The Grand Old man: Anti Racist, Anti Colonialist

In the 19th century, European imperialism colonised most of the African and Asian countries and was perhaps at its zenith regarding its success as a blessing of God. The political power and domination over colonies created a sense of pride and arrogance among European nations to condescend the colonised nations as backward and uncivilised.

The imperialist policies were supported by European intellectuals who provided theories for its justification. It was during this period that the racist theory was circulated among the European societies with the assertion that the white race was endowed with special qualities by nature, and hence was believed to be superior and they had a moral right to rule over the inferior races of African and Asian countries. When Darwin’s book, The Origin of Species, was published in 1859, his theory of evolution was misinterpreted by the racists as social Darwinism and they popularised the idea of hegemony of the white race over non-white nations.

In 1863, John Crawfurd (d.1868), the president of Ethnological Society of London delivered a lecture which was attended by the top intellectuals of the city. The objective of his lecture was to justify the rule of the white races in the colonies on the basis of their superiority in knowledge of technology and culture.

Dadabhai Naoroji was one of the founding members of the Indian National Congress, the first British Asian MP to be elected in 1892 and Mr Jinnah’s mentor and confidant
Among the audience sat Dadabhai Naoroji, an Indian, who was greatly disturbed by the logic of racial superiority of the whites and decided to respond to the lecture. In the same hall, before the same audience, Naoroji logically rejected the argument of John Crawfurd and presented his views that there was no difference among different races while each had the potential and the energy to survive against the odds and expressed its creativity in order to accomplish its design. Therefore, it was wrong to believe that the white races had special qualities and character. Every race had its merits and demerits.

The audience appreciated his lecture and Naoroji emerged as a political figure in London. He decided to take part in politics and joined the Liberal party. He contested for the general elections but did not win the first time; however, in 1892 he contested from the constituency of Finsbury Park and this time won the elections to become the first Indian member of the British Parliament. During his election campaign, Lord Salsbury (prominent conservative statesman and thrice prime minister) had famously referred to him as a black man in one of his remarks in regard to the elections and the constituency of Finsbury. Incidently, being a Parsi, Naoroji was not dark but fairly pale. The remarks went in his favour and his supporters rejected the prime minister’s comments for being racist. In the House of Commons, Naoroji presented the issues of the subcontinent before the House and also supported the Irish cause.

Naoroji was well-educated and understood the impact of colonialism in the subcontinent. In 1901, his book Poverty and un-British Rule in India presented the drain theory explaining how every year the British took away from £30 to £40 million from India and consequently reduced it to poverty. His argument was that many invaders had plundered India’s wealth in the past. However, after their departure, the damage and loss was eventually recovered by the Indians and the wounds inflicted by the invaders would heal with the passage of time. This indicated the energy and potential of the people of the subcontinent. On the other hand, invaders who settled in India kept its wealth within the country. But in case of the British rule, the Indian resources were drained constantly to Britain, leaving the Indian wounds unhealed. As a result, India was not getting any benefits but facing losses becoming poor and backward. His thesis provided a base for the anti-colonial movement in the subcontinent.

Dadabhai was among the founding members of the Indian National Congress and became its president in 1886. He inspired the young generation of Indian politicians including Bal Gangadhar Tilak (d.1920), Gopal Krishna Gokhale (d.1915) and Mohammad Ali Jinnah (d.1948). He died in 1917, leaving a rich political and intellectual heritage in the politics of India which laid the foundation for the want of freedom from the British rule. He was moderate and believed to have adopted constitutional ways and means to struggle for freedom. He belonged to the European-educated generation who had studied European politics and learnt how to use it against the colonial power and how to adjust in the changing environment in order to become a progressive and modern country.

By Mubarak Ali
http://www.dawn.com/news/1242054

Freedom at risk ! آزادی خطرے میں ہے

One of the abiding myths of the last half of the 20th century was that democracy, combined with free trade, would lead to liberal societies and peace between nations.

The leading example of this notion was the United States. And indeed, in the 1950s and 1960s, it did seem to be the Promised Land. To the rest of us, Hollywood films depicted a nation where large cars and suburban homes were every American’s birthright.

During the Vietnam War, some of this image lost its gloss, but the American Dream continued to draw millions to the United States. The rest of the world was told that if we attained democracy and applied the capitalist model, we, too, could aspire to a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot.

And when the Soviet Union went into meltdown a quarter century ago, this was taken as the final victory of the American model over communism. History, as Francis Fukuyama famously announced, was dead. For a brief, euphoric moment, we thought the end of the Cold War would usher in an era of peace and prosperity.

Welcome, then, to the bloody new world of resurgent nationalism and religious extremism. Once suppressed by autocratic rulers allied to either of the two superpowers, these forces are now threatening to tear the world apart.

And yet there are more functioning democracies than ever before, and all of them are part of the global economy.

Take Russia as an example. Here we have a very popular, iron-fisted leader who has presided over a freewheeling capitalist system that has brought Russians an unprecedented level of prosperity. Granted, much of this was due to rising oil prices, and the Russian standard of living is now dropping with falling prices of oil. However, Putin remains personally popular, despite being as autocratic as ever.

