No to another Cold War

WHEN President George Bush first met President Vladimir Putin, he claimed that having looked into the latter’s heart he had found in it a good man with whom he could do business.One wonders what Bush is saying in the wake of Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Not surprisingly, the western media stirred up quite a sob story in Georgia’s favour, claiming that it was a small, defenceless victim at the hands of marauding Russian soldiers.The reality however, is far more complex and goes back to the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Truly, its result — the emergence of a sole superpower — represented a historic transformation, for it destroyed the concept of the balance of power enunciated as far back as 1648 in the Treaty of Westphalia. Western politicians and scholars jumped to the conclusion that the event confirmed the triumph of western democracy and capitalism and thus marked the ‘end of history’.Consequently, the US embarked on a policy that showed scant regard for Russian interests. The chaotic years of Boris Yeltsin were taken advantage of, while Russia lay supinely in a state of drunken stupor. Yeltsin’s many transgressions, including his military assault on the duma were overlooked, Moscow’s regional and global issues were ignored, and in the meanwhile, the former communist states of Eastern and central Europe were made a part of the West’s fabric of economic and military alliances.But Russia is a millennium-old country, with a glorious history of achievements, possessing tremendous resources — both economic and human. It was therefore inevitable that Putin’s strong and resolute leadership would refocus the nation’s energies on economic and military reconstruction. The galloping international oil and gas prices helped in filling up its coffers, enabling it to alter its bargaining power as well.This newfound confidence enabled the Kremlin to exert influence far afield — claiming the North Pole and renewing nuclear bomber patrols near Guam and Scotland. But it was in the Caucuses where an increasingly assertive Kremlin decided to put its foot down, helped unwittingly by the irresponsible policies of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. By making a rash move to occupy the breakaway province of South Ossetia, Saakashvili may have wanted to prove his ‘nationalist’ credentials and enhance his ‘usefulness’ to the West.But when Moscow responded with its own military incursion, he could do no more than fret that the Russians were repeating what the Soviets had done in earlier years, while senior US officials made the preposterous claim that such an action could not be permitted in this era. How ironic coming from an administration that had invaded not one but two sovereign states!Saakashvili’s frustration at having been left to fend for himself was understandable. For long a favourite of the Bush administration, the former New York lawyer was viewed by Moscow as unreliable and an instrument to promote the West’s interests in Moscow’s backyard. As the Economist wrote, his thrust into South Ossetia “was foolish and possibly criminal”, and Gorbachev was right to observe: “Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.” Whether acting alone or at the behest of the US, Saakashvili’s grab for the enclaves has unleashed forces that are likely to have a deep, long-lasting impact not only on the region, but on East-West relations as well.President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice have threatened to isolate Russia, while others have called for its expulsion from the G-8, as well as for keeping it out of the WTO. There have also been calls to rethink relations with Russia. But the rethinking needs to be directed at establishing a relationship of trust and mutual advantage, not to promote unilateral American advantage.The US must also be careful not to push Russia against the wall. It has already made the mistake of basing its policy on two major fallacies. One, that Russia was inherently aggressive and therefore needed to be kept ‘encircled’ and two, that Russia had been so weakened by the Soviet Union’s disintegration that it would not be able to ever endanger the West.It has, however, been proven again that nothing can be a more explosive mix than national humiliation and massive resources! Washington must not forget that it was the West that in inelegant haste brought in the former Soviet republics into economic and military alliances, while converting Nato into a global military force to be used at American behest to promote Washington’s global interests.The latest provocation has been the placement of US missiles in Poland, ostensibly to counter the Iranian threat, a claim no one takes seriously. All this has only reinforced Russia’s resolve to assert its place under the sun.Bush may see the Russian action in Georgia as directed against the West but it will have a far greater impact on the other states of the Caucuses and Caspian. Many of them have sizeable Russian minorities and long-established relations with Moscow. They cannot afford to be caught in a US-Russia confrontation. The energy pipelines too originate or go through this region and Europe would not want to see this area in a state of turmoil.Moscow’s show of strength in Georgia, coupled with Washington’s failure to come to the latter’s aid, has made countries such as the Ukraine and Poland nervous. Some see this as confirming their fears that the bear’s claws remain as sharp as ever.However, this would be a serious misreading of Russia’s intentions and interests. Any effort to create an anti-Russia coalition would be counter-productive, because Moscow recognises that its strategic objectives, such as bolstering its weight in world affairs, fortifying its presence in the Caucuses and regaining control over the region’s vital oil and gas transport corridor, can only be achieved in cooperation with the West.The US too cannot expect to tackle the grave challenges of global terrorism, climate control, energy security and even peace in the Middle East, without Russia’s support and cooperation. A new Cold War would be utterly disastrous for us all.
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore / By Tariq Fatemi

Georgia the graveyard of US’s unipolar world

If there were any doubt that the rules of the international game have changed for good, the events of the past few days should have dispelled it. On Monday, President Bush demanded that Russia’s leaders reject their parliament’s appeal to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Within 24 hours, Bush had his response: President Medvedev announced Russia’s recognition of the two contested Georgian enclaves.The Russian message was unmistakable: the outcome of the war triggered by Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia on August 7 is non-negotiable – and nothing the titans of the US empire do or say is going to reverse it. After that, the British foreign secretary David Miliband’s posturing in Kiev about building a “coalition against Russian aggression” merely looked foolish.That this month’s events in the Caucasus signal an international turning point is no longer in question. The comparisons with August 1914 are of course ridiculous, and even the speculation about a new cold war overdone. For all the manoeuvres in the Black Sea and nuclear-backed threats, the standoff between Russia and the US is not remotely comparable to the events that led up to the first world war. Nor do the current tensions have anything like the ideological and global dimensions that shaped the 40-year confrontation between the west and the Soviet Union.But what is clear is that America’s unipolar moment has passed – and the new world order heralded by Bush’s father in the dying days of the Soviet Union in 1991 is no more. The days when one power was able to bestride the globe like a colossus, enforcing its will in every continent, challenged only by popular movements for national independence and isolated “rogue states”, are now over. For nearly two decades, while Russia sunk into “catastroika” and China built an economic powerhouse, the US has exercised unprecedented and unaccountable global power, arrogating to itself and its allies the right to invade and occupy other countries, untroubled by international law or institutions, sucking ever more states into the orbit of its voracious military alliance.Now, pumped up with petrodollars, Russia has called a halt to this relentless expansion and demonstrated that the US writ doesn’t run in every backyard. And although it has been a regional, not a global, challenge, this object lesson in the new limits of American power has already been absorbed from central Asia to Latin America.In Georgia itself, both Medvedev’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence and Russia’s destruction of Georgian military capacity have been designed to leave no room for doubt that the issue of the enclaves’ reintegration has been closed. There are certainly dangers for Russia’s own territorial integrity in legitimising breakaway states. But the move will have little practical impact and is presumably partly intended to create bargaining chips for future negotiations.Miliband’s attempt in Ukraine, meanwhile, to deny the obvious parallels with the US-orchestrated recognition of Kosovo’s independence earlier this year rang particularly hollow, as did his denunciation of invasions of sovereign states and double standards. Both the west and Russia have abused the charge of “genocide” to try and give themselves legal cover, but Russia is surely on stronger ground over South Ossetia – where its own internationally recognised peacekeepers were directly attacked by the Georgian army – than Nato was in Kosovo in 1999, where most ethnic cleansing took place after the US-led assault began.“Moralising on Georgia”There has been much talk among western politicians in recent days about Russia isolating itself from the international community. But unless that simply means North America and Europe, nothing could be further from the truth. While the US and British media have swung into full cold-war mode over the Georgia crisis, the rest of the world has seen it in a very different light. As Kishore Mahbubani, Singapore’s former UN ambassador, observed in the Financial Times a few days ago, “most of the world is bemused by western moralising on Georgia”. While the western view is that the world “should support the underdog, Georgia, against Russia ... most support Russia against the bullying west. The gap between the western narrative and the rest of the world could not be clearer.”Why that should be so isn’t hard to understand. It’s not only that the US and its camp followers have trampled on international law and the UN to bring death and destruction to the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In the early 1990s, the Pentagon warned that to ensure no global rival emerged, the US would need to “account for the interests of advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership”. But when it came to Russia, all that was forgotten in a fog of imperial hubris that has left the US overstretched and unable to prevent the return of a multipolar world.Of course, that new multipolarity can easily be overstated. Russia is a regional power and there is no imminent prospect of a serious global challenger to the US, which will remain overwhelmingly the most powerful state in the world for years to come. It can also exacerbate the risk of conflict. But only the most solipsistic western mindset can fail to grasp the necessity of a counterbalance in international relations that can restrict the freedom of any one power to impose its will on other countries unilaterally.One western response, championed by the London Times this week, is to damn this growing challenge to US domination on the grounds that it is led by autocratic states in the shape of Russia and China. In reality, western alarm clearly has very little to do with democracy. When Russia collapsed into the US orbit under Boris Yeltsin, his bombardment of the Russian parliament and shamelessly rigged elections were treated with the greatest western understanding.The real gripe is not with these states’ lack of accountability – Russian public opinion is in any case overwhelmingly supportive of its government’s actions in Georgia – but their strategic challenge and economic rivalry. For the rest of us, a new assertiveness by Russia and other rising powers doesn’t just offer some restraint on the unbridled exercise of global imperial power, it should also increase the pressure for a revival of a rules-based system of international relations. In the circumstances, that might come to seem quite appealing to whoever is elected US president.—Dawn/Guardian News Service/ By Seumas Milne

