I do not know your name/Nor for which battle you died/I do not know your home/Nor the tears, that were cried/I do not know where you rest/Nor the promises broken/I do not know your uniform/And, your fears, lay unspoken/But, I know your spirit exists/That your courage is admired/And your sacrifices honoured/By each soul that’s inspired/And, I offer you from my heart/Thank you to guardians unknown/For offering yourself for us all/That we may keep freedom…/Our, home. November 11 is observed as ‘Remembrance Day’ or Armistice Day or ‘Veteran’s Day’ in countries that were involved in World War I, to commemorate the fallen soldiers and to honour those who survived. The day marks “the armistice signed between the allies and Germany for the cessation of hostilities on the western front of World War I, which took effect at 11 o’clock in the morning — the ‘eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month’ of 1918.” In England, students of Smestow School in Wolverhampton were sent home by the administration after they turned up wearing their “Air Cadet uniforms to show respect for war dead”, because they violated the uniform rules of the school. This caused outrage among the parents, who were members of ‘1047 City of Wolverhampton Air Training Corps squadron’, and termed the action ‘disrespectful’. It was reported, “Aman Nanglu, 15, Rezanne Willis, 16, and Elle Phillips, 15, made the decision to pay their own tribute while the nation fell silent during the two minute act of remembrance.” The school in its defence stated that the parents were called and the pupils sent home to change into the school uniform as per the policy issued by the Education Department. Munawwar Hasan, the Ameer of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) has made the headlines again. I suspect that he was feeling a bit left out with all attention being showered on another Maulana of a different group, Jamiat-i-Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl. In order to outshine Maulana ‘Diesel’ who, drawing on his vast reservoir of knowledge, recently stated for the ignorant and imbecile Pakistani nation that “even a dog killed by the US is a martyr”, the JI Maulana has declared that Hakeemullah Mehsud, the chief of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a recent target of a US drone, is a ‘shaheed’ (martyr). Had the Ameer’s ‘ilm’ (knowledge) stopped here, many of us would have chosen to ignore this, but it was not to be. In order to go one up on the JUI (F), he elaborated that the soldiers who had laid down their lives defending our country, were not shaheed. To be precise, it was in response to the question: “Whether we should consider the Pakistani soldiers who die while fighting the TTP shaheed or not?” posed by Saleem Safi in his TV programme. Maulana Hasan stated that since Americans who die fighting in this area are not shaheed, rather they are perceived as having died a “zillat ke maut” (ignominious death), how can anyone who supports the US, logistically and otherwise, and fights alongside them for fulfilling their goals, be a shaheed? If an American cannot be a shaheed, then neither can the other! I am unable to tame my sense of disgust. I cannot but help recall that this is the same maulana who a while back said that rape victims should keep their mouths shut unless they can provide four witnesses in their support. Is not shaheed a person who dies fighting for a just cause? Are not those slaughtering people, blowing up innocent women, children and men, killing and maiming mercilessly, pure evil? The Pakistan army through a statement by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) has condemned Munawwar Hasan’s statement, terming it ‘misguided and self-serving’ and an insult to the martyrs and their families. The army has asked for an unconditional apology. There has been widespread protest against Hasan’s statement as well as a visit by Prime Minister (PM) Nawaz Sharif to GHQ to pay tribute to the martyrs. The PM House issued a statement stating: “Those who have fought for Pakistan, the shaheed (martyrs) and ghazis (living), have sacrificed their today for ensuring a better tomorrow for our future generations. All of them are our benefactors.” On the other side of the border in India, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) chief has made the headlines, both domestic and international. The Guardian reported: India’s top police official has apologised for saying, “If you can’t prevent rape, you enjoy it,” a remark that has outraged the country. Ranjit Sinha, chief of India’s Central Bureau of Investigation, made the remark on Tuesday during a conference about illegal sports betting and the need to legalise gambling. The CBI, the country’s premier investigative agency, is India’s equivalent of the FBI. Sinha said at the conference that if the state could not stop gambling, it could at least make some revenue by legalising it. “If you cannot enforce the ban on betting, it is like saying: ‘If you can’t prevent rape, you enjoy it,’” he said. Considering the recent brutal incidents of gang rapes in India, the statement by Sinha baffles one’s imagination. While acknowledging that he has apologised for the highly inappropriate analogy, one wonders whether he meant, ‘If u can’t beat them, join them’ and wanted to fix time, duration, venue, number of ‘participants’ and taxes on the age old male ‘sport’ or game? Because rape does appear to be a game to most men, and some sort of an ‘initiation sport’. It is truly unfortunate to have an educated person like the CBI chief utter such things but what is worse is that he is not the only one using such analogies. With the Smestow incident, one could argue that schools have rules and perhaps it may have been better if permission had been obtained prior to donning of the uniform, but again was it that big a deal that the students had to be sent home to change? As for the illustrious maulanas, whom this nation has been blessed with in abundance, who propagate dogs and terrorists as martyrs, where do we send them to change? Or people like Sinha, who cannot even comprehend the gravity of irresponsible and ignorant words uttered through their equally ‘jahil’ (ignorant) mouths? When persons in positions of control and command issue statements that have the power to influence others, they need serious attention. Calling on the Supreme Court to take suo motu notice of Munawwar Hasan’s statement, especially when the honourable court has been criticised severely by those calling for it, or having assemblies pass resolutions, is hardly the solution. How about trying those who ally with the terrorist for treason? Why are we never outraged enough to actually do something substantial about it, like the courts in Bangladesh did to the JI? And why do we need these people to tell us who is a shaheed or not, or why should ‘evil’ not be mentioned by those wronged? But then I worry: are the lunatics taking over the asylum? The writer is an advocate of the High Court