Everyday through different TV channels, and also through some dedicated channels, we get heavy dose of fashions clothes. These fashions clothes have everything possible under the sun, on the body of women, but the main purpose of the clothes. These fashions have every possible nonsensical designs except the clothes on the body where these are required most; these have everything weird and queered except the decency propriety and the decorum. Is there no sane voice in the whole world to speak out against these queer sexual exhibitionism?

Writings are almost on the wall that, America is going to face defeat in its Afghan war. If not the writing, then the words are certainly on the lips of the generals involved directly or indirectly in this war. A British General has already predicted almost a year’s ago that, they were fighting a loosing war. Now an American General is asking for some changes in America’s Afghanistan strategy, and asking for surge in its troop in Afghanistan by about 50% from 68,000 to 98,000.

America’s Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz claims in his recently published book, “The Three Trillion Dollar War”, that, on fifth year of invasion America has already spent 3 trillion dollars in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He claims that, if all other incidental factors like interest on debt, future borrowing for war expenses, and the cost of a continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health-care and counseling for veterans etc are taken into consideration, then the real cost would range from 5 trillion dollars to 7 trillion dollars.

America’s prominent newspaper, The Christian Science Monitor, in a write-up by its staff writer David R. Francis in its issue of 15 September 2009 estimates the real cost of Afghan War at about 1 trillion dollars. And, how much is 1 trillion dollars? The paper says: if you had an expense account for $1 million a day, it would take 2,935 years to spend $1.071 trillion. It means that, to spend $3 trillion, at $1 million a day, it would take 7,805 years. Whopping, isn’t it?

With so heavy a burden on America’s economy, and consequently on the world’s economy, caused by these wars, the looming defeat of America is simply unthinkable. I for one won’t like to see America loosing, as it would play havoc with the world economically and otherwise.

America’s defeat in the wars, in all probability, may also be the start of America’s end – both economically and strategically. So far as the impact of this defeat on the world is concerned, this defeat may be totally different from its defeat on Vietnam soil in early 70s. In those days, there was another super power in the shape of Soviet Union to relish this defeat (though, of course, in ideological mooring, probably China was more instrumental in that defeat than anybody else). But still there was an uneasy balance between the lefts and rights in that world. Today, there is no other established power to relish America’s defeat. Today, it’s the non-state actors spread across the world, the general public all around the world that would go into wild ecstasy if America faces defeat at the hands of non-state fighters in Afghanistan, who are primitive in look and feel, and who has no world power and authority to fall back upon at times of their needs, as Vietcong used to do in bygone days in their struggle against America.

These wretched people of Afghanistan fought against foreign occupations, faced rains of bombardments, got innocent marriage parties annihilated, without getting a single word of sympathy from any corner of the world (while, on the other hand, the Vietnamese got sympathy from at least half of the world through newspapers, media and literature), and when they would emerge as victorious, the world might be a totally different place to live.

Whether any of us would like America’s defeat or not, whether any of us would like the America-led status-quo of the world changed or not, this would be the final certification of Afghans’ indomitable nature. This would be the final and highly pronounced proof of Afghans’ valor, fighting skills and fiercely independent psyche. This will prove that, Afghanistan's war against the erstwhile Soviet Union was its own - not of America or of Europe.

History has undeniable proof that, Afghanistan never accepted foreign hegemony. The Soviets had a lesson that, their misadventure had demolished not only their dream of controlling Afghanistan, like the Eastern Europe, but also their socialist empire. But America and the West did not take any lesson from history or from Soviet collapse. They were audacious to prove the history wrong.

Once, British ex-premier Margaret Thatcher boasted that, they had won a war against Soviet Union without firing a single bullet. Now the world will probably see very soon that, the America-led West could not win war against heavily under-armed Afghans even with firing millions of bullets, and raining thousands of bombs on their country. Those petty scholars in our own world, who up till now had enough opportunity to laugh at the Afghan ‘jehadis’ for fighting America’s ‘proxy war’ against the Soviet Union, would probably have the opportunity to laugh at themselves for their childish naivety in understanding Afghan affairs.

One last thought: the one-eyed demon appearing in America’s dollar bills, will it allow America to succumb to defeat of its lifetime so easily? (22-Sept-2009)

[Published in the daily Pakistan Observer on 30 September 2009]

Now-a-days the way heaps of information is made available to us without any cost,without much effort and through all conceivable medium, the term "information explosion" has become arcane, outdated and very small. There must be something more outrageous, more expanded and more wholesome to describe today's phenomenon availability of information to the limit of extremity. Yes, I think the situation is now extreme, rather highly explosive, to say the least. And credit for all of these singularly goes to the Americans, and a little bit to other Europeans, whom we like to despise for some right reasons at wrong time, and and for all wrong reasons at leisure time!

 

I was just surfing the site of the New York Times (nytimes.com), and on their news story pages when I incidentally double-clicked on a word, and there popped up a small icon with a question mark. The clicking on the question mark opened up another whole world of knowledge and information - another window with the relevant entries in dictionary, pronunciation guide and pronunciation in sound, thesaurus, encyclopedia and a map, if the entry is a country name. What more can one ask for while reading a news? On the news sites we already have sound clips and video clips. Now these all knowledge-base. So, what next?

 

(Originally written on Oct 31, 2008)

These days I have been reading a small book titled "Administrative Thinkers". This book has given me some knowledge and insight as to how various management and administrative theories propped up in various thinking and observing minds, and researches and studies were conducted to refine and establish these theories. Needless it is to say that, all these theories took birth in the petri-dishes of real time issues, matters and ground realities of the time around century ago. These theories gradually cultured and matured through rigorous application, implementation and subsequent continuous discussions, deliberation and debates to find the ways for the further betterment.

When we see on the grounds of Pakistan, in these current days, we see total failure of such theories. But we could see presence of many other realities and happenings which can easily give rise to some other very effective, useful and intensely realistic theories. One such possible theory could be our "institutional baibasi", and another effective one could be about "mutual mistrust".

In the state of our affairs in the country, we are all 'baibas' (helpless, hopeless). Individuals are 'baibas' in the hands of other individuals, in the hands of sarkari (governmental) and ghair-sarkari (non-governmental) offices, in hands the state and state apparatus, in the hands of the bodies claimed to be peoples' representative bodies. The institutions in the country are also 'baibas', 'bilkul baibas' (completely hopeless!). They are inherently and tellingly 'baibas'. Basically, this 'bebasi' of the institutions are giving rise to my theory of 'institutional baibasi'.

Now see how 'baibas' we are! When I shared my this theory, and expressed my willingness to give vent to this embryonic theory, and also showed the willingness to work in detail on this theory in some future sweet time, some of my friends and well wishers became fearfully concerned. They, waving their both hands frantically, started shouting "No! No!". They advised, "You won't do this, otherwise some people from somewhere would come up and eat you up alive!" How much fear?

Then there is national mutual mistrust. This also needs some thinkers', theorizers' insightful theorization. Whole paradigm of our society is based on mutual mistrust - I should not have trust on others, the other should also not have any trust on me. All our systems, procedures and regulations are based on this very simple theory that the people you are going to deal is or are a not trustworthy. If at all anything in this society is trustworthy, that is a piece of paper one could get only by indulging in greasing of palms of others. Pray, one day, if not me, then some body may study on this issue and make some detail theory of it.

A lot has so far been said on this issue usury and riba various forum, and some were quite informative. Yet they could not really give the full satisfaction to inquisitive minds. I don’t pretend to be very knowledgeable in general (secular) economics, nor do I know much about Islamic economics, or more precisely "interest free" economics. But I have some ideas and vague concepts that, I would like to share here without claiming to be telling something which might not have yet been spoken elsewhere, and without sounding opinionated on the issue.

I feel (just feel, may be I am wrong) that, a lot might have been written by Islamic (say of Arab world) scholars and academicians on such issues. Had these been probed, explored and reviewed by the occidental scholars then those could probably have been established as viable theories, and alternatives, side by side today's economic theories and practices. And a lot of questions, queries and confusions might have been addressed by now. But that did not happen, and is not also to happen. The way today's world of knowledge and academic dispensation has developed, and the way the oriental scholars too are made limited only to enhance the occidental theory and philosophy, the Islamic concepts could only create some ripples here and there and nothing more than that.

But any way, as Islamic banking and insurance system is spreading bit by bit, and as more and more service windows are opening and clientele are increasing the banking and interest issues are becoming more clear and more 'modern' in connotation.

For now, for majority of us, interest/non- interest issues are mostly issues of dogma and fatwa. We learn the meaning of interest or riba from a maulvi or a maulana, who give us the literal meaning of the same from the holy Quran and Sunnah. So, some of us, with this Quranic meaning, try to follow the injunction religiously, and other criticise and even pound upon Islam on the basis of the same very meaning. Then, why Islamic banking is flourishing and spreading? Look, who are spreading this. Mostly European and American banks and financial institutions are doing this just for capturing more and more market and maximising profit! Whatever their intentions are, at least things are evolving and we are getting fresh perspective on the issue.

As for customers of the banks (and naturally for other believers), there has always been the argument if interest is riba or not, and if only usury is prohibited by Islam or not. With my very limited knowledge on the subject, and with the preposterous intention still to say something on this issue, I think "riba" is much wider, much bigger and more encompassing a word then either interest, or usury or even both. So far as we have been taught that, any profit or gain receivable on money lended or invested, if fixed, is prohibited. In this definition the word interest probably fits in very well.

But what I have so far understood, what is (supposed to be) prohibited in the eye of Islam is:

1)      Trade of money itself, which should only be a medium of exchange,

2)      A trade or activity which does not effect/create any asset and represent service physically,

3)      An activity which does not take into account the objective of the activity, whether this is haram or halal.

 

Once in a seminar, a scholar quoted a hadith to make riba or interest clear to the audience. After hearing that hadith I became a bit more confused, and during lunch break I asked him to explain the retionale of the hadith. But he could not make me clearer. After lots of thinking, I got myself the answer, and with that, the issue of riba also became clearer to me.

The hadith is: once a man came to the Prophet (sm) and told him that, he had exchanged certain quantity of dates of lower quality with half of that quantity of better quality. At this, the Prophet (sm) said, this was riba. The man should have sold the poor quality dates in the market, and the money thus fetched should have been used to purchase better quality dates.

This example does not fit in the definition of interest, and also not in the concept usuray or interest, I think. But from Sharia point of view, it gives a standard that, the transactions should be independently measurable and the benefits to all stakeholders/ concerned parties should be equitable. There are many other various examples, which actually establish what is riba. The underlying fact is, the transactions should be equitable for all.

The most important factor behind riba is that, there should be something tangible at the other side of the profit in the shape of assets, the factor of profit being ‘fixed’ for the investment or transaction becoming prohibited is not the only factor.

From another factor from which the humankind may be immensely benefited is, the strong emphasis of Islamic way of trading and financing on the objectives of the trade. Islamic finance is not available for haram trade and business (terrorism included). If the world goes for Islamic financing, then money will dry up for illegal as well as haram business, and unwanted activities will die automatically, for now at least theoretically. So gradually there may be more interest for Islamic economics.

We have to understand that, from Islamic perspective the important and highly respectable act is trade and business, and simply gaining from money and "time value of money" is not that desirable.

[]