Pakistani Patriots

Changing perceptions about Pakistan

2012-02-01T00:48:00.001-08:00

By Malik Muhammad Ashraf

Needless to emphasize that presently Pakistan is the most misunderstood country in the world and the phenomenon of terrorism and religious extremism, arguably, is the major factor in distorting its image at the global level. This scourge is a sequel to some unimaginative and self-defined strategic policies of the major global powers and equally shortsighted and groveling approach of our past rulers who in their zeal to prolong their power stints bartered away the sovereignty of the country, raising the expectations of our allies to a level where it is simply impossible to deliver without undermining our own security and compromising the national honor.

The result is that despite the fact that Pakistan as a front line state has suffered the most in men and material in the war on terror and helped in dismantling the terrorist network of Osama Bin Laden, our allies and the western countries look askance at our endeavors, doubt our commitment to the war on terror and decidedly remain oblivious to our national and strategic interests in the region.

The Western media with its all-permeating power and unfettered global outreach is also feverishly engaged in maligning Pakistan and soiling its image among the comity of nations.It is encouraging to note that in the wake of the Salala attack that killed 26 military personnel, the government and the establishment have finally been jerked out of the self-imposed slumber and complacency and a vigorous exercise is underway to redefine and recalibrate the terms of our engagement with the US and its allies in conformity with our national and security interests in the region. While recasting the new approach that will be implemented through the diplomatic channels, it is equally imperative for the government to strengthen and bolster efforts to create a better understanding of Pakistan’s position and its image internationally focusing on countering the negative propaganda against Pakistan and projecting a soft image of the country relying on the positive things that have happened and done by Pakistan not only in the war against terror but also the measures put in place to improve economic, social and political conditions in line with the globally accepted principles. The emergence of an independent judiciary and a free media in Pakistan are indeed epoch making developments.

So are the strides taken towards ensuring gender equality and emancipation of women through a number of administrative and legislative measures that strengthen Pakistan’s credentials as a progressive Islamic country. These factors can go a long way in projecting soft image of Pakistan and remove some of the mis-perceptions that exist about Pakistan at the international level. To achieve the foregoing objectives, Pakistan will have to upgrade and restructure the existing PR mechanism at the international level. Our press sections abroad unfortunately are poorly staffed and under-financed. Apart from this perennial shortcoming, we do not have any presence in important capitals of Central Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Australia.

Viewed in the backdrop of these imperatives, the three-day Consultative Conference of the Press Officers, organized by the External Publicity Wing of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting in Islamabad recently, was a timely and imaginative step to deliberate on the much needed initiative in this regard. Information Minister, Dr.Firdous Ashiq Awan addressing the concluding session made a commitment that the government would spare no effort in upgrading and restructuring the working of the External Publicity Wing and the Press Sections abroad and strengthening the process of capacity building of the Press Officers through language training courses.

Some of the major recommendations made by the forum include: institutionalizing the Consultative forum, organizing exchange of visits by the senior Pakistani journalists abroad through the press sections for interaction with the media personalities of the host countries, opening of new press sections in the areas identified above, public-private partnership in projecting soft image of Pakistan, production of the publicity material in consultation with other ministries and extensive use of the social media at the national and international level.

It is hard to take issue with these long awaited commitments and the desirable initiatives identified by the forum. Pakistan badly needs to enhance the outreach of its Public Relations mechanism and hence opening of more press sections in the identified areas should be given top priority. The proposal for organizing visits of senior Pakistani journalists abroad has a considerable merit as their interaction with their counterparts can help a great deal in repudiating some of the perceptions that exist in the minds of the leaders and forums that shape the public opinion. Public-private collaboration in the domain of Public Relations will not only help in improving the quality of the effort but would lend more credibility to it.

The institutionalization of the consultative forum can also contribute to re-evaluation of the PR efforts periodically and effecting necessary changes in the adopted strategies. In the modern era, media has assumed tremendous importance and power. Diplomacy has its own advantages and efficacy, but it cannot match the power of communications in changing perceptions and attitudes of the people and influencing their judgments. Pakistan needs a sustained and well-orchestrated effort to use the power of media and the PR regime to address the issue of image building in the larger and long-term interest of the country. We need to recognize the existing and emerging regional and global realities and re-choreograph our strategies accordingly. We need to pursue our objectives with a pro-active and rational approach. There is no room for complacency. The deliberations of the consultative forum must be implemented immediately. One hopes that the Information Minister will make sure that the commitments she has made are translated into reality and this commendable initiative does not whither away like a damp squib.

Pakistan ruined by language myth

2012-01-11T01:20:00.000-08:00

By Zubeida Mustafa

Last year I wrote a book highlighting the crisis in Pakistan's education system caused by the way languages are used and taught. Its publication prompted one critic to remark that I was trying to "backwardise" the children of Pakistan. Another said that language was not the problem; it was what we taught that needed to be addressed.

These were typical responses from highly educated, fluent English speakers. They have glorified the English language in Pakistan to the extent that all logic has been put aside. But they wield great influence over public opinion and have even persuaded policymakers that the country's education system can be fixed by hiring teachers competent in English. Such teachers are hired by exclusive private schools, which are beyond the reach of the majority. So proficiency in English automatically becomes the preserve of the affluent.

Since I have been more concerned about the majority's problems, I have pleaded the case of the underprivileged by stating that children must initially begin their schooling in their own tongue, with which they are familiar. This will help their cognitive development and inculcate critical thinking. It will also enable them to be articulate participants in the construction of knowledge in the classroom and discourage the culture of rote learning. English should be introduced at a later stage and taught as a second language.

With the exception of a small minority of children who are bilingual even before they begin school, teaching children in a language other than their mother tongue in the early years does them harm, no matter how good their teachers may be. This approach robs the child of the natural advantage she has in her home language.

A child begins "acquiring" language from her environment soon after she is born. Children have already gained three or four years of language experience in their mother tongue when they start school. If English is to be the school language, these children lose this advantage. The benefit goes to a small minority that is bilingual from the start by virtue of their parents being the products of exclusive English-medium education.

Such is the power of myths about language in Pakistan that a public demand has been created for English. People believe that English is the magic wand that can open the door to prosperity. Policymakers, the wielders of economic power and the social elites have also perpetuated this myth to their own advantage. The door of prosperity has been opened but only for a small elite.

In a multilingual country such as Pakistan where at least eight major languages compete for supremacy, English occupies a special position by virtue of its "neutrality". But the status of English as the language of international communication exerts additional pressure. This importance is reinforced by Pakistan's employment market, which discriminates in favour of the fluent English speaker even though not every job requires an English language expert.

This language paradox has undermined our education standards. With no well-defined language as a medium of instruction policy, we have a fractured system that divides society.

There is an excellent English-based system in the private sector that is expensive and caters for a small wealthy elite. Children from the middle and lower-middle classes go to second-tier private schools charging relatively modest fees. They adopt a strange mix of languages while pretending to be English-medium. Why else would you see schools in the shantytowns of Karachi announce their Anglicised names and the fact that they are "English-medium" in Urdu script? The teachers explain in their mother tongue while teaching from English language textbooks from which the students plagiarise and memorise passages.

It is left to public-sector schools, patronised by the children of the poor, to adopt indigenous languages as the medium of instruction – rather apologetically. With the government rapidly disengaging itself from the education sector, these institutions perform dismally.

As a result, the country is in a state of linguistic confusion. On the one hand people are desperate to be seen as being proficient in English when they are actually not. At the same time they are ashamed of their own language though that is the only language they can communicate in. The ambiguity of the language of instruction policy allows schools to make their own choices, which has contributed to the present crisis in education in Pakistan. The demand for English – a trend set by the privileged elite – has put schools under pressure. Not many teachers who can teach English or teach in English are available.

That is why it would be feasible to get all schools to teach initially in the child's mother tongue while concentrating on improving standards. This would require the production of good textbooks and the training of teachers. Both of these can be done effectively in our own languages. The main challenge would be to decide judiciously which language is to be used as the medium in which region and at what stage other languages, including English, should be introduced.

Training English-as-a-second-language teachers should pose no difficulty. Such teachers can impart basic communication skills in English to their students who would be learning other subjects in their own language. Those going on to higher studies or needing greater competency in English could take up language courses that should be made widely available.

Zubeida Mustafa is an independent journalist based in Karachi. Her book Tyranny of Language in Education: The Problem and its Solution is published by Ushba

Nuclear Iran is not in Pakistan's interest

2011-12-30T13:43:00.000-08:00

By Shahzeb Shaikha

Since the International Atomic Energy Agency issued its latest findings on Iran’s nuclear program and activities, policy-makers in the West and the United States in particular are weighing their options on how to respond to Iran’s continued defiance of its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations.

The Islamic Republic’s nuclear program has possible military dimensions and its stated “peacefulness” lacks credibility. Alarm bells in Israel have been ringing for a long time and a pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear sites seems imminent. Not much is being discussed in Pakistan about the implications of a nuclear Iran, precisely due to Pakistan being consumed by its own problems with the on-going political turmoil and its relations with the United States.

This is an alarming development not only for the geopolitical balance in the Middle East, but also for South Asia. A nuclear Iran is not in Pakistan’s interests. Considering that Iran’s regional interests do not align with those of Pakistan, a nuclear Iran has serious implications of greater belligerent behaviour, regional hegemony and bullying. Even though Pakistan is a nuclear state and any nuclear aggression towards us will be deterred, it would immensely reduce our leverage in relations with Iran—if any.

Being the only Muslim nuclear country, a nuclear Pakistan still has some symbolic value in the eyes of the Muslim world. Even though we are economically weak and, at the behest of foreign financial institutions and governments, our national defence posture will take a deep slide with a nuclear armed state on our western border.

The interests of Pakistan and Iran clash in Afghanistan, and Iran’s relations with our key ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, remain rocky. In the event of a military confrontation between Iran and the West, Pakistan and an unstable Iraq would be the most effected countries due to the spill-over from a potential war. At this time and most likely in the near future, at least Pakistan cannot further bear the burden of a refugee influx. In addition, India’s improving relations with Iran is also mind-boggling for our India-centric attitude and policy. Not that I am justifying this historic posture of ours, this attitude is still wide-spread in the security establishment. We must take that into account.

An ideologically inclined state, Iran’s sectarian outlook and ambitions of regional hegemony will create further divides in the Muslim world and the Middle East in particular. One should also not forget that Iran has played a role in inciting sectarian violence in Pakistan, supporting various Shia factions against their Sunni counterparts. Attaining nuclear status would strengthen Iran’s position and possibly its belligerence in fuelling the sectarian strife.

Iran’s offensive, nonsensical and aggravating statements and position only furthers the prospect of more wars in this region. Just recently, Saudi Arabia Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was the former chief of Saudi Intelligence, expressed the Kingdom’s desire to develop nuclear weapons to counter a future Iranian threat. “It is our duty toward our nation and people to consider all options” he was quoted as saying.

This is a serious development that could spark a potential arms race in the Middle East. We could engage in an intellectual debate about the rationality of these state actors and their willingness to use nuclear weapons—if they attain the capability—but the thought of them going nuclear sends a chill through the rational mind. Many in the West also fear that a nuclear Iran will become bolder in the use of its proxies, namely Hamas and Hezbollah.

It is imperative that Pakistan convene a meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to pressure Iran into abandoning its continued defiance of its international obligations – the NPT and the United Nations Security Council Resolutions. Pakistan, along with its allies in the Middle East, should pressure Iran to come to the negotiation table and respect its UN obligations. To avoid a potential arms race in the Middle East and a dooms-day scenario where there may be a nuclear exchange – either by states or through non-state actors – Pakistan should jump on the bandwagon into pressurizing Iran.

Pakistan could not care less about addressing the fears of the West. I suggest this because this is in Pakistan’s vital national security interests and everything should be done to avoid being sandwiched between two nuclear states. We also need to look out for our regional interests in the Middle East. A nuclearised region could have devastating human and economic implications for the region and the world. Pakistan cannot afford either in its current state of weakness.

Pakistan sails through unbridled propaganda

2011-12-29T21:21:00.000-08:00

Pakistan sails through unbridled propaganda

Spotlight on Afghan refugees in Pakistan

2011-12-22T09:50:00.000-08:00

By Karin Brulliard

NOWSHERA, Pakistan — A few hundred men took to the streets in a suburb of this city early this month, furiously chanting for the expulsion of neighbors they described as interlopers.

The objects of their ire were Afghan refugees, millions of whom reside here in Pakistan. They are hardly newcomers — many fled war, Russian occupation or Taliban rule years or even decades ago. Many were born in Pakistan.

But the recent demonstration was a sign of bubbling discontent about Afghans in Pakistan, who comprise the world’s largest refugee population. While their presence has long been a source of tension, Pakistani politicians and the media are increasingly exaggerating their numbers and identifying them as a problem that must be solved as the neighboring nations eye the finale of the U.S.-led Afghan war, remote as that seems for now.

On an official visit to Australia last month, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani called on the international community to help repatriate Afghans, who he said were “causing numerous difficulties” and spreading polio. In a recent interview, Interior Minister Rehman Malik accused the refugees of being “involved in criminal activities,” and said sending Afghans home was among Pakistan’s priorities.

The spotlight on Afghan refugees comes as the ever-wary neighbors trade barbs about cross-border violence and a potential negotiated settlement to the war in Afghanistan. Afghan officials, like their U.S. counterparts, have blamed Pakistan for fueling the Taliban insurgency, a claim Pakistan denies. But Pakistan wants a key role in reconciliation, and the refugees — who by most accounts Pakistan has hosted fairly graciously — could provide leverage.

At the same time, persistent violence has led to a decrease in refugee returns to Afghanistan, and there is scant sign that those remaining will soon leave. Amid a failing economy and political jockeying ahead of 2013 elections in Pakistan, analysts say Afghans are convenient targets. Indeed, the argument here echoes the U.S. immigration debate, with concerns about foreigners who commit crimes, steal jobs and fail to assimilate.

“We have been treating them as our brothers,” said Sher Bahadur, 64, one Nowshera resident who joined the recent demonstration, which took place after a fight between Pakistanis and Afghans. “Now the situation is so bad that we fear they have the might, power and resources to displace us.”

The complaints are not new, but the tenor has alarmed Afghan officials. One senior Afghan official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Pakistan is showing “early signs of new pressure” over refugees. The official said it was unclear whether the motivation is a desire to see Afghans leave, win additional refugee aid or blame Afghans for Taliban activity inside Pakistan.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1.7 million registered Afghan refugees live in Pakistan; the government says the figure is around 2 million. Another 1 million are believed to be in Pakistan illegally, said Habibullah Khan, secretary of the government’s States and Frontiers Regions Division. In the first 10 months of 2011, 43,000 Afghan refugees returned home, a figure that was 59 percent lower than the same period last year, the UNHCR said.

Myth and reality of war crimes in 1971 war

2011-12-22T09:43:00.000-08:00

By Alam Rind

Fall of Dhaka on December 16, 1971 left a deep scar on the souls of Pakistanis that probably won’t fill up in centuries. It is not so because the people of formal East Pakistan got separated and Bangladesh came into being; it was the manner in which all this took place. This episode can only be attributed to the failure of the leadership and their inaptness as statesmen. Economic fragmentation that took roots in Ayub era had its toll. Wide spread poverty, unemployment and lack of industrialization and development provided ideal environment for the hostile powers to sow the seeds of secessionism among the people of then East Pakistan.

It is a historic fact that Shaikh Mujibur Rahman had sought help from Indian Government to effect secession. He publicly conceded this fact in front of a huge gathering in his address on 7th June, 1972 at Ramna Race Course now Suhrawardy Udyan of Dhaka. Naeem Hasan in Mujib’s Bangladesh in the Eyes of Foreign Journalist (London 1977) had quoted the daughter of Shaikh Mujibur Rahman, Shaikh Hasina Wajid (present Prime Minister of Bangladesh) that Mujib had visited Agartala in 1962 to organize help from India for secession of East Pakistan. Similar facts were also reported by an ex-MP Abdul Razzak in an interview given to weekly Meghna in September 1995. That establishes Agartala conspiracy as a fact.

It is the same venom against Pakistan that Prime Minister of Bangladesh Shaikh Hasina Wajid has ordered constitution of an International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) to try those Bangladeshis accused of collaboration with Pakistani forces in committing atrocities. It kills two birds with one stone. The ploy has provided her with an opportunity to take vengeance from political opponents while defaming and maligning Pakistan Armed Forces of carnage during 1971 war. Reportedly, so far only seven individuals have been arrested, two from the main opposition party Bangladesh Nationalist Party and five from Jamaat-e-Islami. Though there are serious reservations regarding capacity and impartiality of the judicial tribunal, yet, it will serve the purpose of Awami League government.

Along with Indians they have been harping for last over thirty years that more than three million people were killed in the conflict and hundreds of thousands of women were raped by Pakistani soldiers. Most of the people in Bangladesh and other parts of the world may believe this but the facts are quite contrary.

A recent book written by Sarmila Bose an Indian research scholar dubs this notion as a “narrative of the victorious side.” It was part of propaganda that suited Awami League as well as Indians. The carnage was unleashed by Indian trained Mukti Bahinis. They initially operated along the border with India and gradually penetrated deep into then East Pakistan. They brutally massacred Bayharies and other Bangalis those who were supporting united Pakistan. These illegitimate sons of the soil continued to perpetrate crimes against their own kinsmen with the brutality that matches that of terrorists, while Indian and global media continued to apportion blame on to Pakistan Army.

It is tragic that we often forget the valiance and courage with which Pakistani solders fought in East Pakistan. They were confronted with insurmountable odds while being highly diluted and resource constrained. In those difficult conditions they had almost defeated Mukti Bahinis. Indian intervention came once Indians realized that Mukti Bahinis will not be able to achieve the objective of separation of East Pakistan. Pakistani troops deployed for internal security duties were degraded to the extent that they could not change their posture with the required swiftness to check Indian onslaught. General Niazi was confronted with a difficult decision. Reinforcement was not insight and continuation of war would have meant inhalation of men under his command. His decision to surrender under no circumstances denudes Pakistani men in uniform of their high morale ascendancy and valour. Indian duplicity and propaganda has been aptly exposed by Sarmila Bose where she maintains that empirical evidence doesn’t support the claims of excesses by Pakistani troops as harped by the propagandists.

Pakistani nukes and slanderous reports

2011-11-12T21:31:00.000-08:00

By Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat

Yet another fabricated report about the Pakistani nukes appeared in the international media, which was again a crude attempt to malign Pakistan and question the safety and integrity of Pak nukes.

The Atlantic magazine and the National Journal, in the December 2011 issues, labeled Pakistan as ‘The ally from hell’ and attacked the Pakistani nuclear programme. Strangely, the authors of the article, Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder, who claimed to have researched the piece for six months, were totally unknown to the Pakistani Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and the Nuclear Command Authority.

In other words, they had neither approached the concerned Pakistani authorities for producing the piece nor visited the country.

According to the report, “Pakistan has begun moving its nuclear weapons in low-security vans on congested roads, to hide them from US spy agencies, making the weapons more vulnerable to theft by the militants.

After the US raid that killed Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in May at his Pakistani compound reinforced Islamabad’s longstanding fears that Washington could try to dismantle the country’s nuclear arsenal.

“As a result, the head of the Strategic Plans Divisions (SPD), which is charged with safeguarding the atomic weapons, was ordered to take action to keep the location of nuclear weapons and components hidden from the United States.

“But instead of transporting the nuclear parts in armored, well-defended convoys, the atomic bombs capable of destroying entire cities are transported in delivery vans on congested and dangerous roads...”

Not long ago, Charles Blair of FAS Terrorism Analysis Project had claimed that Pakistan’s growing nuclear weapons arsenal was at a greater risk due to the emergence of powerful militant groups in country’s security services (of course, the groups were never identified because they did not exist).

However, he was contradicted by George Perkovich of Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, who admitted that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are the safest, most secure things in Pakistan.

After the publication of this report, a North Korean official produced a letter claiming that Pakistan had supported North Korea in its nuclear programme for money. The letter was a fake. As quickly as it was raised, the issue died down.

The writers of such reports have failed to factor in the reality that criticality of nuclear weapons for country’s defence and international sensitivities are known to the Pakistani security establishment, government and policy makers.

Also, Pakistan has taken several measures—most advanced, highly sophisticated and foolproof in all respects —to safeguard the nuclear components which are dispersed throughout the country and whose location is unknown except to the concerned people. The country has spent a considerable amount on this account.

During Gen Musharraf’s rule, Americans had made several offers to provide security systems for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons but the Strategic Plans Division restricted the US role to training only. According to reports, Pakistan exercised its right to pick and choose from the checklist offered by the US. Indeed, it is foolish to believe that non-state actors or militants can take over the country’s fissile material.

Finally, a cautionary note. Any country that makes an attempt which endangers Pak nuclear assets would bring about an unprecedented and strong reaction from the country’s armed forces and public. Certainly, a critical point to remember for those who might be considering taking short-sighted, narrow-minded, highly dangerous steps.

Mehrgarh Culture of Southwestern Pakistan

2011-10-20T19:01:00.000-07:00

History

Isolated remains of Homo Erectus in has been found indicating that Pakistan might have been inhabited since at least the Middle Pleistocene era. The precise date of these remains is unclear, and archaeologists put it anywhere between 200,000 to 500,000 BCE. The fossils are the earliest human remains found in South Asia. Modern humans arrived from Africa after their evolution about 70,000 to 31,000 years ago and settled in South Asia.

The evidence from the excavations at Mehrgarh, Balochistan, has demonstrated that the north-western part of the Pakistan had reached a neolithic, i.e. settled agricultural stage, by the 9,000 BCE. Here it may also be emphasized that the Mehrgarh neolithic complex stands in marked contrast to that of western Asia. For example, whereas in the West Asian neolithic there is the domination of sheep and goat amongst the domesticated animals and of wheat amongst the cultivated cereals, in the Mehrgarh context the cattle dominated over other animals and barley over other cereals. Thus, the Mehrgarh neolithic has its own identity, having no generic relationship with its West Asian counterpart. In other words, the Mehrgarh people were the “the sons of the soil”.

The Mehrgarh declined about the same time as the Indus Valley Civilization only 200 Kilometers south east was developing. It has been surmised that the Mehrgarh residents migrated to the fertile Indus River valley as Balochistan became arid over time. The Elamo-Dravidians invaded from the Iranian plateau and settled in the Indus valley around 4000 BCE. The main site of the Indus Valley Civilization in Punjab was the city of Harappa and Moen and Mohenjodaro in Sindh.

Mehrgarh (Mehrgahr, Merhgarh or Merhgahr) in Balochistan province of Pakistan was an ancient settlement and is one of the most important sites in archaeology for the study of the earliest neolithic settlements in South Asia. The archeological sites are located in the Kachi ( Kacchi or Katchi) plain near the Bolan Pass, to the west of the Indus River valley and between the present-day cities of Quetta, Kalat and Sibi.

Mehrgarh is sometimes cited as the earliest known farming settlement in South Asia, based on archaeological excavations from 1974. The earliest evidence of settlement dates from nearly 9,000 BCE. It's also cited for the earliest evidence of pottery in South Asia. Archaeologists divide the occupation at the site into several periods. Mehrgarh declined around 3,500 BCE at the same time that the Indus Valley Civilization was being established only two hundred kilometers south east from Mehrgarh. It is conceivable that the Mehrgarh culture expanded to the fertile Indus river valley and gave rise to the Indus Valley civilization.

The earliest stage of Mehrgarh predates the Indus Valley Civilization by nearly 3,000 years.

The chalcolithic people of Mehrgarh also had contacts with northern Afghanistan, north eastern Iran and even with the southern part of central Asia.

Mehrgarh Period I

Mehrgarh Period I 8000-5500 BCE, was neolithic and aceramic (i.e., without the use of pottery). The earliest farming in the area was developed by semi-nomadic people using plants such as wheat and barley and animals such as sheep, goat and cattle. The settlement was established with simple mud buildings with four internal subdivisions. Numerous burials have been found, many with elaborate goods such as baskets, stone and bone tools, beads, bangles, pendants and occasionally animal sacrifices, with more goods left with burials of males. Ornaments of sea shell, limestone, turquoise, lapis lazuli, sandstone and polished copper have been found, along with simple figurines of women and animals. A single ground stone axe was discovered in a burial, and several more were obtained from the surface. These ground stone axes are the earliest to come from a stratified context in the South Asia.

Mehrgarh Period II and Period III

Mehrgarh Period II 5500-4800 BCE and Merhgarh Period III 4800-3500 BCE were ceramic neolithic (i.e., pottery was now in use) and later chalcolithic. Much evidence of manufacturing activity has been found and more advanced techniques were used. Glazed faience beads were produced and terracotta figurines became more detailed. Figurines of females were decorated with paint and had diverse hairstyles and ornaments. Two flexed burials were found in period II with a covering of red ochre on the body. The amount of burial goods decreased over time, becoming limited to ornaments and with more goods left with burials of females. The first button seals were produced from terracotta and bone and had geometric designs. Technologies included stone and copper drills, updraft kilns, large pit kilns and copper melting crucibles. There is further evidence of long-distance trade in period II: important as an indication of this is the discovery of several beads of lapis lazuli - originally from Badakshan.

Mehrgarh Period VII

Somewhere between 2600 and 2000 BCE, the city seems to have been largely abandoned, which is the time of the Indus Valley Civilization.

The evidence from the excavations at Mehrgarh, Balochistan, has demonstrated that the north-western part of the Pakistan had reached a neolithic, i.e. settled agricultural stage, by the 7,000 BCE. Here it may also be emphasized that the Mehrgarh neolithic complex stands in marked contrast to that of western Asia. For example, whereas in the West Asian neolithic there is the domination of sheep and goat amongst the domesticated animals and of wheat amongst the cultivated cereals, in the Mehrgarh context the cattle dominated over other animals and barley over other cereals. Thus, the Mehrgarh neolithic has its own identity, having no generic relationship with its West Asian counterpart. In other words, the Mehrgarh people were the “the sons of the soil”.

Further, there is a continuous story from the succeeding chalcolithic level onwards, taking us through various evolutionary stages to the Early Harappan from which there emerged the Harappan Civilization itself, around the middle of the third millennium BCE. Again, after a thorough study of the human skeletal remains, Hemphill and his colleagues (1991) have shown that there was a biological continuity right from 4500 BCE to 800 BCE. A question may now be posed: “What language did these chalcolithic people speak?” Though the Harappan script has not yet been deciphered, in spite of so many tall claims, we have yet another way of tackling the issue.

Dentistry in Mehrgarh

Tiny holes found in teeth suggest even prehistoric man may have had to fear the dentist's drill.
Remains found at Mehrgarh show dental decay may have been treated 8,000-9,000 years ago. It is some of the earliest evidence of dentistry. Archaeologists discovered perfect tiny holes in two molar teeth from the remains of different men. The people of that time and area were extremely sophisticated. They cultivated crops and made intricate jewelery from shells, amethysts and turquoise.

Most of the ruins at Mehrgarh are buried under alluvium deposits, though some structures could be seen eroding on the surface. Currently, the excavated remains at the site comprise a complex of large compartmental mud-brick structures.
Function of these subdivided units, built of hand-formed plano-convex mud bricks, is still not clear but it is thought that many were used probably for storage, rather than residential, purposes. A couple of mounds also contain formal cemeteries, parts of which have been excavated.

Although Mehrgarh was abandoned by the time of the emergence of the literate urbanized phase of the Indus civilization around Mohenjodaro, Harappa, etc., its development illustrates the development of the civilization's subsistence patterns, as well as its craft and trade.

Mr Jarrige said that many beautiful ceramics had been found at the site in Balochistan and were believed to be of the era as early as eighth millennium BC. The French archaeologist said that studies suggested that the findings at Mehrgarh linked this area to the Indus civilization.

There are indications that bones were used in making tools for farming, textile, and there are also evidences of the use of cotton even in that period. Mr Jarrige pointed out that the skeletons found at the site indicated that the height of people of that era was larger than that of the later period.

He said that the architecture at that time was well developed. Rice was the staple food for those people and there were also indications of trade activities.

Theories on the origins of Pakhtuns

2011-10-18T15:33:00.000-07:00

By Ismail Khan

The Pakhtuns (also Pushtun , Pakhtun , ethnic Afghan , or Pathan) are an ethno-linguistic group of people, living primarily in eastern and southern Afghanistan, the Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistan, and small communities in India. The Pakhtuns are characterized by their indigenous code ("religion") of honor and culture, Pashtunwali (pakhtunwali). The Pakhtuns are the world's largest segmental lineage (patriarchal) tribal group in existence. The total population of the group is estimated at ca. 40 million.

Pakhtun culture is ancient and much of it is yet to be recorded in contemporary times. There are many conflicting theories, some contemporary, some ancient, about the origins of the Pakhtun people, both among historians and the Pakhtun themselves.

"The word Afghan… first appears in history in the Hudud-al-Alam, a work by an unknown Arab geographer who wrote in 982 AD." Until the advent of the modern Afghan state in the 18th century, the word Afghan had been synonymous with Pakhtun.

From the 1st century BC to the 5th century AD the regions where the Pakhtuns lived saw immense migrations of peoples from Central Asia and the Middle East: the arrival of the Sakas, Kushans, Huns, Gujjars Hebrews,and Greeks.

According to most anthropologists, the Pakhtuns appear to be primarily of Iranic descent similar to the Persians, Ossetians, Kurds, Balochis and Tajiks. The Pakhtuns have eastern Iranic origins as the Pashto language is classified as an eastern Iranic tongue closely related to Avestan among other Iranic languages.

There are more mythological and romanticized origins for the Pakhtuns. For example, according to the Encyclopedia of Islam, the Theory of Pakhtun descent from Israelites is traced to Maghzan-e-Afghani who compiled a history for Khan-e-Jehan Lodhi in the reign of Mughal Emperor Jehangir in the 16th century AD. This reference is in line with the commonly held view by Pakhtuns that when the twelve tribes of Israel were dispersed (Israel and Judah, Lost Ten Tribes), the tribe of Joseph among other Hebrew tribes settled in the region.

Hence the term "Yusef Zai" in Pashto (pukhto) translates to the ' sons of Joseph'; the Yusefzai are the 8th largest tribe of the Pakhtuns. Other Pakhtuns claim descent from Arabs and some groups such as the Afridis claim to be descended from Alexander the Great's Greeks as well. What may be the case is that the Pakhtuns have been modified by various invaders, while maintaining their eastern Iranic base both linguistically and genetically overall.

The Pakhtuns are intimately tied to the history of modern-era Afghanistan. The country's founder, Ahmad Shah Durrani, was a Pakhtun. He founded the state, as we know it today, in 1747 and the Pakhtuns would rule it for the next 200 years. The Pakhtuns fought both the British and Russians to a standstill during the Great Game.

