| October 19, 2003 | Sunday | Sha'aban 22, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
A welcome move
Getting even with Fowler
THE Organization of Islamic Conference has perhaps hit the nail on the head by making clear to the world that all acts of terrorism are not the work of extremist groups and individuals, that a deadlier variety of it exists in the form of state terrorism, and that all freedom struggles cannot be lumped together and called “the scourge” of terrorism. More important, the final communique issued at the end of the 10th OIC summit at Putrajaya, Malaysia, on Friday rejected “selectivity and duplicity” in combating terrorism and condemned attempts to “associate terrorism with a particular religion or culture.” These points need to be emphasized because the kind of “war on terror” that has followed the events of 9/11 has tended to regard all Muslims as terrorists and Islam as a creed that preaches hate and encourages the murder of innocent people for advancing political causes. While western governments might have exercised some restraint and insisted that their war on terror was not Muslim-specific, the media in the western world has shown no such circumspection; rather, it seems to have exploited the 9/11 tragedy to unleash a vicious propaganda against all Muslims and their religion.
The “selectivity and duplicity” mentioned in the communique point to the western governments’ and media’s strange silence where Muslims happen to be the victims of state terrorism and human rights violations. We know — and those who look the other way also know — the extent of repression to which Muslims of Kashmir and Palestine are subjected daily. Yet neither western governments nor some of the leading organs of the western media ever bother to take notice of the colossal human rights violations in the occupied territories. Both India and Israel have exploited the post-9/11 hysteria to hide their own excesses and brand the Kashmiri and Palestinian freedom struggles as terrorism and have managed to find sympathizers among those who are now leading the war on terror. On Kashmir, for instance, Washington asks Pakistan “to do more” to stop “cross-border terrorism” without bothering to condemn India for its HR violations and New Delhi’s refusal to talk to Pakistan for a peaceful solution. In the case of Palestine, the US has underwritten the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and given a carte blanche to Tel Aviv for its genocidal policies. A recent example was its reaction to the bombing of a village near Damascus by Israel. The US accused Syria of harbouring terrorists and asked both for restraint. The OIC communique, thus, has done well to point to the “duplicity and selectivity” in American policy with regard to the war on terror.
Against this background, there is much to commend the OIC’s support to the Kashmiri people’s struggle for self-determination. It has asked India to respect human rights and allow HR teams into the disputed territory to monitor the situation there. Also, by supporting Pakistan’s offer for a ceasefire along the Line of Control and calling for negotiations for a peaceful solution of the Kashmir issue, the OIC has upheld Pakistan’s position on normalization of relations with India through talks. Pakistan has, thus, reasons to be satisfied with the outcome of the OIC summit. The hope is that the resolution will not be forgotten once the delegates return home and that member-nations will pursue the pledge to combat terrorism while making it clear that they will not allow genuine freedom movements to be equated with terrorism.
THE decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on Friday to restrict real estate and automobile companies from inviting deposits in advance of actual delivery of the relevant product to the general public is a step in the right direction. A practice had developed in the automobile sector to accept full payment for new vehicles at the time of booking. After this, the customers were made to wait for months for the delivery of their fully paid for vehicles. To add insult to injury, no fixed delivery time was specified. Previously, the practice was to accept a token amount as part of the application and then accept the full payment at the time of delivery. This was less bothersome to the customer and was an incentive for both the car maker and the car dealer to deliver the product within the given time frame.
During the past year, the lowering of interest rates on car loans has resulted in a sharp rise in demand for new vehicles. The demand has resulted in longer delivery dates for various types of new vehicles as supplies are limited. This has prompted carmakers to take advantage of the situation and demand full payment at the time of booking for new cars. It is hoped that with the new SECP ruling, this practice will now come to an end and cars will only be paid for at the time of their delivery to the customer. The SECP has rightly noted that deposit taking is the normal and exclusive business of banking companies and not to be undertaken by other companies unless relevant deposit rules are observed.
To some extent, the same situation is prevailing in other sectors as well. In the real estate sector, the SECP decision should help to check the growing number of scams under which people are made to pay for some housing scheme or project, only to learn later that the developers of the scheme have disappeared. It is hoped that it will now be possible to control such irregularities.
AN anecdote is related about Faiz Ahmad Faiz that when he was interviewed before his induction in military public relations during the Second World War, he was told by the conducting officer: ‘But, Mr Faiz, I hear that you are a committed communist.’ Or words to that effect. Prompt came Faiz’s reply: ‘Sir, I didn’t know that there were any uncommitted communists’. A somewhat similar question arises about the term ‘enlightened moderation’ now much in currency. Is there such a thing as unenlightened moderation? Moderation, according to the Oxford Dictionary, means ‘avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one’s behaviour or political opinion’. One would assume that a moderate person would be an enlightened person and an enlightened person would normally be seen as moderate. But of course we have a tremendous penchant for emphasizing the obvious, thus robbing words and phrases of their impact. Remember the daily dose of ‘naked aggression’ during the 1965 war that had led at least one PR man to confess a few days into the war that the phrase had lost all meaning except in the sexual context.
Nonetheless, the need for both enlightenment and moderation cannot be over-emphasized in our political context. Even more important is the need for tolerance — of one another’s political views and religious sentiments. We have over the years become an extremely intolerant and irrational people. Almost everyone has contributed to creating this situation, but those who have wielded power have done the most. They have not only exploited extremist trends but also been intolerant of dissent. This is linked directly to the denial of democratic rights and failure to establish a tradition of democracy which usually promotes and sustains moderation and liberalism. But then we have an answer to that also: we want not just democracy, but ‘sustainable democracy’. Fowler, where are you? Turning in his grave no doubt at the use and abuse of the language about which he was so proud and protective.