Book Now
Twitter
Home Blog Page 88

The Jury is Out On The First 100 Days of This Government

Admin
-
0
The Jury is Out On The First 100 Days of This Government

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

On 28th May, many in Pakistan celebrated or condemned the first ten years of Pakistan becoming an overt nuclear power. But the date had another teeny-weeny element of significance: it almost completed 100 days of Pakistani politicking since the elections of 18th Feb.

In scientific disciplines, from physics to statistics, we have concepts like cross-section; in biology and medicine we have a similar tool: tissue slides. The idea is that we do not churn a whole body of data or put every thing under the microscope but use instead a small part of it to reach conclusions that are then extrapolated to the whole. One hundred days is more than one fourth of a year. Could it then constitute a cross-section, a tissue slide on the aspirations and abilities of the Pakistani politicians?

And more importantly, and in more mundane terms, could this be a window onto their understanding of the exercise of political authority?

If it is then the results do not augur well for them and unfortunately for all of us. Looking back at these hundred days: the winners of a long drawn electoral process, have concentrated every atom of their energy, and of the media, and of the people in an endless and increasingly fruitless debate for and against the restoration of the judiciary. In the last few days PPP has now come up with a 62-point constitutional package that can easily consume the rest of the year in similar debate unfortunately without any solution for the current issues in sight.

I am not saying that the restoration of the pre-November judiciary was not a worthy cause; also it will be unfair to politicians especially to PPP and Asif Ali Zardari to accumulate all blame since lawyers, civil society organisations and media all have ensured that focus remains on the judiciary turning this into a single point agenda. But will it also mean that those who won elections in the name of 165 million people of Pakistan have either no ability or no sensitivity to understand the diverse range of issues that together constitute the public interest?

Some numbers might help. If the statistics of Pakistan Election Commission can be trusted or at least taken as a point of reference then out of the 35 million votes considered valid in the 2008 elections PPP got approximately 11 million (31 per cent), PML (N) around 7 million (20 per cent), PML(Q) around 8 million (23 per cent) and MQM around 2.5 million or 7.4 per cent of the votes cast.

If we keep in mind that in a population of around 165 million more than 70 million registered voters existed we can grasp some idea of the fact that the arithmetic of the electioneering has less to do with the absolute levels of popular support or approval and more to do with a political principle that allows the winners to claim and run a government.

Those who win the elections may only represent a small fraction of the overall population of a country as large and as diverse as Pakistan, and whereas the political principle gives them all legitimacy to form a government and take decisions, the same principle expects them to take into consideration the interests of all people who may or may not have voted for them.

It is precisely in this context that the performance of the last hundred days needs to be assessed.

I am afraid that unfortunately the judiciary debate, over the last one-year, has so contracted our consciousness that we have lost track of this larger reality around us. We read and hear of the regional and international crises but with a detachment as if we live on another planet.

Thanks to this ‘contraction of consciousness’ for which media is to be equally blamed, we are not paying any attention to the fact that economies on both sides of the Atlantic, after years of robust growth, are struggling to ward off the frightening prospects of full fledged recession; international banking industry is under tremendous strain and that after the US the housing market in the United kingdom is collapsing.

We hear but we don’t care that the rising oil and commodity prices in the international markets are adding to these worrisome developments.

Already, the currency markets in Pakistan are under strain thanks in no small measure to the pro-rich policies of the State bank over the last few years and now with the impact of continuously rising oil and commodity prices Pakistan can end up with full blown currency crises — a crisis that can wipe out whatever economic gains the middle classes had made in the last few years.

We have finally admitted that we cannot make the Kalabagh dam. This act of political realism should not obviate the reality of energy crisis. The hopes of gas from Iran-IPI project- may not be realised unless there is a rapprochement between Washington and Teheran, without which New Delhi will continue to flirt with the idea without any real interest — but with misleading implications, for Pakistan.

A series of new nuclear power plants can perhaps solve Pakistan’s energy puzzle? But could we develop an international climate of acceptability for that?

All these issues demand focus, hard work and decision-making. And it still may not be easy. But the politicians for the time being are not even concerned. Till the last news they are busy winning the narrow political debate, on TV, with a view towards the next elections.

The realisation that multiple crises are threatening to erode whatever gains the Pakistani people, nation, and the state had made in the last few years simply do not appear to be part of the political agenda.

But soon it will be issues like these — and not the judges drama on — that are going to pull the rug from under the system. No amount of chicanery and friendly columnists — or should we call them eulogists — might be able to change this reality. Politicians need to understand this — before it is too late.

Comment: Religion and post-modernism – Dr Moeed Pirzada

Admin
-
0
Comment: Religion and post-modernism – Dr Moeed Pirzada

Moeed Pirzada | Daily Times |

TED founders describe themselves as a community of knowledge seekers. Each year they select three gifted individuals for the TED Prize and part of the prize is being granted one wish to change the world. My childhood fantasies were driven by Aladdin’s lamp and Smokey Djinn that used to grant wishes. But times have changed. Now smart organisations can do that. And one such organisation is Technology, Entertainment & Design (TED) in the US. TED founders describe themselves as a community of knowledge seekers. Each year they select three gifted individuals for the TED Prize and part of the prize is being granted one wish to change the world.

Among those who have won the prize and the wish since 2005 are Bono, lead singer of U2; former US President Bill Clinton; and Jehan Noujaim, the Al Jazeera producer of the famous documentary Control Room. Bono, as one could expect, wanted a call for action on Africa; Clinton wanted a healthcare system in Rwanda and Noujaim, the quintessential media person, wished the power of film to strengthen tolerance and compassion. Every wish is a unique challenge for TED, but I guess this year represents a special case.One personality selected is Karen Armstrong the eminent scholar of Islam, Christianity and Judaism.

She wants TED to help with the creation, launch and propagation of a Charter for Compassion, crafted by a group of leading inspirational thinkers from the three Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and based on the fundamental principles of universal justice and respect. As TED decided to brainstorm with its partners and supporters worldwide, I too was granted a wish by a different organisation: one of the leading television networks in Pakistan whose CEO called and asked me to go to London and represent him in the meetings with TED. Going to London and escaping Karachi’s summer cocktail of heat and load-shedding would have been great but topping it off with meetings to discuss Armstrong’s Charter of Compassion and the role the media can play was a rare treat indeed.

While changing planes at Dubai, I picked up all the Middle Eastern papers that were stacked at the entrance of the aircraft. And soon I had an electric wave passing up and down my spine. This was May 15, and most if not all were filled with graphic stories and strong comments on Israel’s creation and what Arabs called the Naqba the great disaster. I repeatedly asked myself: Will they in London be able to understand the depth of these feelings? Can these fault lines ever be bridged? Will I be able to touch these issues? Surprisingly they did. The small group of writers, producers and executives TED had assembled for its meetings was an unusually aware selection of people sensitive to the whole range of emotions and mistrust breeding at the interface of religion and politics. They were the kind of people who knew they had no control over political decision making, but who nevertheless aspired to change the mindsets and the context in which most decisions are taken.

We learn through steps and stages, and I gradually realised that TED could be best understood as a loosely arranged conglomerate of communities and this allows it to mushroom diverse resources to achieve what it sets out to. Despite this awareness I thought that in selecting Karen Armstrong and granting her the wish, TED had accepted a new kind of creative challenge consciously or unconsciously it had moved into new frontiers. And this is abundantly clear from TED’s own website. An interesting debate rages around this prize nomination and under the Creative Commons licence is open for quotation and use. Many wonder: how come other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism or Taoism are left out? How could Armstrong expect a charter to be created by Muslims, Christians and Jews and then signed and supported by other religions?

But far more interesting are the arguments of the various non-religious people and that may include atheists, and humanists of various sorts. They ask why religious people think that virtue and morality are somehow tied into a set of rules dictated by religion. One person who identifies himself as a secular anti-war activist asks how those who go to Church and practise Christianity support the Iraq war. He ends up asking which one of us is less Christian. Humanists argue that religion is an individual’s search within to find their connection with their creation and meaning and everything external is politics. How could these massively corrupt organisations possibly affect the type of change she is speaking of? They point out that there is no precedent of the world’s religious institutions as harbingers of unity and reconciliation and whatever evidence exists shows them to be the guardians of their own truths.

And finally how can anyone really serious about the idea of compassion exclude the atheists, humanists, new-agers and pagans out of this? Especially at a time when in the western world the number of people practising one or the other kind of faith or belief outside the organised religion is increasing. I am afraid TED communities have now an interesting challenge at hand. They are essentially post-modern people and Karen Armstrong’s work and her influence stretches across the more traditional world. After all few scholars of Christian origin are so widely known and respected across Muslim communities from South Asia to Middle East to UK.

Working to fulfil the wishes of Bill Clinton and Bono is essentially a question of collecting and mushrooming resources around a cause that is more easily understood. Even Jehane Noujaim’s vision of tapping film to strengthen tolerance and compassion is essentially post-modern and thus easy to build consensus around. Armstrong’s Charter of Compassion demands reconnecting with the traditional world. Most post-modernists have failed to identify that nowhere has she argued that religions or religious establishments have been harbingers of unity and reconciliation; far from that, she points out that fault lines between religions of the Levant add to political conflicts.

And she is looking for at least a theoretical construct where these traditional religions can somehow rediscover the forgotten elements of compassion in their folds and help in reducing the fault lines rather than adding to the divisions. No doubt this represents a challenge that stretches the imagination. But I am sure to many inside TED communities, looking for new frontiers, this offers a truly global opportunity as well.

Moeed Pirzada, a broadcaster and political analyst with GEO TV, has been a Britannia Chevening Scholar at London School of Economics & Political Science. He can be reached at mp846@columbia.edu

 

 

Londonistan and End of An Era

Admin
-
0
Londonistan and End of An Era

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

Ken Livingstone’s defeat at the hands of Boris Johnson in the elections for the Mayor of Greater London, last week, was the end of an era. It was a development bigger than the city of London or UK with ominous implications for Muslim communities across Europe. Yet few of us in the Muslim media, across the world, so easily carried away with the nonsense of Geert Wilders, paused to reflect on the enormity of what happened.

Some events help to understand ourselves. Living all those years in London I never felt it was part of my identity. Yet suffering the visuals that emanated from the screen of BBC World News, with Ken Livingstone conceding his defeat, I suddenly had to clutch for support. With weakness in my legs and butterflies in my stomach, with something hitting in my face, I knew an age in the world history had passed — and for worse.

We learn and grow through cycles of pain. And it was an Archimedes moment, with masters of anguish and torment suddenly teaching me that my own identity which I so desperately want to fit in neatly and safely in some national container is a product of all that I experience and pass through. And London was part of me and still is irrespective of where I live. And whether I accept it or not I am a progeny of all religions and cultures and political spheres; call it whatever you may.

Every reality can be perceived in infinite ways. To me London in the beginning of 21st century is a phenomenon that belongs more to the world than to England. I am sure it is a frightening thought to many English people but the city that stamped its mark on the soul of an Empire was in turn infected by the people it ruled.

Today with teeming Indians, Pakistanis, Arabs, Israelis, Africans, French and Poles and countless others it is home to 300 languages and as many sub-cultures and not to forget dozens of varying religious identities hidden within the capsules of these national and cultural denominations.

If you include the 11 per cent Irish then almost 40 per cent of its approximately 8 million populations has a minority feeling of one or the other kind. Few realise it is the largest Muslim city in United Kingdom. And it was this diversity, this complexity Ken Livingstone served; and provided a spirit with by reaching out to everyone.

If in 2002 Livingstone introduced Saint Patrick Day’s festival to London then in 2005 he was hosting a Jewish Hanukkah ceremony and intending it to be an annual conference and in October of 2006 it was the first ever Eid in the Trafalgar Square marking the end of Ramadan.

If in September of 2005 he supported the placing of a statute of Nelson Mandela in Trafalgar Square then in August of 2007 he was offering apologies on behalf of London and its institutions for their role in transatlantic slave trade.

Immediately after the attacks on London subway, Ken Livingstone, as Mayor, addressed the terrorists telling them that though they do not fear death, they must fear the fact that, whatever they may do, London will continue to be the place: “where people will arrive from all over the world to become Londoners…where freedom is strong and where people can live in harmony with one another” …it was his style of revenge.

In contrast Boris Johnson, now his successor in office, reacted to the tragedies of 7/7 by declaring that “it is time to reassert British values…that means disposing of the first taboo, and accepting that Islam is the problem..”

Two weeks later in a BBC interview, Livingstone was now reminding his audience of the 80 years of western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the western need for oil. What was Boris Johnson doing? At one point in time he said: “If I were an Israeli, I would be astounded that any member of the British government or opposition felt able to criticise Israel at all.”

And at another moment he said: “If we were Israelis we would dispatch an American built ground-Assault helicopter to blow the place to bits and then we would send bulldozers to scrape over the remains…the best way to deter Palestinian families from nurturing these vipers in their bosoms, and also the best way of explaining to the death hungry narcissists that they may get 72 black-eyed virgins of scripture, but their family gets the bulldozer”

If we factor in what these two men have been living in the same city, parallel to each other in time and space, then the contrast between their understandings of the world and how to respond to its complexity could not have been starker.

Livingstone called his parents “working class”; he was educated less through universities and more through the mill of life. Boris Johnson went to Eton and later Oxford; yet despite this, or perhaps because of it, his worldview is a sad tiny fragment of what his predecessor possessed. Could this be the result of seeking to understand the world through the tiny window of class and race?

Ken’s defeat was a sad day for the Muslim and Asian communities in London and across UK. Always under attack, or perceiving it so, in Ken they had a friend and a strong voice ready to risk media’s wrath to defend them. But has anybody taken cognizance across the Muslim world?

What about Pakistan the country that continues to boast its connections with the British Muslim communities? Not even a whimper; and newspapers did not even have an inner page story on something that was so important to the British Muslims.

The vote for Boris Johnson was a negative vote: it was against the expansion of congestion charge; rising costs of 2012 Olympics and a general mood of anti-incumbency and what they call is the pendulum effect of politics …but in handing down London to Johnson people have selected an interesting media face whose mind is much smaller than the challenge of the city he is now set to rule. May God protect London from his parochialism!

A Pakistani in Turkey

Admin
-
0
A Pakistani in Turkey

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

Many years ago I fell in love with Bosphorus, its bridges, fishermen and Turkey. This affair still continues. But just like the evolution of all passions in our lives my reasons have changed.

Eighteen years ago, I had just finished college — my first college. The University of Life had to follow. Travelling across Europe, Istanbul was my last stop before Pakistan. And it was the only place where I felt at home. Shopkeepers next to the Topkapi Palace and the fisherman at the Bosporus thought I was a Turk, and when I insisted that I am a Pakistani, they thought I am lying to claim the importance of a foreigner, of being different.

I had stayed in England and just passed through France and Germany so I knew the kind of importance you get when you are a Pakistani. They were laughing for they thought I was caught lying. I laughed at their innocence.

Fast forward. Last week, in Islamabad, now with GEO TV, I had the opportunity to interview Turkish Foreign Minister, Ali Babacan; who also happens to be one of the founder members of Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling AKP party. And when, at the very outset of the interview, with the expressive gestures of his open hands, he said that Turkish people feel for Pakistanis and vice versa, for the first time, as a mediaperson, in all these years, I knew for sure that a politician was not lying.

Going back in time, to my first visit: I was staying with a family friend whose apartment on the Rumelian side of Istanbul, that is, the European side overlooked the majestic waterway that divides two continents and connects the Black Sea with the sea of Marmara. Then it was Bosphorus’s panoramic view, Istanbul’s majestic architecture and the warm acceptance by the Turkish people that inspired my imagination.

I was no doubt thrilled for standing at the edge of Asia and Europe, East and West — that stereotypical mumbo jumbo we all love repeating without any desire to reflect deeper. And, like everyone else of my generation in Pakistan, I looked around and saluted the modernistic legacy of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, and wished we had something like that to take care of our own sweet sounding mullahs.

Yet eighteen years later it is the ferment of modern Turkey, its desire to look eastwards, its audacity to accept its roots in Muslim history while building bridges with the West that intrigues me. I now marvel at Turkish people’s self-confidence that allows them to revisit and question the principles of Kemalism, and I am overwhelmed at the sheer possibility of political inspiration for the Muslim world if Turkish politics — divided between Islamist reformers and secular conservatives — really succeeds in what it so ambitiously aims for: a modern working model of political Islam.

And from our own experiences and failures in Pakistan, we know how difficult it is. Take a quick look at the Muslim world and we either have the Islamists who look like or yearn to be like Taleban or the modernists whose liberal imagination, stolen from the pages of GQ or Oui, extends to little more than the juicy visuals of bars and bikinis.

Am I exaggerating? Reflect on the last few years and we either remember those neo-luddittes who ordered beards to be measured — two inches minimum. Or we had those buccaneers who looted national coffers in the name of liberalism, to live in Miami, London and Paris. Muslim world has failed, and failed miserably, to come up with a working model of political Islam.

And the roots of the trouble go deeper. Islamist movements are almost always borne out of the fear and insecurity of change; are therefore inward looking, anti-globalisation and based on the rejection of the West. They aim to resurrect an Islamic identity in isolation, picking up the threads from bygone chapters of history, and that is why they are never able to think beyond beards, camels and corporal punishments. They have never understood the irony that the models of governance they refer to have become redundant by the cruel hands of time and change.

And to even truly practice the spirit of Islam they first have to traverse the jungle, which is West. It is only by borrowing the best practices of law and policy from the West that Islamists can have any hope of reconnecting with their own glorious past.

And that is why what Erdogan, Abdullah Gul, Ali Babacan and the AKP party are doing in Turkey, again and again with popular consensus, becomes so important to all of us. Many in Europe and the US were worried that electoral sweeps for a party rooted in political Islam will mean an inward looking polity with rejection of the west. But AKP under Erdogan has turned this logic on its head.

Interestingly, after years of denials at the hands of Franco-German heart, strategists of AKP are under no illusions of Europe embracing them either. For them the struggle to join the EU and maintaining bridges with the West becomes a journey that provides them with a leverage to fight the illiberal secular elite of Turkey, its powerful military and Westernised media.

And by doing this they have bound themselves into a continuous process of change, growth and evolution — a point that has been missed by the secular elite in Turkey — either due to ignorance or by design.

But the liberals, who stand for globalisation, in New York and London have grasped what secularists in Ankara and Istanbul are loath to accept. And that is: the whole meaning of the west and the east has changed in the context of modern Turkey and that is why when the seculars try to throw out the AKP through the constitutional court in Ankara — as they are attempting at the moment — the loudest and the most nuanced warnings and protests emanate from New York Times and the Economist.

It is another tragedy that few in the Muslim world-be it in Karachi or Teheran — have invested cerebral energies in grasping what is happening at the edge of Bosporus and what it means for all of us.

COMMENT: Don’t hang him -— Moeed Pirzada

Admin
-
0
COMMENT: Don’t hang him -— Moeed Pirzada

Moeed Pirzada | DAILY TIMES |

Musharraf must be persuaded to let Sarabjeet Singh walk freely to embrace his daughter Swapandeep. But for that to happen, the Indian media and leadership must do some soul-searching Sarabjeet Singh, accused of working for the Indian intelligence agency, Research & Analysis Wing (RAW), was convicted by Pakistani courts for causing series of bomb blasts in Lahore, in 1990. He is set to die by hanging anytime after April 30. But this won’t serve anyone and shouldn’t happen.

He has already spent 18 years in jail. President Musharraf can commute his sentence or set him free to embrace his young daughter, Swapandeep Kaur, who was a toddler when he left. But this is not an easy decision for a president who has often been accused of being an appeaser to the Americans and Indians by his countrymen.

Sarabjeet was found guilty of three separate bomb blasts, 14 deaths, dozens injured and fear and havoc in the cities of Lahore and Multan. It is believed to be part of RAW’s retaliation against ISI’s support for Khalistani separatists in Indian Punjab.

Pakistan’s human rights activist, Ansar Burney, the family of Sarabjeet and other supporters in Indian Punjab, argue that this is a case of mistaken identity. That is true to the extent that the Pakistani prosecution and witnesses had identified him as one “Manjit Singh”. But that also proves that if he indeed was a RAW agent then throughout the court process, he successfully stuck to the invented identity his ruthless planters had provided him.

But this technicality is not my plea. Eighteen years down the bridge, and remembering all the summers, the winters and the autumns of conflict that have since passed, I now await the spring of Pakistan-India friendship. Someone had said: if you keep your face towards the sun, you don’t see the shadows. Are we going to let ourselves be hostage to the reactive mindset of RAW pinheads retaliating against ISI thickheads, and that too eighteen years ago?

Yes! I agree in the current globally imposed jargon, so wholeheartedly adopted by the establishment in Delhi Sarabjeet was a terrorist. But even then if we send him back in a coffin it will become another unfortunate symbol of negativity. It is not about Sarabjeet or his old bosses in RAW; it is about Pakistan and India. And this is an age of 24/7 TV channels.

Let me take you back to summer of 1999 and Kargil. In the Pakistani consciousness, restrained by the political compulsions and etiquettes of state broadcaster PTV, Kargil was never more than a blip; a remote border conflict.

Most of us watched sanitised bits and pieces on BBC. But in Indian homes and minds, from Shimla to Kochin, fed by a plethora of private TV channels, and thousands of cable broadcasters, it was the re-birth of a new and angry nationalism; first united in the sense of shock, helplessness and humiliation and then in a powerful surge of victory against the Pakistani intruders. Barkha Dutt, the indomitable Indian anchorperson, first became an all-India household name only during Kargil.

Now nine years down the line, Pakistan is swarming with fifty TV channels scanning the horizon and dredging the fields to find something to attract eyeballs and blow the minds. They have already locked Musharraf into his presidency and if the generals have really understood what has happened then they will decide to stay inside the barracks for a long time to come.

Following the events since 9/11, most Pakistanis were convinced that Indians fail to reciprocate their gestures of peace or goodwill. Now in their screen driven mass consciousness, New Delhi has already exported a very disturbing visual.

Millions in Pakistan watched released prisoner, Kashmir Singh healthy and smiling walking back across Wagah. And literally within 48 to 72 hours, in utter disbelief, they saw Indians sending back a Pakistani Khalid Mehmood his emaciated corpse bearing marks of electrocutions and boiling water packed in a coffin.

Back in Delhi, Kashmir Singh boasted: Yes, he was a spy. What about Khalid Mehmood? Till his death the only official charge against him was that he was in India without a passport. His family insists: he went to watch a cricket match; lost his passport and was tortured in jail for two years. The contrast could not have been starker and grim.

At this stage, India clearly needs to do something to ease the Pakistani consciousness, to let us believe that it stands by what it preaches; that for Pakistan its media, politics and bureaucracy have something other than biliary feelings of contempt and a superiority complex.

Sarabjeet’s sister is active in BJP in Punjab so LK Advani, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate, has written a letter to Pakistani PM urging him to “adopt a bold step and grant clemency to Sarabjeet Singh…such an act of magnanimity will win the goodwill of the Indian people and buttress our common objective in South Asia the pursuit of peace on the sub-continent.”

Who will disagree with these words? But will Advani Ji write a similar letter to the Indian President demanding clemency for Afzal Guru? Afzal was, along with three others, accused of masterminding the attack on the Indian parliament in December 2001. He remains on death row despite the Indian Supreme Court in its judgement of Aug 2005 observing that the evidence against him was only circumstantial and that there was no evidence that he belonged to any terrorist group. Unfortunately, far from pleading clemency, Advani had demanded immediate hanging for Afzal; even a day’s delay is against national interest, he argued.

The All India Anti-Terrorist Front chief Bitta urges the Indian President not to accept any clemency pleas on Afzal’s behalf. He warns his organisation will launch agitation if Afzal was pardoned. Indian star, Shahrukh Khan, whose film Veer Zaara reminds many of the fate of Sarabjeet, too demands clemency for Sarabjeet; but will King Khan be bold enough to demand clemency for another man who was never even provided a lawyer to defend his case?

The problem may lie with India’s electronic media. Over the years the whole official narrative of the attack on parliament has lost its credibility thanks in no small measure to the efforts of brave Indians like Nandita Haksar, Arundhati Roy and Harsh Mandir to name just a few. But Indian TV channels forgot to ask the difficult questions; they failed in their duty to update the nation. The result is that even at the end of 2006, an India Today poll showed that 78 percent of the public favours death penalty for Afzal.

Musharraf must be persuaded to let Sarabjeet walk freely to embrace his daughter Swapandeep. But for that to happen, the Indian media and leadership must do some soul-searching. This is all about symbolism and identity and the Indians need to make a high profile noble gesture to ease the tension, to strengthen the persuasive powers of the Pakistani human right activist, Ansar Burni. Advani Ji’s kind of hypocrisy won’t help.

Moeed Pirzada, a broadcaster and political analyst with GEO TV, has been a Britannia Chevening Scholar at London School of Economics & Political Science. Email: mp846@columbia.edu

View: Murder, media and intolerance : —Moeed Pirzada

Admin
-
3
View: Murder, media and intolerance : —Moeed Pirzada

Moeed Pirzada | Daily Times |

In a media driven and controlled by popular and often pedestrian national moods, it is no wonder that no one had the time to reflect that Jagdeesh Kumar’s lifeless torso was not merely that of a ‘man of no importance’ but was the battered face of the state of Pakistan THEY kept beating him with boots, bars and screw-drivers and left him only after someone pointed out that he is already dead. Jagdeesh Kumar, a 22-year-old, Hindu factory worker from interior Sindh was subject to mob justice in Karachi’s industrial area.

The mood was so intense that the police that had arrived was unable or unwilling to wrench his lifeless body from the crowd. What was his crime? Apparently, he was being lynched by his co-workers for insulting the Prophet of Islam (pbuh). Before we move ahead it may be helpful to remember that in his life, the Prophet (pbuh) never allowed his followers to harm anyone who insulted him. The case of the Bedouin who almost choked him in Masjid-e-Nabawi and his pardon for the family of Abu-Sufyan and Hinda following the conquest of Makkah are just two instances that come to my mind in a nano second flash. And if I start recounting it will be beyond the word limit my editors allow me for this column. I have spent years in civil services and media, interacting with the so-called political, bureaucratic and literati elite. And I know the kind of limits that exist in this country to talk about religion.

Ensconced comfortably within the drawing rooms of multi-layered villas, prompted and egged on with the help of few drops of smuggled whisky, in an atmosphere thick with references of Rushdie, Russell and Voltaire, and that too after ensuring that every face in the room is an old pal, some bold intellectual types do venture out to express their atheism, but even here any careless comments about Prophet of Islam (pbuh) are rare. These are the limits and we all know it.

So how realistic is the possibility that Jagdeesh, a poor worker from Sindh’s amiable Hindu community was uttering profanities against the Prophet (pbuh). That too while he was alone hundreds of kilometres away from his hometown? He had come to Karachi to enhance his daily income from US $1 to US $3 a day. Please give me a break! In reality these incidents almost always take place in the backdrop of an ongoing conflict between majority Muslims and a member of a minority be it Christian, Hindu or Ahmedi, it does not really matter. And an angry Muslim and his friends looking to take revenge for totally private agendas find it convenient to exploit the existence of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

A few years ago, while doing a TV programme from London, I had asked Jamaat-e-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed why we need such laws. And his answer was to contain the Muslim anger, to prevent the possibility of communal instability. I am a kind of history worm and I do understand where he was coming from. But if the last few decades make us any wiser these laws have only served to provide legitimacy to the biliary desires of goons and potential criminals. And why do we need blasphemy laws to protect the feelings of the Muslims in a 97 per cent Muslim country? If anything, such laws should only be there to protect the identity and self-respect of the minorities.

I can appreciate the stresses and strains that threaten the vulnerable identity of Muslim immigrants, say in Geert Wilders’ Europe. But if my sense of Muslim identity surrounded by a sea of 97 per cent Muslims all around is so insecure that I have to protect it through laws then something somewhere is seriously wrong. And in this age of global inter-dependence 24/7 news channels, Internet and YouTube this insecurity, this feebleness of heart and mind will only increase and with disastrous implications for communal stability. Come up with a better solution, Qazi Sahib, please!

But what looks religious on the face of it, is also driven by something even more primitive than it; and that is: the Pakistani belief in majoritarianism. And nowhere was it better reflected than in the antics of Pakistan’s burgeoning electronic media. We now have almost 50 domestic TV channels, with at least ten round-the-clock news networks, swarming with hundreds of anchorpersons and increasingly aquiline featured, gelled-haired ladies more ferocious than the rugged old men and all spitting fire with the buzz words of democracy, freedom of expression, rule of law, and the restoration of judges. But — like my friend Ghazi Salah-ud-din, a columnist in The News I wonder why none of them could fit Jagdeesh Kumar into a popular national agenda?

But I may offer an answer. Fareed Zakaria, a few years ago, jolted our consciousness with his provocative thesis: “The rise of the illiberal democracy”. It is a long discussion but in a nutshell, he argued that constitutional freedoms are separate and distinct to the principle of popular elections and majoritarianism. What we see in Western Europe and North America is a joint and parallel evolution of both concepts. But few in this country, while condemning Fox News and its juicy and dark portrayal of Muslims since 9/11 as a sinister American agenda, have reflected on the populism of Pakistan’s proliferating electronic media. So when Naeem Bokhari, a senior Supreme court advocate, was thrashed inside a court room, the lawyers, the media and the civil society brigades justified it by citing his unsavoury act of writing a letter against the former Chief Justice. When Arbab Raheem, the former Chief Minister of Sindh was thrashed inside the Sindh Assembly many in the media reminded the public that he being what he was deserved this. And when Sher Afghan, the former minister in the Musharraf-Aziz government was attacked by lawyers in Lahore, prominent TV anchors were showing clips of his utterances in favour of Musharraf to prove that the old man deserved it.

In a media driven and controlled by popular and often pedestrian national moods, it is no wonder that no one had the time to reflect that Jagdeesh Kumar’s lifeless torso was not merely that of a ‘man of no importance’ but was the battered face of the state of Pakistan. And while the demons of the majoritarianism were dancing naked, the rule of law was begging for the media’s suo motu notice. Ladies and gentlemen, there are issues beyond the restoration of judiciary!

Dr Moeed Pirzada, a broadcaster and political analyst with GEO TV, has been a Britannia Chevening Scholar at London School of Economics and Political Science. Email: mp846@columbia.edu

US Elections and Positive Change

Admin
-
0
US Elections and Positive Change

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

To most Americans and to many of us it was received wisdom that a democrat will win the US Elections in 2008. not anymore. Many analysts fear this may not happen. They point out while Clinton and Obama are destroying each other and the democratic party in a war of attrition, Republicans are making progress with an unquestioned leader, unifying political jargon and with the nuts and bolts of a successful campaign in place.

They may be right. But irrespective of who wins and who lands in the 18th century House on the Pennsylvania Ave, the Democratic campaign we have seen was special. It was special for it brought out the yearnings of a changed US society. Agreed, the primaries were mostly registered Democratic voters and not the whole America but nevertheless the impact of the economic and social movements of the last few decades, and the values that were espoused, were reflected in the kind of choices people made.

To begin with some one like Barack Hussein Obama surviving till the end was in itself a testament of the changed times; a tribute to a changing America. Hilary Clinton is not just a twice elected New York Senator, or the former first lady; in many respects she epitomises the sphinx of power, authority and continuity in the traditional American consciousness. I remember during the height of the Monica Lewinsky affair the joke used to be: fire the president and her husband too.

The mere fact that a coloured man, whose ancestry could be traced to a Muslim father, who from the beginning took a position against the Iraq war gave tough time to the Ms Clinton — that blue eyed scion of the American establishment — was in itself a little miracle in this age of profanity. But then it does not end here. Obama sustained the support of the white middle class delegates; which only serves to show that how among educated white Americans idealism, political belief and a shared sense of identity prevailed upon the traditional considerations of race and colour.

But there are even more interesting symptoms of a changing American society. My friend, Professor Adil Najam, currently at the Boston University, was explaining to me that how older American women identified with Hillary Clinton. To them she is the symbol of woman’s cumbersome struggle in a man’s world. Not anymore for the younger ones. Poll after poll, contest after contest, showed that how younger women — under 45 — swung towards Obama. They are the products of a fast emerging post-feminist America where issues and concerns transcend boundaries of gender.

But whereas the changing social dynamics of the US might have found their way into the political preferences, there is as yet little evidence of a similar adjustment to global concerns. Difficult questions persist.

Two ways of looking at this will be instrumental. In an article, “Can a Democrat change US Middle East Policy?” an excerpt from his updated book: “ Perilous Power: the Middle East and the US foreign policy” Noam Chomsky, argues that even someone like Obama is not up to any real change in foreign policy towards Middle East.

Chomsky was one of the most original American thinkers of his times. Since most of us are happy in imprisoning or exporting our own iconoclasts, we envied an America that can bear such self-flagellating critics in its midst. Even today we listen, read and cherish him but in a changed American context he is less relevant; to many on the campuses he is an academic of a bygone era and I am afraid not many on the campaign trail or on morning trains will care to read his arguments — however cogent they may appear to us.

Visakha N Desai, president of the Asia Society, however, refers to something which may be more understood. In a recent provocative article, “Questions for America’s next leader” she wonders how the next US president will provide a clear understanding of how he, or she, will prepare America for a twenty first century in which the local issues are tied with the global developments?

American ears may be deaf to what is perceived as Chomsky’s old fashioned rhetoric; but Desai is raising questions from the perspective of new market economy; she is concerned that the US election campaign by both the Democrats and the Republicans has not touched on the question or issue of US global responsibilities in an age when global trends can have local implications? And she is worried how America’s international authority will confront or adjust to Asia’s new found clout?

To their concerns I want to add mine. And contrary to Chomsky’s well rehearsed analysis and Desai’s own sophisticated market economy related thoughts I have a basic fundamental and dumb question; why is our fate being decided by the American voters?

Whether we like it or not, the US government for all practical purposes is a de-facto global government. Ok! The US has not designed it to be so but this is what the strange reality is. What will happen in Iraq, or Afghanistan; will there be a war with Iran; how will energy policies be developed; everything affects us. Yet a US president, elected primarily on the strength of local concerns, understandings and prejudices, will bring his or her team and together their decisions will affect the whole world; for good or bad they will control and shape our lives. Yet we — the people of the world — do not have the slightest input into who should win the primaries and who should sleep in the white House? Isn’t it funny?

Folks, I am not a poet, just someone wedded to the school of political realism. I am not condemning the current situation either; merely pointing to the sheer irrationality of a global power design. With United Nations dead or worse a rubber stamp, the term sole superpower is a mere euphuism for global government; yet the system for its selection is patently undemocratic and destabilising for the planet.

Every age throws up new problems and needs new solutions. The changed preferences of the democratic voters in the primaries reflected an admission of new realities inside the US; my question, like that of Vishakha N Desai, relates to a changed global reality, it may look irrelevant at this moment but with every passing year this will assume greater significance?

New Challenges for the US Diplomacy

Admin
-
0
New Challenges for the US Diplomacy

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times|

The emerging political structure in Pakistan may present new challenges to both the US and Pakistani diplomacy in the region. And it will be interesting to see how both sides continue to strengthen a relationship that is of utmost importance — to them and the region at large.

Last week the visiting US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte and US Assistant Secretary of State, Richard Boucher had a taste of this new noisy, boisterous and less than deferential Pakistan, where many were prepared to raise questions never aired so audaciously before. In many respects it was a rougher microcosm of the neighbouring India where the Bush administration has found it so frustrating to sell its grand nuclear deal.

But while listening to the cacophony of political bravado the thing that must have worried the US diplomats the most was that there was no one single person or institution available anymore to be threatened with mid-night phone calls; that can negotiate, promise and guarantee the results on the continuing war against terrorism. In a report, the New York Times termed this as the ushering of a ‘new diplomatic order’ and later in an editorial termed the Pakistani leaders desire to review Pakistan’s role in the war against terrorism as ‘worrying’.

In an earlier column in these pages (Where exactly lie the next fault lines? KT, Mar 20) I had argued that soon the coalition parties may be compelled to take different positions on this issue. This started to manifest last week. Whereas PM Yousaf Raza Gillani’s cautious pronouncement that negotiations are possible with militants who lay down arms has raised eyebrows in the US media it must be the stand taken by Nawaz Sharif, the former prime minister, and the junior partner in the coalition government that must raise hackles inside the State Department.

Nawaz, in a hurriedly called Press conference, after his meeting with the US diplomats, asserted that whereas his party wants peace everywhere it doesn’t want Pakistan to become a slaughter house for peace elsewhere. Yet the differences between the two coalition partners on this issue may be deeper than discernable from the surface. PPP created political space for itself inside Washington beltway, over a two-year period, promising that if given the chance back in power it will impart greater legitimacy and effectiveness to the war against terrorism.

This was the position again reiterated by Hussain Haqqani, the PPP’s designated Ambassador at large and soon to be Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington-during an interview with Los Angeles Times. It will be hardly an exaggeration to suggest that Haqqani was Ms. Bhutto’s principal one- man think-tank in the US providing continuous intellectual wherewithal to her strategy of winning and developing support for a comeback. Sharif on the other hand is being counselled by Tariq Fatemi, a nationalist figure from Pakistan’s Foreign Service whom many in the US diplomatic corps remember with some trepidation.

Add to this the fact that whereas PPP has relied upon its traditional vote bank in interior Sindh and southern Punjab, Sharif, who swept Punjab and its middle class vote, upstaging Gen. Musharraf and his support base, had fashioned his campaign around issues of national self-respect and sovereignty. Given this context both parties will find it difficult to move far away from their commitments and public image.

But this is not the only problem that challenges the minds.

Responding to the changed signals — or confusion — from the politicians, the so-called Tehrik-e-Taleban-e-Pakistan (TTP) the main extremist outfit has produced its own olive branch. And the nature of this “olive branch” only shows the kind of disconnect these neo-Luddites have with the world around them; they are prepared to offer peace to Pakistani cities in exchange for their right to continue Jihad against the US and Nato in Afghanistan. Well, this may entice some idiotic street opinion but is hardly helpful to the political decision makers- who will soon be confronted with the task of balancing budgets as well.

But these militants, lost in time warp, with their vision blocked by the rugged mountains all around, are trying to utilise some redundant paradigms of the past.

After all only a generation ago they and their fathers were utilised by the US and Pakistanis to wage a war of attrition against the occupying Soviets from sanctuaries inside Pakistan. The US certainly utilised this concept against the Soviet-backed regimes in many other theatres of conflict, across the world. India successfully employed the same paradigm against erstwhile East Pakistan by allowing the Begali insurgents to operate from the safety of West Bengal. And Pakistan — till 9/11 — was following the same against India in Kashmir. We must admit: all are naked in this Turkish hammam.

9/11 gave us the new paradigms of collective security where all were prepared to fight a common enemy — the terrorists- under the leadership of a global hegemon, with whom no one could reasonably disagree with. The assumption is that old fashioned pursuit of state interests is dead. But is it really true?

US media and think-tanks have continuously harped on the theme that Pakistani military establishment is playing a double game, saving some of its “jihadi assets” to be used later. Interestingly the Pakistani chatter mill has always pointed out the large number of Indian consulates close to Pak-Afghan border, foreign inspired insurgents in Baluchistan and activities of Indian Border Road Organization as evidences of a US double game in the region.

But Mirza Aslam Baig, the former army chief, recently wrote and distributed an unusually provocative piece: “Challenges for the new Government” accusing US and India of running an intelligence command operation at Jabul-us-Seraj, north of Kabul with forward posts at Sarobi for missions inside the NWFP and at Lashkargah and Nawah for supporting insurgents inside Pakistani Baluchistan.

These accusations look wild on the face of it and in all probability may be exaggerated; after all why will the US attempt destabilising a nuclear Pakistan? But unfortunately such conspiracy theories are widely believed across Pakistan. And one thing they point out is that the old fashioned pursuit of state interests and insecurities is not dead.

In the months ahead, US may find it better and more fruitful to define the struggle in this region less in terms of the war against terrorism and more in terms of regional stability. In any case, it may need to inspire greater trust about its role of a neutral, above board, global hegemon.

Surviving Musharraf

Admin
-
0
Surviving Musharraf

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

After a long period in its history, Pakistan is bubbling with positive news. Yet there are troubling questions that lurk on the margins; questions that are either being ignored or whispered quietly in a climate of “goodwill acrobatics”.

For the first time in Pakistan’s history, power has really been transferred — and that too peacefully — from incumbents to challengers through a process of elections. This is a big first for Pakistan given the fact Muslim societies, in the context of history, have not been able to invent or sustain political institutions that can guarantee transitions of authority from one hand to the other.

In other words, wholly Muslim societies — with the exception of Turkey and with some qualifications, Iran — have not been able to create state structures where those who rule are distinct and separate from the state itself; a concept most Western societies, after initial lapses, were finally able to implement more than a hundred years ago.

There are more interesting things: for the first time in a country like Pakistan political parties appear to be more powerful and important than politicians and personalities. True it is less to do with policy visions or good intentions, but the die has been cast.

Today, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, for whatever reasons, is a nominee of Pakistan People’s Party; Shahbaz Sharif — the would-be strong man in Punjab, though a brilliant and much admired administrator — will represent Nawaz Sharif who controls party’s vote bank; and it is Asfandyar Wali Khan in NWFP who controls ANP, not the politician he has put in place as the chief minister. As I said, it may be less by noble design and more by short term selfish needs, but it’s a process of indirect political control and delegation has begun and may even continue.

And there is yet more to chew on. Despite low key protests from politicians and their spokespersons that it is the politicians and not the civil society who have been elected by the people to set the agendas, politicians and political parties are compelled to follow the agenda set into motion by the media and the civil society. The fact that despite strong reservations of some political parties, the drive to restore the pre-November judiciary is still popular and it is a testament to that fact.

But if everything is so positive, as many argue these days, then where is the problem?

And the problem is: throughout the election campaign and since the elections, no political party or politician worth any name has come up with any creative design, original thought, idea, plan or even half a brain wave that gives the hope that they have any solution, or they are brainstorming on one, for the kinds of problems that confront them in the forms of a remote controlled war against terrorism, raging inflation, stagnating economy, energy crisis and all the ills that come along with this.

It may be helpful to revisit the downfall of Musharraf. For the greater part of his eight-year rule, he remained unassailable by politicians. There were at least three reasons for it: One, the continued unflinching US support; a relatively robust economic growth of the last few years and his ability to offer the vastly expanded electronic media to the people as a steaming out mechanism which he effectively marketed as his brand of democracy. There was another: politicians whether they were inside or outside the country had nothing to offer.

Tariq Banuri, a noted Pakistani academic, had commented sometime ago that the average age of civil governments in Pakistan has been around two to three years and that of the military government around ten. However, he mused that given the increasing challenges to governance, the age of the military-led governments might be shortened to around eight. Prophetic words we must accept.

It is always helpful to remember the facts. Musharraf started to collapse not because politicians were offering him any serious challenge but because his total subservience to the US lead war against terrorism alienated whatever support base he once had; and the media and civil society he initially exploited as his “alternate democracy” gradually turned against him. By early 2006, many in the US had started worrying that he, if not supported by some political device, will soon become a liability.

Confronted by the civil society brigades, Musharraf exhibited the worst form of antics to maintain his hold on power and within a short period of few months, became the most popularly despised character in Pakistan’s recent history. However, once again it is important to note that his rapid downfall within a space of few months was wholly and solely at the hands of the media and the civil society; politicians merely moved in the space that was created due to his weakening and imminent collapse.

Could this then explain why politicians are without an original work sheet of their own? Their struggle against Musharraf was more in the nature of fixing last minute nails in his political coffins, which they, by the way, did nicely by focusing on rising prices of wheat and oil, electricity failures and the doom and gloom of the war against terrorism. They probably never got much time or opportunity to reflect on what will they offer once he is finally gone? And this lack of reflection may also apply to the sky-rocketing oil and wheat prices in international markets.

This then may explain why all what they are doing so far amounts to either following the popular agenda set into motion by the civil society or condemning Musharraf, which again is a popular national pastime. But what lies beyond that?

It is high time that they move beyond Musharraf-bashing to reflect on the economic challenges at hand. A collapsing Musharraf, as long as he is around and visible, is doing a great service to politicians by providing media and the people with a punching bag. They should dread the day when he will be suddenly unavailable to absorb the public wrath; leaving them to deal with the difficult questions about their own agenda.

Pakistani Politics: Where Exactly Lie the Next Fault Lines?

Admin
-
0
Pakistani Politics: Where Exactly Lie the Next Fault Lines?

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

How PPP and PML(N) — despite the Murree Accord — will ultimately resolve their different approaches towards the restoration of judges remains to be seen; but recent developments in the context of the war against terrorism suggest that equally if not more challenging fault lines await them in this important area of decision making.

There are various indications that a major operation in the tribal areas against the Taleban might be in offing. And this might be a new kind of operation by the Pakistan army, assisted by some key US personnel. Disclosures in Pakistani papers, a few days ago, revealed that an “Eleven Point Demand List” to facilitate US personnel inside Pakistan was submitted by the US to Pakistan Foreign Office.

It led to an expected uproar across the media. I had referred to that in my last column in these pages. However, it is not being appreciated that these demands — though some of them very intrusive — only appear to be a natural culmination of the diligent US diplomacy that has been going on for the past several weeks — if not months. To some extent it might also represent a reevaluation of US strategic thinking after Ms Bhutto’s exit from the scene.

