An appeal to the dishonest

[Ray]

An appeal to the dishonest



By Ardeshir Cowasjee


IT can safely be said that we the citizens of the Republic of Pakistan are free to say what we like, we are free to write what we like, and the press is free to print what it chooses — we are far freer than ever before in our 59- year-old history (on this I leave myself open to correction).

Having said that, it must be added that I hope my editor will not give me the chop-chop. He justifiably claims it is his right to edit, which, whether I like it or not, I must concede.

Let us try to agree to a consensus on what vexes many of us. Firstly, what sort of a Pakistan was it that our Founder-Maker Mohammad Ali Jinnah envisaged ? Did he wish the state he was founding to be secular, modern, progressive and tolerant or a state to be ruled by mullahs with a divine mission? Can someone enlighten us, in grammatically and semantically correct language, whether it was his intention to create a secular state or a vast madressah? It must be recognised and accepted that there is no exact Urdu translation of the word ‘secular’.

In the Preamble to the 1973 Constitution, the Objectives Resolution, there is a sentence: “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their culture.”

Our Supreme Court is housed in a beautiful commodious structure designed by a man of great renown, the famous architect Kenzo Tenge. It was officially opened sometime in the early 1990s during the tenure of Chief Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah. In its vast entrance hall, on two of the walls was engraved in golden letters, in English and in Urdu, the Objectives Resolution, not the version used as the Preamble to the Constitution, but the one added by President General Ziaul Haq as the Annexe to the Constitution (PO No.14 of 1985) in which the word ‘freely’ was omitted from the sentence quoted above.

This was brought to the attention of Chief Justice Zullah, but it did not disturb the workings of his judicious mind. After him, to sit on the high chair as Chief Justice of Pakistan, came Nasim Hasan Shah whom I knew well enough to pester. He ended his agony by ordering that the letters of both versions be removed and the precious metal melted down. Which stands and the Preamble and ‘freely’ or the Annexe with that word omitted?

(It must never be forgotten that the sanctity of this Supreme Court was rudely violated when, on November 27, 1997, it was ‘stormed’ by the hoodlums of the party of the prime minister of the country, Mian Nawaz Sharif.)

Then we have the sighting of the moon on which our various high days and festivals depend. One year, in the days of President Field Marshal Ayub Khan, the high priests of the various districts of the country could not agree on whether the moon was seen or not and consequently two Eids were celebrated. The following year Ayub made sure that there was unity, that Eid would be celebrated all over the country on the same day. His generals all over the land were ordered to ‘persuade’ the local mullahs to sight the moon on the appointed evening. It worked, apart from one recalcitrant priest in Quetta who stood his ground and refused to spot the moon.

The general commanding the Division in Quetta marched the man up to the top of a hill and positioning him in the direction of the moon asked him, ‘Chand dheka?’ No, replied the man. The general wheeled him round 180 degrees and asked him ‘West Camp dehka?’ Oh, yes, said the mullah. Again he was swivelled 180 degrees and asked if the moon was visible. Quite visible, very clearly, “Dehka, dehka,” came the loud response.

Now we come to Minister Mohammad Ali Durrani, who holds a portfolio that should not exist, that is redundant, which involves a massive waste of money and manpower — the ministry of information. At one of the uncountable Iftar parties held during the past lunar month, presumably on behalf of the government of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, he informed the gathered feasters, “We will not allow anyone to criticise Pakistan, the integrity of Pakistan and the institution of the armed forces, as it is enshrined in the Constitution ...... Pakistan and the armed forces which are responsible for the protection of Pakistan are beyond criticism .... We don’t mind and we even welcome all sorts of criticism for self-improvement if someone criticises the government but our constitution does not permit any criticism against the army.”

Now, what does our Constitution say on the subject? “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court.” (Article 19)

Will Minister Durrani, if he can, kindly define the following, quoting the ‘authority’ he represents : 1) the word ‘we.’ 2) the word ‘criticise’. 3) the ‘integrity of Pakistan’. 4) the word ‘institution’. 4) What precisely is included in the ‘armed forces’ and whatever it is that is excluded. 5) The word ‘self-improvement’.

