.gif)
Sunday 27 November 2011
Sunday 20 November 2011
Minority report
Blood, meat and hides marked the first day of Eid-ul-Azha in Pakistan. While most Muslims celebrated their holy festival by sacrificing animals, some decided to achieve new levels of faith by targeting Hindus in Shikarpur. Three doctors were shot dead in broad daylight in Chak Town, allegedly, after a conflict arose between the Bhayo tribe and the Hindu community over a dancing girl.
Prior to the murders, the issue had already captured the attention of the local elders and a jirga was to be convened after Eid. Threats were issued to the Hindu community and reported to the local police but to no avail. Why is it that the government machinery only comes into motion after a tragedy has unfolded? The president and prime minister have both condemned the murders and ordered an inquiry. The police have since been prompt in arresting many from the Bhayo tribe. As anybody in Pakistan will tell you, arrests don’t necessarily mean justice. This is not the only case of Hindus being discriminated against in Pakistan – Sindh, long known for the wisdom of renowned Sufis and saints, is now home to a whole new brand of faith.
This ghastly incident takes me back to another instance in Lahore last year, when two shrines of the minority Ahmadi sect were attacked, leaving more than 90 people dead. Threats to Ahmadis were ignored then too, and calls for greater government protection in the future fell on deaf ears.
A few months ago, Faisalabad was witness to brazen warnings on Ahmadis; pamphlets labelling members of the Ahmadi community “wajib-ul-qatal” were distributed comprising names and identities of Ahmadi industrialists, doctors and businessmen. Most recently, Ahmadi residents in Lahore’s Satellite Town have been asked to leave or face dire consequences. This because they have established their place of worship which is deemed ‘unconstitutional’ by some.
It surprises me that we have forgotten those very people who helped draft the resolution that gave us Pakistan. Mohammad Zafarullah Khan was an Ahmadi but it was he who drafted the Pakistan Resolution and represented the Muslim League’s view when it came to deciding the future boundaries between India and Pakistan. He also served as Pakistan’s first minister for foreign affairs. Jinnah with his liberal views chose men to represent his country on merit, not religion, caste or creed. Pakistan’s first law minister was a Hindu who had more faith in Jinnah’s liberal views than the Congress’ secular ones; hence he decided to stay in Pakistan. Mandal was supposed to draft the first constitution of Pakistan; however he never got around to staying here long enough to see that to fruition. He resigned from the cabinet due to the consistent persecution of Hindus in Pakistan and moved back to India shortly after Jinnah’s death.
Encouraging persecution of minorities in Pakistan allows intolerance to flourish and has created precisely the kind of second-class citizenry in Pakistan – with uncertain rights and prejudiced values – that the country’s democratic principles were expected to avoid. For 64 years the whole point has been to come to some sort of conclusion as to whether this Islamic Republic of Pakistan can accommodate minorities without threatening their person, faith and livelihood. The idea has been to remove ambiguities and knock off a predominant holier-than-thou attitude towards Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis and Parsis. That clarity was in part, intended for the welfare of the existing minorities, so they could break free from their trap of uncertainty and insecurity. With a secular party at the helm, was this too much to ask for?
As religious historian Karen Armstrong stated recently: “like art, religion is difficult to do well and is often done badly.” The way to experiencing art is through an artist’s eyes. Similarly, religion is usually judged by how it is followed. The secular Pakistan Peoples Party distanced its views from those of Maulvi Nawaz Sharif’s – the alleged closet Taliban. However, it was “Maulvi Sahib” who made his way to Chak town and personally conveyed his condolences to the bereaved Hindu families. It was Sharif who pleaded to the Hindu community not to leave Pakistan, not our “secular” ruling party or its equally “secular” allies, the ANP or the MQM.
Pakistan’s minority dilemma is complex because secularism and conservatism don’t go their separate ways, but come together. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was considered Pakistan’s most secular and liberal leader, however by adopting the Objectives Resolution in the 1973 constitution, he ended up empowering conservative forces.
