Grand coalition?

THERE is a lot that is anomalous about the ‘grand coalition’. Does it exist? A party is either in the coalition government or it is not. There is no halfway house. It is, of course, quite normal in parliamentary democracy for a party to support a government without being part of it. Many governments survive because they manage to muster parliamentary support from mutually hostile and breakaway groups and factions. In this sense there is nothing extraordinary about the PML-N’s decision to continue to support the PPP-led government without being part of it. But then it must be at peace with it, which does not appear to be the case. On Wednesday, the federal information minister denied the PML-N’s claim that it had not been consulted on the current operation against militants. Sherry Rehman said the operation was launched at the request of the NWFP governor and chief minister and all coalition partners had been consulted.

Given the sensitive nature of the crackdown in Khyber Agency and Swat, it goes without saying that it must have the nation’s unqualified support. The operation must be successful and, as the prime minister wants, ‘result-oriented’. We have suggested in these columns that the national and provincial assemblies must discuss the issue threadbare so that it does not turn into another Kargil, in which case the prime minister claimed he did not know about the military operation that had the potential of turning into a full-fledged war. A debate is essential so that the people know which party stands exactly where on what currently is the most important issue for Pakistan. We know, for instance, that there are certain parties which do not approve of the state’s bid to establish its writ in Fata and elsewhere and condemn suicide bombings only for the record. Deep down they sympathise with Baitullah Mehsud’s aims and also with his rebellion against the state.

The PML-N’s position is anomalous. By insisting that it had not been consulted on the current operation, it seems to give an impression that it is in the government. Actually, it left the coalition for all practical purposes on May 12 and was in such a hurry that the finance minister belonging to the second largest party ditched budget-making halfway down the road. In any case the party is so focused on the judges’ restoration and President Pervez Musharraf’s impeachment that other issues appear to have lost significance for it. During its meeting with Richard Boucher, the PML-N leadership made it known to its American interlocutor where its priorities lay. Given this ambivalent political relationship between the two major parties, it is not clear how the PPP and the PML-N will work out a consensus on the key issue of the day — the fight against militancy.

Combating desertification

LITTLE success can be expected in the fight against poverty unless the threat posed by desertification is tackled as a matter of priority. According to the Sustainable Land Management Project, a joint venture between the Government of Pakistan, UNDP and the Global Environmental Facility, nearly 80 per cent of the country is arid or semi-arid and two-thirds of the population depend on these drylands for livelihood support. Much of this land is at risk of turning into desert, for a variety of reasons. Deforestation in the north is causing severe soil erosion, stripping mountains bare and silting the major reservoirs, which in turn reduces the water available for farming. Crop production is hampered and, in the worst cases, land is left barren and at the mercy of wind erosion. Reduced flows in the Indus delta lead to sea intrusion which not only submerges arable land but also raises salinity levels in areas still above water.

Overgrazing is another problem, as are poor irrigation practices, a burgeoning population and rampant ‘development’. Then there is climate change, drought, waterlogging, salinity and sodicity, destruction of mangrove stands, soil and water pollution, depletion of underground water resources and poor land management. Individually or in conjunction, these factors degrade the land and lead to loss of livelihood. The end result is more poverty and loss of biodiversity. Worse, degradation and desertification are self-perpetuating once they set in. Individuals and communities that lose their livelihoods are forced to migrate to other areas, putting that land and its resources under stress and making it vulnerable to a new round of degradation. Poverty too spreads in this manner, raising with it the spectre of conflict.

The answer lies in regenerating forests, focusing on sustainable development, checking industrial as well as agricultural pollution, and devising and implementing a national policy on the rational use of water. Losses in the irrigation system must be plugged and water-efficient farming techniques introduced. The latter will have to be heavily subsidised, for poor farmers cannot afford to go it alone. It was announced at a government-sponsored workshop in Karachi on Wednesday that the UNDP intends to provide as much as $450m to combat desertification in Pakistan. This is heartening news but the proof of the plan will be in its implementation. It is hoped that the money will be spent on assessing and rectifying ground realities, not just on workshops and raising awareness among those already in the know. It is time to get down to brass tacks.

An English-language coach

AS if the downslide that has gripped the national team on the field for the last year or so is not bad enough, cricket officials continue to generate controversies off the field. The latest to join the ranks of the culpable is Geoff Lawson, the national coach, who seems to be more concerned about the linguistic skills of sports reporters than the dwindling fortunes of his charges. Though he has since tendered an unconditional apology, the outrageous behaviour of the coach — bordering almost on insanity, as captured by scores of television cameras — suggests much more than a mere heat-of-the-moment incident. With nothing, absolutely nothing, to show for his year-long association with the team, Mr Lawson’s nerves are beginning to fray. And the dismal performance should not surprise anyone because, after all, his stint with Pakistan is Mr Lawson’s first international assignment. As the media widely feared at the time of his appointment, he has converted the unit into a rudderless ship floundering in uncharted waters. For all practical purposes, he is learning on the job. That he is getting paid handsomely for it is certainly good for him but not for Pakistan cricket. In fact, it just goes to show how reckless the Pakistan Cricket Board is in terms of money management for it is the PCB that preferred him over a much better candidate who came with all the right credentials having successfully turned things around while working with teams in the subcontinent.

For some, one year may be too short a time to effectively judge a coach but the nation can wait longer only if there are signs of improvement. Raising skill levels and improving temperament appear to be overly ambitious targets in an environment where the coach and his handpicked trainers have failed to lift even fitness levels. With the coach’s stated preference for linguistic accuracy over cricketing matters, the PCB may well think about bringing in someone else to do the job while appointing Mr Lawson as the national English-language coach.

OTHER VOICES - Pushto Press

Karzai’s authority

Tolafghan, Kabul

The helpless people of Afghanistan elected Hamid Karzai as their leader because they were fed up with warlords and armed militancy. Karzai had promised that he would rid the people from the scourge of war. The Afghans believed him and voted for him. After a few years, on the occasion of the International Human Rights Day, a lady from the suburbs of Kabul informed Karzai that armed people broke into her house, killed her son, cut off her finger to extract a ring and robbed the family of all valuables. The traumatised victim wanted justice. Another lady asked the president why her sons were killed for money. Karzai’s response was simple: that his government was unable to hold armed militants and warlords accountable.

This is the same Karzai who had once raised the slogan of bringing the warlords to justice. If he is now admitting failure then it must be asked why he took on the responsibility of bringing these plunderers and killers to justice in the first place. It is unlikely that Karzai and his government are unable to establish the writ of the state; however the fear of coming under fire if he takes action against warlords, militants and former jihadis may be stopping him. The people of Afghanistan have come to know that in the past Karzai has been involved in the so-called ‘jihad’ for American dollars and is involved again… to earn dollars for himself and his cronies.

The US and Karzai have their own interests in this state. Both are probably not interested in the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. If they wanted, they could have achieved something by now. Six years is a long time and Karzai could have done substantial work for helpless Afghans. Instead, he seems to be more interested in bringing his cronies to power. The Afghans elected Hamid Karzai as president, but now it seems that Qayum Karzai, Muhammad Wali Karzai, Jamil Karzai, Mehmud Karzai, Shah Wali Karzai, Hikmat Karzai and all other Karzais will rule the roost in the beleaguered country. Some of them are involved in drug trafficking while others are involved in land grabbing. When a journalist asked Hamid Karzai about his brothers and cousins being involved in illegal trade, he retorted by saying that the allegations did not have an iota of truth. Karzai also said that all of them had their own business in the US and had come with the US forces to do business in their own land.

In a nutshell, Karzai and his government have failed to address the issues of the common man. He has been unable to reconstruct state institutions and resolve economic, political and social problems of the people of Afghanistan. He has also failed to bring armed groups to justice and to halt the unbridled actions of Nato forces in Afghanistan. — (June 27)

No coercion in faith

WHAT is the Islamic view on freedom of religion? Is Islam intolerant towards other faiths? Do Muslims and non-Muslims enjoy equal rights in an Islamic state? These questions are frequently raised in the western world.

To begin with, there is an immense difference between what the Quran and the Sunnah declare and what some misguided Muslim groups and govenments actually do. Even a cursory reading of the Quran and the Sunnah clearly shows that tolerance is an essential obligation that Muslims are required to abide by. Though Islam encourages the spread of faith by way of preaching and discussions with non-Muslims, Muslims have been instructed to do it in the most respectful and kind manner, “Call thou (all mankind) unto thy Sustainer’s path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner.” (16: 125)

If non-Muslims disagree with the message of Islam, Muslims are not allowed to employ any method of intimidation or compulsion, “There shall be no coercion in matters of faith.” (2: 256) “Thus, (O’ Prophet) if they dispute with thee, say, ‘I have surrendered my whole being unto Allah, and (so have) all who follow me.’

And ask all those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, ‘Have you (too) surrendered yourselves unto Him?’ And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away, thy duty is no more than to deliver the message.” (3: 20) “And had thy Sustainer willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?” (10: 99) “And say: ‘The truth (has now come) from your Sustainer. Let, then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.”’ (18: 29)

Thus, Muslims are not only prohibited from imposing their faith on non-Muslims, Islam instructs them to treat non-Muslims with kindness: “As for such (of the unbelievers) as do not fight against you on account of (your) faith, and neither drive you forth from your homelands, Allah does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, Allah loves those who act equitably. “Allah only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against you because of (your) faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid (others) in driving you forth: and as for those (from among you) who turn towards them in friendship, it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers.” (60: 8-9)

In fact, the Quran goes to the extent of forbidding Muslims from using any insulting remarks about any deity worshiped by any non-Muslim. It says, “But do not revile those (beings) whom they invoke instead of Allah.” (6: 108)

The following charter granted by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to the Christians of Mount Sinai is an excellent example of how non-Muslims are supposed to be treated in an Islamic state: “This is a message from Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily, 1, the servants and helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and, by Allah, I hold out against anything that displeases them.

“No compulsion is to be on them; neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil Allah’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. Muslims are to fight for them... Their churches are to be respected... No one of the nation (of Islam) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day.”

The principles given in the Quran and the Sunnah regarding tolerance and pluralism were observed by the Pious Caliphs as well as later rulers. Al-Qarafi, explaining the responsibility of the Islamic state to the Dhimmis (non-Muslim citizens), said: “It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the People of the Dhimma to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes, address them politely, and even tolerate their harm even if it was from a neighbour, even though the Muslim would have an upper hand. The Muslims must also advise them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who tries to hurt them or their family, steal their wealth, or violates their rights.”

Non-Muslim citizens have the same rights to life, religion, respect, education, expression, property, and enterprise as given to Muslim citizens. No govenment can curtail or restrict these rights and liberties granted to Dhimmis.

One must not forget that an Islamic state is fundamentally an ideological state. Due to this ideological nature of the state, the responsibility of managing its affairs rests with the Muslims.

Citizens not adhering to Islam are simply not capable of governing the Islamic state. However, they can be requested for assistance. In other words, in an Islamic state there is no political equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. There are several similar examples of political inequality in different systems and Muslims must not be apologetic about it.

No more long drive

FOR complicated reasons, I have been doing quite a bit of long-distance driving recently. Yes, I know it is not green; it’s an extravagant use of time, and now that a full tank of petrol costs upwards of (pounds sterling) 50, it makes a big hole in the bank balance. Sometimes, though, you have little choice but to take to the road.

As if to underline this point, my writing today is punctuated by the bellowing, all too close, of angry lorry horns. The haulage drivers have come to Westminster, with their clumsy steeds, to lobby MPs about fuel prices. With or without complaining lorry drivers, though, the experience of my recent journeys suggests that the price of petrol — at (pounds sterling)1.16 a litre, if you are lucky — and more for diesel, is having a noticeable effect on lifestyle. Between the various centres of population, my drives up and down the M4 have become quite lonely.

There are vast delivery lorries, yes, including some from across the Channel, and the usual quotient of long-distance coaches. But there are relatively few private cars, either on weekdays or at weekends. Car traffic picks up around the cities, but vanishes again on the open road. I noticed exactly the same driving from the south of France a month ago. People just do not seem to be driving long-distance, whether for business or pleasure, as they used to.

Now you can argue that this is an excellent development; and I would not disagree. Can it be that stratospheric fuel prices have succeeded in doing what no government or green agitator has yet managed: getting ordinary people out of their cars and, perhaps, on to public transport? If recent plans for Britain to develop its first new railways (with the exception of the Channel rail link) for a century are a guide, perhaps we can look forward to a new age of investment in public transport.

But the implications go much further than this. Unless more economical, probably non-fossil fuel, vehicles are developed soon, private cars will be something that people in rural areas reserve for local pottering and others will keep — if they can afford it — for use mostly in emergencies. Long-distance commuting by car or driving for pleasure could become a thing of the past.

On Wednesday, discussing the relatively poor performance of Marks & Spencer, its chairman, Sir Stuart Rose, mentioned the impact of high fuel prices on out-of-town shopping centres. The investment potential of such US-style malls in Britain is already much lower than it was. And those sites that the big supermarket chains have supposedly bought up to prevent a competitor moving in beside them may start to look like an expensive mistake.

The reconsideration of lifestyle as a result of high fuel costs is happening not just in Britain. In France, characteristically, state or regional authorities have stepped in, encouraging the provision of commuter shuttles to allow out-of-towners to keep their city jobs.

In the United States, some planners already envisage a future where the country is essentially turned inside out, with derelict McMansions littering the landscape, and the outer suburbs, with no public transport and worthless housing, becoming the equivalent of today’s inner-city slums.

Fuel costs present city authorities everywhere with what may be a unique chance to demonstrate the financial and lifestyle benefits that can accrue from economies of scale. With imaginative planning, it should not be too fanciful to see in the energy crisis the possibility of a new golden age for the city.

— © The Independent, London