To be a Muslim in Gujarat today

TO be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to be in mourning, to be displaced from your home, to live in constant fear, to have no trust in your government and no hope for the future.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to know that more than 2,000 of your co-religionists (some of them members of your own family) have been killed by Hindu mobs, many in the most brutal manner imaginable. Arundhati Roy wrote of someone telling her that her friend Sayeeda had had her stomach cut open and stuffed with burning rags.

There are hundreds of Sayeedas in Gujarat today. The pregnant ones had their foetuses cut out before being burnt; others were raped and then cremated alive. The bestiality that has been perpetrated in Gujarat literally knows no bounds.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to know you can expect no help from the police and security forces. Those supposed to protect Muslim citizens from the murderous wrath of Hindu mobs just stood by and let them be killed. Worse, they actively assisted in the ‘ethnic cleansing’ by identifying Muslim houses, and some even joined in the killing.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to know that even high status and public prominence will not protect you. Ahsan Jaffrey, a former Congress MP, was burned and hacked to pieces by a Hindu mob that had been encircling his house for hours. His frantic calls for assistance to the police and politicians could not save him, or nineteen other members of his family.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to know that all your places of worship and holy sites — even tombs of famous Muslim poets and musicians like Wali Dakhani and Ustad Faiz Ali Khan — have been destroyed. The campaign against Muslims in Gujarat has been comprehensive: life, property, culture, heritage, religion — everything has been wiped out.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to know that your state government encouraged and promoted the pogrom against your community. Hindu mobs were discriminate in the houses and properties they burned: hardly any Hindu neighbourhoods or businesses were destroyed. The computer-generated official lists of Muslim and Hindu property in their possession allowed them to carry out a systematic, thorough and targeted assault on Gujarat’s Muslim community. Senior police officials recently admitted they were ordered to go soft on extremist Hindu groups.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to have no faith in your national government. Despite overwhelming evidence that state and security officials at the highest level were involved in the planning and implementation of the anti-Muslim vendetta (this was no spontaneous massacre), Prime Minister Vajpayee refuses to remove the BJP chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. Furthermore, Vajpayee pointed to the Godhra killing and expressed understanding for Hindu sentiments: he clearly implied that the murder of 58 Hindus justified that of over 2,000 Muslims.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to have to witness and endure the hypocrisy and crocodile tears of your Hindu leaders. Prime Minister Vajpayee had the nerve to speak to Gujarati Muslims of his shame and sorrow at what had happened to them — even as he then told a Hindu audience that Muslims could not live in peace anywhere. Chief Minister Modi had the even greater gall — or rather utter shamelessness — to participate in a pro-peace rally in Ahmedabad.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to have little expectation that the opposition forces within India will help you. Congress and other opposition parties have condemned the killings in Gujarat and the state’s role in them. But no one in Indian politics wants to go through another gruelling national election (Congress wants to wait until it is stronger) or risk losing Hindu votes by championing the cause of the Muslims.

Hence the National Democratic Alliance at the centre has survived and the opposition could not even get a censure motion passed in the Lok Sabha. Some journalists and writers (Praful Bidwai, Arundhati Roy, M. J. Akbar) have shown that not all Indians are bereft of a conscience, but others have followed the country’s right-wing politicians and pampered to Hindu sentiment.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to have even less expectation that the international community will help you. Coverage of the Gujarat carnage by news organizations like the BBC and CNN presents it as ‘Hindu-Muslim killings’ — a general term that fails to convey the huge imbalance between Hindu and Muslim deaths. Washington, London and other capitals have generally been silent on the issue, respecting Indian sentiments about non-interference in their internal affairs.

Only a leaked report by the British high commission in New Delhi attributed blame to the Indian authorities. Whether because of lack of concern about Gujarat’s hapless Muslims or with an eye to future trade deals with India, the outside world has failed to carry out its humanitarian responsibility.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to live in a refugee camp. Over 100,000 people have been displaced from their homes — either because they have been destroyed or because it is unsafe to return to them. Most fled with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They are living in appalling conditions in camps which simply do not have the facilities or resources to cope with so many people. Hindu victims of the Godhra fire have received compensation from the state authorities, but the thousands more Muslim victims of Hindu arson and vandalism have received nothing.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to live in constant fear of Hindu attack. More than two months have passed since the original attacks took place, yet Muslims are still being killed in Ahmedabad and other parts of the state. Hindu lust for Muslim blood has not abated. Rather — in a manner reminiscent of the Nazis and their systematic extermination of the Jews and other undesirables — there appears a determination to finish off the job and destroy all vestiges of Islam and Muslim life in Gujarat.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat these bleak days means to be in a state of deep despair. With their properties destroyed, members of their families killed, fear for their own lives, unsympathetic (indeed hostile) state and national governments, and stuck in camps with nowhere else to go — there is absolutely nothing to offer Gujarat’s Muslims hope for the future.

To be a Muslim in Gujarat today means to look at your co- religionists in Pakistan with envy. Whatever problems there are in this country (and there are many), fear of Hinduism’s all- consuming fires is not one. Be grateful you’re not a Muslim in Gujarat today.

Vajpayee’s unseemly remarks

WHILE addressing the Bhartiya Janta Party’s national executive in Goa on April 12, Indian prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, inter alia, said that “wherever there are Muslims, they do not want to live with others (i.e. who practise other faiths). Instead of living peacefully, they want to preach and propagate their religion by creating fear and terror in the mind of others”.

It may be recalled that, not long ago, Vajpayee had branded Islam as an extremist medieval religion. He ignored the fact that Islam stands for peace and has made tremendous contribution for the salvation of the humanity at large.

In the aftermath of the September 11 carnage in the United States, a sinister campaign has been launched by some countries, inimical to Islam, equating this religion with intolerance and terrorism. Vajpayee’s scathing attack on the Muslims is evidently a part of this campaign to malign them and to tarnish the image of Islam.

It is a fact of history that, with the advent of the Muslims in India, many of the inequitable laws which had granted the Brahmins a privilged position were repealed. The first prime minister of India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, in his famous book ‘Discovery of India’ has acknowledged that “the impact of Islam had been considerable. It had pointed out and shone up the abuses that had crept into Hindu society — the petrification of caste, untouchability, exclusiveness, carried to fantastic lengths. The idea of the brotherhood of Islam and the theoretical equality of its adherents made a powerful appeal, especially to those in the Hindu fold who were denied any semblance of equal treatment”.

All the democratic, moral, social, economic and legal ideals of the contemporary civilization, embodied in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are already enshrined in the Holy Quran and in the sayings of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), especially in his farewell address which is rightly described as the first charter of human rights.

Islam is a religion for all people from whatever race or background they might be. The Islamic civilization is based on a unity which stands completely against any racial or ethnic discrimination. In Islam there is no discrimination or division on the basis of colour, caste, race, and birthplace. The global civilization thus created by Islam permitted people of diverse ethnic backgrounds to work together in cultivating various arts and sciences. Consequently, even the nomadic Arabs became torchbearers of science and learning. Islam played a key role in developing intellectual and cultural life on a scale never witnessed before in the history of mankind.

On the other hand, the Hindu literature, dominated by Aryan prejudices, had, for a long time, misled even the impartial historians and till very recently it was generally believed that prior to Aryan conquest, India was a wild country inhabited by savages and cannibals to whom the conquerors brought the blessings of civilization. Discoveries at Moenjodaro and elsewhere have, however, disproved this assertion and indicated that the people whom the Aryans had conquered were, in fact, more cultured and civilized than the war-like Aryan nomads who even today claim superiority over the original Indian inhabitants.

Speaking on the Gujrat events at the Goa meeting, Vajpayee blamed the entire violence on the Godhra carnage, saying categorically that “if there had been no Godhra, the tragedy in Gujrat would not have occurred”. The responsibility for the Godhra incident has not yet been fixed by the authorities concerned in India. Yet Vajpayee has already invented an excuse to hold the Muslims responsible for their own massacre in Gujrat.

The Muslim world as well as the Muslim population in India should take cognizance of Vajpayee’s slanderous attack on their religion. The secretary-general of the OIC should also lodge a strong protest with the Indian government against their prime minister’s sacrilege against Islam and should demand an apology from him for his irresponsible outbursts. Those of our own people who have been portraying Vajpayee as a moderate Hindu leader may also wish to revise their opinion about him. We seem to be taken in by soft-speaking. One should discard the appearance to go to the essence.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

How the army was politicized

QUAID-I-AZAM Mohammad Ali Jinnah did not want the armed forces of Pakistan to indulge in politics. He wanted them to be utterly professional and capable of defending the borders of the country.

But General Ayub Khan, the first Pakistani Commander-in-Chief of the army, who was busy in building up the institution of a professional army, was dragged into politics by Governor-General Malik Ghulam Mohammad. In the beginning, Ayub was reluctant but later agreed to become defence minister in the cabinet of Mr Mohammad Ali Bogra on the assurance that he would retain his post of Commander-in-Chief. Major- General Iskander Mirza, who was defence secretary, was appointed as interior minister in the cabinet.

Governor-General Malik Ghulam Mohammad needed these two generals as ministers in the cabinet and support of the army as he had already dismissed the government of Prime Minister Khawaja Nazimuddin, a great political leader of pre-partition days. Later, he also dissolved the Constituent Assembly which was then being presided over by Maulvi Tamizuddin Khan and was bound to give to the nation a constitution.

These were the first steps towards politicization of the army which took full advantage of the situation. Malik Ghulam Mohammad became sick and was replaced by Major-General Iskander Mirza as governor-general in 1955.

The first constitution of Pakistan was made and promulgated on March 2, 1956 — nine years after the creation of Pakistan. Under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, envisaging a parliamentary form of government, Major-General Iskander Mirza took oath as the first president of Pakistan and Choudhary Mohammad Ali as the first prime-minister. But the elements opposed to the 1956 Constitution were waiting and watching to strike at an opportune time.

On October 7, 1958, President Major-General Iskander Mirza issued a proclamation. Consequently, the Constitution was abrogated, governments dismissed, assemblies dissolved and all political parties were banned. General Ayub Khan, Commander-in-Chief of the Army, was appointed Chief Martial Law Administrator. Martial law was declared throughout the country.

Within 20 days, President Iskander Mirza was compelled to step down and CMLA General Ayub Khan also assumed the office of the president. He introduced the system of basic democrats to be elected at the local council level, who were later converted into an electoral college for the election of the president and members of the assemblies. General Ayub Khan held a referendum through the basic democrats and then got himself elected as president through that electoral college. He gave to the country the Constitution of 1962 providing a presidential form of government.

But in 1969, the people came out in the streets and there were violent demonstrations in East and West Pakistan. Ayub Khan violated his own Constitution by not tendering his resignation to the Speaker of the National Assembly and stepped down as president after inviting General Yahya Khan, Commander-in-Chief of the army to perform his constitutional role and in compliance, Yahya Khan abrogated the Constitution and imposed martial law.

General Yahya Khan broke the One Unit in West Pakistan and went for general elections in the country on the basis of one-man one-vote. The result was obvious. Awami League of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman won the elections with a thumping majority in East Pakistan on the agenda of his six points with three subjects to the Centre and the rest to the provinces.

The idea was not different from a confederal system. There was delay in holding the session of National Assembly in Dhaka . The Pakistan People‘s Party of Mr Z.A. Bhutto, which won in West Pakistan with a simple majority, was not cooperative. There were riots in East Pakistan, which the martial law government of General Yahya Khan could not control. Ultimately, India intervened and there was a war. Eventually East Pakistan separated and declared its independence as Bangladesh in 1971.

The military adventure of General Yahya Khan had come to an end and West Pakistan had to be saved and reconstructed. It was decided that General Yahya Khan should step down and he did so. Mr Bhutto was sworn in as president and first civilian martial law administrator. Then the 1973 Constitution was framed in which effort was made to ensure that the four provinces remain united under a federation.

Here a brief reference to the legal aspect may be made. After the martial law of 1958 by General Ayub Khan, the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice Mohammad Muneer held in Doso’s case that the coup de’tat by the army is a recognized method of changing the constitution and giving a new legal order and its success depends on its acceptance by the people. Later the validity of the martial law imposed in 1969 by General Yahya Khan was challenged. The Supreme Court in Asma Jilani’s case overruled the finding in Doso’s case and held that the Commander-in-Chief of the army cannot abrogate the Constitution under which the army is set up as an institution and its duties are specified.The court declared Yahya Khan a usurper.

In such circumstances, in the 1973 Constitution, Article 6 was inserted to the effect that the abrogation or subversion of the Constitution or an attempt to do so amounted to treason punishable with death. So legal experts and advisers found out a new way. When martial law was imposed in 1977 by General Zia-ul- Haq, the Constitution was not abrogated but suspended which means that martial law would remain effective for a short duration and the Constitution would be restored.

The Supreme Court in Nusrat Bhutto’s case justified martial law as a constitutional deviation on the ground of state necessity and the Constitution was restored after eight years in 1985 and elections were held on a non-party basis to ensure the induction of the parliament which would approve the acts and deeds of the martial law regime and give it the cover of validity. Nothing was said about subversion whether it includes suspension of the Constitution or not.

In 1999 again the same method was repeated. There is a military rule by General Pervez Musharraf but the words ‘martial law‘ are not used. The Constitution is suspended. The Supreme Court has validated the military rule and the suspension of the Constitution on the ground of necessity for three years. This period will end in October this year when elections are to be held.

General Pervez Musharraf went for a referendum which is provided by the Constitution asking people a question of national importance to be answered in ‘yes’ or ‘no’. But the election of president cannot be held on the basis of that question. Nevertheless, he has elected himself as president for five more years.

If elections are held in October this year as promised, even this action of referendum is to be approved and validated by the newly-elected parliament. The president under the Constitution is to be elected by the electoral college of the National Assembly, Senate and the provincial assemblies. Then the parliament has to approve and validate all the laws passed by the military government. Hence, the present government is interested in the results of the coming elections.

There is another question: whether General Pervez Musharraf can contest as president as he is chief of the army staff and in the service of Pakistan. A period of two years is to elapse between his retirement from that post and the election. The possibility cannot be excluded that the general may grant himself exemption which would be condoned on the ground of state necessity. Anything illegal can be made legal on the ground of state necessity. General Musharraf would like to continue as long as his reforms are not completed which may take ten or twenty years. October elections may or may not be held, but the continuation of the reforms would be ensured.

Pakistan was born in 1947 and is now 55 years old but most of the time or for greater part of its existence, it has remained under military rule. This problem can be solved by the next elected parliament by making essential amendments in the Constitution so that the army remains away from politics and performs its duties as professionals to defend the borders during a war and come to the aid of the civil administration when called upon to do so. Only democracy minus corruption can save Pakistan.

The writer is a former Chief Justice of Pakistan.

After the French vote

THE paradox of Sunday’s French election is that despite winning a record landslide, President Jacques Chirac has no clear mandate. The 82 per cent of the electorate that backed him was motivated less by enthusiasm for his candidacy than by disgust with his opponent, the extreme rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Mr Chirac, who now begins a second seven-year term in office, will soon have a chance to solidify his position in next month’s parliamentary elections. A victory for his center-right allies would allow him to lead rather than merely preside over the country.

A victory for the center-left would usher in another period of cohabitation, prompting calls from French critics of gridlock for constitutional reform.

Whatever configuration emerges from next month’s elections, its task will be to meet the challenge of the far right. Sunday’s results suggested that Mr. Le Pen’s shocking success in the first round two weeks earlier was not the result of frivolous protest votes. —The Washington Post