سقوط ڈھاکہ پر کچھ خیالات

اگر کوئی صاحب دانا المیوں کی ایک فہرست ترتیب کرنے بیٹھے تو اول شمارے پر کون سا المیہ آئے گا؟ کیا وہ سقراط ۳۹۹ قبل از میلاد کی موت کو سب سے اوپر لکھے گا؟ کیا وہ ہینری ھستم کے طلاق کو اولیت دے گا؟ کیا وہ جنگ پانیپت میں ابراہیم لودھی کی شکست کو سر نوشت کرے گا؟ کیا وہ سکندر کی اچانک موت کو مقام نخست بخشے گا؟ کیا وہ ھمدان تا بغداد مغلوں کے حملوں کو سب سے بڑا المیہ قرار دے گا؟ کیا وہ ایک ماھیگیر اور نقش کار کا بعد از آں صدام حسین اور ہٹلر کے روپ ڈھالنے کو سب سے بڑا المیہ قرار دے گا؟


میں صاحب دانا تو نہیں مگر میرے خیال میں تاریخ کا سب سے بڑا المیہ یہ ہے کہ ہم المیے کو المیہ کہنا ہی چھوڑ دیں۔ ہم المیہ کو کسی سازشی مفروضے، یہود و ھند کی چال یا پاکستان کی خدائی ریاست کے خلاف طاغوتی طاقتوں کا نام دیں دے۔ المیہ کو تاریخ کی مجبوری کہنا بھی اس کی اہمیت کو گھٹانے کے مترادف ہے۔ 


ہماری قریب کی تاریخ میں ایک ایسا ہی خون آشام واقعہ پیش آیا ہے۔ تقسیم کا المیہِ دوم۔ اور اس بار اس المیہ پر بات کرنا ہی جرم ٹھرا۔ بنگلادیش کمیشن کی رپورٹ بھارت میں بہت پہلے چپھی پر پاکستان میں اس کو شائع کرنے پر پابندی رہی۔ اگر کسی جاوید ہاشمی نے آواز بھی اٹھائی تو اسے جیل کی سلاخوں کے پیچھے ڈال دیا گیا۔ نصابی کتب میں اس واقعہ پر یکطرفہ اور سرسری نظر ڈالی گئی۔ اس واقعہ سے سبق سیکھنے کے بجائے فوجی اسٹبلشمنٹ نے کچھ اور ہی رنگ دیا۔ بقول بی بی سی کے عابد علی رضوی ادیبوں نے بھی وہ شور برپا نہیں کیا جس کی ضرورت تھی۔ مشرقی پاکستانیوں پر جو ظلم ہوا اس کی ایک طویل داستان ہے۔ گر کہ میرے لفظ تیرے درد کا مرہم نہ تھے، کم از کم اس کہانی کو زندہ رکھنا اور مسخ ہونے سے بچانا ہر پاکستانی کا فرض ہے۔


جالب تو یہ کہتے کہتے تھک گئے ، 'محبتیں گولیوں سے بو رہے ہو، وطن کا چہرا خون سے دھو رہے ہو'۔ لیکن یہ بات کسی کو سمجھ نہ آئی کہ گولیوں کے ذریعہ یہ کام ممکن نہ تھا۔ تکا خان، جو بعد میں بنگالیوں کے قصائی کہ شعار سے 'نوازے' گئے، کا مشہور جملہ ہے، "مجھے زمیں چاہیے، آدمی نہیں"۔ فوج یہی سمجھتی رہی کہ چند باغی ہیں جن کو طاقت سے کنٹرول کر لیا جائے گا۔ ویسے بھی ان بنگالیوں کی کیا اوقات کے پاک فوج سے لڑئیں!


اس قتلِ عام کو ٹائیمز مجلہ نے پولیند کے بعد سب سے بڑی نسل کشی قرار دیا۔ ویسے بھی افواج کی نفسیات دنیا کی تاریخ میں ایک جیسی ہی رہی ہے۔ بقول افتخار عارف، 'فرات کے ساحل پر ہوں یا کسی اور کنارے پر، سارے لشکر ایک طرح کے ہوتے ہیں، سارے خنجرایک طرح کے ہوتے ہیں'۔ یہ لشکر و جنجر کسی کام کہ اگر دشمن کہ بجائے مجھ پر ہی استعمال ہوں۔ یہاں پر اس کوہاٹی نوجوان، احمد فراز، کے اشعار بےساختہ لب پر آ جاتے ہیں، 'میری بستی سے پرے بھی میرے دشمن ہوں گے، پر یہاں کب کوئی اغیار کا لشکر اترا، آشنا ہاتھ ہی اکثر میری جانب لپکے، میرے سینے میں سدا اپنا ہی خنجر اترا'۔ یہ کشت و خوں کس کے ایما پر آ غازیوں! بجائے یہ کے افواج بنگالیوں کو ان کا جمھوری حق دلوانے میں ان کی مدد کرتی، بجائے یہ کہ وہ مغربی پاکستان کے شکست خوردہ لیڈر، جناب بھٹو، کا ساتھ دیتی، فوج کو چاہیے تھا کہ فاتح کا ساتھ دے۔ مگر انھوں نے الٹا مشرق کو ہی کچلنا چاہا۔


معروف موراخ ایل فشر نے کہا تھا کہ تاریخ ایک کے بعد دوسری اور پھر تیسری ایمرجنسی کا نام ہے۔ ملک بننا اک ایمرجنسی ، پھر ملک ٹوٹنا ایمرجنسی اور پھر ہتھیار گرانا بھی ایک ایمرجنسی! سر جھوکی فوج کو دیکھ کر رونا آیا! جنرل نیاز نے تو کہا تھا کے اگر بھارت نے حملہ کیا تو ہم کلکتہ تک پہنچ جائے گے۔ لیکن ایسا کچھ نہ ہوا۔ کلکتہ تو دور کی بات، ڈھاکہ بھی ہم سے گیا۔ ۹۰،۰۰۰ فوجیوں نے ہتھیار گرا دیے اور یوں ملک دولخت ہوگیا۔ اس قیامت کی گھڑی کو میجر صدیق سالک نے اپنی کتاب 'میں نے ڈھاکہ ڈوبے دیکھا' میں باخوبی بیان کیا ہے اور اختیتام اس انٹرویو پر کیا جو انھوں نے جنرل نیاز کے ساتھ زمانِ اسیری میں کیا۔ جنرل صاحب نے ہتھیار گرانے کی وجہ یہ بتائی کے وہ ہزاروں بیواوں کی بددعا اپنے سر نہیں لینا چاہتا تھا، اس لیے انھوں نے ہتھیار گرانے کا حکم دیا! بقول فراز:

'تم نے جاں کہ اوز آبرو بیچ دی'

(جاری ہے)

Liberal values and liberal politics

Two days ago, 2nd March 2011, an horrendous act of terrorism took place in the capital city of Pakistan. This time the target was the minister of minority affairs, Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti. I have deep condolence for the decease and his culprits should be brought to justice as soon as possible.

But here we have a chance to discuss a very important question. This question is not about the recent murder but about the pro-activeness of all liberal states in this specific murder. In Pakistan, especially in Karachi, dozens of people are killed in the name of politics every week. In tense situations, this figure reaches abnormal heights. The blood of innocent people colors the city's landscape and the economic cycle of the country comes to an immediate halt. Where are all these liberal states when these innocent people are being killed? Why don't they speaks out in the same vehement way as they are speaking out for Mr. Bhatti's unjust murder. Yesterday MQM's leader, Mr. Altaf Hussian, said that the killing of Mr. Bhatti has badly damaged Pakistan's image abroad. Prime minister Yousuf Raza Galani in tandem with the president also repeated these words. Why is this single murder of such international importance in a country where hundred of people die in the name of politics everyday? Why doesn't the killing of these innocent Pakistanis affect our image abroad? Why is this single murder of such an importance that the whole international community has started speaking against it and is asking for speedy justice?

We are going to see these questions in a different paradigm. Is this a paradox that the killing of uncounted Pakistanis doesn't attract political and international attention, while a single murder causes an international fiasco for the state?

It has to be understood that Mr. Bhati was killed for one of most pinnacle value of the human right's framework. This is the right of the freedom of speech. Mr. Bhatti was an outspoken critic of a man made blasphemy law. He was also on the international scene because of his criticism. His killing, in liberal western states, was seen as an attack on this fundamental right of man, the freedom of speech. So indirectly it can be said his dead was synonymous to the killing of all liberal traditions. Although, it could be conjectured that the person who killed the minister might be a psychopath. Unfortunately, such a conjecture is ridiculed.

A few days ago, a female senator was killed in the United States. Her killing was taken in a completely different fashion. The killer was instantly called a psychopath by the locals and due judicial process started. A question may arise why doesn't the west considers this murder as an attack on liberal values?  The answer has to be sought from the society itself. The murder in Pakistan was seen as an attack on secular values in a religious state. This attack is psychologically considered an act of sheer terrorism in the west. Killing a secular value in a religious arena is literally an attack on a liberal man by a savage. The situation in the United States is totally different. The murder took place in a secular country. The person was declared a psychopath and not a terrorist by the commoners. No media person called the murderer a terrorist, although it was again an act of terror. This intrinsic societal difference results in two different outputs.

To conclude, it can be said that liberal politics is all about the protection of the liberal thought. The grief is not on the murder of an innocent man but the real grief is about the murder of liberal tradition in Pakistan. Whenever the human right framework is challenged, liberal force have no choice other to defend the framework.

What's the prime motto of the human right framework will be discussed later.

Feudalism in Pakistan

"It has been 63 years and this country is still in the hands of feudal".
 'Jagirdar' is what they are called in Urdu. 'Vadera' in Sindhi. 'Malik' and 'Chaudries' are what they are called in Pushtu and Punjabi respectively. In a country where the feudals control the land, the idea of democracy is a sham.

Individualism is an essential ingredient of democracy. A man has to become free from all chains and allowed to vote according to his will and demand. In a feudal culture this can never happen; people are treated like born slaves and constituencies are miniature kingdoms.

Everyone kingdom has a supreme head and no one dares the higher excellence. People working under the king are called mazaris. These people are given essential food and clothing. No education is given, which in case might help in bringing a revolution. There are private Jails present and constitution is what the king demands. This system is gaining strength with the passage of time. It has became a huge hegemony and like a incurable disease it is eating us.

The reason for such a strong and formidable feudal system dates back to the creation of Pakistan. On the 14th of August 1947 the subcontinent was decolonized and two independent states India and Pakistan came into existence. On the Indian side, in was clearly known that the Congress party would never tolerate a feudal India. The first step which Pundit Jawalnar Nehru, the first prime minister of India, took was to abolish feudalism. All land was now controlled be the government of India. There were no miniature kingdoms present and hence India was saved from the scars of a feudal culture.

The situation on the Pakistani side was different. Firstly, Muslim League had no a priori plan to rule the country. Secondly, a majority of Muslim League members were feudal lords themselves. These feudal lords later became part of the Pakistani political elite. They got access into the parliament and hence became legislators. No legislation was ever passed which may reduce the power of a feudal. Infact, they became the demi-gods of their regions.

Today, the situation is no different. Nepotism and politics of inheritance is the norm of the day. Constituencies are family businesses. A daughter wins on a specific seat while her uncle wins from an adjacent constituency. The co-commander of the region, in some cases, can also be from the same family.

This is the state of affairs and how Pakistan is ruled. I think this system is never going to change.

 The following is an example of the prevailing feudal culture:

























Good Reads:

A new perspective on Race

[The following is a summary of the discussion I had on 'the concept of race in a multicultural paradigm']

The talk was given by a professor from the department of International Relations at the University of Karachi. The focus of the whole discussion was a research dissertation written by two eminent American psychologists; the title of the research was:

"Race as biology is fiction - Race as a social problem is real."

The paper presented an anthropological and historic perspective on the issue of race in the United States. In the US, the black-men and white-men divide goes back in history. Slaves were brought in ship to the 'free land' and they were forced to work in new and harsh conditions. Africans were by law not treated as human beings. Slavery was also made kosher by the contemporary Christan church. This 'religo-political harmony' meant that there was no stopping to the slavery business. Blacks were caught from the African continents and were brought back to the developing United States, the free-world. They were not allowed to marry the whites and in some cases they even couldn't marry in their own communities. This might help in establishing a permanent family system. A family system never suited the whites and black men and women were often segregated. No great black revolt is record in the history. The most important reason is that when blacks seemed to disobey their new masters, they were severally punished. Punishment for the act of treason was in some cases equal to death. Due to this the black men never tried to disobey whites.

This was the history of the white-black divide. We can speculate that capital was the driving force behind this horrendous crime of slavery.

The American psychologists have tried to prove that the foundation of racism in the US is scientific. Previously, there was an idea that a taxonomy of supremacy exists in different races. Some races are higher than other, some normal and some below normal. The Asian race is at the top of the ladder, then comes the European and lastly Africans. This conception was very strongly promoted and naturally it allowed the exploitation of one race by the other.

The American psychologists have tried to prove that although racism has scientific grounding but no race is superior to the other. Supremacy of a single dominating race can never be proved.

The basic assumption made is that race has nothing to do with biology. Race and biology are inclusive in nature. These are two incomparable ideas which cannot overlap each other.

The new concept presented in the paper says that race is acquired through ethnicity. The normative position is now taken up by a particular ethnicity rather than the old taxonomic structure. This means that a person can change his race overtime. As a person travels from the African continent to the United States, he has changed his ethnic background. As culture is considered to be external, so does is ethnicity. This black African slave might change his ethnicity as he is now brought in a new cultural environment. Hence this proves that race isn't a static constant norm. It's a collection of ethnic traits learned overtime and passed from one generation to the other. If an African has major traits of an American, then he surely is an American.

