Thursday, June 27, 2013

Prophets of the Twentieth Century

An incomplete piece I wrote a while ago. I've been too busy - read lazy to finish it. This'll have to do, I guess.
image by the wonderful @pathipen

To the observant mind, the relationship of science fiction with original scientific discovery is very much a symbiotic one. This much is very clear from how the development of the genre coincides with periods of the 20th century filled with ground-breaking scientific discovery. As scientists were expanding their perception of the cosmos, writers were awakening humanity's imagination to the possibilies that these discoveries now opened up.

None more so than in the 1940s, often referred to as the Golden Age of Science Fiction. It was in this period that the genre rose from the literary obscurity of "pulps" and started gaining attention from mainstream literary circles. Although, it must be acknowledged that most of the Golden Era stories were published in pulp magazines, it was just the nature of the stories that had changed. This change is mostly attributed to one man: John W. Campbell, editor of many science fiction magazines including the famous Astounding Science Fiction.

What made Campbell different was that he was truly a man of science. He'd studied physics at MIT and had been an accomplished writer himself. He wanted stories that were clear in their prose and attempted to explain the science at their core. He wanted to break the mould, and invited new ideas and better writing for Astounding. He wanted authors to contemporary scientific theories and shape worlds where their applications had been realised. It was in this search that the avant-garde editor found some of the most brilliant writers of the era including three who changed the face of the genre forever: Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert Heinlein; "The Big Three".

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robots had existed in literature as far back as Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. These were mostly tales that contained indictment of the human obsession with creating life and showed disastrous consequences of such endeavours. The robotic creatures in these cautionary tales had limited intelligence and were mostly crude, destructive beings that only embodied the darker, baneful impulses of its creators.

The word "Robot" was first used in 1912, in the title of Slavic play Rossum's Universal Robots by Karel Čapek. The word literally means worker in Slavic, and that's how most writers of the early 20th century approached them. In the science fiction pulp magazines robots were humanoid machines capable of inhuman strength and precision, but incapable of performing tasks beyond physical labour. These were mostly electrical appliances that conveniently malfunctioned to provide the stories' adventuring protagonists with a destructive nemesis.

Isaac Asimov grew up reading these stories and wondered if robots could be more than just a symbolic representation of the mechanical, efficient and soulless political uprising of Communism in Europe. His stories in Astounding magazine showed robots that were highly intelligent and capable of solving complicated problems. Over the years through his stories as Asimov advanced the possibilities of robotics he also developed a human-robot relationship. In his "I, Robot" series of stories he showed robots to be not only capable of intelligent thought but also empathy and emotional attachment. But Asimov's continued quest to make robot's more liberated raised the ugly question that had plagued science fiction stories (including Capek's pioneering play)over the years: What if robots turn on their creators?

For Asimov this question led to even deeper philosophical dilemmas of free-will and the limitations of artificial intelligence in perceiving deeper moral issues. Asimov wanted a moral code that would lessen the threat to humanity that a self-conscious machine seemingly posed. With the help of his mentor John Campbell, Asimov developed his famous Three Laws of Robotics. These laws were hard-wired into every robot's "positronic brain". The laws in their earliest form were:
  • A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  • A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
  • A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.
With his Laws of Robotics, Asimov didn't just add a hilt to the sword of robotics, he gave robots free-will within the confines of the laws. He also gave science fiction writers space to explore the possibilities that these new companions with extraordinary potential now opened up. That is not to say that these laws were sufficient in completely solving the problem. In fact, quite a few of Asimov's stories, including the famous "I, Robot" series, turned on the confusion that these laws created when exposed to certain situations. Through his own stories he openly admitted to limitation of these laws.

Limited though they may be, Asimov's Laws of Robotics and his efforts in redefining the role of robots in the worlds of science fiction were starting to bear fruit as more and more authors started using robots as more than just plot devices of destruction. He himself took the socially acceptable, intelligent and self-aware robot companion to a whole new level in his 1976 novelette, The Bicentennial Man. In this a house-hold robot named Andrew develops a deep friendship with the young daughter of his master and through his interaction with her develops creative abilities beyond his original programming. In The Bicentennial Man, Asimov openly explores issues of slavery, prejudice, intellectual freedom and mortality. Above all, Asimov questions what it means to be human. Can a robot that has reached a certain level of intelligence and emotional maturity be declared a human? A far cry from the mechanical version of the Golem of Jewish lore, that robots had been for many years.

Today, we have artificial intelligence and robots running every aspect of the technology world. In an era where computers were nothing more than basic calculators, Asimov envisioned today's computers that are helping surgeons diagnose and perform complicated surgical procedures. In 2010, a Slovenian team of surgeons successfully performed heart surgery using the world's first "true robotic surgeon". The robot was more than just a precise instrument, mirroring the hands of the user. Guided by general instructions from the human interface the surgical robot performed the surgery on its own.

We may still be half a century away from Andrew, the Bicentennial Man, but we have primitive robots and AI systems in the gearbox management systems of our cars, in the assisted-landing systems of our aircraft and in the assembly lines of our manufacturing plants.

The world took a massive leap from theory to practical advancements in technology in the past 35 years or so. There is no doubt that in many ways the world is shaping into one once imagined by Asimov and his peers. Many even go as far as to suggest that the greats of Science Fiction helped steer the direction of technological advancements by inspiring generations of scientists with their stories. Others consider them to be prophets who looked at the possibilities scientific discoveries opened up and invisioned the present direction of humanity. Eitherway, Asimov and others of his extraordinary ilk deserve more credit than is thrown their way by the champions of 'literary merit'. 

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Where do we go from here?



Sectarian conflict is nothing new to this region. It certainly pre-dates the Partition, and brawls in Moharram in Lucknow were a near annual occurrence. But the scale of the conflict was nowhere near what it has become recently. Since 1989, sectarian violence has claimed the lives of 4056 people. An alarming trend that has snowballed into a Shia-genocide that is happening up and down the country simultaneously. 

Many attribute this increased trend in armed sectarian violence to the former dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq's militarisation of the religious extreme in the 80s. Just as many hold former Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's declaration of  Ahmedi's as non-Muslims as the biggest hit to Pakistan's religious minority's chance for peaceful co-existence. Others would raise circulating conspiracy theories about the involvement of foreign entities in promoting the violence in the country; especially, the recent Shia-genocide. 

I do not have a hard time accepting any of these opinions. I, however, do not believe them to be at the root of the problem. I think that they have been catalysts that accelerated a tendency that already existed, and maybe even help justify the discrimination of religious minorities in the deranged social mindset. The true cause lies in an even more auspicious place.  

No matter how many intellectual discussions we have on Mr. Jinnah's intentions and try to reinterpret the Two-Nation Theory, the undeniable fact remains that Pakistan is a country formed for the purpose of obtaining and cementing the dominance of a certain group of people: Muslims. Lines were redrawn on maps and millions of people were displaced to insure this dominance. So essentially the ideology of this country is one that at its core negates difference and seeks uniqueness. 

 In no way am I questioning the need for the partition or even the wisdom behind the ideology itself. What I'm merely pointing out is that generation after generation we've carried the hangover of this ideology. The segregation of Indian society did not stop in August 1947. In fact, we've been at it in different ways, at different place, in different times since. At every opportunity, the dominant mindset of society has identified and discriminated against anyone who is different from the established norm; be it on the basis of race or religion. Add to that tendencies for violence and mob mentality of a third-world country and you have the situation we face all over the country today. A warped mindset that justifies brutality against fellow countrymen just because they are different. A society ripe for manipulation by anybody who wants to kick things off. All they need to supply is the means and the opportunity; the motivation to do harm is already there.

So where do we go from here?

I recently had a conversation with psychiatrist and blogger Awais Aftab about the different psychological tendencies of Pakistani society. We mostly focused on the prevalent 'victim's psyche', where society as a whole believes that the source of the problems that plague them is external and so the solutions to these problems must come from there as well. There is very little sense of responsibility in society. Awais was of the opinion that even though victim mentality is studied at the individual level, it can also be a characteristic of society as a whole; especially in one such as ours. When we discussed possible solutions for this, he said that in the individual's case you need a motivation from within to get over this victim mentality and make proactive efforts towards improving his/her situation. A society cannot get over its collective victim mentality on a social level until its individuals have overcome victim blaming individually. Once sufficient number of individuals have changed themselves they can help motivate the rest of society to change as well. Yes, a highly improbable solution. It's the same when it comes to the social inability to co-exist. You just cannot have a 100 million people in therapy. 

Or can you?

There are close to 40 million children enrolled in pre-primary, primary and secondary levels in Pakistan. With major reforms to the education policy of the country we can start instilling values of co-existence, patience, and instil a more proactive, solution-oriented attitude in society that is clearly lacking. Raising citizens who will not only stop adding to the problems of the country, but also start contributing to solutions. Maybe this won't be enough in the short-term to create a society that celebrates co-existence, but it may go a long way in diluting the venom that is present that justifies taking a gun in your hand and taking the life of a fellow countryman.   



Monday, February 27, 2012

اردو

کل بسمہ نےاپنی مادری زبان میں بول کر سنایا اور کہا کے باقی لوگ بھی اپنی اپنی مادری زبانوں میں بولیں۔ یہ میرے لئے بظاہر کوئ بڑا مسلہ نہیں تھا کیونکے میری مادری زبان اردو ہے اور میں صبح شام لوگوں سے اردو میں بات کرتا ہون۔ مگر جب میں نے یہ سوچنا شروع کیا کہ میں اردو میں کیا کہونگا اور صرف اردو میں کیسے کہونگا تو مجھے یہ احساس ہوا کہ میں روز مرا کی زندگی میں جو اردو بولتا ہوں وہ اردو نہیں ہے۔ بلکے یہ کہنا چاہیے کے اردو کی خالص شکل نہیں ہے۔ یہ اصل میں اردو اور انگریزی کی ایک کھچڑی سی ہے جو میں نے اور میرے ہم عمر اور لوگوں نے اپنا لی ہے۔ اور اس حد تک اپنا لی ہے کے میں صرف اردو میں اپنی بات بیان کرنے کی سلاحیت کھو چکا ہوں۔

میں بیان نہیں کرسکتا کہ یہ میرے لئے کتنی تکلیفدے بات ہے۔ کیونکے آج تک میں اپنا شمار ان لوگوں میں کرتا تھا جو اردو اچھی طرح بول اور پڑھ سکتے ہیں۔ غالب اور میر کو سمجھنا تو دور کی بات، یہاں حال اتنا برا ہے کہ چھوٹی سی گفتگو بھی صرف اردو میں نہیں کرسکتا۔

اگر آپ مجھ سے اس نالایقی کی وجہ پوچھیں تو میں شاید سستی کو وجہ ٹھیراوں، مگر یہ جواب میرے لئے بھی ناکافی ہے ۔ اس بات کا تعین کرنے کے لئے کے ہم اتنی آسانی سے اس خوبصورت زبان کوتباہ کیوں کر رہے ہیں مجھے اپکی رائے کی ضرورت ہے۔

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Blasphemy - a calm analysis

A buzurg of the family for whom I have a lot of respect both as a scholar and an intellectual recently published a book. It provides the moderate Muslim with the information required to deal with bombardment of contradicting extreme views both from the liberal West and the hard-line religious fanatics. Without a doubt, it will provide the reader with a more balanced and concrete understanding of both Islamic ideology and history, than is possible from motor-mouthed TV evangelists. The book is called Islamic Society: Need for Revival and Development of Confidence, Creativity and Pluralism by Wajihuddin Siddiqui.

This is an excerpt from the book on how the blasphemy law should be handled:

For dealing with blasphemy cases in the Muslim world, an attempt should be made through Ijtihad to do away with the dead penalty altogether and adopt a lesser punishment, keeping in view the following considerations,

• Allah has not ordained death punishment to blasphemers. In fact He is allowing them a little time (during their life on earth) to enjoy their acts of blasphemy, as He is going to inflict severe punishment on them in the Hereafter.(39:8)

• Allah has ordained death punishment only in two cases (5:32). Blasphemy is not one of them.


• It is doubtful if the Prophet awarded death punishment to anybody solely on charges of blasphemy. Let us consider the case of Kab ibn al Ashraf who was executed on the orders of the Prophet. He was a Jew and was writing derogatory poetry about the Prophet and his family. But additionally he was also engaged in instigating people of Medina against the newly developed community of the Muslims. Hence the death punishment awarded to him cannot be attributed entirely to his blasphemous utterances. Some other people were given death penalty during the Prophet’s time were mostly poets, poetesses or reciters of disparaging poetry against the Prophet and Islam. These people were creating mischief in the society and were trying to wean away the new Muslims from their faith, especially the ones whose had not yet taken deep roots. They were thus guilty of multiple crimes, not of blasphemy alone.

• Imposition of death penalty for blasphemy is not the exclusive feature of the Islamic Society. It existed in many other societies for a long time. Jews condemned Jesus Christ to death punishment on charges of blasphemy. Christian Church has killed thousands of renegades and blasphemers in pre-modern times. But both these religions have now abandoned these practices.


The author recognizes that the death penalty in dealing with cases of blasphemy is a time-honoured tradition and to expect a complete dismissal, for now would be incorrect. The author however, proposes the following changes to the laws as they stand today,

• The blasphemers should be given an opportunity to repent and thus escape death punishment.

• The blasphemer should be given a chance to defend his position. Besides, he should not be executed instantly by any individual. The punishment should be awarded by a court after hearing the accused and taking necessary evidences. In this connection, “Every man’s fate We have fastened on his own neck: On the Day of Judgment We shall bring out for him a scroll which he will be see spread open. It will be said to him ‘Read thy own record: Sufficient is thy soul this day to make an account against thee’." (17:13). It is thus clear that even on the Day of Judgment Allah would show the record of men before imparting judgment. Thus there is no justification for killing the blasphemer on the spot.


My personal views on the subject are very close to the ones expressed above. What I find surprising, and more than a little amusing is that even after all this, I do not know what that woman Aasia-bibi allegedly said. I’m sure not many do. Her actual guilt or innocence seems so irrelevant now.

For generations in this country people have been acting and reacting impulsively to the challenges that arose and have achieved very little. Intolerance and impatience towards the views and sensitivities of others has left us incapable of resolving anything through dialogue and understanding. Almost all change, be it positive or negative has come through either political backscratching or forced down our throats by dictators. I myself have often been blamed of being intolerant and impatient to opposing view, a habit I have worked hard to curb (even though those who helped me in this regard have become both intolerant and impatient to my views :)). There is great need for dialogue, and informed discussions on sensitive subjects such as blasphemy, but not on Live Television. Not on the loudspeaker of mosques or in religious gatherings. These discussions need to be conducted between scholars of all views in a private atmosphere of tolerance and respect. I firmly believe that Qadri may have pulled the trigger, the masjid's Imam's rousing sermon may have brought him to that decision, but it was ratings-hungry TV channels and TV show hosts who milked these issues to create sensationalist viewing at the price of mutating the nation's feelings on a sensitive matter and now the whole country is burning.

Friday, January 14, 2011

Being a Muslim - desi style

A few years ago, there was a panel discussion on one of the Indian TV channels about the challenges of the modern Indian-Muslim. Unsurprisingly, Bollywood stars and TV-evangelists formed the panel. Who needs average people to discuss the problems of commoners when you can have Shahrukh Khan blitzing the screen? What was surprising however, was the absence of any cricketers from the panel; but I digress.

I found the discussion very interesting. In a nutshell: the practicing Muslim is having a hard time settling into secular India. He can be roughly divided into two categories. One who is holding the hard-line and orthodox religious interpretations very common to this region and thereby alienating himself amongst his fellow countrymen. The other, who in his eagerness to assimilate into the secular/liberal social surroundings is alienating himself amongst his fellow Indian-Muslims. Both situations creating strife and conflict which have often reached nationwide vandalism and bloodshed. According to the mentioned discussion the lack or complete absence of the moderate, practicing Muslim society is widening the gap between practicing Indian-Muslims and the rest of the country. Funnily enough, any suggestions of intolerance of the non-Muslim majority were quickly brushed aside.

The Indian-Muslim can learn from his Pakistani brothers about this. Pakistan being a Muslim majority country does not have India’s problems so a straightforward comparison might seem a bit inane. However, the way the Pakistani society developed a moderate, socially acceptable version of Islamic practice can be a fine example for the Indian-Muslims. It is understandably difficult to envisage Pakistan as an example of a moderate religious society so soon after the murder of Governor Taseer. It is easy to ignore the moderate Muslim that makes up most of this country’s population. He does not vote, his opinions being moderate are not interesting enough to justify attention.

The moderate Pakistani Muslim, and it will not be wrong to say that the moderate Sunni-Muslim has diluted his religion; not just the ideology but also the practice. Instead of five prayers a day he only prays once a week on Friday. He fasts with great fervor and displays piety during the Holy month of Ramadan. He indulges in music and cinema but does not drink alcohol or eat pork. He feels no obligation to grow a beard or wear his trousers above his ankles. The women may or may not cover their heads, doing so more out of traditional conformity than religious obligation. The moderate Pakistan-Muslim has confined religion to select occasions and situations. He believes it to be a private matter and does not apply it to all forms of his life, as is expected from a believer of almost any organized religion. Religious devotion for the average Pakistani is aimed more towards the annual Urs or mela than a greater Islam VS the-rest-of-the-world agenda that is touted by the extreme right; a trend that is changing drastically.

