This is a brief comment on Saroop Ijaz’s otherwise brilliant article in Express Tribune.

Good news is that Saroop Ijaz has woken up to the Ahmadi issue. Bad news is that what he finds irksome is not as much the mistreatment or discrimination but that those who choose to speak against this discrimination choose to do so in Jinnah’s name. Tragic that not everyone is as well educated as Saroop Ijaz to produce references of obscure authors at a drop of a hat.

Here it must be stated that Jinnah’s relevance to Ahmadi case is not limited to piddling subsection of his career such as his championing unpopular causes like child marriages restraint act or his efforts to legalize inter-communal marriage without renunciation of faith or his warnings against the misuse of 295-A, grandfather clause to 295-c. No Jinnah’s relevance has to do with the fact that he was last popular political leader who said that Ahmadis were Muslims and no one had the right to say otherwise. His relevance is that he resisted all demands by the Mullahs to expel Ahmadis from the League. Indeed the Majlis e Ahrar started its anti-ahmaddiya campaign partly to discredit Jinnah and as an election slogan.

This is precisely why the Munir Report dedicates an entire section to Jinnah’s Pakistan. Maybe their lordships Munir and Kayani were not as educated as Mr Ijaz.

Pakistan needs rule of law and de-politicisation of police. Those engaging criminal offences like hate speech, threats and incitement to violence, and vigilante violence must be charged, tried, prosecuted, and punished. We will not allow people in public office or public positions, like political parties and traders’ unions to go around supporting hate-campaigns and violence. Please sign this petition demanding an end to violence against religious communities in Pakistan

—————-
STOP VIOLENCE AND THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST PAKISTAN’S RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

The President of Pakistan, Mr. Asif Ali Zardari
Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Yusuf Raza Gilani
Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Ch. Nisar Ali Khan
Chief Minister of Punjab Mr. Shahbaz Sharif, PML-N
President Markazi Anjuman-i-Tajran Malik Shahid Ghafoor Paracha

We urge you to intervene and stop the killing of Pakistan’s religious communities, including Sunni (Barelvi), Shia (including Hazara) and Ahmedi communities that are facing a virtual genocide simply for following their religious beliefs and practices.

You are no doubt familiar with Quaid-e-Azam, Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s speech to the Constituent Assembly on Aug 11, 1947, in which he said: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed –that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

The recent attacks on the 12 Rabiul Awal processions in various cities around Pakistan (including Gujranwala, Mansehra, Gojar Khan, Mirpur, Khairpur and Karachi) are evidence of the menace of bigotry and intolerance. The government must act with all of its might to put a stop to this. It needs to be done NOW.

The evil lurks in the belly of the so-called Diffa-e-Pakistan Council, a coalition comprising several ‘religious parties’ including some banned organsiations whose views dont resonate with the majority but are able to use their armed status and street power to attack others with impunity. The activities of this coalition need to be curtailed before it becomes the Destroy Pakistan Council.

Many of those involved in the DPC are also active in the hate-campaign against the Ahmadiyya community. Most recently, hate-mongers have proposed the demolition of the Jamaat Ahmadiyya’s Aiwan e Tawheed building in Satellite Town Rawalpindi. We express our disappointment at the participation of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) leaders in an anti-Ahmedi rally of Jan 29, 2012, attended by Member of Punjab Assembly Zia ullah Shah and traders union leader Sharjeel Mir (nominee for a PML-N ticket). It is also shocking that a leader of the traders community at this occasion made a threatening speech against the Ahmedi community.

We strongly condemn these threats of violence, and urge the establishment of a code of ethics, across the board that prohibits any political party supporting those who victimize others.

The Government, both at the Federal and Provincial levels, must take immediate action against violence, threats and intimidation, including those in the name of religion.

A witness protection plan must be instituted and the police empowered, enabled and de-politicised to act against those who violate basic human rights in Pakistan.

The full force of the law must be employed to ensure that no one attacks or threatens members of any community simply for following their religious beliefs and practices.

—————-

Sincerely,

[Your name]

By Hamza Usman

An inevitable question Pakistanis always ask me is, “what are you?” Often, I’ve wondered the same question. Besides ‘Pakistani,’ I don’t know what else to say.  I’m not Balochi or Sindhi. I can’t speak Punjabi. In my house, besides English, Urdu is the only other language spoken. When people ask me what language my parents speak, that’s what I tell them. Unlike many of my acquaintances, I don’t come from a town or village in interior Pakistan. Like millions in Pakistan, my family migrated from India. My grandparents’ families originate from Delhi, Lucknow and Aligarh, the bastions of Urdu-speaking peoples in India. In Pakistan, I am merely a ‘Muhajir;” an Urdu speaking migrant from India, now living in Karachi.

My family, like millions of others, came to Pakistan believing Jinnah’s ideal, searching for a homeland that was ours, for all Muslims, with freedom, tolerance and dignity. During those waning years of the British Empire, freedom across the Subcontinent was not a novel idea; it was a dream that had existed for decades. Students from the Aligarh Muslim University took up the cause of an independent homeland for Muslims; the university was known for the caliber and number of intellectuals it produced espousing the cause for an independent Muslim state to exist alongside a Hindu majority one in the Subcontinent. Thinkers like Mohammad Iqbal and Sir Syed Ahmed Khan were noted luminaries associated with the institution dubbed, ‘the Oxford of the East.’ Iqbal is largely celebrated in modern day Pakistan as the first ideologue championing a united Pakistan; today, his small rectangular tomb, a simple, stone structure in hues of dark crimson and burnt sienna, ensconced between the magnificent Badshahi Mosque and the grand Lahore Fort, welcomes visitors keen to learn about Pakistan’s past; a chapter of rich, Mughal heritage often obscured by the shame of Colonialism and the turbulence of Partition.

Other notable alumni of Aligarh Muslim University include Pakistan’s first Prime Minister, killed by an assassin’s bullet in 1951. In his place as Pakistan’s second Prime Minister came Khwaja Nazimuddin, another Aligarh alumnus who was Pakistan’s second, incumbent Governor General after Mr. Jinnah’s sudden death in 1948 less than a year after Pakistan’s creation. Ghulam Mohammad, Pakistan’s third and last Governor General was also an alumnus; Ghulam Mohammad’s legacy of unchecked corruption and senility  heralded the beginning of Pakistan’s trials by promoting vice-regal politics, weakening democracy and laying the seeds for President Iskander Mirza and Field Marshal Ayub Khan to set a notorious precedent and declare Martial Law in 1958.  Coincidentally, Ayub also attended Aligarh Muslim University briefly.

One lesser known alumnus was Abu Bakr Ahmad (A.B.A.) Haleem, a noted scholar and educationist. Professor Haleem began his career in the Department of Political Science and History at Aligarh in 1923. Ayub Khan was one of students. By 1934, he was Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University and played a pivotal role in Pakistan’s formation by serving with the All-India Muslim League until Partition. Writer Mukhtar Masood describes Professor Haleem’s welcome to Jinnah, stating, “Mr. Jinnah, we are teaching history and you are making it.” After the birth of Pakistan, Professor Haleem was appointed the first Vice-Chancellor of Sindh University at the behest of Jinnah and later, the first Vice-Chancellor of Karachi University thus filling the noble distinction of being the first Vice-Chancellor for both institutions. In addition, he served in a variety of different roles and positions for the purposes of propagating education and progress in Pakistan. I refer to Professor Haleem because he was a lesser-known luminary who contributed to forging Pakistan’s identity in its early years; he was also my Great-Grandfather.

Following in his footsteps, I too graduated in Political Science and History, and like him, moved to Paris. His association with the Sorbonne and the University of Paris inspired me as I strolled down the Boulevard St. Michel as he once would have decades before, deep in thought, stopping at the Jardins du Luxembourg to sit in silent contemplation amidst the babbling fountains and the verdant green grass. Like him, I spoke French almost fluently. Like him, I expressed a desire for multilingualism and learnt Italian. Professor Haleem spoke over five languages; he even spoke Mandarin. According to my grandfather, he was invited to China to give a speech to Chairman Mao-Zedong on Chinese history.

In the late Professor’s time, the concept of nationhood was being redefined and the notion of identity that still troubles Pakistanis surfaced.  Gandhi argued that religion could not imply a separate nation since language, customs and culture dictated that, not belief. Jinnah contended that religion defined values, customs, beliefs and ideals, thus characterizing Muslims as a separate nation. With neither side willing to budge from their respective positions, the outcome of this arduous conflict was the Partition of the Subcontinent in 1947.

Like me, Pakistan is still undergoing its identity crisis. Debate still looms whether the state is secular, as Jinnah envisioned, or Islamic, as his successors outlined. Its maturity and development into a cohesive nation has been hindered by weak democracy, military dominance in addition to poor governance, lack of resources and partisan politics. Like the former Yugoslavia, Pakistan is a federation of various ethnic groups, tribes, sects and peoples. The most poorly-defined of these groups are the so-called ‘Urdu-speaking’ Muslims that migrated to Pakistan after Partition from all over India. They are defined solely on the basis of language and stigmatized by the local, ethnic populations whose ancestors have pre-existed on Pakistani soil for centuries.

Urdu was a hybrid language growing in prominence under the Delhi Sultanate, but it wasn’t until the emergence of the Mughal Empire in 1527 that Urdu became a language of the regal court. It evolved from a derivative of Farsi to amalgamate Arabic, Sanskrit, Turkish and Hindi influences. As late as the siege of Delhi in 1857, Urdu remained a language of the elite and refined, lending much of its court-like stature to literature and poetry. Urdu speakers in places like Aligarh contributed greatly to Jinnah’s movement of an independent Muslim state in the Subcontinent. As a result, at Pakistan’s birth, Urdu was to be its lingua franca. Ostensibly, this would not only curtail any one ethnic group from dominating national affairs, it would also reinforce national identity through the use and extension of a common language, keeping the federation united.[1]

Naturally, this created tensions that still exist today. Pakistan at Partition was divided into East and West with only Urdu as its national language, however strong opposition and campaigning from Bengalis in East Pakistan made Bengali a national language during the 1950s. Pakistan’s Post-Colonial legacy ensured that English was not only its official language but lent its presence to its law courts, bureaucracy and military.  After its brutal Civil War in 1971, East Pakistan became Bangladesh and Pakistan was left with Urdu as its only national language. English remains the language of the elite, the powerful and the source of high-paying jobs. Prominent families send their children to English or American schools in the hope that acquiring this language will be a passport to success. As Zubeida Mustafa describes in The Guardian, “people believe that English is the magic wand that can open the door of prosperity. Policy-makers, the wielders of economic power and the social elites have also perpetuated this myth.[2]”

And this myth affects the language spoken in my home. Today, the Urdu around me is not the Urdu spoken during Partition. At that time, Urdu’s poetic language structure, its rich vocabulary and literature was common to most speakers. My generation has been fed a bastardized version of Urdu; an Urdu with informal tenses, new verbiage, interspersed with English to create what some call “minglish,” influenced by the melting pot of Karachi’s different cultures. The Urdu I speak can barely be called Urdu; it is Urdu to get by. I can order a cup of tea but I cannot wax eloquent on anything. When I watch television, news anchors speak a strange language and I struggle to read the ticker because I was never formally taught to read Urdu and I don’t know anyone who speaks the pure Urdu that once characterized my homeland.

Pakistan was envisioned as a poly-ethnic state where religion bound peoples together. The effect of nation-building has backfired since inception because ethnic identities remain prominent. Urdu has not achieved the massive national trickle-down effect it was intended to. Urdu is the first language of only 8% of Pakistanis whereas Punjabi, is spoken by almost 50% of the population.[3] In addition, over 70 smaller provincial languages and dialects exist in Pakistan.  Today, whilst much of the mainstream media as well as state-run public schools communicate in Urdu, it is not a first-language for Pakistanis by far. Those homes with access to English find a diminished impetus for learning Urdu as pragmatism and practical exigencies dictate the study of English, primarily because all higher examinations with the exception of Islamic studies in Pakistan are based on the Western models of education.

In my case, Urdu’s oral traditions and rich cultural legacy is lost to me. In Nehru’s words, “I have become a queer mixture of the East and the West, out of place everywhere, at home nowhere.”  I cannot read Ghalib unless it’s an English translation. I cannot even read the Urdu newspaper. I read Saadat Hassan Manto, revered as one of Pakistan’s greatest writers, in English. Often I wonder what richness of language is lost to me, what word play and complex grammatical structures I shall never understand, nor the depth of connotation that one Urdu word conveys but none in English compare.

Upon my return to Pakistan in 2009, I was faced with a quandary. I wanted to document the richness of this country and its cultural heritage; I wanted to highlight its history and its crumbling monuments, preserving those stories and retelling them for a new generation that doesn’t understand what Pakistan is, or what it once was. This new generation, fed on misinterpreted views of Islam accounts for much of the radicalization of the past few decades. I realized that if I needed to undo General Zia’s legacy of Islamization, I needed to show that the people living here weren’t always militant; that before there was a homeland for Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Hindus, Parsis to name a few lived side by side in peace with Muslims.

Working for a television station, I was making a documentary film but realized my shortcomings when my co-producer handed me a script to OK. The script was written in Urdu. Like a toddler struggling with an elementary primer, I held my finger over each word trying to decipher the script, until I gave up a few lines after and told him it seemed OK to me. What else could I do? When a colleague amazingly remarked that I could speak French and Italian, I turned to her and in my broken Urdu, asked what use was it if I couldn’t speak the language of my own people?

After a few months of struggle, I left the documentary film-making world because of my language handicap and ventured toward Communications. I struggled with the bitter taste of irony, that I, privileged, educated, capable of helping this country through the miasma of failure, extremism, violence and stagnation, was powerless because I couldn’t speak the language properly.  Unlike Professor Haleem who made a difference to change Pakistan for the better, I was restricted and hindered by the same hopeful language that gave this country a voice. Today, my Urdu is mish-mashed with English incorporating more colloquial slang than literal Urdu. Like my Urdu, I find myself a mix of different peoples and personalities, Pakistani at heart, but at home nowhere.

I remember my Pakistan Studies Teacher relating an incident . Gandhi was addressing a press conference when a snake crawled out of somewhere and passed the leader without biting him. The next day the incident made it to the papers. Later at another press conference this time addressed by Jinnah the journalists asked him what he thought of this miracle. Even a snake would not dare touch Gandhi. ‘Professional ethics’ remarked Jinnah. I do not know whether this story is true or not but it left a mark on me.

It’s a national habit of ours to make our leaders, one dimensional. They become austere portraits hanging over bureaucrats bent over files, lifeless over judges and on the currency notes thumbed repeatedly, their features blurring with use. These men on our paper money who changed the course of history; do we ever wonder what they ate, how they lived and loved.

It was a delight to find out Muhammad Ali Jinnah loved spaghetti, and enjoyed eating grapes and plums. That he had a love of newspapers, had these ordered from all over the world, cut out pieces, wrote notes on them and stuck them in files. He enjoyed reading Kamal Ata Turk’s biography , ‘Grey Wolf’ and was later nicknamed the same by his daughter Dina.

Stanley Wolpert’s Jinnah of Pakistan was a good book to start from. The book goes into great detail about Jinnah’s marriage to Ruttie; Jinnah catching Dinshaw Petit off guard, inquiring his opinion about inter-communal marriages and getting a positive response from Petit, asking for his daughter’s hand in marriage. The book stirred controversy with passages of Ruttie bringing Jinnah bacon sandwiches and refuting the whole episode of Jinnah seeing the Prophet’s (p.b.u.h) name listed as one of the Great Law Makers of the World in Lincoln’s Inn. Nonetheless, Jinnah with all his flaws appears enigmatic.

Interestingly a recent programme on Dawn News confirmed the presence of a plaque, with the Prophet’s (p.b.u.h) name on a list of the Great Law Makers of the World, by showing it on television, though it is no more displayed.

There are a number of books that let us into Jinnah’s private world. A book by by Saleem Chaudry called Quaid-e-azam: baimisaal shakhsiyat, Daraakhshan kirdaar ki Jhalkiyaan is an excellent read. It is full of extracts, personal observations and anecdotes. Jinnah might appear haughty but his wit crackles and amuses.

The book records an incident about him travelling on a train as the reason for reserving a whole coupe for travelling alone. Once when he was travelling to attend the National Assembly from Bombay to Delhi on a first class ticket, he found himself alone in the compartment. From a station an Anglo Indian woman got on the train. She sat down silently on the seat opposite him. The train started moving. Jinnah lay on his seat reading something when he heard her saying, ‘Give me a thousand rupees or I will pull the chain and defame you.’’ Jinnah kept silent.

He gave her the impression that he had not heard her talking. The woman repeatedly demanded the same thing over and over again. Jinnah knew the next station was still some distance away. Angrily the woman came close to him, and violently shook his arm saying. ‘Cant you hear anything? Why are you not listening to me? Aren’t you worried about getting disgraced?’ Jinnah relates, that by this time he had thought of a way of getting out of this sticky situation. Without saying anything, using signs and gestures he got it through to her that he could not hear anything. He pushed a pen and paper towards her to write whatever she wanted to say to him. When she had written down what she was saying on the piece of paper Jinnah took the paper and pulled the chain. Immediately the Guard entered the compartment and Jinnah handed him the paper. The woman was arrested and the train resumed its journey. This incident made him extra cautious and he decided to always book the entire compartment.

A man labelled ‘cold’, ‘stubborn’, ‘arrogant ‘or even an ‘average lawyer who was a late achiever in life.’(Nehru). I find him brutally honest, witty and hard to pin down. How else could you describe a man who could snap at a Governor’s wife (Lady Willingdon as recorded by Hector Bolitho) when she suggested his pretty wife cover her bare shoulders with a wrap to prevent herself from getting a cold?

My favourite passages of Saleem’s book are ones that take the reader into the courtroom where Jinnah played the main lead. The man who had once dreamt of playing Romeo at the Theatre commanded rapt audience in real life courtrooms.

Jinnah had stopped practicing law by 1944 but a request by a Muslim inspector forced him to take his case. The case dealt with the issues of divorce and iddat and required Jinnah to explain about the Muslim Lunar Calendar to the judge. The Judge asked Jinnah about the moon, ‘if it does not rise?’ Jinnah replied, ‘then I cannot make it rise, my Lord.’

In another case when a Judge inquired about a ruling Jinnah was referring to during the proceedings, saying he had not seen such a ruling. Jinnah was quick to answer, ‘Mr. Jinnah says so.’

What baffled me while reading these incidents was if it was audacity to the point of recklessness? For example during the proceedings of a case, an English magistrate, bored and tired of the long discourse interrupted Jinnah in a sarcastic tone, ‘Mr. Jinnah I just listen to what you say from one ear and let it fly out the other’. Jinnah’s retort, the place between the magistrates’ ears must be empty if whatever he says goes in one end and flies out the other, makes me laugh in awe.

I think I am charmed by Jinnah like Sarojini Naidu, a prominent Indian Leader also known as the Nightingale of the East. Some sources claim her to have been besotted by Jinnah, with her writing love poems for him. A profile picture of her sitting in the National archives sent to Jinnah is signed ‘from your friend’ and there are many who deny the infatuation. Jinnah has that power. There is nothing average about him and nothing one dimensional about him.

Image via Wikipedia

This will probably be one of the many articles that I plan to write about the construction of contemporary Pakistani national identity. While I have many versions of theories of nation available to undertake this project, I have decided to focus primarily on the mainstream statist narrative that Pakistani media, the school system, and the foundational intellectuals rely on to  construct the narrative of Pakistan.

In this highly idealized and ideological narrative, Pakistan is posited as the terminal outcome of an elitist dream of separatism defined in difference and in conflict with the larger “Hindu” nationalism of India before partition. We have been telling this story to our children, showing its unfolding in well crafted historical TV shows and movies. As a result, the Pakistani national narrative has now streamlined itself as more or less a religious narrative of nationhood. In my humble opinion, unless Pakistan dismantles and restructures this psuedo-religious national narrative, it will continue to struggle as a nation perpetually in crisis.

There is a dire need for a new kind of historiography: a historiography that does not rely on usual clichés of a great leader fighting against the machinations of Hindus and the British to wrest a country for Indian Muslims. Those of us who have read the events and politics of the creation of Pakistan know, through textual analysis, that mr. Jinnah, until the very end, would have been happy if the British and Indian National Congress had agreed to a sort of federation in which the Muslims of India could have had parity at the federal level. It was the failure of this particular thrust of Jinnah’s struggle that ultimately resulted in the failure of his larger dream and creation of Pakistan as a less-than-perfect alternative. We need to seriously read and discuss this hidden aspect of the creation of Pakistan.

We also need to seriously question all those who assert that Pakistan was to be exclusively a Muslim nation: that was never what Jinnah had intended. In fact, the religious leaders–most of them–were opposed to the creation of Pakistan and did not lend their full support to Mr. Jinnah until the very end.

A critical historiography will highlight these aspects of the struggle for Pakistan and will also open space for imagining a more diverse, equal, and egalitarian Pakistan. A kind of Pakistan in which histories of minorities, women, and peasants are not whitewashed but foregrounded.

Our national narrative should also focus on the rapacious role of the zamindari system, the sardari system, and the destruction of our public sphere by the mullahs and their followers. We should have the courage to challenge all these sectors of political power that seek to present Pakistan in their own contorted and outdated vision of  national life. Unless Pakistan tells a story in which the people have the ultimate power and, Pakistan will remain the crisis state that it is so aptly dubbed by its friends and foes alike.

Most importantly our historians and writers need to stop valorizing the military and need to highlight the destructive role that the armed forces have played in keeping democracy in check and in maintaining the socio-economic status quo.

The stories that we tell our children should be about a more diverse and democratic Pakistan and not of a religiously defined nation perpetually in embrace with all the outdated and repressive forces in of our public sphere. All assertions of exclusive ideas of identity–may it be regional, political, or religious–must be challenged and questioned perpetually by the public intellectuals and the media.

A critical historiography, a democratic didactics, and a re-imagining of our past to create a vision of a better future would be a good start!

Related articles

• Interview: Martial PTV plays indirectly boosted jihadist mentality (pakistaniaat.net)
• Engage With Pakistan at Harvard University This Summer (pakistaniaat.net)

© 2011, Masood Ashraf Raja. This article may not be reproduced in any form without providing an active attribution link/ reference to The Pakistan Forum. All attribution links within the article must also be retained.

 Raza Habib Raja
This article tries to evaluate the politician Benazir Bhutto and the way she affected her party and the Pakistani political landscape. Since the article tries to adopt a CRITICAL approach therefore it points her weaknesses besides appreciating her strengths.

Cult of personality which has become somewhat of a rarity in the West is an integral part of the political culture here. Such personality cults form around Political leaders, particularly famous ones, in our part of the world. Strong political leaders are not merely the reflection of the society but are often strong enough to affect it. Late Benazir Bhutto was one of such political personalities. Charismatic personalities are often riddled with contradictions and like all such personalities she also had her strengths and weaknesses.

Benazir Bhutto though it is not often acknowledged was in many ways Pakistan’s only true liberal leader. Compared to her charismatic father who was ready to manipulate religious sensitivities to extract political mileage, Benazir Bhutto knew where to stop. Yes, she was pragmatic and like all politicians acted in rational self interest-Politics is after all realpolitiks- but she did not try to whip religion for that purpose.

Those who believe in a secular, liberal and plural Pakistan, like to remember Jinnah for his 11th August speech; likewise I would like to remember Benazir Bhutto through a statement she made in early 1990s when she said “Insanoon ke hath Paon Katne munasib Nayee Samajte. Khuda Zalim Nayee Hai. Zalim Quaneen ko Islami nayee manti” (We do not think amputating hands and legs of human beings is an appropriate thing to do. God is not cruel. I do not think that harsh laws can be Islamic). This statement, though now rarely quoted caused quite a stir in early 1990s. In fact the Imam of Badshahi Mosque even issued a fatwa against her. Other than her, I have never heard ANY politician utter such a statement. I wish that this statement had started a wave where people could have mustered enough courage to actually start a critical discourse on religious laws and on the role of religion in their lives. Sadly it merely created short term controversy and print media of those days lapped on it for creating sensational headlines. The statement could not define her legacy but nevertheless is an important indication of the stuff Benazir Bhutto was made of.

Benazir Bhutto inherited the party from Bhutto but in many ways she earned her title. After all when her brothers chose to stay outside and indulge in militant tactics she decided to adopt the political course and tried to engage with the supporters of her party. Even legacy politics need charismatic inheritors who can engage with the masses. It is that kind of mass populism which acts as a cancelling agent to religious fervour and its political manifestation at the mass level. Benazir Bhutto could do it brilliantly despite the fact that her Urdu was not as fluent as her father’s.

Her biggest achievement for the PPP was that she was able to glue the party after him. Her stature which was underpinned by much more than her blood linage ensured that unity prevailed. While it helped the party in the transitory phase as it needed a strong leader but in the longer run has proven counterproductive as legacy politics has become too entrenched.

In legacy politics the direction of a political party is often controlled by the cultish leader. PPP’s direction from 1986 owed largely to her vision and political outlook. PPP changed with times and Benazir while holding on to the legacy politics was very willing to embrace newer ideas. As socialism waned globally, Benazir was quick to reform her party’s ideological outlook and PPP started to transform from a centre left to economically conservative and socially liberal party. In fact the privatization program started with her tenure. She was also extremely keen on bringing in foreign investment and her second stint as Prime Minister witnessed huge investments in the power sector as several Independent Power Projects (IPPs) were set up. The move which was severely criticised by subsequent Nawaz Sharif government as being “unfair” to Pakistan, ultimately proved one of the most beneficial economic decisions taken by her government. As Pakistan suffered from terrible electricity shortages, the situation would have been virtually catastrophic if there were no IPPs.

Politically she was a realist though knew how to balance the pragmatism with ideological stance of the party. Her pragmatism emanated from her experience as a Prime Minister particularly her first tenure. She quickly realized that in Pakistan the “deep state” held all the keys and if her party aspired to have power, it could not go totally against the so called establishment. Therefore when Nawaz Sharif conspired to remove her from power in 1990, she returned him the favour in 1993 when she supported Ghulam Ishaq Khan in his efforts to remove him.

Moreover despite having liberal outlook she had no stupid romantic notions about militant parties like MQM. She was firmly behind the 1995-96 operation and understood that action was needed to eradicate militancy. She was pretty firm and did not yield to blackmailing tactics even when the killings mounted. At one time, corpses were being daily found in bags with chits attached to chest stating “Naseer Ullah Baber ke liey Tuhfa” (A gift for Naseer Ullah Baber).

I think it was her administrative quality which perhaps was her weakest trait. Her second tenure was riddled with severe controversies and in fact it alienated her core support which was reflected in 1996 elections. Although it is often claimed that in 1996 establishment rigged the elections but the reality was that PPP voter simply did not come out to vote. In fact throughout Punjab and NWFP, its candidates were getting less than 10,000 votes per constituency in the elections for national assembly seats.

It was the controversies of that tenure which continued to cast a deep shadow over the rest of Benazir’s life. All of the infamous cases are related to that period.

Despite going into exile in late 1990s, Benazir continued to have a lot of influence on the local politics and once Nawaz Sharif was again removed, her popularity witnessed resurgence. PPP became a key party after 2002 elections and in the last years of Musharraf regime was the most sought after party by the establishment and US alike for tackling rising extremism and for ensuring trouble less continuance of the battle against Islamic militants.

Things started to move in an uncontrollable direction after the lawyers movement started. Although now the PPP tries to call the movement “reactionary” but the fact is that during her life Benazir never publicly criticized it despite the fact that she knew that from pragmatic point of view, the movement though weakening Musharraf could also adversely affect her leverage. In fact PPP selectively supported the movement. An intelligent person like Benazir would have never supported the lawyers’ movement if it was totally “reactionary” particularly at that point. Of all the politicians, she was the best in striking a balance between political necessity and ideological orientation. In fact the fact that PPP in post Benazir time adopted delaying tactics allowed the right wing elements to literally hijack the movement. Had she been alive, things would have taken a better turn as she was far more astute than her successor.

Her death has obviously been a big blow to Pakistan’s prospects of becoming a more tolerant and moderate political entity. Religious extremism in fact benefited the most from her tragic death.

Moreover her tragic death also solidified the legacy politics as her successor had to be from her nearest relatives to keep the party intact. Dynasty politics became further entrenched and even Bilawal had to be renamed as Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. It is claimed by the PPP that BB Sahiba nominated the current Joint Chairman, Asif Ali Zardari. By following him, they are actually following her desires. And yet the ones who were near to Benazir during her lifetime and even her final moments like Sherry Rehman, Naheed Khan and Amin Fahim are now out of the limelight. If her wishes were that dear to PPP then people on whom Benazir had trust should not be given such treatment.

To be fair to the current chairman, PPP led government has tried to reach out to various ethnicities and tried to adopt reconciliatory approach. In some constitutional matters the party has fared quite well and has successfully brokered an improved NFC award. Provincial autonomy has also improved. However the quality of governance remains a problematic area.

It has to be understood that eventually people judge a government not merely on its ideological orientation but also on its actual performance in economic and administrative realm. And yes there will always be those who despite ideologically agreeing with a liberal party will nevertheless assess the actual performance and vote against it. In USA the registered Democrats far outnumber the registered Republicans and yet there have been Republican presidents and legislatures. Even in the recent midterm elections the conservatives make a strong comeback.

Merely calling the critics as “Pseudo Liberals” or members of naive “chattering classes” or “closet conservatives” will not do the trick. Pakistan Peoples Party has to improve its governance and since it is the mainstream liberal party it is critical that it improves. Likewise whipping Benazir’s and Bhutto’s name won’t make the issues with it disappear. A Shaheed may act as a powerful rallying force in one election but cannot deliver performance. Post Benazir PPP needs to realize that.

A snooty arts academy professor failing an applicant created Adolf Hitler. A minor design oversight sunk the Titanic. A wrong turn by a driver led to an assassination of a crown prince, which in turn ushered in World War I. Small tremors have set off many an avalanche. Slight cracks in foundations have brought down proud skyscrapers. Seemingly immaterial actions or events have proven to have far bigger consequences over time than could ever have been originally envisaged.

In the same manner, human attributes which are towering strengths in a given set of circumstances can be fatal weaknesses in others.

Jinnah in 1948 was a physically exhausted and emotionally drained titan. The heady early days of independence had given way to the daily grind of trying to forge out a viable state where none had existed before. The lonely existence was taking its toll and melancholy seemed to be a constant companion. He missed Dina terribly; and his sister’s overbearing manner was becoming almost intolerable.

And then there was the thought of his impending demise. Death, no respecter of status, had served a clear notice some years before. Having driven for years his frail body to its extreme limits on the basis of iron will power he now knew that the end was near. A man of great personal courage he felt no particular fear about facing the ultimate truth.

However it was the increasingly nagging doubts about his legacy which occupied his thoughts the most. Had he managed to create the largest Islamic state or would this turn out to be a bizarre failed experiment? Had he been guilty of opening a Pandora’s box? The months since that fateful day in August seemed to have ushered in a seemingly endless series of crises. The heart wrenching plight of the refugees, war with India over Kashmir, almost non-existent administrative structure, the precarious economic condition being some of the almost insurmountable obstacles facing the new born state…

He was further depressed witnessing the seemingly endless political infighting in the Muslim League, as various leaders jockeyed for positions of influence. Then there was the mutual animosity with the Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan. Jinnah had wanted to nominate Sardar Abdul Rab Nishtar for the post, but was forced to accede to the clout of the Urdu speaking members of the Muslim League higher echelons.

His own personality was not really suited to being a politician in the traditional sense of the word. An intellectual giant, he could come across as haughty, cold and aloof. Compromise on principles was a concept alien to him. He was not comfortable interacting with the ordinary crowd. A grand orator, he had never mastered the art of constant glib dialogue so necessary for keeping constituents engaged. His speeches therefore, while being brilliantly incisive, were more of logical dissertations rather than being appealing in nature.

Then there was his style of leadership. Bordering on the dictatorial he would only listen to the advice of those whose intellect he respected. This was an absolutely essential attribute during the freedom movement but ill suited to the affairs of running of a state. This resulted in a lack of delegation in critical areas and consolidated too much power with himself. He was simultaneously the Governor General, head of the Muslim League and president of the constituent assembly.

And he had very little time for the emotional side of any issue. His legal training had attuned his whole being to the logical and left precious little for the appreciation of the poignant.

The sum result of all of the above was his neglect of three fundamental issues which ultimately led to the creation of Bangladesh. First being the building up of Muslim League into a proper political party from a sort of mass movement, the second being the need to set up a constitutional committee with clear direction and mandate. But the fatal challenge was in understanding and addressing the hugely emotive issue of the national language…

The ineffectiveness of Muslim League and the lack of a constitution in the formative year led later on to misbalance of power between the two wings which in turn fuelled the sense of injustice in the Eastern wing. The issue of national language further exacerbated the cultural divide and provided a powerful cause for Bengali nationalism.

Predictably it was Jinnah’s two speeches which really inflamed the Bengali sentiments around the language issue. Look at these two speeches on a stand-alone basis and these are essentially brilliant expounding of facts. However, keep the political circumstances of those times in mind and some lines therein were really inflammatory for Bengalis.

Both speeches were delivered in Dhaka; one at a huge civic reception and the second at the Dhaka University. There had been wide spread agitation in the then East Pakistan in support of making Bengali one of the national languages. Had Jinnah adopted a conciliatory tone in the speeches the simmering feeling would most probably have been adequately assuaged. Instead, true to form, he adopted a very direct posture towards the agitators. He only conceded Bengali’s status as a provincial language. And to further add fuel to the passions launched into a paean about Urdu.

A pity. Had this language issue been tackled in the earlier days it would have prevented the bitterness and mistrust which ultimately destroyed relations between the two wings. Jinnah created a country single-handedly but could not provide the foundation for keeping it united.

This is not to detract from what he managed to achieve during the short time granted to him post-independence. His overall leadership was inspiring and he was a symbol of unity and hope. He bestowed us with something for which we Pakistanis should be eternally grateful: a leader whose integrity we can truly believe in.

Quaid-e-Azam was, afterall, only human…

By Ghazala Akbar:

‘The past is a foreign country…they do things differently there’

Remember December 16, anyone? It is that time of the year when the Pakistani High Commissioner in Bangladesh is inexplicably indisposed, takes a mini-break from official duties or heads out of the Capital city Dhaka for some urgent business! Still clueless? Here’s another hint: 1971. Forty years ago, on this date, the Pakistan that came into existence on August 14, 1947 died a slow and agonizing death. It was a particularly violent finale to a nine-month war marked by extreme brutality. In the closing days and its aftermath, the savagery intensified into bestiality. War is hell.

In this War of Liberation or Secession (of the majority from the minority), human life and suffering were the biggest and most tragic casualties. Overnight, people turned stateless, homeless—even limbless. Families became divided, friends turned into foes and loyalties were suspect. Businesses, careers, properties, livelihoods, carefully nurtured over the years were lost. Nearly 97,000 West Pakistanis ended up as POWs in India, 28,000 Bengalis in the Army and Public Services interned in Pakistan. ‘Shielded’by the Geneva Conventions, they were the luckier ones. For civilians that had backed the losing side – ‘Loyalists’ or ‘Quislings’ – depending on how you view them – the consequences were catastrophic.

The death of united Pakistan and the bloody birth of Bangladesh was a painful experience then – and still painful to recount for those unfortunate to be caught in its maelstrom. I had hoped that with the passage of time and distance one could be objective, rational, dispassionate and detached. I was wrong. It still haunts. Type in a few key words on cyberspace –  East Pakistan , West Pakistan, Secession, Liberation War, Bangladesh, Bengali, Bihari, Mukti Bahini, Razakar, al Badar, al Shams,Yahya, Bhutto, Mujib, Indira, Tikka Khan, Niazi, Aurora, Maneckshaw, Indo- Soviet Friendship Treaty, Nixon, Kissinger, China, Seventh Fleet, Surrender… the ghosts return and are difficult to exorcise.

There are numerous books, personal accounts, fictional works, diaries, newspaper articles, official documents, de-classified documents, official cables, photos, films, video clips, interviews, paintings and poems — yellowed and bloodstained. It is a catalogue of horror. Three million, three hundred thousand or thirty thousand – the body count is disputed but it is still one too many. As the Hamoodur Rahman Comission observed: ‘No amount of provocation by the militants of the Awami League or other miscreants could justify retaliation by a disciplined army against its own people’.

To the victors, go the spoils and the exclusive rights to history, the loser can opt to remember or forget. After an initial public outcry, Pakistanis chose a form of selective amnesia. The conclusions of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission Report in 1974 were a political hot potato and quickly buried. Resurfacing 35 years later when most of the protagonists had died, there was conveniently, no one left to blame or hang. In the enterprise of nation – building and the craft of a new Islamic identity, official narratives air – brushed the misdeeds, the debacle became a footnote, relegated to ancient history.  Bangladesh was accepted, the ‘excesses’ regretted — but – the meddling role of India  and it’s Intelligence Agency RAW as– agent provocateur has lingered. It was neither forgiven nor forgotten.

Significantly, it is the recollection of that bitter memory that has shaped Pakistan’s attitudes and policies towards its Eastern neighbour for the past 40 years. It is why Pakistan ‘eats grass’ to maintain a nuclear arsenal, why it aids proxies, why it sought the KargiI heights, seeks strategic depth and will ‘fight for a thousand years.’ Martin Woollcott of the UK Guardian sums it up pithily: ‘much that is both wrong and dangerous in the sub – continent today– from Pakistan’s paranoia to India’s extreme self-righteousness and Bangladesh’s sense that it is neglected and ignored can be traced to the 1971 conflict, even if the roots go back further still.’

‘The roots’ do go back further– all the way to 1947 and the Partition of India. Take the case of the Biharis or ‘Stranded Pakistanis’ in Bangladesh, still a festering sore after forty years. Who are they, why are they stranded? How did they come to be there in the first place? This quote from Mr. Jinnah after communal violence had engulfed Bihar in February 1947 is self- explanatory: ‘The sufferings Moslems underwent in Bihar and elsewhere clearly showed we should have a separate State of Pakistan. I am really proud of the Bihar Moslems… their sacrifices will not go in vain. They have brought the Pakistan goal nearer and have shown readiness to make any sacrifice for its attainment.’

It was the ‘suffering’ and ‘sacrifice’, that caused a million or so to uproot to East Pakistan from Bihar in 1947. Sharing a linguistic affinity with West Pakistanis, they identified readily with the concept of a Unitary State with a strong Centre. This was at odds with creeping Bengali nationalist sentiment that wanted maximum autonomy. When push came to shove, it was time to take sides to save Pakistan — at any cost. It cost them dear. After the fall of Dhaka, their position became tenebrous. Viewed as collaborators or remnants of the ancien regime they became the targets of summary justice and reprisals.  Ultimately offered the choice of becoming citizens of Bangladesh or Pakistan, many opted to go — relocating to 66 Camps — awaiting repatriation.

