October 20, 2010
September 26, 2010
September 23, 2010
PAKISTAN AS IT STANDS TODAY BY DR. SYED FAROOQ HASNAT AND SHEHZADI ZAMURRAD AWAN – AUGUST 12, 2010 -THE POST (NEW YORK)
PAKISTAN AS IT STANDS TODAY
August 15, 2009
Dissent in South Asia -FAROOQ HASNAT – THE NATION -JULY 13, 2009
THE NATION
Dr Syed Farooq Hasnat
Multiethnic societies with weak socio-economic structures tend to generate tensions, at times leading to serious crisis. Such calamities are further aggravated if a society lacks political maturity, and is not designed to solve grievances and demands of ethnic entities. Since most of South Asia falls into this category, historically there have been considerable ethnic upheavals in the shape of insurgencies or internal wars in the area.
Pakistan, on its part faced a number of insurgent movements, and one during 1970-1971 was unmanaged to an extent that it led to secession of its eastern wing. The high intensity Balochistan insurgency of 1970s and a low level insurgency that started from 2004 have their primary base in the perceptions that the federal government is not fulfilling its obligations and that constitutional and administrative wrong are being committed against the Baloch population. It was alleged in the 1970s that the government of Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto wanted to acquire more powers on behalf of the central government and was unwilling to tolerate a dissent within the federal system. The current unease in the province has a variety of reasons but is primarily focused on the demands for equitable distribution of resources and more provincial autonomy. However, in the FATA tribal areas, along with Malakand Division, the insurgency has acquired exclusive features. There, an ethnic group has not taken up arms for the rights of its community or area but for imposing its dogmatic religious views on the country, and even beyond. This has provided a new meaning to the theoretical concept of insurgency, with few comparables.
Along with 25 insurgency movements in India, two are more prominent – one in Kashmir and the other by the Sikhs in East Punjab. The Kashmir insurgency, which has its roots in the unfinished agenda of the partition, accelerated in 1988 into a bloody conflict and in two decades 100,000 Kashmiris lost their lives. The Sikh uprising of 1980s was due to their resentments against the Hindu majority, for at least two reasons – one that the Hindu majority was not responsive to Sikh identity and demands and second their sacred Golden Temple at Amritsar was stormed in 1984. In subsequent events Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards, followed by communal riots in which three thousand Sikhs lost their lives. The Sikh insurgency presents a variant pattern where a flourishing community gets agitated to an extent of taking up arms. Normally, underprivileged and impoverished communities take such drastic actions. Both these insurgencies challenged the writ of the state and threatened India’s security. The Sikh insurgency ultimately fizzled out but Kashmir uprising, in spite of a complex mix of fluctuating predicament, continues.
Sri Lanka along with Kashmir faced the bloodiest of all insurgencies in South Asian modern history. The Tamil, who are 12 percent of the total population, with British colonial rulers’ support became more skilled and were placed at important positions. This unwarranted British patronage created jealousy and anguish amongst the Sinhalese majority, thus laying a foundation for tensions between the two ethnic groups. By 1970s, Tamil ethnic minority under Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) began to demand an independent state, consisting of northern and eastern part of the island. This demand was sternly contested by the government. The Tamil speaking 8 percent Muslim minority also opposed the secessionist move and for that were frequently penalised by the LTTE. As Tamils originated from the Indian State of Tamil Nadu, they were able to establish a support base in India, which tacitly supported their insurgency. By early 1986, on the pattern of the militant-controlled Swat and Buner, the LTTE took control of Jaffna Peninsula, administrating the city of Jaffna, thus challenging the writ of the state. By the end of 1980s India sent a peace force of 60,000, but it could not maintain its neutrality and were soon discredited by the Sinhalese majority, forcing them to withdraw.
The Tamil insurgents share lots of commonalities with the Pakistani insurgents in the Frontier province. Both have no clue about the conciliation part of the insurgency; they are dogmatists in their approach with a prime purpose to destroy and be destroyed in the process. Both have resorted to sabotage, assassinations, killing of the innocent civilians in urban centres and above all have a similar approach regarding merciless suicide bombings. The Baloch insurgents differ from the two given examples, as they are confined to their respective areas with limited armed activity and suicide bombing is unknown to them, till now. This can be attributed to a certain type of landscape and smaller population size. Secondly, the Baloch tribes are more fragmented, with various shades of opinion.
Another South Asian nation, Nepal also had its share of bloody insurgency, starting in 1996. The Maoists in Nepal had a distinctive agenda as there was no ethnicity issue involved nor did they claim for a separate homeland. In fact, the Maoist demanded end of feudalism, rewriting of Nepal’s constitution, and abolition of monarchy. Secondly, the Maoists were confined to rural areas, building their support amongst the peasants and did not pose any threat to the state.
Thirdly, they differed in their tactics from the Pakistani and Sri Lankan insurgents, as they were open to negotiations, which were held with government representatives in July 2001. Ultimately, the Maoists took part in April 2008 elections, emerging as the largest party in the Parliament. As a first step the new government abolished the 240-year old monarchy, meeting the main demand of the insurgents turned democratic government. Unlike the Sri Lankan case, there was no military victory in Nepal; rather a peaceful transformation ended the insurgency.
