Dawn Blog: The Pasha-Panetta puzzle

The Pasha-Panetta puzzle

BY NADIR HASSAN ON APRIL 14TH, 2011 

ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha, fresh off obtaining his second one-year extension, went to Washington for a meeting with his CIA counterpart Leon Panetta making demands that are completely unobtainable. Leaks to the media, as the Pasha-Panetta talks got underway,indicate that the Pakistan Army wants a complete halt to drone strikes in the tribal areas and the removal of all CIA agents currently roaming the country.

On the face of it, both demands are the right ones to make. Drone attacks, while being promoted by the US government (always through anonymous sources since the Americans do not officially confirm that it is using drones) as the most effective way to kill militants, is effective only in the sense that is risk-free for the country using them. Unmanned drones ensures that no American lives are lost in the hunt for militants; the lives of Pakistani civilians do not factor into the equation. Equally, no Pakistani patriot likes the idea of trigger-happy spooks traipsing around, bound by no law.

Let’s get real though. Making demands is one thing. Expecting those demands to be fulfilled is quite another. The alliance between the US and Pakistan is often called a “transactional relationship.” The US pays for what it wants and we give it to them, holding our nose and counting the cash. In such a relationship you don’t get to have your complaints heard.

Before making demands, we need leverage. Cash-strapped as we are, we cannot tell the US to keep its foreign aid and we’ll keep our sovereignty, thank you very much. The problem is we do not have any other kind of leverage either. The US has two fears about Pakistan: that the country will be taken over by terrorists or that they will get their hands on our nuclear arsenal. As much as we use the Taliban threat – and it is a very real threat, although not one that will take over the government, as panicked Westerners fear – to wring more strings-attached aid out of the US, ultimately everyone knows that it is equally in Pakistan’s interest to keep the Taliban at bay. Sure, we may use them and keep them alive to bolster our misguided policy, but the Taliban is as much a threat to the military and civilian leadership here as it is to the US. Similarly, we cannot bluff the Americans into agreeing to our demands by implying that we will hand over a nuke or two to the militants. Basically, it all boils down to having no leverage.

There is one negotiating tactic the military could use, although its chances for success are slim. Pakistan is a vital supply route for Nato forces in Afghanistan, one that the army could threaten to shut down if some of their concerns aren’t addressed. It would be inconvenient for the US to rely solely on Central Asian routes to supply the coalition forces so perhaps this threat could get us a minor concession or two. For that, too, the window of opportunity is narrow. If President Barack Obama follows through on his promise to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan next years, Pakistan’s role as a hub will diminish.

The army, for its part, knows that its complaints amount only to public posturing. We went through this whole charade with army opposition to the Kerry-Lugar Bill, where it was made clear that the army did not like being dictated to by the US. Yet it, and the country, ended up accepting the aid and the conditions attached to it and the issue is a forgotten one. As was the case then, the army’s main motive was to make its displeasure known domestically. This essentially boils down to the army trying to maintain its sense of self-pride by telling everyone that they know they have to accept American control but they certainly don’t like it. Everyone fretting about the US-Pakistan alliance should just keep that in mind and tone down the alarmism.

Nadir Hassan is a journalist based in Karachi and can be found on Twitter.

Point of View: ISLAM & TERRORISM

        

ISLAM & TERRORISM

(In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful)

Concept of Peace And Condemnation of Terrorism in Islam

Introduction:

Islam as a religion is totally committed to peace and security. It views with great contempt, breach of peace, anarchy, rioting and terrorism. Muslims as Ummahare a peace-loving community. Jehad under Islam is allowed subject to certain con­ditions. It is meant for elevating the Word of God (Kalmatullah). Action designated as Jihad has been recommended for securing justice for the suppressed, assisting them in their efforts to secure that. It is also for protecting the places of worship of people belonging to different religions. Its aim is to resist the oppressors and prevent them from committing atrocities. It provides for complete impartiality and full justice in dealing with persons belonging to other religions. All these points have been clarified in Islamic studies in detail.

It is a tragedy that in pursuance of dishonest and sinister intrigues, the concept of Jehad is being consistently misrepresented and misinterpreted by linking Islam and Muslims with sabotage and terrorism. That is contrary to facts. They are being presented as intolerant. For firmly planting the misinformation in the minds of the people, a powerful and widespread campaign is being conducted through the print and electronic media. 

What is Terrorism?

It is surprising that terrorism has not been defined in a com­prehensive and satisfactory manner. There is no unanimity about the concept. The truth is that no serious attempt has been made to clarify . the concept of terrorism. However, there is hardly no hesitation in applying the label on Islam and Muslims. The governing principle is 'might is right'. The powerful commits destruction and brutal massacre of innocent persons, yet claims to be defender of freedom, mankind and torchbearer of justice and civilization.

The struggle or resistance of the weak for securing their legitimate rights, against suppression or aggression is branded as terrorism. The barbarous bombing of several countries by USA, Israeli ag­gression against Palestinians, Russian atrocities in Chechnya and Chinese brutalities against Muslims in Sin kiang are glaring examples of double standards being applied for: defining terrorism.                        :

According to the definition of terrorism by intellectuals, and thinkers of the West, the conduct of the governments of USA, Israel, Russia, Philippine and Burma may be regarded as brazen act of state terrorism. Unfortunately, the organs of United Nations and the media have been utterly unsuccessful in restraining the tyrants and aggressors.

Role of Indian Media and Communal Elements:

Indian media has played a subservient role of the western and Zionist elements in linking Islam and Muslims with terrorism. Instead of adopting the role of an objective and neutral medf6t' in disseminating news about events and ideas relating to Islam and Muslims, they have conducted themselves in a biased and partisan manner.

It is shocking that even at the government level, attempt is being made in a clandestine manner to project Muslims as terrorists. The Government of India brought out a poster after the attack on the World Trade Center, with the photograph of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in newspapers of various Indian languages. The poster was against terrorism and for supporting the cause of peace. Only four pictures were selected that cleverly pointed link of Muslims with terrorist acts.

On the occasion of Republic Day, January 26,2002, a poster was published, in which only the names of Muslims appeared in the list of wanted terrorists. However that advertisement, published in the newspapers carried the names of alleged 'terrorists' of other communities also.

It should be noted that throughout the world, the activities of terrorists, of different groups, are reported without revealing their religious affiliation. In India, the disruptive sectarian activities of RSS and its subordinate bodies like Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal, are dubbed as expression of the sentiments of the majority community. By concealing their real character, they are seen as linked with 'patriotism'. The activities of groups affiliated with Ram Janmbhoomi movement, that brought about the demolition of Babari Mosque are ignored and by passed. Instruction in use of arms by Bajrang Dal recurring 'yatras' , communal riots, murder of innocent persons, inflammatory statements, all of them taken together fall within the definition of 'terrorist activities'. With the brute power of the majority, support of the government and safeguards available to the media, all such disruptive activities are classified under 'national honour' and 'patriotism'.

On the contrary, even minor activities of minorities particularly Muslims in self-defence or for safeguarding their identity or merely for registering their viewpoint or stand is branded as act of terrorism and threat tot he security of the country. If that is not so why poor. 'Madaris', supported by public donations, imparting education of peace and humanity are projected as factories producing extremists and terrorists. At national and international level, a sinister campaign is under way to project the distinctive marks of Muslims, particularly their beards and dress as symbols of terrorism, extremism and disruptive activities.

Confusion about 'Terrorism':

A question arises: Why such a confusion about the definition of 'terrorism? If seriously considered, it appears that the confusion has been deliberately created and is being disseminated on a large ­scale as a part of definite plan. There is universal unanimity in the campaign for targeting a particular religion and community. The rival forces control ninety-nine per cent of the media. There fore instead of defining terrorism on the basis of principles, might or use of power has become a governing principle in defining 'terrorism'. The conduct of the governments of USA, China, Russia, Israel, Burma and Philippine are glaring examples of such partisan conduct.

It is a tragedy that the superpowers are holding the United Nations Organization as 'hostage'. The organization is not in a position to undertake any just and effective action that is against their wishes and interests. The superpowers get their decisions endorsed by the international body. The United Nations has not been successful so far in enunciating and enforcing a definition of terrorism that may serve as a guiding principle for action against terrorist activities.

During twenty-nine years from December 18, 1972 to January 18, 2002, the issues related to terrorism were discussed at various occasions, but clarity and unanimity on the subject remained elusive. As a result what is terrorism according to one party is resistance, or movement for freedom or defence of democracy and liberty to the other. After the attack on World Trade Centre in USA on September 11, 2001 and brutal and aggressive bombing of Afghani­stan by USA, the issue was discussed again by United Nations on January 18, 2002. The session was attended by forty nations. All participants agreed on the serious threat from terrorism and stressed its immediate eradication. However, a few countries, particularly Arab countries invited the attention of the participants that so much din has been raised about the threat of terrorism and its eradication. But it should be defined for effective action against the threat. No clear and convincing reply came from any quarter. There was a deliberate attempt to evade the issue. Arab countries upheld their stand that the resistance of Palestinians against foreign occupation of their lands cannot be called 'terrorism'. Illegitimate seizure of foreign territory is the worst type of organized terrorist activity. Stark, the head of the UN Committee diverted the discussion by stating the 'organized terrorism' is not a legal expression and the Security Council should not be dragged in political battles.

It indicates that the superpowers and under their influence UNO and its Security Council desire to continue ambiguity and confusion about the definition of 'terrorism' for keeping the option to act according their interests and requirements. The powers fully realize that if the real causes of the malady are revealed, they shall be found among the culprits. Present terrorist activities are the poisonous fruits of their own misdeeds.

Terrorist activities caused by malice, ill will and dishonesty, are being projected as rooted in the teachings of Islam. In that context, reference is made to three issues of Islamic Shariah. (1) The teaching of Islam about killing a Non-Muslim is Jihad (2) Islam teaches hatred and legitimizes fight against other religions and their followers. (3) It encourages intolerance towards the followers of other religions. All the three breed terrorism.

All the three allegations about Islamic Shariah are miscon­ceived and motivated by malice and ignorance. Jehad finds a place in the teachings of lslam, but not for killing Non-Muslims. There is no provision encouraging perpetual hatred and fight against the followers of other religions. Linking Islam, a religion of peace with terrorism itself amounts to an act of terrorism.

Islam & Terrorism:

The nefarious acts called 'terrorism' are alien to the spirit and ethos of Islam. Terrorism (Eng1ish) Atankvad (Hindi) and Arhab (Arabic) are the products of contemporary age dominated by the West, particularly Europe. It has flourished on their soil. The intellectuals, writers and politicians of the West introduced them in the East. The terms, fundamentalism and totalitarianism as employed by the West have no place in Islam. The votaries of Communist system promoted totali­tarianism. Fundamentalism grew and flourished in the context of the conflict between the Church and the State. With help from the power of the media, the two have been linked with Islam and those reposing faiths in the religion. That is grave injustice.

Respect of Human Life & Importance of Peace in Islam:

The acts classified as terrorism have been strongly con­demned by Islam. Islamic teachings preach that every possible step should be taken for their eradication. Islam has prohibited everything that may pose threat to social harmony, cause breach of peace or may endanger peace and security of citizens. Islamic Shariah stands for maintenance of peace and prevention of riots and disturbances. Islam is against drunkenness, rape, adultery and scandal-mongering about innocent women. Islam strives for elimi­nation of oppression, rioting or anything which adversely affects the culture and civilization of the country.

Terrorism ruptures social peace. Islam strictly forbids terror­izing peace-loving citizens. Religion desires peace, tranquility and social harmony. Acts of terrorist violence destroy the moral prin­ciples, meant for the welfare of human beings. That is a crime and has no place in a religion like Islam, which is deeply committed to peace and security of human beings.

The struggle waged by Muslims of Palestine, Chechnya and Sinkiang cannot be called 'terrorism'. That is a legitimate resistance against aggressors and oppressors for securing their just rights. Terrorism in the true sense of the word is an aggressive act against innocent persons, without legitimacy. The aim is to frighten them. Acts of similar type may be committed by individual, group, nation or the country that may be classified as terrorist activity, if the aim is to terrorize the common person or the opponent for achieving certain ends.

That type of terrorism has no place in Islamic Shariah. The Holy Quran makes it explicit that killing an innocent person is equivalent to killing the whole humankind.

A verse in Surah Maidah states, "If anyone slew a person­ unless it be for murder or for speading mischief in the land­ it would be as If he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life. It would be as if he saved the lift of the whole people. "        (Al-Maidah. verse 32)

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, a disciple of Sheikh-ul-Hind has clarified the intentions of the verse. If somebody kills, anybody that may embolden others to commit similar acts that creates an atmosphere of anarchy. That means opening the doors for massacre, general unrest and lawlessness. If someone saves anybody from an assassin, he sets an example for saving others and peaceful life. As a student of religions, I may assert that respect and sanctity of human life, to the same degree, is not found anywhere else, as in Islam.

In different forms at several places in Holy Quran, unjustified murder has been strongly condemned. Respect and protection of human life has been sufficiently stressed. Holy Quran commands: "Nor take life-which Allah has made sacred-except for just cause. " (Bani Isreal, verse 33) Murder is justified only in case of an assassin, guilty of the murder of an innocent person, as recompense.

 According to the Prophet (Pbuh) the murder of an innocent person is among heinous crimes. (please refer chapter Al-Diyah, Bukhari). It has to be clarified that the power for ordering justified murder vests with the court of a just government. The death has to follow a judicial process. Keeping in view the value of human life the Shariah has found a way out. If the successors of the deceased are agreeable to compensation for the loss of life or if they forgive the assassin, his life shall be spared; otherwise, it is advisable to keep the society free from the existence of an assassin. The presence of an assassin within the society may embolden others to commit similar crimes. That is likely to pose a severe threat to the peaceful atmosphere of the society.

||||Next Page>>>>

Republished from:  

----------------------------------------------------------------

• Islam and Modernity in Turkey
• Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity
• Islam: What the West Needs to Know
• E Alim World First Islamic eBook Digital Quran (Touch Screen)
• Hamsa - The Five Senses to Praise G-d With Symbol Decorative Book Box Set

   

Cricket World Cup 2011: On the debris of defeat

On the debris of defeat

By: Syed Talat Hussain


THE ICC World Cup semi-final in Mohali offers us two important insights. The first is a wide-spectrum sample of public opinion trends in India about Pakistan.The second relates to our national attitude of complacency in the aftermath of defeat.

The run-up to the match showed the reality of the much-hyped Indian desire for peace with Pakistan. Here was a great opportunity for the Indian media to win the hearts and minds of friends from Pakistan by showing grace and courtesy. But what was served was nothing less than national-level sledging, lasting for days.
The host nation took special care of the Pakistani squad. Large sections of the media tore into the Pakistani team and its captain as if this was an invading army from another world. In the name of debate, targeted frenzy was worked up against the green-shirts.
Matters became particularly uncivilised as the semi-final approached. The campaign was nothing short of a psychological warfare zeroing in on Pakistan. With the use of selective data and controversial instances, derision was freely heaped on the team. Kapil Dev talked about ‘how little Pakistanis have to cheer about’. Ravi Shastri, who loses his reason when the Indian team gets even a slight drubbing, compared the visitors with a rickety rickshaw, while the Indian squad, in his opinion, was a BMW.
On local channels the attack was particularly poisonous. In several shows, where Indian film stars and music divas rooted for their team before large audiences, ridiculing Pakistan was the norm.
We know media nationalism can hijack objectivity. It can lead to distortions. It can generate propaganda. This happens in Pakistan all the time. In that context, some of the content that was broadcast or written by the Indians about Pakistan could perhaps pass off as tolerable. But the scope of this campaign, which continued well after the match, was too large and the focus too specific to be ignored as a momentary loss of balance caused by the raging passion to win against arch rivals.
More worryingly, even some among the seemingly most liberal segments of society, who generally scoff at anti-Pakistan hysteria in their own country, had nothing but barely hidden contempt when it came to discussing issues related to their neighbour. No other country, or team, was subjected to this torment — a point made by Shahid Afridi, the Pakistani captain, before the match.
It was almost as if the Mohali match had given the whole of India a season ticket to trash Pakistan. Cricket appeared to be an instrument to unleash collective contempt. This Mohali experience contrasts sharply with the popular narrative about the growing peace constituency in India that wants to treat Pakistan with respect and believes in the principle of parity of nations. At a critical time when convincing messages of brotherhood could have been packaged with courtesy and sent across the borders to Pakistan with love, the mail received from India contained little other than hate.
The second insight that the Mohali event offers is just as important as it calls for a serious revision of the way we have chosen to respond to our defeat. A fake legend of heroism is being pushed out of our pathetic performance. The central message of this campaign is that we should ‘ask no question, hear no criticism, and make no complaint’ against our team because ‘we love them’.
The mantra that is spamming inboxes is primarily led by commercial organisations that have big contracts with some of the players. After the match these organisations have a problem: the poster-boys who rope in customers have suddenly developed feet of clay. This is disastrous for marketing. Continued hero worship is therefore vital for the image of the brands the cricketers represent. And this can only happen if the nation is told that somehow the mess in Mohali is marvellous for Pakistan’s cricket.
But apart from this there is a disturbing national tendency to sweep failures under the carpet. So when Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif — in whose province thousands of doctors have been on strike for weeks demanding higher wages — offered cash to the players he was as much playing politics as he was endorsing this sorry trend.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani too wanted to fete the team for having reached the semi-final. Suddenly failure to make it to the finals has become a point of great pride, a matter of honour rather than cause for reflection and course correction.
But this is not surprising. We have consistently rewarded incompetence. We have a culture of complacency that simply lowers the bar of achievement instead of raising the game to the level where the best compete and win.
It is this criminal compromise with slackness and rank stupidity that has produced fake degree holders who flaunt their credentials with impunity and a band of corrupt-to-the-bone individuals who hold high offices. Mohali offers us a dozen points to ponder, about cricket, about the odds we face and the character we exhibit under pressure. But we will only face more Mohalis in every field of life if we, as a nation, stay proud as a peacock and prance around the debris of our defeat. We will be fooling no one except ourselves.

The writer is a senior journalist at DawnNews.

Dawn Blog Updates: My heart may bleed, but it still bleeds GREEN!

My heart may bleed, but it still bleeds GREEN!
by Farah Zahidi Moazzam on 03 31st, 2011
It’s over. Pakistan has lost the semi-final to India. The crazy euphoria of a nation of cricket-lovers has come to a standstill. The silence is deafening. The dejection on everyone’s face is simply disappointing. After all, a match between India and Pakistan somehow, always assumes proportions that make it more than ‘just a game’.
Yes, it is just a game. But not to Pakistanis, especially today. The nation, locally as well as internationally, has more than enough negative tags that go along with its name. We fight battles like poverty, bad and corrupt governance, inflation and above everything else, terrorism.
And so, the nation needed hope, success and something with which we could say to the world, ‘hey, we are no less. We are resilient. We are winners. We have what it takes’.
I am not a huge cricket buff. But I am a crazy Pakistan buff. With every breath, like the 180 million of us, I prayed that we win. I prayed that I see that cup come home. The excitement and zest on everyone’s faces was celebration in itself. The green flag – on T-shirts, on Facebook profile pictures, painted on faces, etched on our hearts. Songs of valour blaring everywhere. A holiday announced on March 30.
The men in green inevitably became our saviours of hope. We pinned ALL our hopes on them. Our patriotism reached mammoth proportions. We, for a bit, forgot all our disagreements and united in one jazba. One dream.
Everywhere, literally, all we could think or talk or breath about was this match. Libya’s woes and international crisis took a back seat, and the media was full of nothing else but this. The media hype gained crazy proportions. And this is not to blame the media, because the media feeds us what we want to be fed. The pressure on both teams mounted, as India’s media was not less obsessed with what was being called TGME (The Greatest Match Ever).
We had hopes and fears for our team, but we had more at stake than just the ICC Cricket World Cup 2011. We shuddered to even think of losing this match. We all knew that even with its brilliant performance against Australia and West Indies, Pakistan was an underdog team. But anything could happen. Unpredictability is not just an attribute of the Pakistani team, it is an attribute of the game itself. And so Shahid Afrdi, or Lala as we lovingly call him, and his boys became our most throbbing hope, as if winning this match would pull us out of all the bad that happens to us. For the Pakistanis living abroad, they yearned for the win to be able to tell their colleagues and friends at work that things were looking up for Pakistan.
All this is completely understandable. Totally acceptable. But what is not understandable or acceptable is how quickly our heroes become our villains. How quickly, once they lost, they become ‘losers’ from ‘champions’. Instantly, as the match progressed dismally for Pakistan, conspiracy theories started flowing out of minds with overactive imaginations. Match fixing. Bribery. Deals. Politics. Indo-Pak foreign policy. Water supply to Pakistan. The speculations were never ending, and with such certainty as if the under-handed deals had been dealt in front of those very eyes. Derogatory remarks and jokes in bad taste about the players started being exchanged.
Yes, this match had serious issues. Mistakes and several bad decisions were made. But the truth is that the Pakistani cricket team exceeded our expectations, reached the semi-finals and is the third best team in the world. We represented Pakistan wonderfully the world over. Captain Afridi’s encouraging pat on Sachin Tendulkar’s back spoke volumes – it was magnanimity at its best. It made me extremely proud to have someone like him represent the team. The humility of the team, and the sight Pakistan’s leading wicket-taker Wahab Riaz falling on to the ground in prostration for gratitude was a sight both humbling yet awe-inspiring.
The last thing Pakistan needs right now is negativity. On a positive note, an overwhelming number of people are acting sane, mature and most importantly, loyal to the team in spite of all of this. We lost the match. We are disappointed. We are hurt. A dream is shattered. But Pakistanis are too resilient a nation to be bogged down by this. Lala, my captain, you do not need to apologise. You and the team did a great job and we are proud of you. There will be other times when the match will be ours. This one was India’s. We will stand by you not just in good times, but in bad times too. We may be hurt, but we have not lost faith in our cricket team, and more importantly, in our nation. We will bounce back. We always do.

Farah Zahidi Moazzam is a freelance writer.
Thanks with Dawn Blog

Pakistan Education: RSS Feed for Pakistan's Educational News

Pakistan's Educational News

     

    

Pakistan: recently tagged products related to Pakistan

Tagged products on Pakistan

RSS Feed: Free PDF Books