5,000 sacked for demanding higher wages

5,000 sacked for demanding higher wages: 

The human cost of Bangladesh's $27-billion garment industry

In December, the government responded to a peaceful strike by workers with use of force, legal action and arrests.

Supplanting India, Bangladesh is currently the second largest exporter of readymade garments in the world. This principal source of foreign earning brought in $27 billion in 2016, and the target is to swell that to $50 billion by 2021, the year the country turns 50. A billion dollars for each year of independence lends poetry to capitalism, but fails to account for the true, human cost of production in a country that is the byword for cheap labour. When the demands of workers for respect and higher wages took the shape of peaceful protests in December, the nationwide refusal to entertain these was indicative of the commonplace myopia of the industry having evolved into an endemic blindness about it.

On December 12, workers at various factories in Ashulia, an unplanned industrial zone that has mushroomed in what is considered greater Dhaka, went on strike for a fortnight. The strike action amounted to workers walking out of factories and refusing to work. On the ninth day, 84 factories availed themselves of the provisions of the Labour Act and, terming the actions of the workers illegal, stopped production while pursuing legal action against them. The lifeless structures resumed their soulless existence when they reopened on December 26, Boxing Day.

The resolution, if euphemism can stretch far enough for what happened to be called that, was a unanimous refusal to countenance a wage rise, and 59 factories dismissing up to 5,000 workers. The names of those made redundant were circulated among owners, to prevent them from seeking employment in the industry again, while their numbers were downplayed.

The labour minister was emphatic in his support of the stance taken by the factories, reaffirming that, like the Labour Act, serving the labourers did not fall within his remit. The factory owners and the government were complemented in their efforts by foreign voices espousing the virtues of free market capitalism about a global apparel market valued at over $3 trillion. Centuries ago, these brilliant minds were championing colonialism, to civilise the barbarians of the third world. Capitalism is their cause in the present day. Their deliberate ignorance of how much of that money reaches the workers in a country with one of the lowest minimum wages of the worldwide industry is a reminder of the central flaw of their argument: workers are chattel in a profit-maximising system that eschews egalitarianism for accumulation of wealth at the top. Being humane is a needless inconvenience, if not an outright weakness, in this environment.

In addition to demanding an end to harassment and oppression in the workplace – more widespread than the middle and upper classes of Bangladesh are willing to acknowledge – the workers wanted the minimum wage of Tk (Bangladeshi taka) 5,300 (approximately Rs 4,500) to be raised three-fold. Given that the current rate is less than one-fifth of the living wage – the minimum income required to meet one’s basic needs – and that inflation has held at over 5% since the last wage rise in 2013, this is not an unreasonable demand.

Big Garments and politics

The government responded by deploying the police, the elite Rapid Action Battalion and paramilitary law enforcers Border Guard Bangladesh during the strike, to bring the situation under control. Containment measures included the use of riot gear, batons and rubber bullets, and scores of arrests. Dozens of labour organisers were forced into hiding. Nazmul Huda, a journalist covering the strike, was accused of disseminating false news and arrested. He was linked to the ruling Awami League’s political opponent, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, some of whose leaders were blamed for inciting the protests. The home minister warned people against conspiring against the industry, a shining symbol of Bangladesh’s heralded development, and in so doing, successfully branded legitimate concerns and protests as political subversion in a country that does not tolerate dissent. Media coverage switched from diligent reporting of the strike action, that came close to giving the workers a voice, to dedicated and nationalistic advocacy of the industry.

Big Garments is not close to governments past and present, it is the government. It has cut out the middleman and the need to lobby. Regardless of who is in power, three quarters of any Parliament benefit directly from it, and are involved with the industry. State response to labour unrest has, thus, always been unequivocally in favour of the owners.

The year 2016 solidified the normalisation of fundamentalism, and saw the worst single terror attack – when five militants murdered 20 hostages at the Holey Artisan Bakery in Dhaka on July 1 – but garment exports rose 9%. Earlier, 2015 saw the extremism tide rise with targeted killings of free thinkers, and the election of one of the most prominent garments businessmen, Annisul Huq, as mayor of Dhaka after controversial mayoral elections whose validity remain contentious.

The industry thrived during the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-Jamaat-e-Islami tenure (2001-2006), when state patronage of terrorist outfits was de rigueur, and the civil society-backed oppressive military regime that followed. It survived the carnage of 2013 when the Bangladesh Nationalist Party-Jamaat-e-Islami brazenly equated violence with politics, and killed and injured thousands of innocent citizens in the name of political protest in a country that is desensitised to death and destruction. That was also the year in which the collapse of the Rana Plaza building in the outskirts of Dhaka caused the worst industrial disaster in Bangladesh, killing 1,135 workers. Nevertheless, the industry has sustained its growth during the increasingly authoritarian rule of Awami League.

Workers undervalued

Resilience, women’s empowerment and development constitute the public face of Big Garments, vaunted by civil society. While it is true that the millions of workers, the majority of whom are women, have employment and a measure of financial security because of the industry, for the Bangladeshi economy to function, these people would have had to be put to work somehow. The duopoly of readymade garments and migrant labour have trapped the lower classes to lives of indentured servitude with an exceptionally low ceiling. Despite both industries being labour-intensive to the point of being entirely dependent on people, workers are grossly undervalued by the state and its citizens. Other countries have used the rag trade as a stepping stone to industrialisation and more sophisticated industries, but Bangladesh’s desperate goal to become a middle-income country by 2021 is married to this low-skilled industry, with neither the country nor its captains of industry inclined towards innovation or evolution.

There are conscientious owners who add value to their businesses by ensuring the social and economic welfare of their workers, and some who are philanthropic. However, their numbers are few, and their efforts are focused on their companies, without altering the conventions of the industry. The owners delusional enough to proclaim themselves activists plead the pressure put on them by brands and buyers threatening to take their business elsewhere, instead of standing up for the workers. There is truth to the disproportionality and abuse of power in the buyer-owner dynamic, but if the comparative powerlessness of owners is accepted as an incontrovertible truth, then it is equally indisputable that workers dare not even aspire to being powerless.

The majority of workers make the minimum wage. This was raised to Tk 1,672.5 in 2006, and to Tk 3,000 in 2010. On both occasions, labour protests demanding a tripling of the minimum wage preceded the reluctant increase that less than doubled it. The most recent raise, to the current Tk 5,300, came in the wake of the Rana Plaza tragedy. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina’s denials in an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour in the aftermath notwithstanding, Towhid Jung Murad, an Awami League member of Parliament, manufactured the authorisation for Sohel Rana, owner of the Rana Plaza and an Awami League cadre, to illegally build the eight-storeyed structure on land of questionable provenance. The commercial property was not purpose-built for factories, yet housed a few separate ones. This is not uncommon. They made clothes for several well-known high street brands from the United Stated and the United Kingdom, yet were not directly contracted to undertake the production by the said brands. Nor is this uncommon.

Big brands unconcerned

Therein lies the dirty little secret of the global apparel market: brands do not concern themselves with how or where their clothes are made, so long as they are made cheaply and delivered on time. When something goes wrong, as it catastrophically did at Rana Plaza, they plead ignorance and innocence, as they have done in continuing to neglect their commitments towards compensating the victims and survivors. The disaster did not ebb the strong growth of the industry in Bangladesh, despite the glaring administrative failures that led to it.

Bangladesh has over 5,000 factories that employ over five million people, and a history of deplorable practices, including oppression and appalling wages. This year will mark the fifth anniversary of the Tazreen factory fire that killed at least 117 and injured over 200, a precursor of the Rana Plaza disaster. Both were instances of corporate manslaughter on a large scale, whose culprits were not only specific locals and foreigners, but an entire obscurantist, exploitative industry.

The victims and survivors still await justice and compensation. Their fellow workers await dignity, and the right to unite and be heard in the land of the deaf. The success of the readymade garments export industry is the tale of a capitalist dystopia. That brands, buyers and factory owners celebrate this as axiomatic, but the rest of the country and, as an active participant in the global rag trade, the world should be outraged. Instead, they choose to be complicit.

Ikhtisad Ahmed is a columnist for the Dhaka Tribune and author of the socio-political short story collection Yours, Etcetera. His Twitter handle is @ikhtisad.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.

Credits: scroll.in

Why I joined protests at JFK against Trump's immigration order – and all Indian-Americans should

Why I joined protests at JFK against Trump's immigration order – and all Indian-Americans should

'If any Indian thinks they are superior to immigrants from Yemen, Iraq, or other Muslim countries, they are in for a rude awakening.'

This past week has been like one from an alternate reality: it started with the incredible Women’s March on January 21, when close to five million people, led by women, insisted on justice and equal rights for all in a series of protests across the world. And then, the assault of Trumpian executive orders began.

In just one week since he assumed office as US president on January 20, Donald Trump had reinstated the “global gag rule” that bans US-funded non-profits to advocate or counsel women about abortions, thereby denying safe access to pregnancy termination and birth control; revived the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the US and the Dakota Access Pipeline that was stopped after protests by native Americans, thus thwarting valiant efforts of indigenous peoples and environmental advocates; eliminated 25 grant programmes for organisations addressing violence against women and denied federal funding to sanctuary cities like New York and San Francisco that protect and shelter illegal immigrants.

Then came the much-feared Muslim ban – Trump’s latest executive order came on Friday and bars immigration from seven Muslim countries (Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen), although the list is likely to grow.

Growing clamour

On Friday night, I went to bed wondering how long it would take for these executive orders to be implemented – on Saturday morning, I had my answer. I woke up to the news that dozens of people from Muslim countries were already being detained at airports around the US. These were people who had green cards and valid visas, parents visiting their children and grandchildren settled in the US, a refugee family from Syria that was finally leaving the hell of a camp to start a new life, and even people who consider America home because they have lived here for many years and have lives, families and homes here. The implementation of policies rooted in bigotry, xenophobia and Islamophobia had begun.

I was one of the 2,000 protesters who spent a freezing Saturday at the Terminal 4 Arrivals at New York’s Kennedy International Airport, chanting: “Let them in!” and “Love not hate, makes America great!” and “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here!”

There were similar protests in airports across the US, with a strong showing from elected officials denouncing the ban. Legal advocates and elected officials have tirelessly worked on behalf of the detainees, but so far, only one has been allowed to enter the country.

On Saturday evening, we celebrated a victory: the American Civil Liberties Union won a temporary stay on President Trump’s immigration order and at least for now, deportation of those who are legally permitted to enter the US will not be allowed. No doubt this will be challenged, and we will need to keep fighting.

Speak up

I am a Hindu American from India, an immigrant myself. My parents moved from Andhra Pradesh to England when I was a child to give us a better life. I grew up in both Chennai and London, and moved to the US as a young adult. I visit India regularly, and have been painfully aware of the Hindu nationalism that has taken power there with Narendra Modi’s election. This is a time in India when the civil rights of Muslim, Dalit, LGBT and other minority communities are in peril. Freedom of expression is under threat. I fear that the US is on that same path under Trump.

It is important for all immigrants, including Indian Americans, to speak up against these racist and Islamophobic laws and policies. Most of us left our homelands and came to this country seeking new opportunities, eager to build new lives.

The immigrants from these Muslim countries are no different from us. If we open our eyes and hearts, we will see ourselves in all immigrants, including those who are currently being cruelly detained, harassed and in many cases, denied entry. The fear is that these people might be terrorists, but so many of them are fleeing the very violence and terrorism they are suspected of.

I am a women’s rights activist and work daily with Muslim men and women who devote their lives to this cause. My Muslim colleagues tell me that their faith obligates them to work for the rights and empowerment of women and girls. Many of my colleagues and their families will be affected by this heartless and unconstitutional ban.

Policies rooted in racism and bigotry may target only one group today but can just as easily target another tomorrow. India may not be on the target list at the moment, but certainly could be in the future. Furthermore, such racist policies embolden bigots in the society and have already led to an increase in hate crimes towards all people of colour. A bigot sees no difference between Indians, Iraqis and Yemenis or Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs.

If any Indian thinks they are superior to immigrants from Yemen, Iraq, or other Muslim countries, they are in for a rude awakening. I truly believe that justice denied on the basis of religion or race shakes the very foundations of democracy and leads to justice being denied for all.

As a mother, as an immigrant, and as a Hindu who believes to my core that we are all one, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, I pledge to resist the Trump administration’s policies of hatred. And I ask all Indian Americans to resist with me.

Sunita Viswanath is a co-founder and board member at Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus.

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.

Courtesy: Scroll.in

France prosecuting citizens for 'crimes of solidarity'

France prosecuting citizens for 'crimes of solidarity'

by: Kyle G Brown

French citizens are facing prosecution and even jail time for helping refugees and migrants.

Houssam El Assimi was arrested during a police raid on a Paris camp and was charged with 'violence against persons holding public authority' [Remi Mazet/Al Jazeera]

Paris, France - Trying to ward off the overnight cold with a blanket donated by volunteers, Muktar Ali was sleeping rough in the north of Paris when at about 4:30am, the police returned. He and several other Eritreans say they were pushed, prodded and kicked by police clearing the area.

"Police took everything I had - clothes, shoes, blanket - and threw it all away," said Ali, 33, who had fled forced conscription in Eritrea and was held captive by rebels in Libya before crossing the Mediterranean Sea to Europe. Now, he's among many refugees living on the streets of Paris, who have been subjected to displacement, detention and deportations.

Police raids, at least 30 since last June, and a cycle in which displaced people return to live in squalid camps, have angered residents and prompted them to form groups like Le Collectif La Chapelle Debout, which provide food and shelter that they say the government should be providing.

But recently, as a result of these actions, these activists have been finding themselves in criminal courts across France. 

Houssam El Assimi, of Chapelle Debout, was arrested during a police raid on a Paris camp last September. Charged with "violence against persons holding public authority," he faces up to three years in prison and €45,000 (over $48,000) in fines.

Last week, his trial was adjourned until May. In the meantime, he plans to file charges against the police for using excessive force during his arrest. 

He has been translating French and Arabic and helping migrants navigate the French immigration system and told Al Jazeera that he is being targeted because his group protests against the police and government policy.

El Assimi is one of several people pursued in the courts for protesting on behalf of migrants and asylum seekers or providing them with transport and shelter.

Under Article L622-1 of France's immigration law, anyone who "facilitates or attempts to facilitate the illegal entry, movement or residence of a foreigner in France shall be punished by imprisonment for five years and a fine of €30,000 (over $32,000)".

Crime of solidarity

Pierre Mannoni, a 45-year-old geography professor and father of two, was arrested at a highway toll booth while driving three injured Eritrean teenage girls to Nice for medical care. He was acquitted in court, thanks to another clause stipulating that one must benefit from the transaction - a clear reference to human trafficking. But the prosecution has appealed and called for a six-month prison term.

Often referred to as the "crime of solidarity", the law has been used to prosecute people who support  migrants and asylum seekers.

Rights group Gisti has documented a rise in the number of such cases going to court, and more than 100 NGOs, charities and labour unions signed a manifesto this month calling for an end to the criminalisation of humanitarian activity.

"What we're seeing is that all of the cases have one purpose," Claudia Charles, a legal expert at Gisti, told Al Jazeera. "That's to discourage any kind of support for the foreign population, be they migrants, Roma or asylum seekers."

Originally aimed at smugglers in 1945, the law was sometimes used under former President Nicolas Sarkozy's administration to prosecute those who helped immigrants.

In 2012, the new Socialist government vowed to turn the page. "Our law cannot punish those who, in good faith, want to give a helping hand," said Manuel Valls, then France's interior minister.

Human rights groups accuse the government of betraying its word and say an ever-widening range of laws are now being used to criminalise people for helping new arrivals, from the charge of assault to defamation and "insulting a public official."

"Since 2015, there's been a proliferation of cases aimed at intimidating or preventing citizens from expressing solidarity with migrants, refugees and Roma," says Marine De Hass, of the rights group, La Cimade. "It's not just article 622-1. A growing number of people are being prosecuted for helping or supporting, undocumented persons," De Hass told Al Jazeera.

Local Green councillor Jean-Luc Munro described a personal incident that took place as he was riding his bike in a Roma camp near Lille last April.

He said he was thrown off his bike after being told to stop by the police at a roadblock there, and was consequently charged with using his bicycle as a weapon to inflict "violence against a public official".

"There's been a real hardening against activists for a year and a half now," Munro told a local newspaper.

Having documented only a handful of cases against activists between 2012 and 2015, Gisti lists more than a dozen in 2016 alone, with several more going to court in the coming months.

The list is not exhaustive: both Charles and De Hass say there are probably more, unknown, cases.

Bruno Le Roux, the French interior minister, told Al Jazeera, however, that if no one profits from helping refugees and migrants, there is no "crime of solidarity". "So I can tell you that for all the cases being pursued, in court, they're cases where we believe there is a violation of the law." 

The ministry has not responded to repeated requests for an explanation as to why cases are being pursued in which no personal gain is apparent. Although the Nice courts concluded as much in Mannoni's trial, the prosecution appealed his acquittal.

"It's crazy that we have reached this stage," says Mannoni. "Where I've gone to trial for helping someone who is hurt. The government is criminalising human charity."

Criminalising charity

The government and the city of Paris have set up new reception centres, including one in mid-January, for women and children in Ivry-sur-Seine just south of Paris.

But where shortages persist in the capital, in border towns, and Calais where the "jungle" was dismantled, volunteers are taking matters into their own hands.

No longer able to ignore the refugees and migrants lining the country roads near the Italian border, Cedric Herrou began picking them up and hosting them at his farm in La Roya Valley, near Nice.

As the tents and wooden cabins he built were not enough, he brought travellers to an old SNCF rail building that had been occupied by activists and NGOs, and where Pierre-Alain Mannoni helped three Eritrean teens.

With reinforced security at the border, following last July's massacre in Nice, asylum seekers have had difficulty getting through, and arrive in the area hungry and exhausted. 

"I picked up kids who tried to cross the border 12 times," Herrou said at his trial earlier this month, where he was convicted of facilitating the entry, movement and residence of undocumented foreigners. "There were four deaths on the highway. My inaction and my silence would make me an accomplice, I do not want to be an accomplice."

Awaiting his sentence, Herrou was arrested again on January 18 on fresh charges.

His van has been confiscated and he says he'd been followed and is under surveillance. It has had little effect on the 37-year-old farmer, who smiles broadly in photos, surrounded by kids from Sudan and Eritrea.

"Whatever happens, I'll continue," he said before his second arrest. 

"It's astonishing that human smugglers continue to pass through, the real smugglers who get rich on the backs of others, while humanitarians are harassed in this way," Herrou's lawyer, Me Zia Oloumi, told Al Jazeera by phone.

"The authorities can't control the borders so they're putting pressure on people in the valley to discourage them from supporting migrants, by detaining people and putting them on trial."

The divisive issue

The humanitarian crisis on Europe's doorstep and resulting influx of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers, have divided the country, and few places encapsulate the dilemma better than La Roya Valley - a rugged, mountainous crossroads taken by asylum seekers bent on heading north, undetected. 

In December, a local rights group, Roya Citoyenne, filed a formal complaint, accusing the authorities of failing to honour their obligation to look after unaccompanied child refugees, saying on their website that "these minors are suffering intensely and risk death on the roads".

The next day, Eric Ciotti, president of Alpes-Maritimes Department, denounced "a handful of activists …blinded by a far-left ideology," for organising the "clandestine entry of foreigners across the French-Italian border".

Then, he assailed Herrou, whose rescue efforts and indifference to prosecution have made him a local hero and the bane of local police. 

"Who can say with certainty that of the hundreds of migrants that Mr Herrou has proudly brought across the border," Ciotti wrote, "there isn't hidden among them, a future terrorist?"

Similar divisions are playing out in the national arena, during the run-up to the presidential elections in April and May. 

Protests have erupted both in defence of migrant rights, but also, in some towns, against the opening of new shelters for asylum seekers.

While some candidates on the left say France should do more to welcome refugees and unaccompanied minors, the far right says the country is already doing too much. 

Despite taking just a fraction of the numbers being welcomed by Germany, conservative frontrunner Francois Fillon says France cannot afford to take in any more asylum seekers than it already is.

Those who resist the hard line on immigration feel they are being worn down in the courts.

"They're trying to ruin us financially because it costs a lot to prepare for trial," El Assimi said at the Paris high court. He estimates he's spent more than 5,000 euros (over $5,300) in legal costs so far.

"Their strategy is to exhaust us. And it's working." 

Source: Al Jazeera

The tragedy of Egypt's stolen revolution

The tragedy of Egypt's stolen revolution

byAmr Hamzawy
Senior Associate, Middle East Programme, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Six years on, Egypt's new authoritarianism has utilised various tactics, including repression and judicial manipulation.

Egypt's new authoritarianism undermines stability and security [Amr Abdallah Dalsh/Reuters]

Six year after its democratic revolution in January 25, 2011, Egypt's political realities are back to square one. Once again, a military officer has been installed in the presidential palace after an election that lacked any measure of democratic competition.

Images of citizens waiting in long queues to cast their votes in parliamentary and presidential elections in 2011 and 2012 have been replaced with ugly scenes of police units rounding up young Egyptians after attempted peaceful demonstrations and with confirmed reports of torture in places of custody and forced disappearances.

Although this authoritarianism is not the country's first contemporary encounter with undemocratic rule, the fact that it has emerged after a brief democratic opening and a period of citizens' activism has meant that the ruling military junta, in their quest for power, has resorted to unprecedented aggressions on human rights and freedoms and on the fragile social fabric. As a result, the state apparatus has lost all the checks and balances between an overly dominant military-security complex and its weakened civilian components.

To this end, Egypt's new authoritarianism has used various tactics and tools, ranging from outright repression to undemocratic law-making and judicial manipulation.

Soon after the 2013 military coup, daily bouts of violence and human rights abuses sponsored by the state had begun to shake Egyptian society and challenge the generals' claim that their rule was to save the most populous Middle Eastern country from the outbreak of civil strife.

"Repression has allowed the ruling junta to induce fear among citizens, to subdue civil society dissent and to eliminate competitive politics through human rights abuses".

Repression has been the major structuring reality of Egypt since 2013.

But it is not the only tool the new authoritarianism is using.

According to various human rights organisations, the number of those imprisoned between 2013 and 2017 has reached approximately 60,000. To accommodate them, the Egyptian authorities have begun building 10 additional prisons.

Reports of forced disappearances documented by local and international human rights organisations put the rate of disappearance at an average of three to four cases a day. There were mass killings when army and security forces disbanded the sit-ins organised by the Muslim Brotherhood supporters in al-Nahda and Rabaa on August 14, 2013.

Local human rights organisations reported 326 cases of extra judicial killings in 2015, a number which rose to 754 cases in the first half of 2016 alone. In August 2016, the Egyptian Coordination of Rights and Freedoms released a report on prison conditions in Egypt, documenting 1,344 incidents of torture - including direct torture and intentional medical neglect - in detention facilities and prisons between 2015 and 2016.

Several international human rights organisations have confirmed the same shocking findings.

Repression has allowed the ruling junta to induce fear among citizens, to subdue civil society dissent and to eliminate competitive politics.

The eventual goal is to abrogate the freedom of expression and association.

A few years into Egypt's new authoritarianism, citizens have been herded away from the public space that has been shrinking thanks to government's crackdown on independent civil society organisations and opposition political parties.

Meanwhile, Egypt's ruling elite has failed to deliver on the promises made as they stalled the democratic opening and asserted control over state and society.

President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the army chief during the 2013 coup, initially portrayed his ascendency to power as the only way to end the threat of terrorism blamed on the ousted President Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Backed by the military establishment, Sisi presented himself as the ultimate guarantor of restoring stability and improving the living conditions of the majority. It was within this context that wide segments of the population, especially those opposed to the democratic opening, supported the coup and saw in Sisi a saviour in uniform.

Although the generals have continued to repeat these promises over the past years, the situation on the ground has deteriorated drastically. The threat of terrorism, predominantly in Sinai - and to a lesser extent on the mainland -  has not diminished. 

The continuation of terrorist attacks since 2013, as well as the involvement of the military and security forces in indiscriminate killings and other human rights abuses in Sinai, are forcing many Egyptians to question whether the government's "war of terror" is being pursued efficiently.

The implementation of forced evacuation policies targeting some local communities in Sinai, along with dramatically deteriorated living conditions, have created an environment informed by grievances and radicalisation.

On the other hand, the country's economic and social conditions have worsened. The government has been pursuing a reform programme endorsed by the International Monetary Fund. It is designed to address structural issues such as the huge budget deficit, official overspending, state subsidies and currency floatation.

However, this long-term programme is not expected to improve the economic conditions in the near future, nor lessen the social suffering resulting from high poverty rates [27.8 percent] and unemployment rate [12.6 percent] in 2016.

Indeed, the IMF-approved programme has hit the poor and needy segments of the population, as well as the middle classes, hard as inflation rates have soared - reaching 25 percent in December 2016 and January 2017. The currency has been massively devaluated, losing close to 50 percent of its previous value.

Adding to this economic malaise, the financial support which Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait have extended to the government since the 2013 coup, has been declining since 2015.

Due to such instability in the security and political situation, western investment has not significantly increased.

Many of the government's economic, social, and developmental policies have proved unsuccessful as well. These policies include investing public resources in funding mega building projects with uncertain returns and without any public scrutiny or oversight.

Also problematic is the fact that projects such as the Second Suez Channel and the New Administrative Capital are managed directly by the economic arm of the military establishment, which is not subjected to effective transparency and accountability measures originating from other official institutions or from civil society.

Only a few programmes implemented to help the poor - most notably the cash payment programme named Takaful wa Karama - Solidarity and Dignity - which the Ministry of Social Solidarity oversees, have been rated successful by independent sources.

Egypt's new authoritarianism cannot rely on the promise of restoring security and improving the living conditions of the majority to justify to the public its elimination of the democratic opening that preceded it and its heavy-handed ruling techniques.

Therefore, it has depended on a web of alternative narratives to justify its repression through security-controlled  media institutions, which include conspiracy theories, defamation campaigns and hate speech against voices of dissent.

Since 2013, the list of public enemies and conspirators has been expanding in the discourse of the security-controlled public and private media outlets. Besides the Muslim Brotherhood and oppositional Salafi movements that were classified as "enemies of the nation" from the outset of the coup, the list also includes human rights activists and pro-democracy civil society leaders who have condemned the government's repression and refused to remain silent in face of terrifying abuses.

The list has come to include groups of young Egyptians, students, industrial workers and civil servants whose peaceful activism has not diminished despite police brutality and other repressive measures.

These groups, labelled by Sisi as "people of evil", have been implicated by the government in alleged plots and conspiracies to undermine the nation’s stability, to impose chaos and to fragment the state and the army.

Against a background of growing economic and social crises, rising political tensions and failed policies, the use of both religious and nationalistic populism has become key strategies utilised by the new authoritarianism to maintain its control over Egypt.

Religious populism elevates the ruler to the level of a moral paragon, who has the right to speak in the name of religion. Nationalistic populism, on the other hand, is used to justify the generals' monopoly on power.

The government's readiness to utilise conspiracy theories, defamation, hate speech and populism to justify repression, has made it easier for the military establishment to systematically violate citizens' rights and to disregard the principles of the rule of law without fearing accountability.

It has also enabled the government to widen the scale of repression aimed at silencing the few voices of dissent that have emerged in the public space since the 2013 coup, and at constricting the pro-democracy mobilisation of students, youth, workers and civil servants.

Within the apparatus of the Egyptian state, it has also led to the predominance of the military establishment and the security and intelligence services, that is to the predominance of those institutions that have the power to unleash the use of excessive force on citizens and society.

This has greatly diminished any potential for civilian politics or for the balancing civil-military relations in post-2013 coup Egypt.

Finally, unlike the unfounded accusations levelled against human rights activists and pro-democracy groups that they have been out to impose chaos in Egypt since 2011, it is the new authoritarianism that, due to continuous abuses and violations, undermines stability and security.

Source: Al Jazeera

Navigating a Trumpian world

Navigating a Trumpian world

Rakesh Sood

The past is no longer a guide to the future. In the coming years, Indian foreign policy will need less red lines and greater agility and pragmatism as the country seeks to find its place in this Age of Uncertainty.

Last week, as Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the 45th President of the United States, millions around the world watched, gripped by the thought that the surreal had become real. Clearly, this is not just a regular political transition that takes place every eight years (or sometimes, four years). This is a transition pregnant with implications, not just for the U.S. but also for its role in the world at a moment when tides of change are already under way. Mr. Trump’s elevation adds to the unpredictability, marking 2017 as the beginning of a new age of uncertainty.

If there were any expectations that President Trump was going to be different from candidate Trump, these were quickly dispelled by his inaugural speech. There was neither a healing touch nor a sense of humility. The polarising election campaign rhetoric was in full-throated evidence during the short address. He remained the outsider, representing the ordinary Americans even as he railed against the “establishment”, represented by Washington.

America first but alone

“America first” may be a slogan used effectively by Mr. Trump but it hardly makes for an innovative strategy. Previous U.S. Presidents have vowed to make America strong and prosperous again but the fundamental difference this time is that Mr. Trump seeks to make America great on the plank of nationalism and not by bolstering the global order which the U.S. has shaped and led since the end of World War II.

According to Mr. Trump, the global order has hurt America. “For many decades, we’ve enriched foreign industry at the expense of American industry, subsidised the armies of other countries while allowing for the very sad depletion of our military,” he announced. Like his campaign rhetoric, this too is an example of the post-truth era. Corporate America has never been richer and therefore remains both a driver and a beneficiary of globalisation even as it leads in technological innovation. It is the American worker who has suffered but his lot can hardly be improved by constraining corporate America.

The U.S., with a defence budget of more than $600 billion, spends more on its security than the next six countries put together. If the U.S. defence forces appear stretched, it is because of their expanding role in different regions and not because it has been weakened or depleted. Other countries have benefited from the U.S.-supported global order, becoming more prosperous but not at the cost of “U.S. decay” as Mr. Trump would have the Americans believe.

His belief that “the wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world” is a gross exaggeration but useful as a spur to protectionism, restricting immigration and bringing back borders. The fact is that more U.S. manufacturing jobs have been lost due to increased efficiency and automation in the U.S. manufacturing sector than on account of China becoming the world’s factory. Even as the U.S. lost manufacturing jobs, its manufacturing output grew by over 86% during the last decade.

Discontinuities in foreign policy

Mr. Trump’s policy reflects three key discontinuities. First, he believes that he will be able to change the nature of relations, making Russia a cooperative partner — in Europe, in Syria and against “Islamic terror”, which he has vowed to wipe out. Such a rapprochement would change a rivalrous relationship that has existed since 1948 when the Cold War began. As recently as 2009, Hillary Clinton tried but failed to “reset” it.

Second, he would also like to change the U.S.’s China policy which has now been in place since 1972. Trump’s conversation with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, his questioning of the One China policy, threatening countervailing duties on Chinese imports, describing it as a currency manipulator and threat to cybersecurity are indicators that that the four-decade-old policy is in for a change. Most significant is Mr. Trump’s conviction that the U.S. is no longer a beneficiary of the global order, often described as the liberal international order. It is an order that the U.S. has invested in for more than a half century. True, it is somewhat dysfunctional today and the U.S. is no longer willing to shoulder the burden alone. However the other major powers — Russia and China — are demanding a high price to be a partner and Europe, the traditional partner, is preoccupied internally. With elections in France and Germany due this year and the jolt of Brexit in 2016, an air of uncertainty hangs over the Euro and the European model.

The return to nationalism in the 21st century is taking place in the high pressure bubble of 24/7 news, amplified in the echo chamber of social media, pushing populist leaders towards staking out positions from where retreat is difficult. This is true not just for Mr. Trump but also for Russia, China and other leaders who have crested the wave of populism. In a post-truth world, the line between half-truths and lies gets blurred.

No longer business as usual

Navigation requires reference to a fixed point, a North Star, but in today’s policy world with all the major powers playing a hedging game, even as the existing institutions fall short of coping with the challenges posed by a world in transition, there is no pole. Every major power is dissatisfied with the status quo but no major power or even a coalition of major powers is able to define, let alone seek to establish a new status quo. Meanwhile, the economic interdependence between the U.S. and China coupled with a growing strategic mistrust creates the inevitability of the Thucydides Trap, in the absence of a forward looking leadership.

Where does this leave India? The tides of change will not come to a standstill merely because Trumpian America wants time out. The churning in Asia will continue and unlike during the Cold War, India no longer has the option of remaining disengaged. It is clear that it is no longer business as usual.

For the last quarter century, relations with the U.S. have followed a predictable trajectory, determined by three key factors. The first was the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the former USSR. Russia under its President, Vladimir Putin, has successfully reasserted itself but economics and demographics will not let it emerge as a superpower, as was the case during the Cold War.

The second shift was the opening up of the Indian economy, a process that has continued uninterrupted despite changes of government though the pace of change has varied. This trajectory will continue in the same direction for India sees itself as a beneficiary of globalisation.

The third is the coming of age of the Indian diaspora in the U.S. Gradually, the first generation of Indian professionals who migrated in the 1960s and 1970s has moved towards forming political groupings and has made its presence felt in local and national politics. The second generation is also entering the policy-making arena by joining government and running for public office. With every election, the number of Indians in the administration and in the Congress continues to rise.

These three factors encouraged Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to describe India and the U.S. as “natural allies” when India was still subjected to U.S. sanctions after the nuclear tests of 1998. These very factors helped change U.S. President Barack Obama’s initial inclinations in 2009 when he was toying with the idea of giving Richard Holbrooke responsibility for Kashmir in addition to Afghanistan. By 2010, Mr. Obama’s shift was evident when he described the U.S.-India engagement as “the defining partnerships of the 21st century”.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi kept the momentum going in a remarkable display of pragmatism, marked by nine bilateral meetings with Mr. Obama in two and a half years and more than a hundred new initiatives. Today, there exist more than 40 official bilateral dialogues covering the entire gamut of the bilateral relationship.

During the last decade, the major transformation has been in the nuclear and the defence sectors. While the negotiations by the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited with Westinghouse and GE for nuclear power reactors are yet to be concluded, the sales of U.S. defence platforms to India during the past decade have exceeded $15 billion covering howitzers, helicopters, transport aircraft and maritime surveillance planes. More significantly, working groups set up under the Defence Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) have identified half a dozen co-development and co-production projects.

Age of uncertainty

The Indian diaspora remains a constant with some influence in the Trump administration, as does the continuing bipartisan support for India on the Hill, but Mr. Trump’s shifts in other areas can impact bilateral ties. A retreat from globalisation translates into U.S. protectionism and tightening of the H1B visa regime.

If the U.S. loses interest in preserving and sustaining the current international order, it may induce a shift from the “Asia pivot” which would remove a key plank in the U.S.-India strategic partnership. Closer ties with Russia would have implications for U.S. policy on Afghanistan, which is bound to raise concerns in Delhi, given Russia’s (and Iran’s) newfound acceptance of the Taliban. Mr. Trump’s calls for defence burden sharing could weaken NATO (and East Asian partnerships) while his talk of shifting the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem could spark a new Intifada.

The Cold War had given way to a period which remained undefined, described merely as a post-Cold War world; what is clearer is that a quarter century later, we are transitioning to more unpredictable times. It is neither the age of global hegemons nor the age of multipolarity, but rather the age of regional powers, each jostling to ensure its role in its region, often with shifting coalitions. The past is no longer a guide to help us peer into the future. In the coming years, Mr. Modi’s foreign policy will need less red lines and greater agility and pragmatism as India seeks to find its place in this Age of Uncertainty.

Rakesh Sood is a former diplomat and currently Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. E-mail: rakeshsood2001@yahoo.com

Courtesy: The Hindu

View From The Right (RSS): Cyber era wars

The editorial notes that in the 21st century, a “military war is a rare possibility” as “ we are constantly at war in the information age”.

The editorial in Organiser, ‘Guarding the republic in information age,’ says that India has evolved in the field of politics, economy and social sector, “but in the information age where knowledge is power, strategically we still have to accept the new responsibility for guarding our republic”. The editorial notes that in the 21st century, a “military war is a rare possibility” as “ we are constantly at war in the information age”. Nations are strategising and “there are new technologies controlled by private players, new actors beyond state apparatus, new ideologies that are driving people across boundaries… This is an invisible war which we are fighting at military, technological and intellectual levels,” it says. Noting that Pakistan is “playing a mischievous game of hacking against Bharat”, the editorial says that “there is a need for greater participation of technocrat soldiers”. “Cybermobilisation is another modus operandi that is visible across the world,” it says. “Bharat has been witnessing many information and disinformation campaigns that are triggering turmoil in regions like Jammu and Kashmir and the north-east,” the editorial says, adding that “the most treacherous part of this new-age war is the emergence of intellectual warfare inflicted through information”.

Decolonise the mind

A recent publication, Swaraj in Ideas, by the RSS-affiliated think tank, India Policy Foundation, advocates “decolonisation of the Indian mind”. It lists several instances where the contemporary intellectual discourse “displays unremitting hostility to India”. One such instance is “when Harold Coward compares Derrida with Shankaracharya and Abhinavagupta”. “This is arrogance and escapism, besides being a wholly unproductive comparative study,” the publication notes. Contending that “ideologies imposed by the West have been the cause of destruction, disunity and de-harmonisation”, it adds that “western apologists come with new theories to resolve the crisis they have created”. Even new theories like “post-modernity are merely attempts by post-structuralists like Michel Foucault to perpetuate western hegemony through the new emphasis on contextual genealogy of the West and its emergent subjectivity”. The publication notes that colonialism is “an ideology that perpetuates enslavement even without physical domination”. After the end of colonialism, the western colonialists “created international institutions to mask their hegemony from direct contestations”. “Their earlier paradigm of the ‘civilising mission’ was transformed into ‘developing mission,” it says. The publication then advocates the “empowerment of a nation’s self, mutation from uncritical to critical perspectives to see western world views”, and says that resurrection of “civilisational narratives beyond the western time zone” will complete the “cycle of decolonisation”.

Security concerns

The cover story of Organiser is about the joint annual brainstorming “Dialogue on Defence” it recently organised with its sister concern weekly, Panchjanya. The dialogue “pondered over the issues related to defence preparedness” as Captain (retd) Alok Bansal underlined that “new threats emerging from cyber space demand for better coordination”. Former IG BSF, Anil Kamboj underlined the neglect of “north-eastern and central parts of India where militant-Maoist insurgency poses serious threat to the security”. Another participant said, “the biggest threat perhaps lies within the country itself, not across the border”. “During 1971, the political opposition hailed Indira Gandhi as Durga and now that kind of magnanimity is nowhere in politics,” he said. Organiser’s editor Prafulla Ketkar said that “most of our threats are from the American point of view”, and added, “unless we identify things with our point of view, we can’t address the real issue.” Kamboj spoke about how “good coordination between the army and BSF … deteriorated, mainly because of political intervention”. It was “under instructions from the home ministry,” that the “BSF took its controversial stand against Armed Forces Special Powers Act during the UPA regime,” Kamboj revealed. It was argued that the army, navy and air force are “one unit”, as “only jointly they can achieve their mission”. Besides causing “major security concerns”, “lack of joint-coordination also incurs financial loss to the public accounts,” the article points out.

ashutosh.bharadwaj@expressindia.com

Credit: Indian Express

Disrespecting heritage

Disrespecting heritage

Written by Saptarshi Sanyal 

The ministry of culture’s proposal to allow construction near historical monuments betrays a lack of understanding of their value.

A recent note of the culture ministry to the cabinet has a proposal to amend the law that accords protection to heritage sites in the country.

Built heritage is a significant public good and is recognised as such in the Constitution’s Seventh Schedule. It nurtures our collective memories of places and is a significant constituent in the identity of cities. It has invaluable potential to contribute to our knowledge of not just history and the arts, but also science and technology. Several buildings and sites throughout the country, even entire areas or parts of historic cities, are examples of sustainable development. They demonstrate complex connections of man with nature.

Unlike other intangible forms of cultural inheritance, our built heritage is an irreplaceable resource. It is site-specific. Knowledge gained from such resources can provide constructive ways to address development challenges. But the persistent oversight of the values of our heritage is one of the major paradoxes of physical planning and urban development in post-colonial India. Conservation of heritage is not seen as a priority to human need and development. Heritage sites are more often than not seen as consumables and usually end up as the tourism industry’s cash cows and little else.

The Ministry of Culture’s note suggests amendments to the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (Amendments and Validation) Act, 2010 (AMASR Act, 2010). It concludes by referring to a 2016 bill to amend the act and suggests giving legal powers to the Central government with respect to new construction in protected sites by superceding existing bodies like the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) and National Monuments’ Authority (NMA) respectively. Ironically, both the ASI and NMA, technical arms of the MoC, have the mandate to regulate construction and threats within and around protected heritage sites.

If the 2016 bill is cleared by Parliament, such construction could happen in the immediate vicinity of protected properties of national importance. Such “prohibited areas”, are within 100 metres of the delineated boundaries of monuments. Historic structures and archaeological remains are most susceptible to heavy vibrations, chemical effects or mechanical stresses in this zone. The AMASR Act, 2010 and its 1958 predecessor can be traced to a colonial legislation, namely the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904, which deemed it “expedient to provide for the preservation of Ancient Monuments”. The blanket rule on the “prohibited areas” should, and has, been debated at various professional and academic fora. Certainly a law originating from a colonial outlook needs review, given our current depth of knowledge on heritage. However, doing away with protection without survey and documentation, can be catastrophic.

The NMA, constituted under provisions of the 2010 act, is in the process of preparing site-specific guidelines. But given the vast number of heritage sites in India and the small number of in-house specialists, the work has been slow.

The proposal of the Ministry of Culture uses the buzzwords, “innovation”, “sustainability” and “accountability”. None of these are clarified or explained in the proposal with respect to the nature of projects envisaged. Two of the three projects justified in the proposal have contradictions. The first relates to the construction of an elevated road next to Akbar’s tomb at Sikandra to “reduce road accidents” and “for organised traffic movement”. While an elevated road would visually obliterate the historic structure, it would also encourage high-speed traffic,one of the leading causes of road accidents. Traffic movement and automobile fumes would scar an elaborately painted gateway. Cranes and piles operating in the immediate vicinity of the 500-year old Mughal structure will cause excessive vibrations. The other project, Rani-Ki-Vav in Patan, Gujarat is slated to be the site for a railway track. Whether a railway track is as irreplaceable or sustainable, as an 11th century, seven-storied, subterranean step-well demonstrating the best in water management in the past, is surely not a very difficult question to answer. Incidentally, Rani-Ki-Vav is one of the recent most inclusions from India in UNESCO’s World Heritage List.

The field of architectural conservation in India has grown significantly in the past three decades, giving us new definitions of heritage.

Pedagogy and practice of conservation is trans-disciplinary and aims to, at one level, demystify the complex, and sometimes, inscrutable qualities of the historic environments. Professionally, we have moved beyond a colonial, monument-centric understanding of heritage in India. We now appreciate and have developed inter-disciplinary ways to work with it. This understanding needs to be mainstreamed and integrated into development considerations and processes, rather than be ignored or subverted.

In 2011, of Hampi Bazar, a living component of a World Heritage Site was demolished by ill-informed planning authorities. Such actions damage both the historic fabric of a society and its fundamental right to live with, learn from and enjoy heritage. It is imperative that our governance, vision and action related to heritage comes of age. We most certainly need housing for all and enough space to park our cars.

We need improved communication technologies. But we don’t need multi-storeyed apartment blocks or parking complexes stuck to the walls of Humayun’s Tomb, just like we don’t need cellphone towers atop the Charminar. We wouldn’t mind walking a few 100 metres more or not having mobile connectivity for a few minutes. That may prove to be the healthier way out.

The writer is an assistant professor at the School of Planning and Architecture, Delhi

Courtesy: Indian Express

سیرت رسول ﷺاور حسن اعتدال

 ڈاکٹر سیّد عزیز الرحمن

اگر یہ فرض ادا نہیں ہوگا تو اتنا ہی گناہ ہوگا، جتنا نماز، روزہ، حج، زکوٰۃ چھوڑنے کا گناہ ہوگا۔ کیوں؟ اس لیے کہ انسان کی ضرورتیں انسان کی پیدایش کے فوراً بعد ہی اس کے ساتھ منسلک کردی گئی ہیں کہ ان کو بہ ہر صورت پورا کرنا ہے۔ اگر آپ ان ضرورتوں کی تکمیل حلال طریقے سے نہیں کریں گے تو حرام طریقے سے کریں گے، لیکن حرام طریقے سے کرنے سے اللہ تعالیٰ نے منع کیا ہے، تو یقیناًپھر ہمیں حلال طریقے کی طرف جانا چاہیے۔ جب حلال طریقے کی طرف جانا ہمارے لیے لازمی ہے تو یقیناًیہ اللہ تعالیٰ کا حکم ہے اور اللہ تعالیٰ کے حکم کی پابندی کی جائے گی تو اس میں ہمیں ان شاء اللہ ثواب ملے گا (قرآن کیا کہتا ہے؟، ص 24۔ 25)۔ دوسری جانب اسلام کمانے میں اعتدال کی تلقین فرماتا ہے، جس کی مثالیں پیش کی جاچکی ہیں۔

اس کائنات میں ایسے نظریات اور خیالات بھی موجود ہیں، جو فطرت کے خلاف عمل ہی کو کام یابی کا ذریعہ تصور کرتے ہیں۔ یہ جسم کے مطالبات کو کچل کر راحت تلاش کرتے ہیں اور روح کو جسم کے مقابل رکھ کر سوچتے ہیں۔ یہی وہ رخنہ ہے، جس سے ’رہبانیت‘ انسانی زندگی میں داخل ہوتی ہے۔ اسلام سے اس تصور کا دور کا بھی علاقہ نہیں۔
’رہبانیت‘ انسانی فطرت سے بے اعتنائی اور اس سے جنگ کا نام ہے۔ جو صلاحیت اللہ تعالیٰ نے انسان کی پیدایش کا حصہ بنادی ہے، اس سے لڑنا کیسے مفید ہوسکتا ہے؟ اسی لیے اسلام انسانی فطرت سے لڑنے کے بجاے اس کا حق ادا کرنے اور اس راستے میں اعتدال سے کام لینے کی تلقین کرتا ہے۔ اسی لیے قرآن کہتا ہے کہ رہبانیت عیسائیت کی اپنی اختیار کردہ راہ ہے، فرمایا:
اور رہبانیت انھوں نے خود ایجاد کی تھی، ہم نے ان پر واجب نہیں کی تھی، لیکن انھوں نے رضائے الٰہی کے لیے اس کو اختیار کیا تھا۔ سو، انھوں نے اس کی پوری رعایت نہ کی۔ پھر بھی ہم نے ان میں سے ایمان داروں کو ان کا اجر دیا اور ان میں سے اکثر نافرمان ہیں۔ (الحدید57: 27)
’رہبانیت‘ نے برائیوں کے سوا معاشرے کو کچھ نہیں دیا۔ دونوں مقام پر نامکمل انسان انسانی فطرت سے جنگ کرتے اور معاشرے کو برائیوں میں مبتلا کرتے نظر آتے ہیں۔ (ایضاً،ص 62)

اسراف و تبذیر
کمانے کے بعد خرچ کرنے کا مرحلہ آتا ہے۔ ہر مذہب، مسلک اور نظام میں کمانے کے کچھ نہ کچھ آداب مقرر ہیں۔ اپنے آپ کو آسمانی ہدایت سے یک سر آزاد قرار دینے والے معاشرے بھی اس سلسلے میں ایک ریاستی نظام پر یقین ضرور رکھتے ہیں، اور اسی کے دائرے میں رہتے ہوئے دولت کمانے اور مادیت کی تگ و دو میں مصروفِ عمل رہتے ہیں۔ تاہم، کمانے کے بعد خرچ کیسے کیا جائے؟ اس بارے میں اسلام کے علاوہ تمام مذاہب اور تمام نظام ہاے حیات خاموش ہیں۔
اسلام نے اس حوالے سے مکمل وضاحت کے ساتھ ایک نظام قائم کیا ہے، جس کی بنیاد ان دو اصطلاحات پر ہے: اسراف اور تبذیر۔
* اسراف: ’اسراف‘ کی تعریف راغب اصفہانی اس طرح کرتے ہیں:
لغت میں ہر انسانی فعل میں حد سے تجاوز کرنے کو اسراف کہتے ہیں۔ (المفردات، ص23)
اور سفیان بن عیینہ اسراف کی وضاحت کرتے ہوئے کہتے ہیں:
اللہ کی اطاعت کے کاموں کے علاوہ جو کچھ بھی تم خرچ کروگے وہ اسراف ہے، خواہ وہ تھوڑاہی کیوں نہ ہو۔ (موسوعۃ نضرۃ النعیم، ص3884)
اسی طرح مناوی سے اسراف کی اصطلاحی تعریف اس طرح منقول ہے: ’’اسراف حد سے تجاوز کرنے کو کہتے ہیں‘‘۔ ( نضرۃ النعیم، ص 3885)
جرجانی نے اسراف کی یہ تعریف کی ہے: ’’اسراف یہ ہے کہ انسان وہ کچھ کھائے جو اس کے لیے حلال نہیں، یا حلال تو ہے مگر وہ اعتدال اور ضرورت سے زیادہ کھائے‘‘۔ ( ایضاً)

* تبذیر: اس سلسلے کی دوسری اصطلاح ’تبذیر‘ ہے۔ ’تبذیر‘ لغت میں کسی چیز کو پھینکنے اور منتشر کرنے کو کہتے ہیں۔ (نضرۃ النعیم، ص4113)
’تبذیر‘ کی اصطلاحی تعریف امام شافعی سے اس طرح منقول ہے: تبذیر ناجائز کام میں خرچ کرنے کو کہتے ہیں۔ نیک کام میں تبذیر نہیں ہوتی۔ (تفسیر قرطبی، ج۱، ص247)
قرطبی کہتے ہیں: ’’تبذیر سے مراد نیک کاموں کے سواکسی ایسے کام میں خرچ کرنا ہے جس سے مقصد اللہ تعالیٰ کا قرب حاصل کرنا نہ ہو‘‘۔ (نضرۃ النعیم، ص4114)
مجاہد کہتے ہیں کہ اگر انسان اپنا سارا مال حق کے راستے میں خرچ کردے تو یہ تبذیر نہیں اور اگر وہ گناہ کے کام میں ایک مد، یعنی ایک سیر غلہ بھی خرچ کرے تو یہ تبذیر ہے۔ (صفوۃ التفاسیر، ج2، ص 139)
قتادہ کہتے ہیں کہ تبذیر اللہ کی نافرمانی اور ناحق اور فساد کے لیے خرچ کرنے کا نام ہے۔(ایضاً)
اسراف و تبذیر میں باہمی فرق واضح کرتے ہوئے کفوی کہتے ہیں:
اسراف تو کسی جائز کام میں ضرورت سے زیادہ خرچ کرنے کو کہتے ہیں اور تبذیر ناجائز کام میں خرچ کرنے کو کہتے ہیں۔ (نضرۃ النعیم،ص4114)
اسراف کی وضاحت کے حوالے سے ایک نہایت اہم روایت ذخیرۂ حدیث میں ہمیں اور ملتی ہے۔ عمرو بن شعیب اپنے باپ اور وہ اپنے دادا سے روایت کرتے ہیں کہ ایک شخص رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کی خدمت میں حاضر ہوا اور عرض کیا: ’’میں محتاج ہوں، میرے پاس کچھ نہیں ہے اور میں ایک یتیم کا سرپرست ہوں‘‘۔ آپ نے فرمایا:
(ابوداؤد، ج3، ص36، رقم: 2872) اپنے یتیم کے مال میں سے کھا، اسراف اور فضول خرچی اور اس کے مال سے پونجی بنائے بغیر۔
یہاں سبق آموز بات یہ ہے کہ یتیم کی کفالت جہاں اسلام میں ایک نہایت اہم فریضہ اور باعث اجر کام ہے، وہیں اس سلسلے میں بھی فضول خرچی، یعنی اسراف سے بچنے کی تلقین کی گئی ہے۔ گویا اعتدال اور توازن کا دامن ہر صورت میں تھامنا ضروری ہے۔

سادگی اور معاشرتی وحدت
آپؐ کی ذات بابرکات نے اس سلسلے میں بھی اپنی امت کے لیے بہترین نمونۂ عمل چھوڑا ہے۔ آپؐ نے ہمیشہ سادہ زندگی بسر کی اور فقر وفاقے کی حالت میں نہایت صبر وشکر سے اپنے فرائض منصبی ادا کیے، باوجود اس کے کہ آپؐ کو تمام سہولتیں میسر آسکتی تھیں۔ یوں آپؐ کا فقر اختیاری تھا۔ ابن عباسؓ کہتے ہیں:
رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم اورآپؐ کے گھر والے کئی کئی رات خالی پیٹ سوتے تھے، گھر میں رات کو کھانے کے لیے کچھ نہیں ہوتا تھا۔ اور ان لوگوں کی خوراک اکثر جو کی روٹی ہوتی تھی۔(ترمذی، ج4، رقم: 2367)

حضرت عائشہ رضی اللہ عنہا سے روایت ہے کہ آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے مدینہ منورہ کے قیام کے دوران وفات تک کبھی دو وقت سیر ہوکر روٹی نہیں کھائی۔ (الشفا،ج1،ص82)
اسی طرح آپ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم کا جوڑا کبھی تہہ کرکے نہیں رکھا گیا، کیوں کہ آپؐ کا دوسرا جوڑا ہوتا ہی نہ تھا جو تہہ کرکے رکھا جاتا۔ (ایضاً)

آپؐ نے معاشرتی اونچ نیچ ختم کرنے پر بھی زور دیا ہے، اور مساوات واعتدال کا درس دیا ہے۔ جاہ ومال کی غیر ضروری نمایش کا واحد مقصد اپنی برتری کااظہار ہوتاہے۔ اس قسم کی منفی سوچ معاشرے کی وحدت اور اجتماعیت کو ختم کرکے اتحاد واتفاق پرمبنی معاشرے کی تباہی کا سبب بن جاتی ہے۔ اس لیے آپؐ نے آرایش پرتو پابندی عائد نہیں کی، لیکن نمایش کو قطعاً ممنوع قرار دیا ہے تاکہ معاشرتی وقار نمایش پسندوں کا شکار نہ ہوسکے۔ چناں چہ عبادت وریاضت، کھانے پینے، سونے جاگنے، اٹھنے بیٹھنے، ملنے جلنے اور رہنے سہنے سے لے کر لباس ومکان تک ہر مقام پر۔ آپؐ کے ارشادات اعتدال کا درس دیتے نظر آتے ہیں۔ اگرہرمعاملے میں اعتدال ومیانہ روی کو اختیار کرلیا جائے تو معاشرتی وحدت اور مساوات خود بہ خود قائم ہوسکتی ہے۔

انسا ن نمایش کی ابتدا عموماً اپنے لباس سے کرتاہے۔ آپؐ نے اس بارے میں اعتدال پر مبنی ہدایات فرمائیں۔ آپؐ نے جہاں ایک طرف غربا وفقرا کو ان کے لباس سے قطعِ نظر ان کے باطنی حالات کے پیش نظر قبولیت کی سند عطا فرمائی، وہیں مال دار افراد کو بھی حیثیت کے مطابق زندگی بسر کرنے کاحکم دیا، تاکہ افراط وتفریط کے مابین توازن قائم ہو سکے اور اعتدال کاقیام عمل میں آسکے۔ چناں چہ آپؐ نے فرمایا:’’کتنے ہی پراگندا حال چیتھڑوں میں ملبوس انسان ایسے ہوتے ہیں کہ اگر وہ آ کی قسم کھالیں تو آتعالیٰ اس کو پورا کرتے ہیں‘‘۔ (ترمذی، ج 5، رقم: 3880)

آپؐ نے خود کس حالت میں زندگی بسر کی؟ حضرت عائشہ رضی آعنہا کی گواہی ملاحظہ ہو۔ حضرت ابو دردا اور حضرت ابوہریرہ رضی آعنہما سے روایت ہے۔ وہ کہتے ہیں کہ میں حضرت عائشہ رضی آعنہا کی خدمت میں حاضر ہوا تو انھوں نے پیوند لگی ہوئی چادر اور ایک یمن کی بنی ہوئی لنگی پیش کی، اورخدا کی قسم کھا کر کہا کہ آ کے رسولؐ نے انھی دوکپڑوں میں اپنی جان، جانِ آفریں کے سپرد کی تھی۔ (بخاری، ج4، ص 21۔ ابن ماجہ، ج4، ص 487، رقم: 3550)
دوسری جانب آپؐ نے مال دار افراد کو تلقین کی: ’’اگر کوئی شخص خوش حال ہے تو کیا حرج ہے کہ اگر وہ کام کاج کے دو کپڑوں کے علاوہ جمعہ کے دن کے لیے بھی دو کپڑے رکھے‘‘۔ (ابوداؤد، ج4، رقم: 1078)
اسی طرح ایک شخص کو میلے کچلے لباس میں دیکھا تو فرمایا کہ اس سے اتنا نہیں ہوتاکہ کپڑے دھولیا کرے۔ (ابوداؤد، ج4، رقم :4062 )
ایک شخص آپؐ کی خدمت میں حاضرہوا۔ اس کے بدن پرپھٹا پرانا لباس تھا۔ آپؐ نے اس سے پوچھا کہ کیا تمھارے پاس مال ہے؟ اس نے کہا: جی ہاں۔ آپؐ نے فرمایا : کس قسم کا ہے؟ اس نے جواب دیا کہ آنے مجھے ہر قسم کے مال سے نواز رکھا ہے۔ آپؐ نے فرمایا: ’’جب آ نے تجھے مال دے رکھا ہے تو آ کی نعمت اور سخاوت کااثر بھی ظاہر کر‘‘۔ (ابوداؤد، ج4، رقم:4063)
تاہم، اسلام نے خوش پوشاکی کی حد سے گزر کر اسراف کی حدود میں داخل ہوجانے والی آرایش کی سختی سے ممانعت کی ہے جو دراصل نمایش اور دکھلاوے کی خاطر کی جاتی ہے، کیوں کہ یہ راہِ اعتدال سے ہٹ کر ہے۔ آپؐ کا ارشاد ہے: ’’جس نے دنیا میں شہرت کا لباس زیب تن کیا اللہ تعالیٰ اسے قیامت کے دن ذلت کا لباس پہنائے گا اور اس میں آگ بھڑکائے گا‘‘۔ (ابن ماجہ، رقم: 3607)
زیورات خواتین کی فطری خواہش ہے۔ آپؐ نے اس فطری تقاضے پرپابندی عائد نہیں کی، البتہ افراط سے وہاں بھی منع فرمایا۔ حضرت حذیفہ رضی اللہ عنہ کی بہن سے روایت ہے کہ رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا: ’’اے عورتو! کیا زیور بنانے کے لیے تمھارے لیے چاندی کافی نہیں ہے؟ خبر دار! جو عورت بھی سونے کا زیور بنائے گی اور اس کے ذریعے زینت کا اظہار کرے گی اسے اسی زیور سے عذاب دیا جائے گا‘‘۔ (ابوداؤد، ج4، رقم: 4237)
یہ وعید ان عورتوں کے لیے ہے جو زیورات کی دیوانی ہوتی ہیں اور جور نگ و نور کے سیلاب میں کھو کر فرائض اورحقوق سے غافل ہوجاتی ہیں۔
مال دار حضرات کاسب سے زیادہ زور تعمیرات میں صرف ہوتا ہے، اور اس موقعے پرعموماً حد اعتدال کوبرقرار نہیں ر کھا جاتا۔ اس کا ایک مقصد نمایش کے علاوہ عیش کو شی اور آرام طلبی ہوتا ہے۔ آپ صلی آعلیہ وسلم نے اس پہلو کو بھی تشنہ نہیں چھوڑا۔ حضرت معاذ بن جبل رضی اللہ عنہ کو یمن کی جانب گو رنر بناکر روانہ فرمایا تو یہ نصیحت بھی کی: ’’عیش کوشی سے دور رہنا، کیونکہ اللہ کے بندے آرام طلب نہیں ہوتے‘‘۔ (احمد، ج5، ص 244)
یہی وجہ تھی کہ آپؐ نے سونے اورچاندی کے برتنوں میں کھانا پینا حرام فرمادیا اور مردوں کے لیے حریر وریشم کے استعمال کو ممنوع قرار دیا۔
اس پوری بحث کو ایک حدیث میں یوں مختصراً بیان کیا گیا ہے۔ آپؐ نے فرمایا: ’’میری امت میں ایسے لوگ آئیں گے جو رنگ برنگ کے کھانے کھائیں گے، انواع و اقسام کے مشروبات استعمال کریں گے، اورطرح طرح کے لباس زیب تن کریں گے، اور منہ پھاڑ پھاڑ کر باتیں بنائیں گے۔ یہی لوگ میری امت کے بدترین افراد ہوں گے‘‘۔ (المعجم الکبیر، ج1، ص 107)
خود آپؐ نے عملی طور پر اسلامی حکومت کے قیام کے بعد مساوات کا وہ عظیم الشان نمونہ پیش فرمایا کہ تاریخ اس کی نظیر پیش کرنے سے آج بھی قاصر ہے۔ آپؐ کے اور صحابہ کرامؓ کے مابین لباس کے اعتبار سے بھی کوئی فرق نہ تھا۔ اسی طرح آپؐ کی نشست بھی ایسی عام اور کسی امتیاز کے بغیر ہوتی تھی کہ باہر سے آنے والے شخص کو آپؐ کے بارے میں پوچھنا پڑتاتھا۔ صحابہ کرامؓ نے آپؐ کے بیٹھنے کے لیے ایک چبوترا بنانا چاہا تو آپؐ نے اس کو بھی پسند نہ فرمایا۔ (سیّدعزیز الرحمٰن، ’تعلیمات نبویؐ اور آج کے زندہ مسائل‘، القلم، فرحان ٹیرس، کراچی، مئی 2005ء)

دین میں بے اعتدالی
اعتدال اور توازن کا حکم صرف کھانے پینے، کمانے اور معاشرتی امور تک محدد نہیں ہے۔ یہ حکم انسانی زندگی کے ہر ہر پہلو سے تعلق رکھتا ہے۔ چناں چہ دین کے معاملے میں بھی غلو سے بچنے کا حکم بہ راہ راست قرآن کریم میں دیا گیا، اور یہاں غلو سے مراد بھی حد سے بڑھنا ہے۔ دین کے معاملے میں غلو اور حدود سے تجاوز کرنا سخت ناپسندیدہ ہے۔ قرآن کریم میں فرمایا گیا: (النساء4:171) ’’تم اپنے دین کے معاملے میں غلو نہ کرو‘‘۔
اس غلو کا نتیجہ بھی شدت پسندی کی صورت میں نکلتا ہے، اور جو لوگ غلو سے دوچار ہوجاتے ہیں وہ پھر اعتدال سے دور ہوتے چلے جاتے ہیں۔ اس لیے اس سے بھی منع فرمایا: ’’تم دین میں غلو سے بچو، کیوں کہ، پچھلی امتیں دین میں غلو کی وجہ سے ہلاک ہوگئیں‘‘۔ (ابوداؤد، ج4، رقم: 4904)

اسی طرح شدت پسندی بھی عدم توازن کی علامت ہے۔ اعتدال اور توازن پر کار بند شخص کسی حوالے سے شدت پسند نہیں ہوسکتا۔ قرآن و سنت کی پوری تعلیمات اور اسوۂ حسنہ کا پیغام اسی کے گرد گھومتا ہے۔ اسی بنا پر اسلام نے دین کے معاملے میں بھی اس سے بچنے کی تاکید کی ہے۔ نبی کریم صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم نے فرمایا:
تم اپنے آپ پر سختی نہ کرو ورنہ تمھارے اوپر سختی کی جائے گی، کیوں کہ ایک قوم نے اپنے آپ پر سختی کی، پھر اللہ نے بھی ان پر سختی کی۔ ان ہی لوگوں کے باقیات ہیں جو گرجوں اور خانقاہوں میں نظر آتی ہیں۔ (ابوداؤد، ج4، رقم:4904)

یہ حقیقت ہے کہ حسنِ اعتدال اور توازن ہی حیات انسانی کا حسن ہے، اور اسی کے ذریعے ہماری دنیاوی زندگی کامیابی سے بسر ہوسکتی ہے، جس پر ہماری اخروی دائمی زندگی کا مدار اور انحصار ہے۔

اللہ تعالیٰ ہمیں دین کی صحیح سمجھ عطا فرمائے، اور اس پر عمل کی توفیق ارزانی فرمائے۔ آمین