Although the posts on socio-economics were supposed to be broad-sweep brushes rather than specific analyses of any one tradition, the discussion with Kupa Manduka (KM) veered into some specific issues regarding Islamic fundamentalism and Secularism. Particularlly, the posts were not meant to gloss over genuine issues that Islam has vis-a-vis spirituality in general and to Hindus in particular, over the centuries. I thought I should briefly consider these points, before moving on further:
1. On one hand, I hold that Islamic mysticism/spiritual traditions, broadly covered by the term 'tasawwuf' or 'Sufism' in orientalist/modern parlace, cannot definitely be dismissed as quaint and odd bearers of medieval superstitions. One cannot discount or diminish the really astonishing amount of Sufi material that has genuine mystical practices and contributions to human spirituality in general. It is also not a fringe movement at all, as it is widespread throughout the Islamic world, at one time or another. There are of course many odd Sufis around today who may be practising strange or superstitious practices - but then this can be said about many other spiritual schools in most religious traditions. More serious, in fact, on the other hand, is the undeniable historical phenoneon of the 'warrior-Sufi' who practices the 'outer Jehad' along with his 'inner Jehad' and the role of Sufi missionaries on the 'frontline' of Islamic expansionism. And yes, Sufism had to kowtow to, stay subservient to, and eventually even espouse the cause of rigid and violent Islamic clergy - this has been its greatest failure.
2. Does Islam provide an identity to its adherent that is stronger than what Hindusim or Christianity provides? I have always seriously doubted this. This is just something that undiscerning Hindus have made up. Hindus in fact never bother to ever question a Christian or Muslim what order, sect, branch or tradition they belong to. While they themselves blissfully identify with their caste, language, region, sect or tradition zealously, they assume that someone from another religion can exist happily wihtout such a background!! Islam has two major sects, many minor sects, and within each sect are mutiple numbers of sub-sects. Sunni Islam has four major 'madhabs', at least 4 known movements [in the subcontinent, the quarrelsome 'Deobandi' and the moderate 'Barelvi', the extreme Ahl-e-Hadith (Salafi), the more extreme Wahhabi], many Sufi orders (4 major just in the subcontinent); Shia Islam has many subsects including the majority Twelvers, the smaller numbers of Ismailis, the Zaidis, the Jafaris; then there are Islamic sects that are considered heretic by the others - Bahaii, Druze, Ahmadiyya; finally, any number of castes (ajlaf, ashraf, dalit), tribes (Gujjar, Jat etc and the Afghan, Baluch, Punjabi, Sindhi tribes), ethnicities/nationalities (Persian, Afghan, Mughal, Turk, Arab, Sindhi, Punjabi, Baluchi etc). Muslims cannot to this day agree on even simple questions such as what is considered halal and haram in Islam. The Sunni and Shia cannot agree on basic fundamental events in the life and times of the Prophet - indeed, they even use different Hadeeth collections! When the Wahhabi-allied rulers of the House of Saud captured power in the Arabian peninsula in the 1750's, they pillaged Shia holy cities such as Karbala and Najaf - why they went so far as to desecrate the graves of the Islamic Prophet, his family and companions themselves!! The very concept of God in Islam is still unclear to even erudite Islamic clerics, forget daily practices. Another thing that Muslims doggedely refuse to come to terms with is that, actually, the modern Quran, 'The Quran', is actually nothing but one recension - Uthmanic - among perhaps dozens in circulation in early years AH. How can such a desperately divided religion offer a monolithic 'identity'? All I can say is that some Muslim communities present themselves cockily to their Hindu neighbours.
