|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
review Classic
approach Zia
Mohyeddin column Paul Scofield remained the most unrecognised of actors even after he had been declared the natural heir to Sir Lawrence Olivier. This was because of his own shyness and his avowed resolve to remain intensely private. He did not drink at the Garrick (posh actor's club) and he wasn't a regular diner at the Ivy or the Caprice, the two exclusive restaurants where the likes of Noel Coward, John Gielgud, Douglas Fairbanks Junior dined regularly -- and he did not open fetes.
This book should be read neither as history nor as a treatise on politics; it is, in the writer's own words, "a modern Muslim woman's view." No ordinary woman and no ordinary view though By: I. A. Rehman Reconciliation:
Islam, Democracy and the West Benazir Bhutto is concerned
with "two historic clashes unfolding in the world today that appear This proposal may seem "daunting and even impossible" but something fresh has to be done, something "out of the box." For, "by staying within the box has brought poverty, ignorance, hopelessness, violence and dictatorship to far too many Muslims around the world. Staying within the box has set Islam and the West on a dangerous and unnecessary collision course." It is time for new ideas, for bold commitment, for honesty -- among people and between people. "There has been enough pain," she says, "it is time for reconciliation." Benazir undertakes the huge task of building bridges between Islam and the West because her country has become "the most dangerous place in the world" and faces the "threat of both Talibanisation and Balkanisation." It is caught up in both of the world's clashes. But before presenting Pakistan's recovery plan she has to convince the West on two points -- first, that its conception of Muslims being incurable terrorists is wrong, and, secondly, the cause of Muslim anger lies in the treatment meted out to them by the West. In a fairly long chapter on the battle within Islam, in which democracy is pitted against dictatorship and moderation against extremism, Benazir focuses on Islam's commitment not only to tolerance and equality but also to democracy. The West misinterprets Jihad which in reality means a "struggle to follow the right path", and this can be deduced from the Quran. The al-Qaeda theory of a "commendable" terrorism is baseless as "in Islam, no terrorism -- the reckless slaughter of innocents -- is ever justified." The author examines the views of Ibn Taymia, Maudoodi and Sayyid Qutb, finds that Osama bin Ladin "is not representative of Islam, or any civilisation", and goes on to discuss Islam's encouragement of pluralism and the Quran's emphasis on coexistence with others. Islam also specifically provides for gender equality, not only in terms of political and social rights but in religious rights as well. The Muslims declined when they preferred ignorance to knowledge and dogma to ijtihad, and instead of upholding the principle of 'lakum deeno -- kum wa liya deen' they indulged in sectarianism. Islam is not only compatible with democracy, the latter is inevitable for Muslims. However, "it is by accepting that temporal and spiritual accountability are two separate issues that we can provide peace, tranquility and opportunity." The extremists/militants try to supplant Muslims' judgment in the world (through democratic election) and God's judgment in the hereafter with their own verdict. "In their failure lies the future of all Muslims and the reconciliation of Islam and the West" she affirms. All this is a track made familiar by Islam's liberal defenders, except for the author's choice of a combative style in preference to scholar's restraint while controverting the conservatives. The latter may not like Benazir's attitude towards them but they are unlikely to contest her argument. After closing her argument on the democratic spirit of Islam, Benazir takes up the question as to why democracy has failed to develop in the Muslim world. The reason is not Islam. "The actions of the west in the second half of the nineteenth century and most of the twentieth century often blocked any reasonable chance for democratic development in Muslim-majority countries", she says. The West is told that "democracy is not an inherently Western political value" and it is taken to task for "selective application of morality", which is "inherently immoral." As for the Muslim countries they were first ravaged by colonialism and then "their nascent democratic seeds were often smothered by the strategic interests of Western powers." All this is borne out by what the West did to Iran, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Comoros, Lebanon, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Jordan, Palestine, Turkey, Indonesia, Senegal, Mali, and Gulf states. And Guatemala, Greece, Argentina, and Congo are thrown in for good measure. After the defeat of fascism in World War II the US "made an extraordinary commitment to freedom and liberty" but nobody heeded the fact that hunger and hopelessness and despair breed extremism. The Muslim world was denied the opportunity that makes democracy thrive. The case of Pakistan naturally has to be examined in detail, especially because the story is told in first person singular. In this part the Pakistanis will have interest in disclosure, emphasis and omission. A notable disclosure is that Osama had funded the no-trust move against Benazir Bhutto in 1989, which establishes her senior to the West in al-Qaeda's gallery of targets. Ramzi Yusef is accused of two failed bids on her life, with weapons provided by Khaled Sheikh Mohammad. The story of dialogue with Pervez Musharraf is told in detail, especially the direct negotiations over many hours in Dubai, when the General surprised Benazir by conceding everything. The pledges were not kept, not even about her security, especially on the morning of the Karsaz carnage. (Nor later, on 27 December as events showed.) Since this account has not been controverted, it holds the field. Benazir describes the attempt to sack Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry as a fundamental mistake and November 3, 2007 as one of the blackest days in Pakistan's history, but the omissions in this account are quite significant. The suspension of the constitution under emergency is mentioned as well as the crackdown on human rights activists, lawyers, judges and journalists but there is no reference to the sack of the Supreme Court. A laboriously researched chapter is devoted to the task of demolishing Samuel Huntington. At the very outset Benazir declares she disagrees with the thesis in 'The Clash of Civilizations' -- "a self-fulfilling prophecy of fear that disregards history and human nature", wherein "assertions about Islam are widely misinformed." However, for the satisfaction of serious students a crash course in the rise and fall of cultures and empires is offered. Many authorities are heard -- from Spengler and Toynbee and Bernard Lewis to Buchanan and Spencer and Henderson, and then from Maudoodi and Khurshid Ahmed to Ishtiaq Ahmad. The conclusion is that "the real clash within and outside Islam is a battle between the past and the future to break the chains and cycle of poverty, extremism, dictatorship, and terrorism, we need to move on the path toward true reconciliation." The essay is stimulating. The level and scale of scholarship can be gauged from the honours list in the appendix on acknowledgements. The argument against the clash theory might have gained somewhat if it had been possible for backroom assistants to recall the Muslim father of historiography, Ibn Khaldun, who preceded Spengler by about 500 years, or a German philosopher called Karl Marx. But then the ambitious plan for reconciliation assigns tasks to both the West and the Muslim world. The latter part includes a programme of research on Islam, empowerment of women and poverty elimination that Benazir Bhutto's party will do well to adopt as its manifesto. This book should be read neither as history nor as a treatise on politics; it is, in the writer's own words, "a modern Muslim woman's view." No ordinary woman and no ordinary view though. It is part journalism and part research in the service of advocacy. Of course there is much that may not be allowed to pass without a query. However, the reader is carried away by the writer's passion for change and her courage. The volume is a brave undertaking -- like compressing humankind's journey over centuries into a 90 minute film. It is also an utterly candid political statement -- no attempt to pull punches, no search for diplomatic subterfuge. Far more frank than Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's "If I am assassinated" and 'Letter to My Dear Daughter' the book reads like the last will and testament of a person who is in a hurry to say it all, to name all names, and to go for the adversary's jugular. All this reveals a fighter who is driven by the thought that she may not have time to revise her will, one who has shaken hands with death and is not afraid of her. Benazir completed the final editing on the morning of her assassination and the note of boldness in her voice suggests that all of her life was behind her, and she could afford a lasting smile. It is a book that will haunt Benazir's friends and foes both for a long long time.
By Jazib Zahir Eighteen year old Johar is
a local university student who prides himself on being an avid reader.
"English was my favourite subject through school," he explains.
"I believe the skills of writing and expression I have developed through
reading have benefited me in many ways. Most of my extracurricular activities
are based on writing and books provide me great conversation topics." When asked to recount his most memorable books he says that his tastes have matured and modified over the years. He started with Enid Blyton, was addicted to the Hardy Boys case files through much of his boyhood and eventually graduated to Agatha Christie. These days, Dan Brown and Paul Coelho rank among his favorites. But ask him how he feels about classic literature and he is broken out of his reverie. "I never really read the classics," he says with a frown. "None of my friends did either. We had more interesting stuff to read. In school, we read the abridged versions of some of the books but for the most part I found reading such books a chore rather than a pleasure." Johar is not alone in this situation. Contemporary bookshelves are dominated by contemporary writers who appear more in tune with modern themes and motifs. There is room for the wizards and witches of Harry Potter and the pulsating chase sequences of The Da Vinci Code. But the protagonists of Charles Dickens and Jane Austen often seem anachronistic revolving around the formalities of custom and the minutiae of daily life. Many students find the antiquated writing styles to be dry and uninteresting. A frequent grousing is the excruciating detail into which such texts delve which is anathema to fast-paced modern mindsets. Few can fathom why anyone would want to indulge in a Tolstoy epic adorned with the details of dozens of different families. But the love for the classics still abounds among elders who fondly recall the texts that defined their childhoods. Mumtaz is a secondary school teacher who recollects devouring mammoth texts by Thomas Hardy in one sitting at a time. "We didn't have access to the multimedia of today and books were our recreational activity of choice," she reflects. "I try to make my children interested, but they do not really have the patience or appreciation for such texts." Not all of the youth is completely averse to the classics. Mehreen is a student of Lahore Grammar School who has studied English Literature through both her O and A levels. "I want to go into journalism," she explains, "and there is no way I can develop the tools I need for this trade without combing through classical literature. Modern books have their own place in the cannon, but if you don't read the books that have stood the test of time you will not understand the fundamentals that have inspired the modern crop of literature." "It's also unfair to describe all the classics as outdated and dull," she says. "There are so many different styles and themes that anyone looking hard enough should be able to find his niche. For example someone who finds Shakespeare boring might still be regaled by the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, exactly the kind of mysteries that have been an inspiration to many literary genres of today. Similarly, I know people who are generally not intrigued by the classics but still enjoy reading H.G. Wells since they have a passion for science fiction irrespective of the age in which it was developed." Some young adults express regret at not having pored over these classics earlier in life. Shahab recalls sitting through an interview for a foreign university. Though he had applied for an engineering program, his interviewer was not particularly concerned with his grades, test scores and impressive list of science projects. The interviewer started by asking what classical literature he had read and how he perceived it. He did not seem impressed that Shahab's reading diet focused on Jeffrey Archer and John Grisham. "Later in university I was plagued by the same problem," Shahab says. "The best students had profound knowledge of classical texts and were able to coast through humanities and writing classes while I was left struggling. I was forced to rely on online resources like teaching notes for these texts to stay afloat." This growing awareness of the value of the classics seems to be triggering a revival in interest in them. Murad recently returned to Pakistan and was delighted to discover that Variety Bookstore had devoted an entire section to the classics in aesthetically pleasing new covers and prints. "I always felt that one of the reasons we were disinclined from the classics was because they were the books in the bland covers at the back of the bookstore," he says. "But a step like this will make these books more attractive to children and teenagers." The chance to promote the classics in a fresh and exciting manner is not lost on Hollywood and television either. BBC has taken the responsibility of preserving the classics in feature films and everything from Tolstoy to Shakespeare is available on disc. "These servings are much more appetizing than the original texts," says fifteen year old Ahad. "A lot of effort has been put into the costumes and acting which make the content more appealing to people who are only casually interested in their literary value like me." Similarly, Hollywood has scored big with big screen versions of novels like War of the Worlds and even more liberal adaptations like 'Clueless' and 'Bride and Prejudice.' Looks like the classics will always stand the test of time in one format or another.
Zia
Mohyeddin column Paul Scofield remained the most unrecognised of actors even after he had been declared the natural heir to Sir Lawrence Olivier. This was because of his own shyness and his avowed resolve to remain intensely private. He did not drink at the Garrick (posh actor's club) and he wasn't a regular diner at the Ivy or the Caprice, the two exclusive restaurants where the likes of Noel Coward, John Gielgud, Douglas Fairbanks Junior dined regularly -- and he did not open fetes. Thinking of Paul Scofield last night, my mind wandered to the time (1954) when he gave a magnificent performance as the Catholic priest in "The Power And the Glory", an adaptation of the Graham Greene novel. Oddly enough, the picture my mind conjured up was not of the priest, but that of the sleazy spiv that Scofield created in the not so successful West-End musical, "Expresso Bongo." Why did my memory evoke an image that I hadn't thought of? It cannot be dementia -- or is it? Anyway, before I forget altogether, let me tell you that Scofield is an actor I have admired enormously; I have rarely missed anything he has done in the theatre. In the post World War II era, classical actors in England stuck to heroic parts. Not Scofield. After his highly acclaimed performance in Thomas Otway's 'Venice Preserved', he took on the part of a flashily dressed, smarmy Londoner who makes his living by illicit, unscrupulous means (at that time such people were referred to as spivs) in 'Expresso Bongo' What surprised us all was not that he agreed to play the part but that he played it so superbly. Paul Scofield is an actor renowned for his unmannered intensity and striking presence. His Lear has been acclaimed as the greatest Shakespearean performances ever. This sounds like a sweeping statement, but the verdict was announced as a result of a poll of such esteemed classical actors as Ian Mckellen, Donald Sinden, Ian Richardson, Anthony Sher and Janet Suzman. How can I ever forget his portrait of a wizened, whisky-sodden, fugitive-priest in the Graham Green adaptation? Scofield presented a brilliant study of a dissipated priest who goes in search for communion wine in a land of prohibition. His vocation irrevocably leads him to his death. For me, his performance was pure crystal. The entire theatrical world was now waiting for him to give his Hamlet. Scofield's craggy face has a nobility which enables him to express tragic feelings with utmost subtlety. The right sadness sits on him and, to quote Tynan, he has the ability "to freeze a word with an irony at once mournful and deadly". In the greatest self-revealing soliloquy Shakespeare ever wrote, "Oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I..." his earth-shattering cry of "O Vengeance" followed by a self-mocking stare at his outflung arms still haunts me. I have seen many, many Hamlets, but I have yet to see one who could spot a flaw in others so skilfully. Scofield not only saw through the machinations of Claudius, Polonius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Rosencrantz and Guldenstern but, with a melancholic self-deprecation, saw through his own shortcomings as well. I remember that Scofield failed to move the critics. He did not get a good crop of notices. He was ticked off for protesting too much; and, vocally, he was considered to be inadequate. The notices might have had some effect on him because he did not play Hamlet again, which is a great shame, because with his highly effective gait and his distinctive voice he may have offered an even profounder Prince of Denmark. As Sir Thomas Moore, a man of tremendous integrity who stands firm by his convictions, Scofield scored the most financially rewarding triumph of his career. "A Man For All Seasons" won him an Oscar. It is to Scofield's credit that he did everything possible not to be lured by scores of offers Hollywood unvariably makes to an Oscar winner. He refused more parts than an actor is lucky enough to play in a long career. He is also the only actor who turned down the offer of a knighthood, three times. There are many other moments that now rush across my memory. Edith Evans has generally been described as the most formidable actress of the 20th century. Her Lady Bracknell in Oscar Wilde's 'The Importance of Being Earnest' is considered to be the ultimate benchmark for a character actress. I have seen Edith Evans in many productions -- Shakespearean as well as modern -- but I can't say with hand on my heart, that she ever moved me. She was always impressive; her discipline -- as indeed her rounded vowels -- was exemplary. There was something awesome about all her performances, but she did not exude warmth, like her contemporary, Sybil Thorndyke. And yet I remember that in Cariolanus she was a different story altogether; most memorably in the scene on which the interpretation of the play hinges, the scene in which she did not speak a word. Edith Evans playing Voluminia -- Cariolanus's mother -- returns to Rome as the saviour of the city having turned her son away from revenge, passes across the stage greeted by plaudits. In those few moments of action Edith Evans's movements, expression and total being were the embodiments of private grief held in check by the demands of patrician stoicism. She was nobility personified while at the same time every mother who has ever grieved for her child. Imelda Staunton as Sonya in Michael Blakemore's production of Chekhov's 'Uncle Vanya': in the scene in Act III in which she confessed her longing for Astrov (the doctor who is indifferent to her feelings) she expressed pure vulnerability. It was a scene in which I forgot that I was observing a performance. Her ability to put across her intention, and to make every word lucid, still brings a lump to my throat. In Shakespeare's Richard II (Scofield in the title part again), the granite of Herbert Lomas -- a much underrated actor -- who played John of Gaunt, Richard's Uncle. I remember him so vividly in his deathbed scene. Lomas played an old man in a white night-shirt, the life ebbing away form him as he talked to the Duke of York, another uncle, (the play is full of uncles) with the intimacy of one brother to another. At this point Richard enters, eager to scoff and Gaunt was transformed. Herbert Lomas rose up to deliver that famous chauvinistic speech: This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England... In these moments he was Tiresias, he was Neptune rising in wrath from the depths of the sea. Herbert Lomas did not dazzle with attention-drawing technique. He had qualities much finer: simplicity, humanity and honesty. And there are others. God knows there are many others; I can only pray with Hamlet: "And you my sinews grow not instant old but bear me stiffly up. Remember thee?..."
|
|
inexorably intertwined." One is a clash within the Muslim world over
adjusting to "changes in the political, social, and economic
environment" in the world. The other clash might be called by some as
the "global war on terror", and it is rooted in "a significant
chasm between the Islamic world and the West", and which the Muslims
cannot by themselves bridge. She is not only concerned with these clashes,
she is prepared to offer a plan to resolve both.
