New Pakistan - News

You Get What You Give

2010-09-05T20:56:00Z

The treatment of our military delegation by flight staff and American law enforcement last week was an insult to the sacrifices made by our soldiers and the respect due to a sovereign nation. It made me sick to hear the news. Yet, I could not help but think - why are some complaining? Isn't this the diplomacy they preach?

But look at the way that American diplomats are treated here.

The Nation in particular revels in any opportunity to accuse American delegations of all manner of conspiracies. In fact, it was not too long ago that American diplomats were complaining of harrassment by Pakistani military and intelligence. In fact, tensions had become so high that,

The public distrust toward American officials has led many American diplomats to keep a low profile, and adopt a bunker mentality, American diplomats acknowledge. Americans are rarely seen in restaurants or shopping areas, and are in fact warned by security advisers to steer clear of such places.

So I can't help but laugh heartily when I read in The Nation:

AFTER being abused willingly by the US on many occasions post-9/11 on the pretext of security, like so many other segments of the Pakistani state and its leadership, the Pakistan military finally chose to refuse such treatment anymore – and high time too. That is why one welcomes the stance the Pakistan military delegation took when it was subjected to inappropriate behaviour by US security officials at Dulles International Airport – merely because some passenger found their conversation “suspicious”. The delegation simply cancelled its meeting with CENTCOM and returned home. Of course, the usual apologies were offered by the US Defence Department, but what use are these once the Pakistanis have been insulted?

After all, this is the same newspaper that only a few months ago wrote of the Americans,

Additionally, it has now claimed that all law-breaking Americans in Pakistan are US diplomats - despite facts to the contrary on the ground - and Pakistanis, by enforcing their laws are "harassing" them! One has not heard such ludicrous defence of law breakers before but then the US is subtly hinting at blackmail here - allow our citizens unfettered access and total immunity from the law of the land or else aid will get slowed or curtailed. This is surely one of the many costs of being a US ally and "front line" state in a US-led erroneous war. But at the end of the day it is the Pakistani leadership, both political and military, that is to blame. It has failed to protect Pakistan and its people against the machinations of the US and its representatives in Pakistan; it has in fact shown an unwillingness or inability to prevent the Americans from running amok in Pakistan - breaking the laws of the land as they will.

The Nation doesn't actually mention any of these "crimes" being carried out by Americans (diplomats or not). Instead, The Nation has built an entire industry of accusing people of being "suspicious" and then publishes their addresses or accuses them of being spies.

So how can anyone have a reaction other than laughter when The Nation now complains that our military delegation was questioned "merely because some passenger found their conversation 'suspicious'." Is The Nation jealous that someone is stealing their game?

It was beyond the pale for the American airline to treat our military delegation with such disrespect. I cannot help but notice that the American government immediately apologized for this act, and I cannot imagine that someone has not lost their job because of it. I do wish the officers would have gone ahead with their scheduled trip, though, instead of coming home in protest. Certainly it was a reasonable option, but I wonder if we would not have looked like the bigger, more mature nation in the eyes of the world if we had not let such petty foolishness affect us. Either way, I have noticed that the American media seems to be

There is an old saying that "You get what you give". Perhaps its something we should think about the next time we decide to go around accusing every Tom, Dick, and Harry of being a 'spy' or 'suspicious' just because he is carrying a foreign or diplomatic passport. Hopefully, the Americans have learned their lesson. Have we learned ours?

A Revolution is Not a Dinner Party

2010-09-03T05:48:00Z

by Sana Ali

While the government and army vigorously fight extremism, they must now too provide relief to millions in need due to the devastating floods. The challenges are clear and the Pakistani spirit to fight and triumph has revealed itself throughout Pakistan and the world. The people of Pakistan have come out in full force to help the flood victims, and the expatriate community has risen to their duty as well. It is truly wonderful to witness the dedication Pakistanis have exhibited in the face of terrible circumstances.

by Sana Ali

To all those calling for a revolution in Pakistan, I have just one thing to say: open your eyes!

The Taliban have unleashed a wave of violence over the last several years; they have succeeded to such an extent that a country that had never experienced a suicide bombing now witnesses them in routine. A revolution is already happening, and it is being fought by the Taliban. These inhumane monsters wish to topple the federal and provincial government and install one of their own – one that follows a twisted and cruel interpretation of Islam. In their Pakistan, there can be no Shia, no Ahmadi, no Hindi, Christian or Jew, and certainly no educated women. In their dark world, there is no vibrancy, only fear. Such are the sinister goals of the Taliban.

While the government and army vigorously fight extremism, they must now too provide relief to millions in need due to the devastating floods. The challenges are clear and the Pakistani spirit to fight and triumph has revealed itself throughout Pakistan and the world. The people of Pakistan have come out in full force to help the flood victims, and the expatriate community has risen to their duty as well. It is truly wonderful to witness the dedication Pakistanis have exhibited in the face of terrible circumstances.

That is why it angers me to hear political leaders calling for a revolution. All revolutions have initially been attempts at reform, and reform is well underway in Pakistan. Our political process will never again tolerate a military dictator and our people will never again live under martial law. We are now a country that has accepted political power can only change hands through a ballot box, not by force. The democratic institutions within Pakistan have carefully won credibility – the “Friends of Democratic Pakistan” is an example of the international community’s faith in the government, and hope that democracy can be sustained.

We have to do just that – SUSTAIN DEMOCRACY, not scrap it. Those who call for a French Revolution in Pakistan should ask themselves who their Napoleon will be. Who will be the person to spill even more blood in Pakistan? Is our soil not red enough for these people?

It is infuriating to see credible leaders call for a revolution. It must be a very quaint hypothetical to think about in the safety of one’s drawing room. “After all, it worked out so well for France!” they must exclaim. The fact of the matter is we are trying to uphold our system of governance in the face of the Taliban, who are waging a war against Pakistan. An extremist’s fondest wish is to see a destabilized Pakistan. Why would we give them that?

Don't call me moderate, call me normal

2010-09-01T17:17:00Z

Ed Husain, co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation, wrote the following essay that was published in the American newspaper Wall Street Journal.

I am fully Muslim and fully Western. Don't call me moderate—call me a normal Muslim.

Ed Husain, co-founder of the Quilliam Foundation, wrote the following essay that was published in the American newspaper Wall Street Journal.

I am a moderate Muslim, yet I don't like being termed a "moderate"—it somehow implies that I am less of a Muslim.

We use the designation "moderate Islam" to differentiate it from "radical Islam." But in so doing, we insinuate that while Islam in moderation is tolerable, real Islam—often perceived as radical Islam—is intolerable. This simplistic, flawed thinking hands our extremist enemies a propaganda victory: They are genuine Muslims. In this rubric, the majority, non-radical Muslim populace has somehow compromised Islam to become moderate.

What is moderate Christianity? Or moderate Judaism? Is Pastor Terry Jones's commitment to burning the Quran authentic Christianity, by virtue of the fanaticism of his action? Or, is Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual head of the Shas Party in Israel, more Jewish because he calls on Jews to rain missiles on the Arabs and "annihilate them"?

The pastor and the rabbi can, no doubt, find abstruse scriptural justifications for their angry actions. And so it is with Islam's fringe: Our radicals find religious excuses for their political anger. But Muslim fanatics cannot be allowed to define Islam.

The Prophet Muhammad warned us against ghuluw, or extremism, in religion. The Quran reinforces the need for qist, or balance. For me, Islam at its essence is the middle way in all matters. This is normative Islam, adhered to by a billion normal Muslims across the globe.

Normative Islam is inherently pluralist. It is supported by 1,000 years of Muslim history in which religious freedom was cherished. The claim, made today by the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia, that they represent God's will expressed through their version of oppressive Shariah law is a modern innovation.

The classical thinking within Islam was to let a thousand flowers bloom. Ours is not a centralized tradition, and Islam's rich diversity is a legacy of our pluralist past.

Normative Islam, from its early history to the present, is defined by its commitment to protecting religion, life, progeny, wealth and the human mind. In the religious language of Muslim scholars, this is known as maqasid, or aims. This is the heart of Islam.

I am fully Muslim and fully Western. Don't call me moderate—call me a normal Muslim.

Kehnay Mein Kya Harj Hai? Husain Haqqani Interview

2010-08-31T13:31:00Z

Ismail Khan: The partition narrative

2010-08-30T14:27:00Z

by Ismail Khan

Many might argue that the survivors or victims of the Bangladesh tragedy were those who hardly shared the same location as West Pakistan and, therefore, the lessons were not internalised. The same could also be said about the Taliban, who were initially thought of as a far-flung problem

by Ismail Khan

It is 63 years since Pakistan emerged as an independent state on the map of the world. Variably referred to as the birth of Pakistan, partition of India or independence of India and Pakistan, the event is important not only for global and national power politics, but also for its imprint on the official narrative of the two states. Within Pakistan, 63 years after the event, it appears that the state’s narrative is still stuck in 1947.

That the birth of Pakistan was mired in human suffering is indisputable. Nearly one million people died and 10 million migrated in the “massive exercise in human misery” that bubbled out from the transfer of power from the British Raj to the newly independent states.

In addition to the material disputes between Pakistan and India emerging from day one, which laid the foundations of mutual animosity, equally notable is the impact of the partition narrative upon the national psyche. This is not meant to draw out any causal relationship between the psyche and the material disputes, but to highlight how the two fed each other.

As would be noted later, the state as well as the nation-building task was carried out largely by Pakistan’s two ethnic groups, Urdu-speaking and Punjabis, who suffered most while migrating from India to Pakistan. While that happened nearly two generations ago, the importance of the narration stands even today.

For one, like any tragic event around the world, partition did shape the personal lives of certain individuals who would rise in the state’s structure. For instance, the role partition played in shaping the memories of both Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, a nuclear scientist, and Hafiz Saeed, a jihadist, cannot be denied. Unfortunately, it seems that the legacy the two individuals sustained from the event was negative; comments attributed to them can be easily found in which they recall their loathing of the untrustworthy ‘Hindu India’ that made them lose relatives and property as they migrated from India to Pakistan.

This is not to say that the narrative had any specific reason that made a strong defence around it. With or without Dr Khan or Hafiz Saeed, the state would have pursued its policies. What happened was the convergence of the state’s goals and individuals who shared the state’s goal at the ideological level — something that, in the two cases, derived from their shared memories of partition.

Instead, it would be correct to say that instead of dismissing, the state sustained the river of narrative, prominent individuals being the tributaries of such a river. For, in times of desiring peace, the state had to project the softness that existed before the partition. Here, one would like to mention how Pakistan’s former ruler Pervez Musharraf, otherwise a military ruler, used to fondly recall his home in India, which his family had to leave at the time of partition, whenever he broached the subject of peace with India.

The additional reason why the role of the state as a factor in sustaining the memory cannot be denied derives from the lesser prominence given to events that rendered a trauma of the same magnitude upon its survivors. Depending upon the source of the statistics, thousands to millions of Bengalis died in the war of liberation in 1971, yet its imprint in Pakistan’s narrative is minimal. At the most, the event is recalled as Pakistan’s dismemberment with the primacy given to the external role, namely India, in supporting guerrilla fighters; the internal reasons are whitewashed. While the event and even its prominence show their mark, its primary genesis got tailored for the state’s ends.

Likewise, in our recent memory, the suffering of the people living under Taliban shadows has only recently made it into the official national memory. The magnitude of the sufferings could be discerned from the fact that prior to the military operation in Swat, US Special Representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke had said that the “displacement caused has been the largest since partition”.

Many might argue that the survivors or victims of the Bangladesh tragedy were those who hardly shared the same location as West Pakistan and, therefore, the lessons were not internalised. The same could also be said about the Taliban, who were initially thought of as a far-flung problem. It is interesting to note how the Pakistani state representatives would point towards the topographical features of Pakistan, arguing how hills separate the Taliban-infested Swat region and peaceful Islamabad.

In the same fashion, there is a noted absence of the internalisation of partition among those segments of society that did not experience it and did not read the official narrative. A case in point was a recent attempt by Zaid Hamid to ‘wake up’ Pakistan across the country. In both Lahore and Islamabad, he was able to get a thumping applause from students in response to the speeches he delivered after pictures of suffering of people during partition were relayed with melancholic dialogue and patriotic songs running in the background. However, the speaker had to face embarrassment when he held a microphone in Peshawar, where the contemporary sufferings had been caused by the Taliban.

This is not to underestimate any event or tragedy but to emphasise how the state must be resilient to all tragedies so as to shape its memory by absorbing the collective miseries of all segments of society — irrespective of time and place. The chronological halt around 1947 may not necessarily find resonance with the contemporary realities of 2010.

The writer, a graduate of International Relations from Boston University, is presently based in Washington DC

We must stay the course

2010-08-29T14:26:00Z

by Babar Sattar for The News

Altaf Hussain's statement inciting 'patriotic generals' to take steps 'like martial law' against 'corrupt feudal and land lord politicians' is an expression of intent to support subversion of constitutional rule in Pakistan. This statement is not only mischievous, but also malicious. It has been uttered (and vociferously defended by MQM minions) not in naivete or desperation, but in full view of the historically omnipotent role of the army within the political arena. Much of the thoughtless commentary in the written and electronic media suggests that Altaf Hussain's problem identification is spot-on, but solution faulty. This is simply not true. His problem identification is inflammatory, misleading and self-serving, and the solution disruptive, illegal and unworkable.

by Babar Sattar for The News

The MQM statement and its shameless defense and the resultant name-calling and finger-pointing within the political arena provides an insight into how fragile democratic values are in Pakistan and how vulnerable a civilian government is to khaki adventurism. Despite all their fiery rhetoric and tedious jugglery with words the Farooq Sattars and Haider Abbas Rizvis of MQM have failed to explain what role Altaf Hussain envisages the 'patriotic generals' to play in addressing our mighty problems of governance and under what provision of the law would the khakis assume such responsibility. The Pakistan Army is part of the executive and under the control of the federal government according to our Constitution. How can generals hold corrupt ministers accountable without breaching their oath under the Constitution and usurping functions of the federal government?

If Altaf Hussain was merely emphasizing the urgent need to usher change and was speaking of a revolution in a rhetorical sense, why would he not try and recruit all citizens of Pakistan as agents of change instead of 'patriotic generals'? If the MQM was not propagating an unconstitutional role for the military, why would fork-tongued MQM representatives make blaring speeches about the moral responsibility of generals to stand up this time for the ordinary people of Pakistan in a backdrop where the institution has repeatedly imposed martial law in self-interest? Does the MQM really find the rest of us this gullible? When has any general ever claimed to impose martial law in self-interest?

The script of all military takeovers has been identical: "circumstances are so dire that the skies are about to cave in … the country and its people need to be saved urgently … it is not martial law but a shortcut to true and meaningful democracy … if in the course of a larger good the law and the Constitution get screwed a little bit, so be it … we must keep our eyes on the big picture … Pakistan Zindabad." And such speeches are always preceded by a section of the political class (read MQM in this case) engaging in intrigues and actively cultivating public opinion to accept khaki adventurism in the name of national interest.

First of all, the MQM's identification of the problem is flawed. A feudal class engaging in corruption when in politics is not the fountainhead of Pakistan's ailments. Our problem is an elite class that comprises feudal elites, industrial elites, military elites, bureaucratic elites, religious elites, professional elites and political elites. The composition of the elite might change a little overtime and so might the relative clout of each of these competing elites in controlling the state and its resources. But the overall role and character of the elite stay constant, which is to maintain and nurture a state structure that is neither focused on service delivery nor believes in investing national resources in organs and agencies of the state responsible for citizen welfare.

For the last two decades the MQM has been an integral part of the elite that controls the levers of power in Pakistan. It has been an ally of both the mainstream political parties – the PPP and the PML-N during the 1990s. It jumped into Musharraf's lap immediately after he decided to put together a civilian façade for his regime. The MQM's Ishratul Ibad is probably one of the longest serving governors of Sindh. The party was a partner in the federal and the Sindh governments during Musharraf's regime. It continues to be an ally of both governments to this day under a PPP-led dispensation. The MQM, as a political entity, thus forms an integral part of Pakistan's power elite.

Being an insider and continuing to be part of the ruling regime, does the MQM feel not the slightest bit hypocritical decrying civilian political elite's corrupt ethics while offering no apology for its own politics? If it is such a champion of change, why did it violently sabotage the lawyers' rally in Karachi on July 5, 2007 and oppose restoration of the deposed judges? If it is truly a supporter of egalitarianism, what explains its petty opposition to IDPs or flood victims being given refuge within the confines of Karachi? If it believes that the present government is evil incarnate, why remain appended to such evil while calling it names? If it was so interested in upholding people's right to know details of the Nawaz Sharif exile deal, why wake up to the issue ten years too late while staying in power all along?

Without first taking responsibility for its share of contribution to Pakistan's corrupt political ethic, the MQM has no moral authority to make shrill self-righteous noises. The MQM's antics are a manifestation of our political rot. The party seeks accountability of others, but is loath to present itself for accountability or work to create sustainable institutionalised mechanism for accountability. It demands devolution of authority to provinces and local bodies and castigates lack of democracy in other parties, but remains the ringleader when it comes to authoritarian party structures. It wants empowerment of the ordinary citizen, but is widely seen as lording over the commercial hub of Pakistan.

And what is the MQM's prescribed elixir for Pakistan's ills? Patriotic generals! How long shall we stubbornly refuse to learn lessons from our checkered history? We have had direct army rule in this country longer than civilian rule, even without counting the long stretches when military has continued to control the state and ruling governments from behind the scene. The military remains the most powerful institution of the state despite our transition to democracy. If khakis had answers to Pakistan's multifarious problems, we should have been heaven on earth by now. Our politicians might be corrupt and incompetent, but no more than the other elites that share state power.

It is only ordinary citizens and not generals who have the right to hold public representatives accountable. We need to lower the barriers to entry into politics. We need to make our political parties democratic. We need to revamp our electoral process and implement campaign finance laws. We need to setup permanent accountability processes that force holders of public office to treat state authority as a sacred trust. We need to redefine national security to mean the physical, emotional and food security that the state affords to each citizen. We need to fix our lop-sided civil-military imbalance. And we need to find and train political leaders who help accomplish all of the above by reordering our state priorities and building institutions that function seamlessly without relying on extraordinary individuals.

The bad news is that our problems have no quick fixes. But let us not allow our growing frustration with an incompetent government and concern over the sluggardly pace of political reform to be mistaken as an opportunity for palace intrigues. A change of façade alone will do us no good. We must hold our ruling regime's feet to fire. But we must also stay the course and focus on nurturing and strengthening democratic norms and institutions within the confines of our Constitution.

Frenzied mob mentality

2010-08-27T15:51:00Z

By Farahnaz Ispahani

All Pakistanis should have their heads lowered in shame. We appear to be still medieval rather than part of the 21st century.

At a time when we reach out to the international community for aid to help our citizens after the devastating floods, we are still living through mob lynching. This is not digestible, leave alone acceptable at any moral level. This is hardly the face of a modern democratic state.

The natural calamity and the holy month of Ramazan have failed in making our hearts softer or more civilized.

On the one hand we are condemning the barbarity of the suicide bombings carried out by extremists but unfortunately the violence and lack of tolerance they exhibit seems to have trickled down into our national psyche.

The Taliban in Fata and the crowd of savages and the police and bystanders in Sialkot seem to be living by the same norm: might is right. Both are inhumane and cruel, murderers of the innocent and the enemies of humanity.

How long can we continue to accept the atrocities against minorities, the honour killings of women and incidents like the public lynching in Sialkot and a similar incident in Toba Tek Singh where eight innocent travelers were beaten to death in a similar way? There too in the presence of the local police. Sadly, one hears that influential locals hushed up the Toba Tek Singh incident but that miscarriage of justice has been seared into the hearts and minds of the families of the 8 dead individuals.

There have also been many incidents where in the presence of police people have been killed in encounters and their bodies paraded through the streets.

The state authorities and the citizens of Pakistan must wake up or else we will find ourselves trapped in a country where the rules and norms of civility and humanity are a long forgotten idea.

Now is the time to fight the forces of regressivism. This is the moment to re-lay the foundations for a civilized democratic society and use Islamic and secular teachings regarding basic human rights to change our nation’s destiny

Look at these two recent public mob murders. On August 15 two brothers, Hafiz Moghees (aged 17) and Muneeb (aged 15) were beaten to death by a frenzied crowd in Sialkot. This heartless attack on two innocent students continued for hours. The murderers took turns savagely beating them with sticks, kicks, and stones. They were crying out for help but no one lent a hand to them. No one present raised a voice during the attack.

Police witnessed the entire event. The DPO of Sialkot reached the scene of the crime during the time of the beatings and witnessed the boys being pulled by ropes by their feet and being hung upside down with blood running down their mouths and noses. Even after their death, the savages toured the entire city with the mutilated corpses showing not an iota of remorse in their action.

The father of children told newsmen that he himself prepared the funerals of his children and there was no part in their body not beaten, injured, bloodied and broken into pieces. I couldn’t identify the bodies of my beloved sons as they were terribly mutilated, he said. “We demand a fitting punishment for the culprits and the local police.”

“The fact is that they had not committed any crime, they just come about to pass by the wrong place at the wrong time,” a news reporter quoted an eyewitness statement. “They were innocent teenaged students and were killed for no reason,” the witness added.

As details have appeared it is almost certain the two boys – Hafiz Moghees and his brother Muneeb- were innocent.

But let us presume that the rabble caught them even after the brothers had robbed and killed two people. Even then, does our law and morality allow us to beat, kill and mutilate human beings? Such barbarous incidents, one hoped had been left behind when man had lived in the Stone Age and had no norms and laws. Today when society has developed and has a system of reward and punishment, such actions take a stable society toward destabilization.

The government, media, civil society and the courts must take up the case for real justice to be done and make it an example for those who practice vigilante justice. As someone has recently said the violence we condone leads to the violence we condemn.

(Farahnaz Ispahani is a PPP MNA and a member of the NA Standing Committee on Human Rights)

One Thousand Wars & No Unity

2010-08-26T17:56:00Z

by Sana Ali

If there was ever a time to rally for Pakistan, it is now. The headlines of the past several months narrate one of the worst periods in Pakistan’s short history. Pakistan’s emerging democracy faces calamity after calamity. Poverty, education reforms, infrastructure development, and health initiatives are all equally important concerns that require immediate attention. As the Pakistani government focused on providing real solutions, the country was hit with one of the worst natural disasters in modern history. The truth of the matter is this: Pakistan is fighting one thousand wars within its borders.

by Sana Ali

Years of living under brutal dictators did not stop Pakistan’s push for democracy. As a democratically-elected government gingerly gained its footing, there was real hope that it would be first administration to finish its term. Pakistan was, and is, very close to setting this all-important precedent. But the floods have created what President Zardari calls the “ideal hope of the radical,” that the disaster has discredited the civilian government and paved the way for potential chaos.

It should be noted that though terrorists across the Islamic world differ in strategy, their common denominator remains their ability to exploit political disunity to their advantage. The President defended the country’s response to the floods, arguing his government is rising to its duty and doing the absolute most it can in the face of such devastation. This begs the question, is any government ever prepared to see one-fifth of its country underwater or incur damages reaching $43 billion? The destruction of the floods is almost beyond comprehension. Funds specifically allocated to a myriad of projects -- building schools, health clinics, paving roads, assisting the poor – have been redirected to relief for flood victims, slowing the efforts to focus on those crucial problems. Pakistan requires years of continued development and assistance to recover from what the UN Secretary General describes a “slow-moving tsunami.” The UN described the floods as a test of "global solidarity."

For Pakistan, then, this is a test of national solidarity. The floods are yet another national crisis the country must meet head-on. The crippling generational-poverty keeps education and opportunity from the masses. Families are forced to send their children to work, depriving them of a change of improving their quality of life. In a country where labor-laws are either non-existent or not enforced, this is a tragedy the country suffers every single day.

The social attitudes are another aspect that keeps Pakistanis from progressing. The nonchalant acceptance of discrimination of minorities is an ugly truth in today’s Pakistan. The internal cancer of extremism has been alleviated in the northern areas – thanks to the sharp leadership of Gen. Kayani – but it is by no means abated and has spread to Pakistan’s cities.

This is a time for national solidarity and unity. Our leaders must have a cogent plan going forward, with no gaps extremists might slink through. Already there are reports of extremists providing aid and recruiting the flood victims to their agenda. We have a wonderful example set by the PPP and PML-N. At a press conference last week, Prime Minister Gilani and Nawaz Sharif announced their plan to work together towards the full and complete rehabilitation of the 20 million affected by the floods. That is a shining example of leaders coming together to generate ideas on how to better lead the people.

Pakistan’s leaders are all united in agreement against the gruesome lynching of two brothers in Sialkot. The grainy video footage captured by an eye-witness has horrified the nation. The public’s reaction is clear: surely we must hold on to our humanity in the midst of difficult times, surely we are not bereft of humanity. Leaders across the political stage, from Governor Salmaan Taseer to CM Shahbaz Sharif, have declared the perpetrators will be brought to justice and that such acts must never be allowed to happen again.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have people who haven’t learned a thing from history. Leader of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement Altaf Hussain called for “patriotic generals” to impose martial law upon the country. This, he declared, would be the best way to help the country out of this disaster. Mr. Hussain fails to realize that the harsh periods of martial law in Pakistani history are seen as the worst for development and education. To debate the merits of democracy versus martial law is to waste the country’s time. We cannot fill the airwaves with a smokescreen issue that so cruelly takes away from many other pressing matters.

Pakistanis must reject the cacophony of the ignorant, continue to fortify democratic institutions and most of all, tackle the crises with true patriotic zeal. Political point-scoring and delusions of martial law’s grandeur must have no place in our narrative. Whenever any Pakistani feels angry, he must only stop and think of the consequences. Anger is what feeds the extremists, who have no respect for innocent lives, and even in the face of natural disaster choose to unleash violence upon a suffering people. Anger is what divides our leaders and fails our people. These are the millions of people who are desperate for help. We must rise to do our duties by them, and rise together, as one nation.

Kindness has never weakened a nation and true patriotism has never hurt it. Only by banding together can Pakistanis effectively overcome the severe crises it currently faces.

Pakistan’s Future: It’s choice–not chance

2010-08-23T17:04:00Z

Source: Let Us Build Pakistan

by Bilal Qureshi

For my mental health, I never watch Pakistani television, be it state run or the so-called ‘private’ channels. And if I am forced for whatever reason to put up with it for an hour or so, it is, and I am not exaggerating here, the most painful experience; an experience I find difficult to explain in language that is utterly unacceptable in any civil society.

Personally, I am convinced that as soon as the media became independent in Pakistan, it has been a race to the bottom by these anchors and other personalities on T.V. And except for one or perhaps two voices of reason, majority of the talk show hosts in Pakistan are narrow minded, one dimensional, Zardari hating, Osama worshiping, illiterate gangsters who are determined to destroy logical and analytical thinking in Pakistan by constantly airing pro-Taliban and anti American views.

This madness has to stop.

Source: Let Us Build Pakistan

by Bilal Qureshi

This madness has to stop.

Ever since the current government took over, the country has been thrown into hysterical anger, resentment and in overall state of chaos because of the non-stop vitriol on almost all the channels. Thanks to the so-called anchors and experts on T.V., there is hardly anything sane or sensible, except personal attacks, counterattacks, accusations, mudslinging, and name calling. And, it seems that after Asif Zardari’s elections as the president, all hell broke lose. In fact, I am willing to bet my house that you would be hard pressed to find anyone talking about the issues that are about to swallow the country, except for attacking, blaming and holding Zardari responsible for everything that is wrong with Pakistan. Unfortunately, Zardari hatred has become a national sport and this is truly appalling and could very well be the most devastating turning point in Pakistan’s history.

Logically speaking, this level of hate, anger and bitterness is suicidal and it cannot and it should not be nurtured.

Looking at Pakistan from Washington’s comfort and security, it is obvious that the country has been in perpetual crisis ever since its inception. But today, the country is literally under water, and in the days ahead (not years, months or weeks), lack of food, shelter, jobs and a whole set of the other challenges are going to test Pakistan as a country, and I am not very optimistic that Pakistan as a society is ready to tackle anything serious.

And this is really worrisome.

If, and it is a very big if, Pakistanis become serious, put aside their trivial differences, leave Zardari alone and as a nation come together to overcome the monumental challenges that the country is facing, the country might come out of misery, poverty, and hopelessness in 10 to 15 years.

However, judging from Pakistan’s expert discussing Pakistan on Pakistani television, it seems impossible.

As always, America has proved to be a true friend and helped Pakistan during this difficult time. Not only is Washington giving millions in aid, in addition to billions of dollars that are already earmarked for Islamabad, Americans are also mobilizing global donors to give more to Pakistan to cope with hardships and challenges that seem never ending. But, it is impossible to find anyone on the streets, in print, or on electronic media within Pakistan mentioning American generosity, kindness and forgiving philanthropy.

This, too, is maddening.

Unless Pakistanis take control of their own destiny, take responsibility for their own failures, and come up with a clear plan to change their lives, no amount of money, aid, and help can improve their future. Unless Pakistanis unlearn the art of shifting blame (if only Zardari leaves, if only America leaves Pakistan/Afghanistan, if India/Israel and RAW & MOSAD don’t mess with Pakistan), things will never get better.

So, as wise people have said, choices have consequences. Pakistan today is faced with choices between hate, anger, resentment and sanity, responsibility and honesty. It is up to the people of Pakistan to decide what path they are going to take and what they want to be their destiny.

Let us hope that they chose wisely.

“It’s choice–not chance–that determines your destiny.”

Politics & media in Pakistan: another new dictionary

2010-08-20T21:17:00Z

Nadeem Paracha's first foray into defining the modern lexicon last December was a much needed laugh. His latest dictionary does not disappoint, either. OED had better watch out, the NPD is coming!

Asif Ali Zardari:

Wealthy salesman for Bata Shoes. Recently got a shoe thrown at him by a dissatisfied customer.

Army:

Pakistan’s largest political party. Has ruled the most without ever contesting an election. Has a wonderful tradition of coming in swinging a danda, then running out waving a white flag. Enjoys great support among the chattering classes across the country’s drawing-rooms.

America:

A very fattening beef burger which dietitians hate but can’t avoid.

Altaf Hussain:

A loud Punjabi film actor playing the role of a Mohajir politician. Also likes to wear very tight pajamas. Says they keep his weight in check. It doesn’t show, though.

Awami National Party (ANP):

A Pukhtun nationalist party which speaks a different dialect of Pushtu than the dialect used by the Taliban. For example, the word ‘democracy’ when said by ANP is mistaken to mean ‘kill me’ by the Taliban. So they keep killing ANP people believing that’s what they keep asking them to do.

ARWhy News:

A jewelry-business-turned-TV-channel that deals in rare pearls and jewels of wisdom: i.e. Shahid Masood and Aamir Liaquat.

Ahmadiyya:

A race of mutant aliens living quietly in Pakistan and whose existence only becomes known when they are either killed, attacked or bullied by righteous Pakistani Muslims.

Babar Awan:

A creepy looking politician who is planted in the PPP by a sinister underground cult organization that awaits the resurrection of Ziaul Haq.

Bhutto Family:

A political dynasty whose members are labeled as witches and sorcerers when alive but as saints and saviors after they die.

Breaking News:

Small news with big music.

Daily Jangju:

War. Conflict. Clash. Quarrel. Squabble. Profit.

Fundamentalism:

Fun according to mental people.

Fauzia Wahab:

A very boisterous lady who shouts loud little nothings until she goes from being Fauzia to Nauzia.

Fazalur Rheman:

A walking talking stomach.

Fatima Bhutto:

An angst-ridden fictional character on the famous TV soap-opera, ‘Bold and the Bhuttoful.’ Also appears in the racy novelization of the soap, ‘Songs of Blood Sword, Gore & My Furry Lil’ Teddy Bear,’ where she appears as a 3-year-old peace activist of the pacifist organization called Al-Zulfikar run by her equally peaceful and pacifist father, Murtaza Bhutto.

Hamid Gul:

Senility mistaken as nobility.

Hudood Ordinance:

A law enacted by ameer-ul-momineen Hazrat Ziaul Haq to stop women from breathing too loudly because that could distract pious Muslim males from doing good works like flogging, stoning, killing ‘kafirs,’ and discussing the divine merits of keeping a beard.

Any woman caught under the Hudood law or even seen slightly moving her nostrils while breathing is to be arrested, flogged, stoned and told about the divine merits of keeping a beard.

Imran Khan:

A middle-aged man who played cricket as if he was a politician and is doing politics as if he is was a cricketer. Also, he just can’t get himself to denounce Islamic extremists. He insists Hugh Grant is a bigger threat.

Jamat-i-islami:

A political party formed twelve hundred years ago in Baghdad during the Abbasid period.

It was rudely transported to the 20th century by an evil Jew jinn through a time traveling devise. Since then the Jamat has been stuck here, wanting to go back twelve hundred years to its own time. But the only problem is, it wants to take the whole country back with it as well.

Jemima Khan:

A very rich white woman who had a serious dislike of late Benazir Bhutto because Bhutto was almost as rich but not white enough.

Javedie Chaurdhr:

(See John The Baptist).

Kashmala Tariq:

A very pretty lady. And petite too.

Kamlan Khan:

A good example of how much good lots of mouth foam and spit can do to one’s career as a talk-show host. Always wanted to call his TV show ‘The Wrath of Khan’ instead of ‘Aaj Kamlan Khan Kay Saath’. But the owner of Peo TV, Captain James T. Kirk, refused; even though Kamlan insisted he had Klingon ancestry.

Kashmir:

A very confused map that looks one way to the Indians and another way to the Pakistanis.

Kalashnikov Culture:

An indigenous and prominent side of the Pakistani culture in which men use the AK-47 for everything ranging from fighting gang wars to firing in the air to celebrate election victories, weddings, new years eve and baby showers. Some Pakistani men have also been known to pick their teeth with an AK-47 after a hearty meal.

Klashif Abbasi:

A very rowdy mother-in-law.

Lashkar-e-Tayba:

Men who pick their teeth with AK-47’s. They burp a lot as well. Very loudly.

Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM):

A gathering of men who like to wear very tight pajamas. They also like to gather in large numbers in front of a telephone set every now and then.

Marvi Memon:

Marvi is to politics what Veronica was to Archie.

Muttahida Majlas-e-Amal (MMA):

A high-fat, asli ghee variant of M&Ms.

Mehe Bukhar:

A woman with the ability to say ‘duh’ the most loudly. Also says other things but not so convincingly.

Nawaz Sharif:

Former Lahore phelwaan (wrestler) and meat-eater who gave up wrestling and meat and became a khajoor-loving peacenik in the liberal and freewheeling country of Saudi Arabia. Returned to Pakistan with long hair and flowers in his hair. This greatly disappointed his meat-eating friends like Rana Sannullah, Ahsan Iqbal and Khwaja Rafique who lamented the fact that their ex-phehelwan buddy had become a sissy. “Where’s the beef, Mian Sahib?” They asked him. “The beef’s in the peace, mutt-heads,” he replied. This made Peo TV very sad which asked its employee, Hamid Mir, to donate some of his own fat to Mian Sahib so he could rediscover the wonders of meat. Now every time Mian Sahib’s cholesterol hits a peak, he can be heard saying things like, “no more friendly opposition;” which makes Peo TV very happy. And fat.

Nasim Tehra:

Human species of the cat family.

Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP):

(See Bhutto Family).

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N):

(Don’t see Mohammad Ali Jinnah).

PawnNews:

An English TV news channel broadcasting in Urdu. Or something like Urdu.

Pawn:

A sun-dried sheet of paper used by very young writers, such as Ardeshir Cowasjee.

Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q):

(Can’t see Whatever)

Parvez Musharraf:

Someone my niece knows from Facebook.

Pakistan Thereek-e-Insaaf (PTI):

A political party which is always facing reverse swing in elections.

(See also Imran Khan).

Peo News:

A very objective, balanced and fair TV news channel which knows that the world is round but gives the largest voice and platform in Pakistan to people who claim that it is flat. However, since the world is flat bit gets Peo the most viewers and sponsors, some of its employees have actually started to believe that indeed the world is flat. And man never walked on the moon; and the Taliban are just a figment of the wild imagination of the liberals; and the recent tragic floods are actually due to the ‘sazish’ of India, Afghanistan, Papua New Gunnie and the Ahmadiyyas; and that Elvis is still alive and living somewhere in the President House in Islamabad.

Politicians:

A breed of people who are nurtured and raised as punching bags for the Army, the media and bored urban middle-class folks to vent out their frustrations and practice their latest karate chops on. And, oh, of course, politicians are the only ones in this otherwise glorious and pious country who are corrupt and should be held accountable. The rest are obviously saints.

Pervez Ilahi:

Man who couldn’t be king.

Quaid-e-Azam:

Famous Islamic warrior who fought the evil forces of Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism to create a muscular Islamic republic based on the laws of the sharia, sunnah and Saudi aid. He was also a great visionary who rightly predicted that his martyrdom will inspire the birth of other great Islamic warriors like Ziaul Haq, Hamid Gul, Rana Sannaullah, Mulla Omar and Inzimamul Haq.

Rana Sanaullah:

PML-N politician who eats a lot of raw meat and uses a wrought iron bicycle handlebar as a mustache to prove he’s a man. Also likes to hold hands and go for long walks with members of extremist organizations. (See also Mutt-Head).

Sansar Abbasi:

A newspaper reporter who spends all his time on TV. Whines a lot as well. Actually has jet black hair and beard, but uses grey hair dye to look wise and respectable, doesn’t work.

Sunni Muslims:

Muslims who fly too close to the sun.

Shia Muslims:

Muslims who only come out when there’s a solar eclipse.

Shahid Nasood:

A papaya who when affected by a rare strain of Congo fever turned into a man who when affected by a rare strain of dengue fever turned into a talk-show host who when affected by a rare strain of Zardari-tus went bonkers!

Taliban:

Cuddly teddy bears that have caused damages and deaths worth billions of dollars in Punjab and Khyber-Pukhtunkhwa but now want to give $20 million dollars to the flood victims in the Punjab and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Their grudge is why the floods are killing all these Pakistanis. It should be them doing all the killing.

Wamid Mir:

Mian Nawaz Sharif’s bodyguard.

Waxpress 24/7:

An Urdu TV news channel broadcasting in English. Or something like English.

X-rated:

TV shows that can morally and politically damage young minds. Example: ‘Zalim Online,’ ‘Meray Muta-bak-bak,’ ‘Brastarps,’ ‘Nadia Can’t Show,’ etc.

YouTube:

The website from where scholars like Allama Ali Azmat gets all his knowledge, wisdom and insights from.

Zalim Liaquat:

Also known as Al-Casanova-wal-Yemeni, Zalim is a politician-turned-televangelist who specializes in reciting naats, promoting religious harmony, and burning custom-made statuettes of the Hindu goddess Kali. Is a passionate advocate of illiteracy because he believes that modern education is the work of Satan – and bad for his TV show’s ratings. Is a fan of designer shirvanees that are gifted to him by his tableeghi friend, Maullana Junaid Jamshed, who himself can’t fit into the shirvanees anymore due to the mandatory protruding paunch a tableeghi must have!

Ziaul Haq:

Famous star of various Lollywood kung-fu movies such as, Jaw of Death; The Grin Reaper; Enter The Mujahid; Judo Hudood; When Hairy Met Belly; and the The Blue Lagoon.

Chief Justice vs. Straw Man

2010-08-17T16:49:00Z

According to its website, the Supreme Court is "the Court of ultimate appeal and therefore final arbiter of law and the Constitution. It exercises original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction. Its judgments/decisions are binding on all other courts in the country". Considering the Supreme Court holds such authority, it is very troubling that Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and other judges that have made statements against the parliament using secularism as a threat. The issue at question is not secularism, but the 18th Amendment and appointment of judges. More broadly, the question is whether parliament is the proper body to make changes to the Constitution. But rather than answer these legitimate questions, the Chief Justice appears to be using straw men to scare the public.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry observed on Monday that the sovereignty of parliament did not mean it enjoyed unfettered powers to introduce any amendment to the Constitution and asked “should we accept if tomorrow parliament declares secularism, and not Islam, as the state polity”.

The CJ made the observation when Advocate Iftikhar Ahmed Mian, the counsel for the federal government, argued that parliament enjoyed unlimited powers, but later explained that the Constitution was based on Islam and that could not be altered.

"Can we afford to follow western parliaments which have decided in favour of gay marriages," quipped Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday, a member of the 17-judge full court hearing challenges to the 18th Amendment.

"Will it be called a rightful exercise of authority if tomorrow parliament amends Article 2 of the Constitution which states that Islam will be the state religion,” asked Justice Tariq Pervaz.

This is a truly sad day when our own justices resort to such blackmail tactics as accusing that the 18th Amendment will cause 'gay marriage' in Pakistan. This is not intellectual reason, it is using what is called a 'straw man' argument fallacy to hide the fact that they cannot refute the actual arguments.

According to the Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia, "secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs". Does that sound so terrible?

Despite basically meaning that you respect other people's religion. This should be uncontroversial, really. Even in Islamic teaching there is disagreement. But we are taught to respect those disagreements. To discuss them and to win people over with reason, or, if we find we are in the wrong, to change ourselves. Is this not why Surah 5:48 says,

Had GOD willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness.

According to Yasser Latif Hamdani, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah was "the most secular statesman produced by the Muslim world". This is a must-read post, by the way. Here's part:

It is amazing that given the confusion created about the word “secular” in Pakistan by both the right and the left has so thoroughly disoriented the thought process of our intelligentisia, especially that which is christened by the state, that it has failed to capitalize on the fact that Pakistan’s founding father was not just unambiguously secular but was the most secular statesman in the history of the greater Muslim world, even more so than the great Kemal Ataturk, who is justifiably hailed as the father of secularism in the Muslim world. Even Kemal Ataturk through an amendment to the constitution of the Republic of Turkey in 1923 instituted Islam as the state religion [1], which remained in the constitution till 1928 when Ataturk had it removed. Jinnah never instituted a state religion and blocked every resolution or move whether in the Pakistani Constituent Assembly or the All India Muslim League Central Working Committee [2].

The knee jerk reaction to this statement by our intelligentsia is to quote the several statements where Jinnah appealed to Islamic principles, Islamic social justice, Islamic democracy etc. Pervez Hoodbhoy de-constructed this myth of Jinnah’s references to Islam very well in his piece “Jinnah and the Islamic State” wherein he proved quite convincingly that Jinnah’s references to Islam were ambiguous and certainly no indicator that he wanted an Islamic state per se. What Hoodbhoy didn’t do was go far enough and claim the obvious i.e. the absence of a religious state means a secular state. Instead Hoodbhoy made much of a fact that Jinnah did not use the word “secular” publicly atleast. This ofcourse makes no sense when one considers that the US Constitution does not mention the word secular but is the most secular constitution in the world.

What makes a constitution secular? The legal definition of a secular constitution is any constitution which does not have a state religion. Jinnah – for all his references to Islamic principles- never allowed for any expression of the same in any resolution or legislative act. One gentleman arguing with me on Jinnah’s secularism made a rather ironic and contradictory statement that the Government of India Act 1935 did not envisage an Islamic state so Jinnah’s decision to make a Hindu the first law minister of Pakistan did not constitute an indication of a secular state. Ofcourse this makes no sense. The GOIA 1935 did not have a state religion and therefore was a secular constitution. Yet Jinnah went on to describe the government constituted under the GOIA 1935 an “Islamic Democracy”. He was doing so because he knew – as Kemal Ataturk had known before him - that Islam is such a strong part of the Muslim mindset that any attempt at modernity or democracy that does not justify itself in Islamic terms is bound to fail.

I suspect that there's more, also. Jinnah knew that just as the founders of the US were Christians, they each had different interpretations of their religion. Thomas Jefferson, the American founding father that is compared to Jinnah, even published a version of the Christian bible that removed the parts he believed were false additions.

But despite being a secular nation with a secular constitution, America is not irreligious by any means. Actually, studies find that Americans are very religious.

If the very justices that we rely on to give unbiased and well reasoned interpretations of the Constitution and other laws are resorting to this type of elementary fallacy in their arguments and trying to scare the public rather than address the real issues, how can we trust them to be fair and impartial on other matters?

Ali Malik: Politics on Floods

2010-08-16T13:34:00Z

Pakistani media and country’s right-wing is ripe with stories about poor aid response and poor donor response. It is about time things be put in perspective. For nothing has the potential of hurting rehabilitation more than this smear campaign.

First, as I have dealt with it earlier, the issue of poor response. The disaster is way bigger than the earthquake of 2005 or any other disaster known in human history. A lot of areas needing rescue and relief are still flooded and are hard to access. The disaster is spread across 1/5th of the country or an area of appox. 160,000 sq. km. No state would be equipped to deal with any disaster of such magnitude. Our state, with its limited resources, is trying her best to do what it could. We must thank our Western allies and particularly United States for their help and any help in this regard should be welcome (including Indian). The floods are not over and there still are many important installations and populated cities/towns that need to be protected/rescued before the waters enter Arabian Sea. The governments (federal and provincial) are not equipped to deal with such magnitude of relief and rehabilitation. Even if they had the money and the resources, their ability to disburse the relief goods to the affected areas will be limited because of operational limitations. Even the private sector organizations find it difficult to jump in because of issues like lack of access and lack of fund raising (because of economy as well as the fact that most of the country is under water). This is a reality that we face and we must deal with it head on with hope and with courage rather than crying despair from safe houses and News Vans.

Second is the issue of donor fatigue. To me, the first and foremost reason of donor fatigue is global economic crisis. All governments in the world, specially the rich ones, are undergoing a belt-tightening phase and persuading them to donate will be harder than usual. Secondly, the reports of use of 2005 aid on military infrastructure and stories of corruption by civil bureaucracy during 2005 earthquake rehabilitation have made governments around the world reluctant to donate. But what is making the situation worse is the noise of our own trumpets and their friends abroad. They took a line from day one that no one could be ready to trust this government because it is corrupt. It is a win-win argument. If the aid does not come, government fails and they will hail it as a victory and if aid flows in they will jump on to claim that it was our cry that ensured transparency. This is the same mantra that we heard before Friends of Pakistan pledges (and pledges came and are materializing except anything significant being pledged by Saudis who are missing here too), we heard this when Kerry Luger was under process (we were told that the issue is that no one trusts this govt – what we found out was that this govt was the only entity Americans were willing to trust while raising doubts on both military and civilian bureaucracy), and despite this same mantra flew the aid for IDPs (of course all from our friends in West). Our bureaucracy is a corrupt bureaucracy and this is not a new phenomenon. We have to deal with this phenomenon and we have hope that despite this the aid will flow from our friends abroad. Of course, we need to make sure that the aid received is spent on the people affected by floods, the best it could. But anything that comes will be better than no aid for flood victims. It disturbs me that our leading media houses and our key political figures are overtly and covertly trying to raise this issue of corruption, just when the priority should have been to let as much money flow in as was possible. It is meanly vested on their part. Even the educated Pakistanis, for their hate of one man (who by the way still heads the most popular political party in the country) raise this corruption issue without realizing what the priority should be now. If you have doubt about credibility of the government, do not donate, but please just do not make hue and cry about it, for it will create doubts in the minds of even those who were willing to commit. Hate for one man could blind people to this extent is just beyond me. More so, this cynicism of well-to-do educated Pakistanis is not limited to government alone, even private aid agencies are finding it hard to raise funds for flood victims even in cities like Lahore and Karachi. The crisis is here and we have this government, this state machinery and these private sector organizations. This is the hand we are dealt with. We either give it our best shot or lose.

Another factor that is worth keeping in mind is that usually the business houses remain at the fore of any donation activity for such calamities. Because of poor global economy, and the suffering the local economy has due to terrorism and recent floods, the businesses are unable to contribute to their fullest. Our best hope is international aid and I am optimistic that the world will not leave us alone in this crisis of need. Jemima Goldsmiths and Over-Bennett Jones will try distracting the world at the behest of their friends in Pakistan but I have faith in human spirit worldwide and I am sure the aid will flow in, from sources internal and external.

By the way, a word of caution for any political party or elements within the establishment. If someone is calculating that this crisis could be their chance to disrupt the system, go through your game-board one more time, for the chaos that would ensue as a result will give none nothing. The results of any such playing with the fire will lead to secessionist tendencies, weakening of the state, and a political conflict that would make the still fragile state and federation of ours crumble. More so, the threat that we face from Islamic extremism, makes any such chaos and crumbling of state highly dangerous for our social fabric and social code, the consequence will be devastating and neither elements within the establishment nor PML-N will eventually gain anything from it. Even a “revolutionary” Islamist takeover will be short-lived and will suck us all into an internal and global conflict where West might or might not bleed but this society and these Islamists surely will be destroyed fully.

We as a nation have seen crises and we have survived them. Together we will come out of this too. We will rebuild our farms, our power plants, our roads, our bridges. We will move on. But we will never forget those who were grinding their own axes through actions aimed at discouraging help from the world and from within. We will remember that we were being stabbed by those whom we held in high esteem as Prime Ministers, as Super Stars, as Visionaries. This too will pass – but the wound of betrayal will remain.

