| October 23, 2006 | Monday | Ramazan 29, 1427 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Let information ministry be disbanded
Honesty or stupidity?
The veil controversy
Size of New Zealand
Hudood laws
Senior citizens
Killer container trucks
Not above criticism
Cure for dengue?
Readers are requested to restrict their comments to a maximum of 400 words. We reserve the right to edit letters for reasons of clarity and space. Letters, including those by e-mail, should carry the complete postal address of the sender. The views expressed in these columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.—Editor
APROPOS of Mr Izzud Din Pal’s article ‘Revisiting ideology question’ (Oct 7), it is an irony that scholars, intellectuals and lawmakers are groping in the dark even after the establishment of Pakistan nearly six decades ago. Time after time we have been questioning the ideology of Pakistan without emphasizing on its genesis, thus resulting in wrong apprehension, interpretation and representation of both the phenomena.
Had the All-India Muslim League desired to carve out a country from undivided India on the basis of the two-religion theory, the Muslims of the Muslim minority provinces would have retorted: “Are we not Islamic?” and would not have voted for Pakistan.
If the genesis of Pakistan was solely Islam, then why did Islamic parties like the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Hind, the Jamaat-i-Islami and the Majlis-i-Ahrar and personages like Maulana Abul Ala Maududi and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad oppose the establishment of an Islamic state, i.e., Pakistan?
It is a fact that India was divided on the basis of the two nation-theory, into two sovereign states as ‘Hindu India’, i.e., Bharat, and ‘Muslim (not Islamic) India’, i.e., Pakistan. And Pakistan (comprising both the eastern and western wings) had emerged on Aug 14, 1947 as the first nation-state, the greatest Muslim state and the fifth largest country of the world.
The ideology of Pakistan was that the Muslims and non-Muslims should live in their respective majority-dominant regions (Pakistan and Bharat) according to their cultures and civilisations but allow the minorities to flourish with freedom in all spheres of life.
It would not be a digression to say that Mr Jinnah was a true Muslim and he, like Attaturk Mustafa Kamal, Syed Ahmad Khan and Allama Mohammad Iqbal, believed in the dogma of ‘ijethad’. So, he wanted to see Pakistan as a socio-democratic Muslim country, with Muslims following the injunctions of the Holy Quran and Sunnah with wisdom and not blindly, as dictated by the clerics.
This is evident from his inaugural speech in the Pakistan Constituent Assembly on Aug 11, 1947, which could be made the groundwork of the Constitution of Pakistan.
During the last six decades, several colonised countries in South Asia and Southeast Asia like India, Pakistan, Burma, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines have achieved independence from their respective European rulers, but hardly any one of them, except Pakistan, has added any prefix to their constitutions such as Islamic, Hindu, Christian and Buddhist on account of the religion of the majority of the population.
Besides this, Muslim countries like Turkey, Egypt and most Arab states do not officially describe themselves as ‘Islamic’.
It will be appreciated if the present Constitution is rectified to define Pakistan merely a Muslim state as visualised by its founder, M.A. Jinnah.
S. A HAIRAT
Karachi
THE statement of the information minister that the government would not allow any criticism of the armed forces is an exercise in absurdity. This is 2006. We cannot go back to 1986 when Pakistan was ruled by a ruthless military dictator. The minister’s statement shows an astonishing lack of understanding of the basic ideas of democracy and freedom. Freedom of the press and right to criticise is as much an integral part of democracy as are free and fair elections.
Some newspapers have been quick in their response saying how can we avoid criticism of the Army when it runs the country. But it is irrelevant. When second Caliph Hazarat Umar did not consider himself above criticism, how can the ministers and generals of an Islamic country seek immunity from criticism? A very fundamental and critical principle is at stake. Will the president take notice and ask the minister to retract this unwise statement? We have a history of information czars who in their zeal did more harm to their masters than any good by trying to silence the voices of dissent.
