by Saleem Rizvi
No matter how powerful and compelling the arguments may be, in the face of a predetermined and/or preconcluded decision, the outcome would remain the same; the outrageous slaughter of justice at the hands of its guardians. The notion of letting the strongest decide who shall survive raises many problems. Instead of using legal jargon, I thought a literary touch to this discussion may help enlighten souls better. The moral of the story implicitly covers the ongoing off-going deal making discussions between Benazir and Musharraf and its possible potential outcome. Consider the treatment of the problem offered by Don Marquis in Archy and Mehitabel 40-42 (1973):
A Spider and a Fly
I heard a spider and a fly arguing.
“wait” said the fly “do not eat me. I serve a great purpose in the world”
“you will have to show me” said the spider
“I scurry around gutters and sewers and garbage cans, said the fly and gather up the germs of typhoid influenza and pneumonia on my feet and wings then I carry these germs into the household of men and give them diseases all the people who have lived the right sort of life recover from the diseases and the old soaks who have weakened their systems with liquor and iniquity succumb it is my mission to help rid the world of these wicked persons I am a vessel of righteousness scattering seeds of justice and serving the noblest uses.”
“It is true” said the spider, “you are more useful in a plodding material sort of way than i am but I do not serve the utilitarian deities. I serve the Gods of beauty. Look at the gossamer webs. I weave they float in the sun like filaments of song if you get what i mean. I do not work at anything. I play all the time. I am busy with the stuff of enchantment and the materials of fairyland. My works transcend utility. I am the artist a Creator and a demi God. It is ridiculous to suppose that I should be denied the food I need in order to continue to create beauty. I tell you plainly mister fly it is all damned nonsense for that food to rear up on its hind legs and say it should not be eaten.”
“You have convinced me” said the fly, “Say no more” and shutting all his eyes he prepared himself of dinner and yet he said “I could have made out a case for myself too if I had had a better line of talk.”
“Of course you could have” said the spider clutching a sirloin from him, “but the end would have been just the same if neither of us had spoken at all.”
I am afraid that what the spider said is true and it gives me to think furiously upon the futility of literature.
Doctrine of necessity dates back among muslim arab era
of early Ummayad, to consolidate their power and its transition to their progeniture, they avoided Al qayas and
Al Ijma’a already exisited in Islam along side Ijtehaad.
It was a vulgar corrupt replacement for Ijtihad a long procedure and had its very solid consensus, to avoid open discussions in public or among shoura, Ummayadde
practiced a sort of “Khalifa- alim privileged, private &
divine consultations” and thus decided.
The Khalifa also sometimes asked alim to fabricate some hadiths in his favour in order to “fulfill the necessity, the divine one.”
Those alims who refused were executed and sent to
paradise or disgraced in public, tortured as in case of
Imam Humbal & others. There were corruptions of all
sort about every where. Machiavelli invented the same
kind, perhaps copied, as the Church was also involved in
such corrupt practices with Royalties, in his Book Le Prince and called it” raison d’etat” the term still used in Europe.
The public should remember the Rainbow warrior case
where Mitterand utilised this term as his raison d’etat.
Dastan-e-Watan
Islami hai na jhamuri hai
dastane-e-watan adhuri hai
haiN jafer-o-sadiq kae ek yahaN
Tipu hai koe na Suri hai
haiN ujalay yaaN andhairoN maiN gum
ibteda say hi chaee bainoori hai
Salaar hi haiN hukumraaN bhi
yaaN tarz-e-hakumat Taimuri hai
hai qaumi daulat barae tameer-e-mahal
ke sunnat-e-shahjehan bhi zaroori hai
Hey Sharuk, you said: “we as nation now need to decide who is less naughty to rule our poor country”. My question is why do we have to always choose a lesser evil as our leader? Are the people in Pakistan so hopeless and helpless that they always end up being handed over a raw deal? Do we not, for a change, deserve good governance? It sounds that the country is nothing by a glorified tribal system controlled by vultures and witches who are guaranteed their prey no matter what the situation is. Isn’t it time to get rid of our primitive issues and be compatible with the rest of the world?
Are you implying that the Pakistani nation will become a victim of the Doctrine of Necessity yet again? As it is, Pakistan is nothing but a story of strange happenings, experimentation with the political system that failed time and again
Do whatever, Say Whatever but Musharraf is not going anywhere. He loves power !!!
Even though GDP is almost 7% but average man is suffering.
If you think some party leader will save this country plz think again because no one is angel. Every one is currpt and crook but we as nation now need to decide who is less naughty to rule our poor country.