Questioning tradition and modernity in rural Sindh

Dr. Mubarak Ali is an academic whose work I deeply respect and admire. While it is only recently that mainstream media has acknowledged the rewriting of Pakistani history as a state project in the 1970’s, Dr. Mubarak Ali belongs to a group that was involved in this work from the 1980’s. He has been a pioneer in Pakistan’s academia and his corpus of published work is impressive beyond doubt. However, his recent piece in Dawn left me disappointed.

In his piece, Dr. Mubarak Ali’s critique of Sufism in Sindh is centred on the complicity of rural Sindh’s populace with the established politicians post-1947. Though he berates the rural Sindh native for any lack of agency, which he blames on subservience to Sufi orders, he does so as an obstacle to modernity. In that, he merely regurgitates the rhetoric of a post-colonial Pakistan that sought to paint Pakistan as a ‘modern’ state.

The modernity project has been a favorite of all of our governments. The words ‘progress’, ‘modern’, and ‘global’ are just some that we’ve encountered in state and non-state discourse alike. However, one must question what these words mean? Where do they come from? What do they entail? Most people simply refer to economic development as indicative of the above. That is an extremely narrow minded approach. Who has defined it thus? The problem with these terms is that they cannot be quantified. Perhaps it is indicative of the hegemonic understanding of these terms as distinctly economic indicators of performance.

After its creation, Pakistan actively sought to project a ‘modern’ image just like other post-colonial states. Overly influenced by British colonialism, the newly established state borrowed its Victorian morality concepts en masse from the British Empire. When viewing itself with a colonial lens, Pakistan saw itself as the illiterate and the irrational Oriental. In order to paint over the ‘dirty’ image it saw of itself in the eyes of the other, Pakistan had to distance itself from the pir-muridi relationship prevalent in rural Sindh.

The government, by passing West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance of 1959 (superseded in 1961 by Ordinance of same name) and later Auqaf Act of 1976 to name a few, hacked down familial orders associated with the Sufi shrines. Sajjada-nashin were evicted from shrines unless they handed over donations to a local state employee. The government also encouraged selective, ideologically compliant readings of Iqbal in educational curriculum to distance Islam from the pir-muridi relationship. This served the government’s twofold purpose of weakening the existing social order in Sindh as well as distancing Islam from the traditional practices that had been a cornerstone of life in rural Sindh.

Thus, contrary to Dr. Mubarak Ali’s claims, the Sufi orders were not strengthened following the creation of Pakistan. In fact, the ruling classes donned the garb of Sufism following the wrecking of the traditional Sufi shrines’ social order. The economic dependence of the sajjada-nashin on the shrine meant they had to search for alternative sources. This is what the ruling classes exploited to legitimize themselves and what Dr. Mubarak Ali’s confuses Sufism with.

A prominent historian like Dr. Ali should have questioned the term Sufism itself as it appears in his piece. I agree with him that the Sufism that he refers to is merely a garb used by the state and the ruling classes to oppressed those who do not know better. However, as I’ve shown above, this garb is not Sufism. Sufism, by its very nature, is critical, questioning and accepting of things that society refuses to acknowledge. Sufism has challenged hierarchy be it religious, political or social and that is why its saints have continuously been banished from their hometowns.

The commodification of the Qawwali

On Sept 18^th, 2014, a new Agha Khan Museum is set to open in Toronto. On Sept 27^th and Sept 28^th, it will host a performance by Fareed Ayaz, Abu Muhammad Qawwal and Brothers. Tickets are available and it is expected that the museum will generate a large audience for this event.

There are two possible reasons behind the organization of such an event. Firstly, the event is expected to be a success, insofar as the amount of tickets sold and the revenue generated for the new museum is concerned. Alternatively, it may also be that this event is more of a repute-building scenario. It may only break even or incurs a monetary loss but it can help cement the new museum’s reputation as a connoisseur of traditional performing arts. Regardless of the end result, what is obvious is the commodification of an ancient ritual to achieve a desired result. The ‘Qawwali’ is being posited as a means to a commercial end and this, I argue in the piece below, is antithetical to the nature of the ‘Qawwali’ itself.

To make my case, a short history of the popular ‘Qawwali’ is in order. Historically, it is best defined as classical, devotional music in South Asia that transcends religious identities. Though its origins are attributed to the Sufi school of thought within Islam, it also built up a steady following of people with varying sectarian affiliations from within Islam itself. The plurality of its followers, synchronized use of percussion instruments and the metaphorical use of imagery in its lyrics worked in harmony to induce ecstasy (haal) within the group of listeners present at such a performance (Qureshi 1972).

Up until the early 20^th century, Qawwali performances were largely restricted to Sufi saint shrines. Such gatherings were typically performed on a Thursday night and followed a prescribed order. The Qawwali reciters were hereditary singers associated with the shrine. In most cases, they traced a direct lineage to the saint whose shrine they now looked after. This not only created a familiarity between the shrine, its patrons and the audience, it also contributed to the private nature of such an event. The lyrics of the Qawwali were based on the works of Sufi saints of the past- Nizamuddin Auliya and Amir Khusraw are two famous names whose poetry was regularly evoked in these performances.

The explosion of access and information in late 19^th and early 20^th century resulted in the Qawwali being lifted from the private, secluded sphere of the shrine to the public, open sphere. Qawwali began to emerge in private gatherings, concerts, and musical recordings. Today it is publicly accessible through digital media. In doing so, the populist Qawwali lost its mystical character that relied in large parts on the spatiotemporal atmosphere within which a Qawwali was sung. There is no shrine, its patrons or a loyal audience in global performances as performers may globetrot within short amounts of time. If performing art is indeed a mutual relationship between the performer and the audience, then there is a distinct alienation within the populist Qawwali when compared to the historical Qawwali.

In this new form of the Qawwali, a popular Qawwali, we witness a mere appreciation of the transcendent, and not an active engagement with it. The Qawwali audience today- at home, concerts, and gatherings- does not seek to achieve ecstasy. They are drawn to the Qawwali by its mystique and its history. This amounts to an appreciation of the Qawwali, rather than an active engagement with it. This poses an interesting hypothesis.

The historical Qawwali was predicated on inducing in its audience a spiritual trance. The populist Qawwali has become a means to merely appreciate the potential present within it to induce in people a spiritual trance. The historical Qawwali thus focused on a complete submersion of one’s self into the mystical world. This focus on a transcendent experience also manifests itself in the lyrics of the works of Nizamuddin Auliya and Amir Khusraw. In keeping true to the Sufi doctrine, special emphasis is paid to the equality of mankind. Sectarian and religious identities are often dismissed as a mere pretence and the inadequateness of self is highlighted repeatedly.

The populist Qawwali, paradoxically, highlights sectarian affiliations. The mere mention of some early Islamic figures like Ali, Hussain, Omar and Usman is enough for it to be labeled either a Sunni or a Shia Qawwali! The public exposure of the populist Qawwali has also resulted in lyrics reflective of the sectarian tensions prevalent in the socio-cultural conditions under which it is composed and performed. These Qawwali’s thus become a discourse which, when analyzed contextually, can serve as an additional source of histiography.

However, it is also important to note that it is not the case that the populist Qawwali has completely eroded the historical Qawwali. In many shrines in India and Pakistan, the historical Qawwali still exists as a weekly ritual. It is also interesting to note that these historical Qawwal’s consider Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, for example, as a great singer but not a great Qawwal. They argue that a populist Qawwali defeats the very purpose of Qawwali if it is performed explicitly for commercial reasons.

I have sought to highlight and distinguish that what we consider Qawwali today is only a populist Qawwali and the true form itself. It is fundamentally different from what used to be considered a Qawwali in times gone by. This difference in its very nature is the result of a loss of number of factors- the populist Qawwali is not spatially related to the environment it is performed under; it does not enjoy a familiarity with its audience unlike the Qawwali’s performed at shrines; it is also easier to label and categorize it in a sectarian manner unlike the historical Qawwali which continuously highlighted the wahaddat-ul-wujood, or the Unity of Being, as a core belief.

The Agha Khan Museum, using the populist Qawwali as a commodity, are however not novel in what they are doing. As mentioned above, such a use can be traced back to, and coincides with, the explosion of access and information in South Asia. It is not that the Agha Khan Museum is solely complicit of this defacing of the historical Qawwali, only that it is following the same trend that hundreds of radio stations, recording labels, television channels and other museums to name a few have followed blindly. I hope that the above highlighted differences are acknowledged within academic discourse, if not public discourse, in order to better chart the moment of departure of the populist Qawwali from the historical Qawwali.

Silence in the archives- Pakistan Historical Society and the lack of material on the separation of East Pakistan

Much has been made, in recent years, of the selective rewriting of history in Pakistan in the 1970’s. Working under the assumption that history was definitely perverted to project a constant linear progression of ideas such as the Two Nation Theory and/or Muslim Nationalism in South Asia from the Middle Ages to the present day, one must also question how such blatant changes in historical facts were originally imagined and subsequently implemented. Conceptualizing an alternative, fictitious history is harder to rationalize than the act of rewriting it. While the latter could be written off as a ‘banality of evil’, the former forces us to investigate the social conditions that facilitated and protected such thoughts. In doing so, we must admit that such acts were not, and could not, be attributed to one man alone. Instead, all who partook in this act must be held collectively responsible- from authors of those textbooks to the members of the textbook review boards to those who prescribed these books as mandatory in the national and provincial curriculums of the country.

Yet, holding accountable those who misrepresented history is still a far easier task than examining those who willfully remained silent on it. A wrong statement can indict its utterer but what clues does silence give? Societies that remain silent on their own immoral behavior have no right to complain when the world remains silent on the immoral behavior against these societies. A good case to analyze is the separation and independence of East Pakistan from West Pakistan to form Bangladesh in 1971. Interestingly, the breakup of the country was met with an eerie silent treatment within the academia concerned with historical studies in West Pakistan (Pakistan going forward). Those who dived daily into the annals of history to gleam lessons for the present and the future of the Pakistani society and government, inadvertently or otherwise, failed to identify the historical relevance of the separation of Bangladesh.

