Stronger ties with Russia

THE Russian prime minister’s visit to Pakistan is an event to be taken note of. As has been conventionally the case, Russia-Pakistan relations have to be seen not just in the bilateral context; they assume greater importance against the backdrop of regional developments in South Asia and the global geopolitical scenario. Since 1968 when we had the last visit by a prime minister from Moscow — namely Alexei Kosygin — much water has flowed down the Indus. There has been a reversal in the ebb in relations between the two countries that was witnessed during the East Pakistan crisis in 1971 and later in the 1980s when Soviet troops intervened in Afghanistan. But the two countries have yet to forge strong political and socio-economic bonds that would make an impact on the foreign policy of Pakistan. A small step in that direction was taken on Thursday with the signing of several bilateral agreements in Islamabad, such as the accord on cooperation in combating human trafficking and smuggling of drugs, the MOUs on cooperation in the upgradation of Pakistan Railways, and the agreement on the promotion of educational, cultural and scientific exchanges. More significantly, the two sides agreed on the need to reactivate their intergovernmental commission which is the most effective way of expanding bilateral ties.

The important aspect of this diplomatic exercise was that prime ministers Mikhail Fradkov and Shaukat Aziz recognised the significance of Russia-Pakistan relations in the global context, especially the war against terror in which Islamabad is a key partner of the US. Linked to it is the international politics of South Asia in which India and Pakistan are the main players. With the break-up of the USSR in 1991 and the far-reaching changes that have come about in international relations in the wake of 9/11 and the Bush administration’s hegemonistic approach, Third World states have been left in a vulnerable position — at the mercy of a superpower determined to wreak havoc on any country that does not toe its line. What is now being seen as the resurgence of Russia after more than a decade of economic depression, strategic weakening and political volatility is a major development in international politics of the 21st century. Mr Fradkov’s statements in Islamabad clearly indicated Russia’s desire to build a “concrete and long-standing partnership” with Pakistan.

This can help Pakistan in many ways. For instance, Russia has adopted an independent line vis-à-vis Iran on the nuclear issue. It does not see eye to eye with Washington on the IPI project either. Its ties with New Delhi have traditionally been cordial. All this translates into new openings for Pakistan. The government should use this opportunity to loosen the American apron strings to which it has tied itself. Pakistan should also enlist Russia’s cooperation and good offices in strengthening its position in South Asia, especially in promoting détente with India. With China also rising as a power to be reckoned with on the world stage, the pattern of global power should change. For Pakistan this provides a new opening. Its immediate concern is the struggle it has to wage against the Islamist militants whose shadow is now lengthening in the country. By distancing itself from America without weakening its capability to counter terrorism on its own soil, Islamabad can reduce the disadvantage it suffers at present because of its being overly dependent on the US.

Increasing ‘disappearances’

WHILE it is difficult to verify the claim of the Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz that more than 7,000 Baloch and Sindhi nationalists have been arbitrarily detained by the intelligence agencies, there is no doubt that the figure for involuntary disappearances in the country runs into the hundreds if not more. HRCP office-bearers recently noted that there had been no let-up in the number of such cases and that if some people were released by the agencies, many others were whisked away and held in custody. Unfortunately, in the midst of the current judicial crisis, and now the Lal Masjid episode, this issue is in danger of losing its urgency. This simply must not be allowed to happen. It affects hundreds of families, many of whom have actively tried to ascertain the whereabouts of missing relatives. Their prolonged agony is not the only reason for taking action; the whole concept of rule of law and citizens’ liberty becomes meaningless when the state ignores fundamental freedoms and allows its agencies to seize suspected militants and nationalists at will and make them ‘disappear’. The question is: if the defence ministry’s claim that it has no “operational control” over the agencies that are supposed to report to it is correct, then who has? It is the absence of any kind of supervision that has emboldened the intelligence services to resort to large-scale abuse of their power and authority.

The credibility of the government on this score has reached an all-time low. Few would be willing to buy Gen Musharraf’s and Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao’s assurances that the agencies have nothing to do with the ‘disappeared’ who, they say, are actually being recruited by extremist religious organisations. In fact, in the list of missing persons submitted by the HRCP to the Supreme Court, the majority are political activists. Moreover, the harrowing accounts of detention by those fortunate enough to have been released by the agencies point to the latter’s involvement. In this scenario, the pressure on the government to release information on the whereabouts of the missing and to rein in the relevant agencies must not be allowed to dwindle.

Violence in Lyari again

ANOTHER life was lost on Thursday in the ongoing gang wars in Lyari. This time a young footballer was killed in the latest crime wave that has gripped this troubled locality which has been in a state of fear for over a decade. At least two major gangs fight it out between themselves while hapless residents fall prey to their violence and law enforcement agencies look the other way. Last month a two-and-a-half-year-old girl was injured when a hand grenade exploded in her home while an eight-year-old boy had died a day earlier; both were victims of someone else’s war. As a result, people have lost faith in all institutions, particularly the police whom they believe to be involved in crime themselves. This was proved true last month when the new Lyari Town Police Officer, Pir Farid Jan Sarhandi, said that up to 70 per cent of the Lyari police were in cahoots with the gangs. This explains the police’s inability to deal with the situation as many of their own men are aiding the criminals. Mr Sarhandi said that the police’s new strategy was to recruit more personnel from outside Lyari as well as work with the community to nab the criminals. If the community can be persuaded to work with the police without fear of reprisal, better results might be forthcoming. But high-level police officials must ensure that an honest police force is at work in Lyari.

People living in Lyari, who are plagued by a host of civic problems, particularly water scarcity, do not deserve to be living in constant fear. No government has ever addressed the frequent breakdown of law and order in Lyari with the seriousness it deserves. That must now change before more lives are lost in senseless violence.

Islam and secularism

ONE finds a raging debate about which polity Pakistan should adopt — secular or religious – taking place in the print and electronic media off and on. The exponents of either viewpoint give forceful arguments and precedents from history to support their contentions. But on giving deep thought to this discussion, it becomes evident that there is no clash between the two.

Secularism should not be termed non-religious polity. It only means that in the functioning of the state, religious scholars, clergy or saints should not play any role. Their role is to educate the Ummah and to work for transforming the individuals from illiteracy, ignorance, immorality, extremism, terrorism, conservatism into civilized, enlightened, peace-loving and God fearing human beings. If the Ummah is educated and enlightened, those at the helm of affairs would automatically rise from the same dignified people. Thus, society would progress because of justice, morality and rule of law.

For ascertaining the type of government we should have, we should look towards the Holy Prophet (PBUH) because the Quran says: “Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) (33-21)”

The Holy Prophet was the last and ultimate in the series of the prophets. His main objective, as enunciated by the Holy Quran in an unequivocal terms, is that “it is He who has sent amongst the unlettered a Messenger from among themselves to rehearse to them his signs, to sanctify them and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom” (32:2). The Prophet spent thirteen years in Makkah and then ten years in Madinah after attaining prophethood to preach only spiritual value of Islam. He put in maximum efforts to enforce good and to forbid evil.

All the mandatory ‘Ibadat’ i.e. prayers, Hajj & fasting lead to spiritual growth. These are not to be enforced coercively but through love and example. If done otherwise they lose their moral value. ‘Jihad’ is also fight against personal evils, selfishness and egoism.

The Holy Quran is full of emphasis on acquiring knowledge. The very first word in the first revelation in the cave of Hira is ‘Read.’ The special prayer taught to the Holy Prophet is “O Lord, advance me in knowledge” (20-11-114). The Quran has scores of such phrases as wisdom, knowledge, reflection and understanding. In “Surah Zunar”, the Quran says “Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know?” (39-9) There are a number of traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) which point to the extreme importance of knowledge. One is referring only two of his Ahadith on this topic:

“Acquire knowledge from cradle to grave”

“He who leaves his home in search of knowledge walks in the path of Allah till he returns”

There is no concrete evidence in the Quran or in the Sunnah which leads us to understand that the Prophet (PBUH) ever made conscious effort to acquire political power. He migrated to Yathrib not to found any Islamic state. He went there to protect himself and his Companions from the excessive persecution from Makkans and to spread the word of Allah among receptive Yathribites. The agreement, known as “Meethaq-e-Madinah” signed by different tribes and communities viz. Jews, Muslims and Pagans was not a government document but an arrangement for peaceful and harmonious coexistence among the communities.

According to its terms, all the communities were to enjoy equal rights including full freedom of religion. They were also to jointly work for the protection of Madinah from external foes. They were signified as members of a single community. This was the natural outcome of the Quranic Declaration about the Holy Prophet (PBUH) which says that “O men! I am sent to you all as the Messenger of Allah” (7-158).

One does not find any Hadith in which the Prophet had declared that he had been sent to establish an Islamic state headed by himself. He was “Rahmat-ul-lil-Alamin”, Mercy for the worlds and not the ruler. He did not bring any political system. In Madinah, he did not announce any Islamic state headed by himself. He was the messenger of Allah from the beginning to the end and for the eternity.

The Quran does not specify any political system to be adopted by the faithful. It only recommends mutual consultations on all matters of public interest. This is also the reason why the Prophet did not specifically nominate his successor. After his passing away to the eternal abode, he was succeeded by four of his blessed companions.

They are known as the guided caliphs. Everybody knows that each one of them rose to the high podium through different methods. The first one by consensus, the second one by nomination, the third one by consultation and the fourth one by overwhelming support.

