The WaterKit Bashing Contest - A crazy "Invention Given Undue Attention"‏

I am going to jump the bandwagon here and write the customary lines- that are now probably a prerequisite to being called an educated and reasonable person these days- Yes, Agha Waqar's “Waaater Kit” is a sham, the scientific equivalent of a cheeseburger genetically programmed to sing Frank Sinatra. Yes, it is absurd but does this absurdity really deserve the media limelight? Does it really deserve the attention of the brightest scientific minds in Pakistan? Let us explore this territory to find out where both the rational and irrational minds went wrong.

The case of the water kit sham is so atrociously irrational that Willy O Coyote might have used it to run after the roadrunner. But, the worrying point is not the support shown by some elements of the media but the constant coverage and attention shown by those social and electronic media outlets that are against such unscientific thoughts. So much attention was shown by these flag bearers of rationality that people like me began to wonder what grievous crime had Agha Waqar committed, the enormity of which was so much that it inspired more blogs and media discussions than PMLN’s attack on Shaukat Khanum Memorial Hospital. Every major blog and news outlet has been discussing about this water kit and that to me is a total waste of time.

It might be possible to jolt your memories (no pun intended) to remember a similar claim made by anengineer (Rehan Aziz Farooqi)  from  Swat who also claimed to run a generator from water using the electrolysis technique and that method too flew in the face of the accepted laws of thermodynamics but the question that arises here is that why didn’t that self-taught engineer get as much attention as Agha Waqar? Probably Agha Waqar happened to be more eloquent in presenting his invention or maybe he just got lucky and attracted the attention of both pro and con groups of the media and the scientific circles. It is incredible to see that how fiercely the rationals clashed with the irrationals, how the enthusiastically debated on issue that was a non issue as soon as it was reported; and how they lamented (non-stop) on the decrepitude of Pakistani scientific educational system, when they themselves have done so much for our educational system that today we have to watch ‘inventor’s like Agha Waqar on TV. An argument can be made that the ‘rational section’ of our media and society were vociferously  attacking Agha Waqar because they thought that the Pakistan’s ‘Awam’ would be tricked into believing in Mr. Agha’s ‘Hoax’ and that would be a cause of  embarrassment for the whole nation. It is indeed a noble cause but in my view totally pointless. Why do I utter such blasphemy? Because even if we assume that the Pakistani  populace is lead to somehow believe that the water kit car functions really well, then do we seriously expect that industrialists and scientists would be flocking en masse to Agha Waqar and production would actually begin on it? If that’s a rational thought then our rationality is at par with Agha Waqar’s scientific grounding.

But perhaps we as a nation are looking out for someone to vent out our frustrations upon. Even though those ‘bright minds’ have pronounced the ‘water kit’ as a sham but they haven’t come up with their own brilliant plan as well.  All everyone cares about is how well can they ridicule this person as if Agha Bashing was a point scoring contest. In the light of current Agha Bashing contest, I am inclined to believe that the Water Kit Sham was once against exploited by our media and given undue attention for what? Dare I suggest ratings?  It would be worthwhile for our media (both liberal and conservative) to focus on the achievements of Pakistanis that have been acclaimed for example, how much attention was given to a team of Pakistani students winning a debate competition in Mexico? At least it was much less than Agha Waqar’s miracle kit. It is my humble suggestion that we should be promoting success stories of Pakistan’s ‘real achievers’ in the same way that we are promoting Agha Waqar’s sham. If media attention was not given to this quackery, then it would have faded away quickly, but then unfortunately that doesn't make up a good spicy read does it?

Neither Can Live While the Other Survives

Brian Greene in his book, The Fabric of Cosmos, while explaining about the Principle of Equivalence to the layman, writes,

  “Right now you feel gravity’s influence. If you are standing, your feet feel the floor supporting your weight. If you are sitting, you feel the support somewhere else. And unless you are reading in a plane or a car, you probably also think that you are stationary-that you are not accelerating or even moving at all. But according to Einstein, you are actually accelerating. Since you’re sitting still this sounds a little silly, but don’t forget to the usual question: 

 Accelerating according to what benchmark? Accelerating from whose viewpoint? "

According to Einstein, absolute space provides a benchmark. Now you might wonder why I am boring you with some obscure physics principles, here’s the reason why.

The reason I mentioned this obscure and murky scientific principle was to draw a comparison to the human society. How do we judge a society’s moral values? What benchmark do we have to declare that such and such activity in a society is wrong or unjustified? Take the case of wine for example. In one culture (to be precise a religion) drinking wine is forbidden while in another wine is allowed. They both have their own benchmarks to judge their values against and both claim that they are right. But how does a person like me who is neither here nor there choose between the two? That is what I am stuck on. What absolute benchmark should I choose to define belief, my moral values, the way I live life. Or should I be my own boss.

 Religion is something that I believe should be avoided in creating a benchmark to judge anyone or anything? Why? Because there are a gazillion other religions out here and each professes that, it is right and divinely inspired. So many religions. So many followers, all vying for the coveted position of being close to the Lord. One claims that the Messiah hasn’t come yet, another says that the Messiah came , got crucified and caught a flight to Heaven and will come back soon to fight evil doers, while the last one basically says that the Messiah will come at the end of times but he would just be a subordinate of its own Prophet, who was the last in the long and illustrious line of Prophets.

 Every religion is contradicting each other that thus creates a need for an absolute benchmark, which can be used to judge and choose between right and wrong, and one that can be accepted by all. But here’s the catch. The human society does not work this way. There is no singular universally agreed guidebook that we earthlings have, that we can use for guidance and to distinguish between what right and what wrong. And the reason why they are not yet in existence is because of a small little code in our DNA.

Since man is nothing but the pinnacle of biological, evolution that has taken several billion years, it is thus a fact that we are the best version of a genetic program that has undergone an untold number of revisions , one particular code in this program pertains to survival. Humans didn’t build houses or discover fire for scientific or aesthetic purposes, they built and discovered for survival, i.e. survival of their species. It s a code that stretches back to the days when we were primitive bacteria swimming in earth’s primeval oceans.

 But this code actually has transcended mere body protection to the active defense of ideas and beliefs. These ideas and beliefs are the reason for a community’s survival and war is a tool of protection for its survival and continuation of its values. Different beliefs thus co-existing is a feel-good thought but one that is just a mirage. It is like the prophecy about Harry Potter and Voldemort which says “Neither can live while the other survives” why? Because the expansion of one belief system would come at the cost of contraction of another. And that’s where our survival code kicks in.

USA didn’t kick out Soviet communism because it was evil? It fought against it because the expansion of Soviet bloc would undermine the progress of USA and its capitalist allies.

A Nuclear Armageddon

 Even the religions are not immune to the effects of this evolutionary code. The concept of Armageddon, which is so widespread in the Abrahamic religions actually says that peace will only be created when all the earthlings are converted to one faith only . Just One Faith. There is no room in the scripture for diverse faiths. Yes, you can co-exist for a while but when the Messiah comes, you have no choice but to submit to his faith otherwise you are on the highway to hell.

 So try judging that against a benchmark!

There will be no benchmark to judge these actions unless one is actually decided unanimously by the earthlings, which leaves no room for dissent. And to leave no room for dissent means destroying the opposing ideas and belief. It’s a sinister aspect of life, but one with which we have to live with.

Because man is much more sexual in nature than women!

In Reply to Bina Shah (Nudity and the Niqab: The Debate Continues) __________________________________________________________________________ First, I would start by partially agreeing with your statement that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose. Moreover, I wish that (to quote you) "One day, women will be free to make their own choices about their clothing, and men will simply have to get out of the way." Nevertheless, here is a question that arises when I read your blog; should there be a limit to what a woman chooses to wear? Should the women -and for that matter men as well-be allowed to wear literally anything that they want to wear? Can I as a man be allowed to walk into my office wearing nothing but white boxer shorts and a top hat? Will the office management allow me to wear that? If it doesn't, then should I brand my office management as myopic rigid and conservative shmucks?

The reason behind all this controversy on the niqabs, burkas, hijabs and abayas is the misunderstanding of the original message words of Quran. Hijab in the Quran is used to denote a modest dress. A sort of separation between men and women, it was not implied in the Quran as the covering of the whole female body as we see it today. In fact the word Hijab was misunderstood by the Islamic jurisprudents to mean 'satr' which implies covering up yourself, which if used in the context of Hijab, actually bars women from going outside and remain locked up inside their homes which of course is impractical. The basic premise of Quran is to place restrictions on both men and women in regards to their conduct outside their homes. But an important factor to consider here is that the verses were revealed back in the 7th century and were primarily meant to guide the Muslims in those formative years. However, the views that would have been perfectly sane and rational in those times cannot be held as practical in this era, that much we have to give to the Muslim liberals. If revisit the Quranic verses that order the women to remain covered and hidden in their houses, we find the following: “O wives of the Prophet! You are not as other women..." (33:32) "Remain in your houses." (33:33) Here we see that the restrictions that were reserved for the wives of the Prophet (PBUH) were taken by the jurisprudents to mean as general instructions for all the women. These instructions in those days were the ancient equivalent of modern security procedures regarding the family members of high-ranking officials and public figures, which of course can’t simply be applied to the public. What the Quran actually says is, "Say to the believing men to cast down their glance and guard their private parts..." (24:30), thus, it imposes a restriction on Muslim men and women regarding their conduct. And (to the chagrin of the liberals) these restrictions are neither fantastic nor impractical. In all the civilized western countries there laws against nudity as well as sexual offences. Society, thus itself imposes laws on what we wear and how we choose to act, something, which -to its credit-Islam outlined back in the 7th century AD. Yes, the concept of Hijab is there in Quran, but the Hijab that we refer today to as THE Hijab, is more related to the Arab culture, which we like to idealize in the same way as the medieval western nations idealized the Vatican and later the Renaissance gripped Europe idealized the ancient Greek and Roman cultures. Thus, I leave it upon you to decide which culture you would like to follow and how much promiscuity would you be willing to allow in the society. I really do agree with your statement that women should be allowed to wear whatever they choose to wear but restrictions should be there, why? Because man is much more sexual in nature than women -Ref: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/201012/the-reality-the-male-sex-drive http://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare It is this sexual nature of man that if suppressed or given a free ticket lead to sexual crimes. I again repeat that the extreme, suppression (in the case of Arab and South Asian cultures) and liberalization (in the case of Western nations) will only bring sexual harm to the women. Thus, restrictions on what women and men wear will I am afraid always be there but it depends whether we gravitate towards extreme conservatism or extreme liberalization or should we choose the middle way-the moderate way, which is neither liberal nor conservative. Miss Bina Shah's said blog can be accessed at http://binashah.blogspot.nl/2012/07/nudity-and-niqab-debate-continues.html

Reflections in a waiting queue

I am sitting on a conservatively designed computer terminal in the university, waiting for my transcript and completion letter. There is one trait that almost all education institutions around the world share, and that is their laziness to issue transcripts, I mean I have faced this issue in matric, then college, then the university ( in Pakistan) and now here all the way in Australia. The only improvement in this whole situation was the presence of a pretty looking damsel on the counter, otherwise in my experience it was either a man with a beard chewing pan, a grumpy looking pregnant woman or some bespectacled unshaven moron who had given up hope on living a life.

So now here I am nothing to do, and to while away the waiting hours I decided to write something. Actually it was the Coldplay song "The Scientist" that triggered some hitherto lost memory and made me reflect on the finite nature of everything. I am not a religious person at all, but that doesn’t mean I do not reflect on life and death and what happens afterwards. I like to believe that there is an afterlife but I don’t know if there is one. Maybe there is one, but our human mind is unable to grasp it. What if science can’t prove it in my lifetime, then what? Would I die as an unbeliever? Condemned to live in Hell? Or maybe I would just die and become the constituent matter of the soil on which barley would grow and a grain would just fall due to the wind and be pecked by a hen which in turn would be collected by its owner who would sell it in the market and where it would be cut, skinned and reduced to cutlets and end up on the table of a local politician who would, when filled up, would proceed to plot the death of some rival and the circle of life would carry on. How would my skeleton rise out of the grave on the day of judgement I don’t know. Looks like a zombie apocalypse to me. All I know is that earliest traces of this concept lie in the Egyptian concept of the Kingdom of the Dead. But some people are dead before they even die, their souls or their amygdala part of the brain is dead, for if it was not, then what induces them to kill other humans- Extinguish a Life. They don’t only extinguish a life but they also kill a story. The story of a person who might have had the opportunity to live right up to a ripe old age and relate the story of his life to his grandchildren, lessons that they would retain in their minds for the rest of their lives but who wouldn’t be able to do that now just because there is a soul-less zombie who killed that person in the name of a deity whose nature has been changing from the Mesopotamian Marduk to Yahweh and then Allah. May be that deity is there. Up there somewhere looking down upon the petty conglomeration of cells and molecules we call humans, who kill in the name of His when they have not even seen, heard or even felt Him. May be He was there, back in the good old days, but maybe He has left, He has left this planet and gone over to experiment on some other civilization residing on a planet millions of light years away. Who knows? That's the statement that I KNOW has and will be forever echoing in the story of human civilization. Anyways, I should go over to check whether the documents have arrived or not. Feels good to write, doesn’t it :)

To Mourn the Death of a Political Activist

On 27^th March, “unidentified persons”, shot dead an MQM activist, within hours of the incident numerous buses, hotels and shops were set ablaze and several casualties were reported in the aftermath of the killing. Then on 29^th March, some ANP activist was killed by some “unknown people”.

Those people who think that setting ablaze shops and buses would somehow quench their thirst for vengeance, are wrong, it is not right. It is never right, by any law, by any code or by any moral standard to injure and maim people in vengeful anger and the political parties are utterly and entirely to held in blame for this carnage.

These knights of vengeance forget that when they set about to avenge the death of their comrade, the people would only mourn for the loss of their own personal property or worse their loved ones. Just for the death of two political activists, 7 Karachiites were killed,

is there any justification for that?

I ask you, how many of us actually shed a tear for the death of a political party of any standing. Majority of us do not, because we have other important things to do in life, struggle to earn bread for the family, study for exams or look after kids. Well, if we don’t care as a nation then why does the ticker on the news channels reads like, “ aaj------kay karqun ki halaqat kay sog per Karachi main shutter down hartal”, so are these news channels telling me that the Karachiites are shutting down their businesses and educational institutions as a protest?

As a consequence of strikes and shutter downs Pakistan suffers a loss of 15 billion rupees and Karachi alone suffers a loss of almost 2.5 billion rupees.

Would a hard-pressed shopkeeper actually even think of closing down his shop for a day just because some activist died?

Would a day laborer actually sit at home as a protest against the target killing of some obscure political activist?

Would a CEO actually think of bearing a loss on revenue for a day just because a political activist died?

No, nobody ever does that, except of course the political parties. How can I think of mourning the death of a political activist of any party when my city burns, when my city loses billions of rupees, just because of political chaos? How can shed I tear for those dead activists when innocent patients cannot get treatment because nurses and doctors fail to turn up at the hospital as a result of the strike. How can I grieve the death of those activists, when a day laborer is unable to feed his family because he could not go out to earn money, just because “some political workers died”.

No, in all honesty and sincerity, I would not grieve, mourn, or protest against the death of the political activist if it means chaos and carnage in my city.

We are much intelligent beings then what we consider ourselves to be. As intelligent beings, God has given us brains to analyze and process complex thoughts, surely we can figure out better ways of protesting, but no, we have to kill, maim and torture our own people to avenge the death of our comrade in arms. All I can say is that the Quaid would be disgusted.

Why I want the Quaid's Picture be Removed from the Currency Note‏

Before I begin my article, there are two important definitions that I want to lay down before you:

1) Founding father: defined as a person who starts or helps to start a movement, institution or a revolution.

2) Institution: An established custom, law or behavioral pattern of importance in a community.

When founding fathers bring revolutions, they lay down the basis for or introduce new institutions, and dismantle unfair institutions

Let us move on.

Now if we accept these definitions, then according to these, M.A.Jinnah cannot be the founding father of this nation of Pakistan. You would question the reason behind this sacrilege, to which I would quote a section of M.A Jinnah’s 11^th August (and oft quoted), speech:

“..If you change your past and work together in a spirit that every one of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what is his color, cast or creed, is first, second and last, a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make”

I ask you, did we ever follow this advice of our “founding father”? Did we preserve this legacy?

On the other hand the founding fathers of USA deserve to be called ‘the founding fathers’, because the constitution that they set up, the legacy they have left behind is still preserved, is still guarded as sacred. They laid down the foundations of institutions that have been protected to this date. So I implore of you, who merits the claim to be called a founding father, George Washington or M.A Jinnah?

I ask you, can a non-Muslim become the president or prime minister of Pakistan no matter how capable he or she is. We can have lawbreakers, dictators or religious fanatics holding the reins of power, but we cannot even contemplate to have a capable and committed non-Muslim governing the Islamic Pious Republic of Pakistan! Refer to Jinnah’s speech when he said, “…a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges and obligations”

Our assemblies can unanimously declare a certain Muslim sect as non-Muslim and effectively enforce that bill but cannot unanimously approve a health and education reform bill.

“You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state”, The Quaid said, and we as a nation make a mockery of this statement every day.

The Quaid said:

“The first duty of the government is to maintain law and order, so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by state”

Sectarian killing, increasing crime rates, party owned land mafia and the regular killing of minorities prove this statement of the Quaid as false. Every Day!

To the Armed forces, he said:

“Now you have to stand guard over the development and maintenance of Islamic democracy...” (2^nd Feb 1948)

This statement has already been mocked five times since 1947.

Addressing the students in Dacca in March 1948, he said:

“You will be making the greatest mistake if you allow yourself to be exploited by one political party or the other”

APMSO, ISF, IJT, PSF etc... Clearly show how much regard they have for their own party’s founding fathers than Pakistan’s founding fathers.

To the reader, I ask, since our laws, institutions, behavioral patterns are exactly the opposite of what M.A Jinnah had in mind, therefore shouldn’t we say that the founding fathers of this nation are actually, ZA Bhutto, Maulana Maudoodi, Ayub Khan, and Zia Ul Haque because of their untiring efforts the Islamic Pious State of Pakistan came into being because before that, it was just …Pakistan. Hence I propose with all solemnity that the picture of M.A Jinnah be removed from currency and be replaced by the above mentioned esteemed personalities for these truly are our founding fathers who’s legacy we still preserve- and cherish.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was the founder of a country once called Pakistan, not the founder of the Islamic Pious Castle of Islam Pakistan.