Caliph Umar's pivotal role

Despite much rhetoric on the part of governments of various hues, good governance, rule of law and real democracy is a dream that unfortunately does not seem to come true in the Islamic world. For a sincere government, however, there is a lot to learn in the way Hazrat Umar, the rightly-guided second caliph, ruled more than 14 hundred years ago.

The total area of his caliphate was around 23 lakh square miles with continuously expanding its frontiers. To rule over such a big caliphate stretched from Libya to Makran and from Yemen to Armenia, Hazrat Umar had to establish an entirely new administrative system. For the Arabs, in fact, it was for the first time that such a central government was established.

Hazrat Umar believed in shura and what today we call the devolution of power. He would take no decision without the consultation of the assembly of the great Companions. Common people were also consulted on matters of special significance.

He used to say: "There is no concept of caliphate without consultation". The roots of modern democracy can be clearly seen in the administration of Hazrat Umar at a time when the whole world was ruled by despotic kings and emperors.

Hazrat Umar divided the whole country into provinces and smaller units. He followed a very strict standard for the appointment of governors, and took particular care to appoint men of approved integrity to high offices under the state.

He kept a watch over them like a hawk, and as soon as any lapse on their part came to his notice, immediate action was taken. Before assuming his responsibility, a governor was required to declare his assets and a complete inventory of his possessions was prepared and kept in record.

If an unusual increase was reported in the assets of a governor, he was immediately called to account and the unlawful property was confiscated by the state. At the time of appointment, a governor was required to make the pledge: (1) that he would not ride a Turkish horse; (2) that he would not wear fine clothes; (3) that he would not eat sifted flour; (4) that he would not keep a porter at his door; and (5) that he would always keep his door open to the public. This is how it was ensured that governors and principal officers would behave like common people and not like some extraordinary or heavenly creatures.

The governors were required to come to Makkah on the occasion of the Haj. In public assembly, Hazrat Umar would invite all those who had any grievance against any office to present the complaint. In the event of complaints, inquiries were made immediately and grievances redressed on the spot.

The rightly-guided caliph also established a special office for the investigation of complaints against the governors. The department was under the charge of Muhammad bin Maslamah Ansari, a man of undisputed integrity. In important cases Muhammad bin Maslamah was deputed by the caliph to proceed to the spot, investigate the charge and take action. Sometimes an inquiry commission was constituted to investigate the charge. On occasions the officers against whom complaints were received were summoned to Madinah, and put to explanation by the caliph himself.

Hazrat Umar was a man of inflexible integrity. He believed in simplicity and had contempt for pomp and luxury. Strong sense of justice, accountability before law, and equality for all were some of his cherished ideals. He took particular pains to provide effective, speedy and impartial justice to the people.

He was the first ruler in history to separate judiciary from the executive. Qazis/judges were appointed in sufficient numbers at all administrative levels for the administration of justice. They were chosen for their integrity and learning in Islamic law. High salaries were fixed for them and they were not allowed to engage in trade.

In one of his ordinances issued to judicial officers, Hazrat Umar laid down the following principles: "Verily justice is an important obligation to God and man. You have been charged with this responsibility. Discharge the responsibility so that you may win the approbation of God and the goodwill of the people. Treat the people equally in your presence, in your company, and in your decisions, so that the weak despair not of justice and the high-placed have no hope of your favour..."

Hazrat Umar took particular steps to build a social order according to the teachings of Islam. He brought about far-reaching reforms in the social, economic and political sphere of collective life. It is but he who could say: "If a dog dies at the bank of Euphrates, Umar will be responsible for that".

As a consequence of large-scale conquests in Iraq, Persia and elsewhere a question arose as to the administration of land in the conquered territories.

The army following the old maxim "spoils belong to the victors" insisted that all agricultural lands should be distributed among the conquering army, and the inhabitants should be made serfs and slaves. However, Hazrat Umar, after prolonged counselling and contemplation, rejected army's demand and decreed that the conquered land would be the property of the state and not of the conquering forces and the former occupants of the lands would not be dispossessed.

This was a revolutionary decision. His general decree was that land belonged to the person who could cultivate it, and that, a person is entitled to possess only that much land that he could cultivate.

The caliph upheld the principle that there is no coercion in religion and the non-Muslim population was guaranteed life, liberty, and property. The non-Muslims were treated as full citizens of the state. There was to be no discrimination between Muslim and non-Muslim in the eyes of law. Even on his death-bed, the caliph thought of the state's responsibility to the non-Muslim citizens.

In his bequest to his successor, he said: "My bequest to my successor is that covenants with ahl-ud-dhimma i.e. the People of the Covenant or Obligation, should be observed faithfully. They should be defended against all invasions. No injustice should be done to them. They should be treated as full-fledged citizens and should enjoy equality before law. Their taxes should be fair, and no burden should be imposed on them which they cannot bear."

The high standards of integrity that Hazrat Umar set for himself and his family members should be emulated by the rulers of today, particularly those of the Muslim world. The allowance that he drew was just enough for a person of average means. When the people around him insisted that his allowance should be raised, he refused to accept any increase. He ate the most ordinary food, and wore clothes of the coarsest cloth.

Once he was late for the Friday prayer and the explanation that he offered was that he had his clothes washed, and that took some time to dry which delayed his departure for the mosque. When the envoy of the Byzantine emperor came to Madinah, he expected that the caliph would be living in a heavily guarded palace. The envoy found no palace and no guard.

He found the caliph sitting in the mosque in the company of ordinary people. When he went to Palestine to receive the surrender of the city of Jerusalem the world witnessed the strange spectacle of his slave riding the camel, and he himself walking on foot holding the reins of the camel.

Once Hazrat Umar's wife, Umm Kulsum, purchased perfume for one dirham and sent it as a gift to the Byzantine empress. The Byzantine empress returned the empty phials of perfume filled with gems. When Hazrat Umar came to know of this, he sold the gems. Out of the sale proceeds he handed over one dirham to his wife and the rest was deposited in the state treasury. Hazrat Umar's son Abdullah was a very talented man but he refused to give him any office.

Hazrat Umar was a great social and political reformer, and a man of extraordinary vision. He was the first Muslim ruler to establish public treasury, courts of justice, appoint judges, set up an army department and assign regular salaries to the men in the armed forces.

He created a land revenue department and was the first ruler under whom survey and assessment work of land was undertaken. He was the first Muslim ruler to take a census, strike coins, organize police department, and set up jails. He established guest houses in all cities, rest houses on road-side from Madinah to Makkah for the comfort of travellers.

Hazrat Umar took special measures to minimize slavery. He ordered that any female captive who had given birth to a child should not be sold as a slave. He established schools throughout the country, and allowed generous salaries to school teachers. He fixed stipends for the poor and the needy, and provided for the care and upbringing of orphans. His caliphate was, in fact, a great welfare and egalitarian state.

Hazrat Umar (581-644 A.D.) was a great companion and a loyal friend of the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him. Before his death, Hazrat Abu Bakr, with the consultation of the Companions, had appointed him as the caliph. During the ten years of his rule from 634 to 644 A.D., Hazrat Umar changed the course of history.

Under his wise and courageous leadership, the Islamic caliphate grew at an unprecedented rate, taking Iraq and parts of Iran from the Sassanids, and thereby ending that empire, and taking Egypt, Palestine, Syria, North Africa and Armenia from the Byzantines. He was assassinated by a Persian free slave, Abu Lulu Fairoz, and embraced shahadat on first of Muharram, 24 Hijri.

Dealing with America

As President Bush starts his second term, the face of his new administration looks more threatening. Joining the trio of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are Rice, Gonzales and Goss as the new secretary of state, attorney general and head of CIA respectively - all holding views which would go far beyond President Musharraf's concept of enlightened moderation.

A dangerous streak now runs through the entire American leadership involved in foreign affairs and defence. Emboldened by the comfortable election victory of George W. Bush over Kerry, the policy-makers of the second Bush administration are ready to intensify their war against "terrorism". As reaffirmed by Bush in his inaugural address, the relentless pursuit of the harsh neocon agenda - manipulation, subjugation and elimination of all forces opposed to America - still seems to be the top priority.

In the Middle East, the long-term American goal is to have a strong Israel surrounded by weak and pro-American Arab nations and secure oil supplies for the US. The Iraqi occupation is part of this goal. As confirmed by the former presidential candidate Ralph Nader in his interview to CNN some months ago, the Bush administration has plans to establish permanent American military bases in Iraq. President Bush went on record recently saying that there is no timetable for withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

The Iraqi experience has now forced Bush policy planners to start promoting the idea of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq which could provide much needed support to the American forces were they to face expulsion from Baghdad by the new government. In a recent article Henry Kissinger and George Shultz have openly called for protecting the American interests in Iraq through the creation of a federal structure with three autonomous regions.

Although America would like former CIA agent Ayad Alawi to remain in charge, the chances of that are slim. The emergence of a strong Shia-dominated government in a unified Iraq does not seem to be in America's interests as indicated by Messrs Kissinger and Shultz.

The American strategy also calls for building an outer circle of American allies around the Middle East. This would involve Turkey, Iran and Pakistan.

While Turkey and Pakistan are already close allies of the US, Iran has become a thorn in its side for America. The Bush regime has now singled out Iran as its number one target and its plans to destroy Iran's nuclear and missile installations have been disclosed recently in the New Yorker magazine by Seymour Hersh.

Dick Cheney has also called Iran as the biggest threat to world peace and raised the possibility of unilateral action by Israel. As America declares that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, President Musharraf faces the prospect of supporting a policy which could have disastrous consequences for his regime. In return for his collaboration with the Bush administration, he seems to have won reprieve for the A.Q. Khan affair. But his real test will come when America makes a move against Iran or goes for the division of Iraq.

Sensing imminent danger for his regime as a consequence of American action, Musharraf instructed Messrs. Shaukat Aziz and Khurshid Kasuri to speak to the Iranians in Davos. The advice given to Kamal Kharazzi by the Pakistani leadership was harsh and virtually asked them to go down on their knees to avoid catastrophe. Realizing the limits of its own power, its nuclear capability notwithstanding, Pakistan seems to be adopting the role of a regional janitor for the Bush administration. This road is as dangerous as it is unwise.

President Musharraf must stop dreaming of providing leadership to the Muslim world as long as he remains a close ally of the US. Turkey has been bold and forthcoming in its responses to various games the Bush administration is playing in Iraq. The Turkish prime minister openly criticized the Iraqi elections in Davos and has warned of the consequences if the Americans were to allow Kurds to set up an autonomous region.

To offset the dangerous consequences of its policies in Pakistan, the Bush administration has revived with full force various aid programmes which are designed to provide financial assistance to a wide section of opinion makers. From fellowships, scholarships, training programmes, study tours, funding social sector programmes through NGOs to holding seminars for legislators, an estimated Rs. 10 billion will be spent this year by the American government in Pakistan. The US Agency for International Development, after an absence of more than ten years, is back with a vengeance and rapidly expanding its operations in Pakistan

On the political front, the Americans have stationed dozens of agents in Pakistani villages on the Afghan border to look out for the Al Qaeda leadership.

A recent article in the New York Times complained that these agents are being closely supervised by the Pakistani military authorities and are not being provided the necessary freedom to pursue their objective.

The article went on to quote a Pakistani military officer saying that this was being done to protect the Americans from possible harm. The Central Military Command of the US army which is based in Florida and is responsible for protecting American interests in the Middle East and South Asia has intensified its working relationship with the Pakistan army. It is this collaboration which has led to Pakistan being classified as a "major non-Nato ally" of the United States.

As President Musharraf explores various options to strengthen his regime, including a dialogue with major political parties like the PPP and the PML (N), he should have no problem in getting their support for his collaboration with the Bush administration. Both Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif have sought American support for their governments in the past and still look towards it for a future comeback. But President Musharraf also seems dangerously close to crossing the line in his eagerness to support the Bush administration.

He has failed to protect innocent Pakistani prisoners in Guantanamo and has caused permanent damage to his credibility in Waziristan by waging war against local populace at America's behest. The economic benefits he hopes to reap through this support may be offset by the political damage within the country.

There is a vast difference between how America sees the war on terrorism and how the world views it. American efforts to wage campaigns against Kofi Annan and Mohammad El- Baradie have remained isolated with hardly any support from the world community. President Musharraf must now be ready to start developing an independent approach to this whole issue.

The war against terrorism cannot continue for ever and must be declared as being over. He must realize that his support of American policies has no takers. It is true that he cannot go totally against American policies, but he must at least start speaking out more forcefully about issues like Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Peace in these countries can only be secured when all occupation is ended and foreign forces withdrawn.

Pakistan should forcefully call for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in 2005 and not in four years as Bush has said. It should also demand the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq and Afghanistan during 2005. It should openly condemn any suggestions for attacking Iran's nuclear and missile installation. Ignoring injustice instead of condemning it is not enlightened moderation.

Waiting silently for power

When pondering over a long election, look at the arc and hear the silence. One of the more interesting facts about democracy in its current, refined manifestation is that elections have turned from a comparative sprint to a laboured marathon. Reasons differ.

In America they have devised an electoral process that only a democratic fundamentalist would consider rational: they start with elections for elections, called primaries, making up rules as they go along. In Britain, they love the traditional English game of cat-and-mouse.

A prime minister spends half his time threatening an election or shifting the date, depending on whether the threat to his job is from a foe or a friend. Politics remains in election mode long before a date is set.

In India the first general election, in 1952, started in winter and continued for six months. Those were considered the bad old days. In 2004, too, the elections started in the previous winter and continued till summer. The reason in 1952 was that we still carried ballot boxes on bullock carts. These days we have instant electronic machines but we take so long because the election commission wants to protect the voter from thugs, bandits, looters and politicians armed with replica Kalashnikovs or the more compatible pistol. Welcome to progress.

A long election has a different dynamic from a quick one. It was the receding arc that got the BJP last year. 2004 was more evidence that once slippage begins, it is rarely reversed; and defeat builds further momentum beyond the election. The BJP is trapped in that slide. It could not, in alliance with Shiv Sena, find that extra edge in Maharashtra; and it is either stagnant or in danger of further erosion in Haryana, Jharkhand and Bihar.

I am not saying this on the basis of exit polls after the first phase of elections in the three states. Only the very rich now believe in exit polls. In other words, only those who have a lot of money to waste - whether they are politicians or television czars - spend hard cash on such polls. Media is far from infallible. Nor is this an Indian phenomenon.

Exit polls put John Kerry into the White House, sending him into stratosphere for a few hours. But if you get things wrong, decency demands a modicum of restraint along with a mea culpa.

It was amusing to see the precision with which pundits, who got every prediction wrong last year, forecast how Laloo Yadav was slipping and would fall. I have no idea whether Laloo Yadav is going to win or not. History suggests that he doesn't like losing. In any case, if we have lived with Laloo in power for 15 years, we can wait another three weeks for the election commission to let us know his fate in what has become a scatter-shot election.

The results of silence are more dramatic. It is surprising that the George Bush White House, which was so good at picking up the silence of the Bible Belt, missed out on the silence of the Quran Girdle.

How long have Shias been waiting silently for power in Iraq? From one perspective I can count up to more than 1,300 years by the Roman calendar and 1,400 by the Islamic one. Ever since Hazrat Ali's son Iman Hussain and his family and followers were martyred on the field of Karbala in the struggle for power against the Umayyads, Sunnis have been in power in the region that constitutes modern Iraq. Damascus was the capital then; Baghdad was built by the Abbasid Caliph Mansur.

The Shias helped the Abbasids overthrow the Ummayads, and were speedily dispensed with once their fervour had been exploited. Abbasids, in turn, surrendered space and then power to Central Asian Turks before the Mongol Hulegu destroyed them and Baghdad in 1258. There were various successor states, divided between Turks and most famously the Kurdish family of Saladin until the Osmanalis (mispronounced as Ottomans) restored central authority, stability and unity till the British victory in the First World War in 1918. So far, so good, so Sunni.

