certifired_img

Books and Documents

Pakistan Press (11 Jan 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)



The Noose And The Internet: New Age Islam's Selection, 11 January 2017





New Age Islam Edit Bureau

11 January 2017

The Noose And The Internet

By Rafia Zakaria

The Saudi Temptation

By Zahhid Hussain

Turkey’s Dilemma Under Erdogan

By S P Seth

Sreeram Chaulia’s ‘Modi Doctrine’

By Dr Qaisar Rashid

It’s Time To Get Tough With Myanmar

By  Atif Shamim Syed

The Double Act

By Mahir Ali

Continuity And Change

By M Zeb Khan

Sister Mary Emily

By Zubeida Mustafa

Listen To Learn

By Riaz Missen

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Breau

-----

The Noose And The Internet

By Rafia Zakaria

January 11th, 2017

IT was winter break at the University of Sindh, Jamshoro. The campus was largely empty, devoid of the usual students going to and from class. The women’s hostel, where female students who do not have family in town stay during the school year, was also largely empty. It was here that a young student named Naila Rind would meet her end.

According to police and media reports, Naila was found dead late on the evening of Sunday, Jan 1. She had returned from her village the day before to complete work on her Masters’ thesis that was due on Jan 15. In previous years, Naila had bagged a top position in the university exams. Her body was found suspended from a ceiling fan in one of the rooms of the hostel. In one more example of the callous disregard towards women, at least one Pakistani media channel obtained a video of the moments when the young woman’s body was recovered. Now available on the web, the intrusive and disrespectful video has received several views.

Cyberspace was not only the venue of the posthumous disregard of Naila; it may also have played a crucial role in pushing her to death’s door. One of the items seized by police after the body was discovered was her mobile phone. It is apparently based on data available on the phone that police were directed to the alleged involvement of a lecturer at a private university in Jamshoro, who allegedly befriended Naila on Facebook and pursued a relationship with her. According to the police, he refused to marry her and began instead to blackmail her. A number of text messages to him were found on Naila’s phone; he was also the last person she is said to have called prior to her death.

Naila Rind’s case reveals just how vulnerable Pakistani women are to cyber harassment and blackmail.

A few days after the young woman’s body was recovered, the police, that had declared the death a suicide, conducted a raid at the lecturer’s home and arrested him. The man, whose father is also a higher education official, has now been charged upon the complaint of Naila’s brother Nisar Rind. The family had always held that the case was not (as police initially held) a case of simple suicide. Naila had never had a history of depression nor were there any family problems that would have precipitated her making such a move.

Naila’s case reveals just how vulnerable Pakistani women are to cyber harassment and blackmail. In the past decade and a half, hundreds of men have taken to the internet to prey on unsuspecting women and girls. They then harass and blackmail them on the basis of information they gather. While the exact details of the lecturer’s relationship with Naila are not yet known, most of these incidents of cyber harassment follow a familiar pattern.

Men target women and girls, often gathering information about them, their family and their friends from social media websites. Once they zero in on a victim, they pretend to pursue a relationship, even marriage, all the while coaxing their victims into divulging information about themselves that could prove to be embarrassing, wheedling pictures out of them and involving them in intimate conversations and encounters. All of this material becomes the basis for their ultimate plan, which is extortion, blackmail and harassment.

Naila’s case reveals one set of facts via which harassers can hurt the young women of the country. In others I have heard, the harassing and blackmailing men are family members, husbands and cousins and relatives, who force women into compromising situations, make videos and pictures and then use those to ensure further compliance.

Pakistani society provides a particularly perfect ecosystem for cyber harassment. The internet is increasingly and widely available, offering both a window to the world and a place to ‘meet’ members of the opposite gender in a way that was previously impossible. Even as they are able to access the internet, few Pakistani women are aware of the dangers of sharing information online or that the men who may offer compliments can easily turn into abusers. Add to this the fact that social mores always and forever hold women responsible for all the ills of society and you have a perfect storm, where new technology meets archaic ideas about honour and women’s inferiority, tying a noose around the neck of all Pakistani women.

As is the case with issues such as workplace harassment and ‘honour’ killings, laws against cyber harassment do exist but they are rarely enforced, with culprits going largely unpunished.

As a letter written by Nighat Dad, who heads the Digital Rights Foundation, aptly summarised, the recent cybercrime bill fails women like Naila because it makes such crimes federal matters. The consequence of this is that local police in places like Jamshoro are ill informed and largely ignorant as to how cyber activity can play a crucial role in the harassment and death of women.

Glaring evidence of this, the letter notes, is the fact that the FIR lodged in Naila Rind’s case charges the accused under Section 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance of 2009. That law lapsed several years ago. The letter, addressed to the minister of information, begs the rules for the new (and recently passed) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016 to be made public and to actually equip the cybercrime wing of the Federal Investigation Agency.

In the meantime, what the government has failed to do, the Digital Rights Foundation is trying to do. If you or anyone you know is a victim of cyber harassment, you can call the recently inaugurated Cyber Harassment Helpline; its number is 0800-393-93. Call the number and remember that the internet, like the rest of Pakistan, can be a dangerous place for women.

---

Rafia Zakaria is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.

Source: dawn.com/news/1307614/the-noose-and-the-internet

-----

The Saudi Temptation

By Zahhid Hussain

January 11th, 2017

THERE has, as yet, not been any denial of Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s mumbled comments during a TV interview last week about retired Gen Raheel Sharif being appointed the chief of a Saudi-led military alliance. Considering that clear articulation has never been his strong point, one may take the minister’s mutterings as confirmation.

But the minister has left many questions unanswered, adding to the confusion over the government’s position on the issue and whether the appointment of the former chief of army staff indicates a shift in our policy of staying away from the power tussle in the Middle East. It is apparent that the former general’s selection to head a multinational force would hardly be possible without the approval of the prime minister.

It seems that the government is maintaining deliberate ambiguity on this matter as happened when it was first reported that Pakistan had joined the so-called Islamic military coalition. Then there are valid questions too about Raheel Sharif’s own decision to accept the controversial job that may adversely impact the fine legacy that he left as the best-remembered army chief.

He is certainly not a freewheeling retired general who would accept such a politically sensitive position at his own discretion without the consent of the government. There is no precedence in Pakistan of a retired army chief seeking a job and that too outside the country.

Surely the Saudi offer was on the table long before Gen Sharif’s retirement. Is there any strategic reason behind the government’s decision to loan a recently retired army chief, or is it Saudi pressure that we could not afford to resist? Whatever the justification, such a decision can have serious foreign and domestic fallout.

There is no clarity on how the forces of different Muslim countries, with divergent interests, can work together.

It has been more than a year since the young Saudi deputy crown prince, who has been responsible for the kingdom’s disastrous military adventure in Yemen, announced the formation of a military alliance of 34 Muslim-majority nations. This unilateral Saudi declaration took not only Pakistan, but also several other nations on the list, by surprise. Although the coalition was formed to jointly fight terrorism, its very composition branded it as a ‘Sunni coalition’.

There has been widespread scepticism of whether it is really meant to be a coalition against terrorism or just a Saudi pawn in the power tussle in the Middle East. The lukewarm response from many member countries makes it extremely doubtful that such a military alliance can really take off. The exclusion of some Muslim countries including Iran and Iraq makes it all the more divisive.

There are few countries that are willing to commit troops to the alliance. So what is there for the former army chief to lead? Moreover, to fight terrorism, there is a need for closer cooperation among the intelligence and security agencies of these Muslim countries rather than a joint military force.

Interestingly, the idea of a military alliance was floated after Pakistan and some other countries refused to send their troops to fight along the Saudi forces in Yemen. A joint session of parliament had rejected the Saudi request, provoking indignation in the kingdom. It was certainly not in the country’s interest to be a party in the sectarian divide and the regional power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Saudi military adventure has only exacerbated the civil war in Yemen and blocked any move to reach a political solution to the conflict.

Over the past one year, there have been some significant changes in the Middle East’s power dynamics with the heavy losses inflicted on the militant Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria. Interestingly, many countries that are listed in the Saudi-led coalition are part of the US-sponsored anti-IS alliance including Iran. In fact, Iran has played a key role in pushing out the global terrorist group from its stronghold in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Russia is also asserting its military and diplomatic power in the Middle East forming a separate trilateral alliance that includes Iran and Turkey to counter IS in Syria. The new nexus has the tacit support of Washington and other Western countries in enforcing a ceasefire among various warring sides in Syria. Saudi Arabia, which has been supporting Sunni militant groups, now seems to be out of the equation in the Syrian crisis.

Interestingly, Egypt, that has been receiving massive Saudi financial aid, has also been supporting Bashar al-Assad’s government against the Saudi-backed opposition. So with all these divergent interests and shifting alliances, the idea of a new Saudi-led coalition does not seem to make much sense. Most observers agree that the formation of a new alliance reflects Saudi Arabia’s growing concern about its own security and internal stability as it no longer sees the US as a reliable ally.

Washington’s nuclear deal with Iran and its reluctance to commit ground troops to overthrow the Assad government in Syria has exacerbated the kingdom’s anxiety. Although the US had welcomed the proposed alliance there are serious doubts about Saudi Arabia’s seriousness in fighting violent extremism.

This widespread scepticism is largely due to the allegation that some Saudi charities continue to provide financial support to radical Sunni sectarian groups in Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries in order to impose their own intolerant and retrogressive concept of Sharia laws.

In the past year, there have not been any discussions and consultations among the member countries on what the alliance might do. There is also no clarity on how the forces of different Muslim countries, with divergent interests, can work together. In such a situation, Pakistan’s participation in the controversial alliance, with its former army chief heading the joint military force, has serious political repercussions.

The government must take into confidence parliament and the nation on the issue. It must not allow the former chief to rent himself out to a controversial alliance with a divisive agenda. It is in our national security interest that we keep out of the power struggle in the Middle East.

----

Zahhid Hussain is an author and journalist.

Source: dawn.com/news/1307613/the-saudi-temptation

----

Turkey’s Dilemma Under Erdogan

By S P Seth

 11-Jan-17

An interesting recent development about the multifaceted Middle Eastern crisis was the “Moscow Declaration” in which Russia, Turkey and Iran suggested that they could become the guarantors of a Syrian peace deal. That begs the question: what kind of deal it might be? So far, a political solution mooted at different times by the rebel groups/jihadis and supported by the US and its allies have involved the removal of Bashar al-Assad and his coterie as a precondition, though there hasn’t been any clear alternative to what might follow. Russia has indicated in the past that they are not committed to Assad and his regime per se but, in the absence of any clear alternative, the Syrian regime remains the only effective force on the ground to fight extremists and terrorists of all hues. Iran is clearly committed to Assad regime, while Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are aiding and abetting forces fighting to bring down the Syrian regime. Interestingly, the “Moscow Declaration” has been followed by a ceasefire between Damascus and some rebel groups brokered by Russia and Turkey, but Iran, though a signatory to the tripartite declaration, is not in the picture. Which is telling but that is another story. In any case, the ceasefire is already faltering.

Turkey’s activist role as a broker and guarantor needs some explaining. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was, from the beginning of the Syrian crisis in 2011, all for bringing down the Assad regime. Now that it has become a party to the “Moscow Declaration”, it would appear that it might not now be as committed to Assad’s removal as before, because both Moscow and Tehran do not seem to be considering a political deal contingent on that.

Turkey finds itself in a bind because Erdogan’s attempt to revive his country’s role as a successor of sorts to the Ottomans has run into all sorts of problems because the events in the Middle East have developed a momentum and trajectory of their own. And in the meantime, Ankara is now beset with problems of its own which it imagines might require some deft politicking. The Erdogan administration is imagining an existential threat for the government and the country from two sources. First is the Kurds, both inside Turkey and outside, in northern Syria, where they have virtually carved out an autonomous region with Kurdish YPG fighters proving to be the most effective force on the ground against IS. They have operated as US’ virtual ally, supported and backed by it with aerial operations against IS.

Ankara is unhappy with the virtual alliance between the US and Kurdish YPG fighters, as it regards them as terrorists because of their presumed links with Turkey’s Kurdish PKK movement that has been fighting for autonomy for the majority Kurdish populated southeastern region of the country. Ankara fears that an autonomous/independent Kurdish region in northern Syria will be a magnet for its own Kurdish minority. It is trying to deal with it at two levels. First, it has put its Kurdish-majority region under a total security clamp down with almost all Kurds seen as harbouring separatist designs, leading to large scale arrests and shut down of normal civilian life. And this seems to have contributed to some terrorist incidents blamed on the PKK and/or IS.

While Turkey is dealing with its internal Kurdish problem, it is also seeking to confront Kurdish YPG fighters who have carved out an autonomous Kurdish region across the border in Syria. To this end, it has been seeking to convince the US to drop its support of YPG in favour of Turkey undertaking to take up the fight against IS, which it has done in places. At the same time, Turkey’s President Erdogan has told the US emphatically that, “We will not allow the formation of a new [Kurdish] state in northern Syria.” In other words, the US might, at some point, have to choose between Turkey and the Kurdish YPG group in its fight against IS.

Erdogan’s Turkey has been feeling let down/ignored by the Obama administration for all sorts of reasons and is hoping that the incoming Trump administration might be more responsive to its concerns. And he has already made a pitch by highlighting the success of Turkish military action against IS, which Trump regards as the main danger. Erdogan reportedly said that Turkish troops were about to advance to IS’ de facto capital in Raqqa and has suggested joint action with the US against its stronghold but, with the proviso, that the incoming administration would prevent Kurdish forces from participating in such an operation. In other words, Turkey is willing to become the main fighting force against IS, if the US would ditch YPG and the Kurds. At the same time, Erdogan’s dalliance with Moscow is banking on presumed Putin-Trump special relationship with focus on IS as a common enemy.

Another of Erdogan’s problem and paranoia arises from the presumed existential threat from the self-exiled Turkish cleric, Fetthullah Gulen, a former Erdogan ally. His Hizmet movement is believed to be running a parallel administration infiltrating all branches of the state encompassing bureaucracy, police, judiciary and even military. The recent failed military coup to overthrow the Erdogan government was allegedly inspired and engineered by the Gullenists, with their leader Fathullah Gulen somehow doing it all through remote control from his exile in Pennsylvania in the US. Erdogan demanded that Gulen should be handed over to Turkey and since the US authorities weren’t convinced with the evidence from Turkey about his involvement, Ankara came to believe the worst about the US in the matter.

Following the failed coup, the Erdogan administration has gone on a wild hunt to arrest thousands of suspected conspirators in military and across the board in other branches of the administration. Which has evoked considerable criticism in the west of heavy handedness with declaration of emergency to smother all kinds of opposition and criticism of the Erdogan government. And it is designed to institute a virtual Erdogan dictatorship. This is making Erdogan increasingly estranged from the US and its western allies. And he is looking for some leverage from forging a new path. Therefore, when the Russian ambassador was recently shot by an off-duty police man unhappy with Moscow’s Syrian intervention, Erdogan had no qualms about putting the blame fairly and squarely on Gulen’s Hizmet movement, apparently seeking to have Russia as an ally when the US is proving so ‘difficult’. But Moscow has so far not taken Erdogan’s bait by turning the Gulen affair into a new cold war issue. Which shows how desperate Erdogan is becoming, whether he is dealing with the Gullenists and/or the Kurds.

S P Seth is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/11-Jan-17/turkeys-dilemma-under-erdogan

-----

Sreeram Chaulia’s ‘Modi Doctrine’

By Dr Qaisar Rashid

 11-Jan-17

Realpolitik determines the contours of the Modi Doctrine embodied in contact and commercial diplomacy. This is the central idea of Sreeram Chaulia’s book, “Modi Doctrine: The Foreign Policy of India’s Prime Minister,” published by Bloomsbury in 2016. Chaulia is an academician specialising in both international security and international political economy. This opinion piece intends to discuss Chaulia’s certain ideas expressed in the book.

Narendra Modi sworn in as the fourteenth Prime Minister (PM) of India on May 26, 2014. Contrary to the general understanding of a doctrine — a stated foreign-policy principle of a government or the head of the government to express preferences of the government — Chaulia claims that Modi carried along his political career certain principles which can now be couched in the term doctrine. On page 28, Chaulia writes: “The earliest signs of what can now be labelled as the Modi Doctrine ... derive from the travels, impressions, learnings and work experiences from the period of his youth and middle age.” Here, Chaulia is making three points. First, the childhood of Modi is not somehow worth mentioning as a contributory factor. Second, the Modi doctrine is a one-man outlook. Three, like the US President, Modi is independent of the parliament.

Chaulia claims that Modi practices a kind of aggressive bi-faceted — contact and commercial — diplomacy owing to two reasons. First, Modi did social work for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), the parent organization of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), promoting Hindu nationalism. For instance, on page 30, Chaulia writes: “Touring, travelling and contacting as many interlocutors as possible through a kinetic diplomacy are visceral to the Modi Doctrine. One need not look beyond Modi’s RSS background to understand why so much weightage is accorded to contact diplomacy [something like “retail politics” (page 32), to develop “personal rapport” (page 34), which is the most visible manifestation of the Modi Doctrine].” Second, Modi intends to temper the damage done to his name when he was the Chief Minister of Gujarat (2001-2014). For instance, on page 46, Chaulia writes: “For a Modi who was eager to ‘wash off’ the negative image circulated worldwide by the horrific anti-Muslim riots of 2002, which he termed as a ‘blot during my tenure’, all-out commercial diplomacy was a redemptive move. The stigma of being blamed for inaction or complicity in the religious violence and the related setback of visa denials from the USA and some European nations had to be answered with a comprehensive economic developmental agenda as well as outreach to those nations still open to courting him.” Interestingly, as mentioned on pages 42 and 177, Chaulia thinks that the shared virtue between the Modi doctrine and the rest of the world (excluding Pakistan) is realpolitik: economic needs supersedes moral scruples.

Realpolitik is the mainstay of the Modi doctrine. For instance, on page 222, Chaulia writes: “The Modi Doctrine has artfully shelved the ‘either-or’ dilemma of India partnering with Israel and Arab countries. It has managed to de-hyphenate the two, while maximizing gains from each, a feat enabled by the fact that Sunni Arab states[constituting the Gulf Cooperation Council, especially Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar, with whom India’s equations transcend the welfare of its vast diaspora, remittances and oil supplies] and Israel have controversially, but surely aligned closer with each other owing to common animosity towards Shia Iran. In 2015, it came to the light that India had become one of five international venues for secret back-channel talks between Saudi and Israeli officials to ‘discuss the threat posed by Iran’.”

Chaulia thinks that in the heart of realpolitik lies the longing for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)to help India manufacture and export goods, as China did after Asian Tigers in the 1990s. On page 41, Chaulia writes: “Modi’s economic agenda of overcoming India’s unemployment crisis [is] through the China-styled FDI-premised heavy industrialization and developing the manufacturing sector via his flagship ‘Make in India’ campaign [instead of “current services-driven growth trajectory...based on the mass deployment of labour and capital” (page 87)].” Here, the emphasis of the doctrine is on the lower uneducated and unskilled labour class which can find their limited utility in the services sector, compared to the reforms introduced by the then Indian PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1999-2004) of BJP and which were focused on the educated and skilled youth of the middle class. In this way, the Modi doctrine has tried to neutralize the Communist or Marxist criticism that spoke vociferously for the economic uplift of millions of down-trodden Indians. Secondly, this point is a realization that the consequences of making India a market for selling imported goods swept away much financial gains earned through Vajpayee’s India Shining. The trickle down from the middle to the lower class could not take place appositely. This time, Modi complements Vajpayee.

Modi also wants the Indian diaspora to learn from the Chinese diaspora who made FDI act as a primer for an investor-exporter model in China. On page 73, Chaulia writes: “The Modi Doctrine on the diaspora aims inter alia at maximizing FDI from the Indian diaspora to motor India’s economic growth... As he told over eighteen thousand desis in Singapore in November 2015, ‘FDI is not only Foreign Direct Investment but also First Develop India’.” Here, Chaulia does not tell what Modi has done in India to meet FDI’s pre-requisites: physical infrastructure development, corporate law making and anti-red tape measures.

Chaulia claims that the Modi Doctrine plays a balanced diplomacy to secure India’s economic interests. For instance, on pages 168 and 169, Chaulia writes: “[T]he urgency of containing China through the ‘pivot’ and other means is obvious in the American strategy...But instead of bandwagoning with the USA to counterbalance against China, the Modi Doctrine has adroitly kept China interested in India’s growth through commercial diplomacy.” Similarly, on page 232, Chaulia writes: “Apart from the USA, the Modi Doctrine has devoted due attention to a number of European nations and Canada as part of a multipurpose diplomacy to further India’s economic interests. It has fashioned a ‘Link West’ agenda to complement the ‘Act East’ policy and presented India as a balanced player that is strategically attentive in all geographic directions.” Here, Chaulia has projected a bigger role of India, predicting the success of which is quite premature.

The book is an encomium and has used all available jargon of international relations to construct the Modi doctrine. Plainly, there is no Modi doctrine: it is just the Gujarat model of politics and economy that Modi is trying to impose on the whole of India.

----

Dr Qaisar Rashid is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/11-Jan-17/sreeram-chaulias-modi-doctrine

----

It’s Time To Get Tough With Myanmar

By  Atif Shamim Syed

 11-Jan-17

Towards the end of last year, President Obama announced through an e-mail the decision to lift sanctions against Myanmar. The reason cited for this generosity was the ‘substantial improvement’ achieved by Burma in its human rights portfolio.

This came as a surprise to the rest of the world which is witnessing the worst human rights abuses being carried out by the Burmese army against minority Muslims, the Rohingyas.

Obama had vowed to lift US sanctions during a visit by Aung San Suu Kyi in September last year. Nobel peace prize winner, Suu Kyi was a darling of the West who won the general elections in 2015. She has been severely criticised for remaining silent on the Rakhine state riots of 2012, and recently, for showing indifference towards the genocide of minority Rohingya Muslims. The Obama administration hailed Suu Kyi’s visit to the United States as a great diplomatic breakthrough and an attestation of the fact that the USwas successful in engaging countries it had been ignoring for a long time.

However, the quiet manner in which the White House announced the lifting of sanctions in December made it clear that the continued oppression of the Rohingyas and Suu Kyi’s tacit acceptance of their genocide, had somewhat blunted Obama administration’s enthusiasm. According to the United Nations, the human rights violations carried out against Rohingya Muslims could fall into the category of ‘crimes against humanity’.

Described by human rights organisations and the international media as the one most persecuted minority groups in the world, the Rohingyas are indigenous to the state of Rakhine in Myanmar. The government, however, maintains that the Rohingya population mostly consists of illegal immigrants who landed in Rakhine after Burma gained independence in 1948. They were rendered stateless after the Burmese nationality law came into effect in 1982 stripping them of Burmese citizenship.

The Rohingyas received international attention in the aftermath of the Rakhine state riots of 2012, and the military crackdown of 2016.The United Nations has evidence that ultra-nationalist Buddhists are involved in deliberate religious incitement against the Rohingyas. The UN also found out that the Burmese security forces are involved in arbitrary arrests, summary executions, illegal detention and torture against the unarmed and defenceless Rohingya community.

Though the plight of the Rohingyas has racial and religious undercurrents, it is also feared that the Burmese army may have been reaping financial benefits from the systematic persecution of the Rohingyas, and their subsequent flight from the Rakhine state. The army is grabbing the lands of the fleeing population and using it for its own agri-business.

This is why the Burmese army has unleashed a campaign of terror against the Rohingyas. They are murdered, raped and economically restricted so that they would leave their lands and flee Myanmar. More than a hundred thousand Rohingyas fled during the 2012 riots with national Buddhists. The army did nothing to stop the riots. In fact, by most account, it took an active part in them. Against this background, the Obama administration chose to lift sanctions against Myanmar rather than taking Suu Kyi to task over a series of the most horrible human rights violations being committed in her country.

On several occasions in the past, Burma has given written statements that the Rohingyas are Burmese citizens. Having rebuffed its own written declarations, Myanmar now stands with those countries that have violated international laws and lost all credibility.

The Rohingyas of Burma are a stateless and unrepresented people. They are subjected to the worst atrocities at the hands of Buddhist nationalists and the army of their own country. There is a risk that the population may become an incessant terrorist threat sometime in the future.

In such a scenario, the state will subject the entire community to more repression, and a new bloody cycle of violence will commence.

The international community, under the aegis of the United Nations, has a collective duty to support the Rohingyas. This would mean putting in place tough economic sanctions against Myanmar rather than lifting the ones already in place.

----

Atif Shamim Syed is investment banker and a freelance writer

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/11-Jan-17/its-time-to-get-tough-with-myanmar

----

The Double Act

By Mahir Ali

January 11th, 2017

PEOPLE who are pumped up about the prospect of a Trump presidency fall broadly into two categories.

Most of those who voted for the property magnate and TV show host and many of those who backed him from afar believe — or at least hope — Donald Trump will do some good, if not on an international scale or even for his nation as a whole, then at least for specific segments of society (supposedly beleaguered white males, perhaps, or struggling billionaires). And, who knows, he might even make America great again.

The second, smaller category of Trump enthusiasts consists mainly of those who expect the incoming commander-in-chief to personally deliver the coup de grace to a terminally ailing republic. They expect the nation under Trump to show its true colours and, as a consequence, quite possibly self-destruct.

There should be no prizes for guessing which of these camps Vladimir Putin, who has made no secret of his glee at Trump’s triumph, belongs to.

More or less all US intelligence agencies concur that it was Russian hackers who infiltra­ted the database of the Democratic National Committee and, directly or otherwise, shared the fruits of their labour with WikiLeaks.

It remains to be seen how the Putin-Trump bromance will play out.

The extent to which the latter’s dissemination of campaign manager John Podesta’s emails in particular contributed to Hillary Clinton’s shortfall in the electoral college is undetermined and quite possibly indeterminate. It is perfectly conceivable that FBI director James Comey’s announcement of another email investigation did more last-minute damage to the Democratic candidate’s prospects.

At the same time, there is merit in the argument that Democrats have latched on to the Russian hacking story partly as a means of banishing memories of key campaign inadequacies whereby Clinton lost key states despite winning the popular vote by a substantial margin.

The declassified information made available by the intelligence agencies falls short of being indisputably conclusive. Perhaps the classified briefings to senior officials, including the president-elect, effectively clinch the question of the source of the hacking, although the attribution of personal responsibility to Putin for directing the operation is likely based on reasonable conjecture rather than verifiable evidence.

Overall, the official American version is by no means impossible to believe — even though one must admit the validity of the charge on which Trump, notwithstanding his motives, bases his scepticism: namely the same agencies’ ‘slam dunk’ conclusion that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Sure, they didn’t really believe that but ultimately offered up what the incumbent administration wanted to hear. Has something similar happened again?

It’s a valid concern but there is nonetheless something extraordinary about an incoming president attaching greater credence to assurances from the Kremlin than to the conclusions of his nation’s intelligence agencies. And if Putin can almost effortlessly outsmart the Obama administration, as he did in refusing to retaliate after the US expelled 35 Russian diplomats over the hacking controversy, no one should be particularly surprised to find him salivating at the prospect of a Trump presidency.

In terms of temperament, the long-standing Russian incumbent and his soon-to-be American counterpart are poles apart. Even the Machiavellian streak that they appear to share manifests itself in very different ways. Putin, the lowly KGB operative who ruthlessly insinuated his way into the Krem­lin (after direct US interference succee­ded in securing a second term in office for the ailing and often inebriated Boris Yeltsin), is a master of the long game. Trump’s notoriously constricted attention span, reflected in a tendency towards policy pronouncements restricted to 140 characters, is supplemented by a Manichaean worldview whereby, at least for the time being, Russia can do no wrong and China can do nothing right.

Exactly how — and for how long — the Vladimir-Donald bromance will play out on the world stage remains to be seen, of course. Many of Trump’s Republican colleagues have a far less benign view of Moscow’s machinations, in some cases as a consequence of residual hostility to all things Russian derived from an unreconstructed Cold War mentality (the equally absurd counterpoint to which is the tendency among some in the international left to gaze at Putin’s fiefdom through spectacles clouded with nostalgia for the Soviet Union.)

Ingrained hostility between Moscow and Washington is obviously not a desirable state of affairs. It’s not without cause, though, that Putin and Trump share an expanding fan club across the European far-right landscape.

Anyhow, it should become clear before too long whether the unfolding drama is likely to be the 21st century’s defining tragedy, a vulgar comedy, or merely an intermittently entertaining farce.

Source: .dawn.com/news/1307619/the-double-act

----

Continuity And Change

By M Zeb Khan

January 11, 2017

The UNDP has suggested five principles of governance for the 21st century. These principles include the fact that all citizens should have a voice in decision-making and development should be driven by a long-term perspective with due consideration given to socio-cultural complexities.

In addition, institutions that deliver public service should be credible, responsive, and efficient, decision makers in government, private sector, and civil society organisations should be accountable to the public, and all people should have equal opportunities and enjoy equality before the law.

Islam does not give a detailed account of what an Islamic state should look like and how it should function. It, however, gives some signposts and broad principles that guide the conduct of state and statesmen in Muslim majority countries.

Designing the nuts and bolts of any system of governance is better left to Muslim scholars to work out – with due importance given to the Islamic spirit and prevailing conditions. A workable arrangement, therefore, always requires reconciliation between faith and reason. As this reconciliation does not endure for long, Islam recognises ijtihad (intellectual struggle) as an important instrument of law-making to keep its spirit alive and ensure that its application remains feasible.

At the centre of governance in Islam is the question of selecting the ruler (caliph or sultan as they were historically called). The name of Abu Bakr (RA), to lead the Muslim Ummah as its first caliph, was proposed by a group of prominent companions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). It was subsequently endorsed by others through an oath of allegiance. Umar (RA) was designated by the incumbent caliph and endorsed by Muslims afterwards.

Before his death, Umar (RA) constituted a six-member council to nominate a caliph on the basis of a majority vote and Usman (RA) was, thus, chosen as the next caliph. Similarly, the choice of Ali (RA) as the fourth caliph was based on a criterion dictated by the given circumstances.

This implies that there is no one way of selecting a Muslim ruler and that any mechanism is justified, provided it legitimately ensures public trust and support.

Another vital issue relates to policymaking. Though the caliph had the final say in making decisions, he never deviated from the mainstream opinion of scholars and the shura (governing council). Abu Bakr (RA) declared publicly that Muslims were obliged to follow his orders if he followed the Quran and Sunnah and must stop him if he failed to adhere to Islamic principles of governance.

New situations and unique problems were handled by seeking guidance from the Quran and Sunnah. In case of the unavailability of clear injunctions and precedence, the matter was resolved through independent judgment by the shura. Ijtihad, thus, constituted the central pillar of law-making in Islam.

Ijtihad, however, was not performed in isolation but was based on the Islamic framework of human welfare, which has been thoroughly investigated and elucidated by Imam Ghazali and Shah Wali Ullah.  The overarching goals of Islamic governance/shariah have been identified as the preservation of faith, life, lineage, intellect, and property.

The instrument of ijtihad made Islam flexible to learn from, making it easier assimilate the positive aspects of other cultures and civilisations without compromising on its core values. Islam has made strides in regions as diverse and distant as Asia, Africa, and Europe within a few decades, simply because it struck the right balance between the need for universal brotherhood (ummah) and diversity.

Islam, in a sense, promotes a governance system that is based on the concept of glocalisation – universal principles and local sensitivities.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/178165-Continuity-and-change

-----

Sister Mary Emily

By Zubeida Mustafa

January 11th, 2017

IT was 1957 and we had returned to college after a restful summer vacation. We had braced ourselves for the discipline that was the hallmark of the St Joseph’s College for Women (SJC) under the watchful eye of Sister Mary Bernadette, who was the principal.

As I entered the college premises, I saw a petite figure in the nun’s white habit walk briskly before me. It wasn’t the principal, who moved slowly with a stoop that comes with age. We didn’t have to wonder for long. At assembly we were introduced to our new vice-principal, Sister Mary Emily. She sailed into our lives like a breath of fresh air and departed equally quietly last Sunday.

Sister Emily revitalised us. But more than that she infused dynamism into this premier institution that she was to head four years later. For me it was the beginning of an association that lasted 60 years, during which she guided not just me but also several generations of Karachi’s young women through stormy times giving us a sense of security and stability. A recipient of the Sitara-i-Imtiaz, Sister’s wisdom, her scholarship, her tact in handling students, her administrative skills and above all her humanism, made her an institution in Karachi’s academia.

She may not be there anymore but she lives on in her students’ hearts.

Born in Mangalore (India) in 1919, Sister Emily joined the congregation in 1944. Her teaching career had begun four years earlier in a school in Byculla. She went on to do a double MA in English and Economics. She was teaching in a college in Calcutta before she was transferred to Pakistan in 1957. Thereafter, this land became her home.

For years her life and activities revolved around the educational institutions of the Catholic Board of Education (CBE) but mainly the SJC which she nurtured with love and care. As a result it grew to be the most prestigious women’s college in Karachi producing some of the finest women from all walks of life in Pakistan.

In her life dedicated to education the first shock came in 1972 when the SJC was nationalised under the education policy of the Z.A. Bhutto government. Dubbing it as an “experiment in egalitarianism” Sister would describe to me how the college survived. Since she was widely respected, Sister Emily was reappointed as the principal of the college, which passed into government hands. That allowed her to look for solutions within the parameters of nationalisation.

From 1,100 the enrolment jumped to 1,400 overnight because the government wanted more students to be admitted. In that period I would often visit her and she spoke of the pressure she was under from the education department and how the resources for the college provided in the budget had fallen sharply forcing her to cut down on expenses. But she resisted the pressure in order to safeguard her principles. Her integrity and confidence gave her strength and even the most powerful of policymakers and bureaucrats had to think twice before challenging her. Thus Ghulam Mustafa Shah, the minister of education overseeing nationalisation, is known to have once exclaimed, “Na baba na mein us Sister say takkar naheen loonga.”

Although the college couldn’t maintain its standards it could maintain its reputation. But after three extensions Sister retired in 1985, students’ vociferous demands notwithstanding. She returned to the Convent where she was given charge of the Marie Therese Institute of Arts and Sciences. She threw herself wholeheartedly into creating another institution that she could be proud of.

It was therefore a red-letter day for Sister when in July 2005 the SJC was handed back to the CBE. Sister Emily was appointed its new principal. Now there were more problems to be addressed: balancing budgets, upgrading teachers and restoring the discipline of the pre-nationalisation days. To set things right after a slide of 33 years under bureaucratic control was not easy. Sister was the only one who could lead SJC to its former glory. And she did.

But time and tide wait for no one. When the college was restored to its rightful owners, Sister Emily was 86. Over the years I had seen her knees giving her trouble. In college her living quarters were on the top floor and her office was a floor below. Climbing stairs was increasingly becoming painful for her. On bad days, she would stay upstairs and the office went up to her. The pain wouldn’t abate yet there was no slackening of work. But how long can one resist nature? In 2010 she retired again.

Sister may not be there anymore but she lives on in our — her students’ — hearts and memory. In an interview she had told me, “It is a wonderful thing to work with young people. What thrills me most is the awareness I have that I am helping to build the builders of tomorrow.”

Rest in peace dear Sister, those you steered through life will miss you!

Source: .dawn.com/news/1307615/sister-mary-emily

----

Listen To Learn

By Riaz Missen

 11-Jan-17

Khyber-Pukhtunkhwah government has decided to close down 360 state-run primary schools, where the number of enrolled students is not more than 50, in Mansehra district and hand over the buildings to deputy commissioner for some other use.

The decision, taken in order to rationalize expenditure and improve quality in education sector, would affect 250 boys and 110 girls school. Teachers will be assigned duties within the district, wherever required but it is not so far clear what will happen to students of abandoned schools.

There are widespread concerns about poor academic achievement and school attendance, particularly that of girls and children living in rural areas.

Due to weak governance and budget constraints, schools lack resources, teachers are ill-trained and without accountability. The entrenched use of pedagogical practices are not suitable to very young children.

Teacher-led classes allow limited teacher-child interaction whereas lessons focus on skill transfer through rote learning. There is left little space for children to explore ideas outside the realm of the text books.

Gender inequities occur because parents of girls often do not favour sending their girls to schools. Accessibility and cultural barriers also stand in their ways.

Understandably, several factors affect attendance in schools. Low population is one reason, poverty the other. Yet, there is trend, quite noticeable both in urban and rural areas, that parents prefer private schools for better results against the fact that public sector institutions’ performance is on decline since last decade.

How to address the problem of inadequate teaching methods, poor learning among students and, above all, scarcity of resources in education sector? The solution rests with radio, something that appears to be sliding in background after the arrival of satellite TV.

Interactive Radio Instruction (IRI), a distance education system that combines radio broadcasts with active learning to improve educational quality and teaching practices has been in use for more than 25 years and has been found effective at low cost.

IRI can be used effectively to overcome obstacles of access and increase the chances that students from poor families can receive quality education as well. Retaining its core elements the radio-based teaching method continues to evolve to meet new educational and social challenges.

IRI has ushered a revolution in in some developing countries boosting literacy to unprecedented levels by reaching out students in far flung and, otherwise, inaccessible regions.

West Africa, Thailand and Bolivia have used radio to improve quality of education in countryside overcoming scarcity of material and better trained teachers.

Pakistan’s experience with IRI is rather recent. It is being implemented in primary schools of Quetta district by Power99 Foundation, which has so far successfully engaged students and parents of both rural and urban areas of Islamabad, KP and Southern Punjab.

The project “Broad Class — Listen to Learn” is designed as an interactive, pedagogical approach for improving literacy, numeracy and healthy habits among young school-aged children (KG-Grade II) of marginalized communities and affords parents the opportunity to listen to lessons through radio broadcast and, hence, be involved in their children’s education.

The nonprofit organization stands tall in introducing the radio-based instruction method in Pakistan and earning the distinction of designing and implementing the ‘Most Innovative Development Project’ in the world by Global Development Network in 2016.

The scale of the success IRI has met in Pakistan can be gauged by the fact that in Haripur district of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, it has involved 8,860 children of 165 schools, 4370 members of parents and community members and 591 teachers and government officials for a duration of 18 months during 2014 and 2015.

KP had committed to utilize Challenge Fund in expanding IRI project to all schools of the province by directorate E & SE but the Peshawar tragedy of 2014, whereby dozens of students and teachers were massacred by militants at Army Public Schools, changed the priority of the battered province from education to the security of schools.

Federal Education Directorate wrote to Joint Secretary CAAD in March 2013 that the parents and stakeholders had approached it to introduce IRI system in the schools not in the loop. Here the Michelle Obama fund had to be diverted to raising school walls, obviously for security reasons and the IRI project was left un-attended.

Punjab remains too much obsessed with steel and tar concerns and has not shown any solid interest in IRI to bridge its literacy gap.

Having vast experience in teaching and personally knowing the problems of parents vis-à-vis providing quality education to their youngsters, the CEO of Power99 Foundation, Ms. Fakhira Najib says radio is an excellent tool of communication to reach out children of far flung areas of Pakistan.

Fakhira is working hard to upgrade Broad class up to class V believing that there is no other shortcut available to Pakistan for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) vis-à-vis literacy the country has committed itself to. Understandably, she is looking for the governments (both federal and provincial ones) to come forward and play their part after she has set the course with the help of international donors.

----

Riaz Missen is Director at the Center for Policy and Media Studies

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/11-Jan-17/listen-to-learn

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/the-noose-and-the-internet--new-age-islam-s-selection,-11-january-2017/d/109673




TOTAL COMMENTS:-    


Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content