Interview: Mahathir Mohamad by Joyce Lee

Mahathir Mohamad is the former prime minister of Malaysia. He began his career as a medical doctor before entering politics, and remains the country’s longest-serving premier. From 1981 to 2003, he held office as prime minister and president of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the leading party of the government coalition still in power today.

The Diplomat met with Mahathir in Putrajaya, the administrative capital created during his tenure, to discuss his legacy and Malaysia’s direction.

I wanted to begin with an issue that bookended your prime ministership: racial tensions in Malaysia. In the late 1970s, you gave a speech at the UN calling Malaysia a “multi-racial time bomb…from the colonial past.” At the end of your tenure, you warned that racial tensions were on the rise. How did your policies shape racial tensions and what is the impact today?

This country has a mixed population, and the people who live in this country are so different from each other. Different ethnically, different in terms of culture, language, and different in terms of economic achievement. The difference is very big, and normally differences cause people to confront each other or dislike each other, to fight against each other. So Malaysia is a country where the possibility of racial fights would be very common.

What I think is my greatest achievement is that during the 22 years I was prime minister there were no racial conflicts so serious that there would be clashes. There were no clashes. I had the support of all communities, which is the reason why I always got a two-thirds majority during election. There were still racial tensions, but I think it was less during the 22 years of my prime ministership.

But after, the others did not handle this problem well. They thought that by being liberal, they would ensure all races would be happy. But they did not. If you are liberal, the extremists take advantage. The extremists in each race took advantage of the liberalism to bring up racial issues. Because now you can discuss and say what you like because of the liberal attitude, freedom of speech. Therefore, they made people conscious of their differences, and they began to fall behind these extreme people. So now racial tension has come up again.

If subduing racial tensions was your greatest achievement, what was your greatest regret?

Now, my one regret is for the economic achievement of each race. I wanted them to achieve equally the same status: There would be, of course, rich Chinese, rich Indian, and rich Malay, and there would be poor Chinese, poor Indian, and poor Malay. So there will not be the impression that in Malaysia the Malays are poor and backward, while the Chinese are rich and advanced and they live in the cities. That is a really bad situation; that will create clashes. But we brought them together all to be in the city, all to be well-educated, all to perform better. And because Malays are rather weak in business, we gave them more opportunities. Affirmative action.

Does this relate to your statement last year that Malays are lazy? This caused some controversy, particularly in reference to the current administration’s decision to abolish English-language teaching of science and mathematics in 2009.

I speak the truth. Malays are lazy. We give them opportunities; they do not seize the opportunities. But what was important about the education was that I wanted to use English for the teaching of science and math. [The current administration] reversed it and went to teaching science and math in Malay. And Malay is not a language of science. Other subjects are static, but science moves.

So it seems that economic development and race relations are intrinsically tied. This brings up the question of Wawasan 2020, the guiding policy to make Malaysia a fully industrialized country by 2020, a part of your legacy.

The country was growing during my time, most of the time. There were downturns. But the country was arrested because of improper handling, because of focus not so much on economic development, but on political survival. Each prime minister wants to survive, and they thought they would survive by playing up other issues instead of concentrating on economic development. And therefore the growth slowed down. And when there was racial tension, bad administration, corruption, et cetera, the economy shrinks. So we will not achieve Vision 2020 to become a fully developed country. We will not now. You can see the currency is depreciated, stock market is in a bad shape, people are generally unhappy.

You’ve not been shy about your wish to see Prime Minister Najib Razak go. In August, you wrote on your blog that democracy is dead, a reflection of the cabinet reshuffle in late July, the crippling of the attorney-general’s investigation of missing 1MDB funds, and the co-option of members of the Public Accounts Committee. Just a few weeks later, you appeared at the Bersih 4.0 protests to advocate the prime minister’s removal. Can you expand on your decision to attend in light of your opinion that democracy is dead?

Well, that is a kind of last resort. I feel the need to express my opinion, and since I hold the same view as Bersih, with regard to the removal of the prime minister, I went. It’s not a racial thing. The people at Bersih come from all communities. It’s not a Chinese demonstration against a Malay government. It’s not racist at all. So I went to express my support for what they are demanding.

Does that include Bersih’s other demands, such as electoral reforms, the right to protest, and more transparency?

I’m not against those things, but during my time, there were no protests. There was no Bersih. People were happy to participate in elections. They didn’t dispute the results of elections. It was only after I stepped down that there was Bersih, that [its supporters] demonstrated and made all these demands. These are things that happened after I stepped down. During my time people didn’t complain about elections. There may be extraneous people who will always complain, but to have a general demonstration like that, there was none.

What is your opinion of the counter-demonstration that followed Bersih 4.0, the so-called “red-shirt rally” in September?

That was organized by the government. They turned the Bersih demonstration into a racial thing, Chinese against Malays, which it is not. But they have to divert the attention of the demands of Bersih on 1MDB to something else, and they made race an issue. This is very dangerous, but the government wants to get people to show support for them.

Malaysia’s current credit rating is still A3 at Moody’s. But, as you mentioned, the ringgit has rapidly depreciated, public and household debt are very high, and the 1MDB scandal has cast political uncertainty over the country. Do you see a credit downgrade ahead?

It might happen. The way things are going, it might happen. Because now to pay our debts, which were made in foreign currencies including the U.S. dollar, we need more ringgit. And to make more ringgit, we need to have a good economy. But we are not having a good economy. We are not growing as fast; we are not getting richer, we are actually getting poorer.

How would it be possible to raise investor confidence in Malaysia?

At the moment I think if the prime minister is not there, confidence will return.

Would it be so simple? What about legal redress if he were to step down, or the repairing of supervisory and judiciary powers to check future scandals?

All these things can be done, provided the prime minister is not there.

Do you feel optimistic or pessimistic for such an outcome?

I’m very pessimistic.

It seems that there is a political stalemate, and further public protests are unlikely.

There should be a vote of non-confidence. But that all depends on the members of parliament being conscious about their duties. The members of parliament are indebted or obliged or owe something to the prime minister, so they are not going to do it.

Then what recourse is left to citizens?

The next election. Three years for the next election. Even then there is no certainty because money goes a long way toward changing peoples’ minds. And the people who are close to the prime minister don’t have money; the prime minister has a lot of money. He admitted so.

Do you feel personally invested in the outcome of these events? Tracing your career and your writings, it seems that the progress of the country, the progress of Malays and Malaysia, has been a lifelong project.

Every citizen would like to see his country prosper so that he can enjoy his life. Some are able to do something; some are not able to do anything. But I found myself in a position to do something, so I have become prominent. And since then, people seem to have accepted some of the things that I say. So I have a better chance to do something than most ordinary people. I am an ordinary citizen, but with better possibility of doing something.

Do you have a vision for what sort of leadership you would like to see?

A leader must be concerned about the country, not about himself. You have to, to a certain extent, preserve your position, but the preservation is possibly because it enables you to do things that are good for the country.

Do you have anybody in mind as the next leader?

Well, I think normally it would be the former deputy president of UMNO. But now, of course, things are very free.

So no comment on specific names?

Maybe the former deputy prime minister.

If you were to reprint your 1986 treatise The Challenge this year with a new chapter posing the modern challenge to Malaysia, what would that chapter say?

I have always thought that leadership would be concerned with getting on with the tasks of a leader. But I now find that being a leader alone is not enough. The kind of leadership we have should be one that has the capacity to focus not on himself, but on what is good for the country. Now I find that not anybody can be a leader. You need somebody that is dedicated to the cause of doing something for the country.

I wanted to ask about the major international frameworks facing Malaysia, including the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the China-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. What are your thoughts on these agreements, and in particular, Malaysia’s balance between the U.S. and China?

During my time, the concentration in foreign policy was to be friendly with all countries. But in particular we paid attention to the smaller countries, developing countries. We initiated South-South organization. I have always been critical of the U.S. because of U.S. policy. The U.S. tends to have a finger in every country, and when they come in, there will be trouble. You see this in the Middle East and elsewhere. They wanted to come to Malaysia also, but during my time I rejected their approach.

Now they have proposed TPP, as you know. And TPP is a device for them; obviously it is for their own good. And what they want to do is open up markets everywhere so that they can come in. The opposite is that “you can come into our country,” but we don’t have the strength to go there. We don’t have the products to sell there, whereas they have everything. They have the capital, they have the knowhow, they can buyout small or big companies here. And eventually, they will rule all the businesses. And that means also political control.

Many think that Najib’s administration will pass the TPP. Do you agree?

He doesn’t study the implications enough. Even if he does study, his policy is to be friendly with Americans. So he is prepared to disregard the national interest in favor of being friendly with America and complying with American ideas.

Regarding China, what I thought was very interesting was your proposal of the East Asian Economic Caucus in December 1990. This pioneered an identity of East Asia, moving away from the Cold War-era concepts of Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. Now, ideas of Asia are dominated by China. How should Malaysia posture itself toward China?

Well, the EAEC, or East Asian Economic Caucus or Community, was suggested because of the failure of GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Because of that failure, we found ourselves having to confront other countries, economies of the West. But they enhanced their strength by Europe coming together, North America coming together. If Malaysia is to counter their moves, we need to strengthen ourselves. We need a bigger bloc. And that bigger bloc should be East Asia. Not just Southeast Asia because it’s too small, too weak. Southeast Asia plus East Asia will be very powerful. Then we can go to any meeting and speak with a powerful voice, with one voice. But of course the Americans shot down that plan to Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Indonesia – “they must not do this” – because America does not want anybody contesting them. So we couldn’t go ahead with that.

Then China emerged as a very powerful economy. Our policy is to be friendly with all countries, but we think China is the counterbalance to America. So we developed a policy of being friendly to China. China and Malaysia have very good relations.

What about South China Sea issues?

Well, that is a problem, and we will try to deal with that.

Are you worried about competition from other Southeast Asian countries, like Indonesia, Thailand, and now Vietnam as a new “tiger economy”?

No, we had a policy that says “prosper thy neighbor.” We believe that if the neighbors are prosperous, they give you less trouble. If they are poor, they tend to migrate to our country, create a lot of problems and confrontations, et cetera. But if they are prosperous, we can benefit by exporting to them, trading with them. I think we had an edge because we started earlier. Despite everything, we were better industrialized than Indonesia or Philippines or Vietnam.

But now, because the administration does not focus on economic development, we are falling back. We are not growing as fast as Indonesia, as fast as Philippines, as fast as Vietnam. That was the government’s mistake. Because they either don’t know or they don’t care whether the country grows or not. So our neighbors, when they have become prosperous, they will benefit from our lack of ability to compete.

It seems your mood today is overall quite pessimistic on Malaysia’s reputation, its state of democracy, and economic prospects. Is there something to give Malaysians hope?

The people are very good people. Malaysians are very tolerant. In other countries, with the kind of divisions in terms of race and culture and economic wellbeing, there would be confrontations, there would be violence. But here, they may have tensions between races, but it doesn’t escalate to the point of violence.

So you have faith that, even with racial tensions rising, there will not be violence?

Unless of course somebody does something very wrong. One has to remember that, way back, there was a communist uprising in this country to overthrow the government by violence. It has happened before. In 1969, there was race violence. But generally, people in Malaysia here are quite peaceful.

Interview: Mahathir Mohamad
by Joyce Lee, thediplomat.com

Joyce Lee is currently a master’s student at the London School of Economics, completing a dual degree in international affairs between PKU and LSE.

Peril of ignoring the building blocks of knowledge

The education of our population, in all its forms, from birth till the time our brain stops functioning, is the one factor that determines the quality of our lives, and collectively, our country. No wonder in all the major religions the word `Iqra` was the first to be mentioned. How has Lahore fared in its long history in terms of its human development? This vital aspect of existence needs to be better understood, researched and written about, let alone discussed in the highest forums, which it definitely is not. Our per capita investment in education is the lowest in the world. That Jinnah wished to spend `one fifth of our income on educating the poor` is ignored, and ignored it is to the peril of the State itself. This piece was inspired by an article in a Lahore newspaper by my friend Dr. Tahir Kamran, a much sought after scholar when he was in Cambridge, though unsurprisingly neglected in his homeland. The learned doctor suggested that we need fewer, but high quality universities based onresearch, with better archives and libraries, and, most importantly, teachers of the highest calibre capable of inspiring the young to question and dare. Imagine a country where it has become difficult to find an appropriate vice chancellor to the numerous universities. Mind you one recent research found out that only eight per cent of the population can actually write a letter themselves. With a functional literacy rate (based on newspapers printed) of 0.01 per cent, what can one expect? If we go back in time we see that almost 3,500 years ago the great Harappa Civilisation had produced important seats of learning. This the few archaeological digs have proven beyond doubt. We can see the lasting results of just two scholars who studied between 1,000-600 BC at Taxila University, were born probably east of Charsadda, moved to Lahore, or nearby, to learn mathematics and the languages from the great scholars of the city. Mathematics and languages are the building blocks of knowledge, and it was here that they produced two books that are stillacknowledged as the greatest books on the rules of grammar and mathematics. Mind you in our villages till very recent mathematics by rote learning of complex multiplication tables and a few languages like Punjabi, Persian and Arabic was normal. Even this has died out. There is a real threat to our very mother tongue. What could be more serious, let alone dangerous,for our very culture and way of life? The outstanding book of the rules of grammar is `Astadhyayi`, or `eight chapter grammar`. Its 3,990 `sutras` (rules) are even today studied by scholars of linguistics. This to the present day determines the basic rules of grammar for all languages of the world. This work of the great Harappa grammarian Rishi Panini took over 20 years of research and data collection. The rigours of scholarship have to be endured. Then we have the great Katyayana who set about 300 years later explaining the work of Panini in a village near Gujranwala, with his `Vartikas` (explanations)ofPanini`s`sutras`. He was followed by Patanjali, another grammarian who wrote `Mahabhasya` or a `great com-mentary` on the works of Panini and the explanations by Katyayana. In these very columns a few years ago I dwelt on the great mathematician from Salatura (Lahore`s ancient name in the Vedas) by the name of Pingala, brother of Panini. While Rishi Panini was travelling, researching and compiling his great `Astadhyayi`, his brother was also delving to advance the science of mathematics and logic. His immortal work is called `Chandahshatra`. In this the very first known description of the binary numeral system came through. What we today term `Pascal`s Triangle` was first described in great detail in this great book. One of his students, the great Halayudha, improved on this work and the first use of (n-1) was seen. The origins of modern mathematics had been trulylaid. But Pingala was the very first man, so it seems, who came up with the concept of a `zero`. The use of the word `shunya`, meaning in Sanskrit `empty, or a void` came about. The empty space that emerged when the sum of anything was nothing was noteddown by a small circle. Arab mathematicians who learnt the Sanskrit word `shunya` termed it `sifr`, meaning `nothing, or empty`. From the word `sifr` the Venetians who travelled the trade routes between Rome and the Arab word called it `zyphrus` which is a Latin-Greek origin word. This is not surprising for the elite used Latin when writing. The word `zefiro` was how they described it in their old texts, which went on to be called `zero` once English influence prevailed. Mind you the massive effort of Al-Mansur of Spain in 773 AD to translate all the old Sanskrit works to some extent formed the foundation of scientific research and thought. The influence of Greek thinking flushed with their scholars excited by the l The end of religious plurality naturally bred intolerance and the Dark Ages set in Europe.Have absolutely no doubt that scholarship needs to be nurtured, tolerated, protected and encouraged, and this is done best in `relative` peace. In periods of strife, and hence intolerance, scholarship is lost as it happened to Sanskrit, the language of our land, and dare I say ancestors, which continuous military invasions from our western borders fuelled. It took western scholars like Heinrich Roth (d 1668), Johann Hanxleden (d 1731) and Sir William Jones (d 1794) to discover the great works of our land, which in turn led to the development of western philology and linguistics. We see in the history of Lahore, and the Punjab periods of immense scholarship but only when periods of great turmoil ceased. In periods of peace there was tolerance, and hence scholarship. Take the recent events of 1947 when extreme communal hatred led to the partition of the land. The `claims` phenomenon triggered a way of life where corruption is, even today, accepted as `normal`. Corruption and tension are a lethal mix. In such circumstances education becomes a lucrative business as the Stateabdicates this basic role. The end result is `relative` economic backwardness. That India and even Bangladesh have overtaken Pakistan in economic development is, therefore, not surprising. What is our heritage as far as human development goes? The answer is that we have had impressive periods where the creative burst of the literate produced great works that still live. Of recent how we treated Dr. Abdul Salam is before us. I remember as a young journalist interviewing him when all my brother `pen pushers` refused. For days official operatives followed me, some of whom I even entertained to tea at home. Those were torrid times. Mind you they still are. Will the cycle of learning return to our land? For that to happen probably great changes will be needed in the way we view our history, let alone the other sciences. But most important will be the changes that will follow once we ensure that every citizen of this land knows the basics of mathematics and languages, the building blocks of knowledge.
Peril of ignoring the building blocks of knowledge by Majid Sheikh, dawn.com

مسلم دنیاکی اناڑی قیادت Immature leadership of Muslim world

I remember in the 1980s as he orated against the Soviet Union, President Reagan often quoted from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense with his vision of a United States strong enough “to begin the world over again.” One of his Republican successors did it. President George W Bush did begin the world all over again. But he turned it upside down. No wonder, we are today living in a turbulent world.
The ideological division of the Cold War world into two rival blocs, the East and the West, has given way to a new configuration of power in the form of unipolarity, unleashing its own security challenges and problems for the world at large. The world now stands divided between the “West and the Rest” and, as before, between two unequal halves, one embarrassingly rich and the other desperately poor. While the West is endowed with abundance of wealth and affluence, the “Rest,” which includes mostly Third World countries representing the overwhelming part of humanity, languishes in poverty and backwardness.

Unfortunately, all is not well with the Third World. Most developing countries suffer serious governance and rule of law problems rooted in their authoritarian and non-representative political culture. Some of them are mired in perpetual intra-state or inter-state conflicts. What is even more disturbing is that two of the world’s largest regions, Africa and South Asia, both rich in natural and human resources, are the biggest victims of poverty and violence. Both continue to be scenes of endemic instability as a result of conflicts and hostilities, unresolved disputes, unaddressed historical grievances, and deep-rooted communal and religious estrangement.

And the Muslim world is in no better shape. It represents the tragic story of Medusa, the ill-piloted French naval ship in the 19th century that ran aground because of its incompetent captain’s blunders and his dependence on others for navigational guidance, leaving behind a sordid tale of helplessness, death and desperation. The Medusa’s wreck is still out there, stuck on the West African coast. Like Medusa’s wreck, the Muslim world is just lying there, aimlessly floating like a stricken ship with no one to steer it out of the troubled waters.

The Muslim world today is indeed in a crisis. Representing one-fifth of humanity as well as of the global land mass spreading over 57 countries and possessing 70 percent of the world’s energy resources and nearly 50 percent of the world’s natural resources, the Muslim world should have been a global giant, economically as well as politically. Rich in everything but weak in all respects, it represents only five percent of the world’s GDP and is totally a non-consequential entity with no role in global decision-making, or even in addressing its own problems.

Though some of them are sitting on the world’s largest oil and gas reserves, the majority of Muslim countries are among the poorest and most backward in the world. Poor and dispossessed, Muslim nations emerging from long colonial rule may have become sovereign states but are without genuine political and economic independence. With rare exceptions, they are all at the mercy of the West for their political strength and survival and are politically bankrupt with no institutions other than authoritarian rule. They have no established tradition of systemic governance or institutional approach in their policies and priorities.

They have no bone, no muscle and whatever wealth they possess is being exploited by the West. The rulers in today’s Muslim world, without exception, are at the mercy of the US for their political strength and survival, and are responsible for the current political, economic and military subservience of their countries to the West. Their lands and resources remain under “protective” military control of their masters, who are also the direct beneficiaries of their oil proceeds and investments.

Every ingredient of political life in these so-called sovereign states has been faked; sovereignty is not sovereignty, parliament is not parliament, law is not law, and the opposition parties are as corrupt and wasted as the ruling parties. Even the independence following the colonial powers’ handing over of the reins of government to local rulers was not true independence. Other than being members of the United Nations, they have no semblance of sovereignty, independence or freedom.

Peace is the essence of Islam and yet the Muslim nations have seen very little of it, especially after the Second World War. Conflict and violence are pervasive in the Muslim world. Some states are home to foreign military bases, while others have allowed foreign forces to use their territory freely and even to carry out their “operations” at will. There are others selflessly engaged in proxy wars on behalf of others and in some cases against their own people. The tragedies in Palestine, Kashmir, Iraq and Afghanistan represent the continuing helplessness of the world’s Muslims.

Since 9/11, Islam itself is being demonised by its detractors with obsessive focus on the religion of individuals and groups accused of complicity or involvement in terrorist activities. Islam is being blamed for everything that goes wrong in any part of the world. The Muslim freedom struggles of yesterday are now seen as the primary source of “militancy and terrorism.”

Global terrorism is now being used to justify military occupations and to curb the legitimate freedom struggles of Muslim peoples. Muslim issues remain unaddressed for decades. Palestine is tired and has given up. Iraq is still burning. Afghanistan has yet to breathe in peace. Kashmir is devastated and stands disillusioned. Lebanon is simmering. Pakistan is suffering the worst leadership crisis. Iran is on notice. The Muslim world could not be more chaotic and more helpless. Surely these are critical times for the Muslim world.

What aggravates this dismal scenario is the inability of the Muslim world as a bloc to take care of its problems or to overcome its weaknesses. Its rulers have mortgaged to the West not only the security and sovereignty of their countries but also the political and economic futures of their nations. Despite material affluence in a few oil-rich countries, there is a widespread sense of political and economic deprivation in the Muslim world.

These are all a dreary phenomena for which the rulers of the Muslim world alone are responsible. Thanks to our obscurantist mindset, we have done nothing to secure our future in this alarmingly chaotic world. It makes no sense dwelling nostalgically on Islam’s past and “lost” glory. For us, the steady erosion of Islamic polity and power, the Muslim world’s lurch into Western colonialism, and now, total political, economic, social and technological backwardness, should be stark reminders of the historical magnitude of the failures of Muslim leadership. We cannot entirely blame the West for the Muslim world’s institutional bankruptcy, its political and intellectual aridity, its deficiency in knowledge, education and science and technology, its aversion to modernity and modernisation, and its growing servility to the West.

Things will not change unless the Muslim world itself fixes its fundamentals and puts its house in order. Angels will not descend to help or salvage it. It must take control of its own destiny through unity, mutuality and cohesion within its ranks. Its wealth and resources now being exploited by the West should be used to build its own strength and for its own socio-economic well-being. The key to reshaping the destiny of the Muslim world lies in its political and economic independence and military strength with each Muslim nation opting for peace and democracy, and for knowledge and technology as top priority.
Email: shamshad1941@yahoo.com
News International

اس حقیقت سے کوئی انکار نہیںکرسکتا کہ آج مسلم دنیا بحران کی زد میں ہے۔ پوری دنیا کا پانچواں حصہ مسلم آبادی پر مشتمل ہے، وسیع و عریض رقبے پر پھیلے ہوئے 57 ممالک میں مسلمانوں کی حکومت ہے، دنیا میں موجود 70فیصد توانائی اور50 فیصد قدرتی وسائل بھی مسلمان ممالک کے پاس ہیں۔ اتنی بڑی آبادی، رقبے اور وسائل کی مالک مسلم دنیا کو سیاسی اور اقتصادی لحاظ سے دنیا کی بہت بڑی طاقت ہونا چاہیے تھا؛ لیکن افسوس ، صورت حال اس کے بالعکس ہے۔۔۔۔تمام نعمتوں سے مالا مال مسلم دنیا ہراعتبار سے کمزور ہے۔ دنیا کی جی ڈی پی میں اس کا حصہ صرف 5 فیصد ہے۔ اس کی حیثیت نہیںناقابل ذکر ہے، اس کا نہ صرف عالمی سطح کی فیصلہ سازی میں کوئی کردار ہے بلکہ یہ خود اپنے معاملات طے کرنے کی صلاحیت سے بھی عاری ہوچکی ہے۔
اس کا اپنا کوئی مضبوط ڈھانچہ ہے نہ موثرادارے ، حتیٰ کہ اس کے پاس جو دولت ہے، اسے عملی طور پر مغرب استعمال کرتا ہے۔ ستم ظریفی یہ ہے کہ پوری مسلم دنیا، بلااستثنیٰ اپنی سیاسی قوت اور بقا کے لیے امریکہ کے رحم و کرم پر ہے۔ مسلم دنیا کے حکمران ہی اپنے ممالک کے سیاسی،اقتصادی اور فوجی اعتبار سے مغرب کے زیر دست ہونے کے ذمہ دار ہیں۔ ان کے ملکوں کی زمین اور وسائل ان کے ''آقائوں‘‘ کی '' حفاظتی تحویل‘‘ میں ہیں اور وہی ان کے تیل اور سرمائے سے براہ راست استفادہ کرتے ہیں۔ اگرچہ تیل اورگیس کے سب سے بڑے ذخائر کچھ مسلمان ممالک کے پاس ہیں لیکن مسلم دنیا کے بیشتر ممالک دنیا کے سب سے زیادہ غریب اور پسماندہ ہیں۔ بلاشبہ طویل نو آبادیاتی تسلط سے نجات پانے والے اکثر ممالک غریب اور بے وسیلہ تھے ، آزاد ہونے کے بعد وہ مکمل خود مختار ریاستیں بن سکتے تھے لیکن انہیں آج تک حقیقی سیاسی و اقتصادی آزادی نصیب نہیں ہوپائی۔ ان کی تجارت، ان کی تیل کی آمدنی، سرمایہ کاری کے لیے مختص فنڈز، بینکنگ سسٹم ، بچتیں اورامیرمسلمان ممالک کی ہر چیز مغرب کے زیر تسلط ہے۔ معمولی استثنیٰ کے ساتھ تمام مسلمان حکمران سیاسی اعتبار سے نااہل ہیں اور اپنی مطلق العنان حکمرانی کے سوا ملک کے اداروں کو مضبوط بنانے میں ان کی کوئی دلچسپی نہیں ہے۔
حکومتی نظام یا ملکی پالیسیوں اور ترجیحات کاتعین کرنے کے لیے ان کے پاس مضبوط روایات نہیں ہیں، لہٰذا ان نام نہاد خود مختار ریاستوں کی سیاسی زندگی کا ہرپہلو ناپائیدار اور غیر حقیقی ہے۔۔۔۔ان کی خود مختاری حقیقی خود مختاری نہیں، پارلیمنٹ صحیح معنوں میں پارلیمنٹ نہیں، قانون کو قانون نہیںکہا جاسکتا اور اپوزیشن کی جماعتیں حکمران پارٹیوں کی طرح کرپٹ اور اچھی روایات سے تہی دامن ہیں۔ دراصل نو آبادیاتوں طاقتوں نے مقامی حکمرانوں کو اقتدار تو سونپ دیا مگر حقیقی آزادی نہیں دی۔ نوآزاد مسلم ممالک کی حیثیت اقوام متحدہ کا رکن ہونے کے باوجود مغرب کی کالونیوں جیسی ہے اورآج تک انہیں حقیقی آزادی اور قومی وقار نصیب نہیں ہوسکا۔
امن و سلامتی اسلام کی روح ہے لیکن مسلمان اقوام کے پاس اس کا حصہ نہایت قلیل ہے، خصوصاً دوسری جنگ عظیم کے بعدان میںانتشاربڑھ گیا ۔ کچھ مسلمان ممالک میں بیرونی ممالک کے فوجی اڈے قائم ہیں اورکچھ نے بیرونی فورسزکو اپنی سرزمین استعمال کرنے اور اپنی مرضی کے آپریشنز جاری رکھنے کی اجازت دے رکھی ہے۔ ان میں کچھ ایسے بھی ہیں جو غیروںکے ایما پر پراکسی وار لڑرہے ہیں اور ان میں سے بعض اپنے ہی لوگوں کے خلاف برسر پیکار ہیں۔ فلسطین، کشمیر، عراق اور افغانستان کے المیے دنیا میں مسلمانوں کی بے بسی کا مظہر ہیں۔ نائن الیون کے بعد خود اسلام کا چہرہ ایسے افراد یا گروپوں کے مذہب کے طور پر پیش کیا جارہا ہے جو دہشت گردی میں ملوث ہیں۔ دنیا کے کسی بھی حصے میں پیش آنے والے ہر غلط کام کاذمہ دار اسلام کو قرار دے دیاجاتا ہے۔ دنیاکی طاقتوراقوام تشدد اورانتہاپسندی کی لعنت کی آڑ میں مسلمانوں کی جدوجہد آزادی کو ''عسکریت اور دہشت گردی‘‘ کانام دے کر مسلمان عوام کی تحاریک آزادی کوفوجی غلبے کے ذریعے کچلنے کے درپے ہیں۔
کئی دہائیوںسے مسلمانوں کے مسائل اور معاملات پر توجہ نہیں دی جارہی۔ فلسطین کو نظراندازکردیاگیا ہے، عراق ابھی تک جل رہا ہے، افغانستان قیام امن کا منتظر ہے، مسئلہ کشمیرکا حل خواب و خیال بن چکا ہے، لبنان کے حالات بدستورکشیدہ ہیں، لیبیا کو مفلوج کردیاگیا ہے اور مصرکو ایک نئی مطلق العنان حکومت کی تجربہ گاہ بنایا جارہا ہے۔ شام میں حکومت کی برطرفی اگلا ہدف ہے۔ ایران سے نمٹنے کا لائحہ عمل تیاری کے مراحل میں ہے اور پاکستان انتہائی نگہداشت کے وارڈ (ICU)میں ہے۔ مسلم دنیاکواس زیادہ بحران زدہ اور بے بس نہیں کیاجاسکتا۔ یقیناً یہ وقت مسلم دنیا کے لیے انتہائی پریشان کن اور سنگین ہے۔ اس ابتر صورت حال کو جو چیز مزید المناک بنارہی ہے وہ مسلم دنیا کی بحیثیت ایک بلاک اپنے مسائل کے حل اورکمزوریوں پر قابو پانے میں نااہلی ہے۔
ہم مسلم دنیا میں اداروں کی ناکامی، علم کی کمی اور سائنس اینڈ ٹیکنالوجی میں پیچھے رہ جانے کا سارا الزام مغرب کو نہیں دے سکتے، اس کی تمام تر ذمہ داری مسلمان حکمرانوں پر عائد ہوتی ہے۔ انہوں نے نہ صرف اپنی سکیورٹی اور خود مختاری بلکہ اپنے ملکوں کا سیاسی اور اقتصادی مستقبل بھی مغرب کے ہاتھوں میں گروی رکھ چھوڑا ہے۔ مسلم دنیا کے وہ چند ممالک جو تیل کی دولت سے مالامال ہیں، وہ بھی سیاسی اور اقتصادی آزادی سے محروم ہیں۔ اسلام کے ماضی کی عظمت اور''گم شدہ ‘‘ شان و شوکت کے ناسٹلجیا میں زندہ رہنا مناسب نہیں، ہماری بھرپور توجہ اس امر پر مرکوز رہنی چاہیے کہ اسلامی دنیا اقتدار سے کیونکر محروم ہوئی، وہ کون سے اسباب ہیں جن کی بنا پرمسلم دنیا مغرب کی نو آبادیاتی تسلط میں آگئی اور اب جبکہ ہم صنعتی اور ٹیکنالوجی کے میدان میں انتہائی پسماندہ ہیں، سیاسی ، اقتصادی اور فوجی اعتبار سے بھی مغرب کے دست نگر ہوچکے ہیں، مسلم لیڈر شپ اپنی تاریخی ناکامیوں کا ادراک کرتے ہوئے آگے بڑھنے کی ٹھوس تدابیر اختیارکرے۔
بدقسمتی سے ہماری حالت انیسویں صدی کے فرانسیسی بحریہ کے جہاز ''میڈوسا‘‘ کے مشابہ ہے جس کا اناڑی کپتان اپنی حماقتوں اور دوسروں کی تکنیکی مہارت پر انحصار کرتے ہوئے ادھر ادھر بھٹکتا رہا اور بالآخر اپنے پیچھے بے بسی ، موت اور مایوسی کی ایک المناک کہانی چھوڑ گیا۔ میڈوسا مغربی افریقہ کے ساحل آرگوئن سے ٹکرا کر تباہ ہوگیا تھا۔ آج مسلم دنیا کی حالت اپنے مفاد پرست اور نااہل قائدین کی وجہ سے میڈوسا کے کپتان سے مختلف نہیں جومحکمہ کسٹم کا ایک افسر تھا لیکن فرانسیسی بادشاہ کا ذاتی دوست ہونے کی بنا پر جہازکا کپتان بن گیا ۔ ہمارے قائدین نے بھی اپنے ''آقائوں‘‘کی آشیرباد سے اقتدار تو حاصل کرلیا لیکن وہ نہیں جانتے کہ مسلم دنیا کو کس طرف لے جانا ہے۔
جب تک مسلم دنیا بذات خود اپنی بنیادیں اوراندرونی معاملات درست نہیں کرتی،اس میں کوئی مثبت تبدیلی نہیں آئے گی۔کوئی فرشتہ ان کی مدد کے لیے آسمان سے نہیں اترے گا، وہ اس وقت مغرب کی مدد کرنے میں مصروف ہیں۔ مسلم دنیا کو متحد اور منظم ہوکر اپنی تقدیر اپنے ہاتھوں میں لینا ہوگی۔ اپنے وسائل اور دولت جسے مغرب استعمال کررہا ہے، اپنی طاقت بڑھانے اور اپنی سماجی و اقتصادی حالت بہتر بنانے پرخرچ کرنا ہوںگے۔ مسلم دنیا کی نجات اور فلاح ہر مسلمان ملک کی پالیسیوں اور ترجیحات میں پوشیدہ ہے، لیکن اس کا انحصار مسلم قائدین اور حکومتوں پر ہے کہ وہ نہ صرف اپنی سکیورٹی اور آزادی کو یقینی بنائیں بلکہ اپنی سیاسی ، اقتصادی اور سماجی استحکام کا بھی اہتمام کریں۔
مسلم دنیا کا مستقبل بہتر بنانے کی کلید سیاسی و اقتصادی آزادی اور فوجی طاقت ہے۔ اس مقصد کے لیے ہر مسلمان ملک کو امن ، تعلیم اور ٹیکنالوجی کے حصول کو ترجیحِ اوّل بنانا ہوگا۔ ہر ملک کو اپنی موجودہ پالیسیوں اور ترجیحات کا از سر نو تعین کرتے ہوئے قیام امن اور اچھی جوابدہ حکومت قائم کرنے کی جانب پیشرفت کرنا ہوگی۔ مسلم دنیا کو عزت، وقار اور ترقی کے راستے پر ڈالنے کی ذمہ داری حکومتوں پر عائد ہوتی ہے اور وہی مسلم ملت کو سیاسی،ادارہ جاتی اور ذہنی پسماندگی سے نکال سکتی ہیں۔
پاکستان مسلم دنیا میں اتحاد اور یکجہتی پیدا کرنے کے لیے بنیادی کردار ادا کرسکتا ہے۔ اسے مسلمان ممالک میں سیاسی، اقتصادی اور تزویراتی تعاون کو فروغ دینے کے لیے انہیں تقسیم کرنے کے بجائے باہم مربوط کرنے کی حکمت عملی اختیارکرنی چاہیے۔ اسے اپنے آپ کو بھی مسلم دنیا کے لیے معیاری تعلیم، سائنس اینڈ ٹیکنالوجی کے حصول اور جدیدیت کے اعتبار سے شاندار مثال بننا چاہیے۔
(کالم نگار سابق سیکرٹری خارجہ ہیں)