Mockery of words

Have you ever felt ‘chill’ running through your spine? I do; specially when I see people making mockery of history, and distorting truth by using beautiful words. But why any such incident is so dreadful? Well, because those people are considered to be very reliable, honest and influential. People believe in them and follow them. I would write about three most recent experiences.

Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan a well known and controversial figure, admired rather worshiped by Pakistanis wrote in an article published in daily Jang (http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jun2009-daily/03-06-2009/col1.htm, viewed on 04 June 2009), the largest circulated newspaper in Pakistan :” Tamils belong to Hindu religion which is a fundamentalist religion”. He further says that “ Sri Lankan (Sinhalese) are soft spoken, calm, and non violent people, which is also the education of Buddhist religion”. What is the problem in these statements? Both of these statements distorts the truth, are unrealistic and cause false hatred or sympathy. He wants to mould the opinion of masses against Hindus and Tamils, and he wants to create sympathy towards Sinhalese by projecting a false impression of both.

Not only that but by saying this that ‘Hindu religion is a fundamentalist religion” he is alienating whole Hindu population of Indian Sub Continent from the rest of people. Moreover declaring Islam a fundamentalist religion is same mistake, others made and try to alienate Muslims from rest of world. Where this behaviour is leading us? Of course War and Blood Shed is the only objective of all such people who try to destroy the truth and realities. Matter of fact is that religion whichever it is; is always promoting peace and tolerance, religious teachings always advocate harmony; an essential for existence of humans. One of prime objectives of any religion is to save us from ourselves; how come any religion can be violent? It is us, the people who are after other people for what so ever be the reasons. Yes, there can be bad and good anywhere, in any cadre and any society, in any community or group of people. But not all can be attributed as bad, if some of them are bad. That way we destroy the good, we discourage those who believe in peace and harmony. I am not sure if Dr. Qadeer can not understand the basics of human behaviour.

Second one is a column from Mr. Hamid Meer in Daily Jang (http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jun2009-daily/04-06-2009/col4.htm, viewed 4^th June 2009); in this column he writes about black mailers working against Pakistan under the disguise of a secular and liberal agenda. The way he has written it, it seems that ‘Secular’ and ‘Liberal’ are some very negative terms, like they are a poison for Pakistani society. Again I am not sure if he understands what does it mean by secularism or liberalism? He does not know that the very newspaper and media he is writing for is ‘secular’, the masses he is addressing are also secular, here I am not trying to advocate any of these ideas, but I just want to emphasise on creating awareness about the right concept, having a clear understanding of the idea, before one can start writing. By wrong interpretations, we create misunderstanding which results in more misdoings.

The third example is from a mail I got from a friend ( It can be posted if required, it is however saved with me and can be presented anytime), this mail is a forwarded mail containing an article. Title of article is ‘Asal Sikandar-e-Azam kon hai?’ (Who is the real Sikandar-e-Azam?). It is a comparison between two personalities in history, Alexander the great and Umar Bin Khattab the second Caliph. Writer is asking again and again who is real Sikandar-e-Azam, and he never seems to realize or understand what does this title means? ‘Sikandar-e-Azam’ is urdu translation of ‘Alexander the great’. Sikandar in Urdu or perhaps Arabic is substitute of Alexander; similarly ‘Azam’ means ‘The Great’, just like Akbar the great (Akbar-e-Azam), or Ashoka the great (Ashok-e-Azam). The writer might not know that but I have read the same title for Umar i.e. Farooq-e-Azam, as he is also known as Umar Al Farooq. This linguistic mistake makes the whole article he wrote a joke. And I feel pity about people who are forwarding that article after thinking very admirably about the arguments put forward by the so-called writer to make Umar a Sikandar-e-Azam.

Perhaps now it is understandable why I feel a chill running through my body? This mockery of words, this distortion of minds and this abuse of history will only bring more hatred, more short-sightedness, more aloofness and more destruction for us.