Pages

▼

Social ethics in Islam

EVERY human being is connected with Allah spiritually. However, in this material world, we also get ourselves connected with other entities, such as parents, family, community, society, country, etc. As time goes by, new connections are added at every new stage in life.

The ethics of connectivity with others has deep spiritual roots in religion. Its understanding makes our lives happy and more comfortable. We live, move and have our being among these relationships and sometimes our existence depends partially or fully on them. Our day-to-day condition — happy or otherwise — is also subjected to the interaction with these relationships.

Every entity with which we are connected, entails certain rights and responsibilities. We are to fulfil these to maintain a kind of cordiality in relationships. The teaching of Islam encompasses the whole life; it guides us first to fortify our spiritual bond with Allah. This is fundamental and the core of Islam’s overall message. Every individual is supposed to strengthen the spiritual link with Him by continuous remembrance of His existence. One has to keep one’s mind and thoughts towards Allah to earn His blessings.

Similarly, Islam encourages us to maintain happy relationships with other fellow beings. It urges civility, humility, tolerance and straight dealing with our fellow beings. These values subordinate the self and emphasise the others and are essential for cordial and peaceful coexistence in society. Islam is a religion of peace which can only be realised when an individual has happy relations with others.

The Holy Prophet (PBUH) likens Muslim brotherhood to a building composed of bricks. Every brick is joined and connected with other bricks, thereby fortifying the building. The Prophet started his mission of preaching Islam by inviting his relatives to it first. Though his relatives did not all respond positively, his invitation indicates the weight he gave to relatives.

When he established himself in Madina, he tried to conclude peace agreements with many tribes, such as those of the Jews of Madina, the Christians of Najran, and the Makkans at Hudaibiya. He dispatched emissaries to rulers of far-off lands such as Rome, Iran and Abyssinia inviting them to peace and good relations with them.

We come across a number of verses in the Quran, directing us to fulfil the obligations to those we are connected with. The Quran says: “And do not forget liberality between yourselves. Truly Allah is all-Seer of what you do” (2:237). Verse 4:36 also enjoins us to “worship Allah and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, Al-Masakin (the poor), the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet), and those (slaves) whom your right hands possess. Verily, Allah does not like such as are proud and boastful.”

There are numerous factors that can imbalance relations in society and Islam forestalls them. Greed for material wealth is one such impediment that causes fissures among close relatives. A greedy person usurps the other’s property unjustly; therefore, Islam directs us: “And eat up not one another’s property unjustly” (2:188).

Another factor that is likely to affect good relations is differences in opinion. Sometimes we have differences with people around us, but these should not be made a matter of ego and waiting for the other party to take the initiative to normalise a relationship. We must understand that coming to terms quickly after differences brings us peace and serenity.

Islam allows a diversity of opinion; this existed among the Prophet’s companions. Friction among close relatives is part of human nature but one needs to be watchful that these do not reach a point of no-return. Islam does not give importance to difference of ethnicity, caste, status and language, etc., as all such factors cause cracks in happy relations in society.

A balanced approach in maintaining worldly relations is the right course. Unnecessary intrusion in the affairs of others also affects relations. Nobody likes meddlesome behaviour, therefore, one must be careful to not overreach. Over-engagement and unnecessary intrusion in the affairs of others are portents of a darker scenario.

Presently, we face a situation that can best be described as being stuck between the devil and the deep sea. We give importance to material wealth and social status. Our modern culture has promoted isolated living. We live behind closed doors with little interaction with neighbours, relatives and other members of society. Everyone has become individualistic, focused on self-interest alone most of the time.

It is generally observed that residents of, say, an apartment block do not care for others when they park their vehicles and block common passages. Some throw trash from their balconies and others do not pay their monthly maintenance charges regularly. Similarly, a teacher who is supposed to build the future can be found involved in self-service. A student who will manage a future society is unaware of his responsibility. A doctor who is to assure his patient’s health can be found making money alone. Thus few think of their social responsibility. This negligence can lead to fissures and unbalanced situations in society.

For a human being as a social animal it is important to feel a close connection and mutual empathy; however, this seems to be on the decline due to excessive materialism and the self-centred approach of modern urban living. In order to achieve a worthy lifestyle, we have to follow the teachings of Islam, i.e. treating well those with whom we are connected. Everyone should feel responsive to and respect the rights of others.

By Amin Valliani, an educationist: amin.valiani@itrebp.org
http://www.dawn.com/2011/12/30/social-ethics-in-islam.html

More:

Islamic Society: Ethics, Human Rights, Adornments & Recreation

The society based upon Islamic principles is not the society of ascetics and hermits. Adornments, recreation and fine arts within limits of morality and decency are also for enjoyment of believers. Ethics and human rights are accorded high priority. Many such aspects projected as ‘Dilemma’ are nothing but ‘Delusions’. “Say: Who hath forbidden the adornment of … Continue reading »

Human Rights & Islam

Islam is non racial faith, it does not accept the superiority of any race over others. It grants equality to the humanity. Faith,  righteousness and good deeds  form the basic  criteria  for preference of one individual over other, while colour, race and gender does not matter; God says: “O mankind! we created you from a … Continue reading »

India’s Muslim Dilemma: भारतीय मुसलमानों की दुविधा



Why the time has come for affirmative action to end the deprivation and dispossession of India’s Muslims.
It’s one of those seasons again when India’s politicians rediscover the existence of Muslims. With elections in five states, including Uttar Pradesh, and possibly early general elections looming on the horizon, the Congress has dipped into its ancient bag of tricks and come up with the reservation card for Muslims.
Law Minister Salman Khurshid suggests the government is considering a six percent quota for “backward Muslims” under the 27 percent quota allocated for economically backward communities.
Given the mess the Congress finds itself in right now and with Rahul Gandhi, the party’s prime minister-in-waiting, having invested himself heavily in UP, it badly needs a miracle to rescue itself. And who could deliver it better than the tried and tested folks, often derided as its vote bank and repeatedly taken for a royal ride! Just throw some crumbs at them, make some suitable noises and trust Muslims to come rushing back into your arms.
The nobility of the Congress’ intentions notwithstanding, even if the government goes ahead and announces the quota for Muslims, there could be many a slip between the cup and lip. The move is certain to be challenged in the courts, as it was in Andhra Pradesh. The Bharatiya Janata Party and its numerous avatars are waiting with bated breath to pounce on the opportunity to scream “Muslim appeasement” and launch another glorious yatra to revive their fortunes.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad is already threatening agitation against the proposal. And Praveen Togadia has the audacity to demand Muslims covert to Hinduism if they want reservations.
Things could get more exciting when other communities that come under the 27 percent quota join the protests. The Samajwadi Party of Mulayam Singh Yadav, that great messiah of Muslims, is vehemently opposed to the idea and could go to any extent to protect its constituency. There will be many others. In the end, the government may be persuaded to withdraw the proposal.
The Congress wouldn’t lose anything in the bargain though. It could still claim the Muslim vote for its “efforts” to help the community get its due. If anyone would come a cropper, it will be the Muslims. But then they have been here before. The Congress knows this game of empty rhetoric and gestures all too well, having turned it into an art over the years, although one would like to give the benefit of doubt to Salman Khurshid. He is seemingly trying to do his bit.
The less said of Dr Singh’s ‘leadership’ the better. One is yet to discover what he really stands for and believes in. If this government had been serious about the predicament of the Muslims, it wouldn’t have slept all these years on the recommendations of the Sachar Committee.
In a fleeting moment of generosity and apparently to acknowledge the Muslim role in returning Congress to power after years in wilderness, the prime minister had picked up eminent jurist Justice Rajinder Sachar to probe the condition of the community. You didn’t need a Supreme Court judge to assess the state of Muslims. It’s there for everyone to see all across the length and breadth of the country.
Yet the findings of the Sachar committee were astounding. Weighed down by the so-called guilt over the Partition and faced by antipathy and often open hostility by successive administrations since Independence, the Muslims have gone from being the ruling class to the lowest of the low in six decades.
In a country that they ruled for nearly a thousand years, Muslims today find themselves struggling on the farthest fringes of the world’s greatest democracy. According to the Sachar panel, the Muslims’ condition today is worse than that of the Dalits, the low caste Hindus who have for centuries suffered the worst possible discrimination and exploitation.
Demolishing the myth of Muslim appeasement, Justice Sachar’s findings actually exposed systemic discrimination and complete injustice at all levels against the community. Justice Sachar repeatedly talks of the disturbing “development deficit” the community suffers from in all walks of life.
The Muslims have lower employment rates (48 and 9.6pc for males and females) than Dalits (52.8 and 23 percent respectively). In twelve states where the Muslims’ population share is 15.4 percent, their employment rate is just 5.7 percent. In big states like UP and Bihar, this proportion is less than a third of their population share.
This exclusion from the table extends to all areas, from lower bureaucracy to the judiciary to elite civil services. Muslims’ share in the IAS, IPS and IFS is 2.2, 3.0 and 1.6 percent respectively. In the armed forces, their proportion is said to be just two percent. According to another survey by ActionAid and Indian Social Institute, 41.9 percent of Muslims in rural areas have an annual income less than Rs10,000, which is less than $200 dollars.
Let’s face it. The Muslims are India’s new untouchables. It’s all very well to showcase the cool Khans of Bollywood and sport icons like Sania Mirza as the new faces of India’s Muslims. The larger reality of the community unfortunately is different. Facing political and economic marginalisation and security concerns on the one hand and being perpetually under the scanner of security agencies as usual suspects, they find comfort in numbers and in their ghettoes and slums in urban India. Poverty in small town India and rural areas is even worse. Little of the government benefits and programmes, targeting the vast majority of the economically struggling communities, trickles down to them.
It’s five years since Justice Sachar submitted these findings and possible solutions to the government. We are yet to discover what Dr Singh, or the Congress leadership, thinks about them, let alone act on the urgent recommendations to address the dangerous deprivation and dispossession of the country’s largest minority.
Regardless of the eventual outcome of the Muslim quota proposal, it’s past time for real and bold action to check the marginalisation and alienation of the community. Reservations or affirmative action, call it what you will, there is a desperate need to stop the free fall of an entire community. While the caste-based reservations for the communities long discriminated against because of their birth makes sense, there must be a way to help the large deprived communities such as Muslims. The quota in education and jobs – as little as six percent – may not be the be-all and end-all magic wand to end all of Muslims’ woes but it’s a start and better than doing nothing.
The US example proves that affirmative action actually works. It has already transformed hundreds of millions of lives in India since Independence. Pre-Mandal, who could have imagined a Dalit woman heading the country’s most populous and important state? So the quota could make a life-changing difference to Muslims as well. Besides, it’s in the national interest to lift Muslims out of the hole they find themselves in. India cannot aspire for global leadership and glory while a huge chunk of its population, around 200 million, remains out in the cold.
The writer is a commentator on Middle East and South Asian affairs. Email: aijaz.syed@hotmail. com
http://www.columnspk.com/india%E2%80%99s-muslim-dilemma-by-aijaz-zaka-syed/


Roy slams world's silence on Indian occupation of Kashmir

Comments:
Muhammad Ali Jinnah agreed to united India with safeguards for all Muslims of India, by accepting The British Cabinet Mission of 1946 to India. Promulgated on 16 May 1946, the plan to create a united dominion of India as a loose confederation of provinces came to be known by the date of its announcement:

  1. A united Dominion of India would be given independence.
  2. Muslim-majority provinces would be grouped - Baluchistan, Sind, Punjab and North-West Frontier Province would form one group, and Bengal and Assam would form another.
  3. Hindu-majority provinces in central and southern India would form another group.
  4. The Central government would be empowered to run foreign affairs, defence and communications, while the rest of powers and responsibility would belong to the provinces, coordinated by groups.
  5. The Central government would be empowered to run foreign affairs, defence and communications, while the rest of powers and responsibility would belong to the provinces, coordinated by groups.'
The Congress Working Committee had initially approved the plan. However, on 10 July, Jawaharlal Nehru, who later became the first prime minister of India, held a press conferencein Bombay declaring that the Congress had agreed only to participate in the Constituent Assembly and "regards itself free to change or modify the Cabinet Mission Plan as it thought best. The Muslim League gave its approval to the plan. There was an impression that the Congress also had accepted the scheme and the Plan would be the basis of the future constitution of India.Jinnah, in his speech to the League Council, clearly stated that he recommended acceptance only because nothing better could be obtained. [This could have saved the killing and migration of millions ] Kanji Dawarka Das in his famous book "Ten Years to freedom 1937-47" and Jaswant singh in his recent book "Jinnah India-Independence-Partition" writes all details of congress working committee debates and untimely press conference by JLN in which congress rejected the last effort to avoid partition.[from Wikipedia]


I personally feel Jawahar Lal Nehru and his associates mischievously turned down Cabinet Mission Plan 1946, and divided India for personal gains and to keep exploiting Muslim minority in India. Imagine in united India [Over 1000 Million] the Muslims population would have been equal [50-58%] or more than Hindus [Pak 180 Mn+BD 150 Mn+ 200 Mn=580 Million]. It would have not been  possible to treat them  unfairly.


You Indian Muslims sacrificed your present for our batter future, but you were betrayed. A prosperous, economically strong Pakistan would have been source of moral strength. We could have provided economic and moral support to our Muslim brothers in India, but alas! the White Masters were replaced by Brown Sahibs ... The day is not far off when we shall throw away this yoke of slavery... and help brothers to stand at their own with dignity. Indian and Pakistani leadership can learn from European Union, US-Canada, resolve issues like Kashmir and live like good neighbours. Concentrate towards welfare of their citizens.
However just a reminder from the Holy Book:
"Verily, God does not change men's condition unless they change their inner selves"[Quran;13:11] 
ذَٰلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّـهَ لَمْ يَكُ مُغَيِّرًا نِّعْمَةً أَنْعَمَهَا عَلَىٰ قَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوا مَا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ ۙ وَأَنَّ اللَّـهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ ﴿٥٣﴾
This is because Allah has never changed a favor which He has conferred upon a people until they change their own condition; and because Allah is Hearing, Knowing;[Quran;8:53] 
یہ اس لئے کہ اللہ تعالیٰ ایسا نہیں کہ کسی قوم پر کوئی نعمت انعام فرما کر پھر بدل دے جب تک کہ وه خود اپنی اس حالت کو نہ بدل دیں جو کہ ان کی اپنی تھی اور یہ کہ اللہ سننے واﻻ جاننے واﻻ ہے (53)
यह इसलिए हुआ कि अल्लाह उस उदार अनुग्रह (नेमत) को, जो उसने किसी क़ौम पर किया हो, बदलनेवाला नहीं हैं, जब तक कि लोग उस चीज़ को न बदल डालें, जिसका सम्बन्ध स्वयं उनसे है। और यह कि अल्लाह सब कुछ सुनता, जानता है (8:53)
তার কারণ এই যে, আল্লাহ কখনও পরিবর্তন করেন না, সে সব নেয়ামত, যা তিনি কোন জাতিকে দান করেছিলেন, যতক্ষণ না সে জাতি নিজেই পরিবর্তিত করে দেয় নিজের জন্য নির্ধারিত বিষয়। বস্তুতঃ আল্লাহ শ্রবণকারী, মহাজ্ঞানী। (53)
"ஏனெனில், எந்த ஒரு சமுதாயமும் தன் உள்ளத்திலுள்ள (போக்குகளை) மாற்றிக் கொள்ளாத வரையில், அல்லாஹ் அவர்களுக்கு வழங்கிய அருட்கொடைகளை மாற்றிவிடுவதில்லை - நிச்சயமாக அல்லாஹ் (எல்லாவற்றையும்) செவியுறுபவனாகவும், (யாவற்றையும்) நன்கறிபவனாகவும் இருக்கின்றான். (8:53)
ഒരു ജനവിഭാഗത്തിനു് താന്‍ ചെയ്തുകൊടുത്ത അനുഗ്രഹം അവരുടെ സ്വന്തം നിലപാടില്‍ അവര്‍ മാറ്റം വരുത്തുന്നത് വരെ അല്ലാഹു മാറ്റിക്കളയുന്നതല്ല എന്നത്കൊന്നുത്രെ അത്‌. അല്ലാഹു എല്ലാം കേള്‍ ക്കുന്നവനും അറിയുന്നവനുമാണ് എന്നത്കൊന്നുു‍ം (8:53)


The real 'invented' people? Palestinians or Israelis


Newt Gingrich's controversial statement begs the question: Who invented a nationality? The Palestinians or the Israelis?
The state of Israel and the Israeli people were invented from scratch by the Zionist movement [
It is hard to believe that anyone who defends Israel's legitimacy as a state would buy into former Speaker Newt Gingrich's argument that Palestine is an "invented nation".

The singular triumph of the Zionist movement is that it invented a state and a people - Israel and the Israelis - from scratch. The first Hebrew-speaking child in 1900 years, Ittamar Ben-Avi, was not born until 1882. His father, the brilliant linguist Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, created a modern language for him to speak by improvising from the language of the Bible.

The founder of the Israeli state was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), an assimilated Viennese writer who was convinced by the Dreyfus trial in France - and the horrendous right-wing anti-Semitism that resulted from it - that Jews had to get out of Europe.

In 1897, he wrote the book that would essentially inaugurate the Zionist movement. It was called Der Judenstaat (meaning "the Jews' state" or "the Jewish State"), which was his proposal for moving the Jews out of Europe and into their own country.

He didn't specify where the Jewish homeland should be. He was more concerned about quickly obtaining territory anywhere for Jews to seek refuge.

Later, he decided that Palestine made the most sense because that was where the Jewish people both began and exercised self-determination in ancient times, and where there already was a small minority of Jews. But he also spoke of finding a place in Africa or the Americas if Palestine was unavailable.

The reaction to Herzl's idea was primarily that he was a bit crazy. Jews committed to assimilation insisted that Jews were not a nation, but a religious faith. Their nationalities were French, German, Polish, Iraqi or American - not some imaginary Jewish nationality that had not existed for 1900 years.

100 years ago: 'just an idea'

As late as 1943, during the worst days of the Holocaust, the American Jewish Committee - which adhered to the assimilationist view - resigned from the body created by American Jews to respond to the Nazi catastrophe over its "demand for the eventual establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine".

Seventy-plus years later, it is impossible to argue that the Israeli nation is not as authentic and worthy of recognition as any in the world (more authentic than some, in fact).

The Hebrew language is spoken by millions of Jews and Palestinians. The Israeli culture is unique: Bearing little resemblance to any other in the world. In fact, diaspora Jews have as little in common with Israelis as African-Americans have with Africans.

Israelis are not just Jews who happen to live in Palestine, even though the concept of Israel-ness started just over a hundred years ago as nothing but an idea. They are Israelis, entitled to self-determination, peace and security in their own land.

And the Palestinians are every bit as much a nation. If the ultimate definition of authentic nationhood is continuous residence in a land for thousands of years, the Palestinian claim to nationhood is ironclad. They never left Palestine (except for those who either emigrated or became refugees after the establishment of Israel).

Those who deny that Palestinians have a nation base their case on two arguments, both of which are logically incoherent. The first is that Palestinians never exercised self-determination in Palestine; they were always governed by others from ancient times to the present day.

The answer to this is: So what?

What makes a people real?

Most nations in the world lacked self-determination for long periods of their history. The Polish nation existed between 1790 and 1918 even though the state was erased from the map - divided between Russia and Austro-Hungary. It achieved independence in 1918 only to again lose it to the Nazis, and then the Soviets from 1939 until 1989. Would anyone today argue that the Polish nation was invented?

The idea of it is ridiculous, especially when offered by Israelis or Americans (or Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians... ) whose national existence would have been unimaginable a few centuries ago.

The second argument is that Palestinians never thought of themselves as Palestinians until Jews started moving into their territory, that Palestinian nationalism is a response to Zionism.

Again, so what?

When European Jews docked in Jaffa, Palestine in the early immigration waves of the late 19th century, there were Arabs waiting at the port. When the Jews purchased land, it was Arabs who had to move out.

And if those Arabs didn't call themselves Palestinians until the Zionist movement began, neither did the Jews call themselves Israelis. Until 1948, they were just Jews. But each of the two peoples knew who they were and who the other was.

The bottom line is that today, the Palestinian nation is as authentic as the Israeli nation - and vice versa. Those who think either is going away are blinded by hatred.

To put it simply, the first part of the phrase self-determination is the word self. Both nations have the absolute right to define themselves as two nations which, hopefully, will evolve into two states. The alternative is national catastrophe not for one nation, but for two.

But why would Newt Gingrich care about that?

By MJ Rosenberg, a Senior Foreign Policy Fellow at Media Matters Action Network. The above article first appeared in Foreign Policy Matters, a part of the Media Matters Action Network.The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/12/2011122495928144388.html



Zionism, Israel & Pelistine:

Lessons of History: Do it at your own peril

It is conventional wisdom that one can learn from history and avoid committing the same mistakes which were committed by our predecessors in the past. It is not wholly true. Of course one can gain an understanding of human nature by reading past history and can find the solution to problems of the present in its light. However, some people, particularly politicians of all ilks, try to find solutions to current problems by exclusively situating them in the present context believing that there is no need to learn from history. This approach sometimes leads to disastrous consequences. One cannot fully ignore the past.
One such example where past precedent was ignored is the Treaty of Versailles which was concluded after the First World War. In the conference was a young British historian Charles Webster (1886-1961), the author of the The Congress of Vienna. Prior to this treaty at Versailles, a number of treaties were concluded after the defeat of Napoleon who had changed the whole map of Europe and redesigned it according to his ambitions. First, he was defeated in 1814 and exiled to St Elba. He could not stay as a prisoner there and escaped. He was welcomed by the French army and again fought a battle at Waterloo in 1815 in which he was again defeated. This time he was imprisoned at St Helena where chances of his escape were nil.
Metternich, the chancellor of Austria, who supervised and made all arrangement for the resettlement of Europe, was a conservative and wanted to check any revolutionary movement. The main approach of the leaders at Vienna was not to punish the French nation. They accused Napoleon for all their troubles and imprisoned him. It was decided that the French monarch would be restored and the French were allowed to participate in the proceedings of the congress .The result of this policy was that the conservative powers of Europe ensured peace in Europe and prevented revolutionary movements. This leniency ensured that not only justice but done but the French nation was also put back on the road to recovery.
The young historian Webster, by quoting the example of the Congress of Vienna advised the leaders who gathered at Versailles to decide the fate of Germany and implored them to treat it generously. His advice was ignored and the leaders decided on harsh terms of treatment which were imposed on Germany. The country had to pay a huge amount in reparation which destroyed her economy. It was forced to hand over some of its territory as punishment as well. When the terms of the treaty were ready, the German delegation was summoned in the presence of the leaders. They were not allowed to sit and kept standing like criminals. They were not given any chance to plead their case and were asked to sign the treaty or be ready for war. Humiliated and insulted, the German delegates had no choice but to sign the treaty which soon became unpopular in the country. The Germans called it a dikat.
When Hitler came to power, he mobilised nationalistic emotion of the German people against this very treaty. Germany wanted to regain its dignity and honour. When Hitler promised that, the Germans supported him. He soon not only made the country financially strong but got back the territory which it had lost as a result of treaty. After the occupation of France during the Second World War, Hitler forced France to sign a treaty which was in favour of Germany and restored the German honour.
It is argued by historians that the Treaty of Versailles laid down the foundation of the Second World War by punishing the whole German nation as war criminals. It Germany had been treated as France had been in the Congress of Vienna, there could have been peace in Europe. A J P Taylor, the British historian in his book on The Origin of Second World War rightly points out that Treaty of Versailles structured Germany in such a manner that war became inevitable. Even without Hitler, Germany under any other leader would have had to go to war in efforts to undo the Treaty of Versailles which had humiliated it to a great extent. Therefore, Hitler may have been responsible for the war but it cannot be discounted that was operating in an environment which was conducive to his extremist rhetoric.
However, after the Second World War, Germany was not treated as it was when the Treaty of Versailles was finalised. On the contrary, the US gathered a huge amount of aid for Germany to restructure its economy. It was done to check the Russian influence in the country. Germany soon rebuilt itself and became a member of the western capitalist bloc. The same treatment of relative leniency was meted out to Japan which facilitated its rehabilitation and late led to Japan becoming a key international partner of the US. The motive of helping out both these countries was the same: to make them into allies of capitalism and use that against Russia. The diplomats who ignored history when the Treaty of Versailles was signed committed a grave mistake which led to much destruction in the form of the Second World War. They had learnt their lesson after that and took a wiser course of action in dealing with Germany and Japan.

