| June 28, 2003 | Saturday | Rabi-us-Sani 27,1424 |
An evening with Mian Mohammad Bakhsh
A day in Meera’s life
GENERAL Pervez Musharraf has said that Pakistan in principle is ready to supply troops for peace-keeping operations in Iraq, but will like them to be “under the cover” of the United Nations, the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) or the Gulf Cooperation Council.
The United Nations secretary-general appears unwilling at this stage to get involved in the Iraqi quagmire; nor is the US, to put it mildly, eager for a UN role. It bypassed the UN in attacking Iraq, then coerced it into sanctifying occupation and, as far as the Bush administration is concerned, the UN has served its purpose.
The Gulf Cooperation Council should be considered as part of the coalition that attacked Iraq. The GCC countries may not have been active participants, but Qatar was where the US Central Command headquarters was —- and still is —- based and Kuwait was another staging post for the invasion. The GCC is thus not a neutral body where the Iraq occupation or the future of Iraq are concerned.
The Organization of Islamic Conference, a title which one has never really quite figured out, became a bit of a joke during the weeks preceding the attack on Iraq and is totally irrelevant to the present situation. Indeed, it has become irrelevant even with regard to something as fundamental as devising practical means of promoting political, economic, cultural and technological coperation among the Muslim countries for which the OIC was created in the first place. Even before President Musharraf named it as one of the possible overseers of Iraqi peacekeeping, an item in this newspaper had reported on Pakistani moves to get the OIC involved. But the attempt was opposed by the Arab countries neighbouring Iraq as well as by Iran. The Americans will certainly want it as a cat’s paw, but for all practical purposes it should be seen as a non-starter.
So much for the three “cover” possibilities suggested by President Musharraf. It isn’t clear from the relevant reports on the president’s Washington visit whether he himself actually used the word “cover”, but in any case, it is the correct one. The Americans want some sort of cover to lend respectability to their naked aggression and subsequent brutal occupation. It is the duty of every country approached to deny the Americans this respectability until and unless a peacekeeping operation is discussed in the United Nations and given multi-nation approval and the US comes forward to fully explain its aims and objectives in Iraq. Even Americans are beginning to get worried about the extent, duration and aims of the US presence in Iraq and, from its Baghdad base, the hawkish looks it is casting on Iran and Syria.
Senator Richard Luger, chairman of the foreign relations committee of the US Senate, has just returned from a visit to Iraq and said it was “rubbish” to suggest that “we won’t stay in Iraq a day longer than we need to.” He said, “We’re going to be there for a long time”, and the Bush administration at some point really has “to level with the American people”, that is, tell them the truth about its intentions. An article in the independent US weekly, The Nation, says the Bush-appointed governor of Iraq, Paul Bremer, has in less than a month “readied large swathes of state activity for corporate takeover, primed the Iraqi market for foreign importers to make a killing by eliminating much of the local competition and made sure there won’t be any unpleasant Iraqi government interference —— in fact, he’s made sure there will be no Iraqi government at all while key decisions are made. Bremer is Iraq’s one man-man IMF”.
The whole Iraqi venture is a tale of deceit and deception on the part of the Bush administration. The reasons trotted out to justify the war —— Iraqi WMDs and links with Al Qaeda —— have turned out to be based on incorrect or false intelligence. Public opinion was crudely manipulated, and even Congress was duped into passing a resolution authorizing military action which said that “members of Al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for ... the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq” and that Iraq could provide weapons of mass destruction to “international terrorists”. In this connection, the World Socialist Website says there was a concerted effort to pin 9/11 on Saddam Hussein. Retired general Wesley Clark, former Nato commander and CNN’s military expert, said he had got a call from the government right on 9/11 urging him to say that the attack had to be described as state-sponsored and connected to Saddam Hussein. Clark said: “I’m willing to say it, but what’s your evidence? And I never got any evidence.”
Amidst such grave doubts about American objectives in Iraq and such instances of manipulation, can we even consider going into Iraq? It won’t be peacekeeping: it would be supporting occupation and exposing ourselves to further distrust in the Arab world as America’s stooges. If any moral considerations move us, there should be no question of any Pakistani troops working with the US occupation authorities. Even self-interest demands that we keep out of the sad and terrifying mess in Iraq. We don’t want to become a cog in America’s neo-imperialism, or do we?
I HAVE never seen Hall II of the Alhamra Cultural Complex as full as it was last Tuesday. It was not a special occasion, just an evening with Mian Mohammad Bakhsh which the Lahore Arts Forum (LEAF) had arranged but the response it received from the public was tremendous. Looking back from the seat where I was, I could not see any vacant space in any of the rows. And as I left half way through the programme, people were still walking in.
Mian Mohammad Bakhsh did not live long years ago. In fact he died early in the last century. Despite that, there was no one who could give me the correct date of his birth. Shafqat Tanvir Mirza puts it at 1843 while others contend he was born in 1826 or 1830. But since his magnum opus, Saiful Maluk, appeared in 1870 when he was 33 years old, his date of birth, works out to be about 1837.
Scion of a zamindar family of present-day Azad Kashmir, Mian Mohammad spent his life as a faqir. Renouncing the world at the age of 19, he led a life of austerity and never got married. His total concentration was on meditation and literature. But like other faqirs, he did not believe in living in seclusion nor was he oblivious of the downtrodden around him. He was ever ready to help his fellow beings. He was a sufi first and then a poet.
Mian Mohammad was the author of many stories, including Laila-Majnu, Sohni-Mahinwal, Shirin-Farhad, etc., but the first edition of Saiful Maluk appeared in 1870. It had been completed in 1863. Written in the style of a masnawi, it received a warm welcome and became popular not only in Potohar and Azad Kashmir but all over the Punjab. It ran into dozens of editions some of which were published in the Gurmukhi script from Jammu and Patiala.
Going through Saiful Maluk one finds that love and beauty, the hallmarks of Sufi philosophy, are at their peak in the epic. The poet contends that beauty should not only be admired but also loved. He goes on to say that a person devoid of love is worse than a dog. Says he:
Jis dil andar ishq na rachda kuttey us tin changey
Mian Mohammad’s epic is replete with universal truths. The poet has referred to them repeatedly:
Sada na bagin bulbul boley sada na bagh baharan
Sada na husn jawani rehndi sada na sohbat yaran Sada na lat charaganwali sada na soz patangan
Sada na hathin mehndi ratti sada na chankan wangan
Mian Mohammad has made full use of his pastoral background and picked up similies and imageries from rustic life. Some of these are not only appropriate but also thought provoking:
Neechan di ashnayi kolon kisey nahin phal paya
Kikar tey angur charaya har guccha zakhmaya
The path of meditation has never been a walkover for a devotee and Mian Mohammad also had to face many ordeals:
Pani bharan panhariyan vano van gharey
Bharya usda janiye jida tor charey
Apart from talking about the beauties of Mian Mohammad’s poetry, speakers that evening paid tribute to Sharif Sabir for his effort in discovering the original copy of Saiful Maluk published in 1870. He not only corrected its mistakes but also got it published. In addition, he gave the meaning of the difficult Gojri words at the end of each page. A demand was also made that cheaper editions of Saiful Maluk be published for wider circulation.
NOW something about a recent publication. Some time ago I wrote about Abbas Khan, a district and sessions judge, currently heading an accountability court in the city. He had earlier come up with a collection of his pithy newspaper columns under the title, Din Mein Charagh. He had dealt with serious topics giving one the impression that he is a social reformer.
To lend weight to his contentions he had quoted profusely from Greek, Persian and Indian classics. That showed how well read he is.
Abbas Khan has now come up with a novel, Tu aur Tu, which has been published by Classeek. ‘It is a slap in the face of humanity,’ is how it can be described in a few words.
A saintly person was once approached by Satan with a strange request. “I am fed up with my evil doings,” he said, “I wish to be converted into a human being.” “What?” asks the saintly person, “you who has been appreciated by Goethe, Blake and Milton want to give up all that you have been doing? You know what Allama Iqbal has said about your powers?” “Yes,” said Satan, “I still want to become a human being.” “But you consider human inferior to yourself,” said the saintly person. “I have my ego,” said Satan, “I don’t want to lose it by going back to the company of angels.”
And so, at the recommendation of the saintly person, Satan was converted into a handsome 18-year-old youth. And then start his tribulations and woes, all at the hands of those whose company he has chosen to join. To begin with, he ends up in jail in Saudi Arabia where he cannot prove his identity; he does not have any parentage nor a residential address. A Pakistani drug smuggler befriends him in jail, helps him escape and brings him to his country. Soon disgusted with all that he saw happening around, he moves from place to place, country to country, only to face the same exasperating situation everywhere. He realizes that human beings have fallen to the depths of depravity.
It is an interesting novel with critical observations about human beings of different countries.
THE Pakistan Academy of Letters arranged a function in its offices in connection with the Year of Madar-i-Millat. It is presided over by the provincial minister for excise, Dr Shafiq Chaudhry, while MPA Bushra Hazeen was the chief guest.
Paying homage to the Madar-i-Millat, speakers said that she was a symbol of democracy and courage. She remained with her brother throughout the Pakistan Movement and played an active role in the democratic process after independence.
The courage with which she opposed President Ayub would always be remembered. Even the people of East Pakistan stood by her. She proved that a woman could play a pivotal role for the emancipation of society and national solidarity. — Ashfaque Naqvi
GEO has this programme called Aik Din Geo Kay Saath. Many readers have probably seen or heard of it. The show’s host spends a day with a well-known person, a celebrity if you will. The show went on air some time before the October elections so initially they had politicians for a few months. These included people like Qazi Husain Ahmed, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Ajmal Khattak, Faisal Saleh Hayat, Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, Raja Zafarul Haq and Millat Party MNA and niece of the Nawab of Kalabagh Sumera Malik.
Most of these programmes were boring and unless one is interested in seeing hypocritical statements by people generally leading contradictory lives, there isn’t much of point to watching these episodes.
However, this week, the featured guest of the programme was film actress Meera.
Her day began at around 9 or so when the programme’s host, the drab Sohail Warraich, went to Meera’s house. She received him in a very bright pink gown, with a matching feather collar. She told the show that she had several ‘gauns’ (that’s the way she said) and ‘paink’ (not pink) was her favourite colour. The only problem was — and this comes far too often when we hear our actresses talk — is that she was constantly trying to talk in English.
Now that’s not really problem but two things came to mind to suggest that there was really no need for her to do that one, that the host was asking her everything in Urdu, and two, that her command over the alien tongue left a whole lot to be desired.
On the topic of actresses wearing too much make-up, Meera said that she had been told that she looked very pretty without make-up and that with make-up she looked even better. Wearing make-up, she said, brings out a woman’s beauty. Perhaps, it works well for her though so she assumes that it must be true of every woman. On what to wear for a particular occasion, Meera told the show - sitting in the home of designer of Lollywood’s stars, Beegee — that every event required a particular kind of outfit. She said her favourite was a sari or a ghagra although what she actually wore depended on the kind of event she was going to.
“You see first I have a detailed discussion (she pronounced it diss-kushion) with may designer. First we have a discussion and then I decide on what I will be wearing for a particular occasion.”
The actress, who originally comes from Sheikhupura just outside Lahore, was also asked about Indian actresses and why they were considered more professional. She said that just because someone spoke good English did not make them more intelligent or talented than those who couldn’t. Point taken, but then she proceeded to use a smattering of bad grammar and wrong diction in her sentences.
Sohail Warraich, for his part, asked quite a few unnecessary questions, especially the one where he asked Meera whether there was any truth in the public perception that many of our actresses had ‘other’ sources of income. Obviously, she wasn’t going to talk about herself, even if she had ‘other’ sources, and wisely she chose not to comment on the income sources of her colleagues in the film industry.
The actress was quite miffed at the way media treated her private life, saying (probably rhetorically) that she might have a boyfriend but that was no one’s business and that the press should be free to comment on her acting but not on who she liked or didn’t.
Unfortunately, who she likes or doesn’t like is everyone else’s business because, after all, Pakistanis wouldn’t be Pakistanis (at least not your typical ones) if they weren’t nosy and wanted to know everything about everyone else.
The press only feeds this interest and in any case as a well-known actress she should expect ordinary people to be interested about her private life.
However, what took the cake during the whole show was when she was asked by Mr Warraich why actresses tend to hide their real age. Her remark: “I know actresses tend to do this a lot but I am not the sort to hide my age at all. I am twenty-one”. Now this programme was being aired at around midnight and this remark of hers jolted me from my semi-slumber. Twenty-one! Which means that she probably began coming in films, being cast as a heroine, when she was 12 or 13. Definitely, one or the Guinness Records people to check.
The funny thing is that as she said this, she probably realized what a complete fool she had made of herself because right after telling her ‘age’ she kept saying towards the camera: ‘I know you all probably don’t believe me but I really am this old.
Just one more thing, not that the people at Geo would be reading this, but the show could do very well with a different host.— OMAR R. QURAISHI
(email:omarq@cyber.net.pk)