Readers' corner
Pakistan's response
Sir-- I was astonished to read Mustafa El-Feki's commentary 'An Indo-Arab blunder?' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 17-23 February), which somehow gave the impression that the Arab world had over the years let India down because of its "tilt" towards Pakistan, and that is why India has moved into a strategic relationship with Israel.
This is surely a figment of his imagination since many in the Arab world, including Egypt and Syria, have always been seen as Indian allies. Despite these two states' close relationship with India, Pakistan came forward with strong material support in their wars with Israel. So there was never a tilt favouring Pakistan -- at least in these countries -- despite the Islamic bond.
If, despite the very real tilt towards India that prevailed in the Middle Eastern Muslim states, India chose to cozy up to Israel, it was out of realpolitik interests and the perceived weakness of the Arab world. Yet, in lamenting the loss of India to Israel, Mr El-Feki has conveniently downplayed -- if not out rightly ignored -- the factors that have prompted India to befriend Israel. Almost lyrical when describing India's firm commitment to Palestinian rights in the past, but far less critical of India's recent tilt towards Israel, El-Feki has singled out the Arab leadership's partiality for Pakistan in Pakistani-Indian conflicts as being responsible for driving India closer to Israel.
In fact, El-Feki's nostalgic analysis does not take into account many changes which took place in the international political environment, as well as within both the Indian and Israeli domestic political milieu. Apart from the realpolitik issues, the rise to power in India of the Hindu fundamentalist BJP and that of the Likud in Israel also provided an impetus for the two states coming close, since both parties share an anti-Muslim agenda.
But it is the strategic-military reasons that have been in the forefront of the growing alliance between India and Israel. Confronting a freedom movement in India-Held Kashmir (IHK), the Indians were desperate to get help from any quarter that could help them control the situation in IHK. Israel provided India with much-needed help in this regard, in terms of counter- insurgency tactics and weapons. Israel has provided important logistical support such as specialised surveillance equipment, cooperation in intelligence gathering, joint exercises, and cooperation to stop money laundering.
India's desire to benefit from Israel's advancement in defence production has been another lure in drawing it closer to the Zionist entity. Israel is now India's second-largest supplier of arms and military technology after Russia. And India has now acquired the Phalcon radar system which will be part of its missile defence system -- the rest of it eventually coming from the US.
Improving relations with Israel is also seen as a means of improving Indian relations with the US. That was what made the then Indian National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra publicly announce Indian ambitions for an "axis of three" with Israel and the United States, in his address to the influential American Jewish Committee in Washington in May 2003.
As for Mr El-Feki's assertion that giving India OIC membership would "put the brakes" on the Indo-Israeli partnership, this is totally ridiculous given the very real security linkages that now exist between the two states and between them and the US.
As for Pakistan, it has tolerated the Arab world's almost complete apathy towards the plight of the Kashmiris, and has continued to hold steadfast in its support of the Palestinians with no expectations of reciprocity. That is why, despite Arab countries themselves buckling under pressure and recognising Israel, Pakistan has refused to do so until now.
We know and understand the powerlessness of the Arab world, but we feel it is a powerlessness that they have imposed on themselves. The level of their inability to support Muslims across the world is reflected not only in their silence on Kashmir, but also on the attempted genocide of Muslims -- with the support of the BJP state government -- in the Indian state of Gujarat in 2002.
It is surely time for the Arab world to wake up to the realities of the emerging geopolitical milieu and the policies of the US, which directly target Arab nationalism in particular and Muslims in general through the Broader Middle East Initiative and the US doctrine of pre-emption.
Instead of lamenting the loss of India as an ally, they should learn to appreciate the unquestioning support extended to Arab causes and the Arab people by Pakistan -- both at the level of the state and society. This support cannot be taken for granted endlessly and questions are being asked within our civil society now. The emotive and baseless rantings by commentators, like Mr Mustafa El-Feki, do little to assuage the growing doubts about the Arab world that are being raised in our civil society today.
Shireen M Mazari
Director-General
Institute for Strategic Studies
Islamabad
Pakistan
Law chambers
Sir-- In response to the article 'Intellectual life in Roman Alexandria' about the Polish archaeological dig in Alexandria ( Al- Ahram Weekly, 20-26 January), the "unidentified" lecture halls with high benches on opposite sides of the hall suggest to me a courtroom or tribunal setting.
Perhaps the students learned oratory and law in the lecture halls, and observed justice in action in the courtrooms. Perhaps the Arab inscriptions dating from the ninth century suggest that the auditorium continued to be used as a law school and courtrooms well into the ninth century.
Kim Endoso
California
USA
Progressive traditionalists
Sir-- By imposing terms like "progressive", Margot Badran in 'The gender of Islam' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 24 February-2 March) has revealed her failure to understand the dynamics of Indian Muslims.
Often in India, there are very thin lines differentiating between a progressive and a traditionalist as understood in the West. Take Waris Mazhari for example; he is not only a progressive but also a traditionalist at the same time. While forward looking, he works within the traditional framework of Islam.
Badran and other Orientalists do injustice by compartmentalising multi-dimensional thinkers like Mazhari into specific categories that hold no relevance to them or their work.
Ayub Khan
Ontario
Canada
Shocking art
Sir-- Regarding your article 'The subject and the phallus' ( Al- Ahram Weekly, 17-23 February), I effectively failed to understand why we have to celebrate oddities. Not only is the topic strangely obscene, but also the work does not reflect the claimed level of creativity in which the final product comes out as an object of the artist's internalisation.
What I succeeded to see in the pictures was a bunch of penises with eyes and noses on them. I beg you not to believe that I am a person of cramped horizons; I live, work, and study in the West which appreciates nudity only if it serves artistic values.
What I saw in the pictures, at the head of your article, at best resembles what one may see on bathroom doors in middle schools or subway stations.
Wanis H Shalaby
Knoxville, TN
USA
Correct credits
Sir-- I sincerely thank Dr Mursi Saad El-Din for the interest taken in my book Seen and Heard: A Century of Arab women in Literature and Culture which he kindly reviewed in his column 'Plain Talk' ( Al-Ahram Weekly, 20-26 January).
I would, however, draw the readers' attention that his insightful comments specifically about the Chapter "Women in the Discourse of Crises" are in fact drawn from a section dedicated to the work of Dr Nasr Hamid Abu Zayed, which I had translated and introduced in the book.
Mona N Mikhail
New York
USA
Demand on books
Sir-- I am really sad about the suspension of the Books supplement.
It was a very good tool, among others, for Middle East librarians because the Middle East is a region which lacks good bibliographical control. I hope you will rethink and resume this important section of Al-Ahram Weekly.
George Courogenis
Athens
Greece
Recommend
Comment
Printer-friendly
