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 Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

Which Revolution you talk about? کس انقلاب کی بات کرتے ہو


Shareکس انقلاب کی بات کرتے ہو...صبح بخیر…ڈاکٹر صفدر محمود
ایک بار پھر کہہ رہا ہوں کہ میں نہ عمران خان کو جانتا ہوں اور نہ ہی اقتدار کی راہداریوں میں کسی عہدے کا امیدوار ہوں۔ عہدے بہت دیکھ لئے اب تو فقط بخشش کی تمنا ہے اور اسی تمنا کا تقاضا ہے کہ نہ قلم گروی رکھا جائے نہ ذہین نوٹوں یا عہدوں کے عوض بیچا جائے اور نہ کسی سیاستدان کا قلمی مزارعہ بنا جائے۔ رضا صرف اپنے رب کی اور خدمت قوم کی اپنا ماٹو(Motto) ہو تو شاید بیڑہ پار ہوجائے۔ سچی بات یہ ہے کہ میں جہاں بھی جاتا ہوں عمران کے ووٹر پاتا ہوں۔ اس کی مقبولیت تیزی سے پھیل رہی ہے۔ جوں جوں اس کے مخالفین اس پر ایجنسیوں کی حمایت، آئی ایس آئی کی سرپرستی، امریکی سازش وغیرہ وغیرہ کے الزامات لگاتے ہیں۔ اس کی جائیداد کا پوسٹ مارٹم کیا جاتا ہے تو لوگ پوچھتے ہیں کیا اس نے یہ جائیداد حکومت میں رہ کر ملکی خزانہ لوٹ کر بنائی؟کیا اس نے بنکوں کے قرضے ہضم کئے؟ کیا اس نے منی لانڈرنگ کی؟ اس کا دعویٰ ہے کہ اس نے سارے کام قانون کے مطابق کئے اور پورا ٹیکس ادا کیا ۔ سچی بات یہ ہے کہ میں عام محفلوں اور نوجوانوں سے یہ باتیں سن کرمحسوس کرتا ہوں کہ لوگ آزمائی ہوئی قیادت سے نجات چاہتے ہیں۔
یہی وجہ ہے کہ جب دانشور عمران خان کے انقلاب کے بخیے ادھیڑتے ہیں اس کے دعوؤں کا تمسخر اڑاتے ہیں تو میں مسکرائے بغیر نہیں رہ سکتا کیونکہ میں نے گزشتہ دہائیوں میں تبدیلی لانے کا وعدہ کرنے والوں کے ساتھ یہی ہوتے دیکھا ہے جو طبقہ تبدیلی سے خوفزدہ ہوتا ہے دراصل وہ ”اسٹیٹس کو“ کا حامی ہوتا ہے ۔ میں نہیں جانتا عمران کس انقلاب کی بات کرتا ہے کیونکہ یہاں ایک انقلاب کی گنجائش تھی اور وہ پندرہ اگست 1947ء کو آچکا۔ آج کل تجزیہ نگار عمران کے انقلاب کا پوسٹ مارٹم کررہے ہیں۔ سوال یہ ہے کہ عوام اس انقلاب سے کیا مراد لیتے ہیں؟ میرے مشاہدے کے مطابق عوام کی انقلاب سے مراد سیاسی تبدیلی ہے وہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ اگر اس ملک کو قدرے ایماندار، محنتی اور اہل قیادت مل جائے تو پاکستان میں انقلاب آجائے گا ۔ وہ سمجھتے ہیں کہ صرف ایماندار اور اہل قیادت ہی ملک میں امن بحال کرسکتی ہے، صنعتی اور زرعی شعبوں کی کارکردگی شاندار بنا سکتی ہے۔ خسارے میں جانے والی قومی اداروں کو منافع بخش بناسکتی ہے۔ قومی لیٹروں کا محاسبہ کرسکتی ہے اور عام شہریوں کے مسائل حل کرسکتی ہے۔ ایک محفل میں ایک نوجوان نے مجھ سے پوچھا” سر کیا ہماری روایتی اور آموزہ قیادت میں کوئی لیڈر کیمرج آکسفورڈ کا گریجویٹ ہے؟ میں سوچنے لگا تو وہ فوراً بولا پھر یہ حضرات عمران کو نااہلیت کا طعنہ کیوں دیتے ہیں وہ آکسفورڈ کا گریجویٹ ہے اور وہ ہی ملکی حالات بدلنے کی اہلیت رکھتا ہے۔ ہم روایتی سیاستدانوں کو آزما چکے ہیں، آخر ہم کب تک انہی سوراخوں سے ڈسے جاتے رہیں گے…“ میں اس کی باتیں سن رہا تھا اور محسوس کررہا تھا کہ یہی انقلاب ہے بھلا اور انقلاب کیا ہوگا؟

Why the PPP & PML-N are Politically Outdated?





