Saudi Arabia’s ancient religious sites crumble before Wahabiism

Muslims are often criticised for not speaking out more vocally on key issues that affect their community. Barely a week goes by without the media asking why community leaders aren’t more vocal in condemning button topics such as terrorism or violence against women.

It’s a difficult balance and often the criticisms are unfair. One the one hand ordinary Muslims cannot be expected to answer for everything that is done in their name. But at the same time silence and reticence from a majority simply allows the vocal minority to have disproportionate influence on how Islam is both practiced and perceived by the rest of the world.

One area that you might think would see Muslims speaking out with one voice is the wholesale archaeological and historical destruction of Islam’s birthplace. Over the past twenty years, fuelled by their petro-dollars and intolerant Wahabi backers, the Saudi authorities have embarked on cultural vandalism of breath-taking proportions.

Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam, are being systematically bulldozed to make way for gleaming sky scrapers, luxury hotels and shopping malls. The Saudis insist that the expansion of these two cities is vital to make way for the growing numbers of pilgrims in a rapidly expanded and inter-connected world. And they’re right.

But does it really need to be done in a way where luxury apartments and $500-a-night rooms now overlook the Ka’aba in Mecca, the one place on earth that all Muslims are supposed to be equal?

Most appallingly dozens of early Islamic sites – including those with a direct link to the Prophet himself – have been wiped off the map. The situation is so bad that the Washington based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 percent of the millennium old buildings in the two cities have been destroyed in the past twenty years.

Much of this cultural vandalism is inspired by Wahabism – the austere interpretation of Islam that is the Saudi kingdom’s official religion. Wahabis are obsessed with idol worship and believe visiting graves, shrines or historical sites that are associated with the Prophet encourages shirq (the worship of false gods). The rampant commercialism meanwhile is inspired by something much simpler – greed.

With a few notable exceptions the destruction of Mecca and Medina has largely passed unchallengedMuslim silence on this issue isn’t just cowardly, it’s deeply hypocritical. When an obscure group of foam-at-the-mouth Islamophobes got together in the United States to make an utterly pointless and deliberately provocative film about the Prophet Mohammad, or when a group of Danish cartoonists exercised their democratic right to lampoon a religious leader and the creeping self-censorship of the European press, protests broke out around the world.

At Friday prayers, imams and sheikhs wasted little time in giving rousing speeches about how Islam was being sullied and the Prophet insulted. The mobs came out, people died (mostly Muslims).

How many of those imams have bothered to get animated about what has happened in Mecca and Medina? How many are outraged that the house of Muhammad’s first wife Khadijah was pulled down and replaced with a block of public toilets, or that five of the seven mosques marking the Battle of the Trench outside Medina have been destroyed, or that religious police cheered when a mosque linked to the Prophet’s grandson was dynamited? It’s politically a lot more convenient to blame infidels for disrespecting your religion’s founder than it is to point the finger of blame at your own kind.

But it’s not just the Muslim world that has kept mum. When the Taliban – fuelled by same anti-idol zealotry that burns within Wahabis – blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas the world was incensed. Governments spoke out, academics were outraged and column inches filled up. With a few notable exceptions the destruction of Mecca and Medina has largely passed unchallenged.

Partly that’s down to the enormous influence Saudi Arabia wields. As the gate keeper to the cradle of Islam (since 1986 the Saudi monarchy has modestly awarded itself the title Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques), it controls who gets to go on the annual Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages. Muslim countries are terrified that any overly critical statements about what is happening in the Hejaz might lead to a reduction in pilgrim quotas.

Although the Muslim media has been pretty shamefully silent, credit should go to Al Jazeera who did manage to get in and film a documentary last yearabout the archaeological destruction of Mecca.

Equally, in the West, archaeologists and historians – who should be on the front lines of a no-cultural-destruction-of-Islam protest – keep quiet because they won’t be allowed in to the Kingdom again if they speak up, whilst governments prefer to keep the Saudis onside because of their enormous oil wealth and supposed commitment to the so-called war on terror.

Governments prefer to keep the Saudis onside because of their enormous oil wealthInside Saudi Arabia itself there is a mixture of opinions. The wealthy elite think little beyond the gleaming shopping malls and hotels that keep them supplied with fat profits and luxury goods.

But there is anger among many locals in Mecca and Medina who have looked on with horror at what has happened to their cities, especially among those who have been forcibly evicted from their homes to make way for this brave new world.

The difficulty, of course, is that in a highly autocratic country where women still don’t have the right to drive and opposition to the Saud monarchy is ruthlessly supressed, there are bigger fish to fry. Archaeology and history come second to basic personal freedoms.

But hope is not lost because people do care. When I first started investigating this subject a little over a year ago I wasn’t sure how Muslims would react. Last September we published a piece in which I described how Mecca was turning into a gaudy Las Vegas. Within hours it had gone viral. All across the Muslim world news sites, bloggers and readers were reposting the article. It stayed at the top of our most read list for weeks whilst on Facebook alone it has been reposted 37,000 times. And the response we got was overwhelmingly positive.

Muslims were horrified by what was happening and they wanted to know what they could do. A few months later I was asked to give a talk on my research by the City Circle, a group of mainly young, professional Muslims who meet on a weekly basis. The crowd was as mixed as any London Islamic audience – Salafis in their three quarter length trousers and long beards, hippy looking Sufis, women in headscarves and veils, women without headscarves and beardless men in their pin-striped city suits. I expected the more orthodox members to defend what was happening in Saudi Arabia, instead everyone seemed to be equally upset.

After the talk I remember one young Saudi woman in a black abaya coming up to me with tears in her eyes. “They are literally destroying the birthplace of Islam,” she said. “This is the place where the Prophet lived and prayed. We have to do something.”

Only Muslims will be able to save what little is left of the early Islamic heritage within Mecca and Medina. But I hope for both their own benefit – and the wider world’s – that they are successful.

Recipe for Disaster

By Jennifer Andrews
TACSTRAT

When black people are attacked, they call it Racism. When Jewish people are attacked, they call it anti-Semitism. When Women are attacked, they call it Gender Discrimination. When Homosexuals are attacked, they call it Intolerance. When they attack your Country, they call it Counter- Terrorism. When a Religious Sect is attacked, they call it Hate Speech. But when they attack the dignity of the Prophet of Islam, Prophet MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H), they call it “Freedom of Expression”-.

Samuel Huntington’s “The clash of Civilizations” planted the thought that Christianity and Islam may be headed for a clash. His idea probably was that thinking minds would work to avert such a catastrophic confrontation but unfortunately there were those who considered such a clash desirable and began work to bring it about. These were the Evangelicals who claimed divine guidance-remember former President Bush flabbergasting the French President by talking of ‘Gog and Magog’? Now with hindsight the progression of events that has brought us to the present day violence can be traced without going back into the ancient history of religious rivalries.

911 was a landmark event but why did it happen? Its origin can be traced to the confrontation between the West and Communism. We have recent revelations (from Brezinski and others) that tell us that the West began arming and funding religiously motivated Muslims for insurgent operations in Afghanistan much before the Soviet invasion of that unfortunate country. In fact it was this covert activity that drew the Soviets into Afghanistan. Once the Soviet Union was in Afghanistan the fig leaf that covered the subversion was removed and armed fighters motivated by jihad were recruited, trained and funded to fight in Afghanistan. This was the seed that later germinated into the Taliban. Once the Russians withdrew and the Soviet Union collapsed the US left Afghanistan to its fate thereby planting another seed that was to grow in to Al Qaeda. These were the people who executed the 911 plan as a protest against the policies of the US in Muslim lands and the dictatorships that the US supported-dictatorships that the ‘Arab Spring’ is now uprooting with the US now switching sides by supporting rebels. If the fate of the US Ambassador in Libya is any indication the US will be the eventual target.

The US response to the criminal terrorist act of 911 was a declaration of war against terror and the use of the word ‘crusades’ by the US President left no doubt in anyone’s mind where and how this war would be fought. A war that need never have been if 911 had been identified as a criminal act and the response had been limited to the arrest and prosecution of those responsible. This would have led to an international strangulation of finances and a focused campaign to arrest and prosecute the actual people responsible. The attack into Afghanistan was ostensibly against ‘terror’ but actually to establish bases from where US tries to influence Central and South Asia. Then followed the attack into Iraq on the basis of manufactured intelligence about WMD and links to Al Qaeda-both premises now fully exposed as fabricated. The result is that both Iraqis and Afghans are killing Americans and both the countries are in chaos with the fallout going well beyond their borders.

The covert and overt attempts to create a sectarian divide within Islam has led to much violence but the result is an Iran that feels threatened and reaches out for a nuclear capability and a linkage with Syria, Hezbollah and kurds as well as the movements in Bahrain and elsewhere. The Arab Spring is being slowly taken over by Islamic forces with Egypt as the model. Sensing weakness and an opportunity China and Russia are coming closer and the regional countries are evolving pragmatic policies.

It is in this environment that a film made and shown in the US has stirred anger in the Islamic world and to exploit this anger there is Al Qaeda-in Afghanistan, in Iraq, In the Maghreb , in the Arabian Peninsula and many other places. To brush it off as ‘freedom of expression’ does not help nor do the crazy antics of the mad Koran burning US pastor-is that ‘freedom of action’?

Al-Qaida says al-Zawahri has succeeded bin Laden

By HAMZA HENDAWI

CAIRO — Al-Qaida has selected its longtime No. 2 to succeed Osama bin Laden following last month’s U.S. commando raid that killed the terror leader, according to a statement posted Thursday on a website affiliated with the network.

Ayman al-Zawahri, who will turn 60 next week, is believed to be operating from somewhere near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

He is the son of an upper middle class Egyptian family of doctors and scholars. His father was a pharmacology professor at Cairo University’s medical school and his grandfather was the grand imam of Al-Azhar University, a premier center of religious study.

In a videotaped eulogy released earlier this month, al-Zawahri warned that America faces not individual terrorists or groups but an international community of Muslims that seek to destroy it and its allies.

“Today, praise God, America is not facing an individual, a group or a faction,” he said, wearing a white robe and turban with an assault rifle leaned on a wall behind him. “It is facing a nation than is in revolt, having risen from its lethargy to a renaissance of jihad.”

Al-Zawahri also heaped praise on bin Laden, who was killed in a May 2 raid by U.S. Navy SEALs in the Pakistani garrison town of Abbottabad, and criticized the U.S. for burying him at sea.

“He went to his God as a martyr, the man who terrified America while alive and terrifies it in death, so much so that they trembled at the idea of his having tomb,” he said.

Al-Qaida gave no details about the selection process for bin Laden’s successor but said that it was the best tribute to the memory of its “martyrs.”

The statement announcing al-Zawahri’s succession was filled with the terror network’s usual rhetoric, vowing to continue the fight against what it called “conquering infidels, led by America and its stooge Israel, who attack the homes of Islam.”

The group also said it will never accept Israel’s legitimacy and will continue to support Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq and North Africa.

The al-Qaida statement also stated the group’s support for this year’s popular uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Syria and Libya.

“We encourage the people of Islam to rise up and continue the struggle, persistence and devotion until all the corrupt and oppressive regimes imposed by the West are gone,” it said.

The ‘bin Laden’ of marginalisation

Larbi Sadiki

The real terror eating away at the Arab world is socio-economic marginalisation.

Conventional wisdom has it that ‘terror’ in the Arab world is monopolised by al-Qaeda in its various incarnations. There may be some truth in this.

From Tunisia and Algeria in the Maghreb to Jordan and Egypt in the Arab east, the real terror is marginalisation

However, this is a limited viewpoint. Regimes in countries like Tunisia and Algeria have been arming and training security apparatuses to fight Osama bin Laden. But they were caught unawares by the ‘bin Laden within’: the terror of marginalisation for the millions of educated youth who make up a large portion of the region’s population.

The winds of uncertainty blowing in the Arab west – the Maghreb – threaten to blow eastwards towards the Levant as the marginalised issue the fatalistic scream of despair to be given freedom and bread or death.

Whose terror?

The gurus of so-called ‘radicalisation’ who have turned Islam into a security issue have fixed the debate, making bin Laden a timeless, single and permanent pathology of all things Muslim.

It is no exaggeration to claim that since 9/11 so-called radicalisation has replaced new Orientalism as the prism through which Western security apparatuses view Middle Eastern youth and societies. Guantanamo Bay, profiling, extraordinary renditions, among others, are only the tip of the iceberg.

The policing, equipment, funding, expertise and anti-terror philosophy being fed to the likes of Algeria, Libya and Morocco are geared towards fighting the ‘bearded, radical salafis’ whose prophet is Osama bin Laden. But, the tangible bin Ladens bracing suicide in its entirety have emerged from the ranks of the educated middle classes whose prophet is Adam Smith.

Al-Qaeda, literally “the base”, may today be the swelling armies of marginals in the Middle East, not the ‘salafis’.

It is not the Quran or Sayyid Qutb – who is in absentia charged with perpetrating 9/11 despite being dead since 1966 – Western security experts should worry about. They should perhaps purchase Das Kapital and bond with Karl Marx to get a reality check, a rethink, a dose of sobriety in a post-9/11 world afflicted by over-securitisation.

From Tunisia and Algeria in the Maghreb to Jordan and Egypt in the Arab east, the real terror that eats at self-worth, sabotages community and communal rites of passage, including marriage, is the terror of socio-economic marginalisation.

The armies of ‘khobzistes’ (the unemployed of the Maghreb) – now marching for bread in the streets and slums of Algiers and Kasserine and who tomorrow may be in Amman, Rabat, San’aa, Ramallah, Cairo and southern Beirut – are not fighting the terror of unemployment with ideology. They do not need one. Unemployment is their ideology. The periphery is their geography. And for now, spontaneous peaceful protest and self-harm is their weaponry. They are ‘les misérables’ of the modern world.

The ‘bread compact’

The bread compacts which framed the political order in much of the Arab world came unstuck in the mid- to late-1980s.

In the 1960s, regimes committed to the distribution of bread (subsidised goods) in return for political passivity. In the 1980s, the new political fix shifted to giving the vote instead of bread.

Who can forget the 1988 bread riots that eventually brought the Islamists to the verge of parliamentary control of Algeria in 1991? The riots in Jordan at around the same time inspired state-led political liberalisation in 1989.

For Tunisia, Algeria, Jordan and Egypt, the impoverished Arab states, in need of the liquidity of Euro-American and International Misery Fund aid, infitah (open-door policy) was the only blueprint of forward economic management. Within its bosom are bred greed, land grab, corruption, monopoly and the new entrepreneurial classes who exchange loyalty and patronage with the political masters as well as the banknotes and concessions with which both fund flash lifestyles.

Thus the map of distribution was gerrymandered at the expense of the have-nots who are placated with insufficient micro credits or ill-managed national development funds. The crumbs – whatever subsidies are allowed by the new economic order built on the pillars of privatisation, the absence of social safety nets and economic protectionism – delay disaffection but never eliminate it.

Below the surface the pent-up anger of the marginals simmers.

‘Tis the season of ‘bread intifadas’

The ‘khobzistes’ have returned. At home they are marginals; abroad, they are largely persona non grata for being born in the wrong geography, inheriting the perfect genes for ‘profiling’ and being too culturally challenged for some European assimilationists. Their only added value is as objects of social dumping in capitalism’s sweat shops.

Potentially, they are the fodder of chaos in the absence of social justice, culturally sensitive sustainable development and democratic mediating networks and civic channels of socio-political bargaining and
inclusion.

Bread uprisings have a plus and a minus. On the positive side, they act as elections, as plebiscites on performance, as an airing of public anger, they issue verdicts on failed policies and send stress messages to rulers.

The response comes swiftly: when initial oppression becomes too heavy and politically costly, bargains begin. They include promises of jobs and policy, reversals of hikes in food prices and even scapegoats in the form of ministerial dismissals.

This is where Algeria and Tunisia are today.

In Tunisia, in particular, the government has been clumsy, nervous and completely out of line for threatening the use of force and then employing it. Fatalities have been on the rise. The death toll is heavy and may already have produced irreversible tipping-point logic.

Bargains, but no democracy

On the negative side, there is no ‘democratic spring’ in Algeria. Bread riots come and go. But regimes stay on.

The absence of a critical mass that produces a tipping-point dynamic means that regimes know how to buy time, co-opt and fund themselves out of trouble when pushed. Genuine democratic bargains do not ensue. The states have not invested in social and political capital.

Oppositions and dissidents have not yet learned how to infiltrate governments and build strong political identities and power bases. This is one reason why the protests that produced ‘Velvet revolutions’ elsewhere seem to be absent in the Arab world.

The momentum created by the bread rioters is never translated into self-sustaining critical mass by opposition forces. Regimes wait until the last minute after use of force fails to kill off the momentum through the offer of concessionary and momentary welfare.

Tunisia will be the first Arab exception to this: Ben Ali is in no position to act Machiavellian and intransigent. He is weak, and the party following and army that has protected him for 24 years may be withdrawing loyalty as the crisis deepens.

The ‘fishers of men’

The misery belts tightening around the pockets of affluence and opportunity from Algiers to Amman hint at the microcosm of the unevenness of global distribution.

Just as Sidi Bouzid, El-Kobba, Ma’an or Imbaba function internally in that belt of misery, so do the cities of Arab states globally. They are the periphery, literally the misery belts tightening around rich ‘fortress Europe’ – a Europe that is increasingly more interested in the technology of security, surveillance systems, ‘radicalisation’ theories, policing and the mental nets functioning as ‘fishers of men’ according to one study. Today the ClubMed geography is in rebellion mode.

Frontex is the EU agency that spearheads the task of constructing fortress Europe. It is at the front, fighting against the boat people that threaten the lifestyles and comfort of the EU. Its planes, frigates and patrols literally fish men from the tiny boats laden with Arab and African human cargo destined for EU shores.

These desperados weather the high seas knowing that their chance of survival is not more than 10 per cent. Many drown. Tunisian Mohamed Bouazizi’s act of insanity was not the only suicide. The ‘harraqa’, as North African boat people are called, seek exodus by stealth, and by death.

Those who do not drown are chased back to their shores of departure. Some are caught and returned to countries of transition such as Libya.

A 2009 EU agreement assigns maritime patrolling and policing to Libya so that boat people do not reach Italian ports, discarding the ethical implications of entrusting refugee protection to countries with dubious human rights records.

From Israel to Spain, fences are erected to keep non-Europeans out. They are allowed to dream of Europe … but not of setting foot in it.

The time has come for the Arab Gulf labour markets to do more for the Arab marginals.

The ‘geography of hunger’

In Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth one finds resonance with the misery engulfing Tunisia and Algeria today, where the have-nots, or the mahrumin, and the khobzistes strike back at the state and target its symbols. They fight back and thus “struggle … and with their shrunken bellies [and humiliated egos] outline of the geography of hunger”.

In this geography of hunger and marginalisation, the ruling native becomes the new coloniser. By contrast to the have-nots, the ruling natives and the economic ‘mafias’ are sheltered not only in mansions and villas, but also within ‘a hard shell’ that immures them from the “poverty that surrounds” them.

In The Wretched of the Earth one reads about the “poor, underdeveloped countries, where the rule is that the greatest wealth is surrounded by the greatest poverty”.

To map out the “geography of hunger” is not complete without marking out the geography of authoritarianism. In both Algeria and Tunisia, the big interests and profiteers supporting Bouteflika and Ben Ali seem to fulfill Fanon’s prophecy about corruption “sooner or later” making leaders “men of straw in the hands of the army … immobilising and terrorising”. It is the security forces and the army that run the show in both countries.

Fanon, the ideologue of the Algerian revolution, is probably turning in his grave at the thought that a country of “one million martyrs” sacrificed for independence is today battling for new freedoms from housing shortages, rising food prices, autocracy and overall marginalisation.

The figures construct on paper stories of growth and stability that are not matched by the reality of marginalisation.

For how long republics of paper and men of straw can withstand the hell-fire of the Algerian and Tunisian eruptions fuelled by marginalisation remains to be seen. What is certain, however, is that the beginnings of a ‘Tunisian democratic spring’ are in the offing.

US And India Are Exploiting Mumbai

AHMED QURAISHI

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan-Two year later, no one has probed the international aspect of the planning for the Mumbai attacks. Both India and the United States are focused only on the alleged Pakistani part in the attacks. The Pakistani part is limited. The international dimension of the planning and preparations for the attacks is vast and full of leads that have been deliberately suppressed by the Indian and US governments.

India is focused on settling political scores with Lashkar-e-Tayyeba. The United States insists on becoming a party to the Mumbai probe and is using Lashkar’s's name to peddle conspiracy theories about LeT’s ‘global ambitions’ to sustain pressure on Pakistan on the Afghan front and rid India of one of its most formidable Kashmiri foes.

India is yet to convict the lone surviving attacker, Ajmal Kassab. New Delhi is yet to reveal crucial parts of its own probe, especially any information on the backgrounds and identities of the ten terrorists who carried out an impressive attack against India on Indian soil with near impunity.

By delaying the conviction of Kassab for two years, India has lost the credibility of its case and weakened its allegations against Pakistan. The only reason there’s no conviction is because there’s no evidence. And as time passes, more information emerges about the international aspects of this crime. The new information further weakens India’s ‘get-Pakistan’ campaign.

That’s good news for Pakistan. But there’s a whole bundle of trouble for Pakistan that has developed since 2008. It would be useful for the Pakistanis to start a counterattack on the diplomatic and media fronts:

1. India has used the attacks as cover to settle scores with Kashmiri and pro-Kashmir groups like Lashkar-e-Tayyeba [LeT]. These groups have given India’s military a bloody nose in Kashmir in the 21 years since the start of the armed struggle by Kashmiris against Indian occupation. These groups are naturally based in Pakistan due to a large number of Pakistanis being of Kashmiri heritage and because of Kashmir’s geographical contiguity with Pakistan. India has used the attacks to advocate Israel-style limited aerial strikes inside Pakistan against the offices of the Kashmiri and pro-Kashmir groups. Perpetrators of Mumbai attacks must be punished, but India and its enthusiasts in Washington must not be allowed to use this as a pretext to suppress legitimate Kashmiri freedom activism.

2. There is no evidence so far linking LeT and other Kashmiri or pro-Kashmir groups to Mumbai attacks. India’s case is built on two threads. One is the person presented by the Indian police as the lone surviving terrorist. If the Indian version of interrogations is to be believed, Ajmal Kassab is supposed to have provided an insider account of alleged Pakistani/Kashmiri/LeT involvement. Experts know that young operatives in such terror cases are often low-level pawns with little knowledge about the real organizers and planners. Knowing this, it is easy to see how this suspect can’t provide useful info beyond a certain point, which is his immediate involvement with the group that carried out the attacks. And even here, it is worth exploring why Indian interrogators failed to extract and release any information about the other 10 attackers: their identities, names, places of origin, etc. The second thread on which India’s case is built is the Internet. There’s a lot of confusing material on voice-over-Internet and cell phone communications passing through third-country telecom networks. This involves several countries beyond Pakistan and India. This makes Mumbai attacks a truly multinational crime and suggests possibilities for the involvement of criminal and intelligence cells in those third countries. This evidence contradicts India’s position that all investigation be focused on Pakistan and pro-Kashmir groups.

3. The CIA-FBI angle: What confirms the point above is evidence that a longtime FBI agent, a half-Pakistani named David Headley, was a longtime CIA recruit and was planted close to LeT and other pro-Kashmir activists in Pakistan. Islamabad has smartly refrained from commenting on his case. The Indian government has its own suspicions but it too won’t probe the Americans too hard on them beyond occasional murmurs. Headley’s entry into the probe and the circustances in which his cover was blown further weakens the Indian case in any impartial judicial review.

4. The US is exploiting Mumbai attacks more than the Indians. Washington is making itself party to the case simply because one or two Americans became targets of circumstance. This is fascinating because an Australian priest and his two underage kids were burned alive in 1999 and Australia never pursued the case. Nor did any of the American Christian organizations that today lead the campaign for demonizing Islam in support of US war objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan.

5. This fall, Washington has come out with incredible and fantastical theories about a threat to US and Europe from LeT. In some cases US officials have put LeT ahead of al-Qaeda as a bigger threat. US officials have also tailored new threats to suit LeT’s Mumbai-related profile. This was done by, for example, the choice of words, insisting that Europe is facing the possibility of ‘Mumbai-style attacks.’ US officials have also theorized that LeT suddenly has ‘global ambitions’. None of these American presentations and conspiracy theories comes with evidence. The LeT and other Kashmiri groups were created because of massive Indian military atrocities in Kashmir, including rapes and Serbian-style mass graves. Victims of these events have produced motivated cadres out to seek revenge. They are focused on Kashmir and India’s role in this tragedy. These groups and their activists don’t have global ambitions.

6. It is US policy now that Pakistan relinquish its historic claim to Indian occupied Kashmir. If Pakistan complies, it won’t have any reason to object to a major Indian role in Afghanistan in support of the United States and as part of a common Indian-Pakistani-American-NATO front hedging China, Iran and Russia.

The one crucial recommendation that Pakistan’s political and intelligence officials must consider before it is too late is this:

Declare firmly and clearly that Pakistan will not and cannot be held responsible for terror attacks in third countries carried out by the citizens of those countries. David Headley is American. So is Faisal Shahzad, and the Germans alleged by CIA to have traveled to the Pakistani tribal belt through Afghanistan and are planning ‘Mumbai-style’ attacks in Europe cannot be a Pakistani responsibility.

Alleged future attacks are being linked to the Pakistani tribal belt to help Washington push Pakistan into a new war in that region against Pakistan’s Pashtun. Making such claims has become easy for the US and British governments without any counter narrative from the Pakistani government.

Pakistan should stop India and the United States from exploiting Mumbai. And the best way to do this is to demand a wider probe into the entire aspects of the Mumbai carnage and not limit the investigations to alleged Pakistani connections, which are weak and circumstantial at best.

Most Pakistanis are pacifist, says survey

By Amir Wasim

ISLAMABAD: A majority of Pakistanis don’t approve of Islamabad’s decision to join the US-led war on terror but, at the same time, they don’t believe that the Taliban are fighting for Islam, according to a survey carried out by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies (Pips).

Surprisingly, there are not many Taliban sympathisers in Fata and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Only 22pc respondents in Fata and 25.3pc in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa believe the Taliban are fighting for Islam.

Findings of the “Radicalisation in Pakistan” survey released on Tuesday show that 63.6 per cent of the respondents were against joining the war on terror, and 46.3pc were of the opinion that the Taliban were not fighting for Islam.

Even among those who sounded sympathetic to the militant organisation, 39.7pc condemned its acts of violence, such as attacks on girls’ schools, cinemas and CD shops. But about 22pc of them did not know how to respond to such acts.

According to the survey report, Taliban has sympathisers mostly in Balochistan (49.4pc) and Punjab (30.1pc) who believe that they are fighting for Islam.

Surprisingly, there are not many Taliban sympathisers in Fata and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Only 22pc respondents in Fata and 25.3pc in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa believe the Taliban are fighting for Islam.

However, 45.7pc of the respondents in Fata did not respond to the question.

The report reveals that Taliban do not enjoy much support in Sindh, AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan.

The respondents appeared concerned about the condition of Muslims and 77.7pc thought that they lagged behind other nations. Most of them (31.2pc) were of the opinion that this is because they had deviated from Islam. Only 18.1pc maintained that it was due to their backwardness in the fields of science and technology.

Another significant finding is that a large number of people (46.8pc) want religio-political parties given a chance to rule the country, despite the fact that the electoral performance of these parties were not “impressive’ in October 2002 when analysts attributed whatever success they achieved to the strong anti-American sentiments in the country.

The respondents also expressed interesting views on Jihad.

Very few (2.7pc) were of the view that Muslims had failed to progress in the world because they had lost their passion to fight against their enemies. About 28pc people believed that Jihad should be waged against cruelty and not to spread Islam to every corner of the world as five per cent of the respondents believed.

A large number of the respondents (20.4pc) were concerned about religious differences in the country. They blamed these disagreements for sectarianism and religious extremism.

However, a large number of people (21.6pc) did not take the disagreements seriously and said that these had been preordained and prophesied. The survey clearly captures growing religiosity among the masses.

Not surprisingly, 65pc of the respondents said a person who did not pray five times a day could not become a better Muslim. Nearly 59pc of them said the struggle for implementation of Sharia was also Jihad.

However, about 81pc of the respondents considered female education as “extremely necessary” and only a small percentage (12.5) thought it was “not very important”.

Nearly 23pc of the people surveyed said they did not listen to music, and (15.8pc) of them said it was because of religious reasons.

Interestingly, 51pc of the total sample endorsed Junaid Jamshaid’s decision to quit singing.

The respondents were from all urban and rural areas in the four provinces, Fata, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir (excluding military restricted areas).

The survey population was selected through probability/random sampling. Most of the people (53.4 and 14.8pc, respectively) belonged to urban areas and small towns. But a significant proportion (29.9pc) came from the rural community. A large majority of the respondents were either in intermediate (29.3pc) or pursuing a graduation or master’s degree (37.5pc).

Only 8.3pc of the people were not literate and 2.2pc had received only madressah education.

Interestingly, the general perception about the wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir is at variance with the recent militant discourse.

HINDU ARROGANCE IN WAY OF PEACE IN SUB-CONTINENT

Hindu-Muslim antagonism

Brig Asif Haroon Raja

The first brick of Hindu-Muslim antagonism was laid when Muhammad Bin Qasim raised the banner of Islam in Sindh in 712 AD and tens of thousands of lower caste Hindus and Buddhists suffering under the tyrannical yoke of Raja Dahir embraced Islam. Throughout 1000 years rule of India by the Muslims, Hindu cultural values and religious sentiments were respected and preserved. Benevolence of Muslim rulers of India and their patronage to high caste Hindus resulted in failure to assimilate Hinduism into fold of Islam. This can be gauged from the fact that at the time of partition of India, Muslim strength in the Indian subcontinent was mere 22%.

Hindus never reconciled to any meaningful integration with generous Muslim culture. Behind apparent public cordiality, there was deep-seated antagonism in private. Muslims were always looked down upon as defiled and polluted and treated as intruders. Hinduism reluctantly submitted to Muslim rule, but all the time it strived to weaken Islamic society by corroding it from within.

When the British captured power in India, Hindus became natural allies of the British and both went all out to destroy social, educational, cultural and religious heritage of Muslims. Hindus deep-rooted hatred got accentuated when the Muslims opted for a separate homeland.

Notwithstanding the aspirations of the Muslims of India, the idea of a separate Muslim state was repugnant to Indian Congress and hence unacceptable to them. This led to a bitter and prolonged quarrel between the two communities. While it was a question of survival for the Muslims, for Hindus it was the matter of preventing vivisection of so-called Mahabharata.

Despite many hurdles created by Hindu leaders, upsurge for gaining independence was too great and beyond human control. In spite of MA Jinnah’s loud protestations, provinces of Bengal and Punjab were deliberately partitioned while Kashmir was allowed to accede to India to make him change his mind. These callous acts failed to deter him but sowed seeds of permanent discord between Pakistan and India. When the Kashmiris rose up in revolt, over two-third of Kashmir was forcibly annexed by Indian forces.

Failing to reconcile to the existence of Pakistan and cherishing the fond hope of its re-absorption into Indian dominion, Indian leaders worked hard for the dismemberment of Pakistan soon after its inception. Many Indians regarded the creation of Pakistan as a tragic mistake that could still be corrected. Break up of Pakistan and its absorption within the fold of Indian Union had become the national goal of Congress leaders. To consolidate the Indian dominion, by March 1949, India had absorbed 538 princely states out of a total of 565. India’s insatiable greed to gorge as many states and her menacing attitude towards Pakistan made the latter wary and worried.

Pakistan’s geographical frontiers had yet to be determined. It was without a seat of government or an administrative structure to enable it to exercise its’ sovereignty. It was without a constitution; its’ armed forces were scattered; civil servants and other administrative and technical hands were in the midst of migrating from India; its political and economic system was completely disrupted and the communication system had broken down.

As if these settling problems and the hanging evil shadow of Mountbatten and Radcliffe were not enough, Pakistan’s horizons clouded with hostile acts of its neighbors in the east and the northwest. Their hostility cast perverse shadows across its path. Hindu leaders in their quest to re-unite India continued to hurl threats and saddle Pakistan with knotty problems to prevent the toddling state from standing on its own feet. They refused to accept the creation of Pakistan with good grace, and to settle all outstanding differences on the basis of justice and fair play. They regarded Pakistan as a transient euphoria of Muslims.

Sir Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army having read the intentions of the Indians opined, “I have no hesitation in affirming that the present Indian Cabinet are implacably determined to do all in their power to prevent the establishment of the dominion of Pakistan on a firm basis”.

According to Brecher, “Most of Congress leaders and Nehru among them, subscribed to the view that Pakistan was not a viable state-politically, economically, geographically or militarily and that sooner or later the areas which had ceded would be compelled by force of circumstances to return to the fold”.

In struggling to create a state structure in the chaotic environments of partition and an early war with India over Kashmir, our managers remained tied down fighting the battle of survival and identity. There was no certainty that Pakistan would survive its traumatic birth. “Very few states in the world started with greater handicaps than Pakistan did on August 14, 1947″.

After a lapse of over six decades, it is rather not possible for the present younger generation to perceive the complexities faced by the pioneers of Pakistan at the time of independence. For those who lived through that trying period of history and personally experienced the turmoil, human tragedies, mass carnage of the Muslims by the Hindu-Sikh combine, and the Hindus abominable Bania mentality, it was a nightmare.

Given their common past spread over centuries it was hoped that the two countries after having won their independence from the seductive tentacles of the British Raj would close the chapter of suspicion and aversion and instead strive to live as peaceful neighbors. It was expected that rather than beating war drums and sinking into the bottomless ocean of arms race, leaders of the two countries would concentrate on well being of the people through mutual cooperation. Unfortunately, those hopes remained an elusive dream.

Adversarial history of sixty-two years covering the whole existence of the two nations has in fact made the minds captive of a hate each other syndrome. Jingoistic statements are often hurled at each other to play with the emotions of the people or to satisfy sadistic instincts. After tearing Pakistan into two in 1971, Indian hawkish leaders keep scheming to fragment rest of Pakistan. 1980s saw rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India. Militant BJP government in India that captured power twice repeatedly voiced its wish to reunite the subcontinent and to annex Azad Kashmir by force and vowed to establish Hindutva. Indian Congress is no less antagonistic towards Pakistan and has taken no steps to control growth of Hindu fundamentalism which is intolerant towards all other minorities in India.

Hate phobia and age-old prejudices in the two neighboring countries have not died down. Hindus continue to view the Muslims as destroyers of Hindus culture and for mutilating mother India. Their pent-up anger and hatred against Indian Muslims was physically demonstrated in 1992, when Ayodhya mosque was pulled down and it was demanded that a temple be erected at the same site. Large scale state sponsored massacre of Muslims in Gujarat took place in 2003. Muslims in occupied Kashmir are killed like stray dogs and women brazenly raped. Indian Muslims are eyed with suspicion and treated shabbily. Shiv Sena Chief Bal Thackeray stated on 12 January that Indian Muslims are untrustworthy since they are loyal to Pakistan. On the slightest pretext Hindu scalawags fan communal riots and kill tens of Muslims. These riots in India have increased rather than lessened with the passage of time. 13% Muslim minority in India feels marooned and fearfully watch the growing Hindu fanaticism which finds no place for the Indian Muslims unless they adhere to Hindutva and agree to join the ranks of Sudras (untouchables).

Glimpse of Indian deep-seated antagonism was seen on the occasion of a terrorist attack on Indian parliament on 13 December 2001 in which not a single parliamentarian was killed, injured or even abused. While the whole nation bayed for blood of Pakistan on mere suspicion, Indian armed forces rushed towards their western border and remained in a menacing mode for ten months. This kind of frenetic fury and war mongering was again seen in the aftermath of 26/11. Over one year has lapsed but Indian leaders have not forgotten the incident and refuse to recommence composite dialogue. They do not recall the deep wounds they have consistently inflicted upon Pakistan without any sense of remorse. They ignore that thousands of innocent Pakistanis have died as a result of ongoing RAW sponsored acts of terror. As long as India is ruled by self serving vicious Brahmans, antagonism will prevail and hope for peaceful co-existence will remain elusive.

Brig Asif Haroon is a Member Board of Advisors, Opinion Maker. He writes on geo-politics and is a defence and political analyst. He has been Defence Attache to Cairo, Instructor, Command and Staff College Queta besides authoring 5 books.

Blackwater’s Black Shadow

by GHALIB SULTAN
First Published on: Sep 29, 2009

Much water—most of it black—has flowed under the bridge ever since the Pakistani media started educating their viewers on the mercenary contractor Blackwater and its many clones. By now it is clear that the US relies on contractors like Haliburton, Blackwater, Xe International and others to provide ‘security’ and ‘training’ services that include intelligence, surveillance, target identification and illumination, use of weapons, explosives, extraction operations, subversion, sabotage and elimination of selected personnel. It is also clear that mercenaries of all nationalities are hired and ‘host’ country organizations and personnel are used to give an acceptable ‘face’ to the broad range of activities by these ‘specialists’. Most of this information has been culled from US sources where there is domestic concern stemming from ethical and financial concerns. There is confirmation of some stories by the media like hiring of hundreds of houses in Islamabad and special security measures as well as involvement of local firms like Inter Risk that now stands exposed for illegal activities but there is no clear statement from the government backed by statistics and proof. Till that happens there will continue to be speculation based on misinformation.

If, as is being made out, there has been clandestine penetration of Pakistan and the departments responsible are silent for some reason then the question is being asked that — who will confront these elements and force them to leave? The answer is not hard to guess but the result will be chaos and that is leading to the next question that– is internal chaos the environment required to do what these people are in Pakistan to do? The fact that there is also confirmation of massive embassy and consulates’ expansion plans adds fuel to the speculation about motives and intentions. Again a factual report by the government would clear the air—in the absence of such a report questions will continue to be asked and debated in the media.

It is in this environment of hostility and suspicion that the conditions in the Kerry-Luger Bill are being debated. It is as if these conditions have been just discovered and this is because no preparatory work was done to explain the conditions—if that was at all possible. Now there are those who are attacking the bill and those who are defending it—the defense is half-hearted and lacks credibility. The requirement is that only the ministry concerned should put out reasoned factual information and not rely on shrill political voices to shout down critics. At stake is the future of the US-Pakistan relationship. India’s approval of the condition makes matters worse because the perception is that anything that India approves of is bound to be against Pakistan’s interests!

An unfortunate and totally unnecessary ‘us’ and ‘them’ grouping is being created. ‘Us’ being those in favor of the US interests in relation to Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, the war on terror, Islam and nuclear proliferation even at the cost of Pakistan’s sovereignty if US support and aid continues unabated. ‘Them’ being those who are ‘dragging their feet on relations with India’, hedging their options on the western border because of Indian inroads into Afghanistan and support of subversion in Baluchistan and an overall identification of Pakistan’s interests even if they are not in line with US interests. In an unstable and politically charged atmosphere and with increasing social pressures such a divide if not checked can have serious consequences especially if the major political groupings move towards confrontation forcing institutions like the judiciary and military and the religious lobby to choose sides. The need is for the government to take steps to gain credibility and focus on governance and for all to seriously move to establish political stability. This is not the time for infighting—this is the time to come together and be on the same page so that differences cannot be exploited to create divides. Pakistan is fortunate that today it has democracy, an elected government and institutions that are strengthening themselves and the country by focusing on their own jobs—it would be unfortunate if they are distracted in other directions.

Nawaz Sharif’s Ramblings: Political Leverage or Puppetry?

by GHALIB SULTAN
First Published on: Jun 22, 2009

As feared, the strong support for Operation Rah-e-Rast (against Fake-Talibans and extremist miscreants who had been unabashedly maligning the image of Islam and that of Pakistan) is threatening to crumble courtesy Mian Nawaz Sharif’s recently articulated ‘worries’ over the offensive in South Waziristan.

By far, the strongest and the most influential political leader, Sharif’s ‘ramblings’ are bound to pass on its ripple-effect over public opinion and can be termed ‘grossly irresponsible’ for many reasons. For one, zig-zagging one’s stance (favoring operation in Swat and somersaulting in Waziristan) while the country is in state of war, carries lethal outcomes and such adventurism is ill-suited for a seasoned politician of his stature to say the least.

Right from the beginning, the Operation has enjoyed unequivocal public opinion (inclusive of all political parties) at expunging all elements of terrorism and extremism from the Pakistani soil until the entire country is secured. Despite this, sudden ‘wondering’ on part of a political heavy weight, at this stage, can spell catastrophe by shattering public conviction and proving to be a silent solvent to its faith in the government, and Pak Army, and most of all, in the purpose of this difficult war (costs of which are colossal and require unflinching public support). Moreover, leaving the public opinion ajar this would breed differences, despair and uncertainty – total havoc in the middle of an unfinished operation, bleeding profusely; rupturing thus, the fabric of public opinion sewn to the consent of the government, it may also make a profound contribution in bringing the government down over the pile of mounting grievances.

Yet, right after Owais Ghani’s announcement over the expansion of offensive against militants to South Waziristan tribal region, Sharif addressed his party members insisting on renewed political consultation before opening new fronts against the Taliban linked terrorists. During the address he insisted on reopening political consultation over Operation Rah-e-Rast for which the entire country had already expressed complete confidence before the war had began. During the address he is reported to have said:

“Government should take all sections of society including political forces, religious scholars and media on board prior to opening new fronts”.

Mr. Sharif went on with his rather outwardly (read foreign) assessment based on the assumption of instinctive goodness of all mankind – idealism that totally escapes Pakistan’s knowledge and indigenous understanding of the enemy psyche, firsthand experience in Waziristan and its own assessment as a direct and active combatant in the War on Terror.

Moreover, he appeared to be further assuming that ‘fake talibans’ have legitimate grievances against the government. By doing so he also clubbed together Provincial grievances with the illicit designs (and demands) claimed by subscribers of Talibani extremism, Anti-State elements, mercenaries and those faking up the Talibani cause.

Exposing soft corners to the enemy in an ongoing war, in response to the government’s decision to launch operation against Baitullah Mehsud, put his motives under a critical questionnaire which he needs to answer/explain on priority. To some, the Media hum over Mehsud being a US agent appears to bear some ground considering Obama’s recent visit to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and suspected pressure on Nawaz Sharif through KSA to oppose the operation against Baitullah Mehsud.

These series of ‘suspicious’ events dismally indicate two things. Either Nawaz Sharif is seeking political leverage by choosing to withdraw support when it would be most damaging to the government. Or he is, yet again, acquiescing to western prescription despite everlong puppetry – auctioning Pakistani honor, a deplorable political tradition that is beginning to irritate the youth of Pakistan (a more than fifty per cent of population). Nevertheless, to voice such statements at this time and in such an ostensible manner has a downside for Sharif himself for a simple reason: the country is not as ignorant as it has been in the past.