| 17 July 2004 | Saturday | 28 Jamadi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
The poor don't eat guns
Another day in the life of 'new Iraq'
With terrorism beginning to show its teeth in Pakistan, President General Pervez Musharraf has spoken twice, in less than a week, on subjects such as terrorism, fanaticism, extremism and the need for what he calls "enlightened moderation."
Since his observations reflect the thinking of the government and the policies, it will be worthwhile to examine the issues raised and the measures suggested by him to curb the menace of terrorism.
Speaking on May 19 at the inaugural session of an international conference held in Islamabad by the newly established International Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution (IIPCR), President Musharraf pledged that Pakistan would not "compromise" on its fight against terrorism.
Referring to the theme of the conference, "A New War-A New Peace", he called for a war against illiteracy, hunger, backwardness, poverty and social injustice. He remarked that political disputes leading to suppression of the people give birth to feelings of deprivation, hopelessness and powerlessness which, combined with illiteracy and poverty, make a dangerous mix for militancy, extremism and terrorism.
He also emphasized that the way forward for the Muslim world was the strategy of "enlightened moderation". A few days later, addressing a students convention, he held out the assurance that fanatics would not be allowed to rule Pakistan.
It is, however, not clear what he means by fanaticism and who are considered fanatics. Dictionary meaning of 'fanaticism' is excessive and unreasonable zeal and a 'fanatic' is a person whose zeal, piety etc., goes beyond what is reasonable.
Fanaticism, therefore, is not confined to religious beliefs as one may be a fanatic in one's political, social, economic or cultural views. Calling for a review of the Hudood and blasphemy laws, he said the country was at a crossroads and it was time to choose between the opportunities for progress and a path for pitfalls.
President Musharraf's observations as well as the IICPR's well-conducted discussions reveal that the problem of terrorism continues to be understood merely in terms of extraneous and overt causes. But it is over-simplification to say that illiteracy, poverty, deprivation, social injustice, foreign occupation etc., are the only factors contributing to the growth of extremism, fanaticism and terrorism.
Do they fully explain the rage and resentment that drive the suicide bombers to blow themselves up to wreak vengeance on their enemies? None of the 9/11 hijackers lived in poverty or suffered from illiteracy or deprivation. None of them was a Palestinian victim of Israeli repression.
About 16 of the 19 hijackers were, in fact, the nationals of the richest Islamic country in terms of revenues and social and economic benefits for its citizens. It is obvious that the extraneous factors mentioned above do not fully explain the causes of their rage and resentment against the United States.
They willingly sacrificed their lives in targeting the twin-tower as it was the symbol of American power and supremacy. The war against terrorism will not succeed unless the causes of terrorism, overt as well as covert, are dealt with appropriately.
Soon after 9/11, President Bush, while addressing the American people, asked them: "Why do they hate us"?. It was not a rhetorical question. He and the Americans really wanted to know the reasons behind the rage for the homicidal attacks.
Mr. Bush suggested that the reason was the very greatness of America. He asked the right question but gave the wrong answer as he overlooked the deeper issues involved.
To begin with, his administration has pursued policies which themselves are fundamentalist in nature. What is fundamentalism all about? My views or none. If Mr. Bush is trying to impose American values on others, is this not fundamentalism?
Reverting to the problem of terrorism, two important factors have played a crucial role in distorting Muslim consciousness and its world view in modern times. The thinking of the fundamentalist Islamic intellectuals and the great masses of ordinary Muslims has been deeply influenced by these two factors which are generally overlooked in any discussion of terrorism.
Perhaps the most important cause underlying Islamic resentment against the West, led by America, is the culture of victimhood. Instead of asking: "Where did we go wrong", the Muslims have been asking the wrong question: "Who did this to us."
First they blamed the crusades, then the Mongol invasion, then the western imperialism of the last two centuries, and currently the American and Jewish conspiracy to keep them down.
No forward movement in the fight against terrorism is possible unless the Muslims are made to realize that the success of their adversaries has not been the cause but the consequence of their decline and decay.
When Europe was living in dark ages, the Islamic world was a global leader in science, technology, statecraft, culture and arts. Its decline began when it turned away from the path of reform and regeneration and began to resist change and stifle intellectual inquisitiveness and creativity.
That was the reason the Renaissance, the Reformation and even the scientific revolution passed unnoticed in the Islamic world. In a nutshell, the Muslims fell behind because they failed to come to grips with new ideas and changing times. But there is a more important factor that explains the current turmoil of the Islamic world. The larger crisis of the Islamic society is neither political nor economic.
It is the crisis of a civilization that has become aware of its inadequacies but is too confused or fearful to walk the path of reason and embrace reforms and changes that are imperative to move forward. This factor largely explains the social, political, economic, cultural and institutional crisis that we encounter today throughout the Islamic world.
An example from the current Pakistani scene will illustrate the all-pervasiveness of this crisis. How is it that the Pakistan government has failed to review the Hudood and blasphemy laws despite repeated reminders by President Pervez Musharraf? The reason is simple: the people who matter are too fearful to walk the path of reason and introduce the needed changes.
It is high time that the religious scholars, intellectuals and thinking people in the Islamic world got together to dispassionately and critically examine the factors that have been responsible for their decline and suggest concrete measures to extricate the Muslims from the abyss of civilizational crisis.
We are all acquainted with the extraneous factors which provide a fertile ground for the growth of religious extremism and terrorism. No one disputes the inference that economic and social evils like poverty, illiteracy, deprivation, social injustice, unequal distribution of wealth and resources, foreign rule and occupation etc., do play an important role in tempting the suicide bombers to end their lives.
What is important is to keep in mind that it is a combination of extraneous factors, enumerated above, and covert and intrinsic factors like the culture of victimhood, civilizational crisis, distorted worldview, etc that make a dangerous mix for the growth of militancy, extremism and terrorism.
Today's world is an interdependent world of accelerated changes. The times are moving so fast that unless we heed the wake-up call, the world will soon pass us by and treat us as a lost tribe.
We have to get out of the groove of hate and spite, rage and self-pity. We have to regain the lost spirit of inquiry and analysis, reconstruction and regeneration so that we may once again walk the path of reason and embrace reforms and changes imperative for moving forward.
The decision makers in Washington need to understand that their overwhelming military might can conquer countries and bring about a regime change but cannot win the war against terror..
The only way to win that war is to conquer the hearts and souls of the people by seriously addressing the underlying issues of poverty, injustice, disparity and suppression.
The writer is a former ambassador.
The poor don't eat guns
When Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was deputy chairman of the planning commission, he wrote to the then Prime Minister, Mrs Indira Gandhi, to propose a cut in the defence expenditure.
She sternly rejected the suggestion. He was appointed because in a famished economy like India's he saw no other way to find money for other sectors, particularly agriculture.
It is strange that the same Manmohan Singh should be increasing the defence expenditure by Rs 17,000 crore, a hike of some 27 per cent, and that too within one month of assuming power.
True, the exigencies of the budget cannot afford delay. But no new government can have an estimate of its defence needs in a few days' time. It is obvious that Manmohan Singh's defence minister simply totalled up the pending projects to include them in the budget.
This would not have made much difference if the approach of the Congress had been similar to that of its predecessor. The BJP is chauvinistic in thinking. It believes that the more weapons a country has, the greater is its say in the world affairs. It's is arrogance of power.
The Congress, on the other hand, has had the tradition to confine armaments to the needs of defence, neither profligate nor offensive. The BJP-led government took only a month after coming to power to explode the bomb.
But the governments headed by the Congress and the non-BJP parties did not explode the bomb although they had it in the basement for years. Their reasoning was that the explosion would nullify India's advantage in conventional weapons if and when Pakistan followed suit. Narasimha Rao changed his mind even after all was ready at the Pokhran site. The fallout deterred him.
Indeed, the reading that Pakistan would retaliate turned out to be correct. Islamabad detonated the bomb within a week of India's explosion. Then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told me that he had to do so because he could not resist the pressure from his own people. "They would have killed me," he said.
I am surprised that the Congress party, which harks back on the values of Mahatma Gandhi, should have increased the defence expenditure. L.K. Advani's pride in exploding the nuclear device is understandable.
He belongs to the RSS which has fascist tendencies. He does not realize that the BJP is responsible for making India lose the advantage of superiority in conventional warfare.
My purpose is not to renew the discussion on the bomb but to know what we have gained. We gave Pakistan parity overnight. Does the colossal expenditure on weapons from Israel, Russia or America make much sense when Islamabad has made it clear more than once that its defence was the bomb.
Some 15 years ago when I interviewed Dr A.Q. Khan, father of Pakistan's bomb, he minced no words in making it clear that "if you ever drive us to the wall as you did during the Bangladesh war, we would use the bomb."
Islamabad's modernization of its armed forces is nothing except the strategy woven around the bomb. President General Pervez Musharraf has often argued that the modern war does not require a large army.
While effecting a cut in the Pakistan forces, he made the same point and mentioned the change in the conduct of warfare after the bomb. I cannot visualize the situation where Pakistan does not use it even when it faces reverse after reverse.
India will also use the bomb if repulsed, however loud its declaration that it will not be the first user. Moral postures hold so long as they are not tested in the battlefield.
While improving relations with Pakistan and China, the hike on the weaponry makes little sense. Either we are not serious about normalizing relations with the two countries or we are not clear about our defence policy.
In both cases, we betray lack of mature thinking. Even otherwise, the world has arrived at a stage where war means only destruction. There will be no victory, only defeat for everyone.
Strategists from now onward will have to keep this in mind while planning even a limited war. Violence cannot possibly lead today to a solution of any major problem because violence has become too terrible and too decimating. One thing which is clear is that there cannot be an imposition of ideas on any large section of people.
I am worried over the effect the sharp rise in defence expenditure might have on the neighbouring countries. Pakistan has reacted adversely. Its people are also poor like ours who need food and employment, not guns and warships.
Were Islamabad and Dhaka to tear a leaf out of our book, they too would lessen expenditure on social welfare and the poverty alleviating programmes and go for the armament.
For a country like India every penny counts. A raise of Rs. 17,000 crore is too big an amount to be ignored. I do not want to translate the allocation into schools, hospitals or houses. But making a fetish of defence does not help. People can always be frightened into spending much more on "security." Is the spending-spree on defence goodies necessary when we are in the midst of fighting a grim battle against poverty?
The Left's silence intrigues me. It does not criticize the 27 per cent increase in the defence, taking away quite a bit of resources. But it picks on small expenditures here and there to talk about equity.
It should have at least demanded some independent agency to find out whether the money for the armed forces was rightly spent. The Tehelka disclosures have shaken people's faith in the purchases made by the military. There has never been a parliamentary committee appointed to look into the spending by the military.
Why not appoint one now? The auditor-general's scrutiny is too superficial. One former defence secretary McNamara in the US during the Kennedy regime reorganized the Pentagon in such a manner that even the military gave him credit for having done so.
Billions of dollars were saved. The Government of India needs a similar exercise. Too much money is wasted on too many weapons under too many heads. I wish defence minister Pranab Mukerjee who has been finance minister, would act like McNamara and rationalize the whole apparatus.
In any case, the sum total of defence is not the outlay but the country's honour and dignity. What face does India have when the American police strips George Fernandes on the suspicion that he is "an unwanted element?" The then government under the BJP did not demur, much less protest, lest it should annoy America.
Washington's explanation that there is a system where a foreign government's ministers are not even searched is like rubbing salt into the wound. George Fernandes was searched twice over a period. It was not a mistake. It was an affront. Did we get more weapons from America? I am ashamed to ask.
The writer is a freelance columnist based in New Delhi.
Another day in the life of 'new Iraq'
A few hours before Lord Butler was attesting to the 'good faith' of Tony Blair over the invasion of Iraq, Sabr Karim paid the price for working for 'new Iraq'.
