Featured Post

FrontPage صفحہ اول

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

Reviewing National Action Plan (NAP) against Terrorism in Pakistan

Image result for National Action Plan  (NAP)
IN the plan to counter terrorism through the National Action Plan (NAP), 2016 was the second operational year. Towards the end of it, we are still mired in debate. After the December 2014 attack on Peshawar’s Army Public School (APS), it was hoped that the political and security leaderships would rationalise the country’s course of action. Sadly, that hope has only partially been realised.

Security institutions made a few adjustments in their operational strategy, but failed to completely transform their counterterrorism approach. The statistics show some improvements, for which every institution is trying to take the credit. Although a downward trend in incidents of terrorism has been apparent since 2010 — owing to multiple reasons — terrorists’ operational infrastructure and support networks, albeit weakened, remain intact.

The APS massacre has become part of bitter memories. NAP was the reflection of a collective pledge that state and society would not repeat past mistakes. Many have welcomed the fact that the mastermind of this crime was killed in a drone strike in Afghanistan this year. But has the Pakistani state changed its course of action?

The government has not seriously attempted to take internal security policy completely into its own hands.
Just a day before the APS anniversary, the judicial commission probing the Aug 8 Quetta hospital bombing put forth its findings, reminding us that old habits die hard. The Quetta hospital bombing was no less a tragedy than the APS one, but state institutions reacted differently. After the Peshawar atrocity, the nation spoke up clearly and loudly against the problem of internal militancy; NAP was an outcome of this realisation. But, apparently, that threat perception almost died by the time the Quetta hospital carnage occurred, where the old problem of externalising the threat became prominent. Indeed, the externalisation factor has become so strong again that state responses have become absurd, as also pointed out in the Justice Qazi Faez Isa inquiry commission report.

Apart from its findings on the Quetta bombing, the commission has come up with some comprehensive recommendations. However, it is not certain whether the government will take the advice seriously. The commission has suggested “NAP should be made into a proper plan, with clear goals, a comprehensive monitoring mechanism, and periodic reviewing”.

Implementation of NAP is a vital challenge that the government has continuously been avoiding. The lack of coordination and cooperation among state institutions and, in particular, the not-so-cordial civil-military relations remain a huge challenge.

However, the government has not made any serious attempt to take internal security policy completely into its own hands. While the government spent 2015 saying that NAP would take time to make progress, this year exposed the low capabilities of those heading internal security. Initially, they successfully shifted the pressure on to the police and its counterterrorism departments, using the National Counter -Terrorism Authority (Nacta) as a cover for their failures. The formation of NAP implementation committees was another tactic to keep shifting the burden of failure. Eventually, NAP has become a political gimmick.

After the Quetta hospital bombing, another implementation committee was formed, and retired Lt-Gen Nasser Khan Janjua was named its head. However, the interior minister has been insisting that the newly constituted NAP implementation committee was “merely an administrative body and both the interior ministry and Nacta will continue to have an oversight role in NAP’s implementation.”

Nobody ever asked about the fate of 16 committees on NAP implementation; the interior minister heads 13 of them. The head of the new NAP implementation committee formed regional committees in all four provinces, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, despite knowing that provincial apex committees already existed to do the same job. October’s crucial meetings to review progress on both internal and external threats were also briefed by Mr Janjua. As reported in the media, he shifted the burden on to the provincial governments.

The Justice Isa commission recommended the activation of Nacta according to its constitutional mandate. Apparently, the authority showed some progress in 2016. It worked on a ‘red book’ of terrorists containing complete information on and profiles of them. It made available the list of banned organisations on its website and included two more groups on that list, the Lashkar-i-Jhangvi al-Aalmi and Jamaatul Ahrar; Nacta had included these two names when Justice Isa asked the federal government about their status. It rationalised the Fourth Schedule lists and advised banks to take immediate action against individuals on the lists. Nacta was also assigned the responsibility of developing the task force to curb terror financing.

Another initiative that the authority took was the preparation of new forms for madressah registration with the consultation of the Ittehad-i-Tanzeemat-i-Madaris Pakistan, an umbrella organisation of different madressah educational boards. However, despite promises and several announcements, it failed to activate the Joint Intelligence Directorate, which was its core mandate.

What Nacta has achieved is not because a certain institutional mechanism has been evolved where it is operating as an independent authority. The credit for these achievements may go to individuals; otherwise, the counterterrorism body is still operating as a subsidiary of the interior ministry.

A comprehensive review of NAP’s implementation and state responses may reveal more shortcomings in counterterrorism approaches. The state has also failed to address structural issues — crucially, the handling of banned organisations.

The exact level of extremism and potential of terrorist outfits cannot be measured until the complete enforcement of the laws referring to banned organisations. The reason is that groups involved in terrorism get their human resource from them. Banned organisations provide not only ideological legitimacy to terrorist groups but also a conducive environment for their operations. Additionally, banned organisations have encroached on far-right territory and, if this process continues, they will erode the socio-cultural fabric of society.

Threat perception is not a tricky thing and it does not require a tragedy to correct it. It only requires vision, vigilance, and commitment. Otherwise, the National Action Plan remains merely a bunch of documents.

The writer is a security analyst.

Muhammad Amir Rana is a security analyst. He is the Director of Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS), Islamabad, Pakistan.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1302942/another-year-of-nap
............................................................................


2 YEARS after initiating the National Action Plan, its ownership, implementation and efficacy are being extensively debated. This review has acquired an added urgency in the wake of the Charsadda attack.
The ideal implementation of NAP requires institutional, structural adjustments. An analysis proves that implementation requires multidimensional interventions.
Point one: Execution of convicted terrorists pertains to the ministry of interior, the provincial prisons departments, home departments and the judiciary.
Choking funds for militancy has been a dormant area.
Point two: To ensure conviction and quick disposal of terrorism-related cases, military courts were established via the 21st Amend­­ment. To enhance the efficacy of the existing anti-terrorism courts and reduce the backlog of cases in Sindh, the apex committee recently decided to instal 30 additional courts.
Point three: This reiterates the resolve that armed militias won’t be allowed to operate. It conforms with Article 256 of the Constitution. In Fata, the army dismantled the infrastructure and training facilities of such militias. In Karachi, the Rangers and police jointly reduced the operational space for such forces.
Point four: Strengthening and activating Nacta lies in the federal government’s do­main. A full-time police officer has been entrusted with the task of hiring professionals. A joint intelligence directorate will start functioning in June 2016.
Point five: Countering hate speech and extremist material is the shared jurisdiction of the district administration, police and special branches of the provincial police. The situation warrants that all those who draft, print and distribute such material be nabbed.
Point six: Choking financing for militant groups remained a dormant area. To ensure stern actions against the facilitators and financiers of militancy, the government recently decided to establish the National Terrorists Financing Investigation Cell to track financial transactions meant to fund extremism and terrorism. This requires the collective efforts of the State Bank, the finance and interior ministries, the banking sector and FIA.
Point seven: In acting against the re-emergence of proscribed groups, the ministries of foreign affairs and interior have already notified such organisations. In the provinces, it’s the responsibility of the Counterterrorism Department, Special Branch, police and administration to reduce the room for such groups. It is also their joint responsibility to ensure they don’t resurface with new names.
Point eight: Raising and deploying a dedicated CT force is linked to the provinces. Though such forces are now in the field, they must be under a dedicated command and not employed for VIP duties etc.
Point nine: Taking effective steps against religious persecution requires practical steps by the provinces. Nacta is planning a process to assess the volume, spread and severity of religious persecution in the country and then draft recommendations for policymakers.
Point 10: Registration and regulation of madressahs is another ideal that remains to be achieved. To monitor progress on madressah reforms, KP recently established district monitoring committees.
Point 11: Ban on glorification of terrorism and militant groups through print and electronic media is the responsibility of Pemra and media gatekeepers. The drafting of the Electronic Media Code of Conduct is a positive intervention. The code also incorporates the rights of victims.
Point 12: After clearing out most of Fata to entrust its administration to a civilian set-up, recently a parliamentary committee has been tasked to suggest reforms in the tribal areas. Imple­mentation is in the hands of the centre.
Point 13: Dismantling communication networks of militant groups in Fata is being successfully carried out by the army.
Point 14: Measures against internet and social media abuse for terr­­orism purposes is the domain of the FIA’s cybercrime unit and PTA. Apart from legal intervention, the capacity-building of investigators is required. The public must be educated about the procedure of lodging complaints relating to cybercrime.
Point 15: Where zero tolerance for militancy in Punjab is concerned, although action has been taken, intensified intelligence-led operations are still needed.
Point 16: Taking the ongoing operation in Karachi to its logical conclusion, the federal agencies FIA, NAB and Rangers are actively assisting the Sindh government.
Point 17: To make reconciliation a success in Balochistan is the responsibility of the centre, the provincial government and the political parties. Though the pace is slow, efforts are afoot.
Point 18: Dealing firmly with sectarian militants pertains to home departments, police and special branches.
Point 19: The policy on Afghan refugees rests with the Ministry of States and Frontier Regions, the Foreign Office and the provinces.
Point 20: Reforming the criminal justice system is primarily the provinces’ task.
Reconciliation, de-radicalisation and de-weaponisation also need to be incorporated as top priorities.
Reviewing NAP, By  MOHAMMAD ALI BABAKHEL. The writer is a police officer.
Dawn: http://www.dawn.com/news/1234992/reviewing-nap

آپریشن ضرب عضب - اے راہ حق کے شھیدو Pakistan Army

Image result for pakistan defence
آپریشن ضرب عضب پاکستانی فوج کا جون، 2014 کو وزیرستان میں شروع کیا گيا عسکری آپریشن ہے۔ اس عسکری کارروائی کو ضرب عضب کا نام دیا گيا ہے- عضب کا مطلب ہے کاٹنا، تلوار سے کاٹنا، عضب محمد صلی اللہ علیہ آلہ وسلم کی تلوار کا نام بھی تھا۔ضربِ عضب کاٹ ڈالنے والی ضرب۔ عضب کا مطلب ہے کاٹنا، تلوار سے کاٹنا، عضب محمد صلی اللہ علیہ آلہ وسلم کی تلوار کا نام بھی تھا۔ضربِ عضب کاٹ ڈالنے والی ضرب۔یہ تلوار محمد صلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ وسلم نے غزوہ بدر اور غزوہ احد میں استعمال کی۔-
مزید پڑھیں >>>>
The Pakistan Armed Forces  are the military forces of Pakistan. They are the sixth largest in the world in terms of active military personnel and the largest among Muslim countries. The armed forces comprise three main inter–services branches: ArmyNavy, and Air Force together with the number of paramilitary forces and the Strategic Plans Division forces.[1] Chain of command of the military is organized under the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee alongside chiefs of staff of armynavy, and the air force. All of the branches work together during operations and joint missions under the Joint Staff HQ. Keep reading >>>>>

 اے راہ حق کے  شھیدو،  وفا کی تصویرو ... وطن کی فضائیں تمہیں سلام کہتی ہیں

ضرب عضب کو کامیابی سے مکمل کر رہے ہیں ،فاٹا کا علاقہ سرحدوں تک کلیئر کردیا گیا، انسداد دہشتگردی کے اگلے مراحل کیلئے عالمی برادری کا تعاون درکار ہے ، دنیا کیساتھ بہتر انڈر اسٹینڈنگ ضروری ، چیف آف آرمی اسٹاف جنرل راحیل شریف نے کہا ہے کہ پاکستان نے دہشت گردی کی جنگ میں کسی بھی قوم سے زیادہ قربانیاں دی ہیں، دہشت گردی عالمی مسئلہ ہے ، دنیا ہمارا ساتھ دے ،آپریشن ضرب عضب کو کامیابی سے مکمل کر ر ہے ہیں ، پاک فوج نے فاٹا کا علاقہ سرحدوں تک کلیئر کرا لیا ہے ،انسداد دہشت گردی کے اگلے مراحل کیلئے عالمی برادری کا تعاون درکا ر ہے ، آپریشن میں پائیدار اور دیرپا کامیابی کے لیے عالمی برادری کے ساتھ بہتر انڈر اسٹینڈنگ اور تعاون نہایت ضروری ہے-

http://Peace-Forum.Blogspot.com

Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace
A Project of Peace Forum Network: Overall 3 Million visits/hits

Pakistan Politics, Corruption, Bad Governance & Development- Facts & Fiction


The keen interest in Pakistan politics by people is appreciated. But mostly people are not aware of ground realities. Economy $ , etc are worth enjoying if there is rule of law, safety and security for the people. Corruptiin in Police and all government departments has reached the level whereby poor people are treated worst thing animals. There is nothing in sight to see any improvement because rulers are busy in mega projects to make money. 22% people are under nourished, child labour, no schooling for majority. No health care... hell with mega projects and economic growth if the benefits are not transfered to people but to Panama. IK has many limitations but is honest. In KPK there is independent police and improvements in health, education and other fields. Though not perfect , we can expect something batter...can't have worst governance than Sharifs. Stay blessed.

22% population is undernourished in Pakistan, reveals Global Hunger Index:
Pakistan has 22 per cent of its population undernourished, though it improved from a previous “alarming” hunger level among developing countries, the Global Hunger Index revealed on Tuesday.

Ranked 108 among 118 countries on the index, Pakistan remained on a “serious” level, scoring 33.4 against 35.1 in the 2008 index:

The country performed worst than neighbours India and Bangladesh, which scored 28.5 and 27.1 respectively, but better than Afghanistan’s 34.8. Another 43 countries, including India, Nigeria and Indonesia, showed “serious” hunger levels.

The hunger index ranks countries based on undernourishment, child mortality, child wasting (low weight for height) and child stunting (low height for age).
http://tribune.com.pk/story/1197875/22-population-undernourished-pakistan-reveals-global-hunger-index/

There remain 5.1 million Pakistani children of primary school age who are out of school. This is the second highest in the world and is over twice as many as in India. Of the poorest 20%, a tragic 2 in 3 girls do not go to school; one of the worst gender inequalities in the world...   http://www.carepakistan.org/the-state-of-education-in-pakistan.html

Pakistan Corruption Rank
Pakistan is the 117 least corrupt nation out of 175 countries, according to the 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index reported by Transparency International. Corruption Rank in Pakistan averaged 107.90 from 1995 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 144 in 2005 and a record low of 39 in 1995. Corruption Rank in Pakistan is reported by the Transparency International.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/pakistan/corruption-rank

جمہوریت کے حوالے سے تین اہم مغالطے Three important Misconceptions about Democracy in Pakistan


ہمارے ہا ں جو مختلف فکری بحثیں اہل علم و قلم میں چلتی رہتی ہیں، ان میں سیاسی اعتبارسے نمایاں ترین جمہوریت کی بحث ہے۔ہر کچھ عرصے کے بعد یار لوگوں کو جمہوریت کا مقدمہ لڑنے کا خیال آ جاتا ہے۔ نت نئے دلائل تراشے جاتے اور حکومت وقت پر تنقید کرنے والوں کوصبر وتحمل سے کام لینے کا بھاشن دیا جاتا ہے۔ایسا مجبوراً اس لئے بھی کرنا پڑتا ہے کہ ہمارے بیشتر سیاستدان جمہوریت کا محض نام لیتے اور اسے اپنے مفادات کے لئے استعمال کرتے ہیں، ورنہ ان کا جمہوریت اور جمہوری نظام سے دور کا واسطہ بھی نہیں ہوتا ۔ ان میں سے اکثر ڈکٹیٹرشپ کی پیداوار ہیں اور کسی نہ کسی آمر نے انہیں سیاسی قوت بخشی۔ کسی نے آمرِ وقت کو ڈیڈی کہا تو کسی نے اپنی خدمت سے وہ مقام حاصل کر لیا کہ ڈکٹیٹر اپنی اولاد کے بجائے سیاسی جانشینوں کو دعا ئیں دینے اور اپنی عمر بھی اسے لگ جانے کا مژدہ سناگیا۔جب تک اسٹیبلشمنٹ ان کی مجبوری تھی، انہوں نے اس کے ساتھ ہاتھ ملائے رکھا اور جب ان کی بے پناہ ، لامحدود قوت حاصل کرنے کی خواہش کے سامنے اسٹیبلشمنٹ رکاوٹ بنی، تب انہیں سب خامیاں اسی میں نظر آنے لگیں۔اصل مسئلہ یہ ہے کہ جو لوگ موجودہ سیاسی نظام یا حکمران جماعت پر تنقید کرتے ہیں، ان کا مقصد جمہوریت یا سیاست کو مطعون کرنا ہرگز نہیں ہوتا۔میرے جیسے لوگ غیر جمہوری رویوں کی اصلاح چاہتے اور جمہوریت کے نام پرسیاسی استحصال سے بیزار ہیں۔اس حوالے سے تین چار عام فکری مغالطے پائے جاتے ہیں، انہیں سمجھ لیا جائے تواس ایشو کی تفہیم مشکل نہیں اورخلط مبحث سے بچا جا سکتا ہے۔
Image result for failure of democracy in pakistan in urdu
جمہوریت بمقابلہ آمریت : 
سب سے پہلا مغالطہ یہی ہے۔ پاکستان میں جیسے ہی کسی سویلین حکومت پر تنقید ہو، اس کے حامی فوری طور پر آمریت کی دہائی دینے لگتے ہیں۔ انہیں یہی لگتا ہے کہ کہیں کسی آمر کے لئے راہ ہموار نہ کی جا رہی ہو۔ شائد اس لئے کہ ماضی میں فوجی آمر آتے بھی رہے ہیں اور ہرباراہل قلم کے ایک حلقے نے بھی ان کا استقبال کیا۔ماضی کے تلخ تجربات اپنی جگہ، مگر بہرحال جمہوری اصلاحات کی بات ہم لوگوں نے ہی کرنی ہے۔ اگر ہماری انتخابی نظا م سو گنا مہنگا ہوچکا ہے، تین چار ارب کا الیکشن تین چار سو ارب تک جاپہنچا ہے تو اس خطرناک حد تک پہنچے الیکشن سسٹم کو نیچے لانا، لوئرمڈل کلاس نظریاتی کارکنوں کو دوبارہ اس میں شامل کرنے کی بحث انٹیلی جنشیا ہی نے کرنی ہے ۔اس طرح صرف جمہوریت جمہوریت کی رٹ لگائے رکھنا اور سیاسی جماعتوں کو غیر جمہوری انداز میں چلانے رکھنے پر تنقیدکا پورا جواز بنتا ہے۔اب یہی دیکھ لیجئے کہ مسلم لیگ ن کی مرکزی مجلس عاملہ کا اجلاس تین ، ساڑھے تین سال بعد ہو رہا ہے۔ وہ بھی اس لئے کہ الیکشن کمیشن کی پابندی ہے اور نام نہاد سہی ،پارٹی الیکشن کرانے مقصود ہیں۔ دنیا کے کسی جمہوری ملک میں اس کا تصور تک نہیں کہ حکمران جماعت کئی سال تک اپنی مرکزی کمیٹی کا اجلاس تک نہ بلائے ،مگر جس ملک میں کئی کئی ہفتے، مہینے کابینہ کا اجلاس تک نہ بلایا جائے، وہاں سیاسی جماعت بیچاری کی کیا اوقات ہے۔ اس لئے جمہوریت کا نام لیوا سیاستدانوں پر تنقید لازمی ہوگی،مگر براہ کرم اس نکتہ چینی کو آمریت کی حمایت میں نہ ڈالا جائے۔ اصل موازنہ اچھی جمہوریت بمقابلہ بری جمہوریت کا بنتا ہے۔ جمہوریت بمقابلہ آمریت والے فارمولے کا کوئی بھی سنجیدہ اہل قلم حامی نہیں ہوسکتا۔ دنیا بھر میں یہ بات اب طے ہوچکی ہے کہ حکومت چلانا سیاستدانوں کا کام ہے، فوج کا نہیں۔فوج اپنے معاملات دیکھے ، جسے اس کے علاوہ کوئی اور نہیںنمٹا سکتا، زیادہ سے زیادہ عسکری ماہرین کی آئوٹ پٹ نیشنل سکیورٹی امور میں چاہیے ہوتی ہے، کابینہ کی ڈیفنس کمیٹی یا نیشنل سکیورٹی کونسل کے ذریعے یہ کام آسانی سے ہوسکتا ہے۔ 

1. نام نہاد جمہوریت :
 اصل اعتراض یہی ہے کہ ملک میں نام نہاد جمہوریت قائم ہے۔ سیاستدانوں کو صرف اپنے اقتدار کے لئے جمہوریت کا نام استعمال نہیں کرنا چاہیے ، جس نظام نے انہیں حکومت دی اور دوسروں سے ممتاز بنایا، اس کے ان پر کچھ قرض بھی ہیں۔ اب یہی دیکھ لیں کہ دنیا بھر میں بلدیاتی اداروں کو جمہوری نظام کی پہلی اور سب سے اہم سیڑھی سمجھا جاتا ہے۔ امریکہ اور یورپ کے بہت سے ممالک میں بیشتر محکمے اور ذمہ داریاں لوکل گورنمنٹ یعنی بلدیاتی اداروں کے پاس ہیں ۔ نیویارک کے میئر کی طاقت دنیا کے کئی ممالک کے سربراہان سے زیادہ ہے۔ ہمارے ہاں حال یہ ہے کہ پورا ایک سال ہوگیا، مگرپنجاب اور سندھ میںبلدیاتی ادار ے فنکشنل ہی نہیں ہوسکے۔ پنجاب میں مسلم لیگ ن اور سندھ میں پیپلزپارٹی حکمران ہیں، دونوں کی قیادت جمہوریت کی رٹ لگاتی اور خود کو اس کا عظیم چیمپین سمجھتی ہیں، مگر ان کی پوری کوشش ہے کہ بلدیاتی ادا رے اپنا کام شروع نہ کر سکے۔ دلچسپ بات یہ ہے کہ پنجاب کے تمام اضلاع میں مسلم لیگ ن کے حامی جیتے ہیں، ایسا نہیں کہ انہیںخدشہ ہے کہ زیادہ تر اضلاع میںا پوزیشن کے میئروغیرہ بن کر حکومت کو ٹف ٹائم دے سکیں گے۔ کسی ایک ضلع میں بھی اپوزیشن کی اکثریت موجود نہیں۔ اس کے باوجود وزیراعلیٰ پنجاب، صوبائی حکومت اورخود جناب وزیراعظم کو ذرا بھر جلدی نہیں کہ بلدیاتی نظام اپنا کام شروع کر ے اور لوگ مقامی سطح پر اپنے منتخب کونسلرز،چیئرمین وغیرہ سے کام کرا سکیں۔

2. موروثی سیاست:
 جب موروثی سیاست پر تنقید ہو تومسلم لیگ ن یا دیگر سٹیٹس کو کی حامی جماعتوں کے کارکن اور میڈیا میں موجود ان کے حامی برہم ہوجاتے ہیں۔ انہیں شائد یہ خطرہ ہوتا ہے کہ اس تنقید سے موجودہ یا آنیوالے سیاسی شہزادوں، شہزادیوں کا کیرئر خطرے میںپڑ جائیگا۔ اس لئے بڑے شدومد سے اس کی مخالفت کی جاتی اور مختلف ممالک سے اس کی مثالیں ڈھونڈ کر پیش کی جاتی ہیں۔ یہاں بھی اعتراض بہت سادہ ہے۔ آئین ہر ایک کو سیاست کرنے کا حق دیتا ہے۔ ہم میں سے کسی کو یہ حق حاصل نہیں کہ کسی بڑے سیاستدان کے بیٹے یا بیٹی کو سیاست کرنے سے روک سکے۔ کوئی روکنا بھی نہیں چاہتا۔ یہ البتہ کہا جاتا ہے اور ایسا منطقی اعتبار سے درست ہے کہ اپنے بڑے باپ یا ماں کی وجہ سے کسی کو سیاست میں جمپ نہ ملے۔ جو بھی آنا چاہتا ہے، وہ آئے اور سیاسی کارکن کے طور پر اپنا کیرئر شروع کرے۔ جمہوری مراحل سے گزرنے کے بعد اگر اس میں ہمت یا قوت ہوگی تو وہ پارٹی میں اہم منصب حاصل کر لے گا۔ اس کے برعکس عام مشاہدہ یہی ہے کہ ہماری سیاسی جماعتیں دراصل خاندانی جائیداد کے طور پر ڈیل کی جاتی ہیں۔ لیڈر یہ فیصلہ کرتا ہے کہ کس بچے کو سامنے لے آنا ہے اور پھر تمام ضابطے ، دستور 
توڑ کر اسے مرکزی جگہ مل جاتی ہے۔ بعض اوقات تو بغیر الیکشن لڑے ہی اہم ذمہ داریاں تفویض کر دی جاتی ہیں۔ ایسا بھی ہوا کہ صاحبزادہ ایم این اے ہے،اسکی جگہ مرکز اور قومی اسمبلی ہے، مگر والد صاحب کی اشیرواد پر صوبائی معاملات وہ چلا رہا ہے، بلکہ کبھی تو پوری پوری صوبائی حکومت اس کے حوالے کر دی جاتی ہے۔ ہم نے تو ایسا بھی دیکھا کہ یونیورسٹی میںتعلیم حاصل کرنے والے نوجوان کو ملک کی سب سے بڑی جماعت کا سربراہ بنا دیا گیا اور پھر وہ منظر دیکھا گیا کہ سیاست میں بال سفید کرنیوالے تجربہ کار سیاستدان سرجھکائے بیٹھے ہیں اور برخوردار صدارت فرما رہے ہیں۔ یہ وہ نام نہاد جمہوریت اور موروثی سیاست ہے ، جس سے بیزاری ظاہر کرنا اور اس پر تنقید کرنا ہم سب کے لئے لازمی ہے۔ 

3. وقت کے ساتھ سب ٹھیک ہوجائے گا:
یہ وہ فقرہ ہے جس کی مدد سے ہر قسم کی تنقید ٹالی جا سکتی ہے۔ بڑی سے بڑی بات کے جواب میںصرف یہ کہہ دیا جاتا ہے کہ سیاستدانوں کو وقت ہی کتنا ملا؟ وقت گزرنے کے ساتھ سب ٹھیک ہوجائے گا۔ یہ فقرہ نہ صرف غلط اورکوڑا کرکٹ صاف کرنے کے بجائے قالین کے نیچے چھپانے کی کوشش ہے۔ بھائی خود بخود کیوں سب ٹھیک ہوجائے گا؟ جب استحصال کرنے والوں کو آپ روکیں گے ہی نہیں، ان کی غیر مشروط حمایت کریں گے تو وہ اپنے طور طریقے آخر کس بنا پر تبدیل کر لیں گے؟مجھے تویہ لگتا ہے کہ آمروں سے زیادہ نقصان جمہوریت کو ایسے ہی نادان دوستوں نے پہنچایا ہے۔ جمہوری نظام کی خامیوں کو دور کرنے، سیاستدانوں کو ٹف ٹائم دینے کی جنہوں نے کوشش ہی نہیں کی۔ جب سویلین حکومتوں کے بلنڈرز کی وجہ سے سب کچھ جاتا رہے، تب ایسے ہمدردوں کو احساس ہوتا ہے، مگرتب تک آمریت کی سیاہ رات امڈ آتی ہے اور پھر برسوں تک جدوجہد کے سوا کوئی چارہ نہیں رہتا-[عامرہاشم خاکوانی ، دنیا ]




سویلین حکومت آخر کن امور میں بالادستی چاہتی ہے؟

حکومتوں کے کرنے کے چار پانچ کام سب سے اہم سمجھے جاتے ہیں ۔

1. پہلا کام اپنے شہریوں کی جان ومال کا تحفظ یعنی لاء اینڈ آرڈر کی صورتحال بہتر کرنا۔

2. اس کے ساتھ ساتھ شہریوں کو صحت، تعلیم کی سہولتیں دینا، صاف پانی کی فراہمی

3.  سستے انصاف کو یقینی بنانا اور

4. مارکیٹ اکانومی کو اس طرح ریگولرائز کرنا کہ عام آدمی کا استحصال نہ ہو ، ضروریات زندگی کی اشیا مناسب داموں میں ملیں اور ان سب کے ساتھ 

5. روزگار کے مواقع پیدا کرنا۔ 

اب ایک منٹ کے لئے ٹھیرکر سوچ لیںکہ سویلین حکومت کو یہ سب کام کرنے کے لئے کس پر بالادستی قائم کرنے کی ضرورت ہے؟

کیا اسٹیبلشمنٹ نے ہماری صوبائی حکومتوں کو مجبور کر رکھا ہے کہ وہ پولیس کے نظام کی اصلاح نہ کریں؟

کرپٹ پولیس اہلکاروں کو نکالنے، ظالم افسران کے احتساب، ٹرانسفر اور پوسٹنگ کے معاملہ کو سفارش اور سیاسی اثرورسوخ سے پاک کرنے سے کس نے روکا ہے؟کیا پولیس افسران اپنے من پسند تھانوں میں پوسٹنگ کے لئے لاکھوں کی رشوتیں اسٹیبلشمنٹ کو دیتے ہیں؟

 اسی طرح تعلیم اور صحت کے شعبوں میں اصلاحات لانے سے کس نے روکا ہے؟ 

عام آدمی کو ہسپتالوں میں ذلیل ہونے سے کس نے بچانا ہے؟

 لاہور میں آخری ہسپتال پچیس تیس سال پہلے جناح ہسپتال کی شکل میں بنا تھا۔ اس کے بعد ہسپتال بنانے سے کس نے روکا؟ 

آج لاہور ایک کروڑ آبادی کا شہرہے، بھائی صاحب کس نے کہا ہے کہ یہاں اور ہسپتال نہ بنائو، سرکاری سکولوں، کالجوں کی حالت بہتر نہ بنائی جائے۔ صاف پانی مہیا نہ کیا جائے۔

 ساٹھ ستر ارب روپے سے لاہور کے پندرہ بیس ٹرانسپورٹ روٹس میں سے ایک روٹ پر میٹرو بس چلائی گئی، ڈیڑھ سو ارب سے زائد سے اورنج ٹرین بن رہی ہے، تیس ارب روپے جیل روڈ کو سگنل فری بنانے کی عیاشی پر خرچ ہوئے۔ 

اس کا چوتھا حصہ بھی اگر درست طریقے سے خرچ کیا جاتا تو شہر کو صاف پانی کی فراہمی ممکن ہو جاتی۔ جناح جیسے دو ہسپتال بن جاتے، سیوریج ٹھیک ہو جاتا اور لاہوریوںکی تکلیف میں نمایاں کمی ہو جاتی۔

کس نے سویلین حکمرانوں کو ایسا کرنے سے روکا؟ 

کراچی کی حالت تو لاہور سے بھی گئی گزری ہے، اسے دیکھ کر ہی خوف آتا ہے۔

ہر کوئی جانتا ہے کہ صرف چار پانچ سال پہلے تک دالوں کی قیمتیں کنٹرول میں تھیں، پھر اچانک اس میں کارٹل مافیا آگیا یا کچھ ہوا کہ دال ماش اور مسر، مونگ وغیرہ دوگنی مہنگی ہوگئیں۔ اب تو دال مرغی کے گوشت سے بھی زیادہ مہنگی ہوچکی۔ کسی نے سوچا کہ ایسا کیوں ہوا اور اس کو کس طرح ٹھیک کرنا ہے، مہنگائی کم کرنے کا کیا فارمولہ بنایا جائے؟ جب شاہی خاندان خود کاروبار شروع کر دے، مرغیوں کی فیڈ سے لے کر دودھ، دہی اور نجانے کس کس شعبے میں گھس جائے تو پھر

 ناجائز منافع خوری کو کس نے روکنا ہے؟

اگر صرف اپنی پسند کی خارجہ پالیسی نہ بنانے کا دکھ دامن گیر ہے تو صرف ایک سوال پوچھنا چاہتا ہوں کہ کسی بھی سویلین حکمران نے ملک میں ایک بھی ایسا اچھا تھنک ٹینک بنایا ہے جو خارجہ پالیسی بنانے کے حوالے سے سفارشات دے سکے؟ نیشنل سکیورٹی ایشوز پر سویلین کی معاونت کے لئے کو ن سے تھنک ٹینک یا یونیورسٹیوں کی اکیڈیمیا کی دانش کو بروئے کار لانے کا میکنزم بنایا گیا؟ چرچل نے دوسری جنگ عظیم میں جرمنی کی یو بوٹس کے خالصتاً عسکری ایشو پر انگلش یونیورسٹیوں کی معاونت حاصل کی۔

بھارت سے تعلقات کیسے ہونے چاہییں،اس پر اپنی علمی، ماہرانہ 'ان پٹ‘ دینے کے لئے کون سے اور کتنے تھنک ٹینک بنائے گئے؟

 یا پھر یہی کافی ہے کہ شہنشاہ معظم نے ایک سہانی صبح اٹھ کر سوچا کہ یار بہت ہوگئی، آج سے بھارت ہمارا دوست ہے۔ کیا اس طرح خارجہ پالیسی بنتی ہے؟

 اس طرح سویلین بالادستی قائم کی جاتی ہے؟

 اگر ایسا ہی ہے توہمیں یہ عرض کرنے کی اجازت دیں کہ حضور والا! اصل مسئلہ بالادستی نہیں اہلیت اور ناکافی تیاری کا ہے۔ سویلین کی راہ میں اصل رکاوٹ وہ خود اور ان کی بیڈ گورننس ہے۔ [عامرہاشم خاکوانی ، دنیا ] 
http://dunya.com.pk/index.php/author/amir-khakwani/2016-10-20/17222/37214722#tab2


Related:

War of Words Between India and Pakistan over Kashmir


After hearing the reference to UN resolutions vis-a-vis Kashmir and demilitarization in Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s speech in the United Nations General Assembly earlier today, I thought I’d write a little something about the resolution adopted by the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP), which underscores that demilitarization is a prerequisite for Pakistan as well before an impartial plebiscite could even be considered.

In January 1948 India referred the Kashmir dispute to the United Nations (Rahman 1996: 15–19). Prime Minister Nehru took the dispute with Pakistan over Kashmir beyond local and national boundaries by bringing it before the UN Security Council, and seeking a ratification of India’s “legal” claims over Kashmir. The UN reinforced Nehru’s pledge of holding a plebiscite in Kashmir, and in 1948 the Security Council established the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to play the role of mediator in the Kashmir issue. The UNCIP adopted a resolution urging the government of Pakistan to cease the infiltration of tribal mercenaries and raiders into J & K. It also urged the government of India to demilitarize the state by “withdrawing their own forces from Jammu and Kashmir and reducing them progressively to the minimum strength required for the support of civil power in the maintenance of law and order.” The resolution proclaimed that once these conditions were fulfilled, the government of India would be obligated to hold a plebiscite in the state in order to either ratify or veto the accession of J & K to India (Hagerty 2005: 19). Sir Zafarulla Khan, Pakistan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, while discussing the volatile Kashmir issue at the UN on 16 January 1948, said that the maharaja’s government had attempted to brutally quell the spirit of revolution in Kashmir: “They were mowed down by the bullets of the State Dogra troops in their uprising but refused to turn back and received those bullets on their bared breasts” (United Nations Security Council: 65).

This political stalemate led to the resumption of bitter acrimony in 1948. Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah voiced his disillusionment with the wishy-washy role of the UN Security Council. He expressly declared on 22 April 1948 that the Security Council resolution was “yet another feature of power politics on which the Security Council has embarked ever since its inception.” The Sheikh condemned the machinations of imperialist powers like the US and the UK which “saw Kashmir only as the neighbour of Russia and therefore an essential base in the encirclement of Russia for future aggression” (Krishen 1951: 19–20). A provisional cessation of hostilities, however, occurred in January 1949, with the establishment of a political and military truce.

The ceasefire line left the Indians with the bulk of Jammu and Kashmir’s territory (139,000 of 223,000 square kilometres, approximately 63 per cent) and population. The Indians had gained the prize piece of real estate, the Kashmir Valley, and they also controlled most of the Jammu and Ladakh regions. These areas became Indian Jammu and Kashmir (IJK). The Pakistanis were left with a long strip of land running on a north–south axis in western J & K, mostly Jammu districts bordering Pakistani Punjab and the NWFP . . . a slice of Ladakh (Skardu), and the remote mountain zones of Gilgit and Baltistan (the Northern Areas or NA). (Bose 2003: 41)

The de facto border carved in 1949 worked to India’s territorial and political advantage.

The president of the UN Security Council, General A.G.L. McNaughton of Canada, endeavored to outline proposals to resolve the dispute. He proposed a program of gradual demilitarization and withdrawal of regular Indian and Pakistani forces, which were not required for the purposes of maintaining law and order from the Indian side of the cease-fire line. He also proposed disbandment of the militia of J & K, as well as of forces in Pakistani-administered “Azad” Kashmir. McNaughton recommended continuing the administration of the Northern Areas by the local authorities, subject to UN supervision. He recommended the appointment of a UN representative by the secretary general of the UN, who would supervise the process of demilitarization and procure conditions necessary to holding a fair and free plebiscite (Das 1950). Although McNaughton’s proposals were lauded by most members of the Security Council, India stipulated that Pakistani forces must unconditionally withdraw from the state, and that disbandment of Pakistani-administered Kashmir troops must be accomplished before an impartial plebiscite could be held (Rahman 1996: 90–91). In the interests of expediency, the UNCIP appointed a single mediator, Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations representative for India and Pakistan, Australian jurist and war-time ambassador to the US, to efficiently resolve the conflict.

A meeting of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s National Conference was convened on 18 April 1950, in order to pass a resolution expressly warning the United Nations to take cognizance of Pakistan’s role as the aggressor (Korbel 2002: 170). The Communist writer Rajbans Krishen wrote an entire book to establish that the UN, its Commission and its representative, Sir Owen Dixon, were instruments of the US and the UK to annihilate the progressive movement pioneered by Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah in order to create in Kashmir, with the aid of Indian and Pakistani capitalists, a military base for an attack on the Soviet Union (ibid.: 257). The Communist leader in Kashmir, G.M. Sadiq, underscored the skepticism prevalent in Kashmir at the time:

. . . the time has come for India to withdraw the Kashmir question from the Security Council . . . [as] the Kashmiris realized that the talk of fair plebiscite was a mere smokescreen behind which the Anglo-American powers were planning to enslave the Kashmiris. Nothing will suit them better than the façade of trusteeship in Kashmir behind which they can build war bases against our neighbours [sic]. (Delhi Express, 1 January 1952)

Even as the Sheikh was aware of the infeasibility of withdrawing the Kashmir issue from the UN, the Sheikh-led NC reiterated its commitment to securing the right of self-determination for the people of Kashmir. It was suspicious of the UN, which was subservient to the hegemony of the US and the UK and flinched when it came to holding a plebiscite in Kashmir (Korbel 2002: 259). Sheikh declared that if a plebiscite was held in Kashmir and the people of Kashmir did not validate the accession to India that would not imply that, “as a matter of course Kashmir becomes part of Pakistan. . . . It would regain the status which it enjoyed immediately preceding the accession [i.e. independence]” (The Hindu, 26 March 1952). In 1949, the Sheikh candidly told Michael Davidson, correspondent of the London Observer, that, “Accession to either side cannot bring peace. We want to live in friendship with both the Dominions” (quoted in Saxena 1975: 33).

The insistence on rejecting the trajectory charted out for them by the power structures of India, Pakistan and the west, and the urge to proclaim themselves a nation that is capable of exercising the right of self-determination has haunted the psyche of the Kashmiri people for decades. The distrust that pervaded the Kashmir political scene was outlined by the Communist paper People’s Age, which assessed the report of the United Nations Commission to the Security Council as an instrument of the political intrigues and machinations of imperialist powers against the engendering of democracy in J & K. It was critical of the complicity of Pakistan with these powers to destroy the beginnings of a democratic mass movement. It evaluated the attempt of the US and the UK to preside over a purportedly “free and fair” plebiscite that would be held “under the direction of the military and political agents of American imperialism, masked as the UNO Commission officers,” as a strategy on their part to create and secure war bases on the subcontinent against the Soviet Union and China (Krishen 1951: 38).

As a placatory measure, in 1949 the UNCIP declared that “the Secretary-General of the United Nations will, in agreement with the Commission, nominate a Plebiscite Administrator who shall be a person of high international standing” (Dasgupta 1968: 402–03). Needless to say, the plebiscite was never held. The inability of the Indian government to hold a plebiscite is regarded by the Pakistani government as an act of political sabotage. The Indian government has been rationalizing its decision by placing the blame squarely on Pakistan for not demilitarizing the areas of J & K under its control, which was the primary condition specified by the United Nations for holding the plebiscite. Josef Korbel, the Czech UN representative in Kashmir, observes that ten weeks after the Security Council had passed an injunction calling on both India and Pakistan to demilitarize the Kashmir region within five months, Sir Owen Dixon found that not an iota of work had been done in that regard. Although both parties had agreed to hold a plebiscite in the state, they had failed to take any of the preliminary measures required for a free and fair referendum. Sir Owen Dixon, therefore, decided to take matters into his own hands and asked for the unconditional withdrawal of Pakistani troops. This was followed by a request to both countries to enable the demilitarization of Kashmir. The then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan, agreed to initiate the process by calling for the withdrawal of his troops.

But this request, which would have enabled the maintenance of law and order, was denied by India (Korbel 2002: 171). The rationale that India provided for its denial was the necessity to defend Kashmir and maintain a semblance of order. India vehemently opposed any proposal that would place Pakistan on the same platform as India, and which would not take into account the incursion of Kashmir territory by Pakistani militia and tribesmen. In order to neutralize the situation, Sir Owen Dixon suggested that while the plebiscite was being organized and held, the entire state should be governed by a coalition government, or by a neutral administration comprising non-partisan groups, or by an executive formed of United Nations representatives. But his proposal did not meet with the approval he expected. He noted, in 1950, that the Kashmir issue was so tumultuous because Kashmir was not a holistic geographic, economic or demographic entity, but, on the contrary, an aggregate of diverse territories brought under the rule of one maharaja. In a further attempt to resolve the conflict, Sir Owen Dixon propounded the trifurcation of the state along communal or regional lines, or facilitating the secession of parts of the Jhelum Valley to Pakistan (Ganguly 1997: 3–4, 43–57; Rahman 1996: 4).

Despite the bombastic statements and blustering of the governments of both India and Pakistan, however, the Indian government has all along perceived the inclusion of Pakistani-administered Jammu and Kashmir and the NA into India as unfeasible. Likewise, the government of Pakistan has all along either implicitly or explicitly acknowledged the impracticality of including the predominantly Buddhist Ladakh and predominantly Hindu Jammu as part of Pakistan. The coveted area that continues to generate irreconcilable differences between the two governments is the Valley of Kashmir. Dixon lamented:

None of these suggestions commended themselves to the Prime Minister of India. In the end, I became convinced that India’s agreement would never be obtained to demilitarization in any such form, or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite of any such character, as would in my opinion permit the plebiscite being conducted in conditions sufficiently guarding against intimidation and other forms of influence and abuse by which the freedom and fairness of the plebiscite might be imperiled. (The Statesman, 15 September 1950)

Sir Owen Dixon nonetheless remained determined to formulate a viable solution to the Kashmir issue and suggested that a plebiscite be held only in the Kashmir Valley subsequent to its demilitarization, which would be conducted by an administrative body of UN officials. This proposal was rejected by Pakistan, which, however, reluctantly agreed to Sir Dixon’s further suggestion that the prime ministers of the two countries meet with him to discuss the viability of various solutions to the Kashmir dispute. But India decried this suggestion. A defeated man, Sir Dixon finally left the Indian subcontinent on 23 August 1950 (Korbel 2002: 174). There seemed to be an inexplicable reluctance on both sides, India and Pakistan, to solve the Kashmir dispute diplomatically and amicably. Sir Dixon’s concluding recommendation was a bilateral resolution of the dispute with India and Pakistan as the responsible parties, without taking into account the ability of the Kashmiri people to determine their own political future.

After Dixon’s inability to implement conflict mitigation proposals, Frank Graham was appointed as mediator in 1951. Graham proposed the following: a reaffirmation of the ceasefire line; a mutual agreement that India and Pakistan would avoid making incendiary statements and that would reassert that Kashmir’s future would be decided by a plebiscite; steady attempts at demilitarization. But he was unable to dispel the doubts raised by the governments of India and Pakistan on securing the approval of both governments on a strategy for withdrawal of forces from the state, and agreement of both governments on a plebiscite administrator (ibid: 239–40). Given the unviability of its proposals, the UN soon bowed out of the political quagmire, leaving an unhealed wound on the body-politic of the Indian subcontinent: the Security Council resolutions affirming that the future of the state should be decided by its denizens.

War of Words Between India and Pakistan at the United Nations by NYLA ALI KHAN.
Source:  counterpunch.org

Related:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace
A Project of Peace Forum Network: Overall 3 Million visits/hits

Cherry-picking Iqbal, splitting Jinnah: the Pakistani nationalist conundrum by Nadeem F. Paracha, dawn.com


This was one of the most daunting questions facing the founders of Pakistan: how was Muslim nationalism, which had given birth to a separate country, to be transformed into a more focused idea encompassing this country’s identity?

Muslim nationalism in India had become a multi-dimensional entity. The one emerging from the writings of Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had explained the Muslims of the region as a separate cultural community which had been shaped by 500-year-old Muslim political supremacy in India. To him this community was to enter the future as an enlightened entity, regenerated through modern education and a rational reinterpretation of its faith.

Khan’s ideas in this context played a leading role in the formation of Muslim modernism in India and which, in turn, inspired the creation of the All India Muslim League (AIML). This modernism was further evolved by the likes of Muhammad Iqbal who tried to fuse it with the currents emerging from the other dimension of Muslim nationalism in the region.

This other dimension was one which understood the Muslims of India as being part of the larger global Muslim community (ummah). According to this version, Muslims (India’s largest minority group) would be able to thrive more as a polity in a united India. That’s why this version opposed the creation of a separate Muslim-majority state. The opponents of such a state warned that such a state would disperse the Muslims of the region.

Iqbal tried to reconcile the modernism of Jinnah’s vision of Muslim nationalism with the pan-Islamism of its more conservative strand. Now Pakistanis have undone his work
The Muslim opponents of this state also had pan-Islamist tendencies. So, rather ironically, the more intransigent and ‘fundamentalist’ components of India’s Muslim nationalism were propagating a united India, whereas this nationalism’s more modernist components were demanding a separate Muslim-majority country.

Iqbal rather creatively attempted to resolve this by trying to reconcile the modernity of one dimension with the radical conservatism of the other.

Iqbal’s merger of the two opposing strands of Muslim nationalism was first worked into a political narrative by the AIML — especially when the party had started to become more populist in tone and action. For example, on the one hand, the party banked heavily on Iqbal’s pleas to ‘modernise faith’, but at the same time drew inspiration from the more traditionalist strands of Iqbal’s reconciliation when it had to attract the votes of the masses in the more rural areas.

During the all-important election of 1946, the AIML in Punjab’s urban areas explained the creation of Pakistan as the formation of a modern Muslim-majority country where the Muslims will be able to rapidly advance culturally, politically and economically and so would the other minorities of India, even those Hindu segments who were being repressed by the dominant castes.

In the rural areas of the same province, however, the League turned towards the pro-League ulema who took the rightward route in Iqbal’s reconciliation and explained Pakistan as an Islamic entity.

The modernist and radical conservative currents in the two versions of Muslim nationalism in India, reconciled by Iqbal to become a merged narrative, had emerged with force during the League’s election campaign in the Punjab. But soon after the creation of Pakistan in 1947, this fusion would not be taken as a whole, but would be split between the modernists and the conservatives with both claiming to be expressing Iqbal’s vision.

In 1946, while talking to British journalist, Doon Campbell, Jinnah stated that Pakistan was not to be a theocracy but a modern, democratic state. At the same time, a slogan, ‘What does Pakistan mean? It means, there is no God but God,’ was ringing in some towns of the Punjab.

According to Tahir Wasti in his 2009 book The Application of Islamic Criminal Law this slogan was coined in 1945 by a minor poet, Malik Ghulam Nabi, in Sialkot. But whereas Jinnah and most of the League’s leadership had admired Iqbal’s attempt to reconcile political and social modernity through reinterpretations of the scriptures, men such as Ghulam Nabi and the pro-League ulema had responded more to that side of Iqbal’s writings that had celebrated Islam as a rallying impulse that needed to be expressed passionately.

Furthermore, even those clerics and ulema who were against the AIML’s idea of creating a separate country but who eventually migrated to this country, began to point at Iqbal when they began to demand the ‘Islamisation’ of Pakistan.

Jinnah was not an ideologue. He was a sharp politician and an articulate lawyer. Though there is now enough evidence to suggest that he was envisioning Pakistan as a modern Muslim-majority country where the culture would be Muslim, but the state was to remain detached from the matters of the faith, he was also conscious of the thin line which separated the idea of a modern Muslim-majority state from that of an emerging theocracy – especially in a region where a Muslim minority had suddenly become a ruling majority.

Writing in the Frontier Post in 1991, author Ahmad Bashir wrote that during a Muslim League convention in Karachi in 1947, a man in the audience suddenly got up and interrupted Jinnah’s address, shouting Ghulam Nabi’s slogan. Jinnah immediately shot back: “Sit down. Neither I, nor my working committee, nor the council of the Muslim League has ever passed such a resolution where I had committed this to the people of Pakistan. You might have done so to catch a few votes.”

Jinnah passed away in 1948, just a year after the birth of Pakistan. He did not leave behind a systematically conceived ideological model of what Pakistan was to be. There were just his speeches and interviews, but which he had delivered and given as a politician and a rather pragmatic one to boot. His political disposition was that of a level-headed and dispassionate parliamentarian and constitutionalist who had begun to appreciate Muslim nationalism as a progressive idea to mobilise and carry the Indian Muslim community into the modern age and towards political sovereignty.

But even though hugely admired by the new country’s citizens and intelligentsia, Jinnah’s speeches did not seem to figure much when the state of Pakistan first began to formulate the whole idea of Pakistani nationalism. Instead, both the modernists as well as the traditionalists cherry-picked their way across Iqbal’s writings. So much so that even when Jinnah did begin to get more space in the whole nationalist debate, he had been turned into an ideologue, split between the modernists and the conservatives. There was no Iqbal any more to reconcile the two.
By Nadeem Friday Piranha
Source:
http://www.dawn.com/news/1285632/smokers-corner-cherry-picking-iqbal-splitting-jinnah-the-pakistani-nationalist-conundrum
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~  ~ ~ ~  ~
Humanity, Religion, Culture, Science, Peace
A Project of Peace Forum Network: Overall 3 Million visits/hits