Leaders with dictatorial tendencies continue to win elections.
Turkey provides us with another example of a democracy with a flourishing capitalist economy that is being increasingly run like an autocracy by its president, Recep Erdogan. Despite his growing despotic tendencies, Erdogan remains hugely popular, and continues to win elections with healthy majorities.

Finally, Sri Lanka’s Mahinda Rajapaksa is yet another example of an authoritarian ruler who spurns democratic values, and yet remains personally popular. Although he lost the last presidential election in January, this was due more to miscalculation and misplaced faith in his stars than a fall in his appeal.

A call for early polls encouraged the formation of a rare opposition alliance — allegedly backed by India — that defeated the president. But Rajapaksa remains popular with the majority Sinhalese voters, and managed to win 47pc of the popular vote despite the hatred he aroused among the Tamil and Muslim minorities. Now there is a real possibility of the ex-president bouncing back to power in the next general elections.

So how do we explain this popularity of leaders with dictatorial tendencies? Despite trampling over human rights and personal freedoms, they continue to win elections, and enjoy wide public approval. Could it be that their supporters want strong men to maintain order, even by using unconstitutional means? Another reason could be that the majority distrusts the educated, liberal elites who clamour for human rights.

John Grey, in an article published in Harper’s Magazine titled ‘Under Western Eyes’ writes: “That democracy can be a vehicle for tyranny was well understood by earlier generations of liberal thinkers. From Benjamin Constant, Alexis de Tocqueville, and John Stuart Mill through to Isaiah Berlin, it was recognised that demo­­cracy does not necessarily protect individual free­doms…

“Legal and constitutional protections have little force when majorities are indifferent or hostile to liberal values… Most hu­­man beings, most of the time, care about other things more than they care about being free. Many will vote for an illiberal government if it promises security against hardship, protects a way of life to which they are attached, and denies freedom to people they hate.”

Now, of course, few liberals concede that in certain circumstances, democracy can be used as an instrument of oppression against certain sections of the population. In the United States, that flag bearer of democracy, we have seen individual rights steadily circumscribed by the Patriot Act. The fear of Islamic terrorism has been used since 9/11 to curtail liberties, and to impose draconian laws that would not be out of place in a police state.

In Turkey, a conservative Anatolian majority supports Erdogan as he chips away at secular laws, marginalising the Westernised elites who ruled Turkey for decades. If some heads have to be broken, and secular newspapers have to be shut down, so be it.

But secularism by itself is no guarantee of human rights, either. The worst atrocities of the last century occurred under Nazi and communist rule, both entirely secular ideologies. So clearly, there are no certainties, no magic wand to ensure our freedom. What is needed is constant vigilance and a strong resolve.

Freedom at risk
by Irfan Husain, dawn.com
irfan.husain@gmail.com

آزادی خطرے میں ہے!

بیسویںصدی کے دوسرے نصف میں جس تصور نے دنیا کو اپنی گرفت میں لے لیا وہ یہ تھا کہ جمہوریت اور اس کے ساتھ جڑی ہوئی آزاد تجارت لبرل معاشروں اور اقوام کے درمیان امن قائم کر دے گی۔ اس تصور کی اہم ترین مثال امریکہ تھی۔ اس میں کوئی شک نہیں کہ پچاس اور ساٹھ کی دہائی میں ایسا لگتا تھا کہ امریکہ ہی وہ مثالی دنیا ہے جس کے لیے ''Promised Land‘‘ کی اصطلاح استعمال کی گئی۔ باقی دنیا کے لیے ہالی وڈ فلموں نے امریکی سرزمین کے بارے میں ایسی منظر کشی کی جیسے بڑی بڑی گاڑیاںچلانا اور کھلے گھروں میں رہنا ہر امریکی شہری کا پیدائشی حق ہو‘ لیکن ویت نام جنگ کے دوران یہ چمک قدرے ماند پڑ گئی۔ امریکی ڈریم نے بیرونی دنیا کے لاکھوں افراد کے تصوارت پر گرفت جمائے رکھی اور وہ امریکہ کی طرف ہجرت کرتے دکھائی دیے۔ باقی دنیا کو بتایا گیا کہ اگر ہم بھی جمہوریت اور سرمایہ دارانہ نظام اپنا لیں تو ہر گیراج میں کار اور ہر پلیٹ میں چکن ہو گا۔ جب ربع صدی پہلے سوویت یونین کا شیرازہ بکھرا تو اسے کمیونزم پر امریکہ کی حتمی فتح قرار دیا گیا۔ فرانسس فیکویاما (Francis Fukuyama)... بیسویں صدی کا مشہور امریکی سیاسی مدبر... نے واشگاف انداز میں تاریخ کے اختتامی سفر کی نوید سنا دی تھی۔ خوشی اور جوش کے مختصر سے دورانیے میں ہم نے سوچا کہ سرد جنگ کے اختتام کے بعد امن اور خوشحالی کا نہ ختم ہونے والا دور شروع ہونے والا ہے‘ لیکن جب پردہ اٹھا تو نئی دنیا بڑھتی ہوئی قوم پرستی، مذہبی انتہا پسندی اور دہشت گردی کے کانٹوں سے لہولہان تھی۔ اس انتہا پسندی کو کبھی آمر حکمرانوں، جن کا جھکائو دو سپر پاورز (امریکہ یا سوویت یونین) میں کسی ایک کی طرف ہوتا تھا، نے دبا کر رکھا ہوا تھا‘ لیکن اُن کے منظر سے ہٹتے ہی یہ جن بوتل سے آزاد ہو گیا۔ اب یہ ایک آزاد کردہ خون آشام درندے کی طرح دنیا کو بے رحمی سے بھنبھوڑ رہا ہے۔ خدشہ ہے کہ اس کے پنجے دنیا کے حصے بخرے کر دیں گے۔ 
آج کی دنیا میں پہلے سے کہیں زیادہ فعال جمہوریتیں ہیں اور یہ سب کی سب عالمی معیشت کا حصہ ہیں۔ روس کی مثال لے لیں۔ اس کے آہنی رہنما، مسٹر پیوٹن، نے فری مارکیٹ اور سرمایہ دارانہ نظام کو اپنا کر روسیوں کو غیر معمولی خوشحالی سے مستفید کیا‘ اگرچہ اس میں تیل کی بڑھتی ہوئی قیمت کا بھی ہاتھ تھا اور آج کل تیل کی قیمت کم ہونے کی وجہ سے روسیوں کو پھر مشکلات کا سامنا ہے، لیکن سخت گیر آمر ہونے کے باوجود پیوٹن ابھی تک ایک مقبول رہنما ہیں۔ جمہوریت کی دوسری مثال ترکی ہے‘ جو فروغ پاتی ہوئی آزاد معیشت رکھتا ہے؛ تاہم اس پر ایک آمرانہ مزاج کے صدر، مسٹر اردوان، کی حکومت ہے۔ آمرانہ رویوں کے باوجود وہ ملک میں بہت مقبول ہیں اور طویل عرصے سے انتخابات میں بھاری کامیابی حاصل کر رہے ہیں۔ 
سری لنکا کے مہندا راجا پاکسی ایک اور مثال ہیں‘ جنہوں نے جمہوری قدروں کو بالائے طاق رکھتے ہوئے آمرانہ طرز حکومت اختیار کیا اور بہت مقبول ہوئے۔ اگرچہ وہ گزشتہ انتخابات میں شکست سے دوچار ہوئے، لیکن اس شکست میں ان کی طرف سے اندازے کی غلطی، ستاروں پر ضرورت سے زیادہ بھروسہ اور کچھ غیر ضروری اعتماد کا عمل دخل تھا۔ ان کی مقبولیت اپنی جگہ پر برقرار ہے۔ دراصل اُنہوں نے قبل از وقت انتخابات کا اعلان کر دیا اور ان کے خلاف بھارتی پشت پناہی سے بننے والا اتحاد غیر معمولی طور پر فعال ہو گیا، اس سے سری لنکن صدر کو شکست سے دوچار ہونا پڑا۔ اس کے باوجود راجا پاکسی سنہالی آبادی میں بہت مقبول ہیں۔ تامل اور مسلمان اقلیتوں نے ان کے مخالف امیدواروں کو ووٹ دیے لیکن راجا پاکسی مقبول ووٹ کا 47 فیصد حاصل کرنے میں کامیاب رہے۔ اگلے عام انتخابات میں سابق صدر کے پاس دوبارہ اقتدار حاصل کرنے کا موقع ہے۔ 
اب سوال پیدا ہوتا ہے کہ ان آمرانہ رویوں کے حامل رہنمائوں کی مقبولیت کی کس طرح وضاحت کی جائے؟ انسانی حقوق اور شخصی آزادی کی پامالی کے باوجود وہ بدستور انتخابات میںکامیابی حاصل کرتے رہے ہیں۔ کہیں ایسا تو نہیں کہ ان کے ووٹرز اقتدار پر کسی طاقتور شخص کو دیکھنا چاہتے تھے جو امن و امان قائم کرے‘ چاہے اس کے لیے غیر آئینی طریقے ہی کیوں نہ استعمال کرنا پڑیں؟ ایک اور وجہ یہ ہے کہ عوام کی اکثریت تعلیم یافتہ، لبرل اور انسانی حقوق کے علم برداروں کو دل سے پسند نہیں کرتی۔ ''ہارپرز میگزین‘‘ میں شائع ہونے والے اپنے مضمون، ''Under Western Eyes‘‘ میں جان گرے لکھتے ہیں: ''ابتدائی نسل کے لبرل مفکرین کا خیال تھا کہ جمہوریت بھی جبر کا ہی ایک ذریعہ ہو سکتی ہے۔ بنجمن کونسٹنٹ (Benjamin Constant) سے لے کر الیکسز ڈی ٹوکیویل (Alexis de Tocqueville)اور جان سٹیورٹ ملز سے لے کر ایسائیہ برلن (Isaiah Berlin) تک، سب مفکرین کا خیال تھا کہ ضروری نہیں کہ جمہوریت شخصی آزادی کا تحفظ کرے۔ جب معاشرے کے اکثریتی دھڑے لبرل اقدار کے خلاف ہو جائیں یا اُنہیں ان سے کوئی سروکار نہ رہے تو آئینی اور قانونی تحفظ کے پاس کوئی طاقت نہیں رہتی۔ زیادہ تر انسان، اکثر اوقات آزادی سے زیادہ دیگر چیزوں کی پروا کرتے ہیں۔ اگر کوئی آمر بھی ان چیزوں کی فراہمی کا وعدہ کرے، جان و مال کو تحفظ دے تو لوگ اُسے ووٹ دیں گے۔ ایسا کرتے ہوئے وہ اپنی آزادی کو ترجیح نہیں دیں گے۔ ‘‘
ہو سکتا ہے کہ کچھ لبرل افراد یہ تسلیم کر لیں کہ مخصوص طبقوں کے خلاف مخصوص حالات میں جمہوریت کو جبر کے آلے کے طور پر بھی استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ امریکہ میں جمہوریت کے علمبرداروں نے Patriot Act بنا کر شخصی حقوق کو معطل کر دیا۔ نائن الیون کے بعد سے اسلامی انتہا پسندی کا ہوّا کھڑا کر کے شہری آزادیوں کو سلب کیا گیا اور ایسے سخت قوانین بنائے گئے جن کا تصور صرف ایک پولیس سٹیٹ میں ہی کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ ترکی میں اناطولیہ کا ایک قدامت پسند باشندہ مسٹر اردوان کی اس لیے حمایت کرتا ہے کہ انہوں نے سیکولر قوانین کا خاتمہ کرتے ہوئے مغربی ذہنیت رکھنے والی اُس اشرافیہ کو سائیڈ لائن کر دیا‘ جو کئی عشروں سے ترکی پر حکومت کر رہی تھی۔ سیکولر اخبار نہایت صفائی سے بند کر دیے گئے؛ یہ الگ بات ہے کہ سیکولرازم بھی انسانی حقوق کی مطلق ضمانت نہیں دیتا۔ گزشتہ صدی کا بدترین تشدد نازی اور کمیونسٹ حکومتوں کی طرف سے دیکھنے میں آیا اور یہ دونوں نظریات کے اعتبار سے سیکولر تھیں؛ چنانچہ اس وقت شخصی آزادی کی ضمانت دینے والی کوئی جادو کی چھڑی موجود نہیں۔ ہمیں اس کا تحفظ کرنے کے لیے مضبوط عزم اور پختہ ارادے کی ضرورت ہے۔