Bangladesh also had minor tensions with its minority ethnic Chakma tribe. This Chittagong Hill Tract tribe showed its resentment when some of its land was taken by immigrating ethnic Bengalese. Although there was armed resistance by the Chakmas under the banner of Shanti Bahini, but it cannot be labelled as insurgency, as the conflict was curtailed and was for a short span of time. A peace treaty was signed in 1997 between the Bangladesh government and the Chakmas. A sober attitude of the successive Bangladeshi governments helped to reduce tensions in the north of the country. Like the Maoists of Nepal, the Chakma tribe did not pose a security threat to the State.
The above observation of various insurgencies points to the fact that each society has its own peculiar setting and reasons for internal violence. The tactics and agendas vary from each other but at the same time there were some features which are alike. In sum, the insurgency prone South Asian region will continue to face armed upheavals unless the states are able to find fair answers and construct equitable institutions and accommodate their ethnic minorities in the mainstream of its socio-economic and political set-ups.
The writer is a scholar at the Middle East Institute, Washington DC
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/13-Jul-2009/Dissent-in-South-Asia
Obama reaches out to Muslim world DR. FAROOQ HASNAT
THE NATION
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
By Dr Syed Farooq Hasnat
President Barack Obama’s Cairo speech to the Muslims, around the world is unique in a number of ways. It departed from the world vision of his predecessor George W. Bush. Secondly, unlike the Bush administration, he extended a hand of friendship, towards the Muslim masses as well as leaders. Thirdly, it recognized the importance and respect that the Muslims and their religion deserve. Fourthly, President Obama, to the frown of the Israeli lobby and warmonger Senators and Representatives in Washington, D.C., took pains to address the plight of the Palestinians. He said, “And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.” The President went on to say, emphatically: “So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own”. These words were unheard during the previous administration. Twice in his tenure, Mr. Bush allowed and encouraged the Israelis to butcher hapless Palestinian women and children – once in Lebanon and then in the beached Gaza strip. To make matters worse he supported the growth of Israeli settlements in the Palestinian lands – giving more Israeli control over the lives of the residents, which in turn generated world wild resentment, hatred and militancy, amongst the Muslims.
Previously, for eight long years of the Bush Administration the American policy was dictated by hardliner neocons, who based their agenda on ideology and military might of the US. The support of Bush Administration came from the hard core Christian conservatives, who in their ideas and judgments resembled a lot with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda – the only difference being that of language and terminology. Bush administration got a lifelong chance to exert its ideology, when 9/11 happened. In the guise of “war against Islamic terrorism”, it tried to revisit 17th-18th century style of colonialism in the Middle East and elsewhere, but could not succeed. A country like Iraq was invaded, without any valid reason and Iran remained under constant threat of attack.
During his presidential campaign, candidate Obama was charged with being a Muslim or an Arab. His hardliner opponents also condemned him as a sympathizer of the Muslims. All Obama did was to change the course from hate and tensions, generated by the neocons, to a realistic US global vision, which is to understand that US is no more a superpower, that can at will dictate its terms to other societies. Rather, the world is quickly moving towards multiple centers of economic and political power. For that a policy of understanding and accommodation is needed to serve the American interests and to address its security concerns. In order to dispel global perception of being a bully, the US president emphasized that his country “is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire.” President Obama represents the real Americans, who are friendlier, liberal and accommodating, which was reflected in his address to the people of the Muslim societies. Earlier, he had declared in Turkey that “United States is not and will never be at war with Islam,” and that he wishes to establish relations with the Muslim people on the basis of mutual respect and understanding.
The American president spent quite a bit of his address on issues of education and social welfare in the lacking Muslim societies. He promised to spend at least $1.5 billion each year for the next five years in Pakistan for that purpose. In spite of chest thumping, self praise and some boosting by the official circles, Pakistan’s education structure is in a big mess and progressively it has slipped down in the companionship of the least literate societies. Because of the lack of imagination and planning, the prospects for the future are equally bleak. Higher education and research in public sector is nonexistent as a culture of greed and luxury has overtaken the educators of this vital stratum, and they have transformed themselves as petty bureaucrats, spending most of their time in useless and result less gatherings, while paying no attention to investigation and innovation. Professionalism has been dealt a severe blow, as short cuts, cheating of various kinds, plagiarism and sycophancy has taken a high seat. Incompetence has become the order of the day. One good aspect of the promised aid is that this time, even at the annoyance of the high ups, its dispensation will be monitored. In the past most of the assistance was consumed by corrupt bureaucrats and military generals, leaving very little for the people to benefit. But aid alone would not do, drastic steps are needed to pull up the dragged education sector.
Barack Hussein Obama reminded the Muslims of their contribution towards research and innovation. He convincingly said, “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality”.
In spite of all the nice words that Obama has to say about the Muslims, countries like Pakistan must realize that they have to build themselves and to rely on their own efforts. As well, these societies have to solve their conflicts and problems within themselves, utilizing their societal structures and strengths. The US assistance at this delicate juncture can be helpful but ultimate responsibility for the security and wellbeing of the Pakistanis depend solely on how serious and dedicated are the policy makers.
The writer is Scholar, Middle East Institute, Washington, D.C.
http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/10-Jun-2009/Obama-reaches-out-to-Muslim-world
