Islam and the Age of Globalization

here is the guardian article from the same era

http://www.newsunlimited.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,137433,00.html

Diplomat accused over film funds

Appointment of Cambridge academic as high commissioner risks backfiring spectacularly as row erupts over Jinnah script and money

Seumas Milne
Thursday February 17, 2000

When Akbar Ahmed was chosen to be Pakistan`s high commissioner in London by the country`s new military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, after last October`s coup, the appointment seemed to be a masterstroke by a regime struggling to avoid international isolation.
Here was an unexpectedly respectable frontman for the generals, a Cambridge academic acclaimed for his success in presenting a liberal face of Islam to the west, who might win understanding for the coup leaders` proclaimed mission to root out corruption in Asia`s new nuclear power.

Three months later, the posting risks backfiring in spectacular fashion as Mr Ahmed faces allegations of wrongful use of funds from a feature film he sponsored about Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the country`s founder, which stars the actor Christopher Lee in the lead role.

He also finds himself at the centre of a bitter dispute over whether he - or the Indian-born, non-Muslim former Channel 4 commissioning editor Farrukh Dhondy - co-wrote the screenplay. Mr Ahmed, who conceived the film as Pakistan`s answer to Richard Attenborough`s Gandhi and acted as executive producer, is accused by the film`s British-based producer, director and co-writer, Jamil Dehlavi, of unjustifiably paying himself more than £50,000 for the script and diverting £70,000 to an offshore bank account to pay his son and son-in-law for jobs they did not carry out.

Mr Dehlavi, who is also suing the high commissioner over the film`s credits and unpaid debts, says Mr Ahmed ``did not write a word`` of the screenplay, and insists his co-author was Mr Dhondy.

Mr Dhondy has confirmed his role, which he says he was asked to keep secret. He was hired by Mr Ahmed, who asked for some minor amendments to parts of the script which he decided were ``not Islamic enough``, he says, and was paid £12,000 for his work.

Mr Ahmed rejects the allegations - though he accepts Mr Dhondy was involved in the screenplay - and insists he has earned nothing from his years of involvement in the £3m Jinnah project.

He says he is preparing to go to the fraud squad with counter-claims about Mr Dehlavi`s handling of the film`s accounts.

The high commissioner says the accusations against him by Mr Dehlavi and Mr Dhondy are part of a campaign by the ``Indian lobby`` to discredit him and, by extension, the new military regime.

He claims credit for the film`s philosophy and says his collaboration in the script was an essential part of the process.

The eruption of controversy around the film, which is expected to be released in Pakistan in the spring but has yet to be sold in the west, follows a series of bitter disputes during shooting, when it was wrongly alleged at one point that Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, was the real scriptwriter.

Jinnah is a revered figure in Pakistan and his portrayal by an actor best known for his role as a Dracula caused outrage in some quarters. The alarmed Pakistani government eventually withdrew £1m from the film.

During its production, Mr Ahmed let it be known that he would take no more than one rupee for his involvement - a claim witnessed by several of those involved in the production. The declaration was in emulation of Jinnah, who took a salary of only one rupee as Pakistan`s first president.

Documents seen by the Guardian confirm that Mr Ahmed was paid £51,500 by QPL, the company he set up to oversee the project, as a ``writer`s fee``.

They also show that £35,000 was paid through the film production company to Mr Ahmed`s son, Babar, as co-producer, and another £35,000 to his son-in-law, Arsallah Khan Hoti, as associate producer, into a private family bank account in Jersey in the name of his wife, Zeenat Ahmed, who acted as an unpaid company secretary for QPL.

Mr Ahmed - an author of books and a television series on Islam and an Iqbal fellow, sponsored by the Pakistan government, at Selwyn college, Cambridge, until his recent high commission appointment - rejects all accusations of wrongdoing, as does his wife. They say that they have had to sell jewellery and land to keep the film afloat.

The high commissioner says that, although he paid tax on his £51,500 writer`s fee, he has ploughed the money back into the film, and his executive producer`s fee of £70,000 has been deferred.

He has, he says, taken nothing for his role as head of the project, but like Jinnah, is entitled to his ``professional fees``. Future profits will, his spokesman now says, go to an ``educational trust``.

Mr Ahmed rejects the claim that he was not co-writer of the script and says his son and son-in-law were fairly paid for work for the film, notably helping to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds from their family.

Their fees have gone back into the project and will entitle them to a share of any profits. All Pakistani legal regulations have, he says, been followed over the Jersey account.

Mr Dehlavi denies that Mr Ahmed`s son or son-in-law played any role in the production. Two other men who worked on the film, production accountant Peter Winstanley and production supervisor Andrew Wood, also insist that neither of the men was to their knowledge involved in any way.

Re: # 177
So the old ghosts are out once again to haunt our `Professor of Islam`......
`accused by Jamil Dehlavi, Jinnah`s producer, director and co-writer, of paying himself £50,000 ($95,000) for the script which Farrukh Dhondi wrote, and diverting £70,000 ($133,000) to an offshore account to pay his son and son-in-law for jobs they did not carry out`

His son bought a flat a London`s posh Regent`s Park (next to the famous Mosque, where else), and his son-in-law bought a nice little hostel in Earls Court area.

None of them had any gainful employment then.

But every little bit helps.

Hope the current sponsers of the great trip of 3 kids plus whole family of ye olde fake Professor of Islam are doing their audits right now.

Any comments Bina ji?

Re: # 189

All of what`s been said here is stuff I`ve heard about before.

None of it is anything I care to debate.

I was around during the time of the Jinnah movie and I remember the scandals well.

The journalist who wanted a part in the movie was Imran Aslam, not Omar Qureshi.

At least get your facts straight before you post them!

I also read the script while it was being filmed.

I know what happened with the movie after it was sold to a company that was meant to distribute it in the united states, but didn`t.

I repeat that Professor Akbar Ahmed`s integrity and honesty is non-negotiable for me.

The rest of you may make your own judgments.

But did any of you actually go to the Beliefnet link I posted in my first reply and read anything about this project?

Or are you satisfied wtih recycling old material and debating Jinnah - as you do on every board?

The intellectual laziness of Chowk interactors continues to astound me.

Re: # 191
Binaji,Binaji....Dheeraj maharajkumari, dheeraj
You say `none of this (money bit) I care to debate`...coz it is true innit?
Of course you cant debate or defend someone paying himself and his kith and kin out of a compaNY ACCOUNTS
yes IT WAS jinnah project ltd A COMPANY INTO WHICH INVESTORS BOUGHT SHARES TRUSTING HIM , they didnt give donations, those investors
But they got NOTHING, Zilch, Nishta, ZEro, while he and his family HAD TO HELP THEMSELVES TO LARGE SIX FIGURE SUMS, so no wonder the whole Pakistani upper class is cross with this clan, Karachiites mostly who invested
Binaji
He HAD TO PAY HIMSELF AND HIS LAZY SON AND SON IN LAW WHO DID NOTHING IN THE PROJECT while drawing full benefits of a SENIOR CIVIL SERVANT ON A SABATICAL LEAVE FOR 12 WHOLE YEARS, A RECORD IN civil service
And then you in your other pompous sounding namesake on chowk bemoan his `shabby treatment`?
SHABBY?
All the foreign office which u contemptuosly call lazy was to do is to report how he was helping himself as ambassador to the embassay funds to pay himself his old rejected `expenses` and treatment` bills, including plastic surgery,YES PLASTIC SURGURY BILL for himself, his sons NOSE JOB!! and what more to look more PR worthy!
We foreign office or other civil servants have nothing against outsiders taking plumb posts.

Now Maliha Lodhi is ambassador in the same post, her boozing/boyfriends/dubious PHD on life of BHUTTO is common knowledge, but my--she works hard at her job
AND LOOK AT HER NOSE, SHE HASNT HAD A NOSE JOB DONE, though she may benefit, SHE DOESNT HAVE HER FINGERS IN THE TILL OF THE EMBASSY
And just to check, are nt you his sons motherinlaw or some thing, well someone told me, please forgive me if I am wrong

Anything you wanna contradict, please

The next thing you ll have is a sledgehammer of the addresses of his properties in son/daughter/son-in-laws name in UK, acquired at the time funds went out of Jinnah kitty

And we hear how he went `nearly bankrupt` selling family jewels to complete Jinnah film!

Or consider yourself CHECK MATE

Re: # 189
the good olde professor has plenty of these tucked into his closet.....for example the question which needs to be answered is ``how did he get the Iqbal Chair in Cambridge? Who funded this chair? (my sources told me long time back that the money came from, the GoP and that there were a lot of promisory notes attached to this)?`` There is nothing in the grand olde man`s CV to suggest scholarly activities till 1988 (when he got the Iqbal Chair) other than being a ``political Agent in Pakistan`s NWFP``.

Life`s interesting. I read this article and sort of thought nothing much of it - till the authroress interacted citing the Olde Profesor`s integrity as being one which is untouchable (interact #10) which sort of intrigued me.

Apologies to Nasah and other readers for the digressions....

Re: # 177
dear nameless -- did you have to spoil this article for everybody by declaring the distinguished professor a counterfeit coin -- writing checks to himself of 50,000 pounds and then 70,000 pounds for his son-in-law -- now that is called a truly self-employed professor -- hiding under his better-half`s skirt to avoid the creditors....

Islam revival project`s financiers plus those three kids should be a lttle wary of the tourist professor after what the gentleman scholar did to Farrukh and Jamil on Jinnah project.

One only hopes the good professor is not `self-employed` again....

there goes all that good work on the revival of Islam -- as Ghalib would say about Professor Ahmed`s work: jiski bunyad hee meiN lug guee deemuk -- aisi building ka keya karay koee....

still I would rather believe Bina than Irfan Hussain.....

#161 jahangasht

Ama yaar, don`t take it so hard. The point of #127 was that the ole Prof. Ahmed looks like a faker to me. His words do not match his deeds. On Oprah he shows up (THREE times) to tout the virtures of peace - then in Kashmir, he roots for the ISI-paid killers. And like all such creatures - he is happy that somebody ELSE is getting killed while he grabs the limelight and the grants!

Chitt bhee meri, putt bhee meri

Just my opinion, of course!

Now, I wonder why you are so miffed. Did the Prof. promise ya a fellowship, or something?

Re: # 175the man has been caught with his pants down many a time. Indeed there were a series of articles in the DAWn and the magazines associated with it a few years back...here is one

from 2000, April

All in the family


By Irfan Husain

IS NOTHING sacred? Must just about everything and everybody in Pakistan be tainted by sleaze? Can`t we even make a film about Jinnah, the founder of the country, without accusations and counter-accusations?

The production itself was mired in controversy as everything from the original surreal script to the choice of Christopher Lee to play the Quaid was questioned in the press. In the face of this raging debate, the government decided to withdraw its financial support. To his credit, Akbar S. Ahmad, the moving spirit behind the project, persevered and finally prevailed. Last year, the film was completed and has since been shown to a few select audiences. Not being part of this august company, I will withhold critical comment until have seen the movie; however, audience response has been somewhat mixed.

Although the film is due to be finally launched in Pakistan later this month, it has yet to be accepted by a major distributor abroad. Meanwhile, the Guardian of London ran a major story last month carrying serious allegations of financial impropriety by those responsible for raising funds for the project and authorizing expenditure. Apparently, Jamil Dehalvi, the director and producer of the film, has sued Akbar S. Ahmad and has made a a number of serious allegations in articles he has written for various Pakistani publications.

For me, the most shocking charge was that not only did Akbar Ahmad charge 50,000 pounds for himself as ``writing fees,`` he also doled out 70,000 pounds to his son and his son-in-law. On top of this, his wife is the managing director of the Quaid Project. None of these accusations have been denied by any member of the family. Akbar Ahmad`s money went into an offshore account which is pretty fishy in itself.

All this would have been par for the course in a country that has witnessed a depressing amount of corruption at the very highest levels. But what makes it all so much worse is that after the movie was made, this government appointed Akbar Ahmad our high commissioner to the United Kingdom. Initially this was perceived as a good move as he was generally well regarded in academic circles in Britain because of his TV series on Islam as well as his anthropological studies (hence the nickname ``anthro-panthro`` bestowed on him by columnist Khalid Hasan).

Now, however, this government is in the highly embarrassing position of having its representative to the Court of St. James`s dragged through British courts on charges of sleaze, Presumably, members of his family will also be called upon to testify. It goes without saying that, given the nature of the case, the media will have a field day.

Apart from the unsavoury financial details that have surfaced, Akbar Ahmad`s intellectual integrity has also been questioned as it has been alleged by Dehlavi that although the former did not contribute to the script, he has claimed equal credit for it with the director. In actual fact, it appears that Farooq Dhondi was the principal scriptwriter, and he agreed to stay in the background. However, now that the matter has become public, Dhondi has confirmed his role in the film.

Quite apart from the legal, artistic and intellectual questions raised by the Guardian article and the subsequent publicity, the most pressing issue to my mind is the morality involved in paying large sums to close relatives who have no qualifications for the work they have been paid for. How can somebody with a lifetime of government service behind him be unaware that such rank nepotism is unacceptable even in Pakistan? and since most of the money for the film was raised abroad, surely our high commissioner should have maintained an even higher standard of probity.

In her somewhat disjointed and confusing defence published in the monthly Herald, Mrs Zeenat Akbar Ahmad has stated that the money received by her husband was put back into the project. This is good to know, but some documentary evidence would have been more convincing. She justifies the payments made to her son and son-in-law as being in the interest of the project. She does not, however, tell us their qualifications for this work. Dehlavi is categorical in dismissing their contribution to his film.

Nepotism is endemic in our part of the world, and people think nothing of giving jobs, junkets and contracts to close relatives when they are in positions of authority without seeing anything wrong with this practice. One would have expected that as a scholar, serving civil servant (now a diplomat) and somebody with much exposure abroad, Akbar Ahmad would have refrained from doing the desi thing of putting his whole family on the project payroll. Unfortunately, the temptation of furthering family interests at the expense of the film seemed to have proved too powerful to resist, and the project is in danger of entering the long and dishonourable list of scams made in Pakistan.

This is a pity because I am sure Akbar ahmad had entirely honourable intentions when he started off to make the film. Virtually from the time Attenborough`s film ``Gandhi`` made such an impact on the world nearly 20 years ago, he has been dreaming of producing a cinematic response based on Mr Jinnah`s life and struggle. To have achieved his goal and then get bogged down in such a sleazy saga is as sad as it is unnecessary.

What makes this scandal specially reprehensible is that the subject of the film was a man of such absolute and towering integrity. Not even his worst enemy has ever accused him of fiscal impropriety, and if he was seen as uncompromising, it was because there were no skeletons in his closet. For his name to be associated with a project that has become the centre of controversy, even posthumously, is a national disgrace.

Both Akbar Ahmad and his wife have tried to brush off these accusations as being part of a plot concocted by the ``Indian lobby`` to discredit him and the film. I`m afraid this is not good enough a defence. Surely this lobby did not make him involve his immediate family in the project and pay themselves large amounts of money. The fact that the foreign office has recently written him a strong letter pointing out various financial improprieties alleged to have been committed by him would seem to indicate that where there is smoke, there is a fire. Incidentally, the press reports carrying excepts of this letter have not been denied or contradicted.

No Pakistani could derive any pleasure at the unfolding of this saga, but it is in the nation`s best interest for the government to intervene before it turns into an even bigger international scandal.

Netizen #116 {``dude, these people invented it!! they have been running this joint for more than 1000 years. its been only mere 300 years that your family joined the club?
so relax and leave the driving to someone else and enjoy the ride.``}

Netizen Bhai,
Thank you for reminding me of the futility of my efforts to reform Muslim thinking. You have a good point and I am close to getting off this rundown bus. While my ancestry does play an important role in my thoughts, it also gives me the strength to struggle on, to swim against the tide, and to try to rescue people from this self-destructive aberration of an otherwise decent religion. The reason that my grandfather didn`t return to Jaipur after becoming disappointed with Paki Punjoo chauvinism in Pakistan, was his Rajput tendency to be stubborn against odds and not admit to failure. He did not want to face his father and other relatives and admit that he was wrong about Pakistan. Instead, he chose to go to Turkey for a brand new beginning. I am glad that he did because I wouldn`t be here today if he returned to Jaipur.

I am perplexed by the universal perception of Islam and Muslims as a giant, violent, self-immersed, and threatening monolith. In reality, we Muslims are more akin to a loose association of, say dark-haired people - nothing to write home about and certainly nothing to get all agitated about. Yes, we care about each other about as much as dark-haired people care for similarly adorned creatures. Our morals, intelligence, and viewpoints are about as varied as the texture of the dark hair among our members. While we are happy and proud of our hair (some of us even think that dark hair is the best), we do not ordinarily think any less of blonds or redheads. Once exception is that we sometimes tend to look down on people with no hair - that is our own biggest fear and we turn violent at the slightest threat of baldness. We are more or less like other regular people, except that a very small minority prefers to wear their pubic ones externally and makes an ass out of the whole association. Thanks.

#170, Tahmed3, {``As such, your accusations and epithets mean nothing to me. ``}

Looks like you have answers to every burning issue - just like you have opinionated and selective ``compassion`` about human suffering. Your protestations and hypocrisy mean nothiing to me either. May the Indian offense have a field day with you playing left field. :) Have a nice day.

Salim: You obviously have too much time on your hands, and too little by way of a life outside chowk. So you spend it all insulting strangers on the internet. As such, your accusations and epithets mean nothing to me.

When you have something slightly intelligent to say (as opposed to writing personal insults), then we can talk. Till then, cheerio. :-)

hamidm2 #117 d{``it may be true except for the fact that a significant majority (70-80%) of muslims refuses to condemn the actions of this murderous minority ............. why ? ``}

Hamid Sahib,
That is the question and the real crux of the problem. Let`s fix that by changing the attitudes of this significant majority. They are like sheep and follow the propaganda de jour - that`s how they supported Pakistan against their own personal interests.

malik99 #119 {``Salim sahib, the actions of a loud, violent, committed, brainwashed, powerful evangelist cult which is causing so much suffering in the world can only be explained via economic interests, such as oil and Israel. Are they invading other countries simply to defend themselves against muslims? If yes, then why did the evangelists backed government attack a secular Iraq which meant no harm to anyone? ``}


Malik Sahib,
Before we get into a discussion of the 4,000 Jews, let`s stop blaming others for our own problems. Also, let`s not defend the senseless, self-defeating, and stupid actions of our violent minority just because Dubya does this or that. Is Christians killed 10 babies and Muslims killed only 5, it doesn`t make Islam twice as good as Christianity.

Saddam Hussein came from Muslim people. Muslim people, including Saudi Arabia, Palestinians, Jordan, and to a degree Pakistan, backed Saddam in his invasion of Muslim (albeit Shia) Iran. The Tally Ban were Muslim people who killed and tortutred mainly Muslim victims. The ``freedom`` fighting Jihadi murderers in Kashmir end up killing Muslim Kashmiris, while they enjoy their murderous spree against Hindu and Sikh civilians. The current ``sectarian`` killings in Iraq are the result of Muslim Sunni and Muslim Shia infighting. The Wahabbis have always killed Muslims and have never participated in any war against others. So, the problems of violence, cruelty, dictatorships, mass killings, suicide bombings, and backwardness are all perpetrated by Muslims against other Muslims - homegrown, home fed, and home delivered. Let`s deal with real issues instead of looking for 4,000 Jews.

Tahmed3 #151 {``VRV : Your leaders have been predicting the collapse of Pakistan since 1947. Seems like you need a new Horoscope Man after 50 years of bad predictions. :-) ``}

And you are trying your best to make their leaders` prediction come true. When will you Paki Punjus learn that there are other people in this country?

Re: # 167

Salimbhai,

Your presence gives us strength.

Here is one bunder roaming and that was a katua. Can u see that?

Tahmed2 #157 {``Fortunately, Pakistan`s survival does not depend on Indian wishes.``}

Unfortunately, Pakistan`s survival DOES depend on the selfish attitude and evil wishes of Paki Punjus like you. Your myopia and chauvinism lost East Pakistan, your greed is turning off the other provinces, and your despotism and cruelty is bound to result in catastrophe. Your own personal passion against the repatriation of Pakis stranded in BD betrays your hypocrisy and exposes your lack of Muslim credentials and concern for ALL Pakis and not just Paki Punjus. I wish there were more Indians reminding us of what we need to fix and fewer Pakis like you pretending that there is nothing wrong, waving the green and white banner, all the while eating away at the foundation of Pakistan like termites residing in Putahar. May Allah protect us from evil munafiqs like you.