Sad Event — Death of our National Cricket Coach – Bob Woolmer:

Sad Event — Death of our National Cricket Coach – Bob Woolmer:
Written on: March 19, 2007

Before the news about Bob Woolmer’s initial unconsciousness, Geo TV was constantly presenting very bad insulting remarks of common audiance about Bob Woolmer, Inzimam and others, including the team as a whole. Those remarks were not making any proper sense and sounded very bad to me. I didn’t watch the match with Ireland, but the highlights were showing that Ireland, although was a new team, but was not any bad team at all. One factor behind our losing the match might be that we under-estimated a good team. Now try to think about all those who were putting insulting remarks against individuals, including Inzimam and Bom Woolmer; were they also not committing the same mistake…??? Were they mistakenly not under-estimating a good Iresh team…??? Then for why they were so badly criticizing the team with third-rate insulting remarks. And why Geo TV was presenting those third-rate comments? I did not see other TV channels, but Geo TV’s behaviour was really very immature.

If we lost the match, then it means that we as a Nation also had lost the match. Why to blame only team? We should try to evaluate our own behaviours and attitudes also. If we are not mature in our thinking and we openly present third-rate comments against our own individuals before International media, then how can we be mature in stadium…??? What International audiance might have got the message out of such remarks that our team was better model than players? Obviously, we do not pay any proper respect to our ownselves. Why should others respect us then…???

Bob Woolmer, our Coach, has died. Now we should stop our useless criticism on individuals. We should take some care of self-esteem of those individuals whose talents have been internationally recognized. If their own nation treats them so badly then how it is possible that they can get any psychological strength, which is vital for their performance…???

Bring the best player before me. I shall tell him, “You are bad player. You cannot play well. You are out of form. Your good days have gone. Your Coach is alien. He may not be sincere with you. Instead of playing, you should retire, etc. etc.” … and then let that player participate in World Cup match. My question is: What shall be his performance…???

Is Pen vs Sword a real issue?

I think, when compared with sword, pen would symbolize ‘argument’. And sword would stand for every kind of physical or authoritative power. Even the so-called power of ‘knowledge’ also would rightly be classified under the category of ’sword’.

So I think it wrong to compare pen with sword. When pen is used for the sake of negative or aggressive propaganda, again it is not representing knowledge. Here it is representing power. Pen should represent only harmless arguments, whose aim should be to logically prove or disprove the outstanding issue. And only justice minded people accept the truth of such logical arguments. In case, a powerful person is justice minded also and in this way he accepts the truth of argumentative proof and decides to act in accordance with truth; here pen has not defeated the sword. Pen didn’t fight any war with sword. Pen only conveyed the truth to a justice minded person and has influenced him in this way.

Once Wasif Ali Wasif told an example of Hazrat Isa (AS) to a person who had asked some question from him. Example was that once a person saw that Hazrat Isa (AS) was running away from a person. That person amazingly asked Hazrat Isa (AS) why he was so running. Hazrat Isa (AS) replied that he was running away from an idiot person. That person was idiot because he had no ability to understand truth or he was ready to reply pen with sword. The meaning of this symbolic example is that to counter the threat of sword is not the function of pen and it is quite useless or wrong to put logical arguments before those who either don’t possess the ability of understanding the truth or who do not believe in justice.

To counter the threat of some kind of sword, we actually need the same or some other kind of sword. If others are armed or equipped with the sword of authoritative power, we can counter this threat with the sword of physical power or even with the sword of knowledge. When knowledge assumes the form of sword, then it is however not representing pen. Actually pen cannot win any war against sword. To fight with sword, we will have to leave the pen and hold one or the other type of sword. Or we should run away from that sword because it is the right solution.

As pen is quite ineffective before sword, so I am not against holding up of sword. But we should hold sword (may be even sword of knowledge), with the view to safeguard pen. Our sword should not be against the point of view of pen.

Furthermore, arguments or even propaganda etc. are the representatives of pen only if their aim is to logically prove or disprove the related issue.

Practically, power is also an argument. Suppose I am powerful and my opponent is on the right. Now I “argue” by asking my opponent that I am on the right, so you accept my point of view, otherwise be ready to face such and such consequences. What could be the “logical” reply to such an argument? I think “logically” it has been proved that I am on the right until and unless my opponent also comes up with force with the view to decide the matter in battlefield. Here power is a valid argument. But this valid argument is not representing pen. As I mentioned earlier that in order to be the representative of pen, argument should be harmless. Likewise some other things, which apparently seem to be the representatives of pen, are actually the representatives of sword. USA’s huge scientific nature military devices are the product of knowledge, but are not the representatives of pen. Those are actually swords of knowledge. This sword of knowledge may not always defend the point of view of pen. This sword of knowledge can be raised against the pint of view of pen as well.

I am not against holding the sword of knowledge in hand. I am only saying that whatever sword we possess, we must use it only with the view to defend the point of view of pen. Even if the sword of knowledge is defending the point of view of pen, still this sword is the representative of power. This sword of knowledge is fighting with another sword, which has been raised against the point of view of pen. Pen itself never fights any war against sword.

Quran first time allowed Muslims to fight wars in following words:

(002.190)
YUSUFALI: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.

So when opponents come up with power, its only solution is to reply them with power. According to an Hadith, Prophet (PBUH) advised Muslims to keep in possession at least those military weapons as are in possession of enemies.

So the real issue is not of pen vs sword. The issues are two. First issue is that which sword is better and superior? Is it the sword of propagenda, or sword of knowledge, or sword of ignorant mob, or some other kind of sword? And the second issue is that should sword always be raised just to defend the point of view of pen, or it can be raised against pen?

Should we use the sword of knowledge? My reply would be that real purpose of knowledge is not to get power. Knowledge should be acquired with the view to live a better knowledgeful life. But since we face the threat of swords of enemies. So we also should hold every kind of sword, including the sword of knowledge as well. But we should use this sword with the only purpose to save the pen from the opposing swords. And point of view of pen can only be equity and justice.

How to eradicate Poverty from our Country? And can our Education sector make any Progress if we just Increase Education Budget?

