Dear Pseudo Liberals, what is the point of belittling the sacrifices of our soldiers in ’65 war?

[Umair Nawaz]

Dear Pseudo Liberals, what is the point of belittling the sacrifices of our soldiers in ’65 war?

• BlogOpinion
• Waqas Ahmed
• September 5, 2015 7:26 pm
• 26 Comments

We all know for a fact by now that terrorists are “brainwashed zombies product of mullah ideology of Zia/Saudi[insert whatever you want here]”, that is a well-established fact by now. And that is very well. We have blackened tons of perfectly good newsprint to preach this mantra. But there is another brainwashed gang in our midst and this one didn’t go to the medressahs, they went to universities abroad.

While the extremists on the right get paid with 72 virgins, the ones on the left are paid in NGO consultancies, op-eds in NYT and journalism fellowships. The difference lies only in the type of heaven they believe in, the heaven somewhere above the clouds or the heaven on the western hemisphere of this earth. The reality of both is hotly contested and beyond the scope of this short blog.

One uniting factor for both these gangs is they both see the world in black and white. As I said, ink and paper worth millions have been spent on the lunacy of the right, lets talk about the left for a change and their wholesale hatred of our military.

The Pakistani military, like all armies in the world, has a bit of everything. They have stories of courage as well as corruption, they have had good leaders and bad, selfless martyrs and black sheep. It is a worthy cause to expose, shame and ask for investigations against the corrupt, and black sheep of our army. It is a noble and brave act to write, speak and act against the people who harm our country, willfully or ignorantly, inside our Army’s ranks or outside. And it is stupid to believe that everyone in our army is an angel from heavens.

On the other hand, it is equally stupid to believe that everyone in the Army is in it for the plots and the lands, or that all officers are rich beyond belief, or that they all call us “bloody civilians”, or that they all are madmen hellbent on destroying our precious democracy. However for some, believing these things is a rewarding enterprise. The people who constantly write for army and constantly write against army have no overlap. There is no desire on both sides to be objective, to appreciate what is to be appreciated and to condemn what is to be condemned. That is where they both lose their credibility.

Another defining aspect of the lunatics on the left is their failure to understand the imaginations and aspirations of Pakistanis. Take the example of the recent Twitter trend against Dawn newspaper. I am sure Dawn editorial staff will dismiss it as another outburst from “ignorant, brainwashed Pakistanis – most probably fueled by some shadowy ISPR funds”, and this patronizing attitude towards the average person is the core of their problem. They, in their high and mighty castles of self-righteousness fail to even understand what the 65 war stands for in the mind of an average Pakistani. They did not take into consideration what 6 September means for a Pakistani before embarking upon their arrogant campaign of “teaching Pakistanis whats what”.

6th September, 1965 and the memorial we hold every year is not about Operation Gibraltar. As you may or may not have noticed, we do not celebrate general Musa Khan or Yahya Khan or Maj Gen Akhtar Malik, we do not show their photos on TV neither are there any songs about their heroism or ‘brilliant strategic wisdom’. What we do celebrate every year is the courage and selfless devotion to country of the thousands who did not hesitate to give their lives when the country needed them. We show Major Aziz Bhatti on TV, the songs we play are for him and many like him. This is the day to thank the nameless faceless hundreds who were ready to jump into fire so that no harm may come to this country.

We remember the sheer madness of good men who left their families behind to fight and die not for any gain or glory but to do what they considered their duty. We celebrate people like M M Alam who represented the epitome of skill and fearlessness. We celebrate Aziz Bhatti and his handful of men willing and able to stand against an overpowering enemy. We celebrate the fact that we faced an army many times our size and we resisted bravely, we did not give up Lahore and Sialkot. More than that, this is the day we pay tributes countless others who have died for our country before and after 65, not generals but ordinary soldiers and officers on the ground. We pay tributes to those who continue to die, believing, perhaps foolishly, that their deaths and sacrifices will mean something to their countrymen.

Before belittling the contributions of these men, and then blaming the reaction on some ISPR conspiracy, it would be great if these authors get down from their high-horses and try to understand the people they are trying to preach to. Maybe, excuse me for this crazy theory, people will respond positively to your criticism if after writing 150 articles against Pakistan Army, you write one article appreciating something they have done (I’m looking at you Cyril Almaeda). And maybe if you write in a balanced and objective way for these ‘jaahil Pakistanis‘, showing that the aim of your criticism is to improve the Army not to destroy it, then Pakistanis may not believe you work for Modi.

But then again, there aren’t a lot of people who hope to get their 72 virgins by being balanced, moderate and objective.

Waqas Ahmed is Editor, Digital Media, at Daily Pakistan Global. You can reach him at waqas@dailypakistan.com.pk

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Dear Pseudo Liberals, what is the point of belittling the sacrifices of our soldiers in ’65 war? - Daily Pakistan Global

 

[Kompromat]

They are Marxist anarchists, they don't even believe in the state. I hope our agencies are checking their activities.

 

[N/A]

I never thought we'd see a day were we doubted the sacrifices of our shaheeds...truly a shame

 

[Umair Nawaz]

They are Marxist anarchists, they don't even believe in the state. I hope our agencies are checking their activities.

They remind me of this song.

 

[Ghareeb_Da_Baal]

u asked for it & now u have it.

 

[Desert Fox]

The so called "liberals" are the scum of the earth. They are the enemies of Pakistan. They are the ones who sell Pakistan out at every opportunity they get for a few $$$. In the name of "liberalism" and "progressivism" they betray all of the principles on which Pakistan was founded on, and which have defined Pakistan's unique identity since its existence.

These "liberals" go abroad, are from well to do families, and look down upon the common Pakistanis. They cry and whine all day long about the conservative norms of society, how religious nutjobs have ruined Pakistan, yet do nothing to improve Pakistan in a positive way but rush to promote filthy, degenerate, western cultural norms alien to Pakistani society and in complete opposition to Pakistani cultural norms..

 

[Zibago]

These "liberals" go abroad, are from well to do families, and look down upon the common Pakistanis

Arent we assuming a lot of things here

My fav columnist
Pakistani Liberals: Anarchists Of Our Age?Moeed Pirzada

0
GooglePlus
4.7k
Facebook
541
Twitter
0
Pinterest

Term “Civil Society” in Pakistan has become an interesting term, and as this article will explain increasingly confusing. Who are those commonly referred in Pakistan as Civil Society and liberals? What is their relation with the mushrooming brigades of western funded NGO’s? How this motley crowd of crusaders take the positions they take and what do they really want? Whose interests are they serving? Is there a relation between “funding hand” and the “ideas” espoused by our liberals and the NGO’s?


The way things are and increasingly becoming, this provocative question will probably need a determined Phd student, in a top university, working on a thesis that combines the disciplines of international relations, with political theory, history and finance all within the crucible of globalization. But while we don’t have that luxury of talents, time and space we can nevertheless pick up some threads of this puzzling question. May be we end up helping our hypothetical PhD student!

Lets start by looking at how this phenomenon finds expression in media. The moment two dozen activists of this particular genre collect at any point with or without candles; friendly reporters in English media refer to this as: “large number of civil society activists demonstrated” and if by luck such activists are more than a hundred then it becomes: “hundreds of members of civil society demonstrated”. Embellishment by words is often accompanied by panning of cameras to multiply the size of the puny crowds to lend respectability.

Little, if any reflection has been done by these activist leaders and the editors in print and managers of tv platforms who promote them that how increasingly this strategy of false empowerment of borrowed ideas, through textual or visual exaggeration – that often don’t resonate with the society at large – is driving an increasing wedge between the so called, “civil society” and the majority that watches this spectacle with mounting levels of disdain.

