“Rest assured, this information will not go outside this room. But is not his death confirmed?”
“It can’t be confirmed until we find his body, though I can say on good authority that Zia is no more. As you would recall, a few months back, a frontline militant leader was reportedly killed in a drone attack; however his body wasn’t found. The government announced his death only to be embarrassed when he announced he was alive and kicking. So my brother, it’s decided that no militant leader’s death would be announced until we have its conclusive evidence, which can only be in the event that his body is recovered,” Babu Javed explained.
“So there’s still a possibility — though a distant one — that Maulvi Zia is alive,” Mrs Naqvi opined.
“I’ll hate to answer your question in the affirmative but I’m afraid I’ll have to.”
“It’s clear that Sara had the marriage dissolved at the instance of her father. Seth Nisar couldn’t have advised her unless he was absolutely certain of Zia’s death. But then how can he be so certain? Has he seen Zia’s body or possibly its photograph?” Mr Naqvi asked.
“I don’t know Hassan. Certainty is a state of the mind and everyone has himself to decide when and why and how much to be certain. Nisar’s source at best can be someone who attended Zia’s funeral — a sort of eye-witness account. But even such an account is not beyond doubt, because that eye-witness may simply be lying for one reason or another.”
Are you still after Maulvi Zia’s network,” Mr Naqvi queried?
“Now you’re asking too much?” Babu Javed returned.
“I’m sorry.”
“Javed bhai how is Farzana?” Mrs Naqvi wanted to change the topic.
“She’s all right. Her husband is quite mature a person — a perfect match for my immature daughter.”
“You didn’t invite us to her marriage,” Mrs Naqvi complained.
“I’m sorry but I couldn’t risk it. That’s why I took her to Karachi, where the wedding took place.”
“Does she know what Ali has been through?”
“No I haven’t told her a word about that. This is one advantage of living away that you are immune from many things happening here. Let me admit, she was terribly upset when Ali got married. But that also did her one good: it made her finally agree to get married to a person of my choice.”
“So at least there was something good about Ali’s marriage,” Mrs Naqvi said sarcastically
“I’m sorry I didn’t mean it. It’s getting late. One thing before I leave. I have never liked Ali — and you know the reason — but I sincerely wish him to recover soon and start a new life.”
“Thanks.”
Chapter 32
Two weeks after he had handed in the thesis, Ali was called to defend the same before a three-member panel of professors. On his way to the university, he recalled how difficult an exercise it had been for him to write the thesis. To begin with, the choice of the topic itself proved a tough decision. He had shortlisted four topics and then on Sara’s advice had reduced them to two. The choice between ‘Radical Islam — a philosophy or strategy’ and ‘Political Economy of Thinking’ proved very tough for Ali as he found himself equally interested in both. The first topic was the hot issue; had sufficient material available on it; and it was difficult to resist the temptation of writing on that.
The other topic by comparison was an obscure one. Neither Ali nor his professors were aware of any previous work on political economy of thinking. When Ali spoke to Dr Junaid, the research supervisor, his response was: “Would you be able to relate it to our contemporary society? If yes, then there can’t be a better topic. If not, then choose another.”
Ali himself wasn’t sure whether he could do that. However, after a lot of decisions and indecisions, he finally decided to write on the political economy of thinking.
However, the real test came when Ali started writing the thesis. It coincided with the consummation of his unhappy marriage and its eventual dissolution and the great agony and uncertainty that he underwent during that period. It was an irony that a person who himself was a prisoner of excessive and defeatist thinking had to dissect different modes of thinking and how they were related to the contemporary society. Though Ali managed to meet the deadline for submission of the thesis, he knew he could have done a far better job if he had the peace of mind.
Briefly, Ali’s thesis was this:
There are two modes of thinking: deductive and inductive. In case of deductive thinking, conclusions are drawn from a general proposition, which is assumed to be true. By contrast, inductive thinking consists in formulating a principle on the basis of particular instances observed or studied. For instance, from the premise that departure from religion is always at the root of social decline, one may infer through a chain of reasoning that enforcement of the Shariah is the magic wand which will effect a metamorphosis in the contemporary society. This is deductive thinking. On the other hand, someone may study the society and then conclude that there is no root and branch remedy for its problems. This is inductive thinking.
Deductive thinking is used to protect well-established beliefs and institutions; inductive thinking is used to question and examine the same. It consists in the willingness to see the other side of the picture.
