On the Ahmadiyya Question-A centrist approach

From the beginning and especially since the 1953 anti-Ahmedi riots, the Ahmedi community has been persecuted and vilified, under one pretext or another. For one fringe, they are apostates punishable by death. For the other, they are Muslims, irrespective of fundamental theological differences. It is high time we stop taking extreme positions vis-à-vis Ahmedis and adopt a more centrist approach. That, however, may not be possible without having an open and candid discussion on the following myths and realities often associated with the followers of Jamat Ahmadiyya.

We Pakistanis can never thank enough the late Nobel laureate Dr. Abdus Salam. Long before the discovery of Higgs Boson, a recent scientific discovery which has shed light on his illustrious career as a physicist once again, the man had played principal part in the formation of Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO), Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Sciences and Technology (PINSTech), and Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC). Outside of Pakistan, the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP) now bears his name in Trieste, Italy. His work has proven time and again that he was an exceptional physicist of international repute, who earned a positive name for his home country. Some would go further and declare him a great adherent of his faith, the Ahmadiyya Movement. He was not a Muslim, however.

Consider two people arguing about Islam while both claiming to be Muslim; one affirms his belief in Allah and the Finality of Prophethood, while the other affirms his belief in the same Allah but not in the Finality of Prophethood. Are they both saying the same thing? Do they profess the same faith? If the latter’s belief is correct, what does that make of the former, his forebearers?

Whether Ahmedis are Muslims or not is essentially a religious question to be satisfactorily answered by the Muslim ulema only. Since this is an objective and not a subjective debate, therefore, only they could be the final arbitrors of the issue. To date, no Muslim aalim, either Pakistani or non-Pakistani of repute, has accepted Ahmedis as Muslims.

It is often argued by some that if Dr. Salam, an accomplished man, did not believe in the Finality of Prophethood then there must be some merit to the argument. They must remember that another great physicist who won not one but two Nobel Prizes (Dr. Salam shared his prize with two other physicists), Marie Curie, was an atheist.  If Marie Curie’s Godly beliefs (or lack of them) reflected in her worldly excellence, perhaps the same people would have advised Dr. Salam to become an atheist? Marie Curie’s negation of God does not negate God. The same goes for Dr. Salam’s disbelief in the Finality of Prophethood.

Lately, social media is abuzz with support for Ahmedis; a positive development and their right to call themselves Muslims; a misplaced notion. Some are also in favor of according their places of worship with the status of mosques, etc. They should realize that they cannot declare Ahmedis to be Muslims and not declare the rest of the Muslim population non-Muslim. They cannot have it both ways. Instead, they should advance their argument along the lines of better protection for the non-Muslims as guaranteed under the constitution of Pakistan.

Should we wait for the Day of Judgment for the resolution of this matter? That it is for God to decide whether Ahmedis are Muslims or not is an irrelevant argument since He has already spoken through His Prophets and their Books. Principles to differentiate between right and wrong have been set based on Divine laws. Based on those not everything needs to be left till the Day of Judgment.

That Ahmedis supported Pakistan movement and were closely associated with Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah while Maulana Maudodi of Jamat-a-Islami was not, therefore they are Muslims, is another argument. Parsis, Christians, and Hindus also supported the idea of Pakistan and strengthened Jinnah’s hands before and after the creation of Pakistan. Jagan Nath Azad wrote the very first national anthem of Pakistan, he was a Pakistani-Hindu and a poet. Being a Pakistani-Christian and a professional soldier, the late Cecil Chaudhary defended the borders of his country better than many of his Muslims colleagues. The argument at best may come to a conclusion that Maulana Maudodi was a bad Pakistani but not that Ahmedis are Muslims.

To sum up, in Pakistan, there is a consensus that Ahmedis are not Muslims. Where we as a nation go wrong is in treating them as outcasts, untouchables of sort. Muslim Pakistanis must demand better protection for Ahmedis from all sorts of persecution. Ahmedis have rendered countless services to the state of Pakistan. The nation owes it to them to uphold the constitutional guarantees accorded to the religious minorities under the law.

The pendulum needs to stop swinging from one extreme to another!

Pakistan: Myth of a secular state

Pakistan may be no heaven on earth but we are undoubtedly much better off today than our elders who had to live through the nightmare of communal rioting which had ensued months before India’s independence! Yet we are no closer to reaching a consensus on the issue whether Pakistan was meant to be a secular state! It is debatable, therefore, that those in tens of millions who headed both East and West of India during the eventful days, traumatized but running very high on religious nationalism, had any clearer notion of the ideological contours of their new nation. This is not to suggest that those who never had to migrate had hedged their bets in favor of secularism. This is however not to suggest that there are no takers of secularism in today’s Pakistan. Self-proclaimed liberals are also the self-appointed guardians of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s liberal political legacy and actively advocate the form of governance wherein there is a divorce between the state and the religion. To this end, Jinnah’s August 11, 1947 speech has been quoted time and again, stating “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan… You may belong to any religion or caste or creed—that has nothing to do with the business of the State…” No doubt that the father of the nation uttered these words, but is this all he said on that historic occasion? Jinnah delivered a composite speech in a recommendatory tone, in which he laid out a roadmap for Pakistan’s future. The speech must be read as a whole to make better sense of what was going on in Jinnah’s mind on that historic day. Those who pick and choose are willfully distorting history to achieve their own contemporary political ends. On August 11, 1947, the first constituent assembly of Pakistan unanimously elected Mohammad Ali Jinnah to preside over its meetings. However what would otherwise have been a joyous moment for him, the blood stained landscape of northern India had made him gravely saddened. Even the historic occasion and the thunderous applause could not pull him out of his morbid mood. What had been nagging him all along was the plight of millions of refuges who had either voluntarily or involuntarily chosen to migrate to Pakistan. The British Raj had decided to quit India in a hurry and by doing so had put millions of defenseless Indians before the wolves. The ethnic cleansing that took place was unprecedented in the recorded history of the human race. Therefore rather than choosing to lecture on the virtues of secularism, Jinnah decided to start his speech by reminding the constituent assembly of its two foremost responsibilities; framing of the new constitution and functioning of the new assembly as “a full and complete Sovereign body as the Federal Legislature of Pakistan.” Underscoring the importance of sovereignty of the assembly he further said “The first and the foremost thing that I would like to emphasise is this- remember that you are now a Sovereign Legislative body and you have got all the powers. It therefore, places on you the gravest responsibility as to how you should take your decisions… You will no doubt agree with me that the first duty of a Government is to maintain law and order, so that the life property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the State…” Off course Jinnah was not only an astute politician, but also a visionary. He had realized that the scourge of corruption would eat up the very foundations of the new state, therefore he reminded the constituent assembly “The second thing that occurs to me is this: One of the biggest curses from which India is suffering… is bribery and corruption. That really is a poison…” The old sage then chose to warn the elected leaders against the malaise of black-marketing, nepotism, and jobbery. He then chose to justify the division of India and hoped that the future historian would agree with him. Next segment of his speech could rightly be classified as his “unity, faith, discipline” message, reminding the members to work for their constituents and for the prosperity of all Pakistanis, irrespective of their differences. It is only then that he uttered the famous words, music to some ears: “You are free; you are free to go to your temples…” Finally, he chose to conclude the speech by affirming “…My guiding principle will be justice and complete impartiality, and I am sure that with your support and co-operation, I can look forward to Pakistan becoming one of the greatest Nations of the world.” Those who have analyzed his speech have often over looked the fact that it was made before a group of “… mullahs, pirs, nawabs, rajas, shahs, and khans…” (Stanley Wolpert, Jinnah of Pakistan page. 338) Had Jinnah been a secular fundamentalist he would have either not allowed the mullahs and the pirs into the House or ordered their expulsion. Rather, being a realist, he appreciated multiple facets of the new state. He may have held Mustafa Kamal Ataturk in high esteem but unlike him he was a pluralist. Jinnah did not believe in a top down model but rather preferred politics of consensus. Therefore, those who make a point that he had an anti-clergy agenda, are advancing their argument on flimsy grounds. The clerics may have had an anti-Jinnah agenda; the reverse however is not true. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, Pakistan could have not been a secular state otherwise as well. Sporadic communal rioting aside, neither the Muslims nor their religion was faced with mortal threat at any time in the secular British India. Nobody better than Jinnah appreciated this reality therefore as late as 1946 he had no real desire or hurry to carve out a separate secular state for the Muslims of India. Furthermore, exigencies of Realpolitik precluded Pakistan from turning into a secular state. It would have robbed the new state of its Raison d’etre. Pakistan had to be a special state, formed in negation of secular India. It, therefore, could have not been secular India’s twin. India’s demographics, off course, were ideal for the formation of a secular state. Notwithstanding its large minority population, the Indian Hindus, even today, are extremely diverse, owed largely to the fact that Hinduism is not a religion but a mythology. A deity worshipped in Delhi, is not necessarily worshipped in Chennai. Brahmins are strict vegetarians all over India but in West Bengal, fish is a part of Brahmins daily staple diet. Therefore, even if the Congress’ hierarchy had ever dreamt of a Hindu India, the idea was readily and prudently shelved. Muslims of India however were a different case altogether. During the 1946 elections, Muslim League ticket holders, mindful of the fact that the new nation could not be India’s clone, sparingly played the “Muslim card”; their Congress opponents with a secular manifesto really stood no chance. Contested on separate electorate basis, needless to say, the Muslim League trounced Congress in that election. The same politicians, lets be mindful, became members of our very first constituent assembly. Therefore, those who had won their seats on the “Muslim card” and separate electorate could have not turned around and advocated a separation between the state and the religion! It is interesting to note that neither that constituent assembly nor any subsequent assembly has ever chosen to pass a resolution demanding Pakistan to be a secular state. Parliament lets not forget represents the collective will of the people. Pakistan, we all agree, was formed for the Muslims of India, in which they could not only live but also thrive according to their own ways of life. A thriving Muslim way of life naturally demands safeguarding its various aspects through legislation. How could a state stay neutral or in the extreme case, divorced, from religion, while regulating both the temporal and nontemporal, is a question for you to ponder! Through this article, hopefully a debate would be started, determining for once and all the value we still attach to those words uttered on August 11, 1947. Let me rephrase the question again: If Jinnah was secular; did he want the same for Pakistan?

How Liberal are they!

Self-proclaimed liberals in our country are also the self-appointed guardians of Jinnah’s liberal political philosophy. Imran Khan does not fit in their grand scheme of things, therefore he is fair game. He cannot do anything right. As long as he was a cricketer and a philanthropist, he was a saint, but ever since the mammoth Lahori jalsa, he has become a sinner, with no chance of repentance. Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf are sparingly criticized for being closet fundamentalists, who are in cahoots with the lunatic fringe on the political right, i.e. Taliban. Imran Khan, to them, is simply a facilitator for the imposition of Sharia through ballot. These are mere accusations off course, but due to the serious nature of these allegations, those who are making these deserve a better scrutiny of their liberal credentials! There are three main misconceptions that the liberals have about themselves in Pakistan; that since they believe in roti, kapra, and makan manifesto therefore they are entitled to be called liberal; that they bash Imran Khan, Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman, Jamat-a-Islami, Taliban and like, therefore they must be liberal, and that since their politics is on the left of the political scale therefore they have earned the title of a liberal. A closer look at the doctrine which came out of the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, however, rubbishes their claim. The liberal doctrine at the minimum envisages a system in which individuals are of equal worth and the seat of moral value. An individual is free to choose his/her own course of life, without unlawful state interference. The doctrine is also morally neutral in the sense that it allows individuals to define their own relationship with God, however it is not neutral when state unwarrantedly interferes in that man-made relationship. For our purposes, a liberal, in classic sense, would not only accept or at the minimum tolerate a mullah but also the choices that he makes, i.e., his way of life. The same liberal would also agitate when the state interferes in the mullahs’ way of life. While we may interchangeably use the terms “liberal” and “leftist”, it is however pertinent to remember that the biggest critics of liberalism have always been the Marxists. For them, Liberalism is fatally flawed because of its association with capitalism. The roti, kapra, and makan walas, going by the logic, are not liberals! The life of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, binds both his friends and foes on one single point; that he was liberal to the core. Mr. Jinnah defended to the hilt in a court of law both Bal Gangadhar Tilak (Hindu-nationalist politician) and Ghazi Ilmuddin Shaheed (Mahashay Rajpal’s assassin, who had published “Rang De” allegedly a blasphemous book on Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H)). He did not support their actions or belonged to their schools of thought, yet Jinnah’s world was big enough in which both Tilaks’ and Ilm Dins’ of their time could live and thrive, in peace and harmony. As citizens of the Crown they deserved the right to be defended for their actions, and Jinnah made sure that this right was properly exercised in his clients’ favor, despite having divergent views on life with them. M.C. Chagla, an associate of Mr. Jinnah for years, who would later become chief justice of the Bombay High Court, recalled of Jinnah-Tilak comradeship in following: “I might mention here that during my long association with him, I found that Jinnah always showed the greatest respect and regard for Tilak. Even when he was in the process of changing his political stand and becoming more and more communal. I never remember his ever saying anything which was derogatory to Tilak. Two persons in public life for whom Jinnah showed the greatest respect were Gokhale and Tilak.” Mr. Jinnah, in short, was a bridge builder; adapt at making impossible, possible! Could we today expect the same from our liberals! Is their world big enough in which both South Asian Free Media Association (SAFMA—whose members are often labeled as liberals) and Difa-e-Pakistan Council (DPC—whose members are often labeled as conservative and even fundamentalist) walas could live and thrive in peace and harmony! If not, than do they still have the right to call themselves liberal! This is the question that only my liberal friends could answer! Mind you, Mr. Jinnah himself set the bar for being a liberal not just in Pakistan but in the rest of South Asia as well and unfortunately for some and fortunately for the others, it was set very high!

"PTI Trolls"!

Trolls are idiots; no second guessing that. If they weren’t idiots, they wouldn’t be called trolls; it is as simple as that. A troll is an on-line idiot, while an off-line idiot would be just, good old idiot. It doesn’t take burning of the mid-night oil to become one; all it requires is a myopic and insecure state of mind. Willingness to listen to the other person’s argument and then answer it with a marginally intelligent and coherent counter-argument is all that it takes to become a “non-troll”. So it is both easy to be a troll as well as a non-troll. “Trollism” (I am inventing terms along the way) is universal. It has no specific caste or creed. The behavior is not a domain of any one religion, region, or natonality. Like a disease, it is everywhere. If the term “troll” did not require being on-line, Newt Gingrich would qualify as one, so would Jean-Marie Le Pen, and our very own Qibla Zaid Hamid Sahib. While Trollism may be universal, the way it has been associated with only one political party in Pakistan, Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) by the left-leaning intellectuals (some of them have questionable and arguable leftist credentials though!) of our country is indeed unfortunate. It is not that on Imran Khan’s prodding they abuse you online! That you classify every abusive tweet as typed with the blessings of the “Kaptaan” is indeed wrong! It is certainly not the policy of PTI to have a cadre of trolls. No party does (although some parties have cadres of heavily armed men, but then a pen is mightier than a sword or in modern parlance a tweet mightier than Uzi!). However, I suspect a bit of foul-play on behalf of the “victims” of these “PTI trolls”. They were inherently biased against “King Khan” and his anti-West policies even before the first troll signed up with Twitter. The idiots however provided them with a common platform to get together and denounce the Khan of Zaman Park and his party’s policies. A closer look at some of “victim tweets” and it becomes abundantly clear that Khan’s policies are being denied as naïve simply because these idiots are supporters of these policies. As far as naivety of PTI’s policies are concerned, I’ll be the first brave PTI supporter to admit that some of them indeed make no sense at all (my biggest fear is what if the Patwari refuses to issue a fard in my favour by saying Khan sahib nay rishvat na lenay ka hukam diya hey, fard denay ka nahi). But to belittle PTI policies simply because some online “genius” follows and supports them, smells of premeditated bias. Our Left-leaning liberal intellectuals, most of them associated with leading English-language newspapers, often point towards Jemima Goldsmith’s former husband and try to make a case that since he is reckless in his speech while referring to other political leaders that is why his online followers send abusive tweets. I beg to differ. Even if there had been no Imran Khan there would still have been trolls, period. And if his mannerisms have been contagious, then there should have been “PML-N trolls” as well as “PPP trolls”, since both parties have been at each others throat ever since the 1980’s. The “flowery language” that they have used to refer to the opposite party’s main leader especially during the 1990’s and before the signing of CoD, is still not forgotten, at least not by me. Sheikh Rashid of Rawalpindi (minus the express off course) and his less than impeccable manners, to put it mildly, towards the late Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto during numerous National Assembly sessions, allegedly at the prodding of his then leader, Nawaz Sharif, is a case in point! The more recent, “talented younger bro’s” rant: hum tumhey Zardari olta latka dain gay (or something to the effect) should have released a volley of abusive, anti-PPP/Zardari tweets by “PML-N trolls”! In submission, a troll is a troll. He (and yes to date they are all “he”) is neither PTI, nor PPP or PML-N troll. He is in a world of his own which is easily shattered by one marginally intelligent tweet. He is insecure because he either does not know the facts or has the stomach to digest them; he is someone who has never had time to read books, etc. Either try to “un-troll” him by supporting a party that advocates a more egalitarian, uniform, and universal education policy, or stop stamping him as “PTI troll”! All it takes is an underdeveloped brain, and an access to moderately good internet connection to be a troll, not Imran Khan.

Syria: Like Father like Son

The news from Damascus is not good. History is repeating itself and the Baathist regime is determined to quash the civil uprising. President Bashar al-Assad has proven himself to be his father’s son, despite western education and outlook! It is however important to understand what is happening inside Syria in the backdrop of international law as the present uprising and the regime’s violent response to it, is being looked upon in some quarters of the Muslim world and especially in Pakistan as yet another episode of West vs Islam. It would not be incorrect to state that there is a brewing civil-war inside Syria and the Baathist regime of President Assad has shown on more than one occasion to quash it with all means possible including violence. Rather, violence more than dialogue has been too often used as a tactic to soften and than completely silent the insurgents. The strategy in the long run has always been to further tighten the grip on the annals of power. The latest siege and later destruction of Homs is nothing but redux of Hama massacre of 1982 wherein Gen. Rifaat al-Assad, current president’s uncle had massacred 20,000 Syrians including women, children and the elderly, if veteran journalist Robert Fisk is to be believed. Their crime was that they opposed the regime on political and religious grounds. This was done at the behest of late President Hafez al-Assad, current president’s father. Bashar Al-Assad seems determined to outdo his father! Ever since January, 2011, President Assad’s forces, along with vigilante groups, supposedly supported by them, are said to be involved in heinous crimes like murder, rape, and torture of political descendants. Allegations of unlawful detentions, destruction of property and abductions of those opposing the regime, are also in abundance. The world community has not stayed oblivious to these developments. President Obama has called upon President Assad to step down and Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon has condemned him as someone who has “lost all sense of humanity.” Irrespective of the rhetoric, the fact remains that there is no consensus amongst the P-5 of the Security Council, clearly evident in the recent 13-2 vote. The most serious allegation leveled against the regime however is that it is directly involved in crimes against humanity. A cursory look at few of the paragraphs from the United Nations Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic dated 23 November 2011 makes it abundantly clear that the Syrians are in dire straits: “The Syrian Arab Republic has violated the right to life, as enshrined in article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, through the use of excessive force by military and security forces as well as by militia, such as Shabbiha, acting in complicity with, or with the acquiescence of, State officials and forces.” “Information received demonstrates patterns of continuous and widespread use of torture across the Syrian Arab Republic where protests have taken place. The pervasive nature, recurrence and reported readiness of Syrian authorities to use torture as a tool to instil fear indicate that State officials have condoned its practice. Information from military and security forces defectors indicates that they received orders to torture. The commission is particularly disturbed over the extensive reports of sexual violence, principally against men and boys, in places of detention.” “The commission concludes that the extensive practices of torture indicate a State-sanctioned policy of repression, which manifestly violates the State’s obligations under article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, and article 37 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The acts perpetrated by the Syrian regime are nevertheless sanctioned by the highest law making body in the country. The Syrian government has enacted laws legitimizing the use of violent and excessive force. While international law empowers a state to legislate on any issue, be it specific or general, within its boundaries or outside, it does not allow a particular state to legislate on any measure which violates the most fundamental of customary international law rules; jus cogens. The right to life and the prohibition of torture are primary examples of such fundamental rules, which no treaty may modify and which no state defense may be able to explain and justify. Customary international law makes a regime responsible for the acts of its security forces, be it uniformed or non-uniformed. In a way, President Assad is responsible for all the acts of omission and commission of his armed forces, down to the last soldier. It is incumbent upon the regime to seize all violent activities at once, arrest the perpetrators and punish them, along with providing the victims with reparations, that they rightfully deserve. But should the Baathist regime be expected to mend its ways now and act responsibly? It is highly unlikely. Under the principles of State Responsibility, President Assad’s regime is responsible for committing horrific acts against its population. Since the Syrian regime has willingly and habitually participated in perpetration of crimes against humanity, it is legally incumbent upon the comity of nations to act and punish the guilty regime. Comparing Syria now and than and unfortunately not much has changed. The lust for power remains the same amongst the ruling elite, while the tools of repression have further gotten sharper!

'Americanization' of Baluchistan!

A resolution, demanding self-determination for the people of Baluchistan, Pakistan’s largest province, tabled by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in the halls of the Capital Hill, has stirred frenzy in Pakistan. Alarm bells have started to ring, forcing many to think whether Uncle Sam is up to his usual antics! An insecure country which has had to endure the humiliation of dismemberment in 1971 cannot but think whether the United States has actual designs of further cutting down Pakistan into pieces. The Foreign Office has dubbed the move as violation of international laws. Amb. Abdullah Hussain Haroon has called it ‘…West’s ongoing movement against the Muslim world’. This is not so. The Americans may have violated Pakistani sensibilities; however they are perfectly under the ambit of international law by discussing the matter. Furthermore, a closer look at the principle of Self-Determination is required since the law as it stands today does not help either the Baluch separatists or their international ‘friends’. The law as it has developed ever since the landmark Lotus Case (1927) PCIJ Ser. A No. 10, stipulates that every nation-state has the right to legislate on any matter be it within its borders or outside. A country under prescriptive jurisdiction of law may pass legislation on any international event, territory, property, person, wherever they may be present. This however, does not mean that the country, in pursuance of its law(s) may invade, and occupy the other country as pretext to enforce its law(s). The same Lotus Case, which empowers a sovereign state to legislate on matters outside of its territorial boundaries, also restricts the enforcement of such law outside of its boundaries. ‘the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a state is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state’, reads a few lines from the judgment in the Lotus Case. Therefore, while the United States and its supreme legislative body, is empowered under the international law to discuss, debate, and even pass legislation in favor of demanding right of self-determination for the people of Baluchistan, it however is restrained from invading and occupying Baluchistan to enforce any such legislation. The passing of the UN General Assembly Resolution on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples in 1960 developed the principle of self-determination as a legal right rather then a political philosophy. It is post-Colonialism, post-World War II development, which has essentially become one of the most fundamental principles of customary international law today. The International Court of Justice in Portugal v Australia 1995 ICJ Rep 90, declared the principle of self-determination as ‘one of the essential principles of contemporary international law’. Furthermore, in another case the Court in its advisory jurisdiction stated that ‘the right of the peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes’, (Palestinian Wall Advisory Opinion 2004 ICJ Rep para. 88). So even if Congressman Rohrabacher had not raised the issue, the principle stood regardless upholding one of the most fundamental legal rights. But this is not what makes us fidgety; it’s the fact that right of self-determination often leads to independence! However, this understanding, too, needs close scrutiny. In the Western Sahara Case 1975 ICJ Rep 12, the Court defined the principle by stating that self-determination ‘requires a free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples concerned’. The judgment naturally begs the question, which ‘peoples’ are entitled to exercise such right! The jurisprudence on the issue is however still unsettled and as a result two distinct schools of thought have emerged. The traditionalists, since the principle has developed out of the womb of Western Colonialism, are of the view that only those who were/are occupied by a foreign state may exercise this right. Palestinians and their right to self-determination, is one ripe example. This school of thought does not foresee a distinct ethnic group, existing within an independent state, exercising the right of self-determination. If the law develops along these lines in future, it certainly would not help the cause of Baluch separatists and their international advocates. However, there is another school of thought. The opposite view is that any ethnic group, living either under a Colonial power, or an independent state, may exercise this legal right. The EC Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia has bolstered their case. The Commission is of the view that people living in an independent state may exercise this right given that they achieve the factual prerequisites (e.g. permanent population, defined territory, government, capacity to enter into legal relations, etc.) for statehood as listed in the Montevideo Convention on Rights and Duties of States 1933. This essentially implies secession. However, to assuage the fears of federal states, the Commission has made “factual independence” as a prerequisite to exercising the right of self-determination. The Commission, furthermore, does not disallow a federal state from preventing secession lawfully (some would suggest even forcefully). Case Concerning Certain Questions Relating to Secession of Quebec from Canada 161 DLR (4th) 385, is a relevant case in point. The Supreme Court of Canada was approached on Quebec’s independence from Canada and its validity under both the Canadian and international law(s). The Court was of the opinion that a political sub-unit of an independent state does not enjoy secession as right under international law. However, the Court emphasized that the government of the independent state must respect the ethnic group’s culture, language, etc. In short, for our purposes it is comforting to conclude that the existing international law does not support Baluch separatists’ right to independence. What the resolution has however done is that it has put the ball back in our court. If the Baluch have genuine grievances (they certainly do), they must be addressed. The powers that be simply cannot brush their genuine demands aside by labeling them as treasonous. Callousness is one luxury we cannot afford in Baluchistan, at least not anymore. The onus is on the political leadership to stand up and be counted. In a perverse way we should be thankful to those who tabled this resolution for waking us up from our slumber. Americans like Congressman Rohrabacher must not be able to ruffle our feathers but we must heed the advice of another American who in 1858 had said: ‘A house divided against itself cannot stand’.

Legal Violations; Political Ramifications

One of the most important principles of the international law on jurisdiction, emanating from the famous Lotus Case (1927) PCIJ Ser. A No. 10, is that while it empowers a sovereign country to legislate on internal matters, it also allows the country to legislate on the affairs of a foreign country, national, living or non-living person, etc. For example, the Indian Parliament can legislate against Hafiz Saeed and his Jamat-ud-Dawa. Similarly, Pakistani Parliament is completely sovereign in passing legislation against Bal Thackeray and his group of hoodlums, roaming the streets of Mumbai, threatening Muslims. What the law however does not allow is the enforcement of said legislation, outside its territorial boundaries, unless there is an agreement between the countries, to allow the contrary. Simply put, India cannot violate the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan in arresting Hafiz Saeed to enforce its legislation and the same goes for Pakistan in terms of Bal Thackeray. Lately, a joke has been making rounds inside the policy making circles of Washington and Tel Aviv that the rate at which Iran is “loosing” its nuclear scientists, there may not be a need for a military action after all! Joke aside, such behavior may have serious political ramifications for the international order as Iran has publicly at the highest level accused both the countries for killing its nuclear scientists. As you would recall, some Iranian nuclear scientists have died under mysterious circumstances lately! The fact that both the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, CIA and Mossad, respectively, have in the past pursued killing of foreign nationals in foreign lands to advance their national security strategies, lend credence to Iran’s claims! Furthermore, Israel has not unequivocally denied charges leveled against it by Tehran, further bolsters the Iranian case! If Iranian rhetoric is to be believed than both the Americans and Israelis have abused the application of international law. Iran’s relations with the US have been frosty, to put it mildly, ever since 1979. The US, has since passed number of legislations against Iran, its people, companies, curtailing Iran’s economic clout in the world. The strategy has been to weaken the Islamic regime. The US Congress has passed these legislations under prescriptive jurisdiction, allowing it to apply its national law to any Iranian event, territory, property, person, wherever they may be present inside Iran. To that end, President Carter, in 1979, issued Executive Order 12170, freezing Iranian assets worth billions of dollars inside the United States. This was done in pursuance of the fundamental rule of international law that the state has absolute jurisdiction over its territory. More recently, exercising the abovementioned fundamental rule, President Obama has signed the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), wherein the US has further restricted imports of caviar, pistachios, and rugs of Iranian-origin. This however does not mean that the US in pursuance of its laws can violate the sovereign territory of Iran and shut down Iranian carpet weavers, factories, or forcefully stop Iranian farmers from growing pistachio. The same Lotus Case, which empowers a sovereign state to legislate on matters outside of its territorial boundaries, also restricts the enforcement of such law outside of its boundaries. ‘the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a state is that—failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary—it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another state’, reads a few lines from the judgment in the Lotus Case. The United States and Israel, prima facie, have violated this fundamental principle of international law by either directly or indirectly killing the Iranian nuclear scientists. Under the law, both the US and Israel could have arrested and tried these scientists, if and when they had entered their physical territories. By using to its advantage the prescriptive jurisdiction to legislate against Iran and by ditching the responsibility that comes with it; not to violate the sovereign territory of Iran, it has set a bad precedence for others. Aspiring regional powers like India, by citing this behavior, may further destabilize the South Asian region. Indeed an argument was advanced by New Delhi, in the wake of American occupation of Afghanistan due to the September 11, 2001, tragedy, that if the US has the right to hunt its enemies outside of its borders, why should India not adopt the same path vis-à-vis Pakistan and its alleged harboring of persons wanted under Indian laws! Indeed, it is foremost the responsibility of bigger nations to behave in accordance with the law, so that others could follow, making this world a better place!