How the West de-democratised the Middle East

AL Jazeera in Depth

Irfan Ahmad Irfan Ahmad is a political anthropologist and a lecturer at Monash University, Australia. RSS

Rather than promote democracy in the Middle East, the West has a long history of doing the exact opposite. Last Modified: 30 Mar 2012 15:47

In 1953, a coup backed by the US and UK overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran [AP]

Melbourne, Australia - With the momentous convulsion in the Middle East sparked by Mohamed Bouazizi's martyrdom in January 2011, it is time to ask what happened to the question which for long dominated Western discourse on the Middle East: Is Islam compatible with democracy? The predominant answer for many years was "no". Among others, Elie Kedourie, MS Lipset, and Huntington advocated such a position. Bernard Lewis, "the most influential postwar historian of Islam and the Middle East", who offered "the intellectual ammunition for the Iraq War", was most vociferous in upholding this position. Their main argument was that, unlike Christianity, Islam was unique in not differentiating religion from the state and hence democracy was impossible in Muslim polities. Against this doxa, I make three arguments. First, the position that Islam is incompatible with democracy was false from the beginning, because it served imperial ambitions of the West and violated Muslims' self-perception that, not only is Islam compatible with democracy, it was one of the engines of democratic empowerment. Second, I argue that the West's discourse of democratisation of the Middle East is dubious because it hides how the West actually de-democratised the Middle East. My contention is that, from the 1940s onwards, democratic experiments were well in place and the West subverted them to advance its own interests. I offer three examples of de-democratisation: The reportedly CIA-engineered coup against the elected government of Syria in 1949, the coup orchestrated by the US and UK against the democratic Iran in 1953 and subversion of Bahrain's democracy in the 1970s. I also touch on the West's recent de-democratisation in Iraq and Afghanistan.   Third, I explain that the Middle East was de-democratised because the West rarely saw it as a collection of people with dynamic, rich social-cultural textures. The Western power elites viewed the Middle East as no more than a region of multiple resources and strategic interests; hence their aim was to keep it "stable" and "manageable". To Ernest Bevin, foreign secretary (1945-51) of imperial Britain, without "its oil and other potential resources" there was "no hope of our being able to achieve the standard of life at which we [are] aiming in Great Britain". Iran: Anatomy of a Revolution - Part One The false debate The Western view about Islam being incompatible with democracy is rooted in the Enlightenment which, contrary to the received wisdom, was prejudiced - and, to cite John Trumpbour, "shot through with Islamophobia". Thus Alexis de Tocqueville held that the Quran laid stress on faith, not splendid deeds, as a result of which Islam was inhospitable to democracy. In the post-World War II era, Kedouri, Huntington, Lewis and others presented different versions of this argument. This Western view was, however, seldom shared by Muslims who believed that Islam and democracy were perfectly compatible. As early as 1912, the Indian philosopher Abul Kalam Azad (b1888) wrote: "Islam regards every form of government which is non-constitutional and non-parliamentary as the greatest human sin." Turkey's Mustafa Fazil Pasha (b1829) held that Islam determined one's destiny in afterlife but it "does not limit the rights of the people". Abdullah Abdurrahman of South Africa (b1870) observed that, without full equality, "there is no such thing as a democratic institution". Without multiplying examples, it is suffice to note that the notion of divine sovereignty advanced by India's Maududi and Egypt's Qutb were complex developments unfolding much later. Contrary to Muslims' self-perception, the debate on Islam's alleged incompatibility with democracy continued in the post-war era. Encapsulated under "modernisation", this debate was integral to the West's domination of the Middle East, because empire maintains itself not just by brute force but also by presenting itself at the service of rhetoric such as democracy. In the US, this took an institutional form in 1983 when the Reagan administration floated the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Though currently the United States Agency of International Development (USAID), established in 1961 by John F Kennedy, claims that the US "has a long history of extending a helping hand to those people overseas struggling to ... live in a free and democratic country" and that the US foreign assistance "has always had the ... purpose of expanding democracy". At the time of USAID's formation, its aim was not democracy promotion but to counter communism through economic aid and development. Even in 1997, long after NED's formation, Fareed Zakaria - now editor-at-large of Newsweek (although then managing editor at Foreign Policy Magazine) and a neo-realist apologist of US policy - undermined democracy by justifying the Middle East's authoritarian rulers as follows: "In many parts of that world, such as Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, and some of the Gulf states, were elections to be held tomorrow, the resulting regimes would almost certainly be more illiberal than the ones now in place." Neither Zakaria nor USAID, however, says how the US, and its allies such as Britain, were responsible, not for promoting, but demoting democracy. This is what I mean by de-democratisation of the Middle East by the West. Let me give some examples. De-democratisation of Syria, Iran, Bahrain, Afghanistan and Iraq Syria Perhaps the earliest theatre of de-democratisation was Syria. True to the logic of colonialism, as imperial Britain and France dismembered and divided the Ottoman Empire to install the mandate system under the covenant of the League of Nations, Syria fell under the French rule from which it only gained independence in 1946. While still under French control, Syria held presidential elections, following which an elected government (based on universal male suffrage) led by Shukri al-Quwatly, came to power for a five-year term starting August 1943. The Syrian government, after its independence, was thus constitutional and based on democracy. In March 1949, the US organised a coup d'état against al-Quwatly's government to install military rule, presided over by Colonel Husni al-Zaim. Based on research from declassified documents now available, it is well-established that Stephen Meade, a CIA operative, played a key role in staging that coup. Meade had met al-Zaim at least six times. To Miles Copland, a US diplomat in Damascus, al-Zaim was "America's boy". The US de-democratised Syria because al-Quwatly's democratic government was nationalist and unwilling to toe the US line. He had informed Washington that Syria wouldn't adopt any policy that went against its security and sovereignty, even if "it meant defying America". Of its several aims, the US wanted Syria to fulfill at least two, which Colonel al-Zaim joyfully did. He legitimised Israel by signing an armistice and ratified the TAPLINE (Trans-Arabian Pipeline Company) project, allowing ARAMCO (Arabian-American Oil Company) to pipe Saudi oil across Syria to the Mediterranean. The Syrian parliament had earlier rejected both these demands, reportedly due, among other reasons, to Western and US support for the partition of Palestine, and the creation and support of Israel during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Between 1949, when the al-Quwatly's democratic government was dislodged, and 1955, five more coups were organised. The foundations for the de-democratisation of Syria could not have been stronger. Iran The next major theatre of de-democratisation was Iran, whose elected government was overthrown, in 1953, by a US-UK alliance. Mohammad Mosaddeq was Iran's elected prime minister. He enjoyed the approval of Iran's parliament for his nationalisation programme. The US and UK organised a CIA-led coup to oust Mosaddeq - because Iran refused make oil concessions to the West. During World War II, the UK had taken control of Iran to prevent oil from being passed to its ally, the Soviet Union. Through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the UK continued to control Iran's oil after the war. The French-educated Mosaddeq was highly critical of Iran's draining of resources to the West. Soon after getting elected as prime minister in March 1951, Mosaddeq and his National Front alliance had moved to nationalise Iranian oil and throw out foreign control of oil fields. One such was the Abadan refinery, then the largest in the world. The UK retaliated by imposing economic sanctions, backed by its heavy naval presence in the region. Mosaddeq, however, was undeterred; his popularity only increased among the Iranian people. Faced with Mosaddeq's resistance, the UK-US alliance staged a coup to over throw Mosaddeq's government. Chile remembers its 9/11 The 1953 coup in Iran was significant also for Central and South America. Indeed, subsequently it became a model for regime change. Only a year later, in 1954, as the New York Times noted in 2000, the CIA staged a successful coup in Guatemala. We should also note the CIA plot on 9/11. Not the 9/11 we know think of - but the 9/11 of 1973. On that occasion, the CIA toppled the democratic government of Salvador Allende in Chile to replace it with the dictatorship of General Pinochet, who brutally ruled for 17 long years. Bahrain Another theatre of de-democratisation in the Middle East was Bahrain, formerly a British protectorate. In 1971, Bahrain became independent. In December 1973, the first elections (only men participated) were held to elect the thirty members of al-majlis al-watani, the National Assembly. That assembly challenged the unbridled authority of the al-Khalifa family which had ruled Bahrain since 1783. A major challenge to the clan came in the form of the assembly's demand for the eviction of the US Navy base from Bahrain. Let it be noted that the US military presence in Bahrain dates to 1949. After the withdrawal of British forces from there, the US presence increased. Legally, Bahrain's assembly was right in asking for the eviction of the US Navy. But the ruling al-Khalifas dissolved the assembly on August 26, 1975. There was then no democracy until 2002. Various vibrant institutions of civil society, such as trade unions, were all crushed. Clearly, what mattered to the US were not the voices and aspirations of Bahraini people but America's own national interest, which was to keep its base. Admiral Crow justified this, saying that "on general