Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

A British newspaper quite correctly wrote the headline of its lead story the other day: ‘Cartoons War: The Clash of Civilizations.’ The second part of the headline of the story on the cartoons row that spread like a wildfire across the entire Muslim world and beyond simply reinforced the prediction of eminent American scholar Samuel Huntington about a clash of civilizations between Islam and the West in the 21st century.
   The timing of such an unnecessary and unexpected row couldn’t be worse. At a time when the world needed a greater understanding and reconciliation between Islam and the West and when moderate Muslims all over the world were sincerely making their efforts in this regard, a group of European editors led by a Danish newspaper chose rather to further widen the gap between the two by publishing and re-publishing a dozen cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
   Press reports suggest that the cartoons were first published in the Danish newspaper in a planned way. According to an Associated Press story, The Jyllands-Posten had asked as many as 40 cartoonists to draw images of the prophet. The news agency, in its Gaza City-datelined story transmitted on February 3, quoted the chief editor of the Danish newspaper as saying: ‘The purpose was to examine whether people would succumb to self-censorship, as we have seen in other cases when it comes to Muslim issues.’
   Publication and then re-publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the specific newspapers in Europe despite worldwide strong protests by Muslims lead any sensible person regardless of his or her faith and religion to believe quite logically that the editors of these newspapers are arrogant, ignorant and confused. Many European journalists on various talk shows and other programs of major national and international media outlets are openly questioning the editorial judgment on publication of these cartoons.
   In Islam, any kind of depiction of the Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures – even the positive ones – is forbidden. Why? Because Islam does not allow religious worship of any person or idol.
   The editors who went ahead with the publication of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad should have needed to study Islam a little bit first and find out what is acceptable and forbidden in this religion. Assuming that they were heavily preoccupied with their multi-tasks in today’s busy newsrooms in the European cities and had no time for a reading, yet they could have any of their questions on Islam answered within moments from a Muslim cleric or religious scholar living in their own city. They were only a phone call away.
   But they didn’t care and published and, in some cases, republished the cartoons displaying an utter disrespect for the religious feelings of over one billion Muslims in the world. The European editors, who published the cartoons in their newspapers, should need to know one thing very clearly that – publication of any cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, positive or negative, is equally offensive to all Muslims of the world, radical and moderate. As British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw rightly observed the actions of the editors printing those cartoons describing them as ‘disrespectful, insensitive, unnecessary and wrong.’
   Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that first published the cartoons, appears quite confused about the concepts of press freedom and freedom of speech. He is also ignorant about Islam. While on a ‘Hardtalk’ program with BBC’s Stephen Sackur the other day, Rose claimed quite confidently that he had seen a picture of Prophet Muhammad on a card in Iran. He can be sure that he is hundred percent wrong! As I mentioned above, there cannot be any depiction of Prophet Muhammad in any form. He must have seen the image of any other great saint of Islam as the Shiite Muslim clerics may allow the images of Ali, the prophet’s son-in-law.
   Rose still continues to defend the publication of the cartoons describing it as a freedom of speech. However, a US State Department spokesman has contradicted him describing the cartoons as ‘offensive to Muslims and inciting ethnic and religious hatred.’ The spokesman further said: ‘Any anti-Islamic, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic image is unacceptable.’ Rose said they satire the Queen of Denmark quite often. Well, satirizing political figures are not foreign to Muslims either in any part of the world. Any politician or government leader of any Muslim country, democracy or otherwise, can be satirized. There is nothing wrong with that given the freedom of press we enjoy today. But satirizing the Prophet of Islam is unacceptable.
   Now let’s talk about the press freedom or the freedom of speech a little bit. Flemming Rose, being an experienced journalist, must have been aware of the fact that there is no freedom in the world that is not balanced against a corresponding responsibility. All kinds of freedom are tied to responsibility. In any democracy in Europe or elsewhere in the world, while exercising political freedom, one must be careful so as not to violate other people’s rights. Speaking of journalism, it must always come with responsibility. Journalism means responsible journalism at all times. There is no such journalism anywhere in the world – in Europe, America, Asia, Africa or Middle East – which we can call an irresponsible journalism.
   And publication of cartoons of the Prophet of Islam that sparks a worldwide anger, resentments and protests among a billion-plus Muslims and as a consequence violence in different countries is certainly not journalism by any definition – let alone responsible journalism. This is an act of provocation and adventurism designed to offend the whole people belonging to a particular religion. As a participant in BBC’s Dateline London program last Sunday said of the cartoons: ‘ The images themselves did not add anything to a story. We need to be much more sensitive to other values.’ Talking about how the Muslims living in Europe reacted to the cartoons, another participant underlined the need for a sound editorial judgment saying: ‘You cannot offend an entire segment of your readers by publishing something in your newspaper.’
   The United States and Britain, as world leaders, took just the right and timely step by condemning the publication and republication of the cartoons in European newspapers. Other nations of Europe and other continents of the world should follow the US-Britain lead in the greater interest of peace and harmony in the world. Denmark and Norway have condemned the violence and burning of their missions in Syria and other Islamic countries. That’s perfectly all right! Any kind of violence is always condemnable. Both countries are certainly right in doing that. However, both nations must be aware of the fact that every effect must have a cause and ask themselves: What is the reason of the violence in different Islamic countries at this hour? It will only be prudent on the part of the governments of both Denmark and Norway to condemn the actions of some of the newspaper editors of their countries that lead to the violence in Muslim nations following the US-Britain sensible step.
   Since its inception, Islam has always been a religion of peace, tolerance and compassion. Yet, as it has always been, there will be some people somewhere in this world to do something provocative to Muslims and like to see them retaliate and engaged in violence, so that they look bad in the eyes of the world. The leaders of the Muslim world have a very significant role to play at this very moment in calming down the Muslims and dealing with the situation in a peaceful manner, which the Prophet Muhammad himself had preached for all his life.
   The writer is a Bangladeshi journalist based in North America

Now the mad mullahs of Iran will soon have nuclear bombs, are we all doomed? Thumbing his nose at the impotent west, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad taunts us: ‘Our enemies cannot do a damn thing. We do not need you at all. But you are in need of the Iranian nation.’ And he is absolutely right. A frisson of panic shudders around the globe: he has already threatened to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth. Do something, someone! But what and who? And if there is nothing to be done, what then?
   The International Atomic Energy Agency has failed to stop Iran restarting its nuclear programme. The matter has been referred to the UN, with a decision on any possible action in early March. But that may be yet another dismal reminder of UN incapacity. Meanwhile, the Americans are grinding out ritual bellicose statements, Donald Rumsfeld refusing to rule out air strikes. The Israelis warn that Iran will pay ‘a very heavy price’ and Iran replies that if anyone attacks ‘we will give the enemy a lesson that will be remembered throughout history’. Is this the way the world ends?
   All this suggests that international diplomacy is not one whit wiser than it ever was. Talking to experts in the field, these appear to be a few key facts: even if the US or Israel strike down the sites where they think Iranian nuclear weapons are being built, that can only delay their development. (How good are we at finding weapons anyway?) If Iran wants weapons above all else, it can get them by around 2010. Unlike Libya, Iran may well put national pride before economic growth, ignoring any harm sanctions can do them. If the world’s fourth largest producer sends oil prices through the roof, it can cause near-nuclear damage to the global economy. If this is how the west wants to play it, then Iran seems to hold some strong cards.
   History sheds light, but offers few answers. The Anglo-American coup knocking over Mossadegh in 1953 to enthrone the shah was another shining example of how western crusaders for democracy prop up dictators in exchange for oil, afraid of the elections they pretend to champion. That is the paradox of the White House dream of turning Afghanistan and Iraq into ‘beacons of democracy’ to spread their light across the Middle East. Yet - at least at first - democracy was always bound to bring mullahs and religious parties to power in Kabul and Baghdad or the Muslim Brotherhood’s rise in Egypt. More theocratic parties are the price of free elections, and the west has to accept it.
   American pride is easily bruised, unused to taking such humiliations as the 1979 embassy-hostage crisis that lasted 444 shaming days and the Iran-backed Beirut embassy attack that slaughtered 241 marines. On its side, Iran will never forgive the US for backing Iraq in the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq war. So the two countries have barely attempted to speak in all these years: admirable EU attempts at peacemaking could not bridge that historic bile. Without the US at the table, a deal was impossible.
   On the face of it, Iran has every reason to feel insecure. While America occupies two of Iran’s neighbours and Israel’s nuclear weapons point at Tehran, paranoia seems as justified as it is dangerous. Yet Iran knows its strength. The Iraq adventure has exposed the painful limits to force, and America can no longer make a credible threat of invasion: it has forfeited the power to frighten.
   What’s more, Iran is the true winner of that war. They only had to sit tight and smile as the west delivered on a golden plate all the influence Iran had always sought in the Middle East. The US and its allies will soon be gone from Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving Iranian-backed Shias dominant in both countries, their influence well spread across Syria, a chunk of Saudi Arabia and other countries for decades to come. Historic Iranian ambitions have been fulfilled without firing a shot while the US is reduced to fist-shaking. How foolish was that?
   If Iran is determined, no one can stop it becoming a nuclear power, alongside Israel, Pakistan and India. The crazed dictator of North Korea shows the way: nuclear weapons make nations unassailable. Why on earth would Iran not want them too?
   It is much odder that Britain demands them. What for? Protection against whom? John Reid has said Trident will be replaced - and now Gordon Brown has said he too would renew our nuclear weapons, despite the £20bn price tag and a lack of anyone to point them at. If we can seriously consider such expensive folly in pursuit of strutting our stuff and punching above our weight to buy a UN security council seat, we can hardly pretend outrage at Iran’s ambitions.
   But fantasy diplomacy is taking a grip. The pretence is that the world united can deflect Tehran: there is still a small chance that Russia’s offer to strike a deal could work. But the experts expect an aggressive stand-off, with a risk of futile air attacks. Even if no blood is spilt, the west may find itself in a cold jihad with a God-driven, nuclear-armed adversary, and no solution in sight. Nothing suggests that sanctions and fiery words will make the more moderate forces in Iran overthrow their mullahs and choose westernisation: under external pressure in this clash of civilisations, history suggests they will close ranks. Meanwhile, oil-hungry nations will do dirty backdoor deals: oil tends to trump UN resolutions.
   Fantasy diplomacy is ready to fight all the way to stop the mullahs getting the bomb. Reality suggests there is a difficult choice: if you cannot win, give up at once to minimise the damage. Get off the high horse and start to negotiate terms on which Iran can be allowed to enrich uranium. It amounts to turning a blind eye to their weapons potential while striking a deal that saves their face, affords them some dignity and entices them economically into becoming a more stable force.
   It takes some swallowing, but what if there is no alternative? Either they have nuclear weapons and we are at cold war, or else they have nuclear weapons and we have an uneasy kind of peace. But that decision has to be made before UN sanctions ratchet up the rhetoric to no-turning-back resistance.
   It may be beyond the ability of this White House to climb down, but the US should remember Aesop’s fable The Sun and the Wind: when they competed to get a man’s coat off, the full force of a cold blast only made him hold on to it tighter, but the warmth of the sun made him take it off by himself. So far US diplomacy over Iran echoes Louis XVIII’s court: they seem to have forgotten nothing and learned nothing.

Reading an article in this newspaper a few days ago —- the subject was a teacher remembered by one of his students —- set me thinking. Why is it that almost everyone we know these days is always talking about teachers in the past? And why is there so much criticism of teachers in the present? When I think of the brutal ways in which teachers are being killed, I shudder to think what will happen in the near future if some serious steps are not made by the authorities to stop this slide into crime. With two teachers of Rajshahi University dead at the hands of their killers, it is almost the end of the road for us. Come to think of it. When a society starts killing its teachers, there is some great affliction it is suffering from. I would hate to use a bad medical term to describe the situation, but there cannot be any denying that it seems a big boil has developed on the body of education in our country these days.
   When you think, all these years after the attainment of national independence, that we were appalled when the Razakars and the Pakistan army killed many of our teachers in 1971, you quickly have another thought coming. And that is the question of what we are going to tell ourselves now that hired goons are being used to kill university teachers. If this situation continues and expands, we can all be sure that no sane person would like to go into teaching in future. Coming back to the thought of the poor quality of teaching in Bangladesh today, have we paused to ask ourselves why that has been the case? In the old days (I am speaking of my schooldays), we still had a good number of Hindu teachers to guide us through our various classes. You must admit that one of the things that Hindus have excelled at has been teaching. Partition surely forced many of these good teachers to leave this country, but the few who remained continued to do an excellent job. But gradually these teachers too went away or were killed or died of natural causes. But a very positive aspect of education between the 1950s and 1970s was that there were also a fairly large number of really good Muslim teachers in our many schools and colleges. You could spot idealism in them and the way they delivered their lectures in class made students like myself marvel at the wealth of knowledge in them. But what do I see today? With rare exceptions, I do not come across teachers who can really inspire the young into believing in the future. No, please do not think I am making a sweeping statement. I am only trying to make a note of what I see happening all around me.
   But let us be fair. In Bangladesh, teachers today are an unfortunate lot. That becomes clear when we observe the many kinds of agitation which primary and high school teachers as well as college teachers periodically resort to. There are too many grievances in the lives of these teachers that have not been handled well. Why must that happen? A teacher, holding the responsible position he does, should not have to worry about where his family’s next meal is coming from. He should not be pushed into a situation where he has to worry about his children’s education or his spouse’s medical treatment. But that is exactly what happens. Many of us who have been educated by such teachers and then have prospered in life are shocked when we are told or when we know on our own that our teachers have remained poor and many of them have gone to their graves ill, hungry and not cared for. Isn’t that a shameful thing to be happening in a country where traditionally teachers have been held in the highest esteem?
   In my young days, just before I was married off to a man with good career prospects before him, I taught in our village girls’ primary school for sometime. I still remember those few days with pride and with longing. Some of the little girls I taught are today grandmothers themselves. They have survived well in life, and so have I. But that is something that I cannot say about the thousands of other teachers who have suffered and continue to suffer as they try to make ends meet. So where is the solution? It is just not enough to say that our teachers should instruct the young with devotion and prepare them well for the future. I think it should be one of the most important priorities of the next government to devise a broad policy on education, with special emphasis placed on the quality and welfare of teachers at all levels of education. Would that be too hard a thing to do?