This:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_25-3-2005_pg3_3

might be stretching it, but it is educational; especially in what it does to provide background on the link between those of the Sufi way (Tasawwuf, Sufism) and its role and power to, as the old slogan went, subvert the dominant paradigm.

As a follow-up to the entry about Balochistan last month (http://ifaqeer.blogspot.com/2005/02/war-crimes-rape-honor-and-being-pure.html), I reported a few days ago that the Grand Vizier of the Islamic Republic hisself was getting into the act:

http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pick_prog.cfm?page=pakistan.aspx&id=70779

Now we hear that the suggestions coming from one part of the establishment are acceptable to the biggest kahuna in Balochistan:

http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pick_prog.cfm?page=pakistan.aspx&id=71223

And that even the Ameer-ul-Momineen of the Enlightenment may deign to get involved:

http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pick_prog.cfm?page=pakistan.aspx&id=71224

I had the honour of speaking about one of Urdu's popular poets in the 20th Century weekend before last, Sahir Ludhianvi. Sahir is the author of Talkhiyaan, a lot of Bollywood's most memorable lyrics, including, for example the poetry used in the movie Kabhi Kabhie. He also wrote one of the most famous and interesting comments on the Taj Mahal; a poem that ends with the quatrain:

Yeh chaman zar yeh jamna ka kinara yeh mahal
Yeh munaqqash dar-o-deevar yeh mehrab yeh taaq
Aik shahanshah nay daulat ka sahara lay ker
Hum ghareebon kee mohabbat ka uraya hai mazaaq

[I'll find a translation I did of this and post it here]

A web page devoted to the event is at:

http://ifaqeer.blogspot.com/2005/03/speaking-of-literature.html

You can read the Press Release and a transcript of my speech (transliteration, actually; the speech was in Urdu, the transliteration is in the Roman/English script) on the "Urdu ke Naam" blog:

http://urdu-ke-naam.blogspot.com/2005/03/sahir-ludhianvi-remembered-on-his-83rd.html

and my speech, as written, at:

http://urdu-ke-naam.blogspot.com/2005/03/address-at-yaum-e-sahir-in-milpitas.html

Labels: South Asian Language and Culture, Urdu

As a follow-up to the entry about Balochistan last month (http://ifaqeer.blogspot.com/2005/02/war-crimes-rape-honor-and-being-pure.html), it seems like the Grand Vizier of the Islamic Republic hisself is getting into the act:

http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pick_prog.cfm?page=pakistan.aspx&id=70779

I love! I love it!! I love it!!! Just ran into this:

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neurotheology.htm

Dunno what to say; but the concept sounds really interesting. Though I wonder if they will stay with the effects of a religious faith or stray into comparing/including the effects of being passionate about any cause.

Excerpts and notes from an interview with Michael Schauer (the writer formerly known as "Anonymous", author of Imperial Hubris and such like) on KQED's Forum, 3/1/05:

Schauer refers to "the Israelis' bombing of Sabra and Shatila"?!! Huh? This guy was a top CIA analyst?

Then he says "I opposed the War in Iraq for the reason Ulysses S. Grant opposed the war in Mexico: that it is against the American nature to wage wars of aggression. Second reason was that there was a countervailing argument no one was making. If we invaded Iraq, we were going to be holding the three holiest places in Islam, at least in the eyes of Muslims: the Arabian peninsula, Iraq and the Israelis would be holding Jerusalem. We were going to offend 1.3 billion Muslims. the argument that we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here is an interest piece off analysis by assertion. If there are 1.3 billion Muslims and an increasing number are going to be offended and pick up guns, there's plenty to come over here, sir."

and

"America first; not America alone."

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R503011000

The story of the rejection of visas to the former Chief Minister of Gujarat, a state of the Indian Union, is making the rounds, making for a lot of discussion and comment. There are several aspects to this denial.

One thread is the thought that this decision, especially the relative speed and alacrity with which it came, is part of the quest for winning Muslim hearts. Mmmm. I dunno. If the mainstream of the American Muslim community had been spearheading the campaign to stop Modi (rather than issuing "Me Too!" Action Alerts); or the rest of the non-Indian part of the Ummah really had had the guts to do much about Gujarat (like treating the BJP government and its supporters like pariahs socially and on the world stage), I would have felt better about the linkage. But as it stands, maybe that is why the US Administration did it. Maybe some Muslims will see it in that light--either as a sop being offered, or a more genuine friendly gesture. That might even be good for the atmosphere on the planet right now. I guess what I am saying is that this wonderful hope, aspiration, wish--whatever you want to call it--would have a better chance of coming true if the status of the Muslims of India was really a priority of the mainstream, right-leaning Muslim activists you see on TV every day and who send you action alerts and links to online petitions.

Several people have commented on this from the point of view that this is "not going to be good for anybody"--least of all Muslims--because it is just another case of censoring a message by excluding the messenger. (Interestingly, for example, that's the view taken on Chapati Mystery.) And the example of Tariq Ramadan's and Yusuf Islam/Cat Steven's cases is ready at hand. The point that comes to mind in that regard is firstly that neither Tariq R's, nor Cat Stevens sudden refusal of entry was presaged by a burgeoning movement or a coalition of activist groups asking for them not be allowed in. Without even discussing whether the moral fiber or where the three gentlemen fall within their respective communities (i.e., whether they are, respectively, moderates or extremists), there's something different between a coalition of concerned citizens being up in arms and an official in a vast bureacracy somewhere suddenly deciding that one person is not eligible for entry.

And at another level, it really was a violation of a couple of well-defined laws to let the man into the States. From news reports, specifically the sections under the US Immigration and Nationality Act that, an US embassy official said, "makes any government official who was responsible for, or directly carried out at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom ineligible for a visa". The law in question is the "International Religious Freedom Act of 1998." The US has some rather interesting laws in this regard. Naive, some may say, as they can sometimes lead to inconvenient situations in a diplomatic context--or can be just bad for business. Another example of such a law, rarely mentioned and very rare in the global community, is the law that makes it a crime under US law for a US citizen or business to give a bribe to a foreign government in another country. Naive? Idealistic? Whatever they are, such laws are not applied uniformly and systematicly. But even the selective application of such laws can have interesting side-effects. Especially, or even if, when applied by "the world's only hyperpower". Consider the possibility, with this precedent, of a gutsy little country standing up and denying Henry Kissinger a visa--and that's just for starters. It would definitely make Chris Hitchens's day!

An Indian friend or two have fobbed off the issue of this being "an insult to the nation", as Modi's supporters like to put it, by saying something to the effect of "He's not my leader; he's just part of a group that manipulated the system and exploited communal tensions to get into power." This is basically a variation of what detractors of US Presidents and citizens of military-ruled countries like Pakistan some times say; the "He's not my President" cop out. Well, as someone's who's often been on what I can only call the receiving end of a "World's Largest Democracy" or a "We're a Secular Democracy, and that's why we have a great country" lecture, I just don't really buy that. The question I would like to ask US voters is "But why are you so ineffective that the other guy got close enough for one county to tip the vote?" And to whiny Pakistanis, "So why don't you start a dang revolution? Why are there no riots in the streets when your democracies break records for corruption or your army rides roughshod over your constitution?" And in the same spirit, the question to Indians (both in India and in the diaspora) that only bother to send action alerts or online petitions is the same: What are you doing the other 364 days of the year? Have you done anything concrete? Oh, like maybe join an organization that isn't connected with your religious or ethnic community? (Applicable to Muslims and Hindus, South Indians and North Indians.) Or backed a political cause--or maybe a candidate? Would taking part in that thar great republic of yours be too much to ask of you? Heck those questions are just as appropriate for asking a lot of Pakistanis, too!

And then there's the matter of the Indian Government protesting the decision. When a diplomatic visa requested and vouched for by a sovereign government is denied by another sovereign government, that is not a routine act by a friendly country. It would have been pretty odd for the Indian government not to at least have issued a protest, given that. Not really an option for a country, nation, government that wants to be taken seriously as a regional, if not global, power. So what should the reaction of progressive/secular/anti-communal groups/forces/individuals be on the Indian Government's protest over the matter?

On the one hand one could choose to, given what I said about the denial of a diplomatic visa, cut them some slack--as long as they don't come out looking too much like they're doing this because they think well of Shri Narendra Modi.

But on the other hand, if one did want to be idealistic, maybe the question one should be asking is this: if a government or ruling party choses to vouch for a person like Narendra Modi, then doesn't it deserve just a bit of the treatment the GOI has just gotten from the United States Department of State? I mean, if you do something shameful and someone gets up and says that they won't let it by in the interest of giving you the respect you would otherwise be due as a self-respecting member of the community, is that really an insult? Or it is a case of just deserts? The question Indian progressives should then be asking is not why Delhi protested, but what the Government of India was doing allowing, or worse, wanting Narendra Modi, with all the baggage that he carries, fly the flag of Indian diplomacy in the first place?

Driving through Oakland, California, last week, I say several signs on overpasses that reminded drivers about "Usama Bin Forgotten". (See http://www.freewayblogger.com/ and http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007818.html for some background.)

However, from the other side of the world, comes the news that someone, at least, is actively looking for this 21st Century Pimpernel. Or was, till pretty recently:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4349461.stm

This is going to be an ongoing discussion, this seems like it's a discussion a lot of people want to have, but can't find a peg to hang it on. The recent San Francisco court decision in a case where Apple sued some bloggers for publishing internal information led to several forums (fora?) taking up the issue. And if you listen closely, even though (at least as I understand it) the court based its decision on whether anyone had the right to publish "stolen" information and didn't quite rule on whether bloggers were journalists or not, everyone seemed to used that as a starting point for a discussion of the question they really wanted to address. Here's an example:

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R503140900

One reader even pointed out that the sites in the SF case aren't even blogs--some predate blogging as a technology and a phenomenon.

Did I put this here?

I am suddenly in touch with the new editor of Spider, the Dawn Group's internet magazine (www.spider.tm). (The Dawn Group is one of the largest media houses in Pakistan) Alternatively, you could say that someone I ran into and have been interacting with on Wikipedia has become editor of Spider. It's all in how you look at it, I guess.

My Rickshaw! blog (http://Rickshaw.blogspot.com) is featured in the March edition. They don't have much content on the web, tho. See:

http://www.spider.tm/mar2005/szone.html
http://www.spider.tm/mar2005/checkemout.html
[Look under "Geekspeak"]

I am working on a piece about Pakistani Life in Silicon Valley for them right now. Watch out for the April edition. [One problem with Spider, though, is that they don't put much content on the web. Readers keep pressuring them on that, though.]

Hopefully, my blog about "life, technology and getting by in Silicon Valley" will be a good place to incubate ideas and be engaged about those issues.

Also, I am also hooking up with a newspaper that "serves the Muslim community of Western Massachusetts and its neighbors". Check out the top link under "Analysis" at www.al-mizaan.com right now (the one that starts with "War, Crimes..." etc.) or just look for my given name (Sabahat Ashraf) under "Columns".

Wednesday, March 31, 2005

The April edition of Spider is out. It has the article on Pakistanis in Silicon Valley in the "Lifestyle" section. As I mentioned above, Spider doesn't (yet; we can hope, right?) put much content on the web, but the Table of Contents is at:

http://www.spider.tm/apr2005/main.html?pgsrc=szone&submenu=szone1&dirtarget=none

Specifically, since I mentioned them in my piece, Chowk, IOPWE, the MCA, OPEN, and TiE are linked from the page they put on the web with links to sites mentioned in each edition. (I mentioned Koshish and Hidaya as well; I guess they got left on the editing table.) Look under "Lifestyle" at:

http://www.spider.tm/apr2005/checkemout.html

Would be interesting to see what else they left out and how the remaining piece turned out. Will have to wait till someone can get their hands on a hard copy, I guess.

On KQED San Francisco's Forum, Michael Krasny interviews Alan Jones, dean of Grace Cathedral and author of "Reimagining Christianity: Reconnect Your Spirit with Disconnecting Your Mind"

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R503091000

Dean Jones makes some very interesting points:

• "One of the tragedies of our culture is that we live in a fundamentalist culture. And by that, I don't mean ... just religious fundamentalism; I mean atheistic fundamentalism, scientific fundamentalism. An age which is devoid of metaphoric, poetic, mythical ways of thinking."

• "...the monk who influenced me most said the opposite of faith is not doubt; the opposite of faith is certainty..."

Okay, so a list on which I am #784 (or 634, depending on how you look at ) was mentioned on Slashdot:

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/08/1419245&from=rss

and in Wired:

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,66814,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_prev2

Just got this over a list:

An Indian American's Tribute to Lively Mini-Pakistan
By Anuj Kumar Nadadur
Princeton University

My visit to Pakistan and six weeks of stay in Karachi was my first, and unintended, personal experience of the gap between the media myths and ground reality of the day-to-day world. When I first decided to go to Karachi, my friends in America and back in India thought I had gone crazy. They anxiously asked me if I knew what I was getting into or if I had been watching the news recently.

They warned me that in Karachi, as an Indian-American, I would not be welcomed and most certainly be ostracized and harassed. That did not deter me but added to my apprehensions of the unseen. In retrospect, I feel my friends were honest in their views and right to the extent they were judging Pakistan through the prism of the CNN, BBC and other powerful Western media outlets..."
[Written for PakistanLink: http://www.pakistanlink.com/Opinion/2005/Feb05/04/07.htm]

I find it really, really hard to agree with Anuj Saahab when he says that his friends were honest in their views. He's most probably trying to give dear friends the benefit of the doubt, and that is commendable. You will have to excuse my forthrightness when I say this, but even something like "ill-informed" doesn't seem the right way to put it: anyone saying at this point in history and media exposure that "an Indian-American...would not be welcomed and most certainly be ostracized and harassed" (or vice-versa; an Pakistani/Pakistani-American in India) is, either very stupid or very, very malicious. I have been in and out and about India since 1976, and I am yet to find that true; ever. It is sad, really, that more people don't take the trip over to the other side.

The man himself is on The Connection today:

http://www.theconnection.org/shows/2005/03/20050302_a_main.asp

Will comment after I listen.