Has Pakistan reached the tipping point?

By S P SETH

The recent cold bloodied assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer is a sad day for Pakistan. It is a sad day because a human life has been cut short. It is sadder still because his militant opponents have sought to kill a noble idea with him.

This is not to suggest that Salman Taseer was some moral philosopher with a grand vision. Indeed, he was an ordinary human being with extraordinary courage to keep pushing for the amendment of the country’s Penal Code with the provision of death penalty for blasphemy. His extraordinary courage is revealed when he refused to be cowed down by threats to his life that were real enough.

Whether or not he was consciously promoting the idea that religion (Islam in this case) and our shared humanity are not antithetical but the two sides of the same coin is not known. But, at a human level, by seeking to spare the life of a young Christian woman (and others like her, rightly or wrongly, accused of blasphemy) by amendment of the relevant law, he was fostering unity in his strife torn country by bridging an artificial gap between religion and common humanity.

The point is that when proponents of militant Islam seek to put their subjective interpretation of Islam above our shared humanity (with sanctity of human life as its core principle), it is time to reflect and bridge that gap before things go too far, if it has not already happened. And this is what Salmaan Taseer was doing in a practical way by promoting tolerance and co-existence. And with his death, that idea of the unity of religion (Islam) and our basic humanity has taken a terrible battering.

It is true that in electoral terms religious parties have never polled well in Pakistan, though it started to change in recent years when Islamist parties scored better that they had done before. Looking at the mass of people joining demonstrations hailing Mumtaz Qadri as a hero of sorts, it would seem that Pakistan has taken an about turn in matters religious based on a perverted interpretation of Islam by those who profess to be its ardent followers. Worse still, many of the country’s lawyers, who played an important role in the downfall of Pervez Musharraf, and the restoration of democracy in the country, are now championing Qadri, offering their free services to defend him in the courts.

It is important to realize that this change hasn’t happened overnight. It has been building up over many years. Even though Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, fought for a new homeland for the Muslims of the then Indian subcontinent, he wanted his new country to practice equality for all citizens, irrespective of their religious faith.

It was only in 1956 that, under its new constitution, Pakistan was christened the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Which is telling because from this period onwards Pakistan’s religious identity started to figure increasingly in the country’s politics.

At about the same time, Pakistan’s armed forces started to emerge as the country’s ‘savior’ from the ‘vile and venal’ political rulers of the country. It was in 1958 that General Ayub Khan staged his military coup, setting an example for the subsequent chapters of the same, now familiar, story.

Another military dictator, Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, who staged a coup in 1977 against Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, had his political master hanged. Partly out of religious convictions and partly out of political compulsions, Zia gave Pakistan a decisive push in the direction of religious conservatism. The United States unwittingly helped him in this project, as he became its major political ally to serve as a conduit for US arms supplies and financial assistance to the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

In this way, Zia not only carved out an important political constituency in the country among the conservatives and religious extremists, but also gained significant international legitimacy in the Western world. And in making his country the principal instrument of the US policy in Afghanistan, he was naturally rewarded with considerable US aid for his country.

(Pakistan’s tragedy is that most of the US aid it received over the years has never been accounted for properly. And there is not much to show for it in terms of Pakistan’s economic development. No wonder, its people are losing faith both in its political and military establishments. Which, in any case, have overlapped, with the military playing a dominant and domineering role.)

Zia was quite serious about giving Pakistan a distinct Islamic identity by seeking to bridge the gap between its existing institutions and Islamic injunctions. This was most noticeable in legal matters, as in the case of new blasphemy laws invoking death on those charged with it. And it is these laws Governor Salmaan Taseer was pushing to amend, with Aisia Bibi as a case in point.

It was under Zia that the lower and middle ranks of the armed forces started being radicalized in a religious sense. After all, he was both the armed forces chief and President of the country. And his example and new Islamic laws were bound to have an incremental effect on the army and other institutions of the country. It has now reached a point where Qadri could fire 27 shots at Governor Taseer without any of the killer’s colleagues in the security outfit rushing to the Governor’s defense or nabbing the killer.

Not only this. Even the high and mighty like Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has decided to drop the proposed amendment to the blasphemy law partly out of fear and partly out of political consequences, after watching the outpouring of support for Qadri. Which would suggest that the Talibanization of the country is proceeding faster than expected.

The militants have expanded their popular constituency; first, because they are increasingly emerging as the only alternative (however crazy that might seem) and, second, they have instilled fear among the people, as well as among the country’s ruling establishment.

It would seem that Pakistan is at cross roads. The only question is: Has Pakistan reached the tipping point with Governor Taseer’s assassination? Things don’t look very promising. But, at the end, only time will tell.

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times

The dilemma of Iran’s nuclear program

By S P SETH

The talks last month between Iran and five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia and China) plus Germany didn’t make much headway. They will reportedly be meeting again this month in Istanbul to grapple with the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, although the divide between them on the issue remains as wide as ever.

Iran insists that its program is for legitimate peaceful uses. But the Western countries do not believe this, and want Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. China and Russia too go along with this proposition but they are not prepared to punish Iran as part of a reverse global jihad. They are not prepared to risk their investments in oil sector (in the case of China), and nuclear energy reactors in the case of Russia, among other things. The four rounds of international sanctions against Iran haven’t brought it to its heels, though they are hurting the country.

With Iran determined not to give up its nuclear program, and the US and its Western allies equally determined to impose their will, where will it all end up? The US is apparently following a multiple strategy. They are encouraging and fomenting internal political unrest, putting their best bet on the opposition to the regime from within the clerical establishment and the new urban middle class.

The opposition had come close to capturing power in the last elections. They were cheated of it, by some accounts, through organized thuggery by the regime. It might seem tempting to believe that the opposition will be more conciliatory on the nuclear question, if it were to gain power. With the country facing enormous economic problems from inflationary pressures to rising unemployment, aggravated by international sanctions, this might be the only sane course for them to pursue in the circumstances.

However, it is unlikely that any Iranian government will agree to dismantle the country’s nuclear program. It is very much a matter of national dignity and pride. Hence, any concessions most likely will be of a tactical nature. In any case, there is no sign that the government is in any immediate danger, even though it has lately become vulnerable to organized internal political dissent and opposition. And it seems so worried that it is launching a total overhaul of its education and training programs to weed out ‘baneful’ Western influences and replace them with ‘wholesome’ Islamic values.

Apart from bolstering up political opposition to the regime within the country, the US probably is also channeling material assistance in support of the separatist Sunni rebellion in the Sistan-Baluchistan province. This predominantly Sunni region is plagued by periodic bombing attacks which the regime blames on a mix of internal and foreign elements, including the US and, sometimes, even Pakistan because of the shared ethnicity of the Baluch population on both sides of the border in this region.

The Kurds are another separatist ethnic minority in Iran that has taken to bombings at times in Kurdistan province. All these ethnic minorities are considered the natural allies of the United States when it comes to destabilizing the clerical regime in Iran.

The problem though is that nothing seems to be working to derail or slow down Iran’s nuclear program. Lately, there have been attempts to infect Iran’s nuclear program through computer viruses, which has certainly done some temporary damage. At the same time, some of its top nuclear scientists have been killed mysteriously. It is difficult to pin down the elements of this mystery, but Iran might not be entirely wrong in pointing an accusing finger at the United States and Israel.

Israel opposes Iran’s nuclear program vehemently. Iran’s nuclear status will challenge its regional supremacy as the only country in the Middle East with nuclear armory. It also propagates the argument that Iran’s example will encourage other Middle Eastern countries to follow its example and thus lead to nuclear proliferation. But it should have thought of it first when it introduced nuclear weapons in the region. For some mysterious reason, these are sacrosanct. They neither have to be publicly declared or denied.

From the leaked WikiLeaks’ cables, we also know that Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and some of the Persian Gulf kingdoms, are also against Iran’s prospective nuclear status; with the Saudi King going as far as advising the United States to cut off the head of the Iranian snake (that is to say, bomb its nuclear installations). This reflects the old sectarian divide between the largely Sunni Arab kingdoms and predominantly Shia Iran, with a nuclear Iran likely to further complicate the Middle East’s geopolitical picture.

Israel is obviously happy that it is not the only country in the Middle East that is opposed to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Indeed, it would like the world to do more than simply apply sanctions because they are not as effective. As its deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, recently told an Australian journalist, ”Iran is not without its vulnerabilities [over and above the sanctions regime]. Certainly, we [the international community] have not exploited all of them. Realistically, there will have to be radical change in Iran’s behavior… Those who say 2011 is going to be an important year may be right.”

What are these vulnerabilities? Ayalon didn’t expound them. And nor did he identify people or countries who contend that the year 2011 will be important from the viewpoint of what will be done to Iran to eradicate its nuclear program.

Well, we all know that Israel favors bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq about 30 years ago. But it would like the US backing and support in this undertaking. Better still, it would like the US to do it to escape the resultant wrath and punishment, if things somehow didn’t go according to plan. Indeed, Tel Aviv had reportedly pressured President Bush in the last days of his presidency, but his disastrous forays into Iraq and Afghanistan had cautioned him against another potential military disaster and, possibly, the worst if it were tried.

The point is that even though the Israelis are gung ho about Iran, they do not think that it is within reach of acquiring technical capability to develop an atomic bomb. According to its deputy foreign minister, “They have not yet reached the technical capability for a nuclear weapon, but if left to their own devices they will within one to three years.” In other words, Iran will leapfrog all the stages required for acquiring technical capability to make a bomb within a year or more.

An important reason why Israel keeps exaggerating Iran’s nuclear threat is its need to distract the world from the inherent dangers of an unresolved Palestinian issue. They want the world to forget about Palestine, and concentrate on the Iranian nuclear issue as the most dangerous for the world. And if it creates mayhem in the process, so be it. Because: nothing is more important for Israel than being able to permanently annex West Bank and East Jerusalem.

One only hopes that Israel will not be allowed to turn the world into its own destructive lab with the Iranian nuclear issue, as it has done with the Palestine issue.

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times

The dilemma of Iran’s nuclear program

By S P SETH

The talks last month between Iran and five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia and China) plus Germany didn’t make much headway. They will reportedly be meeting again this month in Istanbul to grapple with the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, although the divide between them on the issue remains as wide as ever.

Iran insists that its program is for legitimate peaceful uses. But the Western countries do not believe this, and want Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. China and Russia too go along with this proposition but they are not prepared to punish Iran as part of a reverse global jihad. They are not prepared to risk their investments in oil sector (in the case of China), and nuclear energy reactors in the case of Russia, among other things. The four rounds of international sanctions against Iran haven’t brought it to its heels, though they are hurting the country.

With Iran determined not to give up its nuclear program, and the US and its Western allies equally determined to impose their will, where will it all end up? The US is apparently following a multiple strategy. They are encouraging and fomenting internal political unrest, putting their best bet on the opposition to the regime from within the clerical establishment and the new urban middle class.

The opposition had come close to capturing power in the last elections. They were cheated of it, by some accounts, through organized thuggery by the regime. It might seem tempting to believe that the opposition will be more conciliatory on the nuclear question, if it were to gain power. With the country facing enormous economic problems from inflationary pressures to rising unemployment, aggravated by international sanctions, this might be the only sane course for them to pursue in the circumstances.

However, it is unlikely that any Iranian government will agree to dismantle the country’s nuclear program. It is very much a matter of national dignity and pride. Hence, any concessions most likely will be of a tactical nature. In any case, there is no sign that the government is in any immediate danger, even though it has lately become vulnerable to organized internal political dissent and opposition. And it seems so worried that it is launching a total overhaul of its education and training programs to weed out ‘baneful’ Western influences and replace them with ‘wholesome’ Islamic values.

Apart from bolstering up political opposition to the regime within the country, the US probably is also channeling material assistance in support of the separatist Sunni rebellion in the Sistan-Baluchistan province. This predominantly Sunni region is plagued by periodic bombing attacks which the regime blames on a mix of internal and foreign elements, including the US and, sometimes, even Pakistan because of the shared ethnicity of the Baluch population on both sides of the border in this region.

The Kurds are another separatist ethnic minority in Iran that has taken to bombings at times in Kurdistan province. All these ethnic minorities are considered the natural allies of the United States when it comes to destabilizing the clerical regime in Iran.

The problem though is that nothing seems to be working to derail or slow down Iran’s nuclear program. Lately, there have been attempts to infect Iran’s nuclear program through computer viruses, which has certainly done some temporary damage. At the same time, some of its top nuclear scientists have been killed mysteriously. It is difficult to pin down the elements of this mystery, but Iran might not be entirely wrong in pointing an accusing finger at the United States and Israel.

Israel opposes Iran’s nuclear program vehemently. Iran’s nuclear status will challenge its regional supremacy as the only country in the Middle East with nuclear armory. It also propagates the argument that Iran’s example will encourage other Middle Eastern countries to follow its example and thus lead to nuclear proliferation. But it should have thought of it first when it introduced nuclear weapons in the region. For some mysterious reason, these are sacrosanct. They neither have to be publicly declared or denied.

From the leaked WikiLeaks’ cables, we also know that Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and some of the Persian Gulf kingdoms, are also against Iran’s prospective nuclear status; with the Saudi King going as far as advising the United States to cut off the head of the Iranian snake (that is to say, bomb its nuclear installations). This reflects the old sectarian divide between the largely Sunni Arab kingdoms and predominantly Shia Iran, with a nuclear Iran likely to further complicate the Middle East’s geopolitical picture.

Israel is obviously happy that it is not the only country in the Middle East that is opposed to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Indeed, it would like the world to do more than simply apply sanctions because they are not as effective. As its deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, recently told an Australian journalist, ”Iran is not without its vulnerabilities [over and above the sanctions regime]. Certainly, we [the international community] have not exploited all of them. Realistically, there will have to be radical change in Iran’s behavior… Those who say 2011 is going to be an important year may be right.”

What are these vulnerabilities? Ayalon didn’t expound them. And nor did he identify people or countries who contend that the year 2011 will be important from the viewpoint of what will be done to Iran to eradicate its nuclear program.

Well, we all know that Israel favors bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq about 30 years ago. But it would like the US backing and support in this undertaking. Better still, it would like the US to do it to escape the resultant wrath and punishment, if things somehow didn’t go according to plan. Indeed, Tel Aviv had reportedly pressured President Bush in the last days of his presidency, but his disastrous forays into Iraq and Afghanistan had cautioned him against another potential military disaster and, possibly, the worst if it were tried.

The point is that even though the Israelis are gung ho about Iran, they do not think that it is within reach of acquiring technical capability to develop an atomic bomb. According to its deputy foreign minister, “They have not yet reached the technical capability for a nuclear weapon, but if left to their own devices they will within one to three years.” In other words, Iran will leapfrog all the stages required for acquiring technical capability to make a bomb within a year or more.

An important reason why Israel keeps exaggerating Iran’s nuclear threat is its need to distract the world from the inherent dangers of an unresolved Palestinian issue. They want the world to forget about Palestine, and concentrate on the Iranian nuclear issue as the most dangerous for the world. And if it creates mayhem in the process, so be it. Because: nothing is more important for Israel than being able to permanently annex West Bank and East Jerusalem.

One only hopes that Israel will not be allowed to turn the world into its own destructive lab with the Iranian nuclear issue, as it has done with the Palestine issue.

Note: This article was first published in Daily Times

The dilemma of Iran’s nuclear program

By S P SETH

The talks last month between Iran and five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, Britain, France, Russia and China) plus Germany didn’t make much headway. They will reportedly be meeting again this month in Istanbul to grapple with the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, although the divide between them on the issue remains as wide as ever.

Iran insists that its program is for legitimate peaceful uses. But the Western countries do not believe this, and want Iran to dismantle its nuclear program. China and Russia too go along with this proposition but they are not prepared to punish Iran as part of a reverse global jihad. They are not prepared to risk their investments in oil sector (in the case of China), and nuclear energy reactors in the case of Russia, among other things. The four rounds of international sanctions against Iran haven’t brought it to its heels, though they are hurting the country.

With Iran determined not to give up its nuclear program, and the US and its Western allies equally determined to impose their will, where will it all end up? The US is apparently following a multiple strategy. They are encouraging and fomenting internal political unrest, putting their best bet on the opposition to the regime from within the clerical establishment and the new urban middle class.

The opposition had come close to capturing power in the last elections. They were cheated of it, by some accounts, through organized thuggery by the regime. It might seem tempting to believe that the opposition will be more conciliatory on the nuclear question, if it were to gain power. With the country facing enormous economic problems from inflationary pressures to rising unemployment, aggravated by international sanctions, this might be the only sane course for them to pursue in the circumstances.

However, it is unlikely that any Iranian government will agree to dismantle the country’s nuclear program. It is very much a matter of national dignity and pride. Hence, any concessions most likely will be of a tactical nature. In any case, there is no sign that the government is in any immediate danger, even though it has lately become vulnerable to organized internal political dissent and opposition. And it seems so worried that it is launching a total overhaul of its education and training programs to weed out ‘baneful’ Western influences and replace them with ‘wholesome’ Islamic values.

Apart from bolstering up political opposition to the regime within the country, the US probably is also channeling material assistance in support of the separatist Sunni rebellion in the Sistan-Baluchistan province. This predominantly Sunni region is plagued by periodic bombing attacks which the regime blames on a mix of internal and foreign elements, including the US and, sometimes, even Pakistan because of the shared ethnicity of the Baluch population on both sides of the border in this region.

The Kurds are another separatist ethnic minority in Iran that has taken to bombings at times in Kurdistan province. All these ethnic minorities are considered the natural allies of the United States when it comes to destabilizing the clerical regime in Iran.

The problem though is that nothing seems to be working to derail or slow down Iran’s nuclear program. Lately, there have been attempts to infect Iran’s nuclear program through computer viruses, which has certainly done some temporary damage. At the same time, some of its top nuclear scientists have been killed mysteriously. It is difficult to pin down the elements of this mystery, but Iran might not be entirely wrong in pointing an accusing finger at the United States and Israel.

Israel opposes Iran’s nuclear program vehemently. Iran’s nuclear status will challenge its regional supremacy as the only country in the Middle East with nuclear armory. It also propagates the argument that Iran’s example will encourage other Middle Eastern countries to follow its example and thus lead to nuclear proliferation. But it should have thought of it first when it introduced nuclear weapons in the region. For some mysterious reason, these are sacrosanct. They neither have to be publicly declared or denied.

From the leaked WikiLeaks’ cables, we also know that Arab countries, like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and some of the Persian Gulf kingdoms, are also against Iran’s prospective nuclear status; with the Saudi King going as far as advising the United States to cut off the head of the Iranian snake (that is to say, bomb its nuclear installations). This reflects the old sectarian divide between the largely Sunni Arab kingdoms and predominantly Shia Iran, with a nuclear Iran likely to further complicate the Middle East’s geopolitical picture.

Israel is obviously happy that it is not the only country in the Middle East that is opposed to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Indeed, it would like the world to do more than simply apply sanctions because they are not as effective. As its deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, recently told an Australian journalist, ”Iran is not without its vulnerabilities [over and above the sanctions regime]. Certainly, we [the international community] have not exploited all of them. Realistically, there will have to be radical change in Iran’s behavior… Those who say 2011 is going to be an important year may be right.”

What are these vulnerabilities? Ayalon didn’t expound them. And nor did he identify people or countries who contend that the year 2011 will be important from the viewpoint of what will be done to Iran to eradicate its nuclear program.

Well, we all know that Israel favors bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, as it did with Iraq about 30 years ago. But it would like the US backing and support in this undertaking. Better still, it would like the US to do it to escape the resultant wrath and punishment, if things somehow didn’t go according to plan. Indeed, Tel Aviv had reportedly pressured President Bush in the last days of his presidency, but his disastrous forays into Iraq and Afghanistan had cautioned him against another potential military disaster and, possibly, the worst if it were tried.

The point is that even though the Israelis are gung ho about Iran, they do not think that it is within reach of acquiring technical capability to develop an atomic bomb. According to its deputy foreign minister, “They have not yet reached the technical capability for a nuclear weapon, but if left to their own devices they will within one to three years.” In other words, Iran will leapfrog all the stages required for acquiring technical capability to make a bomb within a year or more.

An important reason why Israel keeps exaggerating Iran’s nuclear threat is its need to distract the world from the inherent dangers of an unresolved Palestinian issue. They want the world to forget about Palestine, and concentrate on the Iranian nuclear issue as the most dangerous for the world. And if it creates mayhem in the process, so be it. Because: nothing is more important for Israel than being able to permanently annex West Bank and East Jerusalem.

One only hopes that Israel will not be allowed to turn the world into its own destructive lab with the Iranian nuclear issue, as it has done with the Palestine issue.