Terror Walks Our Deis

 Today, both Karachi and Mumbai burn--not to mention Lahore and other parts of our homelands. Here's a couple of older comments from me--they bear repeating both because they express some sentiments, and to point out that we ALL lose unless we can do something about the evil that walks our lands:

http://bit.ly/KHI4Mumbai

http://bit.ly/KHI4MumbaiLH​R

There IS such a thing as using the wrong means for the right end. And when that happens, we should all stand up and be counted. Terrorism is terrorism even if someone commits an act of terror, or other heinous act for my personal, social, or national benefit. Intelligent and principled people should be able to call out evil even when it is committed for a cause they might not disagree with. Here is a more detailed discussion of my position on Terrorism:

http://bit.ly/1mansterrori​st

Corruption and Terrorism

Corruption has been a long-running problem in post-colonial and post-conflict states. Corruption of money and corruption of power. And even in states led by people who waged self-less struggles for independence. We can follow in the headlines of the New York Times and other Western media outlets the process of it's being institutionalized in a "new" post-conflict state in Afghanistan. Just read what is NOT mentioned in the stories, in particular. You read that corruption is a big problem—and, without irony—often the same article will tell you that the same person who is corrupt and a drug lord, "is also on the CIA payroll". The point made being that "we" should not be giving money to a person who is "corrupt". Huh? A foreign intelligence agency paying someone a stipend is not "corruption"? In a country that could afford self-respect, it would be considered worse than monetary corruption; it would be considered treason.

Anyways, it was a conversation on Twitter with @weddady and which started with a mention of terrorism, as so much does nowadays, that finally helped me sort out my thoughts. It started by my noticing a comment by him saying that terrorism is why Western governments support dictators. Here's my response, compiled from multiple tweets to (hopefully) one coherent para:

I don't think terrorism is the the reason the West supports criminals. It starts—or started, back in colonial days, and re-started again in the post-colonial (some would say neo-colonial) age as the struggle for influence, resources, and hegemony took off—with corruptible folks. It is the corruptible that sell out to people looking to buy influence. That leads to the corrupt having the resources necessary to gain power. Terrorism turns up further down the road as constructive avenues for political participation and redress are cut off. [Interesting article on the cycle as it has played out in the Maoist troubles in India here. Which is not to say that all of the actions of the Naxalites are terrorism, but then, terrorism is one tact too often used by insurgencies of all sorts.] Long and short of it; terrorism only helps strengthen that cycle. So, yes, it strengthens the criminal/corrupt but it's not the original sin.

Terrorism; the topic that keeps on giving

Said this in response to a comment from a friend on Facebook:

To me, terrorism is a tactic. It has a clear definition, both in language and political science. The problem today is that political critters both in governments and outside are more often than not not honourable/honest enough to take the word and phenomenon for what it means. The communists of the early 20th Century, or Nelson Mandela in our day, were very clear about the tactic they used. [More on my position here.]

The poor common Muslim who gets caught up in "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" (a red herring if I ever saw one) and thus feeling that they must defend their co-religionists or compatriots are buying into a canard that only empowers neo-imperialists on the one hand and neo-purist fanatics on the other. [And more on that here.]

Illiteracy causes Terrorism--Wishful Thinking?

Every once in a while someone I know—not to mention a million others, often highly educated Pakistani expats and not a few caucasians both in Western governments and even progressive circles, but also people in Pakistan—will express the thought that what is really causing all this extremism and fanaticism is that Pakistan, for example, has an abysmal literacy rate. And all we have to do is start 3 million schools, and we "wild and wooly gentlemen" of those crazy parts will hold hands and chant Rumi, if not sing kumbaya. One do-gooder just a couple of days ago was saying on NPR that you could run a whole school for a year in the money spent on maintaining one foreign soldier in Afghanistan.

I am not sure I agree.

These are two separate problems. Illiteracy might be fueling extremism, but the ideology behind it is very much the product of literate brains. The inflexible, extreme attitudes we see in a lot of Pakistan's Youth--on Facebook, for example--is the product of the tinkering with the EDUCATIONAL system and society by Gen. Ziaul Haque and his regime, not of illiteracy. Making people literate--rather than enlightened--only gives them the means to read and absorb things like Farhat Hashmi, "disturbing" emails, and so on. [Which is not limited to Pakistan or Muslims; for every Geo TV there is a Fox News; for every Mullah Rocketi, a Franklin Graham. But I digress.] Just consider a few points:

• Who was it that was most enamoured of the Sufis that brought Islam to what is today Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? (At least one or two of them literally students and friends of Rumi.) The educated elite of the day, or the poor, illiterate working folk?
• Who attends lectures by Farhat Hashmi and radical Western Muslim (like the Hizbut-Tahrir and some Americans I could mention) ? The taxi driver and the working class Muslim, or the professionals at some mosques in Silicon Valley and Toronto that I could mention?

Lahore, we say, is Pakistan's Heart ...

...and yesterday, Mrs Clinton heard it straight from the heart.

And one has to give Hilary C credit for actually getting out and about and right into the heart of Pakistan. But winning it over will be easier said than done, never mind the hopeful noises one hears in the US media--be it corporate, public, or alternative. (See here, for example.) The US, after all, is coming right out of a complete and utter defeat on the propaganda, sorry, PR, sorry, Public Diplomacy front on the Kerry Lugar Bill. (In case, you don't follow what I mean, please ask. Or, if you understand Urdu, check out last Sunday's discussion on ABN Chicago, or the upcoming pilot podcast of Taraqqi Pasand Media.) Of course, "the other side" is helped in no small measure by the fact that any discussion between the American Establishment and the Pakistani People degenerates very fast into rapidfire mutual recriminations.

The New York Times actually has a very good round-up in their article, of her PR challenge. Readers of this blog and my other writings and radio appearances (here on general background and here on Mrs. Clinton's last foray into lecturing Pakistanis, for example) will remember me pointing out how Pakistanis feel. But all we usually get is a person in a business suit behind a podium and "the average Pakistani" screaming at their television. So, beyond the "I Told You So"s, it was heartwarming to see, as the article says, an American official go face-to-face with "an audience so uniformly suspicious and immune to her star power as the polite, but unsmiling, university students who challenged her at Government College University in Lahore". Yeh cheez! as we say in Pakistan; that's what I am talking about!

[Photo: Clinton at Badshahi Masjid, Lahore--Reuters photo with NY Times article quoted]

My Brother Barack Hussain talks to Al Arabiya

When my son started First Grade, come the start of African-American History Month, he coolly informed his first (predominantly East and South Asian) classmates that his otherwise very Pakistani-looking, and -sounding, "dad is an African-American". I do not remember ever having used that phrase within earshot of him. But he knows that I was born in same region of Africa that is the origin of most of the people who came to this country as slaves. One way to put it, therefore, is that I came to this country as an African-born grad student much like Barack Obama Sr. 

So don't get me wrong; I love my brother Barack Hussain. I have been following his presidential ambitions almost from the first buzz around a possible run--and have discussed it in my blogging and even Urdu podcasting. I am joyous at seeing him in the White House. To repeat the cliche, it tells me that my now 8-year old son and, even more possibly, my 4-year old daughter can really follow in his footsteps.

And I am actually one person who did NOT hold his staying mum about the events in Gaza over the last month or so against him. Speaking out would only have used up political capital that he didn't need to spend for no substantial gain. Whichever way he chose to lean, it would have have cost him; either in terms of political support at home, or in goodwill that he still has on "the Muslim street".

But when my brother Barack Hussain says:

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy."

And then his first real communique in terms of practically reaching out and touching, so to speak, people in the Muslim world is an unmanned drone dropping bombs in violation of the sovereignty of the 2nd largest Muslim country in the Muslim world--a country that has been one of the longest-term and most faithful allies of the US--then I feel it is my duty, as a person who wants him to succeed, to ask him to think about what message the people who actually live at the business end of that communique will be receiving.

In case you missed the full interview (say you've been vacationing on Mars and just returned), here is his first formal foray into the Muslim media 

The World is a Circular Firing Squad

There's a line in one of the greatest "Bollywood" classics, written by the scions of a couple of the greatest South Asian literary families—sons of Urdu poets, to be precise—and delivered by a minor but unforgettable character, "Soorma Bhopali" that goes "Yahaan hamaaree kya zaroorath hai; yahaan tho waisay hee aap kay naam ka warrant nikla huwa hai." [Who needs me? There's already a warrant out for your arrest.]

And that's the thought that's being going through my head as South Asia spirals downwards, some folks caution against jumping to conclusions, and others rally for peace. And I include the arguments over "Islamists did it. No, wait! Let's not jump to conclusions; it could be home grown! …" in that.

How is it realistic to look at everything as either-or? The mess South Asia is in--not to mention the rest of the world--there's enough blame to go around. Neo-purist fanatics (our Islamist/Jihadists; their Sanghis; our--speaking from North America—Christian and Jewish fanatics); civilizing imperialists; ethnic militants (Sena, MQM, racists of white and other hue); everybody's jingoistic nationalists; everybody's military-industrial-intelligence complexes…all feed off each other. In some cases, they work with each other. Just for example, Is it too much of a stretch to believe that what is happening in Karachi (in case either of you missed it) is being helped along by Indian Intelligence (and who knows who else) as a counterpoint to what they see as Pakistani Intelligence "doing Mumbai"? From where I sit, what's happening in the NW of Pakistan also has elements of a turf battle.

And as we all participate in this circular firing squad—including the agonizing over Muslims being targeted or profiled—the folks I list above make leaps and bounds in the struggle for the hearts and minds of their respective target constituencies…

And PS: how many noticed there were riots in the prettiest town in Africa's largest nation, too? Rally anyone?

---

Cross-posted on the iFaqeer, Wadiblog, ProgressiveIslam.org, Pak Tea House, Urdu ke Naam, Doodpatti (by Tohfay) blogs.
Technorati tags applicable to this post: Mumbai - Pakistan - India - War on Terror

South Asia on Fire...

As I have said before, I am not a Marxist, but do now identify as a progressive. But it has to be said. The last time Mumbai had a tragedy like this, it was the Pakistani Left that came out with the sanest statement I could find. And now they seem to have done it again:

CMKP Strongly Condemns the Terrorist Violence in Mumbai
CMKP strongly condemns the barbaric and heinous acts of planned murder and destruction carried out by terrorists in Mumbai India. We express our sincerest condolence with all the people who fell victim to this savage crime.

We also salute the entire Indian Left that is doing its utmost to reign in reprisals by Hindu fundamentalist forces against the Muslims of India.

Read the rest at: http://reddiarypk.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/cmkp-condems-mumbai-attacks/

The other thing worth reading, I think, is Sandip Roy's piece, "Guns and bombs in booming India", in Salon over the weekend. It is very, very trenchant and could have been written--should have been written--about a lot of what's happening in Pakistan--or off the coast of Somalia today. In a globalized world, the issue of who is at the table and who feels left out and aggrieved is now globalized. This is not to diminish or dismiss the role of ideologies, nationalist jingoism, or political manipulation--of which there has been much in all the comments, news, and reaction about the Mumbai tragedy (a lot of people are making a lot of noise about Pakistan being a big factor in the story--but where are the people that know Pakistan first hand and can discuss it on the talk shows, amongst the experts and on NPR, one wonders). But as Sandip puts it:

I don't know who the young man in the Versace t-shirt was. But I can't shake his image – a gunman in five-star Mumbai.

He might be an Islamic militant from Pakistan or Britain. He might be a frustrated small city boy shut out of the IT economy. He might be a village boy who trained in a terror camp somewhere.

Whatever his motive, his message was loud and clear.

Pay attention to me, he and his young partners said to booming India.

And then these mysterious young men pulled the trigger.

Boom.

Sandip says "India"; I'd say we all need to listen to that message.

As Gandhi would have put it...

I apologise for the hit-and-run post, and though I have great respect for the man, I am not a Gandhian. But following everything over the weekend, I am left with a thought this morning that channels Gandhi; A War on Terror would be a great idea--if either the West or Muslims choose to take up the idea.

---

Technorati tags applicable to this post: War on Terror

Funeral Services for Benazir Bhutto...and a word on the religious tenor of the Bhuttos

Just learnt that a Ghayabana Namaaz-e-Janaza is going to be held for Benazir Bhutto after/with Friday prayers at the Masjid-e-Farooq-e-Azam in Concord, California. I am told it is off the Clayton Exit, across from the Safeway and near the BART Station and there will be a prayer meeting (Du'a) at the BART Station afterwards.

Sorry about the late notice, but I just found out.

There will most probably be services in other places around the world. Please feel free to post information in the comments section here to inform others.

For those not familiar with the concept, "Namaz-e-Janaza" is the South Asian name for the Muslim prayer said at a person's bier before he or she is interred. There is a tradition of saying the exact same prayer "ghayabana", or "in absentia", in situations like this where a lot of people not physically present at the burial want to participate (or in cases where a body is not found; but that's another story).

As a matter of clarification, I am forwarding this not because I am a fan or follower of Benazir, her father, or the PPP, but for all their faults and follies, both she and her father were in a tradition of South Asian and/or Muslim leaders going back at least to Akbar, who chose to make at least a public connection with the more folksy interpretation of their constituencies' faith(s).

In my book, she gets credit for being the only Muslim leader I have ever heard invoke Ijma, the Islamic concept of consensus as a source of community self-governance .

The discussion on KQED about Benazir's passing and it's aftermath went well and the audio archive is available at:

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R712280900

---

Photo is an AP image taken off the BBC website.
Cross-posted on the iFaqeer, Wadiblog, ProgressiveIslam.org, and Pak Tea House blogs.
Technorati tags applicable to this post: Benazir - Pakistan - Ijma

Benazir Bhutto, "Daughter of Pakistan, Daughter of the Muslim World", RIP

At least a couple of people have wondered why I haven't posted anything on my blog. Folks have been asking why I haven't posted anything. Been distracted because my wife and kids were en route to Karachi. Finally had them rerouted directly to Delhi from Hong Kong, skipping Karachi for now.

I hope to write and post. For now, you can catch me on The Forum on KQED tomorrow morning.

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R712280900

Notes on the quote on the subject and on the photo above: The photograph above often appears on Wikipedia articles and updates about Benazir. It is an image I captured myself at Chandini Restaurant in Newark California on September 28th, 2004 and made available under GPL License through that site. (See articles on my blog here and here.) The quote is from President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, the person she met as her last official appointment.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Benazir - Pakistan

Cry of Pain -- or Call to Arms?

Adil Najam's recent post on Pakistaniat is quite a cry of pain and a call to arms; he's not someone that jumps into political frays--least of all on a site he's invested blood, toil, tears, and sweat in building over the last year and a half as an inclusive space. Do read it.

Over the weekend, I got quite an education on the history of violence on Pakistani campuses--most specifically, the one I ended up on in the late 80s-early 90s--at an alumni convention here in Silicon Valley, and will post my thoughts on that as soon as I can. (I am trying to tone them down.)

And the point is not that I think no one has the right to hold the political, theological or social opinions the Taliban, the Jamaat, or anyone else holds. But subverting the writ of the state is not in the tradition of The Prophet of Islam. (SAW) He did not take up arms until a community elected him Head of State and he was at the head of a government.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Adil Najam - Pakistan - Taliban

Pakistan and the US; Not Just An Open Letter to the Obama Campaign

I just sent this to the Obama campaign--the point raised goes way beyond the Senator's presidential fortunes:

Re: The war we need to win

You know, the funny thing is, a major presidential candidate recently said:

"And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair --our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

And no one noticed.

I don't need to tell y'all that the excerpt above is from the same Obama speech that is being quoted and re-quoted today.

If one steps back a bit, it really is very, very symptomatic of the underlying disconnect between the American establishment, in particular, and the Muslim world that in the same speech, the same gentleman that said the above and also says, describes the the Iraq War as:

"a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world..."

then advocates unilateral military action within the sovereign territory of the second largest Muslim nation in the world--five or six times as populous as Iraq. If George W. Bush is not the only one who can't formulate any polcy beyond alternating between supporting dictators with military aid on the one hand and the unilateral use of military force on the other--notwithstanding what I quote Barack Obama as having said in words that sound like wonderful music to the ears of this Pakistani resident of the US--then what hope do we have for world peace?

As a flashback, please do check out this picture of better days:



and the following blog post by Prof. Adil Najam up at Tufts:

http://pakistaniat.com/2006/07/17/pictures-of-the-day-us-pakistan-the-early-days/

I am copying this mail to the editors at the South Asian Journalists' Association Blog and Pakistaniat.com, probably the most popular blog in the Pakistani American community. Hopefully they will consider it or inclusion/posting.

If anyone wants to discuss these issues further, do drop me a line.

Warm regards, and good luck with the campaign,

iFaqeer

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Obama on Pakistan

Following up on the Cycle of Violence and Terrorism

After my post yesterday about "Muslims in the USA, Muhajirs in Pakistan, and More", I have gotten into some very interesting conversations--which is what I was hoping; we all have to get beyond just the platitudes and finger pointing and to where we are looking at the bigger picture, anger and reaction, no matter how just, can only lead to repeating the cycle of violence and mayhem we see so often around the globe. Here's what I replied to one friend, edited and enhanced very lightly:

My point, in the Pakistani context, but that is just one example, is that there needs to be a voice at the table speaking for the concerns of Urban Sindh--especially Karachi and its Urdu speakers. And not exclusively--other voices need to be at the table, too. And, yes, the MQM has been a very flawed vehicle for that. Just as other groups, the Jiyay Sindh Movement, or Bugti, or what-have-you, have been flawed vessels of other aspirations. But I have always held that the MQM is not a cause of the problems that Karachi has, but a symptom of it. The problem is that since others did not do much for the needs and aspirations of, especially middle- and lower-middle-class, Karachi (and Hyderabad, and Sukkur), when the MQM leadership came along, they had an audience with who had tried every other option (trying to support Fatima Jinnah, the Jamaat, ...) and been bitterly disappointed.

Look at Palestine: I am a very strong opponent of Islamism (both militant and otherwise) as manifested by Hizbollah (and the Jamaat, and others), but it is because the powers that be (including Muslim leadership globally) were not going to sit down and really work with the leadership that the Palestinians had (Arafat, and now Marwan Barghouti and others), the people threw their support behind Hizbollah. That was my point behind the Black Panther Party allusion--Martin and Malcolm were murdered, which made African Americans much more open to the Panthers, and left the Panthers as the only visible "leadership" at some points. Also Kashmir--the complete hijacking of the election under Rajiv is what drove Yaseen Malik and his generation to the gun and made them open to the hot (proxy) war Ziaul Haq was trying to start....

Given that, the problem as I see it, both with Muslims in the West and globally, and "communities of concern" in places like Karachi, and Kashmir, and Palestine, is that, now that there is "leadership" in place that a lot of us find less-than-savoury, in the way that deal with them, we have to be careful not to seem like we're trivializing the real issues that they base their politics upon; otherwise the "silent majority" that we say exists in those communities, and whose "hearts and minds" we say need to reach, get the wrong message and we're set back a long way in terms of solving the problems them that make the current options successful.

Does that make sense?

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Pakistan - Terrorism - Karachi - Kashmir

Mujahideen, Jihadis, and Other Afghans

In discussions on Afghanistan, it is distressing to see even serious academics with a background in Pakistan conflate all of the resistance in Afghanstan to the Soviets under the "Jihadi" label. Ahmed Shah Masood, for example, was very much one of the Afghan Mujahideen, but was no "Jihadi"...most of the warlords in that war were nowhere near the Taliban, Al-Qaeda or Pakistani Jihadis in ideology. Of course, the US and Pakistani governments had a weakness for Jihadis like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and later found they could best do business with the Taliban, but that's another story.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Afghanistan - Islamism - Mujahideen

Damn the Mea Culpas; Full Speed Ahead!

So there was this New York Times story last week that began:

February 28, 2007
NEWS ANALYSIS
Afghan Bombing Sends a Danger Signal to U.S.
By DAVID E. SANGER
Correction Appended
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 – The audacity of a suicide-bomb attack on Tuesday at the gates of the main American base in Afghanistan during a visit by Vice President Dick Cheney underscores why President Bush sent him there—a deepening American concern that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are resurgent...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/28/washington/28security.html

The interesting thing was how unchanged the NYT's tone in this article is, despite the Mea Culpas about the Iraq War. Witness the second paragraph:

"American officials insisted that the importance of the attack, by a single suicide bomber who blew himself up a mile away from where the vice president was staying, was primarily symbolic. It was more successful at grabbing headlines and filling television screens with a scene of carnage than at getting anywhere near Mr. Cheney."

An American official says so, so that must be it; never mind that symbolism, and, well, terrorizing folks by, in this case, "grabbing headlines and filling television screens with a scene of carnage" is, by definition, the very aim of terrorism...and therefore, if I may dare to keep things real, and to borrow a phrase from Tavis Smiley at this year's State of the Black Union, this attack, achieved its objective...

The intention of the (Deputy) Leader of the Free World (to use a Cold War phrase) in putting out a statement like that can be understood; we don't have to like it, but as folks engaged in "Da Clash", it is understandable. But the cluelessness—one is tempted to say Orwellian nature—real or intentional (I am not sure which is more scary) of the "Newspaper of Record" of this here "Free World" is downright scary.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Media - Terrorism - New York Times - Afghanistan

I don't care who did this...

... but the f_______(s) needs unspeakable things done to him and/or her...":

India-Pakistan Peace Talks Seen as Train Bombs' Target

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Pakistan - India - Indo-Pak Relations- Subcontinent

On Terrorists that are "Islamic" or "Hindu"

There was a report being circulated via email in some circles titled "Reports from Muslim Women attacked by Hindu Terrorists".

The phrases "Hindu Terrorists" and "Hindu Terrorism" should not be any more acceptable to us than "Islamic Terrorist" or "Islamic Terrorism". These people are, very like our own right wing extremists, the product of a neo-conservative movement within Hinduism that, also like our own, has been formed and has grown in the last century or more. This is not all Hindus. One of the most interesting statistics, if you want to talk about Gujarat--and I have worked in and with organizations active on the issue of the Gujarat massacares, and that's what they were: massacares, not riots--is how many districts (counties we call them in this country) in Gujarat had genocide happen in them, and how many did not.

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Terrorism - Hindu Terrorists - Islamic Terrorists

Pakistani Left: Launch Movement against Terrorist Activities in the Name of Islam

For a while now, I have meaning to discuss what seems to be a nascent revivification of the Left in Pakistan. Over the last year or so, I have seen several pictures of Press Conferences with two of the leading lights of the Pakistani Left, the poet Ahmed Faraz and Abid Hasan Minto, the veteran Marxist leader visible in each. I might be mixing up vague memories, but there was a press conference about a joint movement by six Left parties; a press conference about the "military action" (I don't remember exactly whether the phrase "civil war" was used) in Balochistan; I think one about the Iraq War and then one about the military action in Waziristan...or maybe I am exaggerating; but not by much.

Then, a day or two ago, via Munir Saami Saahab and Tarek Fatah (themselves veterans of the Left in Pakistan, and now lights in the Progressive constellation up to the North of us in Canada), I got the statement below and knew I had to share it with everyone. For people not familiar with the Pakistani political and activist scene, please mark the names signed at the bottom--people who are familiar with that area of activity will already know the names:

"We Condemn the Heinous Crime in Mumbai"

The bomb blasts on local trains and at railway stations in Mumbai, in which over 160 people have been killed and many more are on the verge of dying, are perhaps the most shocking of all such killings that have occurred in the subcontinent of late. The reason is that this massacre has targeted thousands of office and factory going men and women returning home to be with their children and parents after a whole day?s hard work. Those who committed this great crime cannot even be called animals because animals do not commit such crimes. Only human beings do.

It is time for the governments of Pakistan and India to re-assess their priorities and be on a state of high alert. As long as they fail to resolve their mostly man-made disputes and allow free and unfettered people-to-people interaction between the two countries, all sorts of extremists and terrorists would find it easy to indulge in and get away with such insane barbarities. What has happened in Mumbai is indicative of a widening of the dimensions of terrorist outreach. It calls for united effort by not only the governments of Pakistan and India but the people at large to identify and wipe out this cancer that is spreading far and wide at a frightening pace.

Pakistan needs to take stern measures to put down all kinds of demonstrations and displays of religious extremism in the country, which directly or indirectly encourages terrorist activities in the name of religion and undermines the peace process between Pakistan and India.

Similarly, India needs to curb the activities of religious fanatics using the umbrella of India?s pluralist democratic political system, to spawn communal conflicts and derail the peace process. In order to avert a possible collapse of the peace process as a result of such tragic incidents, it is necessary that the two governments put their heads together and take immediate steps to create a relaxed political atmosphere in the subcontinent by removing all outlandish restrictions on the movement of people between the two countries, thus making it impossible for the terrorists to operate.

We would also ask all the sane, secular forces among the Muslims of the world to rise above their petty sectarian positions and help launch an international movement against terrorist activities in the name of Islam.

We extend our heartfelt condolences to the members of the families who have lost their near and dear ones in the bomb blasts and assure them that we will strive, along with those in Pakistan and India and the world who abhor religious extremism and terrorism, to fight this evil till it is eliminated for good.

M.B.Naqvi, Senior Columnist & Founder Member PIPFPD
Dr. A.H.Nayyar, President, Pakistan Peace Coalition
Karamat Ali, Director PILER
Muhammad Tahseen, South Asia Partnership-Pakistan
Ms. Ayesha Yahqub, Takhleeq Foundation
B.M.Kutty , Secretary, Pakistan Peace Coalition
Dr. Aly Ercelan, Economist
Ms. Sheen Farrukh, Journalist
Ms. Sheema Kermani, Director, Tehreek-e-Niswan

Notice the statement does not talk about "reforming Islam", or about "bringing liberal or progressive values to Muslims". This is just a bunch of citizens living within Muslim community who think, very naturally, that Muslims should work against Terrorism in the name of Islam.

There is much talk nowadays about looking for voices from the Muslim world that are not right wing or, whatever the word now means, fundamentalist. And great excitement on finding the stray one. Expatriates often talk about trying to create examples within the community that are not corrupt and which work for the uplift of the masses. The question that crosses my mind is this: Which organization or organizations in the Pakistani diaspora, or the wider South Asian diaspora, especially in the US, would put its signature to such a statement? Who's going to live up to their progressive ideals and actually reach back and work as equals with the folks "on the ground", so to speak?

[Acknowledgements: I'd like to thank Maroof Syed and Prof. Adil Najam in help locating the picture above, which was finally located on the on the Islamabad Metroblog. I already mentioned Munir Saami Saahab (founder and moving spirit behind Writers' Forum, the list on which I received the statement above) and Tarek Fatah.]

Technorati tags applicable to this post: Left - Muslim Left - Pakistan - Progressive Muslims

One Man's Terrorist...

... is everyone's terrorist. Whether he's a freedom fighter or not is besides the point.

I have had reason to say this on mailing lists and in conversations, but haven't gotten round to posting it here as a post:

I am sorry, but "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is not a morally defensible position.

It wasn't when Ronald Reagan said it, and it isn't today. When The Gipper used it as excuse for his foreign policy alliances, it gave us Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, a man that, if I am told right, when The Gipper and Pakistan's Mard-e-Momin (Gen. Zia) started patronising him, already had a record of throwing acid in the face of a fellow student at Kabul University who had the audacity not to wear a veil.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" seems to imply that if a person who is otherwise committing a terrorist act does it for a valid cause like fighting for freedom, it is okay, or at least less “evil”. Even if someone commits an act of terror, or other heinous act for my personal, social, or national benefit, it is my moral, religious and legal responsibility to call it out as exactly that. An evil, yes, evil, indefensible act. And then it is my duty to either stop it, denounce it, or at least recognize it as such. I believe says it is a sign of how strong one's faith is to either put it right with one's hand, speak against it, or at the lowest level of faith, to know it is evil in my heart.

This is not to say that "suspect" minorities should be early and often with their condemnations. Condemnations should not be demanded. But we shouldn't feel it inappropriate to condemn and call a spade a spade because it might *seem* like we're caving. Or, worse, because it might be a "brother" (sisters are nicer ;)) that did something. Isn't Islam one of those religions that says to be truthful in witness, be it against a brother? Isn't Islam the religion that says one should help an aggressor or a transgressor by stopping him or her from committing such transgresions?

[Also posted on my blog on ProgressiveIslam.org.]