The land and people of Kashmir

2011-10-18T15:31:00.000-07:00

By Abir Bazaz

The origins of Kashmiri are, like much else about Kashmir, mired in controversy (though in these matters, such controversies are not necessarily a bad thing). Perhaps one of the best ways to approach this question here (on a website which expects to acquaint the reader with Kashmiri literature, rather than linguistic controversies about the origins of the language) is to quote some of the scholarship on Kashmiri:

Braj B Kachru “…Kashmir provides a unique case of language convergence and language contacts, since it is surrounded by Sina (a Dardic language in the north, Tibeto-Burman languages (e-g Balti, Ladakhi in the east, Pahari and Punjabi dialects in the west, and Dogri and other Pahari dialects in the south. A non-native language, has always played an important role as the language of prestige and elitism; Sanskrit and Persian earlier served such a purpose, and subsequently Urdu, English, and Hindi, have done so. “ Braj B Kachru, Kashmiri Literature. For a more detailed account of the origins and linguistic affinity of Kashmir, please see pp. 4-7 of Braj B. Kachru, Kashmiri Literature.

Suniti Kumar Chatterjee: “As a language, Kashmiri, at least in its basic stratum, belongs to the Dardic Section of Indo-Iranic. Possibly one section of the Aryans who came to the subcontinent before 1000 B.C. and who spoke dialects very much like the language of the Rig-Veda but with certain special characteristics (which later gave rise to the Dardic branch of Aryan) became established in the valley of Kashmir, and in the surrounding mountainous tracts; and very early, possibly from after the Vedic Age, Brahmanical Aryans with their Indo-Aryan 'spoken' Sanskrit (and subsequently with the Prakrits) came and settled in Kashmir and other Himalayan areas. Following the Brahmans, the Buddhists also came to Kashmir, and Kashmir formed a part of the Maurya Empire of Asoka; and beyond Kashmir, speakers of the Indo-Aryan dialect from North-Western India settled round about what is now Khotan (Kustana in Sanskrit). In this way, Kashmir, in spite of a Dardic substratum in its people and in its speech, became a part of the Sanskritic culture world of South Asia. The Indo-Aryan Prakrits and Apabhramsa from the Midland and from Northern Punjab profoundly modified the Dardic bases of Kashmiri, so that one might say that the Kashmiri language is a result of a very large over-laying of a Dardic base with Indo-Aryan elements.”

A good overview of a rather pointless linguistic controversy (except, of course, for the science of linguistics) by Omkar Nath Kaul: “There is no consensus of opinion regarding the origin or genealogical classification of Kashmiri. There are basically two schools of thought one places Kashmiri under the Dardic group of languages and the other places it under the Indo-Aryan group of languages. Grierson has placed Kashmiri under the 'Dardic or Pisacha' family of languages. He has classified the Dardic language under three major groups:

1. The Kafir Group,
2. The Khowar or Chitrali Group and
3. The Dard Group.

According to his classification the Dard Group includes Shina, Kashmiri, Kashtawari, Poguli, Siraji, Rambani, and Kohistani- the last comprising Garwi, Torwali and Maiya.
Grierson considered the Dardic language a subfamily of the Indo-Iranic languages "neither of Indo-Aryan nor of Iranic origin, but (forming) a third branch of the Indo-Iranic stock, which separated from the parent stem after the branching forth of the original of the Indo-Aryan languages, but before the Eranian language had developed all their peculiar characteristics." He has further observed that "Dardic" was only a geographical convention. Morgenstierne also places Kashmiri under the Dardic Group of languages along with Kashtawari and other dialects which are strongly influenced by Dogri. Fussman has based his work on Morgenstierne's classification. He has also emphasized that the Dardic is a geographic and not a linguistic expression. It is only in the absence of reliable comparative data about Dardic languages, a geographic or ethnographic label is frequently applied to a group of languages or dialects.
According to Chatterjee, Kashmiri has developed like other Indo-Aryan languages out of the Indo-European family of languages and is to be considered as a branch of Indo-Aryan like Hindustani (Hindi+Urdu), Punjabi etc.
The classification of Dardic language has been reviewed in some works with different purposes in mind. Kachru laid stress on the linguistic characteristics of Kashmiri. Strand presents his observations on Kafir languages. Koul and Schmidt have reviewed the literature on the classification of Dardic languages and have investigated the linguistic characteristics or features of these languages with special references to Kashmiri and Shina. The classification of Kashmir under the Dardic group of languages needs further elaborate investigation.”

The real axis of evil?

2011-10-18T15:29:00.000-07:00

By Mohammad Jamil

India continues with its propaganda blitz against Pakistan. Its think tanks, the RAW, embedded journalists and media have stepped up their campaign after the relations between the US and Pakistan became strained when US Special Forces conducted operation at Abbottabad compound. Though many Indian think tanks and organizations are part of the malicious onslaught on Pakistan, yet the ‘South Asia Analysis Group’ (SAAG) is producing reports on almost daily basis. B. Raman, who served the RAW for 28 years and former additional secretary of the Cabinet Secretariat, is the main contributor to the SAAG. Answering questions in his recent interview with the Newsweek, he said: “We can assist Afghanistan in strengthening the capabilities of its armed forces….My assessment is that Haqqani network no longer operates from North Waziristan; it now operates from Pakistan’s Kurram Agency…What we are worried about is the increasing strategic threat from the developing Sino-Pakistani axis. This axis is the real axis of evil”. It is unfortunate that Pakistani think tanks, media and other organizations instead of exposing the real axis of evil – the US, India and Afghanistan – believe the American and Indian propaganda and start criticizing Pakistan’s agencies.

B. Raman, in his latest paper no 741 under the caption ‘Many more Abbottabads waiting to be discovered in Pakistan’, referred to arrests of Abu Zubaidah, Ramzi Binalshib, Khalid Sheikh in Pakistan; and Osama bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad. He then conjectured: “Ayman al-Zawahiri, who has taken over the leadership of Al Qaeda, Jallaludin and Serajuddin Haqqani of the so-called Haqqani network, Mulla Mohammad Omar of the Afghan Taliban, and Hakimullah Mehsud of the Pakistani Taliban are also in Pakistan”. India is playing upon the follies of the Pakistani journalists and pseudo-intellectuals who relish discussing Pakistan’s weaknesses and differences between the political parties and organs of the state. Although there is nothing wrong in having different perceptions over security and foreign policy matters but it is the pernicious way these are presented and interpreted to the detriment of Pakistan, of which India takes advantage. On the other hand, Indian propaganda against Pakistan continues. In June 2004, a report titled “Pakistan’s Provinces” had been published by a think-tank of India under the name and style of “Strategic Foresight Group”. Given the nature of study, it appears that this organization is the wing of Research and Analysis Wing.

The malafide intentions behind the so-called free intellectual enquiry were obvious from glancing through the preface by Sundeep Waslekar - the president of the group. He explained the reason for discussing the provinces instead of Pakistan and explained that the bottom-up approach has been adopted in view of the multitude of cultures that coexist. “In 2004, political discourse is increasingly references to the 1971 situation. It does not mean that provinces will secede in 2004 or 2005, yet it remains to be seen whether they will be together until 2010,” he asks the question, which speaks volumes about the purpose of the book. Secondly, the book had come at a time when India and Pakistan dialogue was passing through the crucial stage, and they had already taken a number of confidence-building measures. But one could infer from the double-speak and India’s rhetoric about resolving all the disputes with Pakistan including the core issue of Kashmir that all this is meant for the US and West’s consumption only. Working on ‘bottom-up approach’, the authors had allocated four chapters to four provinces.

At the end of each chapter, they have given under the sub-headings - Forecast, Trend, Discontinuity and Wild Card. What they had presaged was figment of their imagination, or reflective of the Indian leadership’s wish that Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP would seek separation because Punjab was exploiting them. In the chapter Punjab, the report said: “Punjab would be devastated, as the next war with India will see concentration of the Indian assault on Punjab. Making Punjab the battleground will greatly affect Pakistan’s economy. Pakistan’s retaliation can be more aggressive and might take the form of nuclear warfare”. Concluding the report, the authors had given four future scenarios. In the first scenario, they discussed the ideal situation visualizing that democratic government embarking upon a reorganization of provinces, creating many more provinces and giving them autonomy, containing jihadi activities, as such internal stability will bring investment leading to development. Relations with neighbouring countries could also improve, which would realize the benefits of good relations with Pakistan. The other scenarios in one way or the other portended gloom and disaster.

