|
| December 22, 2006 | Friday | Ziqa’ad 30, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Integrating Fata
Dowry killings
The farewell sermon
A realistic approach to Iraq
THE enlightening, soul-stirring and epoch-making sermon delivered by Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on the occasion of his farewell pilgrimage (Haj) occupies a unique place in the history of mankind. It emphasizes explicitly on universalisation, socialisation and moralisation of the humanity at large.
ROBERT GATES, the new secretary of defence, warned this week that an American failure in Iraq would be a “calamity” that would haunt the United States for decades. Unfortunately, he’s right. But what is a realistic definition of success? If we “surge” tens of thousands more troops into Iraq and march them up the hill, how will we march them back down?
IN what can be called an encouraging response from New Delhi, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has replied in positive terms to President Pervez Musharraf’s ideas on Kashmir. Reacting to President Musharraf’s four-point suggestion, made in an interview with an Indian TV channel earlier this month, Dr Singh said he would “welcome all ideas” since they contributed to “the on-going thought process” on the issue. Without making a direct reference to the president’s proposals, the Indian prime minister said at a public rally in Amritsar on Wednesday that he wanted a lasting peace in the region. Telling the rally that he had “a vision” about Pakistan and India, Dr Singh said the two countries had “a collective destiny” and if they approached all issues with an open and friendly mind, it would be possible to resolve all pending issues through a dialogue. He hoped that relations between the two countries would reach a level where Islamabad and New Delhi could sign a treaty of peace, security and friendship. He was confident that “we can overcome all hurdles in our path and realise such a treaty”.
It goes without saying that the “hurdles” the Indian prime minister spoke of include the Kashmir issue which has defied a solution for the last six decades. That a peaceful solution of this issue is within the realm of possibilities stems from the so many positive developments that have taken place in their bilateral relations, including the many confidence-building measures the two sides have taken. Some of the CBMs, including the bus service, relate directly to Kashmir and could not have been visualised even by the most optimistic among us when their armies were facing each other in a menacing eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation in the summer of 2002. If to these CBMs one adds the progress made in other sectors since the two pledged at Islamabad in January 2004 to start a composite dialogue, one can clearly see that the progress has been impressive and needs to be carried forward.
Among the major factors that have spawned optimism are the various proposals Pakistan has made from time to time for a solution of the Kashmir issue. The basic purpose behind these proposals has been Islamabad’s willingness to break the logjam on Kashmir by emphasising its readiness to move away from the recognised position and offer new ideas that the Indian side could consider. The proposals made by the president in the NDTV interview include autonomy but not independence for Kashmir and a joint management of the disputed territory. The Indian prime minister’s positive response, without going into the specifics, creates hopes. It remains to be seen how the situation further develops and whether the leadership in the two countries has the wisdom and the courage to go beyond words and take crucial decisions that could turn a new page in South Asia’s history.
Here one would like to refer to the Siachen issue about whose solution some people in Pakistan have been talking very optimistically. Pakistan is keen on a demilitarisation of the barren glacier so as to remove a major irritant in their relationship. The deployment of troops even in peacetime is a drain on the two economies, and is costing India more than Pakistan. An agreement on a troop pullout from what once was the world’s highest battleground will not only save lives and money, it will also create a propitious atmosphere for pursuing talks on unorthodox suggestions for a fair and final settlement of the Kashmir issue.
THE International Crisis Group, which created quite a stir recently by reporting the ‘takeover’ of Fata by the Taliban and foreign militants, has also made some very sensible recommendations that were drowned in the cacophony of allegations and counter-allegations that ensued. The ICG, among others, has called on the Pakistan government to integrate Fata into the NWFP under the province’s executive control and under the jurisdiction of the provincial and national court system. Another recommendation calls for the removal of restrictions on political parties in Fata and the extension of the Political Parties Act to the tribal areas. One positive impact of the ICG report is that a debate has started on this issue among the local stakeholders, and the pros and cons of allowing free political activity in the area are now being discussed. Perhaps the biggest breakthrough has come in the form of a statement from the NWFP governor’s office saying that he has underscored the need for changing the approach to political activity in Fata.
Although the need for bringing Fata on the same level as other areas of Pakistan has been felt for long, no meaningful step was taken in that direction. Since the colonial days this region has been administered directly by the federal government under an undemocratic and arbitrary administrative and judicial dispensation. Every time Fata posed a challenge to Islamabad in terms of law and order, the government responded by pumping in funds ostensibly to step up economic development. But the tribal set-up of the region has remained. As a result the religious parties which are predominantly Pashtun in their composition and have an ethnic affinity with the population of Fata, such as JI and JUI-F, have gained an upper hand by operating informally here. Fata was denied the benefit of exposure to a multiplicity of elements whose operation creates a system of checks and balances essential for healthy politics. That would explain many of Fata’s negative features — its obscurantist customs, undemocratic and tribal structures, the anti-women mindset of its people and their backwardness. This has also made it a sanctuary for the Taliban and other anti-state elements who have inflicted grave damage on Pakistan. By opening up Fata to democracy and political activity, the government would help improve matters.
