Tuesday, July 7, 2020
Opinion: How America Lost the War on Covid-19
By Paul Krugman
It wasn’t because of our culture, it was because of our leadership.When did America start losing its war against the coronavirus? How did we find ourselves international pariahs, not even allowed to travel to Europe?
I’d suggest that the turning point was way back on April 17, the day that Donald Trump tweeted “LIBERATE MINNESOTA,” followed by “LIBERATE MICHIGAN” and “LIBERATE VIRGINIA.” In so doing, he effectively declared White House support for protesters demanding an end to the lockdowns governors had instituted to bring Covid-19 under control.
As it happens, the Democratic governors Trump was targeting in those tweets stood firm. But Republican governors in Arizona, Florida, Texas and elsewhere soon lifted stay-at-home orders and ended many restrictions on business operations. They also, following Trump’s lead, refused to require that people wear masks, and Texas and Arizona denied local governments the right to impose such requirements. They waved away warnings from health experts that premature and careless reopening could lead to a new wave of infections.
And the virus came.
The initial outbreak of Covid-19, centered on New York, should have taught us to be wary. Rising rates of infection can seem like a minor concern at first, especially if you don’t have adequate testing, until they explode with terrifying speed.
Paul Krugman’s Newsletter: Get a better understanding of the economy — and an even deeper look at what’s on Paul’s mind.Sign Up But neither Republican politicians nor the Trump administration was willing to heed that lesson. By the second week of June new Covid-19 cases were surging in Arizona and clearly on the rise in Texas. Yet the governors of both states dismissed calls for a pause in reopening, insisting that things were under control.
And on June 16, of course, The Wall Street Journal published an opinion article by Vice President Mike Pence declaring that there wasn’t and wouldn’t be a coronavirus second wave. Given the Trump administration’s track record, this virtually guaranteed that the wave was about to hit. And so it was.
Over the past three weeks things have quickly gotten very grim. Hospitals in Arizona and Texas are in crisis. And, yes, it was premature reopening that did it, both directly and by sending a signal to individuals that the risk was past. But why did America bungle Covid-19 so badly? There has been a fair bit of commentary to the effect that our failed pandemic response was deeply rooted in American culture. We are, the argument goes, too libertarian, too distrustful of government, too unwilling to accept even slight inconveniences to protect others.
And there’s surely something to this. I don’t think any other advanced country (but are we still an advanced country?) has a comparable number of people who respond with rage when asked to wear a mask in a supermarket. There definitely isn’t any other advanced country where demonstrators against public health measures would wave guns around and invade state capitols. And the Republican Party is more or less unique among major Western political parties in its hostility to science in general.
But what strikes me, when looking at America’s extraordinary pandemic failure, is how top-down it all was. Those anti-lockdown demonstrations weren’t spontaneous, grass-roots affairs. Many were organized and coordinated by conservative political activists, some with close ties to the Trump campaign, and financed in part by right-wing billionaires.
And the rush to reopen in Sunbelt states was less a response to popular demand than a case of Republican governors following Trump’s lead.
The main driving force behind reopening, as far as I can tell, was the administration’s desire to have big job gains leading into November, so that it could do what it knew how to do — boast about economic success. Actually dealing with the pandemic just wasn’t Trump’s kind of thing. In that case, however, why has Trump refused to wear a face mask or encourage others to do so? After all, wider use of masks would be one way to limit infections without shutting down the economy.
Well, Trump’s vanity — his belief that wearing a mask would make him look silly, or mess up his makeup, or something — has surely played a role. But it’s also true that masks remind people that we haven’t controlled the coronavirus — and Trump wants people to forget that awkward fact. The irony is that Trump’s willingness to trade deaths for jobs and political gain has backfired. Reopening did lead to large job increases in May and June, as around a third of the workers laid off as a result of the pandemic were rehired. But Trump’s job approval and electoral prospects just kept sliding. And even in purely economic terms the rush to reopen is probably failing. The last official employment number was a snapshot from the second week of June; a variety of short-term indicators suggest that growth slowed or even went into reverse soon afterward, especially in states where Covid-19 cases are spiking.
In any case, the point is that America’s defeat at the hands of the coronavirus didn’t happen because victory was impossible. Nor was it because we as a nation were incapable of responding. No, we lost because Trump and those around him decided that it was in their political interests to let the virus run wild.
یہ غلط فہمی دور کر لیں کہ پاکستان اسلامی ریاست ہے
جو لوگ آپ کو بتاتے ہیں کہ پاکستان مذہبی ریاست ہے، ان کی نجی زندگیوں میں دور دور تک
ہبی اخلاقیات کا کوئی عمل دخل نہیں ہے۔
مندر کی سرکاری پیسے سے ہونے والی تعمیر رک جائے گی۔ یہ شروع ہی اس لیے کی گئی تھی کہ اسے روکا جا سکے۔ مگر کیوں؟ یہ سمجھنے کے لیے ایک بڑی غلط فہمی اپنے ذہن سے نکال دیجیے۔
عام آدمی سے لے کر علمائے کرام، قانون دانوں اور ججوں تک کو یہ غلط فہمی ہے یا وہ عوام کو اس بات کا یقین دلائے رکھنے پر مامور ہیں کہ پاکستان اسلامی ریاست ہے۔
اس غلط فہمی کو دور کر لیجیے۔ پاکستان ہرگز اسلامی ریاست نہیں ہے، اور نہ ہی ایسا ہونا کبھی ممکن تھا۔ بس آپ کو ایسا بتایا جاتا ہے، اور یہ جو آپ کو ایسا بتانے والے ہیں ان کی اپنی نجی زندگیوں میں دور دور تک کسی بھی مذہبی تقسیم یا مذہبی اخلاقیات کا کوئی عمل دخل نہیں ہے۔ اگر کبھی الحاد کا چورن بیچ کر بھی ان کی بالادستی قائم رہتی ہو تو وہ اسے بیچنے کو بھی تیار ہوں گے۔
پاکستان مسلمان اکثریت کا ملک ہے اور دستوری طور پر جمہوریہ ہے۔ یہ چار قومیتوں کے حامل دستوری یونٹس پر مشتمل فیڈریشن ہے۔ ان فیڈریٹنگ یونٹس کے باہمی تعامل کو خالصتاً سیکیولر بنیادوں پرمنظم کرنے کے لیے جو دستاویز خلق کی گئی ہے اسے دستور کہتے ہیں۔
اس غلط فہمی کو دور کر لیجیے۔ پاکستان ہرگز اسلامی ریاست نہیں ہے، اور نہ ہی ایسا ہونا کبھی ممکن تھا۔ بس آپ کو ایسا بتایا جاتا ہے، اور یہ جو آپ کو ایسا بتانے والے ہیں ان کی اپنی نجی زندگیوں میں دور دور تک کسی بھی مذہبی تقسیم یا مذہبی اخلاقیات کا کوئی عمل دخل نہیں ہے۔ اگر کبھی الحاد کا چورن بیچ کر بھی ان کی بالادستی قائم رہتی ہو تو وہ اسے بیچنے کو بھی تیار ہوں گے۔
پاکستان مسلمان اکثریت کا ملک ہے اور دستوری طور پر جمہوریہ ہے۔ یہ چار قومیتوں کے حامل دستوری یونٹس پر مشتمل فیڈریشن ہے۔ ان فیڈریٹنگ یونٹس کے باہمی تعامل کو خالصتاً سیکیولر بنیادوں پرمنظم کرنے کے لیے جو دستاویز خلق کی گئی ہے اسے دستور کہتے ہیں۔
یعنی سادہ لفظوں میں سندھی، پنجابی، بلوچی اور پٹھان قومیتوں میں وسائل کی تقسیم کرنے کے لیے اس دستور کو خلق کیا گیا ہے۔ اس ریاست کے باشندے اپنی اس قومیت کی بنیاد پر ریاست سے اپنے حقوق طلب کر سکتے ہیں جس کو صوبوں کے ڈھیلے ڈھالے سے ٹائٹل سے دستور میں تسلیم کیا گیا ہے۔ ملک کی شہریت اور پھر اس کی بنیاد پر حقوق دینے کی تعریف سے مذہب کو دانستہ طور پر باہر رکھا گیا ہے۔ مثلاً اس ملک کا سرکاری مذہب اسلام ہے مگر صرف وہی مسلمان اس ملک کے شہری ہیں جو اس کی جغرافیائی اکائیوں کے باشندے ہوں۔
جو کچھ دینی رنگ ہمیں مملکت کے نظام میں نظر آتا ہے اس کی وجہ صرف یہ ہے کہ اس ملک میں اکثریت مسلمانوں کی ہے۔ مضبوط مرکز کے لیے ایک نوزائیدہ مملکت کے باشندوں کو واحد قومیت کا وہم پیدا کرنا اور اس کے لیے انہیں ایک لالی پاپ دینا ضروری تھا۔ کچھ بے ضرر سی اسلامی شقیں دستور میں رکھ دی گئیں جیسے 97 فیصد مسلمان آبادی کے ملک کا سربراہ مملکت مسلمان ہو گا، کائنات کے اقتدار اعلیٰ کا مالک اللہ ہے، ملک کا سرکاری مذہب اسلام ہوگا، اغلاط سے پاک قرآن حکیم چھپوانے کا اہتمام کیا جائے گا وغیرہ۔
پاکستان کے قانون میں بھلے لکھا ہوا ہے کہ قرآن و سنت پاکستان کا سپریم لا ہے مگر جو بات سمجھنے کی ہے وہ یہ کہ قرآن و سنت کی وہی تشریح قانون ہے جسے مغربی جمہوری اصولوں پر تشکیل شدہ پارلیمنٹ بطور قانون چن لے یا ملک کی خالصتاً سیکیولر عدالتیں اسے قانون کا درجہ دے دیں۔ اب اگر فقہا آپ کو بتاتے بھی رہیں کہ داڑھی منڈھا شخص اور پھر اس گناہ کا مسلسل ارتکاب کرنے والا گناہ کبیرہ کا مرتکب ہوتا ہے اور عادل نہیں رہتا مگر آپ پھر بھی ایسے شخص کو اسلامی ریاست کا سربراہ بننے یا بطور جج ملکی قوانین اور اسلام کی مطابقت اور تعبیر و تشریح کرنے سے نہیں روک سکتے۔
اب جیسے سود کا مسئلہ دیکھ لیں۔ جب معاملہ سپریم کورٹ کے بس سے بھی باہر ہو گیا تو عوام کی تسلی کے لیے عالمی سودی بینکاری اور ڈالر بیسڈ کرنسی کے نظام سے ملحق ایک غیر سودی بینکاری تخلیق کر دی گئی۔ اسے پین کلر سمجھ لیں۔ مملکت کا اپنا مالیاتی نظام البتہ مکمل طور پر روایتی سودی نظام سے منسلک ہے۔
رقص اور موسیقی سے لے کر شراب کے سرکاری لائسنس دینے اور فائیو سٹار ہوٹلوں میں نیو ایئر پارٹیوں تک حکمران طبقے (چند سو ایلیٹ خاندان اور ان کا بچا کھچا کھانے والے چند لاکھ اپر کلاس اور اپر مڈل کلاس خاندانوں) کے لائف سٹائل میں مداخلت کرتی کوئی مذہبی پابندی آپ کو بطور قانون یہاں نظر نہیں آئے گی۔
کیا آپ کو ریاستی ڈھانچے میں اسلام کہیں نظر آتا ہے؟ لیکن اس ملک کے عوام کے نزدیک چونکہ یہ ملک ایک اسلامی ریاست ہے لہٰذا ایک اسلامی ریاست کا سب سے بڑا فریضہ اسلامی اقدار کا تحفظ ہی ہونا چاہیے۔
اب اس بات پر غور کریں کہ ہر چند سال بعد کسی نہ کسی مذہبی ایشو پر ملک کے عوام سراپا احتجاج ہوتے ہیں۔ حکومت پہلے خاموش رہتی ہے، پھر اپنی غلطی تسلیم کرتی ہے اور اس کے بعد عوام کے موقف کے سامنے سر جھکا دیتی ہے۔ عوام اگلے جہان کے لیے زاد راہ میسر آنے پر اطمینان کا سانس لیتے ہیں اور ان کے اس جہان کی زندگی واپس اپنے معمول پر آ جاتی ہے۔
رقص اور موسیقی سے لے کر شراب کے سرکاری لائسنس دینے اور فائیو سٹار ہوٹلوں میں نیو ایئر پارٹیوں تک حکمران طبقے (چند سو ایلیٹ خاندان اور ان کا بچا کھچا کھانے والے چند لاکھ اپر کلاس اور اپر مڈل کلاس خاندانوں) کے لائف سٹائل میں مداخلت کرتی کوئی مذہبی پابندی آپ کو بطور قانون یہاں نظر نہیں آئے گی۔
کیا آپ کو ریاستی ڈھانچے میں اسلام کہیں نظر آتا ہے؟ لیکن اس ملک کے عوام کے نزدیک چونکہ یہ ملک ایک اسلامی ریاست ہے لہٰذا ایک اسلامی ریاست کا سب سے بڑا فریضہ اسلامی اقدار کا تحفظ ہی ہونا چاہیے۔
اب اس بات پر غور کریں کہ ہر چند سال بعد کسی نہ کسی مذہبی ایشو پر ملک کے عوام سراپا احتجاج ہوتے ہیں۔ حکومت پہلے خاموش رہتی ہے، پھر اپنی غلطی تسلیم کرتی ہے اور اس کے بعد عوام کے موقف کے سامنے سر جھکا دیتی ہے۔ عوام اگلے جہان کے لیے زاد راہ میسر آنے پر اطمینان کا سانس لیتے ہیں اور ان کے اس جہان کی زندگی واپس اپنے معمول پر آ جاتی ہے۔
حالیہ مندر ایشو کو لے لیں۔ آپ کا جذبہ ایمانی اپنی جگہ مگر کیا آپ نے اس کی ٹائمنگ پر بھی غور کیا؟ میاں صاحب کی حکومت کے شدید بحران کے دنوں میں اس منصوبے کا آغاز کیا گیا اور تقریباً چار سال تک خاموشی رہی۔ پھر حالیہ دنوں میں جب حکومت کو پے درپے آٹا چینی اور پیٹرول کے سکینڈلوں پر تنقید کا سامنا تھا تو یہ پراجیکٹ ایک بار پھر سے منظر عام پر آ گیا۔
حسب توقع احتجاج ہوا اور اب شنید ہے کہ کام روک دیا جائے گا اور سرکاری فنڈز جاری نہ کرنے کا اعلان بھی جلد ہی متوقع ہے۔
عوام کو سستی بجلی، روزگار، صحت اور تعلیم دینا بڑا مشکل کام ہے اور عوام کے مذہبی جذبات کی تسکین کرنا انتہائی آسان۔ ہماری حکومتیں ستر بہتر سال سے یہ تسکین فراہم کرنے کی عادی ہیں۔
