Featured Post

FrontPage صفحہ اول

Salaam Pakistan  is one of projects of  "SalaamOne Network" , to provide information and intellectual resource with a view to...

Showing posts with label Imperialism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Imperialism. Show all posts

قومی قرض ، اسلام ، حکمران اور عوام کی ذمہ داری National debt, Rulers, Islam and role of Pakistanis


پا کستا ن کے حکمران مسلسل  بین الاقوامی مالیاتی اداروں اور امیر ممالک سے ترقیاتی کاموں کے نام پر سود پر قرض لے رہے ہیں.کچھ کام ہوتے ہیں مگر زیادہ پیسہ کرپشن سے ینن کی جیبوں میں جاتا ہے. جس حرام مآ ل کو غیر ملکوں مینن کاروبار میں لگایا جاتا ہے یا بنکوں میں رکھا جاتا ہے. اس وقت کرپشن سے کماے دو سو ارب ٢٠٠ ڈالر باہر پڑے ہیں. قیمتی جائیدادیں لندن، دبئی وغیرہ میں سب کو معلوم ہیں.

سامراجی، نوآبادیاتی، اسلام دشمن طاقتیں خاص طور پر مسلمان اور تیسری دنیا کے  مما لک کے کرپٹ حکمرانوں کے زریعے عوام کو غلام بنانے کے لیے قرض، سود اور کرپشن    کو ہتھیار کے طور پر استمال کرتے ہیں. تا کیہ عوام اور وسائل پرمکمل کنٹرول حاصل ہو.     پاکستان پر پچھلے چھ سال میں بیرونی قرض دوگنا ہو گیا ہے .ایک اندازے کے مطابق اس وقت ہر پاکستانی فرد پر تقریبا پچھتر ہزار ٧٥٠٠٠ روپے کا قرض بمع سود واجب ادا ہے .

اسلام مینن  قرض ایک ایسا بڑا گناہ ہے کہ قرض کی ادائیگی ذمہ داری کے بغیر نماز جنازہ بھی نہیں ہو سکتی . حکمران سود پر قرض عوام کی مرضی کے بغیر لیتے ہیں. اب جبکہ عوام کوقرضوں کا  علم  ہو گیا ہے ان کی ذمہ داری ہے کہ حکومت کو فضول قرض لینے سے  منع کر یں ایسے حکمرانوں سیاست دانوں کوسپورٹ نہ کریں نہ ووٹ نہ دیں .
جو لوگ ان کرپٹ سیاست دانوں کو ووٹ دیں وہ اس جرم اور گناہ میں حصہ دار ہیں :
"جو شخص کسی نیکی یا بھلے کام کی سفارش کرے، اسے بھی اس کا کچھ حصہ ملے گا اور جو برائی اور بدی کی سفارش کرے اس کے لئے بھی اس میں سے ایک حصہ ہے، اور اللہ تعالیٰ ہر چیز پر قدرت رکھنے واﻻ ہے (قرآن ٤:٨٥سورة النساء)
کرپٹ حکمرانوں،ان کے مددگاروں کو سپورٹ کرنے والے کے لواحقین موت پر  ٧٥٠٠٠ ادا کریں ورنہ جنازہ نہ پڑھایا جائے .
اہل علم سے مزید رہنمائی حاصل کی جا سکتی ہے .
"The soul of the believer is attached to his debt until it is repaid for him” (At-Tirmithi no. 1079).
"Whoever takes the wealth of the people and he intends to pay it back, Allah will pay it back for him, and whoever takes it intending to waste it, Allah will waste him" (Al-Bukhari no. 2387).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Ethics, Science, Spirituality & Peace
Peace Forum Magazines
Over 1,000,000 Visits
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

CPEC - Watch-out ! No Free lunch

Image result for cpec map

Train to China


THERE is a fear lurking in the shadows of CPEC that a time will soon come when the Chinese will start dictating terms and priorities rather than negotiating them. As an increasing number of Chinese enterprises acquire stakes in Pakistan’s economy, and as the government takes out more and more loans from Chinese state-owned banks for balance of payments support, the space to negotiate and protect our own interests diminishes. Perhaps we have seen a glimpse of what this entails in the recent discussions around the financing arrangements for the $8bn project for the Peshawar-Karachi railway line, when the Chinese insisted they would not share the project with the Asian Development Bank and wanted to implement it on their own. According to Ahsan Iqbal, the minister for planning and development, who oversaw the negotiations, the Chinese “strongly argued that two-sourced financing would create problems and the project would suffer”. So the government gave in to the ‘strongly argued’ position.
If the merits of single-source financing for this project had been evident, it would not have been double-sourced to begin with — and would certainly not have to be ‘strongly argued’ by anyone. Whatever the merits of the two options, the fact that the Chinese were able to push for full control of the project, and prevail, shows that the power of the government to stand its own ground in any engagement is weakening. This is worrisome because the long-term plan for CPEC envisages far greater entry of Chinese capital, both private and state-owned, into almost every sector of Pakistan’s economy, than what most people realise. The amount of leverage that the Chinese will acquire over Pakistan in the years to come will grow exponentially, and there will be many more moments when positions that are ‘strongly argued’ will need to be equally strongly negotiated in order to protect our own enterprises and economic priorities.
So, naturally, all eyes are watching carefully to see how the early phase of this massive undertaking rolls out. The government needs to do more to assure nervous minds that Pakistan’s interests will be strongly pursued as well, and where necessary, the engagement can be halted if it is not perceived to be putting Pakistan’s interests first. Thus far, that assurance has been absent, and we are moving forward with little to no public awareness about what exactly we are getting entangled in. One way for the government to reassure the country that the growing engagement will safeguard Pakistan’s interests is to make the long-term plan public, especially now that we are told it has been finalised. Putting public approval behind itself is the best way for the government to strengthen its own negotiating position. Let CPEC be the train to prosperity for both countries, and let them ride it together.
Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2017
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Knowledge, Religion, Culture, Tolerance, Peace
انسانیت ، علم ، اسلام ،معاشرہ ، برداشت ، سلامتی 
Books, Articles, Blogs, Magazines,  Videos, Social Media
بلاگز، ویب سائٹس،سوشل میڈیا، میگزین، ویڈیوز,کتب
سلام فورم نیٹ ورک  Peace Forum Network 
Join Millions of visitors: لاکھوں وزٹرز میں شامل ہوں 
Salaamforum.blogspot.com 
سوشل میڈیا پر جوائین کریں یا اپنا نام ، موبائل نمر923004443470+ پر"وہٹس اپپ"یا SMS کریں   
Join 'Peace-Forum' at Social Media, WhatsApp/SMS Name,Cell#at +923004443470
     
  
Facebook: fb.me/AftabKhan.page

How Churchill Fought The Pashtuns in Pakistan

“Horrible and revolting” – that’s how 22-year-old British cavalry officer turned war correspondent for The Daily Telegraphnd Pioneer newspapers, Winston Churchill, described in a dispatch what he saw when entering the ruins of the village of Desemdullah in the Mohmand Valley in British India’s Northwest Frontier (today’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province  in northwestern Pakistan) on the morning of September 22, 1897.

Pashtun tribesmen had unearthed the 36 bodies of fallen British and Indian soldiers, hastily buried a few days earlier in unmarked graves, and mutilated them beyond recognition. “The tribesmen are among the most miserable and brutal creatures on earth. Their intelligence only enables them to be more cruel, more dangerous, more destructible than the wild beasts. (…) I find it impossible to come to any other conclusion than that, in proportion that these valleys are purged form the pernicious vermin that infest them, so will the happiness of humanity be increased, and the progress of mankind accelerated,” a shaken and sulfurous Churchill jotted down in his notebook that day.

The Pashtun tribesmen, the forebears to today’s Pashtun insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan, had risen against the British in 1897 due to the division of their tribal territory by the Durand line in 1893, as well as the gradual British occupation of Pashtun lands. They rallied under the leadership of the Pashtun fakir Saidullah, nicknamed “Mad Mullah,” by the British, who declared a “jihad” against British India and rallied more than 10,000 warriors to his cause.

Pashtun warriors under Saidullah attacked forts and camps guarding the Malakand Pass and by doing so threatened British control of the entire Northwest Frontier. ”The British held the summit of the Malakand Pass and thus had maintained the road from the Swat Valley and across the Swat River by many other valleys to Chitral,” Winston Churchill summarized the strategic importance of the pass in his autobiography My Early Life.

The British reacted quickly and assembled  a punitive expedition, the so-called Malakand Field Force, to pacify the Pashtun tribes along the Afghan-Indian (today’s Afghanistan-Pakistan) border. The force included young Churchill, who for around $420 (in today’s value) per piece, wrote a number of dispatches under the heading of “The War in the Indian Highlands,” which were signed—much to Churchill’s consternation, since he wanted to become famous through his writing—“By a Young Officer.”

Yet, finding the mutilated corpses on that September morning put a slight temper on the “medal hunter” as he was sometimes dismissively called. Some of the desecrated dead he found in Desemdullah were young British soldiers of his age, perhaps bringing home for the first time the realities of war to Churchill, who joined hoping “like most young fools” that “something exciting would happen” while he was with the troops.

Churchill would later on sardonically boast in My Early Life that luckily for those, like himself, who were fond of war “there were still savages and barbarous peoples. There were Zulus and Afghans, also the Dervishes of the Soudan. Some of them might, if they were well-disposed, ‘put up a show’ someday.”

And a show the Pashtun tribesmen in the ten-mile long Mohmand Valley, located in the mountains to the northwest of Peshawar, did put up. In fact, they had beaten back the British-Indian force sent against them, under British Brigadier-General P.D. Jeffreys, which sustained 149 casualties. Churchill saw some of the British wounded himself with “their faces drawn by pain and anxiety, looked ghastly in the pale light of the early morning.” Even the general had received a head wound and wore a uniform covered in his own blood. “It was not apparently all a gay adventure,” Churchill would later write.

The battle was a setback, but the British—“the dominant race” in Churchill’s words—would wreak terrible retribution on the “the savages” and step up their even campaign of burning villages and killing everyone in their path who resisted. “After today we begin to burn villages. Every one. And all who resist will be killed without quarter,” Churchill wrote to a friend that September. “The Mohmands need a lesson, and there is no doubt we are a very cruel people.” In his autobiography he matter-of-factly noted how the British went about their business:

We proceeded systematically, village by village, and we destroyed the houses, filled up the wells, blew down the towers, cut down the great shady trees, burned the crops and broke the reservoirs in punitive devastation.

He goes on to note that whenever the Pashtun tribesmen would put up resistance the British would lose two to three officers and 15 to 20 Indian soldiers.  However, “no quarter was asked or given,” Churchill noted, “and every tribesman caught was speared or cut down at once.”

Time and again he praised the endurance of the British soldier in his dispatches and compared them—true to his imperialist credo-favorably to their Indian comrades-in-arms. “The soldiers of India naturally feel the effects of the climate less than those from cooler lands. This, of course, the British infantryman will not admit. The dominant race resent the slightest suggestion of inferiority. (…) This is the material for empire‑building.”

The young war correspondent was also apparently not a fan of what today would be called a “hearts and mind approach” in dealing with insurgents, at least so he claims in My Early Life.  He dismissively talks about political officers, who “parleyed all the time with the chiefs, the priests and other local notables,” which made them very unpopular among fellow army officers.

He singled out one particular efficient British envoy who always “just when we were looking forward to having a splendid fight and all the guns were loaded and everyone keyed up, this Major Deane and why was he a Major anyhow? so we said being in truth nothing better than an ordinary politician would come along and put a stop to it all,” by seeking some sort of diplomatic accommodation between a tribe and the British.

True to his bellicose nature, Churchill conversely rather believed in the power of the dumdum bullet, a soft-point bullet that expands upon impact, and the well-aimed volleys of British and Indian soldiers, who, when they caught them in in the open, killed thousands of Pashtuns, and proved the British poet Hilaire Beloc’s truism right that “whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun [a type of machine gun], and they have not,” when reminiscing about the uneven clashes between imperialists and natives in the late 19th century.

Indeed, the campaign against the Mohmand tribe would come to a rather swift end in early October 1897, with the tribesmen agreeing to hand over their rifles and promising to live peacefully (at least for a while). Churchill rejoined his regiment, the 4th Hussars, stationed at that time in Bangalore. The punitive expedition had cost the British Raj 282 men killed or wounded out of a force of roughly 1,200. Pashtun casualties are unknown but some estimates are as as high as 10,000. In January 1898, the Malakand Field Force was officially disbanded and the soldiers returned to their garrisons.

While embedded with the troops Churchill saw “more fighting than I expected, and very hard fighting too,” the overall commander of the Malakand Field Force, Major-General Sir Bindon Blood later recalled. More than once, Churchill saw people around him killed (“The British officer was spinning just behind me, his face a mass of blood, his right eye cut out,” as he recounted in one instance.), endured the sight of massacres, the agonizing cries of the wounded, and the psychological toll of fighting, what in Victorian eyes, must have been a merciless enemy encapsulated in Kipling’s The Young British Soldier: “When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains…”

Churchill does recount on a few occasions in letters what today (and back then) without a doubt would be considered war crimes on the British side. For example, he saw how Sikh soldiers of the British-Indian Army torture and slowly kill a wounded Pashtun tribesman by shoving him little by little into an incinerator that slowly melted the skin off the poor man’s bones amidst his agonizing cries. The other side was not much better. “The tribesman,” Churchill wrote in a letter, “torture the wounded & mutilate the dead. The troops never spare a man who falls into their hands – whether he be wounded or not . . . The picture is a terrible one.”

While admitting to acts of barbarism on both sides during the campaign, he never condemned it, although he felt the need to assure his mother in a letter that he himself, during his six week stint as a war-correspondent, did not commit any heinous acts. “I have not soiled my hands with any dirty work,” he wrote to her.

Dismissing the entire region and its inhabitants as uncivilized —“savages impelled by fanaticism”—he did not expect his side or the enemy to follow the rules of gentlemanly (European) warfare he had been taught at the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst. As a result, it must have been easier for him to shed the horror of war, dismissing it as an abnormality in the conduct of warfare and something that would not occur during the clash of “civilized nations.” For him, a child of the Victorian period, war remained a game, best exemplified by Sir Henry Newbolt’s poem Vitai Lampada, coincidentally first published in 1897, the same year that Churchill was fighting on the Northwest Frontier:

The sand of the desert is sodden red, -
Red with the wreck of a square that broke; -
The Gatling’s jammed and the colonel dead,
And the regiment blind with dust and smoke.
The river of death has brimmed his banks,
And England’s far, and Honour a name,
But the voice of schoolboy rallies the ranks,
“Play up! play up! and play the game!”

That war will be like a game of cricket, of course, turned out to be a fatal miscalculation; one that Churchill was not alone in making around the turn of the last century.

How Churchill Fought The Pashtuns in Pakistan
by Franz-Stefan Gady, thediplomat.com
http://flip.it/lpj2Q

Independence for whom?

Every year we celebrate Independence Day with fervour and official ceremonies including military parade and state banquet. Titles and awards are bestowed upon military and civilian persons for their meritorious services and performances. Generally, it is believed that we got independence from colonialism after the British departed. We became free in our homeland from slavery and subordination by foreign powers.

There is no doubt that the country became independent and the era of colonialism ended. But the question remains — who really got freedom? The common people, feudal lords, tribal leaders, bureaucrats, military officers or political leaders and the business community? The reality is that the common people still suffer as slaves and are not free. Those who got freedom are the privileged and ruling classes.

During the British period, the feudal lords were supervised and controlled by the British officers. They acted as the most loyal group who supported the colonial government with money and manpower.

However, the British government evolved a system to control them. If a feudal lord disobeyed or violated rules and regulations, his seat in the darbar of the commissioner or the governor was lost. It meant a reduction in his status and the displeasure of the government. The disgrace lowered his position in the eyes of his contemporaries as well as his own people. The feudals would immediately apologise so that their status could be restored. It was common practice for government officials to keep them waiting for hours before a meeting. Those loyal to the British were awarded titles and granted privileges which raised their social status. David Page in Prelude to Partition and Sara Ansari in Sufi Saints and State Power have discussed in detail the imperial control system over the feudals.

In the early period, the Indians were appointed only on lower posts in bureaucracy. Slowly, more posts would be reserved for Indians, especially for those who passed the competitive examinations. However, their conduct was supervised by British high officials and they had to observe special rules and regulations reserved for bureaucracy which suited the interests of the colonial government. Same was the case with the army as the higher ranks gradually opened for Indians.

When the government allowed political parties to be formed, the leaders had to adhere to a strict political framework. It was only during the struggle for freedom that they actually had the opportunity to act freely.

There are two different views regarding independence. The British claimed that they shifted power peacefully but the people of the subcontinent argued that they won their freedom after significant struggle.

So who were the real beneficiaries of independence? The feudal lords previously under British control were now without a supervisor who would watch and check their conduct. They became free to treat the peasants as they liked. They could imprison, flog and even kill them without being punished. They could not be challenged, were above the law and masters of their landed property. The police and government administration came under their control which by violating the law, they could use for personal interests. Their power increased when they joined political parties and became winning candidates as their captive voters elected them for the national and provincial assemblies. Similarly, tribal leaders became sole spokesmen for their tribes.

Both groups emerged as most powerful and influential on the political scene of Pakistan as they now enjoyed privileges that were denied to them during the colonial period.

The military was no more under the control of British officials and high posts now opened up for Pakistanis. Ayub Khan admitted in his memoirs that in the British army, at the most he could have been promoted to the post of a brigadier. But in Pakistan he became field marshal.

Bureaucrats emerged as the most privileged group in the country. They enjoyed unlimited power by appointments on high positions during martial law as well as in democracy.

The business community was free to hoard commodities, increase prices and earn unlimited profits as well as to evade taxes and become the wealthiest section of the society.

Politicians who assumed power used it for personal gains, accumulated wealth, established dynasty rule and retired after plundering state resources.

After independence, the status of the common people changed from being subjects to citizens but they remain unprivileged. Politicians treated them merely as voters and once the elections were over, they were forgotten. If the masses demonstrated for their rights, they were crushed by law enforcement agencies. They are still voiceless, helpless and denied a role in the development of society.

It is an illusion that the people of Pakistan got freedom, and that independence day should be celebrated by hoisting the flag and listening to patriotic songs. Sadly, independence has failed to give the common people freedom, dignity and respect.
By Mubarak Ali: http://www.dawn.com/news/1036689/past-present-independence-for-whom

Related:
Free-eBooks: http://goo.gl/2xpiv
Peace-Forum Video Channel: http://goo.gl/GLh75