The India’s intent is obvious from the fact that it wants to keep the focus entirely spotted on Pakistan to demonise it as a state, denigrate its agencies and its military, to project it as a state sponsoring terrorism globally, to isolate it internationally with a view to reaping a big harvest of consequent gains. But this path is fraught with dangers because the escalation of tensions and then war between the two nuclear states is not an option. It is therefore in the best interest of both India and Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues and resume composite dialogue process in real earnest, when it has been established that Pakistan as a state was not involved in any of terrorist acts in India. Indian leadership has to bear in mind that there are more contradictions between the states and the center in India. There are separatist movements in a dozen states. India has indeed achieved prodigious economic growth but the awning gap between the rich and the poor, festering caste system and domination of Hindu majority over the minorities, the scenario is dismal.

And once the course of disintegration is set rolling, India is much more vulnerable to disintegration than Pakistan. A lot of books have been written in India and in the West. A brief survey of the shelves of any bookshop will among others show books on India such as “The Corrupt Society”, “Foul play: Chronicles of Corruption 1947-97” and so on. Pakistan should expose Indian RAW’s thuggish activities in FATA, Swat and Balochistan. Pakistan’s foreign office should abandon the habit of being on the defensive and always responding to India’s allegations. It should stop playing on the back foot and play on the front foot to bring India’s machinations and artifices to destabilize Pakistan to the attention of international community. Since the US and Indian interests converge in the region, it is almost certain that the propaganda blitz against Pakistan has also the wink from the former. There is a perception that the strategic partnership agreement signed between India and Afghanistan has America’s blessings, and the latter wants to exert pressure on Pakistan to do more.

Overpopulation is Pakistan's worst enemy

2011-09-04T16:23:00.000-07:00

By: Shaukat Malik

Every child born through nature’s miracle whether planned or unplanned has certain inherent and inalienable rights. It is not the child’s fault that his parent’s cannot provide for him. Invariably he will end up in a Madrasah and become a target for those who make their living from the evil of terrorism or exploitation of the vulnerable.

Pakistan cannot regain its economic footing without controlling population growth. On average a Pakistani women has four children. This is much higher than Iran at 1.8 and Bangladesh at 2.4 children per woman. If this is not stopped, Pakistan’s population will expand from today’s 180 Million, not counting Afghan refugees to 335 million by 2050—that is more people than the United States squeezed into a country not much larger than Texas.

Pakistan has more children under the age of 14 than the United States. This presents a serious infrastructure challenge to a poor country.

Girls get married at the average age of 14 and illiterate mothers-in-law demand a baby boy. A woman producing girls only is threatened with divorce and will keep trying for a boy. Illiterate women cannot access family planning programs, and birth control is equated to committing a sin and refusing God’s gift of life. Women who wish to have fewer children do not have access to birth control devices and are forced into unwanted pregnancies.

Educated girls will have fewer children but girl education is restricted by social and cultural factors like transportation, male teachers, and objections of male members of the family.

Fear of rabid religious extremists prevents political leadership from addressing the issue of family planning/birth control. Like pigeons close their eyes hoping that the predator will go away, Pakistan’s leadership is afraid to confront the family planning issue for fear of upsetting the pious population that votes for them.

Pakistan’s leadership has been advised to stay away from anything to do with family planning/birth control. Illiterate clerics whose counsel is sought by a large number of Pakistanis in the rural areas consider birth control a sin. According to these clerics, practicing birth control is tantamount to denying God’s gift of life and a terrible sin. They firmly believe that God will provide for every child that is born.

Yes. God provides but, God has given us a brain for thinking and planning the size of our family. In nature we have a predator vs. prey order to take care of the excess population; in Pakistan the Madrasah steps in and creates Monsters out of these unplanned children abandoned by their poor parents.

The environmental and social footprint of high birth rates is scary. Pakistan’s population is multiplying at an alarming rate. A poor man would rather spend five rupees on loaf bread than on birth control.

The Muslim world has introduced God’s will into the size of a family. Although there is no prohibition in the Quran on birth control, its practice is considered a sin. The clerics in an effort to support polygamy and the large number of children resulting from multiple marriages have used out of context verses in the holy Quran to campaign against family planning.

Nature is cruel and we must learn from its messages. A mother of six children awakened by a sudden flood –the recent floods in Pakistan are a case in point-- might be able to save two of her children but may have a tough time saving the rest.

Animals do not practice family planning or birth control but then we eat animals. As God’s supreme creation we are blessed with the ability to think, plan and invent. Family planning techniques were developed in the last century and are essential for the survival and future prosperity of every community.

Overpopulation in any setting presents a constant challenge to natural resources. Whether educated or not a human being needs shelter, food and clothing. As the world population grows it is becoming increasingly difficult to take care of increasing numbers.

A child in fulltime education does not become productive until he is at least 24-years old. An allocation must be made for each child in the family budget.

Aid agencies all rightly point to raising the level of education for women. An educated woman will have a career and by contributing to the family purse will be encouraged by her husband to have fewer children.

Overpopulation is overwhelming Pakistan’s underdeveloped education system. Everyday it is estimated that there are at least 10,000 more children waiting to enter school compared with the day before. Surplus children who cannot get admission end up in Madrasahs’ that may offer food & shelter but can offer little in the way of education necessary for learning a trade.

What can be done to fight overpopulation?

• Pakistan’s media has become a watchdog of government policy. It can play a vital role by donating air time and using popular television personalities to highlight the problem. Producers can make short films with a touch of humor to bring home the idea of a manageable small family.

• Pakistan’s political leadership must engage local religious leadership in their respective constituencies and persuade them to see the bigger picture of future economic prosperity through controlled population growth---if Iran and Bangladesh can do it why not Pakistan

• The aid agencies in addition to helping centers already in existence must help establish family planning centers in Pakistan’s remote areas including mobile family planning units that can provide birth control supplies and education to illiterate and poor citizens.

• Girls’ only schools should be built in remote conservative areas where established culture is against female education to encourage families to send their daughters to school. Educated women contributing to the family purse will be encouraged to have fewer children

• Family planning clinics must be revived to focus on providing family planning and birth control to Pakistan’s poor women. These centers can also provide basic healthcare education to the largely illiterate women population.

• Pakistan’s political leadership must publicly address this issue to highlight the urgent need for the implementation of a national family planning policy.

• Pakistan’s armed forces, whose soldier’s come from many remote areas should be educated in the importance of family planning and smaller families. Trained soldiers can be used to bring home the message of family planning to their respective villages.

Afghan refugee camps in Islamabad are a stark reminder of terrible slum-like conditions that await an over populated Pakistan. Effective family planning will have beneficial long term effects on Pakistan’s economy and environment. Pakistan government must act now to safeguard the future of today’s newborns. No amount of development aid can meet the needs of unplanned births that will invariably end up in extreme poverty and hardship.

Discrediting Kashmir movement or defaming ISI

2011-08-20T00:53:00.000-07:00

Dr Raja Muhammad Khan

For the past many years, Dr Ghulam Nabi Fai, an ambassador of peace, has been promoting the Kashmir cause, considering this as the birthright of Kashmiris, guaranteed by Article 1 of UN Charter. Since the start of renewed Kashmiri struggle, the only message Dr Fai used to have for Kashmiris was; to fight for their right using peaceful ways and means. This icon though originally hailed from the Indian Occupied Kashmir, but is a US citizen since last many decades. His arrest by US Justice Department is highly regretful. The humiliating charges levelled by US on this peace promoter are that, he was getting money from ISI to influence US lawmakers for the promotion of Kashmir cause in US against the Indian occupation. Seeing the record of accomplishment, this indeed is the most unjust arrest; the US Justice Department has ever made.

The arrest indeed has many subtext attached to it, timings of the being the most significant. Dr Fai has been arrested at a time once US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was on her four days tour to India, where she was to please her host by demonstrating as if US is serious to promote bilateral relations with India at any cost, may that be the negation of its previous commitment. Indeed, through out during the cold war the US has been the most significant promoter of the Kashmir cause and has supported all UN resolutions on Kashmir, promising them their right of self-determination. Since Dr Fai was only promoting the just cause of Kashmiris, as per UN resolutions therefore, by arresting him, the US has indirectly negated its own commitment for the promotion of relationship with an oppressor.

It is worth mentioning a number of Indian lobbies are active in the US, UK and many other European countries to create misperception on Kashmir and about Pakistan, why US Justice Department is not arresting them.

Another significant aspect related to this arrest is the ongoing row of tension between CIA and ISI. Through this deliberate act, the US intelligence set up; CIA and FBI, desired to humiliate the ISI, by maligning it everywhere and anywhere to cause an embarrassment. This indeed, is part of US retaliation against ISI, after it opposed the release of a CIA operative, Raymond Davis, who was arrested on multiple charges of murder and spying. The US raid in Abbottabad and subsequent defaming campaign of CIA and the US media are part of this malicious campaign and to destabilise Pakistan internally.

This campaign indeed designed to attain three objectives. First being to pressurise Pakistan to an extent, where it stops opposing the future Indian role in Afghanistan, to the satisfaction of US and India. This would exclude Pakistan from any possible facilitating role in any future set-up of Afghanistan. Second objective could be to deactivate Pakistan to a level, where it stops supporting the Kashmir cause at the international level. Thirdly, US desire that Pakistan should combat only those militants who are anti-Americans and follow US lines, rather protecting its own security. How Pakistan could pull on with this unrealistic and one-sided affair.

It is to the visualization of the civilized people of United States to stop their ruling class and spying network from these discriminatory acts against Kashmiris. Rather assisting them in getting their right of self-determination, the US is involving itself in criminal detention and arrest of Kashmiris on the footprints of India, which has killed over 93,000 Kashmiris since 1990.

Dr Fai was only promoting peaceful resolution of Kashmir for a mutual co-existence of all in South Asia, currently marred by instability and conflicts, mainly owing to unresolved nature of Kashmir.

Realistically, it is about time to give peace a chance, as there has been a lot of bloodshed of Kashmiris at the hands of Indian security forces. If peace-loving people like Dr Fai are humiliated and arrested like this, then Kashmiris would have a realization that, the US has joined hands with India for the oppression of Kashmiris. This would promote violence among them, thus pushing Kashmiris to the walls. This would compel Kashmiris to rethink their peaceful political movement and restart their armed struggle for their rightful cause, as given to them by UN Charter and UN resolutions.

The writer is an analyst of international relations.

India is the revesionist power

2011-07-28T14:13:00.000-07:00

By Ejaz Haider

The writer was a Ford Scholar at the Programme in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security at UIUC (1997) and a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy Studies Programme.

In his famous essay, What is a Nation, the French philosopher, Ernest Renan, argued that selective amnesia — “forgetting”, as he puts it — is an important part of modern nation-building. This is achieved in many ways, but most importantly by controlling the narrative. The narrative determines the core aspects of the identity of a state. It is successful when that identity is internalized by the peoples to a point where those core aspects are not disputed, and where any external challenges to them are simply not entertained.

Using this central benchmark — I make no attempt here to problematise this process — we have to concede that Pakistan lags far behind India in defining the core aspects of its nationhood. Not because India is not internally troubled, which it is, but because India has developed a center that holds it together. The center drives India and perpetuates the narrative, deflecting the world’s attention away from India’s musty underbelly: Abject poverty, very high levels of corruption, the near-absence of the state’s writ in the Red Corridor, terrible human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir, crimes against women and, yes, Taliban-style panchayats.

And while the media highlights internal troubles, it is largely pliant to the state when it comes to presenting the state to the outside world and is the most effective vehicle for the state narrative.

It is a common practice for states to sell the narrative internally. But it is a greater exercise in soft compellence to sell it to other collections also. An even greater success would be to make one’s narrative acceptable to sections of another collection with whom one is locked in conflict.

India has done this with Pakistan and, as a realist, I salute them for this success. Of course, India’s success in this regard is directly proportional to Pakistan’s failure to sell itself to its people. This, as I have noted on a number of occasions, is the biggest threat to Pakistan.

One consequence of this is a large number of us swallowing, hook, line and sinker, India’s narrative on its conflict with Pakistan. Here are some examples:

India is a status quo power while Pakistan is a revisionist state; India just wants to live in peace; there’s nothing about Pakistan that interests India; India, the Little Red Riding Hood, has to keep the world’s fourth largest military because Pakistan attacked it four times — ’47, ’65, ’71 and ’99. Let’s just take these up.

(NB: It’s quite another fact that every time Pakistan has tried to engage India on force rationalization — nuclear and conventional — including as part of the 2004 dialogue framework, India shifts the goalpost by referring to China).

The term ‘status quo power’ is used cleverly in modern interstate relations. It ignores the direct and indirect influence — soft and hard power, and diplomacy — exerted by stronger states on the weaker ones in the former’s areas of concern by focusing instead on whether a state wants to capture another’s territory. Let there be no doubt, however, that rising powers are always revisionist states. They challenge an existing power configuration by spreading their influence and power. China is one; India is lagging far, far behind but following the same paradigm.

Pakistan is accused of being a revisionist state, primarily vis-a-vis Occupied Kashmir. And a part of our self-loathing intelligentsia has accepted this bunkum. Pakistan has no designs on India but Kashmir is not a part of India. It is a disputed area and that fact is also accepted by India. Because this will be deliberately twisted by the ‘what-abouters’, let me clarify that I am not advocating a war with India, merely stating a fact.

As for revisionism, Pakistan, within the region, is a status quo power because it checks India’s desire to project power in South, the West, and southern Asia. A neoliberal paradigm is possible if India is prepared to address the issue of Kashmir meaningfully. The last three years have clearly shown that the problem lies inside Occupied Kashmir. They have also shown that India remains singularly and callously unconcerned about the Kashmiris.

And what about the wars Pakistan is supposed to have thrust on India?

The 1947 war began as an indigenous uprising in different parts of the then State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). It is a matter of historical record that Pakistan had no clear state policy on how to use force against India’s illegal invasion of J&K. The ragtag Poonchis and other Kashmiri groups, with help from tribesmen and some elements of the Pakistani military, managed to capture the territory which now forms Azad Kashmir. If they hadn’t, Pakistan would have today needed just the present size of its army to defend the northern salient.

The 1965 war was a mistake. Much has been written about it inside Pakistan. But there is absolutely no reason to be apologetic about making an armed attempt to get back territory in occupation of an adversary. Pakistan never violated the Indian territory: It crossed what was then the CFL (ceasefire line). The fact is that it was India that aggressed against Pakistan directly when it attacked across, and violated, the international border.

As for India’s generosity, as mentioned by many Indian analysts, in returning to Pakistan the Haji Pir Pass, I have to give them full marks for dissembling! The Tashkent Agreement required the two sides to go back to status quo ante. India decided to keep Kargil because that secured its road to Leh, and return Haji Pir Pass to get back Chhamb and Jorrian because in that area we were dangerously close to the chicken neck. You cut off the chicken neck and you cut off India from Occupied Kashmir. But the problem is not Indian dissembling; it is our acceptance of this deceptive narrative.

And Pakistan attacked India in 1971!? This actually takes the cake. Ignore India’s full-fledged assault on then East Pakistan and trot out Pakistan’s attack in the west, an attack that came too late. That episode also opens the chapter in this region of covert war. Yes, it was introduced by India when it trained the Mukti Bahini; India repeated this exercise with Sri Lanka when it trained the LTTE. I don’t grudge India any of its actions. States do these things in their interests, perceived or real. But to present India as the babe in the wood? Nah; not happening.

Of course there is Kargil in 1999. More of us have blasted Kargil here, including this writer, than perhaps writers in India. It was a terrible operation at all levels. Worse, it came at a time when Pakistan and India were moving towards normalization. That process should have been allowed to move forward and bear fruit. But let us not forget India’s occupation of the Saltoro Range, its violation of Pakistani posts along the LoC. In a conflictual model these things happen. Yet I will be the first to deduct marks from the Pakistani military on the Kargil operation. Still, the man who did it also became India’s best partner in peace.

