Common human failings

THE Quran says “Allah wants to lighten your burden, for human beings have been created weak by nature” (4:28). The latter part of this verse points out one of the common characteristic of human beings which is that they are weak by nature.

The word “weak” in the above verse is to be understood in the light of what has been stated in the previous verse which says “And Allah would turn to you in mercy; but those who follow their lust would have you go tremendously astray” (4:27). The verse tells us that Allah wants to be merciful to human beings, but those among them who follow their lust make them go astray. And they fall prey to lust because as human beings they are weak by nature and, therefore, unable to resist temptation (4:28).

The word “weak” in the verse (4:28) has, therefore, to be understood as “the inability to resist temptation” or “easily falling prey to lust.” It would mean that by their nature, human beings are so weak that they cannot resist temptation or they easily fall prey to lust. This particular weakness can be the root cause of many crimes and evils on earth. Theft, fraud, dacoity, corruption and excesses are committed mainly because of this weakness.

Desire by itself is not a bad thing. It is a part of human nature and the main source of motivation impelling one towards great achievements. Desire becomes a bad thing when it turns into lust i.e. when it becomes more intense and overpowers reasoning and conscience. In other words, desire can lead to constructive results when it is controlled by reasoning and conscience. But it can lead to constructive results when it overpowers reasoning and conscience and acquires control over the actions of a person or when it is infected by vanity as the Quran says (22:52).

A desire sometimes becomes insatiable when the person desires more and more of a thing than he actually needs i.e. when the desire has no end. In such a case the desire turns into greed which could be more intense in effect than mere lust, because the person may already have or can have what he needs, yet he wants to have more and more of it.

He naturally adopts all possible means, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, to have more of the thing he so desires. It is mainly in such cases that people take recourse to treachery, excesses and usurpation. Greed tends to overpower the human soul as the Quran says “And human soul is swayed by greed” (4:128).

Envy is another offshoot of uncontrolled desire. This is developed when a person desires what legitimately belongs to someone else and starts harbouring a grudge against him, often leading to usurpation or harming the person himself if it is not possible to usurp what he has got. The first murder committed on earth was because of envy when one of the sons of Adam killed the other because the sacrifice offered by one was not accepted and that of the other was accepted. The one whose sacrifice was not accepted killed the other (5:30).

Another offshoot of uncontrolled desire, even more serious than envy, could be rivalry. This occurs when two or more persons compete with one another in the acquisition of power, wealth or some other worldly gain and in that process get so swayed by desire to achieve what they want that they cease to hold any moral or social values. The Quran says “your craze for more and more and mutual rivalry for worldly gains has made you heedless” (102:1). The desire for more and more worldly gains and the resultant rivalry are also offshoots of lust.

The Quran very clearly tells us what the consequences of falling prey to one’s lust could be. It says: “so follow not lust lest you lapse from truth and if you lapse or fall away, then lo! Allah is ever informed of what you do” (4:135). It says again: “and do not follow your lusts, for it will lead you astray from the Way of Allah” (38:26).

Moreover, every human soul, as the Quran tells us, has three inclinations. One is to commit wrong and sinful acts, termed as Nafs-i-Ammarah (12:53). The other is to realize and repent i.e. to realize immediately that what one has done is wrong, and repent the deed. This is Nafs-i-Lowamah (75:2). The third is to do good and righteous deeds termed Nafs-i-Mutmainnah (89:27), also called the soul at peace.

Lust is one of those human frailties that impacts directly on Nafs-i-Ammarah and thereby makes one do wrong and sinful acts. It also suppresses Nafs-i-Lowwamah and Nafs-i-Mutmainnah, as a person under the influence of intense desire is never inclined to repent whatever wrong he does nor is he inclined towards doing good and righteous deeds.

It is, therefore, not only important but of fundamental importance that the inability to resist lust is made up or controlled to the desirable extent. In this connection, the Quran gives us a clear indication when it says “and who goes farther astray than he who followed his lust without guidance from Allah” (28:50). It means that the only appropriate way to control lust is to take recourse to the guidance of Allah.

Allah has bestowed such faculties on human beings with the help of which they can take recourse to and make proper use of His guidance. One is the faculty of reasoning (16:78) whereby one can come to a conclusion through a logical way. The other is conscience (91:8) which enables one to make a distinction between right and wrong within regard to his own conduct.

Mere reliance on reasoning, however, is not enough in every case. Satan relied solely on his reasoning when he refused to bow before Adam, his contention being that since he was made of fire he was superior to Adam who was made of clay. Reasoning has, therefore, to be complemented by the conscience and guidance of Allah in order to come to the correct conclusion specially when the question is not simply of what is right and wrong but what could be right and wrong in the light of Allah’s guidance.

About Hazrat Yusuf, the Quran says that he might have been tempted to do what he was invited to do had he not perceived the divine argument (12:24). It was with the help of his reasoning coupled with conscience and guidance from Allah that he came to the conclusion that what he was invited to do fell in the category of major sins. And it was the fear of Allah that restrained him.

Thus, with the help of reasoning and conscience coupled with divine guidance and animated by the fear of Allah one may be able to control his desires.

Tackling religious extremism

UNDOUBTEDLY, Pakistan has suffered tremendously because of the sectarian and Islamic extremist phenomenon. A number of extremist organizations grew out of the earlier jihad in Afghanistan during the 1980s. At the time, the war was strongly supported by the US and other western countries.

The US had supplied the Mujahideen with sophisticated weapons while the Pakistan army provided training and logistic help to the Afghans. The CIA-ISI collaboration during General Ziaul Haq’s regime is well-documented and acknowledged widely.

Thousands of Pakistani Mujahideen had also participated in the jihad and returned to Pakistan after the defeat of the Soviet Union. These trained fighters then joined various radical Islamic organizations some of which became involved in the Kashmir struggle. Unfortunately, Pakistan became awash with weapons of all kinds and intolerance bred militancy.

Later, during the 1990s and in the last few years, these organizations became more sectarian in nature. As Pakistan abandoned its policy of aiding the Kashmir struggle, these groups turned inwards and were further radicalized as they felt abandoned by the Pakistan government. Endemic violence resulted in the cities and towns of Pakistan. Sectarian killings took place on a larger scale. Tragically, hundreds have lost their lives in tit-for-tat killings during the past many years.

The spectre of “sectarian menace” kept on rearing its ugly head claiming many lives each time. In 2004 alone, some 200 people were killed in Lahore, Quetta, Karachi, Multan, Sialkot and Gilgit. This year, a suicide bombing in an Islamabad shrine resulted in 20 dead. A few days later, another bombing at a Karachi imambargah resulted in six deaths. The recent violence in Gilgit has claimed 10 lives.

Meanwhile, General Musharraf’s government has banned a number of extremist militant organizations. On July 7, 2005, suicide bombings in London killed at least 56 people, including the four attackers. Three of the four men blamed for the suicide bombings were British-born Muslims of Pakistani origin. As expected, the whole issue of Islamic extremism in Pakistan was highlighted by the global media. Tony Blair, prime minister of Britain, immediately called on President Musharraf to crack down on the madressahs that some of the London bombers were supposed to have attended.

The London bombings led to immediate action against suspected Islamic extremists by the government. The crackdown on suspected militants that started on July 20, 2005, has led to more than 300 arrests. Police raids were conducted throughout the country. The police seized hate literature and forcibly closed down the offices of outlawed groups operating under fake names. Arrested suspects came from, among others, the Tehrik-i-Jafria, Sipah-i-Sahaba, Sipah-i-Muhammad, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Lashkar-i-Taiba, Harkat ul Ansar, Hizb-ul-Tahir, Shariat-i-Muhammad, Harkat-ul-Muhahideen and Jaish-i-Muhammad.

In a televised address to the nation in the aftermath of the London bombings, President Musharraf acknowledged that Pakistan had a “problem” with militants, amid international concern that Islamic schools were promoting extremism. Pakistan should not be labelled as lax in the war on terror simply because three suspected suicide bombers were of Pakistani origin and visited Pakistan in 2004, he said, pointing out that Britain also had a problem with home-grown extremism. He said that a lot had to be done by both Pakistan and Britain. The president appealed for a jihad against extremism and announced a number of measures to be taken to curb extremism.

It was reported in one of the foreign newspapers that President Musharraf had made similar pledges after 9/11, and experts warned that the crackdown on suspected militants could “alienate” many in Pakistan. This was wise advice given. One is dismayed at the development of Islamic radicalism in Pakistan and it is hoped that the menace is eliminated. The time for taking action against extremism by the government is now, so that religious extremists groups are quickly quelled.

But the government must act in a cautious and prudent manner, making a clear distinction between the “constitutional” Islamic forces and Islamic radicals. The former want to bring in change from within the political system as they have accepted it as legitimate. The latter do not accept the legitimacy of the present political order. This distinction is very important and must not be lost sight of. For example, the MMA is a “constitutional” entity, and therefore, the government must not only tolerate it but also accommodate it. Moderate Islamic organizations must be encouraged and a dialogue conducted with them.