A profound proverb in the Punjabi language on understanding human behavior is as follows: 'Kah kawah dey the prah prahwah dey.' The meaning is quite simple: Folks of the same breed always stick together. But an in depth comprehension of this saying provides a wealth of wisdom on how people behave, why they do what they do, the importance of genetic script, the impact of social-psychological-environmental factors, the attributes of the human mindset and an explanation of how intrinsic habits serve as barriers in attitude change. Another similar saying is: Chor chorion javay herion perion to na javay.  A thief may stop stealing but can never overcome the compulsive habit of indulging in small deceit.  A simpler interpretation is: A conman will always be a conman – no matter what.  Quite true and logically understandable.
In Pakistan’s traditional political culture and set-up, to which the PPP’s and PML-N’s incumbent leaderships belong, the compulsive attitude of sticking to outdated political norms and practices continue. Both leaderships are right-wing, both temperamentally and ideologically, and basically adhere to the politics of political status-quo in the country. Both are excessively rhetorical in their approach to political management. Both have failed in economic planning. Both have been unable to mobilize the masses for an economic resurgence and a wider and effective participation of the people in democratic processes. Both are lacking in giving self-reliance programs to the nation. Both have been completely unsuccessful in ending poverty, illiteracy and common deprivations. Both have made little or no progress in resolving intra-province conflicts. Both have mismanaged national security and the internal law and order situation in the country. Both leaderships are totally and strategically committed to American-centric foreign policy, and Pakistan’s global diplomacy has suffered repeated set-backs under their respective watches. Both have subjected Pakistan to massive debts by borrowing from the IMF and The World Bank and other international financial institutions, thereby relegating the country’s domestic economic and foreign policy to continuous external intervention.
The dilemmas of PPP and PML-N politics are even more alarming at another level: both the leaderships are family-based and increasingly ancestral-focused: both have been accused of and charged with massive corruption and amassing tremendous wealth at the nation’s expense. Both have assets, property and business interests in foreign countries.  And the leaderships of both the parties have been dismissed in the past from the highest political office of the country on charges of incompetence, corruption and inefficiency.
Isn’t this lengthy charge-sheet of corruption and incompetence enough to make the PPP and PLM-N leaderships politically redundant in the future politics of the nation? Whether these charges are factual or not is beside the point – the reality is that it is the overall public perception of both the parties.   Isn’t the dismal political-economic performance of the PPP and PML-N, present and past, in itself, an indictment against their leaderships. On top of that, the PPP and PML-N’s 3 ½ year theatrics of so-called democratic reconciliation politics have kept a most inefficient, incompetent and corrupt regime at the helm of national affairs. Consequently, this has resulted in bringing the nation to the brink of ultimate political collapse. How long can this political charade continue?
The fact of the matter is that the PPP and PML-N leaderships and their modus operandi in politics is outdated, redundant and irrelevant to the present emerging political demands, realities and dynamics of the nation. In today’s Pakistan, a people’s revolution is brewing: a selfless nationalistic leadership committed to an economically viable welfare state, a democratic dispensation with a sense of purpose for the empowerment of people and bringing ordinary citizens into the mainstream of Pakistan’s politics is the only option that can save the country from impending disaster. Pakistan needs a new kind of politics, a renaissance in its political culture, a revolutionary transformation of its political leadership that the PPP and PML-N cannot and will not provide to the nation.  There is a widespread demand for moral and ethical political discourse.
There are too many behavioral, ideological, conceptual, historical and politically fundamental errors that are common in the political conduct of both PPP and PML-N’s current leadership. All of these errors have worked contrary to the interests of the masses and cannot be reconciled with the future political demands of Pakistan. Although in recent weeks, the PML-N has been attacking the PPP leadership with unprecedented fury, with a show of street power and anti Zardari- Gilani public demonstrations, in prospect, the political agendas of both leaderships remain the same: 
1) not to relinquish hold on future political power,
2) the continuation of the political status-quo in the power structure
3) the perpetuation of right-wing economic policies
4) the reliance on foreign investments and borrowing from international financial institutions as fundamentals of a national economic policy
5) an American-centric foreign policy and a largely military-based strategic approach to conflict-resolution, and so on and so forth.
The problem is that both the PPP and PML-N leaderships are philosophically, ideologically, and conceptually incapable of offering anything new or of instigating fundamental change in Pakistan’s present political culture or in its traditional power structure. As the Punjabi proverb goes: “Folks of the same breed always stick together” – The Sharifs may challenge the Zardari-Gilianis and vice-versa, but the mutually-shared attitudinal approach to politics and Pakistan’s power structure makes them “folks of the same breed.” Given the frozen mindset of Pakistan’s contemporary ruling class, this compulsive political behavior cannot be altered easily, if at all.
What Pakistan requires today is a people’s powered political revolution, a fundamental transformation of its political culture and present power structure.  The Pakistani people are demanding a “Brave New World” of multiple drastic changes in their lives and in their country. The fact of the matter is that the PPP and PML-N leaderships cannot deliver it – nor are they even capable of fully comprehending what the people want or deserve.  Indeed, past history has proven it. Both the PPP and PML-N leaderships are outdated, irrelevant, and politically spent – past their time! No question about it!

Social, economic problems increase schizophrenia patients



Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests itself as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction. The onset of symptoms typically occurs in young adulthood, with a global lifetime prevalence of about 0.3–0.7%. Diagnosis is based on observed behavior and the patient's reported experiences.

