Showing posts with label War and Peace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War and Peace. Show all posts

Shikarpur's sardar-madressa nexus

By Manzoor Chandio

Published in Dawn, March 8, 2015 

Alexander Burnes, the 19th century Scottish traveller and explorer, had a fascinating impression of the Shikarpuri. He was in Kabul, where he met Shikarpuri bankers who offered to provide him with hundis payable in Bukhara (Uzbekistan), Astrakhan (Russia), Nijni-Novgorod (Russia) or St Macaire (France).
Burnes took up their offer on Bukhara, and as he writes, `to [hisj complete satisfaction.
Burnes didn`t know at the time, but Shikarpur`s ancient trade and commerce network connected more than just Shikarpur and Kabul; it was the preferred route for merchants travelling from South Asia to Central Asia and vice versa throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
Shikarpur still remains a link between Afghanistan and this part of the world, but for the wrong reasons. `The city is a known smuggling route between Afghanistan and Pakistan,` boomed Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan in the National Assembly. `Terrorists from Afghanistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa pass through Shikarpur to reach Karachi.
It emerged from the minister`s statement that the city`s ancient trade and commerce network has now been replaced by a terror network. Shikarpur that once exported a variety of goods to Central Asia now apparently imports terrorists from the region: per police claims, the January 30 blast in Shikarpur`s Imambargah Karbala Maula, which claimed the lives of over 60 people and injured over 80, was carried out by an Uzbek national. So far, four suicide bombers have blown themselves up in the district; most of them have been suspected to be Uzbeks from Central Asia.
But why would Uzbek militants head to Shikarpur, once the seat of secular and tolerant education? Din Mohammed Shaikh, former district coordinator for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and a resident of the city, argues that most of these `aliens` arrive in Shikarpur because of some connection with the city`s local madressas.
`We have been noticing the increasing number of aliens in the area, who come in contact mostly with local madressas and live inside them,` says Shaikh.
Geographically, the district of Shikarpur borders Balochistan on the west and is connected to southern Punjab through Kashmore in the north. Till the early 1980s, there were only three madressas in Shikarpur. Perhaps nobody really ever felt the need for madressa education either, as modern education upheld the legacy of peace and harmony that was lived and practiced by Bhittai, Shah Inayat Shaheed, Sachal Sarmast and Sami Chen Rai.
`With the collapse of modern education system during the1980s, the city saw the mushrooming of madressas, which not only offered admission to outsiders but also doubled up as musafirkhanas (rest houses) for outsiders to the area,` narrates Shaikh.
`Today, there are about 200 madressas in Shikarpur district imparting religious education only in Arabic, Of the 200 madressas, 74 are unregistered,` Shaikh says while quoting a survey carried out by an NGO.
`An estimated 10,000 students are enrolled at these madressas, some 3,000 of them belong to other provinces while those from Sindh belong to upper Sindh districts,` he continues. `Within three decades, madressas have grown from three to 200. In comparison, there are only 150 formal schools, four colleges and one university campus in Shikarpur city.
The angst is not without reason: going by the growth pattern of madressas in the district, the number of formal schools is widely expected to be further dwarfed by the number of seminaries in the near future. With the closure of hundreds of government schools and the problem of goosro (absentee) teachers, parents prefer sending their children to madressas in the hopes of `free` education, clothing and food.
Members of Sindhi civil society argue that this phenomenon is a reflection of a larger clash: between old institutions, such as the sardari system and madressas, and new institu-tions, such as the formal education system and the business community. Since Sindh`s sardars are reluctant to let go of their clout, they have found new allies in madressa maulvis.
`It looks like the government deliberately wants to revive old institutions by strengthening the medieval jirga justice system and madressa education,` says Javed Qazi, a civil society activist from Karachi who led a delegation to Shikarpur after the Imambargah Karbala Maula tragedy.
`What we are seeing is a new partnership being cultivated between the sardars of Shikarpur and the maulvis. The sardars` old partners used to be the Barelvi shrines, but due to the non-expansionist nature of Sindh`s shrines, this partnership could not match the power-grabbing greed of Sindhi sardars,` argues Qazi. `For that reason, now we see new alignments in Sindhi society, with sardars establishing ties with Wahabi madressas. Both the old institutions are promoting each others` interests in the garb of tribalism and religion.
The government is largely absent from running madressaoperations, but some 40 registered madressas are funded by the Sindh government from its Zakat fund. Government officials, locals claim, don`t bother checking up on the condition of the government-funded madressas or even the quality of education and syllabus being taught.
Most madressas are run by Deobandi parties: the number of Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI-F)-run madressas is estimated to be around 125 in Shikarpur while the Jamaat-i-Islami runs 25 madressas. There are four seminaries from the Shia school of thought. Some madressas are run by clerics of the Ahl-i-Sunnat and Ahl-i-Hadith schools of thoughts.
Almost all madressas have mosques inside their compounds but the biggest problem is that mosques have all been tagged with a particular school of thought. Because of such associations, a common man dare not go inside `the house of God` which is operated by a rival sect.
`As compared to other parts of Sindh, Shikarpur has undergone a complete transformation and civil society has lost its say,` says a local resident, while talking on condition of anonymity. `A madressa administrator is more powerful if he has the blessings of the area sardar. The nexus between clan and sect has grown so strong that a Sunni sardar of Shikarpur allegedly chose to kill off his rival Shia sardar by sending a suicide bomber to attack him.
With politics and religion now tied in a relationship, explains Shikarpuri columnist Mumtaz Mangi, it soonbecame clear that most madressas in Shikarpur were constructed on grabbed land. `Madressas are operating like a mafia and grabbing empty government plots and open spaces along main roads. They are very good at collecting donations in the name of constructing a new madressa,` he says.
`Government authorities seem reluctant to control the expansion of madressas, since policemen were involved in grabbing land for many madressas,` alleges Mangi.
`Because of no government checks or monitoring system, some people with criminal backgrounds have also now established madressas and shelter their gangsters inside them.
They blackmail traders and extort money from them in the name of providing food to Talibs; but in fact, Talibs are sent to beg for food from houses. Donations and zakat money are gobbled up by madressa handlers,` Mangi explains.
Inside the madressas, only sect-based education is imparted to students while no employable skills are taught. In turn, those who graduate from one seminary tend to set up another sect-based seminary, since that is the only job they know.
Because only religious education is imparted at madressas, the Talibs began considering themselves as the protectors of faith, and put checks on citizens as if they were state actors.
This bred intolerance in society and disturbed any notions of peaceful coexistence, thereby also radicalising young people in the city.
Soon enough, Shikarpur began to see the social impact of this unchecked burgeoning of madressas.
`The city has often witnessed clashes over who becomes the peshimam. Those backed by powerful clans are sure to take over mosques,` argues Qazi. `Because of a lack of skills and unemployment, madressa-cducated peshimams defend their jobs at any cost and often indulge in violence to do so.
It`s a wrong assumption that madressas serve food and clothes to Talibs. Instead, most madressa Talibs depend on the generosity of the people of Shikarpur for food, cloth and medicines.
Then there is policing of cultural activities and citizens` personal lives.
`The frightening part is that Talibs have often been used to attack musical events and bodybuilding contests, which once were a regular feature of city life. The historical Mina Bazaar for women has been shut too after threats from madressa Talibs,` says Mangi.
Shaikh agrees, but adds that young people in Shikarpur are fast becoming radicalised because of the social engineering brought about by madressas. The regime of fear is such that residents of the city now believe that bands of club-wielding Talibs are ever ready to attack any social event they deem as un-Islamic.
`For that reason no musical programme has been held in the city for the last several years. The city`s Mina Bazaar has been closed for an indefinite period. Even nationalist parties like Qaumi Awami Tehrik of Palijo, Jeay Sindh groups and others have stopped holding Jashan-i-Latif, which they once used to hold every year,` says Shaikh.
The absence of cultural activities by Sindhi nationalist groups and the ruling party`s alleged involvement in grabbing power and money has created a vacuum: religious parties find Shikarpur to be an empty field, on which more madressas can be constructed, and over which they can establish their writ. It would be no exaggeration to say that extremists have created a pocket of terror in the heart of Sindh, with no action by the government and not much resistance from the civil society or political parties either. • 

The writer is a member of staff 
He tweets @manzoor_chandio

War on terror and the Pakhtun integrity

By Manzoor Chandio
Updated on July 15, 2008

THERE are suggestions from Pakistan that Nato and Americans should increase surveillance, both electronically and physically, of the Durand line from the Afghanistan side, and also seal it to stop Taliban and Al Qaeda infiltration from Fata region.
The border sealing would not be workable in this age of globalisation and free flow of information.
Keeping in mind the history of sealing the borders on different pretexts, one cannot hope that securing the border will prove productive.
The action will only lead to division of Pakhtun nation living on both sides of the border.
Throughout the centuries, governments have used separation walls and security fences for limiting the movement of marauding armies and keeping away people from each other.
The Great Wall of China in the ancient times and the Berlin Wall in the modern times are two famous and infamous walls which separated people.
Israel is the most ‘out of bounds’ country as its borders abutting Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt are heavily manned, fenced and mined. The country has also erected barriers around the Gaza City and constructed a big wall to separate the West Bank from it. Yet it is not secure.
Perhaps, dividing people on different pretexts is in the interest of world powers.
When the world powers find no religious pretext, they divide people on an ideological basis. Vietnam, Germany and Korea are some examples.
Although Vietnam and Germany retained their reunification, the Korean Demilitarized Zone (KDZ) still separates Koreans on the basis of ideology.
There are talks about ending the Line of Control to unify Kashmiris, then what is the logic behind sealing the Durand Line.
In retrospect, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is a particularly contentious issue.
Afghanistan and the Pakhtun nationalists in Pakistan have never accepted the Durand Line, demarcated by the colonial masters, between Afghanistan and British India.
Time and again, Pakhtun nationalists have demanded the border should be abolished. Named after Sir Mortimer Durand, the foreign secretary of the British Indian government, the border was aimed at disuniting the Pakhtun people whom the British colonisers feared.
Only recently former NWFP governor Khalilur Rahman said the Durand Line agreement had expired in 1993.
He said: “The Durand Line agreement, signed in 1893, was for 100 years and he had asked President General Pervez Musharraf to talk to the Afghan government for extending the agreement.”
The sealing of the Durand Line would not only divide 15 million Afghan Pakhtuns and 28 million Pakistani Pakhtuns but would also convert the soft border into a strictly regulated border.
The sealing of the border would be against the Treaty of Gandamak signed on May 26, 1879 between British India and the then Afghan ruler. The treaty guarantees free movement of people living on both sides of the border.

War on Terror: Raising the curtain

By Manzoor Chandio
Written on July 01, 2008

MANY people may not have taken Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s threat to send Afghan troops into Pakistan in hot pursuit of Al Qaeda and Taliban seriously if it had not been backed by President Bush.
The US president, while commenting on his statement said: “It is in no one’s interests that extremists have a safe haven from which to operate. Obviously, it’s a testy situation there.”
Nato’s position on Mr Karzai’s threat is that his statement should be seen as a reflection of frustration with ‘safe havens’ for militants but not as a sign that an attack is imminent. On the same day Mr Karzai threatened Pakistan; US helicopters violated the country’s air space and intruded into the Khyber Agency.
Recently US aircraft dropped bombs along the Afghan-Pakistan border, killing 11 Pakistani soldiers.
President Musharraf used to say that any foreign intervention against militants in the border region with Afghanistan would be regarded as an invasion of Pakistan. Now he is worried about his own fate and counting his days in the Army House.
Pakistan has chosen to remain a friend of America despite the knowledge that the US occupied Iraq and Afghanistan and annihilated an entire civilisation.
According to a foreign wire agency report, the US has spent more than $3bn over the past two years to train and equip the Afghan army. Now Mr Karzai’s comments raise the spectre that a US-trained Afghan military could be used to attack Pakistan.
Earlier, America talked about direct or indirect action against Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants in tribal areas.
It is believed that the Allied forces will not leave the Afghan battle halfway. A look at world conflicts shows that the powers that be always take regional conflicts to their logical end.
In 1939, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had to resign because he had simply ignored Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia by describing the issue as “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing”.
He was replaced by Winston Churchill and Britain was at war with Germany the following year. The Czechoslovakian occupation described by Mr Chamberlain as a quarrel eventually resulted in a war which is known in history as the Second World War.
In 1991, the United States left the first Gulf War only to return a decade later to end the monster of a dictator, Saddam Hussain. Much has been written on the US folly of leaving the war incomplete and then restarting it more than a decade later to correct the situation for good.
The rise of militancy in restive tribal areas and Swat shows the area is in a state of civil war and the Pakistan government has virtually lost its writ in the vast region bordering Afghanistan. Hence the latest action by the Pakistan army to gain control.
Now America thinks the Al Qaeda network is operating from its sanctuaries in Fata and Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere in the region. Would the US repeat history — as Mr Chamberlain did and George Bush Senior did in the first Gulf War — and leave the region without destroying Al Qaeda and Taliban and capturing Osama bin Laden?
Like the talk about US attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan, a similar picture has emerged in the region adjoining Pakistan.
Those who say Pakistan is not a banana republic where America will intervene may be ignoring the neo-con strategy of pre-emption. Being the only nuclear-armed Muslim country, there are other concerns which the Western media often discusses as the ground for direct US intervention in Pakistan.
Al Qaeda and Taliban have “planning, training and financing” facilities in Fata as believed by Pentagon and the world’s largest drug trafficking corridor passes through Fata. Afghanistan’s flourishing drug trade provides as much as $4bn a year into the chaos that contributes to terrorism in the region.
According to some reports, some 80 madressahs out of 260 in the tribal region are still actively involved in terrorist activities.
According to the former army chief Jehangir Karamat “if you put together this whole picture that exists on the ground, US and Nato operating in southern Afghanistan and the centre of gravity of militancy being in southern Afghanistan, you can understand how it has spread into Pakistan’s tribal areas — all the conditions favoured this expansion into Pakistan.”
Mr Karzai’s statement against the backdrop of this scenario only raises the question about the future of this region.
No reminder is needed about the US goal in Afghanistan — namely to hunt the Al Qaeda and Taliban militants. And the last they fought with them was in Tora Bora, the Afghan region bordering Pakistan.
Since then Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts are not known. The US simply can’t ignore the virtual takeover of border agencies and districts with Afghanistan by militants.

Middle East: Shattering the myth of Israeli might

By Manzoor Chandio
Written on August 17, 2006

WHEN there is an indivisible unity of people and a profound oneness of purpose, you can overcome an adversary thousand times mightier.
There might be several elements that led Israel to declare ceasefire but the solidarity shown by the people of Lebanon to withstand its aggression can be the foremost reason for its first defeat in history.
There is no civil war in Lebanon which was a hallmark of the country during the 1980s and 1990s.
We used to read in newspapers about several Lebanese groups fighting each other and as proxy of Israel.
Mercenaries are the best toll to be used. For that purpose Israel had created the South Lebanon Army. This time Amal and Druze militias were out of newspaper reports and instead Amal fought against Israel.
Founded in 1976, the SLA mainly comprised Christians who were opposed to armed PLO fighters which at that time used Lebanese soil for attacks on Israel.
Initially, Shias and Druzes joined the SLA but when it was solely financed, trained and given military paraphernalia by Israel as a proxy force, they left it.
During the Lebanese civil war, Amal militia, mainly comprising Shias, entangled itself in camp wars killing thousands of Palestinians.
It fought against Hezbollah for Beirut’s control and its support for the Palestinian cause. It was Hezbollah and Amal fight which invited the Syrian intervention in the country.
Now the situation was different altogether.
A New York Times contributor quoted a car mechanic in Lebanon as saying: “The trees in the south say we are Hezbollah. The stones say we are Hezbollah. If the people cannot talk, the stones will say it.”
It was oneness of purpose that Israel suffered a humiliating defeat and displacement of its population.
Associated Press reported that “the conflict left nearly 950 people dead — 791 in Lebanon and 155 on the Israeli side. An estimated 500,000 Israelis and about one million Lebanese had been displaced”.
In future, Israel would think many times before invading Lebanon, the country it invaded as weak.
Israel also declared that it would negotiate to exchange 13 Hezbollah prisoners and the bodies of several others for two Israeli soldiers after whose capture it had started the war.
Any victory on Israel’s part is zero.

manzoorchandio@hotmail.com

Middle East: Trauma of the Lebanon war

By Manzoor Chandio
Written on July 30, 2006

WHEN the leading planner of Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’ (extermination of Jews), Reinhard Heydrich, was assassinated by Free Czech agents in 1942, Hitler had ordered liquidation of Lidice, a Czechoslovakia village where the incident had taken place.
All 172 men in the village were shot dead and women were sent to a Nazi concentration camp where they died later.
Houses in the entire village were razed to the ground and no traces were left behind to assume that once any settlement existed there. Even Lidice’s name was removed from the map.
If we draw an analogy between Lidice’s annihilation and today’s Lebanon, we find no difference. The only difference is that then the world’s big powers were on the side of Lidice but today the superpower and its allies are silent supporter of Lebanon’s destruction.
The world superpower justifies the trauma of Lebanon by calling it a patient in which Hezbollah had grown as a cancer. Lebanon must welcome (surgeon Israel) to remove the cancer Hezbollah. They say that when the cancer is removed, the patient must suffer.
They forget that Lebanon had got that cancer from the wounds inflicted on it by Israel itself in 1982 and 1978.
Since then the US and Israeli military relations took a new shape and the two countries entered into a new era of strategic cooperation.They conducted first joint naval and air military games. The US gave Israel $1.5 billion aid. Israel claims that it wanted to punish Hezbollah for kidnapping two Israeli defence force troops and not the Lebanese people.
But what the media has shown us is that Israel has destroyed all Lebanese roads, bridges, homes, telecommunications, power infrastructure, airports, factories, food warehouses and hospitals.
The hell it has created in the country had caused exodus of millions of Lebanese.If that was the Israeli punishment, then what punishment the country itself deserves whose military had so far kidnapped and killed thousands of Palestinians?
Even the killing of four UN observers in southern Lebanon is said to be a deliberate act of Israel as the country was angry with them for not enforcing Security Council Resolution 425 in 28 years.
It was a message to UN observers to leave the buffer zone which can be replaced by a force that the US is trying to create for Lebanon.
The Bush administration simply rejected the UN secretary-general’s appeal for a ceasefire because it is the US which alone had the power to make or break the peace. No doubt that it was a long-cherished dream of the Israel lobby in the US to act on their recommendations of destroying Hamas and Hezbollah.
Israel’s third attack on Lebanon was long due because when Israel attacked the country, a US columnist said: “It was our war. Our means America’s.”
Therefore, it is wrong to assume that only the monolithic Israeli lobby is behind the destruction of Lebanon, Israeli expansionism and the separation wall.
It is the US policy that continuously engineers military interventions and coups around the world. It is the US which backs monarchs, despots and obscure rulers of the Muslim world and controls poor countries through the IMF.

manzoorchandio@hotmail.com

South Asia: UN resolutions and Kashmir

By Manzoor Chandio
Writtin on Sept 3, 2003

WHAT we are noticing, specially after the Kargil fiasco, is a renewed infatuation of the Pakistan government for the UN’s Kashmir proposals.
From head of the state to cabinet members, statements are being issued that the conflict should be resolved in line with the UN resolutions.
The rhetoric of some political parties say the world body’s proposals offer the people of Kashmir a choice between Pakistan and India.
On the Indian side of the Valley, the APHC boycotts election again and again, saying it is no substitute for a plebiscite, promised by the UN half a century ago.
The interim constitution of Azad Jammu and Kashmir wants the conflict resolution in accordance with the freely-expressed will of the people through a UN-sponsored plebiscite.
Even India sometimes manoeuvres resolutions in its favour by demanding withdrawal of Pakistan forces, “organized and unorganized, fighting or participating in hostilities” on the basis of the UN resolution of Aug 13, 1948.
The resolution asks Pakistan to withdraw its “troops”, “nationals”, and “tribesmen”, who have entered the state for the purpose of fighting — as their presence “in the territory of the state of Jammu and Kashmir constitutes a material change in the situation.
“Pending a final solution, the territory evacuated by the Pakistan troops will be administrated by the local authorities under the surveillance of the UNCIP (United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan).”
The same resolution favours the presence of the Indian army on the pretext of law and order situation.
It says: “The Indian government will maintain those forces of the army which in agreement with the UNCIP are considered necessary to assist local authorities in the observance of law and order.”
India always takes advantage of this resolution whenever there are talks to resolve the Kashmir imbroglio.
It seeks the withdrawal of Pakistan troops from Azad Kashmir first.
Perhaps last peace talks broke on this intransigence of India.
That was why Pakistan had abandoned these resolutions at Shimla and Agra.
At Shimla prime minister Z. A. Bhutto agreed to resolve the issue bilaterally. While at Agra President Musharraf persuaded Prime Minister Vajpayee to recognize the Kashmir region as a whole as a “core issue” but in vain.
There is no denying the fact that a plebiscite is the only way to resolve the dispute as mentioned in the several resolutions of the world body.
The UN in 1950 had agreed to appoint Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz as the Plebiscite Administrator who even had to work with the Indian government to “conduct a free and impartial plebiscite”.
A resolution adopted by the UN Commission for India and Pakistan on Jan 5, 1949, clearly says: “A plebiscite will be held when it shall be found by the commission that arrangements for it have been completed.”
These arrangements include “an agreed programme of progressive demilitarization.
“When the demilitarization preparatory to the plebiscite has been accomplished to the satisfaction of the UN representative, the Plebiscite Administrator (PA) should proceed forthwith to exercise the functions assigned to him under the terms of resolution of Jan 5, 1949”.
Resolution 126 (1957) calls for demilitarization of the region “as one of the steps towards a settlement.”
Now much water has flowed under the bridge. Since then we have witnessed the nuclearization of the South Asian theatre.
Above all, to the satisfaction of India the Kashmir issue is out of the UN.
Why then our policymakers insist on resolving the Kashmir issue on the basis of these “unworkable” resolutions of the UN?

manzoorchandio@hotmail.com