- See more at: http://m.dunya.com.pk/index.php/author/irfan-hussain/2015-04-25/11021/74844245#sthash.yTtKITd0.dpuf

Copenhagen Attack Witness Inna Shevchenko Debates Scholar Tariq Ramadan on Religion and Free Speech

Danish police have shot and killed a man they say carried out attacks on a synagogue and an event promoting free speech in Copenhagen.
Watch:
http://publish.dvlabs.com/democracynow/ipod/dn2015-0216.mp4?start=883&end=2550

Local media identified the suspect as 22-year-old Omar al-Hussein, who had reportedly been released from prison just weeks earlier. Two other people have also been charged with aiding him. The presumed target of the attuacks, Swedish artist Lars Vilks, has received death threats for depicting the head of the Prophet Muhammad on a dog. Vilks was unharmed, but a Danish film director was shot dead and three police officers injured. Hours later, the gunman attacked a synagogue, killing a guard outside and injuring another two police officers. The attacks in Copenhagen come a month after the massacre at the Paris offices of the French magazine Charlie Hebdo. We speak with Inna Shevchenko, a speaker at the Copenhagen free speech event when the attack took place. Shevchenko is a leader of the international women’s protest group Femen, which often demonstrates topless against what they perceive as manifestations of patriarchy, especially dictatorship, religion and the sex industry. We are also joined by Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University and author of a number of influential books on Islam and the West.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Danish police have shot and killed a man that they believe carried out attacks on a synagogue and an event promoting free speech in Copenhagen on Saturday. Local media identified the suspect as 22-year-old Omar al-Hussein, who was born and raised in Denmark. According to Danish television, he had been released from prison just weeks earlier. Danish police have also charged two other people with aiding the gunman. The bloodshed began on Saturday when a gunman attempted to shoot his way into a café hosting a discussion on art, blasphemy and freedom of expression. The BBC aired audio from the event at the moment of the shooting.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: I realize that every time we talk about activity of those people, there will be always, "Yes, it is freedom of speech, but..." And the turning point is "but." Why do we still say "but" when we—

[gunfire]

AMY GOODMAN: You are listening to an audio recording from Saturday’s shooting in Copenhagen. That first voice you heard, just before the gunfire, was Inna Shevchenko, a leader of the international women’s protest group Femen. She’ll join us on the show in a moment. Also speaking at the event was the Swedish artist Lars Vilks, the presumed target of the attacks, who has received death threats for depicting the head of the Prophet Muhammad on a dog. Vilks was unharmed in the attack, but a Danish film director named Finn Nørgaard was shot dead. Three police officers were also injured.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Hours later, the gunman attacked a synagogue, killing a guard outside and injuring another two police officers. The attacks in Copenhagen came a month after gunmen attacked the offices of the newspaper Charlie Hebdo, killing 12 people in Paris. France’s ambassador to Denmark, François Zimeray, was at the café when Saturday’s attack took place.

