Taliban Khan Biggest Supporter of Monsters Taliban made by Punjabi Establishment

Liberal Pakistanis have criticized cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan's opposition to a military operation against the Taliban. His alleged support to the Islamists has earned him the title, 'Taliban Khan.'

Imran Khan:Aka Taliban Khan  Flirting with the Taliban

Recently, when the Pakistani Taliban nominated Imran Khan to engage in peace talks with Islamabad, liberal sections of society exclaimed, "See, we always said that Khan was one of the Islamists!"

Although Khan immediately refused to take part in the talks, the controversial "Taliban Khan" tag that he has earned over the years, got another endorsement.

Imran Khan is now one of the key players in Pakistani politics. His party came third in the May 2013 parliamentary elections and now rules the northwestern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province bordering Afghanistan. He wants Islamabad to make peace with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and sever its alliance with the US in the "war against terror."

Power and Money Hungry : Imran Khan married Jewish Jemima Goldsmith in 1995

"We will win this war if we disengage from the US," Khan recently told the media. "As long as the Taliban believe we are fighting the US war, they would declare jihad on us. This would be a never ending war," he added.

This is certainly a very different image of a liberal person who studied at the University of Oxford and played in the English cricket league in the 1980s. Back then, Khan was discussed in the British press as much for his sporting talent as for his alleged love affairs.

Khan went on to become one of the most successful cricketers Pakistan has ever produced, under whose leadership the nation won its first Cricket World Cup in 1992. He later engaged in philanthropic work in Pakistan and married British writer and campaigner Jemima Goldsmith. The wedlock, however, didn't last long.

Khan entered politics in the late 1990s, forming a party called Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI). Although he was worshipped by millions in the country as a great cricketer, Khan was never considered a serious politician, even by his ardent fans, until 2011.

Cant be Away from Cameras ?? Cricketer Play boy and now Taliban Khan 

But now, for many of his fellow contrymen, the 60-year-old is the "last hope" in a country which is facing innumerable problems ranging from a non-functional economy to a protracted Islamist insurgency. For others, he is a right-wing politician who wants to appease the Taliban.

Who really is Imran Khan?

Play Boy and Play Girl Perfect Couple now Deceiving Pashtuns 

So how did a person, who was doubted even by members of his own political party as a political alternative to the two main political families, the Bhuttos and the Sharifs, become a force to reckon with in the Islamic Republic? Was it because of the support of the ubiquitous Pakistani army and its Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), as his critics claim, or was it the relentless political campaigning that Khan has been doing for more than 16 years? Khan's supporters believe it is the latter.

"Khan's stance on corruption, terrorism and nepotism in Pakistani politics has struck a chord with the masses, which are fed up with the traditional ruling elite. He has no corruption charges on him, no foreign assets," claims PTI activist in Islamabad, Khawar Sohail.

Imran Khan Rise to Power by Punjabi Establishment / GHQ and its Made Taliban

But some observers argue that Khan is backed by Pakistan's right-wing groups, in particular the military establishment, because of his "soft" stance on the Taliban and other Islamist militants. His rise in Pakistani politics, they claim, is due to his "good relations" with the ISI. Khan agrees with the organization's position on matters such as Afghanistan and Pakistan's national security, they say.

Amima Sayeed, a development researcher from Karachi, believes that Khan, most definitely, supports right-wing extremists. He has not made it secret.

Need any ID Card ??

"When the Swat peace deal between the government and the Taliban was introduced in 2009, Imran Khan was the first politician to support it. His collaboration with the Islamic Jamaat-e-Islami party is also a proof of his right-wing agenda," she told DW.

"He might not sound like a religious political leader of the Jamaat-e-Islami or the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, but his views about the region, the world, and in particular about the militant groups in Pakistan, are sympathetic if not supportive of the religious right," Owais Tohid, a journalist for the Wall Street Journal in Karachi, agrees. "He opposes a military crackdown on the militants and dismisses the idea that there has been an increase in the homegrown jihadist culture in Pakistan over the years."

Eight months of Failed Government  in power

But some analysts say that the debate about Khan's Islamist or liberal credentials is actually taking the spotlight away from his performance as a politician and the leader of a party which governs an important province of the country.

Khan promised speedy justice and an end to corruption in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province after taking its reins. During the election campaign, he also said his party would curb violence and bring peace.

Chief Trainer of Taliban Mullah Sami and Iran Siddique a Taliban Sympathizer in Paki Media 

Representatives of the Pakistani government and the Taliban met in Islamabad for peace talks

Khan's PTI has been in power for almost , 1 year and eight months, yet critics state that most of his election promises have not been fulfilled.

"The government in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province has not delivered anything to people. Corruption and nepotism are rampant and there hasn't been any significant development work in the past eight months," said Qasim Jan, a student in the northwestern city of Peshawar.

"Khan has only focused on protesting US drone strikes in the northwestern tribal areas, blocking the NATO supply route to Afghanistan, and coming up with all sorts of excuses in support of the militants," he added.

Pakhtunkhwa Governance 

Islamabad-based writer, Arshad Mahmood, agrees: "Things are pretty much the same as they were in the past. Khan's party workers consider themselves to be above the law and won't cooperate with the administration. If the PTI officials don't obey the law, how will the governance be improved?," asked Mahmood.

But Khan's supporters, which comprise mainly the Pakistani youth, feel his administration is being unfairly criticized.

"The government has made great strides into a faster and more effective judicial system. The education budget of the province is much bigger than in other provinces. Yes, there are problems, but things are improving," Zakria Zubair, a young entrepreneur in Islamabad, told DW. The 29-year-old PTI supporter also says that Imran Khan is playing the role of a competent opposition leader in the country's lower house of parliament.

source ; http://www.dw.de/pakistan-school-massacre-to-further-strengthen-armys-resolve-to-fight-ttp/a-18134203

Challenges to Peace and Secularism in Pakistan

by Gulalai Ismail

Pakistan is an immensely plural country characterized by religious, sectarian and ethno-linguistic diversities. After a long regime of military dictatorship, we have become a democratic state from last three years, though the democracy still has to grow and nurture. The women movement of Pakistan has also achieved some milestones in the last few years by successfully replacing some of the discriminatory laws against women, with laws which protect rights of women. Many young people of Pakistan have started feeling the responsibility towards the disturbing peace and political situation in Pakistan, which is very positive for youth led organizations like us.


Now coming to the issues and challenges faced by the movement of Peace and Secularism in Pakistan. I would like to start by giving a recent example. In the start of this year, Salman Taseer, governor of one of the Province of Pakistan was killed by his own guard when he stood up for the rights of minorities of Pakistan, When he defended Asia Bibi , a Christian woman, accused of blasphemy. He termed the discriminatory blasphemy laws as black laws and demanded for change of these laws. The Blasphemy law is an oppressive law in Pakistan, which permit death penality to any person defaming the name of the Prophet Muhammad. This law is intensively used in Pakistan against the religious minorities to violate their rights as citizens and to oppress them. The assassination of Salman Taseer by his guard was celebrated throughout the country by thousands of people, and the murderer became a hero. A large number of lawyers offerend to defend the murderer, many people all over the Pakistan commented on the death that they would have done the same if they were in the position of the murderer. A month later Minister for the Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti was assassinated for the same reason. The celebration of the assassination was a backlash on the peace and secularism movement in Pakistan, it showed that the people have lost their tolerance for opposing views, and for secularism. The incident depicts how brutality and violence has become an accepted political tool.


This is just one example, violence against the religious minorities in very common such as continuous violence and suicide attacks against another religious minority group known as Ahmadiya. The constitution have declared them as Non-Muslims, while they identify themselves as Muslims. It is compulsory for every Pakistani to sign a document for making national identity cards and passport, which mentions that “Ahmadiya” are non-muslims. Thus the sate is directly violating the rights of this religious minority group. Brutality and violence such as suicide attacks against them, attacks on their religious places and ceremonies are also a fact. The attutide of the nation towards other religious minories such as Christians ahd Hindus is also very violent. Hundreds of people from religious minorities lose their lives each year in violence against them, their religious places are destroyed, and they are always at the risk of being becoming victim of the blasphemy laws. Not only violence against the religious minorities is common, but also the mainstream muslims are becoming a threat for each other, many mainstream Muslims now fear other mainstream Muslims. I am talking about sectarian violence, violence which is happening among the different Islamic groups of Pakistna such as Shia and Sunni sects; the two major sects of muslims. The sectarian violence is claiming hundereds o f lives each year. There have been frequent clashes between Sunni and Shia groups across the country.


Today, Pakistan is facing multiple conflicts linked to religion, the largest of which is the issue of Talibanization, the Taliban movement is working for implementing Sharia system in Pakistan. The roots of Taliban movement trace back to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, when Pakistan played a central role in the fight against Russia. Back in 1979, millions of Jehadi’s were trained in Pakistan to achieve U.S. interests of containing Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Soon after the war ended these Jehadi’s were left ruined by their Masters, and after 9/11 they were termed as terrorist, who fled to Pakistan after the American attack on Afghanistan. Today, Pakistan is bleeding at the hands of monsters which it created decades ago to fight Russia in Afghanistan. The Taliban are now aiming to take control of the sate of Pakistan for implementing system of Sharia, and for for doing so they are using violence as a tool. These religious militant organizations have disrupted the social fabric of Pakistan, each year thousands of people are losing their lives and livelihoods in hundreds of suicide attacks. The Taliban have blowned up hundereds of girls and boys schools, have targeted universities, health facilities, recreation centers, and public places. The Taliban movement though have accepted the responsibility of the violent attacks, but many Pakistanis will still choose to believe that an outside hand is involved in the violent activities inside the Pakistan, thus denying that they are part of the problem. It is also an irony that even after all these destructions caused by the religious extremists, the majority of Pakistanis are demanding an ever greater role for religion in public life. They find the violence done by Taliban hateful, but even then they want a strict application of Sharia in Pakistan, a survey conducted has proved that total 79% of the population wanted Sharia to be implemented in country. Public discussions on the issue of religious extremism are non-existent. When the issues of Pakistan are analyzed, the majority of the people think that they are facing all these issues because they have forgetten their Islamic principles, and getting far away from the true essence of Islam, therefore, they think that the solution lies in strict implementation of Shiaria in all aspects of their lives. There are some strange perceptions of the majority of the muslims of Pakistan because of which they are dreaming for a more religious state, and not only they are aiming strict implementation of Sharia in Pakistan, but also in the entire world. I will like to share these perceptions with you, so that you can trace the roots of religious extremism in it. The perceptions are:
1. Islam is complete code of life and Quran has the best solution of all these issues. The Muslim can dominate all the world with teachings of Islam


2. Islam is for all the periods and times, therefore Sharia system should be implemented exactly the same as it was implemented by Prophet Muhammad.




3. Islam is the only reality, all other religions became invalid after Islam and it is utmost responsibility of all the Muslims to implement this reality and to demolish the false religions.


4. It is order of God to make Islam dominant on all religions and systems because every other system except Islam is based on ignorance and insurgency from God. Non-Muslims are enemies of God and it is responsibility of each Muslim to fight against the enemies of God.




5. The Muslims are the best Nation of the world, they have been selected by God for ruling the world and have been awarded with Quran which is the best system. therefore it is their duty to spread Islam through different means including war, and to bring all states under the flag of Islam.


6. The process of dominating Islam on the entire world and defeating the non-Islamic forces is Holly war is mandatory for every Muslim and those who are killed in this process are martyrs. The martyrs will be awarded with Heaven where there will be at least 80 Beautiful virgin women for each of them. Isn’t it a good a reason for war?


7. Three levels of “faith” are described; the higetst level, the moderate level, and the weakerst level. The weakest level is, if you see something bad is happening and you can’t stop it consider it bad; the 2nd level of faith is to speak against any bad thing happening, and the highest level of faith is to stop any bad act with your hand, s to achieve the highest level of faith many tend to stop every action they consider bad through violence. And as we know good and bad are subjective, so if they think you are doing anything bad in public or private sphere they can impose violence on you.


8. The knowledge of religion Islam is superior to every kind of education, and therefore a Scholar of Islam is superior to every scholar and every scientist. Therefore, a large number of muslism in Pakistan take a pride in schooling from the madrassas rather than normal public schools.


9. We know that the number of muslims in increasing in the world, because they consider it their right to preach Islam and convert people, but in Pakistan they deny the right of Muslims to adopt other life stances. And if they do so, they are at the risk of being killed. Therefore, humanists and atheists can’t show their status publically, otherwise, they are at the risk of being killed.


The perceptions about the superiority of Islam and Muslims are just one part of the problem, there are many other factors playing its role in the religious extremism in Pakistan, lets start from the Education System of Pakistan. According to the National guidelines of the Primary School Education, one of objective of the Education is to prepare children for Jihad in every aspect of their life. Just imagine, young school kids are taught in the school that they have to fight for the invasion of Islam. In the School books they are taught about all the perceptions I talked about. The school books are breeding hatred against non-muslims especially Indians. The non-muslims are termed as enemies in the text books. Thus, the education system is promoting religious extremism among the young people.


Not only in formal schools the agenda of extremism and Jihad is promoted, but also a huge number of non-formal religious schools known as Madrassas are active in breeding religious extremism and militants. It is an irony that even today the number of these schools in increasing, and the state has no control over their syllabus. Millions of children and young people are living in studying in these madrassas. The madrassas are especially attracting the poor, by provding incentives such as free food, accommodaiton and monthly stipend. But not only the poor people, people from all socio-economical classes are being attracted by these religious schools. It is such an irony that the today the Heroes of young people of Pakistan are atomic scientists and invaders, not intellectuals or activists.


Now coming to the role of media, the media. It is the one of the most independent institutions in Pakistan, and have the freedom of speech, but unfortunately, it has always been reluctant in presenting a good analysis of the issue of religious extremism. It is at the fore front of spreading anti-west and extremist agenda. I still remember many songs and Drama from my childhood played on TV which were aimed at promoting the spirit of Holy War among the youth.


The religious political parties are playing crucial role in spreading religious extremism in the population, their open hate speeches, and anti-west speeches trigger violence and hatred in the society. These religious political parties portay themselves the leaders of Islam, and use every opportunity to trigger hatred against non-muslims and the west. They have strong influence over the mindset of people.


The most vital role of oppressing the religious minorities and spreading religious extremism has been played by the Constitution of Pakistan. The preamble of the Constitution of Pakistan which is known as “Objective Resolution” clearly states that all the rules and regulations of the country should be framed according to Islam. In the effort to have a different political identity from India which is a secular state, Pakistani leaders wanted to create a pronounced Muslim society, as a result over the succeeding decades especially in 1970s and 1980s, the Pakistani state instead of guaranteeing equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, it pushed Islam on its people as a matter of policy thus affecting the civil rights of Pakistani especially minorities.


The Constitution of Pakistan tried to present itself as a reflection of the Muslim majority, the constitution defined religion of the state as “Islam”, whereas it was clearly mentioned in the constitution of Pakistan that no law repugnant to Islam can be enforced in Pakistan, Islamic way of life will be promoted by the government, while the two highest offices in the country – the President and Prime Minister – can be occupied by Muslims only. Thus minorities having no chance of assuming leading roles, and acquired a second class citizenship.. The Islamization of the constitution led to the institutional exclusion and segregation of minorities.


During this Islamatization process of the Constitution of Pakistan, discriminatory laws against minorities and women were introduced in Pakistan such as “Blasphemy Law”. It was meant to counter blasphemy against the Holy Book of Muslims Quran and the Prophet Muhammad through severe punishments such as sentence to death. This law prohibited women and minorities from initiating blasphemy cases, thus making minorities and atheists, more disempowered and to be easily accused by the majority Muslim Society. This law institutionalized prohibitions on thinking in a rationale and humanist manner. And the only way left with the people is not to express their humanistic views and keep quiet; otherwise they can be sentenced to death. The Islamatization of the constitution increased insecurity for humanists and religious minorities, and as a result Physical attacks, large scale killings, social stigmatization, psychological insecurity, forced conversions and continued institutional degradation characterize the position of humanists and religious minorities


The support and spread of religious extremism through the different institutions of states such as Education, Media, Religious Political Parties, and Constitution has directly and indirectly led to the strengthening of the movement of Taliban in Pakistan. It seems that the government is interested to keep the Taliban movement alive because of some economical and political reasons. The economic reason is “Pakistan receives millions of foreign aid to fight against the Taliban, and ceasing of Taliban movement can also lead to ceasing of foreign aid, therefore it is better to keep the movement alive. The political reason behind keeping the Taliban movement alive is strategic depth, as they supplement and support the Pakistan Armed Forces in conflict Zones such as Kashmir.


The growing religious extremist has badly affected young people and women of Pakistan. Young people who comprise more than 60% of the total population are brainwashed regularly through the biased education system, media, and propaganda of religious political parties. These young people are thus an easy target for the militant organizations, who recruit these young people. The Talibanizaiton have claimed thousands of lives in hundreds of suicide attacks, and leaving many traumatized behind.


The tale of issues will not end, even if I keep on talking for the whole day, therefore I would like to move towards what I and my Organization are doing in this situation. Our organization “Aware Girls’ as the name depicts, is young women led organization. It is working on empowering young women for bringing positive social change and peace. Aware Girls believes that tolerance, pluralism, non-violence, and humanism are the pillars of peace. We are working on combating religious extremism among the young people of Pakistan by promoting these pluralistic values. Our program working on peace is known as “Seeds of Peace” which aims to seed peace through the young people. We train young volunteers on skills for peacebuilding and countering extremism, these train volunteers then work directly with other young people to combat religious extremism among them, to de-radicalize them, and prevent them from joining the movement of extremism and Taliban. Every year we reach at least 500 young people directly through our 50 volunteers.


We are also working for a secular Pakistan, last year we did a signature campaign for a secular Pakistan, and we were able to collect few thousand signatures, which means we still have to go long way to promote secualar approach among the youth of Pakistan.


As, a women organization we are focusing on building Leadership and Active Citizenship among the young women, so that the role of young women in political and democratic process can be enhanced, and they can play their role as active citizen for promoting peace and harmony.


I hope that decades from now Pakistan will become a secular country, which will not discriminate between its citizens of different religious identities; its public schools will not poison young minds with hatred; Pakistanis will look for human qualities rather than an individuals’ religious affiliation; and the life and property of all citizens will be considered equally valuable. The concept of “extremsim and Talibanization” shall have become irrelevant. Tolerance and non-violence will become a norm, and everyone will have the freedom to be religious or non-religious. There will be space for open dialogue between religious and non religious people, and we Humanist have to be careful also not to be extremist in our discourse. We have to work for a moderate, secular, pluaristic, and tolerant socities. Though these dreams appears difficult today but are not impossible, and our continous struggle will definitely lead to these goals.


SOURCE: http://zamaghagawaz.blogspot.com/2011/08/challenges-to-peace-and-secularism-in.html

Blaming Malalaa Yousafzai for In Action of Mullah Military Taliban Alliance over Gaza Massacre.

            

Malalaa yousafzai 

A famous Punjabi saying, ‘digga khoti tooN gussa kumhar tay’ [One is fallen from the donkey but blames the potmaker] is the most appropriate expression for describing certain Pakistani ‘friends of Gaza’ busy blaming Malala for not condemning Israel’s latest aggression. Had Jalib been around, he would have poured his scorn anew, ‘Dartay hain mo’chooN wallaya ik nehti larki say’.

            What unites Ummah is definitely not Israel. It is highly contagious ignorance. Conspiracy theories to vilify Malala when she was shot at by a Talib, reached all the way to Palestine itself. Many aPalestinian declared the attack on  Malala as a mock attack. However, it is our Muslim Indian brethren often proving more Pakistani than Pakistanis.  A Facebook friend (I sometimes wish one also had the option of  Facebook Enemies) from India has also hosted a full fledge ‘poem’ (though badly rhymed) condemning Malala. No counter-check, no verification is considered necessary when it comes to ‘Western agents’.

            Our Facebook jihadis do not even read newspapers, it seems. Honestly, I heard Malala’s statement condemning the Israeli invasion on BBC Urdu before I noticed a Facebook post condemning her for ignoring the Gaza crisis. I was critical of both. Malala, I thought, should not poke her nose everywhere. Likewise, I regretted BBC Urdu’s editorial judgment. Malala is not an expert  on Gaza crisis. She is not a politician She has dedicated herself to the cause of, in particular, girls’ education. In this regard, there is a justification if she travels to Nigeria to express her solidarity with the girl-students kidnapped by Boko Haram. She may be outraged over hundreds of issues on a daily basis. But we should be spared her statements on BBC Urdu and other mainstream media outlets on topics she is hardly expert on, even if she is entitled to hold whatever views and freely express them.

            I was definitely wrong. Malala paid the price for violating Salafi-Sharia the Taliban had imposed in Swat. From now on, she will be paying the price for refusing to toe the Online-Sharia that middle-class, clean-shaven urban  Taliban (but beards in their stomachs) have devised for Pakistani women, peasants and workers.

            While Swat’s mountain Taliban attempted to assassinate her physically, their urban counterparts are trying to assassinate her integrity, commitment, and character till she recants (Will she submit?). I wish I had not written about Malala. I did not before. I still think a coward like myself lacks the moral ground to even pay tribute to Malala’s courage. But her critics unfortunately are people with few scruples. They are not angry at the OIC (justifiably ridiculed as Oh I See!) or the Arab League for betraying the Palestine cause.

            It does not bother Malala-haters that both the Pakistan government and their political leadership, from Imran Khan’s Tehrik-e-Insaf to Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League have looked the other way as Israel devastates Gaza [I am discounting PPP and ANP since they do not represent the Urban Taliban even if their role is equally regrettable].

Since ‘ignorance is power’ in the case of Malala bashers [even Google is helpless before the power ignorance commands in the blogosphere where Pakistani middle classes operate],   I, therefore, will not blame them for not directing their anger towards Brigadier Zia-ul-Haq for his notorious role in Black September.

 However, now when Malala has condemned the Gaza invasion (please do not ask her to receive a fake Israeli bullet in a mock encounter in Gaza to prove her sincerity), should not Malala critics muster courage and express solidarity with dozens of Gazas regularly created domestically: Imambargahs, Hazara and Christian neighbourhoods, Sufi shrines, Ahmedi mosques, Hindu Bastis and whole of FATA.   

(II)

            Rafeef Ziadah is many things – an activist, scholar, musician, poet. In every role, she is the voice of Palestine. During a demonstration, a western journalist asked her: “Ms Ziadah, don’t you think that everything would be resolved if you would just stop teaching so much hatred to your children?”

            In mainstream western discourses, it is usually not Israel that is posing any problem. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is explained away by an instinctive Muslim/Palestinian hatred for Jews. Islamophobic clichés strengthened by the rise of Hamas help ease the job. 

            As if to introduce the journalist to the rich tradition of Arabic poetry, Rafeef responded with a dazzling poem, titled, ‘We teach life, sir!’Here is an excerpt: 

“Today, my body was a TV’d massacre.

Today, my body was a TV’d massacre that had to fit into sound-bites and word limits.

Today, my body was a TV’d massacre that had to fit into sound-bites and word limits filled enough with statistics to counter measured response.

And I perfected my English and I learned my UN resolutions.

But still, he asked me, Ms Ziadah, don’t you think that everything would be resolved if you would just stop teaching so much hatred to your children?

Pause.

 I look inside of me for strength to be patient but patience is not at the tip of my tongue as the bombs drop over Gaza.

Patience has just escaped me.

 Pause. 

Smile.

“We teach life, sir!”

Rafeef, remember to smile.

Pause

 “We teach life, sir! We Palestinians teach life after they have occupied the last sky.

 “We teach life after they have built their settlements and apartheid walls, after the last skies. We teach life, sir!”

Yet again Israel is pounding Gaza. In the realm of social media, any gesture of solidarity with Palestine earns you liberal wrath. ‘Why do a few dead bodies and a couple of bombs over Gaza bother you so much when the Taliban are massacring innocent Pakistanis next door?’ comes the reprimand. Ironically, this is exactly what the religious right does. Point out any puritan barbarity and in response puritans will cite two imperial/infidel outrages. The way politicised Islam refuses to be a ‘religion of peace’ beyond Nile-to-Kashgar, the liberalism of many Pakistan liberals also begins to wane when the victims at the receiving end of imperial or Zionist barbarisms happen to be ‘uncouth Arabs’.

The outrage over the Gaza bombings is not owing to the fundamentalists’ hegemonic sway over the apocryphal Muslim world, or Talibanisation in the case of Pakistan. Long before the Taliban were even born, Jalib used to mock the mullahs for ignoring the Palestinian cause while Faiz penned ‘Lullaby for a Palestinian Child’ and attributed his ‘Meray Dil Meray Musafir’ to Yasser Arafat.

That Palestine invokes such passions in the Muslim world and beyond mirrors, in the first place, the success of the Palestinian liberation struggle as a political project. Second, symbolised by Leila Khaled, Mehmoud Darwesh, Edward Said and Yasser Arafat, the heroic Palestinian resistance against the last surviving and violent colonial project has invoked a general solidarity worldwide. From post-apartheid South Africa to communist Cuba, Palestine has won global solidarity. After 200 invasion f Gaza, Bolivia and Venezuela severed diplomatic ties with IsraeI In Sweden, a Davis Cup match in 2009 between Sweden and Israel was played in an arena without spectators. Authorities banned any audience for fear of anti-Israel protesters. In fact, Palestine solidarity is much stronger in the west than the Muslim world. Third, history and the west’s guilty conscious/hypocrisy further stoke the Palestinian fire. I would humbly suggest: instead of getting irritated over Gaza, let us learn lessons in resistance and dignity from Palestine. Rafeef Ziadah correctly points out:

We Palestinians wake up every morning to teach the rest of the world life, sir!

(III)

            Dear Liberals! When are you going to stage a Syria-solidarity sit-in? But watch out. A demonstration against the Assad regime will land you in the ISIS camp (by the same logic you bracket the left with Hamas). A demonstration against ISIS will land you in the camp of Iranian Ayotollahs.

sources : http://viewpointonline.net/2014/07/vp212/ridiculing-left-for-solidarity-with-gaza-goading-malala-for-silence-over-gaza

How Pakhtunkhwa Rivers are Dried up To Supply Water to Punjab and Islamabad Under PTI and MMA (Mullah Military Alliance) Agents of Punajbis

PESHAWAR, Feb 22: The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government on Friday demanded the review of Ghazi Barotha hydropower project due to objection to its design.

“Ghazi Barotha project should be revisited because its execution is not in line with the original design. The undue spanning of canal has caused severe water shortage in parts of our province. We’ll not allow anyone to steal our water,” provincial information minister told a seminar at the Peshawar Press Club.

Watan Welfare Society (WWS) organised the seminar titled ‘Water Supply Scheme to the Twin Cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi’.

The minister said Awami National Party had strongly resisted the construction of Kalabagh Dam and would go all-out to get the Ghazi Barotha project’s design reviewed as per the original plan.

He said the agreement of Ghazi Barotha hydropower project had been violated due to increase in the spanning of the relevant canal and therefore, water of the canal should be re-diverted.

Mr Hussain said it was unfortunate that rivers in the province had dried up but the Ghazi Barotha canal had a good flow of water.

He said it was surprising that the province had been deprived of its water resources though Council of Common Interest, which was the right forum to discuss such matters, had never approved the Ghazi Barotha project.

The minister said the project had led to the drying up of many tube wells in Swabi and thus, causing severe shortage of water in the area.

“After 18th Constitutional amendment, provinces have got more powers. Now, no one can occupy resources of others,” he said.

Earlier, WWS chairman Dr Mehsud told participants that the CDA chairman and China Machinery Engineering Company (CMEC) recently signed an agreement of water supply project to Islamabad and Rawalpindi on June 5, 2012 without taking Khyber Pakhtunkhwa on board.

He said the government and bureaucracy in the centre were bent on taking control of water reservoirs of the province.

“Bids are being made to create problems for the people of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Kalabagh Dam, Akori Dam and supply of water to Punjab from the province are a few instances to mention in this respect,” he said.

Mr Mehsud said the Ghazi Barotha project was designed during the Musharraf government by CDA and Rawalpindi Development Authority without permission from Indus River System Authority and the KP government.

He said the former provincial government of Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal had opposed the project and even the provincial assembly in 2007 had adopted a resolution unanimously against the supply of water from the Indus River to twin cities.

“As a result of that resolution, work on the project came to a halt. However, CDA and the Chinese firm recently signed an MoU for supplying 200 million gallons of water from Ghazi Barotha to Islamabad and Rawalpindi on daily basis,” he said.

Speakers Dr Said Alam Mehsud, Shahab Khattak, Mukhtar Bacha, Maryam Bibi and Ijaz Hoti expressed surprise that if the provincial government had not approved the project, then how its MoU was signed.

They demanded of the provincial government to take up the matter with the centre to ensure that the local residents were not deprived of their resources.

source: http://www.dawn.com/news/787999/kp-demands-review-of-ghazi-barotha-project-2

Who’s killing Pakistan’s Shia and why?

BY Professor C. Christine Fair

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, in 2013 nearly 700 Shia were killed and more than 1,000 were injured in more than 200 sectarian terrorist attacks. Over 90 percent of those attacks occurred in Quetta, Karachi, Kangu, Parachinar, Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Since the beginning of 2000, nearly 4,000 persons have been killed and 6,800 injured (see figure below).  Who is hunting Pakistan’s Shia and, most importantly, why?

The explanation for Pakistan’s deadly sectarian present lies in the communal politics of Pakistan’s pre-history and the subsequent decisions that Pakistani elites made in the early years about nation building in the new state.  The current path of violence and intolerance may have been paved well before Pakistan became independent in 1947.

Pakistan: Born to Other

As the British appetite for maintaining the Raj declined after World Wars I and II, it became increasingly clear that the declining imperial power would accede to mounting Indian nationalist demands to quit the subcontinent. However, it was not clear what political order would rise from the detritus of the erstwhile Raj.  Some Muslims associated with the All India Muslim League feared that, in a Hindu-majority state, Muslims would be subjected to separate and unequal status.  The Congress Party, which claimed to represent all groups in India and which enjoyed a pan-Indian presence, challenged these claims. However, some within the Congress Party increasingly began to evidence communal sentiments which further discomfited some Muslims in India.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who is widely considered to be the founder of Pakistan, propounded a minoritarian and communal discourse called the “Two Nation Theory.”  Jinnah’s dual claims that he was the “sole spokesman” for India’s Muslims and that his Muslim League best aggregated their interests were contested. In the 1937 elections, the League suffered a thrashing. The Muslim-majority areas that are now a part of today’s Pakistan either voted for the Congress or provincial parties. By the 1940s, Jinnah and the League gained traction and in the 1946 provincial elections, the Muslim League redeemed itself by winning 425 out of 496 seats reserved for Muslims.

However, the idea that the Two Nation Theory ineluctably meant partition is flawed. Jinnah explained the lineaments of the Two Nation Theory in a March 23, 1940 speech in Lahore.  He argued that Muslims and Hindus comprised equal nations. That Muslims were a numerical minority was immaterial because they were a nation on par with the nation of Hindus. Jinnah explained that “If the British Government are [sic] really in earnest and sincere to secure [the] peace and happiness of the people of this sub-continent, the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands by dividing India into  ‘autonomous national states.’” Historians note that this expression is ambiguous and left open the possibility of a federal solution. Nowhere did the address mention the word Pakistan or partition. (Despite these facts, Pakistanis refer to this speech as the “Pakistan Resolution” and celebrate March 23 as a national holiday to commemorate its passage.)

In fact, the Two Nation Theory was a rhetorical and political argument through which Jinnah sought first to receive equal representation in the national parliament of an independent India. In the end, the Congress party refused to acquiesce to this demand, insisting upon a one-person, one-vote scheme. Congress feared that a failure to reach an agreement with the League would delay Britain’s departure. In the end, Congress and the League decided that it would be best if an independent Pakistan was carved from the Raj. And that is what happened. Jinnah was not prepared for the creation of a new state in large part because for so many years, this was never the goal of his negotiations.

The Objectives Resolution

Pakistan came into being through the bloody process of partition. The Punjab, which became the western wing of Pakistan, bore the brunt of this bloodshed in which Hindus and Sikhs engaged in barbaric communal savagery in an effort to cleanse Muslims from Muslim minority areas, and Muslims slaughtered Sikhs and Hindus in areas where those groups were a minority for the same goal of communal cleansing. The butchers won. Violence also happened in Bengal, which became the eastern wing of Pakistan, but on a lesser scale.

Once Pakistan had its bloodied borders, the long process of state and nation-building began. One of the most contentious issues was the nature of the state itself.  Was it to be an Islamic state or was it to be a state for South Asia’s Muslims? If it were to be an Islamic state, what Islamic tradition would comprise the foundations of the fledgling state? This was a non-trivial question because the territory was home to numerous Sunni as well as Shia interpretative traditions. What would be the political standing of Pakistan’s substantial non-Muslim minority?  At the time of Partition, about one fourth of Pakistan’s citizens were non-Muslim. While most of these were Hindus concentrated in East Pakistan (present day Bangladesh), the west also had substantial Hindu, Christian, Parsee and even Sikh populations.  To garner the most support possible for the notion of Pakistan, Jinnah said contradictory things to different people.  This enabled proponents of one vision or another to use and arrange his various speeches selectively like pieces of plastic in a kaleidoscope. In any event, Jinnah died shortly after partition, taking whatever vision of the state he had with him.

Pakistan took the first and irreversible step towards an Islamist state with the Objectives Resolution of March 1949, which declared that sovereignty belonged to Allah alone and that “the Muslims of Pakistan shall be enabled individually and collectively to order their lives in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah.”  The resolution was passed over the objections of Pakistani secularist and minorities. The Objectives Resolution was, in turn, incorporated into Pakistan’s constitution and has since become a fixed feature of Pakistani constitutional law.

However, the Objectives Resolution opened a sluice gate for Islamists who vied to define who qualified as a Muslim and whose interpretation of Sharia was superior. Naturally, Pakistan’s religious minorities became the first casualty of the emerging constitutional disposition. (Pakistan’s constitution stipulates that the president and prime minister must be Muslims. Moreover, all senior officials—including members of parliament—are required to take an oath to “protect the country’s Islamic identity.”)

Islamists next targeted Pakistan’s Ahmedi community and mobilized to have them declared non-Muslim.  Islamists in Pakistan and elsewhere do not accept the Ahmedis as Muslims because they do not accept Muhammad as the final prophet.  This was ironic: many of the key leaders of the Muslim League were Ahmedi, as were many of Pakistan’s high-profile civilian and military personnel.  After decades of agitation by anti-Ahmedi Islamists, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto acquiesced and declared them to be constitutionally non-Muslim in 1974.  The effects of this legislation have been profound for the Ahmedis. Because Ahmedis consider themselves to be Muslim, offer Muslim prayers, recognize the Quran as their holy book and congregate in facilities they call masjids (mosques), Pakistan’s extremists view them as apostates and even blasphemers.  With this law, the state of Pakistan now permitted and even encouraged persecution as well as prosecution of Ahmedis.  They were no longer allowed to call their places of worship “masjids” or even recite the Quran, among other practices Ahmedis view as fundamental to their faith.  Persecution of Ahmedis even continues beyond death: Pakistan’s police have been involved in defacing Ahmedi graves buried in Muslim cemeteries ostensibly to “prevent clashes.” Pakistan’s only Nobel Prize winner, Abdul Salaam, had his grave defaced.  Where it previously read that Salaam became “the first Muslim Nobel Laureate,” it now reads that he became “the first Nobel Laureate.”

With this victory under their belts, Islamists—particularly led by those associated with the Deobandi interpretative tradition—aimed to have Pakistan’s Shia declared non-Muslim.

Shia: Caught in the Regional Cross Hairs

In 1974, under Zulfiqar ali Bhutto, Pakistan set up a cell within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to undertake covert operations.  Mohammed Daoud Khan had just ousted King Zahir Shah in Afghanistan and begun a liberalization program under Soviet patronage.  Afghan Islamists opposed this, and Daoud violently repressed them.  Many of these Islamists fled to Pakistan, where the ISI developed them for covert operations in Afghanistan.  Once Zia ul Haq seized the Pakistani government in a coup in 1977, he began to shape Pakistan into a Sunni Islamist state.  Some of his efforts, such as imposing the payment of zakat, were specifically antagonistic to Pakistan’s Shia who do not accept Sunni interpretations of zakat.  As Shia came under pressure, they began to mobilize.

Next door, Iran was convulsing into its Shia Islamic Revolution. Not only did Iran seek to export its revolution, it also saw itself as the key protector of Shia across the world.  Iran began supporting Shia militant groups fighting Zia’s efforts to render Pakistan a Sunni Islamic state.  When Iran and Iraq fell into war, Iraq involved itself in Pakistan’s emerging sectarian conflict.  As rival Sunni militant groups—most of which wereDeobandi—began to mobilize against Shia in Pakistan, Iraq began resourcing anti-Shia militant organizations.  Soon the Arab Gulf states joined in to help marginalize Pakistan’s Shia, who were seen as Iran’s pawn in the region.  Thus Pakistan soon became the site of an elaborate sectarian proxy war between Shia Iran and its Sunni strategic competitors.

The Christmas day Soviet invasion of Afghanistan further catalyzed events that cultivated Pakistan’s sectarian killing fields.  Zia’s efforts to make Pakistan a Sunni Islamist state dovetailed with the growing need for (mostly) Sunni militants in Afghanistan.  (Zia preferred Sunni Islamist militants to fight a “jihad” in Afghanistan rather than an ethno-national insurgency against Soviet occupation.  He feared that the latter would precipitate renewed ethnic conflict in Pakistan, principally among its restive Pashtun populations who lived on the border with Afghanistan.)  Once President Carter left office, U.S. and Pakistani policy aligned.  President Reagan threw the weight of his government behind the Zia regime.  The Saudis also funded the manufacturing of jihadis by matching the U.S. contribution dollar for dollar.

When the Soviets finally left Afghanistan in 1989, the United States withdrew from the region.  However, Pakistan continued to use its well-developed stock of Sunni militants to help forge a pro-Pakistan disposition in Afghanistan.  At the same time, Indian mismanagement and malfeasance in Kashmir gave rise to an indigenous insurgency there.  Pakistan deployed the battle-hardened militants from the Afghan theatre to Kashmir.  By the early 1990s, Pakistani militants had overtaken the local insurgency and transformed the conflict from a local insurgent movement into one of international terror.

9/11: Disorientation of the Mullah, Militant and Military Alliance

Throughout the 1990s and up until 2001, Pakistan’s military and intelligence agency supported, armed, and trained numerous Islamist militants for operations in Afghanistan and India.

The largest cluster of militant groups was Deobandi in orientation.  Deobandi groups included the Afghan Taliban, anti-Shia groups such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi (LeJ)/Sipah-e-Sahaba-e-Pakistan (SSP) (which now go by the name of Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat (ASWJ)), and several that were ostensibly fighting the Indians (e.g. Jaish-e-Mohammad).  These Deobandi groups share a vast infrastructure of madrassahs and mosques and have overlapping membership with each other and with the Deobandi Islamist political groups, most notably the factions of the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Islam (JUI).

Throughout the 1990s, sectarian attacks continued.  However, by the 1990s, the Pakistani state crushed the anti-Sunni militias, leaving the anti-Shia Sunni militants intact.  During the mid-1990s, groups such as LeJ/SSP also fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, illustrating their utility to the state.

With the terror attacks of 9/11, Pakistan was forced to cooperate with the United States in its war in Afghanistan.  The militant groups that were most aggrieved by this were the Deobandi groups, as they had the closest relations with the Afghan Taliban.  Moreover, because they often fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan and shared militant training infrastructure with al-Qaeda, they were also most loyal to Osama bin Laden.  By late 2001, some Deobandi militants, under a break-away faction of Jaish-e-Mohammad named Jamaat ul Furqan, began targeting the Pakistani state. They believed the Musharraf government had joined the infidel forces in ousting the Taliban and threating al Qaeda.  They began a series of suicide attacks against the Pakistan military.

As the Pakistan military began moving in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where numerous local, regional and international militants are ensconced, Pakistan’s internal militant situation continued to change.  Local militant commanders in the FATA began targeting the Pakistani military, paramilitary and intelligence agency. By 2007, a suite of anti-state militias coalesced under the banner of the Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Pakistan (TTP, also known as the Pakistan Taliban). While many viewed the TTP as a largely Pashtun phenomenon because it emerged in the tribal areas, in fact, the movement had a very strong backbone of Punjab-based Deobandi militants.  The most vicious TTP activists were those associated with the anti-Shia terror groups (LeJ/SSP/ASWJ).

No One Is Safe Now

When Hakimullah Mehsood assumed command of the TTP, Pakistan’s sectarian killings became more frequent.  Hakimullah had a long history of association with the ASWJ.  Under him, the TTP began targeting any sect of Islam that these Deobandi militants considered to be “munafaqeen” (those who spread discord).  Not only were Pakistan’s Shia under attack (in addition to Ahmedi and Pakistan’s religious minorities), so were Pakistan’s massive Sufi population, frequently referred to as Barelvis.  The TTP began openly attacking Sufi shrines.

Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders have yet to come to any consensus on a political strategy to contend with these militants who have claimed tens of thousands of Pakistani lives since 2001.  The military, for its part, is reluctant to take them on for several reasons. First, parts of the military still see Islamist militants as important tools of foreign policy in India and Afghanistan.  In fact, for some, the loyal Islamist militants will become even more important as the United States withdraws from Afghanistan and as Pakistan needs militants that are loyal to the Pakistani project.  Second, because these Deobandi militant groups share overlapping membership with each other and with the JUI, the JUI provide their militant allies with political cover. Third, the military is unwilling to eliminate them in entirety because it believes that some of them can be rehabilitated and persuaded to aim their guns, suicide vests, and vehicle-born IEDS away from the Pakistani state and towards Afghanistan or India. (Yes. This does mean the Pakistan army—which has received some $27 billion from Washington for being a “partner in the Global War on Terrorism”—is encouraging its militants to kill Americans and their allies in Afghanistan.)  Fourth, the army’s will is no doubt conditioned by its ability.  While the army could certainly do more, its record at combating Pakistan’s domestic enemies is mixed at best and has come at a high human cost in terms of civilian casualties and massive internal displacement.  This is why Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies rely upon the U.S. drone program to take out the terrorists it cannot.  Finally, for national counter-terrorism efforts, Pakistan’s police should take the lead.  But it is well-known that Pakistan’s police are not up to that task.

