Saturday, February 1, 2020
منظور پشتین کی گرفتاری کے بعد پشتون تحفظ موومنٹ کا اگلا قدم
پشتون تحفظ موومنٹ نے دس رکنی سٹیرنگ کمیٹی تشکیل دی ہے جس کے ذمے منطور پشتین کی رہائی سے متعلق قانونی معاملات کو دیکھنا اور ارمان لونی کی پہلی برسی کے انتطامات کو حتمی شکل دینا ہے۔
منظور پشتین کی گرفتاری کے بعد پشتون تحفظ موومنٹ نے مستقبل کے لائحہ عمل کا اعلان کر دیا ہے۔
اسی حوالے سے پی ٹی ایم کے سربراہ منظور پشتین کی رہائی اور پروفیسرارمان لونی کی پہلی برسی کے موقع پردس رکنی سٹیرنگ کمیٹی تشکیل کی گئی ہے۔
کمیٹی کی ذمہ داریوں میں منطور پشتین کی رہائی سے متعلق قانونی معاملات کو دیکھنا اور دو فروری کو ارمان لونی کی پہلی برسی کے موقع پر انتطامات کو حتمی شکل دینا ہے۔
صحافی گوہر محسود اور زہرہ کاظمی کے مطابق سٹیرنگ کمیٹی کا اعلان پختون تحفظ موومنٹ کی جانب سے پہلی بارباضابطہ کسی کمیٹی کا اعلان کرنا ہے۔ سٹیرنگ کمیٹی کا پہلا با ضابطہ اجلاس محسن داوڑ کی سربراہی میں جمعے کے روز پشاور میں منعقد ہوا۔
سٹیرنگ کمیٹی کے اجلاس میں پروفیسر ارمان لونی کی پہلی برسی منانے کا اعلان کیا گیا۔
ارمان لونی کا تعلق بلوچستان کے علاقے سنجانی سے تھا۔ وہ بلوچستان میں پی ٹی ایم کے بانی رہنمائوں میں سے تھے۔ وہ بلوچستان کے سرکاری کالج میں پروفیسر تھے۔ پشتون تحفظ مومنٹ کی جانب سے الزام عائد کیا جاتا ہے کہ دو فروری 2019 کو لورالائی میں پی ٹی ایم کے ایک احتجاجی جلسے کے دوران وہ مبینہ طور پر پولیس تشدد کے باعث ہلاک ہو گئے تھے۔
پی ٹی ایم کے دعوے کے مطابق ارمان لونی کی موت احتجاجی مظاہرے میں موجود سرکاری اہلکاروں کے تشدد کے نتیجہ میں ہوئی اور اس سلسلے میں پی ٹی ایم قانونی چارہ جوئی پر بھی کام کر رہی ہے ، تاہم سرکاری موقف اور جاری کی گئی پوسٹ مارٹم رپورٹ کے مطابق ارمان لونی کی موت دل کا دورہ پڑنے کی وجہ سے ہوئی۔
اس کمیٹی کے قیام سے متعلق رکن قومی اسمبلی محسن داوڑ نے بھی سماجی رابطوں کی ویب سائٹ ٹویٹر پر ٹویٹ کی ہے۔
PTM Steering committee meeting.
On 2 Feb PTM will commemorate anniversary of Arman Shaheed & hold global protests for #ReleaseManzoorPashteen.
This will be followed by:
9th feb Jalsa in loralai
9th feb protest in Karachi
16th feb Jalsa in D I Khan
1st march Jalsa in Charsada.
1,042 people are talking about this
کمیٹی میں ارکان قومی اسمبلی محسن داوڑ اور علی وزیر سمیت ڈاکٹر سید عالم محسود اور بلال محسود شامل ہیں، دیگر کمیٹی اراکین میں
ادریس پشتین، ندیم عسکر، حاجی عبدالصمداور عبداللہ ننگیال شامل ہیں۔
کمیٹی میں ارکان قومی اسمبلی محسن داوڑ اور علی وزیر سمیت ڈاکٹر سید عالم محسود اور بلال محسود شامل ہیں، دیگر کمیٹی اراکین میں ادریس پشتین، ندیم عسکر، حاجی عبدالصمداور عبداللہ ننگیال شامل ہیں۔
منظور پشتین کی رہائی کے سلسلے میں نو فروری سے یکم مارچ تک ملک کے مختلف شہروں میں چار احتجاجی مظاہروں کے انعقاد کا بھی اعلان کیا گیاہے۔ محسن داوڑ نے اپنے ٹویٹ میں کہا ہے کہ منظور پشتین کی رہائی کے سلسلے میں دینا بھر میں احتجاجی مظاہرے ہوں گے۔
پی ٹی ایم ذرائع نے کے مطابق نو فروری کو لورالائی میں جلسہ اور کراچی میں احتجاجی مظاہرہ ہو گا۔ جبکہ 16 فروری کو ڈیرہ اسمعٰیل خان میں جلسئہ عام ہو گا۔ یکم مارچ کو چار سدہ میں بھی جلسے کا اعلان کیا گیا ہے۔
کمیٹی نے یہ بھی فیصلہ کیا کہ جلسوں کے لیے مقررہ ایام پر سوشل میڈیا پر ’ریلیز منظور پشتین ‘ کا ٹرینڈ بھی چلایا جائے گا۔
Why Pakistan loses its best - By Pervez Hoodbhoy
TWO weeks ago Pakistan’s only well-known mathematician left for the Western world. He has no plans to return. Since the country has almost no real mathematicians — a bare half a dozen or less — the loss was huge. But who cares? Preoccupied by politics of the boot, busy gorging imported luxury products, and feverishly preparing for travel to the hereafter, our moribund culture is indifferent to math or physics.
But in living and vibrant cultures, both new and old, mathematicians and theoretical physicists are seen very differently. In millennia past, Pythagoras and Plato were cult leaders who saw in geometry the wondrous key unlocking the universe’s secrets. They demanded from their students accurate definitions, clearly stated assumptions, and logical deductive proof — the very stuff that makes mathematics the queen of sciences and the mother of physics. Everything in the modern world from spacecraft and internet to pharmaceuticals and chewing gum owes itself to such rigorous mental training.
Below is a story for all who wonder why Pakistan sorely loses out in the modern world, why its universities consistently fail to keep our best and brightest, and why there’s no genuine culture of learning and research. While it’s about just one person, there are countless stories of others who returned to Pakistan but eventually gave up.
Around 1994-1995, I received a handwritten letter from someone saying he was deeply interested in studying theoretical physics. It was signed by some Amer Iqbal. Filled with neatly written formulae, it seemed moderately interesting but little more. I replied, suggesting he visit.
Weeks later, a tall lad in his late teens walked into my office at Quaid-e-Azam University. I was then teaching a subject called quantum field theory whose comprehension requires years of mathematical preparation. The boy seemed bright but I said he wouldn’t be able to follow my course. I was wrong. He rapidly self-studied the needed background and, to my amazement, was soon picking out my occasional mistakes on the blackboard.This is the story of Pakistan’s most recognised mathematician and why we finally lost him.
Delighted, I suggested MIT for a PhD. Although all its departments are extremely competitive, MIT’s departments of theoretical physics and mathematics can be terrifying. Even with 100 per cent perfect GRE scores and excellent grades, overseas candidates have a hard time getting in and then surviving. Fortunately, I had colleagues on the MIT faculty with whom I had either collaborated on research or who had been on my PhD committee. After an initial hiccup it all worked out and Amer was on his way.
The rest is history. His PhD research and a series of brilliant papers soon established Amer in high academia. MIT’s Professor Jeffrey Goldstone — of Goldstone Boson fame (the Higgs Boson or so-called God Particle derives from the Goldstone Boson) — is also famously frugal for words. But in a corridor encounter about 20 years ago, he somehow strung together enough of them to gruffly bark a “thank you” at me for sending Amer to MIT. At the next stage, Steven Weinberg — who co-shared the 1979 Nobel Prize with Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow — invited him for post-doctoral research at the University of Texas (Austin).
The young man was flowering. During short subsequent visits to the United States from Pakistan, he was co-authoring papers with the world’s outstanding mathematicians (Okounkov, Yau, etc) and famous string-theory physicists (Vafa, Zwiebach, etc). Only practitioners in the super stratified world of high science can understand what this really means. Amer Iqbal is still the sole Pakistani invited to lecture at high-level meetings on problems at the interface of theoretical physics and mathematics.
None of this cut much ice with his colleagues in Pakistani institutions. Six years of teaching and research at Lums (2009-2015) ended with Amer’s forced resignation and unceremonious exit. Some of his peers — jealous intellectual midgets — were threatened by his academic stature and conspired against him. Lums has never explained why he was fired.
The next stint — at the Abdus Salam School for Mathematical Sciences (AS-SMS) in Lahore — lasted another five years and ended no better. Instead of a regular appointment, he was given a year-to-year contract, a situation leaving appointees vulnerable and forced to curry favour with higher ups. For Amer that was out of the question.
But it was his exposing a mega-scandal that ended everything. Readers are referred to my Dawn article, ‘Our ghost mathematicians’, which tells how at least Rs638 million were paid in fake salaries at AS-SMS. I began the article saying: “To be named below are several persons who would have ended up behind bars in any country where there is rule of law. Several others — whether complicit or negligent — would be shamed, reviled and removed from their current official positions. Knowing that nothing will happen here in Pakistan, this is still a story I must tell.”
That story was told and indeed nothing happened — except that Amer’s contract was not renewed. One hears that HEC has launched a scam investigation. But committees are made to whitewash crimes, not to catch crooks.
Nevertheless, the truth filtered out. Days later my Dawn article was picked up by BBC. Its diligent researchers located several European ‘ghost mathematicians’ from 10 years ago as well as the former director of AS-SMS who ran away with the loot (of course, he denies it). In essence this BBC report (accessible at https://www.bbc.com/urdu/pakistan-50490259) corroborated Amer’s extraordinary 456-page investigative report. Earlier posted on the AS-SMS official website, it was removed last month. Presumably this is to protect others complicit in the heist at AS-SMS.
