The new National Education Policy (NEP) 2009 brought many vital questions into focus. While the provincial and federal Ministries for Education and Text Book Boards are struggling to set textbooks, a passionate discussion started in the media. Empowered under the 18th Amendment, the provincial governments are trying to come to terms with the NEP-prepared and approved policy prior to this amendment that kept a control over the curriculum with the Curriculum Wing of the Federal Ministry of Education.
Five national education policies, one plan (in the 50s), half a dozen official policy reviews and a number of educational conferences that we have had so far since 1947 failed to obtain the benchmarks or policy goals set forth vis-à-vis mass literacy and education standards. There is a widely held view that the second education policy in 1972 brought a drastic and adverse change in the quality and content of the syllabus. This policy pontificated by Mr Hafeez Pirzada, the then education minister, was a reversal of the ideals set by the earlier education commission headed by Mr S M Sharif, which had emphasised teaching ethics to all students rather than making religion part of public education.
Islamic studies became a compulsory subject in 1976 at school level. From the outset, it also had to have two separate versions of Islamiat for Sunni and Shia students. After General Zia’s coup the curriculum was gradually stuffed with so much religious material that school education began to match the madrassas. To bring Pakistan closer to theocracy he amended Article 31 of the constitution, making Islamic Studies mandatory at educational institutions at all levels. Additionally, Surahs were used to teach Naazrah (reading of Arabic).
For non-Muslim students, this policy disregarded Article 22 of the constitution, which prohibited teaching religion other than one’s own. As an alibi, the subject of ethics was introduced for non-Muslim students ignoring the difficulties linked to this decision. First, it is not a choice for non-Muslim students because it would isolate them and discrimination is guaranteed. Thus a large majority of non-Muslim students — approximately one million in 2010 — are obliged to take Islamic studies for grades. Second, the textbooks for ethics promoted an Islamic viewpoint. There were other difficulties, amongst them unavailability of teachers and textbooks, because publishers were not ready to risk their investment. By and large, the subject of ethics was not an option for non-Muslim students but the Federal Education Ministry and its curriculum wings failed to see these difficulties faced by non-Muslim students. Moreover, teaching Islamic Studies makes scripture a mandatory part of the school bag of the students, which has potential risk of abuse of blasphemy laws in schools in the given environment of Pakistan. In fact, a few incidents have already taken place where non-Muslim students faced injustices after such allegations.
The new NEP does not change anything but enhances the scope of teaching religion — Para 85-88, pages 31-32 — by providing Islamic Studies as an elective subject for higher classes rather than as a compulsory one. The NEP also provides for setting up a Madrassa Education Authority under the Interior Ministry. The Madrassa Education Authority is mandated to provide: funds for education and socio-economic welfare of students, infrastructure and equipment for improvement of existing facilities, training to enhance skills of teachers, support in vocational training to equip students to generate income, advice and assistance in streamlining policies, revise objectives and syllabi to give graduates a competitive edge in the job market, etc. The rationale, the achievability and the modus operandi aside — which are questionable anyhow — the lofty task of curriculum reform in madrassas has been explained in just one paragraph — para 13 on page 34 — of the document. Arabic was also to be a compulsory part of the curriculum in the original scheme. The NEP, however, did not suggest any check on hate speech, distortions and religious discrimination in the education scheme and curriculum.
We as a nation need to do serious introspection on what impact education policies have made on Pakistani society and what the new NEP is likely to bring to us, using the experience at hand. The Standing Committee on Education in the National Assembly is championing the accountability of parliamentarians holding fake degrees, whereas the damage goes far beyond. We might have to face a trial for giving our children a fake education that rather stuffs young minds with a ghetto worldview.
The indicators vis-à-vis education pose serious questions about our priorities as a nation. Whether we want our generations to be educated in a manner to be able to live as law-abiding, responsible citizens empowered with skill and knowledge or we would like them to be arrogant, split-minded religious bigots. Religion has not lost significance in societies where moral teaching and ethics are part of the curriculum, while teaching religion is left to families and institutions specialising in this area.
The substance of education should be a concern of all stakeholders. Pakistan needs to move from religion-centred education to values and civic education, from non-education to education, from literocracy or fake education to quality education. A quality education would be hard to achieve and growing intolerance, especially that based on religion and sect, would be hard to tackle without a bold and clearheaded intervention in improving the curriculum for schools, colleges and universities.
If the governments — provincial and federal — do not have the means and strength to keep religion apart from education, an option lies in accommodating religious diversity. Till we mature politically to make better decisions, religion should be taught in the subject of Islamic Studies and not every possible subject. Moreover, students belonging to other faiths — Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, etc — should be allowed to learn their own religions. This might help the school environment by making a practical example of diverse traditions coexisting at least in the school atmosphere and the education policy and curriculums will acknowledge the existence of multi-religious traditions in Pakistan.
The writer is a Lahore-based human rights activist and can be reached at jacobpete@gmail.com
VIEW: Teaching religion -Peter Jacob - Saturday, November 27, 2010
ANALYSIS: IDPs and the problem with graveyards —Farhat Taj - Saturday, November 27, 2010
Internally displaced persons (IDPs) from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) confront some serious problems regarding the burial of their deceased relatives during their displacement. Several IDPs invited my attention towards this problem. They say it is a serious problem that befalls the family at a time when it is grieving the loss of a family member. Most IDPs wish to bury their dead in their native areas in FATA but cannot do so due to the ongoing military operations in those areas or high transport expenses. At certain places, the military does not allow people into the war zone even for a quick burial. In other places, the army authorities allow the relatives to transport dead bodies for burial, but many IDPs cannot afford the cost of transportation. In both cases, the deceased have to be buried outside their native areas. Local people in the areas where the IDPs live do not let them bury their dead in their (local people’s) graveyards.
Graveyards in Khyber Pakhtun-khwa are the properties of families, clans or communities. They collect money among themselves to buy more land to expand the graveyard, if more space is needed for new burials. Thus, only the dead bodies belonging to those who contributed in buying the graveyard property are allowed to be buried there.
Some Orakzai IDPs informed me that one of their relatives died during the displacement in Kohat. They were digging his grave in a local graveyard without informing the concerned community that owned the graveyard. Meanwhile, some of the community members came to stop them from the digging. Even upon requests they did not allow them to bury the dead IDP in their graveyard. They asked the IDPs to pay Rs 25,000 or take away their dead body. The IDPs took the dead body to a village in Hangu, where they requested some people to allow them to bury the body on humanitarian grounds. After long negotiations and pleading the burial was allowed.
Another IDP who lives in Rawalpindi informed me that his mother had died in that city. Upon his request, the local people in Rawalpindi conditionally allowed her burial in their graveyard. They allowed his mother to be laid to rest for one year. After a year her son will have to remove her remains to be buried elsewhere. The IDP has no idea where he is to bury the remains after a year’s time. He said he hopes that in a year’s time the security situation in his native area in FATA improves enough to allow him to transport the remains of his mother for a final burial.
IDPs also informed me that relatives of a passed away IDP carry his or her dead body from place to place in search of kind people who will allow the body to be buried in their graveyard. Many people are burying dead bodies in other people’s graveyards for a certain duration of time, with the promise to remove the remains after that time and bury them elsewhere.
The IDPs say that there are people who would like to allow the IDPs to bury their passed away relatives in the local graveyards on a permanent basis. However, the problem is that the IDPs are too many in number. There is no surety about when peace will return to FATA. The local people may have to accommodate many dead IDPs in their graveyards. There is already limited space in most graveyards. Consequently, the concerned local families or communities would have to buy more land to expand the graveyards. Land is very expensive everywhere. Thus, the local people either flatly refuse to allow the IDPs’ burial or allow it for a specific period of time only.
The ongoing terrorism and military operations in FATA have displaced hundreds of thousands of people from the region. Most of these IDPs live in pathetic conditions in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Pakistani media has generally been ignoring their plight and so is the case with the international media, which views the situation in terms of al Qaeda and the Taliban’s ability to commit acts of terrorism in countries other than Pakistan, and they pay inadequate attention to the human suffering caused by the terrorists as well as the Pakistan Army’s operations in FATA. To my knowledge, there have never been any media reports about the problem that the FATA IDPs confront in terms of the burial of their passed away relatives. It seems to be a serious problem in the light of what I hear from the IDPs. I think it is painful and also disrespectful to know that people will have to disturb the remains of a dead person after a year or so and bury them elsewhere or that grieving relatives have to carry dead bodies from graveyard to graveyard to find a final resting place for their loved ones. The government and society at large should come up with some solution to this problem.
The writer is a PhD Research Fellow with the University of Oslo and currently writing a book, Taliban and Anti-Taliban
VIEW: Headley, the US, Mumbai and LeT — III —Naeem Tahir - Saturday, November 27, 2010
Anita Uddaiya, 47, was one of the people who saw the terrorists land on the shores of Mumbai on November 26, 2008. She mysteriously disappeared later on. Her daughter, Seema Joshi, launched a missing complaint with the police (Pune Mirror-Times of India, January 14, 2009). She also reported that for 15 days Anita had been going through a battery of medical tests. One day she said, “I am ready to go to the US, pack my bags.” Then on Sunday morning she got up at 6:30 am and went to the toilet or pretended to do so. Neighbours saw a large jeep parked outside the toilet. Officials came and whisked her away. The Mumbai newspapers reported several details of her visit and recording of a statement in the US along with the details of the plane that carried her. The plane had white, blue markings and a star on the tail and there were 15 people in it, perhaps including Headley. Her travel was not recorded because of the influence of the Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). She was also asked to identify the bodies of the terrorists. She identified the six she had seen. She refused to oblige the IB and did not identify any other. Consequently, she was dropped from the list of important witnesses and she was also prosecuted. Obviously the number of terrorists remained limited to eight and not more. It remains a mystery where the additional two came from.
In the book, Who killed Karkare? the author Mr S M Mushrif, former Inspector General (IG) Police Maharashtra clearly indicates that by that time, November 2008, Mr Hemant Karkare had filed the case of investigations of the acts of terror. Hindutva operators were identified as the main group of terrorists, which included Colonel Purohit and Pragya Singh among others. Karkare could have presented the proof in the Nasik court and the network would have been exposed and convicted. Karkare and his team had to be eliminated. This was critical for the IB and other organisations like the Abhinav Bharat, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) and Bajrang Dal. So the Mumbai carnage cover-up was useful for the IB and Hindutva.
It is also well established that the FBI and IB had definite advance knowledge of the impending terror attack. One of Headley’s wives, Morrocan Faiza Outallha, met with an assistant regional security officer and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer at the embassy. So did another of his wives. They provided information at the US Embassy in Islamabad in 2007 that Headley was involved in a terrorist group that was actively plotting against targets in India. According to the New York Times, one of the two American officials confirmed that Headley’s wives shared concerns with US officials prior to the attack and that those concerns warranted attention. How is it possible that the information was not conveyed to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)/Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)? It is also a known fact that the Indian agencies had advance information, but the navy was not alerted nor was the Mumbai Police.
It is evident that the carnage at Mumbai in November 2008 suited many, and those who had advance knowledge let it happen. It served them well although the price was paid by the blood of hundreds of innocent souls from all over the world.
Who were the gainers?
The secret agencies in the US established the fact that they are better equipped to track terror and alert India, thus gaining additional credibility. The hawks in the agencies and their political connections needed to keep India under influence for other manoeuvrings and use India as a potential alternate to Chinese influence. It served Indian hawks to discredit Pakistan and isolate it while it was on the up economically and investments in Pakistan were soaring. With several foreign nationals losing their lives the exploitation by the powerful Indian propaganda machine was readily believed. They successfully put in the mind of the world that Pakistan is a source of terror and, even worse, that terror activity has official support. Needless to say, this helped India to push back the Kashmir issue, which has the support of Pakistan. But perhaps the Hindutva/IB nexus made most immediate gains. They succeeded in getting Hemant Karkare, Kamte, Salasker and others to rush to Rang Bhavan Lane where a trusted officer of the IB/Hindutva in the Anti-Terror Squad had already planted two mysterious terrorists, Ajmal Kasab and his companion. Karkare and others were killed, Kasab’s companion was killed, but Kasab was saved to get the desired statements. Incidentally, there is considerable information available stating that Kasab had been captured in Nepal much earlier and possibly acted as an agent of agencies as did Headley.
The details of the planning and execution could not even be covered in several volumes. But hopefully the readers now see an overall picture.
In the end, it is always the common people and the weak that pay the price. So it is in this case. Headley would continue to be protected; Kasab may get away or may be dispensed with. But those who lost their lives in Mumbai had done nothing to deserve such an end. Pakistan suffered immensely and it is still suffering due to the propaganda. The Indian authorities have interrogated Headley; it is very important that Pakistani authorities also interrogate him and obtain firsthand knowledge to avoid recurrence.
On the positive side, India has recognised the Hindutva terror networks and officially accepted that Samjhota Express and Malegaon, etc, had nothing to do with Pakistan as initially propagated. Instead these were the handiwork of Hindutva terrorists. India’s willingness to receive Pakistan’s dossier on Mumbai and to respond to it gives hope. A joint investigation would have been much better.
Terror outfits exist in many countries. It is wrong to use them for politically expedient covert actions. Terrorists are nobody’s friends. Terror backfires in the long run. If governments realise their responsibilities towards humanity it may become a better world to live in.
(Concluded)
The writer is a culture and media management specialist, a researcher, author, director and actor
COMMENT: Terror revisited —Salman Tarik Kureshi - Saturday, November 27, 2010
Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghanistan war began in early 1976. Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Governor NWFP Naseerullah Babar, apprehensive of the ‘Pakhtunistan’ sloganeering of Afghan President Daoud and angered by his support of the Balochistan insurrection, gave shelter to Afghan rebels like Massoud, Rabbani, Hekmatyar and others, and encouraged them to conduct guerrilla raids into Afghanistan. Following the leftist coup in Afghanistan in 1978, these forays (now additionally aided by the US and Saudi Arabia) quickly widened into a major insurrection. The USSR invaded Afghanistan, ostensibly to assist them against this ‘foreign intervention’. General Zia (who had seized power here) allied Pakistan with the US, gaining legitimacy for his government and massive finances and arms for his Afghan jihad.
This is how Pakistan’s war began, long before 9/11. Terrorism within Pakistan was to follow, long before it reared its grisly head in the US or Europe. Bombings of and attacks on places of worship and foreign cultural establishments were a feature as early as 1983. The Bohri Bazar bombing of July 1987 reduced well over 200 Karachiites to lumps of charred meat and remains to date the worst of the terror bombings to which our tragic country has been subjected. The FIA Centre in Karachi was part of a double bombing in 1991 (I was next door at St Joseph’s School with my wife, who taught there).
Today, to the eternal credit of the PPP government and the present military high command (I will not try to guess on whose initiative), Pakistan has engaged in a heroic counter-insurgency campaign against the murderous zealots who mounted a deadly challenge to our survival as a state and a society. This campaign primarily targets the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other entities, which are waging war against the state and people of Pakistan, while the primary targets of US/NATO forces are al Qaeda and the Afghan Taliban. This distinction is important; Pakistan’s war run parallel to that of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), but the two are not congruent. This piece is not concerned with the adequacy of our military objectives.
While the armed forces have still to go into North Waziristan and parts of Khyber Agency, the point is what has actually happened in the areas in which the counter-insurgency, encapsulated in the formulation Clear-Hold-Develop, has been successful. While the first two goals have been generally met, little has been done in the militarily cleared areas in terms of development. Whether it is building infrastructure, providing education or creating businesses and jobs, development is a civilian, not a military matter. Unfortunately, our people-friendly government has cancelled the development budgets of even the nation’s urban and agricultural centres, what to speak of such politically marginal regions as Swat, FATA and PATA.
The second point regarding the cleared areas is that, as this scribe has frequently suggested, political arrangements and questions of governance and justice are core issues here. The negligence of practically every past regime in letting these areas continue to fester in backwardness has been a fatal flaw in the national fabric. These regions need to be integrated into the province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. And that is itself a difficult process, with multiple constitutional, administrative, educational and ideological complexities. But has anyone in the government, parliament or judiciary even begun to envision the processes involved? Have there been any serious media discussions?
As for the rest of the country, it is supine before the unrelenting terrorist violence emanating from the FATA belt and Punjab. The systematic campaign of successful terror attacks has created a miasma of public fear. It destroys confidence and generates uncertainties that are wearing down the will of the people to strike back at these mass-murderers. It does not take a genius to appreciate that, for example, in the recent CID Centre bombing in Karachi, a huge quantity of high-tech explosive was procured, assembled, mobilised, transported and utilised. This has been the case in one terrorist act after another, but no intelligence or investigation has been able to penetrate the financial, logistical and human trails involved. And when it comes to actually bringing any of these mass-murdering enemies of the people to justice, well, we know what happens.
The point is that these issues come under the purview of civilian governments, responsible to civilian parliaments and assemblies and are adjudicated by civilian courts. Counter-terrorism is an issue of effective law enforcement, the basic task of any government. The American scholar Stephen Cohen has remarked that, while Pakistan is not a failed or failing state, the corruption and incompetence of its administrative and police apparatus and its lower courts could well drag the country down.
The last point being made here today relates to the ideological indoctrination that has taken place in this country since the time of Zia and the toxic textbooks developed at the University of Nebraska. This has created a heavily one-sided intellectual and cultural environment. Now, let me hasten to state that I do not insist on the sole validity of the tolerant, science-based values I personally favour, nor that faith-based, ideologically derived opinions are necessarily suspect. I contend only that debate is necessary and this requires articulation of opinions from opposite sides of the axis. But in educational institutions and in the bulk of the media, even in parliament and the courts, most discussion is heavily uni-polar and seeks justification exclusively in perceived ideology, ignoring rationalism. Moreover, no one qualifies these views, from which, in the absence of an ideational challenge from humanism, it takes only a few steps to arrive at the violent intolerance of the Takfiris (those who accuse other Muslims of apostasy).
The culling of the toxic textbooks, madrassa reform and presenting ideational counter-points to the prevailing orthodoxy: these are the very clear responsibility of the elected parties. But it is a responsibility our political leadership has failed to address. Even the term used for the mass-murderers waging war against the state of Pakistan, askariat-pasand, carries no pejorative connotation. No war can be successfully waged by those who have adopted without question such an ambivalent attitude towards the ideas of the enemy.
High marks to the military, then, for its sound counter-insurgency campaign. But negative marks to the civilian state institutions on their developmental and counter-terrorism failures. Are you listening, President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani, Chief Justice Chaudhry?
The writer is a marketing consultant based in Karachi. He is also a poet
EDITORIAL: Stand up for the Champions - Saturday, November 27, 2010
The hockey team won gold by beating Malaysia 2-0 in the final. In winning this tournament, Pakistan has automatically qualified for the London 2012 Olympic Games. Although hockey is Pakistan’s national sport, its development has largely been neglected. For years, the Pakistan Hockey Federation (PHF) has been lacking professionalism. For too long it has played second fiddle to cricket. There are only seven Astro Turf fields in the country, out of which only 2-4 are in proper working condition. In comparison there are over 400 Astro Turfs in Holland. With this win it is hoped the hockey team can turn a new leaf and return to its glory days. So deep is our history in this sport that the PHF, under the initiative of Air Marshal M Nur Khan, introduced the World Cup Tournament and the Champions Trophy Tournament. It is imperative to praise our new Pakistan hockey coach Michel van den Heuvel, who brought cohesion into the team that was previously missing. Also, goalkeeper Salman Akbar must be honoured for his heroics in the semi-final against South Korea, where he saved four out of seven penalty strokes. After this match Sohail Abbas was criticised and it was alleged that he was beyond his prime and should be put out to pasture. It is commendable how Sohail Abbas bounced back to show that he is the king of penalty corners. But we should not let this victory go to our heads and plan for the future. The London Olympics 2012 are just around the corner. Let us hope we also bring back that coveted trophy after 28 years.
The men’s squash team defeated their Malaysian counterparts in the team event. During the reign of the Khans, Pakistan had no equals in this sport. Sadly, even with such role models we have failed to increase our talent pool in this discipline. The Pakistan Squash Federation (PSF) must incorporate schools, colleges and universities to discover and nurture future talent.
Our women’s cricket team also won gold at the 16th Asian Games. These women were an example on and off the field. They are the epitome of professionalism, a lesson our men’s team can learn from them.
Individual admiration must go to Ijaz Ahmed for winning a silver medal in the men’s sanshou 75-kilogramme category. Moreover, Aamir Atlas Khan delivered on his potential during the games by winning a silver medal for Pakistan in men’s individual squash.
The manner in which these victories were celebrated back home shows how starved the people of the country are for good news. Sports is one of the few reliefs the citizens have in the midst of the ongoing war on terror. We are on the frontline of this war. Pakistan has lost more due to terrorism than any other country. The government and establishment must have a united and firm stand against this menace. Our duality on the Taliban has brought the country and its already fragile economy to a standstill. We as a nation must build on our victories in the 16th Asian Games and build for the future, a future that is free of terrorism and offers hope and progress. *
SECOND EDITORIAL: Land grabbing by the mighty
The Punjab government has found itself under the glare of intense international criticism with calls going out for human rights organisations to become actively involved in a gross violation of rights. UN Special Rapporteur Oliver De Schutter has singled out the provincial government because of its alleged land grabbing schemes that aim to lease fertile agricultural lands to rich foreigners — particularly Arabs — at the expense of the poverty stricken masses. Describing these ‘projects’ as “lacking in transparency” and shunning consultation with the concerned communities, Schutter aptly summarised them as only “benefiting the investors and some of the local elite.”
Notable among these land-grabbing projects is the Ravi National Park scheme where on the private residential land agricultural land of owners in five different tehsils all forms of construction, development, sale and transfer have been banned. It is lands such as these that are to be leased to the highest bidder.
In a country where the citizen is denied basic amenities and sources of livelihood, where the rising costs of living are pushing people towards crime or suicide and where enough land-grabbing mafias exist to make life a living hell for the common folk, to have the government partake of such nefarious activities is repulsive. The Punjab government is manipulating the people and their land illegally. Loud protests show that the people are being pushed up against a wall but, because it is the provincial government that is allegedly at the helm of these despicable acts, there is no one they can turn to for justice.
In the case of leasing land to rich foreignerd, stead of providing the land to the poor for small-scale farming purposes, the government is lining its pockets to secure the food resources of other countries.
Balochistan was recently in the news for the same reason. The provincial government there is contemplating leasing out land in Lasbela for the hunting of the endangered Houbara Bustard. Not only is this a violation of animal protection laws, it is a gross violation of the rights of the people. The people in Balochistan have known nothing but strife and denial of their rights, now they have to contend with foreign dignitaries being handed their land on a silver platter.
Enough of this circus where the rich only serve the richer and the impoverished are denied even the semblance of a dignified existence. Land grabbing by those in power is criminal and it must be stopped at all costs. The protests must get louder and the international human rights community must intervene to reverse this alarming trend. *
VIEW: Letting go of illusions —Gulmina Bilal Ahmad - Friday, November 26, 2010
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Information Minister, Mian Iftikhar, has offered the ultimate sacrifice in the war for freedom. His only son and four other family members were killed by the Taliban this year. Devastated by this loss, it is pertinent to mention that he was back at work within 10 days of this tragedy. This week, he made an offer to the militants that should be appreciated for the spirit it was made in but, perhaps, revisited for its content. In a political talk show in the electronic media, Mian Iftikhar declared that if the Taliban were to lay down arms, he would be willing to forgive the blood of his son and four other family members. For any father, even the thought of foregoing revenge and then publicly stating it must have required formidable courage. This needs to be appreciated but such courage and fortitude needs to be clubbed with some retrospective wisdom.
The Taliban will not lay down arms. This is a stark lesson that recent history and our present have taught us. Mullah Omar has time and again stated, “You have the watch and we have the time.” The core group of the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as their marriages of convenience with groups like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ), Jaish-e-Muhammad and even radical groups like the Hizbul Tahrir, has always consolidated its power. They alternate between taking the lead at various times. Thus, one might find LeJ taking the lead in some areas but laying low when the trail becomes hot.
History has also shown that even when the militants have entered into negotiations and agreements, they have violated them. Zahid Hussain, in his recently launched book, The Scorpion’s Tail, reminds us of this fact. He warns against the “perils of appeasement” of the militant groups and how we have always suffered as a result of banking on them to hold up their end of the bargain.
For instance, in an agreement signed between the government and Baitullah Mehsud, the latter was given $ 540,000, which was “the money the militants said they owed to al Qaeda”. Soon after this, Mehsud violated the peace agreement. In the Shakai Agreement between the government and Nek Muhammad, the then militant commander, in addition to freeing militants, “war damages as compensation to the tribesmen” were also paid. In 2006, the Waziristan Accord was signed between the government, represented by the tribal governor of Orakzai and Abdul Khaliq who was leading the militants in North Waziristan. Through this agreement, again the security personnel were withdrawn from checkpoints, militants were released by the government and again compensation was paid to the tribesmen for those who were killed during the fight against the government.
What are the implications of these agreements? The implications are what we continue to reap today. While our security personnel unquestionably need to be trained in counter-insurgency methods, the fact that we bring the militants to the point that they agree to come to the negotiation table if the security personnel are withdrawn from the posts, indicates that the former have some impact on militant activities. Otherwise, why would they even consider the option of negotiation? If the security personnel were so futile and ineffective, as their critics would have us believe, why would the militants demand that they be withdrawn? However, just as we make them uncomfortable and get them on the run, we start negotiating with them, thus giving them breathing time. To make matters worse, we even ‘compensate’ them through war damages. What is this compensation for? For damages incurred challenging the writ of the state through militant means? However, time and time again, we have done so and unfortunately even today are flirting with such dangerous and futile ideas. In fact, Mian Iftkhtar, while talking about the volatile Karachi situation, even went so far as to say, “If we can negotiate with the Taliban, can we not negotiate with the MQM?” The MQM, for all its faults, has a political face. The Taliban are militants who have repeatedly declared that “fighting against the Pakistani security agencies is jihad and those killed in the battle against Pakistani forces are martyrs”.
This is not to say that one is against all forms of political negotiation. However, there is a need to differentiate between the Taliban and its allies as an organisation and the Taliban mindset. The Taliban mindset one can and should negotiate, question, argue and counter-argue with. It is as important to counter this mindset as it is the militant organisation. For the mindset yields cannon fodder for the militant organisations. It is the Taliban mindset that has unfortunately succeeded in declaring this as a war on Islam and has urged young minds to “fight the infidels”. It is the success of this mindset that has successfully framed the narrative in a way that the streets are inundated with protests against the killing of militants, drone attacks, etc. This mindset, propagated through jihadi media and jihadi philanthropy, as evidenced in the flood relief activities by banned organisations like the Falah-e-Insaniyat, etc, needs to be countered. A more sophisticated and organised effort of propagating this mindset through rallies, media, discussion papers and most dangerously youth work in our colleges and universities is being done by the Hizbul Tahrir that needs to be countered effectively by the liberal elements. The tragedy is that the liberal elements in this country are either not in the country or are too scared or disorganised to counter the Taliban mindset effectively. An article in some odd paper does not suffice nor does an obscure seminar somewhere in the country. The communication, propaganda, indeed the brainwashing by the jihadi organisations is a textbook study in its effectiveness. A befitting response by the liberal elements is missing. The result is a young citizenry that is ill-educated on Islam, their history and the present growing up in mental ghettos of conservatism.
As the Minister of Information, Mian Iftikhar would do well to focus his energies on countering the misinformation churned out by the jihadi media and organisations rather than expecting anyone to lay down arms. The longer we hold on to such illusions, the longer we will suffer.
The writer is an Islamabad-based consultant. She can be reached at coordinator@individualland.com
VIEW: Blasphemy law must be repealed —Mashal Sahir - Friday, November 26, 2010
By definition, a law is a body of rules governing the affairs of a community and is meant to ensure social order and justice. However, in Pakistan, a law should be redefined as a body of rules governing the affairs of a community meant to intimidate the weak, facilitate vested interests, and benefit those in power. The Blasphemy Law is a perfect example of this redefinition. It defies the very purpose of the law, which is to provide justice to all.
Blasphemy is irreverence towards holy personages, religious artefacts, customs and beliefs. This law has been codified in the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), particularly Section 295. Although, according to Article 45 of the constitution, the president has the power to grant pardon and suspend any sentence passed by any court or other authority, those accused of blasphemy are invariably subjected to harassment, threats, and attacks by extremist elements. Between 1988 and 2005, 647 people have been charged with offences under the blasphemy laws. Fifty percent of the people charged were non-Muslim. Twenty of them were murdered soon after the charge was laid. Sadly, even those who are acquitted of blasphemy by a court usually go into hiding or leave Pakistan.
