Sunday, April 29, 2007

On Sharif-ud-Din Peerzada

Ayub didn’t have good opinion of PirzadaBy Umar Cheema: Daily Times, April 30, 2007

ISLAMABAD: Late Field Marshal Ayub Khan had a very bad opinion of Sharifuddin Pirzada and summed him up as a man “very suspicious by nature”, who “is frightened of taking a definite stand on any issue”.

As the foreign minister Pirzada turned out to be an utter disappointment for Ayub, who accused him of making purposeless foreign visits and running a personal foreign policy instead of Pakistan’s.

Field Marshal Ayub Khan has given Pirzada’s profile in his personal diaries, which are set to be launched on Friday in book form published by the Oxford University Press.

Ayub gives his candid opinion about his contemporaries, various heads of state and discloses a number of secrets in these diaries, which cover the period between September 1966 and November 1972.

For example, Ayub repented his decision of appointing Pirzada as foreign minister and gave solid arguments in defence of his disliking for the man who is currently serving the country’s fourth military-led government. He was very critical of Pirzada’s personality and did not consider him a reliable person.

“I am getting concerned about Mr Pirzada, our foreign minister,” says Ayub’s diary note of August 31, 1967. He has not proved much of a success, it says. “He is on the run in foreign ministries most of the time and often purposelessly,” the diary note says.

“Very suspicious by nature,” Ayub noted about Pirzada. “Has hardly any communication with the staff,” the note added. “Chases small things most of the time and is frightened of taking a definite stand on any issue. There is also suspicion that he is not above telling a lie. So I am in a fix as to what to do with him,” Ayub wrote in his diaries.

But Ayub could not resist and finally burst out at Pirzada on September 5, 1967. It was Tuesday, when Ayub called and reprimanded Pirzada for his failings in discharging his duties.

“I told Mr Pirzada what I expect of him as foreign minister. He is a sensitive man and will probably take it to hear, but it was my duty to point out his failings in time so that he can correct himself,” Ayub wrote about his meeting with Pirzada. “I do not want him to go to the other point of no return as Bhutto did,” Ayub wrote in Tuesday night’s diary.

“The trouble with these people is that they begin to run personal foreign policy. This cannot be allowed. What we have to do is to run the foreign policy of Pakistan,” Ayub said.

It was Thursday, September 28, 1967, when Ayub Khan finally decided to show Pirzada the door.

During his visit to Lahore, Ayub met his law minister (also a professional rival of Pirzada), SM Zafar. “I met the law minister, who is in Lahore, and told him that he should arrange for the present attorney-general to make way for Mr Pirzada, our foreign minister. I think he will do better in that capacity. Meanwhile, I shall take over the Foreign Ministry myself and make Fida Hassan (Ayub’s principal secretary) do the running around when needed,” Ayub said.

Pirzada was finally shown the door on Friday, April 26, 1968. “Appointment of Mr Arshad Hussain as foreign minister in place of Mr Pirzada was announced today. Mr Pirzada will go back as the attorney-general for which he is more suited. I have great hopes in Arshad Hussain. I hope he makes a success. He has the family background, education and experience to do so. At any rate, he was very effective as our high commissioner in Delhi under difficult circumstances,” his Friday’s diary note said.

Pakistan being ruled by five governments?

‘Pakistan being ruled by five governments’
Daily Times, April 30, 2007

LAHORE: Five governments governed Pakistan today; one was a squad of 76 ministers, the second was of the occupants of the Lal Masjid, the third the Sufi of Malakand, the fourth in FATA was directly controlled by the Taliban and the fifth was of the Pakistan Army, said Dr Mehdi Hassan on Sunday.

He said that Chaudhry Muhammad Ali, the secretary general, censored Quaid-e-Azam’s speech of August 11, 1947, on the grounds that it negated the Two Nation Theory.

Addressing a seminar organised by the Commission for Peace and Human Development, in collaboration with Liberal Forum Pakistan and Christian Study Centre, he said according to Quaid-e-Azam, religion had nothing to do with the business of state.

Dr Hassan said Pakistan came into being through a democratic process while the mullahs had objected to its establishment.

He said that Bengalis, who were the first to pass a resolution in support of Pakistan in their legislative assembly, were labelled traitors. The same was now being done to Sindhis who were the second to pass the resolution.

He said that British history had Kings Edward I, II and III. In Pakistan we have had martial law administrators I, II, and III. He said that Pakistan had a CEO just like a multinational company.

PML-N MNA Pervaiz Malik said that the civil institutions were deliberately weakened under military rule. He said that in a truly democratic country, there were no minorities. Every one had equal rights. He said that the military had not learnt a lesson even after the separation of the East Pakistan. He said that the government policies had led to the political, economic and judicial crises. He criticised those who had helped the government pass the 17th amendment.

Former LHCBA president Hamid Ali khan said that the enlightened vision of Quaid-e-Azam should be implemented the state policy to end exploitation in the name of religion.

He said that pluralism and liberalism, which were pre-requisite to a democratic society, could not be implemented till the restoration of a real democracy. He said that mullacracy and dictatorship were the enemies of democracy. Had we followed the Quaid’s principles, 93 suicides a month would not have occurred, he said. staff report

Shia Crescent?

Shiite Crescent' might not be what it seems
By Brenda Shaffer
April 25, 2007: Baltimore Sun

"Shiite Crescent" is Washington's new buzzword. Coined by Jordan's King Abdullah, the Shiite Crescent extends from Iran through Iraq to Syria and Lebanon and threatens the Middle East's status quo. With the Shiite community's rise to political prominence in Iraq, instability in Shiite-majority Bahrain, and Iran's invigorated confrontation with the West, the spotlight is shining on the rising power of this religious minority.
The premise of the Shiite Crescent assumes that states sharing common sectarian ties tend to form alliances and choose cooperation partners. But do they?

Several new Muslim-majority states emerged in the Caspian basin and Central Asia from the dissolution of the Soviet Union, neighboring the self-declared "Islamic Republics" of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Islam and cultural affinity were a basis for alliance formation and cooperation, surely it would be seen in the relations among these states.

But an examination of the foreign policy decisions of these new states and their neighbor Iran during their first 10 post-Soviet years reveals that neither Islamic identity nor common culture reliably served as a predictor for either alliance formation or cooperation - but the material interests of the state did.

The multiethnic Islamic Republic of Iran clearly illustrates this point.

Despite all its rhetoric on Islamic solidarity, Iran has rarely promoted cultural or ideological goals at the expense of its material interests. A number of conflicts erupted among Iran's neighbors to the north in which Muslims were pitted against non-Muslims, and Tehran aligned with the non-Muslim side each time (Moscow vs. Chechnya, Russia vs. Islamic forces in Tajikistan's civil war, and Christian-majority Armenia vs. Shiite-majority Azerbaijan).

In the first two examples, Iran's siding with Russia at the expense of Muslims and Islamists is explained by the nuclear assistance and other aid that Russia has been providing to Iran. The third and most blatant example is the Nagorno-Karabakh war between Armenia and Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan lost close to a fifth of its territory, more than 800,000 Azerbaijani Shiites became refugees, and yet Iran deepened its cooperation with Armenia. Most recently, Tehran opened a gas pipeline to Armenia, serving as an important energy supplier to the state at war with Shiite Azerbaijan. Why? Tehran fears domestic repercussions from a strong neighboring Azerbaijan because Azerbaijanis, although Shiites, are Iran's largest ethnic minority.

Consider Tehran's relations with Arab Shiites in neighboring Iraq. Iran has ties with some of these groups, but rivalries do exist, and many Iraqi Shiites fear Iran's meddling and attempts to lead them. In Afghanistan as well, Tehran arms and supports non-Shiite groups.

The United States should not be deterred by other states' rhetoric. As with Iran, other states can make policy choices that contradict their official, culturally based rhetoric without serious repercussions. This can help analysts to identify a number of conflict lines and rivalries among groups sharing common culture and religion - and help policymakers to act upon them.

Culture has its limits: It is only one of the many forces that shape foreign policy outcomes and is not the defining element. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the rest of the Shiite Crescent states can be deterred and enticed just like other states. We are not in the era of a "clash of civilizations" but only of a clash of rhetoric.

Brenda Shaffer, research director of the Caspian Studies Project at Harvard University, is editor of the book "Limits of Culture: Islam and Foreign Policy." Her e-mail is brenda_shaffer@harvard.edu.
Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun

Inside Turkey: Secular Vs. Religious forces



Gul defiant as secular Turks rally
CNN - April 29, 2007

Story Highlights
• Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul vows to continue campaign for presidency
• At least 300,000 secular Turks gather in anti-government protests in Istanbul
• Friday's statement by military chiefs condemned by government, EU, U.S.
• Gul's candidacy has raised fears about threat to Turkey's secular political order


ANKARA, Turkey (CNN) -- Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has vowed to continue in his bid to become the country's next president despite opposition from lawmakers, business leaders and military chiefs and a massive public demonstration in Istanbul on Sunday.

Gul's nomination, supported by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has raised concerns among Turkey's secular establishment over growing Islamist influence within government.

In a parliamentary vote on Friday, Gul fell short of the two-thirds majority necessary to be elected after opposition lawmakers boycotted the process and called on Turkey's constitional court to render it void.

On Friday evening military chiefs said in a statement they could intervene if the election process threatened to undermine Turkish secularism.

But Gul told reporters on Sunday: "It is out of the question to withdraw my candidacy. The Constitutional Court will make the right decision."

Influential business leaders expressed their dissatisfaction with the government on Sunday in a statement which called for early elections to "protect secularism and democracy," The Associated Press reported.

The statement by business group TUSIAD said: "The indivisible integrity of secularism and democracy lays the foundations of the Turkish republic, a sacrifice of one for the other is unthinkable. Turkey can healthily emerge from this process by lowering tensions and renewing the will of the nation."

On Sunday at least 300,000 demonstrators gathered in Istanbul, Turkey's largest city, to protest against Erdogan's Islamist-influenced government in defense of the country's secular political traditions, The Associated Press reported. Local media estimated that around one million people took part.

"Turkey is secular and will remain secular," flag-waving protesters shouted as they demanded the resignation of the government and called Erdogan a traitor.

Others chanted: "The roads to Cankaya (the presidential palace) are closed to imams."

"This government is the enemy of Ataturk," said 63-year-old Ahmet Yurdakul, a retired public worker, invoking the memory of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founded of the modern Turkish republic. "They want to drag Turkey to the dark ages."

The rally was the second anti-government demonstration in two weeks after around 300,000 people gathered in the capital, Ankara, a fortnight ago.

"Neither Sharia, nor coup but fully democratic Turkey," read a banner carried by a demonstrator, in reference to Friday's statement by the military which attracted condemnation Saturday by Turkey's government as well from the European Union, the U.S. and human rights groups.

Justice Minister Cemil Cicek said Erdogan had spoken to Turkey's top general, Yasar Buyukanit, adding that the military statement was "not acceptable in a democratic order."

"The chief of the General Staff is answerable to the Prime Minister," Cicek said, AP reported.

EU expresses concern
In Brussels, EU enlargement chief Olli Rehn said it was watching events in Ankara with concern, Reuters reported.

"It is important that the military leaves the remit of democracy to the democratically elected government and this is a test case if the Turkish armed forces respect democratic secularism and the democratic arrangement of civil-military relations," said Rehn.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Dan Fried called for democracy to be respected: "We hope and expect that the Turks will work out these political issues in their own way, in a way that's consistent with their secular democracy and constitutional provisions."

Turkish human rights campaigners also condemned the statement by the army, which has ousted four governments in the past 50 years -- most recently in 1997 when it overthrew an Islamist-influenced government in which Gul and Erdogan served.

"The statement has damaged our country's democracy and our state of law," said the Ankara-based Human Rights Association.

Mehmet Agar, leader of the center-right opposition True Path Party, told reporters: "Turkey's problems must be solved by civilian politics."

But some protesters on Sunday expressed support for the army's stance, AP said.

"In a country like Turkey, which is not fully a democracy, the role of the army is a little different," said 50-year-old civil engineer Haydar Kilic. "The army here likes democracy, we know that."

Mehmet Gunes, 39, whose wife was wearing an Islamic-style headscarf, said: "We support what the army said. It's a warning. My wife wears a headscarf -- we're not against that. We came here to stand up for a secular, enlightened Turkey. Our children's future is important."

Emergency talks
Erdogan and Gul held emergency talks on Saturday following Gul's failure by 10 votes to secure his election in Friday's parliamentary session.

Parliament members are slated to vote a second time next Wednesday. A two-thirds majority again will be needed to elect a president in the second round. If voting goes to a third round a simple majority will do.

Opposition lawmakers want Erdogan, who leads the Justice and Development Party, to call an early general election instead, according to journalist Andrew Finkel in Ankara.

The probability that Gul, whose wife wears the traditional Muslim head scarf, will become the president -- possibly bolstering the role of religion in politics -- has caused unease in the vastly secular nation.

"We don't want a covered woman in Ataturk's presidential palace," said Ayse Bari, a 67-year-old housewife, during Sunday's protests, AP reported. "We want civilized, modern people there."

"They have to hear us, because we are the majority of the country. We are 70 percent," said Emine Hacioglu, 35.

-- CNN's Talia Kayali in Atlanta and journalist Andrew Finkel in Ankara contributed to this report.

Copyright 2007 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Associated Press contributed to this report.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

So that they can blow themselves up inside Pakistan!

Daily times, April 29, 2007
‘Safe passage’ for Kashmir militants being considered: Sardar Qayyum
By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: Sardar Abdul Qayyum Khan, former prime minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, has claimed here that the governments of India and Pakistan are considering granting “safe passage” to foreign militants active in Indian-held Kashmir.

“The proposal has been discussed for sometime now and I hope an agreement comes through as soon as possible,” he said while delivering a lecture at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), a think-tank.

Earlier, speaking to the media, Khan appealed to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to grant “general amnesty” to all militants and withdraw all cases against them. Khan said youths from several countries were lured by militant groups to join their ranks and were now holed up in Pakistan, AJK, or IHK. They want to return to their own countries, he said.

Defending Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Khan said it had no political motives. “They are generally misunderstood and have also stopped their activities in Pakistan,” he said, adding that their cadres on the Indian side of Kashmir should be given “safe passage” to return to their homes. He said, “President Pervez Musharraf has dismantled all camps in Pakistan as well as in AJK.” He offered to take a team of Indian intellectuals and journalists to AJK to see the situation there for themselves.

Khan rejected the view that AJK lacked constitutional powers and was way behind IHK in terms of development and progress.

Unreal...indeed!

Unreal
By Dr Farrukh Saleem
The News, April 29, 2007

On April 20, Islamabad-based newspapers and magazines got some unexpected mail. A letter in the mail read: "Pakistan is an Islamic state and all media organisations have to follow Islamic rules and regulations. If they do not stop carrying vulgar and un-Islamic content every possible step shall be taken to put an end to such practices." The author: Judge, jury and executioner all in one.

Two hundred and sixty kilometres from Islamabad is Lahore. As if on a different planet, Lahore is now home to Porsche Centre. Porsche, the German sports car maker, had projected to sell thirty of their six million rupee, high-performance vehicles in their first year of operation. On April 20, Porsche Lahore announced that they had already sold eighty.

On April 5, Bismillah Khan had also received an unexpected letter. As he opened up, an Rs500 note fell out. The letter read: "You are not living your life as per the prescriptions of Islam. The money is for your heirs to give you a decent burial." On April 8, Mohabat Khan, Bismillah's eldest son, found his father's dead body. There have been Bismillah Khan episodes in Kohat, Mardan, Darra Adam Khel, Tank, Bannu, Lachi, Charsadda and Sherkot.

Lahore, a mere five-hour drive from Kohat, must be on another plant. Lahore is now home to Royal Palm Golf and Country Club, a 140-acre "expanse of rolling greens and stately old trees." On April 8, while Mohabat Khan was dumping his murdered father into a hole, the elite of Lahore's elites, were also chasing holes. In pursuit of their golf-playing pleasures, they sat in Royal Palm's comfy Club House watching the final competitive round of The 2007 Masters. Unreal, isn't it?

On March 9, the Chief Justice of Pakistan was made 'non-functional'. On March 19, Justice Jawad Khawaja of the Lahore High Court resigned. The other ninety-eight judges of Pakistan's superior courts stayed put. Obviously, the system designed by the masters of our state is working just fine; only one of the ninety-nine slipped through the filter. Surely, this isn't a 'judicial crisis' because ninety-eight judges haven't moved, not even an inch.

On March 26, the prime minister of Pakistan met a delegation of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI). At the PM House, the prime minister told FPCCI: "Government believes in the supremacy of law." On March 27, girl students of Jamia Hafsa, a mere three kilometres from the PM House, kidnapped Shamim Akhtar, a 65-year old lady, her daughter, her daughter-in-law and a sixth-month old baby. While the kidnapping ordeal was taking place in Islamabad, Punjab Chief Minister Pervaiz Elahi and Federal Minister for Railways Sheikh Rashid were addressing a public rally at Liaquat Bagh. They said: "Rawalpindi was a stronghold of the Pakistan Muslim League."

On April 6, Friday's sermon at Lal Masjid threatened "suicide attacks if the government did not enact Islamic law." While the sermon was being delivered President-General Musharraf addressed ladies gathered to celebrate the World Health Day. The president said: "Healthcare targets under Millennium Development Goals would be achieved ahead of 2015 deadline."

On April 20, Friday's sermon at Lal Masjid stated: "We will not wait more … it will now be Sharia or shahadat." On that day, the President of Pakistan told Al Arabiya Television: "I am willing to travel to Israel to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Unreal. Isn't it?

Who is behind suicide bombing attack on Sherpao?

Suicide blasts reaction to mily action: Ex-IB chief
Daily Times, April 29, 2007

LAHORE: Former Intelligence Bureau chief Massod Sharif while talking to a private TV channel on Saturday said suicide blasts in Pakistan were the reaction to military action in the tribal areas of the NWFP. “This is the internal reactionary force resorting to suicide attacks to register their protests against incidents like the bombing of Bajaur madrassa and military action in Waziristan,” Sharif said in Geo television’s programme ‘Meray Mutabiq’. Muttahida Qaumi Movement Convener Dr Imran Farooq condemned the blast saying the moment had come for all the people against religious extremism to join hands and make a joint strategy to counter terrorism and religious extremism. Awami National Party head Asfand Yar Wali said if the present situation continued the future of Pakistan was in danger. He said the security situation in NWFP was alarming. “Suicide bombers register and ensure their presence by killing innocent people whenever they want and if the country’s interior minister is in danger, then the people have much to fear,” said Geo television’s senior analyst Dr Shahid Masood while commenting on the Charsadda blast. He said the suicide bombers were reminding the government that they were still strong and could hit anyone. He suspected that in the present situation it would become very difficult for Aftab Sherpao, Asfand Yar Wali and all the liberal forces in NWFP to continue their politics in the province. Journalist Talat Hussain said Sherpao was among 18 very important people placed in the high security zone. He said special security arrangements had been made for the Charsadda rally by deploying police commandos and making a security ring around the stage. The security agencies checked and cleared the stage before the rally, he added. Hussain said a security plan was made up for Sherpao’s participation in the rally adding that there was early information that the rally could be attacked. Hussain said according to the security plan Sherpao had to meet limited number of people in the rally. He said either there was a security lapse or the bomber had broken up the security ring. daily times monitor

Banning Burqavaganza - double standards

Anger at Pakistan burka play ban
BBC - April 27, 2007

The head of a Pakistani theatre company whose play about burkas was banned by the government has said that she is hurt and astonished by the decision.
The government banned the play because it said that it made "unacceptable fun" out of Pakistani culture.

Madeeha Gauhar, head of the Ajoka Theatre group, said that there was nothing offensive in the production against Islam or any other religion.

She said that she was being pulled up for "promoting moderation".

Parody

Complaints about the issue came to light after Islamist MPs raised the issue in parliament on Thursday. They complained that the play was against "Koranic injunctions on the veil".

"The veil has long been part of local culture and nobody is allowed to make fun of these values," Minister for Culture Ghazi Gulab Jamal said.

The satirical play Burqavaganza was staged this month by Ajoka Theatre group in the eastern city of Lahore, known as the country's cultural capital.

The government announced an immediate ban, and stopped it from being staged in other cities following the end of its run in Lahore.

The BBC's Syed Shoaib Hasan in Karachi says that the play is a parody on the burka - the enclosing garment worn by conservative Muslim women.

Pakistan has stringent laws for blasphemy against Islam or the Prophet Mohammed with a maximum penalty of death.

"They have committed blasphemy against the Holy Prophet", Razia Aziz, a conservative female parliamentarian told the assembly.

But the Ajoka Theatre group has said that it has not received any official notification of the ban.

Censorship

"We have just heard the news from the press... the government has not contacted us so far," Ms Gauhar said.

She said told the BBC that while she was not surprised that hardline Islamists had raised the issue, she was "astonished at how the government has reacted".

Ms Gauhar said that the Ajoka theatre group was one of the oldest in the country, and had faced censorship before, particularly during the military government of General Zia ul-Haq.

"But we never expected this from President Musharraf's government", she said.

"They have promoted arts and artistes so far, in line with a policy of enlightened moderation.

"The government now appears to be going back on its own policies.

"These are ominous signs for Pakistan.

"We are trying to end the evils from society, we are against forcing women to wear the burka. I condemn the ban," she said.

Correspondents say that the play reflects what many see as the aggressive behaviour of the burka-clad students attached to Islamabad's Red Mosque.

Baton-wielding students of two schools linked to the mosque have launched "morality patrols" targeting music and video shops and local brothels.

La Patrie en Danger

La Patrie en Danger
ROEDAD KHAN
The Nation, April 26, 2007

Pakistan was born free, sovereign and independent. Today it is in chains, under military rule for the fourth time and in deep, deep trouble. Once we believed we were possessed of a unique destiny. Today our country is dysfunctional and sleepwalking toward disaster. It is, in the evocative French word, “Pourri” – rotten to the core.
On March 9, the die was cast. On that day, General Musharraf crossed an invisible Rubicon. The ‘suspension’ of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was seen by the people as an affront. Pakistan’s fledgling democracy hit rock bottom. That was the moment when Pakistan lifted its head and began to fight back against military fiat. Chief Justice Iftikhar has ignited a flame that would soon engulf the entire country. General Musharraf thought himself poised on the cusp of power but is sliding down a slippery slope. That is for sure.
General Musharraf’s fateful decision to ‘suspend’ the Chief Justice reminds me of the late, unlamented Adolf Hitler. He was replying to a Goring complaint that the Judges had behaved disgracefully in the Reichstag Fire Case. “You would think that we were on trial, not the Communists”, said Goring.
“It is only a question of time. I know how to deal with them”. Replied Hitler. “We shall soon have those old fellows talking our language. They are all ripe for retirement anyway, and we will put in our own people”.
Today Pakistan is a shadow of what it used to be. After seven years of military dictatorship, with no voice in the election of their President, people feel alienated. The sense of public frustration is palpable. What is there to celebrate? The Federation is united only by a ‘Rope of sand’. 59 years after independence, Pakistan is torn between its past and present and dangerously at war with itself. The state of the federation is chilling, thanks to poor, illegitimate leadership and inept handling.
Pakistan is not the country it was seven years ago. Back then, the country was settled, stable, democratic and free. Today, Pakistan is a “rentier state”, under military rule, ill-led, ill-governed by a power-hungry junta. Even the most incurable optimists, as some of us are, are deeply worried. Today “Democracy” in Pakistan is a mask behind which a pestilence flourishes unchallenged. It has a disjointed, lop-sided, hybrid political system – a non-sovereign, rubber stamp, cowed, timid and paralytic parliament, a powerful President in uniform, a weak and ineffective Prime Minister appointed by the President. Political institutions established at the time of independence are still there, albeit now in anemic form. One by one, all the arguments for military rule and dismissal of an elected government are tumbling. They are falling like skittles in a bowling alley. Bit by bit, the foundations of this regime are crumbling to dust. The coup against Nawaz Sharif and the imposition of military rule seven years ago, was, in my view, only a holding operation, a postponement of history. It cannot last. History is against it.
Today say Pakistan and what comes to mind, a ‘corpse in armour’, a military elite perched on top of a mass of poverty – stricken populace. Their brilliant courts are centers of conspicuous consumption. An army of servants, hangers – on, a vast array of bodyguards, meaningless visits to obscure countries, all at the expense of the poor tax-payer, with no constitutional or other checks.
The most important three words in the American Constitution are: “We The People”. Democracy means rule of the people, by the people, for the people. It means the right of the people to elect their ruler in a free, fair and impartial election. General Musharraf has denied the people the right to elect their President in accordance with the constitution. They have no say in the affairs of State either. In furtherance of its political ambitions, the military government defaced, disfigured and mutilated the Constitution in violation of the condition imposed by the Supreme Court. It has turned the parliament and the judiciary into a fig-leaf for unconstitutional and illegal practices. And last but not least, General Musharraf reneged on his promise to give up the post of Army Chief and doff his uniform.
General Musharraf said recently that Pakistan faced the biggest threat to its security from religious extremism. This is not true. Religious extremism is not peculiar to Pakistan. It is a global fact, which has surfaced in every major faith in response to the problems of modernity. Religious extremism in Islam is not a new phenomenon. It is an old dispute with liberalizers and secularists, within our religion, pre-dating Attaturk’s secularisation of Turkey. General Musharraf is merely parroting and mechanically repeating what George W Bush has been saying since 9/11. It is intended only to deflect attention from the challenge to his title to rule. It leaves people cold. Today the real threat, the only threat to Pakistan does not come from across the border or religious extremism. It stems from military rule.
The failed assassination attempts targeting President Musharraf in Rawalpindi are a grim reminder of a very real threat the country faces. In the absence of an agreed constitution, a genuinely democratic political order, a binding law of political succession and transfer of power, who would take over as President once General Musharraf leaves the stage? Much more important: who would takeover as army chief? Who would appoint the army chief? The entire political structure would come tumbling down and collapse like a house of cards. It is scary.
What was the content of the Pakistan Dream? Democracy instead of dictatorship, Rule of Law instead of rule of man, law instead of lawlessness, press freedom instead of censorship. And most important, we dreamed of a human right to dignity. This dispensation is waging a war on the Pakistan’s Dream. It has robbed us of all our dreams, all our hopes, all our expectations. It has robbed us of everything: Our past, our present, our future, and is bent on lowering Jinnah’s Pakistan into its grave.
Today Pakistan is trapped in a political stalemate. Inflation is spiralling out of control at a truly dizzying rate. The last seven years have proved to be miserable, depressing years for Pakistan. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The two don’t even speak the same language, let alone breathe the same air, eat the same food or wear the same clothes, they live on different planets.
Military rule sows the seeds of its own downfall because military rule is an anachronism, lacks legitimacy and is doomed to failure. It is now abundantly clear that Pakistan cannot survive except as a democratic state based on the principle of sovereignty of the people, Pakistan cannot survive except under a constitution which reflects the sovereign will of the people, not the whims of one individual person, Pakistan cannot survive except under a system based on the supremacy of civilian rule, Pakistan cannot survive except as a federation based on the willing consent of all the federating units and lastly Pakistan cannot survive unless army is taken out of the arena of political conflict and supremacy of civil power is accepted in letter and spirit? “If there is one principle more than any other”, Morley, Secretary of State for India, once said, “that has been accepted in this country since Charles I lost his head, it is this: that civil power must be supreme over the military power”. The British learned this lesson only when Charles I lost his head. Will our military rulers ever learn this lesson?
Today we have only one dream. That dream is a Pakistan free of all military dictators. This nation asks for change and change now.
www.roedadkhan.com

Letter to Musharraf from Human Rights Watch

Letter to President Musharraf About Attacks on Journalists in Pakistan
April 27, 2007 : Human Rights Watch

Dear General Musharraf,

Human Rights Watch is concerned about concerted and increasing attempts by the Pakistani government to muzzle the media. The attempt to silence Aaj TV, the violent attack on Geo TV, improper pressures on Dawn, and torture and other physical attacks on journalists in many parts of the country are only some of the well-known examples of attacks on the media. Independent monitoring groups such as Reporters Sans FrontiĆØres (RSF) continue to document the steady erosion of press freedom under your government. In October 2002, Pakistan was ranked at 119 out of 166 countries in the RSF Press Freedom Index. By December 2006, this ranking had slipped to 157.

Though your government has consistently claimed that the media in Pakistan enjoys "unprecedented" freedom, this remains limited to publications and television channels that support your government and you personally. English language media, which is much more visible to diplomats and the rest of the world, retains more freedom to criticize the government than Urdu media. Similarly, broadcast media is given less leeway than print media because of the former’s greater outreach. While the opinion pages of English language newspapers are full of critical comment, journalists and editors are under substantial pressure not to publish factual stories that expose government or, in particular, military misdeeds. Threatening calls from intelligence, military or unknown sources are a regular hazard for many journalists. These have increased since your March 9 decision to undermine judicial independence by arbitrarily dismissing the chief justice of the Supreme Court. The Pakistani print and electronic media have faced immense pressure, coercion and even violent attacks by your government in order to tone down coverage of anti-government protests and the peaceful campaign to restore the chief justice.

In the years since the 1999 coup, the Pakistani government has systematically violated the fundamental rights of members of the press corps through threats, harassment, and arbitrary arrests and “disappearances.” Many have been detained without charge, mistreated and tortured, and otherwise denied basic due process rights. The government has sought to, and frequently succeeded in, forcing publications to engage in self-censorship.

We call on you to bring all such acts by the government and its agents to an end.

