Connect with us

South Asia

The Saga of Helpless and Hapless Kashmiri People

Published

on

Kashmiri people from the last seventy years since 1947 have been abandoned by the two rivals, now nuclear states – India and Pakistan. Indo-Pak rivalry is one of the main reasons that Kashmir remained unresolved since long time after the partition of India into two dominions – independent India and independent Pakistan.

The two newly independent states within short span of time got indulged in territorial clashes particular on Kashmir. Currently, there is hardly any day, where a civilian, security man and militant are not assassinated in Kashmir.   

When we scroll the dusty pages of reminiscent history of Kashmir, we come to know how hard it is for Kashmiris to live in a valley where there is no guarantee of life. Historically, Kashmir is a law and order problem for India while for Pakistan, it is a disputed territory, an unfinished business. For international community, it is one of the most dangerous area where chances of nuclear exchange are high between the two belligerent and trust deficit states.

Among the Kashmiris, there is a diversion of opinions, for some, it is just a futile and never-ending battle between India and Pakistan for rich resources available in the valley especially water. While some argued that Kashmiris should be given the ‘right to self-determination’ to choose either to accede with India or Pakistan as per the UN resolution. Interestingly, majority of people wants complete freedom from two states. Others demand restoration of state autonomy, and Ladakh division, where majority of people are Buddhists demand union territory status. In Jammu, Hindus determinately want to accede with India completely by abrogating Article 370 which provide special rights to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.

At the academic level, the countless study has been published across the globe for the settlement of unresolved Kashmir dispute. Most of pundit’s favour plebiscite to settle the dispute ones for all. Some academic think tanks argued that a meaningful and peaceful dialogue should be initiated between India and Pakistan as an immediate step to bring order and normalcy back in the valley and the ultimate solution is of course the referendum. However, some Indian analysts argued that Kashmir is just a law and order problem by which resistance movement should be dealt ruthlessly, that is why the large concentration of Indian security forces with special powers are visible in the valley to crush any resistance movement whether armed or civilian. While for some, it is just a redundancy problem in the valley, Indian government should provide maximum opportunities to the Kashmiris to thwart the resistance movement peacefully.

At the political level, Kashmir remained just a tool to win the confidence of the people for strengthen the domestic politics in both states – India and Pakistan. Both states with the help of the confidence building measures (Lahore Summit and Agra Declaration) tried their best to settle the unresolved Kashmir dispute but completely failed to settle it peacefully. The track II diplomacy also failed to settle the unresolved issue. Obviously, when two states failed to settle the Kashmir issue, Kashmiris left with one option to start resisting against Indian rule.

There is no doubt that India violated the state autonomy through 48 presidential orders that culminated into anger and anger changed into resistance movement in Kashmir against the foreign rule. Apart from the direct wars, during the Kashmir intifada in 1989, Pakistan supported Kashmir materially and diplomatically to resist against Indian rule. Several academic thinks tanks like Summit Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur admitted that it is because of misrule by India in Kashmir that provided impetus to Pakistan to support Kashmir. Since 1989, Kashmir remained under severe turmoil where innocent lives have been crushed harshly.

There are different stories regarding the genocide of Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus inside the valley. The Kashmiri pandits migration after Kashmir uprisings in 1989 is another important episode of the complicated Kashmir dispute. And, human rights violations inside the valley by Indian security forces is at its peak. There are many shameful and fatal episodes inside the valley where innocent Kashmiri women became victims of mass rape in the hands of Indian security forces. For instance, more than thirty innocent Kashmiri Muslim women were mercilessly raped in twin villages of Kunan and Poshpora in 1991 during the cordon and search operation by Indian security forces. The Indian security forces enjoy impunity inside the valley due to Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA).   

After Kashmir uprisings, India tried to settle the unresolved Kashmir issue with nukes. Despite India possess nuclear warheads, it failed to deter Pakistan for escalating sub-conventional conflict in the region. The reason put forth is simple, Pakistan’s asymmetric escalation posture (first-use policy of nukes) against Indian conventional attack to Pakistan. I assume that India mistakenly provide opportunity to Pakistan to become more aggressive towards it by overtly detonating five nuclear devices in May 1998. Reciprocally, Pakistan tested six nuclear devices in the same month in retaliation. Subsequently, the Kargil skirmish of 1999 happened under the nuclear umbrella and experts argued that it is because of this instrumentality of wreaking havoc that Pakistan behaved more aggressively than before towards India.  

Currently, Kashmir is again boiling since Hizbul Mujahidin Commander, Burhan Wani was killed by the Indian security forces in summer 2016. Kashmiri youth wittingly joined the militancy to resist Indian rule with the tacit support from the general public inside the valley. Several times, Kashmiri people (men and women) without fearing about their life and career, rush towards the encounter areas to help the militants to escape. Along with the armed resistance, a new form of civil resistance movement is visible inside the valley.

The resistance movements in Kashmir have now shifted to more civilian resistance in the form of stone pelting, protests, write-ups, facebook posts, graffiti and songs. Those who did not participate in direct resistance movements in Kashmir do not mean that they are outside of movements. These people believe in praying, crying, cursing and wailing plaintively particularly Kashmiri women who are beating their chest and singing songs to show their resistance and express their anger towards a foreign rule. These types of resistance (civil) are more powerful than armed resistance to pressure civil society and international community to intervene.

Indian government states that the resistance movement especially those who pelt stones on Indian security forces were funded by Pakistan in Kashmir. The demonetization was implemented to stop stone pelting in Kashmir and Indian Prime Minister Office states that with the help of demonetization, “Stone-pelting incidents in Kashmir came down by 75% from the previous year”. It is interesting to note that the college boys and girls, school going kids joined the resistance movement in Kashmir this year and previous year to express their anger towards the foreign rule.

How it is justifiable for parents to allow their school going children to risk their lives for money to join the resistance movement in Kashmir. With the help of the UN banned pellet guns, hundreds got killed, thousand injured and hundreds blinded in the hands of Indian security forces with the tacit support of state police. The civil resistance movement is the result of the broken promises by Indian government towards the helpless and hapless Kashmiri people.

Finally, Indian government selected ex Intelligence Bureau chief Dineshwar Sharma as interlocutor and special representative to restore peace in the valley. Sharma was given task by Indian government to talk with all the stockholders including Hurriyat Conference in the valley as a dialogue process. After his visit, he argued that his trip to Kashmir was successful. However, without a meaningful dialogue process with Pakistan, all the peace initiatives from Indian side will be fruitless. Interestingly, Pakistan is party to the dispute is admitted by India itself.

India is reluctant to talk with Pakistan on Kashmir issue because of an issue of infiltration. India blamed Pakistan for spreading terror in the region by backing and funding the militants in Kashmir against Indian rule. On the other side, Pakistan loudly responded that until India will not offer a meaningful dialogue on Kashmir issue to Pakistan to settle it forever, sub-conventional conflicts and funding to militants in Kashmir will continue. Pakistan wants UN resolution through plebiscite to settle the dispute, however, India is worried about the majority of Muslim population in Jammu and Kashmir state, that is why India has rejected the UN resolution on Kashmir by claiming that India and Pakistan in historical Shimla agreement after 1971 war have affirmed to settle the Kashmir issue bilaterally.  

All the talks between India and Pakistan to settle the Kashmir issue was not initiated on the humanitarian grounds. Recently, Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi has rejected the option of independence of Kashmir. Similarly, Farooq Abdullah, former Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir argued that independent Kashmir is not an option, “internal autonomy is our right”. Vehemently, Farooq rejected the option to accede with Pakistan, however, argued that the other part of Kashmir clearly belongs to Pakistan. India should restore autonomy of the state, only then peace will return to the valley.

It is all about national interest, both states want to utilize the resources of the valley for future requirements and mainstream political parties in the valley have remained puppet in the hands of Indian government. It is over all centre (New Delhi) that is responsible for the turmoil in the valley due to poor governance, broken promises and violation of the state autonomy. Kashmiri people have been completely abandoned since 1947. One can easily imagine why confidence building measures have failed to settle the Kashmir issue. Also, the religious groups of both states have wittingly made this issue more complex by spewing venom in their speeches against each other. Kashmir should be separated from India-Pakistan rivalry and religious card has not ability to settle the dispute.

This is not mere hyperbole. Rather, this is a fact that both the states have indulged in attitudinarianism, egoism, and the Hindu-Muslim mentality. There is no case of religious rivalry inside the valley, all the sections of people live peacefully, the religious card is triggered by India and Pakistan to win the emotions of the people for their own interests. Experts explicitly argued that there are multiple agencies working inside the valley that thwarted the peaceful resolution of Kashmir.

The dispute over Kashmir is not just a matter of India-Pakistan; it is first about Kashmiri people. Both nuclear states should come forward in terms of peace rather than strategic terms to settle the Kashmir issue ones for all on humanitarian basis. There are thousands of unidentified graves in Kashmir and parents are desperately waiting for their sons who got missing since 1989 in Kashmir.

Rameez Raja is pursuing Ph. D at Department of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He specializes in India’s nuclear policy. His writings have previously appeared in Rising Kashmir, Café Dissensus Everyday, Kafila, South Asia Journal, Foreign Policy News, Modern Diplomacy, Pakistan Observer, Kashmir Observer, and Kashmir Monitor. Email ID: rameezrajaa23[at]gmail.com

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

The Not-So-Missing Case of Indian Innovation and Entrepreneurship

Published

on

Photo by Anastasia Zhenina on Unsplash

Hitendra Singh and Gauri Noolkar-Oak*

Recently, an article published in Modern Diplomacy caught our attention. The author has cited Mr. Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, and found his famous statement on Indians lacking enterprise and innovation to be ‘music to his ears’. He has then gone on to paint Indians in broad strokes – ironic, for it is something he has accused Indians of doing – and labelled them as a nation lacking entrepreneurial and innovative spirit. While his reasoning certainly has an element of truth and an instant appeal, our response looks to add nuances to his argument and provide a more realistic and complete picture of enterprise and innovation in India.

To begin with, the terms ‘entrepreneurship’ and ‘innovation’ cannot be used interchangeably; not all entrepreneurs are innovators, and vice versa. There are more than 50 million medium and small businesses operating in India which contribute 37% of India’s GDP and employ around 117 million people. These numbers sufficiently prove that entrepreneurship is alive and kicking in the Indian society; Indians are running businesses not only in India but are leading and successful entrepreneurs in many countries of Asia, Africa and rest of the world. Hence, an argument that Indians lack entrepreneurship does not hold much strength.

In the case of innovation and creativity, a different story is emerging. It is slow but is happening and it is solving some of the largest social and developmental challenges in India – from grassroots, to research labs, to top-tier institutions such as ISRO and various DRDO labs. At a global level, India has not only moved up six places in its GII ranking in 2017, but is also ranked second in innovation quality. India has also won international acclaim for its innovative and cost-effective technology; such as its first mission to Mars in 2014, the Mangalyaan, was successful in the first attempt, made entirely with domestic technology, and cost less than the Hollywood movies ‘Gravity’ and ‘The Martian’. It is surprising that the author spots lack of innovation in a household broom but does not see innovation in a nation that sends a successful Mars mission on a budget that is less than that of a Hollywood movie about Mars.

At the national level, grassroots innovation and entrepreneurship are gaining more and more institutional recognition; the National Innovation Foundation (NIF) and the annual Festival of Innovation at the Rashtrapati Bhavan are perhaps the only high-level government initiatives supporting and celebrating innovation in the world. Additionally, many universities and educational institutes across the country host innovation competitions, festivals and incubators.

Several remarkable individuals are nurturing India’s growing innovative and entrepreneurial spirit.Prof. Anil K. Gupta founded SRISTI (Society for Research and Initiatives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions) in 1993 and the Honey Bee Network in 1997 to connect innovators from all sections of the society to entrepreneurs, lawyers and investors. For more than 12 years, he has walked around 6000 kilometres across the country, discovering extraordinary grassroots innovations on the way. Dr. Raghunath Mashelkar, an eminent chemical scientist, has led multiple scientific and technological innovations in the country, earlier as the Director-General of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, and now as the President of the National Innovation Foundation.

And then, there are thousands of common men and women, hailing from various walks of life, innovating continuously and creatively to solve pressing everyday problems in the Indian society. There are the famous Arunachalam Muruganantham, who invented a cost-effective way of manufacturing sanitary napkins, and Mansukhbhai Prajapati, who invented a clay refrigerator which runs without electricity. Then there are Mallesham from Andhra Pradesh, who sped up the process of weaving Kochampalli sarees and reduced the physical pains of the weavers, and Shri Sundaram from Rajasthan, who found a way to grow a whole tree in a dry region with just a litre of water. Raghav Gowda from Karnataka designed a cost-effective and painless machine to milk cows, while Mathew K Mathews from Kerala designed a solar mosquito destroyer. Dr. Pawan Mehrotra of Haryana has developed a cost-effective version of breast prosthesis for breast cancer survivors while Harsh Songra of Madhya Pradesh has developed a mobile app to detect developmental disorders among children.

Three women from Manipur, OinamIbetombi Devi, SarangthenDasumati Devi and Nameirakpam Sanahambi Devi invented an herbal medicine that is proven to promote poultry health. Priyanka Sharma from Punjab developed a low-cost biochip to detect environmental pollutants, while Dr. Seema Prakash from Karnataka revolutionised eco-agriculture by inventing a cost-effective plant cloning technique. AshniBiyani, the daughter of Future Group CEO Kishore Biyani, leads the Khoj Lab, which collaborates with the NIF to help commercialise grassroots innovations and ideas.

These and thousands of such examples present a very encouraging picture of the creativity and innovation of Indians. The innovation that the author admires are rooted in a context. Apple and Google (or Lyft or Uber or Spotify) could be created because there was an end consumer who was looking to pay for their products. There are many India innovator-entrepreneurs, such as those mentioned above, who have created products for a necessarily less glamorous but useful India context. Products like brooms and packaged food add convenience to the time-stretched urban and middle and upper middle classes; with a large unskilled and semiskilled workforce competing vigorously for such jobs, does the Indian society have an incentive to invest in innovating them?

Having said that, it is true that upsurge of innovation in India is relatively recent, i.e. about two to three decades old. It is also true that the Indian society has been experiencing socio-economic affluence on such a broad scale only for the past three decades, since the market reforms of 1991. It has been 70 years since Indians have gained sovereignty and control over their resources. The top five innovative countries according to the GII – Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands, USA and UK – have been sovereign states for about at least two and a half centuries. It would perhaps then be more accurate to compare India’s current innovation scenario with, for instance, the USA’s innovation scenario in the mid-19th century.

Further, given the economic and resource drain faced by the Indian society over centuries, Indian innovation was geared more towards surviving rather than thriving. This explains the ‘group mentality’ strongly rooted in mainstream Indian society; staying and cooperating in a group increased one’s capacity to cope with and survive through all kinds of adversity. Individualistic aspirations, beliefs and actions were then a price to be paid for the security blanket it offered. And yet, once relative stability and affluence began to set in, the innovative and creative instincts of Indians lost no time in bursting forth.

Long story short, both innovation and entrepreneurship are thriving in India. They might not be as “macro” or glamourous as Apple or Uber, but they are solving fundamental problems for the Indian masses. Undoubtedly, there is a lot of room for improvement and growth – India has a long way to go to be recognised as a global leader in innovation and entrepreneurship. However, the scenario is not by any means bleak, as these many examples point out. The trajectory of enterprises and innovation in India is only upward. The future is promising.

* Gauri Noolkar-Oak is Policy Research Analyst at Pune International Centre, a liberal think tank based in Pune, India.

Views expressed by the authors are personal and do not reflect those of the organisation.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Changing Perceptions: How Pakistan should use Public Diplomacy

Published

on

Traditionally in International Relations the concept of “hard power” remained the basic focus for states so as to achieve power and dominance in international anarchic system but with the changing scenarios in the age of globalization, economic interdependency and rapid spreading of information through various tools, “Soft Power” concept emerged which had great impact on states’ foreign policies. This term of soft power was first coined by Joseph Nye in mid-1960’s which could be defined as the ability of the state to influence others without coercion and this soft power technique basically revolves around three major instruments such as Culture, political values, and foreign policies. Apart from soft power concept, there is another basic concept called as “Public Diplomacy”. This could be described as the further dimension of soft power because by practicing Public Diplomacy state can initiate their soft power policies and can achieve the desired outcomes by winning the hearts and minds of foreign audience and non-governmental entities because by doing so it will enable government and decision making bodies of foreign states to act accordingly.

In context of South Asia particularly taking into consideration the important developing state Pakistan whose basic concern is to maintain friendly and neutral relations with other states Public diplomacy could, however, help it to maintain its relations in the regional complex structure where India is seen as the dominant power and alongside India the powerful rise of China as an external actor in South Asia. By efficient usage of Public diplomacy, Pakistan can improve its bilateral ties with the neighboring states.

The image of Pakistan in foreign media is portrayed as the state which is full of many internal and external challenges and it is also not portrayed as the safe country to travel into. In order to improve the image, Pakistan firstly needs to improve its relations with states within the region and for that India which is considered as hostile neighbor Pakistan should effectively use its public diplomacy tool it should introduce exchange programs because by educating youth and by deploying positive image in their minds Pakistan can influence them which could bring change in the coming years and also by increasing tourism activities. This would make foreigners aware of the fact that Pakistan is a secure state. Similarly, cultural activities, sports diplomacy, literature, art, and media could also have a great impact so as to change the perceptions.

Hence it could be suggested that for the development of state it is important for Pakistan to improve its public diplomacy by changing perceptions of public and elite of neighboring states it should take basic steps which could change the negative image which is in limelight since 9/11. Pakistan by enhancing the public diplomacy in other states as the tool to implement its soft power policies would, however, be able to economically, culturally and politically improve its stance in the International arena.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Rolling back militancy: Bangladesh looks to Saudi Arabia in a twist of irony

Dr. James M. Dorsey

Published

on

Bangladesh, in a twist of irony, is looking to Saudi Arabia to fund a $ 1 billion plan to build hundreds of mosques and religious centres to counter militant Islam that for much of the past decade traced its roots to ultra-conservative strands of the faith promoted by a multi-billion dollar Saudi campaign.

The Bangladeshi plan constitutes the first effort by a Muslim country to enlist the kingdom whose crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, has vowed to return Saudi Arabia to an undefined form of ‘moderate Islam,’ in reverse engineering.

The plan would attempt to roll back the fallout of Saudi Arabia’s global investment of up to $100 billion over a period of four decades in support of ultra-conservative mosques, religious centres, and groups as an antidote to post-1979 Iranian revolutionary zeal.

Cooperation with Saudi Arabia and various countries, including Malaysia, has focused until now on countering extremism in cooperation with defense and security authorities rather than as a religious initiative.

Saudi religious authorities and Islamic scholars have long issued fatwas or religious opinions condemning political violence and extremism and accused jihadists of deviating from the true path of Islam.

The Saudi campaign, the largest public diplomacy effort in history, was, nevertheless, long abetted by opportunistic governments who played politics with religion as well as widespread discontent fuelled by the failure of governments to deliver public goods and services.

The Bangladeshi plan raises multiple questions, including whether the counter-narrative industry can produce results in the absence of effective government policies that address social, economic and political grievances.

It also begs the question whether change in Saudi Arabia has advanced to a stage in which the kingdom can claim that it has put its ultra-conservative and militant roots truly behind it. The answer to both questions is probably no.

In many ways, Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism and militancy, violent and non-violent, despite sharing common roots with the kingdom’s long-standing theological thinking and benefitting directly or indirectly from Saudi financial largess, has created a life of its own that no longer looks to the kingdom for guidance and support and is critical of the path on which Prince Mohammed has embarked.

The fallout of the Saudi campaign is evident in Asia not only in the rise of militancy in Bangladesh but also the degree to which concepts of supremacism and intolerance have taken root in countries like Malaysia, Indonesia and Pakistan. Those concepts are often expressed in discrimination, if not persecution of minorities like Shia Muslims and Ahmadis, and draconic anti-blasphemy measures by authorities, militants and vigilantes.

Bangladesh in past years witnessed a series of brutal killings of bloggers and intellectuals whom jihadists accused of atheism.

Moreover, basic freedoms in Bangladesh are being officially and unofficially curtailed in various forms as a result of domestic struggles originally enabled by successful Saudi pressure to amend the country’s secular constitution in 1975 to recognize Islam as its official religion. Saudi Arabia withheld recognition of the new state as well as financial support until the amendment was adopted four years after Bangladeshi independence.

In Indonesia, hard-line Islamic groups, led by the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), earlier this month filed a blasphemy complaint against politician Sukmawati Sukarnoputri, a daughter of Indonesia’s founding father Sukarno and the younger sister of Megawati Sukarnoputri, who leads President Joko Widodo’s ruling party. The hardliners accuse Ms. Sukarnoputri of reciting a poem that allegedly insults Islam.

The groups last year accused Basuki Tjahaja Purnama aka Ahok, Jakarta’s former Christian governor, of blasphemy and spearheaded mass rallies that led to his ouster and jailing, a ruling that many believed was politicized and unjust.

Pakistan’s draconic anti-blasphemy law has created an environment that has allowed Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatives and powerful political forces to whip up popular emotion in pursuit of political objectives. The environment is symbolized by graffiti in the corridor of a courthouse In Islamabad that demanded that blasphemers be beheaded.

Pakistan last month designated Islamabad as a pilot project to regulate Friday prayer sermons in the city’s 1,003 mosques, of which only 86 are state-controlled, in a bid to curb hate speech, extremism and demonization of religions and communities.

The government has drafted a list of subjects that should be the focus of weekly Friday prayer sermons in a bid to prevent mosques being abused “to stir up sectarian hatred, demonise other religions and communities and promote extremism.” The subjects include women rights; Islamic principles of trade, cleanliness and health; and the importance of hard work, tolerance, and honesty.

However, they do not address legally enshrined discrimination of minorities like Ahmadis, who are viewed as heretics by orthodox Muslims. The list risked reinforcing supremacist and intolerant militancy by including the concept of the finality of the Prophet Mohammed that is often used as a whip to discriminate against minorities.

Raising questions about the degree of moderation that Saudi-funded mosques and religious centres in Bangladesh would propagate, Prince Mohammed, in his effort to saw off the rough edges of Saudi ultra-conservatism, has given no indication that he intends to repeal a law that defines atheists as terrorists.

A Saudi court last year condemned a man to death on charges of blasphemy and atheism. Another Saudi was a year earlier sentenced to ten years in prison and 2,000 lashes for expressing atheist sentiments on social media.

Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations have long lobbied for the criminalization of blasphemy in international law in moves that would legitimize curbs on free speech and growing Muslim intolerance towards any open discussion of their faith.

To be sure, Saudi Arabia cannot be held directly liable for much of the expression of supremacism, intolerance and anti-pluralism in the Muslim world. Yet, by the same token there is little doubt that Saudi propagation of ultra-conservatism frequently contributed to an enabling environment.

Prince Mohammed is at the beginning of his effort to moderate Saudi Islam and has yet to spell out in detail his vision of religious change. Beyond the issue of defining atheism as terrorism, Saudi Arabia also has yet to put an end to multiple ultra-conservative practices, including the principle of male guardianship that forces women to get the approval of a male relative for major decisions in their life.

Prince Mohammed has so far forced the country’s ultra-conservative religious establishment into subservience. That raises the question whether there has been real change in the establishment’s thinking or whether it is kowtowing to an autocratic leader.

In December, King Salman fired a government official for organizing a mixed gender fashion show after ultra-conservatives criticized the event on Twitter. The kingdom this week hosted its first ever Arab Fashion Week, for women only. Designers were obliged to adhere to strict dress codes banning transparent fabrics and the display of cleavages or clothing that bared knees.

In February, Saudi Arabia agreed to surrender control of the Great Mosque in Brussels after its efforts to install a more moderate administration failed to counter mounting Belgian criticism of alleged intolerance and supremacism propagated by mosque executives.

Efforts to moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia as well as Qatar, the world’s only other Wahhabi state that traces its ultra-conservatism to the teachings of 18th century preacher Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, but has long interpreted them more liberally than the kingdom, have proven to be easier said than done.

Saudi King Abdullah, King Salman’s predecessor, positioned himself as a champion of interfaith dialogue and reached out to various groups in society including Shiites and women.

Yet, more than a decade of Saudi efforts to cleanse textbooks used at home and abroad have made significant progress but have yet to completely erase descriptions of alternative strands of Islam such as Shiism and Sufism in derogatory terms or eliminate advise to Muslims not to associate with Jews and Christians who are labelled kaffirs or unbelievers.

Raising questions about Saudi involvement in the Bangladeshi plan, a Human Rights Watch survey of religion textbooks produced by the Saudi education ministry for the 2016-2017 school year concluded that “as early as first grade, students in Saudi schools are being taught hatred toward all those perceived to be of a different faith or school of thought.”

Human Rights Watch researcher Adam Coogle noted that Prince Mohammed has remained conspicuously silent about hate speech in textbooks as well as its use by officials and Islamic scholars connected to the government.

The New York-based Anti-Defamation League last year documented hate speech in Qatari mosques that was disseminated in Qatari media despite Qatar’s propagation of religious tolerance and outreach to American Jews as part of its effort to counter a United Arab Emirates-Saudi-led economic and diplomatic boycott of the Gulf state.

In one instance in December, Qatari preacher Muhammed al-Muraikhi described Jews in a sermon in Doha’s Imam Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab Mosque as “your deceitful, lying, treacherous, fornicating, intransigent enemy” who have “despoiled, corrupted, ruined, and killed, and will not stop.”

No doubt, Saudi Arabia, like Qatar, which much earlier moved away from puritan and literal Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism, is sincere in its intention to adopt more tolerant and pluralistic worldviews.

Getting from A to B, however, is a lengthy process. The question remains whether the kingdom has progressed to a degree that it can credibly help countries like Bangladesh deal with their demons even before having successfully put its own house in order.

Continue Reading

Latest

Middle East2 hours ago

A Mohammedan Game of Thrones: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Fight for Regional Hegemony

Authors: James J. Rooney, Jr. & Dr. Matthew Crosston* The people in the United States didn’t think well of those...

Middle East3 hours ago

Might Trump Ask Israel to Fund America’s Invasion-Occupation of Syria?

On 16 April 2018, the internationally respected analyst of Middle-Eastern affairs, Abdel Bari Atwan, headlined about Trump’s increasingly overt plan...

Economy5 hours ago

Financial Inclusion on the Rise, But Gaps Remain

Financial inclusion is on the rise globally, accelerated by mobile phones and the internet, but gains have been uneven across...

Newsdesk6 hours ago

ADB Operations Reach $32.2 Billion in 2017- ADB Annual Report

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) Annual Report 2017, released today, provides a clear, comprehensive, and detailed record of ADB’s operations,...

Middle East8 hours ago

Trump lacks proper strategy towards Middle East, Syria

About five years ago, when former US President Barack Obama spoke of a military strike in Syria, Zbigniew Brzezinski, former...

Tech9 hours ago

The Ethical and Legal Issues of Artificial Intelligence

Ethics and law are inextricably linked in modern society, and many legal decisions arise from the interpretation of various ethical...

Middle East10 hours ago

US: No Restitution to Syria

On April 22nd, an anonymous U.S. “Senior Administration Official” told a press conference in Toronto, that the only possible circumstance...

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy