International tolerance day

Posted by: Jarri Mirza
Guest blog: Humza Ikram

Today world is celebrating International tolerance day but sadly Pakistani society is getting more and more intolerant. Our right wing media is spreading a lot of hatred in our society and the beauty of our pluralistic society is now sadly a memory of the past. One of my young cousins ,who is an avid Zaid Hamid viewer, has sent me a picture of a map showing India to be a part of Pakistan. He urged me to make it my face book display picture. The following is a post by Nadeem Paracha highlighting the importance of tolerance in social life. Also, checkout the following video and see how Zaid Hamid is spreading hatred towards Hindus. I'm wondering how insecure Hindu community living in Sindh might feel in their own country.


Blow Daddy

By Nadeem Paracha

Daddy?
Yes, son.
Are we going to have a war with India?
Perhaps.
Oh, goody. We will thrash them, right? Like we did in 1857!
It wasn't in 1857, son.
Oh, okay. But whom did we thrash in 1857?
The British, son …
And the Hindus too, right?
Well …
Did Quied-e-Azam fight in that war along
with Muhammad bin Qasim and Imran Khan?
No, son. The Quied and Imran were born much later and Muhammad bin Qasim died many years before.
Then who ruled Pakistan in those days?
There was no Pakistan in those days, son.
But there was always a Pakistan! It has been there for 5000 years!
Whom have you been talking to, son?
No one. I've just been watching TV.
It figures.
Daddy, why are all these people against us Arabs?
Arabs? But we aren't Arabs, son.
Of course we are because our ancestors were Arabs!
No, son. Our ancestors were sub-continental.
Sub-what?
Never mind.You seem to like wars, son.
Yes. I like to watch them on TV.
But real wars are fought outside the TV, son.
Really? How is that possible? What sort of a war is that?
Never mind.
Daddy you look worried.
Of course, I am, you little warmongering punk!
Daddy. Why are you scolding me?
Because TV is talking rot and so are you!
Daddy, are you turning into a Hindu?
No!
Daddy, have you become a kafir?
Keep quiet! No more TV for you! Go watch a movie on the DVD player, or listen to a CD.
Can't do that.
But we have so many DVDs and CDs, son.
Not any more.
What do you mean?
I burned them all.
What?!
I burned them all.
I heard that! But why?
They spread obscenity.
Oh, God. Son, go do your homework. What happened to that science project you were working on?
It's almost complete.
Good boy. What are you making?
A bomb.
What?!
A bomb.
I heard that! But why?
Because I am a true Muslim mujahid who hates America.
But only last week you wanted to go to Disney Land.
That's different.
How come?
Mickey Mouse is a Muslim.
No he isn't.
Is so. He converted when he heard the azaan on the moon.
On the moon?
Yes. Because the Earth is flat and …
What??
The Earth is …
I heard that!
Daddy, do you want to see my science project, or not?
Gosh, that bomb? But your science teacher will fail you.
No she wont.
Really …?
Yes. I plan to blow her up as well.
God, what is wrong with you? Go call your mother!
She can't come.
Why not?
I've locked her in the kitchen.
But what for?
A woman's place is in the kitchen. I will not let her out until she starts wearing a hijab!
But she's your mother!
No. She's a woman!
So?
So she should be hidden.
Hidden from whom?
You, me, the whole world and Tony.
Tony?
Yes, Tony.
But Tony's a cat.
Yes. But he's a male cat.
Son, have you gone mad?
No. By the way, I've made sure Kitto starts wearing a hijab as well.
Kitto?
Yes, Kittto.
But Kitto's also a cat!
Yes. But a female cat.
But she'll suffocate.
Oh, she's already dead.
What?
She's already dead.
I heard that! But how?
I buried her alive.
You what??
Yes. To avenge Tony's honor. But now I will behead Tony.
But why?
To save mom's honor!
Oh, God!
Don't say that. Always say Allah Hafiz instead of Khuda Hafiz.
What's the difference?
Daddy, do you want to be beheaded too?
No!
Do you want to be stoned to death?
No!
Do you want to be flogged?
No!
Do you want to get your arms chopped off?
No!
Then stop asking stupid questions. By the way, I won't call you daddy anymore.
What will you call me then?
Whatever is Arabic for daddy.
I don't know any Arabic, son.
That's because you are a kafir.
Who the heck are you to tell me who I am, you little fascist twit!
What's a fascist?
An irrational, violent, self-righteous mad man!
WAAAAAAA!!
Why are you crying?
You scolded me.
Okay, I'm sorry. You have to be tolerant and rational, son. Now be a good boy and go read a book instead of watching TV.
I have no books.
Of course, you do. I bought you so many books.
I burned them all.
What?!
I burned them all.
I heard that! But why?!
They were all in English.
So?
Christians speak English.
But we are speaking English as well, aren't we?
WAAAAAAAAAAAA …!!
What now?
Zionists made me forget Arabic!
But you never knew any Arabic, son.
WAAAA … yes I did until you and mommy gave me polio drops … WAAAA …
Okay, tell me, can you do me a favor?
Sure, dad. (*sniff*).
Can you blow up something for me?
Oh, goody! Of course, dad. What should I blow? A CD shop, a hotel, a school …?
No, no, something a lot more sinister.
Mom?
No, no …
What then?
The TV set!
What?!
Blow the TV Set.
I heard that! But why?
Just do it!
I see. Dad?
Yes.
You're so unconstitutional.

...

source

Read more...

The question of tolerance —Rasul Bakhsh Rais

Intolerance stems from arrogance, from a belief that a person’s religion and ideology are true while all else is false. But above all intolerance grows from an individual taking responsibility for scrutinising and guarding the beliefs and practices of other and passing a final judgement on them.

We need to build tolerance by reforming the education system. A public education system that functions and has quality and public trust will go a long way toward cultivating young persons in modern values of respecting diversity and an opposite point of view

It is hard to contest the growing view that in recent decades, the social trends in Pakistani society have changed a bit for the worse in becoming less respectful of diversity. The question is, is it accommodative of or tolerant toward the religious difference as it used to be about three decades back? Our tentative answer is that it is not.

What is then the trend? The trend is toward seeking conformity to the dominant views on religion and religious values. There are many causes for this, but one of the salient ones is the failure to develop educational institutions into places of free debate and inquiry. We cannot expect it to happen with poor quality of academic leadership. And of course another reason is political expediency guiding the policies of governments that have lacked a vision and a practical programme to restore true spirit of learning and reflection in the colleges and universities.

We need to focus more on modern institutions than on other factors is for obvious reason; the primary function and the historical identity of the academy is associated with the training of free thinking, rational, tolerant and open individual that develops himself to respecting others and giving equal value and respect to beliefs of others. Sadly, our colleges and universities that churning out graduates in thousands and the majority of those who are imparting them modern knowledge lack some of the essential qualities of modern man.

Let me also discuss briefly two other reasons for growth of extremism and violence. The first is the worsening quality of governance at all levels. Contrary to official claims, our system of governance, including all branches has deteriorated. There are so many elegant philosophical and political debates, mainly in the western societies, about the purposes of the government.

These debates are open to everyone, and are part of collective human heritage; our rulers will greatly benefit by opening some pages of literature on why the government was created. Even if we take the first principle, law and order, being the primary responsibility of the government, we see a poor record of the Islamic Republic.

Most of the questions about law and order become centred on the fundamental rights of the individual—life, property, and in the Lockean sense, pursuit of liberty. Property rights are poorly enforced; life, if not short and brutish, its fullness and self-actualisation is uncertain and problematic; and liberty is hostage to tradition, conservative religious values and hybrid of feudal authoritarianism. The combination for these forces overtime has created an intolerant society. Because all elements of the iron triangle—mullah, bureaucracy and the feudal by their class interests and organisational culture seek conformity and punish dissent.

Whether or not the ruling classes help create a pluralistic social order would depend on what is their vision of the society and what institutions they create to resolve conflicts and help create a pluralistic social order. To gauge their capacity we need to look at their own socialisation or social learning. In the end it is culture of our ruling elites and their being insensitive or sensitive to larger question of social injustice violence against women, religious minorities that would increase tolerance or intolerance.

Our debate about the failure of the state in dealing with religious, ethnic and sectarian violence often revolves around its capacities. That is true, but not enough an explanation. The general mindset of three major groups that I have referred to above and their attitudes, values and orientation toward accommodation of difference need to be looked at closely to understand ineffectiveness of the government.

Intolerance stems from arrogance, from a belief that a person’s religion and ideology are true while all else is false. But above all intolerance grows from an individual taking responsibility for scrutinising and guarding the beliefs and practices of other and passing a final judgement on them.

The numbers of men and women who think it is their primary religious duty to make other Muslims believe and behave like them seem to be growing. They are possessed with an artificial sense of certitude, authenticity and being on the right-path to influence others’ religious and social choices.

A good number of them have become self-appointed soldiers of God, His judges and executioners. Violence motivated by sectarian considerations is not so infrequent and takes many forms of humiliation, physical assault and target killings of prominent individuals—religious scholars, professionals and community leaders of rival sects.

Religion is part of life and society and will remain so even in post-industrial societies, though it may take different forms. Religion has a great value in answering questions about the mystery of existence and giving a positive and purposive direction to a person’s life.

But we cannot rely on religion alone to create a peaceful, orderly and tolerant society. An individual made up of greed, ambitions and lust for power cannot be tamed by religious values alone. This role has to be played by the state through its strong arm of law. But then, law cannot be strong enough without the rule of law. Here we are back to the basics.

Never will intolerance and violence disappear from Pakistani or any society for that matter with sermons, speeches and florid statement of religious and political leaders. We must start a reform process in the governance, accountability of ruling political groups that have alternated in power.

We need to build tolerance by reforming the education system. A public education system that functions and has quality and public trust will go a long way toward cultivating young persons in modern values of respecting diversity and an opposite point of view.

The process of promoting social change and cultivating modern rational attitudes of tolerance of difference is a long-term developmental issue. No matter how difficult and long this social journey might be but we must set ourselves on this path by investing more in social development and by making calculated interventions through law and public policy into the structures of our social and political life.

Tolerance is dependent on culture, religious orientations and general social framework of the society. Our tradition cultural values both in social and religious realms were tolerant of other communities and accorded respect to the beliefs and practices of other religions and sects within Islam.

Unfortunately, the traditional social pluralism has been under constant threat for the last thirty years mainly because of militancy among some of the religious sects. This trends must be reversed, but it is not going to happen without major reforms, good political, better governance and rule of law regime.

Dr Rasul Bakhsh Rais is author of “Recovering the Frontier State: War, Ethnicity and State in Afghanistan” (Oxford University Press, 2008) and a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at rasul@lums.edu.pk (Daily Times)

Read more...

In defence of Murree Brewery

Unhappy hours
Posted by Nadeem F. Paracha (Dawn Blogs)

I have been fortunate enough to travel across Europe and much of Asia in the last seven years. One learns so much by engaging with a variety of cultures, cuisines and people, but, at least with me, there always comes a time (as a visitor in a foreign country), when I start craving good old Pakistani/Indian food.

In 2005, while traveling across Holland, Germany and France, the pangs and cravings for desi food struck me in the middle of a busy shopping district in Paris. Luckily, almost at once I was able to spot a restaurant whose doorman was dressed in a traditional Pushtun dress. I don’t exactly remember the name of the place, but on inquiry, I was told it was owned by two middle-aged gentlemen - one an Indian (from Bangalore), and the other a Pakistani (from Lahore).

What’s more, the waiters too were a colorful sub-continental mix: Pakistanis, Indians and Bangladeshis. It was a fantastic environment, and I was able to speak Urdu/Hindi for the first time during my brief stay in a city where people even struggled with English. It was a joy looking at a menu that I could actually understand.

After ordering some biryani, nihari and a couple of rotis, I turned to the drinks section in the menu. I was delighted to note that the restaurant was also offering Indian beer, which I ordered right away

Lighting myself a cigarette, I waited in enthusiastic anticipation. It took just five minutes for the waiter to bring in the beer and lo and behold! I looked at the bottle and it was Murree Beer!

It was a pleasant little surreal moment discovering Pakistani beer in Paris. I at once called back the waiter and asked him what was the name of a Pakistani beer brand doing under ‘Indian Beers’ on the menu?

The middle-aged man was from Pakistan (Punjab), and he gave me a puzzled look: ‘Sorry, what did you say?’ he politely asked.

From Urdu, I switched to Punjabi: ‘Friend, this is a Pakistani beer brand …’

But before I could continue he interrupted: ‘Sir, goras (Caucasians) usually ask for Indian beer … you want an Indian brand?’

‘Absolutely not!’ I said. ‘I love Indian beer, but Murree has its moments too. Ask your bosses to put it under the heading of ‘Pakistani Beer,’ will you?’

Murree Beer is made by Murree Brewery Co., Pakistan’s oldest (and now only), tax-paying brewery. It was established in 1860 near the famous resort town of Murree in the Punjab province of what is now Pakistan. In the 1920s, the brewery was moved to Rawalpindi where it still stands. In the 1960s, Murree, which until then was famous for its beers, introduced Malt Whisky, and by the early 1970s, Murree was also producing vodka and gin.

Before prohibition on the public sale of alcohol was imposed in Pakistan in April 1977, various foreign whisky and beer brands were available in bars, liquor shops and clubs in the main urban areas of the country; but Murree remained to be the leading (and most affordable) brand.

In fact its popularity (especially among young urban middle-class Pakistanis) was such that it started to advertise its beer in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Hoardings and billboards carrying images of Murree Beer went up, mostly in Karachi, with the biggest being a neon sign put on top of a six-storied building in Karachi’s Lucky Star area in the shopping vicinity of Saddar. This sign was also stoned and damaged by a passing procession of the fundamentalist Jamat-i-Islami supporters during the 1970 election campaign.

In the 1970s, Murree was competing with various imported beer and whisky brands, but it continued to do well because it was mostly catering to a growing middle-class market to whom imported alcoholic brands were an expensive luxury. There were a few other local brands as well, but none of them survived the ban on alcohol that was, ironically, imposed by the secular government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in April 1977.

Though voted into power through a free and fair general elections in 1970, by 1977 Bhutto was facing a full-fledged protest movement led by a coalition (PNA) of anti-PPP parties. The leading PNA parties were all conservative politico-religious groups - (i.e Jamat-i-Islami, Jamiat Ulema Islam and Jamiat Ulema Pakistan) - all of whom had taken to the streets after accusing the Bhutto regime of rigging the 1977 elections.

PNA protests were mostly driven by right-wing students, small traders and shopkeepers, supported by industrialists many of whom had been bitten by the Bhutto regime’s ‘socialist’ policies between 1971 and 1974. The bourgeois and the petty-bourgeois youth who had overwhelmingly supported the PPP’s socialist promises in the late 1960s and early 1970s, had now turned rightwards, looking for ‘Islamic laws’ (Shariah), which the anti-Bhutto alliance promised to implement.

In the many anti-Bhutto rallies in Karachi and Lahore, protesters also attacked bars, nightclubs, wine shops and cinemas, denouncing them as symbols of the ‘unIslamic Bhutto regime.’

PNA leadership maintained that not only had the Bhutto regime’s socialism undermined Islamic culture and law, it had also failed to offer equality and relief to the poor. The PNA leaders insisted that only Shariah could guarantee justice and economic wellbeing to the poor – even though, ironically, the PNA alliance and movement was being financed by a number of anti-Bhutto industrialists and, as some political commentators claimed, by theJimmy Carter government in Washington with which Bhutto had had a falling out over Pakistan’s then nascent nuclear ambitions.

Fearing a toppling and, more so, a military coup by the Army, Bhutto decided to hold talks with PNA leaders and if need be, hold fresh elections. For this he also agreed to close down the nightclubs, bars and wine shops, outlaw gambling, and declare the Muslim holy day of Friday as a weekly holiday instead of Sunday.

But just as a compromise between Bhutto and PNA was in sight, Bhutto’s own hand-picked General, Muhamad Ziaul Haq, toppled the regime in a military coup and imposed Martial Law on 5th July, 1977.

An admirer of conservative Islamic scholar and Jamat-i-Islami chief, Maoulana Abul Ala Moududdi, Zia declared that it would be he who will give Pakistan a Nizam-e-Mustapha.

Zia used ‘Islamization’ as a political process. His puritanical and at the same time Machiavellian interpretation of Islam had contributed considerably to the rise of fundamentalism, obscurantism and retrogression.

Obviously, the ban on alcohol stayed put but Zia added severe punishments (for Muslims) on selling and consuming alcohol. The non-Muslim Pakistanis now required a license to buy alcohol, which nonetheless was allowed to be sold (only to non-Muslims) in ‘licensed wine shops’ mainly in Karachi, the interior of Sindh and Islamabad.

Apart from the fact that more than 90 per cent of the customers of these ‘legal wine shops’ were Muslims, the 1980s and 1990s also saw a dramatic rise in cases of heroin and tranquilizer addiction. What’s more, though quality Murree brands are available in these shops, their prices have risen, leaving many lower-middle and ‘underclass’ Pakistanis consuming inferior and dangerous ‘home made’ alcoholic beverages sold by shady bootlegging mafias operating in improvished areas of urban Pakistan.

Also, ever since the ban on alcohol, liquor smugglers and dealers have been turning a profit with contraband alcohol. Trucks bring vodka in from China across the mountains along the country’s northern border, while ships unload cargos of beer and Scotch whiskey from Europe on its southern coast.

Though the disruptive growth of heroin and bootlegging mafias has been a natural consequence of the long ban, the irony is, ever since the 1980s, the number of chronic alcoholics in Pakistan has almost quadrupled.

On the other hand, though there were no heroin addicts in Pakistan until the late 1970s (the first registered case was reported in 1979), by 1985 Pakistan had the second largest population of heroin addicts.

Also, today there are more alcoholics in Pakistan than ever before – an emergence that has triggered the opening of various privately run alcohol detox centers in the country’s main cities.



Murree Brewery is one of the biggest tax-paying companies in Pakistan. Ever since 1977, it has survived the various waves of imposed piety and convoluted expresssions of state-sanctioned ‘Islam’, which, on most occasions, has only managed to spell political, cultural and even spiritual disaster in Pakistan.

Most Pakistanis usually remain silent on the issue of the ban on alcohol and the mostly negative affects that this ban has had on a society in which the consumption of alcohol (among large sections across all classes in both urban and rural areas) remains to be a common occurrence and habit.

Of course, the conservative elements simply refuse to look for a more moderate solution, whereas others have suggested that the lifting of the ban will not only gradually rid the country of bootleggiong and heroin mafias, the rate of alcoholism and the deaths and disease caused by inferior quality liquor in the large shanty towns of the country will come down as well.

The truth is, if the risk of being lashed, getting arrested or harassed by the police didn’t stop so many Pakistanis from getting a drink during the oppressive Zia years, why would they stop now? There will always be a lot of Pakistanis who will continue to drink and this should be left as a matter between them and God. The state or any self-claimed imposer of ‘God’s writ on Earth’ should remain away from an issue that has only been complicated and disruptively manhandled in the name of both law and faith.

Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.
Read more...

Pakistani Christians fear more extremist attacks

Thursday, 08 Oct, 2009 (Dawn)

A man stands guard at the door to a church in Gojra.— Photo by AFP

GOJRA: Almas Hameed lost seven relatives when an angry mob burnt down his home in a rampage against Pakistan’s minority Christian community and lives in fear that more violence is looming.

Standing in the wreckage of his home in Gojra in Pakistan’s political heartland of Punjabnearly two months after bloody riots left more than 40 houses torched, he recalls the moment his family died.

‘We were hiding in our bedroom after our father was killed by gunfire. But they did not leave us — they threw chemicals to burn the whole family,’ he told AFP.

‘I lost my wife, two children, father, brother, sister-in-law and her mother in the attack,’ he said showing photos of his loved ones.

‘We are not safe here, we are hiding from extremists who want to eliminate us from this town... We are still receiving calls from the extremists, they frequently give us death threats,’ said Hameed.

Gojra, 50 kilometres from industrial hub Faisalabad, was until recently famous only for producing a number of hockey stars, with no history of tensions between the 495,000 Muslims and 35,000 Christians.

But on August 1, a mob set upon Christian homes and churches, after rumours spread that pages of the Koran had been ripped up at a Christian wedding.

The exact trigger of the deadly rampage remains unclear, but a report by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and witnesses said that local mosques were spreading rumours.

‘There is a group of extremists promoting a violent version of Islam which is dangerous for the country,’ said the Bishop of Faisalabad Joseph Coutts.

Tensions and fears escalated on September 11 when about 100 people, mostly youths, attacked a Catholic church in Sambrial district near the Indian border after accusing a Christian man, Fanish Masih, of desecrating the Koran.

Masih was arrested under the country’s controversial blasphemy law but died in Sialkot jail. Police said he committed suicide but the community blames police torture for the death.

Christians, who make up less than three per cent of Pakistan’s 167 million population and are generally impoverished and marginalised, claim the blasphemy laws are used as an excuse to victimise them.

The law was introduced by former military ruler Zia ul-Haq, who passed tough Islamic legislation and whose rule from 1977-1988 was seen as critical in the development of extremist Islam in parts of Pakistan.

The blasphemy law carries the death penalty, although no one has yet been executed for the crime. Human rights activists want the legislation repealed, saying it is exploited and encourages extremism.

The government is at pains to play down the tensions amid heightened fears of widening unrest in a country already troubled by an insurgency by religious hardliners, and is trying to reassure the Christian community.

Shahbaz Sharif, chief minister of Punjab province and brother of opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, ordered reconstruction of the Christian homes and dozens of Muslim labourers are engaged in rebuilding the houses.

Kamran Michael, provincial minister for minorities affairs, said nearly 2.5 million dollars had been allocated for the rebuilding.

‘We will make sure that peace returns to the area,’ said Michael, himself a Christian.

Despite government assurances, Hameed and his fellow Christians remain fearful, and doubt the government can guarantee their safety.

‘Our Muslim friends are also helpless, they express their sympathies by telephone but they are conscious that their contacts with us will create problems and extremists would declare them non-Muslims,’ Hameed said.

Father Shabir, a priest in Gojra, said he just wanted the community to be able to live without fear that the blasphemy laws could be used against them.

‘The government is trying hard to normalise the situation, but we are not safe until they take concrete steps to protect us,’ he said.

Talat Masood, a well-known analyst, said tensions between the communities had risen since the US-led ‘war on terror,’ but believes the Gojra riots did not symbolise a deep-rooted hatred between Muslims and Christians.

‘It is more dictated by economic considerations like property disputes or the forcible sale and purchase of land,’ he said, adding that the blasphemy laws were often used to exploit Christians for financial gain.— AFP

Read more...

"Islam khatray main hay" Islam is in danger.

A critical column by Hasan Nisar

Read more...

Ahmedi-baiting in Lahore

Ahmedi-baiting: ridiculous or tragic?

The 20 shopkeepers of Green Town in Lahore have been advised to remove any Quranic verses from their shops simply to avoid bloody mayhem, given the atmosphere of extremism in the country. The shopkeepers are Ahmedis who represent the cluster of 200 houses belonging to the community in the nearby Township area. Some of them have written verses from the Quran (like the kalima) on the front of their shops and houses.

The Ahmedis complain that the Sunni shopkeepers had gone to the police in the matter out of business jealousy. They say the verses had stayed written on their houses and shops for many years. But the stark fact is that under the Constitution and the laws framed in line with an amendment made in it, the Ahmedis are not even allowed to show respect towards Islamic symbols. They have been declared non-Muslims but with the distinction that while other non-Muslims can show respect, they cannot.

Outsiders will regard this as ridiculous or even funny, but in Pakistan this is a deadly serious matter. People have died for it, and angry organisations with global connections are calling for more drastic action against the Ahmedis every day. The application to the police against the Ahmedis has been moved in the name of the International Majlis Khatm-e-Nabuwwat. The police in the area of Green Town cannot wave the affair away.

According to Section 298-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the Ahmedi community cannot call its place of worship a masjid and cannot give the call to prayer (azan). According to Section 298-C of the PPC, they cannot pose as Muslims, directly or indirectly. There was this extremely absurd incident of an Ahmedi being hauled up for having written the kalima on the house that he had just bought; but he was hauled up again, for desecration, when he tried to wipe it off. (Daily Times)

Read more...

State and ethnic conflict in Pakistan --- Dr Rubina Saigol

State and ethnic conflict

Monday, September 28, 2009 Dr Rubina Saigol The writer is an independent researcher specialising in social development In a highly centralised and authoritarian state, the rights of the federating units tend to be undermined. The issue of provincial autonomy has acquired added urgency in the face of simmering discontent and alienation among the provinces against the monopolisation of power and resources by the centre. The state in Pakistan has engaged in prolonged and serious conflicts with four out of five of its original units because of the denial of provincial autonomy. When the state was initially imagined, a federal structure was envisaged. The Pakistan Resolution of 1940 declared that “areas in which the Muslims are numerically in majority as in the North-Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign.” Maximum autonomy and sovereign control were inherent in the very foundation of the new state. However, increasing centralisation led to the construction of a state that was severely distorted. Religious nationalism, which in the struggle for Pakistan was a unifying force, had outgrown its validity once Pakistan was created. As Hamza Alavi points out, “the moment that Pakistan was established, Muslim nationalism in India had fulfilled itself and outlived its purpose. Now there was a fresh equation of privilege and deprivation to be reckoned with in the new state. Virtually overnight there were ethnic redefinitions. Punjabis who were the most numerous could boast of a greater percentage of people with higher education and were most firmly entrenched in both the army (being 85 per cent of the armed forces) and the bureaucracy. They were the new bearers of privilege, the true ‘Muslim’ for whom Pakistan was created. The weaker ‘salariats’ of Bengal, Sindh, Sarhad and Balochistan did not share this and accordingly they redefined their identities as Bengalis, Sindhis, Pathans and Baloch who now demanded fairer shares for themselves.” The authoritarian state attempted national integration through the use of religion in an attempt to weaken language-based ethnic nationalism. For example, Ayub Khan declared in 1962 that “it is immaterial whether you are a Bengali or a Sindhi, a Balochi or a Pathan or a Punjabi – we are all knit together by the bond of Islam.” The sense of deprivation and anger among the federating units began as early as the 50s when the language conflict broke out over Urdu being declared the national language despite Bengali representing the language of the majority. Moreover, the foreign exchange earnings from East Pakistani jute went into the development of West Pakistan while the Eastern half was deprived of development. The economic disparities were such that when Ayub Khan seized power in 1958, the per capita income differential between the two wings was 30 per cent. By the end of the first five-year plan in 1965, this difference increased to 45 per cent and by the time of Ayub Khan’s removal in 1968, it had grown to 61 per cent. The West Pakistani rulers were unwilling to share power with East Pakistanis or recognise them as equals. When the Awami League won 151 out 153 national assembly seats in the 1970 elections, the military and civilian rulers of West Pakistan refused to transfer power to the legally elected party. A reign of terror was unleashed on East Pakistan, the leaders were declared traitors and conspirators, and finally the Punjab-dominated army committed untold atrocities upon the Bengalis leading to a resistance movement which culminated with the separation of East Pakistan from its exploitative western wing. In West Pakistan, the creation of one-unit in 1955 led to the fear of erasure of cultural and ethnic identities among the units. Balochistan, where the Shahi Jirga had voted to join Pakistan, was repeatedly denied its just share and rights in the new federation. There were resistance movements in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s. In the 70s, an armed movement began in which combat helicopters were used against 55,000 Baloch guerillas fighting 80,000 troops. Around 15,000 Baloch were killed in the army action. In 2004, the military built cantonments and resistance against militarisation by the centre led to the death of Nawab Akbar Bugti and seething resentment against the centre. The capture of Baloch resources such as gas, zinc, gold, copper and marble, and the failure to pay just royalty have led to alienation among Baloch youth who have joined liberation movements. The disparities are glaring: the per capita income of Balochis is 60 per cent of Punjabis and their representation in civil services is around one fourth compared to other provinces. The literacy rate is the lowest in Pakistan while its share of industrialisation in the 80s was 0.7 per cent. In recent times, the largest number of missing people was from Balochistan. The state was once again embroiled in violent conflicts in the decades of the 80s and 90s in Sindh. August-December 1983 saw a massive civil disobedience movement in Sindh, during which several activists courted arrest and risked imprisonment and state violence. Helicopter gunships were used by the military to suppress the revolt in which hundreds were killed and wounded. Selig Harrison reports that in this uprising, 45,000 Punjabi troops faced make-shift Sindhi guerilla outfits and the Sindhi death toll came to 300 people. According to Shahid Kardar, “the alleged death of 50 students at the Thori Railway crossing and the horror of the action taken to suppress the Sindhis in 1986 have left very deep wounds in Sindh.” Sindh contributes 67 per cent of the national revenue and receives roughly only 23 per cent as its share in the NFC award. The tail-end of the Indus receives so little water in the IRSA system that Sindh’s agriculture is threatened with extinction. The insistence of Punjab that the Kalabagh Dam should be constructed is yet another wound that threatens violence in this historically peaceful and tolerant land of Sufi saints. In the 90s, Karachi saw a prolonged conflict between the state and the Urdu-speaking Mohajirs with crimes committed by all sides in the conflict. Even though the Sindh Assembly was the first to vote to join Pakistan, Sindhis have not received their due share and rights as the province that feeds the country. The latest conflict is the military action in Pakhtoonkhwa to root out militants created and nurtured by the state itself. Scores of civilians have been killed by both the military and militants. Pakhtoonkhwa too has historical grievances. Its leaders were declared traitors for their commitment to peace and composite nationalism. It has not received just royalty for its water resources, and its objections to the Kalabagh Dam are ignored by Punjab. The intransigent attitude of Punjab in objecting to the change of name to Pakhtoonkhwa can have serious consequences for a state locked in struggles with its units. The ethnic and linguistic sharing of identities across the Durand Line can ultimately challenge the integrity of a state perpetually at war with itself. A highly centralised state has suppressed the unique and multiple identities of the federating units. There is a long concurrent legislative list that encroaches upon provincial rights. The only way for the state to survive is to recognise the rights of the sovereign and autonomous units and, with the exception of defence, foreign affairs, currency and communication all subjects should be in the provincial list only. The NFC award needs to be based on multiple criteria including under-development, population and revenue generation. The lower riparian should receive its just share of the waters of the Indus river. Until the state dismantles its colonial structure of exploiting the units as colonies, conflict and insecurity are likely to persist. Email: rubinasaigol@hotmail.com

Read more...

Religion, Politics and Minorities in Pakistan

Religion and politics

Rubina Saigol Monday, September 21, 2009 The writer is an independent researcher specialising in social development In the past few months, there has been a noticeable increase in religiously-motivated violence against minority communities, especially in Punjab. The most recent case is that of 20-year-old Robert Fanish Masih, whose mysterious death in the Sialkot district jail, where he was interned after accusations of defiling the Holy Quran, raises serious suspicions of foul play and murder. According to a press release by the Joint Action Committee, this incident is reminiscent of an earlier one in which Muhammad Yousaf, also accused of committing blasphemy, was found dead in jail and the authorities declared it to be a case of suicide. Cases of murderous attacks against Christians by frenzied mobs have risen at an alarming rate. In March, a Christian woman was killed in Gujranwala where a church was attacked. On June 30, a mob destroyed more than 50 Christian houses in Bahmaniwala in Kasur district and looted and plundered the village. And on July 30, seven people were brutally murdered in the Gojra carnage. The typical pattern in many of these cases is an accusation (usually false) of the commission of blasphemy by a rival. This is normally followed by announcements from mosques loudspeakers inciting people who then congregate and turn upon their own neighbours and erstwhile friends. As pointed out by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, the local administration and police often collude with the perpetrators or, at best, stand by and do nothing, themselves fearful of the mob. The state becomes an onlooker instead of intervening to protect its powerless citizens against the heinous crimes committed in broad daylight. As the large number of blasphemy cases in the past have demonstrated, the real motive for instigating the crowd often has nothing to do with blasphemy. Frequently, disputes over money, property or other pecuniary matters lead to false accusations of blasphemy. An accusation of blasphemy is invariably deployed as a weapon to browbeat others into submission. In the famous case of Salamat Masih, a 14-year-old accused of writing blasphemous words on a wall, the quarrel among children started over pigeon fights. Had human rights activists like Asma Jahangir not saved his life, our state was about to send an innocent person – a child – to the gallows. The horrific implications of law cannot be overstated. What has enabled religion to be used as a weapon to incite raw passions against fellow citizens to murder them with impunity? The immediate cause is the pernicious and widely abused blasphemy law as enunciated in Chapter XV of the Pakistan Penal Code. Sections 295 to 298 of the chapter refer to offences related to religion. Section 295 provides that, “Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.” In 1927, the British government added 295-A which reads that “whoever with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of His Majesty’s subjects, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” In 1991, the imprisonment term was extended from two to 10 years. In 1982, at the peak of General Zia’s period, 295-B was added to include the desecration of the Holy Quran and to enhance punishment. This section reads as follows: “Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom, or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.” The Majlis-e-Shoora designed by Zia further added 295-C, which reads: “Whoever by word, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” In 1990, the Federal Shariat Court constituted by Zia hammered the last nail in the coffin of sanity and justice by declaring that Islam provides punishment for hadd which is mandatory, therefore the words “imprisonment for life” should be removed from Section 295-C. Now, the only punishment for blasphemy was death. Section 298 relates to the Ahmadiyya community and institutionalises systemic prejudice against their right to practice their faith. Before the Federal Shariat Court provided for the mandatory death penalty, no case of blasphemy was registered under Section 295-B or 295-C. This judgment paved the way for murder and created the environment in which vigilantism was encouraged and promoted. Manzoor Masih lost his life in a wanton act of murder outside the Lahore High Court. One of the court’s judges, Justice Arif Bhatti, who overturned the conviction of Salamat and Rehmat Masih by a lower court, was murdered by the purveyors of a grotesquely distorted religion. Niamat Ahmar, a poet and teacher, was butchered in Faisalabad by activists of the Sipah-e-Sahab-e-Pakistan; Bantu Masih and Mukhtar Masih were killed in police custody by fundamentalists while the authorities looked on. In 2008, two Ahmadis were murdered when a television anchor declared their community wajib-ul-qatl (deserving to be killed). How has the state enabled this travesty of justice, this steady descent into inhumanity? The blasphemy law is only a part of the story; the issue of religious inequality and discrimination is much deeper. The entire problem began with the Objectives Resolution of 1949 when the state began to move in the direction of a theocracy. Its passage, despite the objections of the non-Muslim members of the Constituent Assembly, became possible because Jinnah’s vision, as outlined on August 11, 1947, was overlooked. Subsequently, every Constitution of Pakistan (1956, 1962 and 1973) carried a section on Islamic provisions which mandated that all laws would be enacted in line with religion. Religious discrimination and inequality are institutionalised within the state structure. Article 2 of the Constitution declares that Islam is the state religion and Article 2-A makes the Objectives Resolution a substantive part of the Constitution. Non-Muslim citizens cannot hold two of the highest offices of the land and Islamic provisions of the Constitution (Articles 227-230) are designed to ensure that all laws conform to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. Citizens belonging to other faiths are systemically excluded and relegated to a secondary position. The increasingly religious character of the Constitution, with General Zia’s Eighth Amendment protecting his draconian vision and measures, violates the principle of equal citizenship on which the entire edifice of democracy rests. Every provision that reduces the citizenship status of groups of people contradicts Article 25 (1) of the fundamental rights chapter which pronounces that all citizens are equal before the law. Similarly, Article 8 (1) avers that any law, custom or usage that is inconsistent with the rights conferred by this chapter shall be null and void. It follows that all the provisions that create discrimination and inequality among citizens should be removed. As Pakistanis focus on the task of reformulating their basic law and re-imagining their state, it seems prudent to separate religion from politics, as their mixture debases both religion and politics – the former by associating it purely with the attainment of political power and militant activity, the latter by making some more equal than others. Merely repealing the blasphemy law is not sufficient; we need to transform the basic framework from which such laws flow. Email: rubinasaigol@hotmail.com (The News) Looking for justice —Syed Mansoor Hussain The ultimate conundrum is that if a Christian is asked the question, do you believe that the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) was a Prophet and the Quran is the word of God, the believing Christians must say no, and if they say that, under the law are they not guilty of blasphemy and have committed a capital offence Last week I had hinted that I might write about how Muslim Americans have become discriminated pariahs in the US after 9/11. But then something at home forced me to concentrate on what is happening to minorities in Pakistan. Indeed in comparison it almost made me feel better about how we as Muslims are being treated in the US. The Gojra carnage that has mysteriously disappeared from public perception and our news channels and newspapers is just one thing. More recently, a young Christian boy arrested for blasphemy died in jail, the ‘authorities’ insisting that it was a suicide. Sure! And then the story broke about the case of a ‘mentally retarded’ woman who has languished in custody for thirteen years after being accused of blasphemy but was never presented in court. This woman has been officially declared as somebody probably incapable of even understanding the meaning of blasphemy and yet remained incarcerated for all this time without judicial review. “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan.” That is what Jinnah said sixty-two years ago to the people of Pakistan but today the very same people who shout the loudest about Jinnah and his legacy are the ones that ignore his words. Almost two decades ago when democracy had just returned to Pakistan after a rather egregious military dictatorship, Pakistani Americans had a series of seminars in New York City to discuss what needed to be done in Pakistan to strengthen democracy. Platitudes galore! However, one almost offhand remark about the state of minorities in Pakistan during one such ‘seminar’ remains stuck in my mind. Somebody brought up the fact that the Pakistani flag has a white part representing minorities and therefore minorities are an important and protected part of our national heritage. But then an obviously ‘liberal’ cynic pointed out that after all Pakistanis needed some part of the flag to drive the pole through. Of course what he said sounds a lot more ‘descriptive’ in Punjabi. As I sit here today thinking about how our minorities, especially the Christians are being treated in ‘modern’ Pakistan, that remark reverberates ever so much in my mind. However, historically the Pakistani establishment has never been kind to minorities. The Ahmadiyya community was targeted during the agitation in 1953 and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto the secularist declared them non-Muslims twenty years later under religious pressure. Even the Shia have been, and still are, under threat. Fortunately for the Shia they are much too large a community and too integrated to be easily separated and targeted except in discrete areas of the country. Perhaps some of my readers might even remember a time not too long ago when Shia doctors were being killed just because they were Shia. Interestingly, some of them were killed just because they had Shia-sounding names, so much so that Shia doctors and even some with Shia-sounding names began to leave Pakistan. Of the minorities, most of the Sikhs left Pakistan at the time of partition as did most Hindus with a few staying behind, mostly in Sindh. During the first few decades of Pakistan, the Christian community was an important and fully integrated part of the national fabric. There was a thriving ‘Anglo’ community in Lahore that I remember well and many Christians held important positions as educators, civil servants and members of the armed forces. But everything started to change after the “enlightened” days of Islamisation. Most, if not all, of those that could afford it among the Christians, the Ahmadis and even the Parsees left Pakistan for western countries. Sadly, of the Christians left behind the majority now belongs to the poorer classes and therefore is most vulnerable. The recent spate of violence against the Christian community is not entirely about religious extremism and an excess of ‘Islamist’ zeal. I personally believe that after the Taliban and their supporters became isolated and unpopular due to attacks on other Muslims, they have changed tactics. Any radical organisation needs to keep its base involved and fired up and since attacks that killed other Muslims became undesirable, the Christian community has become an easy and obvious target. Considering the political and bureaucratic indifference to these attacks, this strategy of attacking Christians seems to be paying off. It provides the Taliban types with enough ‘face time’ on TV and in newspapers and keeps their radical base involved and active. Unfortunately many in our bureaucracy, among the politicians as well as in our lower judiciary are either entirely intimidated by, or else agree with, the Islamist types and therefore do not pursue cases against them to bring them to justice. The ‘apologists’ for the Taliban types keep repeating the mantra that Islam is a tolerant religion and as such the violence aimed at Christians or even against Muslims could not possibly be the work of real Muslims. Who then were the people that burned houses and residents in Gojra or recently blew up a hotel in Kohat? Are they not Muslims and are they not doing whatever they are doing in the name of Islam? The ultimate conundrum is that if a Christian is asked the question, do you believe that the Prophet of Islam (pbuh) was a Prophet and the Quran is the word of God, the believing Christians must say no, and if they say that, under the law are they not guilty of blasphemy and have committed a capital offence? And that is my question to the powers that be. What is more important when it comes to the survival of the federation, the price of sugar or the legally sanctioned killing of non-Muslims just because they believe in their faith as we do in ours? Syed Mansoor Hussain has practised and taught medicine in the US. He can be reached at smhmbbs70@yahoo.com (Daily Times)

Read more...

Mental gymnastics and ‘scientific facts’ in religious text

Smokers’ Corner: The great caving in

By Nadeem F. Paracha
Sunday, 20 Sep, 2009 (Dawn)

'Modern-day religious programming which claims to use scholarly insights to close the gap between religion and modernity, usually end up making religion seem anything but compatible with contemporary society.'

Only a few days ago, while channel surfing on a slow-moving evening, I came across a show where an ‘alim’ and his ‘scholar’ guest were discussing the Islamic edicts on the issue of wife-beating.

As the ‘scholar’ insisted that the husband could use whatever degree of violence on a ‘disrespectful wife,’ the host, who usually applauds the most reactionary notions about religion, was, this time, left gulping; perhaps conscious that his own wife might be watching this circus. He tried to soften the scholar’s blow by suggesting that ‘there’s a whole procedure to this,’ but the guest just kept at it.

It was a classic example of modern-day religious programming which claims to use scholarly insights to close the gap between religion and modernity, but usually ends up opening various Pandora’s boxes whose awkward and medieval contents make religion seem anything but compatible with contemporary society.

The question is, why discuss such topics? We know that many a divine revelation has passages that modernist Islamic scholars have been grappling with for years, arguing that these need to be understood allegorically and in the historical context in which they appeared instead of discussing them as if the dynamics of society were still ruled by medieval impulses.

These TV shows claim to be making faith and its edicts ‘easy to live by in the modern world,’ but the fact is they only manage to add another suffocating layer of social cumbersomeness that is found in societies (like Pakistan) that always seem busy shakily trying to balance religious literalism with modern materialism.

The results of such a balancing act are not exactly an enlightening synthesis, but rather, an intellectual exhaustion that leaves society collapsing inwards. Its habitants then emerge sounding either suspicious (giving vent to conspiracy theories about imagined attacks on their beliefs), or somewhat deluded (they start flaunting grandiose, even xenophobic, ideas about the perceived superiority of their faith.

Maybe the most obvious reason behind such an existentialist collapse is that in societies where religion is dragged in as an ever-present social, political and personal facet, the weight of such an act (especially in a modern setting) is that people simply cave in. In their lethargy, they are thus left thinking more about afterlife, rather than energetically engaging with what they have as life here and now.

Mine is an objective enquiry that gets even more urgent when I see TV programming also trying to insist that whatever major scientific discoveries took place in the 20th century were already present in the holy book. My friend Fasi Zaka is right to wish that people would stop saying this because, for example, no one has been able to find a cure for malaria or chickenpox so far even though, as an article of faith, many Muslims may believe that it is there.

As well-known Islamic scholars like Professor Ziauddin Sardar, Muhammad Arkoun and scientists such as Professor Pervez Hoodboy suggest, it requires considerable mental gymnastics and distortions to find ‘scientific facts’ in religious text.

Yet such tendencies have become a lucrative fad. Bookshops overflow with such literature; television preachers talk endlessly about how many different scientific theories can be found in the holy book, only after they have been touted by scientists! Numerous websites are devoted to explaining the phenomenon. Prof Sardar laments: 'The underlying message of these theories is that all the science you need is in the holy text — no need to get your hands dirty in a lab or work within mainstream theories.'

The emergence of such fads and theories, too, is maybe a fallout of the existentialist caving in of Muslim societies. In their introversion, they have also become intellectually lazy, on the one hand, refusing to contextualise medieval laws based on 8th and 9th century man-made traditions, and on the other, using convoluted pseudo-sciences (based on imaginative whims rather than hard scientific facts) to match the West’s claim to modern scientific dominance.

What most cranks in this respect never tell their gullible audiences however is that long before Muslims started claiming ‘scientific truths in the holy book’, Hindus and Christians had already covered this tricky territory. For example, Hindu fundamentalists claimed that what progress science had achieved was already reflected in Hindu sacred texts. They were quoting examples like 'Pushpakavimana' mentioned in Ramayana, when Harun Yayah was most probably in his shorts.

Read more...

