"Good Muslim, Bad Muslim"

Good Muslims are moderate, rational, non-violent, and progressive, who chant, "Islam is the R-O-P" (Religion of Peace). Bad Muslims are extremists, irrational, violent, and fundamentalists, who chant "Death to Amreeka" and are against everything modern-and-civilized. Often this is how Muslims are presented in the mainstream news media. Which box do you fit in?!

Three Responses

Usually three kinds of responses to the above binaries have been seen in the mainstream media. Some do not see any problem at all in these binaries. You might hear them saying something on the following line, "Yes, you are right...there is some trouble with Islam." "Bad Muslims in fact do exist, just like you said it." "But...we are not like them! We are Good Muslims! We are just like you want us to be!"

The second does see a problem with these binaries. This is the apologetic response that tries to defend Islam and Muslims but without questioning the underlying assumptions of those binaries. The people following this stance seem to have internalized the underlying assumptions and are unconcerned or unaware of their politics. You might hear them saying, "No, not all Muslims are terrorists." "There are a few bad apples among all people. We renounce all forms of violence. Islam is a religion of peace." "Islam also preaches tolerance just like you are demanding." These responses are often defeatist. How so? Ask a simple question to them: Are you a fundamentalist?

The third kind of response starts by questioning the underlying assumptions and interrogates their politics. So, for example, it would first ask who is a fundamentalist, who is defining that to be so, with what assumptions, and for what political ends? Before invading Taliban-controlled Afghanistan when President Bush demanded, are you with us or with them, the third kind of response absolutely refused to play within this false dilemma: Neither you, nor them!

I find the third approach most fruitful and assertive. This discussion is important if we are concerned about the questions of patriotism and integration in the mainstream, if we are concerned about the future of our activism and politics, about how others think of Muslims and Islam, and how even Muslims see themselves and their religion in an era of information age and globalization.

Let me elaborate the third approach by way of examining their underlying assumptions and politics below. This discussion is informed by Mahmood Mamdani's widely acclaimed book Good Muslim, Bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the Roots of Terror (2005).

I should also clarify at this point that this piece focuses on how a certain mainstream discourse tries to frame and control Muslim outlook and politics. I do not deny that we have all kinds of social and political problems in our midst. We definitely need critical self-reflection and change. The concern in this piece is to be mindful of who is shaping the agenda of that "change", from what perspective, and toward what end? Another related concern is that even for resolving our "internal" problems we need to understand the role of "external" factors and long term historical interconnections.

The Underlying Assumptions

Want to understand why Muslim women are so oppressed? Why are Muslim men so violent? Why are there too many authoritarian regimes in the Middle East? WHY DO THEY HATE US? The answer to all of these questions, as the media and many political pundits tell, lies in understanding the "Muslim Mind" (or the "Arab Mind" or the "Shia Mind"). How do you read that mind? Read it by reading their religious texts. Understand the "logic of their culture" – often presented with quite simplistic and reductive formulas in the media. No surprise that immediately after 9/11, so many Americans rushed to Barnes & Noble to buy the Qur'an. No surprise that 'burqa' became the singular explanation of all kinds of oppression on women in Afghanistan. And no surprise that the anti-US-Israel resistance in many countries are many times explained through the so-called "martyrdom complex". ("It's not our fault that they are bent on killing themselves – we are just poor victims of their irrational beliefs.")

The Politics and Messy History

A historically informed perspective on the other hand would demand that the audience connect the abovementioned questions with wars, militarization, poverty, power struggles, the competition for global hegemony during and after the Cold War, the pursuit of oil and gas and other forms of economic and cultural exploitations, the direct support of the global powers to dictatorial and oppressive regimes. But you don't see that on the media most of the time. You instead see the above binaries that are simple, clear, and easy to understand and follow. These binaries, however, emphasize a narrow cultural logic for explanation at the expense of political causes and messy history, distorting the truth altogether.

That narrow cultural logic assumes that Muslim societies and politics are governed exclusively by their religions and culture and have developed in isolated containers, and the so-called 'West' had nothing to do with their political outcomes. Not many ask, for example: Were women in Afghanistan not already in bad conditions before the Taliban came to power (and worsened the situation further)? Why were they in such bad conditions? And why, out of various ideological inclinations and interpretations of Islam, only the most extremist versions became so dominant in Afghanistan during and after the Afghan Jihad?

Instead of focusing on the cultural logic, a better place to look at is the twisted history of the Cold War and its aftermath. The reality is that the battle ground for the Cold War was not America or Europe. It was fought mainly in the so-called "Third World" countries, of which the turbulent Pakistan and Afghanistan were key regions. The US interest in Afghanistan was to create a Vietnam for the Soviets, to "bleed them white", and for that purpose, a certain understanding of Jihad, devoid of its underlying Islamic ethics and respect for human life, was promoted with the co-sponsorship of Saudi Arabia. The combined interest of the two countries was also to contain the Iranian Revolution. Against the wishes and reservations of other jihadi and nationalist resistance groups, the most extreme and sectarian of those groups were officially patronized in Afghanistan and Pakistan during those years. The same groups were also given exclusive access to the refugee camps in the two countries to indoctrinate the next generation of mindless and ethics-less jihadis. The Taliban, their understanding of Islam, and style of jihad, all are the direct outcome of that joint enterprise.

The rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan has a history and political context. So does the al-Qaeda. And so do the movements in Algeria, Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq. The origins, development, and forms of these various movements are often very distinct from each other. But by emphasizing those simplistic binaries, the mainstream media often conflates these very different kinds of movements into each other. No consideration is given that the pure terrorist organizations, many times created by those on the payroll of the CIA, like the Contras in Nicaragua or the shady al-Qaeda, are very different from those Islamist movements in Lebanon, Palestine, and elsewhere that are today engaged in principled resistance (militant or otherwise) and have legitimate causes and mass support base. Interestingly enough, the former groups – the pure terrorist movements – are used as the pretext in the so-called "War on Terror" through which the global powers and their supported dictatorial regimes suppress the legitimate resistance movements in their countries. Even non-Muslim states in South Asia, Latin America, and Africa have learned to use the rhetoric of terrorism to suppress various kinds of internal resistances opposing their oppressive policies and exploitative neo-liberal economic reforms.

Unfortunately, many urgently composed statements by Muslim media relations organizations denouncing "all violence in the name of religion" after tragedies like the Fort Hood shootings and Mumbai Attacks also collapse the distinctions among various groups and show little attention to the politics of these binaries. (I discuss this politics in more detail below.)

Power and Powerlessness

The adjectives "Islamist" or "Sectarian", as in "Islamo-fascism" or "Sectarian violence", are often used as both the 'description' and its 'explanation'. The answer is already assumed in the way question is defined. This is again an example of a narrow cultural logic which erases more than it explains.

Instead of the narrow cultural logic, the motivations of state rulers and grievances of people may be better understood by the logic of power and powerlessness. Saddam Hussein, for example, may have selected the most anti-Shia elements in his army to brutally suppress the Shia rebellion after the Gulf War, but if his Machiavellian suppression of the members of his secular-nationalist from the 1970s onward and the indiscriminate killing of the Kurds in 1987-88 are any indicators, Saddam himself was driven more by power ambitions than anti-Shia prejudice.

But what do we do about the explicitly religious vocabulary used by various terrorist and Islamist movements? We did discuss that there are important distinctions between various groups, between their origins, contexts, and modes of resistance, but at the end of the day they all claim themselves to be religiously motivated – so why the emphasis on power/powerlessness logic?

Two considerations: First, particularly in the context of the failure of various kinds of leftist and nationalist movements in the second half of the last century, religion provided the space to resist neo-colonial advancements and dictatorial oppression. In some movements, religion expressed itself in mainly 'reactionary' terms. But at other places, the Islamists 'proactively' sought to create a vision for an alternative future based on spiritual values and social justice. Among others, the poet-philosopher Mohammad Iqbal and Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr come to mind. Understanding their distinctive approaches and how they engaged with both traditional Muslim and Western scholarships and politics of the time are crucial to de-mystify 'fundamentalism' and its appeal to masses. The emphasis here is to understand the issues and responses in their historical context without undermining their distinctions and weight.

Second, Islam as-a-solution needs to be distinguished from the historical "causes" of contemporary issues. The power/powerlessness logic, although not the only effective logic, is analytically more useful than the narrow cultural logic for understanding the historical background of 'Muslim politics' in many parts of world, particularly that of the Shia populations.

Consider the following illustration: Facing systematic discrimination and exploitation from their rulers (who came to power due to multitude of historical factors, of which the colonial and neo-colonial experiences of the last 200 hundreds years is the most important), these Shias found a powerful expression of their grievances and a solution in the Islamic ideology around and after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. However, instead of falling in the trap of polarizing identity politics, this Islamic ideology and movement sought to be pan-Islamic (non-sectarian, but at the same time, it sought empowerment of oppressed Shias under many Arab regimes). It was also anti-imperial and dedicated to the Palestine cause (which, despite the rhetorical overkill of the Arab nationalist leaders still today, was gradually abandoned by the Arab states from the late 1960s onward). No wonder that the aware masses in the Middle East and elsewhere, from all kinds of religious and ideological backgrounds, were naturally attracted to the Iranian Islamic movement and its manifestations. Glimpses of that attraction was again seen during and after the 2006 Summer War in Lebanon, despite the concerted efforts by the dictatorial rulers and the US and Israel to raise the false specter of the "Rising Shia Crescent".

It is in understanding the politics those in power and those marginalized in each case can we find answers of many questions asked in the mainstream media. The apologetic commentators spend hours defending how Islam is a religion of peace which does not support violence, etc. But these theological discussions cannot explain the problems that have their roots in power/powerlessness. Those media discussions at best serve as distractions from the real issues and at worst as control mechanisms in the hands of powers-that-be. (See below.)

A False Sense of Moral Superiority and Self-righteousness

Why does the American public support the neo-colonial enterprise of its government? Or, put differently, how is it that the politicians are able to sell their war-mongering agenda to people every time? This is a critical question. Among other factors, a crucial ingredient is nurturing a sense of self-righteousness in the people based on a blissful ignorance of history and a belief in the moral superiority and universal validity of the ideals of the so-called Western civilization. A few issues with that sense of moral superiority have been discussed in a previous piece, where I reviewed Fatemeh Keshavarz's book Jasmine and Stars. A useful book that dissects this blissful ignorance of history is James Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Book Got Wrong (2nd edition, 2007).