Pakistan’s universities — all of them — are cesspools of political filth and intrigue. In a system with perverted values and nonsensical selection criteria, duffers who fail at all else become lauded university professors. Today they rule the roost. Even if Pakistan somehow attracts back its best and brightest from foreign lands, they will soon leave unless our universities can be made to respect the rule of law and operate on principles of strict merit, fair play and transparency. It is hard to see how any of these conditions can be met in the near future.
#Pakistan - #Balochs should work for independent ‘#Balochistan and united-J&K’ through plebiscite for realizing mini-SAARC. By Hem Raj Jain
Agitation of the Balochs for independence is reaching nowhere. By this time also the delusion of the people of Balochistan must have evaporated which got generated due to India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day Speech on 15 August 2016 where Modi raised the issue of Pakistan’s human rights violations in Balochistan and which raised absurd and false hopes in the minds of the gullible Balochs that now India would help the Balochs in gaining independence as India did in Bangladesh in 1971 (though it is impossible for military reasons for India in Balochistan).
Despite legitimate case for the independence of Balochistan it has not been able to achieve independence for so long because of lack of effective policies and which has caused them to suffer immense atrocities and human rights violation at the hands of the State of Pakistan. The Balochs can still achieve independence, sooner than later, if do the following: -
(1)- Indian military entered J&K after ‘Instrument of Accession’ (IoA) of J&K to India was signed in October 1947 by its ruler in view of Pak invasion of J&K. But IoA of Baluchistan was signed (at gun point) in February 1948 (after Pakistan military invaded Balochistan) by its ruler who was not even authorized to sign this IoA as the Parliament (Dar-ul-Awam) has passed resolution for independence of Balochistan as succinctly mentioned at https://baluchsarmachar.wordpress.com/2018/03/31/how-balochistan-became-a-part-of-pakistan-a-historical-perspective-2/ .
(2)- Hence the IoA of Balochistan to Pakistan is not worth the paper it is written on because as per international law the political fate of Balochistan (in view of said resolution by Dar-ul-Awam) is supposed to be decided by the people of Balochistan through plebiscite / referendum (especially in this age of human-rights-friendly world which is already moving towards realizing ‘ New horizon for mankind’ as mentioned at https://www.alwihdainfo.com/New-horizon-for-mankind-expects-debate-on-global-issues-during-2020-US-President-election-campaign_a80912.html )
(3)- Instead of trying medieval & antiquated methods for acquiring independence the Balochs should have demanded independence through plebiscite. Fortunately Balochs can benefit from the case of United-J&K where also the fate of united-J&K is mandated to be decided by the IoA of J&K to India as mentioned at https://www.alwihdainfo.com/Kashmiris-should-protest-at-Jantar-Mantar-against-President-about-Article-143-1-for-restoring-their-human-rights_a77642.html and http://wadikinews.com/public-interest-writ-petition-under-article-226-of-the-constitution-with-respondents-i-the-union-of-india-ii-the-state-of-jk/
(4)- In one sense the Balochs are right in thinking that without outside support they cannot gain independence. But this outside support the Balochs can easily get if they try for the realization of ‘ Secular Democratic Federation of mini-SAARC’ in which united-J&K can be 9th and Balochistan the 10th member of SAARC because both united-J&K and Balochistan are bound to opt for independence during plebiscite. The Federation where all the martial subjects will be with the centre and all the civil subjects (including natural resources) will be with the member States.
(5)- There is only one very minor hurdle in this approach. The Kashmiris are not demanding plebiscite because they know that plebiscite will result in independent united-J&K whereas the influential Muslim leaders (and not majority of people) of Kashmir (unlike Baloch leaders & people who want secular State) want to join theocratic Pakistan and with their handful of supporters periodically raise the slogans “Kashmir ‘banega’ (will become) Pakistan”. But this nuisance can easily be eliminated if the Balochs persuades the Kashmiris to demand plebiscite (which is the mandate of the IoA of J&K to India) by telling them that Pashtuns of KPK would want to join this mini-SAARC earlier than discriminated-against Sindh because Pashtuns have been suffering immensely by the atrocities of the State of Pakistan (as mentioned at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/opinion/pashtun-protests-pakistan.html and https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51262639 ) . This will facilitate even Punjab part of Pakistan also to join this mini-SAARC (along with KPK & Sindh).
(6)- In India the main political parties of the centre namely BJP and Congress have lost the script due to their support to two nations theory (by BJP crudely and by Congress subtly) as mentioned at https://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/opinion-details/3534 . Hence in future only those political parties will come in or near power or will remain in power at centre who will support one nation theory which is liked by the civil society of India as mentioned also at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsK4kFi57Xc
(7)- It will help immensely if: -
(i)- The Balochs mobilize the people of J&K and Gilgit-Baltistan on the Pakistan side of LoC to persuade the people of Indian side of J&K (especially Kashmiris) to work for plebiscite in united-J&K.
(ii)- The Baloch arrange some seminars etc in India to tell the Indians that (A)- The dual citizenship (as mention in said PCP article 3534) is the right solution for the problem of CAA / NRC, which is currenting agitating India and (B)- The plebiscite in Balochistan and united-J&K is in the interest of India.
(iii)- The Baloch organize such seminars all across Pakistan then it will be the best.
(8)- The Balochs should not be unduly perturbed that in mini-SAARC the Baloch area of Iran and Afghanistan will be left out. This apprehension is not valid because in SAARC (rather in extended-SAARC) both Afghanistan and Iran will be there. If in the USA (a country of merely ~ 330 million) number of States can be 50 then there is no reason why in extended-SAARC (a country of ~ 1.8 billion) the number of States cannot be at least two hundred in the interest of accommodating the regional, ethnic, linguistic etc aspirations of its citizens.
(9)- The Balochs need not be deterred by the baseless propaganda that China may oppose the independence of Balochistan due its stakes in CPEC and Gwadar port. But this fear is baseless because SAARC will support these projects of China and any such project of any other country in its territory which will make transportation of goods easy and cheap and which will save power which in modern world is the resources of the mankind too (and not merely of the concerned country). Only concern of SAARC will be that China should not use CPEC & Gwadar port etc for military / strategic purpose which China has already said that it will not do so.
(10)- The Balochs should understand two basic realities. First, India and Pakistan will agree to only win-win solution and not to any zero-sum game where one’s gain is other’s loss. Secondly, present situation in India & Pakistan is conducive for the independence of Balochistan and united-J&K through mini SAARC because: -
(i)- Modi Government (and Hindutva forces) could get away with Babri Masjid matter as Muslims and their leaders (out of un-Islamic fear) did not file proper review petition in SCI as mentioned at https://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/opinion-details/3488 . But in the matters of CAA / NRC and Kashmir (where Article 370 and 35-A have been amended and repealed and where practically all political leaders & activists are in prison, but how long it can be), it will not be so.
(ii)- In Pakistan there is a political crisis. Its establishment brought Imran’s PTI in power through illegitimate election by first removing from premiership and then not allowing Nawaz Shariff to contest election as mentioned at https://www.alwihdainfo.com/Azadi-march-barking-at-wrong-trees-executives-instead-Maulana-should-agitate-against-legislative-judiciarye_a78722.html . Hence said mini-SAARC is the right solution for Pakistan.
(11)- In addition to mobilizing Kashmiris and others (as mentioned above) it will go a long way in realizing independence (for both Balochistan and united-J&K) if the Balochs take the lead in launching an NGO in the USA (registered as per law of the USA) for lobbying & gaining support for the cause of plebiscite in Balochistan and united-J&K. This NGO can carry-out demonstrations, seminars, meetings etc at various places / cities in the USA and can move & approach the Congress and its relevant Committees and US Administration and can even contact diplomats of various countries in the USA and at the United Nations and can also mobilize the influential US media. It will obviously help the cause immensely because whatever people may say (and with some justification) but there are still lots of people (including influential) in the USA who genuinely care for the human rights of the entire mankind and want to usher the world into liberal political order.
It is hoped that in the interest of peace, harmony and prosperity in Indian subcontinent the Balochs will follow the path of mini-SAARC through legally expected plebiscite in Balochistan and united-J&K (also by taking the help of to-be-launched registered NGO in the USA for moving the world community including the leader of free world the USA for their legitimate and urgent cause).
http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/opinion-details/3537
Why the struggle for a secular Pakistan was doomed from the very beginning
Pakistan has always tried to portray itself as a beacon of moderate Islam. However, the fact of the matter is, Pakistan at present stands at the cusp of becoming a populist theocracy. After his victory in the 2018 elections, Prime Minister Imran Khan highlighted his intention to restore the country to the glory of ‘Riyast-e-Madina’ during the time of Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Slogans currently being raised by the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf are somewhat similar to what the All India Muslim League propagated during the movement for independence; creating a state which gives Muslims supremacy. Therefore, campaigning in the name of religion has been in the very creed of Pakistan’s creation, its internal politics and ultimately in its struggle for a quasi-Middle Eastern character.
One could argue that Pakistan is not suffering from symptoms of hyper nationalism and pan-Islamism, at least, not to the extent of its neighbour India where the ideology of Hinduvta is coursing through a large section of the Indian society. However, Pakistan’s make-up, at its very core, is overwhelmingly religious. Even though it is a South Asian state which was carved out of India, it appears Pakistan is obsessed with finding a way to link itself with the Middle East in order to align itself with Islamic history, which ironically will only further its historical amnesia.
Pakistan’s constitutional history has experienced a number of aberrations and therefore, has been drafted and implemented thrice. The conflict that arises due to the attempted amalgamation of religion and politics is due to the Objectives Resolution 1949. The resolution is considered a primordial piece of law that is deemed to be of utmost importance to the constitution itself. The Objectives Resolution passed in 1949 was taken as the preamble of the previous constitutions passed. In 1985, due to Zia’s rampant Islamisation, it was introduced as Article 2 and Article 2A through the eighth amendment which made it an integral part of the constitution.
However, Pakistan’s movement towards becoming an overzealous religious society can be traced back to pre-partition times. It is a known fact that Pakistan and India’s constitutional differences were pronounced from the very beginning. The contrasting political and ideological approaches adopted by the dominant parties of the two countries before partition led to successive civilian governments in one country and a stop-start democratic process in the other.
In her book The Promise of Power: The Origins of Democracy in India and Autocracy in Pakistan Maya Tudor points out some very basic reasons for the difference between political setups that governed the two states post partition.
Firstly, there was a difference in the types of social classes that were leading the political parties and by extension, the two countries at the time. In Pakistan’s case, it was the Muslim land-owner aristocracy and peasants who led the freedom struggle. In Congress’s case, it was the educated urban middle class who motivated the less affluent members of society against the British Raj. The second factor that influenced the nature of Pakistan as a state was the strength of the dominant political parties and consequentially, the interests they represented. It was foreseeable that the All India Muslim League was the only party that was going to rule Pakistan following partition. In India’s case, Congress was the one with the majority, but it wasn’t the only political party in existence and therefore, different and diverging class interests were represented.
Tudor then draws a comparison with the type of alliances formed within and outside the party which also set a pattern for the type of “regime” post partition. In this regard, the third aspect that influenced constitutional formulation in Pakistan was the alliances formed by the Muslim League. As discussed in the previous points, the Muslim League primarily consisted of Nawabs or rather, aristocrats. There was a clear divide between the poorer segments of society and their leaders. An attempt to bridge this gap was made through religion and so, the clergy was given greater importance and a more visible role in politics. Ultimately, it led to the formal creation of an Islamic republic and arguably, a discriminatory constitution.
Pakistan has had three constitutions; one issued in 1956, another in 1962 and finally, the present day 1973 constitution. The 1956 version has had a noticeable impact on the existing constitution whereas some portions from the 1962 draft have also been included.The 1973 constitution is considered to be democratic by large sections of society, however, it is the very nature of the document which ironically contests the claims of Pakistan being a democratic state.
A cursory look will show us that the preamble of the constitution known as the “Objectives Resolution of 1949” essentially ends the case for Pakistan ever becoming a secular society. The term secular in Urdu means ladeeniyah, that is; not to do with religion whereas, the word stands for the separation of religion and politics. The adoption of the Objectives Resolution was enacted in order to give the process of drafting the constitution a direction.
The resolution starts by stating that sovereignty belongs to Allah. It then goes on to elaborate that the authority is given by Him to the state of Pakistan through its people is to be exercised within the limits set by Him. Throughout the rest of its text, it continues to mark the case for Islam to be the state religion, for instance, by stating that,
“the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed.”
The resolution, when put forward by Liaquat Ali Khan, was vehemently opposed by the non-Muslim members of the parliament. The members included Prem Hari Barma and Srisi Chandra Chattopadhyaya. These members asked for a motion that elicited public opinion instead of one that was directed to empower one particular religion. However, this proposal was vetoed by Liaquat Ali Khan. This exemplified how the lawmakers of that time were laying the foundation of a religiously zealous society. The speech by Birat Chandra Mandal debated that in India, pundits did not force the political thinkers to use terms that promoted a particular religion and even the pre-dominantly Christian America abstains from doing the same, why was the Pakistani constitution being subjected to such a limitation?
The concerns put forward by most of the minority members were regarding religious terminology. They wanted to omit words such as “enunciated by Islam,” and replace them with generalised, democratic and inclusive terms. Countless other suggestions were given and debated upon, but the Objectives Resolution 1949 of the nascent state passed without giving due credence to the wishes of its minority.
Admittedly, Zia made the situation tangibly worse when he came into power. He started by making the resolution a part of the constitution itself. Therefore, instead of being the preamble, it became a codified portion of the document in the form of article 2A. Furthermore, the original resolution stated that,“adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.”
Zia removed the term “freely” from the above provision, essentially signifying his intent to turn Pakistan into a constrictive environment for non-Muslims. Prior to this, one can say that the resolution was an overarching stipulation to create an Islamic society, but Zia brought the inherent deficiencies of its text to the forefront. The tone of religious acrimony had already been set back in 1949 and Zia merely expedited it.
Therefore, although Zia receives the lion share of the blame for the complete Islamisation of the nation, it can be seen that, from the very beginning, our political leardership, barring Jinnah, intended for the constitution to make democratic secular principles subservient to that of Islamic ideology and the whims of the local clergy.
https://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/93515/why-the-struggle-for-a-secular-pakistan-was-doomed-from-the-very-beginning/
What Next for the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement?
With its leaders arrested, where does the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement go from here?
