I watch with greatest sadness and to some degree anger the plight of innocent men, women, children, elderly and other vulnerable individuals made to suffer from an illegal occupation. The illegal occupier, committer of grave war crimes, defeating all sense of civility and defying all levels of morality, Israel imposes blockades on a small piece of Land, Gaza, forcing its population to live under the most inhumane condition. The treatment of the people of Palestine in general and the Gazans in particular is nothing short of the treatment experienced by the helpless Jewish people in Nazi Germany’s concentration camps. The strength of feeling felt inside me learning about the horrors of the concentration camps, I thought was heavy, almost unbearable. However, the horrendous conditions in Gaza beats all imagination and makes me wonder how low can any collection of human kinds can go.
Of course Israel should expect to live in peace and harmony and feel secure within its borders. Of course Israel should have the right to defend itself against aggression. But what must also happen is that it should expect others to expect the same. All nations take pride in their nationalities, all states wish to live in peace, harmony and security within their borders and retain the right to defend themselves against aggression. And it seems this is where the problem is. Hamas, a resistant movement, not afraid to exercise its rights and stand for its people, retaliate against the mighty Israeli war machines causing fear at the heart of the Israeli people is utterly hated by the Zionist xenophobes. They take every opportunity to strike on Hamas in whatever shape and form they can. But every time they fail to break them, in fact the attacks by the war mongers and war-criminals in Tel Aviv only strengthens the resolve of the movement and empowers its leadership with increasingly popularity. Failing in almost all of its attempts, Israel successfully plotted to break the unity among the Palestinians and now trying its latest tactics, to starve the people for their political support and exercising their democratic right by supporting Hamas.
Today however, I shall not spend any longer looking at the issues with Israel. For Israel is not the only party in play at the scene. The concentration camps in 2008 may have been caused by the illegal state of Israel, but the ‘custodians’ of our civilisation and the bearer of ‘justice’, ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ have failed the people of Palestine too. In fact, the custodians, now the so called quartet, shamelessly sided with the butchers in Israel and the plotters in Palestine. Instead of bringing peace, they have assisted to bring about ever more carnage and chaos giving legitimacy to the continuing concentration camp in the once beautiful lands of Palestine. I shall seek to briefly look at the duplicities and inconsistencies of these states who are the source of power behind Israeli might.
To understand the role played by the global community, we must first understand the issues and the conditions on the ground. In a nutshell, the whole matter took a dramatic turn when the popular Hamas Movement came to dominate the PLA through a landslide victory burying the previously dominant force, Fattah of the late President Yasir Arafat. Many quarters for their own vested interested failed to come to term with this outcome and began look for ways to deny Hamas its rightful share in the governance of Palestine. But the matter did not end there. The most dramatic episode began when Hamas decided to go it alone and take over Gaza sending Fattah into a kind of exile into the West Bank.
Meanwhile, reacting to the rise of Hamas to the political institutions of the Palestinian Authority, israel and the most powerful nations decided to take a tough stand to punish the people of palestine for their democratic choice in the first ever true election. US and the European Union stoppped their fund and diverted some of it to their puppet agencies. The legitimate government of popular Hamas forced to fail in its effort to bring about stability and normalise the situation. However, all this failed to stop Hamas from increasing their popularity and influence. They did not fail under pressure from the major donors, and continued to serve their nations despite the absence of the economic lifeline. In between, efforts being made to save face of the ‘partners’ through attempted deals between Hamas and Fattah, but all of them ultimately failed.
The issue at stake is the issue of freedom, justice and ‘democracy’. Hamas, whatever one may feel about them, certainly has the legitimate political right to claim stake in the governance of Palestine for so long as the people of Palestine supports them. No one must act to deny such right to Hamas. The Palestinian people have the absolute right to decide who should lead them, yet again no one must act otherwise. The Palestinian state has the right to claim its sovereignty and reserve the right to retaliate against any aggressions and incursion and no one should meddle with it. These are issues of justice, fundamental rights of a nation, a state and her people. To deny such rights is to deny justice, humanity and civility. Such forces must be resisted in the most appropriate mean.
The US, the European Union, Russia and others who uses the issues of Hamas and likes as an excuse are nothing more than mere collaborators of Israel. More than once they have most spectacularly demonstrated their inability to live peacefully and often violates their own slogans of peace, justice, equality and democracy. US for example invades nations, ousts regimes, sponsors terrorists and funds illegal entities to further her desire to impose her will over the global community. Most strangely, she does all these in the name of Democracy and Freedom. When US and EU together forms the lifeline of Israel’s economy, defence and various other strategic areas, it is hard to have confidence on them to bring peace in the Middle East. Their insincerity and duplicity have been further emphasised in the appointment of the most biased and one-sided leader of recent Memory, Mr Tony Blair.
Of course there is the issue of attacks from Hamas, but this should not be made a condition for Israel to give People of Palestine their legitimate rights. Hamas operates its legitimate resistance movement under the illegitimate occupation of Israel. For the global community to ask Hamas to act first is to give Israel best reward for the most atrocious acts, the gravest of war crimes. The genuinely committed peace negotiators must first force Israel to withdraw from the occupied lands, seriously negotiate on the future of the both states and only than ask for peace and security and not before that. Israel must be made to pay for her crimes, criminals must be brought to justice and Palestine must be allowed to operate freely, viably and independently.
We the global community must show our commitment to peace and justice. We must demonstrate our determination to support the oppressed and must speak for them. Let us demand to our governments to stand for justice, to stand for Palestinians and to stop cooperating with Israel until her war machines stops killing innocent people.
Tuesday, 22 January 2008
Friday, 18 January 2008
To Be a Muslim
Part Two: The Facts contextualised
The issues that muddled the debates in so far as Islam and muslims are concerned is around the matters related to terrorism, violence and intolerance. For me each one of these areas are of specific strength to Muslims as a nation and Islam as the faith. Islam, of all the religions, condemns violence, intolerance and terrorism in the strongest terms. Never in Islamic history will one find little glimpse of atrocities committed by people inspired by islam. For islam is a religion of peace which accepts reality, offers remedy to problems and ensures safety and security of people, whether muslims or otherwise. Yet it seems almost extra ordinary that muslims find it difficult or necessary to be apologetic to respond to the queries posed to them on the issue of terrorism, violence and intolerance.
At the heart of the terrorism, intolerance and violence that we know today is not the faith of Islam, or indeed none of the major faiths but the policies and practices of the various nations claming to be part of the civilised nations. It is not islam that offers justification to the inhumane acts of killing across the world, it is the unjust, illogical and immoral decisions, acts and policies of Washington and their allies and subordinates. People made subject of unjust, inhumane acts, tortured using the dictatorial regimes, deprived of their most basic rights, denied humanity who fight seeking freedom and justice. Take a few of the many examples we can find in our current world.
Chechnya is a unique entity forcedly made part of the Russian Republic where civilians in thousands been massacred and made to leave their homes while the western world remained almost silent. To make it much worse, Russia failed to live up to their own commitment made on treaties signed with the Chechen leaders. So when the global community watched standby, surely the people who were dying would not let it happen without some form of resistance. In the process they commit crimes, kills civilians and others acts which goes beyond any humanly acceptable reason. Of course these acts should be condemned but it is not their faith that forced them or made them to commit such heinous crime but the barbarity that have been made to befall upon them my stronger opponents. Why should these people be classified as terrorists? Or even worse, blamed to be inspired their faith to commit crime? Same can be applied to resistance movement in others parts of the world such as Kashmir, Philippines and Palestine, to name a few.
The issues that muddled the debates in so far as Islam and muslims are concerned is around the matters related to terrorism, violence and intolerance. For me each one of these areas are of specific strength to Muslims as a nation and Islam as the faith. Islam, of all the religions, condemns violence, intolerance and terrorism in the strongest terms. Never in Islamic history will one find little glimpse of atrocities committed by people inspired by islam. For islam is a religion of peace which accepts reality, offers remedy to problems and ensures safety and security of people, whether muslims or otherwise. Yet it seems almost extra ordinary that muslims find it difficult or necessary to be apologetic to respond to the queries posed to them on the issue of terrorism, violence and intolerance.
At the heart of the terrorism, intolerance and violence that we know today is not the faith of Islam, or indeed none of the major faiths but the policies and practices of the various nations claming to be part of the civilised nations. It is not islam that offers justification to the inhumane acts of killing across the world, it is the unjust, illogical and immoral decisions, acts and policies of Washington and their allies and subordinates. People made subject of unjust, inhumane acts, tortured using the dictatorial regimes, deprived of their most basic rights, denied humanity who fight seeking freedom and justice. Take a few of the many examples we can find in our current world.
Chechnya is a unique entity forcedly made part of the Russian Republic where civilians in thousands been massacred and made to leave their homes while the western world remained almost silent. To make it much worse, Russia failed to live up to their own commitment made on treaties signed with the Chechen leaders. So when the global community watched standby, surely the people who were dying would not let it happen without some form of resistance. In the process they commit crimes, kills civilians and others acts which goes beyond any humanly acceptable reason. Of course these acts should be condemned but it is not their faith that forced them or made them to commit such heinous crime but the barbarity that have been made to befall upon them my stronger opponents. Why should these people be classified as terrorists? Or even worse, blamed to be inspired their faith to commit crime? Same can be applied to resistance movement in others parts of the world such as Kashmir, Philippines and Palestine, to name a few.
Thursday, 3 January 2008
To be a Muslim
Part One: Era of Indignation
The horrific attacks on the twin towers committed by murderous terrorists changed the dynamics of our world in many ways. However, the major burnt in the aftermath of these horrendous acts of barbarism is being felt most strongly by Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslims worldwide. All of a sudden everywhere whether media or government Muslim and Islam has become perhaps the most commonly used phrases which triggers certain fear. The negativity attached to the identity of being Muslim is most remarkably demonstrated by the recent rumours concerning the religious identity of Barrack Obama. This latest saga exposes the hatred that even leading politicians nurtures in the us and most certainly in most part of the ‘civilised’ world.
In our post 9/11 world, almost every major discussion includes in one form of another the issue of Islam and Muslims. Thanks to these discussions now we are also being ‘honoured’ with various categories: muslims divided into subsections namely orthodox, conservatives, ultra conservatives, wahabis, extremists, Islamists, Jihadis, moderates, liberals etc. policy makers, thinkers and others use these newly invented, re-invented words as they deem fit to suit their positions. Most strikingly, most of these categorisations and specifications have either being developed by non-Muslims or muslims who are shamed to live according to Islam. It almost feels like that in most cases non-muslims offering great favours to muslims by explaining what islam ought to be to them. To me these acts are perhaps the most insulting, demeaning and outrageous. I will even go as far as saying these attempts defy commonsense, run contrary to the generally accepted standards of civility, equality and democracy that for so long we have been holding firmly close to our hearts. Yet it seems that with regards to muslims and islam these standards are not applied.
The environment of fear, guilt and uncertainty created around the world for muslims has lead to confusion, panic and in some cases desperation. All sorts of proposition have been made and circulated. All kinds of reactions been aired and penned. What to me seems missing however is a confident, Muslim-like response which seeks to challenge the dark forces which erred the senses of many decent human beings all across the world. In most cases, responses from muslims have been either too arrogant, naïve, reactionary or at best apologetic. The response from the quarter, however small, that belonging to the western societies but not muslims often sounded confusing. In part two, I set to look at some possible responses to counter this era of indignation for the muslims.
The horrific attacks on the twin towers committed by murderous terrorists changed the dynamics of our world in many ways. However, the major burnt in the aftermath of these horrendous acts of barbarism is being felt most strongly by Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslims worldwide. All of a sudden everywhere whether media or government Muslim and Islam has become perhaps the most commonly used phrases which triggers certain fear. The negativity attached to the identity of being Muslim is most remarkably demonstrated by the recent rumours concerning the religious identity of Barrack Obama. This latest saga exposes the hatred that even leading politicians nurtures in the us and most certainly in most part of the ‘civilised’ world.
In our post 9/11 world, almost every major discussion includes in one form of another the issue of Islam and Muslims. Thanks to these discussions now we are also being ‘honoured’ with various categories: muslims divided into subsections namely orthodox, conservatives, ultra conservatives, wahabis, extremists, Islamists, Jihadis, moderates, liberals etc. policy makers, thinkers and others use these newly invented, re-invented words as they deem fit to suit their positions. Most strikingly, most of these categorisations and specifications have either being developed by non-Muslims or muslims who are shamed to live according to Islam. It almost feels like that in most cases non-muslims offering great favours to muslims by explaining what islam ought to be to them. To me these acts are perhaps the most insulting, demeaning and outrageous. I will even go as far as saying these attempts defy commonsense, run contrary to the generally accepted standards of civility, equality and democracy that for so long we have been holding firmly close to our hearts. Yet it seems that with regards to muslims and islam these standards are not applied.
The environment of fear, guilt and uncertainty created around the world for muslims has lead to confusion, panic and in some cases desperation. All sorts of proposition have been made and circulated. All kinds of reactions been aired and penned. What to me seems missing however is a confident, Muslim-like response which seeks to challenge the dark forces which erred the senses of many decent human beings all across the world. In most cases, responses from muslims have been either too arrogant, naïve, reactionary or at best apologetic. The response from the quarter, however small, that belonging to the western societies but not muslims often sounded confusing. In part two, I set to look at some possible responses to counter this era of indignation for the muslims.
Monday, 31 December 2007
Benezir’s Legacy
The assassination of Benezir Bhutto stunned the world. Perhaps no other recent leaders’ death in the sub-continent made so much impact in the global media as the death of Benezir Bhutto. But the days of mourning is fast coming to an end and the reality of life taking its course.
The cowardly act of killing is condemned in the strongest terms by all civilised people of our world. The global community stands together with Pakistan to show utmost resolve on the face of this outrageous act of terrorism. No one, whether an ally or foe of Benezir in the political world, should or would find it acceptable to celebrate a death of this kind and let it pass without profound impact in their hearts and thoughts. The death of Benezir should act as a catalyst to build unity and bring about necessary strengths to rid the Pakistani nation off its most disturbing elements, the terrorists. However, no such result will take place unless a comprehensive understanding of the prevailing political culture is acquired.
Benezir, on her death, is rightly remembered as a champion of democracy, for she stood on the face of military dictatorship of Ziaul Haque to bring about democracy in Pakistan, she refused rightly to vow down to the threats and challenges of a dictator. However, Benezir, like most previous and present heads of state of Pakistan, symbolizes the very problem of Pakistan, the lack of a genuinely democratic, thoroughly honest and clean politicians who are inspired, motivated and committed to build a happy, prosperous and plural Pakistan where intellect and not gun rules. Unfortunately, Benezir has been part and parcel of a political culture which have been dominated by corruption, greed for power and a serious lack of true patriotism.
Pakistan, from its beginning, were built on a shallow principle where the vision and the values of the state were never clear. The leaders often cited values and customs, used religion and other slogans as they deemed fit to ensure their own grip on power. Even right at the beginning when the ‘great leaders’ freed the nation from the British empire promising to build a modern Islamic state, the core leaders themselves demonstrated little understanding what they were talking about and failed miserably to guarantee the most basic tenets of Islam, the individual freedom, justice and equality. When the then East Pakistanis revolted against the corrupt regime in the West, Benezir’s father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were among the grand designers of a grand scale massacre of innocent people. All, one assumes, were nothing but the result of a blind desire to be in power. Benezir simply marked the continuation of that legacy.
Today when we shall rightly mourn the death of a popular politician, Benezir Bhutto, one cannot help but critically look at the legacy her death is bound to leave behind. The party Benezir once lead agrees on her teenage son being the leader while his dad become his deputy. The tenures of Benezir have been over-shadowed by allegation of corruption and the man at the centre of many of these allegation is none other than Asif Ali Zardari, the father and deputy leader of the current Chairmen of the PPP. So what can one make of the new dimension of PPP? Of course Benezir needs to be respected and her contribution to the Party must be recognised. But why should her teenage son who barely been in Pakistan be granted the leadership? By what right her husband becomes the deputy leader? Surely PPP is to serve the nation and not the Bhutto family?
Pakistan needs strong leadership free from the ‘landlord’ mentality. At the heart of much of the problem in Pakistan is the lack of political awareness among the most ordinary people. Very few ordinary people are intellectually aware of the political debates in their country and little intelligence do they use in choosing their leader. A few powerful clandestine families controls the wealth and power of the country who have monopoly in politics. Pakistan must break that tight controlled dynastic influence in her national affairs. The selection of Bilawal does not serves that purpose. Bhutto rose to prominence succeeding her father not for reasons of her political commitment and contribution but merely being the daughter of an unjustly executed popular leader. She did not have the time to grow to become a natural leader. As such she failed to genuinely develop the politics of Pakistan beyond corruption and feudal ‘power play’. Her son runs the risks of doing the same, except that his failure will cost Pakistan even more direly than his mother’s.
The cowardly act of killing is condemned in the strongest terms by all civilised people of our world. The global community stands together with Pakistan to show utmost resolve on the face of this outrageous act of terrorism. No one, whether an ally or foe of Benezir in the political world, should or would find it acceptable to celebrate a death of this kind and let it pass without profound impact in their hearts and thoughts. The death of Benezir should act as a catalyst to build unity and bring about necessary strengths to rid the Pakistani nation off its most disturbing elements, the terrorists. However, no such result will take place unless a comprehensive understanding of the prevailing political culture is acquired.
Benezir, on her death, is rightly remembered as a champion of democracy, for she stood on the face of military dictatorship of Ziaul Haque to bring about democracy in Pakistan, she refused rightly to vow down to the threats and challenges of a dictator. However, Benezir, like most previous and present heads of state of Pakistan, symbolizes the very problem of Pakistan, the lack of a genuinely democratic, thoroughly honest and clean politicians who are inspired, motivated and committed to build a happy, prosperous and plural Pakistan where intellect and not gun rules. Unfortunately, Benezir has been part and parcel of a political culture which have been dominated by corruption, greed for power and a serious lack of true patriotism.
Pakistan, from its beginning, were built on a shallow principle where the vision and the values of the state were never clear. The leaders often cited values and customs, used religion and other slogans as they deemed fit to ensure their own grip on power. Even right at the beginning when the ‘great leaders’ freed the nation from the British empire promising to build a modern Islamic state, the core leaders themselves demonstrated little understanding what they were talking about and failed miserably to guarantee the most basic tenets of Islam, the individual freedom, justice and equality. When the then East Pakistanis revolted against the corrupt regime in the West, Benezir’s father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto were among the grand designers of a grand scale massacre of innocent people. All, one assumes, were nothing but the result of a blind desire to be in power. Benezir simply marked the continuation of that legacy.
Today when we shall rightly mourn the death of a popular politician, Benezir Bhutto, one cannot help but critically look at the legacy her death is bound to leave behind. The party Benezir once lead agrees on her teenage son being the leader while his dad become his deputy. The tenures of Benezir have been over-shadowed by allegation of corruption and the man at the centre of many of these allegation is none other than Asif Ali Zardari, the father and deputy leader of the current Chairmen of the PPP. So what can one make of the new dimension of PPP? Of course Benezir needs to be respected and her contribution to the Party must be recognised. But why should her teenage son who barely been in Pakistan be granted the leadership? By what right her husband becomes the deputy leader? Surely PPP is to serve the nation and not the Bhutto family?
Pakistan needs strong leadership free from the ‘landlord’ mentality. At the heart of much of the problem in Pakistan is the lack of political awareness among the most ordinary people. Very few ordinary people are intellectually aware of the political debates in their country and little intelligence do they use in choosing their leader. A few powerful clandestine families controls the wealth and power of the country who have monopoly in politics. Pakistan must break that tight controlled dynastic influence in her national affairs. The selection of Bilawal does not serves that purpose. Bhutto rose to prominence succeeding her father not for reasons of her political commitment and contribution but merely being the daughter of an unjustly executed popular leader. She did not have the time to grow to become a natural leader. As such she failed to genuinely develop the politics of Pakistan beyond corruption and feudal ‘power play’. Her son runs the risks of doing the same, except that his failure will cost Pakistan even more direly than his mother’s.
Sunday, 4 November 2007
BBC revives ‘Imperial Arrogance’
BBC in a series titled ‘Clashes of the World’ shamelessly attempt to discredit the heroes of resistance movement, the symbol of freedom struggle against British Colonial Rule. Last week on Sunday they were discrediting the heroes of our First Independence movement (often known as the mutiny or cepoy revolt) in India labelling them as mere bandits, fundamental religious terrorists. This week they despise the great Mahdi, the founder of modern Sudan.
Distortion of truth and false propaganda had been at the heart of British attempt to colonise the world using brute force and taking the advantage of simplicity and trust of ordinary people whether in India, Arabia or Africa. The series on BBC merely reminds us of their nature not being changed a little. In India Muslims under Mughal were the first to bring the whole of India together as an entity and lay the foundation of modern day India. Muslim rulers, traders and noblemen went to great lengths to ensure the prosperity in architecture, education, trade, infrastructure and administration. They for the first time gave the Indians a sense of pride in a previously unknown ‘national sense’. They therefore represented the greatest threat to greedy and ambitious forces of the growing British Empire often led by Christian fanatics. They mercilessly slaughtered our people in thousands, confiscated our lands, wealth and pride.
By the very nature of any proud Muslim and the hard work put in building the civilisation that India was, Muslim could not accept such incursions into their land and were determined to offer heroic challenges. Of course they did not do so without the help and encouragement of the followers of other religions, primarily Hindus. To them there were little difference between themselves and the Hindus with regards to forming resistance against aggressions, incursions and attempt of colonisation.
The people who for nearly two centuries offered their lives, sacrificed everything within their possession to date inspires us to be united for a common cause. The greats like Shahid Syed Ahmed, Titumir, Tipu Sultan, Bahadur Shah Zafar and countless others are our heroes who give us a sense of pride in our desire to live as unique and independent people. We dreamt for our freedom, we desired our existence as sovereign nations and those heroes were the sources of our dreams, the power behind our strength. Today when a reputable organisation like BBC broadcasts programmes to discredit such heroes of our contemporary history, it is of course with a great shame, an utter disgrace that we watch.
There are great needs for programmes that bring to us, the new generation, our pasts. But such programmes should be based on truth and justice. The slaughter, massacre and ruthless suppressions by the Imperial rulers and their agents world over mark the most shameful chapter of Imperial British History. The most notorious of commanders who advanced such heinous acts of disgrace, instead of being portrayed as they were, are not presented as great war strategists, intelligent commanders on the field and saviours of civilisations.
With great deal of shock and a great sense of loss we regret the role of BBC which only goes onto reviving the imperial arrogance, lies and distortions. This will be seen by the people of the respective nations as yet another exposure of the real character of our old colonial masters who have not abandoned their old tactics and continues to foster their desire to rule us, albeit in different forms. As a result, while the dramatisation of events using modern media technology seeks to achieve advantage in combating al Qaeda, it will only do the opposite. To bring the legendary heroes on the level of misguided terrorists like those of Osama Bin Laden will only offer legitimacy to their cause and create an environment of sympathy among ordinary folks.
The conclusion must therefore be that for the sake of the global peace and in ensuring a better world based on mutual respect, cooperation, equality and justice, people must be given their due honour and their feelings and sympathies must be respected. Classifying entire section of population as potential terrorists for no reason other than their desire and determined effort to see their values prevail in peaceful political movement is an attempt that goes against the very values of civility, fairness and justice. Let us hope that the days of imperial arrogance are well and truly buried in the past and our present is made to foster better understanding and link between nations, cultures and religion.
First Published on News Monitoring site, News From Bangladesh (http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=176420) on Tuesday November 6, 2207.
Distortion of truth and false propaganda had been at the heart of British attempt to colonise the world using brute force and taking the advantage of simplicity and trust of ordinary people whether in India, Arabia or Africa. The series on BBC merely reminds us of their nature not being changed a little. In India Muslims under Mughal were the first to bring the whole of India together as an entity and lay the foundation of modern day India. Muslim rulers, traders and noblemen went to great lengths to ensure the prosperity in architecture, education, trade, infrastructure and administration. They for the first time gave the Indians a sense of pride in a previously unknown ‘national sense’. They therefore represented the greatest threat to greedy and ambitious forces of the growing British Empire often led by Christian fanatics. They mercilessly slaughtered our people in thousands, confiscated our lands, wealth and pride.
By the very nature of any proud Muslim and the hard work put in building the civilisation that India was, Muslim could not accept such incursions into their land and were determined to offer heroic challenges. Of course they did not do so without the help and encouragement of the followers of other religions, primarily Hindus. To them there were little difference between themselves and the Hindus with regards to forming resistance against aggressions, incursions and attempt of colonisation.
The people who for nearly two centuries offered their lives, sacrificed everything within their possession to date inspires us to be united for a common cause. The greats like Shahid Syed Ahmed, Titumir, Tipu Sultan, Bahadur Shah Zafar and countless others are our heroes who give us a sense of pride in our desire to live as unique and independent people. We dreamt for our freedom, we desired our existence as sovereign nations and those heroes were the sources of our dreams, the power behind our strength. Today when a reputable organisation like BBC broadcasts programmes to discredit such heroes of our contemporary history, it is of course with a great shame, an utter disgrace that we watch.
There are great needs for programmes that bring to us, the new generation, our pasts. But such programmes should be based on truth and justice. The slaughter, massacre and ruthless suppressions by the Imperial rulers and their agents world over mark the most shameful chapter of Imperial British History. The most notorious of commanders who advanced such heinous acts of disgrace, instead of being portrayed as they were, are not presented as great war strategists, intelligent commanders on the field and saviours of civilisations.
With great deal of shock and a great sense of loss we regret the role of BBC which only goes onto reviving the imperial arrogance, lies and distortions. This will be seen by the people of the respective nations as yet another exposure of the real character of our old colonial masters who have not abandoned their old tactics and continues to foster their desire to rule us, albeit in different forms. As a result, while the dramatisation of events using modern media technology seeks to achieve advantage in combating al Qaeda, it will only do the opposite. To bring the legendary heroes on the level of misguided terrorists like those of Osama Bin Laden will only offer legitimacy to their cause and create an environment of sympathy among ordinary folks.
The conclusion must therefore be that for the sake of the global peace and in ensuring a better world based on mutual respect, cooperation, equality and justice, people must be given their due honour and their feelings and sympathies must be respected. Classifying entire section of population as potential terrorists for no reason other than their desire and determined effort to see their values prevail in peaceful political movement is an attempt that goes against the very values of civility, fairness and justice. Let us hope that the days of imperial arrogance are well and truly buried in the past and our present is made to foster better understanding and link between nations, cultures and religion.
First Published on News Monitoring site, News From Bangladesh (http://www.bangladesh-web.com/view.php?hidRecord=176420) on Tuesday November 6, 2207.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
Sanctions against Iran disregards Sovereignty of Nations
US step up sanctions against Iran for their alleged support for terrorism. The measures target the Revolutionary Guards and three state owned Banks. This comes only days after the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair comparing Iran with the rise of fascism in the 1920s. He went as far as almost explicitly framing Iran as the New Fascists of our century, warning ‘western’ powers against complacency. Days before Mr Blair’s pronouncements, the Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Iran in a historic tour, the first ever of any Russian Leader for over half a century. Given the strategic importance of Iran, it is important to look at the issues at stake. It is important because the US-Iran represents the latest most important issues that can destroy the peace and stability of our world.
It is relatively easy to deal with the issue of Terrorism. US accuses Iran of arming fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Hamas and Hezbollah. For US have listed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations and is fighting against the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. For the ease of ordering, we will deal with the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan first.
Afghanistan was attacked by the US and her allies soon after the attack on Twin Tower in New York by a group of terrorists which came to be known as the 9/11 attacks. US cited the involvement of Taliban, then ruler of most of Afghanistan and hold them responsible for providing grounds for training and accommodating terrorists. Although in military terms US ousted Taliban from power with little hardship, they continue to face increasingly stronger challenges from the Taliban element which questions the achievement of the ‘allied’ forces in Afghanistan. At present, given the difficulty in finding countries willing to commit troops, there is a real danger that Taliban may again gain grounds. Amid the fear of the return of Taliban in some form, US is desperate to step up pressure on Taliban while shift the focus of US people away from the issues. Iran, being a non-friendly nation to the US and strategically important Neighbour of Afghanistan is an easy escape goat. To date there has been little credible evidence to support Iran’s involvement in arming the Taliban. In fact, history tells us that the Taliban was ousted with silent support from Iran.
In Iraq, US and allied forces are struggling to keep hold of their grounds. The country is in chaos with little progress in sight. Despite the best efforts of the US soldiers, the security situation is in dire, the economy is frail and confidence of people is extremely low. There has been little movement towards stabilisation and the growth of democracy; the government is in tatters. More and more nations are bringing back their forces back, leaving US to sort out the mess it created alone. The opposition to Iraqi occupation is increasing in the US with the election eminent. The Bush administration is failing to keep up its commitment. Yet again they need an escape goat in order to wash their hands off the incompetence and arrogance and who better to blame than a worried neighbour, Iran? Of course the story is familiar; Syria has also been blamed but since Syria poses little significance these days, Iran as the most influential nation in that region suits better. Note again, there has been little evidence to make a compelling case against Iran in arming the Iraqi fighters.
Supposing, for the sake of argument, that Iran indeed is harbouring resistance to US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, would US be justified to take the measures it is taking against Iran? I doubt it especially if US is to follow its own standards. Meddling in others business, destabilising nations and violating sovereignty of other states have been a common feature of successive US administrations. Even to date, US justify all kinds of actions based on its ‘self interest’. Is it not in the interest if Iran to have a favourable government in its strategically important neighbouring states?
With regards to Hezbollah and to some extent Hamas, Iran have been an open supporter of their causes. For centuries nation after nation supported independence struggles of the people against occupation. US itself fought bloody war to achieve its own freedom. Hamas and Hezbollah have been created under very specific conditions to achieve clear objectives. Both these movements are based on popular support within their respective communities. There is little evidence that they force people in supporting them, in fact, both these movements gained reputation for being fair, just and not corrupt. People in their respective areas see these movements as saviours of their cause. Yet the US and its allies continue to support increasingly isolated forces accused of corruption on mass scale. US talk of democracy and freedom yet denies ground realities and throws her weight behind occupying forces and corrupt, self proclaimed leaders with waning public support.
There are other accusations against Iran which deserves to be discussed with much importance. However for today we shall limit our focus on the issue of terrorism. It is clear to any reasonable person with a fair mind and sense of justice that the accusations against Iran of supporting terrorism are based in thin grounds. If anything, it has been the US continuously threatening Iran from all around with huge force. Iran has reason to believe that it may be subject to an attack from the US and may take precautionary measure. As such, it is conceivable that Iran is being forced to improve their strategic understanding with the forces opposing US hegemony.
The attitude of the US amounts to clear disrespect for international Institutions and the sovereignty of independent states. She has violated the sovereignty of more than one nation and continues to threaten more. This kind of attitude reflects the arrogance of the neo-conservative led administration and poses the greatest danger to our world’s security. Let us hope that the presidential election being just round the corner, common sense will prevail and a major shift will be in place in the US to prevent us going back to the olden days of cold war.
It is relatively easy to deal with the issue of Terrorism. US accuses Iran of arming fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Hamas and Hezbollah. For US have listed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organisations and is fighting against the insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. For the ease of ordering, we will deal with the issue of Iraq and Afghanistan first.
Afghanistan was attacked by the US and her allies soon after the attack on Twin Tower in New York by a group of terrorists which came to be known as the 9/11 attacks. US cited the involvement of Taliban, then ruler of most of Afghanistan and hold them responsible for providing grounds for training and accommodating terrorists. Although in military terms US ousted Taliban from power with little hardship, they continue to face increasingly stronger challenges from the Taliban element which questions the achievement of the ‘allied’ forces in Afghanistan. At present, given the difficulty in finding countries willing to commit troops, there is a real danger that Taliban may again gain grounds. Amid the fear of the return of Taliban in some form, US is desperate to step up pressure on Taliban while shift the focus of US people away from the issues. Iran, being a non-friendly nation to the US and strategically important Neighbour of Afghanistan is an easy escape goat. To date there has been little credible evidence to support Iran’s involvement in arming the Taliban. In fact, history tells us that the Taliban was ousted with silent support from Iran.
In Iraq, US and allied forces are struggling to keep hold of their grounds. The country is in chaos with little progress in sight. Despite the best efforts of the US soldiers, the security situation is in dire, the economy is frail and confidence of people is extremely low. There has been little movement towards stabilisation and the growth of democracy; the government is in tatters. More and more nations are bringing back their forces back, leaving US to sort out the mess it created alone. The opposition to Iraqi occupation is increasing in the US with the election eminent. The Bush administration is failing to keep up its commitment. Yet again they need an escape goat in order to wash their hands off the incompetence and arrogance and who better to blame than a worried neighbour, Iran? Of course the story is familiar; Syria has also been blamed but since Syria poses little significance these days, Iran as the most influential nation in that region suits better. Note again, there has been little evidence to make a compelling case against Iran in arming the Iraqi fighters.
Supposing, for the sake of argument, that Iran indeed is harbouring resistance to US occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, would US be justified to take the measures it is taking against Iran? I doubt it especially if US is to follow its own standards. Meddling in others business, destabilising nations and violating sovereignty of other states have been a common feature of successive US administrations. Even to date, US justify all kinds of actions based on its ‘self interest’. Is it not in the interest if Iran to have a favourable government in its strategically important neighbouring states?
With regards to Hezbollah and to some extent Hamas, Iran have been an open supporter of their causes. For centuries nation after nation supported independence struggles of the people against occupation. US itself fought bloody war to achieve its own freedom. Hamas and Hezbollah have been created under very specific conditions to achieve clear objectives. Both these movements are based on popular support within their respective communities. There is little evidence that they force people in supporting them, in fact, both these movements gained reputation for being fair, just and not corrupt. People in their respective areas see these movements as saviours of their cause. Yet the US and its allies continue to support increasingly isolated forces accused of corruption on mass scale. US talk of democracy and freedom yet denies ground realities and throws her weight behind occupying forces and corrupt, self proclaimed leaders with waning public support.
There are other accusations against Iran which deserves to be discussed with much importance. However for today we shall limit our focus on the issue of terrorism. It is clear to any reasonable person with a fair mind and sense of justice that the accusations against Iran of supporting terrorism are based in thin grounds. If anything, it has been the US continuously threatening Iran from all around with huge force. Iran has reason to believe that it may be subject to an attack from the US and may take precautionary measure. As such, it is conceivable that Iran is being forced to improve their strategic understanding with the forces opposing US hegemony.
The attitude of the US amounts to clear disrespect for international Institutions and the sovereignty of independent states. She has violated the sovereignty of more than one nation and continues to threaten more. This kind of attitude reflects the arrogance of the neo-conservative led administration and poses the greatest danger to our world’s security. Let us hope that the presidential election being just round the corner, common sense will prevail and a major shift will be in place in the US to prevent us going back to the olden days of cold war.
Monday, 1 October 2007
Let Burma be our moment of Reckoning
Situation in Burma continues to be tense with each side determined to see the end. The military junta continues to do all it can to suppress protesters while the pro-democracy activists demonstrate despite the harsh realities. The world, despite some sound bites, observes as bystander. In the mean time, some of us wonder what future holds for Burmese people and the significance of this latest development at the international scene.
For decades now, Burma has been governed by the military elites who established tight control over the state apparatus. They have ruthlessly suppressed all efforts of the pro-democracy activists and imprisoned the leaders. International community only managed to occasionally express concern in words but nothing beyond that has taken place. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, in the name of ensuring democracy and ushering new era, global powers undertaken expansive military adventures result of which is the messy Iraq, dysfunctional Palestine and the increased uncertainty over global stability.
The test as presented by the Burmese experience is this: how far can international community can go to ensure ‘democracy’ in a state? From what we are experiencing, the answer is that the extent to which international community can go to ensure democracy, rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights is very limited. Of course some would argue that the case of Burma is different in that it does not offer much respite for the only super power to intervene, nor does it inconvenience any of the global players. To proponent of this view, Anglo-US axis has no moral vision and shows little regards to defend democracy; rather they are driven by self interest. While those that sees the axes as the sole custodian of democracy will argue that the Bush lead west perhaps with active participation of the European Union should if necessary take military stand against the Burmese government to ‘free’ the people of Burma from the unimaginable sufferings implicated upon them by their own government. In reality, both of these camps are impractical and unrealistic in the views that they hold.
The war on Iraq, the Palestine Crisis and most recently the increasingly eminent war on Syria points to us that war can only break our peaceful world into suspecting blocks where suspicion, mistrust and lack of cooperation makes it almost impossible to achieve peace and stability. It is also witnessed over the years that however powerful a nation or group of nations may be, they still are unable to mount military challenge in every land where the values of commonly acceptable civility is being violated. We have seen that action in Darfur has been limited to diplomacy and verbal condemnation, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir etc have long been forgotten. In fact, as recently as last week, the British Foreign Secretary himself admitted that while there is victory, there is no military solution. This is extraordinary given that it was this very person who was the tsar of Tony Blair’s policy making.
SO leaving aside the rhetoric, it is now time to take a pragmatic approach to our world’s problems. Our approach should be one of re-conciliation between parties, building bridges and mending differences. War is easy but bringing peace is difficult. There are enough conflicts and potential conflicts, there are far too many potential issues that can divide our world and lead us to devastating consequences. With Burma now dominating the airwaves, we do not need yet another military solution, yet another war in whatever form it may take place. What we need is real courage and determination to come up with creative ideas that will pave the way for a better Burma and indeed a better world.
To this end, it goes back to the old argument in which international institutions like that of UN must be strengthened and their authority well established. TO do so, all nation and most importantly the powerful nations must respect the authority of these institutions even if at times the interest of these nations are not well served. Along with this, we also need to develop an infrastructure, a culture in which no nation is left to be isolated and cornered into little cells. We need effective means of communications with regimes like the one in Burma so we can talk in time of crisis. For this to happen, the authorities in such countries must not feel threatened. We need to create an interdependent world in which no government is able to run its businesses entirely on its own. That way when there is a problem we can apply real pressure that will work.
Isolating countries whether it is Burma or North Korea, be it Iran or Syria, will only make the leadership of such nations ever more determined in going about doing just the kind of things we want them no to do. Allowing them space and time may in short term seem giving way to the ideologically wrong kind of people, but in long term it allows us to weaken those regimes by making them more reliant on others who in turn can force these regimes to change. For the regimes, since they would be used in communicating and cooperating with other regimes, it would be unthinkable for them to isolate and do their businesses alone.
Let therefore our message be one of reconciliation, peace and perseverance. Let us say in loud and clear language, no more songs of wars, no more aggressive tactics to ensure ‘democracy’ but to create space for everyone and give them time to learn to dream of a better world. We want to see an end to the bloody clashes in Burma, but that must be achieved without creating more bloodshed at greater scale. Burma should be our moment of reckoning where we resolve to strengthen international institutions and increase our capacity to deal with this kind of regimes.
For decades now, Burma has been governed by the military elites who established tight control over the state apparatus. They have ruthlessly suppressed all efforts of the pro-democracy activists and imprisoned the leaders. International community only managed to occasionally express concern in words but nothing beyond that has taken place. Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, in the name of ensuring democracy and ushering new era, global powers undertaken expansive military adventures result of which is the messy Iraq, dysfunctional Palestine and the increased uncertainty over global stability.
The test as presented by the Burmese experience is this: how far can international community can go to ensure ‘democracy’ in a state? From what we are experiencing, the answer is that the extent to which international community can go to ensure democracy, rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights is very limited. Of course some would argue that the case of Burma is different in that it does not offer much respite for the only super power to intervene, nor does it inconvenience any of the global players. To proponent of this view, Anglo-US axis has no moral vision and shows little regards to defend democracy; rather they are driven by self interest. While those that sees the axes as the sole custodian of democracy will argue that the Bush lead west perhaps with active participation of the European Union should if necessary take military stand against the Burmese government to ‘free’ the people of Burma from the unimaginable sufferings implicated upon them by their own government. In reality, both of these camps are impractical and unrealistic in the views that they hold.
The war on Iraq, the Palestine Crisis and most recently the increasingly eminent war on Syria points to us that war can only break our peaceful world into suspecting blocks where suspicion, mistrust and lack of cooperation makes it almost impossible to achieve peace and stability. It is also witnessed over the years that however powerful a nation or group of nations may be, they still are unable to mount military challenge in every land where the values of commonly acceptable civility is being violated. We have seen that action in Darfur has been limited to diplomacy and verbal condemnation, Chechnya, Dagestan, Kashmir etc have long been forgotten. In fact, as recently as last week, the British Foreign Secretary himself admitted that while there is victory, there is no military solution. This is extraordinary given that it was this very person who was the tsar of Tony Blair’s policy making.
SO leaving aside the rhetoric, it is now time to take a pragmatic approach to our world’s problems. Our approach should be one of re-conciliation between parties, building bridges and mending differences. War is easy but bringing peace is difficult. There are enough conflicts and potential conflicts, there are far too many potential issues that can divide our world and lead us to devastating consequences. With Burma now dominating the airwaves, we do not need yet another military solution, yet another war in whatever form it may take place. What we need is real courage and determination to come up with creative ideas that will pave the way for a better Burma and indeed a better world.
To this end, it goes back to the old argument in which international institutions like that of UN must be strengthened and their authority well established. TO do so, all nation and most importantly the powerful nations must respect the authority of these institutions even if at times the interest of these nations are not well served. Along with this, we also need to develop an infrastructure, a culture in which no nation is left to be isolated and cornered into little cells. We need effective means of communications with regimes like the one in Burma so we can talk in time of crisis. For this to happen, the authorities in such countries must not feel threatened. We need to create an interdependent world in which no government is able to run its businesses entirely on its own. That way when there is a problem we can apply real pressure that will work.
Isolating countries whether it is Burma or North Korea, be it Iran or Syria, will only make the leadership of such nations ever more determined in going about doing just the kind of things we want them no to do. Allowing them space and time may in short term seem giving way to the ideologically wrong kind of people, but in long term it allows us to weaken those regimes by making them more reliant on others who in turn can force these regimes to change. For the regimes, since they would be used in communicating and cooperating with other regimes, it would be unthinkable for them to isolate and do their businesses alone.
Let therefore our message be one of reconciliation, peace and perseverance. Let us say in loud and clear language, no more songs of wars, no more aggressive tactics to ensure ‘democracy’ but to create space for everyone and give them time to learn to dream of a better world. We want to see an end to the bloody clashes in Burma, but that must be achieved without creating more bloodshed at greater scale. Burma should be our moment of reckoning where we resolve to strengthen international institutions and increase our capacity to deal with this kind of regimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