As for the civilian government, it is likely amenable to some sort of a political compromise with the TTP.  Even if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, who is himself a right-of-center politician, prefers more coercive solutions, he fears the TTP. He also relies upon those voters in the Punjab who support the agenda of the TTP and their anti-Shia sectarian allies.  Sharif fears that, should he muster the testicularity to support military actions against the militants, his chief rival, Imran Khan, would strip away some of his electoral base.  Like Sharif, Khan contested the 2013 general election under the banner of reconciling with the TTP, opposing military actions against them, and denouncing the drone program which has killed many TTP leaders.

Pakistan’s Shia: Caught in Strategic Crosshairs

(LUBP’s note: The Iran-Saudi proxy war theory does not explain that Deobandi terrorists who are killing Shias are also killing Sunni Sufis/Barelvis in Pakistan. It also does not explain that persecution of Shia Muslims is more than 1400 years old in the history of Islam.)

With the U.S. ouster of Saddam Hussein and the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan, Iran’s position in the region has improved since 2001.  Both Saudis and Pakistanis fear a rising Iran in Afghanistan.  For Pakistan’s part, Iran has partnered with India for its work in Afghanistan.  For Saudi Arabia’s part, a rising Shia Iran threatens to undermine the status that Saudi Arabia has arrogated to itself: leader of the Muslim world in general and protector of Sunni interests in particular.  Some Pakistanis in and out of government have often suspected that Iran can manipulate Pakistan’s Shia to achieve Tehran’s varied national and ideological interests, many of which are at odds with those of Pakistan.  Because of fears that Iran can work through these Shia to undermine Pakistan’s interests, no Pakistani government has seriously sought to completely extirpate those Deobandi groups that slaughter Shia.  In contrast, Pakistan’s government vigorously worked to eliminate Shia militias that targeted Sunnis.

Iran and Pakistan share a sensitive border in Balochistan.  In Iran’s Sistan-o-Balochistan province, many residents are Sunni Baloch.  Iran has suffered ethno-sectarian violence there because the residents believe they are second-class citizens owing to their ethnicity and their sectarian beliefs. Iran has often looked apprehensively towards Pakistan, suspecting that it is a source of support for these Sunni Baloch militants. Pakistan, for its part, has problems with its own Baloch, some of whom have waged an ethnic separatist struggle against the Pakistan state.  The Baloch nationalist insurgents have enjoyed support from India and Afghanistan.  This brings to the fore the most vulnerable of all Shia in Pakistan right now: the Hazaras of Quetta.

The Hazaras, who live in Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, are easily recognized by their “Mongolian” facial features.  Hazaras of Balochistan are in danger due to a toxic mix of domestic developments, which have resulted in rising ethnic and sectarian intolerance, as well as regional political factors pertaining to fraught Iran-Pakistan relations.  While Pakistanis tend to view Shia generally with suspicion because of their presumed ties with Iran, Hazaras are viewed with even greater dubiety.  Unlike other Shia in Pakistan who speak Urdu and other vernacular languages, Hazaras speak Farsi and its variants.  This fosters suspicion that they are Iranian spies or even that they are trying to fulminate a Shia revolution in Pakistan.  (The Hazaras in Afghanistan receive support from Iran, and they were frequently the victims of violence in Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled uncontested.)  The Hazaras draw the ire of Deobandis and Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies because they oppose the Afghan Taliban, whose allies include the sectarian killers of the SSP/LeJ/ASWJ, and because they refuse to fight the ethnic Baloch separatists in the province.  The Hazaras and ethnic Baloch separatists may indeed be allies of sorts because both reject the multi-pronged efforts of the state and militants to make Pakistan a Sunni Islamist state.

Sadly, at some point it becomes difficult to discern whether persons are killed by the state or by the terrorists, because in some cases the state outsources its domestic violence to terrorists such as LeJ/SSP/ASWJ.

Should the United States Care and Why?

While it may be tempting to dismiss the senseless slaughter of Shia in Pakistan as an internal Pakistani matter, this is short-sighted for several reasons apart from humanitarian concerns.

First, these anti-Shia Deobandi groups have been the organizations to which al-Qaeda has outsourced its attacks in Pakistan, whether against Pakistani or international targets.

Second, these groups have long had a presence in Afghanistan where they have helped erect a Sunni Islamist regime in Afghanistan with Pakistani overt and covert support.

Third, Pakistan’s sectarian terrorists share overlapping membership with those groups that ostensibly focus upon India (e.g. Jaish-e-Mohammad).  It is very likely that Rawalpindi would like to woo some of these sectarian killers to battlefields in Afghanistan or India.  A terrorist attack in India or against Indian assets in Afghanistan may well be the precipitant of the next Indo-Pakistan crisis.  India’s recent general elections hoisted up the notorious Hindu nationalist, Narendra Modi, as India’s prime minister.  Modi may be more assertive in dealing with Pakistan-based terrorism aggressive than was the previous prime minister, Manmohan Singh.

Finally, it is inherently in the U.S. interest that Pakistan retains some modicum of stability.  The anti-sectarian groups, with their Punjab base, and their track record of successfully hitting high value military and civilian targets and even infiltrating the military, may well be a bigger concern to Washington than they are to either the civilian government in Islamabad or the army headquartered in Rawalpindi.

C. Christine Fair is an assistant professor in the Security Studies Program within Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. She is the author of Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War (Oxford University Press, 2014).

Source: War on the Rocks

source: http://lubpak.com/archives/313983

- See more at: http://lubpak.com/archives/313983#sthash.ZAXEeVSx.dpuf