Fighting religious extremism

MUHARRAM is perhaps the only religious event in Islam that can be and sometimes is used to extricate a political message relevant to current events. Unfortunately, this was not possible until the state ran the only television and radio service or the major newspapers in the country. The concentration was only on the historical and religious aspects of Ashura. The situation has now changed, with private TV channels particularly bringing out rational discussions of religious affairs.

Simultaneously, the religious situation has also deteriorated in recent years. Extreme Islamists seek to exploit sectarianism for their own objectives and many government agencies have drawn mileage from religion to fight their battles in Kashmir and Afghanistan. Since Gen Ziaul Haq's days, sections of the military establishment have become particularly involved with religious extremism and sectarianism. The ShiaSunni cult gained in Zia's days, and continues to pose a threat, as events during the first 10 days of Muharram showed.

Moving what happened at Karbala from a merely religious or lyrical setting, which of course is also necessary because of its appeal, to be used for resisting autocracy and freeing the ordinary citizen of exploitation is something that has gained ground only recently in the public sphere. However; it should be remembered that most leading Shia poets of the subcontinent were communist in their beliefs and used the Muharram episode in the ’40s to project their political point of view. Something like that is needed now, specially since organisations like the Sipah-i-Muhammad and Sipah-i-Sahaba, the Shia and Sunni extremist parties which merely believed in hate and violence, suddenly came to the fore. They are now said to be banned, but one is not sure whether their activities have ceased.

The regular religious Shia and Sunni parties which take part in national politics do speak of oppression by autocrats, and advocate democracy and representative government, but are not at all concerned with social needs and the rising deprivation of the underprivileged. Television discussions on private channels on Muharram can, however, take us instead to the problems created by Arab conservatism and how the Holy Prophet's (PBUH) original thinking began to be replaced by personally exploitative policies of the rulers.

One programme, on perhaps the seventh of Muharram from Karachi, from a private TV channel actually tried to put Hussaniyat against Yazidyat as a political action. One of the participants, Mohammad Hussain Jafri, professor of Pakistan and Islamic studies, Aga Khan University, who also taught for a long time at the American University of Beirut, recalled that Imam Hussein had noted great changes taking place in the community, and had said that Islam needed revitalisation and a complete shake-up.

Obviously, depending on religion is not the only desirable idea of many of us because we believe in secularism as the main instrument to take us forward. But since the state, its rulers and most political leaders also utilise Islam as part of their public posture, and most of us seem scared to keep religion out of public life, it's best to praise efforts where religious events are used by some commentators as events for the projection of progressive thought.

"Qatal-i-Hussein asl mein marg-i-Yazid hai, Islam zinda hota hey har Karbala key baad (The assassination of Hussein was actually the murder of Yazid, Islam reawakens after every Karbala)" may be seen as somewhat politically revivalist, but this too is often used by writers and speakers as a traditional relic.

Political utilisation is necessary in view of what's happening now and is taking place despite General Pervez Musharraf’s declarations against religious extremism. No one believes that he really has the courage to take action in this context and many also believe that most of his ministers are not ready to follow his utterances in their own public conversations and statements. Opposition politicians also show themselves on occasions like Muharram and Eids being largely too weak to use religious affairs for democratic progress.

Religious politicians tell us how much they condemn sectarianism, but their private beliefs are often different and if sectarian differences can be used for political advantage, the parties which might benefit from them are fully prepared to utilise it. Elements like this have gained greater prominence since Pakistan's slide into religious extremism. Pakistani Muslims must (after the violence created by the US attack and policy in Iraq) be the worst that are ready to carve religious feelings for their political objectives. It is not merely a question of Shia differences or the anti-Qadiani policy and trends to criticise minority religions. It's a question of just aggravating, much more than before, extreme religious sentiments a development that is not really checked by governments.

The Hindus of India or the Muslims of that country are not so divided amongst themselves as we are in Pakistan. Even in most other Muslim countries, differences and reactionary fixations are not as prominent as we find here. Islam is a religion whose name has no sense of belonging to any particular region, but its followers have gone very far from its original concept. In poorer Muslim countries where the exploiters try to divide citizens, they prove effective in creating hatred in people's hearts but are hardly ever checked.

Justification of jirgas on the basis of religion is not liked by many here, but tolerated. George Bush has projected Christianity as his ideological strength, but he hasn't initiated violence against Christians or atheists whom he doesn't accept. But we promoted Taliban on the basis of religion, and many of our elements may still be doing it. Kashmir has not been defended as a political issue, but mostly as a religious one: our irredentist policies with regard to Afghanistan have also been justified for the ordinary people on the basis of religion. How do we adopt a way for more secular and less religious politics is something that should be coolly considered by parties and their leaders as we prepare for what are promised as the next elections.

The amount of money spent on security which too, ultimately, is not successful in checking attacks by religious fanatics if it was spent on education and spreading learning amongst us, could have isolated the forces that use mullahism to create trouble. When patients go to consult doctors, do they ask them as to what religion or sect they are affiliated with? Yet, we don't seem to see this and to help in creating a nonsectarian society. Funny things happen in other Muslim countries also. For instance, a religious leader in Egypt has issued a fatwa saying that under Islamic shariat, women cannot be head of state. It is difficult to believe that this will affect many minds, although many male politicians who are presidential candidates will of course utilise it if a woman stands as a competitor.

It is also time for governments to check objectionable literature circulated in the country, insulting sentiments of particular communities. Our religious as well as government leaders should openly declare the oneness of Islam and community that they claim and focus on changing the minds of masses towards education. The first word of the Quran is iqra, 'read', thus endorsing learning and progression. Islam is said by moderate ulema to be all about progress, mental and spiritual, but we stay stuck in an era years back.

It is now time for all those responsible to take proactive action in creating an atmosphere of love and tolerance. The major parties should consider whether any one of them can publicly declare their belief in secularism. Gen Pervez Musharraf has been going out to Muslim countries: It is said that his tour is meant to stimulate an effort to shape a Palestinian solution. It is hoped that it is not meant to promote any American concept of how Palestine may compromise with Israel.

It is also hoped that he will use his contacts with Muslim leaders to ask for ways to stay united and fight the enemy within ourselves and ensuing hate and bigotry the powers that undermine us and our cultural heritage.

Pakistan & the Afghan war

THE powerful western media frames issues to suit their interests. The war in Iraq is a prime example as the invasion of Iraq was sold to the public as a response to 9/11 when Iraq had nothing to do with it. The failure of the Iraq project is not military but strategic and political.

The same mistakes are being made in Afghanistan, where an asymmetric war is being fought, but all political initiatives are being excluded. This lack of strategic thinking is combined with a military operation in which Nato forces are undermanned and under-equipped by 15 per cent by their own estimation, and a government in Kabul, whose incompetence and corruption are reminiscent of the Maliki government in Iraq. The investment in reconstruction and development has been too little and too slow in coming.

Nato commanders have confessed that if they have made one mistake, it is the civilian casualties. That statement speaks volumes for it has taken them almost five years to realise that like Iraq, they are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the people. Corruption, civilian casualties, high unemployment and the threat of poppy eradication (poppy earns half the GDP of Afghanistan), have become fertile grounds for recruitment to the Taliban ranks. Faced with the resurgence of the Taliban in 2006, and a spring offensive expected soon, the US has belatedly asked the Congress for $10.6 billion dollars in new funds for Afghanistan.

This is more than half of the $14.2 billion that the US has spent since its invasion, but minuscule as compared to the $300 billion that have gone into its operation in Iraq. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met European leaders recently in Brussels, hoping that Nato allies would increase their military and financial contribution for Afghanistan, but with little success. Now they are pinning their hopes on the Nato meeting in Spain next month.

However, despite their own failings, there has been a relentless and unremitting attack in the western press accusing the government of Pakistan of providing sanctuary to the Taliban in the borderlands of Pakistan. First the focus of attack was Waziristan, and the agreement arrived at between the tribal leaders of North Waziristan and the Pakistan government in September 2006.

More recently, the focus has shifted to the outlying areas of Quetta and Chaman. It is rarely mentioned in the press that Pakistan lost over 700 troops and many more civilians while fighting the Taliban and their supporters in the tribal areas, but there is a great deal made of the 49 soldiers that the British have lost in Afghanistan.

Similarly, there is no mention that Pakistan has 80,000 troops in the border areas, while all Nato and the US have been able to muster are 43,000. Truth and its coverage in the western press are selective. They are very clear where their national interest lies, and whether it is their think tanks, columnists or politicians, they peddle the same line. There might be an odd maverick like Robert Fisk, but they are not mainstream. However, we compound our problems by using primitive methods to apply pressure on journalists, which is counter-productive and not in the national interest.

Pakistan has made a wise deal with the tribals in Wana, and although its implementation will remain a constant struggle between the government and the militants, it is the only option available. Further military action can only lead to another insurgency. The British experience of trying to “pacify” these tribes met either with failure or an ongoing insurgency. Nato and the Americans should increase the surveillance of the border both electronically and physically from the Afghanistan side, and also seal it. If the Nato countries are loath to part with either troops or money for the war in Afghanistan, and the US is bogged down with an adventure in Iraq, Pakistan should not be made a scapegoat.

It is significant that the Kabul government, with the encouragement of the British, have entered a host of similar agreements in the Helmand province, which are being referred to as the “Helmand Protocols”. These protocols were preceded by the deal in Musa Qala, which provided for the Taliban and the British forces to withdraw from Musa Qala, and for the villagers to police their own villages. The “Helmand Protocols” are being entered into across the province, and are an arrangement between the Helmand governor, Assadullah Wafa, and the local tribal elders, backed by the central government. The tribal elders will appoint their own district and police chiefs and recruit their own forces.

In return, they will receive $500,000 for the reconstruction of each per district. On their part, the tribal elders will ensure that the Taliban are kept out of their districts, and will provide 150 men for training as local police force, since the national police force is corrupt and involved in criminal activities.

The danger is that the struggle of the Taliban is morphing into a national struggle against foreign occupation, stretching right across into our tribal areas. One expression of this is that Hekmatyar, the erstwhile foe of the Taliban, has now joined forces with them. A recent report said that the Taliban were investing one million dollars for building schools in the south. They are getting ready for the long-drawn struggle. What the western governments and their media fail to acknowledge is, that it is the same tribes on either side of the 2,500 km Afghan-Pakistan border.

For them the border has little meaning and they have come and gone at will for thousands of years. In insurmountable terrain with no infrastructure worth the name, the government of Pakistan can do very little except bomb suspected hideouts and alienate the locals further. These tactics did not work in Iraq, they are not working in Afghanistan, and if Pakistan follows suit, it will have an insurgency on its hands. Iraq has been destroyed, south Lebanon reduced to rubble; nobody will flinch if Pakistan is dragged into another insurgency in the tribal areas.

Mulla Omar in his interview to Dawn of January 4, 2007, the first of its kind since the Taliban lost power, distanced himself from Al Qaeda, saying that while their goal was international jihad, the Taliban only wanted to rid their country of foreign occupation. This should be taken as an opening for some political initiative, if not to him then to the other groups, which have joined forces with him. As the Iraq Study Group has pointed out, military force has its limitations, and it is necessary to talk to all stakeholders, the insurgents and the neighbours.

The writer is Allama Iqbal Fellow, Wolfson College, Cambridge.

Court to review limits on political speech

THE US Supreme Court astonished everyone in 2003 when it upheld the constitutionality of severe limits on political speech. The good news is that the court may be having some sober second thoughts about that dubious decision.

The speech-curtailing measure at issue is part of the broader McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The centrepiece of that law banned "soft money" contributions to political parties that were used to circumvent limits on how much donors could contribute to candidates for federal office. What is glaringly offensive to the First Amendment is an accompanying ban on "electioneering communications" paid for out of the treasuries of independent organisations.

As defined by the law, electioneering communications are advertisements that mention a candidate for federal office and are broadcast within 30 days of a primary election or within 60 days of a general election. They need not (and usually do not) tell viewers to vote for or against a candidate.

In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that McCain-Feingold's restrictions on these ads were not unconstitutional on their face. But an antiabortion group called Wisconsin Right to Life is arguing that the ban was applied in an unconstitutional way to prevent it from airing three TV advertisements in 2004. The ads asked viewers to tell the state's two senators — only one of whom was up for re-election — to allow a vote on President Bush's judicial nominations.

Last month, a three-judge federal court in Washington ruled that the "issue ad" provision deprived Wisconsin Right to Life of its free-speech rights. If the Supreme Court agrees, as it should, political speech will be given more breathing room. And such a ruling needn't derail the soft-money provisions of the McCain-Feingold legislation.

There are a lot of phoney "issue ads" out there ("Tell Sen. Smith you disagree with him about Iraq" can sound a lot like an endorsement for challenger Jones), but the court has to err on the side of preserving political speech. When it comes to speaking out about a candidate, opponents (and news outlets like ours) should not have a monopoly in the closing days of a campaign, especially if the outside organisation weighing in is genuinely acting on its own.

The particular facts of the Wisconsin Right to Life ads are a compelling indictment of the law's overreach and should prod the high court to reconsider whether the law could be constitutional under any set of facts. The addition of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. may dictate a different outcome — retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cast the deciding vote upholding the limits in 2003.

But if the court isn't willing to go back to the drawing board, Congress should. An advertisement praising or criticising a politician — even one seeking re-election — has more in common with the endorsement editorials that appear on this page than it does with the campaign contributions (in hard or soft dollars) that have received only minimal 1st Amendment protection from the courts.

— Los Angeles Times