The wider point remains valid (in my opinion): fundamentalism is primarily a legacy of General Z and the fostering of fanatics by the establishment -what Khaled Ahmed calls the military-mullah nexus.

To say that there was an “unprecedented” rise of fundamentalism in her tenure doesn’t make much sense (since it only lasted a few years and, more importantly, because the taleban and Kashmiri jihadis were supported by the military /ISI (and Saudi money, no doubt).

It is precisely that type of vitriolic response -”liberal idiots”-that Raza is talking about when he says how this is opposed to the syncretic , liberal traditions of Pakistan. It is the same type of response by certain sectors that looked on B.B. with horror and disgust..that thinks ’secular’ and ‘liberal’ are tainted words.

And I would suggest that it is precisely that type of reaction that is keeping this country back.

So, yeah, sink your ships, blow people up you don’t like. What a joke!

Yes, and your invaluable contributions are much needed in this regard Raza..to remind people that the fundamental traditions of this country are as radically opposed to Saudi fanaticism as they are to their ‘chamchas’ and admirers in this country.

My only slight quibble with you-and this is nothing between friends-is that you suppose these buggers actually have an ideology
For me, these people are nihilists, full of hatred and bitterness.

Sometimes it is better to go “off-line” than stay “on-line”.

Keep well,

b.

But the religious tone was actually more to do with how I coped with her death in the mystical setting and thought of her respect for the Sufis. And also how the Sufi thought was a counterpoint to the ideology upheld by those who wanted her dead.

Naveed: I would not like to base my judgement on a British journalist as I am not shure where he is coming from. This is a long discussion - what she did and what she could not do.. I respect your point of view

Secondly, it’s not clear that she did, in fact, little for the poor. the electrification of southern Punjab, for instance, is said by many to be one of her achievements.

Thirdly, please remember that the PPP has hardly been in power. In her first stint the Punjab “blocked” her .

And fourthly, the PPP -irrespective of its record on the ground-offered people hope..and that’s no mean thing. anyone who can inspire people, who can bring them along in the political discussion, engage with them, all of these things hardly constitute “sod all”. But then again, what should one expect from a British ‘journalist’!

You say it’s not appropriate and then go on to say a “sad excuse for a person”. How utterly bizarre. Bad form on your part, I’m afraid.

for one, B.B. never expressed, as far as i know, her religious views at the public level, just as she didn’t talk about sindh -and rightly so. The PPP was, fundamentally, a secular nationalist party.

to talk about party politics on the same level as the fanatics-i.e in terms of what or who represents the ‘real’ Islam is already to miss the reasons why the party had mass appeal and to concede too much to them. It was because the Party talked about the needs of the common man, about the ordinary worker, that it had support. The syncretic tradition,as I know it at least, means NOT talking about religion all the time…it’s about what Khaled Ahmed called ‘liminal communities’.

Best wishes,

b.