Identifying Pakistan ’ s Problems Fareed Zakaria’s June 25 column “The Real Problem With Pakistan” is full of oversimplifications. His observation that “the only institution that works in Pakistan is the military” is superficial, to say the least. There are problems in Pakistan—as in any other country—not with Pakistan, as he writes dismissively. And yes, there are extremists, but the answer to that is not Pervez Musharraf or the Army. Ambitious generals have ambushed and derailed the “democracy train” at least four times in Pakistan. Their regimes have ended in disaster. Real political leadership could not emerge due to these generals’ interference. Nor could the power of the feudals and the clergy be curtailed—military rule acted as protection for them. Americans have a compulsion to support military dictators, but in so doing they have dealt highly damaging blows to Pakistan. The political process has been thwarted. And the perception is that they are again trying to cobble up a “deal” between Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto: that would be another calamity for this country. The Army is part of the problem, not the solution. It works, but according to the wishes of the incumbent commander. Under Mohammad Zia ul-Haq, it turned into a bastion for Islamists. Under Musharraf, it has turned secular, especially after 9/11. But just because he opposes the mullahs, a dictator is not a liberal. At least in one respect Zakaria is right—most Pakistanis do not support fundamentalism. The answer to the mullahs is civil society. If and when some really courageous leadership emerges from civil society (a glimpse of that can be seen in the lawyers’ movement for independence of the judiciary currently underway) and unleashes its enormous energy, Pakistan will need neither Army rule nor American blessing—both of those have done more harm than good. S. H. Zaidi Karachi, Pakistan
Fareed Zakaria makes several problematic assertions in his column “The Real Problem With Pakistan.” Rather than Pervez Musharraf “[breaking] with the Islamists,” as Zakaria claims, the Army and intelligence agencies helped rig the 2002 elections in their favor, resulting in the Islamists’ getting more seats in Parliament than ever before and coming to power in two provinces for the first time. The main reason for Pakistan’s economic improvement since Musharraf came to power is the $10 billion in aid the United States has given it, not any policies of Musharraf or his technocratic prime minister, Shaukat Aziz. After all, Pakistan’s economy was still in dire straits on Sept. 10, 2001. Finally, given the amount of U.S. aid and the fact that Pakistan’s economy is dependent on loans from Washington-backed institutions, even if Musharraf leaves the scene the Pakistani government would still be compelled to help in the fight against Al Qaeda. Arvin Bahl New York, New York
President Musharraf continues to receive a lot of criticism, both from within the country and on the international level, for the infamous chief-justice incident. I, too, believe it was not a well-calculated move on the part of the government to remove the honorable chief justice from office in such an abrupt manner. However, unlike others, I have not forgotten the courageous reforms and positive changes that our president has introduced. He has enacted laws that protect women and empower them. He has taken bold and courageous steps to rid the country of extremism and radicalization. President Musharraf has changed the direction of our country. We are now moving toward economic stability and prosperity faster than ever. People tend to forget positive points and focus solely on a single mistake or miscalculation. Ali Johri Lahore, Pakistan
The current mayhem in Pakistan is just the tip of the iceberg. It could lead to total chaos and lawlessness in the country, initiated mainly by the actions or omissions of President Musharraf’s government and allies like the MQM party in Karachi. Pakistan’s northwest and the tribal areas have been called the “lawless frontiers.” Now the whole country, including the capital city of Islamabad, has fundamentalist mullahs, state agencies’ terrorism, and government ministers and parties indulging in gangsterism and conveniently stopping police and security forces from preventing the murders of opposition leaders and activists. Pakistan is one of only seven countries ruled by the military in the 21st century. It’s where private cars, buses and trucks were confiscated to transport people hired to hear Musharraf speak. Then, proclaiming that Pakistan’s people are with him, even while the innocent blood of protesting lawyers and civilians was being shed by the pro-government MQM party in Karachi, Musharraf acted like a mafia godfather. It is time the U.S. and British governments support the people of Pakistan, who want free and fair elections open to all parties and to ex-prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. Supporting Musharraf’s military “godfather” dictatorship means that Western governments must never criticize any other country for lack of democracy or human rights. Some responsibility for the bloodbath in Pakistan lies with President George W. Bush. Vipul Thakore London, England
The 13 judges of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have ruled unanimously that the suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry was illegal and reinstated him. The nation is jubilant; leaders of political parties, bar associations and nonpolitical organizations have termed the judgment a victory of right over wrong, implying that the verdict was a humiliating defeat for President Pervez Musharraf. Some even claim that Musharraf has no moral right to lead the country and should resign. People’s expectations of the judiciary have risen, but considering the track record of the Pakistani courts, the judgment in Chaudhry’s case should be welcomed with caution. Judges have legitimized military takeovers in Pakistan, and their judgments have shown consistent support for dictators. They provided constitutional cover to the unconstitutional acts of Generals Muhammad Ayub Khan, Zia ul-Haq and Musharraf, extolling them as heroes, even “saviors of the nation.” (The only time they ruled against a general was when they declared Yahya Khan a usurper and his rule illegitimate, a judgment delivered after his fall from power because of Khan’s humiliation and harassment of them.) In this case, Musharraf’s mistrust of Chief Justice Chaudhry was unfounded. What he and his colleagues wanted to show in their judgments against the government was that the judiciary was independent in Pakistan. Musharraf panicked, and acted hastily and irrationally by suspending him. The judges were left with no option but to proclaim their independence and that of their institution, as they did unanimously by declaring the suspension illegal. Musharraf acted in flagrant violation of the Constitution. However, the judges did not invoke Article 6 against those who attempted to breach the Constitution. It’s too early and unwise, then, to interpret this judgment as beginning a new era in the constitutional politics of Pakistan. It will be only when judges declare a military ruler a usurper while he is still in office that the people will believe that the judges have dissociated themselves from the generals. M. N. Chishti London, England
I read Fareed Zakaria’s comments about the problems in Pakistan with great interest. He says that the United States helped usher in democracy in the 1980s in the Philippines. It did not. The United States was supportive of the Marcos regime. And despite what has happened since then, I am proud to say that it was the Filipino people who made the bloodless revolution, People Power, possible. In EDSA, Metro Manila’s main highway, we stood up to the dictator to bring democracy back to our country. Cecile Badelles-Duran Manila, Philippines
Is God Really Dead? I enjoyed Jon Meacham’s April 9 piece “Why Atheism Is So Strong in a Land of Believers.” Though I did not agree with his middle-of-the-road-is-best conclusion, I have rarely read such a fair representation of atheist arguments in the U.S. press. But I was a little disappointed by the tête-a-tête between Rick Warren and Sam Harris (“The God Debate”) that followed. Either Harris wasn’t his usually sharp self or he was being overly polite. Either way, he let Warren get away with some ludicrous remarks and misrepresentations. My favorite: when Warren says, “If death is the end, shoot, I’m not going to waste another minute being altruistic.” So, the only reason he doesn’t kill and steal is because of fear of Judgment Day? What a nice remark that reveals the true nature of “superior” Christian morals! Mads Moller Aarhus, Denmark
As a lifelong Christian, I found Rick Warren’s articulation and defense of his Christian beliefs in “The God Debate” a shallow disservice to the profundity of the tradition. No wonder the vocal atheistic proponents are prospering with such lightweight competition. Why not invite Ken Wilber to the table? David Spillane Chiang Mai, Thailand
While i am thankful for your excellent coverage of an informative and meaningful debate on God, one must realize that pastor Rick Warren and atheist neuroscientist Sam Harris are arguing from totally different paradigms. Harris is looking for a futile test-tube proof of God. No one can prove that for somebody else. It is a personal, albeit subjective experience, be it for Plato or Pascal. For believers like Warren, Paul and the psalmist, it is a convincing yet personal “I know my redeemer liveth!” Jan Maarschalk Villiersdorp, South Africa
Rick Warren’s argument for unfettered free will ignores the iron fetters of the intellect. The Creator inflicted upon mankind a wide range of intellectual capabilities. So, intellectually honest persons may be inherently incapable of accepting the existence of God, while other persons may blindly embrace his existence because the Creator deprived them of the intellectual capacity to do otherwise. So, neither camp enjoys true unfettered “free will.” Surely, God the Just will suggest to God the Merciful to consider that God the Creator has cursed some of his children with the harsh burden of intellect and reasoning ability. Jim Green Stigler, Oklahoma
Sam Harris’s atheism surprises me because being uncertain as to whether anything called spirit or soul exists means, as Warren points out, having spiritual tendencies. This involves metaphysical elements such as an immortal soul, an imminent God, an ultimate good, etc. Harris’s rejection is of the Bible, not of God. As to Warren’s claims, they reflect a typical nonscientific approach of the religious to problems in general: there’s no justice in the world, so let’s create a God who will realize it in some utopian land. I don’t want to die, so let’s make the soul immortal. Determinism doesn’t leave space for individual freedom, so let’s have a God who interferes. There is evil, war and sickness in this world, so let’s have another world where none of those exist. Isn’t it obvious that we have created God? Why can’t people be strong enough to accept the results of science and try to find the only meaning there is in life: loving others? Nilgun Oven Istanbul, Turkey
In “The God Debate,” Pastor Rick Warren cites the Buddha, at the end of his life, as saying, “I’m still searching for the truth.” As a longtime student of Zen Buddhism, I’m aware of no such statement. In fact, the Buddha had hundreds of disciples around him at his death, and the last words most often attributed to him are: “Work out your own salvation with diligence.” Zen Buddhists don’t speak about “God” or a “soul” because they understand words are just thoughts, or imaginary concepts, and reality is much vaster than anything contained in a book. The late mythologist Joseph Campbell said that what most people are looking for is an experience of being truly alive. To do that, most people have to get past the dualistic teachings of their religions and reach their esoteric core. The only teaching that is worth any value for this age of nuclear weapons and environmental destruction is the fact that we are all one. Jeffree Pike Taipei, Taiwan
