Prophet’s role in battles

THE subject for discussion, at a recent seminar, organized in connection with the 12th Rabiul Awwal, was about the role of the Prophet (PBUH) as a ‘military commander’. My one instant and main caveat pertained to the propriety of the very description of the Prophet as an ‘Army or military Commander’? I hastened to caution the compere and interlocutors to draw a line, thick and fast, between the exalted status of the Prophet as the Messenger of God and his role and accomplishments as a ‘military leader’.

Nothing would be more misconceived, misleading and essentially belittling than to project him as a military commander even remotely comparable to a professional soldier. For his command and leadership — off and on the battlefield — as overwhelmingly inspirational (as opposed to professional). All his battles — Ghizwat — were waged for the glorification of the message of Allah Almighty ‘Ela-i-Kalimatul Haque’ under divine guidance and inspiration.

In the landmark, Ghazva-i-Badr, (622 AD, 2 AH) his fervent appeal and prayer for divine help remains an immutably sacred part of our history. As the line of the infidel, warring Quraish of Makkah appeared over the sands, the Prophet raised his hands in prayer for Allah’s mercy and succour.

“O God”, he kept crying, “fulfil Thy promises to me. If this little band of believers perishes, there will be none left on earth to worship Thee”. He stretched out his hands as he cried again and again to God. His cloak fell from his shoulders unperceived, until at length Hazrat Abu Bakr intervened saying, “This is enough, O apostle. God will fulfil His promise”.

As the Quraish, estimated at close to a thousand, horse and foot, advanced towards the proverbial 313 strong force of the Believers, the Prophet picked up a ‘handful of gravel’ and throwing it towards the enemy shouted “confusion on their forces”. Instantly the Quraish began to ‘waver’, and yield vital ground to the Believers.

Allah Almighty crowned the Believers with complete victory over the Quraishi hordes three times their strength. The victory of Badar was a ‘milestone’ in the early history of Islam paving the way to future triumphs and the lightening expansion of Islam. In pure military terms, Badar, an offensive-defensive operation, was the triumph of a supremely-motivated small force over an unruly horde joining the battle for plunder without an overarching lofty, noble objective.

The other two battles discussed were Uhud (623 AD-3 AH) and Ahzab or Khandaq (The Ditch-627 AD, 5 AH). It would be seen that each of the three battles (and all others to follow) were waged in different operational environment, under different field commanders and according to war plans ingeniously adapted to the given terrain, threat and circumstances.

Now the battle of Uhud was a reprisal attack (retaliatory riposte) to the crushing defeat the Quraish-i-Makkah had suffered at the hands of the highly-motivated Believers of Madinah under the inspiring (and inspirational) leadership of the Prophet. This was to be waged as a defensive-offensive operation unlike the Badar. The Believers were supposed to secure their defence first before launching the offensive.

The reason for the change of the tactics was that the Quraish under the leadership of Abu Sufian Ibn Harb ibn Umaiya had come front-loaded armed to teeth and at least three times more numerous than the raiding party at Badar. Unlike Badar, where they had lost the element of surprise and had little to fight for, at Uhud, they were fired with the tribal spirit of vengeance.

It will be recollected that, in the rivalries of the Quraish clans before Islam, Beni Umaiya had disputed the pre-eminence with Beni Hashim. In the ensuing settlement, Beni Umaiya were awarded the hereditary leadership in war, while Beni Hashim were allotted the duty of entertaining the pilgrims. It was in the exercise of this right that Abu Sufian commanded the Makkan forces.

The Prophet gave the banner of the ‘Emigrants (Ansar-i-Madinah) once again in the hands of Musab ibn Umair, who had also borne it at Badar. The Quraish had brought a number of women with them, ‘riding in camel litters’ — a custom which survived amongst the Bedouins of Nejed until about the beginning of the 20th century.

The Prophet had posited 50 archers at the foot of mount Uhud commanding them to hold fast to their post until otherwise ordered. ‘Elated’ by the memory of the Great Victory at badar still fresh in their minds a number of the Believers including the archers, broke formation believing that victory had already been won. The Quraish stormed the disorganized ranks of the Believers and turned the tide of war in their favour. Hazrat Hamza, Musab bin Umair along with several others were martyred at Uhud.

