No Rapture Time for me!

This post tries to explain why I, a left leaning secular liberal humanist (liberal fascist to some), do not believe that Imran Khan (PTI) is the answer to our plaintive prayers. It is not an endorsement of the current political set up either, so please spare me that allegation.

Most of us, at least the people with half a brain, have some inkling as to what ails our country. If not, we are at least aware of the symptoms of the malady. Economically doomed, debt ridden, obsessed with nationalism and victim mentality, uneducated, with uncontrolled population growth with diminishing resources, etc. are from a long list of symptoms and problems that come to mind.

So one takes the symptoms and tries to find out the root cause. The most commonly arrived at answer is corruption, since that appears to be rampant among the people who are ruling us and have ruled us since Pakistan came into being. Its not a hard sell, since everyone perceives it and knows it is wrong.

I beg to differ. Corruption is a symptom, and not the cause. And I will try to explain why in this post.

So when someone like Imran Khan starts building a political movement based on "corruption" there is a basic issue of not even understanding the core problem. He is riding the wave of populist sentiments of being against the corrupt politicians of this country.

The intellectually bankrupt urban middle class, which has no inkling of critical thought, is more than ready to jump on the bandwagon of Imran Khan. Why? Because they can't see beyond IK's perceived integrity and charisma (which he has plenty of) that comes from being a celebrity who delivered beyond what was hoped for by being one of the brightest stars of cricket and subsequently his philanthropic mission of building a cancer hospital. So he hasn't disappointed them as yet, as far as they can tell.

So what is the problem here?

The problem is the establishment and the system that cultivates the establishment. The establishment stands for the status quo. The politicians come and go, they are a disposable lot, sure they are corrupt and get away with their corruption, but that's all part of the cost of doing business for the establishment.

For real change, someone has to stand up against the establishment and the system. And doing that is the challenge. IK is not anti-establishment, he is anti-politicians. Which will get him the following that he needs, like Musharraf was popular because he promised that he would rid us of the Bhuttos and the Sharifs. Look where he ended up. The establishment and the system got them all back into business.

And that is why I have not signed up for the revolution. I shall wait for Zarquon's second coming.

Interview with a Security Guru

With the ongoing security situation in Pakistan, especially with the military, yours truly decided to conduct an in depth interview with a very senior security consultant codename USE. For reasons of security (what else?) his name will not be disclosed, suffice to say that he is a very senior military officer, expert in everything (like all of us), and most of all matters of national and internal security.

Me: Hello sir!
USE: At ease, bloody civilian.

Me: Thank you sir. Can you please shed some light on the recurring breaches of security and sovereignty that are happening?
USE: What rubbish! There has never been a breach, ever.

Me: Sir, you said the same thing when the GHQ was attacked two years ago....
USE: It has come to light that it was a joint jooish/raw/indian saazish, and nothing really happened, just like the OBL thing that happened in Abottabad was a figment of imagination. There was no OBL, no blackhawk, no house, no nothing.

Me: How do you know that?
USE: General Aslam Beg told me.

Me: Oh ok! What about the attack on PNS Mehran?
USE: What attack? Thats just some Hindus lighting up firecrackers on Sharae Faisal.

Me: There are still some Hindus left in Pakistan? Isn't that a security breach in itself?
USE: No, they are actually Muslims pretending to be Hindus, pretending to be Taliban. Mr. Zaid Hamid told me.

Me: So the Taliban are Indian agents, pretending to be Muslim, when they are actually Muslims pretending to be Hindus, but terrorists can't be Muslims, so what is the real story?
USE: Raymond Davis.

Me: Raymond Davis?
USE: Yes, he was the handler of the make-believe OBL who was NOT hiding in Abottabad.

Me: OK. So what is the strategy to deal with this?
USE: Stop the drone strikes.

Me: How will that help?
USE: It will create strategic depth in Afghanistan, so when the Americans leave, since that is the only reason the OBL make-believe operation was done, we will use them to conquer the world. And protect our strategic assets.

Me: What good are the strategic assets when we can't even stop the Indian Agents who are pretending to be Taliban and Baloch separatists?
USE: We couldn't have spent all that money on stupid things like education and health and all that rubbish. So at least we have something to show for it.

Me: What's the endgame?
USE: To get more money. Quote Clinton "Its the economy, stupid." When the COAS said we will sacrifice prosperity for honour, he meant prosperity for the poor people.

Me: Sir I don't understand any of this.
USE: You are a bloody civilian, how can you?

Me: Do we really have strategic assets?
USE: No, we are working with the Americans on using HAARP. Dr. Atta told me.

Me: I am totally confused now.
USE: Let me sum it up for you. The Hindus/Joos want to take over our strategic assets, so that we are powerless.

Me: But we are powerless now, the drone strikes, the OBL operation, the Hindus attacking our military, how much more powerless can we get?
USE: None of those things happened.

Me: Even the drone strikes?
USE: They must be stopped. Imran Khan told me. Once they are stopped, PTI will hold jirgas everywhere and that will solve all our problems.

