The 70-Year Itch By Mahir Ali: New Age Islam's Selection, 09 August 2017
New Age Islam Edit Bureau
09 August 2017
• The 70-Year Itch
By Mahir Ali
• This Is How Pakistan Treats Women Politicians
By Omer Azhar Bhatti
• The Same Old Pakistan
By M Saeed Khalid
• This Is How Pakistan Treats Women Politicians
By Omer Azhar Bhatti
• Where the Real Paradox Lies
By Talat Farooq
• A Maze to the Start
Raja Omer Shabbir
• Reopening Language Issue
By Kuldip Nayar
• Accepting the Defeat
By Yousaf Alamgirian
• PM’s Disqualification & Impact On CPEC
By S. M. Hali
Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau
-----
The 70-Year Itch
By Mahir Ali
August 09, 2017
ON the outskirts of Barcelona a couple of years ago, my wife and I popped into a corner store to purchase a bottle of water and a couple of other things. The shopkeeper spoke no English. He clearly wasn’t a local, but he visibly brightened up when we inquired whether he might be familiar with Hindi or Urdu, immediately asking whether conversing in Punjabi might be an option.
As soon as he discovered I was a native of Lahore, he embraced me as a long-lost brother. His Hindu family belonged to Gurdaspur, and although neither of us was old enough to have witnessed the events of 1947, much of the ensuing conversation was dedicated to lamenting the wund — the divide — of that fateful year.
Before we left, he insisted on a toast — consumed from teacups — to the unexpected ‘reunion’, and it took a great deal of persuasion for him to accept the few euros we owed him. I walked out of the shop with moist eyes, wondering, by no means for the first time, what on earth Partition was all about.
It isn’t particularly surprising that many of the comments in the run-up to next week’s 70th anniversary of Indian and Pakistani independence likewise consist of laments. They can broadly be divided into two categories: those that revisit the horrendous toll that Partition entailed, and those that mourn India’s descent into a communal mindset spearheaded by the spiritual heirs of those who assassinated Mahatma Gandhi for being too soft on Muslims.
If Pakistan’s trajectory does not figure quite as prominently in the discourse, it’s largely because it was delineated long ago, with the secularist ideals that its pre-eminent founding father unequivocally espoused on the eve of independence buried beneath the articles of faith that were crucial to the struggle for separatism. For whatever it was worth, one of the consequences of the two-nation theory was to divide the subcontinent’s Muslims roughly equally between three nations.
Pakistan’s trajectory was delineated long ago.
That is not the only example, though, of a lack of foresight. One can only wonder whether the Indian leaders who sat down with the last viceroy on June 3, 1947 to agree on, and then announce, the accelerated split would have proceeded with their compromise had they any inkling of the holocaust that would ensue.
Jawaharlal Nehru and Mohammad Ali Jinnah were very different personalities, yet they also had much in common — and neither of them was an enthusiast for genocide. Foreknowledge of the bloodbath that lay ahead would have concentrated their minds, possibly persuading them to revisit the options that had been available just a year earlier.
Of course, the British role cannot be overlooked, although it is questionable whether a slower path to independence and Partition — by mid-1948, as originally envisaged — would have substantially reduced the bloodletting. On the other hand, heeding the demand for Indian independence a decade or so earlier may have led to very different consequences.
In the event, Cyril Radcliffe — “Having never set eyes on the land he was to partition,” as the poet W.H. Auden put it — was invited to sketch the borders. The haphazard process no doubt deserves to be lampooned. Gurdaspur was among the leading bones of contention that were allocated on the basis of politics rather than population. “… The maps at his disposal were out of date,” Auden points out, “And the Census Returns almost certainly incorrect,/ But there was no time to check them, no time to inspect/ Contested areas. The weather was frightfully hot,/ And a bout of dysentery kept him constantly on the trot,/ But in seven weeks it was done, the frontiers decided,/ A continent for better or worse divided.”
On the other hand, what are the chances any boundaries could have been drawn that would have satisfied everyone, or even most people? Even though India had rarely, if ever, been a completely united country before the advent of the British Raj, its veins extended throughout the subcontinent, and any divide would inevitably have entailed slashing those veins — and contending with the blood that was bound to flow, even though its quantity might have come as a shock to many.
For several decades thereafter, it was possible for more enlightened Pakistanis to look upon India not by any means as an ideal, but at least as a neighbour that had broadly marched ahead as a secular democracy. The inexorable ascendancy of Hindutva, however, is a reminder that some Indians remained envious of Pakistan’s deadly romance with religious fanaticism, and have finally succeeded in projecting a mirror image, reflected in lynchings and increasing curbs on the freedom of expression.
India, unlike Pakistan and Bangladesh, has never come close to military rule, but is militant rule much better? Sure, Pakistan got there first, but at least it was through a coup rather than the popular vote.
Source: dawn.com/news/1350440/the-70-year-itch
----
This Is How Pakistan Treats Women Politicians
By Omer Azhar Bhatti
09-Aug-17
A very popular political/religious anchor on a new mainstream media channel quoted the British Gazette, a short-lived English newspaper founded in 1926 during the general strike. He quoted British
Gazette’s analysis on the Gulalai tribe which labelled the tribe as a bunch of liars and fraudulent traders who are apt at deception. The very purpose of quoting this 93 year old report was to denounce claims of harassment against cricket-playboy turned politician Imran Khan through a launch of hard-hitting, inappropriate and assumption centric allegations on the Gulalai tribe altogether in a bid to discredit Ayesha
Gulalai. Welcome to a section of Pakistan’s media.
The abhorrent reaction faced by Ayesha Gulalai can only be gauged by an analytical review of the majority of talk shows where she has been interviewed. The line of questioning that has been adopted has revolved around the four following: She’s been inquired aggressively over the reason behind her silence for 4 years. Every single statement that she has made is being put under the microscope visible by the airing of her earlier speeches in favour of Imran Khan. How could she support him if he had written unethical messages to her? Why has she been so contradictory regarding Imran Khan? Why is she making these allegations right after Imran Khan won a political battle against the most powerful politician in the country? It is solely not just about the content of these questions but the tone, aggression and air of distrust they entail which make her come across like a women playing the ‘harassment card’ to malign a successful politician. In an incredible attempt to dislodge and tarnish her public image, her sister’s
sporting success has been used by public at large to cast a shadow of doubt on the honour and dignity in the family.
But wait, ironically, there is not one talk show, not one newspaper article that has even remotely considered the possibility of such messages being sent by Imran Khan nor has there been any analysis on Imran Khan’s playboy ‘western’ lifestyle which would render allegations by Ayesha Gulalai as not so unbelievable.
Gulalai deserves fair treatment across the board, less personal attacks and an end to the surrounding ambience of distrust manufactured by an overwhelmingly one-sided line of questioning
It is not implied here that it is reasonable to term one guilty over the other. With such serious allegations in a high profile political scandal, only an investigation can reveal the truth. But the purpose is to highlight what this entire saga denotes. What it denotes is the ludicrous discourse that takes place around women in harassment claims. The Ayesha Gulalai episode is reflective of the relentlessly biased environment that women have to operate in. Note the discourse and debate surrounding Ayesha’s allegations and it is fairly simple to detect that it is centred on the possibility of her lying. Discrepancies have
been highlighted in her statements to prove that she could be simply trying to smear Imran Khan now that she allegedly hasn’t received the NA-1 ticket from Peshawar. Allegations have been made against her sister to diminish the credibility of the family’s honour. The fact that she remained silent for 4 years is being used to highlight that her ‘honour’ doesn’t hold value for her rather it is only for her political aims
that she has made such statement. On the comparative, there has been absolutely no discussion about the possibility of the PTI chief having indulged in such an illicit activity. The questioning has been completely one way with literally, Ayesha Gulalai bearing the brunt on twitter, media channels etc.
This treatment serves as a microcosm for our county. For example, shifting away from this high profile political scandal to society at large reveals the same pattern and trend which is found in urban and rural cities alike. Notable women rights organisations like Kashif foundation and Aurat Foundation have highlighted that women do not report harassment because there is a genuine fear of being scrutinised, their
past being laid open in front of everyone.The pattern can be identified in police stations where any rape victim or harassment victim is bound to be considered as either using their sexuality to malign someone or seeking attention. The law relevant to harassment is the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act 2010 which is now just 7 years old. To think that women did not have legal protection against harassment for over 60 years is a testament to the patriarchal and chauvinistic society that encompasses us. Despite the formation of this law, harassment continues to persist in work places while women are still afraid of voicing their sufferings. This is because laws don’t change societies altogether. Sexual harassment continues and women continue to suffer psychologically due to their inability to report. The reason being the very dialogue that has clouded everyone’s judgement about Ayesha Gulalai is commonplace during sexual harassment cases in villages, police station cross examination, work places and internal office investigations. The aura given is that of the victim potentially being a liar rather than the accused actually being guilty. Rukhsana Kausar, Director of Institute of
Applied Psychology Punjab University, has previously argued that working women avoid any legal action against harassment because of the fear of losing their jobs and demotion.
Moving back up to another high profile politician, Kashmala Tariq in 2012 claimed on a major talk show harassment by family members of the then army chief but her claims were dismissed because of obvious reasons. 3 years prior to that on a talk show, she was pathetically accused of sleeping with male politicians to make her way up in her political career but few would know that she is easily amongst the most educated women politicians in the country. Even the legendary Benazir Bhutto wasn’t spared and subjected to a similar treatment in many quarters of society if not the media. The way we discuss and talk about women politicians signals how conducive the environment on ground is for sexual harassment to occur to millions of women in the country.
Gulalai deserves fair treatment across the board, less personal attacks and an end to ambience of distrust around her manufactured by an overwhelmingly one sided line of questioning. If anything, it is at her discretion when she reveals harassment attempts and it is a legitimate trade-off for her to make between keeping her political career intact by remaining shut over any harassment attempts.
Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/09-Aug-17/this-is-how-pakistan-treats-women-politicians
----
The Same Old Pakistan
By M Saeed Khalid
August 9, 2017
Over two weeks have passed after the country’s most durable politician was disqualified from office and it seems that nothing much has changed. True, within hours of the judgment, Muhammad Nawaz
Sharif (MNS) was being referred to as the former prime minister. The cabinet was no more. More seriously, the country was without a government. The federal capital had no more ministers to represent Pakistan at national day receptions of other countries. The guests at one such reception in Islamabad were wondering about what kind of ceremony would take place without a minister.
After a while, the country’s first female foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua walked in to be the guest of honour in this extraordinary situation. A small reminder: while political and military governments can come
and go, the permanent civil service – which is usually at the receiving end of barbs from both the rulers and the media – is always there to carry state burdens.
More significant was the fact that the elected premier, who had been removed from his post by the court, was as firmly in control of things as ever, raising questions over the efficacy of the judicial track of dispatching popular leaders. In no time, MNS elevated a faithful to replace him and had him elected by the assembly with an overwhelming majority. Shahid Khaqan Abbasi’s position has been greatly strengthened by the decision to let him continue, most probably, till the 2018 general election.
MNS was also able to launch a new cabinet within a week, accommodating more faithful members of the PML-N. Surprise! Khawaja Muhammad Asif, an old party stalwart, has been made the foreign minister, filling a void that had existed for four years. It was a double-edged appointment as it responded to the clamour for a parliamentarian as a foreign minister and provided the possibility that the debutant premier doesn’t attract all the limelight.
Asif’s arrival at the Foreign Office coincides with a three-pronged offensive by Washington and its regional allies in Delhi and Kabul. His first mission should be to Washington to meet administration officials and Congressional leaders to counter the negative sentiment against Pakistan. All three have resorted to using public diplomacy as a propaganda tool against Pakistan.
Asif can also take the opportunity to convey how far Pakistan’s security agencies can satisfy the demands to curb freedom of movement to the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network. We should ask for a similar action by Kabul and Delhi against elements carrying out terror attacks against Pakistan from Afghan soil. Otherwise, they should stop maligning Pakistan for sponsoring violence.
The PML-N’s reference to the Supreme Court for the disqualification of Imran Khan to get even with him after his legal crusade against the ruling family is following its course. However, it seems that the court’s ruling against Nawaz Sharif and family has not added to Imran’s political capital. What is worse, the province that was billed to be a prototype of his ‘Naya Pakistan’ is coming under attack for disallowing the accountability of corrupt practices.
The accusations of dissident PTI members cannot be brushed away. At the same time, the coalition government of KP Chief Minister Pervez Khattak is facing defections that have raised the spectre of a no-confidence motion.
Imran’s claims of virtue are also under attack, especially after the accusations hurled by Ayesha Gulalai. His desire to bring clean new faces has been negatively affected as, just like Musharraf, his energies
have been geared toward poaching members of the two major parties to improve his party’s chances at the next general elections in 2018. In fact, Imran’s ambitious claim of clean governance increasingly looks like a mirage as the PTI is turning into just another political party of ‘old’ Pakistan.
There is little doubt that we are going to witness a fight to the finish between ‘Noon’ and ‘Junoon’ in the coming months, starting with a battle for NA-120 in Lahore, which fell vacant after Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification.
In a real democracy, the party would field a suitable candidate. However, given the dynastic nature of politics, the issue is that of the Sharifs losing a traditional seat after losing the country’s premiership. This by-election will also determine whether the system is geared towards holding a fair election as the country prepares for parliamentary polls.
What is most worrying at this stage is the vendetta-style politics being pursued by the two protagonists. In this, Imran is way ahead by employing invectives that are rarely seen in Pakistan’s politics. His lack
of vocabulary is reflected by the excessive use of words like ‘mafia’ and ‘thieves’ with regard to the Sharif family. It is astonishing how Imran thinks that politics is a vocation based on honesty. His concept of integrity among politicians is closer to that of Zia or Musharraf, who witnessed a tragic political end by associating with the B-teams of politicians.
Imran should stop quoting from Western practices of diplomacy in a system that is a couple of centuries behind in terms of institutional development. In fact, Imran is no longer practicing what he preaches.
The prevailing levels of corruption in the PTI-ruled province of KP and the party’s tendency to grow on defectors from other parties do not bode well for its high claims of morality and integrity. ‘Naya Pakistan’,
after all, is so much like the same old Pakistan.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/222410-The-same-old-Pakistan
----
Where the Real Paradox Lies
By Talat Farooq
August 9, 2017
On Saturday, US National Security Adviser Gen McMaster said in a radio interview that President Trump wants Pakistan to change its ‘paradoxical’ policy regarding militant proxies. He drove his point home
by elaborating: “[It] is Pakistan in particular that we want to really see a change in and a reduction of their support for these groups. I mean, this is, of course…a very paradoxical situation where Pakistan is taking great losses. They have fought very hard against these groups, but they’ve done so… only selectively.”
I am sure the good general is familiar with ‘paradoxical’ policies aimed at selectivity given US policies in, say, the Middle East? The US-backed forces have fought alongside Iran to combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. But in Yemen, the US has been helping their proxies repel the Iranian-backed Houthis.
In 2013, when Assad’s forces were losing the war in Syria, Obama refrained from launching airstrikes that could have ended his regime. Four years later, Trump launched a cruise missile attack when Assad seemed close to winning the war. Obama and Trump are heirs to Reagan’s ‘paradoxical’ approach through the 1980s when the US backed both sides in the Iran-Iraq War.
The US media reported earlier this week that during a meeting at the White House on July 19, Trump rebuked his generals for not winning the war in Afghanistan in 16 years. Looks like it all comes down to Pakistan’s ‘paradoxical’ policy in Afghanistan. In other words, it means that Islamabad has been successfully kicking the world’s strongest military for the last 16 years – in which case, changing generals or carrying out a troop surge will not help.
Why should we just single Pakistan out? What about the Afghan government (read: US proxy) in Kabul? What about their responsibility in tackling issues of governmental corruption and an unsure Afghan
Army (read: US proxy) that is unable or unwilling to hold its own against the Taliban? Why does it not rein in the Afghan intelligence that is only too happy to collaborate with New Delhi in undermining Pakistan’s security?
Clearly, there is something wrong with the US policy in Afghanistan. It is time that McMaster did some soul-searching to locate the real policy flaw (something that the likes of Ted Poe and Rohrabacher would love to obfuscate). Threatening Pakistan will not help in rectifying the problem because the flaw has more to do with the short-sighted, ‘paradoxical’ US policies that are (mistakenly) supposed to bolster
America’s global position and have less to do with Pakistan’s support for any militants
Since 1979, the US foreign policy choices have created space for non-state actors to grow in the Af-Pak region. Playing ‘paradoxical’ games in Afghanistan yet again would not be unprecedented.
The US does not want peace in Afghanistan because chaos allows them to stay put. This raison d’être is good for Congress and American public consumption whose taxes largely support the war effort.
Staying put increases US influence and meddling in a region next to a rising China, a rival Iran and the Central Asian markets.
It also provides the space to hobnob with India to keep Muslim, nuclear Pakistan in check – something that has taken on added urgency in the backdrop of CPEC. This is where US-India security interests converge in a tight embrace.
Disorder in Afghanistan suits the US just as it suits them to keep Syria, Libya, Yemen and Iraq in turmoil so as to draw Iran in for a beating and strengthen US allies in the Middle East. Of course, all US actions are wrapped up in the political rhetoric of saving human lives, stopping WMD proliferation and strengthening democracy. Talk about paradoxes.
Confronting the Afghan Taliban that have no quarrel with Pakistan is a red line that our military should never cross. We have already lost more than 60,000 lives in terrorist attacks and suffered economically.
It is after years of bloodshed and heartache that the tribal belt is beginning to somewhat breathe again. Why should Pakistan create new enemies at this stage? This might come as a surprise to someone like Trump but the blood running in Pakistani veins is just as red as the one that ran in the veins of those inside American body-bags.
The US has the mightiest military on earth. They should go get the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan where they control more than 40 percent of territory. And while they are at it, they might as well kill or capture anti-Pakistan TTP fighters who continue to enjoy Afghan sanctuaries right under the American nose.
Regarding the lack of clear US policy guidelines on Afghanistan, McMaster argued in the same interview that “Trump disagrees with the Obama administration’s strategy of announcing everything... That is not the way to fight a war”.
No, Gen McMaster, Trump has not announced a clear-cut Afghanistan policy so far. He can’t tell his knee from his elbow when it comes to this region and he is unable to start learning anything worthwhile about it because he is up to his neck in domestic political scum, largely of his own making. This policy-fog suits the Pentagon that has been given full control of the Afghanistan policy by President Trump.
If the US really wanted peace in Afghanistan, it would use non-militarist, diplomatic means to take all stakeholders on board and play its role as a responsible superpower by helping resolve conflictual issues that continue to hinder resolution. McMaster and his generals are fully aware that winning an endless war is the real paradox.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/222411-Where-the-real-paradox-lies
-----
A Maze To The Start
Raja Omer Shabbir
August 9, 2017
In a recent newspaper column in the Turkish daily, ‘YeniSafak’, a Turkish columnist called former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s ouster as a ‘judicial coup’ in Pakistan. According to him, what he calls conspiracies were hatched and executed in Turkey’s recent past as well but they failed due to the awareness and prompt action of the Turkish people. He ends his column with the following lines:
“Fortunately, Turkey is not like Pakistan. President Erdogan is not like Sharif and the Turkish people are not like Pakistanis.”
I don’t endorse the writer’s view of there being a conspiracy anywhere in the Panama affair but the words of the Turkish writer are a stark reality check for us, even though they carry a condescending tone towards Pakistanis. It is a recorded fact that our history is replete with examples of ambitious individuals disrupting the political evolution of our country with the overt and covert support of state organs.
The stunted growth of our political landscape is more representative of an infant state rather than one which is seventy years into its independence. This has not gone unnoticed or unappreciated even amongst our friends and well-wishers. As a majority we have been too yielding, ambivalent or simply incapable of responding to iffy situations. Surely, this is not because we have always believed in the righteousness of events.
Before Panama was brought to the honourable Supreme Court, when Imran Khan was giving us all a fine lesson in agitation-politics, many opinion makers were beseeching Khan to take the matter to court. If indeed billions had been siphoned off from the public exchequer using illicit channels and there was undisputed proof of it then what better forum for the matter to be adjudicated upon than the apex court?
However the sequence of events that followed, from the filing of the case, to the daily hearings inside and outside the court premises, in the media and now with the final judgment, has left all those advocating the same clutching the wooden spoon.
If the expectation was that by having a judicial hearing of the Panama scandal we would be strengthening the fledgling accountability apparatus in Pakistan and the untouchables would finally become touchable with the real essence of democracy finally taking root in Pakistan then not much ground has been made except leaving a bad taste in our mouths. Not a single case comes to mind from the recent past when more state institutions have been undermined, more populism resorted to and more partisanship displayed in the media.
Our people will receive a rude shock now that Nawaz Sharif is gone but Pakistan’s problems haven’t. Our problems come not necessarily because of who occupies the PM House but stay because the entire country’s house is out of order. Consider this: even though the disqualification of the ex-prime minister was on a misdeclaration of assets, the popular narrative from the opposition was still that the ouster was inextricably linked to corruption. I admire how Pakistanis keep wondering with religious zeal why things don’t improve here.
When the PPP came to power in 2008 there was a general consensus that our politicians had reformed themselves; the ill-conceived tendencies and aspirations of the past had been shunned and given way to a more mature and statesman-like brand of politics. But then the PTI found popularity amongst some segments of the masses, and the worrying trend of willing protagonists fomenting instability in the political realm continued, all in the name of ‘Tabdeeli’.
Nawaz Sharif has also erred in the past on similar grounds. It is ironic how things have come full circle with him. However, what is more ironic is that graft charges can always be brought along against any political leader in Pakistan. The Panama Papers were a scandal of alleged tax-evasion and money laundering from almost thirty years ago, and not from the recent past. Such is the dynamics of doing politics here.
The most profound question in this scenario which begs an answer is that are we forever condemned to such a cycle of premature endings on one pretext or the other? The previous generation has passed
this tradition onto the current one. Will the current generation pass this ignominious tradition onto the next one and so on and so forth?
My answer is that this maze has no end unless things change dramatically. Otherwise, it will always lead back to the start.
Source: thenews.com.pk/print/222412-A-maze-to-the-start
----
Reopening Language Issue
By Kuldip Nayar
WHENEVER a state language wants to spread itself to the national sphere, it naturally meets with some resistance. The limits of both are delineated. One is confined to the state while the other has the entire country for its spread. The chauvinists in states have not understood it or at least not in the manner it should be. There is no competition. One is regional and the other is national. That Hindi as a national language was decided by the constituent assembly. The parliamentary committee—representatives from the non-Hindi speaking states participated—once again made it clear that Hindi was the national language and what has been left to the future was the switchover from English to Hindi.
What is happening now is that an effort is being made to reopen the language issue. Some are challenging the very idea of India and making territorial demands. This is unfortunate. Hindi was adopted to be India’s language by the constituent assembly and there is a wrong impression spread that it was done by the majority of one. The controversy was over the adoption of numerals, not the language. Today, the official business and most other work are conducted in Hindi, much to the difficulty of non-Hindi speaking people. In fact, during the framing of constitution between, the issue of language was one of the most debated topics and the decision to declare a national language resulted in two prominent camps. One, the North Indians who advocated Hindi as the national language and, two, the South Indians who did not want it to be imposed upon them.
While the Hindi camp tried to push Hindi due to its “numerical superiority”, the Tamil camp rejected it outright and one of the Tamil leaders even went on to mock them by pointing out that if “numerical superiority” was the criteria, then the crow had to be chosen as national bird instead of the peacock. After several brainstorming debates, the Constituent assembly decided to finalize on Hindi with Devanagari script as the official language of the Union, along with a special clause that English would continue to remain in use for all official purposes for the next 15 years.
But within few years, the committees set up to implement it began to face the ground realities. It came as a hard realization that 15 years would not be a sufficient period as the process of developing Hindi to a stage where it could be used as single national language would take more time. Even C. Rajagopalachari, who had always been in favour of Hindi as the national language and had imposed Hindi in 1937 when he had formed the Government of Madras, began to air his concerns about how Hindi was yet to develop to be acceptable as the single national language.
I was present at the discussion by the parliamentary committee when Govind Ballabh Pant was the Home Minister. I was his information officer then. When he started the business, he found that the non-Hindi speaking members were up in arms and vehemently opposed to use of the language in official business. Slowly and gradually, Pant brought around all members to reiterate that the union language, as enunciated in the constitution, would be Hindi. He left the matter of switchover to sometime in the future.
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru gave an assurance to the non-Hindi speaking people that the switchover would take place only when they would be ready for it. His successor Lal Bahadur Shastri brought a bill in parliament to that effect. Parliament gave an assurance to the country that the non-Hindi speaking people would not be put to inconvenience or handicapped. Parliament is very sensitive on the subject and does not want to take any action until the non-Hindi speaking members endorse it. But a recent move by BJP government to promote Hindi had opened up a can of worms and scratched old scars. Social media was abuzz with debates over linguistics.
While there seemed to be a general consensus among citizens that no language must be imposed upon by anybody against their wishes, most states in the south, Tamil Nadu in particular, had vehemently opposed any such move. With the spread of soft-Hindutva in the country, Hindi is coming in its wake. Prime Minister Narendra Modi feels at home with the language. So do the other members from the majority of Hindi-speaking states. That is the reason why a non-Hindi speaking state jealously guards its regional language and even challenges Hindi whenever the particular state feels that the rightful space of its own language has been taken by national language.
Since the country has adopted a three-language formula—English, Hindi and the regional—the Hindi-speaking states are happy because it is their regional language. Non-Hindi speaking states are also happy because they have English and fit into the dictates of the Union which is primarily conducting its business in English. Hindi chauvinists, who showed no patience earlier, are now quiet because they find that Hindi is a compulsory subject all over the country. If not today, but tomorrow Hindi would have been learnt by the generations to come. Even the people in south India have realised that there is no go from the national language and their children are learning Hindi. Probably, the Modi government feels that it has to be only patient.
The noting on files is already in Hindi. Those who do so have the dictates of the Union in mind and give the English translation of the noting as well. It serves everybody’s purpose and hence there is no reason for the government to take any extreme measures that will be looked down upon as an imposition. It would be better if things are left as they prevail today. Hindi is already there. Only a bit of patience is needed from the chauvinists. The RSS is doing that. Modi’s occasional visits to the RSS headquarters at Nagpur testify that.
