| July 11, 2005 | Monday | Jumadi-us-Sani 3, 1426 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Pakistanis in Iraq
A secular state?
Remembering eminent historians
Crime against women
‘Pakistan-bashing’?
Ayodhya episode
Minimum balance
Kalabagh Dam
Cargo carriers’ plea
Anti-Iran propaganda
Umrah trips
THE series of bomb blasts in London is a grim reminder that the world is far from a safe place despite frequent pronouncements by the initiator of the “war against terror”, Mr George W. Bush. He was quick to add that under these circumstances his baseless offensive must go on. What he conveniently forgets or intentionally overlooks is that such heinous crimes are a backlash of his wrong policies. Not only the US but also his allies in this pointless battle are suffering due to his arrogance.
Although there can be no two opinions when it comes to condemnation of such acts or resolve to nab the perpetrators, efforts must be made to go into the root causes of the problem.
Unless lingering world disputes like Kashmir, Chechnya and Palestine are settled amicably or justly, this vicious circle will never end.
MISBAH NOMANI
Karachi
WITHOUT doubt, the attack on London is a heinous and deplorable act of terror. But two very important questions arise: why was Prime Minister Tony Blair quick to mention without any solid evidence “Muslim militants” as being behind the bombings? A letter sent via email is not a proof at all as anyone can write such letters. Again, if it was the doing of Muslim militants “in the name of Islam”, don’t they realize the difficulties their brothers will face as a consequence of it?
What they are doing is not for Islam but only for personal satisfaction. Mr Blair’s remarks have indeed tarnished the image of the Muslims in his country as well as abroad. The aftermath is clear. Immigration processes will become more stringent. Checking at airports and other places will become stricter, especially targeting Muslims. And worst of all, hatred against Muslims which was subsiding gradually will increase. There are tough times ahead for Muslims living in the West.
SOHAIB ARSHAD ALAVI
Karachi
THIS refers to the English team’s refusal to play in Karachi. London is now far less safe than Karachi.
TALHA BIN HAMID
Karachi
THOUGH the BBC is a British news channel, it stopped its breaking news coverage of the London attacks after a day, whereas CNN, an American news channel, continued its saturation coverage on the second day as well, accusing Al Qaeda and other organizations of perpetrating the bomb attacks. The British police and Scotland Yard have not named any accused or suspects yet.
It seems that the American media and government want to cash in on every accident that occurs anywhere in the world and use it to their advantage.
WAQAS PAI
Karachi
THE assassination attempt on Pakistani ambassador to Iraq Yunus Khan was a warning to the government of Pakistan to stop its support to the US war on terrorism. Pakistan has already paid a price as hundreds of its people have been killed fighting the war against Al Qaeda.
After the US-led invasion, Iraq has become the most dangerous country in the world, as its citizens now live with a sense of insecurity. Not only foreigners have been abducted and beheaded but insurgents have started to target diplomats who are sent by their respective governments to serve in Iraq.
The US and its allied armed forces have failed to protect the lives of ordinary Iraqi citizens. Recently, Egypt’s ambassador-designate to Iraq Ihab al-Sharif was abducted and killed in Baghdad in the first incidence of what is thought to be a new tactic adopted by the insurgents to target Muslim envoys. Referring to the incident, the Iraqi government spokesman said that the attacks on diplomats were “a message of terror” to dissuade governments from expanding ties with the war-torn country.
Washington, in a bid to reinforce its commitment to restore peace in Iraq, has urged other countries not to pull out. US embassy spokesman Adam Hobson said: “It’s no secret that Iraq is a dangerous place. Iraqi forces on the streets are getting increasingly better at providing security, and with an elected government working hard to create a democratic and prosperous Iraq.” The US believes that “it is important for the international community to show support for the Iraqis by establishing and maintaining a diplomatic presence in the country”.
Pakistan had never requested the US government to remove Saddam Hussein from power by invading Iraq, though the former Iraqi president had never supported the government of Pakistan during his tenure. Removing Saddam was the sole ambition of US President George W. Bush in order to have complete control over Iraqi oil.
Pakistan can reaffirm its support for the Iraqi people by sitting out of Iraq’s geographical boundaries. Let us face the fact that Iraq is in the control of insurgents rather the pro-American government that has been installed there by the US. The lives of Pakistan embassy staff deputed in Iraq are at risk. Our government should give serious thought to closing down its diplomatic mission in Iraq in order to avoid assassination attempts or abduction of diplomats and other staff.
SYED A. MATEEN
Karachi
THIS refers to Mr Iqbal Haider’s article “Was Pakistan meant to be a secular state?” (Dawn, July 5).
As the writer has said, the founder of Pakistan, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah never wanted Pakistan to be a theocratic country. But, it does not mean that he wanted it to be secular. Theocracy and secularism are, in a sense, antonyms but these are, from the Islamic point of view, two extremes. In fact, no political “religious” leader of significance in Pakistan ever wanted it to be a theocratic country.