Controlling the levers of propaganda has many negative consequences; but one is: those “activists” and their pied pipers who have this power often don’t suffer the need for introspection – which is painful but needed for genuine growth. Alarm bells should have ringed when recently groups perceived to be militant in nature and armed with one or the other sect’s “muscular ideas” have started calling themselves as “civil society”. Perhaps it remains for this article to compel them and their pied pipers to do what has been called: brainstorming.

What our “activists” masqueraded as “intellectuals” have never realized that ever since a prominent tv anchor, few years ago, started calling them as “liberal fascists” public at large has started to study them and their behaviour on a petri dish under a scientific microscope and that has yielded some interesting observations. So while our activists continue to pour all kinds of abuse and contempt on the majority especially the conservative and religious sections of society (and recently Imran Khan was added to this list) others too have joined in the war of adjectives and the words are getting shriller and shriller.

Over the past few years, it almost became received wisdom that while Pakistani liberals and human right organizations attack religiously motivated militants, religious ideologues or conservatives and military establishment or media with relish they shy away from taking strong, visible or vocal positions against drone strikes or the violence perpetrated by Baluch nationalists against non-Baluch. Ironically, Both issues posed serious challenges in terms of liberal theory.

First have a look at the “US Drone strikes”. This practice – that has never been officially acknowledged to this day – allows CIA to assume the multiple roles of complainant, prosecution, judge, jury and executioner in one single entity which is a huge affront to the whole concept of “due process of law” but those generally paraded as Pakistani liberals and human right organizations failed to take any meaningful position, anything close to a stand on that grotesque practice. If that represented a well thought and well spelled acquiescence to a complex ground reality, a kind of “realism” or “real-politick” then it would have been understandable.

But the same set of liberals and right groups also took and still take a strong position against death penalty in a country where almost 15000 homicides a year have taken murder rate to almost 8 per hundred thousand as compared to 1 in Saudi Arabia and 3.5 in India. Even “real-politick” of Kissinger might have been strained under the burden of this kind of hypocrisy.

In contrast to US Drone strikes, which even at best is an “opaque decision making” by an unaccountable executive; capital punishment in Pakistan is an open transparent process that passes through five levels of review: trial court, high courts, supreme courts, and Supreme Court review and mercy petitions. The possibility of relatives forgiving the murderer with or without blood money as seen in Shahzeb case or Raymond Davis adds further depth and multiplicity of options available to the defendant. True, European Union and many other countries have a strong position on “death penalty” which has steadily grown in their cultural milieu over the past two hundred years over but Pakistani liberals’ inability to fathom the disconnect of their ideas from their own peculiar societal, and religious context has been surprising – to say the least.

If you add to this Pakistani liberals’ total disregard for or “insensitivity” to the feelings of countless millions of Pakistanis revolting against “crime against person” or the challenges faced by the state reeling under the pressures generated by that dissatisfaction then you start to wonder who our liberals truly represent? Could it be that their positions presented as principles or convictions arise in a cerebral void? Could it be that their positions – without sympathy or regard or understanding of the society they pose to represent – are merely aligned with the European Union that is a generous donor to many NGO’s and their projects from time to time. Could there be a nexus between “funding” and “ideas”?

The position in case of Baluch insurgents also raises similar doubts. Any student of political science will know that western societies after the end of Habsburg era or remnant of Holy Roman Empire have generally remained wary of religious movements but are sympathetic to ethnic or subnational aspirations. Western interests in Baluchistan, its strategic location, its resources and its space for nefarious interventions inside Iran are also well known. In the circumstances Pakistani liberal’s ferocity in taking positions against highhandedness of law enforcement agencies like Frontier Constabulary but total inability to take any meaningful positions on the violence perpetrated by Baluch militants against non Baluch residents, state infrastructure of gas pipelines and electric grids, communications and transport again unfortunately suggests their pandering only to concerns or interests originating beyond the borders of Pakistan.

Most non-Baluch residents of the province started to settle there towards the end of 19th century when British brought them for structural expansion or administrative managements and many – more than a million according to some estimates – were forced to leave due to fear of target killings. This “forced migration” was a huge human tragedy. But none of that ever forced Pakistani liberal and right organizations to ponder, reflect or take a clear pronounced position or to show the kind of “real-politick” understanding towards Pakistani state’s challenges of law enforcement and preservation of vital interests which they so conveniently exhibited in case of US drones.

Similarly liberals remained generally quiet on whatever atrocities happened or surfaced in the Indian occupied Kashmir, for instance the discovery of mass graves. When one connects these points an unmistakable impression starts to emerge that Pakistani liberal and human right organizations, euphemistically referred to as “civil society” are not driven by universally applicable principles of rights and obligations or human sympathy but operate in a larger political context of globalization.

Is there something wrong with this? Yes! Because their concerns, their priorities, their preferences don’t take shape within the cauldron of Pakistani challenges. Instead the issues they agitate are mostly in sync with changing global political agendas. Most NGO’s or linked liberals keep shouting against the agendas imposed from Saudi Arabia or Iran. Little have they realized that their exclusive reliance on “western ideas” and their inability to think originally within the context or framework of Pakistan and its challenges makes them very similar to various groups of religious fanatics who keep on offering themes of “true Islam” or “Khilafat” as panacea for the problems of a troubled state – without realizing that ideas of one age or space have to be transliterated into another age or space for these to have any meaning. Both liberals and Islamists in an ironic way can be understood as “anarchists” spreading increasing social and political chaos

Both, liberals and the Islamists, standing on the opposite ends of the same spectrum, and facing each other, firmly believe in the absolutism and truth of their borrowed ideas; both lack the ability to breakdown ideas into their components to discover the applicable principles. Problem lies neither in the Islam nor in the West; it lies in our “activist’s” failure to interpret principles from the morphology of borrowed ideas and to apply them to the unique challenges of time and space.

The recent misinformed and totally fabricated debate whether death row convict, Shafqat Hussain, was a juvenile at the time of his trial was an interesting example of how Pakistani NGO’s blindly supported by brigades of self-declared liberals advance “global political agendas” without realizing how these antics further strain a fragile, impoverished and struggling Pakistani state. International NGO’s like Reprieve, Human Right Watch and Amnesty International were seen closely coordinating their aggressive commentaries with the Pakistani NGO’s Justice Foundation and Pakistan Human Rights Commission. Even UN offices in Geneva were misinformed and they ended up issuing warning of concern, on “juvenile executions” to Pakistani government.

Was a juvenile being executed? In case of Shafqat Hussain, controversy was deliberately generated by planting the idea that he was a juvenile at the time of his trial for abduction and murder of a seven year old in 2004. The public relations strategy looked like a well-rehearsed script from, Barry Levinson’s brilliant, 1990’s “Wag the Dog”. Ten years after the murder and first trial, secretary of a town committee in Neelum Valley, Azad Kashmir was persuaded to issue a Birth Certificate on the basis merely of the affidavit by mother of Shafqat that described his birth in Oct, 1991; it was to be used to challenge the multi-layered judgments of Police, several tiers of courts, Citizen Police Liaison Committee, media footages, criminal records and all official documents. Anyone dared to disagree with the contentions of NGO’s and liberals was condemned as either as a pathetic liar or inhuman sadist bent upon executing innocents out of disregard for human life.

Schemers forgot that “lie has no feet to stand upon”. If that birth certificate were accepted true then Shafqat Hussain was only 12 years when he was arrested for abduction for ransom and murder of a 7 year old child in Karachi. Plan flopped because tv channels like Dunya News and others jumped in and found massive evidence that discredited the fictional theory of the trial of a juvenile murderer – for instance the “mug shots” we obtained from Criminal Records Office showed the same young man with moustaches. But it’s interesting to realize that Pakistani NGO, along with its international partners, was working on a plot of bigger size and scope. It embarked on a well thought out grand ambition, along with its international partners like Reprieve, to throw a spanner in the Pakistani initiative of reinstituting Capital punishments. Fabricated evidence mysteriously appeared to bolster a larger public relations exercise to demonstrate to the whole world the utter failure of the whole criminal justice system in Pakistan– a system where children were being hanged. In other words, NGOs were attempting to thwart the will of the Pakistani nation as expressed by their parliament and political parties in total disregard of the circumstances in which such consensus was shaped.

The liberal design, that becomes apparent, therefore is to draw strength from western institutions, media or even governments to achieve policy change or politically significant results within a less sovereign country, like Pakistan, where ruling elite– unlike Iran, India or Turkey – are always seeking legitimacy from the west. This is in sharp contrast to the liberals in the west who challenge the dominant authority or powers without any hope of support from abroad or anywhere. Pakistani liberals in an interdependent global world operate in they may look “western in outlook” since they derive support from liberals in the west, in terms of political behaviour Pakistani liberals and linked NGO’s are totally different political creatures. Western liberals exist by the strength of their ideas, intrinsically linked with their social orders and derive legitimacy from the organic growth of their history; Pakistani counterparts exist in a social void, like planted proxies, divorced from their realities and merely deriving strength from western organisations.

 

[Zibago]

But whose interests are being served or will be served by NGO’s or broadly speaking civil society in such a close external nexus that involves political support, media jostling and financial linkages from outside the country for project management and causes? This is a common sense question but often met by Pakistani liberal and right organizations with shrill outbursts of anger and accusations interlaced with lectures of righteousness.

Pakistan Human Rights Commission (PHRC), which was also active along with Justice Foundation, is an interesting example. Its title represents an interesting misnomer. Commission is a term that is often understood as a high powered body appointed by a government. Most people in Pakistan confuse Pakistan Human Right Commission and its authority with entities like Higher Education Commission (HEC) or Public Services Commission (PSCP). One wonders how come a NGO run by a closed community of few select people, and registered under Societies Act decides to call itself as a Commission. Also its website remains silent about the size and sources of its funding and questions asked by media regarding funding are treated with silence or outright anger.

Now look at this example. In its latest press release, of 28th March titled: “Youhanabad Incidents: HRCP for fair handed probe” HRCP called upon the law enforcement agencies to conduct their probes into the lynching and burning alive of two Muslim men by the Christians with fairness. “Christians in Lahore, in a fit of rage after the terrorist attack on a Church, burnt alive two Muslim men in the suspicion of their being linked with terrorist attack.” Though the worthy NGO never made such a case when Police harassed the Islamists or anyone suspected of sympathetic with them, but we can ignore that little bit of double standard for a while since taking a stand for fair enquiry and against harassment of communities by Police is what HRCP is supposed to do. However HRCP probably did not realize the oddity of its arguments when it said: “..some allowance has to be made for the eruption of mob anger after the provocation caused to the victims after the attack on two churches..”. [HRCP Press Release, 28th March 2015].

Herein lies the tragedy of mental impotency; HRCP under pressure to please its particular audience, insisted on looking at the whole situation from a Muslim/Christian lens, forgetting that mob in country’s cultural centre had burnt alive two men; HRCP also forgot that ISIS after the gruesome act of burning alive the Jordanian Pilot in Syria had given the explanation that Pilot’s bombing was responsible for the killing of their people, including children on ground. By and large this was the argument that Al Qaeda and Taliban and all reactionary movements had made to defend their savage actions since 9/11. On most occasions HRCP had taken a strong position against this line of thinking then what compelled them to change their mind now? Our hypothetical PhD student must look at this, but in all probability HRCP like many other NGO’s busy with activism without much labour of real thinking and responsive only to its donors never realized what it was saying, what it meant and what the wider implications are.

But the nature of these observations or concerns about the perceived double standards of Pakistani liberals and human right organizations were already received wisdom of the past several years especially since 9/11 when western governments, institutions, media and NGO’s took a renewed interest in Pakistan and the region around. However the events of later half of 2014, when Imran Khan’s PTI launched a popular movement against the widely believed elections rigging then the knee jerk reactions of those who are perceived as liberals and human right activists gave some very interesting new clues about their “real values” and the nature of politicization these communities and organizations have undergone.

Model Town tragedy at Minhaj ul Quran is a case in point. Government controlled and directed police, in the heart of Punjab, in Pakistan’s cultural and civilizational centre shoots down almost 100 persons, including women and young and ends up killing 14. Police had neither the legal justifications nor it gave any advanced warning of its actions or their context (contrast with Ranger’s current well publicized and planned drive against barriers in Karachi). This technically was a classic case of government perpetrated terrorism; it could also be construed as state terrorism. The silence of Pakistani human right groups and their allied western NGO’s was deafening. There was not a squeak.

In the months and weeks as Pakistani government wanted to control an opposition movement against it, unprecedented highhandedness was displayed in physical and legal sense, arbitrary administrative decision making leading to cities of Punjab incarcerated behind containers. While all this emerged on tv screens Pakistani liberals and human right groups – not allies of the PMLN govt in general – were silent like death. Not only this, their political commentaries often belittled or justified these arbitrary actions. International media on both sides of the Atlantic and NGO’s not only ignored the human right violations in Pakistan but often took positions supporting the government actions. Tweets of Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Right Watch in New York were particularly interesting for their political biases and for conveniently ignoring the often espoused human right concerns.

This contrast became all the more interesting when during this period student protests erupted in Hong Kong against China. In terms of size, scope, and nature of demands or level of violence or highhandedness by authorities the student protests in Hong Kong were a puny affair as compared to the political movement erupting in Pakistan. But the interest and frenzied sympathy of international media and all human right organizations and NGO’s was spectacular. If a proof was needed that how western human right organizations and NGO’s operate in the larger context of western foreign policy interests and biases then it was it. In Hong Kong building pressure on China was needed, in Pakistan status quo delivered by 2013 elections was required so Nawaz government had to be supported and rescued.

Political contours of the events and nature of western interests at that stage and why they did not approve of Imran Khan and PTI or a political transition in Pakistan can be appreciated; these don’t suggest any permanence of interests between Nawaz govt and the western institutions. What it did reveal was a striking synchronization of value judgements or perhaps interests between western governments, media, NGO and Pakistani NGO community. Pakistani liberals and right groups were not necessarily pro-government; their behaviour has to be understood in the larger context of globalization of power relationships. At another moment in Pakistan’s turbulent history when western foreign policy interests may change then international media, NGOs, human right organizations can very well take a position inimical to Nawaz government. What will Pakistani liberals and NGO’s do then? Will they be espousing principles of “democracy against populism” or will find some new definitions to sync them with changing international political agendas? This remains as an interesting question.

If these power relationships between activists and opinion makers of what is described as “civil society” and western institutions remains the way it is then tomorrow if Imran Khan and PTI strike an equation and become acceptable to the western power centres then Pakistani liberals will suddenly discover Churchill’s leadership and Habermas’s understanding in their hiterthto “Naïve Taliban Khan”

Perhaps our hypothetical PhD student will like to examine the impact of Kerry Lugar Bill on Pakistani civil society. Whether it was the intention of the US legislators or it happened as default we cannot be sure; but principles of direct funding to individuals and so called, “civil society” has greatly empowered activists who masquerade as “thought leaders”. This is perhaps the biggest lasting legacy of KLB, because it has created a network of financial obligations that take myriad form of direct payments, scholarships, training courses, institutional attachments, trips and visits to foreign countries and coveted places. Other funding sources come from EU for different causes. All that has created a loosely arranged virtual community that could not have functioned without these financial flows. It’s only common-sense that financial interests and dependence affect causes of the activists in ways that they perceive will sustain the relationships.

However the growing disconnect between what is described as liberal civil society and country at large will make it increasingly difficult to achieve whatever good could have been possible otherwise. This is an altogether different debate beyond the scope of this article, but organizations like Justice Foundation are also needed to act as watch dog on a criminal justice system that desperately needs genuine reforms. Justice Foundation’s and its partners zealous over ambition and attempted over-reach in politicizing the Capital Punishment is unfortunate, and now not only Justice Foundation but others in the NGO community have to work hard to restore the lost credibility. Only our futuristic hypothetical PhD student will be able to determine if NGO’s and their donors were able to learn from the failure of their over-reach.

 

[SQ8]

Both, liberals and the Islamists, standing on the opposite ends of the same spectrum, and facing each other, firmly believe in the absolutism and truth of their borrowed ideas; both lack the ability to breakdown ideas into their components to discover the applicable principles. Problem lies neither in the Islam nor in the West; it lies in our “activist’s” failure to interpret principles from the morphology of borrowed ideas and to apply them to the unique challenges of time and space.

And this is what neither the liberals, or the Islamist bashing them here will understand.

 

[Indus Falcon]

And this is what neither the liberals, or the Islamist bashing them here will understand.

Unfortunately we as a nation are taught "not to think" and that is the most dangerous thought process.

 

[Nick81]

(I’m looking at you Cyril Almaeda)

Waqas Ahmed should also look at Dr. S. Akbar Zaidi:

'History in Pakistan has been badly treated'
MALEEHA HAMID SIDDIQUI — UPDATED A DAY AGO


KARACHI: With Pakistan just two days away from observing Defence Day and marking the 50th anniversary of the 1965 war, historian and political economist Dr S. Akbar Zaidi dispelled ‘the victory myth’, saying that there can be no a bigger lie, as Pakistan lost terribly.

People are unaware of this fact because the history that is taught in Pakistan is from an ideological viewpoint, said Dr Zaidi during his thought-provoking lecture titled ‘Questioning Pakistan’s history’. “Students are not taught the history of the people of Pakistan rather it is focused on the making of Pakistan,” he said.

The event was organised by the Faculty of Social Sciences, Karachi University.

Dr Zaidi who also teaches history at the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi, began his lecture by raising a couple of questions: what is Pakistan’s history and is there a need to question Pakistan’s history. And when was Pakistan formed? Aug 14, 1947 or Aug 15, 1947? For him the fact we are still talking about historical events 68 years later that are apparently settled is interesting. “These events and questions have not been settled. They are constantly being reinterpreted, this is because history does not die, it keeps reliving by questioning facts and truths.”

Coming to the question when was Pakistan created, he said one obvious answer is it did so on Aug 14, 1947 but he read out an excerpt from a Pakistan Studies textbook in which it was claimed it came into being in 712AD when the Arabs came to Sindh and Multan. “This is utter rubbish!” he exclaimed, rejecting the textbook account. He said the first interaction with Muslims and Arabs occurred in Kerala in South India for trading purposes.

Some historians claim the genesis of Pakistan lie in the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughal Empire. He, however, reminded everyone that the India as we know today did not exist during the Mughal era. It was during the 19th century the concept of nation-state was formed. There are others who state Sir Syed Ahmed Khan laid the foundation for Pakistan. Dr Zaidi felt this statement was partially true, because Sir Syed always maintained that Muslims should get their rights but he had also said: “Hindus and Muslims are the two eyes of the beautiful bride that is Hindustan. Weakness of any of them will spoil the beauty of the bride.”

The 1940 Pakistan Resolution called for the recognition of Muslims within Hindustan and not for a separate entity, Dr Zaidi added.

Social history

He then led the debate towards the questions: “Is the history of Pakistan, a history of the people of Pakistan or is it the making of Pakistan?”As far as he knew everyone is taught a history that includes the Mughals, freedom movement, the Quaid-i-Azam leading the All India Muslim League etc but was completely unaware about the history of the Baloch and the Pakhtun. “I cannot understand Pakistan’s history without knowing the history of the Baloch, Pakhtun, Punjab, Shah Abdul Latif and his relationship with the land.”

He said he was ashamed as a Karachiite that he had been unaware of Sindh’s history. It was important to know about indigenous histories because the “issues we are confronted with, we would have a better understanding in dealing with them”. He gave the example of East Pakistan to illustrate this point. “East Pakistan has been erased from memory. The Bengalis of East Pakistan have been reduced to they were traitors, India interfered and East Pakistan decided to separate. But what about Pakistan Army’s role in its separation?”

According to Dr Zaidi, history in Pakistan has been badly treated due to several reasons. Students are forced to study history or Pakistan Studies as a compulsory subject and hence the focus is just to pass the exam and get over with it. It is focused on rulers and generals and not on the social history. He highlighted another important reason for history getting a step-motherly treatment, citing that it is a subject that is taken when a student is unable to get admission in other departments in universities.

A robust question and answer session followed the talk during which students and teachers wanted to know why they were being taught distorted version of history, why the contribution of religious minorities to cities such as Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar was not mentioned in their textbooks, why does one have to wear separate identities and how can identification crisis be resolved to make Pakistan into one nation.

Dr Zaidi responded to these queries, explaining that Parsis and Hindus contributed hugely in the educational development of Karachi and in a similar manner the Sikhs in Punjab. “History in Pakistan is taught from an ideological viewpoint. Pakistan needs to be seen as a geographical entity.”

Referring to the distorted history, he said: “With the celebration of the victory in the 1965 war round the corner, there can be no bigger lie that Pakistan won the war. We lost terribly in the 1965 war.”

He appealed to the attendees to read Shuja Nawaz’s book Crossed Swords that exposed the reality of the war.

As for wearing separate identities, he replied there was no need to do so. “I can be a Sindhi, Hindu and Pakistani simultaneously.” He added that the diversity of nations should be acknowledged, since nationalities could not be imposed on people.

Published in Dawn, September 5th, 2015

'History in Pakistan has been badly treated' - Pakistan - DAWN.COM

Another "unpatriotic Pakistani" not playing along with the false propaganda taught as history in Pakistan....

 

[Icewolf]

Yeah, screw independent thought, free speech, and equal rights! Liberals suck!

 

[SQ8]

Unfortunately we as a nation are taught "not to think" and that is the most dangerous thought process.

Not really, we are taught to think. Its just that we are taught to think of anything and believe it to be true. There is no concept of seeing is believing. We as a nation interpret the concept of "faith" in Islam to everything in life. If we are taught to have faith that there are seven heavens and the earth, we automatically assume that such belief applies to all other things such as conspiracy theories without giving an iota of research. That is not to say that such idiotic thought processes are confined to Pakistan, but it is Pakistan that matters to us. Not what happens in Timbuktu.

Another "unpatriotic Pakistani" not playing along with the false propaganda taught as history in Pakistan....

That would make sense had Akbar Zaidi given proper references other than just what he read on one place as truth(that is desi thinking I guess.. believe everything that comes out of one source as gospel). He mentions Shuja Nawaz but his book has its own critics and has a lot of counter narratives. Had Zaidi been a true intellectual, he would have mentioned the rest as well before saying that based on such and such accounts.. Shuja is more accurate.

But then ,you are Indian.. why take anything positive about Pakistan.. its not in your nature... and to reach that conclusion I have hundreds and thousands of accounts to support my view.

 

[macnurv]

Yeah, screw independent thought, free speech, and equal rights! Liberals suck!

How exactly selling yourself for money and becoming a mouth piece for propaganda against national interests should be considered as free speech. I am all up for it, but unbounded free speech is an oxymoron, I fully support legitimate criticism of all institutions including the religious ones, but not in such a manner. There are just too many examples of these so called "civil society" working against the interests of the nation and country.
Yes I support freedom of speech but such behavior is unacceptable, I hate the notion of nationalism=patriotism, but these people are as big of a threat as those TTP and its affiliates.