Archive for the ‘History’ Category

As Pakistan controlled the escalation ladder and time & space between 26th February and 27th by decisive dominance, Indian reaction was not surprising that instead of conceding and accepting the loss, they started to build a narrative against Pakistan’s, allegedly, use of F-16 aircrafts and officially claimed that an F-16 was downed by WC Abhinandan’s MiG-21. As a proof they showed an AMRAAM piece which was refuted immediately. Later, Foreign Policy Magazine shoot down Indian claim of downing a Pakistani F-16 and DG ISPR hammered the last nail in Indian claims coffin by showing the MiG-21’s all intact missiles.

Keeping aside the way Indian Air Force was used as a tool for BJP’s xenophobic and jingoistic Election propaganda that Modi is the only Messiah who has come to succor Indian nation against the threat of “bleeding India with thousand cuts”, question is, as to why India is so keen to prove that F-16s were used and downed as well? Funny, it seemed that India wanted to go on war with Pakistan at its own terms, dictating Pakistan as to which equipment was supposed to be used against her and which could not. Is the claim of downing a Pakistani F-16 really, just, to salvage the lost pride in front of domestic audience or there is a ‘method in this madness’ to keep Pakistan deprived of technology and advanced defense equipment by crying ‘foul’? I believe in later.

Let’s discuss the historic perspective on India’s harping on same string in front of USA about use of her arms against Pakistan. Indian concerns (read: propaganda) regarding Pakistan receiving American weapons is not a recent phenomenon. This has been an essential part of India’s foreign policy, for decades.

When M.C Chagla was appointed as Indian Ambassador to US in 1958, his one of the major tasks was to convince US government to put an embargo on weapon sale to Pakistan. Reminiscing his duties as ambassador, he writes in his Autobiography, Roses In December,

And I would have to point out the dire consequences of the policy pursued by the United States in entering into a defence pact with Pakistan and supplying arms to her, something that only resulted in neutralizing the effect of the economic aid which the United States was giving us, since the supply of arms to Pakistan compelled us to spend more on our own armaments, in fact to enter into a regular arms race with that country. For although the arms had been supplied by the United States to Pakistan on the clear understanding that these were only intended to be used in the fight against communism, Pakistan had made it clear that if the necessity arose she would not hesitate to use them against India.

At another instance, MC Chagla elaborates the same Indian rhetoric or position on Pakistan’s arms pact with US.

“The usual questions about India and Pakistan were asked, and my answer was that it largely depended upon American policy whether normal relations prevailed between India and Pakistan. “If you will only realize what the real consequences of military aid to Pakistan are, you will start thinking afresh about the question. It is not only I who say this, but some of your most eminent thinkers have said it. Mr. Harriman calls it starting a race of armaments between India and Pakistan.’ Lippmann has been saying the same thing. Therefore it is up to you, and the press here, to realize the importance of reducing tension between India and Pakistan.”

When Mr. Durga Das, a diarist, in his book criticized Mc Chagla that he made speeches against Pakistan in order to gain publicity for himself, Chagla refuted him in his autobiography in these words,

With regard to my speeches about Pakistan, Mr. Durga Das forgets that one of the main objects of my mission in the United States was to explain to the Americans the nature of Indo-Pak relations, and to show the harm that the American Government was causing by a continuous supply of arms to Pakistan.

Later MC Chagla was made Minister of External Affairs in November 1966. He served at this position till September 1967. During this tenure whenever he had to deal with Pakistani affairs, he took up the issue of US arms being sold to Pakistan. While recalling his ‘Pakistan Policy’, in his autobiography, Chagla emphasized on US arms sale to Pakistan, criticized US policies with regards to Pakistan, Chinese Threat and Pakistan potentially falling into Chinese orbit, as below:

Throughout this period there was considerable anxiety, both in Parliament and in public about the decision of the United States to resume arms supplies to Pakistan. It is really difficult to understand U.S. policy with regard to Pakistan. It makes no sense on any rational consideration. The U.S. knew that Pakistan had used American arms against India in the 1965 conflict. It also knew or ought to know that a strong democratic India is essential for peace in this part of the world, and also to help guard against the Chinese threat. She realizes that the arming of Pakistan must result in an arms race between the two countries. And while America was giving considerable economic aid to our country, it was at the same time taking action which cannot but compel us to divert a considerable part of our revenues from nation-building activities to defence purposes. It seems to me that there are two reasons underlying American policy, both of which are untenable. In the first place, America wants to balance India s strength by having a strong Pakistan as a neighbour. But this balancing theory has never worked, and can never work. India with her tremendous resources and enormous potentialities, with a large population and area, must always be stronger than her neighbour. The second reason is to prevent Pakistan edging nearer and nearer the Chinese, and finally falling into China’s orbit. It is difficult to understand how the Chinese embrace of Pakistan could be closer or tighter than it already is, or indeed how the two can be wholly driven apart. Sino-Pakistan relations are governed by geography and the logic of power politics. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Pakistan wants Chinese friendship as much as she wants American or Russian friendship. She also plays a balancing game of her own. As long as Pakistan insists on regarding India as her enemy, so long would she be compelled to have a special relationship with China. This is common sense.        We made strong representations to the United States on the resumption of arms aid and we also pointed out that the arms supplied by America to her allies, particularly Turkey and Iran, were also being transferred to Pakistan. But our protests were of no avail, and the usual unsatisfactory assurances were given which were not worth the paper on which they were recorded.

Even when Mr. Chagla, visited Iran, he took up the issue of arms being sold to Pakistan. He pens down:

…When I met the Foreign Minister we discussed the question of arms aid to Pakistan. As this became a matter of considerable controversy afterwards…

Humiliated and surprised by the Pakistan’s “Operation Swift Retort”, Modi was trying to regain some face saving when he spoke at the award ceremony for the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for Science and Technology in New Delhi and quipped that a “pilot project” was over and “real project” would be conducted now. What exactly was the “pilot project” and which real project is going to be conducted now, would be the subject matter of concerned and ‘subject matter’ experts would definitely be pondering upon, however, one can infer from India’s foreign policy objectives, as per veteran (late) Mr. Chagla, that one of the projects of putting a ban on US arms’ sale to Pakistan has been achieved, already. The project of selling India’s democracy as essential to world’s peace and China as threat seems not to be working, for now, since BRI has become the biggest club of the world’s collective wisdom after UNO and Pakistan is already in Chinese orbit.

Referring to the post 27 February 2019 statements from Indian Airforce regarding Pakistan’s use of F-16 and false claims of even downing the same contain such a stark similarity with the ones referred to as part of duty of Indian Ambassador in 1958. This only shows that it has been one of India’s Foreign Policy’s objectives to raise fingers on arms sale to Pakistan and it has been successful in it since Pakistan is not a ‘preferred’ customer of American weapons, anymore. This might have not been possible without India’s continuous lobbying against Pakistan in Washington.

India’s one of the next goals is to become permanent member of UNSC and has continuously been lobbying for that for decades now. Pakistan’s Foreign Office has an uphill task in front of it.

Brief History – Impact of Indian Foreign Policy on Pak-US Military Relations


پچھلے دنوں حامد میر صاحب کا کالم بھٹو اور بلاول کی سمجھداری سے متعلق پڑھا جس میں قابل احترام کالم نگار نے اپنا مقدمہ  کہ “بلاول زیادہ سمجھدار ہیں یا بھٹو”، بلاول کی اس حالیہ تقریر پر رکھا جس میں انہوں نے یہ سوال کیا تھا کہ ‘پاکستان کا صدر صرف ایک مسلمان شخص ہی کیوں ہو سکتا ہے’ اور اس کے رد میں یہ دلیل دی کہ چونکہ انیس سو تہتر کے آئین میں صدر کے لئیے مسلمان ہونے کی شرط رکھی گئی ہے اس لئیے اس میں تبدیلی نہیں ہو سکتی۔

دوسرا انہوں نے کچھ ممالک کی مثال دی جس میں صدر اور وزیراعظم کے کے لئے کیسے خاص مذہب سے وابستگی ضروری رکھی گئی ہے۔ یاد رہے کہ یہ معلومات  پیو ریسرچ کی ویب سائٹ پر بھی موجود ہیں۔   اس طرح کی امثال کے بعد انہوں اپنا رخ اپنے خاص اسلوب کی طرف کر لیا اور جس طرح کے ان کے مستقل قاری جانتے ہیں کہ وہ اپنے ہر دوسرے کالم میں کسی نامعلوم سفارتکار یا سیاستدان سے اپنا مکالمہ بیان کرتے ہیں (انکو شائد معلوم ہے کہ کوئی اس مکالمے کا ثبوت نہیں مانگے گا) اور اس مکالمے کے مندرجات سے معلوم ہوتا ہے کہ وہ نامعلوم سیاستدان یا سفارتکار حامد میر کے خیالات سے یا تو متفق ہوتا ہے یا وہ میر صاحب کے خیالات سے اتفاق رکھتا ہوتا ہے یا  آخر میں حامد صاحب اسکو قائل کر لیتے ہیں۔

اس مکالمے میں میں  بھی پیپلز پارٹی کے اراکین اسمبلی اور سینٹر صاحب بلاول پر پھبتی کستے رہے اور کف افسوس ملتے رہے کہ وہ اپنے والد کے بنائے ہوئے آئین سے غداری کے مرتکب ہو رہے ہیں اور یہ کہ پیپلز پارٹی کا ووٹر جو آج بھی بھٹو کے نام پر ووٹ دیتا ہے ان سے یہ پوچھ رہا ہے کہ بھٹو زیادہ سمجھدار یا بلاول اور مسلسل حامد میر کی ہاں میں ہاں ملاتے رہے۔

یہاں  پر کچھ سوالات جنم لیتے ہیں۔

ایک تو یہ کہ کیا حامد میر صاحب نے یہ فرض کر لیا ہے کہ 1973 میں آیئن منظور ہو جانے کے موقع پر پاکستان کے عوم کا اجتماعی شعور اپنے اوج کمال پر تھا اور اس کے بعد اس آیئن میں کسی قسم کا بدل نہیں ہو سکتا؟ جب جدید دور کی ہر ریاست اپنا ایک آیئن بناتی ہے جس میں ملک کے شہریوں کے حقوق اور ریاست کے جملہ فراٰیض متعین کر دیے جاتے ہیں۔ لیکن ایسا کرنے کے بعد مقننہ کو تالا نہیں لگا دیا جاتا بلکہ ریاست اس بات کو یقینی بناتی ہے کہ مقننہ کے اجلاس لازمی ہوں’ جمہوری عمل کے لیئے چناؤ بھی ضرور ہو تو ایسے میں ریاست اس بات کا اعادہ کر رہی ہوتی ہے کہ آج منظور شدہ آیئن میں بہتری کی گنجایش موجود ہے اور اس میں حالات کے مطابق تبدیلی کی جا سکتی ہے۔ ایسے میں اگر کوئی آیئن کی کسی شق میں تبدیلی کی بات کرے تو اس کو نا سمجھ ہونے کا طعنہ دینا دانش مندی نہیں ہے۔ میر صاحب کی نظر میں سمجھداری کی تعریف کیا ہے؟ اگر انکی نظر میں سمجھداری کسی ایک نظریے پر جامد ہو جانے کا نام ہے تو میں نہایت ادب کے ساتھ اس سے اختلاف کروں گا۔ نظریہ کسی قوم کے اجتماعی شعور کے تابع ہوتا نہ کہ اجتماعی شعور کسی نظریے کے۔ اور تاریخ شاہد ہے کہ اقوام کا اجتماعی شعور کبھی بھی جامد نہیں ہوتا اور نہ اس کو ہونا چاہیے ورنہ ایسی اقوام کا وہی حال ہوتا ہے جو آج پاکستان کا ہو رہا ہے۔ یہی جامد نظریہ آج ہمارا آدھا ملک کھا چکا ہے اور باقی کا ملک ایک طرح سے نظریاتی کونسلوں اور ان کے دفاع کے لیئے موجود ڈندہ بردار ہجوم کے ہاتھ میں آ چکا ہے۔ کیا وجہ ہے کہ آج ستر سال ہونے کو آئے ہیں پاکستان کو بنے ہوئے، ہم نے قرارداد مقاصد منظور کر لی؛ ہم نے آیئن میں ملک کا نام مذہنی کر دیا، ریاست نے ایک گروہ کو غیر مسلم قرار دے دیا، آیئن میں اسلامی شقیں ڈال دیں، پھر بھی ہمیں کوئی ایسا خوف دامن گیر جو ہمیں ہر وقت ستاتا ریتا ہے اور راتوں کی نیندیں حرام کیئے رکھتا ہے۔ یہ خوف کبھی ہم سے نظام مصطفیٰ کی تحریک چلواتا ہے تو کبھی افغان جہاد میں ہم سے ایک سیکولر اور سرمایہ دار ملک امریکہ کے پیسوں سے جہاد کرواتا ہے؟ ہمارا یہ خوف کبھی ہم سے عیسایئوں کی بستیاں جلواتا ہے اور کبھی ڈی چوک پر دھرنا دلواتا ہے؟

دوسرا سوال یہ ہے کہ کیا حامد صاحب اس بات کو اچھا سمجھتے ہیں کہ وہ ووٹر جو آج تیس چالیس سال بعد بھی پیپلز پارٹی کو بھٹو کے نام پر ووٹ دیتا ہے، کیا  اس کو یہ حق پہنچتا ہے کہ وہ کسی دوسرے کی دانشمندی یا سمجھ بوجھ پر سوال اٹھایے؟ کیا اس ووٹر کی سوچ آج کے جدید صنعتی معاشرے کی عکاسی کرتی ہے؟ کیا ایسا شخص جو آج بھی 1970 میں رہ رہا ہے، اس سے یہ امید رکھی جا سکتی ہے کہ وہ آج کے دور کے جدید تقاضوں کو سمجھتا ہے؟ ایسا ووٹر جو آج صرف شخصیت پرستی کی وجہ سے کسی پارٹی کو ووٹ دیتا ہے کیا وہ کسی قسم کی نظریاتی کفتگو یا کسی نظریے پر اپنی رائے دینے کا حق رکھتا ہے ؟ جب کہ بلاول کا اٹھایا گیا نکتہ خالصتاَ نظریاتی نکتہ ہے جس کا جواب بھی دلیل کے ساتھ اور نظریاتی بنیادیوں پر دینا چایئے بجائے اس کے کہ اس نظریے کو صرف اس بنیاد پر رد کر دیا جائے کہ وہ ووٹر جو بھٹو کے نام پر پیپلز پارٹی کو ووٹ دیتا ہے وہ ناراض ہو جائے گا۔ حامد میر صاحب آپ اس سے بہت بہتر ہیں، دلیل کہاں ہے؟ کیا ہی اچھا ہوتا کہ میر صاحب ان اراکین اسمبلی کو سمجھاتے کہ وہ لوگ لیڈران ہیں اور انکو عوام کو آگے بڑھ کر کمان کرنے کے لیے منتخب کیا جاتا ہے۔ انکا کام یہ نہیں ہے کہ وہ ہر پانچ سال بعد شخصیت پرستی کے نام پر ووٹ بٹور کر مقننہ میں آ جایئں۔ ان کو چاہیے کہ اپنے کام اور نظریاتی بنیادوں پر ووٹ لے کر آیئں- وہ کب تک عوام کے مذہنی اور سیاسی جذبات کے ساتھ کھلواڑ کرتے رہیں گے۔ بہرحال میر صاحب نے یہ کہنا تھا اور نہ کہا بلکہ ان معزز اراکین اسمبلی اور سینٹر صاحب کے اس ‘گلے’ کو ایک پراپیگنڈہ اور دلیل کی طرح استعمال کر کے آگے بڑھ گیئے۔

جہاں تک حامد صاحب کی اس دلیل کا تعلق ہے کہ کچھ دوسرے ممالک میں بھی سربراہ مملکت  کے لیئے کسی خاص مذہب سے تعلق ضروری اور پاکستان اس میں اکیلا نہیں ہے تو ان کی خدمت میں عرض ہے کہ ہر ملک کا ایک اپنا نظام اور اپنے معروضی حالات اور اپنی تاریخ ہوتی ہے جس کی بنیاد پر اقوام اپنے فیصلے کرتی ہیں۔ آج کسی غیر جمہوری معاشرے کے قوانین کو پاکستان کے اس معاشرے پر، جہاں جمہوریت کی ایک تاریخ ہے، مسلط نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ پاکستان خالصتاَ ایک سیکولر جمہوری عمل کی پیداوار تھا، تو حامد میر صاحب غیر جمہوری معاشرے اور ایسے معاشرے جہاں پر جمہوریت ابھی نئی نئی آئی ہے، کی مثالیں دے کر کیا باور کروانا چاہ رہے ہیں جب کہ ایسے ممالک بھی اب سیکولر روایات کو اپناتے نظر آرہے ہیں؟ کیا حامد میر صاحب اس بات سے انکار کریں گے کہ پاکستان کے جملہ ادروں نے، سپریم کورٹ سے لیکر ہر ادارے میں غیر مسلم سربراہان دیکھے ہیں۔ دوسری اہم بات یہ ہے کہ پاکستان کے کچھ شہریوں کو درجہ دوم میں ڈال دینے سے اور پاکستان کو کی ریاست کو زیادہ سے زیادہ مذہبی بنانے سے عام آدمی کی صحت پر کیا اثر پڑا ہےاور کیا پاکستان کی عالمی سظح پر اہمیت بڑھ گیئی ہے؟ حالت یہ ہے کہ آج پاکستان اقوام متحدہ کا ایک الیکشن بھی ہار چکا ہے۔ کوئی یہ کہ سکتا ہے کہ اگر آیئن میں غیر مسلم صدر کی گنجائش ہوتی تو کونسا پاکستان کے عوام کا معیار زندگی بلند ہو جانا تھا یا پاکستان نے اقوام متحدہ کا انسانی حقوق کی کمیٹی کے سربراہ کے لیئے ہونے والا الیکشن جیت جانا تھا؟ سوال پھر بھی وہیں پر ہے جب اس سےعام آدمی پر کوئی اثر نہیں پڑتا تو پھر آیئن میں ایسی شقوں کا کیا فائدہ ہے؟

میر صاحب نے کھینچ تان کے برطانیہ کی ملکہ کے لیئے عیسائی ہونا ثابت کیا ہے۔ میر صاحب کی خدمت میں عرض ہے کہ برطانیہ میں ملکہ یا بادشاہ کا عہدہ صرف نمایشی ہے اور کیا آپ سمجھتے ہیں کہ ایک غیر عیسائی منتخب وزیر اعظم جب ملکہ کے پاس اپنے وزارت کے کاغذات کے ساتھ حاضر ہو گا تو ملکہ اسکو اس بنیاد پر مسترد کر دے گی کہ وہ عیسانی نہیں ہے؟ کیا ملکہ کے پاس یہ اختیار ہے؟ ہمارے آیئن میں تو ایسا لکھ دیا گیا ہے اور اکثریت کے مذہب سے تعلق نہ رکھنے والوں کو دوسرے درجے کا شہری تسلیم کیا گیا ہے۔  کیا آپ یہ ثابت کر سکتے ہیں؟ آج لندن کی میر شپ کے لیئے ایک اہم امیدوار مسلمان ہے تو کیا برطانیہ کا صدیوں پر محیط عیسایئت پر مبنی نظریہ خطرے میں ہے یا ملکہ نے صادق صاحب کے الیکشن لڑنے پر پاندی لگا دی ہے؟

بات ہو جمہوریت اور سیکولر اقدار کی اور بھارت کی مثال دیے بغیر بن جائے، یہ کیسے ہوسکتا ہے، جبکہ قلم پاکستانی کالم نگاروں کے ہاتھ میں ہو۔ میر صاحب نے بھی ہندوستان کی مثال دی ہے  اور یہ باور کروانے کو کوشش کی ہے کہ چونکہ پاکستان میں اقلیتوں کے لیئے مخصوص نششتیں ہیں، آیئن میں انکے حقوق کی ضمانت دی گیئ ہے اور انکو بھارت کی طرح عام انتخابات میں الیکشن نہیں لڑنا پڑتے اس لیئے پاکستان بھارت سے بہتر ہے۔ اور ساتھ میں یہ بھی فرما دیا کہ پاکستان میں اقلیتیں ہندوستان کے مقابلے میں کم ہیں۔ معافی کے ساتھ میں یہ کہنے جسارت کروں گا کہ یہ دونوں دلائل انتہائی بودے ہیں۔ میر صاحب! حقوق کوئی خیرات نہیں ہوتے کہ انکو بانٹا جایے۔ ایک ریاست میں رہنے والے سب لوگوں کے حقوق برابر ہوتے ہیں۔ اصل جھگڑا ہی یہی ہے کہ جب ہم یہ کہتے ہیں کہ آیئن میں اقلیتوں کے حقوق کا تحفظ کیا گیا ہے  تو ہم ایک گروہ کو برتر اور دوسرے کو کم تر سمجھ رہے ہوتے ہیں اور یہ کہ برتر گروہ اپنے سے کمتر گروہ کو حقوق دان کر رہا ہے۔ جب ایک ریاست وجوود میں آگئی تو اس ریاست کے سب شیریوں کے حقوق برابر ہو گیئے۔ اس میں آیئن کو کسی خاص مذہب، رنگ یا نسل سے تعلق رکھنے والوں کو حقوق کی ضمانت دینے کی ضرورت پیش نہیں آتی۔ اب بھارت میں اگر انسانی حقوق کی خلاف ورزیاں ہو رہی ہیں تو پاکستان کا بھی انسانی حقوق کے حوالے سے ٹریک ریکارڈ کچھ اچھا نہیں ہے پھر بھی کیا وجہ ہے کہ بھارتی مسلمان سیکولرازم کے دفاع کے لیئے اپنے خون کا آخری قطرہ تک بہانے پر آمادہ نظر آتے ہیں؟ یاد رہے کہ جئے ہند کا نعرہ لگانے پر مجبور کرنا سیکولرازم نہیں مودی ازم کا شاخسانہ ہے۔ ویسے بھی “تجھے پرائی کیا پڑی اپنی نبیڑ تو”!!! پاکستان کی غیر مسلموں کو وزارتیں دینے کی روایت اگر پرانی ہے تو ایسے وزراء کی پاکستان چھوڑ کر جانے کی روائت بھی اتنی ہی پرانی ہے۔

1973 کے آیئن میں اگر کوئی ایسی بات لکھ دی گئی ہے جو جدید نظریات سے میل نہیں کھاتی تو خاطر جمع رکھیے کہ عوام کا اجتماعی ذہنی شعور اسکو بدل دے گا، کہ قانون سازی کے لیئے ہر پانچ سال بعد چناؤ کروانے کا یہی مطلب ہے کہ “ثبات ہے بس ایک تغیر کو زمانے میں”! جب ہم جمہوریت جو کہ اور سیکولر سرمایہ دارانہ نظام کی پیداوار ہے کو قبول کر چکے ہیں تو اسی نظام کے اندر رہتے ہویے قانون سازی ہورہی ہے۔ آپ کہاں تک اور کب تک ایک سیکولر نطام میں رہتے ہوئے اس نظام کی روح سے رو گردانی کر سکتے ہیں؟ بلاول کی تقریر، اکیسویں ترمیم، غیرت کے نام پر قتل کے خلاف قانون سازی، حقوق نسواں کا قانون وغیرہ اسی کا شاخسانہ ہے۔




What does 21st Amendment Mean

Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman is right in his apprehensions that the 21st Amendment to the constitution of Pakistan is basically passed by nascent secular Pakistan. The basic reason he is reproaching this amendment is because the world ‘religion’ is clubbed with terrorism. He also said that government wants to sabotage denominational schools or madrassahs under this amendment. He vowed that Pakistan won’t be allowed to be a secular country at any cost (but how he didn’t explain).

Since Maulana Sahab is also  graduate from madrassah, it was expected from him. He must know that time doesn’t travel backwards and will not ever. He must overcome his misoneism and accept the reality that Pakistan has been changed, as late as, post 16/12. The world aside, the state and civil society of Pakistan itself, doesn’t care if he thinks that terrorists don’t follow real religion and that terrorists have no religion etc because they themselves introduce them as holy warriors and use religion to justify their atrocities. No one also cares how execrable Maulana Sahab feel about this but the truth is that Pakistan was predicated on the secular principles only, i.e., democracy and plebiscite and that is her real fate. The hypocrisy of Maulana Sahab is evident when he is found showing his intransigence by bickering over secularism but simultaneously takes part in democratic processes of elections and reaps fruits of this outcome in the form of ministries and related perks. Till now I didn’t come across his address regarding any alternative form of government neither read his, book aside, a mere article in the papers as to what kind of system he wants. He is  always just found using religious sentiments of common man to use for his political gain. Sometimes by issuing fatwas that voting for his opponent is unlawful or his ballot symbol, the book, shouldn’t be open so that he can exploit the common man’s sentiments as the picture of closed book would be semblance of some holy one.

If Maulana Sahab was thinking that some coterie would keep on goading the religious sentiments, installing fear in the name of religion terrorize the masses, again, using religion and world would remain mute, and he would enjoy the perks of democracy and secularism while having entente cordiale with fanatics, he was doing it wrong. The fact is that in order to remain in this global village and to contribute positively therein, it is not acceptable. No matter how entrenched one’s beliefs are, in today’s world one is compelled to follow the human rights, religious freedom , security and other such secular democratic norms.  Pakistan is not an exception here. This was bound to happen that state defines categorically that in Pakistan terrorism emanates from wrong understanding of religion. Even though this development of separating state and religion is in its inchoate form, has stirred the fear out of Maulana Sahab that Pakistan is going to be secular.  Can somebody dare ask him, if he can be indifferent to the secularism spread all around him? Can he abandon democracy? Can he stop using currency notes? Can he imagine living without banks, luxury cars and all those scientific inventions which we take for granted? Can he stop requesting a secular country America to make him Prime Minister of Pakistan? If not then he should know that end of the day he will have to bite the bullet and accept the reality that Pakistan would become a secular country. His wishes, his protests and his antediluvian intransigent ideologies don’t matter in changing Pakistan.

Maulana Sahab is very eager that under this amendment, government is planning to raid madrassahs under the name of reforms and regularization. The fact is that, it is the need of the hour and high time that such instructions are regularized. I will just give one example as to how madrassahs or denominational schools need reforms as many of such institutions violate basic human rights.  When a kid’s future is decided by his parents at the age of five and he is admitted to a denominational school with a hope that he will one become ‘alim’, this is a human right violation since that kid is not being given chance to choose his future by himself. The reform needed would be like in normal school a student has the right to choose between humanities and science after 8th grade and further after 10th grade he chooses to become either doctor or engineer etc, similarly this should be the stage when student should choose a ‘religious studies’ group and after studying ‘pre-religious studies’, he should be allowed to join any madrassha. Pakistan anyways don’t need a lot of Alims, since we already have most Alims per capita in the world and still have chaos. We need only those alims who are by choice. Less Alims but better ones who know what are the requirements of the modern world how religion should cope with it.

The juncture which Pakistan is now standing at, is decisive. If Pakistan won’t change itself then the states who ‘call the shots’ would coerce Pakistan into it. Maulana Sahab’s fears are right. Pakistan is changing. This convulsion against religious extremism in Pakistan is now a reality and can’t be stopped. Quaid-e-Azam’s 11th August speech is inextricable from the very tenor of nascent Pakistan’s constitution.  Soon those who are on the other side of this epoch making event, due to their injudicious approach of not looking at the obvious, shall be forgotten by history and only those who become part of it, shall be remembered.

Faisalabad – December 8, 2014. PTI had announced to exercise its democratic right of protest by giving a “shutter down”. Punjab administration had started to manage things proactively and additional measures to keep law and order in place were being taken. For example; water cannons were brought from Sindh. I reckon that Punjab police had its CID or other sensitive department’s personnel deployed as well. I also fancy that some intelligence agencies under home department, or otherwise, would have their officials deployed, acting surreptitiously to capture anyone who tries to sabotage the law and (or) report the exact situation to Head Quarters.

Regardless of my optimistic imagination regarding Punjab Police’s safety and security measures there is something evident that numerous policemen were deployed in Faisalabad on That day.  The pictures and footages which aired on electronic media and published on print media, show serried rows of police in the background of persons with guns in their hands with clear intentions.  The faces of those coward ruffians are as clear as day light, holding pistols and sticks, courtesy presence of media at the spot.

Now after the fateful incident of Faisalabad, where one partisan of PTI was killed, my question is; why is it so hard for our police to capture the culprit and bring him to justice which is prerogative of citizens of Pakistan under the law and constitution. First failure was when police didn’t intervene during the affray between PMLN and PTI workers. It seems those people with weapons in their hands killing PTI worker were under auspices of police because it failed to stop the firing which resulted in the death of an innocent civilian. Now second failure is the dilatory strategy of police in capturing the culprits and producing them in front of court.

Police just cannot absolve itself in this fiasco to keep law and order and just rely on the efficacy of NADRA to advise the whereabouts of persons involved in crime? Is our Punjab police that incompetent that it cannot identify the persons involved in crime when officials were present at the spot? I am layman but even I can tell, if police has the will, it can resolve the murder case of Haq Nawaz only from information by cops present at the crime scene and reports from intelligence agencies as I hope that, their job is not limited to only advise the number of people present at a certain Jalsa, to media. One can, rightly, argue regarding possibility of political pressure on administration. Even, if someone is pressurizing the law enforcement agencies, then whose job is to rebuke? Or Punjab police has found an easy way out to get itself subjugated by despotism of law makers? If so, then on which wall should I throw the law, constitution, hope and ethical values? Is Jinnah’s advise to bureaucrats with tenor to keep themselves aloof from politics was only meant to be promulgated in official papers, written in bold in text books and then make fun of it by acting like personal servants of some political party ? If so then, no wonder,  this pandemonium in Pakistan will continue for next century also. Where constitution is flouted and law enforcement become a party, even the last ray of hope turns bleak.

A few days ago, an American school teacher was killed in Abu Dhabi in a shopping mall. The assassin was identified as a ‘burqa’ clad individual. Police didn’t even know the gender of the killer at that moment but the mystery was solved and culprit was captured within 48 hours of the incident. This only achievement of Abu Dhabi police is enough to put Punjab Police’s name in hall of shame when I compare it with the Faisalabad incident where the police was present and media showed the face of alleged killer as well, yet he was able to flee the crime scene and still remains at large.

There are only two scenarios. Either Punjab police is incompetent or is a party to crime. There is no excuse in presence of hundreds of cops and media to not to capture the culprit. I don’t blame any political party because this is what the politics of subcontinent is. Need of the hour is stand against tyranny and not to become part of it.

PTI claims that PMLN worker(s) killed its partisan, Haq Nawaz. I refute. He was not killed by any party’s worker but he is killed and his family members are being and shall be psychologically killed by politicized police of Punjab in a display of contemptible cowardice and incompetence.




The sort coins of Quaid-e-Azam

A few days ago I happened to come across a column by Dr. Safdar Mehmood in which he had tried to impress upon the common people of Pakistan about the excellence of Quaid-e-Azam’s companions during the Pakistan movement. In this very column he tried his very best to reject the statement which is often referred to  as saying of Quaid-e-Azam that he had some counterfeit coins in his pocket and all he did in third fourth of his column was some frothy eloquence and verbose. Only in the last paragraph he referred to some book and gave his opinion while I was expecting him to state some statement of Quad-e-Azam in favor of his companions (mainly, Liaquat Ali Khan) but he didn’t.

I have no argument about this statement of coins was uttered by Jinnah or not. But there are some statements recorded by the historians which expound the deteriorating nature of relationship between Liaquat Ali Khan and Quaid-e-Azam, especially in the last days.

This was the time when Bengal was suffering from severe famine and there was a tension between Congress and Muslim league regarding formation of Government in the center.  Jinnah and Gandhi both were aging, younger leaders of Muslim League and Congress, Liaquat Ali Khan and Bhulabhai Desai respectively, met and allegedly agreed on a ‘formula’ for “Interim Government at center”. According to this formula Muslim League and Congress were supposed to gain 40% share each in the cabinet, whereby 20% was the share of Sikhs and Untouchables while keeping Viceroy and his Commander-in-Chief as British. Stanely Wolpert writes, “but it remained unclear whether or not Liaquat ever actually discussed this matter with Jinnah”. In January 1945, Jinnah in an interview with Associated Press notified, “There is absolutely no foundation for connecting name with talks which may have taken place between Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan and Bhulabhai Desai”.

Here one is coerced into pondering as to why Jinnah would refute, Liaquat Ali Khan’s claim or as to why Nawabzada would indulge himself into talks with a Congress leader without taking Jinnah into confidence.

After the birth of Pakistan, Jinnah wanted to see his infant nation progressing but was not happy with his Prime Minister’s Performance that during lunch with CM Sindh MA Khurhu, he pronouced Liaquat Ali Khan as “mediocre”.   Upon hearing that Mr. Jinnah had been criticizing Liaquat Ali Khan, through her wife, Liaquat Ali Khan tried to tender resignation in February 1948.

Also when Liaquat Ali Khan visited Quad-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah in Ziarat, he asked Fatima Jinnah if she knew as to why Liaquat Ali Khan visited him? “he wants to know how serious my illness is and how long will I last”.

Jinnah had similar trust issues and expressed his disgust for witliaquath his other companion, Nawab of Madot, the then CM of Punjab. Jinnah asked Mian Mumtaz Daultana to take control of Punjab Ministry but Daultana refused. Jinnah was very angry on this.

(Reference: Jinnah of Pakistan by Stanley Wolpert)

injusticeThe more you read the history of Muslims of India and their political struggle; you realize that Muslims of subcontinent, I would talk specifically about Pakistan, are still at the same stage where Muslims of India had started their political journey for the betterment of a minority called Mohammendens in British India.


Here is an excerpt from the Presidential Address of Syed Ali Imam to the All India Muslim League’s second session held in Amritsar on 30-31 Dec 1908. In the section I would quote, Syed Ali Imam goes on to expound as to how Muslims League’s agenda is different from that of Congress and why lots of Mulsims had remained aloof from joining this party, but I would stop only to that section where League’s leader enumerates the major problems faced by then society as whole and especially Muslims.


Let’s read it and see where we stand today as those problems are still existing in Pakistan and Muslims have not gotten rid of this one tithe.


“The separation of judiciary from the executive, the repeal of degrading Colonial Ordinances, the extension of primary education, the adoption of measures of sanitation, the admission of Indians of all races in large numbers into the higher branches of the public service, discontinuance of official interference in matters of local self-government, reasonable reduction of military expenditure without endangering efficiency, recognition of the legitimate and patriotic desire of the warlike races of India to render military service as volunteers, the grant of commissions in army to Indians, equitable adjustment of Home Charges, limitation of revenue on land belonging to the State, establishment and development of village unions for the disposal of petty civil and criminal cases, encouragement and protection of indigenous arts and industries, the eradication of insolence, on one hand, and feeling of inferiority and mortification on the other, between the rulers and the ruled, are some of many grave questions of practical politics in India that equally effect all classes of our countrymen. …”


It is really disappointing that the problems we faced a hundred years back are still there even after we won an independent state of our own.


The tunnel vision of our current and previous leadership has utterly failed to overcome a single problem as cited above by a Muslim Leagues leader a hundred years back.


  1. Still judiciary is not separated from the executive and has worked and still working under the behest of civil and military dictators and rulers. The only thing our judicial has produced is red tape culture and doctrine of necessity. Dictators have been legalized and politically motivated verdicts have been given. Fingers are being raised on the legitimacy of the current judicial system of Pakistan in the wake of rigging in recent election of May 2013 and judiciary’s involvement therein.
  2. The hollow leadership has not been able to install proper self-government and they are still running away from it. For the past, almost one decade now (from 2008) Pakistan is without any proper self-government system.
  3. Primary education could not be extended in the past six decades the way it was supposed to and it has made Pakistan one of those countries with highest number of kids of school going age away from primary education.
  4. Minorities cannot even think of joining the higher posts in civil and military institutions.
  5. Military expenditure in Pakistan is sky high and still the country is most vulnerable of any terrorist attack at any bazar, market, public place and high sensitive areas.
  6. Land reforms in Pakistan seem a far cry now and issue from which India got rid just after independence.
  7. Village unions and reforms to resolve the petty criminal cases at local level is still not in place. It is a habit of Pakistan’s current and previous leadership to nominate the SHO of their own choice in the village whose duty is merely to protect the interests of the local MNAs and MPAs.
  8. Protection of indigenous arts and crafts is still a dream and remains of that are also being destroyed. Yes, for the photo session of the hollow leadership they do organize the fake festivals at the ruins of great ancient civilization of Mohenjo-Daro, sing songs, dance, eat and then vanish leaving behind the crying, moribund and hand-to-mouth poor artists. All this stage show is done by the public’s exchequer for the glory of personal who want-to-be leaders of this dilapidated society whose majority lives under huge stress to make both ends meet, living under 2 dollars a day.
  9. The public still faces insolation and mortification on daily basis just to quench the thirst of the ego and power of politicians who come to power just by rigging. This happens sometime by closing the public roads, sometimes we see this happening when people are made to stand in long queues to get rashan. Sometimes this happens when a tribal man is deprived of its basic rights under the name of FCR, even after British left the subcontinent. Sometimes when a deserving candidate cannot get the post because of nepotism.


List goes on but it is evident like a sun in the sunny day that our whole leadership in the past and present has been failed miserably to provide to this country, even basic needs for which a common man is crying for the last century. On the roads, it is not traffic but chaos. In the offices the corruption is breaking all time high records. Who was supposed to even teach the public how to behave, who was supposed to provide the citizens a civic sense? This was the job of political leadership but instead of making this country a better place of living, it has been made Gahanna, people are going more and more into privation and society is moribund. We, our leadership, our politicians and bureaucracy has flouted the tenor of those resolutions and charters on which the existence of Pakistan was predicated.


All so called elections and reforms we have seen have only made Pakistan desolated and dilapidated.


We are for sure living in an era of 1908 insofar as the problems faced by a common man are concerned.