I am afraid not.
In this space a while ago did Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy celebrate bay-ghairati. The way the article went viral needs another study since it reflects on what all has gone wrong with us. I don’t intend to discuss that here. But since Hoodbhoy intended the article to be analytical, some reflections are in order.
Maria Waqar (in her piece, “I am still proudly ghairatmand”, May 14, The Express Tribune) did a good job, pointing to some of the problems in Hoodbhoy’s thesis, including the fact that both Germany and Japan, when they were swayed by nationalist ideologies, were highly industrialised nations, not herding communities. Waqar also made the subtle point about how “liberal” values can and have brought much destruction. Perhaps unknowingly she pointed to the same paradox Albert Camus did when he tried to figure out how and why we have to wade through bloodshed even when we want to achieve the state of innocence, the story of 20th century that has continued to wit.
It was perhaps for this reason that the British Bomber Command in WWII decided, invoking what Just War theorists call “emergency ethics”, to bomb German cities and kill civilians to break the German will to fight. Much the same happened in the Pacific. While the world continues to be horrified by the dropping of two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the story of Tokyo’s conventional gravity bombing that killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki (almost) combined seems to attract less attention.
Sure, Germany and Japan brought this destruction on themselves. But the “liberal” societies that fought them did not do so on the basis of bay-ghairti. They were prepared to fight for their values, get killed and kill by the millions. If that is not tribal (“tribal man’s animals and women”, metaphorically speaking) I don’t know what is.
One of the best military historians, John Keegan, got it absolutely right: all armies are tribal and the best among them are most tribal, his best being the British Army in whose cradle institution, Sandhurst, Keegan taught for 26 years. In all-volunteer modern armies, we set aside the warrior, the tribesman, to protect our modern bay-ghairti. In states like Turkey and Israel, to name two, in times of war and mobilisation, all able-bodied men are required to be tribal.
But let’s get to the conceptual since Hoodbhoy’s article had that flourish.
Pray, what is ghairat? For Hegel, it presented mortal combat (Phenomenology of Spirit). There’s good discussion of it in Fukuyama’s The End of History and the Last Man. Joseph Waterman at Boston University says this: “[Hegel argues that] the aim of Life is to free itself from confinement ‘in-itself’ and to become ‘for-itself’. Not only does Hegel place this unfolding of Life at the very beginning of the dialectical development of self-consciousness, but he characterises self-consciousness itself as a form of Life and points to the advancement of self-consciousness in the Master/Slave dialectic as the development of Life becoming ‘for-itself’.”
In other words, Man fights and fights unto death for self-recognition. Camus presents the same idea in The Rebel, the slave, at some point deciding, that the rebellion is for “All or nothing”. This is a recurring theme in many works of philosophy and history. Thucydides reports this to us from across millennia in the contest that unfolded between Athens and its empire and the Peloponnesian League led by Sparta.
But back to the concrete. Hoodbhoy tells us that bay-ghairat Germany and Japan have thrived since they shed their ghairat, focusing their energies on socioeconomic development rather than war-preparedness (note how he selectively makes the two mutually exclusive!). He chooses to ignore that these two bay-ghairat states have managed to do so by allowing the ghairat of the United States to protect them through security arrangements, alliances and “extended deterrence”. Meanwhile, the US (is it ghairatmand or bay-ghairat with its slogan of ‘For God and Country’?) tops the list of spenders on defence, spending more than the next 14 states combined on SIPRI’s list of top defence spenders.
The rightwing paper Napoleons one doesn’t have to respond to but Hoodbhoy is a public intellectual of high merit and must realise the problem of creating binaries and passing as analysis what is essentially polemical writing. It is important that he contextualise his argument. Between the two extremes of ghairat (satirical rendering of a binding concept in a specific context) and bay-ghairti (extreme response to misconceived ghairat) there is the real space where priorities have to be determined and policy work done. This is where we have blundered and continue to but the recipe for correction is not a polemical juxtaposition of either/or binaries but understanding how the state, which will act as states do in a realist framework, has reduced the space for exercising its sovereignty, both internally and externally.
The history of ideas is the history of the Paradox: Enlightenment ending up in much destruction; scientific discoveries unleashing their tyranny; rationality committing murder. Hoodbhoy refers to Marcuse’s work in passing and presents it as a manifesto for pristine societies. This misrepresents Marcuse’s work which is highly sophisticated in its critique both of capitalism and the erstwhile Soviet Union — integrating individuals into modern systems through consumption and mass media. Modernity and modern states have similarly been criticised by other philosophers like Adorno, Horkheimer and Foucault. There are of course great poems like Eliot’s The Wasteland and The Love Song of J Alfred Prufrock and Auden’s The Unknown Citizen. One can go on.
The criticism of modernity, the modern state, mass consumption, and the state’s carceral control are well-known themes. It makes no sense to lose sight of them while criticising supposedly primeval ‘instincts’. In fact, when fighting wars or defending its values, the modern state combines the primeval spirit with technological advances! The Paradox reigns supreme.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 16th, 2012.
COMMENTS (83)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@let there be peace: "“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough” —- Albert Einstein"
So true. It also reminds me of what we use to say during our oral tests, "If you cant convince then, confuse them".
Perhaps we need to find the middle ground between ghayrat and bayghayrat, or even redefine these terms !
@Sudheer: How is Pakistan small. Compare its area & population with Japan & Germany.
Wow tribune trolls love hoodbhoy
Another interesting thing I noticed in the comments section of all the three articles were the comments pertaining to Hoodbhoy's article where the commentators siding with his view point voluntarily took on the responsibility of his spokesperson explaining what he actually meant and what not, what he actually referred to and what not etc. etc., while the fact is, he said what was in his article and anything else he could have said himself in his article.
After reading all the three articles on the subject of honor (ghairat) by Hoodbhoy, Maria, and Ejaz, I noticed one idiotic commonality, i.e. none of the writers bothered to define and explain what they exactly meant by honor (ghairat), the central theme of their articles. Now I am a bit confused because my own understanding of honor (ghairat) is something of a noble quality of human soul that compels its possessor to stand for and do what is right and resist the evil. While Hoodbhoy flatly rejected honor as a positive quality, Maria and Ejaz failed to clearly mention its worthiness.
@Indian:
calm down
Bouncer...
@Ali Tanoli
Readers of E,T dont understand serious stuff…..
Is that why you keep on commenting without bothering to 'READ' anything?
@Skeptic Our values are at any cost big shots intrest are protected in the wetren banks and three children education on reserved seat in american colleges...
Ejaz, So every modern state stands for certain values which it would defend even by going to war. What are those values which underlie the Pakistani state and which it would ( or should ) defend at all costs?
Couldn't read whole. My head spun with heavy word. Flow of essay is so poor.
Readers of E,T dont understand serious stuff.....
More than the article, the comments put a lot more spin by which I am still reeling.
@EH,
In the context of this article, I wish to paraphrase the words of someone wiser than anyone of us here.
Logic are meaningless. You could use logic to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer Simpson
Ejaz Haider always has something bona fide to tell his readers. Nice read!
Like so many others I, too, got lost in the language and references. But it must be a good article because Ali Tanoli seems to like it.
@ Mr. Ejaz Haider I am a little confused after reading about being ghairatmand or proudly bay-ghairat. The President sends a special aircraft to bring back an under-trial from my country and he is received by none other than your country's Interior Minister......and then I read that the Government of Pakistan has decided that the President will attend the Chicago conference
as the invitation is "without pre-condition."
@Indian: Absolutely spot on. It is the double-standards that are destroying our countries. Nobody wants to talk about a change in society. Everybody is making radical arguments about ghairmand and baigharat.
I got lost in the language....
Bertrand Russell laid down once that there are only two fully sovereign states;one is russia and other is america and the course of collision they are on would lead one to the victory creating a single super power in the world.that state would be fully sovereign.america emerged as victorious and is not only the super power but also the ONLY sovereign and self sufficient state.luxuries like ghairat come with self sufficiency and sovereignty.we should stop feeding our people with delusions of grandeur .this whole havoc has been created by us (the war on terror which led us to questions of ghairati and beghairati) .we have only perverted ideologies and ppl like hafiz saeed & OBL to defend.the problem is what we do in the name of ghairat
@Aziz Akhmad:
I appreciate your honesty and straightforwardness.
"If you cannot convince someone, confuse him"
is what Ejaz has been trying most of the time with his verbosity and because of this tendency many Pakistanis think he is a great analyst. To me he is a man with agenda of the deep state.
Who does not know the value of a simple and concise article that caters to most of the bell curve?
Who is he trying to impress? Not many Pakistanis or for that matter Indians are intellectuals of that level?
I have no clue what is going on here so I don't know how relevant this post is, but I feel a sudden urge to post this:
“If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough” ---- Albert Einstein
@A Reader: Can you translate that in English?
Let me confess unashamedly that I did not understand the article, and I spent more than 18 years in schools/college and university --- without flunking or repeating a year.
Any psychological theory can be deconstructed and disproved.
What Hoodbhoy wrote, it had a spirit. There were holes, but the point he made were sound. To defeat the spirit based on Technicality is sheer stupidity. Hoodbhoy was appealing to the less reasonable, less intelligent of the lot. Why Ejaz Haider would care to respond is beyond me, as I think is a very very smart man.
There are many instances where Haider himself has gone wrong and brakes his own suggestions to others. He creates binaries, when he says Pakistan must close down NATO routes until NATO apologizes. Thats in inflexible stance was it not?
@kaalchakra:
Allow me to say that you don't loose what you do not have at first place.Thanks to Hafeezs and many more like him.
After any natural disaster like floods or earthquakes, Pakistan appeals for aid. Where is the honor in appealing for aid from the global community when you have spent all the aid you got to buy weapons, leaving the majority of the population high and dry.No self-respecting country would beg for aid.In 64 years the economy should have reached a state, where Pakistan did not require aid, by investing money in infrastructure and education.
@A Reader: hahahaah....... what language was that!!!!!
Who are you trying to protect, Sir?
Sir, as your admirer, I went back and re-read the article. Agreed completely with whatever you would like to say. Bravo!
Hey Ejaz, Are you listening?
@ashok: I think you might have misunderstood my message. I am neither endorsing immorality nor bloodshed or begging bowl in the name of patriotism. All I am saying is that rather than questioning noble emotions of honor and dignity of a nation or human beings, how about we channel it more constructively? If people are really sensitive about their honor, how about we help them use it for better taxation, better education, better health care, better service to humanity? Why do we have to throw everything good out of the window just because our intellectuals have not been able to find a constructive use of it?
Can any man, woman, child or goat in Pakistan hinge their lives, livelihoods and well-being on such arguments?
Loved Dr. hoodhbhoy's article.. The author should keep in mind that he is wrting for ET, a newpaper and not a scientific journal or political science journal. For future, may be take into account who your readers are going to be!
Babloo
No wonder you Indians love Dr Hoodbhoy! What do Indians want? Pakistan to lose all ghairat!! To live like little slaves. Obviously, Hoodbhoy and Khaled Ahmad are your heroes. But India's evil designs will never succeed because Pakistan's heroes are Ejaz Haider and Professor Dr. Saeed Hafiz Sahib. Let India and Pakistan go their separate ways!
Most of the times wars are for survival not values.
Useless debate..... Lets write on social issues,critical and unresolved still.
@kaalchakra: Wonderful article if it contradicts HB’s. Well done, Sir. You like this article simply because you think it contradicts respected sir Hoodbhoy's work? We Indians would love to have him among us. People like you don't deserve an intellectual like Professor.
@Author:
Sir, I always look forward to your articles, whether I agree with them or not, for the sheer originality as well as the "alternative narrative" that they provide. I guess I will have to wait for another week cause this article is a huge disappointment. Sincerely!
This article was difficult to understand due to use of complex sentence structures, esoteric words and a paragraph structure that at least did not flow logically for me. I was however able t to understand one thing i.e. Ejaz disagrees with Parvez Hoodbhoy's (PH) suggestion to be proudly beghairat. PH had of-course made it clear that the ghairat he was asking to be discarded was the false chest thumping ego which is described by some Pakistanis e.g. DPC leaders as ghairat.
Well that is fine but it looks like he also disagrees with his own OpEd written last week the gist of which was also to forsake false ego (or gthe type of ghairat PH urges readers to discard) in Pakistan's national self interest. http://tribune.com.pk/story/376362/the-balls-in-pakistans-court/
Dear writer, when you try to put your feet in PHB's shoes next time, please ensure to take your shoes off first. While the former's article hit bull's eye on every single line. Yours is abstract(may be way too analog in an attempt to kill binaries) and lacks content, context and intent.
Useless hair splitting. Hoodbhoy's argument was very clear and talked about real things. Present article is just going around abstract things which only exist in arguments of nerdy minds.
This is exactly what HB was talking, that Mr Haider couldn't quote even single Muslim or Pakistani Intellectual in this Circus of Verbal Acrobatic but our Ghairatmand Laal Topi Walas continue to tell us that we are beacon of Ilm O Aagahi. . All HB said was to set aside your State sponsored ghairat which is keeping the fair share of the pie to be passed on to commoners. Real victim of this Ghairat is a man on the street, who cant find work to feed his children due to the Ghairatman policies of Ghairatmand rulers. Individually every human being is Ghairatmand but state policies can not be formulated on the basis of Ghairat.Realistically speaking, you only act ghairatmand to someone weaker than you, someone that can be neutralized through force or coercion, rarely has been the case otherwise, case in point (Tipu Sultan). Tipu displayed Ghairat and was massacred along with many others, like him. We can not make Pakistan Tipu Sultan, as they say, "If one must due for his country let it be your enemy". Now, look at Pakistan's example we hyped ghairatmandi, demanded halt to drones and blocked Nato Supply, if you couldn't afford to act Ghairatmans why did you ignited the fire of Ghairatmandi.And HB suggested to be Proudly Be Ghairat, because Ghairatmandi is making us take all the Be Ghairat decision anyway.
Ejaz's comparison of our "ghairat" with japanese is laughable. The way we puffed our chest with "ghairat" after killing of 24 of our brave soldiers after salala incident by blocking NATO supply route, then at the just the "threat" of US saction, we "shamefully" gave in to the US/nato demand, is not what the ghairatmand japanese would have behaved. After the may 2nd US Navy SEAL incident the japanese general would have commited "harakiri" (suicide), instead our COAS and DG-ISI got extentions!!!!
Mr Haider and Maria-and-other ghairat-brigade and co: Listen countering Prof-Hoodbhoy is not a child's play. Please don't bang your heads against a rock. Hoodbhoy is a rock of intellect and integrity and you guys lackeys of the establishment.
@babla , you wrote "Frankly, I liked the original article by Hoodbhoy. He made simple points: Ghairat lead to wrong priorities and policies, hatred of others, misplaced bravado – all these justified by invoking Islam and fear factors." Mr Hoodboy, wrote the opinion, with men like Mr Ejaz in mind. If you have read Mr Ejaz for last few years, you would know that he represents the 'ghairat' brigade that have brought so much 'bay-ghairiyat' upon Pakistan since 1947. Thats why Mr Hoodboy's article has offended Mr Ejaz.
It requires a bit of ghairatmandi to be a be-ghairat, to realize that true honor can only be parroted on a full stomach. Where is ghairat in parading gleaming tanks and missiles when 80% of the country is in ruins? I think the author has needlessly spewed random theories to criticize an article that was relatively straightforward in its message.
Understanding and Policy work needed in the space between ghairatmand and beghairat behavior; the comparison between our primeval order extended to the destructive madness of the modern era as a whole. Very nicely done.
Frankly, I liked the original article by Hoodbhoy. He made simple points: Ghairat lead to wrong priorities and policies, hatred of others, misplaced bravado - all these justified by invoking Islam and fear factors. Ejaz has neither changed my mind nor I'm convinced by his far-fetched theories. Prof. Hoodbhoy, please continue to write in the easily understood language on the issues that concern us all.
This is a very good article. I loved it. HB is spreading depression when we need inspiration.
@ashok: "Am I the only person with such a low IQ among your distinguished readers?"
Buddy you are not alone. PH's article was eay to understand. I have no idea what Ejaz said.
@A Reader... No, If one examines neoconceptualist Marxism, one is faced with a choice: either accept dialectic discourse or conclude that context is created by communication. A number of theories concerning neoconceptualist Marxism exist. But dialectic discourse implies that the goal of the reader is significant form.
Abian suggests that we have to choose between neoconceptualist Marxism and neomodernist textual theory. Therefore, the characteristic theme of Abian’s critique of the precultural paradigm of narrative is the futility, and subsequent dialectic, of dialectic art.
Mr Ejaz, when someone doesn't know what to say and has no clear idea, then the person indulges in lot of verbal acrobatics in a desperate effort to hide his lack of ideas or comprehension of the subject. Your opinion piece is an exhibit of that.
Well written.
Wonderful article if it contradicts HB's. Well done, Sir.
@Falcon:
I heard that Patriotism (Pakistani definition of ghairat) is the last refuge of a scroundal. Being Ghairatmand while keep collecting and still desiring more Khairat (largesse) from the "enemy" is deviod of morality.
Frederick Douglass: “The life of the nation is secure only while the nation is honest, truthful, and virtuous.”
Carl Schurz: “My Country! When right keep it right; when wrong, set it right!”
Howard Zinn: “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.”
A clear case of inferiority complex and guilt finding outlet in a vomit of intellectual gibberish. Obviously the author is feeling the strain of taking umpteen u-turns on the orders of his paymasters. You can't hide intellectual dishonesty by name dropping and by using long rarely used words.
You cannot take on Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy's black-and-white integrity by displaying 'chameleonistic gymnastics'.
third time i went over HB article after reading a previous and this criticism of his article. HB never criticized Germany and Japan as nations but a little patch before and during WWII. The Treaty of Versailles (folly of entente powers) strengthened some factions of nationalsts who drew heavily from German folk stab-in-the back (dolchstosslegend). Over time this narrative made any dissidence and free voice impossible. It was hegemony of a particular idea which drowned out other voices which definitely were there but got frightened risking that they would be termed as traitors. Germany during interregnum of WWI & WWII was not a homogenous lot but just hegemony of an irrational idea which was the product of that particular time. We know there was attempt inside Wehrmacht to dislodge Hitler from his seat. Here in Pakistan again it is hegemony of a narrative which, whenever a chance appears for other narratives to come on radar, gets more venom. HB assumes, i think, ghairat is something being persistent in follies and taking poison gagin again beliving it a panacea and lemming-like behavior which leads to collective fall, and tell me is he wrong?
Morality of States is different than individual morality. Similarly the concept of strong state could not be compared to a strong individual. The strength of the state depend on the size of population, natural resources, technological development, glorious history, geography, etc, and more importantly states’ foreign policy is guided by the supreme national interests. No need to remind the learned readers of ET that these are actually the interests of the ruling elite or institutions that is marketed as national interests to the masses. So talking of Ghairat in the context of international relations only reveals poor understanding on the part of pakistani masses and intelleginsia in respect of the interaction among states. The irony is that the so-called intellectualls are asking the advanced state of the age to comply with ethical standards observed in thier society, which is regretably still living the pre-modern era. Instead of talking Ghairat and Beghairiati, Pakistan intellectuals and masses should demand accountability from the rulers for conducting poor diplomacy.
Haider, you believe that by using complicated language and argument u can counter the argument put forward by HB in much simpler words. Guess what? u miserably failed
I read all three articles written by Mr. Hoodhbhoy, the lady and now Mr. Ejaz and none of them could impress me. The reason is simple, Pakistan in no way could ever be imagined in the league of the nation such as Germany or Japan. All the three authors committed the same mistake, albeit with different intent and motives, by comparing Pakistan's current situation with the eternal nations such as Germany and Japan, comfortably forgetting the fact that the Pakistan was an artificial country with no history, culture and ethos of its own. Pakistan is a small country, struggling to find its identity, she is economically bankrupt and increasingly finding it difficult to keep her head above the waters. Mr. Hoodhbhoy was trying to convey the same message to his countrymen and then the ghairat brigade seems to have got furious at him for telling the truth and they are after him. Let me remind you again Pakistan is not a world player, it is at best a south Asian country with no more importance than Bangladesh or Srilanka. Realize this and trust me Pakistanis, you would be a happy nation!
I don't understand this article!
Good article. My contention with Mr. Hoodboy's piece is that it is not based on pragmatic realization of human psyche. Human beings and nations don't change over night to become Bay-ghairat (as he calls it). This goes for Japan, Germany, Turkey, and many other countries. Even when the idea of honor and its manifestation in the form of war has disappeared, the underlying emotional current continues to push these nations forward. Post-war re-construction of many countries has been a function of this altered manifestation of honor, a re-invigorated patriotism banking on the idea that we as a nation can not and should not fail. How about we as a nation embrace this sophisticated idea of honor and patriotism rather than throwing the baby along with the bath water (by discrediting honor) altogether?
I've said it before and I'll say it again a bit differently to not bore myself. Honor is society based in its definition, therefor, you cannot compare Pakistan's use of it and the use of it in a drastically different society. What is actually being debated is that of moral evolution which Pakistan has put absolutely no effort into furthering because religious types won't hear it and if they do, it'll get you injured.
Bravo sir great read i like it when u said japan and germany sold there ghairath for bay ghairathi nice one.... and also God and Country and In God we Trust how these logos are secular..... But we are free today because of there ghairath jaye japan and germany ... that end it all the colonies occupation .....
Ejaz, most of the stuff went above my head. I must admit that I feel paralysed by seeing this piece overanalysed.
Am I the only person with such a low IQ among your distinguished readers?
Keegan was comparing tribes with army regiments, not nations. According to Clausewitz, in war people are paired with the irrational forces (primordial violence, hatred and enmity); army with non-rational forces (friction, chance, and probability); and the Government which rational forces (policy driven by reason).
So once a government decides to wage war, as a tool of rational policy, the passions of troops and people are ignited to overcome natural fear and hardships.
i don't know why we are obsessed with the words ghayrat and baygharti i thought Dr Hoodbhoy was very clear in his arguments he was expressing his surprise at the behavior of both Germany and Japan both highly industrialized countries to succumb to very ancient tribal notions of ghayrat, and Dr Hoodbhoy's arguments about ghayrat and baygharat were in the context of state policy not about individual human behavior in other words it is not the behavior of a ghayratmand state to be a safe haven for terrorist to spend billions on defense when a huge percentage of its population are living below the poverty line and to make itself a virtual pariah in the comity of nations.
Why is it so that when an article goes viral and gains significant comments and viewership (as was the case with Dr Hoodbhoy's original article) does half a dozen follow-up articles appear, trying to cash-in on the popularity that the original item achieved.
This 'me-too' brigade then climbs on to the 'popularity bandwagon' with a simple aim to over-analyse and shred the original article into pieces with analysis-paralysis.
Dr Hoodbhoy presented a very valid argument regardless of how 'offensive' it might have been for the 'ghairat-brigade'.
Guys and gals: come up with something original of your own and let the originality intact and in peace. Talk about something different and please stop 'me-too' rants with these pointless 'clarifications'.
Haris
From past 3 articles, I have seen that you guys started talking alot about germany and japan without substance. I request you to study their political, social, economical history from 1901 to 1980. they also gone through various stages. You may laugh about this period but it's the correct historical duration. You will learn alot from them. And first thing you have to learn is they remove the word "HATE" from their society. Surprisingly, you guys do not talk about their social values specially of japan. Visit japan and see people are so polite and socialy so advanced. Ofcourse they don't take cover of religion or other things, they just go on improving their society. Not just economicaly but socialy they are far ahead of other asian countries.