The question of identity

SOME months back I was asked to open a photographic exhibition by the PNCA at the Shakir Ali Museum in Lahore. In my brief address I referred to the rich South Asian culture of which Pakistan is a part. A gentleman from the audience took exception to my remarks and later wrote to me to the effect that I had disclaimed the two-nation theory, and that the Pakistani Islamic culture was distinct from the Indian Hindu culture.

For many months I have pondered the question with deep reflection. So important is the issue, a public answer from a public figure might just be in order. The threat of prediction must never thwart a seeker of truth.

Let me at the outset declare that no one can question my Pakistani credentials nor my family’s who were stalwarts of the Pakistan Movement. Having said that, the issue of Pakistan’s culture being purely Islamic remains to this day a moot question. I cannot hazard a definition of what constitutes “culture”.

The overwhelming view now is that ethnicity and culture are what nations and societies use to define themselves. As an individual I am extremely proud of being a Pakistan and a Muslim. I wish that could resolve the complexity of our situation in Pakistan and in South Asia. Talk to a Sindhi, Baloch or a Pakhtoon and one will get an idea of our situation.

Unlike the Punjabi, none is prepared to sacrifice his mother tongue or his subculture and history. Only the Punjabi middle-class and intelligensia are too ashamed to talk to their children in Punjabi which is perhaps among the oldest South Asian languages, rich in poetry and literature. Only in Punjab, Urdu is seen as a replacement of Bulleh Shah’s Punjabi. It’s Hali versus the Heer.

The “ideology of Pakistan” is too insecure to tolerate a language other than Urdu. This is not to say Urdu is not ours. It is and will remain the national language. There’s no threat to Urdu from any regional language. Why is then Punjabi seen as a threat to Urdu? So, language as a vital medium of culture, runs into serious problems when the large majority’s mother tongue is else from the officially promoted language Urdu.

My other problem is how can religion alone explain our nationhood. If this were so what are the 160 million Muslims of India? According to the two nation-theory, the Indian Muslims are really overseas Pakistanis stranded in India. Then there’s the issue of Bangladesh. Previously, as a majority they rejected Urdu as their national language, but did not ask that Bengali, the language of the majority of the then Pakistan, be made the official lingua franca. This was their right.

If Urdu is the only symbol of the two-nation theory and a symbol of ‘Pakistaniat’, then by definition the architects of Pakistan negated the democratic basis of its genesis, i.e. a minority will dictate the majority. Also, how do we explain the culture of Muslim Bengal in terms of the ideology of Pakistan, if ideology is to be defined in terms of the Urdu language and Islam only?

The intellectual problem arises in defining culture as a medium of religion only. In the Muslim world there are distinct historical and civilizational entities. The Iranians and Turks intermingled, yet are distinct from one another. The Gulf Arabs have little in common with the Levant or the Maghreb. The Sahil and Sahara have an identity of their own. The Central Asians and Caucasians are different from all others. The Far Eastern cultures of Indonesia and Malaysia, though Muslim, have little in common with heartland of Islam. South Asian Muslims are worlds apart from other Muslim peoples. So where do we draw the line?

It’s true that practice of the tenets of Islam has much in common in all Muslim lands. In the spiritual sense there’s an identity amongst Muslims all over the world. But in the temporal sense there is no one unifying identity. Each Muslim society defines its own paradigms of culture and civilization. Muslim societies of the Nile, Mesopotamia, the Indus and Oxus have pre- and post-Islamic civilizations. Their people are proud of their ancient and their recent past. They see no contradiction in claiming the past as their own.

So the more we look deeply into the issue, the more complex it becomes. The more answers we seek, the more questions arise. No single answer satisfies us. Why not therefore shed historical romanticism, and evolve a more realistic paradigm of what we are.

We are Muslims of South Asia who evolved a culture of our own different from the Muslims of other parts of the world. Most of us were Hindus, but were converted to Islam by Sufi saints over the last thousand years.

Over 10 centuries those of us who came from foreign lands, gave much to South Asia. At the same time South Asia gave us a great deal. A huge South Asian diffusion took place in languages, literatures, music, food, poetry, architecture, paintings etc. we became South Asians. We should not be in denial of this stark reality, which cannot be wished away. Who can deny that the style of Taj Mahal’s central structure minus minarets and domes is Rajput? Who can deny Ameer Khusro’s contribution to music. How long can we sustain the fiction that we are not South Asian?

All attempts to Persianize, Arabize or Islamize Pakistan have been unmitigated disasters leading to confusion, intolerance, denial of democratic and human rights, and finally terrorism. There is a South Asian culture in the sense that there is a European culture. Germans, French, English, Italian and Spanish are all proud of their European culture and civilization. This does not take away from their own identities which caused so much historical discord. Why can’t we conceive of a South Asian culture as a macrocosm and our own as a microcosm? It is a shared subcontinent of races, languages and religions. In diversity and inclusion is its identity. We can remain proud and confident that we are countries with individual cultures and religions, and yet recognize 1000 years of cohabitation.

We made Pakistan because of our insecurity with the Congress which did nothing to allay our fears as a minority. Mr Jinnah till the last, was for any possible settlement not to divide India. Let us hypothetically imagine the consequences for the subcontinent, had the Congress accepted the Muslim League’s demand for separate electorates, or if Nehru and Gandhi had agreed to the Cabinet Mission Plan. Notionally, the Muslims of India would have been divested of their insecurity as a minority. The raison d’etre for Pakistan would not be there. In terms of pure deductive logic, the follies of the Indian Congress opened the door for the Pakistan Movement.

South Asia is several time larger geographically than the continent of Europe, and many times larger demographically. There is vast diversity of language, race, ethnicity, nation and religion. Yet there is a South Asian under-pinning; a commonality it would be foolish to deny. It’s time we accept this as a confident nation, rather than argue that it has served us poorly. Our pride in our country and Islam, can’t be so fragile that it’s in any danger. An acceptance of this reality will remove many intellectual cobwebs in our minds, and remove the identity crises of Pakistan.

We must seek our identity in our land, in our deep roots which go back to the ancient Indus Valley civilization. To this day, our farmers use the same utensils, implements, bullock carts, etc. as those used in Mehrgarh, Harappa and Moenjodaro. Like millions of other children, I too played with terracotta toys from ancient times, as a child. If Egyptian Muslims can be proud of their pharonic past, Iraqis of their Mesopotamian and Babylonian history, and Iranians of the Fars; why can’t we Pakistani Muslims take pride in the Indus civilization?

Pakistan as a land was an entity 6,000 years ago; an ancient land with a new country. Our history did not start with Mohammad Bin Qasim. I know of no other state or country that disclaims its own history and civilization. The whole ethos that the so-called intellectuals of Pakistani conservatism have evolved, is based on the foreignness of Pakistan. The ideological history is based on conquerors and marauders, and not the gentle people of Harappa, Moenjodaro, Gandhara or Hindujah. It is true Arian Khushans, Arabs, Turko-Afghan, Persians migrated to this land, some in peace and some in war. All were assimilated in this region. None were ashamed of their new identity. They all made this land their home. None went back to Baghdad or Basra, none returned to Balkh or Bokhara. With their new religions, creeds, languages, cultures, they all assimilated.

Islam spread with the advent of conquerors; not by the sword but by the great saints who came and stayed. They preached love and tolerance. They preached inclusion. They condemned no faith, no religion. They saw truth and beauty in every religion. Through love, through spirituality they converted millions of Indians to Islam.

That is what Pakistan is all about; proud of its ancient history, proud of its diversity, proud of its gallant people and proud of its religion of the Sufi saints and their sublime poetry.

Let us wind up the identity debate and play our destined role as a proud Muslim state of South Asia. History beckons us to be a bridge between Central Asia and South Asia, between South Asia and the Middle East, and be a moderator between Islam and other great religions.

Let us not circumscribe ourselves to some arcane and untenable definition of our statehood that belittles our ancient culture and civilization. I do not propose to challenge the wisdom of our founding fathers, but only to re-define our identity on a historically realistic paradigm free of romanticism and arcane intellectualism based on faulted assumptions.

The writer is a former foreign minister.

Sanctity of fatwa

A FATWA has been issued by a group of “58 religious scholars” belonging to “all schools of thought” against suicide attacks that target Muslims. The fatwa is further qualified to apply to mosques in Pakistan; and Palestine and Kashmir have been exempted.

A fatwa is an opinion of scholars on a religious matter. It is surprising therefore that the scope of the fatwa has been restricted. Without entering into the controversy about the issuance of a fatwa and the ability of those issuing it, Islam does not prescribe geographical limits, nor permits exemptions that are not ordained by Almighty Allah.

Close on the heels of the fatwa a spate of suicide attacks have taken place in mosques in Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan. If the object of issuing the fatwa was to deter suicide attacks in mosques, it has not served its purpose. Both Sunni and Shia extremists believe that the other is not a Muslim and can be killed with impunity. The fanatic finds a loophole in the artificial exemptions presented by ‘religious scholars’. The attacker may have stayed his hand if he clearly understood that the Holy Quran does not permit this murderous activity under any circumstances.

“Never should a believer kill a believer” (Al Quran 4:92). “If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein and the wrath and curse of Allah are upon him, and a dreadful chastisement is prepared for him” (4:93). Significantly these verses use the term ‘believer’, and not ‘Muslim’. Almighty Allah, through the Glorious Quran, forbids the taking of any life and even explains the reason for the injunction: “Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred except for just cause” (such as punishment for murder) (17:33). The sacredness of the best of God’s creations is such that: “Whosoever killeth a human being (anas) for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all humanity” (5:35).

Suicide attacks kill and the attackers must be told in the clearest terms, with no apology, exception or excuse that they violate God’s law. Those taking upon themselves the onerous responsibility of explaining the Heavenly text should fear Allah before rendering opinions peppered with personal prejudices and politics. Palestine and Kashmir are dear to Muslims, and many others too, but neither is exempted from the injunctions of the Quran. A fatwa which introduces non-Quranic exceptions may lead a suicide bomber into drawing parallells with the repression and suffering of other people and be deluded into believing that the other sect is his persecutor. Thus justifying the killings.

Declaring the sanctity of mosques alone is another self- introduced limitation and against the clear Message. Muslims are required to safeguard all places of worship in which “the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure”, and in this regard the Quran makes specific mention of “monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques” (22:40). The fanatical sectarian does not consider the place where the other sect prays as a mosque, and therefore the fatwa does not impede him.

Suicide bombers have no place in Islam. There are no exceptions. “O you who believe ... do not kill (or destroy) yourselves” (4:29). The sanctity of life is supreme. “Take not life; which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: Thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom” (6:151). “Nor take life, which Allah has made sacred” (17:33). The person who blows himself up commits crimes against God; murder, and that of destroying his own sacred life.

Just like destroying life is forbidden, the act of saving a life is commendable. “And if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people” (5:35). It is clearly incumbent on every Muslim to do everything in his or her power to stop potential suicide bombers. If a fatwa is to be given it must be clearly articulated and in accordance with the Quranic injunctions.

After the suicide bombing in Karachi’s Gulshan-i-Iqbal, a KFC outlet was set on fire and six people were burnt alive. The KFC arsonists were not some conspirators inimical to Muslims or Pakistan, but from amongst us. The agonizing burning-flesh-cries of the victims reach Heaven and call down justice. Who amongst the peddlers of hatred in that bazaar, is without sin? Inherited prejudice is professed, and from adherence to a sect it is a small step to preferring it above Faith.

The Holy Quran admonishes sect, division (firqah), dissension (fitnah) and groups (hizb). “...Do not be divided (tafarraqu) in religion” (42:13). “...And be not of almushrikun (hypocrites, dividers, polytheists). Of those who split up (farqawa) their religion and become sects, each sect rejoicing in that which is with it” (30:31 and 32). “And be not as those who divided (tafraqu) and differed (ikhtalafu) among themselves...” (3:105).

The path is clear, the pitfalls identified and consequences of disobedience foretold. “Say: ‘He has power to send torment on you from above or from under your feet, or to cover you with confusion in sects and make you to taste the violence of one another’” (6:65). Sectarianism destroys life and from the puddles of blood, gains further strength. The Sunni-Shia divide brings us to the brink of a pit of fire. “...And be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah’s Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren, and you were on the brink of a pit of fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His Ayat (signs) clear to you, that you may be guided” (3:1.03).

“Verily, those who split up (faraqu) their religion and break up into sects, you have no concern with them in the least” (6:159). The body of the Faithful (ummah) has been split and severed by sectarianism. “They (men) have broken their religion among them into sects, each group rejoicing in what is with it” (23:53).

The Quran castigates the Jews for dividing into sects (10:93), a curse which our Prophet, (peace and blessings be upon him) tried to prevent within his ummah. When two Muslims were loudly arguing in disagreement about the meaning of a Quranic verse he said: “People before you perished only because of their disagreement about the Scripture”. In his famous sermon delivered at Arafa he said that “every Muslim is a Muslim’s brother, and that Muslims are brethren.” He abhorred fitnah (dissension). Shortly before his death he said, “0 people the fire has been kindled, and dissension has been set in, like segments of a dark night.”

Spread the Message “with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and persuade them in ways that are the best and most gracious” (16:125). Thus far failing in our duty we have adopted the fashion of some Jews, rejoicing in the delusion of being God’s chosen, creating exceptions for ourselves which our Lord has not bestowed.

Upping the ante for Africa

AFTER some initial resistance, the Bush administration signed on late last week to a British proposal for debt forgiveness for some of the world’s poorest nations, mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. The US and the other leading industrial nations that make up the Group of Eight agreed to wipe out $40 billion in debt (at a cost to creditors of some $16 billion) for 18 poverty-stricken countries. It’s a start — but only that — toward alleviating some of humanity’s most acute hardship.

Future generations of Americans may well look back at Africa’s current plight at a time of such global affluence and ask what we did about it, in a variant of the old question, “What did you do during the war, Daddy?” If he does nothing more than he has already, President Bush will be able to answer that he did more than his predecessors, but that alone is not enough.

US foreign aid in general has been pathetically small for decades. When Bush took office, it amounted to just a tenth of a percent of national income. So when Bush touts his record — a tripling of aid to Africa, a $15-billion commitment to fight HIV/ Aids, etc. — it has to be put in perspective: It’s better than nothing, but it’s still kind of measly.

The centrepiece of the “Marshall Plan” for Africa put forth by Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown is a doubling of aid to Africa, to about $50 billion a year by 2010. The US currently gives about $3 billion a year to the continent. Three years ago, Washington committed to raise its foreign aid budget to 0.7 per cent of national income by 2015; currently it gives 0.16 per cent.

Blair’s aid plan will be discussed when G-8 leaders meet starting July 6 in Scotland, but Bush has already signalled his lack of support.

—Los Angeles Times

Budget and global challenges

THE over one trillion rupee budget announced on June 6 is indeed a ‘carefully crafted’ exercise and is as important in what it says as in what it chooses not to, say. Certain features of the budget stand out clearly.

It is friendly to industry, especially the established large-scale industry, helping it through policy and resource support to expand and lead the GDP and export growth. It is also friendly to big landholders helping them with agricultural machinery like duty-free tractors, bulldozers, etc.

It is also friendly to select non-productive businesses like the booming real estate which although it has locked in billions of national wealth, has remained exempt from the burden of taxation. It is also friendly to the salaried class in helping them through a package of concessions to meet the rising costs of living.

But what about the rest of society and the economy? It can safely be said that policy and resource support to areas like small and medium industries, small farmers, unemployment, skill development, and poverty reduction have been inadequate, even cosmetic, perhaps in the hope that the growth acceleration would somehow trickle down to them, lifting them without much government intervention.

Leaving aside for the moment the issues that have been put on the back burner with cosmetic treatment, let us now find out how far the government would realize its objectives of high growth in GDP and exports through its budgetary measures in our globalized world. The dominant feature of the budget is accelerating growth through industrialization and is based on carrying forward the previous year’s momentum which recorded 12.5 per cent growth in manufacturing and 15.4 per cent in large-scale manufacturing.

However, the problems would be compounded by the double-digit inflation which has suddenly jumped from 4.8 to 12.8 per cent. As no effort has been made in the budget to divert the huge resources invested in the speculative real estate into productive and wealth-generating activities, this and other free-floating money would make controlling inflation that much more difficult.

Before inflation is controlled in two years, it would have affected the government estimates of investment and expenditure making it difficult to keep the budget deficit at 3.8 per cent as claimed in the budget document.

It will also eat into the private sector savings and investment and, with rising interest rate, will increase the cost of doing business, making our products less competitive in the global markets and affect export targets.

Probably cognizant of these difficulties, the government has not claimed to sustain the 8.4 per cent growth achieved this year and has lowered it to seven per cent for the coming year.

The largest trade deficit recorded this year, with the prevailing double digit inflation, will also put increasing pressure on the rupee besides straining the country’s foreign exchange reserves. But the quick and easy escape of devaluing the currency to make the exports cheaper should not be taken, keeping the structure of our industrial production. The increased costs of our imports will fuel the inflation upwards and increase the production costs, particularly of high-quality and high-value products.

This brings us to the crux of the matter of successful and sustained industrialization and export strategy and the crying need for future economic prospects and prosperity of the country. This lies in enhancing the productivity of our enterprises and their ability to produce competitive goods for global markets. We cannot improve our economy and expand our exports in the global market place without improving the productivity and competitiveness of our enterprises which now rank at the bottom in comparison with other Asian economies.

In a globalized economy, without barriers to the entry of other market players, Pakistan’s economy can sustain high growth in GDP and export earnings only if its products are competitive in terms of low cost and high quality.

This is necessary not only for expanding exports but also for retaining the full share of the domestic market. Already a six billion rupee share of the domestic market is taken away from our industry by smuggled goods that beat our industrial products in both cost and quality. Therefore, in the global market place of open borders and low barriers, if our industries are not competitive, a long part of their products will lie in the warehouses with few customers to buy them.

And yet in the entire budget speech of the finance minister, one did not find any recognition of the powerful forces of globalization, and how the government proposes to help industry and agriculture successfully meet these challenges. Left unattended, these forces are strong enough to dilute the effects of policy and resource support he announced to help the industry and exports.

There is nothing in the budget to show that the government wants to use its leverage of policy and resource support to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of our enterprises.

This is not to say that the industry should not be supported to expand their capacity and produce more and better. What it does say, however, is that policy and resource support should be simultaneously linked to more efficient production of higher value-added goods which could withstand competition from global forces.

The budget is also silent on the support to new industries or entrepreneurs. All over the world the knowledge-based industries are recognized as those of the 21st century. These are not only most prolific in job creation, but also very competitive in their economic activities. And yet, no strategy is recognizable in the budget that would show that our budget-makers have recognized how to pull Pakistan into the 21st century.

Instead of our traditional way of looking at the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as largely unglamorous and informal sector, it should be viewed as the new wave of industrialization in the 21st century. Seen as such, the SMEs would not only create more jobs, but be harbingers of new investments, new industries and competitive management and marketing practices in Pakistan.

Tens of thousands of Pakistanis have come of age during the last ten years who have acquired high-quality education and skills. Many of them have also obtained valuable experience — here and abroad. Yet the budget doesn’t put much faith in their ability and skills, nor does it promise them any policy and resource support to create new opportunities in business and industry. Given enabling support to them to cross the many barriers to entry in business and industry, these young and qualified Pakistanis would not only have generated employment for themselves but for many others in business and industry.

Budgetary support to agriculture through free import of tractors would mainly help large landholdings. Support to agricultural development needs to be more integrated and comprehensive which raises the per acre yield for small and medium-scale farmers which is where it is most needed. It should reach out to that large chunk of 42 per cent of national population whose poverty is indicated by the simple fact that this segment of the population engaged in agriculture barely produces 25 per cent of the wealth of the nation.

It should be realized that the underlying causes of widespread poverty and unemployment are largely the same. There are too many able-bodied young people in the country without even elementary skills to do any income-generating jobs. So we have a strange paradox. While the industry and investors complain of a lack of qualified people to fill the jobs, grievances about lack of employment opportunities are common. It is like Wordsworth’s “water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink”. And yet, the budget does not contain a plain provide for resources to create a network of skill development facilities all over the country to convert our able- bodied into skilled manpower.

The constraint of the skilled manpower has already seriously affected prospects of investment and industrialization. Indeed, any serious effort at high growth and export earnings cannot be without the ready availability of skilled manpower irrespective of whatever the fiscal incentives and bank loans are provided.

The budget proposals may still be amended to reflect the fact that sustained growth in a globalized world would depend on improving the productivity and competitiveness of our enterprises since a Third World production system cannot meet the demands of First World consumption pattern.

Email: smshah@alum.mit.edu