| 09 March 2004 | Tuesday | 17 Muharram 1425 |
Denial after denial
MPA's murder; water committee
What is the first thing that you do at an international conference of Islamic scholars? Count the beards, of course. The ratio was fifty-fifty at Djakarta, where we had gathered at the invitation of the Nahdlatul Ulema to discourse on Islam as Rahmatan lil Alamin - or, roughly translated, as a message of peace for the world.
But the beards made one point more forcefully than the clean-chins: that Islam was spread across dozens of civilizations, colours and tongues. The most splendidly-groomed instances of hirsute fashion belonged to a pair of strikingly handsome clerics from the Balkans, their high, round, white turbans touched off by green redolent of the glories of the Ottoman Empire.
The most learned beard I encountered was a brooding Imam from Kenya, who explained the creative way in which Jihad was being used to fight Aids in his country.
The array of faces and cultures made an obvious nonsense of the 'clash of civilizations' thesis. Islam is a single faith spread that draws upon a multiple range of civilizations, just as Christianity has a breadth that extends across the globe.
Muslims live in dozens of nations with separate histories, motivations and ambitions. They are a single brotherhood when they bow towards the Kaaba, but they become different at the doors of the mosque in Makkah - just as Catholics become seamless in the Vatican and national in Rome. It is absurd to treat Muslims as some kind of single international horde thirsting for a western enemy.
So why was this thesis put about, and why does it get the respectability that an American secretary of state can provide by using the analogy in a major speech, as Colin Powell did recently? If only ignorance were the answer. Ignorance is understandable, if not always defensible. But there is more going on.
The most interesting aspect of this theory is when it was floated. It might seem as if it was a reaction to 9/11; in fact it was a consequence of two American military victories in quick succession.
The first was the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the collapse of the Soviet empire. The second was the war in which Kuwait was freed from Saddam Hussein's occupation, in 1991. The phrase emerged in its present manifestation in an essay by Samuel Huntington in the Spring 1993 issue of the respected American magazine Foreign Affairs.
In Afghanistan, America had financed and armed a Jihad by disparate armies to defeat the Soviets. Some of these armies consisted of radicalized Muslims; and one of them was led by Osama bin Laden. Against Iraq, America mobilized the international establishment.
In both cases America had a strong formal case: Moscow and Baghdad had violated the independence of recognized nation-states. But in neither case could victory be taken for granted.
The Soviet Union was still a fearsome power when it invaded Afghanistan in 1979; and Saddam's feet were thought to consist of steel rather than clay. Is it a coincidence that American troops are back in Afghanistan and Iraq within a decade of their first overwhelming victories? No.
The Americans declared victory but forgot to define it. Euphoria encouraged vague feelings of invincibility; and a group of extreme ideologues, known now as neo-cons, began to set the agenda of triumphalism. The 21st was declared the American century. It was the mood of a conqueror in search of an enemy.
No one conquers a poor nation - or at least no one sensible does, which is why even the Russians are bewildered at their occupation of Afghanistan. The returns are not worth the investment.
Who wanted to conquer sand, until they discovered that it was floating on oil? It is obvious enough that by a strange coincidence some of the world's biggest reserves of oil and gas lie in Muslim nations, whether in the Arab world, Iran, Central Asia or indeed Bangladesh and Indonesia.
(I joked at the Djakarta conference, or perhaps it was only half a joke, that Allah had blessed His chosen people with oil. And where he did not give Muslims oil, he gave them a Hindu majority. I added that this was not necessarily a bad bargain. For while Arab Muslims might now have a bank account, Indian Muslims had an economy.)
The critical golden centre of this subterranean wealth is Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Central Asia. Access to Central Asia was exploited within months of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and easily available through the colourful dictators of the region, who knew a thing or two about discretion before the mighty. Saudi friends ran Arabia. Iran and Iraq were headaches.
Direct colonialism has become unfashionable after two world wars fought for the control of the world, but neo-colonialism is a familiar sight, even when it uses pseudonyms like Halliburton.
But one tactic remains in use from the more honest days of colonialism: give a dog a bad name if you want to hang him. The British only but conquered in the cause of civilization and progress. They became limp bearing the brown man's burden.
The dialectic that was once used to justify the conquest of "brown" and "yellow" peoples has been transferred to patronize, undermine and squeeze selected Muslim nations.And so Muslims were re-cast as "anti-modern" if not positively backward.
The demonology is long, and often pernicious, and there is not enough space to examine them all. One uses 'pernicious' because surface arguments to justify a case seem eminently persuasive.
Let us examine a central canard, that Islam and democracy are incompatible. This is an absurdity. There is nothing Islamic or unIslamic about democracy. Democracy is the outcome of a political process, not a religious process.
It is glibly suggested that "every" Muslim country is a dictatorship, conveniently forgetting that the four of the largest Muslim populations of the world, in Indonesia, India, Bangladesh and Turkey, vote to change governments. Pakistan could easily have been on this list.
Voting does not make these Muslims either less or more religious. There are dictators among Muslims just as there are dictators among Christians, Buddhists and Hindus (check out Nepal).
Robert Mugabe is not a Muslim, but no one suggests that Christianity is not compatible with democracy. Christian Latin America has seen ugly forms of dictatorship as has Christian Africa.
Is Christianity to be blamed because the Nazis were Christians? That would be preposterous. There are more than one billion people who have never enjoyed the slightest whiff of democracy since Adam, the Chinese, but no one organizes seminars on Confucianism and democracy. Nor should they.
What is unique to the Muslim world is not the absence of democracy but the fact that in 1918, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, every single Muslim in the world lived under foreign subjugation.
Every single one, from Indonesia to Morocco via Turkey. The Turks resisted and threw out their invaders within a few years under the great leadership of Kemal Attaturk, but the transition to self-rule in other Muslim countries was slow, painful, uncertain and full of traps planted by the world's pre-eminent powers.
The West, in the shape of Britain, France or America, was never interested in democracy when a helpful dictator or king would serve. When people got a chance to express their wish, it was only logical that they would ask for popular rule.
It was the street that brought Mossaddegh to power in Iran and drove the Shah of Iran to tearful exile in Rome. Who brought the Shah of Iran and autocracy back to Iran? The CIA.
If Iranian democracy had been permitted a chance in 1953, there would have been no uprising led by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. In other countries, where the struggle for independence was long and brutal, as in Algeria and Indonesia, the militias who had fought the war institutionalized army authority.
In other instances, civilian heroes confused their own well-being with national health. They became regressive dictators. Once again, there was nothing Islamic about it.
Seokarno might have been as nominal a Muslim as Julius Nyerere was a nominal Christian. Muslim countries will become democracies too, because it is the finest form of modern governance. But it will be a process interrupted by bloody experience as the street wrenches power from usurpers.
Democracy has happened in Turkey. It has happened in Bangladesh. It is happening in Indonesia. It almost happened in Pakistan, and the opportunity will return. Democracy takes time in the most encouraging environments.
The democratic spirit prevailed across France during its revolution in 1789, but it took more than a century for that spirit to become flesh. Democracy came to America in 1776 but it was not an even reality: democracy did not mean the same thing to Dwight Eisenhower and Rosa Parks, John Kennedy and Martin Luther King.
Democracy has become the latest rationale for the occupation of Iraq, after the weapons of mass destruction were found only in the imagination of the neo-cons and their preferred leader, President George Bush.
Granted, democracy is always preferable to tyranny no matter how it comes. But Iraqis are not dupes. They will take democracy and place it at the service of nationalism. A decade ago, victorious America was careless about the definition of victory. Today it is careless about the definition of democracy.
There is uncertainty and apprehension across the Muslim nations: uncertainty about where they stand, and apprehension about both American power and the repugnant use of terrorism that in turn invites the exercise of American power. There is also anger that a legitimate cause like that of Palestine can get buried in the debris of confusion. Muslims do not see Palestinians as terrorists.
The writer is editor-in-chief, Asian Age, New Delhi.
Denial after denial
It is common for the government to deny every now and then the occasional embarrassing or unflattering report concerning Pakistan published abroad. But the number of such reports abroad, both unofficial and official, seem to have increased so much recently that the government has had a hard time catching up with and responding to these reports, issuing on the average one denial practically every day.
An analysis of the recent spate of reports to which Islamabad has rebutted show that these reports, most of which emanate from the American media, have tried to give three general impressions.
Firstly, that Pakistan is a nuclear proliferator, having offered nuclear technology to Iran and more recently to Nigeria, and had conducted joint nuclear tests with North Korea; secondly, that Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror goes to the extent of allowing foreign troops to operate against Al Qaeda on Pakistani soil, and that Osama bin Laden has been caught from Pakistan territory; and finally, that foreign security agencies, notably Indian and American, are helping to ensure the security of President Gen Musharraf.
Of all the recent stories, the most uncanny one was the Nigerian defence ministry statement issued on March 3, saying that the visiting Pakistani chairman of the joint chiefs of staff committee had offered to help Nigeria acquire nuclear power! When ISPR and the Pakistani foreign minister denied it outright, terming it as rubbish and baseless, the Nigerian authorities quickly retracted its statement saying it was a "typographical error".
How can the Nigerian gaffe be explained other than by the fact that Pakistan's name has been dragged recently into so many sensational stories (some of which - like the sale of nuclear technology to Libya and Iran - have turned out to be true), that perhaps someone decided to play a practical joke on Islamabad!
On February 28, former chief of army staff Gen (retired) Mirza Aslam Beg refuted a report in an American newspaper alleging that he was involved in the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran in 1990, terming the claim as a blatant lie and a figment of imagination.
On 27 February, the foreign office rejected as "incorrect and fallacious" the report in an American newspaper the day before that Pakistan had conducted joint nuclear tests with North Korea, dismissing it as a "wild, mischievous and irresponsible speculation".
An article in an American newspaper on 29 February even linked the nuclear issue with foreign troops presence, saying that Pakistan had struck a deal with the US to allow American troops to operate on Pakistan soil in pursuit of Osama bin Laden in return for America's non-objection to Islamabad's pardoning of Dr A.Q.Khan and America withholding criticism of Pakistan's nuclear leaks to Libya, Iran and North Korea. Subsequently on March 1, ISPR and the foreign office denied any truth in the report.
Earlier on February 23, the minister of information had denied a report in a British newspaper that special forces of Britain and America had surrounded Osama bin Laden and his associates in an area north of Quetta.
Then on February 28, ISPR and the foreign ministry denied the reports on state-run Iranian media that Osama bin Laden had been caught and arrested from Pakistan's tribal areas. On March 3, the foreign office repeated its denial of media reports abroad about foreign troops operating on Pakistan soil.
On February 25, Islamabad denied two reports which appeared the day before in the American media and Indian press respectively claiming that foreign agencies were helping to safeguard President Gen Musharraf's security.
ISPR denied the report made over an American television channel that the US was providing personal security advisers for Gen Musharraf, terming reports in this regard as baseless and unfounded.
The interior minister refuted a report that appeared in an Indian newspaper that the Indian intelligence had informed Pakistani intelligence about a third assassination attempt on the life of Gen Musharraf. The interior minister also ruled out any cooperation between the Indian and Pakistani intelligence agencies.
In addition to rejecting these foreign media stories, the government has also had to refute official reports issued abroad which paint an unflattering picture about development efforts and human rights condition in Pakistan.
On March 1, Dawn carried a report which said the government had written to the UNDP challenging the basic data with which it had ranked Pakistan in its latest Human Development Index. Islamabad says that it should be ranked 136th in the medium human development category rather than 144th in the low development countries category which UNDP has placed it.
On February 26, the minister of information denied over BBC a US State Department report issued the day before about the human rights excesses of Pakistan's security forces, including extra-judicial killings and victimization of political opponents.
On February 28, the interior minister also denied, over the Voice of America, the same allegations by the State Department about the excesses of Pakistan's security forces.
(Interestingly, just before the State Department report was issued, the criminal assault and murder of two minor girls in Karachi by police personnel had made headlines, and a few days after the State Department report was issued, a teenaged boy in Mardan was killed while in police custody, and a man arrested for killing the son of a former major of Lahore was also killed in police custody.)
All the embarrassing reports concerning Pakistan notwithstanding, American officials had several times throughout this period acknowledged Pakistan, rather Gen Musharraf, as a crucial ally in the war against terror.
Also, President Bush had certified (as he is supposed to do annually) that Pakistan is cooperating in the war on terror, thus clearing the way for $700 million American aid to Islamabad.
In addition, the Pakistani government was praised for its cooperation in uncovering the global nuclear network, and in particular Gen Musharraf and the top echelons of government were absolved of any involvement with Dr A.Q.Khan in selling nuclear technology abroad.
Nevertheless, it would be interesting to know who is or are behind each and every story about Pakistan published abroad, whether the reports are true or not (despite the official denials), and why the stories, especially if not true, are leaked in the foreign media.
MPA's murder; water committee
Commenting on the murder of People's Party Parliamentarians leader Abdullah Murad Baloch, Awami Awaz recalls that the MPA always fought for rights of the downtrodden people of rural areas of Karachi, for which he often received threats of dire consequences.
But he refused to bow down and recently played a leading role in the efforts to bring to book the people accused of killing two minor girls in the Gadap area.
According to the daily, it annoyed the double murder accused and Mr Murad received death threats about which he had informed his friends a couple of days before he was gunned down.
Terming the high profile murder a case of target killing, the daily says that if the culprits, who can be identified by the witnesses to the murder, are not arrested and given punishment they deserve, Karachi may again fall prey to a sense of insecurity.
It adds that the killers might have political backing, and calls on the authorities to refuse to protect the killers on political considerations. Referring to the International Women's Day, Kawish says that the rulers' messages released on the occasion and seminars held in air-conditioned halls can do nothing to improve the lot of women of the country.
It says that after the induction of an impressive number of women in assemblies, it was hoped that laws would be promulgated to safeguard women's rights but after a lapse of more than one year, the expectation appears to be a wishful thinking.
According to the paper, some women members have raised issues concerning their gender in the Sindh Assembly but they are not being supported by the house as a large number of MPAs, who are tribal chieftains, foiled their attempt to get a resolution approved.
Similarly, when a woman MNA tried to table a bill in the National Assembly on the so-called honour killings, male members of her party did not support her. Kawish concludes that without effective laws and their implementation, atrocities against women cannot be curbed.
Ibrat writes that during the Sindh visit of the parliamentary committee on water sources, the representatives of the provincial government, farmers and irrigation experts unanimously rejected the Kalabagh dam and greater Thal canal projects.
They were of the view that instead of taking up controversial projects, the existing irrigation system should be improved which can save at least 40 million acre feet of water.
The daily insists that Sindh's opposition to the dam and canal projects is based on past experiences. Therefore, before floating the idea of a new reservoir, it is necessary to restore confidence of the province.
Tameer-i-Sindh points out that the closure of flour mills in upper Sindh in protest against food department's policies has led to a shortage of flour and the rise in its price.