principles ... the [US] Navy did not want to leave a place where they were already established". One may say that there was no "external" intervention and the al-Khalifa family took a "sovereign internal" decision to dissolve the assembly. However, in the Middle East (as elsewhere) the drawing of lines between internal and external is a difficult business. Afghanistan The West's de-democratisation continued in Afghanistan. After the fall of the Taliban, an UN-sponsored conference took place (in November 2001) in Bonn to decide Afghanistan's future. The avowed objective was to install democracy and women's freedom in Afghanistan. Leaving aside the issue of the extent to which the Afghan delegates invited to Bonn were representative of the Afghan population, it is instructive to note that the leader Abdul Satar Sirat, elected by a majority of votes to lead the interim government, was asked to give way to Hamid Karzai. The decision to install "democracy" in Afghanistan was itself taken undemocratically. The aim clearly was not to install democracy but to install Karzai, "our man", who was eager to pursue Western ambitions. A decade since then, journalists such as James Fergusson, author of A million bullets and Taliban, now complain that Karzai is "absolutely not interested in the principles of democracy". Was this the goal, however? The former Australian prime minister, John Howard, later admitted that West did not want to get embroiled in Afghanistan's reconstruction or any messy "nation-building". Surgical operations in Afghanistan were the key goal. Iraq The story of de-democratisation was similar in Iraq. Following the Western invasion of Iraq as the government fell in April 2003, people in places as diverse as Mosul (a Kurdish town), Samara (with a Sunni Arab majority), Hilla and Najaf (both Shia towns), and Baghdad spontaneously organised meetings to elect representatives for reconstruction, safety and provision of essential infrastructure. It was a popular democratic initiative in the true sense of the term. However, the US thwarted all such democratic initiatives by nullifying the decisions and plans the elected representatives of various councils had made. In their place, the US appointed their own, reliable (unelected) people, including former Baathists. The 'why' of de-democratisation Why did the West de-democratise the Middle East? It did so, I submit, because seldom did its power elites see the region as a people with diverse, dynamic social-cultural texture instead of a repository of multiple resources and strategic interests. Hence their prime aim was to keep the Middle East "stable" and "manageable". In 1984, Rob­ert W Stookey, a prominent member of the US for­eign service (with postings in the Middle East and a doctorate in political science), published The Arabian Peninsula: Zone of Ferment from Stanford University's Hoover Institution. The books published from the Hoover Institution were "concerned with the US involvement in world and regional poli­tics". Stookey began the book's introduction as follows: "Considering the economic and strategic significance for our national interests, the Arabian peninsula is not well known to the general public." And this is how, within the framework of US national interest, he made the Middle East "known" to his Western audience. Saudi Arabia, he noted, had the "possession of one-fourth of the non-communist world's oil reserves" and thus described it (and Kuwait) as "oil-rich". In contrast, he called the then-two Yemens "oil-less". It is evident how the Middle East made any sense to the West only in relation to whether it was "oil-rich" or "oil-less". Such a conceptualisation of the Middle East was articulated by imperial Britain, whose viceroy to India, Lord Curzon, wrote in the 19th century: "Turkestan, Afghanistan, Transcaspia, Persia - to many these words breathe only a sense of utter remoteness, or a memory of strange vicissitudes and of moribund romance. To me, I confess they are pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the domination of the world." Indeed, the term "Middle East" itself is imperial. "Middle" between which two points or locations? And yes, East of what? Clearly, it is a geographical designation which puts the West at the centre of the world. In the late 19th century, Alfred Mahan, a US navy officer, invented the term "Middle East" and used it in his book The Influence of Sea Power Upon History. Halford Mackinder, a liberal imperialist of Britain, later popularised it. I have argued how the West's claim of spreading democracy in the Middle East is bogus. Against the West's claims, I have instead shown how it continually de-democratised one country after another. Like India, the world's largest democracy which is largely disinterested in - and indirectly hostile to - democratic movements in Bhutan and Burma, the West has been largely hostile to genuine democracy in the Middle East so as to nurture its interests - geopolitical and strategic - by keeping the Mubaraks and the Shahs "stable". Irfan Ahmad is a political anthropologist and a lecturer at Monash University, Australia and author of Islamism and Democracy in India: The Transformation of Jamaat-e-Islami (Princeton University Press, 2009) which was short-listed for the 2011 International Convention of Asian Scholars Book Prize for the best study in the field of Social Sciences. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.

Source: Al Jazeera

Email Print Share Send Feedback

US parents await Guatemala adoptions

AL Jazeera English Americas
Suspension of international adoptions prevents hundreds from uniting with 'their' children. Last Modified: 02 Apr 2012 10:09

Guatemala suspended international child adoptions some years ago, leaving hundreds of prospective parents who were in the process of adopting in the lurch. Approximately 400 families in the United States who had planned to adopt Guatemalan children are still stuck in a bureaucratic bungle of frustration and heartache as they try to unite with "their" children. Al Jazeera's David Mercer reports from Guatemala.

Source: Al Jazeera

Email Print Share Send Feedback

Google’s self-driving car allows the blind to get behind the wheels

Monday, 02 April 2012

Steve Mahan, who is 95 per cent blind, takes Google's self-driving car for a spin around Morgan Hill, California. (Youtube)

By AL ARABIYA

Web giant Google has created a self-driving car it claims will enable blind people to drive, according to a Daily Mail report this week.

The vehicle, which has already been taken for a test drive by a blind driver in a video released online, takes over nearly all the functions of the car currently controlled by humans.

The move has marked a landmark step in the Google project which has been several years in the making, and was officially unveiled in October 2010.

The video released earlier this week shows Steve Mahan, dubbed “Self-Driving Car User #0000000001,” using the car to carry out his daily routine.

“Mr. Mahan, who is 95 per cent blind, drives to buy a taco and pick up dry-cleaning - activities which may seem humdrum, but which are shut off to many blind people who do not have a companion or carer to accompany them,” the newspaper reported.

Although a lot more needs to be done before the cars can hit the road without the direct supervision of Google engineers, many have hailed it a success for the internet giant.

“The concept of it is pretty awesome,” Eric Bridges, a spokesman for the American Council of the Blind, told Fox News.

“They’re helping to change the world in a lot of ways,” Bridges added.
In the video, Mahan's test drive leaves him clearly pleased with the vehicle as he jokes: “Look ma, no hands... and no feet!”

At the end of the journey, he tells his passengers: “You guys get out, I've got places I have to go.”

(Written by Eman El-Shenawi)

Brotherhood presidency bid turns up heat in Egypt race

Sunday, 01 April 2012

Khairat al-Shater, the Muslim Brotherhood’s third-highest ranking member and a main financier of the banned movement, arrives at a court in Cairo in this Feb. 28, 2007. (Reuters)

inShare

By Edmund Blair and Marwa Awad
REUTERS / CAIRO

A deft businessman and politician tempered by years in Hosni Mubarak’s prisons, Khairat al-Shater is aiming to bring Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to the pinnacle of power for the first time in its 84-year history. But his candidacy for the presidency has exposed rifts in the Islamist group’s ranks, worried liberals and could turn up the heat in a row with Egypt’s ruling army.

