| July 25, 2003 | Friday | Jumadi-ul-Awwal 24, 1424 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
No distortion, please
Should Pakistan recognize Israel?
Consumer protection
Woman’s status in Islam
Seeking a job
Rain: boon or bane?
Zamzama Park
Resolving Kashmir problem
Blair’s show in US Congress
Advisor,
Nazaria-i-Pakistan Foundation,
AT the end of General Pervez Musharraf’s recent tour of the US, two “new” ideas were floated by him, namely, recognition of Israel and stationing Pakistani troops in Iraq.
He softened the impact of recognition of the Zionist state by suggesting a nationwide debate. About sending an army contingent he pointed out that the invitation had better come through the UN.
While there can be no doubt that both the proposals came from Bush, Musharraf may have found the latter easier to handle. One is tempted to think that he may have given a different answer about recognition. His answer about the dispatch of troops may have been unqualified “yes”. In the language of diplomacy the word “no” does not exist. Besides, using that word in reply to the request of our mentors, benefactors and saviours is unthinkable.
The US predilection about a UN role in Iraq is well known. Tony Blair mouthed in early days of Iraqi capitulation a UN role but he is now slowly and imperceptibly eating his own words. Blair, now in trouble, is waxing eloquent on how history will laud decimation of Iraq by a super and a not-so-super power. A request for the UN for troops for Iraq to Pakistan is not imaginable in the current phase.
India has wisely turned down the US request, which is played down by Bush. The Indians have evolved a mechanism, however worn out and wobbly, whereby they can assess the response of their people to scenarios such as these. What is Pakistan going to do? On this occasion if the PM, the cabinet, the National Assembly and the Senate are ignored, where is our much trumpeted return to democracy?
We know that the PM will agree. The federal cabinet has discovered a dynamic spokesman or two for such contingencies. The cabinet may also go along. How about the National Assembly and the Senate? The matter is of supreme importance and warrants a secret session.
If, as some reliable opinion-makers believe, the remuneration and other expenses for the Pakistan contingent are included in the aid announced by Bush at Camp David and the modalities have already been worked out by General Musharraf with the Americans, the country is in for uncertain future on that score. First and foremost, will the Pakistan army and the people like the idea of their soldiers serving under the direction of a command other than the UN, particularly when the occupation of that force without authorization of the world body is involved? Injurious as it is to our dignity and self-esteem the country’s reputation and standing will be at stake in the comity of nations if Pakistan gets into this kind of a cockpit.
Iraq is a Muslim country and Pakistan is a very vocal and assertive member of the Organization of Islamic Conference. What will be the impact of this development on the OIC?
By its own admission, the US is embroiled in a war of resistance with the Iraqi people. To say the least, the period is one of anxiety for their government and the people. They are groping for anyone from any quarter to bail them out of the quagmire. The American army stationed in Iraq is sorely frustrated and is openly showing lack of interest in the job entrusted to it by the highcommand. The morale of the combatants is at the lowest ebb. Nothing will be closer to the mind of the US government than to find willing substitute to face the onslaught of Iraqi resistance.
There are many in this country whose conscience is alive and well. The Americans in Iraq are in occupation against the UN mandate. That gives the Iraqis the moral and legal right to resistance against the invader. By performing duties pertaining to the maintenance of peace by the US, we will be exposed to fire of a force fighting for freedom. The reaction of the nation to the arrival of body bags from Iraq could be imagined better than described. On the other hand, what will people in other Muslim countries think of Pakistan imposing causalities on Iraq?
It is time to take a pragmatic stock of the momentous occasion. The general must take the nation into confidence. He may note the rational and constraints to which a president in a democratic polity is subject in mattes of grave national importance. On these occasions, before taking a decision, there is no way out of confiding in the electorate.
A. HALIM ZAIDA
Islamabad
WITH reference to the article titled “Go the Chinese way” published on July 20, I would like make some observations to put the record straight.
It has been argued that the ‘All-India Muslim League was a party of Nawabs. It was an undemocratic political party. It did not hold party elections since 1937’.
These allegations are based on lack of proper information. The writer may like to study the source materials relating to the history of the All-India Muslim League from its inception to the creation of Pakistan. Bulk of reading material is available which would help the critic to know the working of the League headed by the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Mr Ghulam Kibria must know that the Quaid strongly believed in democratic norms and never allowed any undemocratic action in the body politic of the All-India Muslim League. It may be mentioned here that every year the League council meeting was held wherein regular party elections were held. All members appeared before the council for the approval of their party positions.
At times, heated discussions would take place. An example in this respect can be cited about League’s secretaryship when the Muslim Youth from Punjab objected to Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan’s nomination for secretaryship in early 40s. At one time, it was proposed that the Quaid be nominated life-president of the League but he turned down this proposal and advised the League to strictly follow the constitutional procedure. The moment the Quaid was sworn in as the first governor-general of Pakistan, he resigned from presidentship of the League.
The founders of the All-India Muslim League were the real spokesmen of the Muslim community in British India who made sacrifices for safeguarding Muslim interests during the British rule. They were not nawabs but humble servants of the Muslim community.
