Catch 69

He liked country western music, although he hadn’t listened to any in the last twenty years. He also dreamt of climbing mountains, but as he sat and smoked a cigarette after his infrequent 5k run, which was mostly a walk, he usually figured that it was probably better he only dreamt about it.

It was 3:46pm on a warm and humid May afternoon when it finally hit him. He felt like Siddharta, he had found nirvana (or nibbana as he liked to call it after reading Ms. Armstrong’s book on the subject.) He had the answer to the question that befuddled him all his life about his world.

It was not a Deep Thought kind of moment, mind you. There were no clear shinning letters or figures (e.g. 42) in front of his eyes. It was just a feeling which finally put his listlessness to rest. He had formulated Catch 69 which goes like this

The only way for it to make sense is for it to make no sense at all.

Repeat that, in German?

Nur so können es Sinn zu machen sind, damit es überhaupt keinen Sinn Machen?

Nah, it didn’t sound more profound in German and the online translator probably made it sound like it was composed by someone who had never heard a word of German in their lives.

The event that precipitated this epiphany was the cold blooded murder of someone he barely knew. He was pretty sure that the person in question didn’t know his name, although they always exchanged a hello and some pleasantries when they saw each other. This had been going on for some years. This was perhaps because he had never bothered to introduce himself, maybe because he wanted to exist in the peripheral world, the real world too overwhelming or chaotic.

The problem with the Chaos Theory is that people think exactly the opposite of what it purports to be true, which is intuitive. Both being wrong, intuition and chaos theory, when applied to the social sciences.

Why was this person murdered?

A logical and rational thought process would go the following way.

1.  This was a random act of violence. There are people with guns roaming around on the streets of this town, who sometimes kill.
2.  The victim was the intended target which would mean that killing her served a purpose.

If it was a random act, we need not go any further. It didn’t seem like one though, so maybe we explore scenario number two.

So, moving along

1.  This person had done something or was about to do something
2. This something was unacceptable to the other party(ies) and either had to be stopped or she had to be made an example of, so that other people were discouraged from doing the same.

This is getting complicated now. What did this person do, or rather what kind of a person was she, that the only way to stop her was to kill her?

After her death, someone tweeted “She was a communist.” Sorry to disappoint, I don’t think she was a follower of Lenin. This gentleman was trying to say that she didn’t believe in the same god(s) as he did, or fewer ones or maybe none at all. That wasn’t it.

I know there are android fans out there, and her being a devotee of the Jobs cult may have been a reason. The false idol that one could find in her surroundings. Nah, these guys don’t have the brains to figure that out.

Must be something else.

The best thing about conspiracy theories is that they perhaps have some bit of truth in them, but it is almost impossible to differentiate between what is and what isn’t. But it could all be a double/triple bluff, couldn’t it?

They can’t be that stupid? Everyone knows they will be blamed, so they would never do it. But that sounds like a good way of getting away with murder.

The answer is very simple. It is not supposed to make sense. And that is not an intended consequence of the action. They ARE that stupid. And this is the only thing that makes sense.

Exhibit A: There is a separatist movement going on, which is funded by the enemy. Therefore everyone who is in favour of the movement is guilty of either treason or being a spy. These traitors or spies must be disappeared. And no one should ask any questions about it. If you do, you are also a traitor or a spy. If you let people ask questions, you are a traitor again. But then again, we must pay lip service to something and it is nationalism and anything else once can think of at a given moment. Of course, there is no due process and since the people who are deciding the fate of these trials are supposed to be the best, their decisions cannot be questioned.

One question, if they are so good, why is the enemy apparently operating with impunity in our territory?

That again is a question that cannot be asked, if someone were to think about it. But no one really thinks about it.

That’s the problem with thinking, one tends to try to make sense, any sense out of things. But this only makes sense if it were to make no sense at all. And this doesn’t. There is no evil genius putting together plans of global domination, or body snatchers waiting to suck our souls out, its just a bunch of idiots who have no idea what they are doing. Some of them connected, others not to each other.

That is what he discovered that hot and humid afternoon. While he was thinking of why there was no power, and went through the mental calculation of the energy shortfall in the grid and capacity. Stop it! Don’t you get it? He asked himself. This reasoning or lack thereof must extend to everything. That is the only way for it to make sense. 

To Cut or not to Cut

Imagine a cultural practice that has been around for centuries, as a central part of religious tradition. A tradition that allows for creating an identity for the community, making one part of something bigger than one's self.

Unfortunately this involves a bit of surgery and removal of a bit of the human anatomy. Something that makes it susceptible to infection (as much or as little as any other minor surgery,) and according to some, makes that bit of the anatomy less sensitive to the elements. Also this procedure is performed on children, generally without consent.

In response to the doubters, the apologists propose several arguments for this procedure:

1. It is a matter of faith, and no one can question what their god has commanded them to do.

2. It is a good thing, because it creates a bond of identity among the believers.

3. It is actually a preventive measure, since it reduces chances of disease, both mental and physical.

And obviously in response, the counter-arguments follow

1. Please let the individuals decide, when they are of a certain age, if they want to go through this process and not impose the parents or the communities will upon a child.

2. If cutting off a piece of anatomy is an important part of identity, the community has bigger problems.

3. Yes, there may be a co-relation between the practice and reduction of infection, but causality is yet to be determined.

So what do you think, should infant female genital mutilation be accepted as a cultural practice?

No Rapture Time for me!

This post tries to explain why I, a left leaning secular liberal humanist (liberal fascist to some), do not believe that Imran Khan (PTI) is the answer to our plaintive prayers. It is not an endorsement of the current political set up either, so please spare me that allegation.

Most of us, at least the people with half a brain, have some inkling as to what ails our country. If not, we are at least aware of the symptoms of the malady. Economically doomed, debt ridden, obsessed with nationalism and victim mentality, uneducated, with uncontrolled population growth with diminishing resources, etc. are from a long list of symptoms and problems that come to mind.

So one takes the symptoms and tries to find out the root cause. The most commonly arrived at answer is corruption, since that appears to be rampant among the people who are ruling us and have ruled us since Pakistan came into being. Its not a hard sell, since everyone perceives it and knows it is wrong.

I beg to differ. Corruption is a symptom, and not the cause. And I will try to explain why in this post.

So when someone like Imran Khan starts building a political movement based on "corruption" there is a basic issue of not even understanding the core problem. He is riding the wave of populist sentiments of being against the corrupt politicians of this country.

The intellectually bankrupt urban middle class, which has no inkling of critical thought, is more than ready to jump on the bandwagon of Imran Khan. Why? Because they can't see beyond IK's perceived integrity and charisma (which he has plenty of) that comes from being a celebrity who delivered beyond what was hoped for by being one of the brightest stars of cricket and subsequently his philanthropic mission of building a cancer hospital. So he hasn't disappointed them as yet, as far as they can tell.

So what is the problem here?

The problem is the establishment and the system that cultivates the establishment. The establishment stands for the status quo. The politicians come and go, they are a disposable lot, sure they are corrupt and get away with their corruption, but that's all part of the cost of doing business for the establishment.

For real change, someone has to stand up against the establishment and the system. And doing that is the challenge. IK is not anti-establishment, he is anti-politicians. Which will get him the following that he needs, like Musharraf was popular because he promised that he would rid us of the Bhuttos and the Sharifs. Look where he ended up. The establishment and the system got them all back into business.

And that is why I have not signed up for the revolution. I shall wait for Zarquon's second coming.

Interview with a Security Guru

With the ongoing security situation in Pakistan, especially with the military, yours truly decided to conduct an in depth interview with a very senior security consultant codename USE. For reasons of security (what else?) his name will not be disclosed, suffice to say that he is a very senior military officer, expert in everything (like all of us), and most of all matters of national and internal security.

Me: Hello sir!
USE: At ease, bloody civilian.

Me: Thank you sir. Can you please shed some light on the recurring breaches of security and sovereignty that are happening?
USE: What rubbish! There has never been a breach, ever.

Me: Sir, you said the same thing when the GHQ was attacked two years ago....
USE: It has come to light that it was a joint jooish/raw/indian saazish, and nothing really happened, just like the OBL thing that happened in Abottabad was a figment of imagination. There was no OBL, no blackhawk, no house, no nothing.

Me: How do you know that?
USE: General Aslam Beg told me.

Me: Oh ok! What about the attack on PNS Mehran?
USE: What attack? Thats just some Hindus lighting up firecrackers on Sharae Faisal.

Me: There are still some Hindus left in Pakistan? Isn't that a security breach in itself?
USE: No, they are actually Muslims pretending to be Hindus, pretending to be Taliban. Mr. Zaid Hamid told me.

Me: So the Taliban are Indian agents, pretending to be Muslim, when they are actually Muslims pretending to be Hindus, but terrorists can't be Muslims, so what is the real story?
USE: Raymond Davis.

Me: Raymond Davis?
USE: Yes, he was the handler of the make-believe OBL who was NOT hiding in Abottabad.

Me: OK. So what is the strategy to deal with this?
USE: Stop the drone strikes.

Me: How will that help?
USE: It will create strategic depth in Afghanistan, so when the Americans leave, since that is the only reason the OBL make-believe operation was done, we will use them to conquer the world. And protect our strategic assets.

Me: What good are the strategic assets when we can't even stop the Indian Agents who are pretending to be Taliban and Baloch separatists?
USE: We couldn't have spent all that money on stupid things like education and health and all that rubbish. So at least we have something to show for it.

Me: What's the endgame?
USE: To get more money. Quote Clinton "Its the economy, stupid." When the COAS said we will sacrifice prosperity for honour, he meant prosperity for the poor people.

Me: Sir I don't understand any of this.
USE: You are a bloody civilian, how can you?

Me: Do we really have strategic assets?
USE: No, we are working with the Americans on using HAARP. Dr. Atta told me.

Me: I am totally confused now.
USE: Let me sum it up for you. The Hindus/Joos want to take over our strategic assets, so that we are powerless.

Me: But we are powerless now, the drone strikes, the OBL operation, the Hindus attacking our military, how much more powerless can we get?
USE: None of those things happened.

Me: Even the drone strikes?
USE: They must be stopped. Imran Khan told me. Once they are stopped, PTI will hold jirgas everywhere and that will solve all our problems.

Me: But I thought you said none of this is really happening.
USE: It isn't.

Me: Thank you sir, it was a very illuminating experience.
USE: Thank you

The question

From a concluding post on a forum following the murder of Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab for supporting a victim of the infamous blasphemy law of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan....

I find it very interesting that nobody can give a simple answer to a pretty straightforward question.

Let me restate the question

If a believer in a certain god is asked by his/her god to do something which may be illegal/immoral by the believer's standards, can the believer argue that command?

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Since the premise of the question is that the person is a believer in that particular god, and the legality and morality is determined by the god, anything the god commands becomes legal and moral. (Nixon anyone?)

When Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son on a mountaintop by Yahweh (please insert god of choice), there was no question of this command being illegal or immoral. The only question was whether Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son to his god or not. As Abraham led his son up the mountain (Ishmael or Isaac depending on which holy book you subscribe to), there was no question in Abraham's mind as to what he was going to do when he got there. I am pretty sure that the faithful do not rejoice in the big switcheroo, they celebrate Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son.

Which brings me to the real problem here. There is no freedom to disagree in faith, because that is what it is by definition, a belief not based in logic or rationality but mere dogma.

How does one differentiate between the ranting of a delusional man who thinks he has been ordered by god to kill someone and another follower of the same god who thinks they have been ordered not to kill anyone?

Both positions are faith based, and non-arguable.

If the faithful find it impossible to even argue a hypothetical question about their god issuing an illegal command, I feel it is improbable they will ever actually question a belief however misplaced or deluded it may be.

So, I am not surprised when one of the faithful performs an extra-judicial murder, since by our own admission, the judicial powers do not exist here, they emanate from above.

The Panacea

Its been a while, but I am back.

So when we thought things couldn't get worse, they just did and it seems that there is no light at the end of the tunnel (It was announced by WAPDA that because of the power shortfall, the light at the end of the tunnel was switched off).

If there is one thing that all of us agree with, it is that this country is in trouble. Different schools of thought ascribe this to different reasons and offer solutions based on their particular understanding of social sciences and human interaction.

Lets make a list of whats wrong with us, I imagine the list (in no particular order) would look like the following

1. Rampant corruption
2. Minimal literacy
3. Deteriorating economy
4. Large foreign debt
5. Political instability

And the list goes on and on. You may notice that I have left one thing out, which is lawlessness, but that was done on purpose since I feel that may be the root cause for most of these maladies. When it comes to law, I think the following holds true

1. We don't understand what law is beyond a superficial perception and that is fine.
2. People in general don't trust the law enforcement agencies and the justice system. Justice is dependent on who you are and who you know.
3. Breaking the law is a sign of stature, the higher you are in society, the more laws you break.

So keeping all of this in mind, how do we go about finding a solution and fixing things?

First of all, it will not be easy fixing this mess, it will be a long hard struggle. There is no silver bullet to bite here, despite what the religious/political fanatics tell you. I think that if we are lucky, and if we do things right, we may see a positive change in twenty five years or so. Also it needs to be a simple solution which is doable. The fantastic dreams of Utopia are conditional upon impossible things which will never happen, so my solution is simple and doable, since it is not an abstract idea. It is not easy either, but I feel it can be done and there are examples of it even in a chaotic society like ours.

I assert that if we can enforce the basic laws of human interaction and societal living, the bigger problems will diminish with time. Every time we step out of our homes, there is a basic code that we have all agreed upon and laws that have been written down, and its these rules and laws that must be implemented with force. Nothing too complicated, things as simple as not throwing trash in the streets, obeying traffic rules, respecting all life forms, etc.

And there it is. The Broken Windows Theory supports this solution which states that if you solve the simple problems, there will not be many bigger problems to deal with or at least that is my interpretation of it.

That is my solution to our problem, to maybe wish for a better place that our children will grow up in, not this chaotic anarchy that is getting worse by the day.

Oppression or submission?

The French are mulling over whether they can pass a law making it illegal for a woman to wear a burqa.

The Muslims will say that this is something that the women are doing without being forced to do so, as an act of submission to their god.

My question is, when the Hindu women were throwing themselves on the funeral pyres of their husbands, they were also doing it without being forced to, weren't they?

Which will result in the obvious question whether voluntarily burning one's self to death is the same as wearing a burqa.

The answer is yes, when it comes to following religious or cultural edicts, without any logical reason, they both fall into the same category. So if society can legislate to outlaw women burning themselves to death, can they also be allowed to stop this seemingly harmless code of dress?