Outsourced Intelligence

If one sees the literacy rate of the countries of the world, there will be very few who would argue against the fact that the European and American Homo Sapiens are way ahead than everyone else around the world, letting go some exceptions. But there has been an unexplained point in an educated population with respect to their Geo-political and international perspectives. An educated population has become increasingly the one, with an overwhelming twist towards a situation in which they are either unaware of the international or other Geo-political environments or if they have any acquiescence somehow and they are taken through a soul-search for meaningful argument, all of them have same perspectives on a given scenario (most probably provided by mainstream media). This is evident from many researches, most awful of which is a video from the US, where an educated street passer-by was not able to tell a male if he was the Prime Minister of Australia, while anyone having even a slight knowledge of the World would definitely disagree, because Ms. Julia Gerard, the Australian Prime Minister, is actually a charismatic female person.

The trend is horrible even in our society, when most of the educated lot of the community ‘rubbishes out’ any argument related to ideologies and principles, is way out of step with the current affairs, or has the same pathetic delusions as their primary source of argument, which are lavishly flowed down the stream by mainstream media, and due to the narrow range of knowledge they have, are either intolerant or aggressive towards any other perspective. For example, whole of the US population unquestionably agreed to the US war strategy in 2001 (which can be called an 'emotional outburst') and in 2003, which led to a horrific massacre of about 1.5 million people, and the US population is very sympathetic to the cause of Israel, and views Palestinians as ‘Terrorists’ although even an insane person who knows the ground realities would never agree to the hypothesis. If someone is bored of examples from the US, even our population unquestionably agreed to the proposal of ‘having talks’ with the Swati Taliban (The parliament unanimously passed a resolution to adopt ‘nizam e adl’regulation in this regard) and just in a matter of days, changed its perspective( to adopt, yet again, a unanimous resolution in favour of attacking the militants and capture Swat valley) the reason being a video showing beating of a woman by Taliban was run on a national TV channel. The video later described by the TV channel was a ‘fake’ and ‘forged’ one and thus an apology was filed by the channel against the public (with no one questioning them obviously).

Any independent analyst of the situation would have called the people of Pakistan a herd of cattle, so easily mocked away into a situation unquestionably alarming. The incident left many questions unanswered. How was just a video on a TV channel able to change the mind-set of the population? If there has been a forgery this time, can there be more out there which we don’t even realize? Why on earth, have our educated lot being taken into this trap while we keep on babbling out the idea that the US population is the one who is controlled by the media?  If we closely analyse the problem, most of the educated people of our own country rely heavily on mainstream media for their basic source of argument and philosophy. Be it anyway it is viewed; this is horrible and alarming situation, world over. The solution to this problem is not that complex, and while one analyses the scenario, finds it easily. People have stopped to think themselves. That is the biggest problem facing the intelligent mankind right now.

Be it argument on Capitalism or debate over Marxism, a subject of Globalization or a topic of Nationalization, we hear to the arguments fragmented in someone else’s brain, babbled out by some old-fool on a TV show, and taken by the argument-thirsty and Hollywood-inspired population as their primary choice of cannon fodder in a debate, while themselves, they think nothing.

For the thought process to evolve and nurture in a person, his personality must be equipped with a very fundamental aspect of human ingredient; Principles of his own. This praiseworthy aspect of a person is literally unimaginable in todays’ world. People, while getting material on some aspect of international or national politics or any other ‘strategic’ spheres of today’s world, do nothing while engulfing and digesting everything that is provided to them by the all-motivating and charming media persons. For example, if someone is a good Muslim, he will definitely be against the US attack on Iraq, Afghanistan or its ambitions against Iran. But what we see on the streets is that many educated people, who are so authoritative in declaring themselves Muslims, get into the lap of ‘the War on Terror’ and support it. Similarly, much of the Muslim and educated population of the country is in favour of carrying out operations in Wana, and other parts of the country, while deliberately ignoring the previous outcomes and price we paid in human and economic terms for following the US directives on our soil.

There can be a long list of arguments and examples, but the point is that it is imperative that we people, and especially the educated ones, stop this ‘outsourcing’ of arguments and intelligence whilst this media war mongering. We should have a set of principles, Nationalism or Religion for example, on the basis of which we should check and scrutinize our thoughts, while at the same time giving room to new thoughts and arguments that come head to head with our beliefs and principles. There should be a proper way by which we analyse the situation, otherwise we will become 'robots', programmed and directed by agenda-oriented media, and we will not be then called as Humans. It is about having our intellectual identity in our own hands and no one else. In the era of conspiracy theories and Governments forgery of facts, this is the best way to save one’s intelligence from going in wrong way.

Revival of the Caliphate

Recently the number of people in Pakistan who are in the favor of the Islamic system of Khilafat/Caliphate has risen significantly, probably due to the failure of democracy to serve the nation. They want the restoration of a central Islamic government that will unite all Muslim countries under one flag and merge the people of all Muslim states as a single nation. Many believe that as long as there was caliphate in the Muslim world, they were invincible and the most progressive nation. They think that restoration of a central leadership will revive their past glory and will strengthen them as their main weakness is their division.

But how practical this idea is and how can Muslims unite themselves under a single leadership keeping in view their numerous differences?

Everyone among the Muslims knows that they are now divided as never before. Not only sectarian differences, but ethnic and linguistic differences have also overcome their commonness of religion and basic believes. How practical is it for a Sunni Muslim to pledge his allegiance to a caliph who is Shi’ite, or how practical is it for an Iranian to pledge his allegiance to a caliph who is an Arab? Why would a Black Muslim follow a white caliph? Of course Islam discourages all these differences, but unfortunately these differences have become as important for Muslims nowadays as religion itself. According to Islam superiority has nothing to do with race or color. It only depends upon piety. That means the criterion to be the caliph of Muslims is to be the most pious person among them. The problem is who’s going to determine who is pious? Even piety has lost impartiality in today’s Muslim world. Can a Salafi Muslim admit that a Sufi Muslim is more pious? Some of them don’t even consider each other Muslims in the first place. People say it shouldn’t be so difficult for the caliphate to be reestablished for it was once established. But the time when caliphate was first established was a different age. There were fewer divisions and more people eligible to be the caliph. Now there are more divisions and few eligible people.  

Some narrow minded Muslims are convinced that as its quite a job to settle the disputes among different sects of Islam, why not go for the establishment of an Islamic governance system for their own sect. This approach might be useful in countries where a certain sect has overwhelming majority like Iran or Saudi Arabia. Still, this won’t result in the creation of an actual caliphate because caliphate has all the Muslim world under its rule, not a certain country alone. As for the countries where different sects of Islam coexist, such an effort will create rift between the adherents of different sects and might result in a secular revolution instead of an Islamic one. Thus any approach that neglects the unification of Muslims simply can’t succeed.

So, does this mean that one shouldn’t strive for caliphate at all, as it is something impractical in today’s world?

As a matter of fact, one should. Every Muslim is supposed to live in an Islamic community. Europeans and Americans fear a ‘Muslim Europe’ and ‘Muslim America’ because some of them are aware of the fact that one of the fundamental ideologies of Islam is to live under the Islamic  jurisprudence or Sharia, and under an Islamic leadership or Ameer/Caliph. They fear that the Muslim immigrants will someday grow stronger and will force their Sharia over them. But Islam isn’t a religion of ‘force’, this means Muslims can’t force their believes on others who are not willing, they are only supposed to preach and convince, and they can only create an Islamic society once they are in majority, that means as long as the number of non-Muslim Europeans is greater than Muslims, they shouldn’t be afraid of anything. But where Muslims are in majority, it is their obligation to create an Islamic society and of course Islam ensures complete freedom for the non-Muslims living within.

Apart from other problems that have been mentioned earlier, a major obstacle to the creation of an Islamic society or restoration of caliphate is that even Muslims are afraid of Sharia. All they see is people getting punished for not having beard, for love marriages, for having a difference of opinion and many other things which are a part of their personal freedom. The Sharia that was implemented by Taliban in The Swat valley has scared many Pakistanis. Of course no one would like a system to be forced on them that deprives them of their personal freedom and forces opinions into their minds that they don’t agree to. Such a system is itself UnIslamic, and calling it ‘Sharia’ is like making fun of Islam.  So, the first step for the restoration of an Islamic system would be to redefine Sharia under the supervision of the most competent and learned scholars belonging to all Islamic schools of thought in order to settle as much differences as possible and optimizing Sharia for this era. This is an exceptionally tough job, but that’s how Muslims can take a step towards an Islamic government, and this step can take decades to be accomplished, because to produce such scholars who are also familiar with other sciences so that they are able to maintain the compatibility of Sharia with this era, and considerate enough to settle disputes among themselves, and intelligent enough to understand the most intelligent religion, Muslims will first have to develop a new generation of religious institutions. Most of the religious institutions in Pakistan are currently producing the most dogmatic, illiterate and inconsiderate type of ‘Mullahs’. These are the type of Mullahs who opposed Allama Iqbal and Jinnah and declared them infidels. They are only making people hate Islam and will cause a secular uprising instead of any Islamic revival in the country. Of course there are good institutions as well, and there are some good scholars as well, but they are too small in number to bring any change in the overall religious environment.

The optimization of Sharia by the ‘new generation’ of Islamic scholars might not lead to a consensus on every dispute among the Muslims of different sects, but at least it will create an understanding among the scholars that will ultimately result in the decline of sectarian hatred and intolerance. Once this hatred slowly vanishes, path will be paved for the establishment of an Islamic system. So, anyone who is interested in the revival of caliphate and Islamic  jurisprudence should spend his energies on creating new religious institutions that can produce the kind of Islamic scholars that is required for the revival of Islam in this era.

Another way is to establish small Muslim communities of likeminded people. An ‘Ameer’ is chosen by the people and Islamic jurisprudence is practiced without breaching the laws of the country in which the community exists. This won’t of course create any central caliphate but it gives space to the devout Muslims who want to live in a purely Islamic society. This idea is already being followed by some people who have established some MuslimVillages. Muslims from around the world who want to live a life under Islamic jurisdiction and in an Islamic environment move to the Muslim villages. Success of these projects depends on the interest of Muslims and the energies they spend on it, because an isolated village can’t survive without putting in some extra effort.

Establishment of an Islamic system and revival of caliphate is a tough job and if someone is really serious about it, he’ll have to devote his whole life to the cause and gather more likeminded and sincere people around him and then he might just get a chance to turn his dream of a central Muslim government into reality.

Pakistan's Political Paradox

The current government of Pakistan made the people hate politicians to the extent that most of them had already decided that they’re not going to vote for anyone in the next general elections. Some thought it’s a better idea to leave the country and some thought a bloody uprising might save the future of their next generations. In such an environment, it wasn’t very difficult for a person like Imran Khan to suddenly gain enormous popularity among the desperate masses. He promised the panicked nation to bring about a change, a revolution in the country that desperately needs it. Having left with no other choice, most of the youth and those who were sick of selfish and greedy politicians, started following him.

But what if Imran Khan fails to do what he has promised?

Many critics believe that he has already begun nullifying his promises by adding politicians from old political parties to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf. But rarely anyone reflects what made him do so? And the reason that made him do so is the very reason due to which the life of all Pakistanis is becoming more and more miserable with the passage of time.

Imran Khan started his political career in 1996, with a handful of likeminded activists who had almost no experience of politics. Now he has some of Pakistan’s most renowned politicians alongside him. Even the critics acknowledge that Imran Khan now enjoys far more support form the public than he had a decade ago, and only the support of distressed youth wasn’t enough for him to pose any real threat to the vote banks of major political parties. The addition of politicians like Shah Mehmood, Javed Hashmi and Khurshid Qasuri has made Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf a major competitor in the political race. So, what made the difference, the ideology or personalities? What do the Pakistanis follow, ambitions of a person or just a person? Imran Khan started his career with promises of change, his promises are still the same, but no one followed him at that time and everyone is following him now.

If a person wants to bring about a real change in Pakistan, the best and most effective way he can do it is by becoming a part of the parliament. Imran Khan chose this way, but apparently he has at last realized that only his corruption free background or his revolutionary ideologies aren’t enough to make people vote for him, he needs something that is more important for a typical Pakistani voter. He needs faces that are renowned enough. And with a show of strength on 30^th October, 2011, he got the faces as well. All the politicians from politically bankrupt parties and those who were not happy with their fellow party members started joining him at a pace that was never expected by anyone. The most common criticism on Imran Khan before 30^th October was that he has no practical plans for anything because he doesn’t even know that he isn’t going to win any seats in the assembly with unknown activists, he needs electable faces in his party, and the most common criticism he faces now is that he has got old faces in his party, how is he going to do something different and new?

