|
| March 09, 2007 | Friday | Safar 19, 1428 |
Urban mass transit systems
Tackling kidney problems
Friday feature: Concept of war in Islam
Democracy — after 700 years
IT is a common belief in the West that Islam is a fanatic advocate and patron of war. The occidentals not only say that Islam encourages war, but they also attribute the spread of Islam to the sword. Terrorism is also considered to be a main feature of Islam. Such concepts are mainly based on: (1) ignorance of the Islamic texts; and (2) irresponsible, rather outrageous, behaviour of certain Muslims.
WEDNESDAY’s decision by Pakistan and India to exchange specific information on terrorism-related acts is in both countries’ interest and deserves to be welcomed. That the two delegations should reach agreement on the first meeting of the Joint Anti-Terrorism Mechanism testifies to the soundness of the decision by President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Havana last September to set up such a bilateral mechanism. Wednesday’s decision comes in the wake of the Samjhota Express tragedy that rocked the subcontinent. No worthwhile leads have yet been found to the crime, and New Delhi insists that investigating the crime is India’s responsibility. Nevertheless, the aftermath of the tragedy saw a climate lacking in bitterness in the sense that no Indian official blamed “Pakistan-based groups” for the dastardly crime that left 68 people dead. This is in sharp contrast to the Mumbai train blasts last July when Indian officials and large sections of the media began blaming Pakistan for the crime even before investigations had started. On Tuesday in Islamabad, Pakistan presented to the Indian delegation a dossier containing what official sources called “specific information” about the involvement of Indian intelligence agencies in acts of violence and subversion in Balochistan. A day later, New Delhi denied the allegations and said India had “nothing to do with developments in Balochistan”. The Indian delegation also disappointed its Pakistani counterpart by failing to give any specific information about the Samjhota Express tragedy and only came up with the sketch of a Pakistani who is alleged to have disappeared in India.
Insurgencies and terrorism have been going on in various parts of Pakistan and India. Apart from occupied Kashmir, there is trouble in India’s north-east, besides Naxalite activity in a swathe of territory stretching from Nepal to Andhra Pradesh. Fertile minds in the Indian officialdom and media have found Pakistan’s hand even in these cases. This is hardly going to end terrorism or push the normalisation process forward. The establishment of the joint mechanism for fighting terrorism should help avert such unpleasantness in the future and enable the two sides to focus on and investigate acts of terrorism in the light of specific information shared by the two countries.
Looking back at the progress made since the two sides pledged to pursue “a composite dialogue”, one can draw some satisfaction. There have been setbacks here and there, but progress towards a détente has been steady, and there is no reason to believe that this would not continue to be so. The many confidence-building measures to which the two sides agreed are in place and are working satisfactorily. More important, the act of terrorism on the Samjhota Express has not been allowed to halt the train service. Against this background, it is regrettable that hopes aroused for a settlement of the Siachen issue have not been fulfilled. Last year, there was talk of “a breakthrough” on Siachen, but several meetings at ministerial and official levels have proved indecisive. For many years, Siachen has been quiet, and if there are any casualties it is the harsh climate that is to blame. It is time Islamabad and New Delhi agreed to the glacier’s demilitarisation. Pakistan has been keener than India. Looking at it against the background of the several “zone-wise” demilitarisation proposals made by President Musharraf, a Siachen settlement should spur efforts for a solution of the Kashmir issue.
THE Punjab government has done well by seeking expert opinion from Dr E Sreedharan, the head of Delhi’s latest urban metro service, on the development of a mass transit system for Lahore. The recommendations made by the expert on how to go about developing the commuter train service should be heeded, because New Delhi has successfully launched the world’s most modern transit system which has eased traffic congestion as well as made urban commuting easy and efficient for the general public there. The eight-billion-dollar Lahore mass transit plan, much like its Karachi counterpart, has all but existed on paper for over two decades now. Meanwhile, there have been several feasibility reports and promises made by successive governments, but no real work has been done so far on either of the projects all these years. On several occasions in the past, even foreign consortiums offered to line up the required funds if only they got a go-ahead from the government.
The Indian expert’s suggestions as to why the government should underwrite a project of such great public utility and on its economic feasibility and affordability by the general public make good sense. One says this because the transit system headed by him is a remarkable success story which has materialised right next door and not in some distant land under very different conditions. Burgeoning metropolises like Karachi and Lahore badly need reliable and modern mass transit systems; the two cities should be able to share ideas on how best to go about setting these up. Development in isolation of the mass transit plans for Karachi and Lahore will increase the cost of getting these started. Since these are multi-billion-dollar projects and require foreign engineering expertise, the two cities should pool their planning resources and approach the same foreign parties for implementation. Other growing cities like Peshawar, Quetta and Rawalpindi-Islamabad could also benefit from the spadework done for the Karachi and Lahore mass transit systems. This is the only way to effectively address the problems of traffic congestion, environmental degradation and commuter hardship in our major urban centres today.
WORLD Kidney Day, which was observed round the globe on Thursday, holds special relevance for Pakistan where at least 10 million people are said to suffer from chronic kidney diseases and related problems such as renal stones. Some conditions are hereditary while other risk indicators include diabetes, hypertension and obesity. Given that nearly 15 per cent of the population is diabetic or hypertensive, there is an imminent danger that the problem may become even more acute in the future. Lack of access to clean drinking water is also a factor in Pakistan. Since kidney disease can be a silent killer, diagnosis is often delayed until an advanced stage of suffering, by which time treatment options may be limited to dialysis and eventual transplant. At the same time, the high medical costs involved are beyond the reach of many people. Though some institutions are doing a remarkable job in providing free or subsidised care, they alone cannot cater to a burgeoning patient population.
The growing incidence of kidney disease, both locally and internationally, has other implications for Pakistan as well. The country is fast becoming a hub for the illegal organ transplant trade and kidney donors are in great demand. Riven by poverty, people are selling their kidneys for a hundred thousand rupees or even less, with the bulk of the profits going to middlemen and unscrupulous doctors. With post-operative care invariably poor and often non-existent, some donors are unable to return to a normal, productive life and may end up spending more on treatment than what they received for the sale of the organ. By allowing donations by people not related to the patient, the recently promulgated Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Ordinance does little more than regularise this unethical practice. The need of the hour is to legalise cadaveric donations.
In order to know the true status and laws of war in Islam, one must see what the Quran says on this issue: “…But begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” (2:190)
War is allowed only as a measure of defence. Muslims are to resort to war only if they are left with no other option. As long as disputes can be settled through peaceful means, and rights and claims can be enforced and obtained, Muslims are required to refrain from fighting.
The Quran clearly defines various situations in which an Islamic state can resort to war. These include: 1. When there is a grave and sudden threat to religion: “…For had it not been for Allah’s repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and oratories and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helpeth one who helpeth Him. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.” (22.40)
2. When Muslims are subjected to oppression by the non-Muslims: “How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and of the feeble among men and of women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out of this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from thy presence some defender!” (4:75).
3. When Muslims are forced out of their land: “Sanction is given unto those who fight because they have been wronged… Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: Our Lord is Allah….” (22:39,40)
4. When war is imposed upon Muslims by the enemies of Islam: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities…” (2:190). “That (is so). And whoever retaliates with the like of that with which he is afflicted and he is oppressed, Allah will certainly help him….” (22:60)
5. When non-Muslim states commit deliberate breach of treaties and pacts: “Those with whom thou makest an agreement, then they break their agreement every time, and they keep not their duty. So if thou overtake them in war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that they may be mindful.” (8:56,57) “And if they break their oaths after their agreements and revile your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief – surely their oaths are nothing – so that they may desist.” (9:12)
Muslims are instructed in the Quran, in explicit words, that all acts of war by them must cease immediately if their enemies sue for peace; pledge to end all persecution and oppression; and sincerely undertake to abide by their oaths and covenants: “But if they desist, then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” (2:192). “And fight them until there is no more persecution… But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors.” (2:193) “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Surely He is the Hearer, the Knower.” (8:61)
The issue of deterrence has also been discussed in the Quran. Muslims are told that they must keep themselves well prepared and avail themselves of all sources of strength, so that the enemy should, because of their preparedness, assume a peaceful attitude. It is said: “And make ready for them whatever force you can and horses tied at the frontier, to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy and others besides them, whom you know not – Allah knows them…” (8:60)
In the above verse, Muslims are ordered to be ready for war not for the sake of starting it, but so as to keep the enemy from disturbing the peace.
The Islamic texts also mention the various acts forbidden in war. These include: 1. Killing of non-combatants; 2. Cruel ways of killing of enemy troops; 3. Killing of prisoners of war; 4. Killing of envoys; 5. Mutilation of dead bodies; 6. Use of poisonous weapons; 7. Inhumane treatment of prisoners of war; 8. Destruction of natural vegetation, crops, and livestock; 9. Poisoning of wells and other water resources; 10. Harassment of population in the vanquished territory; 11. Destruction of places of worship; 12. Dishonouring of captive women, etc.
In the context of nuclear and chemical weapons, the Islamic rules of war are of vital significance. Islam rejects, in most clear and definite words, all such instruments of mass destruction. There is also no room for terrorism as it involves killing and harassment of innocent civilians. Most important of all, war for the propagation of faith has not even once been mentioned in the Quran.
Islam has restricted war to fighting in defence. All aggressors, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, have been strongly condemned. Muslims are to avoid war. However, if there is no way out, then they must fight with full vigour, and compel the enemy to see his salvation in peaceful and equitable co-existence with the believers.
To summarise it all, from a complete ban on the weapons of mass destruction to building protections for civilians and prisoners of war, Islam offers all the solutions which the western humanitarian law has so far failed to provide.
ON Wednesday night, after playing what one of them called a game of constitutional sudoku, MPs settled the future of Britain's upper house in a dramatic and uplifting fashion. After two days of debate they surged together in a vote to send elected members to the House of Lords after 700 years.
Offered nine conflicting flavours of reform, and the chance to say no to all of them, MPs bucked themselves up in the most radical manner possible and chose the best option by the biggest majority, an all-elected upper house, redeeming the Commons confusion that held back change four years ago.
The message from MPs to the frontbenches of all parties could hardly have been sharper, stronger support for a democratic upper house than anyone had thought likely. The case for full democracy won the day. Cash for honours, and concern at the appointment of peers which has followed, may have played a part in undermining the government's case for a hybrid house. But the outcome was also a tribute to Jack Straw, whose adept handling of the debate allowed MPs to improve on the government's proposals without ministers losing face. It was a night for progressives to feel proud.
What follows will depend largely on Gordon Brown. Assuming he takes over the Labour leadership this summer, he must decide whether he wants the Lords to become one of the dominant issues of his first couple of years in the job. On Wednesday, he ended the mystery about what sort of upper house he wants by voting on the issue for the first time, backing election. That is not the same thing as putting his energies behind Mr Straw's reform white paper, or deciding to hand over parliamentary time to legislation which will not be ready until the next session and which will take at least a year to pass and several decades to put fully into effect. But is surely a sign that he intends to push ahead.
The task now will be to nail down other fundamentals of reform, starting with the chamber's powers, which Mr Straw says he wants to refer to a joint committee (though he argues, sensibly, that the present position is the best starting point). It is not yet clear how the new elected members will be chosen, or who will stand. The white paper proposes a partially-open list system, which in theory allows voters to rank candidates by preference but in practice will hand the choice to parties.
The opposition parties reject that, and are right to do so, although the Conservatives offer no alternative of their own. Opposition parties (particularly the divided Tories) will quibble over such details - and there is much to quibble about. But the destination has been decided and the business of getting there should be got underway as soon as possible. That means moving rapidly from the white paper to a bill. There should be no heeding talk of postponing action until after the next election, by making it a manifesto issue. The momentum of last night's vote should be followed by action.
Next week the House of Lords will debate its own demise and in the wake of such a radical and unexpected outcome, it can hardly question the fundamentals of change. But there will certainly be attempts to frustrate progress by questioning the details. The absurdities, though, all lie in the current, half-reformed upper house, as the Lords themselves demonstrated yesterday.
While MPs were backing democracy at one end of their building, the small band hereditary peers voted at the other in a private election to restore Lord Charles Alan Andrew Cathcar to his place on the Conservative benches. Kicked out once, in 1999, Lord Cathcart is coming back to fill a vacancy, benefiting ludicrously from a half-finished constitutional modernisation which must now be completed, in the interests of democracy and good government. The next time someone is elected to the upper house, they should be chosen by the people. MPs got it right last night: now they must put that choice into effect.—The Guardian, London