3. Radicalism however, does seem to have a peculiar place within Islam, since perhaps its very founding. The Prophet's often violent struggle to establish his new religion amidst his Meccan paganist co-nationalists may provide the basis for this unusual zeal. This is why perhaps, there are always Islamic sects that claim to be the 'purest', and 'closest' to the ideals their Prophet upheld, depending upon who much they hate the 'polytheists' and the 'hypocrites'. But the greatest mistake to commit, would be to recognize such deviants to be the 'authentic' representatives of Islam, which is exactly what Hindus often do. No religion has just one predominant tradition - this is something they *must* come to recognize. take for example, Catholicism - the Pope is presented as if he is the sole Patriarch in the whole of Christendom - while actually, he is just one among the many Patriarchs around, including the number of Eastern Orthodox and Syriac ones. There are Muslim traditions that regard the Prophet's historic struggles in their historical context and draw inspiration only from his intent and not action and to this day, these form the majority of the adhrerents. Surveys have consistently shown that the Barelvis constitute the vast majority of subcontinental (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Afghan) Muslisms. Yet, Hindus sat around in their pathetically ignorant bliss, even as Deobandis were violently ousting Barelvis and wresting control of Mosques and Madrassa throughout India in the whole 80's and 90's. Instead of marginalizing and de-recognizing Deobandi fanatics and fanatical insitutions such as the Darul Uloom Deoband in favour of Barelvis and Barelvi insitutions such as Jamiatur Raza, they just sit and complain that 'fanatics are taking over'. Fanatics do not take over, overnight. Nor can they be defeated overnight. The key to defetaing them, is to recognize that religious traditions die without patronage. Cut Saudi funds that are coverting all Mosques into Wahhabi ones and supporting Wahhabi missionary propaganda; Cut the sources of funding for Deobandi institutions and clerics; provide Barelvis patronage and more importantly protection to develop and propagate their ideas and ideals freely. Will Hindus ever do this?
4. Is modern Secularism just another euphemism for suppression of Hinduism? Secularism just refers to the separation of religion and the state. The state such maintain an agnostic stance towards any religion - this is the secularist ideal. How can this become a vulgar means to suppress Hinduism, when, fundamentally, Hinduism itself is built on this model? Historically, the Rajan never interfered with the Rishi - those two had their domains and supported and guided each other. Now secularism should not be confused or conflated with some particularly anti-Hindu notions of some western liberals or leftists, or some western academics who are basically white racist or cultural supremacists masquerading as Indologists. While dealing with such individuals and their formidable academic, social, cultural and political clout may be formidable and frustrating, there is nothing in modern Secularism which specifcially allows for such individuals to dominate. As I have pointed out, under the same secular British laws where Indian Hindus preferred a life of virtuous ignominy and self-denial, Sri Lankan Hindus have proudly built dozens of openly Hindu shrines and promoted thier cultural, religious and spiritual values unabashedly.
5. Can Islam overtake Hinduism as the subcontinent's majority religion simply by competitive population growth through inter-marriage? I strongly doubt this and find this highly improbable. On the other hand, actually, Muslim fertility rates too may be falling down under the impact of Secularization and modernization. While modernity may be or may have been a challenge to Hinduism, it is a death-knell to radical and fundamentalist Islam. Conversion is a double-edged sword, and where Muslim men may be marrying Hindu women, there are a number of cases where they are also converting to Hinduism or adopting more moderate Islamic traditions (recently the son of a famous Muslim classicial Hindustani musician adopted Hinduism creating a buzz in the Muslim community). Children of mixed marriages, do not always necessarily adopt Islam - the case of Shahid Kapoor, the son of Pankaj Kapoor and Neelima Azeem, is a professed Hindu and a vegetarian.
Negativity and pessimism are a characteristic of the Sangh-Parivar (Golwalkarite) stream of Hindu nationalism. Time they abandoned this morose and morbid weltanschauung and looked to the positivism of the other streams of Hindu nationalism - Vivekanandite, Aurobindonian, Savarkarite, Gandhian-Tagorean, Goel-Swarupite.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Socio-economics of religion - 2
Although the proponents of various religions would like us to believe otherwise, upon deep examination, we cannot but fail to acknowledge, that human spirituality is fundamentally the same. Every civilization has, in the end, sought 'the ground of all being' - brahman, the supreme absolute, indeed seems ultimately to be the quest of every religion around, including the Aztec and the Maya. We cannot but agree with Ramakrishna's observation in this regard. The only thing that differs, is the approach to this ground of being, which is shaped by the unique social and economic conditions of different polities - religion.
And although the Islamic religious zealots would like us to believe otherwise, Islam too fits into this same pattern. This religion too, seems the absolute immutable in its spirituality, the tasawwuf. Its practices draw from the harsh life of the desert, where it was shaped. The Islamic religion too broadly ebbs and rises in various moulds through time, depending on the socio-economics of Islamic polities. The religion itself was born under difficult circumstances where the traditional societies of the Arabian lands were under immense stress from the two powerful surrounding hegemonic states, Persia and Byzantine, both professing prophetic and assimilationist ideologies under the 'monotheism' of Zoroastrianism and Christianity. The only way for the pagan Arabs to preserve their identity, was to unite under their own brand of 'monotheism', and to face off the competition - thus was born the aggressive, expansive early Islam. However, as the religion stabilized over large parts of West Asia by the 10th century AD, this aggression briefly gave way to cultural maturity: this period was immensely fertile in terms of cultural exchange with neighbouring great civilizations, including Greece and India. But then again by about the 13th century, under the stress of counter-attacks by the Turkic peoples, the religion reverted back to its aggressive assimilative stance. The new races were converted, and their explosive energies diverted to the outside world. Thus was born the next aggressive cycle - this period lead to immense destruction to India and her culture. Later again, when large parts of Northern India were unified under stable Turkic (Mughal) rule, the next high-phase of Islamic cultural syncretism began, characterized by the era of Akbar. By late 18th century though, the Islamic dream in India was in tatters under the pressure of feisty Hindu counter-attacks: and subcontinental Islam has not yet un-mounted the aggressive stance since then. Facing the stark reality of loss of the traditional values in the face of the new wave of secularism that was spreading in India, ignited by contact with Europe, aggressive subcontinental Islam retreated into the garrison state of Pakistan. Now, the disparate and ill-constructed Pakistani society laid on week foundations and with no positive vision for a future except for aggressive Islamic expansionism back into India, seems to be consumed by an insatiable death-wish.
However, the situation is not hopeless, if the 'Arab spring' is anything to go by. Contrary to currently popular or even fashionable notions, Islam, like any other religion, may be neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful. Human societies are seldom 'naturally' oriented to peace or war as a black-and-white rule. It is all about survival - societies will adapt any means that seems fit to ensure their survival and perpetuation. Until a generation ago, the Arab world was dismissed as being perennially caught up in medieval and fundamentalist ideologies. Those same Arab youths who until some years ago seemingly thought that militant Islam alone was the route to secure a future, are now seeking the democratic nirvana. What has made the difference? Perhaps the greatest difference to West Asia was done not by western 'experiments in democracy', but by the successful model demonstrated by Islamists in Turkey. Erdogan through his success has perhaps done to West Asia, what Bin Laden and Bush and Blair could not achieve - showing that democracy can work in bringing about positive change in Islamic societies too.
If societies can see that peaceful, pragmatic means are able to deliver prosperity, there is no reason why they should choose a death-wish to secure that for the next generation.
And although the Islamic religious zealots would like us to believe otherwise, Islam too fits into this same pattern. This religion too, seems the absolute immutable in its spirituality, the tasawwuf. Its practices draw from the harsh life of the desert, where it was shaped. The Islamic religion too broadly ebbs and rises in various moulds through time, depending on the socio-economics of Islamic polities. The religion itself was born under difficult circumstances where the traditional societies of the Arabian lands were under immense stress from the two powerful surrounding hegemonic states, Persia and Byzantine, both professing prophetic and assimilationist ideologies under the 'monotheism' of Zoroastrianism and Christianity. The only way for the pagan Arabs to preserve their identity, was to unite under their own brand of 'monotheism', and to face off the competition - thus was born the aggressive, expansive early Islam. However, as the religion stabilized over large parts of West Asia by the 10th century AD, this aggression briefly gave way to cultural maturity: this period was immensely fertile in terms of cultural exchange with neighbouring great civilizations, including Greece and India. But then again by about the 13th century, under the stress of counter-attacks by the Turkic peoples, the religion reverted back to its aggressive assimilative stance. The new races were converted, and their explosive energies diverted to the outside world. Thus was born the next aggressive cycle - this period lead to immense destruction to India and her culture. Later again, when large parts of Northern India were unified under stable Turkic (Mughal) rule, the next high-phase of Islamic cultural syncretism began, characterized by the era of Akbar. By late 18th century though, the Islamic dream in India was in tatters under the pressure of feisty Hindu counter-attacks: and subcontinental Islam has not yet un-mounted the aggressive stance since then. Facing the stark reality of loss of the traditional values in the face of the new wave of secularism that was spreading in India, ignited by contact with Europe, aggressive subcontinental Islam retreated into the garrison state of Pakistan. Now, the disparate and ill-constructed Pakistani society laid on week foundations and with no positive vision for a future except for aggressive Islamic expansionism back into India, seems to be consumed by an insatiable death-wish.
However, the situation is not hopeless, if the 'Arab spring' is anything to go by. Contrary to currently popular or even fashionable notions, Islam, like any other religion, may be neither inherently violent nor inherently peaceful. Human societies are seldom 'naturally' oriented to peace or war as a black-and-white rule. It is all about survival - societies will adapt any means that seems fit to ensure their survival and perpetuation. Until a generation ago, the Arab world was dismissed as being perennially caught up in medieval and fundamentalist ideologies. Those same Arab youths who until some years ago seemingly thought that militant Islam alone was the route to secure a future, are now seeking the democratic nirvana. What has made the difference? Perhaps the greatest difference to West Asia was done not by western 'experiments in democracy', but by the successful model demonstrated by Islamists in Turkey. Erdogan through his success has perhaps done to West Asia, what Bin Laden and Bush and Blair could not achieve - showing that democracy can work in bringing about positive change in Islamic societies too.
If societies can see that peaceful, pragmatic means are able to deliver prosperity, there is no reason why they should choose a death-wish to secure that for the next generation.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Socio-economics of religion - 1
Although spirituality is universal, the particular approach taken to practice or attain it, which is what religion is, is quite heavily dependent on socio-economics of the polities where it develops. I feel, this is something not often considered, when people talk about various religions or even one particular religion, through time. Even the same religion, is often not the same through time, as socio-economics changes. Swami Vivekananda often emphasized this point, but at the time when I first read his thoughts, I did not realize its profundity.
Take, for example, Hinduism. In the high-tide of the Vedic age, the religion was earthy, heroic and very much 'this-worldly'. But by late Vedic period, as the immense diversity of the Indian subcontinent started to crack up the Vedic polity, other-worldly asceticism took roots. The socio-economics of the late Vedic period became dour and sensitive thinkers began to become totally disillusioned by the state of a society that they could not be part of did not have the power to change. Ascetic Upanishadic and Shramana doctrines were propounded. While world-affirming realism characterized the earlier religious outlook, world-weary idealism became the mainstay of the later religious outlook. When the Indian polity recovered later and large stable states were established by the early AD's, again this morbid asceticism was marvellously re-synthesised into the fabric of the society in the form of 'ashrama' dharmas. However again during the medieval period when the Indian society was under immense shock due to repeated disruption of the society by a multitude of often brutal attacks and invasions, religion became obsessed with the 'other-world'. The excessive dalliance with morbid things such as death, graveyards, sexual extremes, cannot but be understood, without reference to this context; the social fabric was under immense stress, and the whole social order was torn apart, leading to many broken individuals. Not much was left to live for, and hence the fascination with death and devastation.
