| March 30, 2007 | Friday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 10, 1428 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
A tidal wave of extremism
The Lahore Resolution
Hot-headed approach
Cancellation of affiliation
Pakistan’s foreign policy
Honourable men
As simple as ABC
New roads needed
PIA chairman resigns
Missing person
Hockey
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
THIS is with reference to the latest news regarding the female students of Jamia Hafsa (Dawn, March 29). Is abducting people in broad daylight called kidnapping when I do it and termed ‘purifying of soul’ when the same is done by students of a religious outfit? Is the death penalty only a punishment for ‘kidnapping’ and not ‘purifying of soul’? What would be the repercussions if I start threatening shopkeepers about the merchandise they should or should not be carrying?
If the students of Jamia Hafsa are a special breed of Pakistani citizens, which indeed seems to be the case, then it should be openly declared and widely circulated so that common Pakistanis can stop expecting that these ‘offenders’ would ever be brought to justice. We would club them with so many other classes of society which are above the law and would rest in peace.
But until such a statement comes from the who’s who of this government we have a right to know why the same law isn’t applicable to everyone. How come the students and teachers of Jamia Hafsa are going about kidnapping women, occupying property illegally and threatening shopkeepers without inviting any police action?
Do madressah students and their likes have a license to violate every law of this country and formulate and enforce laws of their own?
What is the motivation of these students? Are they taught lessons of intolerance and bullying or is it a natural inclination of these students? In case of the former, how would we justify in front of the whole world that their pre-conceived notions of our madressahs being breeding grounds of extremism, fanaticism and intolerances are mere fallacies on their part?
And in case of the latter, why aren’t the leaders of religious parties (who support these madressahs besides running many of their own) pay heed to what’s going on inside them?
In either case, the leaders of these religious parties overtly and vehemently support such criminal-minded individuals who carry out their activities in the name of religion. These students and their teachers cannot go out in the streets ‘enforcing their own laws’ without backing from the religious big wigs. It’s high time now to look into not only the ‘curriculum’ but the ‘process of socialising of students’ of every Pakistani madressah.
Finally, where’s the government’s resolve to fight extremism in all its forms? On one hand, we see our president emphasising that he will not rest until he defeats the rampant extremism existing in our society today.
On the other, the administration bows down to the demands of such criminal minded individuals every time without fail. Is the government wary of a backlash from the side of religious parties in case of a stern action?
Or is it the result of a covert nexus between the government and religious parties? For how long can we delay to take ‘unpopular decisions’? This dual policy of the government must end now. It has become imperative to set an example before these offenders inspire other sections of the society to follow suit. Otherwise, there’s no point in running a police force and other law enforcement agencies.
HASEEB AHMED
Rawalpindi
MOHSIN Hamid, a Pakistani writer living in London, had been a liberal supporter of General Musharraf until now. His Op-Ed piece entitled ‘Pakistan's silent majority is not to be feared' which appeared in the March 27 issue of the New York Times echoes the disillusionment and bitterness of many of president's supporters who are crestfallen at how a historic opportunity that fate had offered him has been frittered away.
It is a measure of the widespread discontent with this regime, that a person like Chief Justice Chaudhry, who is hardly a paragon of virtue, honesty and integrity and tainted with scandal, has gained such popularity. The most unforgivable shortcoming of President Musharraf's policies, long on rhetoric and short on action has been his utter failure to control the rampant spread of fanaticism which has most shamefully reached the very center of the government.
The 'siege' by the naqab-clad students of the Jamia Hafsa and the inability of the government to establish its writ right in the capital just as it has not been able to do in Quetta, the virtual command centre of the Taliban, is so disgraceful that President Musharraf forfeits any right to govern any more. For the sake of the country and for his own sake, he should declare that he would resign after the elections are held without giving in to the demands that the two former prime ministers of Pakistan be allowed to return to Pakistan and take part in the elections.
A political landscape, absent the previously failed politicians and a general-politician whose heart is in the right place but who could not muster enough courage to defy his short-sighted advisers and slay the dragon of extremism which he was capable of, would mark a fresh start for Pakistan.
MASOOD HAIDER
New Jersey, USA
I AM afraid Mr I.A. Rehman’s observation (March 23) that ‘Pakistan’s journey began with the Lahore Resolution adopted at the League session on 23rd March 1940” is rather off the mark.
On the other hand, the Quaid-i-Azam’s remarks that Pakistan was born the day the first Muslim set foot on the soil of this subcontinent stated the correct position.
As I have ventured to submit again and again, one thousand years of history have gone into the making of Pakistan. It may have appeared on the ‘map’ on March 23, 1940 but it was waiting to do so for years and years.
Then, it seems the ‘nature’ of the Lahore Resolution needs a clarification yet once more. The resolution was neither the constitution of a state -– because the state had yet to come into existence — nor was it some sort of a draft ‘constitutional’ blueprint.
It was a declaration of intent. Declaration pure and simple but loud and clear and unignorable of the intent that in no way were the Muslims prepared to live (and live as a minority because that status could never change) in a non-Muslim majority India.
It was meant to leave no doubt that any plan for the constitution after the transfer of power will have to and must include the realisation of this intent.
Finally, I fail to see why an Islamic state -– even when many users of this nomenclature may wish it to be so of the type they desire -– should mean a theocratic or even a religious state. The cleric is not Islam, nor a symbol of Islam – howsoever wished to be so and, therefore, presumed to be so – anyone familiar with the history of the Muslim people knows that the existence of non-Muslims in Muslim-majority or Muslim-dominated states was not a new experience for them before the birth of Pakistan.
People were free to go to their mosques and temples and churches and their other abodes of worship throughout Islamic history. What we must now ensure is justice, non-discrimination and open participation.
S. IRTIZA HUSSAIN
Karachi
IN “Iran: this hot-headed US approach” (March 27) Ammar Ali Qureshi recommends Tehran and the US conduct a serious dialogue. However, when it comes to any issue dealing with the Middle East, the US carries two heavy stones around its neck, namely Israel and oil. They carry about equal weight in the foreign policy mix.
The Iranian government and its people can never trust the US to honour the sovereignty of the Iranian nation unless Iran gives up its opposition to the Zionist state and its apartheid policies( two per cent of Europeans subjugating and dictating to the other 98 per cent of the indigenous inhabitants) along with sacrificing its national assets and subjugating it to Exxon, Mobil and Shell etc. Any country that has national aspirations contrary to the USA’s and the UK’s political and economic agenda is keenly aware of their exposure to intimidation. We have seen plenty of it directed towards Pakistan. Taking the cue from Pakistan and North Korea, Iran has taken the right approach to develop nuclear weapons to deter such overtures.
The question now lies in how to get there without inviting an attack prior to the acquisition of such deterrence. In that respect talking may be the least costly way to reach their goal. Iranians are a smart people with strong nationalistic leaders who don’t sell themselves or their nation to the western powers.
Pakistani leaders must learn some valuable lessons from the Iranians about national pride and independence. Being closer to each other in this time of need will benefit both Iran and Pakistan strategically.
SALIM AKBANI
Illinois, USA
I HAVE come to know that Karachi University has cancelled the affiliation of some of its institutes which granted degrees of BA, BCom, MBCS, BBA, MBA and PGDPA.
According to them, these institutes were not fulfilling their duties and had failed to attract students to their offered programmes. I would like to know why students have to suffer because of such activity.
After this disaffiliation, students who have already done their graduation or master’s from these institutes or who are continuing their studies have ruined a lot of time as well as money for degrees do not exist now.
So why should they suffer because of these institutes which are unable to run various degree programmes?
Is money very easy to earn?
Is study nowadays very easy so that everyone can pass?
Can they give those important years of education back to them? Would they return all the fees and formalities they asked from the students? Would they give jobs to those people who are thrown out of their employment? Is not the institute responsible for ruining the career of students?
I guess that after such an activity no one would take admission in the affiliated institutes. Perhaps no one must take a risk like that.
NAUREEN KHAN
Karachi
THE article entitled ‘Pakistan’s foreign policy — challenges and opportunities’ (Pakistan Day Supplement, March 23) by Mr Najamuddin A. Shaikh, although steeped in pessimism, makes an interesting study. Pakistan’s foreign policy today is facing formidable challenges. The most prominent of these is, of course, the state of our relations with India. Happily, with the “peace process” underway, relations between the two countries appear to be improving. However, we must exploit the opportunities, that have come our way, to persuade India to conclude a negotiated settlement of this issue which is acceptable to all the three parties concerned. Unfortunately, we do not find any discussion of this in Mr Shaikh’s article.
Similarly, a discussion of the “challenges” and “opportunities” which exist in our relations with the US, with China, with the Muslim countries of the Middle East , South-east Asia etc., and with the EU countries – all focus of major concern for us – is conspicuous by its absence. Even a discussion of the OIC, to transform it from a spineless organization, which it is today, in to an effective voice of the Muslim world, has been totally ignored. Instead, we find Mr Shaikh’s article replete with statements and views which are in some cases lacking in credibility.
The view that “Pakistan is of interest to the world not for the contribution it can make to stability regionally and globally but because of its potential to be a destabilising factor” is ridiculous, to say the least. Any one familiar with Pakistan’s contribution of its armed personnel to the UN peace keeping forces in different parts of the world, our efforts for the creation of a nuclear free zone in south Asia, the various proposals put forward, from time to time, for a peaceful resolution of the Kashmir dispute, our assistance, in kind as well as in financial terms ( in spite of our own constraints) to the government of Afghanistan, our whole-hearted cooperation with India and Iran for the passage of a pipeline through Pakistan to carry gas from Iran to India – all these measures give a lie to the assertion that Pakistan is a factor only for destabilisation in the region, as well as internationally.
We also find in the article a statement to the effect that “Its (Pakistan’s) size and location rather than being assets are liabilities.” To the best of my knowledge no responsible person has ever uttered such views. On the contrary, the president, the prime minister and the foreign minister have, time and again, said on different occasions that Pakistan’s real strength lies in its people who are hardy, hard-working and resourceful, and in its strategic location which gives it a natural access to the republics of central Asia and China, on the one hand, and to the sea-lanes connecting it to the Middle East, on the other. The importance of our strategic location is universally acknowledged. I know of no world leader or personality who has disputed this.
The key sentence in Mr. Shaikh’s article, and with which I agree whole-heartedly, is that “We must recognize that if we effectively address our domestic concerns we will acquire a voice in world councils and be welcomed as a country that contributes to stability in the region and in the wider world.”
In spite of the doomsday scenarios by our pseudo intellectuals, we are, hopefully, on the road to progress. Of course, the journey will be long and arduous, and there are bound to be a lot of ups and downs on the way, but given the hard work of our people, a sincere and a dynamic leadership and honesty of purpose and determination, we can build Pakistan into a strong and a vibrant nation, prosperous and politically stable at home, and respected abroad.
SALAHUDDIN K. LEGHARI
Lahore
HERR Hitler framed fictitious charges against an outstanding person, Field Marshal Rommel, for plotting against him. Hitler had narrowly escaped in a bomb blast. He thought that Rommel had masterminded it. Rommel’s house was surrounded by Hitler’s savage troops. He was given time enough to meet his family and then gulp the cyanide. Later, Hitler mocked a state funeral for Rommel.
Rommel was an honourable man, he didn’t want to beg for his life. He didn’t grovel at the feet of Hitler. He proudly took the cyanide. The recent happenings in Pakistan has raised the stature of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry to a new height. He has refused to bow to mischief and falsehood. He has refused to surrender and continued to fight on.
Tipu Sultan challenged the British usurpers, he was offered all worldly pleasures by the Brits but he chose to fight and never behaved like a coward.
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry surely believes in a time-tested adage: “Coward dies many a time before his death”.
SAFIR A. SIDDIQUI
Karachi
M.P BHANDARA’s otherwise excellent article titled “Quaid’s concept of Pakistan” (Dawn, March 25) omits the important reasons why the Congress, under Nehru’s leadership, backed out of the ABC plan offered by Cripp’s mission.
Under the plan, ‘A’ states comprised all Hindu-majority provinces, ‘B’ states were represented by North-Western Muslim-majority provinces including pre-partition Punjab which contained Hindu majority areas of East Punjab, Hariyana and Himachal Pradesh, while ‘C’ states included Bengal and Assam with significant Hindu-majority areas.
Under the ABC plan, ‘B’ and ‘C’ states had the option to secede from the federation after the trial period of 10 years. The Congress asked for clarification from the British government as to what would happen to the Hindu-majority areas of ‘B’ and ‘C’ states in the event the legislatures of these states opt for secession after 10 years.
The British government, under pressure from the Muslim League, clarified that the plan is fixed and no territorial change in geographical boundaries of ‘B’ and ‘C’ States would take place.
The Congress came to the conclusion that it was not fair to the unwilling non-Muslim populations of ‘B’ and ‘C’ states to be citizens of a Muslim-majority nation in the event these states decided to opt out of the federation. Hence the Congress accepted the Mountbatten formula.
MAHENDRA H. DAVE
California, USA
HAS anyone in the Karachi city government thought of running a road parallel to I.I. Chundrigar Road? This old road, no matter how well it is carpeted and maintained, will just not serve the purpose. A road running along the railway track from the PIDC Bridge to the end of I.I Chundrigar will serve the purpose well enough.
With the city station not functioning any more, the cargo traffic can be controlled by fewer tracks and the wide open space on either side of the track can be used for an elevated expressway, or for that matter a road.
This will not only shorten the distance between the city centre and the business and financial centre but will solve the traffic snarls and mess along the road. With new construction coming up in railway land like Inshaa Towers (Karachi financial towers), the situation will worsen in the coming years if we keep on relying on the four tracks of I.I Chundrigar Road.
NAZIR SIDDIQUI
Karachi
AFTER inflicting huge losses and almost crippling the airline, PIA’s chairman has been asked to resign. The writing has been on the wall from the first day when the appointment of Mr Kirmani was being questioned. But our government always insisted on non-professionals for reasons better known to it.
The responsibility for destroying a once leading airline lies with the government and they owe an explanation to the people. Merely sacking a figure head will not be sufficient.
AZIZ AHMED
Islamabad
THERE is much talk nowadays about missing persons. Several petitions have been filed by loved ones and close relatives of the missing persons in the Supreme Court and the petitions are already being heard by the SC bench.
I would like to add one more person in that list; someone who has been missing since he wrote a letter to the ‘non-functional’ CJP. Every citizen of Pakistan is very concerned about him and would like to know his whereabouts. He is the celebrity of the day Barrister Naeem Bokhari. Where has he gone missing?
W. AHMAD
Karachi
THIS is with reference to the letter by Saifullah Khalid (March 27).The two goals scored by Pakistan against India in the 1972 Olympics Games in Munich, Germany, were by Fazlur Rehman (from a penalty stroke) and Shahnaz Sheikh.
ALEEM QUREISHI
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.