From Altaf Gohar in Ayub Khan’s dictatorship, Sher Ali Khan during Yahya Khan’s fateful tenure to Kausar Niazi in the Bhutto regime, all the ministers of information were guilty of misinforming and misguiding their masters and maybe if the rulers had benefited from open and free criticism of their policies, many a tragic mistake could have been avoided.
Gen Musharraf would like us to believe that since he comes from the middle class and is a self-made man, he does not have those feudal traits that have characterised the governing style of the past rulers. There might be an element of truth in this, given the unprecedented freedom that the media enjoys today but the general needs to watch out for those hawks within his government who can do more harm through bad advice than serve his interests.
He would be well advised to disband the ministry of information and assign its regulatory functions to a federal body. After all, the minister does nothing except issue statements and act as a spokesman for the government. A professional can do that job better such as the president’s press secretary, as is the tradition in the US and Britain. What is the harm in following a practice that has worked well in many countries? The president should, therefore, disband the ministry of information.
YOUSUF NAZAR
Karachi
THE unexpected honesty shown by the Pakistan Cricket Board not only caught the Pakistanis by surprise, but also the whole world. We were embarrassed again, and others had something to mock us yet again.
What could be the reason behind this epic foolishness by the PCB? Were they trying to flatter the ICC after the Oval fiasco? Or was the PCB thumping the players who tried to rise against a non-professional PCB administration and showed that it is the cricketers who are important for cricket not the administration? Or was it just an exercise by a new administrator to make his mark at his new job?
If it was an attempt to please the ICC, we will fail again. Has America been pleased with Pakistan despite its continuous attempts to be a vassal state for the last 57 years? No matter what you do, you will be used and thrown away, that is what the fate of such loyal, yet stupid pieces. If the administration is trying to thump the players, then let how it is reciprocated, though much should have been done by now.
Are the players being led back to the time when they were puppets or servants of the PCB and Younis Khan’s bold step will be in vain?
And if it’s just an adventure by the new chief sahib, then wasn’t Sheheryar Khan better?
The most hilarious part is that the new PCB chief said at a press conference that Pakistan is the first country to have taken action against performance-enhancing drugs. The question remains to be answered that in an era when other countries in the world support their players and citizens, why the PCB and the Pakistan government have been treating its players like stepchildren. Now will the cricketers have to wait for a fairy godmother too?
If it’s about upholding the law, then Mr Nasim should know that if laws had mattered in Pakistan, he wouldn’t have been the PCB chief.
SYED ALI IRTIZA
Quetta
THIS is with reference to the article (Oct 2) entitled ‘UK’s perspective: PM says fewer Muslims should wear veils’. I would like to make a comment about the ongoing debate on alienation and integration of minorities in Britain.
The British government seems to be rightfully concerned about the ethno- development of Muslim minority. Nonetheless, forbidding women from wearing veils at a policy level is anticipatory of civil dissatisfaction at a mass level. It might start off a long, unsettling discourse of rebuttals and refutations. The presupposition that “veil was a ‘visible demonstration of separateness’ in a country where ‘parallel communities’ are forming”, a statement made by Mr Brown, reflects on a conceptual confusion of the decision-makers in that country.
Wearing a veil is an adoration of the concept of purdah and isn’t a compulsory custom in the Islamic world. The covering of head or veiling the face as a religious or social rite per se cannot hurt or impede any peace process. It is an optional dress code for Muslim women and doesn’t carry any other fringy connotations in essence. Therefore, it should not be considered or identified as a political problem.
One’s attire cannot be standardised in a pluralistic and predominantly secular society. If Saudi Arabia compels its women residents and expatriates to cover themselves, wearing a cloak, it can do so because it doesn’t vouch for civil liberties and democracy. But one does wonder that Muslims have never raised any objections to the attire of their non-Muslim neighbours whose country they have inhabited for a significant period of time allowing conducive conditions for ample cultural contact and change in many aspects, including attire.
Isn’t that a demonstration of tolerance? Integration evolves out of bilateral effort: the parties have to exhibit a considerable measure of mutual regard. It cannot be achieved by a majority imposing rules on a minority. ‘Parallel communities’ are always hallmarked by cultural heterogeneity and they sustain best through the ethics of acceptance and tolerance.
MEHRUNNISA HASHMI
Sheikhupura
I HOPE Lt-Gen Nadeem Ahmad, the deputy chairman of ERRA, was only joking when he equated the reconstruction of the earthquake-affected areas to ‘constructing a country larger than New Zealand’.
If basic geographic facts have any meaning for him, he would have to find another 236,000 sq kms of land to work with since the area of New Zealand is 269,000 sq kms, while the earthquake-affected region has about 33,000 sq kms.
Of course, being a military man he may have plans to ‘acquire’ the land he imagines he is working with.
For the sake of our poor country I do hope that he does not have any military adventure in mind to achieve his aims.
The general may, however, try to emulate some of the human development indicators of New Zealand, such as the 99 per cent literacy rate and the infant mortality rate of 5.76 deaths per 1,000 live births. Now that would be a battle worth fighting.
PROF WASIF M. KHAN
Forman Christian College,
Lahore
THIS refers to Roshaneh Zafar’s article ‘How Hudood law is hurting society’(Oct 7). The writer has started off by hair-splitting of President Musharraf’s concept of ‘enlightened moderation’, seeing it as an attempt to moderate, i.e., control or restrict enlightenment. The word ‘enlightenment’ is tossed around a lot, but very few know what it entails. It should have been obvious the president’s reference is implicitly to the fact that Islam is a religion of moderation, a middle way, but to him the Pakistanis are not following that properly.
From his various statements and actions it seems Gen Musharraf wants to edify this unsatisfactory level of moderation through the switching over to western type dresses by our women, participation in public sports and mixed marathons, etc. In addition is the drive to secularise the educational system and polity and the insistence on recognising Israel despite its collective punishment of the Palestinians and destruction of Lebanon (Dawn, Sept 28), as if the acceptance of aggression and brutality is some kind of moderation.
Ms Zafar cites the 18th century European movement of ‘Enlightenment’ (which led a scientist to declare that if ignorance of nature gave birth to God, the knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy Him) and the Mutazili (Mutazilite) theology of the 8th century that tried to combine logic and Greek philosophy with Islam. The Mutazilis were an elitist, minority group, whose excessive intellectualisation and denial of anthropomorphic notions of God “speaking or “sitting on a throne,” as averred by the Holy Quran, reduced the divine to a philosophical abstraction.
To them such conceptions had no religious significance but the vast majority of Muslims hungered for an immediate experience of God in concrete reality. The Mutazilis faded away, other schools such as Ahle Hadith and the Asharites arose, as also a pre-dominance of Shariah, as propounded by the four Sunni schools, by the 10th century.
She has quoted some incidents pertaining to the Prophet’s wives Hazrat Khadija and Hazrat Umme Salma and his granddaughter Hazrat Zainab to highlight the importance of women. Even some western observers have acknowledged that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the greatest champion of human rights ever. Yet, the fact remains that he never asked them to lead a prayer congregation of men, let them forgo the Islamic dress code or rules for interacting with strangers and so on. At one occasion the Prophet clarified that even if his beloved daughter Fatima were to commit theft, she would be given the applicable (Hadd) punishment.
Ms Zafar has likened the Hudood laws to a mad elephant that must be shot dead, as in the anecdote related by George Orwell. Just because she thinks these are ‘mad’ doesn’t make them so. One must always use one’s intellect properly, as the Prophet exhorted. Repealing (rather than amending) the Hudood laws simply because they are being abused is like killing an elephant if the vegetation on which it thrives becomes pest-ridden or poisonous. These were crafted for the betterment of society, in particular women.
Contrary to the charge that these were the doing of Ziaul Haq alone, a whole team of respected jurists, lawyers and ulema from all schools of thought formulated these in response to a demand raised by the Council of Islamic Ideology. It was vetted three times and took 14 months to complete. The committee was headed by Justice (r) Muhammad Afzal Cheema and its members had included Justice (r) Syed Salahuddin Ahmed, Mr A. K. Brohi, Mr Khalid Ishaque and several male and female scholars of repute.
ZAKIR AHMED
Karachi
APROPOS of Mr Qutubuddin Aziz’s letter (Oct 8), I support his welfare measures for aging population. In fact, old age has its own anxieties and troubles, more so because the better part of one’s life is already consigned to the repository of past with all the verve, vigour and vitality gone with the wind of times, leaving behind a weak, feeble and constantly complaining skeleton, counting the days of suffering and affliction and waiting for his turn to depart.
In most cases, there is seldom anyone around to take care of and attend to their immediate needs, much less to console and comfort them.
Sir, I take this opportunity to plead with the federal and provincial governments about the pecuniary problems of pensioners who should be considered for annual increment every December (as they used to receive while in active service).
The budgetary raise should be in addition to it. This way, the pensioners would be able to face the daily rising cost of living with same equanimity.
Most of the pensioners are inflicted with more than one disease and need constant medication, which is generally costly.
The possibility of opening up geriatric hospitals in all provincial capitals should be considered and the least that could at once be done is to set up geriatric wards in all the hospitals of the country.
Besides, special instructions should be issued to all the private hospitals and laboratories in the country to allow substantial discount/confessional rates on all tests to the senior citizens, for which these institutions should be allowed tax rebates.
NAZIR QAZI
Hyderabad
WE, the citizens of Karachi, urge the authorities concerned, including the police, particularly the traffic police, to enforce the movement of all heavy trucks, particularly those with containers.
These trucks have killed budding young people because they do not have any safe system to carry containers, nor do the roads of Karachi permit such heavy container trucks to ply.
We are aware that repeatedly the governor, the IG and the nazim make emphatic statements that heavy vehicles would be allowed only during the hours of 6am to 7.30am and 8.30pm to 10.30pm. These orders are flagrantly disobeyed and as such citizens should be permitted to haul such vehicles and report to the police.
Karachi has enough problems and mere high-sounding public pronouncements would not help. We demand action and protection.
MAHER ALAVI
Karachi
THIS is with reference to the editorial ‘Above criticism’ (Oct 16). Suggesting that the government of Pakistan will not allow or tolerate any criticism of the armed forces is indeed ridiculous.
Having lived in a relatively democratic society like Canada for the last 30 years, I can say for sure that every Canadian citizen and immigrant is allowed to criticise the role of the Canadian army, whether inside or outside the country, even when they are not a political force here.
The latest example is the Canadian military’s role in Afghanistan. The New Democratic Party recently passed a resolution at its political convention, demanding the withdrawal of the military from Kandahar, Afghanistan. Many Canadians do not want our troops to be there “to kill and get killed”. On the other hand, there is a sizable percentage of Canadians who do want our troops to play a combative role. The debate is continuing. Pakistan is a democratic country. Since the Pakistan armed forces are essential part of the political process there, they can be criticised too. Nobody should get angry over this criticism.
JALALUDDIN S. HUSSAIN
Quebec, Canada
KARACHI has succumbed to the dangerous viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF), commonly known as dengue fever. Many people are victims of this mosquito-borne disease.
According to recent research, the juice of raw papaya leaves is a possible cure for this deadly virus. Clean two papaya leaves, pound and squeeze the pulp through a cloth filter. You will get only one table spoon, per serving once a day. No need to boil or cook or rinse with hot water, for it will lose its strength. Only the leafy part has to be taken, not the stem or sap. It is very bitter and you have to swallow it, but it works wonder.
SALMAN LASSI
Karachi
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address: letters@dawn.com
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.