Daily Times

I have it all worked out. At least, I think I have it all worked out.But why this sudden qualification of a confident initial assertion, you ask? That is because, before you work it all out, it is obvious that you must first work out how exactly you are going to work it all out.
For, in knowledgeable circles, this ‘methodology’ business cannot be ignored; and my readers are nothing if not sophisticated. So, as I am not one hundred percent satisfied that my chosen method of how to work out what I want to work out will work out (which, in turn, might cast doubts on the veracity of what I eventually work out), I thought it prudent to stick in a well-timed pre-emptive, preliminary, protective note of caution.
Let me thus begin with what I have worked out about how to work anything out. Here, surely, the great secret must be to make the right assumptions, from which everything else can follow easily and logically (please note that careful choice of words: ‘right’, not ‘correct’). Once the ‘right’ assumptions are in place, one need not think any further. After all, what possible use can immutable principles be if they cannot serve as substitutes for possibly faulty human reasoning?
The fluidity of the thought process should mimic the behaviour of water: flow naturally and effortlessly downhill, rather than wage a fruitless struggle against the pervasive (but weak) gravitational pull of reason.
This talk of fluidity and water reminds me that I should mention here one little refinement, a bit of fine tweaking if you will, to the proposed methodology for working things out. I refer, here — and please forgive my immodesty — to the need, in this context, for a liberal use of my patented, fifth dimensional, technologically innovative, and now internationally famous 21st century branded intellectual weapon I popularised a few years ago under the ‘Wavy Thinking’ label. (For a fuller description, see my column January 12, 2005)
For, the application of ‘Wavy Thinking’ to this problem of methodology we are discussing makes one thing abundantly clear, at once. Sure, Derrida had a point when he drew our attention to the importance of ‘deconstruction’. But the poor fellow died in the last century and was either not quite the great mind others have made him out to be or, more likely, badkismati say, had not progressed in his thinking to the point where he could zero in upon my great future insight.
For, as there can be no pre-deconstruction of any re-construction (post- deconstruction), is it not obvious that any ‘deconstruction’ must, therefore, itself be ‘deconstructed’ (and so on, ad infinitum), for any eventual proper reconstruction of the deconstructed material?
Once formulated in this manner (okay, I will state it more simply for the more obtuse among you, with the help of an analogy: the question is, is it possible to find a definite sum, of a particular infinite series?), the mathematicians among you will immediately recognise the problem, and the answer. Yes, it is possible in certain cases (e.g. the sum of the infinite series 1+1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16…is 2), where the series, in the jargon, can be shown to be ‘convergent’ (as opposed to ‘divergent’).
We seem to be making progress alright in our quest, but by now you must be impatiently wondering what is it actually that I have worked out to my satisfaction, using the correct ‘Wavy Thinking’ methodology for working things out. And, that is before we even get to the stage of working out what those ‘root causes’ everyone is so fond of talking about may be, using that methodology! But please be patient. Everything will become clear in good time.
But, frankly, so much working out how to work out what I wish to work out, is also leaving me a little short of wind. So, before I myself end up totally confused — and you explode in bewildered exasperation — I had better, instantly, at least state the methodology unequivocally before I forget what I intended to say, and you switch in disgust to reading a less high-powered column.
A small digression first, though, may not be entirely out of place.
For, the question here arises: should we indeed be trying to work out anything at all — let alone the methodology of how to set about that elusive search — when the right doses of jazba and vulvula (combined, as always, with eeman), will suffice to suitably prick the sides of our intent? Must we resort to the modern intellectual hammer to crack a pretty soft chilghoza, when an old-fashioned traditional method — like using the fingers to apply pressure — will do the job?
But, being a practical sort of fellow, I think we should leave such considerations to the philosophers, and not get bogged down here by unnecessary complications relating to what is, after all, a pretty simple matter. Seen from that perspective, I cannot work out for the life of me why it has taken me practically a whole column to state those two self-evident fundamental assumptions that, once in place, make any and all further mental activity on our part wholly unnecessary.
And what might those two self-evident assumptions be that need no justification?
I told you: I have it all worked out, and your patience is about to be rewarded.
The first is that we ba-shaoor Pakistanis believe the right order of priorities is to consider ourselves as true Muslims first and foremost; be beholden to our biradari next; and then give importance to our tribal and provincial connections (in that order). We think of ourselves as Pakistanis only as a matter of last resort, when none of those other loyalties are in play.
The second assumption is that Pakistan was only created for the purpose of being a citadel of Islam. Never mind that the man who won us this country (the man who the ulema labelled Kafir-e-Azam before 1947, and has never been mentioned in their discourses since) was a non-practising Muslim, and explicitly thought otherwise. That only proves no more than that the Almighty works in mysterious ways to shower his blessings on the faithful. The ‘truth’ is what we believe to be true.
But how do we work out who is, or is not, a ‘true’ Muslim? I confess I cannot work that one out. So, perhaps, in the final analysis, having worked out everything, I actually have not worked out anything at all.
From Damascus, the immortal city that has seen it all countless times, Eid Mubarak, my friends.

The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com