The Future of Oil (2004)

Charles G. Darwin, a British physicist (and grandson of Charles Darwin) made a prophetic statement in 1952. “The fifth revolution will come when we have spent the stores of coal and oil... This change may justly be called a revolution, but it differs from all the preceding ones in that there is no likelihood of its leading to increases of population, but even perhaps to the reverse.” Simply stated, the countries that will “control” the major oil reserves in the world will reach unparalleled ascendancy, while those who cannot secure their future oil requirement will probably end up in the third world, or worse; regardless of where they stand at present.

Taking into account the various forecasts of the World Model of oil supplies, the years 2000-2030 probably sit at the peak of world oil resources availability. Several models contend that from these years onward  the rate of discovery of new oil resources would begin an irreversible negative trend and fall below the rate of their consumption.

Dr. M. King Hubbert, one of the preeminent geophysicist of the 20th century described the uniqueness of oil as a commodity “There is a different and more fundamental cost of oil that is independent of the monetary price. That is the energy cost of exploration and production. So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be”

If we agree that higher prices provide incentive for companies to produce a larger volume, then to the extent that oil prices rise, so will this incentive of oil companies. Therefore, if oil depletion really does occur at an alarming rate, and world production of oil is beginning an irreversible decline, this profit incentive will also climb in correlation with rising prices. The real question remains- how much would we be willing to pay for a liter of petrol at the PSO fuel pump? Will we start using our vehicles less and less? What price will petrol be for airlines to become unfeasible for carrying passengers from Lahore to Karachi? The true answer lies in the understanding of the economic consumption pattern of finite resources. However less oil we use, there will be less oil buried inside the earth tomorrow. A decreased consumption may make it last longer but it will still end.

Oil will become an extinct natural resource one day. If it happens before any new technology or fuel takes over, the effects of a world without oil would be something more devastating, economically crippling and longer lasting than the combined economic loss of all wars and natural disasters in history! Most experts of the oil industry call it as the coming of a “de-industrialized society” Although we are likely to run out of oil before the next century takes over, barring any miracles; we are nowhere near having another technology ready to take its place in the foreseeable future. Even if a new resource of energy was introduced, it would take trillions of dollars in modifying and redeploying the infrastructure, fuel delivery and consumption systems to handle the new fuel.

The world’s dependence on fossil fuels therefore remains it Achilles heel. This is partly because no alternative energy substitution model has the same cost/benefit relationship as oil. Furthermore, new technologies are currently cumbersome and ineffective under anything less than ideal conditions. They simply do not possess the potential to replace oil worldwide. If the largest oil consumers- Europe, China and the US, cannot secure long term concessions to oilfields very quickly, their economic growth will become more of a guessing game beyond 2070. By even the most optimistic evaluation criteria, all forms of fossil fuel driven travel will simply cease to exist as a medium of mass transportation by 2000; fossil fuel driven automobiles will be seen in museums. The world economy will therefore have to find and implement a solution before oil runs out.

It is difficult to imagine what extent we might go to in our race to solve this energy dilemma since it is difficult to predict what the exact solution will be. On the demand side, when the price of any finite resource increases, however important or “demand inelastic” it may be, the consumption trends either reverse or consumption growth rates decline. A recent article in National Geographic Magazine consoles the readers by testifying that tar-sand deposits in North America "hold the equivalent of more than 1.6 trillion barrels of oil- an amount that may exceed the world's remaining reserves of ordinary crude available through current extraction methods. Exact oil availability figures are unproven, unreliable and un-audited. Furthermore, large volume production of oil from tar sand is not economical until crude oil prices consistently remain above $150 per barrel, or in rupee terms, close to Rs. 100 per liter, or newer technology is introduced that can extract it at a lower cost per barrel. Hydro-Cracking looks to be a promising new technology and it an possibly satiate the world's oil demand till the end of this century, but when prices of crude oil drop, it will become unfeasible to extract.

It is understandable that the US, which has about 5% of the world’s population, and consumes over 25% of the world’s oil will have a difficult time in finding popular substitutes. However, the US has a vibrant research program that ploughs vast capital and human resource on continuous research and development. It is therefore conceivable that it could develop cost effective substitutes before fossil fuels run out, or find viable means of extracting shale oil. In the case of countries like Pakistan, where resource planning is nonexistent and the future of one measly dam remains undecided since almost four decades, going from Lahore to Karachi would become a tedious and exorbitantly expensive adventure.

It is estimated that more than 50% of the world’s oil reserves are located in either the Middle East or Iran. The world oil reserves are estimated by oil companies and the US government at around 1200-3000 billion barrels. In 2004, the world’s current daily consumption of oil was around 76 million barrels per day, which is likely to exceed 120 million barrels per day in the next ten years. There are reasons to believe, and many experts suggest that it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, that the actual oil availability is closer to 600 billion barrels-much below the inflated figures given by oil companies to keep their stock exchange earnings strong. A team from Sweden's University of Uppsala presented the results of a comprehensive study on the world oil reserves in 2003. The team advised that the world's oil reserves could be up to 80 percent less than predicted.

The US, China and Europe are currently in a state of reticent panic to assure exclusive access to un-contracted petroleum resources in the Caspian Sea region, Russia, West Africa, Iraq, Iran, and Libya. The future availability of oil is especially crucial for consumers in North America, who on average, use up more than their body weight in crude oil each week. Even China forecasts a quintupling of its oil needs by 2030. Chinese oil firms have recently embarked on their first international oil venture by buying a 50 percent stake in a large Kazakhstan oil field, and have recently signed a huge contract with the government of Iran for supply of Natural Gas and Oil worth about 80 Billion dollars (at current prices)

Many people have long suspected that oil was one of the reasons for which US invaded Iraq. America's longstanding concern the safety with its oil supplies is nothing new. Newly declassified British documents suggest that President Nixon was prepared as a "last resort" to launch airborne troops to seize oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Abu Dhabi to end the 1973-74 Arab oil embargoes.

The reason for US military and political expeditions in many parts of the World can be directly linked to its need to secure oil for its future. The US was involved in the recent election in Georgia to replace President Shevardnadze because that nation, though not having reserves itself, is the corridor for a $3 billion pipeline through which huge supplies in Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan must pass through to reach the West. According to a recent New York Times report, a step that put Russian oil mogul Mikhail Khodorkovsky in jail recently was his secret plan to sell a major stake in his oil company, Yukos, to Exxon Mobil. Yukos represented about 2% of the world’s oil, and it is expected that the Russian government will buy back the company through the backdoor.

With this alarming backdrop, the US moves towards various Middle East countries that have proven oil reserves, especially Iraq and more recently Iran, begin to take on clearer dimension. The Bush government has expressed in no uncertain terms that it is not bound by the nuclear freeze deal brokered between EU and Iran, and can strike Iran preemptively if and when it feels the need to do so. It is also possible, in fact probable, that the US now sees China as a threat to its future oil procurement plans, and wishes to  secure its “oil bases” it so desperately needs to drive its economic engine. It won’t be long before China also lines up prospective states for major oil investments, thereby beginning a high profile economic clash with the US over the right to oil. This will directly impact oil prices and push them upwards since the bidding nations will keep increasing price to keep the producers in their sphere of influence.

The geopolitical importance of the Middle East and its impact on the economies of the World are colossal and undeniable. With each passing moment, their importance grows. Barring any stunning, game changing invention, or the commercial application of an efficient technique for shale oil/gas extraction, the Middle Eastern oil is likely to remain the engine of the world economy (and the cause of most global conflicts) for the next sixty years.

A short Biography of Syed Muhammad Latif (2011)

Syed Muhammad Latif, probably the greatest Indian historian during the British rule of India, and my great great great maternal grandfather, was born in 1850. His father, Syed Muhammad Azeem (1815-1885) distinguished himself as the founder of the English language newspaper “The Lahore Chronicle” in 1850, followed by “Punjabi” in late 1850’s. Taking encouragement from Azeem’s publications, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan published “The Aligarh Institute Gazette” in 1860, thereby marking the beginning of literary critique of British rule in India, culminating in the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Following in his father’s footsteps, Latif decided to pen the histories of places where eminent Indian Muslims of yesteryears distinguished themselves in construction, civil works projects, art, culture and Architecture. It was an era of despondency, rejection of the English language, cultural defeat and social upheaval for Indian Muslims. Syed Muhammad Latif shines as the brightest star of 19th century English language scholarship in the Sub-Continent. Latif was instrumental in introducing the history of some of the most famous Muslim Majority Indian cities and Provinces to a worldwide audience. His publications on Agra, Multan, Lahore and Punjab remain without precedent in pre-and post-partition India.

Shielded from invaders for several centuries, India gradually became a melting pot of several Islamic civilizations and witnessed a cultural blossoming between 13th and 17th Century that it had never experienced before. Roads were constructed, taxation systems were changed, a new ruling class emerged and great native Indian dynasties gave way to a new system of cultural and social division. The Mughal Empire attracted the finest talent from Muslim lands. The Taj Mahal, for example, was designed by the Persian architects Isa and Muhammad Effendi. Sculptors from Bukhara, calligraphers from Syria and Persia, inlayers from southern India, stonecutters from Baluchistan and the famous dome designer Ismail Khan of the Ottoman Empire- all contributed to the construction of this truly multi-national effort.

Latif's books were written during several decades of sustained propaganda targeted towards discrediting India's Islamic heritage. It was a period of great change for the Indian civilization. Contrary to the efforts made by the Mughals to mesh with the native Indian population, the British remained inaccessible to the common man throughout their rule. Their initial thrust after the conquest of Delhi was to debase the great Mughal achievements in architecture, literature and governance. In 1830, for example, the Taj came close to demolition at the hands of governor of India, Lord Bentinck. The demolition was deferred because no prospective buyers could be sourced for the sale of the huge quantity of marble from the Taj! This incident sufficiently illustrates the conditions in which Latif began his endeavor to frame history for future generations. Latif’s exhaustive and highly accurate sequential timelines of historical sites forces the reader to recognize the general timeline of disrepair and abuse without him having to do so in words.

  

For the modern aficionado of Indian history, Latif’s body of work presents a unique challenge. Latif, in no uncertain terms, admired the British raj for its achievements in India. It is true that he truly believed that the British had evolved a superior cultural and economic system and that it was the responsibility of all Indians to embrace it. While he admired India, he realized that the grand old days of Muslim rule in India had ended and the only way Indians could achieve emancipation was to learn from the British. While it can commonly be misconstrued as a bias, it is only with historical hindsight that one understands the quandary that Latif and his contemporary scholars were faced with. Britain was the most powerful and progressive society in the world, and rejecting or ridiculing its achievements would amount to rejection of the fact.

Unlike many Eastern critics of Western Civilization, Latif tried to present a balanced view of history, both from the view of the victor and the vanquished. Furthermore, the print medium was, in those days, controlled by the British Indian Government. The Calcutta Central press, where Latif’s books were printed, was owned and operated by the British government. It was established in 1863, for the purpose of printing administrative reports, codes and miscellaneous governmental work. Latif would have found it practically impossible to publish his books and distribute it worldwide had he openly criticized the British government’s disregard for conservation of Indian history.

Against the backdrop of censure, and faced with the great responsibility of documenting Indian History, the foundations of Latif’s inferences had to be meticulously researched. In his various books, he drew on the oldest available reliable sources (some of which are now lost or stolen) and cross referenced them in great detail, whenever possible; to produce remarkably detailed manuscripts that attain the highest standards of accuracy and scholarship. His books bring to light the sharp contrast between the Pre and post-Islamic India, and the positive impact and gradual advancement that Muslims in India brought to bear upon the Indian landscape. 

Latif's eloquent descriptions are not bound to historical monuments only; he describes in vivid detail the Flora and Fauna of the area and the roots of various Indian cultures, families and clans. Syed Muhammad Latif, therefore, comes across as a multi-dimensional historian who provides an intricately woven mesh of social, cultural, natural and geographical history. Doing justice with just one of these historical aspects would be a great accomplishment in itself. Latif, however, goes far beyond that and recreates a living history.

Latif’s books, especially his History of Punjab, extolls Indians to stop bloodshed in the name of freedom. Notwithstanding the general indifference of the raj towards Indian History, Latif magnanimously gave the British rulers abundant credit where he found it due, both directly and indirectly. On page 600 of “History of Punjab” he quotes a speech made by Sir John Lawrence that describes the virtues of British raj and the far ranging reforms made by the British government for the citizens of India. Inter-sped between his fascinating historical researches, the contemporary changes in Indian landscape are described in great detail.

A true visionary, Latif correctly understood the need to embrace the positive aspects of British raj during the Industrial revolution. His books frequently urged the Indians to embrace change or be left behind. In doing so, Latif must have encountered great resistance from the Mullahs and conservative elements of the society. However, he stuck to this task diligently, and kept beseeching the Indians to embrace change.

Syed Muhammad Latif passed away in 1902 at a relatively young age of 52. In his short but eventful life, he rose to command great respect in Muslim, British and Hindu literary circles. While his books are no more in print, there is little doubt that Latif encouraged several generations of Indians to take pride in their heritage and historical achievements, and provided them with a sense of pride, direction, hope and purpose in their darkest hour.

Syed Muhammad Latif’s “History of the Punjab” can be read online:

http://www.apnaorg.com/books/english/history-latif/book.php?fldr=book 

Street Vigilante Terrorism in Pakistan (2010)

As much as I am appalled at the barbaric murders in Ahmadi mosques in Lahore and the mob killing of Butt brother in Sialkot, I can’t but express my disagreement with a spade of articles that have appeared in some newspapers lately in response to these ghastly acts of violence. A couple of them were published in Pakistan Tribune a few days ago. Mr. Fulton’s column in Pakistan Tribune  and Mr. Fasi’s article in the same paper tribune.com.pk  go as far as to cast aspirations on Pakistanis being human! That, indeed, is a new twist!

I suppose that these columnists intend to make us all feel like the lunatics, or want us to drown ourselves in some sort of collective guilt. Yes, the Ahmadi mosque shooting on the 28^th of May, 2010 http://edition.cnn.com and the Sialkot murders http://www.dawn.com are both horrid events and only psychologically troubled persons could carry out such cold blooded massacres; but why should a whole nation of 180 million be made to feel like murderers in a manner that Mr. Fulton and Mr. Fasi want us to? After all, Sunni and Shia mosques have been bombed and armed security guards stand over worshippers in main mosques during prayers and cast nervous gazes at any entrant whose beard looks unkempt. Schools have been bombed, hospital emergency rooms have been targeted, civilian aircraft have been attacked and even the Military headquarters have been brought under siege. For the 99.9% of Pakistanis, it is a wretched sight.

Unfortunately, it seems that we are ALL being held hostage by a very minute but violent section of our society. They have existed for several decades. Their current claim to fame lies in their sourcing of sophisticated arms and high explosive detonation devices from across the border. There have been so many terrorist attacks that the words “terrorist” and “suicide bomber” have entered the pure domain of Kindergarten children’s lexicon. Most of us are reasonable, moderate people, and feel scared at the turn our country is taking socially and economically, and the virtual hijacking of our minds by a small group of frustrated sociopaths and terrorists who run around, causing havoc all over our country. I also know that, as a nation, we have never elected a Mullah majority National Assembly. That is because we know the direction they might take, and are quite terrified of it. I can even surmise that Mullahs are not “people’s choice” in Pakistan outside of a mosque. The facts speak for themselves.

John F. Kennedy once said that the ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all.  That is where we are actually at, and our leaders are keenly aware of it. Therefore, NO one in Pakistan is safe anymore. A small section of our society that was intolerant before has become more and more belligerent. For them, just voicing their discontent is not enough anymore. They have the funding, access to sophisticated arms and training and above all, a misguided sense of what they perceive to be right. They express delight at spilling blood of their own countrymen on the streets, regardless of their cultural or religious beliefs. They wish to horrify us and make us run into our homes and shout surrender. If it was up to people like Mr. Fulton and Mr. Fasi, we would actually be out on the streets celebrating the insanity!

Prejudice exists in all societies and Pakistanis are no different. Mob mentality and violent voyeurism can be found all over the world. Unfortunately, the state, for all that it is worth, has been unable to tackle this issue in Pakistan. A few recent events of street vigilantism that has parallels to the Sialkot lynching come to my mind:

• Burning of bandits in Saddar Karachi
• Burning of bandits in Korangi, Karachi
• Beating-till-death of bandits in Metroville area, Karachi. The bandits were also tied to a jeep and dragged on streets
• Murder of a Hindu worker in a factory by a mob of “Muslim” co-workers on alleged  “Tauheen-e-Risalat” remarks
• Murder of two Christian brothers in Sialkot by a mob. They were accused of using defamatory remarks for the Holy Prophet (SWT)
• ‘Street justice’ provided by the Taliban terrorists in Swat/Malakand (including whipping, slaughtering, hanging and chopping off body parts)
• All incidents of Karo-Kari where unqualified ‘jurists’ ask for murder of the victims, some even after being gang rape.
• Throwing of Kainat Soomro in front of dogs in Karachi by an "honor" bitten mob comprising of her family members.

