| 11 June 2004 | Friday | 22 Rabi-us-Saani 1425 |
Who will control Iraq?
'Events, dear boy, events'
The golden principle given in the Holy Quran to achieve a positive attitude and true peace of mind is shukr, which means thanking Almighty Allah for whatever He has given us. According to an agreed hadith, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) said, "The case of a momin (true Muslim) is unique.
Whatever Allah decides for him is best for him. If he gets into difficulty, he shows forbearance and t rust in Allah, which is good for him. If he is blessed with happiness, he thanks Allah, which is also good for him. Only the true faithful are blessed with this inner satisfaction and solace."
Ayat 144 of Surah Aale Imran says, "But Allah will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude." Again, Ayat 147 of Surah Nisa says, "What can Allah gain by your punishment if you are grateful and you believe."
Strange are the ways of man. He gets the taste of death every night when he goes to sleep, not knowing whether he will get up again or not, but he does not seek Allah's forgiveness before going to sleep.
Allah gives him a new life every morning, but he does not thank Him for this chance. Ayat 60 of Surah Al Anaam says, "It is He who takes your souls by night, and has knowledge of what you have done by day (for which you will be answerable).
Then after that He makes you arise (from this death-like state), so as to complete the time predestined for you. In the end, you will be returned to Him. Then will He show you the truth of all that you did."
When Iblees (shaitaan) was declared the meanest of creatures and ousted from the heavens for showing arrogance, he said, "Give me respite until the day (the dead) will be raised." We (Allah) said, "be thou among those who have respite."
He (Iblees) said, "because You have thrown me out of the way, I will be in ambush for those who will follow Your way, the (correct and) right way. Then after that I will catch them from their fronts and from their backs and from their right and from their left. And You will not find the majority of them being grateful" (Ayat 4-17 of Surah Al-Aaraf).
The above ayat warns us that the aim of shaitaan is to make us ungrateful and unthankful to Allah. The assault of evil is from all sides. It takes advantage of every weak point, and sometimes even our good and generous sympathies are used to tempt us into the snare of evil.
Man must, under all circumstances, be grateful to Allah for His loving care, but in his folly he often forgets his gratitude and unknowingly promotes the cause of shaitaan. Ayat 153 of Surah Al Baqarah says, "O you believe! Seek help with patient perseverance and salat (prayer), for Allah is with those who are patiently steadfast."
Ayat 155 to 157 further states, "Be sure we shall test you with a few things such as fear and hunger, some loss in assets (of all types), and lives, or the fruits (of your toil), but give glad tidings (blessings and cheer) to those who bear calamity; those who say when afflicted with calamity, 'To Allah we belong and to Him is our return.'
They are those on whom (descend) blessings from their Rabb, and mercy, and they are the ones that receive guidance." The Holy Prophet has said, "Whatever distress and pain or difficulty or worry is suffered by a true believer in this world, even though it may be a thorn prick, Allah makes it a source of pardoning some of his faults and wrong deeds in the hereafter" (Bukhari, Muslim).
Allah always helps those who are grateful to Him. In the early stages of Islam, Muslims were a small band in Makkah, despised and rejected, living in a state of insecurity, persecuted and exiled.
In spite of all their difficulties, they were grateful to Allah. Then Allah provided them a safe asylum in Madinah. They found friends and helpers, and at length they gathered strength, enough to defeat the forces of godlessness, injustice and oppression.
This fact has been mentioned in Ayat 26 of Surah Al Anfal which reads, "Call to mind when you were a small (band), despised through the land, and afraid that men might despoil and kidnap you. But He provided a safe asylum for you, strengthened you with His aid, and gave you good things for sustenance: that you might be grateful."
The important question is: why are Muslims of today not getting similar aid from Allah? Perhaps because they have forgotten the basic principle of forbearance, tolerance and of being grateful to Allah. This lesson applies to every individual in some form or the other.
His spiritual life begins humbly; he is despised and perhaps persecuted. He suffers temporary losses and setbacks, but if he remains steadfast and grateful to Almighty Allah, then He gives him strength and he is sustained until his highest spiritual desires are fulfilled.
We have a tendency of becoming ungrateful and rebellious even if minor calamities befall us. We must overcome this tendency and thank Almighty Allah at all times, if we wish to receive His help and blessings.
Ayat 9-11 of Surah Hood says, "If We give man the taste of mercy from ourselves, and then withdraw it from him, behold he is in despair, ungrateful, and (falls into) blasphemy.
But if We give him a taste of (our) favours, after adversity had touched him, he says, "All evil has departed from me." He falls into exultation and pride (as if it was due to his own merit and cleverness). Not so those who show patience and constancy and righteousness; for them is forgiveness (of sins) and a great reward.
If we have faith in Allah and thank Him in prosperity and adversity, then we will certainly have mental peace and solace in life. If we thank Allah for whatever He has given us, He promises to be more favourable to us.
We must remember that no human being can be our razzaq (provider of sustenance). No man can give us anything that Allah has not destined for us and no human being can stop from coming to us, what Almighty Allah has destined for us.
Ayat 73 of Surah Al Haj says, "O you human beings, something is being explained through an example, so listen to it (carefully): It is a fact that people who plead to others rather than Allah, those others are not capable of creating a fly, even if all of them get together to do so. And if a fly snatches anything from them, they cannot save the thing back (from that fly). Powerless is the seeker and the one from whom sought."
Almighty Allah has created this world to suit the needs of His masterpiece creation: the human being so that he may always be grateful to Allah. The more he is grateful to Allah, the more will be his comfort and peace of mind.
Ayat 73 of Surah Al Qasas says, "It is out of His mercy that He has made for you, night and day, that you may rest there in, and that you may seek His grace; and in order that you may be grateful."
We must understand one thing clearly: that the need to be grateful to Allah is for man's own good and not for any benefit to the Almighty, for Allah is above all needs.
Ayat 6-8 of Surah Al Aadiyat says, "Truly human being is ungrateful to his Rabb. And indeed he bears witness to himself (by his deeds). And violent is he in his love for wealth."
Man who either does not receive guidance or does not heed to guidance, is indeed ungrateful. This ingratitude may be shown by thoughts, words or deeds - by forgetting or denying Allah and His goodness, by misusing His gifts, or by injustice to His creatures.
Most of us waste our energies and health, envying other people for their wealth, power and possessions. What a self-inflicted injury to ourselves! Ayat 88 of Surah Al Hajar clearly warns us, "Strain not your eyes (wistfully) at what We have given to some among them for benefit (in this life), nor grieve over them: but instead, lean towards true believers momineen (in gentleness)."
In view of the divine guidance it becomes quite clear that if we wish to lead a healthy and prosperous life, with complete peace of mind, we must shun the maladies of avarice, greed, envy and jealousy.
We must learn to exercise patience and forbearance and thank Allah under all circumstances. The golden rule for real solace in life is explained in Ayat 162 of Surah Al Anaam which reads, "Say: truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are all for Allah, the Rabb (cherisher) of the worlds."
Who will control Iraq?
While speaking at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, on May 24, President Bush declared that the United States would hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government on June 30. He, however, made it clear that in order to provide the necessary security to Iraq the US would maintain its troops there "as long as necessary".
Bush also indicated that the United States and Britain would introduce a resolution in the UN Security Council (UNSC) to seek its endorsement for the transfer of power to Iraq on June 30 and authorization for the US-led forces to remain in that country after that date. The projected resolution was moved in the UNSC on May 24.
It may be recalled that the growing insurgency in Iraq against the occupying forces had compelled President Bush to seek the UN's involvement to bail them out of this predicament.
The UN special envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, was accordingly asked to consult with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of the interim administration that was to assume power on June 30.
Lakhdar Brahimi was still in the process of these consultations when the Iraqi Governing Council, which was required to assist him in his mission, announced, on June 1, the composition of the proposed interim administration. Lakhdar Brahimi was apparently outmanoeuvred by the Governing Council.
When asked about the manner in which the members of the interim administration were named, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, acknowledged that "the process was not perfect" but he stressed that it, nevertheless, constituted progress.
He also pointed out that "it was never intended that the UN would go and appoint and impose a government on the Iraqis". He elaborated his remark by saying that "we had to discuss with them (the Iraqis) and, given the circumstances and the factors on the ground, it is not surprising that you have a mix of people from the Governing Council and from outside who are forming the government".
In any case, the UNSC members who were participating in the deliberations on the US-Britain draft resolution hailed the new interim administration and expressed the hope that it would exercise full sovereignty to manage all its internal and external affairs, including security matters and have full control over its resources and assets.
The three permanent members of the UNSC, France, China and Russia, and some other members of the Council, however, demanded that the US-led forces mandate should expire on June 30 in keeping with the timetable of the Iraqi political process. Commenting on this, Kofi Annan said, "My sense is that most of the Council members are determined to ensure that Iraq gets full sovereignty".
It goes without saying that unless the people of Iraq are convinced that the occupation of their country by the US-led forces has indeed ended and the interim administration is not only independent but fully responsible for the running of every aspect of the country, normalcy is unlikely to return to the war-ravaged country.
The continued presence of the occupying forces in Iraq cannot be harmonized with the real and credible return of sovereignty to Iraq. Moreover, the occupying forces who have committed acts of atrocities against the Iraqi civilians, including women and children, and at whose hands Iraqi prisoners, particularly those in the Al Ghraib prison, have received savage treatment, cannot enjoy the respect and trust of the Iraqi people.
Regrettably, however, the interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi and his foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, both long-time, trusted American allies, conveyed to the UNSC their acceptance of the US troops in Iraq staying on and requested that the Council formally endorse it.
Prudence demanded that the interim administration, in its own interest, should have made every possible effort to dispel the generally prevalent impression that it would be toeing the US line.
The members of the UNSC, who have been trying very hard to totally discard the possibility of the presence of the US-led forces in Iraq after June 30 or limit their stay there to the bare minimum period, without any power that might impinge upon the sovereignty of that country, must have been baffled at the interim administration's willingness to accept the continued presence of these forces.
They must have been equally surprised by Prime Minister Allawi's politically immature and rather uncalled for statement that the sovereignty stipulated in the US-British draft resolution was "quite adequate".
The UNSC members have ultimately hammered out an agreement on the US-British draft resolution after protracted wrangling. The resolution adopted unanimously by the UNSC on June 8 formally ends the occupation of Iraq on June 30 but, at the same time, it authorizes the US-led forces to remain in that country, till the end of January 2006, to maintain the peace there, in partnership with the new Iraqi leaders, who will have no right to veto an offensive that the US-led forces may decide to launch in the country.
The resolution in question, of course, gives the new Iraqi leadership the right to ask the US-led forces to leave their country at any time. It is, however, hard to believe that a pliant regime in Baghdad would ever do so.
For obvious reasons, it would be hard for the Iraqis to bear the stigma of being under the occupying forces, and hence, the return of peace to Iraq in the foreseeable future seems to be a forlorn hope after the termination of occupation.
The UN secretary-general, while voicing his concern over the persistent bloodshed in Iraq, has also said that there was no reason "to believe that it is going to stop because a government has been designated". President Bush has also expressed apprehension that there is likely to be violence even after the transfer of sovereignty to that country".
In any case, it remains to be seen whether or not the interim administration, whose credentials are open to question, would be able to rally the support of the Iraqi people behind its policies, particularly on the question of the prolonged stay of the US-led forces in Iraq with unbridled powers, even after the transfer of power to Iraq later this month.
The writer is a former ambassador.
'Events, dear boy, events'
The first feel-gooder of modern times was Harold Macmillan, Britain's prime minister between the suicidal Anthony Eden and the whimsical Alec Douglas-Home. The phrase has vintage.
It was first used by Macmillan to describe the Britain that was emerging from the gloom of victory in the Second World War. "Gloom of victory" is appropriate, for the economy had paid a ruinous price for military success.
Rationing, for instance, continued for years after the war. Misery was compounded by misadventure: the 1956 Anglo-French-Israeli invasion of the Suez Canal ended in humiliation when the Americans reminded the European powers that Egypt was not their colony anymore.
The peace dividend became visible during Macmillan's term, Britain began to smile, and its erudite prime minister invented the "feel-good" phrase. So what happened when his preferred successor led the Conservatives into a general election in 1963?
The Conservatives lost. Obviously there is no single issue that determines victory and defeat in as complex an event as a general election, particularly in as complicated a nation as ours.
Governance is akin to a gradual accretion of negatives, until at some point of time you cross the tipping point, and the glow of victory slips almost inadvertently into the fade of retreat.
The problem of "feel-good" as a catch-all slogan is that for every person who feels good, there are two who do not feel as good, even if they are indeed slightly better than they were before. It is a claim that invites comparison and either jealousy or anger. For every one person using a mobile, there are a thousand who don't.
The only politician who rode to re-election on such a slogan was Ronald Reagan, but that was because he took a concept a step ahead with his line, "Good Morning, America". He was not, to extend the sunrise metaphor, simply crowing about the past; he was stressing a new future.
Ironically, success tempts a government into such a slogan; a static or failed government sticks to the emotive power of political issues (Narendra Modi and communalism in Gujarat; Laloo Yadav and casteism in Bihar).
Rajiv Gandhi tried a variation in 1989, with Mera Bharat Mahaan. There were solid economic achievements behind that claim. The reforms of Dr Manmohan Singh in 1991 could not have succeeded without the effective management of the Indian economy in the Congress decade of 1980 to 1989, launched with Mrs Indira Gandhi as prime minister and Pranab Mukherjee as finance minister.
Hype about reforms has obscured the fact that the Indian economy grew at exactly the same pace between 1980 and 1989 that it did in the 10 years after 1991: at 5.8 per cent in the '80s and 5.9 per cent in the '90s.
The best of the first phase came when the seeds planted by Rajiv Gandhi's innovative thinking offered fruit: between 1988 and 1991 the economy grew at 7.6 per cent a year.
Rajiv Gandhi, therefore, had every right to believe that India was finally coming into its own, and there was enough in the foreign press, which had no reason to be subjective, to confirm such a view. Ironically, Rajiv Gandhi got 191 seats in the 1989 elections, almost the same as the NDA's 190.
Why does success become its own enemy?
When Harold Macmillan was asked what worried him most during his halcyon days in office, he answered gravely, "Events, dear boy, events." Events are both imponderable and ponderable.
You can ponder over those that can be seen ahead. The Supreme Court judgment on the criminal cases against Laloo Yadav, for instance, is visible in the near distance.
While there can be no assurance of a specific date in such matters, there is general agreement that the court cannot delay a decision much longer. Perhaps it is now only a matter of weeks.
This is one reason why the opposition is stoking up a fire beneath those newly-appointed central ministers who have been charged with various crimes. There is Laloo Yadav himself, along with two of his nominees to ministerial positions, and there is Shibu Soren, the tribal leader from Jharkhand who has been given the mines portfolio with cabinet rank.
Laloo Yadav might imagine that the persuasive power of power will influence the decision, but the higher judiciary has consistently displayed admirable integrity.
Defence minister Pranab Mukherjee, in an interview published in The Asian Age, has left no doubts about Congress thinking: if there is conviction, Laloo Yadav will have to leave the cabinet. There will be a political consequence to Laloo's resignation, if it comes to that. It might not be dramatic, and it might not be immediate, but it is certain.
The Indo-Pak peace process lies in the category of imponderables. I think it was Winston Churchill who once described consistency as the virtue of an ass. Well, foreign minister Natwar Singh is no fool. He tossed out an idea from the standard reference book of hard hats when he suggested that the Indo-Pakistan dialogue should proceed on the Sino-Indian model.
For the uninitiated, this means, essentially, that core differences should not disrupt improvement on other fronts. Translated further, it means that differences over Kashmir should not prevent growth in trade and other items on India's wish-list.
Former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal made precisely this point when he got an opportunity to ask President Pervez Musharraf a question during the India Today conclave a few weeks ago, and was applauded by many in the audience.
The Pakistan president, not known for silence under pressure, responded emphatically that if such was the thinking in Delhi, then everyone could forget about success in the forthcoming dialogue. The president rattled off "Kashmir" a few times for emphasis.
That approach is a non-starter, and indeed in contradiction to the line taken by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during his 20-minute courtesy conversation with President Pervez Musharraf.
A negative reaction at home persuaded Natwar Singh to use the politician's prerogative of denial. It is understandable that a new government should seek some change of course in as sensitive a matter as Indo-Pak relations.
The new men in charge of foreign policy also believe that they were preceded by a bunch of amateurs who did not know the difference between policy and diplomacy. The simpler fact is that the peace initiative with Pakistan had gathered substantial popular support, and any disruption will become one of those negatives that begin to add up.
Three constituencies are beginning to get affected: those voters who do not want to see accused politicians in office; investors in stocks and shares, whose volatility is making them queasy; and the much larger peace-constituency which wants to build on the joy of the cricket series in Pakistan.
Either singly or together, they are not yet sufficient to disturb the equanimity of the government; but the point is that when the NDA lost the elections they did not exist. Events, dear boy, events.
The decisive events on the political calendar are of course the assembly elections. More often than not, the partners in Delhi will be in competition, which creates its own set of tensions.
One of the most relevant observations made by Mr Mukherjee in the interview was that the central party in a ruling alliance needs at least 200 seats for comfortable governance.
That is manifestly obvious. It links with Mrs Sonia Gandhi's point that an effective mandate for the Congress is 250 seats, not 145 seats. That is the circle that must be squared, or the square that must be circled.
A timetable for the future will start to get formulated after the first of the assembly elections, in Maharashtra in September. The advantage of the ruling alliance is that the partners are not in conflict there. The Congress and the NCP have worked out their equations, and Sharad Pawar, wisely, will get his way if he wants it.
There is a perceptible Congress bounce, which could swing the undecided vote towards the Congress alliance. Maharashtra could offer the opportunity to build on a national level. Mrs Sonia Gandhi's own reputation is high. Her mission statement is Caesarian: Twice was I offered the crown, twice I refused it. That sort of thing gets votes.
Mrs Sonia Gandhi is also in a position to preserve most of the alliance. Even though the left will engage in friendly, or not so friendly, fire in the states, its support at the centre is certain.
Similarly, Maharashtra is sorted out; and there is no reason why the DMK should change sides. In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, the Congress has begun to reassert itself. That is how the stage is set. But will there be any drama? Old Macmillan had the answer. "Events, dear boy, events."
The writer is editor-in-chief, Asian Age, New Delhi.