Why do we fear Secularism?

[vsdoc]

The historic flaw is its belief, at some gut level, that India is a secular country because the minorities want secularism. Indian Muslims do have a vested interest in secularism, since it ensures equality and democratic power, but that is less than half the story.

In 1947, a politicized Indian Muslim elite partitioned India to create Pakistan. Over the last six decades Pakistan has been unable to live with fellow-Muslims who happened to be Bengalis, driving them into a separate nation; marginalized minorities and turned the country into the Islamic Republic of Bloodistan.

The obverse does not work in India, however much Rama Sene-style zealots might salivate at the prospect. The reason is quite simple. India is a secular country because Indian Hindus, who constitute the majority, and therefore have a proportional impact upon the political ethos, have created and defended a Constitution that is a remarkable triumph of reason over the temptations of sectarian passion.

India is secular not because Muslims need it, but because Hindus want it.

There is nothing new about it. The Hindu Mahasabha did not win a single Hindu seat in 1937, even in an age of separate electorates, and did not do much better in 1946 despite the fact that Muslim League swept the Muslim seats in an environment darkened by raging communal storms.

While reactionary politics might persist among some ethnic groups, it is becoming malodorous to the young. Religion remains an important aspect of Indian life; the Hindu young celebrate Durga Puja, Holi and Diwali with as much joy as their elders. But their faith, regrettable exceptions apart, is socially inclusive, not aggressively exclusive.

- Excerpts from an excellent article by a highly respected journalist, writer, and thinker, who has seen the growth and evolution of a secular India.

He also happens to be an Indian muslim.

His name is MJ Akbar, and I salute him. India salutes him.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vsdoc]

Why does Pakistan need to be secular should be the actual question that should be addressed by the Pakistanis.

Its not as if there is a pressing need to do something that is not and has never been part of your national culture since you parted ways with us.

The non-muslim minorities you started off with in 1947, over 63 years seem to have dwindled to the point of insignificance in terms of population percentage.

So what is this new found clarion call for secularism brothers? Or is it in some form a pan-nation atonement for something you cannot really take back now in terms of the wheels of time? A monument to a lost cause? Symbolism at best?

Whenever these secularism discussions start on this forum, the Pakistani defense is so boringly predictable that it goes beyond mere rhetoric into the realm of a pre-programmed limbic response.

You will sift through 63 years of Indian history, to pick out sporadic (and regrettable and universally condemnable) incidents of hindu muslim violence, and throw the number of muslims killed into our faces as if you own them and we have killed someone who are not as much our own as the equal number of hindus killed in such communal violence.

You will not obviously take into account the overwhelming majority days of peace and prosperity otherwise enjoyed by both these communities together in our country, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, as they build our country together.

You will also equally selectively hypermetropic (the opposite of myopic) in your vision, choose not to see the alternative ideology playing out in your own country these same past 63 years.

The genocide of Pakistani muslims by Pakistani muslims in East Pakistan that led to the murder and rape of thousands upon thousands of muslim Pakistanis by muslim Pakistanis is there trying to push through your collective conscience as a nation, but is suppressed and rationalised away by the age old crutch of devious hindu Indian interference and instigation, not willing to accept at the end of it all that it was your people who killed and raped your own, whatever the extraneous opportunistic circumstances may have been.

You will equally choose not to see the thousands of Pakistani muslims killed over the past 63 years in sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shias within the boundaries of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Giving these clashes the less ominous terminology of "unrest", as if that were any consolation to the families the dead left behind.

You will choose to keep harping on the few hundred muslims killed by hindus in Gujarat or Mumbai in 63 years of our history as a secular nation, but you will not see or own up to the fact that more than 5000 (please correct me about the numbers if I am wrong) Pakistanis have perished in the violence that grips the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in this last ONE YEAR alone.

A violence and blood letting that goes on between the muslims of Pakistan, cause lets face it, the minorities don't really count and are scared shitless about coming into prominence for fear of what happened to your Ahmadis recently.

So my Pakistani brothers .... forget about why or not you are scared about Secularism. its not really important anymore in Pakistan's scheme of things.

Ask yourselves whether you need to be truly scared about another mutated radical and cannabalistic form of "ism" instead.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Magnificent post...an illiterate population is NOT a true democracy even if the elections are held fair and square regularly.
The right to vote means the voter has to have the ability to analyze the issues...an illiterate population is like sheep.

i beg to differ!
ILLITERACY IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH STUPIDITY.
Even a person who is unable to read and write, can be clear about what he/she likes and what may be good for him/her within the requirements of his/her life.
Illiterate people may not have what we consider to be a 'world-view' etc. But does it matter? In a democracy, the voter (literate or illiterate) is only called upon to select a person to represent him/her in the appropriate forum. It has nothing to do with the voter's understanding of Aristotle's philosophy.
Conversely, LITERACY IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH WISDOM!
We don't have to go very far, this forum is replete with 'educated opinions' which are close to being perfectly asinine!
This is not to say that the Democracy we are talking about has no space for improvement or evolution.

 

[vsdoc]

While my Pakistani brothers read and digest my post above, more as a corollary to the above than an afterthought, I have a very simple and direct question to the pakistanis here, and I would appreciate equally direct replies:

We both got independence and nationhood together.

We went Secular Democratic, you went Islamic Republic.

We both have roughly the same muslim population as well.

Now my question is:

How many cases of Muslim on Muslim violence/unrest have you heard of in India, how many deaths?

Wondered why?

So did you guys really make (or were led to make) the right decision in 1947?

Food for thought ......

Cheers, Doc

 

[Xeeshan]

^^We didn't go Islamic Republic, we labeled it as such. Yes, of course, to gain sympathies of 77% illiterate population.

 

[niaz]

No denying that with the break up of Quaid’s Pakistan, Two Nation Theory is dead.

No one fears secularism. Nevertheless the fact remains that Pakistan was created for the Muslims of the subcontinent thus she should remain a Muslim state.

Pakistan was never meant to be an Islam Emirate or a Theocratic State run by the mullahs on the model of Iran. I am dead against a Saudi or Iranian style sate where you have religious police going around checking if people are observing Islamic Laws or that your promotion depends upon whether you offer regular prayers or not as happened during the time of the bigot Zia. Dislike of this by Pakistanis is reflected thru dismal showing of the religious parties in the general elections.

At the same time Pakistani public would want some decency in the society to remain. For example no one would want it to be legal for unmarried boy and girl to openly live together or homosexual marriage allowed.

As long as all citizens of Pakistan are treated equally under the law and by the state apparatus; promotions are only merit based and all minorities are “Free” to practice their religion; Pakistan will become the state that her founding fathers wanted it to be.

In my view forced imposition of Islamic Laws has actually increased crime not reduced it? Public flogging of the Zia did nothing more than exhibit barbarism and savagery of the bigots, it did not reduce crime. Neither did the Huddood Laws reduce the incidence of rape or fornication.

IMO essence of Islam; first and foremost being” Adl” or justice is missing from Pakistan of today. Forced Islamization made the society worse; forced Secularism is not going to make the society better.

Majority of the population in what is Pakistan today was converted thru personal example of the Sufis. What Pakistan needs is not secularism but inculcation of tolerance and sense of justice in the society. I remember the time when people respected honesty and honor, not just money as it is today. We need to change our inner self but not thru laws. Tell me did all those anti terrorism laws created during Nawaz’s second term reduce terrorism?

I quote two couplets of Iqbal.

Main sar be sajda hua kabhi to zamein se aney lagey sadaa,
Tera dil to hai sanam ashna tujha kiya miley ga namaz mein.

Masjid to bannadi shab bhar mein eeman ki harart walon nein
Mann apna purana papi hai, sadyon mein namazi ban na saka.

I am therefore for abolishing Blasphemy laws, Huddood Ordinace and Shariat Courts, but not in favour of turning Pakistan into a secular state. If this makes me old fashioned and conservative, so what?

 

[Joe Shearer]

No denying that with the break up of Quaid’s Pakistan, Two Nation Theory is dead.

No one fears secularism. Nevertheless the fact remains that Pakistan was created for the Muslims of the subcontinent thus she should remain a Muslim state.

Pakistan was never meant to be an Islam Emirate or a Theocratic State run by the mullahs on the model of Iran. I am dead against a Saudi or Iranian style sate where you have religious police going around checking if people are observing Islamic Laws or that your promotion depends upon whether you offer regular prayers or not as happened during the time of the bigot Zia. Dislike of this by Pakistanis is reflected thru dismal showing of the religious parties in the general elections.

Dear Sir,

Bang on target.

At the same time Pakistani public would want some decency in the society to remain. For example no one would want it to be legal for unmarried boy and girl to openly live together or homosexual marriage allowed.

That's not the point. The point is not to make this illegal. How does it bother anyone what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes?

As long as all citizens of Pakistan are treated equally under the law and by the state apparatus; promotions are only merit based and all minorities are “Free” to practice their religion; Pakistan will become the state that her founding fathers wanted it to be.

In my view forced imposition of Islamic Laws has actually increased crime not reduced it? Public flogging of the Zia did nothing more than exhibit barbarism and savagery of the bigots, it did not reduce crime. Neither did the Huddood Laws reduce the incidence of rape or fornication.

IMO essence of Islam; first and foremost being” Adl” or justice is missing from Pakistan of today. Forced Islamization made the society worse; forced Secularism is not going to make the society better.

Majority of the population in what is Pakistan today was converted thru personal example of the Sufis. What Pakistan needs is not secularism but inculcation of tolerance and sense of justice in the society. I remember the time when people respected honesty and honor, not just money as it is today. We need to change our inner self but not thru laws. Tell me did all those anti terrorism laws created during Nawaz’s second term reduce terrorism?

I quote two couplets of Iqbal.

Main sar be sajda hua kabhi to zamein se aney lagey sadaa,
Tera dil to hai sanam ashna tujha kiya miley ga namaz mein.

Masjid to bannadi shab bhar mein eeman ki harart walon nein
Mann apna purana papi hai, sadyon mein namazi ban na saka.

I am therefore for abolishing Blasphemy laws, Huddood Ordinace and Shariat Courts, but not in favour of turning Pakistan into a secular state. If this makes me old fashioned and conservative, so what?

This is confusing. As far as I can make out, what you have said in your last paragraph above is all that MAJ would have liked to have seen.

What is this bugbear of secularism that has been built up? A simulation of the worst aspects of American or West European society, leaving out the better aspects?

No, it is what you have defined. It seems like a very reasonable programme to me. But Pakistanis must judge.

There are only two other points that I think that a Pakistani liberal might want to add to your programme.


Sincerely,

'Joe S.'

 

[Joe Shearer]

True, if I'm not mistaken, till the run up to provincial election circa '46. Around that time he was able to reach to Muslim-in-the-street. The rise of Muslim votes, from 4.8%, circa '37 to 76%, circa '46, stand testimony to that.


I am not fundamentally in any disagreement with this interpretation, because it coincides with my own assessment.


This is where I differ. ML campaign during the provincial elections of '46 was entirely communal in classical sense, and was never about 'reservation'. (I see no point in quoting those hateful slogans etc.) 'Everyone knew that Islam was never in danger' is a giant leap of faith, not substantiated by any evidence. In fact it goes against recorded history.

Dear Morlock,

A good effort but not good enough. 'Close, but no cigar.' I do wish you would while away our idle hours with a bit of recorded history; should make a welcome change from the skull-screaming boredom of double-entry accounting. Since you don't want to drag this elevating discussion down to the level of recorded evidence, no doubt because I started expressing opinions and let everybody off the hook, I suppose we must continue in this vein. Allow me an excursion into an eye-witness account:

I am 80 and saw Pakistan coming into being. Though Islam was used extensively in uniting the Muslims of the sub-continent and to expound the Two Nation Theory yet, nowhere did I witness any kind of religiosity in the party and public meetings of All India Muslim League during the entire Pakistan movement. Not a single meeting – party or public – ever started with what to talk of recitation from holy Qura’n followed by a Na’at or Hamd even with the Bismillah ar Rahman ur Rahim. At the most a poem of Hali, Hasrat Mohani or Iqbal appropriate to the occasion was recited to start the proceedings.

The reader is requested not to misconstrue it as something anti-Islam. It was just not the practice then. Islam was in the hearts and not on the lips. May I, therefore, ask those who say now and say it emphatically too that Pakistan was created for Islam, was Islam in any kind of danger in the united India and Pakistan had to be created to save it? If it were so then why did the religious parties and almost all the ulema and mushaikh oppose its creation? A very important question arises here. Did an accomplished and astute politician like Jinnah not know the power of the pulpit? Could he not measure the damage they could cause and were actually doing to the League’s political efforts by alienating them? Why did he not, therefore, try to draw them into the ambit of his political struggle? The answer that comes to my mind is simply because he knew that once the clerics were given some space in a political arena, how so ever small it may be, they would expand it to its entirety. Once religion, more so Islam, is mentioned in any context no one would dare say even a word remotely at variance with it.

An extract from
By Col Riaz Jafri (in The Paktribune)
reprinted in PakTeaHouse.

NB: Emphasis added by me. 'JS'

The entire original extract is powerful and deeply evocative; I recommend that both Pakistani and Indian readers take a look at it. You, too, Morlock.

Sincerely,

 

[EgO Boy]

Why do we fear Secularism, COZ ITS A WASTE OF TIME, FOR ME SHARIA IS THEEEEE ONLY SYSTEM, IF IMPLIMENTED IN TRUE LETTER AND SPIRIT.

 

[T-Faz]

Why does Pakistan need to be secular should be the actual question that should be addressed by the Pakistanis.

Well we are debating just that in a number of thread running simultaneously so that suggestion is pointless as what is adviced is already occuring and in a profused manner.

Its not as if there is a pressing need to do something that is not and has never been part of your national culture since you parted ways with us.

It has been a part of our nature ever since our leader proclaimed for it to be that way, we parted ways for our own good and that to say in the least has been proven by what has occured in your country.

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Why do Indian Muslims lag behind?

The non-muslim minorities you started off with in 1947, over 63 years seem to have dwindled to the point of insignificance in terms of population percentage.

Uninformed and typical thought that is prevalent in India, our minority percentage may have decreased but the amount has actually increased. I have repeated this many times and I will use it again.

We use the first census carried out in 1950/1 to determine the decrease or increase of minorities in WEST PAKISTAN alone, Indian media uses 1947 indicators to distort the truth to show a Pakistan where minorities are decreasing which is incorrect. Lets leave Bangladesh out and concentrate on the statistics of west Pakistan. I will use hindus as an example who have increased over time.

Now lets answer your question, 1947 stats cannot be used becuase of mass migration of hindus towars india. Lets use 1950 for a better comparison shall we as it was when the migration and internal deisplacemt was over. There were 39,448,232 people in Pakistan and a total of 6.54 milllion hindus, of which 5.4 million left for India.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/akhwaja/papers/The%20Big%20March%20December%202005.pdf

Now Pakistan was left with 1.1 million from whom half were unfortunately killed from Muslims who heard of killing in India of other Muslims.

So by that account 500,000 hindus were left and today they are higher than 4 million, percentage does not matter becuase muslim population boomed and there were alot of immigrants who entered Pakistan.

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Islamic Revelution Against Terrorism: Did Hindu Population Decrease to 3% in Pakistan?

So what is this new found clarion call for secularism brothers? Or is it in some form a pan-nation atonement for something you cannot really take back now in terms of the wheels of time? A monument to a lost cause? Symbolism at best?

We just want to revert back to what our country was meant to be. Your penchant for veiled insults are very annoying, guess it runs in the country.

Whenever these secularism discussions start on this forum, the Pakistani defense is so boringly predictable that it goes beyond mere rhetoric into the realm of a pre-programmed limbic response.

You will sift through 63 years of Indian history, to pick out sporadic (and regrettable and universally condemnable) incidents of hindu muslim violence, and throw the number of muslims killed into our faces as if you own them and we have killed someone who are not as much our own as the equal number of hindus killed in such communal violence.

The number killed is far too big to be ignored and the incidents far too brutal to be forgotten. Refer to the BBC article I have provided a link to earlier to understand our point of view.

You will not obviously take into account the overwhelming majority days of peace and prosperity otherwise enjoyed by both these communities together in our country, side by side, shoulder to shoulder, as they build our country together.

You will also equally selectively hypermetropic (the opposite of myopic) in your vision, choose not to see the alternative ideology playing out in your own country these same past 63 years.

The genocide of Pakistani muslims by Pakistani muslims in East Pakistan that led to the murder and rape of thousands upon thousands of muslim Pakistanis by muslim Pakistanis is there trying to push through your collective conscience as a nation, but is suppressed and rationalised away by the age old crutch of devious hindu Indian interference and instigation, to willing to accept at the end of it all that it was your people who killed and raped your own, whatever the extraneous opportunistic circumstances may have been.

Another pathetic attempt, guess you overlook the murder and rape that has occured repeatedly and continues to this day in Kashmir and in other parts of your country.

You will equally choose not to see the thousands of Pakistani muslims killed over the past 63 years in sectarian violence between the Sunnis and the Shias within the boundaries of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Giving these clashes the less ominous terminology of "unrest", as if that were any consolation to the families the dead left behind.

.......................................................

Just stop your inane ranting. I am glad we have our own country and we do not need such insulting advice.

 

[toxic_pus]

Since you don't want to drag this elevating discussion down to the level of recorded evidence, no doubt because I started expressing opinions and let everybody off the hook, I suppose we must continue in this vein. Allow me an excursion into an eye-witness account:

I am 80 and saw Pakistan coming into being. Though Islam was used extensively in uniting the Muslims of the sub-continent and to expound the Two Nation Theory yet, nowhere did I witness any kind of religiosity in the party and public meetings of All India Muslim League during the entire Pakistan movement. Not a single meeting – party or public – ever started with what to talk of recitation from holy Qura’n followed by a Na’at or Hamd even with the Bismillah ar Rahman ur Rahim. At the most a poem of Hali, Hasrat Mohani or Iqbal appropriate to the occasion was recited to start the proceedings.

The reader is requested not to misconstrue it as something anti-Islam. It was just not the practice then. Islam was in the hearts and not on the lips. May I, therefore, ask those who say now and say it emphatically too that Pakistan was created for Islam, was Islam in any kind of danger in the united India and Pakistan had to be created to save it? If it were so then why did the religious parties and almost all the ulema and mushaikh oppose its creation? A very important question arises here. Did an accomplished and astute politician like Jinnah not know the power of the pulpit? Could he not measure the damage they could cause and were actually doing to the League’s political efforts by alienating them? Why did he not, therefore, try to draw them into the ambit of his political struggle? The answer that comes to my mind is simply because he knew that once the clerics were given some space in a political arena, how so ever small it may be, they would expand it to its entirety. Once religion, more so Islam, is mentioned in any context no one would dare say even a word remotely at variance with it.

An extract from
By Col Riaz Jafri (in The Paktribune)
reprinted in PakTeaHouse.

NB: Emphasis added by me. 'JS'

The entire original extract is powerful and deeply evocative; I recommend that both Pakistani and Indian readers take a look at it. You, too, Morlock.

Frankly, Joe, I can't quite figure out what you are getting at. Are you now trying to deny that ML's election campaign of 1946 was communal or are you just trying to deflect?

Anyway. Allow me a trek into a few more eyewitness accounts.

'The League, an old organization, was resurrected in 1937 after the Congress party, with its mass-support technique, had swept the first popular provincial elections. For three years it grew slowly, broadening its base and capitalizing on every instance in which a Hindu member of a Congress provincial ministry could be charged with discrimination against Muslims. Then, in 1940, the League adopted as a creed the idea of a separate Muslim homeland to be carved out of India. “To be ruled by Hindus is death for Muslims,” its propaganda said. From then on the old war cry, “Islam in Danger,” worked its ferment. The League apparently penetrated urban Muslim classes and even to some degree the villages. This spring I return to India to find that the cry for Pakistan has become a Muslim article of faith.'​

- Excerpt from a letter by Philip Talbot, dated 27 May, 1946; Shimla; from 'An American Witness to India’s Partition'
(In case you are wondering, Philip Talbot is the American)

'We fielded 16 candidates against the Central League nominees in the elections held on January 21, 1946. The reactionaries used religion against us. People were told that if G.M. Syed and his colleagues succeeded, Islam would be in jeopardy. We were called Hindu agents.'​

- G.M.Syed (referring to Sindh elections in 1946) The Caseof Sindh - G.M. Syed’s deposition in court (Part 3)

'Now that the League was expanding its organization into the countryside, it was able to exploit the religious appeal of Pakistan effectively, and its propaganda was based on the identification of Pakistan with Islam. For example, Firoz Khan Noon openly preached that a vote cast for the League was a vote in favour of the Prophet. Omar Ali Siddiqi, leader of the Aligarh Election Delegation to the Punjab declared that 'the battle of the Karbala is going to be fought again in this land of the five rivers.' A poster issued in Urdu over the signature of Raja Khair Mehdi Khan, the League candidate in Jhelum district, asked Muslims to choose between 'Din' and 'Dunya'; in the 'battle of righteousness and falsehood.''​

- Anita Inder Singh; 'The Origins of The Partition of India 1936-1947'; pg 133 [In the notes, 'Glancy to Wavell', 27 December 1945, has been mentioned as source of those examples].

As with the good Colonel's 'eyewitness account', I will definitely read it.

 

[niaz]

Dear Sir,

Bang on target.



That's not the point. The point is not to make this illegal. How does it bother anyone what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their homes?



This is confusing. As far as I can make out, what you have said in your last paragraph above is all that MAJ would have liked to have seen.

What is this bugbear of secularism that has been built up? A simulation of the worst aspects of American or West European society, leaving out the better aspects?

No, it is what you have defined. It seems like a very reasonable programme to me. But Pakistanis must judge.

There are only two other points that I think that a Pakistani liberal might want to add to your programme.


Sincerely,

'Joe S.'

Honorable Joe Shearer,

It is correct what two people do in private is no concern of others. However, young people are quite impressionable. Unmarried couple living together openly would set a bad example for other young people to follow. I live in London and I know what too much freedom can lead to. I am old fashioned and do believe that such things are against our culture. Therefore keeping it illegal would be a deterrent to errant behavior.

Secularism in Pakistan implies godlessness. This is mostly certainly not true but this is what the masses think whenever secularism is mentioned.

The couplets quoted by Iqbal translate as:

1. Whenever I kneel down in prayer, a voice comes from the earth saying that your heart is still pagan, you wouldn’t get much benefit from praying.
2. Even though masses with apparently strong faith managed to build the mosque in a single night; the inner self being an old sinner couldn’t become pious despite trying for centuries.

With the onset of Zia, hypocrisy became the norm. Any one who is rich is considered respectable. People would outwardly pray 5 times a day and fast 30 days during Ramadan but think nothing of taking huge bribes or using illegal means such as drug running or smuggling to make loads of money.

I tried to convey that what is really needed is for the society to reform from within thru tolerance, honesty and implementing social justice. Declaring Pakistan a secular state won’t make this happen.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Mr. Niaz,

Let me take your points in a different order from the order in which you have printed them. I propose to answer your first point last, the others as they occur.

Honorable Joe Shearer,

It is correct what two people do in private is no concern of others. However, young people are quite impressionable. Unmarried couple living together openly would set a bad example for other young people to follow. I live in London and I know what too much freedom can lead to. I am old fashioned and do believe that such things are against our culture. Therefore keeping it illegal would be a deterrent to errant behavior.

I will respond to this last, as it has the most sensitive content.

Secularism in Pakistan implies godlessness. This is mostly certainly not true but this is what the masses think whenever secularism is mentioned.

Most heartily concur. If the word causes problems which are misleading, it is best to avoid it and use substitutes. Of course, if I may put my tongue in my cheek for a moment, finding that substitute may not be trivial!!

The couplets quoted by Iqbal translate as:

1. Whenever I kneel down in prayer, a voice comes from the earth saying that your heart is still pagan, you wouldn’t get much benefit from praying.
2. Even though masses with apparently strong faith managed to build the mosque in a single night; the inner self being an old sinner couldn’t become pious despite trying for centuries.

A message, to me, to be an honest agnostic, rather than be a hypocritical observant.

With the onset of Zia, hypocrisy became the norm. Any one who is rich is considered respectable. People would outwardly pray 5 times a day and fast 30 days during Ramadan but think nothing of taking huge bribes or using illegal means such as drug running or smuggling to make loads of money.

I tried to convey that what is really needed is for the society to reform from within thru tolerance, honesty and implementing social justice. Declaring Pakistan a secular state won’t make this happen.

I quite agree that internal reform is needed. As you understand, this is an individual effort, an effort at improving and raising one's ethical standards, and the introspection involved may often be painful. It is a struggle of some magnitude. Some of my learned friends have said that this has been described by a prophet of God as the greater struggle, the greater jihad. You may know more about it than I, you may even have been thinking on those lines. Whatever it is, it is a truly worthwhile and meaningful objective, for all, not just the observant.

Now: about your first paragraph.

While agreeing with all else of your note, as I have already observed earlier, this is one aspect where you must give me leave to differ, and to hold different views.

Regarding your observations about the need to maintain cultural norms in society. I respectfully disagree. Let me explain why.

Culture is not formed by the old and handed down to the young; it evolves. There is not a single instance of culture that has not evolved during the evolution of human society. It is therefore an artefact formed by both the young as well as the old. It cannot, once again, be the preserve of the old.

I will not discuss the implications of this in terms of Britain or of Pakistan; both might cause offence, as being the observations of an outsider.

In my country, this state of mind has led to murders and maiming; it has led conservative groups to petition the Supreme Court to legalise the restrictions placed by leaders of a community on its young people. The Supreme Court reacted with rage and indignation; the government is trying hard to meet its demands for a full report without undergoing further strictures.

The state of mind which leads to this kind of regressive behaviour shows up in its worst excess around the time of Valentine's Day. We all know that this is a commercial gimmick, and it is intended for shopkeepers and traders to make money, it is by no means meaningful to either Indian or any other kind of South Asian, other than some Christian communities, perhaps, who might take this seriously on account of the association of a saint with the day's proceedings. That does not mean that we should take the law into our hands.

What happens is pitiful and pathetic. Gangs of people go through parks and public places and humiliate, rough up and do worse to young people found there. Last year, a brother and sister walking across a field were accosted by these cultural policemen and humiliated. Shops are stoned, damage done and injuries caused.

In a particular state, roughs barged into a restaurant which served liquor, dragged out the young women there, and assaulted and jeered them. This was captured live on TV because the gangsters had warned the TV people of the incident in advance, and ensured due publicity. Subsequently, in the capital of that state, similar incidents broke out. My daughter and her friends were heckled and threatened when emerging from a restaurant.

I regret to inform you that your views are shared by a brutal set of religious bigots in India. The restaurant incidents were the handiwork of a group expelled by even the BJP for being too extreme. Murders and honour killings have increased, as the influence of caste panchayats have increased.

For these reasons, because of the attempt to impose the views of a section of people on others through intimidation, violence and outright murder, i regret that i am unable to share your outlook. It is not for the elders to decide who their young people should get to know, and what shape and direction those meetings should take. It is culturally impossible to fend off, comparable to Canute bidding the waves to retreat, and legally preposterous. Once I have inculcated my value system in my daughter, through actual example and through advice, I then have to let her decide for herself, after she is of mature years. And part of my job as parent was to ensure that she was mature enough to take responsible decisions once she was of age, and was not brought up to think that the men in the family knew best or even that the elders knew more than she did. As a result, she consults us - frequently - and uses our inputs and views judiciously in making up her own mind. That is all that i could wish for as a parent, and any attempt at legislating her obedience to my cultural rules would be obnoxious; even less acceptable would be the possibility of her having to observe the cultural norms laid down by a politician.

Given a choice between my daughter's judgement and any politician, for that matter, any priest that you care to name, i would back my daughter's good sense and values.

I say this with absolutely no lack of respect for your own apparently very different views on the matter.

Sincerely,

 

[Joe Shearer]

Dear Sir,

What does it look like?

Frankly, Joe, I can't quite figure out what you are getting at. Are you now trying to deny that ML's election campaign of 1946 was non-communal or are you just trying to deflect?

Incidentally, based on your righteous anger, or strong indignation, or some other deep emotion, you have achieved what i think is an unintended double negative above.

Grammar Nazis are never well-considered members of society. Back to the subject. Obviously, perceptions, and reports based on those perceptions, were different.

Sincerely,

 

[toxic_pus]

^^ LoL. Freudian slip?

Corrected now