Category Archives: Politics

Pak school attack; Brief thought by Nasik Elahi

Posted on by
5

Pakistan has undergone a 9/11 moment. The unprecedented scale of the attack on school children and teachers by Taliban elements has shocked the nation and its political and defense establishment to form a united front. It is too early to tell what concrete results may emerge but the beginning is at least promising. Imran khan has called off his long boycott and national disobedience against the present government to face the crisis in the part of the country run by his political party which was the focus of the terrorist outrage.

Pakistan is a country of pent up rage and needs. Imran khan has given voice to grievances of the common folk but his tactics of boycotts, vilification of government and judicial figures do not create a model of good governance. The democratic process in Pakistan is shaped by vested dynastic interests, crony capitalism, religion and an elitist mindset that sets up privilege as a right for the haves.

Clearly there is a pressing need to make the process more inclusive. Demanding the forced resignation of a prime minister through the sheer will of a determined personality does not foster national reforms. The movement becomes yet another manifestation of personality driven agendas that have a lock on the existing political system.

The true drive for reform needs to focus on making institutions of government more open and accountable. The direct political interference into the routines of government has to cease. The bureaucrats and agency heads should function as professionals openly accountable for their performance to the public rather than the political paymasters. People recognize but putting programs into shape is going to be a torturous process.

For the immediate future the country is in a reactive mode. The national revulsion demands revenge. The government has lifted the EU inspired moratorium on executions and has started to hang people on a regular basis. The reactions by the militants are sure to be even more violent. The government has to be judicious in its use of force and corner the militants through an organized campaign of interdiction. At this point it remains a wish as a befitting memorial in memory of the innocent victims of a heinous act.

The Line Between Man And God: Atif Mian

Posted on by
9

There is a line separating man from God that should never be crossed. For when it is, hell breaks loose. We witnessed hell today in Pakistan. One hundred and thirty two children slaughtered in a barbaric attack on a school.

This time the line was crossed by Taliban – a serial offender. They gloatingly accepted full responsibility, adding that the children were murdered in response to Pakistan army’s offensive against them. One might question such logic. After all there are rules, even in war. Rules set by the very religion the Taliban profess to follow. Civilians are off-limits. The children for sure.

But such logic matters not. For when you have crossed the line, you are no longer subject to constraints put on men. You are “god” now – judge, jury and the executioner – all rolled into one. The Taliban want to impose “shariah”. We can never know what that means, except to know that it means whatever the Taliban want it to mean. Murdering children could be kosher, if “the god” Taliban so decides. We better submit, or our head could be next.

There is a word in the western world for crossing the line between man and God. It is called Fascism, and the line-crossers are known as Fascists. But we in Pakistan know them through more honorific titles such as Maulana, Allamaand Mashaikh – or even Generals and Prime Ministers.

Yes, make no mistake. The Taliban are not the first to cross the line between man and God. In fact, they are really one of the last to join this habitual pastime of Pakistani elite.

The line was first breached by Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1974 who, flanked by every political party and religious scholar, set out to determine who was a true Muslim and who wasn’t. General Zia took this initiative to the next level by inventing his own “divine laws” that prescribed precise penalties for a wide range of “blasphemous” acts.

The following generation of leaders, both within the army and beyond, became even bolder. Why not just decentralize the whole business of trespassing on God’s territory, they thought. Thus you no longer had to head the parliament, or be a General to decide “god’s will”. Anyone with the right length of beard could do it. The subtleties of law and due process were no longer a hindrance.

A local cleric would declare some poor Christians “blasphemous”, and they could be lynched, burnt alive, or their entire community set on fire. The cleric and his mob would never face justice. And if the “accused” Christian somehow managed to save her life, she would surely be picked up by police and banished behind bars for years to come.

Before the Taliban butchered our children in Peshawar, there was a Talibanesque mob in Gujranwala that went to punish the “heretic” Ahmadis. They locked up women, and children as young as 8 months old, inside a room before setting it on fire. The whole episode was video-taped with exuberant men chanting religious slogans. The government looked the other way because the “god” was on their side.

This begs the question. Why blame the Taliban alone when so many in Pakistan are quick to impose divine punishment upon others? But let us not try to answer this question any more.

It is not easy to bury one’s own children. Not so many. And not so regularly. We must put an end to this. We must do the unthinkable. We must redraw the line between man and God in Pakistan, and promise never to breach it again.

This means getting rid of all discriminatory laws in Pakistan. All laws where the state interferes in matters of faith. It means getting rid of all blasphemy laws. The question is not whether Aasia Bibi committed blasphemy or not. The question is why should there be such a question in the first place.

We must respect the line between man and God. Let us all admit that there is no god, except God. May our children rest in peace.

http://scholar.princeton.edu/atif/blog/line-between-man-and-god/

 

‘How neoconservatives led US to war in Iraq’ Book review By Robin Yassin-Kassab

Posted on by
Reply

“The neoconservative worldview is characterised by militarism, unilateralism and a firm commitment to Zionism”

Meticulously researched and fluently written, Muhammad Idrees Ahmad’sThe Road to Iraq: The Making of a Neoconservative War is the comprehensive guide to the neoconservatives and their works.

The neoconservative worldview is characterised by militarism, unilateralism and a firm commitment to Zionism. Even the Israel-friendly British foreign secretary Jack Straw said of the neocon Irving Libby: “It’s a toss-up whether Libby is working for the Israelis or the Americans on any given day.” The neoconservatives aimed for an Israelisation of American policy, conflating Israeli and American enemies.

The neoconservatives wanted (through “creative chaos”) to remake not only Iraq but also Iran, Syria, Lebanon and even such crucial American allies as Saudi Arabia. Yet their messianic vision didn’t dominate administration “realists” (Colin Powell and Richard Armitage were working on “smarter” sanctions to contain the Iraqi regime) until the “catalysing event” of 9/11.

http://www.thenational.ae/arts-lifestyle/the-review/how-neoconservatives-led-us-to-war-in-Iraq

Posted By F. Sheikh

‘ISIS: What the US Doesn’t Understand’ By Ahmed Rashid

Posted on by
34

A worth reading article by Ahmed Rashid, famous for his writings on Taliban. He argues that USA should not be taking the lead because it is counter-productive and fruitless. Some excerpts;

“The crisis ISIS has created for the West and the Arab world cannot be effectively addressed until there is a broader understanding of what ISIS wants. The first thing we need to recognize is that ISIS is not waging a war against the West. In view of the staggering growth in the number of ISIS’s international recruits—there are now estimated to be some 18,000 foreign fighters from 90 countries—the growing possibility that some who have joined the group may return home to carry out acts of terrorism must be taken seriously. There is also a risk that others who never went to Syria, like the shooter in the Canadian parliament in October, will be inspired by ISIS to carry out such attacks.”

“In contrast to al-Qaeda, however, ISIS has not made the US and its allies its main target. Where al-Qaeda directed its anger at the “distant enemy,” the United States, ISIS wants to destroy the near enemy, the Arab regimes, first. This is above all a war within Islam: a conflict of Sunni against Shia, but also a war by Sunni extremists against more moderate Muslims—between those who think the Muslim world should be dominated by a single strand of Wahhabism and its extremist offshoot Salafism and those who support a pluralistic vision of Muslim society. The leaders of ISIS seek to eliminate all Muslim and non-Muslim minorities from the Middle East—not only erasing the old borders and states imposed by Western powers, but changing the entire ethnic, tribal, and religious composition of the region. ”

“A corollary to these Salafist ideas is ISIS’s determination to seize territory, carry out conquests, and reshape the Middle East as a single unitary state under a so-called Caliphate. Despite its hatred of Shias, ISIS has until recently largely avoided attacking Syrian government forces, a strategy that has allowed it to capture large amounts of territory already in rebel hands. Unlike Bin Laden and his followers, who worshipped martyrdom as a form of obedience to God, with rewards to be received in heaven, ISIS wants earthly power and possession of territory as well. As I have noted, in this respect ISIS is like the Taliban in Afghanistan, seeking to establish an actual Islamic state that it can govern according to its extremist precepts.

But it is also worth noting what ISIS is not doing. While ISIS leaders have frequently condemned and threatened the US, they have held back from declaring it a major target. The beheadings of Westerners are best understood as acts of revenge against the US bombing campaign, as well as propaganda designed to terrify outsiders and demoralize those fighting against it.

Significantly, they have not condemned Israel at all, nor have they sided with the Palestinians during the recent war in Gaza or carried out any campaign to help the Palestinian cause. This omission may be tactical: ISIS’s leaders may calculate they cannot afford to take on the well-equipped state of Israel for the moment but will do so in the future. Or it may be strategic: as ISIS consolidates a large territory in Iraq and Syria, its leadership may deem it more pragmatic to not make enemies of the world’s Jews so that it can live alongside Israel without incurring the wrath of the Israeli air force.

 

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2014/dec/02/isis-what-us-doesnt-understand/

Posted By F. Sheikh