SiD’s Sphere!!

to people who read my blog, i must sound like an extremely depressed person but it’s just that i only turn to it when i feel really bad.

the last few months, i’ve tried really hard to change myself. after a semester of extreme lack of motivation, i wanted things to be different this time around. and yet, tonight i feel hollow again. the very day i’ve been told i’ve been ‘unusually productive’. the last few weeks i’ve been unusually productive. and not only that i’m also doin a lot of things. making new friends. trying really hard, really hard to work it out with the old ones. but the more i think about everyting, the more superficial everything seems to be. i don’t want to be here. i don’t want to be living this life. but i don’t know what else i can do either.

tonight the world is a dark place…

Throughout history, debate has raged on concerning the use of violence in achieving political ends. In this debate, three arguments exists. The first are the pacifists. These are the people who are in principle against the use of violence.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?

Gandhi

The second school of thought are the the ones who reject violence on purely practical means.

The third are those who believe that violence is a necessary evil without which the less powerful would go unheard. Nelson Mandela strongly opposed those in the African National Congress who wanted to aggressively fight back in the face of apartheid for a long time before he finally he agreed to the formation of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the military wing of the African National Congress.

There are many people who feel that it is useless and futile for us to continue talking peace and non-violence — against a government whose only reply is savage attacks on an unarmed and defenseless people. And I think the time has come for us to consider, in the light of our experiences at this day at home, whether the methods which we have applied so far are adequate.

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X, who were both pivotal leaders in the American Civil Rights Movement, differed with each other on this issue.
Martin Luther believed that..

..returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction…. The chain reaction of evil — hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars — must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

While Malcolm had this to say…

I believe it’s a crime for anyone being brutalized to continue to accept that brutality without doing something to defend himself.

This time, the debate has sparked off closer to home. Following the incidents of April 8 in Lahore and April 9 in Karachi, the Lawyer’s Movement in Pakistan has come under strict criticism. The same lawyers who have been brutally beaten up and unlawfully imprisoned by the authorities have now come to be known as the ‘lucha lafangas’. Leaving aside for a while, the argument surrounding whether or not it was actually the lawyers who raised arms against those they hold responsible for the subjugation of the judiciary or a conspiracy orchestrated by those on the losing end of the Lawyer’s Movement; were the lawyers justified in resorting to violence given that their very opponents formulate the laws and thus dictate the terms, a legal war would have been futile?

Military Movements in Wana and Waziristan, the operation on Lal Masjid are some other examples where the use of force was not viewed favorably. How justified have been these military operations?

This will be the agenda for next Open Forum on April 15, 2008. Come tell us what you think? Is violence justified?

http://ibasocialsciences.blogspot.com/

Disclaimer: Any views voiced by Anes or me as Manager and Assistant Manager at the Open Forum sessions or on this blog are our opinions as individuals and not those endorsed by the Social Sciences Society. The Society does not pledge its allegiance to any one school of thought, ideology, race or religion in particular but only acts as a platform for discussion.

The first Open Forum session in Room 3 today was electrifyingly charged with emotion, as the topic was so close to the heart of most present. A Sindhi with a feudal background who resented how Punjab exploited the national resources; a Baloch who felt her province had been neglected far too long; an Urdu-speaking Muhajir who identified with MQM’s ideology; a few Punjabis who understood how the powers that-be had always counted on Punjab as their vote bank, thus ignoring the other provinces; and a room full of Pakistanis who may not have known so much about the grievances of each of these groups, yet had come to learn.

The reason for identifying the ethnic backgrounds of the participants is not to personally attack them but to learn about the perspective of each one of them.

The Baloch mentioned that the people of Balochistan considered Akbar Bugti their leader as he was the only person who understood the aspirations of the people. Criticisms were raised on Bugti’s life. Yet, she came to his rescue by saying that for an outsider he is a murderer because that is the image that is fed to them by the media. For the Baloch, Bugti was the only person who cared about them.

This began a debate on the whose argument was more credible. The Baloch who spoke from personal experience or any other Pakistani who saw Bugti as a murderer.

Another noteworthy point raised in the session was whether or not these leaders who represented only certain groups and did not speak for the entire nation were a source of conflict or individuals who sought harmony. Seraikis, for example, someone said, were an unrepresented race, thus were ignored too.

People who weren’t closely associated with the grievances on any groups who felt persecuted, nevertheless were aware of the problem and felt that what Pakistan needs is leaders who while representing their own nations kept th bigger picture in mind. However, there was little hope that this would come to happen in the near future as each political leader only sought to capitalise on the grievances of a few that would vote for them.

