THE PARADOX OF FREEDOM

Humans since they acquired a rational thinking, especially during fifth century BC, started thinking about freedom and individual should be granted when a member of a social setup. It was not an eerie problem to solve. Humans at least for 20 thousand years has been under the iron grip of a strong, wile and merciless ruler. Under that setup the concept of freedom remained an undreamed dream. The arch ruler and his cohorts had all the freedom to do whatever they wanted to do,suppress and kill subjects, use them in a arbitrary manner. However in spite of all these kinds of oppression, the human mind, it seems, always thinking about a sense of freedom, a kind of desire to enjoy life in a manner which pleased them. It is not easy to unravel what actually was happening before the concept of freedom started jelling. We know that since at least thirty to forty thousand years before man was involved in constructing a magical world, where perhaps the mind was as free as the waves in a simmering sea. This world we call the mythic or mythological world. Of course this world depicted some aspects of the world in which ancient man lived. Still the characters who resided there were to a large extant free. In this world of course fate played a leading role. However if we look closely the fate at least to some extant followed the wishes of the resident characters.

If we try to fathom the concepts which arose out of the magical mythological world and in a manner superimposed themselves on the thinking of those who were endeavouring to attempt to impose some of the ideas of freedom on the real world of social setup. It was not an easy task; it was really a task full of unprecedented hazards. Religious leaders, thinkers, activists and many others participated in this venture. Simultaneously the ideas of freedom co mingled with the attempts to understand the role played by the the creator o the world and the obligation necessary for humans to bow before this supreme authority. This intermingling has proved both beneficial and harmful or the concepts of freedom to originate, evolve and develop. Semitic religions have been rather strict in imposing restrictions on freedom, which was thought to be a bit wayward.

If we look at these Semitic religions in terms of the evolution of freedom we find that the heavy hand of God often plays a rather restricting influence. It could be seen that what was thought by fifth century Greek philosophers, by Buddha and by Confucius were rather disliked by the proponents of Semitic religions. Islam, for example, gave rather broad field for freedom to play its role, but at the same time it kept the ball inside the area and instituted a number of laws to let not the ball go out o the restricted arena.

In 16th century when in Europe the enlightenment movement came into fore, it tried to restrict the influence of religious values on society we came to look at the world to be divided into religious and secular hemispheres. In the secular world, it was propagated that human freedom should not be restricted by religious canons a society should construct its secular laws for the benefit of the citizens which would allow them to enjoy pleasure, to seek virtue and to acquire knowledge.

A tale about himself by the intelligent idiot

No human remembers when he was born. Knowing and remembering are two different things. As I am a human, idiot or whatever, I as well don’t remember when I was sent to the world. This much I have been told by many, including my mother that I was born on a night which was unbearable due to heat. The rain was expected but it was not coming. Everybody was in a bad mood, including the ones who were tending to my mother. I must have felt highly uncomfortable coming out of a warm sympathetic fetus and into a terribly warm earth. I must have cried a lot. People surrounding my mother must have cursed me a great deal. However I believe they soon have realized that a bonny child, to boot, a boy has arrived to face the uncertain and unsympathetic world. In any case I must have been given due care and, as people told me later, I was a good boy to look at, rather timid and innocent looking. My mother fed me but soon I was out on a regimented diet of cow’s milk supplemented with some drugs. In the beginning, though I looked bonny, I was a bit frail and often felt quite sick. It must have been due to bad monsoon climate and cow’s milk.

As I said before I have no recollection about myself, about my mother, about people around us, and about the world. The first thing I remember is when I tried to walk on my legs. I remember I fell down often at times, but slowly and sturdily I gained my ground and started walking upright like a brave cowboy. My father was a busy person. Most of the time he was not inside the house, but whenever he came he put me on his lap and told me things which I never understood. He loved Persian poetry and I think he had a habit of talking with children in a manner which was not understood by them. My mother was a kind person. She loved me a great deal. She fed me, bathed me, and clothed me in a nice way. She put oil in my hair and made me look like a Chinese doll. This idea of a Chinese doll never came to my mind. It was actually told to me by my uncle who once in a rather expansive mood told me that his sister used to make me look like a Chinese doll. My mother at that time who was sitting by our side laughed and said: not Chinese doll, actually Japanese doll. Later I came to know, that at that time Japanese dolls were very popular in our land. They were cheap and not very durable, but children loved them because they were printed in different colors. Once a while my father brought me some toy like car, horse and elephant. Other visitors also brought some gift for me. However as far as I remember I did not much like these toys, dolls etc. What I wanted, as far as I remember, was that I wanted a bicycle to use, for I have seen people riding the bike. But I was too small to ride a bike, but as far as I know this idea came to me when I was about 2 or 3 years old. I don’t remember how I came up with the idea. Probably it was due to watching the people riding the bike. One of our servants was very fond of riding and I think he kept telling me that I should get hold of a bicycle for my pleasure. But this idea probably I have invented.

I should speak here of a situation which could have ended in a tragic manner. When I was about one year old the great river which flowed by our house, due to heavy monsoon conditions, turned into a torrent of waves and all sorts of things being carried out by the flowing water. People went by the side of the river to see the roaring flow of water. Slightly away from the beach I was put on a wooden chair, and left there. A small boy was instructed to remain near my chair but I think he soon disappeared. I was left alone. Suddenly a mighty wave came towards my chair and toppled it over. I fell down on the ground and probably turned senseless. Somebody from a distance saw what has happened and he ran to pick me up and save me. He started making loud noises and many people ran towards me who had fallen on his face and was trying to breathe hard. Soon it was discovered that if that man had not seen me falling I would have suffocated to death by drinking river water. So I should say got a second life at the age of one. I am still alive and let us see how long I breathe fresh air.

My recollection of early childhood is rather patchy. It’s like a slow moving frames of events, some distinct, others faint and still others obscure. Some of these frames suddenly appear before my eyes and when I try to comprehend them they appear like a flash of thunder. I remember, if I call this event as remembering, of my first step on my two legs. I was just toddler and moved on my limbs rather awkwardly. One day when I was alone in a room along with a twelve year old servant, who was a rascal, I tried to get up on my two legs. That boy kept telling me in a subdued but harsh voice: get up, on your two legs and walk. He kept saying this and I got infuriated. Still I tried, and tried and as I remember I stood on my two legs and took a step forward. The rascal turned into a kind servant picked me up and started telling me in a sweetened voice: you have done it, you have done it. I don’t remember what happened afterwards, for as I know definitely that since that day I was walking on my two feet regularly, earlier in a shaker manner, and afterwards in a steady gait. I must have been about three or even a bit less. I remember also that when my father saw me walking on my two legs he started laughing and cried: the boy has become a young man. My mother who was sitting near us said in a rather subdued voice: he has to improve a lot; to become a young man needs hard labor. I watching their commotion said in a rather hesitant voice: you should not worry over me, I will soon start running all over the place. My father got up, picked me up and took me in his arms and said: let us go running about the town. All laughed, including that young rascal. The ordeal of walking on my two legs was a great adventure. As I learnt afterwards the humans started walking on their two legs before they had turned into modern man, during their pre-human days. So walking on two legs for any human is a great achievement, though he soon forgets about his first attempt to get up on his two legs and watch the world in a more careful and circumspect manner. The evolution of humans has been largely, but not exclusively, due to its ability to stand on its two legs in an open country, full of grass and trees, and watch the environment around with a careful eye. Of course the development of eye and its observational skill in a perspective manner is probably much more important than walking on two legs. However the evolution of eye started long before apes came into existence. But there is no doubt to say that the human eye started working in a peculiarly human way only after the apes started getting transformed into pre-humans. Hence I can say that my remembering the fact that I was able to remember that the day I got up on my two legs was a revolutionary, intellectual understanding of myself and of the world at large.

The other thing about which I remember, though less assuredly, is the time when I started reading newspapers, magazines and books. I don’t exactly remember when I started reading by myself. At the age of four or so I was sent to a Moulvi to learn three hours. Moulvi sahib was not very proficient in arithmetic but he taught me letters of both Urdu and English quite easily and in a very sympathetic manner. The first day when I started taking lesson there was a Milad and sweetmeats were distributed. I don’t exactly remember what I did on that day, but my father who was sitting in a chair in a rather regal manner, got up and kissed me on my forehead. Moulvi sahib said: remember, your father is a learned man, try to become like him. But before that you have to learn how to read and write. I was keen to get some sweetmeat but I was being congratulated by so many people that people forgot to give me something to eat. I remember afterwards when I was with my mother I complained that I was not given anything to eat. Rest of the proceedings I don’t remember. The only thing I remember is that I felt very tired and rundown. Moulvi sahib put a pen in my hand and with help I wrote something on a piece of paper I don’t remember what I wrote, but it s was the first step towards my writing exercise.

Astonishingly I learned the art of reading much more quickly and easily within a few months. I think by the age of four I was reading everything written in Urdu. I picked up voluminous books from my father’s bookshelf and tried to read them. I don’t know how I mastered the art of reading but I distinctly remember that I started enjoying reading. The proficiency in English reading came to me almost a year later. My father used to read lots of medical books, and medical journals. I still remember that I used to pick up these books and journals. I could not follow a single sentence but I kept trying. I during my two years when I was reading my father’s books, the medical jargons captured my brain; I have tried all my life to forget those technical terms. Still some of them persist in my subconscious and sometimes creep out in most amazing and awkward manner,. I must say before reading some literary books in English I was reading literary books in Urdu much more easily, quickly and with great delight. I read short stories which were at that time incomprehensible to me, they talked of love between boys and girls, and I at that time could not understand what it meant. Love is strange word, my parents loved me, I think my Moulvi sahib loved me, many of our servants loved me, my sisters loved me, my younger brother at that time did not love me much, but still he had some sort of affection towards me. However that love which the short stories told, and which was some sort of infatuation and sexual attraction was a thing of different world. When I started reading English novels then this word and the attraction between males and females became prominent and started hovering around my brain. At that time when I was around 10 I was mostly reading Victorian novels, which was not depicting love in a starkly sexual manner. The sex was depicted in a rather Victorian manner. Hence I have always felt that talking about explicit sex infection was quite interesting, but probably it is not a highly literary type of skill. I should say in this case I am a little not old fashioned but characterized by my youthful readings. In Urdu fiction love has been a rather symbolic thing. I am talking of my early days of reading. Girls were not very, so to say, forward looking. And boys were hesitant in their expression of love. They tried to express their emotional upsurge in a diffident manner, trying to show in a symbolic language what they meant. Probably their heart was aflame with love and the same probably was true for girls, but in fiction they were highly careful in expressing their emotions and feelings.

I was not the only male kid of my parents. Our family gradually increased. I was born after two of my sisters. Hence , in a manner, I should have been the darling of my family ,being the first male offspring. I later , however, felt that this entitlement was not quite beneficial for the first male child. He was expected to behave in a manner which could be called gentlemanly. Moreover I was supposed to do good in my studies, behaviour and in my affections towards our large parental families. I soon realized that a chosen person-like a chosen people-fails to come up to expectations. If after spending my life dally – dallying I think I have been if not an abject failure, a common citizen of the world. I always try to tell the elder males of the family to be on their guard; not to lose their composure and not to boast about the achievements or whatever.

After me, arrived in my family my second brother. He was sickly at first but soon developed into a brash young man. I always felt during our childhood that he was if not jealous, slightly upset against. I feel however that perhaps I was not quite correct in my judgment. He has remained a loveable person and developed a knack of entertaining people in a well behaved manner. Arrogance is a part of our family and like all of us, my brother inherited this trait. Arrogance, I should say, is not an obnoxious property provided a person keeps his arrogance in due control without exposing himself to bitterness and reciprocal counter offensive. I should further say that in my rather longish life I have not been free of this trait. However, being an intelligent idiot I have tried to keep the horses in check.

After our second brother a sister took the stage. From the very beginning she was a bit brash, a bit selfish and a bit talkative. She wanted to dominate wherever she had the opportunity to step in. For a girl such behaviour is in my opinion quite helpful. It can lead you rather comfortably through your life if you are sensible enough. What I’m trying to say is that brashness supplemented with arrogance and fearlessness if combined with certain civilizational values can be a great motivating factor in negotiating the wild pastures of life.

In our family third son arrived with less commotion and disturbance. He was a quiet guy largely involved with himself probably trying to understand the irreducibly the cruel fact that why he arrived as number three. He turned out to be a beloved of all his sisters, both of his brothers a bit diffidence towards him. Probably he in his childhood came to know the famous Persian proverb which says that; be a dog but not a younger brother.

We in our family lived in a rather cozy interrelationship with each other. Father was always quite busy and mother used to keep herself engaged in household work. She often tried to tell us that we should be nice in our dealing with ourselves and with other persons. She was strict enough to tell us that we should behave with our servants in a decent manner. We tried to follow her instructions as far as possible but use being the new generation tried to find out our ways to deal with the world. It is fair to say that we behaved in some kind of normal way trying to keep our instinct and aspirations in check. Growing up is a difficult job: first, you are being bombarded with all sorts of advises and instructions from your elders; children of your age have their own set of advisors to cope with; you being a inquisitive mind try to find your way out of the woods. You often, so to say, go into the woods and select your own tree. Such situations create problem and often growing up leads to all sorts of difficulties. I think that we all the young members of the family tried to build our own world in our own way. Building a neat universe is not an easy job; you often come in conflict with the other competing universe. You try to make friend with the universe or the master of the universe, but it so happens that the master fails to reciprocate to your wishes. In our group, our elder sister, was the superior to all us equals. This often was a source of irritation, conflict and even fights. She was conscious of the fact that she being the eldest should try to keep us in check and let us not go outside of our arena. Still I feel she often looked a sort of a dictator, who wanted us to follow the rule elucidated by her. Trouble is to follow a path to enter a strait gate is quite bothersome. You like a filly try to run away. And nevertheless we to some extent observed her rules. Still we had our own universe to tend to. I remember, during our childhood we used to talk to ourselves without bothering to communicate with each other, hence I am almost sure that our family developed a tradition in which when we used to assemble for dinner or some function we used to keep mum and very difficult to communicate with. This has persisted throughout our lives. We each have affection for all the sibling but still we have our own self to cultivate. During our early days as children it so happened that all of us became interested in printed matters, perhaps except for my second elder sister. Her world was a bit too complicated to enter and a bit too complicated to change. Her interest in books etc. were rather ordinary. Later on she became highly interested in reading books and magazines. I would not say the same thing for my second brother for his world of complicated things kept him all the time busy to tend to. He was a rather outgoing fella who tried to communicate a little more than others and wanted to grab good things which were available around. Our father often scolded him when he broke something due to his carefree ways. Initially he was not a good student but gradually developed into a good one. His success in life is exemplary. He has been a hard working man, his dealings with others in his job has been fair and reasonable. His cultural orientation grew, though slowly but efficiently. Our third sister was outgoing yet strict in her dealings. During her school days she participated in many functions and in college she was reputed to be a good debater. Our third brother needs a rather detailed description and most likely it would not be possible for me to provide it.

Our third brother from his very childhood was a boy with a keen sense of keeping himself in good shape, both physically and culturally. He was a healthy child who used to enjoy his meal. There is something extraordinary about him during his childhood as it seemed to me. He was strict in his behavior with others. Tried not to fight with other children and as I have said earlier he was the most controlled kid to develop his universe. I often found him mumbling to himself and getting a bit nervous when anybody came near him. I have often heard that some children have a knack to converse with absent minds – this was a theory propagated by one of our servants – and I initially believed that really he was in communication. He proved to be a brilliant student at the school and at the higher level of studies. None of my parents were worried over him about his studies. As a matter of fact all of us children were a little above than normal children of our time. We had a wide interest and because of the availability of books and magazines we were on the whole very well aware of what was happening around us. At the time when I was 6-7 years Indian Muslims were going berserk about getting their own homeland, i.e. to say Pakistan. Everybody knew that if Pakistan came into existence, our birthplace would not be its part, but still like a fanatic we believed in it. I remember that during my school days, the senior Muslim students used to take out a procession during the recess and kept shouting about getting it one way or the other. I now believe that this was pure madness, if not a suicidal attempt. Our third brother at that time was not very conscious of the problem but it seems to me that he also realized that this dream of Pakistan was a wrong idea, a fantasy. Just before Pakistan was formed in our province a great conflict between Hindus and Muslims rose in which Muslims were butchered in a merciless manner. At that time it has become certain that Pakistan was to be formed out of two portions of the Indian subcontinent. I believe that this Hindu – Muslim conflict affected my brother in a sub conscious manner.

In a big family there are reasons for conflict to erupt and for reconciliation to occur. When every member of the family has his own plans not only for him/herself but also for all the members, life could be quite demanding. Our two youngest sisters attempted to negotiate the world in a rather fearful a manner in the beginning. Both of them looked meek and mild, yet they had their own resilience. Our father loved his youngest daughter a little more than his eldest one. That’s what seemed to me. It soon transpired that the sisters almost came out of their shells and became much more active as individuals. Family in a traditional Indian system often creates hindrance for ambitious young men specially. Our father used to say that when he broke out of the family tradition and decided to learn English and the modern education he felt that in spite of some hindrance he was allowed to go his own way. Such has been the tradition in our family that as far as I can recall none of us were forced to pursue a determined path; though hints were given.

When I started on my journey to become a conscious individual with his own feelings desires and ambitions I soon realized that if there was any hindrance it was out of my own self. I wanted to do something ambitious and I felt that I was not fit to pursue that ambition. Very few people in their early days realize that often He or she is less capable to work out ones ways. It is important to realize, as I realized myself that capabilities come to persons of course by their own hard labor but also by their inherited qualities. A house that does not care for intellectual pursuits, or for that matter any other pursuit, would not be able to satisfy their mission of a person with a particular desire to follow a path. Generally human social setup is such that revolutionary advances are not made regularly. The society takes its steps slowly and steadily and a jump is not taken very readily. I was not in a position, I think, to take a revolutionary step for I realized very early in life that to be a good student and pursue education in a steady manner would be more suitable for my temperament; though I must say that in my heart of heart I wanted to become an Einstein or Bradman. This realization which simmered in me for long has turned me into an intelligent idiot, who knows what is good for him, but who dares not to follow it. We had a Moulvi who taught us many things in vernacular but who used to tell us that first thing for a child is to learn the basics of every art. Of writing of reading of playing and of relaxing. Perhaps his advice hindered our ambitions, but as far as I can see, we were not very much retarded in our plans, ambitious or not. As I see most of us siblings have progressed in the world quite satisfactorily. None of us became an Einstein or a Bradman, but we on the whole came to know how Einstein and Bradman became great personalities.

An Argumentative Idiot’s continuing conflict with himself and with the World

Humans are highly volatile in many ways. Most of them posses as much grey matter as is needed to negotiate their steps in a rather blood thirsty world. They have to be highly cautious and look around many times before they raise their first leg. All around them are entities which simply could be called as cruel entities. Humans know that they have to be as much careful so that they are not wiped out of the world. In this way most of humans have regulated and lived their lives in a rather topsy- turvy way. Humans very well know that the world often behaves in such a cruel way that they have to adopt means to reduce the cruelty imposed by the world. It is not that humans do not live a rather decent life on this Earth because they not only have adapted themselves for various kinds of situations confronting them. However they have to be careful.

The Argumentative Idiot have often failed, or misunderstood, the situation confronting him. He gets puzzled, baffled, scared and lost. In spite of such drawbacks the idiot has to, first, confront the world and second, make a place for him. Often the job seems almost beyond him; however, being a human, he has to adjust himself.

The Argumentative Idiot, when he was a child, saw the world in a many colored form. Some of these colors were pleasant to look at; some others just tolerable; and some others horrible. That made him argumentative in sense that he has to argue with himself, often lying in bed, to try to choose between these different colors. Soon he came to understand that some of these colors which initially seem to him to be pleasant to look at demanded certain adjustments in his world view, that is to say he has to adjust his attitude to look at these colors in a serene manner. Soon he realized that these pleasant colors often tended to change themselves into tolerable and even horrible colors. Such behaviour of the color led him to argue how he has to first of all in a sane condition and secondly to extract some happiness out of the world. What we mean by color is something which needs some clarification. By color we mean the way a painter looks at the world, looks at nature, looks at humans, looks at beasts and look at various kinds of obstacles. Hence what we mean by color is the way a human eye looks at the situation arising before his eyes. He has to avoid something, go near other things and tolerate still other things.

When the Argumentative Idiot started to use his brain to understand things he has, yet again, argue how to understand things. Moreover what things basically are and how they are to be understood and utilized if possible. Things, he started to know, where in millions. For example, a flower is a thing. Yet there are hundred types of flowers. Of course many of them are nice to look at, many of them pleasant to smell. Yet a large number of them unpleasant to look at and obnoxious to smell. Hence he has to choose between things. He has to choose what he initially understood, was a good thing or a bad thing. Again he came across the situation that some of the things were tolerable; for example a bull in a lane through which he is passing. He was not able to shoo away the bull, still he had to avoid it. Such situation has to be dealt with in a politically tolerable manner.

A Tale about himself : By the intelligent idiot

One fine morning, just after the idiot woke up, an idea struck him. He started writing a little story. The story when completed was as follows.

A CUTE STORY FOR A CUTE CHILD (Age no bar):

There were two cute children. They were attired in their best Sunday dress. They were feeling elated. The reason was that their parents have gone to airport to pick up their grandparents. Mother had told them not to watch TV; and also not to go backyard to play there. Otherwise their clothes would get dirty. Both of them, a bit subdued were eager to greet their grands. They kept sitting on the sofa, a bit discomforted and a little bored. However the intended arrival of their grandparents kept them eagerly waiting and full of anticipation .Time passed a bit slowly and it seemed there was no end to waiting. After a while both of them got up. Slowly ascended the staircase and went towards their parent’s bedroom. The door was ajar. They went in, sat down on the bed and put on the TV.

While watching TV sleep came over them. Suddenly they heard some noise. Both of them opened their eyes and saw the grandmother watching them with tearfilled eyes.

Grandparents had brought many gifts, eatables, toys and clothes. These were quite nice and both the children were much pleased. One of the child, when she was looking at gifts, suddenly remembered a boy who lived next door. The boy looked lonely and talked very little. He lived in a big house with his grandmother who was rather severe in her attitudes. The boy was quite intelligent; however he seemed largely bored and distraught.

The intelligent idiot, while writing the story all of a sudden remembered that the sad boy who lived as a neighbor to those two children was he himself. He had almost forgotten those neighbours but while writing the story, he , the intelligent idiot remembered them. While sitting in his rather uncomfortable chair, he decided to recapitulate his previous life. He understood that it would be not very easy, indeed very difficult to write out all his previous experiences in a suitable manner. But nevertheless, he would give it a try.

The so called Islamic Extremism

It has become fashionable these days to go up in a mountain top and start shrieking about Islamic militants. We don’t know what this term precisely means. If it simply means terrorists, then those Muslims who indulge in terroristic activities should be christened as Muslim militants, or Muslim extremists. Any person who knows a little bit of Muslim history since the time of Prophet Muhammad and the trouble which started with the assassination of the third caliph, ottoman, knows that in Muslim history those who indulge in Fitna (i.e. indulgence in disruption of state activities) has always largely been regarded as un-Islamic. Of course those who indulge in Fitna were Muslims, and sometimes they believed that they are not only true Muslims but also the true reformers of the Islamic society and its social structure. This has to be taken into consideration before we talk about the so called Islamic militants.

In Muslim countries during medieval times, many sects arose who differed from the communities’ view of Islam and Islamic religious observations. These groups rarely remained in power in a small section of land for a short period. Slowly they simply liquidated themselves out and also merge into the larger Muslim community. We know that in Muslim countries there are two large groups which are not very amicable to each other. However largely and throughout the ages they have lives with each other in a sort of friendly manner. One large group is as it is called these days, the Sunnis; and the smaller group is the Shia. Except in Iran and also in Iraq, and to some extent in Bahrain the Shias have always been a small minority in the Muslim countries. Truly speaking the Shia community took its shape as a fundamentally theological community sometime after 1200 AD. Before that they were tiny groups and indulged in as a kind of mild terroristic activities. Shias became important and forceful only when in Iran most of the Muslims declared themselves Shias or as it is called belonging to Athnai-Ashrya community. They adopted strict rules and developed Jafria School of law. For them Hazrat Imam Hussein, the grandson of prophet Muhammad, who was unnecessarily martyred in Karbala, now in Iraq, is the true person to revere, along with his father Hazrat Ali. It would be not worth to go in detail about Shi-ism, but it is interesting to note that they turned much more strict and unbending in their dislike for companions of prophet and the first three caliphs. Such reluctance has created a kind of semi religious chasm between them and the large Muslim group, the Sunnis. We are not saying that Sunnis are an innocent lot. Some of the “extreme” Sunni groups declared Shias as heretics, which is absolutely incorrect. It is true that Shia regard that Prophet Muhammad’s youngest daughter Fatima’s progeny, especially the youngest son Hazrat Hussain is a true inheritor of Prophets political and spiritual inheritance. What did happen at Karbala was exceedingly unfortunate. Hazrat Hussain was prompted and invited by his well-wishers in Kufa to come to them and most likely start the new Caliphate. At that time Amir Muawia the undisputed ruler of the Muslim world was dead and his son Yazid took over as the new ruler. During Muawia’s reign Hazrat Hussain’s eldest brother Hazrat Hassan made a deal with Muawia and secluded himself from claiming the Caliphate. Perhaps Hazrat Hussain thought that he would be able to take over the Caliphate from Yazid. After performing Haj on 10th Jamad II he started with a large retinue including women and children for Kufa. The journey usually took a month to complete. He with his party reached Karbala perhaps a day or two before 10th Muharram 60 A.H. The Umariat forces stopped the party from proceeding further ahead. On 10th there was a clash between the army and Hazrat Hussain’s retinue. Most of the party members were killed including Hazrat Hussain. None of the people wanted this to happen. Hazrat Hussain was willing to go and meet the Caliph, however this unfortunate incident brought about a great calamity for the Muslim world. For a number of years this incident, though deeply lamented, had not assumed a socio-political overtone. Propagandists were always active. Soon his Hazrat Hussain’s assassination became a ritual, a sign of dissident in the Muslim world. Gradually when the division between adherent to such views and common Muslims became deeper this brought about a large difference both politically, spiritually and socially. Shii scholars developed their own legal framework, which was largely different from the four Sunni schools of law (Fiqh). One must say a kind of mythical tradition developed amongst those who believed that the caliphate really belonged to Hashmaits, in actual practice the descendants of the youngest son of Prophet’s daughter. The Shii theology built up a genealogy of Hazrat Hussain’s descendants which were called Imams (spiritual-cum-political leaders). The 12th Imam is believed to have disappeared. Subsequently Shii clerics assumed part of this Imamat. Those who were christened as Imams were highly pious, intelligent and learned folks. They were deeply religious and most likely they were not against the common Sunni traditions. We must remember that the Sunni world developed Shariah (legal courts), scholarly traditions, historical investigations, largely about 100 years after the demise of the prophet. Hence there always have been some sorts of conflict in various theological point of views.

With the transformation of Iran into a Shia state where almost the entire subject became Shii. This transformation brought about the conflict between Shias and Sunnis into open. However in general terms, because of the simple fact that outside Iran and Iraq the Shias were a tiny majority, the conflict remained rather subdued. In every part of the Muslim world Shias and Sunnis live together and followed their own traditions. Hence we could say that it is largely due to action of some of the absolute rulers in Muslim countries which intensified such conflict. There were many descent groups in Muslim world but they were largely confined to small areas and were not very effective as a political force.

It is evident that in the West the idea of the “Islamic” terrorist developed only when Talibans in Afghanistan captured the country and promulgated the strict orthodox Shariah laws in the land. Almost at the same time Osama Bin Laden established a party called Al-Qaeda which started evolving terroristic activities. His and his party’s evolution is most interesting. Bin Laden is the person who was raised as a leader of Muslim fighters (Mujahideens) to fight against the Soviet Invaders of Afghanistan by CIA and America. That conflict was largely part of a cold war tussle between Soviet Union and US. Americans took little notice of Bin Laden. However 9/11 attack in America where the twin trade towers of New York was destroyed turned Al Qaeda into a violent terroristic organization. It goes to the acumen of Bin laden and his Companions that they turned their group into an Anti-Christ. They recruited young Muslims, largely residents of western countries for their purpose. These youths were indoctrinated to establish the Islamic kingdom after indulging in Jihad, the holy war. The background could easily be understood. The youths were unemployed with meager education and little resources. Al Qaeda was able to induct them rather easily. What they have been doing in recent years all over the world is quite well known.

It needs to be remembered that Al-Qaeda and related organizations, like Somalia’s Al-Shabab and Algeria’s Maghreb Al-Qaeda have almost nothing to do with the basic teachings of Islam. They have developed their own theory of Jihad which is in deep conflict with the concepts present in Quran. Jihad largely is a defensive strategy to oppose the offensive warring forces. Hence it could be said that all those who call themselves Jihadis and the Western world calls them Islamic terrorists, are not in tune with the fundamental ideology propagated by Quran and later Islamic theologians and clerics. There is no disagreement that they should be termed as terrorists or such kind of groups indulging in indiscriminate violence against Muslims and non-Muslims are terrorists. Period.

However to call them Islamic terrorist is simply a misnomer. It is product of a wrong kind of propaganda indulged by various interested groups largely of the Western world. It is true that Al-Qaeda wants to destroy as much as it can, the socio political system of the Western countries. They have established themselves in various Muslim worlds like Yemen, Somalia, Algeria, to some extent in Indonesia and Philippines. In Pakistan they are in league with the Pakistan Talibans who are closely related to Talibans in Afghanistan, who wants to reestablish the previous Taliban kingdom there. In Pakistan terrorists of the various sorts have developed like Mushrooms. This is also related to the sociopolitical situation in that unfortunate country which has passed through phases of army dictatorship. It is almost certain that if the overwhelming force of Al-Qaeda is decreased in a substantial manner, all these terroristic organizations, working all around the world would go under. There are reasons to believe that the ideological influence of Al-Qaeda is gradually lessening amongst the Muslim youth. As a matter of fact, Al-Qaeda has no constructive program but to keep themselves in permanent conflict with the Western countries, especially US. The reaction against Al-Qaeda was largely indiscriminate. The idea was to crush it totally. There were no other program promulgated by the US and the cohorts. It was unfortunate because of the simple fact that Al-Qaeda, largely brought into being by CIA, has turned into such a violent group. There initial success was largely accidental. However they started involving themselves into a very well organized, highly motivated group of active workers. Al-Qaeda reminds us of the Assasins created by Hassan bin Sabah who created havoc in Medieval Southern European states. They had only one program: to extract money from the rulers and keep Hassan’s fidayeen in shape to indulge in terroristic activities. All the indications have been that Osama bin laden has not been keeping good health. Had he been left earlier to die this terroristic activity would not have assumed such a violent menace.

What we have been saying is simply that Al-Qaeda and all the related terrorist organizations, who called themselves Jihadis and go on killing innocent people are definitely terrorists. They can also be called Muslim terrorists or Muslim extremists. However it is totally incorrect to christen them as Islamic terrorists.

JYOTI BASU

Jyoti Basu, one of the foremost leader of the communist movement in India, and one of the greatest statesmen of post independent India, died at the ripe old age of 95. It is sobering to reflect that Jyotida was three years older than Indira Gandhi.And we know very well what the Iron Lady did during her heydays. She almost single handedly destroyed the Congress party in various Indian states. Jyoti Basu was made of another stuff.

Jyoti basu belonged to an old zamindar family of East Bengal. After his education in Calcutta where he was born he left for England to do his bar-at-law. There he met communist workers and imbibed the tradition of Marxism. After returning he joined the then communist party of India which was taking its shape in a rather tough time. Along with his law practice he started his party work in a dedicated manner. From the very beginning it seemed he was inclined towards parliamentary form of governance based on Westminster model. At that time the Party was largely under the strict control of Stalinistic mode of activity. This mode proclaimed the dictatorship of proletariat. This mode also supported the one party control of the state. Here we see the early contradiction Basu faced. It has been very difficult for a dedicated communist worker to renounce his Stalinistic legacy and follow parliamentary system. It is remarkable to see how a fearless, true Marxist to adopt his whole philosophy around the idea of a parliamentary democracy which necessitates the multi-party politics. The communist movement of India since its inception has faced such dilemma.

Jyoti Basu started his parliamentary activity at state level from 1946 and after Independence he joined the West Bengal state assembly as a member. Subsequently he joined various ministries and finally became the chief minister of West Bengal. He remained Chief minister of Bengal for 3 years leading the left front whose main constituent was the communist party(Marxist) of India.

Basu proved to be an able and efficient administrator. During his long tenure of chief minister ship he dealt in a polite, politically correct and in a civilize manner with the centre and with various states. He never tried to lose his revolutionary Marxist ideology when dealing with non Marxist parties, governments and individuals. Basu was a simple man, in spite of being a barrister and one who loved his whisky. He was able to do what very few politicians in office have done; the idea of land to tillers was always on the lips of politicians during the freedom struggle. He through legislation gave the tillers of West Bengal the authority to hold the land. This is no doubt a great achievement of his government. The other notable achievement, which is no less important, is that he made it possible for Panchayati Raj (local self government) to get established in the state. These two achievements have changed the face of West Bengal. Off course during the long tenure of party control and of cadres a kind corruption set in. This is in voidable in a system where one party takes control of almost every branch of social relationship. Such corruption has been in vogue during the long soviet regimen and is still prevailing in communist China in spite of many reforms. If Basu has to be blamed for this corruption the blame lies largely on the one political party dominance over the society. Now that Jyoti Basu is no more and the grip of CPM in West Bengal--and in Kerala--is getting weaker day by day, the question which crops up is quite straight forward: what ,after him would happen to the communist movement in India ? The answer is not simple; on the contrary it is highly complex problem to deal with. We would try to look at this aspect of a possible social transformation of the Indian society in some detail.

The communist party of India was founded in 1920s by a set of dedicated young men. It came into being only a few years after the October revolution of 1917 in Russia. There, in a rather conspiratorial action, Lenin took hold of the Russian parliament and declared the establishment of Soviet Union under the control of the Bolshevik party. At that time Russia has bled profusely during the WWI and the ruling establishment was in tatters. Lenin was a staunch follower of Karl Marx who theorized about the establishment of a popular democratic state which would give all the citizens their right to enjoy life and remain closely related with each other. Of course Marx wanted that the downtrodden, mainly the workers working in various factories, would be in a position to dictate the terms concerning the running of state. They were the product of capitalistic society and were exploited by Capitalist masters. However with all his deep revulsion against capitalism and against the ruthless tiny minority which controlled the society Marx was not in a hurry to establish a workers’ paradise. He was of the firm view that the exploiters would dig their own grave and hence the society would turn into a socialist state. The Paris Commune of 1848 has taught him a lesson. It was futile, worthless and harmful to attempt a transformation of a social relationship through naked aggression. We are not saying that Marx was against the armed insurrection and capture of state power through ruthless means. However he in his later life always took into consideration the situation under which an armed struggle can be made successful. He wrote at the end of his life that he was not a Marxist; which simply means that Marxism is not a closed ideological setup: it is always ready to accept innovations and revisions. Lenin on the other hand was not only a deeply committed revolutionary but he also was a lover of conspiracy. The Czarist regime has executed his elder brother and he wanted to take revenge for that bloody happening. His Bolshevik party, part of the Russian communist party, was initially not in a position to bring about a successful revolution is a battered Russian capital. In spite of all the shortcomings he had around him a number of active revolutionaries and socialistic thinkers. Lenin was himself a theoretical man in theorizing over the possibilities of revolution in a rather less developed capitalist society. Russia at that time was largely an agricultural society where rich people controlled huge estates and had lots of peasants under their control. In such a country it was almost impossible to think of a Marxian socialist state. Nonetheless by his acute strategic work he brought about the October revolution. Soon he started suffering from ill health and was not a in a position to govern the newly formed state. Though he wanted that the Czarist reign should end and the rich oligarchy should be subdued in a forthright manner, he wanted that there should be an independent mode of discussion concerning the development of the socialist state. He died in 1922; and it so happened that Joseph Stalin by many acts of cruelty and heavy handedness became the supreme leader of the Soviet Union.

When CPI was formed all over the world the idea for a change in social relationship was fomenting. There is a long history that since about 1840 the whole Europe in a sort of ferment and wanted a change, which unfortunately was not coming in peaceful and constitutional manner. The socialist idea was rampant and the CPI originally was inclined towards an open kind of party. Of course there were die hard revolutionaries who wanted to rebel against the British Raj and establish a socialist state in India. This idea to us seems rather a wishful thinking and nothing else. The British Raj was, in spite of their great sacrifice during WW1 was on a firm footing, and India was under their full control. The Indian National Congress was trying to raise the people against the foreign regime by talking for a Swarajya, the basic idea of Mr M K Gandhi who later took control of Congress party and became Mahatma Gandhi. CPI remained always in a sort of bifurcated mood. They very well knew that a socialistic state was simply not possible in an agrarian society. The Indian capitalism was in a nascent state and was largely dependent on British Capitalism for its growth and function. The Indian people, largely peasants, were highly illiterate and obedient to the core. The Leninist mode of revolution was just a theoretical platform, a kind of dream which comes only once a while. This dichotomy has always been a part of communist movement in India. The party wanted a great revolutionary change; however it was never in a position to bring about such drastic transformation. Furthermore the party was always unwilling to enter into a parliamentary mode of contesting the election and capturing power. The Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union was turning into a highly repressive form of government which kept its population under strict control without much opportunity to express their viewpoints. The Indian society, however illiterate and backward, had a great tradition behind it which could be called the composite culture. This culture allowed various viewpoints to flourish in an independent manner and absorbed good points from different ideological streams. The Leninist mode of social transformation was simply not applicable to that culture. Mao Tse Tung brought about a communist revolution in China in 1949. It was a bloody struggle and which in a manner was against the essence of the ancient Chinese civilization. The Maoist doctrine of power coming out of a barrel of a gun was successful in China due to various geopolitical reasons. The Japanese occupation of part of China, the defects of Kuomintang regime assisted Mao in his valiant and hard fought revolutionary struggle. The Maoist mode, it soon became known, was as impossible to help in social transformation. Hence both the Leninist method and the Maoist method, which essentially were based on armed insurrection and in bloody capture of power, were impossible to attain in India.

A rather humorous situation developed for the CPI during the WWII. When the war started between Britain and Germany CPI leaders called it a capitalist war. However when the Nazi Germany started its operation Barbarosa against the Soviet Union they immediately christened it as a people’s war, and were ready to cooperate with the Raj to fight against Germans. Of course they initially were instructed by their ideological bosses in Moscow to call the war first as a Capitalistic war; and, on further instructions, termed the conflict the people’s war. This attitude has been prevalent in the CPI throughout their existence. And this has led them to popular resentment against them for their so called non-Indian behavior. Trouble is that CPI believed in a violent conflict to bring about a social transformation in India. This it seems is not a very productive ideological stance. India throughout its history has faced violent conflict from outside as in the country where various vested interests have tried to gain the upper hand against the rivals. In ancient India this was largely possible simply because of the fact that a powerful kingdom was not able to rule over the country for a period of time. Only small kingdoms reigned supreme. Furthermore India had a tradition of composite culture which was prevalent all over the Indian sub continent since Gautham Buddhas time. This cultural inclination adopted a view in which conflicting interests were persuaded to come together and leave in a peaceful coexistence. The Leninistic or Maoistic concept of social transformation fits ill with this cultural behavior. O fcourse Marx in his writings have adopted a view of violent aggression against the capitalist class to capture the political power. However the Paris Commune of 1848 must have taught to Carl Marx about the possibility of such violent mode of social transformation. Marx throughout his writing is very careful in his political activity. He wanted the workers to wrest the political control out of the reigning establishment. However detail of such violent transformation is not available in that sense in which Lenin and Mao developed their theories of socio-political transformation. Lenin’s behavior during the 1917 October revolution was rather two faced. At that time Russia had bled during the war and Lenin took the opportunity to capture the Russian parliament by means which were not actually ethical in political terms. It is true that Marxian edge proclaims that ‘end justifies the means’. However such program leads to a greater social unrest after the achievement through unfair means. For Mao power emerges out of a barrel of a gun. For him China was not in a position to withstand his long conflict against the ruling KMT. In India the situation was entirely different. The British Raj was firmly established in India. A substantially large part of Indian society was with the Raj. The Congress party under the astute policy of Mahatma Gandhi was fighting a war of independence through non-violent means. India has seen the parliamentary form of government which, though it worked from London, was in a position to unite the Indian sub continent under an able administration. Hence, apart from a few groups, largely Indians were ready to accept a parliamentary form of government if they get independence from the British Raj, and if possible through non-violence means.

This situation was largely in contrast to the basic CPI program of resting the power and bringing about a socio political transformation of the Indian society. The party was never in a position to wean people away from the Gandhian principals. Of course Gandhian principals had many shortcomings, but still it seemed the best way to achieve freedom. The Indian intellectuals were largely, if not overwhelmingly, in favor of constitutional means through which a parliamentary system of government could be established in India.

In 1947 the British government gave up their reign over the sub-continent. The country was divided into two portions and in India Jawaharlal Nehru, the prodigy of Mahatma Gandhi, became the Prime Minister. A constitution of India was constructed and gradually the Indian political institutions assumed the Westminster form of governance. Soon afterwards a conflict between the Soviet Union and communist China started. After the death of Stalin, Khrushchev made the Soviet Union much more humane and less conflict prone. This was revisionist attitude. In India this theoretical conflict affected the CPI. After a struggle the party was divided into two groups: CPI and the CPI(M), also called CPM . The CPM was a much more Stalinistic-Maoistic party and believed in armed conflict. Jyoti Basu was in CPM. However quite soon both the Communist party realized that they have to adopt parliamentary mode of governance in which they have to go to people to ask for their votes. CPI adopted a mode in which they were largely in league with the Congress party. CPM, being more independent and forceful, captured power in West Bengal and in Kerala.

This rather longish detail tells us that the communist movement if it has to become a prominent political movement in India has to become much more adopted composite culture and people oriented. In India whosoever tries to come to power has to adopt a purely Indian mode of political behaviour.

12-29-09: Fishes in my tank

When I woke up in the morning and everything is shrouded in dark many ideas start cropping up around me like poisonous weeds. Perhaps some of these weeds are not only harmless but sweet in taste. Let me describe one morning’s crop.

When I woke up an idea suddenly engulfed my half awakened brain. Why, for god’s sake, what after all is a god. It seems to me that it is not a biblical god. The god painted by Michelangelo on the roof of Saint Sistine chapel. It would be rather unthinkable, if not ridiculous, to imagine it in the form of a human being. An ancient times primitive people imagined gods in the form of animals, insects, fishes, trees, mountains, and rivers. Now if we think that He is the supreme creator of the universe, including all its multifarious content, it surely would have to be something extra universal. Of course there are concepts in ancient religions including in the Vedantas of Indo-Arians that the universal Creator is a some sort of Pantheistic entity; and all the things present in the universe contain some part of it or they would merge into that large Pantheistic ocean. However this theory again leads to idea that god is part of the universe. I kept thinking over it with my half awakened brain, my drowsy eyes refusing to open fully and my limbs a bit stiff. I lay down in my bed trying to think out of this muddy morass; how to extricate myself from this intricate problem. Suddenly something clicked. A part of my brain called out: there are fishes in my tank and fishes in my tank! And I realized that, if not regularly, once a while I had to pick out one fish out of the tank prior to leaving my bed.