Archive for October 7th, 2009
Pakistan Key Khilaaf Bharat Aur Israil Ka “Operation Blue Tulsi”
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Geyret… by Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Aankh Ho Tu… by Haroon ur Rashed
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Daal Mien Kala by Nazir Naji
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Ye Shab Hai… by Zahida Hina
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Naraz Baloch Nojwano by M. Amir Khakwani
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Islamabad Mien Black Water! by Asad ullah Ghalib
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Kerry-Lugar bill — a critique by Nasim Zehra
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Jus days before the US President Barack Hussain Obama will be signing the Kerry-Lugar bill thus turning it into law, Pakistan’s political parties have woken up to the problems that it may pose — a late awakening to say the least. For the past one year, the controversial contents of the Kerry-Lugar bill have been widely known. Equally, in the recent months, it was clear that the House and Senate were not quite biting into Pakistani criticism of the bill. Throughout this period, the government seems to have made no transparent attempt to force a change in the text of the bill. The issues that the text of the bill raised and ones that were to negatively affect the Pakistan-US bilateral relationship were neither discussed in any cabinet meeting, defence committee of the cabinet nor in the parliament. Even the opposition, other than making rhetorical statements regarding the bill never brought up the issue properly.
Government attempts were made at an individual level – for example, Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington, Hussain Haqqani — to lobby for change in the bill. However, such attempts did not really help. The government argues that the removal of the words ‘India’ and ‘A Q Khan’, through Pakistan’s lobbying, from the text must be appreciated. Other relative ‘pluses’ in the bill , government representatives argue, include the bringing down of the level of certification, on the conditionalities clause, from the president to secretary of state. From Pakistan’s perspective, this is an inconsequential change as long as the certification clauses remain. Also we are told that the waiver clause means that the US President can waive conditions. Yes, but those conditions will be waived in US’s national interest, and not when Pakistan needs it, as was done in the case of the Pressler Amendment.
On the removal of the demand that the US government has “direct access” to A Q Khan, the fact is that it has been replaced by a wider net of “direct access to Pakistani national associated with such networks.” Significantly, the bill goes beyond supplier networks and factors in involved in “networks relating to acquisition of nuclear weapons related materials.” This could include those working to acquire nuclear technology for Pakistan’s own nuclear programme.
Similarly, the conditionality on combating terrorism goes into intrusive details of what Pakistan is required to do. Pakistan’s battle against terrorism cannot be designed according to Washington, New Delhi and Kabul’s threat perception. The bill essentially declares Pakistan the hub of terrorism that has hit the entire region and puts the onus of fighting terrorism on Pakistan.
The strategic plan mentioned in the bill highlights Pakistan as the hub of terrorism in the region by stating that US President Obama will, along with Delhi and Kabul, side with Islamabad on its counter-terrorism policy. Clearly instead of dealing with the problem and the causes simultaneously to make headway in regional cooperation and fighting terrorism, the bill essentially pampers the Indian position on terrorism. Such a bill encourages India to continue with its rejectionist approach to bilateral dialogue.
As for democracy, if the bill had stated aid cut-off in case of a coup, it would have been an acceptable clause but to assign to Washington the role of monitoring if the Pakistan army is interfering in the country’s judicial and democratic process is unacceptable. The issue is genuine but the mandate illegitimate.
Another interesting defence for the bill came from the deputy chief of the US embassy who said that the conditionalities only apply to military aid. Whatever the internal power dynamics, Pakistan should be one unit as it engages with external powers. Hence, the opposition to such extreme conditionalities is unacceptable whether applied to military or economic aid. The bill can also trigger a new round of potentially destabilising power dynamics within Pakistan. Ultimately viewed from Pakistan’s internal power dynamics, the bill also reflects the civil-military trust deficit. The widely held view among opposition parties and security institutions is that a section of the ruling political leadership went along with, if not actually encouraged, the inclusion of the conditionalities that target Pakistan’s security institutions and policies.
There are indeed lingering problems within Pakistan’s internal power structure — its security policy faces road bumps and the chronic problem of often unaccountable and non-transparent exercise of executive and bureaucratic authority aggravates the crisis of governance. However, the message to all of Pakistan’s foreign friends during the 2007 Peoples’ Movement was that a home-grown movement for democracy was the only legitimate way to rid the country of the curse of military rule. Indeed, in 2007 Washington’s view of General Pervez Musharraf’s indispensability in leading the Pakistan front on the war on terror had trumped its concerns for its democracy; as had been the case in the 60s and 80s when Washington supported two military dictators. In 2007, the people of Pakistan charted their own democratic journey. Aid bills cannot do that.
Similarly, in the security arena, external diktat mostly works. Only local players can legitimately contest over competing threat perceptions. External players at best can share their wisdom on security matters. The arm twisting delivers results only when a blundering state becomes vulnerable, as Pakistan did during Kargil. Threat perceptions, often grounded in a potpourri of historical facts, myths and fears are not susceptible to arm-twisting or counter-threats. Hard work on bilateral relationships which yields increased cooperation, progress towards resolution of outstanding problems and trust building, can alter threat perceptions.
Aid bills also can’t dictate the direction and development of Pakistan’s critical military security asset, that is, its nuclear programme. That will be determined by strategic developments in the region. The attempt to curtail Pakistan’s nuclear programme by disallowing it to use its own funds that may be untied from projects that US aid may fund is a non-starter way of influencing a state’s security policies.
The onus now is on Pakistan’s legislature, the national assembly and senate. As custodians of the national interest of a sovereign state, these elected representatives must pass a unanimous resolution on the bill. While appreciating the objectives laid out, the resolution must firmly yet calmly enumerate the unacceptable portions of the bill.
The operative aspect of the resolution should be that in keeping with the demands of Pakistan’s national interests and with the requirements of a responsible member of the international community, the parliament and Government of Pakistan will remain committed to four national goals as reflected in Pakistan’s policies and laws. One to parliamentary democracy, two to fighting terrorism, three to non-proliferation and four to establishing good relations on the basis of mutual interest and respect with its neighbours, especially Afghanistan and with India.
The resolution must also reiterate the basic principles of sustainable bilateral relations including non-interference, sovereignty, autonomy and mutual respect. The resolution must recognise the United States as an important friend and ally, acknowledge the help it has given in the past and acknowledge its desire, as reflected in the Kerry-Lugar bill, to help Pakistan in future. Finally, the resolution must state that while Pakistan values its relationship with the US, its parliament will be constrained to advise the government to decline US support given the existing conditions.
The ball is now in the court of Pakistan’s elected legislators. As they formulate a response they must recognise that if Pakistan faces a financial crunch, the United States faces a strategic one. For the US to walk away from Pakistan is a virtual impossibility at this juncture. It is far more unaffordable for them since Pakistan occupies more than 50 per cent of the space in their strategic calculation. Meanwhile $1.5 billion accounts for roughly three per cent of Pakistan’s federal and provincial annual budgets.
If Pakistan’s legislators are able to rise to the occasion and craft a consensus response to the Kerry-Lugar bill, they will have proved their worth as men and women who are capable of promoting and protecting the interests and dignity of the citizens of the country. Otherwise, whether democracy or dictatorship, Pakistan’s parliament is merely a rubber stamp which follows the will of a handful of individuals who exercise their authority overlooking constitutionally defined institutional mechanisms like the Cabinet, defence committee the parliament.
Ghairat: an extinct commodity by Dr. A Q Khan
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
October 7th by Dr. A Q Khan.
Some time ago I was having a conversation with one of my friends, a renowned professor settled abroad. He is internationally known for his academic work and books published in Britain and Germany, which are reference works in most of the world’s best universities. He is a Pathan and is proud of the fact that he is a Bangash. He correctly pointed out that most of our social and other maladies are due to the disappearance of ghairat.
His father, a Bangash from Hangu, went to England decades ago, from where he obtained a FRCS degree and then returned to his area. He then started treating many of Faqir Epi’S warriors fighting the British colonialists. Once, my friend asked his father the meaning of ghairat. His father jokingly replied that a nation that was bereft of ghairat would not have that word included in its dictionary. He had a point there. Our current national character testifies to that. We are now universally looked down upon as beggars. We are now totally devoid of that golden trend we used to be famous for. Prof Muhammad Al-Ghazali has drawn my attention to this important topic and has helped me with useful input.
Ghairat is an Arabic word that has no equivalent in any other language. It has been adopted in both Persian and Urdu. In Urdu we use this word in a much narrower sense than its original meaning. In Arabic it embraces the sense of self-esteem, courage, chivalry, honour, bravery and loyalty to one’s highest values, and readiness to sacrifice everything for the sake of these values.
The Arabs, even before Islam, were known for ghairat. One of the greatest poets of all times in Arabia, Amr bin Kulsoom, had killed the king of his time, Amr bin Hind in his own court when his queen had insultingly addressed the poet’s mother. They were invited by the king to test the level of their ghairat. In a tone as if she were speaking to a maidservant, the queen asked the poet’s mother to fetch a spittoon. Thereupon the poet’s mother called for help. As soon as the poet, who was with the king in his chamber, heard his mother’s cry for help, he took out his sword and decapitated the king there and then. It was on this occasion that he recited his famous ode (qaseeda) extempore. This ode is included in the best collection of poetry known as Muallaqat. In English this qaseeda is known as “Seven Odes” and has been translated by the famous scholar of Islamic history and literature who also translated the Holy Quran, Prof A J Arberry.
Muslims, their great leaders, trusted rulers and popular heroes, always displayed the quality of ghairat at all crucial moments of history. The conquest of Sind by Muhammad bin Qasim was itself a consequence of the feeling of ghairat by Hajjaj bin Yusuf. A group of Muslim traders travelling on the Arabian Sea were attacked by some local pirates who looted them and insulted the women who were on board. One of these Muslim ladies called for help. She was addressing Hajjaj bin Yusuf, the Umayyad governor of Iraq. Some of the Muslims who managed to escape the pirates conveyed this woman’s call for help to Hajjaj. He was very angry and with a feeling of ghairat, he immediately dispatched an army under the command of his young nephew, Muhammad bin Qasim. He came to Daibal (Karachi) and after a fierce fight defeated Raja Dahir, the local Hindu ruler who took the side of the criminals. After some time bin Qasim, who had become quite popular for his heroic help to those victims, annexed Sind to the Islamic Empire.
In fact, all great events and achievements have been possible only because our elders were full of self-esteem, faith, courage, chivalry, honour, bravery and an unlimited capacity for sacrifice. On every page of our golden history there is a story of a great achievement. These series of achievements made it possible for our rich culture, civilisation, state and society to progress, expand and advance in the face of all challenges and difficulties. These challenges were far greater than what we face today. However, the present difficulties seem to be insurmountable to us because we are devoid of that courage, honesty and commitment that were the hallmark of our forefathers.
At this time what Muslims in general, and Pakistanis in particular, need most is ghairat. We should remember that our great leaders and heroes of Muslim India, to whom we owe our present existence as an independent nation, were all embodiments of ghairat. All the great men who made history and shaped our destiny, were paragons of the great qualities of leadership – Muhammad bin Qasim, Mahmood Ghaznavi, Shihabuddin Ghauri, Tipu Sultan, Sirajud Daula, Sayyed Ahmad Shaheed, Shah Ismail shaheed, Allama Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam — all of them did what they did by a great impulse of ghairat. Their inspiring lives provide us with clear evidence.
Ghairat is transmitted from generation to generation through proper education, upbringing and, above all, through inspiring examples set by the elders. If someone does not receive this quality from his family, environment and education, then he/she cannot acquire this quality by any intellectual effort. Either one is ghairatmand or one is not. Some people reading this might find it difficult to appreciate. But there will be many who, having a tradition of life based on these values, inherited from their ancestors, teachers, mentors and other exemplary characters, will find in their hearts an echo of the thoughts expressed here.
The feeling of ghairat is not to be confused with anger and a reaction thereto. It is a positive quality, not a negative one. It helps a person overcome the inner baser impulses for sin and wrong-doing. It also provides the energy for action when one’s moral values are threatened. When this quality assumes a collective trait, it provides society with a great deterrence against external threats to undermine prestige, honour and other vital interest of that society.
The difference between a self-respecting and a self-debasing person is that of ghairat. The former maintains his/her honour at all costs and reacts whenever there is any threat to this honour. The latter digests all threats on account of cowardice or greed or just lack of sensitivity. What is the main distinction between a prostitute and a chaste woman? It is none other than ghairat. In the eyes of the former, honour has no value. In the estimation of the latter, it is the highest value that must be protected, whatever the cost, and it can never be bartered away for any gain, however high. For a free man, his freedom is more valuable than whatever might be offered in terms of compensation for purchasing this freedom. However, for a slavish man, freedom could be sold for any immediate material gain.
Ghairat is the greatest capital of a nation. Once this capital is lost, then no amount of prosperity, affluence or material wealth can bring back the lost honour and prestige. Poets, leaders, opinion-makers, teachers, men of letters, thinkers, philosophers, etc., of a nation constantly strive and exhaust their potential to protect and maintain their nation’s honour and prestige in the world. Like all valuable things, honour and prestige is acquired with tremendous effort but lost with negligence and omission. The nation’s collective awakening and awareness guards itself against such disasters. I ponder, hope and pray that our nation finds this lost treasure. Am I asking for the moon?
Kery Logar Ya… by Tahir Server Mir
Print This Post
| Email This Post
|
Share on Facebook
Loading ...