Lovely speech:
CSPAN Video: rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project/ter/ter011606_gore.rm
Transcript from "The Raw Story" (via Democracy Now!): http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Text_of_Gore_speech_0116.html
Now if only I could get the other face on the presidential campaign button from 2000 and where I have seen it lately out of my head while I listen to that speech ...
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Muslims and Democracy; But not the Usual Suspects...
I am sick of people saying things like "first constitution in the Arab and Muslim world" and that "Muslims have no experience with democracy" and that it's a new experience for Muslims to operate within a constitutional democracy. Of course, the examples we give to refute that are often from Iran, Pakistan, and the Arab World. Here's one that's not from the Middle East or South Asia.
A Muslim leader from the mid-20th century who very much operated within a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic country and negotiated the transition from a theocratic/monarchical system to a modern democracy, leading his community as an elected leader. Coming from a line of religious scholars and leaders, he did not take the line we so often hear in the Muslim community that democracy is unIslamic or that constitutions are haraam. And it was policies he and others set in place that took people like my parents and others like them from Pakistan and India, in particular, to work in his country, in large part because they wanted to show their people that one can be a practising Muslim and be educated in English and other "modern" things.
If I remember right, it is about this person that Martin Lings relates in one of his books, that when, as a leader of a newly independent country, he received a letter from the Pope, he kept the Papal Representative standing while he read and re-read the letter with tears in his eyes.
Alhaji Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sardauna of Sokoto, Premier of Northern Nigeria:
http://www.arewa-online.com/sardau.html
PS: On second thought, the story from Martin Lings was most probably about Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, who was the first Prime Minister of independent Nigeria an another person who merits mention in this regard.
A Muslim leader from the mid-20th century who very much operated within a multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic country and negotiated the transition from a theocratic/monarchical system to a modern democracy, leading his community as an elected leader. Coming from a line of religious scholars and leaders, he did not take the line we so often hear in the Muslim community that democracy is unIslamic or that constitutions are haraam. And it was policies he and others set in place that took people like my parents and others like them from Pakistan and India, in particular, to work in his country, in large part because they wanted to show their people that one can be a practising Muslim and be educated in English and other "modern" things.
If I remember right, it is about this person that Martin Lings relates in one of his books, that when, as a leader of a newly independent country, he received a letter from the Pope, he kept the Papal Representative standing while he read and re-read the letter with tears in his eyes.
Alhaji Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sardauna of Sokoto, Premier of Northern Nigeria:
http://www.arewa-online.com/sardau.html
PS: On second thought, the story from Martin Lings was most probably about Alhaji Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, who was the first Prime Minister of independent Nigeria an another person who merits mention in this regard.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Stop Press: Zawahiri Hit?
First saw this on a Pakistani news site:
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pick_prog.cfm?page=pakistan.aspx&id=102371
CNN seems to be saying something similiar:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/alqaeda.strike/index.html
http://www.geo.tv/main_files/pick_prog.cfm?page=pakistan.aspx&id=102371
CNN seems to be saying something similiar:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/13/alqaeda.strike/index.html
Iraq '06; Earth '08...
Radio Open Source recently had Juan Cole over to talk about Iraq in 2006:
http://www.radioopensource.org/juan-cole-iraq-in-2006/
He doesn't really see much changing in the course of the year and he still believes that bringing in the UN, if it is possible, is the only way out.
But a few other things jumped out at me:
One set of snippets: "Terrorism...not an analytical category, but a tactic...most terrorist attacks would best be handled with good police work...We don't have a war on terror; we have a war on Al Qaida or Al Q-like organizations...The question for me is how are we doing in curbing and damping down that threat...when we have Ayman Al Zawahiri suborning British-born Pakistani youth to blow up the London subway, we're not winning...He is a serial murderer and serial murderers don't change their stripes...He has not been caught. In my view it is something of a national tragedy that we have spent something like a hundred billion dollars...I freely admit that it wouldn't solve the problem; but it certainly wouldn't hurt."
And he points out a couple of other things that are not part of the headlines:
The British were the ones that were the major power in the Gulf till '71; which is an important reminder in an enviroment when a lot of us seem to be discussing one party in one country--which is not Britain--as the source of all our problems in the Middle East. I have wanted to point out that some of the people we look up to and put our hopes in--like being wishful for leaders like Churchill, or just being blindly pro the Democratic Party in the US--should be engaged with in a little more thought-out a way. Afte all, Churchill, as a bureaucrat of the British Empire, first introduced chemical weapons to Iraq in the 20th Century.
And speaking of Iraq in the early 20th Century, Cole points out that the use of air power to control populations in Iraq was also pioneered by the British in the 1920s--and that one of the architects of that bombing went on to become one of the architects of the Dresden firebombing, etc.
So what's my point? My point is that this whole discussion of how we interact with each other across the planet is not as simple as most of us make it out to be. Whether it is the "It is just a fanatic fringe of Muslim world" or the "We need to bring Liberty to the Muslim World" or the "It is a clash of civilizations" or "Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are evil" or what-have-you; each is an over-simplification. In short if, say, come 2009, we have a Democrat in the White House, it will be an opportunity to make a start fixing the world--but not a guarantee of things getting better. We all still have a lot of work to do.
And we're not even talking about Afghanistan, mind you...
http://www.radioopensource.org/juan-cole-iraq-in-2006/
He doesn't really see much changing in the course of the year and he still believes that bringing in the UN, if it is possible, is the only way out.
But a few other things jumped out at me:
One set of snippets: "Terrorism...not an analytical category, but a tactic...most terrorist attacks would best be handled with good police work...We don't have a war on terror; we have a war on Al Qaida or Al Q-like organizations...The question for me is how are we doing in curbing and damping down that threat...when we have Ayman Al Zawahiri suborning British-born Pakistani youth to blow up the London subway, we're not winning...He is a serial murderer and serial murderers don't change their stripes...He has not been caught. In my view it is something of a national tragedy that we have spent something like a hundred billion dollars...I freely admit that it wouldn't solve the problem; but it certainly wouldn't hurt."
And he points out a couple of other things that are not part of the headlines:
The British were the ones that were the major power in the Gulf till '71; which is an important reminder in an enviroment when a lot of us seem to be discussing one party in one country--which is not Britain--as the source of all our problems in the Middle East. I have wanted to point out that some of the people we look up to and put our hopes in--like being wishful for leaders like Churchill, or just being blindly pro the Democratic Party in the US--should be engaged with in a little more thought-out a way. Afte all, Churchill, as a bureaucrat of the British Empire, first introduced chemical weapons to Iraq in the 20th Century.
And speaking of Iraq in the early 20th Century, Cole points out that the use of air power to control populations in Iraq was also pioneered by the British in the 1920s--and that one of the architects of that bombing went on to become one of the architects of the Dresden firebombing, etc.
So what's my point? My point is that this whole discussion of how we interact with each other across the planet is not as simple as most of us make it out to be. Whether it is the "It is just a fanatic fringe of Muslim world" or the "We need to bring Liberty to the Muslim World" or the "It is a clash of civilizations" or "Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney are evil" or what-have-you; each is an over-simplification. In short if, say, come 2009, we have a Democrat in the White House, it will be an opportunity to make a start fixing the world--but not a guarantee of things getting better. We all still have a lot of work to do.
And we're not even talking about Afghanistan, mind you...
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Of Islam, Accountable Governments, Patriotism and Unpleasant Truths
There's a article on the Internet by an academic at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, titled "Should Pakistan Be Broken Up?" and dated January 1, 2002. You can read it directly (google it if the link here doesn't work) or go to www.saveindus.org and follow the link from there.
Every once in a while, or should I say at least once in the life cycle of each mailing list related to Pakistan, this piece comes up and is discussed. This happened recently on a list I am on. Of course, the discussion of that list took an arc that is now often very familiar: some took the position that it was anti-Pakistan; others discussed the greviances of various groups that were mentioned in the article--or not; inevitably the Civil War came up. And then one person chimed in with the "why are we discussing this; why don't we discuss real issues?" I think the words "negative attitude" came up, too."
Here's part of what I posted in reply. I am posting a part of it here because I think it has parts that might be educational to a wider audience on how a Pakistani can think--and because it speaks to issues of patriotism, and of how Islam relates to a government being accountable to the governed and their issues.
"Closing one's eyes to unpleasant truths OR lies that are circulating out there is not good for anybody--whether you want to defend your country or fight injustice that you think is being done.
I just pray that more of us would try to understand what grievances, misigivings, and impressions some of our fellow countryfolk--or people in other countries--have, so we can discuss them, address them, and either dispel them as not necessary or remedy them, if they are based on reality. Outsiders being able to divide a nation, a group, or a community--or fanatics being able to carry the day--only works when they can use/exploit people within, who have grievances that are not being addressed. That's how Bangladesh was born. That's why we had another civil war we seldom talk about in the 70s in Balochistan. And, if I may say so, that's how Pakistan itself was born: because--justifiably or not--the community felt they would not be able get a fair shake in a united South Asian state after the British left.
I consider myself a very patriotic Pakistani and a believing Muslim, but as far as I am concerned, the interests or continued existence of a given country/nation-state/geo-political entity is not more important than the basic rights and well-being of individual humans and communities of citizens. If a citizen or a community feels that a government or state has become oppressive, people have not just a right, but a responsibility to try to correct that: working within the system where at all possible, but not ruling out more extreme measures. That's the understanding of Islam I was brought up with (see Abu Bakar's "Acceptance Speech" as first Caliph, for example, with his asking for support, but also feedback on bad decisions; and Ayesha, wife of The Prophet, for example, going to the extent of taking up arms when she thought the government was not doing the right thing; and then, of course, we have the example of the Hasnain, the grandsons of The Prophet, challenging a government they thought illegitimate--in one case coming to a peaceful agreement with it and in the other fighting to the last...); that's the understanding of the ideal of Pakistan I was brought up with (see the Objectives Resolution or any number of documents); and that's the understanding of good governance and democracy I was brought up with (see the American Declaration of Independence, the preamble to any of the various constitutions Pakistan has had...)."
[NB: I have posted a version of this entry on the Pakistan Futures blog.]
Every once in a while, or should I say at least once in the life cycle of each mailing list related to Pakistan, this piece comes up and is discussed. This happened recently on a list I am on. Of course, the discussion of that list took an arc that is now often very familiar: some took the position that it was anti-Pakistan; others discussed the greviances of various groups that were mentioned in the article--or not; inevitably the Civil War came up. And then one person chimed in with the "why are we discussing this; why don't we discuss real issues?" I think the words "negative attitude" came up, too."
Here's part of what I posted in reply. I am posting a part of it here because I think it has parts that might be educational to a wider audience on how a Pakistani can think--and because it speaks to issues of patriotism, and of how Islam relates to a government being accountable to the governed and their issues.
"Closing one's eyes to unpleasant truths OR lies that are circulating out there is not good for anybody--whether you want to defend your country or fight injustice that you think is being done.
I just pray that more of us would try to understand what grievances, misigivings, and impressions some of our fellow countryfolk--or people in other countries--have, so we can discuss them, address them, and either dispel them as not necessary or remedy them, if they are based on reality. Outsiders being able to divide a nation, a group, or a community--or fanatics being able to carry the day--only works when they can use/exploit people within, who have grievances that are not being addressed. That's how Bangladesh was born. That's why we had another civil war we seldom talk about in the 70s in Balochistan. And, if I may say so, that's how Pakistan itself was born: because--justifiably or not--the community felt they would not be able get a fair shake in a united South Asian state after the British left.
I consider myself a very patriotic Pakistani and a believing Muslim, but as far as I am concerned, the interests or continued existence of a given country/nation-state/geo-political entity is not more important than the basic rights and well-being of individual humans and communities of citizens. If a citizen or a community feels that a government or state has become oppressive, people have not just a right, but a responsibility to try to correct that: working within the system where at all possible, but not ruling out more extreme measures. That's the understanding of Islam I was brought up with (see Abu Bakar's "Acceptance Speech" as first Caliph, for example, with his asking for support, but also feedback on bad decisions; and Ayesha, wife of The Prophet, for example, going to the extent of taking up arms when she thought the government was not doing the right thing; and then, of course, we have the example of the Hasnain, the grandsons of The Prophet, challenging a government they thought illegitimate--in one case coming to a peaceful agreement with it and in the other fighting to the last...); that's the understanding of the ideal of Pakistan I was brought up with (see the Objectives Resolution or any number of documents); and that's the understanding of good governance and democracy I was brought up with (see the American Declaration of Independence, the preamble to any of the various constitutions Pakistan has had...)."
[NB: I have posted a version of this entry on the Pakistan Futures blog.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)