A few days ago, the leadership of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM), a Pakistani social movement that purportedly works for Pashtun human rights in the country, was arrested. However, the arrest comes at a time when the movement’s popularity across Pakistan is surging.
While the government in Pakistan accuses the movement’s leadership of taking up an anti-state agenda, PTM’s leadership and its supporters believe that they are being targeted because they belong to a particular ethnic group. Regardless of the reasons involved, the looming clash between the state and the group will have far-reaching implications for the country.
The movement, which became active in Pakistan a few years ago, has come a long way when it comes to questioning the state’s counterterrorism programs in the country’s tribal areas. However, lately, the PTM’s leadership has become vocal in naming and targeting institutions that they believe are hindering their movement.
While the government and security agencies are trying to contain the fallout of the situation, it appears that every time an arrest takes place, the movement emerges with more strength and the determination to organize further emerges. Arguably, the movement’s popularity in Pakistan and abroad only ascended when it came under the scrutiny of the state.
For instance, the social media coverage after the latest arrest of the group’s leaders points toward this trend. The issue has been trending on various social media platforms for days, something the Pakistani state feels wary of and attempts to avoid. Arguably, to counter the trend, a number of anti-PTM media trends have also cropped up over the last few days. Apparently, the conflict between the PTM and the Pakistani state has moved to the online space, where both sides are trying to come out as a winner.
Moreover, for Pakistan’s policymakers, there is always a chance of various states in the region trying to use the group’s ethnic grievances to bargain on other issues or build pressure on the central government more generally. For instance, support for the PTM’s leadership has poured in not only from Pakistan but also from other places such as Afghanistan.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in a statement said that he was “troubled by the arrest of Manzoor Pashteen and his colleagues.” Ghani’s statement triggered a massive response online, especially in terms of the volume of pro and anti-PTM content being published.
Ghani’s statement was not only condemned by Pakistan’s Foreign Office (FO), but also drew criticism from a number of other state intuitions. “We have noted with serious concern the recent tweets by President Ashraf Ghani, which are a clear interference in Pakistan’s internal affairs and hence, unwarranted. We believe that such statements are not helpful to the promotion of good neighborly relations between the two countries,” said Pakistan’s FO in a statement.
It’s unclear if Ghani’s statement was based on a genuine concern or was an attempt to gain support from the Pashtun community living on both sides of the Durand Line; nevertheless, Pakistan sees such a statement with utmost seriousness.
It’s important to note that the issue of the Durand Line, which Kabul has never recognized as their shared border, remains an unresolved conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan and a movement emanating from Pakistan’s tribal areas adjoining Afghanistan will always remain an asset for Afghanistan.
Potentially, the government in Afghanistan could very well gain leverage at some level domestically by lending support to the PTM. However, if any such politics is at play, this does not bode well for either the Afghan peace process or any efforts to bridge the existing trust deficit between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The PTM’s leadership needs to understand that the movement’s credibility comes under scrutiny when the former becomes embroiled in the existing regional geopolitical wars. The government in Pakistan needs realize the implications of shutting down a group as this can lead to wider consequences.
With both sides refusing to budge, a conflict is becoming a real possibility.
Keep focus on Karachi, not ministries, Bilawal Bhutto tells MQM
The PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari on Friday again advised the MQM-P to quit the government alliance and focus on resolving problems of Karachi instead of demanding more ministries.
Talking to journalists at the Parliament House, Bilawal said it did not appear as if the PTI coalition partners would continue working with the ruling party. Bilawal said the slogans against the PTI were being raised in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
He said the prime minister had taken a U-turn on his earlier claim of providing jobs, as well as other things pertaining to welfare work. He said the federal government was not resolving the issues of Karachi.
The PPP chairman said the MQM, on one hand, claims to address the problems of Karachi and on the other also admits that the PTI did not fulfil its promises. “It is in the power of MQM to leave federal government and solve the problems of Karachi,” he said. Bilawal Bhutto expressed the hope that the ongoing issue of Sindh Inspector General of Police Kaleem Imam would be resolved soon with consultations between Prime Minister Imran Khan and Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah.
To a question, Bilawal said there is a lot of differences between the ideologies of the PPP and MQM. “We all should try to resolve Karachi’s issues together,” he said. He said the wheat crisis is a very serious issue as there was even a food crisis in the times of General (retd) Pervez Musharraf as well and during Musharraf’s regime Pakistan was buying wheat from other countries despite being an agricultural country. He said former president Asif Ali Zardari turned a country again into a wheat exporter. “Our growers were economically murdered since this PTI government has come to power,” he said.
About speculation with regard to the FBR chairman going on medical leave, Bilawal said Imran Khan is so non-serious that he cannot work even with his own team. Bilawal also called for bringing back the stranded Pakistanis in China. “We have raised the issue of the stranded Pakistanis in the National Assembly and the government’s minister has assured us that measures are being taken for the stranded people,” he said.
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/607329-keep-focus-on-karachi-not-ministries-bilawal-bhutto-tells-mqm
Four new cases of polio detected in Sindh, Punjab
Another four cases of polio, two each in Sindh and Punjab, have been found, an official of the National Institute of Health told Dawn. The samples of the patients were taken and referred to NIH last year.
“A five-year-old boy, a resident of Deenpur union council (UC), Thull tehsil, Jacobabad district, became paralyzed due to poliovirus.
The other victim is a 48-month-old boy, a resident of Phulladyon UC, Sindhri tehsil, Mirpurkhas district,” the official said, requesting anonymity.
“The children paralyzed by poliovirus in Punjab are both girls and they belong to the same district and UC. They are four and 10 months old, residents of Aali Wala UC, D.G. Khan tehsil, ” he said. When contacted by Dawn, National Coordinator Emergency Operation Centre for Polio Dr Rana Safdar confirmed that four new cases had been detected.
“As we consider the date of collection of the samples for placing the cases in the year, all four cases have been placed in 2019 and the tally for the year has reached 144,” he said.
Dr. Safdar said that so far seven cases had been confirmed in 2020 and the last case for the current year was reported from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
The patient is an 18-month-old girl, a resident of Abba Khel UC, Lakki Marwat tehsil, he added.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1531760/four-new-cases-of-polio-detected-in-sindh-punjab
پاکستان میں گزشتہ برس 144 پولیو کیسز کا اضافہ
پاکستانی حکام نے ملک میں پولیو کے مزید چار کیسز کی تصدیق کی ہے۔ اعداد و شمار کے مطابق سن 2019 میں کل 144 پولیو کیسز سامنے آئے ہیں۔
جرمن خبر رساں ادارے ڈی پی اے کے مطابق جب عالمی ادارہ صحت نے پاکستان میں انسداد پولیو کے حوالے سے ملکی حکمت عملی پر نظر ثانی پر زور دیا تو پاکستانی حکام کی جانب سے بتایا گیا کہ گزشتہ برس دسمبر تک ملک میں پولیو کے ایک سو چوالیس کیسز ریکارڈ کیے گئے، جو کہ گزشتہ پانچ برس میں سب سے زیادہ ہیں۔ پاکستان میں انسداد پولیو پروگرام کے سینئر اہلکار ذوالفقار باباخیل نے رواں برس کے آغاز سے اب تک مزید سات پولیو کیسز کی بھی تصدیق کی ہے۔
پاکستان میں پولیو کے کیسز کی تعداد سن 2014 میں تین سو چھ رہی جبکہ سن 2015 میں صرف 54 پولیو کیسز سامنے آئے۔ سرکاری اعداد و شمار کے مطابق 2016ء سے 2018ء تک پولیو کیسز میں واضح طور پر کمی ریکارڈ کی گئی۔
پاکستان میں انسداد پولیو مہم کو سب سے زیادہ نقصان پولیو کے قطرے پلانے والی ٹیموں پر ہونے والے حملوں کی وجہ سے پہنچا ہے۔ پاکستان میں شدت پسند اب تک کئی سو پولیو ورکرز کو ہلاک کر چکے ہیں۔ ان کا موقف ہے کہ یہ قطرے اس لیے پلائے جاتے ہیں تاکہ مسلمانوں کی آبادی میں اضافہ نہ ہو۔
واضح رہے پاکستان کے صوبہ خیبر پختونخواہ میں رواں ہفتے کے آغاز میں ایک مسلح شخص نے دو خواتین پولیو ورکرز کو فائرنگ کر کے سے ہلاک کر دیا تھا۔ پاکستان اور افغانستان دنیا کے ان چند ممالک میں شامل ہیں جہاں آج بھی پولیو اب بھی پھیلا ہوا ہے۔
How Indian armed forces can defeat Pakistan in less than a week
SHEKHAR GUPTA
To do that, you should first define victory, know when to declare it, have a decisive conventional edge, and stop flying MiG-21s.
Speaking at the founding day of the National Cadet Corps Tuesday, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said all India’s armed forces need to defeat Pakistan is seven to ten days.
Was he talking through his hat? Can the world’s fourth-largest military power defeat the fifth-largest in just about a week or so? Particularly when they are both nuclear-armed?
If the answer to all three questions is what seems obvious, ‘yes’ to the first and ‘no’ to the next two, we could be done with it with a 140-character tweet. We wouldn’t be wasting your time, labouring over 1,200 words.
The answers, therefore, are: First, that Narendra Modi is no delusional nutcase. If he wasn’t phenomenally smart, he wouldn’t have come this far. The second and third questions have one answer: Whether or not you can win a war in 7-10 days would also depend on how you define that ‘victory’.
The genuinely strategic issues do tend to be complex, and somewhat less fun than what prime-time debates on some commando-comic channels might want to make you believe. They can defeat Pakistan, maybe with China thrown in, in half-an-hour, leaving time for commercial breaks. In real life, we might need to explore history — strategic and political — and some non-classical definitions of victory and defeat. That’s why this week’s argument begins with Modi, will go back to the two Bhuttos, father and daughter, Indira Gandhi, V.P. Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and return to Modi.
The central truth is that a country or even a set of countries defeating another in the manner of World War II is now an impossibility. We don’t even have a significant instance of that happening since that war. The Americans, the mightiest of all, failed in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. A mere regime change isn’t a victory.
The Soviets’ failure in Afghanistan ended their ideology and military bloc. Saudi Arabia, enormously richer and more powerful, has failed to defeat poor Yemen in almost five years. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, hoping to take advantage of chaos in the wake of the revolution there. Eight years later, all the two countries had was corpses, cripples and prisoners of war, but no tangible gains.
This is by no means an exhaustive list. You might, for the sake of an argument, find an example here or there, such as Bosnia. But again, a regime change by a multinational force in such a small country wouldn’t really count for a victory in the sense of a nation defeating another.
Closer home, in 73 years marked with four large wars against two adversaries, China and Pakistan, two have ended decisively. It is easy to remember the one we won, in 1971 against Pakistan, and impossible to forget the one we lost, in 1962 to China.
The war India won, 1971, lasted all of 13 days. The defeat against China, in 1962, also came over about two fortnights of intense operations with a recess of sorts in between. This tells you something counter-intuitive to what our immediate reaction to Modi’s statement on NCC Day would be. So, don’t laugh at the idea that one strong country can defeat another in seven to ten days. Because our generation has seen exactly that at home, twice.
Which brings us to the nub of the issue. How do we define victory or defeat when modern nations fight? In 1971, the moment Dacca fell, Indira Gandhi offered Pakistan ceasefire in the more evenly-matched western sector. The moment Pakistan accepted, she could declare victory. Similarly, in 1962, China offered India a ceasefire unilaterally, even announced it was returning to its pre-war positions (except in some small parts of Ladakh). The moment India accepted it, vowing to fight another day, China could declare victory. The Chinese knew the risk of getting into an unwinnable war of attrition if they ventured into the plains, and Mrs Gandhi, sobered by Soviet allies, also understood the relative military parity in the western sector.
A war is won, therefore, not when a country is comprehensively defeated, brought down to its knees, as with Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan, or as the norm was in the medieval era. It is won when one nation decides it has achieved its objective. To win a war now, you first have to set your objective clearly beforehand. And then have the foresight to seize the moment to declare victory. The earlier the better.
Apply this test to some other familiar situations. Kargil was a relatively tiny war and India won it only because Atal Bihari Vajpayee and his counsels defined victory narrowly and precisely as the mere withdrawal of Pakistan to the Line of Control. Pakistan had initiated that war with the objective of grabbing crucial territory and forcing India to negotiate Kashmir. Vajpayee set defeating that objective as his target, and declared victory the moment it was achieved.
Both Pakistan and India claim 1965 as a win. Here is the equation if we follow the parameters we’ve just set. Pakistan started that war, with the objective of grabbing Kashmir. It had the technological, tactical and diplomatic superiority, and the strategic space and cushion to do so.
If India still denied Pakistan that moment, you can conclude who won or lost, although militarily, the war was a stalemate, the equivalent of a cricket Test petering off to a dull, pointless draw. Balakot is a more complicated case.
India bombed Balakot, deep inside Pakistani mainland, to deliver a strategic and political message. That objective achieved, it had nothing more to do except brace for a Pakistani counter. Whatever the score in the air skirmish on the following morning, the Pakistanis were left with an IAF pilot and the wreckage of his plane. This enabled both sides to declare victory.
A good example where no such thing happened was Op Parakram and ‘coercive diplomacy’, after the terror attack on Parliament. No clear objectives were set, and the build-up continued for so long, it became unsustainable. The moment to declare victory, however, had come very early in the day, on 12 January 2002, within a month of the Parliament attack, when Gen. Pervez Musharraf made his famous speech suing for peace. India missed it, and the entire venture was wasted.
The duration of a war is more a function of rhetoric than strategy. The clearest example of this is senior (Zulfiqar Ali) Bhutto vowing a 1,000-year war on India while his troops were surrendering in Dacca. His daughter Benazir renewed this in the war-like summer of 1990 (her “Jagmohan ko jag-jag, mo-mo, han-han kar denge” days).
It even provoked a weak-kneed pacifist like V.P. Singh, then prime minister, into asking in Parliament whether those who threatened 1,000-year wars could last even a thousand hours. That, by the way, adds up to 41 days and about 15 hours — more than the two wars, 1965 and 1971, combined.
How long you say you’d fight for, 1,000 years, hours or 7-10 days, is all rhetoric. The reality is simpler: Do you know how you define victory and have the foresight to seize the moment to declare it? In the India-Pakistan context, it could have come even after just an hour on the morning of 26 February 2019 or, latest, by noon the following day. But for that, India had to have a decisive, deterrent conventional edge over Pakistan. If that is built in the years to come, it might even be possible to defeat Pakistan in less than a week. You could even win with deterrence, without fighting. Not, of course, if you are still flying MiG-21s.