عوام کو سستی بجلی، روزگار، صحت اور تعلیم دینا بڑا مشکل کام ہے اور عوام کے مذہبی جذبات کی تسکین کرنا انتہائی آسان۔ ہماری حکومتیں ستر بہتر سال سے یہ تسکین فراہم کرنے کی عادی ہیں۔
بھٹو صاحب نے اپنے خلاف چلنے والی تحریک کا مقابلہ کیسے کیا؟ شراب پر پابندی، جمعے کی چھٹی، گھڑ دوڑ پر پابندی لگا کر۔
جنرل ضیاء الحق کا ریفرنڈم یاد ہے؟ ’کیا آپ اسلامی نظام چاہتے ہیں؟ اگر ہاں تو جنرل ضیاء پانچ سال کے لیے اس ملک کا صدر ہوں گے۔‘
مشرف نے وکلا تحریک سے توجہ ہٹانے کے لیے لال مسجد آپریشن شروع کروا دیا، یہ تو عوام اس طرف متوجہ نہیں ہوئے اور بعد میں ان کی اس مہم جوئی کا ردعمل شدید ترین دہشت گردی کی صورت میں نکلا ورنہ مشرف صاحب بطور صدر اسلامی جمہوریہ چند ماہ بعد عوامی احتجاج کے کارن علما کے کسی عالی شان اجتماع میں لال مسجد کی چابیاں دوبارہ مولانا عبدالعزیز کے حوالے کر رہے ہوتے۔
اب فرض کر لیں کہ ملک کے طول و عرض میں مندر کے خلاف جو حالیہ احتجاج ہوا ہے، ایسا احتجاج پٹرول کی حالیہ قیمتوں میں اضافے کے خلاف ہوتا۔ جیّد علما میدان عمل میں ہوتے۔ ٹوئٹر پر مسلمان حکمرانوں پر رعایا کے حقوق گنوائے جا رہے ہوتے، خلفائے راشدین کے عہد سے مثالیں دی جا رہی ہوتیں، جمعے کے خطبوں میں حکومت کو للکارا جا رہا ہوتا، تو اس سب کے بعد مندر کی تعمیر کو روکنے کی طرح حکومت پٹرول کی قیمت میں اضافے کو واپس لے لیتی؟
جی نہیں۔ حکومت کے لیے بہت آسان ہوتا کہ کوئی عاطف میاں ڈھونڈ کر اسے کسی کمیٹی میں شامل کرتی اور پھر عوام کے اس طرف متوجہ ہونے کا انتظار کرتی۔ پھر عاطف میاں کو پرزور عوامی اصرار پر اس کمیٹی سے نکال دیا جاتا۔
اب فرض کر لیں کہ ملک کے طول و عرض میں مندر کے خلاف جو حالیہ احتجاج ہوا ہے، ایسا احتجاج پٹرول کی حالیہ قیمتوں میں اضافے کے خلاف ہوتا۔ جیّد علما میدان عمل میں ہوتے۔ ٹوئٹر پر مسلمان حکمرانوں پر رعایا کے حقوق گنوائے جا رہے ہوتے، خلفائے راشدین کے عہد سے مثالیں دی جا رہی ہوتیں، جمعے کے خطبوں میں حکومت کو للکارا جا رہا ہوتا، تو اس سب کے بعد مندر کی تعمیر کو روکنے کی طرح حکومت پٹرول کی قیمت میں اضافے کو واپس لے لیتی؟
جی نہیں۔ حکومت کے لیے بہت آسان ہوتا کہ کوئی عاطف میاں ڈھونڈ کر اسے کسی کمیٹی میں شامل کرتی اور پھر عوام کے اس طرف متوجہ ہونے کا انتظار کرتی۔ پھر عاطف میاں کو پرزور عوامی اصرار پر اس کمیٹی سے نکال دیا جاتا۔
اسی طرح فرض کریں کہ فیض آباد کا ایک سابقہ دھرنا بجلی کی ہوش ربا قیمتوں میں اضافے کے خلاف ہو رہا ہوتا۔ کیا ایسا ممکن تھا کہ دارالحکومت کئی ہفتوں تک عملاً مفلوج رہتا اور پھر اس کے بعد حکومت اور مظاہرین میں بجلی کی کم قیمتوں کا راضی نامہ ہو جاتا؟
اس سوال کا بھی سادہ سا جواب ہے کہ نہیں۔ اس لیے کہ عوام کو کوئی حقیقی ریلیف فراہم کرنے کے لیے بالادست طبقے کو اپنے مفادات چھوڑنے پڑتے ہیں۔ عوام کی روحانی تازگی کا سامان کرنا اس کی نسبت بہت آسان کام ہے۔ جس دن عوام نے یہ جان لیا کہ ریاستی نظام کے کنویں میں نا انصافی کے مردہ کتے کی موجودگی میں اس کنویں سے جتنے بھی اسلامی مطالبات کے ڈول نکال لیے جائیں یہ کنواں وضو کرنے کے قابل نہیں ہو سکتا، اس دن ریاست کو عوام کے سامنے جوابدہ ہونا پڑے گا۔
