No Man-Istan

Some recent happenings are not surprising. Benazir’s son Bilawal, her eldest child, was named chairperson of the PPP, at the tender age of 19. He looked scared, sitting up there at the press conference. He just lost his mother, he’s still in school, and now he’s had adult responsibilities thrust upon him. Ali Zardari, her widow, is the co-chair. A non-Bhutto has been named as a candidate. The elections will be postponed. Riots in all major cities have caused billions of dollars in damage, and dozens have been killed. 

It is often said that political dynasties are cursed. We all know about the Kennedy family. India has its version, the Gandhis (not to be confused with Mahatma Gandhi, who was from a different family). And Pakistan has its prominent families as well. The Bhuttos are one of them.

Benazir’s assassination certainly raises many questions, ones which will spawn controversy and conspiracy theories for decades, I’m sure. She warned that one of the local politicians was a potential threat. He recently issued a statement in the media that the medical report shows that she was killed not by the bullets fired at her while her head was sticking out the sun roof of the car, but from the shockwave of the bomb blast, which knocked down, causing her to bang her head. This sounds plausible; a concussion can definitely cause a brain hemorrhage and internal bleeding. But witnesses, including those in the car, said that the bullets did hit her, and even claim that they saw the bullet wounds.

Even some of Musharraf’s supporters think that the military establishment could’ve been involved. She had many enemies. Bin Laden had purportedly issued a warning for her not to run in elections. The last attempt on her life was not openly investigated, nor were any details given to the media. Benazir said that the jammers, which scramble the signals of electronic devices such as cell phones, she was given by the government appointed security forces were not working during her speeches and rallies. Sharif continues to complain about inadequate security.

Even more curious is that while the government named Al Qaeda and Taliban members as the culprits, they have denied anything. Usually they take credit for their involvement, and sometimes even have the decency of issuing warnings beyond they slaughter.   

My guess at this point is that this was a web of collusion – members of the military, rival parties and affiliated police, and perhaps terrorists or Taliban members all working together. As I wrote before, many groups wanted her gone, for a variety of reasons. 

I wanted to write about the wonderful Christmas I had – my beach trip to Hawk’s Bay, lunch and gifts at the Espresso Café among friends, midnight mass at St. Patrick’s, but that will have to wait. I have many posts waiting in the wings, wondering if they’ll ever get out.

I want to explain that my life here is mostly normal, or as normal as I try to build it, and yet the larger currents all around are frightening and dark; a rising tide of fear that swallows up the goodness and beauty in this country.

I came to Pakistan with hope, perhaps a fool’s hope, but hope nonetheless. I thought that destiny, for whatever reason, had brought me here to play a role – small, medium, or large, I cannot say – to plant seeds of positivity. I wanted to contribute, but also to explore. I wanted to travel to exotic places, discover ancient cultures (before Islamist hegemony stamps it out), and meet people I would normally not have the chance to meet. I had many reasons for coming, personal ones, not the least of which to take a vacation from my life in the States and experience the ease and comfort of a privileged Asian lifestyle.

First her father was hanged in 1979. Then her brother was shot in 1985. In the nineties her other brother died in “mysterious circumstances,” and her other brother, who headed the more militant wing of the PPP also was killed. Now she is dead. Benazir Bhutto was shot by an assassin who, coward that he is, subsequently blew himself up.

I am sickened, angry, and despondent. The U.S. government is certainly scrambling, wondering what to do next, and I think along the same lines. For the shrill, tuneless, hateful beat of Islamo-fascist war drums pound away. It is dizzying. What will happen now? Where to go from here? If Pakistan falls, it will have a sinister domino effect on international security. Yes, it is that serious people.

Will Musharraf reinstate emergency rule? Will there be more suicide bombings? Will there even be elections at this point? What will happen to women’s rights, minority rights, religious freedom, and freedom of the press? What will become of the poor? Will they continue to sympathize with the radicals?  

Moreover, what will I do? How long will I stay here? So much political instability, so much existential instability.

Still, like Sisyphus, I push the boulder on. I return to familiar comforts, in particular the mytho-poetic masterpiece of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. On this same day I came to a point in the story where Sam and Frodo, near the black heart of Mordor, discuss old songs and tales they heard in youth, wondering if they too will be so memorialized. The best stories are those in which the heroes did not seek adventure, but had an important role to play, with no knowledge or assurance of the success of their outcome. But still they didn’t stop fighting to preserve their values, their way of life, and all they hold dear against the onslaught of tyranny.

And so must all decent folk do likewise.

On December 12^th Musharraf announced the end of emergency rule after six weeks of uncertainty. Also, the elections are running right on schedule, due January 8^th.

Bad news – during an important Muslim holy day, a suicide bomber detonated a bomb with nails and ball bearings in a mosque up north, killing 50 and injuring several more in an attempt to kill a politician. Other bad news – there is evidence of widespread election fraud (see Bhutto’s editorial in the Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1210/p09s02-coop.html)  

Eid Mubarak.

Recently I’ve found out about a café that actually has books, and wi-fi for laptops, but they charge you just to read their books. However, there is always Liberty Books.

Recently it seems that Liberty has gotten ever bolder by carrying books that are critical of Islam, or at least its more radical elements. I recently bought The Al Qaeda Reader, which has translations of all the major Al Qaeda transcripts, announcements, and communiqués. It’s like the Mein Kampf of Islamic extremism. Some of the proceeds of the sale of the book go to the CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists). They also have a book on the history of Islamic imperialism that I plan on reviewing.  I’ve decided to review the first book I bought from Liberty by Farid Esack called Qur’an Liberation and Pluralism. (This is an abridged version of my amazon.com review.) -

I respect the author for his struggle against apartheid in South Africa and also for his attempt to bridge Islamic and Judeo-Christian communities. It’s not an easy task for any one, scholar or activist, so any criticism should be understood with this caveat in mind. Indeed, I think the best part of his book is the introduction, in which he describes his personal experiences and how they shaped his values. I have no doubt that Esack put his whole heart into this project.

Despite its overall virtues, I have three main objections to this book. My first objection is with his notion of religious rights. I got the impression from the middle chapters, dealing with the historical context regarding Islamic denunciation of non-Muslims, that Esack has too narrowly confined the scope of what religious pluralism means. For example, he defines justice, indeed the task of Muslims, as ensuring the freedom to worship one God, which in-and-of itself is fine, but his implication is that, according to the Qur’an, a society that worships different gods is de facto unjust. Of course, there are inherent problems with the idea of a God-king, but I would say, on the whole, that allowing people the freedom to choose what god or gods they want to worship is actually fairer than imposing a single god, even if this god is personified with all the best qualities a god could have. Monotheism is presented as a universal truth, which fits in with the traditional Muslim discourse that the first religion in the world was Islam. This means that societies that are polytheistic are considered inherently inferior. This is especially offensive to Hindus, Buddhists, and others in East Asia, Central Asia, and indigenous North America who have been vilified by Christians (and, to a lesser extent, Muslims as well) as pagans who need to be saved.

Second, he over-simplifies the Jewish notion of election. It is true that the ferocity of Hebrew assaults on the ancient Canaanites thousands of years ago (which Moses, a respect prophet in Islam, also took part in) supports the idea that Yahweh Shaboath’s partiality to the Jews was a justification for oppressing non-Jews in the Levant. But for most of Jewish history, the opposite seems to be the case. Zionists have a more secular bent, and have been at odds with some conservative and orthodox Jews who had a different idea of Israel. The exclusion implied in the doctrine of election, I would argue, actually prevented the subjugation of Goyim. Election is more of a burden than a privilege, as it meant that Jews had to follow much stricter laws than their neighbors, and being singled out for more severe punishment by God. The universality of their deity as the lord of all nations was a late development, as Jews were henotheists longer than exclusive monotheists (the first commandment acknowledges the existence of other deities). The Jews were not uniquely saved in a spiritual sense, as in Christianity, so much as given a unique responsibility to live righteously. Others are not forced to follow their religion; indeed, after the Bar Kokba revolt Jews in exile became very hesitant to accept others into their faith. For the most part you have to be born into Judaism, which explains how they received a reputation in medieval Europe as being clannish and secretive (thus suspicious). Still, clannishness is better than imperialism in my view.

Thirdly, I think Esack misreads post-modernism. He concludes the book by critiquing what he considers problematic in the Western idea of tolerance. His mistake is to characterize post-modernism as a philosophy that “acknowledges no boundaries.” Deconstructionism does indeed recognize boundaries – linguistic, political, cultural, etc. – and points out their conceptual inadequacies. The thrust is not necessarily “anti-religious” as much as anti-absolutist. Of course, without a notion of a transcendent absolute, and thus absolute certainty, I’m not sure how religion can stand. Still, as we’ve seen in the 20th century, absolutism can come in secular forms, as post-modernist writers have adeptly pointed out in their critique of meta-narratives.

It is true that pluralism is ideological, but to then make the leap that pluralism is a mere extension of the neo-colonial project of the West is to repeat Edward Said’s mistakes. Not all interests in the West are bent on hegemony, and not all Westerners who champion pluralism do so in the guise of neo-colonialism. To make that assumption is to absolutize the West as more unified than it really is, which is hypocritical if the critique of the West is that it over-generalizes about “the East.” There were plenty of “oriental” societies that were genuinely pluralistic. Even Rome was pluralistic. The difference is that today, individual rights are enshrined into law in a way that wasn’t true of previous empires.

Another point he makes is that pluralism can undermine traditional relationship patterns, since, according to Esack, post-modernists believe that any defined relationship is too limiting. Tolerance in this context does not mean people aren’t allowed to define themselves. Existentially, we all have the freedom to choose our values and live by them. Being presented with life’s myriad possibilities, individuals (as individuals) can make their own choices, which necessarily involve prioritization. When you come to a fork in the road, you can only choose one path. It’s doubtful that we can ever understand all of the complexities of life in complete detail, but we can certainly form opinions that matter. That is why extreme relativism is a contradiction – it makes an absolute out of relativism. If all beliefs are equally valid, then the belief that all values are not equal is also valid. If a post-modernists were to say that no one should confine themselves to a certain lifestyle choice, that would be an absolutist position.

What individuals don’t have the freedom to do is limit another individual’s rights. Politically, the balance between majority versus minority needs, or communal consensus versus individual liberty, is debated amongst liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and communitarians in the West. But all agree on the importance of rights, responsibilities, and freedoms in a modern democracy.

All the news channels that I like are back on air, and bravely, they have not changed the type of programming they put on, as far as I can see.

In other good news, President Musharraf took off his army uniform, and has promised that the elections for the Prime Minister will continue as scheduled (whenever that is). In the meantime there is an interim PM.

Now the Democrats in the U.S. are putting up a bill asking for more accountability on Pakistan. Less military aid, more aid for the poor, with conditions that must be meet in order to address the “democracy deficit” are a much needed improvement. Of course, even with conditions, I’m sure some in the Pakistani government with sympathies to you-know- who will find a way to divert funds. Or, they’ll try to keep as much for themselves and the corrupt elite. At least the new congress in Washington is making a symbolic gesture – we support true enlightened moderation and will not willingly fund those who are poisoning the Indus.