Source: http://demopak.blogspot.com/2010/08/politics-on-earth-quake.html

Nadeem Paracha: Mad in the Middle

2010-08-15T16:53:00Z

Source: Dawn

The political and social aspects of Islam in Pakistan can be seen as existing in and emerging from three distinct clusters of thought. These clusters represent the three variations of political and social Islam that have evolved in this country: i.e. modern, popular and conservative.

The modern aspect of Islamic thought in Pakistan has its roots in the Aligarh Movement — the 19-century effort launched by Sir Syed Ahmed Khan. His analysis convinced him that the Muslims of India had failed to come to grips with the new zeitgeist emerging from the rise of western colonialism — a power driven by breakthroughs in modern scientific thought and economics, and pragmatic politics based on rational and dispassionate self-interest.

Ahmed strived to reinterpret the teachings of Islam so they could be brought in harmony with modern science and philosophy, helping the educated Muslims to continue holding on to their religion but through a rational and enlightened view of life. Though accused of heresy by conservative scholars of the time, Ahmed managed to lay the foundations of a modern college in Aligarh in an attempt to draw young Muslims away from traditional madressahs.

The Aligarh College soon spawned what came to be known as the ‘Aligarh generation’ — groups of young educated Muslims who would go on to lay the initial foundations of the Pakistan Movement. However, a majority of Muslims, in what became Pakistan, remained entrenched in the region’s popular variations of Islam.

This was the so-called Barelvi Islam that became the mainstay belief of a majority of Muslims in the subcontinent. As a movement, it was the reassuring enshrinement of the traditional beliefs and rituals that prevailed among Muslims due to the long periods of interaction between Sufism and other religions of undivided India.

Barelvi Islam became the folk religion of the rural peasants, the urban proletariat and the semi-urban, petty-bourgeoisie. It incorporated the anti-clergy elements of Sufism, and fused these with the concept of overt religious reverence of divine concepts and people, and highly accommodating forms of worship that were criticised by puritans as being undesirably ‘innovative.’

The result was a Muslim society that was repulsed by the dogma of puritanical strains; some were open to the idea of modern reinterpretation of Islamic law. This strain was generally permissive in its sociology and non-political in essence. However, as the popular variation of Islam in Pakistan peaked in the 1970s, the modern variation (tied to the Aligarh thought) started to erode (even though both were quite compatible).

Things started changing at the state level when, after the 1971 East Pakistan debacle, a move was seen afoot in the army towards conservative variations of Islam, especially those advocated by the scholar and Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) chief, Abul Ala Maududi. The JI was an early advocate of what came to be known as ‘political’ Islam — a modern, political theory that set forward historical and theological arguments for an evolutionary reinstatement of Islamic state (or a modern-day caliphate), run on the dictates of Sharia.

But it wasn’t until the arrival of the Ziaul Haq dictatorship and the anti-Soviet ‘Afghan Jihad’ that political Islam managed to find state approval. Furthermore, as both the US and Saudi Arabia pumped in millions of dollars in aid so that Zia could construct an effective jihad against the Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan, the more puritanical strains of Islam (such as the Deobandi and Wahabi) too began finding official sanction.

Conscious of the hold Barelvi Islam had in Pakistan, the Zia regime also attempted to penetrate and regulate Sindh’s and Punjab’s popular shrine culture, trying to align Barelvi thought with the clergy and jihad-oriented strains of the faith that he was advocating. The results were devastating.

The corruption emerging from the large amounts of financial aid and state patronage that politically-motivated and puritanical versions of the faith were able to enjoy in Pakistan during the ‘Afghan jihad’ not only helped the puritanical thought overwhelm the lingering strains of ‘modernist Islam’ in society, large sections of the moderate populist version of the religion too went through mutation. Today this phenomenon is not only the militant mainstay of various Islamist organisations (such as the Taliban), but also a rude social discourse.

It has been attracting a large number of the urban middle-class as well, most of who now seem completely divorced from their early moorings toward modern variations of the faith. Also tainted by this discourse were sections of the moderate populist strains of the religion that have eventually grown their own intransigent and highly militant tentacles. For example, for every Wahabi/Deobandi-backed Sipah-i-Sahaba there is now a Barelvi-backed Sunni Tehreek or a Shia-backed Sipah-i-Muhammad.

After the end of the Afghan war, both the puritanical and populist versions of the faith have regenerated themselves as a lot more reactionary, emitting deluded and anti-intellectual, fascist battle cries. These have not only found support among the most desperate sections of society, but, unfortunately, also among the now intellectually bankrupt urban middle-class of Pakistan.

VIDEO: Happy Birthday Pakistan!

2010-08-13T18:32:00Z

Is Zardari's Gamble Paying Off Big?

2010-08-13T13:30:00Z

Let's be honest, President Zardari took a big gamble by going to meet with foreign leaders as the flood crisis unfolded. It was obviously bad public relations, and his advisors had to know that he would be skewered in the media. Actually, the President even admitted as much in an column earlier this week. But he chose to go anyway, he said, because "For historical and cultural reasons, London is vital for generating global political and humanitarian awareness". It was a big gamble. Is it paying off?

It looks like it is.

Bloomberg News reports today that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is on his way to Pakistan to "accelerate international aid".

Also, US Senator John Kerry, who wrote the $7.5 billion civilian aid bill passed by the US government last year, is also on his way to Pakistan to help raise awareness among Americans and the international community to increase funding for relief efforts.

The World Bank has announced a grant of $900 Million for relief and reconstruction work, according to Dawn, and representatives from the international agency will be on the ground in Pakistan starting next week.

This was announced by the Ministry of Finance after a meeting between Finance Minister Dr Abdul Hafeez Shaikh and World Bank’s Country Director Rachid Benmessaoud here on Thursday.

According to a statement, they discussed the scope of the banks’ support for relief and reconstruction. “As a consequence of the meeting, the country director has agreed to commit an amount of $900 million for the purpose.”

Even some Western private companies are making large contributions. US financial business Western Union announced they will donate $100,000 to help the flood victims.

Through The Western Union Company's corporate signature program, Our World, Our Family(R), The Western Union Foundation will contribute $100,000 towards disaster relief efforts to provide victims with basic necessities such as safe drinking water, temporary shelter, clothing and access to sanitation facilities through the International Rescue Committee (IRC) response teams actively working in Pakistan.

Would all of this be happening if Zardari had stayed home to do photo shoots? I think Farrukh Khan is right: If the president would have stayed home to do photo shoots, he would have been skewered anyway.

He could have gone to visit some flood affected areas. There our complaint would have been that the president was busy in photo-ops. And due to the mere photo ops the entire district management, otherwise entrusted with overseeing the relief effort, was busy in receiving and entertaining his person. So had he not gone abroad, our displeasure would have still been unaffected.

President Zardari knew it was a gamble to go overseas to raise awareness for Pakistan. He was sure to be slammed by the media, but he was going to get slammed no matter what. The only hope he had was that his international trips would pay off for the people of Pakistan.

It looks like his gamble paid off.