AS DIVORCES by SMS in India increase, activists seem paralysed over political remedies in the run-up to next year’s election.

Unilateral oral divorce – a provision of Muslim personal law – is being misused by judges (qazis) and scholars (ulemas)to appease men – while government looks on.

Talaq allows men to sever the knot with the words ‘I divorce you’ repeated three times, even if they’re not in the country and although scholars and experts agree that modern technology is increasing the misuse of the oral talaq provision, consensus is lacking on confronting the problem.

Qur’anic provision for women, which includes time for reconciliation through arbitration, is being undermined by conservative judges who are even paid off by husbands in extreme cases, according to reports.

The Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) caused outrage in November last year when it drew attention in a newspaper report to cases similar to that of Praveen who received an SMS from her husband withtalaq stated three times in the message.

Later the imam of a mosque in Muradnagar in the state of Uttar Pradesh held that the divorce by SMS was valid and termed the marriage void.

Divorce leaves a woman outcast from her community, penniless and even facing the loss of her home and children.  It is the poorest who suffer the most.

Now with elections in 2014, an investigation by Lapido has found that politics is paralysing reform, with groups at odds over a push for codification of Muslim law, which would ensure state-reinforced sanctions.

The ‘ethical voice’ in the Qur’an which provided an entry point for women’s interpretation of the text was giving way to the classical or ‘legal, technical voice’ Dr Seema Kazi, Senior Fellow at the Centre for Women’s Development Studies in Delhi, who studied at the Gender Institute of the London School of Economics, told Lapido.

‘Women’s groups are working on a re-interpretation of the Qur’an as an entry point to challenge patriarchal Muslims laws.  But there’s a limit to that because classical Muslim law does not favour women.  Then there’s no way out.’

Muslims are amongst the most backward economically and politically in India, and women who are discriminated against by the community have no wider redress without back-up in law.

‘The (secular) betrayal on the socio-economic front created the condition for Muslim women’s movements to become hostage to both the community and to patriarchal interests of the state,’ says Kazi.

‘There is no sympathetic or committed representative Muslim constituency to translate these demands into institutional/legislative action.’

She said that the issue of Muslim women’s rights should be subject to wider public debate and discussion, not just left for Muslim communities alone.

‘Muslim clergy have come to wield far greater authority in modern India than desired.’

Encroachment

The issue has become even more complex through politicization with the rise of the nationalist Hindu right as communalism repeatedly stalls debate.

‘It provides the Muslim clergy with an alibi to circumvent debate on the issue altogether,’ said Dr Kazi.

Religious communities in India are allowed to be governed by personal laws in family matters.

The 1937 Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act provided for the application of the Islamic Law Code of sharia to Muslims in the country.

But in 1973, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) was set up to defend sharia from encroachment or infringement by secular law or legislation.

Personal or domestic law provisions are therefore not protected in state law from whimsical interpretations of religious scholars and community leaders.

While conceding the need for reforms, women on the Board are reluctant to push for state reinforcement.

Uzma Naheed, President of IQRA International Women’s Alliance and a powerful voice on the Board who was closely involved in drafting a landmark conditional marriage contract – or nikahnama - and steering it through community channels, said: ‘The need is for a consensus rather than confrontation’.

Ahmad Nadir Al-Qasmi, Research Scholar on Islamic Jurisprudence at the Islamic Fiqh Academy, New Delhi who also admits the need for reforms, emphatically rules out any possibility of the community accepting legislative attempts to interpret or codify Muslim personal laws.

He told Lapido:  ‘Muslims in India will never accept any attempt by the government to codify Muslim personal law, so the demand by the BMMA is unacceptable’

Unlike many Islamic countries, there is no state provision in India for sanctions against those who violate the sharia – a step too far for many Muslim activists, who distrust secular governance as unbelief.

It is this lack of consensus which may ultimately undermine women’s cause.

‘The country’s political leadership perceives Muslims as a vote bank, ignoring women for reasons of expediency’ said Dr Kazi.

She adds:  ‘Whatever regime comes in, it is going to be authoritarian and reactive. It is not going to create a climate where rights issues can be publicly debated.

‘Most Muslims in general feel too insecure and besieged to initiate or facilitate such a process in a fast shrinking democratic space.

‘Localized resistance to Muslim male tyranny remains, but the conditions for it translating into major public mobilization do not, as yet, exist.’

Read Dr Seema’s Kazi’s Minority Rights Group report Muslim Women in India here.

Image: Courtesy by Jarek Jarosz on Flickr

On that day, the UN General Assembly voted to make Palestine a non-member observer state, accepting in de-facto, its status as an independent nation.

Granting a non-member observer state by the United Nations however, does not in reality mean the grant of independence to the 4.3 million Palestinians who live in the West Bank, east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.

But what it does mean is that, the Palestinians can now participate in General Assembly debates and in future take Israel to the International Criminal Court on possible charges of war crime.

The vote also opens the door for Palestine to join the several organisations and agencies of the United Nations. Although getting in and operating there would be another task.

As the news broke, euphoric Palestinians took to the streets cheering and honking car horns and chanting “God is great”.

Amid this euphoria, Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas pointed out that he wanted recognition not as a tool for confronting or delegitimizing Israel but to give him leverage in future talks with Israel. He told the UN on Thursday that the Palestinians will “behave in a responsible and positive ways in our next steps.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to dismiss the UN vote as meaningless. He accused Abbas of delivering a “defamatory and venomous” UN speech “full of mendacious propaganda” against Israel. Netanyahu argued that the UN move violated past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians and that Israel would act accordingly, without elaborating what steps it might take.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described the vote as “unfortunate and counterproductive… because it places further obstacles in the path to peace”. She said only direct negotiations between the two parties could lead to lasting peace.

But the irony of the date was not lost. It was on November 29, 1947 that the UN General Assembly voted for the partition plan which called for the Jewish state of Israel to be created after the imminent expiration of the British rule over Palestine. Sixty-five years later on the same date, the Palestinians turned the tables on Israel.

But more important than the vote itself, the voting pattern of the General Assembly underscored the emerging dynamics of international politics.

In the 193-member UN General Assembly; 138 member-nations voted in favour of Palestine, whereas nine countries voted against and 41 abstained from voting. Among the 138 countries who voted in support of Palestine included BRICS grouping — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

As the Times of India wrote about the historic movement:

The real shock for the US and Israel came from Europe, which, with the exception of the Czech Republic, deserted the duo.

France led the European revolt, and it was joined by Germany, Italy, Spain, Norway, and Denmark as the 27-member European Union put behind its historic sympathy for Jewish state in the face of what many see as growing atrocities on the Palestinian people. Such is the change of mood in the international community that even the United States lackeys such as Australia and Singapore abstained, leaving Washington and Tel Aviv isolated.

Philippines, a virtual client state of the US, voted in favour of Palestine.

Allies and friends abandoned the United States and Israel in droves, fracturing a facade of western unity that Washington had long engineered.

This may be considered as the worst ever isolation of Washington-Tel Aviv axis.

Undoubtedly, the vote means a lot for the Palestinian struggle for self-determination which will get the much needed international boost and legitimacy to an unabated struggle of the people.

As the euphoria settles down and Palestinians carry forward their struggle to the next level, the UN General Assembly vote sends out another clear message.

For years, Israel has through its proximity with the US manipulated or mollified the international community to block Palestinian assertion to nationhood.

When one considers this background the vote on Thursday also means an opportunity for the international community to rejoice.

It means that the UN General Assembly on the November 29 2012 regained what it had lost on November 29, 1947 when it voted under duress of superpower politics and subterfuge to partition the territory and create the state of Israel.

With an overwhelming majority in favour of Palestine, nation states are slowly but surely coming to assert their insoluble right as sovereign powers and express their independent opinion.

The stone throwing may not cease yet nor may it be the end of the struggle. But what it does mean is an international attestation for the struggle of the Palestinian people and an assertion of sovereign right by 138 nations.

It was the news of a new troika building up around the Indian Ocean. It is indeed a first step towards a trilateral grouping in Asia. This new engagement between India, Australia and Indonesia is seen to be a significant development as the three countries seek to hedge against possible Chinese expansionism.

Chinese adventurism is a key concern for countries in the region particularly in East Asia.

As reported, the premises of the new troika’s operation would be within the framework of the 20-nation Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC).

The IOR-ARC seeks to strengthen trade and investment among countries around the Indian Ocean intended to serve as a base to expand intra-regional trade. India views the IOR-ARC as a regional initiative that can be and effective medium to enhance individual and collective capacities of nations to deal with contemporary challenges facing the common maritime domain of member nations.

Much to the chagrin of China – which prefers bilateral arrangements to sort maritime disputes- the IOR-ARC, could well turn out to be a more appropriate substitute to ASEAN when it comes to holding up against Chinese expansionism in the continent.

Now that, the three nations have thought about moving forward to form a troika to deliberate on strategic challenges that they face, it is pertinent to reflect upon the dynamics of relations between the three countries.

Thankfully enough, Australia’s relation with India is getting back to normalcy after a tumultuous few years – the nuclear test, attack on students, migration concerns and uranium sales have been few issues that have marred the relations between both the countries. However even during this tumultuous period there have been vibrant bilateral trade and economic relations. Australia is also now coming around to look at India as a strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific region.

Like India, Australia’s relation with Indonesia has also seen its highs and lows. However, considering its close geographical proximity, Indonesia is an important partner for Australia with strong diplomatic and trading ties.

In light of these above developments, it may also be noted that Japan and India have also proposed the starting of a bilateral group to discuss security in the South China Sea. It may be noted that the South China Sea hold strategic importance to both countries. In line with this objective both the countries are looking at undertaking joint military exercises in the Indian Ocean.

These bilateral and trilateral strategies along with others if combined could in fact prove to be a potent bloc against Chinese expansionist tendencies.

Formed in October 2011, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA) sought to represent the nationalistic aspirations for the Tuareg people in northern Mali. The Tuareg’s are a Berber people, traditionally nomadic and principal inhabitants of the Saharan interior of North Africa. Although most Tuaregs live in the Saharan parts of Niger and Mali small groups are also found in south-eastern Algeria, south-western Libya and northern Burkina Faso and northern Nigeria.

To that extent, the MNLA seeks to represent other Saharan peoples.

Since 1916, there have been five major armed conflicts referred to as “rebellions” involving the Tuareg people – first against the French rule (1916-17) and later (1962-64, 1990-95, 2007-09) and now in 2012.

Since the end of the French colonialism, there has been a genuine expectation that the ethnically distinct population – the Tuareg tribe would be created as an independent nation. This combined with the dissatisfaction over the new government led to the several rebellions by people in the region. Subsequent military occupation in their territories along with the death, torture and imprisonment of suspected rebels has left a deep sense of resentment among the northern population which is the source of the conflict.

The 2012 conflict too would have passed off as just another rebellious movement among the tribal group seeking to assert their nationalist aspirations. But what threatens to makes the MNLA struggle in Mali into another Afghanistan is the involvement of the Ansar Dine and Movement for Oneness and Jihad in West Africa.

Since capturing power in the northern part of Mali with the support of Ansar Dine, the MNLA has lost its control including the three biggest cities of Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu to its partner-in-conflict at the Battle of Gao.

The ideological background of ‘Ansar Dine’ for those who may be interested means “Helpers of the way” or “Defenders of the faith” in Arabic. Hence this support for the MNLA is logical.

The United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is now contemplating action along with the national government of Mali against the Islamist forces to regain control of the lost territories.

In their fight against Islamist forces, it is important that the world community does not deny the fact that most tribal conflicts in African soil is the direct result of haphazard creation of nation-states by the then colonial powers. Countries were created without any consideration for ethnic or demographic background of the local populations.

Ironically, the world community continues to adopt a hands-off approach when it comes to handling ethnic and tribal conflicts in Africa.

But for some NGOs and aid workers, national governments (democratic or otherwise) are expected to manage the process of integration and settlement. Considering that national governments themselves are ridden by tribal factionalism, it is not difficult to understand that the process of integration and settlement is deeply scarred.

Considering the history of conflict in Africa and the human rights violations that followed it; it is not surprising that the world body is still deliberating the strategy and approach it should adopt in Mali.

One of the big concerns is on how to monitor the armed intervention once soldiers arrive in Mali under international sanction.

Human rights advocates have raised concerns pointing out that in the case of Somalia, where peacekeeping soldiers that were sent to provide stability ultimately committed human rights violations themselves.

However, beyond the immediate concern of tackling the Islamists, the international community must also address the urgent need to bring about the much need resettlement and rehabilitation of tribal communities in Mali and beyond.

It is something that the world community must not lose track of, failing which, the military intervention will only provide short-term respite.

It seems to be a 21^st century country stuck in an 18^th or 19^th century mentality –browbeating its neighbours. One can never know the tricks that China has up its sleeves.

China’s territorial ambitions are suspect and grossly detrimental for peaceful coexistence. Its economic power and military might is not something that countries – those unfortunate neighbours – cannot just wish away.

The most recent of China’s maverick ploy has been to issue new electronic chip enabled passports to its citizens with a watermarked map. It looks an aesthetic design just that it has not gone down too well among the neighbours for the map shows disputed territories as part of China.

China’s sore eye, Taiwan called it a “total ignorance of reality” and termed is as an action that “only provokes disputes.”

Apart from Taiwan, China has raging territorial disputes with India, Vietnam, Japan, Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei. It has been China’s long-standing strategy to annex and absorb territories – Tibet enduring struggle against Chinese rule is a vindication of this inherent tendency.

All the countries have been infuriated by the Chinese action. Strangely it erupted close on the heels of ASEAN’s failure to present a united front against China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea region.

History of Conflict

With India, China has disputes over Aksai Chin and the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh which it claims as its territory.

With Japan, China has a long simmering contention over Japanese sovereignty over a group of uninhabited islets in the East China Sea. Japan controls the five islets and some nearby rocks, which it calls the Senkakus and China knows as the Diaoyu. Taiwan also has claims on what it says are the Tiaoyutai Islands in the South China Sea.

China is also in contention with Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines and Taiwan over a number of islands and their surrounding waters in the South China Sea. The complex dispute is over sovereignty in the 1.2m square miles of sea that has been simmering for over two decades, but has grown increasingly fractious in the past few years.

Not to forget the issue of Tibet that continues to be a sore point and China’s attitude toward Taiwan.

Chinese conduct in all these cases has been to sidestep the issues when they come up for multi-lateral discussions – as in the recent case of ASEAN. On the other hand, it continues to rake them up at regular intervals at bilateral levels. Thus when the Indian Prime Minister undertakes and official visit to the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, China shows its indignation.  As in this case China prefers to speak individually with countries which in often cases range from false assurances to stark intimidation.

With the map imprint in its new passport, China has again, and plausible so, on purpose, sought to rake up its territorial contentions. Each country having territorial disputes with China reacted and responded to express disaffection and displeasure at Chinese actions.

However, the Chinese government was quick with a quintessential response. It pointed out that China was “not targeting a specific country” and that it was “willing to communicate with relevant countries and continue to promote contacts.”

Affirmative Action of Western Involvement?

It may be time for countries particularly those in the region to take affirmative action. However, as ASEAN Summit 2012 showed, countries in the region may still be far away from being able to forge a united front against China. Making it difficult is the mutual territorial conflicts they have. Now does that call for western involvement?

Pitsuwan said this in an interview with Financial Times published on November 27, 2012. Coming as it is from a regional diplomat of his stature, these comments are disquieting to say the least.

Pitsuwan was not too happy with what was happening recently at the ASEAN summit held in Cambodia. ASEAN members at the Summit in November 2012 failed to reach a consensus to present a united front on how to handle China’s territorial adventurism in the South China Sea.

Pitsuwan put up a brave front, not wanting to discount the role and credibility of the 10-nation ASEAN organisation. However, he expressed his disconcert over the “very frustratingly slow process” in implementing the 2002 signed Declaration of Conduct (DOC) agreed upon by the 10 nations and China.

The DOC is considered as a milestone document signed between the ASEAN member states and China. It embodies their collective commitment to promoting peace, stability and mutual trust and to ensuring the peaceful resolution of disputes in the South China Sea. However, the failure of nations to agree on a Code of Conduct for the implementation of DOC is what makes the stated purpose of the Declaration elusive.

Coincidentally, the 2002 DOC was signed in the same city, Phnom Penh, where nations met in November 2012 and failed to reach an agreement over resolving the dispute.

To his credit as the chief of an organisation facing internal fissures resulting from a regional territorial dispute, Pitsuwan has aggressively defended the relevance and important of the regional outfit. He has all along believed that the ASEAN needed to rethink and retool itself to face the fierce competition and pressure from the outside world.

In detriment to finding a lasting resolution, the Chinese government has still not agreed to draft out a Code of Conduct for behaviour in the South China Sea. The ASEAN countries have demanded such an agreement as a first step to build confidence among conflicting parties. China on the other hand is only keen to “rebuild mutual trust” by implementing cooperation projects under the existing framework of the DOC.

This strategy of China is not surprisingly considering that it would want to negotiate from a position of power. This position provides China the flexibility to engage individual countries within the ASEAN through bilateral arrangements for cooperation obliging them to go along with it as in the case of Cambodia. On the other hand, if China agrees to any code of conduct with ASEAN, it would limit its options for geo-strategic manoeuvres.

Time and again, we have had men (and women) – religious bigots and fanatics – who without qualms have shaken the spirit of our beleaguered nation. They take down a few among our fellow citizens while the others tread on.

Left behind in this journey of our living in fear and dying at random; we often neglect the families of those bygone souls. These are families entrusted under our collective care; but we have left them to continue their drudgery of distress.

If we do not care to respect those living; the dead need not expect our reverence.

The first page of today’s Mid-Day screams of the anguish of those alive who tell the tale of ignominy meted out to our dead.

In the face of disaster, political leaders announce compensations. For decades, governments have used it as clever way to wade through public anguish. It grabs media attention, demonstrates administrative empathy and mollifies grief-stricken families from directing their anger against the government machinery.

But as the Mid-Day article seeks to know. Does it take 4 years for a government to identify families of victims and distribute compensation? As often it is the “paperwork” to be blamed.

But piteously the “paperwork” by itself is just a symptom and of a much greater malady that lies deep within our character as a nation. Ironically, even the clerk who moves that file is one among us.

Consider the Adarsh Housing Society scam or the Kargil Coffin Scam, not to speak of the many others scams that stick out as a bane in our society. A martyr’s family struggles between the pillars of power for the pledged petrol pump or that plot of land or the recompense promised even before their loved one’s body reached home.

At the root of this failing lies a social evil that eats into our socio-political fabric. The innocuous “paperwork” notwithstanding, our callousness comes from the sense of greed that drives the very essence of our existence.

To quote a speaker’s observations made at a recent event, “only vultures make profit from the dead”. And desolately enough we have ended up as inglorious vultures with no qualms to feasts over our dead.

India must be proud of the fact that in spite of all the provocations, we delivered justice to the man who was one among our tormentors. However, we as a nation must not rest, basking in the glory of not being a banana republic.

Terrorist attacks threaten to polarise our already fragmented society. But more dangerously the attitude of the powers that be succeeds in dispiriting us as a nation.

The question remains, will we ever learn to deliver justice to our own fellow citizens.

In the coming days as people debate about this new creation – its ethics and aspirations – there will be many who would seek to deny legitimacy to the new political outfit.

Skeptics would speak of it as just another speck in the already overcrowded political landscape of India. Political opponents would toy with casting doubts on the purpose and mission of the new outfit.

Although in a democratic polity the real test for the party will come when it faces the elections, the AAP undeniably does represent the waylaid aspirations of the common man.

The political landscape of India is indeed overcrowded; but not saturated. It is overcrowded because it is filled with political cohorts incapable of representing the aspirations of the common man. Their incapability comes from their unwillingness to emotionally accept India as one nation and Indians and one people.

As a political outfit the first and most important agenda for the AAP would be to nurture the spirit of Indianness – a task that was left unattended since independence as political leaders scrambled for power.

In India the aspiration for power leads political outfits of represent narrow interpretations of Indianness. The dynamics of Indian politics is a landmine of caste and religious identities. Parties have long blamed that votes are cast along caste and communal lines. Ironically enough, in their greed for power, political outfits have continued to hinder the process of nation-building. It is therefore that, although India exists as one geographical entity; it remains a fragmented society.

It was reassuring to see that the India Against Corruption movement – the ideological flag-bearer of the AAP – motivated thousands to wave the Indian flag. Cutting across the narrow differences of caste and religion, it was a spectacle earlier limited to sports stadiums.

It is therefore a justified hope that the new political party would bear not just a symbolic but a symbiotic difference from those existing outfits.

For the many who would seek to deny legitimacy to the new political party, it is important to remember that landmarks in history are a result of the anguish of the masses. It is in the face of oppression that people have revolted to regain power. Undeniably India is passing through a similar epoch in its history – as it suffers corruption and risks communal disintegration.

Creating a new political party is like building a ship. Soon it would be flagged off to face the rough seas. Once the AAP is out in the sea of electoral politics it will begin to face the corroding weather of realpolitik. Only time will tell of the political fortunes of the AAP, but that is no justification to deny people the right to hope – for a party that represents their aspirations for a better India.

As a political outfit the AAP will have much more than the Jan Lokpal to answer for. In a country that has been left intensely polarised, the new political party will have a lot of issues to address – from internal disturbances to international politics, from water sharing to Khap politics, from outsider issues to insider trading.

But thankfully enough, much of these issues and resulting polarisation is a direct result of corruption. Naxalism grew because some local landlord usurped tribal land in connivance with unscrupulous forest officials.

If pursued in right earnest, the AAP efforts to weed out corruption to whatever extent possible would clear the surface of India socio-economic backdrop for setting the agenda for change.

Undeniably, electoral gain is the real measure of success for political outfits. But to achieve much of the change that real India wants; does not require political power.

The need of the hour is to achieve nation-building through a process of societal transformation. Focusing purely on achieving electoral victory will mean that the AAP would fail to meet the real aspirations of the Indian people.

The real test of the new political outfit therefore is not how many seats it wins in the next elections but how it sets out to achieve them.

Egypt is in the throes of yet another political crisis; one that threatens to further polarise an already fragmented nation as it painstaking steers itself through the protracted process of constitutional reforms.

By an executive decree issued on November 22, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi ruled that his decisions since assuming office will not be subject to any form of judicial review or appeal.

President Morsi had recently garnered international adulation particularly in Gaza, Israel and the US for successfully bringing about a ceasefire in the Middle-East.  Analysts feel that the decree was timed to derive maximum advantage of his success in brokering truce between Israel and Gaza.

He ordered that no court can dissolve the constituent assembly and also granted the body a further two month extension to draft the constitution which was to be completed by December.

The opposition parties in Egypt have vehemently decried the Presidential decree seeing it as an attempt to head towards a totalitarian regime for the second time.

Nobel laureate and former UN atomic energy agency Chief Mohamed El Baradei lashed out at the declaration which would effectively put the president above the judicial oversight. “Morsi today usurped all state powers and appointed himself Egypt’s new pharaoh” he tweeted. He called it a major blow to the revolution that undid Hosni Mubarak’s regime and warned that it could have dire consequences.

It was in January 2011 that the country saw 18 days of unprecedented protests to overthrow the 30-year authoritarian regime of President Hosni Mubarak.

President Morsi’s office said that the decree was aimed at “cleansing state institutions” and “destroying the infrastructure of the old regime”. Addressing supporters later the President stated that his objective was to ensure “political stability, social stability and economic stability” as the country transitions towards a new constitution.

For a country that has been a masthead for the Arab Spring movement, it is imperative to safeguard the spirit of the revolution that overthrew authoritarianism. It is therefore not surprising that in Egypt any action by those in authority that seems to centralise power is viewed with suspicion.

In June 2012, similar anger poured onto the streets of Egypt following a Supreme Court order that dissolved the lower house of parliament and called for fresh election. It was then seen as an attempt by the military council to retain power. Islamist had then called the Supreme Court action as “a total coup” and warned that “anyone who imagines that the millions of youths will let this pass is dreaming.”

However, the presidential elections were held as promised and brought Muslim Brotherhood presidential candidate Mohamed Mursi to power.

The opposition in Egypt will do well to realise that unlike in the case of Hosni Mubarak; Morsi has been elected to power by the very forces that were part of the revolution of 2011. Excessive attempts by the opposition to malign him in their efforts to mobilize public opinion will only result in further polarising the population and fracturing the cause of democracy and spirit of the 2011 revolution.

There may be no harm in the opposition accepting a decree which President Mursi says will only be in force till the new constitution comes into effect. To his credit he has also ordered the re-trial of leaders from former strongman Hosni Mubarak’s regime.

The need of the hour is for the opposition to ensure that the Constituent Assembly does an able job to create a draft broadly acceptable to all.

After all, Tahrir Square is just another call away!

———

Featured Images of Revolution in Egypt by Maged Helal from http://www.flickr.com/people/magdino20/

On Tuesday (November 20) the rebel M23 fighters captured the strategic city of Goma in Congo’s mineral rich region. A day later they took the nearby town of Sake as they moved towards the provincial capital of Bukavu. After initial setbacks, forces loyal to the government are now fighting a pitched battle to push the rebels back even as they hold on to Goma.

The M23 – fighting government forces in Congo – sounds straight out of a Hollywood blockbuster. It is a rebel group – a break-away faction of the army -of around 1200 to 1600 fighters. More government soldiers are said to be deflecting in the regions under rebel occupation.

Earlier on these men were part of the National Congress for the Defence of People (CNDP) – a political armed militia established in 2006 by Laurent Nkunda in the Kivu region of Congo.

Following an agreement after years of conflict, the CNDP became a political party and its armed militia was integrated into the Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (FARDC)].

M23 take their name from the abbreviation of ‘March 23, 2009’ the date when the CNDP signed a peace treaty with the Congolese government.

The history of conflict in the region is rather complex and cryptically intertwined with the tribal dynamics of the African continent further aggravated by the history of years of exploitative colonial rule.

The M23 is largely made up of ethnic Tutsis who want to extend their control over eastern Congo and its valuable deposits of gold, copper, coltan and timber. Their campaign, and alleged support from Rwanda, has its roots in the 1994 genocide in which some 800,000 Tutsis were massacred by Hutus.

Neighbouring Rwanda has supplied soldiers and equipped the rebels with sophisticated arms, including night vision goggles and 120 mm mortars, according to a report by United Nations experts to be published Friday (November 16). Rwanda however denies the findings of the report. It along with Congo and Uganda has called upon the M23 to withdraw from the territories it has captured and find a negotiated settlement.

The latest round of fighting started on April 4, 2012 when nearly 300 soldiers (majority of them former members of the CNDP turned against the Congolese government and formed M23. They citied poor conditions in the army and the government’s unwillingness to implement the March 23, 2009 peace deal.

Citing unrest, the government had threatened to redeploy former CNDP soldiers away from North Kivu before the full implementation of the peace agreement, which prompted many of them to defect from the army and create the M23. The group is led by General Bosco Ntaganda, also known as “The Terminator”.  He is wanted by the International Criminal Court for the war crimes of enlisting and conscripting children under the age of fifteen and using them to participate actively in hostilities.

Undeniably the international community led by the United Nations has been putting in a great effort in Congo. Peace has still not been secured.

With 18000 troops on the ground, the UN has its largest peacekeeping operation in Congo. However the 1500 MONUSCO (as UN forces are known) troops position in Goma retreated as the rebels took over as they did not have the mandate to engage against the M23. The UN clarified that the peacekeepers in Goma held their fire to avoid triggering a battle.

However, the M23 rebels have rejected a call by regional leaders and the international community to withdraw. Instead a group leader said their fighters would push ahead to seize more territory until Congolese President Joseph Kabila agreed to talks. It has been reported that President Kabila has agreed to directly talk with the rebels however much confusion prevails on that front.

Following the crisis, the UN is also in the process of reviewing the mandate of the UK peacekeeping operations in Congo. This could mean possible redeployment and additional force multipliers. The focus is also on imposing targeted sanctions, including travel ban and assets freeze of M23 leadership.

Despite best efforts by the UN and other countries, peace eludes Congo as the approach seems to be flawed.

Considering that tribal conflicts in Africa extend beyond national boundaries any effort to foster peace in the continent cannot be country specific. The argument is that international organisations cannot do with a piecemeal approach. A three-pronged strategy must include the full cooperation and collaboration of regional organisations in Africa. Such organisations like the African Union are better equipped to understand regional issues and thereby create a pan-continent perspective. The UN must seek to strengthen the capabilities of organisations like the African Union so as to find a long and stable solution to regional and inter-tribal conflicts in Africa. Understandably this is easier said than done. Mutual distrust among nations is rife; however, as a regional community of nations they have a larger stake in maintaining peace.

The second aspect of this strategy is for the UN and AU to impress upon the international community – particularly countries like China – who seek business linkages in Africa to ensure that they deal only with legitimate powers. Considering the confusion in these resource rich countries, it is important for international bodies to make clear who represents the democratic aspirations of the people best.

The third most important yet difficult task would be for the UN along with regional bodies to investigate both nations and individuals to check the spread of small arms in the continent.

For the guns in Africa to fall silent, such a multi-pronged strategy needs to be drawn up and committed to by the international community.