| November 9, 2002 | Saturday | Ramazan 3,1423 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Pre-admission tests
While bargaining goes on
Workplace harassment
Meaning of jihad
Seeking justice
Are we a sovereign nation?
The wind of change
Indian troops’ withdrawal
Revision of POL prices
Plight of senior citizens
Funds for MNAs
Bend-arm controversy
THIS refers to a very interesting article, “Friedman’s recycled factoids” (Oct 24), by Anjum Niaz. I think it is important for readers to realize that Tom Friedman is one of the most prestigious sons of the US establishment; he is indeed in illustrious company with the likes of William Safire, Henry Kissinger and Charles Krauthammer in his anti-Arab and anti-Islamic biases. And it is specially in war times like this that Friedman’s opinions are much sought-after by those who subscribe to his extremely right-wing agenda.
I have been reading Friedman’s commentaries for a long time now and I think his favourite themes seem to be that the Arab and Islamic worlds are oppressed and underprivileged and the reason why the terrorists struck last September was because they are jealous of the economic and political might of US imperialism.
From this premise, he goes on to spin out little tales about how there needs to be a “civil war” within Islam in order to “reform” it. And this task he thinks should be done not by the Muslims themselves, but by dethroning their leaders at the altar of US invasions. A more facile analysis of the true conditions, hopes and aspirations of the Muslim world cannot be imagined.
I remember when the same “corrupt, evil and perverted” regimes for whose liquidation Friedman now so eloquently advocates used to pander to US interests, he was one of the most anxious advocates of their alliance with the rulers of the United States; of course, calling for democracy, women’s rights and human rights in these countries then was not on Friedman’s agenda. And it is too much to ask him now to reflect on the utter hypocrisy of his stance before he writes another column vilifying the backwardness of the Muslim world and glorifying the redeeming role of US imperialism.
Indeed Friedman’s passion is at its vitriolic best when he deploys his words in defence of the atrocities of the Zionist Israeli state against the Palestinians; there are no words of sympathy for the terrible life the Palestinians are currently undergoing under the Israeli occupation, indeed no attempt at all to seek to understand the real causes of the actions of the suicide bombers in Palestine. Shorn of analysis, Friedman’s diatribes against the Palestinian struggle and his encomiums for a “patient” Israeli leadership lose all coherence and meaning. In sort, his agenda is what we may succinctly call “liberal Zionism”.
A somewhat better analysis of the Arab and Muslim world is to be found in the articles of Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York Times in marked contrast to Tom Friedman’s empty pontificating in the same paper. Kristof, like Friedman, happens to be a Jew (originally a Holocaust refugee from Ukraine), but unlike the latter, he truly understands the socio-political contradictions in the Muslim world which are causing their peoples to descend into fundamentalism.
RAZA NAEEM
Leeds, UK
I HAVE just passed through the cumbersome phase of taking pre-admission tests for different engineering universities. It is really unnecessary that we we should be forced to sit in so many pre-entry tests.
Firstly, it is expensive. Testing fees range from Rs400 to Rs1,000 for each test and if, like me, one does not happen to live in a major city, travelling expenditures also have to be considered.
Secondly, it is time-consuming. The test dates for different institutions are well spread over a period of four to five months. However, sometimes one finds that he has three different tests (Karachi University, Mehran University and Sir Syed University) on the same day.
This entire period of test preparation is hectic and takes place just after we have given our board examinations. Some institutes have announced that their pre-admission tests will take place in April when we will be in the middle of board examinations. It is essential that provincial board schedules should be also considered instead of just the federal board schedule.
We have to prepare differently for each test as they vary greatly in pattern. Some have negative marking while some don’t. Calculators are allowed in some while disallowed in others. The NUST test is a marathon as compared to the NED test.
Instead of so many different tests, we should have one standardized test that can be taken three or four times a year. The SAT 1 and SAT 2 are very effectively employed in Western countries. We, too, can develop our own standardized test in line with the SATs that encompass the curricula taught in our colleges.
The cost ought to be kept minimum so that all sections of society can afford it. Pre-entry test marks should be an important criterion for admission but they must not eclipse the board examination marks. Due importance should be given to both.
A standardized testing system acceptable to all our universities is a necessity that must be considered by the education department.
ZULFIQAR ALI UMRANI
Hyderabad
With reference to the deadlock in the formation of a new government, the demands put forward by the major political parties to form a coalition can be summarized as follows:
PML-Q: Zafarullah Jamali should be appointed prime minister.
PPP: All cases and court verdicts against Benazir Bhutto and Asif Zardari should be withdrawn.
MMA: Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman should be made prime minister.
MQM: Altaf Hussain should be absolved of all charges and cases against him be withdrawn, enabling him to return to Pakistan.