In Pakistan today the identity of the moderate Muslim is under threat. There is a clear sense of confusion as the voices (and actions) of the extremist, fundamentalist right and the liberal, secular left are getting louder and louder. In addition to his constant battle against poverty and declining living standards, he is now being forced to relinquish his conflict-free beliefs and to jump on one bandwagon or the other; a situation being made worse by the tactless handling of the so-called secular democratic government.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Rant: spitting at the stars and what not

I must admit, I don’t understand blasphemy. I looked it up in the dictionary and that didn’t help much. From what I understand, it is blasphemy when one’s religious or spiritual beliefs are made the subject of hate-speech. That’s the easy part, but here’s what I don’t get: Being raised in urban Pakistan in the 90s, I’m sure a lot of you reading this will have heard Jummah rants from our esteemed maulvis against Jews and Christians and Hindus. How their beliefs are inferior and how their deities are vile. Isn’t that blasphemy?

I also distinctly remember a tele-film on PTV about this fleet of the Pakistan Navy that sneaked past Indian marine defenses and unleashed a barrage of artillery fire on an Indian military outpost and neighboring village Dawarka. The climax of this tale of extreme bravado was the destruction of a Hindu temple – incidentally the same Mohammed Bin Qasim demolished. I am ashamed to admit that I found the sight of Hindu worshippers running away in fright quite gratifying. I’m not too sure that the 1.5% of Hindu “Pakistanis” would have found it gratifying watching it on “national” television. They wouldn’t have found it at all pleasing to see their own “jawans” turning a territorial conflict against a secular enemy into a religious one.

So the next time we have fits of horror and outrage at a video of a man clad in orange spewing rubbish or hear of a minister doing so in a run-down church in America or learn of a movie made in Europe expressing anti-Muslim sentiments, we should think look to ourselves and our own intolerance towards other beliefs.

And that’s not the worst of it. It isn’t any less deplorable, although understandable when individuals or small groups discriminate based on religion or race. But what makes me despair is how governments and legal systems are grossly discriminating against their own citizens all over the world for having beliefs and ideologies different from the standard.

Recently, in Italy a Muslim woman was fined for wearing a hijab on the streets on her way to a prayer meeting. We’ve already seen the persistent discrimination hijab wearing Muslim women are facing in France. But staying closer to home, here in Pakistan there are questionable blasphemy laws that are being continuously manipulated to further suppress the minorities especially the Christians. Last week, a Christian woman in Sheikhupura was sentenced to death by the district courts for uttering blasphemous words. The story as I’ve heard it is that four Muslim women from a village near Sheikhupura reported to the police that they had witnessed this Christian woman uttering blasphemous words. The mother of five then spent a year in jail, before being sentenced to death by the district courts. This situation is pretty common actually. Around 10 people in the past 15 years have been sentenced to death over similar charges and then released on appeal to higher courts.
What baffles me terribly is that how easy it is for four individuals to point the finger at a Christian or Hindu citizen of this country accusing them of blasphemy and then the legal system will put them through hell because of it.

A few weeks ago, I posted a very funny YouTube video on Facebook from the 70s show “Monty Python and the flying circus”. Here a hilarious situation of a man being stoned for blasphemy falls into comical chaos. To the average viewer, the accusation of uttering “the name of our lord” and the severity of the subsequent punishment added to the hilarious inadequacies of the executioners. After reading about this particular incident and the blasphemy law in Pakistan, I couldn’t stop thinking about that clip.

The point I want to make in this very random rant, is that like Afia Siddiqui there are many other daughters of this country facing discrimination on this basis of religious intolerance. Daughters for whom we can do more than just pray.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

As a nation simply stares…

Water grey

Through the windows, up the stairs

Chilling rain

Like an ocean everywhere

Don't want to reach for me do you

I mean nothing to you

The little things give you away

And now there will be no mistaking

The levees are breaking

All you've ever wanted

Was someone to truly look up to you

And six feet under water

I Do

Hope decays

Generations disappear

Washed away

As a nation simply stares

Don't want to reach for me do you

I mean nothing to you

The little things give you away

But there will be no mistaking

The levees are breaking

All you've ever wanted

Was someone to truly look up to you

And six feet under water

I Do

All you've ever wanted

Was someone to truly look up to you

And six feet under ground now

I

Now I do

Linkin Park - Little Things Give You Away