The New Nation - Internet Edition

Farish A. Noor

WE ARE in hell by now. No, we are not going to hell, but we are already there it seems.

Let me explain what I mean by this: I happen to teach comparative religion and one of the things I've noticed while giving my lectures is how in every major religious system of the world there seems to be consensus over what hell is meant to look like. In the religious iconography of Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists we see the same pictorial depiction that infernal place. In many of them the image of hell is that of a place of universal torment, with individuals suffering for eternity. What is interesting to note in these images is the fact that the torment of each individual seems to be a very private suffering that is not shared by the others, for each is suffering on his or her own.

Seen metaphorically, hell marks the breakdown of communication; the impossibility of reaching out to the other beside you, to communicate one's own pain and anguish. In that respect at least we seem to be in hell right now. I write this after returning from a weekend lecture tour of Amsterdam where I caught a glimpse of the state of debate on Islam and Muslim migrants in the country, and the prognosis seems bleak. This was not the Holland I left five years ago when I was based at the Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM) in Leiden. How could a country that I regarded as being the very epitome of the liberal spirit and unfetered conscience slide down the path of polarisation so fast and to such an extreme?

While in Holland I was with my comrades of the Left and we took a step back from the heated debate that was raging in the country. On the one hand the Muslim minorities seem even more isolated and marginalised than ever before; and worst still it would appear as if some of them wanted to remain so. The inflation of all the outward signs of piety were there, from the growing number of beards and burqas to the revival of what may be seen by some as expressions of an 'authentic' Islamic normativity that was sadly only as deep as the dress and behaviour of the people who declared themselves orthodox Muslims. Then on the other hand there were right-wing Dutch politicians openly playing to the gallery and using the race and religion cards to score quick votes; going to the extent of publicly calling for the banning of the Quran and comparing the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to Hitler, and calling Islam a Fascist religion. For them it seemed as if the only good Muslims were those who had left the religion and who were prepared to denounce their former creed as a fascist ideology.

In the midst of this bellicose chest-thumping and soapbox oratory, the more nuanced voices that were keen to emphasise the complexity of both Dutch and Muslim society were almost unheard. In the wake of the brutal murder of the director Theo Van Gogh, Dutch society is more polarised today than ever before. I was struck by the urban semiotics that seemed to sum up the present impasse: Walking past Dutch homes where everything inside was exposed to passers-by outside, I was struck by the fact that this seemed to be a society that was both open and yet closed in on itself. Is there still one Holland today, or has the country disintegrated into a number of parallel universes, living next to each other but hardly communicating and not understanding each other? That, perhaps, sums up the hell of modern life in this messed up postmodern world we live in.

Muslims in the West cannot ever be taken seriously as long as we do not address the problems in our midst at the moment, ranging from the genuine demagogues and hate-mongers who have taken over our mosques to the baneful victimisation complex that has devoured our young. We are, all of us, Muslims in Europe and millions of us have come to setle here to be part of Europe's secular-democratic and plural culture. Though racism and prejudice remain constant factors that stand in the way of the social advancement of millions of Muslims in the West, we need to remember that the same forms of economic, structural and institutional discrimination also affects millions of other poor Europeans as well.

On the other side of the equation I have also been trying to break down the collombarium of European self-consciousness and self-representation, and questioning the other equally fallacious myths that hinder the open-mindedness of Europeans themselves. These include the myth of Europe's mono-cultural past (for Europe was never monocultural in the first place), the myth of Europe's self-generation (for Europe's civilisational development really took off thanks to contact with other non-European cultures) and the notion of a uni-polar world with the West as its centre.

Such bridge-building is, it has to be said, a tiresome and labourious task that normally earns the bridge-builder the scorn and contempt of right-wingers of both sides: Muslim conservatives accuse us of being too liberal and secular, while Western conservatives label us apologists for Islam. But the task of opening up the middle ground, complexifying the debate and emphasising the blurred middle space is too important by this stage. Muslims in Europe must remember that Europe is too complex, plural and diverse to be reduced to right-wing Muslim-haters alone. Have we forgoten that the biggest demonstrations against the war on Iraq took place here, in secular, non-religious Europe?

Europeans too need to remember that those Muslims who live around the corner from them did not come from Saturn or Mars, but were and remain the constitutive other to the multicultural Europe of today. While there are indeed conservative, sectarian and bigoted Muslims among us, this is not a malady unique to Islam for Europe too has its share of secular bigots and racists. A closer look at Muslims in the West will show us that they are, after all, perfectly ordinary people with ordinary lives and concerns.

Bringing and tying together the ordinary strands that make up our shared community may not be a glamorous media event that will grab the headlines or make the news. But it is one way to transcend the hell of everyday life of non-communication. Europe's experiment with multiculturalism today is in dire need of direction and focus, and for that reason that multicultural project has to be taken up by all progressive forces that look forward to a future that is diverse, rich and plural and where the fulfilment of self-identity can be secured. At present we are a long way from that, for it seems that our understanding of the other - and of ourselves - has sadly been reduced to two-dimensional cardboard stereotypes instead. That would be a sad fate for Europe, and a sad epitaph to the Enlightenment project

(Dr Farish A Noor is a political scientist and historian at the Zentrum Moderner Orient and guest Professor at Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University.)

Joyce Njeri

AUTHOR Robert Greene in his book titled: 48 Laws of Power, writes, 'Learn to keep people dependent on you. Never teach or give them enough so that they can do without you.'

This book is my second bible, of course after the real Good Book. In this eleventh law, Greene expounds: 'To maintain your independence, you must always be needed and wanted. Make people depend on you for their happiness and prosperity and you have nothing to fear.'

He gives an example of a person who has slacken his thirst He says that this person immediately turns his back on the well, no longer needing it 'When dependence disappears, so does civility and decency, then does respect,' he argues.

Let me come back to my topic of the week. There's a certain image that conjures up in someone's mind when some countries in Africa are mentioned. A picture of a young eight-year-old boy, vagaries of malnutrition showing on his petite body with a distended stomach, protruding ribbed chest and holding a bowl on his skinny hands waiting for alms. Isn't that right?

The truth of the mater is that rich western countries are happy to see Africa surviving on monetary aid. They have perfected the art of applying Robert Greene's eleventh law with abandon. The continent has continuously been portrayed in extremities by the international media notably for famine, the HIV/Aids pandemic, civil wars and increasing poverty.

But let me put it straight This is a rich continent that can do without aid, but powerful nations have continued to scutle that because they know very well they get paid back the debt in huge profits. In my local language back home there's a saying that goes: Cheap is expensive. As easy and cheap the loans come, poor Africans bear the pain of repaying the expensive debt back.

It is important to note, however, that despite the generous monetary aid the continent receives, poverty levels have increased. Does this ring a bell now? Put simpler, increase in aid leads to increase of poverty levels. This is where the rich countries know how to manipulate and play their cards right

What prompted me to write about money, though something I abhor, was the report I read in Kenya's press this week, that the country's debt burden has risen. The debt went up from 18.6 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) in the year 2004 and 2005 to 20 per cent by the end of 2005 and 2006.

Though I welcomed the recent G8 summit debate on debt relief to impoverished nations, Kenya was not among the lucky forgiven countries. I will not be treading uncharted waters by saying that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been pushing poor African governments with aid conditions that are of no particular benefit to the people of Africa.

Africa does not need aid, but the opportunity for fair trade! From South Africa to Sudan, Tanzania to Benin, it is common knowledge that the continent is rich in natural resources but its people continue to languish in absolute poverty. Why? Unfair trade practises as well as manipulation by developed countries that are always fast to give them aid.

No single country has ever developed by depending on aid. Of course there are other self inflicted causes in Africa like corrupt governments and leaders, unequal distribution of wealth, poor planning, lack of respect for the rule of law and illiteracy. All these factors have worked to reverse the litle gain the continent had made in the early years.

In Botswana, for instance, tourism is the second largest industry after diamonds and worth around $250 million a year to the economy. Flowers and tea exports in Kenya earn the country more than $800 million annually. Gold in Angola, textile products from South Africa and cocoa from Ghana are few examples. But the sad thing is that a huge percentage of revenue and profits from these products all go to debt servicing.

Another sin the 'big guys' perpetrate in Africa is the so called 'privatisation' of major organisations that provide essential services to the local citizens. These include banks, oil and power sector, telecommunications, water and railways. Majority of multinationals are now controlling these sectors and minting huge profits while sending all the funds to their home countries. The profits are not ploughed back into the local economy.

The whole affair is a game that goes round and round. If there is to be any achievement, African governments must realise that the continent can develop with its own resources so long as there is no external interference from the rich Mr 'Money Bags.'

(Joyce Njeri is a Sub Editor with Khaleej Times.)

Ameen Izzadeen

ANOTHER 9/11 anniversary and another terror tape. The horror of all terror is the eternity of the war on terror. When will it all end and when will the world see lasting peace with all human beings irrespective of their differences in identity co-existing in harmony? A utopian dream, it may seem. But dreaming of peace is certainly beter than dreaming of war or waging war.

How and when we can achieve at least a semblance of that utopia is a big question. President George W Bush and those who prosecute the war on terror in various theatres across the globe may say that their war is for peace and, therefore, just

But how will this so-called just war end? President Bush has said the war will not end in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is an open-ended war and it continues. "By a combination of creative strategies and advanced technologies, we are redefining war on our own terms," said Bush days after he ordered his troops to launch what history has already recorded as the illegal invasion of Iraq.

There is no guarantee that the war on terror will end when Bush leaves White House. War is a big business, as the latest Osama bin Laden tape has rightly pointed out It merely serves the interest of the US corporations. Bin Laden is not the first person to say that A majority of the peace loving people across the globe see that But a majority of Americans choose not to see it probably because they benefit from it - at least in trickle-down form.

Theodore A Couloumbis and James H Wolfe in their book 'Introduction to International Relations: Power and Justice' (Prentice Hall, 1990) identify economic imperialism as one of the causes of war.

They say: "The struggle to capture new markets or to control new sources of raw materials drives governments, acting at the bidding of captains of industry, to embark upon imperialist ventures that invariably results in armed conflict In such situations, governments serve merely as agents of commercial interests and fail to represent recognised national interests."

Those who have taken up arms against the United States are simply playing into the hands of corporate America. That is what captains of capitalism want I strongly believe Al Qaeda and similar groups are highly infiltrated by agent provocateurs. Since the infiltration is so meticulous, doubts arise as to whether Bin Laden himself or his closer advisors are agent provocateurs.

Study the contents of the latest tape and they are exactly what Bush and neocon capitalists want Bin Laden to say.

The war on terror which the United States is waging appears to be a big sham. It is true that terrorism has become one of the most pressing problems facing humanity today, overshadowing issues such as poverty, disease, illiteracy and environmental degradation.

Nobody knows who will be the next victim. We could be in a plane to be hijacked and rammed into a building. We could be in the vicinity of a vehicle that explodes. We could be a collateral damage when bunker-busting daisy cuters are dropped from F-16s or a nuclear bomb from a B-52. Terrorism is so grave a problem that it cannot be left to the United States alone to tackle it

It requires a universal approach. This reminds us of the United Nations' efforts to hammer out a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. For more than a decade, the experts have been meeting in New York. In 2002, veteran Sri Lankan diplomat Rohan Perera who heads the UN Working Group told me in an interview that the draft was ready and it was now left to political leaders to give impetus to the document

However, he identified three thorny issues, over which there was disagreement among states. They were: the legal definition of terrorist, the relationship with terrorism and anti-colonial and national liberation movements and state terrorism.

Five years later, the situation remains the same - the draft is ready but there are still disagreements on the three thorny issues.

The United States and other western countries may have business interests in the war on terror. But Sri Lanka, a country affected by terrorism, has taken a keen interest in making the UN comprehensive treaty a reality. It wants all the nations to come on board to fight terrorism and it rejects the notion of one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Successive Sri Lankan governments have been unable to defeat the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam because of direct and indirect international support the group enjoys. That is why Sri Lanka wants the draft convention to plug all possible loopholes in the existing conventions. It wants the treaty to make an individual or a group which commits an act of terrorism responsible whether the cause is just or not One cannot plead that his act is connected to a just cause, even if it is connected to a freedom struggle. But the major drawback of international efforts to deal with terrorism is the non-availability or non-recognition of a mechanism for aggrieved parties - for instance, the Palestinian freedom fighters, the Kashmiri groups and Sri Lankan Tamils - to present their cases and find justice. Freedom struggles turn violent only when the doors of justice are closed.

(Ameen Izzadeen is a Sri Lankan journalist based in Colombo )

Dr Moeed Pirzada

THESE are great times. Pakistani state, civil society and the judiciary are in a state of flux. Some observers are convinced that a new nation is being born, out of the throes of the old. Eyes are focused on the supreme court with the lawyers forum now demanding a review of the Apex court's earlier decision on 17th Amendment, and JI a verdict on Musharaf's uniform; Nawaz Sharif is landing in Islamabad to a historic reception; and Ms Bhuto is about to conclude her deal with the Generalissimo for the umpteenth time.

History is being made. We are marching ahead. A group of intellectuals, courtesy a Lahore based paper, are ferociously fighting on the question: should we have transition or transformation? And the exponents of 'transformation' are convinced that finally the time has arrived for the civil society and its advocates to put the genie of the Pakistan army back into its botle, that is, the barracks.

I don't want to spoil this propitious mood. In the midst of this "Orange revolution", who cares for the small negatives here and there? Yet apparently the puny events may have wider implications; for our lives are only a microcosm of our collective consciousness. And one such teeny-weeny incident, which reflects on who we are, took place in the Rawalpindi District courts on 9th August A group of lawyers, defenders of the due process of law, elegantly dressed in black coats, thrashed senior advocate of the supreme court, Naeem Bokhari. Inside the court room, right in front of the helpless eyes of the additional district judge, they dragged him of his chair; stripped him of his coat, tore his shirt and pants, threw lentils on his face, struck repeatedly at his head and pelted him with stones. Police had to be called who saved his life, took him for first-aid and gave him shirt and pants to put on. Before that a helpless district judge, instead of calling police or ordering arrests, kept on advising him to run from the back door of his court room. It wasn't all that bad an advice but for the fact that the "legal revolutionaries" were outside blocking the exits. Bastille had been stormed; lawyers had conquered their own courtDo I know Naeem Bokhari? Not personally. But-right from my college days I have seen him a zillion times on television. I guess now he must be in his late fifties. I was impressed of his knowledge, his wits, his sense of humour. Yet the moment I read his open leter to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, I like others suspected - though without proof - that this kind of extra-ordinary courage must be in cahoots with some official quarters. On March 9, when the illegal and mindless decision to sack the chief justice was taken, I was convinced - though without any clear proof - that Mr Bokhari must have acted as the advance shock trooper of the presidential atack. And I felt sorry for him for becoming a pawn.

But unlike many others in Pakistan he put his name and signature to his act I expected that he will face charges for the contempt of the apex court And, seven months later when the events in Pakistan have moved full circle, I still believe that whatever he has done, openly under his name, can only be judged through the courts.

Let's move forward. A month has passed since the violence inside the Rawalpindi courtroom. Additional district judge had witnessed at least two things: assault and batery on a senior advocate and open contempt of his court One wonders if any one has been arrested or any contempt proceedings ordered. Has the Punjab bar council cancelled any licences?

Interestingly, save with the exception of Nasim Zehra and Asghar Nadeem Syed, no columnist stepped forward, no editorials emerged either; and at least one prominent face of the lawyer's historic movement, in a TV talk show, implied that probably Mr Bokhari deserved what he got As if this near conspiracy of silence was not enough, a post-doctoral fellow, of all the places at Oxford, invented her new "doctrine of necessity" in relaxation of all principles of civilisation to defend the despicable act, of assault and batery, by arguing that "military touts" will not be tolerated.

This, in Pakistan, is a moment of change. Old order is certainly departing and a new one is taking shape. In times like these it is either safe to stay away from the losers or shout full throtle against them. However those who maintain eerie silence and those who gloat have misunderstood the inter-related realities.

It is not about Naeem Bokhari; or anyone else we don't like; it is about law, courts and the social order. A selective application of the process of law that favours one individual or the group, and ignores the other erodes the respect for the process of law, undermines the system of courts and disrupts the social fabric.

Last year when Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan came to London for the launch of his book, "Divided by Democracy" - which he co-authored with Lord Meghnad Desai - we sat for an hour long television interview. The astute barrister repeatedly referred to the undermining of Pakistani society by the emergence of the national security state.

And what was the worst impact of this national security state? I think it encouraged a systematic process, and a mindset, that was prepared to set aside and disregard the country's law in the perceived higher national interest Today we can see the results: once powerful national security apparatus, wriggling in its own blood, is unable to confront the genie it has unleashed upon itself.

I recently asked a retired Judge, who once resigned from Lahore High Court, as to why the district court judge, who was witness to all this, did not order the arrest of the assailants and the wise old man looked at me with innocent surprise, as if I should have known it "How can he? Pindi bar is very powerful; they will fix him up," was his reply.

Interesting; isn't it? So some lawyers are really above the law? Are we witnessing a new selective application and immunity from the country's law, just like the national security apparatus had done since the Afghan war?

Unfortunately for lawyers, and the legal community, the situation may be a litle more precarious. They derive authority, and whatever influence they have, not from sticks and stones, but from the power of the writen and the spoken word; their ultimate weapon is their argument And for understandable reason, in a country like Pakistan, it has never been much. And their antics of using courtrooms as circuses are only going to erode their moral authority.

The chaos that has ruled Pakistan's periphery for a while is fast encroaching upon the centre. "Transformationists" lead by Dr Ayesha Siddiqa are still thinking that extremists are some fictional creatures out of GHQ's old cartoon movies; others are not all that convinced. After the gory drama of Lal Masjid, the recent suicide atacks inside the Rawalpindi cantonment should help focus minds on the barbarians that have crashed open the gates. More than ever before, we need to restore the authority and prestige of the district courts. But if they cannot control the "legal revolutionaries", if they are afraid of bar politics, then please forget about confronting the Islamists; they are somewhat tough.

Will someone consider a suo moto notice to restore the prestige of a district court?

(The Writer is a media and policy analyst, and a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, London.)