Similarly, the man who promised Pakistan “enlightened moderation” also gave way to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. General (r) Pervez Musharraf’s regime gave more power to the maulvis than any other government in Pakistan. Claiming to be Pakistan’s ray of hope, Imran Khan too has disappointed his secular voters (and some party workers). In an interview with Indian journalist Karan Thapar, Khan said he realised the need to ban militant organisations however, when asked to take names, he refused. Khan said he knew the threat that looms large since the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, was murdered and hence would not endanger his own life by taking names. And his motto is? You guessed it! Change.
However, it seems the most conservative leader has turned out to be the most secular. From his proposed policy of looking inward for a solution to the war on terror, to envisioning an open trade and better relations with India, Nawaz Sharif has ended up doing what the PPP has long promised. But there are still question marks on some of his party’s leaders harbouring relations with banned outfits and participating in their rallies. His own brother and chief minister of Punjab had previously pleaded with the Taliban not to attack Punjab because of their anti-US policy. As if the other three provinces are in complete disagreement with the views of the TTP and therefore deserve to die.
Persecution of minorities in Pakistan is on a steady rise. It’s not only non-Muslims who are under threat; the minority Muslim sects are also bearing its brunt. In the last two years, almost every important day in the Shiite calendar has been witness to attacks. There have also been attacks on religious shrines of Data Darbar, Abdullah Shah Ghazi and Baba Farid. Scholars who disavowed this form of brutal violence as un-Islamic were either martyred like Maulana Sarfaraz Naeemi and Maulana Hasan Jaan, or they had to flee the country.
Come to think of it, one way or the other, we are all minorities – Punjabis in Balochistan, Mohajirs in Punjab, Pashtuns in Sindh, Baloch in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – we are all victims of this prejudice. Will we realise, in time, what we don’t condemn today for others could very well be our fate tomorrow.
Prior to the murders, the issue had already captured the attention of the local elders and a jirga was to be convened after Eid. Threats were issued to the Hindu community and reported to the local police but to no avail. Why is it that the government machinery only comes into motion after a tragedy has unfolded? The president and prime minister have both condemned the murders and ordered an inquiry. The police have since been prompt in arresting many from the Bhayo tribe. As anybody in Pakistan will tell you, arrests don’t necessarily mean justice. This is not the only case of Hindus being discriminated against in Pakistan – Sindh, long known for the wisdom of renowned Sufis and saints, is now home to a whole new brand of faith.
This ghastly incident takes me back to another instance in Lahore last year, when two shrines of the minority Ahmadi sect were attacked, leaving more than 90 people dead. Threats to Ahmadis were ignored then too, and calls for greater government protection in the future fell on deaf ears.
A few months ago, Faisalabad was witness to brazen warnings on Ahmadis; pamphlets labelling members of the Ahmadi community “wajib-ul-qatal” were distributed comprising names and identities of Ahmadi industrialists, doctors and businessmen. Most recently, Ahmadi residents in Lahore’s Satellite Town have been asked to leave or face dire consequences. This because they have established their place of worship which is deemed ‘unconstitutional’ by some.
It surprises me that we have forgotten those very people who helped draft the resolution that gave us Pakistan. Mohammad Zafarullah Khan was an Ahmadi but it was he who drafted the Pakistan Resolution and represented the Muslim League’s view when it came to deciding the future boundaries between India and Pakistan. He also served as Pakistan’s first minister for foreign affairs. Jinnah with his liberal views chose men to represent his country on merit, not religion, caste or creed. Pakistan’s first law minister was a Hindu who had more faith in Jinnah’s liberal views than the Congress’ secular ones; hence he decided to stay in Pakistan. Mandal was supposed to draft the first constitution of Pakistan; however he never got around to staying here long enough to see that to fruition. He resigned from the cabinet due to the consistent persecution of Hindus in Pakistan and moved back to India shortly after Jinnah’s death.
Encouraging persecution of minorities in Pakistan allows intolerance to flourish and has created precisely the kind of second-class citizenry in Pakistan – with uncertain rights and prejudiced values – that the country’s democratic principles were expected to avoid. For 64 years the whole point has been to come to some sort of conclusion as to whether this Islamic Republic of Pakistan can accommodate minorities without threatening their person, faith and livelihood. The idea has been to remove ambiguities and knock off a predominant holier-than-thou attitude towards Christians, Hindus, Ahmadis and Parsis. That clarity was in part, intended for the welfare of the existing minorities, so they could break free from their trap of uncertainty and insecurity. With a secular party at the helm, was this too much to ask for?
As religious historian Karen Armstrong stated recently: “like art, religion is difficult to do well and is often done badly.” The way to experiencing art is through an artist’s eyes. Similarly, religion is usually judged by how it is followed. The secular Pakistan Peoples Party distanced its views from those of Maulvi Nawaz Sharif’s – the alleged closet Taliban. However, it was “Maulvi Sahib” who made his way to Chak town and personally conveyed his condolences to the bereaved Hindu families. It was Sharif who pleaded to the Hindu community not to leave Pakistan, not our “secular” ruling party or its equally “secular” allies, the ANP or the MQM.
Pakistan’s minority dilemma is complex because secularism and conservatism don’t go their separate ways, but come together. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was considered Pakistan’s most secular and liberal leader, however by adopting the Objectives Resolution in the 1973 constitution, he ended up empowering conservative forces.
Similarly, the man who promised Pakistan “enlightened moderation” also gave way to the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. General (r) Pervez Musharraf’s regime gave more power to the maulvis than any other government in Pakistan. Claiming to be Pakistan’s ray of hope, Imran Khan too has disappointed his secular voters (and some party workers). In an interview with Indian journalist Karan Thapar, Khan said he realised the need to ban militant organisations however, when asked to take names, he refused. Khan said he knew the threat that looms large since the Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, was murdered and hence would not endanger his own life by taking names. And his motto is? You guessed it! Change.
However, it seems the most conservative leader has turned out to be the most secular. From his proposed policy of looking inward for a solution to the war on terror, to envisioning an open trade and better relations with India, Nawaz Sharif has ended up doing what the PPP has long promised. But there are still question marks on some of his party’s leaders harbouring relations with banned outfits and participating in their rallies. His own brother and chief minister of Punjab had previously pleaded with the Taliban not to attack Punjab because of their anti-US policy. As if the other three provinces are in complete disagreement with the views of the TTP and therefore deserve to die.
Persecution of minorities in Pakistan is on a steady rise. It’s not only non-Muslims who are under threat; the minority Muslim sects are also bearing its brunt. In the last two years, almost every important day in the Shiite calendar has been witness to attacks. There have also been attacks on religious shrines of Data Darbar, Abdullah Shah Ghazi and Baba Farid. Scholars who disavowed this form of brutal violence as un-Islamic were either martyred like Maulana Sarfaraz Naeemi and Maulana Hasan Jaan, or they had to flee the country.
Come to think of it, one way or the other, we are all minorities – Punjabis in Balochistan, Mohajirs in Punjab, Pashtuns in Sindh, Baloch in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa – we are all victims of this prejudice. Will we realise, in time, what we don’t condemn today for others could very well be our fate tomorrow.
Sunday 13 November 2011
Sunday 6 November 2011
His name is Khan, Imran Khan
With the Pakistani media coverage a cacophonous standoff, and terms like neutrality vanishing from the airwaves, it seems like whatever opinion this journalist may embrace it’s bound to be disapproved of.
When my programmes echoed support for the Swat operation I was allegedly towing the establishment’s line. When I was critical of General Musharraf, it was Nawaz Sharif’s party that I was supporting. Raising questions on the conduct of our armed forces gained me the membership of the CIA-sponsored journalists’ club. Interestingly however when I criticise the PPP government, I am back on the generals’ payroll and also the Sharif’s! Monogamous, I’m so not. Taking sides against the Muttahida doesn’t necessarily slot me as a ‘paid’ journalist but the fear factor is deterrent enough.
Currently, it’s the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s president one is not allowed to assess critically. Those who maintain their journalistic responsibility to present both sides of a story are accused of being unpatriotic and funded by the opposition. The lines in Pakistani politics are very clearly drawn – one wonders where exactly Pakistan’s most famous son is positioned on this spectrum.
Electoral campaigns have never been this much fun. Shahbaz sang Jalib with such fervour that he brought tears to his own eyes. Altaf Hussain showed his softer side by singing the same Jalib verse albeit changing the words to reflect his new alliances. Khan chose to let others sing for him, inviting revolutionary bards like Shehzad Roy, Strings and the one-hit wonder, Shahzaman. Carefully choreographed, Khan’s rally was a success, proving that politics can be sexy.
For many, Khan is almost like a mystery wrapped in an enigma. But there are even more paradoxes in the attitude of the ruling government towards him. Emerging as an opposition party, it would seem plausible – given the political dynamics of Pakistan – for the government and its coalition partners to make some noise against Khan and his party. Punjab’s governor Sardar Latif Khosa granted the PTI the role of the “real” opposition, however neither he nor his party stand opposed to it. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement has obviously forgotten Khan’s jarring remarks against it at Karachi airport when he was not allowed to enter the city. In return, Khan has also conveniently forgotten the cases he had registered against Altaf Hussain in London.
Aside from entertainment, what did we, the public, get out of the PTI’s recent show of strength? Khan began by referring to the letter allegedly written by President Zardari to Admiral Mullen, in which he asked for protection from his army. Khan used the term “Apni army” with such incredulity that one wondered whether he had also been sharing space with Qaddafi in that pipe. So, for the sake of putting history right: Zulkiqar Ali Bhutto went to the gallows because his “own” army betrayed him. Years later, Benazir Bhutto was also shown the door by the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad – an alternate force formed by the ISI. Benazir Bhutto’s departure gave way to Nawaz Sharif – a man positioned by the military to create political balance in Pakistan (read: military’s preference). The same Nawaz Sharif was thrown off balance by his own army in 1999. For a civilian leader, it’s only your own army until the knife is in your back Mr Khan.
Pakistan’s most pressing issue is a lack of civil continuity and the space to work without the establishment dictating terms. That is what civil governments push for and that is when our own army intercedes. I would have liked to hear you mention that in your speech Mr Khan – as columnist Nadeem Paracha pointed out – there were more than just ‘facebook crowds’ attending.
Khan’s long deliberation over the war on terror is a case study in schizophrenia. Imran Khan wants to talk peace with extremists who have forcibly occupied a large area of Pakistani land to dictate their agenda. Khan also seeks to bring terrorists into the mainstream – if it was up to him, those who have killed more than 40,000 innocent people may be welcomed in parliament!
He aims to secure order by stopping drone attacks which he believes fuel militants’ revenge. If local terrorism is drone-driven, where were the drones in Swat? If there was a strike, the media clearly didn’t cover it. Pakistan’s vast coal reserves lie buried underground, their extraction halted as the Chinese have fled amid security fears. Law and order, however, is the least of Imran’s worries.
Neither a realist nor an idealist, Imran Khan has a split personality when it comes to foreign policy. He struck a nerve with many people when he spoke of his suggested solution for Kashmir: Khan will ask the Indian army to withdraw from Kashmir. Will he induce the Indian army to withdraw through diplomacy or will alternate pressure come into play?
India will obviously want a quid pro quo deal. And dare I ask, how will Khan make Pakistan live up to their side of the commitment. Khan will make sure that he halts army action in Balochistan. I wonder if he’s already posed the idea to General Pasha and/or General Kayani in one of their alleged secret meetings. If they have agreed then this is breaking news. If they haven’t, this news will be heartbreaking for those who took his words seriously.
Khan also promised to broaden the tax base when he comes into power. This, from the same man who opposed the value added tax? Khan declared Nawaz Sharif unfit to fight dengue. Sure, the Sharifs have failed in combating dengue but dare I ask – does Khan recall which single lab refused to lower its rates to 90 rupees to conduct dengue testing?
Reforming the notoriously corrupt police force is also on Khan’s agenda. He suggests popular votes to appoint SHOs so people can have no complaints. Again, Khan astounds. If elected leaders have public support and elicit no complaints, how is Khan able to rally such support from a nation “sick” of corrupt leadership?
Khan’s prescription for our ailing corruption was also just what the doctor ordered: declare all foreign assets or brace yourself for a civil disobedience movement. This when the country has a free judiciary and a law in place to tackle misappropriations and unaccountability. Why take to the streets when you can go to court?
Khan, however did not utter a single word regarding accountability within the military. How about asking for a declaration of the assets they have acquired during their tenure, or auditing the trillions that we have pumped into the armed forces in the last few decades?
Khan’s solo flight in ‘97 took off with his belief that he would secure himself the post of prime minister. That kept him engaged until General Musharraf’s coup d’etat. Khan supported the general till his referendum and later boycotted the 2008 elections. Khan’s pendulum-like swinging from one position to the other speaks volumes of his naivety and lack of understanding of Pakistan’s politics.
Khan thinks he can conquer it all with faith. However, faith alone cannot achieve the desired objectives. Even a World Cup win required more than Imran Khan’s inspirational captaincy like Wasim Akram’s fast bowling, the consistent batting of Javed Miandad and Inzamam-ul-Haq’s hard hits. Will men like Hamid Khan, Mian Azhar and Mehmood ur Rasheed help bring the cup home?
When my programmes echoed support for the Swat operation I was allegedly towing the establishment’s line. When I was critical of General Musharraf, it was Nawaz Sharif’s party that I was supporting. Raising questions on the conduct of our armed forces gained me the membership of the CIA-sponsored journalists’ club. Interestingly however when I criticise the PPP government, I am back on the generals’ payroll and also the Sharif’s! Monogamous, I’m so not. Taking sides against the Muttahida doesn’t necessarily slot me as a ‘paid’ journalist but the fear factor is deterrent enough.
Currently, it’s the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s president one is not allowed to assess critically. Those who maintain their journalistic responsibility to present both sides of a story are accused of being unpatriotic and funded by the opposition. The lines in Pakistani politics are very clearly drawn – one wonders where exactly Pakistan’s most famous son is positioned on this spectrum.
Electoral campaigns have never been this much fun. Shahbaz sang Jalib with such fervour that he brought tears to his own eyes. Altaf Hussain showed his softer side by singing the same Jalib verse albeit changing the words to reflect his new alliances. Khan chose to let others sing for him, inviting revolutionary bards like Shehzad Roy, Strings and the one-hit wonder, Shahzaman. Carefully choreographed, Khan’s rally was a success, proving that politics can be sexy.
For many, Khan is almost like a mystery wrapped in an enigma. But there are even more paradoxes in the attitude of the ruling government towards him. Emerging as an opposition party, it would seem plausible – given the political dynamics of Pakistan – for the government and its coalition partners to make some noise against Khan and his party. Punjab’s governor Sardar Latif Khosa granted the PTI the role of the “real” opposition, however neither he nor his party stand opposed to it. The Muttahida Qaumi Movement has obviously forgotten Khan’s jarring remarks against it at Karachi airport when he was not allowed to enter the city. In return, Khan has also conveniently forgotten the cases he had registered against Altaf Hussain in London.
Aside from entertainment, what did we, the public, get out of the PTI’s recent show of strength? Khan began by referring to the letter allegedly written by President Zardari to Admiral Mullen, in which he asked for protection from his army. Khan used the term “Apni army” with such incredulity that one wondered whether he had also been sharing space with Qaddafi in that pipe. So, for the sake of putting history right: Zulkiqar Ali Bhutto went to the gallows because his “own” army betrayed him. Years later, Benazir Bhutto was also shown the door by the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad – an alternate force formed by the ISI. Benazir Bhutto’s departure gave way to Nawaz Sharif – a man positioned by the military to create political balance in Pakistan (read: military’s preference). The same Nawaz Sharif was thrown off balance by his own army in 1999. For a civilian leader, it’s only your own army until the knife is in your back Mr Khan.
Pakistan’s most pressing issue is a lack of civil continuity and the space to work without the establishment dictating terms. That is what civil governments push for and that is when our own army intercedes. I would have liked to hear you mention that in your speech Mr Khan – as columnist Nadeem Paracha pointed out – there were more than just ‘facebook crowds’ attending.
Khan’s long deliberation over the war on terror is a case study in schizophrenia. Imran Khan wants to talk peace with extremists who have forcibly occupied a large area of Pakistani land to dictate their agenda. Khan also seeks to bring terrorists into the mainstream – if it was up to him, those who have killed more than 40,000 innocent people may be welcomed in parliament!
He aims to secure order by stopping drone attacks which he believes fuel militants’ revenge. If local terrorism is drone-driven, where were the drones in Swat? If there was a strike, the media clearly didn’t cover it. Pakistan’s vast coal reserves lie buried underground, their extraction halted as the Chinese have fled amid security fears. Law and order, however, is the least of Imran’s worries.
Neither a realist nor an idealist, Imran Khan has a split personality when it comes to foreign policy. He struck a nerve with many people when he spoke of his suggested solution for Kashmir: Khan will ask the Indian army to withdraw from Kashmir. Will he induce the Indian army to withdraw through diplomacy or will alternate pressure come into play?
India will obviously want a quid pro quo deal. And dare I ask, how will Khan make Pakistan live up to their side of the commitment. Khan will make sure that he halts army action in Balochistan. I wonder if he’s already posed the idea to General Pasha and/or General Kayani in one of their alleged secret meetings. If they have agreed then this is breaking news. If they haven’t, this news will be heartbreaking for those who took his words seriously.
Khan also promised to broaden the tax base when he comes into power. This, from the same man who opposed the value added tax? Khan declared Nawaz Sharif unfit to fight dengue. Sure, the Sharifs have failed in combating dengue but dare I ask – does Khan recall which single lab refused to lower its rates to 90 rupees to conduct dengue testing?
Reforming the notoriously corrupt police force is also on Khan’s agenda. He suggests popular votes to appoint SHOs so people can have no complaints. Again, Khan astounds. If elected leaders have public support and elicit no complaints, how is Khan able to rally such support from a nation “sick” of corrupt leadership?
Khan’s prescription for our ailing corruption was also just what the doctor ordered: declare all foreign assets or brace yourself for a civil disobedience movement. This when the country has a free judiciary and a law in place to tackle misappropriations and unaccountability. Why take to the streets when you can go to court?
Khan, however did not utter a single word regarding accountability within the military. How about asking for a declaration of the assets they have acquired during their tenure, or auditing the trillions that we have pumped into the armed forces in the last few decades?
Khan’s solo flight in ‘97 took off with his belief that he would secure himself the post of prime minister. That kept him engaged until General Musharraf’s coup d’etat. Khan supported the general till his referendum and later boycotted the 2008 elections. Khan’s pendulum-like swinging from one position to the other speaks volumes of his naivety and lack of understanding of Pakistan’s politics.
Khan thinks he can conquer it all with faith. However, faith alone cannot achieve the desired objectives. Even a World Cup win required more than Imran Khan’s inspirational captaincy like Wasim Akram’s fast bowling, the consistent batting of Javed Miandad and Inzamam-ul-Haq’s hard hits. Will men like Hamid Khan, Mian Azhar and Mehmood ur Rasheed help bring the cup home?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)