|Pakistan's Gen AK Niazi Signing Surrender in East Pakistan|
Was it a blunder for Pakistan's founders to align with the United States early on? What was the alternative for a nascent cash-strapped state that faced imminent economic collapse? Who other than the United States had the deep pockets to help Pakistan in 1947 when the Soviet Union, Europe and Japan lay in ruins at the end of WW II? Would the construction of big dams and irrigation system in Pakistan have happened without the US help? Would the Green Revolution have come about if the US did not help?
|US Aid in 66 Years|
Was the passage of the Objectives Resolution in 1949 among the blunders of Pakistan's early leaders? Did it distract from framing an inclusive and unifying constitution of the nation-state? Did it promote religious discrimination and extremism in the country? Was the 2nd amendment to the 1973 Constitution declaring Ahmedis non-Muslims a logical consequence of it?
Did the failures of Pakistan's political class open the doors for military coups starting with the 1958 coup led by General Mohammad Ayub Khan? How did the military coups led by General Yahya Khan, General Zia ul Haq and General Pervez Musharraf impact Pakistan? Could these coups have been avoided?
What led to the loss of Pakistan's eastern wing and the creation of Bangladesh in 1971? Was it a political failure or a military failure? Was it orchestrated by India with the help of Shaikh Mujib ur Rehman starting with Agartala Conspiracy in 1960s? Was it a blunder for Gen Zia to join the United States and Saudi Arabia in support of the Afghan Jihad against the Soviet Union in 1980s? Did it promote militarization of religious fanatics in Pakistan? Was it a mistake for Benazir Bhutto to give birth to the Taliban?
Did Musharraf blunder by siding with the United States after Sept 11, 2001 terror attacks in America? What was the alternative? Would the porous Afghan-Pakistan border allow Pakistan to be a silent observer?
Azad Labon Ke Sath host Faraz Darvesh discusses these questions with panelists Misbah Azam and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)
South Asia Investor Review
US Aid to Pakistan
1971 Debacle in East Pakistan
Is it 1971 Moment in Pakistan's History?
Mission RAW by RK Yadav: India in East Pakistan
Benazir Bhutto Gave Birth to Taliban
What if Musharraf Had Said No to US After 911?
Riaz Haq Youtube Channel
VPOS Youtube Channel
India had a population of 10 times more than Pakistan in 1947. Almost 40 million of then were muslims, who were supposed to have migrated to pakistan but stayed back. So the Aid given to India is very miniscule compared to what Pakistan received, per capita wise. It is about 8 times less. That way Pakistan is a huge benificiary. Also pakistan benifited cron the property left behind by Hindus. Before being chased away, they were holding 75% of Pakistan economy. So in my opinion, Pakistan had really good start. But their enmity towards India destroyed it totally within. Instead of moving ahead, they are stuck in 1947. They must wake up before it is too late. They are committing mistakes after mistakes. CPEC is an example.
Hindus appear to be worried by the encirclement of India by China. Hindus are covetous of the mineral resources and desire to take over the Muslim lands of central Asia and middle east. Pakistan stands in its way from their nefarious design to dominate Muslim lands.
Sure India is several times bigger than Pakistan but you forgot the fact that India was colonized for a larger amount of time and thus the infrastructure and educational institutes were well developed. Whereas Pakistan had only five factories and only two major towns.
You would be well advised to read some history. Pakistani state started with nothing. Our elders tell us that the government offices didn’t even have pen and paper to write. Makes me wonder how much the “fleeing Hindus” stole. In ten weeks between June 3rd and august 14th, and overwhelming majority of businesses that were based in Karachi moved to Bombay. So the properties that were left behind had no buyers, because no one had money to spend.
Every time you start a friendly conversation with an Indian, it takes them seven minutes to mention that partition was wrong and you have the audacity to say that Pakistanis are living in 1947.
I think time has come for Indians to come out of this victim mentality and start acting like adults.
Mikael Mayet: "Hindus appear to be worried by the encirclement of India by China. Hindus are covetous of the mineral resources and desire to take over the Muslim lands of central Asia and middle east. Pakistan stands in its way from their nefarious design to dominate Muslim lands."
India has no nefarious designs in Central Asia. Don't have any problem with them. If Pakistan wasn't there, our trade relations with them would've been much better benefitting both.
Islam and the State: A Counter Narrative
by Javed Ahmad Ghamidi
The situation which has been created today for Islam and Muslims in the whole world by certain extremist organizations is an evil consequence of the ideology taught in our religious seminaries, and also propagated day and night by Islamic movements and religious political parties. The true understanding of Islam, in contrast to this, has been presented by this writer in his treatise Mizan. This understanding actually constitutes a counter narrative. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this writer that when in a Muslim society anarchy is created on the basis of religion, the remedy to this situation is not advocacy of secularism. On the contrary, the solution lies in presenting a counter narrative to the existing narrative on religion. Its details can be looked up in the aforementioned treatise. However, the part of it which relates to Islam and the state is summarized below.
1. The message of Islam is primarily addressed to an individual. It wants to rule the hearts and minds of people. The directives it has given to the society are also addressed to individuals who are fulfilling their responsibilities as the rulers of Muslims. Hence, it is baseless to think that a state also has a religion and there is a need to Islamize it through an Objectives Resolution and that it must be constitutionally bound to not make any law repugnant to the Qur'an and Sunnah. People who presented this view and were successful in having it implemented actually laid the foundations of a permanent division in the nation states of these times: it gave the message to the non-Muslims that they are in fact second rate citizens who at best occupy the status of a protected minority and that if they want to demand anything from the real owners of the state must do this in this capacity of theirs.
2. It can be the dream of every person that countries in which Muslims are in majority should unite under a single rule and we can also strive to achieve this goal but this is not a directive of the Islamic shari'ah which today Muslims are guilty of disregarding. Certainly not! Neither is khilafah a religious term nor its establishment at the global level a directive of Islam. After the first century hijrah, when celebrated jurists of the Muslims were among them, two separate Muslim kingdoms, the Abbasid kingdom in Baghdad and the Umayyad kingdom in Spain had been established and remained so for many centuries. However, none of these jurists regarded this state of affairs to be against the Islamic shari'ah. The reason is that there is not a single directive found on this issue in the Qur'an and the Hadith. On the contrary, what everyone, including this writer, does say is that if at any place a state is established, rebelling against it is a heinous crime. Such is the horrific nature of this crime that the Prophet (sws) is reported to have said that a person who does so dies the death of jahiliyyah.
SMOKERS’ CORNER: CREATING PSEUDOHISTORY
Nadeem F. ParachaUpdated January 26, 2020Facebook Count
“...historian and author Dr Yaqoob Khan Bangash argues in his essay for the June 5, 2016 issue of Political Economy, that latter-day ‘leftists’ who censure the resolution are largely unfamiliar with the idea of Islam held by the founders of Pakistan.
He writes that this idea was radically different from the one held by ‘Islamists’ from the 1970s onward. He gave the example of how Mian Iftikharuddin, a staunch secularist and socialist, defended the Objectives Resolution when it came under attack in the assembly by non-Muslim members.
Like Jinnah, Iftikharuddin described Islam as a ‘progressive and democratic faith’ which, when applied politically, would benefit Pakistan’s ‘Muslim and Hindu have-nots.’
PM Liaquat Ali Khan insisted that the resolution was opposed to theocratic rule and was greatly mindful of minority rights, Islamic scholar Abul Ala Maududi was not amused.
The Objectives Resolution was a preamble of Pakistan’s first constitution passed in 1956 and then again of the 1973 constitution. But Burki points out that the 1956 constitution was not even half as ‘Islamic’ as the 1973 one. This is because, as some commentators have noted, the meaning of Islam in the political context began to dramatically mutate from the mid-1970s, becoming more populist and then stringent (compared to what it was in the 1950s and 1960s).”
Post a Comment