Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

[johnee]

If and when millions of pakistanis come to wagah border, India would have no other option but to enter the Pakistan through armed forces, sanitise the area and send the refugess back to their places. I expect new nations to be formed out of such a turbulance. Perhaps there would be no more Pakistan instead it would be replaced by Sindh, Punjab, Balochistan, and Pakhtunkwa. India could play the mediator role between them.

 

[ajtr]

Regarding pakistan indians are more confused as the newborn child.The strategy of indian regarding pakistan is that there is no strategy for the past 60 years.every jack at the helm of affairs in india thinks himself/herself as the greatest peace-nick and always try to walk extramile just to fall flat on his face in kargils/mumbai/kashmir and then returns to the same square.After that also they keep on reapeating same mistake.

 

[johnee]

Ajtr, lets not get all doom and gloom about our policy. Both India and Pakistan started from keel in 47. In many ways, the challenge faced by India was bigger and complex. Different religions, languages, traditions, opinions, castes, and races. Bigger country, greater population, more poverty. In contrast Pakistan's task was much easier, one religion, smaller country, lesser population, one culture(islamic)..etc. The predictions at that time were that Pakistan would grow into a stable and a strong nation while India would break away into thousand and one pieces.

Look at India and Pakistan today. Pakistan has broken into two pieces. Jinnah's theory of separate nation for muslims failed when Bengalis separated from the rest of Pakistan. Today, Balochis want to separate from Pakistan. NWFP and Waziristan are not in control of Pakistan. Punjab is getting more radicalised. Every terroristic incident in any part of the world has it roots in Pakistan. Pakistan's economy consists only of aids given by others or drugs smuggling. Every other day, there is a bomb blast in some part of the country. Their Army makes deals with terrorists just to postpone facing them. Pakistan has become a failed nation and a rogue nation. Now it is rapidly marching towards becoming a terrorist nation.
To the comple contrast, India has not only been able to stay united but also is growing. Its economy is second fastest growing economy. Its population is now its asset. Its democracy is the largest in the world. Our clout is growing and our influence in growing. Our achievements in space and IT industry are there for everyone to see.

This is the complete picture. Yes, we have not been able to defeat pakistan completely. But that was because we had other problems at our hand, we had our limitations. And Pakistan had strengths. One by one our limitations are melting and one by one their strengths are decreasing. They wanted to bleed us by thousand cuts. They are ones bleeding everyday. Yes, we should find a permanent solution to this problem called Pakistan. And we are approaching that point in history. It will happen when time comes.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Speaking of Pakistanis ,me thinks its a waste of time discussing about their mindset we know them inside out.The more important how do we help them in their self-combustion
what are the strategies to be followed

 

[johnee]

Speaking of Pakistanis ,me thinks its a waste of time discussing about their mindset we know them inside out.The more important how do we help them in their self-combustion
what are the strategies to be followed

Praveen, the easiest way to break Pakistan would be to somehow bring sindhis or pastuns close to the seat of power. Pakjabis will never accept the loss of power and may break the country themselves. And Pakjabis get power through the army. So, army needs to be sindhised or pastunised. Zardari being a sindhi can be a useful tool in this.

The other way would be for us to wait for Pakjabis to do on sindhis, what they have done on bengalis, balochis and now pastuns. Once Pakjabis start a genocide on sindhis, pakistan can break.

 

[ajtr]

Ajtr, lets not get all doom and gloom about our policy.

This is the complete picture. Yes, we have not been able to defeat pakistan completely. But that was because we had other problems at our hand, we had our limitations. And Pakistan had strengths. One by one our limitations are melting and one by one their strengths are decreasing. They wanted to bleed us by thousand cuts. They are ones bleeding everyday. Yes, we should find a permanent solution to this problem called Pakistan. And we are approaching that point in history. It will happen when time comes.

My complain is not with pakistan or west.west(usa/uk/saudi) have cultivated this islamic terrorism to their devious end using pakistan.and still they are protecting it to be used against anyone.My complain is against indian political elites who were given so many chances to kill this snake called pakistan many times and they failed to do it may be for their compassions etc.unless the west goes down the drain its difficult to kill jehadi terrorism. coz the west will use them again and again against their future perceived enemies.As for india its better to project power in afghanistan to protect indian interests .better to fight war their to protect induia from terrorism rather then fighting battles at home.unfortunately india has become a sponge that absorbs the jehadi terrorism and protects west.india has to break away from this cycle.west is again at the verge of brokering deal by sepatating al-qaida terrorista from LET and taliban type by giving it the name of strategic assets of pakistan against hegemonistic india.which shows the perfidy of west.india has to defy west to protect its interests as china do.


‘India is sponge that protects us all... Lashkar No 2 threat after al-Qaeda’

The US Senate was today told that India “unfortunately” had become the “sponge” that was protecting America and the western liberal world from the hate unleashed by Lashkar-e-Toiba which had emerged as second only to the Al-Qaeda in being a threat to global security.

As the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs concluded its hearings on “Lessons from the Mumbai Terrorist Attacks,” two influential policy advisors testified that despite better preventive and response systems in the US, a Mumbai-like attack on America by LeT was “not inconceivable”.

“It would be a gross error to treat the terrorism facing India — including the terrible recent atrocities — as simply a problem for New Delhi alone. In a very real sense, the outage in Bombay was fundamentally a species of global terrorism not merely because the assailants happened to believe in an obscurantist brand of Islam but, more importantly, because killing Indians turned out to be simply interchangeable with killing citizens of some fifteen different nationalities for no apparent reason whatsoever,” said Ashley J Tellis, Senior Associate with the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, a prominent think-tank. The testimonies — the first since Barack Obama took over on January 20 — come at a time when the new administration is in the process of unveiling its foreign policy priorities for South Asia, having just announced a special envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan in Richard Holbrooke.

Tellis, who in his previous role as senior advisor to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs had been closely involved in the negotiations for the civil nuclear agreement between India and US, said the fact that LeT had not mounted any direct attacks on the American homeland was not because of want of motivation “Given the juicier and far more vulnerable US targets in southern Asia, LeT has simply found it more convenient to attack these in situ rather than over extend itself in reaching out to the continental United States,” he said.

“India has unfortunately become the ‘sponge’ that protects us all. India’s very proximity to Pakistan, which has developed into the epicenter of global terrorism during the last thirty years, has resulted in New Delhi absorbing most of the blows unleashed by those terrorist groups that treat it as a common enemy along with Israel, the United States, and the West more generally,” he said.

Brian Michael Jenkins, senior advisor with the RAND Corporation, another policy group that recently came out with a report on the Mumbai incident, said the attacks in Mumbai showed that the global struggle against the jihadists was far from over.“Al Qaeda is not the only galaxy in the jihadist universe — new contenders that have signed on to Al Qaeda’s ideology of global terror,” Jenkins said referring to LeT.

“Could a Mumbai-style attack happen in the United States? It could. The difference lies in planning and scale... Could a team of terrorists, recruited and trained abroad as the Mumbai attackers were, be inserted into the United States, perhaps on a US-registered fishing vessel or pleasure boat, to carry out a Mumbai-style attack? Although our intelligence has greatly improved, the answer again must be a qualified yes,” Jenkins said in his testimony.

Describing the clear links that LeT had with Pakistan’s official agencies — “the question whether these murderous acts (in Mumbai) were sanctioned by elements within the Pakistani state is prima facie not absurd in light of the ISI’s traditionally close relationship with LeT,” Tellis suggested that the Obama administration needed to treat India’s concerns about terrorism more seriously than the United States had done so far.“Of all the terrorist groups present in South Asia, and there are many, LeT represents a threat to regional and global security second only to al-Qaeda,” Tellis said.

“If the United States fails to recognize that the struggle against terrorism ought to be indivisible because Indian security is as important to New Delhi as American security is to Washington, future Indian governments could choose to respond to the problems posed by Pakistani groups such as LeT in ways that may undermine regional security and make the US effort to transform Pakistan more difficult than it already is,” he said.

 

[johnee]

My complain is not with pakistan or west.west(usa/uk/saudi) have cultivated this islamic terrorism to their devious end using pakistan.and still they are protecting it to be used against anyone.My complain is against indian political elites who were given so many chances to kill this snake called pakistan many times and they failed to do it may be for their compassions etc.unless the west goes down the drain its difficult to kill jehadi terrorism. coz the west will use them again and again against their future perceived enemies.As for india its better to project power in afghanistan to protect indian interests .better to fight war their to protect induia from terrorism rather then fighting battles at home.unfortunately india has become a sponge that absorbs the jehadi terrorism and protects west.india has to break away from this cycle.west is again at the verge of brokering deal by sepatating al-qaida terrorista from LET and taliban type by giving it the name of strategic assets of pakistan against hegemonistic india.which shows the perfidy of west.india has to defy west to protect its interests as china do.


‘India is sponge that protects us all... Lashkar No 2 threat after al-Qaeda’

Ajtr, I understand and completely agree with what you are saying and I felt the same thing until few days back. But after thinking about it a lot, I think our elites had their limitations. You have to remember that India is not a super-power. Pakistan, as you rightly pointed out, has been cultivated by the west. So, that means India is not fighting Pakistan, but its fighters who had until recently unlimited money, influence, power and force. But karma is coming around for them. The power west is not as supreme vis-a-vis India anymore. In a decade or so, this will further decrease the difference. The jihadi terrorism is now starting to bite everyone including its mentors and funders. US can make deal for now, but it wont last long. Jihadis will not rest and will sooner than later hit at EU or US. Once they do that, again things will move faster. Talibs have seen how vulnerable Pakistan and are going to try to get to power in Pakistan. In many ways, we have already endured the worst period. We are appraoching the time when this issue of Pakistan will be dealt. It will take another two decades for India to completely control everything from norht of Indian ocean to south of tajikistan.

 

[ajtr]

