M WAQAR.....
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary.Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
--Albert Einstein !!!
NEWS,ARTICLES,EDITORIALS,MUSIC... Ze chi pe mayeen yum da agha pukhtunistan de.....(Liberal,Progressive,Secular World.)''Secularism is not against religion; it is the message of humanity.''
تل ده وی پثتونستآن
چیئرمین پاکستان پیپلزپارٹی بلاولبھٹو کے ترجمان سینیٹر مصطفی نواز کھوکھر نے کہا ہے کہ حکومت کا نیب، ایفآئیاے اور دیگراداروں کے ساتھگٹھجوڑثابت ہو چکا ہے۔ وزیراعظم کے مشیر کی جے آئی ٹی کے اراکین سے ملاقات نے ساری حقیقت کھول کر رکھ دی ہے۔ سینیٹر مصطفی نواز کھوکھر نے کہا کہ شہزاد اکبر کا ایفآئیاے کے دفتر میں جانا نام نہاد گواہوں کو وہاں بلانا معنی خیز ہے۔ اب سمجھ میں آگیا ہے کہ وزراء کے بیانات ہی نیب اور ایفآئیاے کی تحقیقات کی بنیاد پر ہیں۔ پیپلزپارٹی کی قیادت کو دوبارہ سیف الرحمانی احتساب کا نشانہ بنایا جا رہا ہے۔ سینیٹر مصطفی نواز کھوکھر نے کہا کہ جو کچھ ہو رہا ہے اسے اب کوئی بھی احتساب نہیں مانے گا۔ پی پی پی کی قیادت کے خلاف میڈیا پر جھوٹے افسانے نشر کروانا وزیروں اور مشیروں کا کارنامہ ہے۔ نام نہاد تحقیقات کی رپورٹیں ابھی مرتب ہی نہیں ہوتیں اور میڈیا پر خبر چلائی جاتی ہے۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ سلیکٹڈ وزیراعظم اور ان کی ٹیم جو مرضی کرلے ہم میدان میں مقابلہ کریں گے۔
U.S. President Donald Trump’s reported plans to withdraw around 7,000 troops from Afghanistan, roughly half the remaining U.S. military presence there, has prompted much discussion about the impact the drawdown could have on the country.
Analysts interviewed by RFE/RL warn that a partial withdrawal would further degrade security, jeopardize possible peace talks with the Taliban aimed at ending its 17-year insurgency, and strain Washington’s relationship with the Western-backed government in Kabul.
'Exacerbate The Conflict'
The already worsening security situation in Afghanistan is likely to be exacerbated by a U.S. troop reduction, according to analysts.
A recent U.S. military report said Taliban control over Afghanistan has increased in recent months, and the government currently controls or influences only 55.5 percent of the country's districts -- the lowest level recorded since it began tracking the data in 2015.
"The Taliban has steadily captured territory in recent years and it's reasonable to expect that trend to continue," says Graeme Smith, an Afghanistan analyst and a consultant for the International Crisis Group, although he adds that in practical terms the withdrawal "may not make a significant difference on the battlefield," and Washington could replace departed troops with security contractors.
The United States would still have 7,000 troops in Afghanistan as part of a NATO-led mission and a separate U.S. counterterrorism mission, if the withdrawal order reported by various U.S. media outlets, citing officials, is carried out. The Pentagon also has 25,239 private security contractors deployed in Afghanistan.
Haroun Mir, an Kabul-based political analyst, says the vacuum left by withdrawing some U.S. forces could have wider security ramifications.
"A U.S. military drawdown without a well thought out strategy behind it and without concerted efforts with internal and regional stakeholders could further exacerbate the conflict in the country and intensify competition among regional stakeholders," Mir says, referring to countries that have been accused of providing support to the Taliban, including Pakistan, Iran, and Russia.
'Breathtakingly Bad' For Peace Talks
Trump's decision could scuttle U.S. efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict, analysts warn.
The U.S. special envoy for peace in Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad
U.S. special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad has met Taliban representatives during at least three separate rounds of direct talks in recent months as part of the effort to encourage negotiations between the Taliban and Kabul. The latest talks in the United Arab Emirates from December 17-19 were seen as the most significant yet.
"This makes no strategical sense, as it weakens the U.S.'s own position and that of its local ally, the Afghan government, in the midst of attempts to get a peace process going," says Thomas Ruttig, co-director of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, an independent think tank in Kabul.
