We must reject their bad aspects and appreciate good ones. NOW Taliban verses Malala.... and those who curse Malala because she took stand against Talilban. So while advertising her one should know that he is standing on the side of Taliban ... does he know it? or doing it inadvertently .... I am sure while some sympathize with Taliban as "reaction" to corrupt rulers.... no sane person who knows little bit of Quran can favor Taliban .... SOME ONE VERY CLEVERLY DIVERTED OUR ENERGIES FORM THE MAIN ISSUE TO A NON ISSUE ........... BBC the Western radio talk on this link is worth listening :http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/multimedia/2013/10/131011_malala_confusion_a.shtml ..... LOL
WHY do they hate her so? At least with the TTP it isn`t hard to figure out: Malala has publicly and powerfully defied them. But why do so many ordinary, seemingly normal folk hate her? Shame is an obvious possibility. Malala is the world`s most famous teenager. Her bravery and idealism have inspired millions. And yet, we`ve only had the privilege of witnessing Malala`s bravery and idealism because Pakistan has become the kind of place where a teenage girl is shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education.
That`s pretty grotesque stuff, and something the haters know the rest of the world fawning over Malala is aware of.
But shame doesn`t cut it as an explanation. For where`s the rage against the TTP then? If the victim has earned scorn for unwittingly bearing testimony to the monstrousness that stalks this land, then why not opprobrium for the perpetrators too? No, it feels less like guilt and shame and more like resentment. Resentment against a teenager shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education? Surely, that`s not what your average Pakistani has been reduced to? The easy and to some, the obvious answer is: yes, that is in fact what we have become.
In part because the implications of the simple answer are too horrifying to dwell on and also because simple explanations rarely fit something as complicated as societal perceptions, let`s try and search for a fuller explanation.
Why are so many ordinary, seemingly normal people consumed with anti-Malalaism? It`s fair to say that your average Pakistani isn`t terribly impressed by the state. He loves Pakistan, he is attached to the land that comprisesPakistan, he fiercely believes in Pakistan as an idea, but when it comes to that most basic of questions in the state-society equation how well does your state serve your needs? he is not terribly impressed.Nor should he be. Pakistan is a declining state. The ability of the state to positively intervene in people`s lives or to create an environment that allows people to pursue their life priorities as they see fit has been in decline for years, decades.
Forget the Taliban for a minute. It`s the everyday stuff that the state is supposed to provide the most that the state is failing at the most.
Basic security in neighbourhoods and homes? It`s been outsourced to the citizenry, rural and urban: higher walls, stronger gates and, for those who can afford it, personal guards.
Education and health? It`s been outsourced to the private sector, rural and urban: fee-charging schools, afterschool tuition, private clinics, expensive medicines.
Water? Which brand of bottled water would you prefer? Entertainment or sport? Head to your nearest mall. Parks? See your local land grabber first. Public transport? Take your pick between a deathtrap on wheels or on rails.
Sanitation? For Chrissake.
Electricity? If it ended at that, perhaps it would be all right. But your average Pakistani doesn`t just have to turn to the private market for virtually everything the state ought to be providing, he has to spend to protect himself from a predatory state.
Direct spending when it comes to dealing with, say, thelower judiciary and the police; indirect spending when it comes to dealing with, say, the health fallout of businesses and industries that pollute.
It sucks to be a Pakistani in Pakistan. And it sucks, largely, because the state is in decline.
A declining state engenders no love or loyalty. If the corpus of its laws and rules fails to create a system that delivers meaningfully and positively, why should the average citizen automatically rally to that system`s defence when it is under threat? Sixty-six years into an irreversible experiment, the state its structure, its systems, its rules is still up for negotiation because the state has failed to make an irrefutable case to its people that the present structure, system and rules are the only ones that can work for Pakistan.
We`re still collectively standing around the drawing board, unconvinced by the model scrawled across it. And when you`re still stuck at the drawing-board stage, there`s always the possibility that someone will elbow their way to the board, chalk in hand, and present a different model.
Enter the Taliban.
Ever wonder why the protalks brigade is so quiet about what exactly can be negotiated with the Taliban? As in, what can we offer them in return for them ceasing their violence? It`s fairly obvious: the bits about Islam. Tweak a few laws here and there, suggest some modifications to the judicial process, bring religion yet more explicitly into the functioning of the state where`s the harm in any of that? That`s the problem with a state that has failed to stamp an irreversible identity for itself. By staying in the realm of the abstract, of the negotiable and re-negotiable, it opened the door to an alternative discourse, a replacement theory.
Folk may hate the Taliban`s violence, but few would inprinciple argue against the Taliban`s basic idea for the state: more religion will lead to peace, security and maybe even prosperity.
What does any of that have anything to do with Malala? Why hate a young girl with so evidently a beautiful mind and spirit? Because she speaks of the old model, of a state that is rooted in universal and modern principles and tenets, that delivers equally to all without recourse to religion. But there`s a new theory in town and it`s spread far and wide in this land of ours.
The Taliban have never been and will never be the principal threat to the Pakistani state as it was once conceived, but that failed to materialise. It`s the shared belief between the Taliban and the public in the essence of the Taliban mission that is the principal threat.
For better or worse, a state can`t exactly swap out swathes of its population and replace them with new citizens. But a state can, in theory at least, eliminate the purveyors of an ideology that make it possible for so many to hate a teenage girl who was shot in the face for speaking about a girl`s right to education.
But can an already declining state do any such thing? Long live the Taliban! Down with Malala! The writer is a member of staff.
MJ Akbar on Malala:
BETWEEN the prime minister of Pakistan, which 16-year-old Malala Yousafzai wants to become some day, and a Nobel winner for peace, which she might have become this week, the former is by far the better destiny.
The Nobel generally comes to worthies when they have long passed their sell-by date; and the last peace winner whose name I can recall, President Barack Obama, has not fallen far short of a superpower`s quota for international violence. A gong and a cheque would certainly help Malala, not to mention a media anxious for saleable headlines. A political career would help Pakistan.
Malala Yousafzai is a brave girl, as much for dreaming of a better future as for getting a bullet on a bus on her way to school from those who are wrecking her country. Gender oppression, of the very worst kind, is central to the DNA of Pakistani extremists seeking to drive a nation back to the days of jahiliya, or prejudice and ignorance, which is how the preIslamic tribal deserts of Arabia are often described.
Islam won the hearts of Arab women by banning prevalent malpractices such as female infanticide. Pakistan`s Taliban, and their numerous terrorist associates, are a throwback to the 6th century, and a disgrace to the religion they profess.
This has not, alas, diminished their growing influence at the grass roots, or weakened the clamour among Pakistan`s political elite for a `negotiated settlement` with the Taliban.
The question that is rarely asked, and never answered, is a simple one: what is there to negotiate? What should be on the agenda in a dialogue with sectarians who have made random murder their principal tactic, and perhaps the centralprinciple of their ideology as well? The Taliban and its surrogates, barely disguised by thin labels, want power. Is that on offer from Pakistan`s politicians? Does anyone want to appease them with a share of authority in regions northwest of the Indus? No one can stop their rhetoric, blasted into public space through some mosques and public rallies.
Can they be bought off with money? Unlikely, as they have enough funds from domestic as well as external sources. Andhere is a delicate question: will they ever agree to cooperate by turning their guns only in areas which suit Pakistan`s covert interest, like Afghanistan or India, and leave cities like Peshawar and Quetta alone? You cannot deal with inconvenient facts by pretending that they do not exist.
If Malala is in a British school today, it is because of them. If she hopes to challenge their vicious grip through elected office, it is because she knows how dangerous they are to the very sanity of Pakistan.
Malala is a teenager. She has every right to dream, particularly since she has been given a second life. Her dreams certainly make more sense than the rambling, shambling fantasies of a 70-year-old has-been like [retired] Gen Pervez Musharraf.
Musharraf can, and probably should, escape to Dubai or America or wherever he can find a few dollars more, instead of looking desperately for power, and posturing as a `saviour`.
Pakistan has moved far beyond him in some ways, even as it has regressed in other ways. But it is no longer a country for old dictators.
If Pakistan is going to be `saved` then it needs to become a nation with younger women and men in office, a new band of officials blessed by the fact that they do not carry the burden of recent history. It must become a land where Malala can return home.
Malala has everything she could conventionally want at this age in Britain: an education, a future, and the laudatory attention of a British media that has been building her up in the expectation that she would win the Nobel.
I am sure she wanted the Nobel even more than her wellwishers did. But she wants to bring peace to Pakistan, not to Britain. She wants to be a young woman in Lahore or Peshawar, not Bradford or Birmingham, to challenge the forces of misogyny and fanaticism which still command the streets.
What are the odds that this might happen? Not too good, if one were to be honest. Nawaz Sharif has become prime minister at the head of a stable government because voters believed that he could restore calm to a nation whose nerves are on edge, and whose peace of mind has been shattered.
So far, Sharif seems to be travelling at a leisurely pace to nowhere. To be fair to him, he still has time. But if Sharif fails, Malala and her generation will have to confront another question: is there nothing anyone can do? A teenager who nearly lost her life, but never abandoned hope, does not need the counsel of despair. Dreams do not necessarily come true, but then how many get a second life? The writer is an author and editorial director of The Sunday Guardian, published from Delhi.
Malala is terrorist? Did she kill 45000 innocent Pakistanis, destroyed schools, mosques, churches, attacked naval base Mehran, PAF Kamrah? Noble prize be given to Taliban, peace loving pious only Muslims... don't be confused .. more at
Every effort for education especially for girls must be supported. Malala is just a symbol for this struggle. But one is perplexed to notice social media campaign to project her as symbol of West. .. just reflect level of ignorance , deprivation and sympathy for Talibans ... let's try to educate these people this mindset ... rest will follow..