From: Habib Yousafzai <yousafzai49@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 11, 2011 at 2:05 AM
Subject: [bangla-vision] Osama aftermath
Osama aftermath
Did we send right signals across after Al Qaeda chief's death?
POINT OF VIEW BY RIYAZ AHMAD
A week after his death, Al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden's story seems to have already run the full gamut of its curiosity value. The news is struggling to retain the media focus. Newyork Times has gone back to its mideast coverage so have other major publication changed the tack. This is a far cry from the 9/11 which remained a story for months on end. In fact, news value of 9/11 only enhanced with time as US launched an invasion into Afghanistan and later displayed its ''shock and awe'' in Iraq . But Osama's death in Abbotabad has competed for attention with the media focus on the slickness of the covert Seal operation to get him and of course the consequent embarrassment for Pakistani establishment which knew nothing as US helicopters came deep inside the country and ran away with Al Qaeda chief's body. But as the story progressed and got mired into the deteriorating US-Islamabad relations, Osama became of secondary importance.
There was also little public response across the Muslim world. Fewer places witnessed protests and few leaders voiced their opposition to the US action. A certain degree of restraint was also exhibited by some of the most rightwing Muslim leadership across the world. Egypt 's Muslim Brotherhood, otherwise a philosophical progenitor of Al Qaeda, qualified its condemnation of Osama's ''assassination'' by suggesting he should have been put on trial instead. At the time same time, Brotherhood has made it clear that Osama didn't represent Islam. Hezbollah and Hamas have, however, been predictable terming Osama a ''holy warrior''. Libya 's Gaddafi has interestingly blamed Al Qaeda for being behind the rebellion in his country. There have also been odd protests in the Arab world against the killing including the one in Egypt.
Overall, the tenor of the reactions has been rather subdued. What makes it extraordinary is that there has been an element of deliberateness about this approach. Across the Arab world where a full scale movement for the establishment of democracy is on, support for Osama is being seen as damaging to the cause. The movements from Tunisia through Egypt to now Syria have been at pains to establish their democratic bonafides and to show themselves at variance with Al Qaeda.
But not so in Kashmir where the leader of Hurriyat (G) Syed Ali Shah Geelani made no secret of his feelings at Osama's death. Geelani, who to a major part has become the face of Valley's separatist struggle termed Osama a martyr who died fighting US imperialism and the oppression of the Muslims. He also condemned Al Qaeda chief's sea burial and later offered funeral prayers in absentia for him. In this, he was also joined by Kashmir High Court Bar Association and the top Hurriyat (M) leader Shabir Shah who held similar prayers for the Al Qaeda chief. This appeared to be a spontaneous reaction in the heat of the moment with none of the leaders feeling the need to think the policy through.
As against the approach of the leadership, the people in the Valley behaved in a much more sagacious manner. They looked at the Osama death with a sense of curiosity but didn't go all the way to become participants in the extra-ordinary development. There were no protests nor any stone throwing to express support for Osama. Nor were funeral prayers offered in mosques across Valley as directed by Geelani. What did it show: That bin Laden was little more than a curiosity subject in Kashmir. And that people thought that an express support for him would give grounds for a negative opinion about Kashmir. More so, when it is still the perception of the movements in US that determines how they are seen around the world.
But this is a restraint that was not exercised by some senior separatist leaders. They didn't pause to reflect what message they should send out. Question here is not the expression of what might be your individual opinion but expressing it as a representative of a people and a cause. And in the instant case, it was the leaders' exuberant reaction to Al Qaeda chief's dramatic death that sent wrong signals. They chose to wear their hearts on the sleeve rather than adopt a more nuanced and diplomatic approach.
What does it mean for the global image of Kashmir's separatist struggle when two of its important leaders and an influential group of lawyers speak about Osama in glowing terms. Haven't they played to the west's basic fears about the political conflict in Kashmir. That is, its likelihood of becoming a part of the ''pan-Islamic axis of terror'' stretching from Kabul through Pakistan to Kashmir. There is already enough propaganda going around about the troubled Muslim places that only small evidence is needed to confirm the suspicions. Given the way some of our leaders and civil society have behaved, it will be now harder to convince the world that Kashmir cannot be a home to Al Qaeda in future. And such a sense would be very unfortunate about a place that has otherwise refused to get drawn into the larger pan-Islamist narratives and by and large confined itself to the specific objective of the resolution of Kashmir.
--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment