Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

Thursday, 2 April 2009

The destruction of Mecca: Saudi hardliners are wiping out their own heritage

Historic Mecca, the cradle of Islam, is being buried in an unprecedented onslaught by religious zealots.

Almost all of the rich and multi-layered history of the holy city is gone. The Washington-based Gulf Institute estimates that 95 per cent of millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades.

Now the actual birthplace of the Prophet Mohamed is facing the bulldozers, with the connivance of Saudi religious authorities whose hardline interpretation of Islam is compelling them to wipe out their own heritage.

It is the same oil-rich orthodoxy that pumped money into the Taliban as they prepared to detonate the Bamiyan buddhas in 2000. And the same doctrine - violently opposed to all forms of idolatry - that this week decreed that the Saudis' own king be buried in an unmarked desert grave.

A Saudi architect, Sami Angawi, who is an acknowledged specialist on the region's Islamic architecture, told The Independent that the final farewell to Mecca is imminent: "What we are witnessing are the last days of Mecca and Medina."

According to Dr Angawi - who has dedicated his life to preserving Islam's two holiest cities - as few as 20 structures are left that date back to the lifetime of the Prophet 1,400 years ago and those that remain could be bulldozed at any time. "This is the end of history in Mecca and Medina and the end of their future," said Dr Angawi.

Mecca is the most visited pilgrimage site in the world. It is home to the Grand Mosque and, along with the nearby city of Medina which houses the Prophet's tomb, receives four million people annually as they undertake the Islamic duty of the Haj and Umra pilgrimages.

The driving force behind the demolition campaign that has transformed these cities is Wahhabism. This, the austere state faith of Saudi Arabia, was imported by the al-Saud tribal chieftains when they conquered the region in the 1920s.

The motive behind the destruction is the Wahhabists' fanatical fear that places of historical and religious interest could give rise to idolatry or polytheism, the worship of multiple and potentially equal gods.

As John R. Bradley notes in his new book Saudi Arabia Exposed, the practice of idolatry in the kingdom remains, in principle at least, punishable by beheading. And Bradley also points out this same literalism mandates that advertising posters can and need to be altered. The walls of Jeddah are adorned with ads featuring people missing an eye or with a foot painted over. These "deliberate imperfections" are the most glaring sign of an orthodoxy that tolerates nothing which fosters adulation of the graven image. Nothing can, or can be seen to, interfere with a person's devotion to Allah.

"At the root of the problem is Wahhabism," says Dr Angawi. " They have a big complex about idolatry and anything that relates to the Prophet."

The Wahhabists now have the birthplace of the Prophet in their sights. The site survived redevelopment early in the reign of King Abdul al-Aziz ibn Saud 50 years ago when the architect for a library there persuaded the absolute ruler to allow him to keep the remains under the new structure. That concession is under threat after Saudi authorities approved plans to "update" the library with a new structure that would concrete over the existing foundations and their priceless remains.

Dr Angawi is the descendant of a respected merchant family in Jeddah and a leading figure in the Hijaz - a swath of the kingdom that includes the holy cities and runs from the mountains bordering Yemen in the south to the northern shores of the Red Sea and the frontier with Jordan. He established the Haj Research Centre two decades ago to preserve the rich history of Mecca and Medina. Yet it has largely been a doomed effort. He says that the bulldozers could come "at any time" and the Prophet's birthplace would be gone in a single night.

He is not alone in his concerns. The Gulf Institute, an independent news-gathering group, has publicised what it says is a fatwa, issued by the senior Saudi council of religious scholars in 1994, stating that preserving historical sites "could lead to polytheism and idolatry".

Ali al-Ahmed, the head of the organisation, formerly known as the Saudi Institute, said: "The destruction of Islamic landmarks in Hijaz is the largest in history, and worse than the desecration of the Koran."

Most of the buildings have suffered the same fate as the house of Ali-Oraid, the grandson of the Prophet, which was identified and excavated by Dr Angawi. After its discovery, King Fahd ordered that it be bulldozed before it could become a pilgrimage site.

"The bulldozer is there and they take only two hours to destroy everything. It has no sensitivity to history. It digs down to the bedrock and then the concrete is poured in," he said.

Similarly, finds by a Lebanese professor, Kamal Salibi, which indicated that once-Jewish villages in what is now Saudi Arabia might have been the location of scenes from the Bible, prompted the bulldozers to be sent in. All traces were destroyed.

This depressing pattern of excavation and demolition has led Dr Angawi and his colleagues to keep secret a number of locations in the holy cities that could date back as far as the time of Abraham.

The ruling House of Saud has been bound to Wahhabism since the religious reformer Mohamed Ibn abdul-Wahab signed a pact with Mohammed bin Saud in 1744. The combination of the al-Saud clan and Wahhab's warrior zealots became the foundation of the modern state. The House of Saud received its wealth and power and the hardline clerics got the state backing that would enable them in the decades to come to promote their Wahhabist ideology across the globe.

On the tailcoats of the religious zealots have come commercial developers keen to fill the historic void left by demolitions with lucrative high-rises.

"The man-made history of Mecca has gone and now the Mecca that God made is going as well." Says Dr Angawi. "The projects that are coming up are going to finish them historically, architecturally and environmentally," he said.

With the annual pilgrimage expected to increase five-fold to 20 million in the coming years as Saudi authorities relax entry controls, estate agencies are seeing a chance to cash in on huge demand for accommodation.

"The infrastructure at the moment cannot cope. New hotels, apartments and services are badly needed," the director of a leading Saudi estate agency told Reuters.

Despite an estimated $13bn in development cash currently washing around Mecca, Saudi sceptics dismiss the developers' argument. "The service of pilgrims is not the goal really," says Mr Ahmed. "If they were concerned for the pilgrims, they would have built a railroad between Mecca and Jeddah, and Mecca and Medina. They are removing any historical landmark that is not Saudi-Wahhabi, and using the prime location to make money," he says.

Dominating these new developments is the Jabal Omar scheme which will feature two 50-storey hotel towers and seven 35-storey apartment blocks - all within a stone's throw of the Grand Mosque.

Dr Angawi said: "Mecca should be the reflection of the multicultural Muslim world, not a concrete parking lot."

Whereas proposals for high-rise developments in Jerusalem have prompted a worldwide outcry and the Taliban's demolition of the Bamiyan buddhas was condemned by Unicef, Mecca's busy bulldozers have barely raised a whisper of protest.

"The house where the Prophet received the word of God is gone and nobody cares," says Dr Angawi. "I don't want trouble. I just want this to stop."

-- By Daniel Howden

An Article from "The Independent". Link to Source Site :

<http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-destruction-of-mecca-saudi-hardliners-are-wiping-out-their-own-heritage-501647.html>

Monday, 11 February 2008

Why Democracy?

The Democracy allows a group of people to dominate the concept of right and good. Its like an over ride on the true definitions. How good is it than? Why do we need democracy? Just because that there is no real definition of right and wrong OR because we need to the flexibility to change the criterion according to our wishes and desires ???

Monday, 4 February 2008

Use of children in War - An overview

The Use of Child Soldiers in Africa: An Overview

Child Participation in Armed Conflict in Africa

The Scope of the Problem:

Based on the information contained in this report, the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers believes that more than 120,000 children under 18 years of age are currently participating in armed conflicts across Africa. Some of these children are no more than 7 or 8 years of age. The countries most affected by this problem are: Algeria, Angola, Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Uganda. Furthermore, Ethiopian government forces engaged in an armed conflict against Eritrea, and the clans in Somalia, have both included an unknown, though probably not substantial, number of under-18s in their ranks. In internal armed conflicts in the Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, and Senegal, on the other hand, there has been little or no recorded use of under-18s by government or armed opposition forces, and there are almost certainly no under-15s participating in hostilities in these three situations.1

Polish Szare Szeregi fighters during the Warsaw Uprising, 1944.

The Risks to Children of Participation in Armed Conflict:

In addition to the obvious risks to children of participation in armed conflict — which apply equally to adults — children are often at an added disadvantage as combatants. Their immaturity may lead them to take excessive risks — according to one rebel commander in the Democratic Republic of Congo, "[children] make good fighters because they’re young and want to show off. They think it’s all a game, so they’re fearless." Moreover, and as a result of being widely perceived to be dispensable commodities, they tend to receive little or no training before being thrust into the front line. Reports from Burundi and Congo-Brazzaville suggest that they are often massacred in combat as a result.

Children may begin participating in conflict from as young as the age of seven. Some start as porters (carrying food or ammunition) or messengers, others as spies. One rebel commander declared that: "They’re very good at getting information. You can send them across enemy lines and nobody suspects them [because] they’re so young." And as soon as they are strong enough to handle an assault rifle or a semi-automatic weapon (normally at 10 years of age), children are used as soldiers. One former child soldier from Burundi stated that: "We spent sleepless nights watching for the enemy. My first role was to carry a torch for grown-up rebels. Later I was shown how to use hand grenades. Barely within a month or so, I was carrying an AK-47 rifle or even a G3."

When they are not actively engaged in combat, they can often be seen manning checkpoints; adult soldiers can normally be seen standing a further 15 metres behind the barrier so that if bullets start flying, it is the children who are the first victims. And in any given conflict when even a few children are involved as soldiers, all children, civilian or combatant, come under suspicion. A recent military sweep in Congo-Brazzaville, for instance, killed all "rebels who had attained the ‘age of bearing arms’."

Girls too are used as soldiers, though generally in much smaller numbers than boys. In Liberia, "[a]bout one per cent of the demobilised child soldiers [in 1996-7] were girls or young women. But many more took part in one form or another in the war. Like many males, females joined one of the factions for their own protection. (Un)willingly, they became the girlfriends or wives of rebel leaders or members: ‘wartime women’ is the term they themselves use."

Concy A., a 14-year old girl, was abducted from Kitgum in Uganda and taken to Sudan by the LRA. "In Sudan we were distributed to men and I was given to a man who had just killed his woman. I was not given a gun, but I helped in the abductions and grabbing of food from villagers. Girls who refused to become LRA wives were killed in front of us to serve as a warning to the rest of us." The risks to these girls of sexually transmitted diseases or unwanted pregnancies are enormous. Grace A. gave birth on open ground to a girl fathered by one of her [LRA] rebel abductors. Then she was forced to continue fighting. "I picked up a gun and strapped the baby on my back," the emaciated, now adult, 18-year-old recalled while nursing her scrawny baby. "But we were defeated by government forces, and I found a way to escape."

Girls are also the victims of child soldiers. In Algeria, a young woman from one of the villages where massacres had taken place said that all of the killers were boys under 17. Some boys who looked to be around 12 decapitated a 15-year-old girl and played ‘catch’ with the head.

The Consequences for Society:

Atrocities have all too frequently been committed by child soldiers, sometimes under the influence of drugs or alcohol which they may be forced to take. In Sierra Leone, for example, a journalist from the French newspaper Le Figaro claimed that most of the rebels are children not older than 14, who are under the effect of drugs and alcohol. He reported what one of them told him about torture they inflict on their victims: "at 2 p.m., they gouge out two eyes, at 3 p.m., they cut off one hand, at 4 p.m., they cut off two hands, at 5 p.m., they cut off one foot and ... at 7 p.m. it is the death which falls down."

But drugs alone do not account for the atrocities committed by children. It is their systematic abuse by adults, combined with a pervasive culture of violence that is ultimately responsible. In March 1998, at the trial of a 13-year-old DRC soldier who had shot and killed a local Red Cross volunteer in Kinshasa after a dispute on a football pitch, even the prosecution declared that the lack of control of boy soldiers was as much the fault of their older commanders and constituted extenuating circumstances. The boy was nonetheless condemned to death, although President Kabila later commuted the sentence to life imprisonment.

Child Participation in Armed Conflict in Africa

The Recruitment of Children by Governmental Armed Forces:

The overwhelming majority of African States set 18 as the minimum age for recruitment, whether voluntary or through conscription. Indeed South Africa is in the process of increasing its minimum age for voluntary recruitment to 18 (conscription has already been abolished) and Mauritania may also be raising its minimum age from 16 to 18. In Angola, however, a country severely affected by the phenomenon of child soldiers, the government recently reduced the age of conscription to 17 years. Given the lack of systematic birth registration, even younger children are inevitably recruited even if the will to prevent underage recruitment existed. Moreover, reducing the minimum age of conscription to 17 is currently lawful since international law sets 15 as the international minimum age.

Burundi and Rwanda have the lowest legal recruitment ages on the African continent, seemingly 15 or 16 years for volunteers, although Uganda has formerly claimed to accept children with the apparent age of 13 to be enrolled with parental consent. In Chad, parental consent appears to allow the minimum age of 18 to be effectively reduced. Concerns also exist as to legislation in Botswana, Kenya, and Zambia where children with the ‘apparent age of 18’ can lawfully be recruited. Libya appears to accept volunteers at 17 years, if not younger. In South Africa, in a state of emergency, children of 15 years of age or above can be used directly in armed conflict by virtue of the Constitution. Finally, legislation in Mozambique, a country whose past has seen widespread use of child soldiers, specifically allows the armed forces to change the minimum conscription age — 18 — in time of war.

National Practice:

If only domestic legislation were always respected in practice, the problem of child soldiers in Africa would be significantly reduced. Many African States — Benin, Cameroon, Mali and Tunisia to name but a few — appear to follow appropriate recruitment procedures that prevent underage troops being recruited into the army. However, in Angola, Burundi, Congo-Brazzaville, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan, and Uganda, children, some no more than seven or eight years of age, are recruited by government armed forces almost as a matter of course. Some children do volunteer to join the armed forces (though the true number will vary depending on how one interprets the word volunteer). In the DRC, for example, between 4,000 and 5,000 adolescents responded to a radio broadcast calling (in clear violation of international law) for 12-20 year olds to enrol to defend their country; most were street children.

Yet tens of thousands of children are forced to join up, sometimes at gunpoint. In Angola, forced recruitment of youth (‘Rusgas’) continues in some of the suburbs around the capital and throughout the country, especially in rural areas. It has been claimed that military commanders have paid police officers to find new recruits and Namibia has collaborated with Angola in catching Angolans who have fled to Namibia to avoid conscription. In Eritrea, a 17-year-old Ethiopian prisoner of war, Dowit Admas, interviewed by a British journalist claimed that he was playing football in Gondar High School when Ethiopian government soldiers rounded up 60 boys and sent them to a military training camp. In Uganda, there have been persistent reports that street children in Kampala have been approached by soldiers and forced to join the army in order to be sent to the Democratic Republic of Congo, and in November 1998, parents protested against the forced recruitment by the Uganda People’s Defence Forces of 500 youths in Hoima.

Government-supported Militia Forces:

In Sudan, although the minimum legal age of recruitment is 18 years, recruitment into the Popular defense Forces can start lawfully at 16 years. Even in armed forces that otherwise appear to respect recruitment procedure, the creation of government-sponsored militia forces tends to open the floodgates to child recruitment. In Algeria, for instance, so-called ‘Legitimate Defence Groups’ and ‘communal guards’ seem to operate beyond the law, without effective regulation or control.

In Burundi, in addition to widespread recruitment into regular armed forces, Tutsi armed groups, made up of youth aged from 12 to 25, have been formed with the encouragement of government authorities in order to defend the Tutsi minority. These groups recruited people from sport and school groups and were armed by politicians, businessmen and serving and retired members of the armed forces. Meanwhile, government militia in Congo-Brazzaville, which have been widely credited with egregious human rights abuses, include many teenage children among their ranks.

Military Schools:

In a number of African countries military schools serve to give children an education, not just as a back door form of underage recruitment. In Benin, for example, the Centre National d’Instruction des Forces Armées educates children from the age of 13 and the Prytanée militaire of Bembereke selects children of high ability from the 6th grade. Children in these schools are not members of the armed forces and they are encouraged, but not forced, to pursue a military career after graduation, which usually occurs when they are about 19 or 20 years of age. In other countries, such as Burundi and Rwanda, military schools appear to serve as back door recruitment into the armed forces of tens of thousands of children.

Armed Opposition Groups:

In situations of armed conflict, wherever governments have recruited and used children as soldiers, so have armed opposition groups, and just as certain African governments have chosen to violate national laws, so opposition groups have flouted public declarations and pledges not to recruit and use children in combat.2 For instance, UNITA’s draft 1990 Constitution sets 18 as the minimum age for recruitment, yet, in 1998, the Inter-African Network for Human Rights and Development (Afronet) and Human Rights Watch alleged that UNITA was abducting children and young men and women between 13 years of age and their early 30s living in border towns of Cazombo and Lumbala Nguimbo.

More often, however, no such declaration has been made. The Hutu opposition in Burundi has systematically recruited boys and girls under 15 years of age into its armed groups; and a number of different sources have stated that the Front for the Liberation of the Cabinda Enclave (FLEC-FAC) in Angola also recruited children into their forces. The FLEC-FAC was reported to have children as young as eight years of age among its ranks and an estimated 30-40 per cent of them were girls. In Sierra Leone, reports have clearly detailed the fact that rebel forces recruit children below 18 years of age and demonstrate that children as young as five are enrolled.

In Uganda, the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) systematically abducts children from their schools, communities and homes. Children who attempt to escape, resist, cannot keep up, or become ill are killed. Generally, the rebels take their captives across the border to an LRA camp in Sudan. There, these children are tortured, threatened and sexually abused. Latest reports suggest that the LRA has now turned to selling abducted children into slavery in exchange for arms.

Children enrolled by force into armed opposition groups often have little choice but to remain and fight. In Uganda, for example, if children abducted by the LRA do manage to escape or surrender, they may face the wrath of the Government. Despite claims made on Ugandan television by the armed forces that they are "rescuing these children daily", and "handing them to charity organizations for care", in January 1999, the Ugandan army executed, in circumstances to be clarified, five teenage boys between the ages of 14 and 17 suspected of being rebel soldiers. Moreover, in April 1998, 25 boys were charged with treason and are still awaiting trial. All these boys face the death sentence even though they were abducted by rebels and used as child soldiers by them. The children are charged with failing to release information about rebel soldiers or are said to have fought with the rebels. If the death penalty were carried out against these youths, this would be a manifest violation of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols and of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These international treaties, to which Uganda is a party, clearly prohibit capital punishment for those under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.

But even some of those armed opposition groups who use children as soldiers recognize the dangers. "It’s true they can hold a gun and fight, but you spoil the education of a child," Songolo [a rebel commander in the Democratic Republic of Congo] said, adding that he is against the practice but has seen many child soldiers in the country. "Their minds go bad...they become criminals if they leave". (This of course applies as much to volunteers as it does to conscripts.) Indeed there are reports that the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), which have used many thousands of children in their struggle against the regime in Khartoum, is finally realizing that they have created a generation of children who cannot read or write and know only the respect that is earned by the barrel of a gun. It remains to be seen whether they are truly willing to stop recruiting children and to demobilize those that are currently serving in their ranks.

Concluding remarks

Many African countries effectively protect children against military recruitment and use as soldiers. Sadly, others do not, failing to meet the standards they themselves have set. It is hoped that the abuses and violations that are identified in this report will be acted upon positively: the use of children as soldiers is the result of deliberate action, or at least in some cases, deliberate inaction. Even armed opposition groups are not always beyond the reach of the law, and many are sustained by governments.

In a statement to the United Nations Security Council on 12 February 1999, Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of UNICEF, declared that "[W]e would be derelict if we did not reiterate, in the strongest possible terms, that until the minimum age of recruitment is universally set at 18, the ruthless exploitation of children as soldiers will continue." The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers wholeheartedly endorses this statement and would only add that African countries can play a leading role in ensuring this standard is adopted; of even more importance, they can help to ensure that this standard is respected in practice.

For detailed article click the link below
<http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/chilsold.htm>

Friday, 25 January 2008

پاکستانی سیاست طبقۂ خواص کی جنگ

پاکستانی سیاست طبقۂ خواص کی جنگ‘


عائشہ صدیقہ
اسلام آباد



صدر پرویز مشرف نے برسلز میں کہا ہے کہ یورپی ممالک کو احساس کرنا چاہیے کہ پاکستان میں مغربح طرز کی جمہوریت نہیں آ سکتی۔ صدر صاحب کے ہمدرد دانشوروں کا خیال ہے کہ ملک میں جہالت اور جاگیرداری نظام کی وجہ سے لوگ اپنا ووٹ آزادانہ طور پر نہیں دے سکتے اس لیے ملک کے لیے گائیڈڈ ڈیموکریسی یا رہنما جمہوریت کا اصول بہتر ہے۔ آخر کو دیکھیں کہ برسوں سے انتخابات ہو رہے ہیں لیکن جمہوریت آنے کا نام ہی نہیں لے رہی۔

ایک طرف فوج اور بیوروکریسی کی طاقت ہے تو دوسری طرف سیاسی جماعتیں اور ان کے لیڈر جو عوام کو استعمال کرنا تو جانتے ہیں لیکن ان کا طاقت کا اصل سرچشمہ بنانے کو تیار نہیں۔ آخر پاکستان کا کیا مرض ہے ۔ کیا یہاں بیوروکریسی طاقت ور ہے یا فوج نے سیاسی جماعتوں کو پنپنے نہیں دیا یا سیاست دان نااہل ہیں۔

بہت پڑھے لکھے لوگوں نے بے بہت کچھ لکھا ہے لیکن سب سے اچھا جواب پاکستان کے ایک بہت بڑے ماہرِ سیاسیات حمزہ علوی نے دیا ہے۔ کاش کہ وہ آج کل کے حالات کا تجزیہ کرنے کے لیے زندہ ہوتے۔ علوی کے مطابق پاکستان کا مسئلہ ایک ضرورت سے زیادہ ترقی یافتہ(overdeveloped state) کا بحران ہے۔

پاکستان کے سیاست دانوں کا تعلق طبقۂ خواص سے ہے جو کہ عوام کی طاقت میں یقین نہیں رکھتے۔ اس طبقۂ خواص میں جاگیردار، بڑے صنعت کار، بڑے کاروباری لوگ بھی شامل ہیں۔ علوی کے مطابق ملک کی فوج اور سول بیوروکریسی کو یہ طبقۂ خواص اپنا ماتحت سمجھتا ہے بلکہ یوں کہیں کہ یہ دو ادارے اس طبقۂ خواص کے مفاد کی حفاظت کرتے ہیں۔

اس کا مطلب یہ ہے کہ ایک طرف تو بہت طاقتور سول اور فوجی بیوروکریسی ہے جس کے پاس ادارے کی طاقت ہے۔ دوسری طرف کمزور سیاسی ادارے ہیں۔ پاکستان نو آبادیاتی نظام کے بعد کی ایک ریاست ہے جہاں انگریزوں نے صرف ان اداروں کو طاقتور کیا جن کو وہ اپنے لیے استعمال کر سکتے تھے۔

لیکن پھر اس کا اثر انڈیا پر کیوں نہیں پڑا۔ آخر کو وہاں بھی تو ان ہی اداروں کو مضبوط کیا گیا ہوگا۔ اس کا جواب حمزہ علوی یوں دیتے ہیں کہ پاکستان کے سیاست دانوں کا تعلق طبقۂ خواص سے ہے جو کہ عوام کی طاقت میں یقین نہیں رکھتے۔ اس طبقۂ خواص میں جاگیردار، بڑے صنعت کار، بڑے کاروباری لوگ بھی شامل ہیں۔ علوی کے مطابق ملک کی فوج اور سول بیوروکریسی کو یہ طبقۂ خواص اپنا ماتحت سمجھتا ہے بلکہ یوں کہیں کہ یہ دو ادارے اس طبقۂ خواص کے مفاد کی حفاظت کرتے ہیں۔

اس فلسفے کے مطابق اس طبقۂ خواص کے سارے افراد ایک دوسرے سے جڑے ہوتے ہیں۔ بلکہ اب تو اس میں اور لوگ مثلاً میڈیا کے بڑے بڑے مالک، بڑے بڑے مشیر، این جی اوز والے ، فوج اور سول اداروں کے بڑے افسران یہاں تک کہ پیشہ وارانہ صلاحیتیوں کے حامل افراد جیسے بڑے بڑے ڈاکٹر اور انجینئر بھی شامل ہیں۔ اس طبقے میں داخل ہونے کے کی صرف ایک شرط ہے کہ آپ کے پاس پیسہ اور طاقت ہونی چاہیے۔


پاکستان پر ایک نظر ڈالیں تو معلوم پڑتا ہے کہ سب سے بڑے لوگ آپس میں جڑے ہوئے ہیں۔کسی بڑے خاندان کو اٹھا کر دیکھیں تو کوئی بھائی مسلم لیگ قاف میں ہے تو دوسرا پی پی پی میں اور تیسرا مسلم لیگ نون میں۔ جو تھوڑا پڑھا لکھا بھائی ہوتا ہے تو اس کو سول سروس کا امتحان دلوا دیتے ہیں۔ جو پڑھائی سے پیدل ہوتا ہے تو اس کو فوج میں بھیج دیتے ہیں۔ اگر گھر میں اتنے بھائی موجود نہ ہوں تو بیٹی کا رشتہ کسی فوجی یا سول سرونٹ سے کر دیتے ہیں۔ سو طاقت کا سرچشمہ خاندان بن جاتا ہے۔


پاکستان پر ایک نظر ڈالیں تو معلوم پڑتا ہے کہ سب سے بڑے لوگ آپس میں جڑے ہوئے ہیں۔کسی بڑے خاندان کو اٹھا کر دیکھیں تو کوئی بھائی مسلم لیگ قاف میں ہے تو دوسرا پی پی پی میں اور تیسرا مسلم لیگ نون میں۔ جو تھوڑا پڑھا لکھا بھائی ہوتا ہے تو اس کو سول سروس کا امتحان دلوا دیتے ہیں۔ جو پڑھائی سے پیدل ہوتا ہے تو اس کو فوج میں بھیج دیتے ہیں۔ اگر گھر میں اتنے بھائی موجود نہ ہوں تو بیٹی کا رشتہ کسی فوجی یا سول سرونٹ سے کر دیتے ہیں۔ سو طاقت کا سرچشمہ خاندان بن جاتا ہے۔

یہ ہے وہ طبقۂ خواص جو یہ تاثر دیتا ہے کہ پڑھنے لکھنے کے علاوہ کچھ نہیں ہو سکتا۔ مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ یہ تعلیم کے مواقع بھی محدود کر دیتے ہیں۔ پاکستان کا تعلیمی نظام بہت طبقاتی ہے۔ غریب کا بچہ شاذ و نادر ہی کامیابی کی بلندیوں پر پہنچتا ہے۔ پہنچ جائے تو اسے بھی اس طبقے کا حصہ بنا لیا جاتا ہے۔

غریب عوام کو یہ احساس دلایا جاتا ہے کہ وہ اپنا حقِ خود ارادیت بھی استعمال کرنے کے قابل نہیں۔ سو صدر مشرف کا جواب دینے کے لیے حمزہ علوی کو پڑھنا اور سمجھنا اور بھی ضروری ہو گیا ہے۔ بدقسمتی سے سیاست امراء کی جنگ بن کر رہ گئی ہے۔ ہر بڑا آدمی سب سے اوپر پہنچنا چاہتا ہے۔ اس طبقۂ خواص کے لیے عوام ان لکڑیوں کی مانند ہیں جنہیں جلا کر سردیوں کی شاموں میں ہاتھ سینکے جاتے ہیں۔


--An Article from BBC Urdu. http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/miscellaneous/story/2008/01/080124_aisha_hamza_rza.shtml