Due to the lack of time, the session had to be wrapped up, but the discussion can continue here. Please feel free to share your opinions here.

By Masood Hasan

Last month, a small news item sent shivers down my spine. It reported that the president was considering allowing the incumbent prime minister the use of a private jet so that he could fly to Karachi for his son’s wedding. There we go again, I said to myself. Mercifully, for one reason or the other, Mr Gilani did not take up the offer – if indeed it was ever made – and instead took a commercial flight.

Since then, he has announced an austerity drive, vowed to cut the expenses of the Prime Minister’s House by 40 per cent, forcing ministers into 1600cc cars, and other measures that he and his partners think will start to pull us out of this economic mess we are in. There is a story doing the rounds that just before the swearing-in Mr Zardari asked Mr Gilani to remove his luxury Rolex and smacked a Swatch watch on his wrist. He did the same with the ministers-to-be.

Did that really happen, and was it another much-needed step? Will wearing a Swatch watch melt the layers of pompousness that afflicts all those who are part of the VIP tribe? There is talk of banning ministers and the like from flying the Pakistani flag on their cars, removal of those “No Fear” boys in their black 4×4s cutting through traffic like a hot knife through butter as they ride on the heels of their VIP masters.

Someone said we are back to one-dish affairs and other austerity measures are waiting to happen. It has also been suggested that the PM’s nine military, naval and air force officers be removed because, firstly, he doesn’t need them and, secondly, when he has civilian staff, what are these boys doing other than cooling their heels and having a hell of a good innings at the taxpayer’s expense? And so on.

The issue, of course, runs deeper than this and already is being argued. Many of us feel that while these small crumbs of simplicity are welcome in a society where materialism is everything, they don’t even begin to address the deep-seated malaise that afflicts us from one end to the other.

This business of VIP culture is not simply confined to a cavalcade of siren-screaming luxury limos that break all traffic rules with impunity as they transport very small-minded men from one meaningless meeting to another, while thousands and thousands of ordinary people stand like mute animals waiting for rude and aggressive policemen to remove the barricades.

We all know far too well that long before any “VIP movement” is to take place, the busiest of roads – doesn’t matter where or in which city – are simply sealed off. It takes the cavalcade of nobodies less than a minute to fly past these blockades, but such is the power of this cancerous culture that traffic is held hostage long after the VIPs have departed, because this is their “security” – another disgusting word that is now part of our everyday existence.

The disease is in the mindsets, and that will not go by removing a watch or by having one dish at an official dinner. We are not simple people leading simple lives. We preach simplicity, quote the Prophet’s own humble existence – he had hardly anything to his name, but that is just gospel meant to pass the moment. Neither the speaker who extols these virtues means a word of it, nor does his somnolent audience, who are bored to death, believing a word of it either.

This is a ritual that has now become part of our very thinking. We cannot exist without showing off what we have, almost always got through means that are anything but legit. Most Pakistanis feel absolutely no compunction in bribing their way through any problem that they might have. This can range from small sums of money doled out to avoid the consequences of a traffic offence or far larger parcels to secure licenses, tilt rankings, obtain concessions, and so on. Neither the giver nor the receiver has the slightest remorse. This spreads across all spectrums of our land and gives greater credence to its efficacy. Those few who do not subscribe to this practice fall by the wayside and are the butt of jokes because they are such pathetic failures. It has come to a point where honesty is now regarded as something akin to an infectious disease, and those carrying it are kept at a distance.

In our social setup there is no longer any censure of those who are the scum of the earth by any standards. In fact, they are the pillars of society, the ones who inaugurate projects, launch schemes and plant trees and who pray to the Almighty with their eyes fervently closed, swayed by the very act of communion with their Lord.

It is therefore no surprise to find that there are hundreds of the country’s leading lights, those whose sermons have been forced down our protesting throats ever since Pakistan began, who have indulged in the most serious financial crimes and simply escaped any accountability. With minds as devious as they have, they make their moves through the right people at the right time and emerge winners.

Every government has, for its own ends, written off enormous amounts of public money – money for votes has long been a well-honed and rewarding philosophy. Having made a fortune without any effort whatsoever, these are the same people who intone in voices dripping with piety that they have achieved success only because the prayers of their respective mothers helped them along the way. An Umrah is dutifully undertaken and more piety is displayed, preferably with a cameraman in tow so that the beatific heavenly smiles can be transmitted back home.

In such prevailing falsehood and false worship, how can any virtue, any quality or any standard survive, let alone flourish?

If the new government – many of its members thriving today thanks to another gift of convenience given to this country, the National Reconciliation Ordinance, really wants to make austerity a sweeping, powerful wave that starts to clean this dirty society, it will have to do far more than exchange watches at ceremonies. It should also stop shouting about its resolves and simply start doing what it thinks it should be doing, now that it is in power.

Too many people have robbed Pakistan and got away with it – crime does pay – and serious across-the-board dry-cleaning is necessary. This is no small task and is most likely going to fail, but I think the time for cosmetic changes has long gone.

Please wear your Rolex watches, drive your 7-series BMWs, import your royal designer shirts and suits, wear $10,000 shoes and flash your wealth. We can live with that. But when it comes to cleaning up this infested land, roll up your sleeves and remove the Guccis and plunge in. Nothing else will remotely make any difference whatsoever. Oh, by the way, why don’t we turn the Governor’s Houses into five-star hotels? India has done it with Maharajas’ palaces. Why can’t we, with the commoners who loll about in them?

The article was published in The News on 6th April, 2008.
The writer is a Lahore-based columnist. Email: masoodhasan0@gmail.com

I write after having some inspirations and of course after being enlightened by Faiz’s point of view on the subject. Great changes are taking place in our society today. Arts in its entirety is being redefined. You can blame it on the cultural globalization that is reshaping the form of every vehicle of expression that we have known. I can speak from the place of a musician, because that is one mode of self expression that i have been exposed to most. Consider the genres that we are becoming aware of and can increasingly relate to. They were alien to this culture ten years back. It is just not the awareness that has made its mark! If one goes and sees the prophets of this revolution singing their anthems at (selected) underground gigs in the city, he cannot help but wonder who or what DID start the fire! Was it the failure of our deep and intense musical heritage to keep up with the changing times giving way to the age of consumerism? Or was it the cultural invasion of our values by the American Idol ism and the Supernova rock stardom? I will not jump to pass a judgment, simply because this is not the focus of my argument. I am incapable to comment on the utility of this transition, simply because its positive and negative influence are not yet manifest to be able to provide foundations of a sound opinion. My question is simply: ‘Is the new artist creating a place for himself in harmony with the societal aspirations or is his identity crisis effecting the society in unwanted irreversible ways!

I think this is the point when one must try to differentiate between an Artist and an Art Worker. To understand what defines this difference try thinking about film actress Noor and producer/ director Sheema Kirmani. While the former comes across at best as an ‘entertainer’ the latter is a socially conscious citizen who uses her skills and passion for her art to create in the society an awareness of its plight and a will to take charge of its destiny. No doubt Noor is true to her ‘art’ and her ‘killer’ looks as well as very utilitarian sense of dressing are very entertaining but i cannot recall a single moment when her art inspired me to even think of solving our societal issues. The urge to impose a ‘No Nonsense’ law on the ‘lollywood’ is an exception.

Noor is an art worker, Sheema is an artist. Shoaib Mansoor is an artist and Syed Noor is an art worker. The analogies are countless. In this light if one tries to see the orientation of our budding, hopefully ‘artists’, one prays that this breed can understand its frustrations and make others around them feel less apathetic. Its not just about how good a musician you are but how well can you use your skills to let the society speak what it cannot by itself.

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

— Eleanor Roosevelt

Discussions and debates form an integral part of any progressive society. Intellectual discourse is not only the display of the level of tolerance and free speech in a society but is also an informal learning institution for those who participate. Only when one is exposed to the various schools of thought and the diverse ideological viewpoints that exist can one form well developed opinions that are not based on limited experiences and personal prejudice. Beliefs that are put to the test of debate evolve into logical arguments or are shelved if they don’t turn out to be as meritorious as first perceived. Debate, thus, at the micro as well as the macro level forms the essence of any democratic structure.

Students, in particular, need access to a platform where there is exchange of free flowing ideas. Such a platform nurtures the next generation not just for the professional world but also to become responsible citizens who are socially and politically conscious. It also gives the students a chance to see the bigger picture that isn’t limited to their personal lives and hobbies and work only.

In an attempt to do just that, the Social Sciences Society will be holding its first session of Open Forum on Monday, 7th April. The topic ‘Killing freedom in the guise of Patriotism: An Ethnic Question in a National Context’ focuses on the various forms of racism that exist within Pakistan. While some might see it as one province impeding the growth of other provinces, others might simply see it as a fight between the haves and have-nots. It is racist to crush the cultural identity of an entire people in the name of a country. Nothing can be more true for PAKISTAN where the federation is in constant threat of disintegration due to the socio economic and cultural exploitation of the many by the few.

Voice your opinions with us!