Kaaba imam’s advice

ARE the Lal Masjid clerics listening? On Saturday, the imam of Kaaba, Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais, said some truths that should be taken note of not just by the fanatics running the bizarre Lal Masjid show but by all those waging private jihad on their own people. Even though he was talking in reference to the Lal Masjid stand-off, the imam’s words of advice and caution apply to all those who have made a cruel joke of jihad and all noble Islamic concepts. Talking to newsmen at the Punjab House in Islamabad, Sheikh Sudais said that mosques should not become centres of mischief, violence and conflict. He added that individuals could not arrogate to themselves the right to enforce Sharia, because that was the responsibility of the state. Unfortunately, the kind of thinking the Lal Masjid epitomises has been with us for long, accentuated by the fallout of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The ‘jihad’ against the Soviet Union turned out to be a tragedy for Pakistan, for it did incalculable harm to this country’s social fabric and became a source of what is today the world’s number one problem — terrorism. While there is no doubt that the Afghans were justified in taking up arms against their country’s occupiers, many countries, including America, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, gave it the colour of jihad and found Ziaul Haq’s Pakistan a willing tool in their hands. The US armed and funded jihadi organisations, which later, even after the Soviet withdrawal, developed a stake in the continuation of the jihad, the choice of the targets depending on the jihadi organisations’ political expediency. Sometimes fellow mujahideen in Afghanistan were the target; sometimes Pakistan’s own people and governments. The current stand-off at the Lal Masjid testifies to this kind of obscurant philosophy.

The Lal Masjid clerics have failed to realise that self-righteousness, arrogance and instigation to violence lead to anarchy in society, producing the very opposite of what they claim to fight for. Thus, obeying the Quranic commandment to “spread good and suppress evil” requires wisdom, mercy and goodwill towards all. The Lal Masjid leadership, on the other hand, seems to have taken leave of its common sense by glorifying crime and violence in the name of religion. The two brothers have threatened to unleash a wave of suicide bombings. In other words, the Lal Masjid’s brainwashed boys and girls would kill innocent men, women and children because they want to enforce Sharia. One could understand their reservations about some of the existing laws, but is slaughtering innocent human beings the way to turn these laws Islamic? Similar examples abound. In Fata, fanatics do not let doctors give polio drops to children, they attack shops selling CDs, and threaten barbers giving shaves to men by bombing their salons.

The pity is that while the imam of Kaaba speaks the truth, most religious parties and leaders have for political reasons chosen to keep quiet on the Lal Masjid stand-off and other manifestations of ‘jihad’ led by semi-literates. Nothing has done greater harm to Pakistan and to the cause of Islam than the religious parties’ and elements’ brazen use of Islam for political and obscurantist purposes. The vast majority of the people of Pakistan are Muslim, and they love their religion, but they have shown no sympathy for the Lal Masjid brigade. It is time Pakistani ulema, too, realised the danger to Pakistan from such infantile concepts of ‘enforcing’ Islam.

Protecting the environment

IT is time to move beyond the purely symbolic. World Environment Day is being celebrated across the globe today with a focus on ‘Melting Ice’ and climate change, but it will no doubt be business as usual once the seminars are over and the participants have pocketed their travel allowances. The fault, however, lies not with those raising awareness, for their efforts in recent years have brought about a sea change in the public’s perception of the hazards of environmental degradation. They have succeeded in amending government policy for the better, particularly in Europe, and created conditions favourable to informed discourse. Scientists of repute have finally established beyond doubt that climate change is a fact, not merely a theory. On a wider level, the cause of the environment is now a mainstream issue and no longer confined to left-leaning liberals. Even Christian missionaries in America are espousing humanity’s responsibility to protect the gift of nature, the state of California has introduced mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, and multinational corporations the world over are striving to project an eco-friendly image. Though some aspects of this new-found ‘corporate social responsibility’ may fall in the category of ‘greenwash’, the genuine and tangible advances made cannot be denied.

The blame lies with those who are willing to sacrifice the future of the planet at the altar of short-term profitability. Among the developed countries, the US and Australia are yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, while China — another major polluter — has made it clear that environmental considerations remain secondary to the imperatives of economic development. While their impact on the global level may be limited, smaller developing nations are also busy adding to the problem of environmental degradation. In Pakistan, the country’s rivers and the sea are being poisoned with industrial toxins, pesticides and human waste. Irrational use of water is causing desertification and salinity, and has resulted in the loss of some two million acres of arable land to sea intrusion. The forest cover is being hacked away and landslides are a perennial threat to life and property. But it is still not too late to reverse the trend.

Plight of minorities

IN an atmosphere of increasing religiosity in the country, the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir Ali, has done well to voice his concern for Pakistan’s non-Muslim minorities. He has pointed out that Pakistan stands at a crossroads and can either take the path of tolerance or opt for fundamentalism. The bishop’s fears are valid. With the existence of such legislation as the blasphemy law, minority communities are often accused of desecrating the Quran by individuals seeking to settle personal scores. They also have to bear the brunt of collective Muslim anger over anti-Islam trends in the West, as they did last year when enraged mobs burned churches in the country in protest against the printing of controversial cartoons by a Danish newspaper. The Ahmadi and Hindu communities are also routinely targeted. The anti-Ahmadi feeling is widespread and the community often faces violence at the hands of frenzied mobs. Meanwhile, the issue of forced conversion of Hindu girls is also a cause for concern. Unfortunately, so long as divisions between Islam and the West deepen all over the world, minorities in Muslim societies will continue to be targeted by zealots who are egged on by fire-breathing mosque imams.

It will not be an easy task to reverse this trend. But its effects can be ameliorated to a degree if the state steps in and reins in extremist elements whose activities are contributing to the rising level of intolerance in society. That it is not willing to do so is apparent from its inaction over the ongoing Lal Masjid crisis in Islamabad. Neither is it doing anything to curb discrimination against the minorities as in the case of a Christian student who was overtaken on the admissions list of a medical college by a Muslim candidate who received extra marks for memorising the Quran. This kind of discriminatory attitude only strengthens the fundamentalist elements.

Singh’s helplessness on corruption

PRIME MINISTER Manmohan Singh gave a thoughtful speech at the annual session of the CII (Confederation of Indian Industry for all those who do not know what the country’s most powerful acronym stands for). He asked the captain, majors, colonels and generals of Indian business to remember that those who are not members of the CII are also Indians.

The speech was overdue by about three years, but no matter. The poor are ever grateful for the smallest mercies. He also made the speech to the wrong group. He should have begun with an audience of one.

There is an exclusive telephone system in Delhi meant only for the Very Very VVIPs called RAX. It is an internal line for the highest of the high in government. Dr Singh should have picked up his RAX phone and called his finance minister for a cup of tea. Over tea, stressing each sentence till there was no room for misunderstanding, Dr Singh should have read this speech to Finance Minister P. Chidambaram.

Mr Chidambaram has produced three budgets. How come no one told him that Prime Minister Singh was interested in the welfare of the poor, and that he had thought out a ten-point charter to save the nation? Each one of the issues raised by Dr Singh could have been addressed in the national budget. None was. Why should the CII listen to the prime minister when his own cabinet could hardly care less?

Let’s start with executive salaries, which Dr Singh condemns as “excessive remuneration” which can lead to “social unrest”. Let us say that the owner-chief executive of a major company pays himself around two crore rupees as salary for working hard, and delivering profits as chief executive. He pays the maximum-slab tax on this sum. How much does the government pay him for being the owner?

The latest issue of India Today informs me that in just one year, 2006-2007, Dr Singh’s government permitted the shareholders of 1,100 companies to pocket Rs40,000 crores in dividends. Did they pay any tax on Rs40,000 crores? Not a rupee. Take out a calculator and do the math.

Why preach about two crore rupees a year, with tax, when you have handed out an untaxed Rs40,000 crores a year to the members of the CII? Does Dr Singh listen to himself?

Just after he finished scolding the CII about salaries, he went on to ostentatious weddings, because the expenditure on them “insults the poverty of the less privileged, it is socially wasteful and it plants the seeds of resentment in the minds of the have-nots.”

Very noble. Could we know how many such weddings Dr Singh has attended as prime minister, when he could have sent a polite (perhaps even warm) letter to the couple being wed ostentatiously, wishing them a very happy future but indicating that he would prefer not to give legitimacy to such vulgarity by his presence? Why preach about vulgarity when you do not have the courage to reject it?

The sixth point of this Social Charter should have been message number one, given the heavy damage that the continuous price rise has done to Congress fortunes. Dr Singh has named at least one of the villains.

I had better quote the strong words used by the prime minister to avoid any accusation of misrepresentation. “The operation of cartels by groups of companies to keep prices high must end… It is even more distressing in a country where the poor are severely affected by rising commodity prices. Cartels are a crime and go against the grain of an open economy. Even profit maximisation should be within the bounds of decency and greed!”

I hasten to point out that the exclamation is the prime minister’s, and not an intrusive addition from the fevered brain of a mere journalist.

What do we learn from this searing paragraph?

1: Cartels exist and control prices.

2: They are willing to push up prices even of basic commodities, the bread line of the poor.

3: Cartels are a crime.

So what has Dr Singh’s government, now in power for over 1,000 days, done to punish this crime? Even one gesture, executive or legislative, would be worth knowing. When an ordinary thief steals, the majesty of the law imprisons him and the less than majestic baton of the police turns his back into a sore mess. When a criminal cartel of businessmen, probably all CII members, robs the poor of food, and exceeds the limits of decency and greed (the prime minister’s words, not mine), all that the prime minister of India can do is plead self-restraint! (This time the exclamation mark is mine.)

Why preach when you are so utterly helpless?

There is a certain inevitability about ninth point on Dr Singh’s social charter, because everyone in public life tends to use this cane as a crutch. May I quote? “Nine, fight corruption at all levels. The cancer of corruption is eating into the vitals of our body politic. For every recipient of a bribe there is a benefactor and a beneficiary.”

How true. So who is this mysterious recipient? Trust me, without a recipient, with hand outstretched and power in his eyes, no one would pay a bribe. No business enjoys giving a bribe. He would rather spend the money on creature comforts. So who does he give the money to?

The politician. What has Dr Singh done to curb corruption in his government? Nothing. His personal honesty can no longer disguise the fact that money is being made at a rampant pace by many of his ministers. He knows this and is silent. Why preach about the mote in the other’s eye when there is a beam in your own?

The tenth point has an inevitable ring to it as well. He asks industry to “finance socially responsible advertising”. I hope you know what “socially responsible advertising” means. It means taking out acres of full-page ads, paid for by taxpayers’ money, telling the world how wonderful the government is. With Dr Singh’s picture at the top, of course.

“India has made us,” says the prime minister. “We must make Bharat.” That is a good two-sentence one-liner, which rather forgets to mention that Bharat is no longer in any mood to be patronised.

Bharat is setting Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh and Jharkhand and Bengal and Haryana on fire. Bharat has trapped both the BJP and the Congress in Rajasthan. Bharat has decided that downward mobility might be more useful than upward mobility: there is no point aspiring to be the equal of a Brahmin when the illusionary job quotas are for the depressed classes.Bharat’s young men are brandishing country pistols in preparation for civil wars over employment. Bharat is indifferent to good intentions, and impervious to statistics. Bharat is ready to torch the super highways being built for the vehicles of nine per cent growth. The capital of India is Delhi. The capital of Bharat is the home of the farmer who has committed suicide.

Dr Manmohan Singh has given us three budgets since he became prime minister. All three were budgets for India. He has only one budget left. The election process will have begun by the time his budget of 2009 is due. Perhaps he can make the next budget for Bharat. As we have noted, the poor are always grateful for small mercies.

The writer is editor-in-chief of The Asian Age, New Delhi.

Zoellick’s choice

LAME-DUCK presidents from the right or left tend to edge toward the centre in their waning years of office, but the ideological changes gripping George W. Bush seem nearly as profound as a religious conversion.

Not only is his administration openly negotiating with North Korea and Iran, once derided as pillars of his "axis of evil," but he seems to be valuing professionalism and competence at least as much as loyalty in his appointees.

Bush's choice of Robert B. Zoellick to succeed Iraq war architect Paul D. Wolfowitz as head of the World Bank is a startling, but by no means isolated, example. Zoellick is a technocrat with vast experience in international diplomacy, trade negotiations and financial management. Though he and Wolfowitz worked together as part of a team of intellectuals who advised Bush on foreign policy during his first presidential campaign, Zoellick is a realist and committed internationalist where Wolfowitz is a neoconservative ideologue.

His appointment is part of a purging of neocons from top offices; others sent packing include Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Richard N. Perle and Douglas J. Feith. Rumsfeld was replaced as Defence secretary by another realist with an impeccable resume, Robert M. Gates. Other recent Bush appointees showing an unusual degree of professionalism include Deputy Defence Secretary Gordon R. England, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan C. Crocker and United Nations Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Perhaps more notable, given Bush's evangelical support base, he appointed an openly gay technocrat, Mark R. Dybul, as global AIDS coordinator.

To be sure, Bush sometimes lapses back to his old form. In March, he nominated Michael E. Baroody, a lobbyist for the National Assn. of Manufacturers — which often battles on behalf of businesses against government safety regulations — to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission; Baroody withdrew his nomination last week when it became clear he wouldn't be confirmed. But with the departure of Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales disastrously overdue, the supply of uninspiring Bush loyalists in key positions is getting thin.

—Los Angeles Times