A few months back, an illustrious leader from his podium in London, fired a verbal missile, with special emphasis on a word called, "revolution." The electronic media and chatteriti, went wild with all the crazy and bizarre revolutionary models, best suitable for our nation. There were debates on whether a French or Iranian type revolution will solve our nation' s never ending saga. Experts after experts emphasised on the merits of such a sweeping measure. According to most of them, this was the call and the need of the hour.
No one bothered to really delve into, why any such a revolution was actually necessary. Of course, the buzz word as always was incessant "corruption" and our world famous, "nepotism." Added were some heavy duty "terrorism", and lack of "law and order" issues and you had hours and hours of mind numbing verbal altercations, between the so called experts.
Of course we have short term memories and selective understanding of certain concepts. It was not very long ago, when we were proudly marching on the streets of our nation, sending signals to a despot that his days were up. We were chanting and screaming off the top of our lungs to establish the rule of law and free our judiciary from the shackles of the dictator. Subsided our noise when the Chief of the Supreme level of justice was restored. Buried was our passion and enthusiasm in the midst of some midnight executive order.
The term "rule of law" is the actual revolutionary concept. 63 years and we are still struggling and grappling with this novel and such a unique idea. What is so hindering, that we are not able to come near this so called "foreign" and often termed as a "Western phenomenon." So we seek our solace in the idea of rolling back the clock and reliving the times of our religious leaders. We tend to think, by creating a facade of a certain look we can reach the eternal salvation. How naïve are we?
It is ironic that we beat around the bush of a system which is by all means based on the tenets of our faith. The concept of implementing, interpreting, enforcing and following the law is revolutionary in itself. The semblance to order follows immediately on its own, when this concept is embraced with all hearts and minds. Those who think that only boots and barrels can enforce such a thing in our land, should think again and look around the world. How come this works for the rest of the world and not for us. The only thought that comes to mind is, we must be the chosen ones. Chosen specially to ignore this very basic reality.
So save the mayhem, save the bloodshed. Save the age old rhetoric and save the never ending excuses. Let the people overlooking Thames River know, there is only one revolution which is needed. Being honest to ourselves and respecting and obeying the law of humanity. Humanity in itself is a divine law. One who understands and embraces it, always follows and respects the law of the land. The rest is all a figment of someones wild imagination.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Altaf Bhai's Martial Law Call For Punjab
As entertaining as Altaf Bhai's speeches are most of the time, the latest one for call for Martial Law in Punjab should be taken as is, for its entertainment value. A couple of days back, another entertainer cum astrologer cum politician, the honourable Pir Sahib Pagara had stated that an imposition of martial law was imminent for Karachi's peace.
So it seems like a response from Altaf Bhai to Pir Sahib or PML-N or GOD knows who. Of course Altaf Bhai is clearly hung up on his demands for a "French type" revolution. The revolution that Altaf Bhai wants to see, at least in our part of the world means a lot of bloodshed and destruction. The fundamental disagreement that I have with any such revolution is, after all is said and done, it will not achieve the objectives. Force and fear is not the answer to any long lasting peace and real change.
Altaf Bhai' s call to the military to impose Martial Law in Punjab begs another question. What would that do that almost 10 years rule of a military ruler, the infamous General Musharraf was unable to do? Altaf Bhai and his party whole heartedly supported Musharraf Sahib's rule and will perhaps be ready to cobble a coalition with him in the future. As there was a meeting of Farooq Sattar Sahib and Chaudhry Shujaat of Q League, where both of them agreed to form a "strategic alliance" between the two parties. Which brings us to another question, both parties were in partnership within the previous government, so there is an open understanding between the two. What was all that about?
The illustrious Altaf Bhai has emphasised that landowners and feudal must quit the politics and "ghareeb awaam", should be able to reach the power corridors. I agree with him partially. I am no feudal apologist and understand his basis. But in a democracy, every one has the right to stand for a political party. Now the comment should be, that feudals should not tamper with the democratic process and let the representatives of all classes, poor, working or middle to participate in politics. Having said all of this, last I heard a lot of PML-Q Leaguers are from feudal class as well. So how come Altaf Bhai wants to shake hands with the same feudal that he wants to get rid of?
So you can deduce that every "khitaab" from London has its own value. Lastly, he promised that if there was going to be a need, he will come back to Pakistan. Now if you like to bet (I don't), I would not bet on this one. According to him, the conditions are grave or let's call it "sangeen" in Urdu, how much more "Sangeeni" does he need to make his triumphant return to Nine zero?
So it seems like a response from Altaf Bhai to Pir Sahib or PML-N or GOD knows who. Of course Altaf Bhai is clearly hung up on his demands for a "French type" revolution. The revolution that Altaf Bhai wants to see, at least in our part of the world means a lot of bloodshed and destruction. The fundamental disagreement that I have with any such revolution is, after all is said and done, it will not achieve the objectives. Force and fear is not the answer to any long lasting peace and real change.
Altaf Bhai' s call to the military to impose Martial Law in Punjab begs another question. What would that do that almost 10 years rule of a military ruler, the infamous General Musharraf was unable to do? Altaf Bhai and his party whole heartedly supported Musharraf Sahib's rule and will perhaps be ready to cobble a coalition with him in the future. As there was a meeting of Farooq Sattar Sahib and Chaudhry Shujaat of Q League, where both of them agreed to form a "strategic alliance" between the two parties. Which brings us to another question, both parties were in partnership within the previous government, so there is an open understanding between the two. What was all that about?
The illustrious Altaf Bhai has emphasised that landowners and feudal must quit the politics and "ghareeb awaam", should be able to reach the power corridors. I agree with him partially. I am no feudal apologist and understand his basis. But in a democracy, every one has the right to stand for a political party. Now the comment should be, that feudals should not tamper with the democratic process and let the representatives of all classes, poor, working or middle to participate in politics. Having said all of this, last I heard a lot of PML-Q Leaguers are from feudal class as well. So how come Altaf Bhai wants to shake hands with the same feudal that he wants to get rid of?
So you can deduce that every "khitaab" from London has its own value. Lastly, he promised that if there was going to be a need, he will come back to Pakistan. Now if you like to bet (I don't), I would not bet on this one. According to him, the conditions are grave or let's call it "sangeen" in Urdu, how much more "Sangeeni" does he need to make his triumphant return to Nine zero?
Friday, January 21, 2011
PM Gilani Takes The Middle Road
Our PM Sahib reiterated at the Cleric Conference that no changes would be brought to the infamous Blasphemy Law. In the same breath, like a true politician, he stated that "no one would be allowed to misuse it either."
May be PM Sahib, was under duress or really scared around so many clerics, that he totally missed the boat, on the issue. The main reason why Governor Taseer was assassinated, was his comments about the misuse of the law. Historically, it has been used against the minority members of lower strata of the society, often to settle personal scores.
Amazingly, a supposedly liberal and democratic government is pinned against the wall by a seemingly simple issue. That's what we call the power of twisting the opinion of clueless crowd. Regretfully, most of the public when it comes to the religion, rarely thinks objectively. As they say that we are "full of josh, but very little hosh." We tend to mortgage our brains to the clerics, knowing full well that clerics will not be answerable for our deeds. We have to make our own moral judgments, based on our personal understanding of our faith. Our Holy Book, our Holy Prophet's life and his companions example is what we need to emulate.
The comical part of this story is that, PML-Q of all parties, is criticising the government for appeasing the clerics. Do we need to revisit the not so distant past, so determine what Q-League stood for with its allies like MMA? The Red Mosque radicals were multiplying exponentially under their watch and inside the capital, of all the places in our nation.
But no matter where anyone stands on this issue, the current government has somewhat disappointed many with its status quo. People give all kinds of reasons, primarily the government being too weak to sustain any new upheaval. The only saving grace has been Bilawal, but he is still young and waiting in the wings. By the time he is ready to jump into the foray, who knows where we all will stand.
We are completely polarised on this issue and without discussion, we will not move forward. The happy medium can only be reached, if this issue is resolved with open hearts and minds. Otherwise it will be the same old rhetoric. The rhetoric which has earned us the coveted and very apt title of, "Guftar key ghazi."
May be PM Sahib, was under duress or really scared around so many clerics, that he totally missed the boat, on the issue. The main reason why Governor Taseer was assassinated, was his comments about the misuse of the law. Historically, it has been used against the minority members of lower strata of the society, often to settle personal scores.
Amazingly, a supposedly liberal and democratic government is pinned against the wall by a seemingly simple issue. That's what we call the power of twisting the opinion of clueless crowd. Regretfully, most of the public when it comes to the religion, rarely thinks objectively. As they say that we are "full of josh, but very little hosh." We tend to mortgage our brains to the clerics, knowing full well that clerics will not be answerable for our deeds. We have to make our own moral judgments, based on our personal understanding of our faith. Our Holy Book, our Holy Prophet's life and his companions example is what we need to emulate.
The comical part of this story is that, PML-Q of all parties, is criticising the government for appeasing the clerics. Do we need to revisit the not so distant past, so determine what Q-League stood for with its allies like MMA? The Red Mosque radicals were multiplying exponentially under their watch and inside the capital, of all the places in our nation.
But no matter where anyone stands on this issue, the current government has somewhat disappointed many with its status quo. People give all kinds of reasons, primarily the government being too weak to sustain any new upheaval. The only saving grace has been Bilawal, but he is still young and waiting in the wings. By the time he is ready to jump into the foray, who knows where we all will stand.
We are completely polarised on this issue and without discussion, we will not move forward. The happy medium can only be reached, if this issue is resolved with open hearts and minds. Otherwise it will be the same old rhetoric. The rhetoric which has earned us the coveted and very apt title of, "Guftar key ghazi."
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Securing The President
In the wake of recent brutal murder of Governor Taseer, by his own elite security guard, security of the VIP's has become a major issue. Undoubtedly, the act of Mr. Qadri is shameful and pathetic. Much has been written about his deceitful and remorseless behaviour. Equally deplorable is the bizarre outpouring and public sympathy for a cold blooded murderer.
When the President of the country cannot trust his own security personnel and he has to make a plea to the US government to provide him security, that speaks volume about the trust deficit we have in Islamabad. Undoubtedly, the President has many foes from the get go. He has been chastised (in some cases rightfully so), by his detractors on almost every single move he has made, after taking the oath of office.
Despite the political differences, the President holds one of the highest office of the land and should be protected by all reasonable means. The media has criticised this move as well, as it gives the impression that a common man is pretty much on his own. There is some weight in the argument, however another violent incident involving a high profile personality, would be a much bigger blunder.
If the President has to rely on Americans or some other country to provide him with trained and trustworthy security personnel, it should not become a political issue. Repeated political assassinations have tainted our history quite often. GOD forbid one more, would send all the wrong signals to the rest of the world.
Of course the US security personnel should be deployed on a temporary basis. They should train their Pakistani counterparts and a force like US Secret Service must be established. Their primary responsibility should be, to protect the President and the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers. People who take this move as some disgrace to the national pride, should relax a bit and think objectively. Even the darkest incidents provide an opportunity to mend or improve the areas where there is a need. This is one area where there is a dire need.
If we can organise and let a department emerge responsible for securing the key leaders of the country, it will demonstrate that Pakistan is a responsible nation. Securing the life of key personnel will avoid any potential vacuum and chaos, which is rather common in our nation. It will set a precedent for the rest of the nation as well.
Similarly, the foreign consultants should be brought in to conduct independent review of our law enforcement agencies. Based on their recommendations, sweeping measures to reform those agencies must be taken. Once the confidence of general public is restored, only then a common Pakistani would feel equally secured.
All this should be transparent and realistic expectations must be set for the public. This is not a process, which can potentially take effect overnight.
When the President of the country cannot trust his own security personnel and he has to make a plea to the US government to provide him security, that speaks volume about the trust deficit we have in Islamabad. Undoubtedly, the President has many foes from the get go. He has been chastised (in some cases rightfully so), by his detractors on almost every single move he has made, after taking the oath of office.
Despite the political differences, the President holds one of the highest office of the land and should be protected by all reasonable means. The media has criticised this move as well, as it gives the impression that a common man is pretty much on his own. There is some weight in the argument, however another violent incident involving a high profile personality, would be a much bigger blunder.
If the President has to rely on Americans or some other country to provide him with trained and trustworthy security personnel, it should not become a political issue. Repeated political assassinations have tainted our history quite often. GOD forbid one more, would send all the wrong signals to the rest of the world.
Of course the US security personnel should be deployed on a temporary basis. They should train their Pakistani counterparts and a force like US Secret Service must be established. Their primary responsibility should be, to protect the President and the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers. People who take this move as some disgrace to the national pride, should relax a bit and think objectively. Even the darkest incidents provide an opportunity to mend or improve the areas where there is a need. This is one area where there is a dire need.
If we can organise and let a department emerge responsible for securing the key leaders of the country, it will demonstrate that Pakistan is a responsible nation. Securing the life of key personnel will avoid any potential vacuum and chaos, which is rather common in our nation. It will set a precedent for the rest of the nation as well.
Similarly, the foreign consultants should be brought in to conduct independent review of our law enforcement agencies. Based on their recommendations, sweeping measures to reform those agencies must be taken. Once the confidence of general public is restored, only then a common Pakistani would feel equally secured.
All this should be transparent and realistic expectations must be set for the public. This is not a process, which can potentially take effect overnight.
Seeking Jinnah's Pakistan In Zia's Pakistan
Jinnah Sahib's untimely death and Pakistan's loss of Quaid's vision is often debated at this forum. Many Pakistanis, including myself find it quite disheartening that a sound and solid ideology went completely astray after his demise.
It is an irony, that we as a nation never collectively, pay heed to the original ideas and reasons why this country came into being. Agreed that the subsequent leaders who succeeded Jinnah Sahib, were silenced by force and those who were left were not able to put it into a path that Quaid had envisioned.
Arguably, the blood that many gave to reach the Wagah border, hoping to reach their promised land, was shed in vain. The chaos that ensued after one blow or the other, the intrigues that followed and the bitter differences of opinions on form and function of government, led to the military intervention. It is nothing short of a miracle, that this country is, still on the map of this world, despite all the odds.
The often stated and debated role of the military behind our national degradation, is no secret. Their blind lust for power, unabated and ill conceived dictatorship has done the most harm to the ideology of Pakistan. Seemingly, the only institution which supposedly provided "order and stability", but in fact conspired to make the political and democratic mind set weaker and bleaker in the country.
After Jinnah Sahib, the only leader, with all his faults and blemishes was ZAB, who put the country back on some track. His biggest blunder, legislature's bizarre power to serve as an arbitrator on people's faith. Personally, I am a Sunni Muslim, but I certainly do not want the government declaring anyone Muslim or Non Muslim, based on its subjective interpretation. At other forums, I have weighed in on this a number of times. If tomorrow, Shias, Ahmedis, Bohris or Ismaeelis outnumber the Sunnis in population, and declare the Sunnis as "Non-Muslims", then how would that make the current majority sect feel?
Getting back to this discussion, our political pundits often bring America as the reason why we are in such a mess. Perhaps there is some truth to this, but totally blaming the US for our flight from Jinnah's vision is at least unrealistic and disingenuous. Bhutto Sahib's socialist ideas and dreams of Pakistan becoming a modern Islamic Republic, were shattered by a rather timid looking General Zia Ul Haq.
Zia's "Islamisation project" did the most harm to our country. His proponents argue that he had very few choices. US needed Pakistan to counter the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and Pak military was providing the logistical support to the Mujahideen. The only way he could have assembled the resources from friendly Muslim countries was to give this military campaign a cover called, "Jihad." What followed later is common knowledge.
A democratically elected government in any such predicament, would have used diplomacy and would have set certain rules of engagement. The reason is plain and simple, a democratically elected government is answerable to the public and constituents. A despot and a dictator is answerable to none. One can assume that a democratically elected government, would have reluctantly joined the campaign but would have put the interest of Pakistan at the forefront. Regretfully, Pakistan's interest was put on the back burner.
This brought the influx of refugees, that Pakistan did not have adequate resources to handle. Zia Sahib bargained the sovereignty of the country, in the name of "Afghan Aid Dollars." The religious mantra was repeated endlessly for political purposes and each promise that Zia Sahib made to the nation on July 04, 1977 was reneged.
The political opportunists benefited the most from this 11 years of military rule. The country drifted from its original ideology completely. The state was busy in the business of war and hence the Islamisation suited the agenda of the Khakis. Any and every dissent was brutally crushed and hopes of any democratic elections dwindled.
The religious and political parties demonstrated their undying allegiance to the "Ameer Ul Momineen." The rather ironic fact is that, in our faith tyranny is considered completely unacceptable. Those who have doubts, must revisit the history of the events that led to the battle of Karbala and martyrdom of Imam Hussain (R.A.H). The grandson of Prophet PBUH who gave his life opposing the unjust rule of Yazeed.
The so called religious parties who were opposed to the creation of this country, played with the dignity of this country under the facade of the faith. The Jinnah's progressive Pakistan became supposedly the sole saviour of the sanctity of the religion. The nation was divided and subdivided into so many sects and groups that a cohesive nationalistic ideology and vision became completely blurred. Creating "better, pure and pious" Muslims became the primary responsibility of the state. If the August 1988 plane crash would have not claimed Zia Sahib's life, we would have seen his reign for perhaps another 11 or many more years.
The political parties post Zia, have not been able to come out of the shadows of Zia's legacy. PML-N was truly a continuation of Zia's conservative agenda. BB Sahiba's two terms were short lived and marred by the corruption scandals. Musharraf's enlightened moderation was the biggest joke, as it was clearly the policy of keeping both, "Ram and Raheem" happy, so to speak. Musharraf Sahib was trying to keep both the US and the conservatives happy. Lal Masjid was an exception, but it was a very poor execution of state's writ. Again, there is a difference in a statesman and a dictator. Musharraf Sahib clearly was not the former.
The current regime, although is a democratically elected government but very fragile and toothless. It almost seems like it is surviving on the direct blessing of Washington. It does not have any solid vision or agenda to put the country back to any real direction. It is treading on a safe path as it cannot weather any more storms.
Looking ahead we see a potential PML-N led stint in the coming years. Again, PML-N on the surface may have gained some political points in the restoration of the CJ days, but it is ideologically a direct descendant of Zia. It has always used the "Islamic ploy" to tap into its voter base.
The hopes of reviving Jinnah's ideals are in the hearts and minds of the true patriots. Their struggle is painstaking and laborious and will take many years. The way out of this political use of Islam strictly depends on the building of consensus. It is these visionaries, who would define tomorrow's Pakistan. The tides of change have started to emerge. The soil will witness the birth of those who will change the course. These people will unite the bitterly divided nation under the flagship of Pakistan. Agreed that it is in a silent minority at the present time, but the seeds of change are being germinated as we speak. A few more years and the change of generation will alter the landscape. The truly promised land for the significant majority of the Sub Continent.
It is an irony, that we as a nation never collectively, pay heed to the original ideas and reasons why this country came into being. Agreed that the subsequent leaders who succeeded Jinnah Sahib, were silenced by force and those who were left were not able to put it into a path that Quaid had envisioned.
Arguably, the blood that many gave to reach the Wagah border, hoping to reach their promised land, was shed in vain. The chaos that ensued after one blow or the other, the intrigues that followed and the bitter differences of opinions on form and function of government, led to the military intervention. It is nothing short of a miracle, that this country is, still on the map of this world, despite all the odds.
The often stated and debated role of the military behind our national degradation, is no secret. Their blind lust for power, unabated and ill conceived dictatorship has done the most harm to the ideology of Pakistan. Seemingly, the only institution which supposedly provided "order and stability", but in fact conspired to make the political and democratic mind set weaker and bleaker in the country.
After Jinnah Sahib, the only leader, with all his faults and blemishes was ZAB, who put the country back on some track. His biggest blunder, legislature's bizarre power to serve as an arbitrator on people's faith. Personally, I am a Sunni Muslim, but I certainly do not want the government declaring anyone Muslim or Non Muslim, based on its subjective interpretation. At other forums, I have weighed in on this a number of times. If tomorrow, Shias, Ahmedis, Bohris or Ismaeelis outnumber the Sunnis in population, and declare the Sunnis as "Non-Muslims", then how would that make the current majority sect feel?
Getting back to this discussion, our political pundits often bring America as the reason why we are in such a mess. Perhaps there is some truth to this, but totally blaming the US for our flight from Jinnah's vision is at least unrealistic and disingenuous. Bhutto Sahib's socialist ideas and dreams of Pakistan becoming a modern Islamic Republic, were shattered by a rather timid looking General Zia Ul Haq.
Zia's "Islamisation project" did the most harm to our country. His proponents argue that he had very few choices. US needed Pakistan to counter the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan and Pak military was providing the logistical support to the Mujahideen. The only way he could have assembled the resources from friendly Muslim countries was to give this military campaign a cover called, "Jihad." What followed later is common knowledge.
A democratically elected government in any such predicament, would have used diplomacy and would have set certain rules of engagement. The reason is plain and simple, a democratically elected government is answerable to the public and constituents. A despot and a dictator is answerable to none. One can assume that a democratically elected government, would have reluctantly joined the campaign but would have put the interest of Pakistan at the forefront. Regretfully, Pakistan's interest was put on the back burner.
This brought the influx of refugees, that Pakistan did not have adequate resources to handle. Zia Sahib bargained the sovereignty of the country, in the name of "Afghan Aid Dollars." The religious mantra was repeated endlessly for political purposes and each promise that Zia Sahib made to the nation on July 04, 1977 was reneged.
The political opportunists benefited the most from this 11 years of military rule. The country drifted from its original ideology completely. The state was busy in the business of war and hence the Islamisation suited the agenda of the Khakis. Any and every dissent was brutally crushed and hopes of any democratic elections dwindled.
The religious and political parties demonstrated their undying allegiance to the "Ameer Ul Momineen." The rather ironic fact is that, in our faith tyranny is considered completely unacceptable. Those who have doubts, must revisit the history of the events that led to the battle of Karbala and martyrdom of Imam Hussain (R.A.H). The grandson of Prophet PBUH who gave his life opposing the unjust rule of Yazeed.
The so called religious parties who were opposed to the creation of this country, played with the dignity of this country under the facade of the faith. The Jinnah's progressive Pakistan became supposedly the sole saviour of the sanctity of the religion. The nation was divided and subdivided into so many sects and groups that a cohesive nationalistic ideology and vision became completely blurred. Creating "better, pure and pious" Muslims became the primary responsibility of the state. If the August 1988 plane crash would have not claimed Zia Sahib's life, we would have seen his reign for perhaps another 11 or many more years.
The political parties post Zia, have not been able to come out of the shadows of Zia's legacy. PML-N was truly a continuation of Zia's conservative agenda. BB Sahiba's two terms were short lived and marred by the corruption scandals. Musharraf's enlightened moderation was the biggest joke, as it was clearly the policy of keeping both, "Ram and Raheem" happy, so to speak. Musharraf Sahib was trying to keep both the US and the conservatives happy. Lal Masjid was an exception, but it was a very poor execution of state's writ. Again, there is a difference in a statesman and a dictator. Musharraf Sahib clearly was not the former.
The current regime, although is a democratically elected government but very fragile and toothless. It almost seems like it is surviving on the direct blessing of Washington. It does not have any solid vision or agenda to put the country back to any real direction. It is treading on a safe path as it cannot weather any more storms.
Looking ahead we see a potential PML-N led stint in the coming years. Again, PML-N on the surface may have gained some political points in the restoration of the CJ days, but it is ideologically a direct descendant of Zia. It has always used the "Islamic ploy" to tap into its voter base.
The hopes of reviving Jinnah's ideals are in the hearts and minds of the true patriots. Their struggle is painstaking and laborious and will take many years. The way out of this political use of Islam strictly depends on the building of consensus. It is these visionaries, who would define tomorrow's Pakistan. The tides of change have started to emerge. The soil will witness the birth of those who will change the course. These people will unite the bitterly divided nation under the flagship of Pakistan. Agreed that it is in a silent minority at the present time, but the seeds of change are being germinated as we speak. A few more years and the change of generation will alter the landscape. The truly promised land for the significant majority of the Sub Continent.
Ghazi Mumtaz Qadri
The insane murder of Late Salman Taseer, was not enough of a shameful surprise this week. There was more in store for all of us. The blood of the slain leader had barely dried and there came an edict from 500 or so clerics advising people not to show remorse or sorrow for the departed soul. People were advised not to attend the funeral of Mr. Taseer and any one who attended his funeral was going to be fair game for the "Ghazis" like Mr. Qadri.
May the soul of Mr. Taseer rest in everlasting peace. Ameen. Personally, I did not agree with some of his politics in the province of Punjab. That's the beauty of democracy, not all of us agree on everything. We all have our positions and leanings. We can engage in a dialogue and either resolve our differences or at least agree to disagree amicably. My hat is off to him for his bold stance on Asiya Bibi's case. Of course his conviction was commendable and even though he knew the peril, he stood firm.
In our deeply misguided society, where a murderer is celebrated as a hero and has a facebook following honoring his heinous crime, any thing can be expected and quite possible. Our slain leader, was not even buried and people were referring to his personal life and criticising his lifestyle.
To add insult to the injury, when the accused Mr. Qadri, was brought to the Islamabad Court, he was welcomed by some lawyers who showered rose petals on him. If that was not enough, our valiant soldiers of law, chanted slogans in favour of Mr. Qadri. Arguably, in a free society, all have a right to express an opinion. But the legal fraternity has an obligation to uphold and respect the law and the basic writ of the law. The accused of course has committed the crime in front of witnesses and confessed to such an atrocious act. Here our legal fraternity, was siding with the wrong guy. Understood that this was just a fraction of the legal counsels, but it is definitely wrong. These were the same lawyers, who were supported by the people in droves, when General Musharraf's was crushing their movement to restore the Chief Justice.
But like many things in our nation, that are upside down, this callous and insensitive behaviour will be remembered for time to come. Have you noticed that we yell the loudest on things that we are absolutely clueless about. The question(s) that I want to raise in the end are:
A) How could a person who attacks an unarmed person become a Ghazi?
B) How could a person, who uses deception to kill another person become a Ghazi?
C) How could a person who dis obeys his duty and hit someone potentially from the back, become a Ghazi?
D) How could someone, who should be chastised becomes a hero and a Ghazi?
I am a totally ignorant person, when it comes to the faith, but I know one thing for sure, if my Prophet PBUH was with us, he would not call characters like the accused a Ghazi. My conviction stems from the historical events where Prophet PBUH was abused, ridiculed and even showered with filth by the non believers and he was the Messenger of Almighty. If he did not order his companions to kill any of those people in retaliation, then who the heck are these clerics to pass such judgments. Lopsided isn't it.
May the soul of Mr. Taseer rest in everlasting peace. Ameen. Personally, I did not agree with some of his politics in the province of Punjab. That's the beauty of democracy, not all of us agree on everything. We all have our positions and leanings. We can engage in a dialogue and either resolve our differences or at least agree to disagree amicably. My hat is off to him for his bold stance on Asiya Bibi's case. Of course his conviction was commendable and even though he knew the peril, he stood firm.
In our deeply misguided society, where a murderer is celebrated as a hero and has a facebook following honoring his heinous crime, any thing can be expected and quite possible. Our slain leader, was not even buried and people were referring to his personal life and criticising his lifestyle.
To add insult to the injury, when the accused Mr. Qadri, was brought to the Islamabad Court, he was welcomed by some lawyers who showered rose petals on him. If that was not enough, our valiant soldiers of law, chanted slogans in favour of Mr. Qadri. Arguably, in a free society, all have a right to express an opinion. But the legal fraternity has an obligation to uphold and respect the law and the basic writ of the law. The accused of course has committed the crime in front of witnesses and confessed to such an atrocious act. Here our legal fraternity, was siding with the wrong guy. Understood that this was just a fraction of the legal counsels, but it is definitely wrong. These were the same lawyers, who were supported by the people in droves, when General Musharraf's was crushing their movement to restore the Chief Justice.
But like many things in our nation, that are upside down, this callous and insensitive behaviour will be remembered for time to come. Have you noticed that we yell the loudest on things that we are absolutely clueless about. The question(s) that I want to raise in the end are:
A) How could a person who attacks an unarmed person become a Ghazi?
B) How could a person, who uses deception to kill another person become a Ghazi?
C) How could a person who dis obeys his duty and hit someone potentially from the back, become a Ghazi?
D) How could someone, who should be chastised becomes a hero and a Ghazi?
I am a totally ignorant person, when it comes to the faith, but I know one thing for sure, if my Prophet PBUH was with us, he would not call characters like the accused a Ghazi. My conviction stems from the historical events where Prophet PBUH was abused, ridiculed and even showered with filth by the non believers and he was the Messenger of Almighty. If he did not order his companions to kill any of those people in retaliation, then who the heck are these clerics to pass such judgments. Lopsided isn't it.
Right Or Wrong?
We take positions based on our views and our perceptions of the world. Mostly our views are guided by our domestic and external education, religion and morals, personal experiences and above all our environment.
We are a bitterly divided nation, like many other countries around the world. There is this constant tug of war that you witness around the globe, between liberals and conservatives. One trying to enforce their principles and ideologies on the other. Often this is an exercise in futility, as rarely any one parts with their core mental mapping.
Our country is no exception. Ever since its inception, there has been a conflict between these two distinct intellectual forces. In our case, regretfully the conservatives have used the religion as a moral compass to mold the opinion of the general masses. There is no denying that a faith is very significant factor in establishing the foundations of law and morality in personal and societal lives. But the basis of religion actually is a link between the Creator and the creation. A path that leads every individual to their personal salvation.
When religion becomes a tool to formulate an opinion which threatens the life and liberty of another individual on the basis of innuendo and perception, then a correction is badly warranted. Keep in mind, that its the faith which teaches us to better ourselves first. Passing judgments on others and their salvation or lack thereof, are not in the capacity of any human being. Those decisions are well suited for the "Ultimate Decider."
The recent murder in our capital raises a very important moral question. Taking another life merely on personal beliefs is whether right or wrong? This is not a right versus left debate. It is just a rude awakening for our deeply cancerous mindset which praises an atrocious act. Our religion teaches us to show compassion and mercy to others. When we face our Lord every day in our prayers, we beg Him to put us on the right path. Either the Lord has put us on the right one, and we are ignoring it, or our tall egos are preventing us from accepting that, what we are doing is utterly wrong.
We are a bitterly divided nation, like many other countries around the world. There is this constant tug of war that you witness around the globe, between liberals and conservatives. One trying to enforce their principles and ideologies on the other. Often this is an exercise in futility, as rarely any one parts with their core mental mapping.
Our country is no exception. Ever since its inception, there has been a conflict between these two distinct intellectual forces. In our case, regretfully the conservatives have used the religion as a moral compass to mold the opinion of the general masses. There is no denying that a faith is very significant factor in establishing the foundations of law and morality in personal and societal lives. But the basis of religion actually is a link between the Creator and the creation. A path that leads every individual to their personal salvation.
When religion becomes a tool to formulate an opinion which threatens the life and liberty of another individual on the basis of innuendo and perception, then a correction is badly warranted. Keep in mind, that its the faith which teaches us to better ourselves first. Passing judgments on others and their salvation or lack thereof, are not in the capacity of any human being. Those decisions are well suited for the "Ultimate Decider."
The recent murder in our capital raises a very important moral question. Taking another life merely on personal beliefs is whether right or wrong? This is not a right versus left debate. It is just a rude awakening for our deeply cancerous mindset which praises an atrocious act. Our religion teaches us to show compassion and mercy to others. When we face our Lord every day in our prayers, we beg Him to put us on the right path. Either the Lord has put us on the right one, and we are ignoring it, or our tall egos are preventing us from accepting that, what we are doing is utterly wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)