Happy Thanksgiving folks!
I love Thanksgiving as a holiday. I like how the US holiday season begins with a day that everyone in the country feels comfortable observing sans tripping over political correctness (a rant on that some other time although Asad has sort of blogged about that here).
There's a spirit of festivity, togetherness, giving thanks that I happily buy into. I think it's grown on me even more so in the last few years as I have come to think of America as home. Not so much when I moved here initially but then again change is always difficult to cope with even if it is also exciting at the same time. I like that it's a tradition that is all-encompassing - no matter color, gender, creed, or anything else to which you belong I like that it is something that all Americans can share. Even if it sounds cheesy, it reminds me of Eid in Pakistan ... a holiday that the majority observes in their own different ways with multiple traditions and rituals but we agree on the overall contours of it all. I like that it tends to veer away from liminality - in both spirit and practice.
Here's wishing everyone a fabulous and joyous holiday. May you have a lot to be thankful for and to celebrate. Bon appetit!
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Monday, November 05, 2007
Emergency Rule in Pakistan: still processing
When I first heard the news Saturday morning I really wanted to blog about the imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan - after making sure that everyone I knew was okay (although that's a pretty minimalist definition of okay that I'm operating with here - as in physical well-being) + getting to all the news I could to ensure that the law and order situation in the country hadn't deteriorated further. To be fair, it rarely does when the troops are out and more or less in charge - sad as that may sound that's the way it has been so far.
I never got around to blogging because in between trying to follow the news - including President Musharraf's address - and talking about it with friends I continued to realize that I'm still grappling with what happened. I didn't simply want to be another one of those voices in the blogosphere that took to a missive leaving the larger problem unexamined and unquestioned.
Right now, grading and writing seem to warrant greater immediate attention this Monday morning. That, and to be honest, I'm still processing my own thoughts.
But I did want to at least acknowledge the current goings-on here at LTLWI. Among the multiple things that I find boggling about this entire mess (which I think it is for reasons that go beyond the failure of the democratic process or obstacles to it - both of which I'm sure apply since people are talking about them but I wonder if anyone is pausing to think what it means to be democratic and applying more than the minimalistic definition of holding elections and giving the impression of a democratic process), is the continued appreciation for the role of the judiciary of the country becoming part of the protests. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with Musharraf's dismissal of the Chief Justice and imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan - presuming that the reason as "they" say was the fact that a final decision on his presidency and being "in uniform" was to be announced this week. I refuse to be that cynical because I have no way of knowing if that was indeed his motivation. [I'm usually amused and at other times hover somewhere between being livid to being unable to believe it when folks have commentary to offer on what we conventionally call politics without having access to a lot of information that would be crucial to the puzzle]. It might well be but I simply do not know. But I digress.
Back to the point I was making about the judiciary, color me seriously uncomfortable about the involvement of this body in leading protests etc. There's a great deal of jubiliation about all of this that I just can't comprehend. Even if those folks are the ones who best know the law, isn't one of the ideals involved here related to the ability of the judiciary to preside over court proceedings that might be related to all of this? Doesn't the direct involvement compromise their ability to be as impartial as possible? Granted that's an ideal and none of us can ever be truly objective. Even if the judiciary isn't involved in protests etc, the individuals are bound to have some kind of opinion. There's no way around that. But I do believe that it's messier if they're the ones at the forefront of any kind of massive political uprising and are using their office as a platform to do so.
Color me idealistic or naive, but I truly believe that as much as we want to admire these folks for the political spirit and beliefs and courage we ought to be concerned about the way in which this transforms their official role as the judiciary as well as how problematic their involvement, in its present iteration, is. I color me extremely disconcerted.
I never got around to blogging because in between trying to follow the news - including President Musharraf's address - and talking about it with friends I continued to realize that I'm still grappling with what happened. I didn't simply want to be another one of those voices in the blogosphere that took to a missive leaving the larger problem unexamined and unquestioned.
Right now, grading and writing seem to warrant greater immediate attention this Monday morning. That, and to be honest, I'm still processing my own thoughts.
But I did want to at least acknowledge the current goings-on here at LTLWI. Among the multiple things that I find boggling about this entire mess (which I think it is for reasons that go beyond the failure of the democratic process or obstacles to it - both of which I'm sure apply since people are talking about them but I wonder if anyone is pausing to think what it means to be democratic and applying more than the minimalistic definition of holding elections and giving the impression of a democratic process), is the continued appreciation for the role of the judiciary of the country becoming part of the protests. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with Musharraf's dismissal of the Chief Justice and imposition of emergency rule in Pakistan - presuming that the reason as "they" say was the fact that a final decision on his presidency and being "in uniform" was to be announced this week. I refuse to be that cynical because I have no way of knowing if that was indeed his motivation. [I'm usually amused and at other times hover somewhere between being livid to being unable to believe it when folks have commentary to offer on what we conventionally call politics without having access to a lot of information that would be crucial to the puzzle]. It might well be but I simply do not know. But I digress.
Back to the point I was making about the judiciary, color me seriously uncomfortable about the involvement of this body in leading protests etc. There's a great deal of jubiliation about all of this that I just can't comprehend. Even if those folks are the ones who best know the law, isn't one of the ideals involved here related to the ability of the judiciary to preside over court proceedings that might be related to all of this? Doesn't the direct involvement compromise their ability to be as impartial as possible? Granted that's an ideal and none of us can ever be truly objective. Even if the judiciary isn't involved in protests etc, the individuals are bound to have some kind of opinion. There's no way around that. But I do believe that it's messier if they're the ones at the forefront of any kind of massive political uprising and are using their office as a platform to do so.
Color me idealistic or naive, but I truly believe that as much as we want to admire these folks for the political spirit and beliefs and courage we ought to be concerned about the way in which this transforms their official role as the judiciary as well as how problematic their involvement, in its present iteration, is. I color me extremely disconcerted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
