Robbing the poor

THAT the wheat and flour prices are rising ahead of Ramazan is not something unexpected or sudden. Anyone with a little common sense could see it coming. Since March, wheat and flour prices have risen — of course, with some ups and downs — by 35-40 per cent in a year that saw a record 23.5 million tonnes of wheat production. This exceeded the target of 22 million tonnes that the country needs and which also includes some exports to Afghanistan. This price trend started in March when the government allowed the export of wheat and then went on to subsidise it, protests by the flour mills and provincial governments notwithstanding. Within a week, the centre was forced to suspend all exports when domestic prices shot up. But the damage had been done and total exports overshot the planned target of 0.5 million tonnes.

Since then, all government functionaries, including the prime minister, have never missed an opportunity to describe the hike in wheat and flour rates as “totally unacceptable” in view of a bumper crop. Neither did the loud talk of “hoarding of wheat and the manipulation of prices will not be tolerated” help. The illegal practice, in fact, became so rampant that the government publicly confirmed the discovery of evidence of black marketing of wheat even at petrol pumps. Another surge ahead of the holy month was anticipated well in advance by a ministerial committee on food inflation. The committee had concluded that wheat and its by-products, having a total weight of about seven per cent in overall inflation, had a direct bearing on the prices of other food items. As a result, the provincial governments were asked to release wheat to flour mills in the first week of September at Rs460-470 per 40 kg to pre-empt another possible rise before Ramazan. Lists of wheat hoarders have also been drawn up but the provincial governments have so far taken no action against them. Neither have the provincial authorities released the stocks they had been directed to. As a result, the market that was expecting releases on Sept 1 rose substantially when stocks did not arrive. The sufferer again was the common man.

Sadly, we continue to live in conditions where we face food crises in times of plenty as well as in times of shortages. This is the most ironic aspect of an economy whose strength lies in agriculture but where decision-making is driven by speculators, hoarders, market manipulators and interest groups. Unfortunately, many of these elements are well-entrenched within the government to such an extent that even those who defy them and take decisions that would benefit the people find it difficult to implement them. Allowing those with political clout to protect profiteering — that too in food items — is not only criminal but also a curse. It is time the government adopted a long-term policy of building sufficient strategic reserves to allow for pricing intervention and ensuring transparent rolling estimates of production and consumption on a continuing basis, instead of the existing practice of seasonal projections, ad hoc decisions and knee-jerk responses to changes in the market.

Terror act pre-empted

ANOTHER Bali has been averted, for the purported targets of the three terrorists arrested in Germany on Wednesday were discotheques and pubs, besides airports. At Bali on October 12, 2002, the foreign victims of the blasts triggered by the fanatics were mostly Australians; this time, however, the three Germans and a Turk arrested in Karlsruhe were planning to blow up nightspots and airports frequented by Americans. If the plot had not been discovered the explosions would have had the same intensity as that which caused havoc in London on July 7, 2005. Once again any sane mind would be forced to ask as to what these criminals intended to achieve, if they had succeeded, by killing innocent people. According to the German police chief, the three reportedly belonged to the Uzbekistan-based Islamic Jihad and were “driven by a hatred of US citizens”. This perhaps brings us to the crux of the matter. Are official American policies a justification for murdering innocent people whatever nationality they belong to?

Policies followed by the American government are opposed by large sections of the American people themselves. We saw this in the results of the mid-term elections last year and the capture of the two Houses of Congress by the Democratic Party. This is true also of Britain, where the Labour government’s policy on Iraq and Afghanistan has come under intense criticism from the British media and politicians, some of whom belong to Mr Tony Blair’s own party. In fact, one of the world’s biggest anti-war rallies in recent years was held in London. Similarly, the fanatics’ ire is also directed against perceived pro-American regimes as those, say, in Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. In all these countries, terrorists have carried out explosions in public places that killed innocent people without hurting the governments themselves. The explosions in Rawalpindi on Tuesday were like those that rocked Istanbul, Sharm El Sheikh and many Saudi cities.

The failed terror plot in Germany serves to underline the need for greater cooperation among all states for eliminating the menace of terrorism. Pakistan’s responsibility is the greater because the two German converts and the Turk were supposed to have acquired training in this country. This calls for maintaining greater vigilance on foreigners coming to Pakistan and getting in touch with the known sources of terrorism here.

Irresponsible statements

CHAUDHRY Shujaat Hussain seems to have a habit of making irresponsible statements that do no service for the presidency. Recently, he has been talking about General Musharraf’s deal with Benazir Bhutto in percentage terms, saying that the deal is nine and not 90 per cent done when it is fairly clear that he is not directly involved in the talks. In his interview to The Washington Post on Wednesday, he referred to the possibility of Gen Musharraf being cornered into declaring an emergency. This is despite the general’s often repeated denials on the issue. The more Mr Hussain tries to convince the world of the options Gen Musharraf has before him, the more he succeeds in portraying the president as a man eager to prolong his rule, however he can. There may be truth to this but isn’t it odd that it is coming from a man whose job so to speak is to secure the president’s future, not expose its frailty? But what else could Gen Musharraf have expected from this loosely cobbled together party whose purpose was to ensure his smooth sailing in politics? Now that he has had to turn to other players for a power-sharing formula, it is inevitable that the PML-Q will try to perpetuate its power, however it can — even if it means destabilising the country’s future, which the imposition of emergency would definitely do.

Such statements also sound like sour grapes for it is obvious that the PML-Q’s fortunes have turned. This should serve as a lesson to leaders who enter into agreements that only serve themselves and not the people they are elected to represent. There may be short cuts to power but in the long haul sticking to a party’s principles and refusing to compromise on them matters far more — and yields better results.

Islam against terrorism

AT this point in time, Islam is facing a threat far more formidable than at any other time in the past: a threat from within. The ongoing trend of suicide bombings, be they in Afghanistan or Iraq in response to the US-led war on terror, the credibility of which is not the subject of this discussion, or those conducted in Fata and the NWFP as well as the federal capital at the behest of Ayman al-Zawahiri.

He had asked his followers to hit Pakistan three days after the Lal Masjid operation was concluded with the death of Maulana Rashid Ghazi, in all of which cases the civilian death toll was alarmingly high. Innocent men, women and children bearing the brunt of the ongoing power struggle have served to project Islam as synonymous with terrorism. The bloody battles being so waged, far from promoting the interests of the Muslim community have caused the ostracism of Muslims world over.

Islam advocates peaceful co-existence. “Oh people! We have created you from one male and one female and made you branches and tribes that you may recognize (one another). No doubt the noblest of you in the Presence of Allah is he who is more pious.” (49: 13); “Mankind were one community and Allah sent Prophets with glad tidings and warnings…” (2: 213); “…your Lord…created you from a single person (Adam) and from him (Adam) He created his wife (Hawwa) (Eve), and from them both He created many men and women…” (4: 01)

The word of Islam spread due to the untiring resolve of the Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H) to make the people aware of the omnipresent God. It was spread through forbearance, not by the sword as is the erroneous view of the West. The Holy Prophet, the last prophet of Allah, was asked to invite people to enter the fold of Islam. Three years after receiving the first revelation on Mount Hira, he, as commanded by Allah, started preaching in public. He assembled all the clans of Quraysh on the hill of Safa outside Makkah where he invited them to embrace Islam. Not only did they refuse to do so but took strong measures to stop Prophet Muhammad from preaching the Islamic faith.

Every new conversion led to more violent persecution of Muslims. They hurled abuses at the Holy Prophet and resorted to open acts of cruelty towards the converts. They tortured by beating, burning in the scorching sand of the mid-day sun and even butchered in cold blood. Bilal, the first muezzin, was tortured brutally but he remained steadfast. Usman bin Affan, the future caliph and Zubair ibn al-Awwam were tortured by their uncles. Sa’d ibn al-Waqas was tortured by his own kinfolk.

In these extreme circumstances, the Holy Prophet did not order his small band of believers to retaliate, rather told them to migrate to Abyssinia. Later on, after the boycott of Banu Hashim for three years, which was a harrowing experience for the Holy Prophet and his supporters, he on being invited, migrated to Medina.

After his migration to Medina, wars were fought with the Quraish of Makkah, but never did he opt for acts to terrorise, nor did he resort to hidden means to suppress the enemy; “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits.” (2: 190); “…if they attack you, then kill them…but if they cease, then Allah is oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (2: 191, 192). The incident of the fall of Makkah again shows the magnanimity of the Prophet, who before entering it had instructed his soldiers not to shed blood unless absolutely necessary. Washington Irving wrote, “Express orders were given to all generals to practise forbearance and in no instance to make the first attack; for it was the earnest desire of Muhammad (SM) to win Makkah by moderation and clemency, rather than subdue it by violence.”

On entering Makkah victorious, the Holy Prophet declared general amnesty. The above narration taken from the pages of history refutes all claims by the West that Islam promotes terrorism. It also questions the rather outrageous stance taken up by present day militant mullahs who kill indiscriminately and flaunt an air of self-righteousness.

The Prophet during Hajjat-al-Wida addressed the people and said: “Do not (become infidels) revert to disbelief after me by striking the necks (cutting the throats) of one another (killing each other).” Further, various ahadith of the Holy Prophet also give avid testimony that Islam does not allow nor does it condone acts of terrorism and murder. The Holy Prophet once said: “The biggest of Al-Kaba’ir (the great sins) are: (1) To join others as partners in worship with Allah, (2) to murder a human being, (3) to be undutiful to one’s parents, and (4) to make a false statement.” At another time he said: “A Muslim must not terrify a fellow Muslim.” According to another narration he said: “Whoever points an iron rod towards his brother, the angels shall go on cursing him until he stopped, even if he (the victim) happens to be his full brother (from the sides of his father and mother).”

Islam has restricted war to fighting in defence. All aggressors, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, have been strongly condemned. Muslims are to avoid war, However if there is no other option , then they must fight with full vigour, and compel the enemy to see his salvation through peaceful coexistence. The Islamic texts also mention various acts forbidden in war. These include: 1. Killing of non-combatants; 2. Cruel ways of killing enemy troops; 3. Killing of prisoners of war; 4. Killing of envoys; 5. Mutilation of dead bodies; 6. Use of poisonous weapons; 7. Inhumane treatment of prisoners of war; 8. Destruction of natural vegetation, crops and livestock; 9. Poisoning of wells and other water resources; 10. Harassment of population in the vanquished territory; 11. Destruction of places of worship; 12. Dishonouring of captive women, etc.

This further serves to elucidate that Islam is against terrorism as it is highly unlikely that a faith which provided the most comprehensive set of humanitarian law long before the Geneva Conventions ventured forth would promote or encourage terrorism as it involves killing and harassment of innocent civilians.

It is most unfortunate that Islam is frequently misinterpreted to serve ulterior motives; be it struggle for power or control over strings of a certain purse. It is used to justify religious intolerance or is manipulated as a weapon to give vent to hatred long suppressed. In either of the cases so mentioned, Islam and Muslims are made to suffer while those guilty of the crime go scot-free. Religious extremism, which is currently at its worst, has brought about suffering at a large scale. It is pertinent to mention a hadith at this point in which the Holy Prophet said: “Beware of excesses in matters of religion. For, as a matter of fact, those before you were destroyed by religious immoderation.”

Pakistan on the edge

Khaleej Times

THAT Pakistan’s two latest bomb blasts took place in the vicinity of the military headquarter in Rawalpindi must have sent a chill down General Musharraf’s spine — perhaps hinting that not only political turmoil, but also physical threats, are drawing nearer with time. Even though Pakistan has been no stranger to sporadic acts of terrorism, especially in the wake of the Red Mosque siege and operation, the attack in what is a ‘military zone’ surrounding the powerful GHQ is no small matter.

For General Musharraf in particular and the ruling party in general, the mix of ‘place and time’ of the attack could hardly have been more inopportune. The post-Lal Masjid restlessness had barely died down that exiled premiers started sending one shockwave after another — one with regard to the notorious deal with the government, the other following the Supreme Court order rubbishing a previous deal with Musharraf…

Though security breakdown and acts of terrorism are despicable elements at any time, they tend to have the worst effect in times like the present, when political uncertainty shrouds the road to a critical general election. The government will lose precious points owing to no short-term mistake of its own.

Hard-line elements bent upon bringing the centre to its knees are a reality in modern-day Pakistan with which all vying for power will have to contend. The coming together on this issue of government, opposition and political opponents alike will send a message of political maturity to the masses as they gear up for the exercise of the vote, their most prized privilege in a land where it’s been denied in fairness for far too long. — (Sept 5)

Out of Basra

Arab News

…British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was so busy insisting — only seven days ago — that he was firmly opposed to setting a timetable for British withdrawal. He surely knew perfectly well that (Monday’s) hand-over of the Basra palace complex was imminent and that British troops would hand over complete responsibility for security in the rest of the province in a few weeks’ time…

Obviously he is hypersensitive about how it will be viewed in the US. He does not want to be seen as cutting and running, although that is about what it amounts to — but he will probably be widely praised in the British press for his decision… Does the pullout undermine Anglo-American relations? Probably not in the short term.

It is unthinkable that Prime Minister Brown did not mention anything to President Bush when the two met at the end of July. The White House has therefore had six weeks to factor British withdrawal into its plans. Not that it will move American troops south.

By common consent, there is no need to. Washington too will present this as a job done — although what it really wanted was for the British to redeploy elsewhere in Iraq after quitting Basra. That, however, is not going to happen. Longer term though, this has the making of a profound rupture … American public opinion will be quick to contrast earlier British claims about how they were better in dealing with insurgents than the Americans and last weekend’s stinging attacks in the UK press by retired British generals on American policy.

They may…conclude that Britain is an ineffective…ally. That is precisely what Prime Minister Brown wants to avoid. — (Sept 4)