Memogate’s Mansoor Ijaz arranged a meeting of Yasin Malik with RAW, Iftikhar Gilani

Memogate’s Mansoor Ijaz was once an NDA guest, Iftikhar Gilani

The Pakistani-American businessman played a key role in facilitating talks between Pakistan and India over the Kashmir dispute

Iftikhar Gilani

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ws211111Pakistan.asp

Soon after lush green meadows started reappearing from beneath the melting snow, the Indian Army and the paramilitary forces had begun relentless search operations and a crackdown in north Kashmir’s Kupwara district in the spring of 2000.

Reason—the military intelligence (MI) sleuths from across the LoC had informed that Abdul Majeed Dar, chief operational commander of the only formidable Kashmiiri militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) was missing from its headquarters in Muzaffarabad. According to intelligence inputs gathered by the MI and some other agencies, Dar was last seen travelling towards a border village to sneak into Indian territory. The air was already thick with rumours about his movements and meetings with the top brass of HM.

Little did they know that external intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) had a major scoop up its sleeve. In a successful operation, they had airlifted Dar to Srinagar via Karachi, Dubai and Delhi in May 2000, to enable him to announce a unilateral ceasefire. And the man, who negotiated and mediated the short-lived truce, was believed to be Mansoor Ijaz, a Pakistani American businessman, now at the centre of controversy, nicknamed ‘Memogate’, that is taking a toll on the civilian government of Pakistan President Asif Zardari in Islamabad.

Later, Ijaz was also involved in brokering a Kashmir solution between India and Pakistan in 2000 and 2001, as an unofficial interlocutor, it was claimed, for then United States President Bill Clinton.

Though India opposes any third party mediation on Kashmir, the then National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee accorded Ijaz a status that befits only high-profile emissaries and, at least, on two occasions he visited Delhi on special “out-of-passport” visa, with full secrecy of his identity and itinerary. Ijaz made half a dozen trips to India and Pakistan at that time to arbitrate the Kashmir dispute.

In an interaction with the media at a hotel in the outskirts of Delhi, he denied acting on behalf of the US government but claimed that he was drawn to the Kashmir problem because “oppressed people have no capacity to speak for themselves and stop violations that occur against them in the name of religion or politics or money.”

Ijaz, a nuclear physicist and a New York-based investment banker as also a member of the influential US Think Tank Council on Foreign Relations, had given contours of his efforts in an interview to Pakistani daily The News International on 25 December, 2001, seven months before the Agra summit between Vajpayee and President Musharraf Pervez failed, dashing the initiatives he had taken. He described the HM ceasefire as “a momentous event in the tumultuous history of the Kashmir valley,” which opened a door to search for an earnest resolution of the conflict.

Recalling his visit to Delhi, Ijaz heaped praise on Chandar D Sahay, then point-man on Kashmir in the RAW, (he later became its chief). Sahay, he believed, was the key man who made India’s hawks understand that peace in Kashmir meant giving the Kashmiris a stake—economic, moral, emotional— in the success of their choice to remain with India or become a semi-autonomous region.

“In my hotel suite in New Delhi in November 2000, I brought Sahay and a prominent Kashmiri activist, Yasin Malik, together after nearly a year of painstaking negotiations following the military coup in Pakistan,” he claimed. Maintaining that Malik had taken unprecedented risks in dealing with Sahay secretly, Ijaz claimed having persuaded even the toughest Kashmiri loyalist, Syed Geelani, to not oppose progress towards permanent peace.

Ijaz revealed that Khalid Khawaja, a former ISI official, who had piloted Osama bin Laden’s aircraft in Afghanistan during the Afghan resistance, had also taken unprecedented risks in bringing him in contact with Syed Salahuddin, the chief of HM and also allowed him to hand-carry his written messages back to President Clinton at the time. Khawaja was murdered by Taliban militants in April 2010.

In his interview with The News International, Ijaz had claimed: “The process of empowering both civilian and militant Kashmiri voices remains the central objective of our efforts at present because a strong Kashmir provides Pakistan and India with face-saving exit strategies.”

Ijaz also spoke of a mid-January 2001 meeting of political and militant leaders in Islamabad to set a common agenda for talks with New Delhi and take General Musharraf into confidence about the merits and rationale for the talks. “There will also be a clear effort made to deal with the so-called mercenary problem whether or not to allow non-indigenous Pakistani-backed insurgents a seat at the peace table. Once the internal agenda is agreed upon and the various Kashmiri parties are united on a message and a delegation, Indo-Kashmiri dialogue can begin,” said he.

Ijaz also referred to ground ceasefire modalities and a possible Musharraf-Vajpayee summit and said in that interview that “the Kashmiris will be free to suggest Pakistan’s inclusion either partially or wholly in political dialogue aimed at a permanent solution. Delhi understands this as a condition for beginning talks with the Kashmiris.”

Stressing that “Pakistan is a party to the (Kashmir) dispute, Ijaz had gone on to affirm: “But General Musharraf is rapidly, flexibly and correctly adapting the Pakistani position to the reality that Islamabad’s pursuit of Jihad-based resistance in Kashmir has not worked.

As head of state rather than just head of the army, his responsibility to the larger interests of the Pakistani people go far beyond the narrow pursuit of an ideological war that is decimating an innocent population while deeply scarring the image and vitality of Pakistan as a nation.

“That is why General Musharraf is wisely preparing the people of Pakistan for a policy of maximum flexibility in its negotiating stance. By doing so, he accommodates growing Kashmiri willpower to test India’s sincerity for peace and resolution while maintaining a firm bottom line that protects Pakistan’s security interests.”

Ijaz’s ‘Mission Kashmir’ did not take toll on the Vajpayee government for allowing a mediator against India’s declared policy as he always maintained a low profile unlike an article he wrote for a British paper last month to strengthen President Zardari’s stance, which boomeranged. He narrated how he felt threatened from encroachments by Pakistani Army chief General Ashfaq Kayani.

If he is to be believed then Zardari had sought him out, after the US Navy Seal raid to extract Osama bin Laden from Abbottabad in May, to convey its insecurity to Admiral Mike Mullen, the then Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff and avowed “friend” of General Kayani to fend off a possible coup. Ijaz reportedly drafted and dispatched a secret “memo” portraying the Pakistani military as being part of the problem rather than the solution to America’s dilemma in Afghanistan.

Once the “memogate” became public, Ijaz tried to prove his credibility by revealing all, even though he may no longer be sought by anyone any longer as a credible and confidential interlocutor. It is because of his reveal-all mess that the Pakistan military has turned its guns on Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington. Running afoul of Musharraf in 2002 for his critical newspaper columns in Urdu and English, Haqqani had fled to the US where he wrote his seminal book on the unholy historical nexus between the mosque and military in Pakistan. Since he was appointed ambassador to Washington in 2008, the Pakistan military has since embarked upon a campaign to defame him, he reasoned.

Iftikhar Gilani is a Special Correspondent with Tehelka.com.
iftikhar@tehelka.com

US state department removes India-Pakistan maps

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15831768

Continue reading the main story

Related Stories

• China envoy in India map outburst
• Global significance of India-China ties
• Map protest at Wikipedia forum

The US state department says it has removed what it called "inaccurate" maps of India and Pakistan from its website.

The maps failed to show the divided territory of Kashmir as a disputed region, Indian media reports say.

India and Pakistan have fought two wars over Kashmir and both countries claim the region in its entirety.

Most maps depict Kashmir as a disputed region provisionally split into areas under Indian and Pakistani control.

"We have taken the map [of India] off the website. It did contain some inaccuracies which were associated with the boundaries of some geographic features," state department spokesperson Victoria Nuland told reporters on Monday.

"We will put up the new map when we acquire one that we are confident is accurate," she said.

Highly sensitive

The move comes after Delhi reportedly raised objections with the US that the India map ignored India's claim on Kashmir while the corresponding map of Pakistan showed Pakistani-controlled Kashmir as part of Pakistan without acknowledging its disputed status, according to Indian media reports.

The disputed border between India and China in the Aksai Chin region in the north, however, did reportedly acknowledge an Indian claim.

"The government has consistently rejected incorrect depiction of India's borders on maps used by the US government," the Indian ministry of external affairs said.

Earlier in November, China's ambassador to India became involved in a heated exchange with an Indian journalist at a business function over a map that showed parts of India within China's border.

The map showed the state of Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh in China and a disputed part of Kashmir as Pakistani territory.

Correspondents say the depiction of the disputed borders between India, Pakistan and China are highly sensitive and potentially incendiary issues in the region.

Extremism, Pakistan Foreign policy and international response Dr Shabir Choudhry

Extremism, Pakistan Foreign policy and international response

Dr Shabir Choudhry 22 November 2011

I know many Pakistanis will not like this, but the fact is that they are fighting a monster which their government and secret agencies worked hard to create; and sad aspect of this fight is that despite more than 35 thousand deaths and loss of billions in business and property, some sections of the Pakistani society continue to support the monster which is destroying them and threatening very foundations of the Pakistan State.

True, extremism is not confined to Pakistan, but where else would you find so much support for it among different state organs, officials and groups representing different sections of the society. Sad thing is that for many years it was perceived as a state policy to nourish those groups and individuals who promoted violence, terrorism and extremist views in name of religion; and anyone who oppose this or even question the rationale of this policy is considered as unpatriotic and subject to severe punishment.

What pains us more is that despite so much suffering and partnership in war on terrorism, one can see the continuation of that policy in different forms and shapes. And instead of taking concrete actions to put things right, policy appears to be still denials and allegations against those who point fingers at this disastrous policy, by calling them anti Pakistan and anti Islam etc.

A columnist of BBC Urdu, Aamer Ahmed Khan in his investigative report said, in last forty years twenty five extremist groups emerged in Pakistan; and most of them had some kind of official patronage. Up till 1971, extremist groups which had official support had nationalistic approach, as they were there to support a fight against India; but after defeat in a war against India in 1971 all this changed. Pakistani establishment created religious groups who would, as none state actors fight Pakistan’s wars and advance Pakistani policies, as it happened in Jammu and Kashmir, India and Afghanistan.

Religious extremism and intolerance has increased in Pakistan; and through these extremist groups have influenced societies in India, Jammu and Kashmir and Afghanistan. These fanatics and extremists groups have become so strong that, at times, they even show their arrogance to those who created them and despite all the pressure still support them. Result of this policy is that forces which promote liberal and democratic ideals are retreating, as they don’t want to confront a trigger happy religious fanatic, who like Mumtaz Qadari, can kill anyone in hope of getting Heaven and many women of Haven as a reward.

Mumtaz Qadari killed Governor of Punjab, a man he was supposed to protect even at the cost of his life, but despite this premeditated murder which he committed by breaching his oath and by using a gun which was given to him to protect the Governor. He is hailed as a hero for killing the Governor in some sections of the Pakistani society. What surprised many was that Mumtaz Qadari was not a hero of illiterate or religious fanatics, among his ‘fans’ are lawyers who are supposed to uphold rule of law and promote equality and justice.

Arshad Mahmood, a columnist and a writer, in his article published in Viewpoint (http://www.viewpointonline.net/peace-as-last-priority.html) asserted:

‘Our state has policy always focused on “keeping the Kashmir issue alive and to see India bleeding.” As we kept playing the dirty politics to the disadvantage of the Kashmiris, Kashmir was not liberated nor will it ever be in this fashion. However, the dirty game transformed Pakistan’s security establishment into the most powerful and the most prosperous institution of the country. Pakistan kept bleeding as a result of thoughtless military adventurism against India. The economy, the society and all dreams of a progressive state died down and institutions devastated. Preparing militarily and providing equipment to religious fanatics to be used against neighbouring countries proved suicidal. During the past 30 years, our state remained an active partner in the destruction of Afghanistan, after obtaining dollars from the US. Our establishment got finances to create Taliban and is now asking for money to destroy them. Presently we are viewed as mercenaries in the whole world. Our state is still caught in the rigmarole of good and bad Taliban…..’

‘On the other hand the militants and their supporters have become so powerful that the state has surrendered before them. All sects have taken up arms against each other and all minorities are living in fear, while the state is but a silent spectator and the political leadership follows a policy of opportunism. The government is only interested in affairs of the state on a daily basis. It does not have the will and the capacity to take critical decisions, while the deep state obstructs them to function effectively.’

This policy, despite criticism and opposition from various countries continued; and situation is getting worse with international patience running out. America, which was also a partner in creating such extremist groups in fight against Communism find itself at the receiving end now; and accuse Pakistan for its failures in Afghanistan. Situation in Afghanistan is getting from bad to worse for the Americans and the NATO; and they cannot see any honourable way out of this quagmire.

Americans cannot have the desired outcome without the help and support of Pakistan; however, both countries despite being partners in the war against terrorism have divergent views and interests on the final outcome of the conflict in Afghanistan. Pakistan is Afghanistan’s neighbour and both countries, despite love and hate relationship have to live in the same region. America is thousands of miles away from this region, but as the saying goes – America is a neighbour of every country because of its international role and ambitions to control and dominate policies of other countries.