FRANÇOIS ZIMERAY: [translated] I don’t know if they are strong words, but this is simply what one feels when you hear bullets and see their impact. I was very impressed today to be able to calmly see what I went through yesterday in these few seconds. In these moments, you think it’s all over. You don’t have any feelings. You don’t think of anything, but try and understand what’s happening. And what I understood then was that the same event was taking place as in Paris. And probably, if the Danish police didn’t succeed in—five policemen wounded—didn’t succeed in their job, I wouldn’t be here today.

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about the Copenhagen attacks, we’re joined by two guests. Inna Shevchenko is with us. She was speaking at the free speech event in Copenhagen when the attack took place Saturday, leader of the international women’s group Femen, which often demonstrates topless against what they perceive as manifestations of patriarchy, especially dictatorship, religion and the sex industry. She is speaking to us now from Paris, where she has just gone from Copenhagen.

And we’re joined once again by Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, author of a number of influential books on Islam and the West, including Western Muslims and the Future of Islam and also the book In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad. Professor Ramadan was named by Time magazine as one of the most important innovators of the 21st century. He’s joining us from Doha, Qatar.

But I want to go first to our guest in Paris, Inna Shevchenko. Describe the scene on Saturday. What exactly were you talking about when the shots opened fire? And explain where they came from.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Thank you for having me, first. Well, when everything happened in Copenhagen, when terrorists entered the place, just a few seconds before, I was mentioning that very often it is an illusion that we can fully enjoy freedom of speech. I was sitting on the stage together with Lars Vilks and one of the organizers of the event. And then I mentioned such a phenomenon as "but" when we talk about freedom of speech. And as you can hear on the record, once I mentioned that there will be always opinion, "Yes, OK, we are fine with freedom of speech, but..." and then the shots started. And ironically, I think, it started in this event, because I think that those shots and this attack was definitely a huge "but" to our freedom of speech.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Inna, has it been established that the Swedish cartoonist who was on the panel with you—was he the presumed target? Has that been made certain?

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Well, police didn’t give us any information, because they simply do not have it. Lars Vilks personally explained that he thinks he was a target of the event. But as we talked later with police, and police explained that the target of the event could be either Lars Vilks or also the reason to attack this event could be also the presence of one of the representatives of Femen, who is receiving also lots of threats a lot. But I think that right now we should not talk about who exactly personally was a target. The target was the idea, the idea that all of us were carrying in that room, the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and being free to celebrate it, to enjoy, to laugh, to speak about it, to scream about it in the streets. So the target of those extremists are our ideas.

AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Ramadan, speaking to us from Doha, Qatar, if you could respond to what has taken place right now in Copenhagen? We last talked to you, of course, after the Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris.

TARIQ RAMADAN: Look, once again, it’s exactly the same scenario, and we have to take the same clear position and condemn what happened. And I really think that the target of this young guy was the event itself, what was the—which is the freedom of expression and things that are perceived as insulting Islam. And what we have to say as Muslims, what we have to say as Muslim scholars and in world, that this is betraying our principles, and this cannot be acceptable. So, once again, it’s the clear position that we have to take.

And beyond this, I think that instead of putting religions on one side and people supporting freedom of expression, we need to understand, and not to be misled or mistaken about our common enemies, that there are people, dogmatic minds, going towards violence and promoting violence, that are against freedom of expression. And we have to be clear that these are our enemies. And for me, as a Muslim, what is happening in—because you were mentioning this in your headlines—what is happening in Syria and Libya, this is all against the principles of our religion, so the Muslims should be clear on that, while at the same time we have to have the big picture and to say, "Let us come together to be against the use of religions to kill."

But at the same time, and it’s not a "but" that is undermining the condemnation, but stressing the fact that the picture is very complex, and we also have to be clear about the killing of Muslims and not to be quiet when, for example, 200 people have been killed in Nigeria, or the three people who have been killed in North Carolina, and it took two days for President Obama to come and to say something about it. And the silence here is not acceptable. So it’s not this against that, but we have to be not—we should not be selective in our condemnation.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Tariq Ramadan, you’ve been following the position of Muslims in Europe for decades. Is it your sense, as some claim, that more and more young Muslims in Europe are turning to a more radical form of Islam and also violent acts like the one we just witnessed in Copenhagen?

TARIQ RAMADAN: I think that there is something completely new that we are—it’s very difficult for us to understand, is this attraction towards what is happening through the social media. And yes, there are more people being involved with it. We never had such a thing as people going—we had, yes, of course, people going to Bosnia or going to al-Shishan or going to even Palestine, but it was—they were few, it’s a handful number. So I don’t think that we had this before. Now, at the same time, we have to be very cautious. It’s not because they are killing and they are getting the headlines that they are something, you know, that is representing Muslims. It’s a tiny minority. It’s on the margin. The people are not even going to the mosques. They are not within the community. This young guy was just in prison a few weeks ago. And it’s the same in France. We have to be very cautious. It might be that we have more young people being involved, but still this is completely disconnected from the Muslim communities in the West.

And then, because you are asking this question, without trying to find justification, because it’s not justifiable, we need to come to some of the reasons that we can find, to go upstream and to try to solve the problem—so, for example, anything that has to do with a better teaching of Islam. We need institutionalizing the Muslim presence in the West and in Europe by having a teaching vision that is clear on the things that could be accepted within the diversity of the Islamic teaching and the things that are unacceptable. So this kind of informal teaching that we have of Islam and this in-between, it’s not helping.