The writer is one of the pioneers of alternate history in the country.
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/12/ignoring-history/


Iraq: What is, will be, and might have been


Was it worth it? The answer is still unclear for both Iraqis and Americans.

In the swirling commentary attending the departure of the last US combat troops from Iraq, and as assessments are made of the legacy of the fateful US invasion of eight years ago, that is the question which keeps repeating itself.
For the Iraqis, moving into a new era of, at best, fragile democracy and tenuous security, having suffered perhaps many tens of thousands of deaths, the car bombs and the blast walls, the vicious sectarian cleansings, the millions of refugees and internally displaced persons, the shredding of their economy and society…the question must be asked:  Was it worth it?
For the Americans, groping toward a new and uncertain relationship with a liberated but at best tenuously stable Iraq, having expended so much blood and treasure, suffered a loss of prestige and global support, seen the shattering of the chimera of Iraq as a pro-American icon and model for the region, and having unwittingly facilitated the strategic reemergence of Iran…again it must be asked:  Was it worth it?
In posing the question at this juncture, we know that no real historical accounting is yet possible, for we cannot know the future. Will the great geo-political gamble of the American invasion result in continued Iraqi progress toward a future of democracy, independence, peace and prosperity?  Or will it lapse into something far more grim?  We think we can assess the investment in cost and suffering, but we cannot, as yet, assess the return.
But even as we take stock at this inflection point, viewing the situation entirely in hindsight, I daresay few observers do so from the proper perspective.
Follow our special coverage
Americans, for their part, seem to have forgotten why they invaded Iraq in the first place. The fervid dreams of a handful of neo-cons aside, the Bush administration did not invade Iraq because it wanted to remake the Middle East. It was not seeking some great and transcendent good; it was trying to avoid what it feared would be a great and transcendent evil. It took the risks associated with action because it feared the risks of inaction.
George W Bush believed that history in Iraq, left unchecked, would continue to move in the wrong direction.  The sanctions regime was eroding; several countries, France and Russia prominent among them, were working hard to eliminate them.  Once free of sanctions, it was thought, Saddam Hussein could go back to reconstituting his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capabilities.
Bush’s rationale never really depended on the dodgy intelligence, which suggested an imminence of threat. That may have been politically useful in making a case for war, but what the Bush administration feared in any case was a latent threat: The UN had already catalogued the Iraqi regime’s past WMD progress, including its ability to build a nuclear weapon. That knowledge, once gained, cannot be eradicated. It was that knowledge, combined with Saddam’s clear record of viciousness at home and abroad, and his continued pattern of deception in dealing with the inspections regime which militated action; since the know-how associated with WMDs could not be eliminated, the thinking went, Saddam’s regime had to be.
We will never know what course history might have taken had Bush not intervened. We will never know whether, years hence, a nuclear-armed Iraq could have “Finlandised” the western littoral of the Gulf, intimidating the Gulf Arab regimes into meeting his demands on production limits, thus dictating the world price of oil and, with it, holding the global economy hostage to his whims. How else might such power, in the hands of one so unaccountably evil, eventually have been misused?
Similarly, for Iraqis, what new horrors might eventually have been in store, if and when Saddam, or his equally perverse sons, been relieved of the international sanctions burden and freed to carry on as they had before? Remember, no sooner had Saddam seized power, than he launched a disastrous eight-year war with Iran, producing grievous human losses.  Have those been forgotten? No sooner was that war over than he invaded Kuwait, bringing ignominious defeat in a war with the United States and a huge international coalition, followed by 12 years of penury under punishing international sanctions.
Who has forgotten the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, in which thousands were murdered and many thousands more displaced?  Who has forgotten the tender mercies visited on the Shia of southern Iraq when they rose up after the so-called First Gulf War?
How does one account the cost in human dignity and honor when an entire people is forced to live in abject submission to a vicious dictator and a violent, mafia-like regime? Against the backdrop of current history in the region, we might ask what additional outrages Iraqis might eventually have suffered in their attempts to be rid of such tyranny.
No, we do not know the answers to these questions, and the ultimate account of history will remain elusive for some time to come. Indeed, there will surely be multiple histories, as Iraqis, Americans and others make their own judgments regarding the past.
But as we weigh the evidence, we would all do well to avoid the glib, facile and unreflective assessments of some, and to take into account not only what is and what has been, but also what might otherwise have been. 
Robert L Grenier is chairman of ERG Partners, a financial advisory and consulting firm. He retired from the CIA in 2006, following a 27-year career in the CIA's Clandestine Service. Grenier served as Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Centre (CTC) from 2004 to 2006, coordinated CIA activities in Iraq from 2002 to 2004 as the Iraq Mission Manager, and was the CIA Chief of Station in Islamabad, Pakistan, before and after the 9/11 attacks.
Previously, he was the deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia, and also served as the CIA's chief of operational training. He is credited with founding the CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division. Grenier is now a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and speaks and writes frequently on foreign policy issues.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

INDIA TOYING WITH DANGEROUS COLD START WAR DOCTRINE

The article in non-Asian entities would particularly need to be read in the context of almost perennial hostile relations prevailing between India and Pakistan since independence from colonial rule in 1947. Britain gave up this rich colony to avert the replay of events that occurred to some other European powers while leaving their African colonies in blood of the natives and considerably bruised themselves. Britain left in haste, leaving many thorny territorial division issues between India and Pakistan unresolved, ‘Kashmir’ the major one. The state had predominantly Muslim population but a Hindu chieftain ruled it. There have been military conflicts of varying intensity between India and Pakistan in 1948, 1965 and 1971, the last being more devastating for Pakistan when India also helped public revolt against Pakistan by launching full-fledged military offensives and its eastern wing, erstwhile ‘East Pakistan’ was clipped that emerged as Bangladesh. Thus, the hostility simmers, forcing both the countries to maintain large standing armies as of operational necessity. India and Pakistan now possess nuclear weapons, which means looming war scenario, has an added dangerous dimension to it. Some major powers and the beneficiaries are happy with threatening status quo in Kashmir. The simmering hostility nourishes their national interests perhaps better than the resolved conflict would do. Hence, no effective arbitration has been attempted ever by any power or organization except UN in early years of their inception by adopting Resolutions 38(1948) and 47(1948), which recognized Kashmiris right to choose between India and Pakistan through a plebiscite. India concurred initially but later backtracked. Tragedy of the time is that the Subcontinent remains prone to a horrific nuclear conflagration, possibly at the cost of world peace. (Assume the views expressed below are of author’s [Brig Gen (Ret) Dr.  Muhammad Aslam Khan Niazi] and may not be construed as of the publishing source or Pak Army).
-------------------------------------------------------------






“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
                                                                                                                                ---Voltaire


Indian Military ‘Cold Start Doctrine’ (CSD) for war surfaces occasionally in Indian and Pakistani media as an unexplored paradigm. The opinion makers enjoy Voltaire’s philosophy support across the board, that in the third millennium globalized world politics, has become synonymous to the ‘Controversy Theory’ which allows the scholars perceptional as well as approach variations while evaluating any concept, doctrine or theory. Even Voltaire was not spared by ‘controversy’. While it is usual to attribute the above quote, for instance, to Voltaire, there is considerable evidence that in fact Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote it in her ‘The Friends of Voltaire’ under a pen name, Stephen G. Tallentyre.

CSD is very high-sounding concept with its compulsory corollary ambiguity and those not possessing deep insight to the operational methodology tend to bolster its psychological fall out on the Pakistani readership, which is the only significant gain so far for India. Wittingly or unwittingly, its interpretation through plethora of contemporary theories projects it like an intricate myth if not monster. At times, it virtually appears that the war would flash like a bolt that would mince Pakistan’s military retaliatory capability to the dust unless some big ‘ifs’ were not resolved by Pak Army. It is therefore pertinent to put the threat, haunting world peace in real perspective that had a brush with almost an imminent nuclear conflict in early 2002.
The roots of CSD like doctrine were nourished more by the unbridled euphoria of a maverick Indian Army Chief than by operational necessity. General Krishnaswamy Sundarrajan, besides being an architect of several brilliant episodes as well as reverses, was perceived by Indians to have carried a feather in his cap called Operation Brasstacks. Commencing in July 1986 as a war game, it developed into an ever-biggest exercise in Asia when air, artillery, armor and mechanized formations’ ‘blitzkrieg-like’ integrated deep offensive strategy was tested. The much-trumpeted exercise reached its crescendo in December 1986, employing three strike corps (I Corps-Mathura, II Corps-Ambala and XXI Corps-Bhopal) along Indo-Pak south-eastern borders but to the misfortune of Indian Chief, Pakistan had shrewder military strategist, General Zia-ul-Haq who lie in wait to let Indian Chief put all his eggs in one basket, Rajasthan. Before he went with broad smile to launch cricket diplomacy in India, he ordered his Army reserves in the North to sally unobtrusively from army garrisons by the time Sundarji (Indian Chief’s short name) had achieved optimum assembly of forces comprising nine divisions excluding the holding corps, in Rajasthan. It was fantastic move by Pak Army and a masterpiece work of ISI and military intelligence outfits. Soon in Pak Army GHQ, heap of signal interception reports (sinrep) indicated that scramble back from Rajasthan to their original battle locations was ordered to all the Brasstacks forces immediately. When a formation complained of lack of transport, a sinrep indicated, it received prompt advice to use all mobility means, even obsolete like bull carts. Thus some young Pakistani officers, referred to ‘Operation Brasstacks’ in light vein as ‘Operation Bull Carts’. Sundarji’s dream of flashing sabre like masterstroke to cut Pakistan into two halves simply crashed in the sand dunes that he had nurtured all along to eliminate status quo in operational equation between India and Pakistan prevailing since 1947. Thanks to Rajiv Gandhi, Indian Prime Minister who rescued Sundarji by agreeing with Gen Zia-ul-Haq to de-escalate the conflict in February 1987. Later Sundarji candidly admitted his failure, saying, he had over reached with Brasstacks. Not many people know the severity of dilemma Indian Army intended to create in the region and the reverses it faced in the process.

Briefly, one would put here the heightened concern for lack of strategic equivalence between the forces system of the two countries to rest by maintaining that it cannot be achieved in number game, as Pak Army is in comfortable position without it vis-à-vis country’s weak economy. Jonathan Marcus, a BBC defence correspondent had also observed in 2003, “In straight numerical terms of population, economic might, military manpower and equipment it is almost meaningless to speak about an India-Pakistan balance”. Nevertheless, through persistent sharp scrutiny of Indian Army doctrines that are ‘war-gamed’ by Pakistan without laxity ever and her expansion as well as modernization, Pak Army has taken some potent measures by regrouping, modernizing and at times resorting to modest new raising of forces level to keep adversary’s hostile designs in effective check. Strategic imbalance, for several reasons, would remain Pak Army’s perennial friend and it has to coexist with it. Pak Army has some spare arrows in the bow to act as force multipliers in the power game like its ever readiness to counter war as a cherished ideological duty, conventional or nuclear if it is thrust upon it and exploiting geo-strategic advantage that geography renders it. Pak Army is in position to deploy and employ holding corps as well as reserves in a manner that achieves effective counter level, yet with remarkable economy of effort. It has overwhelming edge in time and space factor and hence expeditious assembly of forces and convenient readjustment of the forces posture is possible if a hypothesis unfolds, other than the one on which defensive/offensive manoeuvre is mounted. Thus, its strategic orientation remains superior, allowing it to operate on interior lines, an advantage that Indian army cannot   achieve.

Instead, India has to maintain Eastern Command far away for Chinese and Bangladesh borders as well as Northern Command for Chinese border and Pakistan Northern Areas/Line of Control. Western, Southern and South Western Commands remain poised against international borders with Pakistan while Central Command is in the depth at Lucknow because it has to meet certain operational contingencies in different directions. On achieving credible nuclear deterrence, Pakistan stands compensated for Indian preponderance in the conventional forces ratio while Indian nuclear claw has also been defanged that she would have been rattling on Pakistan every now and then. In fact, Sundarji’s venture of 1986-87, in all probability was driven by such hypothesis that Pakistan would resort to ‘diplomacy’ means only to de-escalate once haunted by the spectre of Indian nuclear force projections and not confront India by mobilizing its holding or punch formations for war. Their hypothesis was way off the mark.

Despite such reverses, however, the flare for concept of simultaneity, targeting more than one objective at a time, lightening strikes against deep objectives in a theatre and destruction of Pakistan Army lingered on among Sundarji’s subordinates. On the contrary, three years of evaluation of Sundarji’s finesse enabled Pak Army to further fine tune its offensive as well as defensive plans. Not content with it, General Mirza Aslam Beg, Pak Army Chief, kicked off yet another mega exercise, ‘Zarb-e-Momin’ (Stroke of a Believer) in 1989 in Central Punjab that the world rated as the beginning of Pakistan Army ‘glasnost’ ensuring that posture-balance was maintained to pre-empt any mischief from the adversary.

Foxland and Blueland wrestled for several weeks at the final stages of exercise with troops. Chief Control HQ at Sargodha, assisted by Blueland and Foxland Senior Controls, orchestrated the entire conduct, monitoring and evaluation. Three corps, two armoured brigades, two artillery divisions, an air defence division and the Pakistan Air Force participated….Fourteen new concepts were tested; many vital lessons were learnt.The events were covered by national and international media. Several international delegates, Asian as well as Western, visited and were briefed including the leaders of, what Zbigniew Brzezinski also called them, the holy warriors. Gulbadin Hikmatyar, Prof Burhanudin Rabbani, Sibghatullah Mujadadi, Abdul Rab Rasul Sayyaf and Mulvi Younis Khalis were prominent. Some observations, they made, were point black and dictated by their grip on war making strategy. Over all the visiting delegates appreciated, the conduct that was meticulous and agreed that Blueland manoeuvres could blunt Foxland offensives. That was precisely the message Gen Beg had intended to convey across the border.

Indian Military hierarchy’s frustration with what Sundarji had left for them as a model doctrine, employing three strike corps in ‘blitzkrieg’ style, grew worse in the wake of ‘Operation Parakaram’ that trailed December 13, 2001 attack on Indian Parliament. Mobilization of Indian army was ordered on 18 December 2001 to maul Pakistan severely for its alleged involvement that India detected ‘marvellously’ in just about three days time. Other than a few leading powers, world was oblivious of the Indian ‘responsibility’ to spark off an inferno in the Subcontinent. However, assembly of Indian forces was sluggish and stretched over three weeks. In the mean time, President Musharraf played his cards by ordering formations to occupy battle locations. He also gave a ‘turn about’ address to the nation, renouncing ‘Jihadis’ to woo Western sympathies, particularly of US that could not afford to see Pakistan switch its forces from Western to its Eastern borders. International actors’ intervention averted the conflict. Thus, masked operational lacunas in Indian Army planning, surviving comfortably hitherto fore, came under sharp scrutiny. Walter Ladwig III of Oxford University clearly saw the flaws in Indian’s war making ambitions like loss of strategic surprise, large size of strike forces that forced a long gap between political decision and military action and finally denuding of holding corps of any offensive punch. Hence, it was imperative to evolve a doctrine that should over-ride such weaknesses of one of the largest standing armies in the word that had clung to defensive-defence strategy since partition. In other words, a dangerous conflict averted in 2001 led to Indian pursuits that are more lethal in the realm of deceptive war making in all forms. 

Indian Army Chief, General Padmanabhan unveiled CSD in April 2004. Could it be summed up as a novel and brilliant idea? Certainly not because it carried conspicuous  Sundarji’s stamp with mix of Indian Army Chief’s astuteness who managed now to substitute Sundarji’s lightening ‘blitzkrieg-like’ deep offensives doctrine with sharp and crisp shallow multiple strikes called CSD, also claiming to knock out their own holding and offensive corps’ capability gaps. In other words, now Indian defensive corps could contribute as effectively as strike corps, at least hypothetically and the latter were to become known as Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs). Media leaks suggested that initially Indian army would constitute eight IBGs and each would be a concentrate of firepower and mobility under lavish air umbrella, built upon division size armour or mechanized formation with ability to operate as groups or sub-groups executing independent operations within the Group’s area of operation. The destruction of Pakistan Army has been retained as most lucrative objective, employing tremendous firepower and state-of-art means of ground as well as aerial mobility that would interdict and destroy its reserves, comprising mechanized formations.

General Padmanabhan’s brand of CSD sounded fantastic, as did Sundarji’s blitzkrieg and concept of simultaneity during peacetime about a decade earlier. Once the military logisticians, assembly of forces experts and their Ordnance Corps would have sat together to formulate the inventories to equip the Army with Padmanabhan’s long indent for latest machines, weapons and munitions, finance organ of Indian Government would have shuddered. Commenting on CSD within a month of its unveiling in his May 2004, what he called, strategic paper, Dr. Subhash Kapila, almost had rub with the vision that CSD could not be harnessed militarily as per the perceived scales and if proceeded with, it would amount to asking for moon. He wrote as an indirect admission, “The unveiling of a new war doctrine throws up a host of factors for discussion in terms of why a new war doctrine is required, what are the attendant factors in putting it into operation, the limiting factors that may come into play...”. Commenting three and half years later in December 2007, Dr. Subhash Kapila’s apprehensions further blossomed. He even argued to defer CSD until 2010 because, “India’s COLD START WAR DOCTRINE woven around the operational concept of offensive operations at the very outset of hostilities cannot proceed towards success on Indian Army undertaking military operations with incomplete military inventories…”. Hence, it says all to conclude that CSD is a concept on paper and may be nothing more than at experimental stage with old clattering machines. Conversely, maintaining vigilance about an adversary is the hallmark that Pak Army must observe. For its consumption, it has to underscore the need for meeting an adversary in the battlefield as if they are equipped right now to the needle details. Indian endeavour to fling strategic surprise on Pakistan as a pre-emption strategy must be checkmated by covert peacetime measures so that its forces instinctively remain out of their bite through ruses, well conceived by military leadership even when the war balloon has not gone up yet.

One would not question Indian Army’s prerogative to equip its forces to any limit but a pertinent question comes up here. Why did General Padmanabhan switch to intense multiple SHALLOW manoeuvres concept? Obviously, the answer is that in the presence of nuclear strike capability with Pakistan Army, there has to be a limited war on the cards. In other words, the change of heart did not emanate from his vision but driven by a compulsion, forced on Indian army under the obtaining politico-military environments. Therefore, CSD has another inhibiting factor that Indian battle sweeps have to remain short of reaching nuclear retaliation threshold. Answer becomes a question again if one asks the proponents of CSD that when India initiates conflict under the label of limited war, how friendly India would remain with Pakistan to keep the war under ‘limited’ tag. Do the adversaries prescribe the counter measure levels to each other? What India marks as limited objectives, in Pakistan Army reckoning they might not be ‘limited’ category? Military will and intentions on two sides have to differ because they work against each other. Though Pakistan would never ever be nuclear button-happy-power but when destruction of our Army is envisaged by CSD, that is the centre of gravity of our survival, how would Indian war wizards ensure that Pakistan would desist from using nukes, particularly once Pakistan Army’s concept of operations hinges on offensive-defence strategy? About the nukes, Shireen Mazari says, “Pakistan’s nuclear escalation ladder has only ‘one rung’.” Thus, she seals the argument.

The proposition would remain dangerous when India intends resorting to such measures like CSD under the assumption that by subjecting Pakistan to retribution, it would desist from proxy war in Kashmir that Pakistan denies. Instead, Pakistan maintains that Indian state terrorism has pushed Kashmiris to the brink. The scholars, world over have labelled CSD as dangerous to execute on prefixed speculations based on tunnel vision. CSD creates space of legitimacy for Pakistan to demand from India to rub off its intrusive footprints in Baluchistan, FATA, Pak-Afghan border areas and thus leverage for escalation of crisis is afforded to Pakistan to recover its internal stability. On Pakistan side, there is undue haste instead to sacrifice all its national interests and strong diplomacy pivots without India shifting from its non-yielding stance by an iota. Affording India the facility of trade corridor to Central Asia through Pakistan and granting ‘Most Favoured Nation’ status while ‘Kashmir’ wound still festers since decades, would be a folly with no parallel. Indian military collaboration with Israel is also a cause of change in Indian overtone when she talks of military ventures or handles Kashmiri demonstrations in mode and severity parallel to Israeli handling of the Palestinians’ demonstrations. With Israel colluding now with Indian military extensively, resentment against Israel has grown manifold in Pakistan though, it did not enjoy a favourable score since inception of state of Israel.

India has to realize that its stakes in regional peace are far greater than Pakistan and hence its unimpeded economic spiral would be a factor to force India to reach for reconciliation with Pakistan in an earnest manner. Seeking ‘peace’ through dialogues and negotiations fervently by both the powers is the ultimate option they would have to embrace but an early embrace would augur well for the regional as well as for the world peace. Powers that have the clout with India and Pakistan must facilitate the adversaries to reach at workable solution. International community is also encumbered with the responsibility to caution India to desist from such momentary madness of 18 December 2001 that could have far-reaching repercussions beyond remedy.

By Brig Gen (Ret) Muhammad Aslam Khan Niazi, PhD, Member of the IFIMES International Institute. [International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) – Ljubljana]                                                  
                                                                 
Brig Gen (Ret) Dr.  Muhammad Aslam Khan Niazi. Dr. Makni  (his acronym) has military experience of about 32 years and is from the Regiment of Artillery is also an author of a book: “The New Great Game: Oil and Gas Politics in Central Eurasia”. Recipient of "sitara-e-imtiaz", he served on various command, staff, instructional, administration, operational, research and evaluation appointments during his career. As a young officer, he saw actions in 1971 Indo-Pak War on the Eastern border. Holds first class Master’s degree in International Relations and acquired doctorate in 2002-2007, from University of Peshawar, Pakistan. He has attended national and international seminars/conferences and appeared selectively as an analyst on Pakistani as well as foreign media channels. Also a member of the IFIMES International Institute and a member of WSN Foundation International Advisory Board, his book, “The New Great Game: Oil and Gas Politics in Central Eurasia” was published by Raider Publishing International, simultaneously from New York, London and Swansea in February 2008. 
The International Institute for Middle-East and Balkan Studies (IFIMES) in Ljubljana, Slovenia, regularly analyses events in the Middle East and the Balkans. BrigGen (Ret) Muhammad Aslam Khan Niazi, PhD, (Pakistan), member of the IFIMES International Institute, has analysed the concept of cold start war doctrine in India. His article entitled “INDIA TOYING WITH DANGEROUS COLD START WAR DOCTRINE” is published in its entirety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There have been Following criticism to this strategy:
1.It may result in declaration of Total War and General Mobilization by Pakistan.
2.Publicly announcing the "Cold Start" strategy is self contradictory takes away the element of surprise and defeats the purpose.
3.Although the plan reportedly has a significant air support component, it is unclear to us how much joint versus parallel planning has taken place. No mention of a major operational role for the Indian Navy or parallel sea-launched attacks. Pakistan has clearly announced comprehensive use of Air power and Air Defence in case of a Cold Start during Azm e Nau 3 along with an announced Naval offensive strategy.
4.The unimplemented plan has the added virtue of accentuating Pakistani discomfiture and angst, which in theory may have some deterrent value.
5.The precise function of the Cabinet Committee on Security in ratifying decisions to take military action, the character of the military's advisory responsibilities to the Cabinet, the possible ad hoc nature of decision-making in the upper levels of the Indian government and the role of Congress Party figures like Sonia Gandhi in this process are not clearly understood.
6.It is not implementable statistically
7. The concept of istishhad (martyrdom) may compel Pakistani paramilitary,armed civilians, Mujahideen and Military Units to fight till death creating tough pockets of resistance wasting time crucial to the doctrine.
8.Although Cold Start is designed to punish Pakistan in a limited manner without triggering a nuclear response, they can not be sure whether Pakistani leaders will in fact refrain from such a response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~