"عوامی رائے کی قید: ذہنی غلامی اور پاکستانی نوجوان – ‘لوگ کیا کہیں گے?

"اپنے آپ کو ذہنی غلامی سے آزاد کرو، ہمارے سوا کوئی اور ہمارے ذہنوں کو آزاد نہیں کر سکتا۔" مارکس گاروی

ڈاکٹر عمر خان  

*khanmomar@hotmail.com  

ڈاکٹر خان کا تعلق لاہور کے ایک تھنک ٹینک سے ہے۔  

23-8-26

پاکستان کی فضا میں ایک ان کہی سوال گھلا ہوا ہے، ایک ایسا پوشیدہ جج جو ہر کمرے کے کونے میں بیٹھا ہے اور ہر کان میں سرگوشی کرتا ہے۔ یہ "لوگ کیا کہیں گے؟" کی مسلسل اور گھٹن زدہ سرگوشی ہے۔

یہ کوئی وقتی فکر نہیں ہے بلکہ ایک گہری ثقافتی اضطراب ہے، جو خاص طور پر ملک کے نوجوانوں میں بہت زیادہ پائی جاتی ہے۔ یہ کیریئر کے انتخاب، شادی کے رشتوں، سماجی تعلقات اور یہاں تک کہ ذاتی خواہشات تک کو متعین کرتی ہے۔

تاہم عوامی تاثر کا یہ جنون محض ایک سادہ سماجی عادت سے کہیں زیادہ ہے۔ یہ ایک گہرا نفسیاتی مرض ہے، ذہنی غلامی کی ایک قسم ہے جو تخلیقیت کو مفلوج کر دیتی ہے، دائمی ذہنی دباؤ پیدا کرتی ہے اور ایک پوری نسل کو اپنی حقیقی صلاحیتوں کو پہچاننے سے روکتی ہے۔

پاکستانی نوجوانوں کو اس اندرونی قید سے آزاد کرانے کے لیے قانون کی تبدیلی نہیں، بلکہ ایک بنیادی اندرونی بغاوت درکار ہے تاکہ وہ اپنے ذہنوں اور اپنے مستقبل کو دوبارہ حاصل کر سکیں۔

لوگ کیا کہیں گے" کے مظہر سے ہونے والے گہرے نقصان کو سمجھنے کے لیے، سب سے پہلے اس کی اصل نوعیت کو سمجھنا ضروری ہے کہ یہ منظوری اور تصدیق کی ایک شدید اور غیر صحت مند ضرورت ہے۔*

یہ سماجی ہم آہنگی کی صحت مند خواہش نہیں ہے، بلکہ ایک بیماری زدہ گھبراہٹ کا ردِعمل ہے۔

نفسیاتی طور پر دیکھا جائے تو جب ایک انسان خفیہ طور پر یہ سمجھتا ہے کہ وہ بنیادی طور پر ناقص اور کمتر ہے، تو وہ تعریف کے لیے تعریف نہیں چاہتا۔ وہ دراصل اپنے بارے میں موجود اس منفی یقین کو غلط ثابت کرنے کے لیے ثبوت ڈھونڈتا ہے۔

تصدیق ایک دائمی زخم کے لیے وقتی بے حسی کی دوا بن جاتی ہے، اور خود اعتمادی کے درد سے چند لمحوں کا آرام دیتی ہے۔ اس سے ایک مکروہ چکر بن جاتا ہے، کیونکہ یہ راحت بہت تھوڑی دیر کے لیے ہوتی ہے اور اس کی "خوراک" مسلسل بڑھانی پڑتی ہے۔

جیسے ہی ایک تعریف کا اثر ختم ہوتا ہے، دوسری تعریف کی بھوک اور شدید ہو جاتی ہے، اور انسان ہمیشہ کی غیر یقینی اور عدم تحفظ کی حالت میں رہ جاتا ہے۔

تصدیق کی یہ بیماری زدہ ضرورت ایک طرح کی اندرونی غلامی کا کام کرتی ہے۔ یہ عوامی رائے کی ایک تصوراتی عدالت کی رضاکارانہ غلامی ہے، جہاں آپ خود ہی قیدی بھی ہیں اور جیلر بھی۔

اس حالت میں نوجوان اپنی آزادی، خود مختاری اور خود فیصلہ کرنے کا حق اپنی مرضی سے قربان کر دیتے ہیں۔ وہ اپنی زندگی ایسے گزارتے ہیں جیسے ہمیشہ کیمرے کا سامنا کر رہے ہوں، دوسروں کی توقعات کے مطابق لکھے ہوئے کردار کو ادا کرتے ہیں بجائے حقیقی زندگی جینے کے۔

سب سے بڑا المیہ ان کی توجہ ہے۔ یہ شدید دباؤ اکثر ایسے لوگوں کی طرف سے آتا ہے جو ان کی پوری زندگی کے تناظر میں بالکل غیر اہم ہوتے ہیں۔

عوام کی رائے کے بارے میں یہ اضطراب زدہ سوچ انہیں شدید ذہنی دباؤ والی زندگی پر مجبور کر دیتی ہے جو اکثر پرتشدد رویے اور نظریات کی طرف لے جاتی ہے، اور آخرکار جذباتی اور شخصی عوارض پر ختم ہوتی ہے۔

یہ اسی تخلیقی چنگاری کو بھی بجھا دیتی ہے جو جدت اور عظمت کی طرف لے جا سکتی تھی۔

یہ ایک ایسی جیل ہے جس کا دروازہ قیدی خود بند کیے ہوئے ہے۔ وہ خود کو بے جا معیارات پر پورا نہ اترنے کی وجہ سے اضطراب، شرمندگی اور ڈپریشن کی سزا دیتے رہتے ہیں۔

تصدیق کا یہ جنون شاید برطانوی سیکرٹری محترمہ بریورمین کے اس بیان کا بھی سبب بنا ہو کہ "یہ [برطانوی-پاکستانی مرد] عورتوں کو حقیر اور ناجائز انداز میں دیکھتے ہیں، اور رویے کا ایک فرسودہ اور صاف الفاظ میں گھناؤنا طریقہ اپناتے ہیں" — اس کے علاوہ افغان حکومت کے عہدیدار حمداللہ محب کے تبصروں کا بھی ذکر کیا جا سکتا ہے۔

بدقسمتی سے، ان بیانات سے تکلیف پہنچنے کے باوجود، مجھے ماننا پڑے گا کہ یہ مکمل طور پر بے بنیاد نہیں ہیں۔

اس وبا کی جڑ خود اعتمادی کی شدید کمی ہے، جو ہمارے سماجی نظام کی گہری خرابیوں کا براہِ راست نتیجہ ہے۔

جو انسان مسلسل بیرونی منظوری کا طلبگار رہتا ہے، وہ فطرتاً غیر محفوظ اور اپنے فیصلوں پر عدم اعتماد رکھنے والا ہوتا ہے۔ یہ غیر یقینی اس کی مثبت اور صحت مند شخصیت بنانے کی صلاحیت کو مفلوج کر دیتی ہے۔

وہ مسلسل دوسروں سے موازنہ اور ذہنی مقابلے کی حالت میں پھنسا رہتا ہے، جس سے حسد جنم لیتا ہے اور انسان کی تخلیق کرنے کی فطری جستجو کمزور ہو جاتی ہے۔ خدا نے ہمیں مقابلہ کرنے کے لیے نہیں، تخلیق کرنے کے لیے پیدا کیا ہے۔

تاہم یہ جنون زدہ موازنہ انسانیت کے سب سے بڑے تحفوں میں سے ایک یعنی "اصلیت" کی صلاحیت کو ختم کر دیتا ہے۔

جب ہر عمل "لوگ کیا سوچیں گے؟" کے فلٹر سے گزارا جائے تو حقیقی ذات دب کر رہ جاتی ہے، اور وہ منفرد حصہ جو ایک انسان دنیا کو دے سکتا تھا، وہ تقلید کے سمندر میں گم ہو جاتا ہے۔

غلامی کی یہ حالت نوجوانوں کو ہیرا پھیری اور دباؤ کا آسان نشانہ بنا دیتی ہے۔ جو لوگ دوسروں کو خوش کرنے کی شدید ضرورت میں مبتلا ہوتے ہیں، انہیں وہ لوگ آسانی سے کنٹرول کر لیتے ہیں جو اس کمزوری کو پہچان کر اس سے فائدہ اٹھاتے ہیں۔

وہ "ہیرا پھیر کرنے والوں" کے ایجنڈوں کا شکار بن جاتے ہیں، اور منظوری کے کھوکھلے وعدے کے لیے اپنی دلچسپیوں اور اقدار کو قربان کر دیتے ہیں۔

یہ دائمی تابع داری صرف ایک ذاتی کمزوری نہیں ہے۔ یہ قوم کے لیے صلاحیتوں کا ایک بڑا نقصان ہے۔

ایسا معاشرہ جو ایسے افراد پر مشتمل ہو جو مسلسل تصدیق کے متلاشی رہتے ہیں، وہ تنقیدی سوچ، جدت اور ترقی کے لیے ضروری استقامت سے محروم ہوتا ہے۔

یہ "رضاکارانہ غلامی" بالآخر "ذہنی غلامی" کی طرف لے جاتی ہے۔ یہ ایک ایسی حالت ہے جہاں ذہن کمتری اور غلامی کے اندرونی عقیدے سے اس قدر مغلوب ہو جاتا ہے کہ انسان ظلم کو فطری، ناگزیر، یا حتیٰ کہ مطلوب سمجھ کر قبول کر لیتا ہے۔

اس نفسیاتی حالت اور تاریخی غلامی کے درمیان مماثلت واضح اور سبق آموز ہے۔

اگرچہ جسمانی غلامی کو ادارہ جاتی طور پر ختم کر دیا گیا تھا، اور موریتانیہ 1981 میں ایسا کرنے والا آخری ملک تھا، لیکن ذہنی غلامی کی یہ زیادہ باریک شکل آج بھی موجود ہے۔

جسمانی غلامی جسم کو قید کرتی ہے، جبکہ ذہنی غلامی تخیل کو قید کر دیتی ہے۔

ایک انسان قانونی طور پر آزاد ہو سکتا ہے، پی ایچ ڈی ہولڈر ہو سکتا ہے اور آرام کی زندگی گزار رہا ہو، پھر بھی اس اندرونی غلامی کا شکار رہ سکتا ہے اگر وہ سمجھتا ہو کہ اس کی عزتِ نفس کا تعین دوسروں کی منظوری سے ہوتا ہے۔

یہ حالت شاید کسی بھی دوسری وجہ کے مقابلے میں زیادہ انسانی تکلیف کا سبب بنی ہے، زیادہ صلاحیتوں کو دبایا ہے، اور زیادہ تنازعات کو جنم دیا ہے۔

یہ انسانی آزادی کا ایک ایسا محاذ ہے جس کی ابھی تک مناسب شناخت یا نشاندہی نہیں کی گئی۔

اس پوشیدہ پنجرے کو پہچان لینا ہی اس سے نکلنے کا پہلا اور سب سے اہم قدم ہے۔

آزادی کا راستہ نہ آسان ہے اور نہ ہی بیرونی۔

ذہنی غلامی سے نجات کے لیے ایک اندرونی بغاوت درکار ہے — ایک اندرونی انقلاب جسے صرف فرد خود لڑ سکتا ہے۔

یہ اپنے اندرونی سمت کے تعین کو بہادری سے از سرِ نو ترتیب دینے کا مطالبہ کرتی ہے۔ سوال "لوگ کیا کہیں گے؟" سے بدل کر "میں اپنے بارے میں کیا سوچوں گا؟" ہو جانا چاہیے۔

اس کے لیے فرد کو ناپسند کیے جانے کے خوف اور گھبراہٹ کو برداشت کرنے کا حوصلہ پیدا کرنا ہوگا، اور وہ کام صرف اپنی اندرونی تسکین کے لیے کرنے ہوں گے، چاہے کوئی انہیں سراہے یا نہ سراہے۔

یہ اندرونی انقلاب دراصل "خود کی واپسی" ہے۔ یہ لرزتی ہوئی بنیاد کے لیے بیرونی سہارے ڈھونڈنے کے بجائے، اندر سے خود اعتمادی کی ٹوٹی ہوئی عمارت کو از سرِ نو تعمیر کرنے کا عمل ہے۔

یہ اندرونی نظام ذاتی جواب دہی کی مضبوط بنیاد پر قائم ہے۔

انسان پر سب سے بڑی ذمہ داری اپنے خالق اور اپنے آپ کی ہے۔ ایک ذمہ دار انسان پر فرض ہے کہ وہ اپنی صلاحیتوں اور قابلیتوں کو بھرپور طریقے سے استعمال کرے تاکہ دنیا کو سب کے لیے بہتر بنایا جا سکے۔

آخرکار جس کی رائے اہم ہونی چاہیے وہ صرف اپنی رائے ہے۔

اہم خود احتسابی یہ ہے: "کیا میں اپنے اصولوں کے مطابق جیا؟ کیا میں نے خدا کی دی ہوئی صلاحیتوں کے مطابق بہترین کارکردگی دکھائی

یہ بیرونی تصدیق سے اندرونی دیانتداری کی طرف منتقلی ہے۔ ایک فرضی سامعین کے لیے پرفارمنس دینے سے ہٹ کر حقیقی زندگی گزارنے کی طرف جانا ہے۔

صلاحیتوں کا بہترین استعمال اسی طرح ہوتا ہے۔ ہر کسی کو خوش کرنے کی کوشش سے نہیں، بلکہ ہجوم کی تعریف یا مذمت سے بے نیاز ہو کر اپنے آپ کا بہترین ورژن بننے کی جدوجہد سے۔

لوگ کیا کہیں گے" کے پیچھے مسلسل بھاگنا بنیادی طور پر انسان کے سب سے قیمتی تحفے یعنی "فکر کی آزادی" کو اپنی مرضی سے قربان کر دینا ہے۔

یہ ایک ایسی زنجیر ہے جسے انسان خود بناتا ہے اور خود ہی اپنے ہاتھوں میں ڈالتا ہے۔ اسی لیے یہ ظلم کی ایک انتہائی خطرناک اور مکار شکل ہے۔

جیسا کہ والٹیئر نے کہا تھا: "احمقوں کو ان زنجیروں سے آزاد کرنا مشکل ہے جن کی وہ تعظیم کرتے ہیں۔

ان زنجیروں کی تعظیم اس لیے کی جاتی ہے کیونکہ وہ مانوس ہوتی ہیں اور ایک عجیب طریقے سے محفوظ محسوس ہوتی ہیں۔

معاشرے کے بچھائے ہوئے راستے پر چلنا، اپنا راستہ خود بنانے سے زیادہ آسان ہوتا ہے۔

پاکستان کے نوجوانوں کی وسیع اور غیر استعمال شدہ صلاحیتیں اس وقت تک سوتی رہیں گی جب تک وہ ایک بیرونی اور تصوراتی جیوری کے قیدی رہیں گے۔

گاروی اور مارلے کے الفاظ ایک للکار ہیں: "خود کو ذہنی غلامی سے آزاد کرو، ہمارے ذہنوں کو ہمارے سوا کوئی آزاد نہیں کر سکتا۔

یہ آزادی کوئی عطیہ نہیں ہے جو مل جائے گی۔ یہ ایک بغاوت ہے جو خود لڑنی ہوگی۔

یہ روزانہ کا انتخاب ہے کہ عوامی داد و تحسین سے زیادہ اپنی اصولوں کو اہمیت دی جائے۔

یہ عہد ہے کہ مقابلہ نہیں، تخلیق کی جائے۔ اور ایسی زندگی گزاری جائے جہاں انسان کی قدر کا تعین غیر مستقل اور اکثر لاپرواہ عوام سے نہ ہو، بلکہ اپنے نظریات سے غیر متزل ذاتی وابستگی سے ہو۔

کسی قوم کی آزادی کا آغاز فرد کے ذہن کی آزادی سے ہوتا ہے۔

چابی ہمارے ہاتھ میں ہے۔ ہمیں بس اسے گھمانے کی ہمت پیدا کرنی ہے۔

The Prison of Public Opinion: Mental Slavery and the Pakistani Youth “Log kya kahengey?”

 

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

23-8-26

 

 

The Prison of Public Opinion: Mental Slavery and the Pakistani Youth “Log kya kahengey?”

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds." Marcus Garvey

The air in Pakistan is thick with an unspoken question, an invisible judge that sits in the corner of every room and whispers into every ear. It is the relentless, suffocating whisper of “Log kya kahengey?”—What will people say? This is not a fleeting concern but a pervasive cultural anxiety, particularly potent among the nation's youth. It dictates career choices, marriage partners, social interactions, and even personal aspirations. This obsession with public perception, however, is far more than a simple social quirk. It is a deeply embedded psychological affliction, a form of mental slavery that cripples originality, fosters chronic stress, and prevents a generation from realizing its true potential. Liberating the Pakistani youth from this internal prison requires not a change in law, but a radical, internal rebellion to reclaim their minds and their futures.

 

To understand the profound damage caused by the "log kya kahengey" phenomenon, one must first appreciate its nature as a severe and dysfunctional need for approval and validation. It is not a healthy desire for social harmony, but a pathological panic response. Psychologically speaking, when an individual secretly believes themselves to be fundamentally flawed and inferior, they do not seek praise for its own sake; they seek evidence to disprove a core negative belief about themselves. Validation becomes a temporary anesthetic for a chronic wound, a fleeting reprieve from the pain of self-doubt. This creates a vicious cycle, as the relief is short-lived and the dosage must be constantly increased. As one compliment fades, the hunger for another intensifies, leaving the individual in a state of perpetual insecurity.

 

This pathological need for validation functions as a form of internal slavery. It is a voluntary servitude to an abstract court of public opinion, where you are both the prisoner and the warden. The youth, in this state, willingly surrender their liberty, freedom, and the right to make autonomous decisions. They live their lives as if perpetually facing a camera, performing a role scripted by the expectations of others rather than living authentically. The greatest tragedy lies in their focus; this immense pressure is often exerted by people who are, in the grand scheme of their lives, utterly unimportant. This anxious preoccupation with the judgments of the masses condemns them to a life of high stress often leading to violent behavior and outlook, ultimately ending in emotional and personality disorders. This also extinguishes the very spark of originality that could lead to innovation and greatness. It is a prison with a door that the prisoner is actively holding shut, punishing themselves with anxiety, shame, and depression for failing to meet arbitrary standards.

 

This obsession with validation may have contributed to British Secretary Ms. Braverman’s remark that “They [British-Pakistani men] see women in a demeaned, illegitimate way, and pursue an outdated and frankly heinous approach to behavior”—not to mention the comments made by Afghan government official Hamdullah Mohib. Unfortunately, despite the pain these statements cause, I must confess that they are not entirely baseless.

 

The root cause of this epidemic is a profound lack of self-esteem, a direct consequence of deep-seated flaws within our societal fabric. An individual who constantly seeks external approval is, by definition, insecure and distrustful of their own judgment. This insecurity cripples their ability to forge a positive, healthy personality. They are trapped in a perpetual state of comparison and mental competition with others, which breeds jealousy and undermines the natural human drive to create. The Good Lord created us to create, not to compete. This obsessive comparison, however, effectively obliterates one of humanity's greatest gifts: the ability to be original. When all actions are filtered through the lens of "What will others think?", the authentic self is suppressed, and the unique contribution an individual could have made to the world is lost to a sea of conformity.

 

This state of servitude renders the youth highly vulnerable to manipulation and coercion. Those who are driven by a desperate need to please are easily controlled by those who recognize and exploit this weakness. They become susceptible to the agendas of "manipulators," sacrificing their own interests and values for the hollow promise of approval. This chronic subservience is more than just a personal failing; it represents a significant loss of potential for the nation. A society composed of individuals who are perpetually seeking validation is a society that lacks the critical thinking, innovation, and resilience needed to progress. This "voluntary servitude" leads to “mental slavery," a condition where the mind is so dominated by an internalized belief system of inferiority and servitude that a person willingly accepts oppression as natural, inevitable, or even desirable.

 

The parallels between this psychological state and historical slavery are stark and instructive. While physical slavery was institutionally abolished, with Mauritania being the last country to do so in 1981, this more subtle form of mental bondage persists. Physical slavery imprisons the body; mental slavery imprisons the imagination. A person can be legally free, hold a PhD, and live in comfort, yet remain a victim of this internal enslavement if they believe their self-worth is determined by external validation. This condition has arguably caused more human suffering, stifled more potential, and contributed to more conflict than any other single cause. It is a frontier of human freedom that hasn’t been sufficiently identified or marked. Recognizing this invisible cage is the first and most crucial step toward breaking free from it.

 

The path to freedom is neither easy nor external. Emancipation from this mental slavery requires an internal rebellion—an internal revolution that only the individual can wage. It demands a courageous reframing of one’s internal compass. The question must shift from "What will people say?" to "What will I think of myself?" It requires the individual to develop the courage to tolerate the panic of being disliked, by doing things solely for their own internal satisfaction, even if no one acknowledges them. This internal revolution is reclamation of self, a process of rebuilding a damaged self-esteem from the inside out, rather than seeking external props for a shaky foundation.

 

This internal framework is rooted in a powerful personal accountability. The greatest obligation a person has is to their creator and to themselves. A responsible person is duty-bound to utilize their talents and abilities to the maximum, making the world a better place for everyone. The only opinion that should ultimately matter is their own. The critical self-assessment is, "Did I live according to my ideals? Did I perform to the best of my God-given abilities?" This is a shift from external validation to internal integrity, from a performance for an imagined audience to a life lived authentically. This is how potential is maximized, not by trying to please everyone, but by striving to be the best version of oneself, irrespective of the crowd's applause or condemnation.

 

The relentless pursuit of "log kya kahengey" is, in essence, a voluntary surrender of one's most precious gift: freedom of thought. It is a chain that is self-forged and self-applied, making it a uniquely insidious form of oppression. As Voltaire famously noted, "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." These chains are revered because they are familiar and, in a paradoxical way, feel safe. It is easier to follow the path laid out by society than to forge one's own.

 

The vast, untapped potential of Pakistan's youth will remain dormant as long as they remain prisoners of an external, abstract jury. The words of Garvey and Marley are a clarion call: "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds." This freedom is not a gift to be given; it is a rebellion to be waged. It is a daily choice to value one's own principles above public acclaim. It is a commitment to create, not compete, and to live a life where one's worth is defined not by the fickle and often indifferent public, but by a personal and unwavering commitment to one's own ideals. The liberation of a nation begins with the liberation of the individual mind. The key is in our hands; we have only to muster the courage to turn it.

 

 

 

معاہدہ درعیہ: اسلامی تاریخ کا اہم موڑ

 *معاہدہ درعیہ: اسلامی تاریخ کا اہم موڑ*

_فرینک ویوز - ہفتہ، 27 جون 2026_

*"معاہدہ درعیہ: اسلامی تاریخ کا ایک فیصلہ کن موڑ"*

قبلِ اصلاح مسیحی دنیا میں، بادشاہت اور مذہبی پیشوائیں کندھے سے کندھا ملا کر چلتے تھے، اور پوپ ہی بادشاہوں کو جائز قرار دیتا تھا۔ اس کے برعکس اسلامی دنیا مختلف تھی۔ یہاں مسیحی پادریوں جیسا کوئی رسمی مذہبی طبقہ تو موجود نہیں تھا، لیکن علماء کا ایک بہت معز اور علم والا طبقہ تھا جس کا بہت اثر و رسوخ تھا۔ صدیوں تک یہ علماء مسلسل بادشاہت اور اس کی پسند کی اسلام کی تفسیر کے مخالف رہے، اور اکثر ذاتی اقتدار پر ایک چیک کا کام دیتے رہے۔یہ سب کچھ 1744 میں بدل گیا۔ وسطی عرب کے نجد کے علاقے میں واقع درعیہ کے قصبے میں، ایک کمزور سیاسی قوت اور ایک نئی، غیر روایتی مذہبی اصلاحی تحریک کے درمیان ایک باقاعدہ اتحاد پر دستخط ہوئے۔ یہی معاہدہ درعیہ تھا۔"**"مقابلے کی تاریخ

خلافتِ راشدہ کے چاروں خلفاء کے بعد، مسلم دنیا مطلق العنان بادشاہت میں بدل گئی، حالانکہ حکمران اپنی حکومت کو اسلامی نام دیتے رہے اور خود کو 'خلیفہ' کہلواتے رہے۔ صدیوں تک علماء نے نہ صرف مزاحمت کی بلکہ ان حکام کے سیاسی دباؤ کے خلاف عملی جدوجہد بھی کی جو اپنی ہر بات کو، صحیح ہو یا غلط، اسلامی جواز دینا چاہتے تھے۔ علماء نے کبھی دینی اصولوں پر سودا نہیں کیا، نہ ہی ظالمانہ پالیسیوں کی حمایت کی، اور نہ ہی بادشاہوں کی مطلق طاقت کو جائز قرار دیا۔ اپنی اس ڈٹ جانے کی وجہ سے انہیں بہت بھاری قیمت چکانی پڑی: بارہا قید، تشدد اور اذیتیں، اور یہاں تک کہ موت:ام احمد بن حنبل، جو مشہور سنی عالم اور حنبلی فقہ کے بانی تھے، عباسی خلفاء کے ہاتھوں قید اور تشدد برداشت کیا لیکن اپنے نظریات پر ڈٹے رہے۔

ام مالک کو مدینہ کے عباسی گورنر نے کوڑے مارے اور اذیت دی، کیونکہ انہوں نے جبر کے تحت لیا گیا وفاداری کا حلف کالعدم قرار دے دیا تھا۔

ام ابو حنیفہ، جو حنفی فقہ کے بانی تھے، خلیفہ کی طرف سے قید کیے گئے اور غالباً زہر دے کر شہید کر دیے گئے، کیونکہ انہوں نے قاضی القضاة بننے اور خلیفہ کے کاموں کو جائز قرار دینے سے انکار کر دیا تھا۔

شیعہ ائمہ بھی اپنے ادوار کی سیاسی حکومتوں کے ہاتھوں ستائے گئے اور غالباً زہر دیے گئے۔*"وہ معاہدہ جس نے سب کچھ بدل دیا"*  

*_"لیکن معاہدہ درعیہ پر دستخط ہونے سے یہ سارا معاملہ یکسر بدل گیا۔ مقامی امیر محمد بن سعود اور جدوجہد کرنے والے مذہبی مصلح محمد بن عبدالوہاب کے درمیان ہونے والے اس عہد نے انہیں باہمی حمایت کا پابند کر دیا۔ امیر نے سیاسی اختیار، وسائل اور فوجی تحفظ دینا تھا، جبکہ مصلح نے مذہبی جواز اور دیگر قبائل کو متاثر کر کے اتحاد میں شامل کرنے کا مشن دیا۔ ان کی اولادوں کے درمیان شادیوں کے ذریعے اس رشتے کو مزید مضبوط کیا گیا، جیسا کہ اس دور کا رواج تھا۔

معاہدہ درعیہ ایک فیصلہ کن موڑ ثابت ہوا جس نے اسلامی دنیا کی بنیادیں ہی بدل دیں۔ اسلامی تاریخ میں پہلی بار بادشاہت اور خاندانی سیاست کو باقاعدہ مذہبی منظوری مل گئی۔ آج اسی ورثے کی وجہ سے خلیج کا علاقہ دنیا کا وہ واحد حصہ ہے جہاں مطلق العنان بادشاہت آج بھی سیاسی نظام کی غالب شکل ہے، اور یہ کوئی قابلِ رشک امتیاز نہیں ہے۔اس اتحاد نے آلِ سعود کو ایک اعلیٰ مذہبی مقصد دے دیا: اسلام کی تطہیر۔ اس نے پرجوش پیروکاروں کو جہاد کا نصب العین فراہم کیا، جس کے ذریعے انہوں نے جزیرہ نما عرب کا بڑا حصہ فتح کر کے پہلی سعودی ریاست قائم کر لی۔ اسی دوران آلِ وہاب کے حالات بھی غیر معمولی طور پر بہتر ہو گئے؛ محمد بن عبدالوہاب، جنہیں 'بدعتی' تعلیمات کی وجہ سے کئی جگہوں سے نکال دیا گیا تھا، اب انہیں ایک پلیٹ فارم اور دنیاوی فوائد مل گئے جو آج تک قائم ہیں۔

*"انگریزوں کا سوال"*  

*_"کچھ دعوے ہیں، اور کچھ شواہد بھی، کہ یہ معاہدہ ایسٹ انڈیا کمپنی کے اکسانے پر ہوا تھا۔ ہندوستان میں اپنی پوزیشن مضبوط کرنے کے بعد، کمپنی نے مبینہ طور پر سلطنتِ عثمانیہ پر دباؤ ڈالا تاکہ وہ ہندوستان، جو اس کی سب سے قیمتی کالونی تھی، کے ساتھ تجارت آسان کرے۔ 'میموئرز آف مسٹر ہیمفر، دی برٹش سپائی ٹو دی مڈل ایسٹ' نامی کتاب اسی نظریے کو پھیلاتی ہے، حالانکہ اس کی ساکھ مشکوک ہے۔ کتاب کا دعویٰ ہے کہ برطانیہ نے اپنی مشہور 'تقسیم کرو اور حکومت کرو' کی پالیسی کے تحت وہابی تحریک کی حمایت کی تاکہ عثمانی ترکوں کے زیرِ اثر مسلم دنیا کو کمزور کرے، جو زیادہ تر حنفی فقہ پر تھے، اور وہابی اس فقہ کے مخالف تھے۔ اس حمایت نے فرقہ وارانہ تقسیم کو ہوا دی، یہاں تک کہ شدت پسند عناصر نے حنفیوں کو 'شرک' کا مرتکب قرار دے دیا، جو سب سے بڑا گناہ ہے۔

کتاب کی مشکوک اصل کے باوجود، بعد کے واقعات جیسے 19ویں اور 20ویں صدی میں سعودیوں کے برطانیہ سے تعلقات اس نظریے کو کچھ وزن دیتے ہیں۔ پہلی، دوسری اور تیسری سعودی ریاستوں کے ہنگامہ خیز ادوار میں، مخالفین اقتدار سے نکلنے پر ہمیشہ برطانوی زیرِ حمایت علاقوں میں پناہ لیتے اور پھر حکمران بن کر لوٹ آتے تھے، یہی نمونہ افغانستان کے شہزادوں کا برطانوی ہندوستان میں تھا۔ معاہدہ 1865، معاہدہ دارین 1915، اور معاہدہ جدہ 1927 ان قریبی تعلقات کی تصدیق کرتے ہیں۔ لارنس آف عریبیہ کی بعد کی مہمات اور عثمانیوں کے خلاف عرب بغاوت کی جڑیں بھی شاید یہیں چھپی ہیں۔"_*

*"فکری بدعنوانی اور اس کی میراث"*  

اس معاہدے اور اس کے بعد نیم-مذہبی ریاست کے قیام نے آلِ سعود کو مذہبی جواز اور آلِ وہاب کو، جنہیں اب 'آلِ الشیخ' کہا جاتا ہے، دنیاوی فوائد دے دیے۔ وہ آج بھی مملکت کے سب سے سینئر مذہبی عہدوں پر فائز ہیں، جن میں مفتیِ اعظم اور وزارتِ انصاف شامل ہیں۔ لیکن کسی بھی ماتحت سرکاری محکمے کی طرح، وہ بادشاہوں کی سرکاری لائن سے انحراف نہیں کر سکتے۔ ان کی مذہبی تشریحات ان کے سرپرستوں کی سہولت کی لکیر پار نہیں کر سکتیں۔ حکمران خاندان سے وفاداری انہیں آرام و آسائشیں دلاتی ہے جو جلدی ہی ضرورت بن جاتی ہیں، اور آخرکار ان کے فیصلوں اور سرکاری رائے کو متاثر کرتی ہیں۔ پاکستان میں مہنگی SUVs میں غرور سے گھومنے والے علماء کی عیاشی کی جڑیں بھی شاید اسی معاہدے میں پیوست ہیں۔"*

*"ہر قسم کی بدعنوانی بری ہے، لیکن فکری بدعنوانی شاید سب سے خطرناک ہے کیونکہ اس کا نقصان سب سے زیادہ ہوتا ہے۔ جب علماء، ماہرین یا رہنما اعداد و شمار، منطق یا اخلاقیات کو اپنے مفاد کے لیے توڑ مروڑ دیتے ہیں، تو وہ سچائی کے کنویں میں زہر گھول دیتے ہیں، عوام کا اعتماد تباہ کر دیتے ہیں، اور پورے معاشرے میں غلط کام کو عام کر دیتے ہیں۔ دانشوروں کا معاشرے میں سب سے بلند مقام ہوتا ہے کیونکہ ان سے امید کی جاتی ہے کہ وہ دنیا کی لالچ سے پاک ہوں گے۔ لیکن کمزور علماء ذاتی فائدے کے لیے فتوے دے دیتے ہیں اور کاموں کو جائز قرار دے دیتے ہیں، حقیقی حق کے لیے نہیں۔ اس طرح کی سودے بازی متوقع اور فطری ہے۔"*

*"مطلق بادشاہت کو جائز قرار دینے کے ساتھ، اسلام جو کبھی زندگی گزارنے کا مکمل نظام تھا، اسے چند عبادات کے رسوم تک محدود کر دیا گیا۔ عبادات پر زور دیا گیا، جبکہ عام لوگوں کے اصل مسائل نظر انداز کر دیے گئے۔ اس نے بادشاہت کو مقدس اور درست ثابت کر دیا، جو کہ زیادہ تر برائیوں کی جڑ ہے۔ ظلم، کرپشن، پسماندگی، تنگ نظری، عدم استحکام اور فرقہ واریت نے ان غیر جمہوری معاشروں میں پھلنے پھولنے کے لیے زرخیز زمین پا لی۔ اپنے جوانی کے زمانے میں یورپ سے پاکستان آتے ہوئے، میں اسلامی دنیا کے سرکاری محکموں میں پھیلی کرپشن دیکھ کر حیران رہ گیا، جو میں نے مغرب میں کبھی نہیں دیکھی تھی۔"*

*"جبکہ باقی دنیا جمہوریت اور جمہوری اداروں کی طرف بڑھ رہی تھی، مطلق بادشاہت کو دی گئی یہ مذہبی حمایت اسلامی دنیا میں اداروں کی ترقی کی سب سے بڑی رکاوٹ بن گئی۔ قوموں کا تاریخی زوال کبھی ایک بڑی غلطی سے نہیں ہوتا؛ بلکہ یہ ہمیشہ نظام کی مسلسل غلطیوں کا نتیجہ ہوتا ہے۔ پریس پر پابندی کے بعد، مذہبی اختیار کا خاندانی مطلق بادشاہت سے اتحاد اسلامی دنیا کی شاید سب سے نقصان دہ پیش رفت تھی۔"

*نتیجہ: غور و فکر کی دعوت*

"یہ واحد تاریخی واقعہ اسلامی تاریخ میں ایک اہم موڑ بن گیا، جس نے اس کی سمت اس طرح موڑ دی کہ بالآخر فکری اور سیاسی ترقی رک گئی۔ اس تبدیلی کی میراث کو اکثر اس خطے کی موجودہ عدم استحکام، اداروں کی کمزوری، اور اصلاحات کی مزاحمت کی بنیادی وجہ کے طور پر پیش کیا جاتا ہے۔"*

"آج کی دنیا میں، اگر ایک ارب سے زیادہ مسلمان، جو سچے دین کے پیروکار ہیں، دوسروں سے بہت پیچھے رہ گئے ہیں، تو انہوں نے ضرور کوئی بہت بڑی غلطی کی ہوگی۔ اس زوال کی وجوہات کو تلاش کرنا ہوگا اور انہیں درست کرنا ہوگا۔ پہلی ترجیح مذہبی اور سیاسی اختیار کی علیحدگی ہونی چاہیے، یہ عمل یورپ نے صدیوں پہلے مکمل کر لیا تھا، جس نے اس کی طویل مدتی ترقی اور خوشحالی کی بنیاد رکھی۔"*

"تمہاری داستاں بھی نہ رہے گی داستانوں میں" - علامہ اقبال*  

"تاریخ پڑھو، تاریخ پڑھو۔ ریاست داری کے تمام راز تاریخ میں پوشیدہ ہیں۔" - کنفیوشس*

The Treaty of Diriyah: A Watershed Moment in Islamic History

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

28-6-26

 

 

 

The Treaty of Diriyah: A Watershed Moment in Islamic History

“If you want to understand today you have to search yesterday.”
— Pearl S. Buck

In the medieval Christian world, monarchy and clergy walked hand in hand, with the Pope ultimately legitimizing sovereigns. The Islamic world, by contrast, operated differently. While there was no formal clergy akin to the Christian priesthood, a highly respected class of learned scholars—the ulama—held significant sway. For centuries, these scholars consistently resisted the monarchy and its preferred interpretations of Islam, often serving as a check on temporal power.

 

All of this changed in 1744. In the town of Diriyah, in the Najd region of central Arabia, a formal alliance was signed between a struggling political force and a new, non-mainstream religious reform movement. This was the Treaty of Diriyah.

 

A History of Resistance

After the four rightly guided caliphs, the Muslim world devolved into absolute monarchy, though rulers continued to dress their authority in Islamic parlance, labeling themselves caliphs. The ulama, throughout the ages, not only resisted but actively fought political pressure from authorities who sought to legitimize their demands regardless of validity. Scholars refused to compromise on religious principles, support unjust policies, or legitimize the absolute authority of kings. They paid dearly for their intransigence with repeated imprisonments, torture, and even death:

• Imam Hanbal, the famous Sunni scholar and founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, endured imprisonment and torture by the Abbasid caliphs but stood firm in his ideals.
• Imam Malik was flogged and tortured by the Abbasid governor of Medina for invalidating an oath of allegiance made under duress.
• Imam Hanifa, founder of the Hanafi school of thought, was imprisoned and likely poisoned by the caliph for refusing to serve as chief judge and legitimize his actions.
• The Shia imams, too, were all persecuted and allegedly poisoned by the political establishments of their times.

 

The Pact That Changed Everything

But the signing of the Treaty of Diriyah fundamentally altered this dynamic. The pact between Muhammad ibn Saud, a local emir, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a struggling religious reformer, bound them to mutual support. The emir would provide political authority, resources, and military protection, while the reformer would offer religious legitimacy and a mission to influence and ally other tribes. This bond was further strengthened by intermarriage among their offsprings, as was typical of the era.

The Treaty of Diriyah proved to be a watershed moment that would fundamentally reshape the Islamic world. For the first time in Islamic history, monarchy and dynastic politics received formal religious sanction. Today, this legacy makes the Gulf region the only part of the world where absolute monarchy still survives as a dominant political model, a distinction that is hardly enviable.

The alliance gave the House of Saud a higher religious purpose: the purification of Islam. This provided fervent followers with a cause for jihad, enabling them to conquer much of the Arabian Peninsula and establish the First Saudi State. Meanwhile, the fortunes of the Wahhab family improved exponentially; Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who had been expelled from many places for teachings considered heretical, now had a platform and worldly benefits that persist to this day.

 

The British Question

There are claims, and some evidence, that this treaty was signed at the prompting of the East India Company. Having substantially strengthened its position in India, the Company allegedly sought to pressure the Ottoman Empire to facilitate its trade with its prized possession, the newly subjugated India. The book Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East propagates this narrative, though its credibility is suspect. The book argues that Britain, with its renowned divide-and-rule strategy, backed the Wahhabi movement to weaken the Muslim world dominated by Ottoman Turks who were predominantly Hanafi, a school of thought opposed by the Wahhabis. This support fueled sectarian divisions, with radical elements going so far as to label Hanafis guilty of shirk, the ultimate sin.

Despite the book's doubtful origin, later developments such as Saudi relations with the British in the 19th and 20th centuries lend some credence to the theory. During the tumultuous periods of the First, Second, and Third Saudi states, dissidents consistently found refuge in British protectorates when out of power and returned as rulers, a pattern reminiscent of Afghan princes in British India. The Treaty of 1865, the Treaty of Darin (1915), and the Treaty of Jeddah (1927) all confirm the closeness of these relations. The later adventures of Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans may well have their origins hidden here.

 

Intellectual Corruption and Its Legacy

The treaty and the subsequent formation of a semi-theocratic state gave religious legitimacy to the House of Saud and worldly benefits to the House of Wahhab (known as Al al-Shaykh). They still hold the most senior religious positions in the Kingdom, including the Grand Mufti and the Ministry of Justice. But like any subservient government department, they cannot deviate from the official line of the monarchs. Their religious interpretations cannot cross the red lines of their patrons' conveniences. Loyalty to the ruling family assures comforts and privileges that quickly become necessities, ultimately affecting judgments and official opinions. The opulence of clergy in Pakistan riding arrogantly in expensive SUVs might also have origins deeply embedded in this treaty.

Corruption of any kind is bad, but intellectual corruption is arguably its worst form due to the immense harm it can cause. When scholars, experts, or leaders manipulate data, logic, or ethics to serve vested interests, they poison the well of truth, destroy public trust, and normalize unethical behavior at a societal level. Intellectuals hold the highest place in societies because they are supposed to be immune to the temptations of worldly possessions. Vulnerable ulama, however, can serve edicts and justify acts for their immediate benefit rather than for actual righteousness. Such quid pro quos are expected and natural.

Along with legitimizing absolute monarchy, Islam, which once encompassed a whole way of life, was reduced to a set of rituals. Acts of worship (ibadat) were emphasized, while the real problems of common people were ignored. This sanctified and validated monarchy, the root cause of most ills. Oppression, corruption, backwardness, intolerance, instability, and factionalism found fertile ground to germinate and grow in these undemocratic societies. Traveling from Europe to Pakistan in my younger days, I was surprised to find rampant corruption in government departments across the Islamic world, something I never saw in the West.

While much of the world was moving toward democracy and democratic institutions, this religious support for absolute monarchy became a major hindrance to institutional development in the Islamic world. The historical destruction or collapse of nations rarely results from a single catastrophic mistake; instead, it is almost always the culmination of a cascading series of systemic errors. After the banning of the press, the alliance of religious authority with dynastic absolute monarchy was probably the most harmful development in the Islamic world.

 

Conclusion: A Call for Reflection

This single historical event became a pivotal watershed in Islamic history, redirecting its course in a way that ultimately stifled intellectual and political progress. The legacy of this shift is often cited as a root cause of the region's current volatility, institutional fragility, and resistance to reform.

In today's world, if over a billion Muslims, followers of the true faith, have fallen far behind others, they must have done something terribly wrong. The causes of this decline must be identified and corrected. The initial priority should be the decoupling of religious and political authority, a process Europe accomplished centuries ago, which laid the foundation for its long-term development and prosperity.

“Tumhari dastan bhi na rahe gi daastano mein” Allama Iqbal

“Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.”
— Confucius

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Those fateful nine months —14th August 1947 to 14th May 1948

 

Those fateful nine months —14th August 1947 to 14th May 1948

 

Just after the end of the disastrous Second World War and the start of decolonization, on 14th August 1947, the world's first religious-based modern nation-state, Pakistan, was born. To achieve this, the ruling British had to divide India — though some say they tore or ripped it apart. Exactly nine months after this mega-event, another state was born on the basis of religion: Israel, again dividing or tearing apart Palestine this time. In those fateful nine months, these two religion-based countries were created, and the world changed.

Since their births, Israel and Pakistan have had a love-hate relationship, as both consider themselves bastions of their respective faiths. Most surveys in Pakistan report admiration with a tinge of jealousy for Israel, even among personnel of the elite and ruling institutions.

Remarkable commonalities between Pakistan and Israel

In addition to the timing of their births, the commonalities between Pakistan and Israel are striking and astonishing. To begin with, both countries are believers in Abrahamic religions — Judaism and Islam. Despite their current hostility, they have more in common than differences. These two are probably the two closest major religions the world has ever witnessed.

Both countries were created in lands controlled by the British, who were known for their finesse in implementing the divide-and-rule policy.

Historically, Jews were most comfortable living in Muslim-majority countries, and Hindus and Muslims also lived together peacefully by medieval standards for over a millennium. They were much more accommodating of each other than the Christian sects of those times.

In both places, the "other" was demonized — Muslims in Israel and Hindus in Pakistan. The use of the words "Yahood" and "Hanood" became acceptable in Pakistani media with terrible connotations, and Palestinians were given the hatred-arousing name of "terrorists" by the Israelis.

Xenophobia was effectively used as a tool to justify this divide to an unbelievable extent. The founder of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah, warned Muslims: "If we do not succeed in our struggle for Pakistan, the very trace of Muslims and Islam will be obliterated from the face of India" (18 Jan 1942). Similarly, the Jewish leaders of Israel repeatedly used the memory of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust for their political purposes.

Both births were bloody and traumatic. Tens of thousands of Palestinians were killed, and millions were uprooted from their homes. They still call it Nakba — a kind of Holocaust. It was even worse in Pakistan, where millions were killed brutally and tens of millions were displaced. These were very painful births.

Both have a terrible record with their minorities. Israelis routinely humiliate and harm Palestinians, whereas in Pakistan, local Christians, Ahmadis, and other minorities are also institutionally persecuted.

Religion and scriptures were used unscrupulously in both instances.

Interestingly, the founders of both nations were so committed to their causes that they were ready to sacrifice millions of their own people — not to speak of their proclaimed enemies.

Ben-Gurion said: "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel."

When asked about the fate of the Muslims who would be left behind in India, Jinnah stated that he was willing to "perform the last ceremony of martyrdom if necessary" by letting 20 million Muslims be sacrificed in order to liberate the 70 million coreligionists in Muslim-majority regions (Kanpur, March 30, 1941).

Surprisingly, after their creation, one of them declared itself a secular state while the other made itself practically one. Those who preached fear of the majority swiftly converted to being secular and democratic. Jinnah's famous August 11, 1947, speech envisioned a secular Pakistan where "you may belong to any religion or caste or creed… that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

Both Israel and Pakistan became nuclear-powered states and did not sign the NPT. 191 countries have signed it, and only 5 have abstained.

Since their inceptions, Israel has fought five major wars and innumerable smaller but lethal ones. It has fought against all its neighbors and many countries even farther away. Not to the same extent, but Pakistan has also fought multiple wars against its conjoined twin, India, along with multiple Afghan wars, while having tense relations with Iran. Only China, its most generous supporter, has avoided fighting Pakistan. In other words, these two states are among the most violent, involved in unending wars.

All this might not have been as detrimental, but the inculcation of hatred for those they have proclaimed as their enemies and their propensity toward violence might be the most dangerous trends.

Effects and dangers

These nine months did not just create nations; they created a template for modern religious nationalism — a template that has led the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. In the last 35 years since the post-Cold War era, most nuclear standoffs have been among them. Talk and threats of nuclear attacks have happened many times, and the careless manner in which the use of nuclear weapons is mentioned is outright reckless and alarming.

Mutually assured destruction has become the mantra for stability among these states, but it is an extremely erratic one.

Unstable, unpredictable, and unlikely people can reach powerful positions even in countries rated as democracies, and these hate-filled, religious countries are most prone. With violent leaders at the helm in this virulent, nuclear-armed environment, a single miscalculation can be too dangerous, risking all of mankind.

The recent political instability the world is experiencing — whether it's Israel/Iran or India/Pakistan — has both these nations right in the center.

The most important lesson the creation of these ethno-religious nations has taught us is that theocracy and the modern world cannot go or survive together. It's a recipe for disaster, and on a massive scale. It must be corrected.

Suggested corrective measures

No matter how these two political states came into being, they are now a reality and must be accepted. Their places in the comity of nations must be controlled and corrected to lessen their potential for destabilization and violence. To begin with, the world must be defanged with the removal of all nuclear weapons. All ammunition with the capacity for indiscriminate killing — something we call terrorism — must be destroyed. We can start by condemning the historical use of nuclear weapons and carpet bombings, irrespective of the nationalities of the perpetrators. Anyone dropping nuclear weapons over civilians should under no circumstances be called a "near-great president."

The UN should be made into a world government of confederating states and strengthened. A universal constitution with local variations should be enforced across the whole world, controlling the greedy outlaw states and curbing their aggression and avarice. International laws should be drafted clearly and enforced mostly with the power of reason and persuasion, the most powerful tool.

Hatred and demonization of all kinds — not only anti-Semitism — are a must to create a violent frenzy that can result in extreme cruelties, and that must be curtailed. Brutal control of media, demonizing of entire peoples, and justification of occupation and violence must be strongly and collectively resisted. No one country or group should be allowed to have a monopoly on media or other consent-manufacturing tools.

The use of ancient scriptures as a real estate guide or foreign policy instrument must be snubbed. 3,000-year-old land deeds should not be allowed to supersede the rights of living, breathing human beings. The use of derogatory terms with the potential to invoke violence — like Chosen people, Amalekites, Yellow Peril — must be forcefully stamped out.

Racism of all kinds has been a source of immense suffering throughout history and must be labeled a serious crime.

The pursuit of happiness and human welfare — not religious supremacy or ethnic purity — should become the prime purpose of governance.

The current situation cannot go on forever, so let's not wait for the Armageddon some may be working hard to achieve. If the world is unable to control the violence of religion-based countries, the birth of these two nations will be remembered not as a historical turning point, but as the beginning of the end.

These are the seeds of nuclear suicide. The only corrective is to recognize that nothing — no ancient text, no historical grievance — justifies the annihilation of mankind.

 

Effects of Uncontrolled, Unscrupulous, and Unchecked Pursuit of National Interests

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

23-5-26

 

Effects of Uncontrolled, Unscrupulous, and Unchecked Pursuit of National Interests

“Our true nationality is mankind.” — H.G. Wells

Since its inception not very long ago, nationalism emerged and spread throughout Europe, creating modern nation-states. The pursuit of national interests was defined as a right—indeed, the purpose—of these newly formed nations, without any mention of scruples. These national states dominated much of the globe, along with all their curses and ills. The world as we see it today, with its current boundaries, is the direct result of this brief phase of human development.

Nationalism, an "infantile disease of mankind" according to Einstein, played a very influential role in history by reducing religious wars and their bloodshed, but unfortunately, it started its own new bloody feuds based on national interests.

The pursuance of national interests became a universal purpose of existence for most nation states, yet its definition and boundaries were neither specified nor limited. This led to an uncontrolled and unchecked quest for national interests that caused even more violence than previous causes of conflict. Unfortunately, this chase is still ongoing, along with its bloodshed and cruelty, although the effective use of semantics and euphemism may have only refined the hypocrisy while sharpening the edges of its brutality.

Philosophers and sociologists forgot to define exactly what legitimate national interests are, nor did they explain the appropriate means to achieve them. Psychologists teach that while it is important to know what to do in life, it is imperative to know what not to do. Unfortunately, nation-states ignored any mention of tactics to be avoided or scruples in this struggle for national interests.

This led to a few powerful vested interests seizing and monopolizing the definition of national interests while forcing and coercing the majority to pursue them violently. Military-industrial complexes, along with other business and some religious interests, have ultimately dominated the political scenes of declared democracies, subtly turning them into pitiless plutocracies—a dangerous development. With the development of media and control over information, this violence and brutality have been sanctified, along with the misery they bring. Dangerous short-term interests of a few are declared national interests against the long-term interests of all. Recent soldiers proudly narrating and laughing at their role in genocides and the rape of their subjugated, helpless captives on TV shows exposes how an educated nation can be turned into beasts while pursuing an unscrupulous definition and pursuit of national interests.

The world pays the price when myopic personal interests turn into "national interests" and are violently imposed. Regrettably we see it happening every day.

This unchecked pursuance of national interests has created havoc around the world, causing catastrophes for many while making a few very comfortable and wealthy. Although it would require volumes to enumerate them all, here I will summarily mention a few:

·       This led to the colonial subjugation and humiliation of hundreds of millions while the world was carved up for the benefit of a few powerful nations.

·       A class of privateers was created, whose ship-robbing was glorified after they paid a share of the loot to the sovereign.

·       Opium wars were fought, and drugs were forced upon a significant population of the world by self-proclaimed civilized nations pursuing "legitimate" national interests.

·       The Nazis got tens of millions killed looking for Lebensraum (living space) for Germans.

·       The Vietnam War, with millions killed, was also fought for national interests.

·       The toppling of multiple governments—something still going on relentlessly—is again the pursuance of national interests.

·       Unending wars have been started after the fall of communism for the same reason, causing millions of deaths and displacements.

·       Now, Israel’s national interests are defined as subjugating and annihilating the Palestinians and their supporters, resulting in the destabilization of seven supporting countries, causing chaos and immense loss of lives. All this has been done for the same "noble" purpose. Torture, rape, and other forms of cruelty are hidden under the same euphemistic garb.

·       The recent unfinished assault on Iran was done for the same reason, and God knows how it will end or what further catastrophe it might cause.

Voltaire warned us that although individual killing is prohibited and punished, collective slaughter is glorified. Unfortunately, we have not been able to remedy this malady in the last 250 years.

We have strict dos and don'ts for individuals to follow, but none for nations with much greater potential to harm—even to end mankind many times over. Just as three centuries ago it was in the national interest of the British to subjugate and loot India, and they went ahead relentlessly, causing immense suffering, so too is it in the interests of a common thief or robber to steal and loot others. But can that be justified? If a small, inconsequential theft is not justifiable, how can the snatching of trillions of dollars of Venezuelan oil be justified?

This legitimacy of pursuing unscrupulous national interests has led to the greatest atrocities and crimes in the history of mankind, surpassing the days of the barbarians and beyond. This cannot go on, as it threatens the very existence of humanity. The greedy and violent nations (for land and resources) must be brought under the law, just as individuals are across the world. Bringing ordinary, jungle-dwelling, uncontrollable humans under some kind of order and law was a great step toward civilization, and now we must extend that control to nation-states as well. Just a reminder: the first laws were enacted only around 10,000 years ago—a moment in geological terms.

The world must form a body with the power to define the legitimate and the unacceptable national interests and draw clear boundaries around the acceptable means to achieve them. Unacceptable and illegitimate modalities must also be clearly defined and stated.

Attacks on other nations, interventions, blockades, breaches of sovereignty, and executions/kidnappings of their leaders must also be declared illegal, requiring forcible resistance.

Perpetrators of false-flag operations by nations having absolute supremacy of firepower must be identified and exposed so that they stop using this treacherous tactic. In addition, a balance of power must be established in places where the germination of violence is a possibility.

The unscrupulous and unapproved violent pursuit of national interests has caused much misery in the past and has the potential to end humanity. This must be labeled illegitimate and unacceptable for the world. The crime-committing country must be ostracized and sanctioned by law-abiding countries.

We do not need great forces for this; the tremendous power of persuasion and legitimacy, along with the decency of a common man (not nations), can take care of this greatest threat to civilization. Fortunately, with the advent of social media, the monopoly over mind-making and consent-manufacturing held by the elite has been seriously shaken and must never be reallowed.

I would like to end with a lovely poem by John Lennon, although I do not see his dream or mine being fulfilled anytime soon:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

“Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Pakistan Was Made for Pakistanis, Not Imperialists

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

19-5-26

 

Pakistan Was Made for Pakistanis, Not Imperialists

“A nation is not merely a territory; it is the people who unite to build a shared future.”

After the recent Israeli and American assault on Iran, Pakistan, after years of relative irrelevance, moved to the centre stage by arranging a ceasefire and peace talks in Islamabad. After decades of emitting mostly bad news, this was a tremendously positive development, bringing Pakistan into spotlight favorably as a peacemaker helping to end a dangerous war.

After years of political instability, extremism, allegations of exporting terrorism, and a faltering economy, receiving this kind of positive attention was encouraging. However, it also brought back some unpleasant memories. These strange cycles started soon after Pakistan’s inception.

The Muslims of India, after tremendous struggle and against overwhelming odds, managed to create Pakistan — a country where their political and economic rights would be protected from what they feared could become a hostile Hindu-majority India. In Pakistan, Muslims were supposed to have democracy, safety, security, prosperity, self-esteem, and good relations with all neighbors. In Pakistan freedom, human rights, and the collective will of the people was to be the priority.

Muslims in India had been severely abused, marginalized, and left poor and backward. All of this was supposed to be corrected with the creation of the world’s first religion-based state, a process that uprooted millions and caused a big loss of life.

Despite the welfare of Indian Muslims being its primary objective, strange things began happening immediately after Pakistan’s creation. Pakistan became a bulwark against communism, launching campaigns against communists by arresting and persecuting famous figures such as Sahir Ludhianvi and Sajjad Zaheer. The welfare of Pakistanis took a back seat, while this ideological battle became sanctified, earning accolades from the very former colonizers and subjugators responsible for many of the region’s centuries-old problems.

It was only the beginning. The anti-communist world found Pakistan to be its most eager partner, especially after communism was portrayed as inherently incompatible with Islamic beliefs.

At the outset of the Korean War, the bloodiest conflict since World War II, Pakistan supported the allied side without directly contributing forces.

During the Suez Crisis, Pakistan joined the users’ conference supporting the Franco-British-Israeli aggression against newly independent Egypt — an Islamic country. This strange decision by the Pakistani government still affects Egyptian perceptions of Pakistan negatively.

Later, Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO, officially embracing the cause of the capitalist and imperialist world. It also secretly provided airbases to the United States against the USSR, further deepening its involvement. A U-2 spy plane launched from a U.S. airbase in Pakistan was shot down over the USSR, making Pakistan a target for Soviet hostility — something that may have contributed to its dismemberment in 1971.

During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Pakistan, reportedly under U.S. pressure, refused to take advantage of India’s military disarray to secure the disputed territory of Kashmir. Interests of Pakistan took the back seat during the rule of Field Marshal Ayub Khan.

In 1971, while facing a terrible civil war at home and yet another financial crisis, Pakistan engineered a diplomatic miracle by helping bring the United States and China together. This single act placed enormous pressure on America’s Cold War rival, the USSR. Despite this invaluable service, and Kissinger’s eagerness, General Yahya Khan secured no meaningful benefits for Pakistan or Pakistanis. Perhaps his legitimacy as an unelected ruler was enough for him.

Later, during the 1980s, Pakistan became a frontline state fighting a proxy war for the United States in Afghanistan against the USSR. Once again, this service was provided under military rule. This landmark war was won by the West at a remarkably low financial cost — less than US$10 billion — not counting the immense price paid by Pakistan and Pakistanis, whose social structure and national fabric were devastated by violence, extremism, drugs, and militancy.

Pakistan is still suffering the effects and complications of that Afghan war.

In modern history, few major conflicts have been fought so cheaply by a superpower. Ironically, America’s later Afghan war became a failure costing over a trillion dollars. General Zia-ul-Haq did, however, secure his legitimacy for a decade — at enormous cost to the nation.

History repeated itself in the early 21st century when Pakistan fought another Afghan war for peanuts, while another military ruler, General Musharraf, gained international legitimacy.

Now Pakistan is involved in another diplomatic miracle by mediating in the U.S./Israeli conflict with Iran, gaining international attention and admiration. After a long time, Pakistan has entered the global headlines positively. Let us see what this brings for ordinary Pakistanis, beyond financial and political bonuses for a few generals.

In these 80 years, despite larger-than-life achievements and participation in international conflicts, Pakistan remains a basket case known for its economic and social crises. Pakistan’s rankings in education, healthcare, infant mortality, per capita income, human rights, democracy, press freedom, judicial independence, and many other indicators remain among the lowest and continue to deteriorate.

Apparently, the state has absolved itself of responsibility toward its citizens while focusing primarily on international affairs.

The situation has become so bleak that, in this supposed land of opportunity and Muslim dreamland, much of the younger generation has lost hope and dreams only of leaving the country to build lives abroad. Many have already left, while others continue trying.

Ironically, alongside this rush to emigrate, traveling on a Pakistani passport has itself become a nightmare because of Pakistan’s poor international standing. This is understandable: no one respects people whose own government appears not to respect them.

Now, Pakistan’s mediation on the highest international stage is strangely represented by an army chief serving on extension and associated with questionable democratic credentials. This has exposed the weakness of Pakistani democracy, often described as “hybrid,” thereby belittling the Pakistani nation itself.

It suggests that Pakistanis supposedly lack the ability to govern themselves and perpetually require a strongman to guide them like a flock of sheep. Ironically, this was the same colonial logic the British used to justify exploitation and domination.

A general running a country’s foreign policy is a profound public humiliation.

Unfortunately, most of Pakistan’s sources of pride and achievement remain military or international in nature. Most civilian achievements occur not because of a supportive environment created by the state, but despite it.

The callousness, disrespect, and contempt shown by the state toward its citizens have become so extensive that merely due to the possible arrival of international dignitaries for peace negotiations, the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad were effectively sealed for over a week, turning them into giant open-air prisons. This caused tremendous financial losses and severe restrictions on personal freedom for residents.

Will anyone answer for or justify this brutality by the state?

We must ask why Pakistan performs so effectively internationally while failing so miserably domestically. A political entity created to serve and nurture the Muslims of India appears to have lost its direction.

I wish Pakistan would earn appreciation for developing human potential, strengthening its economy, and improving the lives of its citizens rather than for participating in foreign adventures. A country that fails to serve its people and create conditions that allow them to thrive loses its raison d'être — its very reason for existence.

Pakistan has served imperialist interests exceptionally well while neglecting Pakistanis, and this must stop. There has to be an expiry date on prioritizing foreign agendas or personal interests over national interests.

The state of Pakistan must begin focusing on the welfare and interests of Pakistanis instead of reinforcing the arguments of those who claim that the creation of Pakistan was an imperialist project from the beginning.

 We must start measuring all its achievements by evaluating the socioeconomic conditions of Pakistanis, and nothing else, without any distractions.

 

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com