Business Recorder Editorial March 12, 2019

Unresolved Babri mosque dispute

The conflict in Ayodhya, UP, India, over the Rama temple desired by Hindus to be built on the site of the Babri mosque demolished by the currently ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP’s) zealots in 1992 has defied solution since the issue erupted in the early 1950s. Hindu nationalists believe the site is the birthplace of Rama and that the mosque that stood on the site for 460 years was built on the ruins of a temple marking this holy site. Historical and factual realities may not entirely bear out this claim, but the campaign has always had a political aspect to it. Hindu nationalism emerged in the last quarter of the 19^th century under British rule in the aftermath of the crumbling of the Mughal Empire and its last gasp uprising against the British in 1857. It was founded on majoritarian religious identity and had more than its share of atavistic resentment against the thousand years of Muslim rule in India. Soon after Independence in 1947, the Hindutva brigade launched a campaign to build the Rama temple in place of the Babri mosque. The issue was clearly very emotive and threatened communal conflict until a court issued a stay order. That is where the matter rested for many years until the BJP, which had been on the margin of politics till then, decided to launch a Rath Yatra under L K Advani that resulted in the demolition of the Babri mosque by BJP Hindu fanatics in 1992. Communal riots followed the demolition with 2,000 people being killed all over India, most of them Muslims. The issue once again landed in the courts, with the Allahabad High Court in 2010 awarding two-thirds of the site land to Hindus and one-third to Muslims. The verdict was challenged by both sides and has been stalled in the Supreme Court of India (SCI) since. Now the SCI has set up a three-member committee to mediate the issue and find a solution acceptable to all parties to the conflict. The committee is headed by F M I Kalifullah, a retired Muslim SCI judge, and includes a senior lawyer Sriram Panchu, considered an expert in mediation processes, as well as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the Hindu guru and founder of the Art of Living Foundation that boasts millions of followers worldwide. However, Sri Sri’s views on the Ayodhya dispute are controversial, since he is on record as having advocated that the Muslims accept the building of the Rama temple at the site of the demolished Babri mosque to avoid further bloodshed. The committee has eight weeks to complete the mediation process, which the SCI has ordered must be conducted in “utmost confidentiality” given the religious sensitivities surrounding the issue. It has been empowered to induct more members if required.

The rise of Hindu nationalism in India after Independence threatens the country’s secular and democratic Constitution and political culture. It has sought not just the obliteration of the Babri mosque and its replacement by a temple on Rama’s claimed birthplace, it goes further to rewrite history from a Hindutva angle. Muslims in India since Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP came to power in 2014 have been lynched over cow slaughter, Kashmiris of late all over India have been threatened and attacked and many have returned to their State for fear of life and limb (not that they are safe there). Although the SCI has taken this belated initiative to find some consensus on the issue through mediation amongst the stakeholders on both sides, it seems an uphill task given the past positions and conflict that has dogged the polity, especially since 1992. Whether the mediation committee will be able to navigate the shoals and reefs that threaten its path on all sides remains to be seen. But in the interests of India’s own (and until recently universally cherished) principles of secularism and democracy that are the bedrock of mutual peaceful existence amongst its diverse religious and ethnic communities, especially historically conflicted Hindus and Muslims, it must attempt to find a solution that reconciles the contradictory claims and positions of the protagonists of the Ayodhya issue as far as possible to lay to rest a conflict that has the potential to tear Indian society apart on communal lines.

Business Recorder Editorial March 9, 2019

Sycophants and good sense

Prime Minister Imran Khan appears much sobered after the recent crisis on the eastern border, when Pakistan and India were on the brink of war. Now details are emerging of the Indian plan, with Israeli help, to conduct attacks, including the use of missiles, along the international frontier between the two countries as far away from the Line of Control (LoC) as the Bahawalpur salient. When our intelligence agencies became aware of the plan, reportedly Washington was informed and the Trump administration intervened to ask India to abort the plan. That it seems was the prelude to the bombing in Balakot and the aerial dogfight that concluded with two Indian jets being shot down, one falling inside Indian controlled territory and the other’s pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman, captured and then released as a goodwill gesture to de-escalate the crisis. Although artillery duels continue on the LoC since, the people in Pakistan and India as much as the rest of the world heaved a sigh of relief that the conflict did not explode in everyone’s face as it threatened to do for a while. The mature, restrained and wise manner in which Pakistan’s government, particularly Prime Minister Imran Khan, handled the crisis was certainly praiseworthy. What has followed is a campaign on social media and through online petitions garnering thousands of supporters calling for Prime Minister Imran Khan to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for preventing an all-out war and helping to relatively cool matters by offering India an olive branch after demonstrating Pakistan’s defence capability. Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry introduced a resolution in the National Assembly on the same lines as the social media campaign. It goes to the credit of Prime Minister Imran Khan therefore to have responded with humility in rejecting the suggestion and saying he did not deserve the award. Only someone who resolved the Kashmir conflict according to the wishes of the Kashmiri people and paved the way for peace and human development in the Subcontinent would be deserving of such an honour, he tweeted.

Why this episode deserves notice is the culture of sycophancy that more often than not encircles those in power and in many instances leads such rulers to lose sight of reality and be led down disastrous paths. To keep your head when all around you are losing theirs is the hallmark of wise people. Despite much criticism of the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf (PTI) government’s performance in office in the first six months of its stint in power, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s sober and wise demeanour during and after the heat of the Pakistan-India crisis certainly deserves appreciation and praise. However, our sycophantic culture needs to be curbed as a negative phenomenon that can turn lighter heads and produce undesirable trends and outcomes. As to the Nobel Peace Prize, only the Swedish academy can decide who is deserving of it. Prime Minister Imran Khan’s modesty and humility will no doubt go down well here and abroad, and that is perhaps where matters should be left to rest.

Business Recorder Editorial March 8, 2019

The struggle for women’s rights

March 8 is commemorated every year as International Women’s Day. The world over, women congregate to advocate women’s rights and highlight the problems they face in diverse societies. With thousands of years of male domination defining human society since the dawn of civilization, it should not come as a surprise that despite enormous gains that women have made in the realm of representation and rights, they still suffer from the hangover of the legacy bequeathed by history. Adult franchise was not extended to women in even some developed western democracies until late in the day during the 20th century. By now however, there is no country on earth that does not extend this right to women, a principle the early 20^th century Suffragette movement initiated. On the occasion of this year’s International Women’s Day, the International Parliamentary Union that tracks the number of women elected to national legislative bodies in 178 countries reports that nearly a quarter of legislators worldwide are women. In Pakistan too the now on, now off democratic system has put in place reserved seats for women in the legislatures at both federal and provincial levels. However, in the absence of numbers of women elected on general seats, the reserved seats tend to be doled out by male-dominated political party leaderships, and that too to women either related to or close to the significant leaders of that party. This cosy ‘in-house’ representation does not quite measure up to the principle of representation, either quantitatively or qualitatively, but the presence of women in the Assemblies has improved the atmosphere and culture of thrust and parry that is the essence of parliamentary debate. The hope therefore is that both aspects of women’s representation would see improvement with time and awareness of the importance of this issue. The women’s movement in Pakistan has roots in the Independence movement but it really only seared itself into the public imagination when the women of Pakistan took up the struggle against military dictator Ziaul Haq’s benighted efforts to take away even their rights under the law and constitution, e.g. the infamous attempted halving of a woman’s testimony in court compared to a man’s. Issues such as these aroused the ire of Pakistan’s women and persuaded them to protest against General Ziaul Haq’s antediluvian antics in 1983. That peaceful protest was brutally put down by the Zia regime but gave birth in the process to the Women’s Action Forum immediately and other women’s rights groups with the passage of time. March 8 therefore commemorates in Pakistan every year not only the worldwide movement for women’s rights but also the birth of the modern women’s movement in our country in 1983.

While all women’s rights groups geared up for the big day, an interesting broad-based coalition of women’s groups held a press conference in the recently subjected to the anti-encroachment drive in Karachi Empress Market. They announced an Aurat (Women) March to be held on March 8 and articulated their demands. Amongst others, these included: equal (with men) pay for equal work; equal (with men) respect; to be allowed to make their own decisions regarding such issues as marriage, having, or not having, children; raising voice for missing persons (including women) and their families; fighting the injustice of forced conversions of Hindu and Christian girls; justice for minority communities including compensation for untoward incidents and hate crimes; fighting the widespread phenomenon of sexual harassment; strengthening institutions to provide justice through redress mechanisms and implementation of existing laws and the promulgation of fresh legislation where required; given the venue of the press conference, the inevitable demand to provide alternative places/arrangements for those who lost their livelihoods in the unplanned anti-encroachment drive; and last but not least, a call for men to join and show solidarity with women in their just struggle for their rights. Mao Tse Tung changed China after the revolution, but did not ignore women in a feudal society, arguing that “Women hold up half the sky.” In Pakistan today, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our women holding up arguably even more than half the sky and do our bit for gender equality and full and unfettered women’s rights.

Business Recorder Column March 5, 2019

The day of the proxy warrior is over

Rashed Rahman

Thankfully, the turn from belligerency towards relative de-escalation seems to have set in between Pakistan and India. The current crisis in relations between the two South Asian neighbours was triggered by the Pulwama suicide attack that killed 44 Indian Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel. Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) claimed responsibility for the incident. The crisis then escalated via an airstrike claimed by India on an alleged JeM training camp in Balakot in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), just across the line dividing KP from Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). Claims of 300 or more JeM fighters being killed, along with their commander, flew thick and fast on the Indian mainstream and social media. However, no evidence of such deaths was available on the ground. Pakistan felt obliged to retaliate to discourage any further adventurism by India. The shooting down of two Indian jets, one of which fell in Indian territory and the other’s pilot being captured, punctured Indian triumphalism and jingoism. The seal was put on it by the release of the Indian pilot.

Exaggerated claims of a ‘surgical strike 2.0’ and the clamour of hyper nationalism on the Indian media and from Modi and the BJP soon ran into trouble domestically. First and foremost, the opposition, led by the Congress Party, started to question Modi’s claims and interrogate his strategy for dealing with Pakistan and the Kashmir issue. In contrast on our side, there was rare unanimity between the government and the opposition in defence of the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Our media too, despite being subject to ‘official’ control, or perhaps because of it, was relatively restrained. Pakistan’s government, opposition, civil society and the establishment came across as united on essentials if not every detail. This was in sharp contrast to the political and other divisions in India.

The elephant in the room as far as Pakistan’s otherwise moderate, rational and restrained response was why, despite having been banned since 2002, the JeM and Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD, the reincarnation under a new name of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba) found it possible to continue to operate more or less openly in Pakistan and (presumably) outside. The JeM and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba were blamed for the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament that almost triggered a war between Pakistan and India. The JeM stands accused of an assassination attempt against then president Pervez Musharraf in 2003. The Lashkar-e-Tayyaba or JuD stands accused of responsibility for the Mumbai attack of 2008. When Pakistan pleads its case that it is no longer a supporter of proxy war in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) or indeed inside India and that this is all in the past, the world looks askance at the presence of groups like JeM, JuD, the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani Network inside Pakistan.

Now reports reveal that the government (not without the blessings of the creator of such proxy warrior groups – the establishment) has decided to carry out a decisive crackdown on groups such as JeM and JuD. This turn has been prompted by at least three factors. One, the cost-benefit of allowing if not supporting these groups has now become negative if the Pulwama incident and subsequent events are taken into account. Two, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is poised to relegate Pakistan to its black list of states not doing enough against money laundering for terrorist purposes unless Pakistan pulls up its socks in this respect. The fresh bans on JeM, the JuD and its charity wing Falah-i-Insaniat and the takeover by the government of the JeM’s headquarters in a mosque and attached madrasa in Bahawalpur can be traced to the authorities waking up to the risk. Three, Pakistan’s Achilles heel is its struggling economy. The establishment’s own budget is threatened by the economic drag. Hence a ‘peace’ offensive was launched towards India in the shape of the Kartarpur Corridor to improve Pakistan’s standing as peaceful and open to investment, foreign and domestic, to boost its flagging growth rate. It is important to note that in all the three instances of attacks quoted above – the Indian parliament 2001, the assassination attempt on Musharraf in 2003, and the Mumbai attack in 2008 – the common thread appears to be the role of ‘spoilers’ to pre-empt and prevent any move towards normalisation and peace between Pakistan and India. The ‘spoilers’ such as JeM and JuD fear any such development would negate their ‘usefulness’ and drive them out of business. In this respect, our proxies are following the same inevitable trajectory of all proxies to eventually slip off their master’s leash. The interests of the state of Pakistan, especially its critical need for economic revival in a globalised world, are no longer compatible (if they ever were) with the interests of these rogue proxies. It is therefore imperative for Pakistan to get rid of this Frankenstein’s monster.

This ‘purge’ of proxy warriors created, nurtured and mollycoddled over the years by our establishment cannot be confined to JeM and JuD. Pakistan by now finds itself embroiled in three proxy wars with all its neighbours except China. The oldest of course is Afghanistan, where the Americans have finally tired of an unwinnable war due in no small measure to Pakistan providing sanctuaries and safe havens to the Afghan Taliban. The second is in IHK and against India, in which ‘spoilers’ so far have held the upper hand at crucial moments of impending or hoped for breakthroughs in relations between Pakistan and India. The third, so far incipient proxy war is against Iran. Jaish-e-Adl, the reincarnation of Jundullah after its leader Reqi was taken off an international flight in Iranian airspace and subsequently executed in 2010, is operating from bases on the Pakistan-Iran border in Balochistan. It is a fundamentalist Sunni group waging attacks on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Sistan-Balochistan province of Iran. We have so far been long on promises and woefully short on action to quell this group that is part of a US-Saudi Arabia plan to destabilise the Iranian regime by stoking rebellion amongst its non-Shia minorities, including the Baloch, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens, Azerbaijanis et al.

The shelf life of proxy warriors is over. Even tolerating their existence on our soil can only reap negative returns for Pakistan’s status as a responsible, nuclear-armed state. And the fallout for our beleaguered economy, if nothing else, should give pause for thought, followed by credible moves to uproot the proxy phenomenon for good.

As for India, the wisdom holds that it must embrace, like Pakistan, a historic compromise in settling matters with the Kashmiri people through negotiations, not extreme repression, paving the path thereby to a negotiated settlement of the Kashmir issue with Pakistan. It may be impossible for any of the three parties to the dispute to get all they want, but even without a change in boundaries, an internal and external solution to Kashmir will immeasurably advance the cause of peace in South Asia.

rashed.rahman1@gmail.com

rashed-rahman.blogspot.com

Business Recorder Editorial March 5, 2019

Shooting oneself in the foot

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi announced in the joint session of parliament on March 1, 2019 that he had decided not to attend the foreign ministers meeting at the 46^th session of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) after a resolution was passed in this regard to protest the participation of Indian Minister for External Affairs Sushma Swaraj in the event as a guest of honour. Although Shah Mahmood Qureshi said a Foreign Office delegation would participate in the event in Abu Dhabi to oppose any attempt to give India observer’s status at the OIC, this cannot be considered adequate. The joint sitting may have been unanimous on the issue, with only Co-Chairperson Pakistan People’s Party Asif Zardari registering a dissenting note to the effect that the Foreign Minister should have attended to take advantage of the opportunity to expose India’s recent belligerence and violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and place Pakistan’s objection to the honour bestowed on Sushma Swaraj, he too ultimately acquiesced in the sense of the house. Shah Mahmood Qureshi had written two letters to the UAE Foreign Minister protesting the invitation to Sushma Swaraj without consultations with OIC members and pointing out India had carried out an attack on a founding member of the OIC with which it had an unresolved conflict over Kashmir. However, the UAE regretted its inability to retract an invitation sent before the Pulwama incident that triggered the present tensions between Pakistan and India. Although the joint sitting of parliament welcomed the strong condemnation by the OIC Contact Group on Jammu and Kashmir over the oppression of and atrocities against the Kashmiri people by the Indian forces in Indian Held Kashmir (IHK) and the violations on the Line of Control (LoC), it did not rise above shortsighted reactive sentiment. Apprehensions were voiced in the joint session that the OIC may be contemplating going further and offering India permanent membership.

The invitation to Sushma Swaraj is a reflection of the changing dynamics and alignments in the region. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are eying the enormous Indian market and may in the process be trying to wean India away from their regional rival Iran. Israeli support to India through provision of the latest weaponry is also something to be noted. Had Pakistan’s Foreign Minister taken advantage of his presence at the OIC moot, he could have and indeed should have registered his protest at the Indian foreign minister being honoured in this manner without following proper consultative procedure and while ignoring the contentious position of India vis-à-vis Pakistan and its policies in IHK. The boycott by Shah Mahmood Qureshi left the field open to Sushma Swaraj, who took advantage of the opportunity to present a rosy picture of her country’s diversity and tolerance of different religious groups, whereas the situation on the ground is her Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government’s pursuing its Hindutva agenda at the cost of all non-Hindu religious communities, especially Muslims. As it is, the refutation of Sushma Swaraj’s false picture went abegging. The boycott by our foreign minister therefore could rightly be described as incongruous and a missed opportunity to plead Pakistan’s case. States function according to their interests, and it is self-delusion to think that a common religion can always trump these interests. It needs only to be pointed out that there is disquiet about Saudi Arabia and the UAE creeping towards a recognition of Israel, a step that would mark the abandonment of the Palestinian cause. Voices have been heard recently here too, the most prominent being ex-dictator Pervez Musharraf arguing for recognition of the Zionist entity to prevent Indian-Israeli growing ties, which also position New Delhi favourably in Washington. While the idea draws severe criticism from a wide array of opinion in Pakistan because of an emotional attachment to the Palestinians’ cause and suffering, pragmatists, few though they may be, argue for a review of our foreign policy to take account of the changing dynamic of geopolitics regionally and globally lest Pakistan finds itself left behind by the dizzying pace of change, particularly vis-à-vis Muslim countries’ edging closer to India and Israel.