|
|
| May 18, 2007 | Friday | Jamadi-ul-Awwal 01, 1428 |
Uncared for antiquities
The bane of mines
Social justice in Islam
Controversial painting
WHO is to be believed when various individuals in positions of authority make contradictory statements on sensitive issues? For his part, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz commends the police and the Rangers for doing a “good job” in containing violence in Karachi on May 12. The Sindh governor too thinks that but for the law enforcement agencies’ good performance, the situation could have been much worse – as if 40 lives were not enough of a massacre. On the other hand, we have Moinuddin Haider, the chairperson of the National Public Safety Commission (a body that has been constituted under the police reforms to oversee the working of the police), saying that he has taken serious notice of the failure of the police to stop the violence in the city last Saturday. Mr Haider has even asked the Sindh government to carry out a probe into the ‘security lapses’. A former inspector-general of police, Afzal Shigri, has confirmed the ‘inaction’ of the police on that critical day. Meanwhile, some representatives of the Bar Association have moved the Sindh High Court against government functionaries for their failure to provide effective security to the Chief Justice on that fateful day when he was to address the lawyers in Karachi. These contradictory statements only reflect the deep polarisation that grips our society today. As a result perceptions are determined by self-righteousness on the one hand and personal and political affiliations on the other.
But thanks to the emergence of the independent television channels, no one would look at the events of May 12 through the jaundiced eyes of one section or another. Not only have precious lives been lost, the deep rifts have been opened between different sections of Karachi’s multiethnic society and will take a long time to heal. The first step towards this healing process, which is essential if Karachi is not to slide back into the violence and target killings reminiscent of the late eighties and early nineties, is to pin responsibility for last Saturday’s tragedy and take action against those found to have shirked their duty or committed excesses. The importance of this cannot be over-emphasised since it has far-reaching political implications. Refusing to investigate the events of May 12 would make it plain that for political reasons the government is inclined to condone the killings or has skeletons to hide in its cupboard. Moreover, if security lapses are not to recur in future, it is important that the matter be thoroughly investigated as pointed out by the NPSC chairperson.
Only a high-level judicial inquiry will carry credibility. Thus alone will all affected parties be reassured and believe that the probe is honest and impartial. With so much having been witnessed on television, the absence or inaction of the police can hardly be denied. The government leaders are only rubbing salt into people’s wounds by praising the role of the police on May 12. This will only create a backlash for the government. Such a possibility has to be avoided. And it is not just the role – rather the apathy – of the police that needs to be investigated. The mandate of the judicial inquiry body should also extend to the role of the government of Sindh in relation to its handling of all aspects of the situation on the occasion of the arrival of the Chief Justice in Karachi.
PAKISTAN’s cultural treasures make the country a prime target for artefact thieves. While most stolen relics are smuggled out of the country for profit, some thefts are organised at the behest of local collectors who wish to add ‘protected’ antiquities to their private galleries. Instead of taking pride of place in public museums where everyone can see them, some of our most valuable relics can be found adorning the living rooms of the rich and famous. Vastly influential and ostensibly respectable people are involved in both types of theft. The small fry such as site watchmen and museum chowkidars are occasionally nabbed but the masterminds are seldom caught. Even when shipments of antiquities are seized by the customs authorities, the smugglers themselves are not arrested and produced in court. In November last year, for example, a huge consignment of some 625 relics worth millions of dollars was intercepted at Port Qasim en route to Sharjah. While the seizure itself was made public, the names of those behind the shipment were never disclosed. Like other foiled smuggling attempts, this incident too soon faded from public memory.
Theft occurs at poorly-guarded archaeological sites as well as at museums where greater vigilance is expected. So far, priceless artefacts have disappeared from ostensibly secure venues such as the National Museum in Karachi, the Archaeological Museum in Moenjodaro, the Badshahi mosque gallery and the Lahore Fort. It is obvious that these robberies cannot be pulled off without inside help. The paucity of resources available to the archaeology department — and the commitment of some of its officials — is clearly a factor in antiquities theft and this is an area that needs urgent attention. The customs authorities with their acts of omission and commission are also to blame. In a welcome move, the American government recently returned artefacts which had been smuggled out of Pakistan and subsequently seized at a US port. Given the negligence at our museums, however, there is every likelihood that some of these relics many find their way out of the country yet again. This cannot be allowed to happen. The antiquities trade must be halted in its tracks.
THE serious injuries sustained by yet another victim of a landmine explosion in Balochistan highlights the dangers of a terrain containing unexploded devices intended to kill and maim. While it is true that insurgents are responsible for planting a large number of mines to deter security forces and that many unexploded devices in the tribal areas are a carryover from the days of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, one cannot absolve the government of the blame. In shoring up its defences along the Indo-Pakistan border and inclined to do the same along the porous frontier with Afghanistan, Islamabad is, in fact, disregarding humanitarian factors that make the very idea of laying mines a dangerous proposition. This is especially so at a time when 155 countries, in recognition of the tragic consequences of mining territories, have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. Unfortunately, Pakistan is not among them, and mines continue to take their toll on the civilian population.
In fact, it is a matter of shame that Pakistan should be among a handful of countries manufacturing landmines. It is believed to have stockpiled at least six million of these lethal devices, and cites security reasons for not signing the Mine Ban Treaty. Neither has the government done anything to rehabilitate the victims — a large number of whom are children — of mine explosions. Access to hospitals is difficult in many remote areas where the terrain is strewn with these devices, and the cost of prosthetic limbs is high. Many victims were also breadwinners, and their inability to work anymore has left their families destitute. Security considerations should not be allowed to take precedence over humanitarian concerns, and the government should review options for tighter border control without letting these cause loss of life and limb of the civilian population living near mined areas.
ISLAM gave a befitting response to the challenges of the times when it emerged in the 6th century in Arabian Peninsula as a winning philosophy meeting the demands of the intellectual and political landscape of the world. But now the proponents of Islam lack courage to face the new situation.
Prior to the advent of Islam the political system that prevailed in the neighbouring areas was based on hereditary monarchy wherein common people had no rights and no say in the affairs of the state. When Islam emerged, it declared that:
· The affairs of the believers shall be settled by mutual consultation.
· The opinion of the majority shall prevail.
· It is binding on believers to accept the decision of the majority.
· First consult them and seek their counsel in matters in general. And when you come to a decision (azm), place trust in God alone.
It is reported by Hazrat Ali (R.A) that when Prophet Muhammad (SAAW) was asked about the meaning of ‘azm’, he said “azm is to consult the ‘people of opinion’ and then to accept their advice.” The Prophet himself, with all his absolute and unmatched wisdom and divine guidance, sought the advice of his companions on every occasion. He consulted them and listened to their views and counsels. Abu Hurairah reported that he never saw anyone who consulted his companions more than Prophet Muhammad (SAAW).
This political thinking based on consultation brought about a popular revolution in the world. The Persian and the Roman Empires crumbled down and were swept away by the tidal wave of this popular revolution. Hereditary dynasties were replaced by slaves’ rule. The history witnessed accountability of the Caliphs in public.
What happened after that? The Muslims treaded the path of the Romans and the Persians and adopted their traditions and customs and again set up hereditary dynasties. The revolutionary and democratic spirit of Islam died out very soon. The Muslim kings declared that they were the shadows of God (Zil-lullah) on earth.
They declared that the rulers are divinely appointed. Unfortunately we find in most of the books of our religious scholars the discussion about the pivotal role of Ameer (ruler) instead of the people. The obedience to Ameer is considered binding on the people. Shura (Parliament) can only advise and the Ameer is not bound by their counsel and advice.
This flawed and un-Islamic political doctrine had serious repercussions on our religio-political life. I quote just one example from history. Deen-i-Ilahi was formulated by the great scholars of the time — Mullah Mubarak and his two legendary sons, Abul Fazl and Faizi. About 450 ulema of the time prepared a formal document that delegated powers to Emperor Akbar and made obedience to the King binding on the public.
This gave birth to a new heretic religion i.e. Deen-i-Ilahi. The absolute monarchy gave rise to political repression in the Muslim world.
Islam denounced and fought against human bondage of the day in all its forms and manifestations. It took practical steps to minimise and abolish this scourge from the face of the earth. It taught humanity the lesson of freedom. Let us recall historic statement of Hazrat Umar: “The mothers have given birth to free men.
Why do you enslave them?” It is a more meaningful and comprehensive statement than that of a great philosopher and political thinker—Rousseau: “Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains.” Rousseau simply stated the fact whereas Umar denounced slavery and declared freedom, that too one thousand years before Rousseau. It was a crusade not only against physical slavery but also for a jihad against all forms and manifestation of slavery.
This doctrine was very poetically stated by the envoy of Sa’ad Ibn Waqas in the court of the Persian Emperor: “We want to rid man of man’s domination so that people are slaves of none but Allah.” Complete submission and surrender to Allah protects humanity from all forms of slavery.
The process and institution of human bondage and enslavement has a far-reaching impact on society. It is all against human dignity and honour. In slavery, the area of human activity shrinks. In freedom, man can utilise its capabilities to the fullest and his creative faculties come into play.
