Pakistan's Ideology and Identity crisis

[Oracle]

Hindu legislator from Pak's Sindh flees to India

A Hindu member of Pakistan's Sindh assembly has resigned from his seat after taking refuge in India, following life threats received by him.
Ram Singh Sodho was elected as a member of the Sindh assembly on the quota of 'reserved seats for minorities' in the 2008 general elections.

After receiving some security threats, Sodho fled to India, from where he sent his resignation to Sindh Assembly Speaker Nisar Ahmad Khoro, The Nation reported.

The resignation has been accepted with immediate effect.

Sindh Assembly Secretary and Pakistan Muslim League - Qaid's parliamentary leader Abdul Razzak Rahimoon confirmed that Sodho, PML-Q's minority MPA from Thar, had tendered his resignation from his assembly seat.

Sodho cited 'some unavoidable reasons' behind his resignation, The News quoted Rahimoon as saying.

A telephonic contact was also made with the minority legislator before the approval of his resignation by Speaker Nisar Ahmed Khuhro, the Sindh assembly secretary added.

However, according to him, Sodho has been getting medical treatment in India, where his doctors have advised him to avoid travelling.

Sodho was a senior legislator who had also served as the Naib Nazim of district Thar.

Incidents of kidnapping for ransom have seen an alarming rise during the last few months, forcing many families to abandon their homes and shift to India or other countries.

Source

 

[Hud]

On BR people like shiv and others are having a major change of heart, they are saying that only the Pakistani elite Hate us with full heart where as the mango abduls just want Maduri Dixit. According to them Pakistani commoners would be more happy to engage with us Than with China and US because we are ones who would be interested in their maize and wheat. What US and china would offer would only reach their army and elite.
I agree with this but i have a question what will happens when these abdul more up the soical ladder or becaome the Rapes(sorry for using BR terminology). No denying to the fact that not every one can become the part of Rape. But these pakistani abduls come from the same cess pool which we totally disdain. They have IQ level of an Donkey.
Now its time we all worked together at destroying Pakistan and we need to pay more attention on eduacting and providing other neccasry things to our 60 -70 disavatnged population and come up with export parks and do what China is doing. And West would be more willing to import from us than China owing to obvious reasons.
And we shuld not be sacred if Mullahs take power in Pakistan because we have seen their Army and Rapes pathetic rule and their crimes towards India. I don't think Mullahs can better their records against us.The Americans and west are scared of Maullahs. Rapes are scared of Mullah because their wining and party days will be over and no more Chanda from the west.

JMT

 

[civfanatic]

On BR people like shiv and others are having a major change of heart, they are saying that only the Pakistani elite Hate us with full heart where as the mango abduls just want Maduri Dixit. According to them Pakistani commoners would be more happy to engage with us Than with China and US because we are ones who would be interested in their maize and wheat. What US and china would offer would only reach their army and elite.
I agree with this but i have a question what will happens when these abdul more up the soical ladder or becaome the Rapes(sorry for using BR terminology). No denying to the fact that not every one can become the part of Rape. But these pakistani abduls come from the same cess pool which we totally disdain. They have IQ level of an Donkey.
Now its time we all worked together at destroying Pakistan and we need to pay more attention on eduacting and providing other neccasry things to our 60 -70 disavatnged population and come up with export parks and do what China is doing. And West would be more willing to import from us than China owing to obvious reasons.
And we shuld not be sacred if Mullahs take power in Pakistan because we have seen their Army and Rapes pathetic rule and their crimes towards India. I don't think Mullahs can better their records against us.The Americans and west are scared of Maullahs. Rapes are scared of Mullah because their wining and party days will be over and no more Chanda from the west.

JMT

Pakistan is essentially a Feudal country. Just like in Medieval Europe, the most powerful class are the land-owning aristocrats, and their rule is enforced by the knights (Pakistan Mullah Army).

 

[ajtr]

Pakistan - South Asia's sick man

Shahid Javed Burki: Pakistan - South Asia's sick man​

As they struggle to pull the economy from the edge of a precipice, policy makers in Islamabad would do well to learn from India and Bangladesh

Shahid Javed Burki / January 29, 2011

Today, Pakistan is South Asia's sick man. This year – the financial year ending on June 30 – if the Pakistani economy grows at all, the rate of increase will be no more than the rate of growth in population. This means that there will be no increase in average income and, for most of the population, income per head will decline. This will add another 10 million to the pool of poverty, bringing the total to over 70 million. In the immediate future, the national output is likely to increase at a rate less than one-half of that expected for Bangladesh and one-third of that projected for India.

I pointed this out to Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari in a recent meeting. He responded by saying that by comparing the performances of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan I was comparing apples and oranges. India had had a democratic system of government for more than 60 years and Bangladesh had been under democratic rule for a longer period than Pakistan. He said he had inherited a damaged economy and a dysfunctional political system from a military dictator. His government's first priority was to provide the country with a political system that was fully representative of the wishes of the citizenry.

My purpose for bringing to the attention of the Pakistani president the divergent tracks being followed by the major economies of mainland South Asia was to suggest that there were public policy lessons to be learnt from the development experiences of India and Bangladesh. However, upon reflection I thought that the president was raising a valid point: the importance of a democratic system for sustained economic development. One thing that stood out in India's case – and to some extent also in the case of Bangladesh – was the continuity in the making of economic policy. In a democratic system policy makers would not be allowed to make sudden changes in the direction of policy unless it was warranted. The Indian electorate punished Indira Gandhi when she put the country under an emergency. It rewarded the Congress party when it gave up, during a period of deep financial crisis, the discredited "license raj" in favour of a more open economy. In Pakistan, however, the roller coaster political ride – alternating between civilian and military rules – had also resulted in wide swings in the economic priorities pursued by those in power.

Other than this explanation based on the impact of development in politics on economic performance, are there other reasons why Pakistan is lagging so far behind Bangladesh and India? What has the country not done that its neighbours have to better the lives of their citizens? There are three telling differences between the direction of economic policy taken by India and Pakistan and two when we compare Bangladesh and Pakistan. Taken together, these five provide some ideas to the policy makers in Islamabad as they struggle to pull the economy from the edge of a precipice. Let me start with the three things Indians have done differently compared to Pakistan.

It was perhaps a combination of Mahtama Gandhi's emphasis on self-reliance and Jawaharlal Nehru's attraction to socialism in the style of the Soviet Union that kept India from becoming dependent on external flows for financing development. Today, more than six decades after the two countries achieved Independence, the Indian rate of domestic savings and its tax-to-GDP ratio are more than twice that of Pakistan. Islamabad has had to go repeatedly to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to save itself from bankruptcy. India needed to do that only once in the last quarter century.

New Delhi put a great deal of emphasis on developing public sector institutions of education, training and learning in a number of sectors. The famed institutions of administration and technology have produced skilled people who have led some important parts of the Indian economy. They also constitute the core of the community of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs), who are playing an important role in transforming the Indian economy at this time. Pakistan does not have a single such institution in the public sector.

The third important difference is that the Indians have allowed the development of scale in the modern sectors of their economy. Consequently, some of the Indian firms are now of the size and competence to challenge those in the West. The Indian firm has arrived on the international scene. That may have happened in Pakistan's case too but for the nationalisation undertaken by former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the early 1970s. He was, in a way, adopting the Indian socialist model of economic management without realising that India built up the state sector through investment, not expropriation of private assets.

The two differences that stand out between Bangladesh and Pakistan are in the areas of industrial policy and the treatment of women in the workforce. Dhaka adopted a model of development that put small enterprises at the centre of the economic stage. Such micro-lenders as the Grameen Bank and BRAC were able to provide small amounts of capital to hundreds of thousands of small entrepreneurs, most of them women. These enterprises contributed to the development of the ready-made garment industry which, in turn, encouraged the participation of women in the workforce. This development model, focused on women, has produced the most rapid demographic change in South Asia. The increase in the median age of the population was more rapid in Bangladesh than any other South Asian country.

There is, in other words, enough experience available in South Asia for policy makers in Pakistan to formulate a development approach to pull their country out of tremendous economic difficulties it faces at this time.

The writer is former finance minister of Pakistan and former vice-president, World Bank

 

[ajtr]

........................................................

 

[ajtr]

Forfeiting the Future : Pakistan's crisis can't simply be explained by religion​

Forfeiting the Future : Pakistan's crisis can't simply be explained by religion
....
Once again, in an echo of the aftermath of Benazir Bhutto's assassination in 2007, political commentators have depicted Pakistan facing a grave crisis, one caused by a more or less natural progression of rightist Islamic ideologies, whose dominance has erased not only liberal and secular thought but all possible futures for the nation-state.

Such ahistorical views take as given that these conservative, sectarian and militant ideologies emerge organically from Islamic theology—and reflect, in turn, the inevitable effect of growing religiosity in Pakistan. The fault, dear Brutus, lies in the Crescent.

It is clear, of course, that a rather biased and selective understanding of the Muslim past and Islamic theology underlines the violence and fear widely on display in Pakistan. It is valid to ask what enables a columnist to make the illogical leap of equating speech against a legal principle to speech against the dominant religious truth? In a nation of over 90 percent religious conformity, why this sense of deep, abiding fear that some word, some gesture, will unravel the very fabric of belief? Why does the Prophet need Pakistan to defend him?

It behooves us to look for answers beyond the scripture and practice of Islam—for such mass hysteria is not evident among Muslims in Bangladesh or Malaysia or Tunisia or China or America—and toward the political life of religious discourse in South Asia. What we find, in fact, is a long history of the politicisation of the Prophet in Pakistani civil society; tracing its development is critical if we are to understand what possible futures still exist for Pakistan. ...


...This particular prescription by Iqbal did not seem to make much of an impact in colonial India. Iqbal, of course, wasn't advocating any great shift in doctrine; Muhammad is the central figure of Islam and his figure is revered above all. Yet, after the tumultuous birth of Pakistan, there was indeed a change. Pakistan's emergence was soon connected, in narratives both political and religious, to the Prophet—he appeared in dreams to key figures to foretell the division of India and his sayings were variously interpreted to prophesise the role of Islam in Pakistan's political life. Yet, in Zia-ul-Haq's Pakistan, the Prophet became part of the daily political life in a way that would have been unimaginable to Muslims in the 1910s. Routinely, politicians professed to receive divine sanction from the Prophet for their decision to endorse a public platform or to run for office or to oppose the call for democratic reform; the sunnah—the daily habits of the Prophet—became axiomatic and emblematic rules for everyday life. ...

Iqbal's poetry, and his concept of the Prophet as mard-e kamil (The Perfect Man), was a key component of Zia-ul-Haq's Sunnification politics...

Taseer's cold-blooded murder, and the chilling response to his assassination, reveals less about the crass "Islamisation" of the Pakistani public and more about a deeply entrenched political program that routinely marshals potent symbols against critical voices. The evident success of this program, however, does not erase the fact that the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis battle stark poverty, high inflation, and a lack of access to basic facilities. Even as Islamist parties orchestrate demonstrations against blasphemers, every day brings another demonstration against rising electricity and gas prices and the pernicious effects of "load-shedding." There are, in other words, many other potent narratives available to those in Pakistan who seek to change the cultural and political landscape. Vigilante or terrorist violence cannot be the last word in this discourse, and history itself cannot remain silent.

 

[ajtr]

The myth of ideological frontiers​

—Yasser Latif Hamdani

The great irony of the ideological debate is that the self-styled champions of Pakistan's ideological frontiers are those who were the staunchest opponents of the creation of Pakistan

Pakistan is a legal nation state, one of the two successor states to erstwhile British India and duly recognised by all countries of the world. A legal nation state does not need to construct ideological frontiers, which, for the most part, are a fallacy and not based on anything concrete.

A TV discussion recently pit two firebrand anchors of the right, Mr Kamran Shahid and Mr Orya Maqbool Jaan, against my old friend Raza Rumi, who tried in vain to reason with them. The basic point that Mr Kamran Shahid and Mr Orya Maqbool Jaan insisted on was that India was an enemy of the ideological heritage of Pakistan and therefore all connection with India must be severed. Mr Orya Maqbool Jaan went so far as to state that if we were going to be friends, there was no need to draw a line. In other words, Mr Orya Maqbool Jaan was seconding the Indian nationalist narrative that Pakistan was founded on hate.

Ironically, however, this view cuts against the grain of the rationale for Pakistan that was given by its founding father, Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who repeatedly described Pakistan as a Hindu-Muslim settlement and necessary for peace, tranquillity and harmony for all people in the subcontinent. Far from imagining India as an ideological enemy, Jinnah spoke of a South Asian Monroe Doctrine, which would allow India and Pakistan to stand together against external threats. At least till December 1946, Jinnah was still pleading for a judicial commission to resolve disputes between Congress and the League to revive the Cabinet Mission Plan. Jinnah always had a sense of South Asian unity above the successor states. After Pakistan was created, Jinnah chose a Hindu, Jagannath Azad, to write Pakistan's first national anthem, indicating the inclusive and pluralistic nature of the new state.

At the very least, he was not concerned about Pakistan's ideological frontiers when he agreed to Gandhi spending his last days in Pakistan. Gandhi would have had he not been so tragically assassinated. Incidentally, 64 years to this day, Jinnah sent Gandhi's son a message of condolence describing his loss to be the "loss of humanity". For three days, Radio Pakistan's programming was completely dedicated to the life and times of Mahatma Gandhi. Yet, there was not even a whimper of protest from the founding fathers about the invasion of ideological frontiers. Indeed, Pakistan's flag flew half-mast for three days in mourning.

The great irony of this ideological debate is that the self-styled champions of Pakistan's ideological frontiers are those who were the staunchest opponents of the creation of Pakistan. One need not remind the reader that Maulana Maududi proudly described the idea of Pakistan as "Na-Pakistan" and slandered the Quaid-e-Azam many times in public. Maulana Mufti Mahmud, the father of Maulana Fazlur Rehman, declared in 1971, "Thank God we were not part of the sin of making Pakistan." Yet another self-proclaimed champion of Pakistan's ideological frontiers was Agha Shorish Kashmiri, who belonged to the Majlis-e-Ahrar, which opposed the creation of Pakistan tooth and nail and after partition created the whole anti-Ahmeddiya sentiment to destabilise Pakistan. Agha Shorish Kashmiri even invented an interview with Maulana Azad to discredit the idea of Pakistan. This, however, did not stop him from claiming all sorts of hogwash in the name of ideological frontiers.

It may be remembered that neither Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah nor any of his associates committed the state to any official ideology. No resolution, be it a Muslim League working committee resolution or a constituent assembly resolution, was ever passed along these lines. A few attempts were made but were vetoed by Quaid-e-Azam himself. To an enthusiastic Leaguer proclaiming "Pakistan ka matlab kiya" (what does Pakistan mean?), Jinnah was forthright in declaring that no such resolution was ever passed by the Muslim League.

The term 'ideology of Pakistan' was first introduced officially by General Sher Ali Pataudi during Yahya Khan's rule. General Pataudi was an exceptionally rigid and narrow-minded officer by all accounts. His introduction of the ideology of Pakistan was to take care of anti-state Bengali dissidents. Ironically, the leading victim of this manufactured ideology of Pakistan was Sheikh Mujibur Rehman, who had risen from the ranks of the Pakistan Movement and the Direct Action Day protest of August 16, 1946. Soon afterwards, the so-called ideology was used to butcher Bengalis, who had contributed more than anyone else to the creation of Pakistan. These days it is used against the minorities of Pakistan and its liberals.

Hamza Alavi once described secularists and liberals to be the true inheritors of Pakistan's real ideology. Unfortunately, in the Pakistan we live in today, Kamran Shahids and Orya Jaan Maqbools have taken to calling these true inheritors of Pakistan's real ideology "liberal fascists". I suppose they are fascists because they advocate a civilised democratic polity where everyone would have equal rights. The word absurd feels so hollow when describing the state of affairs in Pakistan.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.net and can be reached at [email protected]

 

[Rage]

Limits to 'liberalism' in Pakistan
January 31, 2011 11:11:56 PM


In the wake of Salman Taseer's assassination there has been an outpouring of lamentation in Pakistan at the passing away of 'liberalism'. Concern has been expressed over the ever-shrinking space for 'liberal discourse'. But how genuine is 'liberalism' in Pakistan or the desire for a 'liberal' state? Will 'liberalism' change the fundamentals of Pakistani policy? Will it neutralise the military-jihadi complex? Rohan Joshi poses some tough questions

The assassination of Salmaan Taseer has rightly triggered introspection and discourse in Pakistan on identity — social, religious and national. Articles written by commentators like Raza Rumi, Huma Yusuf, Ayesha Siddiqa, Yaseer Latif Hamdani and Shehryar Taseer on the marginalisation of the liberal narrative in mainstream politics deserve special mention and commendation. There is, however, no dearth of the alternative message in Pakistan.

Almost immediately after the death of Punjab Province Governer Salman Taseer, the Barelvi organisation, Jamaat Ahle Sunnat, issued a statement advising Muslims to neither mourn the assassination nor attend the his funeral. Further, PML(N) spokesperson Siddiq ul-Farooq claimed that Salman Taseer would have been assassinated by someone else had Mumtaz Qadri not done so. Veteran journalist Irfan Siddiqui suggested that while Salman Taseer's assassination cannot be condoned, it was expected, given the Governor's "liberal extremist" views. Another journalist with the Urdu newspaper Jang, Ansar Abbasi, virtually endorsed Salman Taseer's murder by stating that the "court of the people" had the right to kill any "blasphemer".

A parallel discourse is also occurring in the West and in India. In his op-ed in The Guardian, Declan Walsh lamented on the fate of the liberal Pakistani, as did Seema Mustafa in her op-ed in Greater Kashmir. An overarching theme in many commentaries is that a liberal Pakistan is in India's interests; that a liberal Pakistani civilian Government would (not to say 'could') radically alter its worldview, foreign policy objectives and how it seeks to achieve them.

The trouble with this argument, of course, is that a liberal Pakistani civilian Government has never existed. Indeed, civilian Governments themselves have been a rarity, accounting for only 29 of Pakistan's 63-year history (and this is a charitable statistic, given the significantly skewed civil-military power dynamics in Pakistan). Even so, some commentaries point to Benazir Bhutto and her administrations of the late-1980s and 1990s as approximate models for a liberal, democratic Pakistani state.

However liberal though Bhutto may have been, Pakistan's worldview did not undergo material change during her leadership. Bilateral relations with India did not improve. If anything, Bhutto's reign coincided with the height of the Jammu & Kashmir insurgency fomented by Pakistan, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and military personnel. On nuclear proliferation, the foundation of Pakistan's clandestine trade with North Korea, exchanging uranium enrichment expertise for missile technology, was established during Bhutto's second term in office.

One account relates to Bhutto's personal involvement in the process, where she carried CDs containing scientific data about uranium in her overcoat pocket and concluded the bomb-for-missile deal with Pyongyang in 1993. In fact, Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme and the motivation to match India to the detriment of all else took shape under the leadership of her charismatic father, the wine-drinking, University of California Berkeley-educated Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto (who famously declared "(We) will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry. But we will get (a bomb) of our own." Even Salman Taseer, who is now being praised as a champion of liberal thought in Pakistan for his laudable defence of Asia Bibi (a Pakistani Christian sentenced to death for blasphemy), held rabid anti-India views and did not shy away from any opportunity to advertise them.

It is important, therefore, for us to understand if there is a threshold beyond which liberal opinion in Pakistan (especially on the more contentious of subjects) converges with long-held institutional positions of the conservatives and/or the military-jihadi complex. Answering this will allow India and the US to determine if and to what extent they have a vested interest in the promotion of a liberal narrative in Pakistan and if it is desirable for them to assist in the advancement of this liberal position.

It would, therefore, be a worthy exercise to ponder over five questions on what a model for a liberal Pakistan would look like, and whether a liberal dispensation in Pakistan is a sufficient condition to alter the trajectory of its relationship with India. For us in India,

# Would the ascendancy of a liberal narrative in Pakistan's internal discourse lessen our own threat perception of our neighbour?

*Could a liberal Government in Islamabad effectively end the hold that the military-jihadi complex has on Pakistan's formulation and implementation of foreign policy objectives?

*Would this liberal Government still maintain that India poses an existential threat to Pakistan?

*What will its position be towards Jammu & Kashmir? Specifically, would this liberal Government continue to believe that it is in Pakistan's interest to continue to employ sub-conventional warfare as an instrument of state policy in Jammu & Kashmir?

*What will its position be on terrorism and terrorist havens in Pakistan? If another Mumbai were to occur, would this liberal regime disavow these groups? Actively confront them? Prosecute them? Extradite them, where permissible, to India? Cooperate with India's own investigation?

*Would it continue to maintain, by extension of #2, continue to promote the idea of 'strategic depth' in Afghanistan, to counter India's 'attempts at encirclement'? Tough questions no doubt, but ones that need to be answered in India, as an internal battle for identity rages on in Pakistan.


http://www.dailypioneer.com/311437/Limits-to-‘liberalism’-in-Pakistan.html

 

[ajtr]

Polarisation and a threatened future ​

It was a sad day in parliamentary history when some senators refused to offer fateha (prayer for the dead) for the soul of late Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer. Senators of the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) not only refused to offer fateha, some of them even walked out of the Senate. What came as the biggest surprise was the refusal of Senator Abdul Khaliq Pirzada of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM). The MQM is one of the first parties to have called Mr Taseer a 'shaheed' (martyr) and condemned his brutal assassination. The MQM also supports a liberal democracy instead of a theocratic state. Though the MQM has distanced itself from Senator Pirzada's refusal, calling it an individual act, it is still shameful that a senator of a secular political party has chosen to defy his party line. It shows how bigoted even some of our 'representatives' are.

On the other hand, Pakistan Ulema Council Chairman Allama Tahir Ashrafi told a private television channel that the JUI-F was playing politics in the name of Islam for its vested interest. Allama Ashrafi called Mumtaz Qadri a murderer and said those declaring him a hero were wrong. It is indeed unfortunate that the right-wing fundamentalists have become the complainants, judge and jury as far as the blasphemy laws are concerned. Mr Taseer was declared a blasphemer by illiterate mullahs despite the fact that he was a Muslim and did not make any un-Islamic statement in his entire life. Declaring a Muslim an infidel is a sin according to Islam. Those who are indulging in such evil practices are violating our religion's injunctions.

The Pakistani nation is between a rock and a hard place. If the country allows itself to be hijacked by right-wing hardliners, things will go from bad to worse. It is time to rally for sanity and end this polarisation in society. The government has made it clear that the blasphemy laws will not be altered. But it is the need of the hour not to allow the misuse of the blasphemy laws to continue. Paralysis because of the fear of an extremist backlash will only further embolden the militant forces. Pakistan cannot afford to give in to this fear. It is time to stand up to these forces in order to save this country's future. *



Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Rage]

Ah, so here's what it is!


Pakistan Believes in Prayer, Not Cure



While the world is moving ahead, Pakistan will be stuck behind.




P.S. Where are all the 'fair' Pakistanis? Or is this India I'm looking at?

 

[ajtr]

True Lies​

For Muslims, the day of Friday is blessed. It is the juma prayers that bring many Muslims to the mosque, clad in their freshly washed and starched shalwar kameez. Mosques in Pakistan witness their highest attendance on Friday – a good thing for the maulvis who lead the khutbah. The more people present, the more the impact.

Last Friday, there was reason to celebrate. Pakistan test fired its Hataf 2 (Abdali) missile that has a range of 180 miles – another feather in the cap of the armed forces and its engineers. Pakistan is safer today courtesy the latest addition to our weapons arsenal. Maybe there's hope for hundreds of people who gather in mosques on Friday, or collect to offer namaz-e-janaza. Perhaps our nuclear capability will also offer some security to the minorities – may the Hataf protect them from false fatwas issued by clerics ordaining their death.

A few hours later India tested its Prithvi-II missile and burst my bubble. For us, our enemy is still across the border – and aren't we glad Pakistan tested its ballistic missile first. Our powerful army has the India problem sorted. Bless them. But isn't that what we thought in 1965, in 1971 and in 1999? The greatest threat to Pakistan security is always being 'sorted'. And if the cause is so noble, then why are we fed lies by both - our political leaders and our military establishment?

In 1965, we read in our textbooks that India attacked Pakistan in the middle of the night for no reason or because some of their generals wanted to have a non-vegetarian meal at the Lahore Gymkhana! But then I grew up and found out that we started this confrontation by picking a fight along, what we now refer to, as the LoC. India overreacted by starting a war on international borders. Why is it so hard for us to speak the complete truth? The truth is that Pakistan believes that it has a legitimate right on Kashmir and history is rife with war attempts we have made to take over what is already ours. Then why not accept it? Why exaggerate the Indian threat and undermine our own confrontational policies.

The lies carried on in 1971. We had West Pakistan believe that we were on a winning streak till the 15th of December. However, on the morning of the 16th we had lost East Pakistan. We were also told that the Pakistan Army was up against just a bunch of mukti bahinis – however, truth be told, we were actually fighting against the entire nation of East Pakistan. Ironically, we were fighting against those in '71 who had helped build what we stand for since '47.

Come 1979 and we started living another lie. For ten years, we were told that Pakistan was just a source of moral support for the mujahideen waging jihad against the Soviets. The truth: we were creating an enabling environment for them to grow in. We were responsible not just for their recruitment but also their training. We were fighting a war against a superpower for another superpower, which we now identify as the greatest evil. Yet, she was our only companion through most of these lies. With the Soviet War ending, we decided to morally engage ourselves in "our jugular vein" – Kashmir. Again our 'moral support' included training camps, militant groups and a few operations, Kargil being one of them.

The Kargil War, we were told was initiated and fought by the mujahideen. Again, we were only 'morally' supporting them. Yet, hundreds of our soldiers were martyred – and there were brave men like Lalak Jan Shaheed who sustained serious injuries as enemies pounded the area with heavy mortar shells. It is these foot soldiers that protect us from internal and external threat. While the Pakistan government continued to harp on its "successes" in Kargil, Pakistani media – over the years – discovered that not only was Kargil Pakistan's misadventure, but also a diplomatic disaster. And the world was no longer sympathetic to the cause of religious militancy.

That's the power of an independent media. The truth finds its way to the people, as it did in the case of Kargil. However, in '65 and '71 there was only state-controlled media and we were made to believe what now appears to be only the partial truth. This evasiveness has led our Establishment to control our thoughts and speech. We blame political forces for diplomatic disasters, forgetting that the only constant throughout our 63 years of existence has remained our military establishment.

We drone on endlessly about drone strikes, sometimes blaming the US, at other times demanding explanation from our political leaders. However, when Major General Ghayur Mehmood gave his personal assessment to the media in Miranshah, hardly anyone noticed. In what he termed his 'personal assessment' the General said that most of those killed in drone strikes were "hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants". Some media gurus demanded the General be court martialled. Not a whimper from the ISPR. The establishment needs to come clean on whether the drone strikes are indeed helping get rid of militants or killing innocent civilians. They shouldn't allow the drones to continue in either case. But at least we should know who is the driving force behind these pilotless drones? They should not be allowed to fan the flames of extremism in the garb of their hidden 'interests'.

These lies have helped create a nation with strange characteristics. We would go to war with India in an instant, yet just one Indian entertainment channel has more viewership in Pakistan than all Pakistani channels combined. We will continue to see our people die in bomb blasts and wonder where these 'terrorists' came from. No one concedes to the fact that these terrorists were bred for our own "national interest" and "strategic depth".

Years and years of concocted lies, artificial or make-believe truth has led our nation to suffer from a multiple personality disorder and paranoia. We smell a conspiracy at every corner; blame the 'foreign hand' for all evil. Friday is believed to be the day when the sun rises best and the day when prayers are surely answered. This Friday, say a little prayer for Pakistan: God give us the strength to fix it.



The writer works for Geo TV.

 

[ajtr]

Ah, so here's what it is!


Pakistan Believes in Prayer, Not Cure



While the world is moving ahead, Pakistan will be stuck behind.




P.S. Where are all the 'fair' Pakistanis? Or is this India I'm looking at?

Plz use non-military multimedia forum for all videos by kashif khan.that way it becomes easy to trace them.Rather this guy deserves a separate thread dedicated to all his videos.

 

[ajtr]

At Ideological Crossroads​

By Yasser Latif Hamdani
(writing in Daily Times)
Pakistan, as a state, has always been conscious of its Muslim identity but till 1977, at least, this Muslim identity was not at odds with modernity, democracy and human rights. The 1956 and 1962 constitutions significantly did not have a state religion. The 1973 constitution made that concession but, in the pre-Zia form, it was still arguably a liberal Islamic constitution. Bhutto's compromises notwithstanding, it was General Ziaul Haq who laid the foundations for a rabidly fundamentalist society by confusing Pakistanis about their history. A generation of Pakistanis grew up believing, quite inaccurately, that Pakistan was achieved so that Muslims could establish an Islamic theocracy and be governed by shariah law.

It is not uncommon to hear the argument that Pakistan must be an Islamic theocracy because Pakistan was founded on religion, not nationalism. Indeed, this fallacious argument has been accepted by the courts in the Zia era and beyond. It is also argued that if not for the establishment of an Islamic theocracy, why did the Muslims of the subcontinent opt for a separate country? While these assertions require proper rebuttals, they also betray infirmity on the part of those making them.

First of all, undeniably, Pakistan was created on the basis of group nationalism and not religion. Group nationalism can contain many elements including common religious beliefs and common historical experience. If Pakistan were to be founded on religion, there would be no need to articulate the Two Nation Theory, especially in terms of culture, history, customs and language. Ostensibly, it would have been enough to say that we wanted to create an Islamic state but, strangely enough, that was never claimed by the Muslim League. In fact, one Muslim Leaguer who made a claim of this kind was expelled from the League by Jinnah himself. The one occasion that the idea of the League being committed to the establishment of an Islamic state was presented as a resolution, Jinnah vetoed it, calling it a "censure on every Leaguer". As a politician, Jinnah of course attempted to speak in a language that was comprehensible to his constituency. Hence he spoke of the Islamic principles of equality, fraternity and justice and claimed that democracy was ingrained in Islamic theory and practice. Yet, as a statesman, he ensured that references to Islam were kept out of resolutions and constitutional documents. So long as he was alive, the first president of the constituent assembly did not allow a single move to Islamise the then largest Muslim country in the world.

It is for this reason that Maulana Maududi summed up his opposition to Pakistan by saying that the "objective of the Muslim League is to create an infidel government of Muslims". Yet today his party, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), is in the forefront of the claim that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam. The underlying concern for those working to establish Pakistan was the economic and political future of Muslims, who they feared would be marginalised in a united India. Today, thanks to the religious right-wing of Pakistan, our economic and political future looks bleak anyway.

MJ Akbar, an Indian author, recently said that for there to be a peaceful and prosperous Pakistan, the children of Jinnah must defeat the children of Maududi. For this to happen we need to revisit social studies, Pakistan studies, history and Islamiat curricula first and foremost. A concerted effort has to be made to better explain the historical events leading up to Pakistan but for that to happen, the state must drop its excess ideological baggage and instead opt for ideas that are universally acceptable as the basis for nation building.

Indeed, that is the battle line that has now been drawn. Here one may add that the current wave of fundamentalism and extremism is, in any event, unsustainable over a longer period of time. The world is in the throes of a grand global information revolution. In an integrated world where information travels in seconds and not minutes, to continue to espouse retrogressive notions of religiosity is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot.

The recent assassinations of Salmaan Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti are indicative of an increasingly frustrated mentality that is acting out in desperation. No bullet, no army and no state can stop an idea whose time has come. The question before us Pakistanis is whether we want to delay the process and make it painful for us as a nation or if we want to reform sooner rather than later and make the process painless.

Historically, those who have delayed the process of reform have always ended up at the other extreme end. France took 100 years to rescind the concordat that Napoleon had entered into making Catholicism the official faith of France. When it did though, it espoused a militant version of secularism, which bordered on persecuting religion. It was Sultan Abdul Hamid's decision to undo the constitutional reforms of the 19th century, which led to the Young Turks Revolution and later the Turkish Revolution, which founded the modern Republic of Turkey. Pakistan, much like Turkey, is the sick man of South Asia today. Let this be a fair warning.

 

[Rage]

Watch this video please. This guy know alot more than what he's talking about:

 

[nrj]

The General's beard

On the Islamisation of Pakistan Army

Question: Who was the first Pakistani general to have a full-grown beard against the tradition of having only clean-shaved generals in the Pakistan Army?


Answer: Lieutenant General (retd) Javed Nasir who was the Director General of the Inter Services Intelligence from March 1992 to May 1993. [Update: A commentator observed that this picture looks like a bad photoshop job. Perhaps true.]

This website, which claims to be "Pakistan's first unofficial source on Pakistani Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence", has more:

Without having any doubt about his personality, he is a true Muslim and a true patriot. He has written over 100 articles. His pro-Islam, anti-US and anti-India stance has created a very large readership in Pakistan and abroad. He symbolizes the institutions of practicing Muslims through his association with the non-political and peaceful Tablighi Jamaat. He was noted for being the first Pakistani general to have a full-grown beard against tradition of having only clean-shaved generals in the Pakistan Army after joining the Tablighi Jamaat.[link]
That was in 1993. And this is what the Time magazine stated in 2003, while asking the perennially unanswered question: Is Pakistan a Friend or Foe?

For years, the top brass drummed into midranking officers a sense of Islamic mission. A Prophet-length beard helped an officer's promotion, as did praying five times a day. Now, says Masood, "the army is taking measures against officers who are too religious minded." Those deemed overly fanatic are discreetly steered into nonsensitive or dead-end jobs, he says, and a soldier needs permission from his commanding officer before he is permitted to grow a beard.[Time]
Alas that may not be completely true. Two instances will prove how radicalisation has seeped into the core of the Pakistan Army. One, when Pakistan Army moved in to Swat for Operation Rah-e-Haq in 2007, it was a great challenge for the army to explain to its troops (315 Brigade) as to why the soldiers had to fight fellow Muslim jehadis who were merely asking for the Shariah, an Islamic religious law (see this blogpost).

More recently, Ahmed Rashid quotes the current Pakistan Army Chief, General Kayani, to explain the Pakistan Army's silence on the killing of Governor Salmaan Taseer or Minister Bhatti on the Blasphemy Law issue.

For its part, the army has so far failed to express regret about either Bhatti's murder or Taseer's. The army chief General Ashfaq Kayani declined to publicly condemn Taseer's death or even to issue a public condolence to his family. He told Western ambassadors in January in Islamabad that there were too many soldiers in the ranks who sympathize with the killer, and showed them a scrapbook of photographs of Taseer's killer being hailed as a hero by fellow police officers. Any public statement, he hinted, could endanger the army's unity.[NYRB]
For many years, it has been said that Pakistan Army controls the Islamist jehadi groups in the region. Then, it was seen as a military-jehadi complex in Pakistan. That is also passée now. Perhaps the balance has now completely shifted to the other side. It is the jehadis and the Islamists which control the Pakistan Army now.

And yes, not to forget, it is the very same army which has 110 nuclear bombs in its arsenal.


Source

 

[LurkerBaba]

The General's beard

On the Islamisation of Pakistan Army

Question: Who was the first Pakistani general to have a full-grown beard against the tradition of having only clean-shaved generals in the Pakistan Army?


Answer: Lieutenant General (retd) Javed Nasir who was the Director General of the Inter Services Intelligence from March 1992 to May 1993. [Update: A commentator observed that this picture looks like a bad photoshop job. Perhaps true.]

This website, which claims to be "Pakistan's first unofficial source on Pakistani Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence", has more:

Without having any doubt about his personality, he is a true Muslim and a true patriot. He has written over 100 articles. His pro-Islam, anti-US and anti-India stance has created a very large readership in Pakistan and abroad. He symbolizes the institutions of practicing Muslims through his association with the non-political and peaceful Tablighi Jamaat. He was noted for being the first Pakistani general to have a full-grown beard against tradition of having only clean-shaved generals in the Pakistan Army after joining the Tablighi Jamaat.[link]
That was in 1993. And this is what the Time magazine stated in 2003, while asking the perennially unanswered question: Is Pakistan a Friend or Foe?

For years, the top brass drummed into midranking officers a sense of Islamic mission. A Prophet-length beard helped an officer's promotion, as did praying five times a day. Now, says Masood, "the army is taking measures against officers who are too religious minded." Those deemed overly fanatic are discreetly steered into nonsensitive or dead-end jobs, he says, and a soldier needs permission from his commanding officer before he is permitted to grow a beard.[Time]
Alas that may not be completely true. Two instances will prove how radicalisation has seeped into the core of the Pakistan Army. One, when Pakistan Army moved in to Swat for Operation Rah-e-Haq in 2007, it was a great challenge for the army to explain to its troops (315 Brigade) as to why the soldiers had to fight fellow Muslim jehadis who were merely asking for the Shariah, an Islamic religious law (see this blogpost).

More recently, Ahmed Rashid quotes the current Pakistan Army Chief, General Kayani, to explain the Pakistan Army's silence on the killing of Governor Salmaan Taseer or Minister Bhatti on the Blasphemy Law issue.

For its part, the army has so far failed to express regret about either Bhatti's murder or Taseer's. The army chief General Ashfaq Kayani declined to publicly condemn Taseer's death or even to issue a public condolence to his family. He told Western ambassadors in January in Islamabad that there were too many soldiers in the ranks who sympathize with the killer, and showed them a scrapbook of photographs of Taseer's killer being hailed as a hero by fellow police officers. Any public statement, he hinted, could endanger the army's unity.[NYRB]
For many years, it has been said that Pakistan Army controls the Islamist jehadi groups in the region. Then, it was seen as a military-jehadi complex in Pakistan. That is also passée now. Perhaps the balance has now completely shifted to the other side. It is the jehadis and the Islamists which control the Pakistan Army now.

And yes, not to forget, it is the very same army which has 110 nuclear bombs in its arsenal.


Source

The actual source is funnier

 

[civfanatic]

^^LMAO.

I tried searching for raw.org.in and there was nothing. No fair

 

[Ray]

If one has a beard, it should be tucked in neatly or else birds may nest in it, thinking it to be their 'ashiana'.

 

[Virendra]

For many years, it has been said that Pakistan Army controls the Islamist jehadi groups in the region. Then, it was seen as a military-jehadi complex in Pakistan. That is also passée now. Perhaps the balance has now completely shifted to the other side. It is the jehadis and the Islamists which control the Pakistan Army now.

This part makes me worried. I don't see any reasons to deny it. Its a slow and gradual shift, but yes a shift.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Vinod2070]

Watch this video please. This guy know alot more than what he's talking about:

He is a sharp analyst. I think he goes a bit extreme.