It is particularly timely for society to be looking at the damage caused by religious delusion. The president of the United States, a nuclear superpower, gets advice on foreign policy from his personal deity. The results speak for themselves. Marcus Ranum Morrisdale, Pennsylvania
It does not bother me to realize that for millions of years before my birth, I was a nothing. Why then should it bother me to realize also that after my death, I will again be a nothing for millions of years? In the meantime, like everyone else, I too was born an atheist. Indeed, no child is born a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or whatnot. That a creator made me in his own image is no burden to me. After all, we were all born on a tiny planet—so tiny that a million planets the size of Earth can fit inside our sun. If the Creator is also like a speck of dust floating aimlessly in space, what’s all this fear and guilt about? If there is a purpose to life, that purpose must be that of the atheists: to leave this world a little better than we found it, or there is little reason for our having lived. Poch Suzara Makati City, Philippines
You presented a surprisingly amateurish and false assumption: that science itself might become a religion with its own dogmas. The basic difference between belief systems and science is that all current scientific theories, based on experimental findings, are valid only until a better theory, backed up by relevant experimental results, gets established. By contrast, dogmas based on belief systems are unchangeable declarations of alleged “universal” truths that cannot be questioned. Ian Shaw Johannesburg, South Africa
Warren accuses Harris of arrogance when Harris says that the majority in America who do not accept evolutionary theory are simply wrong. Presumably it is much less arrogant to claim, as Pastor Warren would, that the still sizable minority who accept evolution are wrong. But what is truly arrogant and ignorant is to ride roughshod over the efforts of countless biologists and geneticists, many of them Christians, who have made evolution their life’s study. In Warren’s world, the Bible trumps every conceivable field of human endeavor. He’s just embarrassing. Laurence Boyce Cambridge, England
To set the record straight, the Buddha was enlightened under a bodhi tree when he was still a prince at the age of 36. He led an exemplary life as an enlightened being, totally immersed in the truth, until his passing into nirvana at age 80. Alvin Chua Singapore
Sam Harris says, “We have people flying planes into buildings because they have theological grievances against the West.” No, in fact, their grievances are political, not theological. And Jon Meacham asks, “Why do the religious kill in the name of their God?” I hope he’s not hinting that Muslims believe their duty is to kill the infidel; the Qur’an only permits killing in self-defense. Shameem A. Khalid Rabwah, Pakistan
As a woman and an atheist, I see that you all refer to God as he. When I feel like asking for help (similar to praying), I prefer turning to a she, who might understand my problems better. But whether it’s a he or a she, how could these entities be god or goddess? I was raised a Christian, but I stopped believing when I realized that religion was all too clearly a male’s story. In which religion can women find any benefit? Men have obviously found a way of solving their sexual problems and their desire for power through religion to the disadvantage of women. This story of virginity is one of men’s many obsessions, and they’ve even found a way to transmit life (symbolically) without the help of women—there is the father and the son, but where is the mother? (She was there in ancient Egypt’s trilogy, but the misogynist Christians got rid of her.) The other religions are no better. If Muslim martyrs think they’re going to find “virgins” in heaven, what about women martyrs? If you see things from a woman’s point of view, it is clear that God doesn’t exist. But man’s power and influence has always been such that women seem to buy into men’s vision unquestioningly. Françoise Tarrade Chaville, France
I was surprised to read Rick Warren say of morality: “If survival of the fittest means me killing you to survive, so be it.” This is a commonly held, but totally false, interpretation of the term “survival of the fittest” (not, incidentally, used by Darwin, though accepted by him). The real meaning is not the survival of the strongest, or of the most brutal or the most self-serving, or anything of that nature. “Fittest” in evolutionary terms means those creatures best adapted to fit into their environment, whatever that environment is. Thus earthworms, though individually vulnerable, have survived for countless millions of years; Tyrannosaurus rex has not. One may say that “fittest” means to fit like a glove, not to be fit like a boxer. In nature, it is the species that matters rather than the individual, which accounts for the willingness of some individuals to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others. Philip Makin Francon, France
Science asks questions while religions state as fact what may not be so. A deity that may have created the universe might applaud the efforts of human beings who seek to understand its mysteries. Michael G. Driver Ichihara City, Japan
As a Jew, I am proud that the most loving man in history was also a Jew. Judaism, the religion that Jesus piously practiced for himself, and Christianity, the religion about Jesus, are unified in their devotion to God, goodness and love. The irony is that while Jesus devoted his lifetime to teach us love, some people use Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross to teach hatred toward the Jews. Jesus belonged to the most persecuted minority in history. He was a Jew, like those in the Nazi concentration camps. His family, Apostles and followers were also Jews. These people loved Jesus and mourned his death. The fostering of hatred toward the Jews, or toward anyone, only reverses the message of the most loving man in history. Jews and Christians have differences in spiritual beliefs, but a society that respects individual diversity is fertile ground for love to flourish, and a place with love is a place with God. Clara Maria Goldstein Onalaska, Wisconsin
