Archives: Articles

Reports about Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy law have become a focal point in the international press. It is natural for the international press to undertake this issue so seriously mainly because of the way Pakistani leadership, both the government and the opposition, has been viewing it with such an importance. It is as if this law constitutes the complete teachings of Islam and without this law there is no scope for Islam to survive in the world today. The prime minister has claimed that, “a Muslim cannot have two opinions on the blasphemy law and being descendant of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him), he cannot even think of amending it.”[1] The opposition, including a number of religious oriented political parties, also has adopted a similar position on the law. Although Pakistani politicians and religious leaders seem to achieve bliss through this law, this is bound to create a catastrophe. In our opinion, this constitutes sheer exploitation in the name of Islam and its prophet.

Circumstances in Pakistan clearly suggest that it is not the law, but execution of the law which has created a volatile situation in the country. Our knowledge of history tells us that letters are not always capable to ensure the purpose of the law. That is why history has coined the phrase “letter and spirit.” This is most relevant in the application of law, and especially in Pakistan where, according to reports, many people belonging to minority communities have been harassed under the guise of this law.

Mistreatment of the poor and weak has been common is found in every society throughout history, but when it is done in the guise of religion, it naturally causes horror. Followers of religion, however, view any criticism or description of this horror as religion-phobia. In the case of Pakistan it would be called Islamophobia which, of course, is in abundance around us today. But shouldn’t one raise the question whether the way this law is being manipulated would have the genuine potential to create fear within the minority communities? What would be the rationale to support a murderer? Love for the Prophet? A Prophet who was known for his love and kindness for weak and destitute? A Prophet who went to visit an adversary when he came to know that the woman (a non-Muslim) who used to put trash on his pathway was not well and counseled her? The woman was so moved by the behavior of the Prophet that she immediately accepted Islam. Does the blasphemy law in any way reflect teachings of the Prophet? In our opinion, if the upholders of the blasphemy law believe that they hold the truth, let them have the truth manifest itself through their behavior.

It is shocking to see people demonstrating in favor of a murderer who committed the crime in the guise of protecting the Prophet’s honor. Politicians, both from the government and the opposition, seem to have been persuaded by political expediency. Even lawyers are reported to have offered free counseling to the murderer, and now, according to newspaper reports, the law enforcing agencies don’t find a prosecutor for the case. This should be completely unacceptable by any standard of Islamic behavior. Are there no rooms for balanced view of Islam in contemporary Pakistan? According to the British newspaper Guardian Javed Ahmad Ghamdi, an independent scholar from Lahore who held the view that there is no scope for blasphemy law in the light of the Qur’an and Prophet’s teachings, is said to have fled from Pakistan because of his views on blasphemy law and other similar issues related to Islamic teachings. One of his followers, Dr. Farooq Ahmad, was gunned down by extremists a few months ago. What is happening in Pakistan? A nation achieved more than half a century ago with a dream that Muslims would regain their past civilization in the modern world by reviving Islamic teachings. Is the current state of affairs in Pakistan manifest any sign of that noble dream?

This question is related to the issue of patience, pluralism, freedom of speech and respect for human dignity. This issue also raises the question of the fundamental purpose of religion. In history religions have been backbone of all civilizations no civilization would have been possible without peace. Islam in particular, which literally means peace, not only established peace under the leadership of Prophet Muhammad (sm); it also laid down the foundation of a glorious civilization. Is the situation in Pakistan contributing to establishment of peace? How could one expect to establish peace if the minorities do not feel secure? How could a nation contribute to peace if majority of the population go for wild emotionalism in the face of minor provocation?

It is high time particularly for the so-called Islamists in Pakistan to look at the situation in Egypt where their enemies are trying to create panic among most observers by suggesting that if the current people’s revolution in Egypt succeeds their counterpart will take over and impose their version of Islam on the people.  The Islamists in Pakistan should very well know that Islam is confined to the boundaries of Pakistan and so is not Islamophobia. Therefore, the picture of Islam they depict in Pakistan will have an impact on the rest of the world.

MALAYSIA TODAY

LETTERS/SURAT

Wednesday, 09 February 2011 admin-s

Chandra Muzaffar 1986: “Datuk Abdullah’s argument that Malay political dominance should be preserved and perpetuated in order to ensure stability and harmony defies logic and denies justice.

Chandra Muzaffar 2011: “Ketuanan Melayu is not — as erroneously interpreted by the English language media — ‘Malay Supremacy’. It is more accurately described as ‘Malay Sovereignty’.

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, Director of SUARAM

No matter how hard we try, we will not find the term “Ketuanan Melayu” in the 1957 Federal Constitution. Nor will we find it in the post-May 13 amendments to the constitution. The fact remains that the term “Malay dominance” came into prominence after Abdullah Ahmad made his infamous assertions at the Institute of International Affairs in Singapore on 30 August 1986.

Just as the May 13 incident was the precursor to the New Economic Policy and the slew of new discriminatory policies, so Operation Lalang in 1987 provided the fait accompli for such unacceptable concepts such as “Ketuanan Melayu” to be part of the UMNO lexicon.

Abdullah Ahmad made his assertions on behalf of his UMNO bosses at a time during the 1986 general elections when even the MCA could not justify the “deviations” of the NEP. The mid-Eighties were a time of economic recession when the Malaysian masses in all the communities were trying to make ends meet. To remind young Malaysians today, this is what Abdullah Ahmad asserted:

“Let us make no mistake – the political system in Malaysia is founded on Malay dominance. That is the premise from which we should start. The Malays must be politically dominant in Malaysia as the Chinese are politically dominant in Singapore…

“I call for acceptance of the Malaysian political system as I have described it. Let not Singapore be the harbinger of Chinese irredentist tendencies. I say to all – the Chinese in Malaysia and to Singaporeans – don’t play with fire.”

This speech was castigated by many including myself, Dr Tan Chee Khoon, Dr Chandra Muzaffar, Lim Kit Siang, and even Dr Ling Liong Sik, then MCA president. My good friend, the late K. Das compiled these writings into a publication: “Malay Dominance?” in 1987.

Defies Logic and Denies Justice

Then Aliran president, Dr Chandra Muzaffar wrote in no uncertain terms:

“Datuk Abdullah’s argument that Malay political dominance should be preserved and perpetuated in order to ensure stability and harmony defies logic and denies justice.

“No rational person will accept a political system which legitimizes the perpetual dominance of one community and compels the other communities to acquiesce with their subordinate roles. Such a system would be a betrayal of the right of every human being to political equality, as enshrined in any modern constitution. More than that, it is demeaning to human dignity to preserve and perpetuate a system which dichotomises power on the basis of dominant and subordinate communities.

“In truth, the Malays should also be concerned about their future. For the “Malay political dominance” which Datuk Abdullah has chosen to defend has, in a sense, camouflaged the truth about the real political power of the vast majority of Malays.

“What does ‘Malay political dominance’ mean to the Malay padi farmer with a dwindling income, or a Malay rubber smallholder with meagre means, or to a Malay in-shore fisherman who can hardly keep body and soul together?

“Or is it because of this political dominance that these disparities have become more pronounced? The truth about Malay political dominance is that, it enabled the elite to protect the interests of a few. This is the ‘stark reality’ of the ‘power equation’ which Datuk Abdullah has conveniently forgotten…”

(“Malay Dominance?” K.Das Ink, 1987:89)

Ever since the strong response to Abdullah Ahmad’s racist views in 1986, UMNO’s apologists and spin doctors have been on the defensive. The crude far-right racists have, however, been given free rein.

Attempt to Rehabilitate Ketuanan Melayu

It was thus with mixed amazement and amusement that I read this latest attempt to rehabilitate “Ketuanan Melayu” by – of all people! – Dr Chandra Muzaffar in his new capacity as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Yayasan 1Malaysia:

“Ketuanan Melayu is not — as erroneously interpreted by the English language media — ‘Malay Supremacy’. It is more accurately described as ‘Malay Sovereignty’. The fight against the Malayan Union in 1946 was an attempt to restore Malay sovereignty, crucial elements of which were later incorporated into the Malayan and Malaysian Constitution in the form of the position of the Malay Rulers, the status of Malay and Islam, and the Special Position of the Malays. Suffice to emphasize loyalty to the Constitution today, without harping upon ‘Ketuanan Melayu’ which from a 1Malaysia perspective is divisive and detracts from our noble endeavour to strengthen inter-ethnic unity and harmony through common Malaysian citizenship.” (Malaysian Sentinel, 3 January 2011)

Dr Chandra’s latest rendition of Ketuanan Melayu is inconsistent on at least two fronts.

Firstly, if as he says, we have interpreted Ketuanan Melayu erroneously, then why does he still say “from a 1Malaysia perspective (it) is divisive…?”

He seems to imply that “Malay sovereignty” is preferable to “Malay supremacy”. But what does “Malay sovereignty” mean to us Non-Malays except to justify continued racial discrimination? Is Dr Chandra saying these discriminatory policies no longer exist?

These discriminatory policies exist and are periodically justified by UMNO leaders’ reference to Ketuanan Melayu. Therefore they must be addressed and not covered over by feel-good slogans like “1Malaysia”.

If spin doctor slogans are to mean anything, the DAP’s “Malaysian Malaysia” has been around far longer than ‘1Malaysia’!

There are also historical facts that have to be put right. Dr Chandra says the UMNO-led fight against the Malay Union in 1946 was “an attempt to restore Malay sovereignty.”

Is There ‘English Sovereignty’ in Britain?

This is a strange convolution of the concept of sovereignty – meaning “independence of the political control of other states; power of self-government” (Collier’s Dictionary) – with a racial bastardisation of the concept.

Is there such a thing as “English sovereignty” in Britain? What does it mean for the Scots and Welsh and Irish and Pakistanis and others?

Sure, the demonstrators in Malaya in 1946 were carrying slogans such as: ‘Malaya belongs to the Malays. We don’t want other races to be given the rights and privileges of the Malays.’ (Utusan Melayu, 22.12.1945) But these protests were “not so much against British rule as for the reinstatement of British justice”. (Khong, KH, ‘British rule and the struggle for Independence in Malaya, 1945-57’, PhD Pittsburgh 1975:179) Some placards even read: “Father protect us till we grow up.”(ibid, p.180)

It is disappointing that while ex-UMNO leaders such as Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim are prepared to jettison such a concept of Ketuanan Melayu for “Ketuanan Rakyat”, former Aliran President Dr Chandra Muzaffar sees fit to try to rehabilitate this discredited term.

Wish List for Yayasan 1Malaysia

Yayasan 1Malaysia can do a useful service for all Malaysians by calling on the Malaysian government to implement these basic reforms which are essential for inter-ethnic unity and harmony:

–         ratify the International Convention on the eradication of all forms of racial discrimination;
–         ban racially-defined political parties;
–         enact a Race Relations Act and institute an Equal Opportunities Commission to combat racism and racial discrimination in Malaysia;
–         ensure the government services are fairly represented by all Malaysian ethnic groups;
–         ensure that all schools are treated equally in terms of hardware and financial allocation…

Though there is no concept of priesthood in Islam yet a class has come into existence which is known as ‘ulama or called clerics in English. In Islam any person, if he/she has adequate knowledge can perform all the functions and rituals be it related to marriage, death or other obligations for Muslims. Alim (plural ulama) means one who knows. Thus whole emphasis is on knowledge of Qur’an and hadith irrespective of class, caste, race or nationality. Since knowledge is central this class came to be called ‘ulama.

Now the question is what knowledge should be imparted to these persons who are supposed to guide the community. The Ulama often quote a hadith that since Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is the last prophet the ulama are like stars after him and Muslims should seek guidance from them as stars guide and become source of light in darkness of night and ignorance is like darkness.

Now in those days when the tribe of ‘ulama began to come into existence the most important knowledge was that of Qur’an and hadith w2hich embodied total knowledge for guidance of the community. And in the island of Arabia which had no literary tradition before Islam, Qur’an and hadith imparted revolutionary tradition of knowledge. Anyone having that knowledge was counted among great alim. Also Qur’an and hadith were main sources of shari’ah law so its knowledge was main source of knowledge.

However, as Islam spread to other countries with old culture and civilization and other sources of law, besides these ‘ulama with their knowledge limited to Qur’an and hadith other types of ulama also came into existence i.e. those who acquired knowledge from other sources like philosophy, mathematics, physical sciences like optics, chemistry, physics, astronomy and so on. These ulama put emphasis on reason and rational sciences besides traditional sources like Qur’an and hadith

These rational sciences, over period of time became so important that they became source of syllabus for training of ‘ulama and came to9 be known as ulum al-aqliyah which mainly consisted of translations from Greek philosophy and other sciences. In those days Greek sciences were the most advanced ones and these rational sciences were supposed to broaden the vision of the ulama. They were thought to be so important that Socrates whose disciple was Plato (Flatoon or Aflatoon) was thought to be one of the prophets

Muslims produced great philosophers who contributed richly and whose commentaries on Greek philosophy were taught in European universities and Christian seminaries throughout middle ages. Thus the Christian priests studied al-Farabi, Ibn Sina (Avicina), Ibn Rushd (Averros) etc. in their seminaries.  Thus all kinds of rational sciences flourished during medieval ages in the Islamic world and Muslim ulama learnt these sciences.

Now these Greek sciences are mostly of historical importance and humankind has made tremendous progress in social and physical sciences and no one can claim to be an alim without knowledge of these contemporary developments. Unfortunately colonial period and development of these sciences in Europe had to be simultaneous and since Muslim countries were victims of colonial rule, Muslims in general and the Ulama in particular, became highly prejudiced against all western o9r European sciences. Their source was mainly colonial.

Also, the Islamic seminaries while taking out their anger against colonial masters did not understand difference between colonial rulers and scientists many of whom were themselves persecuted by the rulers. It is not the rulers who developed science but it was scientists who did and also these ulama by now considered traditional Greek philosophy and science as integral part of their religion which was totally wrong. These ulama had resisted Greek knowledge and many philosophers were persecuted but later they adopted and made these sciences part of their syllabus, and then of their religion.

Similarly they resisted modern social and physical sciences as irreligious being imported from colonial west and rejected these ‘ulum. However, later they began to accept these sciences but would not teach them in the Islamic seminaries. Still they teach traditional Greek sciences as if it is part of Islamic knowledge. Now it is high time that Islamic seminaries integrate, like Greek sciences earlier, part of syllabus in Islamic seminaries.

Today the whole emphasis in these seminaries is on traditional sciences and theological issues which is of course necessary but only as a part of training. Along with these theological issues they must train the students in these seminaries in modern social and physical sciences which will greatly help broaden their vision. They should also be trained in reinterpreting Qur’an so that it can embrace modern knowledge. The earlier commentaries and interpretations were done in the light of knowledge which was available then. One cannot continue to teach same tafsir (commentary) as if not only Qur’an but also the tafsir literature is also divine. While Qur’an is divine, tafsir is entirely human effort to understand it within the parameters of available knowledge.

The existing hadith literature comprises both authentic as well as hadith of doubtful origin. The students must be trained in modern method of critiquing the existing hadith li8terature and rigorously select only those which are authentic and in keeping with reason. Integrity of the narrator is not enough; it should also fulfill the criterion of reason. Reason and intellect are divine gifts and the Qur’an recognizes the role of ‘aql (reason).

Also, in these madrasas sectarianism is flourishing and so there is great need for future ulama to learn the value of tolerance and moderation. The fundamental values of Qur’an truth9haq), justice (‘adl) , doing goodihsan), compassion rahmah) and wisdom (hikmah) must be taught and emphasized. Also, knowledge of comparative religion must be imparted which is highly necessary in the modern pluralist world.

Only such a comprehensive syllabus will produce future ulama.

_________________________________________________________

Centre for Study of Society and Secularism

Mumbai

09 February, 2011

Al Jazeera

The recent uprisings do not exist merely in a historical vacuum, but must be considered within a geopolitical context

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, four transformative events have reshaped the global setting in enduring ways. When the Soviet empire collapsed two years later, the way was opened for the triumphalist pursuit of the American imperial project, seizing the opportunity for geopolitical expansion provided by its self-anointed global leadership – as ‘the sole surviving superpower’.

This first rupture in the nature of world order produced a decade of ascendant neoliberal globalisation, in which state power was temporarily and partially eclipsed by passing the torch of lead global policymaker to the Davos oligarchs, meeting annually under the banner of the World Economic Forum. In that sense, the US government was the well-subsidised sheriff of predatory globalization, while the policy agenda was being set by bankers and global corporate executives. Although not often identified as such, the 1990s gave the first evidence of the rise of non-state actors – and the decline of state-centric geopolitics.

The second rupture came with the 9/11 attacks, however those events are construed. The impact of the attacks transferred the locus of policymaking authority back to the United States, as state actor, under the rubrics of ‘the war on terror’, ‘global security’ and ‘the long war’. This counter-terrorist response to 9/11 produced claims to engage in preemptive warfare – ‘The Bush Doctrine’. This militarist foreign policy was put into practice by initiating a ‘shock and awe’ war against Iraq in March 2003, despite the refusal of the UN Security Council to back American war plans.

This second rupture has turned the entire world into a potential battlefield, with a variety of overt and covert military and paramilitary operations launched by the United States without appropriate authorisation – either from the UN or by deference to international law.

Selective sovereignty

Aside from this disruption of the liberal international order, the continuing pattern of responses to 9/11 involves disregard for the sovereign rights of states in the global south, as well as the complicity of many European and Middle Eastern states in the violation of basic human rights – through engaging in torture, ‘extreme rendition’ of terrorist suspects and the provision of ‘black sites’, where persons deemed hostile to the US were detained and routinely abused.

The response to 9/11 was also seized upon by the neoconservative ideologues that rose to power in the Bush presidency to enact their pre-attack grand strategy, accentuating regime change in the Middle East – starting with Iraq, portrayed as ‘low-hanging fruit’ that would have multiple benefits once picked.

These included military bases, lower energy prices, securing oil supplies, regional hegemony – and promoting Israeli regional goals.

The third rupture involved the continuing global economic recession that began in 2008 – and which has produced widespread rises in unemployment, declining living standards, and rising costs for basic necessities – especially food and fuel. These developments have exhibited the inequity, gross abuses, and the deficiency of neoliberal globalisation – but have not led to the imposition of regulations designed to lessen such widely uneven gains from economic growth – to avoid market abuses, or even to guard against periodic market collapses.

This deepening crisis of world capitalism is not currently being addressed – and alternative visions, even the revival of a Keynesian approach, have little political backing. This crisis has also exposed the vulnerabilities of the European Union to the uneven stresses exerted by varying national domestic capabilities to deal with the challenges posed. All of these economic concerns are complicated – and intensified by the advent of global warming, and its dramatically uneven impacts.

A fourth rupture in global governance is associated with the unresolved turmoil in the Middle East and North Africa. The mass popular uprisings that started in Tunisia have provided the spark that set off fires elsewhere in the region, especially Egypt. These extraordinary challenges to the established order have vividly inscribed into the global political consciousness the courage and determination of ordinary people, particularly the youth, living in these Arab countries, who have endured intolerable conditions of material deprivation, despair, alienation, elite corruption and merciless oppression for their entire lives.

Resisting the status quo

The outcomes of these movements for change in the Arab world is not yet knowable – and will not become clear for months, if not years, to come. It is crucial for supporters on the scene – and around the world – not to become complacent, as it is certain that those with entrenched interests in the old oppressive and exploitative order are seeking to restore former conditions to the greatest extent possible, or at least salvage what they can.

In this regard, it would be a naïve mistake to think that transformative and emancipatory results can come from the elimination of a single hated figure – such as Ben Ali in Tunisia or Mubarak in Egypt – or their immediate entourage. Sustainable, significant change requires a new political structure, as well as a new process that ensures free and fair elections and adequate opportunities for popular participation. Real democracy must be substantive as well as procedural, bringing human security to the people – including tending to basic needs, providing decent work, and a police force that protects rather than harasses. Otherwise, the changes wrought merely defer the revolutionary moment to a later day, and the ordeal of mass suffering will resume.

To simplify, what remains unresolved is the fundamental nature of the outcome of these confrontations between the aroused regional populace and state power, with its autocratic and neoliberal orientations. Will this outcome be transformative, bringing authentic democracy based on human rights and an economic order that puts the needs of people ahead of the ambitions of capital? If it is, then it will be appropriate to speak of ‘The Egyptian Revolution’, ‘The Tunisian Revolution’ – and maybe others in the region and elsewhere to come – as it was appropriate to describe the Iranian outcome in 1979 as the Iranian Revolution.

From this perspective, a revolutionary result may not necessarily lead to a benevolent outcome – beyond ridding the society of the old order. In Iran, a newly oppressive regime resting on a different ideological foundation emerged, itself challenged after the 2009 elections by a popular movement calling itself the Green Revolution. So far this use of the word ‘revolution’ expressed hopes rather than referring to realities on the ground.

What took place in Iran – and what seemed to flow from the onslaught unleashed by the Chinese state in Tiananmen Square in 1989 – was ‘counterrevolution’ – the restoration of the old order and the systematic repression of those identified as participants in the challenge to power. In fact, the words deployed can be misleading. What most followers of the Green Revolution seemed to seek in Iran was reform – not revolution – changes in personnel and policies, protection of human rights – but no challenge to the structure or the constitution of the Islamic Republic.

Reform vs counterrevolution

It is unclear whether this Egyptian movement is at present sufficiently unified – or reflective – to have a coherent vision of its goals beyond getting rid of Mubarak. The response of the state, besides trying to crush the uprising and even banish media coverage, offers at most promises of reform: fairer and freer elections and respect for human rights.

It remains unknown what is meant by – and what will happen during – an ‘orderly transition’ under the auspices of temporary leaders closely tied to the old regime, who likely enjoy enthusiastic backing from Washington. Will a cosmetic agenda of reform hide the reality of the politics of counterrevolution? Or will revolutionary expectations come to the fore from an aroused populace to overwhelm the pacifying efforts of ‘the reformers’? Or, even, might there be a genuine mandate of reform, supported by elites and bureaucrats – enacting sufficiently ambitious changes in the direction of democracy and social justice to satisfy the public?

Of course, there is no assurance – or likelihood – that the outcomes will be the same, or even similar, in the various countries undergoing these dynamics of change. Some will see ‘revolution’ where ‘reform’ has taken place, and few will acknowledge the extent to which ‘counterrevolution’ can lead to the breaking of even modest promises of reform.

At stake, as never since the collapse of the colonial order in the Middle East and North Africa, is the unfolding and shaping of self-determination in the entire Arab world, and possibly beyond.

How these dynamics will affect the broader regional agenda is not apparent at this stage, but there is every reason to suppose that the Israel-Palestine conflict will never be quite the same. It is also uncertain how such important regional actors as Turkey or Iran may – or may not – deploy their influence. And, of course, the behaviour of the elephant not formally in the room is likely to be a crucial element in the mix for some time to come, for better or worse.

Richard Falk is Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University and Visiting Distinguished Professor in Global and International Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He has authored and edited numerous publications spanning a period of five decades, most recently editing the volume International Law and the Third World: Reshaping Justice (Routledge, 2008).

 | Thursday 10 February 2011

Cairo – President Hosni Mubarak told the Egyptian people Thursday that he would delegate more authority to his vice president, Omar Suleiman, but that he would not resign his post, contradicting earlier reports that he would step aside and surprising hundreds of thousands of demonstrators gathered to hail his departure from the political scene.

In a nationally televised address following a tumultuous day of political rumors and conflicting reports, Mr. Mubarak said he would “admit mistakes” and honor the sacrifices of young people killed in the three-week uprising, but that he would continue to “shoulder my responsibilities” until September, and did not give a firm indication that he would cede political power.

Even as Mr. Mubarak spoke, angry chants were shouted from huge crowds in Cairo who had anticipated his resignation but were instead confronted with a plea from the president to support continued rule by him and his chosen aides. People waved their shoes in defiance, considered an insulting gesture in the Arab world.

Mr. Mubarak said the process of political change initiated by his administration, including a dialogue with opposition groups, would not be reversed. But he signaled no imminent transfer of power and blamed foreigners for seeking to interfere in Egypt’s affairs.

Help fight ignorance. Click here for free Truthout email updates.

“We will not accept or listen to any foreign interventions or dictations,” Mr. Mubarak said, implying that pressure to resign came from abroad as opposed to masses of people demanding his ouster through his country.

His statement marked the latest twist and turn in a raucous uprising. Earlier in the day, the Egyptian military appeared poise to assert itself as the leading force in the country’s politics, declaring on state television that it would take measures “to maintain the homeland and the achievements and the aspirations of the great people of Egypt” and meet the demands of the protesters who have insisted on ending Mr. Mubarak’s 30-year rule.

Several government officials said Mr. Mubarak was expected to announce his own resignation and pass authority to Mr. Suleiman.

Reporting was contributed by Kareem Fahim, Liam Stack, Mona El-Naggar and Thanassis Cambanis from Cairo, Alan Cowell from Paris, Helene Cooper from Washington and Sheryl Stolberg from Marquette, Mich.

This article “Mubarak Refuses to Step Down” originally appeared at The New York Times.

The first quarter of the second decade of the 21st century is witnessing the dawn of the Age of Aquarius. By unfolding right in the midst of the Aquarius period, the 11th star of the Zodiac, in the year 2011, these tumultuous and unprecedented events assume an even greater surreal significance.

In 2008, the U.S. elected its first African-American president who campaigned largely on the basis of a revolutionary slogan “change you can believe in”. Three years later, it is the Arab street that is demanding change it can believe in, an evolution-cum-revolution which will have sweeping and far-reaching ramifications for Egypt, Israel, the Middle East, the United States and relations between Islam and the West. With a new world order emerging, geopolitics is set to become indisputably the dominant determinant of the future of travel & tourism, outstripping economic crisis, natural disasters and environmental issues.

Not a single commentator has noted the fact that the stand-off in Tahrir square in effect is a proxy war between the people of Egypt on the one hand and the U.S.-Israeli axis on the other. If the Egyptian people lose, the defeat will be more humiliating than their military defeat by Israel  in the June 1967 six-day war. If the U.S.-Israeli axis loses, it’s entire game-plan for reshaping the Middle East on its terms could come undone.

While the two sides go eyeball-to-eyeball in this high-stakes battle, one noteworthy side-effect is that the image of all the protagonists is set to suffer. This outcome is fraught with danger but also creates opportunities for positive change within the travel & tourism industry. The following analysis is designed to set the ball rolling for the discussion that lies ahead.

Egypt

Egypt’s tourism image and global standing has clearly been affected. The global media, bloggers, social network sites and airwaves are humming with stories of intimidation and heavy-handedness, including harassment of journalists. Millions of dollars of tourism advertising and marketing efforts have gone down the drain. As tourism will have to be a factor in Egypt’s post-crisis recovery plans, it faces a two-pronged test. While the cost of rebuilding the image will certainly be steep, an even more important challenge will be identifying the focus of the message to be delivered.

In the West and the U.S., attempts are being made to blacken Egypt’s image further by making it look like a return of the Muslim Brotherhood will usher in a fundamentalist regime. Although that is speculative conjecture, it is becoming entrenched in the minds of Western consumers, and will need to be addressed.

At the same time, Islam is the dominant religion of Egypt. With its 1.2 billion followers across the world, mainly in Asia, the Islamic world will remain a major future source of tourism, trade and cultural contacts. When this is all over, Egypt could well see an outpouring of support from Muslims wanting to show solidarity with their fellow Muslims.

Hence, Egypt will face the dilemma of trying to downplay its Islamic heritage on one side while embracing and espousing the world’s Muslims on the other.

However, Egypt cannot rebuild travel & tourism without rebuilding its entire political and economic systems. This is where the slogan “Where It All Begins” can take on new meaning, provided those who have benefitted from the old order choose to make way gracefully for the new.

The need and demand for this change was exemplified in an interview panel on the Al Jazeera TV channel on 8 February. Asked about Egypt’s future economic prospects, an Egyptian banker based in Saudi Arabia said Cairo would have no choice except to mobilize investments, issue bonds and if necessary turn for help to the IMF and World Bank. In response, an Egyptian economics professor scoffed at that view, saying it would effectively be a return to “business as usual” and the very “crony capitalism” that has spawned the rampant corruption in the country.

Indirectly calling for change the Egyptians can believe in, the professor said an entirely new system would be needed to make better use of domestic financial resources and more equitably spread economic gain nationwide. He noted that wherever the IMF had come in to “help”, it had only made things worse. Getting rid of a repressive and coercive political system would be the first step towards making that change, the professor said.

All that is going to be a tall-order, with no quick fixes.

The Arab World

Leaders in the Arab world now know for sure that their self-perceived image amongst their peoples could well be a mirage. Creating personality cults, dispensing large development budgets, having huge internal security apparatus and being surrounded by a coterie of cronies is no guarantee of their continued stay in power. The Arab street is tired of having its intelligence insulted. While the people want bread on the table, they also need basic human rights, justice, peace, opportunities for growth and an end to cronyism, corruption and nepotism, as clearly cited by the Egyptian professor in the comments above.

While some Arab leaders such as the King of Jordan and the President of Yemen appear to have recognized the growing backlash and publicly moved to deflect it, many of them now no doubt realise that being seen as a “crony” of the U.S. government is not good for their public image either. They will also be judged by their so far complete failure to earn a just and peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue, which is seared into the Arab psyche. In the last year alone, eight South American countries have announced their recognition of Palestine as a state. Why the Palestinians themselves do not declare statehood, and push for global recognition, defies explanation. Do Arab leaders think the “street” will not hold them accountable?

The United States

Trying to improve America’s image in the Islamic world has been a major policy plank of the Obama Administration. Indeed, Mr Obama chose Cairo to make his grandiose June 4, 2009 speech to the Islamic world, in which he promised a “new beginning” in bilateral relations. In a widely-applauded gesture to the Islamic world, he declared additional construction of Israeli settlements as being unacceptable. He said: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” Since then, however, not only has Israel built more settlements but the U.S. has been totally impotent in stopping it. Does Mr Obama think the Arab street fails to notice?

As the world’s pre-eminent but entirely unelected global power, America’s image has been subjected to much scrutiny. In the Egyptian scenario, American policy flip-flops and double–talk are attracting even more derision. Social media and mass-audience TV networks like Al Jazeera and Russian TV are having a field day trashing the claims about the U.S. wanting to promote “freedom and democracy” even as it desperately tries to engineer an “orderly transition” that yields a successor acceptable to Israel.

Perhaps the most important game-changer will be the fact that the “American street” is realising the price it is paying for its government’s global blunders. A raft of commentary has emerged questioning the wisdom of U.S. policy in the Middle East. A more open and public debate has begun. In a commentary in the Christian Science Monitor, Graham Fuller, a former CIA station chief in Kabul, chides the U.S. government thus: “America cannot go on riding the tiger forever in the Middle East. We cannot expect to have “pro-American” forces in power in the Middle East when the publics don’t like our policies. We cannot continue our endless interventions – out of fear that some states might emerge as anti-American. The world is sick of such meddling. We have to deal with the causes of why populations have become anti-American.” See full text of his commentary here.

The process of change will also have significant implications for private U.S. corporations whose activities are closely linked to the interests of the U.S. government. Many U.S. companies are owned by people known to be ardent Zionists, supporters of Israel and financiers of the American political establishment. As many of these companies are expanding their presence in the Arab and Islamic worlds, their activities are bound to come under scrutiny, especially in the wake of the WikiLeaks fiasco when prominent U.S. brands such as Visa and MasterCard came under fire for serving U.S. foreign policy interests by cutting finances to WikiLeaks. Neither of those companies ever responded to requests for comment.

The U.S. will also need to address concerns that its political establishment is working to demonise Islam. This month, the Chair of the Committee on Homeland Security, Congressman Peter King is scheduled to hold hearings on ‘Radicalization’ in the American Muslim Community. The Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) which works to defend Muslim interests in the U.S., is tracking this. A joint letter by a group of 51 U.S. community, interfaith and civil rights groups has expressed “strong objections” over the context, tone and approach of the hearings.

The joint letter said: “These hearings will almost certainly increase widespread suspicion and mistrust of the American Muslim community and stoke anti-Muslim sentiment. During 2010, we saw an increase in anti-Muslim hatred in public discourse, as well as hate crimes and violence targeting American Muslims, and those perceived to be Muslim, including vandalism and arson of mosques, physical attacks, bullying of children in schools, and attempted murder. No American should live in fear for his or her safety, and Congress should not help create a climate where it is acceptable to target a particular faith community for discrimination, harassment, and violence …

If the American political, business and public leadership thinks these hearings will help improve the image of the U.S. in the Arab and Islamic worlds, it had better think again.

Israel

The winds of change eventually will have a ripple effect on Israel, which has sought to brand itself as the only democracy in the Middle East. The Egyptians, too, want democracy. However, the Israeli government is now publicly declaring its preference for the kind of democratically-elected government it would like to see in Egypt. That is only further underscoring the view that Hosni Mubarak’s preferred “heir apparent” is also an American-Israeli protege.

Indeed, Israel will be the country most likely to be held accountable – in ways it may not have bargained for. Many Israeli companies are known to be profiting handsomely from selling security equipment worldwide. These security companies gain unprecedented access to data about global travellers, but operate totally devoid of any check-and-balance mechanisms and accountability in relation to what they do with the data. Furthermore, dozens of dual-passport holding Israelis are working in many Islamic countries, gathering intelligence and attempting to influence policies designed to serve Israeli interests. All these facts will emerge into the public domain.

Most important, Israel will come under pressure to do what it has avoided doing all along – ending its occupation of Palestine. When the American street begins to calculate its return on investment for the dollars expended on maintaining the status quo, it may finally demand change it can believe in. Israeli leaders have also been at the vanguard of some very public calls for military action against Iran. If and when another conflict breaks out in the Gulf, the Israelis will not be able to avoid accountability for the results. At that point, the “image” of Israel will matter little to anyone.

Relations Between Islam and the West

Already one of the pressing issues of the 21st century, it is affecting both the image and perceptions the two peoples have of each other. Contributory factors include the demonisation of Islam in many sections of the western media as well as recent statements by European leaders. A case in point is the speech at the Munich Security Conference by U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron which focused almost entirely on the need to address “Islamic extremism”, echoing similar comments by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a speech in Potsdam last October.

The extensive social, economic, cultural, financial and, perhaps most important, demographic linkages between Western societies and the Muslim world means that frayed relations are not an option. However, bilateral relations will have to recalibrated on the basis of both mutual respect as well as mutual recognition of the mistakes and shortcomings on both sides.

The West will have to acknowledge the root-causes of its poor image across much of the Islamic street. It will have to recount the history of its colonial era – by the French, Dutch and British across large swathes of Africa and Asia, including many Islamic countries – and learn from its mistakes. Most important it will need to introspect on why the colonial era ended, and the implications of repeating those mistakes in the new era of a rising Arab and Islamic worlds.

In turn, the Arab and Muslim worlds have much to learn from the West in terms of respect for basic freedoms, justice, and human rights. There is no denying that many Muslims get far better treated as immigrants in the West than they get treated at home by their own peoples and governments. It is because many Islamic governments have tried to suppress both human rights and human freedoms that the present backlash against them is under way. Living in denial about this is also no longer an option.

Conclusion

In November 2010, the World Travel Market in London, ended with yet another prescient comment of surreal importance – “Mistakes Were Made.” As the Age of Aquarius dawns, with its endless cycle of twist-in-the-tale events, the travel & tourism industry will need to get a better grip on how it stands to be affected by the many mistakes made by both external and internal actors, and the consequences of those mistakes on industry jobs and livelihoods.

This global power shift from West to East has gained a huge impetus in these first two months of the second decade of the 21st century. With political and economic risk assessments set to become even more critical factors in the development process, the travel & tourism sector has a golden opportunity to position itself as a crucial part of the solution. People worldwide want change they can believe in, the same change that Mr Obama offered to the American people. For the travel & tourism industry, this crisis is just waiting to be turned into an opportunity. With the UNWTO’s Andorra’s summit and the ITB Berlin 2011 just a few weeks away, the travel & tourism industry should be the first to grasp it.

February 11, 2011

National Coordinator, ANSWER Coalition

The Egyptian people have done it. A revolution from below, developed without a fully prepared plan and without a formal leadership, has succeeded in forcing the ouster of Mubarak. Even though it was a genuinely spontaneous uprising, the people developed leadership and organization in the course of the struggle itself.

This great uprising by the people of Egypt has shaken the existing global order of imperialism. After all of their sacrifice, millions of Egyptians today are celebrating. All great revolutions become a festival of those who have endured oppression. Each participant knows that the revolution is the deepest expression of the power of the people.

Yesterday, Mubarak defiantly insisted that he would not leave, which the people had expected when they gathered in the hundreds of thousands.

Today, Egypt erupted. Protesters in the North Sinai town of El-Arish exchanged gunfire with police and hurled Molotov cocktails at police stations. (AFP, Feb. 11)

“Downtown, more than 10,000 tore apart military barricades in front of the towering State Television and Radio building, a pro-Mubarak bastion that has aired constant commentary supporting him and dismissing the protests. They swarmed on the Nile River corniche at the foot of the building, beating drums and chanting, ‘Leave! Leave! Leave!’ They blocked employees from entering, vowing to silence the broadcast. Soldiers in tanks in front of the building did nothing to stop them, though state TV continued to air.” (AP, Feb. 11)

The steadfast determination of the youth-led uprising coupled with the dramatic entrance of the Egyptian working class into the mass movement radically changed the relationship of forces.

Imperialist hypocrisy, fear

Having armed and financed the Mubarak dictatorship’s 30-year-long war against the Egyptian people, the U.S. government abruptly shifted its position in a last-minute effort to prevent U.S. imperialist interests in Egypt going down with Mubarak’s doomed ship.

As the regime seemed to be crumbling in the face of the uprising and the mass strike wave, Obama appeared on national television yesterday to announce that the U.S. government saluted the youth-led uprising.

For 18 days, Mubarak’s police and thugs murdered, beat, arrested and tortured thousands of valiant and peaceful protesters—and during that entire time, the U.S. government refused to cut its massive financing of the regime.

Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refused to call for Mubarak to step down immediately. The senior U.S. civilian officials and the Pentagon’s top command stayed in constant contact with their agent Omar Suleiman, Mubarak’s vice president, and their other agents in the senior leadership of Egypt’s military.

For now, the Egyptian military has assumed the power in Egypt. This is the preferred plan of the U.S. government. The continued presence of Mubarak was accelerating the militancy and radicalism of the uprising. Suddenly, as a consequence of the entrance of the people in a genuine uprising, Mubarak turned into a liability rather than a valued asset.

The main goal of the U.S. government now will be to find a way to sustain the authority of the Egyptian military high command, which has functioned as a client for the past 30 years.

It is too early to know how the ouster of Mubarak will impact the overall struggle in Egypt and throughout the Middle East.

A great victory has been secured. But the institutions of the dictatorship remain and behind them stand the Pentagon and the CIA. Undoubtedly, a new stage in the struggle will quickly unfold. The opening of political space for revolutionary and working-class forces to organize is of monumental importance.

The Israeli Zionist regime is deeply alarmed by the prospect of the end of the dictatorship. Although the Israeli regime pretends to be the great champion of “democracy,” the reality is that it fears the development of a genuine people’s government in Egypt, the largest Arab country that possesses the largest army in the Arab World.

The 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, which followed the Camp David Summit Accord, is in fact a complete misnomer. The treaty gave the Israeli military a green light to wage war against other Arab peoples free from the threat of interference from the Egyptian military. In fact, this treaty sidelined the largest Arab army from engaging in any opposition to Israeli war plans against Lebanon, Syria, other Arab countries and especially the besieged Palestinian people. In exchange for the agreement, the United States provides nearly $2 billion to Egypt—most of it military aid—each year.

Youth, workers made the revolution

The young people of Egypt and the mass of the working class have, through their own efforts, changed the political equation.

All revolutions reveal as a dominant and characteristic feature the extraordinary intervention of the masses of people into the historical process. In normal times, it is politicians, heads of state, military leaders, the media, religious figures—all the representatives of the old order—who conduct the business of society, while the masses of people are excluded from the political arena.

By their direct intervention in the historical process through the medium of revolution, however, the people create the foundation for a new social and political regime.

We in the United States and everywhere stand in solidarity with the Egyptian people in the moment of their victory, as we do with the Tunisian people and all those struggling against other U.S.-backed dictatorships across the Middle East. This still unfolding revolution will serve as a school for revolution and social change throughout the globe.

11 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

“Simhasan Khali Karo, Janta aati hai”

(Vacate the throne, the people are coming)

–Ramdhari Singh ‘Dinkar’, Hindi poet

News has just come of Hosni Mubarak’s resignation.

The people of Egypt have just raised a political monument that will rank alongside their mightiest stone and mortar wonders of antiquity. They have shown the world a model exercise of peaceful, determined, and dignified people-power.

Three hundred or more are said to have died in the struggle of the last eighteen days. All of them were protesters, not one a representative of the hated regime. They met assaults by horse and camel borne thugs with even more resolve, thousands more pouring into Tahrir Square in response.

Instead of the suicide bombers for which the region has become renowned, this movement began with a single suicide. Instead of firebombing a building full of people, it began with a man (in Tunisia) setting fire to himself. Instead of clamoring for loaves and fishes, they stood firm on freedom, demanding nothing short of the dictator’s exit. The npeople of Egypt have exploded something far bigger than an atom bomb — the myth that the Arab and .Islamic worlds are unsuited for satyagraha.

“Nonviolence in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to the will of the evildoer, but it means the pitting of one’s whole soul against the will of the tyrant. Working under this law of our being, it is possible for a single individual to defy the whole might of an unjust empire to save his honour, his religion, his soul and lay the foundation for that empire’s fall or regeneration”, wrote Gandhi. .

The Egyptian people have enacted a revolution that would have made Gandhi proud. But their victory is all their own. Many challenges lie ahead of them. But today the sun is shining. Gloriously.

Niranjan Ramakrishnan, an Egyptian for the day today, can be reached at njn_2003@yahoo.com

11 February, 2011

Countercurrents.org

‘Unprecedented’ no doubt is the right word to describe the events. On January 25th, a small band of perhaps two hundred protesters gathered on Tahreer square in the centre of Cairo, Egypt’s capital. They shouted slogans calling on Egyptians to emulated their Tunesian brothers and sisters, who had just shrugged off the joke of their own dictator Ben Ali. As the protesters moved forward and crossed the bridge across the Nile river, breaking the police barricades, the number of demonstrators rapidly multiplied into tens of thousands. Many of them had responded to the call which before the start of the Tahreer action had been launched on the social medium facebook. And ever since then Egypt has been in upheaval. Whereas for several decades, the country’s despotic ruler Hosni Mubarak had succeeded largely in keeping the lid on public protests, – suddenly people threw off all their fears. Tahreer square has repeatedly been the scene of million-strong rallies, demanding that Mubarak step down. And although there was a tense moment, when paramilitary groups, thugs on camels and armed civilians mobilized by the regime swept down on opponents in Cairo centre, – Egypt’s protestors have refused to budge. Instead they set up a permanent camp on the square, which is spontaneously being supplied with food. Doctors have formed a mobile hospital for the treatment of wounded activists. And whereas Mubarak’s regime has feverishly tried to disrupt news reporting by Al Jazeera and other international media, – foreign journalists have enthusiastically carried the news of the people’s revolt all over the world.

Further, while the Egyptian people are evoking solidarity everywhere, – the West’s policymakers and even the country’s own opposition parties have completely been taken by surprise. For years, the West has tolerated and patronized Mubarak’s dictatorship, arguing that his regime is a bulwark against the threat posed by Muslim fundamentalists. However, the Egyptian people’s revolt was neither prepared, nor is it being led by the Muslim Brotherhood, the country’s main Islamist organization. Its leaders have as much been taken by surprise as policymakers in Brussels and Washington, and its support base to all accounts is limited, to less than a fifth of the Egyptian population. In fact, although opposition political parties have been invited to negotiate a transition by Mubarak’s regime, none of them is in charge of the revolt. As the example of the internet action mentioned above already indicates, it is a new generation, of young Egyptians, who have taken centre stage. This was well symbolized, when the google manager who launched the face book action towards January 25 was given a heroic welcome by hundreds of thousands on Tahreer square, after his release from jail a few days back. As of today, February the 11th, protestors not just in Cairo, but in other Egyptian cities too continue to hold the streets. When Mubarak failed to announce his departure during his televised address to the nation yesterday, thousands waved with their shoes in utter contempt!

The revolt is unprecedented indeed, but it would be wrong to expect easy victories. In a move that pleased his Western allies, Mubarak about two weeks ago gave up his post as president of the ruling party. Yet the entire state apparatus of repression is still intact, including the powerful army, notorious intelligence services and the groups of hired musclemen. No single fact illustrates this better than Mubarak’s appointment of Suleiman as vice-president. The moment Suleiman was put in charge, stories started circulating on internet regarding the man’s exceptional reputation. In the one published by Jadalliya (8/2), Suleiman is described as the CIA’s man in Cairo. Ever since 1993 and right until January the 29th last, he has headed the Egypt’s General Intelligence Services. And while showing great loyalty to Mubarak and to the West, he personally tortured detainees, including people arrested under the US’s infamous ‘rendition program’. Under the given scheme, the US for years has kidnapped people suspected of being terrorists, and secretly detained them in third countries without bars on inhuman tortures. In fact, Suleiman is identified as the man who personally devised the rendition program! Moreover, he is reported to have maintained a hotline towards the Israeli government, at the expense of the Palestinian people. The survival of the Palestinians living in the neighboring territory, the Gaza strip, is largely dependent on a tunnel system, through which supplies reach Palestinians from Egypt. Yet Suleiman has assured the Israeli government that a cross border action into Egypt by Israeli army units aimed at destroying the Palestinian tunnels is possible.

Again, it would be wrong to be over-enthusiastic about the role of the Egyptian army. True, the army generals have refused to openly interfere on the side of the Mubarak regime, and have stayed ‘neutral’ so far. And yes, this has helped ensure that the number of protestors who have been killed by bullets of the regime is relatively limited. Yet will the Egyptian officers continue to stand by, if fundamental American and Western interests are threatened by the revolt? Historically, the Egyptian army can proud itself on having espoused Arab nationalism. Yet throughout the last thirty years, ever since Mubarak rose to power, Egypt’s armed forces have heavily benefited from US support. The accumulated figure for supplies of fighter planes, missiles, tanks and other American military hardware is a thick 60 Billion US Dollars. All the five giant monopoly corporations which dominate the US military sector have received orders from, or are engaged in co-production scheme with, Egypt. Lockheed Martin has built 240 F-16 fighters, and is building another 20 right now. General Dynamics is prime contractor for 1200 Abrams battle tanks. And whereas other Middle Eastern dictatorships, such as Saudi Arabia, need to buy all the weaponry they order from the US, – Egypt’s regime has annually been receiving an average of 1.3 Billion Dollars as military aid. Nor is US sympathy restricted to arms’ supplies alone. In Egypt’s desert, the US and the Egyptian armies bi-annually hold joint exercises, in which a reported 25 thousand American soldiers take part. Hence, it would be a bit naive to presume the Egyptian army has overnight become a pro-people’s force.

Nevertheless, the significance of the Egyptian revolt extends well beyond the borders of Egypt, towards the whole of the Middle East. Surely, though Egypt has become the epicenter, events did not start in Cairo, but in Tunesia, when the people of Tunis in January last forced dictator Ben Ali to flee. Nor is resistance limited to these two countries alone. Mass protests by people disgruntled about state repression, unemployment and high food prices have also taken place elsewhere, notably in Algeria, Yemen and Jordania. And although the outcome is uncertain, US and European interests may yet be affected by ongoing events. For decades discontent has been simmering throughout the Middle East, over the US’s unreserved support for Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine, and over its intimate connections with repressive Arab regimes. When the oil exporting countries of the region in 1973 for once stood up against the West, and OPEC took control over the international price of oil, US functionaries devised a new trading scheme. Under this system, oil rich countries were encouraged to buy US armaments in exchange for their increased oil wealth. The trading system created havoc in the region, as millions of Arabs were slaughtered in international and fratricidal wars. The Egyptian people and people in other Middle Eastern states know they are not just up against Mubarak, or against domestic dictatorships. Hence, it is quite well possible that today’s revolt in the Arab world will mark an important chapter in the demise of US hegemony.

10 February, 2011
Countercurrents.org

It’s failed and all because of Islamic terrorism. Soon after British Prime Minister David Cameron pronounced the defeat of multiculturalism, it was but a matter of time before commentators would go on their ‘let’s separate the wheat from the chaff’ binge.

Douglas Murray is director of the Center for Social Cohesion in London. In his opinion piece in Wall Street Journal he expresses views that are antithetical to the idea of cohesiveness. Drawing thin lines, he is in fact creating walls. He does make a distinction between multiculturalism and pluralism and multiracialism. It is curious, though, that he imagines the hotchpotch idea of one cannot subsume the other. Racists are agitating against another culture as much as they are against a race, for a race brings with it specific cultural values and history.

He states rather audaciously, “State-sponsored multiculturalism treated European countries like hostelries. It judged that the state should not ‘impose’ rules and values on newcomers. Rather, it should bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of immigrants. The resultant policy was that states treated and judged people by the criteria of whatever ‘community’ they found themselves born into.”

This is a complete whitewash job. No state ever sponsors multiculturalism; even sanctified universities like Oxford and Cambridge have their pecking orders and their syllabi that demarcate South Asian and African studies. One might consider this as intellectual ghettoisation. The state may not impose values on ‘newcomers’ simply because it is ignorant about them. What values are inculcated in the indigenous population across the board? Are not criminal laws applicable to everyone, and quite often more stringently against the outsiders? If bending over backwards means that the state permits certain dress codes or social habits, then this is a pluralistic idea. It can be evident even among Britons themselves who are not a uniform herd relishing shepherd’s pie.

The example Murray cites of the state’s ‘benevolence’ is facile and reveals extreme prejudice: “In Britain, for instance, this meant that if you were a white English girl born into a white English family and your family decided to marry you against your will to a randy old pervert, the state would intervene. But if you had the misfortune to be born into an ‘Asian-background’ family and the same happened, then the state would look the other way.”

These are such stereotypes, to begin with. There have been cases of women of Asian background that have got a good deal of prominence. How many English girls are forced to marry against their will? What about the old perverts who commit incest or the ageing playboys? How often has the state intervened to prevent teen pregnancies and date rape? The suggestion that being from an Asian background is a misfortune is a patronising stance. The state can intervene if it becomes an issue that requires legal intervention. An adult woman can file a complaint. There are many voluntary organisations that provide a support system.

Perhaps Mr. Murray has heard about Jack Straw. Although he was concerned about “Pakistani heritage men” who targeted white girls because they thought they were “easy meat”, he did also concede that “overwhelmingly the sex offenders’ wings of prisons are full of white sex offenders”.

But this is not on the plate. It is Mr Cameron’s Eureka moment that has to be bared and Murray is on a roll: “In his speech in Munich, Mr. Cameron rightly focused on the problem of home-grown Islamic extremism. He stressed several preliminary steps—among them that groups whose values are opposed to those of the state will no longer be bestowed with taxpayer money. It is a symptom of how low we have sunk that ceasing to fund our societies’ opponents would constitute an improvement.”

This is dictatorial in the extreme. How will the state trace the roots of this home-grown Islamic terrorism? Bradford? Birmingham? What values does the state have? A state does not possess values. It has laws, it has a manifesto and it has political parties and a Parliament. Values are cultural and personal. Terrorism is not a value. It is an act of crime, wherever it comes from and in whatever form. A coloniser nation should know that better than anyone else. Tax-payer money is for the express purpose of supporting citizens irrespective of their beliefs, unless the Constitution of the state makes it clear that it will exclude certain ‘values’. A Muslim doctor, engineer, teacher or even a preacher has the right to the facilities offered if s/he is contributing to that society and not causing damage; merely dissenting against the Establishment ideologically does not qualify. It would be reasonable to assume that Scotland Yard is sharp enough to comb out the home-grown terrorists. Or is that impossible to manage and poor British tax-payers are now sponsoring those who bomb their subways even as their families back home are being bombed on an almost daily basis by the superbowl superpowers?

But, Mr. Cameron’s is not the final policy. Mr Murray has more to say: “The fact is that Britain, Germany, Holland and many other European countries have nurtured more than one generation of citizens who seem to feel no loyalty toward their country and who, on the contrary, often seem to despise it. The first step forward is that from school-age upward our societies must reassert a shared national narrative—including a common national culture. Some years ago the German Muslim writer Bassam Tibi coined the term “Leitkultur”—core culture—to describe this. It is the most decent and properly liberal antidote to multiculturalism. It concedes that in societies that have had high immigration there are all sorts of different cultures—which will only work together if they are united by a common theme.”

It is generous that a Muslim writer has been quoted. ‘Core culture’ is part of daily living. You may adhere to it, but is that indicative of loyalty? What about Britons who have emigrated? Do they carry their core culture or their other specific culture and do they follow this practice in their new country? Would they be deemed disloyal to the English idea? How many westerners become part of the national narrative of the nations they migrate to?

It might be prudent to ask whether the Welsh and the Scots believe in a standard British culture and how it can be defined as a paradigm for patriotism.

Murray’s subversive views are not designed for this audience. He has a clear blueprint of his targets: “The Muslim communities that Mr. Cameron focused on will not reform themselves. So the British government will have to shut down and prosecute terrorist and extremist organizations, including some ‘charities’. There are groups that are banned in the U.S. but can and do still operate with charitable status in the U.K. Clerics and other individuals who come from abroad to preach hate and division should be deported.”

I agree in the main about hate-mongers and charities that may indulge in non-charitable activities, but there is the danger of using the ruse of terrorism to decimate groups that are not involved in any such activity. If this becomes government policy, then who is to stop ‘concerned’ citizens from exposing and acting upon their biases openly? It is good to know that clerics may be deported. How does one deport a head of government who indulges in hate-mongering?

This is not the failure of multiculturalism but the success of the fear of any ‘other’.

Farzana Versey is a Mumbai-based author-columnist. She can be reached at http://farzana-versey.blogspot.com/