Our emperors and kings had no regard for human dignity and honour. They began enslaving their subjects physically and intellectually. Whoever raised his voice against this repression and injustice was put behind the bars or killed. Imam Husain, Zaid Nafs-i-Zakia, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Imam Sarakhsi and Ahmad Sirhandi suffered for speaking the truth, the truth that was unpalatable and inconvenient for the rulers of the day.
Islam declared and upheld justice and equity against injustice, repression and all kinds of exploitation in society. Plato once remarked: “Justice is virtue and virtue is justice”. But the Quran is on a higher plane when it declares that all prophets and divine books sent by Allah to guide humankind were, in fact, to establish justice.
The Quran says: “We have surely sent Apostles with clear signs, and the Book and the balance, so that the people may stand by justice.” Allah has not sent His Prophets and divine books like Old Testament, New Testament and the Quran to establish prayers (Salah), fasting (saum), charity (Zakah) and pilgrimage (Hajj) but to administer justice and create a society that is based on the principles of social justice and equity.
In Islamic philosophy, the concept of justice is more comprehensive than in any other system. The Muslim scholars have studied and discussed injustice (Zulm) from different angles. According to them, ‘Zulm is to put a thing in a wrong place’ and ‘Adl’ is to put it in its right place’.
These very comprehensive definitions of ‘Adl’ and ‘Zulm’ cover all aspects of human life. The early Islamic society was based on justice in all its forms — social, political and economic. Islam established a balance between rights and responsibilities; between individualism and collective life and between citizens and the state.
Later on, vicious political thinking and evil ambitions began to prevail over justice and fairness. Political and social exploitation started. The Muslims forgot the lofty lessons of justice and equity and adopted ‘Zulm’ (injustice and repression) in all its forms.
Islam championed the rights of the citizens. It declared that man is entitled to all social, political and economic rights because he is the best and noblest creation, the crown of creations. These rights are inherent in human dignity and are not bestowed upon by any king or any other authority. Prophet Muhammad (SAW), for the first time in the history of humankind, gave a clear and concise Charter of Human Rights. We can claim with certainty that the Movement of Human Rights started from this historic declaration on the eve of the last pilgrimage.
The Human Rights Movement still continues to get guidance from this Charter and is still on the way to realize its lofty ideals. Islam has not only broadened and enlarged the concept and scope of rights but has assigned the state the role of protection of the rights of the citizens.
Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was so much concerned about citizens’ rights to education that he gave the option to the prisoners of war that if they taught the Muslims how to read and write, they would be set free. The Prophet did not fear that the Jews and Christians (the prisoners of war) would spoil the faith of the believers.
Let us look at the economic rights. Once Hazrat Usman asked Abu Zarr Ghifari to explain why he was so much insisting on economic justice. He replied that he had a goat whose half milk was for him and half for the neighbours. Then he recited this verse of the Quran: ‘And they ask you what they should give. Tell them: the utmost that you can spare.” (2:219)
Once Hazrat Umar said: “He would be held accountable on the Day of Judgment, if a dog died hungry on the bank of Euphrates.” This was not merely a political slogan or an election manifesto but a formal declaration of Islamic economic and political philosophy.
INDIA will celebrate 60 years of independence this August. It is also rejoicing in recently joining the club of the world's fastest-growing big economies. Yet, for all its grown-up success, the subcontinent can occasionally display a very childish petulance. It is in the middle of one of these hissy fits at the moment, over a painting by Maqbool Fida Husain.
MF Husain is probably the most renowned living Indian artist. He is 91. And he has stirred up a national storm over a painting depicting India as a nude goddess. The picture, called Bharat Mata (Mother India), has prompted legal proceedings to be lodged against Mr Husain, largely by rightwing Hindu groups who complain that it is obscene and an insult to their faith.
It is certainly crude and the Muslim artist has apologised. Still the controversy drones on. Mr Husain, who with his granny glasses and white mane of hair resembles John Lennon had he stayed on in that ashram, has been in hot water before. His pictures, often deliberately basic in the Indian folk style, fit into national tradition. And in a society that venerates age, there is a tradition of the awkward oldie.
Khushwant Singh is another nonagenerian grandee yet publishes memoirs of sexual conquests. There are rather higher stakes in Mr Husain's case. In a country with some 140 million Muslims, it is important that Hindu nationalist groups do not decide what is acceptable. Whatever India's recent achievements, among its greatest is holding on to the secular status enshrined in its constitution.
––The Guardian, London