What Constitutes Blasphemy?

Re: Sadna #597 and Eklavya #548

I think that your prognosis may sadly come true, especially, if one were to lend any credence to the editorial in today`s DAWN:

``We also know how a major religious party, protesting against the Sharif family`s exile, organized a rally in Lahore in defiance of the law. Yet, when it comes to the mainstream political parties, they are not permitted to hold rallies. The government`s lack of evenhandedness has, thus, served to embolden the religious parties and their armed wings to defy the law and use intimidating tactics against their opponents.

Against this reality, while welcoming the interior minister`s move, one doubts if the government has the will and the institutional strength to take action against a jihadi outfit displaying arms in public or collecting donations in violation of the ban. The fact is that the religious parties have discovered their strength. In the given context, since the two leading mainstream political parties are on its wrong side, the military-led government would seem in no position to antagonize the religious parties. To prove the point, on quite a few occasions in the past, it has looked the other way while religious parties and their militant wings have tended to act as a parallel authority issuing edicts and ultimatums. They have also often given an impression as if they were pursuing a foreign policy agenda of their own and dealing with foreign governments, friends and foes, on their own terms.

All this had had a negative impact on Pakistan`s political and social scene. Given their religious power, backed now by trained armed activists, the religious parties often resort to violence and take the law into their own hands - as seen in the burning of the offices of The Frontier Postrecently. At a social level, this has led to a sense of insecurity, particularly among the minority communities and women. In fact, the entire national scene now seems to be coming under the lengthening shadow of Taliban-like elements. One only hopes the government is aware of the implications of all this and has the courage, vision and ability to take firm and timely steps to check the country`s slide into utter chaos as a result of this and other disturbing developments.``

Re: Umairr #592

``Do you think India should agree to allow human rights organizations like AI, and the international media, into Kashmir to prove the correctness of your argument? Why do you think India disallows these organizations entrance into Indian Kashmir, when they could so easily expose the activities that you accuse Pakistan of?...

I would be interested in reading your reply. Since you have made an accusation, I am hoping you would justify it``

First of all, Umairr, I have never ducked your questions. Tell me where I did (are you sure that you put the question to me specifically? Anyway, that is a minor point). I remember that you once asked me eleven (11) questions -- and I answered them all. (I am referring to `The Soft Option` article by Farzana Versey in Civic Center in which you had asked questions in post #352, and I had responded with post #403)

I will gladly answer the questions that you have put to me directly, letting Eklavya answer the ones that are meant for him. So here goes...

I am all for human rights, as I am for free elections, democracy, civil rights, free press, open debate, and the lot. Ultimately, adherence to those principles is what civilizes society. Should India be ashamed of the loss of innocent life in Kashmir? Sure, without question. (As should Pakistan and some of the militant Kashmiris -- there is a lot of blame to go around here, but that is not the point that I will make.). I am genuinely pained by the daily killing that goes on in Kashmir. To be sure, many of the policemen being killed are local Kashmiri Muslims belonging to the State and city police forces, or innocent civilian bystanders. However, I hope that you understand that civil rights principles are easy to practice during peace time, and not during war, and that no single one of these principles can be taken to the absolute extreme without regard to the others or to overall public welfare. Free speech is not really `free` if it conflicts with public safety (one cannot yell `fire` in a crowded theatre). If a state lacks the tools to protect `soft` targets such as civilians, even as rebels continue to attack them because it is part of their overall strategy to create schisms, should a state sit by quietly? If a person violates human rights even as he demands his own, is hypocrisy. So is demanding self-determination while SIMULTANEOUSLY issuing edicts to kill voters. Even Abraham Lincoln (by far the greatest of all US Presidents precisely because he faced such difficult choices) suspended civil rights during the American Civil War, and many Southern legislators who had voted to secede were forced to `recast` their vote and sign a declaration that they were not doing so under duress! What is the point I am making? -- it is that war changes the circumstances. Under `normal peacetime` circumstances, I think that AI should be allowed into Kashmir or any other Indian state. Currently, there is a proxy war going on in Kashmir today in which the ISI and Pakistan based organizations are deeply involved. You had alluded that I had made an `accusation` without elaborating. Let me try to defend the accusation. Presumably, you meant that I had (wrongly) accused Pakistan-based organizations of waging jehad by means of killings, shootings, bombings, etc in India. This is quite easy to prove, and one does not even need to refer to AI. Proof of this are the almost daily public claims made by Lahore-based organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toyba for attacks in Kashmir and India (be it the PMOs office, Red Fort in Delhi, or others in Kashmir). Or else, you could read this Time magazine story at http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/2001/0205/kashmir_sb1.html Do we still have a disagreement over my assertion regarding material Pakistani support that goes beyond the definition of ‘political, moral and diplomatic’? I could go on and on, but I hope that that suffices.

Therefore, the first two reasons why human-rights alone cannot be the only basis for resolving this imbroglio is because (i) there is a state of proxy-war in Kashmir, and (ii) there are many other incongruous dimensions to the situation there that themselves come in the way (e.g. opposing elections, while clamoring self-determination, etc.). I say this, even as I am appalled at the degeneration of civic life in Kashmir, and the routine violations of human rights there (even if you read Indian media). Kashmir, today, is not a place where delicate arguments of human rights can be made freely. The State Assembly has been bombed several times while in session. That, presumably, is where such a debate should be conducted.

The third reason why I think that India (as all are most developing countries) is opposed to AI (note: I personally do not agree with this one) is because India has long been suspicious of foreign intervention in domestic affairs, as even a cursory glance at the history of India shows. I personally think that this reasoning is perhaps as specious as putting up trade barriers – in the end it hurts the supposed beneficiaries.

Hopefully, I have answered your questions. Now will you answer mine?

I will refer you to Brian Cloughley’s editorial in today’s The News, in which he writes “It is important we realise that most non-Kashmiri fighters do not want peace or any sort of concord in Kashmir or anywhere else. They know the Indian army will never withdraw its presence, and that it is futile and absurd to propose such action; they know well there is no hope of peace without extensive negotiations, yet they place every obstacle in the way of conducting talks; and they know that Kashmiris desperately want peace, yet maintain their assaults on innocent people, thus perpetuating fear and instability. They have their own agenda -- and it is not to achieve tranquility in Kashmir. It is, simply, to impose a ferocious theocracy on Kashmiris, who would have even less say in their own affairs than at present obtains if the zealots were to succeed.” This, situation, I might add has been true for most of the past decade. Again, I am not saying that Indian paramilitaries are all saints, but that this madness needs to stop from both sides.

My question to you is – will you support a cessation of all jehadi activities (fund-raising, recruitment, infiltration, etc) from Pakistani soil, directed at India, and as called for by Pakistan’s government so that a peaceful solution can be worked out?

Excuse me for the long-worded response, and thank you for taking the time to read it.

Re: ylh

``PS They are the true enemies of Islam, they should be shot dead. FUNDOOCIDE is here!``

I`ll support you with that one...it will save both your country and mine a lot of problems.

Re: Eklayva

``I will distribute suits in my neighborhood.``

Wouldn`t it be cheaper to distribute sweets instead?

let me put my 2 cents in. Dont you muslims think that if we accepted muslims at face value that there would be less sectarian violence in pakistan???? My second question is to the lawyer :how is khilifah practical?? It was a decadent institution which was abolished due to its being used by the Allied powers. My third question is too YLH:would you ban islamic parties completely in pakistan?

For Pakistan, ``what constitutes blasphemy?`` is perhaps not a right question to ask. What should be asked of Pakistan is who are Pakistan`s true friends (or should be), and who are its worst enemies. Here`s my opinion.

Pakistan`s True Friends: China, Iran, Turkey, United States, India, Israel, European Union, All those Pakistanis who want to see Pakistan become a part of the civilized world and a country that is at peace within and without.

Pakistan`s Worst Enemies: Saudi Arabia, Talebans, Kashmiri Mujahedins, Osama Bin Laden, Yasser Arafat, ISI, All those Pakistanis who believe that the seventh century Islam is utopia for the twentyfirst century Pakistan, All those Pakistanis who believe that, given Pakistan`s current situation, Pakistan has a future and a hope for tomorrow.

If the top policy makers in Pakistan don`t understand the above, or they do but are unable to do anything about it, then Pakistan is doomed

Dear Adnan,

Thank you for the info. It`s London, England.

Take care

Omar Phoenix

DEWEAPONIZATION AND CITIZEN SAFETY

Shakeel Akhtar, a citizen of Pakistan, has raised the question of trust. Who is trust worthy in Pakistan? Individual citizens (both good and bad), the rich and powerful, the criminals, the security guards, the police, or . . . . ? How valid is the argument of self-defense? Shakeel Akhtar argues that deweaponization policy should be directed at the habitual criminals, whose identities are not hidden from the people in each locality. Is this problem as simple as Shakeel Akhtar thinks?

Sincerely, Bilal

The Nation, Letter, February 15, 2001
“Deweaponisation

It is rather insulting for the law-abiding citizens to consider them unworthy of trust to carry licensed weapons for self-defence while reposing full trust in the private security guards to carry weapons in bazaars and other public places outside the premises of their employers.

In the recent past, at least two private security guards killed three young men on two different occasions in Islamabad without any justification but there is no reported killing by any responsible arms licence holder during the same period.

In fact, to carry a licensed weapon is not meant for display but for self-defence under the present unlawful situation. It has no relevance to the armed crimes committed by criminals without display of the illegal weapons before committing crimes. The habitual criminals, comparatively small in number, will always have an access to illegal weapons irrespective of the government efforts.

The actual problem is the hardened criminals and not the weapons. People keep weapons for self-defence because of failure of the successive governments to provide protection of life, honour and property of the law-abiding citizens.

Practically, the deweaponisation policy has disarmed the law-abiding citizens to the advantage of the armed criminals. Consequently, armed robberies are being committed daily with impunity, even in Islamabad and Rawalpindi, and dacoits are shooting those who resist or try to help the victims.

Our worthy Minister for Interior will be well-advised to concentrate on the elimination of armed criminals who are well known in their respective localities for their heinous crimes.

-SHAKEEL AKHTAR, Rawalpindi, February 10.”

TRUE FACE OF BLEEDING HEART ``PROUD BENGALIS``
(A Repost)

Whatever happened to Bengalis from 1947 to 1971 is usually touted as a crime committed by West Pakistani people. The accusers intentionally and conveniently forget that during the 12 years out of 23 years of history till 1971, Pakistan was governed by Martial Law. For the rest of the years during semi-selected or semi-elected governments of the fifties, the people of West Pakistan were as voiceless as their brothers in the East.

Lets not forget that Urdu was announced as a national language with mutual consent in 1948. The nationalist element did oppose the decision but all major mainstream political factions applauded. (We are not going to discuss in this post whether this decision was right or wrong). The nationalists, however, exploited this issue later when Urdu-speaking Biharis entered Bangladesh as refugees and Bengalis had to share their already meager resources with them.

Usually, it is also touted that it was only Pakistan Army that committed horrendous crimes against Bengalis. Again the accusers conveniently forget that the Rwanda style ethnic cleansing of West Pakistanis (WP) and non-Bengalis started weeks before the army action. Between March 1, when Awami League decided to go beyond point of no return, and March 26, when army action started, well over 100,000 WPs, Biharis, and pro-Pakistan Bengalis were killed by Muktee Bahni, Awami League, mutineers of East Bengal Regiment and East Pakistan Rifles. During this period the horrible crimes committed against non-Bengalis are a blot on the pages of history of humanity.

Lets take some examples from the news in INTERNATIONAL PRESS.

“15,000 non-Bengalis were killed in Bogra, District Santahar in three days. Women were forced to march naked on the roads and mothers were forced to drink blood of their own babies.”

“Over 10,000 non-Bengalis were killed in Chatagong. Well over 250 women and children were killed with bayonets.”

“In Siraj Ganj near Pabna, nearly 350 non-Bengali women and children were locked in a hall and were incinerated alive.”

“In the region of Sankoo Para near Maymon Singh a non Bengali residential colony of 2000 families, was razed to ground. Men were taken out and shot whereas women were raped and forced to dig their own graves, later killed”.

(Times London, 16 April, 1971)

“When East Pakistan Rifles (EPR) committed mutiny, their first reaction was to kill all non-Bengali colleagues. Among 15,000 personnel strong EPR, 40% were non-Bengalis, mostly officers. EPR filled a train with the corpses of their colleagues and their families and buried them near an Indian border town of Hari Das Pur”

(Far Eastern Economic Review, Hong Kong, 24 April 1971, By T.S. George)

“It is evident from the eye-witness accounts that when Bengalis felt that Awaami League will come in power, they killed Biharis at several places and looted their property”.

(New York Times, 10 May, 1972, Malcolm W. Brown)

“There is a strong evidence present, which suggests that mutineers attacked non Bengalis, chopped them and set their property on fire. According to eye-witness accounts about 1500 widows and children were seen taking refuge in a mosque in Maymon Singh after their men were killed by Bengalis.”

(Ceylon Daily News, Colombo, 15 May ’71, Marcos Quates)

“The news reporters who visited this important port (Chetagong) yesterday reported that firing and shelling have caused heavy damage. Mutineers massacred the city dwellers. News reporters saw a mass grave, in a jute mill owned by prominent Isfehani family, that contained 152 corpses of non-Bengali women and children who were shot in the club of that mill. The locals also showed them a burnt down building where Bengalis incinerated 350 Pathaans alive”

(Washington Post, May 22, 1971, Associated Press News)

Although the datelines suggest otherwise, the above quoted events happened before the army action started on March 26. A certain amount of text was edited in order to keep the posting as concise as possible. These events should not come as a surprise to people who understand the mechanics of gorilla warfare, especially, when it is fought on the basis of ethnic ideology. The point-of-no-return tactic is used when all doors of reconciliation are deliberately closed. That was actually a trap set up by the masterminds sitting on the Indian side of the border for Pakistan Army. When reinforcements were sent by mid March and one of the high-ranking Pakistani officer was briefed about the state of affairs, he was dumbfounded with the extent and nature of atrocities, the words he uttered were ``No mercy for the savages``. Muktee Bahni learned their lessons well from their Indian masters and trainers.

All the said acts, in no way validate, whatever happened during army action. A crime against humanity is still a crime. Whatever happened there is not just Pakistan Army’s responsibility. The point is that the horrendous crimes were committed on both sides.

Eklavya #548
I think the statements (or actions) are more to do with image than any real hurt caused to the establishment by any civic disorder fomented by armed religious organisations. I doubt Gen. Musharraf or his aides in the rarefied atmosphere they function, have any reason to feel the same sense of urgency about the issue that ordinary Pakistanis may feel.

Have you watched fledgelings in a nest? The noisiest peskiest one gets the most attention. IMO this analogy applies to public affairs anywhere, and in Pakistan the peskiest are presently the international media/governments/investors/financial institutions and noisiest are the religious organisations.

Re the moderate viewpoints, moderates need to show they can move move men and material before their concerns will be given validity. For this moderate leaders need to create new political space for themselves by enunciating new and attractive forward-looking ideas and goals and how to achieve them instead of getting bogged down with the old collusions and personality-ridden clashes.


The religion space has already been long occupied and trying to empty it by saying ``your ideas are not true to religion but are exploitative`` maynot work. IMO, the best scenario is that violence and coercion can be rejected by the majority. The lesson for Indians is to make sure THEIR religious space is never so comprehensively occupied and to reject violence and coercion in any form(and we arenot doing too well).

btw, check out jang.com.pk, February 14 , Opinion, The Kashmir ceasefire, Brian Cloughey.

Sadhana

In response to Adnan (Reply #589)
Dear Adnan:

We had a Bengali (not Bihari-Bengali) teacher in Karachi University (circa 1975). He was viewed by many University teachers as a collaborator to As-Shams/Al-Badr. Many teachers believed that he ran away from the erstwhile East Pakistan to escape persecution. Some teachers definitely disliked him and they on a few occasions openly accused him for his ugly-bloody role. I wonder if they were right.

Irrespective of who was at fault, the events of 1970-71 put our heads down in shame. Let us hope that we don`t repeat our (Bengali + non-Bengali) past mistakes. This is a challenge that we need to accept to avoid the kind of mob violence and killings that we often experience in contemporary Pakistan.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Ahmadb,

I am happy to report that we in India are rapidly moving in the same general direction. Some ShivSena activists don`t appear to care much for Valentine Day. Wisemen that they are, they registered their protests by going around and breaking things. And what does the government do? Nothing, so far as I can tell.

Shammi,

Again, I hope you are right. If things get better on a genuine basis, I will distribute suits in my neighborhood. But I see no chance of that happening, at least not so long as Musharraf is around. You see, I have a very low opinion of him and those who surround him.

My biases notwithstanding, I pray you are right and I am wrong. Who, in their sane mind, would wish otherwise?!

Meanwhile, killings continue. Children keep being burnt alive. And Farzanas of the world keep blaming India. I see no difference yet. I will wait.

re adnan#589

Yes, I have read books though not the ones written by the aplogists for the neo-Nazis. Filth? You, sir, are the one defending the those who gleefully participated in what a Pakistani journalist, Anthony Mascarenhas, called `The Ugliest Genocide in History`. That was also the title of one of the books. I could name plenty written by Bengali authors but they may be claimed to have been tainted by bias. But I do recommend that you read, among others, the 1973 report of the International Commission of Jurists which visited Bangladesh to determine certain ground facts. Or hear the latest speech given to the ADAb forum by Pakistan`s own Human Rights champion Asma Jehangir. By the way, please save me the bloody sophomoric nonsense of equating all those who criticise the bloodthirstyness of Jamaat as secular, Hindu, Communist etc etc. I know the tactics of Joseph Goebbels and they don`t work on people like me and most others on this forum.

But beyond the books, I personally know people, many of them, who suffered at the hands of the Occupation Army AND at the hands of their local collaborators, the so called Razakars, Al-Badr,and Al-Shams. My parents`s first home was looted by the Al-Badr while they were interned in (West) Pakistan. Don`t tell me how angelic these traitors were.

You claim so mightily that the Army and the Al-Badr were different. Who is the one conveniently ignoring all the facts? General Rahim Khan, one of the 195 principal accused of war crimes who fled his post later, was made the the field commander of all the auxillary forces in early fall of 1971 by the order of General Niazi. The said order considered all such paramilitary and auxilary forces, EPCAF, Razakars, Mujahids, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams, as part of the Pakistan Eastern Command machinery henceforth.

The entire world, save some of the self-declared true momineen like yourself, know what happened and who did what in 1971. People like yourself who have probably never stepped foot in Bengal have no idea how the land was ravaged by the Occupation Forces and their local Quislings. And then you lecture others on how it was all done in the name of Islam? For such folks it is well said,

``Kaabe kis mu se jao ge Ghalib

Sharm tum ko magar nahin aati``

Eklavya #548:

You have made some interesting commnents.

My interest in Kashmir is completely human rights based. I don`t really care what either Pakistan or India get out of the whole deal. So before I get in a discussion with you on Kashmir, I would like to request you to forget for a moment whether you are an Indian (or Pakistani) and answer two questions. The first of these is: Do you think if the Kashmiris were today given a choice to vote for their own future (self-determination), would they vote to stay with India or separate from India?

The reason I am asking this question is because, as much as I like getting the Indian point of view on this issue, it has become quite tiresome for me to continue debating this issue with people who are not concerned with human rights. If a person is only concerned with the Indian (or the Pakistani) point of view, then they will always think they are in the right.

So I await your reply to my simple question. Hopefully a reply of one phrase; they will vote to stay with India/they will vote to separate from India.

Shammi:

You seem convinced that the violence in Kashmir is due to Pakistani, ``terrorists.`` I am assuming the basis of your knowledge is the Indian media. Do you think India should agree to allow human rights organizations like AI, and the international media, into Kashmir to prove the correctness of your argument? Why do you think India disallows these organizations entrance into Indian Kashmir, when they could so easily expose the activities that you accuse Pakistan of?

I would be interested in reading your reply. Since you have made an accusation, I am hoping you would justify it. I had also asked you the same question I asked Eklavya, but you did not answer it (or perhaps I missed your reply). Maybe you could answer this question as well.

Sigalph

Indeed, Al Badr, and other such fundoo groups went on a rape and pillage frenzy. These beardos always have been the problem. When have they not created problem...

People like Adnan 672, Asif Naqshbandi, and unqualified Barrister Amir, all are the remnants of Abu Jahl.

Has anyone read the Hizb e Tahrir Danish website on Pakistan, in which they so blatantly attack and abuse Pakistan`s founder for being secular.

Yasser

PS They are the true enemies of Islam, they should be shot dead. FUNDOOCIDE is here!