Share this story!            

SECOND OPINION: Why intellectuals have no ‘watan’ —Khaled Ahmed Urdu Press Review

When nationalism is on the upswing, intellectuals are needed to explain and extol it. Such intellectuals are ‘confirmatory’ in their nature; they can hardly guide. For guidance and showing directions you need another kind of intellectual which nationalism does not tolerate. Only in a liberal society will that kind of ‘directional’ intellectual or intellectual without ‘watan’ survive

The function of an intellectual in any society is vaguely understood to be ‘directional’. Apart from ‘explaining’ the direction of society he is also supposed to lead society in the right direction. How does he fulfil this obligation? If he does not disagree with the present direction how can he suggest a new direction? It means that the function of the intellectual is also dissent. Can he dissent with the current direction of society? If he can’t, how can he present new ideas? This has been a perennial problem. That is probably why the great reformers are often appreciated after their demise — unless of course we are talking of a liberal society which tolerates dissent.

Columnist Abdul Qadir Hassan writing in Jang (January 11, 2005) first apologised to the bharat-psand saqafati danishwar (pro-India cultural intellectuals) of Pakistan and then opined that in India Hinduism was still the most prejudiced and divided religion in the world. It perpetuated inequality through the caste system and the upper caste Hindus were not willing to even offer assistance to the lowest caste members of their religion. The upper caste Hindus did not allow international aid into the areas affected by the tsunami wave in India and international aid agency had to make special arrangements for the untouchables. As for Pakistani intellectuals, like smugglers they have no watan (motherland) of their own.

The concept of ‘watan’ is the central pillar of nationalism, a concept attached to the nation-state and its apotheosis as human ideal. Although in decline in Europe, the nation state is alive and well in international law and the third world. Nationalism is based on the sacred principle of state sovereignty and its right to choose its ‘shadow’ opposite, which is usually a hostile neighbour. The two world wars in the 20th century, and many multiple-year wars in the 18th-19th century Europe were fought as expressions of rival nationalisms. In our times, the Balkans offered the last surge of nationalism propelling human beings into ethnic cleansing and genocide. When nationalism is on the upswing, intellectuals are needed to explain and extol it. Such intellectuals are ‘confirmatory’ in their nature; they can hardly guide. For guidance and showing directions you need another kind of intellectual which nationalism does not tolerate.

Only in a liberal society will that kind of ‘directional’ intellectual or intellectual without ‘watan’ survive. Noam Chomsky of the United States is one such example although he is not the only one. He may be ignored by America’s new nationalism because he remains leftwing, but much of his dissent cuts to the bone and forces America to renew what Mehmood Mamdani calls the ‘empire’s capacity for self-correction’. In the Islamic world, Pakistan could be the last state tolerating dissent to some extent. Hence there is hope for Pakistan. In the case of Egypt and Iran, the intellectual is actually without ‘watan’ and lives in exile in the tradition of Ali Shariati. About Abdul Qadir Hassan’s plaint about upper caste Hindus blocking tsunami aid from the lower caste Hindus, one has to point to the Islamists in Indonesia interdicting aid to non-Muslim areas. It happens everywhere. No need to feel superior.

Writing in Jang (11 January 2005) Khursheed Nadeem stated that the Muslims of India always wanted a state of their own where the state would not be separated from religion. Aurangzeb Alamgir the Mughal king had a religious state and the Muslim League got Pakistan on the basis of religion. Those who seek economic causes for this separatism should ponder the fact that only the Muslims suffered economic backwardness because they were Muslim. Since it was not possible to remove religion from politics, all political parties were non-secular, including the PPP which has the slogan Islam hamara din hai (Islam is our religion). Those who advocate secularism should know that they will not succeed; but the Islamists should look at the Islamic laws again. The 1979 Hudood laws are defective even in the eyes of the Islamic scholars of standing. Why not agree to modify the laws instead of removing them altogether or to continue them in their defects?

It is not right to say that Muslims ‘always’ wanted a state of their own. The ulema mostly wanted to live in a Hindu-majority India. The Quaid wanted the Muslims of India to have freedom and rights as a minority. Remember there was no UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and states recognised only majoritarianism. Jinnah first wanted Muslims to live within India in a confederal arrangement; it is only later that he accepted an idea that he did not like in 1930. As for secularism, Pakistan is the guinea-pig of a vague ideology that pines for a Taliban-like fulfilment. The Islamists have failed to sacralise the profane; and Pakistan has proved that sacred can be profaned.

Columnist Haroonur Rasheed wrote in Jang (11 January 2005) that the only power that could put down the flames of sectarianism in the Northern Areas was the MMA because the leaders of the Deobandi JUI and the Shia organisation were all members of the MMA. They could go to the Northern Areas and agree on a new social contract for the two communities living there and remove the instability there. But the truth is that the JUI leaders were in Islamabad seeking an interview with the secretary general of the JUI but could not meet him. The Shia leader Allama Sajid Naqvi could resolve the Northern Areas conflict within the MMA but for some reason it was not possible.

How can the Sunni and Shia leaders resolve the sectarian muddle in the Northern Areas? Last year on the day of Ashura hundreds of Shias were killed in Iraq and Pakistan at the same time. It was decided by Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq that the killings were not done by the Sunnis but by the Americans and the Jews. This line was adopted by the ulema of Sunni and Shia communities in Pakistan too. How can they now address a problem that is actually created by the United States and Israel, except that they can ask Islamabad to attack the United States and Israel? Simply put, how can you resolve a problem if you are in denial?

Daily Nawa-e-Waqt (11 January 2005) published the views of the various highly regarded religious scholars saying that the government was wrong in thinking that it could make the religious festivals of the non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan as national days of the country. They warned that the government should refrain from giving more importance to the minority than the majority population of Muslims in the country.

The reference is to the rather pronounced official support to Christmas and Baisakhi and Basant festivals this year. The real battle is between culture and religion. Culture is produced through tolerance — tolerance of other religions through eclecticism. When culture is on high tide religion retreats; when religion is on the upswing, culture declines. Today the clergy is endangered by Musharraf’s quite deliberate policy of supporting culture. *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!