Some Interesting Fa​cts about Intolerance and Violence in Pakistan

There has been an unending stream of propaganda against Pakistan ever since she decided to go nuclear. She is variously described as a violent country, failed and most dangerous state, hub of terrorism where women are mercilessly abused, etc. etc. Given the repetition, over time, such depictions are bound to make unsuspecting people accept these as facts especially when the media do their best to prevent the true picture from being presented.

The media in Pakistan are complicit, if not the protagonists, in this nefarious game to create alarm abroad and induce despondence at home to make people lose hope and faith in the future. Facts are misrepresented and positive developments ignored to create dissatisfaction, resentment and instability in the country. This is an attempt to clarify a few of the more common negative perceptions that abound both in the media and on the Internet.

To understand a country one has to really know the ethos of its people. This is not always easy for someone who is not a part of the culture. The inability to understand often leads to poor judgement and miscalculation. Just to give one example, an oft repeated joint US National Intelligence Council and CIA report released in 2000 predicted: “by year 2015 Pakistan would be a failed state, ripe with civil war, bloodshed, inter-provincial rivalries and a struggle for control of its nuclear weapons and complete Talibanisation”. 2015 is almost here but the dire prediction seems nowhere near coming true.

کیا کچھ نہ ہونے سے کچھ ہونا بہتر ہے؟

عمر جاوید

کچھ نہ ہونے سے کچھ ہونا بہتر ہے کے فلسفے کی نسبت سے ہمارے ملک کی مذہبی سیاسی جماعتوں میں اس بات  کا رجہان پایا جاتا ہے کہ ملک کے اداروں میں اپنے نظریے کے لوگوں کو داخل کرکے ان اداروں سے کچھ خیر کی امید رکھی جاسکتی ہے. جیسے جیسے ان اداروں میں دیندار لوگوں کا اضافہ ہوتا چلا جاۓ گا ویسے ویسے وہ ادارہ یا ادارے شر سے پاک ہوتے چلے جائیں  گے. مزے کی بات یہ ہیں کے ویسے تو جماعت اور جمیعت کے لوگ ایک دوسرے کے مدمقابل نظر اتے ہیں لیکن اس نظریے پر متفق ہیں. جمیعت کی پشت پناہی کرنے والے علماءدیوبند بھی شائد اس نظریے سے اتفاق کرتے نظر اتے ہیں.

بظاھر تو اس نظریے کی ابتدا پاکستان بنے کے بعد مولانا مودودی اور مفتی محمود کی تحریک سے ہوتی نظر اتی ہے لیکن کچھ غور کرنے پر یہ معلوم ہوتا ہیں کے وہ دراصل سر سید احمد خان صاحب تھے جنہوں نے اس نظریے کی داغ بیل ڈالی. اگر اس بات کو سہی تسلیم کر لیا جاۓ تو اس نظریے کی عمر کوئی ١٥٠ سال ہو جاتی ہے. اس پورے عرصے میں اس نظریے سے اتفاق کرنے والوں کی تعداد میں خاطر خوا اضافہ ہوا ہے اور آج اک بہت بڑی تعداد یہ سمجھتی ہے کے  نیک اور ایمان دار لوگوں کو مختلف ریاستی اداروں کا حصہ بنا کر ان اداروں کو شر سے پاک  کیا جا سکتا ہے.

The Myth of Independence (Part 2)

Pakistan got independence from British Raj on 1947, it is claimed. The British did left the subcontinent however their legacy remained. The entire socioeconomic and political fabric of society had changed as per the desires of colonial masters by virtue of their rule of around 200 years.

The education system, the judiciary, parliament, bureaucracy, military, financial system, central bank, rail road network, the municipal corporation etc. were all installed by the British and were left behind.

The public, who lived in such a system for nearly 200 years (of which last 80 years were crucial), had no choice but to cling to the same system particularly after the early years of separation. The colonial masters knew perhaps that the locals had no capacity to reinvent a new alternative system particularly in midst of economic and political turmoil... also the British intentionally left behind a few bones of contentions (Kashmir) to keep the newly formed states further distracted.

In this context one can safely assume that British only invented a new more efficient and self regulated way to manage their colonies by proxy, though in a very subtle way, or under the disguise of so called independence.

