| November 8, 2003 | Saturday | Ramazan 12, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Monitoring the madrassahs
Reviving tourism
ONE can look at President George Bush’s Thursday speech about the lack of democracy in the Middle East from several different angles. To begin with, it seems a good thing that the US has come to favour democracy in the region and that it candidly admits to having ignored this consideration so far. In Washington’s assessment its interests in the region can be best served if its countries are governed democratically. Among America’s primary concerns in the Middle East, besides guaranteeing its broad strategic interests, including the uninterrupted flow of oil supplies, has been the consolidation and enhancement of Israel’s power. In the aftermath of 9/11, terrorism has come to symbolize an immediate and potent threat to these interests. America’s decision-makers have refused to analyze the cause of terrorism and to probe it to understand its inspiration. They have come to the conclusion that it is the absence of liberty and democracy in the lands of the Middle East that has created the environment that breeds militancy and terrorism. Authoritarianism is naturally a highly undesirable way of governing a society, but one may ask why it did not breed terrorism in the countries concerned in the entire 20th century.
The fact is that it is realpolitik that explains Washington’s new fondness for democracy in the lands of the Middle East. President Bush mentioned some pro-western countries of the region in laudatory terms for taking steps towards representative government but was harsh on Syria and Iran. It is of course patent that there is no love lost between Israel and these two countries. If Tel Aviv were to have its way, the two countries that would best qualify for a regime change would be Syria and Iran, given that Iraq has already been taken care of. Incidentally, one recalls that the American CIA did bring about a regime change when it overthrew the government of Dr Mohammad Mossadeq and restored the Shah of Iran, who immediately instituted a reign of terror in which many democrats lost their lives.
It should also be obvious that authoritarianism and terrorism do not necessarily go together, just as states practising democracy do not necessarily abjure the use of violent methods when they consider them necessary for their own interests. During the 80s, America actively encouraged what it now calls terrorism when it armed and funded Afghan mujahideen to resist the Soviet occupation. The US administration and its media also strengthened the forces of obscurantism and religious militancy by glorifying jihad because it helped advance America’s interests. Today, however, those fighting for freedom — as in Kashmir and Palestine — are labelled terrorists because freedom for peoples in these occupied territories is not perceived to advance America’s regional and global interests. Consequently, in both Palestine and Kashmir, America looks the other way while Israel and India try to maintain their occupation by resort to state terrorism in a big way. After the establishment of Israel, the Zionist state has maintained its occupation of the Arab lands through brute force that includes targeted assassinations and destruction of Arab homes. Thus, the continued Israeli occupation of Arab lands and America’s unconditional support to the Zionist state in its acts of terrorism are the biggest source of frustration for the people of the Middle East.
Obviously, Muslim governments do not stand on a high moral ground when it comes to the treatment of their own peoples. But democracy cannot be thrust on a country from the outside; it has to come from within through people’s pressure. If 60 years of “accommodating” non-representative governments has not made America safe, it is highly unlikely that a democratic Middle East will be a haven of peace if Israel continues its occupation of Palestinian lands.
INTERIOR Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat said on Wednesday that the cabinet would consider a law to regulate and monitor the activities of religious seminaries, or madrassahs, in the country. In response, Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmad has said that such a move would be strongly resisted. According to a rough estimate, there are over 70,000 madrassahs in the country, most of which are not regulated or monitored in any manner. A large number of these are affiliated with one religious party or school of thought or and some of them have been accused of providing recruits for religious wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere. To monitor the activities of these institutions is a long overdue step, if only because many of them are foreign-funded while many others are believed to have arms training camps of their own. As a first step, these madrassahs need to be brought under some regulation through a system of registration along with steps to modernize their syllabus. The purpose is to give madrassah students a good grounding in science, mathematics, English and computer studies at the very least besides theological subjects. This way they would be brought closer to the products of mainstream education.
The syllabus can also include a number of vocational subjects so that the students are able to learn trades or skills that will help them in earning a living. They would then not have to rely entirely on imparting religious education or becoming pesh imams to sustain themselves as the remuneration for these is usually very low. In terms of monitoring the madrassahs, the government needs to pay special attention to what is being taught in these institutions and also where the funding is coming from. If these steps are taken madrassah education will become more meaningful and purposive, opening up wider opportunities of learning and employment for those who study in this system.
The federal tourism secretary is right when he said, at a press conference in Islamabad the other day, that participation of the private sector is vital for reviving tourism. He is also right in pointing out that the government should designate tourism as an industry and extend it the same concessions granted to other industries. This is the least that needs to be done if tourists are to come to Pakistan in increasing numbers. Arguments like improving infrastructure remain valid but less so because of the effects of 9/11 and the aftermath on Pakistan’s politics and internal security. Tourists will not be returning to Pakistan anytime soon unless there is a drastic change in our image abroad. One can hardly blame the average Briton or American for thinking that Pakistan is a hotbed of fundamentalism and a haven for obscurantists and zealots given the continued discovery of Al Qaeda fugitives, sectarian killings, suicide bombings and, perhaps on a less violent but equally bigoted plane, the blackening of billboards featuring female faces.
All this, and the fact that the government does not always act consistently against elements who indulge in such activities does not help the country’s image. Let alone foreign tourists, even domestic tourists now prefer to stay away from places like Swat and Chitral, for reasons of safety and to avoid harassment at the hands of fanatics on the loose. Instead, they prefer vacationing in hill-stations like Murree in Punjab. The tourism secretary points out that Pakistan has signed agreements for cultural exchanges with several European and Asian nations, but this will not make any difference to the flow of tourists from abroad. If the government is really serious about turning around the half-dead tourism sector, then it must adopt a markedly proactive role in countering the negative image the country has acquired in much of the rest of the world.