Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Dawn e-paper
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker



Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather

FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Jawed Naqvi Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
DAWN - the Internet Edition


May 11, 2007 Friday Rabi-us-Sani 23, 1428


Editorial


Supreme Court guidelines
The textbook imbroglio
A contrived rally
Justice is the soul of Islam
Delhi, 1857: a bloody warning



Supreme Court guidelines


THE Supreme Court has done well to reiterate a position that already exists in law – that is, no one has the right to malign the judges, cast aspersions on their integrity and competence and make comments either on a case while it is being heard or on those who are subject-matter of the case. While issuing a series of handouts that also set out guidelines for the media, the public and the legal community on Wednesday, the apex court took cognizance of what it called “a mala fide campaign” in the print and electronic media aimed at making the Supreme Court judges “controversial”. The court especially took notice of a series of advertisements in newspapers, some “frivolous, baseless and mischievous” reports in some newspapers, and discussions in TV talk shows which amounted to scandalising the judges. The nation’s highest court reminded all sides that comments made on the presidential reference against Mr Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry while the apex court is seized of the matter and “sensational reports” in the media amounted to contempt of court.

A reminder to the lawyers and others of the need for maintaining “the dignity and sanctity” of the court was overdue given the kind of noisy scenes the Supreme Court has witnessed since the beginning of the hearing of the presidential reference. Initially, before the Supreme Judicial Council and later in the Supreme Court, the hearings have been marked by heckling, slogan-mongering and rowdyism which distracted from the court’s dignity. The guidelines thus restrict entry into the courtroom to lawyers, court officials and media persons through entry passes. It is a matter of regret that the Supreme Court should have been constrained to remind everybody, including the legal community, of the basic rules of conduct in a court. While sections of the media must accept part of the blame for overstepping the limits of fair reporting, the legal community too has not in all cases behaved with the circumspection expected of it. There is no doubt that the government’s treatment of the Chief Justice was a great provocation to the legal fraternity, but regrettably some lawyers’ associations let the political parties use the occasion for their own purposes. In fact, some bar associations appealed to the political parties to join them in strikes and rallies, forgetting that some of the parties, which responded to their call, had no qualms about ignoring, even humiliating the judiciary when they were in power. One could understand the lawyers inviting Mr Chaudhry to address their bar associations, but the kind of processions and motorcades one has witnessed and the big show planned for Karachi on Saturday, seem to detract from the sobriety of the issue.

As for the government’s plea that the presidential reference should not be politicised, it has itself thoroughly politicised it. The ban on ministers not to appear on TV talk shows is evidently an afterthought. The true indication of the politicisation of the Chief Justice case is the situation in Karachi where the rival sides are planning two rallies for Saturday. If the rule of law and the people’s interests were dear to them, one or the other should have had the good sense and decency to defer or advance the date of its rally. Now matters are coming to a head and one only hopes that there will be no violence in the nation’s biggest city tomorrow.

Top



The textbook imbroglio


REPORTS about the delay in the printing of textbooks in Sindh are a cause for serious concern, notwithstanding the Sindh Textbook Board’s claim of having made ‘extraordinary’ efforts to work on a war footing. The main concern is about 13 newly developed books. If they are rushed through to meet the deadline, one cannot be certain that they will be error-free as one would expect them to be. At least six of the new titles are in English and extra care will be needed to ensure that their quality does not suffer on account of proof reading and syntactical errors that have traditionally been the hallmark of the books published by the STB. If the board has failed to do its duty with a measure of responsibility until now, there is no certainty that it will do better this time. Hence, some contingency planning would be in order. Another point of serious worry is the cavalier manner in which the education sector is being treated in Pakistan generally and in Sindh particularly. The nation was promised a revised education policy for the preparation of which a review team was set up under the chairmanship of Mr Javed Hassan Aly. But even before the comprehensive consultation process undertaken by Mr Aly was completed, the federal education minister took objection to his proposals saying that they should not run counter to the policy statements the minister had been making from time to time. A key issue of contention was the language component of the policy-to-be. It seeks to introduce English as a language from class one and as the medium of instruction for science and mathematics from class three.

Following a similar ad hoc approach, the Sindh education department has taken the leap and is introducing the required books in English from August 2007. Even without going into the pros and cons of the language policy, one can anticipate practical problems that will be created by this hasty action. From where will the education department get teachers who can teach in English? Lacking proficiency in the language, teachers’ performance will slip further down and education will suffer further.

Top



A contrived rally


IT would seem that the ruling PML is incapable of holding a large rally on its own. Apart from the propriety of using official resources for a party event, the heavy reliance on government machinery for tomorrow’s pro-Musharraf rally in Islamabad raises serious doubts about the PML’s organisational ability as well as its popularity. Leaving nothing to the vagaries of public support, party leaders have directed ministries and departments to ensure maximum turnout. Union councils in Rawalpindi and nearby districts have received similar orders, and it can only be assumed that all routine work at these UCs will come to a halt on May 12 — the day lawyers in Karachi are planning to welcome the Chief Justice of Pakistan. Charged with providing shade and water to the participants, the Capital Development Authority is busy erecting canopies at the venue of the president’s address. In sharp contrast to the directives issued for pro-CJP events, the police and local administrations have been told not to hinder the movement of people arriving from Punjab and the NWFP.

The one silver lining is that the police have apparently been asked not to impound vehicles because the PML will bear all transport-related charges for the rally. What actually happens on the day, however, remains to be seen. There should be no repeat of what happened in the build-up to President Musharraf’s May 5 public rally in Naukot, Tharparkar. On that occasion, local and inter-city transport took a severe hit as the police impounded hundreds of buses, coaches and other private vehicles across lower Sindh, including Karachi. No compensation was paid to the owners, travellers suffered immense hardship and some parts of the province faced food shortages because vegetables, meat and milk could not be transported. Such shocking tactics only alienate the people from the government.

Top



Justice is the soul of Islam


By Bilal Ahmed Malik

FRIDAY FEATURE


JUSTICE is the foundation of Islam. Islamic social order is unique because justice is its core. We are directed by the Holy Quran to act justly with everyone -- Muslims, non-Muslims and even with their relatives as well as with the orphans and the poor.

“We have sent down thee with the book in truth, that thou might judge between the people by that which Allah has shown thee, so do not be an advocate for those who betray their trust”, (4:105).

“We have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you might get to know one another. The noblest of you in Allah’s sight is the most righteous of you. Allah is wise and all-knowing (49:13).”

Islam explicitly emphasises that its economic, political and social order be based on justice and calls upon those who are in authority to augment and promote the cause of justice in their administrative and executive spheres.

Islam stands for justice and equitable conduct enjoined especially on those believers who are in a position of authority. The Holy Quran and the Sunnah give us a methodology for the realisation of justice in our life. The Holy Quran and the Sunnah aim at the good of human beings and since they are a dynamic process for the evolution of human society, they provide a clear plan for achieving the goal of justice.

The Quranic concept of justice guarantees harmonious and balanced opportunities of simultaneous development individually as well as collectively. Socialism pursues equality but deprives man of his personal freedom, whereas capitalism lays stress on the ideals of freedom but deprives man of his right to equality.

The Holy Prophet administered the affairs of the state in accordance with the injunctions contained in the Holy Quran. According to the principles of Islamic polity, equality does not mean that all persons are equal in all respects. The sole criterion for giving preference is piety. Justice is the soul of Islamic state and it should be impartial. High and low, prince and peasant, white and black stand equal. The Holy Quran enjoins the Muslims to decide a case on the basis of equity, justice and truthful testimony.

On the occasion of the final pilgrimage, the Prophet delivered his last sermon. One of the things he said is recorded in these words:

“O people listen carefully, your Lord is one Lord, and there is no doubt about it. Your ancestor is one ancestor, there is no doubt about it. Listen well to my words: no Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, and no non-Arab is superior to an Arab. No black is superior to a brown or red, and no red superior to any black. If there is any superiority in anyone it is due to his God-fearing qualities. Have I conveyed the message?’ the Prophet asked the people. The people answered from all corners, `Indeed so! God be witness.”

Islam clearly insists and demands that all officials of the Islamic state, whether they be the head or an ordinary employee, are equal in the eyes of the law. None of them is above the law or can claim immunity. Even an ordinary citizen has the right to put forward a claim or file a legal complaint against the highest executive of the country.

Justice means defence of the rights of individuals with courage and conviction. Weak officers have very little chance of performing their duties justly. The following verses shed light on this point.

“O ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (than ye are). So follow not passion lest ye lapse or

fall away, then lo! Allah is ever informed of what ye do.” (4:135).

`O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of a people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo Allah is informed of what ye do. (5:8).

Establishment of justice implies restoration of the right of the person who is entitled to it and depriving the person of the right to which he is not entitled. The Holy Quran lays down the supremacy of justice, as will be evident from the following verse: “Say: My Lord has commanded (you) to do justice…” (7:29).

The ideal of justice that the Holy Quran contemplates is one wherein a Muslim would be free and encouraged to live a moral life to perform his obligations strictly in accordance with the priorities fixed by Allah. It is, therefore, inherent in the very nature of Islam that its followers should find a state based on justice as envisioned in the Holy Quran.

Islam places enormous responsibilities on Muslims and enjoins them to uphold the cause of justice. The Holy Quran says:

“Surely, We have sent down the Book to you with the truth, so that you may do justice between men in the light of that which Allah has enlightened you. And do not be an advocate for the dishonest.”

At another place, Allah says:

“O you, who believe, stand firmly for justice, against yourself or your parents or your near relations – whether he is rich or poor – Allah has better right over them both.” (4:35).

It is therefore incumbent on every Muslim to check all wrong doings and to leave no stone unturned in eradicating the root cause of injustice and oppression in whatever form it is found so that society could be purged of oppression and the humanity may enjoy the fruit of justice irrespective of racial discrimination, regional difference and distinction of colour.

Thus the concept of justice guides mankind to the path of universal peace and prosperity. Justice and to be just is the greatest teaching of Islam. There is no distinction between the rich and the poor, high or low, as Allah has ordained in the Holy Quran.

Top



Delhi, 1857: a bloody warning


By William Dalrymple

SOON after dawn on May 11, 1857, 150 years ago this week, the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was saying his morning prayers in his oratory overlooking the river Jumna when he saw a cloud of dust rising on the far side of the river. Minutes later, he was able to see its cause: 300 East India Company cavalrymen charging wildly towards his palace.

The troops had ridden overnight from Meerut, where they had turned their guns on their British officers, and had come to Delhi to ask the emperor to give his blessing to their mutiny. As a letter sent out by the rebels' leaders subsequently put it: "The English are people who overthrow all religions ... As the English are the common enemy of both [Hindus and Muslims, we] should unite in their slaughter ... By this alone will the lives and faiths of both be saved."

The sepoys entered Delhi, massacred every Christian man, woman and child they could find and declared the 82-year-old emperor to be their leader. Before long the insurgency had snowballed into the largest and bloodiest anticolonial revolt against any European empire in the 19th century.

Of the 139,000 sepoys of the Bengal army, all but 7,796 turned against the British. In many places the sepoys were supported by a widespread civilian rebellion.

There is much about British imperial adventures in the east at this time, and the massive insurgency it provoked, which is uneasily familiar to us today. The British had been trading in India since the early 17th century. But the commercial relationship changed towards the end of the 18th, as a new group of conservatives came to power in London, determined to make Britain the sole global power.

Lord Wellesley, the brother of the Duke of Wellington and governor general in India from 1798 to 1805, called his new approach the Forward Policy. But it was in effect a project for a new British century.

Wellesley made it clear he would not tolerate any European rivals, especially the French, and planned to remove any hostile Muslim regimes that might presume to resist the west's growing might.

The Forward Policy soon developed an evangelical flavour. The new conservatives wished to impose not only British laws but also western values on India. The country would be not only ruled but redeemed. Local laws which offended Christian sensibilities were abrogated - the burning of widows, for instance, was banned. One of the East India Company directors, Charles Grant, spoke for many when he wrote of how he believed providence had brought the British to India for a higher purpose: "Is it not necessary to conclude that our Asiatic territories were given to us, not merely that we draw a profit from them, but that we might diffuse among their inhabitants, long sunk in darkness, the light of Truth?"

The British progressed from removing threatening Muslim rulers to annexing even the most pliant Islamic states. In February 1856 they marched into Avadh, also known by the British as Oudh.

To support the annexation, a "dodgy dossier" was produced before parliament, so full of distortions and exaggerations that one British official who had been involved in the operation described the parliamentary blue book (or paper) on Oudh as "a fiction of official penmanship, [an] Oriental romance" that was refuted "by one simple and obstinate fact", that the conquered people of Avadh clearly "preferred the slandered regime" of the Nawab "to the grasping but rose-coloured government of the company".

The reaction to this came with the great mutiny, or as it is called in India, the first war of independence. Though it reflected many deeply held political and economic grievances, particularly the feeling that the heathen foreigners were interfering with a part of the world to which they were alien, the uprising was consistently articulated as a defensive action against the inroads missionaries and their ideas were making in India, combined with a generalised fight for freedom from western occupation.

Although the great majority of the sepoys were Hindus, there are many echoes of the Islamic insurgencies the US fights today in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Delhi a flag of jihad was raised in the principal mosque, and many of the resistance fighters described themselves as mujahideen or jihadis. There was even a regiment of "suicide ghazis" who vowed to fight until they met death.

Events reached a climax on September 14 1857, when British forces attacked the besieged city. They proceeded to massacre not only the rebel sepoys and jihadis, but also the ordinary citizens of the Mughal capital. In one neighbourhood alone, Kucha Chelan, 1,400 unarmed citizens were cut down. Delhi, a sophisticated city of half a million souls, was left an empty ruin.

The emperor was put on trial and charged, quite inaccurately, with being behind a Muslim conspiracy to subvert the empire stretching from Mecca and Iran to Delhi's Red Fort. Contrary to evidence that the uprising broke out first among the overwhelmingly Hindu sepoys, the prosecutor argued that "to Musalman intrigues and Mahommedan conspiracy we may mainly attribute the dreadful calamities of 1857". Like some of the ideas propelling recent adventures in the east, this was a ridiculous and bigoted oversimplification of a more complex reality.

For, as today, western politicians found it easier to blame "Muslim fanaticism" for the bloodshed they had unleashed than to examine the effects of their own foreign policies. Western politicians were apt to cast their opponents in the role of "incarnate fiends", conflating armed resistance to invasion and occupation with "pure evil".

Yet the lessons of 1857 are very clear. No one likes people of a different faith conquering them, or force-feeding them improving ideas at the point of a bayonet. The British in 1857 discovered what the US and Israel are learning now, that nothing so easily radicalises a people against them, or so undermines the moderate aspect of Islam, as aggressive western intrusion in the east.

The histories of Islamic fundamentalism and western imperialism have, after all, long been closely and dangerously intertwined.

In a curious but very concrete way, the fundamentalists of all three Abrahamic faiths have always needed each other to reinforce each other's prejudices and hatreds. The venom of one provides the lifeblood of the others. –Dawn/Guardian Service

The writer’s “The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857”, has just been published in paperback by Bloomsbury

Top



Top of Page





Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2007