The point I want to make here is that the neo-colonial enterprise is of course not presented in blunt terms. There is a whole moral discourse that is based on that blissful ignorance and sense of moral superiority among the masses that the governing elites use to advance their agenda. In the past, the rhetoric of saving the poor, oppressed women from the oppression of "Muslim"/"Arab"/"Indian" men was used by the colonial powers to advance and justify their expansionist agenda. More recently, the same moral discourse of "colonial feminism" was used to "liberate" the Afghan women from 'burqa'. Yesterday's colonial expansionism is today advanced through "humanitarian interventions" and "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to promote democracy, freedom, human rights, and enlightenment. The fact that before the US invasion of Afghanistan, the cause of "liberating" Afghan women from 'burqa' was endorsed by people from a variety of political and ideological persuasions, from far-right and conservatives to Hollywood celebrities and liberals and leftists, suggests the pervasiveness of this particular way of seeing Islam and Muslim societies. Columbia University Professor Lila Abu-Lughod's following piece provides valuable insights in regards to the connection with the colonial discourse: Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?

A useful question to ask in this regard is how come we see a simultaneous development of the so-called European Enlightenment and Colonial expansionism. The answers are complex, but one thing to realize is that the two tendencies were not necessarily contradictory to each other. Colonial subjugation of "other" people was not contradictory to the liberal ideals of political rights and self-determination. Because the very ideals of European Enlightenment, anchored in the notions of uni-linear historical progress of civilizations, the emphasis on particular modes of reasoning, the importance on individual rights and private property as the means of self-actualization, and the difference between the "modern" and "backward", implied that Europeans see themselves as "different," "superior," and "civilized" in comparison to other unfamiliar cultures and peoples. Both John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the champions of Liberalism, supported and rationalized the practice of colonialism through these ideals. To them it was a "progressive force" that would civilize the indigenous populations in colonized territories. That was the "White Man's Burden". These ideals were also incorporated into particular versions of Christianity that were brought to the Americas by the European settlers.

This moral discourse has deep roots and is directly intertwined with those cultural binaries. By tracing those roots, we can find useful clues and illustrations for deconstructing the contemporary neo-colonial moral discourse, equally popular among the liberals and conservatives speaking on Islam in the media.

The Politics of "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim"

Neo-Colonial Humanitarianism

Be it the Fort Hood shooting, 9/11, Mumbai Attack, Hostage Crisis, Taliban, al-Qaeda, or Palestine-Israel violence, when political context and messy history is removed from the picture, when important distinctions among these cases are blurred, and simplistic cultural logic of "irrational, violent, fundamentalist" is emphasized, they not only lead to wrong identification of causes but also suggest misleading solutions. A whole intellectual industry of "reforming" Islam under the patronage of RAND Corporation, Freedom House, and similar organizations has exponentially developed post 9/11.

When focus is on culture and 'the tensions/conflicts within', defined by burqa or some age-old sectarian divide in different cases, it takes the role of powerful state actors and external powers out of the picture (whereas many times the state and foreign powers are the ones behind staging terrorist activities and instigating violence in the name of religion). Thus, for example, the failure of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq was conveniently blamed on "sectarianism". By blaming it on the cultural logic, the global powers can thus be presented as saviors, as the only recourse of the poor, oppressed people, and if they leave that region (as in Iraq or Afghanistan today), then one should only expect chaos and civil war.

As the Control Mechanism

The "Good/Bad" Muslim rhetoric also serves as a control mechanism that seeks to (re-)socialize the Muslims to a certain 'cultural script' where they are to live and act under constant fear and self-discipline. The "Good" Muslims are expected to distance themselves from the "Bad" Muslims. See how people react to the labels of "fundamentalist", "extremists", "militant" in our communities and how so many like to be considered "moderate", "modern", "peaceful". This 'cultural script' is already widespread in our midst demanding people to act and align themselves along certain politics (or lack thereof). Among other things, it polarizes and disunites our communities.

Every time a tragedy happens, they feel obliged to immediately respond and distance themselves from those 'bad' Muslims. No consideration is usually given over the framing of the issue: Should it be seen through the lens of "Islam" (and therefore the "problems" with its teachings and its people) at all. That 'cultural script' is reinforced every time tragic incidents like Fort Hood happen (last year it was the Mumbai attacks). Again, there is usually no discussion of political context or messy history (not for 'justifying' these acts but to 'understand' them).

On a related note, these binaries are not new. The African American community has already experienced them during and after the civil rights movement, where Martin Luther King, Jr. was presented as the 'Good Black' and Malcolm X was the 'Bad Black'. It is an interesting topic in itself if MLK could have succeeded without Malcolm X type parallel resistance against the powers-that-be and if the historical context were that of a century earlier and MLK was doing his non-violent activism in the South. Interestingly enough though, MLK was also coerced to shut up when he raised his voice against the Vietnam War.

De-legitimizing the Legit Movements

At times the mindless chanting of 'peace, peace, non-violence, non-violence' by Muslim activists are used to de-legitimize militant resistance (as 'irrational' and 'unjustifiably violent') in Palestine. They take attention away from the whole history of Israeli atrocities by focusing too much on – and even blaming at times – the victims for responding with violence in defense. (Same goes for the case of Lebanon.) The 'peace, peace' slogans sometimes neglect the fact that the international community has failed to deliver any positive results in the last sixty years. So far the only thing that has been directly effective against the Israeli expansionism is militant resistance.

One can also argue that instead of 'wasting' time on the two-state solution over the last 30 years or so (since Camp David), if we had spent our time and energies on discrediting political Zionism in public opinion, perhaps we would have made at least 'some' accomplishments by now. Two-state solution was never the right answer (see "How Realistic is the Two-State Solution?"). If nothing else, at least we could have somewhat united our own communities – their opinion and activism – for the cause over these years. Communities here refer to the general Muslim community but also people of conscience from any background. The glimpses of that possibility (of uniting those concerned) were seen during the Summer 2006 Lebanon War and even more so during the Gaza massacre eleven months ago.

This point also highlights the need for developing sound political analysis especially from those engaging themselves with the media and public opinion campaigns. How do we frame our concerns that are beyond the narrow objective of appearing as "Good Muslims"?

Obama/Clinton's "Smart Power" for the Middle East

So far, the Obama administration has shown no meaningful signs of any major change to the old grand plan of a "New Middle East" (as Condy Rice famously stated), other than slight modifications in the tactics. Suspending the expansion of settlements and recognizing the two-state solution that the current administration is asking of Israel were already part of Bush's "Road Map for Peace". Neither of them had actually enforced these demands on Israel.

Against the Bush administration's "hard power", however, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has put forward the idea of "smart power", combining diplomacy and "iron fist". What that probably means for Muslim countries is the 'Good Muslim vs. Bad Muslim' game. The good Muslims are those compliant to the US-Israeli imperial ambitions. The Bad Muslims are those who resist that and therefore must be disciplined.

The status quo regimes of the Middle East – Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan – are presented as the "moderate" Muslims. Those opposing their corruption and the hegemonic ambitions of US-Israel from within the status quo states and from outside are labeled as the Bad Muslims. And it is demanded from the latter (those resisting) to 'reform' and become 'good Muslims'. After the inauguration, Obama went to the West Bank, not Gaza, and then to Egypt, where he delivered his now popular Cairo speech.

Consider the following two sentences from the end of that speech: "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition." What?! During the inquisition?! Muslims were slaughtered, forced to convert or exile under the Inquisitorial Regime. Is that what Mr. Obama is suggesting that Muslims do today against the oppression of their own dictatorial regimes and from outside? Perhaps it was a blunder on the part of Obama's speech writer.

But in practical terms, this is exactly what the current administration is asking of the Palestinian people: Keep suffering. Rhetorical gestures of re-conciliations by the new administration aside, the US and Israel are more or less continuing the same policy of turning Gaza into a virtual prison and dividing the West Bank into small quarantines through the Security Wall, with Israel having effective control over water, communication, and security matters of both areas.

Towards Conclusion

Perhaps we should also reflect upon the role of power (and powerlessness) that we too face in our societies, in our daily lives, in our activism: Why is it that we feel pressured to apologize/condemn every time a Fort Hood like incidence happens? Why don't our public relation organizations in America also condemn the ongoing US atrocities in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other places with the same dedication? On another level, is it even correct to frame/understand Fort Hood shooting or 9/11 in terms of a narrow cultural logic of binaries? Who is defining that framework, with what perspective? What is the politics of this framing? Who benefits?

A challenge for all of us, especially the scholars and activists, is to come up with practical strategies and rhetorical tools for the media and public opinion that are in line with our principles and based on sound strategic analysis. Where we do not 'apologize' for the crimes that we did not commit, but at the same time, we proactively counter the negative propaganda against us and our legit causes. This is crucial not only for reaching out to the general audience and politicians but also for the outlook and identities formation of our own communities.

Important also is to closely study various anti-war/civil/human rights movements in the US, UK, South Africa, India, and elsewhere. What kinds of strategies and alliances worked, what did not, and in what political and historical context? Can we use the same strategies and tactics in the present context of the country we may be in?

Lastly, we need to do more than just issuing reactionary responses after every tragic incidence threatening the Muslim image. We need to come up with a more proactive vision for what our role as individuals and communities could be in the countries we may be in. An important point here is to not become so self-absorbed in our national interest that we dissociate ourselves from the conditions in the rest of the world. The challenge is to come up with sound analysis and detailed action plans – not just empty proposals and rhetoric in annual conferences – that combine our principles, national objectives, and global interests.

Ali A. is a doctoral student in social sciences. He can be reached at alismails786@gmail.com

The article was first published at: http://www.islamicinsights.com/news/opinion/good-muslim-bad-muslim-cracking-the-media-code.html

Plight of Women in Pakistan

Scholars have suggested a variety of perspectives to explain women's plight in Pakistan. Here is an insightful perspective that considers power, status, and money to be at the roots.

The Social Farce
By Ayesha Siddiqa, Dawn, September 05, 2008

Source

ALTHOUGH Pakistan’s attention seems completely diverted towards the upcoming presidential elections, there are other equally important things happening in the country such as the burying alive of two women.

The words of Baloch Senator Israrullah Zehri has angered a lot of people. The politician believes that such acts cannot be condemned as they are part of the local tradition of not allowing women the freedom of selecting their partners without the consent of their parents or guardians. Those trying to challenge authority, hence, must be punished according to tribal norms.

The feminists, in particular, view it as an issue of women’s rights. However, this problem is a subset of the larger issue of the lack of social and political development and the gradual militarisation of society. It should be viewed in this context.

While analysing the issue, let us differentiate between reality and the response to it. The social reality is what was expressed by the Baloch senator, according to whom honour killing is part of the local culture and traditions. His statement angered many but I would prefer Zehri over others of his kind — like one particularly prominent, foreign-educated and seemingly liberal female politician who many years ago made a similar claim during a private conversation. I was perturbed how she hid her feudal character under the garb of western sophistication. Such elements are difficult to catch and protest against.

Over the years, especially during the past couple of decades, society has become more militarised which means that what is defended as local culture is actually a greater distortion of religion and local traditions to enhance the power of individuals. The power play that we see in the country amongst politicians on a larger scale is actually an extension of a similar game that is played at the micro level in society. Women get punished as well as men because they don’t have a similar power status. This is the norm of a feudal, tribal and militarised society.

Surely, Mr Zehri did not know any better. He, like many others of his kind, has only seen the exercise of naked power. The senator was only trying to defend what he sees as a symbol of power that is his ultimate goal and that of others strutting about in the corridors of power. Balochistan is not alone in this. Such savage acts are presented as custom in other parts of the country as well. Recently, when I expressed my concern to a Sindhi journalist regarding the opening up of new madressahs in interior Sindh as a means to influence the Sufi traditions of the region, his response was that what was a matter of greater concern were incidents of honour killing — all defended in the name of tradition.

Can honour killing stop without debating the structure of society and without wanting to change it? The answer is in the negative. Protests against individual acts of violence will certainly provide relief to a few but will not root out the problem. The religious clerics led by the feudal/tribal leaders (or the other way around) will keep arguing that women have fewer rights than men. But their claims and counter-claims are all a farce until people begin to address the issue of restructuring the culture which is the basis of such crimes.

And one has to be realistic in understanding two critical points. First, feudalism and tribalism do exist in the country. For those, who believe that feudalism is no more in this country, the answer is that the institution has morphed into newer shapes. It might have ended from the perspective of the mode of production, but its socio-cultural forms exist. In fact, the institution has deepened its roots.

Second, the militarisation of society has influenced the process of morphing so that individuals, groups or institutions who represent the non-feudal class behave like them as well. For instance, there is no real difference between Senator Zehri and Pervez Musharraf who not too long ago had claimed that women get raped to get Canadian visas. The underlying sentiment is similar — gender rights or human rights are not possible because it challenges the power of those at the top who will then choose to treat issues of rights as cursory and one to be ignored and brushed aside as minor problems, even non-existent matters.

Let’s be very clear that such acts of brutality have nothing to do with religion or morality, otherwise such brutal rules would be applied elsewhere too. I am reminded of a tragic incident in a village in south Punjab where a young girl, who had sought shelter at a shrine after running away from her stepmother, was gang-raped. Ultimately, she was imprisoned on charges of adultery because the culprits had greater access to the local pir who was a member of parliament as well. The victim did not represent his constituency while the culprits did. The power structure was clearly tilted against her and so was the local standard of morality.

Interestingly, similar norms were not applied to some of the female members of the pir’s family known for morally dubious practices. Even the orthodox mullahs of that area have never ventured to punish the immorality mentioned above or issue fatwas. In fact, moral turpitude is a reality in all closed spaces. Peep inside any closed household, especially those that claim to be the spiritual saviours of the people, and there will be a number of stories, the protagonists of which go unpunished due to their higher social background.

The social system says that money and power determine whether or not one is punished for an act of immorality. These two aforementioned attributes make it convenient for many to hide their sins and escape honour killing or jail sentences. More important, the menfolk of such families are not even expected to hide their immoral acts. In many cases, being a mullah or a pir is sufficient licence for anything otherwise condemnable.

So, while we agree that Mr Zehri has correctly projected honour killing as a local tradition, could we also ask him to see the circumstances in which such practices are born? Burying men or women alive or killing them for honour is not about religion or tribal morality but about the ability of some individuals to exercise naked power.

The question is that is it social imbalance that Zehri and others like him were elected to defend or will he see the real purpose of his and others political existence? Furthermore, closed spaces and unequal power will always breed moral corruption. The current power structures have to be broken if morality is to be restored to our socio-political space.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

In Praise of Resistance Against All Injustice

In memory of all victims of injustice. Injustice in the form of physical violence, as in wars, genocides, state-terrorism, and terrorism in general that target innocent people . Their crime? Either they belonged to a marginalized group or they dared to speak truth to power and resist injustice.

Injustice in the form of honor killing, gang rape, and domestic violence. Injustice imposed and justified in the name of God, religion, and tradition for the political and personal gains of a few.

Injustice in the form of emotional violence, including the incitement of hatred among people of different faiths and ethnicities and the desecration of religious symbols and sites.

Injustice in the form of structural violence, as in poverty, illiteracy, hunger, and lack of basic necessities of life.

To the victims and to the brave souls who resist against any and all forms of injustice, on this anniversary of the war that was imposed on Lebanon by Israel in July 2006, I dedicate Sahir Ludianvi's Khun Phir Khun Hai:

Khun Phir Khun Hai

Zulm phir zulm hai, baRhta hai to mitt jata hai
Khun phir khun hai, tapkay ga to jum jaiga

Oppression is still oppression;
It is wiped off when it exceeds its limit.
The blood is still blood;
When it is dropped, it stains.

Khak-i-Sehra pay jamay yaa kaf-e-qatil pay jamay
Firq-e-insaaf pay yaa pai-e-silasal pay jamay
Taigh-i-baydad pay, yaa lash-e-bismil pay jamay
Khun phir khun hai, tapkay ga to jum jaiga

Whether it stains the desert sand
Or the hands of the killer;
Whether it stains the head of justice,
Or the feet of chains;
Whether it stains the sword of injustice
Or the corpse of a martyr;
The blood is still blood;
When it is dropped, it stains.

Lakh BeThay koi chup chup key kamein gahon mein
Khun khud deta hai jalladon key maskan ka suragh
Sazishen lakh aurati rahain zulmat ka niqaab
Ley ke har boond nikalti hai hatheli par chirag

They may lurk in hiding places,
But the blood will always lead to the
tyrants.
Conspiracies may do their best
To shroud the truth in darkness,
But every drop of blood
Will carry a lamp on its palm.

zulm ki qismat-e-nakara-o-ruswa say kaho
jabar ki hikmat-e-parkar ke emaan say kaho
muhmil-e-majlis-e-aqwaam ki laila say kaho
khun dewana hai daman main tapak sakta hai
shula-e-tund hai khirman pay lapak sakta hai

Go and tell the obsolete and vain
fate of oppression,
Go and tell the intentions
of tyranny’s cunning wisdom,
That the blood is mad,
Can pounce on your lap;
That the flame is fierce,
Can scorch your harvest.

Tum ne jis khun ko maqtal main dabana chaha
Aaj wo kucha-o-bazaar main Aa nikla hai
Kahin Shola, kahin na’rah, kahin patthar ban ke
Khun chalta hai to rukta nahin sangeeno se
Sar uThta hai to dubta nahin aa’eenon se

The blood you wanted to bury
In the shambles,
Has come out in the streets:
As a flame somewhere,
As a shout, a stone somewhere else.
When the blood marches,
It can’t be stopped by bayonets.
When it raises its head,
It can’t be cowed by repressive laws.

Zulm ki baat hi kya, zulm ki auqaat hi kya
Zulm bass zulm hai aaghaaz se anjaam talak
Khun phir khun hai, sau Shakal badal sakta hai
Aisi Shaklein kah mitao to mitaye na bane
Aisey Sholey keh bhujao to bhujae na bane
Aisey narey keh dabao to dabaye na bane!

Oppression is a non-entity,
Worth nothing.
Oppression is only oppression
From the beginning to the end.
The blood is still blood;
It can assume many forms:
Images that can’t be erased,
Flames that can’t be put out,
Shouts that can’t be suppressed.

(Translation by Baidar Bakh)

Let's Weave A Dream

A friend, very disappointed with the current state of affairs in Pakistan, expressed his feelings with this couplet from Ghalib:

hairaan hun dil ko ro'un ke pitun jigar ko main,

maqdur ho agar to sath rakhun nauhagar ko main

The situation is indeed quite depressing for any person with a conscious head on his shoulders and a heart still beating in his chest. More than 2 million people have been affected by flood and flood relief failures in Balochistan and Sindh (here, here, here, here). As of today, at least 240 people have died, another 200 are missing in these two regions. In recent months, hundreds have died in political violence in different parts of the country. Under heavy storm and rain, within only two days, more than 200 people died in Karachi. The situation became so worse primarily because of the inefficacy of the city administration (here). And the latest, the loss of those innocent men, women, and children among the students who ended up in the Lal Masjid due to poverty, illiteracy, lack of social opportunities, or out of naive devotion and became dispensable pawns in the hands of their opportunist and misguided religious leaders and the short-sighted and corrupt political leadership in Pakistan, so willing to exceed any limits to preserve its power (here and here).

The blood of innocents has become so cheap, the value of life so worthless in Pakistan. Now, who wouldn't be depressed after witnessing all these developments. But, what can an average person like you and I do? I asked this question earlier in another post in reaction to the bombing in Peshawar and violence in Karachi (here). I suggested that we need to do retrospection on our sixty years history. Retrospection similar to what Sahir Ludhianvi, the poet, acerbically demanded from his Indian government in the below words, but also to look back on our own actions (or lack thereof) in these years:

aao ke aaj ghaur karen is sawaal par

dekhe the hum ne jo, wo haseen khwaab kya hue…

bekas barehnagi ko kafan tak nahin naseeb

wo waada-haa e atlas o kamkhwaab kya hue…

jamhooriyat-nawaaz, bashar-dost, amn-khwaah

khud ko jo khud diye the, wo alqaab kya hue

Come, and let us ponder on the question

Those beautiful dreams we had dreamt, what happened to them

Helpless nakedness does not even merit a shroud

What happened to those promises of silk and satin

Democrat, humanist, pacifist

What happened to all those self-conferred titles?

Only through this retrospection, I argued there, can we attain a realization of our plight. Realization that is needed to keep us from repeating the same mistakes again and again. But as we attain that realization, we need not despair. Instead, have hopes and dreams of a better future. As Sahir exhorts us: Aao ke koi khvaab bunein… (Let’s weave a dream otherwise the darkness of this hard age is going to suffocate both heart and soul to death). For it is hope that inspires the heart, that motivates the actions. The hope that Islam also gives to the oppressed ones: The meek shall inherit the earth. And, sooner or later, the truth shall prevail. That is the promise made in many divine scriptures. Indeed the idea of Mahdi, the awaited Savior, is an embodiment of that hope, inspiration, and dream (see here).

Let's weave a dream so our hearts remain alive and restless.

Sahir's Let's Weave a Dream:

aao ke koi Khvaab bunein kal ke vaaste

varnaa ye raat aaj ke sangiin daur kii

Das legii jaan-o-dil ko kuchh aise ke jaan-o-dil

taa umr phir na koi hasein Khvaab bun sakain

go ham se bhaagatii rahii ye tez-gaam umr

Khvaabon ke aasare pe kaTii hai tamaam umr

zulfon ke Khvaab, honThon ke Khvaab, aur badan ke Khvaab

meraaj-e-fan ke Khvaab, kamaal-e-sukhan ke Khvaab

tahzeeb-e-zindagii ke, faroG-e-vatan ke Khvaab

zindaan ke Khvaab, kuuchaa-e-daar-o-rasan ke Khvaab

ye khvaab hii to apanii javaanii ke paas the

ye khvaab hii to apne amal ki asaas the

ye khvaab mar gaye hain to be-rang hai hayaat

yuun hai ke jaise dast-e-tah-e-sang hai hayaat

aao ki koi Khvaab bunein kal ke vaaste

varnaa ye raat aaj ke sangiin daur kii

Das legii jaan-o-dil ko kuchh aise ke jaan-o-dil

taa umr phir na koi haseen Khvaab bun sakain

[dast-e-tah-e-sang = hands crushed under a stone (helpless)]

The Askariya Mosque and the Muslim Ummah

The desecration of the Holy Askariya Mosque is a painful sight to all lovers and followers of the Prophet and his family. My condolence to all of you on this tragedy.

We are at a very sensitive juncture of history. Our collective actions as Muslims and as people of conscience are largely going to determine our future. The two attacks on the Askariya Mosque were evidently aimed at furthering sectarian violence and destabilizing Iraq. Perhaps even aimed at spilling sectarian violence out of the Iraqi borders into neighboring countries. It is difficult to ascertain who perpetrated these crimes. But it is clear that the situation in Iraq only worsened after the last attack on February 22, 2006. That is what the perpetrators wanted. The occupying forces are ultimately responsible for the protection of the civilians and the holy sites. They have obviously failed so far.

Iraqis need to take charge of their future in their hands. Only through unity can they defeat the plots of those who wish to divide them. And only through peace can they speak out to those who wish to provoke violence. The Muslim Ummah needs to send a resounding message to the Iraqi people and to all the people of the world - Muslims and Non-Muslims alike - that all Muslims are united and cannot allow such violence to be perpetrated in their name. The Muslim Ummah should denounce the sacrilege of all holy sites and the bloodshed of innocent lives across Iraq. And they should urge all people of conscience to join them in this cause.

The three images show the sacrilege of the Askariya Shrine after the two attacks. From top to bottom: a) Taken in Feb 2004, b) Taken after Feb 22, 2006, c) Taken on June 13, 2007.

Media Wars

The Geo TV is presenting a very interesting program these days. "35mm @ war" (here) is a commentary and interview based program that examines the history and techniques of propaganda in movies produced by Hollywood, Bollywood, and even Lollywood and their utility for war mongering purposes. I have watched a few episodes and found the research and presentation to be quite impressive. For delivering good knowledge and critical thinking, the producers and the team behind this program at the Geo TV deserve special appreciation. Bravo!

The latter part of the title of this program, “@ war”, provoked a few thoughts that I would like to share here. No doubt, propaganda movies (still) play a crucial role in legitimizing military invasions. A recent attempt could be seen in the movie "300", which has been criticized by many (here, here, here) as a propaganda effort that, considering its time of release and the racist content, advances Bush and his NeoCon war mongers' ambitions of invading Iran.

I also see another subtle level - a more crucial one perhaps - where Western media (including movies, news, and entertainment) is most effective. That level is not exactly constituted by objectives of military warfare and gaining physical dominance over nations. Rather this level is part of the knowledge-sphere. The warfare on this level is aimed at creating cultural dominance or 'cultural hegemony'. For 'it is hard to fight an enemy who has an outpost in your head'. Cultural hegemony is about creating ‘consensual’ submission among the ‘subjects’ (through ‘saqafati yalgaar’ or cultural flooding/invasion). Although it started much earlier, this project has become especially relevant in the post-ColdWar era, that is, in the ‘New World Order’ (here) of our supposedly unipolar world, as proclaimed by some politicians.

The consensual subjugation happens with the internalization of the very categories and thought processes that inform the cultural hegemonic ideals from the West. They could be the cultural-economic ideals of neo-liberal reforms (here) as the best measure for “third-world” economies. They could be the cultural-political ones like who is “good” and “bad” Muslim (here). And, they could be the cultural-social ones like what is “modern” and “progressive”, what is to be desired, who can desire it, and to what end (for example, rising consumerism (here) and endless materialistic competition in our society). To make these Western ideals and values as the global ideals and values for all of humanity is the objective of this cultural hegemony. (I am not treating "West" in monolithic terms here; rather, I am referring to the neo-imperial project that has resulted out of a myriad of institutional and cultural practices in the West).

However, the realities on the ground tell us that such cultural hegemony is hard to achieve in its desired totalizing form, especially in the cultural-political sphere (many polls indicate growing anti-Americanism, especially after Bush’s invasion into Iraq) and to a certain extent in the cultural-economic sphere (see for example, the reactions here, here, and here). But in the cultural-social sphere, the cultural hegemony seems to have been most successful. Perhaps this is best summarized in the following statement: ‘they hate America, but they love American dollars and American jeans’.

The late Eqbal Ahmad has so eloquently explained the internalization involved in “cultural hegemony” (see below), although I am not sure whether he would consider cultural hegemony to be independent from military/political/economic objectives. Perhaps, (like Chomsky?) (here), he would not totally agree with the analytical separation I make above even if he considered “culture of imperialism” an independent causal force (which I think, he did, like Edward Said). I suspect, he would have stressed that in a realistic analysis of politics today, especially post 9/11, cultural hegemony primarily serves the military and economic ends.

After explaining the subtle intricacies of the "Culture of Imperialism" (see the full article here), Eqbal Ahmad concludes his article by making a poignant note about the state of affairs of those at the receiving end of cultural hegemony:

“This culture [of imperialism] is pervasive, it cuts across continents and penetrates our outlook by a variety of mediums. As I outline this talk in the flight from Islamabad to New York, Pakistan International Airlines shows Star Trek: First Contact. I snip at what looks like a high-tech, outer-space replay of an earlier voyage into an 'undiscovered' world. Commander Jean-Luc Picard plays a modern-day Cortes, leading the crew of the newly commissioned Enterprise E to war against the Borg "an insidious race", informs the PIA flier.

Those "half organic aliens" appear like Indians in the early Westerns mysteriously, ubiquitously and sometimes seductively. Violence flows freely as 'contact' is made. Fallen aliens are shot even as they beg for mercy. Captain Jean-Luc Picard and his crew commit quite a holocaust with an insouciance we are expected to appreciate only because they have vanquished an alien race mysterious, dangerous, seductive and, ultimately, vulnerable. The Borgs have no individual identity, only a collective one. Their defeat is deemed final only when their roots are destroyed, when their head which assures life's motion to the entire race is cut off. An idea redeems this "mission"; once contact has been made the world will change. Promises Captain Picard: "Poverty, disease, and war will end."

Star Trek is but a crude, popular expression of the culture of imperialism. This culture is not Western any more. Rather, it enjoys hegemony, it has become global. Note an irony: Pakistan International Airlines, which will not serve wine to passengers, happily serves up Captain Picard on its flights.”

A Moment of Silence

Another bomb blast hit the land of the Quaid leaving many innocent people dead and wounded. This time in the northwestern city of Peshawar on Tuesday, May 15, killing at least 24 people and wounding dozens more. We thought we would take some time to recover from the shocks of the political violence during last weekend in Karachi, which took a toll of at least 41 lives. And here is one more day immersed in blood, one more evening filled with cries and sorrow.

A moment of silence and an expression of despair. What else an average person in the street can do? 'aam aadmi kai pass es kai elwa bhi koi chara hai? I wonder that myself.

But even if that's all we can do, then let this moment not pass into thin air. Let's make it a moment of realization. Realization of the real causes of our suffering. Sometimes I feel that we, as a nation, are unaware of our own plight. If we 'know' it to some extent, we do not 'realize' it (the difference between jan'na (to know) and man'na (to realize)). That's why we attach our hopes to the same people - the product of the same system, under different names and guises - each time one overthrows the other by force or by elections.

That realization would perhaps require hundreds of minutes of silence, in retrospection, in critical reflection. But it would be the first step toward a meaningful change of our conditions. Our experience, our sufferings, our journey over the course of history will eventually instill that realization into our consciousness. Or, perhaps that may happen sooner. There are reasons for hope - for example, in the increasing disillusionment of our people with the current status quo and political tug-a-war, the freedom of media/communications and the highly active civil society in urban areas, and our increasing consciousness of our situation in the global context.

The current political and social conditions in Pakistan remind me of a very perceptive poem that Faiz wrote on the occasion of independence:

ye dag dag ujala, ye shabgazida sahar
wo intazar tha jis ka, ye wo sahar to nahin

ye wo sahar to nahin jis ki arzu lekar
chale the yar k mil jayegi kahin na kahin
falak k dasht main taron ki akhari manzil
kahin to hoga shab-e-sust mauj ka sahil
kahin to ja k rukga safina-e-gam-e-dil

This stained light, this night-bitten dawn-
This is not the dawn we yearned for.

This is not the dawn for which we set out
Hoping that in the sky's wilderness
We would reach the final destination of the stars.
Surely, the night's turgid sea will breathe its last
On the inevitable shore.
Surely, the boat of the heart's agony will somewhere
Come to a stop.

The same poem ends with an exhortation and hope:

abhi chirag-e-sar-e-rah ko kuch khabar hi nahin
abhi garani-e-shab main kami nahin ai
najat-e-dida-o-dil ki ghari nahin ai
chale chalo k wo manzil abhi nahin ai

The earthen lamp shrugs its head in despair.
The night is as oppressive as ever.
The time for the liberation of heart and mind
Has not come as yet.
Continue your arduous journey.
Press on, the destination is still far away.

(Agha Shahid Ali's translation from "The Rebel’s Silhouette")