In 1994-95, Afghanistan dissolved in to total disarray. The Pashtuns from the Kandahar region who had studied at Madrassa Haqqania near Peshawar, a conservative Deobandi institution, organized a Taliban movement of simple pious teachers and prayer leaders. They disbanded the truck mafia, enforced codes of good moral conduct and hanged criminals. In November 1994, they captured Kandahar. A Pakistani Federal Minister described the Afghan Taliban as 'our boys' but this was a delusion as the Taliban, like most Afghans, had their own priorities. In 1996, the Taliban tide swept the county, conquered Kabul and took control of Mazar-i-Sharif, whose mayor, a Massoud ally, defected to them. The Taliban combined Durrani rural culture and Islamic ethos. When Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto sought to open the southern Quetta route to Central Asia, she organized a large commercial convoy which was blocked by the truck mafia. The Interior Minister, Naseerullah Khan Babar persuaded the Taliban to clear the way. In May 1997, Pakistan recognized the Taliban government after Mazar-i-Sharif accepted the Taliban government. Saudi Arabia and UAE followed with their recognition, but the Taliban remained isolated internationally because of their odious human rights record.
The ISI, CIA, and the White House pursued a practical policy. Prince Turki, the Saudi politician came to Kadhahar and asked Mullah Omar to hand over Osama bin Laden. But this angered Mullah Omar so much that he got up and doused his head with cold water, before rebuking the Saudi royals.
The influential Karzai and Ahmadzai families declared support for the Taliban. Pakistan tried to prevent the Taliban from occupying its territory by crossing the border but this became a long running controversy as the US pressed Pakistan to 'do more' and Pakistan needed time and resources to move forces and enforce its writ in the Tribal Areas. While the US was impatient, Pakistan had its constraints.
Saturday, July 11, 2020
Organization of Islamic Cooperation - Alliance of failed states
Israeli aggression against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in 1967 evoked strong condemnation in the world. The Muslim peoples were stirred, as never before, because of the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem, the first qibla of Islam, Mammoth demonstrations were held in Pakistan. Ardent solidarity with the victims of aggression was made manifest not only in words but also in concrete action. Pakistani military deputations in these countries volunteered their services and participated in action. Pakistan's ambassador to the United Nations, Agha Shahi, made an effective contribution to the Arab cause. In reasoned speeches, he supported resolutions in the General Assembly calling for respect for international law and for the rights of the people of occupied territories pending Israeli withdrawal. Shahi piloted the resolution declaring invalid the measures imposed by Israel to change the status of Jerusalem.
On 21 August 1969, arson inflicted extensive damage on Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is associated with the Prophet's ascension. It triggered a tidal wave of anguish and outrage among Muslims throughout the world. Arab and non-Arab Muslim states joined the first Islamic Summit Conference held in Rabat, on 22-4 September 1969. It adopted a moving declaration reflecting the profound distress of Muslim peoples, agreed to coordinate action to secure Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied in 1967, and affirmed full support to the Palestinian people in their struggle for national liberation. Also, recognizing that a common creed constituted a powerful bond between Muslim peoples, the leaders decide to institutionalize the conference and established the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with a permanent secretariat to be located in Jeddah pending the liberation of Jerusalem.
Criteria for membership of the OIC were defined against the background of India''s 'pathetic importuning' for an invitation to attend the Islamic summit, justifying its inclusion on the grounds concern of the Muslim community in South Asia for the welfare of their co-religionists throughout the world, Pakistan-itself an heir to that legacy-agreed to accord representation to the Muslims of India at the conference. But when, by sending anon=Muslim envoy, India failed to observe the distinction between Muslims of Indian and India as a state, Pakistan raised an objection which was upheld by the conference. If the size of a state's Muslim population was the criterion for membership, many other states such as the USSR and China should have been invited to participate; their Muslim minorities were larger than the populations of some of the participating Muslim states.
Till the day, Organization of Islamic Cooperation has failed. Atrocities by Israel increased day by day and they given no importance to this great Muslim Alliance, because they know this is just a formality and not practical. Well said anonymous: "O I see".
On 21 August 1969, arson inflicted extensive damage on Al-Aqsa Mosque, which is associated with the Prophet's ascension. It triggered a tidal wave of anguish and outrage among Muslims throughout the world. Arab and non-Arab Muslim states joined the first Islamic Summit Conference held in Rabat, on 22-4 September 1969. It adopted a moving declaration reflecting the profound distress of Muslim peoples, agreed to coordinate action to secure Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories occupied in 1967, and affirmed full support to the Palestinian people in their struggle for national liberation. Also, recognizing that a common creed constituted a powerful bond between Muslim peoples, the leaders decide to institutionalize the conference and established the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with a permanent secretariat to be located in Jeddah pending the liberation of Jerusalem.
Criteria for membership of the OIC were defined against the background of India''s 'pathetic importuning' for an invitation to attend the Islamic summit, justifying its inclusion on the grounds concern of the Muslim community in South Asia for the welfare of their co-religionists throughout the world, Pakistan-itself an heir to that legacy-agreed to accord representation to the Muslims of India at the conference. But when, by sending anon=Muslim envoy, India failed to observe the distinction between Muslims of Indian and India as a state, Pakistan raised an objection which was upheld by the conference. If the size of a state's Muslim population was the criterion for membership, many other states such as the USSR and China should have been invited to participate; their Muslim minorities were larger than the populations of some of the participating Muslim states.
Till the day, Organization of Islamic Cooperation has failed. Atrocities by Israel increased day by day and they given no importance to this great Muslim Alliance, because they know this is just a formality and not practical. Well said anonymous: "O I see".
Friday, July 10, 2020
Islamic Constitution or secular state - A confused Pakistani
Our survey of the Islamic State in Pakistan would be incomplete if we failed to consider the views of a significant group of Pakistani Muslims who dissent from the 'Islamic State' ideology and those of the non-Muslims, particularly Hindus, who vehemently object to the concept of an 'Islamic State'. The first group is small in number but includes some powerful figures. They are not always vocal. They know very well how strong are the feelings for an Islamic State among the Muslims of Pakistan. Their model is a secular democratic westernized State; they would probably accept Turkey as an example. Their apprehension is that if Pakistan accepts an Islamic Constitution the Mullah will control the State; they hold Shariah cannot be adequate for a modern complex society. Their argument is that States whose laws are based on religion become incapable after a short lapse of time of satisfying the needs of the country and the nations. They point out that religions express unchanging precepts while life goes ahead and needs change rapidly. Religious laws, in their opinion, are no more than words void of sense and forms without value; changeless is a dogmatic religious necessity. They further argue that laws which derive their inspiration from religions fetter societies and they constitute invincible factors which prevent progress. The purpose of laws is not to maintain old customs or beliefs which have their source in religion but rather to assure the economic and social progress of the nation. When religion has sought to rule human Shariah it has been the arbitrary instrument of sovereigns, despots, and strong men. In short, they believe that religious precepts cannot be brought to conform with the needs of civilization. It may be added here that like the ulema(religious scholar) they look upon liberal advocates of an Islamic State that it may be given a dynamic interpretation. They say it is a mistake to adhere to concepts which are outworn and irrelevant to present conditions of life. They expect that religiosity, the emotion on which Pakistan was based, will soon disappear and wish for a Kamal Ataturk in Pakistan to found a secular State.
Thursday, July 9, 2020
Indus Water Treaty - A landmark agreement between to rival countries by World Bank
As Egypt is said to be the gift of the Nile, Pakistan is the gift of the Indus. Of the thirty-seven million acres of land irrigated by canals from the Indus River and its tributaries, in 1947 obout thirty million acres were in Pakistan - an area equal to the irrigated lands in Egypt and Sudan. The Indus and its major tributaries rise in or beyond the Himalayas and flow through Indian-held Kashmir or India. Partition gave India a stranglehold over the rivers flowing south into Pakistan. In 1948, India decided unilaterally to cut off supplies to the canals flowing from headwords under its control, ignoring Pakistan's rights under international law. It also embarked on the construction of the Bhakra Dam on the Sutlej, in order to divert the entire water supply of the river.
In 1950, Pakistan proposed arbitration, but India refused. As David Lilienthal, former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, wrote in an article: 'No armies with bombs and shellfire could devastate a land so thoroughly as Pakistan could be devastated by the simple expedient of India's permanently shutting off the source of waters that keep the fields and people of Pakistan green. In 1952, World Bank President Eugene Black offered his good offices for a solution of the dispute that would provide India additional supplies of water without damage to Pakistan, which the two countries accepted. Negotiations over the highly technical issues took eight years to resolve. The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on 19 September 1960. It allocated the waters of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) for use by the India, and the waters of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) for use in Pakistan, except for (a) domestic and non-consumptive uses of the river waters in the areas under Indian control, and (b) for agriculture, subject to specified limits.
The compromise conceded to Indian what it wanted, but the World Bank raised the requisite funds for the construction of two large dams at Mangla on the Jhelum and Tarbela on the Indus and 400 miles of link canals from the western rivers in Pakistan to replace the loss due to diversion of waters of the eastern rivers by India. (Three of the seven link canals carry ten times as much water as the Thames,and twice as much as the Potomac.) Of the estimated expenditure of $1.3 billion on replacement works, the treaty required India to pay $170 million, while the United States contributed over $500 million and the rest was donated largely by Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand.
The Indus Waters Treaty was also farsighted in anticipating problems that might arise in interpretation and implementation of the complex agreement. World Bank experts in law, economics, construction, and engineering foresaw as many contingencies as were likely to arise, so that the treaty provides a self-executing mechanism for their peaceful resolution in a professional manner. Ind the first place, the Permanent Indus Commission, comprising high-level technical representatives of the two sides, has the responsibility to resolve differences of interpretation and ensure smooth implementation. In case the Commission is unable to agree on a 'question'of interpretation, the matter can be taken up at the level of government; and if governments also cannot agree, the 'difference'can be referred to a 'neutral expert'to be appointed by the parties or, if they fail to agree, by the World Bank. The decision of the neutral expert is binding. If the difference does not fall in the mandate of the neutral expert or the neutral expert rules that it should be treated as a 'dispute', it has to be submitted to a court of arbitration whose award is final.
In 1950, Pakistan proposed arbitration, but India refused. As David Lilienthal, former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, wrote in an article: 'No armies with bombs and shellfire could devastate a land so thoroughly as Pakistan could be devastated by the simple expedient of India's permanently shutting off the source of waters that keep the fields and people of Pakistan green. In 1952, World Bank President Eugene Black offered his good offices for a solution of the dispute that would provide India additional supplies of water without damage to Pakistan, which the two countries accepted. Negotiations over the highly technical issues took eight years to resolve. The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on 19 September 1960. It allocated the waters of the three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej) for use by the India, and the waters of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab) for use in Pakistan, except for (a) domestic and non-consumptive uses of the river waters in the areas under Indian control, and (b) for agriculture, subject to specified limits.
The compromise conceded to Indian what it wanted, but the World Bank raised the requisite funds for the construction of two large dams at Mangla on the Jhelum and Tarbela on the Indus and 400 miles of link canals from the western rivers in Pakistan to replace the loss due to diversion of waters of the eastern rivers by India. (Three of the seven link canals carry ten times as much water as the Thames,and twice as much as the Potomac.) Of the estimated expenditure of $1.3 billion on replacement works, the treaty required India to pay $170 million, while the United States contributed over $500 million and the rest was donated largely by Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand.
The Indus Waters Treaty was also farsighted in anticipating problems that might arise in interpretation and implementation of the complex agreement. World Bank experts in law, economics, construction, and engineering foresaw as many contingencies as were likely to arise, so that the treaty provides a self-executing mechanism for their peaceful resolution in a professional manner. Ind the first place, the Permanent Indus Commission, comprising high-level technical representatives of the two sides, has the responsibility to resolve differences of interpretation and ensure smooth implementation. In case the Commission is unable to agree on a 'question'of interpretation, the matter can be taken up at the level of government; and if governments also cannot agree, the 'difference'can be referred to a 'neutral expert'to be appointed by the parties or, if they fail to agree, by the World Bank. The decision of the neutral expert is binding. If the difference does not fall in the mandate of the neutral expert or the neutral expert rules that it should be treated as a 'dispute', it has to be submitted to a court of arbitration whose award is final.
US-Afghan war proved costly for both parties
US had spent US$1,070 billion on the war in Afghanistan. It placed the entire blame for failure on cross-border violence carried out by the Haqqani Network and the Taliban elements. In 2018, Trump flaunted $33 billion it gave Pakistan in aid over 15 years - $2.2 billion a year - but unlike friends and sympathizers - Britain, China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Russia - the USA did not once acknowledge the burden and sacrifices that Pakistan had incurred in the war on terror.
The US, International Security Assistance Force (INSAF), a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, and the Afghan government meanwhile deployed forces of 100,00 troops; the US spent $1,070 billion ion the war and $100 billion to build the Afghan forces but failed to establish control overt he Afghan border region, and placed the entire blame for cross-border violence on Pakistan, the Haqqani Network and Taliban elements.
The US, International Security Assistance Force (INSAF), a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, and the Afghan government meanwhile deployed forces of 100,00 troops; the US spent $1,070 billion ion the war and $100 billion to build the Afghan forces but failed to establish control overt he Afghan border region, and placed the entire blame for cross-border violence on Pakistan, the Haqqani Network and Taliban elements.
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
Clash of 1971 between Indian and Pakistan and Armed Struggle
All nuclear weapon states developed the capability in the context of their specific geo-political environment none was motivated by civilization, religion, or ideology. Pakistan, the first Muslim state to acquire nuclear technology, was motivated solely by the 'never again'resolve after the 1971 disaster. Until then, it had ruled out development of nuclear weapons and even refused a French company's offer of a plutonium separation plant in 1967. President Ayub Khan believed Pakistan could deter Indian aggression by conventional forces.
Years before he became president in December 1971, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had once rhetorically argued that if Christian, Communist, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu civilizations had the right to develop the nuclear bomb, why should Pakistan abstain from producing an 'Islamic bomb?'
When Pakistan actually embarked on the pursuit, Indian propagandists pounced on Bhutto's pronouncement to stroke atavistic prejudices in Indian and the West. The instigation became all the more sinister after the slogan of 'clash of civilizations'gained currency as a political idea and Osama Bin Lade unleashed terrorism against the United States.
Years before he became president in December 1971, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had once rhetorically argued that if Christian, Communist, Jewish, Buddhist, and Hindu civilizations had the right to develop the nuclear bomb, why should Pakistan abstain from producing an 'Islamic bomb?'
When Pakistan actually embarked on the pursuit, Indian propagandists pounced on Bhutto's pronouncement to stroke atavistic prejudices in Indian and the West. The instigation became all the more sinister after the slogan of 'clash of civilizations'gained currency as a political idea and Osama Bin Lade unleashed terrorism against the United States.
Uzair Baloch and Pakistan Peoples Party
As shown that Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has been close interacted with Uzair Baloch and now showing little concern about this and unanswered. Now the situation has been more complicated and complex because the political party has been dubious which is in power and government in Sindh. Some politicians and lawmakers from Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) has allegedly accused PPP has been guilty of same crime as Uzair Baloch an separatist activist and involved in target killing in Karachi for a long time after Mutahidda-Qaumi-Movement (MQM).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)