THERE have been unprecedented demonstrations by Muslims all over the world against the publication of some sacrilegious cartoons by a Danish newspaper. Muslim anger has led to burnings of the Danish flags, boycott of Danish goods and demands for apologies by the Danish government. Protests in several countries of the world have also led to rioting, loss of lives and injuries, attacks on diplomatic missions and damage to property.

In Pakistan, there was a day of mob rule in Lahore, damage to churches in Sukkur and shutter-down strikes all over the country. Moreover, the opposition parties have sought to exploit the religious protests to secure political objectives against the Musharraf government.

Muslims have every right to feel indignant over this deliberate insult to their religion. The person of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) is held in the highest reverence by Muslims. Moreover, Islamic teachings prohibit the depiction of his face in any form. The Danish cartoons depicted him as a terrorist and sought to ridicule him. This was an unprovoked, irresponsible and grave affront to Muslim sensitivities. At a time when there is already a growing cleavage between Muslims and the western world, the publication of such cartoons has added fuel to the fire and has probably caused long-term damage to inter-faith harmony.

The claim of the Danish newspaper and some others in Europe that preventing the publication of these cartoons would have meant curtailment of freedom of the press and the right to freedom of thought and expression is clearly faulty. There have always been certain limits to the freedom of expression exercised by all responsible western news media, including the Danish newspaper in question; they do not use foul language or depict mutilated bodies or print pornography. The threat of libel prevents the publication of defamatory articles. Hence, the attempt by some European countries to defend the publication of these infamous cartoons is based on mala fides and hypocrisy.

At the same time, one must question the extent as well as the nature of protests in the Muslim world against this outrage. There seems to be an unending chain of demonstrations and protests on this issue. Over the years, there have been other incidents of sacrilege of one kind or the other but the reaction had tended to remain within limits.

This time, however, there seems to be some kind of a competition going on in Muslim societies all over the world as to who carries out how many demonstrations, rallies and strikes on this issue. In Pakistan, things have clearly gone much too far. One or two nationwide protests should have sufficed against this outrage, but it seems that there is a deliberate attempt being made to whip up emotions in order to keep the agitation going on as long as possible.

Before matters get any worse, realism demands that we ask ourselves some searching questions. If the aim of the protests is to force the Danish newspaper to atone for its mistake, how is this objective served by burning down property in Pakistan or shutting down business activities all too often through strikes? In effect, we are hurting ourselves while seeking to punish the Danish newspaper. Moreover, the Pakistan government has nothing to do with the publication of these cartoons and there is no logic in holding anti-government protests on this issue.

Similarly, the Danish government is not responsible for the publication of the cartoons. What is the logic of demanding that the Danish government should apologize for this incident? Let us put things in the reverse. There have been attacks on Christian churches in Pakistan in which the images of Christ were damaged. Would Denmark or western countries be justified in asking for an apology from the Pakistan government or the Pakistani nation for the outrages committed by a handful of miscreants? In every country, there are some obnoxious elements. The whole country cannot be condemned for the misdeeds of a few individuals.

Similarly, the demand to ban trade with Denmark makes little sense. Trade is always a mutually beneficial activity. If we can get some commodity that we find useful or economical from Denmark, stopping its import harms us as well as the Danish exporter. In any event, the Danish exporter is not responsible for the publication of the offensive cartoons and there is no sense in singling him out for our anger. Statistics also show that nearly 90 per cent of Danish exports go to non-Muslim countries and any trade ban by Pakistan or Muslim states would hardly affect Denmark.

Actually, this protest over the cartoons should be seen in a wider perspective. There has been a growing gulf between the Muslim world and the West — quite apart from Russia, India and Israel — which has been accentuated in the last few years for several reasons. Above all, the Muslims feel indignant over the US backing for Israel which has, for nearly 60 years, followed highly aggressive policies against the Palestinians in particular and the Arabs in general. The fact that the latter seem helpless to counter Israel (basically because of open-ended US support for Israel) has caused deep humiliation and bred extremism and terrorism in Muslim societies. This is what led to the creation of Al-Qaeda and the events of 9/11 which, in turn, resulted in a vicious chain of events — the US military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

When this is viewed in addition to the denial of Muslim rights in Kashmir, Chechnya and other places, it is possible to understand as to why Muslim public opinion sees all of this as an attempt to attack or harm Muslim countries one by one. Some see the “global war against terrorism” launched by the US after 9/11 as a mere euphemism for imposition of US hegemony over Muslim states. The looming threat to Iran from the US, Israel and the West adds to these concerns.

This particular background has provided the opportunity to religious extremists in Muslim societies, the so-called Jihadists, to launch hate campaigns, against the US and other perceived enemies of Islam. Suffering from a serious case of paranoia, these circles argue that Islam is under siege and Muslims must take revenge, using all possible means. This includes terrorism and suicide bombings, with the promise that the dead would straight away go to paradise. This kind of propaganda has secured increased popularity for Muslim extremists, as seen in election results in several Muslim countries — in Palestine, Egypt and elsewhere.

Should these trends continue, the world is heading towards a clash of civilizations. It is evident that in the non-Muslim world as well, there has been a rise in the influence of neo-cons and extremists who view Muslims as a threat to civilization. These circles have seized on the activities of Muslim extremists so as to distort the image of Islam and to portray Muslims as fanatical, narrow-minded people who have become a threat to world peace and security.

The truth is that Islam has always prided itself on its traditions of tolerance, peace and harmony. The Holy Prophet (PBUH) was in his own life a model of kindness, tolerance and forgiveness. There was the story of an old, pagan woman who used to throw filth in the way of the Prophet when he walked in that street. One day, he found that no filth had been thrown in his path and enquired about the old woman and was told that she was sick. The Prophet visited her in her house to enquire about her welfare. One could expect that had he been alive today, he would have shown similar forbearance towards the Danish cartoonist. But the unfortunate part is that many of those who claim to be his most devout followers today have none of the attributes of a tolerant Islam and are instead steeped in hatred, violence and vindictiveness.

The Muslim extremists also need to ponder as to what would be the consequences if the path of confrontation eventually led to a conflict with the West, Russia and other perceived enemies of Islam. The latter have, at present, overwhelming military, economic and technological superiority over the Muslim world which is really in no position to take on them. To take one example, the Arabs have not been able to vanquish tiny Israel in all these years. Can the US and other perceived enemies of Islam be brought down through suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism? Anyone with even average commonsense should know the answer.

Of course, there are genuine grievances of the Muslims that should be set right, but this is not going to be achieved through confrontation and war. What the Muslim world needs is statesmanship, foresight and appropriate planning. In the first place, we have to set our own house in order through political stability, social reforms and establishment of democratic institutions. We have to eradicate illiteracy and acquire science and technology in order to compete with the rest of the world.

We have to build up our economies which will provide the base for military and diplomatic power. We need to have close cooperation and coordination between Muslim countries and make the OIC an effective organization. These measures will enable the Muslim world over a period of time to secure and protect Muslim rights. These rights are certainly not going to be secured by slogans, rallies and hate campaigns, nor by the Al-Qaeda-type terrorism.

The writer is a former ambassador.

PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf in his six years of experiments with democracy and governance has evolved a few pet notions which he repeats tiresomely. The self-congratulatory and most repeated among these are that: he has empowered the people at the grassroots; he must remain in uniform to deal effectively with the multiple crises besetting the country; he can, and will, fight on many fronts at the same time; and then the fourth, and more fatalistic, the writ of the government must prevail in all circumstances.

The president’s thinking on all these counts is either flawed or camouflages other aims and ambitions which those in politics and bureaucracy who are hurt by his actions allege but which he denies. He is always upbeat but the people at large find it difficult not to be pessimistic.

The devolution plan has empowered nazims, not people. And they with rare exceptions, come from the same rich and resourceful clans or families as the ministers and the parliamentarians. Some from among them have stepped down to become nazims confirming what all of us have come to witness by now that all politics is local and about patronage. The stranglehold of the landed and business elites on the politics and resources of the country at all levels is thus now complete.

Another interesting paradox of the power-to-the-people plan is that political interference in administration has increased enormously and no one now knows where the responsibility for law and order rests. In Balochistan it has fallen directly on the military and paramilitary forces because the nazims are the nominees of those very tribal chieftains, or sardars, whom the government accuses of creating disorder.

Musharraf’s long term plan to control and lead both the civil and military establishments and his day-to-day irrepressible urge to fight elements hostile to him or his schemes all at once have weakened rather than strengthened the writ of his government. For its writ to prevail the government has to have a defined and durable political base and a neutral administrative machinery to enforce it.

At present both these ingredients are missing. The governing coalition is loose and capricious in character and its future plans and direction, at best, remain uncertain. And the administration, at least in the field, has to work under the direction of the ministers and nazims who are all aligned with one party or the other in the coalition or, in the case of the nazims, with the opposition.

The utterances of the leaders of the governing coalition — frequent but often contradictory — serve only to add to this confusion and uncertainty. In a recent interview to a foreign TV channel, the president restated his known position that it was too early in the day for him to decide whether he would keep his army rank beyond 2007 — the year of the elections. His extended reply, however, clearly implied that he would be a candidate for the presidency for yet another term which, if elected, would take him to the end of 2012. He thinks wearing the uniform is no impediment to democracy and his senior ally George W. Bush wholeheartedly agrees because Musharraf gives a sense of security to America which a civilian head of government would not.

Sheikh Rashid, who claims to speak for the president as much as for the government (though many ministers, time and again, insist he doesn’t speak for them) entertains no doubt that Musharraf will be reelected in 2007 wearing a uniform.

Chaudhry Shujaat, being the current major-domo of the hotchpotch passing for a coalition and intending so to remain for seven more years hopes that Musharraf will be elected by this very parliament in its extended term in 2008 when the President’s present term expires. Shujaat’s ingenious plan, or wishful thinking, should please not only the president but also the ministers and members of the National Assembly.

With this lure of one more year in office, some members from the opposition too might cross over to the government side and give it the two-thirds majority it needs to amend the Constitution which it must if Musharraf is to retain the army command alongside his presidency beyond 2008.

In the horsetrading that must precede the general elections (the recent Senate polls are an example where even in the Islamist NWFP the bid for a seat is said to have gone as high as 15 million rupees) coupled with the polls that must be rigged, the hope for the remnants of the opposition to survive lies more in mounting a street agitation rather than an election campaign.

The current protest against the European blasphemers turning into rage against the government points to such a strategy by the opposition that finds itself politically outwitted. Having lost in political manoeuvring, the opposition might win the battle on the streets. Ironically, the provincial governments of Punjab and Sindh can already be seen making it possible.

Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, the Punjab chief minister, claimed boastfully that he had put an end to the “politics of administration” in his province. He has promised government jobs to his active party workers. Chief minister Arbab Rahim of Sindh has cancelled the recruitment examinations conducted by the Public Service Commission to make all appointments himself.

Policemen, magistrates, doctors and other employees thus appointed may rig the ballot (for they would be all polling officers) but they would balk at confronting the violent crowds on the streets. More serious, however, would be the demoralizing effect the arbitrary appointment would have on regular employees whose prestige and prospects are bound to suffer a setback by political inductions.

The arson and looting in Lahore and Peshawar recently has shown that the provincial governments are unable, or unwilling, to face even stray mobsters. To deal with large and armed hordes with hoodlums among them on the lookout for booty, the troops must be called out. And then it is the commanders and not the chief ministers, or the agitating leaders, who decide who goes out and who comes in. More likely the commanders would stay on as they did in 1967 and again in 1977. The politicians, whether in power or out of it, should sit round a table to avert such an eventuality while there is still time.

That said an appeal must be made to our Supreme Court to intervene to stop arbitrary appointments in public service by the chief ministers in utter disregard of law and propriety. It would do far more lasting damage than kite-flying or marriage feasts.