After it was all over, Abu Sufian advanced along and called out to the fugitive Muslims crouching above him among the rocks of Uhud. “Today is in exchange for Bedr. War is like a well-bucket, sometimes up and sometimes down”.

In military, political as well as pure motivational terms Uhud held three great lessons. First, dire consequence of disobedience of orders; second, allowing sheer spirit (Jazba-i-Jehad) to overcome the grim realities of war and the third the exposure of hypocrites like Abdullah ibn Obay.

The Third war (Ghizwa) under discussion was Ahzab or Khandaq. This is rated as one of the best examples of an ingeniously planned defensive war of attrition. Also it was a war the Quraish neither understood, nor were used to.

“Static warfare was little to the taste of the bedouin allies of Quraish”. And the Believers forming up behind the 15-mile long ditch, did not allow the enemy the chance to wage and win the war according to their manual thus attaining the highest point of operational strategy. The siege had lasted for some 20 days when a storm swept across the oasis to play havoc with their formation. Abu Sufian summoned the Quraish to a meeting and ‘curtly’ informed them that he was going home. The siege was at end.

From Badar to Fateh Makkah on the Hunain, Mota and Tabuk (630-632 AD — 8-10 AH), the Prophet led as many as 27 Ghizwat each in a different way and each with a different lesson. There were victories galore; but also major setbacks as at Mota where three of the bravest Muslim commanders, Zaid bin Harith, Jaffar bin Abu Talib and Abdullah Rawaha were martyred.

The writer is a retired brigadier.

When mediamen met in Dhaka

THE possible resumption of contacts between Pakistan and India after a long period of tension and confrontation served as the backdrop to the proceedings of a two-day conference of media representatives convened in Dhaka by the South Asian Free Media Association in the last week of May.

Mixed feelings of hope and despair marked the deliberations of about 160 media representatives from all five countries of South Asia as they searched for ways and means of restoring peace and tranquillity in the region. The theme of the conference was media and democracy although the unstated agenda focused on whether the peace initiative between India and Pakistan would succeed.

As the news of India’s decision not to put any preconditions for talks with Pakistan and to resume the bus and train services between Delhi and Lahore reached Dhaka, there was a sense of instant relief among the participants. It was obvious to the conference delegates that India occupied a key position in any attempt to defuse tensions in the subcontinent.

The presence of stalwarts such as Prem Shankar Jha, Times of India editor Dilip Mulgaokar and K.K. Katyal of The Hindu from the Indian side and of senior columnists like Irshad Ahmad Haqqani, Abdul Qadir Hasan and Nazir Naji from Pakistan was an indication of the importance which the South Asian media attached to the meeting. Both President Tajuddin Ahmad and Prime Minister Khaleda Zia welcomed the Indian initiative — and Pakistan’s positive response — for the resumption of India-Pakistan talks.

Addressing a special session of the conference, Prime Minister Khaleda Zia called it a momentous event, stressing that South Asia had the chance to be a role model of sanity and positive thinking for the world community at a time when humanitarian values had suffered a severe setback in recent times. She called on the media persons “to sharpen your writings against narrow-mindedness, petty disputes and conflicts and build a strong opinion in favour of peace, friendship and cooperation”.

What was needed, she stressed, was the “breaching of the psychological roadblocks obstructing perceptions in respect of sensitive issues of peace and security as well as of the political, cultural, economic and historical realities of the countries of the region”. Did she have the bitter struggle for independence of Bangladesh at the back of her mind? It could well be so.

While it will be presumptuous to claim that the media conference in Dhaka contributed to the breaching of some of the “psychological roadblocks”, there was a distinct mood of frankness and openness in the discussions at the meeting. There was an attitude of mellowness and understanding even when the discussion centred on contentious issues like India’s attitude towards its neighbours.

Significantly, there was no voice of dissent when at the very outset, the organizers of the conference moved a resolution to express regrets at the excesses committed on the people of the erstwhile eastern wing of Pakistan in 1971 following the general elections which gave the Bengalis the right to be at the helm of affairs in undivided Pakistan — a right that was denied to them.