Michael Kugelman, South Asia associate at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, says the timing of Trump's troop-withdrawal decision "is breathtakingly bad."
"Announcing a move like this now could squander the best chance to date to launch a peace process to end a war that has raged for far too long," says Kugelman, adding that Washington would lose a major bargaining chip in talks.
An Afghan official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told RFE/RL that Trump's reported decision suggests "some serious progress with talks" in the U.A.E, without elaborating.
Some analysts say the U.S. troop withdrawal could also have a silver lining and could send a useful message to all sides.
"This signals to the Taliban that the U.S. is serious about negotiating an exit," says Smith, adding that it would erode the militant’s skepticism that Washington is open to withdrawing from Afghanistan. "This will also force the Afghan government to think about peace as a short-term prospect instead of something that could be delayed for years."
'Kabul Was Blindsided'
Trump's reported decision apparently surprised Afghan officials, even though the U.S. president had previously voiced opposition to the U.S. war effort there. The Kabul government was not briefed on the plans.
"The sudden decision has come as a shock," an Afghan official, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media, told RFE/RL.
Afghan officials put up a brave face, with an adviser to President Ashraf Ghani writing on Twitter that the U.S. decision "will not affect our security."
During the past four and half years, the fight on the frontline and security of the entire nation was carried out by the same forces, and despite the overwhelming war, our national armed and air forces have strengthened day by day and they will grow in strength even more.
If the few thousand foreign troops that advise, train & assist, leave it will not affect our security, in the past four & half years our security is completely in the hands of Afghans and the final goal is that ANDSF will stand on their feet to protect & defend soil on their own.
"It's becoming clear that Kabul was blindsided," says Smith. "Diplomacy gets harder when the White House fails to coordinate with other branches of government and close U.S. allies."
"Considering the decision as a serious U.S. endgame step, political elites in Kabul will probably aim to close ranks and raise questions about the timing and commitments made to maintain stability," says Omar Samad, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Atlantic Council and former Afghan diplomat.
US media have reported that President Donald Trump is planning to withdraw half of American troops from Afghanistan. Analysts say the move would give the upper hand to the Taliban and their ostensible backer, Pakistan.
US media claims that these soldiers could be heading back home within months.
These reports emerged after President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the "Islamic State" militant group had been defeated in Syria and thus the Middle Eastern country no longer required US troops there.
But the Taliban – the strongest militant force in Afghanistan – have not been defeated yet. On the contrary, their control over Afghan territories has increased manifold in the past few years. If this is the case, why must Washington reduce its presence in the war-torn country?
The US has intensified efforts to find a political solution with the Taliban in the past few months, with Zalmay Khalilzad, the US' special representative for Afghanistan, holding several high-profile talks with Taliban leaders in Qatar.
A victory for Pakistan?
These talks are being facilitated by Pakistan, whose prime minister, Imran Khan, maintains that the Islamist group can't be defeated through war.
However, both Kabul and Washington have been skeptical of Islamabad's long-term motives in Afghanistan. Afghan and US officials have repeatedly said that Pakistan backs some factions of the Taliban that destabilize the Afghan government. By doing that, the powerful Pakistani military hopes to minimize Indian influence in Afghanistan and a return of the Taliban in Afghan politics, they say.
Pakistan's military and civil establishment, analysts say, still consider the Taliban an important strategic ally, who they think should be part of the Afghan government after the NATO pullout.
Observers say that the Pakistani military hopes to regain the influence in Kabul it once enjoyed before the United States and its allies toppled the pro-Pakistan Taliban government in 2001.
Pakistan's Afghanistan policy hasn't changed since the US toppled the Taliban regime in 2001, but the Trump administration's stance toward Islamabad has wavered in the past few weeks, experts point out.
The potential US troop reduction would likely to give an upper hand to Islamabad in dictating the future political setup in Afghanistan.
Siegfried O. Wolf from the Brussels-based South Asia Democratic Forum (SADF) told DW that he was convinced that several elements within the Pakistani security apparatus still believe that the Taliban could be used as a strategic tool to counter Indian presence in Afghanistan.
'Weakening your own position'
It remains to be seen whether President Trump would actually withdraw 7,000 troops from Afghanistan, but the fact that the US Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis – one of the main supporters of a strong US military presence in Afghanistan – is leaving his post in February, 2019, has definitely created more uncertainty around the West's Afghan mission.