The critic should not confine himself to maliciously point out only the weaknesses of the Muslim leadership. Let it be made clear that after its re-organization in the mid-thirties, the League was led by a constitutionalist, a parliamentarian par-excellence and a great spokesman for democracy. He was not a nawab. His lieutenant was a humble Nawabzada, whose vest was found with holes and socks with patches at the time of his death. There seems no reason to disagree that the earlier as well as the later spearheads of the All-India Muslim League were all history makers who lived and died for the cause of Muslim India.
All the ills that ail Pakistani society are because of perpetual dictatorship which sabotaged democracy in Pakistan, particularly from 1958 onwards.
AZIZ-UL-HAQ QURESHI
Lahore
THIS has a reference to the letters by Syed A. Mateen of Karachi, T. Majeed of Lahore, Fahd of Peshawar and Taimur T. Malik of Islamabad (July 8, 14, 16 and 17, respectively) on the above subject.
Thirty-two members, out of 57 member-countries of the Organization of Islamic Conference, have recognized Israel and are having diplomatic, commercial and/or political relations with Israel. The important among these countries are Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Morocco, Albania, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Oman, Qatar, Tunis, Nigeria, Gabon, Senegal and Gambia.
It is also necessary to add that 161 out of 191 member-countries of the UN had recognized Israel and these countries are having trade, diplomatic and/or political ties with Israel.
The recognition of Israel by Pakistan will be subject to the condition that in case Pakistan recognizes Israel, the donor agencies like the World Bank, IMF and/or others will grant further relaxation by writing off the foreign debts or to some extent and/or ratio, further Pakistan’s atomic and/or nuclear installations, which are in direct hit/target of Israel, and Israel will grant an unconditional guarantee that Pakistan’s atomic nuclear infrastructure will not be targeted by Israel in case of recognition.
That in the event of the recognition, Israel will support the stand of Pakistan on Kashmir or at least Israel will not oppose Pakistan and/or support India on the Kashmir issue although it is needless to say that Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir requires a revision.
The present rulers having the policy of “Pakistan First” shall have no option and/or alternative but to recognize Israel. The recognition of Israel by Pakistan is the need of the time, as well as it is a current diplomatic and/or political requirement for Pakistan.
SAALIM SALAM ANSARI
Karachi
THIS is with reference to the letter by Mir Mazar (July 11) regarding consumer protection. For your readers’ information, there are three consumer protection organizations in Pakistan. Two are based in Islamabad, The Network (Tel. No. 051-226-4814, 226-0133) and CRCP (Tel. No. 051-285-5402-3) and the third is in Karachi, CPC (021-5889643).
All the three are working to protect the consumers from substandard, adulterated and counterfeit products and promote consumer rights. They also take up specific issues, as suggested by Mr Mazar.
Unfortunately, because of the silence of the consumers, our markets are flooded with substandard products, and people are being cheated by misleading and glossy advertisements. If consumers pinpoint their complaints regularly through newspapers, there is a possibility that genuine manufacturers would be more careful about merchandise.
Through this letter we request Mr Mazar and other consumers to contact us at the THT-CPC office and assist us in our campaign for consumer rights.
THE HELPLINE TRUST
Karachi
FOLLOWING an article on woman’s status in Islam, there is a debate going on. First, it shows that 14 centuries since the culminating revelations, we are still unclear about the status of women in Islam which is second to none.
Second, why is it that there never is half as much concern shown over the status of men either in religion or in society or in family as fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons? The reason is that the role and status of men is a foregone conclusion. Why then is all the fuss over women and their role and status?
Clearly, there is an obsession to keep the women subordinated in all spheres of life beginning from home. The worst tactics used is to present an ideal type of home life which is far removed from the reality, a few exceptions notwithstanding.
By and large, the reality is that in their individual capacity both men and women have to struggle for their rights which the more powerful try to usurp both at home and outside, though men comparably enjoy a lot more power and status than women do.
The reasons would point to the socio-economic and political injustices that society remains plagued with. It is these factors that should draw our attention more than the place of a gender in religion which hardly is an issue, specially in our country plagued with a plethora of all kinds of socio-economic, administrative, cultural, and political issues.
Unfortunately, “appropriate concerns” remain a scarce resource in our country which if gets scarcer will keep us relegated to the backwaters of the world for generations to come!
DR MAHNAZ FATIMA
Karachi
THIS is to draw your attention to some serious problems confronting me.
(a) I did a one-year “dispenser” course at District Headquarters and Teaching Hospital, Abbottabad, in 1994 with distinction (Roll No. 621).
(b) Being the eldest son of my poor parents, I faced great hardship during the period. In order to meet the financial requirement of my studies, my parents slashed basic needs like good food, education, etc. to my younger brothers and sisters.
(c) I completed my course with outstanding overall performance, and submitted my applications many times for employment as a “dispenser” to the director of the ministry of health. I am sorry to say that my requests have always been overlooked and put in the pending/waiting list because of non-availability of “correct approach”. My parents who were anxiously waiting for my employment have lost all hope.
(d) With the passage of time and to meet growing domestic responsibilities, I was compelled to do odd jobs because of non-availability of a proper employment in the relevant profession. However, to remain in touch I have been practising as part-time dispenser for seven years.
(e) The persons much junior to me have been selected for employment because of their “sources”. My name never appears in any list.
(f) I have to look after my old parents and take care of the education and marriages of my sisters and brothers, besides other responsibilities.
MUHAMMAD QADEER
Karachi
IT was after a decade when it recently rained in and around the Larkana city for two consecutive days. There has always been a hue and cry about the scarcity of water in Sindh’s interior, specially in Larkana where too many landlords prefer to hold water and then supply it to the common farmer.
The quantity of water thus supplied for cultivation is always less than the cultivators’ need. That is why they always pray for rains to achieve the cultivation target.
The rain, lasting two nights, brought happiness for the common people. But it also created some problems. It has made many people homeless.
I would request the government of Sindh to subsidize/exempt from dhul or abiana these people who are living a miserable life under the scorching sun, after heavy a rainfall.
A. HAFEEZ SHAIKH
Larkana
I WOULD like to compliment Karachi’s DHA for giving the citizens such a beautiful park. Like myself thousands of men and women visit the park daily. Almost 95 per cent of them come to walk or jog.
It amazed me to read a notice at the park prohibiting entry to people wearing shorts. Shorts is a sporting attire and I salute the imagination of the writer of such a notice. Do we expect the next notice to read: Entry into the park restricted to men wearing prayer clothing/uniform and women with veil?
BASIT A. ALAVI
Karachi
THE Kashmiris have been suffering greatly for over five decades. This they have been doing for the sake of freedom. Both Pakistan and India would have to work out a dispensation in which the Kashmiris should feel united and free.
About freedom, Prime Minister Vajpayee has said that negotiations are necessary. Pakistan and India both should think of uniting the occupied Jummu and Kashmir and Azad Kashmir as one country which is on the map.
Thus, both Pakistan and India will have to give up the geography they are trying to create to attach Kashmir to their countries. Atoot Aang by India and Kashmir Banae Ga Pakistan slogans are not right once Azad Kashmir and the occupied Jummu and Kashmir became one independent country, free and democratic.
Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali and Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee should negotiate on the reconstruction of Kashmir. Pakistan and India should think of using their resources to finance the development of Kashmir by assisting its people.
It is only then that the Kashmiris would be able to overcome the intense feeling of death and destruction that they have so long been experiencing.
This would also promote good-neighbourly relations between the two countries and ensure peace in the region.
MOHAMMAD RIAZ HAROON
Karachi
British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s address at the US Congress was described as “fabulous” by President George W. Bush. It was strong in vocabulary, but weak in substance. Rhetoric apart, it can only be said that Blair’s repetition was boring.
Later, at a press conference, Bush looked quite glum and stared aggressively at a newsman who had asked him a question regarding his taking responsibility for attacking Iraq when no WMDs were found in that country up to the present day. The journalists who attended the press conference were not satisfied with the explanation given by Bush and Blair.
If the objective of toppling Saddam had been given as the only reason, the case would not have been taken up by the United Nations Security Council. But, illegal as the whole affair was and continues to be, Bush and Blair would not have been forced to give explanations which have brought them much opposition at home and abroad.
Tony Blair wanted to be apologetic about the role of the British intelligence service, but his allegiance to George Bush prevented him from doing so.
A fact which Blair failed to hint at was Israel’s moral duty to vacate all territories which it had occupied in 1967 and after from the West Bank and Syria. Returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt was not enough.
It was easy for him to talk of terrorism in the 21st century, ignoring the fact that everything happening today, ascribed to terrorism, is the result of colonialism in Asia, Europe, North, Central and South America and Africa. One way to prevent innocent lives from being taken by suicide bombers and snipers is to give them weapons that are possessed by strong nations and then let it be a test of bravery. What do Bush and Blair expect them to do if the fight is so unequal, and fairness and justice so far removed?
Yes, it was right for Blair to talk of Saddam Hussein as a brutal dictator, but then why had Bush’s father and Margaret Thatcher treated him as a hero and close ally between the years 1981-1990? Did not Saddam accept a Jewish lady-diplomat to be the US ambassador in Baghdad in that period of time?
Blair also spoke of Kosovo, little realizing that two top- notchers in the US diplomatic service, Scowcroft and Eagleburger, had a cosy relationship with Milosevic, while they represented the US in Belgrade after the death of Tito. The Kosovars had staged an uprising in 1989 not as Muslims, but as communists, protesting against the fact that Belgrade was drawing closer to Washington rather than to Moscow.
As for the rhetoric on global poverty, Bush and Blair should set a target of $1,000 per capita for the poor countries of the world, sacrificing the living standard of the developed world by 15 per cent over a period of three years.
Bush and Blair should be genuine about the things they do and say. Europe, which was criticized by Blair in his speech, has learnt a lot during the last 40 years but not so America. WG.
CDR (R) AHMAD ZAFAR FAROOQI
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.