Majority of French Muslims feel stigmatised in veil row

* Woman recently fined for ‘driving while wearing a burqa’
* Nantes mosques’ association worried, says act goes against values of republic

NANTES: Muslims in the French city where a woman was fined for driving wearing a burqa complained of being stigmatised by the affair on Sunday as the political repercussions rumbled on.

With the government planning to ban wearing the burqa in public, the fining of the French woman took a political turn when a minister threatened to punish her Muslim husband for offences including polygamy.

“The Muslims of Nantes…are worried by this systematic stigmatisation which goes against the values of the republic,” the collective of Nantes mosques said in a statement.

The association “considers that the stopping of a driver is a judicial procedure and is angry at how such an event has been turned into being all about Islam”.

The woman has challenged the fine as a breach of her human rights.

President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government said last week it would push ahead with a ban on wearing a burqa in public, despite a warning from state legal experts that such a law could be unconstitutional.

In this context, the Nantes incident gained political momentum and dominated the news this weekend.

France Interior Minister Brice Hortefeux, alleged the woman’s husband may belong to a radical group and may be a polygamist with four wives and 12 children and guilty of welfare fraud.

Hortefeux wrote to Immigration Minister Eric Besson asking him to look into the allegations and said the man could be stripped of his French nationality if they proved true.

Criticising Hortefeux’s move Nantes Deputy Mayor Jean-Marc Ayrault, said the state authorities had known about the polygamy allegations for some time. “Why are they pretending just now to have discovered the situation?” he said.

The state prosecutor in Nantes, Xavier Ronsin, said that so far no charge had been lodged against the husband, but an investigation could be launched if there were grounds to suspect fraud.

As to whether the man could be stripped of his French nationality, a source close to the investigation said that French law allowed this only in the case of serious crimes against the state such as terrorism, not for polygamy.

Media wars

Shahzad Chaudhry

Along with projecting oneself as a peacenik, bashing the military is the easiest route to establishing the credentials of intellectual elitism in the overly expressive socio-political environment of Pakistan

An electronic media explosion in this country has thrust open the need for presenters and experts, and they both are not easy to find. The number of news channels, and most importantly, the interest that the viewing public seemingly indicates in those – mind you, during peak viewing hours – is unprecedented and unmatched elsewhere in the world. I remain convinced of the fact that regardless of our rate of literacy, the political awareness of our people has always remained very high. Many years back, while attending a professional military school in the US, I conducted a personal survey to determine how many mid-level American military officers knew the name of their service chief and the secretary of the air force; amongst some 20 odd Americans, none could name either. Lest this bit should be manipulated by ‘experts’ to yet again prove that that is why the US remains the most democratic country in the world because even within the military, the military has no pre-eminence, it is worth noting that, sadly, most Americans may not be able to name their major political characters too.

Here at home, every thara and baithak convenes without fail at an appointed time to discuss the issues of the day at the national level, invariably transcending into the geo-political. The US, India, Afghanistan, terrorism, the economy, power and energy shortages, the fauj, and even more notably the performance of major political parties and their leaderships, all get a serious mention. The 24/7 news culture, heavily punctuated with TV talk shows, adds the necessary spice to keep the business of politics, and all that surrounds it, as the centrepiece of Pakistan’s cultural life. Within this, the numerous sprouting TV channels survive with unrestrained glee – their coffers well compensated through heavy advertisement.

Three distinct levels of TV discussions dominate the scene. Each has to do with the level of competence and intellectual depth of the presenter, the competitive rating of the programme or the channel and the sense of assurance that it generates, and largely to what level the programme will fall in the hope of enticing friction, noise and confrontation among the panellists. Sadly, some competent anchors too resort to this cheap thrill, for that has become the way of life for both the presenter and the programme and what they perceive is going to keep the viewers engaged. But then there are those who carry the confidence to bring issues of national importance into a discussion and with their own reservoir of intellect, competence and wisdom, guide the discussion through to seek implementable solutions. They do not violate the sense of national interest and seek improved cohesion and integration. The third category of talk shows is one where a panellist or two are in collusion with the presenter, the theme and the intent having been discussed already between them at some point in time, and the intent is solely to show an institution or an organisation in a very bad light. Such programmes, their sponsors and those who conceive the programme end up appearing mean, subjective and shorn of any nationalistic sensitivity. Such producers or presenters mar objectivity with their own perceptions and beliefs and choose panellists who will help deliver the ultimate verdict, which is prejudged in their minds, and end up losing credibility. This last plank of TV presentations is what has driven another parallel trend and a mindset in our midst, forcing a discourse that finds repeated appearance in both the broadcasting world and the print media.

Confrontation is sought by sensing an impending disagreement between institutions; an activist judiciary or a bunch of agitated lawyers will always proffer an opportunity. How we mainstream this idiosyncratic disposition is but a Pakistani exclusivity. And, when the judiciary may have little to do, there is something found between the political players, who generally oblige unfailingly to present to the nation a comic opera as often as needed. The successful legislation of the 18th Amendment may just dampen such an opportunity for some time, but then there will be other occasions in the future. The most popular bashing horse is the military, particularly the Zia and Musharraf regimes – and for good reason one might add. This is normally at its peak when a military rule has just ended, but then lingers on as a continuation of a populist anti-establishment trend. The only point of conflict one may hold with the perpetrators of this increasingly rampant bashing is that a course chosen by a couple of individuals cannot consign the entire institution to ridicule. This is a dynamic rarely understood by those outside the military who seek a simplified rationality from an institution against an irrational design of its chief. Thank God, there has never been recourse to a sense of right for we may have had to suffer not one but many coups and counter-coups from within the military structures.

Bashing the military has other dividends too. Along with projecting oneself as a peacenik, it is the easiest route to establishing the credentials of intellectual elitism in the overly expressive socio-political environment of Pakistan, facilitated, without doubt, by pervasive media presence. This is a society and a culture intent on putting up a show, and stealing a march on anyone in the vicinity, even if it might entail putting at risk the edifice of the state. In this war within the media, and the race to establish oneself, all is kosher, one of the few standing institutions of the military notwithstanding.

The military tends to catch the attention of a typical brand of people: neo-democrats and those in the hunt for moorings in a cutthroat intellectual environment. Their analyses are mostly based on superficial knowledge, neither born of wisdom of experience nor the breadth of study and reflection, and worse, without ever putting pen to paper and passing the test of intellectual scrutiny and mental capacity to reflect and investigate. As with the neo-liberals who, by conviction, abhor violence and by extension the military, these are committed peaceniks, and deserve society’s recognition for their strong convictions. They deserve our respect and must be allowed freedom and space to express themselves as a counterpoint.

Most interesting though is that expanding brand of ex-militicos who find it opportune to redress their blues and establish their non-militarised credentials by being overly critical of their once beneficent institution. God knows there could be many reasons for their angst: a weak moment, an abhorrent commander, simple bad luck or a phenomenal failure that finally caught up with them. The younger they leave, the more vicious their tirade. Then there are those who have found newer masters and must do as ordained. Stereotyping the men in the military is at best elusive – they produce all kinds. One just needs to exercise care to avoid choosing a Zia or a Musharraf.

Shahzad Chaudhry is a retired air vice marshal and a former ambassador

Convict roams PIMS ‘till further (SC) orders’

* Imran, a witness in the missing persons’ case sent to PIMS by SC in 2007
* Medical boards declared him stable and informed the court
* The court ordered ‘he shall remain at PIMS till further orders’
* Doctors baffled over how they can keep him in hospital at the risk of others

By Vidya Rana

ISLAMABAD: He should have been somewhere else, but spying against Pakistan convicted Imran Munir – a Malaysian citizen of Pakistani origin – and he has been living it up in Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS): Room 21 of Private Medical Ward, chatting on his cell phone, eating take-away meals and having unlimited visitors.

On the request of his counsel in August 2007, a five-member Supreme Court bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, sent him to PIMS into the ‘protective custody’ of police, initially, for medical treatment. Only a month later, a medical board informed the authorities that he shows no sign of any illness and that he must be removed from the hospital and may visit Out Patient Department (OPD) if and when required.

Despite being a healthy man, he remained at PIMS – a public health facility, where a bed for serious patient is a rare commodity. Meanwhile, second medical board held in February 2008 substantiated the report of the first medical board – he is stable.

After having cross-checked, PIMS administration again informed the Supreme Court Registrar about his state of health saying he is medically fit and there is no need to retain him in the hospital. Copies of the letter were also sent to inspector general of police, Islamabad also. However, when contacted, Dr Faqeer Hussain, Supreme Court registrar, neither denied nor confirmed any communication from PIMS about the medical boards’ reports.

Despite the fitness report by two medical boards, a three-member bench of the apex court, while hearing constitutional petition No5 of 2007 regarding Imran Munir in November 2009 issued an order that he shall remain in PIMS till further orders: “In view of the peculiar circumstances and chequered history of the case and besides that he [Imran] was apprehending danger to his life and possibility of unlawful detention … he shall remain PIMS Hospital till further orders and his custody shall not be handed over to any authority and he shall not be arrested in any other case without having prior approval of this court.”

As the case of missing persons came up, he incidentally became an important witness in the case of Masood Janjua, who went missing in 2005.

On this, M Ikram, Imran’s counsel said, “It remains a question for me as well that why Imran has been at PIMS unnecessarily. Since Imran is an important witness in Masood Janjua’s case, the court gave him into protective custody of police. But the fact of the matter is he is a freeman as his eight-year conviction was set aside by Military Court.” A doctor who wanted not to be named fearing his job said, “Hospitals provide health facility not protection to an impotent witness of any important case. Using health facility for such purposes is not right because every one can come here under the cover of a patient. What is the point keeping Imran here? This is dangerous for him as well as for others if he is really in danger”.

Data available at the Amenity International website says: “Supreme Court was informed in its hearing on 4 May 2007 that he (Imran) was facing a court martial on charges of ‘spying against Pakistan’. A month later the Court was informed that he had been sentenced to eight years imprisonment…his conviction was set aside by military authorities after the Supreme Court questioned the conviction. Amnesty International has been informed that he has not yet been retried on spying charges, which remain pending against him and that he is still confined to hospital.”

Imran’s counsel said, “His stay at PIMS should be decided because he has already given a written statement in Masood Janjua’s case and is not required to be present at the court in person.” He said Imran is receiving life threats and efforts are being made for his retrial in the military court. The council did not disclose the source of threats. Imran’s mystery does not end here. Earlier this month, he went missing from the hospital. Subzi Mandi Police Station arrested him from its jurisdiction – far away from PIMS – and registered a case on the charges of occupying a disputed property. Later, a judicial magistrate, with reference to orders of Supreme Court, got him released, sending Muhsin Murad, a co-accused in the same case, to jail.

The order of the judicial magistrate reads: “As the orders of the August Supreme Court is binding on all the executive and judicial authorities of Pakistan…the arrest of the accused is illegal…Imran Munir be immediately discharged from this case and be handed back to the police officials to take him into protective custody.” Consequently, Imran landed back at PIMS. A judicial inquiry of this case is in progress under supervision of Additional Sessions judge Muhammad Akmal Khan. Amina Masood Janjua blamed Islamabad police for defaming Imran by implicating him in fabricated cases. “He is very important witness in my husband’s case so all the efforts are being made to disqualify him as witness by distorting his image,” she said.

Punjab govt patronising jailed terrorists?

* Law minister admits top sectarian terrorists, including LJ’s Malik Ishaq, being given financial support from government funds
* Jailed terror suspects enjoying VIP protocol and amenities, including cell phones

By Asad Kharal

LAHORE: The Punjab government is extending financial support and other amenities to jailed leaders of the banned militant group Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LJ), including top hitman Malik Ishaq, sources have told Daily Times.

Government sources told Daily Times that LJ’s top hitman Malik Ishaq, who has been acquitted in 44 different cases of 70 murders and is currently being held for involvement in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team, and other high profile terrorists are getting VIP protocol in prison. These hardened criminals are also enjoying several amenities, including cell phones, which they are using to plan attacks with their accomplices outside the prison.

During investigation, Zubair Maitla, an accused in the attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team in Lahore, told interrogators that Malik Ishaq was involved in the planning of the deadly attack. Ishaq is currently being detained on Maitla’s statement, said the sources, adding that preventing terrorism would be impossible until the Punjab government stopped supporting jailed terrorist leaders.

Several victims of LJ’s sectarian hatred, most of whom requested not to be named, have also questioned the Punjab government’s determination to curb terrorism.

Khadim and Sikandar, who testified against Malik Ishaq in a murder case, said they had appeared in court for eight years, and despite the killings of eight fellow witnesses and threats to their life, stood their ground. “How do you expect justice when witnesses are killed in broad daylight and the killers are enjoying government-sponsored facilities and financial assistance…the situation is hopeless,” they said.

Sources also revealed that the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz governments led by Nawaz Sharif and Shahbaz Sharif had also extended financial support and VIP protocol to the late Maulana Azam Tariq, chief of the banned militant organisation Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, when he was in prison. Tariq was even provided with a mobile squad and police security whenever he went out of the prison, the sources claimed.

Talking to Daily Times, Punjab Law Minister Rana Sanaullah admitted that Malik Ishaq and some other prisoners involved in sectarian violence were receiving financial assistance from the Punjab government. He did not elaborate on the issue.

He said dangerous terrorists like Malik Ishaq had managed to escape conviction because “there were no witnesses and evidence against him”.

Pakistan hands six dossiers to India over Mumbai attacks

* FO spokesman says Islamabad has asked India to hand over Kasab, Fahim to complete its own trial
* Kasab extradition ‘not extradition per se’ but legal requirement

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Sunday handed over to India six dossiers on its own investigation into the Mumbai attacks, with a request that India hand over Ajmal Kasab and an Indian national, Fahim Ansari so that their testimonies could be recorded in Pakistan.

Top Foreign Office officials handed over the dossiers to the Indian deputy high commissioner, APP reported.

The government asked India to hand over the lone surviving gunman of the 2008 Mumbai attacks so that it could complete its own trial of seven suspects linked to the assault, officials said.

“We have sought India’s help that he (Ajmal Kasab) should be handed over to us so that the trial here can go forward,” Foreign Office spokesman Abdul Basit told AFP.

Islamabad is holding seven suspects linked to the November 26 to 29 attack on India’s financial capital, including alleged mastermind of the operation, Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi, and Lashkar-e-Tayyaba (LT) operative Zarar Shah.

India and Washington have both blamed the Mumbai attack on the LT.

An anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi indicted the seven men on the eve of the first anniversary of the attack.

Since the indictment, officials have implied that the seven suspects’ trial cannot proceed unless Kasab, who was convicted in Mumbai last month after a year-long trial, is handed over as a witness.

Extradition: When asked how India could extradite Kasab and Ansari to Pakistan, Basit replied, “It is not extradition per se. It is a legal requirement since the court has asked that Kasab be produced before it.”

Interior Minister Rehman Malik has also said that Kasab is required to appear in Rawalpindi.

“Kasab’s statement is of paramount importance in the Mumbai attack case, which is an important document and our courts need it,” APP quoted him as telling reporters late on Saturday.

Malik said India would also be requested to send to Rawalpindi the officials who recorded Kasab’s statement in Mumbai.