Without even a day of campaigning under his belt but by virtue of the Brotherhood’s broad grassroots network, Shater, 61, moves straight into the ranks of frontrunners for the job Mubarak held for 30 years until he was ousted last year.

It marks a dramatic shift for the Brotherhood which has U-turned on its earlier pledge not to field a candidate to avoid charges of monopolizing power in post-Mubarak Egypt. It is also a big change for Shater, a respected strategist for the group who until a little more than a year ago worked in a prison cell.

Yet his candidacy may splinter the Islamist vote, already split between at least three other candidates, and that could hand an advantage to rivals who the army might prefer to see in power, although generals insist they will not get involved.

Shater, a father of 10 whose businesses range from computers to furniture, spent years in and out of jail under Mubarak, who banned the Brotherhood and periodically rounded up its members.

“He is a national hero to Egypt. He created an institution from the sweat of his brow and when it was destroyed because he was in competition with the son of the toppled president, he was jailed and injustice done to him,” said Mohamed Badie, the Brotherhood’s leader when his candidacy was announced.

But the announcement has generated some swift criticism from both inside and outside the Brotherhood, whose party controls the biggest bloc in parliament and which dominates an assembly that is drawing up the constitution.

“It is the right of the Brotherhood to field its own candidate but they should know they are losing much of their credibility and expanding the divide between them and the rest of Egypt’s national groups,” wrote Mohamed Habib, a former Brotherhood deputy leader, on his Twitter feed.

Shater kept a low profile immediately after Saturday’s decision, issuing a brief statement resigning from his position as a deputy leader. Brotherhood members said plans for his campaign were being drawn up and it could be launched this week.

’No monopoly’

After years working beyond the public’s view, Shater’s central role in Brotherhood thinking has become more obvious since his release after Mubarak was toppled in February 2011.

Western and other officials have lined up to meet him. The International Monetary Fund team, seeking a broad consensus for a $3.2 billion loan deal, met him for talks.

One Western diplomat described a calm persona who “exuded control” in one meeting but detected traces of a “bully” in another more heated discussion. “He needs to have grown a thick skin of self-preservation, given his time in jail,” he said.

Seen as the group’s chief financier and a moderate, one Brotherhood member described Shater as a “excellent strategist” who has kept a tight rein on dissent although that has left some youths disenchanted. But his public message is one of inclusion.

“Egypt will not return to the days of one-party rule. The Brotherhood will help strengthen other parties. Even if one party is a majority, it should never have a monopoly,” he told Reuters in an interview in March, 10 days after he was freed.

Yet monopolizing power is how some see the decision to back him for president, a move that could bring the Brotherhood to the pinnacle of power for the first time in its 84-year history.

“It’s outrageous. You make a promise, you should keep it,” said Yumna Emam, a 28-year-old public affairs coordinator in Cairo. “I only hope people will not fall for it and vote for him after all that.”

Ahmed Said, leader of the liberal Free Egyptians, said the group was “proving each day that power is their only goal.”

The Brotherhood has been embroiled in an increasingly fierce row with the ruling military council, which had rejected the group’s demand that it sack the army-appointed cabinet.

’Real threat’

The Brotherhood says it should form the new cabinet to reflect the parliamentary majority. But the existing constitution gives that power to the military or the newly elected president. The army has refused to back down and defended the performance of its cabinet and the army’s handling of the transition.

Explaining the decision to field a candidate, Brotherhood Secretary-General Mahmoud Hussein cited the refusal to sack the cabinet and referred to “a real threat to the revolution and the democratic transition to an elected civilian government.”

Though it has swept up seats in parliament, analysts say the Brotherhood remains wary of the military and memories of crackdowns under Mubarak and his predecessors are still fresh.

Shater was last arrested in 2006 and jailed the following year. He was first detained in 1968 under Gamal Abdel Nasser.

If Shater secures the presidency, the make-up of the cabinet will be in the Brotherhood’s hands. But the race won’t be plain sailing for Shater, even with the Brotherhood behind him.

The Islamist vote is already split among three main Islamist candidates. And two have built a popular support base.
They are Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, who follows a much more conservative interpretation of Islam than the Brotherhood, and Abdel Moneim Abol Fotoh, kicked out of the Brotherhood for announcing he would run for president before the group changed tack. Shater was among officials who decided to eject him.

The popularity of those candidates may have been one reason for announcing Shater’s candidacy: to avoid being outflanked by Islamist rivals. But the move comes with other pitfalls.

With the Islamist vote divided, other candidates could benefit including a former Arab League chief who once served as Mubarak’s foreign minister, Amr Moussa, and Ahmed Shafiq, a former military commander like the ex-president who was also Mubarak’s last prime minister.

“It could also play in favour of someone who is not belonging to the Islamic trend,” political science professor and activist Hassan Nafaa said. “If that is the case ... the Muslim Brotherhood will be considered responsible for this result.”

The Brotherhood may yet use its weight to unite Islamist voices behind Shater. Abu Ismail has in the past suggested he might consider standing aside. But Abol Fotoh has insisted he will not halt his campaigning for anyone.

Saudi arrests 681 alleged drug smugglers in 4 months

Sunday, 01 April 2012

The Saudi government regularly seizes large amounts of drugs and foils smuggling attempts especially of captagon stimulant pills. (File photo)

By AFP
RIYADH

Saudi Arabia has arrested 681 people over the past four months allegedly involved in the trafficking of drugs worth around $460 million, an interior ministry spokesman said on Sunday.

“Security services arrested 681 suspects, among them 96 Saudis and 585 from 33 other nationalities, who have been involved in crimes related to smuggling, receiving, transferring and promoting drugs,” General Mansur Turki told reporters.

The value of the drugs, which include heroin, cocaine, hashish, and narcotic pills, amounted to 1.724 million riyals ($460 million), said Turki.

Authorities also found more than 4.4 million dollars with the people arrested.

The Saudi government regularly seizes large amounts of drugs and foils smuggling attempts especially of captagon stimulant pills.

Last week, the authorities reportedly foiled an attempt to smuggle 1.5 million captagon pills across the kingdom’s northern border with Jordan.

Captagon is classified by the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime as an “amphetamine type stimulant” and usually blends amphetamine, caffeine and other substances.

It is particularly popular in Gulf and other Middle Eastern countries. The kingdom applies the death penalty for drug trafficking, as well as for rape, murder, apostasy and armed robbery.

Bombs in southern Thailand kill 8, wound 68

Monday, 02 April 2012

Bombings are a common tactic of Islamist separatists who have been waging an insurgency in Thailand’s three southernmost provinces since early 2004. (Reuters)

inShare

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HAT YAI

Suspected Muslim insurgents set off coordinated bomb blasts as shoppers gathered for lunch Saturday in a busy hub of Thailand’s restive south, killing eight people and wounding 68, officials said.

The casualty count made it one of the largest attacks in months in the troubled southern provinces where smaller-scale violence occurs on an almost daily basis.

Yala Governor Dethrat Simsiri said that the three blasts occurred within a 100-meter (100-yard) radius and minutes apart in Yala city, a main commercial hub of Thailand’s restive southern provinces.

“We are not sure which group of suspected Muslim insurgents were behind this but we are looking,” he said.

The first bomb was hidden inside a motorcycle parked near a shopping area and detonated by a mobile phone at about noon, the governor said. Within minutes, a second bomb hidden in another motorcycle exploded, followed by a third explosion from a device placed in a car that set fire to nearby buildings, he said.

Such bombings are a common tactic of Islamist separatists who have been waging an insurgency in Thailand’s three southernmost provinces since early 2004. The violence has claimed more than 5,000 lives.

The suspected insurgents mainly target soldiers, police and other symbols of authority with roadside bombs and drive-by shootings, but have also staged large coordinated attacks in commercial areas.

Last September, a trio of bombs hidden in vehicles hit a busy section of Sungai Kolok in Narathiwat province, killing four people and leaving more than 60 wounded.

Yala, Narathiwat and Pattani are the only Muslim-dominated provinces in the predominantly Buddhist country. Muslims in the area have long complained of discrimination by the central government.

The insurgents have made no public pronouncements but are thought to be fighting for an independent Muslim state. The area used to be an Islamic sultanate until it was annexed by Thailand in the early 20th century.

Separately, a blast occurred at a hotel in the city of Hat Yai, in the nearby province of Songkhla, that officials attributed to a gas leak and said was unrelated to the attacks blamed on insurgents.

Several tourists staying at the Lee Gardens Hotel where the blast took place suffered from smoke inhalation after the midday explosion, which occurred in a Japanese restaurant on the ground floor of the hotel, said police Col. Kittichai Sangkathaworn.

In Pakistan, No Quick End to Islam Conversion Case

 

27-March-2012

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Hopes for the rapid resolution of a controversy over the conversion of a Hindu woman to Islam that has seized the Pakistani public were dashed on Monday, when the Supreme Court declined to decide the matter for at least three more weeks.
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry ruled that Rinkel Kumari, a 19-year-old Hindu student who converted under disputed circumstances last month, should spend the next three weeks pondering her fate in protective custody, along with another Hindu woman in a similar situation.
During an emotional and sometimes rowdy hearing in a packed courtroom in Islamabad, the capital, Chief Justice Chaudhry noted that there had been “serious allegations of abduction and forced conversion” in both cases.
“Both ladies must have an atmosphere without any pressure to make a decision about their future,” he said.
Moments earlier, the police dragged Ms. Kumari’s father from the courtroom after he had begun shouting. Such scenes have been typical of a case that has received intense media attention and has highlighted the sense of siege among a prominent religious minority.
The case started in Mirpur Mathelo, a small town in Sindh Province, where in 12 hours on Feb. 24, Ms. Kumari left her family home, converted to Islam and married Naveed Shah, a Muslim neighbor who said he had been courting her through Facebook and cellphone contact.
Ms. Kumari’s family and Hindu community leaders reacted angrily, alleging that she had been abducted at gunpoint and forced to convert by Mian Mitho, a powerful conservative Muslim politician who sits in the national Parliament.
After four bitterly contested hearings in provincial courts, the case made its way on Monday to the Supreme Court, where judges hoped that Ms. Kumari and a fellow convert, Dr. Lata Kumari, 29, could finally speak their minds clearly. But it was not to be.
Ms. Kumari, who wore a black hijab and was surrounded by six police officers, stumbled as she began her testimony, visibly nervous. Chief Justice Chaudhry then cleared the courtroom of everyone, including lawyers, to allow the two women to testify in private.
For the next 30 minutes, the two rival camps of supporters mingled uneasily in the marble-walled corridor. Ms. Kumari’s mother and sister prostrated themselves on the floor, reading from brightly colored religious texts. The Hindu men gave reporters accounts of oppression at the hands of Pakistan’s Muslim-dominated judiciary and police force.
Meanwhile, Mr. Mitho, the Muslim politician, surrounded himself with supporters who wore thick beards and white pointed caps. “Whatever happens is God’s will,” he said with an easy smile.
But tensions opened once the hearing resumed. Ramesh Kumar, the father of Ms. Kumari, rushed toward the judge’s bench, pleading for his daughter’s release. “Please do justice!” he cried as wailing female relatives also rose from their seats.
Security staff members tried to restrain Mr. Kumar, who grew more agitated; moments later he was carried from the courtroom, still shouting, by his hands and feet.
Wrapping up the hearing, Chief Justice Chaudhry noted that Hindus, who constitute about 2 percent of Pakistan’s 180 million people, were the “weak segment” of society. “We have to provide them some support,” he said.
He then ordered that the two Muslim converts be returned under police escort to a women’s shelter in Karachi until the next hearing on April 18.