Would he also spell out, chapter and verse please, “... does not permit any criticism against the army.”

And the question we ask Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz : “How do you find these people?”

e-mail: [email protected]
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm

Cowasjee is a tongue in cheek weekly writer for DAWN.

He raises many interesting issues and always in his inimitable wit.

Here, he has raised very pertinent issues happening in Pakistan.

The subverting of the Constitution, in that the word 'freely' is willfully omited, and horror of horror, the intensely lack of integrity of the Information Mininster where he kowtows like a slave to please the military.

If this is the attitude where everyone has sold his soul and conscience to the miitary, then one wonders on what foundation and honesty the nation functions on.

[gilgamesh]

If this is the attitude where everyone has sold his soul and conscience to the miitary(dirty politics, in our case), then one wonders on what foundation and honesty the nation functions on.

Sir, honestly, are our guys any better?

[Ray]

We are a shade better.

And mostly since the military has no role in politics or dictating the fate of the Nation except when called to defend the country's sovereignty!

[Ray]

An appeal to the dishonest — II



By Ardeshir Cowasjee


THERE is absolutely no doubt that as far as freedom of the press goes we have never had it so good in 59 years as we have it today — this was further confirmed to me by the reactions to my column last week, the first of the series under the above title.

The other confirmation comes from many members of my fourth profession who are extremely miffed that, as they put it, the rulers, President General, Pervez Musharraf, and his team ‘don’t care’ about what they write or what they pontificate about on our almost uncountable private television channels. Most of the Musharraf team, graduates all, can of course read and we assume that the majority are not deaf, so we must put up with good grace with our ineffectiveness and wish the rulers good luck.

A ‘core issue’ raised was the question of what sort of ‘secular’ Pakistan it was that Founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah had in mind for his country. Reactions were again unanimous — MAJ wanted a modern, progressive, in tune with the world, state — and in particular he preached tolerance, tolerance — by all for all. Tolerance is one of the basic principles of civilization. I was reminded of what Jinnah had said not too long before he died — “In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocracy ruled by priests with a divine mission.” He could not have been more positive on this point.

My friend Irshaduddin was agitated enough on the matter of the Urdu translation of the word ‘secular’ to address me. He came to lunch, confessed that his digestive system required lubrication and while we mulled over a campari, I suggested that he formally introduce himself. “I am Nawabzada Mohammad Irshaduddin, son of Nawabzada Fariduddin, grandson of the scholar Nawab Doctor Salahuddin. I was taught by scholar Dr Amarnath Zha and his father, Dr Sir Ganganath Zha, both vice-chancellors of Allahabad University,” Enough, said I, my readers will surely take you seriously. He had previously written to me as reproduced below:

“In your weekly column of 29 October under the title ‘An appeal to the dishonest’, you have said : ‘It must be recognised and accepted that there is no exact Urdu translation of the word ‘secular.’

“Whilst one would hardly disagree with the above, I feel we should make an effort to find a word or phrase which describes ‘secular’ or ‘secularism’ in Urdu in a positive manner and conveys the sense this term bears in the English language which, as I understand, is :

1) The belief that morality or education should not be based on religion. 2) A system of social ethics independent of religion. 3) Concerned with the affairs of the world.

“The great Urdu lexicographer, Shanul Haq Haqqee (who was not unknown to you) in his Oxford English-Urdu Dictionary translated ‘secular’ as :1) Concerned with the affairs of this world — Dunyavi. 2) La Deeni. 3) Ghair mazhabi.

“1) above is quite a mouthful, 2) and 3) are negative. On reflection, you will appreciate that Dunyavi in 1) above adequately translates the term we are discussing. Now, Dunyavi has its variations, one being Dunyaee. To my mind the latter fits the bill regardless of what some lexicons say about the authenticity of this term.

“If ‘secular’ is further described as ‘belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the Church and religion, civil, lay, non-religious, non-sacred, temporal’ then again I would recommend for consideration the word Dunyaee as opposed to Deeni.

“May I suggest that you discuss the above ... with those friends on whose advice you appear to have succumbed to the above pessimistic note.

“I shall only be too delighted to call on you and discuss this whenever it suits your convenience.”

On the topic of ‘religion’, Karachi had a visit last week from the religious scholar and writer, Karen Armstrong, who spoke at length on the subject. Her speech was aptly encapsulated by one of our up and coming newspapers : “Religion is compassion, empathy, and the ability to look at situations from the other person’s point of view (do unto others as you would wish others to do to you).” This, of course, is how it should be, but in the world today it is actually quite the opposite.

Speaking to Ms Armstrong after her lecture I thanked her for having spared the first of the monotheistic prophets, Zarathustra, who lived, loved, enjoyed life and taught some seven thousand years ago (others may date him as they like). She admitted that his religion vastly predated the three major religions on which she had that day concentrated (the major causes of so much unrest).

What Zarathustra had to say on the matter of tolerance was taught at school to my generation of Zarthustis by our mullah, Shams-ul-Ulema Dastur Dr Nariman Maneckji Dhalla (PhD Columbia NY, 1909) and I quote from one of his lectures :

“Let none nurse intolerance : Intolerance and bigotry and dogmatism are the bitterest enemies of religion upon earth. They make religion a tyrant, a persecutor, a veritable deva, the demoniac perversion of angelic religion.

“The frog croaks that his well is the whole world and the bigot boasts that his is the only inspired and perfect religion. The truth and the whole truth is exclusively garnered in his religion, he avers. His religion is the crown and culmination of all religions, his religion is ordained to be the universal religion of mankind and salvation is possible only through his religion.

“All bigotry is blind and stupid and savage. Sectarian bigotry is as bad as inter-religious bigotry. Bigotry stifles reason and the bigot, in his frenzy, is out to force all to believe what he believes.

“All religions come from one and the only God, who makes himself known by many a name. From the same source, like the tributaries of a river, they flow. All religions make man equally good upon earth and with equal safety do they conduct his soul to heaven. One alone is truth and all religions teach this truth, for religion itself is truth.

“All open their hearts to the same God. All unbosom their hearts to the same God. All seek refuge in the same God. All concentrate their thoughts on the same God. All seek fellowship with the same God. All yearn to be united unto the same God. All commend their souls into the hands of the same God

“Man has no right to demand that his neighbour shall address God after his pattern and shall pray in his own way and worship according to his liking and sacrifice unto God in the manner he does.

“No thinking man’s own idea of God and religion, at all times and in all conditions of life, is ever the same. For everybody’s views on religion, then, it is not possible ever to be alike. Monotonous would our world become, if all thought equally and in the same way without ever differing in religious beliefs and practices from one another. Nature shines in her luxuriant glory because of the wide variety of her form and colour and beauty. So do there bloom and blossom in the garden of the spirit pervading mankind, foliage and flowers of all shades and grades of devotion and religious emotions.

“Teach me, my God, to see that I have no right to impose my own way of thinking upon others. Teach me to acknowledge and honour the right of all to pray and worship and sacrifice in their own way. Let me not be a purist and regard those as irreligious who regard not formalism. Keep me free from sectarian spirit, and give me strength to root out from my heart bigotry and fanatic zeal. Teach me to discern true religion from religiosity. Fill my mind and heart, Ahura Mazda, with the spirit of toleration.”

Amen.

E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm

Here is the explanation of what is 'secular' in Pakistan.

It is also interesting to note that Jinnah did not want Pakistan to go the mad mullah way that it has now gone.

And take note of the interpretation of the followers of Ahura Mazda.

[Srirangan]

Did you know Ahura's were the A(s)ura's (just as the sindhu was hindu) .. the 'fallen' cousins of the Gods .. :)