De-Lurking on the Net

May 7, 2017

Curse of being a Pakistani

In this countries ranking survey website Pakistani passport comes at the at 92 and Afghanistan at 93 out of 159 countries. The website also tells which countries offer free visa travel and which countries need visas or electronic visa for which passport. Pakistanis are the ones leaving in droves to settle abroad mostly as economic migrant. But sometimes they are running away from torture, false accusation of blasphemy or simple discriminations as being minority. Though, in many countries, Pakistanis get discriminated, denied the refuge and often deported but the exodus of muslims, non-muslims from Pakistan continue unabated. This article in Herald Dawn newspaper of Pakistan

The perils of Pakistani migrants heading to Europe

is pretty detailed and apt. No doubt terrorism of Pakistan has been headache for the world. Though it is far less now in spite of having a recent spike and upsurge which is since abated and gone. Minorities along with muslims,  genuine Pakistanis all suffer. But what was the reason for  British to unleash the curse of Pakistan onto the world or why those Muslims who lived in that part were demanding a land of pure, a land for salvation and everlasting happiness knowing full well the support for Pakistan was coming from feudals, Nawabs (the Indian Lords)  etc who would have wanted to safeguard their interests in post-independence Pakistan. Why were the Muslims trying to run away from competing with Hindus on education, jobs, businesses and seeking refuge under the religious umbrella.

British, on their part, it is claimed wanted to carve out Pakistan to have a foot in the door to stop USSR and Pakistan came about as Muslim League assured to provide the base for UK(and by default all of West) whereas the Indian National Congress denied giving this access to anyone post independence. Hindus on their part before independence were still living in dark ages believing in untouchability (particularly wanted to be away generally in making any social contacts with Muslims or  Dalits). This strong feeling in Hindus, even though it is still not gone away fully yet but their divisions or old habits, prejudices etc are melting away and largely Indians including Muslims, Dalits etc have become more homogenous now after many reforms since independence like Hindu Undivided Family Laws where females inherit wealth on par with males, Reservations, Disbursement of lands to those cultivating and eliminating privy purses to ex-rulers(Maharajas) as well as eliminating large landholdings etc-2.

Hassan Nissar is  a veteran journalist who lives in Pakistan but in one TV conversation here,  I heard him describing the formation of Pakistan happened  due to meanness  of Indian National  Congress and its leader of that time not accepting the demand of Muslim league which was seeking confederation and separate electorate for Muslims.

