|
| November 07, 2008 | Friday | Ziqa'ad 8, 1429 |
A rethink needed
Reinstatement of officials
The attribute of forgiveness
China-Taiwan talks
OTHER VOICES - Pushto Press
ANY claim to the possession of the attribute of forgiveness has to be matched with the possession and power of the ability to punish, retaliate or avenge. To say, anyone is forgiving just because he has no other option is not an act of forgiveness.
MATING is a notoriously tricky business for porcupines, but even the first date is an awkward transaction. Likewise for prickly customers like China and Taiwan: when a high-level Chinese delegation arrived in Taiwan on Monday for landmark talks on closer relations, the police even prevented people on the roads in Taipei from waving Taiwan flags in order not to hurt the visitors’ feelings.
IN the death of Mahmoud Haroon, Pakistan has lost an upright politician and the Haroon family a father figure who in his personality combined the finest traditions of the two men who were his role models — the founder of Pakistan Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his illustrious father, Haji Sir Abdullah Haroon. Having had the honour of being one of Jinnah’s ADCs at the young age of 17 in the days when Pakistan was still an idea and a dream, Mahmoud, like most youth of those days, had only one passion: to fight for the emergence of a sovereign Muslim state in South Asia. Once Pakistan became a reality, he went on to hold many important political offices — ranging from Karachi’s mayor to federal minister and provincial governor. Mahmoud hated publicity and believed in working quietly and with dignity for his beliefs.
Several regimes persecuted him and his family unabashedly to win him over politically, especially when Dawn refused to kowtow to them. But Mahmoud never surrendered. His real test came after the secession of East Pakistan and Z.A. Bhutto’s accession to power when things became critical for the Haroons and for the Dawn group of newspapers. The new regime was harsh on the press and sought support for its policies, but when the Dawn group refused to oblige it suffered persecution in several forms, including the denial of government advertising. This was the period when Mahmoud chose to go into exile and live in London. About the same time, he set up in Dubai what today is among the Middle East’s most prestigious English papers, Khaleej Times.
It is a measure of Mahmoud’s vision and humility that in spite of being the proprietor of the Dawn group of newspapers, he never allowed his two roles — as a politician and a publisher — to impinge on each other. He never used this prestigious medium for his personal publicity or to promote his political goals. At the same time, he kept a discreet distance from the working of the papers he owned. In honourable journalistic tradition, he never interfered with Dawn’s policies leaving it to professional editors to do their job. The principle of separation of the management and editorial working of a newspaper is something unheard of in Pakistan and was Mahmoud Haroon’s greatest act of service to journalism in the country. A severe test of his commitment to these values came when he became a minister in Gen Ziaul Haq’s military-led government and let Dawn pursue an independent policy, even if this meant criticism of the government in which he was a minister.
AMERICA may have turned its back on its own past but it remains to be seen whether there will be a fundamental shift in the way it deals with other countries. President-elect Barack Obama has said on a number of occasions that he would be willing to talk, without preconditions, to countries and leaders with whom the Bush administration has consistently refused to negotiate. This is a sound approach to problem-solving and not a betrayal of principle, which is how the Republicans tried to spin Mr Obama’s words. Without implying that Mr Obama was simply making campaign promises that need not be honoured later on, it is doubtful that he can engage in a serious foreign policy rethink in the immediate future. He simply won’t have the time. With financial institutions reeling and the US economy either already in a recession or on the verge of it, he will have plenty on his plate on the home front. Pointing to the constraints facing the next president, the American editor of the Jane’s defence analysis group said on Wednesday that “The major difference from Republican foreign policy is therefore likely to be in presentation rather than substance.” In his view a broad continuity can be expected on “big-ticket issues” like Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.
But constraints aside, a policy review is in order in key regions. Of primary interest to Pakistan, of course, is the course America will pursue in the fight against militancy in the tribal belt. The debate on ‘sovereignty’ is not without substance but it is best for our purposes here to leave it aside for the time being. US missiles are hitting not just Pakistani territory, which is a grave violation in itself, but Pakistani homes. It should be obvious to the most hawkish of neoconservatives that each missile strike increases the resentment felt by local tribesmen without whose support the Taliban can perhaps never be quelled. The militants are supported only by a small minority while the majority wants no part of the upheaval that the Taliban have brought to the tribal areas. To alienate the locals is to court disaster.
Significant advances have been made in recent months in the fight against militancy, be it in the battlefields of Bajaur or in empowering anti-Taliban tribesmen. Encouraged by government backing, local militias have been raised and the Taliban taken on in several theatres. These gains could be reversed if US strikes — clearly not authorised by the Pakistan government — continue to kill civilians. Mr Obama should note that Pakistan’s policy on militancy has changed and that compared to the Musharraf days there is greater honesty of purpose at every level. The US policy too needs a rethink. Pakistan cannot be treated as an ally and a threat at the same time.
THE federal cabinet’s decision to reinstate 6,000 officials (with full benefits) sacked in 1996, ostensibly on political grounds, will be welcomed. It comes as a reminder of how ‘the steel frame’ of the Raj in South Asia that Pakistan inherited at the time of independence has been demolished over the years. The unfortunate tradition that the bureaucracy must be ‘cleansed’ each time there is a political change goes back to the first martial law of 1958 when a number of bureaucrats were retired. The ‘purge’ did little to improve the quality of administration, or check graft. Ayub managed to create a new cadre of top loyalists. Eleven years later under Yahya Khan came the exit of 303 bureaucrats — again on the familiar plea that the administration had become corrupt and needed to be fixed. Bhutto got rid of over 1,000 people. He also started ‘a lateral entry’ programme to find new recruits for running the ‘people’s government’, especially the giant industrial and commercial concerns he had nationalised. During Ziaul Haq’s autocratic regime thousands of government officials were not only sacked but jailed and hounded because of their presumed opposition to the ‘Islamic ideology’. The first Benazir government was too weak to settle scores, but it did manage to reinstate some of the dismissed. However, each time the army-supported Sharif party came to power there were massive purges of the government machinery.
It needs to be made clear that these dismissals were believed to be politically motivated and did not take place on grounds of ‘accountability’, a farce first employed by Ziaul Haq to persecute those politicians and bureaucrats suspected to be Bhutto loyalists. This became standard practice and all regimes used accountability as a tool to get rid of those government officials whose loyalty was suspect. The cumulative effect of five decades of tinkering with the bureaucracy is now visible in the marked decline in its efficiency, continued corruption and a feeling of insecurity even among the efficient and the honest.
It, therefore, implies that for forgiveness to be accepted as a personality trait, the giver must have the option to do otherwise. Allah’s attribute of being Ghafoor-ur-Rahim (forgiving) is exemplified by many verses of the Holy Quran. Man, being a vicegerent of the Creator, has been blessed too in a minuscule measure with this quality; however men are exhorted by both, the Holy Quran and the Sunnah, to not only be mindful of this feature but also to practise it extensively in daily life. “…But forgive and overlook, till Allah accomplish His purpose. For Allah has power over all things” (II:109). We must recognise here the conjunction between ‘forgiveness’ and ‘power’.
Life is a trust. We are expected to maintain this trust by guiding ourselves towards what is regretful and to avoid the path of sinning. “If anyone does evil or wrongs his own soul, but afterwards, seeks Allah’s forgiveness he will find Allah oft forgiving, most merciful” (IV:110). In another verse, the Quran implores humankind, “…but seek the forgiveness of Allah…” (IV:106).
God’s messenger was constantly reminded about this significant trait. The Prophet (PBUH) suffered at the hands of the Makkans the worst persecution imaginable, but he was never provoked. He remained glued to the ordinance, “Hold on to forgiveness, command what is right, but turn away from the ignorant” (VII:199). Allah in His commandments directs the Prophet to set aside personal insults, injuries and injustices but while doing so he is asked to remain steadfast in inviting all to the call of believing in the oneness of God.
The emergence of true character is visible only in contradiction of events. Our reaction to that which may not be palatable to our own point of view indicates the quality of one’s belief – presence or invoking of anger belies claim to adherence to the dictates of God; but should the reaction be that of forgiving, it reflects submission.
Forgiveness was a virtue closest to the Prophet’s own heart; it manifested itself in his everyday life predominantly. His energy, endurance and forgiveness from a position of power and his patience and steadfastness against all odds were qualities that Allah had given him in great abundance. When hurt or injured, he showed exemplary patience. He met rudeness and ignorance with politeness and endurance.
Hazrat Ayesha said, “Whenever Allah’s messenger was given the opportunity to choose between affairs he would always choose the easiest and the most convenient. But if it be sinful, he would be as far as he could from it. He never took revenge for himself, but when the sanctity of Allah was violated he would avenge it. That would be for Allah’s sake not for himself.”
Similar was the behaviour of the rightly-guided caliphs and all his companions. Hazrat Ali had floored in combat an infidel; climbing on his chest he asked what would save him. In reaction, the infidel spat on his face. Immediately, Ali dismounted from his chest and set him free. Puzzled and amazed, he asked why Ali didn’t sever his head, which he could have easily done. Ali replied that his spitting in his face had evoked personal anger while he was combating not for himself but for Allah, and hence retaliation would have been in conflict with the virtue of forgiveness. Ali said of the Prophet: ‘He was good natured and kind-hearted; he never spoke a harsh word, and he never found faults. He kept silent when he could not accede to any request.”
Thus, ‘Love thy enemy’ was writ large in the life and character of the Holy Prophet. He exercised forgiveness, always. He forgave such arch enemies of Islam as Abu Sufyan, his wife, Hind, Wahsh, the killer of his beloved uncle Hazrat Hamza, Hibar bin al-Aswad the murderer of his daughter, Zainab, and the Jewish hostess who tried to poison him.
Forgiveness and forbearance are traits that must be inculcated, practised and emphasised, leading to development of a strong character. An Islamic society’s hallmark is forgiveness.
The two countries (or one country, if you prefer) broke apart almost sixty years ago, and until this week it was not even possible to travel directly between them: Taiwan-China flights had to go through Hong Kong, and ships had to stop off en route at the Japanese island of Okinawa. The 180-km-wide Taiwan Strait remains one of the most heavily militarised regions in the world, with an estimated 1,300 Chinese missiles pointing at the island of Taiwan.
Even under the new government of President Ma Ying-jeou, which is committed to improving relations with the mainland, Taiwan keeps its defences up. It recently signed its largest-ever arms deal with the US, agreeing on a $6.5 billion package of guided missiles, attack helicopters and other advanced weaponry. Beijing retaliated by cancelling a series of scheduled meetings between Chinese and US generals — but it did not cancel the visit of Chen Yunlin, the most senior Communist official ever to set foot in Taiwan.
Chen is not formally a member of the Chinese government. Beijing sees Taiwan as a renegade province, not a legitimate state. He is officially the head of a non-governmental organisation called the Association for Relations across the Taiwan Strait, and his host, Chiang Pin-kung, is the chairman of a similar Taiwanese NGO, the Straits Exchange Foundation. But that is just a charade to save everybody’s face: this is really a serious encounter between two governments.
The first results of the encounter are already known: in future, cargo ships will be allowed to sail directly between Taiwanese and Chinese ports, and there will be over a hundred direct flights a week between cities in Taiwan and China. There are hopes, especially in Taiwan, that this will lead to greatly increased trade between the two sides and the next round of talks (which will be held every six months) will focus on closer financial ties as well.
But where is all this leading? Reunification? The opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan fears so and a million of its supporters demonstrated against the meeting across Taiwan last week, but President Ma swears that he will make no moves that compromise Taiwan’s sovereignty.
There have been great changes in China where prosperity has soared and the Communist Party has ruled over the past quarter-century, but Taiwan has changed even more. Sixty years ago, after all, the Nationalist Party that ruled the island for so long was almost identical to the Communist Party in its structure, its nationalism, and its authoritarian style.
Both parties were formed after the 1911 revolution overthrew the monarchy. Chiang Kai-shek led the Nationalist Party for fifty years until his death in 1975. Mao Zedong was the leader of the Communist Party. But the Nationalists lost the civil war in 1949 and withdrew to Taiwan, where American sea-power prevented the Communists from following, and so Taipei became the seat of the government-in-exile of the Republic of China.
That, at least, was how Chiang saw it. His dream was to return to Beijing in triumph as the leader of a reunited China. But in the quarter-century after Chiang’s death the Nationalist Party in Taiwan, while remaining dedicated to a united China in principle, gradually moved towards a fully democratic system — and so lost power in 2000 to a separatist party that wanted to declare an independent Taiwan.
There was genuine support for that goal in Taiwan, especially in the south, but it was never a real possibility: Beijing made it clear that a declaration of independence would trigger an invasion. So after eight years of economic stagnation and growing corruption, the separatist DPP lost power in last March’s elections, and the Nationalists returned to power under Ma. They remain committed in principle to the reunification of China, but not under a Communist dictatorship.
Improving trade with China is very important to Taiwan, which has not done well economically in recent years: the average Taiwanese still earns about five times as much as the average mainland Chinese, but the gap is narrowing fast. However, closer political ties are more problematic, and the military still stand ready on both sides of the straits. The two governments may be setting off on a voyage to nowhere, but at least it has started well.
— Copyright Gwynne Dyer
Suicide attacks and the need for unity
Khabroona
A SUICIDE attack was carried out on a security post in the Doaba region of Hangu the other day which left 10 security officials dead and several others wounded. According to news reports, the horrific event took place near Soor Pul. The security agencies reached the spot instantly and besieged the area, an emergency was imposed and security was further tightened.
Presently the whole country is in the grip of suicide attacks and terrorism but the government has proven to be incapable of taking effective measures to deal with the issue. Although the government has initiated the process of forming peace committees in different parts of the country but it is simultaneously using force indiscriminately which has reduced the chances of sustainable peace in the country. The use of force has been causing severe collateral damage which has created resentment among the people. This has also created a tremendous amount of trust deficit among the affected people. This two-pronged strategy might be useful in some areas but in the rest of the country this strategy has mostly borne negative results. The affected people think that the government may not be serious in bringing about peace in the region.
The other serious issue that should be taken into consideration is the indiscriminate bombardment by the US drones. The policymakers of the US might be clear about what they are doing but the people of Pakistan and especially the affected people are confused about what the government of the US and the Government of Pakistan are up to. There is an urgent need for the governments of the US and Pakistan to initiate a genuine dialogue process with those militant organisations who are ready to lay down their arms. The use of force most of the time minimises the chances of critical engagement with the militant organisations. It also creates resentment among the common people. Knowing the fact that extremism and terrorism are to be combated, there is a dire need to adopt a coherent and participatory policy to fight the scourge. The US and Pakistani government have to be mindful of the fact that the vicious circle of terrorism, extremism and militancy can never end with the indiscriminate use of force. — (Nov 5)
— Selected and translated by Khadim Hussain.
