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.

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.

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.

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.

Confronting Terror

An interesting article on Christian Science monitor catches the mood of thinking minded sensible people on the issue of terrorism. The author quotes the surprise findings of surveys revealing public attitude towards terrorism. A few points rose in the brief article reflecting on the survey results from countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Indonesia and United States deserve more attention and space.

It has been asserted, validly in my view, that Muslims are no more supportive of terrorism than any other communities of religious and other groups. Terrorism steams out of misguided ideology energised by anger, mistrust and ignorance. Those that seek to kill innocent people indiscriminately do so out of their evil desires. Such actions as unfolded in various terrorist attacks in NY, London and other places are utterly condemned by all people from all socio-religious groups and rightly so. Unfortunately however, some powerful quarters of western political establishments have continued to wrongly accuse Muslims directly and indirectly of not going far enough in condemning such attacks. Many of them go as far as blaming Muslims for harbouring and supporting terrorism. These powerful elements of our political establishments, ideologues of a kind, and their allies in Muslim lands created their own brand of ‘war on terror’ which is equally divisive. At the core of the current strategies adapted by Washington, and to some extent London, lies an unholy desire to pick a fight with wider Muslims societies all around the world to impose ‘western values’ on Muslims world over. This strategy is either fuelled by an arrogant worldview of certain leaders and thinkers who view their ways of life to be so superior that it deserves to be imposed upon others, or that their understanding of Muslims and Islam is so shallow and misinformed that they totally fail to understand the very nature of Islam and Muslims thus adapt policies that instead of befriending Muslims, it offends them. As a result, in what should have been a relatively simple criminal matter in which everyone would sign up to, their policies antagonises Muslims and convinces many of a hidden agenda to subjugate global Muslim communities thus increase sympathisers to Al-Qaeda likes.

The war on terror in the main has been used both in the west and in the East as a powerful weapon to silence Muslim groups which has been fighting for equality, social justice, freedom, democracy and reform. These groups, though in some ways may be different from prevalent western political establishments, are groups that deserve our support rather than being condemned. The puppets, dictators and corrupt rouge elements occupying power in most Muslim lands are enemies of civility, justice and freedom and deserve to be opposed. West, in its support for these governments, lost its moral credibility and only ignited the feelings among many Muslims that they are the subject of a world wide witch hunt.

Islam is a global religion with a very active and clear socio-political and economic vision. As such, many Muslims feel that it is their obligation demanded by their faith to work towards bringing about a society in which their values are appreciated and established in the political apparatus of the state. This, however disliked by many, is a legitimate desire that any groups of whatever ideology can and should hold for so long as they do not seek to impose upon others by force. Westerners feel their ways of life is the superior and they have the right to think in that way, similarly, Christians, Jewish and all other believers of various faiths feel the same regarding their faiths and it is their right which we should respect. Why should than the Muslims be different? The current trend in the global struggle against extremism seems to deny this right to Muslims and seek to silence all political movements, peaceful popular organised, which find its inspiration in Islam.

Of course, the shallow and rather one sided media coverage, the ability of the Neo-Conservatives and their allies world over to twist and spin truth and mobilise public opinion using powerful propaganda tool means today Islam and systems inspired by Islam has been demonised to the extent that the moment a westerner hears of Islamic State, Islamic System, they instantly feel frightened and imagine of some back dated draconian ways of life which has nothing to offer to modern progressive societies whereas in reality nothing can be far from truth. The issue of equality, freedom of speech, freedom of belief, justice and fairness are the fundamental principles that underpin any Islamic system. For centuries, when Islam was firmly rooted in the political, social and economic life of Muslims, they went on to make extremely valuable contribution in enlightening our world through scientific discoveries, mathematical excellence and development of various humanities disciplines. History, astronomy, medicine and mathematics are only but a few of the areas in which Muslims contributed enormously. Today the Muslim world is in disarray, political-socio-economic condition of Muslims is dire. There are good reasons to suggest that at the heart of this direness of Muslims is the legacy of colonial rule and a planned and carefully orchestrated strategy of decapitating Muslims in the colonial error which continues to date in many shapes and forms. And it is not only Muslims who suffers from this utterly despicable condition of the Muslim communities; the non-Muslims alike suffer from it. When Islam dominated the lives of Muslims, non-Muslims were flourishing in the Muslim world with dignity, honour, safety and security. Classic example was the decadent Ottoman Empire in which many westerners fleeing from persecution at home found refuge; Jewish enjoyed relatively better life and a lot of influence. For Islam guarantees freedom for all religious groups and forbids any kind of biasness towards them by the Muslims.
Cutting things short, it is suffice to say that the current strategy to support puppets, marginalising islamically inspired political and social movements is a wrong strategy which in long term will continue to strain the relationship between Muslims and the wider world. This strategy is also doomed to be failure for it fails to recognise the rights of Muslims to be heard and valued. TO Muslims it is not the guarantee of economic prosperity, technological advancement and political authority that means most, though they are very important. What matters to Muslims most is their faith and the integrity of their faith. Let therefore the Muslim community decide for themselves as to what they want, what kind of ways of life they want. Let us not mix up a mere criminal issue with wider aspiration of Muslims to see their ways of life glorious and flourishing. Terrorism is a criminal matter which must be dealt with as such. In the process we should attack the justification of Al-Qaeda type groups for this kind of attacks and not get into a petty propaganda assault to condemn their stated objective of bringing about Islamic state. For every Muslim wants to see Islam prevail at all level of social strata. It is not the desire to see Islam being established politically which is wrong; it is the mean in which one seeks to establish Islam as the political force we should be concerned about. Only than and than alone will we be able to truly confront terrorism in all its evil shapes and forms.
......................................
This article was first published on The Daily Star, leading English daily in Bangladesh, on 8th July 2007.

Terrifying Terror, the course of Justice and our values

First Published on The Daily Star (http://www.thedailystar.net/2007/07/05/d707051502118.htm)
...............................
Britain once again stands frightened by the prospect of terrorist attack. A group of misguided individuals commit themselves to mindless act of carnage and violence. It is right that our government and people condemned such act of outrage with utmost disgust. Praise therefore is due to those who responded so well to the threats to lives of so many. Praise indeed to our security forces, political leadership and emergency response teams throughout the UK. I note particularly the statements of Alex Salmond and Jacqui Smith, both of which emphasised on the need to remain united. Alex Salmond’s reassurance to the Muslim community is particularly noted with sigh of relief and gratefulness.

Having so praiseworthy of our security forces, and largely of our politician, it is fair however for us to pick on those that either deliberately use events like this to further their own narrow interests. One such quarter is of course our media. As always, I note that media once again failed to be responsible and continue with their outrageously biased and inflammatory tone. At a time when we need conciliation, calm and measured coverage of events which is perfectly capable of giving rise to wider social instabilities, media words and tunes its voice in manners which only can flair up the heat causing enormous distress to so many innocent people.

Listening to BBC Radio4 this morning, I felt very concerned for all those doctors from Asian Countries, in particular those from Jordan and Egypt. In fact, the questioning was so outrageous that anyone listening to them would assume that presenter of the programme was convinced that those doctors of Arab origin, in particular from Egypt and Jordan are guilty of crime and pose serious threat to our national security. I wondered where the fine principle of criminal justice which says: ‘innocent until proven guilty’ was? I wondered too of Radio4’s objectivity, respect for due process of law and impartiality. I wondered how would she have reported was this incident to take place in a developing (preferably) Muslim country and some westerners were to be arrested and reported in the same manner in Iranian National Press? I hear some mutter ‘well we cannot be compared with Iran’ and that is where the problem lies.

Terrorism is a threat to us all, it has the potential to destabilise the entire world. The terrorists seek to create confusion, chaos and suspicion between communities and citizens to destroy the normality of our daily lives. Through creating division and suspicion they seek to fracture our social fabric which in turn will give rise to panic and anger. Anger and panic will lead to desperate acts which in turn will lead to backlash and instability thus bring an end to a harmonious way of life. This way eventually terrorists will achieve their objectives without being defeated which is to destroy our society in which people of all faith and none, races and nationality flourish side by side in mutual cooperation, respect and trust. Media and for that matter all those who acts irresponsibly give up fundamental values of our society, and let their prejudice, emotion and hatred lead their judgements only to play to the hands of terrorists in furthering their objectives.

All those people who have been arrested in suspicion of involvement with these notorious attacks should be treated fairly; justice must follow its own course and give them their due. Presumption of their guilt not only violates the basic principle of our justice system, it seriously threatens their prospect of being treated fairly. Furthermore, assuming them being wicked, hinting all their fellow professionals of similar ethnic and religious origin of being a threat to national security, will only help to create mistrust, anger and resentment, more reasons for many to be convinced that society and social institutions being biased against people of a specific religious affiliation. IN addition, not letting justice take its own course indirectly implies that our justice system is incapable of coping with new environment which of course is not the case.

IN conclusion, let me just add one more thing, the discussion of increasing the power of police and giving them more time to detain without charge is unhelpful. I applaud Brown’s reluctance to rush new legislation and hope that commonsense will prevail. There is nothing to suggest that any of the terrorist attacks could have been prevented by longer detention without charge, nor does it follow commonsense. The culture of detention without charges fuels anger and resentment, it makes more innocent people victim of a biasness and abuse of power by our security forces. Extremely low rate of prosecution, and even less success in conviction and the mistakes of Forest Gate, Charles De Menezes are only a very few cases sufficient to highlight the needs for restraint in bringing about new draconian measures. Many citizens of this country concur with me in finding a comparison between some of our harshest laws brought about in response to these terrorist threats with those that existed in places like apartheid South Africa. No one would agree that those laws were effective in keeping the ‘ANC terrorists’ away from realising their dreams, it only helped those activists to strengthen their resolve. We need to be able to stand confident and trust our people of all colour, nationality and faiths. Let us not play in the hands of the terrorists and let our much dared, precious freedom for which so many of our previous generations fought and so many of our fellow humans continue to struggle in many parts of the world prevail.

To suggest Rushdie debate a ‘justification for Suicide Bombing’ is Unfortunate and utterly irresponsible

The award of Knighthood to Salmaan Rushdie reignited the old rifts between nearly two billion strong global Muslim community and the ‘defenders of free speech’. When I wrote my last entry on the matter, I hoped that I will never again need to write about this wicked man. But the latest diplomatic ‘war of words’ between Pakistan and Britain and the subsequent coverage of the matter forced me to invest my time to shed light for once again on this matter.

The row begins with an alleged comment of Ijazul Haque, Pakistan’s religious affairs ministry. What he said, as clarified by him on more than one occasion afterwards goes much way to clearly show the depth of anger and offence this decision to knight Rushdie will cause around the Muslim world. Unfortunately however, by the time it has been reported on the British media, the language pretty much became something like ‘the Pakistani Minister justifies suicide killing’. This spinning of a simple matter into a complex ‘war of words’ is utterly unacceptable and extremely unfortunate. We should not be surprised however for the British media and the certain quarters of the political arena to blow the whole issue into an entirely new dimension, distorting the main thrust of the debate. They only vindicate the minister and many others who believe that this was a calculated decision aimed at offending Muslims.

UK is among the most sophisticated of countries in the west, here every word matters. NO decision in this country taken at the state level without major thinking by various spin doctors, quangos and other bodies. The government wing responsible for awarding honours is no different. It would be inconceivable that the learned and wise people sitting in the decision making process who confirmed Mr. Rushdie’s honour were unaware of the potential for a backlash. Nor would they be in darkness about the past full with painful memories caused by inflammatory, irresponsible and blasphemous work of Rushdie. And it is for this reason that when some bunch of white collared people decide to confirm knighthood on Rushdie, it is only natural for the Millions of Muslims worldwide to take offence and rightly so. There is no room, and I repeat absolutely no room for those who wants to argue that this was merely a decision influenced by the literary contribution of Mr. Rushdie. Even if we are to accept that the decision was not one aimed at picking fight with Muslim communities, we would still have to conclude that the decision was an extremely irresponsible act and those made the decisions are incompetent and naïve. Either way, it is a bad decision which should have been redressed much long ago.

Going back to the row between Pakistan and UK and now Iran, it is indeed regrettable that British government, the Conservative Party and the British media decided to play spin with a matter of such importance. The role of the media, the conservative party and the other quarters involved in it only goes to show the lack of understanding towards Islam and the Muslims, to say the least. Of course, it would not be untrue, illogical to say that a large number of influential individuals within these mechanisms are deeply prejudicial about Islam and Muslims and always seek for opportunities to spoil the relationship developed over a long period of time, thanks to hard working individual who dedicated their life to bringing better understanding between Islam and the west.

Here in the UK and indeed the Muslims world over never wishes to pick a fight, nor do they have appetite for playing spin and politics with issues that run the danger of igniting violence and create hard feelings between citizens within and beyond states. We the Muslims merely expect to be treated with respect, curtsey and dignity; we deserve it. To disrespect values and person that Muslims hold dearer than their own lives in the manner that Salmaan Rushdie and others do is to disrespect and deny the right of Muslims and Islam to exists in its entirety. It is therefore our hope that common sense will prevail and decent, peace loving sensible people of this great nation, and indeed all over the world will rise to take the hate mongers and prejudicial ‘free speech defenders’ head on.