Mahatir Muhammad’s “Case of Asia” is a good book to understand how practically poverty can be eradicated within few decades from a poor country. Although he expressed his concerns about the setbacks to the Economies of East Asian Countries in late 1990s, but on the whole, he showed his satisfaction over the achievements of his government. Malaysia was a poor country in early 1960’s when Mahatir assumed power. He has discussed his long term planning aimed at how to eradicate poverty from the country. His people were mostly uneducated and did not know even how to do small businesses. His government first tried to understand the composition of country’s society with respect to their economic activities and level of incomes. They found that there was vast disparity in the type of Economic activities and distribution of Income. A sizable population of Malaysia consisted of alien people. Indigenous Malaysian people were in majority however but most Economic resources were in the hands of alien people. Mahatir discusses that his government could adopt such policies as to just re-distribute the economic resources among population through various indirect means such as through progressive taxation etc. But they thought it was wrong to deprive wealthy people off their hard earned resources. They realized that actual problem was not to just redistribute the resources. The issue was to generate new resources. The majority poor population was so ignorant and didn’t even know how to start a small business. Then Mahatir discusses how his government endeavored to introduce business culture in the society. In fact, his strategy was to introduce entrepreneurial culture in the society. His government first encouraged small enterprises through small loan schemes. His government launched a campaign to promote awareness among small business owners about the adoptation and utilization of modern techniques of Accounting and Finance. In this way, at first his government successfully made a sizable number of people the owner of their own businesses. All the economic activities boosted with increased business activities. Secondly his government did concrete efforts for the promotion of Foreign Investment in his country.

The difference between such a strategy and our policy is something like that we also study Accounting and Finance. But in our country, these subject are taught with the view to enable the students to find some clerical or so called Managerial job. Whereas Mahatir’s government launched campaign to make these modern techniques of doing business as part of business culture of country.

And I do not think that education sector can make progress only with the help of additional finance. We are having far more Economic resources than our own ancient ancestors. If they could make many achievements in educational, intellectual and scientific fields, then why we have been unable to do the same things while having far more Economic resources than our those ancestors could have? Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy considers it just a baseless excuse that we are backward in education sector just because of lack of some Economic resources. The question is, after all what we shall do of additional money if we double or triple our Education budget? Obviously we shall open some new substandard schools and universities. As a result, there shall be some more addition of half educated unemployed or under-employed degree-holder youth. There is actually need of many qualitative type reforms in our education system. Dr. Hoodhbhoy says ok that many types of Scientific research studies do require expensive laboratory equipment, but he says that laboratory equipment is not the necessary condition for all types of scientific research. For example, he has classified science into (i) Practical Sciences and; (ii) Theoretical Sciences. He tells us that research work in theoretical sciences do not require the usage of any expensive laboratory equipment. So we would rightfully blame our so called poverty only if we have shown any positive achievement in the area of at least theoretical sciences.

Furthermore, neither our education system is aware of any utility of theoretical sciences, nor our university syllabi include any theoretical science at all. Only emphasis is on just a minor aspect of practical sciences. My friend who did Masters in Botany told me that once university imported some expensive lab equipment from Japan. But that equipment was never used because if during its application some fault comes, it could only be removed by Japanese. So University management thought it better to not use that equipment at all…!!!

So how our education sector can make any progress if we successfully find many oil wells in our country but pay no attention to the qualitative aspects of education system?

Difference between a Soldier Suicide Bomber and a Terrorist Suicide Attacker

Difference between a Soldier Suicide Bomber and a Terrorist Suicide Attacker:

For this analysis, I think the term ’suicide attacker’ would be better than ’suicide bomber’ because the former is relatively more general term and all the impacts of later term are also included in the former one. Secondly we must differentiate between ’soldier suicide attacker’ and ‘terrorist suicide attacker’.

A ’soldier suicide attacker’ is one, who in the state of physical or even implied warfare, attacks on the military oriented establishments or even personals of enemy in such a way that he does not take care of his own possible death in his mission.

A ’soldier suicide attacker’ is a BRAVE person. He is having HIGH ETHICAL MORALE. He knows who are his right enemies. He has all the rights that he can rightfully attack on his enemies even in a way like a ’suicide attack’. By definition, a soldier is one who is committed to sacrifice his own life while during fighting with the enemies. If a soldier were not ready to sacrifice his life during fight with the enemy, that soldier would be COWARD in this case. If most of the soldiers of a technically developed country do not want to sacrifice their lives even during wartime, then they would be coward by nature. They would rely on sophisticated technology, which could conveniently kill others without any risk of self-sacrifice. In this way, they would actually be just ‘cunning’ and ‘clever’ but they would not be brave.

Now come to the ‘terrorist suicide attacker’ (TSAs). First of all these TSAs do not rightly identify who their real enemies are. Due to their stupid form of ignorance, they think that innocent civilians of the enemy nation are also their enemies. Secondly these TSAs are coward by nature. They do not possess enough courage to face the military personals of enemy so they choose innocent people as their target. Even at this point, they show their cowardice by keeping their identity secret. Even if they do not do it, they would not become brave then. So these coward TSAs unrightfully attack those innocent from behind, who actually cannot be considered as ‘enemies’.

These TSAs do not possess any good moral purpose. They actually possess a negative form of ill ethics. Their purpose is just to blackmail the enemy by threatening dangers to the lives of innocent civilian people of enemy. In this way the enemy actually acquires a good and better ethical position because here the role of enemy would be ‘good’ if that enemy strives for the protection of lives of its own civilian population.

These TSAs are worse than even the cruel army of the enemy. A cruel army, when persecutes, or even massacre the civilian population of enemy, it would do it while considering it’s owns self as somewhat superior to the oppressed nation. This cruel army would consider it’s own self as superior and would consider the whole enemy nation as inferior. This thing cannot be considered as ethically good. This is an evil basically.

But what if those TSAs happen to be proving themselves as much more ethically bad than that? If someone considers other people as mean and inferior and so even wants to exterminate those people, we would call that someone as a wicked. But what if a person considers his own self so much inferior and mean that he is ready to kill his own self just in a bet to possibly blackmail his enemy using a coward and negative way-out? A person who considers others to be inferior to him is actually less wicked than that person who considers himself as much inferior that he thinks as if the value of his own life was equivalent to a coward negative purpose.

Those who cannot or do not give proper respect to their own selves how can they expect that other nations shall give them any respect? The biggest social evil in which contemporary Muslim societies have been trapped is that they have lost their self-respect.

How a Punjabi can feel over Bugti’s Assassination……!!!!

How a Punjabi can feel over Bugti’s Assassination……!!!!
(Written on September 01, 2006)

Mr. Bugti has died in an encounter, so shall be remembered for his bravery and commitment to his cause. Though his cause had little to do with the welfare of his people and more to do with his personal prestige and powerful position, yet his death has been resulted in generating more sympathies for the cause of Baloch people.

It is necessary that we must investigate the cause of Economic and educational backwardness of Baloch people. These are my feelings as being a Punjabi. On the other hand, Mr. Irshad Ahmed Haqqani, in his column, has copied a letter of a Punjabi who is resident of Balochistan. Punjabi people are the victim of target killing and Robbery in Balochistan province. There is general environment of hatred for Punjabis among the Baloch people, or at least among the ‘nationalist’ Balochis. The slogan of Balochi ‘nationalists’ is: “Balochistan – the graveyard of Punjabis”. It is important to mention that if Baloch people are poor or backward, then so is the case with those Punjabi victims of target killing … because mostly they also happened to be poor labour class people. So they are becoming victim of a blind form of hatred. It is also important to mention that Punjabis do not hate Balochis or any other in this type of manner or any other manner whatsoever.

Rights of Balochistan have to do with the affairs of federal government and not with the people of Punjab. But indirect role of Punjab does come because of such reasons as: (i) More representation of Punjabis in federal government, (ii) Economic prosperity of common Punjabi as compared to common Balochi. etc.

Federal government allocates resources to different provinces on the basis of population data alone. As being a Punjabi, in my honest assessment, this is a wrong policy. Balochistan is the largest province of country in terms of its area but smallest in terms of population. While allocating the resources to this province, federal government takes decision solely on the basis of population data and simply ignores the implications of vast land area of this province. The simple implication of such vast land area is that it gives the result of very high per capita infrastructure cost. With the view to provide the facility of lets say, a road to less number of people, a long road of many hundred kilometers would be required. So the per capita infrastructure cost has to be very much high in this province as compared to lets say Punjab where far more number of people get the benefit of relatively very short road. So first of all in my opinion, resources should be allocated not just on the basis of population data but should be allocated on the basis of per capita infrastructure cost. Representation of Baloch people also should be increased in federal government due to similar reasons.

Punjabis are generally well off because they have been gifted by nature with five big rivers and fertile agriculture land. Punjabi people are lucky in the sense that they can exercise their proprietary rights over the fertile lands of the province. It means that Punjabi people are lucky because they can exercise proprietary rights over the naturally occurring natural resources of their province.

Balochi people have been unlucky because they have been deprived off to exercise their proprietary rights over the natural resources (natural gas) of their province. Bugti’s assassination has diverted our attention (Punjabi’s attention) towards this form of injustice as well. Balochistan is poor in water resources and fertility of land but it is rich in other form of natural resources as natural gas. If Punjab has the right to take full benefit of its natural resources, then Balochistan also should have full right to take benefits of its natural resources. But just like Punjabi people take the benefit of their natural resources, so it should be the Baloch people who should take the benefit of their natural resources and this benefit should not go in the pockets of their Sardars.

It is also important to mention that Punjabis do not act as parasite for Baloch people in any sense. They make payment for the gas, which they use. This payment however should go to provincial government of Balochistan for the benefit of Baloch people, and should not go to federal government or even the personal treasures of Baloch Sardars. Federal government should take just her taxation out of this income and nothing more.

It is also necessary that constitutional set up should be like a federation with the greatest possible autonomy to Provinces. There should not be any form of injustice by any province towards any other. People of one province should not hate with people of other province on just baseless things like that since Punjabis take ‘electricity’ out of waters of rivers so the water which reaches to next province would lack some important ingredient which is crucial for agriculture etc. etc. If people of other provinces hate with Punjabis on the basis of this type of reasons, then they are also committing injustice towards Punjabis.

Scientific Revolution and Muslim World:

It had been a great misfortune to Muslim Nation when they themselves denied the permissibility of any kind of freethinking (ijtihad etc.) for their own self and preferred the way of blind ‘taqleed’.

Early Islamic history had been characterized by free and open discussions and of making of new and new ijtihads. The existence of four separate and comprehensive schools of Muslim Fiqh is the clear evidence that early Muslim scholars could freely interpret the teachings of Islam and in such way that their interpretations could be different from those of others.

Originally there was no any such concept as ‘blind taqleed’ in Islam. The concept of ‘blind taqleed’ was actually emerged as a reaction to growing number of different Islamic schools of thought. The time when famous four fiqahs had been completed, the leading scholars then made another ‘ijtihad’ and imposed ban on any further ijtihad. So blind taqleed in this way became the destiny of Muslim nation.

The glorious period of Muslim intellectual achievements was due to a well-known early Muslim school of thought known as ‘Al-Mutazillah’. This school of thought flourished during the early Abbasid era. Al-Mutazilities adopted the method of applying rationality in the process of making interpretations of code of religion. They emphasized that humans were free in making choices for their actions. In this way, actually they denied the notion of any pre-determined fate. The belief in pre-determined fate had not emerged in the early history of Islam, but actually had been emerged during the period of Umayyad Caliphate. Umayyad rulers were not popular among the populace and so they used to persecute the masses with the intention to prolong their rule. In order to put a cover on their acts of massive persecutions. They, with the help of ‘political Muslim scholars’ promoted the belief in pre-determined fate. They, in this way, tried to legitimize their rule and acts of persecutions by saying that all what was happening was because it was already so decided by the Will of God. They asked people to not to protest against their rule, as it would be equivalent to the protest against the Will of God because Umayyad rulers had the claim that their rule was due to the Will of God.

With the fall of Umayyad rule, and with the emergence of Al-Mutazillah school of thought, belief on free human will got popularity among the highly educated class of Muslims. Caliph Mamoon Rashid also adopted this Al-Mutazillah faith. It was Caliph Mamoon who established Bait-ul-Hikmah in Baghdad and appointed many learned Jewish, Sabi and Christian scholars to translate the work of Greek and Indian scholars on vast scale. Now ground was ready to produce great intellectual scholars. So first-ever Muslim philosopher Abu Ishaq Yaqoob Al-Kindi was Mutazilie in faith. Later giant Muslim philosophers i.e. Al-Farabi and Ibn-e-Sina just adopted the same approach and extended the views of Al-Kindi into further depths. With the passage of time, the political control shifted in the hands of Al-Asherites (present day Ahl-e-Sunnat Wal-Jamaat) school of thought. Al-Ashrites were against the views of Al-Mutazillah. The leading scholars of Al-Ashrites faith i.e. Imam Abu-Al-Hassan Al-Ashary and Imam Ghazali favored the notion of pre-determined fate and so they rejected the idea of free human will. Imam Ghazali particularly denied the validity of cause-effect principle by saying that events happen not because of any physical underlying cause but because God Himself directs the events to happen in that way.

As Al-Ashrities assumed political power, they forcefully eliminated the views of Al-Mutazillah by adopting such means as torturing Mutazilities scholars as well as burning up their books in fire. Every kind of intellectual activity was openly disregarded and the long era of faith in blind taqleed initiated.

After the time of Imam Ghazali, only two great Muslim scholars came in Muslim History. First was Spanish Ibn-e-Rushd. This person drew profound influence over the intellectual environment of the West. Actually it was Ibn-e-Rushd who has served the role of connecting bridge between the Muslim enlightenment and Western enlightenment. The light of rationality and wisdom has been transferred from Muslim world to Western world via this great Muslim intellectual – Ibn-e-Rushd. But Muslim society disregarded him and he could not get any popularity in Muslim world. Second great scholar was Ibn-e-Khuldun. Muslim society again ignored the work of their last intellectual scholar and it has been the Western Scholars of eighteenth century who eventually ‘discovered’ the great work of Ibn-e-Khuldun and realized the importance of his work.

A Western Scholar Dr. Sakhaw has written that if there were no Ashary and Ghazali in Muslim world, then many Galileos and Newtons would have come from Muslim societies.

Followers of Hanabilites school of thought like Ibn-e-Hazm, Ibn-e-Tammiyah and the Imam Abdul Wahab etc. all were great anti-rationalists, basically. To them, even any new scientific theory would have been another ‘biddat’, which would deserve forceful rejection or elimination.

The time when West started to accept the importance of rational inquiry into the theoretical matters corresponds to the time when the light of rationality and wisdom had been completely turned off by the combined efforts of Al-Asharites, Hanabilitis and Muslim Sufis.

Role of Al-Asharities and Hanabalies has been discussed. Sufis were also against the method of rational inquiry because they preferred ‘wajad’ to rational thought.

So over-all Muslim intellectual environment had been complete anti-rational in nature throughout the time, which corresponds to the period of renaissance in Western world.

For as long period of time as about 500 years (after the death of Ibn-e-Khuldun in 13th century AD to 18th century AD) Muslim societies either had been stuck in complete blind taqleed or at the most had been trying to figure out or resolve the differences between Sufism and Shriah; where Sufism related to inner aspects (batan) of spiritual life and Shariah related to external compliance (zahir) to the commands of religion as to prayers etc.

In the eighteenth century, Shah Wali Ullah, a prominent Indian Muslim Scholar, after a very long period, accepted the positive role of ijtihad in the modern times and also emphasized the need of presenting Islamic teachings in the shape of rational arguments. Muslim society gave him respect but did not understand his point of view. A century later, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan launched a campaign of introducing rationality in the interpretations of teachings of religion. But mainstream Muslim society rejected his view on religious matters. He however got success in introducing modern Western education in Muslim society.

Allama Iqbal, then, got popularity in Muslims of India but basically he was another anti-rationalist and he did not like that Muslims may study philosophy or literature. After independence, Pakistan produced a Nobel Prize winner scientist Dr. Abdul Salam but he also was disregarded by Pakistani society just because he belonged to a sect, which is considered Kafir by rest of Muslims. A Pakistani writer Mr. Sheikh Ikram writes that we should adopt Western technology but we should not introduce the study of theoretical sciences in the country. What would be its implication? We shall just be a ‘user’ of technology and we shall not be able to invent any technology at our own because of being unfamiliar to theoretical sciences.

There is another poor trend in Muslim societies. This is keeping false pride in the achievements of ancient Muslims in the field of science and technology. There is nothing wrong in keeping this pride, but the wrong element is that contemporary Muslims feel this pride not with any such purpose as to get positive inspirations from their ancestors, but just to get a sort of poor justification for their backwardness in comparison with the Western world. They do not justify their backwardness. They only “justify” the progress of Western world by wrongfully (and passively) thinking that all what West knows today was actually told to them by the ancient Muslim scientists. So contemporary Muslims do not find their happiness in any of their positive achievement, but just in this type of false passive ideas. Another still existing passive attitude of Muslims is that they believe that there is no need to learn about any man made ‘ism’. What they believe is something like that all the possible scientific knowledge is already contained in Muslim sacred books. So the practical meaning of doing ‘scientific research’ for them is that whenever Western scientists shall discover any new scientific truth, they (Muslims) then just again interpret their sacred books in such way as to become able to say that the said new scientific fact was already contained in those books.

Secondly our education system is also incapable of producing any real scientific achievement. It is also worthy to point out that all our education policies are ‘quantity’ oriented and our governments have been just unable to introduce any qualitative policy capable to bring about any intellectual revolution in our education sector. I have my own views over the qualitative aspects of education system and in my work; I have classified our existing education system as ‘static’ understanding improvement model. By the term ‘static’, I mean that maximum goal before our education system is just to convey already existing knowledge to students. This model is ‘static’ because there is no any such goal as to get any intellectual achievement in the form of lets say, formulation of any new theory etc. So under this ‘static’ education system, we cannot expect that any real scientist shall come from it. Only huge number of degree holders shall come from this type of education system. Actually there is need of a comprehensive progressive oriented education philosophy for our education system. But unfortunately there is no awareness, at any level, about this need. There should be ‘ground’ capable enough to produce real intellectual achievements. Our existing education system does not provide this type of ground.

USA – The World Leader not just because of superior Militery Power:

In my assessment, USA stands as a world leader not just because of its superior military power. To be a world leader, a country must require having somewhat ‘ideological agenda’, which could organize other major countries of the world under the leadership of that country. And I must make it clear that it is not just philosophical assertion but in fact it is ground reality. About two centuries back when Britain and France were struggling for their colonial expansions, both these countries were doing it for the cause of some ideological agenda. Agenda for Britain was the ‘cause of white man’, and the agenda for France was ‘civilization of un-civilized human populations’, mainly in African countries. In this way, both these colonial powers were actually legitimizing their colonial holdings, in the eyes of other countries.

In the later periods of colonization, Britain adopted the slogans of ‘liberalism’, ‘democracy’ etc. as their political agenda with the view to legitimize its colonial holdings.

What is Legitimization?

Legitimization is the NEED of any government or head of government. In the contemporary world, this ‘legitimization’ mainly comes from democratic vote. When some political group gets this democratic vote, its position as true head of state becomes UNQUESTIONABLE in the eyes of not only country’s own population, but also in the eyes of governments of other countries of the world.

This ‘legitimization’ exists even in absolute dictatorship or monarchy, but in somewhat different form. A monarch king usually legitimizes his kingship by manipulating the religious beliefs of the population of his own country. In the ancient Greek world, Alexander, for instance, ‘legitimized’ his superior position by calling himself as ‘son of Zeus’ (i.e. an ancient god). Similarly, the Faros of ancient Egypt also legitimized their kingships in same manner.

Above are the examples out of ancient times. In the medieval times, Catholic Church happened to have effective political control over virtually whole of Europe. And Church also legitimized its political control by manipulating the religious beliefs of people. Japan’s monarchy is among the most ancient monarchies of world. To obey or to give best of respect to Japan’s Emperor is actually included in the beliefs of Shinto religion i.e. the dominant religion of Japan. So the authority of Emperor had ever been unquestionable in Japan. If authority is ‘unquestionable’ it means that authority is ‘legitimate’.

