Interview: ‘SK Abbasi is to Sharif what Manmohan Singh was to Sonia. Farahnaz Ispahani

 

With Pakistan also celebrating 70 years of its independence Farahnaz Ispahani, Global Fellow at Washington’s Wilson Centre, former member of Pakistan Parliament (from Pakistan People’s Party) and former media advisor to the Pakistan President, spoke to Rohit E David on the political flux in Islamabad after the ouster of Nawaz Sharif as prime minister, its impact on Kashmir and the nefarious role of Pakistan’s deep state:

img_1668
Ms. Farahnaz Ispahani

Q. What is your view on the political prospects of Shahid Khaqan Abbasi who has been PM of Pakistan after Nawaz Sharif stepped down?

Farahnaz Ispahani. PM Abbasi has been nominated by Nawaz Sharif from his own party and is seen by all as a loyal placeholder until the next elections, in which Sharif’s nominated prime ministerial candidate will run. Sharif remains the head of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and, as is the subcontinent’s tradition, control of the party is more important than who is officially PM. Abbasi is to Sharif what Manmohan Singh was to Sonia Gandhi.

Q. What is your view on Pakistan Supreme Court barring Nawaz Sharif as PM?

Farahnaz Ispahani. The verdict came as no surprise. Pakistan’s Supreme Court has a long history of political decisions and acts directly instead of waiting for due process through lower courts. Now it has disqualified a three times elected prime minister from holding public office for life, in a corruption inquiry linked to the Panama Papers.

However, Sharif was not named in the Panama leaks, there was no trial, and it has yet to be proved that he abused public office for private gain. The judges disqualified him on what many unbiased observers consider a mere technicality. It is indeed sad that no Pakistani PM is allowed to be voted out by the people and SC judges or generals decide when a PM should be ousted.

Q. Why has no Pakistan PM completed a full five-year term?

Farahnaz Ispahani. It is because of what many call the permanent establishment in Pakistan. This is led by the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies; closely emulated by the Supreme Court and, in many instances, the bureaucracy. This is Pakistan’s constant and consistent power base. They do not accept the right of elected leaders to change the nation’s course.  The Supreme Court of Pakistan and the five high courts have an extremely poor record of defending democracy against authoritarian interventions. The Supreme Court has legalised each one of Pakistan’s three successful military coups in 1958, 1977 and 1999.

Q. What impact will this have on Pakistan’s Kashmir policy?

Farahnaz Ispahani. Kashmir policy, all regional policy and non-regional foreign policy has been directed by the establishment since Pakistan’s founding. Several civilian prime ministers – most recently Sharif – have tried to improve ties with India but the powerful ‘Kashmir first’ lobbies in Islamabad and Rawalpindi have destroyed all these efforts by the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan. India and Pakistan can normalise relations without resolving all disputes first, as many countries have done, but that is not acceptable to the Pakistani establishment. Kashmir policy, anti-India policy and the policy of strategic depth have caused Pakistan to be increasingly isolated in our neighbourhood and around the world. Proponents of that policy do not want to accept that.

Q. Will this make the civilian government weak forever?

Farahnaz Ispahani. Nothing has to be forever. But Pakistan’s permanent establishment and its stranglehold on Pakistan’s media have made it very difficult to stand up to it even as we see today for a hugely popular and elected leader like Nawaz Sharif. Judiciary has become an instrument of the establishment. It responds to media noise rather than sticking to law and legal process.

Q. How do you assess Imran Khan’s role leading up to this court case? Do you foresee Pervez Musharraf and Imran Khan coming out with a third front?

Farahnaz Ispahani. Imran Khan has been in politics for decades but, until now, he has always been a bridesmaid who never made it to being the actual bride. He is thought to be growing more personally unstable and that is making some in the permanent establishment concerned about supporting him in the next elections against Sharif’s powerful PML-N party in the all-important Punjab province. That said, he has some following in urban areas among angry, hyper-nationalist youth and retired military personnel. And he remains a favourite of pro-establishment media.

Q. Do you feel that judicial accountability and judicial independence have become tools of a deep state?

Farahnaz Ispahani. I will only say that judicial accountability must be across the board and not selective to be credible. There is a reason why no general, judge or senior bureaucrat faces the kind of accountability inflicted on politicians. When the process is not transparent, it leads to suspicions about the deep state being at work.

Note; The Interview was published originally by “Time of India” , and can be read;  ‘SK Abbasi is to Sharif what Manmohan Singh was to Sonia … Pakistan’s SC has poor record of defending democracy’

Muslims Must Ostracize Anti-Semitic Imams by Farahnaz Ispahani

American Muslims, justifiably worried about increasing attacks on our community, must react strongly to the anti-Semitic sermons by two California Imams. Although one of them has since apologized, his call to “annihilate” Jews cannot be ignored just because of a statement of contrition.
If Muslims want wider support for their concerns about threats to their community, they must also ostracize the Imams and other Muslims engaging in hate speech against other communities.
Ammar Shahin, Imam of the Islamic Center at Davis, called on Allah to “liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque from the filth of the Jews” and to “Count them one by one and annihilate them down to the very last one.” Syrian-born Sheikh Mahmoud Harmoush said at the Islamic Center of Riverside, “Oh Allah, liberate the Al-Aqsa Mosque and all the Muslim lands from the unjust tyrants and the occupiers,” he prayed, “Oh Allah, destroy them, they are no match for You. Oh Allah, disperse them, and rend them asunder. Turn them into booty in the hands of the Muslims.” Imam Shahin says he was reacting to the turmoil in Jerusalem that had led to the shutting down of the Al-Aqsa mosque. His statement of apology says he now recognizes his words were “hurtful” and that he was referring only to the group of Jews that had taken over the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, and not to Jews in general. This is effectively an apology for the hurt caused by the remarks but not the hate behind them. Sheikh Harmoush, who has taught at several California universities and is still leading the congregation in Riverside, can be expected to make a similar ‘apology.’ The current polarization in America benefits people with extreme views as they secure the support of one side in the political divide to help gloss over their conduct. The anti-Semitic remarks of the two imams have been underplayed in the national media and by liberal politicians as no one wants to add fuel to the fire of anti-Muslim sentiment already being encouraged by the other side.
California’s Muslims, feeling under attack from the right wing, seem to have allied themselves with elements in the State that blocked speaking events of ultra-conservative columnist Ann Coulter and British scientist and anti-religion campaigner, Richard Dawkins.
But Muslims would do better by standing up against all bigotry and seek protection for themselves by defending the principles of free speech as well as the value of religious toleration. Muslims must not act against intolerance only when they are its victims. Nor should they react to others’ criticism of their religion by seeking shutting down of debate.
Dawkins has described Islam as “the greatest force for evil in the world today.” Muslims could help refute that characterization more by refusing to support Imams Shahin and Harmoush than they accomplished by refusing Dawkins an opportunity to make his case to a California audience.
That the Muslim community is under attack is well known. According to the FBI, anti-Muslim hate crimes have surged 67 percent over the last year. 2545 incidents targeting 3,052 Muslims were reported in the U.S. between 2001 and 2015 but violence has now reached a level similar to that in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks.
Muslims number only 3.3 million out of a total U.S. population of 323 million. More than 60 percent of Americans have seldom or never had a conversation with a Muslim, according to a study conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute. 57 percent Americans say they know little while 26 percent acknowledge they know nothing at all about Islam.
Muslims believe their community under-reports hate crimes –ranging from assault on individuals to attacks on mosques — which some say are not pursued vigorously by police and prosecutors, especially in small towns.
In such an environment it is especially important for Muslims to speak out against hate crimes across-the-board and disavow prayers for the destruction of other faith traditions. Anti-Antisemitism, imported by immigrant Imams from the Middle East, must be particularly checked.
America’s Jews have supported Muslims in the aftermath of hateful attacks. When a mosque in Texas burned down, for example, the local Jewish community handed the keys of their synagogue to enable Muslims to pray.
It is time for America’s Muslims to demonstrate that they appreciate being woven into the fabric of America’s diversity. Allowing Imams to get away with hateful comments against Jews from the pulpit will do little to demonstrate the American Muslim community’s commitment to universal values of tolerance and religious freedom. The community must weed out its own bigots if it wants fair-minded Jews and Christians to support it against the bigotry of others.
The correct stance for American Muslims over the hateful comments of Imams Shahin and Harmoush would be to demand their removal from their positions. Next time an Imam makes anti-Semitic comments in a Friday sermon, it should be his congregants that must react well before media reports force a half-hearted apology.

Farahnaz Ispahani, a former members of Pakistan’s parliament, is Global Policy Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington DC and a Senior Fellow of the Institute for Religious Freedom.

The Article is published by Huffpost originally; link Muslims Must Ostracize Anti-Semitic Imams by Farahnaz Ispahani

Farahnaz Ispahani- Senior Fellow at Religious Freedom Institute

Farahnaz Ispahani is a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, DC and the author of the book Purifying The Land of The Pure: The History of Pakistan’s Religious Minorities (Oxford University Press, 2017). In 2015, she was a Reagan-Fascell Scholar at the National Endowment for Democracy, in Washington, DC.  Ispahani was a Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center from 2013-2014. A Pakistani politician, Ispahani served as a Member of Parliament and Media Advisor to the President of Pakistan from 2008-2012.  In Parliament she focused on the issues of terrorism, human rights, gender based violence, minority rights and US-Pakistan relations. She was also a member of the Women’s caucus in the 13th National Assembly. The caucus, which straddled political divides, was instrumental in introducing more legislation on women’s issues than has ever been done before during a single parliamentary term. Ms. Ispahani spent the formative years of her career as a print and television journalist. Her last journalistic position was as Executive Producer and Managing Editor of Voice of America’s Urdu TV. She has also worked at ABC News, CNN and MSNBC.

Link: Farahnaz Ispahani- Senior Fellow at Religious Freedom Institute