Massacre In Gaza: 310 Killed

By Sameh A.Habeeb       28 December, 2008                     Muslim India

Sixty Israeli F16s bombarded around 100 police stations, civil and governmental offices across Gaza Strip. The bombardment which simultaneously took place left (at the time of writing)160 people killed and around 3 hundred wounded. A number of wounded are expected to die while many corpses still lie under the rubble of buildings.

Gaza Strip, 27 Dec, 2008 :: Saturday morning started as usual but dramatically changed by 11AM. Sixty Israeli F16s bombarded around 100 police stations, civil and governmental offices across Gaza Strip. The bombardment which simultaneously took place left (at the time of writing)160 people killed and around 3 hundred wounded. A number of wounded are expected to die while many corpses still lie under the rubble of buildings.

Palestinian victims were an amalgamation of policemen and civilians who were visiting some police stations for civic affairs. Al Jawazat police station witnessed the bloodiest Israeli attack in which around 70 were killed, mostlypolicemen. The victims of police of Al Jawzat were holding a graduation ceremony for new young police groups.

A family of 9 members, 15 young children, and some women were killed but not recognized. The Ministry of Health is not able to recognize the ID's of casualties. Tawfiq Jaber, Director of Gaza police was killed in the air raids along with Ismail El Jabari head of the security section in the police. Governor of central Gaza governorates and camps was killed as Israel hit his car.

Ma'waya Hasanian, head of Emergency and Ambulances said that around 230 people were killed and 200 injured. He added that a big number of victims were civilians from women, children and old people. Civilian cars referred wounded civilians to the hospitals due to lack of medical cars and vehicles.

Gaza hospitals announced inability of receiving the wounded due to lack of medical equipment and tools. Corpses of Palestinians were thrown on the corridors, rooms and units of hospitals. Meanwhile 2-3 wounded victims shared one bed due to lack of medical equipment, a result of the Israeli siege imposed 2 years ago. Basim Nai'm, Health Minster in Gaza said that Gaza medical sector needs tens of kinds of medical equipment and tools. A number of 70 wounded were referred to an Egyptian hospital.

According to Naser Al laham, Chief-Editor of Maan News Agency said that around 60 Israeli warplanes carried out the Massacre which surprisingly took place in Gaza.

The raids targeted all areas of Gaza Strip, cities, villages and towns. The hit cities are Gaza, Rafah, Khanyonis, Nusairat, Maghazi, Bait Lahia, Jabalia, Bait Hanoun. Refugee camps of Jabalia, Al Shati', Rafah an mid areas were targeted as well. Some of the destroyed compounds included Palestinian prisoners under penal detention for criminal issues.

The Israeli bombings flagrantly violate all laws which call for protecting civilians. This was so obvious from the number of civilian casualties. The brutal bombings happened in time of school children were going home, after a normal day of study. A considerable number of children were killed, but medical soruces didn't announce official numbers in this respect. Identities of killed people are still unknown but a very few ones.

On the other side, Israel officially announced the start of a full-scale military operation in Gaza. She has called on settlers to go down to bunkers bordering Gaza after 1 Israeli was killed and several injured in a homemade rocket fired from Gaza.

Israeli official Television broadcasted footage of the settlements hit by Gazan fighters and ironically ignored what's happening in Gaza. The television stated that today's military operations is the start of a long-term massive war action against Gaza. Israeli army named the operation in Gaza "Lead Pouring Out" which entirely means surprisingly decapitation of Palestinian factions in Gaza.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared the 20 square kilometers of Gaza a "special military zone." The classification is one degree below a declaration of total war against an enemy state. The announcement was made Saturday morning.

Israeli Channel 10 announced that the current situation does not amount to a declaration of war, but the operation against the Gaza Strip is intended to last throughout Saturday and perhaps into Sunday. It asserted that Israel prepared an operation that could take several weeks. Preparations have also been taken to contain any expected response in the West Bank.

Ehud Barak said that this operation would roll out in all Gaza's areas and it will last for a longer time. He vowed of a painful military strike of Hamas pointing out "there is a time for peace and time for War." According to Barak the operation aims at toppling down Hamas government and stopping the homemade rockets.

Maan Agency reports: Israeli sources also asserted that the operation would not topple Hamas, but rather will ensure that homemade projectiles from the Gaza Strip will stop. This was confirmed in a statement released by the Prime Minister's office as well.

Regional efforts are being exerted to put pressure on Israel to immediately stop the war crimes perpetrated in Gaza. Turkey expressed its deep anger towards the surprising actions done by Israel. Turkish government held a meeting to discuss the possibilities of reaching a truce. Premire of Turkey, Abdallah Gul, condemned the Israeli brutal actions in Gaza.

Meanwhile Syrian President, Bashar Al Asad, Yemeni Presdient Ali Abdallah Saleh called for an immediate meeting for Arab league to discuss Gaza's situation. Additionally Qatar and the Sudan called on that too. An expected session for the United Nations would be heled upon a request from Arab countries.

On the popular level, demonstrations took place in the West Bank cities, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan. Lebanese people protest in front of the Egyptian embassy in Beirut considering it has part of the siege on Gaza.

Israel warcraft still hovers on low distance on Gaza vowing of a hot night!

To Be Continued...

Sameh A. Habeeb, B.A.
Photojournalist & Peace Activist
Humanitarian, Child Relief Worker
Gaza Strip, Palestine
Mob: 00972599306096
Tel: 0097282802825
E-mail: Sam_hab@hotmail.com
Sameh.habeeb@gmail.com
Skype: Gazatoday, Facebook: Sameh A. habeeb
Web: www.gazatoday.blogspot.com

Daily Photos:http://picasaweb.google.com/sameh.habeeb
___________________________________________________________________
Source: Gaza Today/COUNTERCURRENTS.ORG

India - Pakistan: Pursue peace instead of sabre-rattling

Efforts by India and Pakistan to deal with terrorism separately will not bear fruit unless they stop demonising each other and start acting in concert. Unfortunately, both countries have become prisoners of confrontationist forces they have thoughtlessly nourished for six decades and more.

By I A Rehman                               27 December 2008                            Muslim India
South Asia Citizens Web

APART from anything else, the terrorist outrage in Mumbai put Pakistan and India to a grim test. They have not failed — so far at any rate. That is the gratifying part of the story. The regrettable part is that the South Asian twins do not seem to have struck the path of success either. As a result, the huge population of the subcontinent is in the grip of fear or anger, both antithetical to rational thinking.

Whether so designed or not, the events of Nov 26 had the potential, at the very least, to derail the process of normalisation of relations between the two neighbours and for precipitating an armed conflict between them, at the worst. The movement for a comprehensive India-Pakistan accord has no doubt suffered a setback but both sides have expressed a keenness to reduce the damage to the minimum. And they have been quite forthright in ruling out war.

However, in this state of suspended hostility the threat to regional peace will remain alive. Sadly enough, India and Pakistan are still engaged in a dangerous debate regarding the identity of the perpetrators of the horrible massacre of nearly 200 innocent people, and their sponsors. Necessary though such a probe is, total concentration on this point amounts to taking a narrow view of the matter and entertaining the illusion that the monster of terrorism can be overcome by catching and hanging a few culprits and punishing their patrons. Anyone opting for this course will be guilty of a costly failure to learn from the disastrous consequences of the Bush wars.

What is more important than the identity and parentage of the Mumbai killers is the fact that they were enemies of the peoples of India and Pakistan — they damned the Indians by killing many of them and wounding their government’s pride and they damned Pakistanis by putting them in the dock.

Without minimising the enormous hurt to the people of India it can be demonstrated that the Mumbai terrorists caused much greater harm to the world’s Muslims, including those living in Pakistan and India, just as Muslims the world over have been more the victims of 9/11 than the Americans.

The foremost task before the governments and the peoples of India and Pakistan is to make every effort to deny the terrorists success in their criminal undertaking. The assault on Mumbai was obviously a means to an end and not an end in itself.

Since the attack on Mumbai must have been planned many months earlier it is not easy to pinpoint the objectives of those who made the plot, except for a bid to pre-empt the new Pakistan government’s attempts to normalise ties with India. This should have been the overriding goal in November too when a couple of other factors — state and union elections in India and the Kashmiri people’s shift away from violent struggle — might have influenced the terrorists’ planning.

It should not be difficult to recognise the terrorists’ (regardless of their parentage) interest in helping India’s communal factions in both state and union elections, as similar to their preferences among Pakistani political formations. Terrorists everywhere like to see in power parties that are committed to the politics of exclusion, because of their common roots in intolerance. Likewise, the prospect of the Kashmiri people’s return to a non-violent political struggle for their rights cannot be welcome to all those who have thrived on conflict and confrontation between India and Pakistan, and such elements can be found in both countries. This reading of the situation offers a fair indication of the course India and Pakistan need to follow jointly and severally.

The wave of anger in India is understandable and the emotions of a large number of Indians have been whipped up to the extent of making them impervious to friendly counsel from abroad. However, India is fortunate in having a sizeable community of peace-lovers that must not surrender to the jingoism of hate-preachers. Apart from the fact that peace is the highest moral ideal for entire humankind, the Indian people must be enabled to take into account the prohibitive cost of confrontation with any neighbour not only in economic terms but also in those of an increase in intolerance of differences based on belief, ethnicity or social status.

The people of Pakistan, on their part, have to conduct an honest self-appraisal, however agonising it may be. The question whether Pakistan has fostered terrorism beyond its frontiers has become irrelevant. What is relevant today is that the world is not convinced of its disclaimers despite the fact that militants have forced a civil war on it. Now it is the international community’s perception that Pakistan is up against — and perception is often more effective than the truth. Pakistan can escape being branded an international pariah only if it undertakes a sincere and concerted campaign against extremist elements whose existence cannot be denied.

The question of seeking foreign help in the fight against terrorists that are threatening Pakistan’s very existence also needs to be studied dispassionately. A state that has no qualms about begging for aid to buy palm oil or to keep the administration running should not feel shy about asking for help to ward off the terrorists’ challenge. It is perhaps necessary to realise that the plea that Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism, though true, could become self-incriminatory if it does not produce the required zeal in combating terrorism.

Efforts by India and Pakistan to deal with terrorism separately will not bear fruit unless they stop demonising each other and start acting in concert. Unfortunately, both countries have become prisoners of confrontationist forces they have thoughtlessly nourished for six decades and more. The leaders of both countries appear to be so helpless in the face of these forces that they may be afraid of thinking of a summit meeting right now. Such fears will be the undoing of the subcontinent as the situation demands boldness in the pursuit of peace and goodwill instead of proficiency in sabre-rattling or diplomatic sophistry.

The governments of Pakistan and India will not be able to seize the present opportunity to close the chapter of adversarial relations without the active backing of their respective civil societies. The latter alone have possibilities of silencing extremist elements in their populations and weaning their media away from their habit of fuelling tensions.

In any case both countries should make the fullest possible use of the Track-II channels to evolve an agreed approach to terrorism. The starting point has to be the realisation that terrorism is not a transitional law and order problem, that the roots of the threat to both India and Pakistan lie in the pre-Partition communal politics and that their future lies in burying that hateful legacy of religion-based politics.
_______________________________________________________________________
The article first appeared in the South Asian Citizens Web and the Daily Dawn internet edition.

India: Counter-terrorism must not kill democracy

The two new laws will increase the alienation of Muslims from the Indian State given that they have been the principal victims of India’s recent anti-terrorism strategy. Many Muslims are also distressed at the alacrity with which the laws were passed — in contrast with the UPA’s failure to enact the promised law to punish communal violence and hate crimes.

By Praful Bidwai                     27 December 2008                          Muslim India
South Asia Citizens Web

In a season in which politicians have become everybody’s punching bag and targets of vicious media attacks, it would have been a miracle had Minister for Minority Affairs Abdul Rehman Antulay not attracted ridicule for demanding an inquiry into the killing of Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad chief Hemant Karkare and his colleagues Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar. I am no admirer of Antulay. I was among the handful of journalists who exposed his brutal evacuation and expulsion of pavement-dwellers in Mumbai in 1983. Yet, the questions he posed about Karkare’s death won’t go away — despite his own ignominious climbdown.

Antulay didn’t allege that Karkare, who famously cracked the Hindutva terror network involving Pragya Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Shreekant Purohit, was shot by one of its members. His query was, who asked Karkare to go to Mumbai’s CST station and to Cama Hospital, near which he was killed by Abu Ismail and Ajmal Amir Kasab ?

We still don’t know what motivated Karkare’s team to go there without high-grade bullet-proof jackets and in violation of the norm that senior officers shouldn’t travel in the same vehicle in an emergency. Home Minister P Chidambaram’s statement to Parliament doesn’t clarify the issue. According to one police account aired on television, the team went to Cama Hospital to rescue another officer, Sadanand Date, who was injured. According to a second account, the team was pursuing a red car carrying Ismail and Kasab.

It is hard to believe that senior officers like Karkare, Kamte and Salaskar all had to walk to CST/Cama because the police had erected barricades, and that they abandoned their separate vehicles to get into one car while chasing the fugitives. Even the circumstances of Karkare’s killing, allegedly in a narrow lane behind the hospital, remain obscure.

If the police wireless message about the red car was meant to lure the team into an ambush, it is vital to ask where and how the report originated. If the gunmen were firing from the left, as Constable Arun Jadhav — who was in Karkare’s car, but survived the attack — said, how was Karkare hit three times in the chest while Jadhav got two bullets in his right arm? Also, the ambush story doesn’t quite hang together. The only vegetation in the lane has wire netting around it, behind which it’d be hard to hide.

Clearly, even if one discounts all conspiracy theories, unanswered questions remain. Hindutva groups reviled Karkare for his bold, scrupulous investigation into the Thakur-Purohit terror network. L K Advani , no less, wanted him removed from the ATS and levelled charges, disproved after medical examination, that Thakur was tortured in ATS custody This, and the gaps in the police account(s), make imperative a dispassionate, thorough, high-level investigation into his killing — in addition to an inquiry into the intelligence failures and state agencies’ inept response to the attacks.

The case for an inquiry in the Karkare case is all the stronger because many in the Muslim community — which has borne the brunt of excesses committed in the name of fighting terrorism — and other citizens too, have seriously questioned the official account.

Antulay or no Antulay, it’s the government’s duty to answer them. Supremely callous colonial rulers ignore public concerns. But democratic governments’ legitimacy depends on respecting them and sharing the truth with the public in the interests of social cohesion. A credible inquiry would help rebuild the public’s faith in the government, which has recently suffered erosion.

There are moments in the life of a nation when exemplary rectitude, transparency and adherence to law are called for, and an effort worthy of universal respect is necessary to reach out to those who feel excluded. Justice H R Khanna’s dissenting opinion in the Emergency case, Justice B N Srikrishna’s inquiry into the Mumbai violence of 1992-1993, and Karkare’s own brilliant investigation into the Hindutva terror network, are instances of these. In each case, State functionaries rose above pressures to harness their work to extraneous agendas. The entire nation gained from their work. We badly need another such effort today.

Regrettably, the United Progressive Alliance government seems to be caving in to Right-wing pressures from the Bharatiya Janata Party to adopt a macho, national-chauvinist, ’to-hell-with-civil-liberties’ stance to show that it has the will to fight terrorism. That alone explains the deplorable haste with which it railroaded through Parliament two tough counter-terrorism laws without serious debate. These erode federalism and infringe civil liberties.

The National Investigation Agency Act establishes a new organisation to investigate acts of terrorism and offences related to atomic energy, aviation, maritime transport, sedition, weapons of mass destruction, and Left-wing extremism. Significantly, it excludes Hindutva-style right-wing extremism, which has taken a far higher toll in India than left-wing Naxalism. It’s far from clear how the NIA can secure the cooperation of other existing agencies, rather than face turf battles and sabotage.

Unlike the Central Bureau of Investigation, which needs the consent of a state before investigating crimes there, the NIA will supersede state agencies. This is a serious intrusion into the federal system. The NIA, and the special courts set up under the Act, will be vulnerable to political abuse by the Centre.

The second law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act brings back the discredited POTA, except for admitting confessions made to the police as evidence. It radically changes criminal procedures, extends periods of police custody and detention without charges, denies bail to foreigners, and reverses the burden of proof in many instances. The Act will turn India into a virtual police State.

The UPA abrogated POTA in 2004 in response to innumerable complaints of abuse against Muslims and application to offences not connected with terrorism. But the UPA retained all other tough laws, and also amended the Unlawful Activities Act. This increased punishment for terrorism and harbouring/financing terrorists, made communications intercepts admissible as evidence, and increased detention without charges to 90 days from 30 days.

However, despite numerous recent terrorist attacks, the UPA firmly rejected the BJP’s demand that POTA be re-enacted. But now, it has shamefully caved in to the demand — under the pressure of elite opinion and with an eye on the next general election.

The UAPA Act contains a range of draconian clauses, including a redefinition of terrorism, harsh punishment like life sentence or death, long periods of detention, and presumption of guilt in many cases. The redefinition includes acts done with the intent to threaten or ’likely’ to threaten India’s unity, integrity or sovereignty. Under this hold-all provision, the police can arrest, search and seize the property of anyone whom it ’has reason to believe from personal knowledge, or any information by any person... or any articles or any other thing...’ Even rumours and baseless suspicion fit this description. Also covered are attempts to kidnap Constitutional and other functionaries listed by the government. The list is endless.

Under the Act, an accused can be held in police custody for 30 days, and detained without charges for 180 days. This is a travesty of Constitutional rights. Even worse is the presumption of guilt in case there is a recovery of arms, explosives and ’substances of a similar nature.’ The police routinely plants arms and explosives, and creates a false recovery record. The punishment range extends from three or five five years to life. This shows the government has not applied its mind.

Under the Act, there is a general obligation to disclose ’all information’ that a police officer thinks might be relevant. Failure to disclose can lead to imprisonment for three years. Journalists, lawyers, doctors and friends are not exempt from this sweeping provision, which presumes guilt on mere suspicion. Besides making telecommunications and e-mail intercepts admissible as evidence, the Act also denies bail to all foreign nationals and to all others if a prima facie case exists on the basis of a First Information Report by the police.

POTA and its predecessor, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, were extensively abused. They targeted the religious minorities, specifically Muslims. Some 67,000 people were arrested under TADA, but only 8,000 put on trial, and just 725 convicted. Official TADA review committees found its application untenable in all but 5,000 cases. POTA’s abuse was even more appalling.

The two new laws will increase the alienation of Muslims from the Indian State given that they have been the principal victims of India’s recent anti-terrorism strategy. Many Muslims are also distressed at the alacrity with which the laws were passed — in contrast with the UPA’s failure to enact the promised law to punish communal violence and hate crimes.

This will make the social-political climate conducive to State terrorism, promote muscular nationalism, and create a barbed-wire mentality. These are the ingredients of a terrible national security State, much like Pakistan’s or Israel’s, and similar to the way the US is evolving. Nothing could be worse for our citizens’ safety and our democracy’s health.
_______________________________________________________________________
Praful Bidwai is a former senior editor of The Times of India, Praful is a freelance journalist and regular columnist for several leading newspapers in India. He is an associate editor of Security Dialogue, published by PRIO, Oslo; A Member of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists against Proliferation (INESAP) and Co-founder of the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament (MIND). He is also a Visiting Professor at the Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. His latest book, co-authored with Achin Vanaik, is New Nukes: India, Pakistan and Global Nuclear Disarmament (Interlink 1999).

India: New anti-terror laws would violate international human rights standards

The President of India should reject new amendments to anti-terror laws which would violate international human rights treaties, said Amnesty International today, in response to India’s speedy introduction of new legislation after the November attacks in Mumbai city in which more than 170 people died.

Amnesty International Press release           27 December 2008                               Muslim India

The organization calls upon the President, Indian authorities and lawmakers to urgently review the new amendments to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (UAPA), 1967, and provisions of the new legislation aiming to set up a National Investigating Agency (NIA), exclusively meant to probe acts of terrorism in the country.

“While we utterly condemn the attacks and recognise that the Indian authorities have a right and duty to take effective measures to ensure the security of the population, security concerns should never be used to jeopardize people’s human rights,” said Madhu Malhotra, Asia Pacific Programme Deputy Director at Amnesty International.

The experience of other countries which have also rushed to pass sweeping anti-terror legislation in response to terrorist attacks has shown that such measures undermine the rule of law and respect for human rights internationally, and do not enhance security. The UN General Assembly said in 2006 that “measures to ensure the respect for human rights for all and the rule of law [are] the fundamental basis for the fight against terrorism.”

India’s experience with previous anti-terrorism laws has shown that they can lead to abusive practices.

The new amendments include:

1. Sweeping and overbroad definitions of “acts of terrorism"

2. No clear and strict definition of what constitutes “membership” of a “terrorist gang or organization”

3. Minimum period of detention of persons suspected to be involved in acts of terrorism extended to 30 days from 15 days, and the maximum period of detention of such persons to 180 days from 90 days - already far beyond international standards

4. Denial of bail to foreign nationals who may have entered the country in an unauthorised or illegal manner, except in very exceptional circumstances

5. The requirement, in certain circumstances, of accused people to prove their innocence

6. The new legislation on the National Investigating Agency authorises special courts to close hearings to public without defining or limiting the grounds under which they may do so.

"India’s authorities and legislators should show their respect for the rule of law, in the face of terrorist attacks, by reviewing provisions such as allowing a maximum of 180 instead of an earlier provision of 90 days detention of suspects, sweeping definitions of ‘membership’ of organizations and closed trials,” said Madhu Malhotra.

Acceptable Deaths!

In the past five years, over 150000 farmers have committed suicide in India alone. That is a huge number, especially when compared with the 200 people killed in Mumbai or the few thousand killed in the 9/11 attacks. 150000 farmers have been forced into giving up their lives and no questions have been asked. The ruthless economic structure that created the circumstances which compelled so many deaths is acceptable as a part of life. Aditi Munot elaborates...

By Aditi Munot              24 December, 2008               Muslim India

There is always a lot of hue and cry about any terrorist attack anywhere in the world. Be it The Twin Towers in US or the bombings in Britain or the recent terror attacks in Mumbai….. these incidents get a whole lot of public attention and criticism, media footage, global attention.

There is no denial that these attacks are a question on the sovereignty of any country. Such hideous crimes are unacceptable and actions must be taken to prevent them. These macabre incidents deserve to be condemned and are worthy of public ire.

But honestly, there are numerous other acts which are far more deplorable and horrendous but unfortunately get little or no attention at all. The loss of life is far higher and more painful due to these incidents but most of the world is oblivious to these deaths. These events do not boil the public blood.

In the past five years, over 150000 farmers have committed suicide in India alone. That is a huge number, especially when compared with the 200 people killed in Mumbai or the few thousand killed in the 9/11 attacks. 150000 farmers have been forced into giving up their lives and no questions have been asked. The ruthless economic structure that created the circumstances which compelled so many deaths is acceptable as a part of life.

Millions of people die each year due to starvation and malnutrition. Millions each year! Millions of tons of toxic wastes disposed by factories everyday result in various diseases, disabilities and deaths everyday, every year. Innocent people are condemned to slow, painful deaths by these acts every year. But no questions are asked. These killings are considered ‘business as usual’ and forgotten. The newspapers and television channels never scream about these deaths, there are no protest rallies against these unmerciful killings. Children, adults are being executed every single day all over the world in the name of this ‘business as usual’ but it catches no ones attention.

Over a million people have been killed in Iraq and hundreds of thousands in Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile and the likes. All these deaths…. Or murders to be precise have been committed in the name of war or dictatorship. But the obvious reason- draconian economic policies is conveniently ignored. These detestable deaths have not received global ire.

From Union Carbide in the Bhopal Gas tragedy to Pacific Gas and Electric in US to De Beers blood diamonds to any and all such gory acts committed by big corporations resulting in thousands of deaths…. None have touched the heart of the common man. The general public has not registered these terrible incidents as acts of terror against humanity. Most are not even aware of these atrocities. Far more people have been killed in these incidents than any or all terrorist attacks put together.

The question is why are we not angered and hurt to the same extent by all these brutal episodes as we are by terrorist attacks? Millions of people are murdered on the economic altar of governments and big corporations every year but we just don’t seem to take notice. Why does our heart not bleed for these murdered and why don’t we put are foot down on these issues? Why are certain forms of killings more acceptable and others not?
____________________________________________________________________
This article was first published in COUNTERCURRENTS.ORG and is republished here with permission.

Photo credit (Above): A Punjab village. Its outwardly clam exterior belies a severe economic crisis that has hit the farming community. (Photos: Amritsar Times)

Arabs: Glorifying the Shoe

Montadhar al Zaidi has put us journalists in a position where others are compelled to treat us as people who could potentially carry out similar actions to Zaidi.

Yes, we do have the right to hate Bush, reject his policies and be angry at him for the harm that he has caused to us. However, Montadhar al Zaidi does not have the right to throw shoes at him.

By Diana Muqalled                                       22 December 2008                                     Muslim India

Iraqi protestors are raising their shoes.

Children are playing with shoes in the streets of Baghdad.

The brother of Iraqi journalist Montadhar al Zaidi shows off his brother’s shoes with pride.

These were some of the scenes that have been recorded by the cameras in the wake of the “clear victory” that millions of Arabs have celebrated, namely the shoe-throwing incident that was carried out by the Iraqi journalist Montadhar al Zaidi who hurled his shoes at US President George W. Bush.

But let us leave Bush aside. The discussion that is taking place in our press is not focused on the American president and our opinion of him, nor do we need to remind ourselves of the disaster that the Bush administration has caused.

The issue here is about us and those shoes…

Campaigns in defence of the Iraqi journalist have been launched by Saddam Hussein’s former lawyer, Facebook groups and through the media where people have been describing Zaidi’s actions as “heroic”.

Some of those who consider themselves superior writers and intellectuals have not hesitated to predict that liberation is looming on the horizon and that Arabs will be arming themselves with shoes to liberate their lands and confront the occupying forces and imperialists. A number of sheikhs have described Zaidi’s actions as “an act of faith”.

This delusion within our press and media, and the reports that have circulated within them following this foolish and embarrassing incident has shown that we have reached rock bottom.

The shoe alone has come to represent the new Arab enlightenment project. After fundamentalism, killing and slaughtering, we can now celebrate the shoe and rejoice at a future that will be rich in shoes.

There is no comparison between Zaidi’s actions and the incident of the Iraqis beating the statue of the fallen president Saddam Hussein following the collapse of his regime in 2003, as that reaction occurred in completely different circumstances to the press conference.

According to his family and friends, Zaidi had been planning to take some sort of action for months even though he did not do so during any of the American president’s previous visits to Iraq.

Montadhar al Zaidi has put us journalists in a position where others are compelled to treat us as people who could potentially carry out similar actions to Zaidi.

Yes, we do have the right to hate Bush, reject his policies and be angry at him for the harm that he has caused to us. However, Montadhar al Zaidi does not have the right to throw shoes at him.

Montadhar, and those who celebrate his actions, have taken the weapons of persuasion, validation and opinion out of our hands and replaced them with a shoe.

To replace the power of our minds with shoes is the worst thing that could happen to us.

Is this the beginning of a recurring pattern?

For instance, as someone who believes that Syria’s role in Lebanon is similar to- or even worse than- the US role in Iraq, would I do the same thing to the Syrian president?

Absolutely not.

______________________________________________________________________

Source: Asharq alawsat (English)

Diana Mukkaled is a prominent and well respected TV journalist in the Arab world, thanks to her phenomenal show "Bil Ayn Al Mojarada" (By The Naked Eye), a series of documentaries around controversial areas and topics which airs on Lebanon's leading local and sattelite channel "Future Television". Diana also is a veteran war corrependent, covering both The War in Iraq and in Afghanistan, as well as the Isreali "Grapes of Wrath" massacre in southern Lebanon. Daring to do superb investigative work in Afghanistan, Iran, Yemen and Iraq (prior to the collapse of the Saddam's regime) and dedicating entire episodes of "Bil Ayn Al Mojarada" to issues such as "Honour Crimes" in Jordan, Diana has gained world wide recognition and was named one of the most influential women in a special feature that ran in Time Magazine in 2004. Diana writes a weekly coloumn for Asharq Al Awsat Media's Supplement, where she discusses current affairs in Arab and world media.

Antuley Remarks and the Aftermath

Handling Queries; Democratic Responses :: The degree of hostile reaction to some doubt raised and need for unearthing truth in a democratic society should be taken seriously. Why and who is afraid of truth coming out? Strangely we seem to have various types of reactions which have lot of political tinge than elements of reason. Ram Puniyani elaborates

By Dr. Ram Puniyani                      22 December 2008                             Muslim India

The tragic terror attack on the city of Mumbai (Nov.2008) has shaken not only the people of city but also the whole nation. It is not the first time that terror attacks have taken place in this city. The first major one was seen in the aftermath of Mumbai carnage of 1992-93. The investigation of this blast showed that the terrorist took advantage of the gross injustices done to Muslim minority and lured a small section of them to execute their dastardly designs. Then in the aftermath of Gujarat carnage again one witnessed the blasts. The tragic happenings of Gujarat had incited this reaction. This time around November 26, 2008, there is no immediate provocation, but the role of Al Qaeda type elements is clear. What is puzzling this time around is that the attack came at a time when the investigation being done by Maharashtra ATS into Malegaon blast was leading to certain impeccable findings of the involvement of Hindutva elements. This was resulting in a hostile reaction to the ATS chief who was doing a thorough professional job. He was being abused and criticized by the people like Advani and Modi for being deshdrohi (anti national). Pune Police had also received a death threat to him from an anonymous caller just couple of days ahead of the terror attack.

After this tragedy many a versions of death of Karkare and his two colleagues came forward. The first one was that he has been killed at Taj, second one saying the death occurred in the lane near Cama hospital and the yet another one saying that he was killed while sitting in the vehicle. In this context many doubts were raised by some social activists and later by the Union minister for minorities Mr. A.R. Antuley. His statement that "superficially they (the terrorists) had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he (Karkare) was a victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something, I do not know," implying that a thorough probe in to his death should be undertaken to clear the mist around his death. This does not imply any finger pointing but a mere doubt, which is lurking in the minds of many.

This statement followed a vicious attack on him by many, especially by the Hindu right wing and a section of media. While many felt that the idea was to ensure that Truth comes out, the others felt that he should not only be sacked from his post but a case of treason be launched against him. While few voices like those of Digvijay Singh came to support Antuley statement and Maharashtra Assembly speaker Baba Saheb Kupekar said that since Maharashtra Government is setting up a probe into the allegations of negligence of the top level Police officers, that committee can very well probe the death of Hemant Karkare as well.

The degree of hostile reaction to some doubt raised and need for unearthing truth in a democratic society should be taken seriously. Why and who is afraid of truth coming out? Strangely we seem to have various types of reactions which have lot of political tinge than elements of reason. One of this is to ignore some events and facts which go against the social common sense and the interests of dominant political streams. One such example is the blasts which took place in Nanded in the house of RSS worker in which two Bajrang Dal workers died while making bombs (April 2006). While some channels can work overtime to put out the visuals of events with potential of sensationalism, this particular incident was literally blocked by large section of media. No doubt few papers and channels carried it but it remained a marginal story. Then the events of blasts in front of Mecca Masjid in Hyderabad were also attributed to the usual Jehadi elements, many of them arrested/tortured to the extreme. The blast and the tragedy was news. Later when they got released for the lack of any evidence, that was neither news nor a time to introspect as to why the wrong people are being caught, or to think if there is a need to review the line of investigation in the cases of blasts? Here the media shapes popular perception and the investigating authorities remained stuck to the old theory, terrorists are Muslims. So by overlooking the crucial news/event, a valuable lead was suppressed, the proper unearthing of which might have led to prevention of some attacks later.

The second form of reaction is from vested political elements and section of media which flows with the tide. Once Maharashtra ATS could lay its hands on the motorcycle used by terrorists in Malegaon blast, the investigation shifted to Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Swami Dayanand, Lt Col Prasad Purohit and Retd major Upadhyay. This investigation being conducted with professionalism came for scathing attack from Hindutva elements that went to intimidate the ATS officer to the extent that he went for moral support and counseling to the one of the most forthright police officers, Julio Reibero. Mr. Reibero in his article in Times of India tells us the pressure Karkare was going through while doing his professional duty. Shiv Sena not only organized for legal support for Sadhvi and Company but also its mouth piece Saamana went on to write, "We will declare all names and addresses of policemen on Malegaon case, the people will take action. This is nothing but a ploy to defame Hindutva by people in the ATS who have taken supari (contract) of this. On such officers we spit, we spit."

In this context all those trying to strive for truth are also being labeled with choicest abuses. Any raising of question about the investigation, the narration of incidents comes to be branded as being pro Pakistan and anti India. One is not arguing against India or for Pakistan, one is trying to see that the real picture of things will strengthen India. Can a hollow shell full of falsity be the base of the Democratic Indian state? More we try to smoothen the knots more are we will be trying to ensure that Indian society becomes better. In this jingoism, war again Pakistan is the rash demand, quenching the instant anger generated due to terror attack. One has to see such oppressive outburst like the one's we have seen from Advani and company which are not in sync with the building of a harmonious atmosphere and justice to all. All the legal provisions at our command need to be marshaled to see that the work initiated by the likes of Karkare is not allowed to be stifled.

What does one make of the ignoring crucial leads in the first place and then reacting angrily, with such passion to the innocuous demands of a probe? This burst of pseudo nationalism needs to be understood. It is the one which wants to intimidate the voice of reason and is primarily trying to stifle the democratic space. In Antuley's case he is also being hurled abuses by the same section, labeling him as Pakistan supporter and what not. Its time our columnists remember that in democracy the people have full right to express their opinions and doubts. As a matter of fact those hysterically browbeating those raising doubts are the one's who are undermining the nation's constitution. Definitely the most befitting tribute to the officers who have laid down their lives while protecting the society from the insane acts of terror, is to ensure that the truth of their death comes out and that Malegaon probe goes on properly.

__________________________________________________________________________

- (Source: Issues in Secular Politics, December 2008 III www.pluralindia.com)

In Muslim India, an internal battle

SECURITY:: The struggle to wrest back interpretations of Islam from the extremists could give security a boost, but more importantly, it could halt the marginalisation and ghettoisation of Muslims in India, writes Firdaus Ahmed. 

By Firdaus Ahmed               21 December 2008                             Muslim India

By now the 'common sense' on the terrorist attacks besetting India over the last six months is that these are the handiwork of a new group calling itself the Indian Mujahedeen. The group has been emboldened enough to broadcast its manifesto in the form of emails delivered to media centres and intelligence hubs prior to the attacks. It is reported that this is a hard line, breakaway faction of the banned SIMI, that has arrived at its name by dropping the first and last alphabets of the acronym of its mother organisation.

An encounter in the bylanes of a crowded locality near Jamia Millia resulting in the death of a crack Inspector from Delhi's Special Cell has established the presence of terrorist cells in minority pockets. This, and other incidents have provoked considerable soul-searching - in the government in particular, with no less than the Home Minister being on the firing line.

And there are visible signs of new intent, even if not resolve, to tackle the growing threats. Policing has received a fillip in terms of infusion of budget, equipment and ranks; a research wing has been established in the Intelligence Bureau; talk of raising a federal intelligence agency to tackle issues requiring coordination between the centre and the states is reaching a climax; and a stringent anti terror legislation, that excludes the 'draconian' portions of the earlier POTA, is in the offing. These steps in the right direction should all have been taken long ago, irrespective of the acceleration that the terrorist attacks have provided them now. Better late than never.

A growing chasm

Amidst all this, however, something has been lost. There is now a growing chasm between the majority and minority communities in India, best evidenced by lack of credibility of the official line on blast investigations in the minority community. The minority view, anecdotally accessed and carried in the Urdu press, is that there is more to the blasts than meets the eye, that they may have engineered by those who would like to entrench an enmity between majority and minority India. The issues being raised by the equally incredulous liberal minded human rights community also provide some fuel for this perception.

It is certainly possible that the community is in denial; still, for the first time there is a pan Indian perception of a minority under threat. Investigations by security agencies are taking a toll on community life in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in the south; Gujarat and Rajasthan in the west; Indore in central India; and UP, in Azamgarh in particular, in the north. More importantly this time round the intelligence net has been cast wider to include upwardly mobile professionals such as computer technicians and even doctors. Even those attempting to escape into the ranks of the respectable middle class are now in the line-up. There was even a media report on recent converts being investigated for any connection with terrorist activity. And sources of funds for charitable activity - a religion ordained requirement of Muslims - are under the scanner.

The overall result of such well publicised events and the follow-up is a heightened perception of threat, accentuated by the rise in unbridled majoritarianism - as witnessed in attacks on Christian minorities in Karnataka and Orissa. In its mildest form, but most illustrative, this perception is found in the public complaint by the actor Shabana Azmi, about not being able to purchase a flat on account of her being Muslim, and perhaps, on that account, a beef-eater.

The changes that the blasts have wrought is that while earlier minority security problems were local, today this has an all-India character. There is however no all-India minority representative organisation. This is all for the good; the community and the nation having been let down thoroughly once earlier by the Muslim League with such pretensions. If the terrorist vanguard in the form of SIMI and the IM or the underworld led by D Company is allowed to fill this vacuum in their self projection as saviours, then it would be a national calamity. The onus therefore is on the state and mainstream parties, particularly those manifestly and self-professedly secular, to ensure ventilation of grievances and redress.

The state is rightly disarming the terror cells that falsely claim to protect minorities, but it would do well to also reassert its monopoly over force by equally expeditiously neutralising saffronite extremist groups that now feel emboldened by the growing chasm between the communities. Not coincidentally, the agenda for the forthcoming elections has already been set by the blasts, and the cudgel has been taken up by Hindu nationalist parties in earnest, with Narendra Modi as the flag bearer for the stern-faced L K Advani. Right thinking parties need to take on the right wing, and put the real issues before the masses at the voting booth.

An internal battle

The minority community, for its part, must foster a positive outcome out of all this. Withdrawal is not the answer. An intra-community dialogue needs to be continued, to wrest back the concept of Jihad, usurped by the extremists, to read 'ethical conduct', and not 'holy war'. This is an effort that has already begun with the fatwa from Deoband and the gathering of Muslim clergy in Delhi on the issue early this year. Since the militant posture adopted by the militants in the ranks is largely projected as saving the community's honour, the concept of quam ki izzat needs to be redefined to read excelling in all fields of endeavour - as had been the requirement of the Holy Prophet in his urging that his followers outdo others in good deeds.

The outcome of this internal battle will determine the level and energy of external support in the form of state intervention, and would also preserve the community from manipulation by political parties. This would also counteract the ghettoisation and marginalisation being forced on it by Hindu extremist groups.

The international climate is also grim, marked by the Global War on Terror going awry. In the sub-continent, this has potential to set free parochial winds manipulated by global interests. In the deepening psychological Partition underway, India has a vulnerability it cannot see exposed. Thus far the linkages made in strategic commentary between Islamism abroad and the Indian minority predicament could easily be shot down as contrived, since no Muslim Indian fought alongside the Taliban or was on Al Qaeda database. Nor did any non-Kashmiri Muslim Indian join the Kashmiri insurgency. If India's problems and their resolution were to converge with that of the global one, this would only benefit the global players on both sides of the conflict and their covert allies within the polity; but will be to India's detriment.

A sense of urgency is thus needed, in all actions by all quarters. The minority community needs to acquire agency by reasserting 'religion as faith', and not 'religion as identity'. It could, in doing so, strengthen the hands of the state and the liberal political segment in grappling with the larger internal demon by far - majority extremism. ⊕

____________________________________________________________________

Photo: Participants at the Muslims Initiative against Terrorism programme at the India Islamic Cultural Centre, New Delhi on 19th December, 2008. Photo credit/twocircles.net

Firdaus Ahmed is a freelance writer on security issues and a regular contributor to India Together.

"This article was first published in India Together (www.indiatogether.org) and is republished here with the permission of the author".

India’s Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)

The Return of POTA & TADA :: The Bill casts a shadow on all of us. It is founded on the principle that everyone is suspicious or a suspect, with no fine distinction between the two. We are creating a suspicious state to empower suspicious officials and citizenry to act suspiciously against any supposed suspect. This Bill goes further than TADA or POTA in its creation of a suspicious state. India must fight terrorism, but the last thing India wants to be is a terrorist anti-terrorist state.

By Rajeev Dhavan                      19 December 2008                                                 Muslim India
(courtesy: South Asia Citizens Web, 19 December 2008)

India’s attempt to put its own legal house in order is reflected in two Bills — ‘The National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act’ and the amendments to the ‘Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA)’. Home minister P. Chidambaram’s Bills bring TADA and POTA back with a bang and innovate a National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Hitherto ‘policing’ was exclusively a ‘state subject’. India’s CBI could take over investigation and prosecution on (a) court orders or (b) with the consent of the state. The NIA Bill changes that to let the NIA hijack any prosecution or investigation from the state at will. The proposed NIA Bill is constitutionally competent. The Constitution’s Union List (I, Entry 8) permits a “Central Bureau of Investigation”.

Criminal procedure for prosecution is in the concurrent (List III, Entry 2). The NIA will be operationalised only for statutory offences relating to atomic energy, the UAPA, aviation, maritime, navigation, weapons of mass destruction, sedition and such offences, money laundering and counterfeiting. Under POTA and TADA, the massive misuse came from the states to alarm the Supreme Court, now the potential misuse will come from both the states and the Union, which can hijack the case. Political and communal targeting runs through our anti-terrorist legislation. Federalism will also be in partial jeopardy.

India is about to create a powerful FBI of its own, whose independence and political vulnerability are not beyond alarm; nor the new style special courts beyond criticism. No review agency is provided. With these caveats the NIA was long overdue.

The UAPA Amendment Bill is dangerous. Our examining principle should be: counterterrorism measures should not facilitate, or have the potential, for state terrorism. This is why the UPA launched a wholly new strategy in 2004. TADA or POTA were thrown out and the ordinary law [Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)] was brought back.

India’s ordinary law is tougher than UK and US anti-terror laws. This time the Union’s shopping list is full. First, the POTA favourites of pretrial imprisonment till 180 days, 30 days police custody, denial of bail if a prima facie case exists (which is easy on a well-written FIR) and the blanket denial of bail to foreigners (including, perforce, suspect Bangladeshis) is back (Sections 43A to 43F). So, also, are the adverse inference provisions — if there is recovery of arms, explosives and other substances, suspected to be involved, including finger prints on them. Second, the definition of ‘terrorist act’ includes not just radioactive and nuclear material, but anything that may threaten India or overawe or kidnap constitutional and other functionaries listed by the government (Section 53). This list is potentially endless.

Third, new offences for organising terrorist training camps or recruiting terrorists attract punishment (Section 18A and 18B). There are salutary provisions against raising funds likely to be for terrorist use (Section 17). All these can be frozen (Section 51A). But safeguards exist except judicial review. Criminalising intent to aid terrorists and terrorist organisations is extended to aid to terrorist gangs (Section 23). Fourth are the magnum Sections 43A to 43F that modify our Criminal Code. We have already noted the pre-trial custody, denial of bail provisions and adverse inference provisions. To these may be added arrest and search and seizure on suspicion authorised by general or special orders by officers designated by the state and Union governments (Section 43A). The wrath of subjective suspicion will override the entire due process of the Criminal Code (Section 43C). All offences mentioned in the new legislation will permit arrest without warrant (Section 43D). There is an obligation to disclose any information which a superintendent of police thinks is relevant.

Failure may cost up to three years in jail (Section 43F). Journalists, beware. FIFTH, and finally, comes the big lie that all this is just tweaking the UAPA — a phrase misleadingly used by the Congress spokesman Kapil Sibal. This is not a tweak but a thump. These provisions can terrify the innocent, alleged to have bad thoughts, irreverent words and suspicious behaviour. The station house officer at the police station will be less feared, but superior officers can order reprisals, raids, search and seizure. With POTA and TADA, the process was always the punishment. At risk are the minorities, legal and illegal Muslim migrants, Christians, Vaiko style political activists and the Binayak Sens who honour our social work. There are no safeguards, or review committees. The fact that confessions to police remain inadmissible hardly supports the tweak theory.

After months in pre-trial detention under brutal investigation, the police will extract even untruths. The Bill casts a shadow on all of us. It is founded on the principle that everyone is suspicious or a suspect, with no fine distinction between the two. We are creating a suspicious state to empower suspicious officials and citizenry to act suspiciously against any supposed suspect. This Bill goes further than TADA or POTA in its creation of a suspicious state. India must fight terrorism, but the last thing India wants to be is a terrorist anti-terrorist state.
______________________________________________________________________

Rajeev Dhavan is a senior advocate at the Supreme Court and other Courts in India, having fought many cases on affirmative action, human rights, secularism and constitutional governance. He is also the Director of a Public Interest law firm, Public Interest Legal Support and Research Centre (PILSARC).

The Importance of Shia-Sunni Dialogue

Shia-Sunni dialogue needs to proceed on two broad fronts: at the level of socially conscious and broad-minded ulema of both groups, as well as the level of 'ordinary' Shias and Sunnis. This sort of effort at promoting intra-Muslim dialogue must also go along with moves to promote dialogue between Muslims and people of other faiths.

By Maulana Waris Mazhari             19 December 2008            Muslim India
(Translated by Yoginder Sikand)

Historically, there have been few efforts among Muslims to address and reform the ways in which the different Muslim sects, particularly Shias and Sunnis, consider and relate to each other. In part, this is because the tradition of ijtihad has been largely lost and Islamic thought has fallen prey to stagnation and rigid taqlid or blind conformity to past precedent. Had Muslim scholars cared to revisit much of their inherited intellectual tradition, we would have been spared some of the horrors of intra-Muslim, particularly Shia-Sunni, rivalries and conflicts that have, over the centuries, taken a terrible toll.

In its origins, the Shia-Sunni split was a product of a particular political context and a particular political conflict, which should have been addressed and solved. However, this did not happen, and these differences were magnified by taking on a religious colour. No serious efforts were made to reduce or to put an end to these differences. Instead, they were allowed to further widen over the centuries. Today, in many places, Shia-Sunni conflicts have become acute, taking a heavy toll of precious human lives. Lamentably, some extremist forces among both groups are fired by a fierce hatred for each other, and see each other as veritable infidels.

Certain misunderstandings on both sides have helped build a massive wall between Shias and Sunnis. So, for instance, many Shias wrongly believe that Sunnis are enemies of the Ahl-e Bayt, the family of the Prophet, and that they respect the murderers of Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Prophet. Likewise, many Sunnis erroneously believe that Shias regard the existing Quran as having been tampered with, that they abuse the companions of the Prophet and that they engage in sexual license in the name of muta or 'temporary marriage'.

In actual fact, these views are baseless, exaggerated or else taken completely out of their contexts. Shia scholars have repeatedly stressed that they do not believe that the Quran was modified or tampered with. The number of Shias who openly abuse (tabarra) the companions of the Prophet is relatively very small. And muta or temporary marriage is regarded by the Shias as permissible only under certain conditions. It must not be forgotten that according to Sunni scholars permission for muta was given in the early period of Islam. Ignoring all this, many Sunni scholars wrongly use arguments that applied to some ancient extreme (ghali) Shia groups in the past that upheld some extreme and clearly un-Islamic views and attribute these views to the present-day Ithna Ashari or Jafari Shias, who form the majority of the Shia population. This is very unfortunate. Likewise, it is also lamentable that some Shias accuse Sunnis of hating the Ahl-e Bayt or Imam Hussain. This is completely wrong. The way the Sunnis express their love for these personages may be different from that of the Shias but certainly no one can accuse the Sunnis of hating them.

It is not easy to remove negative stereotypes that different social and religious groups have of each other. Generally, most people are unwilling to come out of the narrow grooves into which they are stuck and seek to understand others dispassionately. In this regard, one also has to take into account certain political factors responsible for further widening mistrust between Shias and Sunnis. The Islamic Revolution in Iran gave a major boost to anti-Shia sentiments in Sunni quarters as many Sunni Arab rulers feared that it might inspire similar revolutionary anti-regime and anti-imperialist movements in their own countries. Lamentably, they and influential organizations allied to them played a major role in fanning hatred and promoting propaganda against the Shias. They produced a massive amount of anti-Shia literature which they widely disseminated, and in this some of our Indian Sunni ulema were also involved.

Today, a fairly large number of socially conscious Shias and Sunnis are seriously interested in promoting Shia-Sunni dialogue and understanding. It must be admitted that Shia leaders are taking much more interest in this regard than their Sunni counterparts. The Iranian Government has even set up a special organization, called Al-Majma al-Alami Li't Taqrib Bayn al-Mazahib al-Islamiya, for precisely this purpose, something that no government of any Sunni country has done.
                                                                      

                                                                                 * * *
The only sensible and proper way to approach the question of Shia-Sunni relations and to seek to improve them is through dialogue. Such dialogue must be predicated on both groups working with each other on issues on which both of them are agreed, and on searching for points for discussion and exchange with regard to issues on which they differ. Shia-Sunni dialogue, it must be recognized, is indispensable for the project of wider Muslim unity, solidarity and ecumenism. Through this sort of dialogue both groups can benefit and learn from each other. And yet, throughout the centuries, this work of dialogue has been almost wholly neglected. It is necessary, therefore, to take up Shia-Sunni dialogue not just as a political necessity but also as a religious imperative. Both Shias and Sunnis believe in the same Quran, which exhorts believers to hold fast to the rope of God and not to split into sects. It is precisely because the issue of Shia-Sunni dialogue has not been seriously taken up by the Shia and Sunni religious leadership that imperialist forces inimical to Muslims and Islam have taken, and continue to take, advantage of these sectarian differences to weaken both of them. It is intriguing in this regard to note that while today various Islamic groups are talking so much about inter-religious dialogue—something that, of course, is very welcome—they continue to completely ignore the pressing need for intra-Muslim sectarian dialogue, such as between Sunnis and Shias and between the different sect-like groups among the Sunnis.

It is urgent that socially conscious Shia and Sunni ulema seriously take up the issue of Shia-Sunni dialogue. In this they must be inspired by a genuine concern for the other. They must seek to understand each other. They must desist from heated polemics. They must also stop thinking that dialogue can only happen when the supposedly rival party gives up the views that the other party does not agree with. Obviously, no dialogue can at all happen if this is the case. It is also imperative that Shias and Sunnis refrain from promoting hate-driven propaganda against each other. Instead of seeking to discuss their differences in a serious and academic manner, often these are brought out into the streets by rabble-rousers who have a vested interest in stirring Shia-Sunni strife. This is precisely what has transformed Pakistan into a living hell of sectarian hatred and war. Such elements must be sought to be socially ostracized and marginalized.

This year, on the occasion of Eid, Sunnis and Shia jointly offered prayers in Lucknow . This was a very welcome development. It was a result of the initiative taken by two leading Islamic scholars of the city, the Shia leader Maulana Kalbe Sadiq and the Sunni scholar Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangi Mahali. Steps towards dialogue and unity like this are a very encouraging portent and must be promoted.

While talking about Shia-Sunni ecumenism, one must also raise the question about the possibility of Sunnis accepting the Shia Jafari school of Islamic jurisprudence or fiqh as a legitimate one, a fifth school in addition to the existing four schools followed by most Sunnis. The Jamia Al-Azhar, one of the largest and most influential madrasas in the Sunni world, recognizes the Jafari school, in addition to the Ibadi and Zaidi schools, as legitimately Islamic. Half a century or so ago, Shaikh Mahmud Shaltut, rector of Al-Azhar, had even advocated the inclusion of the Jafari school in the madrasa's curriculum. Unfortunately, no such efforts have been made in the madrasas of South Asia . The chances of this happening in Pakistan are very slim, but if some notable madrasa in India does this it can have a wide-reaching impact. A prominent feature of the Ithna Ashari Jafari school of fiqh is that it has kept the doors of ijtihad open, in contrast to most Sunni schools. This is why it has more flexibility and capacity for change than its Sunni counterparts, and this aspect can be made use of by other schools of fiqh. Likewise, if Shia scholars accept the logic, as the Sunnis do, that the basis of accepting or rejecting a Hadith report should be the truthfulness or otherwise of its narrators, and not that the narrator must necessarily be from the family of the Prophet, they can, at least to some extent, benefit from the more well-preserved corpus of Hadith traditions of the Sunnis. In this way, too, the yawning gulf that separates Sunnis and Shias can be addressed to a considerable extent.

'Ordinary' Shias and Sunnis must also seek to work together on common issued at the social level. They, as well as their religious leaders, can participate in each others' religious and social gatherings and even admit them into their organizations. This can serve be a means for them to share their views and for their views to come closer. As of now, unfortunately, in India there is just one notable Muslim organization that has a mixed Shia-Sunni membership. This is the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, whose Vice-President is the noted Shia scholar Maulana Kalbe Sadiq. The Board needs to further increase the number of its Shia members. Other Muslim organizations in the country that claim to speak for all Muslims should do the same. At the social level, too, consistent efforts must be made to seek to reduce the Shia-Sunni divide. In this regard, I would like to cite the instance of Iraq , where mixed Shia-Sunni unions account for almost a third of all marriages. In India , in contrast, such marriages are very rare. According to some broad-minded Sunni scholars, such as Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, such marital alliances between Shias and Sunnis are indeed permissible.

In other words, Shia-Sunni dialogue needs to proceed on two broad fronts: at the level of socially conscious and broad-minded ulema of both groups, as well as the level of 'ordinary' Shias and Sunnis. This sort of effort at promoting intra-Muslim dialogue must also go along with moves to promote dialogue between Muslims and people of other faiths. As I mentioned earlier, this is not simply a political or social necessity, but, more importantly, it is something that Islam directs its followers to do.
________________________________________________________________
A graduate of the Dar ul-Uloom Deoband, Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the Tarjuman Dar ul-Ulum, the official organ of the Delhi-based Deoband Madrasa's Graduates' Association. He has written extensively on issues related to contemporary debates about Islam, including on inter-faith relations, women's issues, peace and terrorism, from a distinctly progressive perspective. Some of his articles can be accessed on the Internet. He may be contacted on mazhariwaris@gmail.com

Schools Or Hate-Labs?

Book Review: Schools Or Hate-Labs?
This remarkable study, a well-researched critique of government-prescribed textbooks used for social sciences in the state of Rajasthan, seeks to uncover the notion of an ideal Indian that these books propagate.

By Yoginder Sikand               18 December 2008                          Muslim India

Besides aiming to provide information, one of the main purposes of an educational system and the textbooks used therein is to mould students' worldviews in a particular fashion. This is what educationists refer to as the 'hidden curriculum' of education. Through it, the educational authorities of a state seeks to frame a certain perspective through which students are trained to understand society, the social relations of power therein, the place of the state and of the citizen as well as the notion of the ideal citizen or 'normal person'. In other words, textbooks (particularly for the social sciences), and the education system as such, have a certain very distinct political role and purpose. They aim at 'normalising' unequal relations of power that exist in a given society by presenting certain class/caste-based notions of the ideal person or citizen as normative.

Name of the Book: Schools Or Hate-Labs? Author: Apoorvanand Published by: Human Rights Law Network, New Delhi (contact@hrln.org) Year: 2008 Price: Rs.50 Reviewed by: Yoginder Sikand

This remarkable study, a well-researched critique of government-prescribed textbooks used for social sciences in the state of Rajasthan, seeks to uncover the notion of an ideal Indian that these books propagate. The author, a noted Delhi-based social activist, argues that a principal purpose of these books is to propagate the notion that Indian culture is roughly synonymous with Brahminical Hindu culture, and that its ideal representative is the 'upper' caste Hindu male. Consequently, he argues, non-Hindus, non –'upper' caste Hindus as well as women in general are seen and projected in these texts in negative terms, and sometimes in very lurid colours. That being the case, these texts can hardly be considered socially inclusive and gender just. Consequently, they can be said to represent a complete violation of the spirit of the Constitution. They represent a fit case of the state itself seeking to subvert its Constitutional values which it is actually duty bound to protect and promote.

Apoorvanand highlights sections from these texts to prove his point. One of the books prominently quotes, without any critique whatsoever, Anne Besant as having declared, 'You must not remain in any sort of doubt. There is no future for Bharat without Hindutva. Hindutva is the soil in which Bharatvarsha is deeply rooted. If we remove this soil, then the tree of Bharat will dry up.' It unabashedly repeats the standard Hindutva dictum about 'true' Indian nationalism in the following words: 'According to Lokamanya Tilak, all Indians who live on the land between [the] Sindhu and the Indian Ocean and consider it their motherland and holy land are Hindus and their religion is Hindu religion or Hindutva'. Likewise, another book preaches, 'Let us build the building of Sanskrit of which [...] the top is of the unity of Hindus [...].' Further appearing to equate all Indians with Hindus, and deliberately excluding non-Hindus, a textbook claims, 'Ram, Krishna, Hanuman, Durga, Sita, Saraswati etc. are worshipped by all people'. Another book repeats this facetious claim in a different way, announcing, ''Hindu religion is the path bearer of Indian society.'

It is particularly, though not only, in the History textbooks prepared by the Rajasthan state educational authorities where these flagrant communal biases are amply evident. Not only do they hail the Hindu religion, and, implicitly denounce or seek to marginalize other faiths, they claim the sanctity of the caste system, which forms the basis of the ideology of Brahminism. Notably, Dalits, Adivasis and Backward Castes, who together form the majority of the Indian population, are almost wholly unmentioned in these texts, this being a subtle form of discrimination against them. At the same time, the books brazenly support the caste system, and completely ignore the oppression on which this system is based by giving it a completely unrecognizable sanitized image, which its 'low' caste victims would vehemently reject.

'Hindu life was given a solid continuity through the religious basis of the caste system,' proclaims one social science text. 'The caste system provided to different people opportunities of living together in contentment and this enabled the maintenance of stable and fraternal relations between them', it goes on. 'Though India is home to innumerable ethnicities, religious and linguistic communities, yet the caste system reduced struggle between different communities', it adds. 'Because of the caste system', it continues, 'a strong unity in community and a sense of responsibility developed in all castes, the members of castes and sub-castes used to help each other on all occasions of marriage, death rituals and festivals etc. In this way, members of different castes come close to each other and stable soc relations develop between them, through which they feel a sense of collective security and unity.'

This is, needless to say, a wholly untenable and highly romanticized and apologetic view of the caste system from the point of view of its 'upper' caste beneficiaries. The undeniable oppression that this system has meant for its many hundreds of millions of victims for over five thousand is totally ignored.

Some of the textbooks surveyed here openly laud the Manusmriti, that Bible of Brahminism which reduces 'low' castes to slavery or worse. Thus, one book presents Manu, the putative author of the Manusmriti, as the 'original economist'. Class twelve students of Economics are made to believe that 'The personality of Manu is great among all smriti givers. He is rich in multifaceted talents. In Indian literature, Manu is known as the originator of the human race. Manu has been called as father of humanity in the Rig Veda. He is descended from the line of mortal sons of lord Brahma'. The social science text for class 9 adds, 'After Brahma created the universe, Manu created theology, Vrihaspati created economics and Nandi created Kamashastra, the science of desire.'

Hindu mythological figures are thus presented as real historical personages and presented as pioneers in various sciences. The aim seems to be to drill into the minds of the students the belief in the superiority of Brahminical Hinduism and the racist ideology of Hindutva over the rest of the cultures and religions of the world. Thus, as the class eleven Sanskrit text claims, 'Whatever sciences and education are there, their origin lies in our Vedas. Our religion is the oldest religion in the world. Whatever religions are there in the world, all have originated from the Vedas.'

Sections of textbooks which Apoorvanand quotes from read like exactly like RSS propaganda pamphlets, making all sorts of bizarre and totally unsubstantiated claims. The purpose is to instill in the students a deadening consent to the false claims of Hindutva brigade. Thus, one text claims, 'Many sages of ancient India were scientists. Many scientific discoveries were made in India but later, due to a conspiracy, these scientific achievements were forgotten'. In the 'Samhita code of sage Agastya, whether it be yantra shastra or metallurgy or zinc, iron, mercury, gold, all of these were discovered first in India, as also in the case of veterinary sciences, writing, aeronautics, shipping, botany. Plastic surgery was already here, and an example of organ transplant is present in the extremely old incident of transplanting an elephant's head over Ganesha's body'

Quite predictably, the period of Indian history characterized by Turkish, Afghan and Mughal political power is depicted in bloodcurdling terms, thus clearly aiming to reinforce fiercely negative stereotypical understandings of Islam and Muslims. One book claims:

'The Mughals fully exploited the stagnation in culture and society of medieval India… [T]he first thing they did was to destroy whatever vestiges of religious unity there remained….[T]he motive of education now was to educate Muslims, to propagate Islam, to gain material facilities and to achieve political goals.. [T]he phase of harassment of Hindus by turning them into inferior, third grade citizens, began with the Mughal period.'

Similarly, another text claims, 'Attempts were made consistently to destroy Indian religion and culture during the period of slavery and foreign invaders. The dignity of women suffered heavily due to the invaders'.

Equally predictably, India's freedom struggle is sought to be projected in such a way as to make the claim for a central role in it of Hindutva forces, such as the RSS. This, of course, has no historical veracity whatsoever, given that the RSS and allied outfits worked to sabotage the joint struggle of Hindus and Muslims against the British and thereby directly assisted the colonial power. Thus, a textbook claims, 'Doctor Keshav Baliram Hedgewar established a socio-cultural organisation named Rashtriya Swayamsevak Singh, to awaken a nationalist spirit in Indian society… The activities of the RSS disseminated the spirit of organisation, unity, brotherhood, patriotism, unity and homogeneity in Indian society and on every occasion of national crisis the RSS proved its utility beyond all debate'.

Some of the textbooks briefly discuss events in India after 1947, and even here the clear anti-Muslim and unabashed Hindutva slant is evident. Thus, in a veiled reference to Muslims, one book claims, 'On the border of Rajasthan the people of a specific community are prosperous and politically influential. Their relatives live on the borders with Pakistan who went there during Partition and wars. These people successfully carry out smuggling, spying and other anti-national activities. They get patronage easily from both sides. Their to and fro movements, legal or illegal, remain [...].' The text claims that this community earlier used to engage in 'smuggling of cows and minor girls'.

The books clearly laud Hindutva-brand fascism and the political agenda of the RSS. They call for 'strict laws to stop religious conversion and infiltration', and for an 'end to all types of appeasement....immediate suspension of article 370...equipping army and security forces with modern means and giving them full freedom to eliminate terrorism'.

A school Political Science text book devotes an entire chapter to Fascism, and has this to say about what it calls its 'contribution': 'Fascism does away with the demerits of democracy. In situations of crises, immediate decisions are required and fascism is appropriate for it. Through fascism the spirit of nationalism develops. Fascism prevents free competition. The nation remains secure if the government is in the hands of an able person. Italy developed economy and industry in the age of Mussolini. In this way, though fascism was a short-term system, yet its significance will continue all times'.

It is thus amply clear that these books have been carefully doctored to promote the political project of Hindutva fascism, which is based on the notion of Brahminical supremacy and the continued suppression and marginalization of the 'low' caste majority as well as Muslims and Christians. Far from being enlightening and informative, these books appear to be nothing less than crude propaganda. Summing up the findings of his study, and noting that these books are consciously geared to promoting the Hindutva fascist agenda, Apoorvanand questions, 'Is there still courage and energy within us to initiate a campaign to scrap these textbooks?' . 'Shall the Supreme Court and High Court of Rajasthan not take into cognizance such an obscene, vulgar and crude distortion of the right of the children of Rajasthan for availing good education?,' he asks.

It is, of course, not just the Rajasthan textbooks that display such sinister manipulation by Hindutva forces. Much has been said about the need for revision of textbooks throughout the country to address their serious class, caste, religious and gender biases. Studies like this one for each state are needed, but then the crucial question is: Do our political parties have the political will and sincerity to do anything substantial to even appear to address the issue?