Now, or perhaps never

FOR the last three decades the establishment has flirted with brinkmanship in exploiting religious passions to fuel a controlled delivery of exported political trouble. First it was in the form of mercenary support for one superpower. Then, using the residual, but battle-hardened firepower it perpetuated a simmering bilateral dispute heating it up to destructive temperatures. It is another matter that we then witnessed a complete somersault by surrendering the initiative and acquiescing to diplomatic browbeating.Historically, controlled delivery agents have always grown larger and more powerful than their handlers in the cobweb-weaving agencies. As a result, Pakistan is being taken for a ride by some so-called Islamists, thriving on a conviction founded in ignorance and funded by domestic and foreign agents who fear the establishment of democracy in the country.Ziaul Haq and his legacy of generals — autonomously wise, exclusively patriotic and entirely independent of the state — allowed a perverted perception of Islam to be owned and proliferated by a sizeable part of the gullibly unintelligent and economically vulnerable population. The perception grew out of dogma, ingrained in a past irrelevant to the present-day world. It was an attempted recall of days of yore, but without the accompanying political and material strength. This worldview was the creation of self-styled ideologues in the military and could be superimposed upon a corrupt political outfit.The intention is now to inflict a perverted perception of Islam at gunpoint. We can be cajoled, blackmailed and coerced into a kind of social behaviour that may be a declaration of defiance, but that has nothing to do with real Islam. For decades, since Islamists, with poor intellectual content, acquired political clout, the agencies’ intelligentsia and their brilliant ideologues reposed their trust in these controlled agents of destruction within or outside Pakistan. Islamic knowledge was being measured according to the cut, size and extent of the dishevelled growth of facial hair.It is an insult to intelligent and educated people that the interpretation of Muslim philosophy and Islamic behaviour is squarely the domain of the least intellectually equipped, and whose Islamic interpretation of political responses is entirely out of sync with the Quran and Sunnah. It is a shame that we are condemned to be led into social and religious behaviour which is condemnable in true Islam; merely because the brute force of the gun trained on Muslims prevents us from exercising the courage to defy the untruth. The brilliant strategists and thinkers of the agencies consider it a right to impose their wish on the will of the people.What are the recent-day neo-Taliban of the NWFP doing now? Coercing fellow Muslims, abducting fellow Muslims, killing fellow Muslims — all in the name of an authority, discretion and privilege that do not vest in them! And the clergy that derives political influence from such pockets of indefensible insurgencies, does not have the courage to disown these irreligious, immoral activities.Recently, scholars of the calibre of Muftis Munib-ur-Rahman and Rafi Usmani (only conditionally) and the rationalist scholar Javed Ahmed Ghamidi have distanced themselves from such untenable interpretations of Muslim behaviour. But the saddest part is that leaders of the religious political parties have not had the courage to demonstrate the knowledge and conviction to denounce such utterly un-Islamic acts and are unwilling to state the truth for the sake of political convenience.Because the so-called religious political parties, averse to the cause of Pakistan before 1947, derive their strength from these bigots, these parties refuse to condemn what is obviously and outright un-Islamic. Every time there is a discussion on terrorism their favourite refrain is the cause of such terrorism. Its consequences are either lost on them, or are irrelevant to their politics.We all know where the roots of Muslim defiance and mistrust of western capitalist hegemony lie. But can we forget the partners of the West in the destruction and denial of the Palestinian cause — Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, et al? And why should ordinary Islam-loving, practising Muslims pay a price under the hammer of illiterate Pakistani bigots with ill-begotten military hardware?We know that even Maulana Maudoodi refused to sanctify the Kashmir jihad of 1948. Now his political progenies are unconcerned with the tenets of religion and are more mindful of political gains; and, therefore, refuse to make proactive pronouncements on the legitimacy of what insurgents in the NWFP are doing in the name of religion. At best, they offer reactive responses.Religion is unfortunately becoming the proprietary domain of those who espouse a particular physical appearance. Without regard to any intellectual content they are willing to impose a particular social conduct upon the people, at the point of pain, in a perverted display of irreligious thuggery in the name of religion.Whatever the causes of this terrible conduct damaging the noble concept of jihad, we must be mindful of the outcome of such pervasively destructive socio-political movements. The fair name of Islam cannot be allowed to be soiled by these negatively motivated and poorly educated exponents of Islamic militancy. More than others, it is the duty of the true scholars of Islam to proactively condemn such pursuits and help purge these victims of the indoctrination of untrue Islam.Importantly, the leaders of religious political parties should rise above short-term political advantages and denounce these un-Islamic acts in a forthright manner. The time to do so is now. Later perhaps sanity may become unredeemable and the delirium now being demonstrated may become uncontrollable. Religious political leaders owe it to Islam and to posterity to act before it is too late.
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore / By Javed Hasan Aly

Kashmir on edge

IT is not yet possible to determine who is to blame for the situation in Jammu and Kashmir. The jury is still out. There is no doubting the inept handling by the Indian government and its advisors.Religious ferment is the consequence of what has happened in the two regions, not the cause. The cause is the lack of political will and the inadequacy of successive governments at the centre to take decisions when they should have.Influenced by the hawkish bureaucracy and ill-informed intelligence agencies, New Delhi has failed to appreciate the depth of the people’s alienation in the Valley on the one hand and the widening gulf between Kashmir and Jammu on the other. Muslim-majority Kashmir and Hindu-majority Jammu had been drifting apart for some years. Yet the government did very little to reverse the trend by balancing the share of both in governance or economy.The Valley’s estrangement from the rest of the country has been visibly increasing since 1990. Statements like ‘the sky is the limit’, were never concretised, either during talks with Kashmiri leaders or by transferring all subjects except defence, foreign affairs and communications to the state unilaterally.Some well-meaning persons are suggesting that India should quit Kashmir. They do not realise that the Yasin Maliks and Umar Farooqs will be pushed out in no time and the Valley will be taken over by the Taliban or terrorists. The unfortunate part is that Kashmiryat, akin to Sufism, has got burnt. Kashmir has become avowedly Islamic and Jammu avowedly Hindu. Very little grey area is available. New Delhi, still clueless, knows only one way: the use of force.Whatever can be retrieved from the ashes of decimated Kashmiriyat is valuable and will be important for tomorrow’s democratic, pluralistic India which needs to prove its secular credentials. Democracy is a constant dialogue. But it is yet to be appreciated by the 61-year-old nation which is still in the making. It lacks patience and perseverance.India’s ethos of pluralism has been hit the most. What effect the stand taken by the Valley, more Islamic than Indian, would have on the polity is difficult to say. But secular forces in the country have been weakened.There is still no effort to talk to the Kashmiri leaders though interlocutors of the government say that they had done most of the job. What have they done so far is what people want to know. New Delhi would be well advised to issue a white paper on Kashmir, containing talks with Kashmiri leaders and the Pakistan government.I still believe that talks with the Hurriyat leaders may reveal that they are not for secession but for the separate identity which was guaranteed when the state joined the Union of India. But religious elements and the intelligence agencies have exploited the situation to such an extent that people can’t see the wood for the trees. The problem is political and needs deft handling.The pressure of events may force the Pakistan government to take a stand, not only because of the smouldering situation in the Valley but also because Azad Kashmir may eventually lend support to the concept of azadi.The tragedy is that the governments in both countries are in no position to discuss azadi. The Gilani government in Islamabad has yet to attain stability. The Manmohan Singh government has no verdict from the Indian electorate to change the country’s borders and is left with only six to eight months of its five-year tenure. Even if it were to hold talks with the Hurriyat, it would not be able to offer anything concrete because it cannot prejudge who will hold office after the Lok Sabha elections.Temperatures in Kashmir have already reached boiling point. Even if Hurriyat leaders were to think of waiting until after the polls, they would find it hard to convince the people to defer the agitation. The threat that the terrorists would take over from the Hurriyat leaders is a superficial reading of the situation. Were the movement to take that direction, the security forces would use maximum force to crush the insurgency.My fear is that the demand of secession may give a handle to the Bharatiya Janata Party which has been looking for an emotive issue after the Babri Masjid-Ram Janambhoomi dispute or the Sethu Bridge in the sea down south. The nation is not prepared for another partition and that too on the basis of religion. It is difficult to imagine the fallout in the country. The northeast too is watching developments in Kashmir. Manipur is in ferment and communities like the Nagas are demanding the right of self-determination.Fundamentalists in Pakistan may be happy over the developments in the Valley. The ISI may want to fish in its troubled waters. But they should realise that azadi holds as good for Kashmir under Pakistan as for the Kashmir on the Indian side. Islamabad has opposed an independent status for Kashmir in the past. There is no indication that it has changed its policy.However, there is no time to waste. New Delhi should hold talks with the Kashmiri leaders to assure them of an independent status, minus foreign affairs, defence and communications. Kashmir can have a UN seat as did Ukraine in the Soviet Union.In the meanwhile, New Delhi must address the fears of the Muslim community in India. It feels insecure and helpless. In recent days I have travelled to some parts of the country and talked to many people, including well-placed Muslims. I have found them complaining against the authorities, particularly the police. The community knows that the happenings in Jammu and Kashmir have polluted the atmosphere. But it believes that the arrests of the young among them are not because of Kashmir. Their concern is that on the pretext of curbing the activities of the Students Islamic Movement of India (Simi), scores of Muslims are picked up. Even if they are released after a few days, the tag of terrorism sticks with them.What is most disturbing is that the Muslim community finds the pluralistic ethos in India to be weakening and the sense of tolerance lessening. This means that even after 61 years of independence, the nation has failed to establish a secular polity. It is, indeed, disturbing.
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore / By Kuldip Nayar

Political personality disorder

CITING court documents, London’s Financial Times has reported that as recently as last year presidential contender Asif Ali Zardari was “diagnosed with a range of serious illnesses including dementia, major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.” This has been attributed in part to the alleged torture he suffered while in prison in Pakistan.In fact, people possess a number of traits that are components of their personality. Collectively these characteristics present themselves in the form of certain behaviour patterns that are either desirable or undesirable. Some of these traits are paranoia, jealousy, obsession, attention-seeking, dependence, sensitiveness or an exaggerated sense of self-importance.These traits can create problems for the person possessing them during social interaction. However, these traits become threatening when they assume the form of a fully fledged personality disorder. This has been defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV as “enduring pattern(s) of inner experience and behaviour” that are sufficiently rigid and deep-seated to bring a person into repeated conflict with his or her social and occupational environment.Pakistan has been unfortunate in that many of its leaders have played havoc with the country and caused it immense harm. This can be attributed to the fact that a number of them have suffered from personality disorders. Yet this has not been widely recognised because little emphasis is placed on the mental health aspect of people in a position of responsibility in public life.One wonders why this is so when professional institutions subject candidates desirous of entering them to rigorous psychological tests before appointing them. Why are political leaders not subjected to similar screening before getting unrestricted licence to enter politics? A suitable personality test would be worthwhile for highlighting undesirable traits or personality disorders falling under the psychiatric diagnostic category.Is such screening and suitable counselling that focuses on ethics and morality too impractical a proposal? Those elected and aspiring to take oath of public office must be subjected to similar physical and psychological tests as many institutions, such as the armed forces, prescribe. Revalidation and annual appraisal would be ideal but may prove to be too ambitious a suggestion at this stage.In some of our leaders, we have observed strong traits of narcissism that is reflected in feelings of self-importance, a craving for admiration and exploitative attitudes towards others. They have unrealistic and inflated views of their talents and accomplishments and may become extremely angry if criticised.The anti-social traits of some leaders have been widely discussed in the print media. They have been described as having a propensity to lie, being manipulative and selfishly disregarding the rights of others. A majority of political leaders have no doubt displayed histrionic behaviour at times that have caused great embarrassment internationally.A number of reasons are given for these personality disorders. Besides being inherited through genes, they may be triggered by faulty or dysfunctional upbringing and malfunctioning environmental influences. An example of this can be seen in the president who has just stepped down. He identified some of his own problems in his autobiography. He writes about his bullying tendencies; an extension of this behaviour was manifested in his authoritarian attitude, love of power, low frustration tolerance, anger and sensitivity to criticism. Such personalities generally tend to be rigid. They may take some very good decisions but later commit mistakes as a result of over-vigilance and anxiety.Some leaders have displayed behaviour reflecting a high sense of insecurity and personal inadequacies. Our political leaders are also in the habit of constantly blaming others and holding each other responsible for faulty outcomes of policymaking or decisions. Bullying is also a trait which prompts politicians to level allegations against their opponents and subjects them to torture, defamation etc.It seems that there is a problem with the country’s politics which has attracted a large number of politicians with faulty personality traits. By forming a mafia they strengthen their hold on power. Those few who tried to do something better for the nation were assassinated or wiped out.A number of leaders remained in exile, had luxurious