The enigma of Sonia Gandhi

Sunday, September 20, 2009 Aakar Patel No leader in the world is like Sonia Gandhi. She is a European leading a major Asian power. A Roman Catholic, and perhaps a practising one though she makes no display of her faith, in a nation that is dominant Hindu and Muslim. She has the sort of power in her country that few leaders in the west have. And though they do not seem keen to own her, not since Mussolini and perhaps not even since the Caesars has an Italian individual been this powerful. Sonia isn't properly educated, but is seen by India's middle-class as quite sophisticated. There isn't any evidence to show that she's well- read either, but her manner is refined, even reginal. She met her husband Rajiv Gandhi at Cambridge, though she wasn't at the university. She was taking English language lessons at a school, having come there from her home in Italy. Rajiv was attending Trinity, and said in a famous interview that he had 'flunked out' without a degree. Their son Rahul attended Trinity, and passed. Sonia was 19 when she met Rajiv and 22 when they married. He was only a couple of years older, and so it must have been a partnership of equals, particularly because Rajiv was relaxed and not chauvinistic. Within months of their meeting, Indira Gandhi became prime minister of India. Sonia's English isn't particularly good. This was noticeable last week when she inaugurated an institute raised by the software firm Infosys, in the southern city of Mysore. She meant to tell the audience that she was happy to get away from Delhi, and all the trouble that her job in politics brought her, but what came out was gibberish. She isn't good at Hindi either, though she has improved her control over it since she began speaking it publicly a decade ago. Certainly she speaks it better than Europeans who have been in India for much longer, like Mark Tully, or people who have dug into our culture more, like the author William Dalrymple. Most of the time she speaks precisely and unambiguously, like a European and unlike Indian politicians. When she talks as a leader, she uses the modest 'hum' referring to the collective, rather than herself. She is always deferential to the prime minister in public, and you can see that she's also quite fond of the old man (he's 77), which is unusual given that they share power. Sonia has been around power for a long time, over 40 years, so it must be second nature to her. Her mother-in-law was murdered in 1984, when Sonia was 38. She was the wife to India's prime minister, and it came to light that for many years after her marriage she had not taken Indian citizenship but retained her Italian passport (which she later gave up). She was widowed at 45 when Rajiv was murdered in 1991. She has raised her children well. They are independent and do not lean on their family identity beyond a point. And they are quite charming. Both are handsome and that's not surprising given how attractive their father was. Rahul is unexcitable and persistent rather than charismatic, and that is a very good thing for India. Priyanka is charismatic, and will come under pressure to join politics because crowds love her. For eight years or so after her husband died, Sonia only played the widow. She took no part in electoral politics, when the Congress under Narasimha Rao ruled between 1991 (when Rajiv died) and 1996. She also sat out the next couple of years while the party was restive under its new head, an old-style back-room leader called Sitaram Kesri. As the party began to wilt under the BJP's disciplined expansion and the rise of the peasants in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, she accepted the pleas to come and lead the Congress. Most leaders accepted her status as dowager empress. How did she adjust to the brutality of India's politics? How did she calibrate her strategies? It would make for a fascinating biography which is unlikely to be written. Unlikely by an Indian, in any case. Two attempts were made to delegitimise Sonia when the Congress was weak. The first by the ambitious Sharad Pawar, leader of the Congress in Maharashtra, a state with 100 million people whose capital is Bombay. He revolted in 1999, saying a foreigner should not head the Congress. Few joined him, and he has become a minor player now. Sonia showed pragmatism by later allying with Pawar's party, an act that kept Thackeray out of power. The second attempt was made after the Congress won in 2004. BJP leaders, led by Sushma Swaraj, said they would not allow Sonia to take office. The first election Sonia campaigned for, in 1998, was a disaster, and the Congress registered its worst performance. The next, the following year, was even poorer, and the Congress won only 114 seats out of 545. Sonia was now Congress president. Then, in the third one, against expectations, she triumphed and Atal Behari Vajpayee's government fell after the 'India Shining' campaign. Sonia could have easily become prime minister, winning from two Lok Sabha seats (one against Swaraj). The constitution was on her side. But she stepped aside in a moment of drama, broadcast live, which changed the way Indians looked at her. She said that she did not seek power and would not become prime minister. She remained Congress president, but Manmohan formed the government. For us the notion of Tyag, of self-sacrifice, is big in the Hindu faith, which reveres the one who renounces the world. Now the Congress is again India's most powerful party and has a clutch of modern young leaders. Sonia has become its unquestioned leader. She has revived the Congress from depths that neither Nehru nor Indira saw, and it is unlikely that her easy-going husband would have done as well as she has. Her behaviour since she anointed Manmohan has been exemplary. There has been little evidence that Manmohan has not been allowed to drive policy where he has control, such as over economics and foreign affairs. She has shielded him from the nonsense that comes to all who are in politics in the third world: the corruption, the venality and the arbitrariness. Manmohan is wise enough to let all of that pass while he tries to get on with his job. But it takes an exceptional person to absorb the nastiness voluntarily. Sonia was pragmatic again in Gujarat after being convinced that a strong secular attack on Narendra Modi would backfire. However, her strategy of ignoring the butchering of Muslims has not worked yet. She gave charge to Shankarsinh Vaghela, a former BJP man who defected but he failed. Given the sort of liberal person she appears to be she must have been repelled by her own actions, but she put party above herself. When the chief minister of Andhra Pradesh, a state of 75 million people whose capital is Hyderabad, died in a helicopter crash a few weeks ago, Sonia showed a bit of steel. The chief minister's son, in his late 30s, was backed to become leader even though he had no political experience. Sonia blocked this because the son does not get good press. It will be difficult to keep the son out in future, but for now she has enforced discipline in a party which has not had it for a long time. She could do it in this case because she could point out to them that her own son could have become minister this time but chose not to. Sonia's preference appears to be to work with people who are modern, like her. S M Krishna, India's foreign minister, is a Fulbright scholar and his deputy Shashi Tharoor worked at the UN. This promotion of such elites is good for us. Sonia Gandhi is 63, and has led the world's biggest political party, and one of its oldest, for 11 years. At her age, her mother-in-law had just come back to power and would spend another four years in office. India is fortunate to have someone like her: we could have got Imelda Marcos. Today the most powerful man in Pakistan is not from the majority sect. The most powerful person in India isn't even Indian. We're bigoted in many ways and the world keeps reminding us of that. But in many ways also we are above pettiness and we should not forget that. The writer is director with Hill Road Media in Bombay. Email: aakar@hillroadmedia.com

Read more...

Too much politics, too much hypocrisy -- Ayaz Amir

Islamabad diary Friday, September 18, 2009 Ayaz Amir How many doom-and-gloom stories can any reasonable person endure? More than a nation at war we are a nation in perpetual crisis, vaguely discontented if there is no real crisis at hand. In no other country of the world would a Brigadier Imtiaz Billa, a spook who put up his gloves years ago, be taken seriously. Yet in recent days the media almost succeeded in turning him into a TV celebrity, an outcome which must have taken him by surprise most of all. This is just by way of example to underline something obvious about Pakistan: there is too much politics in this country. Why is this so? Why is politics the staple of everyday conversation? Because -- and here's the paradox -- there is too much religion in this country. By which, Heaven forbid, I do not mean the genuine article but religious cant and hypocrisy. The way we go on about religion an alien could be forgiven for thinking that the very concept of religion began in Pakistan. This is General Ziaul Haq's revenge from the grave. Revile him as much as we may, there is no escaping the fact that a good deal of the fake piety on display in the official life of the Islamic Republic is a continuation of the legacy whose baleful seeds ---dragon's teeth?---he scattered. In art the counterweight to too much restraint, or too much order and discipline, is romanticism, a natural urge to reach for the opposite: freedom and perhaps even decadence. This also works the other way round. If there is too much freedom, too much artistic chaos, the desire arises to return to the comforts of order and discipline. This is how Hegel and Marx explained the universe: the combination, or clash, of opposites creating a synthesis or unity. But with us what is the Hegelian counterweight to too much false piety? Alas, nothing more creative than an obsession with politics. In any other climate excessive piety would have led to a loosening of restraint, something like the atmosphere of the Sixties in Britain and elsewhere, when the Beatles were all the rage and permissiveness became a common word. I was in school then and used to scratch my head trying to figure out what permissive behaviour and promiscuity meant. If we had experienced something like the Sixties it might have done us a world of good, perhaps saving us from such of our travails as the march to war with India in 1965 and, only six years later, war and defeat in East Pakistan. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's period at the helm was only a brief interlude. He could have reinvented the idea of Pakistan and secured the country's future by making it safe for democracy. He had the opportunity but perhaps the times were hard or our good angels not sufficiently kind because events took a turn for the worse when Pakistan, not for the first time in its short existence, once more found itself under a military dictatorship. What is more, this one came with a sinister difference: it was steeped to its eyeballs in religious cant and hypocrisy. As a result, it was not just physical repression which Pakistan suffered under Zia but moral and social repression. Instead of marching into the future, we travelled back in time. Talibanism in the form now familiar to us was a later phenomenon, but the attitudes giving rise to it were forged in the crucible of those dark years. The army's thinking became more conservative, fertile soil for the 'jihadism' that was to shape its outlook first in Afghanistan and then Kashmir, something from which it has yet to fully recover. The richest irony of that period of course is that our American mentors, now so bent on culturally reconditioning the Pakistani mind, were at that time the loudest cheerleaders of what passed for the spirit of 'jihad'. In the 1980s Americans in Islamabad (and I say this with a sense of wonderment) were amongst the most bigoted souls on the planet. About every subject under the sun they could endure scepticism, even cynicism, but the one thing beyond any criticism was the Afghan 'jihad'. That was an article of faith, faith raised to the power of dogma. The demons they are now trying to exorcise in Afghanistan were born of that attitude. Anyway, if any country was ripe for a social revolution -- its Sixties and Beatle moment -- it was Pakistan after Zia's death. But instead of making a clean break with the past Pakistan slipped into a neo-Zia era, with the Establishment -- as personified by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Army Chief Gen Aslam Beg -- serving to put the brakes on any cultural revolution. No hundred flowers bloomed; no hundred schools of thought contended. The old dragons kept their vice-like grip on power. Pakistan remained imprisoned in the old strategic parameters -- Afghan depth, holding down the Indian army in Kashmir, the space for adventure provided by our nuke capability, etc. The Americans, ecstatic at the end of the Soviet empire, had walked on from Afghanistan, forgetting all about it (something which they now rue). But we did not march with the times. We kept holding on to the old certitudes. It was only a matter of time before the Mujahideen morphed into the Taliban and the Taliban provided a congenial setting for Al Qaeda to grow and prosper. We only have a two years' window. The Americans are not going to stay in Afghanistan forever. Support for the Afghan war is beginning to drop in the US. By the time Congressional elections come round next year, what is now a trickle could turn into something bigger. And by the time Obama's first term is about to end, and he is up for re-election, America's continued involvement in Afghanistan is likely to be one of the hottest topics of debate. We should be ready for that eventuality. Our army has done a superb job of cleaning up Swat. Fazlullah's Taliban are on the run. The FATA Taliban are also under pressure, the noose tightening around Waziristan and the army mounting operations at selected points. But for Pakistan to be fully cured of the mindset which drove it into the battlefields of 'jihad', the turning of the military tide is not enough. It must be matched by a lasting change of mind. We need a social revolution so that we jettison some of the spiritual baggage which has served to cloud our thinking. Pakistan will never be fully free in its mind unless the fake piety introduced by Gen Zia into our law books is completely erased. We have to go back not to where the nation stood on Oct 12, 1999, when Musharraf took over, but where it was on July 5, 1977, when Zia and his generals seized power. The aim should not be to hound anyone but to clear our spiritual decks. All the laws Zia introduced at the altar of a fake piety, including the Hadood Ordinance, need to be expunged. The historic task before this National Assembly, elected with such high hopes in Feb 2008, is this. Hopefully, as a consequence, our nation will learn to lighten up a bit and discover a higher combination of opposites than religion and politics. There is too much gloom in Pakistan, too much darkness. We are too moralistic, too judgmental, often too self-righteous. That is why we endlessly preach and endlessly worry about the future while not being able to live in the present and make the most of what it has to offer. Not surprisingly, therefore, Pakistanis at times give the impression of being forever on the cross. We have our problems but since when has the human race, from the dawn of history until today, been free of problems? When they walk the streets of their towns and cities, Pakistanis -- both men and women -- don't act as if they are wholly free. In a social sense -- and here I have to use my words carefully -- they act in a constrained manner, as if a strict censor is watching their backs. Is it any wonder if they have cultivated the habit of doing so many things by stealth? This is no prescription for a free people. Email: winlust@yahoo.com (The News)

Read more...

For and against Blasphemy Law in Pakistan

The real issues

Dawn Editorial
Friday, 18 Sep, 2009 (Dawn)

Deadly attacks against Christians, in particular, are on the rise in Punjab. —AP Photo

PEOPLE are dying queuing for grain in Pakistan. This is a country where food inflation is forcing parents to pull their children out of school – they can eat sparsely or be educated, not both. Lives are being lost to ailments that are easily curable. Street crime is rampant across a country where human life is worth less than a cellphone. Yet our political leaders appear oblivious to the misery that is everywhere. They seem to have no perspective, no grip on reality. Does a man who can’t feed his children really care whether or not Pervez Musharraf is tried for treason? Is a mother whose child has died of gastroenteritis likely to give much thought to America’s military presence in the region? Will a jobless person be impressed by the president’s much-touted ‘achievements’ during his first year in office? Our leaders have clearly lost sight of the core issues.

This is a country where religious minorities are targeted by Muslim mobs while the law-enforcers look on. Deadly attacks against Christians, in particular, are on the rise in Punjab. As is usually the case in such incidents, the violence has been triggered by unproven allegations of blasphemy. Robert Fanish Masih, who had been arrested last Saturday on blasphemy charges after Muslims went on the rampage in village Jaithikey near Sialkot, was found dead in his cell on Tuesday. The next day his family and community members, who had all been forced to flee Jaithikey, were prevented from burying him in their native village. And this heartless, inhumane act wasn’t the work of Muslim vigilantes alone. The local police also told the mourners to turn back, on the grounds that their presence could fan violence. In short the victims were punished, not the aggressors.

The Punjab government needs to take urgent steps to protect minorities in the province for the situation there is deteriorating. Its stance on minority rights will be gauged by its response. The centre, meanwhile, should start working towards the repeal of the blasphemy laws. For too long they have been used to settle personal scores, grab land – and to kill. These draconian laws must be struck off the books.

...

In the aftermath of the death-in-custody of the blasphemy-accused Fanish Masih in Sialkot, the Governor of Punjab, Mr Salmaan Taseer, has courageously called for the repeal of the infamous law targeting the minorities in general and the Christian community in particular. He was echoing the demand being made by protesters in Lahore reacting to the cruel thrashing Christian protesters were given by the police in Sialkot.

Fanish Masih was found dead in his cell. The police say he committed suicide, but the question for all of us to consider is that Masih was kept in solitary confinement even after the police knew prima facie that the charge against him was concocted. Also, there was confusion all around springing from a conflation of blasphemy with desecration of the Holy Quran. Masih himself must have been sure that he was in a trap where his death was certain.

The sheer negative jurisprudence of the Blasphemy Law shocks the rational person and instils despair in the accused. Yet, the Pakistani mind is divided over details that are accepted by all as shameful to the pride of the nation, equating Pakistanis with backward Nigeria where blasphemy laws have killed hundreds so far, tragically, in imitation of Pakistan. The irrationality of the public attitude came to the fore when the federal minister for religious affairs, Allama Hamid Kazmi, was asked to react to Governor Taseer’s call for the repeal of the law.

Mr Kazmi was grieved by the Sialkot violence against unprotected Christians but was determined to defend the Blasphemy Law. His case was of a piece with the one made by the conservative Urdu press and the clergy. He assumed that blasphemy occurred in Pakistan and that no Muslim could collude with it by removing the deterrence of law. But the facts were ignored by him. The truth is that there is no blasphemy proved in Pakistan so far, except in the lower courts where mobs carrying weapons force the judge to hand down death.

Any society free of extremism would grasp this fact. Why should a law be enforced in a society where no one can actually blaspheme? And what does it mean that after the promulgation of the law, blasphemy actually raises its ugly head? Hundreds of cases have gone up from the grassroots courts to the higher judiciary where the accused has been let off, except for cases such as the one regarding a woman of unsettled mind who is being recommended for mental asylum after a lifetime in jail.

In May this year, 500 clerics stormed a court in Lahore’s Mustafabad when a judge bailed out Munir Masih and his wife for keeping a Holy Quran in their home. The victims insisted they had kept it for spiritual protection and out of devotion; but the accusation was that they were unclean as a community and therefore the Holy Quran was defiled. Later the charge was changed from desecration to blasphemy, after which the court was assaulted.

In April this year, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a Federal Shariat Court ruling that death is the only punishment under Islamic law for blasphemy. This is what the victim knows when he is framed and put in solitary confinement in jail: he is going to die either sentenced by a scared sessions judge or killed by the police during the remand.

The Council for Islamic Ideology recommended in 2006 that blasphemy cases be registered with the High Court and that high officials free of local blackmail be appointed as investigators, but nothing has happened. Both the mainstream parties want the law repealed. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani in his memoir complains that Nawaz Sharif as prime minister wanted to change the Blasphemy Law but Ms Bhutto did not help him in parliament. Later Ms Bhutto returned to power in 1993 and wanted to change the law but this time Nawaz Sharif did not help.

The PPP and the PMLN are busy fighting their other less worthy battles in parliament, but if they had the wellbeing of the country at heart they could have joined hands to repeal the Blasphemy Law and then faced up to the extremist backlash just as the country is finally confronting the terrorism of the Taliban. There is no other way to tell the killers of our Christian community that they have to stop this horrible pastime. (Daily Times)

Read more...