However, notwithstanding widespread sympathy for the Bengalis on account of the excesses suffered by them in 1971 to suggest that they were struggling for the inalienable right of self-determination, which is what the resolution said, was contrary to facts. There was nothing in law or constitutional principles and practices of Pakistan at that time which could confer on any part of the country the “inalienable right” to secede.

This is of course not to suggest that the Bengalis did not have the right to be at the helm of affairs in Pakistan by virtue of their majority and the clear verdict in the 1971 elections. Significantly the reference to the “inalienable right to self-determination” was not questioned at the conference.

Overall, the discussions at the meeting were conducted with a great deal of patience and without any display of rancour or bitterness. The authoritarian manner in which the governments in the countries of South Asia tend to develop their policies vis-a-vis the media was the subject of some very candid discussions. The declaration adopted by consensus at the conclusion made a special note of the factors impinging on democratization and respect for people’s basic rights and for pluralism in multicultural societies.

It called on the media persons to respect the demands of pluralism and social justice of the people in the South Asian countries and to uphold the principles and norms of multi-party, participatory democracy in which the people’s rights were fully protected and respected. The Bangladesh press gave substantial coverage to the SAFMA conference and its declaration.

Of special significance was the discussion at a special session devoted to India-Pakistan relations. Participants from both sides spoke freely and were heard patiently.

Some of the Pakistani delegates did not feel the need to pull their punches while opposing the rigid mindset of some of their compatriots, on a sensitive issue like Kashmir.

While stressing the need to pursue the India-Pakistan dialogue proposed by New Delhi with a positive mind, one widely respected octogenarian intellectual from Islamabad repeatedly counselled “let us forget the past” and he was heard with patience. Otherwise, it is the baggage of the past that the Pakistani intellectuals usually find difficult to dump.

Prime Minister Khaleda Zia’s address at the media meeting made it clear that she and the people of Bangladesh generally valued their distinct identity as a nation and felt disturbed at the efforts of certain vested interests to distort their image. She hoped that the international media would not present a distorted view of her homeland, depicting it “only as a country of drought, floods, cyclones, famine, calamities or a haven for extremists”. She stressed that Bangladesh was also “good news”. She expected the media to play a responsible role by highlighting the positive aspects and achievements of her country.

Any doubt that Bangladesh regrets its parting of the ways with Pakistan is groundless. On the contrary, its Bangla identity is stressed at every opportunity. A cultural show arranged for the conference participants began with a song by Rabindranath Tagore and choruses sung by children eulogizing the Bangla tunes in music. The 104th birth anniversary of the celebrated Bengali poet Qazi Nazrul Islam happened to coincide with the Dhaka media conference and was celebrated with tremendous enthusiasm. The prime minister inaugurated the three-day celebrations in memory of the poet at Trishal in Mymensingh where Nazrul passed a great deal of his youth.

In her address at the inauguration of the celebrations, Begum Khaleda zia declared that the deep patriotism and rebellious spirit of Nazrul as expressed in his poems and songs inspired the people during the “liberation war of Bangladesh.” She said she was proud to be born in a place where literary celebrities like Michael Madhusudan Dutt, Jibananda Das and Jasimuddin are the sons of the soil”.

Considering the high degree of esteem in which Qazi Nazrul Islam is held in Bangladesh, it may have been in the fitness of things for the Pakistan based organizers of the media conference to have held a session dedicated to the memory of the poet; he lived for some years in Karachi while serving in the army during the First World War and wrote some of his most popular songs and poems while stationed here.

US indifferent to Burma

THIRTEEN years ago on May 26, the people of Burma voted in a landslide to replace their military rulers with a pro-democracy party headed by Aung San Suu Kyi, the indomitable daughter of the hero of the nation’s independence movement.

The generals refused to cede power, and the struggle to implement the election results continues to this day. Just recently, as Aung San Suu Kyi tried to bring her message of self-determination to a Burmese province, thugs from the ruling party attacked her motorcade and menaced her with machetes. The message in those machetes to the US and other friends of democracy should be clear: It’s time for stronger measures of support for Burma’s beleaguered citizens.

Those 50 million or so people and their plight don’t generally draw much attention from world power brokers. Burma, also known as Myanmar, is strategically tucked at the crossroads of India, China and Southeast Asia, and it’s rich in natural resources. But its regime has no weapons of mass destruction (at least thus far), and its population is mostly Buddhist, not Muslim; in the war on terrorism, it’s peripheral.

But for the Bush administration’s efforts to promote democracy, Burma offers a unique opportunity. Most dictators claim to represent the will of their people, and most claim that no alternative to their rule exists; both claims usually are lies, but not easy to disprove.

In Burma the truth is provable: The National League for Democracy won 392 seats out of 485; in the 13 years since the party should have taken over, the nation has grown steadily poorer; and both the party and its leader remain popular and ready to lead.

That enduring popularity comes in the face of grinding repression. Some 1,400 political prisoners are subject to torture and appalling conditions. Burma leads the world in slave labour, forced child conscription into the military, rape as an instrument of terror. Aung San Suu Kyi spent the better part of the past 13 years under house arrest, routinely vilified in the official (and only) press, in part for marrying a British man and producing “mongrel” children. —The Washington Post

Reconstruction lapses in Iraq

THE UN Security Council Resolution 1483 adopted on May 21 legitimizes the outcome of the war declared on Iraq, conferring the responsibility for running the country on the US and UK, while enhancing UN involvement.

The lifting of the 13-year-old sanctions imposed on Iraq sets the stage for utilizing the country’s oil resources for reconstruction, an area where the UN involvement would have to be expanded rapidly. American and other western analysts see the current plight and sufferings of the people of Iraq as a shocking example of poor planning and management after the country’s occupation.

After nearly six weeks of the display of military might that led to the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, there is lawlessness, disease and a growing sense of frustration among its people, who still lack clean water and electricity. Apparently the only people reaping benefits are looters and criminals who are having a field day in the management vacuum that has followed “liberation”. Ambassador Paul Brewer who took over from Gen. Jay Garner has started his term as administrator by dismantling the state apparatus left over from the Saddam regime, including the armed forces and the Ministries of Defence, Information, and others, terminating 400,000 jobs. Though some compensation has been mentioned, the fact remains that a lack of employment will exacerbate the sufferings of the Iraqis, already in distress without basic needs, including security.

It is obvious that the US had not planned for running Iraq after Saddam’s ouster and was not prepared to let the UN take charge. Though the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan, that began almost one and a half years ago, is not exactly a success story, it got off to a better start since the US military campaign there had full UN backing, and the UN machinery was in place to handle the problems. In Iraq, the US did not prepare itself despite its experience of dealing with such situations going back to the Second World War. Then, as pointed out by William Pfaff in the International Herald Tribune, the allied advance in Europe had been closely followed by civil affairs officers and military police, able to take control of the liberated cities. As a result, administrative and public services had been reestablished very quickly.

Pfaff has pointed out that the UN, with its “extensive apparatus, and experience of civil relief and reconstruction”, could have been invited to take over the relief and reconstruction work. But having been rebuffed by the organization at the start of the war against Iraq, the US wanted to “punish” and discredit the UN. The result has been “anarchy and cholera”.

It is difficult to disagree totally with some Muslim religious leaders who regard the indifferent US attitude towards the sufferings of the Iraqis, as reflecting an anti-Islam bias. As the 9/11 attacks were traced to Muslim terrorists, the current neo-conservative US leadership is seen as indifferent to the sufferings and hardships of the Muslim population. One wonders if this is not a factor in the terrorist attacks in Riyadh and Casablanca.

Many prominent US journalists have begun taking serious notice of the poor US performance in running Iraq. Even US lawmakers, hitherto reluctant to criticize President Bush, have begun to take notice of his administration’s apparent indifference to the long-term effects of the anarchy that reigns in Iraq. This vacuum in governance will be prolonged as the US goes about creating a new security apparatus, after abolishing the old one.

Even Defence Secretary Rumsfeld had attracted criticism when he blithely ascribed the lawlessness to the freedom now enjoyed by the Iraqi people after Saddam’s long years of oppressive dictatorship. US journalists have interviewed harried Iraqi civilians who recall that they had at least water, electricity and a measure of security under his rule.

The US record of reconstruction and democratization in Afghanistan constitutes a discouraging precedent. A new Afghan army was to have been raised. So far only three thousand soldiers have been trained, and the great majority of armed men, have joined the warlords. The US deliberately restricted the mandate of the ISAF to Kabul, and even there, the law and order situation is far from satisfactory. The US military operations are concentrated against the Taliban, who are mostly in the Pashtun areas along the border with Pakistan, with some of them moving freely across a traditionally porous border. The ferocity of the US operations against the Taliban in late 2001 became a major factor in the success of the religious parties in the two provinces (the NWFP and Balochistan) adjoining Afghanistan in the October 2002 elections.

Iraq has a daunting mixture of ethnic and religious communities, and since the Bush administration has made commitments to transferring authority eventually to a democratically elected Iraqi government, it has to get its political and economic act together. As the occupying power, it has so far failed to establish security, which is essential for the restoration of amenities such as clean water, collection of garbage, and resumption of electricity supplies.

Though a dedicated band of engineers and workers has been making major efforts to restore power supply, their efforts are constantly undermined by looters and thieves who keep stealing vital equipment and even underground wire. The Head of the Electricity Supply Authority put it simply: “Give me security and I will give you electricity”.

Thomas L. Friedman, a prominent New York Times columnist, has been touring Iraq lately and has given many insights into the situation that has emerged in the country since the US occupation. His explanation for the pervasive looting is that Saddam Hussein had so impoverished the country through his wars on Iran and Kuwait, and his tyrannical rule, to which the rigours of ten years of UN-imposed sanctions had been added, that there was “a spontaneous explosion of pent up rage” against a regime that had stolen everything from them. He believes that the Iraqis are so beaten down that the Americans have a chance to make Iraq into a better place with limited investment and by providing basic security. However, even some Kurdish leaders are worried that if the US does not carry out simple steps to restore security, and assure basic amenities, people will start yearning for Saddam’s day”.

So far, there has been too much of trial and error, and ad-hocism, and the start given by Ambassador Paul Bremer as administrator has been to undo things. One aspect of the post war Iraq that is worrying the Americans is the rise of the religious forces after the ouster of Saddam’s “secular” regime. The Shias, who constitute 60% of the population, are expected to dominate the political scene, with implications for future relations with Iran, though the Iraqi Shias may be swayed more by their Arab roots.

The US has to deal with a multiplicity of political forces, including Iraqi exiles who have built up a standing with the Pentagon. They will want to retain influence with the Kurds, without alienating the Turks. They will have to keep in view sensitivities of Sunni Arab leaders in many Sheikdoms in the Gulf. Since any precipitate handover of power to local democratic forces might mean assumption of authority by Shiite forces, it appears likely that they will exercise direct authority for a much longer period than the one year mentioned in the UN resolution. Their primary goal may be to corner the Iraqi oil, with some concessions to others with a stake in it. Their second goal will be to ensure Israeli security, within the overall objective of dominating the region in the name of fighting terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism.

Prolonged chaos in Iraq will damage the US standing, so that they may allow the UN a greater role in the humanitarian field. The choice of Sergio Vieiro de Mello, the UN Commissioner for Human Rights, as the special representative for Iraq, points in that direction. At the same time, there remain many uncertainties, and the anarchy in Iraq will have to be tackled with greater urgency.

The fact that the oil revenues of Iraq will be available for reconstruction efforts may lead to more expeditious action, though the method thus for adopted may warrant greater US role in internal security in Iraq, and the possibility of other countries being asked to help would also arise.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Saving sea ecosystems

TWO major studies of the world’s oceans came out last week, touting seemingly opposite conclusions. A 10-year survey by Canadian fisheries biologist Ransom A. Myers gloomily determined that the numbers of large predatory fish have plummeted by 90 per cent in the last half-century. A sunnier US government report hailed a “steady, incremental” resurgence in some fish species thought earlier to be verging on extinction.

The Canadian study got the most attention, partly because doom is newsier than dawn, but also because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study was built on a dubious notion: that a given fish species should be considered “rebuilt” when restored to its level of a decade ago, no matter how reduced by industrial fishing the species was by that time.—Los Angeles Times