Although these caliphs were pious companions and directly educated and disciplined by the Holy Prophet, dissensions cropped up in the Ummah which led to its fragmentation. It was so because they were supposed to be the heads of the Islamic state enjoying political power although they had designated themselves, as “Amir-ul-Momineen” i.e. the Head of the faithful and not the rulers.

On the contrary, those pious companions who remained aloof from the administration like Hazrat Bilal, Hazrat Abuzar, Hazrat Owais Qarni and thousand others commanded universal respect. History bears testimony to the fact that there continued shedding of the blood in the power struggle in the Muslim Ummah as our philosopher poet Allama Iqbal has depicted in his poems. Islam reached the nook and corner of the world not by swords of the warriors and autocratic rulers but by the ‘Sufis’, saints and the non-political ulema and scholars. The latter spoke the language of love and brotherhood. Had the rulers played any part in the propagation of Islam, the whole of the subcontinent or Spain would have embraced this last religion in their hundreds of years’ rule.

Pakistan came into being on the basis of the two-nation theory. It was a slogan to unite a piece of land in the subcontinent to protect the Muslims from the oppressive attitude of the majority. It was also intended that the Muslims would be able to observe their religious obligations without any hindrance or fear. This slogan touched the cords of emotions of the Muslims. They whole-heartedly supported the demand without thinking that it would not be established in the province where Muslims are in minority.

However, under the leadership of the Quaid-i-Azam and the banner of the Muslim League, Pakistan emerged on the map of the world. The Quaid-i-Azam at the very outset declared on August 11, 1947, that the raison d’etre of this new country is that there would be no distinction in this free land on the basis of religion, caste or ethnicity. This was absolutely necessary because if a member of the minority community ever thinks that he/she is being looked down upon, his loyalty to the state would weaken at that very moment.

We feel very proud to think that our country is Islamic, our capital is Islamabad and that head of our state is a Muslim. But how far our deeds are Islamic. Islam has been sustained for countries by inner will of the Muslims and their spiritual force. It certainly makes no sense to assert that Islam and political power go together. The ulema and the scholars should stay away from the notion of capturing power. When they make mistakes as human beings, Islam is cursed. The Holy Prophet had once said that the ulema and religious scholars of His Ummah were like prophets of Bani-Israel. They should act in a prophetic manner and strive for the spiritual uplift of the Ummah.

To conclude, one would like to quote from an interview of Sayyid Hussain Khameini, grandson of the late Imam Ayatullah Khomeini in favour of secularism. In this interview published in International Herald Tribune on August 11, 2003, he observed: “If we separate religion from the state, that would be the end of despotism and it would liberate religion as well as human being. The Islamic religion has been hijacked for 14 centuries by heads of the state.”

Trade offensive

AFTER six years of relying on quiet diplomacy to resolve trade issues with China, the Bush administration has abruptly shifted to a more aggressive strategy. On Tuesday the US trade representative filed two complaints at the World Trade Organisation in Geneva, both related to the sale of American books, music and films.

That action followed by less than two weeks a Commerce Department decision to impose tariffs on imports of Chinese paper. And that followed another WTO case filed in February, which charged China with providing illegal incentives to exporters.

The flurry of punches appears intended to force some Chinese concessions on long-standing disputes, to stave off more drastic measures by Congress and to persuade Democrats to compromise with the administration on other trade issues -- notably pending free-trade agreements with South Korea and three Latin American countries. The price is some considerable bending of the administration's professed free-trade principles and the risk of a Chinese backlash that could affect not only trade relations but cooperation on strategic issues such as North Korea's nuclear program. It might be worth it if the hoped-for payoff came through. History and present politics suggest it won’t.

The most substantive and least unprincipled of the administration's measures are the intellectual property cases filed Tuesday. China is the world's worst offender when it comes to the illegal copying of American DVDs; Hollywood estimates that it lost $244 million to piracy there in 2005.

By filing complaints with the WTO, the United States is employing an established multilateral mechanism that will allow for negotiations and a lengthy adjustment period by China if it loses the case. The question is one of effectiveness: The main problem is not Chinese law but the enforcement of it. It's doubtful that a WTO case will cause Chinese police to become more aggressive or successful in shutting down the counterfeiters.

The paper tariff addresses a much smaller problem -- total exports of Chinese glossy paper to the United States are equal to one-tenth of 1 percent of China's contribution to the U.S. trade deficit -- and is considerably harder to justify. Acting unilaterally, the administration set aside a 20-year-old policy of not attempting to target subsidies in state-run economies such as China's.

Meanwhile, by giving in to the pressure of U.S. paper producers, the administration opened the way for a parade of copycat complaints by steel manufacturers and others. If they are not resisted, the result will certainly be a damaging trade war, with most of the costs paid by US consumers.

The administration's embrace of trade confrontation with China accompanies multiple concessions to congressional Democrats on labour and environmental provisions of the pending free-trade agreements.

— The Washington Post