An analysis of the quarterly journal of the Pakistan Historical Society (first published in 1953) for the time period 1971-1999 (with the exception of January 1985 issue, not available) reveals an incredible dearth of material relating to the separation of East Pakistan- only a solitary journal article published in July 1991 broaches and tackles this subject. While there is no doubt that such an event would have been discussed abundantly in media (print and broadcast), one cannot help but be slightly disconcerted at the complete lack of attention paid to this defining moment in Pakistan’s history. While newspaper archives and audio recordings of radio stations would no doubt be a golden source of research pertaining to popular opinion on this incident, it is to academic journals and books that researchers first turn towards for a grasp of the problem and differing opinions and analysis surrounding any such historical event.

It is extremely hard to be emphatic that such an absence of debate on the breakup of a country can simply be the result of an oversight on the part of all the different authors who contributed pieces to the journal. However, given that the journal published over two hundred different authors for the time period between 1971 and 1999, such a wide author base indicates that it could not simply have been that the topic was ignored by such a large number of authors. Thus, it was either that the editorial policy did not allow for such a topic or that the trauma of the breakup was too significant and new to be analyzed by the contributors to this magazine. Further, given that the journal constantly covered political elections in a timely manner, as well as debating significant parliamentary bills, it also excludes the possibility that the newness of the separation could’ve been a potential reason for its exclusion.

The editorial policy of the journal is stringent, but not censorial. Labeled a historical journal, it carried an impressive range of material from history of philosophy to history of literature to history of science. In that, it demonstrated an excellence of research as well as prestige associated with such a publication. It also featured pieces from international academics of repute, from USA, UK, Germany, Italy, Russia, Australia, India and Bangladesh to name a few. Thus we are provided with conflicting evidence- on the one hand, there seems to be no hint that a journal of this stature would censor content due to its political nature but on the other hand the collective amnesia of both Pakistani and international historians on such a historical event is also highly unlikely.

That the event was too traumatic to be analyzed could be a possibility. However, such a reason should only account for the immediate years following the creation of Bangladesh. The time period undertaken in this study is twenty-nine years and thus also allows for sufficient recovery from such a trauma. Further, it is not as if the topic of Bengal was completely ignored. Articles continued to appear in the journal on various Bengal related historical events- trade pacts from eighteenth century Chittagong; reactions of the Hindu press to the Partition of Bengal in 1905; the creation of the United Muslim Party of Bengal and its relationship with the All India Muslim League; and Titu Mir and other Bengali independent fighters were just some of the topics covered extensively by Pakistani and Bangladeshi authors alike. Clearly, it is not that Bengal as a topic became taboo but only that the pieces dealing with separation of Bangladesh cannot be found in this journal following Bangladesh’s independence.

The solitary piece on this subject was titled ‘East Pakistan and West Pakistan Alienation: A Background’. Dr. Syed Humayun, an Assistant Professor at the Deparment of Political Science at the University of Karachi, wrote this article for the July 1991 edition of the journal. The piece itself is remarkably unbiased and highlights the historical presence of a strong and resistant Bengali opposition to imperial power and recognizes the superior political acumen of Bengal. It covers in detail the friction between Bengali politicians and the Muslim League aristocracy from the very beginnings of the All India Muslim League. By contextualizing the differences initially between Jinnah and Fazlul Huq and later between the Muslim League and Suhrawardy, the author dismantles the idea of a harmonious Muslim League in much the same vein that Jalal’s The Sole Spokesman does. The author concludes that the eventual separation of Bangladesh was an inevitable phenomenon and acknowledges that the Bengalis are much of a nation in terms of ethno-lingual similarities than Pakistan itself.

Unfortunately, one excellent piece does not compensate for the absence of such a major upheaval- one that territorially reshaped Pakistan’s image. Another important aspect is that the new nation of Bangladesh was also predominantly Muslim and thus it threw into question the very identity of Pakistan itself for Pakistan was acquired under the banner of a Muslim homeland. The prioritization of ethno-lingual identities by the Bengali would go on to serve as an encouragement to the secessionist movements in Sindh and Baluchistan. While this piece focused on one journal, there is scope for plenty more research in this area extending to other journals as well. It is important to shed light on such matters to see what has made it into our academic discussions and what has been left out. Doing so will leave the country better equipped to deal with similar situations in the future.

Khudapur ki building

Once upon a time, there existed a town called Khudapur. It was located near the Indus plains, slightly north of where the famous Mohenjo-Daro civilization’s remains had been discovered some time ago. Even though Khudapur was relatively new compared to other towns and cities, it enjoyed a fair bit of attention because of how it had come to be.

A buzurg, hailing from an area quite south of where Khudapur stood, had decided to make Khudapur not only his home but of all the other people like him. It had not been easy- his ideas had first been dismissed, then ridiculed, and then debated. Eventually, lady luck smiled on him and the Empire decided to give him the town he so hoped for. The buzurg moved to Khudapur with lots of dreams but was shunted to the side from day one. It seemed the residents of Khudapur, mostly new immigrants to the area themself, felt they could run the town better than the buzurg.

The buzurg passed away shortly after. Life continued in Khudapur in much the same way that one would expect in a new town. There was uncertainty; there was also some friction. Different opinions began emerging on how the buzurg had envisioned his new town to be. People started recalling what he had said at different times but it turned out such anecdotes were often contradictory. The twisting of his words, and the lack of verification of such changes in the immediate aftermath of his death, also did not help matters. With time, the arguments got more and more convoluted. Had the buzurg envisioned houses made of wood or mud? Would he have preferred cricket or hockey? Would he have wanted the new town to have a solid flag or a patterned flag? Many such questions abounded and nobody had an answer. The only agreement the residents of this town had was that the old buzurg had wanted a building that everybody could share and so they agreed to build one in his name.

However, before the building could be erected, disagreements appeared over its blue prints. How was it to be designed? Should it honor the old traditions or should it be a testament to modernity? Should it accommodate all without any divisions or should the space inside it be differentiated? Should it be tall or wide? This debate started in the private circles of those tasked with drawing up the blueprints and gradually spilled over into the public sphere of everyone else. Such questions became a daily feature in the town. All and sundry had an opinion and those that did not have an opinion on the blueprints, had an opinion on the lack of blueprints.

Many brave men tried to speed this process along. Some lasted days; others lasted a few months. One person was even killed for doing his job. Regardless of how they ended up, none made a significant enough contribution to get the job done. A draft was agreed upon roughly nine years after Khudapur had come into existence but the final structure had not yet materialized. One day, a pehlwan decided he had enough and that he was going to finish the blueprints. This surprised everybody. The pehlwan was a strong and brave man, and his friends were also strong and brave people, but him and they were no architects. The pehlwan explained that if the building were not finished shortly, the enemy would seize the small town of Khudapur with ease. Thus it had become imperative for him, the pehlwan, to take control.

The pehlwan soon rescinded on his promise of speeding things up. Seeing the to-be constructed building as a fitting end for his years of service, the pehlwan instead decided to compete for the tenancy of the building. Some people tried to reason with him that not only was the building still incomplete, but that the pehlwan did not belong in it! If he was residing in the building, then who would protect the town from bandits at the border? The pehlwan did not want to listen but as opposition to him grew, he was forced to concede that he was perhaps ill-suited to live in the building. He announced a fair competition to decide the new tenants of the building.

It was at this juncture that Khudapur witnessed a most strange event. A representative of a people who had been ignored since Khudapur had been created won. This was very unexpected for these people lived some distance from Khudapur and the residents of Khudapur had all but forgotten about them. This victory did not suit the residents of Khudapur one bit. How could someone like those people live in this building we’ve built to honor our buzurg, they thought. Matters got violent and pehlwans were dispatched from Khudapur to go to the place in the distance and ensure that those people did not fight for their rights. Unfortunately, the situation deteriorated and the distant place became a town on its own.

Thus the building Khudapur had built to be shared by everybody resulted in a split. However, it seemed that Khudapur did not mind that much. The town lumbered along nicely as construction on the building was almost finished. Right when it seemed that the project would finally complete, the tenant got over possessive and refused to move out! As the residents of Khudapur wondered what would happen if the tenant did not move out, the pehlwans came back into the picture to forcibly evict the tenant. Successful in doing so, they again promised to find a legitimate tenant to occupy the building.

True to the cliché, history did repeat itself in Khudapur again. The pehlwans refused to leave the building under one pretext or the other. Building on the customizations done to the building by the previous tenant, the pehlwans too made as many changes as they desired. Some paint here and there; a few new walls; a little less décor. Many changes were made without every consulting any architect. The building began to look a little out of shape and gradually became very different from the structure that had almost neared completion only a decade ago. Whereas the last pehlwan to occupy the building had finally admitted his time was up, this pehlwan refused to do so. It was to be a fatal mistake.

Some more bickering followed in the years after. Tenants changed hands faster than their leases could expire. The building had been twisted in such a nefarious way by previous pehlwan that it even prevented those tenants that followed him from correcting these disfigurations. It was no surprise, therefore, when a third pehlwan used the same pretext of fixing the building to move into it. By now, I should not even be telling you what happened but I will anyways. This pehlwan too overextended his stay and was evicted against his choice. The building, after years of neglect, was looking like one that would perhaps never be inhabited by the people it was built for.

The new tenant who moved in was an interesting character. A few years earlier, he had been in jail on one charge or the other. Nobody really knew how he became the lawful tenant of the building and many theories surfaced, with each more wilder than the last. By hook or by crook, both of which this tenant repeatedly had in abundance at his disposal, this tenant finally became the first one to fulfill his lease. Even more surprisingly, once his lease was up, he packed his bags, prepared the building for vacancy and moved out when the day came. This tenant had not done any major repairs on the building, but by finishing his lease and shown that the building needed time and work to become livable. Once it was livable, it would finally serve the purpose it was built for- to allow people to share its tenancy.

Khudapur was shocked! They had only dreamed of a day when a tenant would finish his lease but had never imagined that the day would come. Prospective tenants immediately set about furnishing reasons on why they should replace the outgoing tenant. The more experienced candidate said he would revitalize the building. The more youthful looking candidate also said he would revitalize the building. Though they both said the same thing, they focused on different audiences. In the squabble that followed, experience beat naivety as the experienced candidate, twice a previous tenant, used some guile and some luck to ride his way into the occupancy. As he rejoiced, the more youthful looking of the competitors for tenancy complained of unfair play.

These complaints escalated with time. A year and few months after the experienced guy had moved into the building, the youthful looking candidate showed up outside his building. The youthful looking candidate still claimed that the experienced candidate had indulged in unfair play and thus the battle for tenancy must be fought again. Some residents of Khudapur tried to reason with the young man.  Efforts to tell him that the battle for tenancy could be fought in four years, when it is due, were in vain. The youthful looking candidate was adamant that he would not have any of it. He wanted to the experienced candidate to vacate the building immediately.

Some residents tried telling this youthful looking candidate that his actions were against the spirit of the building itself! It was not meant to evict tenants, but to be shared with. Nonsense, the youthful looking candidate repeated as he refused to cave in. He kept insisting that the experienced tenant must vacate the building or the youthful looking candidate and his supporters would tear it down. Some other residents tried to gauge what the youthful looking candidate wanted. Would he also honor the lease when his time ran out? What kind of changes would he make to the building? Would he try to restore it to what it was or would he try to fix it by moving into new directions?

The youthful candidate did not have answers for these questions. He had become so enamored with idea of being a tenant that he had forgotten the actual purpose that the building had been built for. This continued for some time and gradually the residents of Khudapur themselves became polarized. Everybody got divided into two camps- that of the experienced candidate and that of the youthful candidate. As Khudapur fought against itself, the pehlwan’s moved in yet again and occupied the building. But while the pehlwan’s were busy with the building, the many bandits on the borders seized their chance and attacked Khudapur. The pehlwans were caught in the building and the residents of Khudapur were caught fighting each other. Neither remains today. The bandits did not have much to take from Khudapur so they razed everything to ground in anger and left.

Today, visitors still come to Mohenjo-Daro and visit the ruins of the ancient civilizations. They look in awe at the city planning of an ancient urban center and how organized it was. Perhaps it is to preserve such impressions that none of the locals today actually talk about Khudapur. Or perhaps it is because they don’t know about Khudapur. It did not leave a trace of itself, not even a building, and thus confined itself to eternal anonymity…the very anonymity that the buzurg had sought to avoid by dreaming of a building that would outlast Khudapur.

An excerpt from Urdu novel ‘Karachi’ by Fahmida Riaz

Translator’s note: This is a rough translation of an excerpt from Fahmida Riaz’s novel, Karachi. All mistakes in the translation are mine. An image of the original work is pasted below

This goes way back. I was passing by Nagan Chowrangi in Karachi when I suddenly stopped. An old man stood at the chowrangi. He had a microphone in one hand and was delivering some sort of a speech. The cars drove by without giving him much attention but a few pedestrians started lingering and looking at him.

The man was saying, “Brothers and sisters! Sindhis and Muhajirs! Punjabis, Pathans, Balochis! Those who live in small houses! Those who travel in public buses! Where have our dreams gone?

Where have our glorious dreams gone, dreams of our country Pakistan that once shone in our eyes? Ideals whose strength kept us standing at bus stops under the hot sun for hours have been snatched from us by the richer class. These people were so poor that they stole the dreams of the poor. Engrossed in comfort and lavishness, these people have become false claimants to our dreams. These jetsetters reenact falsely our dreams in Geneva and New York. The make human rights societies but do not know that their lifestyle is the most horrific scenery in this land and that to erase this ugliness is the right of the people native to this land.

The women of this class create women’s rights societies as they wear a dress worth one lakh rupees while sitting in a car worth nine lakh rupees and on their way to participating in a wedding worth one crore rupees and the average dowries of your daughters are snatched by the police and the rangers by intruding your homes.

This rich class has stolen our dreams and in return has injected in our eyelids its own dreams, like a poisonous injection, of wealth and lavishness…dreams of comfort. Now we are watching the same dreams and armed with weapons are firing at each other, bashing each other’s skulls to pieces.

National rights? What are national rights? Food, cloth and home…that’s all that humans need! Now we’ve added a car and an air conditioner and the latest electronics to the above. This is why we are fighting- we have made groups and societies and are shedding each other’s blood.

The rich class, despite its superficial hue and cry, is happy with this. It wants to maintain the status quo.

Along with our national rights, we also need our stolen dreams back. We need the world that was ours before it was destroyed. It wasn’t so bad, our small world. It had a tree and a small piece of land above which was a blue sky; it cold water in a mud-cooler with a mud-bowl above it; it had books and a thirst for knowledge and an old prayer mat on which our parents worshipped with resorting to bloody cries; it had young men and women who did not cover themselves up in black robes, did not, like the dancers in Alif Laila, reveal only their eyes and cover everything else below, did not wear Arabic clothes, and did not wear comedic turbans on theirs heads and were hesitant to invoke the God’s name in a swear.

We need to rediscover that hesitation for it has been snatched from us and we’ve been handed guns instead. To bless these deaths and violence our cities have been decorated with green boards proclaiming ‘God is Great’ and ‘God is Eternal’…”

He had only spoken thus far before the mob revolted.

“Bore…bore…bore! Beat him! Kick him out!”

The crowd started pelting tomatoes and eggs and gradually dispersed.

The man waited around and changed and began to speak differently. He waved a first of his and said, “We will sacrifice every last drop of blood we have to protect the Muhajirs”

A crowd gathered again and clapped so vociferously that the nearby buildings shook to their cores.

He then changed his style and said, “We will fight till our last breath to protect the rights of Sindhis”

Hyderabad, Sukkur, Nawabshah and the rest of Sindh joined also raised such a slogan that the earth shook “We will die but not give up Sindh”.

The man became a leader of the Sindhi’s and the Muhajir’s.

Piecing together the work of Saghar Siddiqui

Saghar Siddiqui is a poet who remains an enigma to this day. Nadeem F. Paracha’s piece on Saghar in Dawn is a good source for an introduction to a poet whose work flutters around us and we fail to recognize it. This particular post is a brief collection of his work as it appears in Qawwalis performed by Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and Aziz Mian Qawwal and are on record as being attributed to Saghar either through his published work or through a compilation of his work by other people. Saghar’s following couplets occur in Nusrat’s phiroon dhoondta, mehkada tauba tauba starting at 5:44. Nusrat does change the word shararon to kaanton but such a change is entirely in keeping with the norm in Qawwali recitations. He leaves out the fourth verse altogether perhaps because it does not fit in with the overall theme of Saghar’s poem itself. It is likely that other parts from this Qawwali are also attributable to Saghar but I have not been able to verify that myself.

The following from Saghar also makes an appearance in many of Nusrat’s Qawwali’s. I’ve simply linked to a version where Nusrat recites the verse in the first image below, right at the beginning of his performance at 1:27. Similarly, the second verse is recited in the below version at 4:58. Nusrat inverts and changes the first couplet but leaves the second one intact. Even in Saghar’s collection, this second verse is compiled under the independent section but one cannot help but wonder if it simply is an independent verse for it is too powerful and rhythmic to be one!

Saghar’s work also makes an appearance, in part, in Aziz Mian’s is daur kay insaan say kuch bhool hui hai. The title itself seems to be inspired by Saghar’s work. Some of Saghar’s couplets from below are interspersed in Aziz Mian’s Qawwali and can be found at 26:36, 38:17, 46:43 and 47:51. It is interesting to note that the verses taken from the first image are broken up throughout the Qawwali and that the verse at 46:43 is another poem altogether! This lends credence to the idea that more of these verses could also possibly be Saghar’s but as yet have not been verified.

These are just some mentions of Saghar that I have been able to associate and verify. If you have anymore, please do let me know and I can update this accordingly.

The hypocrisy of liberal Pakistani discourse concerning fundamentalism

One of the first responses that I see anytime a fundamentalist group targets a minority group in Pakistan (or in any other country where the majority of the population is Muslim) is that ‘People who carry such violence out cannot be Muslims’. This is a response that I am not comfortable with. To elaborate on what I mean, I’ve described below the reasoning behind my discomfort with the said response.

If I were to tell you that, for the purposes of my argument, let us assume that the Shias are a heretic sect and should not be considered Muslim, you would stop me right there and object. Your objection might be multifold- you could point out that Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the prime centre of Muslim intellectualism, considers Shias to be a Muslim school of thought; you could say that if Shias were not Muslims then they wouldn’t be allowed into Mecca; you could say that you disagree with some of the Shia practices but you give them every right to interpret the text differently than you. Regardless of the reason you choose, under a liberal framework, you would ultimately agree with their right to interpret text differently.

If I were to agree with the Shias not being a heretic sect in the light of your explanation, I would posit the Ahmadis next. Again, we could repeat the exercise above in futility until you convince me that Ahmadis have a right to interpret the Islamic religious text as they please. I could continue this questioning with increasingly ‘heretic’ sects until you decide you’ve had enough and that I have no right to object to another’s interpretation of an Islamic text.

If we really have no right to judge another’s interpretation of Islam, the following question surfaces. Why, then, is the liberal Pakistani discourse so quick to say that the groups like Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) are not Muslims? Theirs is but an interpretation of text and unfortunately it happens to be severely violent. Using the liberal ideology of an open-ended interpretation of a religious text, I could defend the actions of these groups and claim they are simply acting in the name of Islam.

Many claim that these groups cannot be Muslim because they violate peace, a core tenant of Islam. I say what does it matter? Peace is a core tenant of Islam as you and I understand it. Why are we applying it to a group that clearly does not subscribe to an understanding of Islam that you and I do? We consider Islam to be a religion of peace according to our interpretation. The fundamentalist group clearly has a different interpretation.

Insofar as the idea of interpretation of the fundamentalist group is concerned, how is it different from any of the sects? Sunnis interpret religion differently than Shias and the Shias interpret it differently than Ismailies. Even within sects, interpretations differ by geography, culture and ethnicity. The fundamentalist interpretation simply happens to be violent. Why is this discourse hypocritical and immediately dismisses the inherent Muslim nature of these groups with statements like ‘Such people cannot be Muslims’?

Making dismissive claims like the above is problematic. It ignores the motivation behind the acts of violence. If an Ahmadi house is lit on fire under accusations of blasphemy, it has an inherent Islamic presence that cannot be ignored. If Shias are shot dead by people who are claiming to clean the religion of its wrong practices, then that too has a religious tone to it. These acts are fuelled by the desire of the perpetrators to purify the religion. These perpetrators must consider themselves Muslims to consider cleansing the religion. Thus, under the liberal ideology that influenced the dialogue at the beginning of this piece, if these people consider their interpretation to be right, who are we to tell them otherwise?