Lastly, the psychologist also discussed that, in history, race is used as a political tool. Even today, around the world, electoral constituencies are divided on the basis of class, colour, creed, language and religion. This discrimination can be subdued if we consider race as a social variable rather than something external and never changing.

Just to conclude the whole topic. The three fundamental thought are following:

1) Race is a mean of enforcing social order.

2)It is a lens through which differential opportunities and inequalities are structured.

3)Scientific methods are problematic. Science with its emphasis on identifying immutable differences between racial group as caused racial inequality.

غیرت کی بات

انور مقصود: جناب آپ کو تو صرف بہانہ چاہیے حکومت کو برا بھلا کہنے کا۔ حکومت کچھ بھی کرے ، آپ تنقید ہی کریں گیں۔ اس ہی مثال کو لیجیے، حکومت نے آپ کے فائدہ اور حفاظت کے لیے، آپ سے کہا کے چند دن کے لیے کلفٹن سے کہی اور چلیں جائے، سیلاب اور طوفان کا خطرہ ہے۔ آپ اس پر بھی تنقید کرتے ہیں۔

معین آختر: میاں انور! کیا بات کرتے ہو؟ ہماری حفاظت کے لیے خالی نہیں کرایا، اصل مقصد زمین پر قبضہ کرنا ہے۔ لوگ گھر چھوڑے گیں اور ہم ان کی زمین آپس میں بانٹ لے گیں۔ رہے نام اللھ کا!!!۔

انور مقصود: (غصے سے) جناب کلفٹن میں تو وزیر اور مشیر بھی رہتے ہیں! وہ بھی تو ڈوب جائیں گیں۔ ان کی جان کو بھی تو خطرہ ہے۔ آپ کیسی بات کر رہے ہیں! گھر تو وہ بھی خالی کر رہے ہیں، وہ بھی آپ کی طرح ہیں۔

معین آختر: (تھوڑی خاموشی کے بعد) میاں انور! وہ نہیں ڈوبے گیں کیونکہ ڈوبنے کے لیے غیرت چاہیے ہوتی ہے۔

Rainbow come near

A real rainbow in Karachi. I won't do a commentary.

A Rainy Day

Sitting on the edge of the door, trying to peek out in the dark, sounds of droplets one after the other colliding the thirsty earth; It was raining. The night sky hid most of the beauty. Rains have there own aesthetics, something which one grabs only by observing. An unending sequence of events unfolded as I tried to grab my own basket of experiences. The formation of ripples; the circular waves formed on the surface, waves which are circular to perfection; the uninterrupted sound of droplets pouring; the flash of thunder making the night sky as bright as day. I was trying to get a hold on it. As I tried to get a feel of the sound, my eyes distracted me. When my eyes were focused, my ear overpowered the scenery which my eyes sketched. But this constant battle of senses really kept me alive.

Strong winds were making the trees dance. They were dancing with the winds. A pure symphony with the rain, as if the rain was directing the whole drama ans all the tree and flowers merely acting accordingly. The sounds produced by this dance of nature, overwhelmed me and for a moment I thought they have some senses similar to human beings. The oscillations of trees, the swinging of leaves, the alternating movements; everything was simply mesmerizing. They were cheering and playing like children on the street.

This dance said me, "Join Us"! I came out from the room onto the terrace. sitting at the edge I saw my street. It was like River Indus. Water following as if it will never end, gaining strength every passing second. I remembered my childhood when I used to place paper ship on the same street. The ship was sent to a journey to infinity and I was never going to meet it again. As I was thinking I saw some white paper ships, a mystical retreat to childhood. The tradition was still alive but time moved ahead. The maker of the ship was unknown - as always is the case with paper ships - but history continues. The white color of the ship was in sheer contrast with the darkness of night. One ship following the other on an undefined journey.

Seeing this whole natural drama, I got myself wet. I was feeling cold but I didn't wanted to get interrupted. So I took off my shirt, wrung it and put it over again. I focused again on the trees; their incessant dance. I noticed a new phenomena, old leaves were following down and space for new leaves was being created. The process of death for one means life for the other. The trees were going round this metaphysical for centuries but I noticed it today. For a second I thought myself of being Newton, gravity was there for thousands of year but the world never noticed. But today I was the only person in the world, so I was the world. The old leaves fulfilled their duties and now new one were coming to take their place. A monotonous cycle was about to start and I was the first one to witness it.

It was raining continuously, but I was feeling cold. I had to go back inside and now sitting inside the house I'm again experiencing the pleasures of rain....