Sara told her all that she knew about Maulvi Zia and her father, her meetings with Maulvi Zia, with the request for absolute confidentiality. She also told him that she had seen Dr Junaid in the Jamia.
Mr Naqvi attentively listened to her. “In the first place let me assure you that whatever you have shared with me would remain a closely guarded secret. You need not worry on that account. In the second place, I’m well familiar with Maulvi Zia. Apart from running seminaries, he has links with militant organizations. In fact, several frontline militants regard him as their guru, if I’m allowed to use that word. Maulvi Zia’s activities are funded by rich and influential people both within and without the country for one reason or another. And your father Seth Nisar is one of those people. Now we have to find out the reason why your father is supporting Zia. You told me he’s not a religious person so he is not supporting him out of any conviction. My hunch like you is that he’s blackmailing your father.”
“What do you think Dr Junaid has to do with Maulvi Zia?” Sara asked.
“Dr Junaid is a relation of Maulvi Zia. They are cousins if I’m not wrong,” Mr Naqvi explained. “Whether Dr Junaid has anything to do with Maulvi Zia’s movement, I’m not aware of that.”
“Oh I see!” exclaimed both Sara and Ali. “They are cousins, but they seem to be poles apart. The one is a liberal; the other is a maulvi,” Sara observed.
“Well there’s nothing strange about that,” Mr Naqvi observed. “Even real brothers can be poles apart. I have my sources and I’ll try to find out the relationship between Seth Nisar and Zia. Meanwhile, you should keep away from Maulvi Zia for he can harm you if he comes to know that you are Seth Nisar’s daughter and are spying on him. He’s a very ruthless person. I hope you haven’t given him your contact number.”
“No sir I haven’t,” Sara replied. “But I’ll follow your advice and wouldn’t see him again.”
“Ok you may go home and behave normally with your father. I’ll get back to you as soon as I’ve some news for you,” Mr Naqvi told Sara and bade her adieu.
“I’m thankful to you for this,” Sara said to Ali as they left Mr Naqvi’s office. “Your father seems to be a very considerate person.”
“You are always welcome Sara. We’ll do all that we can do for you. But you must follow my father’s advice and shouldn’t visit Zia again.”
“I’ll,” Sara assured Ali as she unlocked her car. Ali returned to his father’s office, who had earlier told him that he had finished his work and they could leave for home together.
“It was a nice press conference,” Maulvi Zia told Malik Naseem as he visited the latter’s residence located in the most expensive part of the capital.
“Thanks,” Malik Naseem replied with a big smile. “God willing, in less than two weeks I’ll be the country’s prime minister.”
I trust you’ll not disappoint us,” Maulvi Zia said.
“Certainly not. I’ll owe my position to you and you’ll get all you want,” Malik Naseem assured.
“Anything that we can do for you?” Maulvi Zia asked.
“You have already done a lot. But you have one more thing to do.” Malik Naseem paused for few seconds and then resumed, “I want you to speak to our new allies from the ruling party. I believe something weighs on their conscience for changing their loyalty. You will address them and tell them that by helping us remove this government, they are doing a great service to our religion and the country and that our struggle is not for power but for the glory of Islam.”
“I got your point,” Maulvi Zia said with a nod. “They need to have an injection of religion to cure their doubts. For this I’m at your service. But where are our new friends?”
“We have removed them to a safe haven. We have reports from our friends in intelligence agencies that the government is after them and will try to get them away. We’ll bring them out on the day the no-confidence motion is put to vote,” Malik Naseem explained.
“I have planned to remain in the capital for another couple of days but I can extend my stay as you need me,” Maulvi Zia told Malik Naseem.
“Please stay for another four days. You may be required to address the parliamentarians day after tomorrow and then we’ll see whether one address is sufficient,” Malik Naseem said.
“As you say. I take your leave now.”
After his meeting with Malik Naseem, Zia drove straight to the White Mosque, where he was received by Maulana Majeed. The maulana told Zia about their students’ ultimatum to the traders and the latter’s request that they should be given more time to change their businesses.
“These bastards don’t deserve any concession; they have already made religious injunctions into a joke. You have given them another two weeks, it’s ok. But if they don’t mend their ways, our students should forcibly get their businesses closed down,” Maulvi Zia told Maulana Majeed in so many words.
“But maulana sahib, there is going to be a change in the government. Shouldn’t we wait for the new government to itself have these filthy businesses closed,” Majeed opined.
“You’re very naïve Majeed. Do you think, closing down these businesses would be a priority for the new government? Certainly not. In any case, we’ll ask Malik Naseem to make some strategic decisions, such as calling off the military operation against the mujahideen. The actions of lesser importance we can take care of ourselves,” Maulvi Zia pronounced.
“I’m sorry maulana sahib. I didn’t understand that,” an abashed Majeed expressed his regrets.
“It’s all right. If you could comprehend such things, you would be in my place,” Maulvi Zia told Majeed with a sarcastic smile.
“What about Mrs Khan? Would you like to meet her?” Majeed asked.
“I would love to meet her but not for the present. The request for a meeting should come from her and it would definitely come. For the time being, let her business thrive and let her bask in her success,” Maulvi Zia observed. “I’ll like to have dinner in fifteen minutes,” he added.
Farzana rang up Rashid and requested that they meet. Rashid was surprised at Farzana’s call but agreed to see her in a restaurant. Farzana had seen Rashid’s photograph, so when she reached the restaurant, she had no problem in recognizing him.
Rashid was about thirty years of age, dark, tall and good-looking. He was wearing a lounge suit. “If I’m not mistaken, you are Rashid,” Farzana queried as she reached his table.
“And you must be Farzana, “Rashid replied as he stood up as a sign of courtesy and mentioned her to a chair.
“Shall I order something for you,” Rashid asked Farzana after looking intensely at her. He was impressed by her looks.
“Tea will be fine,” Farzana replied and Rashid ordered tea for both. Thereafter both sank into silence.
“You must be wondering why I have called you here,” Farzana broke the ice.
“Yes I’m thinking about that since you called me yesterday. I can only guess that there’s some important business you want to talk,” Rashid said.
“Yes it’s for both of us,” Farzana replied in a low voice. Before she could speak more, the waiter intruded with tea.
“I don’t know what you are going to say but at least you have given me the pleasure of your company,” Rashid began after the waiter had left. “And I must say you are prettier than I had imagined. I myself wanted to meet you so that we may get to know each other before we tie the nuptial knot. But I was shy of inviting you lest you may not like it. But thank God, you created that opportunity yourself. Oh forgive me I talk too much. You were going to say something...”
Farzana liked Rashid’s frankness. She also felt sorry for him because what she was going to say would definitely hurt him. “Rashid sahib you will agree with me that the people who are going to be married should be honest with each other,” she said.
“Yes I cannot agree with you more.”
“The fact is that I’m in love with another person.”
“What! Rashid exclaime
d. But then controlled himself and asked who that lucky person was.
“His name is Ali and he is related to me,” Farzana replied.
“Does he love you as well?” Rashid asked
“Yes.”
“But then why you were engaged to me and not to him.”
“Actually, father doesn’t like him.”
“I wouldn’t ask why uncle Javed doesn’t like him. For me it’s sufficient to know that you like him. But what you want me to do?”
“I would request you to dissolve our engagement. I would have done it myself. But father wouldn’t approve of that.”
“But what reason should I give. Moreover, even if I don’t marry you, it doesn’t mean that your father would allow you to marry Ali considering that he doesn’t like him. Look Farzana, I respect your feelings. But it’s not that easy a proposition. Let me think over it and I’ll get back to you shortly.”
Chapter 14
“There’s nothing in the world that can be called good without qualification except good will. This is the crux of Kant’s moral philosophy. What it implies is that goodness of an action depends essentially on the intention or motive of the doer. Take an example from Kant himself: a person may give charity because he wants publicity or lacks the courage to turn down the request. In either case, an otherwise good action will be divested of its ethical character. Now I invite your discussion on the ethical criterion of our actions,” said Prof Najeeb.
“There’s a marked similarity between the Kantian view and the teachings of Islam. In Islam as well, ethical character of an action depends on intentions. So I fully agree with Kant’s view,” declared Riaz.
“Intentions or motives are important no doubt. But making them the sole criterion of judging the ethical character of actions is open to several objections,” Sara opined. “In the first place, it’s not always possible to know why an action was carried out even for the doer. And if Freud is to be believed, the motives which determine our actions are essentially unconscious and are rooted in either sex or aggression instinct. In that event, all actions are equally good or bad. Secondly, consequences of an action are also very important. If an action contributes to social good, it’s a moral action regardless of the intentions behind it. In a court of law, intentions are difficult to prove and the punishment mainly depends on the consequences.”
“I’m afraid Sara’s analysis is faulty,” Riaz objected. “For one thing, in a court of law, intentions are also taken into account. For instance, if Sara kills another person to save her honor, she may be acquitted. There’s a difference between cold blooded murder and killing in self defense. Similarly, there is clearly a difference between a premeditated murder and unintentional killing and between them the enormity of the punishment varies. As for the Freudian theory, it’s simply an over-simplification. While sexual and aggression instincts do play a part in out actions, human nature is too complex and impulses too several in number.”
Prof Najeeb intervening said, “Both Riaz and Sara agree that intentions and consequences bear upon ethical character of an action. However, they differ only in emphasis. Let’s move forward. We suppose that an action is good if it’s actuated by right motives and produces right consequences. There are then two questions: one, what is right action? Two, why should a person do what’s right. Granted that we agree on what constitutes the right action, the problem that we may consider now is why a person should perform that act.
“It depends on the psychology of moral action,” Naila opined. “We are actuated either by desires — conscious or unconscious — or by sense of duty. Sometimes, our desires and sense of duty are in harmony; at times they are in conflict. Even in presence of a desire to the contrary, a person will do what’s right if he has a strong sense of duty. While a serial killer may take people’s life to satisfy his drive for aggression or hatred, a terrorist kills people because he has a strong sense of duty.”
“Killing with a sense of duty! I don’t agree,” Sara remarked. “In fact, what is considered to be a sense of duty is disguised desire. For the terrorist, the so-called sense of duty is at bottom the desire to enter into paradise. Therefore, whether a person will do what’s right is contingent upon strength of his desires. And of course, right and wrong are relative terms. What’s right for the suicide bomber is wrong for society at large.”
“Relativity of right and wrong is nonsense,” Naila asserted. “An action is either right or wrong; it cannot be both. Nor can it be right for me and wrong for Sara. The terrorist does consider his actions to be right but this is a wrong perception on his part. Besides, I protest against equating sense of duty with unconscious desire. If everyone is actuated by desires only, what difference is left between a man of high ethical standards and one who is at a very low level of morality? In fact, the ability to transcend one’s desires and do one’s duty is the hallmark of a strong character.”
“Naila may be right but so far we have ignored the relationship between morality and freedom,” taking part in the discussion Ali said. “To me, the foremost ethical question is whether the individual is free. For if I’m not free to choose my actions and if they are predetermined or preordained, the whole discussion becomes devoid of meaning.”
“Ali has raised a very important question,” Prof Najeeb noted. “However, the question of freedom belongs more to metaphysics than to ethics. Even if man is not free, we can assess his actions to be good or bad depending upon their consequences and the circumstances. However, logically if man is not free, he cannot be held responsible for his actions, though the actions can still be categorized as right or wrong. There have been quite a few philosophers of note who believed in absolute determinism but held strong ethical views. The foremost among them is Benedict Spinoza and I’m sure you all are well familiar with him.”
“Yes sir I have had the privilege of reading Spinoza’s work,” Ali replied. “But to me freedom of choice is a necessary postulate for morality. If we can think, feel and act only one way either because God has willed this from all eternity or because the world is mechanically made like that, what’s the qualitative difference between the actions of a saint and those of a sinner? In that event, the suicide bomber is as helpless as his victims.”
“Ali you are disregarding the consequences of actions. Our actions produce some effects whether or not we are free. If the effects are good, the actions are also good,” Sara opined.
“But if the individual is not free, how can we credit him for good actions and discredit him for bad actions?” Ali insisted.
“Ethics is not essentially about crediting or discrediting people for their acts of omission and commission. It’s about understanding what’s good or bad conduct,” Prof Najeeb tried to answer Ali.
“Of what use is understanding if one cannot mould one’s character?”
“We can mould our conduct if we understand it,” the professor replied.
“We can mould our conduct only if we are free,” Ali was not willing to give in.
“Whether we are free or not is difficult to prove. In the ultimate analysis, as Spinoza said, freedom may be an illusion because we are not aware of the causes of our actions. However, this is no time to discuss the problem of freedom,” Prof Najeeb remarked.
“According to Islam, man has been given the knowledge of good and evil as well as freedom to choose between them. Man is therefore responsible for his deeds. Probably Christianity and other great religions have similar views. I agree with Ali that the possibility of ethics is based on the affirmation of freedom. For what is moral behavior if it is not responsible behavior and the notion of responsibility is meaningless without freedom,” Riaz re-entered the discussion.
“Ethics is a science and every science is based on a deterministic philosophy,” Sara said. “Every effect has a cause, which in turn is the effect of another cause and so on. Prima facie, the law of causation is antithesis of freedom. Is there a possibility that freedom and determinism can be reconciled?”
The Black Rainbow Page 14