اس سوال کا بھی سادہ سا جواب ہے کہ نہیں۔ اس لیے کہ عوام کو کوئی حقیقی ریلیف فراہم کرنے کے لیے بالادست طبقے کو اپنے مفادات چھوڑنے پڑتے ہیں۔ عوام کی روحانی تازگی کا سامان کرنا اس کی نسبت بہت آسان کام ہے۔ جس دن عوام نے یہ جان لیا کہ ریاستی نظام کے کنویں میں نا انصافی کے مردہ کتے کی موجودگی میں اس کنویں سے جتنے بھی اسلامی مطالبات کے ڈول نکال لیے جائیں یہ کنواں وضو کرنے کے قابل نہیں ہو سکتا، اس دن ریاست کو عوام کے سامنے جوابدہ ہونا پڑے گا۔
#Pakistan - #PTI’s summer of discontent
Maleeha LodhiTHE federal government was able to easily ensure the adoption of its finance bill last week. But not before a last-minute effort by Prime Minister Imran Khan to fete his party’s parliamentarians and coalition partners in order to calm growing restiveness in their ranks.
An evening on the lawns of Prime Minister House does not, however, represent a political strategy. Nor will the government’s problems both within its party and with allies vanish with the passage of the budget or the prime minister’s presence in the National Assembly twice last week. If anything, the budget session has shown that a united and resolute opposition is intent on mounting more pressure on the government at a time when the public impression gaining ground is of a government underperforming in the face of multiple challenges including those generated by Covid-19. More significantly, growing dissent and infighting in the ruling party indicates that managing the party is also becoming a daunting problem at a critical moment.
Of course, some dissension and disgruntlement can be expected in any political party and is far from unusual. But when this frequently surfaces in public, and prominent ministers and MNAs air dissenting views on television, it acquires political significance. When such openly expressed misgivings coincide with or are encouraged by the public perception of faltering governance it becomes even more consequential.
What do we make of all of this? What does it reveal about the ruling party? About its leader’s style of political management? And about his ability to deal with discontent within its ranks and among unhappy coalition partners?
Alienating allies and leaving party tensions unresolved signals trouble ahead.
The most obvious aspect of the PTI government, which has attracted frequent comment, is the inherent tension between elected members and an army of unelected advisers and special assistants. This kind of friction afflicted previous ruling parties too. But the PTI government has earned the distinction of appointing a record number of advisers and special assistants — the largest in recent history. This has triggered increasing resentment among its lawmakers. Their lack of access to the top and to development funds also lies behind their disenchantment. Many lawmakers feel they were used by the leadership to secure power and then ignored. These tensions have been left to fester by a leadership that does not seem to regard this as a problem, except when votes are needed for parliamentary motions. Such an ad hoc approach does little to resolve underlying issues.
This is especially the case when dealing with allies in what is a coalition government. Allies are needed to sustain the government’s majority in the National Assembly. But the inability to accommodate the interests of coalition partners has already led to a parting of the ways with the BNP-M, whose leader Akhtar Mengal cited the government’s failure to deliver on its promises as the reason for the rupture. Another ally, the PML-Q, was conspicuous by its absence from the prime ministerial dinner, signalling its displeasure over unfulfilled commitments.
One factor behind this increasing discontent is the leadership’s attitude towards parliament. The prime minister himself has shown little interest much less patience in working parliament. Showing up occasionally to deliver rambling lectures is not enough. Parliamentary politics is quintessentially participatory. It requires building consensus, listening to opposing views, accommodating dissenting voices and regularly meeting party backbenchers to respond to their demands and solicit support for policy. By rejecting ‘traditional politics’, the ruling party has, in similar vein, also devalued parliament’s role except when frontbenchers use it to hurl invective against the opposition.
But there is another, more significant factor that may have become a disincentive for the leadership to engage with parliamentary members. When the need has arisen for support from allies and its own MNAs, the civil-military establishment has aided the government in mobilising that support. Reliance on non-political actors has obviated the need to take parliament seriously and engage regularly with its members. Moreover, as the coalition itself was cobbled together in no small measure by the establishment’s help, party leaders again tend to look to it to keep allies in line.
As for the party’s internal rifts, they reflect the fact that the PTI comprises diverse interests and represents a motley crew of original supporters, defectors from other parties and new entrants recruited at the time of election with establishment support. Many who joined the party in Punjab were former PML-Q and PPP members while in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, assorted defectors were from the Jamaat-i-Islami, PPP and PML-N.Infusing this heterogeneous membership with unity of purpose has not been easy and explains why the ruling party has lurched between contradictory positions. That is also why the party still defines itself by what it is against rather than what it stands for. It is ‘against corruption’, ‘against traditional politicians’ and against business ‘mafias’. Thus, it has yet to create a positive identity for itself.Managing the party in power presented a bigger challenge especially as it was loosely organised — more like a fan club than an organised party. For a long time, responsibility for party management was given to Jahangir Tareen, a seasoned politician. This worked well until he fell out of favour with Khan. No one was subsequently delegated the task, which has left the party in disarray with discordant voices on the rise.
What remains an enigma is the party leader’s unwillingness to control infighting especially among its senior members. A deliberate let-them-fight strategy aimed at keeping senior leaders off balance could be an explanation. But a more plausible one is that he appears averse to stepping down from his pedestal to ‘sully his hands’ in resolving factional political disputes. Whatever the reason, it leaves the party in a disorderly state and creates an impression of a leader distanced from party affairs. It also frees ministers to say and tweet what they wish, at times contrary to official policy, reinforcing the public perception of a disorganised team running the government.
Of course, none of this poses an existential threat to the government. But alienating allies and leaving party tensions unresolved signals trouble ahead in what promises to be a long and politically hot summer.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1567286/ptis-summer-of-discontent
#pakistanagainstminorities #PakistanHinduHateExposed #pakistanexposed - #Pakistan - OP-ED The Temple Debate continued
@theRealYLH
A religious debate is ensuing in the country as to whether or not a Hindu temple can be built in an “Islamic state”. As I wrote in my previous article, this is precisely the kind of debate that arises in a theocracy and which retards the progress of a modern nation state. However the facts are that Pakistan is a theocracy under the present constitutional dispensation and there is no escaping this fact. The question then is whether or not new Non-Muslim places of worship can be built in an Islamic land and whether or not the government can fund it? We have historical precedents in Islamic history in the subcontinent where Muslim rulers not only allowed the building of Hindu places of worship but gave them land grants for the purpose. There was no greater Islamic puritan in Mughal History than Emperor Aurangzeb. Rutgers historian Audrey Truschke in her classic “Aurangzeb, the man and the myth” lists in detail the instances of Aurangzeb granting land to temples and ensuring their upkeep. In 1687 Aurangzeb granted land to Brahmins and Hindu holy men in Benaras to build a complex of residences and worship right next to a mosque. In 1691 he gave eight villages and land for Balaji Temple of Chitrakoot, on the banks of River Mandakini Ganga, which was built on official funds provided by the Mughal Empire. The land so given was free of lagan requirements i.e. tax free land for the temple. There are numerous such examples from Emperor Aurangzeb where he bequeathed land grants and funds to Hindu and Jain communities for temples and other community welfare related projects.
The truth is that both Pakistan and India are priest ridden religious societies, which are by design intolerant.
Same is true of the other “iconoclast” – the destroyer of Somnath- Mahmud of Ghazni, who had in his employ numerous Hindu soldiers, Pandits, holy men and Sanskrit scholars. He is said to have made a temple in Ghazni for their worship. Tipu Sultan, the Tiger of Mysore, contributed to the upkeep of no less than 150 Hindu temples in his kingdom. One could cite Akbar but Akbar is notoriously considered Kafir by the pious amongst Muslims. However Aurangzeb, Tipu Sultan and Mahmud of Ghazni were all considered pious Muslim rulers who ruled under the sanction of Islamic law. Their actions therefore are persuasive precedents. Therefore to argue that Islamic law does not permit building of Non-Muslim places of worship especially where idolatry is practised flies in the face of historical example. This is unless we are to argue that Aurangzeb, Mahmud of Ghazni and Tipu Sultan were also bad Muslims.
The real question however is the debate itself, which is occasioned by Pakistan’s status as a theocratic state. First of all let us be clear that in the Islamic doctrine the only place where a Non-Muslim place of worship cannot be built is the land of Hijaz. Outside of the land of Hijaz there is no such bar. Quite the contrary the Islamic precedent shows autonomous religious communities not only being tolerated by accepted in Muslim history. The part of the problem is the rhetoric with respect to Medina that the current Prime Minister is fond of using. Riyasat-e-Medina cannot be replicated because it was subject to prophetic guidance. It is an aspiration that is cumbersome for a worldly nation state devoid of any divine guidance. The best we can do as mere mortals is create a just and fair nation state and that in turn means giving equal rights to all citizens.
There are two approaches that can be adopted in this regard. The first one is the US approach under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which bars the US Federal funding for purposes of worship. This means that the US Federal Government cannot build a Church, a Mosque or a Temple. The rule is consistent and does not privilege any one community over another. Pakistan on the other hand funds mosques and their upkeep. By the same token – reading Articles 4, 20 and 25 of the Pakistani Constitution together- Pakistan is bound to similarly fund religious places of all communities listed in Article 260 of the Constitution and not just Muslims. As things stand, it is heads I win, tails you lose. No consistent rule exists in our Islamic Republic except that Muslims are privileged over Non-Muslims in every possible way. At the very least we should stop claiming that Pakistan treats its minorities well and that they are equal citizens. Pakistan’s minorities are from equal. They are at best third class citizens and that too only a piddling subsection. Sikhs are pampered for other reasons, which one does not want to get into, which is why no hue and cry was raised when Kartarpur was built on public funds. One does not begrudge their special status in our Islamic Republic but one wishes that such status was accorded to all minorities and better still we just had one rule for all citizens of Pakistan, as was so eloquently promised by the now defunct 11 August speech.
Coming back to the temple debate though, the reason why the present government wanted to make a temple in Islamabad was not necessarily out of any love for the Hindu citizens of Pakistan but to make a symbolic point vis a vis India. It was to be Pakistan’s answer to the Babri Masjid demolition and judgment in India. Imran Khan is obsessed with showing Modi that Pakistan is a more egalitarian and tolerant society. The truth is that both Pakistan and India are priest ridden religious societies, which are by design intolerant. There is however one difference between the two countries. The priests who have the final say in Pakistan through the theocratic constitution, which is what the 1973 Constitution is, always hold Imran Khan, no matter how tolerant he tries to present himself, hostage. Meanwhile Hindu bigot Modi is kept in check by the secular constitution of India.
Thus gimmickry such as building a temple in Islamabad means nothing at all. If you really want to one-up Modi, implement Jinnah’s 11 August speech in letter and spirit. Pakistan must cease to be a theocracy. Only then can Muslim majority Pakistan claim moral superiority over Hindu majority India.
https://dailytimes.com.pk/636538/the-temple-debate-continued/
Pakistan: Protect religious freedom for Hindus
Pakistan’s authorities must protect the right to freedom of religion and belief for the country’s beleaguered Hindu community, including the construction of temples to exercise that right, Amnesty International said today.
The human rights organization’s call came as authorities in Islamabad capitulated to pressure from a discriminatory campaign mounted by politicians, media outlets and clerics to halt the construction of a rare temple in the Pakistani capital. The boundary wall of the site where the temple is supposed to be constructed has also been torn down by a mob.
“The respect for the right to freedom of religion was promised to Pakistan’s Hindus by the country’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Those who deny a long-marginalized community the right to practise their faith freely not only betray his legacy, but also violate the human rights of religious minorities protected under Pakistan’s constitution and its international human rights obligations,” said Omar Waraich, Head of South Asia at Amnesty International.
“Pakistan claimed positive global attention last year when it opened the Sikh temple at Kartarpur to pilgrims from India. By caving into hateful pressure, it now threatens to reverse that achievement and deepen the discrimination that Pakistan’s Hindu community faces.”
The destruction of the Hindu temple site is yet another example of persistent discrimination faced by the Hindu community in Pakistan. In recent years, they have faced increasing marginalization, with individuals facing false accusations of “blasphemy” – a crime that carries a mandatory death penalty in Pakistan – attacks on temples and shops, and the horrific abduction, forced conversion and forced marriage of hundreds of young Hindu women.
In 2019, in two separate incidents, mobs attacked Hindu properties and places of worship in the southern Sindh province after allegations of “blasphemy” were made against a Hindu school principal and a Hindu veterinarian.
Every reported act of violence against minorities must be promptly investigated and those responsible must be brought to justice.
"The Pakistani authorities must clearly and publicly condemn such acts instead of giving into them. Every reported act of violence against minorities must be promptly investigated and those responsible must be brought to justice. A recurrence can only be prevented if adequate measures are taken," said Omar Waraich.
In Pakistan, “blasphemy” allegations are often made on the basis of little or no evidence. There is overwhelming evidence that the laws violate human rights and have encouraged people to take the law into their own hands. Once a person is accused, they become ensnared in a system that presumes them guilty and fails to protect them against people willing to use violence.
Prime Minister Imran Khan has made repeated commitments to protect Pakistan’s religious minorities. In February 2020, he said: “I want to warn our people that anyone in Pakistan targeting our non-Muslim citizens or their places of worship will be dealt with strictly. Our minorities are equal citizens of the country.”
“Prime Minister Imran Khan must lend his commitments some weight to ensure religious freedom for all and to ensure that Pakistan’s Hindus and other religious minorities are able to practise their faith freely and without fear,” said Omar Waraich.
Background
Hindus constitute Pakistan’s largest non-Muslim minority, estimated at between two and four per cent of the population. They include members of parliament, a former chief justice, military officers, and prominent names in the arts.
In a landmark speech on religious freedom, Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah said in August 1947: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in the state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed – that has nothing to do with the business of the state.”
Mehbooba slams Pakistan for stopping construction of Hindu temple in Islamabad
PDP president and former J&K Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti on Tuesday slammed Pakistan for stopping the construction of a temple, claiming that this was unethical and against the spirit of Islamic Welfare state.
Pakistan had halted the construction of a temple in its capital city Islamabad. The government officials had halted the work, beginning with the construction of a wall for the Lord Krishna temple, of what was going to be the first temple in the city.
Mehbooba lashed out at the Pakistan government for the “unethical act.”
In a tweet, the first in her name (by her daughter Iltija Mufti) since she was detained on August 5 last year when Article 370 was scrapped, she said: “Preventing construction of a temple in Islamabad is antithetical to idea of an Islamic welfare state model that gives religious freedom to all.”
Mufti, whose secular credentials have often been challenged for her stand on preserving Article 370 and maintaining the Muslim-majority character of the erstwhile state of J&K, said that while the opening of the Karatarpur Corridor was appreciated, this move was “regressive”.
The PDP chief continues to be under PSA detention, though she was shifted to her residence a couple of months ago.
Amnesty International asks Pakistan to reverse decision against building temple
The Amnesty International on Tuesday urged Pakistan to reverse a decision halting the construction of a temple in the federal capital.
“Everyone has a right to freedom of religion or belief, a right that is guaranteed in Pakistan’s constitution and its international obligations. Halting the construction of a Hindu temple in Islamabad is an unconscionable act of bigotry that must be reversed immediately,” the organisation said.
According to The reports, the government last week decided to consult the Council of the Islamic Ideology (CII) on the sensitive issue as the construction work at the site of Hindu temple in Sector H-9/2 has also been stopped for want of a building plan.
The government will seek guidance and consultation from the CII and also respect the opinion of religious circles and leaders in this connection, the spokesman for the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony had earlier said.
Earlier reports of government land and funds being allocated for the construction of the temple had been circulating on social media. The Ministry of Religious Affairs had made it clear that it assists religious minorities in repairing and renovating existing places of worship, not building new ones.
The foundation stone of the temple was laid recently in Sector H-9 of Islamabad, the land of which was allotted during the previous regime.
The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday reserved judgement on a petition filed against the construction of a Hindu temple in Islamabad.
Last month, Prime Minister Imran Khan had approved the release of funds for the construction of the first Hindu temple in Islamabad.
https://nation.com.pk/07-Jul-2020/amnesty-international-asks-pakistan-to-reverse-decision-against-temple-construction