Sayeeda Warsi — A Bridge Between Islam And The West: New Age Islam's Selection, 08 April 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
08 April 2017
• Sayeeda Warsi — A Bridge between Islam and the West
By Akbar Ahmed
• Speaking Truth to Power
By Aijaz Zaka Syed
• A Phantom Legion
By Irfan Husain
• Dr Riaz Ahmed and an Inclusive Pakistan
By Amir Hussain
• Bravo Dr Riaz Ahmed
By Abbas Nasir
• Honouring Chanakya
By Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani
• Afghanistan Is No Vietnam
By M Ziauddin
• Refreshing Civil-Military Interaction
By Muhammad Usman
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
----
Sayeeda Warsi — A Bridge Between Islam And The West
By Akbar Ahmed
08-Apr-17
The life of Baroness Sayeeda Warsi has been full of drama. As if becoming a member of the House of Lords, the first Muslim female cabinet member, and co-chair of the Conservative Party was not enough, she created high drama when in 2014 she resigned from government in protest against the situation in Gaza. Her decision to publicly rebuke her own government earned her its wrath, but brought her respect and affection of the British Muslim community.
I saw the respect and affection the community has for her last year when she and her husband, Iftikhar Azam, invited us for breakfast at Zoya, the smart new Pakistani restaurant in Bradford. Customers, waiters, and owners were genuinely pleased to see her and several asked to be photographed with her. She is clearly a local hero.
What impressed my wife, Zeenat; my granddaughter, Mina; and myself, however, was her personal warmth and courtesy. She has a reputation for being standoffish but that is more to do with a shy nature than any put on airs. The high positions she has held and her fame have not changed her. She ordered the classic Pakistani breakfast insisting that we should try it as well. This was the full works -halwa-puri, siri-paye, and nihari with paratha, and to top it all sweetmeats that had come particularly recommended. Brimming with Pakistani hospitality, she also ordered a full-scale English breakfast in case we preferred a less spectacular meal. She need not have worried. We tackled the halwa-puri with relish.
The restaurant reflected the new Bradford with its squeaky clean and spotless appearance. It even had the confidence of hiring an Englishman to play the piano without a hint of postmodern irony. It was surreal, eating halwa-puri and listening to "As Time Goes By".
What makes her position remarkable is the fact that she does not owe her eminence to her father or uncle. Rather, she rose to prominence through hard work and support of her role models: middle-class parents. Warsi believes that she got her sense of determination and confidence from her father, who had arrived in the UK with mere £2.50 to work in a mill and as a bus driver. He is now the owner of two multi-million pound businesses.
Being raised a Pakistani Muslim in Britain meant that Warsi always knew that she was different from her peers, whether that meant being called names, such as "Paki", "Asian", "black", or "coloured"; being forbidden from watching TV shows that her peers enjoyed; or wearing pants beneath her school uniform's skirt. When she learned about the Crusades in school, she discovered that the school's narrative bore little resemblance to the Islamic history she had been taught as a child that emphasised compassion, generosity, and friendship. She reflected, "It was another example of how British Muslim kids can have two experiences in parallel, how they can be living two presents based on two pasts, where the two aren't brought into a shared narrative to create a single figure."
Warsi shot to fame when she was appointed to the House of Lords during the summer of 2007. Soon, she became a star of Britain's Pakistani community. With a twinkle in her eye, she recounted during our meeting that at age 36, she had found herself a member of an organisation whose average age was 69.
Her recently published book, The Enemy Within: A Tale of Muslim Britain, is creating waves in Britain. She has been scathing about the government's counter-terrorism policy called Prevent, calling it "toxic" and "broken". The Prevent strategy, which she originally supported as part of a battle between violence and democracy, became problematic for her when she observed it began to alienate British Muslim communities. Instead of working alongside Muslims to address community concerns and causes of violence, attention was paid to the idea that "ideology" was driving terrorists to violence. Warsi noted, "To discuss root causes was seen as an expression of disloyalty."
Naturally enough, her outspoken criticism, delivered with such confidence, has incurred the wrath of many in the media who have poured their scorn into scathing reviews of her book. "Much of the resulting text reads like poor cut-and-pastes from Wikipedia," sniffed The Times.
While her faith was of little concern to others in her youth, a light has been cast on her Muslim identity in the decade since the terrorist attack on 7/7. All around her, Muslims have been cast as a monolithic group whose Islamic values are seen as inherently contradictory to British values, but, Warsi observes, "Muslims are a far cry from a monolith, and British values have evolved drastically over the past two centuries and will continue to evolve." She remains optimistic that if the mistakes made in dealing with Muslims in the past decade are corrected, it is possible to create a shared and inclusive British identity.
She urges Muslims to critically engage with the holy texts and history to determine the best way to live their lives in Britain. Politicians need to stop basing policy on personal agendas and instead develop policy rooted in fact, with emphasis on problem-solving and not fear mongering. Both need to reach out to each other to get to know the "other".
Warsi is an authentic bridge between the communities. She needs to be heeded by both sides.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/08-Apr-17/sayeeda-warsi-a-bridge-between-islam-and-the-west
----
Speaking Truth to Power
By Aijaz Zaka Syed
April 7, 2017
Arab and Muslim intellectuals often blame many of the Islamic world’s woes on the media and the ‘Zionist lobby’ that apparently controls and sets the agenda of the global media. But is the alleged media bias really a myth?
The Western media narrative is indeed hopelessly flawed and skewed and is often dictated by its economic and political interests worldwide. It remains hostage to powerful lobbies – especially the all-powerful Israeli lobby. Muslim intellectuals complain that it is this monopoly over the media that ostensibly allows them to distort and misrepresent our reality.
From the never-ending Middle East conflict to the general state of affairs in the Muslim world, the aggrieved Muslims believe that the world tends to view the complex reality of the Islamic world through the Israeli prism. And thanks to this stranglehold of the lobby over the global media, Arabs and Muslims lose the battle for hearts and minds even before it is begun.
So the Palestinians struggling to survive in their own land in which they have lived for centuries have to suffer the indignity of being demonised as ‘terrorists’. Their fight for freedom and dignity is painted as the terrorism of the followers of a ‘hateful ideology’, bent on blowing themselves up to destroy the ‘only democracy’ in the Middle East and its peaceful Western friends.
While the West props up its handpicked men as ‘moderate’ leaders, Arabs and Muslims are vilified for their ‘inherent’ inability to ‘embrace’ the blessings of Western democracy and freedom.
Clearly, this is an impossibly one-sided, asymmetrical battle. The Muslims feel that they are faced with a giant propaganda machine and its awesome power that has for years controlled their world and dictated its agenda. And their claim and historic sense of perpetually being at the receiving-end is not entirely without basis.
From the worldwide media empire of the likes of Rupert Murdoch – whose News Corp owns scores of newspapers, television channels and radio stations around the globe – to the stable of Time Warner – which owns some of the world’s most powerful newspapers, magazines and television networks – the lobby’s stranglehold over the global media industry is firm and complete.
This control even extends to Hollywood, the mighty dream factory that plays a critical role in building and perpetuating stereotypes and age-old myths and biases about ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ in Hollywood-speak.
Many of the major Hollywood studios and production companies are wholly or partly owned by the Zionist and pro-Israel groups and families. So it is little surprising then that Arabs and Muslims do not exactly come across as the friendliest and most likeable people on earth in films and television shows like ‘24’ and ‘Homeland’.
The fact that some of the top editors, columnists, writers and filmmakers in the US and elsewhere also happen to be pro-Israel also hasn’t helped our cause. Just look at the New York Times and the Washington Post – the two most formidable voices of the US establishment – and the proud line-up of their editors and columnists. From Tom Friedman to Charles Krauthammer, some of the biggest names in the business are staunch supporters of Israel and its divine claim over Arab lands.
If America as the sole superpower and the political and economic master of the free world controls our world, the Zionists, in turn, are seen as controlling Uncle Sam. No wonder the Republicans and Democrats are often vying with each other to woo the Zionist lobby. The lobby can make or mar any politician.
But to be fair to these movers and shakers, if they are there right at the top of the US establishment, they have every right to be there. After all, they have worked hard for years to be in the position that they are.
In fact, Muslims have no reason to bemoan the fact that the world pays them little attention while lapping up the distorted reality offered by the Zionist-controlled media and intellectual establishment.
After all, what have they done in all these years to present their side of the story before the world anyway? Very little, even though they have considerable human and natural resources at their disposal. While their precious resources are splurged on ostentatious delusions of grandeur, they have invested next to nothing in initiatives that could have helped them fight this critical battle of ideas.
Most media in the Muslim world lacks a killer instinct and professional approach. Many of them are preoccupied with what is considered non-news elsewhere, ignoring the real needs and challenges facing their people. The official media remains focused on paying endless tributes to men in power.
This is precisely why when Al Jazeera Arabic made its debut with its refreshingly bold and innovative approach more than two decades ago, it was lapped up by the hungry Arab audience. Again, this is why Al Jazeera English has made an unprecedented impact around the world. Today, it is heartwarming to see many international networks tune in to Al Jazeera to catch up on stories that they have missed.
Without doubt, this is the first credible attempt to meet the challenge on this front. This is the first media initiative targeting a global audience from a Middle-Eastern perspective. Although Al Jazeera Arabic also reached and targeted an international audience, it had always been, and is seen as, an Arab-Muslim perspective for an Arab-Muslim audience. The English news channel has consciously sought to present itself as a global news network with a difference.
The arrival of Al Jazeera thus represents a seminal event in the history of the Middle East and the Muslim world. It is a sign of the Middle Eastern media coming of age. But more than the Middle East, Al Jazeera’s arrival marks a new era for the global media.
Speaking and reporting in a language spoken and understood across the world, Al Jazeera English has been reaching out to a truly global audience. More importantly, it offers an alternative reality to the Western audiences and the rest of the world – a reality that is decidedly different from the sanitised worldview offered by the likes of CNN, BBC and Fox News. Broadcasting from four continents, the channel has put together a dream team that is known for its professional excellence and integrity.
Today, it is widely respected in the region and around the world for its world-class reportage and courage to take on issues that had once been perceived as taboo. In the process, it has also ended up ruffling many feathers and bruised many giant-sized egos. If its reporters have faced the wrath of el-Sisi’s Egypt with their coverage, the network’s offices in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region have been repeatedly bombed by the US under former US president George Bush. But then, whoever said speaking truth to power is easy?
Of course, reaching out to a world audience – especially the Western viewers – and winning their trust isn’t going to be easy for a network that is still panned as the ‘Bin Laden channel’. But a journey on this road has been started in earnest.
With its professional approach, dedication and persistence to report “all sides of a story”, the network is truly in the forefront of this battle of ideas. And hopefully Al Jazeera’s example would inspire others in the region and around the world to follow suit. We need more such channels out there.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/196977-Speaking-truth-to-power
----
A Phantom Legion
By Irfan Husain
April 8th, 2017
A current self-created crisis centres around Raheel Sharif’s post-retirement gig as supremo of the Islamic coalition created by Saudi Arabia.
All hell broke loose when the government announced it had given our ex-army chief permission to go for the riyals. The great and the good denounced the prime minister for pitching Pakistan into an anti-Shia coalition, asserting that this move would drive a wedge between our Sunni and Shia communities. It would also alienate Iran.
Hang on, folks, it’s not as bad as it seems. In fact, if you look at the whole thing closely, you will soon see it’s an illusion created by smoke and mirrors. All you have to do is remember the origins of this coalition: when Riyadh announced its formation in 2015, many of its proclaimed members had never heard of this alliance before. In fact, our foreign secretary said he had read about it in the newspapers.
So if one of the most militarily powerful Muslim countries — and the only nuclear power in the Muslim world — had no clue, how serious could the enterprise be? Slowly, reluctantly, a few countries raised their hands: after all, nobody wants to risk being cut off from the largesse that flows from the Saudi kingdom.
Nawaz Sharif, caught between his loyalty to the Saudis for pampering him during his years of exile, and the near-unanimous rejection of the hare-brained idea, did what he does best: dither. While promising to fight for his Saudi patrons if they were attacked, he regretfully declined the opportunity to slaughter Yemenis as incompetent Saudi Arabia and UAE pilots have been doing to such gruesome effect.
The Raheel appointment is not as bad as it seems.
But later, without taking the matter to parliament, he signalled his willingness to join the coalition after all, and gave approval to Raheel Sharif to take up his lucrative assignment. So what changed? Ah, I have a devious conspiracy theory to explain Nawaz Sharif’s subtle moves.
We all remember the Raheel Sharif posters that popped up on walls and lampposts around the country last year, urging him to stay on past his retirement date. These were accompanied by TV chat show hosts and their guests jumping up and down in unison, insisting that Pakistan could not afford to lose the services of a general who had spearheaded such a successful anti-terrorism campaign. Ditto many columnists and editors.
The campaign had all the hallmarks of an orchestrated ISPR effort to put pressure on Nawaz Sharif to offer the army chief an extension. The prime minister did not want to say no to a powerful, assertive and popular general; equally, he did not want such a widely admired figure around.
To get rid of him without confronting the military, he asked the Saudis to offer him the non-job of head of the coalition. When a formal request arrived, he told Raheel Sharif that while he and the whole nation would miss him, he had a higher responsibility to the ummah.
The general, not having received the offer of an extension as COAS yet, agreed. And good luck to him: the reported salary of million dollars, while chickenfeed to the Saudis, will come in handy after this stint as leader of a non-existent force is over. All this is pure speculation, of course, even if it fits together rather well.
My lack of confidence in the alliance stems from the track record of all such efforts by various combinations of Muslim states to achieve a common purpose. Starting from the defeat inflicted by Israeli soldiers and guerrillas on the combined Arab armies in 1948, to the military humiliations of 1956, 1967 and 1973, Arab generals and soldiers have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
Politically, too, Muslim cooperation remains a disapointment. The OIC, or Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, has been shambling around like a zombie for years, and has achieved nothing. A creature of the Saudis, it provides a sinecure for retired Muslim politicians, and makes the occasional empty declaration. It has done nothing to help the Palestinians, Kashmiris and the Rohingyas. Wars and quarrels between Muslim states fester on without the OIC taking a position.
So given all these splits and lethargy, why should we think the new Saudi-led alliance will do any better? I can picture Raheel Sharif now, going from one Muslim capital to the next, asking for firm commitments on troops, planes and ships. There will be much solemn nodding of heads among his hosts before a litany of excuses is trotted out. They will then ask for Saudi aid to buy new weapons.
The problem with being chief of a phantom legion is that unless you are Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings, you can’t really get your ghostly soldiers to fight terrorists or Iranians. So my advice to Raheel Sharif is to chill out in Riyadh: he won’t have to do any fighting anytime soon.
Source: dawn.com/news/1325643/a-phantom-legion
----
Dr Riaz Ahmed and An Inclusive Pakistan
By Amir Hussain
April 7, 2017
Progressive voices who strive to promote critical discourses on politics, democracy and the economy in Pakistan have always been victimised. This has not only occurred under dictatorial regimes but also under so-called democratic and civilian governments.
Sanity and nonconformity to an imposed uniformity has become a sin and those who commit it have always been maligned and considered a threat to national security. Although the constitution guarantees freedom of expression, progressives in Pakistan have been considered pariahs and the space for critical thinking has shrunk over the years. As a result, the narrowly-defined policy narrative of national security has gradually given birth to a centrifugal drift, causing an irreversible loss to nation-building, democratisation and equitable economic development.
For most of us, the devolution of power to provinces was a positive step towards an inclusive mode of governance. But it only formalised disparities and created a decentralised despotism where inept and corrupt provincial governments were given a freehand to persecute genuine voices for democracy and inclusive socioeconomic development.
Unrestrained by any legal and political accountability, the state can pick anyone it deems a threat to national security. The repressive treatment that was once meted out to a Baloch is now a national phenomenon that prevails from Gilgit to Gwadar. This phenomenon of harassment and fear-mongering has become so widespread across Pakistan that even university teachers, journalists and social media activists are not safe anymore.
Dr Riaz Ahmad’s arrest in Karachi on April 1 came as a shock. He was on his way to hold a press conference on the extrajudicial detention of a retired professor of history, Dr Hassan Zafar Arif, and was arrested for alleged association with the MQM-London. Dr Riaz Ahmad’s arrest was so farcical that anyone who happens to know him can only be amused at the allegations levelled against him. Even Dr Riaz’s opponents appreciate his principled stance as one of the most consistent, articulate and ardent critics of the MQM and its fascist tendencies and politics of violence. I was stunned when it was revealed that ‘association’ with the MQM-London was the initial reason for his arrest.
This is arguably the most unbecoming accusation against a progressive political activist who is considered to be one of the bravest dissenting voices against the politics of the MQM and the policies pursued by the establishment. He is perhaps among the sanest of the many voices that have played a pivotal role in helping liberate the Mohajir community of Karachi from fear-mongering by the MQM and repression by the state. Dr Riaz has been among the leading political activists who expose the repressive means employed by traditional political parties to control the city and to distract people from real issues such as poverty, income disparity, unemployment and environmental degradation.
I met Dr Riaz Ahmad for the first time in 1998 when I was a student of international relations at Karachi University and he had just returned from South Korea after completing his postdoctorate in applied chemistry. We had a long association of four years. During this period, I had the opportunity to learn a great deal through his political acumen, analytical depth and intrepidity to challenge the parochial but dominant nationalist and religious groups on campus. He has been a staunch supporter of issue-oriented politics with an international perspective of capitalism as a system of exploitation and underdevelopment. I was impressed by his ability to contextualise the anti-globalisation movements of 1999, which started from Seattle and Davos and sought to achieve economic equality, fair trade, environmental protection and economic protectionism for developing countries like Pakistan.
Dr Riaz laid the foundation for the International Socialist Group at Karachi University. As a student of international politics, I was among those lucky few who had the opportunity to participate in those critical discussions on international relations, politics and the global economy, which underlined the significance of the political struggle for democracy, human rights and freedom of expression. He has been an inspiration for young students who wanted to contribute towards promoting democratic politics on campus. For many of these young students and teachers, he remained an epitome of resistance against corruption, the privatisation of education and the tenure-track system of ad hoc employment at the university.
Dr Riaz has been one of the most vocal advocates of the rights of teachers, students and the oppressed working class of Pakistan. As a man of practice, he demonstrated that a mere interpretation of the abysmal state of affairs does not suffice if it is not backed by a practical struggle against the oppression and exploitation of the excluded and disadvantaged classes of Pakistan. He condemned the MQM and other nationalist groups for reducing genuine political and economic issues to territorial and ethnocentric concerns as well as for their divisive role in dislodging the collective struggle of the working class against political repression and economic exploitation. That is exactly why he has been disliked by the MQM and other nationalist groups alike and equally disliked by the establishment for his courage to speak truth to power.
