| July 6, 2003 | Sunday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 5,1424 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Bank for the poor
Care for the marginalized?
Sending troops to Iraq
Dawn Lifestyle Show
Short cricket schedule
Maoist movement in Nepal
Benazir at 50
A ‘comedown’
A roadmap for Kashmir
The visit to the show was highly exhilarating, entertaining and a source of great fun. Thousands of visitors from all walks of life thronged the show and enjoyed it. This is indicative of the fact that Karachiites badly need such shows, fanfares, and melas for entertainment.
THREE students from the Aga Khan University applied for research electives to the Duke University in the US. The following is the reply from a professor in the bio-medical research department:
YOURS is among three such messages from 2nd year medical students in your school I have had in the last 10 days. Just in case you are legitimate, you should know my immediate reaction, and the true nature of your disadvantage.
Your ethnicity and your age (student age = idealistic) are so similar to those of the jihad-minded terrorists from the schools that nurtured the Taliban and Al Qaeda that it is not worth our trouble to try to determine if you are a well-disguised terrorist or a real learning-motivated medical student. You may well be innocent, but some of your neighbours are as potentially lethal as anthrax or HIV, and must be protected against.
As long as there are zealots whose idea of reasonable dialogue and persuasive rhetoric is suicide bombing, we seem to have no efficient choice but to react with suspicion, which must motivate us to extreme avoidance or to kill-or-be-killed defensive activism aimed at extermination. The problem of such global terrorism, motivated by a delusion of holy sanction for the killing of the “infidels”, comes mainly from your world and culture. You must solve it internally, or face rejection and suspicion such as mine from outside.
If you and your fellows do not root out such unreason from your own ranks, you leave it to be solved by unsympathetic military violence from outsiders. I believe it can only be finally solved by your internal action, and I pray you can find better and less violent solutions than we outsiders must use. You will then stand forth as true heroes and peace-bringers to all of humanity, rather than as members of a culture suspected of fostering, tolerating and covertly sympathizing with the deluded and doomed pseudo-heroism of future-hating jihad-minded suicide bombers. War-makers are no longer the heroes humanity needs.
MIKE REEDY
Duke University, USA
IN response to the letter by Prof Mike Reedy of the Duke University, one of the affected students wrote:
I WRITE this to you in shock. I honestly didn’t think that a professor of your standard would have written such a letter to hopeful students. Surely you understand the example that you set to both your colleagues and students. Is the example you want to set one of closed hearts, judgments and stereotypes?
You say in your e-mail that you are hopeful of a more co-operative and tolerant world. Do you honestly think that excluding people and creating a ‘them=vs=us’ society is really going to bring you what you hope for?
You say ‘the problem of such global terrorism, motivated by a delusion of holy sanction for the killing of “infidels” comes mainly from your world and culture.’ I believe this to be a very narrow interpretation of a man who really does not want to take responsibility for the ideal that is called ‘globalization’. Sir please note that this is also ‘your world’. I believe all of us to be responsible in some way for the horrors that now befall us. A more open mind who seeks understanding would understand that Sept 11 did not happen overnight. Nobody can justify the horrors that were felt by thousands of people, just as nobody will justify the killing and injustice experienced by those before Sept 11, those who suffer now and those who are yet to suffer.
I try to understand that your suspicion comes from fear. But do you really think that closing off a portion of ‘our world’ is really going to make you feel any better? You have passed judgment on people because of their background. Tell me Sir, after Timothy McVeigh did you refuse all applicants whose name was Timothy? Did you refuse all Caucasian students ‘just in case’ they were coming to learn the latest in terrorist techniques? You seem to think that because your response was in a written form that it was less damaging.
Again I do not think that you realize the severity of the implications of such words. Through your self-admitted need to heel your prejudice and fear, you have discriminated against a group of innocent people who simply wanted to make the world a better place by helping humanity through medicine. Who is to say that one of these students may have nursed you when you are old and weary and suffering the effects of age? Who is to say that some people with the very same background that you fear did not try and save the lives of those who were injured on Sept 11?
Our world is a global place and passing judgments on others because of their background is totally against everything the American ideal would espouse. What happened to the dictum that ‘a person is innocent until proven guilty’? Reactions such as yours, especially coming from a prominent professor, are not healthy to humanity, nor will it lead to the tolerant and cooperative global society which you claim to want.
Please take the time to be open-minded and less judgmental. Your judgments have hurt people in my Islamic community, and in our global community.
A CONCERNED MUSLIM
Karachi
THIS is with reference to a picture which appeared in the Metropolitan section of Dawn on May 10.
I went to one of the private commercial banks and asked what the rate of profit would be if I deposited Rs100,000. The answer surprised me as the man at the counter replied, “We are not taking any term deposit these days.” The reason being that the commercial banks are overflowing with money — the emergence of consumer finance in almost every sector is a case in point.
Now, you can buy almost anything through consumer finance schemes: houses, cars, televisions, audio systems, home theatres, home appliances, and what not. This is not only where the loans are available, besides there are loans for starting new business or expanding the existing ones.
But do we have any loans whatsoever for the people who need it most? There are vendors of eatables, fruit sellers, vegetable sellers, cobblers, manufacturers of small plastic bags and paper bags (from wasted newspapers), ladies tailors (mostly housewives), and there can be many more people who, if given the required finance, can start their own businesses or expand the existing ones.
There is an elderly lady who makes her both ends meet by preparing and selling snacks at her house in New Karachi — if she can do it sitting at home, why can’t she expand her trade? Why can’t she have more people working for her? Why can’t she earn more money? Why can’t she have a better standard of living?
Is there any bank that provides loans to these people? Grameen Bank in Bangladesh has been a great success over the years. Working on that model there are now more than 85,000 branches of Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, etc. We have also got similar institutions such as Khushali Bank, Micro Finance Bank and the Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority. Whom are these institutions serving? Are they here only to serve a small chunk of people? We have a majority of people who do not have access to food, clothing and shelter — and among those are some that have to fight for their survival.
When they can survive the toughest of living conditions, why can’t they be good entrepreneurs? Can’t we have a programme specifically aimed at them? This can be achieved by providing them with small amount of loans bearing low interest rates and giving them proper guidance about fund management.
But the question arises: who is going to do it in a country which is under the clutches of feudal lords, bureaucrats, military, maulvis, seasoned politicians, industrialists and businessmen?
NIAZ H. JAFRI
Karachi
THE government claims that as it cares for the downtrodden, it has introduced a special package for the widows and the pensioners (please note that only the ex-government and semi- government employees are eligible for the National Savings Scheme’s package called Pensioners Benefit Account), providing profit at the rate of 11.04 per cent.
But within less than a month after the budget announcement, the return has been reduced to 10.08 per cent. Further, let’s see the facts as they appear in the new package that has become effective from July 1, 2003.
Every citizen of Pakistan who earns less than Rs80,000 is exempt from tax. A widow or for that matter any person who invests say Rs300,000 in the National Savings Scheme would not be earning profit amounting to even Rs40 thousand annually, and yet have to pay “tax as per law.” Isn’t it discriminatory and goes against the grain of justice? It even violates Article 25 of the Constitution.
Compare this with the generous offer by the prime minister to the investors of Stock Exchange, who have been extended the exemption from tax on ‘capital gains’ which may add up to millions. I wonder if this discriminatory treatment meted out to the poor is challengeable in law.
Since tax deduction for income below Rs80,000 per annum is discriminatory, the prime minister is requested to remove this dichotomy immediately.
ANILA ABBAS
Karachi
I HAVE complete belief and trust, resulting from a very long readership, in the fact that Dawn has full grasp over, and is fully awake to, the internal and international affairs, particularly those related to our national interests.
But such a quick response by editorial to President Pervez Musharraf’s thoughtless intention on agreeing ‘in principle’ to provide Pakistan army troops for helping the US in peacekeeping in Iraq gave me a pleasant and reliving surprise. It was excellently written, well analysed and pros and cons, mostly cons, correctly pointed out.
What is also surprising is the fact that our leaders, especially those who are always so prompt in criticizing the government for any interaction with the US, though it might really be in the national interest, have not uttered a word in opposition to this, if implemented, so nationally damaging plan on the part of President Musharraf.
One may ask how would it be if Iran and Saudi Arabia take over the Indian army’s role in occupied Kashmir. Therefore, I have doubts if President Musharraf will be able to get support from any quarter in the country. Even his colleagues and well-wishers in the army will not consent to his announced decision of sending troops to Iraq.
It can be easily envisioned, as you have also pointed out, this peacekeeping will be taken as cooperation to aggression, and Iraq and the Arab world and their generations to come will not forgive Pakistan for this collaboration with the aggressors.
Another point to be noted is the fact that the US is badly trapped in a dilemma in Iraq and wants to get out of this fully safe from any further damage, and chances are that it will do so soon after handing over the murderous job to Pakistan. And this job might actually turn into curbing the freedom movement by the Iraqis which is bound to emerge sooner or later.
MOHAMMAD RAFI
Karachi
Many people did the shopping at the various beautifully decorated stalls, where a number of household items and other commodities were available at attractive prices. It was a well- managed and well-organized event in spite of a huge crowd of visitors.
QAMAR ALI
Karachi
I WOULD like to draw the attention of the ICC towards an important issue. For the last four to five years the Pakistan cricket team has been getting not more than two Test matches in a series.
Take the example of other cricket-playing nations. India, West Indies, England, etc. get a series of three to four Test matches and a full-fledged triangular series. As a result, they get ample time to perform and adjust themselves in foreign conditions.
In a two-Test-match series or a three One-Day-match series, it is quite difficult for a touring nation to display its potential. This year Pakistan is playing only six Test matches. The PCB should consider these issues and raise them at the ICC meetings. Pakistan should not take into consideration a two-Test-match or three One-Day-match series because this will adversely affect the abilities of our players.
MANSOOR AHMED KHAN
Karachi
THIS refers to a letter by Mr Raza Naeem titled “Maoist movement in Nepal” that appeared in your issue of June 20.
The writer seems to know only half-truth about Nepal. Unlike what he said, Nepal is a fully democratic country practising constitutional monarchy and a multi-party parliamentary system of governance.
The institution of monarchy in Nepal has always been a strong bond of national unity and integration and has supported the democratic process of governance in accordance with the aspirations of the Nepalese people. The institution is ideally benevolent, sacrosanct and respected by all Nepalese people.
There have been sporadic law and order problems for about eight years in certain parts of the country created by some lawless groups calling themselves Maoists which, in fact, is never in the magnitude the writer tries to portray. However, a peace process has started and a dialogue between the government and the Maoists is in progress within the existing constitutional arrangements. It is hoped that the success of the peace process will lead the nation to tranquillity and further progress.
As is the case elsewhere in South Asia, poverty and slow pace of development seem occasionally frustrating the people. Nevertheless, the government of Nepal is making every effort towards reducing poverty and augmenting growth.
It is unfortunate that the readers of your newspaper have been misled to believe in half-truths and falsehood by the writer of the letter, I hope this letter would put the facts in correct perspective as they stand today.
MUKTI NATH BHATIA
Minister Counsellor,
Royal Nepalese Embassy,
Islamabad
MS Iffat Idris has carried out a comprehensive hatchet job on not only Ms Benazir Bhutto but the entire Bhutto family (‘Benazir at 50 — “ June 26).
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has been held responsible for the break-up of Pakistan and for leaving the country in a worse shape when he was ousted from power. This is difficult to sustain considering that when he assumed power half of the country was lost, vast areas of West Pakistan had been annexed by India and 90,000 Pakistan soldiers were in Indian jails. The people were traumatized by a great national tragedy for which the military alone was responsible.
Ms Bhutto, among other things, is implicated in the death of her brother Murtaza. This is rumour-mongering at its worst. She has suffered greatly at the hands of Zia’s government and has emerged as a pragmatic politician.
Let your columnists exercise restraint and moderation.
ASAD SIDDIQI
Lahore
ADDRESSING a gathering during his current overseas tour, Gen Musharraf early last week declared that if India took one step forward, Pakistan would take - Musharraf gave a long pause here and then said most emphatically — four.
Only a fortnight later, during an interview to The Washington Times (Dawn,, June 29), he said: “I tell you, for every step they (India) take, we will take three.”
For me, Gen Musharraf’s downward plunge, even before India decides whether or not to take a step, from four to three is extremely perplexing. Could this slide down to two, then one and ultimately to nought? Or even beyond? How would you interpret this? A correction? A comedown? Initiation of countdown? — what for? Expression of willingness to “step down”?
M. AYYUB
Lahore
MR M. P. Bhandara is a senior parliamentarian. He has been a vocal member of the official Kashmir committee. On his return from the recent Indian tour as a member of our parliamentary delegation, he has written an article entitled “A Kashmir roadmap” (June 1). It is a masterly exposition of the idea of accepting the LoC as international border. The LoC is a new name of the CFL showing the position of the occupation of two belligerent armies as on Dec 17, 1971, after the war. Accepting the LoC as a permanent border means accepting a military solution to the problem.
There is no denying the fact that some rulers of Pakistan spoiled and damaged the just cause of the Kashmiris during the last 4-1/2 decades. The ongoing resistance movement and the Kashmiris unparalleled sacrifices were not faithfully projected.
Having been completely disillusioned by political means they started an armed resistance movement, with their own meagre resources, in 1989 against the occupation forces to gain freedom and to protect their lives, honour, property and faith. According to the Quranic concept, this struggle is called jihad. It is also justified by the UN declarations, resolutions and international law. Until recently this struggle was considered just even by the US.
It is sad that Mr Bhandara has nowhere mentioned the Kashmiris and their leaders in the context of the resolution of the problem as if they can be bought and sold as in 1846. He has opposed the division of the state on a religious basis as, according to him, it will have grave consequences for the Indian Muslims.
Mr Bhandara has suggested absorption of Ladakh and Jammu in India, without ascertaining the wishes of the people of the following areas, which still constitute Muslim majority areas: (a) Jammu area: 1. Poonch, Doda and Rajouri districts; 2. Gol-Gulab Garh tehsil of the Udhampur district; (b) Ladakh area: two tehsils of Kargil and Drass, Kargil district.
The areas mentioned above are contiguous to the Kashmir valley, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas with whom they have geographic, ethnic, cultural and linguistic affinity. Any solution should satisfy all Kashmiris and should not breed new festering disputes and instability.
As regards maximum autonomy, the less said the better. The Kashmiris have already tasted the so-called full autonomy under Pandit Nehru and have learnt bitter lessons about it. Mr Bhandara has said that Professor H. M. Saeed of the Jamiat-i-Dawa would not bat an eyelid using a nuclear weapon against “Hindu India” if he had one. While the professor has no political ambitions or chances to acquire nuclear weapons, the same and other WMDs are already in the hands of Messrs Advani, Fernendes, Sinha, Modi and others.
KHWAJA MUHAMMAD BASHIR BUTT
Bahawalnagar
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.