The rot inside Pakistan

With the cold blooded killing of Salmaan Taseer by his Islamist body guard  few days ago, the rot inside the Pakistani society is ever too evident to be hidden.

In June 2009 Asia Bibi, a 45-year old Christian woman with five children,a farm hand from a village near Lahore was asked to fetch water; she complied, but some of her fellow Muslim workers refused to drink the water as they considered Christians to be "unclean".Apparently some arguments ensued. There had already been a running feud between Bibi and a neighbour about some property damage. Later some coworkers complained to a cleric that Bibi made derogatory comments about Prophet Muhammad. A mob came to her house, beating her and members of her family before she was rescued by the police. However, the police initiated an investigation about her remarks resulting in her arrest and prosecution under Pakistan's infamous Blasphemy Law. In November 2010  court of Sheikhupura, sentenced her to death by hanging.

The blasphemy laws in Pakistan acquired teeth during the reign of General Zia ul-Haq when the crime was made punishable by death. The international community and human rights groups argue that since then it has become a tool, used to settle personal disputes and to discriminate against minority groups. The abuse of the law is widely regarded as effortless because no proof is required – an alleged blasphemer can be imprisoned and even executed on the assertion of witnesses.


Although the death sentence for blasphemy has never been carried out in Pakistan, angry mobs have killed many people accused of blasphemy. In 2009, 40 houses and a church were set ablaze by a mob of 1,000 Muslims in the town of Gojra, Punjab. At least seven Christians were burned to death in the horrific incident.  In July 2010 two Christian brothers accused of blasphemy were gunned down outside a court in the city of Faisalabad, while in custody.

Salmaan Taseer, a leader of the ruling Pakistan People's Party and the Governor of Punjab province was a vocal opponent of infamous blasphemy law of Pakistan.

                                         Taseer's daughters with Asia Bibi

 He had recently announced that he will recommend Presidential pardon to Asia Bibi. The Islamic fundamentalists could not tolerate that and he was killed by his own bodyguard on the streets of Nation's capital Islamabad.

More shocking news were yet to come.

Within hours Taseer's killer became a hero to be worshipped for many in Facebook.
 Read what Pakistani author Mohammed Hanif wrote about 'How Pakistan responded to Salmaan Taseer's assassination".
 By the evening, Qadri's picture had replaced a thousand profile pictures on Facebook. He was a mujahid, a lion, a true hero of Islam.
So who are these people who lionise the cold-blooded murderer? Your regular kids, really. Those who have trawled the profiles of these supporters have said that they have MBA degrees, they follow Premier League football, they love the Pirates of the Caribbean films. Miley Cyrus figures on lots of these pages. And as the Pakistani blogger who blogs under the name Kala Kawa pointed out: "If you go through the profiles of Qadri supporters on Facebook, you'd think Justin Bieber was the cause of extremism in Pakistan."

See this Dawn report.

As PPP leaders and workers and admirers of the slain Punjab Governor Salman Taseer mourned his death and converged on the Governor`s House in Lahore for funeral prayers, his self-confessed assassin was warmly welcomed by a group of lawyers at the district and sessions court here on Wednesday.The lawyers chanted slogans in his favour, patted him on the back and showered flower petals on him.A power of attorney signed by dozens of lawyers was submitted as the killer`s counsel.

However, more astonishing than the lawyer`s welcome for a man who confessed to have killed the constitutional head of the country`s largest province was a chorus of support from major religious groups and parties and prominent clerics.About 500 religious scholars of the Jamaat Ahle Sunnat said no one should pray or express regret for the killing of Salman Taseer.



Maulana Shah Turabul Haq Qadri, a leader of the Jamaat paid “glorious tribute to the murderer… for his courage, bravery and religious honour and integrity”.


The clerics noted the “courage” and religious zeal of the killer, saying his action had made Muslims around the world proud.
Analysts say the assassination underscores how deeply religious extremism has penetrated Pakistan’s conservative society, with even the Internet-literate elite resorting to Facebook to rally support for the killer.



Nearly 2,000 Facebook users joined one group on the social networking site praising Qadri, and dozens of “fans” joined other pages set up in Qadri’s honour in the hours after the shooting.

In a sign of mainstream media opposition, Pakistan’s leading Urdu-language newspaper, Jang, ran a front-page story declaring: “There should be no funeral for Salman Taseer and no condemnation for his death.”



“A supporter of a blasphemer is also a blasphemer,” said a sub-heading, reporting that 500 religious scholars and clerics had paid tribute to Qadri


 Lahore's clerics were reluctant to lead funeral prayers for Salman Taseer.Even the chief cleric of the historical Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, who initially agreed to offer prayers, backed off at the last moment, saying he was going out of town. Finally, the services were led by a cleric of the Ulema wing of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP).




Declan Walsh wrote in Guardian

Yesterday on Twitter, the medium beloved of Taseer, liberal Pakistanis bemoaned the disappearance of "Jinnah's Pakistan" – the tolerant, pluralistic country envisioned by its founder, the lawyer Muhammad Ali Jinnah, in 1947. Still others struggled to remember when it truly existed.



And on the streets outside the celebrated silent majority – moderate Pakistanis who shun extremism and violence, and only want their society to thrive – were saying nothing. But in Pakistan, that is no longer good enough. Silence kills.

My Take

Did the problem in Pakistan started only with Zia ul Haq and the military regime as many liberal Pakistanis want to believe? Or did it begin with the origin of the Nation based on religion? I believe that Jinnah is equally responsible. When you set loose a demon of religion in politics you cannot remain liberal and democratic.

Edited to add

Let me quote from what Aatish Taseer [son of Salmaan and Indian journalist Tavleen Singh] wrote about his father's death and its aftermath.

And so, though I believe, as deeply as I have ever believed anything, that my father joins that sad procession of martyrs – every day a thinner line – standing between him and his country's descent into fear and nihilism, I also know that unless Pakistan finds a way to turn its back on Islam in the public sphere, the memory of the late governor of Punjab will fade.



And where one day there might have been a street named after him, there will be one named after Malik Mumtaz Qadir, my father's boy-assassin.






Links
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/06/pakistan-salman-taseer-assassination
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/05/pakistan-salman-taseer-liberal
http://www.dawn.com/2011/01/06/taseers-assassin-idolised-by-lawyers-clerics.htm
lhttp://www.indianexpress.com/news/After-a-murder/734984
Aatish Taseer's article

Should India talk with Pakistan?

The decision by the Indian Government to proceed with the Foreign Secretary level talk with Pakistan has not been widely welcomed in India. Many in India believe that such 'talks' are useless exercise as the terror attacks on India directed by Pak based terror networks are continuing, with the Pune blast as the most recent example. So let me try to answer in the Indian point of view the question 'Should India talk with Pakistan?

In recent years the number of terror attacks that take place in Pakistan far out number that which take place in India. The men behind these attacks are the same, representing the fundamentalist Islamist ideology. The Pakistan army is trying hard to recapture the territory lost to the Taliban. An ideological war is going on between the moderates and the extremists. Under International and Indian pressure Pakistan is prosecuting some of the accused in the 26/11 terror attack.

The terrorists in Pakistan are trying their level best to ignite hate against India, because then only they will receive good support from Pakistani public. So for the Islamist terrorist an India which will not talk with Pakistan, which will not allow Pak players to participate in IPL, which will humiliate Pakistani Government and people again and again is the India they want to see. Only if India behaves like that they will get more money and support from both the public and the Government of Pakistan. Only then they can defy ban orders and organise more and more big anti-India public meetings. Only then they can propagate their anti-women, anti-modern Islamist fundamentalism among Pak public.

An India which will talk with Pakistan, which will deal with it as a an errand younger brother, which will increase the cultural and person to person contact with Pakistan, which will assure the Pakistani public that it do not have any intention to destroy Pakistan is an India which is a nightmare for the terrorists.

Does India gain anything by not talking to Pakistan? Nothing I can think off. Will India suffer more by talking to Pakistan? Will there be more terror attacks? No is my answer.

So in my view we should talk with Pakistan at all levels.


This does not mean we should surrender our principled positions. This does not mean we should give lot of concessions to Pakistan. This does not mean we should give away Kashmir to Pakistan. This does not mean we should withdraw Armed forces from the border. This does not mean we should lower our vigil against terrorist attacks.

The non-Islamised civil society of Pakistan is India’s first line of defense against terror attacks. . We should support and strengthen it.

A very 'Positive' news from Pakistan

Cricket is the national sport in Pakistan as it is in India, but what makes the First Positive Cricket Team stand out from all the other Karachi-based clubs is that its members are all HIV positive.


The team was put together a year ago by the Pakistan Society, an NGO working for the rights of people living with HIV. They played -- and won -- their first match in August, and haven't looked back.

Dr. Saleem Azam, president of the Pakistan Society, told CNN, "Every time they play the players have a boost physically, emotionally and psychologically, and they feel a lot better."



Azam says that there is a considerable stigma in Pakistan surrounding HIV/AIDS and he hopes the team can help combat discrimination towards HIV sufferers.

"People assume the team must be very sick-looking, like walking skeletons, but when they see them playing and winning matches they have to think again," said Azam.



"We've given them a very strong message that having HIV does not mean you must retire from life and become helpless. You can have HIV and live a very happy life if you take your antiretroviral treatment regularly.

When the team won handsomely, leaving their opponents and the fans amazed that HIV-positive players could be so active - one of the team members was asked whether antiretroviral medication was also a form of performance-enhancing drugs.


"The stigma is the worst consequence of this illness, so it will be the greatest service to people with HIV if we are able to help them overcome this stigma. The change is coming, but it's very, very slow."


While changing attitudes takes time, Azam says the team has already built bridges between the players and their estranged families. He told CNN that some players who had been ostracized by their families were now back in contact with them, with one family requesting to travel to matches with the team.



First Positive has already played a match in Hyderabad, about 200 km (125 miles) from Karachi, and next month they will take to the road for two more matches, which will see them spread their message elsewhere in the country.

"This is how the team will be known the country over," said Azam.

"People will come to know more and more about the team, and I hope eventually they will be successful in combating this stigma and discrimination."

Abdul Lateef is captain of the FPCT. He contracted HIV six years ago and told CNN that the team is helping to change others' attitudes towards people with HIV.

"We are reaching the minds of the people," he said.


"Everybody thinks there are things that HIV positive people cannot do. We have shown we can play and we have proved to everybody we can do anything they can do."

We are thankful that the authorities were so cooperative with us, and provided us with the space that was needed for the match without any discriminatory attitude. Rather, their attitude was positive and encouraging," said Azhar Hussain Magsi, a manager at the Pakistan Society.
"More matches are scheduled to take place all over Pakistan in the coming weeks ... We are also having talks with other NGOs in India, and look forward to having an international HIV-positive cricket match.

Having personally witnessed the wonders that anti retro viral therapy can produce in many patients, I cannot think a better way of illustrating the fact that HIV/AIDS is treatable and HIV positive patients are as human as we all are than the site of a 'Positive' cricket team winning a match against the 'negative' team on the cricket field.

.An India-Pakistan cricket match between HIV positive players!!!
 That will be a great event.

adapted from
CNN
Aids Portal

Is there a 'Kashmir' in China?

Recently Mr.S.Gurumurthy wrote an article in the New Indian Express comparing India's Kashmir problem with that of Islamic insurgency in China. The article titled " A tale of two Kashmirs made me think about the different aspects of the problems faced by two of the World's most populous Nations. Here are some excerpts from the article [in orange]and my thoughts [in black]about it.



That China too has its Kashmir and problems with Islamist separatists identical to India’s Kashmir is not widely known. ‘Xinjiang’, actually pronounced as ‘Sinkiang’ for postal purposes, is China’s Kashmir. Xinjiang actually shares borders with Ladakh in India’s Kashmir. But unlike Kashmir it is not a small area. Its size is 1.8 million sq km; almost one-sixth of China; half as much as India. India’s Kashmir measures some 2,65,000 sq km. Of which some 86,000 sq km is under Pakistan; some 37,500 sq km under China; the balance, 1,41,000 sq km, is with India. The disputed part of India’s Kashmir, some 1,45,000 sq km, is less than one hundredth of Xinjiang. So China’s Kashmir is physically 100 times bigger than India’s and therefore its problem too is bigger. Yet many do not know about it.


Here Mr Gurumurthy is claiming that as the area of Xinjiang is physically 100 times bigger than the area of Kashmir the problem of insurgency is/was also bigger. Is this true? Gurumuthy has not given any such indication in his article.

Let us look back at the history of the origin of Kashmir conflict.
The Kashmir Conflict arises from the Partition of India in 1947 into modern India and Pakistan. Both the countries have made claims to Kashmir, based on historical reasons and religious affiliations of the Kashmiri people. The state of Jammu and Kashmir, which lies strategically in the Northwest of the subcontinent, , was a princely state with a majority Muslim population,ruled by Hindu King,Maharaja Hari Singh, under the paramountcy of British India. In geographical and legal terms, the Maharaja could have joined either of the two new Dominions. The Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten urged the Maharaja, to determine the future of his state before the transfer of power took place, but Hari Singh delayed his decision.. In October 1947, Pakistani tribals with help of the Army entered Kashmir intending to liberate it from Hari Singh's rule. Unable to withstand the invasion, the Maharaja signed The Instrument of Accession with India.

The resulting war over Kashmir, between India and Pakistan, lasted until 1948, when India moved the issue to the UN Security Council. UN Security Council passed Resolution 47 on April 21, 1948. The resolution imposed that an immediate cease-fire take place and said that Pakistan should withdraw all presence and had no say in Jammu and Kashmir politics. It stated that India should retain a minimum military presence and stated "that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations". At that time, the Indian and Pakistani governments agreed to hold the plebiscite but Pakistan did not withdraw its troops from Kashmir thus violating the condition for holding the plebiscite. India also did not want a Plebiscite. Plebiscite never happened and the dispute is continuing.

Xinjiang never had similar history. There was never a partition of China as it became independent like the way that happened in Indian sub continent. Several Chinese dynasties had ruled over the area.Many a time local leaders had declared independence but their attempts were short lived.After Chinese revolution and making of Xinjiang an autonomous province of People's Republic no other Country made any claim for the territory. Sporadic separatist protests were there but were put down by the autocratic Government with an iron hand.
So to say that China's Xinjiang 'problem' is similar to and is much bigger than India's Kashmir conflict is according to me not true.

Yes, China does have problems with Islamist separatists, extremists and terrorists. But it has, by diplomacy and action, ensured that it remains an internal problem, unlike India, which has on its own made Kashmir an international issue. China has also changed the religious and political demography of Xinjiang by ensuring that 41 per cent of the province’s population is non-Muslim.
Instead of working to change the demography in favour of India as China has done, the Indian government could not even prevent the expulsion of Hindus from the Valley. While Xinjiang is half filled by Han Chinese, Kashmir has been cleansed of Hindus. The result is that India has to defend Kashmir with the army instead of the people.

An issue becomes International when there is a dispute between two Nations that could not be solved bilaterally. So the Kashmir conflict was always an International issue. India did take it to the UN with the belief that UN will readily uphold India's rights to the territory of Kashmir.That did not happen and in retrospect the decision to take it to UN may have been wrong. But to say that India's action was the sole reason for the issue becoming International is far from the truth.In case of Xinjiang there was only an internal separatist movement.So chances of it becoming International was/is less.

China did change the ethnic and religious demography of Xinjiang so that the Han Chinese became a dominant force. They could do it deliberately because of the autocratic functioning of the Chinese Government. They do not have democracy nor the Judiciary is independent of the Government.In contrast India had a functioning democracy almost all the time after Independence expect during the Emergency.

When the Kashmir Constituent Assembly ratified the Indian Constitution and the union to India,Article 370 was a pre-condition for such ratification.Any violation of fundamental rights assured by our Constitution could be questioned in our Courts.So deliberate changing of demographics is not possible anywhere in a country like India,more so in Kashmir.But the whole article never mentions this important difference between India's Kashmir and China.

Actually India is trying to defend Kashmir with the help of secular and moderate Kashmiris with Army protecting them,unlike in China were Han Chinese from other provinces are displacing the Uighurs with the help of brute force of Chinese Army. Which is better?

Should article 370 be repealed? As per the current constitutional provisions it can be done only with the concurrence of the Kashmir Government. If there is such a concurrence it will good to repeal it for proper integration Kashmir to India.

Had India followed the policy the Chinese adopted in Xinjiang, conquering Kashmir back instead of contracting under Article 370, which prevents Indians in other places from migrating to the Valley, today Kashmir would have demographically integrated with India. We would be dealing with internal riots occasionally like China does; but we would not face or fight wars with Pakistan and with terrorists every day.

May be Gurumurthy,who is a well known opponent of Emergency Rule of 1975-1977 must have lost his belief in Democracy. He wants India to conquer Kashmir back without the consent of its inhabitants. Will conquering really integrate it to India,or increase the support for separatist movement? Will it prevent wars with Pakistan or increase the chance of war? Will it reduce jihadi terrorism or increase it? Gurumurthy seems to be deliberately closing his eyes to the reality.

Cease fire in Swat. Capitulation to Islamist extremism

Taliban insurgents in the troubled north-western Swat valley of Pakistan have announced an indefinite ceasefire.





The announcement follows a deal struck last week between a radical cleric and North West Frontier Province Government that brings Sharia law in return for an end to the insurgency.

The Taliban have been assessing that deal and Tuesday's move followed a meeting held by the group's leader in the region, Maulana Fazlullah.

Many people living in Swat are happy to hear the news of cease fire.
"I am so happy. I am excited. This will bring peace to my village." This was the response of a resident.
Why they were happy?
Thousands of people have fled and hundreds of schools have been destroyed in Swat since a Taliban insurgency began in 2007. The people of Swat have long been caught in the crossfire between the army and the Taliban. More than 1,000 civilians have died in shelling by the army or from beheadings sanctioned by the Taliban. Thousands more have been displaced.
The Taliban now control the entire countryside of Swat, limiting army control to parts of the valley's capital, Mingora.
Sharia law or not people were so much terrorised by the violence that they now want peace some how.


"They [the Taliban] have made commitment that they will observe a permanent ceasefire and we'll do the same," Mr Javed, the commissioner of Malakand.
He said that the army would scale back its operations in the valley and asked residents who left Swat because of the fighting to return home.
Schools for boys would reopen, although it is still not clear whether the Taliban will allow re-opening of girl's schools.
The Taliban has agreed to dismantle their check posts,but not to lay down their arms.

In about 20 months or so, we have had 187 of our schools bombed out, of which 121 are girls' schools," says Sher Afzal Khan, the district head of the education department of Swat.

Another 86 schools cannot be used because they are camps for the army or the Taliban, or they are in combat zones where children and staff cannot go, he says.

"Nearly 60,000 students have been affected," says Mr Khan.

Institutions of higher learning are no exception.

"Three months ago, the Taliban banned male medical students from attending practical lessons in the gynaecology ward and the labour room," says a professor at Mingora's Swat Medical College.

Soon afterwards, the Taliban started sending representatives to keep a watch at the college hospital to ensure the ban was not being violated.

"We had to shift gynaecology classes to Mardan (another district in the north-west). There is now a proposal to shift the entire college to Mardan, along with its staff and equipment," the professor says.


This is a cowardly capitulation to Islamist extremists by the Civilian Government and Political Parties of Pakistan.

The deal was struck after the military failed to defeat the militants. The fear created by the Taliban in general public resulted in the deal getting support even from secular politicians.

Read some excerpts from an article about it from the Dawn website.
"You never negotiate from a position of weakness: not in business; not in banking; not while making real estate deals; and certainly not when dealing with cold-blooded killers who think nothing of slaughtering defenceless old men and women and hanging their carcasses from electric poles in the main squares of the towns and villages which that night face their wrath"

"The government of the Frontier and the Government of Pakistan, including their agencies both covert and overt, have cravenly given in to the murderous thugs who have brought so much pain and misery to Swat; who have made its once pristine rivers run red with innocent blood. They have given the mullah the proverbial inch; just wait until he demands a thousand miles, and more."

Previous deals with Islamists had only resulted in strengthening and legitimising the militants.

It is said that al-Qaeeda and Afghan Taliban leadership are shifting to Swat thinking it will be more safer than other areas because it is farther away from Afghan border. From here they can carry out the larger aim of Talibanising whole of Pakistan.Islamabad is only a 100 miles from Swat.

There is concern that this peace deal will also not last, with some analysts believing the Taliban want to control territory, not just amend the legal system.

When will the Government and the political parties in Pakistan realise that negotiating with Islamist extremists will undermine the shaky democratic structure of their polity?

Photos from BBC News website