There is at least one thing in common in all these incidents- the lack of fear of consequences. With our political system so corrupt, the vigilantes have no fear of reprisal by the state. After all, it suits the government that the law enforcement agencies remain weak and ineffective. Whenever Pakistanis have been given a chance, they have voted for democracy, and somehow, have always been humiliated by the elected leaders. So, where does the mistake lie? Whose mistakes are these? Are we paying the price for others deeds or our own? I don’t have the answers, but I know that no one reserves a right to implicate the majority for a tiny minority's sins!

The Great Gama- One of Sport’s 100 Most Influential Figures

There have been few times that any sportsman has been able to completely dominate and defeat all challengers over not just years but decades. Ghulam Muhammad "Gama" was one such man. When people think of wrestling outside the United States and Europe, the countries that most often come to mind include Mexico, Japan, and Canada. However, it is present day Pakistan that is home to what many historians consider as the greatest legitimate wrestler who ever lived. Consequently, the Great Gama, is its most influential figure, for having contested approximately 5000 matches, and never losing even one! 

The sport of wrestling maintains a long a tradition of Muslims in India, starting with Emperor Babur who would do strength training by running with his trainer sitting on his shoulders. Nonetheless, although there are many legends and folklore concerning ancient grappling heroes, the first western documented account of professional wrestling within the India’s borders took place when English champion Tom Cannon was defeated by 21-year old Kareem Buksh during an international tour in 1892.

It was not until shortly after the turn of the 20th century when India developed its first real wrestling superstar in the form of a relatively short 5’ 7” two hundred and thirty pound giant nicknamed the Great Gama. A Muslim of Kashmiri heritage, Ghulam Mohammed was born in 1880 in Amritsar, India, where he was a member of one of India’s premier wrestling families of the time. Though his father died when he was 8, he continued training under the direction of his grandfather and uncle. At the age of ten, Ghulam Muhammad took part in the national physical exercise competition, where he impressed the Raja of Jodhpur with his supreme level of endurance.

Gama began formally competing at age 15 as “the Great Gama,” and he immediately put together a series of impressive wins during a tournament organized by the Maharajah of Rewa. Then at age 19, the Great Gama was elevated to superstardom when he scored a draw against the famous Indian Wrestler, Rahim Sultaniwala, described as standing nearly 7 feet tall and weighing close to 300 pounds. By 1906, Gama was commissioned to wrestle for the court, and over the next few years, he developed a reputation as the most feared wrestler in all of India while taking on various city champions throughout the region. Then in 1909, he avenged another prior draw by defeating the previously unbeaten Gulam Mohiuddin, who had been regarded by many as the Great Gama’s superior, but who went down in defeat just eight minutes into the competition.

Following the victory over Gulam Mohiuddin, Gama was consequently hailed as the new Champion of India; and he immediately took on all comers while defending his title against the country’s top wrestlers. Gama was anxious to test himself against the world’s best grapplers; and in 1910, an English sports promoter named R.B. Benjamin gave him that chance when he assembled a travelling circus of Indian wrestlers (including the Great Gama, Imam Bux, Ahmed Bux, and Gamu) to challenge the top western champions while touring throughout Europe. Billed as “the Lion of the Punjab,” Gama subsequently issued an open challenge where he vowed to beat any wrestler in the world; and he soon established himself as a world-class competitor by defeating some of the sport’s most renowned grapplers, including Sweden’s Jesse Peterson (then world champion), France’s Maurice Deriaz, and Switzerland’s Johann Lemm.

Gama’s bold challenge was also accepted by “Doc” Benjamin Roller, an American champion who was the longtime holder of the World Light Heavyweight Title. On August 8, 1910, Gama stunned a sold-out crowd at the Alhambra Theatre in London when he quickly defeated Dr. Roller in two straight falls and broke his ribs. The Times of London commenting on the match, described Gama as unbeatable.

Frank Gotch was recognized as wrestling’s undisputed World Champion in 1910. Gama felt insulted that Gotch would dare lay claim to such a title without ever having faced him. Therefore, he formally challenged Gotch to face him one-on-one, but Gotch refused the invitation to wrestle against an Indian. Instead, Gama’s challenge was greeted by the notorious Stanislaus Zbyszko, a celebrated European Champion from Poland who had wrestled Gotch to a one-hour draw the previous year. On September 10, 1910, Gama faced Zbyszko in the final of the John Bull World Championships before twelve thousand fans at the Shepherd’s Bush Stadium in London. The Polish strongman crafted a defensive strategy in order to slow down Gama; and he subsequently hugged the mat for nearly 3 hours before the bout was eventually declared a draw. The Sporting Life magazine described the match as having just two minutes of actual wrestling; and Zbyszko’s tactics drew the ire of fans as his reputation plummeted.

After defeating Hindu champion Pandit Biddo in 1916, Gama soon ran out of worthy challengers; and when none of the remaining wrestling champions would agree to face him, he unofficially retired in 1919 while passing his title along to his brother Imam Bux. On January 29, 1928, the Great Gama made a celebrated return to the mat in order to face Zbyszko in a rematch of their famous bout from some eighteen years earlier. Despite both men now being well into their 40’s, the return match drew sixty thousand fans to a specially-built stadium constructed by the Maharajah of Patalia, as Zbyszko was billed as one of the few challengers whom Gama had never been able to defeat. But this time, the Great Gama would embarrass the Polish legend, pinning him in just 30 seconds.

Sir Atholl Oakley, a British Amateur champion wrestler and a contemporary of Gama, once wrote that Gama once picked up Zybsko (who weighed 238 pounds) held him over his head with one hand, and threw him on the floor. He could squeeze apples in each hand until they were fully mashed. According to George McKenzie, another famous wrestler of Gama’s era, he would regularly crush potatoes during strength training. Tom Cannon who was heavyweight champion of Europe in Catch wrestling said that he weighed 234 pounds when Gama grabbed his weightlifter’s belt, and lifted him with one arm!

Sir Atholl Oakley once described Gama’s typical day. Gama would rise regularly at 5am. He would swim and stretch for two hours, followed by a breakfast of mainly raw vegetables and 8 glasses of milk. Between 7am -10am, he would do callisthenics, consisting of Indian style squats in very high sets of 100 reps, often 2000 (20 sets) per day, followed by Cat/Hindu style push-ups done similarly. He would then work with buckets of very thick clay. He would work his hands all the way in, until they were about mid forearm deep, and squeeze the clay between his fingers and hands for 30 minutes. This took him to roughly 11am, when he would eat another light fruit snack and have an hours sleep. Between 12 noon to 2pm he would practice various individual moves, not the whole repertoire but just the bits he wanted to work on. Gama would sleep again from 2pm to 4pm. From 4pm to 8pm he would wrestle in various ways, generally wrestling two opponents at a time. He would take dinner at 8pm, which was his main meal, rest for an hour, and drink another 8 glasses of milk. Gama would then to sleep at 10pm sharp.

Gama’s unbeaten record made him a household name in India. He also became an international superstar of his era by beating several international title holders in various styles and categories of wrestling. In 1922, during a visit to India, the Prince of Wales presented Gama with a silver mace. Today, a doughnut shaped exercise disc weighing 95 kg, used by him for squats, is housed at the National Institute of Sports Museum at Patiala, India. The Great Gama inspired the design and concept for the character Darun Mister, appearing in the Street Fighter EX video game series. The character bears a strong physical resemblance to that of Gama. He also appears as a character in the video game “Shadow Hearts: Covenant” Bruce Lee was an avid follower of Gama's training routine. Lee read articles about Gama and how he employed his exercises to build his legendary strength for wrestling, and Lee quickly incorporated them into his own routine.

Gama immigrated to Pakistan at its birth in 1947 and it was there that he trained his nephew, Bhollu, who would hold the Pakistani championship for nearly 20 years. Having lost his lucrative pension after moving to Pakistan, he was given a small plot of land but no funds. Beset by poverty, he was forced to sell most of his Silver and Gold trophies. Of the seven maces he received for important victories, only one was with him when he died on May 22, 1960 in Lahore, Pakistan at a ripe old age of 80.

Pakistan and its First use Nuclear strategy against India (2004)

It has now been more than a month since the Mumbai attacks unfolded, and India has not responded militarily in Pakistan despite some initial saber rattling. Some war preparations have been made and India has by no means taken the military operation off the table, but the crisis, for now, is at a lull. Pakistani military officials leaked to the contents of a top secret meeting between US Admiral Mullen and Pakistani Military Chief Ashfaq Kiyani on December 23rd. Kiyani made it clear that regardless of how the civilian government chose to respond to the US request to allow Indian ’soft surgical strikes’, Pakistan Army would not accept any Indian intrusion. It is possible that India took a step back to re-evaluate its options and the consequences of direct military intervention in Pakistan after Pakistan’s military pressed the panic button?

Two nuclear-armed foes adhering to a no-first-use policy are unlikely to have a nuclear exchange. In first-use, one or both adversaries deliberately hold their nuclear weapons out as a deterrent to various forms of aggression, or as leverage when the conventional dynamics are unfavorable to them. Like NATO in Europe during the Cold War, Pakistan is simply incapable of quantitatively matching Indian demographic depth and conventional military forces in a long drawn conventional war. Nuclear weapons are Pakistan’s ace in the hole. Consequently, Pakistan maintains an overt first-use policy, just as the United States and NATO never ruled out first-use. Despite this, there are some very real differences between the Cold War dynamic and the current situation between India and Pakistan that are useful to highlight in assessing the likelihood of escalation:

• Global scale: With interests around the globe, it was easy enough for the Soviet Union and the United States to challenge each other indirectly through proxies and peripheral wars, from Korea to Vietnam and Afghanistan. In the case of Pakistan and India, the historical alternatives to a massive confrontation along the Punjab border have been fighting in the mountains and on the glaciers of Kashmir, blockades of our ports, and the use of militant proxies. The use of ballistic missiles and strike aircraft in conventional roles inevitably raises the specter of their use in the nuclear role — and when the stakes are that high, one does not have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for clarification of intent once a missile makes impact only a few minutes after it has been launched. With any launch, one must assume the worst.

• Distance: The Americans and the Soviets were, for all intents and purposes, several thousand miles apart, despite the proximity of Alaska to Russia’s Far East. The inability to deliver meaningful conventional strikes at that distance until the waning days of the Cold War meant that any direct confrontation likely would be nuclear or result in a massive land war in Europe. In comparison, Islamabad and New Delhi are less than 500 miles apart. Dense populations, saddle both sides of the border, and the Pakistani demographic, agricultural and industrial heartland lies directly across a border from India — with no real geographic barriers to invasion. This increases the likelihood of conventional warfare and, therefore, the potential for escalation toward the nuclear realm.

• Mutually assured destruction: Pakistan’s arsenal could indeed be devastating, but it does not threaten India with total destruction. With its own delivery systems capable of reaching every corner of Pakistan, New Delhi also now matches the strategic depth that Pakistan achieved five years earlier. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is more accurate and is capable of achieving a much higher survivability in an all-out war. However, in the end, is India willing to lose 200-210 million of its citizen and almost all infrastructure in a nuclear war with Pakistan while drawing comfort in complete annihilation of Pakistan? Pakistan is aware that it cannot defeat India in a prolonged war that lasts over three to four weeks. That begs the question-what would Pakistan’s reaction be if the conventional war actually did draw out over one month? If that was the case, in my opinion, Pakistan would again look favorably towards nuclear weapon use once its conventional weapons stockpile dry out. Therefore, India would again not be in a position to press home the advantage after a long drawn out war owing to unacceptably high losses.

Pakistan’s Nuclear First-use is also a policy of which not only the Indian military, but Indian society at large, is well aware (and in my opinion, serves to provide a quantified, yet mutually destructive deterrent). Delivering an explicit reminder of this issue, in the midst of a crisis, would be a deliberate choice by Pakistan. The advantage of being a nuclear power is the ability to draw a line in the sand when the going gets tough. It is hardly a guaranteed defense, but certainly will give Pakistan’s adversary pause in the worst possible circumstances. However, it did not deter the Chinese from moving forces into North Korea in 1950 or the Syrians and Egyptians from invading Israel in 1973 (which, at that point, was known to have nuclear weapons). The reason for the draw down in both these circumstances was because the attacking armies felt reasonably assured that nuclear weapons would not be used under any condition.

Strangely, the threat (or the seeming lack of it) of MAD somehow didn’t deter Pakistan from conducting a bold, highly planned and executed military operation in the 1999 Kargil war, nor did it keep India and Pakistan from coming to a near-nuclear confrontation in 2002 after an attack on the Indian parliament. Pakistan military is probably not willing to escalate to nuclear war over a few Indian air strikes, when the price for escalation would be an inevitable and devastating nuclear war. However, it is surprising to witness both countries get so close to a nuclear exchange on several occasions. 

The question, now that Pakistan appears to have drawn a very clear line in the sand, is how India will respond to the current situation? How will the world community move to de-escalate a crisis that no one-not India, not Pakistan, nor anyone else-is interested in seeing deteriorate into a nuclear exchange There is a problem with a nuclear power playing this card when neither its chief foe nor the world’s sole superpower has any interest in escalating nuclear tensions: The threat itself might go too far. While it could succeed in getting India to take a step back and re-evaluate, it also could drive the Indians and Americans to consider a bilateral strategic deal. Moreover, it leaves India - and the United States - to contemplate just how hard it might be to take the Pakistani deterrent out of the equation.

Finally, removing a nuclear power’s nuclear power through use of military force is a profoundly dangerous proposition in and of itself. Due to the highly mobile nature of Pakistan’s Nuclear force, it is exceedingly difficult to destroy a large portion of the nuclear weapons in a sudden strike. Surely, the Pakistani Nuclear option is proving to be to be one of the biggest unknown variables of the coming 21st century’s political and geographical landscape and is likely to reinvent any superpower's strategies for this region, and make it more volatile for future generations.

Who is a good Pakistani Muslim? (1997)

This is a peculiarly Pakistan specific question. Is it possible that we are so busy looking at how to make “good” Muslims around us that we are forgetting to be good Muslims ourselves? Till a few decades ago, being a “good” Muslim constituted of a simple philosophy of trying to fulfill the basic and perhaps the optional precepts of Islam. Not long ago, in the good old days, we cherished people based on their reputation, endearing habits and sincerity.  We were perhaps more concerned about who we were and wanted to be rather than what others were. We learned and practiced the art of refined mannerisms for expression of views. We discussed Art, philosophy, science and religion, and almost no one called another Muslim a "Kafir" (unbeliever).

In the good old days, fewer people argued about religion. There were discussions and exchange of ideas, but less raised voices or permanently damaged relations. It never required bombs or grenade launchers to end an argument. It was much simpler being a good Muslim then. Therein resides the seed of dichotomy- the specter of us being different to each other is no more acceptable or comfortable. It makes us uncomfortable to accept diversity. Are they really true Muslims? All of us will eventually go to heaven, but maybe not them? Who are they?

To exacerbate matters further for many of us, being a good Muslim now requires following a myriad of differentiating rituals of a sect (how can a good Muslim be sect-less, they say) It has come to a point where divergent opinions abound not for purposes of debate, but for perpetuation of violence. Religious polarization has therefore reached its zenith. It has brought about an unfortunate situation, where, if “true” believers met, they would very quickly turn the meeting into an armed battleground of ideologies.

In the comparatively “religious” society of today, where one observes filled up mosque courtyards; murders are up by a striking 532% compared to 1976. Theft is up by 1100%. Unbreakable locks and high boundary walls and barriers are in high demand. Most of us keep self-defense weapons in our homes. Our journey to the Mosque is fraught with danger, and guards keep a constant vigil at our place of worship.

Strangely enough, by our own admission, we have become a more "religious" society. After all, we now have huge million people congregations that focus towards reforming Muslims in their neighborhoods. We love going to our “own” mosque that is surrounded by "their" mosques, and strive hard to make our loudspeakers as loud as we possibly can, in order to drown the other mosques call to prayers. There are thousands of new mosques built every year, and each of them proclaims their sect’s beliefs to the unbelievers in no uncertain terms. Some of us even dress differently than others as a statement and social affirmation of our religious intent and our moral superiority. We are far too eager to tell others that we are superior to them and wish to convince them in great haste about how they can become like us and go straight to heaven.

It seems that whereas the West has been busy spawning a generation “X” we are working feverishly in creating a generation of bigoted clones ready to strike out at others whose religious programming is different. With so much “information” at hand, many of us do not like thinking on our own. Why think when someone else is doing that for us, urging us to spill blood? Rather we not spend more of our time in making Muslims out of Muslims and save them from eternal hell.

We have been told every day for years now that behaving in a sect specific manner is likely to make us superior than the rest. It is possible that we have been so brainwashed into believing that we are going to heaven, that many of us find it incumbent to spend their time in assuring that others do too? After all, that would doubly guarantee our place in heaven! And if “they” remain unconvinced, their mosque can be exterminated with a bomb anyway.

Unfortunately, all this is happening while unemployment, bribery and crime grows at an exponential rate and jobless people abound. The parks of Lahore are now filled with people who don’t have a home to sleep in. It is the outcome of homeless men women and children, coming to cities in their desperation to find work and ending up sleeping in a public park without food.

We have become blind to others. That is partially because we have become blind to ourselves. Every bomb blast in a public area or burst of automatic weapons that goes off is the work of some "sinister foreign hidden hand". It can’t be a Pakistani doing this, we tell each other. It cannot be, we reiterate. But deep inside, we know it is us. We know that the person who did this calls himself a Muslim too.

Allah Knows Best

Hijab for a layman- (1996)

A good statistician can make figures "speak" for a layman, but it may not have a very strong statistical correlation when other variables are factored in. By using the same reasoning, it is possible to “prove” that Saudi Arabia and most of the Middle East has exceptionally low sexual crime rate compared to most western countries. Unfortunately, crime figures in many Muslim countries are greatly suppressed since women are not encouraged to report such crimes, and it is generally considered socially unacceptable for a woman to raise hue and cry about sexual crimes.

In layman Mullah’s terms, it probably means that Americans have a much higher incidence of sex related crime because of not observing Hijab. While statistics may assert this story based on vague correlation, I do not fully agree with this assessment. For example, Sri Lanka has one of the lowest crime rates in the world, but it is a non-Muslim country. Take the example of Bhutan; sexual crime rates are very low in that country as well.

I know that many rural women get beaten up in most Islamic countries but it is not considered to be something out of the ordinary. Rape is probably reported in less than 10% of the cases. Child molestation reporting is also generally unheard of. I feel that Hijab does play an important role in sex related crimes, but one must remember that Hijab is NOT only for women, but also for men. Hijab is not only modesty in covering oneself, but one's actions, thoughts, conduct of eyes, thoughts in mind, language, choice of words etc.

Physical Hijab is something that is most commonly seen in Arab countries. However, men can literally "undress" women with their frustrated and glaring stares (something that many of my relatives and friends have had to deal with in "Islamic" countries). Unfortunately, men in most Islamic countries consider Hijab to be something that is applicable to womenfolk only because, as our Mullahs have led them to believe, watching women otherwise “tempts” them. The probable premise behind this general belief is that women are somehow less human than men, which stops them from getting "tempted" by men. The Mullahs seem to forget that women make up 50% of our society, and they can indeed admire good looking men.

Social and cultural values play an important role in shaping and cementing perverse sexual acts. Societies that allow a liberal expression of personal freedoms have to deal with these issues more than the countries which suppress all freedoms. Women lead a stifled existence in most Islamic societies. However, we tend to forget conveniently that the Khadija, wife (RA) of Prophet Muhammad (SWT) was the first (and the richest) Muslim trader in her time.

It seems to me that here is more to all this than just our crooked modern interpretation of Hijab. The word is modesty.

Allah Knows best.

Is modern Islamic "Nationalism" misguided? (1998)

One of the concepts that stigmatize Muslims is our understanding of Nationalism. It is a concept, like many others, of which we have developed little understanding and this misunderstanding has visibly fortified divisions among those who profess to believe in the same ideology. Furthermore, Muslims nowadays generally identify themselves as Turkish, Arab, African and Pakistani. If this is not enough, Muslims are further sub-divided within each country or continent. For example, Pakistani people are classed as Punjabis, Sindhis, Balauchis and Pathans. Not to end the row there, they sub-divide into clans and then sub-clans. Somehow, this fragmentation continues to gain unbridled momentum amongst Pakistanis.

Interestingly, apart from a few centuries of the nearly fourteen hundred years, Muslims has never been confronted with such a dilemma. Muslims seldom suffered (except for a few centuries in the Middle Ages) from such "nationalistic" discord and disunity, widespread oppression, stagnation in science and technology and intra-Islamic conflicts that we have witnessed this century- i.e. the Iran-Iraq war. So what has gone wrong with Muslims over the last four hundred years? Why have there so many feuds between them and why are they fighting each other since the 16th Century?

In my opinion, there are many factors that have contributed to the present state of affairs, but some of them obviously stem from our misinterpretation of nationalism:

1. The abandonment of a common first or second language.
2. Suspicion of Ijtihad.
3. The selective absorption of cultures without understanding their underlying philosophies. This has given rise to the erroneous belief that they somehow clash with “Islamic” beliefs.
4. The gradual loss of a moral central authority and the rise of undefined nationalism since the 17th Century.

Nationalism did not arise in the Muslim world naturally. It was probably deemed necessary by a long chain of despotic rulers who, over many centuries, found their diktat to be at odds with the rapid pace of development. Blaming others (especially non-Muslims) become very fashionable (and is still going strong) because it requires very little inward thinking.

If I were to go back to Sociology 101, human beings are generally identify or group together on the basis of:

1. Love of a particular land or a country - patriotism
2. Tribe, lineage or race - nationalism
3. Religion - Spiritual beliefs.
4. Faith or Aqeedah - creed

Patriotism arises when people come together due to the love of a country. It is a form of unity that comes about when that particular country is under external threat e.g. military conflicts with other nations. The effect of this bond results in people of different backgrounds setting their differences aside to form a common front in support of the government. The inherent weakness of patriotism, as a basis of uniting people, is that it unites people temporarily and only then if an external threat is looming in the horizon. Hence, such a narrow form of patriotism has no role to play during peace time, and it cannot, therefore, be a basis of a permanent unity.

Tribes (a rather familiar story in Pakistan) have often competed with each other, all trying to dominate others in order to enjoy the privileges and the prestige that comes with this authority. This breeds arrogance and ignorance along-with misguided pride. Tribalism cannot unite people simply because it is based on quest for leadership. This quest for leadership creates a power struggle between people of different tribes, leading to conflicts among various strata of society. Another drawback of Tribalism is that it gives rise to racism. This is expected if people are allowed to compete with each other on the basis of their race. This leads to polarization and a divided society.

For Muslims, faith and Taqwa form a unique basis. Allah says: "The believers, men and women, are Awliya' (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people) good, and forbid evil, they perform Prayers and give the Zakat, and obey Allah and His Messenger. Allah will have his Mercy on them. Surely Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise". [9:71] this verse notes that Islam is not merely a ritual belief but rather one also encompassing the actions and deeds reflected upon by faith.

A way that is eminently suitable through which people can group together is on the basis of "Aqeedah" or faith. It is Islam that provides a set of rules, regulations, and instructions according to which man lives and which he refers to in order to resolve his problems. This bond only takes into account Aqeedah and nothing but that belief. Color, race and gender are irrelevant. This is the type of bond found within early Islamic History. However, it is now a basis of polarization among Muslims.

Historically, since ties between Muslims were based upon the Aqeedah of Islam, Muslims leaders were instructed by their religious scholars and their families to treat all Muslims exactly the same, irrespective of their family background, and anyone who declared the Shahada "La ilaha illa Allah Muhammad Rasul Allah" became part of the Muslim Ummah.

Muhammad (SWT) rebuked any forms of tribalism. Allah then revealed the verses, "O you who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared and die not except in a state of Islam. And hold fast together all of you to the rope of Allah, and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favors on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace you became brothers; and you were on the brink of the pit of fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His signs clear to you that you may be guided." [3: 102-103]

The incidents and quotes above demonstrate that Muslims are commanded not to disassociate themselves from each other just because they come from varying backgrounds.  Allah says: "The faithful are but brothers..." [49: 10].

Allah says, "It is not for a believer (male or female) that when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter that they should have any choice in the matter." [33: 36]

Allah knows best.

History of Veneration of Graves & Impact on Muslims (1999)

Veneration of the dead is an ancient pre-Islamic tradition based on the belief that the deceased at least have a continued existence in some form and/or possess the ability to influence the fortune of the living. All major religions have sects that venerate the dead. The Catholic Church, for example, venerates saints as intercessors with God. Relics of Saints still pull a large number of devotees, many of whom look for miracles to take place during the public showing of the relics. Veneration of the dead exists among the Jews and is practiced in most of Africa as well.

In many Asian cultures, the goal of ancestor veneration is to ensure the ancestors' continued well-being and positive disposition towards the living and sometimes to ask for special favors or assistance. Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism all have established practices in ancestral worship. In most religions, the minimum requirement for veneration offered to the dead is probably some kind of belief in an afterlife, a survival, at least for a time, of personal identity beyond death. These beliefs are however, far from uniform in all religions, including Islam. All Muslim sects believe that supplication is only to and for Allah. Since personal belief and practices can go beyond this line (or be misunderstood), people can be erroneously led to believe that it constitutes an established practice of a particular sect.

The rapid popularity and institutionalization of veneration of the dead in Islam can be traced back to the advent of Sufism in Islam in the 8th Century. Sufis were devout Muslims, who rejected the worldly actions of the Umayyad Caliphs and sought to cultivate their own piety in order to better emulate the Prophet Muhammad (SWT). The most pious of these Sufis came to be venerated by both Sunnis and Shi'as alike. Unlike Christianity, sainthood in Islam has been based on popular consensus of common people. Therefore, pious people became extremely popular with the common people, who sought to visit the shrines for spiritual revival. In its purest form, the "Ziarat" (visit) fulfills the higher form of spiritual fulfillment through prayer, supplication, devotion and contemplation. The most popular Ziarat in the world is probably that of Imam Ali ibn Musa al-Riza (known as Imam Ali Raza), the only Imam buried in modern day Iran who lived from 765-818 AD.

Al-Razi, the famous Ash'ari (follower of Ismail al-Ash'ari 874–936 AD) scholar of 13th Century reiterated the classical Islamic belief regarding intercession, saying that it "belongs to none but Allah alone, and intercession can never take place except with Allah's permission" It is evident from his observation that these practices were hugely prevalent seven hundred years ago in Islamic societies. Interestingly, the veneration of religious scholars and teachers in Islam by their pupils and followers is prevalent in Iran and the Indo-Pak subcontinent.

In Iran, during the rule of the Safavid dynasty (1501-1736) the veneration of saints (already prevalent in Sunni Iran) was reformed and re-targeted towards the Twelver Shi'ite image of imam veneration, probably as a means of popularizing the beliefs of the ruling dynasty who converted a majority Sunni population towards Twelver Shi'ism. The endowment of shrines and monuments has historically been an obvious way for rulers to immortalize their dynasty and theology. However, since it generally stemmed from the graves of famous pious people, the authenticity of the burial sites is more of a historical fact than fiction.

It is probable that most Muslims venerate the graves in order to express love or devotion to the piety of the saints, and do not allow it to replace or violate any fundamental principle of Islam. On the other hand, it is quite possible that some people cannot delineate the fine line between appreciation and idolatry. 

In any case, an error of a few cannot be used to invade into the beliefs of a majority. Furthermore, no direct inference exists in the Quran that can support either point of view in this matter.  Whether anyone believes in these practices or not is not "endangering" his or her Islam, and such matters are for personal interpretation and practice.

Allah Knows Best.