lives and plenty of money but were always craving to return with the intention of acquiring power. This can be explained in terms of power addiction, a condition which drives personalities with moderate to severe degrees of craving to gain power. It is sometimes argued that those addicted to power may have specific brain receptors for such addiction or there may be a specific gene that is coupled with a particular type of personality. However, there is no conclusive evidence.It is interesting to note that if gratification is not acquired such individuals may develop complications like anxiety, depression and paranoid disorders. The existing faulty personality trait if combined with power addiction may result in faulty administration if such individuals are given the reins of power. One wonders whether diagnostic manuals will consider a new category by the name of ‘political personality disorder’. Besides, the idea of personality testing is not too ambitious if we wish to improve the socio-political scenario of the country.
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore / By Dr Amin A. Gadit

Supremacy of law in Islam

THE laws of Islam comprise rules of conduct revealed by God to His Prophet, whereby people are directed to lead their lives. Thus, revelation is the source of Islamic law which is available to us in the form of the Quran and the Sunnah of the Prophet.A unique aspect of Islamic law is that it attributes the authority of making laws to God only. According to Islam, no man or body of men can ever be capable of or allowed to make laws for other men; “.... We have bestowed from on high upon thee, step by step, this divine writ, to make everything clear, and to provide guidance ....” (16: 89)However, where there is no room for the making of new laws, there is also no prohibition on the innovation, extension, and re-interpretation of the existing laws. This very process is denoted by Ijtehad. It is the method of Ijtehad by which God has enabled Muslim jurists to: (1) make provisions for the developing circumstances; and (2) prove Islam as a system of life practical for all times.In Islam, unlike the western legal systems, there is no room for the authorities to be immune from the law. Even the head of an Islamic state may be challenged, in both official and private capacity, in the court. Obedience to a ruler for that matter is contingent on his enforcement of Islamic laws. In other words, if the government fulfils the requirements prescribed by the Quran and the Sunnah, its claim to the allegiance of the people becomes absolute. The Prophet said: “A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler), whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders do not involve disobedience (to Allah). But if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed, one should not listen to it or obey it.”It also becomes evident that the accountability of the ruler of an Islamic state is twofold: (1) he is answerable to God, as power bestowed on him by God is a sacred trust; and (2) to the people who are his subjects.The office of judge is independent of all executive control and he can exercise his authority without any form of interference from influential quarters. He decides all disputes in the light of the Quran and the Sunnah. Further, a judge is required to be impartial and decide on the merits of the case.The following statement of the Prophet, which he made while deciding the case of a noble woman who had committed theft illustrates the same: “Verily those who were before you were destroyed because when a noble man from among them committed theft, they passed no sentence on him. By Allah, had Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad, committed theft, I would have cut off her hand.”The Quran and the Sunnah define the main responsibilities of a judge. The Pious Caliphs issued detailed instructions about the qualification, appointment, and conduct of judges. Letters written by Caliph Ali to his governors regarding the administration of justice in their territories thoroughly explain who should be a judge and what should be the conduct of a judge. Caliph Umar’s case is an example of how unsuitable judicial behaviour must be dealt with. He once had a lawsuit against a Jew. When both parties went before the judge, the latter rose in his seat out of deference to Umar who looked upon the act as an unpardonable judicial weakness and dismissed the judge at once.
Courtesy: Daily Dawn Lahore/ By Sidrah Unis

Ex-general, foreign minister vie to replace Olmert

A party vote to choose a successor to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will be a close race that may stall Middle East diplomacy and affect the nuclear standoff with Iran.The two top contenders in the Sept 17 centrist Kadima party ballot are Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Israel’s chief negotiator with the Palestinians, and Iranian-born Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, a former army chief.Livni, 50, a former Mossad spy who would be the first woman premier since Golda Meir in the 1970s, has the edge in polls, with one on Thursday giving her a 21 point lead over Mofaz.But such surveys have been wrong before, especially on party primaries. Analysts see a more open race, amid signs of mounting support among Kadima members for Mofaz – seeking to become the first Israeli prime minister of non-European descent.Whoever wins could take weeks to build a new government leaving Israel, and the US-brokered talks with Palestinians, in political limbo, with Olmert staying on as caretaker leader.There is also a possibility that neither candidate would actually end up becoming prime minister.Analysts say both Livni and Mofaz, lacklustre speakers with limited political experience, may fail to piece together a new coalition among rival religious and left-wing parties.If that happens, parliament could step in and call a snap election. That could be held early in the new year.Olmert, who has pledged to step down after months of police investigations into graft allegations, would remain caretaker.But, like the outgoing US president George W. Bush, sponsor of the latest round of peace negotiations with the Palestinians, he would be a lame duck, bereft of lasting political clout.“It’s a part of a national soap opera that has taken hold of Israeli politics,” said political scientist Orit Galili-Zucker, of Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, of the political stalemate spurred by Olmert’s slow-motion departure.The Kadima contest has garnered limited public interest so far. Neither taciturn candidate seems capable of riveting an audience and only a fraction of Israelis can vote – an estimated 70,0000 party members, one per cent of the population.There are no stickers or posters on public display, no jingles on the airwaves, little advertising and the candidates have kept their public rallies to a minimum.When they do speak, both Livni and Mofaz tend to put a hawkish spin on their support hitherto for peacemaking with Palestinians, mindful their political futures are also clouded by the rising popularity of rightist leader Benjamin Netanyahu.Opinion polls show Netanyahu, a former prime minister, could defeat either Livni or Mofaz if an election were held soon.Mofaz touts his military record, a message with some resonance in a country that has seen half a dozen wars in the past 60 years. As defence minister several years ago, he oversaw moves to crush a Palestinian uprising in occupied territory.He takes a tough stance on halting his native Iran’s nuclear programme, which the West says seems destined to produce atomic weapons, despite Iranian denials. Israel is widely assumed to have the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal at the moment.If he becomes prime minister, Mofaz could escalate Israeli pressure for action to decide the nuclear standoff. He said recently an Israeli military strike on Iran may be “inevitable.”As a boyhood immigrant from Tehran, Mofaz has built a strong following among fellow immigrants, many of whom are enthused by the prospect he could become the first Israeli of Sephardic, or Middle Eastern, origin to attain the job of prime minister.Some Israelis blame the popularity of generals for a shortage of women candidates for high office. Livni may be the first woman in decades to overcome this disadvantage.“There’s a struggle between Israel’s civilian and military needs,” Galili-Zucker, the political scientist, said. “There are those who say that if we are making peace, better a general should do it than a woman.”Livni climbed the political ranks as a confidante of former prime minister Ariel Sharon, joining him in bolting from Likud in 2005 to found Kadima when Sharon pulled troops out of Gaza.As foreign minister, Livni is Israel’s main negotiator with the Palestinians, but she has sought to toughen the image of peacemaker to compete against Mofaz, and in time, Netanyahu.In remarks to reporters last week, Livni cautioned against racing to a peace deal with Palestinians as Washington wants to do by January, warning it could lead to possible violence if both sides’ expectations weren’t met. Though Livni leads Mofaz in opinion polls, some analysts say a contingent of rightists in Kadima could help sway the vote in his favour. Israeli media say several thousand party members also belong to Netanyahu’s rightist Likud party.—Reuters