Editor's Choice

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Featured Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Let us build Pakistan" has moved.
30 November 2009

All archives and posts have been transferred to the new location, which is: http://criticalppp.com

We encourage you to visit our new site. Please don't leave your comments here because this site is obsolete. You may also like to update your RSS feeds or Google Friend Connect (Follow the Blog) to the new location. Thank you.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Showing posts with label Munawar Hassan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Munawar Hassan. Show all posts

Monday, 9 November 2009

The temporary U-turn of the minus-one brigade

editorial_Cartoon


Nawaz says does not believe in 'Minus One'

Former Prime Minister and chief of his own faction of PML(N), Mian Nawaz Sharif, has said that he doesn’t believe in “Minus One Formula” and won’t let the democracy be derailed, report said. Addressing a public gathering here Friday, he said that he has had reservations on the way the democracy is being run in the country but wants that it should remain intact at all cost. Sharif maintained that his party respects the mandate of other parties, asking President Zardari for respecting the PML-N mandate as well.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Politics/06-Nov-2009/Nawaz-says-does-not-believe-in-Minus-One

‘PML-Q not supporting minus-one formula’

Staff Report

KARACHI: PML-Q senator Nilofar Bakhtiar said on Saturday her party was not supporting the “minus-one” or any other formula, however the government should improve its performance because its fate depends on it.

Bakhtiar, who is also the chairwoman of the Senate’s Standing Committee on Culture and Tourism, said this while talking to journalists during her visit to National Academy of Performance Arts (NAPA).

According to her, she along with some other committee members are visiting around 100 archeological sites, which have been transferred from the federal government to the Sindh government, to conduct a survey. The visit will start from Sunday.

Responding to a question regarding the controversy between NAPA and the Sindh Culture Department over NAPA’s premises, she said that in her personal opinion, the building has a cultural and historical importance, and the government should provide a separate place and funds to NAPA.

Bakhtiar, who was also a member of the cabinet of former prime minister Shaukat Aziz, said the National Reconciliation Order (NRO) was a black law, and the government should not bring this or other such laws in the parliament that were introduced during the “dictatorial rule”.

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\11\08\story_8-11-2009_pg7_15

JI against mid-term polls

Monday, November 09, 2009
By Our Correspondent

LAHORE

JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI Chief Syed Munawwar Hassan has said that JI doesn’t favours mid-term elections or minus-one or minus-all formulas as these won’t bring any meaningful change.

In a press release on Sunday, he said that the country was completely under American influence and any such move at this moment would only brought in a fresh team more loyal to Washington and Hilleary Clinton, he said any adventure on minus-one move would be of no use as Asif Zardari’s exit won’t help in anyway. Free elections can be held only after end of the US interference in the country, he said.

He said JI was continuing its go-America-go movement to finish US meddling in our affairs and to expose the US tools. Pakistanis want an end to the US interference, he said.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=207584



Read more...

Sunday, 25 October 2009

A view on Jamaat-e-Islami's referendum on the Kerry-Lugar Bill


Asadullah Ghalib's Analysis:














PML-Q backs JI in ‘referendum’

ISLAMABAD: The PML-Q extended support to the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) in a “referendum” the latter held against the Kerry-Lugar legislation. PML-Q leaders Kamil Ali Aga and Marvi Memon also voted against the US legislation at a JI “polling station” in Sector I-10/1. Talking to Daily Times, Aga said the PML-Q president had asked them to express solidarity with the JI in its efforts to gather public support against the US assistance package. To a question, he said, “We are against this legislation. We will join hands with parties who will take to streets against it.” To a question about the party’s tilt towards extreme right parties, Aga said, “The Kerry-Lugar law is a national issue and we will join hands with all parties which oppose it.” irfan ghauri (Daily Times)

98 pc reject KLL in JI referendum
Sunday, October 25, 2009
By By Our Correspondent
LAHORE

JAMAAT-e-Islami Ameer Syed Munawwar Hasan on Saturday said that over 98 percent people, who participated in the JI referendum on the Kerry-Lugar Law, rejected the document and the increasing US interference in the country’s affairs.

Announcing the result of referendum at a press conference, the JI leader said 21,979,287 people participated in the referendum and 21,761,691 voted against the KLL whereas 1,337,943 supported it and 79,653 votes were rejected. He said as many as 13,264,718 votes were cast in Punjab of which 13,158,394 rejected the KLL, 4,416,262 votes were cast in Sindh and 4,381,274 rejected the law, 2,941,040 votes were cast in the NWFP of which 2,924,100 rejected the US aid law and in Balochistan, 310,646 votes were cast out of which 296,484 rejected the KLL. He said the KLL was a treaty of surrender and a cause of humiliation for the entire nation. He appreciated the spirit shown by the masses in rejecting the US aid.

Munawwar demanded the government to present a balance sheet on the terrorism prior to the start of the military operation to indicate if the menace was reduced or increased.

Meanwhile, Jamaat--e-Islami Secretary General Liaqat Baloch has said that the United Nations has failed in implementing its charter and it has ruined its position because of unilateral decisions on the dictation of big powers.

In a statement issued in connection with the United Nations Day on Saturday, he said the UN was set up to promote ties among different countries and for resolving disputes among states on an impartial basis.

He said, the whole world was witnessing the atrocities of Israel in Palestine, the Indian occupation of Kashmir and the US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He said Muslims’ were being killed in various parts of the world while the UN was just a silent spectator. (The News)

Some ‘referendum’ thoughts

The Jama’at-e Islami, which had boycotted the 2008 general election in the country, on Friday put the nation through its own “referendum” on the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Kerry-Lugar legislation. Although it scores modestly in normal polls, it had the satisfaction of polling nearly a hundred percent votes in favour of its rejection of the American aid.

According to reports, JI distributed 4 million ballot papers in 5,000 polling stations across the country. In Lahore, JI chief Syed Munawwar Hasan likened the American enabling law to a “document of surrender” and named Asif Zardari and Altaf Hussain as culprits who had “swum out of the ocean of corruption”. The city of Lahore, whose real leader Mr Nawaz Sharif had already announced himself “not convinced” on the Kerry-Lugar law, saw everyone lunging for the ballot box to vote “namanzoor”.

This is not the first time. The JI had reached for the referendum device on the possible signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in the 1990s to “test” the waters of its popularity. The result was ditto because everyone and his uncle thought that Pakistan should test and declare the nation a nuclear power. This time too the JI has been “passed” as the most popular party in the country on an issue on which the media had brainwashed the population beforehand.

Referendums can be held under the Constitution but that is done through a majority in parliament, not by any extra-parliamentary opposition. Strangely, wherever referendums have been held, they have proved less politically desirable than elections. In fact, in the recent history of the European Union, referendums have yielded results damaging to the collective advantage of what can be called history’s most meaningful confederation aspiring to a federal decision-making process. The visionary mind in Europe regrets that the people have been roped in to express emotion over something that is intellectually and politically unassailable.

What happened after JI came out with flying colours over its referendum on the CTBT? The country “tested” in 1998 and immediately went bankrupt. The government that had thought the test would make its rule permanent was abandoned by the people when it went out asking for their savings to replace the funds affected by anti-test sanctions. Its act of “patriotically” freezing the dollar accounts of the people was never forgiven. JI should have apologised for holding the “test” referendum, but it didn’t, because someone else fell from power in 1999.

In Pakistan, referendums don’t have a good reputation. Their results were claimed to be genuine soundings of the popular mind but in practice they were rejected by the very electorate on which the rulers had based their case. Strangely, referendums always yield “hundred percent” results in favour of the authority that stages them. General Zia-ul Haq thought he had almost a hundred percent people saying he should continue his martial rule. General Musharraf polled so heavily that he was apologetic about it later on. One “referendummed” general was killed; the other has escaped being killed under Article 6 for treason by leaving Pakistan.

Jurisprudence against referendums is accumulating in measure with the frequency with which JI is staging them on the basis of its cadre strength. The European Union is discovering how the politicians cover their tracks by leaning on these “knee-jerk” popular reflexes and damaging democracy in the process. The United Kingdom, which shuns the device, has become the new beacon. If the EU needs any negative evidence, it should refer to the tradition of referendums in Pakistan where the “staging” dictators have suffered and the “staging” opposition has simply ended up damaging the “nationalist interest” of the country.

The most important sense in which referendums offend against democracy is their “supersession” of the mandated general election in the country. They hint at mid-term change of government and thus undermine the normal five-year mandate handed down by the Constitution. Reference to a single issue in the referendum also negates the “indirect” nature of democratic governance enshrined in the Constitution. * (Editorial, Daily Times)


Letters to the editor:

Opposition to Kerry-Lugar
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
To eliminate terrorism is now the cry of every Pakistani except a few who are still confused -- and they are also trying to confuse the nation. One of them says that the government has no realization of the strength of the Taliban. Another has said that his party could not condemn the attack on General Headquarters because the attackers' aim was to defend Islam. The most vocal among these groups is the Jamaat-e-Islami which has more or less launched a movement against the PPP government. The fact is that whenever the PPP comes into power religious fanatics some elements in the media along with the remains of Zia rush to stab it. Sometimes they go for long sit-ins in the capital; and sometimes they seek issues like the war on terror and, the most recent one, being the Kerry-Lugar bill. These frustrated elements do not lose any moment to distract the nation from understanding and realising the real threats to it.

Such bills and agreements were signed during the reign of Musharraf as well. Where was the JI then and why didn't it demand a referendum then? The fact is that our religious parties are always in accord with dictators. They are their proxies safeguarding their interest. The Kerry-Lugar bill is in accordance with our constitution and also the Charter of Democracy to which Mian Nawaz Sharif is apparently a signatory. The bill says that we stamp out militancy and terrorism and that we do not allow our territory from being used against any other country. It also emphasises the supremacy of the civilian government over the military and seeks to check the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Above all it focuses on socio-economic development which should benefit ordinary Pakistanis and so what is wrong with it?

The fact is that critics of the bill are using it as a cloak to fire salvos at the PPP government. Whether it is the JI, Nawaz Sharif or Imran Khan, each one has their axe to grind. Agreed, Asif Ali Zardari is not an ideal head of state and nor is the PPP government an angel, but it is in place after a reasonably free and fair election.

Zubair Torwali

Swat


*****

Shocking is the reaction of certain myopic and misguided segments of society against the Kerry-Lugar bill. Those opposing the bill are requested to explain why they want to refuse aid which is to be spent on improving education, healthcare and building roads and hospitals. There is nothing wrong with this bill. To the short-sighted and the selfish I would quote Iqbal: "Afsos sad afsos kay shaheen na bana tu/Dekhay na teri aankh nay fitrat kay isharat".

Lt-Col (r) Malik Khan

Rawalpindi

http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=204219

Abdul Haye Kakar:


'اے بسا آرزو کہ خاک شدہ۔۔۔'

اصناف: , ,

عبدالحئی کاکڑ | 2009-10-26 ،11:38

جماعت اسلامی کی جانب سے کیری لوگر بل پر 'صاف و شفاف' ریفرنڈم کے انعقاد پر پارٹی کے سربراہ منور حسن صاحب کو دل کی گہرائیوں سے مبارک باد دینے کو دل چاہتا ہے۔

عوام اور سیاستدانوں پر ہمیشہ شک کرنے والی پاکستانی فوج کے ساتھ یکجہتی کا اس سے بڑا ثبوت اور کیا ہو سکتا ہے۔ اِدھر کور کمانڈروں نے اجلاس کے بعد محض چند جملوں کا پالیسی بیان جاری کیا اُدھر مسلم لیگ نواز سمیت کئی جماعتوں نےاس پر لبیک کہا۔

بہرحال سب سے زیادہ وفادری کا کریڈٹ جماعت اسلامی کو ہی جاتا ہے جس نے دن رات ایک کر کے اس ایشو پر بقولِ شخصے انجینئرڈ ریفرنڈم کروایا۔ شفافیت کا اندازہ اس بات سے لگایا جا سکتا ہے کہ چیف الیکشن کمشنر غالباً منور حسن صاحب تھے اور پولنگ ایجنٹس جماعت اسلامی کے ہی مقامی رہنماء تھے۔ ووٹوں کی گنتی بھی جماعت اسلامی کے منظم ذمہ داروں کے مبارک اور مقدس ہاتھوں سے کچھ اس طرح انجام پائی کہ دوسرے ہاتھ کو خبر تک نہیں ہوئی۔

ریفرنڈم میں اٹھاونوے فیصد افراد کا کیری لوگر بِل کے خلاف ووٹ دینے سے نہ صرف فوج کی منشاء پوری اور ساکھ بہتر ہوئی بلکہ اس سے جماعت اسلامی کا سیاسی موقف بھی 'برحق فوج' ثابت ہوا۔

کیری لوگر بل پر ریفرنڈم اعداد وشمار کے لحاظ سے جنرل ریٹائرڈ پرویز مشرف اور ایشو کے حوالے سے جنرل ضیاءالحق کے ساتھ مماثلت رکھتا ہے۔

لیکن کیا ہی اچھا ہوتا کہ جماعت اسلامی خودکش حملوں کے حلال یا حرام ہونے، مساجد میں بم دھماکوں، طالبان کو 'دہشت گرد' یا 'مجاہد' قرار دینے، چینی اور دیگر روزمرہ اشیاء کی عدم دستیابی اور بڑھتی ہوئی قیمتوں پر کوئی ریفرنڈم کرواتی، لیکن اے بسا آرزو کہ خاک شدہ۔۔۔

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/urdu/2009/10/post_523.html

Munno Bhai:

Asadullah Ghalib:


Read more...

Friday, 23 October 2009

The future government of Pakistan - by Nazir Naji


Nazir Naji identifies some possible names for a future idealistic government of Pakistan comprising some of the 'most capable' persons as identified in various TV talk-shows.

President: General Hamid Gul

Prime Minister: Munawar Hasan

Minister for Religious Affairs: Imran Khan

Roedad Khan: Interior Minister

Dr Shahid Masood: Minister for 'Dependent Care'

Qazi Hussain Ahmed: Ambassador to India

Shaheen Sehbai: Ambassador to Canada

Shirin Mazari: Ambassador to the USA

Abdul Aziz: Ambassador to the United Nations

Osama Bin Laden: Ambassador at large

General Mahmud Durrani: Governor of the NWFP

Geneal Aslam Beg: Governor of Balochistan

Hanif Abbasi: Governor of Punjab - part 1

Fazlur-Rehman: Governor of Punjab - part 2


Regime of ‘hostile’ TV anchors
Daily Times - Saturday, June 21, 2008

Two particular encounters on two TV channels Thursday night revealed the mind of the “misplaced or hostile anchor” in Pakistan. The first was a discussion among a group of TV journalists on the accusation levelled against them that they are no longer impartial in their conduct of talk shows and tend to favour a political stance. The “consensus” was that encroachments on institutions of representative democracy by military rulers could not be viewed with impartiality, and that a show of partiality was dictated by the anchors’ loyalty to the Constitution. One opinion was that this obligatory partiality must be accompanied by “objectivity”; but it was not clear how the state of being “objective” could be reconciled with the state of being “partial”.

The other discussion was an interview with Pakistan’s ambassador Mr Hussain Haqqani by a TV journalist noted for his acerbity of approach and bias. The topic was the attack made by NATO-ISAF forces inside Mohmand Agency which resulted in the death of 13 Pakistani troops, souring Pakistan’s relations between Washington. The ambassador, while acknowledging his duty to bring the umbrage of Pakistan to the notice of the Washington Administration in the most forceful of terms, also charged the TV person with the obligation of looking objectively at the situation in which Pakistan found itself. He asked him if he took account of the ground realities in the Tribal Areas where the war against terrorism was clearly in the national interest of Pakistan. The ambassador argued for “realism” in the handling of such crises as the one resulting from the attack in the Mohmand area. But the TV anchor demanded that Pakistan approach the United Nations for a solution to the problem of the growing breach of Pakistan’s “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity”. The ambassador pointed out that the Security Council was an arena of power play, not a kind of Supreme Court where all plaintiffs were equal. The TV anchor then fell back on the argument of “national pride” and claimed to represent the people of Pakistan, arguing in favour of Pakistan opting out of the international war on terrorism. He had no answer, however, to the question about what Pakistan would do after that, after its various trouble spots are bombed by a combination of forces united inside the US Security Council.

The patriotically “partial” TV anchors began by opposing a military ruler and are now caught in a situation of political bias under democracy because of the dictates of their partiality. The 2008 elections have delivered a political battlefield where elected parties are trying to move together despite their different recipes and solutions. What should the TV anchors do now? Normally, they should have moved back and become neutral, letting the discussions be fairly judged by the viewers, but they continue to pose as arbiters and decide on their own such matters as the “mandate” of the 2008 elections, the “immorality” of the NRO, and the rough dismissal of President Musharraf from his job. But when matters are in dispute between elected parties and in parliament, it is the duty of the media to remain impartial in order to allow the people to make their own judgements.

While highlighting the “complaints” against the TV channels, one must be clear, however, about the over-all role played by our electronic journalism. Despite their early “philosophical” gropings, the TV channels are a sine qua non of our lives and their foibles of “partiality” are dwarfed by their achievement of creating awareness among the people on all other economic and social matters. For example, in Punjab, Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif is taking action, correctly, after watching TV reports on the malfunction of government institutions.

A sense of pride and sovereignty may take nations into war and humiliate them without making them understand what went wrong. This happened to Germany in the Second World War and in recent times to Serbia whose people, proud and sovereign, hate the world today for not understanding why they were killing Bosnians and Kosovars. But states don’t only feel aroused emotionally. They can also be cold-blooded. They can be motivated only by their self-interest whose pursuit might negate the state’s pride and sovereignty. When Iran and America confront each other, both tend to fly off the handle. In contrast, in Europe, where many nationalist wars were fought in the past, few feel as aroused.

Why shouldn’t a state feel emotional? Because being emotional may be contrary to its national interests. These interests are almost always economic. This is perfectly understandable because as long as a nation is prosperous and not dependent on outside creditors, its pride and sovereignty remain intact. But if a state is neglectful of its economy and pursues other emotional goals either unrelated or hostile to its economy it is bound to impose suffering on its people through the growth of poverty. And nothing removes pride and sovereignty from a nation more cruelly and quickly than poverty. Let us not forget that the organisation which kidnapped and beheaded the American journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 called itself National Movement for the Restoration of Pakistani Sovereignty.
(Asadullah Ghalib - CallAnchors)

Read more...

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

An analysis of Imran Khan's and Jamaat Islami's stance on Taliban.


Abbas Ather
Wave of violence
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Gradually the complexity and boldness of the Taliban raid on GHQ is being exposed – somewhat quicker than usual for these events, which is a welcome relief from the smokescreen that usually surrounds them. The operation was planned not in southern Punjab as speculated by many, but in South Waziristan. The attackers sought to take hostage senior officers and use them as leverage to gain the release of up to 100 of their comrades in arms, demand the trial of General Musharraf and an end to American use of our airbases. Whilst most of the population would not accede to their demands for the release of their comrades, there is probably a majority of the population who would support their call for an end to American use of our bases and the drone strikes, with perhaps a smaller proportion wanting to see Musharraf tried. It is also clear that there was some element of electronic intercept of the conversations between the various components of the assault group. On the morning of the attack a conversation between TTP commander Waliur Rehman and 'another person' revealed that the attack had its origins in South Waziristan and that this person was asked to 'pray for the Fedayeen attacking the GHQ'. If nothing else this suggests that our ability to conduct elint operations has advanced and would seem effective. It would not seem to be matched by capacity of the humint side of the equation that would allow the marrying of human and electronic intelligence into a real-time actionable picture. The much-vexed matter of whether there had been a security lapse was sidestepped by the adroit footwork of DG ISPR Maj-Gen Athar Abbas. He said that the terrorists achieved less than 10 per cent of their objectives, that the majority were stopped at the perimeter and that the army response as the siege developed was both appropriate and timely, taking into account the need to preserve the lives of the hostages. It was announced that a further three SSG commandos had died of their wounds overnight bringing the military death toll to 14; with nine terrorists killed and one captured – a ratio that will bring little comfort to the military high command.....

The new wave of violence unleashed by militants continues, with the third major attack in four days. This time, a military convoy passing through a bazaar in the Alipuri area of Shangla district was targeted, apparently by a bomber aged around 14 years. He becomes like those killed as a result of his actions, another child victim of terrorism. At least 41 people, including four soldiers and three policemen were killed. The latest attack seems to mock the insistent statements from the interior minister that the militants are on the run. At present they seem to be running nowhere at all but firmly holding their ground. It is becoming apparent that for all the claims, the operation against them cannot be termed the final triumph against militancy. There have been some assessments pointing out that key militant leaders, such as the 'Dr Usman' held at the GHQ, are now themselves coming forward. This could be a sign of desperation on the part of the militants, a desire to demonstrate they have not yet been beaten. But this of course is mere conjecture. We do not really know what is happening or how the Tehrik-e-Taliban and its allies are thinking. What we do know is that the optimism of ordinary people is fading. The jubilation that came with the sense that militancy was on its way out and the terrifying bomb blasts we have witnessed over the past few years could be a thing of the past has receded. Fear again walks with us. Messages sent over texting services warn of more blasts to follow and advise people to keep away from busy places.

Our government needs to act quickly to ensure triumph is not snatched away from us. The militants have in recent months felt the weight of public opinion bear down on them. The pressure must be kept up. To ensure this, we need to see a continued demonstration of a will to defeat militancy. Action in South Waziristan is one way of keeping up the momentum and moving forward. But the war will not be over even if there is victory here. The consequences of years of inaction are now apparent. Groups in Punjab have aligned themselves with the Taliban. Claims that persons from across the border are involved are absurd. No one believes them. The fighting will have to move here, into the heart of major cities, and drive out the terrorists who have set up bases everywhere. This is not an easy undertaking. The events of the past few days have shown just how difficult it is to fight militancy and win. But there is no option but to continue and to widen the operation against all kinds of terrorists, everywhere in the country. Otherwise we will continue to see the meaningless violence that has already claimed far too many lives and is now resulting in yet more spilled blood. (The News, Editorial)

Read more...

Sunday, 20 September 2009

Jamaat-e-Islami - From Zia-ul-Haq to Musharraf

Tahir Sarwar Mir:


Read more...

Saturday, 29 August 2009

Go America Go, Jamaat-e-Islmai, General Zia-ul-Haq and the enemy within


Mullah Munawar Hassan's column in today's Jang for an anti-USA alliance in Pakistan:


Contrast the above column with Nadeem Paracha's critique a few weeks ago:

Gone fishing

Looking at one of the many anti-US banners put up by the Jamat Islami before their June 28 rally, (saying ‘Go America Go,’ and ‘We hate America’), instantly reminded me of a rather ironic episode many years ago.

While studying as a Graduate student at a local college in Karachi in the mid and late 1980s, I was a member of a progressive student organisation.

In early 1987, the organisation at the collage decided to hold a rally against the United States government that was aiding the Ziaul Haq dictatorship and the so-called anti-Soviet Jihad in Afghanistan.

A hundred or so students gathered outside the college’s recreational hall and canteen, chanting anti-Zia, anti-US and pro-democracy slogans.

Then a few of us also made some fiery speeches denouncing the US government of Ronald Reagan whom we blamed for financing an authoritarian regime and its manufactured jihad.

I remember, as soon as one of my colleagues finished his speech and we started chanting slogans again - mostly in an attempt to provoke the police contingents stationed just outside the college premises – one hot-headed student activist suddenly whipped out an American flag from the back-pocket of his jeans.

There was a sudden hush for a second or two, before my colleague asked me for a lighter. Instead, I offered him a cigarette, thinking he wanted to smoke.

‘Nai, nai, comrade, lighter dey, lighter!’ (No, comrade, give me the lighter).

After lighting a cigarette for myself, and still not sure what he wanted to do with my lighter, I handed it over to him.

He ran towards the guy with the American flag whom I now saw desperately trying to light a match, as the flag lay on the ground in front of him.

Ah, I thought. Today we’ll be burning the American flag.

Suddenly, anticipating what was about to happen, we started to chant anti-Zia and anti-US slogans even louder, all the while gathering stones, rocks and pebbles, so when the expected assault from the cops came, we’ll be prepared.

Some of us even went inside the canteen to fill empty soft-drink bottles with petrol and stuff their tops with pieces of thin cloth, turning them into Molotov Cocktails.

We hurried back outside so not to miss the flag-burning spectacle and the glory of confronting ‘Zia’s tyrannical thugs’ (the police)!

But what I saw wasn’t what we had anticipated.

Forty or so members of the Islami Jamiat Taleba (IJT) – the Jamat Islami’s student-wing – had gate-crashed the rally. And guess they were asking us not to do? Burn the US flag.

I moved towards the site of the bickering, emptying my Molotov Cocktail, but retaining the bottle.

‘Kyoon? (Why?),’ I shouted. ‘Why shouldn’t we put the flag on fire? Kya Reagan tera chacha lagta hai!’ (Is Regan your paternal uncle)?”

A ripple of laughter and nervous giggles cut across the gathering.

‘Haan, (yes),’ the IJT leader screamed back. ‘Jiss taraan Marx tera mamu lagta hai! (Just like [Karl] Marx is your maternal uncle).’

Smiling, my colleague threw the lighter to the guy with the flag that had already been drenched with petrol.

‘You guys have been burning our flags, for too long now,’ he told the IJT activist. ‘Ab hum tumarey baap ka jhandah jalian gey (Now we will put your dad’s flag on fire).’

‘We won’t let you,’ the IJT guy insisted. ‘America is helping us fight kafirs (read: the Soviets). Reagan is an ally of Pakistan (and thus, Islam), and we will not tolerate any disrespect against our allies in this war!’

But before he could add more to his typical Cold-War-speak, the flag went up in flames.

Chaos followed. Dozens more IJT members barged into the college, and the rally turned into a free-for-all.

Fists, knuckle-dusters, knives, stones and empty soft-drink bottles were used by both parties in the eruptive rumble.

As we gave one another broken jaws, split lips, bashed heads, stab wounds, the cops remained unmoved.

After about twenty minutes of fighting, the IJT members finally moved off the campus, carrying their wounded, while we carried ours into the canteen.

The fight ended when some students resorted to aerial firing. I’m not sure from whose side the shots came.

I am not proud of this episode, as such. In fact, I kind of feel silly about it now; about breaking heads to allow (or not allow) a small symbolic gesture that wouldn’t have made the slightest of dent on the flow of history.

But I couldn’t resist relating this event here after seeing that ‘Go America, Go,’ banner of the Jamat Islami.

The banner at best amused me, as I also recalled the interviews given by JI founder, Abul Ala Maududi’s son, Haider Maududi, who is himself a well-known scholar.

Talking to Pakistan’s English Daily, The Nation, in 1999, Haider said: ‘My father would not allow his children to go near Jihad, but would sell this idea to millions of others …’ [1]; [2]

In another interview, Haider accused the JI of hypocrisy, saying that most of the children of leading JI figures are leading comfortable lives in the United States while the JI is asking the Pakistanis to shun the US. [3]

Each one of us who ever pretended to hold and propagate a lofty ideology at some point in time is guilty of being a hypocrite of some sort. It’s hard not to be one with an holier than thou attitude that is almost impossible in the modern world to live by.

But history most certainly is the cruellest to JI when it comes to counting contradictions and episodes of sheer political charlatan-ism.

These negative episodes of double-speak and action quite easily outweigh JI’s positive undertakings, leaving the party hanging in the air, usually advocating action that the party itself had either denounced in the past, or its leaders are contradicting in the present - perhaps thinking that Pakistanis are too naïve to notice?

It is this attitude and history of the Jamat that has rendered the organisation to become only a pale reflection of what it was some twenty-five years ago.

Theirs is a history of contradiction and desperate pragmatism; a desperation and maybe a case of ideological bankruptcy that was so well encapsulated by that rhetorical ‘Go America Go’ banner.

One of the IJT guys who didn’t want us to burn the US flag eventually became a colleague of mine at a daily newspaper that we joined in 1991. He is now settled in the US. I emailed him the picture of the banner that I took with my mobile phone.

His reply to my email was short but potent: ‘Yes,’ he wrote. ‘Most probably the Jamat guy who made this banner, already has his passport sent to the US Embassy for a visa.’

Finally, this revelation in Tanvir Qaiser Shahdi's article about General Zia's role during the USA-sponsored Jihad (Fasad) days:



Read more...

Can we have dialogue with these cirminals (as per the wishes of Imran Khan, Dr Israr Ahmed and Mullah Munawar Hasan)?


At Least 22 Dead in Pakistan Bombing

Ali Imam/Reuters

A border guard injured in a suicide bombing that killed at least 22 people was brought into a hospital on Thursday in Peshawar, Pakistan.


Published: August 27, 2009

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A suicide attacker pretending to offer food to a group of tribal police officers detonated his explosives among them on Thursday, killing at least 22 people as they gathered to break the Ramadan fast on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, officials and witnesses said.


The attack in Torkham, a post on the main route for moving supplies to NATO and American forces in Afghanistan, took place just before dusk, as the men prepared to eat on the lawn outside their barracks. Because the attacker offered food, he was welcomed to join the gathering in accordance with local tradition during Ramadan, said Sajid Khan, a policeman who witnessed the attack.

A militant group affiliated with the Taliban later claimed responsibility for the attack, and a spokesman for the group called a local reporter to warn of further strikes against security forces if Pakistan did not stop NATO supplies from passing through its territory.

Medical workers described a chaotic scene at the local hospital and the blast site.

“So far, we have 22 bodies brought here, but there are many others, so we don’t know the exact casualty figures,” said Zar Alam Shinwari, a local doctor. “We have asked for ambulances from other towns. The situation is bad.”

It was unclear how many of the dead were police officers.

The group that claimed responsibility, the Dr. Abdullah Azzam Brigade, is based in the Orakzai tribal region and is named after a fiery Palestinian scholar who was a mentor toOsama bin Laden and was killed in a car bomb in Peshawar in 1989.

Earlier on Thursday, at least six people were killed in the South Waziristan tribal region in a missile strike by a remotely controlled United States aircraft aimed at a meeting of local Taliban militants, according to security officials in the area.

The attack took place in the town of Kanigurram, in an area considered to be a stronghold of Waliur Rehman, the man the Taliban chose as its regional leader after Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Pakistani Taliban, died from injuries suffered in a drone attackearly this month.

A government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the number of dead from the strike could rise and that it could include some foreign militants.

Ismail Khan reported from Peshawar, and Pir Zubair Shah from Islamabad. Salman Masood and Lydia Polgreen contributed reporting from Islamabad. (The New York Times)


Read more...

Saturday, 22 August 2009

Jamaat-e-Islami delegation meets Holbrooke; An interview with Qazi Hussain Ahmed

By Muhammad Anis

ISLAMABAD: A Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) delegation in a meeting with US Special Envoy for Pakistan and Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke on Tuesday conveyed the party's concerns over the expansion in the US embassy in Islamabad and the drone attacks, besides raising the issue of Dr Aafia Siddiqui's detention. The delegation comprising JI Secretary General Liaquat Baloch and Naib Ameer Dr Muhammad Kamal met the US special envoy at the US Embassy. The JI delegation was invited by the US Embassy for the meeting, which continued for over 90 minutes. The US envoy and over a dozen other officials were also present on the occasion. The JI team also handed over a document to the US official containing their stance on US policies in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (The News)


A fictitious interview with Qazi Hussain Ahmed (Leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan):

By: netengr

Source


قاضی حسین سے ایک فرضی انٹرویو

س :قاضی صاحب آپ سوات کی صورتحال پر کیا کہیں گے

قاضی : یہ سب حکومت اور امریکہ کا پروپگنڈہ ہے

س: قاضی صاحب یہ جو لوگ لوگوں کی گردانیں کاٹ رہے ہیں ،اغوا کر رہے ہیں ،لاشیں لٹکا رہے ہیں اور اپنے اپ کو طالبان کہتے رہے ہیں کون ہیں ؟

قاضی :یہ سب امریکا اور انڈیا کر وہ رہا ہے

س: اگر یہ امریکہ اور انڈیا کر وہ رہے ہیں تو پھر آپ آپریشن کی مخالفت کیوں کر رہے ہیں ؟

قاضی :ہم نظام-ے-عادل کی حمایت کرتے ہیں اور یہ سوات کے لوگوں کا مطالبہ ہے اسس لِیےہ ان لوگوں سے مزاکرات کیہ جائیں اور آپریشن ختم کیا جا ےَ.

س: تو قاضی صاحب ابھی تو اپ کہ رہے تھے یہ امریکہ اور انڈیا کر وہ رہا ہے اور پھر یہ کہ رہے ہیں ہیں مزاکرات کیہ جائیں یہ عجیب سی بات نہیں ؟

س: اچھا یہ بتائیں کے آپ طالبان کے ساتھ ہیں یا نہیں ؟

قاضی : جب تک امریکا افغان استان میں ہے ایسا ہوتا رہے گا

س: آپ نے میرے سوال کا جواب نہیں دیا

قاضی :یہ طالبان اجنسیوں کی بنا ے ہوئے ہیں

س: ہیں ! قاضی صاحب اپ کو یاد کو منور حسن صاحب نے تو خود کہا تھے کے ہم اور طالبان ایک ہیں اور اپپ کہ رہے ہیں کے یہ اجنٹ ہیں ؟

قاضی :یہ سب امریکہ کر وہ رہا ہے

س: جب یہ اجنٹ ہیں اور یہ امریکہ کر وا رہا ہے تو آپ پھر یہ کیوں کہتے ہیں کے ان سے مزاکرات کریں یا یہ امریکہ کے افغانستان میں ہونے کا ردعمل ہے ؟ عجیب باتیں ہیں آپ کی بھی

س: اچھا قاضی صاحب سب چھوڑیں یہ باتیں کے آپ کی جماعت سوات سے ووٹ لیتی رہی ہے پر جب تین سال وہاں طالبان کا ہولڈ تھا تو آپ وہاں کیوں نہیں گایے اور جماعت اسلامی نے اپنا کوئی ایک جلسہ بھی نہیں کیا ،اگر یہ سب پروپگنڈہ تھا تو آپ وہاں جاتے اور وہاں کے لوگوں سے ملتے اور ساری دنیا کو بتاتے کے یہ سب جھوٹ ہے ؟

قاضی :یہ سب یہودیوں کی سازش ہے

س: سازش کو چھوڑیں آپ میرے سوال کا جواب دیں

قاضی: کون سا سوال

س:آپ اور آپ کی جماعت کہاں تھی جب طالبان سوات میں تھے ؟

س : اپپ اور جماعت اسلامی پورے ملک میں جلسے کرتے تھے پر سوات میں کیوں نہیں کئیے ؟

س: آپ مینار-ے-پاکستان پر تو جلسہ کرتے ہیں پر طالبان کے خونی چوک پر جلسہ کر کے دکھایا ہوتا .جیسے کے آپ پوری قوم کو کہتے رہے کے یہ پروپگنڈہ ہے آپ کی جماعت امریکہ اور برطانیہ میں تو کام کرتی ہے اور وہاں پروگرام بھی کرتی ہے پر جہاں طالبان ہوتے ہیں آپ وہاں سے دم دبا کر بھاگ کیوں جاتے ہیں ؟یا تو اپپ کھل کر کہیں کے آپ طالبان کے ساتھ ہیں یا یہ بھی کھل کر کہیں کے طالبان کا خوف اپ کو بھی ہے .اگر اپپ جاتے تو اپپ کی بھی سر کٹی لاش سوات کے گرین چوک پر ملتی

قاضی : یہ جو بھی سوات میں ہیں وہ انڈیا اور امریکہ کے اجنٹ کر وہ رہے ہیں

س: اور یہ اجنٹ ہیں تو پھر آپ یہ کیوں کہتے ہیں کے ان سے مزاکرات کریں اور ان کی شریعت نافذ کریں ؟

قاضی : یہ سب یہودیوں اور امریکہ کی سازش ہے

س: پھر اپپ نے میرا سوال گول کر دیا ...خیر

س: میں پھر یہی کہوں گا کے افغانستان ہو یا پاکستان جہاں جہاں طالبان کا قبضہ ہوا وہاں وہاں جماعت اسلامی غایب رہی .

س: قاضی صاحب یہ بتائیں کے یہ جو اتنے خود کش دھماکے ہوئے ہیں اور اتنا لوگوں کو مرا گیا کہ لوگ کون ہیں ؟

قاضی : یہ سب امریکہ کر وہ رہا ہے اور یہ اسی کے اجنٹ ہیں

س: ماں لیا کے یہ امریکا کر وہ رہا ہے ،پر جب بھی کو دھمماکا ہوتا ہے یا لوگوں کو مرا جاتا ہے تو آپ یہ کیوں کہتے ہیں کے یہ ایک ردعمل ہے ؟یہ کچھ منافقت نہیں ؟ ردعمل کس کی طرف سے ؟ امریکہ کی طرف سے امریکہ کا ردعمل ؟ اف اپپ عجیب ہی بات کرتے ہیں ،چیت بھی آپ کی اور پٹ بھی آپ کا ؟

س: اچھا یہ بتائیں کے یہ مسلم خان ،مولوی عمر ،فضلاللہ ،بیت اللّہ محسود جو ٹی وی پر آکر سارے قتل اور دھماکے قبول کرتے ہیں اس پر اپ اپنا ردعمل کیوں ظاہر نہیں کرتے اور ان کی مذمّت کیوں نہیں کرتے ؟

قاضی : یہ سب امریکہ کا ڈرامہ ہے اور یہ سب اجنٹ ہیں

س : اگر یہ اجنٹ ہیں تو پھر اپپ ان کو برا کیوں نہیں کہتے ہیں ؟

قاضی : یہ ساری فلمیں ا مریکا میں تیار کی جاتی ہیں

س: آپ کو کیسے پتا ؟

س: اگر یہ سب جھوٹ ہیں تو پھر اپپ طالبان کے خلاف آپریشن کے خلاف کیوں ہیں جو ہمارے فوج اور لوگوں کو مار رہے ہیں ؟

قاضی : ہمارے فوج امریکہ کے ہاتھو بک چکی ہے

س: تو اس مطلب ہے کے اپ طالبان کے ساتھ ہیں ،اور اگر ہیں بھی تو کھل کر کیوں نہیں کہتے ؟ اور طالبان کے علاقوں میں جانے سے ڈرتے کیوں ہیں ؟

س: اچھا سب چھوڑیں یہ بتائیں کے جماعت اسلامی امریکہ کی سب سے بری مخالف ہے اور پچھلے ١٥ سالوں سے اپ امریکہ کے خلاف جہد کے نرے لگا رہے ہیں پر اپ کی جماعت اب کیوں نہیں جاتی ہے ان سے لڑنے ؟

قاضی : امریکہ نے نا جائز افغانستان پر قبضہ کیا ہوا ہے

س: جب افغانستان میں طالبان کیوں حکومت تھی تو وہاں پر القاعدہ نے اپنے کمپس بناے ہوئے تھے اور اسامہ بن لادن نے امریکہ سے جہاد کا اعلان کیا تھا اور تنزانیہ اور نیروبی میں ٩/١١ سے پہلے بھی دھماکے کیہ اور ان کی ذمے داری لی اور یہ کہا کے ابّ امریکہ کے اندر بھی حملے ہونگے ،کیا یہ بلا وجہ امریکہ سے لڑنا نہیں تھا ؟

قاضی : ٩/١١ یاہو دیوں کی ایک سازش تھی

س: اپپ کو کیسے پتا ؟ اسامہ بن لادن یہ قبول کر چکا ہے ،ایمان زواہری بھی قبول کر چکا ہے اور یہ بھی کہ چکا ہے کے جو یہ سمجھتا ہے کے یہ یہودی سازش تھی اور دشمن کا اجنٹ ہے ،اس کے علاوہ جو ١٩ ہائی جیکرز تھے ان کے خاندان والوں نہیں بھی قبول کیا ہے جو سعودی عرب میں رہتے ہیں ،اس کے لِیےہ کوئی خاص ٹیکنولوجی کی ضرورت نہیں تھی وہ لوگ چا

ہئے تھے جو جہاز بھی اڑا سکتے ہوں اور اپنی جان بھی دے سکتے ہیں اور ان ہی جیکرز کے انٹرویز بھی ہیں جو انہوں نے پہلے ریکورڈ کروا ے تھے ،اور یہ سب ثبوت الجزیرہ اور سعودی عرب نے دیه ہیں .

قاضی : ہم ان سب کو نہیں مانتے سب ہولیووڈ میں بنی ہوئے ہیں

س: کہیں آپ بھی تو کوئی حالی وڈ کی فلم تو نہیں ؟ کہیں جماعت اسلامی بھی تو یہودیوں کی کوئی تنظیم تو نہیں ؟

قاضی صاحب منافقت چھوڑو اور الله کے دین کو اپنی سیاست چمکانے میں نا لا گاؤ بات حق بولو صرف امریکہ کی مخالفت ہی اسلام نہیں ہے .اگر سب ڈرامہ ہو رہا ہے تو جہاد کو ن اور کیسے کر رہا ہے ؟ اگر جماعت اسلامی کر رہی ہے تو کہاں اور کسے کر رہی ہے ؟

قاضی : یہ سب امّت-ے-مسلمہ کے خلاف یہودی سازش ہے

س: اف

آپ لوگوں کو خود اپنا پتا نہیں کے کہاں جا رہے ہیں آپ قوم کو کیا دینگے


Beenai:
because JI has always a double role to play.
on one hand its getting public support by chanting anti US slogans on the other hand its a darling of US for quite a long period ,which had started in Zia era .

JI has nothing to do but to call for strikes and sit ins.
and go to meet US officials

and

time to time give a Kandha to the military coup.

Asif K:


Beenai

JI affair didn't start during zia. JI is /has been the political wing of ARMY and AMERICA since late 60's.

Don't forget its role with yahya khan and in Bangladesh's freedom fight when in the name of AL BADAR and AL SHAMS they did the ethnic cleansing of poor Bengalis and in return got seats from ARMY (Seats vacated by disqualification of Awami League).

And also don't forget the Military Mulla Ittehad, its support and love for musharaf and the military operation in Balochistan with MMA's provincial government support.

dara said:

The wast celeberations on 14 August in Sawat was heart warming and welcoming and more was the facts children ( Girls also) start going to schools. Now compare that with situation when Pakistani flag was thrown to ground in times of Talibans.
Jamat i Islami along with others don’t care about Pakistan or Muslims but they care about money and some how impose their own islam. I give 100 % to so called Ghadars ( ANP) to stand up and fight against Talibans along with PPP and other secular forces.
Imran Khan has never had any solution to Talibinization, infact he thinks that might give him a chance to come in power? . He always says it is US and they have to leave, well trye but is it in your control? crunch time was then when Musharaf made decision with the help of his commanders, ironically Imran Khan was supporter of Mush in those days.


Read more...

Wednesday, 27 May 2009

Tanveer Qaisar Shahid: A Sitting With Ameer Jamaat-e-Islami




Read more...

Saturday, 16 May 2009

Two slaps: Operation against the Taliban


Here is the first slap on the PPP and ANP's face by Talat Hussain:





This one is the second slap on Imran Khan and Munawar Hasan's face by Muhammad Amir Hashim Khakwani:





Read more...