This is the paradox that hampers any improvement in the Pakistani political environment. If a political party emerges with new faces, it doesn’t get any votes. And if a party gets old faces that will make it win seats, it won’t be able to bring about any change. So, aren’t the Pakistani voters their own enemies?

The Most Tolerant Nation

Many Pakistanis blame the western media for stereotyping them as a very intolerant nation around the world. It is true that western media is most of the times biased, but it is also true that generally speaking, Pakistanis don’t actually tolerate as much as is required for such a diverse nation. A supporter of Imran Khan seldom tolerates someone supporting Nawaz Sharif. Similarly, supporters of Zardari and Nawaz Sharif won’t ever go along.  A Pakistani Sunni will not like it very much if a Shi’ite even enters his mosque for prayer, and same happens the other way round. So, it is not hard to believe that Pakistanis are, to some extent, intolerant and they need to learn tolerance to become a cultured and progressive nation.

But in some cases, Pakistanis show an exceptional level of tolerance.

On 4^th December, 2011 the government of USA experienced a very intolerant behavior from a nation that happens to be a neighbor of Pakistan. A drone that ‘mistakenly’ violated Iranian airspace was captured by the Iranian authorities. That intolerant nation not only refused to hand over the drone back to the US but also warned them of a ‘crushing response’ if they ever committed that ‘mistake’ again. Clearly, US government wouldn’t have ever thought of such a reaction for just an airspace violation, because they are violating the airspace of the world’s most intolerant nation for almost a decade, and they never got any hostile response. Not only airspace violation, they have been dropping bombs on the Pakistani soil, but Pakistan set an example of unmatched tolerance.

One can’t imagine a group of foreign soldiers entering a country without any permission, conducting a full fledged military operation right inside its territory, and then coming out alive, without even a single shot being fired at them. Its only Pakistan that can tolerate such type of behavior, and it did on 2^nd May, 2011. Such an action inside some other country like Russia, China or Iran would have sparked an armed conflict with the invading nation, but being the representative of a very tolerant nation, the prime minister of Pakistan called it a ‘great victory’. As a matter of fact it was a great failure for Pakistan, to be invaded by a foreign military and to be incapable of detecting the presence of the world’s most wanted man right under their nose.

Apart from the exemplary tolerance of Pakistani government, the people of Pakistan also have a transcendent level of patience. Pakistan is currently being ruled by the most corrupt government of its history. All of the major industries and institutions of the country have collapsed, and power and fuel shortages have become a daily routine. But still, people are the least the government is afraid of. Most interestingly, this government has proven to be ruling for the longest span in the democratic timeline of the country. Had such a government been ruling USA, the Americans would have thrown the president out of the White House within first few months of his presidency. Rather, they wouldn’t have let the most notorious man in their political system become the president in the first place. The people of America started a whole ‘occupy’ movement when they thought their government wasn’t serious about recovering from the current recession, and Pakistanis have been facing recession after recession but still they don’t seem to bother about any sort of ‘occupy’ movement. They are resting in their homes waiting for some miracle to change their life, but miracles don’t happen till the nation as a whole doesn’t strive for it.

Just suppose for a moment, if in USA the government shuts down the fuel supply for three days a week, and raises the price of the alternate fuel to the extent that an average person can’t even think of affording it, would the people still be sitting in their houses, cursing their government? Wouldn’t their government be afraid of its people? Can someone even imagine the reaction of Americans or Russians or some other ‘intolerant’ nation, if their government fails to manage power shortages and forces its people to live without electricity for numerous hours a day?

For more than 60 years Pakistanis have been tolerating one government after another. They tolerate the corruption and selfishness of their democratically elected government and then army seizes power and the people start tolerating the atrocities of the dictator. This only proves that Pakistanis are really good at tolerating, but the problem is that they tolerate what should not be tolerated, and don’t tolerate what should be tolerated. The condition of the country can change within no time if the people someday understand what they are supposed to tolerate, and what they are supposed to rise against. Pakistan will become a very different country if people start tolerating the difference of opinion and point of view, and stop tolerating oppression and corruption.