The judges in Chile recently made an apology for the role of the judiciary, more particularly the Supreme Court, in giving legitimacy to Augusto Pinochet’s coup d’etat and allowing subsequent impunity to the dictatorial regime in killing, maiming and abducting its citizens. The apology is chilling, just days before the first 9/11, September 11, 1973, when Salvador Allende’s government was overthrown by the junta, unleashing a vile rule lasting till 1990. The apology comes late by 40 or at least, 23 years, in any which way one looks at it. It will not bring the dead back; the misery of the past has already been suffered; Allende’s legacy and greatness hardly needs the feeble crutch. Yet, an apology has come. That means a lot.
We do not apologise. We lie, justify and fabricate instead. Justice Munir is long dead. However, some of those who legitimised Ziaul Haq (a monster no less than Pinochet, whatever one’s measuring scale) and ordered the murder of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto live unrepentant. All military adventurers have been legitimised and welcomed on arrival (although much bravado has been displayed when two of them exited). My Lord, the chief justice was on the bench that not only allowed Musharraf to take over power but also to amend the Constitution, a relief which even the Commando had not sought. The Supreme Court judgments begin now post-restoration as if the past will go away by not talking about it, PCOs, etc. forgotten. Floods have passed over the bridge since then, yet an apology would be nice.
Apologies are not hollow sentimentality. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa, the Khmer Rouge Court in Cambodia and the Tribunal of Rwanda are not for kiss and make up only. The victims need to know that they did not imagine all of that; it was not misfortune, cosmic bad luck. Real people deliberated and ordered those crimes; now they pay or at least, have to admit they were wrong. The book of atrocities has to be opened and read in the open. Only then, you move on.
Ayub, Zia and Yahya have all moved on without paying what was due. Their collaborators — generals, judges, politicians and journalists — are here; have the common decency to apologise. Apologies are also about setting the historical record straight. Who will pay for the IJI and Asghar Khan verdict? Mian Sahib, you are a changed man, right? As the Difa-e-Pakistan Council warmongers march to Islamabad, there is still silence on the 1965 war, except for tired cliches. As our brave soldiers of the armed forces and police are martyred on a daily basis, Hamid Gul and those of his creed still take pride in creating ‘his’ boys, the ‘Taliban’. Every day is defence day; sacrifice of our soldiers is unremitting. Yet, instead of an apology by the architects of the shallow ‘strategic depth’, we have shameless arrogance.
Most children in the country now know Balochistan burns and something needs to be done, etc. Mian Sahib, all else is failing in any case. So, a novel proposition — go to Balochistan, take the army chief, the DG ISI and the IG FC with you and apologise. Not to those who have taken up arms; but to those who haven’t. Not, the generic we have wronged you before, will try better next time stuff. Be specific; start from 1948, for Nauroz Khan Zehri, for denial of resources, royalties, for military actions and assassinations, for those who have been abducted. It will not solve everything or perhaps, anything; but you will have their ear at least.
When nobody apologises, everybody writes history. And it has to be written and rewritten continuously. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Ministry of Truth is Big Brother’s propaganda arm (or in contemporary parlance, the information ministry). One salient function it seeks to perform is that when a prediction made by the Big Brother is proved wrong, going back in history the prediction is rewritten to make it absolutely accurate. We also tailor predictions to outcomes. The vision Mr Jinnah had for this country is contingent upon what our beliefs today are; everybody is sure to find a quote of their liking. Due to efforts of the excellent Mr Murtaza Solangi, we now have two of Mr Jinnah’s speeches, previously with the All India Radio. Yet, the August 11 speech remains missing. It is sobering to recall that an attempt was made to censor Mr Jinnah at the time of making. If any of this proves he was secular or not is for the historians; however, it does prove that we seek to control history, ignore it and hence, as the cliche goes, are condemned to repeat it.
The clumsy phrase ‘Ideology of Pakistan’ and Jamaat-e-Islami inspired slogans did not sprout organically from the earth; they were constructed, disseminated and made mainstream by ministries of truth. A recent example of how ‘words’ change their meaning is that of the whiskered old columnist Dr Ajmal Niazi, who now faces potential blasphemy charges. Since he used the word ‘secular’ in relation to the Almighty and a pious reader looked it up in the dictionary and found it meant ‘La deen’ (atheistic). One wonders what dictionary it could be, written by some Ministry of Truth no doubt. Perhaps, from the time of when Hamid Gul and his boys sought to bury ‘La Deen’ (Soviet Union) while fighting as the front line of the Ahle Kitab (United States). A judge admitted it and has ordered the police to act in accordance with the law — sheer madness and against established principles of jurisprudence, right? Wrong, this is in line with the previous musings of two of the highest judges. While hearing the ‘Wukla Mahaz’ case in 1998, the then chief justice, Ajmal Mian, philosophically asked the rhetorical question if Parliament decided to make Pakistan a secular country, would the court be a silent spectator. My Lord, the present chief justice had an identical inquiry in the Eighteenth Amendment case.
In the times of the unremorseful guardians of monolith historical narratives, the courageous few are hunted. The alleged plot to assassinate the indomitable Ms Asma Jahangir by the intelligence agencies is in the news again. Will the ISPR clarify? Will Mian Nawaz Sharif order a high powered inquiry? If not, will My Lord, the chief justice find this issue to be on a par with the use of ‘sharamnaak’ and worth his time?
Published in The Express Tribune, September 8th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
“We lie, justify and fabricate”.
Speaks volumn and realty.
Non sense
Army=good, Judiciary=good, Politicans=bad (apart from PTI), is that not the truth and the only truth?
Hauntingly beautiful. ..
I would say yes to your suggestion to apologise for cathartic reasons. My problem is that you can not prompt someone to apologise, he has to do it voluntarily other wise it means nothing. The very act of apologising requires an elevated mind, one that is comfortable with his own sense of moral rectitude and there in lies the problem………..do we have such a person.
The man who will get rid of this menace( everyone, in his capacity is part of it) will be the one to apologies for, to come too late to the rescue of this nation.At the moments we have only-taliban apologists.Thank you for your efforts to call spade a spade.
While you have written an excellent article, you too appear not to fully understand the term secular.
A secular state is one where the state has no religion. Secular is thus an attribute of the state. Atheism is an individual who does not believe in God and is thus an attribute of an individual.
A secular state can and does have people who are devout believers of one religion or another as can be seen in India and the USA. In fact one of the reasons that the state has no religion is to allow all people to worship/not worship as they choose without the fear of being discriminated by the state.
Thus the CJ was indeed correct that a secular state is la-deen.
Saroop Ijaz, most of us fear and loathe the truth. If it is allowed to spread in our history books, in our parliament and others halls of power, into the streets and into the minds of the ordinary folk, it could have devastating consequences. Damn it, it may even lead to greater justice and freedom for all. We certainly don’t want that, do we?
“I cannot understand the logic of those who have been deliberately and mischievously propagating that the Constitution of Pakistan will not be based on Islamic Sharia. Islamic principles today are as much applicable to life as they were 1300 years ago”-Quaid’s address to Karachi Bar Association in January 25, 1948
Is this also a fabrication? (I don’t understand why do people think that Quaid-e-Azam wanted a secular state)
“We do not apologise. We lie, justify and fabricate instead.”
That is partly because we feel insecure. Remember, Pakistan is an Islamic State and ever since Islam came into being we have evolved through the ideology of insecurity. To name a few, we are not allowed to convert into other faiths although we force others to convert into Islam. We are permitted to lie to defend our faith and we get involved in violence although we keep saying that Islam is a religion of peace. We do not allow women to be educated and the list is endless.
To get out of this ideology is to reform our religion.
Appology will come soon.
What was dropping of contempt case against Imran Khan?
Yet, instead of an apology by the architects of the shallow ‘strategic depth’, we have shameless arrogance.
bravo hats off to you
we have various ways to highlight problems our country is facing these days. Through media, we can advice/suggest solutions to the govt., or by creating awareness in our readers, least but not the last by requesting to Apex court take an action over the underlying problem .
But by shifting the responsibility & blame on C.J. for not taking Sou motto action is beyond my understanding.
not convincing at all.
…but not by us.
this is what kissinger said about democracy in chile: the issues are far too important to be left to chilean voters themselves.
Excellent as always Mr. Ijaz. Couldn’t agree more. We have to clean up our history or it will keep stinking. And while you are speaking of 6 Sep, why don’t we also come out with the fact that the Defence of Pakistan day is also a farce. That all four wars in our history were initiated by us (read Asghar Khan’s excellent book if this is news to anyone). Perhaps we should call Sep 6 “Offence of Pakistan Day” and get over our constant obsession about India being the aggressor.
Another brilliant article by Ijaz. There are a number of players in politics, the judiciary, in the military or rather the different wings of the military who are only concerned about which side of their bread is buttered. The writer is expecting a principled stand from them, at least, now. Perhaps, they are not yet sure of how long the present situation will last!
@gp65: Urge you to read again. I think he talks about others who equate secularists to atheists.
Bravo!!
A good piece except that it is clearly very partizan and selective. The writer wants everyone other than the PPP and its supporters to apologize.
Aug 11 speech of Jinnah defines Secularism “Religions has nothing to do with the business of the state.” Secularism = Liberalism= Humanism which means people aren’t discriminated in the name of nationality, religion, race, caste/sect, class, gender by the state and its institutions.
ET Mods – Please publish response to someone who has written to me
@Strategic Asset: Thank you for responding to my comment. I have read what Ijaaz said and understand it. I would like to take a second shot at communicating what I intended because I somehow may not have been clear enough about what I said.
Secular is an adjective that applies to a state not an individual and atheist an adjective that applies to an individual not a state. You can have secular/theocratic states and you can have Hindu/Muslim/Sikh/Christian/athiestic people.
Even in India often the term secular person is used incorrectly to describe an individual who respects all faiths. This unnecessarily puts many Hindus on the defensive and makes them sheepish about admitting they are Hindus because they fear this admission brands them as communal. Obama//Hillary are practicing Christians unapologetic about their faith and yet completely committed to the secular constitution of USA.
In a secular state, because the state does not have a religion, there is no favor extended to believers of one faith and/or discrimination against believers of other faiths or atheists.
Thus a secular state is indeed a La-Deen state. Thus far the judges were correct. Of course you and I may not agree with the honourable judges’ disgust for a La-Deen state and may consider a secular state to be highly desirable even as I am a practicing Hindu and you a Christian (if I recall one of your earlier posts as Foreign Leg correctly).
@Secular Pakistan:
It does not matter if Jinnah was secular or not. What matters is
1) what do Pakistani people want today?
2) what path is likely to bring peace and prosperity to PAkistan?
If you believe (as I suspect you do), that the path that majority wants is not the path that will bring it peace and prosperity, that is the debate you need to have instead of basing it on what Jinnah wanted because for every speech you produce to support your argument the other side can quote multiple speeches and actions that support the exact opposite opinion. Here are some facts they could quote which are known to all:
– he was the leader of a party called ‘Muslim’ League (Hint: Sheikh Abdullah changed the name of his party from Muslim conference to National conference to show support for secularism).
– proposed the two nation theory which would divide nations on the basis of the 2 dominat religions in the region
– he sought vote for his party on the basis of religion “Muslim hp t League mein aao’.
Apology, truth and being honest, all these very glaringly mentioned in our holy book….yet while the West, Europe and other countries practice it daily in their everyday life…. while hypocrisy abounds us MUSLIMS……hence, what the author has exposed is very true…..we must face this truth and reform, lest we become part of history……
@gp65 Your unserstanding is clearly incorrect. An individual can certainly be secular or atheistic. Former could be of any faith which believes in God in some shape or form but does not let the religion come in his/her way when he/she interacts with the society. Latter doesn’t believe in God and has no religion – Urdu word for that is La-deen.
@Iqbal:
Brave and honest. If ET would allow it, your comments are worthy of a full blown Opinion piece. Unless, people look at what they are taught, believe, practice, condone and support, we will continue to lie, fabricate and never apologise. We do not have the capacity to reflect, question and embrace others.
@gp65:
Agreed with your explanation of secular state.
@gp65:
I agree with you, for Pakistan to become Secular Pakistan its better to let go Jinnah since its never ending argument whether he was Liberal or Conservative or him wanting a Secular state or Communal State(Islamic state). Just do it what you want rather dragging Jinnah into it. I fell wise people of Pakistan want Pakistan to be Secular and Liberal
ET Mods – please publish my response to someone that has written to me.
@LOK:
A person that believes in God but not in any organized religion is called a ‘Deist’. Of course the term secular can apply to any institution ( not just a state) but it is not an adective used. O describe a person.
@B:
Don’t all nations do?
ET: Pls allow me to respond to gp65’s post to me.
.
@gp65: You are preaching to the choir :). I know full well what secularism means living in the largest secular state in the world. I know many will ask about China, so I might as well rebut right now itself that China is still 60-70% atheist or agnostic due to decades of communism and religious freedom is still an unknown.
.
Regarding secularism, Indians depending on their education generally do not care about anybody else’s religion. I was thinking of what you said that Hindus go on the defensive when someone asks about his or her religion. However the fact is that I as a Christian would also get defensive if someone asks me about my religion. The first question that would pop in my head is “Do I really want to interact with this person?”. In modern India, questions about anybody’s religion should not be asked at all.
.
Bringing Obama into the picture would be wrong. No President of the US can hope to win by alienating the Christian right. How JFK became the only Catholic President is itself a minor miracle.
.
Goa CM Parikar wasn’t too far off the mark when he said that India is a Hindu nation, however I am sure his words will antagonize many. The primary reason for this is that Hinduism is both a way of life and a religion. While Christians do not follow the same religion, they generally share similarities in dress, food and language with Hindus in that region. In terms of religion too, Christians share many religious concepts and notably that of “karma” that would be alien to most other Christians.
.
The opposite of a secular state is a theocratic state. India is a secular state. Iran is a theocratic state. Right in between is Pakistan who is unsure where it wants to be. The result is a plethora of articles on ET and so-called religious men crying hoarse from the rooftops. gp65, you are right; atheist, agnostic or religious are attributes of people depending on their individual views of religion.
.
For me, one additional plus point of secularism is that I do not have to bow to the diktats of the church. It would be nightmarish if I am evaluated through the barometer of religiosity because I am unsure if I will pass.
Brilliant article. This should be an open discussion in curriculum to educate next generations the real meaning of tolerance and progress.
ET Mods – please allow response to 2 people who have written to me.
Strategic Asset: I actually respect your opinion and certainly wasn’t preaching (to you or anyone else). You actually asked me to read the article again because you thought I did not understand the difference between the 2 terms atheist and secular. That is the only reason I wrote the detailed reply to you.
@LOK: People who believe in God but not in any organized religion are called ‘Deists’. The term secular does apply to institutions including nation states – not to individuals.
@Strategic Asset: Kerry is a Catholic too and had a clear shot at the Presidency f he had not been Swiftboated. Anyway I was not trying to refer to US politics but making the point that leaders in a secular state can be openly religious and there is no conflict involved.
As far as not asking religion in independent India – I agree with you partially. If this information is sought by decision makers and influences decisions one way or another based on the answer, that is unacceptable. The fact however is that by and large some bigots (and there indeed are a few in India) who choose to discriminate have no need to ask this information openly as the name usually makes it very clear – at least between Hindus, Muslims, Christians. Where it IS appropriate to request information about religion is by regulators at macro level to ensure that no institutionalized discrimination is going on. In US there are laws like HMDA require fairness while approving mortgages and Reg B which require fairness while granting any type of credit including credit cards, home equity loans etc. Financial services organizations cannot discriminate based on people’s gender, marital status, race, religion, national origin etc. In order to test if these laws are implemented, data on approved and declined loans along with all the parameters (which include religion)I mentioned will be frequently sought. In order that service providers are able to provide this information to government, they also ned to collect such information.
So the intention of asking for this information is important and you cannot make a blanket statement that such information should never be obtained.
Even in India, fertility data (how many kids a woman has) is dissected to come up with effectively targeted strategies to bring down fertility rate. Thus census data on fertility is sliced and diced by religion, geographic region, education levels etc. Again the collection and utilization of such information is not inappropriate.
We do not have words like ” apology, truth, honesty ” and I must add ” resignation “, are not in our dictionary or in our culture, so discussing it is a waste of time, because even our kids have also learnt and practices same every day…..we do not apologies for our mistakes, we are not truthful in our dealing, we are unable to face truth and hence are unable to find solutions, we are not honest with anyone, not our families, so how can we truthful, honest to our Countrymen ! We are not ready to accept our responsibilities, hence we do not regret, repent, hence, do not resign !..this beautiful Country that we achieved after so much sacrifice, will remain as under dogs, unless we accept and face truth, apologies for the mess we are in TODAY ! are you listening..my dear leaders ! Mend your ways ! or be prepared to face the wrath of Allah swt…..time is running out, and if you guys think you have NOC from Allah swt YOU ARE MISTAKEN…..Allah swt has made many such leaders as examples….Shah of Iran, Idi Amin,Marcos,Causascue,Saddam Husain, Ghaddafi,Castro, Hugo Chaves , Augusto Pinochet etc; yet if our leaders are unable to take a cue from history….sorry ! we are then doomed…we do not deserve to live…..
ET pls print this comment as truth must prevail…thank you.
@gp65
@Strategic Asset
Thank you both, for enlightening posts. You have raised the bar on this board.