Muslim Fraternity Is Its Own Enemy: New Age Islam’s Selection, 24 May 2017
New
Age Islam Edit Bureau
24 May 2017
• Muslim Fraternity Is Its Own Enemy
By Mohammad Jamil
• Kashmiris’ Identity under Attack
By Kuldip Nayar
• From Russia with Halal Love
By Dr Pervez Tahir
• Fata Deserves Better
By Omar Afridi
• A Dangerous Coalition
By Zahid Hussain
• The Secular Myth
By Afiya S. Zia
• Kingdom Of Woe
By Mahir Ali
• Reviving Pakhtun Jirga
By Farooq Yousaf
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
Muslim Fraternity Is Its Own Enemy
By Mohammad Jamil
CONTOURS of Arab-Islamic-American summit were defined during the speeches of President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia’s King Salman bin Abdul Aziz. President Donald Trump accused Iran of fuelling “the fires of sectarian conflict and terror”, and held Iran responsible for training armed groups in the wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Saudi King Salman in his speech called Iran “the spearhead of global terrorism” and called for containing it. President Trump in his keynote address said: “The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So too have the nations of Africa and even South America. India, Russia, China and Australia have been victims.” He intentionally skipped the name of Pakistan, which has lost more than 70000 people and more than 6000 army personnel while fighting terror. To make it worse, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was not invited to address the conference.
In fact, the conference became the launching pad for bashing Iran. Of course, both Saudi Arabia and Iran were involved in proxy wars in other countries. In Pakistan, the banned organizations Sipa-i-Sahaba and Sipa-i-Muhammad were reportedly supported by them respectively. Unfortunately the differences between Arab countries and Iran over fiqa date back to 1400 years, as both sides believe in the righteousness of their cause. Both sects have co-existed during this period; however with sharpening of contradictions between Saudi Arabia and Iran the Muslim world stands divided. Moreover, the US and the West had fuelled the sectarian fracas by supporting Iraq in its war against Iran. With the funding by Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries, Iraq had emerged as the most powerful country in the region posing a palpable threat to Arab countries as well as Israel.
After Iraq had attacked Kuwait in August 1990, the UN Security Council passed a resolution on November 29, 1990, to take military action against Iraq. In 2003, once again the US and its allies formed a ‘coalition of the willing’ and attacked Iraq. Pakistan did not join the coalition, as it was not mandated by the UN. Their next target was Syria where they played the sectarian card and provided arms to Syrian Sunni rebels. Of course, Arab countries actively supported the rebels to overthrow Bashar al-Assad government. But with the emergence of IS, the situation became complex, and Iran helped Iraq and Syria in their fight against the IS militants. With signing of agreement over nuclear programme, the US attitude towards Iran changed; and former president Barack Obama had once said that Saudi Arabia should give some space to Iran.
But President Donald Trump has decided to strengthen economic and defence relations with Saudi Arabia. To showcase its power, Saudi Arabia had formed 34-countries alliance against terrorism, and now by holding Arab-Islamic-American summit convinced the US that it is leader of the Muslim Ummah. KSA support Sunni rebels in Syria and Iran supports the Houthis (rebels) to change the elected Yemeni government. In fact, both are to blame for their acts of adventurism and violation of UN principals. The sorriest part is that the fraternity itself is the most bleeding quarry of the rabid extremism of the fanatical clans. No Muslim polity is at peace with itself. Almost all are in turbulence and turmoil in varying degrees. They are being ruined and ransacked by ever-widening sectarian divide and blighted by confessional antipathies being whipped up by the divided fanatical strands. Unfortunately, most Muslim countries are deviating from the ideological track and are following shadows of opportunism or adventurism. And the present state of affairs is the result of profligacy of unimaginative rulers in majority of the Muslim countries.
One does not see a semblance of Islamic brotherhood so far as the foreign policy pursued by them is concerned. In the past, majority of the Muslim countries had supported Pakistan’s just stance on Kashmir i.e. to implement the UN resolutions that gave the right of self-determination to Kashmiris. Now they advise Pakistan to resolve the issue through bilateral negotiations with India. In case of Palestine also, the OIC did not put serious efforts in persuading the international community to help implement the UN resolutions. Unless the UN resolutions bestowing on the Palestinians right for an independent state are fully implemented, there would be no peace in the region.
In fact, the OIC is divided on sectarian basis. Saudi Arabia and majority of Muslim countries are on one side, and Iran, Iraq and Syria etc., on the other. The simmering conflict can lead to a full blown war. Unfortunately, the Muslim fraternity is its own enemy, as its leaders have not tried to discover the verities of freedom, equality and solidarity, which is why some Muslim countries have become breeding grounds for extremists and criminals. Indeed, Islam stands for love and affection, peace and amity, moderation and enlightenment. However, the shenanigans of the fraternity’s extremist strands have given handle to the compulsive detractors of our religion to depict it as a creed of violence and bloodletting.
Those involved in the 9/11 tragedy definitely brought no victory but only outright hostility of the world community to the predominantly moderate Muslim fraternity. Muslim countries are paying the price of their follies, as they have been playing into the hands of imperialist powers. Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries support the rebels in Syria but demand the world community to support the rebels in Yemen. Saudi Arabia and Iran should wean off internecine conflicts otherwise Muslim Ummah as a whole would suffer immensely.
Source; pakobserver.net/muslim-fraternity-enemy/
----
Kashmiris’ Identity under Attack
By Kuldip Nayar
The Valley is disturbed. Scores of schools have been burnt and there is fear in the mind of students that they would be punished if they were to attend classes. The separatists are said to be leading a movement to boycott the studies. The result is that the students are finding it hard to prepare and appear in exams which the rest of the country is having peacefully. The separatists should realize that a political movement cannot and should not make students helpless and let them suffer. The fallout of the agitation is that the tourists’ inflow has reduced. So much so, Syed Ali Shah Geelani has led processions through the streets of Srinagar to assure the tourists that they would be protected in all eventualities.
Still whatever the assurance, the tourists have come to prefer some different hill stations to Kashmir. It is understandable from the tourists’ point of view but in the process the Dal Lake Shikaras and Nagin Bagh’s dongas are not getting business. An ordinary Kashmiri is suffering. Even otherwise, the state’s economy has been badly hit. Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti does not seem to have any clue to the situation. She has said many a time that Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the only person who can solve the crisis in Kashmir. She is probably underlining the alliance between her People’s Democratic Party and the BJP which is ruling at the centre.
New Delhi should, however, analyze why a person like Shabbir Shah, once pro-India, has turned himself to be pro-Azadi. Probably, he does not find the space which he direly needs to direct his affairs in the valley. The BJP has had no contact with persons like him. The same is the case with Yashin Malik who wanted a solution within Indian Union. But New Delhi has stretched Article 370 in such a way that the power has come to be concentrated at New Delhi. Kashmir also feels strongly about New Delhi’s step-motherly treatment meted out to their Urdu language. And it is generally believed that Urdu is languishing in neglect because it is considered the language of Muslims. If New Delhi were to own and encourage Urdu, it would give the Kashmiris at least one less reason to feel aggrieved. People are generally poor like in the rest of India and they want jobs which they realise would come only through development, including tourism.
Till recently, the Kashmiris were opposed to pick up the gun to defy New Delhi. Home Minister Rajnath Singh has been relentlessly pursuing some method to help Kashmir return to normalcy. But, unfortunately, the Kashmiris have a feeling that what the militants are trying to do gives them identity. Therefore, the criticism that there is no resistance to the militants from within the valley should be understood as part of alienation. It is unfortunate that New Delhi did not give the package which it had announced after the devastation through floods in Kashmir a couple of years ago. There was no criticism by the media or political parties. No leader has pointed out to New Delhi that it had reneged from the promise. All these are interpreted in Kashmir as deliberate signs of cursory attitude. I still believe that the 1953 agreement which gave India the control of defence, foreign affairs and communications can improve the situation in the state.
The Kashmiri youth who are angry over the state’s status as well the situation can be won over by the assurance that the entire Indian market would be available to them for business or services. But this alone may not do. New Delhi will have to withdraw all the acts relating to fields other than defence, foreign affairs and communications. The Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act which was promulgated some 26 years ago to meet the extraordinary situation in the state is still in operation. Were the government to withdraw the act, it would placate the Kashmiri on the one hand and make the security forces more responsible on the other.
The National Conference waged a long war to get rid of Maharaja Hari Singh and had an icon like Sheikh Abdullah to provide secular and democratic rule to the state. But the party suffered defeat in the assembly polls due to its proximity to New Delhi. The PDP won because its founder, Mufti Mohammad Sayyed, kept distance from New Delhi, without alienating it.
The Kashmiris have voted for the untried PDP-BJP alliance because the combination gave them a feeling of identity. Omar Farooq Abdullah had to pay the price of National Conference’s image of being pro-Delhi. Kashmir’s links with India are too close to challenge it beyond a point. Still the opposition, however small, gives the Kashmiris a vicarious satisfaction of defying New Delhi.
Lord Cyril Radcliffe did not attach any importance to Kashmir. He was a judge in London who drew the line between India and Pakistan to establish two separate countries. He told me many years later during an interview that he never imagined that Kashmir would assume as much importance as it did. I recalled this instance when I was in Srinagar a couple of years ago to preside over the first anniversary of an Urdu magazine. Urdu has been unceremoniously ousted from all the states, including Punjab where it was the main language until some years ago. In fact, the language lost its importance in India soon after Pakistan made it the national language.
Normalcy is also a state of mind. The Kashmiris must feel themselves that their identity is not under attack and that New Delhi realises the importance of what the Kashmiris desire. What New Delhi has to appreciate is that the Kashmiris’ desire to distance themselves from India may not be considered any meaningful transfer of power from New Delhi to Srinagar. Yet the impression that the Kashmiris rule themselves has to be sustained whatever the cost.
Source; pakobserver.net/kashmiris-identity-attack/
----
From Russia with Halal Love
By Dr Pervez Tahir
May 23, 2017
We certainly live in interesting times. Who could have imagined that Russia would be the host of a Hilal Expo? Yet this is precisely what happened last weekend in Kazan, the unbelievably modern capital of the Muslim majority republic of Tatarstan in Russia. Before the skeptic raises his or her eyebrows, let it be known that it wasn’t a standalone expo. Rather it was a side show of a larger event — the International Economic Summit.
Believe it or not, it was the 9th Kazan Summit, as it has come to be known for short. There might still be a few who would dub the initiative as the dreamland of a Muslim leader in the Russian Federation, President Rustam Minnikhanov of Tatarstan. Let’s not, however, forget that Muslims constitute over 20 million of the total population of Russia. The number is from the 2008 census. With higher fertility rates relative to the other nations of Russia, the next census is likely to show a higher share of Muslim population. This is a significant voice and a huge middle class market. More important, the Kazan Summits have now become the means to further the objectives of President Vladimir Putin’s Strategic Vision “Russia- Islamic World”. The President of Tatarstan is the chair of the group steering this process.
President Minnikhanov has been visiting Muslim countries to work out the contours of the Russia-Islamic World cooperation. He visited Lahore and found in the Punjab chief minister a willing partner. As a result, the Kazan Summit 2017 was attended by a large delegation from the Lahore Chamber of Commerce, Bank of Punjab and the Punjab Halal Food Authority. While the businessmen reached a number of crucial understandings with their counterparts, Justice Khalilur Rehman of the Punjab Halal Food Authority signed a MoU with the government of Tatarstan on the regulatory framework for the halal market. A MoU was also signed between the Bank of Kazan and the Bank of Punjab on promoting Islamic finance.
Next month, the chief minister will be visiting Kazan to strengthen this developing relationship. In early June, a strong contingent from the federal government, including the two energy ministers, will also be in St Petersburg to attend the Economic Forum coinciding with the meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation group. Pakistan is expected to become a full member. With the US withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership, globalisation may be led from the East.
Sitting on the bank of River Kazanka and admiring the Kazan Kremlin, the Kul Sharif Mosque rebuilt in the late 1990s, the Annunciation Church and the local version of the leaning tower of Pisa, the “falling” Suyumbike Tower, I was wondering what on earth was happening. As Bill Clinton famously said, “it’s the economy, stupid!” Halal economy has expanded from food to finance to fashion. The numbers are staggering. From $ 1.9 trillion in 2015, the industry is projected to grow to $3 trillion by 2021. The corresponding numbers for Islamic finance are $2 trillion and $3.5 trillion. Indeed Turkey and Indonesia are working on a megabank project to act as a global central bank for partnership finance, a term found more acceptable than Islamic finance. It is a partial solution to overcome the reluctance of some central banks to allow Islamic banking under their existing statutes.
Some businessmen think that Pakistan’s lingering export gloom can be turned into a boom by finding a niche in the halal market. But some multinationals and countries like Australia and Brazil have already entered. As has happened a number of times in the past, the bus may have been missed. In 1995, I had gone to Moscow to renegotiate the barter trade agreement with the Soviet Union. Our ambassador in Moscow told me that the matter remains unresolved till today. With trade diplomacy like this, who needs a niche anyway?
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1416440/russia-halal-love/
----
Fata Deserves Better
By Omar Afridi
May 24, 2017
The tribes people of Fata are fully committed to reforms in the region and the abolition of the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR). But they also deserve the democratic right to be consulted and associated with the process that directly affects their future as an integral unit of Pakistan.
