Age of madness

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW: A misogynist and bigoted society

Daily Times
Yasser Latif Hamdani
November 01, 2010

We are a strange people. We love to spit on the people who help us. I am not talking about countries, because they help us according to the dictates of international politics, but individuals like Angelina Jolie, who opened up her heart and her purse for this country in a time of need.

Take for example the vomit that one TV anchor produced in his Urdu column for a local newspaper. Most of the claims made by the said anchor turned out to be untrue but that is not the point. The issue is that while Angeline Jolie came here and acted in an entirely respectful manner towards our society and culture, our geniuses are sitting on judgement on her lifestyle. Let me remind you of some of the things Angelina Jolie could have pointed out about Pakistan.

To start with, in many parts of this country women are treated worse than cattle. Not only are women discriminated against by custom and tradition but also by the inheritance law and the law of evidence. Imagine our embarrassment as lawyers when we advise foreign clients to use male witnesses on contracts because thanks to General Zia our law does not think women are credible in financial matters.

For a society obsessed with shame and honour we also believe in honour killing. One of our judges, who rose to be the president of this country thanks to one of the major political parties, had ruled that women had no say in deciding who to marry. Relying on misinterpretation of the Holy Quran by lazy clerics, the men in Pakistan have a free hand in abusing their wives, both sexually and physically.

Women, who despite all these handicaps make it in professional and public lives, become fair game, often by other women. Consider the case of Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan abusing Kashmala Tariq shamelessly on TV, while the TV anchor egged her on.

One is reminded of the events after the rigged elections of 1965 when Gohar Ayub Khan carried out a procession allegedly with a female dog to signify none other than Ms Fatima Jinnah, who is widely considered a founding mother of Pakistan. While it said nothing about Fatima Jinnah, it indicates what the Pakistani male thinks and feels about women. A woman to the geniuses of Pakistan can be either mother or a loose woman and at the end of the day even the mother becomes a loose woman.

This mentality reached its zenith when a proud president in uniform declared that women in Pakistan get raped to get Canadian citizenship.

In my view Angelina Jolie is a thousand times more respectable than the crank and madman who wrote against her. Why does he not write about the multiple marriages of Dr Aafia Siddiqui to al Qaeda men? Oh wait, Dr Aafia is pious because she wraps up her head in a cloak of ignorance. She is more deserving of our respect because well Dr Aafia has strengthened our image worldwide as a proud terrorist nation. The entire world is now shaking at the prospect of Pakistanis jet-setting through the world.

The anchor in question had already accepted a position with a media group that traces its origins to none other than the founding father of this nation. Jinnah was a bulwark against misogyny and the mentality that is now commonplace in the nation he is unfortunate enough to be called the founding father of. His career as a legislator bears witness to his efforts to secure equal rights and participation for women in society. He walked out of a dinner with the Governor of Bombay when the latter objected to Ruttie Jinnah’s strapless dress. When a colleague suggested that Jinnah use his political opponent Nehru’s questionable relationship with Edwina Mountbatten, he severely reprimanded that colleague and told him that Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion. Would such a man hire an anchor who indulges in yellow journalism, libel and juicy gossip?

National Public Radio fired Juan Williams for making racist comments against people in “Muslim garb”. Surely then the media group in question must reconsider its decision to hire a misogynist bigot.

The writer is a lawyer.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Red tide rising

Dawn
By Irfan Husain
Wednesday, 03 Nov, 2010

Does conflict produce great art? Do artists respond to crises by rising to a higher level of creativity? Judging by the international response to contemporary Pakistani literature, music and painting, it seems there is a certain correlation between a hostile environment and the human impulse to express inner turmoil, doubts and anger.

This creative ferment is currently on display at Karachi’s Mohatta Palace Museum in probably the finest exhibition of contemporary art I have seen in Pakistan. Professionally and inventively curated by Naiza Khan, the show was an eye-opener for somebody like me who has become more of a visitor to Karachi than a permanent resident. Titled ‘The Rising Tide: new directions in art from Pakistan 1990-2010’, the exhibition displays works of Pakistani artists created over the last two decades. The range and virtuosity of the exhibits took my breath away.

The forty-plus artists included in the show were mostly young men and women who had grown up during Zia’s stifling dictatorship in the Eighties, and had matured in a country increasingly at odds with itself. The Karachi-based artists have had to contend with the ethnic and sectarian violence that has become a daily feature of life in the metropolis. The response to the madness that has gripped the country in the name of religion has been to produce edgy and tense works of art that articulate this experience.

In Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, too, I have seen intense, deeply felt paintings and sculptures that seemed to voice the protest of sensitive artists against events over which they have no control, but that still shape their lives in unacceptable ways. In more settled, peaceful societies, art tends to be creative and well-executed, but somehow lacks the passion and anger that is often on display in our part of the world. Our contemporary artists seem to mix a big dollop of adrenalin in their work.

A marvellous spin-off from the exhibition is the catalogue, a publication that includes thoughtful essays and beautifully reproduced paintings and sculptures that could adorn bookshelves and coffee tables anywhere in the world. In her article, curator Naiza Khan quotes Iftikhar Dadi, one of the artists displayed in the exhibition:

“One must also keep in mind the atmosphere in Karachi at that time (the 1990’s). The economy was severely depressed, the art scene did not speak to current realities, and the bloody MQM-government violence was in full swing and virtually nobody from outside was visiting Karachi. There was no widespread internet access. So we sensed that Karachi was simultaneously the best and worst of all worlds. We felt a sense of exhilaration in witnessing a charged atmosphere of violence and street visuality, but there was also a sense of claustrophobia and closedness, intellectually and artistically…”

In a sense, the ongoing cultural ferment is a vibrant and healthy riposte to the brain-death extremist religious elements are trying to impose on society. Starting with Zia, this Wahabi/Deobandi straitjacket is trying to make sure that none of us think for ourselves. This primitive attitude was recently enunciated by Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran when he advised young people to stay away from music. The Taliban routinely target video and music shops before turning their attention to girls’ schools. It is these hateful ideas that artists and writers confront and reject.

Of course, many of our young musicians, writers and artists anchor their words, notes and images in the Sufi traditions that are a reminder of the gentle, syncretic vision of Islam that first put down roots in South Asia. It is this tradition that is under threat from medieval holy warriors who threaten to drag us back to the sixth century. Shrines have been attacked from Peshawar to Karachi by suicide bombers. Clearly, their evil sponsors fear the popularity of long-dead saints who continue to inspire millions with their message of love and tolerance. Popular resistance to the jihadis, led by subversive artists and writers, is more potent than drones or F16’s in fighting the Taliban.

All too often, the creative efforts of a handful of writers and artists are dismissed as the preoccupations of a small elite. The truth is that all over the world, art is created, bought and enjoyed by a tiny fraction of the population. But images and words have a way of percolating into the collective consciousness, and like time bombs, detonate at intervals to shake up preconceptions and prejudices.

I’m glad Mohatta Palace is poised to become a showcase for contemporary art. The ‘museum’ in the name was always a misnomer as it does not have a permanent collection on display. And as it has wonderful spaces, it is entirely appropriate for it to devote time and its curatorial expertise in displaying works by Pakistani artists.

Tailpiece: It seems out of place to end this optimistic article with a whinge, but I would like to share a recent episode with readers. I’m sad to report that bad manners are keeping step with the rising tide of violence in our society. Last Sunday, my wife and I were walking Tabs, my brother’s gentle (and slightly stupid) Dalmatian along the French Beach. Suddenly, somebody’s Golden Retriever raced out of a hut and unprovoked, grabbed Tabs by the scruff of his neck, showing every intention of biting all the way through it. Tabs screamed with pain. Unable to pull the attacker off, I caught it by the collar and succeeded in getting it to loosen its grip. In the process, my hand was quite badly bitten.

So apart from a couple of shots to prevent infection, I am now on a course of anti-rabies injections on the advice of the doctor who treated me in a hospital’s emergency ward. The owner of the Retriever was not in his hut, but I did speak to his father on the phone. He assured me that the dog had been inoculated. At the hospital and later, I expected his son to call and apologise. But it seems that we desis have a hard time saying ‘sorry’. Anyway, any time Zahid Maker picks up the phone to apologise, he can rest assured that, unlike his dog, I won’t bite.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Rabzon

These excellent threads you have created are delight for forum members. Keep'em coming!

Muse, i am terribly sorry I did not see your post earlier.

Glad you find them useful. Thank you.

 

[Nagraj]

nice thread!!!
thank you!!

 

[RabzonKhan]

ANALYSIS: Salam and Maria of Pakistan

Daily Times
Farhat Taj
November 06, 2010

What is common between Dr Abdus Salam and Maria Toorpakai? Dr Salam is an internationally recognised Pakistani physicist. Maria is a talented squash player from Waziristan. There is one thing common between the two: the state disdain towards their talents in their respective fields.

Dr Salam is arguably the best mind Pakistan has ever been able to produce. In the world of physics, he is known as one of the 20th century’s most distinguished scientists in particle physics, a difficult but fundamental area of science. He is Pakistan’s only Nobel Laureate. He had a deep love for Pakistan and wished to establish an international centre for theoretical physics in Pakistan. Pakistan showed no interest and ultimately the centre was set up in Trieste, Italy. Today, the centre facilitates the scientific work of scientists from developing countries, including Pakistanis. In Pakistan, Dr Salam was ostracised simply because he was an Ahmedi. There is no institution in Pakistan that is named after him. His name is not known to the young generations in schoolbooks or in media discourse. The state disowned him due to its pursuit of a narrow ‘Islamist’ identity that discriminates against minorities and excludes Ahmedis from the fold of Islam.

Maria Toorpakai could be a rising star of Pakistan in the world of squash. She aims to win world squash championship for Pakistan. She has the potential to do so. She has been Pakistan’s No 1 female squash player from 2003 onwards. She won third position in the World Junior Squash Championship. She has represented Pakistan in the UK, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Kuwait, India and Iran, and has been wining matches at the world level tournaments in these countries. The World Squash Federation also nominated her for Young Player of the Year award.

Maria complains that the government of Pakistan does not provide her the necessary financial support to facilitate her training as well as participation in international squash competitions. Her family had to buy her shoes, rackets, balls and other necessary equipments. Despite several requests, Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) has never sponsored her air ticket for participation in international events. Her father has to borrow money to buy her air tickets.

Recently, she had a sponsorship from a US sports company to buy shoes, rackets and other necessary squash equipments. She still needs sponsorship for her air travels and stays abroad to participate in international tournaments. Her father, a lecturer in a government polytechnic college in Bara, Khyber Agency, and her mother, an assistant director at the FATA Education Department, cannot afford the expenses for her participation in the tournaments abroad. They request the government of Pakistan and sports sponsors in Pakistan and abroad to offer her the necessary sponsorship.

Moreover, Maria’s father has been receiving threats from the Taliban. They demanded him to stop his daughter from playing squash, go on tableegh (preaching) or be ready for serious consequences. Despite the threats, her father firmly supports his daughter’s struggle to become world squash champion. He and Maria are sure that she has the potential to become the world champion and win honours for Pakistan in the international arena.

Her relatives and friends inform that the Pakistan Squash Federation has been hindering Maria’s efforts to meet President Zardari to apprise him about her problems. They also complain that Maria is neglected at the official level simply because she is a tribeswoman from FATA. Maria’s relatives and friends do have a point.

Squash star Maria simply does not fit into the state scheme of things for Waziristan. Waziristan was the first territory in FATA where the state wilfully surrendered its writ to the terrorists in pursuit of the strategic depth in Afghanistan. It has been presented to the world, along with the rest of FATA, as a religious extremist society that hates modernity. The world as well as the wider Pakistani society was misled into believing that the tribes of Waziristan gave refuge to al Qaeda. All independent scholarly or journalistic access to Waziristan was blocked to frustrate any attempts to crosscheck the state discourse of religious militancy in the area.

Thus, Waziristan is not supposed to produce international stars in sports or make any other contribution to civilisation. The area has been forced to produce religious militants. Only militants like Baitullah Mehsud, Hakeemullah Mehsud, Nek Mohammad and Mullah Nazir can be the symbol of Waziristan. Any contradictory symbols from the area, be it Maria, the squash player, or Kamal Mehsud, the singer, have to be suppressed or at least treated with state neglect and disdain. The policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan can explain why the Pakistan Squash Federation is not cooperating with her.

It seems as if the state would make sure Maria never succeeds in squash at a global level, just like it made sure that the masses of Pakistan never appreciate the contributions of Dr Abdus Salam to physics and Pakistan. Dr Salam was a victim of the state policy of a narrow ‘Islamic’ ideology. Maria is becoming a victim of the state policy of strategic depth in Afghanistan.

The writer is a PhD Research Fellow with the University of Oslo and currently writing a book, Taliban and Anti-Taliban

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT: Tolerating religious violence

Daily Times
Shahid Saeed
November 10, 2010

Another day, another bombing and dozens of innocent civilians become the victims of monsters claiming to uphold the flag of religion. There is the usual condemnation of attacks from all sectors of society, debate on approaches to controlling and eliminating terrorism and, while nobody says it, the inevitable wait until the demons strike again. Out of this perpetual state of being terror-stricken, the theory about extremism that has emerged — both naturally and crafted by media pundits and opinion makers — is that this is a post-9/11 response, something of a by-product to the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan and a temporary phase that owes its existence solely to the US invasion of Afghanistan. Its death therefore is inevitable with a pullout of foreign troops from the region. Reality cannot be further from this. Any rational person cannot associate the presence of US troops in a neighbouring country with a suicide bombing that targets civilians (mercilessly, women and children) in a market, at a university or any place in the territorial boundaries of our country. There exists a relationship between the presence of foreign troops and the existence of militant movements in the region, but a callous and immoral association that ignores the history of terrorism, militancy and widespread violence in Pakistan is outrightly wrong.

Throughout the 1990s, not only did we fight a proxy war in Kashmir, where we sent armed men to ‘liberate’ the country through force, we saw one of the biggest battles between the sects of one faith in the country. The entire decade was one of bloodbaths where sectarian organisations killed thousands across the country. If the people have forgotten the massacre of thousands, let me remind them.

A dozen people were killed in a bomb blast in Kamoke Bazaar, Gujranwala on June 11, 1996. Around 11 people were killed outside the New Town mosque in Karachi on August 14, 1996. Twenty-five people died when the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) attacked the Iranian Cultural Centre in Multan on January 19, 1997. A bomb explosion in a bus killed 20 people near Sialkot on June 30, 1997. A bomb targeting SSP leader Zia-ur-Rehman Lakhvi killed 25 dutiful policemen outside the Sessions Court in Lahore on January 18, 1997. Twenty-two people were killed on January 11, 1998 in the Mominpura cemetery attack. Seventeen people were killed in an attack on a church in Bahawalpur on October 28, 1997. Sixteen people praying inside an Imambargah were massacred on January 4, 1999. Twelve people were killed in an attack on March 4, 2001 in Sheikhupura. Have we forgotten the bombings of buses across the country? Have we forgotten the brazen attack that killed SSP Ashraf Marath, the Iranian Counsel General Sadiq Ganji and the Iranian air force cadets? What about the Taxila and Murree church attacks? Have we forgotten the bounty Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ) had placed on Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif? Terrorists did not even spare the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Hospital and killed six when a bomb blast targeted the hospital on April 14, 1996.

How can we forget the victims of merciless sectarian clashes in our country? How can we begin to form a narrative that ignores that militancy, extremism and targeting civilians has had a long history in our country? It has become a cliché to associate militancy solely with Ziaul Haq and his policies. It is the people who tolerated the existence of militants, who gave money to the jihadi organisations fighting in Kashmir for a supposedly holy cause, and those who failed to condemn the militants that gave support and strengthened the extremists by their silence. A dangerous narrative that callously and shamelessly ignores the deaths of thousands of Pakistanis at the hands of sectarian militants deserves condemnation. Even if the terrorism of the 90s was seen as restricted, avoidable, and not spread across the heartland of the country, it is fallacious to ignore the history of that era and the fact that those very sectarian organisations have provided the manpower for the terrorist organisations of today. With the prime time fire-breathing demagogues of television hell bent on crafting a narrative that associates terrorism in all its forms with the post-9/11 world, it is not surprising that the public discourse on terrorism has become associated solely with 9/11 and the US presence in Afghanistan.

Tactics have changed because of desperation and better security measures, but terrorism has lived on. To forget what happened in that decade is insensitive to the memory of those who died. Terrorism has spread but the underlying issues, ideologies and motivations remain essentially the same. From Parachinar to attacks on Sufi shrines, sectarian militancy is still alive and it contributes personnel to other terrorist organisations. Make no mistake; this is a war of ideologies.

Militant organisations are by their very nature prone to factionalism and splintering. These sectarian organisations have been the fodder for many terrorist organisations that blow up civilians day in and day out. Southern Punjab was then the breeding ground of sectarian militant organisations like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and proxy-war jihadis of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, etc. Splinter groups formed from these organisations turned their guns on us a long time ago but the Punjabi Taliban, as they are called, pose a newer challenge.

If someone has forgotten the days when jihadi organisations used to collect chanda (charity) outside mosques every Friday, then he is merely deceiving himself, perhaps because he also put a Rs 10 note in their donation box. A society that conveniently forgets its very tolerance of such dangerous elements — perhaps a convenient way of absolving collective guilt — has some serious questions it needs to answer about the use of violence for seeking political and religious goals. Our previous martial saviour was amongst the large number of people who thought organisations with institutional presence in Pakistan who fought proxy wars in Kashmir and in a sense jihadi militants fighting outside Pakistan were not a concern for us. Are we tolerant of violence only until it targets us?

Latent tolerance for extremism does come out in one way or another, whether in the form of being ambivalent to attacks on people of another sect or support for attacks on people of another faith, another country or just anybody but yourself. Unless people are convinced that the use of violence in the name of religion for fighting proxy wars and for seeking universalist political goals is unacceptable, we will be vulnerable to attacks. This open tolerance of extremism, especially when there is discrimination based on who the target is, makes the cannon fodder that these militant organisations thrive on. Martin Niemöller’s ‘First they came...’ should be a message for all those who consider violence targeted at people of an identity other than their own as justifiable.

 

[RabzonKhan]

COMMENT:Why call a spade an Islamist?

Daily Times
Zaair Hussain
November 12, 2010

At the time of this writing, nearly 90 souls have been ripped from their mortal coils in the bombings that targeted two mosques in northwestern Pakistan on November 5th. A suicide attack turned a mosque in the Akharwal area of Darra Adam Khel into a charnel house during Friday prayers and hours later, while dozens of families were still in shock, terrorists hurled three hand grenades into another mosque during evening prayers in a suburb of Peshawar. These, then, are our so-called “Islamic militants” who have created in our country a monotony of unimaginable horror.

A great deal more must be done to combat terrorists in Pakistan, but this is a point exhaustively discussed by more experienced analysts and security experts; it would not be useful to add my voice to the litany. I have read enough to gather that we are struggling in the physical war because it is not being fought along any lines that our army has been trained to fight against.

I would argue that we are struggling in the ideological war for a similar reason: we have no mental training against the idea of terrorists who strike at us and call themselves Islamists.

The roots of this weakness are largely immaterial; they spring from our struggles for independence, from our fruitless wars with India, from our sustained anger over Kashmir and the sometimes glibly unjust foreign policy of powerful nations.

That we refer to terrorists as “Islamic militants” or similar monikers is symptomatic of a troubled national psyche. There is no call to refer to them as such: indeed, it empowers them when we do. There is nothing Islamic about them, and when we imply otherwise, even by our choice of words, we project exactly the illusion they need to survive. Parse them intellectually from Islam, as they have parsed themselves so well morally, and their ideological succour is asphyxiated.

The west may be even guiltier of this, having adopted variations of “Islamic extremist” as cornerstones tying together any report on terrorism, creating exactly the resentment of Muslims and the projection of omnipresence that these groups crave.

We and they must both understand that we are at war with an enemy as close to pure evil as can exist in this complex world of greys. Their goals have the substantiality of fairy dust, their means the terror of blood and bone. Extremists have been allowed their ideological space because they have sold an extravagant lie.

They do not espouse or follow, as too many have too often blathered, a “harsh interpretation” of Islam any more than did the KKK espouse or follow a harsh interpretation of Christianity. The words “strict” or “austere” are even worse; on the tongues of western media, they connect terrorism tangentially but solidly to Islam, and in the mouths of apologists imply a “firm but fair” system, referring to the gauntleted rule of the original Taliban.

The Taliban did bring law to Afghanistan, the worst kind of law, the law of Hobbes’ Leviathan planted like a spear upon bloodied ground. The only reason it was accepted was because it was built upon a site of such murderous chaos that any form of order was better than none. Pakistan, for all the slings and arrows that pierce us, is thankfully some distance from that position.

Neither are terrorists “fundamentalists”. Which particular fundamental of any religion do they espouse? They are not “Islamic extremists”. Any religion-based “extremist” — barring, perhaps, a voodoo practitioner or a follower of ancient warlike deities — would be more likely to be either a secluded monk or a damningly uncompromising but ultimately benevolent figure like Gandhi. They are not “Islamic insurgents”; against whom is the insurgency? The governments they threaten? The children they kill? The mosques they bomb? The world? Everybody? Nobody?

“Tehriki-e-Taliban Pakistan” and “al Qaeda” are grandiose titles for an enemy just as contemptible as it is dangerous. By nature a destructive and repressive force, they can create nothing, can leave no legacy. Yes, they are deadly, spreading death as indiscriminately as a plague. What of it? Locusts and mosquitoes are many orders of magnitude more destructive than any terrorist group, and have built exactly as much. We must deal with them, but they cannot possibly command our awe.

We must look away from our uni-dimensional focus on the Indian threat to realise the greater horror within.

Clearly, I am not addressing and do not expect readers to address those who openly or even covertly cheer terrorist groups. Those, thankfully few, individuals have gone where the admittedly cold charms of reason cannot follow.

But even the rest of us feel an uneasiness about these groups that comes not only from their obvious perniciousness, but from something nagging within us that is undecided on which side we should stand. It has progressed to the level of a national Stockholm Syndrome. We identify with our tormentors, and it is the result of a traumatised psyche.

The grandness of their names falsely evokes connections to a great civilisation or theology or ideology, though they have no more roots in any culture, nation or religion than do bullets.

Yet, we are confused, and many of us insecure about our identity as Muslims and Pakistanis. Conflating terrorist groups with nationalism, with religion, with fighting against an oppressive international order makes us defensive against the world, makes us falter in our reason. This insecurity compels us to seek a foreign hand in every domestic explosion and scrabble for hidden justifications for the unjustifiable. It is unnecessary: terrorist groups manifestly represent neither us nor our country nor our religion.

Though we must certainly devote our energies and ideas into snuffing out the terrorist wildfire, we should not concern ourselves unduly that they carry forth their abominations in the name of Islam. They could shout from Kandahar to Karachi that they fight in the name of Buddhism, or Hinduism, or Quantum String Theory and it would make no difference to their essential character: they are madmen who fight because of unknowable and insane hatred, and ultimately have no idea why they are fighting.

We must stop them, clearly. But to pay heed to their self-important ravings is the act of a fool.

The writer is a Lahore-based freelance columnist.

 

[muse]

I sympathize with the author - But is he right? Are those who fight, bomb, terrorize in the name of Islam, not Islamists? Ought we over look the 800 pound Gorilla of "Islamism" and choose to deny what these people identify with?

If yes, Why? Yes, they engage in what we call terrorism and they are, therefore, terrorists - and that they do so in the name of Islam - we should then not refer to them as Islamists??

Others, also "true believers" of Islamism, but whose fire these more committed have stolen, take exception - since these "true believers" of Islamism have not as yet taken up weapons against the society that nurtured them, are now sidelined, they ask as to refert to these as terrorists only -- the author asks to "Act":

we should not concern ourselves unduly that they carry forth their abominations in the name of Islam.

Indeed - Why not? Well, the author has an answer to that as well:

to pay heed to their self-important ravings is the act of a fool.

And we are left asking ourselves exactly who is extruding "self important ravings".

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Instigation to mob justice

Daily Times
November 13, 2010

Asia Bibi, a 45-year old Christian woman, was sentenced to death by a local court in Nankana district on Monday. Asia was working as a farm worker in a village and was asked to fetch water but some Muslim women refused to drink it, saying it was “unclean” since a Christian woman had brought it (contrary to Islam’s teachings and rooted in caste prejudice). After some days, these women went to a local cleric and accused Asia of making derogatory comments about Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). A mob then attacked Asia and the police was called, who ‘saved’ her from the angry mob but in the end succumbed to pressure and registered a blasphemy case against her. It seems as if the local court has succumbed to the same pressure and given her a death sentence. Though there has been no execution in blasphemy cases and most death sentences are overturned on appeal, many people have been murdered either while they were on trial for blasphemy or as soon as they were accused of it. Thus, there is an urgent need to address the root cause: the blasphemy law.

The blasphemy law is a draconian law, just like the Hudood Ordinance, which is often used to settle scores and advance vested interests. Just last year, a Christian village in Gojra was torched after some people alleged that the Holy Quran was desecrated there. The real issue revolved around a property dispute but it was given a religious tinge to emotionally charge up the Muslim community. Over the years, the blasphemy law has been used as a convenient tool to instigate mob violence. This is not limited to settling scores with religious minorities like the Christians, Hindus or Ahmedis, even Muslims have become victims of this unjust law. Just this year, a 60-year-old Zaibunnisa was released by the Lahore High Court (LHC) after languishing in jail for 14 years on a false charge of blasphemy.

The Hudood Ordinance and blasphemy law are flawed and open to abuse. Governments get cold feet over repealing these laws and allow the country to be held hostage to an extreme minority view. Unless we can break free of these shackles, we cannot hope to be described in the world as a progressive Muslim state. No justice system and no religion advocates such draconian laws. The Prophet (PBUH) and his message need no defenders. They shine on their own merit.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Pakistan’s Salem witch-hunt

Daily Times
November 16, 2010

Religious minorities in Pakistan live in the most adversarial of circumstances. The Blasphemy Law, a draconian law promulgated by General Ziaul Haq, hangs over the heads of not just religious minorities but even Muslims like the sword of Damocles. Recently, a Christian woman, Asia Bibi, was sentenced to death on blasphemy charges by a local court. Though most such death sentences are overturned on appeal, there have been several cases of the accused being killed during or after the trial is over. One such case is that of a 22-year-old boy, Imran Latif, who was shot dead near his home even though the blasphemy charges against him had not been proved and he was released on bail.

Instead of catching the culprits or denouncing the murder, the investigating officer pronounced: “no Muslim tolerates a man who commits blasphemous acts”. If a law enforcer can justify a murder on this pretext, it means that we are officially sanctioning a free hand to murderers. When our policemen pass such intolerant statements, we should not expect much from the bigots present in every nook and corner of this (un)blessed land. The Blasphemy Law gives a state-backed stamp of approval to intolerance. It is a shame that General Zia’s legacy has not been reversed despite the passage of several decades. With laws like this on our statute books, what kind of message are we giving to the world? In the comity of nations, we do not stand a chance to be dubbed ‘civilised’ due to such laws.

It must be pointed out once again that most people accused of blasphemy never committed the act but were charged by people with ulterior motives like a property dispute, personal vendetta, etc. Sadly, this is reminiscent of the Salem witch trials in the US in the 17th century.

Both military and civilian governments have been afraid of repealing the Blasphemy Law as they fear a backlash from the religious zealots. The only way to deal with this now is if the people unite and stand up for their just rights. We need a people’s movement asking for a reversal of not just this law but also many others, including the Hudood Ordinance. If the people do not raise their voice, they would be left in a continuing state of being granted no rights.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Venting my spleen

Dawn
By Irfan Husain
11/20/2010

I AM often asked by friends and readers why I continue writing when it`s obvious that my columns make no difference to anything. I reply that by writing, “ mein dil ki bharas nikal dayta hun ” . I think the closest English translation is that I vent my spleen.

And believe me, there`s a lot happening to vent my spleen about. Currently, the issue that`s making my blood boil is the truly disgusting story about Aasia Bibi, the Christian mother who has been given the death sentence for alleged blasphemy. Pakistani non-Muslims have often been targeted by the blasphemy law that carries the death penalty if the accused are found guilty.

All it takes to subject an enemy to the mischief of this malign law is for a few people to charge him or her of blasphemy and let injustice take its course.

While most politicians and the media in Pakistan have taken little note of yet another Christian being persecuted for her faith, the rest of the world is appalled and outraged.

Pope Benedict XVI could not have been more forthright in his condemnation, and his support for Aasia Bibi when he said recently: “Over these days, the international community is, with great concern, following the situation of Christians in Pakistan who are often victims of violence or discrimination. In particular, I today express my spiritual closeness to Ms Aasia Bibi and her family.…”

The death sentence passed on the hapless Aasia Bibi is entirely in line with this recent pronouncement by the Islamic State of Iraq, an extremist ally of Al Qaeda: “All Christian centres, organisations and institutions, leaders and followers are legitimate targets of the mujahideen.”

This declaration of war on Christendom followed an attack on an Iraqi church that killed nearly 60 Christians. While these words and actions from a vicious, bloodthirsty terrorist group is in keeping with their track record, the silence of Muslim leaders and the media is outrageous.

Had a mosque in the West been attacked with such heavy casualties, and an extreme Christian group had made a similar threat against Muslims, the outcry across the Islamic world would have been deafening. Western targets would have been attacked from Jakarta to Marrakesh.

As this anti-Christian discrimination, persecution and violence rises in many Muslim countries, we continue mouthing the mantra of Christians being Ahle-Kitab , the People of the Book. In actual fact, the Islamic State of Iraq has declared them wajibul-qatal , or `deserving of murder`.

Thus, Christians have now joined the list of faiths and sects declared wajibul-qatal by extremists subscribing to an orthodox strain of religion that has infected so many Muslim radicals. Ahmadis have long been in this category. So are others, including followers of the tolerant, Sufi brand of Islam.

In Pakistan, these unfortunate people have been ruthlessly targeted by a number of radical groups that have been allowed to proliferate over the years. Secular Muslims, of course, have always been fair game.

Instead of acting vigorously to close down these terrorist groups, the army and successive governments in Pakistan have sought to use them to further short-sighted and entirely illegal agendas across our borders. The problem, of course, has always been that once these killers get legitimacy and support from the state, they turn their attention to targets within the country.

But the state is not alone in the spread of extremism: the independent media must share the blame. For decades now, a section of the Urdu press has carried a message of hate and intolerance, one amplified by the scores of private TV channels that are now the principal means of shaping public opinion.

Some time ago, one popular TV anchor on a religious programme almost urged a cleric on the panel to declare Ahmadis wajibul-qatal. Within days of the programme, two Ahmadis were duly murdered. But he is not the only one fanning the flames of this madness. Others hold forth in their studios and spew out this message of hatred against all those who do not subscribe to the belief of the majority Sunni doctrine.

There is a tendency in humans and animals alike to prey on the weak, and kick those below us in the pecking order. In today`s Pakistan, non-Muslims have been assigned a place in society where they can be persecuted with impunity by those above them on the social ladder. People who accuse non-Muslims falsely of blasphemy just to settle a score or grab some property are never prosecuted. Those who murder Christians, Hindus and Ahmadis are never sentenced.

Time and again, the state has failed in its duty to protect all of its citizens. Several non-Muslim prisoners, accused of blasphemy, have been murdered while in police custody by fanatics who have then escaped punishment. And if the accused have been pronounced not guilty by the courts, their lives are always at risk when they are released from custody.

So if Aasia Bibi is freed on appeal, she won`t be able to return to her village where a mob led by the local mullahs could storm her home. As far too many Christians know, this often happens in Pakistan.

The question is not why militants are targeting non-Muslims in Pakistan: the real question is why we are not angrier at this increasing persecution. Why don`t our politicians and the media come out loudly and unequivocally against extremism? As it is, too many of us hedge our condemnation with ifs and buts. We bring in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan as though people like Aasia Bibi are responsible for western policies.

The grim reality is that whatever we may say about the protection non-Muslims are supposed to be accorded in Muslim societies, they are increasingly at risk at the hands of vicious fanatics. That they operate in our midst, immune from legal sanctions, is a telling comment on the majority.

Now that the extremists have declared war on all those who do not conform to their narrow, harsh version of Islam, we have no option but to fight them with every means available to us. Above all, we should not tolerate those who advocate their cause, and justify the slaughter of innocent non-Muslims. We could start by demanding a fair deal for Aasia Bibi.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Right man for the right job

Dawn
Irfan Husain
November 27 2010

I BECAME convinced that Asif Zardari had a sense of humour when I first learned of the appointment of Maulana Attaur Rehman as the federal minister for tourism. Who better than this bearded, rotund cleric as the face of Pakistan to attract tourists to our shores?

My conviction that this was truly an inspired choice was confirmed when this newspaper reported on the good maulana`s latest utterances a few days ago. At a recent gathering in Akora Khattak, he said:

“Ulema [clerics] and the Taliban are the true followers of Islamic ideology and America is the biggest terrorist of the world, which is creating hatred against them [the ulema and the Taliban]. US and the world should give equal rights and respect to the Muslims, or terrorism will continue… It is a misconception that ulema and the Taliban are against coexistence of people with different religions. In fact it is America which is against interfaith harmony to maintain its hegemony over the world.”I`m glad the minister has openly and clearly stated that Pakistan`s religious parties and their supporters are on the same wavelength as the Taliban. No doubt he supports the Taliban`s Stone Age policies while they were in power: executions, floggings and amputations were among the public entertainment Mullah Omar and his gang provided the Afghans.

What they did not provide was education for girls or progress of any kind. Indeed, women were locked up out of sight, and men`s beards were measured for correct length. Having less facial hair than the prescribed length was a serious offence. Pastimes like flying kites or playing chess were naturally banned, as were music and movies.

This, then, is the `Islamic ideology` of the Taliban. So what does that make the millions of Muslims around the world who utterly rejected this barbaric system? Lesser Muslims, or even non-Muslims, in the eyes of the maulana, no doubt. Fortunately for us, Attaur Rehman`s portfolio was split up to accommodate another minister in this bloated cabinet, otherwise he would have been in charge of culture as well. Given his admiration of the Taliban, I can easily imagine him ordering the destruction of the thousands of splendid statues in museums and archaeological sites around the country.

This, of course, would have mimicked the wanton destruction of the famous giant statues of the Buddha in Bamiyan by the Taliban in 2000. When Mullah Omar ordered this act of cultural and religious desecration, the whole world united in condemning it. In fact, this one show of ignorance and insensitivity lost the Taliban regime any residual sympathy, so when they were thrown out of Kabul in the wake of 9/11, no tears were shed for them.

The second part of the minister`s rant referred to the Americans. When he demanded that America and the world should give equal rights to Muslims, he was probably unaware that Muslims living in the West enjoy more rights than they do in their own countries. Which is one reason they migrate, legally or illegally, whenever they get an opportunity.

And when the maulana said that it is a “misconception that the ulema and the Taliban are against coexistence of people with different religions”, he should tell that to Aasia Bibi, the Christian woman sentenced to death for alleged blasphemy. Or to her family that has had to go into hiding after being threatened with death by local clerics.

Considering that this government is allied with, and dependent on, the United States, it is slightly odd for a cabinet minister to denounce America as “the biggest terrorist of the world”. While this could be his personal view, the public statements of sitting ministers are subjected to greater scrutiny than the ravings of some lone nut out there. Normally, if the public views of a minister are so far out of sync with government policy, he is asked to resign. But as far as I can detect, Zardari and his prime minister show no embarrassment at all over this outburst. I wonder what the newly arrived American ambassador makes of it.

When I looked up Attaur Rehman on the government website, I discovered that last May, he had attended the regional conference of UNWTO in Hanoi.

At this gathering of tourism ministers, travel agents and tour operators, he complained that the world media gave a wrong impression of Pakistan through its `travel advisories`. Actually, it is foreign governments that issue these warnings to their citizens in respect of countries where they could be at risk.

But does he really think the foreign media gives the wrong impression of Pakistan as one of the most dangerous places in the world for outsiders? Considering the daily mayhem we face, as well as the deadly suicide bombings of embassies and hotels that have killed so many foreigners, surely the advisories are based on a grim reality.I suspect the maulana`s mediaeval figure at the conference must have confirmed everybody`s worst fears about Pakistan. Once again, I must congratulate Zardari for unerringly picking the right man for the right job. Perhaps he should be given the additional portfolio of culture as well.

Seriously, though, why do we need a tourism ministry at all, apart from giving the job to somebody like Attaur Rehman? We are kidding ourselves if we think that this ministry can or does anything to attract foreign tourists to our country.

The only foreigners who write `tourism` as the purpose of their visit on their visa applications these days probably come to Pakistan for a few weeks of training in the terrorist camps in the tribal areas. Or they arrive on one-way tickets to enrol for a short course in suicide bombing. For these tourists, the maulana is an ideal recommendation.

The tourism minister`s recent utterances simply confirm the deeply schizophrenic country Pakistan has become. We send out simultaneous signals of modernity and mediaevalism, but at the end of the day, the latter drowns out the former.

The anti-West, pro-Taliban sentiment is the abiding image the rest of the world has of Pakistan. And as long as people like Attaur Rehman drive the national agenda, politicians like Zardari and Gilani will continue to cave in.

 

[RabzonKhan]

Matters of the mind

Dawn
By Reema Abbasi
November 28 2010


HARDLY an acorn has grown into a towering oak in Pakistan’s captive mindscape. Perhaps the country’s most enduring tragedy has been its stunted cultural and intellectual growth, which finds its roots in Gen Ziaul Haq’s era.

The aftermath clings like an obstinate memory. The then flourishing performing arts — theatre, music and classical dance — stood aborted. And the most debilitating blow was the muzzle on the media.

The publishing industry came to a grinding halt and the written word stood slain. Writers found other avenues in foreign lands.

Thus far, hardly any creative field has been able to recover primarily because painters, authors, journalists, poets and thinkers were robbed of their roles as leaders and role models. Theatre has only recently acquired a somewhat steady platform in Napa. But despite some heavyweight thespians at the helm, it continues to flounder.

Theatre is undeniably a pivotal player in cultural evolution as it performs multiple roles — from that of a cohesive, unifying force, to being a reflection of and a mirror to socio-economic and cultural realities to a channel of catharsis.

Other performing arts such as classical dance remain at a standstill — our prized performers are struggling at best. Naheed Siddiqui makes the occasional appearance, Nighat Chaudhry had to turn to television, Sheema Kermani keeps the cause of the girl child alive with sporadic dance recitals. But the saddest casualty has been Fasihur Rehman, a superior Kathak artist, who left the country due to intolerance for a male dancer.

Meanwhile, our film industry breathed its last in the 1980s. Barring a few movies that stirred the box office, countless unskilled producers, directors and actors armed with archaic equipment and studio facilities, have failed to give it a new lease on life.

The lyrical decades of the ’50s and ’60s saw industrialists sponsor literary competitions such as the Adamjee literary prize in Pakistan and Delhi Cloth Mills’ and Toyota Motor Company’s grand Indo-Pak mushaira. Classical music was considered honourable enough for musicians and lyricists to be on the payroll of Radio Pakistan till they were tuned out in the late ’70s.

It was at this time that a cultural wasteland was born. Ailing museums, zoological gardens, archaeological and historical sites have only turned most inquiring minds away.

Debate has become restricted to the political arena and the level of disenchantment can be measured by the fact that some years ago, senior professors proposed that Karachi University’s Department of Philosophy be shut down.

Intellectual poverty has brought our society to a point where we have yet to witness a ‘movement’; there are only well-publicised events that speak of the ‘cause-of -the day’ but never put forth a philosophy of change.

At a time when this society is in dire need of unifying, thinking grounds it is being forced apart by armchair pursuits.
The medium is indeed the message but what happens when both become either blurred or lost in translation?

 

[RabzonKhan]

VIEW: The Ilam Din fiasco and lies about Jinnah

Daily Times
Yasser Latif Hamdani
November 29, 2010


In the recent debate over the blasphemy law, a group of Jamaat-e-Islami-backed right-wing authors have come up with an extraordinary lie. It is extraordinary because it calls into question the professional integrity of the one man in South Asian history who has been described as incorruptible and honest to the bone by even his most vociferous critics and fiercest rivals, i.e. Mohammad Ali Jinnah. The lie goes something like this: ‘Ghazi’ Ilam Din ‘Shaheed’ killed blasphemer Hindu Raj Pal and was represented by Quaid-e-Azam at the trial who advised him to deny his involvement in the murder. ‘Ghazi’ and ‘Shaheed’ Ilam Din refused and said that he would never lie about the fact that he killed Raja Pal. Quaid-e-Azam lost the case and Ilam Din was hanged.

To start with, the story is entirely wrong. First of all, Jinnah was not the trial lawyer. Second, Ilam Din had entered the not guilty plea through his trial lawyer who was a lawyer from Lahore named Farrukh Hussain. The trial court ruled against Ilam Din. The trial lawyer appealed in the Lahore High Court and got Jinnah to appear as the lawyer in appeal. So there is no way Jinnah could have influenced Ilam Din to change his plea when the plea was already entered at the trial court level. Nor was Ilam Din exactly the ‘matchless warrior’ that Iqbal declared him to be — while simultaneously refusing to lead his funeral prayers. Indeed Ilam Din later filed a mercy petition to the King Emperor asking for a pardon.

The relevant case — in which Jinnah appeared — cited as Ilam Din vs. Emperor AIR 1930 Lahore 157 — makes interesting reading. It was a division bench judgement with Justice Broadway and Justice Johnstone presiding. Jinnah’s contention was that the evidence produced before the trial court was insufficient and the prosecution story was dubious. To quote the judgement, “He urged that Kidar Nath was not a reliable witness because (1) he was an employee of the deceased and, therefore, interested. (2) He had not stated in the First Information Report (a) that Bhagat Ram (the other witness) was with him, and (b) that the appellant had stated that he had avenged the Prophet. As to Bhagat Ram it was contended he, as an employee, was interested, and as to the rest that there were variations in some of the details.”

The court rejected this contention. The judgement continues that “Mr Jinnah finally contended that the sentence of death was not called for and urged as extenuating circumstances, that the appellant is only 19 or 20 years of age and that his act was prompted by feelings of veneration for the founder of his religion and anger at one who had scurrilously attacked him.” The court rejected this contention as well referring to Amir vs. Emperor, which was the same court’s decision a few years earlier. Interestingly, the curious reference to 19 or 20 years deserves some attention. Why did Jinnah as one of the leading lawyers refer specifically to an argument that had been exploded by the same court only two years earlier? That only Mr Jinnah can answer and I do not wish to speculate. Perhaps he was trying to argue what Clarence Darrow had argued successfully a few years ago in the famous Leopold and Loeb case involving two 19-year old college students who had committed the ‘perfect crime’. Clarence Darrow’s defence converted a death sentence to a life sentence.

Another corollary of the argument forwarded by our right-wing commentators is that since Jinnah defended Ilam Din in this murder trial, he favoured the ‘death sentence for blasphemy’. It is an odd derivative even for average intellects that most Pakistani ultra-rightwingers and Islamists possess. First of all, it is quite clear that Jinnah did not defend the actions of Ilam Din. He had attacked the evidence on legal grounds. Second, it is clear that there was no confession and Jinnah did not ask Ilam Din to change his plea. Third, when the court rejected Jinnah’s contentions, Jinnah’s argument was simply that a death sentence was too harsh for a man of 19 or 20, with the obvious implication that sentence should be changed to life imprisonment.

We can only conjecture as to what Jinnah’s reasons as a lawyer and politician to agree to be the lawyer for the appellant before the high court were. In any event, a lawyer’s duty is to accord an accused the best possible defence. Just because a lawyer agrees to defend an accused does not mean that the lawyer concurs with the crime. One is reminded of the famous Boston Massacre in 1770 when British soldiers opened fire and killed five civilians who were protesting against them. The British soldiers hired John Adams as a lawyer, who got five of the accused acquitted, arguing that a sentry’s post is his castle. Does that mean that John Adams was in favour of British rule in the US? If so, it is rather ironic that he was the prime mover and the guiding spirit behind the American declaration of independence. Similarly, when Clarence Darrow defended Leopold and Loeb, was he in any way suggesting that the crime that those two young men had committed was justified?

Jinnah’s record as a legislator tells us a different story altogether. He was an indefatigable defender of civil liberties. He stood for Bhagat Singh’s freedom and condemned the British government in the harshest language when no one else would. In the debate on 295-A of the Indian Penal Code, a much more sane and reasonable law than our 295-B and 295-C, Jinnah had sounded a warning against the misuse of such laws in curbing academic freedoms and bona fide criticisms. I have quoted that statement in my previous two articles.

There cannot be any question that Jinnah the legislator would have balked at the idea that his defence of a murder convict is now being used by some people to justify a law that is ten times more oppressive and draconian than the one he had cautioned against. To this day, I have only found him alone to have had the courage to state in the Assembly on September 11, 1929: “If my constituency is so backward as to disapprove of a measure like this then I say, the clearest duty on my part would be to say to my constituency, ‘you had better ask somebody else to represent you’.”

The writer is a lawyer.

 

[RabzonKhan]

EDITORIAL: Intolerance is blasphemy

Daily Times
November 29, 2010

Aasia Masih’s blasphemy case is not just gaining momentum, it is leaving a torrent of controversy in its wake, where extremism and draconian views are being upheld instead of endorsing basic human rights and tolerance. After being sentenced to death by a district sessions court in Nankana Sahib, Aasia’s case has become the poster-child issue for civil society, private NGOs and the international community, all of whom are appalled by this medieval and harsh punishment because of a controversial law. However, it is saddening to see that some of our politicians are coddling the mullahs who have found in Aasia’s case a reason to once again froth at the mouth.

Babar Awan has said that the blasphemy law can only be altered or repealed “over his dead body”. It sounds as though the federal law minister is taking some direct lessons from the extreme right and intolerant hate mongers who have been directing our society towards the brink of anarchy due to their regressive ideas about religion. In the same vein, activists of different religious parties including the Jamaat-e-Islami, unleashed their anger at the accused and even Governor Salmaan Taseer who is campaigning for the president to pardon the poor Christian woman. They protested against any possible pardon and swore that if such a compromise took place, there would be a countrywide backlash. For the law minister to voice the same message puts him in the same league as these venomous mullahs, many of whom are responsible for riling up angry mobs and murderous vendettas against the minorities. It is unfathomable that a man of Mr Awan’s standing in the government should come off as no better than a hate spewing cleric himself.

The last thing Pakistan needs right now is any vindication granted to the clerics. It is these people who have condoned the extra-judicial murder of anyone accused — many falsely — of blasphemy. It is these clerics who support Taliban-like causes and even outrightly provide ideological and, at times, strategic support to the militants who are ravaging our nation. If members of the ruling party side with their inhumane verdicts on religious matters, little hope is left for our minorities and the cultivation of a society that protects the rights of its citizens. Someone needs to knock some sense into those who mollycoddle the intolerant. They have done enough harm to Pakistan already.