The Moral Complexities of Supporting the Armed Struggle in Kashmir

Source: Indian Express

Source: Indian Express

The mind of a modern, liberal, enlightened youth in Pakistan is boggled with the moral puzzle of the armed struggle in Kashmir. Should Pakistan stop backing the Jihad in Kashmir? Or should Pakistan provide support for the freedom movement in Kashmir? What a world of a difference do these words make.

In a world that is unforgivably anti-Jihad since 9/11, and very rightly so, backing Kashmiri Jihadi group sounds like a recipe for diplomatic suicide. This could possibly isolate Pakistan, cost valuable alliances with the West and jeopardize economic prosperity and trade partnerships in the future.

But suspending the lifeline of the Jihadi struggle in Kashmir also sounds like an unacceptable option to many, especially the Pakistani establishment. Other than their political designs, it would effectively mean that a Kashmiri would probably never be able to see the face of a military grade weapon again.

It would mean that all they would ever have to respond to the occupying force of way more than 500,000 strength military is sticks and stones. It would mean the death of the Kashmiri freedom struggle, which is somehow acknowledged as legitimate by people who condemn the Jihad in Kashmir at the same time. No other country in the world is going to come to support the supposedly peaceful Hurriyet leaders.

Which route is easier? Certainly the former. It would make Pakistan less unpopular and who knows India would grace us with a bilateral cricket series. It could improve Pakistan’s image as the state recovering from hiding Osama Ben Laden right next to its military academy. Why should a Pakistani go out of their way to help a Kashmiri anyway?

Alright, a lot of Kashmiris live in Pakistan. They are our next door neighbors, relatives by blood, friends, and colleagues. So what? Even the Pakistani Kashmiris apparently do not seem to be too bothered with what is going on across the Line of Control. Why do we need to replicate the misery of the Indian Kashmiris in our lives?

However, with every mutilated unarmed Kashmiri teenager, and every raped Kashmiri woman and wounded mother, something stirs the conscience of a nation that is notorious for ignoring everyday atrocities within its own borders. A nation which cherishes a law that is designed to make its religious minorities suffer in constant terror. All of a sudden morality becomes much more complex than sheer self-interest. Even though it should not. It does not make any sense.

So would a Pakistani support the armed struggle in Kashmir or not?

It’s a question with a rather simple answer. Either you do or you don’t. But if you do, then it’s important to embrace the cause and defend its moral grounds. There was a time when the Pakistani state used to openly embrace it. And since when have we stopped referring to Kashmiri militants as freedom fighters? But it was a different world. Still, hanging somewhere in the middle reminds the world of the policy Pakistan has been adopting from selectively targeting Taliban factions to continuing old partnerships with the likes of Ben Laden from the days of the Afghan Jihad and pretending that we are fighting terrorism. The Americans have moved on, but our security leadership has been having a very hard time.

Of course, it is perfectly legitimate to defend the Kashmiri armed struggle on moral grounds. Are the Kashmiri Jihadi freedom fighters terrorists just because they are Islamists? Does the secular character of a freedom struggle immediately makes the cause legitimate? Surely, you cannot expect the Kashmiri freedom movement to turn secular overnight, not that it would ever have any such intention. Is targeting soldiers, even if sleeping, an act of terrorism or an act of war? Especially when the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen is not exactly very friendly to the Indian State. But then there are Mumbai attacks, Parliament attacks, Hindu Pandits. Innocent lives. What to do?

With the exception of those who committed these atrocities, our intellectuals get played at the hands of the textbook Indian diplomatic rhetoric when they declare the Kashmiri freedom fighters terrorists. They end up endorsing foreign state propaganda in an effort to avoid the local one. Though they speak the truth in their own right. Pakistan has had enough of fighting other people’s wars and lying about it. Enough of freeing Afghans from the Soviets, or restoring Saudi custody of the Ka’aba, or sending pilots to fly Syrian planes or handing over bases to the United States. All for nothing but to make our generals richer, who, let’s face it, would have grown richer anyway. But we need to build our country. Who gives a damn anymore?

How do you harness an out of control Jihadi who is raised on hate? How do you expect that they would never hurt citizens? Does this effectively mean that supporting armed resistance in Kashmir is not any different to supporting and apologizing for terrorism? And India is surely justified in believing that any country that is supporting an armed movement in its borders is its enemy. Granted, but should Kashmiris be abandoned to their conditions of a whole state turned into almost an internment camp? Simply expressing solidarity will not get them anywhere.

India does not win the diplomatic battle for Kashmir out of any moral virtues or for having a clean human rights record, but simply because of the leverage it enjoys for being a sheer heavyweight. Anyone who does not recognize India as an emerging global power is sadly mistaken. At least, it’s the strongest military presence in the Asian continent after China, and not doing too bad in terms of economy either. So why pick a fight with India when we can avoid it?

But calling a Kashmiri freedom fighter a terrorist still is a resounding slap on the face of every Kashmiri who idiotically risks his life to needlessly wave a poorly sewn, incorrect Pakistani flag on some obscure building. It’s an insult to the desperate Kashmiri who shortens his misery by exposing himself to the pellets because he has to choose between a life of humiliation and a not-so-distant inevitable death. How is a Kashmiri to fight back? Does anyone bother answering this question? Are the Naxalites not fighting back?

The biggest moral problem is that if a Pakistani would not stand up for the plight of the Kashmiri, who else in the world will? Because the fellow countrymen of Kashmiris pretty much consider them expendable second class citizens and a distant border state with delicious produce and exotic vacation destinations. Still, it is a battle that would take anyone taking this road on a tough, treacherous ride.

It only takes a hypocritical Pakistani to realize the plight and it only takes a brainwashed Jihadi to fight this fight. And well, there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. Neither our generals nor our Jihad backing secular liberals would have the gut to fight for anything, let alone Kashmir. So you can only count on Islamist fanatics. It’s just stupid.

Though as far as the right of an oppressed people’s armed struggle is concerned, it would be a betrayal of history not to recognize it. Just pray that you are not in their way. And the inherent, incurable hypocrisy of Pakistanis should not sabotage this right of the battered citizens of Kashmiris.

Let it be the humiliated Yazidis, the frustrated Palestinians, the courageous Kurds or the brutalized Balochs, it is almost insensitive to ask them to become Gandhi at the face of continual aggression. Walk up to the gas chambers in obedience. However, how they make their point tells a lot about a people. You would be judged differently when you blow up a civilian building instead of retaliating against an army camp.

Every liberty seeking individual should welcome India’s new stance to support the freedom movement in Baluchistan, even though more out of animosity with Pakistan than the love for the Baloch, and should welcome them to the club of “terrorist states” or “backers of terrorism.” Just like the United States and allies are backing the Syrian rebel army to overthrow the despotic Assad regime. Just like the British backed the Arabs to bring the Ottoman Empire down to its knees. Perhaps Pakistan’s role in Kashmir is not too odd after all.

Sometimes, you have no choice but to be a “backer of terrorists” to fight oppressive tyrants.

You get no extra bonus points for turning the other cheek anyway. All it does is get you crucified.

The post was originally published in The Nation blogs.
Advertisements

Brutality Defining Justice

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Source: Wikimedia Commons

When justice needs to be served, how much is enough?

How much should be done to undo the wrong that has been committed and to relieve the wronged?

How much should the severity of the punishment be to inflict the same degree of pain that the victim of the crime suffered?

Is an eye for an eye enough? Or do we need to go beyond that to ensure that we have perfectly balanced the pans of the scale of justice?

How much torture would suffice the necessary urge for revenge?

Well, it’s hard to answer. Because every person has different needs and standards when it comes to revenge. But you do need a close-to-objective standard to establish a state-level punishment that would satisfy a mass audience.

So what could be the most potent standard?

Thankfully, there are systems of governance in the world that have just the answer.

Be as brutal as you possibly can be.

Sadly, gone are the days of medieval torture in Europe and even the Electric Chair has been outlawed in the most conservative states in the US.

But not to worry, there is plenty of other help.

Shariah Law punishment is alive and well, and growing healthy by the day.

Perhaps not everyone is chopping off everyone’s hand, but the intent is commendable.

Saudi Arabia recently beheaded another Pakistani for smuggling heroin. Well, the bastard certainly deserved that. That ought to teach those drug dealers a lesson.

But before you cry Islamophobia, well, it’s not the only guiding principle. there are a lot of guidelines in the secular law around the world, which can be just as illuminating.

Take China’s brutal punishment of Liu Xiaobao for an example. Is speaking your mind treason? And is treason even a crime?

Or perhaps take a few examples from the civilized world?

US citizen Jonathan Pollard is still in prison for spying for Israel in the United States. Could someone explain to me what has Private Manning done to deserve, how many, 35 years in prison. Or even how the terrorist financier Afia Siddiqui could probably survive 86 years of confinement, even though she has not apparently directly killed a single man. Or maybe Shakeel Afridi’s sentence.

But then again, isn’t our Blasphemy Law a by-product of the civilized world?

Oh, but that was the British Empire. Apologies.

Forget even that. What did private property destroyer Gullu Butt actually do to deserve 11 years in prison? Seriously, I would like to know.

We are probably just a bunch of self-righteous passive-aggressive closet sadists who thrive on publicly humiliating and killing one of our own. Which sounds more like symptoms of some sort of mass moralistic psychopathy. And in order to hide that instinct of ours, we have created the label of justice. Because we are not brave enough to apologize for our dark side.

And oh, swift justice. Isn’t that what Ambassador Zafar Hilaly recently quoted on Capital TV to hint why people loved the Sufi Muhammad regime in Swat so much. But he won’t recall it now. It was in the heat of the moment.

And then there is the news and opinion media to serve this very purpose. To satisfy our insatiable appetite and lust for punishing and humiliating someone. Like these cannibals and necrophiliacs.

But why bring local politics in.

Anyway, let’s go for more recent, safer examples.

Source: Golara Sajadian/AFP/Huffington Post

Source: Golara Sajadian/AFP/Huffington Post

Take Reyhaneh Jabbari for instance.

The poor woman killed someone who was about to rape her, which actually doesn’t make her an angel, but she did it in self defense. You never know if the rapist is going to not kill you, and prevention of rape is a right after all. So violence for violence, as per the eye-for-an-eye rule, is perfectly justified.

But no, she did something so terrible. The Iranians had to hang her despite all the Western propaganda. So they did. End of story.

But then again, she committed a murder. Numerous others are publicly hanged in Iran, with their executions seen in live media broadcast. According to many of my social conservative friends, this is the best form of punishment to help deter crime.

Let’s see the other extremity too.

Unlike her, somebody like Mukhtaran Mai survived a gang rape, which by the way, was ordered by a village judicial council or jirga to address another grievance. And dozens of women like her undergo that rather weird form of punishment.

Or maybe another, which involves calling for castration for rape. Death for rape. You know, folks back in India could be as brutal and heartless as the vigilante mobs and other brutal penalizing authorities.

Well, I can’t say I hold the moral high ground here. I definitely don’t. Following the brutal murder of a young girl after her gang rape in a bus in New Delhi, I felt the same way. But I do realize, I was wrong and probably not any better than the rapists.

Maybe I am as barbaric when push comes to shove. I support shooting at violent rioters to prevent killings and damage to private property anyway. And ironically, oppose capital punishment.

But my personal hypocrisies are secondary here. I could believe in private revenge, like a million superheroes, or I may not, but it’s setting a moral example for state governance is what matters here, doesn’t it?

Having said that, I still support, as in Jabbari’s case, killing for self defense, and even in theory and in part, the apparently savage Stand Your Ground laws in the United States, despite their discriminatory application, which demands abuse reviews and possible amends. It’s not a perfect world if you are looking for justice.

There are a lot of liberal folks in Pakistan who wanted to put Mumtaz Qadri to death. Recall him? The same guy who killed Governor Taseer because of his criticism of yet another barbaric guiding principle, the Blasphemy Law.

I am one of those who are against capital punishment for Mumtaz Qadri. I even think that the blood money laws, if not coerced, are among the better parts of Islam.

But probably a lot of folks would blame people like me for the death of a British blasphemer in Rawalpindi’s Adiyala Jail after the incarcerated Mumtaz Qadri incited his murder in religious zeal. He actually believes that shit.

I’d take them seriously, but we have a lot worse problems to deal with.

Because half of people in Pakistan want the country to look like this.

And this is what the other half wants.

And Justice has been served.

Happy Halloween.

Nargis Turns Pious & Why I Support “Vulgarity”

Source: Express Tribune

Behold! O creatures of the pure, we taketh the source of thy pleasure, but to offer a lot of thanksgiving, for the Lord doth so after its bounty you have collected. Still will you not be grateful? (Land of the Pure 12:10)

So Punjabi stage dancer and actress Nargis, whose performances are considered by a good number of moralist, civilized and self-righteous Pakistanis as “vulgar”,  (not that their beliefs are any lesser)  has bid farewell to “show” business and has turned pious. She has informed the press at her residence in Lahore after reportedly returning from abroad that she is planning to become an Islamic religious scholar and has shrugged off allegations of conspiring to murder a local PML-N thug, who was allegedly harassing her. Whether her conversion was the result of the increasing Islamophobia she must have endured in the West or her repentance for the past sins, she did not clearly state.

So we are only left with Veena Malik (mainly) now it seems.

By the way, if you don’t know who Nargis is, here is a glimpse of one of her performances.

So before I mock and then justify Nargis’ born-again-piety without invitation, let me put in my own cents of morality to make you feel bad before you actually leave and close this page out of disgust. First of all, let me assure you that while I don’t really share the vulgar Punjabi wildness and the barbaric and hypocritical lust of the audiences of the Punjabi striptease or otherwise mujra, I support it wholeheartedly and would watch it unconditionally if and when provided the opportunity. I don’t mind if you consider me a vulgar, disgusting, sexist, Satanic and uncivilized male beast, but here are a few objective reasons for it.

I simply do not see what is so wrong with it. I acknowledge that while it is female objectification of the highest order, (but then again, what isn’t? (especially burka)) I also acknowledge that the actors and dancers and producers work very hard to come up with these, well let’s face it, musicals. Furthermore, I acknowledge that these important members of the society, by which I am referring to the entertainers, take home a very good chunk of pubic wealth home which they otherwise would not even have hoped to pocket in their wildest dreams other than resorting to taking the law in their very own hands. This is a great relief for many a poor kanjars in our highly pious society. May I remind Her Holiness that she owes a lot of her current assets and quality of life to this “shameful” and cringeworthy industry.

Furthermore, I believe that the mujra should remain active for as long as people want to watch it, and here I am talking about stage performances and not private mujras, the latter of which you cannot possibly ban thanks to the secret morals of our mai-baaps, or elders and superiors if you will. You know, the eugenically superior of our society, which is sadly too conscious of its deprivations and have-nots. Once found redundant in terms of market demand, the mujra would die its own death-of-a-dog in a free market economy.

Nargis in action (Source: postpk.com)

A lot of people would find this an occasion to attack Nargis for her “sins”, but I would strongly support her even still. For what choices does she have to survive in this horrifyingly religious and self-righteous society with selectively erotophobic morality but to wear the charade of piety, also known as the hijaab? What choices does she have but to assume a social role which everyone despises in private but cannot possibly condemn in public from a social role that everyone has a soft corner for in private but cannot help but insult and condemn in public? Don’t be upset at why people act this way. They are brought up to. But she, well, needs to live, breathe, procreate too.

I could tell from one of her TV interviews which I won’t be able to find that she had been feeling those pressures. But first let us talk about the morality and “vulgarity” of the Punjabi stage theater and our highly moralist commentators and administrators who are always too keen to shove their phalli down the already-congested throats of the masses. The mujra can be rejected to be of bad taste, I agree, especially since the frequent lustful references in it are bound to go down as inappropriate in a society which has based almost all its beliefs on the guilt it associates with sex. If you ever come to know how hypocritical the jeering Punjabi male youth are in this regard, you would feel even sicker.

But is there any justification to ban it? Is it synonymous with prostitution? How insulting. Apart from the racially charged political and moralist slurs from the supposedly-liberal self-exiled phoning-from-London hysteric, there has been many attempts, especially by that of the administration of our patriotic overlord, the Khadim-e-Aala of the Punjab, to ban it,  because it has been spreading “vulgarity” in an already vulgar society by any objective or subjective standards. Because anything that the majority of the population of this country does not agree with must be banned. We are a nation of banners anyway. You know, banners like off with the heads of blasphemers.

Art, and yes I will insist upon calling it an art form, is only a subtle reflection, and yes it is a very subtle one, of what the society around it is. I find a number of trends in our society far more vulgar and far more immoral than the mujra or even the much maligned Punjabi film industry for that matter. Take the religion for example, for I don’t know from where should I start. The burka, the segregation of the sexes, the forced marriages, forced child marriages, life of celibacy enforced on women via marriage with the Koran, domestic violence, acid throwing, gang rape, public humiliation, torture, murder and not sure what else that is protected by the state in one way or another. But no, no, the mujra must be the source of all the evils in the society. Dancing and stripping women, Allah tauba.

It is the age-old hypocritical trait of this culture to despise the ones who entertain them as inferior castes and kanjars, a Punjabi derogatory epithet with sexual and moralist connotations, and this trend has even been loosely prevalent in the subcontinental history, thanks to the caste system of our highly bigoted racist ancestors. Though what gives me immense pleasure is that those who claim to be from the lineage of the Prophet, or the Syeds, have been joining their ranks in the recent times. But surely they must be liars.

I am sick up to my nostrils (with gooey filth, almost exploding) with the hideous, disgusting, nauseating and hypocritical Islamic-Punjabi and Islamic-rest-of-the-civilized-Pakistan morality that I and millions others are forced to inhale every second. Though I do believe that these are characteristics which are roughly displayed by our incurably pathetic species in one form or another around the world. At times like these, I often take the pleasure of reminding this great evolutionary mistake of a species that they are nothing more than animals and nothing more they will ever be, no matter how hard they try.

While I mourn the loss of Nargis from the stage to the obscurantist and chaddor-wrapping clutches of Moralist Islam, I am proud to support what you call vulgarity and very proud to be an immoral, vulgar man.

And I am not sorry.

The Hypocrisy Must Come to an End: Education in Pakistan

While it is safe to say that the human race itself is not immune to hypocrisy in one form or another, but of course,  some lines must be drawn to maintain enough sanity which could prove that we are intelligent beings.

This is why I will never go too far in criticizing any particular people’s extent of hypocrisy. But I would take the audacity to briefly comment on certain hypocritical behavior of the society in Pakistan and elsewhere in the world, which can adversely affect the lives of the people.

Of course, no one minds the fact that Thomas Jefferson used to dislike comedy as a genre, while having Don Quixote as one of his favorite books, quoting the Millennium issue of the TIME magazine, but you would surely object to contradictions which become a hurdle to justice and to conduct with the public instead of this innocuous personal habit. In fact, contradictions occur naturally at times, but sometimes they are deliberate, and that is when they are the most malignant.

A noticeable, but rarely noted act of hypocrisy prevalent in Pakistan, as I have discussed with a couple of friends, and it is thanks to them that I am writing these lines I must say, is the occurrence of three parallel education systems in Pakistan. These systems are the English language medium based on the Cambridge system or even if we include the matriculation system in it, the Urdu language medium and the Madrassah or Traditional Islamic schooling system.

First of all, let it be clear that none of these systems are inappropriate for any reasons and that all of them hold an equal value. But the reason why they can complicate the lives of the students is that they find it hard to switch from one system or medium of education to the other, and unfortunately, when students reach the level of higher education, then they are forced to make the ultimate shift to the English language medium of study.

This may sound easy to some, but it is not to millions of children in Pakistan who study in the Urdu language medium and the Madrassah system. Since those studying in the Madrassah system are doing so due to the stubbornness of their parents, so there is not much use into going into that dimension of this discussion. However, as for the Urdu language medium education, the irony is that it is offered by a great majority of government schools, if not almost all of them.

There is nothing wrong with studying in the Urdu language medium. It is the national language, and probably that is the reason why it has been used in government schools for years, which are the only affordable option for a great majority of masses. A seemingly noble step, but having no connection with the ground realities. From the very inception of the state, English language has been the prerequisite of most of the higher education and employment opportunities.

Even if you want to join government service, and want to take the civil service examination, your proficiency over English is mandatory for you to pass it and to even be considered for selection. This demand of the government’s recruiting institution FPSC and its provincial equivalents seem to be quite unreasonable given the education language medium provided by the government itself in its schools.

I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but from the way the education systems have been set up in Pakistan, it seems that it is a deliberate effort to prevent a large segment of population from exploiting more educational and professional opportunities. Although higher education is expensive all over the world, except for in some liberal countries, but consider that most of the masses will be handicapped for an altogether different reason.

This point could be proven wrong through a number of instances in which students from the Urdu language medium schooling have been able to settle well in the English language medium of study and have excelled in jobs in both government and private sectors. I accept that before any one points it out. But to be honest, those are exceptional individual cases and no one really expects  all the students to accomplish that.

But that is not the point anyway. The point to consider is the difficulty that millions of students face in Pakistan to settle to different language media and education systems. I personally know of students who had studied in the Urdu language medium schools and had to learn English from scratch when they reached college. May not happen in the large cities, but it does happen to the students living in the rural areas. Believe me, it is not easy to do so.

The point which appeals to the common sense is that when they ultimately have to make a shift towards English, given our socioeconomic setup, then why not introduce English as a compulsory subject from the very start, and hire quality teachers for teaching them in government schools. I know it is easier said than done, but at least we can make a start. We just need determination, resolution and a sincere intention to do so, more than money and manpower.

We have all the resources we need. And while the bureaucracy, politicians and feudals, who have an obscurantist record anyway, are largely responsible for this mess (along with the people themselves), but they could take the masses out of it if they sincerely wanted to. Provide quality education with an equal opportunity to all and nothing can prevent a nation from progressing. But what to do when some parts of the population are not having access to even a basic education.

Furthermore, as a matter of principle, there should be unity of education systems in the country, with every student having the same opportunity and the same access to an indiscriminating and single education system, meant for every citizen of Pakistan. And that should be made possible practically, not just in word.

The Madrassah education should carry on as they will, since they always will operate as a separate entity due to the religious element, and maybe it’s a good thing. But they should also be required to strictly adhere to certain requirements which the government education authorities should instruct them to follow, which could help the students to remain in touch with all the fields of life.

The fact that the government does not have enough funds to run a well-organized education system, while offering decent wages for teachers and furnishing the school with quality equipment is immaterial here. They could have at least made their efforts in the right direction in the first place. But it is never too late to start, and yes, we have all the resources we need. Better start working instead of whining.

And besides, we, as a nation, have a lot of funds for defense and for a lot of unnecessary expenses, such as those incurred ever passing hour in the Prime Minister House, the President House and for the expenses at the disposal of the minsters, but we do not have a paisa to spare for providing the masses with quality education. What a shame!

America, IMF or even Allah would not help us if we don’t help ourselves.