| 28 April 2004 | Wednesday | 07 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
Making sense of charged parking
Shamsur Rehman Farooqui in city
It's an intriguing phenomenon: the vast majority of those who are particularly vociferous in their denunciation of analogies between Iraq and Vietnam are people who passionately supported American intervention in Indochina.
Back then, they did not consider the official line, namely that US troops were fighting for democracy in South Vietnam, worth questioning. Even though one of the primary aims of American involvement was to forestall an expression of the popular will.
Today's warmongers are equally adamant that last year's invasion and the consequent occupation of Iraq were the only means of familiarizing Iraqis with democracy. The problem, of course, is that although most Iraqis do indeed want the right to determine how they are governed and by whom, they consider foreign over lordship an impediment to this goal.
Shades of Vietnam? Perhaps. The point, however, is: why do those who looked upon the aggression against Vietnam as a good war and perceive the assault against Iraq as a necessary endeavour get so worked up about comparisons between the two military adventures?
There is a reasonably simple explanation. Everyone knows how Vietnam turned out in the end: 29 years ago, the Vietnamese eventually triumphed against the aggressors. That is not an outcome today's would-be conquerors are willing to contemplate.
Yet recent events point in no other direction. The large number of Iraqis who were thrilled to be rid of Saddam Hussein are now equally keen to put proconsul Paul Bremer behind them.
According to George W. Bush, "failure is not an option". He's right in a way: it is no longer a prospect, because it is already occurring at every level. Based on "intelligence" from the likes of Ahmed Chalabi, US troops were under the impression that on their arrival they would be showered with petals and sweets by Iraqis. But how often in history have the victims of occupation welcomed their occupiers?
Since the invasion, the Americans haven't exactly been going out of their way to endear themselves to the locals. In the circumstances, it isn't entirely surprising that the occupation forces look upon almost every Iraqi as a potential foe. And it appears unlikely that the conditions will change dramatically after June 30.
There are echoes here of what was once upon a time summed up as Vietnamization. The idea then was that the South Vietnamese themselves should provide most of the cannon fodder for what was billed as a crusade against communism. It didn't work - because, among other reasons, too many of the Southerners looked for leadership to the independent government in Hanoi rather than the puppet regime in Saigon.
When Ho Chi Minh had set up an administration in Hanoi following Japan's defeat in the Second World War, he made no secret of his admiration for the American Revolution, incorporated passages from the US constitution in incipient Vietnam's basic document and sought to establish friendly relations with Washington. He was rebuffed by the Truman administration, which had decided to hand Indochina back to the pre-war colonial power, France.
It's worth noting that the US reacted equally coldly to overtures from Havana following the Cuban Revolution in 1959. Yet it was perfectly happy to forge mutually beneficial relations with Saddam during the 1980s.
Such inclinations speak volumes about US foreign policy; its myopia and ideological grounding aren't by any means a recent innovation. They also tell us something about Saddam.
Its rhetoric notwithstanding, Washington has seldom had any problem with dictators - provided the victims of their repression are chiefly the dispossessed or those struggling on behalf of the dispossessed, and as long as the favoured tyrant doesn't turn a deaf ear to Washington. This pattern has been evident throughout the 20th century.
But there is another crucial pattern, too, deeply rooted in western colonial history: namely, that no one must be allowed to set a dangerous example. When Manuel Noriega indicated that he may prefer working for his own benefit rather than Washington's, Panama was invaded and the former CIA employee kidnapped. Saddam's defiance prompted not one but two invasions of Iraq.
Barring a few exceptions such as these, this phenomenon has mainly been driven by a combination of greed and ideological rigidity. Latin American history is full of examples where regime change was manipulated, encouraged or coerced because governments with a progressive agenda were considered potentially problematic paradigms in a region riddled with profound inequalities.
Over the past 50 years, Guatemala (1954), Chile (1973) and Nicaragua (1980s) stand out as prime examples of US foreign policy "successes", whereas Cuba, despite an attempted invasion, ceaseless subversion and the monumental suffering inflicted on its people for more than 40 years, has been an abysmal "failure". In recent years, Venezuela, under Hugo Chavez, has emerged as the next leading candidate for disruption.
The involvement in Vietnam - which grew from hundreds of military "advisers" to thousands, then tens and eventually hundreds of thousands of troops - was also explained away as an exercise in paradigm-prevention. If the whole of Vietnam went communist, it was claimed, one by one its neighbours would follow suit. The contagion would spread. This was known at the time as the domino theory.
When, in 1964, the Pentagon needed authorisation to start carpet-bombing North Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was invented, whereby it was claimed that an American vessel provocatively anchored in the said gulf had come under fire from Hanoi's gunboats. It wasn't true, but it sufficed for Congress to give Lyndon Johnson the right to wage a war that had in fact begun long ago. There is an obvious parallel here with Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
As Johnson despatched more and more conscripts to Vietnam, American troop strength in Indochina eventually rose to half a million. Yet the South Vietnamese National Liberation Front's Tet offensive in 1968 brought home to many Americans the realisation that they were engaged in an unwinnable war.
That's the aspect of Vietnam that causes palpitations among proponents of the Project for a New American Century, whose grand plans for global hegemony have come to a crashing halt in Iraq. Because Vietnam, above all, is a reminder that, given adequate determination, the poorest of nations can prove to be more than a match for the mightiest military power.
Three decades ago, Lieutenant John Kerry testified that virtually every American sent to Vietnam was complicit in war crimes that ranged from the slaughter of unarmed civilians to the worst conceivable forms of torture and the mutilation of enemy corpses.
Now, as a presidential candidate who aspires to a gentler variant of imperialism, he knows that his appeal vis-a-vis Vietnam lies in his combat heroics rather than his subsequent anti-war activism.
Yet, despite a tendency to downplay the revulsion he felt at the time, he hasn't disowned his testimony. At the same time, he does not plan to pull American troops out of Iraq, where similar wrongs are being perpetrated by the occupying forces - and at times reciprocated by the incipient Iraqi resistance.
The so-called "hearts and minds" campaigns that proved so ineffectual in Vietnam are backfiring once more in Iraq - not least because they are accompanied by the sort of actions carried out in South Vietnam under the codename Operation Phoenix, which in effect involved eliminating anyone opposed to the American presence.
Fallujah hasn't been completely destroyed in order to "save it" - the fate of so many Vietnamese villages - but what happened recently in the Iraqi town has been compared to the My Lai massacre, and an action replay hasn't been ruled out. Najaf may be next.
There are, of course, vast differences between Vietnam and Iraq. There is no North Iraq, nor does the resistance have anything approaching the coherence and commitment of the National Liberation Front. The somewhat haphazard acts of violence in occupied Iraq cannot even begin to be compared to what was arguably the 20th century's most heroic resistance movement.
Aspects of the Iraqi situation can also been compared to the Israeli occupation of Lebanon or the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. Or, for that matter, the British occupation of Iraq in the 1920s - which, interestingly, was billed as a "liberation", with Shia-Sunni-Kurdish resistance blamed on imaginary Bolshevik provocateurs, just as Al Qaeda is currently getting disproportionate credit for spooking the occupiers.
For instance, it was named immediately in connection with last week's Basra attacks, whereas they are more likely to have been carried out by forces loyal to Moqtada Al Sadr - whose treatment, incidentally, has been likened to the disastrous US approach a decade ago towards Somali warlord Farrah Aideed.
In its final years, the Vietnam conflict was managed mainly by Henry Kissinger. It can hardly be a coincidence that Lewis Paul Bremer III once served as an assistant to secretary of state Kissinger, and also happens to be a former managing director of Kissinger Associates, the shadowy consultancy firm whose clients reputedly have ranged from leading US multinationals to Gulf corporations.
Ideal qualifications, no doubt, for a viceregal posting in Baghdad. Iraq isn't Vietnam. But it could aspire to that sort of status if the US keeps trying hard enough.
mahirali2@netscape.net.
Making sense of charged parking
Finally, a legislator has shown the sense to say a few words about the utterly unfair and exploitative manner in which motorists have to pay for parking in Karachi. Farheen Ambreen of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement said on a point of order during proceedings of the Sindh Assembly last week that parking fee should be charged only during office hours and not on public holidays.
MPA Ambreen is only echoing what most people who have cars in Karachi feel - that the system of charged parking needs to be radically overhauled and made fairer, and this means safeguarding the rights of motorists and motorcyclists.
Both points - that of paying charged parking only during working hours and free parking on public holidays - make eminent sense from the point of view of economics and environmental concerns. Since space is limited and since the demand for parking is quite high, it is only rational to charge those who wish to park their cars in crowded city centre neighbourhoods.
However, those who have devised and operate the charged parking scheme in Karachi seem to be working using some other logic. First of all, the city does not have in place an efficient, reliable or affordable public transport network.
To some, a flat parking fee of ten rupees might seem especially unfair in this particular context given that commuters who own cars face an alternative which is not reliable, not safe and exposes them to dangerously high levels of air pollution.
There seems little sense in charging parking fee from eight in the morning to eleven at night, especially when the rush hour in even the most congested business/commercial areas starts thinning out after seven or eight in the evening. Clearly, the reason for the fee in such a case is not to regulate the flow of traffic during working hours but to make as much money from the hapless motorist/motorcyclist as possible.
To make matters worse, there is no exemption even on public holidays. Go to the Boat Basin on a Sunday morning for 'halwa- puri' and a parking attendant will promptly appear on the scene, asking for his ten-rupee fee. And, anyone who has been to Saddar or other busy parts of the city will have seen that no parking fee is ever paid by taxis or rickshaws that usually (double)park on the roads there.
The city government, which leases out charged parking contracts to various parties, has to rationalize the whole process. The problem probably arises - and it cannot happen without official connivance at some level - because contractors are allowed to draw up their own time zones for charged parking.
The next time charged parking contracts are auctioned, the city government should include a clause under which the successful parties are allowed to charge for parking only during office hours - say, nine to six or even seven - and not on Sundays or public holidays.
The city government should also tell us how much money is collected by it every year as a result of selling charged parking contracts, and what it is spent on.
Shamsur Rehman Farooqui in city
Preparations were made last week by city organizations to give the Indian critic, poet and story writer Shamsur Rehman Farooqui a befitting reception as the news came that he was expected on a visit to Karachi. Writers as well as students who have been reading his prestigious journal Shabkhoon and had earlier read his treatise, Sher-i-Shor Angaiz, were anxious to meet him personally and listen to his discourse on current literary issues.
Born in 1934, Dr Farooqui was educated at Allahabad University. He joined the Indian Civil Service and retired in 1994. He also worked at the Jamia Millia Islamia, Aligarh University, and the University of Pennsylvania and is the recipient of many literary awards.
Dr Farooqui came and gave an address at a representative gathering of writers and intellectuals at NIPA on Monday. He said differences of opinion and discussion and debate were essential for the promotion of literature and culture.
Urdu, he said, "is my most precious legacy". An intellectual is one who differs from popularly held beliefs and positions. Our cultural history, he stressed, was 700 years old. Bedil, Ghalib and Iqbal were all our contemporaries, and one must try to understand the spirit of that culture.
Rawait (tradition) is never dead, and those who prefer to read only a few poets and ignore others remain unaware of the rich traditions we have inherited from our past, Dr Farooqui said and added: "Pity the nation that has lost touch with ninety per cent of its culture."
Replying to the speeches made earlier about his contribution to literature, poetry, criticism and fiction writing, Dr Farooqui said it was his quest for knowing more and more about his cultural past which had led him to try his hand at different genres. Referring to the element of contemporaneousness found in poets of different ages, he said Iqbal was the greatest poet of the last century.
Earlier, poet Saba Ikram welcomed the guest. Mobin Mirza, poet and critic, made brief comments on Dr Farooqui's books, particularly his epoch-making research 'Urdu ka ibtedai zamana' and said his books were meant to evaluate Muslim history and culture. Asif Farrukhi said Dr Farooqui was the greatest "Ghalib shanas" (Ghalib aware) of our times.
Dr Mohammad Ali Siddiqui, who was the chief guest, admired Dr Farooqui for being above all prejudices, for his unbiased thinking and for the courage of his convictions. Dr Siddiqui referred to the growing menace of globalization and said a writer should not be a mercenary. He said even one short story by Dr Farooqui was more valuable than hundreds of stories by others.
Jamiluddin Aali, who presided over the function, spoke in a light vein regarding his association with Dr Farooqui and his profound regard for the great writer.
Fateha was offered for the soul of the late Irfan Siddiqui, a poet of repute who died in Lucknow recently. A special meeting to remember Irfan Siddiqui was earlier held at the Pakistan Arts Council with Jamiluddin Aali in the chair.
* * * * *
Eminent poet Munir Niazi was in the city a few days back. The poet from Lahore was greeted at a jampacked Karachi Gymkhana hall by Mr Nasim Gandhi on behalf of the club's literary and literary committee.
Poet and story writer Ms Fatema Hasan introduced shy and soft- spoken Niazi as a poet of distinct taste. But the highlight of the evening was an article presented by Samina Raja, herself a poet and writer. Her article encompassed the major aspects of Niazi's poetry, its title being 'Shaer-i-hairat, Shauq va Khauf' - an expression of wonder, fervour and fear. After his migration to Pakistan, Niazi invented his own world, its earth and skies, morning and sunset, an environment of wonderment, a 'Sheher' (city) of his own.
His poetry influenced an entire generation of young writers and poets and they should be grateful to the poet for having set such exceptional style in poetry. Prof Aslam Farrukhi recalled having been introduced to Munir Niazi in 1959 and being greatly impressed by his very individual turn of verse and phrase and found him to be a polished, amiable person.
Munir Niazi presented some of his verses and ghazals and kept the audience captivated by his soft melancholic tone. The evening was enlivened by popular singer Shakila Khurassani who sang at least six of Munir's ghazals. Munir's eyes were wet as Khurassani sang.
* * * * *
Journals known as 'Digests' were for years not taken seriously because of their sex and crime stories adopted mostly from the trashy English-language magazines. But now it seems they have gained credence and respectability.
A writer at the launching of a story-collection, 'Awaazen', recalled the rise of 'modernity' during the decade of the 60s of the last century when Urdu 'afsana' had lost its element of 'story'. Later, the writer contended, readers began to get tired of meaningless fiction, and turned towards digests, which were helping to resurrect the story form.
'Awaazen', a collection of 22 stories by Musarrat Afza Roohi, a journalist and poet, was launched on Thursday with Prof Saher Ansari in the chair. Story writer Shamshad Ahmad and critic Rauf Niazi were the main speakers.
Poet Naqqash Kazmi and Sajid Ali Sajid admired the realistic approach of Musarrat Lodi asserting that every story was different from the other and there was no repetition. Only a seaman with long years of service could write such stories, Shamshad Ahmed said, and he was supported by Prof Ansari.
Ms Rehana Roohi's article on the book and about the development of Urdu fiction was appropriate for the occasion, though it was more narrative than analytical. The Adbi committee of the Arts Council and a humour journal Zarafat were the co-hosts, whose editor did the comparing.
Now a few words about comparing. A compare is supposed to invite the speaker to the podium but is often found quite charmed by the magic of his own voice. He narrates the complete biography of the speaker and also dilate on the subject to be discussed later, leaving little for others to say.
Often compares also present a synopsis of a speech already made, making the audience nod. Perhaps invitation cards issued for literary functions should also mention the time for the event to conclude. It's another matter that few if any such functions begin on time.