Post by Peace-Forum.
پاکستان کی تعمیر و ترقی اور قیام پاکستان کے مقاصد کے حصول کے لیئے (Intellectual resource) انٹلیلکٹچوئیل و سائل https://bit.ly/Salaam1Pakistan
Featured Post
FrontPage صفحہ اول
Salaam Pakistan is one of projects of "SalaamOne Network" , to provide information and intellectual resource with a view to...
Control of the Narrative of Terror
Post by Aftab Khan.
THE emerging narrative in Pakistan, especially in the Punjabi mainland and the urban centres of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh, shows that the militant discourse is fast moving from social to state control.
The discourse constitutes a zeal for war against everything that is different or at variance with the cultural, political and social domains. It manifests itself in the collective desire of mostly middle-income, urban groups to shape a homogenous world.
Diversity appears inimical to this discourse. Isolation from and conflict with the states of the region and the wider world is at its core. The mainstream electronic media, social media, right-wing and religio-political parties, apart from militant groups themselves, seem to be vying with one another in propagating the elements of this discourse out of compromise, complicity or fear, or all of these.
The popular narrative of the militant discourse is quite clearly indicated in the response to the elimination of Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Hakeemullah Mehsud in a recent drone strike.
Although the history and aims of the slain TTP chief are well known, Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan and the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief, Imran Khan presented a simplistic argument — something like this: the TTP chief was (perhaps) going to initiate a peace dialogue with the government which would have led to peace in Pakistan.
The US killing of the TTP chief was based on malevolent intentions of not giving peace a chance in Pakistan.
The argument has several problems. First, several media reports, both local and international, establish that the drone strike which eliminated Hakeemullah Mehsud had nothing to do with the peace dialogue. They show that US intelligence had been after the TTP chief since it was claimed he was involved in an attack on the CIA establishment in Afghanistan’s Khost province a few years back.
Second, according to many observers, the assumed peace process between the TTP and the state had few prospects of success on several counts. The TTP chief’s interview with the BBC some days before his death is cited as partial evidence of his lukewarm attitude towards the peace process that is being vehemently advocated by the political leadership.
The drone strike killing the TTP chief must be seen against the background of three intertwining circles.
There is a national circle with links to insurgency, terrorism and militancy inside Pakistan. There is a regional circle which outlines factors related to political events in the regional states, especially Afghanistan, Iran and India. There is the last circle which links national and regional security factors with the international community, especially Europe and North America.
The political leadership and military establishment have to become aware of the increasingly complex phenomenon that has evolved over the past several decades. To disentangle the complexities, state institutions and the political leadership have to adopt a five-pronged strategy mustering all the will power at their disposal.
First, an alternative pluralistic discourse has to be constructed through education, the media and civil society to replace the militant narrative that has permeated the veins of both the state and society over the past several years.
Second, the strategy of employing ‘privatised jihad’ to achieve foreign policy objectives in the region has to be disbanded altogether. Instead, political and economic interests need to be clearly articulated, and negotiated with regional states as well as the international community.
Third, an economy of war has been in place in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past several years. This economy constitutes drug trafficking, the smuggling of natural resources, kidnapping, human trafficking and the narcotics trade that keep feeding the insurgency, terrorism and Talibanisation. This economy needs to be replaced with an economy of peace.
Four, the use of power to dismantle the command and control structure, supply lines and recruitment and training centres of irreconcilable militant organisations needs to be time-bound, accountable and targeted.
Five, a rational framework needs to be put in place to engage the reconcilable militant organisations politically. The framework of dialogue for reconciliation and integration needs to be chalked out for the purposes of identifying the mechanism, legality and constitutionality of the task.
There seems to be a virulent effort by the religio-political parties to construct and manipulate the cultural and political discourse in Pakistan in the wake of Hakeemullah Mehsud’s elimination. These parties, as evidenced in the words of the Jamaat-i-Islami leader most recently, propound the view that the slain TTP chief was a ‘shaheed’, which has both religious and cultural connotations. By implication this means that all the innocent victims killed in terrorist attacks are ‘infidels’ who were out to destroy Islam and Muslims.
The militant organisations’ social media and mainstream media sympathisers seem to have almost succeeded in totally confusing the middle-class educated youth. The majority of the educated middle-class youth seems to have started choosing the discourse of the Taliban and religious militancy as an alternative to US economic and political domination.
They seem to think that it is only the US which is standing in the way of their redemption and salvation in the hereafter. All those sane voices who try to dissect the situation objectively are instantly dubbed as US agents thus divesting them of their fundamental right to express their opinion.
By: KHADIM HUSSAIN; The writer is a political analyst based in Peshawar. khadimhussain565@gmail.com Twitter:khadimhussain4
http://www.dawn.com/news/1055750/control-of-the-narrative
The discourse constitutes a zeal for war against everything that is different or at variance with the cultural, political and social domains. It manifests itself in the collective desire of mostly middle-income, urban groups to shape a homogenous world.
Diversity appears inimical to this discourse. Isolation from and conflict with the states of the region and the wider world is at its core. The mainstream electronic media, social media, right-wing and religio-political parties, apart from militant groups themselves, seem to be vying with one another in propagating the elements of this discourse out of compromise, complicity or fear, or all of these.
The popular narrative of the militant discourse is quite clearly indicated in the response to the elimination of Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) chief Hakeemullah Mehsud in a recent drone strike.
Although the history and aims of the slain TTP chief are well known, Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan and the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf chief, Imran Khan presented a simplistic argument — something like this: the TTP chief was (perhaps) going to initiate a peace dialogue with the government which would have led to peace in Pakistan.
The US killing of the TTP chief was based on malevolent intentions of not giving peace a chance in Pakistan.
The argument has several problems. First, several media reports, both local and international, establish that the drone strike which eliminated Hakeemullah Mehsud had nothing to do with the peace dialogue. They show that US intelligence had been after the TTP chief since it was claimed he was involved in an attack on the CIA establishment in Afghanistan’s Khost province a few years back.
Second, according to many observers, the assumed peace process between the TTP and the state had few prospects of success on several counts. The TTP chief’s interview with the BBC some days before his death is cited as partial evidence of his lukewarm attitude towards the peace process that is being vehemently advocated by the political leadership.
The drone strike killing the TTP chief must be seen against the background of three intertwining circles.
There is a national circle with links to insurgency, terrorism and militancy inside Pakistan. There is a regional circle which outlines factors related to political events in the regional states, especially Afghanistan, Iran and India. There is the last circle which links national and regional security factors with the international community, especially Europe and North America.
The political leadership and military establishment have to become aware of the increasingly complex phenomenon that has evolved over the past several decades. To disentangle the complexities, state institutions and the political leadership have to adopt a five-pronged strategy mustering all the will power at their disposal.
First, an alternative pluralistic discourse has to be constructed through education, the media and civil society to replace the militant narrative that has permeated the veins of both the state and society over the past several years.
Second, the strategy of employing ‘privatised jihad’ to achieve foreign policy objectives in the region has to be disbanded altogether. Instead, political and economic interests need to be clearly articulated, and negotiated with regional states as well as the international community.
Third, an economy of war has been in place in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan over the past several years. This economy constitutes drug trafficking, the smuggling of natural resources, kidnapping, human trafficking and the narcotics trade that keep feeding the insurgency, terrorism and Talibanisation. This economy needs to be replaced with an economy of peace.
Four, the use of power to dismantle the command and control structure, supply lines and recruitment and training centres of irreconcilable militant organisations needs to be time-bound, accountable and targeted.
Five, a rational framework needs to be put in place to engage the reconcilable militant organisations politically. The framework of dialogue for reconciliation and integration needs to be chalked out for the purposes of identifying the mechanism, legality and constitutionality of the task.
There seems to be a virulent effort by the religio-political parties to construct and manipulate the cultural and political discourse in Pakistan in the wake of Hakeemullah Mehsud’s elimination. These parties, as evidenced in the words of the Jamaat-i-Islami leader most recently, propound the view that the slain TTP chief was a ‘shaheed’, which has both religious and cultural connotations. By implication this means that all the innocent victims killed in terrorist attacks are ‘infidels’ who were out to destroy Islam and Muslims.
The militant organisations’ social media and mainstream media sympathisers seem to have almost succeeded in totally confusing the middle-class educated youth. The majority of the educated middle-class youth seems to have started choosing the discourse of the Taliban and religious militancy as an alternative to US economic and political domination.
They seem to think that it is only the US which is standing in the way of their redemption and salvation in the hereafter. All those sane voices who try to dissect the situation objectively are instantly dubbed as US agents thus divesting them of their fundamental right to express their opinion.
By: KHADIM HUSSAIN; The writer is a political analyst based in Peshawar. khadimhussain565@gmail.com Twitter:khadimhussain4
http://www.dawn.com/news/1055750/control-of-the-narrative
Post by Aftab Khan.
Related:
Post by Aftab Khan.
Post by Aftab Khan.
Post by Aftab Khan.
Hakeem Ullah "Shaheed" and his followers
http://dunya.com.pk/news/authors/detail_image/x4910_57330383.jpg.pagespeed.ic.tDDq1oELAo.jpg
Related:
Pakistan: Need for Classical conditioning for Development and progress
In an endeavour to understand human nature, thinkers and philosophers debate its changeability. Historical ac-counts of different nations show that although customs, traditions, culture, religious practice and law may control human behaviour, the reaction and attitude of a nation towards the society is influenced by economic and political progress.
As long as political institutions are stable and the economic system is strong enough to provide basic needs to people, societies sustain moral values. But when political and economic systems collapse, morality and legal systems also degenerate, resulting in chaos and disorder.
Greek historian Thucydides, in his book The History of the Peloponnesian Wars, compares the Athenians during peace and prosperity with the crisis they confronted during the plague.
Prior to the epidemic, the Athenians valued their freedom, democratic reforms and their victories in war. Their leader Pericles delivered the famous funeral oration and honoured those who were kil-led in the battlefield while defending the Republic of Athens. He praised the virtues of the city and its traditions and customs, creating a sense of pride among the audience.
Culturally superior to others, the Athenian society was a paragon of virtue and honour.
According to Thucydides` account of the war, the situation changed dramatically in the fifth century. Soon after the famous speech by Pericles, Athens was struck by a plague. This was when the Peloponnesian war refugees from the neighbouring villages and towns took shelter within the city of Athens. The overcrowding, hot and humid weather conditions, poor water supply and no sewerage led to the spread of the deadly virus.
Pericles himself died in the epidemic along with thousands of people, leaving behind a chaotic city.
In the absence of preventive measures and remedies, the disease rapidly spread through the city.
Dead bodies lay everywhere and people would throw corpses in the burning funeral pyres of other dead people, violating the tradition and custom of funerals.The plague destroyed the entire fabric of society which according to Thucydides, was the worst aspect of the plague. People abandoned the dead along with their sick friends and family. As self interest overpowered the feelings of fraternity and brotherhood, the sense of honour and sharing with others disappeared.
Some people took full advantage of the plague and the suffering and violated all social norms. They plundered, pillaged and accumulated wealth, enjoying the revelry and debauchery.
This account of events shows that human nature changes according to changing circumstances.
People behave differently in times of peace and prosperity as compared to times of war, famine, drought and pestilence.
History shows that when a nation progresses, the people are dignified.
But when the nation stagnates, so does the character of its people.
In view of this historical background, when we study the history of Pakistan we find that the behaviour of its people has changed with political and economic vicissitude.In its early history, the moral situation of the society had not degenerated so much as it has presently.The institutions worked efficiently, bureaucrats were not (that) corrupt and the politicians, although ac-cused of inefficiency, were not utterly venal. This is of course a generalisation, but a somewhat accurateone at that.
Repeated military interventions, wars and political in-fighting completely changed the structure and values of the society, resulting in disorder and chaos. The decline and failure of society has affected the behaviour of people. Moral values have lost their impact while self-interest has become the leitmotif for success.
The behaviour of people can only change for the better with economic and political stability.
According to the English philosopher John Locke, human nature is like a `tabula rasa` or a blank slate.
He believed that human nature is dependent on a good or bad environment. So if the state provides basic needs to people, the pleasant environment will reflect in the improved behaviour of the people.
They will respect moral values and preserve their dignity and virtues.
Based on this philosophy, the Western states have reformed education and health, thus positively impacting the lifestyle of people.
The ruling classes of Pakistan should also introduce reforms for education and health for the common man. This would change the human nature positively across the country. Failure to do so means the existing rate of decline will only pick up pace.
By Mubarak Ali: http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=27_10_2013_424_003
Related:
Decline and Fall of Nations - Open Warning
The second sign is the increased emphasis on self interest. National interest becomes redundant (and unfashionable) and people, in order to survive, follow the path of self interest. At this stage it become easy to betray the nation and collaborate with foreign powers, as well as domestic enemies of the state.
The third sign is a preference for wearing your religion on your sleeve. People begin to show their religious devotion outwardly without having any real faith in religious teachings. The manifestation of this preference for form over function is an increase in ‘showy’ religious processions, celebrations, sermons and distribution of religious tract and pamphlets. The corollary is that the actual teachings of the creed are neglected.
The fourth sign is the weakness of state power which allows people to indulge in all sorts of criminal activities without any fear of punishment. The judiciary fails to maintain justice; the army and police become powerless to enforce law and order. The result is those who are powerful form mafias and militias, illegal organisations which then dominate society and force the relatively weak (through terror and coercion) to obey them rather to look to state for protection.
The fifth sign is the loss of creativity. Artists, intellectuals, musicians, architects, sculptors and scientists are not able to invent or contribute anything new. They survive on imitation alone, leading society towards backwardness and degeneration.
The sixth sign is that society becomes so shallow that it fails to produce any people of substance. The giants vanish and pygmies rule over all.
We experienced this very process in the decline and fall of the Mughal empire. After the death of Alamgir in 1707, the Mughal empire rapidly degenerated. A succession of rulers came and went, all incapable of governing and controlling the state. Corruption, debauchery, intrigues and self interest prevailed. Therefore, we find that nobles were ready to collaborate with invaders like Nadir Shah and Ahmad Shah Abdali. When the East India Company appeared on the political scene, there was no dearth of Mir Jafars.
During this period, people, not feeling safe, wandered from one place to another for protection. Bandits, robbers, and thugs ruled the main thoroughfares. Travellers were not safe. Murders and killings were common.
Poets and historians lamented the dismal political, social, and economic condition of their society, and people expected that a savior would come and deliver them from these crises.
It did not happen. Instead of a saviour came the British who colonised India and, for the most part, people happily accepted their rule and came to terms with being ruled by them. The relative ease of that adjustment also shows the level of their decline.
When Pakistan came into existence, this new nation was fresh and energetic, ready to explode with new ideas and creativity. It was hoped that Independence would liberate the nation from colonial institutions and new traditions would be established based on the interests of the nation. Quite the reverse happened, and we saw not a rise but a continuous decline. Instead of improving upon what we inherited, we corrupted and destroyed it to the point where the state now teeters on the brink of the abyss.
We are ruled by pygmies. Our intellectuals are shallow and our artists have little vision. Our architects, instead of building the future, disfigure our cities with meaningless monuments and borrowed buildings. Worst of all, the people themselves are disillusioned and hopeless, watching helplessly as the decline continues, and an almost inevitable fall stares back at us from the annals of history.
BY: MUBARAK ALI
http://www.dawn.com/news/1050498/past-present-decline-and-fall
Related:
عید مبارک Eid Mubarak
Say,
"Who prohibited the nice things GOD has created for His creatures, and
the good provisions? Say, "Such provisions are to be enjoyed in this
life by those who believe. Moreover, the good provisions will be
exclusively theirs on the Day of Resurrection." We thus explain the
revelations for people who know. Say, "My Lord prohibits only evil
deeds, be they obvious or hidden, and sins, and unjustifiable
aggression, and to set up beside GOD powerless idols, and to say about
GOD what you do not know." [Quran; 7:32-33]
The Eid al-Fitr (عيد الفطر ʻĪd al-Fiṭr], "festival of breaking of the fast"), also called Feast of Breaking the Fast, the Sugar Feast, Bayram (Bajram), the Sweet Festiva and the Lesser Eid, is an important religious holiday celebrated by Muslims worldwide that marks the end of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting (sawm). This has to do with the communal aspects of the fast, which expresses many of the basic values of the Muslim community; e.g., empathy for the poor, charity, worship, steadfastness, patience etc. Fasting is also believed by some scholars to extol fundamental distinctions, lauding the power of the spiritual realm, while acknowledging the subordination of the physical realm. It also teaches a Muslim to stay away from worldly desires and to focus entirely on the Lord and thank Him for his blessings. It is a rejuvenation of the religion and it creates a stronger bond between the Muslim and his Lord. After the end of Ramadan, is a big celebration of Eid that is very importance Islamic tradition. Keep reading >>>>
Hate Malala , Love Taliban?
Media
hype is created every now and then on some issue, its required for their survival, but
if we look at the Social media it appears that Mala is the only problem
of Pakistan .... this reflects a particular mindset of primitive
society of Jahelya 1400 years ago, when
girls were burred alive, now we see they being killed called HONOR
Killing. Unfortunately all this is being done on the name of Islam,
which is against such nonsense. These are cultural local taboos. Every
thing from West is not bad .. even this FACEBOOK and internet we are
using to express our views .... is not Muslim invention. West has bad
aspects and some good aspects. As we adopt good things from West for our
personnel comfort and convenience we should also see the humane aspects
among their common people. They are ahead because they practice "some
moral aspects" which used to be hall mark of Muslims.
We must reject their bad aspects and appreciate good ones. NOW Taliban verses Malala.... and those who curse Malala because she took stand against Talilban. So while advertising her one should know that he is standing on the side of Taliban ... does he know it? or doing it inadvertently .... I am sure while some sympathize with Taliban as "reaction" to corrupt rulers.... no sane person who knows little bit of Quran can favor Taliban .... SOME ONE VERY CLEVERLY DIVERTED OUR ENERGIES FORM THE MAIN ISSUE TO A NON ISSUE ........... BBC the Western radio talk on this link is worth listening :http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2013/10/131011_malala_confusion_a.shtml ..... LOL
Also: http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/10/blog-post.html
WHY do they hate her so? At least with the TTP it isn`t hard to figure out: Malala has publicly and powerfully defied them. But why do so many ordinary, seemingly normal folk hate her? Shame is an obvious possibility. Malala is the world`s most famous teenager. Her bravery and idealism have inspired millions. And yet, we`ve only had the privilege of witnessing Malala`s bravery and idealism because Pakistan has become the kind of place where a teenage girl is shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education.
That`s pretty grotesque stuff, and something the haters know the rest of the world fawning over Malala is aware of.
But shame doesn`t cut it as an explanation. For where`s the rage against the TTP then? If the victim has earned scorn for unwittingly bearing testimony to the monstrousness that stalks this land, then why not opprobrium for the perpetrators too? No, it feels less like guilt and shame and more like resentment. Resentment against a teenager shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education? Surely, that`s not what your average Pakistani has been reduced to? The easy and to some, the obvious answer is: yes, that is in fact what we have become.
In part because the implications of the simple answer are too horrifying to dwell on and also because simple explanations rarely fit something as complicated as societal perceptions, let`s try and search for a fuller explanation.
Why are so many ordinary, seemingly normal people consumed with anti-Malalaism? It`s fair to say that your average Pakistani isn`t terribly impressed by the state. He loves Pakistan, he is attached to the land that comprisesPakistan, he fiercely believes in Pakistan as an idea, but when it comes to that most basic of questions in the state-society equation how well does your state serve your needs? he is not terribly impressed.Nor should he be. Pakistan is a declining state. The ability of the state to positively intervene in people`s lives or to create an environment that allows people to pursue their life priorities as they see fit has been in decline for years, decades.
Forget the Taliban for a minute. It`s the everyday stuff that the state is supposed to provide the most that the state is failing at the most.
Basic security in neighbourhoods and homes? It`s been outsourced to the citizenry, rural and urban: higher walls, stronger gates and, for those who can afford it, personal guards.
Education and health? It`s been outsourced to the private sector, rural and urban: fee-charging schools, afterschool tuition, private clinics, expensive medicines.
Justice? Fuggedaboutit.
Water? Which brand of bottled water would you prefer? Entertainment or sport? Head to your nearest mall. Parks? See your local land grabber first. Public transport? Take your pick between a deathtrap on wheels or on rails.
Sanitation? For Chrissake.
Electricity? If it ended at that, perhaps it would be all right. But your average Pakistani doesn`t just have to turn to the private market for virtually everything the state ought to be providing, he has to spend to protect himself from a predatory state.
Direct spending when it comes to dealing with, say, thelower judiciary and the police; indirect spending when it comes to dealing with, say, the health fallout of businesses and industries that pollute.
It sucks to be a Pakistani in Pakistan. And it sucks, largely, because the state is in decline.
A declining state engenders no love or loyalty. If the corpus of its laws and rules fails to create a system that delivers meaningfully and positively, why should the average citizen automatically rally to that system`s defence when it is under threat? Sixty-six years into an irreversible experiment, the state its structure, its systems, its rules is still up for negotiation because the state has failed to make an irrefutable case to its people that the present structure, system and rules are the only ones that can work for Pakistan.
We`re still collectively standing around the drawing board, unconvinced by the model scrawled across it. And when you`re still stuck at the drawing-board stage, there`s always the possibility that someone will elbow their way to the board, chalk in hand, and present a different model.
Enter the Taliban.
Ever wonder why the protalks brigade is so quiet about what exactly can be negotiated with the Taliban? As in, what can we offer them in return for them ceasing their violence? It`s fairly obvious: the bits about Islam. Tweak a few laws here and there, suggest some modifications to the judicial process, bring religion yet more explicitly into the functioning of the state where`s the harm in any of that? That`s the problem with a state that has failed to stamp an irreversible identity for itself. By staying in the realm of the abstract, of the negotiable and re-negotiable, it opened the door to an alternative discourse, a replacement theory.
Folk may hate the Taliban`s violence, but few would inprinciple argue against the Taliban`s basic idea for the state: more religion will lead to peace, security and maybe even prosperity.
What does any of that have anything to do with Malala? Why hate a young girl with so evidently a beautiful mind and spirit? Because she speaks of the old model, of a state that is rooted in universal and modern principles and tenets, that delivers equally to all without recourse to religion. But there`s a new theory in town and it`s spread far and wide in this land of ours.
The Taliban have never been and will never be the principal threat to the Pakistani state as it was once conceived, but that failed to materialise. It`s the shared belief between the Taliban and the public in the essence of the Taliban mission that is the principal threat.
For better or worse, a state can`t exactly swap out swathes of its population and replace them with new citizens. But a state can, in theory at least, eliminate the purveyors of an ideology that make it possible for so many to hate a teenage girl who was shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education.
But can an already declining state do any such thing? Long live the Taliban! Down with Malala! • The writer is a member of staff.
We must reject their bad aspects and appreciate good ones. NOW Taliban verses Malala.... and those who curse Malala because she took stand against Talilban. So while advertising her one should know that he is standing on the side of Taliban ... does he know it? or doing it inadvertently .... I am sure while some sympathize with Taliban as "reaction" to corrupt rulers.... no sane person who knows little bit of Quran can favor Taliban .... SOME ONE VERY CLEVERLY DIVERTED OUR ENERGIES FORM THE MAIN ISSUE TO A NON ISSUE ........... BBC the Western radio talk on this link is worth listening :http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2013/10/131011_malala_confusion_a.shtml ..... LOL
Also: http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/10/blog-post.html
WHY do they hate her so? At least with the TTP it isn`t hard to figure out: Malala has publicly and powerfully defied them. But why do so many ordinary, seemingly normal folk hate her? Shame is an obvious possibility. Malala is the world`s most famous teenager. Her bravery and idealism have inspired millions. And yet, we`ve only had the privilege of witnessing Malala`s bravery and idealism because Pakistan has become the kind of place where a teenage girl is shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education.
That`s pretty grotesque stuff, and something the haters know the rest of the world fawning over Malala is aware of.
But shame doesn`t cut it as an explanation. For where`s the rage against the TTP then? If the victim has earned scorn for unwittingly bearing testimony to the monstrousness that stalks this land, then why not opprobrium for the perpetrators too? No, it feels less like guilt and shame and more like resentment. Resentment against a teenager shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education? Surely, that`s not what your average Pakistani has been reduced to? The easy and to some, the obvious answer is: yes, that is in fact what we have become.
In part because the implications of the simple answer are too horrifying to dwell on and also because simple explanations rarely fit something as complicated as societal perceptions, let`s try and search for a fuller explanation.
Why are so many ordinary, seemingly normal people consumed with anti-Malalaism? It`s fair to say that your average Pakistani isn`t terribly impressed by the state. He loves Pakistan, he is attached to the land that comprisesPakistan, he fiercely believes in Pakistan as an idea, but when it comes to that most basic of questions in the state-society equation how well does your state serve your needs? he is not terribly impressed.Nor should he be. Pakistan is a declining state. The ability of the state to positively intervene in people`s lives or to create an environment that allows people to pursue their life priorities as they see fit has been in decline for years, decades.
Forget the Taliban for a minute. It`s the everyday stuff that the state is supposed to provide the most that the state is failing at the most.
Basic security in neighbourhoods and homes? It`s been outsourced to the citizenry, rural and urban: higher walls, stronger gates and, for those who can afford it, personal guards.
Education and health? It`s been outsourced to the private sector, rural and urban: fee-charging schools, afterschool tuition, private clinics, expensive medicines.
Justice? Fuggedaboutit.
Water? Which brand of bottled water would you prefer? Entertainment or sport? Head to your nearest mall. Parks? See your local land grabber first. Public transport? Take your pick between a deathtrap on wheels or on rails.
Sanitation? For Chrissake.
Electricity? If it ended at that, perhaps it would be all right. But your average Pakistani doesn`t just have to turn to the private market for virtually everything the state ought to be providing, he has to spend to protect himself from a predatory state.
Direct spending when it comes to dealing with, say, thelower judiciary and the police; indirect spending when it comes to dealing with, say, the health fallout of businesses and industries that pollute.
It sucks to be a Pakistani in Pakistan. And it sucks, largely, because the state is in decline.
A declining state engenders no love or loyalty. If the corpus of its laws and rules fails to create a system that delivers meaningfully and positively, why should the average citizen automatically rally to that system`s defence when it is under threat? Sixty-six years into an irreversible experiment, the state its structure, its systems, its rules is still up for negotiation because the state has failed to make an irrefutable case to its people that the present structure, system and rules are the only ones that can work for Pakistan.
We`re still collectively standing around the drawing board, unconvinced by the model scrawled across it. And when you`re still stuck at the drawing-board stage, there`s always the possibility that someone will elbow their way to the board, chalk in hand, and present a different model.
Enter the Taliban.
Ever wonder why the protalks brigade is so quiet about what exactly can be negotiated with the Taliban? As in, what can we offer them in return for them ceasing their violence? It`s fairly obvious: the bits about Islam. Tweak a few laws here and there, suggest some modifications to the judicial process, bring religion yet more explicitly into the functioning of the state where`s the harm in any of that? That`s the problem with a state that has failed to stamp an irreversible identity for itself. By staying in the realm of the abstract, of the negotiable and re-negotiable, it opened the door to an alternative discourse, a replacement theory.
Folk may hate the Taliban`s violence, but few would inprinciple argue against the Taliban`s basic idea for the state: more religion will lead to peace, security and maybe even prosperity.
What does any of that have anything to do with Malala? Why hate a young girl with so evidently a beautiful mind and spirit? Because she speaks of the old model, of a state that is rooted in universal and modern principles and tenets, that delivers equally to all without recourse to religion. But there`s a new theory in town and it`s spread far and wide in this land of ours.
The Taliban have never been and will never be the principal threat to the Pakistani state as it was once conceived, but that failed to materialise. It`s the shared belief between the Taliban and the public in the essence of the Taliban mission that is the principal threat.
For better or worse, a state can`t exactly swap out swathes of its population and replace them with new citizens. But a state can, in theory at least, eliminate the purveyors of an ideology that make it possible for so many to hate a teenage girl who was shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education.
But can an already declining state do any such thing? Long live the Taliban! Down with Malala! • The writer is a member of staff.
By Cyril Almeida:cyril.a@gmail.com Twitter: @cyalm
http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=13_10_2013_009_005
MJ Akbar on Malala:
BETWEEN the prime minister of Pakistan, which 16-year-old Malala Yousafzai wants to become some day, and a Nobel winner for peace, which she might have become this week, the former is by far the better destiny.
The Nobel generally comes to worthies when they have long passed their sell-by date; and the last peace winner whose name I can recall, President Barack Obama, has not fallen far short of a superpower`s quota for international violence. A gong and a cheque would certainly help Malala, not to mention a media anxious for saleable headlines. A political career would help Pakistan.
Malala Yousafzai is a brave girl, as much for dreaming of a better future as for getting a bullet on a bus on her way to school from those who are wrecking her country. Gender oppression, of the very worst kind, is central to the DNA of Pakistani extremists seeking to drive a nation back to the days of jahiliya, or prejudice and ignorance, which is how the preIslamic tribal deserts of Arabia are often described.
Islam won the hearts of Arab women by banning prevalent malpractices such as female infanticide. Pakistan`s Taliban, and their numerous terrorist associates, are a throwback to the 6th century, and a disgrace to the religion they profess.
This has not, alas, diminished their growing influence at the grass roots, or weakened the clamour among Pakistan`s political elite for a `negotiated settlement` with the Taliban.
The question that is rarely asked, and never answered, is a simple one: what is there to negotiate? What should be on the agenda in a dialogue with sectarians who have made random murder their principal tactic, and perhaps the centralprinciple of their ideology as well? The Taliban and its surrogates, barely disguised by thin labels, want power. Is that on offer from Pakistan`s politicians? Does anyone want to appease them with a share of authority in regions northwest of the Indus? No one can stop their rhetoric, blasted into public space through some mosques and public rallies.
Can they be bought off with money? Unlikely, as they have enough funds from domestic as well as external sources. Andhere is a delicate question: will they ever agree to cooperate by turning their guns only in areas which suit Pakistan`s covert interest, like Afghanistan or India, and leave cities like Peshawar and Quetta alone? You cannot deal with inconvenient facts by pretending that they do not exist.
If Malala is in a British school today, it is because of them. If she hopes to challenge their vicious grip through elected office, it is because she knows how dangerous they are to the very sanity of Pakistan.
Malala is a teenager. She has every right to dream, particularly since she has been given a second life. Her dreams certainly make more sense than the rambling, shambling fantasies of a 70-year-old has-been like [retired] Gen Pervez Musharraf.
Musharraf can, and probably should, escape to Dubai or America or wherever he can find a few dollars more, instead of looking desperately for power, and posturing as a `saviour`.
Pakistan has moved far beyond him in some ways, even as it has regressed in other ways. But it is no longer a country for old dictators.
If Pakistan is going to be `saved` then it needs to become a nation with younger women and men in office, a new band of officials blessed by the fact that they do not carry the burden of recent history. It must become a land where Malala can return home.
Malala has everything she could conventionally want at this age in Britain: an education, a future, and the laudatory attention of a British media that has been building her up in the expectation that she would win the Nobel.
I am sure she wanted the Nobel even more than her wellwishers did. But she wants to bring peace to Pakistan, not to Britain. She wants to be a young woman in Lahore or Peshawar, not Bradford or Birmingham, to challenge the forces of misogyny and fanaticism which still command the streets.
What are the odds that this might happen? Not too good, if one were to be honest. Nawaz Sharif has become prime minister at the head of a stable government because voters believed that he could restore calm to a nation whose nerves are on edge, and whose peace of mind has been shattered.
So far, Sharif seems to be travelling at a leisurely pace to nowhere. To be fair to him, he still has time. But if Sharif fails, Malala and her generation will have to confront another question: is there nothing anyone can do? A teenager who nearly lost her life, but never abandoned hope, does not need the counsel of despair. Dreams do not necessarily come true, but then how many get a second life? • The writer is an author and editorial director of The Sunday Guardian, published from Delhi.
Comments:
Malala is terrorist? Did she kill 45000 innocent Pakistanis, destroyed schools, mosques, churches, attacked naval base Mehran, PAF Kamrah? Noble prize be given to Taliban, peace loving pious only Muslims... don't be confused .. more at
http://TakfiriTaliban.blogspot.com/
Every effort for education especially for girls must be supported. Malala is just a symbol for this struggle. But one is perplexed to notice social media campaign to project her as symbol of West. .. just reflect level of ignorance , deprivation and sympathy for Talibans ... let's try to educate these people this mindset ... rest will follow..
MJ Akbar on Malala:
BETWEEN the prime minister of Pakistan, which 16-year-old Malala Yousafzai wants to become some day, and a Nobel winner for peace, which she might have become this week, the former is by far the better destiny.
The Nobel generally comes to worthies when they have long passed their sell-by date; and the last peace winner whose name I can recall, President Barack Obama, has not fallen far short of a superpower`s quota for international violence. A gong and a cheque would certainly help Malala, not to mention a media anxious for saleable headlines. A political career would help Pakistan.
Malala Yousafzai is a brave girl, as much for dreaming of a better future as for getting a bullet on a bus on her way to school from those who are wrecking her country. Gender oppression, of the very worst kind, is central to the DNA of Pakistani extremists seeking to drive a nation back to the days of jahiliya, or prejudice and ignorance, which is how the preIslamic tribal deserts of Arabia are often described.
Islam won the hearts of Arab women by banning prevalent malpractices such as female infanticide. Pakistan`s Taliban, and their numerous terrorist associates, are a throwback to the 6th century, and a disgrace to the religion they profess.
This has not, alas, diminished their growing influence at the grass roots, or weakened the clamour among Pakistan`s political elite for a `negotiated settlement` with the Taliban.
The question that is rarely asked, and never answered, is a simple one: what is there to negotiate? What should be on the agenda in a dialogue with sectarians who have made random murder their principal tactic, and perhaps the centralprinciple of their ideology as well? The Taliban and its surrogates, barely disguised by thin labels, want power. Is that on offer from Pakistan`s politicians? Does anyone want to appease them with a share of authority in regions northwest of the Indus? No one can stop their rhetoric, blasted into public space through some mosques and public rallies.
Can they be bought off with money? Unlikely, as they have enough funds from domestic as well as external sources. Andhere is a delicate question: will they ever agree to cooperate by turning their guns only in areas which suit Pakistan`s covert interest, like Afghanistan or India, and leave cities like Peshawar and Quetta alone? You cannot deal with inconvenient facts by pretending that they do not exist.
If Malala is in a British school today, it is because of them. If she hopes to challenge their vicious grip through elected office, it is because she knows how dangerous they are to the very sanity of Pakistan.
Malala is a teenager. She has every right to dream, particularly since she has been given a second life. Her dreams certainly make more sense than the rambling, shambling fantasies of a 70-year-old has-been like [retired] Gen Pervez Musharraf.
Musharraf can, and probably should, escape to Dubai or America or wherever he can find a few dollars more, instead of looking desperately for power, and posturing as a `saviour`.
Pakistan has moved far beyond him in some ways, even as it has regressed in other ways. But it is no longer a country for old dictators.
If Pakistan is going to be `saved` then it needs to become a nation with younger women and men in office, a new band of officials blessed by the fact that they do not carry the burden of recent history. It must become a land where Malala can return home.
Malala has everything she could conventionally want at this age in Britain: an education, a future, and the laudatory attention of a British media that has been building her up in the expectation that she would win the Nobel.
I am sure she wanted the Nobel even more than her wellwishers did. But she wants to bring peace to Pakistan, not to Britain. She wants to be a young woman in Lahore or Peshawar, not Bradford or Birmingham, to challenge the forces of misogyny and fanaticism which still command the streets.
What are the odds that this might happen? Not too good, if one were to be honest. Nawaz Sharif has become prime minister at the head of a stable government because voters believed that he could restore calm to a nation whose nerves are on edge, and whose peace of mind has been shattered.
So far, Sharif seems to be travelling at a leisurely pace to nowhere. To be fair to him, he still has time. But if Sharif fails, Malala and her generation will have to confront another question: is there nothing anyone can do? A teenager who nearly lost her life, but never abandoned hope, does not need the counsel of despair. Dreams do not necessarily come true, but then how many get a second life? • The writer is an author and editorial director of The Sunday Guardian, published from Delhi.
Comments:
Malala is terrorist? Did she kill 45000 innocent Pakistanis, destroyed schools, mosques, churches, attacked naval base Mehran, PAF Kamrah? Noble prize be given to Taliban, peace loving pious only Muslims... don't be confused .. more at
http://TakfiriTaliban.blogspot.com/
Every effort for education especially for girls must be supported. Malala is just a symbol for this struggle. But one is perplexed to notice social media campaign to project her as symbol of West. .. just reflect level of ignorance , deprivation and sympathy for Talibans ... let's try to educate these people this mindset ... rest will follow..
Related:
http://dawn.com/in-depth/in-focus-malala-wars-never-end-wars#2
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75
Candy floss and cyanide: Breeding grounds for terrorists?
However, recently when a TV anchor did a show on the leader of this Islamic evangelical movement, Tariq Jamil, and criticised some of his ways, the anchor was bombarded with the kind of unhinged comments (on social media) that are usually associated with the notorious ‘PTI trolls’.
Crude, crass, abusive and entirely reactionary. One was surprised at how easily the veneer of gentility that usually defines the personalities of TJ members and of their supporters rubs off at the first sign of criticism.
The attacks on the (liberal) anchor were so rapid and abusive that it even made the anchor’s (more conservative) companion on the show Tweet that ‘Tariq Jamil is no prophet that he cannot be criticised’.
Late last year, the former Interior Minister Rehman Malik had also come down hard on the TJ, claiming that the evangelical movement had become a breeding ground for extremists. His statement understandably ruffled quite a few feathers, especially from within parties like the moderate-right PML-N and the Islamic JUI-F.
PML-N’s Sharif brothers have had close links with the TJ, and the JUI-F follows the Sunni Deobandi school of thought that the TJ too adheres to.
Also, quite a large number of TJ members are from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), the province from where the JUI-F draws the bulk of its electoral support.
For long the TJ has been viewed as a benign movement that distances itself from mainstream politics and militancy, focusing instead on propagating ‘correct’ Islamic rites and attire, and ritualistic paraphernalia in tune with the Deobandi line of thinking.
The TJ was formed in the late 1920s to supposedly ‘cleanse Islam from Hindu and Sikh influences’ in the subcontinent.
However, after Pakistan’s creation in 1947 the TJ was more successful in attracting positive attention from Pakistanis living abroad than from those living in the country.
Based in Raiwind in the Punjab, the TJ membership and appeal, however, got a two-fold boost after the arrival of the reactionary Ziaul Haq dictatorship in 1977.
This was the time when Zia used a part of CIA and Arab funds (dished out for the anti-Soviet Mujahideen insurgency in Afghanistan) on constructing a number of indoctrination centres in the shape of seminaries. The rise in the TJ’s fortunes was thus a product of the proliferation of the more puritanical strands of Islam during the Zia regime.
By the late 1980s, the TJ became successful in also attracting membership from the country’s trader classes, especially in the Punjab and KP. In the 1990s it began attracting the interest of certain prominent sections of Pakistan’s affluent middle-classes, including certain pop musicians, TV actors and eventually cricketers.
Throughout the (Sunni-Shia) sectarian turmoil that the country faced in the 1980s and 1990s, the TJ however, remained free to preach and recruit. It was always believed to be a harmless movement that had no political, sectarian or militant motives.
However, since the country’s Sunni majority remains 'Barelvi', a parallel evangelical movement emerged in the 1980s. ‘Barelvi Islam’ emerged in the 19th century India as a Sunni Muslim infusion concocted from elements of Sufism and ‘folk-Islam’. It is opposed to the Deobandi branch of South Asian Islam and both the Sunni sub-sects have been embroiled in vicious polemical battles for over 150 years.
Called the Dawat-i-Islami, the new evangelical movement claims to represent the Barelvi majority’s spiritual interests. Also seen as non-political, the Dawat, however, has been accused of containing members that have graduated to becoming members of some Barelvi militant organisations.
The guard who shot dead Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer (for ‘blasphemy’) in 2011 was also a former member of the Dawat.
On the other end, when Rehman Malik spoke about the TJ it was the first time a member of a sitting government in Pakistan had accused the outfit of breeding possible recruits for various hard-core Islamist organisations.
Alarms in this respect were first raised by some western observers when in the mid and late 1990s, the former chief of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, Lt Gen Javed Nasir, became a staunch member of the TJ. This was also the time the TJ was making in-roads into the Pakistan army.
Though known for his staunch Islamist views, Lt Gen Nasir’s entry into TJ’s fold was seen as being only incidental and the TJ continued to recruit and preach freely.
But the accusations (though suppressed in Pakistan) kept coming. The TJ’s name came up in connection with terrorism plots, such as in October 2002 in the US (the Portland Seven case) and the September 2002 Lackawanna Six case (also in the US).The TJ was mentioned again in the August 2006 in a plot to bomb airliners en route from London to the United States, and in the 7/7 bombings in London in 2005.
However, TJ as an organisation was not directly accused in any of the cases because most of the accused men were said to be members of various violent Islamist organisations. TJ's name only came up when the accused were also said to have been a part of the TJ at some point before their final radicalisation and entry into more militant and radical outfits.
In 2008, the Spanish police arrested 14 Asian Muslims for allegedly planning to attack various places in Spain. Twelve were Pakistanis. A Spanish Muslim leader claimed that all of these men had once been members of the TJ. Though counter-terrorism experts have understandably focused their studies more on the militant groups, in the last five years or so, many of them have now begun to also study the dynamics of evangelical groups like the TJ.
They believe that in spite of the fact that TJ’s primary function remains to be non-political and almost entirely evangelical, its rather secretive organisational structure and the goodwill that it enjoys among most Pakistanis allows elements from extremist organisations to use TJ as a recruiting ground for more violent purposes. They say that most young men joining the TJ are more vulnerable to the Islamists’ propaganda due to the TJ’s conservative social orientation.
Rehman Malik was not shooting in the air. He was merely pointing out yet another area of concern in a country being torn apart by men committing violence in the name of faith. His statement only became controversial because very few Pakistanis are aware of the potential of the TJ unwittingly allowing the polluting of its pond with rotten fish.
By Nadeem F. Piracha: http://www.dawn.com/news/1046248/smokers-corner-candy-floss-and-cyanide
Related:
Tablighi Jamaat: An Indirect Line to Terrorism | Stratfor
www.stratfor.com/weekly/tablighi_jamaat_indirect_line_terrorismJan 23, 2008 - The Tablighi Jamaat name has come up many times in connection with terrorism plots, including the 2006 scheme to bomb airliners en route ...Tablighi Jamaat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablighi_Jamaat2009 Malaysian Annual Congregation of Tablighi Jamaat Sepang Selangor, Malaysia ..... "Tablighi Jamaat: An Indirect Line to Terrorism". Stratfor Intelligence.Channel4 Report-Terrorist Tablighi Jamaat Spreading Terrorism (As ...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=98PBh26t11oApr 2, 2010 - Uploaded by hammadalqadriTablighi Jamaat Is A Silent Recruiting Wing Of Deviant & Terrorist Cult Of Deobandism, The Subcontinental ...No shelter for terrorists: Tablighi Jamaat hits back at WikiLeaks ...
twocircles.net/.../no_shelter_terrorists_tablighi_jamaat_hits_back_wikilea...May 11, 2011 - New Delhi: Amid much support from several Muslim quarters for Tablighi Jamaat (TJ) over the issue of its alleged connection with Al Qaeda, the ...Tablighi Jamaat centre Raiwind breeding ground for terrorists ...
jafrianews.com/.../tablighi-jamaat-centre-raiwind-breeding-ground-for-te...Jul 31, 2011 - JNN 31 July 2011 LONDON: Interior Minister Of Pakistan Rehman Malik has said that Tablighi missionary centre in Raiwaind is the breeding ...
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75
Terror is bound to be defeated: A Historic Reality
In Pakistan, we confront the terrorism. Knowing that their goals cannot be achieved through popular support, they resort to violence as a means to weaken the government and its agencies. The result is that innocent lives are lost in near-daily incidents of bomb explosions and attacks.
Acts of violence can create anarchy and disorder in the society but they cannot change the regime.
Historical studies show that terrorist groups have power and energy only for a limited period of time until their resources are exhausted and they have no option but to abandon violence and turn to negotiations. This happened in case of the IRA and Basque separatist movements.
In Pakistan, the terrorists must face the defeat. Sooner or later they must negotiate for a settlement. The question is when that moment will come, and at what cost. Let's look at the history in brief:
There are many examples in history where dictatorial and revolutionary governments have used terror to eliminate opponents and to establish an unchallenged rule of an individual or a group of radicals. In the case of resistance movements, nationalist terror becomes a tool to expel occupying foreign powers and to liberate the country.
There is a third category of terrorism, where disgruntled and dissatisfied groups, having lost all hopes of changing the system through legal and constitutional means, attempt to destroy the administrative set up and make governance impossible. The state and its institutions become sabotaged and the result is disorder and chaos.
In 1793, the French revolution turned into a reign of terror when its moderate period came to an end. France was governed by the Committee of Public Safety, and Danton and Robespierre were influential members.
The radical group known as the Jacobins assumed power in order to root out all old traditions and institutions. Since they wanted to transform the society on the basis of revolutionary ideals, and had zero tolerance for opposition or hindrance in the execution of their plan, thousands of people were condemned and sent to the guillotine. For the first time in history, terror became an official government policy, with an aim to use violence in order to achieve a higher political goal.
The terror was legal, having been voted for by the Convention. Nearly 40,000 people were executed including the Jacobin leaders who were at forefront of the revolution. It is said that the revolution devours its own children, hence Danton and Robespierre, the radical leaders were condemned and guillotined. Though the reign of terror ended, it weakened the Jacobins and radical elements.
Soon began a counter revolution. Tired and exhausted from the reign of terror, the wheel now spun in a different direction. Young people from wealthy backgrounds, known as the gilded youth, led a movement and began to destroy all symbols and traces of the revolution. They attacked the Jacobin clubs, disrupted their meetings, and terrorised the former leaders of the revolution.
They destroyed the memorial of Jean Paul Marat, one of the most outspoken leaders of the French Revolution who was killed by Charlotte Corday, the daughter of an impoverished aristocrat and an ally of the Girondists. They stormed hotels, coffee houses and restaurants where the radical groups often met.
The Jacobins, who executed their own members, were now a weak party and as a result there was no strong group to left to counter the gilded youth.
We find a similar case in Russia where Stalin’s secret police or the KGB inflicted large-scale purges, terror and forced depopulation on the people of the Soviet Union. Consequently, the foundation of the Russian revolution became weak. The absolute rule of Stalin silenced the intellectuals and creative people in order to provide new ideology to the revolutionary government.
In Nazi Germany, Hitler became so powerful that nobody dared to challenge his authority. The Gestapo arrested and executed all those who opposed the Nazi regime. The result of this terror was that intellectuals, scientists and professionals left Germany to take refuge in other European countries and the USA. The German universities became barren as the intellectual element in the society suffered. Both Russia and Germany confronted state terrorism and ultimately, the whole system collapsed.
In some instances nationalist resistance movements used terror against occupying forces in their country; like the Carbonari in Italy launched a movement against France and Austria.
In Russia, Ireland, Spain and Sri Lanka, extremist groups launched campaigns against their own governments.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers who were well-organised and resourceful eventually lost their energy to fight and were defeated by the government forces. In the subcontinent, a terrorist movement began to oust the British colonial powers but was crushed by the government agencies.
By Mubarik Ali: http://www.dawn.com/news/1046246/past-present-tales-of-terror
Acts of violence can create anarchy and disorder in the society but they cannot change the regime.
Historical studies show that terrorist groups have power and energy only for a limited period of time until their resources are exhausted and they have no option but to abandon violence and turn to negotiations. This happened in case of the IRA and Basque separatist movements.
In Pakistan, the terrorists must face the defeat. Sooner or later they must negotiate for a settlement. The question is when that moment will come, and at what cost. Let's look at the history in brief:
There are many examples in history where dictatorial and revolutionary governments have used terror to eliminate opponents and to establish an unchallenged rule of an individual or a group of radicals. In the case of resistance movements, nationalist terror becomes a tool to expel occupying foreign powers and to liberate the country.
There is a third category of terrorism, where disgruntled and dissatisfied groups, having lost all hopes of changing the system through legal and constitutional means, attempt to destroy the administrative set up and make governance impossible. The state and its institutions become sabotaged and the result is disorder and chaos.
In 1793, the French revolution turned into a reign of terror when its moderate period came to an end. France was governed by the Committee of Public Safety, and Danton and Robespierre were influential members.
The radical group known as the Jacobins assumed power in order to root out all old traditions and institutions. Since they wanted to transform the society on the basis of revolutionary ideals, and had zero tolerance for opposition or hindrance in the execution of their plan, thousands of people were condemned and sent to the guillotine. For the first time in history, terror became an official government policy, with an aim to use violence in order to achieve a higher political goal.
The terror was legal, having been voted for by the Convention. Nearly 40,000 people were executed including the Jacobin leaders who were at forefront of the revolution. It is said that the revolution devours its own children, hence Danton and Robespierre, the radical leaders were condemned and guillotined. Though the reign of terror ended, it weakened the Jacobins and radical elements.
Soon began a counter revolution. Tired and exhausted from the reign of terror, the wheel now spun in a different direction. Young people from wealthy backgrounds, known as the gilded youth, led a movement and began to destroy all symbols and traces of the revolution. They attacked the Jacobin clubs, disrupted their meetings, and terrorised the former leaders of the revolution.
They destroyed the memorial of Jean Paul Marat, one of the most outspoken leaders of the French Revolution who was killed by Charlotte Corday, the daughter of an impoverished aristocrat and an ally of the Girondists. They stormed hotels, coffee houses and restaurants where the radical groups often met.
The Jacobins, who executed their own members, were now a weak party and as a result there was no strong group to left to counter the gilded youth.
We find a similar case in Russia where Stalin’s secret police or the KGB inflicted large-scale purges, terror and forced depopulation on the people of the Soviet Union. Consequently, the foundation of the Russian revolution became weak. The absolute rule of Stalin silenced the intellectuals and creative people in order to provide new ideology to the revolutionary government.
In Nazi Germany, Hitler became so powerful that nobody dared to challenge his authority. The Gestapo arrested and executed all those who opposed the Nazi regime. The result of this terror was that intellectuals, scientists and professionals left Germany to take refuge in other European countries and the USA. The German universities became barren as the intellectual element in the society suffered. Both Russia and Germany confronted state terrorism and ultimately, the whole system collapsed.
In some instances nationalist resistance movements used terror against occupying forces in their country; like the Carbonari in Italy launched a movement against France and Austria.
In Russia, Ireland, Spain and Sri Lanka, extremist groups launched campaigns against their own governments.
In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers who were well-organised and resourceful eventually lost their energy to fight and were defeated by the government forces. In the subcontinent, a terrorist movement began to oust the British colonial powers but was crushed by the government agencies.
By Mubarik Ali: http://www.dawn.com/news/1046246/past-present-tales-of-terror
Women & the Veil
WHEN Saima, my late mother’s maid, first joined our staff, she used to wear the full burqa. But after a bit, when she saw that neither my mother, nor her relatives and friends who visited the house covered themselves, she felt relaxed enough to take her black, all-encompassing garb off when she was indoors.
When I got to know her better, I teased her about this: “Saima, why don’t you cover yourself in the house when men often visit? And other members of the staff are male, so how come you cover yourself outside the house, but not inside?”
Her reply was entirely sensible: “I don’t wear the burqa for religious reasons; but if I don’t wear it outside, men say lewd things and stare at me.” This says less about her faith than it does about our society, with all its difficulties and dangers for women.
Just how dangerous was made clear in the recent Human Rights Commission report that highlighted the violence, rapes and honour killings rampant in Pakistan. Instead of improving, things are getting worse, largely because perpetrators of crimes against women almost invariably get away unpunished.
I was reminded of Saima by two recent cases involving the full niqab in the UK.
In the first, a college in Birmingham first banned the full, face-covering veil, and then backed down in the face of protests. In another, a judge barred a young woman from covering her face in court, but then relented with the proviso that she must allow the jury to see her face while she was giving evidence.
While the full burqa has been banned in public places in France and Belgium, Britain has resisted calls to follow suit. Even the Conservative-led coalition government is against the state getting involved in this debate.
Teresa May, the home secretary, declared that women should be free to decide what they want to wear. This statement followed a call for a national debate on the subject by a junior minister in her department.
The entire discussion has put liberals and feminists on the spot: on the one hand, they defend the right of women to dress as they please. But they also deplore Muslim women being forced to cover themselves up by family and social pressure.
However, the reality is that in most cases, many young Muslim women born and raised in the UK choose to wear the hijab or headscarf, and more rarely, the niqab or the full burqa.
In most cases, this attire is worn more as a badge of identity than a religious duty.
In fact, Islamic texts call upon women to dress modestly, but not to envelop themselves from head to toe, leaving only the eyes visible. This is why burqas and niqabs are relatively rare across the Muslim world. Working women, especially in the fields, simply could not function in them.
When writing about the subject at the time the French debate on the full veil was going on, I thought I should try this garb myself. Accordingly, I donned a black burqa that had a mesh over the eyes, and covered my entire body.
My whole world shrank to a small rectangle; my movements were restricted; and I felt hot and claustrophobic. As I wrote at the time, any man who makes his wife, daughter or sister wear this attire should put it on himself first.
But wearing the full veil in male-dominated, violent countries like Pakistan is very different from putting it on in liberal societies like the UK.
In the former case, the garment is for self-protection, while in the latter, it is mostly about identity. And even though the number of women wearing the full burqa in the UK is tiny, the outfit does arouse irrational anger. As Maleiha Malik, a professor of law, wrote recently in the Guardian:
“Today’s debates about, and treatment of, veiled Muslim women are akin to the way heretics, lepers and Jews were treated in mediaeval Europe… [In the post 9/11 era] Political elites have exaggerated, rather than alleviated, understandable popular anxieties about Muslim religious differences in ways that often make reasonable debates impossible…”
While political correctness makes it difficult for my British friends to be openly critical about veils when discussing the issue with me, they do express one reasonable concern. Why should many young Muslim girls at school be deprived of pursuits like games, swimming and dramatics due to their constraining outfits?
Apart from depriving them of healthy activities, their parents also prevent them from sharing these experiences with non-Muslim friends, and thus diminishing the benefits of a liberal education. So while young women from other migrant groups are represented on the stage and the sports fields across Britain, few Muslims are.
Does this matter? Yes, if you are born and brought up in a country that you now call your own, and where you would like to be gainfully employed.
Maleiha Malik proposes an internal debate on the veil within Muslim communities. However, given the divisions that exist among Britain’s three million or so Muslims, it is hard to see how a consensus can be developed on this, or any other, subject.
I often wonder why this is not a political issue in the United States which also has a substantial Muslim population. I suspect one reason could be that the unemployed there do not enjoy the same benefits they do in much of Europe.
Here, if you can’t get a job because you insist on wearing the full veil or an unkempt beard, you can go on the dole.
For a liberal like me, this is a lose-lose debate: on the one hand, all my instincts say women should be free to dress as they choose; on the other, I don’t want to see young Muslim women being marginalised and stigmatised because they insist on antagonising the mainstream by their extreme attire.
From "Behind the veil" By Irfan Hussain: http://www.dawn.com/news/1044320/behind-the-veil
irfan.husain@gmail.com
When I got to know her better, I teased her about this: “Saima, why don’t you cover yourself in the house when men often visit? And other members of the staff are male, so how come you cover yourself outside the house, but not inside?”
Her reply was entirely sensible: “I don’t wear the burqa for religious reasons; but if I don’t wear it outside, men say lewd things and stare at me.” This says less about her faith than it does about our society, with all its difficulties and dangers for women.
Just how dangerous was made clear in the recent Human Rights Commission report that highlighted the violence, rapes and honour killings rampant in Pakistan. Instead of improving, things are getting worse, largely because perpetrators of crimes against women almost invariably get away unpunished.
I was reminded of Saima by two recent cases involving the full niqab in the UK.
In the first, a college in Birmingham first banned the full, face-covering veil, and then backed down in the face of protests. In another, a judge barred a young woman from covering her face in court, but then relented with the proviso that she must allow the jury to see her face while she was giving evidence.
Teresa May, the home secretary, declared that women should be free to decide what they want to wear. This statement followed a call for a national debate on the subject by a junior minister in her department.
The entire discussion has put liberals and feminists on the spot: on the one hand, they defend the right of women to dress as they please. But they also deplore Muslim women being forced to cover themselves up by family and social pressure.
However, the reality is that in most cases, many young Muslim women born and raised in the UK choose to wear the hijab or headscarf, and more rarely, the niqab or the full burqa.
In most cases, this attire is worn more as a badge of identity than a religious duty.
In fact, Islamic texts call upon women to dress modestly, but not to envelop themselves from head to toe, leaving only the eyes visible. This is why burqas and niqabs are relatively rare across the Muslim world. Working women, especially in the fields, simply could not function in them.
When writing about the subject at the time the French debate on the full veil was going on, I thought I should try this garb myself. Accordingly, I donned a black burqa that had a mesh over the eyes, and covered my entire body.
My whole world shrank to a small rectangle; my movements were restricted; and I felt hot and claustrophobic. As I wrote at the time, any man who makes his wife, daughter or sister wear this attire should put it on himself first.
But wearing the full veil in male-dominated, violent countries like Pakistan is very different from putting it on in liberal societies like the UK.
In the former case, the garment is for self-protection, while in the latter, it is mostly about identity. And even though the number of women wearing the full burqa in the UK is tiny, the outfit does arouse irrational anger. As Maleiha Malik, a professor of law, wrote recently in the Guardian:
“Today’s debates about, and treatment of, veiled Muslim women are akin to the way heretics, lepers and Jews were treated in mediaeval Europe… [In the post 9/11 era] Political elites have exaggerated, rather than alleviated, understandable popular anxieties about Muslim religious differences in ways that often make reasonable debates impossible…”
While political correctness makes it difficult for my British friends to be openly critical about veils when discussing the issue with me, they do express one reasonable concern. Why should many young Muslim girls at school be deprived of pursuits like games, swimming and dramatics due to their constraining outfits?
Apart from depriving them of healthy activities, their parents also prevent them from sharing these experiences with non-Muslim friends, and thus diminishing the benefits of a liberal education. So while young women from other migrant groups are represented on the stage and the sports fields across Britain, few Muslims are.
Does this matter? Yes, if you are born and brought up in a country that you now call your own, and where you would like to be gainfully employed.
Maleiha Malik proposes an internal debate on the veil within Muslim communities. However, given the divisions that exist among Britain’s three million or so Muslims, it is hard to see how a consensus can be developed on this, or any other, subject.
I often wonder why this is not a political issue in the United States which also has a substantial Muslim population. I suspect one reason could be that the unemployed there do not enjoy the same benefits they do in much of Europe.
Here, if you can’t get a job because you insist on wearing the full veil or an unkempt beard, you can go on the dole.
For a liberal like me, this is a lose-lose debate: on the one hand, all my instincts say women should be free to dress as they choose; on the other, I don’t want to see young Muslim women being marginalised and stigmatised because they insist on antagonising the mainstream by their extreme attire.
From "Behind the veil" By Irfan Hussain: http://www.dawn.com/news/1044320/behind-the-veil
irfan.husain@gmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Redefining Muslim women in history
OXFORD University Press, Lahore, invited Farida Shaheed, the coauthor of Great Ancestors: Women Claiming Rights in Muslim Contexts, to talk about her book. The audience comprised students as well as seasoned scholars. Ateeb Gul, an editor at Oxford, did a good job moderating the session. Shaheed started by explaining how the initial idea was to prepare a training module for women working for their rights in Muslim societies and to mobilise new activists. The project was supported by the organisation, Women Living Under Muslim Laws.
Shaheed highlighted that there is a `misconception in Muslim societies that the struggle for women`s rights is confined, historically and geographically, to European and North American locations.` She explained how, as an academic and an activist, she was offended by this `myth` every time she came across it. Yet, it enjoys credibility that women`s rights in Muslim societies are an alien idea and whoever works for them is promoting some `foreign` agenda. The misconception is not only confined to Muslim societies but also to some people in non-Muslim cultures that see Muslim women as passive and silent victims. So prevalent is this misconception that any example of brave Muslim women resisting patriarchal values, whether in the past or present, is brushed aside as an exception. Shaheed emphasised that this `myth` has been repeated so often, in public as well as in our private lives, that we consider it reality.
Calling it a `dangerous myth,` Shaheed stressed for it to be `challenged, debunked, and laid to rest.` It is promoted by the opponents of gender equality in Muslim societies, she said. Without completely shattering it, the majority of women will keep fearing to speak out for their rights, afraid of being treated as the `other`, as someone who has imported these `problematic` and `negative` ideas from foreign cultures.
The main thesis of Great Ancestors, Shaheed said, is that the women living in Muslim societies have struggled for a more just society in every era and every region.
The book provides around some 500 examples from the eighth to the mid-20th century where women living in Muslim contexts strived either for their individual rights or struggled for better conditions for women as a whole.
Shaheed`s aim was to bring forth an alternate reality, a reality that has been completely erased from our history textbooks. She has tried to rediscover the narratives of expanding the rights and personal spaces of women from numerous historical moments. The lives of our great ancestors narrated in the book can be a catalyst for rethinking `Muslim womanhood` as a socially and historically constructed identity. It is essential for women living in Muslim societies to read their history for themselves. As Fatima Mernissi points out in her book The Forgotten Queens of Islam,women cannot count on anyone to read their history for them. In the book Mernissi gave several examples of female queens in Arab history, to the surprise of many.
However, unlike The Forgotten Queens of Islam, Great Ancestors brings forth the stories of not only queens and powerful women but of women from all walks of life including poets, scholars, sufis, rulers, artists, and rights activists.
The question-answer session brought further vibrancy to the debate when a member of the audience questioned the utility of historical examples when Islamic texts are used by most religious scholars to undermine the project of gender equality. In response, Shaheed qualified that her book `is not about theology or the religion of Islam or even women`s lives in relation to Islam.` The purpose of the book, she said, is `to elucidate examples of women who defied culturally defined gender norms to assert their right to be different and to change their society.
This further engaged the audience in a discussion on what is more important for bringing about social change: presenting facts, countering the established norms or challenging the prevalent theories through abstract arguments. To this, Shaheed underlined the importance of historical narratives by stating that history is not merely a collection of stories: `By telling us who we have been, history defines for a people a sense of self that funnels into and guides a sense of potential tomorrows.`
By Umair Khan- http://epaper.dawn.com/~epaper/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=22_09_2013_462_002
OXFORD University Press, Lahore, invited Farida Shaheed, the coauthor of Great Ancestors: Women Claiming Rights in Muslim Contexts, to talk about her book. The audience comprised students as well as seasoned scholars. Ateeb Gul, an editor at Oxford, did a good job moderating the session. Shaheed started by explaining how the initial idea was to prepare a training module for women working for their rights in Muslim societies and to mobilise new activists. The project was supported by the organisation, Women Living Under Muslim Laws.
Shaheed highlighted that there is a `misconception in Muslim societies that the struggle for women`s rights is confined, historically and geographically, to European and North American locations.` She explained how, as an academic and an activist, she was offended by this `myth` every time she came across it. Yet, it enjoys credibility that women`s rights in Muslim societies are an alien idea and whoever works for them is promoting some `foreign` agenda. The misconception is not only confined to Muslim societies but also to some people in non-Muslim cultures that see Muslim women as passive and silent victims. So prevalent is this misconception that any example of brave Muslim women resisting patriarchal values, whether in the past or present, is brushed aside as an exception. Shaheed emphasised that this `myth` has been repeated so often, in public as well as in our private lives, that we consider it reality.
Calling it a `dangerous myth,` Shaheed stressed for it to be `challenged, debunked, and laid to rest.` It is promoted by the opponents of gender equality in Muslim societies, she said. Without completely shattering it, the majority of women will keep fearing to speak out for their rights, afraid of being treated as the `other`, as someone who has imported these `problematic` and `negative` ideas from foreign cultures.
The main thesis of Great Ancestors, Shaheed said, is that the women living in Muslim societies have struggled for a more just society in every era and every region.
The book provides around some 500 examples from the eighth to the mid-20th century where women living in Muslim contexts strived either for their individual rights or struggled for better conditions for women as a whole.
Shaheed`s aim was to bring forth an alternate reality, a reality that has been completely erased from our history textbooks. She has tried to rediscover the narratives of expanding the rights and personal spaces of women from numerous historical moments. The lives of our great ancestors narrated in the book can be a catalyst for rethinking `Muslim womanhood` as a socially and historically constructed identity. It is essential for women living in Muslim societies to read their history for themselves. As Fatima Mernissi points out in her book The Forgotten Queens of Islam,women cannot count on anyone to read their history for them. In the book Mernissi gave several examples of female queens in Arab history, to the surprise of many.
However, unlike The Forgotten Queens of Islam, Great Ancestors brings forth the stories of not only queens and powerful women but of women from all walks of life including poets, scholars, sufis, rulers, artists, and rights activists.
The question-answer session brought further vibrancy to the debate when a member of the audience questioned the utility of historical examples when Islamic texts are used by most religious scholars to undermine the project of gender equality. In response, Shaheed qualified that her book `is not about theology or the religion of Islam or even women`s lives in relation to Islam.` The purpose of the book, she said, is `to elucidate examples of women who defied culturally defined gender norms to assert their right to be different and to change their society.
This further engaged the audience in a discussion on what is more important for bringing about social change: presenting facts, countering the established norms or challenging the prevalent theories through abstract arguments. To this, Shaheed underlined the importance of historical narratives by stating that history is not merely a collection of stories: `By telling us who we have been, history defines for a people a sense of self that funnels into and guides a sense of potential tomorrows.`
By Umair Khan- http://epaper.dawn.com/~epaper/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=22_09_2013_462_002
Related:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Open letter to Sharif brothers: While Pakistan Army is busy fighting the terrorists, Shahbaz Sharif & Nawaz Sharif in Punj... -
GOOD governance, human rights and individual freedoms, and rule of law are among the main features of democracy. A democratic state cannot c...
-
The world is in turmoil; mass killing, genocide, ethnic cleansing, occupation of Muslim lands for natural resources, oppression,... -
The press and electronic media are frequently reminding us that the civil and military leaderships are on the ‘same page’ and there exists a...
-
Besieged Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has been assured by military that there will be no coup, but in return he must “share space with the ar... -
There is an urgent need for an earnest dialogue between our political and military leaders. Notwithstanding who emerges as winner in the cu...
-
بے جا تکرار فوج کو ثالث ‘ ضامن یا سہولت کاربنایا جائے۔ فرق کیا ہے؟ فوج کی ذمہ داریاں کسی سے ڈھکی چھپی نہیں۔ بنیادی طور پر یہ ادارہ ملکی سلا...
