The word foolproof has always fascinated me. By definition a foolproof system is a system that even fools can run without making a mess of it. So whenever I come across the term ‘foolproof security’ I get completely confused. Everyone in our government and every security official wants to have foolproof security; does it mean that they expect fools to be in charge of security? Or are the people in charge fools themselves and so wish to protect the systems from themselves? Frankly, it would seem to me that the latter is the case based upon the responses of those that run our security systems.
The problem with our anti-terrorist activities is that as I pointed out above, they are obviously prepared by people of limited intelligence (fools?) to be run by people of limited intelligence (fools), meaning themselves. The problem is then of course that the terrorists might be louche miscreants but they are no fools (I did it! I always wanted to use louche and miscreant in one sentence!). As such the not-foolish terrorists are able to negate any security system that is at best designed only to be run by fools.
Here I wish to aver forcefully that I have no attention to denigrate people of limited intelligence and definitely not those who might be considered as fools. The word ‘fool’ has multiple connotations. The ‘wise fool’ is an important part of our cultural heritage. The classical example is Mullah Nasruddin ‘Dopiaza’, a character based on reality. This wise fool is found in most Muslim cultures and is known by many names, with the appellation of either Mullah or Khawaja/Khoja. There are many stories attributed to Nasruddin the ‘wise fool’ that demonstrate wisdom hidden behind what might seem foolish. Most ‘authorities’ on Mullah Nasruddin suggest that he was a Sufi and his sayings represent Sufi ideas presented in such a way that ordinary people could understand them.
My favourite story attributed to Nasruddin is one related by Idries Shah. The Mullah was asked to give a talk/sermon in a mosque. The Mullah got up on the dais and asked the people present, “Do you know what I am going to talk about?” To this the people said no, and so Mullah walked away saying what use talking if you don’t even know what I want to talk about. Next day, people got Nasruddin back. Again he asked the same question. This time the people were prepared and they all said, “Yes we know what you are going to talk about.” At this Nasruddin said, then what use talking if you already know what I am going to say and walked off. People got him back a third time. Nasruddin asked the same question and this time the people were better prepared. Half said yes and the others said no. At this Nasruddin said, those that know, please tell those that do not and walked off once again! The message of this story is cryptic and I leave it for my readers to figure it out.
Robert Graves in his introduction to Idries Shah’s book The Sufis suggests that there was considerable ‘cross pollination’ of ideas from the Sufis into western cultures. One example he gives is of the adoption of the wise fool as the ‘court jester’. Interestingly, the multicoloured dress and the pointy cap most court jesters wear in classical descriptions might have been influenced by Sufi garb of that time especially in Al Andalus. The primary concept behind the court jester was that he could say things to a king that seemed outrageous and yet was never punished. The purpose of having such a person around was that the king needed to be ‘brought down to earth’ and reminded that self-righteousness is not a virtue.
The concept of the wise fool persists in Muslim tradition especially in the Malamati and Qalandari Sufi orders where ‘errant’ public behaviour hides inner piety and ‘godliness’. Leaving aside Sufi orders and ideas, democracy depends on the wisdom of the ‘masses’, however bereft most ordinary people might be of education or obvious wisdom. In his satirical poem Musheer (advisor) the great Habib Jalib says: “Das crore yeh gadhai kya banain gai hukmran” (a hundred million fools cannot become rulers). It is traditionally a socialist concept that the wisdom of the ‘masses’ is superior to the wisdom of the elite. Interestingly, in the US, anti-intellectualism has become the bedrock of modern conservatism. If we look at a Tea Party conclave, most must conclude that they are indeed a collection of ‘fools’ in funny hats. So much so that even well educated members of the Republican Party go around acting like intellectually diminished individuals.
However in Pakistan, many of our ‘leaders’ are indeed bereft of wisdom and act as such without any sense of irony. If we look at the leaders of Pakistan over the last 40 years, we can see the disconnect between wisdom or even a good education and leadership, the only exceptions being the two Bhuttos, father and daughter. The one thing that nobody can accuse our present and third time prime minister is of superior intellectual capability. Is he then a wise fool or just a fool?
Coming back to the idea of foolproof stuff, it seems to me that instead of developing foolproof systems against terrorism or whatever, we should really develop a foolproof system to prevent fools from running our government. Having interacted with many of our ‘senior’ bureaucrats and some of our senior politicians, I must admit that I found them entirely bereft of intellectual capability or any introspection. Frankly, what we need most is a few ‘wise fools’ like Mullah Nasruddin to bring them all down to reality.
If we can switch the leadership of the Taliban types with our present leadership, albeit with some modification of points of view, we might actually do better as a country.
The writer has practised and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at [email protected]