The South Asia Politics, News, and Analysis Thread

Pakistan says it has asked Facebook to help investigate "blasphemous content" posted on the social network by Pakistanis.

Facebook has agreed to send a team to Pakistan to address reservations about content on the social media site, according to the interior ministry.

Blasphemy is a highly sensitive and incendiary issue in Pakistan.

Critics say blasphemy laws, which allow the death penalty in some cases, are often misused to oppress minorities.

Earlier this week Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif voiced his support for a wide-ranging crackdown on blasphemous content on social media.

In a statement on his party's official Twitter account, he described blasphemy as an "unpardonable offence".

Then on Thursday, Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar reasserted Pakistan's determination to tackle the issue, saying he would take "any steps necessary" to make sure Pakistan's message got across.

He said he had asked officials to liaise with the FBI in the US and with social media platforms on a daily basis.

"Facebook and other service providers should share all information about the people behind this blasphemous content with us," he is quoted as saying by the Dawn newspaper.

...critics say that this latest move is simply a way of cracking down on dissent.

When five liberal bloggers and activists recently went missing, they were accused of blasphemy on social media. It is a very serious allegation in the deeply conservative nation, which can make those accused of it a target of public anger.

People are often openly accused of "committing blasphemy on social media". One top security agency has openly urged the masses to report anyone who is involved in posting such material online.

Digital rights groups have expressed "serious reservations" and have called such steps "playing with the lives of innocent people".

They have also criticised Facebook "for colluding with authorities and censoring content infringing freedom of expression".

In a statement quoted by the AP news agency, Facebook said it viewed government requests with care keeping in mind "the goal of protecting the privacy and rights of our users.

"We disclose information about accounts solely in accordance with our terms of service and applicable law. A Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty or other formal request may be required for international requests, and we include these in our Government Requests Report.''

The Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang district in Arunachal Pradesh from April 7 to 11 garnered plenty of media attention. One of the most prominently discussed questions centered around the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation.

The Chinese side was unequivocal in not only objecting to the visit but also commenting on the reincarnation issue. The Chinese position, as encapsulated in remarks by scholars from important Chinese think tanks, is that the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation has to be approved by the Chinese government and selection has to be based on a combination of not just “historical rules” but also current “Chinese laws.” The reference to Chinese laws is with respect to the 2007 State Administration for Religious Affairs (SARA) regulation delineating procedures for the selection of reincarnated monks, including eligibility conditions, application procedures and the government and religious institutions to be approached for approval. The regulation basically excludes “any foreign organization or individual” from the reincarnation selection process, obviously in an attempt to legitimize China’s authority and exclude the Tibetan Diaspora (and others) in the selection of the next Dalai Lama.

The Chinese have consistently maintained that any reincarnation must be determined on the basis of the late 18th century procedure instituted by the Manchu Qing rulers of China. Under this “golden urn system” of selecting reincarnations, the names of prospective candidates would be placed in an urn, from which lots would be drawn to pick the real incarnation. Therefore, any other method being suggested by the Dalai Lama is seen as contrary to established rules and illegitimate, for it denies the Chinese government’s authority in the process.

One of the most contentious issues in modern India is whether the “Ram Mandir” or the “Ram Janmabhoomi (Birthplace) Temple” should be built in the city of Ayodhya, in the northern Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. Now that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has come into power in that state, led by the Hindu-nationalist Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, many hope that the building of the temple will soon commence, after a wait of more than two decades.

The history behind the Ram Mandir is particularly contentious. Hindus believe that the deity Rama was born in the city of Ayodhya several thousands of years ago. Yet, despite the pan-Indian importance of Rama, one of Hinduism’s most popular gods, and the hero of the Ramayana epic, no great temple to him exists in Ayodhya.

The reason for that, according to several sources, is because the original temple was demolished by one Mir Baqi, a general of the first Mughal Emperor Babur, in 1527; subsequently, a mosque, the Babri Masjid (Mosque of Babur) was built there in 1528. Hindus, especially the Hindu right-wing, have long claimed the site, seeing the construction of a new Ram Mandir as the one of the most important tasks of a resurgent Hindu nationalism. In 1992, a mob, instigated by several nationalist Hindu organizations including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and possibly the BJP demolished the mosque, leading to riots across India. A temple has yet to be built on the site due to the charged nature of the dispute and the controversial manner in which the mosque was destroyed.

Most people were not surprised when the Chinese government roundly condemned the Dalai Lama’s visit to Ulaanbaatar in November 2016 as a “splittist” attempt to undermine Mongolia’s respect for Chinese sovereignty. However, it was curious to later read similar denunciations on a website sponsored by monks and lay people that belong to the same monastic order as His Holiness. The criticism could come as a shock for those outsiders who assume that Tibetan Buddhists are united behind the Dalai Lama.

In an article published on December 21, 2016, the website, www.dorjeshugden.com, condemned the Dalai Lama for recklessness at a time when Mongolia was in negotiations for Chinese economic assistance. In a side comment, the article compared Mongolia’s economic crisis to the growing pains attributable to the transition from being “Asia’s next golden child to an awkward binge drinking and debt-ridden teenager with behavioral issues.” After referring to previous Chinese state loans to Mongolia, the article observed that the visit had “dampened the hopes of big brother China coming to Mongolia’s aid again [emphasis added].” The visit had “plunged the Mongolians deeper into despair” because it hindered the prospects of a bail-out by Beijing. The author also claimed that the Dalai Lama showed a selfish indifference to Mongolia’s plight.

The website in question is operated by devotees of Dorje Shugden, a Tibetan Buddhist spirit that has become the flashpoint for a schism in the Gelukpa or “Yellow Hat” order. The historic roots of the schism lie in a rivalry between the Fifth Dalai Lama (1617-1682) and another highly placed lama of that era, Drakpa Gyeltsen (1619-1656). The dispute broke out in the mid-1970s as the exiled Tibetan community struggled to rebuild outside Tibet. The disagreement released deeply felt emotions that may have culminated in the 1997 murder of a high ranking Gelukpa lama and his two disciples in Dharamsala. The schism rumbles on today, producing the unusual image of Western Buddhist monks protesting the Dalai Lama with placards mocking him and denouncing his supposed perfidy. However, the controversy seems to have expanded from a theological one to the geopolitical realm. Certainly, more is going on here than meets the eye.

The idea of drafting a nation's brightest new graduates to become teachers in the most deprived areas has been used in both the United States and the UK, where the approach was pioneered by Teach for America and Teach First respectively.

But how would this model fare in a country where the education system had been pulverised by four decades of constant war and conflict - Afghanistan?

The answer to this question is unfolding in Nangarhar province in eastern Afghanistan, where 80 graduates from Afghan universities are teaching 23,000 girls and boys in 21 schools under the Teach for Afghanistan scheme launched at the beginning of this academic year.

The scheme is the realisation of the dream of its founder and chief executive, Rahmatullah Arman, who at 26 has taken on a challenge which might deter the most courageous social reformer.

Mr Arman returned to Afghanistan in 2011 after studying at the University of Pune in India, where he also volunteered for the Teach for India scheme.

After 14 years of US-backed reconstruction, Afghanistan was still a country where 3.6 million children were not in school, where half of the teachers were unqualified, where 75% of pupils dropped out by the age of 15, and where the adult illiteracy rate hovered around 60%.

"For me, the biggest inspiration was when I went into schools where there were no chairs, no desks, often not even teachers, but the schools were still crowded with pupils," said Mr Arman, speaking in Kabul.

"I saw families taking their children to school, even where a blast could happen at any time, with all the security problems of which we are all aware, and yet still there are nine million children at school.

"I saw the hope that the people have, the spirit of not giving up. They have lost their futures, but their children might have a future."

He was convinced that he could give these children "Not only an education but a very good education, not by others but by Afghans themselves."

So in 2013 he started to create what would become Teach for Afghanistan with help from the global educational partnership organisation, Teach for All (which was created jointly by Teach for America and Teach First in 2007).

Mr Arman set high criteria for his recruitment drive. To join, applicants needed "not just a degree but at least 75% marks" as well as leadership experience and communication skills.

"Something really wonderful happened," Mr Arman said. "For 80 positions we received 3,000 applications, all meeting the criteria, and 99% were from Afghan universities."

In traditional Afghan communities, to be able to read and write was regarded as enough education for a girl. Teach for Afghanistan has a different view.

"It is about changing mindsets, and that is a very long-term process", Mr Arman said.

In one example, a female teacher, Manzoora, heard that the parents of two girls in her class of 14 to 15 year olds wanted to take them out of school.

She begged the parents to come and see her; the mother came, observed lessons, talked to the teacher, went back home. And after much discussion, they decided to let the girls stay in school.

Given the continuing violence within Afghanistan, did Arman fear for his own safety? "Actually, no, because the approach we take is very local, we are building good relationships with community leaders and religious leaders as well."

The fellows receive the same salary - about 9,000 Afghanis - as state teachers. It's not a good salary, Mr Arman agreed: "But we convince them they can have a better future, which is much more than just a salary."

Throughout their two-year commitment, fellows receive leadership training and support that will open up many different opportunities for them, he added.

Mr Arman is convinced that Afghanistan's future depends on releasing the potential of its youth: "Afghanistan has the youngest population in the world and I believe it could be our greatest asset."