As someone who lives in the West, I am troubled by the rise of Donald Trump in the United States and of far-right anti-immigrant movements across Europe primarily because, as a Muslim, I resent their Islamophobic politics. I am concerned about their attempts to scapegoat Muslims and stir fear and hysteria against a minority community. Yet I am also heartened by the fact that the law does not discriminate against Muslims, and that Muslims do technically have the same rights as those belonging to any other faith. This includes, for example, in the case of the United Kingdom, state funding for Islamic schools.

Think about that for a second. Muslims in the UK can get funding from the government to run an Islamic school. While there have been cases where some of these schools have found themselves at odds with the government regulator or been the targets of rather negative media attention, fundamentally, the eligibility for government funding remains intact. The rights of Muslims, thus, are not different from the rights of those belonging to any other faith. This does not mean that Muslims are never targeted unfairly or discriminated against but it does mean that the law is, by and large, fair.

Ironically, this is only possible in a society that acknowledges that religion must be separate from the business of the state. The state must protect all its citizens equally and this can only be done if it is not partisan to any community and does not declare itself to have an official faith. Muslims in the West routinely rely on this principle to enforce their rights.

What happens then to our sense of fair play when it comes to the rights of those who may not adhere to the majority faith in our own countries? The recent tirade against Ahmedis by the dubious Captain Safdar springs to mind. The very fact that the floor of the National Assembly could be used for such invective is mind-boggling. Nor is he alone in attempting to demonise this community. It has happened so many times before, by the likes of Sheikh Rashid, PPP’s Raja Pervaiz Ashraf, and most recently, PTI’s Ali Mohammed Khan.

To someone like me, viewing the situation from abroad, the frenzy such men try to whip up against Ahmadis is no different from how the Islamophobes target Muslims in the West, and scapegoat their problems on a minority community. The big difference is however that if, like Captain Safdar, a member of parliament in the UK spoke so derogatorily about a minority community, like Muslims in the UK, he would have been booed and hissed by the opposition and marginalised by the community at large.

Unfortunately, in Pakistan, the Ahmadi card is so potent that instead of putting Safdar in his place, the National Assembly was cowed down into unanimously, and without any discussion, restoring the Khatam-e-Nabuwwat laws. Captain Safdar alluded to Maudoodi’s vision, a man who opposed the very idea of Pakistan, and sadly those who prefer Jinnah’s vision were too afraid to speak up.

We, as a country, have become obsessed with declaring Ahmadis non-Muslims, it appears. But let me ask a few simple questions. How come none of Pakistan’s founding fathers and mothers felt the need to affirm Khatam-e-Nabuwwat in order to get passports or hold public office? Was Pakistan not a Muslim country in 1947 but suddenly became one in 1974? Was Jinnah, who actively courted the Ahmadi community in the quest for Pakistan and appointed an Ahmadi as Pakistan’s foreign minister, less of a man than Z A Bhutto, who capitulated to right-wing pressure and declared Ahmadis non-Muslims?

What did Pakistan accomplish with this declaration and subsequent amendments to our laws in 1984? Did the rest of us become better Muslims by declaring that Ahmadis are not Muslims at all? Wouldn’t it be better to leave such judgments of faith to Allah alone?

Published in The Express Tribune, October 20^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

The post Our pet obsession appeared first on The Express Tribune.

Source: Tribune News | Our pet obsession

“Jaja of Opobo? The stubborn king?” Obiora asked. “Defiant,” Ifeoma said. “He was a defiant king…when the British came, he refused to let them control all the trade. He did not sell his soul for a bit of gunpowder like the other kings did, so the British exiled him to the West Indies. He never returned to Opobo.” “That’s sad. Maybe he should not have been defiant,” Chima said.

“Being defiant can be a good thing sometimes,” Ofeoma said. (Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie in Purple Hibiscus)

The above extract points to the historical link of the political conduct of Western powers towards Third World nations and its peoples during the colonial era, and onwards to the post-Second World War era, to the end of the physical occupation of colonialism, and beyond.

The important point here is that whereas the world has politically changed over a period of the last several decades, the political behaviour of Western powers led by the United States has not, in pure substance, undergone the required and absolute change needed for an absolutely changed world. And having not understood this fundamental and seemingly generic condition of the West’s geopolitical behaviour, the Third World has, time and again, erred in not being able to conduct perceptive and discerning diplomacy with the West in general.

In this respect, Pakistan stands uniquely unprepared and repeatedly flawed in its foreign policy planning and diplomatic discourse with the US.

To gain some in-depth understanding of American foreign policy-making, let us start at the rudimentary factors. There are several constants and some variables in its operational fundamentals. The most important factor in the post-Second World War era is that America must stay the most dominant political, economic and military power in the world; the majority of Americans, irrespective of their political party affiliation, steadfastly adhere to this fundamental notion.

The second constant is that the US has for decades believed that it has the will and the military power to subdue any of its adversaries in a conflict situation — it should use this military edge over others at its discretion whenever it feels the need to do so.

The third fundamental element in the American foreign policy doctrine is the concept of national security. It is a broad-based notion that does not only deal with the military or physical threats to territorial safety. If an American multi-national corporation or a US business enterprise fails to get a preferred business deal in another country (especially a weak nation), the American political-military establishment also considers this to be a threat to its national security. Hence, operationally, the American foreign policy doctrine is a blanket cover to promote US business enterprises globally.

Coming back to US relations with Pakistan and the Afghan problem, a complete US military withdrawal from Afghanistan is daydreaming by Pakistan’s foreign policy managers or anyone else. The US is in Afghanistan to stay until they have established formidable control over Afghanistan’s trillion-dollar national resources and assets — notwithstanding Russian and Chinese diplomacy and skillful interventions to outmanoeuvre the US.

In the variables of the American foreign policy doctrine, the most important element is that of “style,” which undergoes slight changes from one administration to another. For example, President Obama continued to expand American military involvement worldwide in a quieter style, while rhetorically emphasising diplomacy as a tool of conflict-resolution.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, is blatantly vocal in advancing American military threats and is openly espousing the use of military force against North Korea, Afghanistan, and every other nation considered an adversary.

When Russian President Putin was interviewed by filmmaker Oliver Stone, he made the point about US policy in Afghanistan: “Presidents come and go, and even the parties in power change, but the main political direction does not change.” Remember that American intervention in Afghanistan started 38 years ago when on July 3^rd 1979, President Jimmy Carter signed the first directive in an operation meant to destabilise the Soviet-controlled government of Afghanistan.

The US will not compromise on its empire-building geopolitical goals come what may. That, in essence, is the core of the American foreign policy doctrine.

Historically, Pakistan’s political leadership and foreign policy establishment has never been fully cognisant of the US modus operandi. Hence, Pakistan’s responses to American strategic challenges have always been ad hoc. This is because the political leadership of the country has always failed in developing a strategic foreign policy doctrine to conduct diplomatic relations with the US.

Pakistan’s foreign policy bureaucracy is ill-trained and unquestionably serves the interests of their vested interest-based leadership under constant duress. The top foreign policy managers are appointed at the behest of the top political managers; they lack the expertise needed to deal with the superpower’s strategic paradigms. In reality, they are unable to articulate Pakistan’s national interests — and Pakistan’s political leadership has consistently behaved as subservient partners of the US policymakers. Time and again, Pakistani leadership has given in when they should have fought for national interests without the slightest compromise.

For the nation’s sake, the fundamental nature of the US-Pakistan relationship must undergo a truly inherent transformation. But this will not happen until Pakistan’s political managers at the top become diplomatically confident and determined nationalists.

Pakistan needs a revolutionary attitudinal change to constructively deal with the superpower’s dogmatic ideologues. Nothing else will work. Here the idea is not to promote a confrontational discourse — in fact, instead, a knowledgeable and enlightened realism on which the modern-day diplomatic science and its application is based: know your adversary and deal with it shrewdly and wisely.

Pakistan has to put its act together in its foreign policy strategic posture — and fast. The geo-political situation in its region is dangerously volatile. Afghanistan is in turmoil. Trump is pushing for a greater role for India in a fresh initiative of US-India-Afghan nexus. Chinese-Russian counter-diplomacy is to be understood and exploited with skillful expertise. The task is momentously difficult, but it can be accomplished with a tactical and strategic approach.

What is in Pakistan’s favour is that peace in Afghanistan is impossible without Pakistan. Pakistan is to play a pivotal role in the resolution of the 16-year Afghan-US conflict. Pakistan has a golden opportunity; it needs to manoeuvre and profit from this situation.

First of all, we need to tell Trump that a military solution to the Afghan quagmire is out of the question; the US must withdraw all military personnel from Afghanistan. Immediately, diplomatic efforts must be directed towards reconciliation of all Afghan political factions, including the Taliban, to form a unity government to take up national reconstruction tasks. The US has to be told that Pakistan will have a leading independent role in this process of Afghan national reconciliation.

Second, Pakistan needs to redefine the terms of engagement with Trump’s America. Pakistan’s foreign policy managers should tell the American president in no ambiguous terms that from now on, Pakistan will no longer place a premium on the military or economic power of the US, nor will its relations be based on traditional aid. Future Pak-US relations will be exclusively based on relationships, partnerships, pragmatism and a deep, flexible and appropriate understanding of the foreign context of each other with specific emphasis on Pakistan’s national interests.

It would be advisable to Pakistan’s foreign policy top managers to start living in a new age of “national defiance” consistent with the needs of a changing geo-political order.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 20^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

The post The dynamics of Pak-US foreign policy failures appeared first on The Express Tribune.

Source: Tribune News | The dynamics of Pak-US foreign policy failures

Now that the federal cabinet has agreed to carry out the delimitation of constituencies on the basis of the provisional census data, the numbers game in parliament has suddenly become the new focal point of discussion. Lawmakers from the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) do not appear to favour any increase in the number of general seats in the National Assembly — one of the options open to members of the lower house — from 272 to 300. Most of them question the utility of such a move in view of political and economic uncertainty in the country. Those in favour of apportioning more general seats appear to stand on firmer ground because the provisional census data demands a demographic dividend — which should ultimately accrue to parliament. Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has wisely given cabinet members more time to settle the issue.

Should the cabinet back the proposal to increase parliamentary seats, PML-N lawmakers would first have to draw up a constitutional amendment and achieve consensus on it after consulting opposition groups on the efficacy of the move.

The last increase in NA seats came almost a decade and a half ago before the 2002 elections were called by military ruler General Pervez Musharraf. The move was preceded by the passage of a constitutional amendment which was endorsed by parliament as the 17^th Constitutional Amendment. Since then, the population has increased tremendously.

There are legislative hurdles to clear first. Parliament will have to enact a piece of legislation empowering the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to carry out the delimitation of constituencies on the basis of the latest census results. Since the term of the present government is expected to end on May 31, there is little time to conduct a fresh delimitation of constituencies — given that the final results of the census will only be available in April 2018. By allowing the ECP to use provisional census statistics the government has temporarily resolved the issue of complaints about the census results, mainly from Sindh. This may, however, leave one too many issues on the back burner.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 20^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

The post The tricky issue of delimitation appeared first on The Express Tribune.

Source: Tribune News | The tricky issue of delimitation

The US administration took exactly a week to respond to the landmark agreement under which a Palestinian unity government has been proposed. The pact was designed to end the decade-long rift between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s party and Hamas. UN officials have described it as a significant deal that could lead to addressing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. However, Jason Greenblatt, a special aide to the US president, laid out his own preconditions before Hamas and the Palestinian government. The principal condition, spelled out by Greenblatt, is that the unity government must recognise the state of Israel and disarm Hamas. Though the group has been quick to reject the US proposal as “blatant interference” in Palestinian affairs it has not signalled whether it intends to comply with this or any other US demand.

The US objections revolve around the idea of non-violence and are roughly in line with principles set out earlier by the Middle East peace quartet — the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. Under the reconciliation pact, Hamas has agreed to hand over power to Mahmoud Abbas’s party in Gaza. But on Thursday Greenblatt warned that if Hamas plays any role in the Palestinian government, it must be ready to disarm as well as to recognise Israel. The PLO officially recognises Israel but Hamas does not.

Unsurprisingly, the US comments closely mirror the Israeli response to the Palestinian agreement.

The Palestinian Authority is expected to take full control of the Gaza Strip by December 1. This is not the first time that an attempt has been made to forge a unity government. In 2014, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas agreed to form a government of technocrats but it did not last long and collapsed. One hopes the latest agreement holds and the Palestinian rivals can profit from peace.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 20^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

The post Spanner in the works appeared first on The Express Tribune.

Source: Tribune News | Spanner in the works

A recent report in The New York Times astutely highlights core aspects of Pakistan’s education crisis that have been sidelined as a result of the hype created by private and public entities, domestic and foreign, over the lack of funding in the sector. As images of young Malala Yousafzai at Oxford University spring up on social media and we reflect on how her life transformed from being a naïve girl in a backward province subject to primitive Taliban rule to attending a top institution ready to broaden her horizons, we must not forget the millions of children who are where she once was, trying to make something of themselves in an education system that does not facilitate them.

It is an extremely sorry state of affairs that 23 million children and their parents have given up on this country’s education system. A significant portion of the population will have limited literacy and numeracy skills heading into the future. These are the people in whose hands we will entrust the future of this country and the outlook appears bleak.

The attention that has been paid to the education sector in the way of increasing budgets and checks on teacher attendance and ghost schools is hardly praiseworthy. Being a government department, we know the additional funding was usurped by unethical teachers who allegedly make students do personal chores instead of learning. There is no end to this trend in sight and the solution cannot depend on the private education sector, for that has its own problems of ethics and charging exorbitant fees, with teachers who carelessly teach a few lessons, then require students to attend private after-school tutoring sessions for additional fees. Emphasis needs to return on relaunching the public education system. Considering the sheer desperation of the situation, it would be worthwhile to hire expert help to revamp the system and an initial goal should be to stop the glorification of English and teach in native tongues to deliver basic concepts across subjects.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 20^th, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

The post Failed education system appeared first on The Express Tribune.

Source: Tribune News | Failed education system