| January 27, 2002 | Sunday | Ziqa’ad 12, 1422 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Demand for a secular state?
A must for politicians
Eviction of tenants
Strange logic
Manto’s writings
Child labour: government view
Media cooperation in South Asia
Real test
Private colleges and PMDC
Child labour: government view
Baltistan, not Hunza
FORMER American president Bill Clinton recently participated as guest of honour in the BBC’s lecture series, “the Dimbleby Lectures”. His speech, delivered with masterful oratory, balanced great learning and awareness of the major issues facing the world today with puckish humour and was very well received.
Concentrating entirely on the world after the events of September 11, he dwelt at length on how the wealthy nations should carry on the wider campaign to prevent terrorism in future. The areas he covered, however, had more to do with the problems facing the world generally than with, to my mind, one of the major roots of terrorism: the denial of political rights.
One sat, waiting for him to mention this, at least as one of the reasons for dissatisfaction among sections of the population in many areas of the world. But in vain. After hearing him wax eloquent on the subjects of world poverty, AIDS, and the environment, one had to try and convince oneself that all this had something to do with the terrorist attacks in America. Well, to be fair, he did say something to the effect that wealthy nations have to try and get some governments to adopt better internal policies in their own countries. But that was just one sentence, no more.
But try as one might, one couldn’t believe that the alleviation of poverty, AIDS and environmental problems, commendable as this would undoubtably be, would be the best defence against future acts of terrorism. Consider the profiles and backgrounds of the terrorists: most of them came from a rich Arab country, and none of the others had a poverty-stricken background. None came from a country where AIDS was widespread. None of them were born Europeans, therefore did not belong to the continent most vocally critical of the US policy on environmental issues.
While there are all sorts of theories and conjectures, it is actually impossible for the common man - and even the political analyst - to pinpoint exactly the reasons why so many men were prepared to undertake such a violent and destructive act at the cost of their lives. However, it may be pointed out that human beings everywhere, and not just in the West, need to be able to express their political ideas with some degree of freedom from repression. Even in the richest societies, a high standard of living is not necessarily a substitute for political freedom.
The other major belief to have been turned on its head is the notion of American impunity. As an astute American colleague pointed out recently, what the Americans lost on September 11 is not their innocence, but the feeling that Americans could do whatever they wanted in the world without it touching them in any way. The blatant hypocrisy and double standards evident in America’s dealings with the world are not going unnoticed. It is considered unjust to secure as many rights as possible for your own population while actively engaging in policies worldwide that deny those very same rights to others.
So, all this considered, Clinton’s speech was rather disappointing. One can only hope that, since questions of national interest reign supreme in American policy-making, more fairness and justice in its dealings with the world is perceived by American leaders as only serving that very interest in the long run. The astounding thing about the September 11 attacks is how easy it is to see the justification for them. And this is possible while being, at the same time, repulsed by those acts.
PALVASHA VON HASSEL
Hamburg, Germany
I would like to refer to the article of Iqbal Akhund (Jan 23) in which he says that “once Pakistan came into being” Mr Jinnah made “his view clear” that Pakistan would be “a democratic secular state.”
As I am writing a doctoral thesis on the Pakistan Movement in a University in the West and as my father was martyred in East Punjab in the 1947 Partition riots by Sikhs because of his faith and devotion to the Pakistan goal, I request Mr Akhund to quote to me any speech or public statement of Quaid-i-Azam Jinnah between 1935 and Sept 1948 in which he declared that Pakistan would be a secular state.
I have read and re-read the 11 August, 1947 speech of Mr Jinnah and I can’t find it in his declaration (as alleged by the secularists) that he said Pakistan would be a secular state. If Mr Akhund is so sure that Mr Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be a secular state, why did Mr Akhund serve for many years as the “Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan”? This nomenclature, as declared in Pakistan’s current and earlier constitutions, made Pakistan an Islamic State.
If Mr Jinnah wanted Pakistan to be secular, as alleged by Mr Akhund, why did my father and millions of other Muslims like him fig