"If the US actually goes ahead with the troop reduction plan, it would be a manifestation of Trump's 'America First' policy," Thomas Ruttig, an expert from the Afghan Analysts Network, told DW.
"But at a time with Khalilzad is trying to negotiate with the Taliban, the troop reduction does not make any sense," he added.
"This would weaken the positions of both Washington and Kabul in the middle of peace talks," Ruttig emphasized.
But some experts are of the view that a potential troop withdrawal could be a calculated decision by Trump.
"The Taliban have repeatedly stressed that they would only make peace with the Afghan government once US troops leave the country," Wahid Muzhdah, a Kabul-based security analyst and a former Taliban official, told DW.
"Reports of the US troop reduction are probably meant to give some assurance to the Taliban – assurance that the US does not plan to stay in the country forever," Muzhda added.
Alienating Kabul
Attiqullah Amarkhail, a retired Afghan army general, has a different take on the situation. He said that the media reports about a possible troop reduction could be a message for the Afghan government, which is not on the same page with Khalilzad on how to pursue peace talks.
"It sends a message to Kabul that it should back the US plan or face the Taliban on its own," Amarkhail told DW.
President Ashraf Ghani's government is reportedly unhappy with Pakistan-mediated talks between the Taliban and the US. It believes that it will further weaken its position and will leave it out of the future political setup in Afghanistan. That is why Kabul once again stressed that peace negotiations should be Afghan-owned and Afghan-led.
Analysts believe that Pakistan could be the main beneficiary if the Trump administration goes ahead with troop withdrawal.
"It shows that Trump does not care about Afghanistan," said analyst Ruttig.
IT was a statement that, in the context of its direct implications, should set off alarm bells. On Thursday, in a written reply to the Senate, Federal Minister for Education and Professional Training Shafqat Mahmood said that the national literacy rate had dropped from 60 to 58pc in the span of two years, a figure that is only better than Afghanistan’s in this region. Unesco’s Global Education Monitoring Report data, meanwhile, recorded female adult illiteracy at 63pc in 2017. The minister attributed the decrease in overall literacy to Pakistan’s burgeoning population growth, which vastly outpaces the limited resources of a public education system in crisis, with approximately 25m children currently out of school. Experts have estimated that, left unchecked, Pakistan’s population could grow by as much as another 30pc by 2030.
That other Muslim countries, such as Bangladesh and Iran, have successfully brought their populations’ growth under control and boast significantly higher literacy rates than Pakistan, despite serious economic challenges, demonstrates that these issues have much more to do with policymakers’ continuous abdication of responsibility in terms of human development. The divergent human development paths Pakistan and Bangladesh have taken since 1971 has resulted in the latter now having considerably improved social indicators, despite once being commonly associated with poverty and overpopulation. This it accomplished with early and consistent interventions, such as introducing a large-scale health worker programme, decades prior to Pakistan doing so, and public-awareness campaigns on family planning across mass media platforms. On the other hand, Pakistan’s Lady Health Workers, the first point of access for reproductive health services for many underprivileged women since the 1990s, are faltering under the pressure of heavy workloads, limited resources and poor salaries. Meanwhile, efforts to promote family planning by advertising contraceptives on electronic media are consistently obstructed under the guise of ‘public decency’.
The fact that Bangladesh managed to achieve almost universal primary school net enrolment by 2015, and gender parity in access to both primary and secondary education, is a significant reason why its population planning measures have succeeded. It is well established that there is a causal relationship between a girl who goes to school, even for a short while, and having fewer children in her lifetime than a girl who doesn’t. Women’s empowerment in general, and girls’ education in particular, is key to resolving the socioeconomic strain caused by overpopulation, and ensuring that basic service provision can rise to and keep pace with the population’s needs. So, while the federal education minister’s proposal to boost adult literacy is commendable, it pales in comparison to the need for women to have a proportional stake in decision-making — in family planning at the personal level, and in policy planning at the political level.
In 1971, nearly five decades ago Pakistan, lost its eastern part after civil war; loss of that part is one of the biggest tragedies in the history of this country. Pakistan not only loss its geography but also its face that how political, economic and ethnic grievances, if not solved timely could divide a nation which was founded on the base of ideology. It brings us to the point that ideologies do play important role in bringing people together to form a nation but they cannot act as binding factor if political, lingual and cultural liberties are not respected by the all segments of the nation.
Fall of Dhaka endorsed the proverb that “you cannot always create a situation but can always exploit one”, when India took a benefit of the worsening situation in eastern border and not only send its forces but also provide finances and arms to the gorillas. Resultantly, the internal conflict took the situation of civil war in Eastern Pakistan and full fledge war between Indian and Pakistan.
In 1971, other external powers from whom intervention was expected to stop the war never intervened to stop the war as result Pakistan had to rely on itself. This act of external powers like US and China reveals that there are no permanent friends and enemies in international system but only permanent interests. So, to protect one’s own interests and sovereignty only reliable allay is one’s self. This lesson learned by Pakistan in 1971 war was duly endorsed by the India’s 1974 nuclear test, which brought Pakistan closer to the decision of nuclearization for its security vis-à-vis India.
Most important lessons from 1971 for Pakistan lies with the internal situation of country actors like only played their part in exploiting the situation but not in creating the situation. Today Pakistan has secured itself against Indian aggression and has also learned that if internal situation ever goes South it will be exploited by India.
Moreover, Pakistan knows that Indian intelligence agencies are playing their part in supporting the banned military outfits in Pakistan; its example is arrest of Kulboshen Yadev, serving officer of Indian Navy from Baluchistan. Who later on excepted that RAW is supporting and funding Baluch Liberation Army. But the question here arises why parties like BLA come into being? Its first answer could be that because there are always anti-state element within the state. But, another reason could be the grievances which are not addressed by the governments and resulting in armed movements are started to solve these grievances.
However, the need of the hour is that elected governments should work more towards the political rights of the neglected parts of country which are continuously demanding these rights. At the moment, different segments in society are demanding the separate provinces for themselves because their issues are not streamlined in larger provinces. One such example is demand of Seraiki province by the people of South Punjab, which should be readily accepted. Not only the demand of Seraiki Province but of other provinces as well.
Moreover, we should have learned from the fall of Dhaka and have taken the measures to included Gilgit-Baltistan into national streamline as this is the demand of the people of that area. So, that their issues and voice could reach into the parliament through their elected representatives.
Another alarming factor is the rise of ethnicity in the country. One cannot deny the role of ethnicity in bringing the 1971 upon Pakistan. now, after 48 years of 1971 Pakistan is still divided into ethnic conflicts and different ethnic minorities are targeted inn different part of the country. The positive aspects are that ethnicity is not supported by any government but its mere existence in state is alarming and should be controlled.
These issues which Pakistan is facing should be addressed properly and resolved as we have learned from 1971 that they have the potential to become national security threats and can even lead to the disintegration of the country. It is also the responsibility of governments to cater political and economic rights of its citizens as it promotes national integration and put county on the path of prosperit
ON OCTOBER 30, THE ENTRANCE to Pakistan’s Parliament House, in Islamabad, was bustling with journalists, parliamentarians, and political activists. But rather than reporting, the journalists were protesting. A few sat on the ground, making pakodas—a South Asian fried snack—while others, placards in hands, chanted angry slogans.
“It is the worst financial crisis the media industry has seen since it was liberalized,” Afzal Butt, the president of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists, says. (Pakistani broadcast media, previously under the exclusive control of the government, was in 2002 opened up to private ownership.) But the financial paralysis of news outlets has not been entirely a function of the market. It has been a direct result of the government’s recent austerity measures.
Over the summer, the government—the biggest source of advertising revenue for media organizations—stopped paying what it owed. “News media in Pakistan, despite knowing its drawbacks, still rely heavily on government advertisements and subsidies,” Saroop Ijaz, Human Rights Watch’s Pakistan reporter, says. At the time, the cut-off was seen as part of a broad effort by Imran Khan, the cricketer turned politician who was elected prime minister in August, to slash government expenditures.
Yet many journalists and free-press activists believe the motivation was more sinister. In their view, the government has attempted to financially squeeze dissenting voices among the news media. “It’s not like a flash flood that caught townspeople by surprise,” Butt says. “It’s a properly planned crisis orchestrated by several state organs.”
Pakistan’s government has stifled reporters and other critics before. Other methods have included arrest, prohibitions on leaving the country, abductions, and violent attacks. Pakistan’s military, which wields significant influence over civilian matters, “quietly, but effectively, restricts reporting by barring access, encouraging self-censorship through direct and indirect acts of intimidation, and even allegedly instigating violence against reporters,” according to a recent report by the Committee to Protect Journalists. Around 60 journalists have been killed in Pakistan since 1992, and CPJ estimates that the military, government, or associated political groups were responsible for half of those killed in the past decade.
Matiullah Jan, an Islamabad-based television journalist known for his pro-democracy views, was among the first victims of the layoffs this fall. Previously, he says, officials would directly threaten journalists to gag criticism—something Jan believes he experienced last year, when two men on motorbikes pulled up next to the vehicle he and his children were traveling in and smashed the windshield with a rock. “Now they are using sophisticated methods to trigger a financial crisis,” he says.
In addition to limiting advertising, Jan explains, the government can attempt to bring down networks’ ratings by shuffling channel assignments—making shows difficult to find—or pressuring cable operators to take critical news channels off the air (both of which happened to Pakistani TV network Geo this spring), or limiting circulation of certain newspapers.
One of the newsrooms that believes itself to have been targeted by financial suppression is Dawn, Pakistan’s largest and most respected English-language daily paper. In 2016, Cyril Almeida, a reporter for Dawn, reported leaks from the proceedings of a national security council meeting, during which the government confronted military leadership over inaction against certain terrorist groups. “Dawn leaks” became a major political talking point, and led Pakistan’s information minister to resign. During a government-commissioned inquiry into the matter, Dawn editors refused to name their sources, and Almeida was temporarily barred from leaving the country. Since then, the paper claims, government officials have choked the paper’s circulation, barring its distribution in several cities and military cantonments, special zones across the country that are controlled and managed by the armed forces. In September, Almeida was hit with treason charges,and was again barred from leaving the country, this time because of an interview published in May in which he quoted Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister, implicitly criticizing the military for its policies on terrorism.
MATIULLAH JAN BELIEVES THAT the military and Khan’s party, the Pakistan Justice Movement, are in cahoots to suppress the critical press. “Something strange has happened,” Jan says. “In the previous government there was a clear divide between the military and the civilians which was often expressed publicly; however, the current government and the military are on the same page when it comes to freedom of expression.”
There is some evidence to support this theory. This fall, in addition to media layoffs, reports surfaced that Khan’s administration was attempting to exert increased control over social media. This was not a first: a group of bloggers claims they were abducted in January by military-intelligence for critical Twitter and Facebook posts, and this spring the Pakistan military’s director general of public relations distributed photos of journalists, including Jan, whom he accused of spreading “anti-state” propaganda by sharing material from an alleged Twitter troll. But since taking office, Khan has led his government to seek more direct means of control. In November, Fawad Chaudhry, the information and broadcasting minister, announced that the administration was considering creating a new body to regulate social media along with broadcast, print, and digital content, which are already overseen by other government agencies.
The Council of Pakistan Newspaper Editors expressed grave concerns over Chaudhry’s proposal. “History suggests that a push for media regulation by the state is often only a pretext for greater state control of the media,” the editors of Dawn wrote in a scathing editorial. (Information Ministry officials did not respond to a request for comment.)
BACK AT PARLIAMENT, IN OCTOBER, the protesting reporters demanded that the government stop forcing news outlets to downsize. “Before punishing the owners and the management of TV channels and newspapers … the government should have mulled over its consequences, which has resulted in non-payment of salaries to media staff and sacking of hundreds of journalists,” Afzal Butt told local journalists.
The outcry over the media layoffs eventually prompted a response from Chaudhry, who announced in November that Khan had asked all government departments to clear their outstanding advertising dues with news organizations.
And the targeting of journalists who criticize Pakistan’s leadership has continued. Murtaza Solangi, a veteran journalist, was pressured in October by station management to leave Capital TV, where he was the Islamabad bureau chief and hosted a prime-time show, over tweets critical of the government’s security policies and military intervention in state politics. Recently, he was alerted via Twitter that the government had reported one of his tweets—defending a human rights activist—for violating Pakistani law. This month, it was reported that Twitter sent several other emails to journalists and activists informing them of the same thing.
For Solangi, the problem appears rooted in shifting strategic dynamics as Pakistan moves away from its traditional allies in the West. He believes that Khan has his eye on China, and aims to show he can follow its lead. “China has invested billions in the country and is expected to bail Pakistan out of the current financial crisis,” Solangi says.
China, Solangi believes, has influenced the government to move away from press freedom. “Previously, the trade agreements with Europe were often linked to Pakistan’s progress on human rights and freedom of expression, which ensured a constant check and balance system.” Solangi says. “With China, that is not the case.”