After the Simla Accords, around 120 to170, 000 came to Pakistan between 1972 and1974. Thereafter, repatriation halted. The issue became contentious, acquiring an ethnic and linguistic hue in the internal politics of Sindh where they had mostly settled. What began as a humanitarian and national concern assumed an unfortunate parochial dimension. Occasionally their plight found a voice in international forums — eliciting a few token responses from Pakistan – but excuses were readily available– to delay and deny.

Procrastination and deliberate indecision over the years has further compounded the original problem.  Successive generations have grown up in squalid camps vacillating between hope and despair. Their legal status is a Catch 22: If they are ‘Stranded Pakistanis’, they cannot be classed as ‘Refugees’ or an official ‘Minority’ with rights and privileges in Bangladesh. If they leave of their accord, and enter Pakistan through surreptitious means – – they are illegal in Pakistan, subject to deportation! But where are they to be deported to exactly…the Indian State of Bihar?

To the credit of the current Government in Bangladesh, it has ended the legal limbo for some. Children born after 1971, or who were minors at the time have been enfranchised and are eligible for citizenship. Yet there are still many that are stateless, eking out an existence — waiting for the Promised Land. Once East Pakistanis, then Stranded Pakistanis –they are now Abandoned Pakistanis!

This abdication of responsibility remains a shameful stain on Pakistan’s collective national conscience. It exposes our hypocritical, oft-proclaimed love for the ummah and concern for the Palestinian cause. Consider too, that there are hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens living and working in Pakistan of all hues and nationalities yet its own citizens are denied legal entry. There can be no formal closure — no ghosts laid to rest of the events of 1971 until this issue is resolved.

Commendably, on many other fronts, the two countries have let bygones be bygones and buried the hatchet. Barring a few minor irritants, relations are friendly and fraternal. There is trade and commerce. There are cricket matches, cultural exchanges. The recently- observed 47th^th Anniversary of PTV invoked nostalgic memories of much – loved Bengali singers and dancers. Music was always a binding force, a shared heritage – then and now.  Recently I was fortunate to attend a concert in a Gulf Arab country. The performers were Indians — a Sikh husband and a Hindu wife of Bangladeshi origin. They sang primarily in Urdu in which both were fluent, often stopping to explain the poetic nuances of couplets by Qateel Shifai, a Pakistani poet. The grand finale was the soulful ‘Allah hi Allah kiya karo.’

I was elated …yet saddened …conscious of the irony: it was the language issue in 1952 that had triggered the initial divide between East and West.  A grand vision of a unitary, uniform Ideological State was force – fed on people who already had their own proud Bengali culture. It was to be purged of all ‘non – Islamic’ influences. The minority were imposing their language on the majority. Urdu was somehow considered Islamic! Blinkered minds — could not – or would not see an alternative picture.  Could we not have opted for unity in diversity? Was it necessary to have only One identity? Was the cultural gap between east and west really that pronounced? Given time, it would have narrowed — surely.

If only politicians could sing…!

Paradoxically, forty years on, the existence of Bangladesh as an independent state is trumpeted by many in Pakistan as a logical progression, proof and vindication of the Two-Nation theory. The original Pakistan Resolution of 1940, it is pointed out had called for the creation of two states – not one! The vision of hindsight is always 20/20 …or is it? Some had seen the writing on the wall and the futility of holding on forcibly. Asked for his views, ex- President Ayub Khan records in his diary on 23 February 1971: ‘I told Mohd. Ali  (brother of Gen Yahya Khan)…it now seems very difficult to hold the country as a Federation and the best situation would be to withdraw the army from East Pakistan, in the best manner that is possible and to think about a Confederation, as this seems to be a way in which the country will not be further put through a trauma. Agha Mohammed Ali said ‘sir is this is your considered opinion?’ and I said ‘yes I think so; we have gone beyond the stage of a Federation’.

If only General Yahya had heeded the advice of his superiors…!

The name Bangladesh often crops up today on animated discussions on Pakistan TV Channels. Hoping for a quick – fix, back- door solution to current problems, there are some that advocate the ‘Bangladesh Model’, a reference to a civil – military partnership that was partially successful in tackling political and financial corruption in Bangladesh. They would also be well – advised to consider the other Bangladesh example: of a liberal, pluralistic society, of syncretism and tolerance, co-existence of mosques, mandirs and churches. As some Pakistanis have admitted wistfully — and with some justification – Bangladesh 2011 is a truer manifestation of Mr. Jinnah’s vision than the Pakistan we have today.  If only such wisdom and insight had been available earlier — there might have been no ghosts of 1971 to exorcise. If only…!

By Yasser Latif Hamdani

(Written exclusively for PakTeaHouse. Please give credit when crossposting)

The poison of ignorance and extremism that Bhutto and General Zia jointly fathered during their dictatorial regimes has fully indoctrinated even those who otherwise describe themselves as educated.

This week the Large Hadron Collider at the CERN inched closer to the discovery of Higgs Boson or the God Particle as it were. In this extraordinary story of human achievement,  Dr. Abdus Salam is a key player who put Pakistan on the map of theoretical physics. In his homeland though, a group of self-styled champions of Islam have started a posthumous campaign of scurrilous slander claiming that Dr. Salam was giving out nuclear secrets. Forget that even a confirmed bigot like General Zia  held a ceremony in our only nobel prize winner’s honour or that no one ever accused Dr. Salam of any such thing; in Pakistan to be a hero you have to actually transfer technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.

Now consider the case of 11 year old Sitara Akbar. Every Pakistani and his mother in law are citing her as a crowning national achievement, blissfully oblivious of the fact that she is an Ahmadi. To them her religion is suddenly unimportant or irrelevant or is it? How many Sitara Akbars have been expelled from our schools for being Ahmadi? How many productive citizens of this republic have been killed and maimed for believing differently?

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s National Assembly imagined itself the Islamic equivalent of the Council of Nicea. Just as that ancient bastion of Christian orthodoxy excommunicated unitarian Christians for not believing in the trinity of the father, son and the holy ghost, the National Assembly saw it fit to – primarily at the instigation of the Prime Minister and his law minister- declare an entire sect non-Muslim. Just like the post hoc elevation of the principle of trinity at Nicea, Pakistan’s National Assembly located Islam in the principle of the finality of Prophethood.

This act of our sovereign legislature stood in sharp contrast to the view of this nation’s founding father. On 5 May, 1944, in response to demands of the orthodox vis a vis Ahmadis, Jinnah made it absolutely clear that anyone who professes to be a Muslim is a Muslim and welcome in the Muslim League and that those who were raising the issue were trying to divide the Muslims. Here I am forced to say that I am inclined to accept Jinnah’s view and reject the collective wisdom of our sovereign legislature. There are several reasons which may be cited in this regard:

1. First and foremost Pakistan is bound by the United Nations’ charter. Therefore Pakistan is bound to ensure freedom of religion for all its citizens and freedom of religion means freedom of religion according to the definition of the subject of the said freedom.
2. Identity is subjective not objective. The state of Pakistan or any other state cannot tell an Ahmadi that he is not a Muslim because it is intrinsic to the faith of an Ahmadi.  This is an inviolable, inalienable right as part of right to life which every state in the world is bound to protect. If Ahmadis say they are Muslims they ought to be accepted as such.
3. Pakistan is a signatory to the ICCPR and without reservations since June 2011. Therefore every piece of legislation that discriminates against Ahmadis or forces a label upon them is ultra vires the ICCPR.
4. The Islamic argument: According to the Holy Prophet (PBUH) anyone who utters the Kalima Shahadah is a Muslim. None of the Kalimas, including the Primary Kalima Shahadah contains any reference to the principle of the finality of Prophethood as understood by the Muslim majority today.
5. Finally because by conduct and promise, Pakistani state is estopped from claiming otherwise. In 1947, Pakistan laid claim to Qadian as a Muslim holy place, a counter-blast to Sikh claims on Nankana Sahib and Hassan Abdal.  Similarly in 1946 elections which is the basic referendum on the question of Pakistan, Ahmadi votes were instrumental in getting Muslims Pakistan. These are undeniable facts of history.

Therefore- fully aware of the stigma attached to this statement- I concur with Quaid-e-Azam Mahomed Ali Jinnah, thefounding father of Pakistan that Ahmadis are Muslims, if they say they are Muslims and no one, not even the sovereign legislature, has the right to say otherwise.

By Saad Hafiz:

By Shivam Vij for FirstPost

You cannot SMS ullu chod in Pakistan anymore. Nor can you SMS monkey crotch if you had any reason to do so.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has banned 1,795 expletives on SMS, ordering telecom companies to filter out SMS-es containing these offending words with effect from 21 November 2011. The letter includes a list of 1,109 English words, more pornographic terms than expletives, and another 586 Urdu words which are more colourful sexual expletives of the standard South Asian kind rather than the plain garden variety pornography.

A letter from the PTA, dated 14 November and signed by its Director General (Services), Muhammed Talib Doger invokes the “Protection from Spam, Unsolicited, Fraudulent and Obnoxious Communication Regulations, 2009″ to pass the order.

The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) has banned 1,795 expletives on SMS, ordering telecom companies to filter out SMS-es containing these offending words with effect from 21 November 2011. Vivek Prakash/Reuters
The Pakistani Twitterverse was on fire last night as the two lists make for hilarious reading. The English list begins with A.S.S. and ends with yellowman. Some words sound harmless (crap and crappy), others bizarre (Jesus Christ, flatulence, murder, monkey crotch). Many are commonly used obscene words (“FUCK YOU”) and care has been taken to account for alternative spellings (biatch, muthafucka). While many spelling variations of ‘masturbation’ are on it, the correct spelling is not. Most words seem to be designed to prevent ‘sexting’ or sending sexually explicit texts (sexy, lick me, do me, S&M, lotion and porn). The list comes down on anal sex as much as vaginal sex. But it isn’t just sex. By banning drunken they perhaps hope to reduce alcoholism.

The Express Tribune points out, “While much of the list contains expletives, a number of words to be banned include medical terms, terms used by particular minority groups, common words from the English language and rap group, Wu Tang Clan.” The ‘medical terms’ include athelete’s foot, breast, intercourse, condom and period. The ‘daily use’ terms include hole, hostage and harder. Words like gay and homosexual don’t surprise but it’s curious why wuutang raised the censor’s hackles.

In fact, thanks to this helpful compendium many Pakistanis are finding their expletive vocabulary enhanced. @UroojZia asked what bumblefuck and ladyboog meant.

@Zakoota said the lists should be required reading in schools to give children the vocabulary to describe politicians and cricketers. With the amount of phrases that include the word “BUTT”, @KhaLeak wondered if Aijaz Butt was banned as well.

The Urdu list has standard gaalis also popular in north India, but many of them may not be familiar to Indians (such as “dani mani fudi chus“). Some are unfamiliar even to Pakistanis. @FurhanHussain said the presence of Punjabi gaalis in the Urdu list amounted to cheating, but others noted that there is no list of Sindhi and Punjabi language expletives, a grievous omission given that the Punjabi language is particularly full of colourful expletives.

“Padosi ki aulaad” doesn’t sound very obscene. There are some 15 spelling and gender variations of ‘kanjar’, a popular Pakistani expletive meaning dancing girls, often also used to describe cross-dressing or men dancing like women. Some of the Urdu ones are quite creative. There are four variations of “Chipkali ke gaand ke pasine” and some are inexplicable (“Nimbu sharbat“, “carrom board”) and some are zoologically bizarre (“ullu chod” or owl fucker). Some are rather vanilla everyday terms like “Buckwaas” (nonsense) and “Bewakoof” (foolish).

There were so many oddball terms in there at first people though it was a spoof. However, Shahzad Ahmad, an internet rights activist who tweets as @bytesforall, said he confirmed with a source at the PTA that the list was real. The Express Tribune story referred to above has been updated to quote a PTA spokesperson who denied knowledge of any letter and said that the PTA “does not take such decisions and only passes on the instructions to licensees once a decision is taken by a ministerial committee.” The PTA, which is also in the news for directing ISPs to block access to 1,71,261 pornographic sites, is said to have convened a meeting this morning to discuss the uproar.

It’s unclear how telecom companies who cannot even filter out commercial spam will be able to handle this new morality burden. But Pakistanis, used to growing online censorship administered by the PTA, took little time to come up with the obvious workaround to the SMS censorship. The offending words are numbered on the blacklist. Many including @SamadK came up with the idea, “Now instead of typing the whole gaali you just need to send the number. Thank you PTA for making is even lazier.”

Many have already started testing it: @KhanDanish tweeted “I hope Imran Farhat 143 doesn’t do 471 in Friday’s match. #Urdu.”

The Urdu list is here and the English list here.

Filed under: All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, blasphemy laws, Freedoms, Hate Crime, Islam, Muslims, Pakistan, Pakistanis, US Commission on International Religious Freedom Tagged: Ahmadis, blasphemy laws, Christian Minorities, Christians, Hindus, Islam, Jesus Christ, Jinnah, Menstruation, mullahs, Pakistan, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, Pakistani Chrisitians, Pakistani Constitution, Pakistanis, Period, PTA, Religious Minorities