Inductive thinking does not necessarily lead to rejection of established beliefs or institutions, which may in fact stand vindicated upon enquiry. What is vital to inductive thinking is the spirit of enquiry and skepticism, the ability to question and review one’s basic position or assumptions, irrespective of where the process ends up.
In every society, both inductive and deductive thinking are used. In every society, from the most primitive to the most advanced, from the most conservative to the most liberal, deductive thinking is the dominant mode of thinking. The reason is simple: Every society has basic ethical and metaphysical assumptions, which individuals are supposed to follow. In no society are the ‘delinquents’ looked upon with a great deal of approval. Likewise, in every society, inductive thinking is the privilege of a relatively small group of people. These people, who realize that the prevalent values and institutions leave a lot to be desired, are the real engine of change. The challenge for this group is to convince the masses, who think deductively most of the time, of the desirability of change.
Societies however differ in the levels of the two modes of thinking. Thus in a religious or totalitarian society, the level of inductive thinking is remarkably lower than that in a liberal, democratic society. This is because in a religious or totalitarian society inductive thinking is almost a taboo. By contrast in a liberal, democratic society by virtue of its essential principles there is a greater freedom to think inductively. Hence, while a dictator may get away with denying freedom of expression, a democratically elected leader will find it extremely difficult to do so.
Inductive thinking is inextricably bound with freedom of expression. One would hardly think of questioning the prevalent system if one could not express one’s discontent. Taken broadly, the threats to freedom of expression can stem from two sources: the government and society. A regime rooted in sheer force allows the people to speak only in favor of the established order. No one is supposed to question the legitimacy of the regime, which is taken for granted. Therefore, any expression of the discontent is quelled. In absolute monarchies, the fundamental premise is that the king can do no wrong, and all other judgments about the monarch have to follow from it. Obviously if it is assumed that the ruler can never do wrong, one can only praise his policies. Similar is the belief that the rulers have a divine mission to accomplish and therefore any opposition to their regime is simply opposition to Allah — the gravest of all sins.
A more serious threat to freedom of expression than a despotic government is an intolerant society. In such societies, ideas that are at variance with traditional beliefs are simply branded as dangerous or heretic. Such societies are characterized by uncritical acceptance of the authority, which
may be the church, the Brahmin, the mullah or the “great’ leader. A classic example of an intolerant society is the medieval European society, where the church wielded absolute power over the minds of the people. In recent times, the Taliban established a monolithic, retrogressive society in Afghanistan based on a rigid, primitive interpretation of Islam, where even a slight departure from the enforced code of conduct was severely punished. The establishment of such a society is the goal of the militants in Pakistan.
Education is also an important instrument of inculcating inductive thinking. But only that type of education does this job that inculcates a spirit of enquiry and skepticism among students. Arguably nothing is more dangerous to inductive thinking than an education system based on indoctrination, where all teaching proceeds from certain ideas assumed to be as true as the axioms of mathematics. An obvious example of this is the education imparted in religious seminaries or madaris. This is why students who graduate from these madaris do not develop a scientific attitude. What they develop is the incorrigible habit to defend, justify or impose a set of beliefs about their own creed through polemics or by force. The madaris are defended on the ground that they provide free of cost education to the poor. But we also need to see what kind of education they are imparting and what is the social cost of this ‘free of cost’ education?
Economic factors also bear upon the ability to think inductively or otherwise. Generally inductive thinking is associated with the middle class. The upper class and the lower class mostly think deductively. The upper class has all its stakes in the continuation of the status quo. The members of that class are made to think that the existing institutions and system are the best that can possibly be; therefore, what is needed is to preserve the same. A capital reason that the contemporary Pakistani society has had political transition and no real political transformation is that the political leadership, whether dictatorial or wearing the robes of democracy, is by and large drawn from the upper class. Hence, whatever changes are brought in the system are at best peripheral —such as replacing mayors with nazims and then reverting to the old nomenclature; abolishing and reviving the office of the deputy commissioner and, at the most, increasing or diluting the powers of the president.
The lower class is too much occupied in meeting basic needs of life to afford the luxury of inductive thinking. This leaves the middle class as the torchbearer of inductive thinking. Opportunity for higher education, some measure of economic security, some grievances against the system and a desire for upward social mobility make for inductive thinking.
The media have an important role to play in shaping thinking. Since social reality is both objective and subjective, the media can reconstruct the same by presenting facts in a particular way. The media can turn a hero into a villain and vice versa. It is the way the media reconstruct reality that they can promote or constrain inductive thinking. The media which are wedded to a particular philosophy at best present only half-truths and thus impede inductive thinking. Media can present the both sides of the picture and thus become an instrument of inductive thinking only if it they are free from the shackles of a particular philosophy.
Whether by chance or by design, Sara was also called to defend her thesis on the same day at the same time. Ali hadn’t seen her since their brief encounter in the last week of the final semester. When Ali entered the philosophy department, Sara was already there. Their exchanged glances and Sara at once noticed intense agony in Ali’s eyes. He was pale and thinner and as usual looking self-absorbed as if trying to think over some philosophic puzzle. Sara on the other hand was her usual self: charming, confident, and self-assured with an air of arrogance about her. For a moment, both remained silent but then Sara realized Ali wouldn’t speak to her not because he was annoyed with her but because of his natural shyness and procrastination. So she went up to him and asked, “How’s life?”
“Ah! As usual, without any meaning, purpose and direction,” Ali replied in a melancholy way.
“You have always been interested more in the meaning of life than in life itself. Learn to live and then life will become meaningful and purposeful.”
“Yes you’re right. I have a lot to learn,” Ali said sarcastically uncharacteristic of him.
“I know what you are driving at. But trust me life is continuous learning. We have been friends and of course husband and wife. I wish you to lead a happy and successful life drawing upon your mistakes.”
“So you agree my decision to marry you was a mistake?”
“Mistake, my dear, is a relative term. If a decision harms you, it’s a mistake, even a blunder, depending upon the enormity of the harm. Now whether your decision to marry me was a mistake, it’s for you to decide. For me it wasn’t.”
“This is because you think only in terms of profit and loss, benefit and harm to yourself only,” Ali noted grudgefully.
“This is the right mode of thinking,” Sara responded with her signature smile. The real world is a ruthless place, where if you don’t know what is good and what is bad for you, you can’t defend yourself and if you can’t defend yourself, rest assured no one will come to your rescue. The world is the spectacle of war of one against all in which you’re either a winner or a loser — there can hardly be a middle position. All our strength and all our energies, all our morality and all our values, all our knowledge and all our wisdom, all our sentiments and all our sensibilities, all our desires and all our aspirations are futile if they don’t make us better equipped in this war. Your problem is that you’re not equipped to fight this war, because you see the world not as it is but as it ought to be.”
“So you justify treachery, double dealing, opportunism, hypocrisy and things like these just because they help you win your war!”
“I needn’t justify them; they are their own justification,” Sara replied with the calmness of a stoic. “What you call treachery, I consider it to be intelligence; what you call double dealing, I regard it as smartness; what you call opportunism, I deem it realism; what you call hypocrisy, I consider self-control and diplomacy. People who play and lose cry foul play not realizing they didn’t play well enough to win. The people who can’t use their intelligence profitably call it treachery; those who aren’t capable of holding their emotions in check call it hypocrisy and so on. So it’s for you to decide whether to play well and win, or lose and cry foul. Yes we don’t always win. But even when we lose, it’s for us to decide whether we want to be a good or a bad loser depending on whether we are willing to learn from our mistakes. I am sorry but not only are you a loser but also a bad loser.”
“What about you? Are you a good loser? Or you only win and never lose?”
“So far there’s nothing which I aimed at but didn’t achieve. But of course one who plays should also be prepared to lose. If ever I have to face defeat, I’ll do so with all dignity and full sense of responsibility without putting the blame on the other side,” Sara replied.
“Tell me what did you learn and what did you get from our botched relationship?” Ali asked.
“I married you on purpose and I achieved that purpose. Now what that purpose was, I need not tell you now. I may tell you some other time. Or maybe you’ll come to know of that by some other means.”
“But you also lost your credibility? You have been deprived not only of a friend but also of a person who loved you? Did you not?”
“Even if I have lost my credibility with you and your family and a friend and a lover in you, it’s not a bad deal. To me, the pros clearly outweigh the cons. Besides, I don’t care the least about how you and your parents look upon me. As for the loss of a friend and a lover, well in life you meet a number of people, who will leave you at some point. No relationship is permanent. I may find another friend or lover more loyal or more passionate or more useful than you. After all, you’re not the last man in the world,” Sara responded.
“Suppose someone gives the same treatment to you which you meted out to me. How would you react?”
“Well, in the first place I’m not naïve enough to let someone take me for a ride. But granted that someone is smart enough to do so, then like a good loser I’ll learn from my mistakes and accept my defeat with dignity. You know when you are defeated, it means two things: One, that your opponent played well; and two, that you played bad.”
“But what if someone cheats you?”
The Black Rainbow Page 29