When it was obvious that his association with the MQM-London could not be established, he was accused of possessing an illegal firearm. He was then handed over to the police to silence those who questioned the inefficiency of the information-sharing system within the security apparatus.
Dr Riaz’s arrest and the allegations that were subsequently levelled against him have two dimensions. First, it reflects the inefficiency in communication and coordination of our security and law-enforcement system. How could incorrect information be provided about Dr Riaz – and thereby serve the basis for his sudden arrest – without being verified by those who issued the order to arrest him as a security threat? If it is a matter of communication and efficiency alone, it may not be such a big deal. That can be improved and one can give the benefit of doubt to security personnel for being a bit clumsy. The second dimension is that if the arrest was a deliberate attempt to keep Dr Riaz and his comrades from raising genuine concerns against the illegal detention of political activists, that is not a good sign for the nascent democracy of Pakistan.
This incident also raised questions over the unwarranted detention of several political activists across Pakistan, including the arrest of young political activists in the Ghizer district of Gilgit-Baltistan in the recent past. These political activists were accused of possessing illegal weapons and sabotaging projects initiated under CPEC. They have not been given a chance to express their views, defend their civic rights and avail legal options as guaranteed under the constitution. These extrajudicial actions will weaken the system of democracy that is gradually taking root in Pakistan.
In order to strengthen democracy in Pakistan, we need to think about broadening our perspectives on national security and accept that progressives like Dr Riaz Ahmad can take us a step forward towards building an inclusive and egalitarian Pakistan. We hope that justice will prevail and the case against Dr Riaz Ahmad is dropped.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/196978-Dr-Riaz-Ahmad-and-an-inclusive-Pakistan
----
Bravo Dr Riaz Ahmed
By Abbas Nasir
April 8, 2017
THE callous idiocy of the state was on full display during the arrest of Karachi University Professor Dr Riaz Ahmed and the registration of a case against him for allegedly being ‘in possession of a weapon illegally’.
The sub-inspector of the Rangers on whose complaint the illegal weapon case was registered also said in the FIR that he identified the professor as a man who had spoken out in favour of the (social media) activists accused of blasphemy (after being disappeared by the mother of all agencies).
The official of one of the premier uniformed forces operating in Karachi credited with robustly putting down lawless gangs and armed, thuggish political activists did not say in his complaint that those disappeared and accused of blasphemy had since reappeared and were cleared of the charges.
One really wishes that even if the low-level official hadn’t, his ‘thinking’ senior officers had bothered to explore the record of the outspoken professor, for that would have revealed a man who does not believe silence to be an option.
He raised his voice against MQM leader Altaf Hussain and the MQM’s excesses when doing so in Karachi entailed great personal risk; he protested against the targeted killings of Shia Muslims and members of the minority communities as well as the extrajudicial executions of those detained but never brought to trial. There is hardly a cause that Dr Riaz Ahmed has not stood up for.
A self-avowed Marxist, the soft-spoken professor told BBC Urdu he also unequivocally condemns the blasphemous material against the Holy Prophet (PBUH) as he considers such caricatures/writings as an imperialist conspiracy to further the goal of Islamophobia and to demonise the Muslims by provoking them.
What reassurance does the state need that we are all on the same side?
The 52-year-old Dr Riaz Ahmed says that in his over two decades of activism he has neither thrown a stone himself nor instigated anyone to do so. He has exercised his right to protest legally and peacefully, but even this wasn’t acceptable to the authorities — the same ‘authorities’ that discouraged dissent and listened to not a single voice of reason when they were plunging headlong into what I can only describe as suicide in supporting religious extremists prone to terrorism as pawns on their national security chessboard.
Neither was any voice, other than their own wisdom’s, given a hearing when these authorities were neck deep in follies, whether in former East Pakistan or more recently in Kargil. Disagreement has often been likened to treason even when hindsight proved time and again who was actually right and representing the long-term interest of the federation.
This incredibly wise state has also embarked now on a mainstreaming exercise of militant organisations of different persuasions if those involved, at least for now, have spared our forces and not attacked them directly. But there is no deradicalisation programme to support such an initiative.
That there is a common ideological thread running through some of these organisations and those that have attacked the state does not seem relevant. You are kosher if you have fanned sectarian flames, even committed murders, as long as you have been a good boy and not challenged the state.
Of course, the state must see itself as different from its citizens, its subjects, because some of those earmarked for the mainstreaming project have bloodied their hands in churches, other places of worship and struck across the length and breadth of the country at ‘soft’ targets.
The problem is with the belief of the state and some of its institutions that they represent the national interest and thus are the repository of all patriotism in the country. Anyone falling out with their approach and thinking must, by definition, be anti-state and hence worthy of the harshest penalty.
How many times need one argue that such a belief has brought us to the precipice of disaster, and if the ongoing battle against terrorism does not make that apparent what else will? What reassurance does the state need that we are all on the same side? Do our hearts not bleed for the martyrs on the frontline?
Dr Riaz Ahmed’s travails were triggered when he, along with other academics, tried to address a news conference in order to demand the release of Dr Zafar Arif, their septuagenarian former colleague, who has been in detention despite failing health for joining MQM-London.
I remember Prof Arif from my university days when he taught philosophy and was an inspirational figure for all progressive students. In fact, his dismissal order by the then martial law administrator listed “hobnobbing” with student troublemakers on the Admin Block pulya (culvert) as a charge.
This talked of the disdain of the Zia regime for the left as the right-wing Islami Jamiat-i-Talaba and its backers in the teachers’ fraternity were given carte blanche to do as they pleased. Dr Zafar Arif was assaulted more than once by IJT members.
Frankly, I was surprised when he announced he was joining the MQM and would address a news conference, as there are few examples of hardcore leftists finding common cause with an ethnic political party. But did I also believe Dr Arif had no right to do this or that he was a traitor?
Not for a moment. He has always stood for causes he believes to be legitimate and, even if I may disagree with him on this occasion, how can I or anyone else not protest against his imprisonment if he has not broken any law nor been indicted for non-bailable offences/crimes in a court of law?
Despite the recent successes of the military operations and sacrifices of our soldiers, paramilitary forces and the police, the country will need to fight a sustained, long war to eradicate terrorism. Surely, assigning such a high priority to silencing peaceful dissent is misplaced, even foolish.
Source: dawn.com/news/1325641/bravo-dr-riaz-ahmed
----
Honouring Chanakya
By Dr Ramesh Kumar Vankwani
April 7, 2017
Aristotle defined political science as the study of the state. Many other philosophers including Plato, Confucius and Machiavelli also presented their theories on political science. But a visionary philosopher who belongs to our land has also provided useful insights on the subject.
The legendary philosopher, Chanakya, was born in Taxila in 371 BCE. According to historians, he is also known as Kauilya or Vishnugupta. He dedicated his life to proving his theories and was successful in transferring all his knowledge to the next generations in the form of a book, ‘Arthashastra’.
‘Arthashastra’, originally written in Sanskrit, has been translated into different languages, including English and Urdu. ‘Artha’ means ‘prosperity’, ‘wealth’ or ‘economic security’ while ‘Shastra’ means ‘rules’ or ‘science’.
This ancient Indian political treatise, often translated as ‘the science of politics’, covers a large number of topics such as the nature of government, rules and regulations, civil and criminal court systems, ethics, economics, markets and trade, ministerial and administrative setup, diplomacy, theories on war, peace and development and duties and obligations of rulers. Hindu philosophy, economic and cultural aspects of agriculture, mineralogy, mining and metals, medicine, animal husbandry and forests and wildlife are also part of the book.
Although ‘Arthashastra’ is divided into 150 chapters on different topics, we unjustifiably state that Chanakya only taught sly tactics. The methods for spying, propaganda and acquiring information about enemy states form a small portion of his comprehensive book. Moreover, these are necessary tactics and are widely practised by almost all states, whether they belonged to Muslim caliphates or are today’s modern countries.
I would like to share some quotes from ‘Arthashastra’:
“A person should not be too honest. Straight trees are cut first and honest people are eliminated first. There is some self-interest behind every friendship....there is no friendship without self-interest”.
“Before you start some work, always ask yourself three questions: Why I am doing this? What might the results be? Will I be successful? Only when you think deeply and find satisfactory answers to these questions, go ahead”.
“Once you start working on something, don’t be afraid of failure and don’t abandon it. People who work sincerely are the happiest”.
“The biggest guru-mantra is: Never share your secrets with anybody. If you cannot keep a secret with you, do not expect the others to keep it. It will destroy you”.
“A man is great by deeds, not by birth”.
“Books are as useful to a stupid person as a mirror is to a blind person”.
Chanakya’s wisdom also assisted Chandragupta Maurya in establishing the Maurya Empire – the first ancient Indian empire. When the armies of Alexander the Great were conquering almost half the world, Chandragupta, following the valuable advice of his mentor Chanakya, defeated the Greek army with the support of smaller states.
A series of major economic and political reforms – central administration, an organised bureaucratic structure and speedy justice system – were passed in the Maurya Empire for the betterment of the public on the recommendations of ‘Arthashastra’. Chanakya’s book also provided guidelines for the development of a strong economy with particular focus on trade and agriculture. The book presented the concept of a mixed economy where the private sector and the state enterprise frequently competed side by side. The Maurya Empire also made important contributions in the fields of art and architecture. At a time when the Dark Ages were looming large, Chanakya founded a university at Taxila.
The diplomatic enclave in New Delhi is named Chanakyapuri to acknowledge the services of Chanakya. Various Indian institutes are also named after him including Training Ship Chanakya, Chanakya National Law University and Chanakya Institute of Public Leadership.
It is regrettable that such a wise philosopher is being portrayed as a negative Brahmin character in his own country of birth. Ironically, while the people of Pakistan are being forced to disown him, the world is recognising him as a visionary philosopher. Scholars admit that ‘Arthashastra’ is still very influential, particularly to understand the political scenario and diplomatic relations between different nations.
We must understand that such intellectuals are a gift to us and their teachings based on wisdom can help people achieve success. We must feel honoured that Chanakya belonged to our land.
I would like to propose the establishment of a world class university in Taxila to acknowledge him. The doors of the proposed International Chanakya University for political and social sciences can also be opened for foreign students. This will result in projecting a positive, prejudice-free and knowledge-friendly image of Pakistan at an international level.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/196981-Honouring-Chanakya
----
Afghanistan Is No Vietnam
By M Ziauddin
April 8, 2017
The Soviets tried to introduce socialism to the Afghans but failed miserably. Likewise, the US is failing equally miserably in introducing democracy to the Afghans.
The Soviets disappeared from the face of the earth, because of their Afghan folly which was the last straw on the camel’s already snapped back.
On the other hand, the US seems to be facing a Vietnam-like situation in Afghanistan without, however, facing a similar end-game because no one in the world wants Washington to fail in this war against terrorism.
But the US itself appears to have been swamped by an acute sense of frustration. In a recent article (How Pakistan Warped into a Geopolitical Monster) published in an US magazine The National Interest, on April 2, 2017 author Robert Cassidy maintains that after 15-plus years, the war in Afghanistan remains a strategic stalemate.
“The coalition and Afghan forces have hit the enemy’s capacity year after year, but the Taliban’s will — their senior leaders, support, resources, rest, regeneration and arms — continue to benefit from sanctuary and support from Pakistan’s security establishment. In his testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of this year, the theatre commander, Gen John Nicholson, stated that he believed the war in Afghanistan was a stalemate.”
Most official US reports and testimonies on the situation in Afghanistan, according to Mr Cassidy, explicitly state, for the public record, that Pakistan’s sanctuary and support prevent the defeat of the Taliban.
“A reduction of this sanctuary and cessation of the sources of support for the Taliban in Pakistan is the strategic sine qua non for ending the war in Afghanistan with modest success.
“General Nicholson has told the Senate Armed Services Committee in February that multiple witnesses have appeared before this body and testified that insurgents cannot be defeated while they enjoy external sanctuary and support from outside of the national boundaries of the conflict area.
“Pakistan continues to pose a grave strategic risk for the war in Afghanistan. This war will not end, or it will end badly, unless the West and its regional partners bring the full weight of their collective national powers to break Pakistan of its pathological strategic behaviour.”
Further quoting General Nicholson, Mr Cassidy said that 20 US-designated terrorist organisations operate in the Afghanistan-Pakistan sub-region; seven of the 20 organisations are in Pakistan. “So long as these groups maintain safe haven inside of Pakistan they will threaten long-term stability in Afghanistan.”
One recalls that similar analyses were pouring out of US think tanks, its media and strategic experts when the war in Vietnam was going the wrong way for Washington. Many had started accusing the neighbouring Cambodia of harbouring the Vietcong and providing them sanctuaries and then in desperation that country was bombed.
This leads one to the dangerous conclusion that perhaps the US is mistaking the Afghan war as some kind of a repeat of its Vietnam experience.
The Soviets moved into Afghanistan determined to turn it into a socialist country without realising that you cannot impose socialism on a tribal society which Afghanistan was at that time and still is. The US has been trying futilely to introduce democracy in a country warped up in tribalism.
Not that Pakistan is free from tribalism. It is afflicted with feudalism as well. Most of rural Pakistan is tribal and large parts of urban region are immersed in feudalism. In such societies the writ of state continuously comes into direct clash with the obscure cultural norms.
That is perhaps why non-state militant organisations could thrive with total impunity in Pakistan and Afghanistan. So, instead of blaming Pakistan for Washington’s Afghan problems the US should re-read the cultural ground reality in Afghanistan and empathetically manage to lift it out of its tribal pit rather than trying to force democracy down its throat.
Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1377652/afghanistan-no-vietnam/
----
Refreshing Civil-Military Interaction
By Muhammad Usman
April 8, 2017
ISPR’ tweet read that Chairman Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf, Imran Khan called on COAS General Qamar Javed Bajwa. He felicitated him on his promotion and appointment. Various issues came under discussion. Imran Khan also termed the meeting a glad tiding for the nation while tersely replying a question about the meeting. Admittedly, in a perfect environments, need of meeting of this sort does not arise. In Pakistan, environments are different by the far distance. In given circumstances, such meeting needs to be viewed through lens of realism instead of skepticism. In a third world country like Pakistan, Army also acts as a stabilisation force. It would be less than fair if meeting is not viewed objectively in the context of overall obtaining situation in the country and national response.
Since over a decade, Army is fighting non-stop on many fronts resolutely in a sense of exhilaration, imbued with supreme sacrifice of all kinds. It includes terrorism in breadth and depth of the country, militancy in Balochistan, crimes of dangerous proportions, frequent escalations at Line of Control/Working Boundary, undiminished mantra of Do More by US, galloping Indian intrigues in collusion with fast falling Afghanistan in their lap, pressing diplomatic engagements and other international commitments. It is one list fraught with formidable challenges. Other one is also immense in magnitude and greater in urgency. This contains early provision of infrastructure and rehabilitations of IDPs, security of CPEC, relief work in event of natural calamity and active support in a work of national importance and necessity like national census and PSL etc.
On top of all, Army is invariably rushed in emergencies calling for SOS response. This all constitutes a task much beyond its designation but is being performed ungrudgingly because its rank and file have sworn to defend ideological and territorial integrity of Pakistan under all circumstances and at all cost; dust, sweat and red hot blood. Over a recent past and at present, they have given all in plenty nevertheless, prudently they would like that this does not go in vain. Redo is always more exacting and cost expensive particularly, when there is no luxury of time and resources to squander. Only viable option is to move forward. No interruption is affordable because clock is ticking fast. This is precisely the reason that Armed Forces are ready to go even many extra lengths; a fact widely acknowledged. Nation trusts Armed Forces and considers them their true saviours.
Besides, Armed Forces have remained apolitical even under extreme pressure. They have not infringed at civil domain unnecessarily. Inevitably former COAS General Asfaq PervaizKayani had to intervene when a long march led by present Prime Minister of the country was poised at Gujranwala to storm Capital Islamabad and situation was likely to spin out of control. This step was widely hailed by the nation. Again a role of facilitator undertaken by General Raheel Sharif at the time of Dharna at Islamabad was on behest of the government which was later vainly denied by them. On their denial, he was big enough to step back while showing the grace. In short, Armed Forces have done/are doing everything possible to rid the country of all challenges while affording opportunity for political system to stay at path to stabilization.
As a whole, it is considered an imperative for the nation to move forward steadily. It is an earnest of concern, not because of consideration of anachronism and abhorrence about military rule. In world, democracy is no sacrosanct. It is an adjustable commodity. Apt examples are; west supports military rule in Egypt and democracy in Turkey is an irritant in their eyes. No amount of wild speculation and bickering/twisting by vested interests could denigrate what Armed Forces have done earnestly because actions speak louder than words and Pakistani nation is not ungrateful. There is no plausible reason to disbelieve what Imran Khan has said about the meeting; COAS stands by democracy.
Imran Khan as the world knows is a man of impeccable credibility and undying perseverance to his ideals. It is breathtaking to see how many times he has fallen before reaching at pinnacle of his political undertaking. He remained in political wilderness for long sixteen years. A man of lesser character would have left politics or joined the cohort of self-seeking vested interests, ever present in Pakistan. There was no dearth of opportunities for him including premiership of the country but he remained steadfast. Probably he thinks that he has a job to do for sake of the country.
One US embassy cable as revealed by Wikki Leaks, clearly states that Imran Khan is only politician in Pakistan who is not under their influence. It is a rare distinction in a country where power and money make a mere go. The nod of US is considered a huge plus. Contrarily to an existing pessimistic view, time is changing in Pakistan. The truth has begun the march. Imran Khan is a main moving force. It is just a matter of time when it would finally triumphs because youth, middle class and women are in its vanguard. For Imran Khan, shortest and viable route to power is through honest ballot, not through backdoors. His past record and recent conduct also indicate that he thinks identically and would not like to go on a detour.
In above backdrop, meeting between COAS and Imran Khan is a meeting between the two who have toiled hard to see the country free of dangers and sufferings and be on a path which could lead to strengthen political system and jumpstart the course of real progress and development. On good reasons, it may be safe to assume that meeting would yield refreshingly and positively for betterment of critical national pursuits. It merits more a sanguine view, not a cynical view which tends to read too much between the lines about the meeting.
Source: pakobserver.net/refreshing-civil-military-interaction/
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/sayeeda-warsi-—-bridge-between/d/110687