Fata was not an integral part of British India and the future dispensation of this area was not specified in the plan for Partition. The tribes wanted to become part of Pakistan. The tribes people have never wavered from this commitment and have constantly proved their loyalty to Pakistan.
The future of Fata’s people is presently being debated by all and sundry, except those who will be directly affected. They have neither been consulted nor have their wishes been ascertained. The government had formed a commission of six wise men who reported that they had consulted a cross-section of the tribes. The commission claimed that the views expressed by this cross-section of Fata’s tribes people indicate a strong desire for a merger with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It would not be improbable if another six-member commission – with greater knowledge of the people of the region and their needs – were to undertake a similar exercise and come up with an entirely different set of recommendations.
There is a general aversion among the tribes people to a merger with KP. Many of them believe that Fata’s integration with KP will relegate their political influence. They are also aware that the province primarily accords priority in all fields to Peshawar and neglects other areas. The experience of integrating Pata and the consequent upheavals that occurred and the demand for a separate Hazara province is not lost on them. Since they are in the minority, the tribes people will remain captive to any legislation that will be enacted even if it is against their interests.
There is no guarantee that their interests will be safeguarded, and they will suffer perpetual domination by the majority. We can only hope that, with time, political maturity will prevail and ethnic considerations will become subservient to the general wellbeing of the people. There are other options to the merger which have their pros and cons and must, in all fairness, be given due consideration. We must remember that the stakeholders who primarily matter are the federal government and the citizens of Fata. As a result, their mutual interests are vital.
Fata lags behind in terms of economic development and its inhabitants have expectations of a concerted development effort that can compensate for the decades of neglect they have suffered. There is a fear that meeting these expectations may be beyond the capacity of KP. Their hopes are vested in the federal government meeting their needs and aspirations. The 10-year grace period for special development in the region appears attractive on paper. But such measures have, in the past, provided ample cause for suspicion as policy changes can and do occur. The decision to withdraw incentives to entrepreneurs for setting up industrial units in Gadoon Amazai is a case in point.
The previous general elections exposed the lack of interest shown by the political parties in the integration and mainstreaming of Fata. The parties are now belatedly championing these causes. Owing to the absence of any regular political activity carried out by the parties in Fata, almost all candidates were elected as independents.
No recognised leader of a political party attempted to visit the region for canvassing purposes and to claim political strength even though the Political Parties Act had been extended to Fata.
However, this should not be construed as the rejection of political parties by the tribespeople or vice versa. Instead, it is a sad reflection of the attitude that political parties have towards their tribal brethren. With time – and especially due to the efforts being made by political parties – there is every reason to expect a more positive response in the future for the mature political integration of the tribes into the body politic of the country. The integration of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan into the political mainstream of the country proves that it is not necessary for a region to be ‘merged’ before being recognised as a political entity.
These factors are important. But the major issue relates to the wishes and democratic rights of the people of Fata. How best can their wishes be ascertained? The issues involved concern the future of a large population and a sensitive region which deserves serious consideration. Putting all issues aside, nobody can deny that a democratic dispensation should be the underlying principle to decide such a serious and sensitive matter. The wishes of the people must be ascertained and respected. A committee – comprising a few political parties, elected representatives in parliament or any other entity – cannot usurp this right.
The ideal solution would be to hold a referendum. But the time, logistics and finances required to implement this strategy will make this impractical. A suggested solution to this problem entails holding local government elections – which are, in any case, mandatory. The next step should be to have the elected members – either as a whole or through representatives – and members of the National Assembly and Senate form an assembly for the specific purpose of deciding on the question of Fata’s merger and debating other options such as a separate Fata province or establishing a dispensation akin to the one in GB.
Questions over which law will be applicable to replace the FCR should also be debated and finalised – even though it will always remain a contentious issue – instead of the Rewaj Act being imposed on them. As an interim measure, an order could be issued to ensure that all decisions in judicial cases under existing laws must be appealed before the superior courts of Pakistan.
Fata is currently administratively divided into agencies and frontier regions (FRs). The latter are attached to the districts of the KP and administered by the deputy commissioners. These FRs suffer from neglect and are accorded the lowest priority by the district administration. These semi-tribal areas deserve to be merged with the adjoining agency as their overall administration will undergo a change for the better.
This proposal will meet the requirement to take a democratic decision on the various options available for the future of the tribal region. The assembly could be tasked with submitting proposals for the abolition of the FCR, the legal framework for Fata’s future and any other issues regarding the region which the government may want to take decisions on. The decisions arrived at could then be submitted to parliament for ratification.
Source; thenews.com.pk/print/206204-Fata-deserves-better
----
A Dangerous Coalition
By Zahid Hussain
May 24th, 2017
THE obscenely opulent reception arranged in Donald Trump’s honour, with Arab autocrats lining up to pay homage to the American president, forgetting his inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric and his likening of the Saudi royal family to ‘slaveholders’ in the past, did not come as a surprise. Nor did the US leader’s softened tenor as he addressed the so-called Arab-Islamic-American Summit in Riyadh last week.
Indeed, there was no mention in Trump’s speech of ‘radical Islamic terrorism’, a term he often used during his election campaign. But what excited the Saudi and Gulf kings gathered at the forum was Trump’s tirade against Iran which he declared was the centre of terrorism and extremism. In the midst of their insecurity, these remarks struck a chord. In the new American president, the Arab despots found a trusted ally and protector that they had missed in his predecessor.
What was supposed to be an alliance against terrorism and extremism has virtually turned into an anti-Iran coalition further widening the regional geopolitical divide. By citing Tehran as the centre of gravity of terrorism, the American president has encouraged sectarian warfare among the Muslim-dominated countries thus diverting attention from the actual sources of extremism plaguing the region and beyond.
What was supposed to be an alliance against terrorism has virtually turned into an anti-Iran coalition.
Surely Tehran too is to be blamed for the ongoing proxy wars in the Middle East along sectarian lines. It is actively involved in the Syrian and Iraqi civil wars. But targeting the country as the bastion of terrorism and extremism is extremely dangerous. Ironically, Iran and the US forces have been collaborating in fighting the militant Islamic State (IS) group in Iraq, while Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries are supporting some extremist Sunni militant groups fighting in Syria.
This approach of containing Iran is bound to further inflame the situation in the Middle East that will have spill over effects in other Muslim countries, especially Pakistan. Interestingly, it’s all happening as the Iranian people re-elected Hassan Rouhani, a moderate, as their president who was also responsible for reaching a landmark nuclear deal with the United States and other nuclear states.
Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states were strongly opposed to the treaty and called for tougher US action against Tehran. The Iran nuclear deal was also the reason for the widening gap between Riyadh and Washington under the Obama administration. The Saudis were extremely worried by the possibility of a US-Iran rapprochement. But those fears lessened after the election of Trump who advocated a tougher stance against Iran and also vowed to scrap the nuclear deal — though it may not be possible considering there are five other signatories.
Hence the grand reception for the new US president when he chose the kingdom as the first destination of his maiden foreign visit as president. The Saudis have also obliged him by signing a multibillion-dollar arms deal and promising to invest billions more in infrastructure development in the US.
Those business deals with the prospect of generating thousands of new jobs in the US have certainly thrilled Trump. The development has also marked the return of the US to its traditional Saudi-centred Middle East policy.
However, given the Middle East civil war and the rise of more dangerous global terrorist groups like IS, a partisan American policy could complicate the situation, further destabilising the region.
It will certainly encourage Saudi Arabia to adopt a militarily more aggressive approach in Yemen and other troubled spots. It may also lead to an escalation in the Iranian proxy war in the region. There is some indication of a realignment of forces in the Middle East with Israel providing implicit support to the Saudi-led coalition of the Gulf countries. What is most worrisome is that any escalation may provide greater space to jihadi groups like IS and Al Qaeda.
This situation raises serious questions about Pakistan’s involvement in the Saudi-led alliance, sometimes described as the ‘Arab Nato’, with its clear anti-Iran bias and apparently divisive agenda. Whatever ambiguity there was about the aims and objectives of the 41-member coalition must be clear by now after the speech at the summit by Saudi King Salman Abdul Aziz who did not mince his words, describing Iran as the main enemy. A major question is whether we also agree with the Saudi agenda.
Frankly speaking, it didn’t matter that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was not granted a private meeting with Trump or that he was not given an opportunity to address the summit. The main question is whether such a divisive Islamic alliance (in sectarian terms) in any way serves our national security and foreign policy interests. It certainly does not.
It was so obvious from the outset that the alliance would not work when its formation was announced unilaterally by the Saudi crown prince in the midst of the kingdom’s military intervention in Yemen. It was a major mistake to commit ourselves to the coalition without having a clear idea about its objectives. Even worse was allowing retired Gen Raheel Sharif to head a phantom Islamic army.
With a former army chief in the top position, we cannot pretend that Pakistan is not an active partner in the military alliance. The government’s decision was in complete violation of the parliament’s resolution to not get involved in the Middle East civil war.
It is also a failure of our foreign policy as we have been unable to clarify our position on the anti-Iran stance at the Riyadh summit. Indeed, it will now be much more difficult for us to extricate ourselves from what is rightly described as a ‘Sunni’ coalition without further antagonising Riyadh. But staying in an alliance which gets us involved in an intra-sectarian conflict will be extremely dangerous for the country.
One had hoped that an inclusive alliance of Muslim-majority nations would help bridge the sectarian divide and bring an end to the civil war in the Middle East. But the so-called Arab-Islamic-American Summit has dashed that hope and only added to the prevailing instability.
Source: dawn.com/news/1334998/a-dangerous-coalition
-----
The Secular Myth
By Afiya S. Zia
May 24th, 2017
IN a recent address, Chaudhry Nisar hit out at political opponents by classifying them as ‘secular’ and equating the term with ‘non-believing’. Clearly, the interior minister needs tuition in history and political philosophy.
There is no simple thing, place or peoples called the ‘secular’, the ‘religious’, the ‘West’, ‘good’ or ‘evil’. Each carries multiple, contradictory meanings and is subject to historical interpretation. Only political manipulators use these as fixed and oppositional categories in order to create divisions and distrust. Debates around secularism often follow religious wars or conflict and, like many countries, Pakistan also faces this dilemma.
Secularism is a philosophy rooted in the 16th century, when European Protestants struggled against the rule of the exploitative Catholic Church. These dissenters were not without religion, or la-deen — they simply wanted social, political and economic freedoms from the tyranny of the Holy See. Secularisation is the result of the social and political processes that followed, influenced by rising capitalism and scientific discoveries. The tumults of secularisation spanned a century, up until the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). Still, this bottom-up history does not mean that all Western societies are unimpeachably or completely secular today. One visit by the Pope to any European country will confirm the secular paradox.
Much Confusion Still Surrounds This Political Philosophy.
Secularism — the distancing of state from religion — does not mean la-deeniyat, absence of religion or anti-religion. It means rearranging state laws and policies so that they are neutral (Ghar janibdaar) and treat citizens of all faiths without prejudice. Secularity — the principles of secularism — means that religion should have no influence on public institutions and services, and religious privilege must not influence government. It limits moral issues to the private, personal sphere. Secularisation — the transfer of socio-political power away from religious governance — does not force people to become atheists or stop observers from going to church or mosque. It does prevent using places of worship for practising politics.
The worst myth is that secularism is always ‘liberal’ and ‘Western’. Several secular regimes have, far from being committed to liberalism, been fascistic, non-democratic and conservative. Any philosophy can be practised militantly, including Buddhism. Non-Western secular states — such as Cuba and China — host people of faith who practise their religions.
The encounter with secularism for Muslim societies in the 20th century has not been a happy meeting for many reasons, but not necessarily due to perceived philosophical incompatibility. Some Arab secular regimes created state Islamic orthodoxies as part of their brand of ‘Arab secularism’ to persecute resisting Islamic dissenters and groups — pitting religion against religion under the guise of secular governance.
Regardless of its origins, secularism (like modernity and technology) has many different models. In France, secularity aims to protect the republic and public space from religion. In the US, secularity means protecting religion from being exploited in public institutions. Secularity in India means pluralism, where multiple faiths are officially recognised and may practise in public. In all three countries, secularism continues to be a subject of political debate.
All these different aspects of secularity mean that to be ‘secular’ is not a one-dimensional experience. Many Muslims may be philosophically and socially non-secular because they are committed to religious activity and institutions, but may also be politically secular by not voting for religious parties or policies. So even Nisar’s voters may be (politically) secular, but it doesn’t follow that they are la-deen.
Take the example of Abdul Sattar Edhi. Despite being a practising Muslim, some Islamists accused his social services of being neutral, non-discriminating or … secular. Edhi did not exploit religion for power, profit or politics, but he represented a secular contrast to those who did. Many local NGOs, meanwhile, would not claim to be secular. However, many of Pakistan’s economic partners and donor organisations, including CPEC sponsors, represent secular or atheistic traditions. Would Nisar jettison efficacy on the basis of their secular credentials?
But he is not alone. Some ‘grass-root’ leaders reject secular ideals as futile fantasies of the ‘elite’ but, ironically, think that socialism and Marxism are pragmatic, electable options for the masses. Condemning secularism as elitist falsely validates religious politics as inherently proletarian.
It is not a utopian fantasy to want governance that is free of state orthodoxy and gender, class and racial bias. The imperfect or unfinished project of secularism does not mean that it has failed or is anti-religious. Religious politics, like capitalism, is an unregulated, unaccountable industry that often exploits with impunity. Secular resistance is a necessary component of political discourse to counter the tyranny of the majority.
Source: dawn.com/news/1334995/the-secular-myth
----
Kingdom Of Woe
By Mahir Ali
May 24th, 2017
QUITE apart from the monumental hypocrisy of US president Donald Trump and his secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, standing on Saudi soil while berating Iran for its human rights deficiencies and sponsorship of terrorism, their timing was appalling.
After all, the Iranian electorate had just a few days earlier turned out on a scale much larger than its American counterpart to return the reformist-minded Hassan Rouhani to power in a hotly contested presidential race. Sure, Iranian democracy is deficient in many ways and Rouhani’s room for manoeuvre will continue to be constrained by the very nature of the theocratic state. Yet the contrast with Saudi Arabia is nonetheless stupendous.
There are few parallels, even among its closest allies, to the kingdom’s disrespect and distaste for human rights. And as for sponsorship of terrorism, it isn’t necessary to repeatedly cite the fact that 15 of the 19 hijackers who perpetrated the atrocities of Sept 11, 2001 were Saudi nationals in order to make the case for its key role in disseminating the retrograde ideology that facilitates Salafist violence.
There are few parallels to the kingdom’s distaste for human rights.
After all, long before 9/11, Pakistan was among the earliest beneficiaries of Saudi munificence when a chain of madressahs sprang up in the 1980s to indoctrinate Afghan refugees, and in due course spawned the Afghan Taliban. When the latter eventually conquered Kabul, apparently with plenty of Pakistani assistance, it was considered a huge success. Saudi Arabia was one of only three states, alongside Pakistan and the UAE, to recognise the ‘emirate’ of Afghanistan.
It was quick to recant in the wake of 9/11: alienating the US had never been on its agenda. Lest we forget, though, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi gift to the Afghan jihad. The US was keen on a member of the royal family, someone who could be designated as a ‘prince’ in its propaganda, to join the anti-Soviet crusade. Understandably, no ‘prince’ — and there have always been plenty of those, given how prolific Ibn Saud and his progeny have been in terms of progeniture — was keen to volunteer. The scion of a leading industrialist family would have to do.
It’s also worth recalling that when Sudan offered to hand Bin Laden over to the Saudi authorities, they demurred. That is how he ended up back in Afghanistan. The rest, as they say, is history.
It did not end there, though. Many of the ‘home-grown’ terrorists who have perpetrated deadly violence in countries such as France and Britain have been associated with Saudi-financed mosques and preachers. The trend is unlikely to be coincidental, yet all too many Western countries besides the US continue to pander to the Saudi regime. The weapons the Saudis and their collaborators have deployed in claiming huge numbers of civilian lives in Yemen, perhaps the poorest Arab state, originate from Britain and France as well as the US.
There is little evidence that Iran was particularly keen on the Houthis when the Saudis embarked on their assault against Yemen. Things may have changed somewhat in the interim, but one constant has been the bolstering of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an outfit that hates the Houthis as much as Riyadh does.
And as far as Syria is concerned, it’s all very well to criticise Iran for standing by the despicable regime of Bashar al-Assad, but are the outfits that Saudi Arabia and its Gulf mates, notably Qatar, have allegedly been backing any less atrocious? Their attitude towards Christians and other minorities is, if anything, considerably worse.
As a sponsor of instability in the region, Riyadh deserves considerably more credit than Tehran. And on the domestic front, Iran, for all its severe limitations, is almost libertine in comparison with Saudi Arabia. What other country beheads people with such gleeful abandon? Or constrains women’s rights to quite the same extent?
We are frequently bombarded with news reports suggesting that Saudi Arabia is changing. King Salman’s favourite son, the deputy crown prince, is said to be a would-be reformer. Women may soon be permitted to drive. Hurrah. Even cinemas might be allowed. Yippee. But the most intriguing aspect of the coming transformation, necessitated by the sharp decline in oil revenues, will be the dismantling of the welfare state that has hitherto constrained open dissent to a considerable extent.
Of course, there’s no holding back on investments in weaponry, as Trump was delighted to note: $110 billion can immediately be spared, with further hundreds of billions over the coming decade — a “massive investment in America, its [military] industry and its jobs”, as the US president so eloquently put it. And as we all know, the only deity he worships is Mammon.
But his unequivocal commitment to the Middle East’s sectarian hostilities means the region could be paying for it for a very long time to come.
Source: dawn.com/news/1334993/kingdom-of-woe
-----
Reviving Pakhtun Jirga
By Farooq Yousaf
24-May-17
It has been argued that one of the biggest downsides of colonialism, which may persist in post-colonial societies, has been the undermining of indigenous methods of conflict resolution. With the advent of liberal institutions and international peace, it was assumed that Western models of conflict resolution were not only effective but also universally applicable to all societies. This was one of the major flaws of the liberal peace era — and hence the rise of protracted conflict in Africa and South Asia.
Over the last two centuries, Pakistan’s Pakhtun tribal areas (also known as Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA) have witnessed repression of cultural norms and social structures. While the British Raj imposed the primitive notion of collective responsibility to tame the Frontier tribes through the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR), Pakistani state persisted with a similar policy, giving little or no regard to the local culture.
Many argue that it was the state’s understanding and acknowledgment of Pakhtun culture that led it to persist with the FCR. Yet, historical evidence suggests that retaining the FCR had to do more with keeping FATA as a de-facto territory, and later using it as buffer and proxy with Afghanistan, than mere ‘acknowledgment of culture’. In this post-colonial politics of dealing with ‘others’ or those on the periphery — the biggest casualty has been the Pakhtun Jirga — a centuries-old Pakhtun conflict resolution mechanism and a major building block of Pakhtunwali, the Pakhtun culture.
Where certain African societies, especially Rwanda, have successfully used their indigenous methods of conflict resolution to curb or control internal conflicts, Pakistan has failed to do so. Pakistan’s use of Jirga has remained as vague as its policies towards tribal areas. And even when Jirgas were used in post 9/11 context, the backing from either the military or previous governments was half-hearted. Even though the situation in Afghanistan regarding Jirga is far from good, the country still acknowledges the institution, using it for formal approval of the newly-elected presidents and endorsing major policy decisions.
Evidence suggests that retaining the FCR had to do more with keeping FATA as a de-facto territory, and later using it as buffer with Afghanistan — than mere ‘acknowledgment of culture’
Though not highly publicised, events suggest that when given backing and used effectively, Jirgas have somewhat helped the state and military by delivering results in the terror-hit FATA region since 2004. Importance of Jirgas can also be understood through the fact that dozens of peace Jirga gatherings have come under attack from the TTP and other militant groups, coupled with targeted killings of tribal Maliks and Khans.
Lashkars, formed by tribal Jirgas, have provided a line of defence against militant groups and cross-border infiltrations. In 2009, when the military failed to achieve results in the Bajaur agency, the Salarzai tribe, through a Jirga, formed a Lashkar to fight the TTP militants. The tribe was called on again in 2014, when a tribal Jirga announced to form another Lashkar to fight the TTP. In the same year, a Jirga of the Mamond tribe in Bajaur agency formed a Lashkar, which ultimately played a major role in curbing violence in the region. One of the major reasons for relative peace in the Khyber agency in FATA was that tribal elders regularly summoned Jirgas and formed Lashkars to fight local militant groups. Yet, because the FCR is in place, the Political Agent and military hold a veto over any Jirga decision.
The FCR provided a framework for Jirgas and tribal elders under the provision of Sarkari (state) Jirga presided over by the Political Agent of the respective agency, with the Olasi or people’s Jirga only limited to an advisory role. Yet, according to various studies by Community Appraisal and Motivation Programme (CAMP) in FATA, a majority in FATA preferred Olasi Jirga as it provided them with an easy and impartial means to resolve conflicts and seek justice. Such trends suggest that even if the government tries introducing reforms and introduces the country’s judicial system to the region, complications and trust deficit would still exist. Thus, the proposed bill of 13th amendment and implementation of Rewaj Act in FATA also presents the state with a dilemma.
The Jirga provides an interesting debate between modernity and indigeneity. An argument that ‘recognising the importance of Jirga and Pakhtunwali in law-making is equivalent to going back to primitive times’, is somewhat flawed. Countries like Canada and Australia have constitutional provisions for indigenous conflict resolution methods. On the other hand, indigenous Gacaca courts in Rwanda, the Chief’s courts in Swaziland, and Buddhist elders in Cambodia still play an active role in conflict resolution in their respective societies.
Given the fragile situation in FATA, any reforms that need to be introduced should give importance to tribal cultural values, albeit, not at the cost of basic human rights. The Jirga has historically played an important role in maintaining the social fabric of Pakhtun societies, and thus any effective strategy to sustain peace in FATA should include Jirga as the primary means of mediation and negotiation for local insurgencies and conflict resolution. This is because before any merger or reforms, the state has to ensure peace in FATA and resettle the internally displaced persons.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/24-May-17/reviving-pakhtun-jirga
----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/muslim-fraternity-its-own-enemy/d/111257