Maualana Maudoodi, the strongest voice for an Islamic system in Pakistan, for instance, categorically rejected theocracy in his writings. Theocracy, secularism and an Islamic system of governance are three different things. Islam not only rejects secularism, it is also opposed to theocracy. It has no priesthood and upholds a system of governance that is based on a true egalitarian democracy, the example of which can be seen in the rule of the first four Pious Caliphs. In Islam even the Messenger of God is commanded by God to “consult people in their affairs”. Islamic democracy, however, has to work within the framework of the Islamic world-view and its value system.
Allama Iqbal has given it the name “‘spiritual democracy”. An idea of the Quaid’s vision of Pakistan can be had from the design of our national flag, which was approved by him. The very fact that it has two colours, one representing the Muslims and the other the monorities, rejects both theocracy and secularism.
Our misfortune as Pakistanis is that we have no real democratic party in our country. Even the so-called liberal and progressive parties are, at best, clubs of feudals and the elite aristocracy. The masses can only be the “workers” and not the leaders of these parties. Although a narrow-minded vision of religion is a problem, there are other reasons as well that constitute obstacles to the promotion of democratic values in our country.
DR DILDAR AHMED
Islamabad
THE death of two eminent historians of Pakistan in June has proved a great loss to the academic community of Pakistan in general and to the fraternity of historians in particular.
Prof Ikram Ali Malik, former professor and chairman, department of history, University of Punjab, will be remembered as a pioneer in the field of the history of Punjab. He was motivated to write on Punjab by the celebrated scholar, S. M. Ikram. His two works, “A Bibliography on the History of the Punjab” and “A Book of Readings on the History of the Punjab” got national and international recognition and even after a lapse of many decades are still considered prime reference works on Punjab. To his students and colleagues, he will always be remembered as a kind-hearted, honest and upright man, who inspired a generation of young scholars with his erudition and scholarship.
The other historian to be remembered is Prof Sher Muhammad Grewal, who died on June 28, while attending a conference at Islamabad. He served in the department of history, Government College, Lahore, for more than quarter of a century. He earned a reputation as a hardworking teacher. He also became a prodigious writer, producing some two dozen monographs and books and nearly a hundred research articles. Many remember him for his uncompromising devotion to Pakistan and its ideology, which at many times landed him in trouble.
His life long labours were incorporated in his PhD dissertation which he submitted to the Punjab University in 2002. It is a sad commentary on the university’s performance that even after a period of three years it could not process his PhD case.
FARAZ ANJUM
Lahore
FIRST it was Mukhtaran Mai. Then, came in Dr Shazia Khalid for a brief interval. Now again, the world has its eyes set on Mukhtaran Mai. In between these two major issues concerning women in our country and what kind of a treatment they get at the hands of our men, we witnessed the gang-rape cases of Nazish 17, and Saira 15, by policemen.
How many more women will be sacrificed at the altar of inhumanity in this manner? The four cases highlighted here are ones which were reported. What about the countless others which are left unreported? Amidst all the “development hype” there is around Pakistan nowadays, why cannot the perpetrators of the above crimes be duly
and justly punished? Is it because they are “respectable people” that the case is hushed up?
Can rape victims voice their concerns or shall they be persecuted for doing so? Dr Shazia Khalid was forced to leave the country, Mukhtaran Mai’s name was placed on the Exit Control List and she was under house arrest. Ironical, isn’t it that the victims themselves are being followed and kept under check by law enforcers and crime fighters.
If, in future, any girl raises a voice against such barbarian atrocities, she will have to think twice before taking an active role in determining her own fate in life — though these women are the very embodiments of courage, willpower and resilience. What they are actually passing on to the coming generations is the way to fight for themselves.
SADAF SIDDIQUI
Karachi
IT is regrettable that the Pakistan-bashing which goes on in our own society, particularly in the columns of the English language print media, does not confine itself to the government of the day, current or past, which would be legitimate but often extends to sweeping and disproportionate indictment of national stereotypes (cultural, social and political) and of major national institutions, military or civil.
Magnified versions of our sins of omission and commission are given. Unfair comparisons are made with others, particularly India, with known significant failures of the latter glossed over and achievements highlighted. Such writings radiate a wide array of negative impulses to the detriment of Pakistan. One such allegation, repeatedly made, pertains to the alleged killing of three million East Pakistanis during the events of 1971.
It would surprise many to learn that at a conference convened by the state department’s historical division on June 28 and 29, following the publication of hitherto unpublished US documents on the events of 1971, participating scholars from Bangladesh disclosed that the casualty figures of 300,000 “had been wrongly translated as three million from Bengali to English”. The three million figure had been given at the official level by India and Bangladesh. The Bangladesh ambassador to Washington has been quoted as stating that Bangladesh alone could not correct the mistake. According to press reports, the participating scholars from South Asia agreed that the real figure was around 26,000 as given in the Hamoodur Rehman Commission report and the revised figures given by the Bangladesh scholars, after admitting the translation mistake.
It is obvious that the killing of even a single human being or the rape of a single woman is unpardonable and that the events of 1971 were a human tragedy, irrespective of the scale of casualties. If the above “revision of history” is being highlighted here, it is only to show how influential states and powerful and prejudiced media can blow facts out of all proportion to impact public opinion and shape the course of history.
Perhaps the most balanced comment was made by Professor Sarmila Bose (an Indian Bengali academic belonging to the family of Subhash Chandra Bose) who pointed out that no neutral study of the conflict had been done so far. After maintaining that the allegation of rapes by Pakistan army personnel were grossly exaggerated, she concluded: “The civil war of 1971 was fought between those who believed they were fighting for a united Pakistan and those who believed their chance for justice lay in an independent Bangladesh. Both were legitimate political positions. All parties in this conflict embraced violence as a means to an end; all committed acts of brutality outside accepted norms of warfare and all had their share of humanity. These attributes make the 1971 conflict particularly suitable for efforts towards reconciliation, rather than recrimination.”
Such an objective, balanced summing up has yet to come from Pakistan-bashers at home.
MAHDI MASUD
Karachi
THIS is the time to stand united in condemning the act of terrorism at Ayodhya and foil the efforts of evil forces to divide us. Whoever is involved in this incident must be at once brought to justice. The terrorists’ interest was clear — driving a wedge between Hindus and Muslims and creating a riot-like situation. Some vested interests are out to sabotage the Indo-Pakistan peace process that has generated tremendous goodwill between the people and governments of two countries.
We appeal to everyone to stand united in this hour of need and not allow anyone to take advantage and disturb the fabric of our unity, multi-religiosity and multi-culturism. Unity in diversity has and will remain the strength of India and Indians. We must condemn this act wholeheartedly. Practising restraint at such an hour is the best solution. Do not provoke or get provoked.
MUSHIRUL HASAN, ARUN GANDHI, FIROZ BAKHT AHMED, QURATULAIN HYDER, KHWAJA HASAN SANI NIZAMI, M. ATYAB SIDDIQUI, AZIZ BURNEY, FIROZ A KHAN AND 11 OTHERS
Via email
A LOT has been appearing in the press against the requirement of maintaining a minimum balance in bank accounts, which most small account holders cannot and are consequently penalized on a monthly basis as per each bank’s own policy.
There is yet another aspect. For example, one bank asks for a minimum balance of Rs100,000 which small businessmen find extremely difficult to maintain. They have to make frequent petty payments to their vendors and do not have enough funds to maintain the required minimum balance. In order not to be penalized by the bank for not maintaining the minimum balance, they are forced to borrow money from other sources and have to doctor their books to avoid tax return complications.
Could the SBP please come to the rescue of small small business account holders by directing the banks not to impose such conditions?
COL (retd) RIAZ JAFRI
Rawalpindi
MY letter ‘Kalabagh Dam’ (June 26) missed out on one important point. The provinces are in no position to decide the fate of a dam which in the view of experts, local and foreign, is technically and economically feasible.
However, once the dam is in place, the provinces will decide the important issue of fair and equitable operation, both inflow/outflow. The president should get the provinces to work out a fail-safe mechanism at this early stage to allay the fears of upper and lower riparians.
KHURSHID ANWER
Lahore
IT is shocking to learn that, in accordance with the CBR instructions, the carriers for upcountry movement to dry ports would only be the railways and the NLC, which are government agencies. Is this an oversight or a manipulation by these stake- holders? Bonded cargo carriers know the policy of the government on privatization and its understanding of the efficiency of the private sector. By allowing only the government transport sector to participate in transportation to upcountry, the basic spirit of privatization stands defeated.
This move will deal a blow to the private carrier sector and will defeat the essence of privatization. Only a decade ago, bonded carriers were licensed because the government transporters were not performing. This policy is being reversed without any reason. The shift from private to public service will create a sense of insecurity in the private sector, besides introducing an environment of monopoly. We request the prime minister not to allow the bonded carriers to be destroyed and issue instructions to the CBR chairman for reversal of those orders.
BONDED CARGO CARRIERS
Lahore
MR Mahmood Ahmadinejad has been elected president of Iran in the run-off election of June 24. He is reported to have obtained over 62 per cent votes whereas his rival, Akbar Ali Hashmi Rafsanjani, got about 36 per cent votes. The big lead of 26 per cent indicates that the majority of the electorate preferred Mr. Ahmadinijad. It is strange that some leaders of the West are making unbecoming remarks about the election process and the elected president
In this regard, American leaders are playing the main role. The people of Iran have elected Mr Ahmadinejad to lead them in the next term and they derived this right from their constitution and relevant election laws. Foreign leaders and critics should not raise any objection as democracy means free and fair elections to choose national, provincial or local leaders.
MAQBOOL AHMAD QURESHI
Gujranwala
ACCORDING to a news item (Dawn, July 7) the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is trying to recover half a million or so rupees from former prime minster Nawaz Sharif who allegedly spent this money on Haj performed by members of his family. I must admire the PAC for taking this initiative.
But how about millions spent by Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on a recent Umrah trip during which he took along many acquaintances? Would the PAC worry about these millions when Mr Aziz is out of power and out of favour?
SIDDIQUE MALIK
Louisville, USA
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address:
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.