  1.  
Nissar could not come out of his partiality for Mr Jinnah. He says Pt Nehru was midget in front of Mr Jinnah. Really! What makes him say that. Did Mr Jinnah  have vision for India, Pakistan or even Muslims?
Did Pt Nehru have vision for India? Yes Pt Nehru did have a vision as he wanted India to have strong centre? Why was strong centre needed? It was needed so that India ‘s parts were not usurped by outsiders like East  India Company  did in past to India and because having a weak centre would have meant centre not being able to help the part in trouble due to external imperialist attack. So, accepting idea of confederation was becoming difficult for him. Pt Nehru  could see  bringing in socialist upliftment of Masses. He could think of India ‘s  development on the lines of 5 years plans of USSR where USSR grew rapidly under those plans. This visions also entailed bringing heavy industrial, dams building, science education etc.
Now, let us see what vision did Mr Jinnah impart to the new born nation Pakistan in the year after ’47 until his death in ’48.  Did Mr Jinnah  ever mention that he wanted to smash the feudalism and bring equality of masses. No, because Pakistan was born due to feudals giving support to Jinnah for making Pakistan. So, how could he turn back on them. This was also one reason the Kashmiri secular leader Sheikh  Abdullah did not see the Kashmir ‘s destiny in Pakistan. Did Mr Jinnah think of safeguarding non-Muslims like Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Ahmedies etc. So,  did Mr Jinnah bring any protection law for them. He was busy usurping Baluchistan, busy sending raiders in Kashmir in spite of signing stand-still agreement with Maharaja. He was busy dismissing the elected govt  of NWF( present day KPK). He was busy seeking aid from USA and was ready to do anything for them (yet Pakistani loath USA). He was busy lecturing Bengalis that Bangla language does not matter, it does not help integration and you have to give it up to become proper Pakistani. Was he even thinking of making constituent assembly for making constitution. He was busy sidelining the persons he had used like Suhrawardy, Jogendra Nath Mandal(This chap was not Muslim enough to be taken into confidence on Kashmir etc). Jinnah was the biggest con artist even for Muslims before the partition and after the partition when he was using these people and others, inciting many many others including Ambedkar, South Indians like Periyar (to seek Dravidistan) Nizam , Nawab of Junagadh to seek separation from India. He was telling Muslims that they can’t  live with Hindus as Muslim God or inspirations are different,  Muslim’s language is different, or culture is different. But soon after partition Mr Jinnah  was parroting the songs of secularism(his 11th Aug speech), which Congress was talking about all along before or after the partition. Did Mr Jinnah ever write a book or leave any notes that you could have a look at his vision. No, he did not leave behind  anything. Nehru on the other hand had written books on which you can judge him today. In 1938, Nehru was appointed the chairman of planning by SC Bose on the recommendation of famous Indian scientist Meghnad Saha. So, it is no wonder, Pakistanis remain confused to this day about Mr Jinnah, the con artist  if he was secular or was a hard core Muslim. Mr Jinnah had believed in confederation when he was negotiating with the Congress but not when he was usurping Baluchistan and trying to capture Kashmir or integrating NWFP. He was not thinking about democracy being driven in Pakistan from Bengal as at that time East Pakistan or Bengal was the most populous state in erstwhile Pakistan. He was not thinking of making Dhaka, the capital of Pakistan or imposing Bengali language on the rest of the Pakistanis. Though, Jinnah had no qualms imposing Urdu on Bengali people.
So, this man had no consistent principles and no vision of driving down democracy or equality, development, security of people in Pakistan. He is the reason Muslims are divided into three and not because of ‘Congress ki Kaminagi’ (or meanness of Congress) as Nisar seems to suggest in that chat when he fails to see the hypocrisy of Mr Jinnah. Mr Jinnah was the one asking for separate Muslim electorate before partition to safeguard the Muslims interests but he was not thinking of safeguarding any Hindu interests in Pakistan post independence. Elimination of Hindus was still going on fullscale in both Eastern and Western wings while Mr Jinnah was running Pakistan. Mr Jinnah is the reason bulk of the Pakistani Muslims are exploited and  trapped in endemic poverty in present day Pakistan as the feudals lord over everyone in concert with the Army, Mullahs and few prominent families.  Everybody else Hindus, Christians etc (including minority Muslims too) are suffering too along with them and  the law of blasphemy is the one that defines today’s Pakistan and is used against all specially the minorities. So, who was the midget Mr Nissar again? Mr Jinnah or Pt Nehru? It is hard to believe that Mr Nissar, who can read and analyse virtually all things very well can not see that Mr Jinnah was full of contradictions. Perhaps his love for Mr Jinnah blinds him so much as not to acknowledge the faults of Mr Jinnah. I do not know, if one would call Mr Jinnah conniving or duplicitous in saying one thing and believing in completely opposite but this (being duplicitous) has become Pakistan leaders’ national character. Can anyone trust anyone?

December 16, 2014

Pakistan’s s Future could still be rosy after the latest mayhem

_79757855_pakistan_army_school_attack_624map

(courtesy Digital Globe: google Images)

So, soon after Malala got the Nobel Prize, this carnage today on a Pakistani Military School comes along, perhaps it is the biggest attack fatalities wise in Pakistan. Taliban seems to be the perpetrator. In spite of being poignant, I am looking again with the renewed vigour on Pakistan. There is this article from Shashi Tharoor on Pakistan and India relations, talks etc. Shashi Tharoor was the state foreign minister in last Indian govt. He came second to to Ban Ki Moon  of being head of the UN . He writes that it  is no policy for India not to engage with Pakistan in talks. I wonder what type of meaningless talks he advocates and with whom. All talks are meaningless as Pak Army has persisted with the same ideology of two nation theory and bleeding India to thousand cuts even after the appointment of its latest General, Mr Raheel Sharif. They do not want to give up controlling the Pak budget. It does not matter if it keeps the Pakistan sliding further into destitution. They are becoming good guys in the eyes of public at present though as TTP seems to have been suppressed or eliminated in spite of this one off carnage today. The attitude however on the path regarding capturing Kashmir or controlling Afghanistan has not changed one bit by Army. So, saving the terrorists or so-called Mujahid’s terror camps or their infiltration into Kashmir remains as before. Also, those Talibans were saved which may soon be operating in the  Afghanistan e.g. Haqqanis. The new Afghan govt is on the back foot at present as it can not afford to blame Pakistan straight away on daily unfolding bombs explosions.  It wants Pakistan to help in reconciliation with Talibans who have already started getting better results in the aftermath of withdrawal of NATO forces.

So, where do we stand ? The Afghan govt is definitely better equipped this time as against when USSR left Afghanistan in 1989. This time it has functional army with some tools handed over to them by US/NATO. But it is dependent on the handout from US etc and it has developed no self sustaining capacity financially. So, a sustained campaign by  Taliban reducing the govt capacity to fight back daily will make the Afghan Govt cede a sizeable controlling power  in Afghanistan soon to them. With that looming victory, the role of India and US in Afghanistan will soon be over and both of these powers have to reconcile to this fact. However, Mr Kerry is going to Pak to develop a good relationship of US with Pak. So, Pak army will be resurgent and confident in spite of occasional setbacks as today’s carnage. It has already started dictating to its civilian govt on India-Pak relations. So, in such a scenario, without doubt no brick can move in its  relationship with India either on trade or on other disputes irrespective of what civilian govt Pak may have? It is also not in India’s interests to pursue the repair of any relations with Pakistan when the army  remains in ascendance and largely in charge unless someone like Gen Musharraf comes again to the fore.

_79756185_79756184

(Courtesy AP – BBC)

This does not sound very optimistic but where does the future rests of Pakistani state. Well, it is entirely in the hands of Pak Army. If the army believe in the welfare of Pakistan and not just in the welfare of their own institution, then there is a solution.

In 1959, there was a proposal made by then Pakistani ruler Gen Ayub Khan to India for building joint Defence . It was shot down by India as it was not clear on joint defence against whom. India at the time wanted to follow avidly non-alignment as being its founder and Pakistan was a member of SEATO and CENTO and completely aligned with the west.  So, it would have meant defence against communist block. Mr Nehru, had however made several (at least 10) no-war pact proposals to Pakistan e.g. in 1949, 1958, 1963 but Pakistan rejected them all because it wanted Kashmir to be settled first.

Now, one thing that can happen which did not happen in the past  is for Pak Army to accept the divided Kashmir on the current boundaries (Ceasefire lines, Lines of Control etc)  and make a new  pact with India on joint military for any expeditions or joint missions e.g. terrorism or Maoism in India. It could be based on the same lines like UK and France have done. Such a pact should not be seeking only the joint defence against external enemies or no-war pact as these two sides offered to each other in the past. This should enable  Pakistan to stay together and be governable and be able to educate its public and make them reasonably well off. Pakistan will be able to exploit its resources and the  restive states as Baluchistan etc can become peaceful .In doing so, the Pak Military does not have to drastically reduce its budget but the  army  will also benefit as it does not have to compete any more with India on every modernisation effort Indian army engages in. It will help not only SAARC to become a proper union but also help Afghanistan to become viable. I am sure India will not shoot down such a proposal if it came from Pak Military. Trouble is India has to recognize that Indian civilian govt has to talk and negotiate either directly with Pak Army or with a group made up of civilian govt and Pak Army. This alone can help build the trust between these two eternal enemies (Pak and India) and this alone will establish that Pak definitely have an intent of moving forward  on its relations with India.

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: