Sunday, January 23, 2005
Definition Distress, II.
Wonder if anyone else has noticed the metamorphosis of Pakistani channels into what I am told is the International Channel look? It had been happening gradually in the last few years, but it seems to have gathered phenomenal pace in recent weeks - this drive towards the tolerant and liberal image of Pakistan.
Don't get me wrong, I must count amongst the strongest proponents of tolerance and liberty on the wrong side of our planet - the side it is okay to bomb every now and then on this pretence and that. But, I do happen to define liberty as something more than the freedom to strip in public, or not be dressed in public. Actually, my definition of liberty does not include the afore-mentioned acts.
Liberty, as I define it, encourages innovation, gives impetus to improvisation, and galvanizes creativity. Liberty, as I understand it, accords freedom to people to chalk out their own destiny, and provides security to people who dare to be different. Liberty, as I perceive it, should have set our society on the path to intellectual evolution, economic progress, and social well-being.
The same holds true for my understanding of tolerance. Tolerance, as I want in our society, should permit our people from the various religions and sects to co-exist peacefully in this country that belongs equally to all who are its citizens. I would eagerly contribute to the promotion of tolerance that would lead not only to religious harmony in our people, but which would encourage our people to 'derage'; to exercise their liberty to differ, but refrain from imposing and enforcing their own opinion; to understand that the world is a two-way road, and wherever they might choose to go, there will always be some people going the other direction; to make room for the possibility that what is different is not necessarily wrong. I would think that practicing such tolerance would bring us closer to the goals I have earlier mentioned, those of intellectual evolution, economic progress, and social well-being.
Inherently though, primarily because of the goals they set forth, my definitions preclude blind aping of other nations, societies, and countries. When I talk of evolution, I set a strong premise for the whole scenario. You see, while evolution is defined as a gradual development into a more complex being, it is never defined as a goat metamorphing into a giraffe. Essentially and fundamentally, the evolving being stays the same. The goat stays a goat, and the giraffe, a giraffe. My definition of Economic Progress is self-explanatory. It translates into higher GDP, higher per capita income, higher investment, higher purchasing power, healthier balance sheets, lower unemployment, lower inflation, a huge and happy middle class, a shrinking lower class, and all the other desirable highs and lows essential to an economy that can be termed as great.
My idea of social well-being is a society at peace with itself, proud of its heritage as well as progress, and firmly rooted in its ground, yet reaching out for the skies. You might have noticed that my goals do not include social transformation.
Now let me come to the point. I am much thrilled by all the interest our 'artists', 'intellectuals', and people I call the 'opinion benders' have recently exhibited in projecting a more tolerant and liberal Pakistan. I am disappointed, and often depressed by how these artists, intellectuals and the clan choose to define liberalism and tolerance. What I do not understand is that why must liberalism be synonymous with denouncing all religious and social norms. Surely, not everything prevalent in our societies needs to be changed. How is it that sleeveless (and much other less) clothes, which are alien to our religious (and that includes all religions, for all religions preach modesty) as well as social norms, are imperative to wearing one's intellectual evolution on one's sleeve?
Frankly, I look at such inane exhibitions of intellectualism as evidences of intellectual bankruptcy - for it does not take much to figure out that intellectualism is by definition a mind thing, and not a body thing. When intellectualism needs to be showcased in nudity and nakedness, it is less than lame. The definition of nudity and nakedness will vary from society to society. There are countries and societies in the world, which have worked hard to ensure that less and less is defined by these words, there are other which have already managed to purge these words from their dictionaries and conscience. We, Pakistanis, are not such a society - not yet anyway.
To evolve, we need to remember that we must stay the same essentially. Because, if we do not, we will soon metamorph into Kafka's cockroaches, and will then run on the walls and the ceilings of our rooms, hiding from the mirrors, and trying to figure out where we went wrong, and how we could undo the metamorphosis. By then, it will be too late.
¶ 1/23/2005 01:53:00 AM
Don't get me wrong, I must count amongst the strongest proponents of tolerance and liberty on the wrong side of our planet - the side it is okay to bomb every now and then on this pretence and that. But, I do happen to define liberty as something more than the freedom to strip in public, or not be dressed in public. Actually, my definition of liberty does not include the afore-mentioned acts.
Liberty, as I define it, encourages innovation, gives impetus to improvisation, and galvanizes creativity. Liberty, as I understand it, accords freedom to people to chalk out their own destiny, and provides security to people who dare to be different. Liberty, as I perceive it, should have set our society on the path to intellectual evolution, economic progress, and social well-being.
The same holds true for my understanding of tolerance. Tolerance, as I want in our society, should permit our people from the various religions and sects to co-exist peacefully in this country that belongs equally to all who are its citizens. I would eagerly contribute to the promotion of tolerance that would lead not only to religious harmony in our people, but which would encourage our people to 'derage'; to exercise their liberty to differ, but refrain from imposing and enforcing their own opinion; to understand that the world is a two-way road, and wherever they might choose to go, there will always be some people going the other direction; to make room for the possibility that what is different is not necessarily wrong. I would think that practicing such tolerance would bring us closer to the goals I have earlier mentioned, those of intellectual evolution, economic progress, and social well-being.
Inherently though, primarily because of the goals they set forth, my definitions preclude blind aping of other nations, societies, and countries. When I talk of evolution, I set a strong premise for the whole scenario. You see, while evolution is defined as a gradual development into a more complex being, it is never defined as a goat metamorphing into a giraffe. Essentially and fundamentally, the evolving being stays the same. The goat stays a goat, and the giraffe, a giraffe. My definition of Economic Progress is self-explanatory. It translates into higher GDP, higher per capita income, higher investment, higher purchasing power, healthier balance sheets, lower unemployment, lower inflation, a huge and happy middle class, a shrinking lower class, and all the other desirable highs and lows essential to an economy that can be termed as great.
My idea of social well-being is a society at peace with itself, proud of its heritage as well as progress, and firmly rooted in its ground, yet reaching out for the skies. You might have noticed that my goals do not include social transformation.
Now let me come to the point. I am much thrilled by all the interest our 'artists', 'intellectuals', and people I call the 'opinion benders' have recently exhibited in projecting a more tolerant and liberal Pakistan. I am disappointed, and often depressed by how these artists, intellectuals and the clan choose to define liberalism and tolerance. What I do not understand is that why must liberalism be synonymous with denouncing all religious and social norms. Surely, not everything prevalent in our societies needs to be changed. How is it that sleeveless (and much other less) clothes, which are alien to our religious (and that includes all religions, for all religions preach modesty) as well as social norms, are imperative to wearing one's intellectual evolution on one's sleeve?
Frankly, I look at such inane exhibitions of intellectualism as evidences of intellectual bankruptcy - for it does not take much to figure out that intellectualism is by definition a mind thing, and not a body thing. When intellectualism needs to be showcased in nudity and nakedness, it is less than lame. The definition of nudity and nakedness will vary from society to society. There are countries and societies in the world, which have worked hard to ensure that less and less is defined by these words, there are other which have already managed to purge these words from their dictionaries and conscience. We, Pakistanis, are not such a society - not yet anyway.
To evolve, we need to remember that we must stay the same essentially. Because, if we do not, we will soon metamorph into Kafka's cockroaches, and will then run on the walls and the ceilings of our rooms, hiding from the mirrors, and trying to figure out where we went wrong, and how we could undo the metamorphosis. By then, it will be too late.
¶ 1/23/2005 01:53:00 AM
