Paki philosophers and politics

The two noblest professions are teaching and politics. [Aristotle]

Back in 2002 when the 35^th Annual Session of Pakistan Philosophical Congress held in the Bukhari Auditorium, Government College (now G. C. University), Lahore. Dr. Naeem Ahmad was Secretary of the PPC (Dr. Naeem had been Chairman Department of Philosophy, University of the Punjab, Lahore),  and well before the start of the proceedings I had time and time again requested him to allow me to present a Resolution in its General Body meeting. He was positive. On March 16, while the proceedings ended, late in the evening meeting of the General Body of the Congress was in progress. When all the items on the agenda, such as issues relating to the next Congress, elections of the office-bearers, stood settled, Dr. Naeem announced the closing of the Congress.

I was dumbstruck; yet in a second I decided: it’s now or never. Based on the past experience, nobody knew when the next Congress would be held. I went up on the stage, occupied the rostrum and expressed myself thus: ‘Dr. Naeem sahib promised me and I had requested him to allow me to move a Resolution here.’ Meanwhile, Dr. Ghazal Irfan intervened and assured to give me time to speak. After a while she invited me; I read out the Resolution making the following demands:

“I) Since its inception, Pakistani State has been repeatedly failing in protecting the life, liberty and property of its citizens. It has suppressed even the liberties ensured to them in the various constitutions of the country, too. 

II) Likewise, it has usurped its citizens’ right to Education of their liking. From the first grade to the intermediate level, the State has monopolized the development and implementation of curricula which it uses for whole-scale Indoctrination. 

III) With the provincial text-book boards working as its tentacles, the Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education has been instrumental in strengthening the cause of Propaganda and Indoctrination. 

IV) For instance, according to the 1994 Curriculum Wing Document for Social Studies (5^th class), children were to be taught “Hindu-Muslim differences”, “India’s evil designs on Pakistan”, “India’s wars of aggression against Pakistan”, and to learn to make speeches on Jehad and Shahadat.

V) That is like supplying the content of Education right from the State’s inventory in the form of finished goods. Same is the case with the aims and objectives of Education. Under the yoke of national and collective objectives, there is no room for the individual citizen, his rights and his freedoms. 

VI) By denying Education, the State has denied its citizens their rights to free inquiry, free thinking and free speech; and, thus, has dehumanized them. 

VII) With the help of Indoctrination, the State has tried to become intellectual progenitor of every mind. It has resorted to the science of cloning to beget intellectual and ideological Dollies.

To restore their humanity and individuality back to its citizens:

a) the State should stop telling the citizens what to think and what not to think, and what to do and what not to do;

b) the State should ensure its citizens their individual rights and freedoms, and should abstain from interfering in their private lives;

c) the State should divert its resources and energies to the fulfillment of its basic duties, i.e. protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens;

d) the State should focus upon establishing and maintaining the Rule of Law in the country.

In view of the above considerations, it is demanded that 

1) Indoctrination be eliminated from Education; 

2) Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education be abolished; 

3) Provincial text-book boards be dismantled; 

4) Academic Freedom be restored to educational institutions; 

5) Electronic and Print Media be freed from State’s control; 

6) Protection of life, liberty and property along with freedom of religion, press, assembly and association be assured to every citizen.”

The moment I finished, there was uproar in the hall. I tried to make sense of it, and saw one old lady standing and arguing haughtily; she was Jocelyn Ort Saeed, an Australian poet settled in Pakistan. Her argument ran like this: ‘How come that you want the Curriculum Wing abolished! What would we teach our children, then? What are you up to?’ As she concluded, another lady stood up: ‘We are philosophers, and we have nothing to do with politics? You want us to be embroiled in politics; why?’ She was Dr. Arifa Farid from the Department of Philosophy, University of Karachi.

It was quite noiseful in the hall. I was unable to see what had I done which caused such an outrage. Then, Dr. Iqbal Amiri, another fellow from the Department of Philosophy, University of Karachi, came up and grabbed the microphone. He was counter-arguing in favor of the demands made in the Resolution. I remember the gist: ‘How could you say that Philosophers have nothing to do with politics; it’s everything is politics. What the state is doing, how come that it has got any right to do that? Philosophers need to stand up against it.’

By now, there emerged two groups: one favoring and the other opposing the Resolution. It was quite an intellectual commotion there. In the midst of that, Dr. Ashraf Adeel, who became the new President of the PPC the same evening, tried to hush up the matter. He wanted the discussion on the Resolution be put off now and take it up again when the 36^th Congress was held. That was like killing it. However, the group in favor of the Resolution demanded a Vote, which was conceded by way of raising hands.

As the 35^th Congress was hosted by the Department of Philosophy, G. C. Lahore, a good many number of students present there belonged to the same Department, which Mirza Athar Baig, now a well-known Urdu novelist, was the Chairman of. The Resolution was defeated by one vote; 19 votes polled in its favor; 20 against. Mirza Athar Baing voted against the Resolution. The President of the Congress, Dr. Ashraf Adeel, did not cast his vote; I reminded him, but he shrugged off. At the dinner, Mirza Athar Baig came to me and said: ‘Why didn’t you tell me about it earlier?’ I explained: ‘What was there to tell beforehand? It was all happening before you!’

The Resolution could not be carried through; but it succeeded in view of the fact that most of the demands made in it were raised first time in the history of Pakistan, especially about the abolition of the Curriculum Wing and dismantling of the provincial text-book boards. It proved to be the first step towards disseminating a spate of ideas in Pakistan bringing the fundamental rights of the citizens to the fore! Note: The facts narrated above are for the sake of putting the record straight!

Note: This article was completed on January 1, 2015.

Cynicism in Pakistan

The title of this piece appears to be problematic. One can argue how cynicism may be confined to geographical specifications such as one of Pakistani type. But Pakistani cynicism may be justified on the ground that whatever its general meaning, the way a cynicism formulates in a society makes it special. Thus this piece tries to identify specific Pakistani attributes of cynicism.

Let’s try to have an idea of what cynicism generally stands for. First, it implies that all the ‘people are motivated by selfishness.’ Another most important and most common trait is that a cynic’s ‘outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.’

As a philosophical term cynicism means something quite different. It was ‘a sect of ancient Greek philosophers who believed virtue to be the only good and self-control to be the only means of achieving virtue.’ So, philosophically cynicism relates to the Cynics and their beliefs.

In order to understand the wider meaning of cynicism, a diving into the history of the word may prove interesting. The word cynic comes from the Greek kunikos, which was originally used as an adjective meaning "doglike," from kun, "dog."  Thus a cynic equates this human life with a dog's life. Probably that was why the word was applied to the Cynic philosophers. The great Greek Cynic, Diogenes of Sinope was nicknamed as Kun. It is told he used to bark, urinate, and masturbate in public.

The first ever English instance of the use of the word cynic meaning “faultfinder” dates back to 1596. It is in this sense that the word cynic found its modern meaning. However, this sense of the word may also be attributed to the Cynics who were wont to find flaws in others. It is this faultfinding which helped formulate the belief characteristic of the cynics of today that human behavior is determined by selfishness. (This discussion of the word is based on an online dictionary.)

So it’s two attributes which may generally be associated with cynicism: First, negativity; and, second, faultfinding. That means that every cynic, be he/she Pakistani or otherwise, would usually be showing a negative attitude towards every thing; and that he/she would, almost as a rule, find fault with every thing. What’s wrong with this? When the things are really negative, they must be dubbed so! When the things are really faulty, they must be dubbed so! What’s wrong with that?

In the context of Pakistan, where most of the things most of the times are negative, why they must not be dubbed negative? And, where most of the things most of the times are faulty, why they must not be dubbed faulty? Why then such a Pakistani, who calls a spade a spade, not be called a Cynic? In the same vein, why then such a trend or attitude not be diagnosed as Pakistani Cynicism?

Actually there is a truth, which is theoretically uncontestable, but practically sometimes may be contestable, and that is what I want to contest. Here is an attempt at building the various shapes of things they may possibly take.

First, all the things are negative and faulty all the times. Second, all the things are negative and faulty most of the times. Third, all the things are negative and faulty some of the times. Fourth, most of the things are negative and faulty all the times. Fifth, some of the things are negative and faulty all the times. Sixth, some of the things are negative and faulty all the times. Seventh, some of the things are negative and faulty most of the times. Eighth, some of the things are negative and faulty some of the times.

Hence, it may be concluded that in a real situation what may practically be not undeniable is that some of the things are not negative and faulty some of the times. It is this truth which every cynic is blind to see and admit; or he/she develops or adopts an attitude which makes him/her see every thing as negative and faulty. This they do as a rule which may only exceptionally admit of an exception. Of course, all the Pakistani cynics are like that; but it is not in that that they show any characteristics specifically Pakistani cynicism exhibits.

No doubt, Pakistani cynics see every thing as negative and faulty. They do not admit of any thing as not negative and not faulty even some of the times. Apart from that, what is specifically Pakistani about them is that they themselves are not negative and not faulty. This should rather be phrased thus: The Pakistani cynics believe they are not negative and not faulty all the times. In contrast to that, every thing is negative and faulty all the times. That’s their first Pakistani attribute.

The second attribute of the Pakistani cynics is that they believe whatever negativity (or negative things) and whatever faultyness (or faulty things) exist responsibility for that rests with all the other Pakistanis, and they themselves are never ever to be blamed a bit for that. Associated with this second one is the third attribute which smacks of an exclusive claim to the possession of the truth that the Pakistani cynics believe only they have a claim to. It’s quite possible that this or that cynic, be he/she Pakistani or otherwise, may be a perfect arrogant, since he/she is in possession of the truth and since he/she plays no role at all if all the things have gone negative and faulty; however, that may not be identified as one more attribute characterizing Pakistani cynicism.

In the end, it may suffice to add that in Pakistan the cynicism has found its way in all the domains of life, but the one which is most dangerous is political. Some of the Pakistani political cynics, such as Imran Khan, are playing havoc with the political system. The others such as Najam Sethi, Ayaz Amir, Ayesha Siddiqa, are there to confound, in varying degrees, already rampant confusion, and are influencing the political opinion negatively and to the detriment of the long term interests of the citizens of Pakistan. (In another piece, the writer would like to elaborate upon this political cynicism and its impact on the political evolution of Pakistan.)

Note: This article was completed on July 30, and originally posted in November 2014.