| Articles |
|
|
| UR
On... Tariq
Rahman, Ph.D., is an acclaimed Pakistani scholar specializing in Linguistics.
He is currently Professor of Linguistics and South Asian Studies at Quaid-e-Azam
University, Islamabad and has been a full Professor at the University
of Sana’a, Yemen and Fulbright research scholar at the University
of Texas, Austin. As head of the Department of English, he has the distinction
of introducing a Masters program in Linguistics and English Language Training
at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. He writes with simplicity
and clarity and increasingly draws on the two disciplines of history and
politics. Among his many published books Language and Politics in Pakistan
and Language, Ideology and Power are considered landmarks.
A: Well, I don’t really know where this progressiveness comes from because it wasn’t in the family. I was brought up in Pakistan Military Academy where my father worked and retired as the Head of the Mathematics Department. So he himself had entirely different ideas than mine. The family was from India and they were feudal lords. My grandfather had the title of ‘Khan Sahab’ so the tradition in the family was entirely different. I went to an elite English medium school which was highly snobbish. But I remember when I was very young, during a family get-together when everyone was talking about my grandfather with great pride, all I said was that he was a robber. My father was stunned. I explained that he took away everything produced by the peasants and that was why he was rich. My family defended him by saying that he wasn’t rich but had to pay a lot of interest and loans. I remember even now, I said if somebody takes a loan that’s besides the point, nevertheless, he had that title and he must have pleased the British by robbing his own people. I was very young. I was perhaps at best 12 but I had read that small book on 1857 which made me say that anyone with a title after 1857 was a stooge. Yet, I went into the army. In those days whoever wanted a good job at a young age generally joined the army. But my reasons were very different from others – I went into the army to escape from society not just to get a job. And I thought it was a very safe place to go. I did not go there for any heroic reasons; I went perhaps for all the wrong ones. But there too I realized I was in the wrong profession because I thought the worse that could happen was to get killed. But I soon learned that the worst was to kill people. So I decided to leave. The progressive ideas came from books
– Russell whom I read and others. I have been a voracious reader.
Initially, when I discussed these radical ideas with my family and friends,
I was opposed from all fronts. Now I can discuss these ideas with my wife
with a greater sense of understanding and support. My family and friends
are very much rightwing. My children want to be westernized; they are
into material goods and big money jobs far more than I ever was. For me
it was always a means to an end, for them it is very different and perhaps
my ideas will die with me. Chomsky is a great optimist. To what extent these thoughts apply to my own self can be extensively debated. I have far less knowledge of human nature and the philosophy of language. I really cannot reach the depth of his work. It does appear to me however that there are two or three ways in which we react to the universe. First the genetic code which comes from maybe ten generations. There may be a case in which we can escape that and make a leap like Chomsky himself and others like him have done. The second is the way we are brought up; that too some can escape and that I suppose I might have and I believe Chomsky too in some ways. Thirdly, perhaps the cognitive abilities and some other sense of identifying right from wrong. I do not know how it is created. I do not know whether it is genetic or it’s a miracle. Why I feel that everybody cannot recognize, or even if they do recognize what is good and what is bad, cannot act upon it, is because human beings are mostly impressed by power and have negative traits too. Because of this they are impressed by those who are ‘successful’. Let me give you an example; I feel that not everybody who went to listen to Chomsky, when he visited Pakistan, was sympathetic to his ideas and beliefs. They belonged to the elite and they carried attributes which Chomsky is fundamentally opposed to. The elites want to keep things for themselves – appropriate things and pleasures like physical pleasures, mental pleasures, egoistic pleasures, intellectual pleasures etc. For them to be able to say later on that they met Chomsky is a pleasure. It is a distinction the elites think they ought to have. Their self image implies that every distinction should be theirs – being seated at a certain place, having a certain kind of car, speaking a certain kind of language in a certain way etc. So the elites do listen to people but for their own interest and distinction not for any compassionate reason. Q: Then what is the point talking to them? I mean if they are not going to be listening for any constructive purpose, rather only to maintain the status quo then we might as well not talk to them at all? A: Well, I also feel that not everyone will listen or respond to the progressive thoughts, ideas or thinkers, but the point is someone will. And so things do change – things have changed. I mean the idea that something like human rights, whether we follow it or not or the West is following it better than us is of course open to debate, has happened. That is why noble and brave ideas and efforts, efforts such as your EDucate! must be supported not because everyone will subscribe to what you are saying but because some people will and they might formulate a pressure group or even a movement and try to change the existing status quo. Q: Intellectuals across the world are of the view that the public sphere and space required for intellectual discourse and for any meaningful social change is under attack. What is your view? A: The concept of public space or sphere is a fairly complicated one. I’ll just briefly go into history in order to explain. I believe that nobody can be God. I believe that no matter how controlling the situation is, nobody can do each and everything the way they want to. I believe that the attack on public sphere and spaces has always been with us but there are people who fight against it, there are people who rise against it and no matter what the consequences they don’t want to let go of that space which is why that space has always existed and still exists. I believe that in terms of nation states, the state allows a few things and a few things go unnoticed. Take the example of our society; we can throw litter because the state is not bothered about it. Ours is an inefficient society and public sector, therefore, we can feel free to throw litter. In Singapore, on the other hand, you can’t do that because the state is very concerned and you will be hunted for that. Nowadays, I totally agree with you, they really want to track us down, there are passports and identity cards, all sorts of gadgets attached to a human being. They can track us down whenever they want to. In short they can pinpoint almost everyone everywhere. So what I mean is if the oppressors wanted to completely control any movement for social justice, the existing world would be far more frightening than the medieval world. So if the little space exists today it is not because they wanted to give it to us but because people have fought hard to create it. It is difficult for them to attack people like Chomsky. Chomsky is too well known and if they were to do something to him, obviously it would be all over the media. But they can always eliminate you and me because we are virtually unknown as compared to greats like Chomsky. If we get spared it’s not because there is a strategic creation of that space by the oppressors, it’s because they know it’s not that easy to overturn us. Again I would like to mention your courageous effort EDucate! – your magazine signifies that there is space for people, young people like yourself, to get engaged in a meaningful discourse towards social change and social justice. Q: I want you to respond to something I asked Chonsky. I feel uncomfortable, when I talk about social justice, liberation of the poor from poverty and oppression. Because we come from privileged backgrounds and have had elite education, our lifestyles are completely detached from those we claim to be fighting for. So the argument is can we become spokespersons for those we don’t completely relate to? A: This is partially true for those who belong to the elite society. And you’re right we do have support mechanisms and assurances to fall back upon. We may have huge salaries, houses and friends we know will bail us out at the end of the day. That certainly is there. This is what makes us credible in my opinion. That despite this support system and privileges we want to be the voice of the voiceless as mentioned in one of the sections of your magazine. Therefore, for people like us, to make an effort is as commendable as perhaps the efforts of the oppressed themselves. The reason why I used the word commendable, is not because we are somehow superior and have despite all the privileges created that struggle but because people do not necessarily want to put these privileges at stake. But we do. And we do it irrespective of the consequences. That is where our mettle is tested when we are faced with the consequences. We could have easily used these privileges to be co-opted, like many others have historically or in present times. But we use these privileges to stand against oppression and we put everything at stake. I think that is what makes our struggle commendable. I would also like to mention here that because of these privileges and remaining in the limelight we have created a vocabulary, a language for the oppressed of the world and that is what causes more movements to shape up for social justice. Q: You think linking education to employment or market needs can be damaging to the very meaning and essence of education? A: Not long ago when here in the Subcontinent the madrassah system was fully functional, knowledge and the way knowledge was transferred was very different than what it is today. Students would choose to go places and explore for themselves, bring knowledge from nature and primarily learn from their own environment, from each other and from their fellow human beings. But things have totally changed. In those days students were not dependent on a prescribed program given by the university, teacher or somebody else. People used to choose a particular way of life and had the freedom to go about it. That system was disseminating moral and spiritual values, which unfortunately today’s educational system has little or nothing to do with. Today we tell our children that they should never want to be seated on the floor but should always prefer sitting in a lavish drawing room. Our educational system is promoting materialistic values, basically the entire system is standing on materialism and additional damage is caused by stratification of knowledge and specialization, which I am not a great fan of. Previously people used to be nomads of knowledge, they used to go from one area to another and learn from each other and share and transfer skills and knowledge. Now what is happening is that you need a particular certificate to be someone. I would love to teach my students to go places and stop worrying about a job or a piece of paper that is the certificate. I would love to encourage them to gain knowledge and wisdom and be streetwise instead. I would really like to do all that but I am not allowed to, to a great extent. I have to complete the course, they have to pass an examination. They must find a job and ways to become rich by hook or crook. It happened with my own life that although I was in the army I got out of it. I was lucky enough to survive that kind of life and did what I wanted to but not everyone is going to do that. It involves a great sense of risk and at times it is very dangerous. At times you lose your way and you don’t really know where you are going. At times you don’t know what is right and what is wrong but that is the whole beauty of being liberated from absolute thought controlling situations and deciphering various ways towards the truth. Going back to how it happened with me, I just got out of the army and applied for a scholarship. I was lucky to get it and if it wasn’t for that I don’t know where I would be right now. So what I am trying to say is that people don’t want to take such risks because they have invested heavily in their education and want immediate returns. Q: What do you think is the real essence of education? What radical changes would you suggest in our educational system? A: Well, historically speaking, the essence was to pass on values, the consensus of values which has generally remained in the interest of the privileged. So generally education passes on values which are in the interest of the powerful and therefore has played a central role in keeping the power structures intact rather than challenging the injustices that exist. The analysis that I have carried out in the language text or for that matter for education, categorizes education into three distinct categories. The first one is that education is for the consensus of values, the second thing it does is teach some skills. Those skills might be social skills, poetry, language or they can be other skills which can help you earn money. The third one is the intellectual form of education which means some people will always find ways to generate original ideas. So I believe education is basically a mind game, it’s like chess and when we talk of values then we can have counter values too. That’s what I mean by the real essence of education; we have an education system but we have intellectuals who form alternatives. Responding to your question, what I would like to change is the value part of it. The skill part can remain parallel to the value part because I believe once the values are going to change, the nature of skills would automatically change. For this reason, I have been very critical of the existing form of education and that is why when I teach and when I write my main purpose is to make people think and to make people think critically. So coming back to values, the first and foremost thing I would want to do is not hide the truth under any circumstances. I would like to consciously inculcate values which would make people think critically of the text that is provided to them to be critical of themselves and their actions. Q: We are living in, as some say, the dark ages and ironically they are called the most technologically advanced, but in terms of the existing conditions of human rights and violence, these are the dark ages. What can be done if the situation is so dismal? A: I certainly feel a lot can be done and it has been done and things will change. What I feel is that this information glut in media is inadvertently changing a lot of things. Not long ago people could be beaten up to death, even in our country, by feudal lords or by tyrannical people or dogs were thrown at blacks in South Africa. But now there is such an information glut that it cannot happen just like that anymore. It can only happen now if the illegitimate forces are somehow able to legitimize themselves and are able to use the same vocabulary as we use in our struggle for social justice. That is where the role of young intellectuals and the role of intellectuals at large in the society comes into play, to expose what is right and what is wrong. Q: Any message that you want to give out through EDucate! A: Yes. Efforts like EDucate! must be supported because the kind of society we are living in, it is absolutely imperative to create a language that spreads awareness to strengthen our civil society. We can internalize these things and create moral pressures. Movements like yours and other movements and exposures to truth create conditions for people to distinguish what lies between the truth and fabrications.
|
|
|
 |