The partition of British India during 1947 was thought to be the perfect prescription to settled-down the contesting ideologies and arguments with the expectations for peaceful future of the region, paving the way for progress and prosperity of common people, the ultimate goals and objectives of the freedom. The facts on ground after almost 63 years telling a different story, which by no mean reflect any real change to the common people on the streets.

I wonder how one would divide history of a land except to recognize its historical stages. The term, “The India”, or “the Hind” originate itself from the very land presently known as Pakistan. The historical accounts are very clear: “The etymological roots of the term ‘India’ lie in a Sanskrit word, sindhu, meaning river frontier. The earliest sacred text of India, the Rig-Veda, speaks of a land called Sapta-Sindhava, which can be identified as the province of Punjab, formerly the land of seven rivers. Today, five rivers flow through it – the Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi and Sutlej/Beas – but it is believed that some 4,000 years ago there were two other rivers, called the Saraswati and the Drasadvati, which have long since dried up. When the Persians began to penetrate Indian lands in the six century BC, they refer to the modern River Indus, the most westerly of the seven rivers, and the peoples living in the region, by the term Hindhu in Old Persian, the cognate of the Indic sindhu. (Basham 1954: 1). When the Macedonians, under Alexander the Great, invaded the same region in the fourth century BC, they used the Greek Indos to refer to the river, and India to refer to the land around and beyond the river. So ‘India’ is actually a Greek expression: no native in ancient India would have thought of using this term.” There fore the term hindu originally coined as people of India rather than a religious community.

The land always remain the same, carry its history forward, but the people may change, their faiths, culture, habits might evolved to a new shape, but they can not change the history of the land. The India remains same; Sindh remain same; Hijaz remain same and the Egypt remains same in spite of the fact that these political entities had or are remain parts of political arrangements of the Empires for more then thousands of years.

The people come and bring along with their culture, faith, habits, prejudices, knowledge and skills enriching the new land, and learning from their new homeland and new people. Their previous land become history and present become a reality of their new ID except those who had come as of temporary assignments to safe-guard the interest of an alien power. The Arabs came to Sindh, had contributed to it and been benefited from it. So, it is always both ways.

Robert Trivers, in his book [Social Evolution:1976] while expanding his evolutionary theory of self-deception: “hiding the truth from the conscious mind the better to hide it from others. In our own species we recognize that shifty eyes, sweaty palms and croaky voices may indicate the stress that accompanies conscious knowledge of attempted deception. By becoming unconscious of its deception, the deceiver hides these signs from the observer. He or she can lie without the nervousness that accompanies deception.”

“By becoming unconscious of its deception, the deceiver hides these signs from the observer”. This is more true to those Pakistani writers, intellectuals, educationalists, politicians, campaigners and journalists popularly known as ‘gharrit brigade’. Though there is a section in India the opposite side of the same coin, the ‘gharrit brigade’ but to my knowledge, they do not carry any weight among the general masses of the Indian society.

A person is a product of his/her atmosphere. I would be certainly the product of my daily observations; the newspapers I read; the radio I listen; the TV I watched, the work-place, my community and the level of socialization. There fore, the writers, intellectuals, educationists, politicians, campaigners and journalists are the main contributors in the process of making and shaping of a society. To prove the point to a specific political landscape such as Pakistan, the opinion makers are equally responsible for its downward trends and backwardness.

The debate attracted by Nawaz Sharif’s speech on August the 13th, 2011 at the Safma seminar “Building Bridges in the Subcontinent”. The leader of Pakistan Muslim League (N) and ex-Prime Minister, while promoting his idea of historical and cultural similarities for better understanding of the people of both countries for their mutual gains and benefits, in opposition to the policies of conflicts and confrontation, that is been tried and tested for last 63 years, offering nothing in content and substance, but had and has been promoting and strengthening a policy of self-defeating and self-destructive.

It is difficult to argue the case in a situation where the artificial norms been styled and exhibited by the forces of vested interests from behind the curtain, contradicting rules of their own statue books, leaving no space for a debate that must reflect the balance picture of a society. The culture of prejudging the opposing argument by evoking and attracting the emotions and sentiments of the innocents masses always had contributed to the forces of stagnation and eliminating the natural trends of creativeness and innovation, ultimately leading towards anarchy and destruction. Poor Nawaz Sharif landed into a hot water just because he tried to speak his mind, that do not fit with the forces of the status queue. The hostility between India and Pakistan had and has been directly producing the strength and benefits to those who always been the champion in favour of the so-called ‘ideological borders’ rather then reality of the day.

Is it possible for some one to deny the fact that both India and Pakistan do own the same culture and civilization, of course with variables of its own nature? There is no such evidence to support that the sectarian prescription of Indian Sub-Continent deprived one party of its historical heritage against the other or either one opted out of its own indigenous civilization. The late Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr. Z. A. Bhutto once while reacting on the question of his Country’s intention to go nuclear, said to his interviewee by questing: “Is it possible that we will destroy our own civilization? Is it possible that we will destroy Taj Mhal or Red Fort?” Even I had seen politicians in Pakistan while addressing public rallies, still use proverbially the entire India as one political entity, “the people are united with us from Kaniya Kumari to Khabir.”

The irony that both countries own the same civilization and cultural heritage, yet constantly had and has been failed to discovered new fields of cooperation and friendship. On contrary, they discovered the recycling-process-of-fuel for a hate-machine, and to keep this machine running, a ready-made tool, an “ideology-of-Pakistan’s” rhetoric. The subject ideology has proved to be a slow poisoning of the masses particularly in Pakistan, so that the vested interest could continue plundering of their resources by creating a fear of national security.

There is no rational to understand the benefits out of the subject position, which is by keeping themselves limited to the stated positions and contested issues. The innovative and creative aspects in bilateral relations always demand to avoid contested issues by focusing on non-contested sides so to make the bilateral relationship more result oriented. It is a tried and tested strategy in the fields of conflicts resolution. There are hundreds of examples, such as US-China, Saudi Arabia-UAE, IRAN-UAE, UK-Ireland. The Pakistani state machine instead of rationalizing its relation, they are still trying to ride the old horse, the “ideology” of Pakistan! If we rely on an empirical evidence, one would noticed no benefits except, to promote hatred against all those who happened to be none-Muslims Pakistani; those Pakistani who do not subscribe to any fake ideology; to block any rational thinking among masses; to create conditions that keep the masses constantly in fear of terror, intimidation, ignorance and poverty.

As early as late 1920, British was planning to built railways from Madras to Peshawar, which mean they were having proper understating of the future economic trends and growth. On contrary, the successive governments always played in the hands of reactionaries, depriving the people of their mutual benefits and gains, a drawback in the partition prescription rather then complementing.

The fact that millions [7249000 from Pakistan and 7226000 from India] had been migrated during 1947 from each side, leaving behind relatives, properties, graveyards of their loved ones and the memories of their childhood, but, had and has been unable to meet each other freely. In addition, instead of reducing the hardship for the citizens of both countries, the successive governments has been busy in erecting further artificial barriers, in spite of the fact that there is no visible benefit to the people for last 63 years, except to build military machines which are the main reasons for mismanagement, underdevelopment and poverty.

One would certainly recognize the fact that Nawaz Sharif has finally reached to the conclusion by identifying the fact: where the problem lie? And, instead of playing to the stage-managed so-called-popular-galleries, stood-up to face the challenge and so to explore the polices that constantly dictating and distorting the facts by taking refuge among the forces-of-hatred, and instead want to take the debate to the men on streets.

The true emergence of a leadership is through the process of creativity and innovations. In this sense Mr. Sharif proved to be ready to walk through the thorny bath, so to lead his people out of the stalemate-of-hatred by introducing new narratives of inclusive-thinking on the national, regional and international level which undoubtedly would guarantee the fruits to all people of the region.

It is an encouraging sign by observing the evidence of a wide spread support in favour of Nawaz Sharif’s assertion, both among general masses as well as intelligentsia. The writers, intellectuals and journalists while supporting his argument, are of the view that, “Nawaz Sharif has trulyinterpreted Islam and the ideology of Pakistan in the right perspectives, and by rationalizing the bilateral relationship, which is his duty as the leader of the second largest party” (Nazir Naji, Atul. Huq Qasmi). The Country that still lingering on of its creation question! almost 63 years now, could be only ours: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Ayaz Amir).

There are those of ‘gharrit brigade’ who had attacked Nawaz Sharif by suggesting that he iswithdrawing from the “ideology” of Muslim League and betraying the guidelines adopted by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azad Muhammad Ali Jinnah, which is, as they claim, is the ideology of two nation theory. They are of the opinion that our “Allah” “Prophet” and “Qur’an” are different from them ignoring even the fact that there are more Muslims living in India then in Pakistan. There fore they demanded from Mr. Sharif, to withdraw his statement and to apologize from the people of Pakistan (Cross Fire of Dunya TV),

A piece published The News International (Pakistani daily) with the title ‘no way to build bridges’ (Asif Ezdi, August 29, 2011) required a detail response, both from political and theological stand point. The points in his piece are as follows:-

1: “Media attention has focused mainly on some of his observations which seem to question the basis of Pakistani nationhood.”

2: “- his statement is offensive. And it is untrue because, though the Muslims and Hindus lived on the same soil for centuries, they inhabited two different spiritual worlds. Nawaz was in fact repeating many of the points made by the Congress Party of India – and refuted by the Quaid-e-Azam – during the Pakistan movement.”

3 “The Quran says something very different in Surah al-Kafirun: The believers worship not that which the non-believers worship, nor do the non-believers worship that which the believers worship. Nawaz should also know that the Muslims do not perform puja, as the Hindus do, but ibadat.”

The above traditions tells us some thing about nations and narration, because Prophet called Ansar a Nation. What was Ansar? A socially and racially group of a people who had evolved together may be over a period of thousands of years. So, in a primitive societies, people identify themselves with their own tribes, as nation. This is the case even today. Waziri Qoom, [Wiziree Nation] Shanwari Qoom [Shanwari Nation] etc. The Sindhis, Pashtoons, Punjabees and Blooch are nations and Pakistan is a state of these nations in the shape of federation. British India was divided in to two states not two nations. There fore the correct term is two states solution, not the two nations theory or the ideology of Pakistan. There fore both India and Pakistan are states, one is a Union which is comprises of different nations and the other is a federation comprises of different nations too. The believe system of a people and the objective realities which are directly accessible to human sensory tools to be verified are two different aspects and can not be mixed together.

Mr. Ezdi’s second point shows a lack of his understanding of a society in its proper context. To study a society one has to rely on sociology and anthropology. Living on the same soil: is an anthropological and sociological question. Mr. Jinnah and Dr. Iqbal to the best of my knowledge never demanded to change the basic laws of physics. When he himself suggesting “living together”, means they were/are social groups. The point is that no group of a people is absolute in terms of its unity and separation. There is a degree of unity and separation between husband and wife, between brothers and sisters and between the members of the UN. This is where the utopias and fanatics go wrong. Living together is a socially grounded life with its own diversity. The diversity of faith or religion is one. Like race, colour and gender, religion is an exclusive aspect of human life. Its membership and association is voluntarily. It can not be limited to a geographical or political entity. There fore it is international in nature. The State and Nations are inclusive narratives, socially grounded, and confined to a specific geographical location. Its membership is limited to its citizens only and it is an inclusive institution. This is modern world we are living in. It is not the Empires and the subjects. There fore the problem is that there are those of the Pakistanis still confused because of the writers like Ezdi. They are living in the reality of a-state-and-citizen relationship, yet believing as a-subject-of-an- Empire. Let us see what Mr. Jinnah himself was of the view:-

It is Business of Every Nationalist to Find Solution of Hindu-MuslimProblem said Mr. Jinnah. (From our special Correspondent)

Lahore. July 15. Mr. M. A. Jinnah, M.L.A, Barrister-at-Law, who arrived here last night to argue Ilam Din’s appeal before the High Court to-day against his death sentence by the sessions Judge Lahore, was interviewed this evening by the special correspondent of the Tribune in order to obtain his views on the current political problems of the day. The correspondent asked Mr. Jinnah whether his attention had been drawn to Mr. Chagla’s recent statement in the press in which it was suggested that he and Pandit Moti Lal Nehru should meet and try to come to an understanding and whether he had any idea of interchange of views like this? If not, how did he propose to proceed in the matter? What did he think of the resolution which was passed by the Muslim League at Delhi in his absence? What he think the Labour Government should do in order to make it possible for India to co-operate with it in finding a solution of the present problem? Did he think that the boycotters of the Simon Commission would attend a Conference first with the Select Committee of Parliament and then with the British Cabinet as suggested by Dr. Beasant.

Mr. Jinnah at first declined to say anything in the interview but after a prolonged conversation with the correspondent, in which the political situation was discussed closely and minutely, he made the following statement to the special correspondent:-

“At present I do not want to say anything” said Mr. Jinnah, “more than what I had already said in my recent interview, that I have placed my views before His Excellency the Viceroy before he left for England and I have also taken the liberty of communicating them to the Prime Minister personally. Under these circumstances you will not expect me to say anything more than that a great deal will depend upon what decision His Majesty’s Government come to with regard to the serious deadlock that is created in India at present”.

“I want the public to look upon the question of Hindu-Muslim settlement,” added Mr. Jinnah, “not as communal question, but as a national problem. And to find a solution of this problem is, in my opinion, the business of every Nationalist, be he a Hindu or a Muslim or of any other community. It is question purely of safeguarding the minorities which is causing anxiety and trouble, not only in India but the world over. As you must have observed the league of Nations is at present seriously engaged with regard to minority questions in various States of Europe. Every country where there is a minority question, it had to tackle it in a manner which gave a sense of security to the minority. The fitness and successful working of any constitution depends upon how far the majority is able to carry the minority with them and thereby give them a sense of security in any constitution that may be framed. And we have to solve the problem in our country according to our conditions, so that the path of progress on democratic lines may be smooth and lead us to the goal of true representative Government in India.”

Mr. Jinnah left tonight for Bombay by the Frontier Mail. Before he left he was entertained to a dinner party at Lahore by Diwan Chaman Lal M.L.A.

[The Tribune Lahore, Wednesday, July 17, 1929 ]

One can see how futuristic and forwarding looking was Mr. Jinnah. “It is question purely of safeguarding the minorities which is causing anxiety and trouble, not only in India but the world over”. To see Mr. Jinnah’s argument and today’s Pakistan and make your own judgement.

The Qur’an can not be interpreted literally. Those who try to interpret literally, are known as literalist, where as we all know that the main steam Islam is non-literalist. The exegesis strictly based on texts do not solved the problems. There is a long history of intellectual reasoning which involved many aspects including the linguistic exegesis. The term ‘Kafir’, means to hide where as the term believers can not understood without taking into consideration historical linguistic evolution and objective conditions of the time and the specific verse for specific purpose or specific time [asbab-al-nazool-al-Qur’an]. The, time and again, the term ‘believers’ repeated itself in Qur’an. The commentators and jurists are not enlightening us, though few exceptions. It was the counter argument to those of that time who were constantly disputing Prophet’s claim of prophesy and calling him the blasphemer. So the Qur’an was trying to make a distinction between those who believe in Prophet in opposition to those who were claiming to be the guardian of religion of the time and the self- righteous-one like many now-a-days among Muslims, especially in Pakistan.

Every thing is subject to change, evolve, adjust and accommodate. “On account of his dualistic and contradictory nature, man, this dialectical phenomenon, is compelled to be always in motion. … How disgraceful then, are all fixed standards. Who can ever fix a standard? Man is a ‘choice,” a struggle, a constant becoming. He is an infinite migration, a migration within himself, from clay to God; he is a migrant within his own soul.” [Ali Shariati, On the Sociology of Islam]

Let us now see the question from purely a theological angle. Linguistically speaking what is the difference between ‘puja’ and ‘ibadat’? Mr. Jinnah himself used the same language while addressing both Mr. Ghandi and Moullana Azad, ‘gentlemen have you finished your prayers so that we could move for the business’. He never called, differently to Moullanas and other worshipers. As we speak, we call all the religious people of their prayers. So what is the fun between ‘puja’ and ‘ibadat’?

Theologically speaking, the fundamental of Muslim believe system rest squarely on the notion that there is only one God. One for Muslims, one for Hindus, one for American and so on is directly in opposition to the Muslims’ believing system. In Islam any one believing more than one God is come under sehrik (more then one God). The question that how one would express his/her relationship with God is totally a different matter, and so far Muslim believes system is concern; there is only one God for every one. Similarly, among Muslims, no one believes that there is any other prophet after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). I think Mr. Red Hat (Cross Fire), might do because he himself is Caliph of his prophet, late Yousuf the Kazab. There fore, Prophet of Islam is, too, for the entire universe, that is why the title for the prophet is “ramut-o-lil-alimeen”. Not for one community or two. The point that how one would choose to express it is up to the individuals, and to my knowledge all Muslims believes that Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet and for all universe and all people. So far the question of holly Qur’an is concern, it too claims itself the last book, recognizing all the previous scriptures. How do we know previous books? There are books with Jewish, Christians, Zoroastrains, Budhists and Hindus, yet, our claim is that there had been more then hundreds of thousands of Prophets before the last Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Where are the rest of the books then? Certainly we are not suggesting that the Prophets without books?

The early Muslims, historically speaking, were always flexible and rational when ever encountered the question of interpretation of scripture, faith, values, norms or moral questions. They along with Jewish and Christian also Sabians been recognized as the people of book. Similarly, they appreciated that the Zoroastrians of Iran and the Hindus of India, both people with their own extensive scriptural heritages, should also qualify for that status. Muhammad al-Qasim wrote to Hijaz and he replied him after the approval of the Caliph that they, too, are same like Jewish and Christians and should be treated with same yard-stick.

There were some critics who tried to use Kashmir issue to criticise Nawaz Sharif by suggesting that his statement received very negatively at Srinager. This position is mostly taken by people from Jamat-e-Islami or pro-military, ignoring the fact that Kashmiri do not believe in racism. The basic of their struggle is the restoration of their historical political entity. Their claim is not because of an ideology or faith. All Kashmiri believe that the State belong to all its citizens, regardless of colour, ethnicity, gender or faith. They want Azad Kashmir, Gilgit Baltistan and Jammu Kashir to be reunited and make it an independent state. As I have mentioned above that the religion is “an exclusive aspect and expression of human life, voluntarily in association and membership, can not be limited to a geographical location” where as “the State is must to a define geographical location, must inclusive to all its citizens. The association and membership is limited to its citizens only”. There fore Kashmiri do not mix religion and politics. Both are necessary to human life but both played different role. The American Muslim can not be a Saudi, India or Pakistani. Similarly the Indian can be Pakistani, Saudi, Irani, French but all of them could be Muslims.

Finally, the question of hero too a variable term and can be used out of its specific context. If one is suggesting of a separate hero, does not legitimize the basis of an absolute separation or unity. For example Imran Khan was Captain of Pakistani team when they were able to won the world cup. The Pakistani team from Pakistani domain went to contest world cup, so after winning, the team and the captain automatically emerged as world hero. The hero of the people of the world, but certainly the persons belongs to a specific location.

I would like to end with the Qur’anic verse ‘Verily God will not change the condition of men, till they change what is in themselves.’ [13:12] “If he does not take the initiative, if he does not evolve the inner richness of his being, if he ceases to feel the inward push of advancing life, then the spirit within him hardens into stone and he reduced to the level of dead matter.” [Interpretation of verse (13:12) by Dr. Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam P-12]

The need to have a critical debate on religion is Right now, the news of a Christian woman being convicted and sentenced to death by a lower court, made headlines in some of the liberal segments of society. The kind of sick society we are, I am not surprised that it did not invite the outrage at a broader level. The Urdu newspapers hardly gave it coverage but what is most regrettable was the overall virtual absence of large scale condemnation. The newspapers in Pakistan are commercial entities and cater to the “tastes” of their mostly right wing conservative customers. Heck, even Talat Hussain has to transform into Ansar Abbassi when he writes in our “national” language.

In that small liberal segment, actually a fringe in our society, the blasphemy law is under criticism with calls to repeal it. I would like to point out to all those that they are just targeting a symbolic thing. Culprit is the not the law. Of course law should be repealed, but repealing alone will never solve the issue. For that matter no one has actually been executed after even being convicted. Let’s not forget even if the law was not in existence, people would have simply killed the woman. In fact in blasphemy cases, people have been even killed in the jail when their cases were in progress. Repealing the law will only remove a symbol of religion’s infusion with state; it will by no stretch of imagination prevent people from becoming violent. For that matter repealing it without addressing the real issue will cause people to become even more bigoted than they are now. In fact the law cannot be repealed through democratic ways in the first place until the major issue is tackled.

The real issue is the general religious bigotry which is rampant in the society which in turn emanates from the mindset and the overall cultural set up of Pakistan. This cultural set up gives religion extreme reverence and cultivates an identity based on it, which is extraordinarily sensitive on all the religous matters. This reverence of religion and the resulting bigotry is primarily cultural though has state as its major patron. The issue is not restricted to the fusion of religion with state. State is one of the patrons of religion, but is not the sole determinant of its reverence.

The role of religion, particularly the sensitivity arising from it is chiefly coming from our childhood training during which religion is presented as something extremely venerable. A culture of not questioning it is imposed first at home and then later at the schools. The fusion of reverence along with its unquestionable status, cultivates a violent prone and bigotry ridden mindset. It cultivates an atmosphere where a mob can actually get away with extremely violent acts in the name of religion. People even if they do not actually feel the anger, can still get violent to vent out their gutter instincts under the guise of religious honour knowing fully well that no one will be able to stop them. In fact we know that several times Police became a silent spectator when the mob was imposing their “justice” on the victims. What happened at Gojra is still fresh in our memories. Police and the district administration actually became a de facto accomplice.

We cannot address the issue unless we are able to actually desensitize people from religion. And that cannot be done without cultivating a culture where religion can be critically discussed. Unless and until the educated of this country show collective courage and are ready to do that, frankly nothing can change. Moreover, change in this case has to take top down approach. Frankly the elite and the affluent middleclass have to play a role. The political elite which have historically shown impotence and tried to manipulate religious sensitivity to their advantage, have to muster up the courage and promote liberal discourse on the role of religion in the public sphere. Only from such discourse can a change in educational curriculum can take place which in time will promote a culture of tolerance.

Moreover, in Pakistan unlike Turkey, secularism and for that matter even religious tolerance cannot come from either barrel of a gun or other establishment institutions. This is because army in Pakistan has evolved to use Islam as a gluing force within its ranks. A powerful army in Turkey may be the guardian of secularism but this is not going to be the case in Pakistan. The best you can hope is that since army is still not radicalized and uses Islam only for strategic purposes (except during Zia’s time), it will not move in to thwart a critical discourse on religion. Our only hope remains democracy.

Leaders of liberal parties like PPP have to show the courage. They have the sway over the masses and moreover I think they have to rectify their historical blunders such as 1973 constitution and second amendment. Despite its mistakes, PPP along with other liberal parties remains the only hope. So leaders of PPP, ANP and MQM, all those who claim to be liberal, please come forward and prove your credentials. (original published by  Chowk) 

According to Arab news, Saudi Arabian female teachers have demanded the same pay and status as their male counterparts, and are to file a court case against the Ministry of Education to enforce their demand.

[read more]

12 Years Child Married with 80 Years Old Man in Saudi Arabia?

This is really a very shocking news for all Muslims that a Saudi father, whose name has not been released, sold his 12-year-old daughter to his 80-year old cousin for the equivalent of $22,600. The elderly man, who lives in the city of Buraidah, stands accused of raping the girl after the wedding. He has previously married three other young girls.

“She was raped and they took her to the hospital after the wedding night,” Wajiha Al-Huwaidar, a Saudi journalist who has been banned from reporting by the government told The Media Line. “Usually when the girl is very young, the authorities tell the husband not to touch her until after puberty. When he was interviewed, the guy just said she was old enough and he didn’t know she would get hurt.”  The girl, already in the custody of the elderly man, was reported to have shouted “I don’t want him, save me!” when contacted by phone by a journalist from the Al Riyadh, a local newspaper in the Saudi capital.

This Arab girl’s mother, who had objected strongly to the marriage, took the case to local media after her lawyer’s efforts to get it legally annulled failed. After the case was publicized, the public prosecutor of Al-Qassim Province is said to have set up a special committee to look into the case. “They say they’re going to look into it but nothing will really happen,” Eman Al Nafjan, a Saudi blogger and women’s rights advocate told The Media Line. “Even if they solve this case, they are not going to recommend a new law to the king. We should set a legal minimum age at which girls can be married.”  “Without a law we get people like this 80 year old guy who takes advantage of the system to fulfill his sick obsession with little girls,” she wrote on her blog. “Where else in the world can a man openly say that he is in a polygamous marriage with four underage girls and not get arrested? At this rate we might as well start a tourism industry to attract rich Muslim pedophiles.”   [read more]

It is human nature to see things differently and act differently but for a better understanding for  each others, there is no other option except to know each others correctly.  Pre-Judging and pre-concieving steriotypes are major contributing factors in strengthening the ideology of hate and exclusiveness.  We must listen to Tony Blair carefuly because there is a point should not be ignored just hating him.

Musharaf demands Nobel Prize

FORMER PAKISTAN PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT ABOUT KASHMIRIS GETTING TRAINED IN PAKISTAN HAS STRUCK WITH LOT OF PAIN AND HUMILIATION FOR LOTS OF KASHMIRIS, COMMENTS NAYEEMA AHMAD MAHJOOR

Every time the Kashmir dispute attracts the attention of the international community, there comes some damning report or statement from the Pakistani leadership either to sabotage the movement or get billions of dollars as a reward for its revelations. It is yet unknown what General Musharaf wanted to achieve from his recent revelations about the establishment of training camps for Kashmiri militants. Making his own policy public might get him a Nobel Prize for peace in the future. But what Kashmir is dreading now from the Pakistani leadership will be to hand over all those boys to Indian authorities who were lured to fight an armed struggle against India and are now languishing in the remote corners of Pakistan. [The Greater Kashmir]

The economic exploitation of Kashmir

1)    30% of the present Indian hydroelectricity is produced in Kashmir.

2) 7 out of the 11 hydroelectric ...projects announced by NHPC are located in Kashmir accounting to 60% of the total electricity production.

3) NHPC in rest of the Indian ......States works on 50:50 sharing basis...i.e. 50%of the electricity goes to the state and 50% is given to NHPC for the investment they put. But in Kashmir the equation changes.... Only12% is given to Kashmir as a royalty and 88% is taken away by NHPC & supplied to the northern grid of INDIA via Punjab to DELHI HARYANA etc.

4) Incidentally, Peak hour requirement of Electricity in Kashmir is 2000 Megawatts.... Not able to fulfill it, the government of J&K has to buy electricity worth 3600 cores annually from the same northern grid to which it supplies its produced electricity.

5) NHPC succeeds in producing the cheapest possible electricity in Kashmir i.e. 25 paisa per unit... But to fulfill its peak hour requirement, Kashmir has to buy the same electricity at 10 Rupees a unit from the northern grid. What profits man?

6) Indus water treaty which was signed between India & Pakistan lays down the sharing pattern of the water bodies originating in Kashmir...As per that treaty, 3 rivers are shared by India to fulfill its water deficiency and the rest of the 3 are shared by Pakistan...... What Kashmir gets in return is 12 % royalty from India?... hahaha... I feel like laughing on them.

7) Punjab owes 1000s of cores to Kashmir but the problem is that instead of raising a voice nobody cares.

8) As per the figures given by OMAR ABDULLAH in May, Kashmir suffers an annual loss of 50000 cores when its water is used by India and Pakistan.... Keeping the share 50%, Kashmir is suffering a loss of whooping 25000 cores annually because of INIDA.....Incidentally, in the year 2009-10, Kashmir received an annual central assistance of 13952 cores from India.

9) Out of these 13952 cores, 3600 cores was spent on buying its own electricity from the northern grid which was stolen by India.... 5500 cores was used for the defense purpose just because 900000 troops are present to guard Kashmir from 1500 militants (Government figure) present over here..... Rest of the money is being used for development purpose.... And still they say that we wont be able to withstand ourselves after we achieve freedom from there illegal occupation by the grace of Allah insha-Allah. soon.

Ajaz Ahmed

Kashmir turned into a cantonment of army by India and Pakistan.

The Indian Army estimated to 800000 personnel, where as Pakistani Army estimated 750000 personnel. Is this not causing for concern for civil society in Jammu Kashmir on both sides of dividing line?

We were never short-supply of reports since 2000 that the forest land in Azad Kashmir (part of PoK) been used to train people in fire-arms and commando activities, and no one from local population is allowed to visit them in person.  A closed box-type vehicle seen on the way, visiting them, may be delivering food and other necessities.

The known fact that the Pakistan Army personal by retiring them from Pakistan Army record, and assigning them the task of  training and development of private army of mujadeen, was business as usual right after the People Democratic Party of Afghanistan had taken power in Kabul by force with popular mass support during 1978.

The irony that local population of any part of Pakistan, with variable exceptions,  had never supported the subject activities and always had been skeptical by considering it a mercenary activities of the western imperialism rather than holly jihad.

The subject fire-arms/military training and development activities fully coordinated by both Saudi and Pakistani establishment by show-casing “mullah-beard” as image, while, “literal interpretation of Islam” as doctrine force for public perceptions by using “mosques-murderesses” as a venue, while non-Muslims as an ultimate and natural enemy to be dealt with, yet in bedding with western powers for the whole project. This is the point where one can understand why the public perception in Pakistan is against west particularly USA.  

The out-come of this project, a greed and corruption in the rank and files of Pakistan defense forces subject to be routed through the mujadeen force of private army. Many writers were of the opinion of an estimation of the subject private army in the region of half a million of foot-solders by excluding Kashmir project; yet don’t fall under Pakistan defense rules. Which mean a danger for any civil society where as this has proved both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, yet no one is ready to be accountable?

The report by Raja Iftikhar of daily Jang from Muzafarabad shows two things that our estimate of half-a-million foot-solders was wrong and our perceptions for so-called Azad Kashmir's election were wrong too. Though it was well known fact both in AJK and Pakistan that the elections for tickets of candidates by their parties had been subject to be routed through ISI office for final approval but the degree of involvement of ISI was never known. As per the report AJK election, the tickets for all candidates for the legislative assembly were issued upon the order of Brigadier Gaznafer Ali of ISI rather then by their respective party parliamentary board. This indicates that those of pro-independent parties incline dtowards participating in the subject election would have to pass the test of ISI Brigadier to become a candidate.

The second point in his report that “the five hundred thousands (500000) trained people in AJK has been defending 750 miles long border along with Pakistan Army,” indicate the build-up of foreign forces in the state of J&K.  The five hundred thousands figures are not included Pakistan’s regular army which is not less then one hundred fifty thousands (150000). It means a total of seven hundred fifty thousands (750000) of Pakistan Army’s presence in PoK (AJK+GB).  On other hand there had been continued reports of an estimation of Indian Army in J&K which vary between Seven hundred thousands (700000) or Eight hundred thousands (800000) of  foot-solders. There fore by adding up the figure both Pakistani and Indian, it reach to a figure of fifteen hundred thousands (1500000) or sixteen hundred thousands (1600000). This is very serious cause for concern specially those who do not even fall under the rules of defense forces rules of engagement.                 

To train people to use fire-arms or other related military training without proper legal protection, should come under crimes and may be further could be extended to crime against humanity or war-crimes. The reason that if the subject people in case by using their training of fire- arms and other military skilled while having easy access to fire -arms,  could be engaged in subversive activities of death and destruction of a society. If, so, then who would be responsible? May be those who trained them?

Training people in fire-arms and subversive activities without putting in place the safe guards  of state-law and discipline, would be amount to endangering the lives of innocent people. The Afghan Taliban and subsequently Pakistani Taliban’s activities are case in point where they brought death and destruction on both the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan without any approval, authority or mandate from the subject people.  (comments by Afzal Tahir)