THE shocking lengths to which people can go to ensure a dowry for their daughters or sisters was made apparent last week when a man killed four of his relatives in Munirabad, Punjab, because he desperately needed money for his sister’s marriage. The accused in question is a victim of poverty who butchered his relatives when he had gone to visit them in another town, secure in the thought that once he killed and looted them, he could escape uncaught. Luckily, he has been apprehended and must pay for his crime of murdering four persons — among them a pregnant woman and a seven-year-old girl. But what will be the fate of the unmarried girl whose future has now been made bleaker because of her family’s inability to provide a decent dowry for her?
Thirty years after the Dowry and Bridal Gift Restriction Act of 1976, which fixed a monetary limit on dowry and how much could be spent on weddings, the law is openly being flouted and never really implemented. Various recommendations by the Law and Justice Commission were turned down as being too impractical which makes it necessary for parliament to take up the Act and suitably amend it to make it more realistic in the present-day context. At the same time, public opinion must be galvanised against such evil customs as dowry which are against Islamic norms. Demands for dowry often place unrealistic burdens on girls’ families and even if met, the girl suffers great abuse by her husband and in-laws when they want more. Women have died at the hands of their in-laws for not having brought enough dowry as part of the marriage. This barbarianism must be put to a stop. While laws alone won’t change the situation, their enforcement is bound to bring about a change in attitudes.
On revelation of Surah 110, “When came the Help of Allah and Victory. And you saw people entering the Religion of Allah in crowds. Praise your Rab and beg His forgiveness. Surely He is Ever Forgiving,” the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) decided in A.H. 10 to perform Haj, as he in the light of the said Surah felt that his mission has been accomplished and that the end of his life was approaching.
He left Madina on Saturday, the 216th of Zul-Qadah and after journeying for nine days entered the city of his destination, Makkah on Sunday, the 4th of Zul-Hijjah. A large number of people had accompanied him who were further augmented and turned into a multitude of 1,14,000 to 1,44,000 on the 9th of Zul-Hijjah (March 08, 632) the day of his historic sermon at Arafat. He had also given orations on the 10th as well as the 11th or 12th in sequence both at Mina. These public addresses were actually the gist of his lifelong Islamic teachings.
The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) during the speech paused almost after every sentence to get it repeated by a stentorian who was Rabia ibn Omaiyah ibn Khalaf in order that the worlds of the most memorable address could be heard by the entire concourse.
The salient features of the everlasting sermon are summed up hereunder which are still fresh and will remain as such for ever:
Praising Allah he said, ‘O people! Listen to me. I do not know whether I shall be here again and meet you.’ Further he quoted from the Holy Quran: “O mankind! We created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know each other. Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (one who is) the most righteous of you.” He in unambiguous words declared, ‘No Arab is superior to any non-Arab (Ajami) nor any non-Arab is superior to any Arab; the only criterion of superiority is piety. All human beings are Adam’s children and he was created from dust.’
‘O people! Your blood, properties and honour are as inviolable as this day, this month and this city, amongst one another. You all shall appear before Allah and He shall interrogate you of your actions.’
‘Behold! Do not go astray after me and begin killing one another. If anything is kept as trust with anyone, he is bound to return it to its owner when asked for.’
‘O people! All Muslims are brothers to one another. Be solicitous about your slaves, feed them such food as you eat and clothe them as you wear.’
In unequivocal words he pronounced, ‘O people! All practices of the days of ignorance are under my feet.’ Forbidding such practices he wiped out the practice of blood revenges and usury. Likewise abolishing the practice of usury he set an example and remitted the amount of interest which was due to be received by the family of his uncle Abbas ibn Abdul Muttalib.
‘O people! Allah has already ordained shares (inheritance) of each heir. Now none should leave any share by will for any heir,’ (in contravention of the set rules).
Addressing particularly the people of his tribe he clearly said, ‘O people of Quraish! lest you appear before Allah with the burden of this world around your neck and other people with good deeds; in such situation I shall not be of any help to you.’
‘O people! I have accomplished my mission of preaching Islam. I am leaving amongst you such a thing if you hold it fast you will never go astray and it is the Book of Allah (the Holy Quran). ‘Behold! you refrain from exaggeration in the religious matters because the nations in the past have perished only on account of it.’
‘O people! worship Allah, offer prayers five times a day, keep fasts during the month of Ramazan, pay Zakat willingly and perform pilgrimage to the Sacred House of Allah, then you will be able to enter the Paradise.’
‘Now criminal himself will be responsible for his crimes; neither the son would be answerable for the crimes of his father nor the father would be held responsible for the crime committed by his son.’
‘Behold! those who are present here should convey it to those who are not here. Anyone of those who are not here may be better to understand it and remember it.’
‘O people! if you were asked about me, what would you reply?’ The people with one voice said, “we bear witness that you have conveyed the message, you discharged your ministry of Prophethood and looked the welfare of the people.”
At the conclusion of the sermon, the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) raised his forefinger towards the sky and thereafter pointing towards the people said thrice: ‘O Allah! I beseech: bear Thou witness unto it.’
No sooner than Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) concluded his inspiring sermon the following Quranic verse was revealed:
“This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion.”
The farewell sermon, on the whole, is a message of piety, equity and fraternity for the entire world.
What is a satisfactory and achievable outcome in Iraq? That’s a question we all should have examined more carefully in 2003, and we’re back to that same issue now as President Bush reviews a change in strategy. I worry that in this debate Bush will be tempted anew to seek a military victory that is unrealistic — and might not be desirable even if it were possible.
America’s security interests are not served by remaining indefinitely as an occupying power in Iraq. This is precisely the trap the enemy laid when Bush invaded in 2003 — drawing U.S. forces into hostile terrain and then slowly picking away at them. It’s the classic guerilla strategy, used in Algeria, Vietnam, Afghanistan and a dozen other wars, and it works.
That’s because foreign expeditionary armies are rarely willing to insert enough troops to pacify a country in revolt. In this environment, an old-fashioned victory becomes an impossibility. The best outcome is often a rough patchwork order imposed by local forces, with help and training from foreign advisers.
The Pentagon military leadership swallowed its doubts about the achievability of the president’s goals back in 2003, but not this time. According to a report by Robin Wright and Peter Baker in yesterday’s Post, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are resisting proposals to surge as many as 30,000 additional troops into Iraq. To these skeptical commanders, a surge is not a strategy for victory so much as one of postponing the inevitable.
I saw a clear example of how this dilemma plays out on the battlefield when I visited Iraq in August with Gen. John Abizaid, the Centcom commander. At that time the Army had launched an aggressive campaign to regain control of Baghdad’s toughest neighbourhoods.
We rumbled through Doura and Amiriyah in a little convoy of armored Humvees, and, sure enough, the show of American force seemed to be working — for a while. The insurgents and death squads slipped away. But as soon as US forces moved on to pacify other areas, they came back. A new surge of US troops in Baghdad could repeat this cycle on a larger scale, but to what end?
So what is a realistic strategy for Iraq? That was the question that faced those in the Iraq Study Group, and for all the snide criticism of the Baker-Hamilton report, it seems to me they got the big things right: The current Iraq strategy isn’t working; a quick withdrawal would be a mistake; a partition of Iraq would be dangerous. The problem with the report was that its upbeat recommendations didn’t match its downbeat assessment of the sectarian crisis. More training of the Iraqi army isn’t going to work if the barracks are on fire.
A radical approach to Iraq is to try to visualize an American presence that would be sustainable whether things went well or badly. What would it look like? For starters, we would treat Iraq more like a normal country. Americans would be in a fortified embassy compound rather than the Republican Palace.
US troops would be redeployed so that they could assist allies and punish enemies, rather than remaining hunkered down in the midst of a civil war, providing easy targets to both sides.
The United States would pull back enough to have some freedom of manoeuvre. But it would remain engaged enough that it could intervene quickly to prevent a bloodbath. It would set red lines rather than try to dictate events.
A sensible Iraq strategy would draw in neighbouring states, such as Syria and Iran, that share our interest in maintaining a unitary Iraqi state. That was a key recommendation of James Baker and Lee Hamilton and their commission, and they were right. Negotiating with Iran is a non-starter while that nation is holding conferences for Holocaust-deniers.
But it seems absolutely crazy not to explore some of the ideas that Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Moallem, raised in an interview with me last week. The Syrian official said a rapid American pullout would be “immoral” and talked of joint Syrian-American efforts to stabilise Iraq and contain extremists. He also proposed unconditional peace talks with Israel. Worth discussing? Israeli officials are certainly curious.
But to a White House dreaming of military victory in Iraq, these real-world options smack of a sellout. Rather than using the Baker-Hamilton process to rebuild consensus for a viable Iraq strategy, officials are taking potshots at the “surrender monkeys.” Now, that’s dangerous. —Dawn/Washington Post Service