Physical Attacks on Pakistani Journalists
A number of journalists have gone missing, and some have been killed, after covering stories considered sensitive by the military. The security forces have been implicated in all of the following examples:


* In June 2006, journalist Hayatullah Khan was found dead six months after he was abducted in Waziristan. Evidence suggested the involvement of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
* Military personnel were involved in the arrest in April 2006 of Munir Mengal, a Baluch journalist, in Karachi. He was finally allowed a visit by his family in December. He remains in military detention.
* On June 22, 2006 Mukesh Rupeta and Sanjay Kumer were finally produced in court and charged after being held illegally by the Pakistani intelligence services and repeatedly tortured for over three months for filming a Pakistani air force base used by the US army.
* During four months of illegal detention by the military ending on October 27, 2006 Mehruddin Mari, a Sindhi-language journalist, was tortured through electric shocks and sleep deprivation.
* Dilawar Khan, a BBC correspondent was kidnapped and threatened for several hours in November 2006 by ISI agents.


In none of these cases has there been any attempt at prosecuting the perpetrators.

Human Rights Watch has also received information of verbal threats to scores of print and television journalists by intelligence personnel, government officials, and persons believed to be acting on the government’s behalf. Many of those threatened have refused to be named for fear of reprisal.

Attempt to silence Aaj TV
On April 22, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) issued a show-cause notice to the privately owned Aaj TV accusing it of inciting violence by covering proceedings of the Chief Justice’s case being heard before the Supreme Judicial Council. PEMRA threatened to shut down the channel within three days in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. On April 25, the Sindh High Court temporarily suspended PEMRA’s notice.

PEMRA’s move followed the airing of programming deemed critical of your government’s actions in the controversy surrounding the illegal suspension of Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. Aaj TV has told Human Rights Watch that it is not in violation of any regulations and that the order is an excuse to shut down Aaj TV as punishment for its critical coverage of recent events.

Human Rights Watch urges your government to withdraw the notice issued to Aaj TV and end the use of PEMRA as an instrument of censorship and coercion.

Violent Attack on Geo TV
It was commendable that you personally and speedily apologized for the March 16 attack by riot police on the Islamabad offices of the Jang Group, which houses the newspapers Jang and The News and Geo TV. The police broke into the offices, damaged property and terrorized journalists while they attempted to cover an anti-government protest underway outside. Human Rights Watch urges your government to investigate and prosecute the officials who ordered the police to attack the television station.

Curbs on Broadcasting
Private television channels in Pakistan have faced increasing levels of governmental intrusion and harassment in the last year in particular. In November, the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) banned cable and satellite operators from airing Sindh TV though the ban was rescinded a fortnight later. In September 2006, police in Punjab province instructed cable operators to take ARY TV off the air after it broadcast footage of police officers beating three journalists. In August 2006, PEMRA refused to renew the license of Mast FM 103, a private radio station because of objections to its programming, in particular a weekly BBC-made “Earthquake Special” that was critical of your government’s handling of the October 2005 earthquake. The station lost a legal battle for the right to air Urdu programming from the BBC World Service in November the same year.

Improper Pressure on Dawn
Since the 1999 coup that brought you to power, Dawn has highlighted the suppression of civil liberties and the progressive undermining of civilian institutions in Pakistan. It is one of Pakistan's most highly regarded newspapers, well known for high standards of journalism and the integrity and honesty of its staff.

The federal and Sindh provincial governments have attempted to pressure the newspaper Dawn into supporting its view on events in Baluchistan, the volatile tribal border areas with Afghanistan, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, “disappearances,” covert support to militancy in Kashmir and human rights issues by withholding government advertising, a revenue source on which Pakistani papers rely heavily. Since December 2006, Dawn has seen its designated share of government advertising slashed by two-thirds. The government is the largest advertiser in the country and under well established procedures agreed between journalist bodies and Pakistan’s Ministry of Information advertising is supposed to be distributed fairly on the basis of such criteria as newspaper circulation, language, geographic reach and target audience. In response to a petition filed by Dawn, the Sindh provincial government agreed to abide by the above criteria and the Sindh High Court in its order cautioned the government that a failure to do so may “entail consequences of contempt proceedings.” These proceedings are now underway.

The government has also withheld a television broadcast license from the Dawn Group, even though the application was approved by PEMRA. By withholding advertising and arbitrarily preventing the issuance of licenses, the government is making it clear to the Group that it wants an end to coverage it deems negative.

According to Dawn, senior officials in the Ministry of Information have made clear to its Chief Executive that government advertising has been curtailed to rein in critical reporting.

Right to Seek Information
Human Rights Watch reminds you that journalists have the right to freedom of movement to seek information. We urge your government to act in accordance with the Johannesburg Principles on National Security, Freedom of Expression and Access to Information—standards drafted by international law and global rights experts in 1995 and endorsed by the United Nations special rapporteurs on freedom of expression and on the independence of judges and lawyers.

Johannesburg principle 19 provides that “governments may not prevent journalists from entering areas where there are reasonable grounds to believe that violations of human rights or humanitarian law are being, or have been, committed. Governments may not exclude journalists or representatives of such organizations from areas that are experiencing violence or armed conflict except where their presence would pose a clear risk to the safety of others.”

Your government has consistently violated this principle in Balochistan, Pakistan’s tribal areas and Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Your government’s failure to allow freedom of expression as required by international law has become yet another symbol of the lack of rule of law in Pakistan, which is fundamental to the promotion and protection of human rights. We urge you to demonstrate a commitment to genuine media freedom by bringing to an end the use of coercion, intimidation, kidnapping and torture, or the threat of it, in government dealings with the print and electronic media in Pakistan.

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Brad Adams
Executive Director
Asia Division

Friday, April 27, 2007

Latest on the US - India Nuclear Deal

India feels U.S. backsliding on prior commitments
Siddharth Varadarajan
The Hindu, April 25, 2007

`Hyde Act' sums up obstacles in the way of implementation of nuclear agreement

NEW DELHI: As Indian officials complete their assessment of the latest round of technical negotiations with the United States over the implementation of the July 2005 nuclear agreement, the words that comes up most frequently to summarise the obstacles in the way are the "Hyde Act."

Under the terms of the July 2005 agreement, the Bush administration was supposed to work with Congress to "adjust U.S. laws and policies" to enable full civil nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India.

This commitment was further amplified by the March 2006 Separation Plan, wherein Washington agreed to assist India with lifetime fuel supply assurances, including a "strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactors." In return for these assurances, India agreed to place its civilian reactors under in-perpetuity "India-specific safeguards" with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Measured against these commitments, say Indian officials, the Hyde Act falls short. Simply put, it does not incorporate the full set of waivers that were implicit in the July 2005 agreement when the U.S. agreed to adjust its laws. In particular, the White House never sought to waive Section 123(a)(4) of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act (AEA) for India, which stipulates that a detonation by a non-nuclear weapon state must necessarily lead to the U.S. having the right to demand the return of its equipment and material.

As early as July 2006, when the House and Senate versions of the Hyde Act were finalised, India in fact handed over a 12-page dossier to the U.S. in which it spelt out in detail what expectations it had from the July 2005 and March 2006 agreements and how the emerging law was falling short. These concerns were reiterated to Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns on several occasions after that, including in November on the eve of the Hyde Act's final passage. At every stage India received assurances that the final law would be consistent with the White House's obligations. "But now that it is clear the Hyde Act itself is inadequate, the U.S. side is trying to reopen and reinterpret the commitments it made in its agreements with us", an official said.

Differences in 7 areas

As matters stand, major differences persist in seven broad areas of implementation. Based on extensive interaction with officials close to the process, The Hindu is in a position to provide details of the precise sticking points.

Right of Return In July 2005, India gave a political commitment to stick to its unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing. But now it finds there is pressure to convert the political commitment - which India has every intention of abiding by - into a bilateral legality. The way it does that is through the invocation of the "right of return" in the U.S.draft of the 123 agreement.

In the language proposed by the US side, there is a clause which states that in the event that either side feels its supreme national interests are jeopardized, there will be consultations by both sides on the issue which occasioned the concern, followed by a suspension or termination of bilateral cooperation, and then the US side would have the right to demand the return of equipment and material supplied to India pursuant to the bilateral agreement, with compensation payable to the Indian side. This material would include any strategic fuel reserve set up with U.S. cooperation, say officials.

India feels this clause is problematic for a number of reasons. First, "supreme national interests" is too vague and could be triggered by a wide variety of issues from a nuclear test to serious political differences between the two sides. Suspension or termination of cooperation cannot be allowed to hang on so slender a thread. What India is proposing is that if India violates the clauses under which bilateral cooperation takes place - for example IAEA safeguards, peaceful use and non-diversion of imported material, failure to store imported material properly etc., then there would be bilateral consultations and in the event of a failure to resolve the matter, a suspension and prospective termination of cooperation.

Under no circumstances is India prepared to commit itself to the termination of cooperation applying retrospectively to prior cooperation, leading to the return of imported material. Such a clause would convert the political commitment not to test into something that amounted to an obligation with legal consequences.

What is worse, Indian officials say that the US appears to be playing both sides of the NSG and is seeking to insert a "right of return" clause into the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) guidelines as and when they are amended. That would be tantamount to converting India's political commitment of July 2005 into something that was multilaterally binding, a kind of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) through the back door.

Asked whether India had a real fear of the "right of return" ever being invoked by the US, one official said it had implications for any future private participation in the nuclear energy industry in India.

"Which company would like to tie up its investment in a situation where the US may invoke the clause? Even if the actual return can be stalled, the US would insist at a minimum that the plant be shut down", said one official. U.S. negotiators were prepared to give it in writing that the U.S. would not insist on the return of spent fuel.

"But they are demanding return of nuclear fuel stockpiles, which is a no go for us", said another official.

This is another major issue for the Indian side and one where there has been no movement. Indian officials are very bitter about this because they detect a clear attempt by the U.S. side to reinterpret the March separation plan. They say every word of that plan was fought over and what emerged was something both sides signed off on. But now the Americans are baulking at the language contained in Paragraph 15, which clearly links the provision of lifetime fuel supplies, including strategic reserves for safeguarded reactors, to India's decision to place its civilian reactors under perpetual safeguards. Para 15 (c) of the separation plan also has the additional cushion of India taking "corrective measures" in the event of supply disruption, which the US is now interpreting to mean "corrective measures short of termination of safeguards".

Indian officials are at pains to clarify that when the March separation plan spoke of "India specific safeguards", India was making a concession which went beyond the commitment given in July 2005 for "IAEA safeguards". The Indian understanding in July 2005 was that the latter would be of the simple INFCIRC 66 variety which India is familiar with - which are safeguards applied in perpetuity to any material which comes from abroad but which do not place the facility per se under safeguards in perpetuity.

When the US insisted that safeguards had to be for perpetuity - that facilities could not be taken out of the civilian, safeguarded sector at will - the notion of "India-specific safeguards" was crafted to build in a dual cushion for the country - first, that there would be lifetime fuel guarantees, and second, that India reserved the right to take corrective measures in the event of a disruption.

Giving an example to illustrate the problem, officials say that the U.S. may facilitate 200 tonnes of imported fuel for an indigenous safeguarded Indian reactor which is under "in perpetuity" safeguards.

If after that no more fuel is forthcoming for one reason or another, India would have no option but to divert nuclear fuel from the non-civilian side to run those reactors. Indeed, if the aim of the US is to progressively squeeze the Indian non-civilian side, then this would be one way of doing it.

Delay, suspension or termination of fuel supplies may also come about as the result of political differences between India and the U.S. on a major international issue, officials fear. "Unless we have the right to take corrective measures in the absence of fuel guarantees materialising, this will always be a pressure point on us in foreign policy terms," said a senior official.

In order to justify the backtracking from the March separation plan commitment, the U.S. side is citing both the Obama amendment and its new interpretation of Para 15.

"Full cooperation"

While India has mastered the enrichment, reprocessing and heavy water production process itself, Indian officials are not comfortable with the idea that specialized components and technology related to these should be excluded except in terms of the narrow window provided by the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP).

Indeed, officials say they get the feeling that the U.S. is trying to reopen another basic element of the March 2006 separation plan - the exclusion of the fast breeder reactor from the safeguarded sector - in order to incentivise Indian participation in GNEP.

But as long as reprocessing and enrichment technologies are excluded, India will continue to have the sword of sanctions and controls hanging over it. "Today, they are attempting to indict Indian officials for the import of an obsolete chip. Tomorrow, something that is bought for use in civilian reprocessing might also lead to sanctions and prosecutions", an official said. The Indian side believes that the July 2005 agreement very clearly spoke of full civilian cooperation and that the US cannot now arbitrarily restrict the scope of cooperation.

Reprocessing rights

For India, reprocessing is central to the "integrity" of its indigenous nuclear programme. "We were the first country to have reprocessing capabilities in Asia, since 1965. There is no danger of leakage contributing to weapons programme, unlike breakout countries where a little bit of cooperation might make all the difference", an official stressed. In India, all reprocessing of foreign-origin or obligated fuel would be under safeguards including pursuit. There is thus no question of any diversion, they say.

"This is not a matter of Indians being greedy or somebody making a concession to us", said one official, referring to what New Delhi feels are motivated stories appearing in the U.S. press over the past few weeks. Indian officials point to the French draft of the bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement currently under discussion, which assumes India will reprocess spent fuel. The same is the case with Russia.

At the same time, Indian officials stress that reprocessing is actually only one of several critical issues and perhaps the one most likely the Americans will be prepared to make concessions on since it is a purely executive decision.

"That is why — as a psy-op — they are spreading the word that reprocessing is such a big deal. Because their game plan is probably that after India concedes ground on all the other issues, they will agree to reprocessing to make the deal more saleable in India politically — "That see how US has reversed 30 years of policy to give India something it never gave other partners'," one official argued.

Indian officials reject the argument that a reprocessing agreement would necessarily take a long time to negotiate.

The U.S. agreements with Japan, Euratom and Switzerland were complex and took time to negotiate because they all involve provisions for retransfer, they point out. "For example, the Japanese ship spent fuel to France. So do the Swiss, and then re-import MOX pellets. In India, there is no question of transfers and retransfers. So the agreements can be relatively simple."

Thursday, April 26, 2007

Insightful!

Freedoms in Pakistan!: A harsh depiction but largely true

Pakistan: 'Bastion of freedom'
BBC: April 25, 2007
The BBC Urdu service's Masud Alam takes a wry look at freedoms in military-led Pakistan compared with those on offer in the West.

Freedom, like happiness and embarrassment, can be found in the most unlikely places.

I went looking for it - freedom, that is - across three continents and then returned home to find it here. Absolute, complete and unadulterated freedom for all, right here in Pakistan.

It's the kind of freedom people living in the West may envy all they can - but will never enjoy for themselves because they are so shackled by laws, bylaws, regulations and conventions.

They are so hemmed in that they cannot figure out for themselves what freedom is.

The Americans even had to include "pursuit of happiness" in their constitution! And how do they go about this pursuit?

Every week-end they stand dutifully in long queues outside night clubs, suffer humiliation at the hands of foul-mouthed bouncers, get served insipid, ridiculously low-alcohol beer at exorbitant prices, and are subjected to music so loud, no one can make out how bad it is...

Here in Pakistan, nothing and no-one is allowed to stand in the way of an honest citizen's right to do as they please.

Stealing the show

The other day, some of the top army generals finished a hard day's work at a conference in Islamabad and decided they'd earned a bit of entertainment.

Buoyed by their own spontaneity, they had that evening's sold-out performance of the musical Bombay Dreams cancelled for ticket-paying patrons, and enjoyed an exclusive viewing of Pakistani girls dancing to Indian music director AR Rehman's tunes.

That's freedom! Freedom to steal the show, in this case.

Even though alcohol is banned by law, industrialists are free to run breweries and entrepreneurs make up the shortfall through bootleg operations.

As a result, a Pakistani gets his beer (scotch in mild weather, vodka in winter) delivered at the doorstep by a friendly neighbourhood bootlegger, at roughly the same price, if not less, than an American pays for a similar brand at a liquor store.

London has its Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, where political workers, religious zealots and nutcases of all varieties stage a shouting match on Sundays.

But in Pakistan every citizen has, and exercises at will, the right to free speech, any time, anywhere.

The head of a mosque in the capital routinely and publicly humiliates the government and threatens it with suicide bomb attacks.

But the government still pays towards the running costs of two seminaries whose students are urged to carry out his threats.

'Sexuality in Pakistan'

The media is free to go on speculating about a "deal" between President Musharraf and the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), just as both parties are within their rights to forcefully deny it today and coyly admit to it tomorrow.

And audiences are also free to decide they are not bothered one way or the other.

My colleague, Sanwal, interviewed a roadside vendor in Lahore for a feature on "Sexuality in Pakistan".

This man called himself Dr Khan - or something similar - and sold herbal remedies for sexually-transmitted diseases. He told Sanwal his line of business does well all year round because "men exercise as little control over their sexual organs as they do over their tongues and minds".

This is the extent of freedom enjoyed by men in Pakistan. As for women, they are also free, as pointed out by President Musharraf, to seek emigration to Europe or Canada by pretending to be victims of sexual crimes.

The political system is just as emancipated. Unlike the West, where power tends to revolve between a handful of politicians, the Pakistani model is far more inclusive.

It has made popular political figures out of serving and retired army generals, World Bank executives, illiterate land owners, semi-literate industrialists, simple-minded sons and daughters of public figures... Everyone is free to be a leader.

At the street level, there's even more freedom. Pakistanis don't require a driving licence to operate anything from a motorcycle to a heavy vehicle, neither are the local police fussy about regulating the traffic.

'No ganja'

Regulations, most Pakistanis believe, are just another instrument of state oppression that has no place in a free and just society like theirs.

So motorists go about fluttering all over the unmarked roads which they share with pedestrians, hawkers, cyclists and horse-drawn carts.

The only rule is: when in doubt, honk. Motorists here believe in honking more than they trust their brakes or steering wheel, and definitely more than their eyes.

I generally dislike noise. Perhaps the policeman in the middle of the square does too. But he cannot interfere with the freedom of citizens to honk as much as they like.

I'm impressed with the amount and variety of freedom exercised in this country. And it beats me why the tourism ministry hasn't thought of highlighting the fact in its brochures, especially in "Visit Pakistan" year!

Maybe they don't need to spread the word.

I ran into three working-class Britons, sitting in a foul mood outside a cafƩ across the road from Rose and Jasmine Garden where their camp site was. One of them approached me, and pointed an accusing finger at my person.

He hissed: "We worked hard and saved money for this holiday. We could have gone anywhere. But we chose Pakistan. You know why, mate? Because of its ganja. Now we are here and we have no ganja!"

Freedom - even to get stoned - is not a commodity that can be taken for granted.

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

How important is a cleric in any Muslim's life

Life without a cleric By Hafizur Rahman
The News, April 24, 2007

A NEWSPAPER report has disturbed me and my family and we don’t know what to do about it. In any case it is too late to do anything. The matter concerns our faith.

Since we believe ourselves to be Muslims, we are naturally anxious that the end should be satisfactory. And with all the talk about the Shariah in Pakistan we want to be sure that we are not deficient in the matter of faith.

All this while we have considered ourselves not only Muslims but staunch Muslims, but our eyes have been opened by a revelation made by a well-known Islamic scholar of Rawalpindi. And what we behold with open eyes is hardly calculated to give us solace.An Urdu columnist has referred to a maulana’s revelation and thus brought it to our notice. And it is because of his column that we find our peace of mind disturbed. It has created doubts in our minds whether we are really qualified to call ourselves Muslims. According to this column, the maulana had dwelt on the role of the maulvi in our daily lives. So that there is no misunderstanding, I repeat the exact words as quoted by the columnist.

“The poor maulvi whom you revile (said maulana) is he who made your mother lawful for your father. It is he who chanted the azaan in your ear and breathed faith into you. And it is he who will say your funeral prayer when you die. What have you given him in return?”

Just forget what we have given the maulvi and all that, and concentrate on the three most important moments in a Muslim’s life as mentioned by the maulana. It is these three functions that have caused a commotion in my family and stirred us to our very depths about what may be in store for us in the hereafter. According to the maulana, all these three functions have to be performed by maulvis, even though we give them nothing in return.

You see, the problem in our case is that for all these three significant moments in our lives as Muslims we employ the services of maulvis. But when my wife and I were married, the nikah was read by an old friend of my father-in-law. He didn’t have a beard so he couldn’t have been a maulvi.

When my father died, his funeral prayer was led by an old friend of his whom we called Uncle. This friend too didn’t have a beard and used to protest violently if anyone addressed him as Maulvi Sahib. When our two daughters were born I myself recited the azaan in their ears. I do not have a beard, nor can I be described as a maulvi by any stretch of the imagination.

So what is the position now? Were all these occasions properly sanctified? Since those who presided over these rituals were not maulvis, and since (if we go by the word of the maulana) only maulvis are entitled or expected to perform these functions, can it be stated with authority that, in our case, the acts were in complete accord with the actual religious practice? Or will the verdict be that they were null and void, ab initio, as lawyers are in the habit of saying?

While I can make up for my personal lapse by getting a maulvi to recite the azaan in the ears of my daughters (and their four children too who had suffered a similar fate because of my eagerness to play the amateur maulvi), what about the funeral prayer of my father?

I would hate to be admonished by him when we meet in the next world, in case such a meeting is part of the post mortem scheme of the Almighty. But I can ignore that too. My father is not here to tick me off. When the time comes for that we shall see. But what about my nikah with my one and only wife?The matter is complicated by the fact that she died some years ago, and I hate to live with the thought that when she was alive we were not properly married for 37 years. The only consolation is that her funeral arrangements were not in my hands and the last rite was performed by an authentic maulvi. So there is at least one worry less. But the question still rankles whether it was holy wedlock or a theological deadlock while it lasted.

During my forty plus years on this planet I have been under the impression that in Islam you don’t need a practising maulvi for anything. Let alone chanting the azaan in an infant’s ear, or reciting the prayer on someone’s last journey, which any Muslim can do, I was taught that for a marriage to be solemnised the man and woman had just to take the prescribed vow before witnesses and the deed was done. I as nikah-khwan was not de riguer. Such is the simplicity of Islam and such is its freedom from a professional priestly class.

Among maulvis you can have the most learned and the most ignorant. The late Maulana Kausar Niazi was the most enlightened maulvi and there are scores in the Jamaat-e-Islami and the JUI and the Islamabad International Islamic University, with which I once had an association of sorts. Some of the imams of Islamabad mosques are real gems and it’s a pleasure to talk to them.

And there was “Maulana” Sabz Gull who was imam of a small mosque in the outskirts of the old city of Peshawar. This was in the end of 1958 or thereabouts. I was charged with the duty of finding a maulvi to preside over the nikah of a friendless young woman. After the ritual was over, I asked everyone concerned to sign on the nikah-nama. However, we were sheepishly informed by my maulvi that he was unlettered and could only affix his thumb impression on the document. I’ve still got that nikah-nama with me.

I don’t know if Maulvi Sabz Gull later learned to read and write, but apparently he was quite proficient and successful in the performance of his priestly duties. I wish I could locate him now. I am sure he would be able to find a way out of the dilemma in which that columnist’s remarks have placed me and my family.

Perspectives on Development Issues in Pakistan

Faryal Gauhar's Speech at Punjab Development Forum
Honourable Minister for the Environment, Dr. Anjum Arshad, Country Director of the Asian Development Bank Mr. Peter Fedon, Chairperson Planning And Development Board, Government of Punjab, Mr. Suleman Ghani, Respected Guests:

Allow me to take this opportunity to thank the organizers for granting me the opportunity to share a slightly different perspective on development. Much as I do not want to act as the Devil’s Advocate, and much as I do not want to point out the irony manifest in the fact that the Punjab Development Forum is being held in the hallowed halls of what used to be the Free Mason’s Lodge in Colonial Times, I feel I am compelled to do both, for that is the role of a member of civil society, a citizen of this beloved country who refuses to be cowed down by allegations made earlier against organizations such as the Lahore Bachao Tehreek for being invested with vested interests. Allow me this opportunity to place on record that the Lahore Bachao Tehreek is a civil society movement of ordinary citizens as well as highly respected professionals, renowned in their own fields of law, architecture, urban planning, traffic management, the management of the environment, political economy, and sociology. I myself am proud to be amongst the first professionals in this country working towards a PhD in Conservation Management, and I refuse to swallow the intimidation which comes our way each time we have tried to confront the powers that be, powers such as the land and development mafia, powers which lurk behind the powerful, nurturing vested interests behind closed doors.

Ladies and Gentlemen: in the earlier session a remark was made by Mr. Shahid Javed Burki about transforming the Punjab from a granary to an orchard. While I have great regard for Mr. Burki’s achievements, I was dismayed to think that the spirit of Marie Antoinette still lives amongst the best of us – it was she who, during the great French Revolution, ordered to feed the peasants “Cake if they have no Bread”. In a similar manner, I presume Mr. Burki is suggesting that we plant fruit as a cash crop instead of nurturing our staple food crops, thereby ensuring a vibrant fruit market for the wealthy but perhaps jeopardizing the already precarious food security of our people. How ironic that the people of the Punjab, the Breadbasket of the Subcontinent, cannot produce their own food, and that they should be asked to grow bananas instead. I now understand why another term for the rapid veering towards neo-liberal economic growth models is known as the Banana Republicization of sovereign states.

Ladies and Gentlemen: what seems to be missing in this entire discourse is the paramount importance of human life, of human potential and achievement, of human happiness. We need to recontextualize this debate within the larger framework of human rights and development. There can be no development without addressing the issues of rights, needs, and priorities. The question to be asked today is: Development of what and for whom?

We need to listen to the voices of the marginalized, we need to understand the priorities of the people: the Pakistan Participatory Poverty Assessment, a research project funded by DFID for the Planning Commission, Government of Pakistan, yielded the following results: (I know these by heart since I was a part of that 2.5 year effort taking place in 54 of the poorest districts of the country, using participatory research and analysis methodology): That the poor need access to land and natural resources such as water and air, that they need access to basic services such as health care and education and sanitation, that they need meaningful employment, they need access to the political process, to credit, to gender equity, and lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the people demand access to Justice.

Honorable Chair, this morning I spoke to the World Health Organization and was not surprised to learn that our country shall not meet the Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015 – we shall not be able to reduce hunger by half or to save infants and mothers from dieing in the birth process. However, listening to the presentations today at the Punjab Development Forum, I can honestly say that even without achieving a single one of the MDG’s, we shall still have the finest IT Park in South Asia, and we shall have ever-widening roads on which to run our ever-expanding retinue of luxury cars. Ladies and Gentlemen: I served for five years as a Goodwill Ambassador for the United Nations Population Fund and can say with certainty that more mothers and children die in this country than anywhere else in South Asia. As a political economist I can say with certainty that 40% of our people live below the poverty line. And as an eager listener to the speeches of General Pervez Musharraf, I say with absolutely no certainty that Pakistan is well on its way to a high growth path, a statement predicated on the high incidence of cell phone and split-unit usage. What I do know is that unemployment has risen at almost the same rate as inflation, both of which are greater than the economic growth rate. What I do know is that rapid urbanization takes place because of deterioration land to people ratios in the rural areas. And what I can say with absolute assurance is that the trickle-down theory bandied about by the lofty minds of this government have been debunked and thrown out of the window by eminent economists all around the world. The fact is, ladies and gentlemen, that no trickle-down effect takes place without extremely high economic growth rates such as those achieved by China in the last decade. Growth rates of 13-14% are extremely hard if not impossible to sustain, and the impact such growth leaves on the environment is devastating, I repeat: devastating, permanent, and irreversible. Today, in Pakistan, the degradation of the environment is costing us 6% of the GDP – this is totally unacceptable, and practices which degrade our environment as well as jeopardize the future of our children must stop.

We must stop and take a long, hard look at out reality. We must remove the blind spots which hamper our vision and our collective ability to hammer out a strategic vision for all, and for all times. We must consider the most fundamental problems of poverty and burgeoning populations, and we must focus on the role of women in alleviating poverty and reducing population growth rates, if only we could empower women, not merely enthrone them. We must consider seriously the fact that in Pakistan the universal biological norm of the ratio between sexes has been reversed: where all over the world there are 106 women for every 100 men, in Pakistan there are 93 women to every 100 men. This was not always the case, and this shameful reversal is a direct result of the positioning of women under patriarchy and the willful neglect of almost half of the population by the state which professes to be gender-sensitive. By merely appointing women in positions of political power we are not empowering the women who form the backbone of our economy, be they the cotton-pickers of Multan or the construction workers of Muzzafargarh. We need to remove the blinders which obscure our vision, replacing a vision of social justice and equitable distribution with notions of the free-market economy marked by decentralized, automobile-driven, single use models of urban sprawl development.

What should our vision be: Simply this: We wish to see a country where all children are ensured adequate health care, and equal chance of life regardless of their sex, adequate and meaningful education, and a clean and secure environment in which to reach their fullest human potential. We wish to see all citizens have equal access to land, to natural resources, to basic services, jobs, the political process, and to justice. We wish to see the meaningful involvement of citizens who have the right to participate in partnerships with government in all aspects of the lives of the individual and the community. We wish to see citizens given their due share in decision-making, including needs assessment, planning, implementation, enforcement, and evaluation. Communities must be enabled and administratively assisted to participate fully in decisions effecting all aspects of their lives. Citizens must be encouraged to develop environmental stewardship; we must be allowed to live our lives with some sense of justice, in particular,environmental justice.

We wish to see a vision inspired by the Mayor of Bogota, Enrique Penalosa who presided over the transition of a city that the world had given up on. Bogota had lost itself in slums, chaos, violence, and traffic. During his three-year term, Penalosa brought initiatives that would seem impossible in most cities. He built 100 nurseries, 50 new public schools, increasing enrollment by 34%. He built a network of libraries. He created a highly-efficient “bus-highway” transit system. He built or reconstructed hundreds of kilometers of sidewalks, more than 300 km of bicycle paths, pedestrian streets, and more than 1,200 parks.

Ladies and Gentlemen: it is time we considered seriously the work of people like Enrique Penalosa, it is time we learnt to listen seriously to the words of our own people. In conclusion, I offer such words to you, gleaned from my research into poverty in our country. In a village in Sindh, I had come to know that natural gas was to be provided after a wait of many years. I asked the women who had gathered to meet me whether this would ease the burden of their chores. There was total silence until one woman spoke, and I have been haunted by these words and do not tire of repeating them at the public fora where I speak. She said to me that indeed, the burden of their chores would be lightened, but the burden of their hearts would be heavier, for it is in the smoke of wood fire that they can weep their tears, and this new fire, fueled by natural gas, has no smoke.
Thank you.

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

How Muslims and Americans View Each Other

How Muslims and Americans View Each Other
Comments by Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org, at the US-Islamic Forum in Doha, Qatar, February 18, 2007.

For some years now, as part of developing the web resource WorldPublicOpinion.org, we have been conducting studies of public opinion in the Muslim world and the United States. We have been conducting focus groups, and tracking the polls of other organizations, as well as conducting our own polls.

As you may expect, the news is certainly not all good. There is a tremendous amount of mutual suspicion. The US is viewed negatively in virtually all Muslim countries. In a multi-country poll we just did for the BBC, we found that in all Muslim countries polled, majorities said that the US is having a mostly negative influence in the world and that the US military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents.

In some polls, views of the American people are not quite as negative as views of the United States or its government, but they are still mostly on the negative side.

When Americans are asked about Muslim countries as a whole, their views are fairly neutral. But when asked about some specific countries, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia, majorities of Americans have unfavorable views.

But despite all of these negative feelings, polls do reveal more common ground than one might expect and even some potential directions for resolving some conflicts. An example is a recent study that we did in Iran and in the US. Both Iranians and Americans expressed fairly negative views of each others’ country. But when we probed deeper into the areas of conflict, we found some interesting areas of potential agreement.

Naturally, a major focus was Iran’s nuclear enrichment program. Iranians show a strong commitment to Iran having such program: nine in 10 say that it is important for Iran to have a full-fuel-cycle nuclear program (84% very important). When we offered a long list of possible incentives that the US might provide to Iran to forgo this program, these were largely brushed off as insignificant.

The reasons Iranians gave for having such a program were multiple. At the top of the list was securing Iran’s energy needs. Also high on the list was to improve its status as a regional power. There was also the goal of deterring other countries from trying to dominate it, which implies a military dimension.

Now Americans overwhelmingly perceive Iran as trying to develop nuclear weapons. In this they are not alone. In a poll we did for the BBC of 25 countries around the world, this was the most common view in every country. However, the Iranian people insist that this is not their intention. Two-thirds approve of Iran being part of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, even when reminded that this forbids Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Only 15 percent favor Iran withdrawing from it.

Does this mean that Iranians are not at all thinking about the weapon potential of uranium enrichment? No, I think it is clear that they are. So, how does that fit with their support for the NPT? Iranians perceive the NPT as somewhat precarious. A large majority believes that there are other countries with secret programs for developing nuclear weapons. In the long run, they think that it is more likely than not that more countries will develop nuclear weapons. And it appears that they want Iran to be in a better position should the NPT regime unravel.

But it also appears that most Iranians do not want that to happen, that they support the NPT per se.

How do Americans feel about the prospect of Iran acquiring enrichment capacities? Well, obviously they do not like it. But they do not want to deal with the problem by military force. Seventy-five percent say that the US should deal with Iran primarily by trying to build better relations, while only 22 percent favor pressuring it with implied threats that the US may use military force against it. And in a CNN poll taken in the last few weeks, 68 percent of Americans said they would disapprove if the US government were to take military action against Iran.

So what do Americans think should be done? What we found was that 55 percent of Americans are open to the idea of accepting Iran enriching uranium, but on two conditions: First, that this enrichment be limited to the very low levels that would be adequate for nuclear energy needs (5%), but not to the higher levels needed for nuclear weapons (over 90%). And second, that UN inspectors be allowed full access to verify that Iran is limiting its enrichment to these low levels.

The poll also found other areas of common ground.

Some may have the image of Iranians as being deeply rooted in a revolutionary ideology intrinsically opposed to all aspects of the prevailing world order. However large majorities of Iranians actually seem quite comfortable with it. Sixty-three percent have a positive view of globalization. And despite the pressure that the UN Security Council is currently putting on Iran, 70 percent favor the idea of a stronger UN; 54 percent even have a positive view of the IAEA

Of course, another troubling area for US-Islamic world relations is the situation in Iraq. But here too, we have found some interesting areas of common ground. For example, 60 percent of Americans and 78 percent of Iraqis agree that the US military presence in Iraq is “provoking more conflict than it is preventing.”

Interestingly, Iraqis and Americans are not even very far apart on the question of what the US should do now. Both Iraqis and Americans want the US to commit to withdraw within a limited time period, rather than having an open-ended commitment.

But—this might surprise you—getting out within 6 months is only favored by 37 percent of Iraqis and 18 percent of Americans. Seventy-one percent of Iraqis do want the US to commit to withdraw within a year or less. Forty three percent of Americans agree, with another 18 percent saying the US should commit to being out within two years.

This commitment to a timeline is key: 77 percent of Iraqis believe that the US plans to have permanent bases in Iraq; 78 percent assume that if the Iraqi government were to ask the US to withdraw that it would not.

Interestingly, Americans agree that the US would not withdraw if asked. And Americans are uncomfortable with that. If either the Iraqi government or the Iraqi people want the US to make a commitment to withdraw in a year three-quarters of Americans think the US should.

This is part of a larger orientation Americans have on foreign policy. In a Chicago Council poll Americans were asked: “If a majority of people in the Middle East want the US to remove its military presence there, do you think the US should do so?” Fifty-nine percent said that it should.

Americans are also not intent on staying in Iraq until it is just the way they would like it. Seven in 10 say that even if the Iraqi people elect an Islamic religious leader who wants to institute Islamic law or is unfriendly toward the US, the United States should accept such a government.

Now, looking beyond Iraq and Iran, numerous polls have found a number of areas of agreement between Americans and Muslims.

First, as a general principle, we asked, “Thinking about Muslim and Western cultures, do you think that violent conflict between them is inevitable or that it is possible to find common ground?” We found majorities in Morocco, Indonesia, and Iran as well as the US saying that it is possible to find common ground. In a poll of 27 countries around the world that we have done for BBC and will release on Monday, we found this was also a widespread view around the world.

There is also rather strong support for democracy in the Muslim world. A 2005 Gallup International poll found 78 percent in the Middle East as a whole agreeing that “Democracy may have problems but it is the best form of government.” Pew found that most Muslims reject the argument that “democracy is a western way of doing things that would not work in most Muslim countries.”

The United Nations elicits complex feelings because many believe that it is dominated by the US. Nonetheless, when we asked about the prospect of the UN becoming significantly more powerful in world affairs this was seen as something positive for 77 percent of Indonesians, 58 percent of Lebanese as well as 70 percent of Iranians. A more modest plurality of Turks agreed.

Now some people might say, “wait a minute this is not common ground, Americans do not want a stronger UN.” This is a common misconception.

Two thirds of Americans do want a stronger UN. Furthermore a Chicago Council poll found that 60 percent of Americans say, “When dealing with international problems, the US should be more willing to make decisions within the United Nations even if this means that the US will sometimes have to go along with a policy that is not its first choice.” Seventy-six percent of Americans feel the US plays the role of world policeman more than it should and would like to see the UN play a more dynamic role.

Now, on the subject of attacks against civilians, there is also a good deal of agreement. Muslims are often more unequivocal than Americans on this question. Majorities in Turkey, Indonesia, Pakistan and Iran say they that such attacks can never be justified. Forty-six percent of Americans say such attacks can never be justified while 27 percent say they can rarely be justified. Egyptians and Jordanians are approximately the same as Americans.

When the subject of Palestinian attacks on Israelis comes up, though, some Muslims make an exception. But it is clear from polls and focus groups that Muslims very much want to embrace this principle.

In an encouraging sign, these numbers have been growing significantly over the last few years. A few years ago, in Jordan and Pakistan, less than half said such attacks can rarely or never be justified. These numbers have since increased by more than thirty percentage points to more than seven in ten.

Concurrently, support for bin Laden and al Qaeda has been sliding downward throughout the Muslim world. Over the last few years, confidence in bin Laden has dropped 36 points in Jordan, 25 points in Indonesia, 13 points in Pakistan. At this point, in no country polled does a majority have a positive view of bin Laden. The Sunnis in Iraq also overwhelmingly reject him.

In closing, by pointing to these many convergences in American and Muslim thinking, I don’t mean to downplay the difficulty of the present conflicts. These are indeed difficult.

But we could have found something that would be more worrisome. We might have found that Americans and Muslims believe that violent conflict is inevitable. We might have found key differences on fundamental questions about the preferred world order, or the morality of attacks on civilians. Instead we found many shared values and even some shared ideas about what to do on some key problems.

Shared values among publics do not solve the conflicts we face. But they are something that leaders should be aware of and they do give us a foundation on which to build.

Monday, April 23, 2007

Only good Muslims can vote in an Islamic state: A new political theory!

Lal Masjid calls for jihad against ‘un-Islamic’ govt
Daily Times, April 24, 2007

ISLAMABAD: Lal Masjid’s chief cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz on Monday decreed that Gen Pervez Musharraf’s government was “un-Islamic” and it was obligatory for every Muslim to wage jihad against it for rule of law and speedy dispensation of justice.

“The government is un-Islamic and the present system and political hierarchy have failed to deliver,” said Maulana Abdul Aziz in an interview with Daily Times at Lal Masjid.

He was accompanied by his younger brother and deputy Ghazi Abdul Rashid. “We have no intention to wage a war against the government leading to a bloodbath. However, if it launches a crackdown on Jamia Hafsa or Lal Masjid, of course our movement would automatically turn into a militant movement,” Aziz said. He said democracy was a flawed system. “Democracy is nothing but counting of heads. It cannot differentiate between good and bad people, as in this system the vote of a devout Muslim equals the vote of a frail Muslim,” he said. Asked to comment on suicide attacks, he said: “Suicide attacks in Pakistan are un-Islamic, but if the government took action against Jamia Hafsa, we would allow our followers to launch suicide attacks against it to save the honour of our female students.” staff report

Moderate Vs. Orthodox Islam: Insightful Distinctions

Why I am not a moderate Muslim
I'd rather be considered 'orthodox' than 'moderate.' True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to piously adhere to a religion's tenets.
By Asma Khalid: Christian Science Monitor: April 23, 2007

Cambridge, England: Last month, three Muslim men were arrested in Britain in connection with the London bombings of July 2005. In light of such situations, a number of non-Muslims and Muslims alike yearn for "moderate," peace-loving Muslims to speak out against the violent acts sometimes perpetrated in the name of Islam. And to avoid association with terrorism, some Muslims adopt a "moderate" label to describe themselves.

I am a Muslim who embraces peace. But, if we must attach stereotypical tags, I'd rather be considered "orthodox" than "moderate."

"Moderate" implies that Muslims who are more orthodox are somehow backward and violent. And in our current cultural climate, progress and peace are restricted to "moderate" Muslims. To be a "moderate" Muslim is to be a "good," malleable Muslim in the eyes of Western society.

I recently attended a debate about Western liberalism and Islam at the University of Cambridge where I'm pursuing my master's degree. I expected debaters on one side to present a bigoted laundry list of complaints against Islam and its alleged incompatibility with liberalism, and they did.

But what was more disturbing was that those on the other side, in theory supported the harmony of Islam and Western liberalism, but they based their argument on spurious terms. While these debaters – including a former top government official and a Nobel peace prize winner – were well-intentioned, they in fact wrought more harm than good. Through implied references to moderate Muslims, they offered a simplistic, paternalistic discourse that suggested Muslims would one day catch up with Western civilization.

In the aftermath of September 11, much has been said about the need for "moderate Muslims." But to be a "moderate" Muslim also implies that Osama bin Laden and Co. must represent the pinnacle of orthodoxy; that a criterion of orthodox Islam somehow inherently entails violence; and, consequently, that if I espouse peace, I am not adhering to my full religious duties.

I refuse to live as a "moderate" Muslim if its side effect is an unintentional admission that suicide bombing is a religious obligation for the orthodox faithful. True orthodoxy is simply the attempt to adhere piously to a religion's tenets.

The public relations drive for "moderate Islam" is injurious to the entire international community. It may provisionally ease the pain when so-called Islamic extremists strike. But it really creates deeper wounds that will require thicker bandages because it indirectly labels the entire religion of Islam as violent.

The term moderate Muslim is actually a redundancy. In the Islamic tradition, the concept of the "middle way" is central. Muslims believe that Islam is a path of intrinsic moderation, wasatiyya. This concept is the namesake of a British Muslim grass-roots organization, the Radical Middle Way. It is an initiative to counter Islam's violent reputation with factual scholarship.

This was demonstrated through a day-long conference that the organization sponsored in February. The best speaker of the night was Abdallah bin Bayyah, an elderly Mauritanian sheikh dressed all in traditional white Arab garb, offset by a long gray beard.

The words coming out of the sheikh's mouth – all in Arabic – were remarkably progressive. He confronted inaccurate assumptions about Islam, spoke of tolerance, and told fellow Muslims an un­pleasant truth: "Perhaps much of this current crisis springs from us," he said, kindly admonishing them. He chastised Muslims for inadequately explaining their beliefs, thereby letting other, illiberal voices speak for them.

I was shocked by his blunt though nuanced analysis, given his traditional, religious appearance. And then I was troubled by my shock. To what extent had I, a hijabi Muslim woman studying Middle Eastern/Islamic studies, internalized the untruthful representations of my own fellow Muslims? For far too long, I had been fed a false snapshot of what Islamic orthodoxy really means.

The sheikh continued, challenging Mr. bin Laden's violent interpretation of jihad, citing Koranic verses and prophetic narrations. He referred to jihad as any "good action" and recounted a recent conversation with a non-Muslim lawyer who asked if electing a respectable official would be considered jihad. The sheikh answered "yes" because voting for someone who supports the truth and upholds justice is a good action.

The sheikh, not bin Laden, is a depiction of true Islamic orthodoxy. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the man trained in Islamic jurisprudence. The sheikh, not bin Laden, is the authentic religious scholar. But to call him a moderate Muslim would be a misnomer.

• Asma Khalid is pursuing her master's degree in Middle Eastern/Islamic studies at the University of Cambridge in England.

Sunday, April 22, 2007

The Reluctant Fundamentalist


April 22, 2007: New York Times
I Pledge Allegiance By KAREN OLSSON

This is a book that pivots on a smile. A third of the way through Mohsin Hamid’s second novel, “The Reluctant Fundamentalist,” the narrator, a young Pakistani man named Changez, tells an American how he first learned of the destruction of the World Trade Center. While on a business trip to Manila, he turned on the television in his hotel room and saw the towers fall. “I stared as one — and then the other — of the twin towers of New York’s World Trade Center collapsed. And then I smiled. Yes, despicable as it may sound, my initial reaction was to be remarkably pleased.”

The novel begins a few years after 9/11. Changez happens upon the American in Lahore, invites him to tea and tells him the story of his life in the months just before and after the attacks. That monologue is the substance of Hamid’s elegant and chilling little novel.

In 2001, as he explains, Changez was hardly a radical. Fresh out of Princeton, he was living in New York City and working as a financial analyst. He appears to have been something of a cipher, until his reaction to the attacks — that sudden smile — pierces the shell. It seems to have come as a surprise even to himself, and while hardly endearing, it sets his tale in motion.

A less sophisticated author might have told a one-note story in which an immigrant’s experiences of discrimination and ignorance cause his alienation. But Hamid’s novel, while it contains a few such moments, is distinguished by its portrayal of Changez’s class aspirations and inner struggle. His resentment is at least in part self-loathing, directed at the American he’d been on his way to becoming. For to be an American, he declares, is to view the world in a certain way — a perspective he absorbed in his eagerness to join the country’s elite.

His indoctrination, however, was never total. Starting with his job interview at Underwood Samson, a small firm that appraises businesses around the world, and a postgraduation trip to Greece with friends from Princeton, Changez maintains an outsider’s double perspective. On the trip he is smitten with Erica, one of the other travelers, but is also bothered by his rich friends’ profligate spending and the condescension with which they give orders to anyone they’ve paid for a service: “I ... found myself wondering by what quirk of human history my companions — many of whom I would have regarded as upstarts in my own country, so devoid of refinement were they — were in a position to conduct themselves in the world as though they were its ruling class.” Yet even as he recognizes the foibles of that ruling class, Changez, who comes from a high-status but downwardly mobile family, also aspires to join it. Given his oft-mentioned phenomenal aptitude for his new job and a talent for winning over other people, that goal seems all but guaranteed.

By the time he reaches Manila, where he is sent to appraise a recording business, Changez finds himself trying to assert his Americanness. Suddenly he’s the one ordering around men his father’s age. Unnerved when a jeepney driver gives him a hostile look, Changez puzzles over its significance until he glances at one of his colleagues and feels his own hostility toward the other man’s “oblivious immersion” in his work.

So which is he, the ignorant master or the canny subaltern? And has he sacrificed his identity in pursuit of status? Changez has already begun to ask himself these questions when he sees the towers fall. And in the wake of the attacks, as tensions escalate between India and Pakistan, and the United States is meanwhile caught up in patriotic displays that strike Changez as a dangerous form of nostalgia, he loses interest in his work. Assigned to help appraise a publishing company in Valparaiso, Chile, he spends his time visiting Neruda’s house and lunching with the publisher, who compares Changez to a janissary — one of the Christian youths captured and then conscripted by the Ottomans, compelled to do battle against their own civilization.

Yet there is still the matter of his beloved Erica, who is friendly with Changez but mourning the death of her former boyfriend, Chris, from lung cancer. Changez is polite and formal; Erica is uninhibited, going topless, for instance, on a beach in Greece. The two become intimate, but she is haunted by Chris, and after 9/11 her sadness mysteriously turns pathological. She lands in an institution, then disappears.

This part of the story seems a bit too convenient — Erica’s obsession with the past engineered to dovetail with America’s nostalgia and with Changez’s yearning for a lost Lahore — while her disappearance neatly parallels his departure from America. (Our hero’s name gets no points for subtlety either.) Hamid, who himself attended Princeton and worked in corporate America, aptly captures the ethos and hypocrisies of the Ivy League meritocracy, but less so its individual members. Throughout the book, secondary characters are sketched rather than distinctively rendered.

We never learn the American man’s identity, yet Changez regularly interrupts the story to address him. Perhaps, it is suggested, he had been pursuing Changez, who has become a leader of anti-American protests. Apparently, the man is “on a mission” — and he may be carrying a weapon. While these interruptions come too frequently for my taste, they do lend his tale an Arabian Nights-style urgency: the end of the story may mean the death of the teller.

It seems that Hamid would have us understand the novel’s title ironically. We are prodded to question whether every critic of America in a Muslim country should be labeled a fundamentalist, or whether the term more accurately describes the capitalists of the American upper class. Yet these queries seem blunter and less interesting than the novel itself, in which the fundamentalist, and potential assassin, may be sitting on either side of the table.

Karen Olsson is a senior editor at Texas Monthly and the author of the novel “Waterloo.”