Archive for January 2008
How real am I? – I By: Mobeen Chughtai
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
– Hamlet Act I Scene V
Since time immemorial, man’s ultimate goal has been to understand the meaning of self, his reason for being and his quest for the ultimate, underlying reality. However, before any task is undertaken to consider the regarding the nature of man and whether he is real or merely an illusion, it is best that the more fundamental questions that these primary ones herald be answered first. What is reality? What is illusion? What is the difference between them? Is there a commonality between the two? And more importantly, on what basis do we tell them both apart?
By virtue of positive definition, reality is that which is real. But then again, what is real? The notion of reality is attacked from different directions by social sciences, empirical sciences and natural sciences by venturing to ask what is knowledge and how do we know what we know?
Even that, unfortunately, has proven to be a tough nut to crack. Most scholars from the ‘rationalist’ school of thought claim that most, if not all, knowledge is attributable to the internal inquiry of the mind while it is cut off or independent of sensory stimulus, i.e. through meditative phases. A natural consequence of this stance is the ‘absolute relativity’ of reality. Since everyone is using his own her own subjective yardstick to measure his or her own subjective world – the conclusion to any such inquiry will also be highly subjective. This approach smacks of the stance taken by most post-modernists who do treat reality to the relative rather than absolute – subjective rather than objective. However, there are also schools of thought such as empiricism which emphasize the priority of sensory stimulus as the primary, if not only, cause of knowledge and reason. John Locke went as far as to say that the human mind – at the time of birth – is tabula rasa or ‘blank plate/white paper’.
If we were to hold, for argument’s sake, the rationalist/post-modernist school of thought to be true then we would find ourselves in a real conundrum. The main problem, mentioned before, that hinders any progress on the question of the nature of reality would be that reality itself would be taken to be relative, that is to say, one man’s reality might not coincide with another persons. For example, if we have a thin sheet of paper suspended in air by some method and position two people such that person A would see the paper from the front and person B would see it from the side, then Person A would in fact see that the paper is in front of him where as person B would see no paper due to the extreme thinness of the paper itself. Hence there would be a difference in perception, regarding the same phenomenon and the same position in space and time of these two people. Or taking another example, if a person was to steal a loaf of bread from a shopkeeper for the sake of two children he sees are hungry for days, then there is a direct distinction in the understanding of that act i.e. the shopkeeper who the loaf has been stolen from will regard it as an infringement on his rights for economic prosperity and hence it would be to him, an immoral act. From the perspective of the children however, the same act would be one of extreme kindness. The very reality of these two groups would be diametrically opposite. If reality itself differs from one person to another, would it be fair to speak of reality in singular, or should we talk about plural realities? And if there are plural realities, are some realities more real than others?
Surely, this puts a stop to any and all progress on this line of inquiry if we were to use a purely subjectivist analytical toolkit.
If, however, we were to use a purely empiricist view – one which denies the existence of subjective forms of discourse and emphasizes the absolutist mode of knowledge then we also find ourselves in a lurch – how do we explain the examples I mentioned above?
This problem is solved in Marxist discourse by accepting the existence of both forms of knowledge – subjective and objective – but emphasizing that all subjective knowledge must be the outcome of objective interaction with sensory stimuli. That once this first contact is initiated a dialectical relationship is formed between objectivity and subjectivity and all knowledge henceforth is an amalgam of the two.
Man’s perception of the reality surrounding him is limited, just as one can only hear between a certain threshold of frequencies and one can only see in the visible spectrum of wavelengths, similarly, it is that there is a massive amount of “reality” around us, of which we only perceive, or are able to perceive a fraction. So, man, as a conscious animal, is not the be all and end all of reality, hence, there must exist an independent reality which may even include him in its independence. Such a theory has presented itself in the manner of the Pure-Consciousness Model of the universe, a theory which states that the universe is a conscious entity within itself, and in it, an abstract, mathematical reality which is independent of the observer does exist. The most interesting facet of this theory is that just like conscious thoughts emerge in our brains through the action and interaction of physical stimuli and process, similarly consciousness exists within the conscious universe in the form of man, he being the integral part, the essence of this conscious, real, and independent universe. According to E.J. Lowe, the concept of perception of thought is such that, an idea of what the reality is can only be formed after two steps are performed. Namely, a sensation is received and the internal mind gives meaning, or in other cases recalls meaning of that sensation. It is only then that the idea is recognized and understood.
Is US foreign policy imperial? By: Mobeen Chughtai
Is US foreign policy imperial? In order to address this question, one must attempt to understand what imperialism itself is. As defined by the Oxford Dictionary, ‘Imperialism’ means the “rule of an emperor”. But the dictionary further explains it as the “belief in value of colonies and dependencies”.
If one was to generalise a few aspects of this definition, then the modern significance of the phenomenon becomes evident. The emperor is a ruler, and a ruler is the political head of a nation and therefore a country. Thus the expansion of one country to occupy the lands of a pre-existing nation is an imperialistic act. This, however, begs the question: are all annexations of land by a country an act of imperialism?
Not necessarily.
A nation or a country’s move to annex territory may be of many types, the simplest example of which would be extending its borders in the event of finding unclaimed land. This neutral tendency changes however with the introduction of the phenomenon of colonisation. It is precisely this phenomenon and its associated consequences that make neutral annexation different from imperialism.
Imperialism requires the political and economic subjugation of the people on a previously inhabited land. Therefore, it would not be erroneous to say that the people are forced to serve and feed the interests of the ‘homeland’. This results in a position where the homeland becomes a parasitic entity, feeding off the labour and toil of the colonised.
As outlined by Lenin in his book Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, Imperialism is born from the need to expand with the precise motive of expanding markets and increasing the inflow of raw material. Lenin describes the character of imperialism in his book by saying:
“Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations – all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism, which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism. More and more prominently there emerges, as one of the tendencies of imperialism, the creation of the ‘rentier state’, the usurer state, in which the bourgeoisie to an ever-increasing degree lives on the proceeds of capital exports and by ‘clipping coupons’. It would be a mistake to believe that this tendency to decay precludes the rapid growth of capitalism. It does not. In the epoch of imperialism, certain branches of industry, certain strata of the bourgeoisie and certain countries betray, to a greater or lesser degree, now one and now another of these tendencies. On the whole, capitalism is growing far more rapidly than before; but this growth is not only becoming more and more uneven in general, its unevenness also manifests itself, in particular, in the decay of the countries which are richest in capital (Britain)” — (Lenin, V. I., Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, International Publishing Company, 1969).
This also implies two things. First, the raw material existing within the confines of the imperial country must become insufficient and second, that the process of refining and treating those raw materials must become efficient.
If the British colonial experience is studied in detail, this is precisely what we find. The British Empire underwent a huge revolution in its production process, that is the Industrial Revolution, and this revolution made it possible for commodities to be produced at a much faster rate than ever before. At the time, this was a totally new development with the sheer amount of commodities produced flooding the market, until supply far outstripped demand. In addition to this, the more efficient process of commodity production dictated the current process of coal mining and raw material extraction obsolete. Therefore, to sustain the industrial revolution itself, the country had to take over control of more sources of raw material and a new labour force to drive this mighty industrial engine. Furthermore, when demand at home was exhausted, new markets had to be found overseas for the British to sell off their excess produce. Colonisation solved both of these problems. In light of this it is totally understandable that the British came to United India in the guise of benign traders.
The question now becomes: how is this relevant to the US?
According to some political commentators and analysts, we are living today in what is referred to as the Pax-Americana. This refers to the post-Soviet Cold War, unipolar global hegemony of the US. What is interesting to note is that after the dissolution of the former Soviet Union and the fall of soviet communism (in no small measure contributed to by the actions of Mikhail Gorbachev), the former allies of the US have assumed the role of near protectees. This has given rise to the phenomenon of neo-colonialism, which is defined as the domination of one country or nation by the other without the actual use of coercive force. This is achieved through economic or political sanctions.
Since the US assumed its role of the sole super-power, it has gone out of its way to protect those nations that it considers its allies. Examples of this are the Gulf War of the early 1990s and again in the early 2000s. Its actions in aiding Israel amass wealth, military power and technology to the extent that it has become incomparably powerful in the Middle East also attest to US intervention in its extreme. But perhaps the most important example of this is the manner in which the US interference in, what are decidedly internal matters of various countries. This is clearly seen, especially now when the US is pressuring Iran into surrendering its nuclear arsenal. This in light of the fact that the US had also insisted that Iraq surrender its phantom arsenal only a few years ago, makes this whole process dubious at best.
If the above mentioned cases are studied, there is no doubt that the US is following the same, albeit a more sophisticated form of colonisation to suit its own needs. It must be realised that the US as a country and its government in particular are highly influenced by special interests, primarily those of its multinational corporations. It is these interests that are being protected by the US’s foreign policy.
The actions of the US are no great mystery to unravel. The truth is staring everyone in the face and it is that the US is indeed an imperial power, following an imperial foreign policy, bent on global domination for its own interests – interests that are not congruent with the betterment of the world at large.
On the brink… By: Mobeen Chughtai
Pakistan, in recent months, has been witness to more political strife, terrorist activities and economic instability than at any point in its history, with the possible exception of the days when the East Pakistan crisis raged. Dotted with a string of explosions in one metropolitan centre or another, the previous year started off with the Lal Masjid crisis, which found an equally bloody resolution in the month of July. It is worth mentioning, however, that most of the terrorist activities that plague Pakistan today are a direct result of what in hindsight have proved to be incorrect policies pursued by successive regimes in the previous decades as regards the Afghan war.
The bomb blast in Lahore is the latest example of terrorism unleashed upon unsuspecting citizens but it is the continuation of a long pattern of such attempts by ultra-conservative right-wing extremists. It is important to note that up until recently Lahore has remained relatively calm and peaceful, at least in comparison to other areas of Pakistan, which have proved far more prone to such threats, such as the various agencies of FATA and even Islamabad – the country’s federal capital. However, it is truly disturbing that Punjab, the strongest bastion of the State of Pakistan, and Lahore, the very heart of the province, have fallen prey to the current madness as well. The regularity and pace of such tragic incidents leads one to believe that the state is virtually powerless in stopping such terrorist activities. Some speculations on current conditions also suggest that the various intelligence agencies of Pakistan, the subject of most political legends and conspiracy theories, have either succumbed to the same inefficiencies found in most other national institutions or are perhaps even complicit in their creation. Today we are faced with the possibilities of more bloodshed and even more fear and strife. The month of Moharram promises large Shia gatherings, both in the form of various Moharram processions as well as the Shaam-e-ghareeban – both of which are almost impossible to regulate in terms of security. Neither can such a huge mass of individuals be searched nor can they be hindered from forming the informal processions that stem from the streets of most cities. Such large processions and gatherings would be ideal targets for suicide bombers who could easily infiltrate and kill or injure many. Various speculations on the eventuality of such an occurrence lead to the same irresistible result, that the ensuing backlash of such an incident could not only direct itself against the state but also against various religious communities in the form of sectarian violence – not only a cause of further loss of life but also fuel for the rising tide of chaos – which ultimately benefits no one except the terrorists.
In any event, in the greater interest of the country, it is time that such inefficiencies or vested interests be set aside and this policy of ineptitude, that has been found entrenched in the ranks of the guardians of Pakistani life and property, be rooted out. It is time that the intelligence network that has been built and nurtured over the years be used to not just identify terrorists for presentations in press conferences, but also to bring them to justice. It is time that each individual realises the gravity of our predicament and acts in accordance with principles that will lead to the preservation of Pakistan rather than the destruction that awaits it if problems are allowed to fester unimpeded.