Source: pakobserver.net/reopening-language-issue/
-----
Accepting the Defeat
By Yousaf Alamgirian
QUESTIONS are being asked by American citizens that why America has failed in Afghanistan. On the other hand American agents have started speaking truth regarding the incident of 9/11 that they were ordered by the authorities to do limited activity in World Trade Centre that they did with the spirit of patriotism. America attacked Afghanistan after the 9/11 incident along with the NATO forces to teach lesson to the so-called terrorists. It has also been learnt that none of the Afghan citizen was involved in attack still America chose this place to be the battleground for the next many decades.
Now it is more than one decade that American forces entered into Afghanistan. Different deadlines were given for expulsion of the forces from Afghanistan one of those was 2014 but America couldn’t manage to pull out its forces. Because the afghan government and it national army are not capable and confident enough to run the affairs and fight with the enemy within and opponent Taliban. It is obvious by the media reports that Taliban have reemerged in Afghanistan to the extent that now they very confidently attack on forces deputed there either foreign forces or afghan national army. Reason being the world and the American citizens are not buying the success stories of American establishment that they are winning the war in Afghanistan. It is pertinent to note here that when so ever American establishment is questioned there in America regarding losing the war in Afghanistan it start blaming Pakistan for the defeat. Sometimes Pakistan is blamed for not doing enough against certain Taliban groups and sometimes it is blamed for its interference in Afghanistan. Whereas matter of the fact is that interference is made from across the border inside Pakistan.
Many of the Cross border attacks were made from Afghanistan side on Pakistani posts. Moreover Afghanistan has never been supportive to the border management measures taken by Pakistan border to resolve this issue once for all. Fact of the matter is that Pak-afghan border is about 2600 kilometer long porous border. Which is difficult to be managed still Pakistan is solely doing efforts to manage this border by establishing check posts at the border, fencing the border, and digging trenches at some part of the border. World needs to realize that the porous border is not only a threat to the world peace but it is one of the cause to increase in narcotics , smuggling and other crimes. So Pakistan’s efforts are needed to be supported in true spirit.
On the contrary American establishment has recently announced to stop coalition support fund instalment of 35 billion dollars. It is alright if America is no more interested to support Pakistan in this context then it should delink itself from this part of the world and should stop interfering in South Asia affairs. Pakistan should also make its own way to fight the menace of terrorism which was not heard before 9/11 which has been exposed as drama by a CIA agent who is on death bed now. May be he wants to say truth before leaving this world. After 9/11 incident world for the first time heard the name of Al-Qaida and Osama bil laden as its commander.
Who was later on killed in a mysterious operation whose details are yet to be known by the world? One of the commandos who participated in the operation later on left the army and wrote a book regarding that operation. American courts not only punished him but also ordered him to return the money he received in terms of the royalty of the book to the govt. On the contrary an intelligence contractor Raymond Davis has also written a book with the name of “contractor”. This book seems to be promoted by the hidden hands as its whole manuscript is available on net in PDF format. So it shows anything which promotes their theme is easily accessible. Others are questioned and punished. It is worth mentioned here that terms like Al-Qaeda and Daesh (IS) are introduced by west which are being accepted and promoted by world and the Muslims as well against whom all this is being used. West and Western media has however remained successful in linking terrorism with Muslims. World needs to understand that a terrorist can be a Muslim but every Muslim is not a terrorist.
America needs to review its policies which are ruining world peace and due to which so-called ‘global village’ is bleeding like anything. World must be remembering that America entered its army into Iraq in the garb of presence of chemical weapons. America did carpeting bombing, destabilized a smooth running government of Iraq. President Saddam Husain was killed. Iraq is still in the condition of turmoil and different groups are fighting with each other. America later on handed over the Iraqi government to its like minded Iraqi leaders and pulled out its forces and celebrated it as a great success. However after sometimes America itself accepted that the information of presence of chemical weapons in Iraq was not true. So a Muslim country was destabilised just on fake information. America needs to realise that being a super power it has certain responsibilities. It must not form the policies which ruin the world peace.
It must have transparent stance regarding the world affairs. It must not link terrorism to Islam as Islam as a religion nothing has to do with terrorism. It is spreading because of the unjust policies of certain powers and their lack of interest to resolve the issue. It will be good if America could reconcile that if it wants to bring peace inside America it should promote peace outside America. Former secretary of the state of America and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton once herself said that America left Pakistan in isolation after the Russian forces were defeated in Afghanistan. That was the time when Pakistan was to be helped out and given patronage to meet the challenges ahead. Still Pakistan is fighting on the western border to clear the remaining assets of the terrorists. World instead indulging into blame games need to recognize the same.
Source: pakobserver.net/accepting-the-defeat/
----
PM’s Disqualification & Impact on CPEC
By S. M. Hali
The disqualification of Mian Nawaz Sharif has left the stakeholders in the mega project China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) wondering what will be the impact of the ouster of Pakistan’s PM on CPEC. Will it suffer impediments; get derailed or continue at the same pace? Answers to these questions have been attempted to be answered here.
The positive aspect is the reaction from the Chinese side. Beijing termed Nawaz Sharif’s disqualification from public office as an “internal affair of Pakistan” and said that it will not impact China-Pakistan cooperative partnership involving ‘One Belt, One Road (OBOR)’ initiative, that includes China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as its “flagship” project.
It is a fact that Mian Nawaz Sharif and his government have invested heavily in CPEC but the redeeming factor is that PML (N) will continue holding the reins of the government. Nawaz Sharif has been replaced by an interim PM and perhaps in the long run, Shahbaz Sharif, who is the Chief Minister of Punjab and is privy to the mechanisms of the execution of CPEC, may hold the reins of the Government. More importantly, the government of Pakistan has put in place a mechanism to oversee the project to fruition, irrespective of political changes. Ministry of Planning and Development was tasked to supervise the smooth execution of the different energy and infrastructure projects under the CPEC framework since the two countries have evolved an institutionalized mechanism for the project monitoring and implementation.
Ahsan Iqbal, who was the Minister for Planning and development and is fully cognizant of the intricate details of the project, is likely to be reinstated to his former post with the advent of the interim and the formal Prime Ministers, as and when they take their oath of office and form their cabinets.
The project, besides being overseen by the Ministry of Planning and Development, is being watched by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on CPEC headed by Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed.
The year 2017 is an important year for China-Pakistan Economic Corridor since it would enable Pakistan to witness new era of development with completion of CPEC early harvest projects. Sahiwal Coal Power project has been completed much ahead of its stipulated time, starting generation of 1330 MW of electricity, adding a number of energy projects under CPEC and non-CPEC will enable Pakistan to overcome the challenge of load-shedding.
Construction work on a number of projects in transport infrastructure sector is going on in full swing. These road projects would ensure not only connectivity within Pakistan and well-being of the people belonging to the underdeveloped areas but in the whole region, paving grounds for sustainable growth and inclusive development. The timely completion of these projects would be a success for the people of Pakistan.
Pakistan and China have signed framework agreement of Pakistan Railway Main Line-1 project, an initiative which would revolutionize transportation system in the country. This mega project, beginning this year, would completely upgrade rail system and the main track from Karachi to Peshawar, allowing Pakistanis to enjoy modern transport facilities.
New technologies are being introduced in infrastructure, transportation and engineering sectors due to CPEC projects. The Economic Corridor is helping Pakistan open new avenues of knowledge based economy as it has great opportunity to learn the state-of-the-art knowledge and technologies in transport sector. Pakistani universities and research institutes should tap those opportunities by making comprehensive planning in this regard.
In the Gwadar project, a number important mega projects are being fast tracked. Framework agreement of Gwadar Eastbay Expressway and grant agreement of international airport has been signed between China and Pakistan. Full-fledged construction work would commence on these projects within months. Work on water supply project in Gwadar to address the drinking water issue is being expedited. Gwadar Development Authority is working to revitalize the existing desalination plant at Karwat so that it can provide water to the local population during the summer season. The contract of the Gwadar Master City Plan has been signed. This project would develop Gwadar at par with international modern port cities like Singapore and Hong Kong.
It is also reassuring that Pakistan Army is fully committed to providing security to CPEC. The Armed Forces have deployed more than 14,000 troops to guard the security of CPEC projects and this will continue. The commitment to ensure the timely completion of CPEC by Army Chief in his address on occasion of the 90th anniversary of the foundation of PLA was reassuring. Successive army chiefs have sworn allegiance to the prosperity of Pakistan and vowed to ensure the successful and timely completion of CPEC.
India on the other hand has geared up its propaganda campaign against CPEC. This scribe participated in a number of TV Discussions on Indian TV Channels where CPEC especially China were being denigrated. It was an uphill task defending CPEC against the hostile Indian barrage. The number of video reports which Indian electronic media correspondents have prepared while operating under cover in Azad Jammu Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan and Balochistan are very damaging.
China may have declared Nawaz Sharif’s exit as an internal matter of Pakistan but the onus lies on the new incumbent holding the rein of power at Islamabad to reassure the Chinese that Pakistan remains fully committed to the scheduled fruition of all CPEC projects and China’s trust in the government and its investment to enhance the quality of life of average Pakistanis is not misplaced.
Source: pakobserver.net/pms-disqualification-impact-cpec/
-----
URL: https://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/the-70-year-itch-mahir/d/112137