Dictators of contemporary world also try to legitimize their authority on religious grounds. In our country, Gen. Zia’s referendum was the most direct attempt to use religion with the view to get legitimate authority. Kings of Saudi Arabia call themselves ‘Khademein-e-Harmain Sharifain’. On the other hand they are ready to hand over all their affairs to Americans but still they need to have somewhat legitimacy in the eyes of Muslim population as well as in the eyes of other Muslim countries. Very ironical reality is that after the second world war, it happened to be only Arab countries which have lost their territories in wars and have been unable to re-gain those territories. Other exception may be Afghanistan.

Gen. Musharraf has legitimized himself in a different way. At very first instance, he came up with his ‘seven point agenda’ (note this is another form of ‘ideological agenda’). In this way, he successfully legitimized his authority in the eyes of upper and middle, educated class of country. Secondly, he got the chance of legitimizing himself internationally by accepting a crucial role in the so-called ‘war against terrorism’.

In the same way, USA also is in need to show its commitment to such ‘ideological agenda’, which should have some appeal to other major countries. USA’s one such ‘ideological agenda’ is the slogan of ‘global peace’. The slogan of this ‘global peace’ should be heeded in depth. Throughout the known history, humans have been divided in many political groups. Those groups always have been in the state of military wars with other groups. World, in its whole history, never have experienced any effective ‘international law’. Here I would like to refer to the ideas of Bertrand Russell who considered the absence of any international law as ‘international anarchy’. He put forwarded these views just after the end of Second World War. By that time, the whole world was quite fed up of continuing international wars. Although the world was divided in two major power blocks but still then both these blocks did not want to indulge themselves in any physical war. Both these power groups were in NEED to set up some international peace forum where they could settle their routine disputes without involving themselves in major physical wars. So the emergence of ‘effective’ United Nations was the need of the day. After it, the world also experienced the so-called ‘cold war’. It was generally anticipated that the ultimate consequence of this cold war would be more dangerous because any major war between such two powerful groups could end up in massive scale atomic war, which might result in complete destruction of contemporary human civilization or even humanity as a whole. So in those days, Bertrand Russell was one of the main proponents of the idea of uni-polar world regime. He elaborated this idea in details in his writings. His point of view was something like that to end up the prevalent fear of complete destruction of humanity as a whole; the world should organize itself under the leadership of a single super power country. That single super power country should possess complete monopoly in the possession of world’s main military assets. That super power country should act like a world policeman with the view to enforce a uniform universal law.

While comparing USA and USSR, Russell’s opinion went in the favor of USA as a ‘better’ international policeman. Russell took the side of USA on such grounds that USA was the supporter of such ideas as ‘freedom of thought’, ‘equality’ etc. as compared to USSR.

On this question that how actually the whole world could organize itself under a single leadership, Russell’s reply was that it could happen either as a result of another world war or it could happen as a result of agreement between the then two major power blocks. Russell could not survive to see how it actually has happened but it is a fact that it has happened in whatever way.

Now USA’s practical role is not different to what Russell assigned to his ideal single super power. Meaning of ‘global peace’ is that if all the alphabets are considered to be all the countries of world where ‘U’ would stand for USA, then country ‘A’ should not fight war with country ‘B’ or ‘M’. Similarly country ‘P’ also should not fight war with country ‘X’ or ‘Z’. In this ideal ‘global peace’, only country ‘U’ should fight wars with any other country. And country ‘U’ should fight wars with other countries with the view to ensure that other countries may not fight wars against each other.

In this way if country ‘U’ punishes country ‘M’ then it would NOT go against the basic idea of ‘global peace’. But the underlying purpose of ‘global peace’ is preservation of human civilization and humanity as a whole. So in case country ‘U’ punishes any other country in such a way which would become a serious threat to the preservation of human civilization and humanity as a whole, then at this point country ‘U’ would be crossing its those limits which were acceptable to all the other major countries. At this point, other countries MUST stop the hands of USA.

And yes just like USA, other major nations also believe in ‘human rights’ not in its true essence but just in the form of a clever slogan. If USA violates ‘human rights’ in Afghanistan or in Iraq, other major nations shall not take any serious notice of these cruelties. In these cases, the aggrieved nations should try to promote the idea of ‘human rights’ in its true essence. At some point, other nations would feel guilty over their present negligence.

Nature of “Double Standards” of Western and Muslim World:

Very often we ourselves do many such things which may be considered as ‘double standard’ from the point of view of others. A common American citizen actually thinks his country as being on the right if it successfully prolongs the present uni-polar world regime.

I try to explain it while supposing that I am an American. Being an ‘American’, I am feeling my nation is endowed with this divine responsibility that it has to maintain global peace at any cost. I also think it is due to the efforts of my country that international peace forums like United Nation etc. are ‘effectively’ functioning now. The role of my nation is that of an active, good and successful policeman. It is due to the efforts of my country that now nations throughout the world do not indulge themselves in wars. Now powerful countries do not occupy the territory of weak countries. Iraq for example did it once. But it was due to the efforts of my country that it had to pay heavy price for it and the sovereignty of Kuwait was restored as a result of the efforts of my country. There are many fanatic people living in this world. They forcefully interrupt the peaceful lives of other nations. For example there were Nazis and Communists. If my country did not become the supreme military power of the world, then either Nazis or Communists would have become. What if Nazis were the supreme military power of the present world? Obviously the relationship between Nazis and rest of world would have to be that of master and slave because Nazis are ‘racially superior’ to all the others. I would think, as a good American, that role of my country as a super military power is really very positive because it is after all not preaching any idea of racial superiority. My country is trying to promote democracies in the whole of contemporary world. Since democracy is good, it means that my country is thinking for the goodness of other countries of the world. Our country has saved the world from Communist Devils. They wanted to forcefully over-throw the peaceful governments of other countries. They wanted that other countries also follow their insane economic and political system. A Communist system does not allow liberty of thought to the populace. It is our country, which is the strong advocate of, and vigorously confederates the freedom of thought. Bertrand Russel was right in his analysis that people under the communist system could not be allowed to deviate their minds from Dialectical Materialism. In USA, on the other hand, people are free to choose any ideology or creed whichever satisfies their thirst of wisdom. Thus in our country, there are Christians, Jews, Muslims and others as well as people of our nation follow such wide range of ideologies as positivism, pragmatism, materialism, idealism, existentialism and so on. If our country were not the super military power of the world, the ruthless Arab Muslims would have eaten-up relatively very small group of Jews who just want to live in their ‘promised’ land.

With the fall of Communism, another kind of fanatics, the extremist Muslims now want to rule the world in their own very ignorant style. They do not want that women, out of their masses, be given proper education. They inhumanly treat those who belong to other religions. They consider it their religious duty to destroy even the archeological remains. They do not allow that other religions be preached in the countries wherever they may establish governments. When they assume power, they require from their masses such insane things as to keep beard of a certain length and to wear dresses having designs which come up to certain specifications. They want to promote a thing, which they call “jihad”, which is very wicked, harmful and dangerous for other ‘peaceful’ nations. Jihadies consider it all right that civil buildings of other countries be destroyed by bombs. They do not feel guilty if innocent women and children also die as a result. They want to employ WMDs in their terrorist activities. It is our country, which is so dedicatedly fighting against this global level terrorism.

Obviously when I would think all these things, as being a good American citizen, I would feel not much bad of what my country did in Hiroshima, in Vietnam, in Iraq and elsewhere. I would feel then that this was actually a price, which had to be paid for attaining and maintaining the global peace etc. etc. And it should be noted that it is true that Americans really do not feel much bad of their acts in Hiroshima or elsewhere. Because, in my assessment they think in above mentioned way.

Now I stop assuming that I am an American. I actually thought over the issue of ‘double standards’. We do not feel good of these so-called ‘double standards’ wherever we see them. Problem however is that we (obviously others also) can see ‘double standards’ in the acts and policies of only others. Normally one group of humans cannot see its own double standards. USA is no exception. I think that ‘double standards’ exist in two main forms. First can be considered as ‘value preference’ whereas other can be regarded as pure double standard.
The concept of ‘value preference’ can be seen as functional in our own daily lives. There are many things, which we consider as ‘valued’. The way of thinking, action, behavior and attitude, which we consider ‘important’, are our values. We prefer telling the truth to telling a lie. Truth for us therefore is more important. Normally we shall continue to prefer telling the truth to telling a lie but only up to the point where our truth remains in harmony with the rest of our value systems. For example I prefer telling a truth to telling a lie. This is my ‘value’. I possess some other values also. For example I want that my friends may not suffer any severe loss. My wish that my friend may not suffer severe losses can be considered to be another of my ‘value’. And sometimes I may face such situations where I would be needed to prefer one of my values to the other. I value truth and at the same time I also value my friends. Sometime there may arise conflict between these two of my values. Sometimes I may prefer the value relating to my friends to the value relating to the truth. This seems to be a ‘double standard’ but I like to call it as ‘value preference’. When I have to prefer one of my values to the other, I justify myself on the basis of comparing the difference between what I get and what I lose, in ethical terms, in this way. If my minor act of telling a less wicked lie saves my friend from a grave loss, then I can ethically justify myself in telling a lie over telling the truth. In other occasions I would still continue to prefer telling the truth over telling lies. Someone may point out that I am practicing double standard. But as I said earlier, I do not think so as I know that my behavior in this case would be characterized by ‘value preference’ and not by any ‘double standard’. And I find nothing ethically wrong in this type of value preference because here we are bound to choose between two evils. If we really face this situation and then choose the option which is less wicked it means that we can justify our-self by thinking that we are still ‘good’.

‘Double Standard’ is quite a different thing. It is such a way of thinking that I myself want to live an honorable life but I want to humiliate others. When I humiliate others, I get no extra benefit of it. So pure double standard is actually a pure selfish behavior.

When I apply this analysis to the study of the behavior of contemporary Muslim and Western world, I find that about all the behavior of Muslims which is considered negative by the western world, is actually a matter of ‘value preference’ for the Muslims. Muslims, how much bad their behavior may seem to others, in my complete honest and impartial opinion, fall in the category of ‘value preference’. They value so much to the honor of Prophet (PBUH) that they may not feel bad of their violent strikes. Even the extremist Muslim sects actually value their particular creeds so much that they become ready to even kill the people who belong to different sect. This extreme negative behavior can be regarded to be the result of their ignorance of the true Islamic teachings but it cannot be regarded as any pure selfish behavior.

Behavior of western powers, which seems bad to us, however cannot always be considered to be ‘value preference’. When there were reports of CIA that Iraq actually does not possess any WMD’s then the decision of initiating military attack on Iraq was a pure selfish decision. During the war time, when USA was pretending to act like as if it were just doing ‘value preference’, i.e. when USA’s aircraft were throwing evil weapons and ‘good’ food and other necessaries at the same time, USA’s this act cannot be considered ‘value preference’ in any way. Iraq was not so big a power that could pose any real threat to the security of USA. The dictator ruler was also not bad in himself because he was given the punishment for those acts, which he committed when he was USA’s ally. So in this case, a powerful country only humiliated a weak country without any moral objective. It is very important to understand that USA tends to commit ‘double standards’ under the disguise of ‘value preference’. In the case under review, they did it using the propaganda of WMDs.

The negative behavior of Muslims mostly is the result of their present state of ignorance. They sometime value some those things, and in such a manner, which actually do not come up to the standard of original and pure Islamic teachings. Muslim world is facing two main challenges which are first, the curse of their own ignorance and secondly, the ‘double standards’ of western powers.

Enlightened Moderation

The notion of ‘Moderate Islam’ has been emerged as a reaction to the so-called ‘Extremist Islam’. Some half educated Muslims believe that all the miseries and all the difficulties upon which the whole Muslim Ummah has been trapped, has only two reasons namely; (i) that all the Muslims throughout the world do not follow their own (i.e. that small group’s) particular interpretation of Islamic teachings and; (ii) all the other nations of the world are doing nothing but just conspiring their some ill agenda towards Muslims.

So this small group of half educated Muslims hates all those Muslims who happen to follow some different interpretation of Islam and they also hate all the other nations of the world particularly three i.e. (i) Jews, (ii) Hindus and; (iii) Christians.

We cannot have any doubt in the sincerity of this small extremist group for the betterment of Islam. They are really very sincere to Islam by their heart. An extremist Sunni, for example, would do a real great service, in his mind, for the ‘cause’ of Islam when he kills some shias and vice versa. In the same way, these extremist people, in their own feelings, are really very sincere for the cause of Islam when they hate or try to promote hatred towards other nations.

The problem is not with the sincerity of this extremist group. They are good sincere Muslims by their heart. The only problem is the boundless volume of grave ignorance, which they possess. Their ignorance is evident in the fact that they do not know any cause of the decline of Muslim societies other than above-mentioned two reasons. They do not know that Muslims are behind in science and technology just because they themselves have just marginal contribution towards the knowledge of science and technology. Instead of knowing this, what they know is that all what westerns know today, was actually told to them by the ancient Muslim scientists. In their minds, they already know all the hidden secrets of Universe so there is no need to try to find any new secret of Universe. Since they already know all the possible secrets of Universe, so the only thing needed is that all other nations also should believe in those absolute secrets. What are those secrets? These are something like that a man must have this much certain length of beard. That people belonging to a particular sect of Islam are kaffirs, in fact. In order that people regularly offer prayers, there is a need of special state police force. That a particular sect is ‘Murttad’ so it is all right to kill the members of that sect. Another universal fact, which they know is something like that, all other nations are all time busy in making more and more conspiracies against Muslims.

Despite their all ignorance, they possess certain positive qualities. They ‘know’ the ‘problems’ and they also ‘know’ the ‘solution’. The ‘problems’ have been discussed above. Solution is of course ‘Jihad’. Meaning of ‘Jihad’ is ‘fighting’. Their real positive quality is that they really fight. They fight for what they consider true and right. So they do not possess negative or destructive intentions. Their intentions are positive because they struggle for the cause of righteousness. They are wrong however because their concept of righteousness is not right.

Their negative quality is that they hate others on quite wrong basis. Their positive quality is that what they consider right, they do struggle for its achievement, and in a way, which they consider right.

Their conscience can be doubted but their intentions cannot be. They think it necessary that in order that people regularly offer their prayers, there should be a special police force. When they really form their government somewhere, they then really establish one such special police force. Their criminal laws include such punishments as for not offering the prayers, and for not keeping beard of a certain length. By doing this sort of things, they just follow their own ignorant minds. They claim to follow the Shariah of Islam. But they never bother to see that according to the essence of Quranic punishments, human authorities are authorized to punish the people only in those matters, which relate to “Haqooq-ul-Ibad”. Thus Quranic Punishments include the punishment for murder, for theft and for other matters relating to ‘Haqooq-ul-Ibad’. But Quranic Punishments do not include punishment for not offering the prayers, punishment for not keeping beard of any certain length and so on. Human authorities have not been authorized by Quran to give punishment in any matter, which relates to ‘Haqooq-Allah’. Because according to the essence of Quranic teachings, punishment in the matters of ‘Haqooq-Allah’ shall be given to the wrong doers in their after life, and by God Almighty himself.

So extremists are actually those people who want to take authority of God also in their own hands. And they do it not due to their any negative intention. They do it just because of their ignorance. Their role for the nation is that of a ‘fool well-wisher’.

Now come to see who are these so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims. These are ‘silent majority’ Muslims. They just like their routine lives and do not want any disturbance in their daily routines. They are quite peaceful. They do not care much about what is going on internationally because most of the international affairs have little to do with their daily routines. At the same time, they do get themselves well informed on various international matters. They often talk about cruelties and double standards of westerns but they know that they can do nothing against those westerns. Having this characteristic, they can be considered to be much passive than those ‘extremists’ because ‘extremists’, after all do take some practical steps. ‘Moderate’ Muslims know that they, as a nation, are just following the dictations of west but they do not feel much ashamed of this fact. They just prefer their daily routines and do not undertake to perform their any role towards the correction of the situation. They put all the responsibility either on government or on ‘others’ and again get themselves busy in their routines. So in this way the ‘extremists’ do wrong efforts whereas these so-called ‘Moderate’ Muslims do nothing at all. This ‘silent majority’ has no positive program to be acted upon. The only thing, which it has, is just its ‘silence’.

What is needed?

Obviously this ‘moderate’ Islam is not the need of the day. Slogan of ‘Moderate Islam’ has been created just to show before westerns that all the Muslims are not extremists and therefore ‘terrorists’. Intention was just to show that majority Muslims are quite peaceful. ‘Extremists’ hate others and want to promote hate for others just due to their ignorance. ‘Moderate Muslims’ on the other hand are ‘peaceful’ not because they have found any corrective solution in their peace. They are ‘peaceful’ just because they do not want to disturb their routine lives and they also find themselves quite helpless before the mighty power of the west. So this ‘peace’ is actually a sign of their crowdedness. Rather than these ‘moderate’ Muslims, there is actually a need of ‘progressive’ Muslims. These should be the people who should not hate others on just baseless things. There is no need to hate any Jew just because he/she is a Jew. Similarly there is no need to hate any Hindu or Christian just because he/she is Hindu or Christian. But there is definite need to hate cruel whether they are Hindus, Jews, Christians or even Muslims. There is definite need to hate those who hate others just because of religious or sectarian differences. There is no need to adopt any absolute ‘peace’. There is definite need to try to become masters of our own destiny, rather than just following the dictations of the west. There is need to feel ashamed of our mistakes and weaknesses. There is need to investigate and find out the real causes of our present day’s backwardness as compared to Westerns. We, as a nation, have been quite addict to the finding of easy solutions to all the problems. Present competitive world is more complex and we must accept that our present policy of finding easy solutions shall not be useful. There is a need of a class of ‘progressive’ Muslims who should devote their lives in the analysis of national crises with the view to find out workable solution to the problem. There is definite need of social reforms and there is need to well educate the entire society. We should be peaceful but not because of our any weakness. We should be peaceful and at the same time we should not compromise our national dignity and honor. We should be peaceful in the sense that we should not force others to follow our dictations. We should not be peaceful in this sense that we have no other option but to follow the dictations.

Identity Crisis of Pakistan

Identity Crisis of Pakistan

Outline:

§ Historical factors which brought about ‘Muslim’ identity to the territory of present day Pakistan.
§ Emergence of Muslim society and culture in the sub-continent.
§ Downfall of Muslim rule and culture.
§ Muslim mind-set under the British rule.
§ Demand of Pakistan on the basis of ‘two nation theory’.
§ Identity crisis after independence.
§ Issue of national language.
§ Issue of one unit.
§ Separation of East Pakistan mainly because of identity crisis of Pakistan.
§ Importance of National Identity.
§ Contemporary crisis of National Identity.

Essay:

Pakistani territory has been home to one of the most ancient civilizations (i.e. Indus Valley Civilization) of the World. The Indus Valley civilization flourished in period 2500-1700 BC. It is generally believed that Indus Valley Civilization was destroyed by Arian invaders. Originally those Arians were not accustomed to civilized way of city life and they only could establish many small village oriented states that were run by many Rajas etc. Later on, most of the Pakistani territory has been a large province of world’s earliest imperial power i.e. Iran. Afterwards, Alexander put an end to the Iranian rule and he invaded the Pakistani territory also. Alexander then went back but died in the way. But Iranian imperial rule and the type of Alexander’s vast scale military achievements drew profound impressions upon the political set up of the sub-continent. Chandar Gupata Moriah, following the Iranian imperial type political model, brought about most of the territory of northern India into a single political regime, which was later on further extended by his grandson Asoka.

But that large political set up could not last for long time period and the sub-continent was again divided into many small kingships of Hindu Rajas. A major political change, which shaped the identity of present day Pakistani territory was the event of 711AD when an Arab Muslim military commander, Muhammad bin Qasim, invaded the territory of Sindh, defeated the Hindu Raja Dahir and thus annexed the area of Sindh to the Muslim imperial rule of Umayyad Caliphate. Emergence of Muslim rule resulted in fundamental changes in the civil society of this area in a way that vast local population embraced Islam and thus acquired their identity as ‘Muslims’. After about three centuries, other Muslim invaders of Turkish origin managed to bring most of the northern Indian Territory including almost whole territory of present day Pakistan under the Muslim rule. Muslim society flourished under the Muslim rule because Muslim culture was more progressive and tolerant than the culture of Hindus, who were in majority. Muslim culture and society got its own distinct identity, which was quite different to the identity of majority Hindu culture. Muslim political rule continued over centuries until eighteenth century when signs of the decline of Muslim rule began to appear and many turn of events resulted in the shift of locus of political control in the hands of a British origin business oriented establishment which was doing business in the country in the name of British East India Company.

After the war of 1857, the political control over India formally shifted to the British Crown. British government introduced democratic type limited self-autonomy in India. Under this type of government, Muslims would have gone under the Hindu political control in case the country got freedom from Britain.

The two world wars made Britain so much weak that now it could not hold on its many colonies including India. It became apparent during the Second World War that sooner or later Britain will have to announce freedom for India.

Indian Muslims were already concerned about the future of their separate identity as a ‘Muslim Culture’ and a prominent Muslim leader Sir Allama Iqbal already had proposed the establishment of a separate Muslim state within India where Muslims could preserve the separate identity of their culture.

But it was during the second world war when top Muslim leadership first realized that Allama Iqbal’s proposal could become the real motto of Indian Muslim’s struggle for independence from British Rule. So Indian Muslims demanded for a separate homeland i.e. Pakistan for them. The basis of this demand was the ‘two nation theory’. The themes of this ‘two nation theory’ was that Indian Muslims were not just a minority community in India but were having a distinct complete culture of their own and so were a separate nation. The underlying idea was that future of India should be decided by not considering Indian Muslims as just minority community but should be decided while considering Indian Muslims as a complete nation, which should be given a separate homeland where they could preserve their distinct culture.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah did lot of effort to persuade British rulers and Hindu leadership about the truth of this ‘two nation theory’ so that they may accede to the Muslim demand of a separate homeland for them. Quid-e-Azam succeeded in his efforts and so ‘Pakistan’ came into being as a homeland for Muslims who were having their own independent culture which was quite different from the majority Hindu culture.

Identity Crisis After Independence:

Muslims as a whole really were quite different from Hindus but within Muslims, the society was divided into many sub groups. As already has been mentioned that society of sub-continent has been a product of firstly the struggle between local Dravidians and Indo-Arians, secondly the struggle between Indo-Arians and Persian as well as Greek invaders, fourthly the political dominance of Muslims which effectively lasted up till eighteenth century and lastly the British rule and its downfall. Due to such a nature of historical events, the present day Pakistan’s society is ethnically diverse. Pakistanis trace their ethnic lineages to many different origins, largely because the country lies in an area that was invaded repeatedly during its long history. Migrations of Muslims from India since 1947 and refugees from Afghanistan since the 1980s have significantly changed the demographics of certain areas of the country. The people of Pakistan come from ethnic stocks such as Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Greek, Scythian, Hun, Arab, Mongol, Persian, and Afghan. The people follow many different cultural traditions and speak many different languages and dialects. At the time of independence, Pakistani territory was divided into two wings i.e. East and West Pakistan, which were separated by a distance of 1000 miles. West Pakistan corresponds to present day Pakistan whereas East Pakistan became independent country of Bangladesh in 1971, mainly because of the identity crisis of Pakistan. Originally, West Pakistan consisted of four provinces i.e. Punjab, Sindh, N.W.F.P and Balochistan. East Pakistan was a single province, which had its population greater than all the four provinces of West Pakistan combined. Pakistan faced its first identity crisis when government adopted Urdu as national language. Although Urdu was not just a regional language and was widely understood among the people of different provinces and so could better serve the purpose of inter-provincial communication but this language had not any deep roots in the East Pakistan, the largest province of the country. People of East Pakistan protested against the decision of making Urdu as national language and they raised the demand of making Bengali as a national language as this was the language of majority population of East and West Pakistan combined. But this demand could not be acceptable to the people of any of the provinces of the West Pakistan because Bengali language had no roots at all in any of the provinces of West Pakistan. Urdu language, finally became the official national language but without happy consent of the largest province of the country. Obviously, country was divided into many sub-cultures who had their own languages and they did have emotional attachment with their own regional languages also. Our early leaders however were trying to identify the country as a uni-lingual one but this was not the on ground reality of course.

Secondly, our early leaders also tried not only to conceive, but also to practically make the whole country a cultural unity. They abolished the provinces of West Pakistan with the view to make it one cultural unit. This was an attempt to eliminate the regional cultures of different provinces in order to promote the idea of a one single culture. The underlying purpose however was political in nature whose aim was to bring West Pakistan at the level of political parity with the otherwise more populous East Pakistan. Political benefit was going in the favour of West Pakistan but still then people of different provinces of West Pakistan protested against this new scheme and insisted on the separate distinct identities of regional cultures of the provinces. It means that people of country had strong emotional ties with their regional sub-cultures but our leaders were not ready to accept this fact. This thing created a grave unrest among the people of East Pakistan as the new scheme had put them on politically disadvantageous position. Since our leaders failed to apprehend the plural nature of the culture of country and since they did not identify the true national identity, so the consequent identity crisis at last resulted in the Separation of East Pakistan in 1971.

How a country identifies its National Identity is important because it is actually the comprehension of a country about the composition and structure of its own society and culture. This National Identity not only determines objectives and goals for the people and leadership of the country, it also determines the type of relationships with other sovereign countries of the world. Secondly, National Identity of a country is not any rigid or fixed entity, as its various aspects always remain in the process of change and developments as a result of the changes that occur in the political and cultural environment of the whole world. Pakistan’s National Identity also has gone through many such changes. Before the separation of East Pakistan, the main outstanding issues were those, which mainly related to the interrelationships of different provinces. Loss of East Pakistan resulted in somewhat reduced burden of this type of issues and so rest of the Pakistan successfully resolved the matters relating to interrelationships of the remaining provinces, in the form of unanimous constitution of 1973. With the passage of time however, those issues are again getting significance and so there is need to re-identify the current composition, structure and kind of country’s society. Country has also got the experience of both civil democratic political set-ups as well as various Martial Law regimes. But we still are in need to identify which form of government best suits to the taste and needs of our society. On the international environment, due to many factors, image of Muslim societies is being negatively projected. Mass international media is projecting this wrong information that Muslim societies are the supporters of terrorist activities on the global scale. Muslim societies are being labeled as ‘extremist societies’. Pakistan is also one of the victims of this wrong media projection. Under these current crisis, we are in need to evaluate our true identity i.e. whether we, as a nation, are extremist people or are enlightened, moderate, balanced, peace loving, and at the same time, brave people. By the Grace of Almighty God, now we are a nuclear power nation and so we should identify ourselves as more balanced and more responsible nation than before.