Javed Chauhdry, a moderate and Mosharraf Zaidi, a liberal?

Governor Salmaan Taseer’s assassination by a “religious fanatic robot” and varying stances regarding this barbaric act have resulted in a new debate. Now those who are asking for Qadri’s execution via judicial process are titled as “Liberal Fascists”. Those who directly or implicitly condoned the murder and appreciated the murderer while comparing him to “Ghazi Ilmuddin” are described as Moderates.

Isn’t it a joke that one dubious writer who frequently mocked the liberals, Mosharraf Zaidi, has now misappropriated the title of liberal, and an Islamist and Taliban sympathiser,  Javed Chauhdry came to the fore as a new symbol of moderates.

The liberal title has been assigned to Mosharraf Zaidi by the Fake Civil Society (usually found on Twitter), and the moderate title was assigned to Javed Chaudhry by a mullah Zahir Ahmad Qadri, a disciple of Mufti Hanif Qureshi.

In his 1 February 2011 column (Express) titled as “Liberal Intiha Pasand Na Banein(Dont be a liberal extremist?” , Javed Chaudhry posted a letter from the above mentioned mullah, who scolded him for his role as a moderate, and asked him not to condemn the mullahs who brainwashed the fanatic Mumtaz Qadri to kill Taseer. In the same letter, Molvi sahib quoted Rehman Malik’s inability to recite Surah Ikhlas and his statement regarding the blasphemer, and justifies Mumtaz Qadri’s act in this regard.

Why did the mullah admonish Javed Chaduhry? The reason was Chaudhry’s another column “3 seconds Ka Fasla (3 second’s distance), in which he referred to Mumaz Qadri’s confessional statement, and cited long quotes from it, in which Qadri stated that he was instigated to the crime by Mullah Hanif Qureshi’s Jumma sermon. Then Javed Chauhdry criticized Mullahs for their irresponsible statements and speeches, which may result in murder of innocent people.

If you read both of the columns by Javed Chauhdry, you will get to the conclusion that in both columns, Javed Chauhdry intentionally provided space to a statement by Qadri and another in support of Qadri. It is evident that the sole purpose of these columns was to spread Mumtaz Qadri’s message to readers in an indirect manner.

Just visit Javed Chauhdry’s columns site, read his columns, view his talk-shows and use your own judgement. Is there any difference between him and the mullahs who assigned him the moderate tag?

Now compare the moderate Javed Chaudhry case to the liberal Mosharraf Zaidi case who is recently seen promoting himself (with the help f the FCS) as a champion of liberal Pakistanis particularly after the martyrdom of a PPP leader, Salmaan Taseer.

Here are some nuggets from Mosharraf Zaidi’s articles which demonstrate his lopsided views on liberal values and liberalism:

Every pink-blooded Pakistan liberal worth the name has been singing a marsiya about the country falling into the hands of the wretched Taliban. Ah, this poor country, such a piece of tin it must be to fall so far, so fast, so furiously. (Source)

Meanwhile far away, in another part of town, uber-liberals and their friends are gathered round. The number one contender for new Lux Style Awards’ category should be “Shrillest and Most Depressing Prognosis of the Imminent Foreclosure of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan”. There would be dozens of candidates. From the op-ed pages, to the radio, the television and all around the world — the walls are closing in on this Glorious Liberal Garden of Eden. Pinkie, please! … Pakistani liberals are a reasonably well-defined sliver of the population… More than anything else, liberal and conservative, left and right, moderate and fundo, will all have to learn to sit together and enjoy a meal. Find common ground with each other, and invariably with the “mortal enemy” too — Hindu India loves cricket just as much as Inzi Bhai, and Wahhabi Saudis makes some of the best friend chicken in the universe. Find anything, but let’s be human beings and people — before we become either God’s or Jean Paul Sartre’s chosen people. We must eventually live in hope, rather than in fear. (Source)

Most of all, the MQM’s depth of relationship with urban sentiment is evident in the starkly different rhetoric that defines engagement with the issues between Pakistan’s Gucci and Prada liberals on the one hand, and the MQM’s leadership on the other. Convening an ulema conference was a stroke of urban Pakistan genius by the party. No self-respecting secular, progressive liberal (sic) would be caught dead at such a convention. Hence the difference between the MQM (a serious power-player in this country), and cheese and cracker liberals (a loud but politically sterile minority). As much as the lawyers’ movement was an a-religious movement, it was not amoral. And Pakistan’s people (even the ones in nice cars in the city working for banks and educated in the American Midwest) still draw moral inspiration primarily from Islam. (Source)

What lies behind the obsession of right and left, progressive and traditional, liberal and conservative to collectively want to mutilate this conflict into an ideological war that it is not? Perhaps it is the overwhelming instinct ingrained in an irrational public discourse. (Source)

Yet for too many reasonable Pakistanis, the allure of an ideological debate is too much to resist. Liberals versus mullahs. Secularists versus traditionalists. This is a losing proposition. It will, as always, transform into “Islam versus laadeeniyat”. This plays directly to the advantage of the unreasonable people that have already stacked the deck in their favour. (Source)

May God pity the nation where Javed Chaudhry is a moderate and Mosharraf Zaidi is a liberal.

15 responses to “Javed Chauhdry, a moderate and Mosharraf Zaidi, a liberal?”

  1. Thank you, Shaista, for writing this post. I wonder who is more injurious for Pakistan: moderates like JC or liberals like MZ?

    Then I recall a Persian saying which I must not write here.

  2. لبرل فاشسٹ وہ ہے جو اپنی ذاتی زندگی میں لبرل ہو اور سیاسی طور پر طالبان فاشسٹ کا حامی ہو
    حامد میر ،شاہد مسعود ،جاوید چودھری وغیرہ لبرل فاشسٹ کی مثال ہیں

  3. These MULLAH and Jehadie writers are under huge prassure as more and more people are getting better know how about them,this is not era of 80 or 90s when these Jehadies were writing and whole nation was beleiving on there rubbish BUKVAAS.. now this is age of information every thing is open…they are getting more and more exposed every day..now people of Pakistan can see there hidden bears and there actual ugly faces..they are enemies of Humanity,enimies of people of Pakistan.soon the thugs like HAMID MIR Khalid Khawaja Killer,JAVED CH…TU, OREYA SHAITAN, Dr.Depression Masood of MULLAH ISRAAR fame…and all other will be facing the justice in peoples coart..INSHA ALLAH

  4. @Zalaan

    Excellent definition. You forgot to include two FCS heroes,a low ranking politician Imran Khan and a low ranking journalist Mosharraf Zaidi.

  5. zaidi is merely an english-speaking chaudery. btw, check out zaidi’s accent. Ver, very uber-american.

  6. @sarah Khan

    I have defined the meaning of liberal fascists now we can add more names

    لبرل فاشسٹ وہ ہے جو اپنی ذاتی زندگی میں لبرل ہو اور سیاسی طور پر طالبان فاشسٹ کا حامی ہو
    حامد میر ،شاہد مسعود ،جاوید چودھری وغیرہ لبرل فاشسٹ کی مثال ہیں


    حمید گل بھی لبرل فاشٹ کی ایک مثال ہے ،اپنے بچوں کو لبرل انداز والا بنایا ،خود اور اس کے خاندان والے اپنی ذاتی زندگی میں لبرل ہیں ،شائد مسعود کو انٹویو دیتے ہوئے حمید گل کہتا ہے کہ میں مادھوری کی ایکٹنگ کو پسند کرتا ہوں پر دوستی طرف ملا عمر ، اسامہ اور طالبان کی شریعت کو دوسروں پر تھوپنے کے لیہ خوں خراب کرتا ہے . حمید گل ایک لبرل اسلامیسٹ فاشٹ ہے .

    جاوید چودری یورپ میں جا کر مزے کرتا ہے اور پاکستان میں اسلام کا درس اور خودکش دھماکوں کو سپورٹ کرتا ہے .اپنی ذات میں لبرل اور سیاسی طور پر طالبان فاشسٹ کا نمائندہ

  7. A.I.R. 1930 Lahore 157
    Ilam Din murdered Rajpal, the publisher of the pamphlet “Rangila Rasul”, on April 6, 1929. Ilam Din was sentenced to death on May 22, 1929. Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Farrukh Hussain filed an appeal to the Lahore High Court against the death sentence. Following is the All India (Law) Reporter record of the case.

    A.I.R. 1930 Lahore 157
    Ilam Din—Accused – Appellant.
    Emperor—Opposite Party.

    Criminal Appeal No. 562 of 1929, Decided on 17th July 1929 from order of Sess. Judge, Lahore, D/- 22nd May 1929.

    Penal Code, S. -302—That murderer is 19 or 20 years of agae and murder prompted by veneration for founder of religion is not extenuationg circumstance.

    The mere fact that the murderer is only 19 or 20 years of age and that the act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurriously attacked him, is a wholly insufficient reason for not imposing the appropriate sentence provided by law: A.I.R. 1928 Lah 531, Ref.
    [P158 C1, 2]

    Mohammd [sic] Ali Jinnah and Farrukh Hussain—for Appellant.
    Ram Lal and J.L. Kapur— for the Crown.

    Broadway, J.—Ilam Din, son of Talia Mand, a Tarkhan of some 19 or 20 years of age, and a resident of Mohalla Sirianwala, Lahore City, has been convicted of having caused the death of one Rajpal on 6th April 1929, and, under S. 302, I.P.C., has been sentenced to death. He has appealed, and the case is also before us under S. 374, Criminal P.C.

    The deceased was a Hindu book-seller having a shop in the Hospital Road. Some little time back he had given grave offence to the Muslim community by the publication of a pamphlet entitled “Rangila Rasul.” He had been proceeded against under S. 153-A, I.P.C., in connexion with this publication, and after a protracted trial, had been convicted in January 1927. His conviction was, however, set aside by the High Court in May 1927.* [Rajpal v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1927 Lah. 590.] The pamphlet was a scurrilous production and had wounded the susceptibilities of certain members of the Muslim community to such an extent that his acquittal was followed by two abortive attempts to murder the author, with the result that it was found advisable to afford him police protection.

    It seems that he had recently gone on a visit to Hardwar and, during his absence, the guard was removed. He returned from Hardwar on 4th April and whether the guard had not yet been restored or had been temporarily absented himself (the point is immaterial) he was murderously attacked in his shop at about 2 p.m. on 6th April.

    That his assailant intended to cause death is established by the medical evidence which shows that he received no less than eight wounds, seven being incised and one a punctured one. The nature of these injuries also show that Rajpal endeavoured to defend himself, for four of the incised wounds were on his hands. He received a wound on the top of his head that cracked the right parietal bone, two incised wounds above the spine of the left scapula and a punctured wound in his chest. This last pierced the heart cutting the fourth rib and caused almost instantaneous death.

    The case for the prosecution is that the appellant purchased a knife from Atma Ram (P.W. 8) on the morning of 6th April, proceeded to the ship of the deceased at about 2 p.m. and attacked him as he was sitting on the gaddi in the outer verandha writing letters. The assault was witnessed by Kidar Nath (P.W. No. 2) and Bhagat Ram (P.W. No. 3) employees of the deceased who were in the shop at the time, the former sitting at work in the inner verandah and the latter standing on a ladder in the outer verandah or room arranging books on the shelves. They raised an alarm, threw books at the appellant who dropped his knife and ran out. He was pursued by Kidar Nath and Bhagat Ram who were joined outside by Nanak Chand (P.W. No. 4) and Parma Nand (P.W. No. 5). The appellant turned into a woodyard belonging to Vidya Rattan, who had seen the pursuit from his office door and who hastened into the woodyard and seized the appellant, being assisted by the pursuers who were on his heels. The appellant is then stated to have repreatedly [sic] and loudly proclaimed that he was neither a thief nor a dacoit but had “taken revenge for the prophet.” Ilam Din was taken to the deceased’s shop, the police were notified and took over the appellant and the investigation.

    A very brief report was made by Kidar Nath who said nothing of the assertions made by Ilam Din when he was captured, and did not mention the name of his fellow servant.

    On the following day as a result of a statement made by Ilam Din to the Police, the shop of Atma Ram was discovered, and on 9th this Atma Ram picked out the appellant at an identification parade held under the supervision of a Magistrate as the man to whom he had sold the knife found in Rajpal’s shop.

    There can be no doubt that Atma Ram could have sold the knife as he had several of identically the same make and pattern, two of which have been produced as exhibits. He stated that he bought these knives at an auction sale of Medical Stores.

    M. Jinha [sic] has attacked the prosecution story on various grounds. He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and therefore, “interested;” (2) he had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.

    Objection was taken to the admissibility of the statements made to the police which led to the discovery of Atma Ram, and Atma Ram’s identification of Ilam Din and his testimony regarding the sale of the knife to Ilam Din were characterised as untrue and improbable. (His Lordship after discussing the evidence held that the guilt had been established and proceeded as follows.) Mr. Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.

    As was pointed out in Amir v. Emperor (1): [A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 531.]:
    “the mere fact that the murderer is 19 or 20 years of age, * * * * is a wholly insufficient reason for not imposing the appropriate sentence provided by law.”

    The fact that Ilam Din is 19 or 20 years of age is not, therefore, a sufficient reason for not imposing the extreme penalty and I am unable to see that the other reasons advanced by Mr. Jinnah can be regarded as affording any excuse for a deliberate and cold blooded murder of this type.

    I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal and confirm the sentence of death.

    Johnstone, J.—I concur.
    V.B./R.K. Appeal dismissed.