Pakistan’s Donald Trump: New Age Islam's Selection, 19 February 2016
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
19 February 2016
• Pakistan’s Donald Trump
By Syed Kamran Hashmi
• Minorities in the Education System
By Zeeba T Hashmi
• Afghanistan: Hope for the Future
By Humayun Shafi
• China versus South Asia
By Shahid Javed Burki
• Hindu Marriage, Customs and the Law
By Taha Kehar
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-------
Pakistan’s Donald Trump
By Syed Kamran Hashmi
February 19, 2016
Disappointed by recent amendments, the director general of the Ehtesaab Commission (EC) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Hamid Khan, resigned from his post last week. “It was not simply a job for me; I accepted the position as a challenge, a mission to contribute to society,” he said on television after stepping down, “With those changes in place, I do not think I can carry on serving the people in that position.”
Answering a question in an interview about raising his concerns to the chairman of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), Imran Khan, he said, “I met Imran Khan and explained that his own campaign against corruption would be damaged by the proposed changes. But I found that the party leader was more concerned about the bureaucrats who had threatened to stop working in his province because of the fear of the EC.” He, it seems, reassured the former cricketer afterwards but the meeting still ended inconclusively.
The party image would not have been tarnished so badly, had he stopped appearing in personal interviews one after the other, and reduced his exposure to the persistent queries of journalists. But he did not. Instead, he just kept on pounding the provincial administration with his jabs, claiming huge corruption had been found in every department, in every transaction. “Even the Chief Minister (CM) is not completely clean,” he asserted in front of the camera one day, “He may have been involved in a scandal that can reach up to billions of rupees.”
By questioning the transparency of the PTI-led coalition government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, by stoking suspicions about the ‘unclean’ character of its CM, Pervez Khattak, and by stirring controversies against the members of the provincial assembly, the retired lieutenant general has jolted the essence of the PTI like one shakes a bottle of fruit juice before consumption. Why? Because Imran erected his political career based on the promise that he would put an end to financial misdeeds, that his party would provide a governance model that would be clean, honest and transparent, that his team would be free of allegations. Shocked with the recent development, even his supporters now ask: “Is this the ‘promised land’ that we were all excited to get into?”
Imran has insisted throughout his career that the root cause behind our failure lies in the financial corruption of Pakistani politicians, who always give preference to their personal gains over the national interest, who plunder the wealth of the country to profit themselves while letting Pakistan sink into an abyss of poverty, ignorance and extremism.
The facts, however, contradict his statements. Numerous countries around the world, including India, have prospered without first eliminating corruption. The only prerequisite is that the democratic process stays uninterrupted and the Constitution never gets suspended. In contrast, the countries where democratic process is crushed in the name of transparency eventually fall into chaos, empty handed, unable to exist as a viable state. This list includes Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia and so on. I do not think the monetary irregularities of politicians damage the country as much as holding its Constitution in abeyance. I also do not support corruption.
Imran had to distinguish himself from the others to make inroads into politics. For that, he created two simple rules. Any politician who joined the PTI joined because he indeed wanted to serve Pakistan no matter how tainted his past may have been and anyone who joined the rivals, joined to rake in commissions, irrespective of his clean reputation.
This distinction allowed him to call them names without any remorse, hurl abuses and sting them with his harsh tongue. His tactics worked as he created a following of ‘zealots’ who passed even ruder comments, used more abusive language and punched way below the belt, hitting a new low every time. Embarking on this trajectory of allegations was bound to haunt him. Before the last elections, he enjoyed the advantage of never having been in a government so he could claim innocence. But after being in government for almost three years, the day has arrived for the PTI to be on the receiving of accusations with it having to defend itself from the attacks of others, an agonising experience that it never had to go through in the past. What worries me even more is that General Hamid Khan is not the only one; many more are waiting for the right time to share their experiences.
The second rule depended on self-projection and self-aggrandisement. In that regard, the PTI chairman shares many similarities with the Republican presidential candidate and the real estate tycoon Donald Trump. For example, Mr Trump asserts that he will build a wall between Mexico and the US; the former cricketer, in an equally unrealistic claim, asserts that corruption at any level can be rooted out in just 19 days.
Similarly, both of them stand by their hodgepodge political views, both of them berate their rivals in the most indecent manner, both of them show intolerance for criticism and both of them rely upon personal success to advance the party narrative. Mr Trump cites his business acumen, mentioning his success as an investor during debates, while, Imran refers to the Yorkers, the third umpires, the double wickets and sixers to provide an explanation for his administrative capabilities.
The difference is that the presidential candidate is hard on terrorists, so much so that he wants to ban the entry of Muslims in the US. He does not even mind torturing suspects. The PTI chairman, on the other hand, seems to be soft on terrorists, blaming the US for the activities of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) in Pakistan and protesting against the killing of Hakeemullah Mehsood in a drone strike, the same man who was responsible for hundreds of suicide attacks against Pakistanis.
Syed Kamran Hashmi is a US-based freelance columnist.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/19-Feb-2016/pakistan-s-donald-trump
-----
Minorities in The Education System
By Zeeba T Hashmi
February 19, 2016
Insecurity and economic depravity have become the prime causes for many to kiss Pakistan goodbye, leaving serious dents on the economy that no one seems to care about on a priority level in the government. What many do not focus on at the policy level is that many of these immigrants consist of a considerable number of minorities who feel helpless in facing the wrath of religious bigotry and violence at home. They feel they are out of options when it comes to continuing to live in their own country and are compelled to leave, even if they do not always desire to do so. Once Pakistan boasted housing 25 percent minorities but now there are just three percent left today, in a matter of six decades. But can our minorities be blamed for leaving Pakistan? Faced with discrimination in our institutions here, they are often dissuaded by the system to avail any opportunity to help them progress both academically and economically.
If we are to take the example of Dr Abdus Salam, the first Nobel laureate of Pakistan, we all should hang our heads in shame for ridiculing him, hurling insults at him and denying him national recognition even though he was determined to stay in Pakistan and serve his nation. He had many an opportunity to take up the nationality of other countries that were offering it to him for his profound scientific research and academic contributions but he chose Pakistan in the end, despite the constitutional disenfranchisement of his Ahmedi community and widespread social bigotry encouraged by the state itself. Disowning this national hero by society in general was due to his religious beliefs, which are considered heretic by mainstream Muslims, a reason, perhaps, why Ahmedis are more aggressively pursued and targeted by religious zealots in comparison to other religious and ethnic minorities.
Today, we have suddenly started owning Dr Nergis Mavalvala, an astrophysicist who detected gravitational waves in space. However, we do not often feel the need to mention that Dr Nergis immigrated to the US in pursuit of higher studies and to fully put her talents into practice. She was appreciated in an environment that enabled her with academic and scientific progress, an opportunity that is sadly lacking in Pakistan. Before giving her long due credit for her fascinating scientific discovery, the question that we all should ask is whether she, with her Parsi religious identity and professed sexual orientation, would have been able to pursue her career to this extent had she remained in Pakistan.
For the last three decades, social productivity has decayed immensely in Pakistan, all to be blamed on the sheer religiosity introduced into society by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and then later by General Zia ul Haq. Somewhere down the line, we lost our ability to value a person for his or her worth or their productive contribution to society. We must take a look at the quality of higher education institutes that remain underfunded, made to mint money in the name of education and thus focusing more on their financial returns than on academic quality. Where there are thousands of unknown talents, lack of academic opportunities force them to live with their unrecognised talents and skills rotting away.
And those who have managed to find their place at higher educational institutes are offered rigid course selection that does not allow them to pursue diversified fields of knowledge. For the principle of fairness in academics, non-discriminatory quality checks on performances of all enrolled students at their institutes must be performed but education providers have instead given in to nepotism and undue political influences that have contributed majorly towards stalling academic progress. Due to high religious influence in student politics at our institutes, students are forced to give more attention to issues that should have no relevance to our academic fields of study.
Those exceptional students who manage to overcome societal hurdles, their contributions are hardly given credit here and their opportunity to succeed is lost to non-deserving graduates who use their political and religious influences to stay ahead of others. A major technical flaw in our system is that many non-Muslims students are not able to take the Ethical Studies subject as a replacement for Islamiat due to the non availability of textbooks, especially in rural areas, thus depriving many non-Muslims of the dignity when they are forced to read Islamiat and Quranic courses.
Another academic injustice that must be addressed here is that many students are often denied admission to our higher educational institutes because they fail to reach the required merit. Their low merit is not due to any academic failures, rather it is because they lose their marks against a hafiz-e-Quran (a person who learns the Quran by heart), who gets bonus points even if he has scored lower than his peers in the exams. Apart from the academic loopholes that are particularly disadvantageous to non-Muslim students, there have been many cases of expulsion of students from educational institutes by the school administration owing to their beliefs. In 2010, a public school in Hafizabad district expelled about 11 students for no valid reason other than their being Ahmedi. If these students and young scholars cannot find any opportunities in their home country, why should they not leave Pakistan for their right to a better, more dignified and prosperous life?
These are the serious issues that not only minorities but also Muslims face in our country. Allowing our minority students to study in a discrimination free environment is a policy matter and, to this date, no serious effort has ever been made in this regard. The Prime Minster (PM) sending praises to the Pakistani diaspora for its academic excellence does not really address the issues at home that are responsible for such a brain drain here. More serious political will and efforts by the government are direly needed to improve education here and encourage scientific and academic development.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/19-Feb-2016/minorities-in-the-education-system
-------
Afghanistan: Hope for the Future
By Humayun Shafi
February 19, 2016
The situation in Afghanistan does not augur well. The distressing part is that no viable solutions towards peace and stability seem to be available. Kandahar, Sangin, Kunduz, Lashkar Gah — all are under threat of Afghan Taliban takeover. How events in Afghanistan, over the decades, have gradually been overtaken for the worst can be imagined from the fact that Lashkar Gah, in the 1960s, was called the ‘little America in Asia’. It was built on the pattern of a US suburb.
The result of the intervention in Afghanistan by NATO allies starting from 2001 is here. A recent UN report on Afghanistan states that 3,445 civilian lost their lives in 2015, tragically the worst year since 2001. In September, last year, the Taliban managed to seize the northern Afghanistan city of Kunduz, their flag was raised in the city centre and over many government buildings. The Taliban stayed there for a week and retreated after government reinforcements arrived. The Taliban termed it as a ‘strategic retreat’, again this time over Kunduz stands threatened by a takeover. The attack on Sangin in December last year was repulsed by Afghan security forces and the US-led coalition’s air support and strategic guidance. The attack on Sangin in December gained global significance after the deputy governor of Helmand, Mohammed Jan, posted a message on Facebook to President Ashraf Ghani portraying the plight of surrounded Afghan forces, pointing to lack of munitions and men. Reinforcements of government troops did arrive in Sangin and achieved some major success in a battle for the city. Over the past few weeks, Taliban fighters have managed a comeback and are in control of many busy shopping areas in Sangin. In January, one US soldier was killed and two wounded fighting alongside the Afghan forces in Helmand.
The presence of the Taliban is now being felt on the outskirts of Kabul, as if they are just waiting to strike. Last year, on November 30, the US embassy in Kabul issued the warning of an imminent strike by militants on Kabul. There have been deadly suicide attacks in Kabul, including the attack on a staff bus belonging to Tolo TV in which seven staff members lost their lives on the spot and 26 were injured. The state of civil strife has allowed Islamic State (IS) to enter Afghanistan, calling itself the Khorasan province of IS. Their major area of influence is in Nangarhar. IS has a defined leadership in Afghanistan and is a challenge both to the government and Afghan Taliban. IS in Afghanistan has all the sectarian footprints of its controlling group in the Middle East.
It is difficult to figure out how Afghan forces, short on men and material, will be able to effectively combat the Taliban. For 14 years, the US and NATO with a large number of troops, air power and surveillance equipment could not effectively hold any large part of Afghanistan. The US spent one trillion dollars in Afghanistan as part of the war on terror, the longest and most expensive war in modern history, leaving behind a war-scarred Afghanistan physically, economically and psychologically — a shattered nation. Thousands of Afghans have lost their lives and millions have become refugees. In December 2014, a formal ceremony of withdrawal from Afghanistan by US and NATO troops was held in a rather low-key manner in Kabul to avoid any attack from the militants. This manner of departure of NATO troops was an indicator of how much chaos and strife is being left behind, and a pointer to coming events; there was nothing to celebrate for the Afghan nation.
How did things come to this stage? There are no simple or single line answers. Perhaps one possible explanation is how events unfolded in Afghanistan in post-World War II events, concentrating for purpose of brevity only upon a rather brief period. From the close of the war King Zahir Shah, the ruler from 1933 to 1973, in his enthusiasm to build a modern Afghanistan, decided to invite both the US and the erstwhile USSR during the Cold War days. The two super powers started prestigious infrastructure projects. Many of these projects challenged the social and economic life of a society that had strong tribal bindings; a culture alien to the people was shaping up. The vast majority of the population started feeling alienated in the crony economic structure. In the ill-planned economic projects, especially in Helmand and other areas of southern Afghanistan, many people were dispossessed from their lands due to land development and irrigation projects. This led to unrest and political and social instability. In the early 1970s, riots erupted in Afghanistan, initially due to a draught and then issues of modernisation and poor governance started dominating. The riots resulted in a coup in 1973 by former Prime Minister (PM) Daud. King Zahir Shah, who was in Rome, abdicated. Afghan history then became one of coups, tyranny and assassinations, and was made worse by the Soviet invasion in 1979. Analysis of the events shows the present events of Afghanistan are a manifestation of many ill-conceived economic plans, many dictators and their ambitions imposing alien cultures that have all brought Afghanistan to this present state of violence and instability. Of course, extreme militant groups cannot take refuge behind the force of history and in turn inflict pain upon the people. All manner of solutions have been tried in Afghanistan. Large amounts of aid from the post-World War II era did not work. Then military interventions, first by the Soviet Union and then by NATO countries made the situation worse. No solution has worked to alleviate the pain of the people; they live under constant threat and under the fear of having to evacuate their homes once fighting starts in their areas.
Afghanistan eventually has a democratically elected government. The present elected Afghan government is making serious efforts to secure peace but is facing many adverse circumstances. A government managing an economically challenged country, damaged by war and civil strife, torn between different militias for over 35 years is not expected to do much better. There are issues of monetary support from foreign aid for budgetary support to pay salaries and maintain the security forces; much of the aid requirement is hard to obtain. This problem is compounded by public opinion in the west, which is not interested in funding wars and military campaigns in faraway countries. Europe itself is absorbed and exhausted by a crisis of historical proportions, of refuges and asylum seekers from the Middle East and North Africa, threatening Europe’s culture and social balance.
Yet there is hope and future for Afghanistan: the harbinger of hope and a future is democracy. In a recent interview for BBC, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani sent a message to Afghan asylum seekers in Europe, upon whom doors are being closed in Europe. He stated, “The future is Afghanistan.” The elected government in Afghanistan is besieged by many problems and is facing setbacks and threats to its existence, yet there still is a reason for hope because of democracy and the media. To make Afghan democracy work, democratic countries globally must realise their commitment to democracy, do their bit and provide Afghanistan with budgetary support and economic aid. Unfortunately, budgetary support is inadequate and many commitments rather evasive. If the democratic government falls in the face of current events, then all hope for a stable prosperous Afghanistan will fade, leaving only chaos in its tracks. It will be a global setback of historical proportions for peace, stability and democracy.
Humayun Shafi is a former member of the police service of Pakistan.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/19-Feb-2016/afghanistan-hope-for-the-future
-----
China versus South Asia
By Shahid Javed Burki
February 19th, 2016
The historian Stanley Wolpert titled his book on the last days of the British Raj in India, Shameful Flight. Had the colonial masters not made a hurried exit, they may have managed to retain the political unity of the South Asian sub-continent. Ayesha Jalal, another historian, in her book on Jinnah’s strategy to safeguard the Muslims’ minority rights in what would have been a predominantly Hindu political entity, has taken a contrarian view to what is generally viewed by Pakistani historians. She maintains that the demand for the establishment of an independent Muslim state was a bargaining position used by Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the Pakistani founding father, who wanted to secure better political rights for the Muslim community in independent India. However, the Hindu leadership came to the conclusion that accepting the demand for Pakistan would be advantageous for it, as it would make it possible to develop political institutions unencumbered with Muslim rights.
Pakistan became independent but its division into two parts separated by thousands of miles of Indian territory, was found to be impractical for building one nation. After less than a quarter century, East Pakistan separated and became the independent state of Bangladesh. Had South Asia remained a unified political entity, would it have performed economically better than it did? This is one of those ‘what-if questions’ that are easier to ask but difficult to answer. One way of looking at South Asia’s economic performance is to compare it with China, another large Asian country with a landmass roughly comparable to that of South Asia. China has an area of 9.5 million square kilometres and a population in 2015 of 1.38 billion. China is much less densely populated than South Asia. It has 144 persons per square kilometre compared to South Asia’s 262 persons. As economists specialising in the study of urban conglomerations suggest, higher densities contribute to economic growth. That should have helped South Asia in growing its economy.
South Asia also had a better agricultural endowment. It had more cultivable and irrigated land per capita of the population than China. Much of the Chinese larger land mass was made up of mountains and deserts. South Asia had more water available for irrigation than China. Notwithstanding these advantages, China’s performance compared to that of South Asia was spectacular. In the period beginning with the opening of the economy in 1980 to 2010, the Chinese national income expanded 32-fold while that of South Asia increased only eight-fold. In today’s prices, China’s GDP was estimated at $325 billion in 1980 compared with South Asia’s $205 billion. China’s per capita income was then $356. It increased 20-fold in the 35-year period since then. South Asia’s income per capita increase was much more modest. China, in other words, has gone a great deal further than the South Asian sub-continent. Why is that the case?
I have a number of answers to the questions posed above. I will provide them briefly. China and South Asia followed very different economic models. Although China was a Communist state, it allowed a fair amount of space to the private sector. Private entrepreneurs were expected to work within the framework prescribed by the state. Beijing focused on the export sector identifying for the entrepreneurs, the areas of production and the markets they should focus on. South Asia, in its endeavour to put the state on the commanding heights of the economy, made massive amounts of investments in producing capital goods for the domestic economy. This may not be obvious but in many ways, the South Asian state was more intrusive than the state in China.
Another difference between China and South Asia was the former’s emphasis on developing its human resource. Mao Zedong, the founder of the Chinese Communist state, provided universal primary education and health care to all citizens. He also liberated women from years of servitude.
One other major difference between China and South Asia was the former’s willingness to work with its neighbours. This did not happen in South Asia in part because of the intense rivalry between India and Pakistan. In 1947, when the British left the subcontinent, most of Pakistani exports and most of its imports went to or came from India. Now in 2015, India is a very minor trading partner for Pakistan. For India, Pakistan is an even smaller player.
Also, China and South Asia have very different political systems. In China, decisions by a one-party dominated state can be taken quickly. By now the three major countries of South Asia have reasonably well established democratic systems where policymaking is slow and cumbersome. The suggestion is not that South Asia should move in China’s political direction. Instead, it should refine its political system so that important economic decisions can be taken quickly and do not get stuck in the quagmire of vested interests indulging in endless give and take.
By far, the most important area where South Asians need to move is in terms of closer economic cooperation. The aim should be regional economic integration. Only then will the South Asian sub-continent be able to take advantage of the enormous change taking place in the structure of the global economy.
Shahid Javed Burki is a former caretaker finance minister and served as vice-president at the World Bank
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1049874/china-versus-south-asia/
-----
Hindu Marriage, Customs and the Law
By Taha Kehar
February 19th, 2016
The writer is a subeditor at The Express Tribune’s Peshawar desk
The Sindh Assembly’s decision to pass the Hindu Marriage Act 2015 aligns closely with the desire to address injustices faced by minority groups in Pakistan. As the country edges closer to its seventh decade of existence, the provincial law seeks to negate the damaging effects of ignorance shown towards a minority community’s needs.
The new legislation will pull Hindu personal law out of a dark chamber and into the mainstream. Since 1947, members of the minority group have been unable to register their marriages in the absence of a state law. Many Hindus recall, with troubled nostalgia, how the failure to produce a marriage registration certificate has stripped them of a diverse menu of privileges. A large number of widows have been banished to a life of poverty and deprivation because they are unable to provide proof of their marriage and claim a stake in their husband’s property. Several Hindu couples have also complained of facing harassment for not possessing the much-coveted certificate.
However, in recent years, the problem has stretched beyond national boundaries and developed an extraterritorial focus. The desire to migrate to other countries from Pakistan has made it fundamentally important for Hindus to hold legal documents to prove their marriage. Strict visa regimes and immigration rules have also strengthened the case for a separate law to register Hindu marriage.
Although the bill passed in the Sindh Assembly will only cater to a small wedge of a large pie due to its provincial focus, it is likely to prevent a network of challenges that afflict Hindus. There are, however, concerns over the effectiveness of the legislation as mere codification of rules cannot change social reality. Law cannot be viewed as a state-sponsored mechanism that is easily assimilated into the fabric of social life. It cannot shape our thoughts or alter our perceptions over a particular practice. Legal scholars, such as Sally Falk Moore, believe such legislations can only have a piecemeal effect as they cannot entirely micromanage social behaviour. On the contrary, law is a matter of psychology. It mainly relies on acceptance after deterrence mechanisms lose the ability to instill fear and prompt action.
At most universities that advocate legal pluralism, law is defined as a dynamic tool, which is over and above the state. Many law schools also view the concept as a kite with four corners — religion, the state, society and international human rights. Under this theory, an appropriate definition of law can only be developed when the tensions arising from all four corners are balanced in an effective manner. This goes to show that mere legislative interference cannot bring the desired change in the social sphere. India’s experience with attempts to codify laws on Hindu marriage offers a glaring testament of this belief. Social custom and religious traditions have always informed personal law systems in that country. As a result, the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 in India relies strongly on customs whereby marriages are solemnised. But, more often than not, the Indian Supreme Court has strictly upheld the rules of registration. This has been done to ensure protection to widows and children. Sindh will need to adopt a similar approach of balancing competing tensions within the Hindu community.
Although the approved legislation has taken a firm stance against child marriage, there are still some rigid elements to the law that could introduce needless complexities to Hindu family law. According to media reports, the 2015 legislation states there should be at least two witnesses at the time when a marriage is solemnised and registered. Upon first glance, this appears to be a fairly stringent rule — especially where solemnisation is concerned — and could trigger injustice as it veers away from social and religious customs. Judges in Sindh’s courts will need to ensure that the Hindu marriage legislation is enacted in a manner that does not compromise on their customs.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1049971/hindu-marriage-customs-and-the-law/
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan’s-donald-trump-new-age/d/106392