Taliban and Pakistan

Loaded as received…

“Sheep” cannot be expected to live in peace………

This “war against terror of the Taliban” in Pakistan cannot be won without the Pakistanis.

Government and/or the Army cannot win this war when 18 crore awam is not helping. The 18 crore awam is rather encouraging the Taliban. “How?” you say?

Pakistan was created for Muslims and not for Islam – Islam was never in danger in India, the Muslims were.

The Mulla pre-Pakistan was against Pakistan but now he owns it and has taken it over – demonstrated by the Committees that were ordained to determine the future of Pakistan with Mulla “burqa” Aziz and Mulla “sandwich” Sami backed by Mulla “diesel” Fazal and Molana Munawar deciding how we should live. These are our new leaders.

Islam is big business in Pakistan and millions are making a very decent living from it.

There is no ‘regulator’ for nor any tax on this business.

Government seems to have left its ‘regulation’ to God.

Just as Coke or Pepsi and McDonald or KFC market their brands, both essentially selling the same product, Mosques are mushrooming – within yards of one another – each selling their brand

These retail business outlets are multiplying as enterprising “madrassa graduates” aspire to be “career maulvis” in their own masjid.

It is a great business cum pension plan and the first investment each makes is in loudspeakers to start attracting a clientele to his new masjid

His office (pulpit) and accommodation (in the mosque) follow.

The Taliban are capitalizing on this farce to gain power and control.

It is not about Islam, it is about power and control – in case you had not figured it out yet.

They have murdered most “Maliks and tribal elders” in FATA to get rid of competition

The slogan is Islam and the “power base and infiltration safe house” is the masjid.

Every Friday Pakistanis go to masjids and listen to essentially, the Taliban version of Islam.

Why don’t these Pakistanis demand of their Masjid Imam/Maulvi to condemn the Taliban in the Friday sermon?

Till the Taliban is not discussed and condemned in the local mosque, terrorism will flourish and attract more support.

Only when the Taliban – and their ilk – are condemned in every local mosque every Friday, will Pakistan begin to see the end of their reign of terror.

If 18 crore awam have chosen to be ‘sheep’ – they can’t even decide what happens in their local mohalla mosque – the ‘qasab’ will keep feeding on them – OR – if they like and approve of the Taliban – then why are we even discussing the issue.

Advertisements
Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

War or peace on the Indus?

by John Briscoe

John Briscoe, a South African, an expert on the subject who has in depth knowledge of the Water issue of the sub-continent; has penned a very balanced article. Worth reading. I doubt India would ever elevate itself to the level of a Big-Brother like Brazil.

War or peace on the Indus?

Saturday, April 03, 2010

John Briscoe

Anyone foolish enough to write on war or peace in the Indus needs to first banish a set of immediate suspicions. I am neither Indian nor Pakistani. I am a South African who has worked on water issues in the subcontinent for 35 years and who has lived in Bangladesh (in the 1970s) and Delhi (in the 2000s). In 2006 I published, with fine Indian colleagues, an Oxford University Press book titled India’s Water Economy: Facing a Turbulent Future and, with fine Pakistani colleagues, one titled Pakistan’s Water Economy: Running Dry.

I was the Senior Water Advisor for the World Bank who dealt with the appointment of the Neutral Expert on the Baglihar case. My last assignment at the World Bank (relevant, as described later) was as Country Director for Brazil. I am now a mere university professor, and speak in the name of no one but myself.

I have deep affection for the people of both India and Pakistan, and am dismayed by what I see as a looming train wreck on the Indus, with disastrous consequences for both countries. I will outline why there is no objective conflict of interests between the countries over the waters of the Indus Basin, make some observations of the need for a change in public discourse, and suggest how the drivers of the train can put on the brakes before it is too late.

Is there an inherent conflict between India and Pakistan?

The simple answer is no. The Indus Waters Treaty allocates the water of the three western rivers to Pakistan, but allows India to tap the considerable hydropower potential of the Chenab and Jhelum before the rivers enter Pakistan.

The qualification is that this use of hydropower is not to affect either the quantity of water reaching Pakistan or to interfere with the natural timing of those flows. Since hydropower does not consume water, the only issue is timing. And timing is a very big issue, because agriculture in the Pakistani plains depends not only on how much water comes, but that it comes in critical periods during the planting season. The reality is that India could tap virtually all of the available power without negatively affecting the timing of flows to which Pakistan is entitled.

Is the Indus Treaty a stable basis for cooperation?

If Pakistan and India had normal, trustful relations, there would be a mutually-verified monitoring process which would assure that there is no change in the flows going into Pakistan. (In an even more ideal world, India could increase low-flows during the critical planting season, with significant benefit to Pakistani farmers and with very small impacts on power generation in India.) Because the relationship was not normal when the treaty was negotiated, Pakistan would agree only if limitations on India’s capacity to manipulate the timing of flows was hardwired into the treaty. This was done by limiting the amount of "live storage" (the storage that matters for changing the timing of flows) in each and every hydropower dam that India would construct on the two rivers.

While this made sense given knowledge in 1960, over time it became clear that this restriction gave rise to a major problem. The physical restrictions meant that gates for flushing silt out of the dams could not be built, thus ensuring that any dam in India would rapidly fill with the silt pouring off the young Himalayas.

This was a critical issue at stake in the Baglihar case. Pakistan (reasonably) said that the gates being installed were in violation of the specifications of the treaty. India (equally reasonably) argued that it would be wrong to build a dam knowing it would soon fill with silt. The finding of the Neutral Expert was essentially a reinterpretation of the Treaty, saying that the physical limitations no longer made sense. While the finding was reasonable in the case of Baglihar, it left Pakistan without the mechanism – limited live storage – which was its only (albeit weak) protection against upstream manipulation of flows in India. This vulnerability was driven home when India chose to fill Baglihar exactly at the time when it would impose maximum harm on farmers in downstream Pakistan.

If Baglihar was the only dam being built by India on the Chenab and Jhelum, this would be a limited problem. But following Baglihar is a veritable caravan of Indian projects – Kishanganga, Sawalkot, Pakuldul, Bursar, Dal Huste, Gyspa… The cumulative live storage will be large, giving India an unquestioned capacity to have major impact on the timing of flows into Pakistan. (Using Baglihar as a reference, simple back-of-the-envelope calculations, suggest that once it has constructed all of the planned hydropower plants on the Chenab, India will have an ability to effect major damage on Pakistan. First, there is the one-time effect of filling the new dams. If done during the wet season this would have little effect on Pakistan. But if done during the critical low-flow period, there would be a large one-time effect (as was the case when India filled Baglihar). Second, there is the permanent threat which would be a consequence of substantial cumulative live storage which could store about one month’s worth of low-season flow on the Chenab. If, God forbid, India so chose, it could use this cumulative live storage to impose major reductions on water availability in Pakistan during the critical planting season.

Views on "the water problem" from both sides of the border and the role of the press

Living in Delhi and working in both India and Pakistan, I was struck by a paradox. One country was a vigorous democracy, the other a military regime. But whereas an important part of the Pakistani press regularly reported India’s views on the water issue in an objective way, the Indian press never did the same. I never saw a report which gave Indian readers a factual description of the enormous vulnerability of Pakistan, of the way in which India had socked it to Pakistan when filling Baglihar. How could this be, I asked? Because, a journalist colleague in Delhi told me, "when it comes to Kashmir – and the Indus Treaty is considered an integral part of Kashmir — the ministry of external affairs instructs newspapers on what they can and cannot say, and often tells them explicitly what it is they are to say."

This apparently remains the case. In the context of the recent talks between India and Pakistan I read, in Boston, the electronic reports on the disagreement about "the water issue" in The Times of India, The Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Indian Express and The Economic Times. (Respectively, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Water-Pakistans-diversionary-tactic-/articleshow/5609099.cms, http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ article112388.ece, http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/india/River-waters-The-next-testing-ground/Article1-512190.aspx, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Pak-heats-up-water-sharing/583733, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/Pak-takes-water-route-to-attack-India/articleshow/5665516.cms.)

Taken together, these reports make astounding reading. Not only was the message the same in each case ("no real issue, just Pakistani shenanigans"), but the arguments were the same, the numbers were the same and the phrases were the same. And in all cases the source was "analysts" and "experts" — in not one case was the reader informed that this was reporting an official position of the Government of India.

Equally depressing is my repeated experience – most recently at a major international meeting of strategic security institutions in Delhi – that even the most liberal and enlightened of Indian analysts (many of whom are friends who I greatly respect) seem constitutionally incapable of seeing the great vulnerability and legitimate concern of Pakistan (which is obvious and objective to an outsider).

A way forward

This is a very uneven playing field. The regional hegemon is the upper riparian and has all the cards in its hands. This asymmetry means that it is India that is driving the train, and that change must start in India. In my view, four things need to be done.

First, there must be some courageous and open-minded Indians – in government or out – who will stand up and explain to the public why this is not just an issue for Pakistan, but why it is an existential issue for Pakistan.

Second, there must be leadership from the Government of India. Here I am struck by the stark difference between the behaviour of India and that of its fellow BRIC – Brazil, the regional hegemon in Latin America.

Brazil and Paraguay have a binding agreement on their rights and responsibilities on the massive Itaipu Binacional Hydropower Project. The proceeds, which are of enormous importance to small Paraguay, played a politicised, polemical anti-Brazilian part in the recent presidential election in Paraguay. Similarly, Brazil’s and Bolivia’s binding agreement on gas also became part of an anti-Brazil presidential campaign theme.

The public and press in Brazil bayed for blood and insisted that Bolivia and Paraguay be made to pay. So what did President Luis Inacio Lula da Silva do? "Look," he said to his irate countrymen, "these are poor countries, and these are huge issues for them. They are our brothers. Yes, we are in our legal rights to be harsh with them, but we are going to show understanding and generosity, and so I am unilaterally doubling (in the case of Paraguay) and tripling (in the case of Bolivia) the payments we make to them. Brazil is a big country and a relatively rich one, so this will do a lot for them and won’t harm us much." India could, and should, in my view, similarly make the effort to see it from its neighbour’s point of view, and should show the generosity of spirit which is an integral part of being a truly great power and good neighbour.

Third, this should translate into an invitation to Pakistan to explore ways in which the principles of the Indus Waters Treaty could be respected, while providing a win for Pakistan (assurance on their flows) and a win for India (reducing the chronic legal uncertainty which vexes every Indian project on the Chenab or Jhelum). With good will there are multiple ways in which the treaty could be maintained but reinterpreted so that both countries could win.

Fourth, discussions on the Indus waters should be de-linked from both historic grievances and from the other Kashmir-related issues. Again, it is a sign of statesmanship, not weakness, to acknowledge the past and then move beyond it. This is personal for me, as someone of Irish origin. Conor Cruise O’Brien once remarked, "Santayana said that those who did not learn their history would be condemned to repeat it; in the case of Ireland we have learned our history so well that we are condemned to repeat it, again and again."

And finally, as a South African I am acutely aware that Nelson Mandela, after 27 years in prison, chose not to settle scores but to look forward and construct a better future, for all the people of his country and mine. Who will be the Indian Mandela who will do this – for the benefit of Pakistanis and Indians – on the Indus?

The writer is the Gordon McKay Professor of Environmental Engineering, Harvard University. Email: jbriscoe@seas. harvard.edu

The Pakistani Lion with his loins at Kings Road

"A nation created on the basis of Islam was destroyed by too much Islam. And a nation dedicated to democracy flourished because of too much democracy."


Vir Sanghvi
Express News Service
http://expressbuzz.com/biography/what-devoured-glamorous-pakistan/204031.html

I wrote, a few weeks ago, about how much the attitude to Indians had changed in the West. Once we were regarded as losers, people who inhabited a desperately poor country, continually ravaged by famine or drought, incapable of making a single world-class product, and condemned to live forever on foreign aid. Now, we have the world’s respect and, more tellingly, the West’s envy as more and more jobs are Bangalored away from their high-cost economies and handed over to Indians who perform much better for less money.

That piece was prompted by a visit to London. This one too has been inspired by a trip abroad and by saturation coverage of the Pakistani cricket scandal in the press and on global TV channels. But my concern this week is not with how the West sees India.

It is with the transformation of the image of the global Pakistani.

I was at school and university in England in the Seventies and lived in London in the early 1980s. This was a time when Pakistan was regarded — hard as this may to believe now —  as being impossibly glamorous. The star of my first term at Oxford was Benazir Bhutto. In my second term, she became president of the union and was the toast of Oxford. Her father was then prime minister of Pakistan and lucky students vied for the opportunity to visit Karachi or Islamabad as guests of the Bhuttos. They came back with stories of unbelievable hospitality and spoke knowledgeably about Pakistan’s feudal structure, about landowners like the Bhuttos, about an autocracy that had reigned for centuries etc.

Even on the other side of the ideological divide, Pakistan was all too visible. He had come down from Oxford nearly eight years before, but a former president of the union, the charismatic Trotskyite Tariq Ali was still the sort of chap who made English girls swoon. For her first debate as president of the Oxford Union, Benazir asked Tariq Ali to speak. He agreed but then, rather inconveniently, he was detained by the police on a visit to Pakistan. No matter. He phoned Benazir who spoke to daddy and — hey presto! — Tariq was out of jail and on a plane to England. Pakistan was that kind of country, the British chortled delightedly.

In those days, us poor Indians hardly ever got a look in. The Pakistanis were dashing, far richer (they spent in a week what we spent in the whole term), always going off to chic parties or nightclubs in London and charming the pants off the British (often, quite literally).

In that era, the Arabs had just emerged on the world stage (following the massive oil-price hikes of 1973/4) and the Pakistanis were almost proprietorial about them. A Pakistani graduate student at my college, even affected Arab dress from time to time and bragged that he had taught Arabs how to fly planes.

My college-mate was merely reprising Z A Bhutto’s philosophy: the Arabs were rich but they were camel drivers. They needed Pakistanis to run the world for them and to teach them Western ways. It was this sort of thinking that led to the creation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the first global Third World bank, run by Pakistanis with Arab money. For most of the 1980s, BCCI was staffed by sharply dressed young Pakistanis who entertained at London (and New York’s) best restaurants, hit the casinos after dinner and talked casually about multi-million dollar deals.

Their flamboyant lifestyle was matched by other rich Pakistanis. In his autobiography, Marco Pierre White, the first of the British super-chefs (he was the original bad boy and Gordon Ramsay worked for him), talks about the Pakistanis who were his first regulars. Michel Roux, then England’s top chef (three Michelin stars) would fly out to Pakistan to cook at private parties thrown by wealthy individuals. In the late 1980s, a friend of mine went to dinner in Pakistan and was startled to be asked to guess the vintages of three different bottles of Mouton Rothschild, one of the world’s most expensive wines.

In that era, Indians knew absolutely nothing about wine or French food and the few Indian millionaires who vacationed in London were vegetarians.

Pakistanis were sex symbols too. The first international cricketing stud was Imran Khan (who finished at Oxford the term before I got there) and his sex appeal was so legendary that even Benazir joked about it. Told that Gen Zia-ul-Haq called him the ‘Lion of the Punjab,” Benazir said, “Yes but Zia pronounces “Lion as ‘Loin’ and this is appropriate.” Years later when Imran spoke about his love for Pakistan, a British columnist sneered, “His heart may be in Pakistan but his loins are in the King’s Road” referring to a trendy (and expensive) London area.

Even Pakistan’s millionaires were more glamorous than ours. In the Eighties when the Hinduja brothers (“we are strictly vegetarian”) first emerged in London, the Pakistanis stole the show with such flamboyant high-profile millionaires in Mahmud Sipra who financed feature films and kept a big yacht in the South of France.

So what went wrong?

It’s hard to pin point any single reason but I can think of several contributing factors. First of all, much of the Pakistani profile was based on flash and fraud. BCCI collapsed amidst allegations that it was a scamster’s bank. Mahmud Sipra left England with the Fraud Squad in hot pursuit even as he declared his innocence from beyond Scotland Yard’s jurisdiction. Many big-spending Paksitanis turned out to be heroin smugglers.

Secondly, Indian democracy came to our rescue. The Brits who bragged about Bhutto hospitality and the Pakistan aristocracy missed the obvious point: this was a deeply unequal and therefore unstable society. When Bhutto rigged an election, this led to his downfall.

Thirdly, Pakistan signed its own death warrant by trying to out-Arab the Arabs with a policy of Islamisation. This reached its peak under General Zia who declared a jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan and invited Arabs such as Osama bin Laden to come to Pakistan to fight the holy war. Ultimately, fundamentalist Islam devoured what was left of glamorous Pakistan.

Fourthly, the world just moved on. Flash can only get you so far. In the end it is substance that counts. And plodding, boring India came up with the substance.

It is hard to think, when you look at today’s Pakistan team, that Pakistani cricketers were such sex symbols in India in the 1980s that Imran Khan was able to brag to an interviewer “Indian actresses are chickens. They just want to get laid” (In all fairness, Imran later said he had been misquoted.)

Get laid by today’s team? You must be joking.

Even the Pakistani playboys who are still around no longer seem exciting or glamorous. Poor Imran just looks tired. And the rest look like Asif Zardari — pretty much the archetypal glamorous Pakistani of the Eighties — though perhaps not as disgustingly sleazy.

Of all these factors, two remain the most important. A nation created on the basis of Islam was destroyed by too much Islam. And a nation dedicated to democracy flourished because of too much democracy.

Asif Zardari (AZ) Reveals CIA Plan for Pakistan

Asif Zardari (AZ) Reveals CIA Plan for Pakistan

by Usman Khalid, Rifah Party of Pakistan

AUGUST 7, 2012 

Press Release

Asif Zardari (AZ) Reveals CIA Plan for Pakistan

The secret weapon of Indo-Zionists is Imran Khan’s whose arrogance and campaign of slander against Nawaz Sharif (NS) splits the majority that is anti-AZ

London August 7, 2012. In a speech in Khairpur on 28 July, President Asif Zardari said he is the ‘spiritual son’ of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB) and like ZAB and BB, he had his eyes on the forces of history in the region and the world and that he was confident of victory in all the provinces of Pakistan including the Punjab. The press dismissed his speech as “effort to resurrect the confidence of the demoralised but loyal constituency of the PPP”. That is true but the speech was much more than that. It gave an idea that he indeed has a ‘vision’ and how it fits into the plans of regional hegemon (India) and global hegemon (USA).

clip_image002

Asif Zardari being taken to prison in handcuffs – that may be repeated if he ‘succeeds’

To understand the politics of Asif Zardari, one has to keep in mind that:

1) he belongs to the Shia fraternity,

2) the Shia are a minority in Pakistan,

3) the only Shia state – Iran – is anti USA,

4) the leadership of the Karachi based MQM also belongs to the Shia fraternity. These are the four ‘given’ on which the CIA plan to ‘control’ Pakistan is based.

The USA and the World was surprised by the quick and easy ouster President Bin Ali of Tunisia.

The CIA has quickly evolved plans to impose pro-US leadership in every Muslim country albeit with ‘democratic’ credentials. In Egypt, Libya and Syria the Western objective has been to set up weak governments exploiting the dynamics of the Arab Spring i.e. yearning for democracy. In the rest of the Middle East, the same objective is being achieved by exploiting sectarian polarisation. The prime targets of the USA in the Middle East are non-Sunni states, Iran and Syria, which has driven the Sunni Arab rulers closer to the USA.

The failure to set up Iraq as a Shia majority pro-US ‘democratic’ state has been a big set back for the US. It has led to the US turning against the Shia after decades of considering them their ‘natural ally’ in the Muslim World. The fall of the Shanishah of Iran was considered to be a temporary set back; the US bent over backwards to cultivate the Ayatollahs of Iran but it did not work as the new leadership in Iran relied on hostility of the US to establish the Islamic Republic as the regional leader.

But India was successful in cultivating the Islamic Republic against ostensibly pro US Pakistan. The failure in Iran and stalemate in Syria calls for a new strategy. A new model is being evolved in Pakistan on the lines of “minority rule” like Zionist rule in the USA and high caste rule in India.

The MQM is the minority – protégés loyal to the USA and India – which are the likes of the Brahmin in India and the Zionists (majority of who are Christians) of the USA. Like the Zionists and Brahmins, they now seek to present a face of ‘super-patriots’.

Asif Zardari might believe that his politics is the same as that of ZAB and BB but that is not true. ZAB thought that the socialist camp was on the rise and it was time for Pakistan to dump the USA and embrace the Socialists in the Muslim as well as the wider world. He was right to the extent that China has risen far and fast and Pakistan was right in steadfastly maintaining close and warm relations with China. But he was wrong elsewhere. It was Saudi Arabia, not Egypt, which drew closer to Pakistan, which paid a heavy price for total dependence on the West in the Cold War.

The erstwhile Soviet Union gave overt support to the secession of East Pakistan and support for self-determination in Jammu and Kashmir eroded. BB judged that her father had invited the wrath of the USA by seeking nuclear parity with India. She bent over backwards to accommodate the US as well as Indian interests in the region but could not get the political support of Indo-US protégés – ANP and the MQM. But she earned the hostility of all patriotic elements – the military as well as the Mujahideen – in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

Asif Zardari has succeeded where BB failed. He is committed to Indo-US interests and has been rewarded by loyal support of the ANP as well the MQM. This support has been partly delivered by his own credentials (his late father was the President of ANP in Sindh), and partly by working closely with the CIA and MI6 – directly and through Rehman Malik and Altaf Hussain. All his political moves have been carefully choreographed by the CIA.

Those who do not take his confidence to win the next elections with a thumping majority seriously are mistaken. As things stand today, the CIA is reading of the situation in Pakistan is fairly accurately. It thinks that the ruling coalition in Pakistan would stay solid while the TIP led by Imran Khan continues to prevent the consolidation of the patriotic right which still commands majority support in Pakistan. They believe that TIP would act as a US ally as the Jamaat i Islami did against ZAB and the Ikhwan of Egypt were used against the populist rule of President Nasser in Egypt. But the character of Imran Khan is more similar to that Saddam Hussain who was the ‘useful idiot’ whose every move served the US purpose.

He first embarked on a path of ‘secular socialism’ and alliance with USSR under the flag of Baath Party. Then he consolidated the Sunni minority to consolidate his hold on power. This was used by the CIA to get him to invade Islamic Republic of Iran. Then he fell into another trap and invaded Kuwait, which resulted in a crushing defeat for Saddam Hussain. A change in Government – formation of a national coalition government – could have saved Iraq but Saddam Hussain was more focussed on retaining hold on power. The CIA infiltrated Saddam’s armed forces and had links with Shia opposition also. The situation is Pakistan is similar but it is not the same.

The ruling coalition in Pakistan is an arrangement sponsored by the CIA but it is discredited and unpopular. But the imponderables are plentiful. The ANP and MQM will continue support to AZ endure as long as the PPP can retain its vote bank. The rebellion of Zulfiqar Mirza in protest against AZ alliance with the MQM and Mumtaz Bhutto joining the PML (N) has changed the political landscape in Sindh. In time, the loyalists of ZAB may abandon AZ and join Mumtaz Bhutto. Zulfiqar Mirza joining Mumtaz Bhutto can cause the political earthquake that the PPP and its foreign patrons fear most.

The constituency of TIP comprises patriots. Imran Khan is too arrogant to admit that he is dividing the patriotic constituency to give AZ the chance of victory he predicts. But stalwarts in Imran Khan’s TIP would have to force him change course. Imran is too arrogant to do that; he may choose to resign instead. The third patriotic group is represented by Defa i Pakistan (DOP) Council. This is not a political party as such but it has a huge constituency – opponents of regional hegemony of India. PML(N) and its allies could get two third majority in the next elections if the DOP gives it support and PML(N) embraces its one point agenda.

The CIA plan for Pakistan has been revealed by AZ. It wants AZ supported by ANP and MQM to retain power in Pakistan at the next elections. Pakistan is to be a new model in Muslim countries – ruled by ethnic minorities, chaos in the name of democracy, loot and plunder in the name of politics, and reviling the armed forces as threat to democracy. But the USA is not stopping drone attacks on Pakistan and India is not stopping the building of dams on our rivers in Kashmir.

The patriotic parties have to be particularly inept to lose the next elections. Imran Khan may continue to attack the PML(N) to split his own constituency and deliver victory as AZ hopes. But the CIA alone is the custodian of the complete narrative. In the event of victory by PML(N) and its allies, the defeated forces may invite intervention by the USA and/or India. That is not very likely. But it would become even less likely if we knew and prepared for the worst.

The Bangladesh approach

Facing threat from militants and extremists, Bangladesh has launched a nationwide programme for monitoring mosques and madrasas to ensure clerics follow guidelines issued by the state-run Islamic Foundation. "We have engaged our 40,000 staff having background in Islamic studies to monitor the mosques and see if the imams or khatibs are conveying our messages against militancy in line with the real Islamic teachings," Islamic Foundation’s director general Shamim Mohammed Afzal told PTI.

He said the foundation staff would join the Muslim’s weekly special ‘juma’

congregations when the clerics were supposed to deliver lectures or sermons against religious extremism and militancy and highlighting the "spirit of love" against "hatred and violence". Islamic Foundation is an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Religious Affairs working to disseminate values and ideals of Islam and carry out related activities. Afzal said the foundation earlier distributed several million copies of two books against militancy at the 270,000 mosques and over 100,000 madrasahs.

The foundation officials said they have set up an anti-militancy cell and every week their officials monitor at least 10 mosques in Dhaka to see whether the clerics speak about militancy in their Friday sermons. "The officials were also tasked to motivate or request the independent clerics of the mosques to use their good offices and knowledge so that the youngsters were not lured by Islamist militants".

Bangladesh witnessed massive emergence of militant outfits in 2004-2005 when the country was hit by a series of blasts killing dozens of people as the groups promised to establish Islamic rule of their own brands. The situation sparked fears that the world’s fourth largest Muslim majority nation was becoming a militancy hotspot and prompted the subsequent governments to launch a massive security clampdown that resulted in trial and execution of six militant kingpins while dozens were jailed or were still being tried.

http://ibnlive. in.com/generalne wsfeed/news/ bangladesh- starts-monitorin

g-mosques- madrasas/ 1038368.html

<http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/bangladesh-starts-monitoring-mos

ques-madrasas/1038368.html>

 

This can’t work in Pakistan.

USA should send Marines to monitor Pak Military-run Schools, Cadet Colleges, Academies, Cantonments and GHQ also, not only Mosques, MuDaaris, Seminaries etc in an upside down crazy country, where Pak Military Staff itself runs JehaaDi Camps and Groups as dangerous as Taliban and Al Qaeda.

WE, the PEOPLE

The ego & the will of every Pakistani citizen MUST be subservient to the Laws, Rules, Regulations & and the Procedures, Everything that ensures a homogeneous citizenry of the STATE of PAKISTAN, then and only then can we ensure EQUALITY for ALL!

Pakistan – What It Means

by K. Hussan Zia

Much has been written and spoken of late about partition of the subcontinent in some sections of the media that questions Jinnah’s motives and doubts if a separate country was indeed called for or good for the Muslims. The claim of the subcontinent’s Muslims to a separate identity is denounced as obscurantist, retrogressive and a folly.

In the process historical facts are often distorted and misrepresented. The ghosts of thoroughly discredited politicians, rejected by the masses at the time and whose only call to fame was that they had opposed the idea of Pakistan, are resurrected and glorified. There is a conscious attempt to re-write history that could potentially undermine the belief and faith of unwary Pakistanis.

To put things in perspective, after 1857 Muslims were singled out for the worst kind of retribution by the British. The prevailing sentiment was summed up in a letter to his father by A. C. Lyall, a British civil servant, ‘If the Musalman could by any means be entirely exterminated, it could be the greatest possible step towards civilizing and Christianizing Hindustan’.

At the same time a decision was made to drive a wedge between Muslims and Hindus. The Viceroy, Lord Canning, wrote to the Board of Control in London, ‘The men who fought us at Delhi were of both creeds. —- As we must rule 150 million people by a handful (more or less) of Englishmen, let us do it in the manner best calculated to leave them divided’.

Since Hindus were in overwhelming majority, they were favoured and patronized. A nexus developed between the two that resulted in the Muslims becoming, in the words of Sir William Hunter, commissioned to enquire into the effects of this policy, ‘a race ruined under British rule —- there is now scarcely a Government office in Calcutta in which a Muhammadan can hope for any post above the rank of porter, messenger, filler of inkpots and mender of pens’ (‘The Indian Musalmans: Are They Bound in Conscience to Rebel Against the Queen?’ p.19).

To quote some examples of this discrimination, in Bengal where Muslims were in a majority, out of the 160 Fellows at Calcutta University in 1918 only seven were Muslims. The university Senate and Syndicate did not have even one Muslim member. Out of the 895 examiners, there were only nine Muslims. Similarly, in the Punjab University out of a total of sixty-eight professors in 1933 only nine were Muslim. In 1945, it was sixteen out of a total of eighty-two. In the first half century of the university’s existence not a single Muslim was appointed to the key Registrar’s position.

The same sorry state for Muslims existed in every government department and private organization, with the exception of the lower ranks in the Indian Army and police. There were a total of 957 judges and magistrates officiating in the Bengal courts in 1901 out of which only 98 were Muslims. In the five major railway companies, EBR, EIR, GIP, NWR and Burma Railways, that operated in India in 1933, out of a total of 1,048 gazetted officers there were only 45 Muslims. In the Telegraph Department of the Government of India in 1910 there were a total of forty Divisional Officers. Not one of these was a Muslim. Among the lower staff, there were 12 Muslims in a total of 429 (Do Kaumi Nazria, by Professor Ahmed Saeed, Nazria-e-Pakistan Foundation, Lahore).

Hindus regarded and treated the Muslims in social matters as ‘Untouchables’. At most official functions, the tables for Hindus were laid out separately to the rest. Most Hindu shopkeepers would not hand over merchandise directly to a Muslim customer. It was placed at the end of a paddle and dropped into his hands or a sack to avoid any contact with the maleech.

They dressed differently, followed a different calendar and lived in segregated areas, even stayed in separate hotels where Muslims and Christians were not welcome. Separate vendors provided water to Hindus at railway stations. Their food, social mores and traditions, indeed entire ethos was different. Inter-marriages were taboo. They did not co-exist peacefully either. Bloody riots broke out with regular monotony. In the face of this the claim that Indians constituted a single unified nation can only be described as a ludicrous and delusional myth.

Perhaps the most telling contrast in the situation of Hindus and the Muslims in India was in the economic field. Hindus under the British dominated commerce, banking and industry. Any Muslim venturing into the commercial arena was denied credit and systematically squeezed out. The areas that comprised Pakistan produced eighty per cent of India’s jute and cotton crops but virtually all of the processing plants and facilities were owned by the Hindus.

Their domination became starkly evident at the time of Partition after Hindus and Sikhs moved out. The cities appeared like ghost towns. In Lahore, all the shops in Anarkali and The Mall were closed. Houses in the more affluent areas were abandoned. The number of cars left on the roads was probably less than half a dozen. The railways ceased to operate and road transport was minimal. It was the same with the Post and Telegraph and other service departments. All economic activity had been brought to a grinding halt.

Compare this with the situation today to know the blessing that is Pakistan. We were told that the country would not survive economically. Now, it has a vibrant middle class that constitutes forty per cent of the population, as against twenty-five per cent next door. The share of Muslims, who constitute about fourteen per cent of the population in India today, is no more than one per cent in the white collar jobs and about three per cent in the blue collar jobs. In the armed forces it is less than half per cent. According to Sachar Commission, set up by the Indian Government recently to enquire into the state of minorities, Muslims are now worse off than the Untouchables. This is what it would have been like for us also had it not been for Pakistan.

What transpired at the time of Partitition can never be forgotten. Close to a million innocent people were brutally murdered —- more than ninety-five per cent of them Muslims. East Punjab was turned into a picture of Dante’s Hell. Village after Muslim village was burnt to the ground and unsuspecting inhabitants struck down in the cruelest ways imaginable. Pregnant women had their bellies ripped open; others had their breasts sliced off. Many jumped into wells and killed themselves rather than fall into the hands of murdering Sikhs. Babies were cut in half or had their skulls smashed before throwing them back to their dying mothers. Children were burnt alive in fire pits. It went on for four months without let until there was no Muslim left in the province.

Members of a supposedly cohesive nation do not go on rampages and orgies of slaughter and mayhem against their own. The victims may have belonged to a different religion but like the rest they too had become citizens of free and professedly secular India. Yet the State did little to protect them. In many cases it actively participated in the bloodlust. There were numerous cases in which local officials accompanied the bands of killers to facilitate their grisly work. No man was ever put on trial for the horrendous atrocities. We have to ask, would the reaction have been the same if the victims had been Hindus or Sikhs?

There are memories that continue to haunt. Each night when the alarm was sounded I, only thirteen at the time, would pick up the shotgun and rush to the roof to take position next to my father. As we lay there in the stillness of the dark night waiting for the attack to materialize, he would remind me that if he was killed first not to use up all of the cartridges but save at least one each for my mother and sisters to make sure they would not fall into the hands of the Sikhs alive. Try as one might, it is impossible to get rid of the image of what might have happened had we been overrun. Only Allah saved us from the tragic fate that befell a million others whose luck had run out. He also gave us a safe haven for the future.

This is what makes Pakistan so precious for without it the future would have been very bleak indeed. Freedom can’t be taken for granted. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. There are enemies both external and within. It is the latter that are most dangerous. The threat can take many forms. It is for each of us to guard against it. There is no better way than to follow the Quaid’s dictum and maintain our unity, faith and discipline.

The writer is author of ‘Pakistan: Roots, Perspective and Genesis’ and ‘Muslims and the West: A Muslim Perspective’.

Posted in Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »