Past present: Imperial intent

Whether old or new, imperialism will always find some moral justification for its expansion, occupation, loot and plunder and enslaving of defeated people. Modern European imperialism traced its legitimacy not only in its ideology of the civilising nations but also to the past. In this capacity, they justified the colonisation of North African countries, which in the ancient period were a part of the Roman Empire.

David John Mattingly in his book Imperialism, Power and Identity points out that in the 19th century, when the French and the Italians invaded North African countries and annexed them as colonies, they claimed their right to rule over these territories as inheritors of the Roman Empire. They asserted that after the fall of the Romans, North Africa was conquered and ruled by the Arabs and the Turks. As a result it relegated the local civilisation to backwardness.

The European arrivals made attempts to connect the past with the present and renew the Roman mission to ‘civilise’ the ‘barbarians’.

Historians and archaeologists reconstructed the history of the Roman Empire and revived its grandeur. The archaeological sites of the Roman period were excavated and set as reminders of the past when the Romans developed their territories as colonies.

In search of moral legitimacy, European imperialism finds justification in history
They rediscovered the achievement and contribution of the Romans to the civilisation and culture of the colonised societies. They pointed out that the Romans built aqueducts, improved the irrigation system, set up factories for pressing olive oil and laid down the foundation of cities and maintained law and order. According to them, the Roman imperialism was benevolent and enlightened which converted North Africa to a civilised society.

Both the French and Italians wanted to revisit the old power and glory of the Roman Empire. They emulated most of the coercive methods and applied them during their rule. The French forced the people of Algeria to abandon their culture and assimilate into French civilisation. Claiming to be the inheritors of the Roman Empire, the Italians dominated Libya under the Fascist rule of Mussolini and quelled all resistance movements that broke out against their rule. European imperialism was not enlightened and benign but exploitative and despotic for the colonised people.

After the independence of North African countries from European imperialism, postcolonial historians critically examined imperialism of the past and the present and their impact on the society.

Responding to the argument that the Roman rule was enlightening, they proved that during this period, the colonies suffered immensely. The colonised people did not accept Roman domination and continued to resist it. A number of resistance movements were brutally crushed by the Roman generals.

They also established that the Romans annexed the agricultural land and allotted it to their aristocracy, extracted taxes from people, forced peasants and workers to build roads and public buildings without any remuneration. They exploited the natural resources of the colonies, enslaved people and sexually abused women.

Postcolonial intellectuals also condemned modern European imperialism for emulating the Romans. Europeans too ruled over their colonies with an iron hand, committed genocide and massacred the colonised people. They made attempts to wipe out the locals’ religious and cultural identity in order to make them history-less. This response created historical consciousness among the colonised people and provided them an opportunity to understand the impact of old and new imperialism.

Interestingly, when the British started to rule over India, they also claimed to be relatives of Indians as both belong to the Aryan race. Max Muller, the Sanskrit scholar, while addressing selected Indian Civil Service officers, told them that they were going to serve their brothers in India. The reason for this relationship was that the British were not foreigners or strangers therefore they should be accepted as new-found relatives. However, it was said that although the Indians belong to the Aryan race, as a result of mixing with other races they had lost the purity and characteristics of the Aryan race. The British as pure Aryan had the right to rule over India. This is how British imperialists used history to justify imperialism.

Source: Past present: Imperial intent
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, October 4th, 2015

Past present: Changing perspectives

In the 18th century, evolutionary theories were in circulation among intellectual circles. When the evolutionary process was applied to history writing, historians split history into different periods based on the evolutionary process and studied it from the hunting period to the present-day. They found that each period had its own characteristics, traditions and institutions relevant to the time. On the basis of this study, they concluded that history moved forward.

According to historians, studies show that human beings had creativity, inventiveness and a lot of energy to change the environment; a phenomenon that was explained by the two German philosophers, Lessing (d.1781) and Herder (d.1803). However, historians of the 18th and 19th centuries still faced the problem of scarcity of source material. Since the condition of libraries was not up-to date, books and manuscripts required for research were not easily available. State documents and papers remained under control of the rulers and were inaccessible to researchers. The rulers were keen on maintaining the confidentiality and secrecy of state documents, fearing that they might be used against their interests.

In spite of these drawbacks, the subject of history gained importance in 1757 at the University of Gottingen in Germany where a department of history was established. This was followed in 1769 by College de France and degrees were awarded to students.

As societies become historically conscious and standards of research and writing progress, history writing moves closer to a more complete form
In the 19th century, there were radical changes in the subject of history. Since Germany at the time was not a united country but divided into a number of small states, it had no national history and it was difficult for historians to integrate small parts of history as a unit. Therefore, instead of adopting narrative history, they turned their attention to the philosophy of history. During this period, all leading philosophers of Germany expressed their point of view on the different aspects of the philosophy of history especially Hegel’s (d.1831) ideas which contributed significantly to understanding the process of history.

Besides philosophers, German historians introduced new research methodology and style of presentation. Historians of Gottingen University collected the source material on different periods of history and used them for writing not only political history but also the history of literature, art, architecture and science. Other European historians followed their model and a new kind of history emerged which had a wider scope and perspective to understand the past.

Another aspect of the 19th century was the nationalist movement in Germany, while attempts were made to use history to trace the roots of the German nation. The Grimm brothers collected German folk literature and mythology to create the spirit of nationalism among the people.

When Napoleon defeated Germany, it created a strong sense of nationhood and historians turned their attention from world history to the history of their nation. They collected material from medieval history to trace the Germanic traditions and institutions which played an important role in shaping German society. In 1819, a society was formed to search and collect old manuscripts related to German history. The publication of these sources provided enough material for historians to write a national history which on the one hand inspired people and created a sense of pride while on the other hand, it was used by the rulers and politicians to accomplish their own interests.

One important aspect of this period was that the European states opened their documents, papers and archives to historians. Leopold von Ranke (d.1886), who was a professor of history at the University of Berlin, introduced new research methodology emphasising that correct history should also be written based on state documents, diplomatic correspondence, treaties and secret alliances. He believed that historians should write history objectively and judge events without any prejudice and bias. He argued that it was the task of historians to report events exactly as they happened. He was anti-people and refused to recognise the role of common people in shaping history.

Ranke’s students after completing their education were appointed as professors in different German universities where, following his methodology, they undertook research projects on the different periods of German history. Ranke also influenced other European countries where his method was adopted and followed. However, one of the drawbacks of his history writing was that political events were focused upon but social and cultural aspects were ignored.

In the 20th century, history became popular and historians of different countries organised themselves into associations, holding frequent conferences where research papers were presented for discussion. A large number of history journals began to be published in different European languages. In universities, students wrote their doctorate thesis on micro-level and intensively studied the topic of their research. The popularity of history also indicates that a large number of books were published on ancient, medieval and modern periods.

Source: Past present: Changing perspectives
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, October 11th, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Dining is the privilege of civilisation … The nation which knows how to dine has learnt the leading lesson of progress. —Isabella Beeton

The standard of development in any civilisation can be gauged through food that is eaten and the etiquette around eating that food.

Since the production of food depends on the climate of the land, in mountainous and desert areas the economy is generally pastoral and the main food items are dairy products or the meat of animals. In the absence of wheat, bread is not a staple.

For example, we have historical evidence that Mongol tribes depended on horse flesh and a drink made out of mare’s milk. Similarly in the deserts of Arabia, the available food comprised dates, meat and camel milk. In agricultural areas, where different kind of meat and vegetables are produced, food comprised meat, bread and dairy products.

People become so accustomed to the food of their land, that when they travel to another country, it becomes difficult for them to find the food of their liking. On the other hand, there are also restrictions associated with religion.

In the Semitic religions, eating meat of certain animals is prohibited, and in some cases, the slaughter of animals is essential for religious rituals. Therefore, the believers of these religions are conscious when eating food outside their country.

In the case of Hinduism, in the early period, the Aryans used to eat all kinds of meat including beef, but later on it became a prohibition. Moreover, because of caste system, the upper castes did not eat anything cooked by the lower castes.

After the arrival of Jainism and Buddhism, the upper caste abandoned eating meat and became vegetarian. The Brahmins especially, took great care of their food and did not allow people of lower castes or followers of other religions to enter their kitchens, which was considered a sacred place.

Most probably, for this reason travelling outside of India was prohibited. There are many instances of Hindu Rajas who, during the colonial period, would travel from India to England, accompanied by their cooks and in some cases they even carried Ganges water with them for drinking.

On the other hand, there are some nations who are not conscious and eat everything that is available. Perhaps, it is because of the scarcity of food, as in the case of the Chinese and other nations of the South East Asia where they eat all kinds of animals, reptiles and insects.

Historians and archaeologists are investigating cannibalism in any period of history. Some archaeologists found evidence that in the ancient Chinese history, it was a custom to eat the brain of their enemies.

Some European travellers found evidence of eating corpses of their relatives in Asian tribes. Their argument was that instead of dead bodies being consumed by insects, it was preferably eaten by people related to the dead person.

In one of the tribes of South America, anthropologists discovered the practice of cremating the dead and mixing their ashes in wine. This way when they drank the wine, the dead would become a part of their bodies. In some countries, cannibalism was also practiced during famine and drought. It was also customary in some cases to make a bowl from the skull of the enemy and to drink wine from it.

Etiquettes of food developed in different civilisations which entailed the manner of eating and how to behave at mealtimes.

One can easily assess the culture of any society on the basis of their eating etiquette. In the circle of aristocracy, where food is plenty, sophisticated behaviour was adopted to partake it. However, when food was served in big gatherings, people became impatient and violated all norms and manners.

The French traveller, Bernier, who visited India from 1625 to 1658, gives an interesting detail about dinner in his honour by an Uzbek ambassador who was visiting the court of Aurangzeb.

According to him, “Once I was desirous of dining with them, and as they were persons of very little ceremony, I did not find it difficult to be admitted at their table. The meal appeared to me very strange; it consisted only of horse flesh. I contrived, however, to dine. There was a ragout which I thought eatable, and I should have considered myself guilty of a breach of good manners, if I had not praised a dish pleasing to their palate. Not a word was uttered during dinner; my elegant hosts were fully employed in cramming their mouths with as much pelau as they could contain; for with the use of spoons these people are unacquainted. But when their stomachs were sated with the dainty repast, they recovered their speech”.

Deterioration of the Pakistani culture can be seen when food is served either at parties, at wedding ceremonies and public gatherings.

There is such a chaos, disorder and mess that one is ashamed of even being an observer.

To get food, people squabble and quarrel with each other and in most cases make attempts to carry away the entire platter or dish for themselves, not allowing others to share.

If political parties who cannot train their workers on how to behave when food is served and to observe eating etiquette, how can they manage the affairs of the country?

Source: Empires of food
Published in Dawn,Sunday Magazine , October 18th , 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Past present: We are all connected

Herodotus (d.425 BC), the Greek historian points out in his historical narratives that nature has created rivers, mountains, and oceans to separate nations from each other so that they could live peacefully in isolation. Man violates the barriers of nature by building bridges on rivers, digging tunnels in mountains and constructing ships to cross oceans. The results of this violation are wars and clashes among nations. Powerful nations dominate over the weak ones by sometimes disturbing their peaceful and harmonious life through war and conflict.

When Herodotus wrote these lines, he perhaps had in his mind the disastrous and bloody effects of war between Persia and Greek. In the 5th century BC, the Persians invaded Greece by crossing over the bridge over the river of Hellespont built by King Xerxes (d.465 BC). The Persians also used navy to fight the Athenian naval forces. The Battle of Thermopylae battle followed where 300 Spartans were killed along with the Helots, their allies. On his return, Xerxes found that the bridge he had built on the river was broken by the strong waves of a flood. He became so angry that he ordered his men to flog the river. Here, Herodotus wants to show the despotism of a Persian king. It was probably this event which inspired him to argue that nations should live untroubled in their own specific space.

Gottfried Herder (d.1803), the German philosopher had similar views. According to him, nations live in a particular geographical space and cultivate their own culture based on their environment. Through centuries, their languages, traditions, experiences, values and norms are passed from one generation to another. A Chinese remains a Chinese wherever he goes. He retains his characteristics and hardly changes his behaviour. Therefore, Herder’s argument was that the culture of every nation should be preserved and remain unpolluted by the interruption of foreign influence. To some critics, Herder’s philosophy is not only nationalistic but also racist. His main concern was to protect the purity of the German culture. Another German philosopher Gottlieb Fichte (d.1814) was so insecure about foreign influences that he suggested a ban on German people travelling to other countries. Germany at the time was not a united country but divided into 300 small states and duchies therefore the German intellectuals’ logic behind their philosophy was based on their vulnerability and preservation of cultural unity.

Nations must learn to live to together in peace and harmony.We have a few examples of nations that remained isolated and created a highly developed civilisation. China for instance remained aloof from other nations, condescending foreign interference and not learning anything from them because of their cultural arrogance. They invented technology which remained confined to China for a long time as foreign contact was discouraged.

On the other hand, it is believed that a nation cannot live in isolation. To learn and share from others is important. History shows that despite all efforts to restrict and control, an invention cannot remain confined to one nation but gradually spreads to other countries. For example, the Chinese produced silk but kept the secret of silkworm to themselves. Any violation meant death penalty. However, despite restrictions, the silkworms were stolen by the Nestorian priests, who introduced the art of manufacturing silk to Italians. Traders also played an important role in bringing commodities from other places to their own countries. The Egyptians did not have forests and needed wood to build their monuments. Hence wood was brought from Lebanon to fulfill the requirement of the ruling classes who used it in their palaces and tombs. In the medieval period, the Roman traders brought silk from China which was in great demand by the Roman aristocratic women. European traders travelled to Asia for spices. China could not keep its inventions a secret as the art of manufacturing gunpowder and paper soon became widespread in Asia and Europe.

Imperialism was considered exploitative as it occupied other countries, used their natural resources and robbed their wealth. But when it challenged the institutions and traditions of the occupied lands, they tried to reform their weaknesses. The European imperialists pressurised the Asian and African countries not only to construct and reconstruct their societies but also launched nationalist movements. The lesson of history is that if nations live in isolation and prohibit learning from other cultures, the result is decay and decline of its own culture. For instance, the US before its discovery in 1492, lived in isolation and became an easy victim of the invading European forces who were equipped with new technology that was not available to Native Americans. Sharing, not isolation is the key for survival of nations. A nation benefits through the creativity and innovation of other nations, which helps it to contribute to world civilisation and culture.

Source: Past present: We are all connected
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, October 25th, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Past present: The lost art of conversation

Conversation is an art which develops and becomes refined with the process of civilisation and achieves perfection in the society which in turn produces creative literature, art and politics. Conversation indicates the richness of a language, the usage of appropriate words, humour and various expressions that would attract the attention of the audience. Miller Stefen in his book Conversation, a history of Declining Art gives an interesting history from the earliest time to the present day. According to him during the period of hunting and gathering when language was not fully developed, signs and symbols were applied to convey a message. Gradually as settlements appeared, the vocabulary of the language increased and epic poems and stories were composed. The earliest form of writing took the form of dialogue.

A specimen from the Sumerian period (5000 BC) is a dialogue between a servant and his master. The servant demanded that he should be treated on the basis of equality while the master responded that the servant was inferior and his property. Hence, the master even had the right to kill him. The servant’s reply was that since the master was dependent on his services, he would not be able to survive without him and would die within three days.

We find the dialogue form in the classical Indian as well as Greek literature. Socrates (d.399 BC) popularised it in Athens, when he questioned people on serious philosophical ideas in simple words, urging them to respond. This type of dialogue involved both Socrates and his audience to think and investigate moral values of the day. It was Greek tradition that in a symposium, participants debated, discussed and delivered speeches on various topics. Plato (c. 348 BC) also adopted the dialogue form in The Republic.

While we have more digital conversations than a real tête-à-tête over a real cup of tea, talk shows on TV are verbal brawls
The Romans inherited the Greek tradition of conversation in their cultural life. Cicero (d.44BC) in one of his letters written to his son advised him on how to express his views and take care of his conversation. In the medieval times, when religion dominated daily life, people were not allowed to speak on any subject openly except religion. This confined the art of conversation to the propagation of religious teachings and consequently reduced philosophical expression and literary creativity. During Renaissance, church domination ended, freedom of speech prevailed, the art of conversation flourished and a number of books were published in Europe to guide people on how to converse.

In Paris, salons were introduced as intellectual institutions. These were patronised by rich women and visited by writers, artists, politicians and musicians. Rousseau (d.1778), Denis Diderot (d.1784), Montesquieu (d.1755) and other famous intellectuals frequented the salons where they conversed with each other on art, literature, philosophy and politics. The English writers such as Edward Gibbon (d.1794) and Adam Smith (d.1790) also visited the salons in Paris which contributed greatly to the cultural life in the city.

On the other hand, in England, coffee houses became the centre of intellectual activities. The first coffee house was established in 1650 in Oxford, which became popular and subsequently hundreds of coffee houses opened in London, frequented enthusiastically by writers, artists and scientists including Dr Samuel Johnson (d.1784) and James Boswell (d.1795). After paying a penny for a cup of coffee, the customer would read newspapers in warm atmosphere and converse with his friends for hours.

Clubs were another institution to emerge as meeting places. There were different types of clubs for different groups of people and women were not allowed to become members. These clubs were spacious and men could meet, drink, dine and converse on varied topics of interest.

In the modern period, the art of conversation declined because of new technological inventions. When radio became a part of life, people preferred to stay at home and listen to radio broadcast which consisted of news, music, drama and political speeches. With the invention of TV, social life changed completely. It became customary to watch TV along with members of the family and not to go out to meet with friends and relatives. Presently, mobile phones and internet captivate people within a room. Finding no opportunity to sit together and converse greatly affects vocabulary and expression.

The art of conversation was influenced by other factors in countries dominated by dictators and ideological parties. In Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, people were careful not to speak anything that could be reported against them by Secret Agencies. In an atmosphere of fear and terror, people’s conversations become dull and barren. We are experiencing the same rigidity in Pakistani society because of religious extremism where people’s emotions are charged on the slightest misunderstanding.

We experience the decline of conversation in TV talk shows, where participants instead of discussion and debate, fight with each other for their point of view to be accepted. There is a distortion of language by mixing English words and sentences with Urdu which completely transform the structure of Urdu language and makes it incomprehensible to common people. Generally, the motive of the conversation is to defeat the opponent by speaking loudly and not allowing him to speak up his views. Therefore instead of dialogue, it becomes the monologue. The lack of tolerance and refinement mars the beauty of the language as well as the art of conversation.

Source: Past present: The lost art of conversation
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, November 1st, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Past present: Patrons of art

There was a time when poets, historians, artists, musicians and architects sought royal and aristocratic patronage for their survival. Rulers wanted the best minds of their realm to be a part of their court. Mehmud of Ghazni (r.998-1002) for instance persuaded famous scholars to come to court in order to add to its prestige. He lured Firdausi (d.1020) and Al Biruni (d.1048) but failed to attract Bu Ali Sina (d.1037) to come into his patronage. Muhammad Habib, author of the book Mehmud of Ghazni, called him the kidnapper of poets and historians because whenever he heard about a famous scholar, he ordered the rulers, under whose services they were to send them to his court.

Akbar (r.1556-1605) followed the same policy and patronised all kinds of intellectuals, generously rewarding them for their services. Poets and historians from Central Asia and Iran arrived to the Mughal court in the hope of getting Mughal patronage for their creative activities and arts. As long as the Mughal courts could afforded the large number of poets, artists, historians and musicians, they contributed vastly to art and literature. However, when the Mughal dynasty declined and its resources dwindled, poets and historians wandered from one place to another throughout India, in search of patronage. The successive states of Awad and Dakan became the centres of attraction, where rulers patronised scholars and took care of their finances.

The result of this patronage was that literature and art became heavily influenced by court culture. Flattery and sycophancy dominated the creativity of the writers. Historians narrated only the achievements of the rulers and cloaked their crimes and oppressive acts. The poets composed panegyric poems for their patrons and attributed their achievements to the likes of the legendry Persian heroes Rustam and Sohrab. They addressed them as conquerors of the world, projecting them to be as just and fair as Anushervan of Persia. The objective of their poetry, short stories and legends was to entertain the patron and they would use their talents for personal gains. Similarly, artists painted not to express their own ideas but to fulfil the desires of rulers. For instance, following Akbar’s orders, Babarnama, Akbarnama and Dastan-i-Amir Hamza were illustrated.

Art and culture polish a society’s rough edges
The writers and artists who enjoyed the king’s patronage were not always free to express their original ideas. There are some instances where scholars, who did not enjoy royal patronage, defied the royal authority and criticised the rulers for their misbehaviour towards them. It is said that after not getting the promised amount for writing Shahnama from Mehmud of Ghazni, Firdausi wrote a satirical poem which became very popular. According to Mehmood Sherani, the poem was not by Firdosi but was written by some other poet and attributed to his name. However, it was a matter of courage to condemn and criticise the most powerful ruler of his time. Farrukh Siyar (r.1713 and 1719), wrongfully ordered the execution of the Mughal poet Jafar Zattalli, for composing satirical poems that may have indirectly objected his regime.

In Europe, too, writers and intellectuals sought patronage for their survival. Thomas Hobbes (d.1679), Adam Smith (d.1790) and Goethe (d.1832) were among those who served aristocratic patrons. The change occurred in Europe after the invention of the printing press when publishing houses started to publish all types of books. The rate of literacy increased in the European society and throughout Europe bookshops appeared. Public and universities set up libraries where books were purchased for readers and students. Publishers paid royalty to the authors, as a result of which authors whose books became bestsellers, earned a lot of money.

The French writer Voltair (d.1778) became so rich by selling his books that he purchased an estate on the borders of Switzerland and France, where he lived a comfortable life. Walter Scott (d.1832), whose historical novels became very popular, purchased a castle in Scotland and lived a luxurious life. Babington Macaulay’s (d.1859), book History of England, published several times over and became a bestseller in England and America. His publisher paid him 5,000 pounds as royalty which was a huge amount at the time. Therefore European intellectuals, artists, musicians and historians were liberated from royal and aristocratic patronage and instead relied on public who would purchase their writings because they admired their talents.

In the Western society, several public institutes were established for the promotion of literature and art and every year best authors and artists were awarded in recognition of their work. Therefore intellectuals turned their attention from royalty to public, a change which influenced social and cultural development in their society.

In case of Pakistan, writers and intellectuals are neither patronised by any institution, nor supported by the society due to poor literacy. They face financial problems due to non-payment of royalty, while there is no tradition of full time professional writers. We do not produce great literature, art or music. Poverty of culture affects the behaviour and mentality of the society. Instead of refinement and softness, our society has become rough and barbaric.
Source: Past present: Patrons of art
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, November 8th, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Afraid of history

For the ruling classes, history writing is important because they can control and monopolise it and use it to their advantage. In this way they can be remembered by future generations as benefactors and deliverers. In the past, rulers employed historians in order to highlight their achievements and glorify their personalities for which they were rewarded with financial patronage, and titles were bestowed upon them. This is why often the official narrative survives while the alternative interpretation which brings forth facts against the misdeeds of their rule is discouraged or disallowed.

Cervantes in his novel Don Quixote highlights that historians transform the follies and stupidities of knights as wisdom and sagacity and glorify them. In democratic societies, there are independent historical research institutes and universities where scholars critically examine historical events as well as current affairs; however, in Third World countries where there is either dictatorship, kinship or distorted forms of democracy, historians have no freedom to undertake any research work which accuses or blames the policies of their governments. Different methods such as censorship, banning books and supervising work of dissident scholars are used to suppress historical facts. The other tools which are used to silence their voices are restrictions on official appointments, harassment by intelligence agencies and controlling their financial resources, if they somehow manage to challenge the veracity of government facts and bring to light the hidden aspects of history. These historians not only provide an alternative interpretation but also create a historical consciousness among people to struggle and fight for their rights.

Swindon: I can’t believe it! What will history say? Burgoyne: History, Sir, will tell lies, as usual. (Devil’s disciple by G.B. Shaw)
In Pakistan, from the very beginning, historical writings were controlled by the state and the point of view of Muslim League was expressed in academic books as well as textbooks of schools and colleges written by professional historians. Muslim League asserted that it was the sole and independent political party, which worked for the creation of Pakistan. Therefore, all other movements which contributed to the freedom struggle such as the Ghadar party, Bhagat Singh and his comrades, and the several leftist groups either ignored or marginalised are not credited for their share in shaping historical consciousness. Therefore, the ideology of Pakistan was constructed by historians to justify all acts of the ruling classes.

Two important pillars of this ideology are the two-nation theory and religion. Anyone who opposed and criticised the ideology are condemned as traitors and agents of foreign country. Bacha Khan and G.M. Syed are excluded from the national narratives but on the other hand, Muslim League’s leaders became the founding fathers of the new country.

With the deterioration of the political, social and economic conditions of the country, people began to question the role of Muslim League leaders as well as the other political parties who came to power but completely failed to solve the problems of the common people. They are criticised and accused of maladministration and corruption by the public. As a result of people’s disappointment, the bureaucracy is trying to protect the interests of rulers and emotionally rely on the Pakistan ideology. Recently, the government sent directives to universities and colleges about disallowing any research project that contradicts Pakistan ideology.

Why are they afraid of history? Because of their misrule, misdeeds and anti-people policies? Can such directives save their reputation from the historical narrative? One can find that history writing in Pakistan is very weak. Public universities and colleges are controlled and supervised by the government while private education institutions focus on IT management and provide no space for social sciences. Under these circumstances, it is easy for the ruling classes to employ historians and assign to them the task of describing their positive role in history. Army generals, bureaucrats, and politicians are writing their autobiographies and distorting history without facing any challenge. In the absence of genuine historians, fake and manipulated historical events will survive and continue to mislead and misguide the people.

Source: Afraid of history
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine November 22nd, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

Past present: Tyranny of majority

Generally, a society is either pluralistic or monistic. In a pluralistic society, people belonging to a different faith, or sect and ethnic group live together in peace and harmony. The majority in the society subdues its prejudice and hatred to promote conciliation and tolerance. In such a society, there are multiple realities and truth, people tolerate each other and share religious and cultural activities.

On the other hand, in a monastic society, there is belief in one absolute truth. The majority rejects other realities and makes an attempt to dominate the society by excluding those who are not in its orbit.

In history, we find examples of both systems as well as the consequences of their implementation which were disastrous. In the subcontinent, the best example is of Ashoka (C.268 to 232 BCE), the Mauryan King, although he converted to Buddhism and issued edicts to preach religious tolerance and respect for other faiths. Under the influence of his policy of tolerance, he renounced violence and promoted peace and tranquility in his empire. He was successful in maintaining harmony and on the basis of this policy, he earned greatness in history. His policy transformed the society to a non-violent and peaceful one.

Instead of treating nations as a whole, sometimes masses take rights away from the minority and even order them killed
The other example is of Al-Andalus in the south of Spain, which was conquered by the Moors in 711 who founded a multi-cultural and multi-religious society. The Jews and the Christians enjoyed equality and freedom under the Muslim rule. They were appointed on high government posts and assigned trustworthy jobs. The result of this policy was that the followers of three religions worked together and produced excellent results in art, architecture, music and literature. During the Muslim rule, Al-Andalus enlightened Europe. However, the situation radically changed when in 1492, Christian powers of North Spain conquered the last Muslim state of Granada and destroyed the pluralistic society by either expelling the Jews and the Muslims from Spain or forcibly converting them into Christians. Hence pluralism was replaced by monism. The enlightenment of Andalus transformed to darkness. Religious discrimination, persecution and assertion of one absolute truth plunged the society into backwardness. Christian Spain paid a heavy price for its narrow-mindedness and religious prejudice.

After conquering different countries and nations, the Abbasid Caliphate realised that those who came under their rule should be respected and tolerated. Therefore during this period Baghdad, the capital, became the centre of Jewish activity as the Jews enjoyed full rights in the society to practice their religion and contribute to academic and literary activities. During the Abbasid rule the Jews, the Christians and the Indians were assigned the task of translating their literature into Arabic and Baghdad became the centre of learning and knowledge. This pluralistic society was disturbed when the Abbasid Caliphate became weak and other powers interfered and established their rule. Finally, the Mongols ended the Abbasid Caliphate in 1258.

In the subcontinent, following the policy of pluralism, the Mughals treated their subjects belonging to different religions and castes on the basis of equality. Both the Hindus and the Muslims shared their religious festivals. As a result, during this period, cultural activities peaked. The Mughal court accommodated talented people from every religion and patronised their creativity. This produced a composite culture known as Ganga-Jamni tehzeeb, a beautiful amalgamation of Hindu-Muslim traditions and norms.

However, societies which implemented a monastic policy, restricted social and cultural activities and forced people to follow one truth and reality. As a result, discrimination, hatred and rejection led to intellectual degeneration and decadence.

Considering these facts, when we analyse our society, we find that it rejects multiple realities and believes in one, absolute truth, while excluding and marginalising religious minorities. The majority of society asserts power and establishes tyranny over the minorities who are considered either heretic who should be converted either to the majority’s faith or brutally persecuted. The majority believes itself to be the rightly-guided people and justifies discrimination and exploitation of the minorities. Consequently, the majority lynches, burns their houses and dislocates their victims with a sense of honour and dignity, with no shame for their inhuman acts.

A similar attitude has been adopted in India after the election swith the BJP coming into power. The followers of BJP harass those who are not in favour of their ideology. In Bangladesh, the Monistic thought-process has led to hunting and killing of liberal and secular individuals and groups who are striving to make the society pluralist and liberal. Sadly, South Asia which was historically a plural society has turned monastic and rejected liberal and enlightened norms and cultural values to accommodate all kinds of people on the basis of equality.

Consequently, the entire region is fragmenting and plunging into anarchy and disorder. The tyranny of the majority remains unchallenged and as a result it becomes a brutal force to check and dismantle enlightened values. When an individual becomes a tyrant, one could fight against him and expel him from power, but when the majority becomes tyrannical, then it becomes a heftier challenge to deal with.

Source: Past present: Tyranny of majority
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, December 6th, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

The Collapse of State Institutions

State institutions were constructed and reconstructed according to the needs of time, passed through different political systems and served the interestof the ruling classes. In kingdoms, appointments on high posts for state institutions were made by the ruler. As per tradition, only members of the aristocracy were assigned the higherjobs; therefore appointments were made on the basis of belonging to and connections with noble families and not on merit and intelligence.

In Europe, the highly positioned religious offices of the church such as archbishop, bishop and abbots were reserved for the off-springs of the aristocracy.

The ruler had the right to appoint, dismiss and even execute them in case of their disloyalty or deviation from their assigned tasks. They were expected to be loyal to the king and not the state. In theory, the king and state were amalgamated to one entity, which is why Louis XIV (r.1638-1715) declared that `I am the state` The lives of bureaucrats andgovernment officials remained in danger and the slightest mistake or disobedience caused their removal from the post, confiscation of their property and in some cases they had to face death penalty; for example, Thomas Moore (d.1535), the author of Utopia, and Lord Chanec11or of Henry V111 (r.1509-1547) was executed because he failed to get the Pope`s permission for Henry to divorce his queen.

In India, Abdur Rahim Khani-Khana (d.1627), who served Akbar (r.1556-1605) diligently and sincerely was disgraced by Jahangir (r.1605-1627) when he supported the rebel Prince Khurram (future Shah Jahan).

Hence the state institutionsand bureaucrats were completely under the control of the ruler.

They were neither professionals nor well trained; therefore, the working of the institutions were not efficient. All efforts were devoted to please the King instead of finding solutions to problems of the common people.

In this way, China, however, differed from other countries as here bureaucrats were selected for high government offices and a competitive system was introduced to recruit talented youth who would sit examinations and only after passing these would they be appointed as high officials or absorbed into the aristocracy and thereby assume the privileged status.

In a democratic system, thewhole situation changes because this system ended the monopoly of aristocracy who were replaced by those who had merit and intelligence. It affected the working of the administration because the officials were now loyal to the state and not the rulers. During the colonial rule in India, the British Government introduced the competitive examination system for civil servants in the subcontintent who were responsible for administering government affairs throughout the British rule.

These bureaucrats reputed as honest and incorruptible maintained the control of the Raj and worked efficiently. As a result, these colonial institutions sustained the authority of the British over India.

In countries where the democratic system is stable and strong, state institutions are independent to govern the country. Generally in elections, people elect their leaders not only based on merit but also on propaganda and popularity. In the presence of mediocre leadership, the state institutions continue to run the affairs of the country uninterrupted.

Mediocrity can only be adjusted if the state institutions are strong and efficient.

In case of Pakistan, we inher-ited colonial state institutions in which the office holders are selected on the basis of their high merit and intelligence.

However, gradually our ruling classes distorted the working of these institutions, when competitive examinations and their high standard was deteriorated through lateral entry of individuals appointed from outside on the basis of sycophancy, nepotism and favouritism which polluted the working of these institutions.

At present, Pakistan is facing crisis after crisis as neither the state institutions are competent to check the deterioration and decay, nor the society and the mediocre, elected leadership has any vision or foresight to understand the complex problems of the country. Moreover, state institutions are serving the interest of the ruling classes instead of the people. They collaborate with dictators and corrupt political leadership, rendering damage to their own integrity and causing unrest and distress among the people; and when they fail to respond to the challenges of the time, the future of the country appears hopeless.

Source: The Collapse of State Institutions
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine, December 20, 2015

__________________
The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion !

In 1517, the incident where Martin Luther (d.1546) nailed his 95 thesis to the door of a church, thereby challenging corruption in the church as well as the Pope’s authority, divided the Christianity into two sects: the Catholics and the Protestants. Religious division further broke Europe down politically. The allegiance of the people depended on state religion. The result of this sectarian schism was that Protestants living in a Catholic majority country became a religious minority and hence insecure and unsafe. Similarly, the Catholics in a Protestant state became a minority. Both sects vehemently spent their resources and energies to defend their faith and to accuse each other as heretic and misleading, deviating themselves from the original and pure Christian teachings.

This religious righteousness and extremism justified violence and discrimination of the opposite sect. Consequently Europe faced religious and political destability which affected its culture, civilisation and economy. Scholars and intellectuals on both sides defended their sect and researched material to support and strengthen their faith.

For example, in France which was predominantly a Catholic country, the Protestants were known as the Huguenots. They were followers of John Calvin (d.1546) and were in minority. The deep religious conflict between these two sects frequently erupted causing insecurity among the Huguenots. The worst event occurred in 1572, known as the Bartholomew massacre when the Huguenots were gathered for a marriage ceremony and a mob suddenly attacked them, killing and mutilating their bodies. With great passion and religious zeal, the mob caused bloodshed and killing. According to eye-witness accounts, the dead bodies of the victims lay scattered in the streets of Paris. The other cities of France also became involved in the conflict, persecuting the Huguenots to satisfy religious hatred.

When the news of the massacre reached the Vatican, there was jubilation among the people of the city. To celebrate, churches were illuminated and fire works displayed to express the joy over the massacre of the Huguenots. Such was the hatred that humanity disappeared while suffering and pain of the victims were ignored.

Religious peace was restored in France when Henry of Navarre became the king. He converted to a Catholic from being a Protestant, in order to gain support of the majority. However, in 1598, he issued the Edict of Nantes to grant religious freedom to the Huguenots in order to maintain peace and harmony in the country. The Edicts prevented religious strife and continued till the accession of Louis XIV (d.1715). But under political pressure in 1685, the king repelled the Edict, after which the Huguenots were at the mercy of the Catholic majority. As a result the majority of the Huguenots left France and settled in Holland, England and Prussia. Since most of them were skilled artisans, France was deprived of their skilled workers and suffered economically, while the countries where they had immigrated to began to reap the benefits of their professional and technological knowledge.

The sectarian conflict disastrously affected Germany when it plunged into the Thirty Years’* War (1618-48). These religious wars were brutal, bloody and full of violence. Villages were set on fire, plundered and looted. The daily lives of common people became disrupted. It is estimated that 30 per cent of Germany suffered heavily as a result of these wars. Consequently, it pushed Germany backward as compared to other European countries.

In 1648, the Treaty of Westphalia brought peace to Germany. It was decided that the religion of the prince should be the state religion. As a result, it dislocated people from one place to another so that the Catholics migrated to the Catholic states, the Protestants to the Protestant states. When England defied the Pope under Henry VIII (d.1547), the Catholic minority was not allowed to perform their religious duties openly. They were excluded from state services and not admitted to the Oxford and Cambridge Universities as students. During this period, sectarian persecution was the state policy which led to the discrimination and exclusion of religious minorities from the mainstream. However, Europe leant a lesson from these religious conflicts and made attempts to restore religious harmony by taking major steps. The state was ‹ transformed to the Nation-State in which all citizens were treated on the basis of equality irrespective of their religion, creed and colour. Secondly, the state became secular. Thirdly, education was taken away from the control of the church and it became the responsibility of the state to impart it without religious prejudice. Religion thus became the private affair of an individual. These steps ended religious and sectarian conflict and created harmony and peace in the society.

Source: Divided by faith
Published in Dawn, Sunday Magazine January 3rd, 2015

__________________
"The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling ,but in rising every time we fall". (Nelson Mandela)