| December 29, 2008 | Monday | Zilhaj 30, 1429 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Common identity
Step towards an egalitarian future
Unlawful multi-storey buildings
Unfair methods
Hostel for students in UK
From East Pakistan to Bangladesh
Questions about rights of women
Karkare murder
Threat to society
Readers are requested to restrict their comments to a maximum of 400 words. We reserve the right to edit letters for reasons of clarity and space. Letters, including those by e-mail, should carry the complete postal address of the sender. The views expressed in these columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.—Editor
THIS is apropos of the report, ‘India threatens to act if world doesn’t’ (Dec 23). India’s Foreign Minister Paranab Mukherjee has threatened that if Pakistan doesn’t deal with those responsible for the massacre in Mumbai, India will deal with the problem.
Mr Mukherjee, calling the Lashkar-i-Taiba an international threat, has said the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan posed the greatest danger to world peace and security. Earlier, Sonia Gandhi, the chief of the Congress Party, warned Pakistan that India capable of delivering a ‘befitting reply’. (Dec 22).
The pressure on Pakistan continues to mount. US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, during his second visit to Islamabad this month, also stressed the need for Pakistan to do more to satisfy India which was demanding arrest of elements involved in the Mumbai attack ( Dec 23). US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also warned Pakistan it must tackle terror, or ‘be consumed by it’.
US President George W. Bush has indicated that drone attacks on suspected terrorist targets inside our tribal areas would continue and Washington will not consult other governments before ordering such strikes (Dec 16). Most probably this has been said to help India to justify ‘surgical strikes’ inside Pakistan.
Pakistan is being provoked through pointed accusations and a deliberate effort being made to drag it into a conflict it does not want. In mid-December, India allowed FBI investigators to interrogate the lone captured suspect Ajmal Amir Kasab for nine hours and, according to FBI agents, he was a Pakistani national and the attackers had come to Mumbai from Pakistan ( Dec 17).
But findings of FBI agents lack concrete evidence. On the other hand, India turned down the offer of Interpol’s Secretary-General Ronald Noble for a joint probe into the case (Dec 24). Which remains a question mark?
According to the PTI, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Qin-gang said: “Beijing was still unsure about New Delhi’s assertion that all 10 attackers were Pakistani and identity of the mastermind of the of the Mumbai attacks awaited further investigation by the countries concerned” (Dec 24).
After the terror attacks on Nov 26, India straightaway blamed Pakistan, without any evidence, for harbouring terrorists of Lashkar-i-Taiba, followed by threats to strike at Jammatud Dawa (JuD) at Farid Kot inside Pakistan if the so-called runaway terrorists are not arrested and handed over to them.
Immediately after that, US Secretary of State Rice landed in Islamabad after a hurried visit to New Delhi and warned Pakistan to act fast and satisfy India. She left by giving the feeling that the US is convinced of India’s claims. Her visits were quickly followed by Admiral Mike Mullen to Islamabad with the same advice and warning.
In the absence of any evidence being provided by India against Pakistan and with the latter being ever ready to meet the threat of war, the present scenario has dramatically changed. A day after Foreign Minister Mukherjee tried to create a scare that “India might act on its own if the world failed to get Pakistan to arrest alleged terrorists named by New Delhi, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh intervened to tone down the rhetoric, saying war was not the issue ( Dec 24).
Next day in Washington, senior US officials, including Ms Rice, said: “ They believe that the risk of India and Pakistan going to war over Mumbai terror attacks has abated”. Ms Rice also said: “They tried to have good relations with one another and I think they want to preserve that, and the two nuclear neighbours would not fight yet another war” (Dec 25).
In fact, the US fears that any increase in tensions on the eastern border will revive the old India-Pakistan rivalry, causing Islamabad to withdraw its forces from the Afghan border and refocus its attention on India. And this is what the Americans want to avoid which actually forced the US to intervene and keep India off Pakistan’s back.
Since India has not been able to provide any evidence, it will now be justified if a joint probe is conducted by India, along with Pakistan, and a neutral country such as China to find out the facts and clear the doubt if there was a conspiracy behind the Mumbai terror attacks for making Pakistan to capitulate.
SQN LDR (r) S.AUSAF HUSAIN
Karachi
THIS is apropos of Manzoor Kureshi’s letter(Dec 23) regarding an earlier note by Dr Muhammad Ali Shaikh on ‘The Tragedy of the Subcontinent’.
Dr Shaikh had simplified our history by observing that the South Asian subcontinent goes through a cycle of integration and disintegration. Like any other theory which is based on simplification of a complex process, this has some holes as Mr Kureshi has pointed out. However, this does not negate the truth in the original letter by Dr Shaikh.
While it is true that even at the peak of the integration phase the subcontinent was divided into multiple political units, the real power was centralised with a primary political entity, with the rest of the entities being aligned to it in a friendly or subservient relationship.
During Ashoka’s time, the Chola kingdom in the south had a friendly relationship with Emperor Ashoka. The Chola kingdom is not really an ‘unknown antiquity’, but a powerful kingdom in its own right that exercised influence and held territory in southeast Asia at its peak. If you see villages and cities having Hindu - sounding names in Indonesia, Singapore, etc, you can thank the Chola Empire for that.
Similarly during the British Raj, though 40 per cent of the land was controlled by the nawabs and rajas, they were just a lieutenant of the Raj and had not much independent authority. If the British wanted, they could have annexed these princely states. A case in point is the annexation of Junagarh and Hyderabad by independent India, which took less than a week. Reason why British rulers did not choose to do the same lies with the lesson it learned from the 1857 War of Independence when the erstwhile East India Company ended up antagonising a number of princely class, provoking a revolt.
The princes who were left were merely rewarded for their support to the crown at various points. Hyderabad Nizam for instance, whose treasury exceeded that of several European nations at that time, helped the Crown in a major way with World War II funding. So you could argue the entire subcontinent was under the British Raj which acted as the primary political entity with the princely states being subservient to it.
Today the subcontinent may not be divided into more than a hundred political entities like in the past, but it is divided into two camps which are at loggerheads with each other. While this is weakening both India and Pakistan, the fissiparous elements in each of our country are gaining strength -- from Balochistan to Kashmir to Assam.
If there is a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, the central authority in both the nations will be weakened to such a degree that they will not be able to resist the subcontinent breaking up into 100 pieces.
It seems we have learnt absolutely nothing from our history. There is a total lack of a subcontinent consciousness and identity even though, when we step out of our subcontinent we are identified as the brown people irrespective of which country we hail from.
CHEZ PRAKASAM
Canada
ZULFIKAR Ali Bhutto emerged on Pakistan’s political horizon as a revolutionary leader who revolted against the centuries - old bondage of ruthless feudal and tribal laws. His unmatched popularity throughout the country is testimony to the fact that he inspired hope and dignity to the teeming millions living in poverty.
By creating a socio - political consciousness and by involving them in a political process to achieve a prosperous and egalitarian nation, he brought about many radical reforms.
The progressive thinking of Z.A. Bhutto can be gauged by the fact that though he had two sons, he chose his daughter Benazir Bhutto to follow in his footsteps, who later created history by becoming the first elected prime minister of an Islamic state. True to her father’s expectations, Benazir Bhutto upheld the ideals of democracy and believed in human rights and equal opportunities for everyone, specially women.
The creation of separate ministries for human rights and women’s development, the first women’s bank and police stations for women were a few steps taken by her when she became prime minister in December, 1988.
She made land reforms and distributed 35,000 acres of state land among the landless peasants of Sindh during her short - lived rule. During her second tenure (1993-96) she allotted 25,000 acres, with ownership rights, to the poor haris of Thatta, Khairpur and Larkana districts.
To fulfil the commitment made by Benazir Bhutto, President Asif Ali Zardari has chalked out an extensive programme to provide means of livelihood to the hitherto deprived rural women in the shape of free land allotment, along with substantial quantity of water, seed, fertiliser and pesticides. The programme envisaged by the government of Sindh is aimed at reducing unemployment and poverty in rural areas.
The distribution of land among women farmers was done by the chief minister of Sindh, Syed Qaim Ali Shah, on Nov 26, in Jati Taluka of Thatta district, where each recipient got 25 acres, along with seed and fertiliser for one crop.
The chief minister said on the occasion that in Thatta district 40,000 acres of state land would be allotted to the deserving women, with the sole purpose of improving their socio - economic conditions.
Preparations are also being made to distribute 24,527 acres among the landless women of Sukkur, Badin, Khairpur, Larkana, Jacobabad and Benazir Bhutto Shaheed (former Nawabshah) districts. According to the newly - formulated policy, it has been ensured that the state land shall be given to the deserving applicants only.
ZEESHAN MANSOOR
Karachi
THE news item (Dec 22) about unauthorised highrises being built in the GOR Colony, Bath Island, has given the impression that Shehri was unwilling to help or to get involved.
The fact is that Prof (Mrs) Asif Zia Akhtar approached Shehri by letter. Shehri spoke to her and asked for more details and after receiving the same, sent them in the form of a complaint to the Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA), the press and other relevant government departments. On investigation, it transpired that G + 1 bungalows, where members of the judiciary were housed, were being demolished and G + 4 apartment blocks are being built in their place.
Without any town planning, such arbitrary augmentation of the built - up area increases the population 20 - fold and, consequently, overloads the electricity, water-supply, sewerage, social amenities and infrastructure, and traffic in the area.
This is becoming more and more common in the beleaguered city of Karachi, despite the ensuing degradation of the environment and reduction in the quality of life for all.
The GOR, being a government area, the relevant builder is the Public Works Department (PWD), which is constructing these multi - storeyed apartments without the relevant permission from the KBCA in blatant disregard for high court rulings that everyone, without exception, has to have plans approved by the KBCA in order to ensure safety and compliance with laws.
Shehri has advised the lady doctor to take her other neighbours on board and file a case in the high court, after making the appropriate official complaints. Shehri stands by its offer to assist with its knowledge of the issues/rules and by becoming a party.
SHEHRI-CBE
Karachi
WE See exploitation of feelings in TV commercials, and skin - lightening cream commercials are no exception. But the humiliating attitude towards dark complexion in some commercials is unfair, because it is a cause of great anxiety for dark complexioned girls and boys. As such creams sell, new ones keep coming up regularly in the market with ever increasing promises. Some beauticians have started making their own formulas, which have their severe effects.
I, as a dermatologist, often see the victims of these formulations. I do not recommend any treatment for normal skin colour pigmentation. Normal skin colour treatments are not recommended in any authentic dermatological literature.
I have my reservations about my respected colleagues whom I see on TV channels offering such treatments, sometimes in the style of beauticians. My advice to desperate girls and boys is to be confident about themselves. People admire persons for their qualities, not for their complexions.
DR ASAD KARIM
Karachi
I WOULD like to draw the attention of all the members of the National Assembly in Pakistan to the fact that the only hostel for Pakistani students, the Quaid-i-Azam students’ hostel in Earls Court, in London, has been closed for repairs since July 2003.
It has not been reopened for students. I have confirmed through a very responsible officer in the Pakistani High Commission in London that the high commission has rented it to its officers.
This is very unfair to the students and the nation as, according to my knowledge, it was donated to the Quaid - i - Azam by a Pakistani living in the UK for Pakistani students only. As in this era of skyrocketing price hikes, this hostel was the only hope for poor students, which has been confiscated by the officers at the Pakistan High Commission.
As you all have reached this position with the vote of the poor people, who have been up against high inflation, please help the students by raising the issue in parliament.
This matter is of prime importance and should be reopened for the residence of students only.
DR SYED AKRAM SHAH
Peshawar
WITH reference to Dr Mubarak Ali’s article on the above subject (Dec 22), it is regretted that the learned professor of history has given a most superficial analysis of the event. Besides, there are glaring factual errors.
His theme is twofold, i.e. Bengalis have always wanted independence and that partition of Bengal on the basis of religion as demanded by the Muslim League was impractical. Both prepositions are factually incorrect.
The first partition of Bengal was done by Lord Curzon on administrative grounds. Due to violent opposition by the Indian National Congress, it was annulled in 1911.
In 1946, a year or so before the partition of India, the representatives of Muslim Bengal through H. S. Suharwardy asked the All - India Muslim League to change the word ‘states’ in the Pakistan Resolution to the singular ‘state’. The reason for this demand was given by Mr Suharwardy and Fazlul Haq in the following statements:
Hussain Shaheed Suharwardy: “Let me repeat again (we have) only one aim in view, namely the creation of a Pakistani nation based on integrity and its stability. What does integrity require? It requires a destruction of fissiparous tendencies and the creation of a feeling of oneness between the two wings and the realisation that one cannot live without the other; that our interests are common and that we must make an effort to understand each other and adjust our differences. All those who think that one wing can exist without the other, let me warn them that this is not possible.”
Fazlul Haq’s speech was delivered on March 2, the day the Constitutional Assembly decided that March 23, 1956 be declared as the Constitution Day and that in the future the day be celebrated as the Republic Day: “Sir, it is with feelings of inexpressible joy, not unmingled with some pardonable pride, that I take the opportunity of saying a few words.
“Sir, the events which led to the establishment of Pakistan have been of an historic character. The root of the whole movement of Pakistan goes as far back as the year 1906 when the All - India Muslim League was founded through the efforts of Sir Salimullah, Nawab of Dacca, where representatives from all parts of India had gathered.
“Sir, I remember the date because I took some little part in writing and drafting the resolution that was adopted at the meeting.
That was the year 1906. In the year 1940, on the 23rd of March I had the good fortune to have been called upon by the Quaid - i - Azam to move the Pakistan Resolution. Today I am moved when I see the fruition of all our efforts for the establishment of Pakistan.
“Sir, I need not say anything further at the present moment. My feelings are too strong for words. I hope, Sir, that the people of Pakistan will remember the gift that Providence has bestowed upon them and they will not consider any sacrifice too great to make for Pakistan.”
The last attempt to maintain unity of Bengal was made by Kiran Shankar Roy, the leader of the opposition in Bengal, along with the prime minister of Bengal, H.S. Suharwardy, after the Congress had rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan. While the Quaid - i - Azam and Muslim League accepted the proposal, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru rejected it.
“The latter, therefore, has the exclusive ‘credit’ or responsibility of not only the partition of India, but partition of provinces on communal grounds. It is another matter that his daughter indulged in ‘balkanisation’ of the subcontinent through force of arms, which was not acceptable to her father when Independent Bengal was mooted.
“The Bengali ‘nation’ whose quest for independence is espoused by the learned historian is still divided into two portions, Bangladesh and West Bengal, which is a state of the Indian federation. There is no movement for its independence or unity of Bengalis!
As to the actual process of the 1971 trauma, it would be better for researchers to learn some startling facts from books like Second Thoughts on Bangladesh by Matiur Rehman and East Pakistan Tragedy by Professor L.F. Rushbrook Williams.
H. N. AKHTAR
Karachi
THIS is apropos of Raqim Haque’s letter, “Women’s rights” (Dec 23), in which he says our religion asks our womenfolk to cover themselves when they go out of their homes so that they may be recognised as noble women and not be harassed.
Does Mr Haque wish to imply that women who do not cover themselves properly are not noble? Women in the West do not cover themselves properly but are never harassed on the streets, firstly because of the stringent laws and, secondly, because for the western men it is not a big deal to watch women not fully covered.
On the other hand, in Muslim countries like Pakistan women are harassed on the streets even if they are clad in burqa.
It is because of the lack of segregation of both sexes which leads to men behaving in a desperate fashion.
Lastly, the law should protect a victim and not a criminal. If women are harassed, the solution is not to cover them in layers of clothes but to give an exemplary punishment to the offender.
ANIL KHAN LUNI
Sweden
THE uproar caused by the Muslim minister of the Indian cabinet, Abdul Rehman Antulay, due to his prudent demand for investigating the murder of Hemant Karkare is very telling (Dawn, Dec 20).
The deceased gentleman was the head of Mumbai’s anti-terror squad (ATS) and had uncovered links between Hindu extremists, their army supporters and the incidents of bombing of Malegaon and the Samjohta Express (which killed nearly 80 innocent Pakistani travellers). He had been getting death threats after that.
The Hindu extremist organisations like BJP, Shiv-Sena and others seem to be very upset not just by the leads provided by Mr Karkare during his investigations — BJP leader L. K. Advani had already decried his inquiry even before the Mumbai carnage — which appears to suggest they want the truth to remain hidden.
In the interest of justice and to combat this aspect of India’s terrorism, it is imperative that the inquiry demanded by Mr Antulay be held impartially.
AHSANULLAH
Karachi
YOUR editorial, ‘Unchecked fanaticism’ (Dec 24), is very timely and should be a source of inspiration to all.
The Taliban frame of mind, the brutality that has characterised their mission and the cold - bloodedness they have shown while spreading their ‘mission’ is tragic and deplorable. Taliban continue to wage war not only on the state of Pakistan but also on society at large. Politics, not geopolitics or culture, may ultimately determine and reshape world order in the early 21st century.
From Saudi Arabia to Pakistan, from Iran to Indonesia, Islamic nations distanced themselves from the theology of Osama. The homegrown extremists is giving Islam a bad name and for threatening the modernist vision of Pakistan’s founder, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Islamic civilisation in the past proved capable of extraordinary feats of tolerance. Under the Muslims, mediaeval Spain became a haven for diverse religions and sects.
We have to face the challenge posed by the new heresies. We can ill afford to lapse into bigotry at a point in history when dialogue and conviviality have never been more important. Mainstream theologians have come out so unanimously against the terrorists. What we must now ask them is to campaign more strongly against the aberrant doctrines that threaten our civilisation.
PROF SYED WARIS SHERE
Canada
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address: letters@dawn.com
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.
