Partition 1st part

  1. WHY PARTITION?

 

In  Bengal,  East  India   company  takeover  the  political  power  from the Nawab of Murshidabad with  the  help of Mirzafar  and  others. Nawab  Sirajudaulla  was   defeated in  the battle and thrown out of the thorn. As a result Muslims in Bengal avoid to contact with the  East  India Company.  On the other hand Hindus  were  contact with the  Company and latter with the British Government. They accept  the  offer  given by the  Britisher  to  the Indian and  started  the modern education as directed  by the British  administration. Though Muslims were the majority  community,  but  they  were educationally and politically backward  due  to   refused  to  accept the education from the Britisher. The religious fundamentalism among the Muslims are responsible for their backwardness. Even though they numbered over  50% of the population,  they  held  hardly 30% of  the  posts  under the Government at the time of partition of India.

 

Mr.C.R.Das was a great realist and immediately saw that the problem was an economic one.  He realized  that till the Muslims were given the necessary assurances for their  economic future, they could not be expected to join the  Congress whole heartedly.  He therefore made  a  declaration which impressed not only Bengal but the whole of India. He  announced that when Congress secured  the reins of  powers  in Bengal, it would reserve 60% of  all  new appointments  for the Muslims till such time as  they  achieved  proper representation according to  population. He went even further in  respect   of   the   Calcutta  Corporation  and  offered  to reserve 80%  of  the  new   appointments  on  similar terms.  He pointed out that  so  long as the  Muslims  were  not properly  represented  in  public life  and in the services, there could be no  true  democracy  in  Bengal. Once the inequalities had been  rectified, Muslim would be able to compete on equal terms with other communities and there would be no need for any  special reservation.

 

This  bold announcement shook the Bengal Congress to its very  foundation. Many of the  Congress  leaders violently  opposed  it  and started a campaign  against  Mr.Das.  He  was  accused  of  opportunism   and   even  partisanship  for  the  Muslims but he stood solid  as  a  rock.  He  toured  the whole province and  explained  his  point of  view.  His attitude made a great impression on Muslims in Bengal and outside.  I am convinced that if he  had not died a premature death, he would have created  a   new atmosphere in the country.  It is a matter for regret that after he died, some of his followers assailed his position and his declaration was repudiated.  The result was that the Muslims of Bengal moved away from the  Congress and the first seed of partition were sown.

 

In 1905 it was decided to divide the Bengal when Lord Curzon was the Viceroy of India. Due to political unrest and better administrative reasons and his imperialist attitude  was  behind it. Bengal the most politically advanced state of India where Hindus  and Muslims had taken a leading part in Indian political awakening.

 

Maulana Abul Kalam says in his book “India  Wins Freedom”, That the  first  thing  which   troubled  him  was  the exhibition  of  differences among the different sects  of  Muslims. I could not understand why they should be so opposed to one another when all of them claimed to derive their inspiration  from  the  same source.  Nor  could  I  reconcile  myself with the dogmatic assurance with which each sect  branded the others as mistaken and heretical. These differences  among  the orthodox schools  began  to raise doubts  in my mind concerning religion itself. If religion expresses a universal truth, why should there be  such differences  and  conflicts among men professing different  religions?  Why should each religion claim  to  be the sole repository of truth and condemn all others as  false?  

 

I think Gandhiji’s approach to Mr.Jinnah on this occasion  was  a great political blunder. It gave a  new and added  importance to Mr.Jinnah   which  he   latter  exploited  to  the full.  Gandhiji had in fact adopted  a  peculiar  attitude  to  Jinnah from the very  beginning. Mr.Jinnah had lost much of his political importance after he left the Congress in the twenties.  It was largely due  to Gandhiji’s  acts  of  commission and omission that Mr.Jinnah  regained  his importance in  Indian  political  life.  In  fact,  it is doubtful if Mr.Jinnah could  ever have achieved  supremacy  but  for  Gandhiji’s  attitude. Large sections of  Indian  Muslims were  doubtful  about Mr.Jinnah  and  his  policy,  but when  they  found  that Gandhiji was continually running after him and entreating him, many of them developed a new respect for Mr.Jinnah. They also  thought  that he was perhaps the best man  for getting advantageous terms in the communal settlement.  I  may mention  here  that  it was Gandhiji who  first  gave  currency  to the title ‘Qaid-i-Azam’, or great leader, as applied to Mr.Jinnah.

 

The  Muslim League had for the first time  spoken  of a possible division of India in its Lahore Resolution. This later   on  came  to  be   known  as  the   Pakistan  Resolution.  On April 1946 Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a statement dealing with the demands of Muslims and other  minorities.  This is what he said:

 

“I have considered from every possible point  of  view the  scheme of Pakistan as formulated by the  Muslim League.   As an Indian, I have examined its implications for the future of India as a whole. As a Muslim, I have examined  its likely effects upon the fortunes of Muslims of India.

 

Considering the scheme in all its aspects I have come to the  conclusion  that it is harmful not only  for  India as  a whole but for Muslims in Particular.  And  in fact it creates more problems than it solves.

 

I must confess that the very term Pakistan goes against my grain. It suggests that some portions of the  world are  pure while others are impure.  Such a division  of territories  into pure and impure is un-Islamic and  a  repudiation  of  the  very   spirit  of  Islam.  Islam recognizes no such division and the Prophet says, “God has made the whole world a mosque for me.’

 

Further,  it seems that the scheme of Pakistan is a symbol  of  defeatism  and  has been built  up  on  the  analogy of  the Jewish demand for a national home.  It is a confession that Indian Muslims cannot hold their own in India as  a  whole and would be content to withdraw to a corner specially reserved for them.

 

One can sympathize with the aspiration  of  the Jews for  such a national home, as they are scattered all over the  world  and  cannot  in   any  region  have  any  effective  voice in the administration.  The condition of Indian Muslims is quite otherwise.  Over 90 millions in number they are in quantity and quality a sufficiently important element in Indian life to influence decisively all questions of administration and policy.  Nature has further helped  them  by  concentrating them  in  certain  areas.

 

In such context, the demand for Pakistan  loses all force.   As a Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a  moment to give up my right to treat the whole of India as  my domain  and  to share in the shaping of its  political and economic  life.   To  me  it seems  a  sure  sign  of cowardice  to  give up what is my patrimony  and  content  myself with a mere fragment of it.

 

As  is well-known Mr.Jinnah’s Pakistan scheme  is  based on his two nation theory.  His thesis is that India  contains   many   nationalities based on religious   differences. Of them the two major nations, the  Hindus and Muslims,  must  as  separate nations  have  separate  states. When  Dr.Edward  Thompson once pointed out to Mr.Jinnah  that  Hindus and Muslims live side by side  in thousands   of  Indian  towns,   villages  and   hamlets,  Mr.Jinnah  replied  that  this in no way  affected  their separate nationality. Two nations according to Mr.Jinnah confront  one another in every hamlet, village and  town, and he, therefore,  desires that they should be separated  into two states.

 

I  am  prepared to overlook all other aspects  of the problem and judge it from the point of view of Muslim  interests  alone.  I shall go still further and say  that if it can be shown that the scheme of Pakistan can in any  way benefit  Muslims  I  would be prepared to  accept  it myself and  also  to work for its acceptance  by  others.  But the truth  is that even if I examine the scheme  from  the point  of  view  of  the communal  interests  of  the   Muslims themselves, I am forced to the conclusion that it can in no  way  benefit  them or allay  their  legitimate  fears.

 

Let  us consider dispassionately the consequences  which will  follow  if  we give effect to the  Pakistan scheme.  India will be divided into two states, one which  a majority  of  Muslims and the other of Hindus.  In  the  Hindustan  State  there will remain 3 and 1/2  crores  of  Muslims scattered  in small minorities all over the land. With 17% in UP, 12% in Bihar and 9% in  Madras, they will be  weaker  than they are today in  the  Hindu   majority  provinces. They have had their homelands in these regions for almost a thousand years and built up well-known  centers  of Muslim culture  and  civilization there.

 

They will awaken overnight and discover that they  have become    aliens     and  foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and economically they will be  left to the   mercies  of  what   would  then  become  an   unadulterated Hindu raj.

 

On  the  other  hand, their position  within the Pakistan State will be vulnerable and weak. No where in  Pakistan will their majority be comparable to the  Hindu majority in the Hindustan State.

 

In fact, their majority will be so slight that it will be offset   by  the  economical,  educational   and  political  lead  enjoyed by non-Muslims in  these  areas. Even if this were not so and Pakistan were overwhelmingly  Muslim in  population,  it still could hardly  solve  the   problem of Muslims in Hindustan.

 

Two  States  confronting  one  another  offer  no solution  to the problem of one another’s minorities, but only lead  to retribution and reprisals by introducing  a system of  mutual  hostages. The   scheme  of  Pakistan therefore  solves no problem for the Muslims. It  cannot safeguard their rights where they are in a minority nor a citizens of Pakistan secure them a position in Indian or world affairs  which  they would enjoy as citizens  of  a major State like the Indian Union.

 

It  may  be  argued that if Pakistan is  so  much  against the  interest  of  the  Muslims  themselves,  why   should such  a large section of Muslims be swept away  by  its lure?   The answer is to be found in the attitude of certain communal  extremists among the Hindus.  When  the Muslim League  began to speak of Pakistan, they read into the scheme a sinister Pan-Islamic conspiracy and began to oppose it  out of fear that it foreshadowed a combination of Indian Muslims with trans-Indian Muslim States.

 

The opposing acted  as  an  incentive  to   the   adherents  of  the League. With simple though untenable  logic they  argued  that  if Hindus were  so  opposed  to  Pakistan,  surely  it must be of benefit to Muslims. An atmosphere  of  emotional frenzy was created which made reasonable   appraisement impossible and swept   away  especially the younger and more impressionable among the Muslims.  I have, however, no doubt that when the present  frenzy has  died down and the question can be considered dispassionately,  those  who  now support  Pakistan  will themselves repudiate it as harmful for Muslim interests.

 

The  formula which I have succeeded in making the Congress  accept  secures  whatever  merit  the  Pakistan   scheme contains while all its defects and drawbacks  are avoided.  The  bases  of  Pakistan   is  the  fear   of  interference  by  the Centre in Muslim Majority areas  as        the Hindus  will  be  in a majority in the  Centre.   The   Congress meets this fear by granting full autonomy to the   provincial  units and vesting all residuary power in  the  provinces.  It has also provided for two lists of Central subjects, one compulsory and one optional, so that if any  provincial  unit so wants, it can administer all subjects itself except  a  minimum delegated to the  Centre.   The  Congress  scheme  therefore ensures that Muslim  majority  provinces  are  internally free to develop as they  will,  but can at  the  same  time influence the Centre  on  all   issues which affect India as a whole.

 

The  situation in India is such that all attempts  to establish  a  centralized and unitary  government  are  bound to  fail.  Equally doomed to failure is the attempt  to divide  India into two States.  After considering  all  aspects of  the question.  I have come to the  conclusion  that the  only  solution can be on the lines embodied  in  the Congress  formula  which allows room for development both to the  provinces  and  to India as  a  whole.   The Congress  formula  meets the fear of the Muslim  majority areas to  allay which the scheme of Pakistan was  formed. On the other  hand, it avoids the defects of the Pakistan  scheme which  would bring the Muslims where they are in a  minority under a purely Hindu government.

 

I  am  one  of  those who  consider  the  present  chapter of  communal  bitterness  and  differences  as  a  transient  phase in Indian life.  I firmly hold that they will disappear when India assumes the responsibility  of  her own destiny. I am reminded of a saying of Gladstone that the  best  cure for a man’s fear of the water is  to  throw him into it. Similarly India   must assume responsibility and  administer  her own  affairs  before  fears and suspicions can be fully allayed.

 

When  India attains her destiny, she will  forget  the present  chapter  of communal suspicion and  conflict and face  the problems of modern life from a modern point of view.  Differences  will no doubt persist,  but  they will be economic, not communal. Opposition   among  political  parties will continue, but they will be based,   not on religion   but  on economic   and political  issues. Class  and  not  community will be  the  basis of   future alignments   and   policies  will be   shaped  accordingly. If it be argued that this is only a  faith  which events may not justify I would say that in any case  the nine  crores  of  Muslims constitute a  factor  which nobody can  ignore  and whatever the circumstances,  they  are strong enough to safeguard their own destiny.

 

The  Cabinet Mission was not prepared to  concede the demand  of the Muslim League which had moved  further  along the path of separatism since the Lahore resolution. The Cabinet  Mission  Plan  provided   that  only   three  subjects  would  belong  compulsorily   to  the   Central Government. These  were  Difence, Foreign Affairs and Communications, Which Maulana Abul Kalam had suggested in his scheme. The Mission however added a new element  to  the Plan.  It divided the country into three zones, A, B,  and C, as the members of the Mission felt that this would   give a greater  sense  of  assurance to  the  minorities. Section B  would  include the Punjab, Sind, the  N.W.F.P.  and British Baluchistan. This would constitute a Muslim  majority  area.  In section C, which included Bengal  and Assam, the  Muslims would have a small majority over  the  rest.  The  Cabinet Mission thought that this arrangement would give  complete assurance to the Muslim minority and   satisfy all  legitimate fears of the League.  It was also   accepted  that the majority of subjects would be  treated  at the provincial   level.   Muslims  in   the   majority provinces  would thus exercise almost complete  autonomy.  Only certain  agreed subjects would be dealt with at  the   sectional  level.  Here also, the Muslims were assured of   a majority  in  Sections  B and C and would  be  able  to   satisfy all their legitimate hopes.  So far as the Centre   was concerned,  there were only three subjects which from the nature  of  the  case   could  not  be  provincially  administered.

 

Maulana  Abul  Kalam  Azad   was  the   Congress   President  for 7 years from 1939 to 1946 and he wanted to step down  from  the post and after weighing the pros  and cons, he  proposed the name of J.L.Nehru and  accordingly  he became the President of INC.

 

He said ” I acted according to my best judgment but the        way things have shaped since then has made me think that  I may have been wrong and those who wanted me to continue  for a least another year were perhaps in the right.”

 

On 10th July 1946, J.L.Nehru replied emphatically in response to some journalist and said that the Congress  had agreed  only  to  participate in  the  Constituent  a  Assembly and regarded itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought best.

 

Azad  says  “I  must   place  on  record   that Jawaharlal’s  statement was wrong.  It was not correct to   say that  Congress  was  free to modify the  Plan  as  it   pleased.   We  had  in  fact   agreed  that  the  Central  Government   would  be  federal. There  would  be  the   compulsory  list of three Central subject while all other  subjects  remained  in  the provincial  sphere. We  had further agreed  that  there would be the three  Sections, viz. A, B and C in which the provinces would be grouped. These matters  could  not  be changed unilaterally by Congress  without  the  consent of other parties  to  the  agreement.”

 

The  Muslim  league  had   accepted  the Cabinet Mission Plan, as this represented the utmost  limit  to which the  British Government would go. In his speech to the League  Council, Mr.Jinnah had clearly stated that he recommended  acceptance only because nothing better could   be obtained.

 

Mr.Jinnah  was  thus  not very  happy about  the outcome of  the  negotiations,  but   he  had  reconciled   himself as   there  was  no  alternative.  Jawaharlal’s   statement  came  to him as a bombshell.   He  immediately  issued a  statement that this declaration by the Congress   President  demanded a review of the whole situation.   He  accordingly  asked Liaquat Ali Khan to call a meeting  of   the League Council and issued a statement that the Muslim   League Council  had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan in  Delhi as it was  assured  that the  Congress  had  also accepted  the scheme and that the plan would be the basis  of the future  constitution  of  India. Now  that  the  Congress  President had declared that the Congress could change the scheme through its majority in the Constituent  Assembly, this would mean that the minorities were placed   at the mercy   of  the  majority. His view was that  Jawaharlal’s  declaration  meant  that the  Congress had  rejected the Cabinet Mission Plan and as such the Viceroy should call  upon the Muslim League, which had  accepted the plan, to form the Government.

 

Mr.Jinnah  them argued that if the Congress could change so many times, while the British were still in the   helm in the  country.   If the power had come its  hands, what assurance  could  the minorities have that once  the  British left, Congress would not again change and go back to the position taken up in Jawaharlal’s statement?

 

Situation   turn  out  of   control  due  to  the political  uncertainty.  August 16th of 1946 was a  black   day not only  for  Calcutta but for the whole  of  India.  When Mr.Jinnah  declare  16th  August as  ‘Direct  Action Day’.  Unprecedented  mob violence plunged the great city of Calcutta into an orgy of bloodshed, murder and terror hundreds  of lives were lost.  Thousand were injured  and  property   worth   crores  of   rupees   was   destroyed,  processions  were taken out by the League, which began to  loot and  commit acts of arson.  Soon the whole city  was in the grip  of goondas of both communities.  The streets  were deserted  and  the city had be appearance of  death.   Military  and  police  were   standing  by  but  remained  inactive  while innocent men and women were being killed. The situation  became  almost  impossible to  expect  a   peaceful  solution by agreement between the Congress  and   the Muslim League.  Mr.Jinnah and his party Muslim League  to reopen  the  whole question of political and  communal   settlement.   He took full advantage of this mistake and  withdrew  from  the  League’s  early  acceptance  of  the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jawaharlal’s mistake in 1937 had been bad enough. The  mistake of 1946 proved even more costly.

 

Sarder Patel jumped at the proposal and gave it his strongest support. I tried to point out that Finance was the key to Government, and we would have to face major difficulties if Finance was under the control of the League. Sardar Patel countered by saying that the League would not be able to manage Finance and would have to decline the offer. I did not feel happy at the decision, but since all the others agreed, I submitted. The Viceroy was therefore informed that the Congress would offer Finance to a nominee of the Muslim League.

 

In the latter half of October, Jawaharlal took a step which was unnecessary and which I opposed. His nature is however such that he often acts on impulse. As a rule he is open to persuasion, but  sometimes  he makes up his  mind without taking all the facts into consideration. Once he has done so, he tends to go ahead regardless of what the consequences may be.

 

This honest confess by a leader whose original belong to Saudi Arabia, when he admitted that, ”We must admit that if Mr.Attlee’s motives had not  been pure and if he had wished to exploit the differences between Congress and the League he could easily have done  so.  In spite  of  our opposition the British could  have  governed this country for another decade.”  There would of  course have   been  disturbances   and  clashes.   Indian   feelings  had been aroused to a level where British  rule would have  been challenged at every step.   Nevertheless   they could have, if they had so wished, continued to rule   for a few  more  years by exploiting Indian  differences.  We must not   forget  that  the   French   continued   in   Indo-China  for almost ten years, even though France  was  much weaker  than  Britain.  We must therefore  give  due   credit to the motives of the Labour Government. They did  not wish  to  exploit  Indian weakness for their  own  advantage.   History  will honour them for this judgment and we must   also   without   any   mental   reservation  acknowledge this fact.

 

I am confident that India will never forget this service  of Lord Wavell and when the time comes for the historian of independent India to appraise the relations of England  and India,  he  will  give  Lord Wavell  the  credit  for opening a new chapter in these relations.

 

Surely  no  one could blame the British  if  they  conceded  the  Congress request which had been  insisting   that India  should  be freed immediately, latter told  to   deferred for a year or two.

 

Muslim League  become  the   dominant  power  of  Pakistan.   Most of its leaders of that new  state  came from the  U.P.,  Bihar and Bombay.  In most  cases,  they   could not  even speak the language of the areas which now   formed Pakistan.

 

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

 

He said ‘When I became aware that Lord  Mountbatten was thinking in terms of  dividing India and  had  persuaded  Jawaharlal and  Patel,  I  was  deeply distressed. I realized that the  country  was   moving towards  a  great danger. The partition of India would be harmful not only to Muslims but to  the  whole country. I was and am still convinced that the  Cabinet  Mission Plan  was  the best solution from every point  of   view.  It  preserved  the unity of India and  gave  every   community  an  opportunity to function with  freedom  and    honour.   Even  from the communal point of view,  Muslims  could expect  nothing  better.  They would have complete internal  autonomy  in provinces in which they were in  a  majority. Even in the Centre they would have more than adequate representation.  So long as there were communal jealousies and doubts, their position would be adequately safeguarded. I   was  also   convinced  that  if   the  Constitution  for free India was framed on this basis and  worked honestly  for  some  time,   communal  doubts  and misgivings  would  soon disappear.  The real problems of  the country were economic, not communal.  The differences related to classes, not to communities. Once the country   became free,  Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs would all realize the real nature of the problems that faced them & communal differences would be resolved.

 

I did my best to persuade my two colleagues  not   to take the  final step.  I found that Patel was so  much   in favour  of partition that he was hardly prepared  even   to listen to any other point of view.  For over two hours  I argued  with  him.  I pointed out that if we  accepted   partition  we would create a permanent problem for India. Partition  would not solve the communal problem but  make it a permanent feature of the country.  Jinnah had raised  the slogan  of two nations. To accepted partition was to  accept that  slogan. How could Congress ever  agree  to  divide the  country  on the bases of Hindus and Muslims? Instead of removing  communal fears, partition would   perpetuate  them by creating two States based on communal   hatred.  Once States based on hatred came into existence, nobody knew where the situation would lead.

 

I was  surprised and pained when Patel in  reply said that  whether  we  liked it or not, there  were  two   nations in  India.  He was now convinced that Muslims and  Hindus could not be united into one nation.  There was no  alternative  except to recognize this fact.  In this  way  alone could we end the quarrel between Hindus and Muslims he further   said  that  if   two  brothers  cannot  stay  together,  they  divide. After  separation  with  their  respective  shares they become friends.  If on the  other hand they are forced to stay together, they tend to fight  every day.   It  was better to have one clean  fight  and  then separate than have bickering every day.   Jawaharlal  spoke  to  me in sorrow but  left  no  doubt in  my mind as to how his mind was working.  It was  clear that  in  spite  of his repugnance to the  idea  of   partition,  he  was coming to the conclusion day  by  day   that there  was  no  alternative. He  recognized  that  partition  was evil, but he held that circumstances were  inevitably leading in that direction.  After a few days Jawaharlal came to see me again.  He began with a long preamble in which he emphasized that we should  not  indulge  in wishful  thinking,  but  face reality.  Ultimately he came to the point and asked me to  give up my  opposition to partition. He said that it was inevitable  and it would be wisdom not to oppose what was  bound to  happen.  He also said that it would not be wise   for me to oppose Lord Mountbatten on this issue.

 

I told  Jawaharlal  that  I could  not  possibly accept his  views. I saw quite clearly that we  were taking one  wrong  decision after another. Instead of  retracing  our  steps we were now going deeper  into  the  morass. The Muslim League had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan and a satisfactory solution of the Indian problem seemed in sight.  Unfortunately, the position changed and  Mr.jinnah  got a chance of withdrawing  from  the League’s earlier acceptance of the plan.

 

I  argue that our second mistake had arisen  when Lord Wavell  suggested that the Home portfolio should  be  given to  the Muslim League.  This would have not  caused any insuperable  difficulty,  but  because Sardar  Patel insisted on  retaining  Home, we had  ourselves  offered  Finance to  the Muslim League.  This was the cause of our present difficulties. I warned Jawaharlal that history  would never  forgive  us if we agreed to Partition. The   verdict would  then be that India was divided as much  by the Muslim League as by Congress.

 

Gandhiji’s  first remark was, Partition has now become a threat. It seems Vallabhbhai and even  Jawaharlal have surrendered.  What will you do now?  Will   you stand by me or have you also changed?’

 

I replied, ‘I have been and am against partition. Never has  my  opposition to partition been so strong  as today.  I  am  however  distressed  to  find  that   even Jawaharlal and Sardar Patel have accepted defeat and  in  your words,  surrendered their arms.  My only hope now is in you. If you stand against partition, we may yet save  the situation, if  you  however acquiesce, I  am  afraid  India is lost.’

 

Gandhiji  said, ‘What a question to ask? If  the Congress  wishes to accept partition, it will be over  my dead body. So long as I am alive, I will never agree to  the partition  of  India. Nor will I, if I can help  it,  allow Congress to accept it.’

 

Later that day Gandhiji met Lord Mountbatten.  He saw him again  the  next day and still again on 2nd  April.   Sardar Patel  came to him soon after he returned from his  first meeting with Lord Mountbatten and was closeted with him for over  two  hours.   What   happened  during  this   meeting I  do not know.  But when I met Gandhiji again, I  received  the greatest shock of my life, for I found that  he too had changed.  He was still not openly in favour of  partition  but  he no longer spoke so vehemently  against  it.  What  surprised and shocked me even more was that he  began to  repeat  the  arguments which Sardar  Patel  had  already used.   For over two hours I pleaded with him but could make no impression on him.  In  despondency I said at last, ‘If even you have  now adopted  these  views, I see no hope of saving  India from catastrophe.’

 

Gandhiji  did  not reply to my comments but  said  that he had  already  made the suggestion that we  should ask Mr.Jinnah  to  form  the Government  and  choose the  Members of  the  Cabinet.  He said that he had  mentioned  this idea   to  Lord  Mountbatten   and  he  was  greatly  impressed.

 

I knew this was so.  When I met Lord Mountbatten the day after Gandhiji had talked to him, he told me that if Congress  accepted  Gandhiji’s  suggestion,  partition  could still  be  avoided.  Lord Mountbatten  agreed  that  such an offer  on the part of Congress would convince the Muslim League  and perhaps win the confidence of Mr.Jinnah. Unfortunately, this move   could  make no progress  as both Jawaharlal and Sardar Patel opposed  it  vehemently.  In fact they forced Gandhiji to withdraw the  suggestion.

 

Gandhiji  reminded  me of this and said that  the situation now was such that partition appeared  inevitable. The only question to decide was what form it        should take. This was the question which was now  being debated day and night in Gandhiji’s camp.

 

I thought deeply over the whole matter.  How was it that Gandhiji could change his opinion so quickly?  My reading is  that this was due to the influence of  Sardar Patel. Patel  openly  said  that there was no way out except partition. Experience had shown that it was   impossible  to  work  with the  Muslim  League.   Another   consideration  probably weighed with Sardar Patel.   Lord  Mountbatten had argued that Congress had agreed to a weak Centre only in order to meet the objection of the League.  Provinces  were therefore given full provincial autonomy,  but in a  country  so divided by language, community  and  culture, a weak Centre was bound to encourage fissiparous  tendencies.   If  the  Muslim League were not  there,  we could plan  for  a strong Central Government and frame  a Constitution  desirable from the point of view of  Indian  unity.  Lord  Mountbatten advised that it would be better to give up  a few small pieces in the north-west and  the  north-east  and  then build up a strong and  consolidated  India.  Sardar  Patel was impressed by the argument  that   co-operation  with  the  Muslim League  would  jeopardize  Indian unity  and  strength.  It seemed to me that  these  arguments  had  influenced  not  only  Sardar  Patel  but  Jawaharlal. The same argument repeated by Sardar Patel  and Lord Mountbatten had  also  weakened Gandhiji’s   opposition to partition.

 

 

 

 

  1. RELIGION IN INDIA

 

There are many religion in this Asian subcontinent. Many religion are originated from here in India and some has been imported from out side. Some of its are serving for the humanity and has good reputation, some is in question. But why?

 

What is Islam said about humanity?  Is the  hate-filled  war cry of jehad (holy war) has  come to symbolize? The use  of   communally-loaded   terror which  is likely to emanate naturally from states calling  themselves Islamic.  Simply  put,   the notion  of  jehad  has tended to  give  Islam   itself a  bad  name in the modern world in  which   democracy is broadly perceived as an attainable political  ideal. The activities of   the weapons-flaunting lumpen conglomerates in certain West Asian countries,  have only  tended to strengthen  this impression.  As a result of this war crying jehad violent are spread in Muslim and Christian in all most all over the world where it is Chechnia or Indonesia. Muslims themselves are fighting in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other places all over the world though all these  countries  populations are Muslim. Sia, Sunni and sufi   communities are  fighting  with each  other. Why this blood shed among themselves? Umar Shihab, the  co-chairman  of the Indonesian Ulemas Council was reported by Reuters as saying, “I reject jehad if it means to collect thousands of people to gather  around and  cry  out expressions of hate to  take  revenge.” Further he said “I don’t want to have a war to take revenge because it is a sin.” Indeed,  going a  step  further the theologian said  jehad   should instead be allowed against the ‘provokers’,   that  is,   those  who   instigate   blood-letting.   What  a refreshing  change  from  what we are used to hearing in the subcontinent!

 

In India, Urdu newspapers-presumably  read more  by Muslims than others-are said to be replete with commentaries critical of jehad calls given by politically diabolical criminal elements   from across  the border, and farther a field  from Taliban-run Afghanistan. But it is true those who style  themselves  as   social  or  political  leaders  of  the Muslim community  are  generally   found to   be   failing   in   their   democratic obligation to publicly snub these state-sponsored organized  thugs.   If  they   were  to  be  more  forthcoming,  they  could radically  relieve the  psychological pressure sought to be generated by  Hindu communalists. It   is   observed    the  fundamentalists  are  very few in number  in  all  most all  religions but they are very  aggressive  and the peace loving citizens do not want to take any risk. As a result these fundamentalist  are doing their barbarian act.

 

According to Muslim Canon Law the world is  divided  into  two camps, Dar-ul-Islam (abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (abode of war).  A country   is Dar-ul-Islam  when it is ruled by Muslims. A  country  is Dar-ul-Herb when Muslims only  reside  in it but not rulers of it.  That being the Canon Law of the Muslims, India cannot be the common motherland of the Hindus and the Musalmans.   It   can be the land of the Musalmans but it cannot be   the land  of the ‘Hindus and the Musalmans living as equals’. Further, it can be the land of  the  Musalmans  only  when  it  is  governed  by   the Muslims. The moment the land becomes subject to  the authority of a non Muslim power, it ceases to  be the land  of  the Muslims.  Instead  of  being  Dar-ul-Islam it becomes Dar-ul-Harb.

 

There  is  another  injunction  of  Muslim  Canon Law  called  Jihad(crusade)  by  which   it  becomes  ” incumbent on a Muslim ruler to  extend   the rule  of  Islam until the whole  world  shall  have been  brought  under  its   sway.   As   Now  Pakistan  base  intruder   are  fighting  against  Indian soldier  to capture India on the basis  of   this theory.  How a foolish strategy?

 

Some Ulemas in Indonesia has interpret the jehad as  “striving  hard to help people who  are  suffering”.   Definitely  it   reflects  a  truly  modernist outlook in which material conditions of life take precedence over the retrograde politics of exclusiveness.   Religious code must be change with the  time  and   situation,  otherwise  that   religion   will   die  in    future,   like   the  Zoroastrian. Indonesia classify as Dar-us-Salam(Land of  peace, i.e. where  the Faithful  predominate), and not  Darul-Harab(Land  where the  faithful  do not command  majority or power), its leading theologians could well  have  chosen to go the other way in politically charged times, but they obviously preferred to wear their   democratic colours   on  their  sleeve. Incidentally,  this is not a tradition unknown to India. In the days preceding independence, when Jinnah’s  politics  were seeking to undercut  the   worth of  the  freedom movement, a cleric of  the Deoband school,  Maulana Azad Subhani,  used  to  preach the  organizing of jehad against  economic  disparity  and for social justice.   Predictably,  he came  to be known as the ‘Red Maulana’  though  he was no communist.

 

Another  cleric  Md.Maulana Azad, spoke against the notion Dar-ul-Harb itself, saying it  had no place in the changed modern context in the   worldwide. After all, the idea derives from the medieval  era when there might be territories  in  which the  life, and the liberty to the  worship,  of Muslims  of  faith might be unprotected. The Maulana, who  was an Islamic  scholar,  recalled three agreements  which  the   prophet   Mohammed  himself  made  with non Muslim leaders  in  whose territories  Muslim could live in peace, although  they were a minority.  Interestingly, the wars in   which the  Prophet engaged in against non Muslims  (non believer) were known as Ghazwa, not jehad.

 

Fear and hatred, how would Mohammed have responded  to  the hijacking of innocents in  the name of  jehad?  Today Kashmir is a vale of tears  and graves,  a  place that holds no hope for  its  young.   To  some, the idea of an India that  can embrace Kashmir within a magnificent diversity is an affront to be challenged with violence, by war at Kargil,  by assault in Kandahar.  Cauldrons of  hate, fuelled  from  across  a  border  drawn  in   blood, fanned  from  within by Indians  who  also demand that  this nation’s territory be redefined  as belonging  to  some,  more   than  to  others.  Tearing  relentlessly at India’s fibre, both want it rewoven in a different hue.  The enemy without  is held  off at gun point.  The enemy within  is  unrestrained. Hatred, cold and unashamed, seeking  legitimacy in the trappings of the  very faith proclaimed from all religion as symbolic of  the sanctity of all humankind.

 

In his time Mohammed entered into several   Agreements,  for co-existence with Jews and  other  non-Muslims. The concept of ‘holy war’ was  yet to arrive.  Historically, it appears to have made its entry  only  after the Prophet, i.e.  during  the reign  of  the first four Caliphs  when  Arab Islam had  sufficiently  gained in  strength  and   aspired for greater political  cohesion  and  expansion. Then   the   message   was   clear:  conquered  peoples were to accept either Islam or  a position  lower than Muslims.  The idea  behind   this bait,  clearly  politically   inspired,  was clear.   Wounds that guns cannot heal now cry for  caring.   Holy  wars and holy  retribution,  will that be  the  curse on a new generation in a  new century.   Is  this place forlorn  and  forgotten this night?   Or is its dark silence symbolic  of    people who  were walked into history? Questions  await answers  as I close a wicker gate and  step   back into  the city.  But Muslims were not  alone in calling   their   power  directed  military campaigns jehads. The Christian forces of Europe called them “holy  wars”.  Therefore, it is  all  the more  ironical  that  in these  modern  times  jehad calls  should  emanate from societies  that  are almost wholly Islamic.

 

Are Islam fastest dying religion? How many Muslim are there who follow the Islamic rule? Muslim at present claim their population is one forth of World population.  Is it true? No. Because out of these population only a macroscopic percent  are Muslim. As per Muslim law, or sariat law among women those who do not wear veiled, among mail those are not wear Muslim dress code, Shies, ahmedia, those wear skirt or modern dress,  artist, singer and those who watch movie or listen song or viewing television, those who are not doing kulukh ( private parts wash after urine), those women are working with the men, those women who are taking education except reading Qoran, photograph themselves are not Muslim. Those who do not ask their neighbours at the time of taking food are not Muslim. Those who give birth children and not able to give food and proper education are not Muslim. Those who take Interest on lone are not Muslim. There may be many more kafer in the Muslim kanoon law. True Muslims are those who follow all this customary rule and its number will not be very few on the whole world.

 

Take  the  caste system.  Islam speaks  of  brotherhood.  Everybody infers that Islam must be  free from  slavery and caste.  Regarding  slavery  nothing  needs  to be said.  It stands  abolished  now by law.   But  while it existed much  of  its support  was  derived  from Islam and Islamic countries. While the prescriptions by  the Prophet regarding the just and human treatment of   slaves contained  in the Koran are  praiseworthy,  there is  nothing  whatever in Islam  that  lends  support  to the abolition of this curse.  As  Sir   W.Muir has well said :-

 

”   …   rather,   while  lightening,  he   riveted the fetter…  There is no obligation on a Muslim to release his slaves …”

 

But  if  slavery  has  gone,  caste  among  Musalmans  has remained. As an illustration  one may take the  conditions   prevalent  among  the  Bengal Muslims.  The Superintendent of the Census  for 1901  for the Province of Bengal records  the following interesting facts regarding the Muslims  of Bengal:-

 

“The conventional   division    of   the   Mahomedans  into  four   tribes-  Sheikh,  Saiad, Moghul and  Pathan – has very little application to Bengal. The Mohamedans themselves  recognize  two main  social divisions, (1) Ashraf or  Sharaf  and (2) Ajlaf.  Ashraf means ‘noble’ and includes all undoubted  descendants  of   foreigners   and   converts  from  high caste  Hindus. All  other Mahomedans  including the occupational groups and   all converts  of  lower ranks, are known  by  the contemptuous  terms,  Ajlaf’, ‘wretches’ or  mean  people’;  they  are also called Kamina or  Itar,   ‘base’ or   Rasil, a   corruption  of   Rizal,  ‘worthless’.   In  some  places  a  third  class,  called Arzal  or ‘lowest of all,’ is added. With them no other Mahomedan would associate, and they   are forbidden  to  enter  the Mosque to  use  the   public burial ground.

 

“Within these groups there are castes with social precedence  of exactly the same nature  as   one finds among the Hindus.

 

  1. Ashraf or better class Mahomedans.

 

(1)  Saiads.   (2) Sheikhs.  (3)  Pathans.

(4) Moghul.  (5) Mallik.  (6) Mirza.

 

  1. Ajlaf or lower class Mahomedans.

 

(1)  Cultivating  Sheikhs, and others  who were originally  Hindus but who do not belong  to any functional   group,  and   have  not   gained admittance  to the Ashraf community, e.g.  Pirali  and Thakrai.

 

(2) Darzi, Jolaha, Fakir, and Rangrez.

 

(3) Barhi, Bhathiara, Chik, Churihar, Dai, Dhawa, Dhunia, Gaddi, Kalal, Kasai, Kula Kunjara,  Laheri, Mahifarosh, Mallah, Naliya, Nikari.

 

(4)  Abdal,  Bako, Bediya,  Bhat,  Chamba, Dafali,  Dhobi,  Hajjam,  Mucho,  Nagarchi,  Nat,  Panwaria, Madaria, Tuntia.

 

III.  Arzal or degraded class.

Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar.”

 

The Census Superintendent mentions another  feature  of the Muslim social system, namely, the  prevalence of the “panchayet  system.” He states:-

 

“The authority of the panchayat extends to social as well as trade matters and …  marriage  with people  of  other communities is one of  the offences  of  which  the   governing  body  takes cognizance. The result is that these groups are often as  strictly  endogamous as  Hindu  castes. The prohibition on  inter-marriage   extends  to  higher as  well as to lower castes, and a  Dhuma,  for example,  may  marry no one but a Dhuma.  If  this rule  is  transgressed, the offender  is  at once hauled  up before the panchayat and  ejected  ignominiously  from  his community.  A member  of   one such  group cannot ordinarily gain  admission to another, and he retains the designation of the community  in  which  he  was  born  even  if  he  abandons  its distinctive occupation and takes to other means of livelihood…  thousands   of  Jolahas are butchers, yet they are still known as Jolahas.”

 

Similar  facts  from  other  Provinces  of  India could  be  gathered from  their  respective  Census Reports  and  those  who are  curious  may  refer to  them.   But  the facts for  Bengal  are   enough to  show  that the Mahomedans observe  not   only caste but also untouchability.

 

There  were 5,651 Mussulman  Chamar  were  reported  on 1911 census in the U.P and 10,811 in  all India, census tables U.P-1911.

 

There  can thus be no manner of doubt that the Muslim  Society in India is afflicted by  the  same social  evils as afflict the Hindu  Society. Indeed,  the Muslims have all the social evils of  the Hindus  and  something more.  That  something  more is  the compulsory system of veil or  Purdah  for Muslim women.

 

There is thus a stagnation not only in the  social life but also in the political life of the  Muslim community  of India.  The Muslims have  no   interest  in politics as such.  Their predominant  interest is religion. This can be easily seen by the terms and conditions that a Muslim   constituency makes for its support to a candidate fighting  for  a seat.  The  Muslim  constituency  does not  care  to  examine the  program  of  the candidate. All that the constituency wants from the candidate  is that he should agree to replace  the old lamps of the masjid by supplying new ones  at his cost,  to  provide  a new carpet  for  the  masjid because  the old one is torn, or to repair the masjid because it has become dilapidated. In  some places a  Muslim   constituency  is  quite satisfied  if  the  candidate agrees  to  give  a   sumptuous  feast and in other if he agrees to buy  votes for  so  much a piece.  With  the  Muslims,   election is a mere matter of money and is very  seldom a matter of social program of  general improvement.   Muslim  politics takes no note  of  purely secular  categories  of life, namely,  the   differences  between  rich and poor, capital  and labour,  landlord and tenant, priest and  layman, reason and  superstition. Muslim politics is essentially  clerical  and  recognizes  only  one  difference,  namely, that existing between Hindus and Muslims. None of the secular categories of life have any place in the politics of the Muslim  community  and if they do find a place- and  they   must because they are irrepressible- they  are  subordinated  to  one  and   the  only  governing   principle  of  the   Muslim  political  universe,  namely, religion.

 

The existence of these evils among  the Muslims is  distressing  enough.  But  far  more distressing   is  the  fact   that  there  is  no organized movement of social reform among the  Musalmans of India on a scale sufficient to bring about their  eradication.  The Hindus have  their social evils. But  there  is  this   relieving   feature  about them-namely, that some of them are  conscious  of  their existence and a few of  them  are actively  agitating  for their removal. The Muslims,  on the other hand, do not realize  that  they are  evils  and consequently do not  agitate  for their  removal. Indeed, they  oppose any  change in  their  existing   practices. It  is  noteworthy   that   the   Muslims   opposed the Child-Marriage Bill brought in the Central Assembly  in 1930.  Whereby the age for  marriage  of a girl  was raised to 14 and of a boy to 18 on  the ground  that  it was opposed to  the  Muslims   canon law.   Not only did they oppose the bill at  every stage  but  that  when it became  law  they started  a campaign of Civil Disobedience against that Act. Fortunately, the Civil Disobedience  campaign  of the Muslims against the Act did  not  swell and  was  submerged in the  Congress  Civil Disobedience campaign which synchronized with it. But the  campaign  only proves how  strongly  the  Muslims are opposed to social reform.

 

The  Question  may  be asked why  are  the  Muslims opposed to social reform ?

 

The usual answer given is that the Muslims  all over  the world are an unprogressive  people.  This view  no  doubt  accords with the  facts  of   history.   After  the  first   spurts  of   their activity-  the  scale  of which  was  undoubtedly stupendous  leading  to the foundations  of  vast empires- the Muslims suddenly fell into a strange condition of torpor, from which they never  seem to have  become  awake.  The cause  assigned  for this torpor  by  those, who have made a study of  their condition,  is  said to be the  fundamental  assumption  made  by all Muslims that Islam is  a  world religion,  suitable for all people, for all  times and  for  all  conditions.   It  has  been  contended that:-

 

“The  Musalman, remaining faithful to  his religion,  has  not progressed;  he has  remained stationary  in  a world of swiftly moving  modern  forces.   It  is,  indeed,  one  of  the  salient  features  of  Islam that it immobilizes in  their  native barbarism, the races whom it enslaves. It  is fixed   in   a   crystallization,  inert   and impenetrable. It is unchangeable; and  political,  social or economic changes have no  repercussion upon it.

 

“Having  been  taught that  outside  Islam there can be no safety;  outside its law no truth   and outside  its  spiritual message there  is  no  happiness,  the  Muslim has become  incapable  of  conceiving  any other condition than his own, any other mode  of thought than the Islamic  thought.  He firmly  believes  that  he has arrived  at  an  unequalled  pitch of perfection;  that he is  the  sole possessor  of  true faith, of  the  truth-no relative  truth subject to revision, but absolute  truth.

 

“The  religious law of the Muslim has  had  the effect  of  imparting  to  the  very  diverse individuals  of  whom  the world is  composed,  a  unity of  thought,  of  feeling,   of  ideas,  of  judgment.”

 

It  is  urged  that   this  uniformity  is  deadening  and  is  to  merely  imparted  to  the   Muslims,  but is imposed upon them by a spirit of   intolerance  which  is unknown any where  outside the Muslim  world  for  its   severity  and   its  violence and which is directed  towards  the  suppression  of all rational thinking which is in  conflict  with the teachings of Islam.  As  Renan  observes*:-

 

“Islam  is a close union of the  spiritual and the temporal;  it is the reign of a dogma, it  is the heaviest  chain  that  humanity  has even  borne…Islam   has   its    beauties   as    a  religion; …But  to the human reason Islamism has only been  injurious.  The minds that it has shut from the  light were, no doubt, already closed in  their own internal limits;  but it has persecuted  free thought, I shall not say more violently than  other religions,  but  more effectually.  It  has made of  the  countries that it has  conquered  a   closed field to the rational culture of the mind.  What is,  in fact essentially distinctive of  the Musalman in his hatred of science, his persuasion that research is useless, frivolous,   almost  impious-the natural  sciences, because they  are  attempts  at  rivalry with God; the historical  sciences, because they apply to times anterior to  Islam, they may revive ancient heresies…”

 

Renan concludes by saying :-

 

“Islam, in treating science as an  enemy, is only  consistent, but it is a dangerous  thing  to be consistent. To its own misfortune  Islam has been  successful. By slaying science it  has   slain itself;  and is condemned in the world to a complete inferiority.”

 

This  answer though obvious, cannot be the  true answer.  If it were the true answer, how are  we to account  for  the stir and ferment that  is   going on  in all Muslim countries outside  India,   where the spirit of inquiry, the spirit of change and the  desire to reform are noticeable in every walk of  life.  Indeed, the social reforms  which have taken place in Turkey have been of the most revolutionary  character.  If Islam has not  come   in the way of the Muslims of these countries, why  should it  come  in  the way of  the  Muslims  of  India?  There must be some special reason for the  social and  political  stagnation of  the  Muslim  community in India.

 

What can that special reason be?  It seems to me that  the  reason  for the absence  of  the  spirit of  change in the Indian Musalman is to be  sought in  the  peculiar position he occupies  in  India. He is placed in a social  environment  which is predominantly  Hindu.  That  Hindu   environment   is  always   silently  but   surely   encroaching  upon  him.   He  feels  that  it  is de-Musalmanazing  him.   As a protection  against  this gradual  weaning away he is led to insist on   preserving  everything  that is  Islamic  without  caring to  examine  whether  it  is  helpful  or  harmful to his society.  Secondly, the Muslims in  India are placed in a political environment which  is also  predominantly  Hindu. He feels that  he  will be suppressed and that political suppression  will make  the Muslims a depressed class.  It  is  this consciousness  that  he has to save  himself  from being  submerged by the Hindus socially  and   politically,  which  to  my mind is  the  primary cause why  the  Indian Muslims as  compared  with  their fellows  outside are backward in the matter of social reform.  Their energies are directed to maintaining  a  constant   struggle  against  the  Hindus for  seats and posts in which there is  no  time, thought  and no room for questions relating to social reform.  And if there is any, it is all  overweighed  and  suppressed  by   the   desire,  generated  by  pressure of communal  tension,  to  close the  ranks and offer a united front to the menace of  the Hindus and Hinduism by maintaining  their socio-religious unity at any cost.

 

The  same is  the explanation of the  political stagnation in the Muslim community  of  India.  Muslim  politicians  do  not   recognize  secular  categories of life as the basis of their  politics  because to them it means the  weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus. The poor Muslims will not join the poor Hindus to get justice  from the rich.  Muslim tenants  will   not join  Hindu tenants to prevent the tyranny of the landlord.  Muslim  labourers will  not  join  Hindu labourers  in  the fight of labour  against capital. Why? The answer is simple. The poor  Muslim sees  that if he joins in the fight of the poor against the rich, he may be fighting against a rich Muslim. The Muslim tenant feels that  if  he joins  in  the  onslaught  of  labour  against  capital, he will be injuring a Muslim mill-owner. He is conscious that any injury to a rich Muslim, to a Muslim  landlord or to a Muslim  mill-owner,  is a disservice  to the Muslim community, for  it  is thereby  weakened in its struggle against  the  Hindu community.

 

How  Muslim politics has become  perverted  is shown by the attitude of the Muslim leaders to the political reforms in the Indian States at the time of division of India. The Muslims and their leaders carried on a great agitation for the introduction of representative government in the Hindu State  of  Kashmir.  The same  Muslims  and their leaders are deadly opposed to the introduction of  representative  governments  in other Muslim States.  The reason for this strange  attitude  is  quite  simple. In  all  matters,  determining  question with the Muslims is how  it  will affect the Muslims vis-a-vis the Hindus. If representative  government can help the  Muslims, they will  demand  it, and fight for it.  In  the  State of  Kashmir  the ruler is a Hindu, but  the majority  of  the  subjects   are  Muslims. The Muslims fought for representative government in Kashmir, because representative  government  in Kashmir  meant the transfer of power from a Hindu  king to  the  Muslim  masses.   In  other  Muslim  States, the ruler is a Muslim but the majority of  his subjects   are   Hindus.   In   such   States   representative  government means the transfer  of   power from  a  Muslim ruler to the Hindu  masses, and that   is  why  the   Muslims   support   the   introduction  of representative government in one  case and  oppose it in the other. The dominating consideration with Muslims is not democracy. The dominating consideration is how democracy with majority  rule  will affect the Muslims in  their  struggle  against the Hindus.  Will it strengthen  them or  will  it  weaken   them? If  democracy  weakens them, they will not have democracy.  They  will prefer  the rotten state to continue in  the Muslim States rather than weaken the Muslim ruler in his hold upon his Hindu subjects.

 

The political and social stagnation in the Muslim community can be explained by one and only one reason.  The  Muslims think that the  Hindus   and Muslims  must  perpetually struggle; the  Hindus to establish their  dominance  over  the  Muslims  and  the  Muslims  to  establish  their historical  position as the ruling community-that  in this  straggle  the  strong will win,  and  to ensure strength they must suppress or put in cold storage  everything  which causes  dissension  in  their ranks.

 

If  the  Muslims in other  countries  have undertaken  the  task of reforming their  society and the  Muslims of India have refused to do  so, it is because  the former are free from  communal  and political  clashes with rival  communities,   while the latter are not.

 

It  is  not  that  this  blind  spirit  of  conservatism which dose not recognize the need of  repair to  the social structure has taken hold of  the Muslims  only. It has taken  hold  of  the  Hindus also. The Hindus at one time did recognize that without social  efficiency  no  permanent  progress in other fields of  activity  was possible, that, owing to the mischief wrought  by evil  customs Hindu Society was not in a state of efficiency  and that ceaseless efforts must be  made to eradicate these evils.9

 

The  Muslims were speaking the language of  Hitler on  their  demand and claiming a place  in  the sun  as  Hitler has been doing  for  Germany.   For their  demand  for 50 per cent.  (It  was  in 1929) is  nothing but a counterpart of the German claims for  Deutschland Uber Alles and Lebensraum for themselves,  irrespective of what happens  to  other minorities.

 

Another  illustration  of this  spirit  of exploitation is furnished   by   the   Muslim  insistence upon cow-slaughter and the stoppage of music before  mosques. Islamic law  does  not insist upon   the  slaughter  of   the  cow  for  sacrificial  purposes  and no Musalman,  when  he   goes to  Haj,  sacrifices  the cow  in  Mecca  or   Medina. But  in India they will not be  content with the  sacrifice of any other animal. Music may be played  before  a  mosque  in  all  Muslim  countries without any objection.  Even in Afghanistan,  which is not a secularized country, no objection  is taken to Music before a  mosque.  But in India  the Musalmans must insist upon  its  stoppage  for  no  other reason except  that  the  Hindus claim a right to it.

 

The slogan of some leader that  Hindustan  for Hindus-  is not merely arrogant but is arrant  nonsense. Some people has failed to realize two things. The  first thing which they  failed  to  realize  is  that there is a  difference  between   appeasement   and   settlement, and that  the difference  is  an  essential  one.  Appeasement means buying  off  the aggressor by conniving  at  his acts  of murder, rape, arson and loot against  innocent  persons who happen for the moment to be the victims  of  his displeasure. On  the  other hand, settlement  means  laying down  the  bounds which neither   party  to  it   can   transgress.  Appeasement  sets  no limits to the  demands  and aspirations  of the aggressor.  Settlement  does. The second thing is that the policy of concession  has increased  Muslim aggressiveness, and what is worse, Muslims  interpret these concessions as  a sign of  defeatism on the part of the Hindus  and the absence  of the will to resist.  This  policy  of appeasement  will  involve the Hindus  in  the same fearful  situation in which the Allies found  themselves   as  a  result  of  the   policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler.  This is  another malaise, no less acute than  the malaise  of social stagnation.  Appeasement  will surely aggravate it. The only remedy for it is a  settlement.  As a settlement it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed  by  all those who prefer the peace  and  tranquility  of  a settlement to the  insecurity  due to the  growing  political appetite shown  by  the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus.

 

Before  independent it was a question, How  far will   Muslims  obey  the   authority  of   a  government  manned and controlled by the  Hindus?  The answer  to  this question need not  call  for  much inquiry.   To  the  Muslims  a  Hindu  is  a  Kaffir.   A Kaffir is not worthy of respect.  He is low-born  and  without status.  That is why  a  country which is ruled by a Kaffir is Dar-ul-Herb  to a Musalman.  Given this, no further  evidence  seems to  be necessary to prove that the  Muslims will not obey a Hindu government.

 

The distinguished Arab scholar, Edward Said, has  voiced his  anguish  about  the  “overall  conditions  of mediocrity  and  galloping degeneration” among  the  Arab countries.  His  focus is on the Arabs who constitute  a  large majority  of the Muslim population worldwide.  But  his castigation  is relevant for the non-Arab Muslims  as   well when he says that many of these countries are moving  towards “greater degrees of tyranny” when the rest of the   world is  becoming  more and more democratic.  Professor Said is evidently  moved  by distress at  the  oppressive social and  political conditions in the Muslim countries. It cannot  but  be  a matter of  deep  embarrassment  for  persons like  him  to  note  how women  have  to  live  a secluded  life there.  There is an unmistakable Orwellian  atmosphere  in  these countries which have  organizations with names  like General Presidency for the Promotion  of  Virtue and  the  Prevention of Vice, as in Saudi  Arabia, and an identical   Ministry  for   Fostering  Virtue and  preventing Vice in Afghanistan.

 

Even a   country  like   Iran  with   a   proud   civilizational  heritage  lives a sterile life under  the  control of   the  clerics  who   can  overrule  even  the  popularly  elected  Parliament.  The   kind  of  bigotry  prevalent  in these countries cannot but have a  stifling  effect on  intellectual  development, thereby stalling scientific  advancement and artistic efflorescence.  That this area of darkness extends from Pakistan west-wards up to Iraq and to north Africa means that a large segment of the world’s population has “declined (in Professor Said’s  words) to  the  bottom of the heap when it comes  to  the   quality of  life”. Turkey is a refreshing contrast,  but   secularism  is  upheld  there  by   the  army.   What  is disturbing  is not only the suffocating orthodoxy in the Muslim world, but also the medieval spirit of jehad which  the bigots  encourage,  thereby raising the spectra of  a clash of civilizations.

 

General Pervez Musharraf’s stern lecture to  the   mullahs in Pakistan about how backward many of the Muslim  countries  are in terms of both economic and intellectual output. Is the Islamic world in an introspective  mood?  The compulsions behind what the president and the scholar have said  are  evidently different.  While the later  is feeling the  heat from the Americans in the post-Cold War  world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

  1. Writing & Speeches  by  Dr.Ambedkar

vol-4, p50

  1.    ,, p44-57
  2. ,, p160
  3. ,, p163

4a.  H.T.   4.2.2000

  1. ,, vol-8, p228
  2. ,, p229
  3. The  Chamar” Written by W.G.Brige

p-238

  1.    ,, p232

*    Nationality and other  Essays.

  1. ,, p233
  2. ,, p270
  3. ,,  p294
  4. HT 12.07.2001

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. IS RELIGION A BINDING FORCE?

 

Troubled by relentless religiously motivated killings, President of Pakistan General Musharraf on 28.7.2001vowed to rid his troubled nation of weapons, a formidable task in a nation awash in arms and ammunition.

 

“Ours places of worship and our centers of commerce are being held hostage to extremists and terrorists, “Musharraf  told a seminar on arms  control in  Pakistan. They have easy access  to the  weapons in  Pakistan  and police  often  complain they are  better  armed than the law  enforcement agencies. The army chief, who seized power from  a civilian  government nearly two years ago, said “the law  and order situation is no better and no worse under my government  than   what  it  was before.  “I am seized with this truth and it  is destabilizing us internally, psychologically and  economically.”

 

Hundreds of people have been killed  in  religiously  motivated killings in Pakistan. In  recent times there have been several high profile killing in  the  southern port city of Karachi. The victims were  minority  Shiite  Muslims.  A  senior defense  ministry official and the head of the country’s largest oil   company were both assassinated by militant Sunni extremists because they belonged to the country’s minority  Shiite Muslim community. “I  wish I could shoot  these killers myself, “said  Musharraf.

 

This  quote from a Muslim ruler is enough to prove that the two nation theory was wrong and on the base  of that theory a country was divided lakhs of people were killed including children, raped unaccounted number of woman all this in the name of God and religion and it was greatest blander  of  the   history  of   this subcontinent.   In the  name of jihad now some Muslim cleric  only  spread   terrorism. It  is  nothing but madness.

 

Religion  is a social force, it can’t  be ignored by  common man.  Islam is a religion  and its follower’s  are  called Muslim all  over  the  world. It  has two sect (Mainly), one is  called Sia, followers  of Hussain & Hassan, and  another  is called  Sunni. There are  Shaik,   Said,  Mughal,Pathan high class and Jola, ansari, hallal khor, Kasai,  and  latest  is kabadiwala  etc  is lower status. Social intercourse is not possible among themselves   regarding   matrimonial   etc. There have  been lot of differences and  fighting between sia and sunni, sufi and dharga and may be much more.   Therefore  Muslim is also divided  a lot and each sect called themselves a true Muslim and other are untrue.

 

In  every country there is tribal culture  is varied  between village to village as well  as   followers,  so there should not be any country in  the name  of  religion.  Due to  the  differences among different sect the very purpose of religion  has been  hampered  in  the past, blood  bath  is  continuing in several area in  worldwide. One  religion  should not consider its fellow  brother as untouchable, lower caste etc.  and on the same   way no religion should consider other religion as untrue, which  insult  the religious  institution itself.  The  purpose  to  create  religion  was solely to  make harmony among people, binding and  fellow felling for each other.  If it fails to do  so,  then  this  religion has no value and if  its leaders are  not able to control their respective  followers  to resist their distractive  activity. One of my  Muslim college Ali today expressed his concerned   that  we  were   sufferings  due   to  partition  of India and our next generation  will also suffer, what a pathetic feeling?  Will  the supporter  of  two nation theory reply?   They  can only instigate  violence  and   conflict  but  no  solution.   Like  this  Ali in the  cost  of  few  leaders crores  of  Muslim in India &  Hindus  in Pakistan and Bangladesh will suffer continuously.  Who can solve  this  problem  for  them?   Is  it possible  for  them  to  migrate?  No,  its  not  possible for them to become refugee.  As there is  no hope for  refuges.   As it is well  tested  by  Altaf Hussain (MQM leader).  There will be no way  for them  except  accept this group fighting  and more and  more blood bath.  Like Arab and Israil, Iraq and Iran, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechenia  may be more and more in the list.  Even in every village neighbour will fighting in the name of religion. Is it Religion? I don’t think so.

 

What is religion?  First they should know  this, then  only  they  can think  of  salvation.   Brahmins  thinks in the mandir that he is supreme and the maulavi   think  his   mosque  is  right,  Christian say salvation is in charch and Jews say his path  is right, Buddhist say salvation is  in        your mind  and so go on. There is no end of this controversy. Therefore this is the good time for all religious  head  to come together and do  the undo whichever  has done in the name of  religion and help to make a violent free world at least in the name of religion.

 

Religion could not keep a country together as per Lt.Gen.A.A.K. Niazi  GOC of then East Pakistan wrote a book named The betrayal of East Pakistan ‘The military action was a display of stark cruelty, more merciless than the massacres at Bukhara and Baghdad by Changez Khan and halaku Khan, or at jallianhwala Bagh by the british General Dyer’. Gel.Tikka Khan roamed that “Green land of East Pakistan will be painted red’ I want the land not the people’.  This is the mentality of the people of this subcontinent. Then why should we blame to the others to whatever happen to the common people of this subcontinent?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOOKING A NEW AT THE KORAN’S ORIGINS (The New York Times)

To Muslims the Koran is the very word of God, who spoke through the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad: “This book is not to be doubted, “the Koran declares unequivocally at its beginning. Scholars and writers in Islamic countries who have ignored that warning have sometimes found themselves the target of death threats and violence.

 

Now Christoph Luxenberg, a scholar of ancient Semitic languages in Germany, argues that the Koran has been misread and mistranslated for centuries. His work, based on the earliest copies of the Koran, maintains that parts of Islam’s holy book are derived from pre-existing Christian Aramaic texts that were misinterpreted by later Islamic scholars who prepared the editions of the Koran commonly read today. So, for example, the virgins who are supposedly awaiting good Islamic martyrs as their reward in paradise are in reality “white raisins” of crystal clarity rather than fair maidens.

 

Christoph Luxenberg, however, is a pseudonym, and his scholarly tome The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran had trouble finding a publisher, although it is  considered a major new work by several leading scholars in the field. Verlag Das Arabische Buch in Berlin ultimately published the book.

 

Scholars like Luxenberg and Gerd R.Puin,who teaches at Saarland University in Germany, have returned to the earliest known copies of the Koran in order to grasp what it says about the document’s origins and composition.

 

Luxenberg’s radical theory is that many of the text’s difficulties can be clarified when it is seen as closely related to Aramaic, the language group of most West Asian Jews and Christians at the time.

 

A return to the earliest Koran, Puin and others suggest, might lead to a more tolerant brand of Islam, one that is more conscious of its close ties to both Judaism and Christianity.

 

FUNDAMENTALIST ARE LOSSER BY DIVISION

 

At the time of creation of Pakistan, Muslim supporter of this country thought that they will progress slowly and create problem in Indian state and force India to leave one state than another and in this way Islam will flourish in this country.

 

Hindu fundamentalist were thinking that creation of Pakistan will solve the problem of mistrust among Hindus & Muslims. Muslims, those believe in two nation theory will leave for their dream land  Pakistan. But both the party are unhappy now.

 

Brotherhood binding as claimed  by Muslim among themselves evaporated when Muslim leaders left India and advice their fellow Muslim to stay with their Hindu neighbour.  Now a question, If 12 crore Muslim can live with their motherland peacefully, then what was wrong in Muslim dominated area , Why they left India? Who has left India still are refugee in Bangladesh and Pakistan and living in a pitiable condition. Those hindus migrated to India and Govt. help they are in some way in better condition. But those are not so lucky are still living in a pitiable condition. There is no social intercourse among this Muslim and Hindu refugee in their respective settle area. They are suffering.

 

Abul kalam Azad says” The  Muslim League had for the first time  spoken of a possible division of India in its Lahore Resolution. This later   on  came  to  be   known  as  the   Pakistan Resolution.  On April 1946 Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a statement dealing with the demands of Muslims and other minorities.

 

This is what he said: “I  have considered from every possible point  of view the  scheme of Pakistan as formulated by the  Muslim League. As an Indian, I have examined its  implications for the future  of India as a whole.  As a Muslim, I have examined  its likely effects upon the fortunes of Muslims of India.

 

Considering  the scheme in all its aspects I have come to the  conclusion  that it is harmful not only  for India as  a whole but for Muslims in Particular.  And  in fact it creates more problems than it solves. I  must confess that the very term Pakistan  goes against my  grain.  It suggests that some portions of the world are  pure while others are impure.  Such a division of territories  into pure and impure is un-Islamic and  a repudiation   of  the  very   spirit  of  Islam.    Islam recognizes  no  such division and the Prophet says,  “God has made the whole world a mosque for me.’

 

Further,  it seems that the scheme of Pakistan is a symbol  of  defeatism  and  has been built  up  on  the analogy of  the Jewish demand for a national home.  It is a confession that Indian Muslims cannot hold their own in India as  a  whole and would be content to withdraw to  a  corner specially reserved for them.

 

One  can  sympathize with the aspiration  of  the Jews for  such a national home, as they are scattered all over the  world  and  cannot  in  any  region  have  any effective  voice in the administration. The condition of  Indian Muslims  is quite otherwise. Over 90 millions  in  number they  are  in quantity and quality a  sufficiently important  element in Indian life to influence decisively  all questions  of administration and policy. Nature  has further helped them  by  concentrating them  in  certain areas. In  such  context, the demand for Pakistan  loses all force. As a Muslim, I for one am not prepared for a moment to give up my right to treat the whole of India as  my domain  and  to share in the shaping of its  political and economic  life. To  me  it seems  a  sure  sign  of cowardice  to  give up what is my patrimony  and  content myself with a mere fragment of it.

 

As  it is well-known Mr.Jinnah’s Pakistan scheme  is based on his two nation theory.  His thesis is that India contains many nationalities based on religious differences. Of them the two major nations, the Hindus and Muslims, must as separate nations  have  separate states. When Dr.Edward Thompson once pointed out to Mr.Jinnah that  Hindus and Muslims live side by side  in thousands of Indian towns,  villages  and   hamlets, Mr.Jinnah replied that  this in no way  affected  their separate nationality. Two nations according to Mr.Jinnah confront one another in every hamlet, village and  town, and he, therefore, desires that they should be separated into two states.

 

I  am  prepared to overlook all other aspects  of the problem and judge it from the point of view of Muslim interests  alone.  I shall go still further and say  that  if it can be shown that the scheme of Pakistan can in any way benefit  Muslims  I  would be prepared to  accept  it myself and  also  to work for its acceptance  by  others. But the truth  is that even if I examine the scheme  from the point  of  view  of  the communal  interests  of  the Muslims themselves, I am forced to the conclusion that it can in no  way  benefit  them or allay  their  legitimate fears.

 

Let us consider dispassionately the consequences which will follow if we give effect to the Pakistan scheme.  India will be divided into two states, one which a majority  of  Muslims and the other of Hindus.  In  the Hindustan  State  there will remain 3 and 1/2  crores  of Muslims scattered  in small minorities all over the land.  With 17 per cent in UP, 12% in Bihar and 9% in  Madras,  they will  be  weaker  than they are today in  the  Hindu  majority  provinces.   They have had their  homelands  in  these regions for almost a thousand years and built  up  well-known  centres  of Muslim culture  and  civilization  there.

 

They will awaken overnight and discover that they have become aliens and foreigners. Backward industrially, educationally and economically they will be left to the   mercies  of  what   would  then  become  an  unadulterated Hindu raj.

 

On  the  other  hand, their position  within  the  Pakistan  State will be vulnerable and weak.  No where  in Pakistan  will their majority be comparable to the  Hindu majority in the Hindustan State.

 

In fact, their majority will be so slight that it will be offset by  the  economical,  educational   and political  lead  enjoyed by non-Muslims in  these  areas.

 

Even if this were not so and Pakistan were overwhelmingly Muslim in  population,  it still could hardly  solve  the problem of Muslims in Hindustan.

 

Two  States  confronting  one  another  offer  no solution  to the problem of one another’s minorities, but only lead  to retribution and reprisals by introducing  a system of  mutual  hostages.  The   scheme  of  Pakistan therefore  solves no problem for the Muslims.  It  cannot safeguard their rights where they are in a minority nor a citizens  of Pakistan secure them a position in Indian or world affairs  which  they would enjoy as citizens  of  a major State like the Indian Union.

 

It  may  be  argued that if Pakistan is  so  much against the  interest  of  the  Muslims  themselves,  why should such  a large section of Muslims be swept away  by its lure?  The answer is to be found in the attitude  of certain communal  extremists among the Hindus.  When  the Muslim League  began to speak of Pakistan, they read into the scheme a sinister Pan-Islamic conspiracy and began to oppose it  out of fear that it foreshadowed a combination of Indian Muslims with trans-Indian Muslim States.

 

The  opposing  acted  as  an  incentive  to   the  adherents  of  the League.  With simple though  untenable logic they  argued  that  if Hindus were  so  opposed  to Pakistan,  surely  it must be of benefit to Muslims. An atmosphere  of  emotional frenzy was created which  made reasonable   appraisement  impossible   and  swept   away especially  the younger and more impressionable among the Muslims. I have, however, no doubt that when the present frenzy has died down and the question can be considered dispassionately, those  who  now support  Pakistan  will themselves repudiate it as harmful for Muslim interests. The  formula which I have succeeded in making the Congress accept  secures  whatever  merit  the  Pakistan scheme contains while all its defects and drawbacks  are avoided. The bases of Pakistan is the fear of interference  by  the Centre in Muslim Majority areas  as the Hindus  will  be  in a majority in the  Centre.   The Congress meets this fear by granting full autonomy to the provincial  units and vesting all residuary power in  the provinces.  It has also provided for two lists of Central subjects, one compulsory and one optional, so that if any provincial  unit so wants, it can administer all subjects itself except  a  minimum delegated to the  Centre.  The Congress  scheme  therefore ensures that Muslim majority provinces are internally free to develop as they  will, but can at the same  time influence the Centre  on  all issues which affect India as a whole

 

Now, America will take a firm stand against Islamic fundamentalist. Though to reverse the pan-Islamic mentality of Muslim is a very difficult task and they will attack American interest all over the world and  USA will attack the harbouring country. Russia, China, India and European countries will united against the Islamic fundamentalist. If their God come down and save them then the things will be different but is it possible? Others God will also may come down to save their respective religion.

 

Once India is able to curb the wing of Pakistan, immediately the Hindu fundamentalist can claim to make the Muslim as well as Islam is a devil force and root out it from Indian subcontinent. Effectively and rapidly they will be able to convince more and more people to full fill their dream of undivided India.

 

If Mussarf keep his word then fundamentalist will be not allow him to live. Now Pakistan has understood their dictator’s capabilities. Fundamentalism will no more help them to bashing other religion or religionist. Only they will go to grave. Musaraf’s speech is a big blunder. Pakistan will never be quite until they punish like 1971 when Paki’s army were beaten by broom in Bangladesh on the road when they surrender to Indian army. Only that type of situation will curb the mentality of Islamic fundamentalists. As this religion is defective.  They should convert their original religion Buddhism from where their forefather’s accept Islam under political pressure. Then only peace is possible. Peace is not possible under defective religion.

 

Who is a good Muslim? Islam calls itself a religion of brother hood. Then How other religionist can  make any trouble between so called  brother hood. It is also in the name of your Allah. It is easy to give freedom but difficult to give wisdom. You have blamed others to cause the sufferings of Muslim. It is very easy to blame others. Kashmir was a strong Buddhist hold and in fight with Brahmanism they converted in Islam. Now they can come back. Jews are blaming for all bad things? But then they also are progressive than your other cited religious people. Why? Are some people are jealousy for them?

 

Ansari Muslim is one of the most backward community in Bengal. Do u know that? Were Pakistan gave a chance to rule the Pakistan by Bengalee in 1971? They did not accept 99% peoples verdict? How a Pakistani can claim for self determination in the name of religion? What is the condition of minorities in Pakistan or Bangladesh? Their Constitution itself deprive the minorities and on the other way advocating self determination for Kashmiries. Where elected govt. working. How many times free and fair election held in Pakistan in last 53 years?  762 years Muslims were the ruler of India. Due to their foolishness they lost it and I think their Allah did not help them due to their sin. They will never get a chance again.  There should be a self determination all over undivided India and then only world can decide what this subcontinent majority  want.

 

Terrorism in the name of religion in any form is condemnable, as no religion is perfect. Common peoples voice is not heard. In Bangladesh we have seen in the name of religion 30 lakhs innocent live lost in 1971. Is it religion? Now recently minorities hold hostage in Bangladesh by Muslims in the name of religion? Should there be any country in the name of religion?  Because religion is for human being  but selfish people use it for their selfish use as a result common people are suffering and will suffer. Minorities should not take as hostage, whether it is India, Bangladesh, Pakistan as it was one country and ruled by British nearly 200 years.

 

India must heard from Gaddafi and Altaf hussain a MQM  ledar. Trouble started by partition can undo by undo the reason. No nation should named after any religion it harm the minority of that country.

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

By Margarat Thatcher,Ex PM of Britain.

 

‘Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks.’ Milton’s words perfectly describe America today. After the horror of September 11 the world has seen America gather its strength, summon its allies and proceed to wage war halfway across the globe against its enemy — and ours.

 

America will never be the same again. It has proved to itself and to others that it is in truth (not just in name) the only global superpower, indeed a power that enjoys a level of superiority over its actual or potential rivals unmatched by any other nation in modern times. Consequently, the world outside America should never be the same either. There will, of course, arise new threats from new directions. But as long as America works to maintain its technological lead, there is no reason why any challenge to American dominance should succeed. And that in turn will help ensure stability and peace.

 

Yet, as President Bush has reminded Americans, there is no room for complacency. America and its allies, indeed the western world and its values, are still under deadly threat. That threat must be eliminated, and now is the time to act vigorously.

 

In many respects the challenge of Islamic terror is unique, hence the difficulty western intelligence services encountered trying to predict and prevent its onslaughts. The enemy is not, of course, a religion — most Muslims deplore what has occurred. Nor is it a single State, though this form of terrorism needs the support of States to give it succour. Perhaps the best parallel is with early communism. Islamic extremism today, like bolshevism in the past, is an armed doctrine. It is an aggressive ideology promoted by fanatical, well-armed devotees. And, like communism, it requires an all-embracing long-term strategy to defeat it.

 

The first phase of that strategy had to be a military assault on the enemy in Afghanistan, a phase that is now approaching its end. I believe that while the new interim government there deserves support, the United States is right not to allow itself to become bogged down with ambitious nation-building in that treacherous territory. Some would disagree, arguing that the lesson of the present crisis is that neglect of failed States causes terrorism. But this is trite. It implies a level of global interventionism that almost everyone recognizes is quite impractical.

 

The more important lesson is that the West failed to act early and strongly enough against Al-Qaeda and the regime that harboured it. And because there is always a choice in where you concentrate international efforts, it is best that the US, as the only global military superpower, deploy its energies militarily rather than on social work. Trying to promote civil society and democratic institutions in Afghanistan is best left to others — and since those ‘others’ now include the British, I only hope that we, too, are going to be realistic about what can (and cannot) be achieved.

 

The second phase of the war against terrorism should be to strike at other centres of Islamic terror that have taken root in Africa, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. This will require first-rate intelligence, shrewd diplomacy and a continued extensive military commitment. Our enemies have had years to entrench themselves, and they will not be dislodged without fierce and bloody resistance.

 

The third phase is to deal with those hostile States that support terrorism and seek to acquire or trade in weapons of mass destruction. We have got into the habit of calling them ‘rogue’ States. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we don’t fall into the trap of imagining that they will always and on every issue fit into the same slot.

 

For example, Iran and Syria were both sharply critical of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban and the attacks of September 11. Nevertheless, they are both enemies of western values and interests. Both have energetically backed terrorism: the former has just been caught out dispatching arms to foment violence against Israel. Iran is also making strides toward developing long-range missiles that could be armed with nuclear warheads.

 

Other critics of September 11 are a menace, too. Libya, for example, still hates the West and would dearly like revenge against us. And Sudan undertakes genocide against its own citizens in the name of Islam. As for North Korea, the regime of Kim Jong is as mad as ever and is the world’s main proliferated of long-range ballistic missiles that can deliver nuclear, chemical or biological warheads.

 

The most notorious rogue is, without doubt, Saddam Hussein — proof if ever we needed it that yesterday’s unfinished business becomes tomorrow’s headache. Saddam Hussein will never comply with the conditions we demand of him. His aim is, in fact, quite clear: to develop weapons of mass destruction so as to challenge us with impunity.

 

How and when, not whether, to remove him is the only important questions. Again, solving this problem will demand the best available intelligence. It will require, as in Afghanistan, the mobilization of internal resistance. It will probably also involve a massive use of force. America’s allies, above all Britain, should extend strong support to President Bush in the decisions he makes on Iraq.

 

The events of September 11 are a terrible reminder that freedom demands eternal vigilance. And for too long we have not been vigilant. We have harboured those who hated us, tolerated those who threatened us and indulged those who weakened us. As a result, we remain, for example, all but defenceless against ballistic missiles that could be launched against our cities. A missile defense system will begin to change that. But change must go deeper still.

 

The West,  as a whole needs to strengthen its resolve against rogue regimes and upgrade its defenses. The good news is that America has a president who can offer the leadership necessary to do so. The writer is a former Prime Minister of Britain (The Guardian).

 

This is a clear message to the people who want to enjoy the western style of life in the one hand and on the other hand they are the critics of that system. There is a trend which must be change whether it is in the name of religion, culture or anything else. You should accept the culture where you desire to stay otherwise it is clear cheating to the society where you live.

 

 

TONY BLAIR(PM of BRITAIN)

 

British prime Minister at the time of war on Iraq believes that the terrorist bombers who struck London in July were motivated by the same kind of hatred and fanaticism as terrorists in Kashmir and Afghanistan. In an Interview to the Hindustan times on 7.9.05 as he did not believe that terrorist violence was merely a response to foreign policy. His views on this is very clear as he elaborate terrorists will use the issue of Iraq, of Palestine, of Afghanistan, of Kashmir or Bosnia. They will use any issue to justify what they do. But actually, the fundamental point about their ideology is a hatred for anyone different from them.

 

He says, If you look at what happened, this began with 9/11 in America though actually this has been going on in its other parts of the world long before that. You in India, have got a very clear experience of this. When people are engaged in this type of terrorism driven by this extremist ideology, they always find a reason for it. And that reason gets a certain purchase on people’s mind and you find it just being said as a matter of course;”well, look at the terrible things that have been done to people here and there.

 

”He says “The roots of this go very, very deep and the roots are found in the teaching of hatred at a very, very early age.” Also said “the culture and ideology of extremism that breeds it” Again he says there is not a justifiable grievance that can, in any shape or form, permit the killing of innocent women and children in this way.

 

Affirming Britain’s determination to crack down on extremists, he is firm on anti-terror laws would be tightened and steps taken to fast-track deportation of radical imams to prevent them from spreading the “evil and extreme ideology” based on a “perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam”.

 

He talk tough against Britain-based vendors of “violence” and “hatred”, told immigrants they need to “Share our values and our way of life”   if they want to be British citizens and warned the wider world outside Britain to take careful note that “the rules of the game are changing”.

 

He promised to make Britain an unwelcoming place for people involved in the incitement or perpetration of terrorism anywhere in the world. Till bow, Britain’s capital was often derisively called “Londonistan’, centre for militancy and radical Islamism, by governments around the world because extremists and separatists, including Khalistani leaders, routinely found refuge in London. Now, Blair said, even naturalized Britons encouraging terrorism could be stripped off their nationality. He said UK would be able to amend European Human Rights legislation, if necessary, to counter Islamic extremists.

 

“BE BRITISH, OR GET OUT OF BRITAIN”

Indian-born tycoon to Muslims.

 

Immigrants with no respect for British values should ‘get out’ of the country, a leading Muslim, Sir Gulam Noon said. He also called on fellow Muslims to leave their ‘‘Ghettos’’and do more to assimilate into British life, and those who refused embrace British traditions should go back to whatever you regard as your home country and leave us in peace””

 

He remind to the Muslim that “we are relative new comers to a community with a long tradition of liberal democracy”.

 

Gulam Noon’s remarks similar to Rajgopalachari’s 24.01.1922 prison diary’s remarks for Indian “Elections and their corruption, injustice and the power and tyranny of wealth and inefficiency will make a hell of life as soon as freedom is given to us. Men will look regretfully back to the old regime of comparative justice, efficient, peaceful, more or less honest administration.

 

 

Those created God, Allah, Iswar etc are cunning, those who spread its name are mean and cleaver and those who worship it are illiterate and fool. (EV Peryer).

 

  1. CHANGING THE POLICY.

 

SAUDI KING ORDERS MUSLIM CLERICS TO FIGHT EXTREMISM. RIYADH:

 

Saudi Arabia’s King Fahd has ordered Muslim clerics to combat extremist ideologies, which he said have duped some Saudi youth into joining terrorist cells that aim to harm the kingdom and Islam. Saudi Arabia, birthplace of Islam, is trying to quash militants at home and improve its image abroad after the September 11 attacks on US cities two years ago and suicide bombings in Riyadh in May. “Ignorance has penetrated some of the nation’s youth and tempted terrorist networks to use them for aims which only serve the nation’s enemies and harm Islam and Muslims and open the door for accusations against  Islam of violence and terrorism,  King Fahd said. Reuters Asian age 1.9.03

 

Therefore, indirectly you can say that after killing lakhs of life in this religion now they are thinking  to rectify the wrong teaching of Islam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INSIDE PAKISTAN

 

Pakistani police on Wednesday arrested more than 200 people in a crackdown against two militant organizations outlawed for their involvement in sectarian violence, on August 15,2001.

 

Heavy police contingents raided residences of the suspects, mainly in the central province of Punjab, scene of recurring  violence and killings of the majority Sunni and the minority Shiite Muslims, they said.

 

It followed the imposition of a ban by President Pervez Musharraf yesterday on underground Sunni extremist outfit Lashkar-i-Jhangvi and its Shiite counterpart Sipah-e-Mohammad Pakistan, widely blamed for violence that has claimed hundreds of lives in recent years.

 

Musharraf  has also warned two extremist parties, Sunni group Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan(SSP) and Shiite  group Tehreek-i-Jafria  Pakistan (TJP), that they were under close scrutiny. “The crackdown is aimed at unearthing support of the two organizations, which have been banned by the Government,” Punjab’s Religious Affairs Minister  Tahir Ashrafi told AFP.

 

Police  said  they  were  targeting  only  those  people who  were believed to have links with the outlawed groups. “We will release the people who have  no  links with the militant groups,” Ashrafi said, adding that some of the detainees  were freed after they furnished  surety bonds that  they would not maintain links with the banned groups. They have also promised to immediately  inform police if they come across any member of the banned outfits, he added. TJP chief Sajid Naqvi said police had also sealed his residence in the Punjab provincial capital Lahore and whisked away hundreds of his supporters.

 

Hundreds  of  ultras held in Pakistan on August 15, POLICE  ARRESTED  hundreds of Islamic  militants Wednesday in  a crackdown launched after the president outlawed two Muslim extremist groups accused of violence that has long shaken Pakistan.

 

In Lahore, police closed offices, searched homes and arrested  scores of militants after Pervez Musharraf, the army  chief who named himself president after a  1999 coup, banned   the  two   groups,  Sipah-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi.

 

The   police  closed  the   Lahore   offices   of Sipah-e-Mohammed, a Shiite Muslim group. But  so  far they have not been able to find the offices of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Sunni Muslim group, or track down  any  of its members for arrest, said  Lahore Deputy Inspector of Police Javed Noor.

 

“We  are  looking for Lashkar-e-Jhangvi  workers, but we haven’t located them,” said Noor. Militants from Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, whose leader is believed to be living in  exile in neighboring Afghanistan, are blamed for some of the worst  acts  of sectarian violence in Pakistan. Pakistan–where the majority of the population  belongs to  the  Sunni branch of Islam–has been shattered by  years of bloody feuds between Sunni and Shiite extremists. Most of the victims have been members of the country’s Shiite minority.

 

The banned groups have threatened to resist the crackdown. Several extremist groups said Tuesday that hundreds of their activists from across the country have been arrested. Others have gone into hiding.

 

Musharraf  banned  the  two  groups  Tuesday  and threatened to ban other   religious  groups  if  they propagate  hate and violence. The ban was part of a new, tough anti-terrorist law  that  also   took  effect on Tuesday. Previous governments have   shied away from tackling the  numerous Islamic extremist groups  in  the country in  large part because they are heavily armed and threaten to incite people to violence.

 

In  a speech to the nation to mark the  country’s Independence Day, Musharraf said Pakistan had become an intolerant society and assailed militant groups. The law gives police sweeping powers of  arrest and search. Musharraf said the law is intended to give the police the authority to go into homes in search  of weapons.

 

Murtaza khaliq, a film student at Pakistan’s biggest university in Karachi, produced a music video for his final-year project.

 

But right wing Islamic students opposed to holding art shows on campus attacked the graduating student’s year end exhibition and smashed the computer he had planned to use to screen it.

 

“My video had no objectionable material. There weren’t  even any women in it,” said the frail looking khaliq. “ They found it offensive because it was a musical video.

 

The battle on Pakistan’s campuses between liberal and conservative students mirrors a wider struggle for the soul of Pakistan since it won independence from Britain in 1947. Art, music a bane on pak campuses news from Karachi, Nov 28, 2003 (Reuters)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HELPLESS PRESIDENT SEEKS CLERIC HELP TO CURB MILITANCY.10.02.04

 

President sought support from Islamic scholars today in efforts to curb Islamic militancy and urged tribal leaders to turn over al Qaida and Taliban suspects they were sheltering.

 

He also warned that Pakistan could be ostracized internationally if it did not address global concerns that it was a hub of terrorism and was involved in nuclear proliferation.

 

“A movement should be launched against terrorism and extremism.” He said at a conference of Islamic scholars. “Give people the message that Islam is not a religion of terrorism and extremism but is one of love and peace.”

 

He said Pakistan could face international sanctions, an attack on its tribal region, close to the Afghan border, and even on its nuclear assets if it failed to change its image.

 

“We could face serious consequences if we don’t play our cards right,” he said.

 

Pakistan has stepped up efforts to track down al Qaida and Taliban militants in recent months in response to American concerns that Islamic militants have been using Pakistani territory to launch attacks inside Afghanistan.

 

A large number of Islamic militants, including the world’s most wanted man Osama bin Laden, are thought to be hiding in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

The US military has said it will launch a spring offensive against Islamic rebels in Afghanistan in what could be  part of a concerted effort to find bin Laden.

 

Musharraf’s remarks to Islamic scholars came as he faces strong opposition from hard line Islamic groups for  his support to the US led war on terror. He said Pakistan itself could came under attack if it did not track down Islamic militants.

 

“If this impression that terrorism is continued from Pakistan…then they would themselves start bombing,” he declare referring to US led forces in Afghanistan. “What would be our response? I leave it to you,” he said his Government had told tribal elders to hand over foreign suspects hiding in the region. “If you surrender them, you will not be handed over to any other country. It is my promise,” he added.

 

“Our vital national interest our nuclear and missile programme… could be harmed physically,” he warned.

 

“We have to assure the world that Pakistan is a responsible nation and was neither involved in the illicit proliferation of nuclear capability at present nor in the future,” he said.

 

A story from Baghdad, Iraq, By Thomas L. Friedman describe. The best thing about being in Baghdad these days is that you just never know who’s going to show up for dinner.

 

Take last week’s Wednesday. I was invited to interview a rising progressive Iraqi Shiite cleric, Sayyid Iyad Jamaleddine, at his home on the banks of the Tigris. It was the most exciting conversation I’ve had on three trips to post-war Iraq. I listened to Mr Jamaleddine eloquently advocate separation of mosque and state and lay out a broad, liberal agenda for Iraq’s majority Shiites. As we sat down for a meal of Iraqi fish and flat bread, he introduced me to a small, black-turbaned cleric who was staying as his house guest.

 

“Mr Friedman, this is Sayyid Hussein Khomeini” — the grandson of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran’s Islamic revolution.

 

Mr Khomeini told me he had left the Iranian spiritual centre of Qum to meet with scholars in the Iraqi Shiite spiritual centre’s of Karbala and Najaf. He, too, is a progressive, he explained, and he intends to use the freedom that the United States invasion has created in Iraq to press for real democratic reform in Iran. Now I understand why his grandfather once threw him in jail for a week. He has Ayatollah Khomeini’s fiery eyes and steely determination, but the soul of a Muslim liberal.

 

The 46-year-old Mr Khomeini said he’s currently advocating a national referendum in Iran to revoke the absolute religious and political powers that have been grabbed by Iran’s clergy. But in other interviews here, he was quoted as saying that Iran’s hard-line clerical rulers were “the world’s worst dictatorship,” who have been exploiting his grandfather’s name and the name of Islam “to continue their tyrannical rule.” He and Mr Jamaluddine told me their first objective was to open Shiite seminaries and schools in Iraq to teach their ideas to the young generation.

 

I have no idea whether these are the only two liberal Shiite clerics in Iraq. People tell me they definitely are not. Either way, their willingness to express their ideas publicly is hugely important. It is, for my money, the most important reason we fought this war: If the West is going to avoid a war of armies with Islam, there has to be a war of ideas within Islam. The progressives have to take on both the religious totalitarians, like Osama bin Laden, and the secular totalitarians who exploit Islam as a cover, like Saddam Hussein. We cannot defeat their extremists, only they can. This war of ideas needs two things: a secure space for people to tell the truth and people with the courage to tell it. That’s what these two young clerics represent, at least in potential.

 

Mr Jamaleddine, age 42, grew up in Iraq, sought exile in Iran after one of Saddam’s anti-Shiite crackdowns, tasted the harshness of the Iranian Islamic revolution firsthand, moved to Dubai, and then returned to Iraq as soon as Saddam fell. Here is a brief sampler of what he has been advocating: On religion and state: “We want a secular Constitution. That is the most important point. If we write a secular Constitution and separate religion from state, that would be the end of despotism and it would liberate religion as well as the human being… The Islamic religion has been hijacked for 14 centuries by the hands of the state. The state dominated religion, not the other way around. It used religion for its own ends. Tyrants ruled this nation for 14 centuries and they covered their tyranny with the cloak of religion…. When I called for secularism in Nasiriya (in the first post-war gathering of Iraqi leaders), they started saying things against me. But last week I had some calls from Qum, thanking me for presenting this thesis and saying, ‘We understand what you are calling for, but we cannot say so publicly.’

 

“Secularism is not blasphemy. I am a Muslim. I am devoted to my religion. I want to get it back from the state and that is why I want a secular state… When young people come to religion, not because the state orders them to but because they feel it themselves in their hearts, it actually increases religious devotion… The problem of West Asia cannot be solved unless all the states in the area become secular… I call for opening the door for Ijtihad (reinterpretation of the Quran in light of changing circumstances). The Quran is a book to be interpreted (by) each age. Each epoch should not be tied to interpretations from 1,000 years ago. We should be open to interpretations based on new and changing times.”

 

How will he deal with opposition to such ideas from Iraq’s neighbours?

 

“The neighbouring countries are all tyrannical countries and they are wary of a modern, liberal Iraq… That is why they work to foil the US presence… If the US wants to help Iraqis, it must help them the way it helped Germany and Japan, because to help Iraq is really to help 1.3 billion Muslims. Iraq will teach these values to the entire Islamic world. Because Iraq has both Sunnis and Shiites, and it has Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen… If it succeeds here it can succeed elsewhere. But to succeed you also need to satisfy people’s basic needs: jobs and electricity. If people are hungry, they will be easily recruited by the extremists. If they are well fed and employed, they will be receptive to good ideas… The failure of this experiment in Iraq would mean success for all despots in the Arab and Islamic world. (That is why) this is a challenge that America must accept and take all the way.”

 

Mr Jamaleddine, Mr Khomeini; these are real spiritual leaders here. But if the US does not create a secure environment and stable economy in Iraq, their voices will never get through. If we do, though — wow. To the rest of the Arab world, I would simply say: Guess who’s coming to dinner.

 

By arrangement with the New York Times

 

Voice of decent is very loud and clear and people will come out openly when time ripe to give a befitting reply to the fundamentalist who want to imposed their old own agenda in the name of religion and God.


 

GREAT IMAM GAZALI WARNED TO MUSLIM

 

The Great Imam Gazali   was  so horrified  at the Upsurge of some heinous crimes  He warned the Muslims that if they did not Destroy terrorism, terrorism would destroy Islam. Another problem is the luck theory. Which every other religionist also believe. It is same as other religion and it demolish all credit. My 25 years experience to stay with Muslim  and Muslim country and watched them from very close to their day to day affair.  I can give a lot for that.

 

You can revolt and change yourself under other religion but it is impossible to change Muslim’s  in Indian subcontinent.

 

Confused Leaders of Islam’s now found helpless under heavy pressure from US/UN/EU etc. and now want to be friendly with the infidels, non believers, Kafer’s etc. If they understood the culture and unity of India, they must speak about United India and undo the partition which they called was done by the British. They have done mistake, so now you can correct it as now power is in your hand. Why you needed a middle man then, now even in future?

 

Who are the Jews?  Where is their origin? How they  have  become  so  developed  and  even  don’t  bother about  entire Muslims population? Muslims claims   number of countries.

 

Pakistan  was also created by British by dividing India.  How Israel was created by the  British?  How they can guide by USA?  Islam tells others as  kafer? Non believer? What does it mean? Destroyed  Buddha statue in Bamyan is the  latest act of terror in 21st century. Then  it  is  imaginable  when  there  were no  law  what  this  people could  have  done?  Muslims  were always  venom  against  others,  rape others women, snatch others property,  bad looks for others women, molest them, thrown acid on the face of women, cut ear if some body listen music all are doing in the name of religion as we have  seen in Pakistan,  Bangladesh &  India.    Muslims   only include Islam   in  the  State   name,  no   other  religious people do so.  They are social work record is very poor in comparable to Christianity, Shiks, Buddhist and Hindus. No proper education is given in  madrasas where poor people are sending their kids.  As a hole nothing notable have invented for present civilization from this faith. All   their terrorist networks named after Islam by themselves no body advice  for this, others calls it as they desire. As general Musarf described that Islam seen as a fanatic and terrorist religion. More or less he is correct and described truth though reluctantly and on the auspices of UNSC 58th general meeting.

 

Taslima, Salman Rusidi, Nazrul Islam  has  produce some true  face  of  Islam and  day  to day suffering in the name of Islam and specially poor convert in this subcontinent.  Women suffer in  the hand of men as instructed by Koran. Crores of  women  are suffering for  this.   They have no alternate except to suffer in the hand of old doctrine of medieval age.  They suffer for   what? What is their fault? Then you want to make escape goat to others it is not fair it is only foolishness. Muslims  & Islam’s a bad element for others as you feel others are bad for you.  Everybody claim his religious book unquestionable. Mud thrower had never clean hand.

 

Religion is a social force; common man can’t ignore it.   Islam   has  two  sect (Mainly), one is called Sia, followers of Hussain  & Hassan, and another is called Sunni.  There are  Shaik, Said,  Mughal, Pathan high class and  Jola, ansari, hallal   khor,  Kasai,   and  latest   is kabadiwala   etc   is   lower   status.    Social  intercourse  is  not  possible  among themselves regarding  matrimonial etc.  There have been  lot of differences  and  fighting   between  sia  and sunni, sufi  and  dharga  and may be  much  more.  Therefore Muslim is also divided a lot and each sect called themselves a true Muslim and other are non-believer.

 

When Nicholas as D.Kristoe  write God needed the  break God must be feeling dizzy, listening to American evangelicals pray for help in converting Muslims from their vile faith while Muslims appeal for assistance in stomping out blood thirsty Christian infidel invaders.

 

So may be God, along with all of us, will find relief following  milestone last month: some leading evangelicals called on their own prophets of pugnacity to zip it. We can, er, pray, that responsible Muslim leaders will follow that wise example and similarly rein in their  extremists.

 

The “loving rebuke” by conservative Christians of their fire-breathing came at a Washington conference. This helped move us back from the clash of civilizations that hard-liners in both Islam and Christianity are pushing us all toward.

 

The national association of Evangelicals “has gone through periods of time when our differentiating value was the thing we were against,” says Ted Haggard, the new president of the organization.” One of the reasons the board selected me is that I am a strong advocate of the things we are for”.

 

“I am for people being born again,” he added. “I am for people reading the Bible; I am for people receiving the benefits that Jesus has to offer and looking to Jesus as a mode for life and godliness. These ideas are so positive that if we can communicate that, we don’t to spend so much time articulating the things we are against.” That message of evangelising for one’s own beliefs rather than against heretics is one that Muslim extremists should absorb.

 

To be sure, Mr. Haggard and other evangelical leaders don’t seem to disagree fundamentally with the loudmouths; they just think that insults make bad public relations and put missionaries at risk.

 

It’s really a concern about safety,” not doctrine, said Clive Calver, president of World Relief an evangelical aid group, and he adds about Christian and workers: “These people are in danger. I don’t want to see them killed.”

 

The demonisation of Islam by the Christian right always seemed opportunistic. Cal Thomas, the evangelical commentator, notes that both left and right need enemies to galvanise fund-raising and he adds: “The right has been looking for an enemy to replace communism,   since 1990. And  may be Islam is it.”

 

Nonetheless, even if it’s about  PR more than substance, the step toward civility is important. My conversations with Muslims around the world have left me convinced that nobody has done more harm to America’s image in the Islamic world than Franklin Graham and those like him. So let’s all hope that Mr.Graham keeps his mouth zipped and focuses on what he does superbly: aid work.

 

Mr. Bush displayed real moral leadership after 9/11 when he praised Islam as a “religion of peace” and made it clear that his administration would not demonise it. He should now join the evangelical leadership in repudiating remarks by religious zealots who preach contempt for other religions-and then we should demand that Saudi and Yemeni leaders repudiate their own zealots.(By arrangement,  with the New York Times. )

 

In 2003 Iran’s Tehran university – may indicate the inevitable consumed Iran this summer has been interpreted by many senior American officials as a signal for the Bush administration to begin its next phase in democratizing West Asia. But while the waves of protests and arrests the latest came last week outside a Tehran university-may indicate the inevitable collapse of the Islamic republic which is sweet dream for fanatic Muslims, specially in this Asian subcontinent, where most of the convert from lower class people and habituate to menial job till date. What student leaders are calling for in Iran does not correspond with the administration’s designs for the region.

 

The U.S. President interpreted the current situation in Iran as a conflict between Islamic theocracy and the kind of western envisions for Iraq. Over the past two decades, academics, reformist theologians and liberal clerics in Iran have been struggling redefine traditional Islamic political philosophy in order to bring it in line with modern concepts of representative government, universal suffrage and religious pluralism. What these Iranians have been working towards is “Islamic democracy”. That is a liberal, democratic society founded on an Islamic moral framework.

 

This is not theocracy; it is religious democracy. And while that may seen like an oxymoron to most Americans, it is no way a new paradigm: the Jewish version of this ideal currently exists in Isreal. Indeed, it could be argued that the United States itself began as a  religious democracy founded on a Protestant moral framework that still plays an influential role in its laws and politics.

 

Nevertheless, the concept of religious democracy has not been allowed to reach fruition in the Islamic world, partly because of foreign interference, partly because of religious fanaticism, but mostly because of the West’s overwhelming fear of fanatic Islamic government. It is this fear that has sustained an outdated foreign policy in the Persian Gulf, one that is still founded on containing Iran at all costs-regardless of the profound changes taking place in its government and society through the work of reformist politicians who are fighting for wider powers for the elected parliament and greater freedom for the populace.

 

It is this same fear that has led to American military and economic support of anti-democratic regimes in Pakistan, Egypt and Jordan. More recently, this fear of  fanatic Islamic government has forced the united States to forgo elections in Iraq in favour of appointing Governing Council,  lest the Shiite majority exercise its democratic right to self-determination.

 

But if there is any lesson to be learned from Iraq,  it is that the American model of democracy or Indian model of democracy is not necessarily to the peoples of West Asia, nor should it be fit for the Islamic fundamentalists.

 

The fact is that “democracy” is a contested term with no universally accepted definition; the notion that it must be based on secularism is not only a new concept, but a distinctly western one. The conviction among many in the United States that a secular, democratic Iraq (if that itself is a possibility) can somehow become the model of democracy  in  West Asia is both unreasonable and unfounded.

 

Recall that when the British and French colonized West Asia, they did so in the guise of a civilizing mission. The idea was to transplant western principles of government and society- ideals that took hundreds of years to develop in Europe- to uncivilized lands. However, no attempt was made to incorporate the cultural and religious identities of these regions. As a result, rather than embracing these ideals, the colonized peoples lashed out violently against them and reverted to a fundamentalist doctrine that rejected the West and everything it stood for on the one hand for the masses  and on the other hand the elite class of the same society enjoy all the fruit of the western culture whatever it may be with their wealth.

 

What the United States must learn from the colonialist experience is that the only way to promote lasting democratic reform in West Asia is to encourage it to develop according to its own indigenous culture and its own religious identity. That is precisely what reformists are trying to do in Iran, and rather than being feared or isolated, they  should be supported.

 

If it can successfully fuse its democratic aspirations fuse its democratic aspirations with its Islamic identity, then Iran, rather than Iraq, may be able to provide the template of democracy in West Asia. At the very least, it can become the middle ground between the Islamic dictatorships of Egypt and Jordon and the fundamentalist regimes of Saudi Arabia and the Taliban.

 

“India and Pakistan should initiate a constructive and meaningful dialogue on Kasmir keeping in view the ground realities and should settle their dispute on Kashmir once and for all by covering Loc into a permanent border,” MQM chief Altaf Hussain was quoted by jang daily as saying.

 

He also appealed to other nations to take steps to ensure conversion of Loc into permanent border and Islamabad to open “all routs forthwith” to start trade.

 

“They (Pakistan government) have failed to liberate Kashmir despite eating up 65 per cent of the budget. People are starving. There are issues like education and health which need attention, so a dialogue between the (two) countries should be initiated,” Hussain was quoted as saying at a rally in London last week.

 

Claiming that he was branded as Indian agent whenever he spoke of peace with India, the MQM chief said “now Qazi Hussin and Imran Khan have also joined the same course.”

 

He also lashed out at the mullahs and maulaves, describing them as cancer for Pakistan and saying they,” wanted to see others getting killed” in the name of jihad.

 

The Jung quoted him as saying Pakistan “does not have cordial relations with   any of its neighbors. It is being seen as the next target after Iraq.

 

Pakistanis should realize that, they will not be civilized by anybody and will not disturb by outsider whether it is India, America or any body else. They will continue their fight among themselves and one day they will be nowhere in the history. One day I read one message in the NDTV message board that a Pakistani man has written that all the man of Pakistan to be killed and a new generation to give birth with the women of Pakistan. Only then the new generation will live in peace with its neighbours. This is observation of few Pakistanis.

 

 

 

 

  1. HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD.

 

BANGLA CHARGED WITH COMMITTING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. NEW YORK, July 4-2003.

 

This report is correct as I was suffering mental agony when I was in Pakistan and subsequently in Bangladesh.

 

A recently-formed human rights organization  has charged Bangladesh with committing ‘ severe human rights violations’ against religious minorities and said it plans to begin a ‘persisting lobby’ against it on international forums, reports PTI. The Hague-based global Human Rights  Defence  (GHRD) said it would bring the suppression of the monitories as also threat of ‘Bangladesh terrorism’ to the notice of the International Criminal Courts.

 

It also criticized the European Union and the Dutch Government, the major providers of developmental aid, for being ‘in-effective in stopping the suppression of minorities. “Had they properly implemented their own condition for supply of development aid, they might have found it impossible to provide to Bangladesh,” GHRD said.

 

GHRD said in 1947 Hindus, the biggest religious minority,  comprised 30 percent of the population in Bangladesh.

 

“Religious cleansing–systematic murder, torture, rape-paired with severe human rights violations and discrimination by law and government rules and regulations,  have made this figure decline to a mere ten percent in 1991,” it alleged.

 

Since the installation of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-Jamaat-a-Islami coalition in 2001, “an era of Muslim fundamentalist terrorist and severe atrocities against the already heavily attacked religious minorities of Bangladesh (Hindus, Christians and Buddhists) has come again,” it added.

 

Who will bell the cat? Bad notion is publicly denounce from the places of worship. This subcontinent’s improvement is very difficult till the fundamentalist dealt with iron hand. Voice of good people is high but not active. Who will make it active? In the name of religion all crime is going on and not heard anybody as we have seen in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

 

What Pakistan are doing? Have they given equal right to the minority and  their women in country’s constitution. Just like Art.15 of Indian constitution says all citizens has equal rights irrespective of caste, creed, religion and region. India will never become a Hindu state. But why you have make a Muslim state? It is also in the name of religion. If there is a single minority, are you not hurting his sentiment by naming the state like Islamic state of Pakistan and some other country named after religion?  Kamal Pasa of Turky said “I do not want to see anybody Muslim,  Christian or other in the name of religion outside their place of worship.” This is called nationalism. I think very soon you people will be wake up.

 

Some people from this subcontinent went to Durban. Why people forced to go to Durban? Why administration has failed to implement the law? What is caste? How it developed? How it can  be annihilated? Whether people are interested to annihilate it? If not, who are the people benefited, enjoyed life, in the cost of others work, from the caste system? What religious sanction for caste? Why religions are biased towards some caste? There are many more questions to be properly answer and then blame to the people demand justice

BANGLADESHI  POLITICS & HUMAN RIGHT

Only a failed state allows its territory to be used by mercenaries from other lands. Bangladesh may not be a failed state in the sense that many banana republics have been. But its refusal to even look into the complaint about the presence of rebels from India’s North East has a disturbing tone typical of the unreasonableness of failed states. When Sheikh Hasina wajed saw no reason not to admit to the reality and took steps to force the rebels out of the country and why begum Khaleda  Zia sees things differently, it is mainly because of a curious mindset of a section of the political class and the army there. They must think twice before take any decision to hold these unholy elements from India in their soil.

Few Surah’s from holly books cited here, which is using to annihilate the minority community in Bangladesh. They have almost annihilate Hindus in Pakistan and Afghanistan. There now Muslims fight among themselves. It shows they want to fight only, if they is no body then they will fight with their womenfolk.

“Ignominy shall be their portion (the Jews) wherever they are found…They have incurred anger from their Lord, and wretchedness is laid upon them…because they disbelieve the revelation of Allah and slew the prophets wrongfully…because they were rebellious and used to transgress”.(sura 111, v.112).

-“And thous wilt find them(the Jews) the greediest of mankind..” (surah 11, v.96).

Taste ye (Jews) the punishment of burning.(Surah 111, v.18 1).

“They (the Jews) are the heirs of Hell… they will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say… When evil befalls you they rejoice”. ibid.(Surah 111,v.117-120).

-Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews…And of their taking usury… and of their devouring people’s wealth by false pretenses. We have prepared for those of them who disbelieve a painful doom. (Suraiv,v160,161).

-“Allah hath cursed them(the Jews) for their disbelief”. (surah iv, v.46).

-“They(the Jews) will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is clear from what they say, but more violent is the hatred which their breath conceal. (Surah 111,v117-120).

-“O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends”. (Surah v,v51).

-“The most vehement of mankind in hostility(are) the Jews and the idolators”. (Surah v).

-“Allah fighteth against them(the Jews). How perverse they are”. (Surah ix,v30).

-“They (the Jews) spread evil in the land…”. (Surah v, v62-66).

-(The Jews) knowingly perverted (the word of Allah), know of nothing except lies.

-“Early Hadith say that the Dajjal(Anti-Christ) will have 70,000 Jewish followers.

(Source:http:/www/abbc.com,sacred-text.com,eretzyisroel.org/-ikatz etc.)

Indian Muslims should not identify themselves with the misdeeds of their ideological forefathers. The sermon “humanism for Hindus and Islam above everything for Muslims, “is a futile prescription for peace. India indeed possess a wonderful capacity to forget and forgive. The British left the Indian shores not as enemies but as friends in 1947. One million domiciled French were issued a clear threat by the Muslim Algerian militia, FLN (Front Liberation de Nationale), to choose between a “suitcase and coffin” after Algeria gained independence in 1964 by a plebiscite allowed by Charles de Gaulle. Pakistan was by forcefully expelling and decimating the Hindus and Sikhs by using the official machinery of the police and the armed forces. Ethnic cleansing was repeated in Kashmir in India and Bangladesh and this prove that the problem is not with Muslim intension, but capacity. As 200 million Arabs cannot tolerate 5 million Jews occupying  0.20% land space. Wherever Muslims  are in a minority they are living as equal citizens, but wherever Muslim are in a majority, Minorities are under stress.

 

If any body challenge your Koran you will kill him  that  is your threat so no body  bother about it  whether  it is good or bad.  It may  be good for  you  but  not for everybody.  Muslims are  advocating  all plus point of  Koran but others will find its fault.  Listen from   others then only  you  can  test its  purity.   It  will be degraded because some don’t listen to others. There are lot of Muslims those will not be agreed with all writing of your holy book. Sia’s are killing by the Sunni followers war goes on among followers of same faith.

 

Indian Muslim  could  not improve their lot  then how   a  beggar  can  think of  improvement  of Others?   Beggars  some  times give  blessing  to others to  improve their lot.  Why they don’t use that blessing for themselves?

 

Minorities  in all Muslims countries  are suffering   in  the  name   of  religion.  1971, in Bangladesh 30 lakhs people killed by Pakistani  army   including Muslim and minorities. In 1952 Jinnah wanted to change the Bengalee language and wanted to impose Urdu as a official language. They  even don’t  bother to killed Dacca University students and not allowed to  speck,  when student came out in protest they killed them.  In India at least minorities can agitate and put raise their  voice.  When  Buddha  statue destroyed in Afghanistan no Buddhist allowed to come out in protest there. Then   they must  be killed by Muslims. Many people do not know that J.N.Mondal was a Cabinet law minister of  Undivided India and preferred to stay in Pakistan and become law minister of Pakistan. Latter those people were forced him to migrate to India when his concerned not heard by the political boss of Pakistan.  Though his community was a strong one  and  can  challenge any  threat  from Muslim. In 1971, if Pakistani army found a dog was running on the road in front of them they used to immediately killed it. Where as we see Israili army allowed Palestinian to thrown stone on them? Are not they better than the Pakistani army?

 

Telegraph  in London has given  more and more from Qoran.  How some peoples ideology work, they have born and brought up in a culture and at the time of crisis they opposed the very existence of that country united. Only evil mentality can support the division of their motherland,  only few  fanatic people can think  of  it,  may be it is  the  spirit  of  evil.  But it is betray to the motherland.  What is the problem  in Kashmir?  This are creation by fundamentalist only. They want division in  the name of religion. Other state  in  India   are facing the  same problem as Kashmir?  Paki’s  are facing more than that.  A secular constitution is ruling India?   What about Paki and other  Muslim countries?  You go through volume of Babashaheb’s writing,  you will find what Islam and Muslim is?

 

A.K.Azad a nationalist and a true Muslim though were from Saudi Arabia vehemently opposed the partition of India and his service to the nation will be remembered forever and his prophetic future comments are true till date.

 

 

One should remember that for Partition of India Hindus were forced to part with what has been legitimately their land from time immemorial. They did not go for a civil war to expel Muslims to Arabia or Iran with which most Muslims ideologically associate themselves as a foreign religion. Unlike Jews who left Europe to establish Israel in their Holy Land’ Muslims extracted hard real estates out of Indian territory in proportion matching to their population. But they in fact had a better deal. Not only because they expelled Hindus and Sikhs from what became Pakistan but also because a sizeable portion of them continued to remain in India. There are more Muslims in India that in today’s Pakistan.

 

Inspired by Allama Iqbal’s Islamic dream, Chaudhary Rehmat Ali had envisioned “Pakistan” in 1933 a few years before Savarkar ascended to the Presidency of Akin Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha in 1937. But still there is a glaring fact. Hindu Mahasabha at the zenith of its popularity did not command even four percent of Hindu vote as an overwhelming majority of Hindus remained wedded to the Gandhian Congress. But with all its of  “secularism”  Congress could not attract more then four percent of Muslims. An overwhelming majority of whom spontaneously responded to Jinnah’s call of “Ladke lenge Pakistan(we shall wrest Pakistan by direct action)” However. On August 15,1947 on the streets of Lahore the slogan altered to “Hanske Libya hair Pakistan, Ladke lenge Hindustan (we have wrested Pakistan as child’s play. Now we’ll wrest India through war) Pakistan has continued to fight for the realization of this pipe dream ever since.

 

The Muslim refusal of living with Hindus in an undivided country did not stem from the fear of Hindu majoritarianism. Rather it was a refusal to live as equals with Hindus over whom they had lorded for centuries. Muslims wanted political superiority. Muslims doggedly preserve their “identity” both inwardly and outwardly they themselves end up working against a harmony.

 

Their apathy to family planning. hygienic life conditions, modern education, Women’s liberty, even polio vaccination etc. is really egregious. And common people would negatively respond to these things instinctively even if few educated Muslims could come forward for it. Insistence on beard, Skullcap, Urdu madrasa and mosque is only bringing them regression in real terms. These are some of the confessional fact that Muslims will have to seriously ponder about. Will they join the race of who reaches 7th century CE fastest or look into the future? Speaking about education. Employment, Social adjustment with Hindus, Family planning and political realism, these things can come about not through appeasement.

 

Dr.Rafiq Zakaria’s claims that “Jinnah was the real culprit as far as the obnoxious two-nation theory” but are the Muslim masses of Pakistan and Bangladesh are taker of his views? The prophet has said, “Love of one’s country is a part of the faith.” Those who ignore the  sermon is kafer. The Quran has declared unequivocally that to each is his religion, there can be no compulsion in religion; and further, that each community has his way and God alone will choose what is the best for each. Non-Muslims have, in fact, been assured of equal respect; they are called ‘dhimmis’ which means protected ones. Supporter of this sermon will face the consequences in the hand of slogan shouting Muslim and they will call a jihad as their “Islam is in danger”.

 

Charles Harding, of the Bengal Civil Service, who in 1806 prevented the widow of a Brahmin from committing suttee. But a year later, her family prevailed and she was placed on a funeral pyre at Ramnagar, some two miles upstream from Benaras. As soon as the fire was lit, she jumped into the river; her clothes kept her afloat, and the current took her to the city where she was rescued by a police boat. Benaras was in uproar, and all the worthies suggested that the young officer return the widow to the pyre if he wanted to preserve the peace. Harding exhausted all the rational arguments, in vain. The crowd still bayed for suttee. Suddenly he had an inspiration. He had not saved the widow, to told the crowd; Mother Ganges had saved her. How else could she have survived without knowing how to swim? Her sacrifice on the pyre was obviously unaccepted to the river, or the Ganges would have received her. The point was unanswerable. The widow survived. There is no substitute for persuasion.

 

We need Britisher, American, Russian or European as a mediator to get our social change or religious changes. As in 1826 Lord Amherst asked for the views of seven European district magistrates of central India on whether a ban on suttee would be acceptable to the people. All seven said it would not. But when Lord William Bentinck did ban suttee a few years later, not a murmur was heard. The British Raj clearly had a motto: Just do it. Just like this British Raj has given education to the Indian without any biased and called them to London for appearing examination. No Indian has made any complain against British Raj of any partiality on that time. Are the Indian has courage to give the same facility to their fellow Indian?

MINORITY ANNIHILATION & BLASPHEMY    What happening in Mr.Jinnah’s Dream land Pakistan which he was created in the name of saving his minority Muslim community in undivided India. The pitiable condition of Pakistan is the every day suffering of the minority community. They always try to eliminate minorities in the name of blasphemy   LAHORE: Shadhra Town police arrested a Christian labourer Anwar Masih for blasphemy   reported by daily times on 29.11.03 on Friday, after a case was registered by his acquaintance Naseer Ahmad, who converted to Islam about three months ago. While registering the case against Mr Masih, the police ignored the fact that his accuser gathered other people and attacked his house. Zulfiqar Ahmad, police sub-inspector (SI) and investigating officer (IO) in the case, told Daily Times that he arrested Anwar Masih on Friday evening. The complainant Naseer, who lived in Paracha Colony in Shahdara, was visiting his  mother at her Paracha Colony home on Friday when Mr.Masih, Naseer’s mother’s neighbour, stopped him in the street and began discussing Islam. During the discussion, the sub-inspector said, Mr Masih got angry and blasphemed. Naseer related the discussion to two other neighbours of his mother, Attaullah and Younas Salfi. The three subsequently gathered other locals and pelted stones at Mr Masih’s house, on which police reached the scene and taking no notice of the attack on his home, arrested Mr Masih. Like this if  other religionist practice blasphemy then all Muslim fundamentalist talk against other religions will be in jail or killed. This type of  harassment is not happening in anywhere in the world except the Muslim dominated state. Maranatha Christian Journal Feb, 02, 04    Gunmen Open Fire During Pakistan Church Service (MCNS)–At least three armed men entered St. Paul’s Church firing several rounds during a Sunday prayer service in Patoki, Pakistan, on Sunday, Jan. 25, according to a human rights group.     A Freedom Now press release reported that eye-witnesses said three of the attackers, Azad Hussein, Mohammad Ali and Amanat Ali, yelled: “We will teach you a lesson and even demolish your church,” while firing several rounds from semi-automatic weapons during the service.     “These men have a butcher shop in front of our church,” Rev. Saleem Gill, the church pastor said. “They throw [animal] remains in our compound, which is nauseating to worshippers.”     According to Gill, prior to the attack, the three men would often disrupt services by playing loud music and taunting congregants, especially women, with continued harassment and vulgarity.     When church officials asked these men to stop their disturbance, the men threatened to demolish their building and entered the church premises the next day to open fire, Gill said.     The All Pakistan Minorities Alliance (APMA) sent a team of investigators to the location and filed a complaint with the local Sadder Police Station on Jan. 27.     “We are making all efforts to get justice and to highlight this case for appropriate action,” Shahbaz Bhatti, chairman of the APMA said. “The Christian community is fearful that the perpetrators will return to attack again if authorities will not deal seriously with this case.”     Bhatti claims that police are often reluctant to protect non- Muslim minorities and have sought to “hush up” this incident. He says he is concerned that the callousness of the police regarding this attack may encourage increased violence against Christians and other non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan.     St. Paul’s Church serves 80 Christian families living in town of Patoki, district of Kasor, where approximately 700 Muslim families reside.     On Jan.15.04, extremists set off two explosions at Holy Trinity Church in Karachi, causing numerous injuries and extensive damage. Since 2001, there have been a series of attacks by Islamic militants on Western and Christian targets in Pakistan.     ISLAMABAD, Jan 31: Human Rights Watch executive director Brad Adams has said the military has an “excessive role” in Pakistan, which ultimately “leads to human rights violations”.     Speaking at a press conference on the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan premises on Saturday, Mr Adams expressed concern over the state of human rights in Pakistan, particularly about the deteriorating rule of law, government’s increasing intolerance of press freedom, arbitrary arrests and disregard for the due process of law.     Mr Adams, who is on a visit to Pakistan, saw an inconsistency in the military’s involvement and the rule of law. “Wherever military interferes in civilian matters, it always results in violation of human rights, he said. “The 1999 coup has pushed the country back by many, many years. The role of the military has to be curtailed if you want better human rights.”     He said this pattern had been noticed in the Philippines and Thailand as well.     Mr Adams expressed a particular “over-arching concern” over the declining rule of law in Pakistan, saying that “the judiciary works under tremendous pressure”. He said Pakistan had lawyers and judges “who might be as good and competent as you will find anywhere else in the world. But the question is: Are they being allowed to work independently?”     He believed that there had been an erosion of the due process of law in recent years. He quoted the example of six judges who were removed just because they refused to take oath under the PCO.     “This sends a message for others to follow the official line,” he added. He said that in his meetings with lawyers, the legal community was found to have little faith in courts whenever the other party was the state. People were generally detained for much longer than was permissible by law. “This is not acceptable,” he said, adding that if the law was inadequate, it should be changed. “It’s a general practice to produce the accused (in the court) within 48 hours. You could make it longer here but the law should then be implemented.”     He expressed concern over the denial of transparent trial to PML-N president Javed Hashmi. “I would not like to comment whether he is guilty of the charges that have been leveled against him, but a trial in prison is no trial,” he said. “It’s a mockery of justice.” He believed that there was no problem of security in holding an open trial.     Mr Adams also referred to the media in Pakistan, and said he had been told that newspapers were sometimes coerced into self-censorship. “We are told that they sometimes get phone calls that are intimidating,” he said. Quoting incidents of excesses, he cited the case of journalist Amir Mir whose car was set ablaze sometime ago. But there had been no prosecution. He said he would not comment about the charges against journalist Khawar Mehdi Rizvi, but the fact that he was produced in court after six weeks spoke volumes about the case. He was particularly concerned about journalist Mubashar Zaidi’s plight. He was working within the limits of law when he, along with a Los Angeles Times reporter, sought an interview at a madressah. His identity card was later displayed on the state-run television.     “Some say the media is free in Pakistan, others say it is not,” he said, adding: “Still others say it is better than before. Well, that’s not the standard. The issue is that you can’t have the past as a yardstick. It’s like saying that I beat my wife five times earlier and now I do it only two times. It’s about principles and not the severity of excesses.”     The Human Rights Watch, he said, has condemned the treatment being meted out to prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. “We firmly maintain that the rule of law must be followed, whether this be in the United States or Pakistan. There should be no mistreatment of people in custody; they should be allowed to meet their families.     He said the US had seriously compromised its role as a protector of human rights, particularly in denying the rights of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. He was also critical of the US in allowing similar violations of human rights during its war on terrorism in Afghanistan, which would be documented in a HRW report soon. He said the US conduct had negatively impacted on human rights because other violators now took refuge behind the argument that “if the superpower can do it, why can’t we do it?”     He believed that the practice of honour killing was most ignoble.  Mr Adams expressed the hope that the government would support the draft law tabled in the National Assembly against this practice.     He was particularly emphatic that his organization was not singling out Pakistan. “We have been equally critical of the practice of dowry in India,” he said.    “We have similar concerns against the Hudood Ordinances in Pakistan. It’s like an ‘Alice in Wonderland’ situation when the women subjected to rape are charged for adultery.”     About military farms in Okara, he said: “We have substantial evidence suggesting violations of human rights by the Rangers.”     He said in his meeting with Punjab Chief Minister Pervaiz Elahi, he was assured that the matter would be looked into. “We are pleased that the chief minister showed his willingness to investigate incidents of excesses,” he said while expressing his disappointment that the interior minister, in another meeting, “rejected outright that the Rangers might have committed any excesses”.      ‘Musharraf a consistent human rights violator’  By Priscilla Huff in Washington, Wednesday, 28 January , 2004, Washington:     Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf’s  recent initiatives to neutralize domestic discontent through internationally-acceptable gestures like normalizing ties with India and curbing terrorist elements, can never take away the fact that his regime has been a consistent violator of human rights since assuming power on October 12, 1999. The New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) has expressed this view through an open letter. Seeking a more comprehensive assessment of this view, Asian News International availed the opportunity of interviewing Saman Zia-Zarifi, the Deputy Director for Human Rights Watch’s Asia Division.     Zarifi said that it was HRW’s view that Pakistan’s omnipresent defense establishment had more or less stifled the voices of the country’s opposition and freedom through its many acts of commission and commission.     “It seems clear that the military is using torture to intimidate the opposition. One of the most serious cases we heard about was from the province of Balochistan were Rasheed Azam was involved in the Baluchi nationalist party and a journalist there was abducted basically, and he alleges, he tells Human Rights Watch, that he was beaten severely while being turned upside down. He also said that he was forced to stay awake for very long periods of time and that was basically due to his criticism of what the military was doing in Balochistan,” Zarifi told ANI.     Zarifi also shot down suggestions that there was a freedom of the press in Pakistan. “What’s been particularly worrisome is that the press has become a target of the military government and even the mainstream press, which had for a long time had some kind of immunity or some kind of ability to work more freely is now coming under pressure with charges of sedition or often, just no charges at all,” she claimed.     “Unfortunately, the president has on several occasions accused journalists of sedition, accused them of essentially selling out Pakistan’s national interests,” she adds.     “In human rights terms, what we have seen is that the military seems to be able to act with complete impunity,” she said, adding that, “historically, torture has been a major problem in Pakistan.”     Human Rights Watch and other human rights groups –both domestic and international – have pointed this out. Since President Musharraf, the military seems to  have more latitude than they did before. A US sponsored war on terror has added a whole new element to this and its our understanding that in numerous instances, Pakistani security forces have been collaborating with American security forces in arresting and detaining people, often without charge,” Zarifi claimed     “The first place to start is to recreate the situation of press freedom in Pakistan. Then, these issues can be discussed once again. The crackdown on the press since President Musharraf has taken over has been quite significant,” she adds.     She concluded by saying that, “We would like to see the entire international community essentially put more pressure on President Musharraf’s government to say that there will be human rights guidelines, markers for behaviors that will determine how the international community views Pakistan.”     “Pakistan is not just important because of its proximity to Afghanistan and India, but that the people of Pakistan have rights and those rights deserve to be protected too.”     Improvement of human right in Pakistan is nothing but a day dream. As the Pakistanis has inherited all the wrong from the inherited culture and has added the bad things of Islam. So it will be a impossible tax to rectify the mentality of this coexistence of bad culture.

HUMAN RIGHTS  VIOLATION

ISLAMABAD: The human rights situation is getting worse in the country and the military and civilian regime is responsible for this sorry state of affairs, prominent rights activist and former chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan Asma Jahangir said. “We are very concerned about the recent arrests and detentions of parliamentarians and the harassment of journalists. The ground reality is that people have lost faith in the judicial system. In fact, they have lost faith in every institution of the country,” Ms Jehangir said while speaking at a Human Rights Commission of Pakistan function for the launch of the Centre for Democratic Development in Islamabad. She said since the inception of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan in 1986, an annual report is published on the state of rights in Pakistan. Indicators show that things are not moving in the right direction but every government denies human rights violations. She said the government shows concern about the human rights, but does not value democratic standards. “The human rights issue is directly linked with democracy and without democracy there are more chances of rights violations,” she said. HRCP Director Mr.I.A.Rehman said the government has changed the texture of lawmaking. He said 19 articles of the Constitution are struck down with one stroke of the pen. “Today we have a manipulated the Constitution. Even the lawyers are unaware of the amendments made in the Constitution and in some cases judges too reflect their ignorance about the amendments.”  Mr Rehman said the procedure is that before making any legislation, a draft bill should be publicised for soliciting public debate. “But in the present times laws are made and promulgated in minutes and this trend shows the face of the authoritarian regime we are living in.” “Today the forum of law-making and legislation is not parliament. All these powers have been converged into one office,” he said. Former chairman of the HRCP Afrasiab Khattak said that the society has lost control over the state and the state is not accountable to anyone. “The dichotomy of powers is not visible. Today we have a uniformed democracy because of the army in our country”.  The Army runs state affairs without being accountable to any institution in the country, Mr Khattak said. He accused the MMA government of following the agenda of gender segregation. “We have an MMA government in the NWFP where female players cannot play in the presence of male referees, female patients cannot be treated by male doctors and police have conducted raids to confiscate Eid cards bearing female pictures,” he said. He added that the MMA stands for Mulla-Military Alliance. It is amazing that western government that upholds the cause of democracy also patronize a military regime in our country, he said. Castigating the military’s role in civil affairs, he said the military generals are not only part of problems, they themselves are the problems. The human rights situation will not improve unless civil society is empowered and authoritative rule is eliminated.

 

“The  religious law of the Muslim has  had  the effect  of  imparting  to  the  very  diverse individuals  of  whom  the world is  composed,  a  unity of  thought,  of  feeling,   of  ideas,  of  judgment.”   Another report from KARACHI: (Daily times 7.12.03) HRCP condemns jirga system.  A workshop of the district coordinators of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) core groups was held here on Saturday, which was presided over by Akhtar Baloch, the provincial coordinator HRCP, according to a HRCP press release. The jirga system prevailing in Sindh and its effects on the social fabric of Pakistan society were considered in detail. The consultation meeting was unanimous that jirga decisions have been misused during the present regime and the establishment is supporting this menace by helping sardars and waderas through weakening the judicial system, especially the police and other law-enforcing agencies. That has forced the public to take their matters to jirgas. The public has a feeling that justice is not done to them by judicial officers. First, they were insulted or disgraced by the police in getting their cases registered at police station and if luckily the case was registered, it took a long time in investigation and the challan of the accused and further the judicial magistrate in deciding their fate took several years. The lack of confidence in the judicial system is increasing extra-judicial systems by the jirgas which should be taken note by the government, they noted.  The participants of the workshop brought to the notice the inhuman treatment meted out to women in karo-kari (honour killing) cases. The woman alleged to be “kari” is thrown out of the house of her parents and husband and she is at the mercy of the “jirga” held whether to keep her as maidservant or to be sold to somebody of the clan. The age-old custom of “char bheley” to force the alleged accused to walk on burning fire to prove his or her innocence was also pointed out. Sardars and big landlords were supporting this system because they want to keep their votes intact by exercising their influence on administrators and judicial officers. There were also taking monetary benefits by imposing fines on the contesting parties  according to the magnitude of their dispute, sometimes lakhs of rupees were fined on the defaulting party and high percentage was deducted at the expense of “autake.” Zaman Khan attributed all these evils to the feudal system and added that the establishment had failed to bring democracy and weakened the democratic institutions, depriving the people of their rights as guaranteed in the constitution.  He said it was resulting lawlessness, which was damaging the social system. And instead of making progress, it was taking back society to the Stone Age, which was highly astonishing and deplorable.  Mohammed Parayal Muree, Imdadullah Khoso, Sikander Lal, Siddiq Abro and others also spoke at the meeting.      HUMAN RIGHTS SITUATION IN PAKISTAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR.                            Hamid Bashani    A review of the human rights violations reported during 2003 in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (Pakistan occupied Kashmir) shows a gloomy picture. The disappointing situation is further deteriorating with the passage of time. The incidents of rights violations are increasing at an alarming rate. The police stations are turning into torture camps. The police force is emerging as an institution actively involved in obstruction of justice and malicious prosecution. The principles of natural justice and doctrine of fairness are flagrantly disregarded. Criminal justice system is rapidly decaying. It has arrived on the verge of total collapse. The bankruptcy of the system remains unexposed because the victims are voiceless, often ignored by media and human rights activists.  It is a popular misconception in Pakistan occupied Kashmir that suspected or criminally charged people have no human rights and constitutional protections. This fallacy has become a legal norm. The suspects are deprived of all constitutional rights and guarantees. The criminal justice system is working against the interest of justice itself. Law enforcement agencies have established the policies and practices that are completely at odds with the constitutional rights and rule of law. These policies are also at odds with the universally accepted principles and standards of criminal investigations.    The government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir constitution act.1974 and constitution of Pakistan clearly spells out the norms of humane and faire procedure of arrest and imprisonment. The police ignore these norms recklessly or in bad faith. Execution of arrest without warrants and failure to produce detainees before the court of law within 24 hours thereafter are routine violations the police commit with exemption.    In the constitution of the country everyone has right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. In practice it has become a matter of routine for the police to massively violate this constitutional right. Only from January to September 2003 One hundred and seventy-eight people were arbitrarily detained at twenty-one different police stations in Pakistan occupied Kashmir. The rights of the detainees were grossly violated  .In many cases the detainees were not informed of the reason of their arrest. They were declared as suspects in different crimes. In most cases police never told them in which case they were suspected. One hundred and fifteen people were detained during above-mentioned period on different police stations without giving them the reason of their arrest. No cases were registered against them and no legal procedure was followed.    The detainees were deprived of their rights to retain and instruct counsels. Most of them requested for legal aid and provided the police with the names of the lawyers they wanted to see, but their requests were turned down. Twenty-five persons were detained incommunicado. They were not permitted to see their relatives and friends. In sixteen cases relative who approached police stations were not permitted to see the detainees. In many cases police refused to acknowledge that the person was in custody. In some cases the relatives were maltreated, threatened, humiliated and asked to leave the police station.     The basic rights of three hundred and eighty people were grossly violated at different police stations during this period. These people were charged with different offences under criminal code. Their rights were violated by unreasonably delaying to inform them of the specific offence. Their rights to be tried within a reasonable time were violated. Seventy-five people were compelled to be witness in proceeding against them. Thirty-two were denied bail without just cause. The police blatantly dishonored the right of the detainees to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.    Torture has become a preferred tool in the hands of police. Suspects are brutally tortured during criminal investigation. Almost every detainee goes through some form of physical torture at police stations. Twenty people were severely tortured and brutally beaten by police in different police stations between  January 2003 to July 2003. Many were tortured to confess the crime they never committed. Psychological torture is very common at police stations. Detainees are kept in subhuman conditions. The police stations and judicial lock-ups are incredibly over crowded and infested. The detainees are denied basic needs including water, and face great risk to their health.     Acts of Sexual abuse and rape are very common. Several cases of rape and sodomy were reported during this period. Inmates and police personnel sexually abuse Young offenders. Most of the cases are never reported because of stigma attached to it. No separate facility and staff is available for young offenders and female detainees that make them more vulnerable for sexual and physical abuse.     Corruption has become an indispensable part of justice system. The police acts of implicating innocent peoples in different criminal cases and extortion have arrived at frightful point. It is almost impossible for common people to seek justice because of lack of financial resources or political influence. Complaints of extortion against police personnel go unnoticed and no action is taken against them. The forgoing cases are collected by only one human rights group, hundreds of such cases remained uninvestigated and unreported. In a small population of five million where ninety-nine percent people live in villages, these statistics are staggering and outrageous. The government of Pakistan occupied Kashmir and its legislative assembly’s claims of satisfactory human rights situation do not match with the ground realities. The government has failed to meet its basic constitutional obligations to protect the constitutional rights of its populace. It did not take adequate steps to meet the ends of justice and establish the rule of law. Pakistan has signed and ratified many UN human rights treaties and conventions including The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Pakistan is under international obligation to implement and respect these treaties and conventions. It is also its constitutional responsibility to protect the people from torture, inhuman treatment and abuse. The situation is rapidly deteriorating and needs to be addressed in timely fashion.

 

 

6.ETHNIC CLEANING

 

SYSTEMATIC ETHNIC CLEANINGS IS GOING ON IN PAKISTAN, BANGLADESH AND IT IS BIG CONCERNED FOR THE MINORITIES OF BOTH THIS COUNTRY.

 

In east Bengal, Due to division of country only poor people are the worst sufferer in all respect. They lost their valuable, their love one, they separated permanently. On the other hand elite class loss very less, instead they gain politically, economically. Rich people can travel with a passport but a poor can’t afford this. Rich people can approach a good doctor whichever country it is but  a poor man  can’t do that. They have to confine in the same small portion, like Bangladesh or Pakistan. Poor can’t watch a movie as and when they desire to do so, but elite class enjoy all. They can move freely but not the poor. Dalit Muslim’s are more fanatic’s than the elite one or upper caste Muslim as like as illiterate dalits. Masses of the dalits will follow the religious function organized by elite class as like as the Muslim masses. Though the conversion has change nothing for them. On the other hand they have become deculturise and worse enemy of their own forefather culture and behave like an uncivilized one. Are the masses  gained by division at all? The answer will be no. They have their limitation to work, travel, business etc.  Some lower class has converted and used to do menial job by their forefather’s and still it continues. They are very few who has able to change their job with higher one or get any attention from any corner. They left as usual by their elite class and no hope in sight. Their counter part are now in a better position whether it is in the Govt or representation in the Govt  all the places they can fight. Islam has done nothing for Indian dalits except enslave them, murder them deculturaize them, conquer them, invade them and make worse enemy of their own brother’s and sister’s.

 

This report is cent percent correct as I was suffering mental agony when I was in Pakistan and subsequently in Bangladesh.

 

VIEW FROM PAKISTHAN

 

It’s not easy being  Pak minority By Hafizur Rahaman has given a true face of Islam in his credit under which crores are suffering mental agony in this subcontinent. When he described from Pakistan, Karachi:  A news report quotes the decision of a minorities’ organization of Rawalpindi to launch a campaign on oppose the adoption of the Shariat in the North West Frontier Province and its likely follow-up elsewhere in the face of an overwhelming and rather intolerant majority.

 

While in a truly Islamic state, which Pakistan is not, the ummah is supposed to be the protector of non-Muslims, one is heartened by the courage shown by the Christian minority. I warn them that this is not going to be taken lightly by the ultra-religious elements among the Muslims and might involve a recoil.

 

As for the other significant minority, the Ahmedis or the Qudanis (declared non-Muslims in 1974), they don’t count. They are not even second-class citizens but something much lower, yet to be properly categorized. Quite a part from the blasphemy law which covers everyone, Christians in Pakistan do not appreciate how much we love them For example if a Christian pins the Muslim kalima on his breast, we’ll make much of him as “an honorary Muslim”. But if a Quadiani has the temerity to do that,we trot him off to jail for a year or two.

 

Similarly, all Christians use the salutation assalam-o-alaikum even among themselves, but if a Qudiani does so it is a crime in the eyes of General Zia’s law and dully punishable. He can say namaste or sat sri akal but never the salam which only means “Peace be upon you,” and is hardly a religious expression. That is why I say that our Christians don’t count their blessings, which they are exhorted to do by their faith.

 

And that is why, when talking to foreigners, the Pakistan government always swears by the constitution that there is no discrimination against the minorities.  A study of press statements of government leaders reveals that Pakistan and its Muslim population have given unprecedented concessions and allowances to the minorities. Though if you ask those leaders or enumerate even one of these concessions they are at a loss to do so. As for our religious gentry, they think it is more than a generosity to let the minorities live in peace in the Muslims homeland. So, what more do they want ?

 

The whole atmosphere in the country as regards the attitude towards non Muslims, as also the attitude of the adherents of one sect towards the followers of other sects, is so vitiated with intolerance that now really marvels at what the Quaid-i-Azam did on Sunday, August 17,1947. Ardeshir Cowsjee wrote an article describing how on that day the Quaid and Miss Fatima Jinnah attended a special service in Karachi’s Saint Patrick’s Church.

 

After the religious service, which was dedicated to the strength and welfare of the new state. Mr. Jinnah reiterated his resolve that there would be absolutely no discrimination between Muslims and non-Muslims in Pakistan. Elderly Christians and Parsis of Karachi recall his words fondly and remember how he assured them that Pakistan was as much their country as a new homeland for Muslims.

 

Today they must be wondering which Pakistan the Quaid was talking about. Can you imagine a Prime Minister of Pakistan attending a Christian religious service in a church? Even Pervez Musharraf with all his bravado wouldn’t dare. The maulavis would tear such leaders to shreds.

 

In the present state of affairs which, without doubt, has been brought about over the years by our own political and religious leaders, the most important requirement is that the minorities should feel safe, protected and even privileged.

 

Six years ago there was Santinagar, the Christian village in southern Punjab, which was raided by Muslim zealots fed on false rumors set afloat by certain fanatics. They behaved like the Huns and laid the village waste. I have kept a tab on the matter and can say without fear of contradiction that nothing was done by Mian Nawas Sharif’s government to either restore the confidence of the victims or bring the culprits to book. What price civilized behaviour inspired by the tenets of Islam and our much-vaunted tolerance of other faith?

 

That apart, the abduction of Hindu girls in Sindh is going on all the time. When a hue and cry is raised the girl is made to state in a court of law that she went away of her own accord, that she married a Muslim of her own accord and that she embraced Islam of her own accord. Then, a few years ago, there was the kidnapping of about a hundred Hindu Haris, men, women and children, in a part of the province.

 

If minority leaders, and a few good Muslims, had not raised the alarm, nothing would have been heard of the affair. On the strength of these events it can be safely averred that today the most privileged individual in Pakistan whom no one can touch is the Sindhi Wadera. I refused to believe that he is afraid of God.

 

I sometimes wonder for minorities truly consider themselves 100 percent Pakistanis. In fact the question should be, “Do we, the Muslims, make them feel by our attitude that they are Pakistanis?” The atmosphere pervading the entire country is so completely Muslims in its spirit and impact that a non-Muslim appears to be something alien and out of place.

 

Two years ago I had quoted from a letter written by a Christian woman to an Urdu newspaper columnist. I shall not recount her complaints against Muslim bias but I do want to repeat just one sentence from it. She had said,” Brother, let me share a private thought with you. I honestly feel that it is the prayers of us Christians that are sustaining Pakistan, otherwise you people would have finished it long ago by killing one another and anyone else who disagrees with you.” Ominous words I must say.

 

In Pakistan if Gen.Mussaraf keep his word then fundamentalist will be not allow him to live. Now Pakistan has understood their dictator’s capabilities. Fundamentalism will no more help them to bashing other religion or religionist. Only they will go to grave. Musaraf’s speech is a big blunder. Pakistan will never be quite until they punish like 1971 when Pakistan army were beaten by broom in Bangladesh on the road when they surrender to Indian army. Only that type of situation will curb the mentality of Islamic fundamentalist. As this religion is not suitable for this subcontinent.  They should convert their original religion Buddhism from where their fore father accept Islam under political pressure. Then only peace is possible. Peace is not possible until & unless.

 

Islam calls itself a religion of brother hood. Then How other religionist can  make any trouble between so called  brother hood. It is also in the name of your Allah. It is easy to give freedom but difficult to give wisdom. You have blamed others to cause the sufferings of Muslim. It is very easy to blame others. Kashmir was a strong Buddhist hold and in fight with Brahmanism they converted in Islam. Now they can come back. Jews are blaming for all bad things? But  then how they   are progressive than you? Also other   religious people. Why? Are you people are jealousy for them?

 

Ansari Muslim is one of the most backward community in Bengal. Do you know that? If  West Pakistani gave a chance to rule the entire Pakistani by Sheik Mujib in 1971?  Then they could avoid so much of blood shed as well as separation from Pakistan. They did not accept 99% peoples verdict? How a Pakistani can claim for self determination in the name of religion? What is the condition of minorities in Pakistan or Bangladesh? By constitutional probation in the name of sharia, sura, you people deprived the minorities and advocating self determination for Kashmiries, where elected democratically elected government is functioning sine 1947. How many times free and fair election held in Pakistan last 53 years? Muslim were the ruler all over India. Due to their foolishness they lost it and I think their Allah did not help them. They will never get a chance

 

UNREST COUNTRY

Since 1947 there were many incident of up and down of power struggle in Pakistan. President Pervez Musharraf, who narrowly escaped a second assassination attempt 14.12.03, has a lot of enemies who would like him dead, analysts said Tuesday. The explosion on a bridge within seconds of General Musharraf’s motorcade passing it on Sunday evening came just two days after he warned of the dangers within.

“We don’t face any external threat… The biggest internal challenge we are faced with is terrorism and extremism. This is the only threat,” he said Friday while inducting a new submarine into Pakistan’s navy. Political commentator Muhammad Afzal Niazi said “any number of people could be behind” the attempt to kill Musharraf, who is increasingly assuming a role as a world crusader for moderate Islam.

“There is a lot of resentment against him,” Niazi told AFP. “Who doesn’t love him? Al-Qaeda doesn’t love him, the Taliban don’t love him, they see him as having betrayed them after September 11. “There may be some Kashmiri freedom fighters, which means Pakistanis who fought in Kashmir who feel that by reducing assistance levels or ending assistance he has betrayed the Kashmir cause.” “Or it could be sectarian terrorists from either side of the sectarian divide,” Niazi said. “There may be elements within the armed forces who are sympathetic with anyone of these particular groups. Or it could be some within the police.”

After the botched April 2002 attempt in southern city Karachi to blow up his motorcade, accidentally foiled by a broken detonator, an officer from the paramilitary Rangers forces was arrested.

“There are lots of people who don’t like him,” Niazi said. “There is a reasonably long list of people who have both the motivation and the capability. I tend to agree with president that basically it’s internal rather than external forces that are the danger.” Musharraf, the army chief who stole power in an October 1999 coup, declared himself president 21 months later and has refused to step down despite the restoration of elected parliaments.

He infuriated Islamic groups by abandoning the Taliban in favour of the US after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. He not only reversed Islamabad’s long support of Afghanistan’s then-rulers, he allowed US forces to use Pakistani intelligence, air corridors and air bases for their operation against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Musharraf has compounded the resent against him by seeking to stamp out extremism. He has outlawed 13 militant Islamic organisations since August 2001. Only last month he stepped up the campaign, outlawing six groups – three of which had re-emerged under new names after he banned them in January 2002.

The outlawed groups include fighters trained to attack Indian forces in Kashmir, violent gangs of fanaticists of the rival Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam, and fundamentalists with goals of reviving Islamic caliphates. “Many of the groups are very annoyed with General Musharraf’s policy,” said Khalid Mahmud, researcher at the Institute for Regional Studies. “There are dozens of religious extremist groups against whom General Musharraf has acted. Some were involved in sectarian warfare, others in pro-Taliban activities, many have been arrested, many organisations have been banned. So therefore there could be any group of people who want him dead.” “Above all a large number of religious groups are annoyed at General Musharraf’s association with the Americans, they consider him pro-America.

Police said Monday several people had been arrested over the blast, but no one has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack.  Musharraf immediately blamed “militants, extremists and terrorists who…bring a bad name to our great religion.”

3rd attempted on his life was on 25.12.2003  in which total 16 people were killed in two powerful explosion in the military are of Rawalpindi. Pakistan authority claims that it was an act of foreign terrorist group.

IMMIGRATION

 

Refugees from different parts of undivided parts of India should claim the same status and help from United Nation and world community as demanded by the refugee in Palastine. Because, all these people were replaced from their motherland due to division which they were not interested at all. They have scattered all over India specially in the Juggy/Jupri area in the urban areas. These people  need repatriate with full honoure and dignity. As immigration from Bangladesh and Pakistan to India is a matter of concerned by both  Government of India as well as the affected people. The problem of migration is not a new phenomena, it is old one in different way. The politician on the basis of religion under God divided this subcontinent. Some religion definitely has destroyed the unity and integrity of this country. 1st question is that if the religion divide the people and make its supporters blood thirsty on the line of religion and play holy with the blood of innocent people, raped thousands of women and  killed children. Is it religion at all? If the religion failed to give the enough wisdom to its respective followers to learn self-constraint and fraternity among human being than it is not a religion. If a religion direct to kill others believer and even make slaves their own womenfolk in the name of medieval rule. Then what it is? Now every body hate that religions followers.  It is only a party of gang of selfish people. If one religion teaches its supporter that their religion one is right, rest is wrong, and other one tells and use the same logic. Then what will be happen? There are thousands of religion some of it has large numbers of  followers, some have less, but self-religion is dearer to every individual. From Bangladesh and Pakistan nonbelievers migrate under the pressure from believers, it is in different way, those who have suffered on that country only they can realize and those who have migrated before suffering can’t realize the suffering and those who are not affect in any way, they will not realize at all the difficulties face by the minority in Pakistan & Bangladesh. Those who are migrating now after tolerating all misdeed against them should give red carpet welcome. Instead of that they are mistreating by Indian Government. It is not fair  as I say it due I have my personal experience. Migration of believers in a country of nonbelievers is a matter of great concerned for all. Whether you think it on religion basis or economic basis. Policy maker and critics must need enough experience on this matter. Conversion of dalits from foreign religion without enlighten and education throw them nowhere in this modern time. As one example I can quote here that if Nomo’s in Bengal did not convert in Islam then they can easily rule the state of entire Bengal from Tripura to West Bengal like U.P. without any hardship with modern thinking.

 

STATELESS PUNJABI REFUGEES IN JAMMU AND KASHMIR SINCE 1947.

Over a hundred thousand Punjabi refugees had migrated to Jammu and Kashmir from the neighbouring Sialkot district of Punjab province (now in Pakistan) in 1947 during the partition. Until now , they have not been granted citizenship. These refugees, mainly belonging to the scheduled caste communities, had settled in the area along the border in R.S.Pra and Kathua sectors. As Jammu and Kashmir had its own citizenship, namely permanent resident of the state, only a person having this citizenship was entitled to vote. Hence these refugees have been denied the right to vote until today. They are also not eligible for any government job and cannot buy land. The descendents of these stateless people continue to be denied the right to nationality. According to surveys done in the border belt, most of the refugees are poor, landless labourers belonging to the lower social-economic strata of society.  In the last assembly election in Jammu and Kashmir in September-October 2002, the issue of granting citizenship status to the Punjabis was incorporated in the manifestos of all the parties. But no action has yet been taken.

 

17,000 Hindu refugees in Rajasthan from Pakistan landed in 1965 after Indo Pakistan war. They are scattered in jodhpur , Barmer, jaisalmer, jalore and Pali districts. On November 24, 2001  a committee made its first recommendation to the Central government to accept application for citizenship after they renounce Pakistani citizenship in a simple affidavit. This same facilities is denying to the refugees coming from Bangladesh due to the same problem. Those migrating now should give heroic welcome as they have test the rule of terror since long.

 

There may be many more refugees are different places are not in the notice of the authority. They are suffering due to the division of India on the religious line. Which is impractical in modern time. Some foreign religion has given the light to the people who were in dark. Some  religion thrown the people in the dark instead of salvation in the name of religion. As a result hatred impregnate in this region and divided the country on communal line.

 

 

 

 

 

  1. VIEWS FROM SCHOLARS.

 

        Who said that Indian Muslims must “reinterpret the foundational legal principles in the light of their own experience and the altered conditions of modern life”?

The correct answer might shock some of the hardliners who have become self-appointed arbiters of the destiny of Indian Muslims. This was the view of a philosopher-poet who took Mirza Dagh as his mentor, stirred Muslims as no one before had done with epic nazams like Shikwa and Jawab-e-Shikwa, received a knighthood in 1922, and presided over the Allahabad session of the All India Muslim League in 1930 where in his presidential address he proposed that “Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind and Baluchistan be amalgamated into a single state”. No one would call Sir Muhammad Iqbal a kafir. When he died in Lahore on 21 April 1938 the community honoured him with a tomb in the compound of the famous Badshahi mosque built by Aurangzeb.

Iqbal elaborated in his seminal analytical work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam: “The teaching of the Quran, that life is a process of progressive creation, necessitates that each generation is guided, but unhampered, by the work of its predecessors, should be permitted to solve its own problems.”

It is a myth that Islamic law is not amenable to reinterpretation. Islam has always been a dynamic faith, not a static one, and principles have been placed in context whenever needed. The oft-cited instance of the Quranic injunction against usury is as good an example as any. The Quran, which Muslims treat as the word of God, is unambiguous about this evil. Verse 275 of the second Surah, Al Baqarah, begins: “Those who devour usury will not stand except as stands one whom the Evil One by his touch hath driven to madness.” The next verse is equally specific: “Allah will deprive usury of all blessing, but will give increase for deeds of charity, for He loveth not creatures ungrateful and wicked.” The translation is by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who points out in a note: “Usury is condemned and prohibited in the strongest possible terms. There can be no question about the prohibition. When we come to the definition of usury there is room for difference of opinion.” It is this “difference of opinion” that has enabled all but a thin fringe of Muslims to take interest from banks without feeling that they have defied a Quranic injunction.

Then there is verse 38 of the fifth Surah, Al Maidah, on theft: “As to the thief, male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime…” In the time of Jesus, it will be remembered, thieves were crucified; and even as late as in the nineteenth century in Britain, you could be hanged for theft. No one in the Islamic world today insists on cutting off thieves’ hands. Time has created imprecision even in Saudi Arabia. If there can be reasonable reform without sacrifice of principle, then there can be reform in marriage and divorce situations as well.

Islamic law is based on the injunctions of the Quran, and the practice of the Prophet, who was both a messenger of Allah and a ruler of men as Muslim belives. But this canon has been subject to seven yardsticks: ijma (consensus), ijtihad (judgment), qiyas (analogy), istihsan (equity), istislal (public interest), urf (custom) and istidal (legal reasoning). Each of these is a parameter of change, without sacrifice of any basic principle. The principle is that theft should be punished, but both judgment and public interest rule that theft can be curbed in the twenty first century without recourse to slicing off hands. The social purpose of law is to curb the evil, not torture the individual.

This is not the way the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, which has become the first and last word in Muslim affairs, sees either law or life.

Judging by the way it behaves, it might seem as if the Board has been controlling the destinies of Indian Muslims ever since Muhammad bin Qasim stepped into Sind in 711. To discover the truth we have to step a mere twelve centuries forward.

It gave to itself veto rights on Islamic law; its continual slogan was “Islam is in danger!”; is a very old slogan and its mission was to herd an insecure minority community into a vote bank that it would deliver to those who were ready to recognise its sole spokesman role for the Indian Muslim community.

Its attitude towards social reform is best summed by the position it took on family planning.  Some Muslim clargy declared that sterilization (nasbandi) was haram or prohibited.

In all matters of family law the Board has taken a male-oriented view.   However, the Board has not suggested that Muslim thieves should be awarded the Quranic punishment irrespective of how Indian law treats non-Muslim thieves. It accepts reform for thieves, but not for divorcees.  Is it not appalling?

You would not of course expect India’s political class to point out any such inconsistency. That would be detrimental to its electoral interests.

The tension between change, reform, tradition and law is a familiar dynamic of the last two centuries; it is a process that long precedes the arrival of democracy. Justice Khare’s judgment on the need for a common civil code reaffirms a principle laid down in the Constitution, but falters when it ignores the complexities of social change. At one level the Court has not forgotten the scars of Shah Bano, and nor should it. The success of fundamentalists in blocking reform in Muslim personal law is another instigation. But there are other issues that need consideration before the demand for an immediate uniform civil code becomes a battle cry. All communities are as reform-sensitive as Muslims, particularly where tradition has generated vested interests. Hindu law itself is not as uniform as some reformists would desire it to be.

When is the law called an ass? When it has legal reasoning on its side, but is bereft of consensus, judgment, equity and public interest. When a horrendous case of injustice is perpetrated in the name of law, as in the Shah Bano case, then you know that the time has come for reform. But equally, it is the duty of society’s leaders to build consensus around reform. Of course when those in authority are not leaders then this becomes difficult.

Sir W.H. Sleeman is the much-vaunted British Raj officer who allegedly eliminated thugs from central India. I do not recommend his memoirs (Rambles and Recollections of an Indian Official) to those with high blood pressure; Sleeman is only another pompous windbag when it comes to “natives”. But he is extraordinarily perceptive about the subtleties of administration. He tells the story of Charles Harding, of the Bengal Civil Service, who in 1806 prevented the widow of a Brahmin from committing suttee. But a year later, her family prevailed and she was placed on a funeral pyre at Ramnagar, some two miles upstream from Benaras. As soon as the fire was lit, she jumped into the river; her clothes kept her afloat, and the current took her to the city where she was rescued by a police boat. Benaras was in uproar, and all the worthies suggested that the young officer return the widow to the pyre if he wanted to preserve the peace. Harding exhausted all the rational arguments, in vain. The crowd still bayed for suttee. Suddenly he had an inspiration. He had not saved the widow, he told the crowd; Mother Ganges had saved her. How else could she have survived without knowing how to swim? Her sacrifice on the pyre was obviously unaccepted to the river, or the Ganges would have received her.

The point was unanswerable. The widow survived. There is no substitute for persuasion.  In 1826 Lord Amherst asked for the views of seven European district magistrates of central India on whether a ban on suttee would be acceptable to the people. All seven said it would not. But when Lord William Bentinck did ban suttee a few years later, not a murmur was heard. The British Raj clearly had a motto: Just do it.

It is now widely accepted, in the academic domain, at least, that the Partition of India in 1947 was a traumatic event with continuing emotional and political repercussions on personal as well as collective levels of identity formation. Perhaps it is not too optimistic to observe scholarly responses to the Partition moving from a nostalgic, overwhelmingly sentimental phase towards more searching, self-reflexive acts of remembrance, recuperation and mourning. From ‘merely remembering’, the emphasis seems to have shifted to examining ‘how we remember/ forget’. Yet this awakening of interest in the memorial dimension of the Partition and its attendant complexities has been tied almost exclusively to the partition of Punjab and its impact on the North and Northwest of the Indian subcontinent. There are a number of reasons for this emphasis. Most obviously, the magnitude of the violence in Punjab and the almost complete transfer of population along religious lines meant that, from the immediate aftermath of 1947 onwards, the horrors of the Punjab partition have become metonymic for Partition itself. Secondly, the violence against the Sikhs in 1984 catalysed a new urgency among (largely) Punjabi intellectual-activists to return to 1947 and reassess the present in the light of that past. Many of these efforts coalesced around the fiftieth anniversary of Indian and Pakistani independence to produce a critical mass of writing that memorialised the impact of Partition as the impact on Punjabi culture and identity. One wonders what are the corresponding reasons for the relative absence of Bengal within this emerging discourse on Partition. Locating and historicising these reasons themselves should be the starting-point of a critical and collective discussion of the Bengal partition- a discussion that should not be derivative of but at the very least parallel the discussion centring on the Punjab. After all, the history and politics of ‘thrice-partitioned’ Bengal present a picture dramatically divergent from post-Partition Punjab. Firstly, the very different patterns of migration and attendant violence meant that substantial minorities remain in both Bengals. Secondly, the successful post-Partition integration of Punjab on both sides of the border can be contrasted with Bengal’s decline in South Asia, with West Bengal and East Pakistan having been marginalized vis-`-vis their respective political centres-that, in the case of West Bengal, can be seen as part of the North-East’s decline. Thirdly, the experience and memory of the Bengal partition has been vastly complicated, in ways totally different from the Punjab experience, by the creation of Bangladesh, a development with immense geopolitical impact. Finally, we must note the freighted cultural investment in Bengali language, literature and music, including the role it played in Bangladesh’s independence movement. Scholarship from different fields needs to come together to explain how and why the Bengal partition was experienced in such a unique way, and to factor these findings into explorations of trauma, memory and mourning with specific respect to Bengal, alongside radically imaginative work around the same issues. The first task in this regard, for both scholarship and art, is to move away from sentimentalism and melodrama. As Dipesh Chakrabarty demonstrated in his discussion of ‘Remembered Villages’, Bengali Hindu memory of pre-Partition Bengal has tended too easily to slip into nostalgic evocations of rural innocence, the ‘golden age’ before rupture and reality. The recent, much-acclaimed documentary Abar Ashibo Firey by Supriyo Sen, demonstrates how this purely sentimental recreation evokes unmediated emotion and what I would term unhelpful nostalgia. How can a film-maker, an artist, or a novelist for that matter, evoke ‘helpful’ nostalgia, or avoid sentimentalism while paying homage to memory? This balancing act can be accomplished by paying attention to the constructed nature of memory itself, as well as the impossibility of every journeying back. For instance, Ararat, by the Canadian-Armenian filmmaker Atom Egoyan, responds to the Turkish forced expulsion of the Armenians of Anatolia in 1915 through frantic sequences of a film crew seeking to recreate an authentic narrative of the event. Through this film within the film, Egoyan points out the impossibility of narrativising trauma, with the desired whole always contaminated by actual holes- gaps and omissions that signify the fundamental difficulty of integrating traumatic into narrative memory. Today, when all of us in South Asia, not merely the two Bengals, grapple with the ugly side of naturalised omissions and selections within collective memory projects, it becomes all the more necessary to complicate the process of remembering in order to reach a more searing level of honesty within ourselves as compromised subjects of a still-traumatic rupture. Using artwork and analysis not merely to continue valorising some sites of memory- such as the [east] Bengali village- but to unravel how those process shape the present, even by marginalizing other modes of remembering: this should be the collective endeavour of all those revisiting Bengal’s traumas to learn constructively from the past.     Its author Ananya Jahanara Kabir is the granddaughter of Humayun Kabir who  made his mark as a writer and politician. Was Minister of State under  Maulana Azad in India’s education Ministry.   Politicians are short of memory and the present situation can changed in the rapid changing complex situation in any moment, especially in scenario of the total vanish  of the religious fanatics.

 

Noted Lawer Ram jethmalani has given his views by an article as enclosed here as below:-

The Supreme Court has again dropped a brick and fuelled one more controversy with religious overtones, as if we haven’t enough on hand, by declaring a section of the Succession Act unconstitutional.

It expressed its disappointment that the Directive Principle contained in Article 44 of the Constitution had not yet been implemented. This has brought satisfaction to one section of the people of India and resentment to some others.

There are three separate questions which the Supreme Court has now provoked and these require to be answered without aggravating communal acrimony and social conflict. Constitutional propriety, national integration and rational accommodation of religious scruples should be the rationale of any attempted answers.

The first question that arises is: Is it right for the Supreme Court to deliver such gratuitous advice?

My respectful answer is, “No.”

Part IV of the Constitution deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy of which Article 44 forms only one of the 14 enumerated therein. It starts with Article 37.

Art. 37. Application of the principles contained in this Part. The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforceable by any court, but the principles therein laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws.

The Directive Principles are not enforceable by the courts precisely because they constitute political, economic and social injunctions by the founding fathers to successive governments and legislatures in the country. The Supreme Court in spite of its failings, is a highly revered institution enjoying the confidence of the people. For this very reason the Supreme Court must realise that even its mild admonition will amount to an insidious attempt to bring about the enforcement of that which it is prohibited from enforcing. Implicit in the very act of advice to the legislature or the government is the insinuation that the two other organs are in default, the Supreme Court stands above them and is free to chastise them as inattentive school children.

The enactment of a uniform civil code has been a matter of controversy between the majority and the minority communities since the dawn of Independence. The Supreme Court could not be unaware of this. Its advice amounts to taking sides in what is basically a political controversy. Thereby, it descends into the political arena leaving its image to be besmirched by the dust of the conflict. The Shah Bano experience should have at least served as a deterrent. Not only was the actual decision reversed by legislation but the Supreme Court itself became the subject of political acrimony.

In judgment after judgment, the Supreme Court overstepped the limits of adjudication, which is its only legitimate function, and trespassed into the field of legislation. Only three years ago, a Constitution Bench had to reverse a number of earlier decisions on the ground that the Court had virtually indulged in the exercise of legislative power which does not belong to it. Out of sheer regard for itself the Court must cultivate resistance to the strong temptation to ignore the Laxmanrekha.

But this does not deny the second question: Are Muslims being rational when they oppose a uniform civil code?

The question of having a uniform civil code was debated in the Constituent Assembly on November 23, 1948 in the shape of Draft Article 35. It had reached the House after having been discussed in several committees and at several places. Prominent Muslim members Mohamed Ismail Sahib, Naziruddin Ahmad, Mahboob Ali Baig and Hussain Imam participated in the very lively debate. Ranged on the other side was the redoubtable K.M. Munshi, Aladi Krishna Swamy Iyer and Dr B.R. Ambedkar himself. Criticism of the Article was two-fold: firstly, that it infringed the fundamental right guaranteed by Draft Article 19 (which corresponds to the present Article 25) and secondly that it was a tyranny on the minorities.

Article 25 reads:

Art. 25. Freedom of conscience and free profession,  practice and propagation of religion.

(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this Article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law —

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

The most effective and reasoned criticism of the Article came from Hussain Imam. A part of his speech is worth quoting: “In a country so diverse, is it possible to have uniformity of civil law? We have ourselves further on provided for concurrent jurisdiction to the provinces as well as to the Centre in matters of succession, marriage, divorce and other things. How is it possible to have uniformity when there are eleven or twelve legislative bodies ready to legislate on a subject according to the requirements of their own people and their own circumstances? Look at the protection we have given to the backward classes. Their property is safeguarded in a manner in which other property is not safeguarded. In the Scheduled areas — I know of Jharkhand and Santhal Parganas — we have given special protection to the aboriginal population. There are certain circumstances, which demand diversity in the civil laws. I, therefore, feel, Sir, that in addition to the arguments which have been put forward by my friends who spoke before me, in which they feel apprehensive that their personal law will not be safe if this Directive is passed, I suggest that there are other difficulties also which are purely constitutional, depending not so much on the existence of different communities, as on the existence of different levels in the intelligence and equipment of the people of India.”

The argument based upon the infringement of fundamental rights was easily repelled. Fundamental right itself is hedged with qualifications and limitations. The Constitution recognises that there are many secular activities, which may well be associated with religious practice and yet they can be regulated or restricted. All economic, financial, political or other secular activities cannot be immune from parliamentary legislation on the ground that some religious groups believe them to be part of their religion. The Constitution itself permits legislation for social welfare and reform.

In 1955 the Hindu law was extensively modified and some principles of Muslim law were incorporated in it. Hindu society has not been enfeebled by this transfusion. On the contrary, it has been vastly strengthened and improved.

K.M. Munshi convincingly argued that no law can be declared as invalid on the ground that it seeks to modify personal law of any section of the citizens of India. The Indian Penal Code, the Evidence Act and the Transfer of Property Act all significantly repeal or modify a good bit of Shariat law. I wonder if Muslims in India would now like to have a law, which declares that a Muslim found guilty of a petty theft would have his hands cut off or a Muslim adulterer would be stoned to death.

Munshi went on to argue: “We think we have got national unity. But there are many factors — and important factors — which still offer serious dangers to our national consolidation, and it is very necessary that the whole of our life, so far as it is restricted to secular spheres, must be unified in such a way that as early as possible, we may be able to say, ‘Well, we are not merely a nation because we say so, but also in effect, by the way we live, by our personal law, we are a strong and consolidated nation.’ From that point of view alone, I submit, the opposition is not, if I may say so, very well advised. I hope our friends will not feel that this is an attempt to exercise tyranny over a minority; it is much more tyrannous to the majority.”

Is then Muslim opposition to the uniform civil code rational? The answer is a resounding “No.” The opposition is based on a total misunderstanding of the great Prophet of Islam. Let us hark back to a Hadith in which the Prophet asked one of his delegates, Mu’az, by what criteria he would administer the regions assigned to his control. “The Quran,” Mu’az replied.

“And then what?” the Prophet asked. “The Sunnah.” (Or, example of the Prophet.) “And then what?”

“Then I will make a personal effort (Ijtihad) and act according to that”.  And this the Prophet approved.

In every novel situation where earlier rules or precedents become inequitable or cruel every individual has to become a Mu’az and reach a decision according to his conscience and intellect. The Prophet wanted his followers to think for themselves and arrive at decisions which best serve the public good (Istiscal).

The last question is: Is there any urgency in the present domestic and international situation warranting the promulgation of a uniform civil code here and now? The answer is in the negative.

For this let us hear Dr Ambedkar. He pointed out that most of the personal laws had already been repealed and substituted by secular codes. The only areas that have remained untouched are marriage and succession. Apart from this very small corner the entire field is already occupied by a uniform civil code. He then proceeded to give an assurance to the minorities who were opposed to the Article. It is this which ought to curb the irrational enthusiasm generated by the Supreme Court’s latest observations: “I think they have read rather too much into Article 35, which merely proposes that the State shall endeavour to secure a civil code for the citizens of the country. It does not say that after the code is framed the State shall enforce it upon all citizens merely because they are citizens. It is perfectly possible that the future Parliament may make a provision by way of making a beginning that the code shall apply only to those who make a declaration that they are prepared to be bound by it, so that in the initial stage the application of the code may be purely voluntary. Parliament may feel the ground by some such method.”

I think neither the Supreme Court nor the zealous supporters of a uniform civil code have done any serious thinking about what this code would look like. I only wish to illustrate by one example. Hindus marry in the saptapadi form in the presence of a priest and the sacred fire. Muslims marry by nikah in the presence of vakils who communicate mutual consent of the parties. How should we make a uniform code for both? Should we impose the Hindu form on the Muslims or the Muslim form on the Hindus or should we produce some bizarre mixture of the two? There is already a Special Marriage Act under which one can marry in a purely secular form.

I refuse to believe that a uniform code is going to produce national integration. It will only produce communal discord, at least today. The words of Article 44 are significant — the State shall “secure for its citizens”; in other words, it will provide something, which the citizens want. This certainly is an assurance that normally no coercion will be employed unless it becomes a matter of national survival. I do not think the nation is facing any such emergency. It is wise to recall that the Supreme Court itself in the January 1996 case of Pannalal cautioned that hasty enactment will only be counter-productive. I may add: it will be disastrous. The government wisely gave an undertaking to the court that it will not act without consent of the communities involved.

Here another article written by noted Islamic scholar Dr.Rafiq Zakaria as below:

A number of press representatives badgered me. What is your reaction to the Supreme Court judgment, they asked.

Are you in favour of a common civil code? I said, I wished the apex court had first defined what it meant by common civil code; it should have considered its complications and then come out with its observation, which has created quite a stir among all sections of our people.

Most of our laws, both civil and criminal, are common; the credit for it goes to the British. It is the personal laws which have remained more or less intact, barring a few reforms which the British enacted in the teeth of strong opposition from the pundits and mullahs. Broadly, the personal law of each community covers marriage, divorce, maintenance, succession and inheritance. These are juxtaposed with respective religious rites and rituals of each religious group; they are peculiar not only to a particular community but also saddled with vital differences among the innumerable sects. To bring them under one umbrella will be a Herculean task; the frenzy that it will arouse may shake our polity. That does not mean we should not do it; it is high time our government, whatever be its political affiliation, embarks upon it and enacts it with determination. The past attempts in this regard are, however, not very encouraging.

In his zeal to make Indians one, Jawaharlal Nehru as Prime Minister soon after he took the reins of office decided to codify all personal laws of Hindus first, and thereafter, try to tackle those of religious minorities. He asked his law minister, Dr B.R. Ambedkar, to prepare a comprehensive Bill, covering all aspects of the personal lives of Hindus as legally and socially carried on by them. Ambedkar accepted the responsibility and plunged himself into the study afresh of the scriptures of Hindus, the rites and rituals of different castes and sub-castes, their conventions and traditions. He held long discussions with well-known scholars and jurists and went through a vast collection of original texts and manuscripts. He then prepared the Bill to codify these laws, rules and regulations and presented it to the Cabinet, which unanimously approved it. So armed, he introduced it in Parliament on February 5, 1951. As soon as it was published, it generated a wave of protest; it was opposed not only by many members of Parliament and various religious dignitaries but also by the President of India,  Dr Rajendra Prasad. Even Sardar Patel, the deputy prime minister, expressed his disapproval of the measure. Likewise, Dr.Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, the minister for industry, joined the ranks of the opponents of the Bill. There was a demand that the Bill should be withdrawn; but the Prime Minister, who had just returned from America, declared that if Parliament did not pass the Bill, his government would resign. He was shocked at the behaviour of some of his colleagues who had earlier consented to the Bill in the Cabinet, but later began coming out publicly against it, defying the norm of parliamentary convention.

Ambedkar was taken aback at the vehemence of the opposition to his Bill; he explained that he had taken full care of religious sensibilities but a lot of the legal anomalies and rites and traditions which were patently regressive, oppressive and even violative of human rights had to be discarded. Apart from Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists also objected to the Bill. They refused to be bracketed with Hindus. Though the debate on the Bill continued for three days, its introduction could not be proceeded further as Parliament decided to postpone its consideration.

At the meeting of the Congress Parliamentary Party, held sometime later, Nehru urged the members to agree to pass the Bill, as it was the last session of Parliament. But there was no response to his request and he had, therefore, to postpone its consideration until the next Parliament was elected. However, at the persistence of the Prime Minister, the members agreed that at least that part of the Bill which pertained to marriage and divorce be passed in that session. However, when it came for consideration, a number of members raised all kinds of objections. Dr Mookerjee said that it would “shatter the magnificent structure of Hindu culture and stultify a dynamic and catholic way of life that had wonderfully adapted itself to the changes for centuries.” Sardar Bhupendra Singh Manu said that  “the new Manu of Ambedkarian religion should not be imposed upon the Sikhs.” Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, the doyen of Hinduism, declared that nothing should be done to “damage the Hindu system, which was enshrined in our scriptures.”

Nehru lost his grit and declared that the law of marriage and divorce might be considered as a separate legislation, nothing to do with the Hindu Code Bill; but even this concession could not satisfy the members and hence Nehru advised Ambedkar to drop its consideration after some clauses were adopted. This came as a shock to the law minister, who cried out that the whole thing was “killed and buried, unwept and unsung, after four clauses were passed.” He felt crushed at the way some of the eminent Hindu leaders behaved. He said that Hindus were incapable of being reformed; they were completely hidebound by their obscurantist beliefs or ways. He accused them of creating such an anti-reform environment that even other communities would not be able to reform themselves. Consequently he decided, soon after the debacle of his Bill, that he had no place among such people, who had no vision or foresight, and tendered his resignation from the Cabinet to Nehru.

With this unfortunate background, can we seriously think that a common civil code will ever become the law? Apart from Hindus, who will have much to oppose in the code, the minorities will be up in arms against it. It is easy to talk about a uniform personal law; but it will be well nigh impossible to implement it. The odds are heavy; but I am not one of those who wants to back out. The question is: Which political party or parties will have the guts to exercise the political will to enact it? All the same, there has been much talk for such an enactment, especially among a large section of Hindus, blaming Muslims in particular for opposing it. The real reason behind it, as disclosed by one of our most distinguished jurists, Fali Nariman, is, however, polygamy, which is enjoyed by Muslims and denied to Hindus who are immensely irritated by this discrimination. It also causes fear and insecurity in them about their future. Long years ago, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad had warned: “In order to appease them the Muslims of India have been allowed to marry four wives, a practice now disallowed even in Muslim countries. As a result, the population of Muslims in India which stood at 25 million at the time of Partition has shot up to nearly 100 million, whereas the population of Hindus has only doubled since then. According to the findings of the UNO, 25 years hence the Hindu count will shrink to less than 50 per cent of the country’s population since their growth rate is only 23.69 per cent as compared to 30.85 per cent in the case of Muslims.”

This gross misrepresentation of the actual state of affairs is really used to frighten Hindus. Demographers are agreed that even if the rates of growth of Hindus and Muslims continue to be the same, the Muslim rate in the next 25 years will rise to 13.55 per cent. To equal Hindus, Muslims will need no less than 365 years. Polygamy seems to be the main grouse of Hindu communalists against Muslims; they believe that once Muslims are deprived of it, the situation will change dramatically in their favour and India will be saved!

Hindus, by and large, are convinced that polygamy results in an increased rate of growth of a people, despite demographic refutation. It is, therefore, not in the interests of Muslims to persist with it; in any case, they hardly practise it. It is also not obligatory for them under the Shariah; the relevant Quranic verse 3 in Surah al-Nissa is clear on the point:

Marry women who seem good to you, Two or three or four in number. However, if you fear,  That you may not be able to act Equitably towards all, Then marry only one.

This is followed in the same Surah by Verse 129, which makes it abundantly clear that monogamy is the safer alternative for a Muslim; it reads:   You will never be able to deal equitably With all your wives, however much you may want.

Under the influence of the Ummayyid rulers, the classical jurists interpreted the Quranic permission so liberally that polygamy became the rule instead of the exception. They exploited it to satisfy their sexual appetite. Many modern jurists like Mohammad Abdoo and Syed Qutb of Egypt, Justice Amir Ali and Justice Mahmud of India and the ace commentator of the Quran, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, have opined that monogamy is the preferred Quranic alternative. Muslim countries have enacted legislation accordingly. Why does India not follow in their footsteps and bring in legislation to ban polygamy for all its citizens, irrespective of caste or creed? It will silence to a great extent the votaries of a common civil code.

Despite the Supreme Court observation, some of the tallest lawyers have cautioned that the issue is sensitive, involving deep religious sentiments. It should, therefore, be carefully tackled. By politicising it, we are in fact harming the cause of reforms. No one can dispute that every personal law needs to be reformed; there are many provisions in most of them which are repressive, discriminative and even violative of basic and fundamental rights; but, unfortunately, they are linked with religious practices. They should first be sorted out, properly explained as to their admonitions and implications on the personal lives of different religious sects and groups and then piece by piece legislation should be brought before Parliament and carried through. In doing so, there should be no involvement of clerics and religious leaders, because they will never agree to any change in the status quo. Reforms can never come by relying on the people to do it; the move can never emanate from within. Political parties should stop advocating such a course of action. Reforms have always been imposed on the people as was done during the British Raj. They went ahead despite strong opposition from religious and political leaders; however after these were enacted, everyone quietly accepted them.

Unfortunately, the approach of certain communal elements is more political than reformist. They want to protect their own archaic laws but change those of the others essentially to humiliate them. After the Supreme Court observation, the BJP has become overactive; it wants its agenda to be enforced without delay. But do they know what their highly respected mentor Guru Golwalkar has said in this regard?

At the inauguration of the Deen Dayal Research Institute in New Delhi on August 20, 1972, Guru Golwalkar spoke frankly about it in his replies to questions put to him by a correspondent of Motherland (now defunct), the one-time organ of the Jana Sangh:

Q: Don’t you consider a uniform civil code necessary for the furtherance of national integration?

A: No, I don’t think so. You and many others will be surprised to hear it, but this is my opinion and I should express the truth the way I see it… It is not that I object to a uniform civil code as such. But at the same time it must be borne in mind that something cannot become desirable only because it is mentioned in the Constitution…

Q: Don’t you think that Muslims are opposing the uniform civil code just to maintain their identity and individuality?

A: I have no grievance against any section, community or fraternity desiring to maintain its identity or individuality, provided that this “identity” is not a hurdle in the way of sentiments for patriotism. So long as Muslims love this country and its culture, we welcome their way of life.

Q: Will it be right to permit Muslim women to remain in purdah and put up with polygamy?

A: Muslims should be given an opportunity to give up their archaic laws. If they themselves conclude that polygamy is not good for them, I will be very happy. But I will not like to impose my views on them.

The BJP always insists that all Indians must accept, what they describe as the elixir of our survival: one nation, one culture. The demand of a common civil code is part of that process. No one can object to the concept of one nation, but its proponents, by their aggressive communalism and propagation of hate against one community or the other, are destroying the oneness and the unity of the nation. As for culture, it can never be monolithic. And in a multi-religious society like ours, culture is bound to be of different hues; these should be complementary and not hostile to one another. To insist on adherence to one culture is to betray the very basis of our national heritage which is broad humanism, and which is, consequently, the antithesis of exclusiveness. A common civil code will be the acid test; let us see how our rulers behave while enacting it and whether they are able to do it without hurting the religious sentiments of the people and preserving our unity in diversity, of which Vajpayee is so proud.

Their dictum of one culture is retrograde. Culture has to be broad-based; it is by its nature multidimensional; to narrow it is to kill its soul.

In the words of Gandhiji:  “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands and peoples to be blown about my house. But I refuse to be blown off my hearth by any.”

It is this breadth of vision that has made India unique. As Iqbal has said: Greek culture is no more; so has been the fate of the Egyptian and the Roman. However India has survived the stresses and stains of time. There is something in her which defies extinction.

Despite the fact that for centuries,  the world has been conspiring against her.

Let us go certainly on for more and more reforms but let us not destroy what is India’s distinctive heritage. And that is the spirit of broad humanism, which is the antithesis of exclusiveness and uniformity.

 

8. NO MORE DIVISION. A SETBACK FOR FANATIC RELIGIONIST.WASHINGTON: Daily Times/ Nov. 24, 03.     The resolution on the “realization of     the right of self-determination” adopted by a vote on November 20,2003 by the United Nations General Assembly is being viewed as a setback to Pakistan because in the past the same resolution that Pakistan moves every year had been adopted by consensus. This year, it was India which called for a vote. The results came as a shock to Pakistan because out of total of 191 UN members, only 88 voted in favour of the resolution with India, Bhutan and Mauritius voting  against. Four out of the five permanent members of the Security Council abstained.    A Pakistan diplomat who did not wish to be identified told Daily Times, “This resolution had been our creation and was adopted for years through consensus and without a vote. It used to be a genuine moral victory for Pakistan. This year, for whatever reason, India called for a vote, and the end result has been a major setback not only to the very concept of self-determination, a cardinal principal of the UN Charter, but also to our own stated cause. This vote has grave symbolic importance. The principle of self-determination has lost the traditional consensus support it always enjoyed, having received less than 50 percent of the UN votes in favour while the overwhelming majority of member states abstained or deliberately absented themselves only because the resolution was viewed largely in the context of India-Pakistan relations. In fact, some countries even withdrew their co-sponsorship of the draft resolution because they felt the prevailing context of the solution was not ‘appropriate’, nor within the spirit of the universal principal of the right of self-determination. I feel deeply disturbed at this development because it has weakened the moral weight of a concept that Pakistan has always used in support of its position on Kashmir.”     The resolution opposes military intervention and  occupation that are threatening to suppress, the right to self-determination of peoples and nations and declares opposition to acts of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, calling upon those states responsible to cease immediately their military intervention in and occupation of foreign countries and territories. Many speakers said during the debate that it appeared that the universal principle of self-determination had been used to refer to the specific situation between India and Pakistan. Believing that the context that had prevailed was not appropriate or within the spirit of the universal principle of the right to self-determination, some delegations, including Benin, Dominican Republic, Kenya, Botswana and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines withdrew their co-sponsorship of the draft resolution.    Explaining his vote, the representative of India said that the statement made by the main sponsor Pakistan had challenged the unity and territorial integrity of India. The right to self-determination must not be construed to condone any action that would disrupt or threaten the territorial integrity of a state. India would oppose any attempts to misuse the principle of the right to self-determination for ulterior motives.    The representative of Pakistan expressed his gratitude  to all delegations that had reaffirmed their commitment to the principle of self-determination. A vote for this principle was not a vote in favour of any specific issues it was a vote for the principle of self-determination a principle central to the United Nations Charter, he added. The representative of India, explaining his vote, said that some of the references made by Pakistan on behalf of the co-sponsors, challenged and threatened the territorial integrity of India. It was therefore clear that for Pakistan the universal right of people to self-determination was a mere excuse to pursue its own political agenda. He said the draft was selective and unbalanced and did not deal with the right to self-determination in its entirety and any attempt aimed at the disruption of the territorial integrity of a nation State went against the purpose and principles of the Charter. The right to self-determinations implied free elections, democracy, equality, secularism and the rule of law, he said. The Pakistani people had been deprived of those rights for most of their history. The Government of Pakistan must therefore ensure the right to self-determination to its own people, before tabling resolutions on the universal right to self-determination. The representative of India would therefore vote against the draft resolution.    The Pakistani representative said that the draft resolution was unacceptable to India; however, India had joined the consensus on the text for several years in a row. This represented new thinking in New Delhi, and one must wonder what the causes were for this change. When a territory’s final status was to be determined through the exercise of the right to self-determination through a United Nations plebiscite, it could not be described as an integral part of a State. It was a disputed territory, he said.    Both India and Pakistan had emerged as sovereign States through the right of self-determination, he said. He reserved the right to respond to the gratuitous remarks made about the Government of Pakistan and stressed that a Government made up of fascists and fanatics had no right to criticise any other Government.    The representative of Pakistan said a vote for this principle was not a vote in favour of any issue; it was a vote for the principle involved, a principle central to the United Nations Charter and the basis for the existence of the United Nations. It was not Pakistan’s intention to introduce controversy or polemics with India in the context of the resolution. Pakistan had introduced this resolution for almost one dozen years. He said it was a matter of record that over the years, Pakistan had mentioned Palestine, Namibia and also Kashmir in its statements related to the resolution. What happened this year was that the context had been changed, and polemics introduced by India. What changed was that India felt it could bully the United Nations and bully Pakistan into halting its advocacy of the cause of Kashmir. Pakistan would continue to support Kashmir, whether other delegations supported it or not.     He noted that 80,000 Kashmiris had been killed by the Indian army and thousands of others had been maimed and women raped. Kashmir was a disputed territory, where in the Security Council had determined that people must be given the right to choose their destiny, as to whether to be a part of India or Pakistan. The territory of Kashmir shown on the map of the United Nations was disputed territory; it was not part of India and would never be a part of India. The people of a disputed territory should not be denied its right to self-determination.
STOP FUNDAMENTALISM

FUNDAMETALIST ISLAMIC GROUPS ONE OF THE GREATEST CHALLENGES TO WEST.

 

In an unprecedented strategy released late on Tuesday,  the British Foreign. Office single out  “Islamic countries or groups”,  as posing one of the greatest challenges to Western democracies.

 

The office broke with tradition to spell out its goals the next decade, asserting that liberal democracy and the free marked will spread but the greatest challenges will come from international terrorism and climate change.

 

It said “ political ideology will not be the destructive and divisive force in Europe… that it was in the 20th century” but predicted that conflict between “Western democracies and some Islamic countries or groups”.

 

Launching the first white paper in the history of the Foreign Office setting out its strategic priorities, Foreign Secretary Jac Straw said the world had entered a new era of uncertainty in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks. The paper, entitled “UK International Priorities: A strategy for the FCO”, said security policy would be dominated by the need to counter threats using new technologies and originating outside Europe. It said while political ideology would not be the “destructive and divisive force” it had been in the past century, religious belief was now returning to the force as a motivating force in international relations. “The question will arise  most obviously in relations between Western democracies and some Islamic countries or groups, despite underlying shared values of our faith and cultures”. (IANS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNFAITHFUL PAKISTAN

Thursday,Nov.13,03(Washington DC):

A prominent US-based think-tank has warned of greater risks to the United States if Washington continues to support the “undemocratic” regime in Pakistan and suggested an “arms length” policy with its ally in the war against terror. “Pakistan has only the veneer of a democratic government and by supporting the President Pervez Musharraf regime, the US subjects itself to the same potential risks inherent in supporting Saudi Arabia and Egypt,” the Cato Institute has recommended in a new study.

If Washington is seen as supporting an illegitimate, oppressive or corrupt regime, US becomes a potential target for militant Islamists, who would otherwise direct their rage only at the regime, according to a policy analysis paper authored by Charles V Pena, Director of Defence Policy Studies at the Institute. “The United States cannot turn a blind eye (as it seemingly does in Saudi Arabia) to the fact that Pakistan may be enabling and facilitating Al-Qaida terrorists,”it warns. Terror orgnisations like Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (HuM), Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM), which were designated as foreign terror groups by the State Department, continue to operate in Pakistan, it said. (PTI).

 

A number of Pakistanis believe that the “Jihad project” is over, but they also think that their establishment does not seem to have fully realized this fact. They are also reasising that after 9/11 , jihad is a word that shuts doors internationally. Within Pakistan the internal impact of the jihadi culture on society has been so great that youngsters are speaking out against it.

 

Naveed Akhtar, a 27 year old, went to the extent of saying; “I don’t think states should be based on religion. Earlier, Hindus and Muslims used to fight. Now, in our country, Muslims are killing each other. Up to the time of Partition, the difference between the Shias and the Sunnis, the Barelvis and the Deobandis did not warrant their killing each other. So where has this sectarianism come from?  Who is giving these Maulvis money to create strife in our society?” Ghazi Salauddin, a sevior journalist said, “The jihadis remain a force. But they cannot be a real threat without some support from the establishment”. Iqbal Haider, a former senator and human rights lawyer, felt the jihadi forces had damaged Pakistan. “They have grievously hurt Pakistan’s international image, economy and society. What is the achievement of their so-called jihad? Our society has been brutalished by them,”he said.

 

Yet there are those in Pakistan who believe there is reluctance in sections of the establishment to let go of the jihadis. “The pattern of this regime’s policy since 9/11 is to do under pressure the minimum necessary to keep Washington sweet. They have not realized that the Jihad project is passé,” Rashed Rahaman, former editor of the Frontier Post. In two years ban only one leader has been arrested and it is a policy of preservation rather than elimination that the Pakistani establishment is following. The nexus between Afghan, Pakistani and Kashmir militant is almost intact till end of 2003.

 

 

CO EXISTANCE A REALITY

 

It’s official-non-white children will soon constitute the majority in London’s schools as populations shifts transform the composition of Britain’s capital. Official figures released on Tuesday show that the proportion of Whites living in London fell by almost eight per cent during the 1990s because of an influx of new residents.

 

In a decade of unprecedented population change, large numbers of Africans, Bangladeshis and Sri Lank as arrived in the faster-growing city in Western Europe.The city’s overall population rose by 282,000 to 7.17millon in 2001 straining public services and the transport network.

 

The number of people from  ethnic minorities rose from 1.3 million to more than two million, or 28.8 percent. Over the same period, the trend of “White flight” appeared to gather pace, with the White population dropping by 390,000. In Newham and Brent, ethnic minority groups outnumber White people. White comprise 90 per cent or more of the population in four of London’s 33 boroughs-Havering, Bromley, Bexley and Richnond upon Thames.

 

The demographic shift is most pronounced in younger age groups, with 47 per cent of children in London schools from ethnic minorities. Ken Livingston, the Mayor of London, said the city’s diversity was a source of economic and cultural  dynamism.

 

“London’s prosperity is totally dependent upon the international flow of goods, services and people. That is why its population is increasingly diverse”.

 

“Our polls show that nearly eight out of 10 Londoners think the city’s cultural diversity is one of its most attractive features,” he said. One of the most striking trends has been the doubling of the capital’s black African community to 370,000, with large increases in the numbers of people born in such countries as Nigeria, Somalia, Ghana and Kenya. The trend indicates that Black Afticans will shortly pass Indians 437,000 as the most numerous ethnic group in the city. Over the period, the number of Bangladeshis rose by nearly three quarters and Pakistanis by more than half, while the much smaller South American community trebled. A total of 58% of Londoners describe themselves as Christian, 8.5% (607,000) as Muslim, 4%(292,000) as Hindu, 2.1%(150,000) as Jewish and 1.5%(104,000) as Sikh. More than one million (16%) had no religion. Until the early 1980’s, the capital’s population had been declining gently as Londoners swapped the city for the suburbs.(IANS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  1. TERRORISM.

 

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF MODERN TERRORISM.

 

Repor 20.12.03 from Karachi, Recently, the South African and the New Zealand cricket teams agreed to play matches only in Punjab –in Lahore and Rawalpindi but not in Karachi, Peshawar or hyderabad (Sindh).

 

This is also how foreign investors feel. We are not a safe country for Pakistanis, leave alone for foreigners. Even local investment is running away to Dubai, “said S.Akbar Zaidi, an economist. The geopolitical situation has created a lot of uncertainty for the foreign as well as domestic investors. Large regional markets are closed for us-we can’t sell in India or Central Asia. There were hopes about the Afghan market but they have been belied by the slow pace of reconstruction and the feeling that Kabul prefers Indian firms, ‘said a political observer who did not want to be identifies. He went on to add,” There is uncertainty about what is going to happening Pakistan no one is sure what might happen if there is a change of government or what the internal impact of our eternal policies in Afghanistan or Kashmir would be. Domestic law and order and the investment climate has much to do with our foreign and security policy.

 

However, the Pakistani economy has in fact stabilized. But it is not growing. The banking system is flush with liquidity but the investible surplus is not being translated into productive investment. Foreign direct investment remains low at about $100 million to $300 million a year. Poverty has gone up from 17% in 1997 to 32% in 2003-about 50 million people are believed to be below the poverty line(pegged at approximately pak Rs.900 per capita). The law and order situation even in the metros is such that the multinationals already operating in the country prefer to hold their board meetings in Dubai. Economy is stagnant people are losing jobs as industries close down. There is a continuous price hike in the utilities, gasoline and other essential commodities. The foreign exchange reserves have risen but not because of economic activity. After 9/11, insecure overseas Pakistanis have started sending their money home through legal channels. That is why inspite of a huge foreign exchange reserve, we have yet to reap its benefits,” said Sharafat Ali, a trade union leader.

 

Asad Sayeed, young Cambridge-educated economist who has chosen to come back to his country, felt that “the present team of economic managers is so steeped in the stabilization mind-set that it has no ideas for taking any pro-active measures for stimulating economic growth”. He said the lack of an industrial policy and the government’s “almost ideological commitment” not to step in to allocate resources was also impeding growth. He argued that the cost of doing business was very high in Pakistan. “Electricity rates are two to three times that of the neighbouring countries, port charges are three times that of Mumbai and eight times that of Dubai, regulatory problems are such that you have to deal with 60 government agencies and there is a huge infrastructure deficiency. We need to change all this.

 

Another factor impeding Pakistan’s economy is one about which no one wants to talk about publicly the huge presence of the army in industry. The Pakistan Army is not only the biggest entrepreneur in our country it is becoming even bigger,” said a political commentator who did not want to be identified.

 

The Pakistan Army not only runs a bank(Askari Bank), buys and sells real estate (Aksari Estates), runs a trucking business (National Luggage Corporation) and runs a road construction company(Frontier Roads Organisation), it also produces sugar, cement, fertilizer and food products, including sliced bread(Fauji Foundation and Army Welfare Trust. Serving and retired army officer are also present in the top management of most big public utilities and enterprises.

 

The political commentator revealed: The army has captured a huge share of the domestic market because of its political clout. The Army welfare trust has been running huge losses. In the year 2000-2001 it actually received a direct subsidy of Rs.5.5 billion from the Budget. Its losses are much higher and are often picked up by nationalized banks and perhaps by the Defence Budget itself. Every rupee that goes into subsidizing the inefficient army enterprises is a rupee denied to the private sector. In fact he want on to argue that the reason why the Pakistani military wants to capture political space also has a lot to do with safeguarding its business interest. Unless the military’s political space is not reduced, the sort of confidence required by the private sector will not come.

 

Money is terrorism’s lifeline. Economics, not politics or ideology, is the armed struggle’s  universal  engine. The war against groups such as al Qaida stems from a clash of economic systems, not of religions, argues Loretta Napoleoni. This is the unexpected and disconcerting scenario unveiled by an economic analysis of modern terrorism. The fastest growing economy in the world is the new economy of terror. A sophisticated international economic system sustained by terror groups, their sponsors, terror states and various affiliates.

 

Over the last decade, the new economy of terror has merged with the international, illegal and criminal economy and together they generate a yearly turnover of $1.5trillion (pound 0.89 trillion) equivalent to 5 percent of world GDP. This elusive economic system is the structure that supports and nurtures global terror. How did such an economic giant take shape undetected? The answer lies in the economic role of organizations, since the end of the second world war. There have been three major evolutionary transitions state sponsorship, Privatization and globalization.

 

State sponsorship was a familiar feature of the Cold War, when the two superpowers fought wars by proxy along periphery of their spheres of influence, Using armed groups fully funded by each of them.

 

The next stage ‘the privatization of terrorism’ took place in the late 1970s and early 1980s .when terrorist organizations such as the PLO and the IRA succeeded in financing themselves. Motivated by the desire for independence from their sponsors and by the rising costs of running armed organizations terror groups widened their economic horizon. So in the 1990s. when the deregulation of international markets knocked down financial and economic barriers’ they were ripe for the last transition. The globalization of terrorism. Taking advantages of economic liberalization. Terror groups became transnational entities. Raising money and carrying out violent cross-border attacks.        The irony is that the new economy of terror is a product of globalization particularly of the globalization that emerged after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Globalization allowed non state entities to promote a variety of liberal causes social changes and economic advancement but has also facilitated the networking of terrorist movements such as al-Qaida and the growing sophistication of the “terror economy”

 

Privatization, deregulation, openness, the free movement of labour and capital, technological advances-all hailed as key ingredients of economic success in the last 20 years  have been  exploited by the adapted into the terror economy in a macabre form of geo-political ju-jitsu: the very strengths of legitimate economies have been turned into double edged swords. A further irony is that many of the states the terror economy seeks to displace are themselves the source, directly or directly of arms logistics refuge and finance for terror groups. The US dollar, the world’s reserve currency, is the new economy of terror’s main currency. Western and more recently, Islamic banks are the vehicles through which this currency is transacted. Small, informal, legitimate business are often the agents. One third of the $500billion generated every year by the new economy of terror is the product of legitimate businesses, some of which are conducted in the West. These are revenues produced primarily by Islamic bankers, traders, merchants-members of the emerging Muslim middle class. They, and not the radical clerics, are the real economic forces behind Islamist terror, and they fuel the Islamist insurgency across the Muslim world.

 

Economic analysis of the interdependence of East and West unveils another fascinating scenario, reminiscent of the socio-economic landscape of the Christian Crusades. A structural trade imbalance cripples the East: oil, gas and few other natural resources are the sole export items that flow to the West. A similar chronic imbalance hindered western Europe for several centuries after the fall of the Roman empire; at that time, exports to the East were limited to swords and Slavonic slaves. Western Europe was, therefore, forced to import gold to cover its trade deficit, a measure which further weakened its economy and contributed to its continued dependence on the Muslim world.

 

A millennium ago a new class of European bankers, traders and merchants forged a strategic alliance with the Church to break the economic hegemony of Islam. Religion was the ideological umbrella under which the third party-the hungry masses of western Europe-was brought into the alliance. Now, in a sort of reversal of the Crusades, the embryo of the Islamic bourgeoisie has teamed up with the radical clerics. Under the umbrella of Wahhabism-an extreme, seventh century interpretation of Islam-the oppressed Muslim masses are encouraged to take up arms against the corrupted, Muslim, oligarchic rulers and their backers, the West. Religion again is the ideological blanket under which different social groups are able to gather together.

 

The economic analysis of modern terrorism relegates religion to a mere recruiting instrument while focusing on the growing tension between a dominant Western capitalist system and a populous Muslim nation, economically crippled by corruption and deceit. What we are witnessing today, therefore, goes well beyond the motivation of single Islamic armed group it is a clash between two economic systems-one dominant, the West, and the other insurgent, Islam. (Manuj Features)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10. EQUALITY ON SEX

 

‘WOMEN TO RULE EARTH’ (London:)

Men are doomed to extinction and women will rule the planet, claims Bryan Sykes, professor of human genetics at Oxford University. In a book that envisages the “ Sapphic reproduction “ of women by genetic manipulation. Sykes contends that a world without men is the logical  consequence of the decaying human Y-chromosome, the only piece of DNA that men possess and women do not.

 

A “genetic ruin littered with molecular damage,” the Y-chromosome cannot repair itself not arrest the steadily accumulating damage, he reports in Adam’s Curse . “Like the face of the moon, still pitted by all the craters from all the meteors that have ever fallen onto its surface, Y-cannot heal their own scars. It is a dying chromosome and one day it will become extinct.

 

The decline of the Y-chromosome  has been chronicled by other scientists as well but what is new is Sykes’s description of the implications and the stark choices to be faced by the human race.

 

Sykes is a leading authority on DNA who traced all human through female genes to a few ancestral women living thousands of years ago. He says that because the Y-chromosome’s main function is switching on male embrim the womb, its demise spells an end for men. BY his estimate, the male of the species will go belly-up in about 125,000 years.What seems like an eternity is only a blink of geological time and according to the Sunday Times, there are urgent matters to consider. Sykes voice the most burning one: “Do we need men? Can we do without them?” He cautions ultra-feminists against rejoicing too soon. “Destroying the male sex would be a very short-lived victory. Men are still required for breeding if nothing.”

 

COMMENTS

 

Fatima  Mernissi  in her book, Women  and Islam, to  the  possibility that the  hijab,  the attempt to  veil women, that is claimed today  to the basic  to Muslim identity, is nothing but the expression  of  the  persistence  of  pre-Islamic mentality, the jahiliyya mentality that Islam was supposed to annihilate”.

 

What Quran says? “We  believe  in God, and the  Revelation given to  us,  and  to  Abraham,  Ismail,  Issac, Jacob, and  the  Tribes, and that given to  Moses and Jesus,  and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord:   we  make no difference between  one and another  of  them:   and we bow  to  God, (The Quran 2:136)

 

Can  the position among the Musalmans  so far as child-marriage goes, be considered better than the position among the Others ?

 

‘For   them  (women)   there  are  rights (against  men) that are exactly commensurate with their obligations   (towards   them). (The   Quran4:228)

 

“From  what is left by parents and  those nearest there  is a share for men and a share for women”.(Ibid p 180)

 

In that Sura which allows four wives, the words are  added,’ of  the slaves which  ye  shall have acquired.’  Then  in  the 70th SURA,  IT  IS REVEALED  THAT IT IS NO SIN TO LIVE WITH  SLAVES. The very  words  are:  ‘ The slaves  which  their right hands  possess,  as to them they  shall  be blameless.’

 

There is a lot of contradictory statement in the Koran as it is saying “One of the bones in a woman’s neck is  crooked, that is  why  no woman thinks  straight  or  walks on  a  straight path.  Women  are like a field for growing crops, men are totally  free  to go when and where they like. If a woman is disobedient, her husband has the right to drive her away from his bed, then he may try to  talk some sense into her, but if  she remains disobedient, he can beat her”.  How could the Quran a book called holy say like this? Your mother is also a women?

 

Another verse called a violence religion by others,  It  says  “Then fight  and  slay  the Pagans wherever  ye  find them.  And seize  them, beleaguer  them,  And  lie in wait for  them,  In every stratagem(of  war)”.  Many more example are there as  inhuman  act.  So it needs  immediately rectification and change accordingly. Which will be an impossible task for women group as well as majority of Muslims.

 

How Muslim women looks their men as reported on 17.03.03 the Asian age daily news paper in its front page caption has given a news in heading Pakistani women take part in sexual play. London: A British theatre show, The Vagina Monologues, is creating shock waves in Islamabad. The show features women talking about their sexuality. “Every time I see men, my vagina gets angry,” goes a line from the show. Pakistani actresses are involved in the show in open defiance of the country’s Muslim leaders.(IANS)

 

This is the result of continuous oppression of the fair sex in the name of religion dogma. Instead of help spirituality it ruin their life and they protested.

  1. CULTURAL UPGRADATION

 

NEED CULTURAL CHANGE  AMONG WESTERN MIGRANT

 

Honour killings are about a clash of cultures among migrants to the West, as death as an act of dishonour. Heshu Yones and Nuziat Khan had a lot in common as Both fought against dominating men and both ended up dead. Heshu,16 a student from west London, had her throat cut by her father last October 2002 after he discovered she had been dating a man from outside their Kurdish Muslim culture. Abdalla Yones had become so “disgusted and distressed” by his daughter’s  westernized ways that he stabbed her 11 times and left her to bleed to death before attempting suicide. He has began a life sentence for murder.

 

Nuziat Khan was found strangled in her house in south London in August 2001. Her husband, Iqbal Zafar, remains on Scotland yard’s most wanted list in connection with her murder and is believed to have fled to Pakistan.

 

Commander Andy Baker, head of the Metropolitan police’s serious crime directorate, says; “We believe this murder to be one fo a similar nature Heshu yones. We are looking for her husband.

 

Hannana Siddiqui of the women’s right group Southall Black Sisters, says it is important to recognize that honour is being used as a pretext for all sorts of unacceptable behaviour. “For us, the concept of honour is being used as justification for violence. It can often be used to judge women’s sexual conduct or just general behaviour like refusing to be obedient, regardless of the reasons why they might be refusing. The consequences can be anything from social ostracism to violence and, in a few cases, murder.” She says it is often difficult to tell whether a murder has been motivated by “honour”. But the notion has been used many times as a justification.

 

In 1999, Shakeela Naz was jailed for life along with her son, Shazad, for the murder of the teenage daughter they believed had insulted the honour of their family with an adulterous pregnancy. Rukhsana Naz, 19 had hoped for a divorce from her husband whom she had seen only twice since her arranged marriage at 15 so that she could marry her lover. When she refused to have an abortion, she was invited to a family dinner in Derby. There, she was strangled by her brother with a piece of plastic flex while her mother held her down, she was 7 month pregnant.

 

In June 1995, Tasleem Begum 20, was killed by her brother-in-law, Shabir Hussain. He ran her over in his car, reversed over her body and sped forward, crushing her three times. She had been married to an older cousin who had gone to live in Pakistan. She fell in love with a married Asian man.

 

“Cultural defenses which use notion of honour to justify murder or domestic violence have been accepted by the courts which has led to differential treatment of black and minority women and a system colluding with that justification.” Says Siddiqui. (Guardian News service HT 5.10.03)

 

Irshad Manji a Indian Canadian feminist write a book’ The trouble with Islam” calling for a radical change. She notes while every religion has its fundamentalists, “only in Islam is literalism in the mainstream,” a recipe for generating hatreds that can spawn suicide bombers.

 

There are other Islamic liberals who say the September 11 attackers did more than hijack four planes; they hijacked an entire religion. Manji goes much further, saying that Islam had deep-rooted problems with Jews, women, slavery and authoritarianism that go back centuries. Her goal is a thoroughly liberal reform. Started by Muslims living in the West. “If ever there was a moment for an Islamic reformation, it’s now, “she argues in her book. “If we’re sincere about fighting the asphyxiating despotism” that Al-Qaeda seeks to spread. The book has also provoked death threats to her. As much as anything, she emphasizes, her thirst is for inquiry, something she says she admires in Israeli society. The goal is to create conversations where they have never occurred before.”

 

While her critics take special offense at her suggestion that the Koran itself may be flawed, she does not exclude herself from the possibility as well. Only God knows the truth, she said. “If I am wrong, “she smiles, ”I will pay price on the day of judgment.” The Islam she desires, is akin to the one in which dissent flourished in the 10th to 13th century, when “poets caricatured religion with court approval,” and Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together in prosperity and cross-fertilized their cultures.(The New York Times HT 5.10.03)

 

The French government and the Muslim world’s most prestigious center of Islamic learning found common ground today on a contentious French law which would stop Muslim girls wearing headscarves in French state schools. The Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi, told reporters that although wearing the headscarf or hijab was a religious duty, governments of non-Muslim countries had the right to pass any laws they like, even on dress codes. As French has called for a law banning Islamic headscarves and all religious symbols in state schools, strengthening France’s commitment to secularism.

 

Tantwai said that different rules applied to Muslims living in Muslim countries and those living outside. In that case, if a Muslim woman observes the laws of a non-Muslim state, then from the point of view of Islamic law, she had the status of acting under coercion. Just as “I do not allow non-Muslims to interfere in my affairs as a Muslim, at the same time I do not permit myself to interfere in the affairs of non-Muslims,” he added.

 

French Muslims had the same rights as Catholics, Protestants, Jews and others and assured the law did not target Muslims.

 

One doesn’t have to travel beyond our neighbours once a part of undivided India to take a look at the reverse scenario where Muslims are in absolute majority.

 

Complementary to the fact that Muslims are not the only minority in India. Is it coincidental that their aggressive tendencies have brought them on collision course with many majority communities as in Cyprus, Burma, The Philippines, Lebanon, Nigeria and now Britain, Denmark, Netherlands, Australia etc? Shouldn’t the community introspect why it is treated like a “foreign body” in so many nations?

 

Naipaul on Saudi:-

 

Nobel Prizze winning author Sir Vidia Naipaul has said countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran which foment religious war must be destroyed. He blamed Saudi Arabia for financing terrorism and “filling gambling dens and brothels”. “We are told the people who killed the children in Russia were smiling.  The liberal voices were ready to explain the reasons for their actions. But this has no good side. It is as bad as it appears,” he said.

 

On a proper response of the west, Naipaul said; “Well, cleaarly Iraq is not the place to have gone. But religious war is so threatening to the rest of us that it cannot be avoided.

 

It will have to be fought..there are certain countries which foment it, and they probably should be destroyed, actually.”

 

Question: Saudi Arabia?

Naipaul: “I would like to think so, yes.”

Question:Iran?

Naipaul: I think Iran has to be dealt with, too.”

 

Naipaul believes the world is yet to confront the implicaations of the rise of Islamic states. “The blowing up of the twin towers, people could deal with it as an act of terror, but the idea of religious was is too frightening for people to manage. The word used is jihad. We like to translate it as a holy war, but it is religious war.”

 

 

 

STRUGGLE AGAINST UNJUST LAWS Dr.Farzana Bari, The New International.Feb.12, 04    Women of Pakistan have marked 12th February as a national day to celebrate the resistance movement against unjust laws that were introduced by the military dictatorship of Ziaul Haq to initiate its process of Islamisation for his own political reasons which clearly discriminates against women that included Hudood Ordinance (1979) Law of Evidence (1984) and Qisas and Diyat (1985). These laws are seen clearly as an attempt to legally construct and reinforce women second-class citizen status in the society. February 12th is a day when women rights activists celebrate the courage shown on the day by women whose procession was attached by the police on Mall Road Lahore in 1983. These women assembled on the call of Punjab Lawyers Association of Lahore to hold press conference against the draft bill of the Law of Evidence and to carry a petition to the Supreme Court. Women were forcefully stopped, beaten up, baton charged and arrested.    After passing a quarter of a century since that event, the struggle against unjust laws continues in Pakistan. Equality in and before the Law is one of the fundamental rights of citizen who wants to be treated equally by the Law irrespective of their gender, class, race, religion, or ethnic background. However, Laws often formalizes and reinforces unequal social relations in the society. Therefore the Law becomes an important arena of struggle for those who strive for equal rights in the society. There no denying to the fact that equality in law does not really provide an automatic guarantee for enjoyment of equal rights in practice. The gap between de jure and de facto legal equality continues to exist in all societies; nevertheless, equality in Law is the first and the necessary step towards the struggle for equality of rights.    Pakistan inherited colonial laws with plenty of gender biases and later our constitutions of 1956, 1962 and 1973 continue to reflect some of these gender biases. However, the struggle against unjust laws did not start in Pakistan until Zia-ul-Haq introduced draconian law against women in the name of Islam. Educated women from middle and upper middle classes from urban centres of the country were the first to oppose these laws. The struggles against this law started with the Fahmida and Allah Bukhsh case in (1981) who got married without the consent of their families, later a case was registered against them under the Hudood Laws. The man was sentenced to be stoned to death and a woman was given 100 lashes. This case was followed by  Safia Bibi case (1983) 18-year-old blind girl who was raped by a landlord and his son and became pregnant. She was given punishment of 15 lashes in public and imprisonment of three years and then a shock to public came when the Lal Mai waspublically flogged in Liaquetpur district Bahawalpur (1983).    These cases revealed the draconian nature of Hudood Ordinance. Professional women and those belonging to various women organizations organized themselves on the platform of Women Action Forum and started a struggle against these unjust laws. Women’s protest on these unjust laws not only exposed the repressive nature of Zia’s regime, it emerged as the only challenge to the dictatorship when all other progressive forces had to go underground due to extreme repression of the regime.    It is importance that while commemorating 12th of Feb as women’s day in Pakistan, we critically evaluate the strategies women groups and activists adopted to assess its effectiveness. It is important to conduct an honest intellectual analysis of the struggle against unjust law, point out the strengths and weaknesses of the efforts for the repeal of these laws and learn lessons in order to informed our future strategies to become more effective in our struggle against unjust law and achieve the desired impact that is repeal of these laws. To start with achievements first, it is important to state that despite the fact that the struggle against unjust law failed to achieve its objective that was to repeal these laws, women were able to keep the issue alive during all these years. They not only made these laws controversial by documenting and highlighting the misuse of this law exposed the un-Islamic nature of these Law, they also pushed it on the national agenda. Women did fairly effective lobby with policy makers and intelligential on the issue.    One of the major weaknesses in the struggle has been its inability to mobilize general public from different walks of life. The struggle not only remained confine in urban centres but also among elite women belonging to various women’s groups and NGOs who had narrow base in the public. Due to the urban and elite class nature of the activists, who were leading the struggle against unjust law could not go beyond lobbying due to their inherent comfort in engaging with policy makers who come from similar class background and their misplaced faith on the state that it will act on their behalf. History teaches us that the state only acts on behalf of disadvantaged when these groups are organized and become a force in their own rights. Women from upper middle and elite class could not link the struggle for unjust law with other social movements which was critical not only to get support from them, but of understand the inherent link of unjust laws with wider social and political context of discrimination. Equality in Law is linked with equality in other social, political and economic sphere of the society.    It is important that keep on adding all struggles waged by women for democracy, land or water rights etc. as these struggles are also linked with rights of women and laws. Women should also celebrate all those events when poor rural women from Sindh were sent to jail to oppose one unit. Akhtar Baluch and Naseem were imprisoned by Yahyia regime for more than 12 months. During the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD) more than 40 women from Sindhiani Tehreek were arrested, tortured and kept in jails for more than 8 months in 1983. The links between various struggles fought by women on various grounds for democratic rights needs to be made that will bring strength and legitimacy to women’s movement in Pakistan. Another major gap in the struggle was that by and large it remained within reactive mode. It forcefully reacted on cases of Hudood, Qisas and Diyat that violated women’s rights but no one group or individual women right activists engaged in following up these cases. As a result the momentum in the struggle against unjust law could be kept at high pitch.    Now with the entry of large number of women in all tiers of government and their efforts to move resolutions for the repeal of discriminatory laws in Pakistan has brought back the focus and public attention on these Law. The report of the National Commission on the Status of women that demanded total repeal of these law on the basis that these laws are flawed, full of so many anomalies that an effort to revise them will be futile is another milestone in this struggle. In the present context it is important that civil society organization in general and NGOs in particular should act together to keep the momentum going until these laws are repealed. One way to achieve this effect could be that women councilors at the district and union council levels should be mobilized to pass resolutions in their districts. When in 100 districts such resolutions will be moved, it will strengthen the hand of women MNAs and MPAs who have took this bold initiative to move bill on the repeal of these laws.    We also need to develop a systematic proactive strategy to mobilize public opinion on the issue. Equality in law is women’s fundamental right but they will not be able to achieve the objective if they are not going to organize themselves and fail to expand their popular base. In the absence of mass mobilization, the demanding for the repeal of discriminatory laws will fall to deaf ears even though President Musharraf has made a clear statement in the third summit of First Ladies from Asia-Pacific that these laws are the misinterpretation of Islam. These were drafted by Zia-ul-Haq and his men and have serious flaws in them. In the larger cause of upholding women’s human rights in Pakistan his position needs to be strengthened on the issue by a show of public support from various sections of the society, irrespective of political affiliations.    The writer is acting director, Centre for Women’s Studies, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

RELIGION & WOMEN

 

Derogatory words against women are not new. Being a mother, sister, wife etc. they are always mistrust and used by men’s and to escape from this some may tell lie. There is a lot of literature in Indian culture regarding women. In religious script the same repetition. Why? Swatiketu a hermit introduced marriage, because in his childhood he protested when his mother was forced to satisfy another man. A man can marry four women at a time and can enjoy slave girls as per his wish, this is religious dictate. Dropati had five husbands. Kunti got five sons from different men, even one before marriage. There are lots of examples in Indian literature. In “bamuner meya” written by Sarat Chatterjii, Mukund Mukherji’s 87th wife was pregnant by Hiru burbar and may be produced more children from other wives. There are lots of examples in books like Sati by V.N.Dutt. Don’t accuse any culture blindly.

PRESIDENT WORRIED.    On Feb.10,04. Pakistani President called the killing of innocent women in the name of family honour as “totally illegal” and urged the people to stand up against the social evil. “men in particular must show “chivalry”, appear as witness, and ‘those in power must deal with any culprits of honour killings most harshly with all the force available to the government,” He told the inaugural session of the third summit of the Advancement of Rural and Island Women in Asia-Pasific.    According to the Independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan(HRCP), more than 450 innocent girls were killed for honour in urban and rural Pakistan in 2003 compared to 278 in 2002. “It is an attitude problem, a mindset issue,” Musharraf said.                            CLARICS VERDICT.

In Saudi Arabia’s most senior Islamic cleric has condemned women who mingled unveiled among men at a business conference this week’ saying their action could cause” evil and catastrophe” Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Shekh’ the grand mulfti of the desert kingdom’ made his comments after the country’s top businesswoman called for reform and pictures of her supporters- without headscarves- appeared on newspaper front pages. Allowing women to mix with men is the root of every evil and catastrophe, he said. It is highly punishable. Mixing of men and women and is a reason for greater decadence and adultery. This is prohibited for all. I severely condemn this matter and warn of grave consequences.

 

I am pained by such shameful behaviour in the country of the two holy mosques(Mecca and Medina)” Analysts said the mufti’s declaration’ which also condemned women who did not wear “the Islamic hijab ordered by God” was a clear attempt by religious authorities to limit political reforms.

 

REFORMIST REPLY.

 

Jeddah’s annual three-day economic forum had opened with a call for change by the country’s most prominent business woman Lubna-al-olayan’ the chief executive of Olayan financing company. “Without real change there can be no real progress. If we in Saudi Arabia want to progress we have no choice but to embrace change’” she said to sustained applause at what is billed as West Asia’s leading think tank. Three hundred mostly unveiled business women’ separated by screens from 1,000 businessmen. Watched her performance in awe. Inspired by her call for change’ dozens stepped up to the microphone to praise her. Such was the impact of her unprecedented speech that her photograph and those of other women at the conference were splashed across the strictly Muslim kingdom’s front pages crediting her with striking a major blow for the liberation of Saudi women.

 

On the other hand An outspoken Saudi prince said that he was udder house arrest in Riyadh after Saudi agents drugged and abducted him from Switzerland because of his criticism of corruption and calls for democracy in the kingdom.

 

Prince Sultan bin Turki bin Abdel-Aziz’ a nephew of king Fahd. Told Reuters by telephone he was drugged during a meeting in Geneva last June with two government ministers then found himself in a Riyadh hospital after 10 days in coma.  Saudi analysts say prince sultan’s public campaign to curb the powere of the royal family has been a source of deep embarrassment to the kingdom’s rulers.“ I was between hospital and my house for the last six month.

 

“Now I’m at home’ but they (police) are outside” the prince. Who has often attacked corruption in Saudi Arabia on Arab satellite channels’ said.

 

This shows that the people want to liberate themselves from the age-old customs practiced in medieval age though in the name of religion.

 

WOMEN DEHUMANIZATION          Whenever a nerve-racking crime against women is reported, there is some protest by the saner elements for a few days, and then it subsides till a new tragedy jolts us. Never before have the women of our society found themselves so brutally victimized and helpless as they are today.         The ways they are being tortured, dehumanized, forcibly married, sold off, murdered and paraded naked through the streets speak volumes about the degradation and victimization of our weaker gender in a male-dominated traditionally sick society. The law seems toothless, the legislation ineffective, and the authorities indifferent.         About a month ago, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that an adult, sane Muslim girl could marry on her own and she did not need her guardian’s consent for the validation of her marriage. Though, the Federal Shariat Court in 1981 had already resolved the issue, a bench of the Lahore High Court, while disposing of the famous Saima-Shabina cases simultaneously, had overruled the FSC’s verdict on the matter and stirred up an uproar.         An appeal against the verdict by the LHC bench had been pending in the Supreme Court since 1996 – a long period indeed for straightening out a very simple matter.         Forced marriages of adult Muslim girls are still the order of the day in our society. Not only adult girls but even minor ones are forcibly married, obviously against their will on the pretext that they are not sane enough even to know what a marriage stands for.  Thanks to our pre-historic, inhuman practices, ours might be the only part of the world where even infant and child marriages are solemnized with fanfare. Such tradition-stricken sick clans and tribes would prefer to sacrifice hundreds of lives, but would never compromise over their barbaric practices, which they unabashedly call as ‘traditions.’         Look at the traumatized, forcibly divorced, shelterless Shaista Almani. A young, educated sane Muslim girl from a remote town in upper Sindh, who left her home and married Balakh Sher Maher against her parents’ will. Since Balakh belonged to another clan, her marriage with him was not only against her parents’ will but also against her clan’s traditions for Almanis do not marry their girls out of their clan.  Pressure was mounted through different tribal chieftains by the Almanis on the Maher clan for the early retrieval of Shaista. Sensing a bloody tribal feud and a political backlash for Maher tribe, the chief sardar of the Maher clan reportedly managed to pressure Balakh for divorcing Shaista. However, the timely intervention by the judiciary did save Shaista from being crucified at the altar of karo-kari by the Almanis. She lost Balakh, who gave her a “forced divorce” for whom she put her life at stake and even left her family and tribe.         Take Afsheen Mussarat’s case, for example. A computer science graduate from Multan, an adult sane Muslim girl, she wanted to marry her maternal cousin and class fellow, but her parents forcibly married her to her paternal cousin. Later, she ran away with her maternal cousin and the duo took refuge with some family acquaintances in the upcountry. Afsheen’s parents, after tracking her down and convincing her that she would be pardoned and allowed to live with her husband, managed to bring her back to Multan. Few days later, she was reported dead. It was only after some NGOs and the media took up the case and launched a campaign that President Musharraf took notice of the case and ordered inquiry into it.  The initial inquiry and the medical report of the exhumed body proved that she was strangled. Her father, Mussarat Sahu, later confessed that he single-handedly strangled her, but the medial report claims that more than two people were directly involved in her murder. While the authorities are still to come up with the exact number of her killers, the poor Afsheen lost her life.         Why had Shaista and Afsheen to suffer such a fate? Their only crime was that they wanted to marry of their own free will – the inalienable right granted to them by their religion and the law of the land. The punishment: one lost her husband through “forced divorce” and the other was killed by her own parents to ‘save’ their ‘honour’.         The heart-rending stories of helpless women are endless. There is another horrendous addition. Ms.Faiz Batool, an elderly woman councillor from Sillanwali Tehsil in Sargodha District, was recently paraded naked through a local bazaar by the members of the Kalaryar tribe, an influential clan of the area, in order to settle some old scores. The disgraced Ms. Batool and her family are now reportedly being pressured by the same influentials to withdraw the complaint they have lodged with the local police against the perpetrators of such barbaric crime. It goes without saying that we are witnessing an awful rise in such grisly and ghastly crimes against women in our society which now occur on a daily basis, and majority of them are not even reported. The worst is that the perpetrators of such crimes are not brought to book in the manner they should be.  The unabated, unquestioned oppression of women by male chauvinists thus seem to have crossed all previous moral and criminal benchmarks. A multitude of factors contribute to such a sorry state of our women. Widespread ignorance and illiteracy, compounded by anti-women bias in our feudal polity, have not only deprived women of their basic rights but also led to their brutal oppression. As a consequence, the inhuman practices of karo-kari, swara, walwar and other barbaric customs and traditions are still intact in this modern era and swallowing up the female populace of our society at an unprecedented rate.  The feudal lords, who rule our rural areas like personal fiefdoms, have always tended to tacitly encourage such barbaric customs for their petty ends. They fear that if they let their tribesmen disregard the tribal traditions, they might lose their hold over them. That is why they invariably discourage enlightenment and mass awareness through education and media.         On the other hand, the law enforcers and the local authorities always appear to be in collusion with these feudal lords in committing heinous crimes against women. The police do not even bother to register FIRs against them, not to speak of arresting them. Left with no recourse, the victims either remain silent to avoid inviting the wrath of the local lords, or, in rare cases, approach the local courts. And only on the intervention of these courts are the police compelled to entertain the FIRs.         It is high time the government took drastic measures to emancipate our women from age-old practices that degrade and dehumanize them and enable them live a respectable life. In this regard, the discriminatory Hudood Ordinance must be revised and made women-friendly. Female education should be made mandatory through proper legislation, and the feudals and tribals who oppose female education must be prosecuted and punished.         The 2003 annual report of the Multan task force of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has some chilling facts to reveal about the state of human rights in southern Punjab. Home largely to an impoverished, tribal population under feudal domination, the districts of Multan, Bahawalpur and Dera Ghazi Khan have been the scene of some of the most gruesome crimes. The report says the three districts recorded over 1,000 murders, many among them described as honour killings. Violence against women and children remained rampant, and the incidence of suicides saw an increase.         Poverty and unemployment were cited as reasons for 81 cases of male suicide and domestic violence for 48 cases involving women. Police torture and abuse in lock-ups and jails remained high, with cases cited of 115 men and 43 women falling victim to abuse. The overall picture constitutes a sad commentary on the level and magnitude of HR abuses in southern Punjab which, like many other parts of the interior of Sindh and Balochistan, consists of backward areas that hardly ever attract the attention of higher provincial and federal authorities.         Another more worrying observation made in the HRCP report pertains to the failure of the local bodies and district public safety commissions to help the victims of abuse get relief or justice. With the formulation of local and district governments under the devolution plan more than two years ago, it was hoped that the outreach of the civil administration and law enforcement agencies would improve. But this does not seem to be happening in the rural hinterland; in fact, reports are that most state functionaries are complacent and some indeed a party to oppression.         This disturbing trend indicates that overhauling of the local bodies – or revamping of the police force under the police act of last year – alone will not result in any improvement as long as social attitudes remain unchanged. The state needs to join hands with the non-governmental sector to create awareness among the public about the norms of civil society and put pressure on local administrations to be more responsive to the people’s miseries.  Honour killings blot the face of Pakistani society.                              SAVE HER SOUL!                            The News International, Feb.6,04    Another heinous crime against women and another flood of rhetoric by the authorities to take the culprits to task. But as soon as the dust settles things are conveniently brushed under the official carpet and the countdown begins till the next such incident manages to make it into the press. And again the rulers of this benighted land are stirred from their holy reverie — as usual waking up late to the sorry state of affairs with regard to crimes against the fair sex. This is how the game has been proceeding for so long.    The only way that we will stop reading and hearing of these heinous crimes is through concrete efforts by those who roam the corridors of  power—their unswerving commitment to wipe out this menace from the root.  It is high time the authorities moved away from this practice of  issuing cursory statements that make nice media copy and sustained and  long-term efforts are made to wipe out this social evil by meting out just and rapid punishments to those that commit acts against women. Until this is done, these tales of woe and horror will continue to haunt the nation.    But this latest incident involving a seven-year-old girl called Aziza really tests the limit of even the most callous hearts. This young girl has been handed over to a 40-year-old man in marriage in Naushki, District Chaghai, some 140 km west of Quetta. This poor child was handed over to that man after the ‘wise old men’ of the Alizai Mengal tribe came up with this shocking proposal for settling a tribal dispute. The poor child may be saved by the timely intervention of the police of the area, ordered by Raja Fayyaz Ahmad, Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court to recover the girl and produce her in court, after a small news item appeared in a local newspaper. But chances are that we may never find out what happened to Aziza, until God forbid something fatal happens to her.    Pseudo-legal activities in the garb of local jirga and panchayat must be brought under some kind of official control and vigilance if not immediately stopped. There are laws, courts and lawyers available in this country for taking action against crimes and for settling all kids of disputes. And this is what needs to established and clearly conveyed in every nook and corner of this country. Local elders settling matters of minor nature is helpful but when their domain stretches to such a preposterous level, that is when the state should step in and establish its writ it a forceful way. This also stresses the need for strengthening of the legal system of the country for it is only with a strong and powerful legal writ that we’d be able to curtail such horrifying crimes. STOP HONOUR KILLINGBy Shahnawaz Khan.Daily times. Jan. 23,04    LAHORE: An honour killing is a murder of a woman accused of or actually involved with a man, or one whose behaviour is perceived as immoral. This happens when one or more male relatives suspect or note that the woman is a blot on the face of the family for her perceived illegal sexual activity.    Honour killings are the result of infidelity, flirting or other instances perceived as a family disgrace.  Woman  killed by a male relative for the sake of their family’s prestige and honour in the community. This is most often practiced in tribal areas, but cities are also caught up in this phenomenon.    Many women are killed on assumed suspicions and are not given the chance to defend themselves. The allegation alone is seen to defile the family’s dignity and, therefore, is enough to justify an honour killing. These murders are committed in obstinacy and in most case the culprits go unpunished, sometimes by courts of law.    During year 2003 around 1,261 cases of honour killings were reported with 938 committed against women and 323 against males. Of a total 1,261 cases of violent crimes related to so-called honour, 94 were reported in January, 82 in February, 120 in March, 92 in April, 148 in May, 135 in June, 86 in July, 170 in August, 107 in September, 106 in October, 53 in November and 68 in December.    According to a human rights report, published in March 1999, honour killings claimed the lives of about 888 women alone in Punjab alone. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan said 300 women were killed in Sindh in 1997.    Well-known human rights activist Hina Jillani said, “Those who kill for honour in Pakistan are almost never punished. In rare instances these cases reach courts and the killers are sentenced for just two or three years.”    Shazia Shaheen, another human rights activist, from non-government organisation (NGO) ASR Resource Center, said poverty was the root factor in honour killings. She said a poor man had nothing to hold onto except his respect, and if it got blown by a family member, it was seen as inseparable. “Further the man is left with no choice and finds the right to slay a person in the name of saving his honour,” she added. By Safdar Ali Seehar: Dawn January 20,2004.    Here is few saying from the religious scriptures which call as holly book as quoted below:-

Suppression of fair sex is in the religious scriptures  as it says “One of the bones in a woman’s neck is crooked, that is why no woman thinks straight or walks on a straight path. Women are like a field for growing crops, men are totally free to go when and where they like. If a woman is disobedient, her husband has the right to drive her away from his bed, then  he may try to talk some sense into her, but if she remains disobedient, he can beat her.” How could Quran a book called holy write this?

 

The 70th sura it is  revealed that it is no sin to live with slaves. The very words are “the slaves which their right hands possess, as to them they shall be blameless”. In the same it allows four wives, the words are added, ’of the slaves which ye shall have acquired.”

 

An Egyptian leader mentioned as “Islam has set its seal of inferiority upon her, and given the sanction of religion to social customs which have deprived her of the full opportunity for self-expression and development of personality.”

 

 

 

Women should get equal right in all spare of life. As Indian constitution says “All citizen’s are equal, irrespective of religion, caste or sex”. They have made mental slave by their counter part. Women’s constitute 50% of total population all over the world. They are the creature of human being. They are mother, sister, grandmother, wife etc. for every one it is not a new word but the new word is freedom.  What does mean by this word freedom for the woman?  All most all-religious scripture has given instruction for the women and has given a free hand to rule them by the man. Why discrimination against them? Woman child  are unexpected one in the family since past ever dated time. Only weakness is the reason. Because they could not gave fight back in past as well as present. They are carrier of the male child also; they can kill it, if they became bias against the male child. Why they are not doing that?  Some people are very much busy about women. Why they afraid them? If you go through religious scripture from each and every one is given binding for women. As a result woman has become mentally inferior quality. They even hate themselves due to this bad notion of religion. Religion is for the man and women. But they are not for the religion. This word must be remember. If you put your women in dark, your whole generation will become dark in future.

Naked truth, The AlmondBy Nedjma Despite being an international writer-Nedjma, which means ‘star’ in Arabic-still lives in anonymity. No photographs, ‘real’ name not revealed. “It’s veil, it’s a privilege that nobody can identifyme. Since I’m the first Muslim writer in the erotic genre, I had to adopt a few saafety measures. Of course, I have my feaars.. but the will to write was incredible and overpowering. I had to break free from the repression of Muslim women and talk about our bedroom truths. The protagonist-Badra-is like me; her story is my story. The novel is the result of the confidences I’ve shared with women who surround me-cousins and friends. I didn’t write just to titillate, this work of erotica is the voice of thousands of woen.” For Nedjma, the challenge was to talk about sex-a subject forbidden in her world. The novel delves into how Badra has to prove her virginity, and provides details of ber wedding night and her love affair with a doctor who wasn’t loyal to her. “There’s so much fanaticism, delusion and ignorance in the Arab world. Sexuality is the new freedom. There was a time when sex used to be taught at mosques. The most beautiful erotic pieces in literate have been written by Arabs. Why cn’t we express our opinions on the female body.”  Nedjma said,”I had to break free from the repression of Muslim women and talk about our bedroom truths, this work is the voice of thousands of women”.  She described “My future mother-in-law didn’t wait for my mother’s definitive agreement to begin judging me and sizing up my abilities as a prospective wife…they examined me from top to bottom, feeling by breasts, my behind, my knees, and finally the curve of my calf. I felt like a sheep for the religious holiday of Eid.” “I would serve him, then clear the table,  join him in the conjugal bedroom. Open my legs. Not budge. Not sigh. Not vomit. Feel nothing. Die. Stare at the Kilim carpet nailed to the wall. Wipe myself between the legs. Sleep. Hate men. Their thing.” Is she a feminist with militant feelings towards men? “I’m a women, I’m a storyteller. If I’ve invigorated feminist emotions, then I’ll be happy. There aare very few people in the Arab world who write on sex.  Arab men is disillusioned he drive from distrust and hatred of women.  All of Europe fell silent at the mid-day on 7/7/05 in a gesture of solidarity with suicide bomb-hit Britain and sent a powerful message to Islamist extremists and the “enemy within”. One week after London blasts, security experts indicated all roads to terrorism and the trail of the bombers appeared to lead to Pakistan. Times said “Pakistan today is troubled by religious turmoil, a country now reaping a deadly harvest from years of military rule, repeated democratic failure, the indulgence of Islamist obscurantism and sectarian violence.”  

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s