Pakistan Press on India-Pakistan Conundrum, Feminists before Partition and FATF: New Age Islam's Selection, 28 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Desk
28 October
2020
• The India-Pakistan Conundrum
By Akbar Ahmed
• Feminists Before Partition
By Rafia Zakaria
• Fatf: Facts, Diplomacy And Public Narrative
By Hasaan Khawar
• Banking On Biden
By Abdul Sattar
-----
The India-Pakistan Conundrum
By Akbar Ahmed
OCTOBER 28,
2020
The modern
Indian writer commenting on affairs between India and Pakistan has an acute
dilemma: every time he or she is objective about Pakistan, his compatriots tend
to see him as soft on the enemy and may direct suspicion and accusations
towards him. Any hint of empathy challenges the “us” versus “them” paradigm. An
Indian Muslim author has the same problem, except it is even more exaggerated.
In the present climate, anything that any Muslim does is easily misunderstood.
Prominent actors, superstars in their contributions to Indian cinema, who
mildly commented that their community felt threatened with the widespread
religious violence, were attacked for being anti-Indian. Believing that
discretion is the better part of valor, most Indian Muslims either stay away
from commenting on their community and its problems or are aggressively
chauvinistic and show their loyalty to the Indian state over the problems of
their own community. An example is Fareed Zakaria, who, with his CNN platform,
is in a position to improve relations and understanding between India and
Pakistan, yet hefeels compelled to slight Pakistan or invite guests on his show
who do it for him. I enjoy his programs and his commentary as he is an
outstanding intellectual. But I deplore his moral ambiguity in avoiding a role
that he could potentially play.
This is
where Sameer Arshad Khatlani deserves credit for his recent book, The Other
Side of the Divide: A Journey into the Heart of Pakistan. As a loyal Indian and
a Muslim, he has written an objective and penetrating account of Pakistan after
visiting the country. He has not shied away from describing what he sees as the
warts and all. He has also not shied away from praising what is to be praised.
For example, he speaks highly of the contributions and role of the Christian
Pakistanis to the building of the nation. He mentions the heroic deeds of
Christian leaders in the defense of Pakistan in the wars against India:
“Christian officers have made their mark the most in Pakistan Air force (PAF);
many of them feature in the galaxy of the country’s celebrated war heroes.
Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry, a Catholic, remains at the top of this pile” (p.
152). The author points out that in spite of being a Pakistani war hero, Cecil
Chaudhry’s promotion was blocked by Zia ul-Haq which left him disillusioned.
There are
some marvelous vignettes in Khatlani’s book. He writes of Ayub Khan inviting
Jacqueline Kennedy to Pakistan and the warm reception she received throughout
the country. He points out that Ayub gifted her the Karakuli cap after she
complimented him for it. He also gifted her a horse, Sardar, which was shipped
to the US. Jacqueline called her visit to Pakistan “a great success” where she
spent some of her “happiest days” (p. 186).
Khatlani
describes a visit to the Dera Sahib Gurdwara, dedicated to the fifth Guru Arjan
Dev, in Lahore’s walled city. The Gurdwara stands juxtaposed alongside the
Badshahi Mosque. He points to the history that is associated with the killing
of the Sikh Guru by the Emperor Jahangir for supporting Prince Khusrau. That
event led to the open conflict between Sikhs and Mughals. Khatlani points out
that the Gurdwara survived intact in the destruction that accompanied the
Partition in 1947. He ends on a hopeful note: “Its presence next to the
Badshahi Mosque is a symbol of hope for a better future of coexistence” (p.
89).
It is a
pity that this kind of analysis which underlines the contributions of the
Indian Muslims is not made prominent by Indian authors. These are complicated
subjects made more complicated by the Hindu-Muslim rivalries and their
passions. But the widespread hatred in his land which has created lynch mobs
and daylight mob murders of Muslims-and other minorities-is against the very
spirit of Shanti and Ahimsa that are at the heart of the great Hindu religion.
The Indian state at some stage soon must decide that enough is enough and step
in to stop the victimization of the minorities. It is a good time to step back
and attempt to re-create the great idealism and hopes that accompanied the
formation of the Indian nation when it gave to the world a genuine pluralist
vision of what was possible in a newly independent state. In the process they
are in danger of abandoning what was their greatest achievement and the envy of
the developing world in the 1950s-the idea of a liberal, inclusive state that
was made up of diverse castes, religions and communities. That part of Indian
history is being recklessly rewritten, and those seen to be promoting
friendship, dialogue or understanding with the minorities are viewed with
suspicion. We know that the great Mahatma Gandhi was shot dead because his
critics saw him as too sympathetic to the Muslims. The writing about the
“other” in India can be not only an exercise in academic understanding but
actually dangerous to the health. That is why the Indian “liberal,” mostly
Hindus, are heroic in their efforts to preserve something of the inclusive
legacy of India. Khatlani deserves to be recognized in their ranks.
The
so-called Indian liberal and so-called right-wing individual both react in the
same way to the Muslim/Pakistan test. Just mention Muslim/Pakistan or Kashmir
and even the most charming, amiable and genuine intellectual individual will
likely become a fire-breathing, narrow-minded Islamophobe. This mental block
against Muslim/Pakistan is an intellectual tragedy that most Indian authors
find difficult to overcome. Hatred is never a good prism through which to look
at any subject. It ends up compromising the writer as much as it does the
reader.
In his
attempt to understand Pakistan, Khatlani ends the book by quoting a Pakistani
bureaucrat who described the Taliban as “Kharijites.” Not many Pakistani
bureaucrats are known for their scholarship nor their grasp of Muslim history.
By describing the Taliban as warriors who are continuing the Muslim battles of
early seventh century Islam the bureaucrat is echoing theories that circulate
in the think-tanks of Washington and London. As I have explained in my book,
The Thistle and the Drone: How America’s War on Terror Became a Global War on
Tribal Islam (2013), the Taliban represented tribal societies and the tribal
code of behavior. Their cruel actions such as the killing of over a hundred
students in the Peshawar Army Public School had more to do with the tribal
codes of revenge than Islamic theology: the Prophet of Islam had admonished his
followers to show mercy at all times and avoid tribalism with its notions of
revenge.
Khatlani
has a sharp eye for detail, a pen that can turn neat phrases and a heart that
yearns for peace in the subcontinent. Khatlani has a role to play in bringing
peace and understanding to South Asia. The book is dedicated to Khatlani’s
young son Orhan and the young generation: “For my son, Orhan Ahmed Khatlani,
and his generation. May they grow up to live in a peaceful and prosperous South
Asia free of bigotry and conflict.” To this sentiment I would say Ameen.
https://dailytimes.com.pk/682752/the-india-pakistan-conundrum/
------
Feminists Before Partition
By Rafia Zakaria
28 Oct 2020
SUCH is the
weight of colonial and post-colonial erasure that the girls and women living in
Pakistan today have very little idea about the very early feminists who have
come before them. Current nationalist intoxications wish to divide all things
and everything along the lines of a border drawn by the British and incongruous
to the actual groupings of the subcontinent’s multitudinous identities. There
are persistent efforts, on both the Indian and Pakistani sides, to read current
divisions and delusions in the historical past. The consequence has been a
history full of holes, large omissions and boisterous erasures where the
stories of people should be.
Given that
India and Pakistan and Bangladesh are all patriarchal societies, it follows
that the histories of these lands that have been resuscitated from the past,
and presented to populations that do not have much of an idea of the past, have
been male histories. There are many male heroes and leaders, poets and writers,
men who gave memorable speeches and men who stood up to the British; the
stories of women are harder to find.
Women, however,
were present and they were busy. In her essay ‘Feminist Inheritances and
Foremothers: The Beginnings of Feminism in Modern India’, the historian Padma
Anagol turns her attention to the women of Maharashtra in India. It is
fascinating to consider these intrepid women of the late 1800s who refused to
bow to the patriarchal societies in which they found themselves. It is notable
that their activities for reform took place in the context of severe criticism
from their Western rulers, who saw India as backward and uncivilised. Some of
the struggles took place under the larger umbrella of social reform movements
in which individuals of all religions participated and engaged. In Anagol’s
view, it is these reform societies that were the precursors of contemporary
feminisms that exist in the subcontinent today.
In the late
1930s, a woman named Lakshmibai Tilak became one of the first Indian women to
write her autobiography. The book, which tells the story of Tilak’s life,
includes the story of her grandfather who was hanged in 1857 owing to his
participation in the uprising against the British. Born in 1868, she was
married off at an early age to a Marathi-language poet who was subject to many
whims and eccentricities and often just got up and left, leaving his family
behind. It is quite likely that it was owing to these events that Tilak
advocated for women’s financial and economic independence. In an effort to do
just this, she began training as a nurse, an endeavour she sadly had to abandon
owing to family responsibilities.
There are
many male heroes and leaders, poets and writers, who stood up to the British;
the stories of women are harder to find.
Similarly
spirited was Rakhmabai Raut, a woman who had been married early, but who
refused to leave her father’s home to live with her husband. The husband sued
in court when Rakhmabai was 19 years old. She still refused to join him,
pointing out his lack of education and his dishonest lifestyle. The British
judge ruled in favour of Rakhmabai, saying that she did not have to go and live
with her husband because the marriage had been arranged when she was a minor
and had never been consummated. The decision caused a huge outcry in India,
where marriages of minors were often arranged and where asking for the consent of
the parties was unheard of. Hindus were particularly incensed by the judge’s
application of these concepts of consent and consummation because they imagined
marriage as a sacrament for eternity rather than a contract lasting a single
life.
The tumult
from this case and the continuing agitation by women against abuse, child
marriage and other cultural and religious customs that demeaned their existence
led to vehement debates in the local press across India. Men and religious
figures felt that women had become very rebellious and had overstepped their
boundaries. Women on the other hand felt that these issues had remained in the
dark for a long time and it was time there was public debate on them.
In a
similar manner to the feminists of today, those very early feminists were
accused of being puppets of the British. It was the emergence of the
nationalist Quit India movement against the British that ended up uniting
reform-minded men and women. Ruttie Jinnah, the wife of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad
Ali Jinnah, was also said to have been active in these movements.
British
women who were busy advocating for the right to vote in Britain were eager to
have Indian women join their fight for suffrage. They were startled when many
Indian feminists from the time expressed no interest in getting the right to
vote, alleging that they did not wish to be equal to Indian men because both
the men and they would still be under the thumb of the British rulers. When we
are free, they said, we will have the right to vote in our free nations. This
was correct; when India and Pakistan were created in 1947, Indian and Pakistani
women had the right to vote alongside the men.
The
blurring of boundaries between nationalism and feminist reform has proven to be
a burden. In both India and Pakistan, women who should be feminists are instead
subsumed into expressions of ‘patriotism’ that are based on intellectual and
religious obscurantism. They are eager to wave flags but not hold up banners
and to denounce those women who do organise and march as ‘bad’ women. It is an
old recipe of divide and rule, of creating useless definitions where a ‘good’
woman is just one who kowtows to the toxic masculinity of the state and
domestic violence. One wishes that the sheer unoriginality of the critiques of
women who wish to control their own would convince women to discard theme. If
women in the 1800s could rebel, then so can the women of 2020.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1587426/feminists-before-partition
------
FATF: Facts, Diplomacy And Public Narrative
By Hasaan Khawar
October 26,
2020
FATF’s
plenary session concluded last week and as expected Pakistan stays on the grey
list. However, a lot has changed since the last session in February, as
manifested by a much more supportive tone of the forum, appreciating Pakistan’s
significant progress against the action plan agreed in 2018. Pakistan is now
fully or largely compliant with 21 out of a total of 27 action items, as
opposed to merely 14 a few months ago.
Yet, during
the last few weeks, the international media was full of baseless news items
about the risks of Pakistan being blacklisted. Although Pakistan achieved
significant progress on ground and undertook significant diplomatic efforts, it
did not shape the public narrative, which was completely hijacked by baseless
Indian propaganda.
Let’s first
see what all we have done so far to improve our anti-money laundering and
counter-terrorism financing (AML/CFT) regime. Over the last few months,
Pakistan amended scores of laws, both at national and provincial level,
including the Anti-Money Laundering Act, Foreign Exchange Regulations Act,
Anti-Terrorism Act, Companies Act and Waqf, Trusts and Cooperative acts. A new
legislation on mutual legal assistance was enacted to improve international
cooperation on money laundering and terrorism financing. Multiple working
groups were formed to ensure inter-agency cooperation, regulations for
designated non-finance business professions (DNFBPs) were made, and AML/CFT
measures were introduced in Pakistan Post and Central Directorate of National
Savings. Thousands of accounts were frozen, and transactions were rejected for
positive matches with designated persons. AML/CFT penalties to the tune of
Rs1.5+ billion were imposed on banks. The offenses regarding hawala/hundi were
made cognizable and their imprisonment was increased. Systematic improvements
in the FIA were introduced and an AML/CFT cell was established, leading to
registration of cases, arrests and seizures. Cross-border currency movement was
controlled and enforcement against terrorism finance cases was intensified and
most importantly, 49,000 non-profit organisations (NPOs) were de-registered.
The country
now needs to focus on a few remaining areas such as demonstrating that law
enforcement agencies are identifying and investigating the TF activity and
prosecutions, resulting in effective proportionate and dissuasive sanctions;
showing effective implementation of targeted financial sanctions against all
designated terrorists and their associates; and further strengthening our
enforcement against NPOs, in relation to TF cases.
On the
diplomatic front, the country also did a decent job. A group of diplomats from
important countries were invited to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in
September and were briefed about Pakistan’s progress to date. Other back-channel
efforts also helped in creating goodwill for Pakistan leading to a consensus
decision by the FATF. The outgoing Chinese ambassador last month already
indicated that the upcoming FATF review would have a positive outcome for the
country. Such diplomatic efforts are essential to garner international support
and should continue till the next session in February 2021.
But despite
all these efforts, there was no media strategy in place to shape the public
narrative and inform the world about Pakistan’s commitment to AML/CFT agenda.
Indian media outlets relentlessly spewed venom and the global media happily
picked it up in the absence of any counter-narrative from Pakistan. Last month,
I got in touch with a senior Pakistan official working on FATF and he was not
willing to share a single word, not even to counter what has been baselessly
alleged against Pakistan in international media. We need to not let this happen
again. Let’s tell our side of the story to the world.
Pakistan
stands a good chance to come out of the grey list by February 2021. The key is
to keep the foot on the pedal on enforcement, continue the diplomatic efforts
and shape the public narrative by proudly showing what we have achieved and not
hiding it under covers.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/2269999/fatf-facts-diplomacy-and-public-narrative
----
Banking on Biden
By Abdul Sattar
October 28,
2020
Democratic-minded
people all over the world are pinning hopes on American presidential candidate
Joe Biden who has vowed to defend democracy, human rights, freedom of the press
and independence of the judiciary.
The veteran
politician has also hinted at respecting international laws, reviving the Iran
nuclear deal, ending Washington’s support for Saudi Arabia on the war in Yemen,
pledging to work for the protection of the environment, forging a close
alliance with the European Union to prop up the rule-based system evolved in
the aftermath of World War II and make efforts to restore the prestige of the
sole superpower at the international level by cooperating with the World Health
Organization and other global bodies.
These
promises have created a ripple of excitement among democratic forces across the
world and freedom-loving people in third world countries that are fed up with
dictatorial regimes, autocratic monarchs and proponents of controlled
democracy. For them, Trump does not want to see anything beyond American
borders unless it benefits those whose business interests prompt the whimsical
populist leader to unleash a torrent of criticism against countries like China.
In international affairs, the rich chief executive of the second largest
democracy has only tried to appease the Zionist state of Israel granting it
carte blanche to continue its oppressive rule over the Palestinians. His blanket
support for Israel encouraged the war-mongers sitting in the power corridors of
Tel Aviv to openly flout international laws and trample global norms of
diplomacy and decency. Such abetment greatly undermined the rules-based global
order that was authored by American rule elites and their European
counterparts.
But this
optimism is creating an impression that the Democratic Party has an impeccable
record of defending democracy, promoting human rights, speaking for freedom of
the press, making efforts for protecting the independence of judiciary in
developing countries, opposing America’s illegal wars and challenging big
corporations that played havoc with the lives of millions through their
reckless policies.
Those who
want to repose blind faith in the Democratic leadership should remember that
Biden is also for containing the Chinese influence. Perhaps the only difference
between him and Trump is that the former wants to do it in a botched and crude
manner while the latter is interested in achieving this by forging an alliance
with European powers. Both leaders seek US hegemony and are ready to sacrifice
everything for the sake of this goal.
Remember
the sage Obama, the champion of human rights and international laws who turned
out to be a war-monger as well. He also came up with a policy of containment
though in a sophisticated style. He also sought the US hegemony behind the
veneer of internationalism and global norms. It was during pacifist Obama's
time that a large number of illegal drone strikes were carried out in countries
like Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Civilians continued to suffer
under his rule in Afghanistan because of the military operations conducted
under the occupying forces in the war-torn country. Yemen continued to witness
death and destruction imposed by American allies and Washington’s war
machinery. Guantanamo Bay kept flying in the face of Obama’s tall claims of
respecting human rights. So, it is naive to believe that Democrats could herald
a new era of peace, democracy, human rights and internationalism.
It may be
surprising for many that in matters of wars and conflicts both Democrats and
Republicans have the same approach. Who can deny that wars and conflicts are
the greatest enemies of democracy that trample every freedom under their
ruthless oppression. According to some estimates, since the year 1900,
reportedly 35 conflicts have been launched by Republican administrations
compared to 23 by Democrats. The Korean War began and was fought under a
Democrat. It was ended by a Republican.
Ironically,
there have been some major conflicts in American history that were initiated by
the Democrats, who have a reputation of being peace-makers and ended by the
Republican that are considered hawkish. For instance the Vietnam War was imposed
by a Democrat, escalated and spread beyond the invaded country under his
Democratic successor, and then under a Republican. It was ended by another
Republican. The Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia were overseen by a
Democrat. The 'war on terror' was unleashed by a Republican who invaded
Afghanistan and Iraq and continued for nearly eight more years under a
Democrat. It is interesting to note that a Republican is trying to put an end
to this lengthy war of the American history. Harry Truman, a Democrat, is still
the only world leader to use a nuclear bomb on a population.
It is true
that after the September 11 attacks, the Republican Party’s government came up
with what George W Bush’s critics called repressive measures. However, these
measures were not only a property of the hawkish Republicans but dove Democrats
also imposed such repressive policies. The supporters of the Democratic Party
only present right-wing nationalist cold warriors as evil who curbed civil
liberties of Americans. We remember Senator Joseph McCarthy’s sneering at
Hollywood screenwriters or Reagan yelling at Gorbachev in absentia but tend to
forget that McCarthyism’s founding political act was an executive order by
Harry Truman creating “loyalty review boards” for federal employees. Under the
review boards’ auspices, mere suspicion of any communist leaning was grounds
for firing and blacklisting. And it was Democrats who founded and first staffed
the infamous House Committee of Un-American Activities (HUAC). These organizations
were the legal backbone of McCarthyism.
The purpose
of this long history is to clarify that no matter which party rules America,
corporate interests and the whims of war-mongers reign supreme in the land of
freedom. The US has toppled elected governments, sowed chaos, orchestrated
plans to mobilise public opinion against popular democratic leaders in the
Global South and lent a blanket support to autocratic monarchs, dictatorial
regimes and brutal military juntas. So, if people believe that things might be
different under a Democratic Party dispensation, they might be mistaken.
Biden’s idea of US dominance and his policy to contain China and confront
Russia will prompt his administration to do the bidding of a deep state that
has dominated American foreign policy and is ready to hobnob with anyone who is
ready to ally with them and work against their supposed enemies.
Therefore,
it is important that Pakistani democratic forces pin hopes on their people,
mobilizing them against what they call the anti-people policies of the
government and win the battle through democratic means. This battle for
democracy and true civilian rule cannot be won without addressing the core
issues of inflation, massive unemployment, extreme poverty and the rising gap
between the rich and the poor. Countries like Iran, Bolivia and Venezuela got
rid of their unpopular leaders through popular struggle. They used the power of
their people to dislodge governments bent on appeasing the lords of capital.
Allende in Chile, Arbenz in Guatemala and many other political personalities
also banked on their people to liberate the country from the clutches of those
rulers that made anti-people policies. So, countries in the Global South should
not wait for a change of government in Washington. If they think that the
economic policies of their rulers are against the interests of the people, if
they believe that such policies are playing havoc with the lives of tens of
millions people, they should mobilise the people and restore true popular
sovereignty instead of imagining a miracle from distant lands.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/735718-banking-on-biden
----
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan-press-india-pakistan-conundrum,/d/123291
New
Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism