Thursday, August 24, 2017

Tahira syed - Yeh Aalam Shauq ka dekha na jaaye

Tahira Syed - Jhanjhar Pabdi Na Muthyar Bina

Pakistan - Christian talented girl in Coke Studio

Christian young lady Nirmal Roy is a Pakistani singer, born in Lahore Pakistan; she started her career in music at the age of twelve. Roy has performed and won numerous music competitions on national level, including the Voice of Kinnaird College in 2014. Besides that Nirmal also take part in rising star which is a Christian (religious geet competition) show.
Demonstrating her mantle on the original soundtrack for ‘Tera Mera Rishta’, Roy has worked on several musical projects with Shiraz Uppal. In 2016, she made her Coke Studio debut featured artist in the ninth season, with the song “Ala Bali”, with the tune “Ala Bali”, alongside Jabar Abbas, as a piece of group Sheraz Uppal.
Upon release, the song as well as Roy’s singing style was praised by both national and international audience. Without a doubt, Coke Studio is the greatest music show of Pakistan, which sets saga of veteran stars and young promising singers from nationwide.
Nirmal Roy returns to Coke Studio season 10 with her delicate heavenly voice.
Wish you all the best for your future and encourage you to rise the name of Christian community in Pakistan

Trump’s Afghanistan Review Bad News For Pakistan – OpEd

The military junta in Pakistan – the de facto rulers of the country – always harbored a nightmare and along with it an achievement, a victory of sorts, that they never  tired of boasting. The nightmare was an increased and acknowledged role of India in Afghanistan, which would mean Indian presence on the east and the west of the country that could clamp the Pakistani military down from the front and back.
The ‘achievement’ they always boasted was by maintaining an influence on Taliban, Pakistan, according to the military minds, has a strategic depth that would be a decisive and a vital factor in case of all-out attack from India from the east.
On the night of August 21, the junta saw the possibility of their nightmare becoming a reality and their remarkable ‘achievement’ turning into a remarkable disaster.
As the Afghan review completed and President Trump unfurled its key recommendation, the military and the media in Pakistan stood embarrassed searching for reaction and response to the most damning indictment of Pakistani support to militants on both sides of the border.
One, it not only promised India an enhanced role in Afghanistan, but it kind of asked India to act like a stabilizing force and broker the peace. Two, it bluntly asked Pakistan to desist from aiding the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan otherwise not only risk losing $850 million annual Coalition Support Fund but also the American support and goodwill that the country uses to borrow from international donors.
The Trump speech also contained a veiled threat that if Pakistan continue to harbor safe havens and sanctuaries for terrorists on its land, they ‘ll be taken out regardless of which side of the border they live on.
Short of a hostile military action, this was probably the most stark warning Washington could have issued. Pakistan military can afford and perhaps was looking forward to the loss of $850 million annual fund but it can not watch the Afghan account being transferred to their arch enemy right under their nose.
This so called ‘asset’ was watered and nurtured by Pakistani military and intelligence agencies ever since 1979 when Soviet forces entered Afghanistan and now here they are not only being shunted out of the country but they will have to bear its handing over to India. It will be naïve for Pentagon or Langley to think that Pakistan would let it happen without a fight but what are the option.
One, it reverts back to backing the insurgents with men and material like in the past and keep it boiling for India to a point that it becomes impossible for Delhi to sustain its role in Afghanistan. Pakistanis are veterans of this trade and they can do it but not without a huge cost and risk-taking.
The cost of this strategy would be to feel the heat in Balochistan and possibly urban Sindh. Because it would invite all kinds of players and actors to the arena and Pakistani territory would become a gian free zone where everyone would ply its trade. Ultimately, it could lead to extension of Afghan war that would be fought on Pakistani soil. This situation would become too hot to handle for Pakistani military.
Two, it severs all contacts with US military and intelligence agencies and start orbiting not only China but Russia as well. In this case China’s commitment for Pakistan would not be unlimited and its support will not be a blank cheque. To realize its dream of One Belt, One Road where Pakistan is a vital piece, China needs a trouble-free and peaceful access to Persian Gulf and Pakistani port of Gwadar. Beijing is spending billions of dollars to gain this land access to the mouth of Gulf and world’s energy route. Another spell of Pakistani support to militants in Afghanistan would seriously jeopardise China’s ambition and would keep attracting US and Western attention.
So at this point China would also ask Pakistan to break clean with the militants, leaving Islamabad hardly the choice of entangling in Afghanistan. Remotely it may pit Beijing against Washington on Pakistani soil and in this case Pakistan would find it hard to save its territorial integrity.
Third, Islamabad would extend a hand of friendship towards Iran and Russia to complete an axis against the US and Indian interests in the region. Here too competing interests in Afghanistan where Tehran and Moscow would not be interested in supporting Taliban and Pashtuns will render this effort to weave a so called grand alliance against the US and India. The eviction of the US troops from Afghanistan would certainly spark a short-term interest in both countries but both the countries are no friends of Taliban and no enemies to India.
In nutshell, Pakistan has no long-term applicable strategy in Afghanistan. It has now several bad choices to pick from.

Trump’s posturing on Pakistan is a gift to China

Abhishek Parajuli
Chinese soldiers parade during Pakistan Day celebrations in Islamabad.
Instead of maintaining a policy of careful diplomacy, the US president’s attack on the country has gifted China greater influence in an unstable region.

Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, is not a man predisposed to smiling. And yet, as I watched Donald Trump outline his Afghanistan strategy, I could easily imagine his face lighting up. If there is one clear winner of the new approach in Afghanistan, it is China.

The sternest rebuke in Trump’s speech was aimed at Pakistan. He called on Islamabad to “demonstrate its commitment to civilisation, order and peace” and said that the US could no longer stay silent about its “safe havens for terrorists”. While previous administrations have also voiced concerns, Trump decided to skip any subtlety and take a primetime dig at a non-Nato ally.
This is a serious strategic mistake. While Pakistan has harboured militants, its role has also evolved. It helps the US and its allies fight al-Qaida and the Taliban. It is also a crucial supply route for Nato troops in Afghanistan. The speech threatens to push Pakistan closer to China and jeopardises the fragile civil-military balance in the south Asian nation. In one speech, Trump has undone years of careful diplomacy in the region.
Pakistan’s close relationship with China goes back to 1950, when it became one of the first countries to recognise the new communist regime. The bonds are now so close they pose a threat to Indian and US interests. Beijing is planning to invest more than $55bn as part of the China-Pakistan economic corridor and in March, its soldiers marched in a foreign parade during Pakistan’s national day celebrations.
In a clear sign that Trump’s speech will bring the two even closer, China rushed to defend its ally, saying Pakistan “is at the frontline of fighting terrorism”.
Close ties between China and Pakistan are a problem for the US because it wants to use India to counterbalance China’s rise in the region. China supplies arms and funds to Pakistan, partly to keep tensions high on its border with India. A Pakistani ambassador to the US admitted as much when he called his country “a low-cost secondary deterrent to India”. With India distracted, China can then grow unchallenged in the region. Keeping Pakistan on side and preventing China from becoming its primary patron is thus crucial for the US.
The civilian government in Pakistan will also suffer because of Trump’s speech. The military in Pakistan has used the threat of India as a bogeyman to get a large slice of the budget and resist civilian meddling. Its influence has grown so large that some local television stations have instituted a 30-second buffer in live broadcasts to mute any criticism of the army. Recently, the US has been an ally for Pakistan’s civilian governments struggling to rein in the army. A 2011 diplomatic crisis illustrates this: the then-Pakistani ambassador to the US, Husain Haqqani, was forced to resign for compiling a memo asking the US to help avert a coup by his own army. No such call would ever go out to Beijing, because it has no soft spot for democracy. The likelihood of a military coup in Pakistan would increase substantially in the absence of a strong benefactor supporting democracy.
Finally, the speech was also counterproductive because of the call on India to “help more with Afghanistan”. Inviting Pakistan’s nuclear rival to intervene in Afghanistan is wholly counterproductive if the aim is to get Islamabad to back off. What is more, any hint that India is expanding activities in Afghanistan – militarily or otherwise – would again allow the Pakistani army to raise the spectre of Indian encirclement and tilt the civil-military balance in its favour.
There is a reason diplomacy is generally bereft of loud posturing. It is detrimental when dealing with complex issues, like an ally that is both wayward and critical. Barack Obama understood this as US president, and pressed Pakistan more subtly. Trump, as usual, has failed to grasp any nuance, choosing posturing over real effective diplomacy. A maestro of own goals, he has struck another one for US foreign policy.