| 24 September 2004 | Friday | 08 Shaban 1425 |
Is Iran the next target?
The mirage of democracy
Besides being a book of guidance (2:2), the Holy Quran is also a book of wisdom and knowledge (36:2). This is evident, among other things, from the most scientific, yet easily comprehensible, way in which the Quran guides us towards a definite goal.
The entire scheme of guidance has been summed up just in one verse which says "Who has created and then proportioned: Who has measured and then guided" (87:2,3). The words "created" and "proportioned" in the verse imply the creation of human beings in the best possible form (95:4), a form that could suit the objectives of their creation.
The word "measured" in the verse implies that Allah took calculated account of both the capabilities and frailties with which human beings were born so as to devise a proper scheme for their guidance. The word "guided" implies the provision of appropriate guidance.
The rationale for guidance is manifest from the verses which say: "He it is who made you vicegerents in the earth" (6:165) and "does the man think that he will be just left to himself" (75:36).
What is spelled out by these verses combined, is that human beings were created to act as Allah's vicegerents on earth for which they had to be provided necessary guidance with a view to attain the desirable level of development - the level that could enable them to discharge their responsibilities as Allah's vicegerents in a befitting manner.
The desirable level of development has been explained by the Quran thus: "In fact the one who repents and does righteous deeds returns to Allah as he rightly should" (25:71). Return to Allah means submission to the Will of Allah. The highest level of development has been explained with reference to Hazrat Ibrahim which could be total submission to the Will of Allah and doing righteous deeds (4:125). These two levels have been further explained by the Quran as people on the right hand (having attained the desired level of development) (56:8) and people being foremost in the race (having attained the highest level of development (56:10) and supplemented by reference to two kinds of paradises (55:46,62) and the principle of recompense, namely, that for all there will be ranks according to what they do (46:19).
The Quran also tells us about the inclinations of human soul that have direct bearing on the levels of development. One is the inclination towards doing wrong and evil deeds, termed as Nafs-i-Ammarah (12:53).
The other is towards realization and repentance i.e. to realize immediately if one does something wrong, that what he has done is termed as Nafs-i-Lowwamah (75:2). The third is towards doing good and righteous deeds, termed as Nafs-i-Mutmainnah (89:27) also called the soul at peace.
These inclinations of the soul are in turn influenced by two elements. One of them consists of frailties and weaknesses common to all human beings. They are: inability to resist lust (4:27,28), leaning towards injustice and unfairness (14:34), hastiness (17:11) ingratitude (17:67), contentiousness i.e. not prone to accepting one's own faults or shortcomings (18:54), niggardliness i.e. reluctance to part with what one has (17:100) and anxiety (70:19,20).
These frailties influence these inclinations in the sense that they activate Nafs-i-Ammarah and suppress the other two inclinations of the soul. For example, inability to resist lust, leaning towards unfairness, and contentiousness activate Nafs-i-Ammarah and thereby impel one to do wrong and evil deeds.
At the same time they suppress Nafs-i-Lowwamah and Nafs-i-Mutmainnah as a person under the influence of these frailties neither repents over whatever wrong he does nor is he ever inclined to do any good or righteous deeds.
The other element having direct impact on these inclinations consists of faculties that the human beings have been endowed with. They are: the hearing, sight, affection and intelligence (16:78), mercy and love (30:21), the ability to make distinction between right and wrong in regard to one's own conduct (91:8) and above all the provision of guidance (76:3) (20:123,124).
There exists direct relationship of cause and effect between the criteria of desirable level of development, namely, repentance and doing of righteous deeds, and the three inclinations of the soul as described above.
A person repents over whatever wrong he does and vows not to do any wrong again only when his Nafs-i-Lowwamah is activated and Nafs-i-Ammarah is suppressed or controlled.
Repentance in this context involves two things. One is the activation of Nafs-i-Lowwamah because the person realizes his fault or mistake and reproaches himself for it.
The other is the suppression of Nafs-i-Ammarah because repentance involves not merely the expression of regret over the wrong done but also firm determination of not doing any wrong again which implies nothing but suppression of Nafs-i-Ammarah.
Repentance without solemnly undertaking not to repeat any wrong cannot be treated as repentance. Likewise, a person is impelled to do righteous deeds only when his Nafs-i-Mutmainnah is activated.
Repentance in the true sense could be reflective of three things. One is firm faith in the existence and Unity of Allah and in the fact that Allah is All-knowing and takes note of every thing one does.
