Dawn Editorials (with Summary and Vocabulary)
DAWN EDITORIALS
January
17, 2024 (Wednesday)
Day’s Vocabulary
- Flaunted. display (something) ostentatiously, especially in
order to provoke envy or admiration or to show defiance
- Charades. an
absurd pretense intended to create a pleasant or respectable appearance
- Forte. a
thing at which someone excels
- Repose. a
state of rest, sleep, or tranquility
- Dais. a
low platform for a lectern, seats of honor, or a throne
- Renditions. a performance or interpretation, especially of a
dramatic role or piece of music
- Anathema. something
or someone that one vehemently dislikes
- Partake. join
in (an activity)
- Faux. made
in imitation; artificial
- Aping. imitate
the behavior or manner of (someone or something), especially in an absurd
or unthinking way
- Inextricably. in a way that is impossible to disentangle or separate
- Noxious. harmful,
poisonous, or very unpleasant
- Pervasive. (especially
of an unwelcome influence or physical effect) spreading widely throughout
an area or a group of people
- Lest. with
the intention of preventing (something undesirable); to avoid the risk of
- Juggle. continuously
toss into the air and catch (a number of objects) so as to keep at least
one in the air while handling the others, typically for the entertainment
of others
- Divested. deprive
(someone) of power, rights, or possessions
- Semblance. the
outward appearance or apparent form of something, especially when the
reality is different
- Hustings. a
meeting at which candidates in an election address potential voters
- Maelstrom. a
powerful whirlpool in the sea or a river
- Traction. the
extent to which a product, idea, etc., gains popularity or acceptance
- Glaring. giving
out or reflecting a strong or dazzling light
- Accentuated. make more noticeable or prominent
- Salience. the
quality of being particularly noticeable or important; prominence
- Triptych. a
picture or relief carving on three panels, typically hinged together side
by side and used as an altarpiece
- Intriguing. arousing one's curiosity or interest; fascinating
- Corroborating. confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding)
- Proletariat. workers or working-class people, regarded
collectively (often used with reference to Marxism)
- Epitomised. be a perfect example of
- Muster. assemble
(troops), especially for inspection or in preparation for battle
- Strident. loud
and harsh; grating
- Travesty. a
false, absurd, or distorted representation of something
Summary
- Being busy has become a status
symbol, but it wasn't always this way.
- In the past, having leisure
time was seen as a sign of a good life.
- The Victorians and Mughal
royalty, for example, flaunted their leisure time.
- Multitasking and the cult of
busyness are harmful trends.
- They lead to stress, anxiety,
and burnout.
- They also make it difficult
to focus on what's truly important.
- The worst offenders of the
cult of busyness are those who are actually not busy.
- They often cultivate an
illusion of busyness on social media.
- It's time to stop glorifying
busyness and start valuing leisure time.
- We need to make time for
rest, relaxation, and self-care.
- We also need to be more
mindful of how we spend our time.
- The exploitation of workers
has not changed, but it has become more hidden.
- The exploiters of today are
those who project an image of busyness.
- This denies the truly busy
the opportunity to point to their exploitation.
- If you are constantly busy,
you may have bigger problems than simply over-commitment.
- It's important to be able to
take care of yourself and to have time for leisure activities.
Article
There used to be a time when the
ultimate symbol of a good life was being able to have plenty of time for
leisure activities. One can still read about it in literature.
The Victorians, for instance, rich thanks to the wealth looted
from India and other colonies, flaunted their leisure time. They took
grand tours on the Continent — which was essentially slow travel and spending
months in a single city or country. They also collected curios that they
displayed all over their living rooms, where they hosted everything from
afternoon teas to a game of charades.
The enjoyment of such leisure was not just the forte of
the British. Before their time in India, the pursuits of Mughal royalty were
well known. In fact, art, music and literature flourished because there was a
leisure class that was available to consume and enjoy them. Many a Mughal
miniature shows ladies in repose, lounging on a dais.
There was hardly any multitasking for the leisure classes of
yore. There were many times that people did nothing at all; when they did do
something it would appear as if that was the only thing they did.
This idea is going to be anathema to the next generation;
indeed, it probably already is for members of Gen Z and the succeeding Gen
Alpha. Turn to any social media platform, and you will be confronted with
people who are ‘multitasking’.
All those who
find it necessary to project their faux busyness should remember that
they are aping oppressors.
Inextricably linked to the multitasking epidemic is
the more noxious cult of ‘busyness’. Nobody shows off like the Mughals
or the Victorians anymore by commissioning paintings that depict them as
relaxing and doing nothing other than having fun.
Quite the opposite. In the modern era, the order of the day is
to be seen as constantly, endlessly ‘busy’. It does not matter which big city
in the world you may find yourself in; you will run into the same conversation
— people complaining about how busy they are, how they have no time for this or
that or themselves.
Such is the cult of busyness that it has generated other trends.
Among the more pervasive inclinations, is to portray the business of
taking care of oneself. Indeed, the novel concept of ‘self-care’ is all the
rage. Taking a nap is self-care, washing your face is self-care, not answering
texts for a few hours is self-care. Self-care exists and has to be defended, lest
others think you’re not busy enough and pile more things on you, or worse
still, think you’re a nobody and are, in fact, a loser with nothing to do.
None of this is good for us as human beings. In fact, the focus
on self-care can be regarded as a desperate measure in a world in which the
individual is overwhelmed with the demands of appearing busy to others.
The worst offenders of the cult of busyness are those who are
actually not busy. These may include, for instance, women of leisure, for whom
cultivating an illusion of busyness is a social media badge of honour. It
follows that these people, and others like them, are invested in further
popularising ‘busyness’.
If civilisation were to end tomorrow and Instagram was the only
thing to survive, whoever came after us would think that we spent all our time
using filtered images of ourselves to show what moisturiser and sunblock we
used or the number of designer handbags we had in our closet.
It is entirely possible that the cultural commentators of eras
past were similarly disgruntled by the long stretches of free time available to
the landlords and the princes while the labourers and peasants toiled
throughout their waking hours. It would be seen as an issue of injustice,
because the leisure of one was dependent on the toil of another.
The sad truth is that this exploitative loop has not changed
over the ages. The exploiters of today are simply cleverer. If you are
constantly ‘busy’, then the people who actually have no time to breathe are
denied even the small joy of pointing to your leisure as evidence of their own
exploitation. Everyone else who finds it necessary to project their faux
busyness should remember that they are aping oppressors and not those who are
truly busy.
So perhaps it is time to introspect for those projecting
themselves as being ‘busy’ and using ‘busyness’ as a way to exhibit some
imagined coolness. If you are truly too busy to not be able to do one task at a
time or get some sleep or bathe regularly or take a nap sometimes, you have
problems bigger than simply over-commitment.
And if someone else complains about how busy they are, stop them
in their tracks or at the very least roll your eyes. We all have time to do
that.
Summary
- The Supreme Court's decision
to strip the PTI of its election symbol is criticized for breaching
democratic norms and depriving political participation.
- The ruling, just weeks before
the polls, forces PTI candidates to run as independents, putting the party
at a disadvantage.
- The decision is seen as part
of political manipulation to keep the PTI out of the contest, raising
concerns about the judiciary's impartiality.
- The controversy highlights
divisions within the judiciary, impacting public trust and reinforcing the
perception of judicial involvement in political polarization.
- The article questions the
selective application of rules, citing double standards in handling
intra-party elections, particularly comparing PTI and Awami National Party
cases.
- The ECP's role is questioned,
with allegations of elections being manipulated and a partisan caretaker
administration favoring the establishment.
- The judiciary is urged to play
a more active role in protecting democratic rights, but the recent ruling
is seen as failing to uphold fundamental democratic principles.
- Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa's
reputation for integrity is questioned, with doubts about his ability to
restore the credibility of the apex court.
Article
It ranks among those inglorious
decisions taken by the top court which have been long remembered for breaching
democratic norms.
The verdict of
the three-member bench led by the chief justice has not only divested a
political party of its election symbol, it has, arguably, also taken away the
fundamental right of political participation. The controversial ruling
depriving the PTI of its iconic bat symbol has seemingly stripped the electoral
process of whatever legitimacy it was left with.
Instead, the verdict announced by Chief Justice Qazi Faez Isa,
after hearings telecast live, evoked memories of some of the most controversial
rulings in the past by the Supreme Court, which had caused irreparable damage
to the democratic process in Pakistan.
As Reema Omer, a leading constitutional lawyer, has put it,
the “judgement upholding ECP decision to deny PTI election symbol is an
excessive, punitive response to not conducting intra-party polls as per law”.