Tension, or more precisely low intensity war between Pakistani establishment and the American security agencies is increasing; and some kind of showdown is not ruled out in near future. Apart from other serious areas of conflict, there is apparently serious dispute over role and future of Haqqani network. America wants Pakistan army to take tough action against the Haqqani network, as they did against other militant groups in Swat and some parts of FATA. The Haqqani network is among the best, and is very effective against the NATO and the Americans in Afghanistan; and they have never harmed interest of Pakistan.

Many experts believe that among others, the Haqqani network is very valuable strategic asset of the Pakistan army, which has never harmed interest of Pakistan; and that is why despite so much pressure from the Americans the Pakistan army is not prepared to take any action against them. But NATO and America are losing patience, as they continually suffer and losing lives in Afghanistan; and some believe these military actions could not have been achieved without some logistic support of Pakistani secret agencies.

The NATO, Americans and others who oppose Pakistani sponsored interference in Afghanistan and oppose Talibanisation of the society find it difficult to understand why Pakistan army cannot take any military action against Haqqani network when they are conducting military operations against their own people in Balochistan. According to the interior ministry’s Crisis Management Cell, Pakistan army has spent Rs 900 million in military operations to put an end to rising violence in Balochistan.

English ‘Daily Times’ of Pakistan in its editorial ‘Baloch blood on our hands’ on 21 Nov 11, wrote: ‘This is astonishing considering that the money is being spent on the same forces that the Baloch people hold responsible for their miseries. A military operation is going on in the province and the ‘kill and dump’ policy being pursued by the military and its intelligence agencies is no secret. … Killing innocent Baloch whose only fault is to ask for their basic and just rights is criminal. Thousands of Baloch are missing. Tortured and bullet-riddled bodies of Baloch missing persons are found every other day in the province. Under these circumstances, pursuing a repressive policy is not just the height of injustice but also a threat to the country’s unity. The military made the same mistake in East Pakistan. Instead of learning from past mistakes, our military keeps making new and more senseless mistakes.’

Situation is getting from bad to worse in all respects – relationship with America, control of militant groups, internal stability, relationship with Afghanistan and economic stability; and some American commentators and politicians are openly advocating tough policy against Pakistan. Those who are at the helm of affairs in Pakistan need to realise seriousness of threats Pakistan is facing and take immediate actions to put things right. Bruce Riedel, a former CIA employee and Advisor to President Obama on South Asia, wrote:

‘Ironically, many of its terror groups have long – standing ties with the Pakistan army and its intelligence services, making Pakistan both patron and a victim of the Frankenstein it helped to create, which may eventually destroy it.’

Writer is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs.Email:drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

View: www.drshabirchoudhry.blogspot.com www.k4kashmir.com

Indian Muslims feel secure under secularism, by Farooq Suleria

Indian Muslims feel secure under secularism, by Farooq Suleria

http://www.viewpointonline.net/indian-muslims-feel-secure-under-secularism.html

Leaders like General Musharraf, patronized the Taliban as many did before him (Benazir Bhutto for one) without bothering to analyse the consequences it would have for secular thought and the nation

“Secularism is not about lifestyle, it is about ideology and thought. Some of the most liberal souls in South Asia have practiced the worst kind of fundamentalist politics, using their positions to sow the seeds of conservative thought,” says Seema Mustafa. A leading Indian journalist, peace activist and public intellectual, Seema Mustafa also contributes for Viewpoint. In an interview, she discusses different aspects of secularism in the Muslim world. Read on:

Why has secularism not taken root in the Muslim world? If Islam and secularism are incompatible?

Islam and secularism are totally compatible, as is any religion practiced in its true sense. Syria, Libya and Iraq earlier did try to develop as secular states keeping religion out of politics. Last month I was in Syria and in a long conversation, the Grand Mufti in Damascus made it very clear that there was no room for religion in politics, that organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood were unacceptable so long as they insisted on mixing the two, and that the secular character of the Syrian state would not be compromised.

I strongly believe that secularism has not taken root in parts of the Muslim world—I hesitate to club all countries together----because it is always easier for rulers, Dynastic or otherwise, to use religion to consolidate nations. The powerful appeal and threat that defines the use of religion in politics is used to mesmerize and subdue the populace in a manner that eventually becomes autocratic, repressive and brutal. Unfortunately even the leaders professing secularism in the Arab countries have not remained immune from autocratic rule, and have used force to suppress opinion and dissent.

In Turkey, Tunis, and Bangladesh where secularism was granted a constitutional status, we have seen the growth of Islamists of various hue. In Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen where left captured power, hardcore radical Islamist forces have come to dominate the polity. What explains these secularist failures?

I am not going into specifics as there are details peculiar to each of these countries you have mentioned. But speaking generally, secularism has to absorb, modify, interact, convince. And this has to be done through persuasion and not force. Unfortunately in some countries force has been used instead of persuasion and that always allows fundamentalists to gain ground.

Also, Opposition in the Muslim countries to largely secular regimes has used religion to consolidate its support base, as it is easier (as we have seen in South Asia) to mobilize on grounds of religion than on the basis of a concrete, comprehensive alternative agenda. This also suits the agenda of countries like Saudi Arabia, proxies at best for US hegemony.

Many Muslim leaders considered secular were in fact repressive dictators. Can we have secularism and tyranny simultaneously? Isn’t it the case that secularism is and should be a by-product of democratic revolutions?

Yes of course. Secularism ideally should be a by-product of democratic revolutions but then this world is far from ideal. In my view it is great to see many leaders adopt the secular mantle, despite the dissent within. Theirs has not been an easy path to follow and yet they did keep fundamentalism at bay while in power. Unfortunately unbridled power and dynastic rule creates repression, that has not been effectively challenged in the region. It must be pointed that often governments in so-called democratic and secular nations have been repressive and guilty of human rights violations. And if the US and Nato had not intervened the secular states would have found it easier, in the long term, to get rid of dictators than the repressive, religious regimes.

Secularists in Pakistan keep painting Jinnah as a secular leader mere because he did not dine, wine and dress like conservatives. Even Gen. Musharraf was ‘hailed’ in certain liberal discourses as secularist owing to his ‘liberal’ ways of life. Can somebody be a secular while practicing confessional politics like Jinnah or Musharraf who was not conservative in his social outlook but patronizing Taliban, and was a dictator?

Secularism is not about lifestyle, it is about ideology and thought. Some of the most liberal souls in South Asia have practiced the worst kind of fundamentalist politics, using their positions to sow the seeds of conservative thought. Instead of striking out with an aggressively secular agenda they find it easier to compromise with the extremists in their land, encouraging and in many cases even nurturing them. Leaders like General Musharraf, patronized the Taliban as many did before him (Benazir Bhutto for one) without bothering to analyse the consequences it would have for secular thought and the nation.

In India, Islamist forces find refuge in secularism. But in Pakistan, Islamists have issued fatwas against secularism. Similarly, large sections of diasporic Muslims living with rights guaranteed by secularist polity, want their respective countries to go Islamic. What explains this conflicting attitude?

Ignorance, and an unquestioning belief that religion can be the balm for all ills. This is because nations have not developed, and the people have been led to believe by the political class that religion can answer all the problems of non-governance. In India the Muslims are in a minority and feel secure with the secular doctrine and Constitution that gives them complete protection. In Pakistan for instance the Muslims are in an overwhelming majority and instead of using secularism to move forward, often give in to the appeal of religiosity.

What should be done to foreground the secularist ideas in the Muslim world and occlude the hegemony of anti-secularist discourses?

Difficult question as a great deal has to be done but there is no uniform solution. What holds good for Pakistan is certainly not the way to go in Yemen, or Syria or any other country for that matter. There is a certain uniqueness that has to be respected along with a general resolve that secularism is the only way for true justice and peace.

Farooq Sulehria is working with Stockholm-based Weekly Internationalen (www.internationalen.se). Before joining Internationalen, he worked for one year,2006-07 at daily The News, Rawalpindi. Also, in Pakistan, he has worked with Lahore-based dailies, The Nation, The Frontier Post and Pakistan. He has MA in Mass Communication from Punjab University, Lahore. He also contributes for Znet and various left publications in Europe and Australia.

Deliberately distorting secularism, by Arshad Mahmood

Deliberately distorting secularism, by Arshad Mahmood

http://www.viewpointonline.net/distorting-secularism.html

In the “Qaumi English Urdu Dictionary” published by “The National Language Authority” a state-run institution, the term “secularism” has been translated as “Ladeeniat.”

It appears quite intriguing as to why the term ‘secularism’ was translated as “Ladeeniat” after the creation of Pakistan and by whom. Perhaps those who invented the Urdu equivalent wanted to transform Pakistan into an Islamist/Jihadist state. Dominating sections of Urdu-speaking Mohajirs were the forerunners of this intellectual feat. They considered themselves educated vis-à-vis the original inhabitants of the lands which constituted Pakistan. For them Punjabis, Bengalis, Sindhis, Balochs and Pakhtoons were all ill-mannered, less educated and least patriotic. They came to Pakistan following the footsteps of Liaqat Ali Khan as if they had conquered Pakistan.

To take charge of the administration and get hold of the resources, it was imperative to delink the locals’ natural affinity with the soil to which they belonged. Hence abstract and artificial crutches were invented to install national unity. One language and one religion were declared as the foundations of national cohesion. To achieve this end, the so-called educated Mohajir class, feudal lords and civil/military bureaucracy joined hands.

In theory and in practice it was not possible to convert Pakistan into an Islamist state until the term secularism was metamorphosed with repulsive connotations. In the “Qaumi English Urdu Dictionary” published by “The National Language Authority” a state-run institution, the term “secularism” has been translated as “Ladeeninat.”On the basis of such distortions, rampant in our texts, the Urdu press has associated the term “Secularism” with being anti-religious and atheistic. Despite such a glaring intellectual dishonesty of far-reaching consequences the editor of the book Dr. Jamil Jalibi, himself a Mohajir, wrote in its preface: “This National Urdu-English dictionary of ours fulfills all requirements of the present age and encompasses meanings of words both ancient and most modern.”

This is a stark example of “linguistic deceit” perpetrated by our scholars of which we as a nation have been a victim. The act of distorting the meaningof the term triumphed and its fallout proliferated.

To be honest, secularism is neither the opposition nor the negation of religion. On the contrary it acknowledges every human beings’ right to adhere to his or her religious belief. It also promotes mutual respect for all faith-based systems. In simple words it says, let me practice what my faith says and feel free to practice what your faith demands. And let us not question each other’s faith. Consequently in matters of state and society, faith systems cannot be held controversial. Whose faith is right and who is in the wrong cannot be decided objectively. The only impact of such a debate is friction and violence in the society. Civilized cultures,therefore, have found a way out. “Respect each other’s faith” as it is purely a personal matter and has nothing to do with logic and reasoning. We generally hold on to our beliefs first and then invent arguments in support thereof. This is precisely the reason why nobody wins in religious debates. So much blood has been shed in human history in the name of religion, yet people hold on to their beliefs. However, people do embrace other religions due to personal or historical reasons; particularly when the “invaded” convert to the faith exercised by the invaders. In some cases conversions are also forced upon in our holy land particularly in Sindh province, by hook or by crook.

As humans matured intellectually and adopted scientific means to achieve economic self-sufficiency, a new social contract and a different value system came into being with the core value of “live and let live.” The new value system also regarded religion and faith as one’s personal matter and nobody was granted the right to force anybody or target someone else’s faith. It also advocated that matters of this world be handled rationally in accordance with the spirit of the times. Jingoism and militancy in the name of religion was considered an uncivilized and inhuman act causing nothing but large scale bloodshed.

And if we believe that Muslims in a majority maybe allowed exercising the right to target minorities, the same practice should also be granted to all those nations where Muslims are in a minority. Nonetheless the authoritarian Muslims stick to a strange logic. They demand every conceivable right for themselves but are never prepared to sanction the same privileges to followers of other religions. This is sheer fascism.

The fact remains that in today’s civilized world the Muslims cannot have the cake and eat it too, especially when they are completely dependent on the “non-believers.” Today’s world is a global village where Muslims are in a minority while followers of other religions constitute the majority, andany one-sided act of violence against the technologically superior nations is nothing but madness.

It is unfortunate that matters of faith can only be decided through application of violence and armed conflict. They have nothing to do with logic and reasoning. A war fought for the sake of one’s faith has no substance and leads to nothing but mutual death and destruction. The common man must understand that all previous wars in history,ironically,were fought for economic and political dominance in the name of faith.

By rejecting secularism the majority of Muslims have become part of an unending conflict with the West. Pakistan, known to be a country where Muslims constitute more than 95% of the population is now-a-days desperately vying for internal peace. Most sects and sub-sects are engaged in a tug of war firmly holding thebelief that their faith is the true faith.

The aim of life is to live and not to kill and get killed. Secularism ensures mutual coexistence, peace and a civilized way of life. The earlier the Muslims learn this basic principle the better it is for them and their future generations.

Arshad Mahmood is a columnist,freelance writer and a social activist.

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 11 November 2011

Islam teaches peace, tolerance and coexistence; but it is unfortunate that our religion is perceived as violent and intolerant. We Muslims are mainly responsible for this false perception. Followers of other religions do not read what is written in Qur’an and Hadees; they see what we Muslims do and practise and that is how they create negative images of Islam.

It is unfortunate that most of negative things in society – lies, deception, fraud, fake medicines, drugs, violence, terrorism, extremism, kidnapping, rapes, forced marriages, sham marriages, bad manners – in short all kinds of evils are directly or indirectly associated with Muslims. This is not to suggest that only Muslims commit these crimes, however, most of these evils are found in Muslim societies; and in some European countries crime rate among Muslims is on rise, especially in Muslims from South Asia.

On the last Eid, a few days ago, I went to a local grocery store which is owned and run by a Hindu family. This family is very friendly, well behaved and respect us all. As soon as I walked in, a young employee greeted me, “Uncle, Eid Mubark”. I said thank you with a smile and walked towards the counter. Owner of the store said, “Bahi Sahib, Eid mubark to you and your family”, and offered me some chocolates which he put in a tray and was offering to all his customers, and especially Muslims. I thanked him and took one chocolate.

He also congratulates me at the start of our holy month of Ramadan and on Eid that follows the fasting month. Like us Muslims, Hindus also celebrate their religious festivals; but according to teaching of some ‘Muslim scholars’ we Muslims must not say ‘happy Divali’ to Hindus, as it is a sin. Their teaching further states that we Muslims cannot say ‘Happy Christmas’ to Christians and share happiness with non Muslims on their religious days.

Rationale of this philosophy, according to this school of thought is that if I say happy Divali to a Hindu, it means I have accepted religious significance of this religious day. I don’t agree with this interpretation. When a Hindu says happy Eid mubark to me or another Muslim he is not accepting that there is one Allah and Prophet Mohammed PBUH is the last Messenger. Similarly when I say happy Divali to a Hindu neighbour I DO NOT accept Hindu religion or acknowledge religious significance of Divali, which according to Hindu religion is a celebration of happiness.

Because of this distorted interpretation of Islam and its influence, I sincerely and deeliberately avoid sharing happiness with non Muslims on their religious days, even though I feel embarrassed when they very passionately wish me Eid Mubark and offer me sweets on my religious day. I avoid meeting my Hindu and Sikh neighbours on day of their festivals that I don’t have to wish them happiness and become a ‘sinner’. However, a day after their festival I ask them if they enjoyed their festival, as to me that is not as same as wishing them happiness and not a sin.

Deep inside I feel this behaviour and preaching is wrong, as it depicts us Muslims as unsocial and people with bad manners. Furthermore, it encourages segregation and alienation of Muslims from the rest of human beings living in same town and who are part of the same society. Messenger of Allah, on the other hand said: Best among you are those with best manners. And has taught us to respect followers of other religions and promote peace and harmony.

If a non Muslim wishes me happy Eid, he demonstrates his good manners and shares my happiness. As a Muslim and good human being, I should reciprocate this by demonstrating better manners; or at minimum, express same kind of manners. But by not wishing them happiness what am I demonstrating? Am I not saying that we Muslims are not social and do not appreciate norms of civil society? Are we not saying that we Muslims believe in segregation; and we are not equipped with skills to live in peace and harmony with people of other faiths? Are we not saying that our religion and culture is ‘vulnerable’ and could be influenced by other religions and as a result we promote segregation to protect our religion and our youths?

This attitude of ‘segregation’ generates misunderstandings and hatred; and Islam DOES NOT approve that. Islam promotes peace, tolerance and co existence; and strongly opposes division and divergence in society. In fact, it is clearly stated that creating conflicts and divisions in families and society is work of satan.

I acknowledge that I have not any research on this topic, which I normally do before writing on any controversial topic, hence my knowledge on this topic is not complete; and I am willing to learn and make appropriate changes to my views, if a learned person can enlighten me and others.

Writer is a leader of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

To view my other articles see visit: www.k4kashmir.com

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance? Dr Shabir Choudhry

Islam is a religion of peace, why Mullahs teach intolerance?

Dr Shabir Choudhry 11 November 2011

Islam teaches peace, tolerance and coexistence; but it is unfortunate that our religion is perceived as violent and intolerant. We Muslims are mainly responsible for this false perception. Followers of other religions do not read what is written in Qur’an and Hadees; they see what we Muslims do and practise and that is how they create negative images of Islam.

It is unfortunate that most of negative things in society – lies, deception, fraud, fake medicines, drugs, violence, terrorism, extremism, kidnapping, rapes, forced marriages, sham marriages, bad manners – in short all kinds of evils are directly or indirectly associated with Muslims. This is not to suggest that only Muslims commit these crimes, however, most of these evils are found in Muslim societies; and in some European countries crime rate in Muslims is on rise, especially in Muslims from South Asia.

On the last Eid, a few days ago, I went to a local grocery store which is owned and run by a Hindu family. This family is very friendly, well behaved and respect us all. As soon as I walked in, a young employee greeted me, “Uncle, Eid Mubark”. I said thank you with a smile and walked towards the counter. Owner of the store said, “Bahi Sahib, Eid mubark to you and your family”, and offered me some chocolates which he put in a tray and was offering to all his customers, and especially Muslims. I thanked him and took one chocolate.

He also congratulates me at the start of our holy month of Ramadan and on Eid that follows the fasting month. Like us Muslims, Hindus also celebrate their religious festivals; but according to teaching of some ‘Muslim scholars’ we Muslims must not say ‘happy Divali’ to Hindus, as it is a sin. Their teaching further states that we Muslims cannot say ‘Happy Christmas’ to Christians and share happiness with non Muslims on their religious days.

Rationale of this philosophy, according to this school of thought is that if I say happy Divali to a Hindu, it means I have accepted religious significance of this religious day. I don’t agree with this interpretation. When a Hindu says happy Eid mubark to me or another Muslim he is not accepting that there is one Allah and Prophet Mohammed PBUH is the last Messenger. Similarly when I say happy Divali to a Hindu neighbour I DO NOT accept Hindu religion or acknowledge religious significance of Divali, which according to Hindu religion is a celebration of happiness.

Because of this distorted interpretation of Islam and its influence, I sincerely and deeliberately avoid sharing happiness with non Muslims on their religious days, even though I feel embarrassed when they very passionately wish me Eid Mubark and offer me sweets on my religious day. I avoid meeting my Hindu and Sikh neighbours on day of their festivals that I don’t have to wish them happiness and become a ‘sinner’. However, a day after their festival I ask them if they enjoyed their festival, as to me that is not as same as wishing them happiness and not a sin.

Deep inside I feel this behaviour and preaching is wrong, as it depicts us Muslims as unsocial and people with bad manners. Furthermore, it encourages segregation and alienation of Muslims from the rest of human beings living in same town and who are part of the same society. Messenger of Allah, on the other hand said: Best among you are those with best manners. And has taught us to respect followers of other religions and promote peace and harmony.

If a non Muslim wishes me happy Eid, he demonstrates his good manners and shares my happiness. As a Muslim and good human being, I should reciprocate this by demonstrating better manners; or at minimum, express same kind of manners. But by not wishing them happiness what am I demonstrating? Am I not saying that we Muslims are not social and do not appreciate norms of civil society? Are we not saying that we Muslims believe in segregation; and we are not equipped with skills to live in peace and harmony with people of other faiths? Are we not saying that our religion and culture is ‘vulnerable’ and could be influenced by other religions and as a result we promote segregation to protect our religion and our youths?

This attitude of ‘segregation’ generates misunderstandings and hatred; and Islam DOES NOT approve that. Islam promotes peace, tolerance and co existence; and strongly opposes division and divergence in society. In fact, it is clearly stated that creating conflicts and divisions in families and society is work of satan.

I acknowledge that I have not any research on this topic, which I normally do before writing on any controversial topic, hence my knowledge on this topic is not complete; and I am willing to learn and make appropriate changes to my views, if a learned person can enlighten me and others.

Writer is a leader of Kashmir National Party, political analyst and author of many books and booklets. Also he is Director Institute of Kashmir Affairs. Email: drshabirchoudhry@gmail.com

To view my other articles see visit: www.k4kashmir.com