In the first week of Jan 2008, the US National Security Council again debated new strategies regarding the war against terrorism in the context of Pakistan and Afghanistan. On Jan 9, the two top most US Intelligence Officials — Mike McConnell, the director of the National Intelligence and Gen Michael V Hayden, the director of CIA — travelled all the way to Islamabad for day long meetings with President Musharraf, COAS Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani and the DG Military Intelligence, Lt Gen Nadeem Taj. And then in the fourth week of January, the top US commander in the region, responsible for operations from Iraq to Afghanistan, Adm William J Fallon, visited Pakistan.

In the same week, US Defense Secretary, Robert M Gates, took the position that the US was willing to send combat troops to Pakistan to conduct joint operations against Al Qaeda and other militants if the Pakistani government asked for it. Since Feb, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm Mike Mullen has visited Pakistan twice.

What really transpired in the meetings in Islamabad and the intense communication that followed was never fully divulged to the media; however, the picture that emerges from the patchy details that found their way into credible publications like New York Times was that initially President Musharraf had his reservations regarding the role of any US troops in ground operations on Pakistani territory. But a compromise formula was reached under which Pakistan showed its willingness to accept the US training, equipment and technical help.

The versions of the US media and the Pakistani chatter mill diverges from this point onwards. Some sources insist that the term “trainers” used by the Americans is a camouflage for “private contractors” whose task will be to manage the technical side of the operations; there is some speculation that these US personnel are not even from the US regular forces but represent some private companies like “Blackwater USA” that earned notoriety in Iraq and have become closely allied with the US National Security apparatus under the Bush and Cheney administration. Though the US sources talked of around a maximum of 100 trainers, Pakistani sources insist that the final number of these “US Personnel” can be much higher.

These speculations have received some support from the nature of “Eleven Point Demand List” submitted by the US and leaked to Pakistani papers; for instance the demands like: the right to carry arms across whole of Pakistan; non-applicability of the Pakistani law and total immunity to the US personnel from any claims for the loss of life and property. The sources that claim that the “trainers” are not trainers but combatants argue that why on earth trainers will need the protection of such kind of rights — immunity from the charge of damage to life and property for instance — as being demanded for them?

The just announced early retirement of Adm William Fallon, (Mar, 11) amidst widely believed rumors that he fell out with White House on the approaches towards Iran — though not directly related to Pakistan — may point out a certain confrontationist yearning inside White House in the run up to the US presidential elections. The victory of hardliners in the just concluded Iranian elections may also add rhetoric to this situation. Most analysts feel that any sudden confrontation with Iran, or visible results — even if temporary — in the war against terrorism, or even an assertive posturing in this region, may add to the political fortunes of the Republicans in the forthcoming elections.

But if the US strategic interests in the region or the political needs in the run up to the elections demand pushing a very assertive offensive within the next few weeks the public and political mood in Pakistan, to put it politely, is towards a total review of the war against terrorism. The preponderance of Pakistani public and expert opinion fears greater instability and chaos if the decision makers continued aligning themselves visibly with the US lead war against terrorism.

And herein lie the fault lines between PPP and PML(N).

Though in recent pronouncements both parties have stressed “dialogue and negotiations” to resolve the insurgency in Northwest, this only hides the underlying differences and even commitments. PPP — and its various supporters — had marketed it inside the US as that moderate political force that if given the opportunity to capture power will provide a popular legitimacy to the war against terrorism. Asif Ali Zardari, recently said that war against terrorism is our own war — something which President Musharraf has been saying lately and which the US desperately wants to hear.

Nawaz Sharif on the contrary said that the war against the terrorism needs to be redefined to dispel the impression that this is merely a US war; even this cautious statement may point out the divergent approaches but to this we need to add that the support base and political allies of PML(N) have been passionate critics of a war they see waged at the behest of the US and that has undermined Pakistan’s national security.

At a point where the US aims to intensify the war effort PPP may find itself in a strategic convergence with the presidency and PML(N) may be compelled to give effect to the popular mood of its support base. But will they manage to do it while sitting inside the same cabinet? We only have to wait for few more days.

Suicide Bombers and US

Admin
-
0
Suicide Bombers and US

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and Mr Zardari, Ms Bhutto’s widower, were able to reconcile their differences for a historic accord that promises the restoration of judiciary sacked by President Musharraf. And it appears that Mr Zardari is finally able to sideline Makhdoom Amin Fahim with a view to his own candidature for the prime minister of Pakistan.

But then there were other happenings that if not totally sideline then at least take away the sheen from these political developments. After a brief lull the terrorists struck with impunity — leaving hundreds dead or maimed. Their aim was to bleed Pakistan’s heartland, Lahore. In a situation where many people are worried if going to office or stopping at the next red light will be safe, the question who will be the next prime minister has lost much of its meaning. What is important is will he or his government be able to rethink and renegotiate the whole concept of the war against terrorism?

Some recapitulation will help see things in perspective. More than 1,500 Pakistanis died in around 130 terror attacks in 2007; almost five every day on average. Hundreds more have died since the beginning of this year. Pakistan’s security apparatus now remains the central target of these terrorists. Images of flesh and blood, amidst twisted metal and plastic bars adorn television screens almost every week.

It is in this context that we need to evaluate the new twists and possible strategies in the ongoing war against terrorism. Recently Pakistan’s prominent daily, The News, came up with the scoop, “US Yearns for Pak Capitulation” which disclosed that US administration has put up eleven demands to Pakistan. As soon as it was confirmed, by the ministry of foreign affairs, that such or similar US demands do really exist Pakistan’s Urdu Press was up in the arms.

So what are these demands? To be honest some of them are really interesting. For instance US has demanded among other things that US military and auxiliary personnel be: allowed in Pakistan without visas; allowed to wear uniforms and carry arms; be exempted from Pakistani laws; allowed inspection free import and export of all equipment and be allowed all necessary radio spectrum. There is yet another: US personnel be waived from all claims of the loss of life and property.

May Allah, Bhagvan and Christ all forgive me for any exaggeration. But in all fairness this demand list reminds me of either the conquered Japan after Hiroshima and Nagasaki under McArthur or post- Saddam Iraq being restructured under Paul Bremmer. But what is happening in Pakistan?

This “demand list” appeared a day or two after the investigative stories in Asia Times Online, by Saleem Shahzad, who claimed that a joint Pak-NATO operation is in offing inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. Other reports — albeit not confirmed — suggest that around 750 US Special Forces personnel will take part in the operations against Taleban inside Pakistan. Is this really true? I am not sure, but if you connect the dots, especially the nature of the US demands cited above, then this appears to be the game plan.

But what an irresponsible act? No one in Pentagon, with a functioning brain, can really imagine that a hard military push involving US personnel will achieve lasting results. And what about the stability of Pakistan as a society even if some temporary results are possible in the mountains?

If this really is a serious plan then this appears to be motivated more by the political considerations of a Republican administration in the run up to an election rather than the concerns for stability, or the long term US interests, in this region. Ironically it may even lend credence to the “Hameed Gul School of thought” that argues that the real purpose of US policies is to create such chaos in Pakistan that the demand for “institutional denuclearisation” starts looking natural and justified.

Unfortunately the suicide terrorism in the Muslim world correlates directly with the US military presences. Seminal work of Professor Robert A Pape of the University of Chicago offers clear insights into the whole process. Pape clearly points out that suicide bombing is not related to fundamentalism per see and neither is it the domain of any particular religion; Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and seculars are all fully capable of turning into suicide warfare given the compelling set of circumstances.

When Professor Pape published his land mark work, “Dying to Win: the strategic logic of suicide terrorism” he followed a data from 1995 to 2003, studying the pattern of 71 Al Qaeda related suicide bombings. Ironically he had then cited Pakistan, as one of the five major Muslim fundamentalist populations with the least inclinations towards suicide bombings.

Majority of the suicide bombing tendency was then clearly exhibited among populations like the Saudi Arabians and the Arabian Gulf directly exposed to the US policies and personnel. Now add to this the fact+ that fundamentalist Iran has not produced any suicide bombers but erstwhile secular Iraq became the biggest center for suicide bombings. In the last two years as Musharraf increasingly budged under the US mantras of “should do more” — especially since our mismanagement of the “Lal Masjid Crisis” — Pakistan has now become a hot bed of suicide bombers. Other observations should be even more interesting. Pakistan’s northwest stretching from Afghanistan to the Indian controlled Kashmir has experienced a continuous conflict since 1979; first as a result of the US and Pakistan sponsored Afghan struggle against the Soviet military and later as a result of Pakistan supported Kashmiri insurgency against India. But we should ask: how many suicide bombings were heard of against the Soviets or against the Indian army?

Two central ingredients of suicide bombings are: extreme asymmetry of struggle and polarisation of mind. Both elements remained missing in these earlier conflicts. Despite our propaganda against the Indian army in Kashmir and notwithstanding certain instances of human right violations the Indian army has fought the Kashmiri insurgents through patient traditional counter-insurgency methods.

In the case of the US military dealing with the Muslim populations the elements of asymmetry and polarisation are inbuilt. Asymmetry is in the nature of hyper power and polarisation is the gradual accumulation of half a century of Muslim perceptions about US in the overall context of its Middle Eastern policy. Given the strong influence of domestic politics on US foreign policy it is unfortunately not capable of sustaining any positive signal for any substantial period to have significant change of perceptions in Muslim consciousness.

The first and foremost challenge for the new political leadership will be to negotiate with the US, and build trust in a way, that ensures that the war against terrorism is prosecuted only and only by the Pakistani military without a shadow of the US personnel and their gadgets.

I don’t remember the last time I went to a mosque, but trust me I want to stop at a red light without the fear of being blown up.

Comment: YouTube and all of us: Moeed Pirzada

Admin
-
0
Comment: YouTube and all of us: Moeed Pirzada

Moeed Pirzada | Daily times |

Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay, “Perpetual Peace” had argued that it is not the state of peace but the state of war that is the natural state among men living side by side and for peace we have to strive hard away from the glare of mega politics of nations, major megalomaniacs and their ego trips I want to focus on an event that had appeared on the retinas of our consciousness like a flash and then disappeared into oblivion.

It too involves some “minor megalomaniacs” and some idiots, yet to my mind it was a manifestation of the age we live in: the age of global inter-dependence; a reality that has landed upon us without giving us any opportunity to adjust to its myriad challenges. Geert Wilders, a member of Tweede Kamer, the Dutch House of Representative, is making a short film, Fitna, that aims to prove that Holy Quran is “a fascist book”. A clip of that film was placed on YouTube in Europe. Islamabad, apparently, alarmed that this might spark riots and violence decides to shut down YouTube in its jurisdiction.

And then a miscommunication takes place between PTCL Pakistan’s largest telecom company and PCCW, a Hong Kong telecom giant, and the blocking message starts replicating on the internet worldwide. Result: YouTube shuts down across the globe. First complaints arise from California. If there was ever any need to demonstrate the physical interdependence of the world we now live in, this was it. Yet most of us fail to realise and accept that physical reliance places new limits upon our individual and collective lives and decision-making process.

Pakistan’s decision to ban YouTube reflected 19th century mentality, first invoked in Victorian England against the Penny Press, in application against technologies of 21st century. It appears that no one really bothered to understand the nature of YouTube; it was not a billboard lying open in physical space. Access to the website is already restricted by such barriers as possessing a computer, having an internet facility, high-speed connection to download YouTube videos and finally the ability to understand, given that most of the material related to Fitna was actually in French.

No wonder many in Pakistan suspect that the Musharraf government’s real objective behind the decision to get rid of YouTube, in its realm, was to prevent Pakistani citizens from watching video evidence of election rigging cropping up in cyberspace. Having said this, the idiocy of the Pakistani establishment is equally matched by the prejudices and confusions of the European mind. And it reminds me of an interesting interaction.

Many years ago I met a lady at a party somewhere in Islamabad. She was in her late forties and passing through a difficult divorce; I, in my twenties, fully hormonal, had an eye on her niece. I told her that I would be a very liberal husband. She said: “How do you know; you have never been married?” I retorted: “Because I am a liberal and I know myself” and she smiled the kind of smile you see on Mona Lisa. Even then I had consumed the writings of Russell and Voltaire. But over the years as I evolved from a liberal-minded lover to a conservative husband and a possessive father, I kind of fathomed the cynicism of her “Mona Lisa smile”. I smile the same smile when I see Europeans brandishing their placards of secularism. Gentlemen, there are phases of knowing thyself. The idea of a well-rounded educational background for legislators is a controversial one. However, in the case of Geert Wilders this assumes some significance. This Dutch member of parliament and founder-leader of his “Party for Freedom” has a Health Insurance course and some law certificates as evidence of high education. Armed with these impressive insights into human history and in this age of global interdependence, he has launched his crusade to “reform Islam and Quran” to “tailor them to suit the Dutch law”!

Lunatics exist everywhere. But what have the Dutch government, media and the intellectuals done to expose and cut him to size? In December 2007 the mainstream radio station, NOS, declared him politician of the year. Imagine the Western reaction if a popular TV or radio station in Pakistan celebrated a rabid Mullah uttering profanities against Christ or Christians? Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay, “Perpetual Peace”, had argued that it is not the state of peace but the state of war that is the natural state among men living side by side and for peace we have to strive hard. Yet more than 200 years later when microchips and internet have placed us face to face, many still fail to realise the responsibilities of an age of interdependence.

Ironically, this fact seems to be least appreciated in countries which place the highest premium on globalisation. Perhaps, if for no other reason than to add some credibility to its lectures worldwide, the European Parliament should either arrange for the hospitalisation or forced university education of Geert Wilders. It may be a small step in the right direction!

Dr Moeed Pirzada, a broadcaster and political analyst with GEO TV, has been a founding member of the Association of Pakistani Professionals (AOPP) in New York. He can be reached at mp846@columbia.edu

 

 

Age of Interdependence

Admin
-
0
Age of Interdependence

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

In days of such “narrow focus” the wider world gets blurred. No wonder few have paid attention to the kaleidoscope around us: the Russian elections, the visit of the Ahmadinejad to Baghdad, the tightening of the economic sanctions by the UN Security council on Iran or even the sensational swings of the US primaries.

But away from the glare of all this mega politics — of nations, major megalomaniacs and their ego trips — I want to focus on an event that had appeared on the retinas of our consciousness like a flash and then disappeared into oblivion.

It too involves some “minor megalomaniacs” and some idiots, yet to my mind it was a manifestation of the age we live in: the age of global inter-dependence; a reality that has landed upon us without giving us any opportunity to adjust to its myriad challenges…

Geert Wilders, a member of Tweede Kamer, the Dutch House of Representative, is making a short film, “Fitna” that aims to prove that Holy Quran is “a fascist book”. A clip of that film was placed on You Tube, in Europe. Government of Pakistan, apparently, alarmed that this might spark riots and violence decides to shut down the You Tube in its jurisdiction.

And then a miscommunication takes place between PTCL — Pakistan’s largest telecom company — and PCCW — a Hong Kong telecom giant — and the blocking message starts replicating on the Internet world wide. Result: You Tube shuts down across the globe. First complaints arise from California. If there was ever any need to demonstrate the physical interdependence of the world we now live in —  then this was it. Yet most of us fail to realise and accept that physical reliance places new limits upon our individual and collective lives and decision-making process.

Government of Pakistan’s decision, for instance, to ban the You Tube was a 19th century mentality, first invoked in Victorian England against the Penny Press, in application against technologies of 21st century.

It appears that no one really bothered to understand the nature of You Tube; it was not a billboard lying open in physical space. Access to the web site is already restricted by the barriers of: possessing a computer, having an internet facility, high speed connection to download You Tube and finally the ability to understand, given that most of the material related to “Fitna” was actually in French.

No wonder many in Pakistan suspect that the Musharraf government’s real objective behind the decision to get rid of the You Tube, in its realm, was to prevent its citizenry from watching video evidence of election rigging cropping up in the cyber space.

Having said this, the idiocy of the Pakistani establishment is equally matched by the prejudices and confusions of the European mind. And it reminds me of an interesting interaction.

Many years ago I met a lady, in a party somewhere in Islamabad. She was in her late forties passing through a difficult divorce and I in my young twenties, fully hormonal, with an eye on her niece. I told her that I knew I would be a very liberal husband. And she said: “How do you know; you have never been married?” And I retorted: “Because I am a liberal and I know myself” and she smiled the kind of smile you see on Mona Lisa.

Even then I had consumed the writings of Russell and Voltaire and used to be a great defender of Salman Rushdie; but over the years as I evolved through a liberal lover, a conservative husband and a possessive father I kind of fathomed the cynicism of her smile. And I smile the same when I see the Europeans brandishing their placards of secularism. Gentlemen, there are phases of knowing thyself.

The idea of a well-rounded educational background for legislators is a controversial one. However, in case of Geert Wilders this assumes some significance. This Dutch member of the parliament and founder leader of his “Party for Freedom” has a Health Insurance course and some law certificates as evidence of cerebral exercise. Armed with these impressive insights into human history and in this age of global interdependence, he has launched his crusade to “reform Islam and Quran” to “tailor them to suit the Dutch law!

Lunatics exist everywhere. But what have Dutch government, media and the intellectuals done to expose him, to cut him to size? Well the answer is: In December 2007 the mainstream radio station, NOS — radio declared him the politician of the year. Imagine the Western reaction if a popular TV or radio station in Pakistan celebrated a rabid Mullah uttering profanities against Christ or Christians?

Immanuel Kant in his 1795 essay, “Perpetual Peace” had argued that it is not the state of peace but the state of war that is the natural state among men living side by side and for peace we have to strive hard. Yet more than 200 years later when microchips and Internet have placed us face to face, many still fail to realise the responsibilities of an age of interdependence.

Ironically, it is least appreciated in the countries from where most jargon of globalisation appears. Perhaps, if for nothing else, then to add some credibility to its lectures worldwide, European Parliament should either arrange for the hospitalisation or the forced university education of Geert Wilders. It may be a small step in the right direction!

coc hack gem

Post Election Fault Lines

Admin
-
0
Post Election Fault Lines

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

These overtures were a must to ensure the continuity of US strategic interests in a period of transition. However, it ended up creating the impression as if the fault lines between Pakistan’s new political dispensation and the US centre around Musharraf. Well for the time being they do — but the real trouble lies somewhere else.

As the diplomatic activity became visible many newspapers in Pakistan shot up editorials and op-Eds condemning the US interference. They termed it: meddling in Pakistani politics and attempts to negate the will of Pakistani electorate, which had overwhelmingly rejected Musharraf.

This was sheer hypocrisy. The US State Department and media have been active throughout the last few months mediating with Musharraf’s regime on behalf of Pakistan’s civil society, politicians and the media. None of us objected to that interference then; if any thing it was actively sought and welcomed and often any delay of statements from Washington were resented; how could the rules of the game change suddenly?

In reality the US State Department and the media have remained very active in following and shaping the political developments inside Pakistan. And this is not only in the last few months but it built up over the last two years. In what may be referred to a “constructive engagement” the US media joined the State Department, the US embassy in Pakistan and Pakistan’s civil society in pressurising the Musharraf regime to move towards a process of “credible elections”.

It was this relentless process of engagement, confidence building on all sides and persuasion that lead to, among other things, the: return of Benazir Bhutto; issuance of NRO to facilitate her party; prevention of emergency the first time in August; taking off uniform by Musharraf; an early end to emergency and easing of the restrictions on the media and ensuring an election that could be accepted by all stakeholders. This process of engagement has almost turned the US State Department into a domestic player in sync with Pakistan’s civil society, media and politics.

Yet this apparent alliance between the US interests and Pakistan’s civil society especially in the last few months may have hidden the serious differences that lie underneath; fault lines few like to address on either side of the divide.

Laura King of the Los Angeles Times may be one of such few US journalists who came up clearly pointing out that the election results in Pakistan do not mean support for the US policy of stepped-up attacks against the militants. [LA Times; 26 Feb]

US paradigm from the beginning of 2006 — gradually adopted by the British political establishment — that lead to the acceptability of Benazir Bhutto in Washington and her return to Pakistan was based on the premise that Ms Bhutto and her party will provide a foundation of popular political support to General Musharraf’s war against terrorism. I suspect that this paradigm was less a result of original thinking on behalf of the US State Department and more a case building by Ms Bhutto and her supporters in the US and some articulate voices inside Pakistan’s print media. The very fact that Washington establishment bought it — and ignored the former premier Nawaz Sharif — points out the US difficulties in understanding Pakistan and their limitations in terms of choices.

Ms Bhutto before her tragic death gave repeated statements to keep that assumption alive and recently after winning elections Mr Zardari, her widower and co-chairman of the PPP, has twice echoed the same message. But it should be of some significance that even the PPP election campaign in Pakistan was conducted without any direct reference to the war against terrorism. And Mr Nawaz Sharif — who has undoubtedly emerged as the most popular national leader in Pakistan — maintained a careful distance from the jargon of the war against terrorism. Since winning the elections he has even demanded that US needs to define the war against terrorism in more specific and narrow terms.

Taking a quick glance at the last few years, this strategy of “face change” for beefing up support for the “war against terrorism” may not be anything more than a short term remedy.

True! Musharraf had never been a popular leader in the way a politician inspires by his words and jugglery and wins elections but for the first few years in power he enjoyed high approval for his actions. His decision to support the US against the Taleban and overtures of peace towards India were popularly accepted as difficult decisions taken under pressure but nevertheless in the best national interest. His downside started when he was increasingly seen unable to preserve Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan or secure any concessions from India for his peace overtures.

Public and the politicians — many of whom will now come into power — and the Pakistani media often blasted Musharraf for being a US stooge; the lackey who was continuously making concessions against the national interests for he lacked legitimacy and popular support. US media were against him from the very beginning; initially because they suspected him or his military for covertly helping the Taleban and working against India and later when he became unpopular they resented Bush Administration for propping up an unpopular dictator — a situation that reminded many of the US support for the Shah of Iran.

Ironically, the principal under-current of the lawyers movement was unmistakably nationalistic with references towards the “missing persons” and a feeling that strong independent judiciary may provide some protection against the repeated dictates and insults from the US; an assumption that was lead credence by the Bush administration’s failure to support the cause of the reinstatement of the judges.

Summing it all up: Musharraf is merely a symbol of the fault lines; the real test of the new political construct’s ability to deal with the US will depend upon the extent to which US policy makers and media are able to revisit the whole concept of this ongoing war against terrorism.

Many in Pakistan’s civil military bureaucracies are extremely suspicious of some sort of ‘undeclared regional agenda’ by the US; others are concerned that tragic consequences to Pakistani social fabric are not being understood by the US and yet there are others that understand that a continued US engagement is a must for the economic expansion and sustenance of this region. In the wake of Pakistan’s elections a new US vision is needed that can assuage these fears and take most if not all on board.

Mother of All Elections?

Admin
-
0
Mother of All Elections?

Moeed Pirzada | Khaleej Times |

People forget about creators while their creations live on and multiply. In the six years since then the expression has changed its meaning, more than once. Today it reminds you of a Pakistan where young men, desperately seeking paradise, are blowing themselves apart-unfortunately with many of us along.

But on February 18, in this most dangerous place on earth, almost 37 million men and women — a human mass bigger than the entire population of Iraq — marched from their homes to stand in queues, from the sweltering lanes in Karachi on Arabian Sea to the frosty hills in the Northwest. And by mid-night most of them — almost 99.99 per cent — had reached back to their homes, safe and sound. Others danced on the streets, celebrating what they had achieved: PML(Q); the allies of President Musharraf more or less disappeared from the political scene.

The late Ms Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and former Premier Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League PML(N) have emerged as the clear winners. This was an outcome that closely matched the predictions of most polls; the latest being the one conducted by the International Republican Institute (IRI). Yet no one believed that in a country notorious for fixing elections such an outcome would be allowed. And with good reason; even the two member team of IRI had generated so much heat by their earlier polls that the last one had to be issued from Washington, once they had safely reached back to the cold comfort of their offices on Potomac.

The results are interesting for more than one reason. These not only meet the expectations of the Pakistani people and the political pundits, but should be hugely satisfying to the Americans. Senator Joseph Biden, the influential chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Kerry, the former Presidential candidate both were in Pakistan to personally send a strong message. And the message was: if elections are not credible then the financial aid to Pakistan — especially the one to military — can be cut.

After the elections the senators held a Press conference declaring the process fair and credible. But the results should be pleasing to the Americans, not only for they look credible but also because the MMA, the notorious alliance of the religious parties, has been reduced to non-entity in the politics of NWFP — the province bordering Afghanistan. If PPP and PML(N), the moderate political parties, have emerged as leading forces in the centre then their rise is equally matched by the strong emergence of Awami Nationalist Party (ANP) in Pakistan’s northwest.

The results are far too good to believe. So, many wonder what brought all this about? The PPP and PML(N) would like us to believe that they have succeeded despite all efforts at rigging. Given that the Musharraf government kept the whole country, and Washington, enthralled by year long pre-poll rigging, this has some weight. But this simple, plain and non-juicy explanation is far too boring. So, there are other more ‘interesting theories’ to maintain colour in our lives.

One school of thought believes that the plans for systematic rigging were abandoned after Ms Bhutto’s assassination since they were not practical anymore. But the other explanation is even more interesting and that is: the angels who specialise in managing election results were suddenly unavailable as they had a new master who did not want their feathers to be soiled in this earthly business. Yet another theory argues that the plan was to produce a house perfectly hanging in mid-air and needing the help of the president to land somewhere. According to this school of thought, the first part of the script has been meticulously executed and the real game is yet to begin.

Well, this particular thesis is about to be tested soon. The upsetting performance in this election has been that of PML(N). The PPP depended on its traditional vote bank in Sindh and a sympathy wave after Ms Bhutto’s tragic assassination. But the real political fire and magic all belonged to Nawaz Sharif. His opponents, the Chaudhries of PML(Q), had no doubt worked hard in terms of providing streets and schools and even school stipends in some areas. This has been the winning formula of the ‘non- party politics’ which General Zia promoted in 80’s and which was followed by everyone since then.

But Nawaz raised the level from street and mohalla back to the forgotten world of national politics. He no doubt exploited the inflationary pressures and made false promises of relief, but he also did something different. He repeated his mantras again and again that: army has no role in politics so compromise is not possible with Musharraf; judiciary sacked by Musharraf has to be restored and the constitution must be brought back to the position where it existed in October of 1999 when the military took over. This means an end to article 58 2(B) and the National Security Council.

It was this message of defiance that brought him back; otherwise he hardly had any time to plan his campaign. And since putting up his flag in the heart of Pakistan he has simply reiterated his position, comparing himself to the Sikh who doesn’t budge.

Demand to restore the judiciary is both principled and popular; but will PPP be willing to move along this agenda? While she was still alive Ms Bhutto had meticulously kept herself away from this demand, and since winning the elections Asif Ali Zardari, the co-chairman of PPP, has dodged this question several times. If there were really no “script”, for what President Musharraf called “the Mother of all Elections” then he will soon be spending time with his grand children in Boston — or may be in Florida if he likes a little sun. But if there was a script for these elections then there has to be a second part of it as well: and PML (N) may soon find itself sitting in the opposition in both the centre and Punjab, waiting for the mid-term polls within the next 12 months. For us in the media both situations can be interesting; let’s see what happens?

1...87888990Page 88 of 90