This was perhaps the birth of a new phase of colonization, where the colonial subjects would voluntarily follow their colonial masters just like the rats follow the tune of Pied Piper with an illusion of exercising their own free will.

This realization is important to shed away the ideological shackles and truly liberate ourselves from the colonial past. Deceiving ourselves with slogans of fake freedom would only keep us dragging behind...

Following video would shed some more light on the subject...
 

If Voting Changed anything, they would make it Illegal!

What people don't realize is that the real drivers of the change in a mature democratic country (and we are not yet there) are not public representative elected through voting, but various stakeholders like Local and Multinational Corporations, Globally Connected Financial and Monetary System, Civil Society (which by definition is secular and liberal), Military Industry, Intelligence Agencies, Free (Sponsored) Media, NGOs (local and Foreign), Bureaucracy etc... All of them influence and derives the system indirectly, while the politicians remains in the front and indirectly serve the agenda of these stakeholders. This is the complete view of the system... changing of politicians through elections, is more like changing of salesmen as per the wishes of the customers, but the salesman would sell the same products manufactured by respective stakeholders, not exactly to serve the customer's need but for their own benefit... If this is correct, then election is just a change of faces, nothing else!

In Pakistan its primarily Feudal Filthy Politicians, Corrupt Bureaucracy, Free (read puppet) Judiciary,  Free (read slave) Media, Army, Local Agencies, International Agencies, IMF etc, who determines what's coming next in this country, the public is never suppose to be part of anything, democracy/elections are just a facade, deception to make people believe that whatever is happening is happening according to the majority's will... in Pakistan the problem isn't the rigging, but the way it was done so poorly that everyone came to realize that it was happening... ideally its suppose to be done in very crafty manner so that the public never finds out about it. Wake Up, first we need to realize the nature and intensity of the problem, then think of the appropriate solution for that.

Read the following article by a very senior and renowned journalist of Pakistan to understand the game plan  for the next five years. 

Election 2013: Lessons for Religious Parties

The yesterday's experience has only made me more convinced that JI, JUI and all other religious political parties should leave politics and should join Tanzeem-e-Islami or Tabligi Jamat. Participation in such a dirty game of politics will earn them nothing but stains on their own names and humiliation to the name of Islam...

The entire 1300 years of history is evident and has hardly any single example of ulema-e-kiram taking part in politics. This didn't mean they had no influence on the public. Rather the ulema-e-kiram were the ones whom the public followed. Their influence use to be so great that even the monarchs have to take permission on various policy matters not because of any official binding, but because of the moral authority ulema-e-kiram enjoyed. Just recall the example of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal r.a. and Shah Waliullah r.a, that despite getting arrested and tortured by the monarchs of their time, they never bent themselves, and the public at large acknowledge their sacrifices, subsequently following them with even more devotion.

They never participated in political affairs themselves, however they had their devotes takecare the political matters or participate in political adventures if needed.

For tons of examples, download and browse this book 'Tareekh-e-Dawat-o-Azeemat' by Molana Syed ul Hasan Ali Nadvi

The reasons for this must be clear by now, in a game in which all the players are united for corruption, any new player cannot win. Even when the empires are on the sides of the corrupt ones, then how difficult it would be to win? Eventually when the only option would be to make an alliance with any of the corrupt players in the game.

This might help them win a couple of matches, but where this would take their credibility? how would it affect their moral authority among the general public? Furthermore the opponents will not let go any chance to throw dirt on your face; humiliating, ridiculing, using derogatory & abusive terms for your opponents etc. all of this is already a part of the dirty game, doing that doesn't suites them, while not doing that and avoid using all other dirty tricks to rigg, cheat and deceive will not get them in the lead... the results are already in front of our eyes.

It is argued that it is necessary to become part of the government so as to stop the same from passing any unIslamic bill in the assembly. The counter argument is would it really matter if the awam rejects a particular act approved by the parliament. It is a known fact that 95% of the public doesn't take financing from interest based banks because it is considered as haraam or prohibited in Islam, despite it is being allowed and supported by the state. (the loans on interest from informal sources is taken by the poor out of desperation and compulsion, therefore we can't count them here)

Let us suppose if drinking, adultery, prostitution, gay marriages etc is made legal by the parliament then would the public be more encouraged to do all these things? Well those who want to do it are doing it already under the cover of law enforcement agencies, and would it really matter if the public at large refrain from it because they consider these things as haraam despite they would be allowed by the law.

The real work which ulema are already doing, is to educate the public, and to get some politicians under their influence so that they may fight the case of Islam (protection of Madaris, etc) in the assembly instead.

They seriously need to rethink their strategy, otherwise the loser in the end would be nothing but Islam, and they would be directly responsible for it.

Religious Parties, Secular Strategies?

11th May is the Election Day. Just a week before, it is being claimed that, we will be seeing the first so called peaceful transition of power from one elected government to another, if all goes well. The religious political parties like JUI and JI are also campaigning at full gear. In Karachi the banners of JI are all over the place, which asks the public 'Aman ko Vote Dain', and that if JI wins all the problems of Karachi or Pakistan will be solved. JI claims to be an Islamic party and claims that the three signs of change are 'Allah, Rasool & Quran'.

For a moment if try to evaluate the claims of JI in the light of Quran and Sunnah then we see nothing but contradiction.

URDU | Is Islamic Revolution possible through Democracy by Dr. Javed Akbar Ansari

Change, but How?

People often believe that to change a system you have to be a part of it. There definition of change even includes replacing the entire system with its foundations with a new one as well. Well the fact of the matter is, you can improve or correct a system likewise, however if its replacement with a new one is the objective then it isn't possible if you are a part of it yourself. Why not? Because it’s like demolishing a building and erecting a new one, how can you do it if you are inside it? You can for sure reconstruct a part of it if you want to, but of course replacing it with another structure requires a person to exit and start new.

6 Reasons why Parliamentarian Democracy is Incoherent with Islam

1. Application of Sharia law subjected to approval of Parliament: This means the very existence of Sharia law contradicts with the nature of democracy, as when there is sharia law then why parliament would have the authority to approve it. If its parliament, who is supposed to decide through majorities opinion then it is not too hard to understand whose judgment is supreme. So what an Islamic Democracy would mean? If it means that no law will be made in contradiction with Quran and Sunnah, then the law makers and their interpreters must have qualified Ulema-e-Kiram, this include all MPAs (for both parliament and provincial assemblies) and all high level judges of high and supreme courts, instead of elected representatives. Instead of majority’s opinion, weight of opinion should be mattered. But the contrary happens. For development matters, there can be separate structure, which allocates funds on need basis and doesn’t necessarily be made of elected members. Technocratic setup can be its alternative. The eye of law enforcement bodies can help keep things transparent rather. But this is not democracy we are talking about; this is different kind of a setup, something close to what we see in China, or at least in a presidential system.

You Son of a Gun, Musharraf

Disclaimer: The views in this article are of the author's only, and doesn't reflects the point of view of Critic's Den team. 

By Col. Riaz Jafri (Retd)

If not you at least I find it perplexing to fathom out any reason for the return of Musharraf at this juncture of our political commotion. No sane person in his proper senses would return from the safe havens of Dubai and London to face three murder trials – Benazir, Lal Masjid and Akbar Bugti, a number of high treason petitions and violation of article 6 charges, a host of hostile political parties and civil society organizations, an army with a no nonsense and an indifferent attitude and on the top of it all with no political future.

Getting Ready for... ?

Agreed, he is not that brilliant but he is not that stupid also to return to a starving lion’s den waiting excitedly for his prey (lion in the literal sense and not the symbolic MLN’s NS’s lion). Does he have a hope in hell to win a seat or two for his APML party other than probably his own? Would he be just contented to be an MNA and listen to the speeches of the ones whom he once never considered his equals? Is he made of the material that would let him play what to talk of the proverbial second fiddle the third, fourth or the more likely umpteenth fiddle? If not, what the heck is he doing and at this time of the history in Pakistan? I asked my more knowledgeable friends and some of their answers baffled me further. 

Gen Hamid Gul said that Musharraf was a fool and one could expect anything from him. To reinforce his assessment he added, “Had he not been one he would not have ventured Kargil”. Well … fool he might be when others’ skin is involved but I don’t think he is that fool to put his own neck under the guillotine that willingly!