Me: But I thought you said none of this is really happening.
USE: It isn't.

Me: Thank you sir, it was a very illuminating experience.
USE: Thank you

The question

From a concluding post on a forum following the murder of Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab for supporting a victim of the infamous blasphemy law of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan....

I find it very interesting that nobody can give a simple answer to a pretty straightforward question.

Let me restate the question

If a believer in a certain god is asked by his/her god to do something which may be illegal/immoral by the believer's standards, can the believer argue that command?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Since the premise of the question is that the person is a believer in that particular god, and the legality and morality is determined by the god, anything the god commands becomes legal and moral. (Nixon anyone?)

When Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son on a mountaintop by Yahweh (please insert god of choice), there was no question of this command being illegal or immoral. The only question was whether Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to his god or not. As Abraham led his son up the mountain (Ishmael or Isaac depending on which holy book you subscribe to), there was no question in Abraham's mind as to what he was going to do when he got there. I am pretty sure that the faithful do not rejoice in the big switcheroo, they celebrate Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.

Which brings me to the real problem here. There is no freedom to disagree in faith, because that is what it is by definition, a belief not based in logic or rationality but mere dogma.

How does one differentiate between the ranting of a delusional man who thinks he has been ordered by god to kill someone and another follower of the same god who thinks they have been ordered not to kill anyone?

Both positions are faith based, and non-arguable.

If the faithful find it impossible to even argue a hypothetical question about their god issuing an illegal command, I feel it is improbable they will ever actually question a belief however misplaced or deluded it may be.

So, I am not surprised when one of the faithful performs an extra-judicial murder, since by our own admission, the judicial powers do not exist here, they emanate from above.

The Panacea

Its been a while, but I am back.

So when we thought things couldn't get worse, they just did and it seems that there is no light at the end of the tunnel (It was announced by WAPDA that because of the power shortfall, the light at the end of the tunnel was switched off).

If there is one thing that all of us agree with, it is that this country is in trouble. Different schools of thought ascribe this to different reasons and offer solutions based on their particular understanding of social sciences and human interaction.

Lets make a list of whats wrong with us, I imagine the list (in no particular order) would look like the following

1. Rampant corruption
2. Minimal literacy
3. Deteriorating economy
4. Large foreign debt
5. Political instability

And the list goes on and on. You may notice that I have left one thing out, which is lawlessness, but that was done on purpose since I feel that may be the root cause for most of these maladies. When it comes to law, I think the following holds true

1. We don't understand what law is beyond a superficial perception and that is fine.
2. People in general don't trust the law enforcement agencies and the justice system. Justice is dependent on who you are and who you know.
3. Breaking the law is a sign of stature, the higher you are in society, the more laws you break.

So keeping all of this in mind, how do we go about finding a solution and fixing things?

First of all, it will not be easy fixing this mess, it will be a long hard struggle. There is no silver bullet to bite here, despite what the religious/political fanatics tell you. I think that if we are lucky, and if we do things right, we may see a positive change in twenty five years or so. Also it needs to be a simple solution which is doable. The fantastic dreams of Utopia are conditional upon impossible things which will never happen, so my solution is simple and doable, since it is not an abstract idea. It is not easy either, but I feel it can be done and there are examples of it even in a chaotic society like ours.

I assert that if we can enforce the basic laws of human interaction and societal living, the bigger problems will diminish with time. Every time we step out of our homes, there is a basic code that we have all agreed upon and laws that have been written down, and its these rules and laws that must be implemented with force. Nothing too complicated, things as simple as not throwing trash in the streets, obeying traffic rules, respecting all life forms, etc.

And there it is. The Broken Windows Theory supports this solution which states that if you solve the simple problems, there will not be many bigger problems to deal with or at least that is my interpretation of it.

That is my solution to our problem, to maybe wish for a better place that our children will grow up in, not this chaotic anarchy that is getting worse by the day.

Oppression or submission?

The French are mulling over whether they can pass a law making it illegal for a woman to wear a burqa.

The Muslims will say that this is something that the women are doing without being forced to do so, as an act of submission to their god.

My question is, when the Hindu women were throwing themselves on the funeral pyres of their husbands, they were also doing it without being forced to, weren't they?

Which will result in the obvious question whether voluntarily burning one's self to death is the same as wearing a burqa.

The answer is yes, when it comes to following religious or cultural edicts, without any logical reason, they both fall into the same category. So if society can legislate to outlaw women burning themselves to death, can they also be allowed to stop this seemingly harmless code of dress?

The Tree

Is still there :-)

More questions

The apologists for Islam say that although certain things are allowed by shariah, they are not enforced any more, things like cutting off hands, stoning, polygamy, etc. So although it is legal, it is not morally or socially acceptable. Which brings me to the question, if religion is not giving the guidelines to morality, what is it good for anyway?

Please note this is different from the Taliban and other friends, who want to implement the shariah in the spirit and letter.

What side are you on?