Genetics, early environment, neurobiology, and psychological and social processes appear to be important contributory factors; some recreational and prescription drugs appear to cause or worsen symptoms. Current research is focused on the role of neurobiology, although no single isolated organic cause has been found. The many possible combinations of symptoms have triggered debate about whether the diagnosis represents a single disorder or a number of discrete syndromes. Despite the etymology of the term from the Greek roots skhizein (σχίζειν, "to split") and phrēn, phren- (φρήν, φρεν-; "mind"), schizophrenia does not imply a "split mind" and it is not the same as dissociative identity disorder—also known as "multiple personality disorder" or "split personality"—a condition with which it is often confused in public perception.

The mainstay of treatment is antipsychotic medication, which primarily suppresses dopamine (and sometimes serotonin) receptor activity. Psychotherapy and vocational and social rehabilitation are also important in treatment. In more serious cases—where there is risk to self and others—involuntary hospitalization may be necessary, although hospital stays are now shorter and less frequent than they once were.

The disorder is thought mainly to affect cognition, but it also usually contributes to chronic problems with behavior and emotion. People with schizophrenia are likely to have additional (comorbid) conditions, including major depression and anxiety disorders; the lifetime occurrence of substance abuse is almost 50%. Social problems, such as long-term unemployment, poverty and homelessness, are common. The average life expectancy of people with the disorder is 12 to 15 years less than those without, the result of increased physical health problems and a higher suicide rate (about 5%)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Health experts have said that social, economic disorder, political anarchy and terrorism [+ loadshedding] are increasing the number of Schizophrenia patients and further deteriorate the situation.

This was stated by health experts while addressing concluding session of a training work for the prevention and treatment of schizophrenia here under the auspices of a non-governmental organization Horizon in the auditorium of Ibadat Hospital.

The four-day training workshop was participated by 50 doctors and psychiatrist from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Lahore and Islamabad and shared their expertise with the participants.

The purpose of the workshop was the creation of awareness amongst the people regarding awareness for the prevention and treatment of schizophrenia.

Principal, Rehman Medical College, Professor Dr. Tariq Mufti was chief guest in the opening session.

Addressing the participants of the workshop, former principal Khyber Medical College (KMC) and chairman Horizon, Psychiatrist, Professor Dr. Khalid Mufti said that the severity of the disease is affecting one percent population of the world and the numbers of its victims in Pakistan are 1.4 million.

He said that during last 30 years Ibadat Hospital has provided treatment to 24000 schizophrenia patients and provided free medical counseling and medicines to 600 patients.

The patients are also provided training in diagnostic and treatment of the disease.

Dr. Khalid Mufti explained that the disease is diagnose in the age between 15 to 35 years in which about 6 per cent have courage to bear the severity and long duration of the disease and they used to make suicide attempt due to higher depression.

He said that situation in developing countries is worse where over 90 per cent schizophrenia patients start the use of narcotics (hashish) due to lack of access to treatment, which turns their lives more vulnerable.

The psychiatrist said that the patients of disease usually go for traditional means, particularly non-medical means of treatment, which increase their miseries.

He urged the participants for creating awareness at their own level in this regard and encourage them toward treatment through qualified doctors.

The representative of World Health Organization (WHO), Professor Dr. Farid Minhas and Professor Dr. Saeed Farooq gave detailed briefing regarding the disease.

They said that hardwork and domestic problems further increases the miseries of the patients of disease.

They said that schizophrenia affect the patient mentally and break their spirit.

The disease, they said could be prevented through counseling with a qualified doctor and use of effective medicines, saying that with the passage of time 50 per cent patients recover of the disease.

In the concluding ceremony, the chief guest, Professor Dr, Farid Minhas distributed certificates and shields amongst the participants of the workshop.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=117770



Schizophrenia - Symptoms, Diagnosis, Treatment of Schizophrenia ...

health.nytimes.com › Times Health Guide › s
7 Feb 2010 – Schizophrenia is a complex illness. Mental health experts are not sure what causes it. However, genetic factors appear to play a role. ...

We Must Stop America Now!





On November 18, 1999, immediately after General Pervez Musharraf took over the helm of affairs in Pakistan, this columnist (Dr. Haider Mehdi) wrote a personal letter to him. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By Dr. Haider Mehdi: 
-------------------------------------------------------------------


The following is an extract from that letter:
Consider the enormous accuracy of the predication of the political-military fallouts made over a decade ago.

“…Americans have been conducting their relations with Pakistan with specifically designed agendas. In the first phase, Pakistan fought American political battles of anti-communism… this was followed by Zia’s years, in engaging the Soviet Union in armed intervention; and now the likelihood is that the Americans would want Pakistan to assist them in destabilizing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. As we enter the next millennium, the American and European political obsession will be to destabilize Islamic countries (what they coin now as “extremism”)… It is beyond the scope of Pakistani politics to define whether the political regime in Afghanistan ought to be destabilized or not. But, there is a certainty about one thing: should Pakistan get involved with Afghanistan’s internal affairs andcarry out the American political agenda in its newest form, the long-range consequences for Pakistan will be disastrous.”
And the ultimate disaster has struck us. Read between the lines: Admiral Mike Mullen has declared war on Pakistan. Has he not?
A simple question: Is Pakistan in a state of war now?  The simple answer is YES! 
Another simple question: Is Pakistan prepared for this forthcoming eventuality of American aggression and direct military intervention on its soil? The simple answer is: NO!
Yet another simple question: What should Pakistan do to respond to the growing US militarythreat?
We need to make multiple coordinated military and civil maneuvers: Pakistan’s armed forces (Air Force, Navy and Army) should be immediately mobilized in “Red Alert.”  We should let our adversaries know, in no uncertain terms, that so far, Pakistan has been patiently tolerant, in the interest of peace and political reconciliations, of the low-intensity war conducted against it, both covertly and overly for years by the Americans and their allies.  But, in the wake of Admiral Mullen’s recent testimony in the US Senate, the political and military ground realities in Pakistan have completely changed. Pakistan will have a “zero tolerance” military policy against any US aggressive initiatives. The preemptive civil and military counter-effective strategic response to future US military designs on Pakistan (which seem to be in an advanced stage) is to make sure that the Obama administration fully comprehends that Pakistan’s future military engagement with US forces will turn the ongoing low-intensity war into a full-fledged military conflict, should the Americans decide on yet another aerial or ground offensive in any part of its territory. Pakistan’s high military command needs to tell the American President, in unequivocal terms, that Pakistan’s army is not for hire anymore; it will not fight US-West proxy wars nor will it engage itself in waging aggression against its own people on the behest of the US and its allies in thename of the so-called “war on terrorism.”
Let us play politics with America on the basis of our strengths rather than be coerced into submission by American political, military and financial aid threats: Let us remind the Obama administration that America still has 130,000 troops in land-locked Afghanistan whose present survival and future safe exit depends on Pakistan’s generosity of political conduct and goodwill – and if the US insists on playing fire with us, we will play fire with America. The Americans should have no doubt in their minds: we will block NATO supplies, shoot down the next drone that violates our airspace and respond to any US military aggression with our full might. We are equipped with military capability to confront any armed adventure against our nation – and thismilitary confrontation will not be a “zero sum game” – the political military odds will most certainly be tilted to our advantage.
So let us keep a humanitarian context in view: Let us invite the US to join us at a negotiation table, and let us talk peace. Let us help America in ending this vicious war that has been their making in the first place and let us give the Afghans their country back. We need to make Americans realize now that they are not fighting a specific insurgency but an entire Afghan nation; they are fighting the Afghan people!  It is about time that the Taliban’s legitimate national aspirations be respected and their moral- political rights recognized in an independent Afghanistan. Let us make US-Nato leadership understand that even in a 100-year war, the Afghans will not allow foreign military presence in their country.
Let us make Americans understand that they have failed in their conceptualization of the 21stcentury global world and their capitalistic corporate strategic goals do not sit well with the present-day enlightened socio-political awareness of the masses. The American-Western dogma is dead: look at the economic failures, take stock of the continued free-market crises and failings in capitalistic democracies. Stop indulging in counter- revolutionary wars: there is no room in the present-day world, in the interest of the masses everywhere, to create more Afghanistans, Iraqs and Libyas. America, as the leader of the reactionary, neo-con and neo-imperialist axis, needs to be stopped now – if necessary, by force.
Barrack Obama needs to be told that, in the aftermath of General Mullen’s Senate testimony, Obama’s re-election bid for the second presidential term largely depends on Pakistan’s goodwill and favorable political conduct. Obama needs to take bold and valorous acts of political statesmanship to opt for instant peace in Afghanistan than to choose another instant war against Pakistan. And Pakistan can help Obama in attaining peace instantly at a negotiation table helped by the Haqqani network and coordinated by the Taliban – without which Barrack Obama will be part of an ugly American history in the year of our Lord, 2012.
And the final vital question: Is the Zardari-Gilani regime capable of delivering this important message and able to communicate Pakistan’s nationalistic point of view with required dignity, integrity, convincing arguments, conceptual strength and tactical diplomacy to Obama’s administration? I am afraid the simple reality is: NO.
Zardari-Gilani are Pervez Musharraf’s protégés incapable of comprehending the looming crisis over Pakistan – just as Musharraf, a decade ago,  intentionally and consciously disregarded Pakistan’s national interests (which was brought to his attention in my letter of November 18, 1999) – all for the love of personal power!
So what needs to be done? An interim government – to deal with the political- military crisis coming our way in the next few weeks! Perhaps even in the following few days!
Stop America, now!

Religion and State


A COLLECTION of 15 well-researched papers, Islam and Society in Pakistan, offers a comprehensive survey of the evolution of Islam within Pakistan’s anthropological and sociological context.

The “assumption” that the study of Islam and Pakistan “are one and the same”, though unpalatable, is not far from the truth. Islam (rather political Islam) remains the be-all and end-all of Pakistan’s constitution and politics. Some scholars have argued that there is danger of Islam becoming a gate-keeping concept, equating Islam and Pakistan as two sides of the same coin.

Though this may be applicable in the context of the country evolving as an Islamic state, it is not really the case as all the instruments of the state and the government, and above all our societal mores, are by and large anything but Islamic in either context or form.

The book questions “What Islam means, where to locate it in society and how best to serve its interests in Pakistan today.”
Without reflecting on the status of the ulema as those who interpret religious texts, the book outlines how they tend to restrict Islam to religious practice, thereby denying the complete, all-embracing role of Islam in other, secular departments of life. The chapter, “Changing Role of Islamism and the Ulema in Society and Politics,” discusses the role of pre-partition religious parties who were opposed to the creation of Pakistan and then tried to depict themselves as the champions of a Muslim Pakistan post-partition.

The book goes on to comment on how guardianship of the Islamic world had always been Pakistan’s cherished yet costly dream as the second largest Muslim state after Indonesia and the fifth largest in the world. Its ambition to act as a state representing modern Islam may be challenged by Arab states.

The compendium would have greatly added to its value by pointing out the hazards and contradictions involved in the formation of a state on the basis of religion or else how would one justify the Quaid’s speech of August 11, 1947 declaring religion as not the state’s business.

Though Islam and Society in Pakistan: Anthropological Perspectives is a treasure trove for academics and research scholars, it has little to offer to a history student. Also, a chapter on the rise of Jihad tracing back to the Kashmir dispute and the Afghan war would have added enormously to the value of the book.

State and religion Reviewed by A.R. Siddiqi


Islam and Society in Pakistan: Anthropological Perspectives, (HISTORY), Edited by Ali Khan and Megnus Mavsden, Oxford University Press, Pakistan, ISBN 9780195479577 ,461pp.


The uniqueness of Sindh


Just when the sector commanders had been put on the back-foot, and the MQM was vociferating in a manner not seen since 1995 (Gen Babar’s operation), who should come to their rescue but President Zardari’s personal emissary, Montecello University’s most celebrated doctoral figure, Dr Babar Awan.

He has brilliantly appeased the MQM by restoring Gen Musharraf’s loaded local government system – first just to Karachi and Hyderabad and then, when interior Sindh rose up with one cry against this hasty move, to the whole of Sindh. The MQM can hardly believe its luck – perhaps it hadn’t counted on so swift a Zardari capitulation – but anger in interior Sindh is on the rise.

Dr Zulfiqar Mirza’s outbursts had angered the MQM but secured the PPP’s vote bank in rural Sindh. Dr Awan’s gymnastics have pleased the MQM but poured fuel over the burning embers of Sindhi anger. From one extreme the PPP has swung to the other.

The choice of Dr Awan as PPP plenipotentiary was bizarre. How was he qualified to negotiate on behalf of Sindhi interests? The PPP is now on the back-foot. All the certificates of cleverness earned by Zardari for his supposed political sharpness have gone with the wind.

Dr Awan has proved adept at stalling and frustrating the Supreme Court. From the PPP’s point of view, he should have confined himself to that doctrine of necessity instead of floundering in the waters of Sindh.

In an ideal world, the PML-N should have been quick to exploit this opening. Alas, if wishes could be horses. It showed itself eager, a bit too eager, to embrace the MQM when the latter fell out with Zardari. But this proved embarrassing when the MQM’s falling-out proved to be less than definitive. Small wonder, it has yet to get its thoughts in order on the anger on the rise in backwater Sindh.

All of us could do with some clarity on a crucial issue: while the logic of smaller provinces applies to Punjab, because it is too huge and unwieldy, it does not, and cannot, apply to Sindh. Babar Awan and the PPP came perilously close to the idea of Sindh division when they proposed one dispensation for Karachi and Hyderabad – the restoration of Musharraf’s local body system – and another for the interior, revival of the commissionerate system. Sindh interior instantly saw red and the PPP had to back down immediately, in the space of a mere 24 hours. But the alarm had been sounded and Sindhi concerns have yet to be addressed or placated.

Carving a southern or Seraiki province out of Punjab will not endanger Punjab identity. Indeed, it will facilitate the task of governance and give a sense of belonging to the people of southern Punjab who feel left out of the orbit of Punjab affairs. But anything even remotely connected to the notion of Sindh division is almost an invitation to dangerous conflict in this most sensitive of provinces.

We should not forget the history of 1947 migration. If we leave Bengal out of the equation, there were two great waves of migration in northern India at the time of Partition: one from East Punjab to West Punjab, and vice versa; the other from Delhi, Lucknow and Bhopal in the north, and Hyderabad Deccan in the south, to Karachi. These migrations were dissimilar in character.

While Punjab suffered the most in terms of looting, plunder, killings and mass rape, when the dust settled and passions had time to cool, the process of assimilation was relatively quick because East and West Punjabis, minor differences of course apart, came from the same cultural stock. With minor variations of dialect, they spoke the same language and shared the same history.

This was not so with the southern migration to Karachi and Hyderabad. Karachi was a cosmopolitan city even then – a mini-Bombay, so to speak – but it was the capital of Sindh, the culture and language of whose native inhabitants was radically different from that of the people who were coming to it from India.

Karachi soon became the centre not of Sindhi culture but of the culture of displaced Dehi, of Delhi as it had been before the tumult of Partition. Delhi today is a Punjabi city. Its old composite, Muslim-dominated culture, the culture from which arose the poetry of Mir and Ghalib, is a thing of the past, lost to the upheavals of time and history. No conqueror, not Taimur and not Nadir Shah, could destroy Delhi, or transform its character, as decisively as Partition did. Those who seek the old Delhi, authors like William Dalrymple, have to come to Karachi to catch a whiff of the past.

Pakistan would be the poorer without this infusion of Delhi, Lucknow and Hyderabad Deccan culture. True, there was a downside to it as well, in that the new migrants, culturally advanced and on the whole more educated than the natives of the parts which constitute Pakistan, brought with their culture also their own prejudices. Insecurity and fear were part of their migrational baggage and these were infused into the thinking of the new state. But in cultural terms the arid wastes of Pakistan were enriched by that influx of talent and learning.

Punjabis being Punjabis, no new centre of culture arose in Punjab. But in Karachi we saw the birth of a transplanted culture, its soul carrying the imprint of loss and nostalgia, the usual hallmarks of any migration.

The downside comes from this very circumstance. Sixty four years after Partition we continue to live in the past, beset by old insecurities even though the times have changed and the old certitudes which gave birth to those insecurities no longer survive.

Sindhis are entitled to be a bit upset by all these changes. After all, they too are the inheritors of a great civilisation. Moenjodaro is the oldest pre-historic site discovered anywhere in India. There are other mighty life-giving rivers in the sub-continent: the sacred Ganges, the winding Brahmaputra. But only the Indus, sacred river of Sindh, gives its name to India. Hindus migrating to India from Sindh in 1947 take great pride in their Sindh ancestry.

Sindhi anger, nay Sindhi anguish, is centred on a primal concern. Why must the transposing of cultures be at their expense? And there is a fear lurking in their hearts, the fear of the Red Indian and the aborigine, of becoming strangers in their own homeland. This is a concern which must not be scoffed at. The rest of us, and this includes the successors to the civilisation of Delhi, should avoid words or gestures that smack even remotely of designs against the unity and integrity of Sindh.

From the immortal land of the five rivers, now only three left with us, thanks to the vagaries of history, more provinces can be carved out and no harm will come to it. But let no Punjabi leader or politician say that if Punjab is to be divided the same logic should apply to other provinces. This is wrong thinking. The same logic does not apply to Sindh, it does not apply to Balochistan. It is relevant only to Punjab and Punjab will be doing itself and the nation a service if it takes the lead in this respect, illuminating the path that others can follow.

A word may also be in order about another fixation of the Punjabi mind: Kalabagh dam. If Kalabagh dam is right then there is nothing wrong with the dams India is building on the rivers Chenab and Jhelum. If we are objecting to run-of-the-mill dams in Kashmir, dams whose water is not stored but is allowed to run, how can we support a storage dam on the Indus at Kalabagh? The logic just does not hold.

History cannot be undone. We have to live by its consequences. But Sindh of all regions of Pakistan requires a balance and moderation in the conduct of its affairs. Any hint of an unnatural hegemony of one part over the other is an invitation to anger and despair.

By Ayaz Amir,
Email: winlust@yahoo.com

Blurred picture of Future Political Landscape of Pakistan

Dr.Safadr Mahmud, is a senior sober analyst/columnist with deep insight in to history. His analyses are independent supported with logic, reason and history. While reminding Muslim victory in 1945-46 and Buttos in 1970, he sees a bright future for Imran Khan, through great opportunities, if he transforms his vision in to reality through mass contact movement ......



"Blurred picture of Future Political Landscape of Pakistan" by Dr.Safadr Mahmud, Must read...... 
Related Links:  

Nation and Army: Facing the Storm-Winds Together

WebpageTranslator


“My centre is giving way, my right is in retreat; situation excellent. I shall attack.”

– Marshal Foch (First World War)

Under attack from all sides, this should be the motto of the Pakistan Army in these trying and, I daresay, bracing times. For what can be more bracing than the winds howling, the storm-clouds bursting, the earth shaking beneath your feet, but your heart steady and your resolve unshaken?

The army’s past is less than glorious. It has done things for which it has been justly criticised: interventions a hapless nation could have done without, saviours and messiahs – a depressing gallery of four – whose collective output has contributed more than anything else to bring us to our present pass.

But, in a remarkable turnaround, the army has started doing the right things: refraining from political interventionism, thereby supporting democracy; standing up to the United States and refusing to subordinate national interests to American interests. Far from getting credit for this welcome change of course, it is being targeted by agenda-driven cynics from within and American scheming without.

Not that the Americans are our enemies. We should avoid going down this road. But they have their own agenda, and their own pressing concerns vis-à-vis their quagmire in Afghanistan, which may not be in full harmony with our interests.

The Americans want the Pakistan army to expand its Pakhtun wars, to go into North Waziristan in a big way and set ablaze the entire length of the Afghan-Pakistan border. Only then will their insistence that we “do more” be appeased. This at a time when they are exploring avenues to talk to the Taliban.

In other words, as they themselves explore the peace option they want us to go all-out for the war option. Wanting to ease the pain of their exit from Afghanistan, they are entitled to look out for themselves. But doesn’t the same logic apply to us? The Americans may be past bothering about what happens to us when they begin their long retreat from Kabul and Kandahar, but we have to look out for ourselves.

And because the Pakistan Army, after the blind acquiescence of the Musharraf years, has finally started to think for itself instead of jumping to American dictation, the Americans are deeply upset because they are not used to this, certainly not from us.

They are right to insist that Pakistan should not play double games: running with the Taliban and hunting with the Americans. These double games have hurt Pakistan more than anyone else. But they are wrong to insist that in operational matters – the how, why and when of Fata operations – General Headquarters, Rawalpindi, should take its cue from Central Command, Florida.

So not liking this new streak of independence, the Americans are striking back in whatever way they can: editorial broadsides in the New York Times (often a sounding board if not outright mouthpiece for the American establishment) calling for a change of command in the ISI; and, in the latest from Washington, the suspension of 800 million dollars of military assistance.

This last doesn’t make sense at all. Far from making the GHQ bend it will only stiffen its resolve and strengthen those who say that Pakistan should say good riddance to the American alliance. But then great powers, imperial powers, are not unknown for doing things that don’t make sense. That they may be able to get away with it is an altogether different story.

If ours was not a house divided – if external pressure was the only thing the army command had to worry about, it would be no great matter. But apart from American pressure, the army is also under snide and cynical attack from within because, and this is the astonishing part, of its support for democracy.

Support boils down not to extending bayonet protection to the government but simply to non-intervention, a demarcation of lines between the political and military spheres. This precisely is what makes some elements of the domestic scene deeply unhappy; for the past three years their most cherished wish has been for the ISI to destabilise the government and the army to step into the ring. They are not bothered about the consequences as long as the army forsakes its neutrality and swings a battleaxe to the central government’s head.

A section of the media, indeed a very determined section, retired civil servants, diplomats and generals – dignified by the appellation of civil society, which is a new coinage in these parts – have been in the forefront of this campaign. But the GHQ not obliging, army chief Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani is being attacked for not doing his national duty.

Which is pretty tough for any army chief: damned if he does, and now damned if he doesn’t. There’s no pleasing Pakistan’s cynical chattering classes.

From all the signs available, the Americans would dearly love to see the last of Kayani. But since this is easier said than done, they are gunning for the next best thing: a change of guard in the ISI, their real bete noire since the Raymond Davis affair. And they are being aided, even if inadvertently (unless it is not inadvertent at all), by domestic voices accusing Kayani and Pasha of shirking their responsibility by not playing the political games their predecessors played with such zest, and with what disastrous consequences we don’t have to be reminded.

The answer to this scheming, and there is a whole lot of it afoot in Islamabad – a city dedicated since its ill-judged inception to conspiracy and intrigue – is to keep calm and not panic. Not a lesson easily learnt because, if we remember, after the Bin Laden affair the GHQ’s response, either by itself or through its conduit the Foreign Office, was to sputter and fulminate – issuing communiqués that were barely literate, let alone being shining monuments to logic.

But there was a welcome change of tone in the statement after the last Corps Commanders’ Conference – the first after the suspension of US military aid. It was restrained and controlled, as such things should always be. Fulmination may suit pulpit-mongers, but not soldiers.

We were taught precis-writing, the shorter writing of a longer note, when I was in Kakul (1967-69). More than ever is this skill required in these storm-tossed days.

But to return to the main road, not only is the army under attack, Pakistan is under attack. Nor can we harbour the illusion that this hostility will cease any time soon...because the more the American adventure in Afghanistan goes sour, and doesn’t play out according to American wishes, the greater the temptation to strike out at scapegoats, none more readily available than Pakistan.

So we should keep calm, always remembering Odysseus’s words, “Patience, stout heart, thou hast endured far worse than this.” Drum-beating and wailing, two sub-continental proclivities, we should avoid and engage with the Americans civilly – leaving shrillness to the howling of the winds – and keep to our course. But also remembering that the days of double hunts and double games are over. On some middling Himalayan peak we should bury the remains of jihad and raise a monument over it, offering our final prayers as the bugles sound. Of all the follies perfected by GHQ, which what once-upon-a-time gave the appearance of being a veritable foundry of follies, this was about the worst.

As for domestic cynics who would like to push the GHQ into the fires of interventionism – and who wouldn’t be found anywhere when the need arises to pull the army’s chestnuts out of the fire – they are best left to their own devices. No need to agonise over their well-deserved misery.

