From: hyder@cs.utexas.edu (Syed Irfan Hyder)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Pakistan
Date: 21 Dec 1992 14:21:48 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
NNTP-Posting-Host: pageboy.cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Dec19.091205.1941@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> aam9n@honi1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai) writes:
>
>Note that *I* never said reposing confidence in us was the "only fault" of
>our founding fathers. I think their whole premiss was a mistake. My argument
>above was that *even if* the premiss of two nations were theoretically
>justified, 1) Partition was not the best course of action, 

Let's suppose it was probably not. Through Hindsight, of course!
Now million dollar question is, what should we do now? Is it possible for

and 2) our leaders'
>failure to realize this was a weakness.

>
>Further, you might think that analyses of this sort are sterile; 

No. I don't. I only think that for Pakistanis to do this at this moment
in time is not appropriate

I don't. It
>is through analysing past situations that we learn to avoid mistakes in the
>future --- unless you believe Hegel when he says, "The only thing history
>teaches is that people have never learnt anything from it". I think that the
>historian who analyses the past critically (i.e., without hero-worship or
>jingoism) makes a valuable contribution to the *understanding* of a peoples'
>psyche --- even by themselves --- and such understanding can sometimes change
>the course of history itself. As for explicit action, I agree that someone needs
>to do that as well, but to diagnose the problem is the beginning of appropriate
>action, is it not?

Precisely. The lessons I have learned are two:

1: If I have a vision like Iqbal and perseverance and dedication like Jinnah
    I can make my own dream a reality. 

2: If I, however, am  like the political leaders of Pakistan
   who neither  have the  vision  nor of action, then of course the 
   only thing left for me is to criticze the past, instead of looking forward
   to future as get into action today!!

>
>First, I am not comfortable with your child analogy. I feel we sometimes
>make too much of such extended metaphors. 

Metaphors like these are similar to Hikayyaat-e-Luqman, or Gulistaan or Bostan.
There is a definite purpose. The only objective of such metaphors
is to convey the "moral". Not to go in details trying to compare
a "fox" with humans in the Hikayat of "sour grapes". Or else, trying
physical properties of dry pebbles and measuring how much water they
can absorb before a "thirsty" crow can make the water level in the pitcher
come to the brim and be able to drink (Ref: Urdu ki Aaakhri kitaab).

>Without meaning to be harsh, let
>me say that such argument is too simplistic --- even quaint --- to be
>convincing. This is not to deny that you do have a point --- nations do
>gain strength from their troubles --- 

You did get the point. I see.

>but that the point only goes so far.
>Indeed, one must have confidence in a child if (s)he is to learn, but only
>if the child a) exists, and b) is at least apparently capable of dealing with
>the task at hand. One cannot invent a child through a theory, though one can
>invent a nation (or a temporary simulation of one). Second, if there is a
>child but he has no legs, the parents should be able to see this *before* they
>leave him to follow them up the stairway. You will agree that there is a point
>where optimism shades into foolishness.

Right. This is the point which that crow in Urdu ki Aakhri kitaab forgot. He didn't know
that Luqman's wisdom also taught that following blindly is foolhardy!!

>
>However, all this is beside the point as far as I am concerned, and I should not
>let you draw me into these analogies :-):-). 

Nor will you bait me into replying to 
	" One cannot invent a child through a theory,...."
:):)


>Groups of people are not children
>with genetically determined abilities and coherent information processing
>mechanisms. Nor are they spoiled brats or any other person. A group of hundreds
>of millions of people is a very complex system with an extremely large number
>of *wilful* agents. To try and understand it on the basis of child psychology
>is practically useless. 

But, you try again, me thinks!


>As for "khaas hai tarkeeb mayN qaum-e rasool-e hashimi",
>members of all significant groups claim that. Remember the "White Man's Burden",
>or the incessant harping of American politicians and journalists on the special
>nature of American society. I do not disagree with Iqbal's complete verse
>
>   apni millat par qayaas aqvaam-e maghrib say na kar
>   khaas hai tarkeeb mayN qaum-e rasool-e hashimi
>
>Indeed, the Muslim nations are not like Western nations, but that is not a
>profound insight, just an appropriate admonition to our Westernized elite who
>see the panacea for everything in blindly following the West. The larger point,
>which Iqbal was reluctant to accept for ideological reasons, is that, even 
>though there is some fellow-feeling among Muslims, they do not constitute
>one nation. If I remember correctly, he *did* partly concede that point in
>his Madras Lectures, but I could be wrong.

There is idealism and there is reality.
There is always a big gap. 
But, the gap exists only as a challenge for the courageous!
Greater the gap, greater the challenge, and greater is the courage required.
Iqbal recipe for the slumbering Muslims was to give them the message that
as murd-e-momin they have the  potential!

As someone said:

	baad-e-mukhalif sey na ghubra, aey ...
	Yeh tu chalti hay tujhey oonch ur'aney kay lieye

	[Don't dispair of venturing against the wind
	 It only blows to take you to new hights!!!

Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,soc.culture.bangladesh,soc.culture.indian