Flawed notions of honour
By Naeem Sadiq
NICOLAS Chauvin, a soldier in Napoleon’s army, may be dead and gone, but the chauvinist attitude named after him has not only survived, it has also been adopted as a popular pastime to be indulged in by politicians, military men, TV anchors, op-ed writers and religious obscurantists.
Not to be left behind, even supposedly rational scientists like Dr Samar Mubarakmand have joined the jingoistic ranks by calling on the government to show no flexibility in the face of India’s allegations, saying that after all it would take Pakistan only 10 minutes to fire the nuclear missiles.
It may be true that we now have the capability to fire our nuclear missiles in just 10 minutes. Our highest key performance indicator (KPI) for excellence seems to be the speed with which we can annihilate our enemy. Can we also rescue our citizens from a burning building in 10 minutes? Can we come to the rescue of a woman being raped within 10 minutes? Can we recover a child who has fallen into a manhole in 10 minutes? Can we take a sick person to hospital and give him treatment in 10 minutes? Can we stop the burying alive of helpless women in 10 minutes, or can we even register an FIR in 10 minutes? If we can do none of these, and can only annihilate our perceived enemies in 10 minutes, we have a perverted understanding of honour and need to revisit and revise our KPIs.
It is unsafe to have nuclear neighbours like India and Pakistan whose politicians, generals and bureaucrats have an obscurantist mindset, no better than that of feudal villagers who keep family enmities alive because of a conflict over a piece of land or a murder committed many generations ago. We have not been able to grow out of this ancient tribal concept of honour, ego, neechi naak and oonchi pagri. Our honour sleeps peacefully when the chief justice’s daughter’s marks are increased illegally. Our honour is not ruffled when we appoint jirga operators, vani dealers and supporters of women being buried alive as federal ministers. The examples on the other side of the border are no less in intensity or number.
The recent attacks in Mumbai were a great opportunity for Pakistan and India to come together. What if President Zardari had taken off for New Delhi instead of going all the way to Turkey to join neighbour Hamid Karzai for dinner? Why was the Joint Anti Terror Mechanism (JATM), already in place between the two countries, not immediately made to work? Here was a great opportunity for both countries to build mutual trust and clean up their respective backyards.
Pakistan has no business to allow any wanted Indian national to take refuge on its soil. Such persons need to be put on the first available flight to India. How come those imprisoned in India and later exchanged as a result of an aircraft hijacking demand were allowed to roam around as free people in Pakistan? Would Pakistan like India to protect someone who was a prisoner in a Pakistani jail? Such persons should either be sent back or made to stand trial in their own country. If Pakistan were to act in an open manner on these issues, it would also have strong reason to ask India to stop its covert support to militants in Pakistan.
It is time for Pakistan to act like a responsible state and take steps to dismantle the infrastructure operated by non-state militants on its soil. The world looks at all Pakistanis with suspicion, as if no Pakistani can consume his breakfast unless he has fired a few rounds from a rocket launcher. But this perception is not altogether unfounded. The fact is that there is hardly a day which does not see terrorist attacks killing dozens of innocent people in one or the other town or city of Pakistan. Pakistanis feel unsafe in their own country, and are least interested in seeing their neighbours annihilated.
Clearly the same would be the feelings of an average Indian. 60 years of militarisation has made the people of India and Pakistan more unsafe and more vulnerable. If one’s child is killed, it does not matter if the bullet has come from another country or from the barrel of the local terrorist. We have paid a heavy price for our capacity-building to kill others and doing little to protect our own citizens. The oxymoronic ‘arms for peace’ pursuit has made people of both countries poorer in every sense of the term.
From ancient Greece to the present day, notions of honour have had a critical impact on the causes and conduct of wars. It is dangerous for modern nations to cling on to feudal and fake concepts of honour. Ever so often, it pushes us to take refuge in chauvinistic nationalism. We need to revisit and give up this mediaeval sense of honour, even if it calls for serious psychiatric interventions for our leaders. Our honour lies in the well-being of our citizens and in building peace and security for them as well as for our neighbours. Most of all, our honour lies in being honourable people — those who do not tolerate corrupt rulers, PCO judges and militancy in all its forms.
naeemsadiq@gmail.com


When will France rest?
By Lizzy Davies
THERE are many things Georges Cellerier likes to do on a Sunday. He likes to potter in his garden and blow away the cobwebs with a little light exercise. He especially likes to spend hours over long lunches with his wife, daughter and granddaughter and “empty his head” of annoyances with a good bottle of red.
There is, however, one thing Cellerier does not like to do on a Sunday: work. The owner of a smart menswear shop in Lyon’s bustling city centre, he is a staunch believer in the worker’s sacred right to a day of rest — a day that for him encapsulates France’s “precious” quality of life. And he is furious with Nicolas Sarkozy for wanting to take it away.
“My Sunday is special to me, one of life’s true pleasures. Everyone needs time to rest and put themselves on standby,” he said from behind his counter. “We do not want to regress.”
As part of his fight to liberalise the economy, President Sarkozy has proposed that all shops in Paris, Marseille, Lyon and Lille, as well as those in other tourist zones, should be allowed to open on Sundays. Of all his labour reforms this project has proved arguably the most unpopular. Entrenched in law as a day off since 1906, “le dimanche” remains a hallowed institution.
“We will not stand for our leisure civilisation being replaced by supermarket civilisation,” declared 120 opposition MPs in Liberation. “What kind of private life or family life can there be without a weekly, collective day of rest, especially at a time when our society is already suffering from a loosening of social ties?”
In confronting one of France’s most cherished traditions, Sarkozy has united figures from both ends of the political spectrum in opposition to his plans. Socialist politicians and union leaders have teamed up with small businesses, church leaders and even members of the president’s own UMP to denounce what they see as a slide towards a liberal, consumerist society that favours big business at the expense of the worker.
Fears of worker exploitation and job losses are the chief concern of critics on the left, who are mistrustful of the government’s assurances that the law will be optional. “Even if we start off on the basis of voluntarism, we must not delude ourselves,” said Gerard Collomb, the socialist mayor of Lyon. “It will be something that becomes the rule.”Staff at big department stores and chains, which are expected to take full advantage of the law change, are among the most worried. “It’s a funny definition of ‘optional’,” said Laura, an assistant at a jewellery counter at Lyon’s branch of Printemps. “They’ve got us exactly where they want us.”
Independent shopkeepers are also apprehensive. Most of them, including Cellerier, could not afford to pay the double salaries and extra running costs.
Others highlight the threat to domestic life. “Sunday is the family day and we have to protect the family — what’s left of it,” said Marie-Colette Stalder, a grandmother of four. “Otherwise why bother having children?”
But the reform has found support in some quarters. Some agree with Sarkozy that, in the middle of a financial slump, any economic boost should be welcomed. Muslim employees hope that working on a Sunday may mean they can take Friday off. Others, particularly young people, are simply keen on having another day to go shopping.
But most remain opposed, repelled by the idea of France’s day of church bells and quiet contemplation being reduced to another opportunity to spend money. “We don’t necessarily want to live like the Americans,” said Cellerier. “My daughter went to New York this year. She said she loved it but she wouldn’t want to live there. It never stops. Awful.”
— The Guardian, London


