Pakistan vs. Algeria

Latest events of Pakistan are so reminding me the history of Algeria. I have a limited knowledge of Algerian freedom struggle. My analogies may not be entirely accurate or may be grossly generalized.

Algeria was boiling in 1960s against French colonial occupation. It was the  last front of old school colonial occupation. FLN—quite Islamic and nationalist group—was carrying out violent insurgency against French. Eventually French suppressed this uprising with extreme brutality. After few years of this violent attempt, the people of Algeria took matters to the streets with massive protests. Finally, French political climate did change and they saw the wisdom in leaving the country. Then ex-terrorist became the freedom fighter and took charge of the country. This new government didn’t turn out to be just enough. Military became powerful and yielding influence over politics. Democratic process failed to run fluently. In 1990s, an ultra Islamic group won the elections and military refused to recognize their election. The usual justification behind this move was that the Islamic group is not civil enough to understand the modern concept of running a just state. The ultra Islamic group didn’t take it very lightly and took up arms. So, it started a bloody decade of brutality. It was vicious loop. More Islamic group rebelled. Military got more justification for brutal repression. This makes rebels more angry and more violence. Algerian government took very horrifying strategy to fight with these rebels. They committed massacres themselves and blamed it to the Islamic groups. Mainly to defame the rebellion such that population start hating them. Slowly, rebellion became week due to their internal clashes and slowly died.  Now Algeria is trying to recover from this bloody history.

Now! Pakistan, quite similar history. Pakistan, which used be part of British India,  born when British left India.  Their creation struggle is lead by Muslim league, a quite Islamic and nationalist group. In Pakistan, democracy could never establish itself. Soon, Army was in control. Military coups has been regular in last 6o years. The government has not been effective in delivering the needs of population. Now! Ultra Islamics are taking hold of the country. Similarly as it was in Algeria, the Pakistani government is coming into direct confrontation to these Islamic groups.

Now! what is the route Pakistani government going to take? Try to kill them all? From Algeria case, we learn that it will be bloody specially for civilians. Is there another way, for example talking to them? It does not seems great idea as their demand is not to get justice but to deliver justice(Sharia law) at their will.

There are some questions whose answer can lead to the solution. How do they get sophisticated weapon system? Who is selling them? Why can’t they be stopped from getting weapons? There must be some genuine demands of locals. Why don’t pakistani government tries to address them?

Mee Nathu Ram Godse Boltoy

This is a play about Nathu Ram Godse. He assassinated Mahatma Gandhi in 1948. In this play, his character argues for necessity of killing of Gandhi at the movement, kills Gandhi, and proudly goes in death row. Play is full of nationalist sentiments. He repeatedly identifies him self with Sivaji. He cites the great cultural heritage of Indus valley civilization. He cites ancient epic references to the places in current Pakistan which after all shows that whole south asia should have been a country called Hindustan or Bharat. He is specifically angry about giving away ‘Holy Sindhu’ river to Pakistan. He mainly accuses Gandhi for not standing against the partition. He believes that if Gandhi has been firm against partition then he could have stopped it. Therefore, Gandhi has sole responsibility for the partition. He then goes on to make a case for assassination. He says Gandhi should be stopped because he is full of crazy ideas to appease Pakistan even if it is waging war against us.

The problem with play is that there is no strong character against Nathu . Son of Gandhi suppose to represent opposite side of Nathu’s position. He comes at the end of the play and argues with the Nathu. He has weak lines. Nathu wins the argument with nationalistic jargon and very simplistic arguments. For example, he argued that Gandhi’s ‘religion does not divide’ attitude is flawed because other side, which is Pakistan, doesn’t recognize it. We are being attacked and we should prepare to fight in our self defense. Why even we thinking about helping Pakistan with lots of money?* If Gandhi looked at everybody equal then why did he fight with British? At this point, son of Gandhi becomes speechless and Nathu wins. I find it such a weak defense of Gandhi. Someone could have easily argued that Gandhi was not fighting against British but the repressive and unjust system, which they represent. Gandhi simply wanted injustice to end.

Gandhi had his own ideals and he was acting on them. He made his choices according to his thinking. As there is vast evidence that he has been consistent and honest to his principles. So, we may safely assume that he made his choices in honest spirit in the case of the partition. As this play reflects, Nathu has no principle criticism against Gandhi’s ideals. He liked Gandhi’s basic ideas. He didn’t even try to accuse Gandhi as charlatan or being inconsistent. He was just unhappy about Gandhi’s attitude towards Pakistan.

This play doesn’t paint complexity of the situation. It cites Hindu’s being killed in riots but it doesn’t say anything about Muslim who are being killed. It ends with a massage of certainty of correctness of Nathu’s position. I think this is a dishonest thing to do if you are writing a play about such a sensitive issue.

*India donated 550Million rupees to Pakistan at that time.