In some ways, the growth of Islamic radicalism is to be expected, given the politics of the region and the ‘political aspirations’ of common Muslims. This is a serious internal problem in Muslim nations and should be handled wisely and with patience, keeping in mind that some Islamic extremists are simply misguided and not evil per se. They can and should be reformed. A cautious approach is needed to handle the situation. Any mishandling of the issue may have untoward consequences. The government must show tolerance for the high-sounding rhetoric of Islamist leaders who claims to be “saving Islam”, yet again. This is politics as usual and nothing extraordinary. These elements, though undesirable, must be further tolerated.

It should be noted that all activity under the Islamic label is not necessarily religious in essence. Some of it is generated because of popular perceptions of the Third World versus imperialist western powers. Islam has become a rallying cry for justice. It is also the language of protest that the Muslim people understand. But, religion has also become the language of convenience for Muslims. Many radical movements in the world have struggled against the hegemony of the western powers. Many people in the Third World regret and also dislike the rise of the West and the consequent undermining of their cultures and ideologies.

The current ravages of the western-led globalization onslaught are having a negative effect on the Third World including Islamic lands. Some of the anti-West movements that appear as Islamic are really Third World liberation movements in camouflage. After all, the western occupation of the Islamic lands — Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. — could not have gone unnoticed and a strong reaction was both expected and understandable. In fact, a reaction by Muslims against Britain was also expected as it has chosen to be Washington’s junior partner in the American-led military adventures in the Middle East. In other words, what passes as Islamic, can also be understood in nationalistic and political terms.

Politics is the language of compromise and political problems are best handled through political means. The unnecessary use of force can and will radicalize religious groups in Pakistan as is happening in Algeria, Egypt, and Syria etc, where the moderate and constitutional Ikhwan ul-Muslimeen was radicalized by the brutal tactics of the Arab rulers. This aspect of religious extremism must be understood clearly. A cautious approach should therefore be adopted in handling the problem of Islamic radicalism in the country.

The writer is a research scholar.

The moral code of Indian democracy

THE BJP and the NDA will have every right to taunt the fulsome apology by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh for 1984 once they have familiarized themselves with the letter “A”. It is not only the first letter of most alphabets but also the first letter of the word “apology”. They should then apologize profusely for the macabre riots of Gujarat on the last day of February and March 2002.

They could do it individually, with master baiter Narendra Modi leading them. Or they could orchestrate their efforts to include the Panchratna of the NDA: Vajpayee, Advani, Joshi, Sinha and of course the ubiquitous George Fernandes, who regularly charged in where angels feared to tread.

Of the five, Vajpayee, then prime minister, did sound apologetic but, heckled mercilessly by the bright young things of his own party, retreated ceremoniously to the peace and comfort of his chair. There was no hint of regret from the others. After Modi won the Gujarat assembly elections, even the need for regret was forgotten.

The three major sequences of barbarism in the last 21 years have been the anti-Sikh riots of 1984, the Babri riots of 1992 and 1993, and the Gujarat riots of 2002. Roughly the same numbers died while millions were traumatized. For the space of about three days mobs were permitted by a deliberately absent authority to kill Sikhs in 1984 and Muslims in 1992 and 2002. There was no official explanation offered for the barbarism. How could there be, for those in power were either perpetrators or abettors of barbarism. In each case the unofficial explanation, advanced through the party network (party is an obvious pun), was “spontaneity” before which the administrative machinery was apparently helpless. This was an utter, malignant, unforgivable, immoral and inhuman lie.

In all cases the government deliberately fed the violence for political profit for a carefully calibrated period after which the same government ordered the violence to stop. The blood tap was switched on. And the blood tap was switched off. God knows there was provocation in 1984. What could be more provocative than the assassination of Mrs Indira Gandhi after the seesaw of violence through which Punjab had suffered in the previous years culminating with the assault on the Golden Temple, known as Operation Bluestar? This was further aggravated by images of Khalistani Sikhs abroad — note the adjective, it is Khalistani Sikhs, not all Sikhs — celebrating. But a government is not a mob, unless it chooses to become one. I was in Calcutta in 1984. Jyoti Basu was chief minister.

The anger in Calcutta was no less than in Delhi, and incidents began to occur. Jyoti Basu did not choose to win his next election by washing his hands in Sikh blood. Instead, he ordered the Calcutta police to do its first and foremost duty, and protect every citizen of this country, just as he gave security and safety to Muslims in 1992 after the destruction of the Babri mosque under the watchful eye of P.V. Narasimha Rao (the same watchful eye presided over the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 incidentally, this time as home minister). The Calcutta police is made up of the same Indians who man the Delhi police or the Gujarat police. They are not particularly angelic. They obey orders.

Jyoti Basu’s moral courage also gave the lie to the dangerous cynicism that has become a core philosophy of the BJP and the Congress, which insists that electoral victory justifies every immoral decision. The Congress victory in 1984 and the Modi victory later became “self-evident” exoneration. But Basu and the Left Front have won every election in Bengal without pandering to the barbaric impulse.

The irony is that the Congress would have won in 1984 without presiding over the “spontaneous” reaction. I cannot be certain but I daresay that Modi would have won Gujarat also without Godhra because he is an efficient administrator with little interest in the parallel disease of Indian politics, corruption. But both were tempted by the easy option since their backbone had been washed away along with any moral fibre that they may have once possessed.

Anger can be spontaneous. Organized violence is stage-managed. The Congress and the BJP, along with the Shiv Sena in 1992 and 1993, perpetrated deliberate violence against minorities. The system buys time for political parties through commissions. It bought the Congress 21 years after 1984. But those who suffer the truth and those who know the truth do not need commissions. One of the most wrenching moments of my life was to watch a Sikh being burnt to death in front of a gurdwara in Delhi. It happened on the second day of the 1984 riots, and not on the first “spontaneous” day. The howling mobs on that day were mobilized by Congress leaders who saw victory and ministerships ahead and got them too. Gujarat’s pogrom against the Muslims was ordered by local BJP leaders and implemented by local thugs.

Dr Manmohan Singh was an economic bureaucrat in 1984, but he was finance minister in 1992, and therefore bears far greater responsibility for the events of 1992 and 1993. But at least he has apologized and done so from the office of the prime minister of India. An apology may not seem enough, and indeed it is not enough, given the horrors of the crime for which guilt is being accepted. An apology may mean nothing to the thousands whose world was ripped apart by lust of mob-evil. An apology does not exonerate the maniacs who fed on the blood of minorities. Such is the cynicism within the Congress that it actually thought it could get away without taking any action against the few that the Nanavati Commission thought fit to name.

The Congress thought it could fudge its way with the help of a helpful report and Dr Manmohan Singh went along with his party instead of taking action at the beginning, instead of waiting for parliament and media to place a mirror before his face. But an apology is something and something is better than nothing. An apology is the beginning of a process and not the end of the story. I do hope Dr Manmohan Singh remembers that.

Two decades have passed since 1984. A Sikh child born after those terrible riots has already voted once. More than a decade has gone by since 1992. Less than four years have passed since the Godhra riots. Dramatically differing time spans — with one thing in common. In each case the Congress or the BJP or the Shiv Sena won an immediate victory. And in each case the “victorious” party did not know that this was the last trumpet on the way to doom.

The Congress lost in 1989 and has lost its role as a national party. These days 145 seats in parliament are advertised as a heroic victory. The Shiv Sena has lost its moorings, and is slipping into a coma. And within three years of Godhra the BJP, which thought that Gujarat was the base of a triumphant relaunch, has discovered that Gujarat was the basis of a defeat that has decomposed into an inner stench. Time has its own law of justice.

There is a moral law that operates in India’s democracy, a moral law whose judge and jury is the Indian voter and whose accused is the Indian politician. It is the same moral law that keeps the Left Front in power in Bengal and which will give it an overwhelming victory in the elections next year.

I believe that Dr Manmohan Singh apologized precisely because he is a deeply moral person. But this apology is only a first step. He should not confuse it with the horizon.

The writer is editor-in-chief, Asian News, New Delhi.

Sensible screening

COMMON SENSE seems to be creeping back into procedures for screening airline passengers, and it’s most welcome. Officials at the Transportation Security Administration are rethinking rules put hurriedly in place in reaction to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks with the goal of eliminating costly and time-consuming measures that do little to enhance security. The likely result is that sewing scissors and pocketknives can once again be brought on board in carry-ons, and that sandal-clad travellers won’t be reduced to walking through the metal detectors in their bare feet.

We’re not enthusiastic, though, about a proposal to hustle a broad category of passengers through screening in the fast lane. Both as a matter of security and as a matter of shared pain, VIPs shouldn’t be able to zip through with barely a second glance. Many of the airline security procedures adopted in the wake of the terrorist attacks have a fighting-the-last-war quality to them. Hijackers gained control of planes on Sept. 11, 2001, using box-cutters as weapons. Thus box-cutters, which have small but exceedingly sharp blades, were banned from carry-ons, as well as everything else with a sort of sharp point — no matter how ineffective a weapon it might make. For months, TSA screeners were breaking the little files out of nail clippers found in cosmetic bags. What a waste of time and effort! After airline passenger Richard Reid was foiled in his December 2001 attempt to set fire to explosives hidden in his shoes, all footwear suddenly became suspect.

Technically, passengers were never automatically required to remove their shoes for screening, but screeners typically asked them to anyway, or warned that if metal in their shoes set off an alarm, they could be subject to a much more extensive search. Thanks to more efficient screening technology, shoe removal is likely to become the exception rather the rule.

Detecting hidden explosives on would-be suicide bombers remains the biggest challenge, and the key reason no passengers should be allowed to board without minimal screening. Even a high-powered list of lawmakers, cabinet officials, governors, judges, military honchos and people with top-secret clearances could be infiltrated. Lumping VIPs in with the hoi polloi has resulted in some absurd situations. For example, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, one of the most recognizable men in the world, was repeatedly kept off planes because someone on the do-not-fly list has a similar name. This nonsensical precaution has also been applied to infants with suspicious names, as though a terrorist had either matured quite earlier or come up with a truly masterful disguise. But it was Mr Kennedy’s complaints that drew attention to a problem less famous folks simply had to endure. So, more practical rules might be great, but they must be applied equally — if only so lawmakers can sound the alarm when procedures go awry.

— The Baltimore Sun

A marker for the future

THERE was something more than a little incongruous about the mass eviction of Jewish settlers from Gaza carried out by Israeli forces on Wednesday. “Heartbreaking” was the word used to describe it by Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the architect of the withdrawal plan.

It was impossible to watch, he said, without tears in the eyes. Yet despite Israeli apprehensions about a withdrawal under Palestinian fire, the biggest problem on the first day of the enforcement process were the militant settlers themselves, some of whom provide a timely reminder that no religion has a monopoly on religious fanaticism.

A few of those fanatics, with extraordinary tastelessness, even tried to evoke comparisons between their predicament and the Nazi holocaust. That provocation aside, the settlers do indeed face an uncertain future (though in many ways a more secure one) in Israel proper.

The Israeli government rightly points out that its withdrawal comes at a price, both financial and human, and that the settlers will bear the brunt. Many of them have been born and raised in the settlements and know no other life. In the words of the Israeli foreign ministry, “It is they who were encouraged by previous governments to settle barren land and turn it into homes, gardens and farms, in the same pioneering spirit that built the state of Israel. They are now being asked to relinquish these accomplishments for the greater good.” None of this should obscure the fact that Israel is only now undoing what should never have been done in the first place. The settlements may have demonstrated pioneering spirit, but they were regarded from the start, almost universally by the rest of the world, as illegal under international law. That has not changed.

The Israeli government also points out that its withdrawal is the first practical test of the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas — and a move that could end almost five years of stalemate in the peace process. We can and do hope it turns out that way, but not all the signs are encouraging. Mr Sharon has yet to convince the world that the withdrawal from Gaza is the beginning of a sustained strategy for peace, based on the kind of two-state solution that George Bush himself now endorses, rather than a tactic for dealing more effectively with Israel’s demographic and security problems.

So far, despite tears and trauma in the Gaza settlements, there is little to suggest that Israel has actually arrived at a moment of truth in its relations with the Palestinians, comparable to the moment when the white South Africans finally realized that apartheid could not last. Many Israelis remain deeply suspicious of their Arab neighbours and many reasonable-minded Arabs are unconvinced that Israel is serious about peace. In the Lebanese Daily Star — a moderate newspaper — the columnist Rami Khouri acknowledged that the Gaza withdrawal has potential to become a step towards peace but also depicted it as “an expedient, grudging, defensive, reluctant endeavour”. That view is widely shared.

Doomed though the Gaza settlers’ resistance may be, it lays down a marker for the future. If Mr Sharon finds it heartbreaking to remove fewer than 10,000 settlers from Gaza and has to spend millions compensating them, he will surely be in no hurry to do the same thing in the West Bank and east Jerusalem where more than 300,000 settlers live. These are all grounds for scepticism but not necessarily for pessimism. Mr Sharon, for whatever reasons, has created a rare opportunity that must be pushed forward. He must keep up the battle against his rejectionists, as must Mr Abbas on the Palestinian side. They will need help from the rest of the world. Above all, that means real engagement by Washington.

— The Guardian