While this bargaining is going on, the ordinary Pakistani like myself feels that personal issues are more important to our national leaders than the restoration of democracy and the well-being of the people of Pakistan.
SANIA GUL
Karachi
THIS refers to Rabia Nazir’s letter, “Harassment at workplace” (Nov 2). The writer says: “However, laws cannot bring about a change in society unless men change their attitude towards women.”
Our society is responsible for chauvinistic attitude of men towards women. The question is: how do we achieve such a massive change in men’s attitude towards women?
Most probably, education can work wonders but in Pakistan, it would take a million years for it to effect this kind of change.
I think laws play a vital role in moulding attitudes. At the moment, we have countless discriminatory laws on the statute books against women. And these laws have also contributed to the evolution of the existing tyrannical attitude of men.
Nevertheless, it is felt that if the harassment law is properly amended and implemented, attitudes are bound to change quickly.
Amendment to the harassment law is, anyhow, all too crucial because the law would deal with that particular segment of our society which is, in reality, deranged mentally but apparently seems normal. This deceptive aspect makes this lot all the more threatening because they cannot easily be detected. Hence, this is a serious business.
Women all over the world did not get their rights on a silver plate. Pakistani women are no exception. We, too, have to fight for our rights. This law is not about men versus women. We are fighting for a much bigger cause, which is to eradicate one set of social evils from the society and thus protecting women at their workplaces.
Men are not our enemies. We, women, have a genuine problem and we want them to understand it and help us find a solution.
That is why there is so much resentment on our part. No doubt together we can come up with a better solution.
NADIRA RAHMAN
Karachi
MUSLIM scholars have defined terrorism as any unjustified attack by individuals, groups or states against a human being. This includes attacks on a person’s religion, life, property and honour.
Any act of violence or threat designed to terrorize people or endanger their lives or security also amounts to terrorism. Jihad, however, cannot be equated with terrorism. Struggling against occupiers and colonial settlers who drive people from their lands and against those who help them is legitimate in Islam.
Struggling against those who renege on their commitments or prevent Muslims from peacefully preaching their religion is a form of jihad.
Islam lays down rules for jihad prohibiting killing of non-combatants and innocent women, children and elderly men as well as fighters who surrender. Also banned are attacks against installations, sites and buildings not related to the fighting.
ZULFIQAR ALI DOMKI
Jacobabad
MY son, Maqbool Ahmed, was killed on Sept 1 2001. He was a teenager and a student of class VIII at Government High School, Isa Khail.
He was attending the school when, during the recess, he was asked by another student of the school to accompany him and go outside for a short while. My son was killed in the nearby bushes by a relative of the boy who had taken him there.
Both of them were arrested and the additional judge, Mianwali, sentenced the main culprit to death while his accomplice was set free. Now the case has been moved to the Lahore High Court.
I am a poor man and cannot afford to pursue the case at the Lahore High Court. I have already spent all my savings in meeting the expenses at the lower court.
Would any individual or an NGO dealing with crimes against children or providing legal help to the needy help to me in the shape of legal aid or financial assistance so that the killers of my son may get the punishment that they deserve.
SHAFIQ AHMED
Tehsil & P.O. Isa Khail,
Mianwali
I refer to the letters “Are we a sovereign nation?” (Nov 4) and fully agree with the views of the writers that handing over any Pakistani citizen to US agencies contradicts our claims that we are a sovereign nation.
According to the charter of the United Nations, all its members are bound to recognize and respect each other’s sovereignty.
The arrests of Pakistanis by the FBI, however, flies in the face of the UN and American commitment to respect human rights and equality of all nations.
I fail to understand whether the concept of sovereignty has undergone a considerable change or we have lost our independence.
That the process of globalization has helped the US globalize its imperialistic policies in developing countries is worrisome, but what should worry us most is the fact that the developing countries are themselves letting the US and other giants of capitalism do so.
In a TV programme recently, Interior Minister Moinuddin Haider said the government had not yet received any request to hand over Dr Amir Aziz to the US.
The government, it seems, is only waiting for instructions from the USA.
I request the concerned authorities to refrain from taking such a step which would be a breach of the country’s sovereignty.
SAMIA KHAN
Faisalabad
A clean sweep gained by an Islamic party in Turkey during the recent election and the significant success achieved by the MMA in Pakistan must be considered to be a result of hostile and biased US policy towards Muslims all over the world.
Besides the election results in these two Muslim countries, Saudi Arabia has lambasted some of the US policies. While the US and Israel do not seem to realize the gravity of these developments, one can feel the wind of change that has just started blowing.
As the think-tanks in the Pentagon must be engaged in formulating a contingency plan to deal with these unexpected developments, it is felt that the world media must be persuaded to adopt a moderate policy towards Muslims. Seemingly, as all the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle begin to set in their places, it may prove to be the beginning of the end. After all, final glory is for the religion of Allah.
SYED SHAMEEL SANI
Islamabad
INDIA has finally decided to withdraw its forces from its border with Pakistan, but it should be understood that this action has not been out of magnanimity and generosity. It is just a tactical move.
Having extracted all possible concessions from Pakistan after subjecting it to the worst kind of coercive diplomacy, Indian strategists thought it wise to end this buildup with harsh winter approaching. Furthermore, the world community, in general, and the valiant policy makers in Islamabad, in particular, had refused to be blackmailed and browbeaten by Indian hoaxes of escalation. As Indian action had outlived its utility and had started backfiring, India decided to pull back its troops.
SYED ZAFAR ABBAS NAQVI
Chunian
THE practice of adjustments in the prices of petroleum products on a fortnightly basis is hardly of any advantage to the common man in Pakistan.
Whenever the price of diesel is increased, there is an uproar from public transporters who, after a confrontation with the Regional Transport Authority, get fares revised upward. The matter hardly dies down when in the next fortnight the diesel price is reduced. But the transport fares, once increased, are never brought down.
As a result of this fortnightly revision of the prices of petroleum products, the cost of essential items also increases. That, too, never comes down after a downward revision of the petroleum prices. Thus, it is the common man who is at a disadvantage in any case because of this system of fortnightly revision.
I do not think that such a system is in operation anywhere else in the world. I urge the government that, for the sake of the common man, this system should be discontinued.
Alternatively, revision in the prices might be made after a longer period of time, say from three to six months.
SYED ABRAR HUSSAINI
Karachi
THE government seems to be totally inconsiderate towards the plight of poor pensioners. The recent ordinance on the withdrawal of exemption of income tax from pensioners is callous.
Pensioners are not multimillionaire who can be bled white. Rather, they should be given concessions on utilities and on all taxes.
I request the government to reconsider its decision. Pensioners must be exempted from paying income tax as was previously the case.
NAWEED AHMED
Lahore
THIS refers to Rafat Mahmood Ansari’s letter, ‘Stress on self-reliance’ (Nov 7).
Mr Ansari has expressed the hope that Imran Khan will use development funds in his constituency to fulfil his promise to achieve self-reliance.
I am opposed the idea of handing over development funds to legislators, whose job is to legislate and nothing more.
It was Gen Ziaul Haq who introduced the practice of allocating funds to MNAs for development projects in their constituencies. This led to widespread corruption as MNAs awarded contracts to their friends and manipulated official records to transfer money to their own accounts.
The district governments’ system introduced by the Musharraf government has been running smoothly.
Any development funds must, therefore, be given only to these district governments. MNAs, MPAs and senators should concentrate on their law-making role.
AMIR QURESHI
Lahore
THE bend-arm controversy is at present the hottest topic in cricket along with the issue of betting; as a matter of fact, this subject is in the forefront of things in the game.
When a really controversial issue such as the betting and bribery allegations is discussed or is kept in front of a judicial commission, the first and foremost thing that comes to one’s mind is the availability of sufficient amount of evidences, say proofs, to justify such an abominable act.
In such cases, substantiation is bound to be concrete as the crime is committed in a highly masked manner, but if the controversy is about the straightness of a bowler’s arm while delivering the ball, it is hard to believe that one cannot reach conclusion in a decisive manner after seeing the videos again and again and that, too, when the technology is supremely sophisticated and cameras are planted at almost every possible angle.
If all these amenities are available, an adjudicator shouldn’t have much difficulty in determining the legality of a bowler’s style.
There is another recent development regarding the bend-arm controversy — that some athletes have natural abnormality regarding their arm structures and, therefore, they do not chuck deliberately.
This task also should not be a problematic one because if the laws regarding the erectness of a bowler’s arm while delivering the ball are precisely defined and no special concessions are made, there would be no need of these routine debates on this very solvable issue.
While evoking the decades of 70s and 80s when the world of cricket witnessed probably the highest quality of pace bowling one can hope to see, with the likes of Michael Holding, Dennis Lillie, Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Malcolm Marshall, Bob Willis and the “Big Bird” Joel Garner, it seems impossible to object to the legality of any bowler’s delivery style.
The action of Michael Holding was exemplary. The arms of Imran Khan and Malcolm Marshall used to be as straight as a ramrod while delivering the 5-1/2 ounce red cherry. Just imagine that if the Caribbean bomber, Joel Garner, who stood 6ft 8 inches tall, had chucked, then the batsmen would have had to carry their body bags along with kit bags.
What does all this suggest? This at least suggests that the cricket rules book has this aspect defined so that the bend-arm controversy can most definitely be resolved in a conclusive manner after assessing the bowler’s delivery style through every possible angle.
ANWAR ADNAN JAFRI
Karachi
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address:
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.