This is similar with Christianity too. The religion began in a Jewish society that was under immense stress. Apocalyptical sects grew by the dozen at the time Christianity became popular. At the same time, the powerful Roman Empire that was bent on assimilation of conquered peoples meant that the old exclusivist Judaic ideal seemed impractical anymore. Thus the Christian idea of 'new Israel', and the 'new covenant', that would enable people of new backgrounds to be part of the Judaic world, under Christ, the new prophet. The death-wish of the orthodox Jews could become a new life, under the personality of the resurrected Christ. In the rest of the two millennia since, Christianity has vacillated in its emphasis on either the death of Christ or his resurrection, depending on whether it faced persecution or the opportunity for a 'new beginning'. Again, though originally Christianity was ascetic and other-worldly, the desire for the Roman Empire for a single unifying Imperial religion transformed Christianity into an aggressively power-seeking worldly religion. Socio-economics of pagan societies too, played an important role in their conversion to Christianity. Under immense stress due to aggressive Roman expansion and assimilation drive, and unable to connect to the older pagan religious ideals, ethnically diverse central Europe simply gave up the complex narratives of pagan religions for the simplistic Christian narrative. It also offered the prospect for unifying diverse tribes into new nation states – the energy of the family and the tribal loyalties of the pagan religions could now be transferred to the larger supra-tribe, the nation, which was reborn in a Christian mould.
Take, for example, Hinduism. In the high-tide of the Vedic age, the religion was earthy, heroic and very much 'this-worldly'. But by late Vedic period, as the immense diversity of the Indian subcontinent started to crack up the Vedic polity, other-worldly asceticism took roots. The socio-economics of the late Vedic period became dour and sensitive thinkers began to become totally disillusioned by the state of a society that they could not be part of did not have the power to change. Ascetic Upanishadic and Shramana doctrines were propounded. While world-affirming realism characterized the earlier religious outlook, world-weary idealism became the mainstay of the later religious outlook. When the Indian polity recovered later and large stable states were established by the early AD's, again this morbid asceticism was marvellously re-synthesised into the fabric of the society in the form of 'ashrama' dharmas. However again during the medieval period when the Indian society was under immense shock due to repeated disruption of the society by a multitude of often brutal attacks and invasions, religion became obsessed with the 'other-world'. The excessive dalliance with morbid things such as death, graveyards, sexual extremes, cannot but be understood, without reference to this context; the social fabric was under immense stress, and the whole social order was torn apart, leading to many broken individuals. Not much was left to live for, and hence the fascination with death and devastation.
This is similar with Christianity too. The religion began in a Jewish society that was under immense stress. Apocalyptical sects grew by the dozen at the time Christianity became popular. At the same time, the powerful Roman Empire that was bent on assimilation of conquered peoples meant that the old exclusivist Judaic ideal seemed impractical anymore. Thus the Christian idea of 'new Israel', and the 'new covenant', that would enable people of new backgrounds to be part of the Judaic world, under Christ, the new prophet. The death-wish of the orthodox Jews could become a new life, under the personality of the resurrected Christ. In the rest of the two millennia since, Christianity has vacillated in its emphasis on either the death of Christ or his resurrection, depending on whether it faced persecution or the opportunity for a 'new beginning'. Again, though originally Christianity was ascetic and other-worldly, the desire for the Roman Empire for a single unifying Imperial religion transformed Christianity into an aggressively power-seeking worldly religion. Socio-economics of pagan societies too, played an important role in their conversion to Christianity. Under immense stress due to aggressive Roman expansion and assimilation drive, and unable to connect to the older pagan religious ideals, ethnically diverse central Europe simply gave up the complex narratives of pagan religions for the simplistic Christian narrative. It also offered the prospect for unifying diverse tribes into new nation states – the energy of the family and the tribal loyalties of the pagan religions could now be transferred to the larger supra-tribe, the nation, which was reborn in a Christian mould.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Do habits lead to a certain lifestyle, or is it the other way around?
I have been wondering for some time on modern readings of injunctions of various ancient scriptures on how people of different natures must lead their lives.
Take, for example, the lifestyle a brahmin is supposed to follow. The ideal in this case, is a life of abnegation, with the guideline to give up most 'good things' of life, such as alcohol, meat and womanizing. The lifestyle of such a person must also involve ritual worship and extensive study. Now one could definitely not think much and just follow the 'rules' - but such a literalist view may never reveal what those injunctions are meant to be for.
On the other hand, if someone leads an intellectually oriented life, and that person wants to excel at such a life, it seems that they would naturally end up following a lifestyle in line with those ancient injunctions! Conduct, relation to ideals and reflection - these underlie the injunctions on everyday life (abnegation etc), worship and scriptural study. Even if someone indulges in the 'good things', if they are truly introspective, they will eventually understand that moderation alone will give a stable and happy life.
Thinking like this, it seems to me, that modern commentators (i.e. the generation of interpreters of our scriptures educated entirely in English/or other colonially imposed languages/media) often miss the whole point of ancient religious traditions. The aim of those injunctions was not to produce dour men with colourless lives - rather, those injunctions stemmed from observing the lives of successful people. So instead of focusing excessively and 'dos and don'ts' and 'virtue and sin', it would be better if commentators of religions instead spend time in understanding and expounding the lives that led to those injunctions. Basically, focus on 'living life' and not on suffocating life! Although, rather unfortunately, the goal of a vast majority of religious traditions has been world-transcendence and perhaps that's why these morbid 'dont-doisms' are around.
Take, for example, the lifestyle a brahmin is supposed to follow. The ideal in this case, is a life of abnegation, with the guideline to give up most 'good things' of life, such as alcohol, meat and womanizing. The lifestyle of such a person must also involve ritual worship and extensive study. Now one could definitely not think much and just follow the 'rules' - but such a literalist view may never reveal what those injunctions are meant to be for.
On the other hand, if someone leads an intellectually oriented life, and that person wants to excel at such a life, it seems that they would naturally end up following a lifestyle in line with those ancient injunctions! Conduct, relation to ideals and reflection - these underlie the injunctions on everyday life (abnegation etc), worship and scriptural study. Even if someone indulges in the 'good things', if they are truly introspective, they will eventually understand that moderation alone will give a stable and happy life.
Thinking like this, it seems to me, that modern commentators (i.e. the generation of interpreters of our scriptures educated entirely in English/or other colonially imposed languages/media) often miss the whole point of ancient religious traditions. The aim of those injunctions was not to produce dour men with colourless lives - rather, those injunctions stemmed from observing the lives of successful people. So instead of focusing excessively and 'dos and don'ts' and 'virtue and sin', it would be better if commentators of religions instead spend time in understanding and expounding the lives that led to those injunctions. Basically, focus on 'living life' and not on suffocating life! Although, rather unfortunately, the goal of a vast majority of religious traditions has been world-transcendence and perhaps that's why these morbid 'dont-doisms' are around.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Inspiration
One touching incident from the life of Sri Ramakrishna always inspires me, whenever I think about him. It is a lila that haunts and charms the hearts of devotees.
Manomohan had stopped visiting the Master at one time, as he felt neglected. He felt that the Master was not paying any attention to him. The Master became anxious about Manomohan's progress and sent word to him many times, but Manomohan, stung by what he felt was the Master's past indifference to him, did not respond. Now, why should such an accomplished sage as the Master be interested in the progress of an ordinary hosueholder devotee? But that was him. He had filled in himself, the love of the Supreme Mother for her children so much that he became that love. One morning when Manomohan went to bathe in the Ganga, suddenly he saw Balaram babu alighting from a boat. Manomohan hardly got over his surprise, when he saw the Master emerging behind him, smiling at him, half lost in Samadhi. Manomohan was overwhelmed by this gesture of the Master and realized how much love he had for his disciples and regretted his questioning of the Master's concern for his progress.
What a poignant incident! I can imagine the medly of emotions that must have swept Manomohan when he saw the Master emerge from the boat - joy, regret, anger... That the Master came all the way looking for him, must have deeply inspired him. Divine Love is uniquely inspirational.
Manomohan had stopped visiting the Master at one time, as he felt neglected. He felt that the Master was not paying any attention to him. The Master became anxious about Manomohan's progress and sent word to him many times, but Manomohan, stung by what he felt was the Master's past indifference to him, did not respond. Now, why should such an accomplished sage as the Master be interested in the progress of an ordinary hosueholder devotee? But that was him. He had filled in himself, the love of the Supreme Mother for her children so much that he became that love. One morning when Manomohan went to bathe in the Ganga, suddenly he saw Balaram babu alighting from a boat. Manomohan hardly got over his surprise, when he saw the Master emerging behind him, smiling at him, half lost in Samadhi. Manomohan was overwhelmed by this gesture of the Master and realized how much love he had for his disciples and regretted his questioning of the Master's concern for his progress.
What a poignant incident! I can imagine the medly of emotions that must have swept Manomohan when he saw the Master emerge from the boat - joy, regret, anger... That the Master came all the way looking for him, must have deeply inspired him. Divine Love is uniquely inspirational.
Saturday, June 04, 2011
A death so cruel...
I cannot still believe that the Pakistani columnist with Asia Times online, Syed Saleem Shehzad, has died. His body was reportedly recovered from a nalla last week, with signs of severe torture.
I have followed his articles with interest since over ten years ago when 'the war on terror' started. He was a daring journalist, travelling to remote corners of the tribal areas and meeting dangerous terrorists. Here is an Atimes trubutes page.
While I found that many times his interviews with thugs such as Ilyas Kashmiri seemed to end up as propaganda for such people, they also revealed many facts - I infact got to know Kashmiri and many such people from Shehzad's articled, and also interesting small bits of info which we do not get to read elsewhere.
He said in the past that he had received death threats from Pakistani intelligence agencies. Now people with different agendas have begun their smearing, that he may in fact have been killed by some of his terrorist contacts themselves. Some have suggested that both the ISI and the terrorists got together to bump him off.
An account of his death and several theories are discussed by Amir Mir here.
But the theory that he was killed by his terrorist sources, seems odd, considering that he was their trusted source; also, Ilyas Kashmiri is himself now reported to be dead in a drone attack yesterday.
That's an interesting coincidence, because a few years ago when Kashmiri was similarly rumoured to have been killed in a drone attack - it was Shehzad, who revealed this as false, through a kidnap-interview he wrote for AT.
I have followed his articles with interest since over ten years ago when 'the war on terror' started. He was a daring journalist, travelling to remote corners of the tribal areas and meeting dangerous terrorists. Here is an Atimes trubutes page.
While I found that many times his interviews with thugs such as Ilyas Kashmiri seemed to end up as propaganda for such people, they also revealed many facts - I infact got to know Kashmiri and many such people from Shehzad's articled, and also interesting small bits of info which we do not get to read elsewhere.
He said in the past that he had received death threats from Pakistani intelligence agencies. Now people with different agendas have begun their smearing, that he may in fact have been killed by some of his terrorist contacts themselves. Some have suggested that both the ISI and the terrorists got together to bump him off.
An account of his death and several theories are discussed by Amir Mir here.
But the theory that he was killed by his terrorist sources, seems odd, considering that he was their trusted source; also, Ilyas Kashmiri is himself now reported to be dead in a drone attack yesterday.
That's an interesting coincidence, because a few years ago when Kashmiri was similarly rumoured to have been killed in a drone attack - it was Shehzad, who revealed this as false, through a kidnap-interview he wrote for AT.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)