What's new

VIEW: Stop blaming the West

An excellent comment from the article posted by Emo, thanks for the article.

Founder of Pakistan Quaid e Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah entrusted Sir Zafrullah Khan an Ahmadi with the responsibility of building relations with foreign nations as first Foreign Minister of Pakistan.Ahmadis stood for Pakistan in our freedom movement.But no history book gives them credit for that. Jammat Islami and Jamiaat ul Ulmai Hind (now Jammiaat ul ulmai Islam) opposed the idea of Pakistan. Maudoodi, Abul Kalam Azad,Mufti Mehmood and Attaullah Shah Bokhari were not only against the creation of Pakistan rather they made nasty satements against founder of Pakistan and Pakistan itself. Jinnah did not envision Pakistan to be a theocracy. His speech on 11th Agust 1948 to constituent assembaly of Pakistan should have been megnacarta of Pakistan where he outlined the equality for all religious groups and separated religion from the affairs of state in crystal clear words:

“ You are free ; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed-that has nothing to do with the business of the State.”

“Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State”

We should have made that speech part of our constitution instead of objective resolution. But ruling elite intentionally neglected and played down that speech and got locked in competition with clergy to undo Pakistan by going one step ahead of clergy in promoting obscurantism against the secularism of Jinnah. Objective Resolution was murder of Jinnah ideology and conspiracy against people of Pakistan. Ziaul Haq’s draconian rule imposed obscurantism and fundamentalism as official religion of Pakistan and fuelled ethnic and sectarian wars to undo Jinnah’s Pakistan. Zia is father of all these Jihadi and extremist monsters. We should return to ideals set by Quaid e Azam. We should separate religion from affairs of state. All these extremists should be eliminated and stupid distinction of good and bad extremists need to be done with if we want to save Pakistan and its people. Clergymen that were against the idea of Pakistan, they continue to conspire against Pakistan. This is high time to eradicate all these anti-humanity and anti-Pakistan elements without showing any mercy. But I doubt any one in the echelons of power will follow the Mustafa Kamalism to get us rid of this menace.
 
Who’s afraid of Dara Shikoh’s ghost?


It is now a given that the Pakistani state is a playground for Islamism and extremism under various guises and forms. Since the passage of the Objectives Resolution in 1949, the state by design and sometimes by default has surrendered to the phantoms of the orthodox Islamic interpretation of the world. It is true that religion was central to the sloganeering for Pakistan, but the post-1947 architecture of the Pakistani state was meant to be secular and democratic. Whatever the proponents and apologists of a jihadi state might have to say, Jinnah’s words and deeds were clear. Iqbal’s vision, inspired by Islamic philosophy and strands of mystical thought, was also clearly anti-Mullah.

This was hardly surprising, as a majority of Indian Muslims, not unlike South Asians of today, were averse to orthodoxy. From the Bhakti movement to folk and Sufi traditions, mullahs and pundits have not enjoyed popular legitimacy, as their alliance with power was resented and rejected by the populace. It is also well known that Mr Maududi and his ilk were bitterly opposed to Pakistan and accused the Muslim League leadership of being un-Islamic. Even stranger is the fact that this essential truth is rarely discussed in the public domain, and excessive coverage and importance given to the orthodox champions of Pakistani nationalism in the media and in textbooks, betrays how the age-old nexus between Pakistani monarchs and the Mullahs has survived the test of time.

Ajoka theatre based in Lahore has been attempting to challenge the status quo. Its plays rooted in the folk and street traditions of the subcontinent have raised political themes and placed political mobilisation at the centre of any discussion for social change. Recently, its play Dara Shikoh was staged in Lahore, and this marked a watershed in our cultural and political landscape. Dara Shikoh, the elder son of Emperor Shahjehan, despite his brutal murder at the hands of his Mullahesque brother Aurangzeb, continues to represent a fault line that runs through the past and the present of South Asia, especially in Pakistan.

To present a play on a prince who argued – with reason and reference – that there was little difference between the Upanishads and the tenets of mystical Islam, is not an ordinary feat in a country where powerful forces within the state and society are hell-bent on turning the Land of the Pure into a haven for cultural fascism. Above all, Dara’s stiff resistance to a militant version of Islam and its exclusionary theological constructs is perhaps most relevant in these times.

However, Ajoka’s effort to take the play to our culturally desertified and politically bankrupt Islamabad, for a presentation at the Pakistan National Council of the Arts (PNCA), has been thwarted by officialdom, as it challenges the state complexion and orientation. One wishes that such a comment were merely speculation, but it seems that there is enough evidence to suggest that a female MNA from the Jamaat-e-Islami wrote to the PNCA earlier. Apparently, she believed that Ajoka was guilty of making fun of Islamic values and represented a threat to the republic of the believers and munafaqeen alike.

How ironic that this is no different from the late 1970s when a senior bureaucrat, now a media personality and scholar (of sorts), authored an article where General Zia ul Haq was compared to the austere and God-fearing Aurangzeb, and Dara was portrayed as a precursor to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. The maverick civil servant argued that in the clash of ideology, Zia’s coup was symbolic of religious power. Pakistan suffered from Zia’s assumed divine right to rule in the name of Islam for eleven long years, during which intolerance, bigotry, sectarianism and dictatorship shook the foundations of this country. Intellectual voices and activist groups such as Ajoka have to constantly contend with Zia’s legacy, and the wily servants of the state are always eager to provide legitimacy to retrogression.

Ajoka’s earlier play Burqvaganza explored another explosive subject, that of purdah, and its literal interpretation at the expense of the metaphorical and spiritual meaning. The female MNA referred to above, who also happens to be the daughter of the former Amir of the Jamaat, even raised the issue in the National Assembly and protested that Ajoka’s legitimate questions about the burqa were tantamount to demeaning Islam. History and politics move in cycles, and this outcry in the Parliament was not different from the earlier assaults on the secular vision of Pakistan. All our rulers, except perhaps Ayub Khan, pandered to the orthodox lobby. Under General Zia ul Haq, Islamisation became an official policy and its instruments the un-uniformed part of the national security apparatus.

A small theatre group therefore is pitted against far larger forces of orthodoxy and regressive medievalism. This is shameful, given that an elected government is ruling Pakistan, and the ruling party has been hostile to the ideology of Zia ul Haq. But Zia seems to be alive as much as his nemesis Bhutto. Whilst the jiyalas may chant zinda hai Bhutto, the institutions are pretty smug and happy to articulate zinda hai Zia. Small wonder that JI, whose lack of electoral worth has time and again been exposed, has the audacity to become a guardian of our faith and nationalism.

When Ajoka’s executive director Madeeha Gauhar called the other day to share the recent phase of her ‘struggle’ in the democratic era, she was obviously disturbed. And given her penchant for speaking the truth she was also not too charitable about the Mullah brigade. While she was talking on the phone, her voice faded and a recording of a Hamd (a eulogy for the Almighty) emerged from nowhere. This was amusing, yet quite unnerving. Our Constitution and laws prohibit anyone to monitor citizens’ expression and speech in the public and private spheres. And, to experience this intrusion was not pleasant at all.

Interestingly, the minions of Big Brother played a popular Hamd, that begins with the verse Koi tau haye jo nizam-e-hasti challa raha haye. Muzaffar Warsi, who apparently was Zia ul Haq’s favourite poet, had composed these verses. In view of his special place in the Zia kingdom, he was accorded with various state honours and also a cushy state job. Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan later rendered this piece in his magical voice.

I clearly remember a discussion that took place in the presence of the late Ahmed Nadeem Qasimi, a twentieth century literary giant. Many senior poets critiqued this Hamd for being a problematic hymn for God Almighty, since it did not express absolute belief in God but worked through an inference: there must be Someone who was managing the universe! Thus the element of doubt marred a believer’s chant in praise of his Creator.

More importantly, the bugged phone line sent a clear message: that la-deen (irreligious as secularism is understood by the clerics) Madeeha Gauhar had to be ‘censored’ even in a private conversation, and reminded that there is a God. And, the chosen, self-appointed representatives were managing the show in His name.

This is not limited to the minions of the state apparatus. Such attitudes are now embedded in our curricula, modes of instruction, thousands of madrassas and more dangerously, elements of the media who were trying to convince us of the glories of the Taliban until the Pakistan Army valiantly took on the miscreants.

A journey that commenced with the Right’s struggle to capture political space in the 1940s, and with the state’s cynical support, has culminated in capitulation to such forces. The gradual erosion of Jinnah’s Pakistan has also led to the ascendancy of all that Pakistan was not supposed to represent. The Ahmedis are hounded on a regular basis, the Shias are being murdered, and even the Barelvi majority feels unsafe given the high-profile murders of their leadership. What we have is a curious mix of a Wahabi-Salafi variant of Islamism with several local offshoots, which are not averse to using violence and butchery as weapons.

The propagation of Islam in the subcontinent was the handiwork of Sufis and sages who showed the path to a large number of people through the message of tolerance, harmony and reconciliation. Violence simply did not deliver in this part of the Islamic world.

This is why recognising the roots of our indigenous cultures is important. It is now the only weapon that Pakistan’s intelligentsia possesses. To encourage the airing of alternative messages and interpretations such as Dara’s worldview, and challenging the burqa’s form over the spirit are crucial to sustain our plural culture. If Zaid Hamid can have access to state institutions such as the Iqbal Academy in Lahore, then why is Ajoka denied a space? Is it not a brazen indicator of Zia’s legacy hounding our generations well into the future? Pakistani youth are already despondent, as all the surveys reveal, about the country’s future. They have to be educated about our history and the ways in which we can co-exist as a heterogeneous country.

Education reform and mass-awareness campaigns are also needed to challenge Zia’s Pakistan. The systemic collapse in the education sector will need to be arrested immediately if we have to survive as a viable polity. A plural culture also needs secular education and an inclusive political system that provides avenues for all voices and opinions. It is about time we became unapologetic in dealing with the narrow-mindedness of the Mullah and reclaimed Iqbal’s message, that called for ijtihad in line with the changed times.


In this twenty-first century onslaught of medievalism, Pakistanis will have to bitterly oppose any form of violence – from censorship to target killings – and exclusion. The religious parties who opposed Pakistan cannot be allowed to continue blackmailing us in the name of a universal, peaceful religion based on equality and tolerance. The state has to reinvent itself, and only Pakistan’s citizens, its intelligentsia and secular political parties, can help achieve this. The other option is too violent to imagine.

Who?s afraid of Dara Shikoh?s ghost? Pak Tea House
 
What else can be said abt this article other then Cia's $50 mil at work to change perceptions ..!

(personal note-Couldn't help stop blaming the west 4 there misdeeds lol)
 
Saying just "Pakistan"? You know what? " khena sookha, Aookha kar ky wikha". 7 lac Army Personal are alive not to protect "Pakistan" but "Islamic Republic of Pakistan", and if you dont like it, go ahead, you are free, no one forcing you to live here, take the visa of UK, USA, Israel or Denmark, live there happily. And we will feel proud to clean west dirt form our land.

so you like the way it is now ?
 
you stupid think i put my real info hu? Just childish brain wat i can say. Changing name could change every thing? And emo this is not your alone country so you chose its future? And yea i like to in Present Pakistan, from Uk or USA, where under 18 going freely for ---, Gay and Lesbian marrige is allowed,... Wat more i can say?
 
Dont your mama told you that, the creation of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is based on two nation Ideology? One Muslims and other Non Muslims. This country is not for Pakistanis, this country is for the Muslim of Baryhsgeer. Pakistani name is given us coz we live in Pakistan, otherwise their is no Pakistani before Pakistan we were called Indian Muslims.. You cant wipe its IDEOLOGY
 
Zia was the biggest motherfucker of them all, he was a bigot, extremist and coward to the core and the country has suffered becuase of him.
Come on, who and what made Zia possible? Pakistan started out with a constitution. In the West a military overthrow of the government is unthinkable; even if an officer could think of carrying out a coup, the soldiers under his command would never carry it out, because they would never wish to alter the benefits of living under democratic self-rule.

And that was Pakistan's problem. Pakistan had many of the democratic forms correct but the benefits of democratic rule vanished, or never took root, as political and personal corruption grew. (A persistently low literacy rate hasn't helped, either. )

What made Zia different is that he sold Islam to the masses and soldiery as an alternative to a democracy more stained than Julius Caesar's Rome was. (Then, while everyone was feeling happy and satisfied, the corruption continued.)

Turning back the clock to Jinnah is not enough. He did a lot for his country, but everyone knows he died of overwork. Pakistan is no easier to lead today than it was in 1948. So abandoning the "Islamic Republic" concept isn't enough; Pakistanis have to change their political culture. How is that supposed to happen?
 
Come on, who and what made Zia possible? Pakistan started out with a constitution. In the West a military overthrow of the government is unthinkable; even if an officer could think of carrying out a coup, the soldiers under his command would never carry it out, because they would never wish to alter the benefits of living under democratic self-rule.

And that was Pakistan's problem. Pakistan had many of the democratic forms correct but the benefits of democratic rule vanished, or never took root, as political and personal corruption grew. (A persistently low literacy rate hasn't helped, either. )

What made Zia different is that he sold Islam to the masses and soldiery as an alternative to a democracy more stained than Julius Caesar's Rome was. (Then, while everyone was feeling happy and satisfied, the corruption continued.)

Turning back the clock to Jinnah is not enough. He did a lot for his country, but everyone knows he died of overwork. Pakistan is no easier to lead today than it was in 1948. So abandoning the "Islamic Republic" concept isn't enough; Pakistanis have to change their political culture. How is that supposed to happen?

Zia was never supposed to be the COAS, Bhutto chose him above many others because both of them belonged to the same village (stupidity at it's peak). This was a mistake as there were many superior generals like Rahimuddin Khan who would have really made a positive difference.

The thing in Pakistan is that we support and follow the superiors order, many people hated Zia the and they hate him now but we respected the position he had and many did what he asked for. Similiarly many people voluntarily quit their positions when Zia was in charge. Zia had good backing from the Saudis and was able to utilise the name of Islam for his gain.

The soviet invasion was another event that helped him further the cause of his twisted Islam through his Jihad against the Godless soviets. We had a literacy rate of around 16% when Pakistan was found, today it is close to sixty so we are progressing, we need a rate of around 80% in order to be more progressive and independent.

We are not saying that we should abandon the Islamic Republic tag, we just want to go back to the original constitution as laid out by Jinnah. Clearly this whole Islamic episode has been very damaging to us and has caused us to digress in some respects.

Jinnah was no doubt a great man but he was very old when Pakistan was created, unfortunately we never got another leader like him, though there are people who can achieve a lot, they have not been chosen as leaders.

Our vision is to bring back the Pakistan that it was meant to be, nothing more. We started life as a dominion then went to republic and now we are an Islamic republic. Name itself does not do anything, it's the actions that count.
 
Last edited:
Zia was never supposed to be the COAS, Bhutto chose him above many others because both of them belonged to the same village (stupidity at it's peak).
It wasn't stupidity. I've read some of the declassified State Dept. cables from 1965. In my view, they reveal Bhutto as a man who wanted to convert Pakistan into the nucleus of some sort of empire, and he was willing to sacrifice as many Pakistani lives as he needed towards that goal as long as the U.S. provided material support to Pakistan. From that we can deduce his primary motivation in picking a commanding general was to select one who shared his goal and could help him achieve it. How much easier to do so by invoking militant Islam, and supporting terrorists is comparatively cheap...

The thing in Pakistan is that we support the superiors order, many people hated Zia the and they hate him now but we respected the position he had and many did what he asked for.
That was a mistake that Pakistani learned from, else Musharraf would still be in power today.

Zia had good backing from the Saudis and was able to utilise the namemof Islam for his gain.
It seems everybody is willing to roll over and pant at the approach of a Saudi royal and his train of money.

The soviet invasion was another event that helps him further the cause of his twisted Islam through his Jihad against the Godless soviets.
Yes. And he twisted us Americans around his little finger, too.

Our vision is to bring back the Pakistan that it was meant to be, nothing more. We started life as a dominion then went to republic and now we ar Islamic republic.
Meaning, as one Pakistani diplomat made clear to a friend of mine, that Pakistan is now seen less as a country than as a tool of Arabs who, when they want Pakistan to follow a certain policy, are more likely to contact the madrassa leaders they support than deal with the government and its representatives.

Name itself does mot do anything, it's the actions that count.
If only more people thought that way, and scrutinized actions more closely than the names and identities of others!
 
It wasn't stupidity. I've read some of the declassified State Dept. cables from 1965. In my view, they reveal Bhutto as a man who wanted to convert Pakistan into the nucleus of some sort of empire, and he was willing to sacrifice as many Pakistani lives as he needed towards that goal as long as the U.S. provided material support to Pakistan. From that we can deduce his primary motivation in picking a commanding general was to select one who shared his goal and could help him achieve it. How much easier to do so by invoking militant Islam, and supporting terrorists is comparatively cheap...

That was a mistake that Pakistani learned from, else Musharraf would still be in power today.

It seems everybody is willing to roll over and pant at the approach of a Saudi royal and his train of money.

Yes. And he twisted us Americans around his little finger, too.

Meaning, as one Pakistani diplomat made clear to a friend of mine, that Pakistan is now seen less as a country than as a tool of Arabs who, when they want Pakistan to follow a certain policy, are more likely to contact the madrassa leaders they support than deal with the government and its representatives.

If only more people thought that way, and scrutinised actions more closely than the names and identities of others!

I am a little confused with your statement regarding Bhutto trying to turn Pakistan into the nucleus of an empire. Are you referring to an Islamic empire or something along the lines of Mughalistan.

Even then why choose a subpar army official whose only credential was his role in the jordans black Friday incident. But they must have seen the master in the form of USA at work and probably tweaked our system stolen from you to become the regional player.

As for that insulting comment regarding the Saudis, I and many other Pakistani's do not think much of them, there money is only good for whores and other illegal activities, the only thing that pants would be a Saudi princess if I ever knew one.

Your own country provides all kinds services to the Saudis because of their oil, your relation with them is well known and highly controversial. I wonder how much benefit it has brought you over the years.

These madrases are Saudi funded and we are well aware of this fact, we are neither dumb or scared of these cowards, we do keep tabs on them, the attacks we suffer from is only because we had leaders who were willing to take orders from these guys. In my eyes arabs are the real problem in today's world.

Another thing as I recall, didn't Bush's grandfather tried to carry out a military coup in the 1930's, did he not have business relation with hitler. We know how to twist your country by its fingers, you know how to hurt us back.

Tell your Saudi friends that nothing lasts forever, one day people will rise and retaliate for the problems we have faced because of them. We will then proceed to tackle these terrorists and their bastardised nation in the harshest manner.

Also what is that Turki Bin Faisal doing at Georgetown these days, isn't this guy famous for his links with the terrorists and did he not have a hand in 9/11. This dirty game these whore loving hypocrites play is known to some people, people get what they deserve and we will see what happens to these guys.

You can probably tell that I do not like the Saudis, many other people would be of the same view in my nation.
 
Are you referring to an Islamic empire or something along the lines of Mughalistan.
I'm not certain what he had in mind exactly, except that Bhutto told American representatives that Pakistan was willing to keep fighting India, no matter how many people were killed, no matter that it broke the intent of the CENTO mutual-security pact, as long as the U.S. supplied Pakistan with arms.

they must have seen the master in the form of USA at work and probably tweaked our system stolen from you to become the regional player.
I cannot relate to this. America did not wish to become a world player; that role was thrust upon us, unwillingly, during and after World War II, when, due to the destruction of Europe and the relative poverty of the rest of the planet, America produced a staggering 60%+ of the world's gross domestic product. As the Soviets turned into a new enemy, only the U.S. could afford to oppose them - and back then, a newly-independent Pakistan embraced the cause of freedom together with the U.S.

Your own country provides all kinds services to the Saudis -
I'm not disagreeing with you, am I? I wrote "everybody" and that includes us Americans, too.

Bush's grandfather tried to carry out a military coup in the 1930's, did he not have business relation with hitler.
No, grandpappy Bush didn't try a military coup in the 30s, yes he seems to have had a business relationship with Hitler. You do know, don't you, that Jews don't hold their enemies' children responsible for the deeds of their parents if they choose not to follow in their footsteps, right?

what is that Turki Bin Faisal doing at Georgetown these days
I think Georgetown University just dedicated a new building that he commissioned. If I recall correctly, TBF's "contribution" to 9-11 was to blame it on Israel, a calumny that spread around the Muslim world quicker than fire.

We will then proceed to tackle these terrorists and their bastardised nation in the harshest manner.
Don't you think the Saudis would try to buy you off first? Then you would have an opportunity to be one of the "in" crowd, sharing the bounty and corruption - wouldn't the world look different to you?
 
I'm not certain what he had in mind exactly, except that Bhutto told American representatives that Pakistan was willing to keep fighting India, no matter how many people were killed, no matter that it broke the intent of the CENTO mutual-security pact, as long as the U.S. supplied Pakistan with arms.

I cannot relate to this. America did not wish to become a world player; that role was thrust upon us, unwillingly, during and after World War II, when, due to the destruction of Europe and the relative poverty of the rest of the planet, America produced a staggering 60%+ of the world's gross domestic product. As the Soviets turned into a new enemy, only the U.S. could afford to oppose them - and back then, a newly-independent Pakistan embraced the cause of freedom together with the U.S.

I'm not disagreeing with you, am I? I wrote "everybody" and that includes us Americans, too.

No, grandpappy Bush didn't try a military coup in the 30s, yes he seems to have had a business relationship with Hitler. You do know, don't you, that Jews don't hold their enemies' children responsible for the deeds of their parents if they choose not to follow in their footsteps, right?

I think Georgetown University just dedicated a new building that he commissioned. If I recall correctly, TBF's "contribution" to 9-11 was to blame it on Israel, a calumny that spread around the Muslim world quicker than fire.

Don't you think the Saudis would try to buy you off first? Then you would have an opportunity to be one of the "in" crowd, sharing the bounty and corruption - wouldn't the world look different to you?

I would like references if any of this Bhutto stance that you are highlighting here, this has to be after the 1965 war. Did you know that Lieutenant General Akhtar Hussain Malik was going on to defeat the Indian forces in the 1965 war when he was replaced at a crucial stage. Some say the the Americans told Ayub Khan that boundaries cannot change much and if they do so, harsh action will be taken causing Ayub to panic and replace Malik with Yahya who stopped his forces from moving forward on orders. This changed the course of the war, we had victory in hand but something suggest that Malik was removed from duty for murky reasons that remain secret to till this day. Here is an article about the story.

Operation Grand Slam -DAWN Magazine; November 27, 2005

As far as US becoming a world player by accident, I do not think so. It took decisions that were to intended to affirm its role as the global player. Such decisions as using atom bomb, dumping the foreign reserves of Britain and a few others are evidence of that.

Granddaddy Bush did plan a coup that did not occur when the military official backed out, here is a link.

American Thinker Blog: BBC: Bush's Grandfather Planned White House Coup

Regarding TFB, he was in charge of Saudi's Intelligence and was in contact with many militant groups. Americans know who funds the madrassas and who is in the bed with the terrorists, why do you people not act against them.

And regarding Saudi's buying me out, it can never happen, I am of a background that is totally opposed to them. If you have an offer that you are trying to purport, let me know and I will give you my reply.

Going back to Lieutenant General Malik, the Israelis killed him in a car accident after he had agreed to work with the jordan armed forces. Our army also killed a couple of MOSSAD agents who were in afghanistan in the 80's to get even.
 
Last edited:
The soviet invasion was another event that helped him further the cause of his twisted Islam through his Jihad against the Godless soviets.

hi
the thread is not about ZIA but you are forgetting that Pakistan has not turned into Iraq because of Nuclear weapons, all this was achieved due to Pakistan's efforts against soviets, Zia was tactfully able to rebuff American concerns during soviet invasion of Afghanistan & that was the time when Pakistan had built atomic bomb without getting subject to sanctions, you might not consider that a big deal but from defense point of view it is a major milestone, no other Pakistani leader is capable of employing such cunning tactics
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom