Aaj key KAALAM 05 June, 2009

[arshad_lahore]

Madressah takeover



Part II(Quantum note)

Friday, June 05, 2009
Dr Muzaffar Iqbal

There is obviously no comparison between the lofty madressahs of yesteryears and the rundown, squalid skeletons of today which are the haunts of the dispossessed. The glaring facts cannot be ignored.

On the one hand, we have the likes of the Ulugh Beg madressah, which was the world's most advanced research centre in astronomy in the fifteenth century and where a team of scholars excelled in Islamic sciences as well. Children were taught the intricacies of the texts of the Quran and the Hadith, they received all that was needed to become leaders in society. On the other hand, we have thousands of semi-literate "teachers" imparting religious education to students who come from the poorest segment of the society. The contrast is too obvious to be ignored by anyone who is serious about the state of the Muslim societies in a world increasing becoming hostile to the way of life that is called Islam.

Islam is, in the final analysis, a way of being, a mode of existence. And this mode of existence is rooted in institutions just as it is rooted in beliefs and the madressah is one such institution. Had the madressahs disappeared altogether, most Muslim lands today would be like the Central Asian states now; no one would even know how to bury their dead in an Islamic manner. One can blame the madressahs for everything under the sun, but one has to give the poor and the wretched of the earth the credit of being the only watch guards of the flame of Islam's most basic rituals and practices during the lean centuries when no one was there to keep it aglow.

Given this state of affairs, the most natural questions to ask are: how did this transformation of the madressah take place? Who was responsible for this? And, most importantly, what is to be done? Historically, the institution of madressah has always been connected to another institution of Islam: the masjid. The masjid-madressah complex existed in the public domain, in the highest orders of society. Masajid and madressahs were the focus of the rulers and the ruling elites for both religious reasons as well as for worldly power and popular support. It was through these two institutions that essential policies of the state were formulated.

The Friday sermon was an important event in the life of the community. Initially, the rulers led the prayers, when they became too worldly to do this, the prayer leaders were the acknowledged scholars who were fiercely independent and when this class also disappeared, the Friday sermons became the mouthpiece of the rulers through paid servants. By the time this happened, the masjid-madressah complex had already lost its vitality.

The final blow was served by the colonisers of the Muslim lands who confiscated large number of awqaf (endowments) which had supported the masjid-madressah complex for centuries. Without its independent financial support the masjid-madressah complex now had to beg in order to exist. The begging brought the loss of self-respect and the downward spiral then led to the present state of affairs where there is neither self-respect nor even the most basic intellectual nourishment.

Yet, even in this lowest possible state in the centuries-old history of madressah, it remains a constant threat to the secularised rulers of the Muslim world. In Iran, it was the madressah which produced an alternative leadership and eventually a revolution that overthrew the Shah of Iran's client rule. In Turkey, the madressah was the dread of the Kemalists who tried to strangle it. The general pattern of strangling this institution has been its takeover by governments. Even Al-Azhar has not survived this pattern. So, if the Zardari-led regime now wants to take over some 20,000 madressahs of Pakistan, it is nothing new; it will simply follow what other client regimes have already done in other parts of the Muslim world and the results will also be similar.

These results can be summarised as follows: when the government takes over, the madressah reinvents itself: In Turkey, even during the harshest years of Kemalist rule, numerous independent, underground madressahs continued to exist. Now, there is a bit more freedom and hundreds of such madressahs have come into existence where a very high degree of educational standard is maintained. In Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, madressahs have reinvented themselves in numerous forms, including free public lectures on selected topics.

In Pakistan, the situation of the madressahs is rather complex: on the one hand, this institution is sunk in its general deplorable and pathetic conditions and, furthermore, faces the problem of sectarianism. On the other hand, it has become a place of resistance against the American occupation of Afghanistan and America's increasing control of Pakistan. The solution proposed by American think tanks, supported by the CIA and the American government, and handed over to the government is to take over these madressahs. Gen Musharraf tried, but failed. Now Zardari government has been ordered to do this. The process of takeover is not simple, however, because out of some 20,000 madressahs which are now said to exist in Pakistan, most do not even have more than a room attached to the masjid, so what would the government take over? A mud-walled structure? And what would it do to these madressahs? Add them on its already dead weight of thousands of state-run schools?

Obviously, something needs to be done, but is that something?



(To be concluded)



The writer is a freelance columnist.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Side-effect



You apologise counsel

Friday, June 05, 2009
Harris Khalique

None of us can forget the October 2005 earthquake that ripped apart Azad Jammu and Kashmir and parts of northern Pakistan. An important and historic town like Balakot was wiped out from the face of the earth and a large number of buildings in places like Muzaffarabad were razed to the ground. The official death toll neared 80,000 with an equal number of people maimed or physically challenged permanently. Around 17 to 20 thousand children lost their lives while being in the classrooms or outside but within their school premises.

The nation was galvanised in an unprecedented way and there would only be a few who did not participate in the relief effort in some way. The army, civilian administration and civil society organisations stood up to the occasion with support from the majority of citizens. But there were other insane voices being raised by the lunatic fringe in this country which unfortunately enjoys more clout than its actual strength in all walks of life. For once, it was subsided by the spirit of the citizens of Pakistan.

The voices, however, were there. They still haunt me and I feel a chill in my spine when I remember the banners put up by some religious organisations of both Sunnis and Shias in Muzaffarabad and the conversation I had with a young middle-class couple, an elderly woman and a flight steward on a Karachi-bound PIA flight from Islamabad. It was a few months after the earthquake. I was sitting behind these three people who lived in Rawalpindi and while the couple was travelling onward to Saudi Arabia since the man worked there, the other woman was visiting her son in Karachi. They were sitting in the first row in our section of the aircraft, the row where you get a bit more room and wider leg space. A steward knew the elderly woman well who had occupied the aisle seat. After serving tea, he stood there and the four of them started chatting. He asked the woman about her daughter in AJK and if they remained safe during the earthquake. All four of them started discussing the tragedy and concluded that this only happened because the people in the affected areas had gone astray from the right path and perhaps deserved a divine punishment. Having seen the suffering so closely during the relief efforts, I felt anger and shame and couldn't resist but to intervene. I asked them why the innocent school-going children were punished and why the corrupt-to-the-core elite in this country was saved from the wrath of God. The younger woman turned back and said to me, without thinking for a moment, "Bhai, our maulvi sahib says that the children who died were actually saved from becoming like their parents and elders. While the old were punished, the children will go straight to heaven." I was numbed.

I felt the same anger and shame yesterday when a front-page story of a worthy national daily quoted Mr A K Dogar, the counsel of a religious outfit. While saying that the members of the party he is advocating for were good Muslims who followed the example of the Prophet of Islam (PBUH), he contended that victims of the Islamabad Marriott Hotel blast were bad Muslims who consumed alcohol. I don't know how he was able to compare the two events but the statement that the counsel has made about the victims of the Marriott blast is disgusting and humiliating. I live in Islamabad and can still recall the faces of those innocent hardworking women and men who were deputed at the entrance and reception of the hotel and the shabbily paid security guards who were killed instantly. Just to remind you Mr Dogar that the highest number of guests killed in the blast were actually having iftar in the restaurant on the ground floor to break their fast. You owe an apology to the survivors of the innocent victims and those who were injured or traumatised on that fateful day.



The writer is an Islamabad-based poet and rights campaigner.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Perception or pressure?
By Kuldip Nayar
Friday, 05 Jun, 2009

I DO not know what the response was to a question why the UN resolution on the detention of Hafiz Saeed should be honoured when New Delhi had not implemented the UN resolutions on Kashmir.

But I think the comparison was not in order as one resolution is related to an international issue and the other to an individual who was evading being brought to justice.

This did not appear to be the only reason why the case against Saeed was thrown out. The court said that there was not enough evidence against him. Even if it found the proof provided by New Delhi to be inadequate Islamabad should have done some homework to plug the loopholes.

The court was quite candid in telling the attorney general that it had seen the details of the investigation by India but wanted to know what Pakistan had done. Apparently, it had done very little. What was shown to the judges was not convincing enough. True, there is reportedly going to be an appeal to the Supreme Court. But if the same material is going to be produced before it, the verdict is unlikely to be different.

Pakistan may have a point that India has not given it any clinching evidence. And sending some material in Hindi, Marathi or Tamil does not say much for New Delhis seriousness on the matter. Yet Pakistan was expected to do more. After all, those who attacked Mumbai were from Pakistan where the attacks were plotted. What was Pakistans own investigation to add to the New Delhis dossier is not known.

In the absence of proof that Pakistan was committed to taking the issue seriously, any dialogue with it would evoke a strong anti-government opinion in India. At the risk of repeating myself, I feel that the Pakistan government and the armed forces have not yet realised how angry the Indians are. Even if New Delhi were to come around, it would not be able to carry the public along with it until Islamabad is seen to be doing something concrete.

With Pakistans action in the war against the terrorists, there was a perceptible change in India towards sympathising with the people across the border in their hour of crisis. Pressure had begun mounting for the resumption of talks with Islamabad. Saeeds release by the court has pushed India back to square one.

Relations between India and Pakistan, already frozen, have become further so. The Zardari government is not seen as any different from the earlier ones. The impression that is strengthening is that Pakistan changes its tactics under pressure but not its strategy.

It may be a coincidence that the Council on Kashmir Affairs met in Islamabad on the day when Saeed was freed. But Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani did not stray from the speech prepared by the bureaucrats. Delivered after the judgment he could have said something to lessen the impact of the verdict. Was it necessary for him to reiterate that the Pakistan government would continue to give its moral, social and diplomatic support to the people of Jammu and Kashmir in their fight for self-determination?

Indias Foreign Minister S.M. Krishna was far more balanced in his reaction as he did not use harsh words which might have irritated Pakistan. Krishna said that Kashmir was part of the composite dialogue. He could have repeated that Kashmir was an integral part of India, but he did not lest he should spoil even the odd chance for reconciliation.

Those at the helm of affairs in Pakistan appear inept in handling the situation. Understandably, they are under pressure over the activities of the Taliban and the mechanisations of religious parties within the country. Still it looks as if the Zardari government has no clear-cut policy or programme to take Pakistan out of the difficulties it faces.

India has reportedly appealed to America after the verdict. Washington may be at a loss to think what to do next because it had already banned the Lashkar-i-Taiba and its front organisation, Jamaatud Dawa. The visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Delhi assumes more importance than before. The first thing Secretary Hillary Clinton has to do is to disabuse ideas that the Obama government is taking sides.

However successful Islamabad may have been in securing Americas largesse, the test is the confidence the Zardari government can build among the people to feel self-reliant and secure. It also has to plan to feed, educate and ameliorate the living conditions of millions in Pakistan.

The advantage of a democratic government is that it can depend on the support of the people. But if they remain unhappy they are bound to look elsewhere and even think of Islamic extremists as their saviours. In fact, this is the strength of the Taliban, not their weapons or the stamina to fight. The PPP is known for its liberalism. The army is engaged in a battle against the Taliban. But the party has also to work on the ground to re-educate people who have been fed on prejudices.

Saeed is going to be a problem because he is perceived as combining in himself the traits of terrorism and bigotry. His support to the Taliban would be lethal. This can tell upon Pakistans integrity and its democratic structure. Nawaz Sharif should not be kept at a distance. He may be a rightist but he has proved time and again that when it comes to fighting for Pakistans entity, he will not and cannot remain neutral. Zardari should seek his cooperation without putting prior conditions.

Maybe, the Charter of Democracy which Nawaz Sharif and the late Benazir Bhutto signed can provide the basis for cooperation. The Charter calls upon the

people of Pakistan to join hands to save our motherland from the clutches of military dictatorship and to defend their fundamental, social, political and economic rights and for a democratic, federal, modern and progressive Pakistan as dreamt by the founder of the nation.

If Pakistan were to realise this, it would find India to be its best friend.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Poverty of imagination
By Cyril Almeida
Friday, 05 Jun, 2009

THE Pakistani state has taken so many wrong turns in the past that its almost a surprise there are any more turns left to take.

But at a crossroads it is again: almost a decade after it should have become clear that the age of nurturing non-state actors had passed, the state has a second chance to bury that madcap policy.

Eight years ago, Al Qaeda brought down the World Trade Centre and America pursued it into Afghanistan. We were faced with a choice then: understand the long-term significance of that seminal event and adjust our strategic outlook accordingly or bury our heads in the sand and hope the storm would blow over quickly enough.

We, or rather the Pakistan Army led by Musharraf, chose the latter. Our decision: bag as many Al Qaeda types as possible while sweeping our home-grown jihadis under the carpet and shielding the Afghan Taliban from Americas prying eyes. The policy worked because the Bush administration only seemed to care about Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and even on that front got distracted soon enough by its interest in Iraq.

Musharraf and his cohorts were smug: they got tens of billions of dollars in return for simply putting their strategic-depth policy and jihadis in cold storage. When the time was right, they would simply reactivate those guys and use them once again to pursue strategic depth in Afghanistan and as a potent threat against India.

Two problems serious problems were always apparent: one, the security establishment didnt comprehend the pernicious effect of Al Qaeda on our jihadis; and, two, the security establishment didnt comprehend the long-term strategic fallout of 9/11.

The first problem meant that we continued to believe we could by and large control the home-grown jihadis and Afghan Taliban operating from our soil. Eight years later, with the northwest and Fata acutely destabilising Pakistan proper, we now conclusively know how nave that policy was. Al Qaeda and its ideology are a virus, and once it infects its victim, it takes over gone are the illusions of control by the security establishment over its erstwhile puppets.

The second problem meant that we didnt realise how dangerously Pakistan was isolating itself regionally and internationally. The first thought any leader would have had after 9/11 was: not in my backyard. The destructive power of non-state actors had been seared onto the worlds collective consciousness and henceforth the tolerance for anyone playing with that same fire was exceedingly low.

Because Musharraf dealt primarily with the clumsy, Iraq-obsessed Bush administration, he and his generals missed that seismic strategic shift. Once again, eight years later it is readily apparent: terrorism and Pakistans connection to it as at the top of the agenda of our relations with virtually any state important to us. Name the country China, UK, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE and it is more likely than not to be fretting over security concerns.

But now we have a second shot at changing course and doing the right thing. The military operation in Swat, Buner and Dir could be the springboard for a wider policy of crushing militancy of all stripes inside Pakistan. No more good Taliban/bad Taliban, our guys versus Al Qaeda and Arab outsiders, but a clear, unequivocal sign that a militant is bad because he is a militant and not because of the kind of militant agenda he subscribes to.

Is that happening? Two very bad signs have been sent out this week that it is not.

First, Hafiz Saeed was released. This wasnt a case of judicial activism by the superior judiciary, but a case of the inevitable given the lack of the governments interest in prosecuting the leader of the group believed to be behind the Mumbai attacks last November.

Saeeds release capped what has been a rather half-hearted, arguably farcical, attempt to clamp down on Jamaatud Dawa and its earlier incarnation, Lashkar-i-Taiba. Six months since the Mumbai attacks, it seems the security establishment has decided that the attacks were an aberration and that after a slap on the wrist, the group involved can go back into temporary obscurity.

Any crackpot theory about pressurising India to renew the composite dialogue or to back off in Afghanistan by going easy on the Lashkar for now is just that: madness that doesnt take into account how the international impression that Pakistan is an incorrigible sponsor of terrorism has been grimly reinforced.

Second, the kidnapping of the students of the Razmak Cadet College in the North Waziristan Agency. There is a sordid tale of the continuing good Taliban/bad Taliban distinction behind the incident. The bad Taliban in question is Baitullah Mehsud, the scourge of the country in recent years because of his habit of sending suicide bombers to attack security forces and cities and towns. The good guy was supposed to be Hafiz Gul Bahadur, a Taliban commander in North Waziristan and the man tasked with ensuring the safe passage of the students out of his territory.

Gul Bahadur is considered good because he helped the state eject Uzbek militants linked to Al Qaeda from his area and because he doesnt always get along with Baitullah. But good made common cause with the bad in this instance: Gul Bahadur double-crossed local officials who negotiated with him and tried to hand over the students to Baitullah.

Why? Because the very idea of good and bad Taliban is stupid. The good stay good as long as their interests are not under threat: fearing that the state may be serious about crushing Baitullah and for that we have to thank President Zardari for blurting it out and making international headlines Gul Bahadur may have shrewdly, and logically, calculated that he could be next. So, better to help out a enemy now than risk losing his own kingdom later.

And why kidnap the students at all? Because if a military operation is imminent, wrong-footing the state may cause it to charge in unprepared. Militarily, it amounts to poking your opponent in the eye while hes still donning his armour and picking up his weapons.

Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? Why, after eight years of a failed policy whose security fallout we are struggling to contain, are we still clinging to it so desperately? What can we not see that our security policy, born of an insecure mindset, has made us progressively less secure as a state?

There are many reasons, ones that security analysts, political scientists and historians readily proffer. But at the core of those explanations is the poverty of imagination of the security establishment.

Needy, greedy and seedy, it is like Tolkiens Gollum. Just as the Ring extended his life but ended up enslaving him, so our security policy has dragged on the state, but at the cost of dragging us into a deep, dark place.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Indian stakes in Pakistan
By Ayesha Siddiqa
Friday, 05 Jun, 2009

ISLAMABADS idea to allow transit trade facilities to Afghanistan and India has caused the media to react strongly with many believing that this would prove inimical to Pakistans security interests and clear the way for undesirable characters to enter the country for the purpose of spreading violence.
Besides, there is apprehension that the terms of trade will not be to Pakistans advantage. Still others tie the trade issue in the same way as the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan to a solution of the Kashmir standoff.

Beginning with the tactical issue of concern for security, the reasoning in Islamabad is as valid and lame as it is in India. Surely, terrorism is one of the primary problems on both sides of the border which makes the concern valid. Security was one of the reasons why the Indian external affairs bureaucracy clamped down on issuing visas to Pakistanis arguing that greater traffic was breeding terrorism. However, restricting visas or trade is a bureaucratic measure that does not take into account the fact that greater legal interaction will develop greater understanding and, perhaps, sympathy for each others position.

In any case, the bulk of the terrorists dont seek permission to enter. Also, terrorists do not necessarily have to accompany goods in transit between New Delhi and Kabul because there is already enough smuggling taking place between India and Pakistan for terrorists to make use of. Better monitoring could ensure that trade does not assist the terrorists.

As far as terms favourable to Pakistan are concerned, this is not really an issue of transit trade but about the capacity of the government to evaluate whats good or bad for it. One really wonders what the issue is because technically speaking Islamabad has already made an offer of transit trade to India the gas pipeline between Iran and India via Pakistan for which Islamabad hoped to receive attractive compensation. The trade between Afghanistan and India would mean compensation for Pakistan for allowing the use of its territory. Also, what is being discussed at the moment is transit facilities for Afghan goods.

But then what does one do about the Kashmir issue? More than 60 years of experience tell us that we were not able to solve it militarily and using the issue to withhold solutions for other matters is not likely to work either. At the moment, India has no stakes in solving the issue to Pakistans advantage especially when it is investing in its own political system to come up with a solution for the Indian state and the Kashmiri population. For instance, while some groups challenged the national elections and the turnout was low, there were others that did go and vote. The Indian state could always argue that there was a low turnout in other parts of the country as well. Eventually, participation in elections could lead to a dialogue between the centre and the territory under Indias control.

Part of the reason why India refuses to be sympathetic to Pakistans position is that it has no major stakes here. Transit trade and bilateral trade is one of the formulas for starting a more constructive relationship between the two countries. Allowing Indian investment to come into Pakistan for Pakistans benefit was reportedly recognised in a State Bank report which never saw the light of day. It was argued that opening up commercial links could help Pakistan capture some of the NRI investment coming into India.

Trade and transit trade as part of larger economic relations is a major way to change attitudes and perspectives. This is not to suggest that economic relations would automatically translate into a solution for Kashmir and here we can take the example of the US and China, that despite having huge stakes in an economic relationship, continue to confront each other on the issue of Taiwan. But Beijing has not tried to use its current financial investment in the US to the latters disadvantage. At present, Washingtons huge deficit financing is funded by the Chinese. Any diversion of funds at this stage would further cripple the US economy which Beijing is not doing because it also has stakes in the American economy. The softening of political positions, of course, takes time.

Pakistan and India need to learn from this example. There are many who disagree on the basis that any economic link will be to Indias advantage and not to Pakistans. This perception is a fallacy but will continue to be held as long as Islamabad does not reflect on its own strengths. For instance, Pakistans agriculture sector is fairly competitive and has much to offer if we build on its advantages.

Unfortunately, there is greater worry in the policymaking circles regarding industry, especially the automobile industry currently being subsidised by the state. While it is one of the sectors that might get affected due to trade with India, we could think about building our industrial base through negotiating offsets with our neighbour. This is an industrial process that pertains to a systematic but real transfer of technology and not what we have been used to thus far. Using offsets to build our industrial base is something we must consider with other partners as well, particularly in the defence sector.

One of the other advantages of encouraging regional trade relations is that it will enhance Pakistans financial capacity and the overall productivity of the economy. The country badly needs to transform itself from an aid-dependent economy to a more productive and self-sustaining one. The reason that we fail to go beyond the $12bn mark in our foreign exchange reserves is due to the limited productive capacity of the economy.

Boosting trade and transit trade in the region will give Pakistan access to its own resources, which, in turn, will reduce its dependence on other states. Trade does build its own dependence but not at the cost of independent foreign policy and larger policymaking, a problem that occurs in an aid-based economy. Interdependency build through trade, on the other hand, could help bilaterally resolve contentious issues in the future.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

 

[arshad_lahore]

The release that has shocked all
By M. A. Niazi | Published: June 5, 2009

The release on bail of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the head of the Jamaat-ud-Dawah, has not just sparked a highly negative reaction from India, but has also highlighted some of the reasons why Pakistan, supposed because of its British legacy to be an ideal place where the War on Terror could be fought, has become a place where the Western freedoms for which the War is being fought are reducing the ability of the state to be coercive.
Hafiz Saeed was detained without charge under the Maintenance of Public Order. He had been linked to the Kashmir Jihad, and most recently to the Mumbai blasts. India has waxed very furious over his release, and has threatened not to move ahead with the talks between the two nuclear-armed neighbours which it suspended when the attacks occurred, and which it has hinted at restarting now that the Indian elections are over, and the re-elected Manmohan Singh government has no real excuse to offer for not talking to Pakistan.
The USA, and those members of the international community that follow its lead, are interested in India and Pakistan reaching a settlement for two reasons. The first is that they are nuclear armed, and any conflict over Kashmir (and there have been four in the past) that went nuclear would not merely be a bilateral or regional disaster, but a global one. Second is the War, which Pakistan says it cannot contest fully until its issues with India are sorted out. However, the USA does not want a solution in line with internationally acknowledged principles of justice, or according to the UN resolutions on the subject, but in accordance with the Indian aims, even though such a solution would still leave Kashmir as a festering sore on the Indian body politic. Having thrown aside the principle of fairness, the USA has simplified the problem down to finding a government for Pakistan which will deliver such a solution to India and sell it to the Pakistani public as a splendid victory.
Hafiz Saeed and his party won favour because of a proven readiness to engage in activities which the army wanted done, but did not have the time for. One example was the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, when the Jamaat was very active in the relief activities. For its pains, it was left to carry on the mission of the Lashkar-i-Taiba, its parent organisation, which was banned in Pakistan in 2002, along with several other organisations as terrorists, as part of the Pervez Musharraf contribution to the War. One aspect as to convert the Kashmiri struggle for self-determination into terrorism against India. This was the result of the War on Terror which India worked hardest on. Pakistan under Musharraf furthered this by declaring repeatedly that Pakistan would not allow its soil to be used for terrorist activity. Pakistan thus provided India guarantees of protection.
Yet India misused the attacks in Mumbai last November to blame Pakistan, and it chose the Jamaat-ud-Dawah as the vehicle by which to lay the blame. Pakistan may have rid itself of Pervez Musharraf, but had replaced him with an equally pro-American regime, that of the PPP under Asif Zardari. Hafiz Saeed became the target of the laws which had been brought to the subcontinent by the British, such as the MPO, which provided for something which the British law found repugnant, as well as the whole American discourse on human rights, preventive detention.
After the Mumbai attacks, India managed to get the UN Security Council to pass a Resolution against the Jamaat. However, as mentioned by Hafiz Saeed's lawyer, he was not mentioned in the Resolution. However, the Pakistani state used the MPO to act against Hafiz Saeed and the Jamaat, the latter being put under an administrator. Preventive detention was retained in Pakistan, though it was abhorrent to the spirit of the 1973 constitution, by means of a special procedure, laid down in the constitution itself, involving a special tribunal consisting of high court judges. The MPO is usually used against political opponents of the regime, and normally bail is obtained quite readily under a civilian government. However, it allows something which is considered vital in the War on Terror: the detention of any person without framing any charges. Even though Hafiz Saeed may not have had any knowledge of the Mumbai attacks until they occurred, India wished that he carry the blame, and it accused him. Even though it had not provided the Pakistani government the requisite evidence for the framing of charges against Hafiz Saeed, it required him arrested. As the Indian authorities well knew, because they too have the same law, there was the good old MPO. And the Pakistani authorities were only too glad to comply, because they hoped to avert a war this way.
However, the Pakistani judiciary did not wish to comply. This was a judiciary which had restored its head after a year-long lawyers' movement, and after it had enlisted a lot of political support. Therefore, Hafiz Saeed obtained bail when his case moved up to the Supreme Court. This dashed the credibility of Pakistan as a wild sort of place where anything went, and where the state has virtually untrammelled powers to detain whoever it wants for as long as it wills. The Supreme Court, at least, does not agree that reasons of state are good enough to deprive a citizen of his constitutionally guaranteed liberties.
Interestingly, Islam, even the version favoured by Hafiz Saeed, promotes the kind of rule of law under which he was released. It too does not acknowledge the reasons of state which led to his detention in the first place. However, it also does not allow any admixture from any other legal system, and consists only of the orders of Allah and His Prophet (PBUH). These laws are also the reason why the War on Terror is being fought. Though US President Barack Obama has again denied that it is a War on Islam, whenever it is a question of the laws of the Almighty, the Americans and their cohorts appeal loudly to the rights which they claim will be violated.
Hafiz Saeed's case cannot disguise the fact that the subcontinent was festooned by the British with several 'black laws' which could not be introduced in the home country, and which are not only still on the books, but are still being used. These laws are intended to control restive populations, which is what the locals have again become, as a result of the War on Terror.

 

[arshad_lahore]

Towards understanding militants
By Pervaiz Nazir | Published: June 5, 2009

With all the blood-curdling noises being made by 'liberals' and 'modernists' in Pakistan (and around the world) against the militants in Pakistan's north, one might be led to believe that the bearded ones deserve to be punished or eliminated because they had desecrated an idyll habitus, the world in general and Pakistan in particular: where all the politicians are/were (morally/financially) squeaky clean and self-less and adhered to the constitution in both letter and spirit; where the army had never surrendered to enemies and fought to the last man; where no one took or gave bribes; where shoddy goods were never sold in shops- where you didn't have to haggle over a hundred percent of the price; where the murderous events of May 12, 2007 in Karachi had never taken place; where workmen gave their best and took pride in their work; where labourers were accorded respect and dignity for performing manual labour; where the state had not failed to propel Pakistan's educational institutions among the world's 500 best (Turkey with a population of about 70 million managed two among the 500 - shame on India - an 'English speaking country via the Raj' and a population of over a billion - could only manage two institutions at the very bottom of the 500); where all traffic rules and regulations were followed and motorists stopped on zebra-crossings to let pedestrians by; where diners in restaurants said 'please and thank you' to waiters, and so on.
And where intellectuals and analysts (exemplified by one mealy-mouthed Professor of Physics) who do not question their own assumptions, derived as they are from western-liberal history and ideas. They call the militant movements 'reactionary', making the assumption that western modernity is not only the standard by which the religious-political movements ought to be judged, but also the only authentic trajectory for socio-economic-moral change in Pakistan. And they never go into the context or genealogy of the rise and operation of these movements. It is as if these had arrived from nowhere.
If the militants are asking for laws in a region which are different from the rest of Pakistan, this is nothing unusual. Britain has a multiplicity of legal systems and laws operating, notably the Scottish and English legal systems. In the US some laws apply to one state and not to another. Many countries in the Middle East have a combination of state, tribal and customary legal systems operating sometimes in parallel and sometimes overlapping. One needs to examine the specific conditions which require these differing systems and the functions they serve, and not condemn these in an a priori manner.
If the militants are condemned for their violence, it is instructive that all forms of death dealing is to be condemned, whether by the USA or the Pakistani government; but if only the militants are condemned for their violence, it needs to be understood that they themselves are the product of awesome violence perpetrated against them/their kin during Musharraf's capitulation and collusion with the US, which continues under the present government.
If the militants are condemned for challenging the writ of the state, it should be understood that each and every military ruler (and not just military rulers) has made a grotesque caricature of the constitution and de facto made the writ of the state irrelevant. Contemporaneously, the entity that has challenged the writ of the Pakistani state most of all has been the USA by continuously violating its sovereignty including through drone attacks. These not only delegitimise the Pakistani state but also demean it in eyes of its citizens.
With all the shortcomings and apprehensions, the militants' project is to propagate alternative ways of living and organising state, society and economy, as well as producing virtuous and disciplined Muslim citizens.
There are a number of questions we should be asking the militants: "What do these militants aim at doing? And why?" It is not very illuminating to ask the question: "Why are the militants not moving in the direction history requires them to?" But this is precisely what is being asked when liberal public intellectuals say: "What leads the militants to behave so irrationally, in such a reactionary manner?"
In their own way the militants are questioning whether western values, lifestyles and institutions are 'universal' and not the product of a temporary successful hegemony. The militants are implicitly questioning the idea held deeply in the West and among westernised Pakistani liberals, that with the defeat of communism, capitalist democracy is now the only imaginable future for humanity; and that nothing else can emerge. However, since nothing is permanent, it is quite possible, the militants believe, that this hegemonic political and social culture will mutate into other, hegemonic Islamic one.
The militants need to be understood in their own terms, as being at once modern and traditional, both authentic and creative at the same time. The militants' movement in Pakistan ought to induce people to rethink the uniquely western model of secular modernity and its lifestyles. One may want to challenge aspects of the militants' discourses and practices, but condemning them outright as 'barbaric' and a throw back to 'medieval' times, precludes a potentially fruitful synthesis of a new form of polity.
It also ignores the devastating violence (which is seen as normal) of the most powerful democracy in the world against Iraq and Afghanistan, and by its proxy in Lebanon and Gaza. It also ignores the violence perpetrated with regularity in Karachi, who are harbingers of Musharraf's 'enlightened moderation'. They consider the militants to be uneducated and themselves as 'highly educated'. Perhaps they mean highly 'miss-educated'. So for positive reasons and by default the militants need to be engaged with.
The writer is a freelance columnist

 

[arshad_lahore]

Limited desires, unlimited resources
Published: June 5, 2009
Hussain Mohi-ud-Din Qadri

International trade rules and regulations and different business models are under the process of evolution. Societies with different cultural and civilisational backgrounds are out in the run for earning maximum profits by designing new business rules every now and then. This explains the permeation of materialistic forces in societies. Islam is the only religion whose trade laws, which were formulated some l400 years ago, cannot be altered. These principles would continue to guide man till the Day of Judgement. Any state and society could reach the apex of growth and prosperity by following these principles. Before we dilate on the Islamic business system, it is in fitness of things to look at the prevailing conditions for an objective assessment.
Today western businessman, western corporate world, organisations and policies happen to be our role model. The western world put forward a new system after it managed to achieve unbelievable successes in the economic domain with the result that the rest of the world was left with no option but to follow the Western model as a means for sustainable growth. Even Islamic countries, which are supposed to implement Islamic system, are tied to the apron-strings of western economic model. There is a dominant feeling within the Muslim elites that either Islam is unable to respond to complex contemporary challenges in the fields of economics and trade or its economic concepts are outdated. Both of these perceptions are incorrect. The fact is that the spirit of the Islamic economic model has not been understood. To cap it all, the Islamic economic system has not been codified in the modern jargon and there is acute dearth of presentable research work on it.
History bears witness to the fact that about 800 years ago when the western world did not know how to live a decent life, the Muslim in Spain prided itself on vast material progress in multiple fields. Their success emanated from practical implementation of economic and business model designed by the Holy Prophet (PBUH). China is moving ahead with this cost efficient model but it has become more of a copy cat thing, which has never been able to become superpower.
Undoubtedly, there is a need of mentioning other models besides the Islamic one, which receded into background with the passage of time. One such model was Relativism. This model did not urge people to follow pre-determined principles. Rather they were required to do whatever they thought was correct. Thus no system could be put in place with the result that society rejected it. Utilitarianism replaced Relativism.
Utilitarianism weighed human actions on the touchstone of pain and pleasure. Whatever constituted pleasure was good and hence acceptable even though it may be morally wrong.
Universalism was the third model, which preferred good intentions rather than factoring process and final outcome into account. Islam recommends the totality of intention, action and result or outcome and then passes judgement about its being fair or foul. Thus this model of Universalism does not resemble the Islamic business doctrine.
The fourth model hinges on the idea of Distributive Justice, which is closer to the Islamic system of trade and is in operation in a number of countries including Pakistan. But it has not been implemented with its spirit since it hinders the maximisation of profits. This system talks of the rights of employer and employee both. Capitalist system and socialist economy are both alien to the Islamic trade system. While the former protects the rights of the employer or those having means of production, the latter fully recommends and guards dictatorship of the proletariat. Both systems are poised on extremes.
Moderation is an important plank of the Islamic system. Distributive Justice ensures apportioning of rewards to both employer and employee without causing loss to one at the cost of the other. Islam protects rights of the individual if these rights do not encroach on the rights of society.
Islam does not favour the quantitative democracy. Rather, it puts emphasis on qualitative democracy.
It is necessary for the promotion of Islamic business ethics at corporate level that a position of moral advocate is created tasked with the responsibility of promoting and projecting excellence of trade morality and good attitude in the entire organisation. The company owner could also be a moral advocate. Difference could only be made and felt if the employer or CEO practised these golden principles of honesty and propriety. The right of the customer is the duty of the employer in the Islamic system of trade. The customer right includes product quality and cost efficiency. Islam talks of cost and time efficiency not for company but for customer. West reached this conclusion after years of experiments but Islam designed these rules 1400 years ago. The Western Business Model is based on limited resources and unlimited desires, whereas the beauty of the Islamic Business Model is that it is based on limited desires and unlimited resources. Who can defeat such a society, which endeavours for acquisition of unlimited resources but makes sure to limit its desire?
If this Islamic model is implemented, the country and industry would grow and the poor would have share in the economic benefits leading them to make their mark in life and live honourably in society. The Islamic economic model discourages concentration of wealth in a few hands. It is in favour of establishing welfare state where economic rights of all and sundry are protected. If the Muslim business class adopts honesty the concept of limited desires and unlimited resources as a driving force behind their business pursuits, there is no reason why the Muslim community cannot reach the top.
The writer is a PhD scholar in Economics at the Australian University

 

[arshad_lahore]

Higher education
Published: June 5, 2009
Tauseef Aized

University education is one of the key factors for the economic growth of a state. Pakistan had only two universities at the time of independence but the figure rose to 44 along with 10 degree awarding institutions at the beginning of the 21st century. Out of those 44 universities, 31 belonged to the public sector which clearly manifested a lack of concern on the part of the successive governments as the nation needed a gigantic effort to build higher educational institutions. The last regime, however, addressed the issue and by the end of 2008, there were 94 universities and 30 degree awarding institutions. The figures seem healthy and encouraging but a more important indicator than merely the number of universities is the total number of student enrolment in the country. During 2001-02, the total number of students attending universities was 276,000 which rose to 741,000 during 2007-08. Though apparently encouraging but this merely constitute only 4 percent of the total population.
Moreover, let us consider whether our higher education system is performing well. There are less than around 25 percent of the faculty members in our universities who hold doctoral degrees. That clearly means that we do not have qualified people who are imperative in order to build and smoothly run our institutions. The Higher Education Commission (HEC) has endeavoured a lot during last many years to improve the faculty qualifications by providing generous foreign and local scholarships for PhD candidates. Some of the people who had been funded during the last several years have completed their PhDs successfully and are working, while many are still in the process. The government has provided through HEC huge sums for foreign PhD studies but this policy cannot generate healthy results in nutshell.
Another issue of key importance is the selection of courses and establishing new departments. Our universities, in particular public sector, attempt to offer a wide range of programmes that has created a lot of similar programmes in different universities. Although this is not a bad policy altogether yet our university management system must consider building specialised departments in different universities, especially in pure and applied sciences.
The next and perhaps the most important factor related to the efficiency is governance. Today, university management has become an established discipline but unfortunately, it is not visible in our institutions. The institutions, especially in the public sector, are lacking in efficiency and perform at a very low level in teaching and research. The sole reason is the old and outdated management style of running the affairs. The authorities must consider revamping the governance of the universities. Some good universities working in private sectors can also help other universities to improve their management for higher productivity.
The writer is a professor at the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and currently a research fellow at the Monash University, Australia

 

[arshad_lahore]

Politics of aid
By Wajahat Latif | Published: June 5, 2009
Soon after I wrote my article titled Loaded Envelope (published on May 29), I received two emails from a colleague in Washington. In some measure, the emails added to my knowledge and I share it with my readers in the same hope. But more than that, it reflects the complexity of the politics of foreign aid. Quite often, as in this case, the giver feels he is being magnanimous, altruistic. But the taker on the other hand finds it restrictive and coercive.
The emails said: "In looking over your article and thinking about the conditions on US assistance to Pakistan, I thought it might be helpful to share the following with you. Attached is the text of the Berman version of the bill, which I have highlighted to emphasise a couple of things: The conditions on US assistance to Pakistan, highlighted on pages 26-27 of the text, apply only to military assistance, and yes, they require the US president to certify that Pakistan is taking steps to 'combat...terrorist groups' etc before releasing money for Pakistan.
Yet all of the assistance for human rights, development, and other such programmes, which is highlighted and stretches from page 9-19, doesn't come under the same conditions. So the US can provide this assistance even without the president's certification that Pakistan is meeting counter-terrorism goals. This would affect the argument in the paragraph where you state, quite strongly: 'Denuded of sophistry, Pakistan's dilemma is this. If they oblige the Americans, they have to kill people the army might not see as enemy. And if they don't the US will stop military, economic and financial aid - or even more desperate measures. In its present frame of mind, the US believes it has been double-crossed by Pakistan in the past but is not prepared to take it anymore. This time round they shall have their pound of flesh before they make any payments'.
Yet in Berman's text, only the US military assistance is tied to these restrictions, not the 'soft-side' assistance. So the intent is actually to condition aid that goes directly to Pakistan, and for military measures, NOT all US assistance. Which would certainly affect the argument you make here...
I would actually say that yes, the perceived tone from the US is slightly different from that presented in your piece. I would characterise the motivation of the Congress, especially with Democrats like Kerry and Berman in charge, as one of genuinely wanting to prevent providing assistance which would reinforce a corrupt government (rather, they seek to change that and make it more accountable); or to a military which, as you very rightfully note, has a very tainted history in Pakistan in terms of respecting human rights and democratic processes.
The talk here has been more of improving and assuring accountability of US foreign assistance, in order to justifying US aid to a government which in the past has not shown significant progress as a result of that aid. There are two sides to this: 1) the US public is not going to warm to providing massive foreign aid unless it can be shown to be in the US interest; and 2) members like Berman and Kerry understand that we will not see change in the security situation in Pakistan without significant investment in development, rule of law, human rights, and other 'soft-side' aid.
The question of conditions on military aid, is one in which Republicans are more likely to (and this is an over simplification) think that we can throw money into military assistance to combat the problem, and 'let's worry about the government's human rights record or corruption issues later'.
The restrictions on aid in the Berman and Kerry legislation suggest the opposite thinking: Anti-corruption, rule of law, and human rights initiatives come first (and aid for those is therefore unrestricted). But after this, if the government wants to receive military aid, that assistance is tied to certain conditions.
Meanwhile, the administration favours the slightly less restrictive conditions in the Kerry (Senate) version of the bill on US assistance to Pakistan. This makes it easier for the president to decide when it is appropriate to grant US military assistance.
I hope I'm not throwing a wrench into your article....But it seems that it would be an important distinction in the tone from Washington."
Be that as it may, in a country like Pakistan, so chronically dependent on loans and foreign aid, aid is an integral part of the economy and an imperceptible (but corrosive) influence on the collective psyche.
Yet, in today's chaos there are some voices, however faint, of reducing dependence on foreign aid. Foreign assistance does not reach the poor, goes the argument, spreads corruption, adds to poverty and kills national pride. Aiming to reduce dependence on foreign aid might restore some of the sense of pride that the borrower must lose as he extends his palm. Begging for succour and national pride cannot go together.
The writer is a former ambassador at large

 

[arshad_lahore]

A deluge of displacements
By Dr A.h. Khayal | Published: June 5, 2009

A displaced Swati was told that the government was begging the foreign countries round the clock for charity. He had always known that some Pakistanis are keeping oceanfuls of money in foreign lands. These Pakistanis are the blue-eyed boys of Plutus, the god of wealth.
The Swati asked himself: "Why should the government dishonour the country by begging? Why don't the billionaire Pakistanis voluntarily pour a tiny fraction of their gigantic wealth into Pakistan for the displaced persons?" There was no answer. He was shocked. The shock was more shocking than the shock of one's own death.
The Swati lamented: "Had I known on the day of my birth what I know now I would have instantaneously committed suicide."
Unfortunately the governmental begging has not been very fruitful. But the government is not discouraged. The begging is becoming more and more vociferous. Obviously, the government is concerned with the begging, not with its results. The begging, even if not much productive is in itself a laudable national service. If the displaced persons are dismayed, they must know that the government can only beg. It cannot steal money from abroad.
The billionaire Pakistanis are watching the national tragedy indifferently. They can rid the displaced persons of their misery in a jiffy. But no! The misery has failed to melt their hearts. Probably, their hearts are made of stainless steel. Or may be they believe that helping the displaced persons is tantamount to interfering in their private affairs. And since the displaced persons do not interfere in the private affairs of the billionaires, the billionaires have no right to interfere in the private affairs of the displaced persons.
Millions of Pakistanis have been displaced by the terrorists. But there is nothing unique about it. Pakistan is essentially a land of displacements. Musharraf, as president, displaced Nawaz Sharif. Nawaz Sharif had to live in Saudi Arabia as a displaced person for years. Being scared that Nawaz Sharif might intrigue to displace him out of Pakistan revengefully, Musharraf has displaced himself voluntarily. He has bought a luxury 'tent' in London. The tent would symbolise Musharraf's hearty companionship with the displaced Pakistanis who are living in rotten tents.
Nawaz Sharif's displacement was a displacement imposed by Musharraf. The displacements of the Northern Areas Pakistanis are displacements imposed by the terrorists. But there is another brand of displacement which is imposed by some Pakistanis on themselves. Some poverty-stricken Pakistanis keep killing themselves regularly. Thus they voluntarily displace themselves from their huts to settle permanently underground. The government is doing all it can for the Pakistanis who are displaced by the terrorists. But it has done nothing at all for the Pakistanis who displace themselves from this world to the world beyond. As the government has established special camps for the persons displaced by the terrorists, so the government must build special graveyards for the Pakistanis who displace themselves forever from this world.
The government has assured that the terrorist calamity is just a matter of days. Let the government be assured that if the current calamity dies, it won't die without giving birth to another calamity. Unfortunately, ours is a land of calamities. One calamity breeds another calamity. Every calamity gives birth to a successor. The successor calamity. Every calamity gives birth to a successor. The successor calamity carries on vigorously the functioning of its predecessor.
Almost daily, the newspapers show photographs of young Swati girls carrying rotis in their arms. A photographer wanted to have a photograph of a roti carrying girl. He requested her to spare a moment. The girl was terrified. She had an inkling that she was going to be abducted. She pleaded: "Sir, I've got rotis from the charity centre. Let me deliver these rotis to my aged parents. I won't mind being crushed by death. But I can't bear that my mom and dad should be crushed by starvation."
Our defence spending is going up. Suicides are going up. Poverty is going up. Epidemics are going up. Air pollution is going up. Water pollution is going up. Dacoities are going up. Robberies are going up. Only one thing is coming down: bombs from the drones.
The air is thick with the rumours that all the charity money is not getting through to the displaced persons. Some of it is getting somewhere else. Where that 'somewhere' is, is a mystery. But never mind! Had all the money got through to the displaced persons it would have spoilt them.
Once a country was hit by a calamity. The prime minister donated huge sums of money out of the national treasury. But he does not donate even single penny out of his own pocket. The masses objected. He defended himself by asserting: "I have never worn clothes with pockets. How could I donate something out of a pocket which I have never had?"
The writer is an academic