Another problem that also arises from this scenario is that if we say that these people are wrong, what gives us the right to do so? Is there an existing right and wrong that we use to gauge all interpretations with? If there is, then who decided it? If there isn’t, who gets to say what is right and what is wrong? It is not sufficient to hold up the Quran and the Sunnah for the interpretations of both also differ markedly between sects. Thus, within a liberal framework, we encounter the following where determining a right and wrong within religion is unfeasible because interpretations of a text are open ended and cannot be imposed upon another group. However, those who are influenced by liberalism, must also then defend in theory the beliefs of the fundamentalist group as being simply another interpretation of Islam. Liberalism allows you to condemn the violence but it does not allow you to condemn the interpretation. It is this latter part that is hypocrticially absent from the liberal Pakistani discourse concerning the problem of religious fundamentalism.

It is for this reason that I believe Pakistan must acknowledge the Muslim elements underlying such violence. The liberal Pakistani crowd should not say ‘Such people cannot be Muslims’ but they should say ‘We condemn such violence committed in the name of Islam’. Such a statement serves the dual purpose of acknowledging the issue at hand- that violence is being committed by people who claim to be Muslims- as well as emphasizing that the more widespread interpretation of Islam has no such tendencies to paint itself in a violent light.

Saqia aur pila aur pila lyrics

Rooh maghmoom hay, dil doob raha hay saaqi

Laa kay is waqt meh naab rawa hai saaqi

Raqs karti hui kirnon ki jawani ka araq

Meray asaab ki daireena ghiza hai saaqi

Marnay kay baad saaqi, aayega kaun peenay

Mehkash ki zindagi hai, aray mehkhana zindagi ka

 

Saqia aur pila, aur pila, aur pila

Saqia jam kay bin yaad e jahan kuch bhi nahin

Saqia aur pila, aur pila, aur pila

 

Alam pay hay ghangor ghataon ka dhuan dekh

Fitrat kay manazir ka purghaib zaman dekh

Yeh dekh kay hai raqs kunan sara jahan dekh

Ay saaqia mehkhanay pay jannat ka guman dekh

Aur tashna labi, tashna labi bada kashan dekh

Ay pir e mughan, pir e mughan, pir e mughan dekh

 

Ay saqi e mekhana teri door balain

Ay teri door balain, ay teri door balain

 

Aray qarz pee aya koi bhes mein waiz kay sharab

Warna saqi say hai rindon ka taqaza kaisa

 

Aray aik mein hoon jo behek jata hoon tauba ki taraf

Warna rindon mein bura chaal chalan kiska hai?

 

Aray yeh ghalat hai shaarab ki tareef

Is ka zehnon pay raj hota hai

Sirf hiddat sharab deti hai

Baqi apna mizaj hota hai

 

Dil ki ghaflat shitabi hogayi

Aql jab behki sharabi hogayi

Aray mehkaday ka mehkada behosh tha

Saaqia, kuch behesabi hogayi

 

Takalluf bartaraf, ay doston jab shaam aati hai

Na taqwa kaam ata hai na tauba kaam aati hai

Janab e shaikh ulajhtay hain kis ta’aluq say

Sharaab kay yeh koi rishtaydaar bhi to nahi hain

 

Yehi hai shar e paimana, yehi tafseer e maikhana

Kay lafzon mein dikhadoon kheench kay tasveer e maikhana

Tujhay jaana hai jannat mein, aray waiz

Jawan ho kar jo aya hai

Toh dekhay ja zara taseer e maikhana

 

Aray band ho jaye jab dar e tauba

Khol dena mehkaday ka darwaza

 

Shaam surkhi shafaq ki kehti hai

Asman bhi sharaab peeta hai

 

Aray kiyon na tootay meri tauba jo kahay tu saaqi

Pee lay, pee lay, aray ghangor ghata chayi hai

 

Badal ki tarah jhoom kay, lehra ka piyain gay

Saqi teray mehkhanay pay hum cha kay piyain gay

Is tarah say peenay kay nahi kibla aur Kaaba

waiz hein, yeh do chaar ko behka kay piyeen gay

 

Mehkashon ki saadgi itni pasand aayi humein

Chor kar hum dunya daaron ki dagar peenay lagay

Khair say deewar o dar ko bhi nasha rehnay laga

Ab to hum bhi apany ghar mein baith kar peenay lagay

 

Pa kay har aik kaam say fursat, sab he peetay hain magar

Jab bhi pee hai, toh kisi kaam say pee hai mein nay

Yeh to mehkhanay mein hota he chala aaya hai

Kabhi beydaam, kabhi daam say pee hai mein nay

 

Hazar baar qasam khai hai na jaanay ki

Kashish ajeeb hai laiken sharaab khanay ki

 

Aray la, aur bhi aik jam kay aaye hein ghatain

Ay saqi e mehkhana teri door balain

Pee lo gay toh ay shaikh zara garm raho gay

Thanda he na kardein kaheen jannat ki hawain

 

Ay saqi e mehkhana teri door balain

Mehkhanay pay ab jhoom kay aaye hein ghatain

Makhtor fiza aur yeh sarmast hawaein

Deta hai har aik rind tujhay dil say duain

Mehkhanay ka dar khol kay aur jam urain

Is mausam e gul rang ka ham jashn manain

Aisay may agar hazrat e waiz chalay ain

Mehkhawar unhey khoob meh e laab pilain

Inkar karein woh toh yeh hum keh kay manain

Pee jayo kay peena may zia kuch bhi nahi

Saqia jaam kay bin yaad e jahan kuch bhi nahi

Saqi aur pila, aur pila, aur pila

 

Fitrat kay manazir ka zara dekh nazara

Aik lamha ki taakhir nahi ab toh gawara

Kiyon aayein al atash al atash ki sadaein

Dey jaam kay mehnosh zara piyaas bujhain

Yeh such hai kay chand roz ki mehman hai dunya

Alam ki besawati pay hairan hai dunya

Kis darja masail mein giriftar hey insaan

Har lehza woh sukoon ka talabgar hai insaan

Deewarein gham ki jab kay girata hai aadmi

Saqi teri panah mey ata hai aadmi

Gham ka ilaj aap ki nazron mein kuch bhi ho

Gham ka ilaj meri nazar mein sharaab hai

Nah ho mehkhana toh yeh rang e jahan kuch bhi nahi

Saqia jaam kay bin yaadd e jahan kuch bhi nahi

Saqi aur pila, aur pila, aur pila

 

Marmari jism, haseen chehra aur gudaaz badan

Woh jism e nazuk, woh nurm bahain

Haseen gurdan, sidol baazo

Shigufta chehra, salooni rangat,

Daraz e bal kay maheen abro

Nasheeli aankhein, raseeli chitwan

Ghanera choorha, siyah gayso

Buland qamat, tharkta seena

Sarapa shokhi, sarapa khushboo

 

Surkh aankhon ki qasam, kaanpti palkon ki qasam

Thar tharaye huay aansoo nahi dekhay jaatay

Ab to aghosh e tasawwur mein bhi aaya na karo

Mujh say bikhray huay gayso nahi daikhay jaatay

 

Valvala josh jawani, woh malahat, woh bhawan

Kali zulfein woh nazakat say sarakta aanchal

Rang e khayyam mein jis tarah say ghalib ki ghazal

Mehkada jaam surai bhi haseen raat bhi hai

Us haseena say meri aaj mulaqat bhi hai

Jee mein aata hay teri maang sitaron say bharoon

Chand ki kirnein teray rukh pay nichawar kardoon

Aaj ki raat bohat dair key baad aayi hai

Aaj ki raat bohat dair key baad aayi ho

Ji mein aata hai kay daanista shararat karloon

Shaikh sahab ki naseehat say baghawat karlon

Aur angoor ki paitty say mohabbat karloon

Na ho angoor ki paitty to maza kuch bhi nahin

Saqia jaam kay bin yaad e jahan kuch bhi nahi

 

Ay rind e kharabat chalak jaye gulabi

Nadhar ho madhosh to fitrat ho sharabi

Yoon jaam utha choom kay rehjaye zamaana

Mehkhanay kar dar choom kay reh jaye zaman

Makhtoor fizaein ho toh madhosh zamana

Takrain agar jaam toh paida ho tarana

Jhalkain is andaz say mehkhawar sharabein

Waiz kay burhapay mein bhi cha jayein sharabein

Pee waiz e nadan ko pehlo mein bitha kar

Deewana koi poonchay gar josh mein akar

Toh keh dey yeh jhalakta hua jaam charha kar

Patta bhi nahi hilta baghair us ki raza kay

Na ho angoor ki paity to maza kuch bhi nahin

Saqia jaam kay bin yaad e jahan kuch bhi nahi

 

Ban gaya insaan wohi jis nay bhi pee li sharab

Kis qadar ikseer hai angoor ki beti sharaab

is pay har aik zauq wala jaan karta hai fida

Aur kisi bay zauq ko achi nahi lagti sharaab

Aaj tu nay aik tabassum say nawaza hai mujhay

Aaj pehli baar pee hai chandni jaise sharaab

Is liyay peeta hoon mein bhi dostoon mein baant kar

Jaanto hoon kay chupaye say nahi chupti sharaab

Aik sharabi kay liyay kiya manzelien kiya rastay

Mein udhar ko chaldiya lay kar jidhar chal di sharaab

Gham say bhi chuthi nahi jaan meri umr bhar

Mein nay bhi ay sheikh peetay pee nahi sharaab

Na ho angoor ki paitty to maza kuch bhi nahin

Saqia jaam kay bin yaad e jahan kuch bhi nahi

 

Har zarra e na cheez hai is waqt sharaabi

Har rind khush o khawab ka chehra hai shahabi

Peymana chalak ta hey damakti hai gulabi

Kafir hoon agar laayon na masti mein tabahi

Botal ki yeh surkhi hai ghataon ki siyahi

Aur is pay kisi shokh ki doseeda nigahi

Har jaam pay aayi hai jamayi pay jamayi

Jhurmat hai haseenon kay yeh darya kay kinaray

Phirtay hain nazar baz bhi seenon ko ubharay

Jhoolay mein cham a cham hey cham a cham hein isharay

Aa mast ghataon ki tarah rashq mein jhoomein

Masti say guzar jain machatay huay dhoomein

Gar jaam nahi hai toh samaa kuch bhi nahi

Saqia jaam kay bin yaad e jahan kuch bhi nahi