It may not be the first time a political party has been deprived of its symbol,
but there is no precedent of candidates of a major political party being denied
the right to fight elections on a common symbol.
The hope for a
democratic transition has been dented further by Saturday’s decision.
By validating the controversial decision of the Election
Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the Supreme Court has lent itself to criticism of
not being nonpartisan. Nothing could be worse than the judiciary getting sucked
into the political maelstrom. The ruling follows the resignation of two senior judges. It has
come at a time when divisions within the institution are out in the open,
reflecting the deepening crisis within.
There may be nothing wrong with the judges being divided in
their opinion, but the open rift could have further impaired the public trust’s
in the judiciary. The controversial ruling on the PTI’s symbol seems to have
reinforced a growing public perception of the superior judiciary becoming part
of the prevailing political polarisation. This view has gained traction,
given the overall persecution of the PTI and the evident aim of marginalising
the party.
This is certainly not a good omen for a country facing systemic
collapse. Continued political instability has made it extremely difficult to
deal with our multiple challenges, some of them presenting an existentialist
threat. Indeed, one cannot justify the PTI’s own failure to conduct a
transparent intra-party election, and there can also be no two views about the
importance of intra-party democracy, as pointed out by the chief justice, for
democracy to work. But the criteria must not be seen to be applied selectively.
Indeed, it is obligatory for the political parties under the ECP
rules to hold intra-party elections and there may be flaws in the way the PTI
conducted the mandatory exercise. But it is also a fact that elections within
other political parties can hardly be called democratic. In this country, where
most political parties have been turned into family enterprises, there is no
concept of intra-party democracy. Intra-party elections are just a farce to
fulfil a political obligation.
But the rules have been applied differently in the PTI’s case,
despite the fact that most of its leaders are either behind bars or have been
forced to quit the party after being picked up by the intelligence agencies.
Arguably the most popular party, the PTI is not even allowed to hold public
rallies as part of its election campaign. There have also been several reports
of PTI candidates not being allowed to file their nomination papers.
All this raises the question of whether the ECP is fulfilling
its constitutional responsibility of conducting a free and fair electoral
exercise. The candidates of a particular party are being picked up without
being charged to prevent them from campaigning. There is a ring of truth to the
allegations that the elections have already been stolen. A partisan caretaker
administration appears to be acting for the establishment.
This state of affairs requires the judiciary to play a more
active role in protecting the fundamental and democratic rights of the people.
Unfortunately, the institution is confronted with its own crisis of credibility
that has been accentuated by the latest ruling on the PTI’s electoral
symbol case, which has, in effect, disenfranchised a large segment of the
population.
With his reputation as an upright judge, it had been a valid
expectation that Justice Isa would uphold fundamental democratic rights and
restore the credibility of the apex court. Is this reputation at stake? It
remains to be seen how history will judge him.
Summary
- Pakistan announced a pivot
from geopolitics to geo-economics three years ago, but has made little
progress.
- Pakistan's economic woes are
due to its prioritization of elite interests over those of the people, and
its focus on security over development.
- Pakistan is well-positioned
for geo-economics due to its location, but is not yet ready due to
structural economic weaknesses, poor governance, and lack of political
stability.
- Pakistan must reform its
economic policies, which have been designed to protect the elite, and
address its human capital crisis in order to realize its geo-economic
potential.
- Geopolitics will continue to
play a role in Pakistan's foreign policy, and it must reach an
understanding with the US on strategic and security issues in order to
avoid limiting its geo-economic prospects.
- Pakistan's geo-economic
potential will not be fully realized until Afghanistan stabilizes, ties
with India improve, and it becomes a hub for pipelines and trade with
Central Asia.
Article
Nearly three years have passed since
the announcement regarding Pakistan’s pivot from geopolitics to geo-economics.
So far, this policy shift has proved nothing more than rhetoric.
A country’s geopolitical value signifies its relevance in
international relations beyond its own region, especially its capability as an
ally or partner in Great Power rivalry. The country has a place in
geo-economics if, by virtue of its geopolitical location, infrastructure, or
resources, it can play a meaningful role in the global economy — perhaps as a
manufacturing base or a link in supply chains. Or it could be a source of
energy, or serve as a hub for transit trade or energy flows.
Pakistan is relevant to both geopolitics and geo-economics. But
its policy planners should ask themselves if they really have to choose between
the two. Or whether such choice is indeed possible. Also, is geopolitics the
problem and geo-economics the solution to Pakistan’s economic woes? The truth
is, Pakistan did not prioritise its people’s socioeconomic well-being. Its
governance model preferred the elite over the people, security over development,
dependence over self-reliance, and status quo over progress. The system is
now damaging more than the economy. Pakistan may be eligible for geo-economics
but is not yet qualified for it.
Geopolitics is only partly to blame. It remains important to
Pakistan’s foreign policy, though the extent of its relevance has changed.
Situated between South Asia, Central Asia, Iran and the Middle East, and living
in the strategic shadow of China and Russia, Pakistan has geopolitical salience,
putting it at the crossroads of geopolitical rivalries and ambitions it can
take advantage of. But geopolitics can only be an asset if Pakistan is stable.
For an unstable country, it is a liability and poses risks. For instance, if a
big power loses, its ally loses too, as has happened to Pakistan in America’s
wars.
Pakistan must
rethink its geopolitics and geo-economics.
Washington’s war aims have always been different from
Pakistan’s, and its strategy often flawed. If the pivot to geo-economics means
Pakistan would no longer be part of such high-risk geopolitics, this is to be
welcomed. America’s wars also incited Pakistan’s own geostrategic ambitions,
that brought it as much harm as did US policies. If Pakistan has relinquished
this policy, it is a good step.
Geopolitics remains a guiding principle for US-Pakistan ties
except that it now provokes conflict in the context of US-China rivalry.
Pakistan is seen as advancing China’s geopolitical aims. It will have to reach
some understanding with Washington on strategic and security issues, otherwise
these will keep colliding with prospects of cooperation with the US, a crucial
economic partner, and thus limit Pakistan’s geo-economic role.
Even in the Gulf countries, Pakistan’s traditional friends,
economics now beats to the rhythm of geopolitics as these states navigate
between the US-Europe-India axis and China’s geopolitical outreach. Geopolitics
will figure in Pakistan’s relations with them, too.
Pakistan thus must rethink not only geopolitics but also
geo-economics. The fact is, its real value in geo-economics won’t be evident
until Afghanistan stabilises, ties with India improve, and it becomes a hub for
pipelines and trade with Central Asia. However, given its structural economic
weaknesses, poor governance, and lack of political stability, Pakistan’s
economy is not quite prepared for geo-economics. The change will not come
easily, as there is a clash between elite interests and sound economic policies.
Pakistan’s poor economic policies have been a way to safeguard
its elite-led system. Policies, especially those related to taxes,
subsidies, tariffs, and exports, were designed so as not to lead to the
erosion of the social structure that maintains the feudal system, or collide
with the financial interests of the business/industrial elite, not to mention
the extraordinary allocation of resources to the defence sector. The system
must reform.
Pakistan might be able to improve the economy on the margins
without systemic changes, and have a higher growth rate. But what good is the
growth rate if it makes little difference to poverty, social indicators and
human security? A population with poor education and healthcare is hardly
productive economically. Martin Raiser, World Bank regional vice president for
South Asia, recently spoke of Pakistan’s “poor human development outcomes and
increasing poverty”, and underlined the necessity of addressing the “acute
human capital crisis”.
Pakistan cannot abandon or escape geopolitics. And geo-economics
will remain beyond its grasp if it fails to make the necessary reforms. The
alternative: Pakistan will be stuck where it is, at best.
Summary
- The article discusses Lenin's
legacy and the impact of the Russian upheavals of 1917 on the world.
- Lenin's vision of replacing
absolutism with bourgeois democracy faced challenges after the overthrow
of the tsar.
- The
survival of the new regime was threatened by the White Army, but the Red
Army, led by Leon Trotsky, ultimately triumphed.
- Lenin,
aware of his limited time, sought to alter the revolution's trajectory by
reorganizing the Communist Party and the economy.
- There is
a common misperception that Stalinism seamlessly followed Leninism, but
the article suggests the Soviet Union might have been different if Lenin
had survived longer or been succeeded by a collective leadership.
- Lenin
opposed 'great Russian chauvinism,' and his influence is seen in
Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika in the 1980s-1990s.
- Despite
the USSR's dissolution, Lenin's audacious project's triumphs and tragedies
continue to influence discussions about a different future in the 21st
century.
- The
article emphasizes the importance of understanding Lenin's legacy beyond
mere worship, acknowledging both triumphs and failures.
Article
An intriguing triptych
included in Iqbal’s second volume of verse, Baal-i-Jibreel, envisages Vladimir
Lenin in the presence of God, explaining why the state of the world prompted
his disbelief and wondering when divine intervention would rectify global ills.
In rhythmic verse, the angels sent to investigate report back, corroborating
the Russian revolutionary’s narrative.
In the last and best known of the three poems, the angels are
commanded to instigate the overthrow of the existing order, kicking off with a
verse that echoes The Internationale — in Victor Kiernan’s translation, “Rise,
and from their slumber wake the poor ones of my world!/ Shake the walls and
windows of the mansions of the great…”
That’s a reflection of the extent to which the Russian upheavals
of 1917 affected the rest of the world, not least the vast expanse of the
colonised Global South. The direction Russia took towards the end of World War
I inspired shock and awe. The overthrow of the tsar and the prospect of
replacing absolutism with bourgeois democracy was dramatic enough, but by the
time Lenin returned in April from his exile in Switzerland, he realised the
meagre gains were unsustainable.
Even some of Lenin’s closest comrades were taken aback by his
enthusiasm for a takeover, but the prospect of ‘all power to the soviets’ — the
elected bodies of workers’, soldiers’ and eventually peasants’ representatives
that shared power with the post-tsarist government — and the promise of land,
bread and peace — resonated with the proletariat of Petrograd (as St
Petersburg had been renamed to banish the German influence).
What’s left of
the revolutionary a century after his demise?
The takeover was eventually almost painless, but the survival of
the new regime was unlikely. The tsarist White Army, assisted by American,
French and British forces (among others), joined hands to bury the Bolsheviks.
But a late recruit to the Bolshevist cause, Leon Trotsky, turned out to be a
formidable commander despite his military inexperience and, after much death
and destruction on both sides, the nascent Red Army ultimately triumphed.
The Russia that emerged from this maelstrom was a far cry from
what Lenin had envisaged, and he set about trying to rectify its wayward
course. And he made no secret of it. Laid low by an assassination attempt in
1918 and subsequently stricken by strokes that led to bouts of paralysis, Lenin
was just about well enough to speak at the fourth congress of the Communist
International in November 1922, in what turned out to be his last public
speech, acknowledging that “we have done, and will still do, a host of foolish
things”.
He knew by then that his days were numbered, but from his sick
bed later that year he still sought to alter the revolution’s trajectory with a
series of dictated notes that focused on reorganising both the Communist Party
and the economy, banishing the tsarist bureaucracy that had survived the
revolution, and sidelining Joseph Stalin, who had acquired too much power
within the party and could not be trusted to use it wisely. He obviously could
not have known at that stage that Stalin’s absolute power would lead in the
1930s to the execution of Lenin’s closest comrades.
The common misperception shared by both friends and foes of the
transformative Bolshevik endeavour is that Stalinism flowed seamlessly out of
Leninism. There can be little doubt, though, that the Soviet Union would have
emerged as a rather different entity if Lenin had survived for another decade,
or been succeeded by a collective leadership. Lenin was adamant that accession
to the USSR must be voluntary.
It didn’t quite work out that way, but the relatively peaceful
dissolution of the Soviet Union nearly seven decades later testified to his
relentless opposition to the ‘great Russian chauvinism’, epitomised by
Vladimir Putin’s stupid invasion of Ukraine. Mikhail Gorbachev remained an
admirer of Lenin, and his glasnost and perestroika in the 1980s-1990s were
partly echoes of what Lenin sought to achieve in the 1920s.
Neither worked, but memories of what Lenin sought to achieve
linger on. The Russian nostalgia for the Soviet past may not pass muster,
but the idea of a transformative takeover in nations reduced to misery by
capitalist forces lingers. Lenin’s failure to achieve what he had in mind
should not detract from efforts to pursue the unfulfilled dream of a different
future.
Even the most strident enemies of Bolshevism acknowledged
that Lenin’s death on Jan 21, 1924, stripped the Soviet Union of an invaluable
guide. The worship of Lenin thereafter, with little understanding of what he
stood for, was a travesty he would have detested.
Notwithstanding the USSR’s fate, if a different world is to emerge in the 21st century, the triumphs and tragedies that embellished or thwarted Lenin’s audacious project cannot be ignored.
Comments
Post a Comment