In 1917 the British seized Jerusalem and Baghdad from the Turks; by 1918 they had all the Arab lands in their control, including Makkah and Madina - the first time in history that the two holy cities were occupied by non-Muslims. The British tried direct rule in Iraq. In the month of Ramazan, 1920, the Shias declared jihad against the British occupation in Najaf and Karbala. They called the British "Franji", a term once reserved for Crusaders.

Memories run deep. Sunnis willingly joined the uprising. The British had to withdraw their administrator, A.T. Wilson: since Iraq was also known as Mesopotamia, Wilson was nicknamed "Despot of Messpot". In 1921 Winston Churchill, colonial secretary of the Empire, installed a puppet government with an Arab face to appease sentiment.

He imposed a Hashemite Prince, Faisal, as the new king of Iraq. Faisal had never set foot in his country till he was seated on its throne at six in the morning of August 23, 1921. The band played God save the King. Faisal was a Sunni.

The vicissitudes of colonial politics need not detain us, except to note that oil was controlled by western companies, and the British retained military bases long after they officially "withdrew" from sovereign Iraq.

Anger against the compromised family of Faisal finally turned savage, and on July 14, 1958, the ruling family was massacred (royal body parts were distributed by a delighted populace as trophies) after a coup led by the Free Officers of the Iraqi Army. The British ambassador Sir Michael Wright went into hiding, but within 24 hours struck a deal with the new strongmen assuring the protection of British interests.

In February 1963, officers belonging to the Baath Party seized power from the squabbling coalition of interests. But irrespective of who was boss in Baghdad, every boss belonged to the Sunni minority. The last and most successful of these bosses was of course Saddam Hussein, who emerged at the top of yet another bloodstained heap in 1968. Of course Saddam was also a Sunni.

Shia political mobilization in a modern context began after the coup of 1958, with the formation of the Al Dawa Al Islamiya by Mahdi al-Hakim and Mohammad Baqr al-Sadr. Its aims were to establish adult franchise and democracy (naturally, for Shias were 60 per cent of the population), revive Islam, fight atheism (read communists) and create an undefined Islamic republic.

In 1965 a fellow cleric and exile from Iran came to live in Najaf: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. In a series of lectures between January 21 and February 8, 1970, at Najaf he defined that Islamic state and offered a diagnosis for the "hopelessness and impotence of the Muslim world". The pro-establishment Shia leadership in Najaf, led by Grand Ayatollah Abolqassem Khoi, supported by Saddam, came out sharply against Khomeini and for the Shah of Iran. But the Shia street was talking a different language. The slogan there was stark: "We are there for you to sacrifice, Khomeini!"

Saddam and Khomeini came to power in the same year: 1979. Khomeini gave a call to Iraq's Shias to rise against Saddam and he responded as only he could. No one knows how many were executed. Ayatollah Hakim was sentenced to death but later allowed to go to Iran. In April 1980 Sadr and his greatly-respected and loved sister Amina were executed by Saddam. Since these surnames have returned to the daily news, perhaps you can make your own connections.

Perhaps the Bush White House made two miscalculations. It transferred the Shia hate for Saddam into a welcome for America. And it mistook silence for consent. Washington's calculation was that its preferred Shia, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, would get enough votes from his community to cobble an alliance with the pro-American Kurds that would enable him to remain at the head of government during the writing of a constitution. (What Iraq has voted for is a constituent assembly and an interim government.)

But the leader of the Shia silence was Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. In the first hint of the future, the Ayatollah had over 70 per cent of the vote against Allawi's 18 per cent. Ayatollah al-Sistani has waited for this day. His message to his community was simple: keep quiet, leave the violence to Sunnis, and keep your powder dry for the elections.

That is why he reined in Moqtada Sadr, when Sadr picked up the gun. The Shias could turn to the gun if they are denied power.

There is an old and familiar Chinese proverb that might be appropriate for Bush just now. Be careful about what you want, because you might get it. He wanted democracy in Iraq. He has got just the first taste of it.

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