Peace with Pakistan: an idea whose time has passed

A leading indian english language newspaper has chosen to begin 2010 by stirring up controversy. It has run a series of editorials advocating peace initiatives with Pakistan, despite the manifest unwillingness of Islamabad to punish the perpetrators of 26/11. What might have begun as a practical joke by the newspaper’s editorial staff has since acquired pretensions to seriousness. The newspaper cites a dubious and unverifiable poll result, suggesting that most people in India and Pakistan strongly desire a resumption of peace talks between the two countries. Going by the reader response posted on the newspaper’s website, the poll was either poorly conducted or biased in its sampling. A very large number of Indians are in no hurry to forget Pakistani sponsorship of terrorism. Their reluctance to let bygones be bygones stems not from hostility towards Pakistan per se but rather, a natural instinct towards self-preservation.
It is no secret that even now; Pakistani terrorist groups are planning attacks in India on a scale that aims to surpass 26/11. One can be assured that if such an attack were to occur, Pakistani officials would first condemn it and then suggest that resolution of the Kashmir issue would prevent further attacks. There is a word for such double-edged statements: blackmail. The victim of wrongdoing is being made to feel that he is responsible for his own suffering, merely because he has failed to oblige the whims of the wrongdoer. Ever since the 1993 Mumbai blasts, Pakistan has adopted a policy of killing Indian civilians to get what it previously failed to get through negotiations and war. From its perspective, Islamabad is being reasonable. It has offered the Indian government the option of surrender. Should India stand firm, Pakistan cannot be blamed for the hundreds more Indian lives that will be lost in terrorist attacks planned from its territory.
The fact that many Pakistanis attempt to rationalize this policy is understandable, if unfortunate. They are after all, captive to the propaganda of a rogue army that claims it is protecting them from an existentialist Indian threat. The same army did not hesitate to butcher three million Bengalis in 1971, conduct aerial bombing of Baluch nationalists in 1973, hang a democratically elected leader in 1979, support Sunni sectarian groups in terrorizing Shias after 1980 and topple civilian governments throughout the 1990s. Furthermore, the selective use of logic permits Pakistani intellectuals to advocate peace with India on one hand, while simultaneously asserting that there can be no compromise on Kashmir. Thus, while the ordinary people of Pakistan may want peace, it still has to be on the terms laid down by their army. Like hostages in a hijack situation, they suffer from the Stockholm Syndrome and believe in the rightness of their tormentors only because they have no choice. The people of Nazi Germany faced the same situation in the 1930s.
The Pakistani state today shares more in common with fascist dictatorships of yesteryears than with democratic India, yet Indian peace activists stress the similarity between the two peoples. In doing so, they fall prey to a common analytical failing known as mirror-imaging. Basically, what this means is that rather than make the intellectual effort of seeing the world from your enemy’s point of view, you merely assume that the enemy is no different from you. Whatever you would do is what the enemy can be expected to do. Conversely, anything that you would not do, the enemy would not do either. The weakness of this logic became apparent in 1999, when the Pakistan army unilaterally violated the Line of Control in Kargil, destroying the Lahore peace process initiated by India. Self-deception among the top Pakistan army brass had led them to believe that the aggression would be cost-free because ‘Indians have no stomach for a fight’. Hitler made a similar assumption in 1939, when he invaded Poland and triggered off World War II.
What are the similarities between India and Pakistan, which Indian peaceniks go on about? Other than ethnicity, food and to a lesser extent language, squat all. The two countries are on different political, cultural and economic trajectories. Since 1971, Pakistan has strived to reinvent itself as an Arab state, in order to draw the wider Islamic world into its fight against India. Wahabbi madrassas funded by Saudi petrodollars have metastasized across the country like a rampaging cancer. These madrassas stress the need for Pakistani society to regress back to the 7th century and the fundamentals of Islam (as interpreted by the Wahabbis only). They advocate medievalism over modernity. Liberal Sufi and Barelvi traditions are being replaced by religious orthodoxy that would be unrecognizable to anyone who lived in pre-partition India, when there was no Pakistani army and no Lashkar-e-Toiba. How can any peace process be durable unless Pakistani civil society first frees itself from these two terrorist groups (one in uniform, the other outside it)?
Economically, Pakistan has been a basket case since the mid 1990s. The country is dependent on foreign aid to make up for the financial deficits caused by its ever-expanding public sector i.e., the Pakistan army’s business empire. Land-grabbing by army officers is institutionalized in the form of grants awarded by generals to their favourite subordinates. A neo-colonial system of economic predation combined with a population explosion is pushing Pakistan back to the 18th century, while the Indian economy continues to liberalize and grow. Despite having a population seven times larger than its neighbour, India’s per capita income grew to exceed that of Pakistan in 2003 and the gap has since widened. From a purely business perspective, the argument for better relations with Pakistan simply does not make sense. Even the European Union is facing problems due to income disparities among its constituent states.
Why then, are some Indian journalists so keen to jump on the peace-making bandwagon, especially when Mumbai has eclipsed Kashmir as the ‘unresolved issue’ in Indo-Pak relations? Are they genuinely unable to differentiate between the tasks of reporting facts, formulating policy and providing light amusement? The ‘Aman ki Asha’ initiative by the Times of India and Jang media groups fails miserably on the first count, with its lack of empirical evidence and logical argument and resort to clichés like ‘turning swords into ploughshares’. As regards influencing policy, flowery language is insufficient to dissuade Pakistan from supporting terrorist groups, as successive Indian prime ministers have learnt. All that the proposed peace initiative does is provide an example of the wordplay that appeasers engage in when they run out of arguments and have to keep talking.
Were it not for the insult which the authors of this initiative deliver to the memory of 70,000 Indians killed by Pak-sponsored terrorism in Punjab, Kashmir and elsewhere, their delusions would be laughable. Not only have they allowed themselves to be wined and dined into serving as ISI mouthpieces, but they also perniciously suggest that their views are shared by a majority of people. In the process, they forget that with each successive terrorist attack in India, a growing number of people have legitimate cause to hate Pakistan and all that it stands for. From the Akshardham Temple siege in 2002 to Mumbai in 2008, victims of the dead and injured lost any reason to support peace initiatives with a terrorist state. The same holds true for families of soldiers who died reclaiming the heights of Kargil. While harping about Pakistani hospitality, Indian peace activists could pause to consider the hospitality shown to Lt Saurav Kalia and his men for fifteen days in May 1999. Lest anyone argue that the actions of a few crazed jihadis do not represent the majority of Pakistanis, it must not be forgotten that their savagely mutilated bodies were returned to India by the Pakistan army, not Lashkar-e-Toiba.
There is a concerted effort on by interested third parties to create an impression that resumption of the peace process is ‘inevitable’. It is not. Even the most pacifist of Indian prime ministers have demonstrated a steely resolve on national security issues, such as V.P Singh in 1990 when he threatened to go to war if Pakistan intervened overtly in Kashmir. Similarly, in 1997 IK Gujral did not allow his dovish image to stop him from publicly shooting down a British attempt to mediate on Kashmir. Those who believe that New Delhi can be flattered or badgered into negotiating with a terrorist state only risk damaging their own relations with India. During the first few weeks of the Kargil war, there were the usual calls for restraint from Washington and London. These transformed into pressure on Pakistan only after India made clear that it would not negotiate under threat. Today, a similar message of firmness needs to be sent out.
Failure to do so would encourage the belief currently prevailing within the Pakistan army that its use of terrorists is a viable strategy. India has already made the biggest confidence building measure possible, by not retaliating to a single act of terrorism originating from Pakistan. ISI officials continue to plan terrorist attacks in India, knowing that they will not be targeted for assassination. Until November 2008, New Delhi remained on cordial terms with Islamabad, despite the urban bombing campaign by the so-called ‘Indian Mujahiddin’ (actually Lashkar-e-Toiba by another name). The Mumbai attacks broke this dynamic because Pakistan instead of reciprocating Indian goodwill, chose to ratchet up its proxy war. By sending Pakistani mercenaries to kill Indians under the cover of a non-existent terrorist group called ‘Deccan Mujahiddin’, the ISI overplayed its hand.
The fortuitous capture of Ajmal Kasab was a huge embarrassment for Pakistan. It initially attempted to bluff its way out by denying Kasab’s nationality, just as it had previously done with its soldiers in Kargil. In the first few hours after the attack, Indian media coverage only mentioned that the attackers had Pakistani links, without suggesting that they were state-sponsored. Islamabad responded to this restraint by claiming it was being made a scapegoat for India’s homegrown terrorist problem. Pakistani blame-shifting and obfuscation was what led to a hardening of Indian public opinion, not inflammatory media coverage. For some Indian journalists to now believe that their role in reporting the truth amounted to war-mongering, suggests a lack of professional integrity. They condemn jingoism while forgetting that excessive sentimentalism is equally dangerous.
Rather than preaching about the need for Indians and Pakistanis not to be held hostage by history, peace activists could first study that history in order to explain how it differs in any meaningful way from the present. Specifically, are they in any position to provide an assurance to their readers, on whose behalf they claim to speak, that Pakistan will convict those responsible for the Mumbai attacks? Instead of setting overly ambitious goals of freeing two countries from hatred, the Indian and Pakistani media could first combine forces to free 54 Indian Prisoners of War, being illegally held captive by Pakistan. If, as the initiators of the ‘Aman ki Asha’ farce claim, they are motivated by humanitarian considerations, they can set up forums for common people in both countries to denounce Lashkar-e-Toiba and its supporters. Only then will they command any credibility as representatives of popular opinion.
Other initiatives could include asking the Pakistani government to shut down terrorist training camps, extradite Dawood Ibrahim, prosecute Hafeez Saeed, stop blocking Indian attempts to join the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and stop ganging up with China to thwart India’s bid for a UN Security Council seat. Forward movement by Islamabad in even one of these areas would constitute a solid foundation for re-starting peace talks and would be more than reciprocated by India. Absence of any progress on the other hand, would demonstrate that the Pakistani desire for good relations extends only to cultivating Indian opinion-makers through fine food and paid holidays.
Evidence of such intellectual subversion already exists, in the form of arguments that a ’stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India’s interest’. Which Pakistan are these people talking about? The one that colonized Afghanistan in the 1990s while ostensibly seeking strategic depth and then further trying to extend its influence into Central Asia or the one that regularly diverts foreign aid money towards building up its India-centric war machine, or the one that survives on a narco-trafficking industry whose annual turnover equals 25 percent of the nation’s own GDP? Anyone who believes that a strong Pakistan would be a responsible state needs to read Michael Scheuer’s book Imperial Hubris. Scheuer, a former CIA analyst, describes the period 2000-2001 as representing a ‘golden moment’ for the Pakistani military elite. India was on the defensive in Kashmir and Afghanistan was firmly under the control of the Taliban. A quick review of Indian Home Ministry statistics for these years would reveal how many Indians died in terrorist attacks by Pakistan-based groups during the ‘golden moment’.
Rather than emulate the condescending arrogance of Western writers, who insist on bracketing India with Pakistan, would-be peaceniks should first come to terms with reality. They equate India with Pakistan as a victim of terrorism, without regard for the fact that Pakistan is a victim of its own terrorist-sponsoring policy, while India is a victim of proxy warfare. The two situations are not comparable on any level. Making any further peace overtures to Pakistan, without meaningful progress on the Mumbai investigations, would be tantamount to political suicide for whichever party tried it. Subversive propaganda such as ‘Aman ki Asha’ would not change the facts of the situation, only the way policymakers perceive them, to their own detriment.
Prem Mahadevan is a strategic affairs analyst at a leading think-tank, based in Western Europe.

 

[Vinod2070]

Coming full circle

By Cyril Almeida
Friday, 12 Feb, 2010

Kayani may be winning plaudits for his battlefield victories in Bajaur, Swat and South Waziristan but it was his predecessor, Musharraf, who let the threat build up.

OUR boys in uniform have a spring in their step again. Domestically, they have taken on two enemies and appear to be winning: the civilian government has been reduced to parroting the army’s line on security issues, while the TTP is a significantly degraded force.

Regionally, they can barely suppress their grins. In a few short weeks, the Americans have gone from threatening a ‘Pakistan first’ option in the war against Al Qaeda and associated movements to desperately seeking someone in Islamabad, or more accurately Pindi, who can put them in touch with the Taliban’s so-called ‘reconcilable’ elements.

It’s not quite a wave of triumphalism that is sweeping over the army but there definitely is a widely shared sense of validation. And that should worry the rest of us.

Here’s why. To hear the generals tell it, they have fought a threat — the TTP — that has managed to inflict more damage on this country than all the damage caused by all the terrorists in the rest of the world put together.

Grimly, they show you the statistics by means of elegant charts and the human cost by means of disturbing photos. Look at what we fought, they seem to say, no one else in the world has done this in recent times.

All true. But they ignore one crucial question: why did we have to fight this fight in the first place? If violence spiked in 2006 and has been sustained by the militants at meteoric levels since, what were we doing between 2001 and then, and even before?There’s no glory in winning a war for a country if the war was never inevitable in the first place. On whose watch did the TTP grow into a monstrous force? Kayani may be winning plaudits for his battlefield victories in Bajaur, Swat and South Waziristan but it was his predecessor, Musharraf, who let the threat build up.

And since the army never fails to tell us that it is an ‘institution’ first and foremost, should it not apologise to the nation for its institutional mistakes? Forget the apology, should it not show more humility in claiming credit for what amounts to cleaning up a mess after creating it in the first place?

I wish this were only an issue about form and not substance. Such are the ways of the world and states that apologies and demonstrations of humility can often be beside the point. What’s done is done and the country needs to move on — but can it if the army, the self-appointed custodian of the country’s security policy, continues to live in denial?

Here’s the problem: there has long been a suspicion that the Pakistan Army lets tactics drive strategy, and the victories against the TTP may actually reinforce that disastrous approach.

The best explanation for what the army has done over the last year has been labelled, for want of a better name, the ‘prioritisation approach’. Crudely, it amounts to this: you attack me repeatedly and viciously and I will destroy you. Exhibit A: the militants in Swat and Baitullah/Hakeemullah’s TTP went on the rampage against the state, so they were made to pay the price.

But this approach suffers from two flaws: one, it tends to treat militant groups more as distinct entities than as an unholy cocktail; and two, it discounts the long-term role of ideology. Essentially, if Group A isn’t attacking us today, it doesn’t mean that it won’t tomorrow. In fact, if you connect the dots as objectively as possible, you will probably reach the conclusion that it will in some way.

The army has leapt at the possibility of reconciling/reintegrating the Afghan Taliban (not least because they ask, what’s the alternative?) but should you and me, the average Pakistani, be anything but scared of the possibility of a return to power of those men in our backyard, regionally speaking?

The last time it took them just a few short years to make a catastrophic misjudgement and allow Osama to let his imagination run murderously wild. Why should we expect them to behave any more responsibly after defeating the world’s only superpower? After all, in some ways that would be an even greater victory than the original mujahideen’s; the originals at least had the support of another superpower.

More problematically, the army’s ‘Taliban solution’ in Afghanistan will continue our disastrous policy of focusing on the Pakhtun population to the exclusion of other groups, and that too through the alternating lenses of Pakhtun nationalism and dogmatic religiosity.

In short, the Pakistan Army seems to have come through the crucible of the last decade with exactly the same ‘strategic’ thinking as it had going into the decade. Given the price this country has paid in that period, that should be an absurd proposition. Yet, the rough outlines increasingly appear to be the same.

Which is why we should be worried about that spring in the army’s step. The generals are so pleased about their ‘success’ in recovering the security situation inside Pakistan and the possibility of a big say in the future of Afghanistan that they seem to have skipped right past the bit about introspection over why we are where we are today.

It’s not that the generals needs to parade around the country in sackcloth and ashes and beg the people’s forgiveness — though the possibility would certainly delight some — but denial has never led to great policy or strategy or tactics anywhere.

A related point can help illustrate the problem. The army has come up with a response to why it did not launch a full-fledged counter-insurgency against the TTP earlier. The reason, the generals say, is that the state/army’s ‘centre of gravity’ was the local population and the wider public.

Until the public was convinced that the TTP was the enemy and had to be defeated, there was never the possibility of military success: locally, the population could have shielded the militants; nationally, the public could have pressured the government to halt the fighting.

Look, though, at the history of the country over the last 30 years and ask yourself this: who has sided with the Islamists and militants the most? Would not generals Zia and Musharraf top that list?

(Don’t scoff at the Musharraf claim: after all, the Islamist parties controlled two provinces and had their largest share in parliament in history on his watch.)

So it’s all well and good for the generals to claim that ‘public support’ to fight the militants wasn’t always there — but then they should also be honest and explain the army’s role in eliminating the possibility of that support existing earlier.

Yes, the reality is that the Pakistan Army will need to be at the forefront of the effort to defeat militancy in this country. But don’t confuse needing them with believing them. They may have earned our gratitude for fighting recently; trust, though, is a separate matter altogether.

 

[Vinod2070]

The army has leapt at the possibility of reconciling/reintegrating the Afghan Taliban (not least because they ask, what’s the alternative?) but should you and me, the average Pakistani, be anything but scared of the possibility of a return to power of those men in our backyard, regionally speaking?

Regionally, they can barely suppress their grins. In a few short weeks, the Americans have gone from threatening a ‘Pakistan first’ option in the war against Al Qaeda and associated movements to desperately seeking someone in Islamabad, or more accurately Pindi, who can put them in touch with the Taliban’s so-called ‘reconcilable’ elements.

This is quite correct in my opinion. The PA and many Pakistanis are in splits because they feel that they can again use the Taliban to buy influence in Afghanistan and keep in unstable and under their control.

This is obviously a shortsighted policy. They were never known for perfect eyesight anyway!

 

[ajtr]

Is terrorism that big a problem?

Coming full circle

By Cyril Almeida
Friday, 12 Feb, 2010

Kayani may be winning plaudits for his battlefield victories in Bajaur, Swat and South Waziristan but it was his predecessor, Musharraf, who let the threat build up.

OUR boys in uniform have a spring in their step again. Domestically, they have taken on two enemies and appear to be winning: the civilian government has been reduced to parroting the army’s line on security issues, while the TTP is a significantly degraded force.

This tactical brilliance of the pak army make sure that nothing is lost for india.Its the only hope indian have that pak army will harm pakistan again with its tactically brilliant moves in the meanwhile india has to keep on absorbing the terror blows from pak.

 

[geoatpenn]

war is inevitable with pakistan.. its only a question of when. as much as we all hate it.. there is no mistaking the past. they will never let us live in peace.

 

[Vinod2070]

This tactical brilliance of the pak army make sure that nothing is lost for india.Its the only hope indian have that pak army will harm pakistan again with its tactically brilliant moves in the meanwhile india has to keep on absorbing the terror blows from pak.

Well, they are being made to pay. A hundred times!

They are having the equivalent of 1 Mumbai every month. Whether it is their own doing is a separate issue.

At thin point, I think it makes sense for India to lie low and let Pakistan implode or explode. It is inexorably going in that direction. We don't have much direct leverage, we can only help it along the path indirectly.

 

[Daredevil]

The patronage networks

The patronage networks

By Ayesha Siddiqa

Friday, 12 Feb, 2010 | 02:22 AM PST |


A COUPLE of months ago while walking through the F-9 park in Islamabad I met a young undergraduate studying information technology. He was critical of corrupt politics and the feudal mindset of the ruling elite. He was bitter about our leaders who he said do nothing but grab and exercise excessive power.

The conversation went fine until I asked him about his future plans. He wanted to take the civil service exams. Why won’t you pursue the profession for which you are training, I inquired. The answer was that he wanted to have power, since you cannot survive in the country without it.

I was reminded of a similar conversation I had with another person aspiring to join the civil service. This person was pursuing postgraduate studies abroad and wanted to become a bureaucrat to avenge the system that killed his parents. Being poor, the only option he had was to take his ailing parents to a government hospital without sifarish. Naturally the doctors on duty couldn’t care less and the man’s parents died. Now the young man who got an opportunity to go abroad for studies thought he would join the system and change it from within.

‘Changing the system from within’ is quite a popular argument. Those distressed by the ‘system’ are told to take it easy and watch the incremental changes which will be brought about by qualified bureaucrats or others. You are told to ‘look at the glass as being half-full rather than half-empty’. It’s your fault not to notice the small changes which have taken place or those that are in the pipeline.

Many of us must have met retired bureaucrats (both civil and military) and heard them talk endlessly about how well they ran the system. They will tell you about their adventures, their vision, brilliance and originality. Interestingly, all retired bureaucrats sound the same: lots of endless storytelling but no clue as to why their individual brilliance and that of their colleagues hasn’t made the state more efficient. They almost never confess to the sin of working the system just to enhance their own power.

Deep down I think the young men I talked to were lured by the power of ‘power’ and would eventually settle for greater nuisance value for themselves rather than change the system. In both cases I tried to tell them that they probably wanted to have more power just to serve themselves and would adapt to the ‘system’ rather than the other way round.

The civil and military bureaucracies in the country are two patronage groups which can assure entry into power circles. This does not mean that everyone aims to gain influence, but becoming part of a patronage network ensures you can survive in this environment. A common citizen has no value.

So ultimately things don’t improve. Just look at the menace of terrorism, for which we have no answers. According to the popular narrative it is the work of American, Indian and Israeli intelligence agencies. This means that the threat is enormous. But it shouldn’t necessarily mean that nothing can be done to counter it.

How about tactical moves like improving and sharing intelligence? The country has no system where different agencies can sit together and share critical information and technology to fight terror. The police generally do not have the capacity to intercept communications between terrorists. They have to go to military intelligence agencies to, for instance, trace mobile phone calls. So lack of timely information does not help the police as a lot often depends on interpersonal relations.As for sharing information at the organisational level, this is also a non-starter due to turf warfare. Thus opportunities like the newly established National Counter-Terrorism Authority (Nacta) are lost because every boss wants to be bigger than the other. This power-grabbing behaviour is replicated at all levels, the best example being the opposing views of the president and the army chief on ‘strategic depth.’ While the president being the head of state disowned this particular option, the army chief spoke openly about maintaining this framework.

Sadly no one bothers to even take responsibility for his or her actions. It was interesting to read in the newspaper that it was the Rangers’ sniffer dog that failed to detect the bomb that went off outside the Jinnah Hospital in Karachi. The government should now move rapidly and punish the dog lest he refuses to take the blame. Or perhaps even he might be accused of being a foreign agent.Such behaviour is also found among non-bureaucrats. One would not like to exclude well-trained and educated professionals like doctors, engineers and lawyers from this list. Taking responsibility also means subjecting yourself to accountability which, given the desire for individual power, is certainly not the goal. Will education change this? But then education is sought not for personal enlightenment but for social mobility of the kind that means greater nuisance value. The educated are some of the biggest crooks of our society.

Recent incidents like the death of children due to the alleged negligence of doctors who then failed to subject themselves or other members of their profession to accountability, the tragic death of Shazia Bashir Masih and the appalling behaviour of lawyers, or retired Brig Obaidullah Ranjha allegedly subjecting Professor Tahir Malik to brutality are all examples of what strong patronage networks can do for individual power.

Not allowing their colleagues to represent the 12-year-old girl’s family in court depicts the power lawyers have recently acquired by being part of a movement. Instead of making them conscious of the primacy of the rule of law, the movement for the restoration of the judiciary seems to have granted lawyers the right to be above the law.

The murdered girl’s family may also have little chance to knock on the doors of the PTI, JI and other parties because being a member of a minority group, Shazia Masih is perhaps not considered a daughter of the country. This case looks exceptional because no one wants to own it, which goes to show that it may not bolster the country’s reputation nationally and internationally.

As for the professor, he is up against the most stable patronage network. The brigadier accused of manhandling him may have resigned but the ex-army man is unlikely to pay a price that is commensurate with his actions. As for the boys mentioned in the beginning, I welcome them to the world of patronage networks which continue to thrive. That’s the only glass that’s full.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

[email protected]

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect...esha-siddiqa-the-patronage-networks-220-za-01

 

[Vinod2070]

view: Conspiracy theories and theorists —Ishtiaq Ahmed

Conspiracy theories and their authors become a cause for concern when they begin to hallucinate and can no longer distinguish between their own flights of imagination and the world around them. When they hijack a whole nation or community into another world, then they ought to be held accountable

These are very troubled times. Such times are a bonanza for conspiracy theorists because they know how best to simplify extremely complex situations while simultaneously grossly exaggerating the evil ingenuity of the plotters, and thus create thorough confusion. If such confusion can generate panic, then the conspiracy theorist has earned his living through real hard work. The art then is to top it off with an ending that results in the defeat of the evildoers. Such stuff is the bread and butter of writers of mystery stories and thrillers. Their works help shed everyday boredom, even if only for the moment.

Conspiracy theories and their authors become a cause for concern when they begin to hallucinate and can no longer distinguish between their own flights of imagination and the world around them. If such delirious moments only carry them into a world of make-believe, then the harm is limited. However, when they hijack a whole nation or community into another world, then they ought to be held accountable. When such characters appear in popular talk shows or, much worse, begin exploiting TV channels to present programmes full of war games and prophecies against a demonised group of plotters threatening the existence of a nation — nay, a universal community such as that of the Muslims — then I believe such persons should be held accountable for taking people on a ride with their yarns.

By now the readers must have guessed that I have no other person in mind other than Mr Zaid Hamid. Initially I was reluctant to comment on the farce he pedals in his talks and his TV programmes. The reason is that one can end up giving more importance to individuals than is due. On the other hand, the danger is that the angst and fears that run deep in Pakistani society will push our society even deeper into a pathological state of mind or national outlook. The daily bomb blasts by remote control or by suicide bombers, the galloping rate of unemployment and politicians who specialise in making a mockery of democracy and responsible governments have taken a huge toll on the spirits of the Pakistani people. Last year when I visited Lahore I took a long walk beginning from Anarkali up to Lohari Gate and then eastwards till I came to Mochi Gate. Then I walked down to Gawalmandi, from there I went down Nisbet Road till I came to Lakshmi Chowk. I can tell you that for the first time in my life I felt that Lahore was in mourning. People could not take any longer all the betrayal of hopes for a Pakistan without want and hunger.

Mr Zaid Hamid’s grand conspiracy has a happy ending, however. The Muslim world and the Islamic Ummah in general and Pakistan in particular are the victims of a Zionist-Brahminical-CIA-Mossad-RAW-MI5-MI6, and all the rest, plot, according to this celebrated defence and security analyst. Our only true friend is China. The latter of course is still wedded to Marxism-Leninism and thus to atheism, but that does not matter. Just as there are good and bad Taliban, there can be good and bad atheists. Is that not logical? Once upon a time, I remember, the Chinese with their special eye shape and high cheekbones, we were told, were the people that Islam would fight, also accordingly to some prophecies. That was of course when Pakistan and China had not become friends, whose friendship was later described as higher than the Himalayas. So, there is a season for prophecies — some come in while others go out.

Mr Zaid Hamid tells us not to worry. Pakistan is a nuclear power and the defeat of Hind (India) has been prophesied 1,400 years ago. It will not only be the end of India but Israel and the US and all other evil powers, including Russia. Pakistan and China and some true Muslims will triumph in the final father of all battles — the mother of all battles is dead since a long time, I believe. Hopefully then we will convert all the Chinese, otherwise what is the point?

What will happen to all the nuclear weapons that the enemies of Islam possess? Their total is in the thousands! Well, they will become un-useable or explode in their own countries so the Islamic forces will not be responsible for the genocide of billions of members of the human race. In any case, such details, which disturb the elegance of a simple but sensational conspiracy theory, have to be ignored. The green flag will fly atop the Delhi Fort as it should have had we not created Pakistan and denied ourselves that opportunity 63 years earlier.

Is there any chance that such prophecy may not hold or rather that no such prophecy has existed in the past and it has been manufactured by Mr Zaid Hamid to support his grand theory, which has already declared a Muslim victory? I think such questions should suffice to explain to interested readers to distinguish between conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

Attributing so much power to the Zionists or Mossad also makes no sense. The way Mossad has messed up its crime in Dubai when a hit squad was sent to assassinate a Hamas leader only shows that such an agency cannot sometimes manage even simple operations. RAW is even less likely to pull off an attack on Pakistan with impunity. Recently the Taliban killed a number of CIA operatives in Afghanistan. If Mossad-Raw-CIA were to join ranks, would they perform better or is it likely that in the absence of a common chain of command they can mess up things even more? I do not know. But I do know that neither Mr Zaid Hamid nor his theory allow for an error, and in any case whatever initial advantage these evil agencies and powers may have, our victory is a foregone conclusion. That is exactly a conspiracy theory.

Another thing to keep in mind is the following: conspiracies by their very nature are secretive and oftentimes catch their targets off-guard. ‘Et tu, Bruté?’ (Even you, Brutus?), exclaimed Julius Caesar, as his best friend joined other plotters and stabbed him to death. Of course his (Julius Caesar’s) wife, Calpurnia, had been seeing such a nightmare many times, Shakespeare informed his readers. So, maybe one can see visions about such happenings. In any case, conspiracy theories that have already exposed the culprits and punished them and defeated them are just flights of the imagination, or, could be deep dives into a bottomless void inside the belly of the earth.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National University of Singapore. He is also a Professor of Political Science at Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison State? He can be reached at [email protected]

 

[Singh]

CURRICULUM OF HATE​

Look What We Are Teaching At Public Schools

Pakistan’s public schools, which educate some 70 percent of the student population….
Prescribed textbooks for
Classes 4 and 5, attended by children aged 8 to 10, are bursting with anti-Hindu and anti-Sikh
themes. By Class 6, when students are typically 10 to 12 years old, anti-Christian, anti-British and anti-European indoctrination begins. Children are taught that the “Christians and Europeans were not happy to see the Muslims flourishing in life.”31 Anti-Jewish postulations are introduced in Class 7. In Classes 9-10, when students are typically 13 to 16 years old, the ‘importance of Jihad’ is cultivated.
Here are excerpts from textbooks:
Text No. 1
Class: 4
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 80-81
“Sikhs destroyed the Muslim towns from the river Sutlej to the river Jamna. A
number of times the Sikhs crossed the river Jamna and looted and destroyed the
settlements of the Muslims. They truned the mosques into their ‘Gurdawaras’,
demolished the shrines of the Muslim saints and burnt religious schools and
libraries.”
Authors: Dr Miss Ferozah Yasmeen, Dr Azhar Hamid, Mian Muhammad Javed
Akhtar, Nasir-ur-Din Ghaznavi, Muhammad Zubair Hashmi, Bashir-ud-Din Malik
and Qazi Ajjad Ahmed.
Comment (inside backcover): “The Punjab Texbook Board is your own
organization. It produces quality and cost effective textbooks for you.”
Text No. 2
Class: 4
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 83
“The Muslims of Pakistan provided all the facilities to the Hindus and Sikhs who
left for India. But the Hindus and Sikhs looted the Muslims in India with both
hands and they attacked their caravans, busses and railway trains. Therefore
about 1 million Muslims were martyred on their way to Pakistan.”
21
Authors: Dr Miss Ferozah Yasmeen, Dr Azhar Hamid, Mian Muhammad Javed
Akhtar, Nasir-ur-Din Ghaznavi, Muhammad Zubair Hashmi, Bashir-ud-Din Malik
and Qazi Ajjad Ahmed.
Comment (inside backcover): “Approved by Federal Ministry of Education,
Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.”
Text No. 3
Class: 4
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 84
“India invaded Lahore on the 6th of September, 1965 without any ultimatum. After
17 days, the Indian authorities laid down arms acknowledging the bravery and
gallantry of the Pak Army and civilians.”
Authors: Dr Miss Ferozah Yasmeen, Dr Azhar Hamid, Mian Muhammad Javed
Akhtar, Nasir-ur-Din Ghaznavi, Muhammad Zubair Hashmi, Bashir-ud-Din Malik
and Qazi Ajjad Ahmed.
Comment (inside backcover): “Approved by Federal Ministry of Education,
Government of Pakistan, Islamabad.”
Text No. 4
Class: 5
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 123
“When India was defeated in the war of 1965, she excited the Muslims of East
Pakistan against the Muslims of West Pakistan. For this prupose, Inida sought
the help of those Hindus who lived in East Pakistan. Ultimately, India attacked
East Pakistan in December 1971 and helped the East Pakistanis to sever their
relations with West Pakistan. Thus East Pakistan was separated from West
Pakistan. The East Pakistanis renamed their country Bangladesh. India
immediately recognized Bangladesh as an independent soverign state.”
Authors: Dr Ferozah Yasmeen, Mrs Zarina Asharf, Bashir-ud-din Malik, Prof
Mirza Munawwar and Mian Mohammed Javed.
Comment (inside frontcover): “To achieve a better standard of life, quality
education playes a pivotal role. My Government is trying hard to provide this
base (Ch Pervez Elahi, Chief Minister, Punjab.”
Text No. 5
Class: 5
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 123
22
“India is our traditional enemy and we should always keep ourselves ready to
defend out beloved country from Indian aggression.”
Authors: Dr Ferozah Yasmeen, Mrs Zarina Asharf, Bashir-ud-din Malik, Prof
Mirza Munawwar and Mian Mohammed Javed.
Comment (inside frontcover): “As for curriculum development, a team of
professional experts was assem,bled for writing of textbooks, which will prove
helpful in achieving the quality of education (Ch Pervez Elahi, Chief Minister,
Punjab.”
Text No. 6
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 100
“The foundation of Hindu set up was based on injustice and cruelty”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Comment (inside frontcover): “Our curriculum in the past was not in concert with
the requirements of modern times. I am pleased to note that the government has
not only given importance to the sovereignty and security of the country, but also
taken steps for the improvement of the quality of education and curriculum to
bring it in tune with the latest standards (Message from General Pervez
Musharraf).”
Text No. 7
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 63
“The religion has deep impact on the children in Bharat. The Hindu, Muslim, Sikh
and Christian children have their own separate identiy.”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Comment (insdie frontcover): “It is a historical fact that the Muslims ruled the
world for hundreds of years on the basis of the knowledge acquired by their
intellectuals, philosophers and scientitsts (Message from General Pervez
Musharraf).”
Text No. 8
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 54-55
“The Hindus claim Harijans as their integrated part but deal with them in the
same manner as they behave with Muslims and other communities.”
23
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Comment: “In the light of Islamic teachins and to meet the challenges of lifek, it
is incumbent upon all Pakistanis to devote their energies for acquiring knowledge
with special emphasis on computer and IT education ((Message from General
Pervez Musharraf).”
Text No. 9
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 95
“Conquest of Debul: A furious battle was fought between the two forces…..The
Muslims changed the slogan of Allah-o-Akbar and Catapult was operated and
started throwing heavy stones…….The Hindus lost all hopes. The enemy was
defeated and the fort was conquered.”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Text No. 10
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 95
“The Hindus began to embrace Islam in great nuimber due to the good and kind
treatment of Mulims.”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Text No. 11
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 96
“An Arab soldier cut the neck of Raja Dahir with sword who was riding an
elephant in a Howdaha. The sun of life of Raja Dahir set forever from the
universe on 10th of Ramdan 93 H.”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Text No. 12
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
24
Pages: 99
“Before the Arab conquest the people were fed up with the teachings of
Buddhists and Hindus. The main cause was the benign treatment of Muslims
with the Hindus. Due to this attitude Hindus began to love Muslims and they
became nearer and nearer to the Muslims.”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Text No. 13
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 99
“The Biritish sent rare books from these libraries to England. Thus the British
ruined the Muslim schools. They did not want that Islam should spread.”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Text No. 14
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 121
“Islam preached equality, brotherhood, and fraternity and respect for all people.
The caste system of the Hindus had made life of common man as miserable and
as such they were fed up with this system.”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Text No. 15
Class: 6
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 123
“The British changed the curriculum of Madrasas and they had their full say in
Education also they could change the syllabi according to their minds. The
teaching of Hadith and Fiqa was stopped all together. The British freely
distributed the literature of Christianity.”
Scripted & Translated by: Prof. Mian Muhammed Aslam, Prof. Muhammed
Farooq Malik and Qazi Sajjad Ahmed.
Text No. 16
Class: 7
Subject: Social Studies
25
Pages: 12
“Before Islam, people lived in untold misery all over the world.”
Writen by: Prof Dr M.H. Bokhari and Syed Hassan Tahir.
Text No. 17
Class: 7
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 13
“Some Jewish tribes also lived in Arabia. They lent money to workers and
peasants on high rates of interest and usurped their earnings. They held the
whole society in their tight grip because of the ever increasing compound
interest.”
Writen by: Prof Dr M.H. Bokhari and Syed Hassan Tahir.
Text No. 18
Class: 7
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 25
“History has no parallel to the extremely kind treatment of the Christians by the
Muslims. Still the Christian kingdoms of Europe were constantly trying to gain
control of Jerusalem. This was the cause of the crusades.”
Writen by: Prof Dr M.H. Bokhari and Syed Hassan Tahir.
Text No. 19
Class: 7
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 13
“All the Christian countries united against the Muslims and sent large armies to
attack the holy city of Jerusalem. These wars are called crusades because the
Pope, a head of the Christians, called a council of war. In this meeting he
declared that Jesus Christ sanctioned war against Muslims.”
Writen by: Prof Dr M.H. Bokhari and Syed Hassan Tahir.
Text No. 20
Class: 7
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 28
26
“During the Crusades, the Christians came in contact with the Muslims and
learnt that the Muslim culture was far superior to their lown.”
Writen by: Prof Dr M.H. Bokhari and Syed Hassan Tahir.
Text No. 21
Class: 7
Subject: Social Studies
Pages: 43
“European nations have been working during the past three centuries, through
conspiracies on naked aggression to subjugate the countries of the Muslim
world.”
Writen by: Prof Dr M.H. Bokhari and Syed Hassan Tahir.
Text No. 22
Class: 9-10
Subject: Pakistan Studies
Pages: 3
“The economic system of West was creating unsolvable problems and had failed
to do justice with the people.”
Authors: Muhammad Hussain Ch, Ali Iqtadar Mirza, Sheikh Anees, Rai Faiz
Ahmad Kharal, Syed Abbas Haidar and Dr Qais.
Comment: This text appears in the textbook being used in the current academic
year and was not part of the previous textbook.
Text No. 23
Class: 9-10
Subject: Pakistan Studies
Pages: 6
“Islamic society was devoid of every kind of evil….”
Authors: Muhammad Hussain Ch, Ali Iqtadar Mirza, Sheikh anees, Cai Faiz
Ahmad Kharal, Syed abbas Haidar and Dr Qais.
Comment: This text appears in the textbook being used in the current academic
year and was not part of the previous textbook.
Text No. 24
27
Class: 9-10
Subject: Pakistan Studies
Pages: 7
“One of the reasons of the downfall of the Muslims in the Sub-continent was the
lack of the spirit of Jihad.”
Text No. 25
Class: 9-10
Subject: Pakistan Studies
Pages: 10
“In Islam Jihad is very important…..The person who offers his life never
dies…..All the prayers nurture one’s passion for Jihad.”
Text No. 26
Class: 9-10
Subject: Pakistan Studies
Pages: 17
“Shah Wali Ullah (RA) was a mujadid of the 18th century….He knew that the
Sikhs, Marhattas were the enemies of Muslims.”
Text No. 27
Class: 9-10
Subject: Pakistan Studies
Pages: 20
“……according to Islamic point of view there were only two nations on eath, one
the Muslims and the other the non-Muslim.”
Text No. 28
Class: 9-10
Subject: Pakistan Studies
Pages: 53
“Education sector in East Pakistan was totally under the control of Hindus.
Under the guidance of India they fully poisoned the minds of Bangalis against
Pakistan and aroused their sentiments.”
Text No. 29
Class: 12
Subject: Pakistan Studies
Pages: 4
28
“Great importance is given to Jihad (struggle) in Islam…….And always keep one
self ready to sacrifice one’s life and property is jihad…..The basic purpose of all
submissions and jihad is to keep oneself follower of the good will of Allah
Almighty.”
Authors: Muhammad Farooq Malik, Rai Faiz Ahmad Kharal, Muhammad
Hussain Ch., Dr Sultan Khan and Khadim Ali Khan.

http://aacounterterror.wordpress.com/here-is-what-70-of-student-population-in-pakistan-study/

Link to original report in pdf format http://www.crss.pk/Res-Reports/Curriculum of Hate.pdf

 

[Singh]

Instant Pundit

Instant Pundit​

Pakistan is a nightmare of a country to be an expert on. They can never decide on whom to vote for, you can’t trust the news feed, it’s no fun to travel to, the weather is perpetually hot, they don’t serve alcohol and there’s always the thrilling chance of being blown to bits en route to pick up chooris for the begum.

Never fear. For all its unpredictability, Pakistan is a fantastically simple country to be an expert on. Here’s how.

1. It’s all over. Know this. Print it out, superglue it to your mirror. The Pakistani State Will Disintegrate… Soon. Very Soon. The exact details of how or when this will happen can be filled in at leisure. Politely listen to arguments on how the economy is actually stabilizing, how students are more interested in finding jobs than strapping on explosive jackets, how democracy may actually be taking off. This makes you at best, a low-level analyst on South Asian security. However, if you sidle up to the right people at the right time and whisper “you know personally I don’t think it’s going to last very long” you are suddenly catapulted into the elite category of Expert. It doesn’t matter if your predictions are off by a decade or so. As long as you’re there when the next big Pakistani politician gets shot at a rally to say “Aha. Told you so.”

2. Hold everything and anything in Pakistan accountable to the Terrorism Problem. Fashion shows, artists, rock stars. It doesn’t matter if the man you’re interviewing (see Noori’s interview for the NYTimes, for example) has smoked more pot than the entire freshman cohort of UC Berkeley, make a really big deal when he says things like “terrorists are a small problem in Pakistan.”

I cannot emphasize this point enough. Whether you’re talking to bondage gear manufacturers in Karachi, brewery owners in Murree, classical singers in Lahore or porn stars in Peshawar – ask them about terrorism. If they shrug and say “eh, it’s no big deal,” immediately conclude that Pakistan’s anti-Western pro-Taliban anti-Semitic radicalism is spiraling out of control and it’s only a matter of time before the entire country comes out on the streets demanding their nuclear weapons be used against US, India and Israel. Heap praise on supermodels for their bravery and valor in the face of Islamization, accompany blog posts with pictures of college girls in short shalwar kameezes texting on flashy iPhones: “Defying Death: The Pakistani Youth.” Remember, pretty women sell more copies.

3. Pakistan has a complicated political system. One Parliament, one Senate, one semi-politicized judiciary; two major political parties, four provinces… I’ve lost you already, haven’t I? Relax. Here are some key phrases that cut out the hassle of studying the country’s political or economic history.

Say “Mr Ten Percent” to anyone – anyone – and you will instantly be hailed as a true insider. “President Zardari, also known as Mr. Ten Percent” is a key phrase you must attempt to insert into every op-ed you write. Just in case people were under the impression that he’s going by some other alias these days. Hating on President Zardari is rivalled only by cricket as a national sport; even ex-pats get into it.

“Radicalized individuals within the Pakistan military/ISI” – another great phrase. Be vigilant – constantly look out for sound bytes from Generals in the Pakistan Army against sharing nuclear secrets, accepting civilian interference, or allowing drone attacks. Make frequent allusions to Zia’s Islamization campaign in the 70’s. Finally, insert the fact that the Pakistan army was/is trained to fight Indians. This is especially useful at press conferences: for example, the next time you see a Pakistani official ask them why the army doesn’t simply hand over classified information on nukes to the CIA – is it because they secretly hate America? Really, whats the big deal, they’ve only spent the last three decades and the better part of their GDP building a missile defense system against a country they’ve fought three wars with. It’s only nuclear weapons, for chrissake.

“Radicalization of Pakistani society.” Reuters has an archive titled “Bearded Pakistani Men Burning American Flags”. Use it. Call up Pakistan’s resident experts on “radicalization of Pakistani society” – Pervez Hoodbhoy, Nadeem Paracha, Shehzad Roy, Meera, whatever – and ask them what they think. Act surprised when they tell you that in fact, Pakistani society is becoming irreversibly radicalized. Frequently cite Zaid Hamid and the Jamat ud Dawa as prime examples. Because PPP may have swept the polls, but you know the silent majority really backed the fundos. Because they’re a bunch of rabid fundos themselves, they just don’t know it yet.

Remember these basic guidelines and you have a long, illustrious career ahead of you – as a political pundit in Washington. Or even, who knows, as a member of Holbrooke’s team. Just remember, complexity is for academic losers.

http://erumhaider.wordpress.com/

 

[Yusuf]

There are all mature and educated people on this forum. Two of its mods are muslims. One sikh. All others are from all parts of the country making it a pluralistic board. No one does any bashing here. Its bitter truth nothing else.
We are open to all views and you too are welcome to post your views. If you have anything to rebut, please go ahead. But please use civil language and don't get personal. We value all opinions.

 

[ISI]

There are all mature and educated people on this forum. Two of its mods are muslims. One sikh. All others are from all parts of the country making it a pluralistic board. No one does any bashing here. Its bitter truth nothing else.
We are open to all views and you too are welcome to post your views. If you have anything to rebut, please go ahead. But please use civil language and don't get personal. We value all opinions.

Buddy look around ur forum.Do u find anything NOT anti Pakistan bashing?ur talking about disintigrating pakistan to so called identity criss wats this ?does look mature.
You want to see maturity please see Pakistani forum.Else if this singh guy who seems to be so anti-pakistan wants to ban me.
Well what can i say except SURE DO BOSS BAN ME.

 

[Yusuf]

Division of pakistan is a discussion of an idea. What's wrong about it? There are a few who disagree to doing that. There are a few who want it.
At least we are discussing it on a forum. On the other hand its the stated policy of pakistan to divide india by all means.
See mate we don't do any bashing here. its a matter of opinion. You will appreciate the fact that all language is civil. We don't even allow derogatory words commonly used for pakistan as its unprofessional. You are free to raise your points.