The next 18 months, leading up to the next elections, are likely to be about the most crucial in Pakistan’s history, for they will determine whether we are at all capable of a peaceful and democratic transition of power. Imperfect and rickety as the applecart of our present democracy is, there is no alternative to the democratic process, however much we may hate some of its manifestations. The GHQ’s role is crucial. It has to help in keeping the ship of state from rocking too much.
The old Mukesh song has it wrong: “sub kuch seekha ham ne, na seekhi hoshiari”... we have learnt everything except cleverness. The Pakistani nation has learnt too much cleverness. Now it must learn a bit of patience.
Tailpiece: Another person who could learn the virtues of restraint is Zulfiqar Mirza. Of a walking time-bomb there is no more perfect example.
By: Ayaz Amir , Email: winlust@yahoo.com

Lounge Revolutionaries: History of Pakistan Politics

WebpageTranslator

There have so far been three major occasions in which Pakistani middle class has broken away from its traditionally conservative disposition to come out and announce ‘revolutionary’ political aspirations. The first time when this class began demonstrating political assertiveness was in the late 1960s when the bulk of its youth began to air grievances against Pakistan’s military-industrialist nexus headed by the first military dictator, Field Martial Ayub Khan.
Keeping in mind its inherent conservative outlook, one expected the middle class to oppose a secular-capitalist military dictatorship by siding with the mainstream anti-Ayub religious parties. But the many young men and women who led the revolt against Ayub turned sharply leftwards, gallivanting towards ideas such as socialism and social democracy, largely expressed through political organisations such as the nascent Pakistan People’s Party, National Students Federation and National Awami Party.

Young middle class Pakistan’s romance with leftist ideology lasted till about 1974, until its ideological darling, Z.A. Bhutto, gradually dumped hyperbolic leftist action to play a more pragmatic brand of politics. Middle class leftist groups on campuses began to succumb to infighting and disillusionment and the vacuum was gladly filled by the electoral rise of petty-bourgeois student parties such as the Islami Jamiat Tulaba (IJT).

The IJT’s rise on campuses was symptomatic of the anti-Bhutto and anti-left murmurings that had started to gather steam within the urban middle class, especially in the face of Bhutto’s half-baked socialist policies and increasingly autocratic behaviour. By 1976, the middle class youth, which, in the 1960s and early 1970s, had resonated progressive proclamations, now set themselves to rise once again, but this time they rose in search of an Islamic political and economic order.

Thus began the second phase of middle class-driven agitation in Pakistan that peaked with a right-wing movement against Bhutto’s ‘democratic dictatorship’.

Interestingly, whereas middle class youth had attacked military and industrialist instruments during the anti-Ayub movement, the anti-Bhutto agitation was openly patronised and at times funded by the industrialists. It culminated in a military coup toppling the Bhutto regime, and with the arrival of Pakistan’s third military dictator, General Ziaul Haq, who cleverly adopted the movement’s Islamist idiom.

Throughout the 1980s, the middle class remained split in their support for Zia’s rather bizarre political-economic edifice that crudely fused so-called Islamic policies with a free-flowing version of third-world capitalism. As the progressives and the conservatives went to war on campuses and in the streets, the middle class emerged feeling exhausted by the time of Zia’s violent death in 1988 and the restoration of democracy.

Only minimal political activity was witnessed from this class in the 1990s when Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif unwittingly played in the hands of Zia’s ideological remnants in the intelligence agencies and the big businesses. In Karachi the Urdu-speaking urban middle class embraced a new party, the MQM, and were embroiled in the political turmoil that accompanied the state’s operation against the supposed militant outgrowth of the MQM.

It was during this decade also that that the middle class, especially in Punjab, started to slide backwards into its customary conservative disposition when a new generation of Pakistani bourgeois began responding to social and religious changes enforced during the Ziaul Haq regime.
This tendency exploded into prominence after confusion and identity crisis that followed the tragic 9/11 episode. Gradually large numbers of young middle class men and women became interested in ultra-conservative fringe groups headed by drawing-room preachers and televangelists.

As the 2000s wore on under the country’s fifth military dictator, Pervez Musharraf—who played a cosmetic role of a moderate—the state and the media failed to arrest the Islamisation trend that grew even further from the rugged mountain areas to the drawing rooms of urban Pakistan. In fact, the ballooning electronic media ended up facilitating the born-again variety of middle class conservatism by adding another batch of religious talking heads to ideologically and, more so, commercially cater to the bourgeoisie’s desire to give its born-again status a political lining as well.

Thus arrived the middle class Pakistan’s third agitational initiation. But the interesting thing is, this time the initiative is largely cut off from the country’s mainstream political route, and has taken the shape of electronic lobbying (blogs, SMS, emails, etc.). What is even more interesting is that though these cyber and TV lobbies are portraying themselves as an alternative movement, the truth is, these foyers are mostly riddled with a fusion of convoluted leaps of logic, a knee-jerk mentality and the kind of conservative mindset that was constructed by the ‘establishment’ and politico-religious parties of Pakistan decades ago.

So consequently, what we have at hand as urban middle class ‘activists’ are actually figurative sheep (single-filed mobs), but which, thanks to the mentioned narrative that they have developed, have grown fangs. Retro-reactionaries posing as revolutionaries. Unless this section of the middle class decides to work within the mainstream political edifice of Pakistan and participate in the evolving democratic process (instead of being repulsed by it), it will remain no more than an irritant having only a nuisance value, becoming the harbingers of a TV lounge revolution, at best.