The father of seven, a senior auditor in Iraq's new industry ministry - his job was to scrutinize the lucrative contracts given to businessmen to rebuild the country - arrived home in the Saadiyeh suburb of Baghdad with his family's breakfast of milk, cream and bread from a local grocery store.
That's when two men in a pick-up coolly fired two bullets into his stomach and two into his head. His children found him lying on the pavement, one leg still in his car.
In Iraq, the funeral tent is traditionally pitched in the street outside the victim's home, but when I went to pay my respects, it was blocked in by cars to prevent suicide bombers driving a vehicle into the tent - and not without reason.
For when Sabr Karim's brother and son-in-law went to the family's local mosque to collect a coffin for the dead man, someone had left a bomb inside. Another day in the life - and death - of 'new Iraq'.
Sabr Karim had worked for the industry ministry for 30 years. "He was a very honest guy," his brother Yahyia remembered. "He took care of the government's money and in the last few months, as you know, there were millions of dollars in contracts going through the ministry.
His job was to check this. Yes, he had received threats. He never talked about them. He was a silent man. He kept himself to himself. He loved his family and he was a fluent English speaker and he read law books in his spare time and he went to the mosque. He was a very private person."
The details of Sabr Karim's murder were as horrifying as they were routine, and, in today's Iraq, familiar. He had gone shopping for the family breakfast on three consecutive days - routine is a fatal mistake for anyone at risk here - and when he returned before nine in the morning he obviously did not see the car parked on the corner of his street in which three men, one talking on a mobile phone, were watching him.
Neighbours later recalled that when one of the men closed his phone, another vehicle - a Nissan pick-up - suddenly appeared. "They obviously didn't know Sabr or the area, but they were told he had arrived," Yahyia said.
"They arrived immediately and they were very professional killers. Two bullets in the stomach and two in the head. Then they climbed back straightaway into their pick-up and drove away at such high speed that no one had a chance even to shoot at them.
Just think Sabr had seven children and was devoted to them and this happens. "Sabr Karim's eldest son, 20-year old Akram - dressed in black shirt and trousers - came and sat beside us.
"For 35 years, we have lived in a closed society," he said. "And now we are told we can have democracy - but this is freedom and liberty for killers. It cannot be done like this." But Sabr Karim's murder was only the beginning of the family's torment. His son-in-law, a vet who asked that his name not be published, described what happened next. "We went to the mosque to get a coffin for Sabr and we brought it home here and put him in it and took it to the mortuary to get the autopsy papers.
Then we took the coffin back to the mosque and said we would want it the next day for the funeral. But when we returned to the mosque in the morning, we opened the lid and there was a bomb connected to a battery inside it." The bomb did not explode.
US troops later investigated the incident - apparently concerned that someone might have been using coffins to store bombs which might later be used against American forces in Iraq - and later detained two of Sabr Karim's cousins, Fawzi and Hussein Abdal, as witnesses.
They have still not been released from the al-Biyah police station, which has made the dead man's family even more concerned. "What are we to think?" Yahyia asked me in the funeral tent. "Do you people realize what hell we Iraqis are living through?"
Iyad Allawi, the American-appointed Iraqi prime minister for whom, ultimately, Sabr Karim worked, announced the creation of a new "directorate for national security" to enforce law and order. It was a title with which all Iraqis are familiar.
Saddam Hussein had a 'directorate for general security'; when Mr. Allawi was asked if ex-Baathists would be employed in his new organization, he replied that his security men would be "professionals" - and all Iraqis knew what that meant.
There was chicken and beef for the funeral lunch outside Sabr Karim's home, and yogurt and fresh vegetables and strong, hot tea. Some of the visitors suggested that there was so much corruption in the new ministry of interior that the police would not try to follow up the murder. And the murderers?
There were a few careful allusions to Sabr Karim's work - could this have been an inside job, a contractor who did not want his theft of state funds to be discovered, or was it just another attack on a civil servant working for the new US-backed government? And why should there be a second attack on the family's life, the macabre bomb in the coffin?
The Karim family are Shias, living in a largely Sunni area of Baghdad, and Sunni-led insurgents have denounced all who work for Allawi's administration as collaborators. This is not something the family chose to mention. But as I left the tent, a cousin of the dead man approached me.
"Mr Robert, thank you for coming but please go quickly now. There are people from outside this area who are here and some of the people who do live here have very strong views. Iraqis know what I mean. People are watching us and we are frightened for you."
So I left - quickly - with the memory of something Sabr Karim's youngest son, 11-year-old Mohamed with big, heavy framed glasses, said to me. I had asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up. He paused for several seconds and then he said: "I want to be like my father."
Meanwhile, Lord Butler has told us that Tony Blair acted in good faith. So that's all right then. At the al-Yarmouk hospital in Baghdad there was blood on the walls, blood on the floor, blood on the doctors, blood on the stretchers.
In the dangerous oven of Baghdad, 10 more lives had just ended. So what was it Tony Blair said in the Commons? "We are not killing civilians in Iraq; terrorists are killing civilians in Iraq." So that's all right then. Question: Are Baghdad and London on the same planet?
The suicide bomber blew up his 1,000lbs of explosives at 10 minutes to nine. Between six and nine in the morning are the most dangerous hours in Baghdad - after the fajr (dawn) prayers which the killers attend - and my window rattled in its frame several times, an Iraqi heartbeat that signals death.
A great drift of grey-black smoke drifted up from the walled-off, Tigris-side compound where the Americans and the British and the new American-chosen Iraqi government have their headquarters.
By the time I crossed the river, it was the same old story; body parts, blood congealing on the hot road - Iraqi blood, of course - smouldering cars and smashed concrete, and policemen and soldiers shooting wildly into the air.
"I saw the suicide bomber," a driver told me in a bland, disinterested sort of way. "He was driving an old Land Cruiser and weaving through the cars at the checkpoint and people thought he was queue-jumping, trying to get to the checkpoint in front of them. No one fired at him; the shooting came after the explosion, and then it was too late."
Most of those who died were Iraqis seeking work from the Iraqi authorities. Two were Iraqi policemen (salary: (pounds sterling 118 a month). And one, of course, was the bomber. So whose severed hand lay on the road beside the blasted concrete walls?
"The forces of evil," was how Iraq's prime minister, the former CIA operative Iyad Allawi, described the murderer. He visited the scene, though he was mercifully spared a visit to the Yarmouk hospital where one Iraqi arrived with his arm a mangled stump (was it his hand on the road?) and another with blood seeping from a fearful gash in his neck. There were more than 50 wounded.
Colonel Robert Campbell, of the US Army's "Task Force 3/8" said the blast-proof barriers - where his men were "protecting Iraq's young government" - saved other lives. He may have been right. But the real reason for the bloodbath was about the isolation of Iraq's new government. This is the fourth checkpoint bombing around the same compound and the purpose is obvious.
Iraqi officials cannot leave their Crusader-style fortress with its massive ramparts and walls. Ordinary Iraqis must go to them. And queue. And wait. And walking up to those checkpoints is becoming a macabre, frightening experience.
If the insurgents cannot get inside the walls, they can at least imprison those inside by attacking the perimeter, cut them off from the rest of Iraq, make the government's presence irrelevant to the millions of Iraqis who, so Mr Blair was assuring us, are going to enjoy "democracy". But in truth, the authorities here are already cut off from the rest of Iraq. Baquba is run by armed men. Insurgents control Samara and Fallujah and Ramadi, and Muqtada Sadr's militia control the centre of Najaf.
The Philippine army's humanitarian unit is withdrawing under the threat of insurgents, who threatened to cut off a Filipino hostage's head, just as the Spanish contingent withdrew this year. And the Honduran contingent.
And after the beheading on Tuesday night of a Bulgarian hostage - the videotape quickly made available by his killers for those who want to know what it looks like when a man has his head sliced off with a knife - perhaps the Bulgarian army will go. There is one Bulgarian hostage left.
Forgetting that up to 11,000 Iraqis appear to have been killed since our invasion, it seems that it's better to be killed post-Saddam than pre-Saddam. So that's all right then. -(c) The Independent