Dont Touch My Quran !

Take my life from me but dont touch my Quran !

Think on it....

Read More

Kashmir Dispute

According to the partition plan the princely states, which numbered about 584, and of which the state of Jammu and Kashmir was one of the most important, were given the option to accede either to Pakistan or to India. However while making a decision the ruler of a state was to take into consideration two factors

• The religion of the majority
• Geographical location.

On the basis of this principle the state of Jammu and Kashmir should have acceded to Pakistan as almost 80% of the Kashmiris were Muslims and the state was geographically closer to Pakistan than India. Following the same principle India occupied three states by force, whose Muslim rulers wanted to accede to Pakistan but when it comes to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, two-faced India is not ready to accept the formula.

The problem in Kashmir was its Hindu Dogra Mahraja Hari Singh, who was not ready to accede to Pakistan. To satisfy his Muslim subjects and in order to gain some time, Hari Singh signed a standstill agreement with Pakistan at the time of independence. However, his ultimate plan was otherwise. When the British were preparing to leave India the Maharaja of Kashmir was busy introducing Sikh and Hindu Mahasabah agents into Kashmir. He was helped by the British, who in an unjust boundary award, gave Pathankot to India and thus provided a direct road link between India and Kashmir.

India considered the intervention of the tribesmen in Kashmir as the start of the trouble. In fact the trouble in Kashmir started not with the inrush of tribesmen, but with the systematic massacre of the Muslim Population by the state force, and the Pathan attacks were a direct consequence of the slaughter of Fellow Muslims. Times on October 10,1947 reported, 237,000 Muslims were systematically exterminated, unless they escaped to Pakistan, by the forces of the Dogara State, headed by the Maharaja in person. Many of the Muslim villages were burnt. Children were killed in front of mothers and at least twenty five thousand women had fallen into the hands of Dogara troops, Rashtriya Swayam Serak Sang, Akali Sikhs, and Indian National Army. Foreign Secretory of Pakistan sent a telegram to the Prime Minister of Kashmir on October 12, 1947. In this telegram he protested to the Kashmir government about massacre of Muslims but without any reply.

The uprising, which was first started by the ex-soldiers of the Second World War from Poonch, gained momentum and spread to other areas. Maharaja was compelled to flee from his capital to the town of Jammu, from where his troops had killed and driven out the Muslims. Muslims under Sardar Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, president of Muslim Conference formed their provincial government in Azad Kashmir. The People of Gilget succeeded in gaining their freedom. It was on October 22, 1947, that the people from N.W.F.P and Punjab crossed the boarder to help the fellow Muslims but 65% of the total number of people who took part in the revolt were native Kashmiris.

Maharaja had made a secret agreement with India before uprising started, but the plan failed as the aircraft of his envoy, Thokore Hariman Singh, was forced to land at Lahore and Public got the scheme from a suitcase. Maharaja concluded the standstill agreement with Pakistan on August 15. According to this standstill agreement Pakistan was responsible to defend the territories of Kashmir. Pakistan also had to look after the other affairs of the state. Due to other problems in the country Pakistan was not able to look after all its responsibilities. First Pakistan sent the Joint Secretary of Foreign affairs to deal with the Maharaja and latter Quaid-i-Azam himself made a plea to the Maharaja but of no use.

On October 27, Hari Singh wrote a letter to the Governor General of India, Lord Mountbatten, offering the accession of his state to India and asking for the help of Indian forces to crush the rising. Mountbatten accepted the offer on behalf of the Indian government but stated that the ultimate question of the state accession should be settled by reference to the people. Indian troops landed in Kashmir only four hours after the acceptance of accession by the Governor General of India. Few historians even consider that the Indian troops landed in the valley even before the letter reached India. Few other believe that the so-called accession document was fake, as Vallabhai Patel forged Hari Singh signatures but forgot to put the date, which was later inserted by Mountbatten in his own handwriting. According to the Alastair Lamb book Birth of a Tragedy Kashmir 1947, the letter is not available now in any of the records of the Indian Government. In White Paper of 1948, the government of India themselves accepted that they regard this accession temporary and provisional till such time as the will of the people can be ascertain.

On October 28, 1947 Quaid-i-Azam ordered the acting Commander in Chief of the army of Pakistan, Lt. Gen. Sir D. Gracy to invade Kashmir. Commander in Chief referred the matter to Field Martial Auchinleck. Auchinleck asked the Quaid to take his orders back otherwise all the British officers from both the armies would resign, which Pakistan could not afford at that time. However Pakistan representative in the Security Council of United Nations made it clear that the Pakistan government have not accepted and cannot accept the accession of the state of Jammu and Kashmir to India. In their view the accession was based on violence and fraud. It was fraudulent in as much as it was achieved by deliberately creating a set of circumstances with the object of finding an excuse to stage the accession. It was based on violence because it furthered the plan of the Kashmir government to liquidate the Muslim population.

Pakistan opposed the accession on the base of three principles:

• Maharaja can’t do it as he had already signed standstill agreement with Pakistan.
• There was no provision for the conditional acceptance under the Indian independence Act 1947.
• Maharaja did not have the right to do it without the will of his people.

Kashmir accession to Indian dominion was against the wishes of its people, who refused to accept the decision. It created unrest in Kashmir and anarchy spread in the state. The Muslims rose in revolt against the Dogara rule and civil war started in the valley. The situation was further complicated when India instead of solving the problem by peaceful means resorted to force leading to a war in Kashmir, and sent troops, tanks and airplanes. India wanted to massacre people without letting it known to the world that what it was happening in Kashmir.

Indian Defence Minister, Sardar Baldev Singh, announced in the Indian parliament that Indian army would launch a major offensive in Kashmir. Pakistan Commander in Chief, Sir Gracy made it clear that Indian army will not be allowed to advance beyond the general line Uri-Poonch-Naoshera. It was in early May 1948 that Pakistan government, with the recommendations of it’s Commander in Chief, sent a limited number of troops to Kashmir to hold certain defensive positions and prevent the Indian army from advancing to the borders of Pakistan. War started between the two countries. It was the most curious war in modern history. It was the base for 1965 war.

When the things were not moving in the right direction for India in the war, they took the case to United Nations. United Nations passed two resolutions i) August 13, 1948 and ii) January 5, 1949. Although cease-fire took place due to the efforts of the United Nation but India has consistently refused to implement the other two parts of the United Nation Resolutions i.e. with drawl of Indian forces from Kashmir and holding of plebiscite under neutral administration.

To conclude, Kashmir Dispute is a leftover agenda of the partition of the Sub-continent in 1947. It is not just the problem of the violation of human rights. The main problem of Kashmir is that India has resorted to brutal force to deny the Kashmiris their Right of Self-determination.

Read More

Future of Democracy in Pakistan.

Quaid E Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah told his fellow members of the Muslim League on 9th June 1947 I do not know what the ultimate shape of the constitution is going to be, but I am sure it will be a democratic type, embodying the essential principles of Islam he added democracy is in our blood, it is in our marrow. Only centuries of adverse circumstances have made the circulation of that blood cold Islam and its ideals have taught us democracy it has taught us equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody.

It can be safely assumed that on that day in the founding year of Pakistan the two philosophies outlined by the founder as the basis of any future government in Pakistan were Islam and democracy. Both have in a sense floundered at the hands of their keepers. Islam exploited shamelessly by those that pretend to be its defenders has divided instead of uniting the nation and democracy has been reduced to a sham by those that never tire to proclaim themselves as its champions.

For the future of democracy in Pakistan there must be solid foundations laid in the past. This has not happened and the fault is not entirely with the politicians. Yes we know the musical chairs that preceded the first military take over by Ayub Khan but that cannot really be any justification for extra constitutional methods. We forget that the workable democracies of the world including that of the United States and Great Britain did not evolve in a period of two and a half years ( The standard limit in Pakistan). It took a civil war and more than two hundred years for the United States itself to get on track and have the present system which still leaves much to be desired. In neighbouring India we were not too long ago witnessing musical chairs in the parliament where no party was able to hold its majority. With extra constitutional interference they too would have been in a crisis but democracy allowed to run its course paid dividends and now they have a stable government that inspite of its short comings and an ailing Prime Minister has made significant strides on the national and international front.

Democracy in Pakistan has suffered because the nanny was too protective of the baby. The establishment was so keen on having a faultless democracy that it killed the entire process. Leaders independent of the establishment were seen as threats to national security and there has always been that all engulfing desire to produce Test Tube Politicians. We have lived through more than ten years under the rule of such leaders. Each term limited meticulously to two and a half years by the establishment. It can be said with certainty that these years of the Test Tube Politicians have ravaged Pakistan and jolted its very foundations. All those who designed and carried out this exercise must together with the politicians shoulder the blame for the present mess in which we find ourselves.

So what about the future? I find little hope for democracy in the future. We just do not have a democratic culture in the country. Political parties are nor really political parties because their leaders prefer to draw their strength from the establishment instead of the masses. Yes there is a lot of song and dance during the election. A pretence of an election campaign seems mandatory and helpful for the establishment to swing votes either way. The little grass roots politics that we have during elections disappears once the government is established. All contact with the masses is lost and the party becomes a burden rather than the instrument of governance that it should be. Party and government offices mingle which abolishes whatever accountability could have been achieved. Both Benazir and Nawaz Sharif clung to their party posts inspite of declarations to the contrary. While the country paid the price they too paid a heavy price for their lust of absolute power.

The only glimmer of grass roots democracy that I can recall was in the seventies. Zulfiquar Ali Bhutto was arrogant and could not tolerate opposition but it was only during his rule that parliaments were strong and members contributing significantly to the welfare of people. Accountability through parliaments was also quite visible at that time. In Sindh for example a very small opposition practically terrorised the ruling party with their alertness in matters of public interest and a command over the rules of procedure. Political meetings in those days started usually after Isha prayers and lasted till well past midnight. National leaders of parties always took the rostrum last and people waited patiently for their leaders. In most political party offices they had registers where appointments for well known leaders visits to different localities were made. In any given week a national leader was addressing close to a dozen meetings in different parts of the country.

All this changed. Nawaz Sharif had no stomach for long lasting public meetings. At meetings held in Nishtar Park he would arrive straight from the airport and the speaker than in control of the mike would be asked to step aside. Nawaz Sharif would speak for about forty minutes and than go straight to his pajero parked behind the stage. The whole show would not last for more than an hour. How could he know what his own party was saying or which of the speakers had the talents to attract votes in the next elections. I don’t think he or Mohtrama Benazir were bothered with that. In all probability they received lists approved by the establishment and were happy to just stamp their approval . Another vital ingredient for democracy is presence of organised groups. In the seventies we had several that upheld the cause of democracy and increased accountability of political parties. Strong groups in those times were labour, students, teachers, journalists and lawyers. While there was a political and ideological divide they always came together in matters of national interest. Politicians too had a sense of responsibility towards their electorate. Who can forget that (Late) Syed Saeed Hassan broke party ranks at a huge personal cost to voice protest against the language bill in Sindh assembly. Another MPA of the time Bostan Ali Hoti did not vote on linguistic grounds on the same bill and showed extra ordinary courage. This is what keeps democracy alive and gives hope for its future.

During the rule of Zia Ul Haq all the basic ingredients of democracy were wiped out. Inroads were made into organisations that in the past were bastions of democracy and with prompted leadership they were reduced to lethargic entities that only spoke to please their masters. Intellectual corruption was actively promoted and encouraged. What we see today are the final products of that Assembly line installed by the late General. Political leaders without conscious and a trade leadership which follows in their footsteps. He had eleven years of peace thanks to these tactics but this tolled the death knoll for the future of democracy in Pakistan.

Another element that has destroyed any hope for future of democracy in Pakistan is the injection of violence in politics. With guns blazing and tolerance at zero level there is no room for democratic difference of opinion. It is not uncommon in democracy for senior leaders to have differing opinion on political issues. We have now come to a stage where such difference of opinion usually earns you a place in a guinea bag. In these circumstances what hope for democracy?

Always an optimist I still se a glimmer of hope if steps are taken to really restore democracy and not inflict more home made recipes on this country. A good starting point of reforms for the present government would be to give a dead line to all parties to hold party elections within a specified period. Supervised by neutral observers this could be a breath of fresh air for democracy in Pakistan. Well organised parties with duly elected party officials would lay the foundations of true democracy. A nation suffering from the negligence of its recent rulers will certainly welcome such a move. True mobilisation of people and building of institutions razed to the ground by successive governments can be another step towards restoring democracy in the country. The Judiciary which is the corner stone of any democracy needs to be truly independent and if the rulers are sincere they would free the judiciary of all seen and unseen restrictions. Revival of true trade unions in all fields of life is another step that can ensure the future of democracy and give voice to the true feelings of the people.

For all those with different recipes of democracy and their supporters I can only say that democracy is a product of the wishes of the people and not the of the desires of an elite few. It evolves by itself and true democracy like a truly beautiful tree takes many decades to grow and spread out its branches to provide shade to the people. There are no short cuts no matter how pressing the need. Patience is another name for democracy. If only the establishment could have demonstrated this quality we would not be the outcast in a democratic world at the turn of the century.

Read More

Kashmir Issue In The United Nations 1948-58

When Indian military operations on Kashmir in 1948 became a costly and complicated affair, they took this issue to the United Nations. Under Article 35 of the Charter VI, which relates to Pacific settlement of Disputes. India complained that Pakistan was responsible for the disturbances. Pakistan on the other hand questioned the validity of the accession of the state to India, and so challenged the very basis of India claim to forcibly occupy and hold the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan made it clear that the only practical solution of the problem is a fair and impartial plebiscite under the United Nations. However Pakistan demanded the withdrawal of the Indian Army from the State, and the establishment of a neutral administration. If these conditions were created, Pakistan under took to use its moral influence over the tribesmen to with draw from the state.

For the solution of this issue Security Council appointed a United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (U.N.C.I.P). The commission presented two resolutions before the Security Council, which were passed on August 13, 1948 and January 1, 1949. The two resolutions constitute the International agreement that binds India Pakistan and the United Nations on the question of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Both India and Pakistan agreed on the resolutions at that time. These resolutions provided that:

• Cease-fire: the issue of cease-fire order and the demarcation of cease fire line.
• Truce agreement: The demilitarization of the state of Jammu and Kashmir.
• Plebiscite: A free and impartial plebiscite will be conducted by the United Nations to determine the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or to Pakistan.

Due to this agreement, fighting in the State stopped in early January 1949. Thus the first part of the agreement was implemented. There was some advance towards the implementation of the second part, when Pakistan without waiting for a Truce Agreement secured withdrawal of tribesmen. Any further progress was however, blocked when India refused to synchronize the withdrawal of both Indian and Pakistani armies. Since then numerous attempts on the part of the Security Council and its various representative have failed to secure an agreement on the issue of demilitarization.

In March 1949, UNCIP conveyed a meeting of the representatives of the two parties at which, they were invited to present for discussion their proposals for the implementation of the second part of the earlier resolutions. Pakistan compiled and suggested a framework with in which the High Command of the two armies could work out together the plan for the withdrawal program. However India did not submit any plan for joint discussion and agreement.

UNCIP proposed on August 26, 1949 that the two governments to submit to arbitration the difference existing between them concerning all questions regarding the implementation of part two of the resolution of August 13, 1948. The arbitrator was to decide these questions according to equity, his decision to be binding on both parties. This proposal was endorsed in a public appeal addressed to the Prime Ministers of India and Pakistan by Mr. Truman, President of the United States, and Mr. Attlee, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Pakistan agreed to this course of action, but India rejected it.

Mac-Naughton of Canada, who was the president of the Security Council himself tried to examine with the representatives of the two governments, the possibilities of finding a mutually satisfactory basis for dealing with the Kashmir problem. Mac-Naughton formulated proposals for demilitarization designed to make possible, the realization of condition for holding a plebiscite in the state. Pakistan accepted these proposals while India formulated its objections to them.

Next step taken by the United Nation was the appointment of Sir Owen Dixon as United Nations representative to assist in the preparation and to supervise the implementation of the program of demilitarization. He was to make suggestions, which could contribute to the expeditions and enduring solution of the dispute. Dixon proposed that the first step in demilitarization should consist in the with-drawl of Pakistan regular forces, commencing on the named day and after a significant number of days from the named day. Then the other operation on each side of the cease fire line should take place and as far as practicable, concurrently. Pakistan accepted this proposal but India rejected it.

Dr. Frank Graham, who succeeded Sir Owen Dixon as the United Nations representative was a step ahead from Dixon proposals. He suggested on September 7, 1951, that first of all Pakistani troops will withdrawn, then Azad forces will be disarmed and disbanded and then the build of Indian army will with drawn and Maharaja forces will be disarmed and disbanded. The number of armed forces to remain at the end of the period of demilitarization should be decisively reduced to the smallest number possible for final disposal by the plebiscite administrator.

Pakistan not only accepted this program but even suggested that a provision should be made in the agreement that any differences regarding it interpretation should be referred to the United Nations Representative, whose decision should be final. India not only rejected the proposal of Pakistan but also opposed Graham mission proposals. The dead lock brought the matter again to the Security Council in late 1952. The Security Council in its Resolution of December 23, 1952 endorsed Dr.Graham proposals. The Resolution was not acceptable to India, while Pakistan declared itself prepared to go forward on its basis.

In March 1957, the issue was once again discussed in the Security Council after the gape of five years, due to the efforts of the foreign minister of Pakistan. Gunnar Jarring, then president of the Security Council, was requested by the Council, to examine with the two governments any proposals which in his opinion were likely to contribute towards the settlement of the dispute, having regards to the previous resolutions of the Security Council and of the UNCIP.

In pursuance of this Resolution, Jarring proceeded to the subcontinent and arrived in Karachi on March 14, 1957. He visited India and Pakistan between March 14, 1957 and April 11, 1957 and had a number of discussions with the two governments. On April 29, he submitted his report. He failed to report to the Security Council any concrete proposal. He made a number of suggestions which for different reasons, however, did not prove to be mutually acceptable. He reported that both the governments declared that they were bound only by two UNCIP resolutions holding of free and impartial plebiscite to decide the question of accession of the State to India or Pakistan under the United Nations auspices. However, like previous attempts, Dr. Jarring also failed to solve the problem due to the uncooperative attitude of India.

On the failure of the mission of Ambassador Gunnar Jarring, the Security Council, by its resolution of December 2, 1957 again requested the United Nation Representative, Dr. Frank Graham to make any recommendation to the parties for further appropriate action. Dr. Frank Graham once again came with his five proposals. The proposals were:

• A declaration of peace by the two parties
• A re-affirmation of the respect for the integrity of the cease-fire line
• The installment of United Nations forces after the with drawl of Pakistani forces
• Agreement on the interpretation of concrete provisions for a plebiscite.
• A Prime Minister conference between India and Pakistan under the auspices of the United Nation representatives.

Like all the above mentioned resolutions and proposals, this proposal was also agreed by the Pakistan Government while India rejected it. Thus nothing positive came out of these proposals.

Read More

True Muslims are not the Terrorists !

There are some people whose existence on earth is really a blessing of Allah (Sub ha na wa taala). They are a relief for humanity, raising them from the depth of ignorance to the peaks of what humanity is all about. They are, undoubtedly, the rulers of the hearts, the ornament of humanity, the messengers of peace. Despite the fact that they are few in number, they make a great impact.

The next group of people are those who remain busy in their own lives. They are neither productive nor destructive. All that can be said about them is that they live a peaceful life. In other words, they act upon thno pain, no gain rule.

But life is just not that simple. There also exists a group of people who are simply meant for destruction. They are bloodthirsty maniacs. They just cant see other people prosper. They will neither live peacefully themselves nor let others do so. All they want is to hear the screams, spread the terror, loot the people, color the ground with human blood, disregard the womens honor, orphan little children and basically act inhumane.

It is a psychological fact that these cruel and brutal people are puppets in the hands of their past complexes. It is the outcome of their deprivations that make them harsh towards others. They want revenge for their deprivations; and they take it out against society against the common man. This group is the Cult of Satan. Their actions are totally in contrast to human nature. This third group of people is definitely totally against Islam.

To counter this third group, the first group has to come up in order to keep the balance of society, to let life flourish and blossom.

The same is the case with nations. They also fall within these three groups. They can either be peaceful, moderate or aggressive. The majority of countries fall into the third group. Yes its true. Granted the majority of countries do not cause insurrection and panic in society, but unfortunately, a vast majority of countries are silent over the inhuman acts of their neighbors. Not stopping cruelty is the same as doing it yourself, so they the second group also fall amongst the bloody third group; and they are doing their job efficiently. As every successful team is lead by some genius supervisor, the third group is being supervised by three nations, or three Jamarat, USA (Jamara Akbar), India (Jamarah Ausat) & Israel (Jamara Asghar).

Apart from their denial of humanity, these countries share many common features: the inhabitants of all three countries entered their current homelands as invaders and marauders. They have no respect for the borders of other countries. They invaded other lands, perform atrocities on the real inhabitants and enslave them. In America, the White Man invaded America, and deprived the indigenous Red-Indians of their most basic rights. In India, the Aryans invaded the land and inflicted pain on the Dravadians, and in the end, enslaved them. And in the Middle East, the Jews from all over the world invaded Palestine, killing a large number of Palestinians and Arabs. Today the Palestinians are nothing more than the slaves of the Israeli invaders.

So the major problem, or in other words, the inferiority complex that governs the actions of these three nations is Lack of their own Territory. Once again, history is about to repeat itself. Little wonder if there would arise a Quit USA / Israel / India movements against Americans, Jews and Hindus within few years.

These countries are extremely selfish and self-centered in their foreign policy. They are terrorists. They just want to reach out and grab their interests, no matter how. What Americans have done in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Sudan, Iraq, Cuba, is the same as India is doing against its minorities and neighboring countries and Israel against the Arabs and Palestinians. It is a long overwhelming story of bloodshed and tears.

But it is a fact the brutality can only be taken up to a certain limit. As soon as it goes beyond that limit, as soon as the tolerance of the oppressed is shattered, the brutality comes to a screeching halt. The deprived people suddenly come up with the do or die slogan, and sooner or later, they get power in their hands and bring an end to the atrocities of this third group. No I am not building castles in the air, but in fact these are ground realities.

History is to be referenced. What was the French Revolution all about? What was the fate of the Franks in Asia Minor and Jerusalem? Where are the proud descendants of Chengez Khan? Where does the family of Abu Lahab live these days? Simply perished. Completely perished. The third group, the three leading countries in particular, will also soon perish because although they are penetrating the boundaries of other countries, they are being expelled from the hearts of their own people.

For every Pharaoh Allah sends a Moses. For every proud American soldier, Meva Jan Vazir is present, For every Prithvi Raj Chauhan, Shahab-ud-Din Ghauri is there. Girls like Aayat have taken oath to deaths. Many others are emerging like a tidal wave in the ocean of humanity. This will be the doomsday for third group and a day of re-birth for the Fourth group, Insha-Allah!

Read More

US Troops in Pakistan

Sometimes it happens that one becomes so immersed in ones personal life that events taking place around him fade into a hazy background. It was the same with me. For months now so much has been happening in my life that I did not really care what was going on in the political world…here in Pakistan or anywhere else. I guess the apathy set in after I saw what the elections turned out to be. I do not like the new government set up, but being a patriotic and loyal Pakistani, well and anyways, I doubt if Jamali’s dressmaker cares whether I like him or not.

I came into work this morning in a normal frame of mind. I would been listening to good music, checking out my mail, about to get down to the business of earning my pay, when one of my colleagues directed my attention to this series of articles in the 04 January 2003 issue of DAWN.

Whoa!!! US troops operating on Pakistani soil? How dare they? Don’t they respect anyone else’s sovereignty?

Okay. I’ve cooled off now. Lets examine this. Lets try to work this out. Lets see how this happened. When did it start? America is our ally. They are our pals, our buddies. We welcome them an all shapes and agencies. Why have they attacked our soil???

It’s clich to say that it all began on that fateful 9/11. It’s even wrong. In truth, it began a long time ago. It began during the Afghan war (the first one remember when Afghanis were brave Jihadi fighting against the Russian bears and not the harborers of terrorists and terrorist activities caused by Islamic extremism?). It began before then. It began during the 65 war (I won’t mention that they forgot to pay up then if you don’t.) It began even way before that.

We have a long history of cooperation with the US. And like all relationships, it’s developed into a comfortable pattern. One of our neighbors gets a little too big for its britches (that’s another one of those phrases I detest but its so Bush, wouldn’t you say?). America comes rushing to our aid, (or comes rushing to us reminding us of our civilized obligations). We help them out. Then America accuses us of being one of them, and pulls away from meeting its obligations. It’s like the school bully ganging up with his friends against the nerd of the class, forcing him to write his book report, promising to help him if anyone tries to beat him up. Then, once the report has been submitted, punches him in the face on the pretext that they have heard you helped Nor Koree with his report as well. How dare you?.

Of course, America always backs up its punch in the nose with the legality of the congress. Ha! (Sorry, that was a spontaneous snort of disbelieving laughter.)

We allowed Americans to base their troops in our country. We provided them with everything our intelligence services had to offer (and believe me its quite a lot). We went on as if we had never seen the other face of American help.

Wait. I’m talking as if we had a choice. Did we? If we didn’t, that is a very scary thought. We are like Cleopatra was to Caesar.

“US forces reserve the right to pursue enemy attackers across the border to evade retaliation,” Capt Alayne Cramer, a spokeswoman for the US forces at the Bagram Air Base near Kabul, said. (That’s a direct quote from DAWN, by the way). They RESERVE THE RIGHT??????????. I m sorry. But that’s what I feel. It’s not their right TO reserve. And if they do, then Pakistan could just as easily reserve the right to cross over into Indian territory to pursue enemy attackers across the border to evade retaliation. Then Hitler was justified. Then Changez Khan was actually fighting a war against terror.

Ok. So what now? Pakistan replied by saying “There are 10 or 12 people from the FBI searching (for suspects in Pakistan). But for the uniformed army to enter our area for any action, that is not allowed. Without our permission that is not allowed. Ok. Good, strong reply. Exactly what it should have been. But can we back it up? Do we have the strength to back it up. What if America simply says out of our way! and drops a few more bombs on a few more schools to make us step aside. Remember, America has the Bush clan at its helm. And that clan has never been known for its level-headedness. They are southern gents, and remember, it was the same southern gents that fought a civil war to defend the right to keep and torture Africans as slaves.

High-level talks are going on between them and us even right now. And by the time this article reaches you, it may have all blown over (America is a very good blower). The question is, what exactly has Pakistan gotten itself into this time?

Read More

Rights and Duties

We often talk and hear much about fundamental or human rights but we seldom talk or hear about fundamental or human duties. It stands to reason that duties ought to be prior to rights; it is for functioning of fundamental duties that human beings need certain rights to be secured. All ethics is grounded in the urge of love that is the greatest force that brings humanity into synchronization, coherence, coordination and harmony and realizes co-operation and integration with other selves. Love, which moves the sun and the Milky Ways, lifts every soul to the realm of nobility before life comes to an end in this temporal and mundane world. The philosophers who endeavor to lay down ethics on purely logical grounds totally fail to give it a firm foundation. Kant reduced all morality to the categorical imperative of duty but depleted duty of love; for him an action done out of love is not a moral action. He created a chasm between duty and happiness, both of which, according to him, are equally rational demands but they do not coincide on this plane of mundane existence. The fact is that wisdom, in the words of Will Durant, if it were young, would cherish love, nursing it with devotion, deepening it with sacrifice, vitalizing it with parentage, making all things subordinate to it till the end. Even though it consumes us in its service and overwhelms us with tragedy, even though it breaks us down with its passing and weighs us down with separations, let it be first. Jalal-ud-din Rumi has propounded that love is a sovereign remedy for mental, moral and physical diseases. Love starts biologically at the relation of parents to offspring. As life advances to higher stages, it requires the extension of the same sentiment in ever-expanding concentric circles developing into a cosmic consciousness of love and harmony. Bergson did reach this truth at the end of his career, recording his convictions in his book, The Two Sources of Religion and Morality. He said that the creative urge of life, the lan vital which is apprehended, not only by illogical intellect, but by intuition as a love urge, is the source of the universal morality of Prophets and saints which is something quite other than the common morality of mankind, which is nothing but group morality originating in the collective egotism of groups.

Let us see if morality preached by the great Prophet was of this nature. He starts with universalism in his view of existence. The universe is a unity in spite of the infinite variety of phenomena; it is a universe and not a multiverse because its creative source is the Unitary Being. Existence is not governed by a multiplicity of gods at loggerheads with one another, nor is it an eternal battleground of Yazdan and Ahrman. Then follows the optimistic view about all reality that it is sustained and nourished by a beneficent force, which creates, improves and guides. The primeval unity manifests itself in subordinate unities and organic wholes. The whole in its entirety is riftless, in which apparent discords are transcended and harmonized:

He Who created the seven heavens one above another: No want of proportion wilt thou see in the Creation of (God) Most Gracious. So turn thy vision again: seest thou any flaw? Again turn thy vision a second time: (thy) vision will come back to thee dull and discomfited, in a state worn out. (67:3-4)

Humanity is one of the supreme derivative unities. It multiplies itself into individuals, clans, communities and nations with a great diversity of colors, languages and modes of life, but it is essentially the same in all human beings because they have a common origin:

O mankind! Reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, his mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women; reverence God, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for God ever watches over you. (4:1)

The Holy Prophet said: You are all sons of Adam and Adam was created of clay.

Addressing the Arabian tribes, God points to the blessings conferred on them in welding them into one fraternity:

And hold fast, all together, by the rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude God’s favors on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth God make His Signs clear to you: That ye may be guided. (3:103)

It has been praised even by the non-Muslim historians as a remarkable achievement of the Prophet. Lifting the numerous warring tribes out of their immemorial tribalism and uniting them into a solid fraternity is one of the miracles of history. But the Prophet did not mean to consolidate Arab nation. He was to uplift the humanity as a whole. In his last sermon he struck at the root of all racial nationalism by proclaiming that the Arabs as Arabs have no superiority over the non-Arabs, nor can the non-Arabs as such claim any superiority over the Arabs; superiority or inferiority among human beings lies only in their character, all other criteria of judgment are wrong:

O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honored of you in the sight of God is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And God has full knowledge and is well acquainted with all things (49:13)

Islam proceeds further to establish universal peace by proclaiming that the Messengers of God, had proclaimed essential truths about God and Man to all civilized communities; all spiritual religions were essentially true; therefore, the spiritual leaders and founders of all communities are to be acknowledged as Prophets of God. The Muslims are exhorted to deal with all religious communities on this universal presumption. Islam was well aware of the fact that the whole of humanity shall never become one religious community with identical laws and identical modes of conduct and worship. But it is possible to bring humanity round to a belief in universal values, to actualize, which communities and nations may strive in their distinctive ways. As differences of colors and tongues are not basic, so differences of modes in the implementation of universal values and variation of types of worship of One Universal Reality ought not to constitute grounds of segregation and antagonism. The Quran praised the pious followers of other creeds and thereby indicated that the followers of Muhammad (S.A.W.) alone are not the monopolists of truth and salvation:

Of the People of the Book there is a party that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of God all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knoweth well those that do right. (3:113-15)

Human fraternity cannot become real if exploitation of one class by another is not prevented and if the weak and the poor are not assisted by law and social legislation. Islam did not rest contented with merely preaching love and goodwill but tried to stop all the avenues of exploitation. Muhammad (S.A.W.), having consolidated the whole of Arabia, was not crowned as a king. He continued to live in his mud-hut, sweeping his floor, mending his shoes and milking his goats. He claimed no special privileges for himself and his family. Having been made all citizens equal before law, he warned if even his dear daughter Fatima committed theft, she would not escape punishment like an ordinary thief. The main source of exploitation was feudalism in which estates passed undivided to the eldest son according to the law of primogeniture leaving the other heirs and dependents unprovided. The Islamic law of inheritance could not have allowed feudalism to develop because the estate would be divided among all the sons in equal shares, women and daughters also having their prescribed shares. No feudal lords and no serfs.

Islam envisaged a society of free human beings. The Prophet is reported to have said: On the day of Judgment God will turn away His face from the man who had enslaved a free man. The Prophet set an example in never having a slave himself nor allowing his dearest daughter Fatima to have one, in spite of her entreaties fro assistance in the very taxing domestic work of grinding corn and fetching heavy water from distant springs. The other exploited class was that of poor debtors whose blood was sucked by money-lending usurious vampires. All types of usury and economic exploitation in their obvious and disgusted shapes were severely tabooed and were held equivalent to waging war against Allah and His Prophet. Hoarding of cereals and essential commodities in expectation of realizing high prices was made a crime.

There was another oppressed class, the women. In the martial society of Arabian tribes, girls were considered to be a liability, as the birth of a daughter upset the parents. Infanticide of girls was so common and condoned by the mores of this cruel society. Once a man after conversion to Islam related to the Prophet how he took his baby girl who had just started toddling and talking, to the edge of a pit and as he pushed her into it she continued crying: Papa, Papa, Papa. Having heard this woeful tale, the tender-hearted Prophet wept so bitterly and for so long that his beard became wet with tears. The Quran improved mans view about women in relating the legend of Adam and Eve and took away all blame from Eve as she was considered to be induced by Satan. But actually she did not mislead Adam; Adam and Eve were equal partners in the act of transgression. However, after repentance both of them were forgiven. According to Islam, no sin sticks to the soul after sincere repentance and no sin is passed on to the progeny. Sin is a matter of individual responsibility, and repentance and good actions wipe away its evil and adverse effects. Love between the sexes is held by the Quran to be a blessing by God. Human beings can believe in a loving Creator only because they feel the reality of basic fact of existence and rich manifestation of biological and cultural life. The following verses point to this great truth:

And among His Signs is this, that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and compassion between your (hearts): verily in that are Signs for those who reflect. (30:21)

Carlyle, in his essays on Muhammad, Hero As Prophet, refers to this verse as one of the great truths revealed to Muhammad. Quran uses a beautiful metaphor about the mutual relation of husband and wife: They are a garment for you and you are a garment for them (2:187). Let us try to look deeply into the metaphor. All civilization starts with some sort of covering for the body; the fig leaf must develop into some sort of dress even at the start of primitive culture. Besides biological and psychological utility a body covering is the first thing upon which the aesthetic sense prevails through all its development through millenniums dress has served for beauty, benefit and blessedness. The other purpose of dress is to protect the sexual urge from going waste and make it chaste. When the Quran says that men and women are garments or body coverings for each other, they are jointly held to be custodians of social, moral and cultural refinement and in this respect both of them deserve equal credit and credibility and contribute towards a good deal of sophisticated sense and sensibility. Islam makes marriage a sacred agreement and civil contract in which any legitimate conditions, acceptable to both parties and not contrary to morality could be inserted and made legally binding. Given equal opportunities a woman can prove as intellectual as a man. But who can deny that she is constitutionally created for motherhood? Nietzsche said rightly that a woman is essentially a woman and her physiology and psychology revolve round this pivotal fact that constitutes glory of womanhood that makes women assimilate to some extent the attributes of the Absolute Creator. While she is confined to the life of motherhood, man looks for subsistence and becomes protector and defender of wife and children. In making men physically stronger God has granted men an extra endowment, which is burdened with multifarious responsibilities:

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means (4:34)

It was one of the great achievements of Islam to convert a society, which practiced female infanticide and deplored the birth of a baby girl as a calamity in the past, but now began to reckon the nobility and dignity of womanhood, accepted their rights of inheritance and economic independence and treated equally their sons and daughters. Bringing up daughters with love was promised by the Prophet as a guarantee of entering into the bliss of Paradise in the Hereafter. The Prophet said: Whoever brings up two girls with loving kindness till they attain to youth shall stand shoulder to shoulder with me and shall be in he same rank. For illustration he lifted up two joined fingers as a symbol of proximity. This marvelous change of attitude towards girls developed to such an extent that people contested to get the guardianship of orphan girls. Ali, his brother Jafar and Zaid each put forth arguments to take the orphan daughter of the martyred Hamzah. The Prophet was pleased to see how they were competing with one another and decided to entrust the girl to her aunt, saying that the aunt is like a second mother. The Prophet is reported to have said: Whoever has a daughter and keeps her without any indignity and prefers not a boy to her in treatment, shall enter Paradise. How apprehensive and thoughtful was the Prophet about the bad treatment of children in the same family is evidenced by another instance. A father made a gift to one of his sons and came to the Prophet to attest it. He asked the man if he had made similar gifts to other children. When the man answered in the negative, the Prophet said: I shall not be a witness to an unjust act.

Read More