On the other side, we also have to deal with political issues, because when, in Europe, we are presenting that they are at war with our values, the people are in touch with the international scene, and they are seeing what is happening, and sometimes which kind of international policies are promoting—are promoted by the West, the United States or the European countries. And we also have to be clear that we are giving some value to this political analysis. It’s not as if nothing is happening around the world; people are being killed, and European and Western powers are involved in wars around the world.

AMY GOODMAN: Inna Shevchenko, if you could weigh in here? Also, comment on the fact that at this Krudttønden café where the free speech event took place, people stayed to continue the event, is that right, afterwards? Again, a Danish filmmaker was killed in this attack, Finn Nørgaard.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: That’s right. That’s right. We were—as we gathered there to celebrate freedom of speech, we continued to celebrate freedom of speech, with certain conditions that we all have right now. We have new conditions for being able to celebrate and to enjoy freedom of speech, and we have to be—we have to know that today we can be targeted. We can hear sounds of Kalashnikov around us whenever we draw or laugh or speak, enjoying freedom of speech, and there are new conditions today, and we have to accept it.

But what—you know, what happened at that event, it was horrible. It was horrible to hear shots of Kalashnikov just behind the door of the room where you were simply talking about pluralism and about being able to explain—to express whatever ideas you care without harming physically anybody. And then we heard shots. And, of course, the situation was terrible, and people were running and trying to hide under the tables and in the corners. It was chaotic.

Then the shots finished, and the situation—we understood what happened. And one of the participants proposed to continue the debates. People, the audience, were so proud to be on that side of the fight, not to be—not to represent a dogmatic side of the fight that, unfortunately, I should mention, and unfortunately for Tariq Ramadan, unfortunately, religions do represent dogmatic part of this discussion. And we represented at that event, and millions of people today in Europe are expressing that they represent, liberalism and pluralism. And what—right now we are in the middle of ideological war between pluralism and dogmatism. And unfortunately for all of us, religion does play a big, big part in dogmatism and in dogmatic side supporting it. Even though, again, I’m not going to please, maybe, Tariq Ramadan, I definitely see how many religious people also become victims of those extremists, but I think that we should not deny the other side of religion that is giving to us today. And unfortunately, this is not the most peaceful side.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Inna, you’ve also suggested that Europe—Tariq Ramadan, why don’t you respond to what Inna said?

TARIQ RAMADAN: I think that the starting point of our discussion is not to be dogmatically liberal against religion. What I’m hearing now, it’s a dogmatic mind rejecting all the religions and all the dogmatic religious cultures or religious teachings as being dogmatic. That’s very superficial. And I’m very, very cautious with some dogmatic liberal minds saying freedom of expression is on our side. Please, I don’t think that you are going to solve the problem. And this is the problem I have with your organization, Femen. You are dogmatic in the way you are rejecting all religions. You don’t see that within religions and the religious traditions you have millions, hundreds of millions of people who are open-minded and trying their best and they are supporting freedom of expression. So don’t be like this, because by promoting this mindset, you are creating the problems; you are not solving or trying to find solutions.

So, once again, I would say, I am on the side of freedom of speech. And then, this, I think, we have to promote. And I said this, you know, at the very beginning. I was myself involved in the discussion about the cartoon crisis in Denmark at the very beginning. I was there, and I met with journalists. Even the journal, the newspaper, the Jyllands-Posten, they published my book on the prophet that you mentioned in English, they published it in Danish, because they wanted to show we are also—we want to give this right picture, we are not only against. So I think that we need to find new alliances and not this binary vision, "it’s religions versus open-minded people." No, it’s open-minded people against all type of instrumentalization, and even sometimes the liberal values of instrumentalizing in a very dogmatic way, as I’ve said.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Inna Shevchenko, could you respond to what Tariq said and also elaborate on the suggestion you’ve made that Europe needs to change its policies in light of what’s happened? And you’ve spoken of ideological warfare. Could you elaborate on that?

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Yes, first of all, I want to respond to Tariq. And, you know, I think that definitely what you are doing well, you are trying to turn my words right now around. And I think that what we all are saying and what is the main idea of what we all are caring and what we were caring at this event, that we all should be able to express our ideas, whether you are religious or not. And to say that we are rejecting all religions is definitely to be superficial, as you say. We’d never reject religious people, who can care liberal ideas, and there are plenty of them, including a lot of friends that I have who are religious—and, as well, Muslim, who are supporting secular ideas and who do agree that Charlie Hebdo did have a right to draw Muhammad.

And as I know—as far as I know, you don’t agree that this is a freedom of speech. You call it insulting. And in one of the texts of your blog, you said that those terrorists are victims of society. And I think this is a big danger in your speeches. I think that you definitely objectively should recognize the side of all liberals, that we provide the solution that respects opinion and right to believe, to think, to speak about whatever they want. Religious you are or not, you have right to express your ideas. You have right to talk about that.

But what we propose, we don’t carry Kalashnikovs in our hands. And one small group, even small group of our community, do not care—do not carry Kalashnikovs in our hands. What we do carry, we carry a much more powerful weapon: We carry our ideas of respecting right of everybody to express their ideas. And we propose a real solution. We don’t say the situation is too complex and we should just sit and be desperate about it. What we do say, we say that we have to educate each other, that everybody has a right to laugh at whoever, whether Muhammad, it is Jesus or Marine Le Pen or Obama, whoever. We have right to laugh. We have right to criticize. We have right to express our opinion. And this right should be respected. And this right should not be—should not be criticized and said as—and named as superficial, not at all.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Tariq Ramadan, your response?

TARIQ RAMADAN: No, no, no, once again, this is a distortion of what I said. What I said is superficial is to put religions on one side and then to come to say, "I have nothing against religious people, but I am against religions." I have been following many of your statements about religions and connecting religions with patriarchy, with very narrow-minded people. That’s fine, if we start with what you are saying now, that we are coming together, and we are promoting the point that it’s freedom of speech. And yes, freedom of speech means that we cannot deny the fact that if I feel insulted, that’s fine. The question is not if I feel insulted; the question is: What am I doing out of it? And what I’m saying is that I take a critical distance. I let the people speak the way they want. And this is the starting point of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean that I agree and I’m happy with all what I hear, but I acknowledge the fact that the people have the right to say. That’s the point, and you cannot deny this.

Now, the question here is, very often in all the discussions that we had and through your organization is to be aggressive in the way you are promoting it. It’s not helping. That’s the point that I’m making. It’s not—if you say to people, you know, "I respect religious people I don’t like, and I reject religions," I think that, once again, that’s your right, you can say it, but it’s putting the people into boxes in a way which is what I am saying is superficial.

Now, the point that I want to make—you are celebrating freedom of speech. Yes, we have the right to laugh, and this should be a right, yes, I’ve said that. Now, I don’t want a young guy, 22 years old, to put us in a situation where there is no way for us to have a bigger discussion, which this discussion is. He was wrong. He betrayed the Islamic principles. We have to say this in a clear way. Now I want the big picture and say: What are the reasons that are pushing some people to go that way? And what is our common response to be?

NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn—Tariq Ramadan, if you’ll allow me, I want to ask about some of the reasons, some of the speculation for the reasons that people are—young Muslims in Europe are turning to violence. The French interior minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, visited Copenhagen Sunday to express solidarity after the attacks, that were reminiscent of the attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo, the satirical weekly newspaper. Cazeneuve said more must be done to prevent vulnerable members of society from, quote, being "brainwashed" by Internet propaganda.

BERNARD CAZENEUVE: [translated] This morning, I saw the same sadness I witnessed back in Paris in January in people’s terrified eyes, the same sadness, the same dread, the same dignity and the same mediation and the same sorrow. In the face of terrorism, we are first and foremost united by feelings like those of important democrats, those attached to democracy, to the values of the founding fathers of the European Union. When we call for more regulation for Internet in order to prevent websites and blogs promoting terrorism from brainwashing the most vulnerable citizens in our countries—and doing so efficiently, I have to say—this is realistic. We are adapting our strategies in the face of a very acute problem, and we need to do that with lucidity and to get ready to face a real threat for a long time.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve. You each have about 30 seconds to respond. Inna Shevchenko, could you comment on what the minister said?

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Sure, of course. We should—

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Oh, I’m afraid we’ve lost Inna for the moment. Tariq Ramadan, could you comment on what the minister said and explain whether you think it is Internet propaganda that’s seducing young, vulnerable Muslims in Europe?

TARIQ RAMADAN: No, that’s clear. He is right on one thing, is that now we know that there is the Internet propaganda, and this is attracting some of the young Muslims, even converts and things like this. But this is not the only reason, and it cannot only be this. We also have to deal with domestic policies in the West, where you have this frustration. Anyone can use this to instrumentalize religion as a weapons against the other, let alone the discussion on the international scene. You know, when France is saying, "We are not at war," yes, you are not at war with them, but you are at war in the Middle East, and you are involved in political actions and wars around, so you also have to deal with this. So, this is not to justify what was done, but this is to explain that if we don’t deal with the reasons, we are missing the point.

AMY GOODMAN: On that note, we’re going to—we’re going to have to wrap up, although I do think perhaps we have Inna right at this moment.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Yes, can I come back?

AMY GOODMAN: If you could respond for 30 seconds, yes, to what the French interior minister said?

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Do you have me right now?

AMY GOODMAN: Yes, we hear you fine.

INNA SHEVCHENKO: Yeah, sorry, sorry. Yeah, well, you know, I think that generally to say—again, let me still come back a little bit to the main point and to what Tariq said and mentioned, and then go back to Bernard Cazeneuve. You know, the thing is that right now I clearly do hear that Tariq Ramadan is condemning violence of terrorists, who are unfortunately doing it in the name of his religion. And right now we can see how many of those terrorists are appearing. And I think that one of the reasons why it is happening right now, because so many people, including Tariq Ramadan, are spending much more time to condemn cartoons of Charlie Hebdo or Lars Vilks than to criticize and then to say directly to terrorists that the part of Islam that is saying that you have to fight infidels and everybody else who doesn’t belong to this religion and this idea should be forgotten or denied, clearly. They should not be said just they are terrorists and they’re not part of our community. There are a few brave Muslims who are saying, great people who are—great thinkers who are saying, "Yes, they are Muslims. They do represent our religion. And we should clearly say that this part of the religion should be mortified and should be denied." The solution is—just to say they are not Muslims and they don’t belong to Islam, this is just—

AMY GOODMAN: Inna Shevchenko, we’re going to have to leave it there. I want to thank you for being with us. She was speaking at the free speech event in Copenhagen’s Krudttønden café when the attack took place on Saturday, a leader of the international women’s protest group Femen, which often demonstrates topless against what they perceive as manifestations of patriarchy. She was joining us now from Paris, where she’s gone from Copenhagen. And I want to thank Professor Tariq Ramadan, professor of contemporary Islamic studies at Oxford University, author of a number of books, speaking to us from Doha, Qatar.

Filed under: War on Terror, Religion, Islam, Women's Rights

http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14999

History of the fight for Irish independence

WARS of national liberation inspire history in a bardic register. The self-sacrificing heroism of a people in arms tends to drown out unwelcome noises off: dissidence, recalcitrance, apathy and cagey self-interest. By the same token, the humdrum underpinnings of military success are also filtered out. In his magisterial account of the Irish struggle for independence, Charles Townshend records the alarm of the Irish Republican Army in the spring of 1921 at the prevalence of nits, scabies and fungal infections among its soldiers. Orders were dispatched that company captains should stress the importance of hygiene and ensure that their men `change their socks regularly`. Surely this is too much information? Do we really need to be told that heroes, too, need clean socks? I think so, yes: bathos provides an effective counterweight to legend, Townshend`s deadpan command of detail easing the process bywhich a warrior mythology is transmuted into a realistic and humane narrative. Nonjudgmental, even-handed history, it transpires, need not inhibit dramatic storytelling.

Townshend`s subject is the tortuous road to Irish independence after the abortive Easter rising of 1916. Irish republicanism had been a fringe phenomenon in Irish politics before the outbreak of the first world war, and the obvious futility of the rising might have kept it on the margins had it not been for the execution of the rebellion`s leaders.

However, the martyrdoms of the few were to prove less significant than the general threat of conscription. In March 1918 the massive German offensive on the western front panicked the British government into introducing a military service bill for Ireland. Never mind that the chief secretary for Ireland, Henry Duke, feared that `we might as well recruit Germans`. Lloyd George`s coalition rushed the bill through parliament, and Duke resigned. Such was the storm the measure provoked in Ireland that it was eventually withdrawn, but not before it had worked its unintentional effect of further radicalising the Irish population.

The cack-handedness of the British government fatally weakened a parliamentary Irish party committed to home rule for Ireland within the UK. The general election at the end of the war in 1918 saw Irish constituencies fall overwhelmingly to therepublican separatists of Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein was an abstentionist party whose MPs were pledged to a boycott of Westminster. Instead the party`s MPs constituted themselves the Dail Eireann, the assembly of a self-proclaimed Irish republic. Ireland now witnessed a bloody and protracted tussle between two governments the UK and an Irish Republican `counter-state` each of which pretended to be the legitimate authority for the whole island, and attempted to govern as much of it as was practicable.

With no decisive outcome in sight, the British parliament passed the Government of Ireland Act in 1920, which extended home rule government under the crown to two separate entities: to the six counties of Northern Ireland, which were predominantly Protestant, and to the other 26 counties of southern Ireland. While the election to the new Northern Irish parliament was seriously contested, resulting in a Unionist majority, in the south no other parties dared to stand against Sinn Fein, except in the four university seats.

The impasse could only be resolved by negotiation. The result was a treaty concluded late in 1921 between the UK and the secessionist Irish Republic. In a sense the medium was the message, for the treaty was an implicit acceptance by the British of a sovereign Irish nation. Yet the terms of the treaty which granted effective independence to the Irish Free State, though a freedom tempered by an oath of allegianceto the crown proved divisive.

Ratification of the treaty narrowly squeaked through the Dail; but large parts of the Irish Republican Army wanted to fight on, either to secure better terms from the British or, less realistically, to realise the blue-sky dream of the Republic.

The result was a civil war in 1922-3 between the proand anti-treaty wings of Irish nationalism. Townshend draws particular attention to the role of the Neutral IRA, which claimed a membership of 20,000 men who had not been actively involved in the civil war.

Their appeals for peace were ignored, not least by the pro-treaty government: crushing internal resistance provided compelling proof of the new state`s effective sovereignty. Eventually, the civil war spluttered to a halt, without formal closure. As Townshend remarks, there were `no negotiations, no truce terms: the Republic simply melted back into the realms of the imagination` An appreciation of such ironies and unexpected disjunctions disturbs the smooth unreflective flow of traditional prejudice.

As Ireland, north and south, enters a decade of combustible centenaries, Townshend`s magnificent, unflinching history of the fight for independence holds out the prospect -however slim it might sometimes seem for truth and reconciliation.

By Colin Kidd  -By arrangement with the Guardian
http://epaper.dawn.com/DetailImage.php?StoryImage=22_12_2013_013_003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_War_of_Independence

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
آپ اور پاکستان : http://pakistan-posts.blogspot.com/2013/11/pakistan-basic-issues-need-immediate.html

You & Pakistan: http://peace-forum.blogspot.com/2013/11/pakistan-quagmire-basic-dialogue.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related:

Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv

Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75