it is to the credit of American society that things only went so far and no further - but the ideal of ``liberty and justice for all`` requires that those who suffered unjustly should not just have to grin and bear it.

A very pertinent question you ask is why religion should matter. Ideally, I too wish it did not, but that just isn`t reality. While the society at large identifies a group as Muslim - because of their names, practices, or whatever - members of the group have no choice but to recognize that reality. In the case of Muslims specifically, I think most Muslims in fact *wish* to be identified as such anyway, and that is their right. My point is that the exercise of this right also entails some responsibilities. Unlike some on this board:-), I do not think that the only way a Muslim can become an American is by setting up camp at a bar and becoming a Budhead. It should be possible for someone who wishes to identify as ``Muslim`` to do so without having to conform either to the demands of the dominant culture or the puritanical standards of the masjid mavens. However, the protection of this right cannot be taken for granted, and requires the actual practice of citizenship. You ask about CAIR. I have only seen their work from a distance, but I think it is a good start. I could be wrong, but I am encouraged that they are seeking out a broader collaboration in the civil rights community than groups like ISNA.

Finally, on the hilarious discussion between echoboom and hossp (hey, why leave out the last three letters?:-) on my ``true`` affiliations, let me just say ``koi batlao ke ham batlayen kya?`` (Apologies for the Urdu, but this would be lost in translation).

Letter to an American Muslim The article is not aimed at Pakistani-Americans only - and certainly not at those who had to leave because they were here illegally! The imaginary recipient of my letter is not someone living at the fringes of the law. He (could be ``she``, but I have found such insecurties more prevalent among men:-) is someone who has ``arrived`` in material terms, and was feeling especially secure before things changed. Maybe he did not buy a Mercedes, just a Camry or a Jetta (Mercedes - especially the low-end ones - are worthless anyway:-). He could be Egyptian or Lebanese, Indian or Bangladeshi, Malaysian or Kuwaiti. I would not be concerned if the only people fretting about their future were illegal aliens. I don`t know about you, but I have seen extremely successful professionals, citizens of the US, settled in this country for one or two decades, who are very concerned. And I am not even saying that their concern is unjustified. As romair points out, we are one big attack away from a possible pogrom, and as I said, things will probably get worse in the short run. My point is that we also need to think of the long run. With all the pros and cons considered, many of us have decided to make this our home, to raise families here, to live and die here. I don`t think we should live and die here as foreigners. I think that we need to embrace what we have chosen - in the best possible sense, not the jingoistic way in which the right-wing would have it - without giving up the ties to our origins. My criticism is directed at those who have chosen to benefit superficially from the American system without becoming committed to it. Again, I am not advocating that people become flag-waving nationalists, but that they participate as citizens. Many do, but still too few. I think that too many immigrant Muslims in America still live their lives in a bubble. They do their jobs, attend office parties, travel, play golf, but never think about disabled services in their township, visit the the local symphony orchestra, support a local charity or museum, or wonder how things here really work. Again, I am generalizing. Many of us do participate in limited ways (and I consider myself as culpable as anyone I criticize). Often, it is our kids who drag us into participating - coaching a soccer team, volunteering at school, going to camp, joining the scouts - but few of us really stop to think how this society got to where it is after centuries of such participation by millions of people, and what lessons that holds for us. In particular, I think we know too little of the American experience - especially the immigrant experience - beyond what we have experienced ourselves.

My other concern is about an affliction that is found among Muslims almost everywhere (well, I don`t know about Nigeria:-), and that is the need to blame some nefarious external force for all our problems. ``The Jews did it`` is only one version of this. Others variously blame Hindus, Christians, Greeks, Communists, the CIA, the Mohajirs, the Punjabis, the Shias, or whoever. Of course there are historical grievances, and of course there are atrocities for which those responsible must be punished (as far as possible), but labeling whole races and civilizations to be our ``enemies`` is neither justified not productive - especially in the modern world. I can understand totally why a Palestinian sees an Israeli soldier as a symbol of oppression, but I do not understand why all Muslims should consider all Jews their enemies for all time. Or Christians, or Hindus, or Communists. Just as I deplore the us-versus-them rhetoric of the right-wing, I find the us-versus-them rhetoric prevalent in most Muslim societies reprehensible. It is the signature of an ethos that cannot yet say, ``Live and let live``, and thinks in the language of dominance and subjugation. Of course, this ethos is far more dangerous in those who have the power to project it, but, I would submit, it is much more destructive for the weak who can only destroy themselves by the anger it generates. Anyway, this is a topic for another time.

Letter to an American Muslim Most of the InterActs make good points. My biggest concern was that the whole thing had a pretty negative tone. That`s because I cut out all the positive stuff, but not enough to please godot:-). In particular, I think the point raised by Saminasha is an excellent one. I am very optimistic about the next generation of American Muslims, many of whom *are* becoming true achievers, and creating powerful new memes in the culture (apologies for the academicspeak:-).

The issue of whom I am addressing in the article is also an important one. I agree that it is too simplistic to think of people as ``just Muslims``, and that I (a Muslim from Pakistan) have much more in common with a North Indian non-Musim than with a Nigerian Muslim. That said, I think the audience I am addressing is not confined to Pakistanis, or even South Asians. Like everything one writes, this article is rooted in my own experience, and is motivated by interactions I have had with Muslim friends and acquaintances. Many of these were, in fact, not South Asian but from Arab backgrounds, and even some from Africa (not just North Africa). At the risk of being somewhat tautological, I would say that my article is addressed to those who are described in the article:-). I have certainly met enough Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Egyptians, Palestinians and others who have, in one form or the other, expressed the attitude I describe. An article such as this necessarily generalizes (which is regrettable), but it tries to capture a broadly prevalent attitude. I think that, at this time, there is a sort of defensive despair among a lrge segment of American Muslim immigrants. This despair is not without reason - as I hope the article makes clear - but its solution does not lie in greater insularity. Rather, it lies in greater participation. This society is uniquely amenable to that.

Actually, the signs are not at all bad. There is much greater political awareness among American Muslims now. They are organizing more. There is more inter-faith activity and outreach to other groups. My point is that I wish it had not needed adversity to trigger all this. Now that we are threatened with civil rights abuses, we join the ACLU and support their activities on behalf of other marginalized groups, but how many of us were thinking of the discrimination suffered by minorities, gays, the disabled and the disenfranchised before it happened to us? Some were - especially among second-generation Americans - but I think that too many of us were happy to simply be along for a ride on the American Dream Express. We thought no one would ever ask to see our ticket. Well, here we are! If this gives us a little more empathy for the gay student who is beaten up in his classroom or the atheist who is shunned for not wishing to particpate in school prayer, that would be very positive. We have too much parochialism in large sections of the American Muslim community. Getting out there and participating in the larger society will necessarily weaken this attitude, and that is good. I think the next generation is going to be much better on this count anyway, and those of us who are parents should encourage that. I have great admiration for some of my Muslim (and non-Muslim immigrant) friends who have actively encouraged their sons and daughters to volunteer for campaigns, work for NGOs, join human rights groups. We should do much more of that.

It is a tricky balancing act to assimilate while retaining one`s religious or ethnic identity. We should recognize that different individuals will solve this problem in different ways. We should welcome this rather than trying to enforce one ``approved`` way of being a member of ``the Community`` on all. Some Muslims might well change their names, inter-marry or drink Budweiser. If they still wish to participate at any level as Muslims, I think that should be encouraged. Excluding everyone who does not conform will prevent the emergence of an effective community forever. Also, some Muslims might decide that there is no need to support a PAC or civil rights group that serves ``Muslim interests``. That is fine too. I wish I could live to see the day when there was no need for interest groups. Unfortunately, I do not think that day is imminent, and as long as the society at large recognizes Muslims as a group, Muslims must organize to protect their interests.

To respond to echoboom`s last comment, my first identity is a member of the human race. I wish that could be my only identity, but that is not yet possible. I agree totally with fuzair that religion need not be our primary identity, but I also think that it is not possible to cleanly separate religion from culture, language, etc., in most traditional (let`s say pre-post-modern:-) societies. Much of what we think, speak and do has influences from religion - and not just the religion we profess. People have complex identities, and trouble arises hen they are forced to subjugate all other dimensions of their identity to a single dominant one such as ``Muslim`` or ``American`` or ``Punjabi``. That, in my opinion, is a recipe for disaster, and on that count, those who enforce a national or ethnic identity are no better than those who, like the Taliban, enforce a religious one. In writing this article, I did *not* mean to imply that anyone should make ``Muslim`` their primary identity (unless they wanted to). However, it is one identity that many Americans share, and which currently has high visibility in the American psyche. Ignoring that would be unwise.

Finally, on the point that American Jews had to give up their Jewish identity to succeed. If that were true, how would we know they had succeeded. Clearly, a very large number of successful Jews have *not* given up their identity (Joe Lieberman is a good example), but have found a way to assimilate that identity into the mainstream. This was a long and painful process, creating much internal strife and schism, but Muslims will have to undergo something similar at some point. The first step of this process is the willingness to concede the need for independent thinking - a willingness sorely lacking in most Muslim societies for the last century.

I could - probably should - write much more, but I fear I`ve already lost godot:-).

Crisis and Opportunity

First, let me thank all those who appreciated my article. It does appear that the points I made reflected the views of many on this forum.

Of course, I am just as conflicted and confused by the situation as everyone else, so it was also good to see several critical comments on my piece. It would be too tedious to respond to individual comments, so I will briefly address what I took to be the main criticisms.

``Afghanistan and Pakistan are not Germany and Japan``

Indeed, they are not, and even stable international support is not going to turn them into industrial powers. However, that is not the point. What we must ask is whether international economic support (note that I do not use the much more limited term ``aid``) would change them into something appreciably better than what they are now --- or threaten to become. I think that the answer is `yes`. Then we must ask whether the answer was `yes` in 1989 when the US walked away from the region. Could the dangerous Afghanistan and unstable Pakistan of today have been avoided if the US had stayed engaged and helpful? I believe that the answer again is affirmative. However, by this I do not mean that the US should simply have propped up Zia`s successors. By ``engaged and helpful``, I mean that the US should have actively promoted economic growth, institution-building and the stabilization of enlightened attitudes, just as it did in Germany and Japan. That would not have produced competitors for Toyota or Zeiss, but it would have avoided ben Laden and the Taliban. Of course, this is just my opinion, and talk is cheap.

``Pakistanis have no right to complain given what their government has done``

Individual Pakistanis do not necessarily support the policies of their government(s), and even those who have occasionally done so surely merit the right to express their opinion when they do dsagree.

``America paid for Pakistan`s help in the 80`s, and had no obligation to help long-term.``

This may be so in a legal sense, but the issue is whether it would have been smarter for the US to help create a stable society. I believe that it was then --- and is now --- in the world community`s self-interest to defuse conflicts and promote economic growth *everywhere * in the world. Leaving behind ``husk states`` after Uncle Sam has bled them dry for his project du jour is not only bad for those states and their neighbors, it is also dangerous for Uncle Sam and the rest of the world.

``American presence is a mixed blessing at best``

I agree with this, but would make two points. First, sudden American absence following American presence is usually an unmixed disaster! Second, I do not advocate that the US take over Pakistan --- only that it help the more enlightened forces in the country to stamp out the scourge of intolerance. And, before someone accuses me of intolerance for the intolerants, I will freely admit to it. This is a conflict between two world views, and I am definitely taking sides.

I was quite pleased by Maleeha Lodhi`s interview on CN today. She came out in strong support of the anti-terrorism effort, but made it very clear that Pakistan needed the international cmmunity`s help now and in the future to overcome the consequences of this decision. True, mst of Pakistan`s problems are of its own making, but if it finally wants to address them, why not help it?

My biggest fear is that things will not work out, and that the pace at which things deteriorate on the Pakistani street will exceed the rate at which international support is provided to address the problem. The US will work on its own timetable once again, and Pakistan will pay the price. I hope that Bush has the wisdom to let Colin Powell run this operation rather than handing it over to the Cold Warriors in the administration.

Ali

Men of the Millenium Re. omarali50 (#62)

Great to see you on Chowk, Omar, my friend! And, as usual, what you say is right on.

I think that the two great revolutions of this millennium (given our foreshortened view, no doubt) are:

1. The empowerment of the common person --- politically, economically, socially, educationally, etc.

2. The triumph of the scientific (and technological) endeavour over all other methods for understanding and changing the physical world.

Those who have participated in these great trends in their various ways --- big and small --- are the heroes of the millennium. I will admit a personal bias in favour of those whose work in the medical field has led, or will lead in the future, to palpable reduction in human misery. My heroes are people like Jenner, Pasteur, Koch, Fleming, Lister and Salk. How much is the smallpox or polio vaccine, or an antibiotic worth?

Ali

Men of the Millenium One way to look for the men/women who had the greatest influence in the millennium is to first identify those events which changed the course of history, and then look for who the leading figures in those events were. I am not competent to compile an authoritative list, but here is my list of events (perhaps events is the wrong word, since some of them took centuries). I have tried to indicate why I think the events listed were important (IMO, of course). I must also say that the list reflects my disgraceful lack of knowledge in Eastern, African, and Pre-Columbian American history, so I hope that others will add to the list:

1. The Crusades: Arguably, the crusades have shaped the attitudes of two great civilizations (the Islamicate and the Western) towards each other over several hundred years. The consequences of these attitudes are still being felt today in the way the Islamicate world responds to Western influences.

2. The fall of the Mayan civilization: Those who have not read up on this are probably not aware of the incredible sophistication, strength, and longevity of this civilization. Its fall was an event comparable in some ways to the fall of Rome and Constantinople. Of course, in the context of Old World history, this fall was like that of the proverbial tree in the forest where no one was present to hear.

3. The Reformation: As Prof. Hoodbhoy points out, the Reformation was perhaps the single greatest liberating event in human history. By destroying the doctrine of papal infallibility, it forever tilted the balance in favour of Reason throughout Europe --- even in those areas which remained Catholic. I do not know if Luther had read Averroes, but the latter certainly was a huge influence on the general awakening we call the European Renaissance (I do not consider the Renaissance an event, so it is not listed here, but some of its aspects are.)

4. The formulation of the mechanical world-view: The work of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Descartes, Leibnitz, et al. brought about a total transformation in how man related to the world --- at least in the West --- and laid the foundation for what I think is the greatest product of this millennium --- technology: The idea that whatever we wish to do can be achieved by a device of our construction (though in some cases, we have not yet figured out how). The key element here --- again, presaged by philosophers and scientists such as Avicenna and Averroes --- was the removal of the necessity for God (or the Prime Mover a la Aristotle) from the equation --- literally and figuratively. Henceforth, the equation itself came to stand for the reality it described, and this is the basis of the tremendous growth of science and technology.

5. The invention of the printing press: With this one invention, the knowledge (and, thus ideas) that was once the purview of a few became available to a much larger audience, changing the nature of learning itself.

6. The Christian reconquest of Spain: Of all events that marked the Renaissance, this was perhaps the greatest igniter of Europe`s self-confidence, and shaped its attitudes and actions for a long time to come. It also represented the expulsion of the last overt Arab/Islamicate influence from Western Europe, thus severing a link that would not be recreated until France annexed Algeria.

7. The conquest of Eurasia by the Golden Horde: No single event changed the course of history and the shape of the world as quickly and as drastically as the Mongol conquest --- except perhaps the two World Wars in our century. By destroying the Abbasid caliphate in Baghdad, it unleashed the forces that would lead to three other great empires --- the Ottoman in the west, the Safavid in Persia, and the Mughal in India. It also produced the socioeconomic displacement that ultimately led to the greatest flowering of Persianate and Turkic culture ever. The direct effects on Europe were confined to Eastern Europe, and were perhaps not as profound as those in Asia, but the latter certainly had their impact on Europe for a long time.

8. The conquest of Constantinople by the Ottomans: Not only did this signal the arrival of the Ottoman Empire, it also represented a psychological turning point in one of the great engagements of the millennium --- that between the Arab/Persian/Turkic Islamicate civilization and the Hellenic/Christian West.

9. The arrival of the Portuguese (and eventually other Europeans) in the Indian Ocean: A very convincing argument can be made that this was the point at which the balance of power shifted in favour of Europe and the process of colonization was born (I recommend Amitav Ghosh`s ``In an Antique Land`` to those interested in reading about this fascinating topic). The Indian Ocean was one of history`s great multicultural crossroads and trading systems, with a well-defined and mostly benign culture (there were a few pirates:-). The Portuguese introduced their naval fleet into this system as an aggressive force, thus destroying the system`s fundamental assumptions, and beginning the process of cultural fragnmentation that has had such a painful history.

10. The Columbian ``discovery`` of America: Whether Columbus was the first European to find America or not, his voyage to the New World changed everything forever. The significance of this event is so manifest as to be almost beyond description. The subsequent Spanish, Portuguese, English, and French colonization was, of course, very significant, but Columbus was the trigger.

12. The rise of mercantilism in Europe: Though we often gloss over it, it is worth remembering that the mercantile transformation of Western Europe created the middle class, laid the foundation for colonialism, and, ultimately, for the rise of liberal democracy (when the middle classes could not abide their rulers). This was, indeed, a world-view totally different from that which existed in Europe before, and was a direct consequence of the Reformation.

11. The rise of colonialism: This was the single greatest globalizing force in history, since the colonists brought in their wake missionaries, who spread Christianity, and their languages. This, for the frst time in human history, created a situation where a few languages were spoken and understood over far-flung areas of the world, laying the foundation for today`s global culture. Colonialism also infused contemporary Western ideas of lberal humanism into other cultures, forever altering the attitudes of the latter.

12. The invention of the steam engine: This was arguably the invention that powered the Industrial Revolution and led, ultimately, to the ubiquitous use of technology in our lives.

13. The French and American Revolutions: These altered forever the relationship between the rulers and the ruled, first in Europe and America, and then everywhere in the world. They also led to such things as capitalism, the welfare state, and the consumer culture.

14. The Great War: Ended the old world order and sowed the seeds of the greatest catastrophe in history.

15. The invention of vaccines: Saved hundreds of millions --- perhaps billions --- from death and disability.

16. The formulation of Darwinian evolution: Changed our unerstanding of life, its origins, and its development.

17. The discovery of microbes: Transformed our understanding of disease --- later refined by discoveries such as viruses.

18. The discovery of antibiotics: Arguably the single greatest advance in the history of medicine and, therefore, of humanity.

19. The formulation of relativity and quantum physics: I hate to put the two together like this, but from a purely historical point of view, it is not the scientific relationship between the theories that is important, but their effect on the world-view of the educated lay person. In that respect, these two great theories of 20th century physics do belong together. In my opinion, one of the most profound effects of the post-Newtonian physics has been in cosmology, and how that has expanded the horizons of human imagination.

20. The Russian Revolution: The first great challenge to Western capitalism, setting the stage for the Cold War.

21. The development of the internal combustion engine.

22. The development of electric power.

23. The invention of the airplane.

24. World War II.

25. The end of colonial power: Not only did this create the present political landscape of the world, it also created many of its most pressing problems as the colonizers --- having destroyed indigenous cultures and ravaged local resources --- withdrew, leaving the fledgeling nations to fend for themselves.

26. The development of nuclear power, and its use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki: For the first time, man found in his grasp a power that could destroy the world. Not only did this create a palpable sense of danger, it also, IMO, produced the consciousness of global issues that underlies today`s environmental and economic concerns.

27. The development of the personal computer: While the invention of powerful computing machines has had profound effects, the production of computers for individual and personal use has really transformed the world.

28. The invention of plastics: The ability to work with a potentially infinite variety of polymers has expanded the possibilities of human invention like few ther things.

29. Human space flight and the Moon landing: Man`s first steps into the extraterrestrial universe have profoundly changed the way we view the earth --- not least because of the pictures from space. Also, the very idea that humankind is beginning to advance beyond earth is one that will probably drive us for many millennia to come.

30. The discovery of DNA structure and subsequent advances in molecular biology: Like space flight, this represents a whole new dimension for human exploration and understanding. The possibilities in terms of treating diseases, altering human life, and changing the very course of history are, to say the least, limitless.

31. The invention of audiovisual media and telecommunications: Radio, TV, film, the internet --- these have completely changed everything about the way we live, work, and behave.

The fall of communism: It remains to be seen how this unfolds.

I am sure I have left out many interesting and critical events, but it has been fun to think about all this.

If I were to try and name five individuals who truly changed the course of history in this millennium --- for good or evil --- I would have to choose 10:-), so I won`t try. Some possibilities: Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane, Luther, Columbus, Gutenberg (or should it be Caxton?), Copernicus, Vasco da Gama, Newton, Washington, Jenner, Watt, Pasteur, John Stuart Mill, Marx, the Wright Brothers, Lenin, Hitler, Fleming (or should it be Lister?), Einstein, Gandhi, Mao Tse Tung, Gorbachev... There are no artists or poets in this list because I could not think of any that really turned the course of history. Perhaps that focus is too narrow.

BTW, the new millennium does not begin until next year.

Ali Minai

Dear Chowk Readers Re. anamika (#16)

I understand what you are saying, and largely agree with it. However, the results of trying to create TV programs on basic science (e.g., milk curdling)have been terribly dull. We need to learn something from the way these things are done in the West. I have a 4-year old daughter and we watch a lot of learning shows for kids --- from Blue`s Clues and Sesame Street to The Crocodile Hunter and National Geographic (she loves animals) --- and I am surprised at how much she absorbs. I think even very young kids are ready to be charmed by science Look at how dinosaurs have caught on. Or how Star Wars has caught the imagination of kids. I do not think that shows about extrasolar planets and evolution would interest only older children. I remember being fascinated by these things (in a simple way) at a much younger age --- and that was when we just had books, no sexy TV with great color footage. As I said, it is true that such things may not have a very wide audience initially, but the point is to seed the soil.

At the same time, I do think that the way things are presented will be crucial, and relating science to life wherever possible is a good technique. I think a show like Connections is the quintessential example of this approach.

Ali Minai

Dear Chowk Readers Re. anamika (# 9)

Trying to focus on ``relevant`` science is all very well but there tends to be a delicate balance between that which appears relevant and that which fires the imagination. In the best scientific television shows (e.g., Connections) and texts (e.g., works by Hofstadter and Gould) the two aspects are combined seamlessly.

A program such as that outlined by Professor Hoodbhoy would not initially reach everyone, but if it can inspire even a small sector of the population, the seeds of future progress would have been sown. I believe firmly in the idea that change spreads outward from a few seed locations in society. Rather than trying to reach the masses with everything we start, we should seek to capture a potential pool of initiators --- the opinion makers of the future.

I have had the good fortune to see the intellectual circles of Pakistani society fairly closely. One thing which always bothered me was that, with a few notable exceptions (such as Prof. Hoodbhoy), there was little appreciation for the profundity of modern scientific insights even among our intellectual elite. A remarkable number of our so-called intellctuals are still in the grip of discredited philosophies, pseudo-scientific ideas, and bizarre theories. To a large extent, modern intellectual ideas have failed to penetrate Pakistani discourse, and remain confined to a few academics who have a very limited audience. One factor which I blame for this is precisely the prima facie ``reasonable`` notion that we should focus only on that which is ``useful`` --- typically a euphemism for last decade`s technology. I think that a little dose of smart bacteria and global warming can do wonders. We need to capture the imagination of kids who will be tomorrow`s scientists and innovators, not just tomorrow`s engineers or clinicians.

Another critical service that a program such as that proposed by Professor Hoodbhoy can perform is to cut through the dogma that has stunted the growth of indepenent thinking in Pakistani society at large. Spirituality can be a great source of inspiration, but, unfortunately, our literalist and narrow view of our spiritual tradition has made it a force for regressive thinking in our society. Anything which can promote critical scientific thinking will, in time, reduce the influence of sterile dogma, and might make a truly liberal humanist society possible in Pakistan. This, in turn, may lead to a more progressive spirituality more in tune with the modern world and its imperatives.

I think that the proposal put forth by Professor Hoodbhoy is very exciting, and just what Pakistan needs. I would certainly want to contribute to it in any way I can, and I hope that the very talented members of the Chowk community will also do so.

Ali Minai

Deprivation Bravo! Great article! Unfortunately, those who need to read this most will not read it, and, if they did, would not understand it, and, if they did, would probably want to do you harm.

Keep it going.

Ali Minai

Karachi, a City Born of Dreams, Bred with Love and Left to Rot Re: Studebaker

My experience of Calcutta is very limited, but this last December, I did have the opportunity to ride the famous Metro which, as you put it, rivals London`s. I had never dreamt that I would make such close acquaintance with so many strangers as I did in the 30 minutes on that train. Nor did I believe I would get out of it alive. I literally spent most of my time occupying a volume about one-fourth of that required for normal human respiration. My feet were off the floor for extended periods of time. I have travelled on some pretty full buses in Karachi, but this.... this was miraculous!

Re: Amin Saleh

Charlottesville, VA is a perfectly reasonable --- nay, outstanding --- place to live. One thing I will admit: It is neither Karachi nor Calcutta.

Finally, on the general issue of Indian cities. I have been to Bombay, Hyderabad, Delhi, Calcutta, and several cities in Orissa. While I really like the liveliness and rich atmosphere, I do think that the better residential parts of Karachi (Defence, PECHS, KDA-I, Gulshan, North Nazimabad) are far cleaner, nicer looking, and more upscale than equivalent parts of any Indian city. Of course, the ``official`` parts of Delhi and Calcutta have no equal in all of Pakistan for their grandeur and class.

I think the difference in residential areas between Indian and Pakistani cities reflects a real difference in attitude. People in India live more simply, less wastefully, and with less ostentation. The standard of living for upper and middle classes in Pakistan is far higher than in India --- not necessarily because Pakistanis can afford it, but because it is just the way to go. And once you get used to it, it is hard to go back to simpler living. Of course, there are Indians who live far more lavishly than any Pakistani --- especially in Bombay and Delhi --- but they are outliers.

One other feature of Indian cities which one does not find in most Pakistani cities is the number of people living on the street. Sure, there are terrible slums in Karachi (actually, `slum` is a misnomer, since it indicates actual construction. These are shanty-towns). But these are localized. In Bombay, especially, one feels as if half the city sleeps on the sidewalk. Maybe that has changed (I was there in 1985).

I think the influx of Gulf money has something to do with the situation in Pakistan, but I leave that to sociologists.

Ali Minai

Match Report: Pakistan vs South Africa Re. Khan (#6)

Actually, if Pakistan win against Zimbabwe, they will most likely play Zimbabwe again in the semi`s. However, I do not think Pakistan will beat Zimbabwe on Friday --- certainly not if Zimbabwe bat first. Pakistan have always had difficulty beating Zimbabwe, and especially handling Heath Streak.

After today`s performance, I am not sure that Pakistan deserves to be in the semi`s anyway. First they need to evelop the discipline to bat like a winning side.

Ali

Preview of the Super Six Mofeez,

Good analysis, but I must disagree about dropping Azhar to play Waqar. Azhar one of the key players in this team. He always gets wickets --- well, except against Bangladesh:-) --- and provides depth to the batting. He was crucial to the victory against WI. I would say that the presence of Razzaq and Azhar is the most important factor in this team`s success. The presence of genuine all-rounders --- rather than genuine all-round mediocrities (c.f. Robin Singh, Adam Hollioke, et al.) --- allows Pakistan to bat till no. 9 and have 5 front line bowlers. No other team except South Africa can do that.

As we saw in the match against BD, Pakistan need all the batting they can get. They played one fewer batsman against BD (well, two fewer, since Malik is now legally blind), and look what happened. Pakistan is fine as long as they bat first, but chasing anything more than 120 is an adventure. To quote a memorable phrase from Saad Shafqat, Pakistan could not chase a kitten. But they will have to chase occasionally, whenever a team is brave enough to opt for btting first after winning a toss against Pakistan. I think Pakistan should play the following lineup:

Anwar

Razzaq

Ijaz

Inzimam

Youhana

Afridi

Azhar

Moin

Akram

Saqlain

Shoaib

Razzaq has pretty much opend in every game anyway, and seems to have the technique. He can also play shots --- unlike Wasti. Afridi will do much better coming in later. Pinch-hitting openers have failed dismally in this World Cup (c.f. Gilchrist, Jayasuria, Afridi). If he continues to fail, he can be replaced by Wasti as opener with Razzaq coming in at 3.

I too hope India win against Australia tomorrow, and that Warne get a good thrashing. But the Aussies play hard and can never be counted out. And McGrath really is the best bowler on either side. India need to bat first to have any chance.

Ali Minai

My Satanic Verses: Sachin as Gibreel I really enjoyed reading your article. Very nice!

I do have something to say about the central point of the article. Rhetorically, it is a good question to ask why the labor strike in the Midlands does not generate the same emotional response among expatriate South Asians as a cricket match. But we all know the answer to that. Over our two hundred year experience of submission to English culture, there were a few things that we truly absorbed to the point of incorporating them into our culture: Tea, the English language, bureaucratic style, and cricket. And of these, I would submit, tea and cricket have turned out to be of the greatest psychological significance. Sure, English is significant, but it remains confined largely to urban culture --- and in twisted ways. Tea and cricket we celebrate!

With cricket, it is partly an expression of triumph. Even now that England is a borderline third world country well on its way to colonization by immigrants, there is little in which we dominate our former white masters. Their armies are stronger, their weapons better, their people richer, their English accents more authentic..... but, by golly, there is one place where we beat them at their own game --- literally! They invented cricket. They condescended to give us test status. They beat the hell out of our teams for decades. They had their Lord`s and their Ashes and their MCC. And then, with hard work and natural talent, we went to their precious Lord`s and rubbed their noses in its sacred turf. They brought their Gooches and Gowers, their Bothams and Willises. And we brought Imran and Gavaskar. And the brave vanquished the haughty, and pride had its fall. Now we go to their little island every few years and usually visit ever-increasing humiliation on our hapless erstwhile masters. And the beauty of it is that they invented the bloody sport, that they made the rules, that they have the Etons and Harrows, Oxfords and Cambridges, and, above all, that it is so damned important to them! We cause them national trauma. How else could we do that but with cricket? It is our secret weapon, and we enjoy using it. We also enjoy using it on the surrogates of our former masters --- their co-conspirators, the Australians. The pride we take in calling Tendulkar the best batsman in the world, or in declaring Shoaib the world`s fastest bowler, derives from the unspoken assertion that we have arrived and evicted the original masters of the sanctum. Is it not sweeter to hear the superlatives from English or Australian tongues? How can a labor strike match this? Our admiration for our cricketers comes from the depths of our cultural psyche. Solidarity with striking workers is, at best, an intellectual choice.

I hope no one gets me wrong. In the scheme of things, the assertion of power by a group of South Asian workers is far more important than success at cricket. It is a sign that people like us will be a political force in Britain. And in the US, where I write these lines, people like us will soon be the intellectual elite. These things are very important, and have far-reaching implications. But they do not engender in us the emotional response of a World Cup victory. They do not release the right neurotransmitters. And that is because they are not connected so much with our past as with our future. And, as we all know, it is the past which holds sway over the heart!

Ali Minai

12th Man Reports Re. ShahbazC

Yes, I have read that article somewhere too. In fact, I think I have even written that article before:-). Check out rec.sports.cricket around May 22.

BTW, I do not write from London...

Ali Minai

Bombs, Missiles and Pakistani Science Re: Saad Shafqat

Saad,

Thanks for speaking of me in the same breath as Parvez Hoodbhoy, but I don`t deserve it. As Akbar said about Sir Syed,

hamArI bAteN hI bAtEN haeN, sayyad kAm kartA haE

More seriously, it is great that you and Anita are planning to go back. I join SR in wishing you the very best, and have no doubt that you will do very well. However, on this day when Eqbal Ahmad passed away with his dreams of Khaldunia unfulfilled, I cannot imagine giving up what you so kindly call a `flourishing academic career` to go bang my head against the wall of the Pakistani establishment in order to establish something worthwhile. Indeed, all of your suggestions would require me to give up my `flourishing academic career`, and one --- joining Imran Khan --- would mean giving up my principles as well.

The kind of movement we need requires someone who is completely selfless, totally obsessed, eternally optimistic, and, yes, absolutely shameless. In other words, someone like Syed Ahmad Khan, who had no hesitation in doing whatever it took to fulfill his ideal. Such men (or women) are born once in decades --- perhaps centuries. I am not that person. I like my career. I love my armchair. But, as Milton might have said had he followed this discussion, they also serve who only sit and gripe:-). You know, complaining well is an art, and can be very useful. Indeed, complaining is a very large part of what even great reformers have done. Read the Bible --- it is full of complaints! But you know what? I`d rather complain from the US of A -- well beyond the reach of ISI or SSP or XXX, YYY, and ZZZ --- rather than in Lahore or Islamabad, like Najam Sethi. Parvez Hoodbhoy is brave enough to say what he says given where he is. Don`t ask him to be any braver lest some midnight caller come knocking on his door too. There is no glory in that.

Best Wishes,

Ali

PS for SR: Thanks for coming to my defence, but I don`t mind what Saad says. He is a very dear friend, and what he says is true. I just don`t agree with it:-):-).

Lies of the Western ‘Science of Islam’ Re: Anita Zaidi

Anita, thanks for your kind words. As must have been apparent from my previous posting, I share your misgivings about a pure laissez-faire system. I also agree that the American health care system is, in some ways, an example of the free market`s failure. Perhaps this is too simplistic, but I do think that we should distinguish between that which can be treated as a commodity and that which is priceless. Alleviation of human suffering, to me, falls in the latter category. That opinion is not shared, of course, by true-blue free market enthusiasts.

One thing to keep in mind is that, while the free market may be an (imperfect) example of a self-organized system, it is not the only one. Even in the economic domain, one can imagine other equally self-organizing scenarios. Indeed, the Marxist ideal was much closer to a distributed, self-organized system than the command structure that evolved in its name. Self-organization is an abstract, theoretical idea. Its manifestation in concrete systems can take many forms. Ultimately, it depends on what the system responds to, and how. If greed is the primary driving force, one obtains a heartless system, but it is certainly possible to imagine other, more noble, driving forces. In some sense, that is the goal of all moral philosophies.

Speaking practically, I think that concepts such as complexity and self-organization can benefit human systems mainly in providing a new perspective on a variety of issues, and should not be seen as a new orthodoxy. When I find enthusiastic references to self-organization in an article by Francis Fukuyama (this month`s Atlantic), I fear that a misuse of this approach is at hand. However, as the internet takes over reality, the complex systems approach promises a much more accurate description of the world than the old ideas of centralized control. Such control will increasingly disappear from our lives whether we like it or not --- unless reactionary forces succeed in reversing this change soon and bringing on the Orwellian nightmare. How we can retain control in areas such as health care while everything is becoming increasingly distributed is an interesting challenge. Indeed, making a complex systems controllable is, I think, one of the greatest research issues in the area.

Re: RanaRansher

I`m not sure I am qualified to expand on spatial evolutionary game theory, but here is the gist. Game theory developed initially to model interactions between strategising agents. In the classic models, there was typically a limited, pre-defined set of actions with the consequences of each action against every other (the payoff matrix) determined in advance. The focus was on studying strategies that had interesting consequences (e.g., victory, extinction, stability, etc.). The interest then turned to stuations where better strategies could be learned by some adaptive process --- such as evolution. Some theorists developed models which explicitly used evolutionary mechanisms (survival of the fittest, genetic inheritance, mutation and recombination, etc.) to study evolving agents in a game-theoretic context. However, there was still no explicit notion of physical space in most of these models --- probably because most game-theorists were interested in economic applications, and economists (with the exception of economic geographers such as Paul Krugman) are seldom interested in space. Ecologists studying animal and plant populations introduced a spatial dimension by placing their agents on idealized grids representing areas of land. Initially, however, the results were little more than intriguing fractal-looking pictures, which hinted at exciting structures, but were difficult to analyze rigorously. Recently, however, there has been movement as some researchers try to discover global characteristics in these pictures using tools developed for the study of spatially extended fluids undergoing organized or turbulent behavior. Most of the ecological modeling work has occurred in Europe --- especially in Britain.

This is a very cursory and simplistic description. Perhaps someone with actual game-theory expertise can expand on this.

Re: Godot

I`m not sure my mind can ever be with Friedman entirely, but I can admire the elegance of his ideas without considering them desirable in practice.

Ali Minai