The other is the fear of Allah. The person repents over what he has done because he knows that Allah is well aware of what he has done and will duly requite him for it. The third is the faith in the graciousness and compassion of Allah, that Allah will certainly forgive him if he sincerely repents over what he has done and vows not to do any wrong again.
Pardoning of Adam (A.S) when he did that which he was forbidden to do (7:23) and of Moses (A.S) when he killed a person by chance (28:16) and of Yunus (A.S) when after deserting his mission he was swallowed by a fish, after repentance, could be the best examples in this regard. One thing which was common in the expression of their regret was the unequivocal admission that it were they who had wronged themselves.
Thus, in order to attain the desirable level of development, Nafs-i-Lowwamah and Nafs-i-Mutmainnah have to be activated and Nafs-i-Ammarah has to be suppressed or controlled to a desirable extent if not to be completely suppressed (the occasion for repentance arises when one does something wrong).
In other words, Nafs-i-Ammarah has to be controlled to avoid the commission of major sins at least if it is not possible to avoid the commission of all the sins. The Quran treats the persons avoiding the worst of sins, not all the sins, as being rightly guided (42:37).
The suppression of Nafs-i-Ammarah and the activation of other two inclinations of the soul will depend largely on how we make use of the faculties that Allah has bestowed on us and the guidance He has provided us.
Hazrat Yusuf controlled his lust and thereby Nafs-i-Ammarah when he perceived the Divine argument (12:24). He was helped by four elements in perceiving the Divine argument and avoiding what he was invited to do.
They were the use of reasoning and conscience coupled with guidance that enabled him to know that what he was invited to do fell in the category of major sins and its outcome. The other was the fear of Allah that impelled him to refrain from doing that which he was invited to do.
The use of appropriate faculties coupled with guidance and the fear of Allah on the one hand and firm faith in the Mercy and Magnanimity of Allah, on the other, could be of great help in activating Nafs-i-Lowwamah and Nafs-i-Mutmainnah.
Is Iran the next target?
With no decisive end to the war in Iraq in sight, the US and its allies appear intent upon starting another one in Iran. The pretext is the same as the one Washington used against Saddam Hussein: that Iran has embarked upon the clandestine pursuit of nuclear weapons.
No less a person than the secretary-general of the United Nations has called the Iraq war illegal. As a result of the popular insurgency against the American and other occupation forces, the Iraqis continue to suffer heavy casualties.
However, the Americans and their allies refuse to capitulate which is only prolonging the suffering of the people and leading to more hardship. However, in all likelihood, this will not change the course of events in Iraq in the West's favour.
Following a resolution adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency last Saturday calling upon Iran to halt its activities allegedly linked to its programme for nuclear weapons, there have been several unsubstantiated allegations against Iran by the US and some other western governments.
Tehran has been repeatedly accused of stockpiling fissile material for manufacturing nuclear weapons and not for augmenting its energy generation capacity as the government claims.
Disregarding the fact that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the US energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, has bluntly maintained that Tehran is refusing to comply with the proliferation control regime.
The American hawk John Bolton, in charge of nuclear proliferation in the US State Department, has openly threatened that the US was prepared to act to make sure that Iran would stop enriching uranium and secretly building "sensitive nuclear cycle facilities" designed for making nuclear weapons.
It is not unlikely that western powers such as Britain, France and Germany may also gang up with the US to confront Iran. Following the US, Germany, France and Britain have issued statements urging Iran to cooperate with the IAEA.
Bolton has issued a warning that "we are determined that Iran does not achieve nuclear weapons capability." The threat echoes all that was said against Iraq in the closing months of 2002.
In November 2002, Washington had issued a statement placing on notice that Baghdad was in breach of the relevant UN resolutions; on January 11, 2003, US defence secretary Rumsfeld ordered the deployment of 60,000 troops and supporting warplanes and naval ships in the Gulf, even though at the last minute some European governments expressed reservations about a war against Iraq. Soon three concentrations of American forces were converging on the Nasiriyah area in Iraq.
As John Keegan, a well-known defence expert, has said, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, American neo-conservatives believe that the US had "inherited an opportunity, unlikely to be long-lived or to recur, to change by forthright action the world for the better". With the IAEA having adopted the resolution against Iran, the neocons probably perceive the present situation as their opportunity.
Not unexpectedly, Iran appears adamant that it will not yield to US pressure. Iranian MPs, the other day, adopted a resolution declaring that they refuse to accept the new set of inspections proposed in the IAEA resolution.
The IAEA has also called upon Iran for immediate ratification of the NPT signed by it and has fixed November 25 as the deadline for a full review of all Iran's nuclear facilities.
There is nothing to suggest that Iran would meet these conditions. On the contrary, the Iranian parliament has urged the government to continue to follow up on its programme for nuclear fuel cycle and "to pay no heed to the IAEA resolutions". A senior Iranian MP Ahmad Tawakali has been quoted as saying: "We cannot be bullied."
Iran's mood of defiance is also evident from the formal statement issued in Tehran on Tuesday quoting President Mohammad Khatami as saying that Iran was determined to secure "peaceful" atomic technology.
Iran's ongoing enrichment programme is reportedly based on 37 tons of raw uranium which it acquired some time ago. It has already processed some of it through enrichment centrifuges and would want to use the rest also for enrichment, regardless of the IAEA resolution.
A nuclear expert said that when Iran has finished enriching the entire stock it would eventually be able to have obtained enriched uranium sufficient for about five nuclear weapons.
Israel, which is strongly opposed to any of the Middle East Muslim countries acquiring nuclear weapons capability, is said to be deeply concerned about Iran's plans, and it would presumably not hesitate to sabotage them if it could.
Israel's agents did that in 1979 to a nuclear plant that Iraq acquired from France. The plant was all ready to be despatched to Iraq and was awaiting shipment at a French port when it was sabotaged and destroyed.
If the acquisition of nuclear weapons capability by Iran leads to a nuclear weapons race in the Middle East, the US would really have to be blamed for it. The US has deliberately overlooked Israel's acquisition of nuclear weapons capability. And now it appears all set to help Israel in its plan to neutralize Iran's capability. The western powers have never made even a tentative move to interfere with Israel's nuclear programme.
On the contrary, they have actively worked with UN agencies to ensure that countries such as Iraq and Iran do not acquire the necessary technological facility. The so-called war against terror in Iraq is also in fact part of the United States' strategy to keep Iraq from acquiring any nuclear technology.
It is unfortunate that the relevant UN agencies have been too willing to cooperate with the US in meeting its objectives or are too weak to resist America's pressure. Obviously, Iran in its policy towards Israel has been angered by America's attitude.
In order to improve its relations with Iran, Henry Kissinger had once advised the US to undertake a series of reciprocal steps and devise a programme for step-by-step improvement of relations.
Making no secret of his bias against Muslim countries Kissinger maintained that the European nations "will be the first victims of the spread of Islamic fundamentalism (and) ... as a nuclear power Iran will in the long run prove far more threatening to Europe ... than to the United States."
Kissinger appears to be of the view that the European nations in this respect should evolve a common policy with the US. To quote him: "A major effort should be made to achieve a transatlantic consensus that relates diplomacy to reasonable pressures and agreed diplomatic overtures vis-a-vis Iran.
Only by a firm, consistent and conciliatory approach can the day be hastened when Iran will be prepared to take the concrete policy actions which represent the only reliable basis for a long-term cooperative relationship."
The mirage of democracy
Every time the general takes a political decision the cry goes up he is destroying democracy. The actual destroyers of democracy in the last thirty years have been the elected prime ministers starting with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and ending with Nawaz Sharif in 1999.
The only possible exception was Mohammed Khan Junejo who according to his dim vision, tried to assert himself as the civilian head of government. His was however not a particularly intelligent way of going about it.
We had actually got it all wrong from day one. Mr Jinnah was committed to parliamentary democracy but he could not help the anamolous position created in his life time.
The prime minister was definitely subordinate to the governor-general. Since he died in little more than a year after independence, he cannot be held responsible for perpetuating such an arrangement.
Liaquat Ali Khan became a real prime minister. Although he came from the fringes of East Punjab he was not acceptable to the ruling elite of what was then West Pakistan. He was not elected from Punjab or even Sindh. He was elected from Bengal.
He was eliminated from the scene towards the end of 1951. Nazimuddin stepped down from governor-general and became prime minister and Ghulam Mohammed took over as governor-general.
What led to the subsequent falling out between the governor-general and the prime minister is not quite clear. If some, now probably retired bureaucrat, who was a youngster at that time with inside information, could come forward and, for a change, try and tell the truth, it might add to our knowledge.
The governor-general dismissed the prime minister in 1953, most probably in collusion with the Chief Justice of Pakistan and with the full support of the Pakistan Army in the person of General Ayub Khan. It was actually the first army coup but with a carefully preserved civilian face and a facade of parliamentary form.
Prime ministers came and went but the politicians nevertheless managed to cobble together a constitution by 1956 based on "parity" between East and West Pakistan. The threat of a permanent East Pakistan majority was theoretically reduced if not averted.
Since East Pakistan was already a unit, West Pakistan was also converted into one unit and the smaller provinces subordinated to the administration in Lahore. With the promulgation of the constitution the clamour for elections rose. It was apprehended that any government which emerged from this process may still be dominated by Bengal.
There was only one solution: postpone the elections indefinitely. Since that was not possible, the military had to be brought in to "save" the country. They dutifully did so in October 1958.
Given his previous track record the Chief Justice of Pakistan who was most probably, already a party to the transaction, promptly declared it lawful under the "doctrine of necessity."
The process started in October 1951 was finally completed in seven years. It was the result of a sort of group think and not the machinations of a master mind. As one columnist said, what the Punjab mind thinks, the army follows or words to that effect.
In a way it was the dawn of a golden age. Foreign assistance flowed into Pakistan in copious quantities. The economy was reasonably well managed. There was some corruption but not excessive.
The major political issue was control of East Pakistan and perpetuation of Ayub Khan. Both were achieved through indirect elections formally called "Basic Democracy."
Indirect elections had the approval of Thomas Jefferson who favoured this process for election of the president in the US. This can still influence the election of the US president even if this form is now only a vestigial remnant of the original electoral college.
While there are many virtues in indirect elections, it has one fatal flaw. By reducing the number of voters it makes it much easier to manipulate the final result. In spite of all the hoopla about the genius of the people; this was Ayub Khan's objective, and he achieved it.
The whole business came full circle with the 1970 elections which were reasonably free and fair. This created a serious problem, a Bengali prime minister became inevitable.
Only desperate measures could avert this. The March action was taken by the military in order to "save Pakistan." The next day Z.A. Bhutto proclaimed Pakistan had been saved. On the other hand, Air Marshal Asghar Khan said Pakistan had been destroyed. By Pakistan, Bhutto meant West Pakistan while the Air Marshal was referring to the country as it then existed.
It is difficult to understand this action from a military point of view. How could anyone expect to crush an "insurrection" from a distance of 1,500 miles, inhabited by a hostile power, without overwhelming superiority in the air or adequate sea power.
Besides how does the majority of the population "insurrect"? The defeat of the Pakistan army was inevitable. A better general may have saved something form the wreck through the opportunity provided by the "Polish resolution" to in the UN Security Council bring hostilities to an end, and evacuation of Pakistani forces under an UN agreement.
It was this resolution which Mr Bhutto was alleged to have torn up and left that particular UN session in a huff.One sympathizes with Bhutto's dilemma. How could civil supremacy be restored without the defeat and humiliation of the Pakistan army? He succeeded.
As far as constitutional development was concerned, he produced an acceptable version of the Westminster model. The problem with the Westminster model is that unless there are checks on the prime minister, it easily degenerates into prime ministerial dictatorship.
Within six months of promulgating the Constitution a series of amendments fulfilled Bhutto's desires. He was now master of all that he surveyed. The supremacy of the civil authority over the military was established beyond doubt. So what if the Westminster model was left in ruins.
Bhutto then proceeded to systematically destroy himself - the result of a serious infection with the virus of megalomania. In such a situation it can be a terminal human condition, and it eventually killed him.
There is no need to remind people about the return of the military and its consequences. Authority was nominally returned to the civil with the selection of Junejo as prime minister; but Section 58 (2) (b) now empowering the president to sack the PM and/or dissolve the National Assembly kept hanging over him and when the president got fed up he was told to go home after a little less than three years in office.
There has been much pontification, especially by constitutional lawyers and our intelligentsia, that 58 (2) (b) has more or less destroyed the so-called Westminster model. Constitutions are not dropped from heaven.
They grow in society. For instance, the British constitution is unwritten. As someone pointed out, "You take a bit of law here, a code of practice there and add a dash of custom and precedent and - just like that - you have the British constitution." How is this to be replicated?
If one looks at the way the British constitution evolved over the last eight centuries, it has really been a slow change from absolute monarchy to a fully democratic system which can be assumed to have arrived in 1929 when women were ultimately given the right to vote.
The power structure comprised of the monarch, the House of Lords, the House of Commons, the political parties and ultimately public opinion. The power of the monarch has declined and the nobility has been more or less disbanded.
The power of the prime minister has increased, possibly too much. However, even now the power to dissolve parliament is exercised by the monarch but the convention is that it is exercised on the advice of the prime minister.
While we in Pakistan have from the outset outward forms of the parliamentary system, the substance has always been missing. Our politicians are not even aware of its existence.
(To be concluded)