|
| December 12, 2008 | Friday | Zilhaj 13, 1429 |
Conservation of wetlands
What’s in a name?
OTHER VOICES – Sri Lankan Press
No sanction for terrorism
Media’s responsibility
THE recent terrorist attacks in Mumbai have revived the question as to whether such strikes can be held permissible in Islam.
THE papers keep telling us there has been nothing like this financial crisis since the 1930s. They are wrong. Something similar happened little more than 30 years ago.
THE UN Security Council panel’s move against the Jamaatud Dawa and four of its leaders has put the onus on Pakistan to act against militant groups. Technically the sanctions imposed on the Jamaatud Dawa and its leaders do not amount to much (they include an asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo); however, their net effect will be to put immense international pressure on Pakistan to shut down the group’s operations and arrest and prosecute its leaders. We have been here before. Following the attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001, the international community led by the US and India pressured Pakistan to act against militants. On Jan 12, 2002 Gen Musharraf responded by banning five groups: the Jaish-i-Mohammad, Lashkar-i-Taiba, Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan, Tehrik-i-Jaferia Pakistan and Tanzim Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi. A sixth group, the Sunni Tehrik, was put on a watch list. In an address to the nation Gen Musharraf warned, “No party in future will be allowed to be identified with words like Jaish, Lashkar or Sipah.” Time proved the general wrong. As the Lashkar faded from the limelight, a sister organisation, the Jamaatud Dawa, stepped into the breach. The October 2005 earthquake in northern Pakistan was a watershed for the group; its volunteers rushed in to provide medical aid and relief to victims, outperforming a lumbering state. In the earthquake’s aftermath
Gen Musharraf’s government shrugged off criticism that groups it had banned were operating with the state’s consent in Kashmir.
This time there must be no repeat of those half-hearted measures against militants. If Hafiz Saeed and his men are involved in the Mumbai attacks, they must be arrested and prosecuted. The Lashkar and its offshoots must be shut down — as must other groups that preach mayhem. Unfortunately, mixed signals continue to emanate from Islamabad. Admittedly the government has unambiguously come out against terrorism. The raid on a Jamaatud Dawa complex near Muzaffarabad and the detention of Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, one of the four targeted by the UN sanctions, indicate some cautious steps are being taken against militants. However, Hafiz Saeed, the chief of the Lashkar, has been defending himself and his group on news channels, demonstrating an unexpected degree of freedom for someone who has essentially been declared a terrorist by the UN.
Reading the tea leaves to discern Islamabad’s intentions is a difficult exercise at the best of times. However, a pragmatic approach by the international community, especially India and the US, can help nudge Pakistan to stamp out terrorism. Two issues stand out: Kashmir and India’s growing interest in Afghanistan. Reassure Pakistan that its interests will be protected in these two areas and work towards easing tensions there, and Pakistan may be in a much better position to at least squelch terrorism on its soil.
HALEJI Lake, a Ramsar site in district Thatta that was once a magnet for migratory birds, is in the process of dying. Already under severe stress due to insufficient water inflows, Haleji’s fate has now been sealed by the Right Bank Outfall Drain which is being excavated less than 100 feet from the lake. Haleji and its surrounding marshy areas keep recharging naturally over time. But since the RBOD is unlined, water seepage from the wildlife sanctuary and the marshland will be carried away forever by the drain. In clear violation of the law, no environmental impact assessment was conducted for this federal government project and the pleas of the Sindh Wildlife Department, which is strongly opposed to the scheme, have fallen on deaf ears. As this paper noted recently in its report on Haleji, most lakes in Thatta’s neighbour Badin have already dried up because of the Left Bank Outfall Drain. Many water bodies in Sanghar and Larkana are also dying.
Wetlands conservation is a complex environmental challenge. It is multifaceted and must take into account interconnected interests such as land and water use and rights, as well as livelihood security, and for this reason entails a highly integrated level of management. Since our track record has been abysmal in almost every aspect of conservation, it is necessary here to speak in relative terms. For instance, deforestation goes unchecked for the most part but, on paper at least, it is possible to fence off a national park and deploy wardens for its protection. It would be a stand-alone project, if you will, with all energies focused on the internal threats facing the environmental well-being of a specific area. Wetlands are different. They may have specific locations on the map but are affected by events and activities hundreds of miles away. Freshwater flows may be plugged upstream in another province, and the sources of agricultural run-off and other pollutants may be similarly distant.
Politics comes into it too, for water is a politically charged issue. Wetlands are also difficult to protect through legislation alone. Provincial wildlife laws allow for the designation of protected areas but the focus is on restricting access to and use of resources — fish, wildlife, timber, non-timber forest products — within the protected area. Wetlands, however, need a coordinated management approach that involves many other sectors including water management, power generation, agriculture and industry. Pakistan’s wetlands will disappear unless a policy is devised that understands the unique nature and requirements of these fragile ecosystems.
THE American president-elect is to follow tradition by using his full name — Barack Hussein Obama — when he is sworn in as his country’s 44th head of state next month. In a newspaper interview, the winner of last month’s race for the White House said he would like to “reboot America’s image around the world and ... in the Muslim world in particular”. While his administration would be unyielding in stamping out terrorism, he said he would be “unrelenting in our desire to create a relationship of mutual respect and partnership” with other countries. There is no doubt that the Bush administration lost the Muslim world’s sympathy for the 9/11 tragedy because of its subsequent behaviour. Its pugnacious unilateralism alienated not only the Muslim world but also some of its European allies. The attack on Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism, for President Saddam Hussein had refused Osama bin Laden’s attempt to turn Iraq into an
Al Qaeda headquarters, and the Ba’athist regime possessed no weapons of mass destruction as it had been alleged. But the Republican administration still chose to attack Iraq because Israel considered Saddam Hussein its mortal enemy.
What added fuel to the fire was the American forces’ behaviour in Afghanistan and occupied Iraq, the torture of suspects and the huge number of civilian casualties. We in Pakistan know how American drones killed more civilians than terrorists, before their targeting improved. America has also been threatening to invade Iran and giving unqualified support to Israel for its continued occupation of the Palestinian territories. If the next incumbent of the White House wants to “reboot” his country’s image he must reverse what is perceived by many Muslims to be an anti-Islamic strain in America’s foreign policy. He should know that unresolved issues like Palestine and Kashmir are exploited by extremist organisations, which use them as a pretext to recruit Muslim youths for their cause. What will give America a new image is a positive change in its policy.
UDHR: a common religion
Daily Mirror
DURING the past six decades since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948 the world has undoubtedly moved forward in promoting the concept of democracy and human rights. The very avoidance of a destructive third world war could be cited as an attainment of one of the charter’s objectives although much more needs to be accomplished if the aims of this human rights charter are to be fully achieved….
What a different world it would have been, had these objectives been fully achieved! The disgusting events occurring around the world today show how far the nations are lagging behind in reaching the hallowed ideals set out in the charter. The efforts, no doubt, are being made by some nations and concerned organisations to promote the ideals the charter. But such efforts continue to be thwarted by powerful sections. These forces militating against such efforts are prompted by different motives. Those who are in privileged positions enjoying disproportionate access to assets and resources of nations obviously stand to lose as a result of advances being made towards the goal of economic, social and political equality among people. Besides them are also sections enjoying inherited privileges by being members of the majority community in certain countries that do not easily part with their advantages. The spirit of brotherhood and equality that the charter advocates therefore remains atrophied.
As President Mahinda Rajapaksa says in his message issued to mark the 60th anniversary of the charter, the challenges are certainly daunting today as they were at the time of the charter’s proclamation. Today’s problems are even more complicated than ever before. Ironically, it is as a result of the failure to implement the ideals enshrined in the charter that most of today’s problems have arisen. The global financial crisis, environmental pollution, widespread poverty, and ethnic conflicts and indeed terrorism are the direct and indirect results of HR charter violations.
The urgent need today, therefore, is for all concerned to assiduously promote the ideals embodied in the UDHR. Most of the country’s problems including the menace of terrorism could be eliminated if a determined effort is made to fulfil the objectives of the charter. This charter, in fact, should be treated as today’s common religion since it encompasses fundamental principles of all religions. As President Rajapaksa points out “We can only honour the towering vision of that inspiring document when its principles are fully applied everywhere, for everyone.” — (Dec 11)
The Indian ulema have repeatedly denounced the killings. The Darul Uloom, Deoband, has issued a fatwa against terrorism on the ground that Islam does not permit taking innocent lives.
The Quran clearly says, “Whoever kills a person, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he has killed the entire humanity. And whosoever saves a life, it is as though he has saved entire humanity.” (5:32). One can be permitted to take life for life, as it happens even today in many countries but it is only by way of retaliation (qisas). The Quran recommends an even higher form of morality, i.e. forgiveness, and Allah is described as Forgiving and Merciful (Ghafur al-Rahim).
Under no circumstances is the killing of innocent people allowed, much less in the name of Islam. Many Muslim terrorist groups are using the word jihad for their terror attacks and impression has gone round that Islam is all about killing kafirs. Terrorism has not even the remotest connection with Islam or with any religion for that matter. Terrorism is a political response to a political situation, and a most unwise response.
Jihad is not about killing. It should not be used for war; fighting an external enemy is only the minor jihad (jihad-i-asghar) at the most. The superior form of jihad is fighting the enemy within which takes various destructive forms – anger, revenge, falsehood, desire and greed. These are mean tendencies in us all.
To pardon (afw) and to suppress anger (kazim al-ghayz) are described as higher forms of morality. Thus, the Quran says, “Those who spend in ease as well as in adversity and those who restrain (their anger) and pardon men. Allah loves the doers of good (to others)”. The friends of Allah (Awliya Allah) always believed in this form of jihad which raised their moral stature above others.
Revengeful attacks to realise political objectives cannot be called jihad; it is such immoral acts which have caused Islam to be associated with violence and fanaticism. Let it be said with all emphasis that Islam is a religion of compassion; in fact, compassion is at the centre of Islam. The four most fundamental values of the Quran are: justice, benevolence, compassion and wisdom, which are also Allah’s attributes.
Muslims begin all their work with the name of Allah, Who is Merciful and Compassionate. A Muslim who is not compassionate is not an obedient worshipper of Allah. Those who seek revenge, as terrorists do, are not good Muslims. Those who take innocent lives cannot qualify as Muslims obeying Islam. A Muslim should be a role model of morality for others. He should display wisdom at critical junctures in life.
The Prophet (PBUH) pardoned his worst enemies. When he conquered Makkah in a bloodless victory all his persecutors and oppressors feared the worst. However, he pardoned all of them, even Hind, who had chewed the liver of his dear uncle Hamza, causing the Prophet so much anguish. It is this compassionate conduct of the Messenger which attracted the people of Makkah to Islam.
Jihad is the utmost effort to suppress all base tendencies within us to become fine human beings. The Prophet was indeed the Rahmat lil Aalemin (mercy to the worlds) which made him so dear to others that they were prepared to lay down their lives for him. Islam spread in the world because of the morality practised by its followers, not because of the sword.
But terrorists who are ruthless killers bring only contempt to Islam. Such ‘Muslims’ confirm the stereotype spread by the enemies of Islam that the faith spread in the world ‘with the sword in one hand and the Quran in the other’. Ahmad Amin, the noted Egyptian intellectual, points out that Islam means ‘to establish peace’. A Muslim is one who is engaged in spreading peace in the world. We also have a hadith that says: ‘A Muslim is one from whose hands others are safe’.
No one is safe at the hands of the terrorists. In the recent Mumbai terror attack two terrorists were seen killing innocent passengers at the railway station who were with their families. In the carnage at the station 58 passengers were killed, of whom 22 were Muslims. In all, 35 Muslims were killed. Contrary to this, a Muslim is one who saves life of all, irrespective of their faith.
All Muslims must unreservedly condemn indiscriminate killings of innocent citizens, regardless of where or when they take place. Let us project an Islam which is compassionate and which respects the sanctity of life.
The writer is an Islamic scholar and heads the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.
Newspaper readers, however, knew nothing about it. Then, as now, the banking sector was close to systemic failure. Then, as now, NatWest bank (part of the Royal Bank of Scotland group since 2000) was in dire straits. Then, as now, the Bank of England poured in public money. But the drama was almost entirely behind closed doors. NatWest simply denied it was in trouble, and it was believed. To this day, nobody knows for sure how much the crisis cost the taxpayer.
I owe this account to Richard Lambert, a former Financial Times editor, now the director general of the CBI, the UK employers’ organisation. In a speech in London last week, he argued that, in those days, Northern Rock (the UK bank nationalised in February) would have been “sorted out” before the public — and particularly the depositors — knew a thing about it. So has media reporting deepened the present crisis? Should we somehow get back to the 1970s?
To the second question, Lambert’s answer is an emphatic negative: the Bank of England shouldn’t be free to dispense taxpayers’ money in secret. But on the first question, Lambert thinks some journalists are guilty of “careless headlines or injudicious reporting” (”Terror Stalks the Stock Markets”, that kind of thing) which risk becoming “self-fulfilling prophecies of a very serious nature” and that the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) watchdog should step in.
I am suspicious of suggestions from a boss class spokesman that journalists should censor themselves or submit to regulation in order to keep capitalism on track. But it is hard to argue with Lambert’s main thrust: that, when people’s livelihoods and savings are at stake, business journalists should “raise the bar” and take more steps to ensure “the quality and accuracy of their information”; editors “should kick the tyres on unsourced quotes and the reporting of unsubstantiated rumours”; and “they should avoid pack journalism; just because someone else has reported a story doesn’t make it true”.
In most areas of journalism, those are sound rules. Too much of newspaper content, particularly the political coverage, has become like the sports pages, reporting gossip and speculation (who’s moving to which club, who’s got a dodgy hamstring) as though it were fact. In the peculiar world of the financial markets, it’s more complicated. A journalist may report that company X has, as it were, a hamstring problem and the basis may be only a rumour. But rumours, even if unreported by the press, can move markets.
It is true that, in Lambert’s words, “there are bad people out there who are making money by influencing share prices in this way”. But is he right to say “you don’t want to make their job easier”? The “bad people” would argue (implausibly, perhaps) that they are doing a service by testing investor confidence. If the “bad people” win, your readers won’t thank you for leaving them with worthless shares.
As one financial journalist — interviewed for a report on business journalism, published last month by the London School of Economics’ Polis thinktank — put it: “Markets are basically corrupt ... there is a large amount of insider information circulating, which people are trading on. And we ... plug in those ... deals and then publish ... to everybody ... We don’t think we have any ... moral obligation to smooth the way ... if you act as the smoothing, controlling influence you are doing that just on behalf of somebody else.”
Lambert argues that banks are special cases. They depend on public trust, not just on the markets. He quotes, for example, reports about HBOS that threatened a Northern Rock-style run on deposits. In the case of the Icelandic banks, however, most business journalists simply failed to warn their readers.
— The Guardian, London
