|
| October 10, 2008 | Friday | Shawwal 10, 1429 |
Margalla’s lingering lessons
Senseless proposals
OTHER VOICES - Bangladesh Press
Post-modernism and Islam
ANC on verge of split
WHAT is the relation between Islam and post-modernism? Earlier, we used to talk of Islam and modernism and now we talk of Islam and post-modernism.
SOUTH Africa’s ruling African National Congress is on the brink of splitting after senior allies of the toppled president, Thabo Mbeki, said on Wednesday that they were “serving divorce papers” on the new party leadership under Jacob Zuma because it had abandoned the movement’s founding principles and put “our national democracy in danger”.
AS if to punctuate the severity of the militancy threat, a suicide bomber struck in Islamabad as legislators gathered for the second day of the special in-camera session of parliament. Unfortunately, some opposition MPs have acted in unseemly haste in declaring the classified briefing unsatisfactory and lacking depth. As the briefing to parliament, governors, chief ministers and other specially invited guests is classified, there is no way of specifically assessing the disgruntled MPs’ claims. However, there is no doubt that they have spoken with undue haste and disregarded the historic nature of the briefing. Consider the background to this week’s in-camera session of parliament. After eight years of direct and indirect rule by an army chief, on whose watch the so-called war on terror began, a popularly elected civilian government has taken the reins of the state at a moment of acute crisis. Pilloried for months for not taking the nation or its legislators into confidence on its strategy for dealing with militancy, the government finally summoned the army to explain its strategy for countering increasingly emboldened militants in Pakistan. While it is certainly parliament’s legal prerogative to summon state officials — uniformed or otherwise — to explain their conduct, the ongoing classified briefing is a very positive sign for democracy given the history of army supremacy over parliament. Only the most churlish of opposition MPs would fail to appreciate this gain for politics and politicians.
The criticism of the content of the briefing itself was similarly misguided. The briefing given by the director general of military operations was criticised for being too focused on military operations rather than the strategic threat from the militants. This is very confusing. First, the criticism came even before MPs asked questions in the scheduled question-and-answer session. Second, the supremacy of parliament — which is what opposition MPs have claimed is the need of the hour — demands that parliament decide the strategy that the military must execute. Opposition MPs have kept their heads in the sand when it comes to recognising the militancy threat. The suicide blast in Bhakkar targeted none other than the scion of a political family that supports the PML-N. Punjab, a stamping ground for militants, is governed by a coalition led by the PML-N. Some APDM leaders, meanwhile, have continued with their rejectionist politics, turning their backs on a special government invitation to attend the parliamentary briefing. Democracy is about debate and choosing from a menu of alternatives. Everyone invited had a duty to step forward and make a case for their own strategy of defeating militancy. Rather than reflexive opposition to the government, opposition MPs have a duty to uphold democratic values and protect the people of this country.
PAST the third anniversary of the 2005 earthquake, and the former resident owners and survivors of the Margalla Towers complex — the only building in Islamabad which collapsed in the quake — are still fighting for justice. Although they were compensated for the loss of their apartments last year when the Supreme Court ruled in their favour with a Rs1.75bn settlement by the Capital Development Authority just before the disaster’s second anniversary, they are still awaiting justice in the form of punishment for those responsible for the apparent faulty structural design or shoddy construction, or both, which caused the building to collapse while its two neighbouring apartment blocks stood their ground during the 7.6 Richter-scale earthquake. In addition to the fact that the 1,600-page report by Shaukat Aziz’s inspection commission on the Margalla Towers tragedy has still not been made public, despite demands by the former resident owners, a couple of developments in the run-up to the recent third anniversary of the quake has fuelled fears that those responsible might eventually escape the slippery arms of the law and dodge accountability. Firstly the builder was recently released on bail after about a year in jail and then he was granted compensation by a recent Supreme Court ruling for five apartments in a tower which he owned, a ruling against which the Margalla Towers Residents’ Society has filed a review petition. Also disturbing are reports that the head of the PM’s inspection commission is being pressured by ‘influential persons’ to change some facts in his report.
Not only should the commission’s original report be made public and those responsible held accountable, it is obvious that the construction industry, which was dealt another major jolt by the Shershah Bridge collapse in Karachi last year, is in dire need of regulating and upgrading, the apparent boom in the sector notwithstanding. For one thing, the construction industry, which includes owners, design consultants, contractors and supervisors, needs to be put under a single ministry. For another, contractors need also to be properly licensed like engineers and this law must be enforced. Building codes should also be reviewed periodically and their implementation ensured. Unless we act to tighten regulation, inspection and supervision mechanisms in the construction industry, poor design and workmanship will continue to claim lives, and injure and maim people.
TRUST our parliamentarians to try and undermine a law for which doctors and civil society activists had lobbied for years. In its current form, the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Ordinance 2007 meets the expectations of those who had been raising a collective voice against the unethical $1.5bn organ trade in the country. The chief beneficiaries were unscrupulous doctors and middlemen who minted money while the poor were offered a pittance for donating one of their kidneys to renal patients. In fact, Pakistan emerged as a hot spot for ‘transplant tourism’, and the law in question was meant to correct this epithet, regulate organ donation in the country and boost cadaver donation. But can this be successfully achieved considering the political machinations to which this ordinance is being subjected? Obviously, if there are lacunae in the text then the matter should be discussed inside and outside parliament with the input of experts in the field. However, to simply try and introduce arbitrary amendments that make little sense is to subvert the goal of the ordinance. For instance, the suggested compensation for the donor is incomprehensible — far from deterring organ sales, there would be monetary motivation to continue with this reprehensible trade. Similarly, proposing a transplantation quota for patients from abroad clearly shows that our politicians are averse to eliminating the financial aspect of the trade as it is no secret that foreigners pay handsome sums for organ donations which are governed by stringent laws in their own countries. Other proposed amendments too are deserving of criticism.
With the ordinance in place, many had hoped to resolve whatever problems might be encountered in the initial stages of its implementation so that the hitherto commercialised organ donation could be promoted along ethical lines. But this aspect does not seem to have occurred to some of our lawmakers who have not appreciated the hard work that went into giving life to the organ law. This is a pity for it shows that once again we have callous politicians who without understanding the extent or nature of the problem are all too ready to exploit the people for the benefit of vested interests.
Nobel Prize in medicine
The Daily Independent
THREE medical scientists, two French and one German, have shared this year’s Nobel Prize in medicine. Francoise Barre-Sinoussi and Luc Montaigner, the French researchers, first discovered the human immunodeficiency virus or HIV and their discovery paved the way for developing anti-HIV drugs. The German…doctor, Harald zur Hausen who is the third recipient of the prize in medicine first discovered that some kinds of human papilloma viruses (HPV) are responsible for cervical cancer, the second most common cancer in women. This discovery led to the development of vaccines against HPV infection later…. He found that only some of these types cause cancer.
In awarding Nobel Prize in other sciences, Nobel Academy usually considers the body of research a scientist makes. But in case of medicine, a specific breakthrough is typically counted. Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, Luc Montaigner and Harald zur Hausen deserve this most prestigious of all prizes in the world for their landmark discoveries. — (Oct 9)
Eid holidays and hospital care
The Daily Star
EID holidays, the time for festivity, turned out to be a nightmare for the large number of patients seeking treatment in city hospitals. Whatever the hospital authorities might say to defend themselves, the plain truth is that our doctors are not always imbued with a strong sense of commitment to serving patients, particularly when a holiday mood sets in during festivals....
Nothing can be more regrettable if people do not get the needed service in a hospital only because everybody is celebrating Eid.... The problem is not new. But the hospital authorities should have put some contingency measures in place during Eid holidays. Perhaps it is time to have a fresh look at the whole issue of hospital management — a highly specialised subject in the modern world. The hospitals must provide emergency services in a planned way, taking into account the festivals and all such occasions.
The incidents of death in hospitals during holidays should be probed and those responsible held to account for their lapses. — (Oct 9)
First let us understand the difference between modernism and post-modernism. Modernism which ruled the roost until the early 1950s was characterised by a hegemony of reason. Modernism rejected anything which was not in conformity with reason.
Modernism was, in a way, quite intolerant of forces of tradition or even anything supra-rational, let alone irrational. It was for this reason that Freud’s theory of the subconscious or unconscious was also ridiculed by modernists. It was not deemed to be in conformity with reason. Even Marxists also rejected Freud and his explanation of deeper sources of human behaviour. Naturally they also rejected religion as something irrational. Thus, modernism was as intolerant of anything non-modern as one religion is said to be of another.
Europe throughout the 19th century was characterised by modernism and Asia and Africa were looked down upon by the Europeans as anti-modern and irrational. Thus, the 19th century was the century of modernism and of European hegemony. It was in the early 1950s and ’60s that new trends began to emerge and post-modernism began to be theorised by academics and social scientists.
In post-modernism, reason lost its hegemony and supra-rational forces came to be accepted. Post-modernism is mainly characterised by pluralism, be it cultural, religious or literary sphere. Europe and North America became multi-cultural and multi-religious societies due to the migration of people from the western powers’ former African and Asian colonies.
Also, it was during this phase that religion also found a respectable place again in western society. In other words, religion came to be re-appropriated. Thus, post-modernism, unlike modernism, is not hegemonic and is tolerant of other cultures; its main characteristic is pluralism. Now let us explore the relation between Islam and post-modernism.
Islam believes in religious and cultural pluralism, and while accepting importance of reason it also accepts supra-rational forces. According to the Quran, Allah has created several religions and cultures though he could have created only one, if He so desired. (5:48). Thus, pluralism is the very basic to the Quran.
According to the Quran the world has been created in its plurality, not only in matters of religion but also by way of ethnicity, nations and tribes. These have been described as signs of Allah (30:22). About national and tribal plurality, one only need see Surah 49, verse 13.
The Quran stresses pluralism to such an extent that even when one is convinced that others’ gods are false, it stops believers from abusing them. The Quran says, “And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest, exceeding the limits they abuse Allah through ignorance.” Further, it says: “Thus to every people have. We made their deeds fair-seeming…” (6:109)
Here, it is a Quranic injunction not to say bad words about others’ religion(s) because to every people their religion looks true and valid. The Quran even says that in every place of worship Allah is remembered and hence it should be respected. Thus, the Quran says, “And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down.” (22:40).
Thus, there is no place for inter-religious conflict in Islam. The Quran also subscribes to the doctrine of what Shah Waliullah and Maulana Azad called the wahdat-i-Deen i.e., unity of religion, which means all religions are same in essence and in their core teachings. Both the eminent theologians have thrown detailed light on this question in their respective writings.
As far as multi-culturalism is concerned, the West accepted it only in the latter part of the 20th century. The West had otherwise long been a mono-religious and mono-cultural society, because the Christian church had rejected validity of all other religions except Christianity. The church now of course believes in inter-religious dialogue and has issued instructions to Christian organisations to that effect. The Quran had accepted all Biblical prophets during the revelation itself.
Islam accepted multi-culturalism too by saying that all believers are one Ummah regardless of their ethnicity, language, tribe or nationality. It also admonished believers not to discriminate between Arabs and non-Arabs, as Arabs were very proud of their ethnic origin. Islam spread far and wide among peoples of different cultures and even the Shariah respected the ‘adat (customs) of different people. Local customs and traditions were integrated with Shariah formulations from the earliest time.
Thus, it will be seen that Islamic teachings anticipated what came to be called post-modernism today. The most essential thing is tolerance for diversity and for those who are different from us. Being different should not mean being inferior, superior or hostile to the other. We must project Islam in the right spirit, emphasising the practice of tolerance it so ardently advocates to the faithful.
The writer is an Islamic scholar and heads the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.
Mosiuoa Lekota, a former political prisoner and party chairman who quit as defence minister when Mbeki was forced out as president last month, said he and other disillusioned officials planned to canvass for support within the ANC in a process that seems to be “leading logically” to the creation of a new political party to run in next year’s general election.
“This is probably the parting of the ways,” said Lekota.
Lekota accused the new leadership of hijacking the ANC and “eliminating our internal democracy” in order to make Zuma the ruling party’s candidate at the election and to stop him facing trial on corruption charges. “These elements who are not committed to these principles of the ANC may well decorate themselves with the name ANC but they are not ANC ... The current leadership have shown they are not ANC,” he said.
Lekota was flanked by the former deputy defence minister Mluleki George but is not clear how many senior officials he can carry with him, although he said there are significant numbers of rank and file members who oppose the existing leadership. Lekota’s influence was severely undermined after he failed to assert control as chairman of the party conference that saw Mbeki deposed as ANC leader last year.
The ANC leadership quickly derided Lekota’s move, accusing him and his supporters of being bitter at losing control of the party. ANC spokeswoman Jesse Duarte said the dissidents were “launching a stillborn organisation” because they had no future in the party. “They were never willing to accept the will of the members of the ANC and they have therefore pursued other avenues to advance their careers,” she said.
Zuma warned ANC members that they did not have a blank cheque to destabilise the party. While any new political party will face a formidable challenge to take significant support from the ANC, despite growing disillusionment among ordinary voters, the bitterness of Lekota’s attack on Zuma and his allies reflects the deep schisms that could see other factions break away, particularly on the left over economic policy.
“The interests of individuals have been elevated to national importance rather than the interests of our country,” said Lekota.
He accused the new party leadership of betraying the ANC’s Freedom Charter, which formed the basis of the liberation struggle, by demanding that there be a “political solution” to prevent Zuma facing trial for corruption which could see him sent to prison for years.
“South Africans are getting arrested from time to time. They have to appear before the courts and they have to bring evidence to prove that they are innocent or not. Now we are saying, no, in a particular case — of the state versus the president of the ANC — there must be a political solution. What has happened to the clause in the Freedom Charter: all shall be equal before the law?” he said.
— The Guardian, London