In Pakistan, the purported purpose of the blasphemy law is to punish anybody who offends society’s religious sentiments. However, the fact is that the provisions of this law are being misused to victimise and intimidate weak individuals or opponents. A Christian woman named Aasia Bibi was sentenced to death by a district and sessions court after a year long trial on accusations of blasphemy filed by Muslim villagers of Ittanwali. Aasia Bibi has repeatedly denied committing blasphemy and there is a growing perception that she has been accused of blasphemy to settle scores in a dispute over livestock with her neighbours. On January 28, 2009, the police in Punjab arrested five Ahmedis. The accusation against them was that they wrote ‘Prophet Mohammad’ (PBUH) on the wall of a toilet in a Sunni mosque. The senior superintendent of police investigated and reported to the ministry of interior that the accusation was baseless. These cases are a clear proof of how the blasphemy law is being misused to punish opponents or harass minorities.
Most frequently, the blasphemy law is misused for vested interests. Imran Latif, 22, was accused of burning pages of the Holy Quran in a case registered at the Sherakot Police Station and spent five months in jail. He was released on bail on November 3. Later, two armed men approached him at his house and asked him to accompany them, killing him just a few yards away from his house. Latif’s brother suspected that a man named Ijaz Ahmed, who had a dispute with his brother over the ownership of a shop, had had Latif killed. The way the blasphemy law operates in our country is an insult to humanity, where people are free to kill others in order to settle personal scores or simply to prove their superiority by using their ‘religious obligations’ to justify their actions. The blasphemy law is flawed in the sense that it allows people to misuse it in their interest.
There may also be actual instances of perceived blasphemy. If anybody comments negatively about their religion, Pakistanis tend to see it as a threat and therefore when they punish the blasphemer, they believe they are doing so to protect their religion. Islam is a religion of mercy and forgiveness. The Prophet’s (PBUH) entire life is a remarkable example of mercy. Even on the eve of the conquest of Makkah, he forgave all his enemies and refused to punish anybody who had sought his forgiveness. However, when Jyllands-Posten’s Mohammad (PBUH) cartoons were published in Denmark, we, his followers, chose to protest violently against this act, which ‘disrespected’ our Prophet (PBUH). Who do we think we are, defending a man of his great stature? Do we really believe that merely by drawing some amateur cartoons, somebody can disgrace a person who changed the course of history?
Furthermore, if we really care to read the Quran, it clearly proves that God Almighty has taken upon Himself the responsibility of protecting His religion. Surah Al-Feel of the Holy Quran is an account of how the Almighty saved his House (Kaa’ba) from an army of elephants under the command of Abrahah Al-Ashram. Why, then, are we constantly trying to act like the guardians or protectors of the faith?
Somehow Pakistanis have been made to believe that Pakistan was created solely for religious purposes and it is their foremost duty to safeguard the true faith from all ‘evils’. In reality, however, Pakistan was created for socio-economic reasons as is obvious from Mr Jinnah’s presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, where he said, “If you change your past and work together in a spirit that everyone of you, no matter to what community he belongs, no matter what relations he had with you in the past, no matter what his colour, caste or creed, is first, second and last a citizen of this state with equal rights, privileges, and obligations, there will be no end to the progress you will make.” It becomes evident that Pakistan was initially meant to be a secular state and not an ‘Islamic’ republic when Jinnah says, “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place or worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” However, soon after independence, Jamaat-e-Islami made the achievement of an ‘Islamic’ constitution its central goal. Eventually, in 1956, Pakistan was declared an Islamic Republic. It was later in 1977, during Ziaul Haq’s martial law, that Pakistan was ‘Islamised’ with the promulgation of Hudood Ordinances and the establishment of the Federal Shariat Court (FSC), which rules on whether any particular law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. The FSC is responsible for ruling the blasphemy law as not repugnant to Islam.
Clearly, Jinnah had envisioned a different Pakistan, but we lost track and turned this ‘supposed-to-be-secular-nation’ into an Islamic republic and the visionary revolutionist Jinnah into a maulvi. The only way for Pakistan to achieve stability is by reverting to Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan and moving towards a secular nation in the long run. A good step would be to repeal obscene laws such as the blasphemy law.
The writer is a staff member. She can be reached at mashalsr@hotmail.com