| INTERNATIONAL |
|
The Taj Mehal Taj Mehal is a wonder of the world, a thing of beauty, and joy for ever.
In India, it is main attraction for tourists, who come from all over the world. One such western tourist (an expert on architecture), recorded his observation in the visitor’s book, as under: “The population of this world can be divided in two parts: Those who have seen Taj Mehal and others who have not seen it.” But, biased Hindus have different approach towards Taj Mehal, because it was built by a Muslim emperor. The western historians are of course fair in judgement. They call Shah Jehan ‘The Great Moughal’, and acknowledge his rule as the Golden period of Indian history, on the grounds that he ruled over India, without any prejudice to any section of his subjects, on the basis of caste, creed, colour, race and religion. The fanatic Hindus lament that Shah Jehan wasted so much precious “Macrana marble” on the construction of Taj Mehal, merely, in the memory of his queen Mumtaz Mehal! Macrana marble is, indeed, one of the finest in the world, and its deposits are so rich in Rajistan, that even after the construction of Taj Mehal, four centuries ago, India has been digging out and selling the marble all over the world. Hindus further claim that Macrana marble was the property of their ancestors, hence, they only had the rights over it. But, Muslims and others living in India, assert that all Indians have equal rights over the Indian mineral resources. The Muslims are therefore afraid that after the demolition of Babri Masjid, now, Taj Mehal may be the next target of the fanatic Hindus! -- Their fears are not entirely unfounded. One hears strange voices of biased Hindus, some of whom openly say that Taj Mehal should be demolished and its marble pieces sold in market. It will be a substantial addition in Indian national wealth! One would rub aside such stupid suggestions. But, it is a tragic fact that the Hindus are full of venom against Muslims. It must be admitted here, that Sindhi-Hindus, by and large, were humanist and peace loving persons, probably due to the influence of Muslim mystics. But, the Indian-Hindus have no such fine feelings! They have now published a book entitled: ‘The Eternal India’ with a view to glorify India. It is a pictorial book published with the blessings of the government, to depict various stages of Indian history. The book is more than 400 pages in volume, in double crown size and printed on real art paper. It contains colour as well as black and white pictures of various Indian monuments. But, surprisingly it does not contain any picture of a monument built by Muslim rulers. Taj Mehal, Red Fort, Diwan-e-Aam, Diwan-e-Khas, Moti Masjid, Jamia Masjid, Qutub Minar and the wonderful buildings built by Akbar the great, at Fatehpur Sikri, including the majestic mausoleum of his father Humayoon, in Delhi, all are deleted from the book. Indra Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, has fondly written an exhaustive introduction of the book (spread over more than twenty pages) under the caption: ‘The Perennial India’. Her father Jawaher Lal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, was known as a secular person. But, his daughter Indra was a Hindu, in thought and deed. She as Prime Minister of India, had stormed ‘Golden Temple’ the most sacred place of Sikhs, the followers of Guru Nanik. She was also keen to hit Muslims and got such opportunity in 1971, when Yahya Khan’s Junta, ruling over Pakistan, took army action in east Pakistan, to suppress the Bengalis. The Hindus fled in panic to India. Indra Gandhi at once declared war with Pakistan and broke it into two parts: The East Pakistan became ‘Bangladesh’, a separate, independent and sovereign state. After the Indian National Congress was defeated in general election and BJP, a well known anti-Muslim political party, came to power, L.K Adwani one of its main leaders thought it fit, to destroy Babri Masjid, built by Babar, the founder of Moughal dynasty. Hoards of Hindu fanatics marched to Uttar Pardersh and demolished the Babri Masjid. Not only that, hundreds of Gujrati-Muslims protesting on the event, were massacred and the Federal Government of India could do nothing, while the Provincial Government, headed by Mr. Modi, the Chief Minister Gujrat, openly sided with the criminals. Judged in this perspective, one is not surprised to understand as to why after the departure of the British, India could not remain in one piece! There were solid reasons for it, which were all based on “Hindu-Muslim hatred”. Mahatma Gandhi, the famous Hindu leader had his fingers on the pulse of the Hindus, so, he always lamented the intolerance of Hindus. He was therefore shot dead by a Hindu fanatic, on 30.1.1948. Recently, the British government has decided to return an important letter of Mahatma Gandhi to ‘Jawaher Lal Museum’, in India. In his seven-page historical letter, Mahatma Gandhi emphasizes upon Hindus: ‘It is wrong to ruffle Muslims or any other person’s feelings’. Will Hindus pay heed to their freedom movement leader and spare Taj Mehal? (Mr. G.R Agro is a well known intellectual & Former Chairman Academy of Letters, Pakistan).
Why peace fails the Middle East By Aluf Benn No one can seriously believe that a “two-state solution” to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is possible. Especially not now, with Gaza burning. Yet heads of state including Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and George W. Bush, who meet this week at the White House, still give lip service to that goal. Like everyone, they are entrapped by five fallacies that now shape discourse on the Middle East. 1. The Top-Down Fallacy Many observers believe that the way to resolve the conflict is a final peace agreement, or “final status” in diplomatic parlance. Such a deal would form a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, while giving security assurances to Israel. Since the disputed areas are small, measured in a few square kilometers, frustrated statesmen (like Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice) argue that the endgame is known and the only problem is getting there. President Bill Clinton’s Parameters of December 2000, which presented a final status blueprint, are often depicted as the most reasonable model for solving it. Alas, Clinton’s plan didn’t work. He believed that the most sensitive issues, determining the future of Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees, are a matter of formulations, rather than practical reality. But he was wrong. The conflict relates to the most sensitive aspects of national identity, which both duelers are reluctant to compromise and would rather die, and kill, for. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas insists on “final status or nothing,” while Israel’s Olmert is ready only for an interim deal that would leave out the core issues-final borders, Jerusalem and the Palestinian refugees. 2. The Bottom-Up Fallacy Aware of its predecessor’s failure to bring peace, the Bush administration advocated the opposite: changing realities on the ground. Believing that gradual progress would lead to a “tipping point” for peace, it asked the Palestinians to fight terror and the Israelis to ease travel restrictions. A succession of plans was laid out in vain: Mitchell, Tenet, Zinni, the Roadmap and, more recently, Gen. Keith Dayton’s “benchmarks.” Both sides refused to go beyond token moves, meant to please the Americans. When Ariel Sharon removed the settlements from Gaza in 2005, it was seen at first as an unimaginable breakthrough, but has not brought the solution any closer. Gaza is turning into another Somalia, Afghanistan or Iraq, controlled by an Islamic group that advocates Israel’s destruction. 3. The Majority Fallacy Desperate op-edwriters and would-be peacemakers cite public-opinion polls as proof that most Israelis and Palestinians are ready to compromise for peace. The sad answer is that the majority doesn’t count. Reality is set by the determined few-the suicide bomber, the Qassam rocket squad, the settler on the hilltop-and not by the indifferent masses. 4. The Mediator Fallacy Well, the pundits say, you have a point. Scarred by decades of mutual killing, Israelis and Palestinians need an American mediator, a presidential envoy who would bang heads and force a deal. Israel, after all, is dependent on American support and therefore should obey Washington and end its West Bank occupation. The absence of a strong American arbiter is usually blamed on the stranglehold of the proIsrael lobby in America. Wrong: it’s neither bad intentions nor indifference nor the fear of lobbyists. It’s the lack of real interest. When the Clinton and Bush administrations opposed Israeli arms sales to China, they mercilessly twisted Jerusalem’s arm until Israel behaved, while its supporters on Capitol Hill sat still. Settlements and checkpoints, however, are hurting Palestinians, not Americans. Washington’s actions are tailored for its interests, rather than for some moral or legal principle. The same is true about the more vocal, but equally idle, Europeans and “moderate Arab governments.” The Saudis, the most recent champions of Palestinian Israeli rapprochement, never go beyond issuing their peace plans from a distance, while remaining stingy on aid for the Palestinians and diplomatic gestures that would melt Israel’s resistance. No outside power is willing to play the tough arbiter. 5. The Nostalgia Fallacy Devastated by all the above, the key players are turning to delusion. This month’s 40th anniversary of the Six Day War produced a flood of nostalgia about a rosy world that might have been. The Palestinians dream of a “right of return” to their pre-1948, or even pre-Balfour Declaration, community without alien Jewish immigrants. Israeli leftists dream of a pre-1967 “small but just” Jewish state, admired by a Holocaust-traumatized Western conscience. Israeli rightists dream of their pre-Oslo heaven of undisturbed settlement construction. In reality, one can’t go back. If anything, these daydreams only prove the difficulty of resolving the conflict (go back to fallacy 1). (Benn is the diplomatic editor of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.).
|
