Astronomy and Theology of the Eid Moon
Shakil Akhtar Rai Los Angeles, CA
Once again we had multiple Eid celebrations, on two different days, in the same country, even in the same city. Multiplicity of Eid adds to the flexibility of modern-day tight schedule, and also gives a touch of democratic freedom of choice, and free market economy.
Therefore, personally I see nothing wrong with having two or three Eids in the same week, in the same neighborhood. At this time when 'freedom is on the march' as part of the neocon agenda in the Muslim world, isn't it encouraging seeing the American Muslims enjoy double gulp Eid celebrations; each masjid deciding on its own, and changing its decision at will, as to when the Eid will be.
Is this our version of the freedom of choice and democracy? So many Muslim students, workers, business people, professionals, and travelers would have missed the Eid prayer if it were on the same day, and more or less at the same time. Double gulp Eid enabled many more to join the celebration and enjoy the blessings. Despite this bright side of multiple Eids many a good Muslim was sour to see the unity of the Ummah damaged, and some wondered why on earth can't we see the moon the same day which is there on the horizon or it's not.
How is it possible that one group of the Muslims was able to see the moon on the horizon while others could not. And even those who had supposedly seen it later decided that actually they had not seen it. Or could it be that the moon deviated from its path and decided to delay or hasten its appearance on the horizon? Actually, Eid has two aspects - one astronomical, the other theological. The problem is I am not competent to venture my opinion on any one of them. (It's therefore better to leave the issue as it is and continue to enjoy multiple Eids.) There are, however, determined minds and disturbed souls who want to settle this question, right now.
They say appearance or absence of the moon on a particular day, on the horizon of a particular part of the globe is a question to be answered by astronomy. When, how, and where to offer Eid prayer is a theological question for which we turn to the ulema. Astronomy deals with the movement of heavenly bodies, which, as Muslims we believe have to follow a path determined by their Creator and Sustainer till the doomsday. Human endeavor through the centuries has been to find out the course and chemistry of the stars and planets. The science of astronomy evolved out of this human quest, and today has gone a very long way in demonstrating its knowledge of the universe.
Astronomy is thus an exact, verifiable, and demonstrable science. If an astronomer says the moon will appear on this part of the earth on this day he can demonstrate his claim by verifiable information. Unless we have equally verifiable and demonstrable arguments to show that it will be otherwise we should accept the verdict of the astronomer. Theology, like art and social sciences, is to a great extent inexact, non-demonstrable, and non-verifiable branch of human knowledge.
Religion and theology by their nature demand human belief in the unseen, deal with the realm beyond logic, and show us a path beyond this world to the hereafter. Viewed in this perspective the process of Eid has to be divided into two parts -- theological, and astronomical. When the two get mixed up or start intruding upon each other the trouble begins. When theology intruded upon astronomy Galileo was forced to retract and accept that the earth was indeed flat, it did not rotate, and was the center of the universe. When astronomy intruded upon theology the astronauts had the cheek to exult that they saw no god while circling around the globe in the upper space.
The first incident happened in deeply religious Rome, and the second in the godless Soviet Union. There is every reason to believe that the Muslim Ummah is lot more enlightened than the blinkered theologians of Rome, and the arrogant atheists of the Soviet Union. The wisdom (hikmah) bestowed upon the collective consciousness of the believers should enable the Muslims to draw a line between astronomy and theology.
Or we may continue to live with the fuss and confusion, making a mockery of an important religious occasion. Like all other branches of human knowledge theology and astronomy can supplement and complement each other provided they recognize their own limitations. It's not for theology to determine the chemistry, and the course of the planets, as it's not for astronomy to decided how to fast in the month of Ramadan and how and where to perform Hajj or offer Eid prayers.
By the way the neocon agenda that the current Administration is so keen to implement aims at conquering the lands, oils, minds, and hearts of the Muslims so as to bring them the fruits of peace and democracy, and rid them of terror and tyranny that has plagued them so long. If the consent of the recipients of theses blessings is not sought it's a matter to be discussed later. For the time being I wish to submit to the makers of this altruistic foreign policy that they may consider adding moon sighting for the Muslim people to their public relations measures in the Muslim lands.
The Administration in DC may like to open regional offices of NASA in the Middle East and beyond, to sight the elusive Eid moon for the Muslims, as they cannot see it for themselves. This may or may not bring the much-desired unity among the Ummah on the Eid day; it would, nevertheless, serve as an ample proof of the good intentions of the Administration towards collective well-being of the Muslim peoples. - drshakilrai@hotmail.com
Monday, September 20, 2010
US-India Nuclear Deal: More Divergence than Convergence of Interests
US-India Nuclear Deal: More Divergence than Convergence of Interests
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
The US-India nuclear deal signed between the two countries on March 02 during President Bush’s visit to South Asia has far reaching implications for Asia and bilateral relations between the two signatories. There is limited and short-term convergence of economic and military interests but in the long-term the deal is marked more by divergence of perception and interests than convergence.
The deal represents a major policy shift on the part of the US, and vindicates the long-held Indian position that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is indeed discriminatory in nature and lacks moral justification. The US has, thus, climbed down on the NPT ladder for future strategic gains as perceived by the right wing hawks in Washington.
The USA has championed nuclear non-proliferation in the last three-and-a-half decades. Now it has reversed its policy and effectively declared that NPT is indeed discriminatory and immoral. The deal has left the legal foundations of NPT shaken, and moral pretensions blown off. The US has set a dangerous precedent for others to follow. It gives other nuclear powers an excuse to sign similar deals. One wonders what would be the American response if some years down the road China or Russia signs a similar arrangement with Iran or Pakistan?
India’s real gain is not access to American nuclear technology; their achievement is moral victory on NPT, virtual acceptance as a nuclear power, and expectation that the new partnership would lead to India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
The Administration in its bid to sell the deal to the Congress is saying that by getting access to 14 of 22 nuclear plants the US has achieved something big in its quest for nuclear non-proliferation. The fact is India retains the right to decide which plants to declare civilian and hence open to international monitoring and which ones to keep away from any inspection for military reasons.
The architects of the deal visualize China and Islamic radicalism as the most serious security threat to the US and expect India to do the their bidding in containing China, and fighting Muslim extremism. They hope the supply of technology for civilian nuclear power plants would dissuade India from pursuing the gas pipeline from Iran to meet its rapidly increasing energy requirements. This would help strengthen the anti-Iran coalition and intensify pressure on Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment program. According to David Frum the deal would also strengthen India's nuclear-weapons capability, which, will be a step toward punishing the world's two worst nuclear proliferators, China and Pakistan.
The assumption behind this scenario is that Indians would be so grateful to the United States for giving her access to civilian nuclear technology, and conventional weapon systems that they would take-on all the neighbors on behalf of America.
This is Cold War mentality. There is unwarranted obsession with the China threat, and even more unrealistic assumption that India would choose confrontation and not coexistence with neighboring China. The two Asian powers have different areas of interest in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. Their territorial disputes are well managed and are not likely to boil over.
History and geography of the two mature civilizations have taught them better lessons in coexistence than confrontation. The geography dominated by the Himalayas has effectively separated the two and yet provided enough cultural osmosis to learn from each other. Those who do not have the benefit of long history are at a disadvantage in comprehending the range of foresight anchored in the annals of history. If at sometime in distant future the two powers have a conflict of economic or strategic interests in say Central Asia they would take decisions in their own interest and not in the interest of a distant friend or foe. India and China would opt for peace or conflict for their own reasons, not for others pleasure.
The deal is not likely to diminish India’s thirst for oil. At present nuclear power constitutes only three per cent of electricity produced in India. According to experts even with 30 new nuclear plants that India plans to build in the next two decades nuclear power would be only five per cent of its electricity production and barely two per cent of its total energy requirement. Under the circumstances gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan is an option India can delay but not abandon.
India has sided with the US in the IAEA meetings on the question of Iran’s nuclear program. But it is obvious that this coincidence of interests would go only a short distance. The deal has vindicated the Indian position on NPT and weakened the American stance. How then is India expected to pressurize Iran to not only abide by a discriminatory regime of non-proliferation, but also to abandon what she is allowed to pursue under the NPT, namely, the pursuit of a peaceful nuclear program.
The US-India nuclear deal and the subsequent visit of President Bush to Islamabad have demonstrated that in the new era Pakistan is not visualized as a strategic partner of the US. In the eyes of the US policy makers Pakistan because of her nuclear past, and relationship with militant Islamists, is more of a problem to be watched than a business partner to be trusted. This is a shortsighted view and may prove more problematic than realized at present.
The deal shows lack of understanding of Pakistan’s security interests, its importance in the region, and its future role in maintaining peace and stability. The situation leaves Pakistan little choice but to pursue its nuclear and missile program more vigorously to make up for the disadvantage it has in conventional forces against India. Cold-shouldering Pakistan so soon in the war on terrorism will only strengthen anti-American forces not only in the political field but also within the establishment. This likely scenario is not helpful to the US interests.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
The US-India nuclear deal signed between the two countries on March 02 during President Bush’s visit to South Asia has far reaching implications for Asia and bilateral relations between the two signatories. There is limited and short-term convergence of economic and military interests but in the long-term the deal is marked more by divergence of perception and interests than convergence.
The deal represents a major policy shift on the part of the US, and vindicates the long-held Indian position that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is indeed discriminatory in nature and lacks moral justification. The US has, thus, climbed down on the NPT ladder for future strategic gains as perceived by the right wing hawks in Washington.
The USA has championed nuclear non-proliferation in the last three-and-a-half decades. Now it has reversed its policy and effectively declared that NPT is indeed discriminatory and immoral. The deal has left the legal foundations of NPT shaken, and moral pretensions blown off. The US has set a dangerous precedent for others to follow. It gives other nuclear powers an excuse to sign similar deals. One wonders what would be the American response if some years down the road China or Russia signs a similar arrangement with Iran or Pakistan?
India’s real gain is not access to American nuclear technology; their achievement is moral victory on NPT, virtual acceptance as a nuclear power, and expectation that the new partnership would lead to India’s permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
The Administration in its bid to sell the deal to the Congress is saying that by getting access to 14 of 22 nuclear plants the US has achieved something big in its quest for nuclear non-proliferation. The fact is India retains the right to decide which plants to declare civilian and hence open to international monitoring and which ones to keep away from any inspection for military reasons.
The architects of the deal visualize China and Islamic radicalism as the most serious security threat to the US and expect India to do the their bidding in containing China, and fighting Muslim extremism. They hope the supply of technology for civilian nuclear power plants would dissuade India from pursuing the gas pipeline from Iran to meet its rapidly increasing energy requirements. This would help strengthen the anti-Iran coalition and intensify pressure on Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment program. According to David Frum the deal would also strengthen India's nuclear-weapons capability, which, will be a step toward punishing the world's two worst nuclear proliferators, China and Pakistan.
The assumption behind this scenario is that Indians would be so grateful to the United States for giving her access to civilian nuclear technology, and conventional weapon systems that they would take-on all the neighbors on behalf of America.
This is Cold War mentality. There is unwarranted obsession with the China threat, and even more unrealistic assumption that India would choose confrontation and not coexistence with neighboring China. The two Asian powers have different areas of interest in the Pacific and Indian Ocean. Their territorial disputes are well managed and are not likely to boil over.
History and geography of the two mature civilizations have taught them better lessons in coexistence than confrontation. The geography dominated by the Himalayas has effectively separated the two and yet provided enough cultural osmosis to learn from each other. Those who do not have the benefit of long history are at a disadvantage in comprehending the range of foresight anchored in the annals of history. If at sometime in distant future the two powers have a conflict of economic or strategic interests in say Central Asia they would take decisions in their own interest and not in the interest of a distant friend or foe. India and China would opt for peace or conflict for their own reasons, not for others pleasure.
The deal is not likely to diminish India’s thirst for oil. At present nuclear power constitutes only three per cent of electricity produced in India. According to experts even with 30 new nuclear plants that India plans to build in the next two decades nuclear power would be only five per cent of its electricity production and barely two per cent of its total energy requirement. Under the circumstances gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan is an option India can delay but not abandon.
India has sided with the US in the IAEA meetings on the question of Iran’s nuclear program. But it is obvious that this coincidence of interests would go only a short distance. The deal has vindicated the Indian position on NPT and weakened the American stance. How then is India expected to pressurize Iran to not only abide by a discriminatory regime of non-proliferation, but also to abandon what she is allowed to pursue under the NPT, namely, the pursuit of a peaceful nuclear program.
The US-India nuclear deal and the subsequent visit of President Bush to Islamabad have demonstrated that in the new era Pakistan is not visualized as a strategic partner of the US. In the eyes of the US policy makers Pakistan because of her nuclear past, and relationship with militant Islamists, is more of a problem to be watched than a business partner to be trusted. This is a shortsighted view and may prove more problematic than realized at present.
The deal shows lack of understanding of Pakistan’s security interests, its importance in the region, and its future role in maintaining peace and stability. The situation leaves Pakistan little choice but to pursue its nuclear and missile program more vigorously to make up for the disadvantage it has in conventional forces against India. Cold-shouldering Pakistan so soon in the war on terrorism will only strengthen anti-American forces not only in the political field but also within the establishment. This likely scenario is not helpful to the US interests.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
Irrationality of War and Diplomacy
Irrationality of War and Diplomacy
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Modernity takes great pride in being a rational enterprise of the West. In terms of decision making and organizational structures the armed forces and foreign relations organizations are touted as the most rational setups, where ideology, altruism, and emotions have little room. The twin organizations are supposed to be motivated by nothing but national interests. And yet, America's war in Iraq and now its proxy war in Lebanon defy any rational explanation.
All 'rational' justifications for the Iraq war, like the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam's links to Al-Qaeda etc., proffered by the administration and uncritically accepted by the mass media have crumbled one by one. The war in Iraq has served no national interest of the United States; neither strategic nor diplomatic. In fact, on both these counts the American fortunes have suffered due to its open-ended military commitment without a clear positive objective. Iraq is now a quagmire, with no exit strategy at hand; billions of tax payer's dollars are being spent not to pursue any positive American interests but just to save Iraq from breaking up, sinking into a declared civil war, turning into a staging ground for terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, and becoming a battle ground for proxy wars among regional players like Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Even on these negative objectives the United States seems to be losing inch by inch on daily basis. Prospects of a full blown civil war are greater today than a year ago, the danger of breakup of Iraq on ethnic/sectarian lines is looming not receding, terrorists and insurgents are gaining ground in the form of death squads, and among the regional powers Iran has a strong foothold in Iraq, and Israel has developed close relations with Kurdish leadership, to the chagrin of another ally, Turkey. Did this country go to war to promote Iranian and Israeli interests or to gain something for itself?
Instead of learning anything from mistakes in Iraq, the United States has now opened the doors of hell for another war in another Arab country, from where Israel, not the United States, have been facing some military challenge from a non-state entity called Hizbollah. Israel has its own rationale for wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, and the killings of hundreds of children, women, and the sick in homes, air raid shelters, buses, hospitals and ambulances. The question is what American interests are being served by providing military and diplomatic support to Israel in this war?
Israel's war in Lebanon is supposed be a part of America's war on terrorism, it's aimed at putting an end to Syrian abetment in terrorism, it's a war to stem Iranian radicalism through Shia terrorist organizations like Hizbollah, it's the exercise of Israel's right to defend itself, and it's a war to strengthen democratic government in Beirut against the evil influence of a terrorist organization. All of them may be legitimate foreign policy objectives, but can they be achieved by the policy options undertaken by the administration recently? There is reason to doubt.
How Israel's relentless bombardment of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and the killings of thousands of hapless civilians with American made bombs and diplomatic support is going to create any goodwill for America? Or this abetment in carnage will further erode American credibility, and diminish its ability to influence events through diplomacy? The probability is the war is doing more harm to America than good, at least in the short run.
The US State Department lists Hizbollah as a terrorist organization but America has taken no military action against it because the organization does not threaten the United States. Its activities are Israel-specific and remain confined to Lebanon. To that extent Israel's war on Lebanon cannot be treated as a part of America's war on terror, as, say, Sri Lanka's war against Tamil Tigers is not America's war on terrorism, though LTTE is on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
Also terrorism is politically motivated violence targeting civilians. Hizbollah attacked an Israeli military post, killed eight soldiers and abducted two. This act can be condemned for various reasons but cannot be termed as an act of terrorism even under the FBI definition, because the target was military and not civilian. This is not to exonerate Hizbollah for its other acts of violence aimed at Israeli civilians, which earned it the designation of a terrorist organization.
A curious irrationality is at work in this context on another level in US diplomacy. The US supports the government of Lebanon of which Hizbollah is an integral component—they hold two cabinet posts. Also the Secretary of State sees nothing wrong in meeting Nabi Beri, the Speaker of Lebanese parliament who is leader of Amal militia, and an ally of Hizbollah. The US actions have weakened the Lebanese government by under-cutting its credibility and probably strengthened Hizbollah.
This war is supposed to be indirectly aimed at Syria and Iran, the financier-patrons of Hizbollah. The US-Israel axis wants to use the current crisis to take the Syrian-Iranian finger out of the Lebanon pie and make that country dependent on the US and compliant with Israeli demands. This may be a legitimate objective of foreign policy in that region, but how can you hope to achieve it when you are not willing to talk to anyone of them. The surrender-first approach has not borne fruit before nor is it likely to work this time. It may well turn out to be counter-productive. If the US puts its own interests ahead of the interests of its Middle Eastern ally, and follows a rational approach and not an ideological one it would engage these countries and defang them.
Hizbollah is not a state, or an army. Its members do not wear special uniform, they do not have garrisons, cantonments, staff colleges or other attributes of a professional army. Deploying the might of a state and its professional military with most advanced and lethal weaponry against an amorphous entity like Hizbollah is like chasing a housefly with an assault rifle. The chances are that such a disproportionate use of force may still let the fly survive but damage much else in the process. Israel in its shock-n-awe approach has quickly destroyed Lebanon's civil infrastructure and has its hands soaked in the blood of innocent civilians and Hizbollah remains intact and kicking, lobbing missile into Israeli cities. The approach so far does not seem to have worked.
Now, the option is to put an international, preferably NATO force in southern Lebanon to protect Israel from Hizbollah attacks, and eventually to disarm it. What Israel has not been able to achieve in more than two decades of military action is now expected to be achieved by an international force. What country on earth would send in its troops to fight Hizbollah, and disarm it not for national interest of its own but that of Israel? Only the United States has the magnanimity to protect Israel at the expense of its own interests but then the US is not willing to be part that international force.
Give national self-interest and rationality a chance on the diplomatic and security front, and let ideology and 'The Lobby' take a back seat.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Modernity takes great pride in being a rational enterprise of the West. In terms of decision making and organizational structures the armed forces and foreign relations organizations are touted as the most rational setups, where ideology, altruism, and emotions have little room. The twin organizations are supposed to be motivated by nothing but national interests. And yet, America's war in Iraq and now its proxy war in Lebanon defy any rational explanation.
All 'rational' justifications for the Iraq war, like the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam's links to Al-Qaeda etc., proffered by the administration and uncritically accepted by the mass media have crumbled one by one. The war in Iraq has served no national interest of the United States; neither strategic nor diplomatic. In fact, on both these counts the American fortunes have suffered due to its open-ended military commitment without a clear positive objective. Iraq is now a quagmire, with no exit strategy at hand; billions of tax payer's dollars are being spent not to pursue any positive American interests but just to save Iraq from breaking up, sinking into a declared civil war, turning into a staging ground for terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, and becoming a battle ground for proxy wars among regional players like Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Even on these negative objectives the United States seems to be losing inch by inch on daily basis. Prospects of a full blown civil war are greater today than a year ago, the danger of breakup of Iraq on ethnic/sectarian lines is looming not receding, terrorists and insurgents are gaining ground in the form of death squads, and among the regional powers Iran has a strong foothold in Iraq, and Israel has developed close relations with Kurdish leadership, to the chagrin of another ally, Turkey. Did this country go to war to promote Iranian and Israeli interests or to gain something for itself?
Instead of learning anything from mistakes in Iraq, the United States has now opened the doors of hell for another war in another Arab country, from where Israel, not the United States, have been facing some military challenge from a non-state entity called Hizbollah. Israel has its own rationale for wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, and the killings of hundreds of children, women, and the sick in homes, air raid shelters, buses, hospitals and ambulances. The question is what American interests are being served by providing military and diplomatic support to Israel in this war?
Israel's war in Lebanon is supposed be a part of America's war on terrorism, it's aimed at putting an end to Syrian abetment in terrorism, it's a war to stem Iranian radicalism through Shia terrorist organizations like Hizbollah, it's the exercise of Israel's right to defend itself, and it's a war to strengthen democratic government in Beirut against the evil influence of a terrorist organization. All of them may be legitimate foreign policy objectives, but can they be achieved by the policy options undertaken by the administration recently? There is reason to doubt.
How Israel's relentless bombardment of Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and the killings of thousands of hapless civilians with American made bombs and diplomatic support is going to create any goodwill for America? Or this abetment in carnage will further erode American credibility, and diminish its ability to influence events through diplomacy? The probability is the war is doing more harm to America than good, at least in the short run.
The US State Department lists Hizbollah as a terrorist organization but America has taken no military action against it because the organization does not threaten the United States. Its activities are Israel-specific and remain confined to Lebanon. To that extent Israel's war on Lebanon cannot be treated as a part of America's war on terror, as, say, Sri Lanka's war against Tamil Tigers is not America's war on terrorism, though LTTE is on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
Also terrorism is politically motivated violence targeting civilians. Hizbollah attacked an Israeli military post, killed eight soldiers and abducted two. This act can be condemned for various reasons but cannot be termed as an act of terrorism even under the FBI definition, because the target was military and not civilian. This is not to exonerate Hizbollah for its other acts of violence aimed at Israeli civilians, which earned it the designation of a terrorist organization.
A curious irrationality is at work in this context on another level in US diplomacy. The US supports the government of Lebanon of which Hizbollah is an integral component—they hold two cabinet posts. Also the Secretary of State sees nothing wrong in meeting Nabi Beri, the Speaker of Lebanese parliament who is leader of Amal militia, and an ally of Hizbollah. The US actions have weakened the Lebanese government by under-cutting its credibility and probably strengthened Hizbollah.
This war is supposed to be indirectly aimed at Syria and Iran, the financier-patrons of Hizbollah. The US-Israel axis wants to use the current crisis to take the Syrian-Iranian finger out of the Lebanon pie and make that country dependent on the US and compliant with Israeli demands. This may be a legitimate objective of foreign policy in that region, but how can you hope to achieve it when you are not willing to talk to anyone of them. The surrender-first approach has not borne fruit before nor is it likely to work this time. It may well turn out to be counter-productive. If the US puts its own interests ahead of the interests of its Middle Eastern ally, and follows a rational approach and not an ideological one it would engage these countries and defang them.
Hizbollah is not a state, or an army. Its members do not wear special uniform, they do not have garrisons, cantonments, staff colleges or other attributes of a professional army. Deploying the might of a state and its professional military with most advanced and lethal weaponry against an amorphous entity like Hizbollah is like chasing a housefly with an assault rifle. The chances are that such a disproportionate use of force may still let the fly survive but damage much else in the process. Israel in its shock-n-awe approach has quickly destroyed Lebanon's civil infrastructure and has its hands soaked in the blood of innocent civilians and Hizbollah remains intact and kicking, lobbing missile into Israeli cities. The approach so far does not seem to have worked.
Now, the option is to put an international, preferably NATO force in southern Lebanon to protect Israel from Hizbollah attacks, and eventually to disarm it. What Israel has not been able to achieve in more than two decades of military action is now expected to be achieved by an international force. What country on earth would send in its troops to fight Hizbollah, and disarm it not for national interest of its own but that of Israel? Only the United States has the magnanimity to protect Israel at the expense of its own interests but then the US is not willing to be part that international force.
Give national self-interest and rationality a chance on the diplomatic and security front, and let ideology and 'The Lobby' take a back seat.
- drshakilakhtar@yahoo.com
Benazir-Musharraf Deal, Or No Deal?
Benazir-Musharraf Deal, Or No Deal?
By Shakil Bhatti
Los Angeles, CA
Benazir will do a great disservice to the people of Pakistan if she extends her hand to save a sinking military dictator. She may be able to get into power, and the usurper kept afloat for some more time, but this arrangement would ensure that the military retains its role as the ultimate powerbroker in Pakistani politics. It'll be only a few more years when they show her the door once again.
The generals are in a tight spot, and are looking for an escape route so as to blame the political leadership once again for the mess they are going to leave behind.
Benazir has the political support of the masses that only needs to be turned into street power through her charisma, to force an adventurer to face the wrath of the people and full implementation of the Constitution. If Benazir is thinking beyond one more stint in power, and if she wants to carve a niche for herself in history then instead of cutting deals behind closed doors she should fight for justice and rule of law. If justice is not done, and Pakistani leadership refuses to learn any lesson from history then rest assure history is going to repeat itself.
The way things are going the generals will soon be surrendering either to the rising menace of jihadist militancy or to the will of the people expressed through a genuine political process. A secret deal between Benazir and the Army will neither save Benazir nor the Army in the long run. The deal will make Benazir an accomplice in the crimes of the military dictatorship. This will create a situation ripe for exploitation by the jihadists who have sufficient motivation, organizational network, and the will to kill and get killed.
Pakistan is heading towards a Taliban style catastrophe, which can only be averted if the will of the people is brought into full play through a genuine political process; failing which, deal or no deal, the writing on the wall is clear.
By Shakil Bhatti
Los Angeles, CA
Benazir will do a great disservice to the people of Pakistan if she extends her hand to save a sinking military dictator. She may be able to get into power, and the usurper kept afloat for some more time, but this arrangement would ensure that the military retains its role as the ultimate powerbroker in Pakistani politics. It'll be only a few more years when they show her the door once again.
The generals are in a tight spot, and are looking for an escape route so as to blame the political leadership once again for the mess they are going to leave behind.
Benazir has the political support of the masses that only needs to be turned into street power through her charisma, to force an adventurer to face the wrath of the people and full implementation of the Constitution. If Benazir is thinking beyond one more stint in power, and if she wants to carve a niche for herself in history then instead of cutting deals behind closed doors she should fight for justice and rule of law. If justice is not done, and Pakistani leadership refuses to learn any lesson from history then rest assure history is going to repeat itself.
The way things are going the generals will soon be surrendering either to the rising menace of jihadist militancy or to the will of the people expressed through a genuine political process. A secret deal between Benazir and the Army will neither save Benazir nor the Army in the long run. The deal will make Benazir an accomplice in the crimes of the military dictatorship. This will create a situation ripe for exploitation by the jihadists who have sufficient motivation, organizational network, and the will to kill and get killed.
Pakistan is heading towards a Taliban style catastrophe, which can only be averted if the will of the people is brought into full play through a genuine political process; failing which, deal or no deal, the writing on the wall is clear.
Pakistan’s Democratic Compulsions: Will the US Administration Listen?
Pakistan’s Democratic Compulsions: Will the US Administration Listen?
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
America is at war, and as always Pakistani leadership finds it beneficial to side with its powerful ally. Pakistan has been paid ten billion dollars for her services in America’s war on terrorism. The war is still on, the enemy remains elusive, and undefined. The US Congress has expressed its exasperation over this unabating war and continuous loss of life and money without making any meaningful progress. Despite this frustration there is no desire in this country to redefine the war, and readjust its policy in pursuit of its enemies. More of the same, with only cosmetic changes, seems to be the consensus.
On the contrary the people of Pakistan have decisively spoken in favor of change in the so-called war on terror. In the February-2008 elections the people perceived that their country was fighting a war against its own people for the benefit of a foreign power who has helped foist an unpopular military dictator on their heads. This perception may not be wholly correct, but then, in politics perception is the reality; and it does reflect a serious level of disapproval of the current US-Pakistan approach to the problem. In the same election the people also rejected religious parties and voted in favor of secular leadrship.
Equally important is the year-long lawyers’ movement which, despite a long span of time, and its secular nature, remains strong and enjoys popular support. The military dictatorship got its first jolt at the hands of the legal fraternity when dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was overwhelmingly rejected by the masses and they demanded his restoration. The Chief Justice was restored only to be dismissed again along with sixty other judges on November 3, 2007. This mass dismisal of judges was prompted for no other reason than to pave the way for Musharraf’s illegal re-election. The people and the legal fraternity have stood strong and united in their demand to restore the judges.
Through elections and the lawyers’ movement the people of Pakistan have made it abundantly clear that they are no religiouis fanatics and want to live in peace underr a democratic order and independent judiciary. Will the strongest democracy on earth listen to what the people of Pakistan are saying? Under the changed circumstances when the Washington-favorite Musharraf has no political future in Pakistan the US needs to adjust itself to the new reality.
Pakistan has recived whooping ten billion dollars from the US. The people of Pakistan wonder where all that money has gone. Why this generous cash reward from a friendly country has made no positive impact on their lives. They do not see a single bridge, a highway, a hospital, or an education institution built with this money. It’s time the US stop depending on one discredited dictator and listen to the people of Pakistan.
Extremism has no roots among the masses and it poses a threat to the way of life the people of Pakistan are accuetomed to. Yet the US led war on terrorism has little support among the masses in Pakistan. Poll after poll has demonstrated popular disapproval of the US approach and even worse they are not comfortable with the ultimate objectives of the US.
The Musharraf-Benazir deal, facilitated by the US, visualized a smooth working relationship between the two. With the assassination of Benazir the dynamics changed abruptly. Musharraf and his supporters became even more unpopular. Election results showed that the PPP got less than expected support partly because the party did not take a clear stand on the issue of judges and was tainted by its tacit tolerance of Musharraf in the future set-up. The PPP cannot afford to remain pro-Musharraf and tarry on the restoration of judges without paying a heavy political price. The US should treat the deal as dead and let the political discourse move forward.
It’s counter productive for the US objective to be seen as a supporter of Musharraf and opposed to the restoration of judges. The US shortsightedness on these two issues has done more harm to the war objective than anything else in the recent months.
Pakistan is uneasy with the unprecedented influence India has in the Karazai governemnt. The number of Indian consulates all along he Pakistan-Afghan border makes the Pakistani adminstration uncomfortable. The death of Indian diplomats in a suicide attck on the Indian Embassy in Kabul has further strained mutual distrust. The US should do, whatever it can, to keep India-Pakistan tension out of Afghanistan and not let it affect the Pakistan cooperation with the US.
The US aid to Pakistan should address the economic woes of the people and not just the interests of the undemocratic forces. Supply of wheat to Pakistan as an emergency measure is helpful for mutual relations, but this is a very smal measure. The US can do a lot better by giving greater access to Pakistani exports to the US markets. If the US feels it cannot give preferentail treatment to one country, it can make this accessibility for a certain period of time, may be five years. This one measure would go a long way in winning over the Pakistani business conmmunity and improving the economic situation in that country.
When the Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani visits Washington next week the Administration would be better advised to let the new leadership feel that their country is relevant to the US in a broader policy perspective and not just on the issue of terrorism. The US should not be seen supporting a discredted dictator and holding the Pakistan government back on the issue of the restoration of judges. Let these isues be resolved through the internal political dynamics of Pakistan. There is a limit to which the US can engineer Pakistan’s messy politics, without harming its long-term policy objectives. It’s easy to work with one man who has all the power, and not so easy when you are dealing with a democraticaly elected coalition government, which is answerable to the people. The US has to adjust itself to the new reality in Pakistan, and give a wide berth to a man who has little to offer.
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
America is at war, and as always Pakistani leadership finds it beneficial to side with its powerful ally. Pakistan has been paid ten billion dollars for her services in America’s war on terrorism. The war is still on, the enemy remains elusive, and undefined. The US Congress has expressed its exasperation over this unabating war and continuous loss of life and money without making any meaningful progress. Despite this frustration there is no desire in this country to redefine the war, and readjust its policy in pursuit of its enemies. More of the same, with only cosmetic changes, seems to be the consensus.
On the contrary the people of Pakistan have decisively spoken in favor of change in the so-called war on terror. In the February-2008 elections the people perceived that their country was fighting a war against its own people for the benefit of a foreign power who has helped foist an unpopular military dictator on their heads. This perception may not be wholly correct, but then, in politics perception is the reality; and it does reflect a serious level of disapproval of the current US-Pakistan approach to the problem. In the same election the people also rejected religious parties and voted in favor of secular leadrship.
Equally important is the year-long lawyers’ movement which, despite a long span of time, and its secular nature, remains strong and enjoys popular support. The military dictatorship got its first jolt at the hands of the legal fraternity when dismissal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan was overwhelmingly rejected by the masses and they demanded his restoration. The Chief Justice was restored only to be dismissed again along with sixty other judges on November 3, 2007. This mass dismisal of judges was prompted for no other reason than to pave the way for Musharraf’s illegal re-election. The people and the legal fraternity have stood strong and united in their demand to restore the judges.
Through elections and the lawyers’ movement the people of Pakistan have made it abundantly clear that they are no religiouis fanatics and want to live in peace underr a democratic order and independent judiciary. Will the strongest democracy on earth listen to what the people of Pakistan are saying? Under the changed circumstances when the Washington-favorite Musharraf has no political future in Pakistan the US needs to adjust itself to the new reality.
Pakistan has recived whooping ten billion dollars from the US. The people of Pakistan wonder where all that money has gone. Why this generous cash reward from a friendly country has made no positive impact on their lives. They do not see a single bridge, a highway, a hospital, or an education institution built with this money. It’s time the US stop depending on one discredited dictator and listen to the people of Pakistan.
Extremism has no roots among the masses and it poses a threat to the way of life the people of Pakistan are accuetomed to. Yet the US led war on terrorism has little support among the masses in Pakistan. Poll after poll has demonstrated popular disapproval of the US approach and even worse they are not comfortable with the ultimate objectives of the US.
The Musharraf-Benazir deal, facilitated by the US, visualized a smooth working relationship between the two. With the assassination of Benazir the dynamics changed abruptly. Musharraf and his supporters became even more unpopular. Election results showed that the PPP got less than expected support partly because the party did not take a clear stand on the issue of judges and was tainted by its tacit tolerance of Musharraf in the future set-up. The PPP cannot afford to remain pro-Musharraf and tarry on the restoration of judges without paying a heavy political price. The US should treat the deal as dead and let the political discourse move forward.
It’s counter productive for the US objective to be seen as a supporter of Musharraf and opposed to the restoration of judges. The US shortsightedness on these two issues has done more harm to the war objective than anything else in the recent months.
Pakistan is uneasy with the unprecedented influence India has in the Karazai governemnt. The number of Indian consulates all along he Pakistan-Afghan border makes the Pakistani adminstration uncomfortable. The death of Indian diplomats in a suicide attck on the Indian Embassy in Kabul has further strained mutual distrust. The US should do, whatever it can, to keep India-Pakistan tension out of Afghanistan and not let it affect the Pakistan cooperation with the US.
The US aid to Pakistan should address the economic woes of the people and not just the interests of the undemocratic forces. Supply of wheat to Pakistan as an emergency measure is helpful for mutual relations, but this is a very smal measure. The US can do a lot better by giving greater access to Pakistani exports to the US markets. If the US feels it cannot give preferentail treatment to one country, it can make this accessibility for a certain period of time, may be five years. This one measure would go a long way in winning over the Pakistani business conmmunity and improving the economic situation in that country.
When the Prime Minister of Pakistan Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani visits Washington next week the Administration would be better advised to let the new leadership feel that their country is relevant to the US in a broader policy perspective and not just on the issue of terrorism. The US should not be seen supporting a discredted dictator and holding the Pakistan government back on the issue of the restoration of judges. Let these isues be resolved through the internal political dynamics of Pakistan. There is a limit to which the US can engineer Pakistan’s messy politics, without harming its long-term policy objectives. It’s easy to work with one man who has all the power, and not so easy when you are dealing with a democraticaly elected coalition government, which is answerable to the people. The US has to adjust itself to the new reality in Pakistan, and give a wide berth to a man who has little to offer.
Beware! All Fundamentalists Look Alike
Beware! All Fundamentalists Look Alike
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles California
The term ‘fundamentalism’ and the militant religious phenomenon it refers to are American innovations from the early 20th century. Originally the term described the conservative Evangelical Protestant movement in America that insisted on the literal reading of the Bible and rejected modernity as a whole, and modernist theories of biblical criticism. It follows that when scientific evidence demonstrates that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun, it should be rejected because the Bible says otherwise; hence the Flat Earth Society. When asked ‘Why do you say the earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise?’ The answer on their webpage is “because we know the truth.’ And the ‘truth’ is that ‘the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it…’
‘Flat earth’ may be an extreme case of ‘fundamentalist truth’ yet it reveals some basic characteristics of all fundamentalists who are jostling for power to establish the hegemony of their exclusive ‘truth’. This mindset of being the exclusive repository of truth in all fields leaves no room for argument.
‘Fundamentalism’ is pejorative term and is now applied to a vast variety of religious movements across the globe. This one-size-fits-all approach makes it inevitable that it has to be a loose-fit. All popular and scholarly discussions about fundamentalism express their reservations regarding the applicability of this term to a given social phenomenon, and yet the term is employed with zest by all.
Fundamentalism is raging in almost all major religions of the world - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Despite the fact that fundamentalist movements are very different in approach and ‘truthfulness’ of their message they share a good deal of common characteristics.
They all reject and deplore modernity and its capitalistic, industrial, and scientific progress, and yet make use of the same tools of technological advancement to argue against it.
Their invariable first reaction to a scientific innovation is rejectionistic, and once it becomes widespread and accepted by the general public they too embrace it without repudiating their initial stance of rejection. The case in point is television, and man’s landing on the moon.
Once they accept these modernist scientific inventions, they take a step further to claim that their holy scriptures, in fact, had foreseen it. From the same book which they used earlier to claim that the invention was sinful, they quote verses this time to prove that this particular invention was foretold. Spherical shape of the heavenly bodies, their revolution, and man’s ability to reach them are some of the cases.
Most of them start as a non-political movement and claim that they are only trying to improve general morality of the public; pretty soon they are seen jockeying for political power. American evangelicals are today one of the most powerful political groups on the national political chessboard. They have exercised unprecedented influence in the decision making in the current Administration.
Despite their growing political clout in the given polity and their wheeling dealing for political power they continue to reject politics as something unbecoming of a pious person. The ulema in Pakistan had declared electoral politics as un-Islamic and stayed out of it till 1970 when they feared that the Jamaat-e-Islami because of its earlier acceptance of electioneering was emerging as the sole spokesman of Islam. They all jumped into this pool of hitherto un-Islamic Western-created world of politics. Once they entered electoral politics they have come to stay, and conveniently forgotten that it was something they had vehemently rejected earlier. In the case of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, the rejection of politics was even more deeply ingrained for theological reasons. And yet they are there in parliaments and city councils pursuing their peculiar politics.
If they feel they cannot achieve their objectives through peaceful political means they readily resort to militancy. They go for bombing abortion clinics, killing civilians indiscriminately, barring people of color from schools and buses, evicting people from their homes at gun point, and demolishing historical monuments; all in the name of religion and God, and without any qualms of conscience. This is happening from the USA to Israel, to India, to Pakistan, and to Indonesia.
Violence is natural to them, and peaceful co-existence with tolerance of difference of opinion, religion, and even race in some cases is anathema to them.
They have a self-serving view of a ‘golden age’ and history seems to have come to an end there. They refuse to accept that Time, an eternal verity, which is only next to God Almighty, who is above time and space, has made any difference in human advancement.
We are headed toward the age of faith it seems, after living through the aggressiveness of secularism in the previous century. Let’s try to keep our balance; we the Muslims are the Ummah of moderation and balance, and should be able to maintain that tradition and ideal.
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles California
The term ‘fundamentalism’ and the militant religious phenomenon it refers to are American innovations from the early 20th century. Originally the term described the conservative Evangelical Protestant movement in America that insisted on the literal reading of the Bible and rejected modernity as a whole, and modernist theories of biblical criticism. It follows that when scientific evidence demonstrates that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun, it should be rejected because the Bible says otherwise; hence the Flat Earth Society. When asked ‘Why do you say the earth is flat, when the vast majority says otherwise?’ The answer on their webpage is “because we know the truth.’ And the ‘truth’ is that ‘the world is static, the fixed center of the Universe. The sun, planets and stars all revolve around it…’
‘Flat earth’ may be an extreme case of ‘fundamentalist truth’ yet it reveals some basic characteristics of all fundamentalists who are jostling for power to establish the hegemony of their exclusive ‘truth’. This mindset of being the exclusive repository of truth in all fields leaves no room for argument.
‘Fundamentalism’ is pejorative term and is now applied to a vast variety of religious movements across the globe. This one-size-fits-all approach makes it inevitable that it has to be a loose-fit. All popular and scholarly discussions about fundamentalism express their reservations regarding the applicability of this term to a given social phenomenon, and yet the term is employed with zest by all.
Fundamentalism is raging in almost all major religions of the world - Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. Despite the fact that fundamentalist movements are very different in approach and ‘truthfulness’ of their message they share a good deal of common characteristics.
They all reject and deplore modernity and its capitalistic, industrial, and scientific progress, and yet make use of the same tools of technological advancement to argue against it.
Their invariable first reaction to a scientific innovation is rejectionistic, and once it becomes widespread and accepted by the general public they too embrace it without repudiating their initial stance of rejection. The case in point is television, and man’s landing on the moon.
Once they accept these modernist scientific inventions, they take a step further to claim that their holy scriptures, in fact, had foreseen it. From the same book which they used earlier to claim that the invention was sinful, they quote verses this time to prove that this particular invention was foretold. Spherical shape of the heavenly bodies, their revolution, and man’s ability to reach them are some of the cases.
Most of them start as a non-political movement and claim that they are only trying to improve general morality of the public; pretty soon they are seen jockeying for political power. American evangelicals are today one of the most powerful political groups on the national political chessboard. They have exercised unprecedented influence in the decision making in the current Administration.
Despite their growing political clout in the given polity and their wheeling dealing for political power they continue to reject politics as something unbecoming of a pious person. The ulema in Pakistan had declared electoral politics as un-Islamic and stayed out of it till 1970 when they feared that the Jamaat-e-Islami because of its earlier acceptance of electioneering was emerging as the sole spokesman of Islam. They all jumped into this pool of hitherto un-Islamic Western-created world of politics. Once they entered electoral politics they have come to stay, and conveniently forgotten that it was something they had vehemently rejected earlier. In the case of Jewish and Christian fundamentalists, the rejection of politics was even more deeply ingrained for theological reasons. And yet they are there in parliaments and city councils pursuing their peculiar politics.
If they feel they cannot achieve their objectives through peaceful political means they readily resort to militancy. They go for bombing abortion clinics, killing civilians indiscriminately, barring people of color from schools and buses, evicting people from their homes at gun point, and demolishing historical monuments; all in the name of religion and God, and without any qualms of conscience. This is happening from the USA to Israel, to India, to Pakistan, and to Indonesia.
Violence is natural to them, and peaceful co-existence with tolerance of difference of opinion, religion, and even race in some cases is anathema to them.
They have a self-serving view of a ‘golden age’ and history seems to have come to an end there. They refuse to accept that Time, an eternal verity, which is only next to God Almighty, who is above time and space, has made any difference in human advancement.
We are headed toward the age of faith it seems, after living through the aggressiveness of secularism in the previous century. Let’s try to keep our balance; we the Muslims are the Ummah of moderation and balance, and should be able to maintain that tradition and ideal.
A Tribute to Mahmoud Darwish
A Tribute to Mahmoud Darwish
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Mahmoud Darwish, the Palestinian ‘poet of resistance’, whose blazing lyrics on the Palestinian experience of dispossession, occupation, alienation, and exile made him a leading cultural voice, and the most eminent Arabic poet of his time, breathed his last on August 9, in Houston, after undergoing heart surgery.
Pakistan’s leading Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Mehmoud Darwish had many things common in the stories of their lives, political ideas, and the theme and diction of their poetry.
Darwish helped forge national consciousness of the Palestinian people and articulated their collective will to resist tyranny and injustice in all forms and places. Faiz attained poetic eminence after the creation of Pakistan and helped evolve a collective consciousness in delineating the ideals of the people in the new republic. Faiz exposed the hollowness of political leadership, and cruelty of the feudal system that continued to oppress those who had suffered most in the quest for a new homeland.
Like all great poets Darwish and Faiz transcended their personal experiences and group consciousness and transformed them into a universal message of eternal human struggle in the cosmic order. The trauma of eviction, the pain of exile, and deprivation of identity in Darwish’s life turned into searing lyrics of unremitting human sufferings, and struggle. Through his poetic genius he kept the torch of freedom alight in face of strong winds of opposition blowing in the dark nights.
Faiz and Darwish were heavy smokers, suffered heart problems that ultimately led to their deaths. Darwish lived without a homeland of his own, and yet his people gave him a ‘state funeral’ and showered great honorifics on him. Faiz lived in a free homeland and was buried relatively quietly without stately trappings.
Darwish was virtually a national poet and one of the most sought-after persons in literary circles. But, he always remained averse to public exposure and media spotlight. He was more comfortable with a small circle of friends. Faiz shared these personality traits with Darwish.
Darwish was born in 1941 in the village of Al Birwa. In 1948 when he was seven the family was forced to flee to Lebanon. A year later they sneaked back into their homeland and lived there illegally. Birwa along with 400 other Palestinian villages had been razed to make space for new settlements. Darwish and his family became internal refugees defined as “present-absent aliens.” This childhood experience made him realize why and how they were second-class citizen in their own land. As a schoolboy he wrote a poem for an anniversary of the foundation of Israel. In this poem, as Darwish recalled many years later, he addressed a Jewish classmate and said, ‘You can play in the sun as you please, and have your toys, but I can't. You have a house, and I have none. You have celebrations, but I have none. Why can't we play together?" He was summoned to see the military governor, who threatened him: "If you go on writing such poetry, I'll stop your father working in the quarry." Things have not changed for the people of Palestine in the last sixty years.
Darwish was imprisoned repeatedly for his writings and political activities. He was an active member of the Communist Party of Israel. He left the country second time in 1970 and lived in exile in Moscow, Cairo, Paris, Tunisia, and Beirut. The Soviet Union awarded him Lotus prize in 1969 and the Lenin peace prize in 1983. He won the Lannan Foundation Prize for Cultural Freedom in 2001. He was also awarded the Prince Claus Fund in Amsterdam in 2004. In his acceptance speech there he said, "A person can only be born in one place. However, he may die several times elsewhere: in the exiles and prisons, and in a homeland transformed by the occupation and oppression into a nightmare. Poetry is perhaps what teaches us to nurture the charming illusion: how to be reborn out of ourselves over and over again, and use words to construct a better world, a fictitious world that enables us to sign a pact for a permanent and comprehensive peace ... with life." Faiz also won the Lenin Peace Prize, and had communist leanings in his political orientations. The theme of being reborn from ones own self again and again is integral to Faiz’s poetry.
Darwish published his first collection of poetry Wingless Birds at the age of nineteen, followed by twenty-four publications; nineteen in poetry and five in prose. His works have been translated into more than 22 languages.
"Identity Card" (1964) was his first poem that brought him prominence. It said:
“Write down at the top of the first page:
I do not hate people.
I steal from no one.
However
If I am hungry
I will eat the flesh of my usurper.
Beware! Beware of my hunger
And of my anger.”
Darwish saw life through the Palestinian prism. In his poetry Palestine is not just a piece of land, it’s a metaphor, and a symbol for the loss of paradise, exile, dispossession, alienation, helplessness, sorrows, and resolve to keep going till the dawn breaks.
Refugee
They fettered his mouth with chains,
And tied his hands to the rock of the dead.
They said: You're a murderer.
They took his food, his clothes and his banners,
And threw him into the well of the dead.
They said: You're a thief.
They threw him out of every port,
And took away his young beloved.
And then they said: You're a refugee.
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Mahmoud Darwish, the Palestinian ‘poet of resistance’, whose blazing lyrics on the Palestinian experience of dispossession, occupation, alienation, and exile made him a leading cultural voice, and the most eminent Arabic poet of his time, breathed his last on August 9, in Houston, after undergoing heart surgery.
Pakistan’s leading Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Mehmoud Darwish had many things common in the stories of their lives, political ideas, and the theme and diction of their poetry.
Darwish helped forge national consciousness of the Palestinian people and articulated their collective will to resist tyranny and injustice in all forms and places. Faiz attained poetic eminence after the creation of Pakistan and helped evolve a collective consciousness in delineating the ideals of the people in the new republic. Faiz exposed the hollowness of political leadership, and cruelty of the feudal system that continued to oppress those who had suffered most in the quest for a new homeland.
Like all great poets Darwish and Faiz transcended their personal experiences and group consciousness and transformed them into a universal message of eternal human struggle in the cosmic order. The trauma of eviction, the pain of exile, and deprivation of identity in Darwish’s life turned into searing lyrics of unremitting human sufferings, and struggle. Through his poetic genius he kept the torch of freedom alight in face of strong winds of opposition blowing in the dark nights.
Faiz and Darwish were heavy smokers, suffered heart problems that ultimately led to their deaths. Darwish lived without a homeland of his own, and yet his people gave him a ‘state funeral’ and showered great honorifics on him. Faiz lived in a free homeland and was buried relatively quietly without stately trappings.
Darwish was virtually a national poet and one of the most sought-after persons in literary circles. But, he always remained averse to public exposure and media spotlight. He was more comfortable with a small circle of friends. Faiz shared these personality traits with Darwish.
Darwish was born in 1941 in the village of Al Birwa. In 1948 when he was seven the family was forced to flee to Lebanon. A year later they sneaked back into their homeland and lived there illegally. Birwa along with 400 other Palestinian villages had been razed to make space for new settlements. Darwish and his family became internal refugees defined as “present-absent aliens.” This childhood experience made him realize why and how they were second-class citizen in their own land. As a schoolboy he wrote a poem for an anniversary of the foundation of Israel. In this poem, as Darwish recalled many years later, he addressed a Jewish classmate and said, ‘You can play in the sun as you please, and have your toys, but I can't. You have a house, and I have none. You have celebrations, but I have none. Why can't we play together?" He was summoned to see the military governor, who threatened him: "If you go on writing such poetry, I'll stop your father working in the quarry." Things have not changed for the people of Palestine in the last sixty years.
Darwish was imprisoned repeatedly for his writings and political activities. He was an active member of the Communist Party of Israel. He left the country second time in 1970 and lived in exile in Moscow, Cairo, Paris, Tunisia, and Beirut. The Soviet Union awarded him Lotus prize in 1969 and the Lenin peace prize in 1983. He won the Lannan Foundation Prize for Cultural Freedom in 2001. He was also awarded the Prince Claus Fund in Amsterdam in 2004. In his acceptance speech there he said, "A person can only be born in one place. However, he may die several times elsewhere: in the exiles and prisons, and in a homeland transformed by the occupation and oppression into a nightmare. Poetry is perhaps what teaches us to nurture the charming illusion: how to be reborn out of ourselves over and over again, and use words to construct a better world, a fictitious world that enables us to sign a pact for a permanent and comprehensive peace ... with life." Faiz also won the Lenin Peace Prize, and had communist leanings in his political orientations. The theme of being reborn from ones own self again and again is integral to Faiz’s poetry.
Darwish published his first collection of poetry Wingless Birds at the age of nineteen, followed by twenty-four publications; nineteen in poetry and five in prose. His works have been translated into more than 22 languages.
"Identity Card" (1964) was his first poem that brought him prominence. It said:
“Write down at the top of the first page:
I do not hate people.
I steal from no one.
However
If I am hungry
I will eat the flesh of my usurper.
Beware! Beware of my hunger
And of my anger.”
Darwish saw life through the Palestinian prism. In his poetry Palestine is not just a piece of land, it’s a metaphor, and a symbol for the loss of paradise, exile, dispossession, alienation, helplessness, sorrows, and resolve to keep going till the dawn breaks.
Refugee
They fettered his mouth with chains,
And tied his hands to the rock of the dead.
They said: You're a murderer.
They took his food, his clothes and his banners,
And threw him into the well of the dead.
They said: You're a thief.
They threw him out of every port,
And took away his young beloved.
And then they said: You're a refugee.
War on Terrorism Is Not a 'War'
War on Terrorism Is Not a 'War'
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Terrorism as a tool to achieve political objectives is a centuries old phenomenon. The declining Abbasid Empire of Baghdad was the first, in documented history, to suffer a sustained campaign of terrorism at the hands of the "hashishin' (who gave us the word assassin). But that's history, and it's not always comfortable to look into the mirror of history that gives you an in-depth view of the self. Modern history of terrorism, however, starts only from 1968 when the US Ambassador to Guatemala was assassinated in his car by a group of rebels in that country.
The tragedy of September 2001 brought the scourge of terrorism to the US soil and horrified millions of Americans. The people and the government gave a swift and determined response, demonstrating to the world that they could not be terrified.
Unfortunately this moment of courage and unity was surreptitiously appropriated by a group of people within the state apparatus to pursue their long frustrated agenda of foreign and security policy in the world, particularly in the Middle East. American public was disenchanted, even frustrated when they realized how the 9/11 tragedy had been used as an excuse to create demons of fear in pursuit of a different agenda.
It took almost seven years for a think tank like RAND to come to the conclusion that the 'war on terrorism' should not be called a 'war' and that the current American policy is flawed and 'the United States should fundamentally rethink its strategy'.
The proponents of 'war' and pursuers of pre-conceived agenda must be fuming but the fact remains that it's not late to re-orient American policy against terrorism. The report "HOW TERRORIST GROUPS END: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida" examines — and critiques — the current US approach, which relies predominantly on military force to target terrorist network. It analyses terrorism related data spread over forty years and concludes that in 43% cases terrorist groups ceased to exist either because their members decided to adopt nonviolent tactics and joined the mainstream political process, and in 40% instances local law-enforcement agencies arrested or killed key members of the group. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups. Military operations were successful only in 7% cases.
Policing and political action with the involvement of the community are the most effective means of alienating and eliminating terrorist groups. The logic for this success is straightforward: Police generally have better training and intelligence to penetrate and disrupt terrorist organizations. Police have a permanent presence in cities, towns, and villages; a better understanding of local communities than other security forces; and better intelligence. This enables them to be best suited to understand and penetrate terrorist networks.
The report suggests that the law enforcement agencies should actively encourage and cultivate cooperation by building strong ties with community leaders, including elected officials, civil servants, clerics, businessmen, and teachers, among others, and thereby enlist their assistance and support.
Unlike police action, the use of military force against terrorist groups has a number of organizational and structural limitations. In most cases, these groups are small, making it difficult to engage them with large, conventional forces. Military forces may be able to penetrate and garrison an area that terrorist groups frequent and, if well sustained, may temporarily reduce terrorist activity. But once the situation becomes untenable in one area (say in Iraq), terrorists simply transfer their activity to another area (say Afghanistan), and the problem remains unresolved. Also, military force is usually too blunt an instrument for countering terrorism. The use of massive military power against terrorist groups also runs a significant risk of turning the population against the government.
Contrary to government claims that the 'terrorists are on the run' the RAND report argues that al Qa'ida has been involved in more terrorist attacks in a wider geographical area since September 11, 2001, than it had been during its previous history. It quotes a CIA veteran to claim that "Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before."
The report calls for police-oriented counter-terrorism rather than a "War on Terrorism". The authors take issue with the government and media for looking at the counter-terrorism campaign as a 'war'. Seth Jones, the lead author of the study, is reported to have said that "terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism" The key to the success of proposed strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counter-terrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today.
The trouble is 'war on terror' has become a cliché and a means of scoring political points here and a debating point there. A number of countries in the world are facing terrorism in various forms and have been fighting against them with various measures of success and failure, but none has declared a 'war on terrorism'.
The law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism is not new, but this time it's backed by a serious study based on the analysis of a huge database. If it have any meaningful influence in the corridors of power remains to be seen.
By Dr Shakil Akhtar Rai
Los Angeles, CA
Terrorism as a tool to achieve political objectives is a centuries old phenomenon. The declining Abbasid Empire of Baghdad was the first, in documented history, to suffer a sustained campaign of terrorism at the hands of the "hashishin' (who gave us the word assassin). But that's history, and it's not always comfortable to look into the mirror of history that gives you an in-depth view of the self. Modern history of terrorism, however, starts only from 1968 when the US Ambassador to Guatemala was assassinated in his car by a group of rebels in that country.
The tragedy of September 2001 brought the scourge of terrorism to the US soil and horrified millions of Americans. The people and the government gave a swift and determined response, demonstrating to the world that they could not be terrified.
Unfortunately this moment of courage and unity was surreptitiously appropriated by a group of people within the state apparatus to pursue their long frustrated agenda of foreign and security policy in the world, particularly in the Middle East. American public was disenchanted, even frustrated when they realized how the 9/11 tragedy had been used as an excuse to create demons of fear in pursuit of a different agenda.
It took almost seven years for a think tank like RAND to come to the conclusion that the 'war on terrorism' should not be called a 'war' and that the current American policy is flawed and 'the United States should fundamentally rethink its strategy'.
The proponents of 'war' and pursuers of pre-conceived agenda must be fuming but the fact remains that it's not late to re-orient American policy against terrorism. The report "HOW TERRORIST GROUPS END: Lessons for Countering al Qa'ida" examines — and critiques — the current US approach, which relies predominantly on military force to target terrorist network. It analyses terrorism related data spread over forty years and concludes that in 43% cases terrorist groups ceased to exist either because their members decided to adopt nonviolent tactics and joined the mainstream political process, and in 40% instances local law-enforcement agencies arrested or killed key members of the group. Military force has rarely been the primary reason for the end of terrorist groups. Military operations were successful only in 7% cases.
Policing and political action with the involvement of the community are the most effective means of alienating and eliminating terrorist groups. The logic for this success is straightforward: Police generally have better training and intelligence to penetrate and disrupt terrorist organizations. Police have a permanent presence in cities, towns, and villages; a better understanding of local communities than other security forces; and better intelligence. This enables them to be best suited to understand and penetrate terrorist networks.
The report suggests that the law enforcement agencies should actively encourage and cultivate cooperation by building strong ties with community leaders, including elected officials, civil servants, clerics, businessmen, and teachers, among others, and thereby enlist their assistance and support.
Unlike police action, the use of military force against terrorist groups has a number of organizational and structural limitations. In most cases, these groups are small, making it difficult to engage them with large, conventional forces. Military forces may be able to penetrate and garrison an area that terrorist groups frequent and, if well sustained, may temporarily reduce terrorist activity. But once the situation becomes untenable in one area (say in Iraq), terrorists simply transfer their activity to another area (say Afghanistan), and the problem remains unresolved. Also, military force is usually too blunt an instrument for countering terrorism. The use of massive military power against terrorist groups also runs a significant risk of turning the population against the government.
Contrary to government claims that the 'terrorists are on the run' the RAND report argues that al Qa'ida has been involved in more terrorist attacks in a wider geographical area since September 11, 2001, than it had been during its previous history. It quotes a CIA veteran to claim that "Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before."
The report calls for police-oriented counter-terrorism rather than a "War on Terrorism". The authors take issue with the government and media for looking at the counter-terrorism campaign as a 'war'. Seth Jones, the lead author of the study, is reported to have said that "terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests there is no battlefield solution to terrorism" The key to the success of proposed strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counter-terrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today.
The trouble is 'war on terror' has become a cliché and a means of scoring political points here and a debating point there. A number of countries in the world are facing terrorism in various forms and have been fighting against them with various measures of success and failure, but none has declared a 'war on terrorism'.
The law enforcement approach to counter-terrorism is not new, but this time it's backed by a serious study based on the analysis of a huge database. If it have any meaningful influence in the corridors of power remains to be seen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)