Jango
ADMINISTRATOR
- Sep 12, 2010
- 21,533
- 99
- Country
- Location
Muhammad Ali Siddiqi
EVEN confirmed democracies recognise wars as a phenomenon that upsets the schedule of events. There was no election in Britain for 10 long years (1935-45).
A general election was held on July 5, 1945, after the war had ended in the European theatre.In America, where by tradition the president can have only two terms, Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House from 1933 to 1945. To wit, it can never be business as usual while you are in the midst of a war.
The idea here is by no means to plead for a delay in the general election due in 2013 but to point out that all wars make demands on the people, the state and politicians. On society. Sadly there is no consciousness of these demands in Pakistan, even though we are in the midst of a costly war costly in terms of blood and economic ruination.
For us, the war did not begin in October 2001 when America attacked the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan; it began in July 2003 after the Lal Masjid rebellion was crushed in what was a job half-finished. Until then Islamabads role in the war was safe confined to providing logistic support to American and Nato troops across the Durand Line and taking legal and administrative measures to control and monitor killer groups within the country.
Since the fateful summer of 2003, however, when, thanks to irresponsible sections in the media, criminals became heroes, the state and people of Pakistan have paid a heavy price for taking the rebels head on, for the war has come home to us for the first time in our history. This was not the case in 1965, 1971 and 1999.
The war today runs from Parachinar to Karachi. It is now seen and suffered in mosques, bazaars, schools, religious processions, shrines, public buses, school vans, hospitals, funerals, Eid congregations and peoples castles homes.
Previously we read in newspapers or watched on TV the suffering of other nations and other countries; now others read and watch at our expense: Others the people and those know-all diplomats and journalists whose prejudices get the better of their reason and who in anger or sometimes in their magnanimity advise Pakistan to do more.
The casualties Pakistan has suffered far exceed those of any other country (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan where civilians fell victim not just to terror but to foreign invasion and civil war). Americas civilian deaths include those 3,000 hapless souls who were murdered by Osamas suicide-pilots in cold blood on Sept 11, 2001, and all those 3,000 innocents were not American. The US has also suffered civilian casualties in the Afghan theatre. Pakistans experience of terrorism, however, is far more traumatic.
To go by the advertisement published by the government on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in Wall Street Journal (after Americas leading pro-Israel newspaper refused to print it), 21, 672 Pakistani civilians have been killed or wounded in suicide bombings and other terror attacks during the last 10 years, while the army has lost 2, 795 officers and men, besides having 8,671 injured. The grand total comes to over 33,000.
This figure doesnt include minor injuries and those who remained unaccounted for when they were reduced to smithereens or those who died months later unknown to the government and the killers. In all, there were 3,486 bomb blasts and 283 major suicide attacks, and more than 3.5 million Pakistanis were displaced. The ad put Pakistans economic losses due to terrorism at $68bn.
If the world doesnt know this, or knows but ignores it, and asks Pakistan to do more, the world can be excused, for it speaks the truth only when it is convenient and rewarding. But why are Pakistanis themselves so indifferent to the war of which they themselves are victims? Is it cynicism, fatalism or just one more manifestation of the abnormal streaks in the Pakistani personality? Or, maybe we can raise a question: are those who are supposed to guide society in war and peace guilty of a criminal lack of consciousness of their duty.
There are politicians who talk of long marches and civil disobedience, union leaders who threaten to paralyse the railways, and KESC workers who burn their own utilitys transformers and vans in a country that is in a nutcracker situation. Pakistan has no social reformers and character builders. There are plenty of semi-literate politicians in uniform or without but not one man of vision who could depoliticise this over-politicised nation a little, and break the peoples addiction to the sadistic pleasure they derive from seeing vehicles burn.
Pakistanis believe in individual and familial morality, and give of their best to family and friends, but in the streets we are little better than animals Hitlers unter menschen. Because parents and teachers themselves are steeped in mediaeval values, several generations of Pakistanis have grown up without having the vaguest idea of what urban values are.
The ulema could have given a lead, but most of them have turned radical reactionaries. Normal until recently, even if beholden to the status quo, which they equate with religion, they now want to put the clock back. Pakistan is not their priority; their priorities are doctrinal theses which are an end in themselves. These canonical postulates define their thinking and line of action and constitute the prism through which they see foreign policy issues. If this jeopardises Pakistans existence they couldnt care less.
With neither secular nor religious leaders available as guides, society, no wonder, is adrift and has failed to come up with a response commensurate with the requirements of a debilitating conflict that is eating into the vitals of Pakistan.
The writer is a member of staff.
An interesting read.
The writer has put up some very good points to ponder upon, some of which I have bolded.
- Is the society really that crude and rowdy as being said by the writer?
-Is the media playing it's role properly?
-Have we truly realized that who we are fighting with? And how to counter that threat? Have we truly realized the extent of the mess we have gotten into?
please discuss.
EVEN confirmed democracies recognise wars as a phenomenon that upsets the schedule of events. There was no election in Britain for 10 long years (1935-45).
A general election was held on July 5, 1945, after the war had ended in the European theatre.In America, where by tradition the president can have only two terms, Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House from 1933 to 1945. To wit, it can never be business as usual while you are in the midst of a war.
The idea here is by no means to plead for a delay in the general election due in 2013 but to point out that all wars make demands on the people, the state and politicians. On society. Sadly there is no consciousness of these demands in Pakistan, even though we are in the midst of a costly war costly in terms of blood and economic ruination.
For us, the war did not begin in October 2001 when America attacked the Taliban-ruled Afghanistan; it began in July 2003 after the Lal Masjid rebellion was crushed in what was a job half-finished. Until then Islamabads role in the war was safe confined to providing logistic support to American and Nato troops across the Durand Line and taking legal and administrative measures to control and monitor killer groups within the country.
Since the fateful summer of 2003, however, when, thanks to irresponsible sections in the media, criminals became heroes, the state and people of Pakistan have paid a heavy price for taking the rebels head on, for the war has come home to us for the first time in our history. This was not the case in 1965, 1971 and 1999.
The war today runs from Parachinar to Karachi. It is now seen and suffered in mosques, bazaars, schools, religious processions, shrines, public buses, school vans, hospitals, funerals, Eid congregations and peoples castles homes.
Previously we read in newspapers or watched on TV the suffering of other nations and other countries; now others read and watch at our expense: Others the people and those know-all diplomats and journalists whose prejudices get the better of their reason and who in anger or sometimes in their magnanimity advise Pakistan to do more.
The casualties Pakistan has suffered far exceed those of any other country (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan where civilians fell victim not just to terror but to foreign invasion and civil war). Americas civilian deaths include those 3,000 hapless souls who were murdered by Osamas suicide-pilots in cold blood on Sept 11, 2001, and all those 3,000 innocents were not American. The US has also suffered civilian casualties in the Afghan theatre. Pakistans experience of terrorism, however, is far more traumatic.
To go by the advertisement published by the government on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 in Wall Street Journal (after Americas leading pro-Israel newspaper refused to print it), 21, 672 Pakistani civilians have been killed or wounded in suicide bombings and other terror attacks during the last 10 years, while the army has lost 2, 795 officers and men, besides having 8,671 injured. The grand total comes to over 33,000.
This figure doesnt include minor injuries and those who remained unaccounted for when they were reduced to smithereens or those who died months later unknown to the government and the killers. In all, there were 3,486 bomb blasts and 283 major suicide attacks, and more than 3.5 million Pakistanis were displaced. The ad put Pakistans economic losses due to terrorism at $68bn.
If the world doesnt know this, or knows but ignores it, and asks Pakistan to do more, the world can be excused, for it speaks the truth only when it is convenient and rewarding. But why are Pakistanis themselves so indifferent to the war of which they themselves are victims? Is it cynicism, fatalism or just one more manifestation of the abnormal streaks in the Pakistani personality? Or, maybe we can raise a question: are those who are supposed to guide society in war and peace guilty of a criminal lack of consciousness of their duty.
There are politicians who talk of long marches and civil disobedience, union leaders who threaten to paralyse the railways, and KESC workers who burn their own utilitys transformers and vans in a country that is in a nutcracker situation. Pakistan has no social reformers and character builders. There are plenty of semi-literate politicians in uniform or without but not one man of vision who could depoliticise this over-politicised nation a little, and break the peoples addiction to the sadistic pleasure they derive from seeing vehicles burn.
Pakistanis believe in individual and familial morality, and give of their best to family and friends, but in the streets we are little better than animals Hitlers unter menschen. Because parents and teachers themselves are steeped in mediaeval values, several generations of Pakistanis have grown up without having the vaguest idea of what urban values are.
The ulema could have given a lead, but most of them have turned radical reactionaries. Normal until recently, even if beholden to the status quo, which they equate with religion, they now want to put the clock back. Pakistan is not their priority; their priorities are doctrinal theses which are an end in themselves. These canonical postulates define their thinking and line of action and constitute the prism through which they see foreign policy issues. If this jeopardises Pakistans existence they couldnt care less.
With neither secular nor religious leaders available as guides, society, no wonder, is adrift and has failed to come up with a response commensurate with the requirements of a debilitating conflict that is eating into the vitals of Pakistan.
The writer is a member of staff.
An interesting read.
The writer has put up some very good points to ponder upon, some of which I have bolded.
- Is the society really that crude and rowdy as being said by the writer?
-Is the media playing it's role properly?
-Have we truly realized that who we are fighting with? And how to counter that threat? Have we truly realized the extent of the mess we have gotten into?
please discuss.