Finally, implying that India can’t have peace until Pakistan accepts India’s diagnosis will not beget India a viable policy. Pakistan wants peace. But it doesn’t want to become a west Bangladesh, to use Stephen Cohen’s phrase. So, let’s get rid of the I-am-the-good-guy-here baloney and level with each other.

Comment: Who's hoodwinking whom? by Imtiaz Gul

2011-07-14T21:51:00.000-07:00

Comment: Who's hoodwinking whom? by Imtiaz Gul

AQ Khan: CIA Feeds On Pakistani Mishandling And Appeasement

2011-07-09T07:02:00.000-07:00

By Ahmed Qureshi

Infighting, like the one between Dr. Khan and the government, opens doors to foreign meddling. It is time to end Dr. Khan’s sense of betrayal.

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—The CIA has been playing Pakistan like a football since 2004. It has turned Pakistan’s nuclear program into a Mexican soap, planting stories in episodes meant to embarrass Pakistan and undermine its global nuclear standing.

While covert CIA operators allowed into the country by Zardari government take positions in houses around the residence of Dr. Khan, American journalists in the Pakistani capital have clear orders to keep an eye on the Pakistani scientist. The latest example of this is the New York Times story of July 7 on a North Korean document allegedly procured from Dr. Khan. [See our analysis on this document].

HOW WE (ALMOST) LOST

DR. KHAN

Whatever the CIA and its mainly American media conduits frequently circulate about Pakistan’s nuclear program and Dr. Khan, the mess is a direct result of Pakistani mishandling of the matter.

Despite having built world-class military and nuclear establishments, our infighting and internal squabbles provide foreigners openings for meddling and blackmail.

In 2004, the CIA laid its hand on some information about limited Pakistani cooperation with North Korea, thanks in part to information shared by the Libyans and Iranians.

Armed with this, CIA tried to blackmail Pakistan and demand access to Dr. Khan. As a result, then political government and military both acted apologetically, accepting CIA charges at face value and asking Dr. Khan to take the blame for cooperation with North Korea.

Dr. Khan apparently agreed, but he says subsequent mistreatment at the hands of the government and character-assassination in the media poisoned his own mind and made him vengeful.

He was pushed so much against the wall that, at some point, he apparently shared documents containing sensitive national security secrets with his daughter. He did this because he suspected he would be eliminated or more likely as an act of vengeance against a government and military that has abandoned him.

To be fair to Dr. Khan, he continues to be a staunch defender of Pakistan’s status as a nuclear-armed nation. As recently as June 28, 2011, he defended Pakistan’s right to nuclear technology and weapons better than our government. In an email interviewwith the German Der Spiegel magazine, he rebuked American reports questioning Pakistani nuclear security by saying, “There never was, there is not and there never will be any threat to our nuclear assets.”

He also offered excellent information on international players involved in nuclear proliferation and how there is no such thing as ‘Khan Network’ or a Pakistani proliferation ring as alleged by US government and CIA:

“International suppliers were willing to sell to anyone able to pay and they didn’t need me for that. The suppliers to Libya and Iran were the same as the ones Khan Research Laboratories used. We had a contract with North Korea for the production of missiles. They already had their own plutonium production program and they used plutonium in their test procedures.”

WHY APOLOGIZE AND APPEASE?

The cardinal mistake of Pakistan’s decision makers is unnecessary weakness and appeasement.

Pakistan entered into very limited cooperation with North Korea sometime in the 1990s. It exchanged limited nuclear knowhow for North Korean missile technology. The cooperation did not violate any international agreements. Pakistan is not a signatory to NPT. Also, Pakistan was the target of unfair American practices aimed at obstructing Pakistan’s legitimate nuclear energy and weaponization programs and had to scour the international market for options like everyone else.

Contacts with North Korea violated no international law. They upset the United States though, but Pakistan’s bilateral relationships are not any third country’s business.

More importantly, there was nothing to be apologetic about maintaining limited contacts with North Koreans. China is a responsible international player and often mediates between North Korea and the United States.

Leadership weakness and US aid are the only possible reasons why Pakistan’s political, military and nuclear establishments were overly upset after CIA accusations in 2004.

Instead of forcing Dr. Khan to become a victim, Islamabad could have asked the United States to back off and stop blackmailing Pakistan over limited ties that occurred in the 1990s and were largely necessitated by hostile American energy and nuclear policies.

The act of scapegoating Dr. Khan was mean to say the least when he has been a target of American and British demonization for decades. Even the hint of a link between this Am-Brit hot pursuit and Dr. Khan’s humiliation is unacceptable. The fact that we helped his detractors partially get at him is something that does not sit well with most Pakistanis, who not only continue to see Dr. Khan as a hero but his statements on the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons carry more weight in public eyes than official statements.

THE WAY FORWARD

Government protection measures on Dr. Khan’s movements are inevitable. But the country’s nuclear and military establishments should and must move forward in a tangible way to remove Dr. Khan’s personal feelings of betrayal and abandonment. No one who has so loyally served Pakistan should be abandoned like this. Unfortunately, our civilian and military bureaucracies are bad in the art of retaining our best and brightest in the best of times. There are no programs to instill and maintain a sense of connection and pride in retired government officials to prevent them from switching loyalties for money or other reasons. And then there is the official Pakistani crass way of treating our own people to please foreigners.

Despite any personal failings, Dr. Khan is a proud Pakistani who would never abandon his nation. His personal grievances need to be removed to stop an old, angry, and a very knowledgeable man from becoming a plaything for our enemies.

Beyond Kashmir is valley of peace

2011-07-05T13:31:00.000-07:00

By Abdul Zahoor Khan Marwat

Pakistan-India relations have been held hostage by the Kashmir issue since independence. Three wars have been fought over it. Now the nuclear umbrella hangs over the dispute, which refuses to die away on account of Indian stubbornness. Why should the dispute be there in the 21st century when most countries seek to resolve bilateral disputes on the table and not on the battlefield? How many pretexts would India give to avoid constructive talks with Pakistan to mend the festering wound?

Five aspects of the dispute make it imperative for India to resolve the issue quickly and on a just basis.

First, India’s dream to become a regional power faces a strong obstacle i.e. the Kashmir problem. The world wonders how New Delhi can dream of becoming a regional power, what to speak of a so-called superpower, when it cannot sit and resolve bilateral issues with its neighbors. It seems the country is held hostage by a lack of strategy, foresightedness and a will to move ahead.

Second, New Delhi will be known by its relations with Pakistan and not China as long as the Kashmir dispute is there. India, with its grand ambitions, has always thought of her as a rival to China. However, the world compares it to Pakistan because of the above-mentioned dispute. Of course, most of the Indian armed forces are deployed against Pakistan and not China.

Third, the mantra of Mumbai attacks has lost steam. Tahawwur Rana has been absolved of terrorism charges by a US court, shattering Indian dreams to implicate the ISI into the terrorist attacks. So it is not feasible for India to continue harping the terrorism theme and hide behind the 26/11 incident with regard to whole gamut of relations with Pakistan, especially the Kashmir issue. Also, Indian officials’ claims of LeT’s involvement in each and every incident of terrorism in India has lost steam and become rather counter-productive. More and more people now realise this, especially in the wake of disclosures made by Swami Aseemanand, of Hindu activists’ involvement in a string of terrorist incidents in India, including the Samjhauta Express fire in which over 40 Pakistanis were burnt alive.

Fourth, India is a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-religious country. Like Pakistan, it also faces the al-Qaeda threat besides hordes of other threats, including the Hindu saffron terror. As pointed out by US experts, one way to reduce the al-Qaeda threat is to come to table and find a just solution to the Kashmir issue so that Muslim extremists stop considering Kashmir one of their holy causes and attack India for suppressing the Kashmiri Muslims. The treatment with the Kashmiris in particular and Indian Muslims in general is also creating home-grown terrorism. SIMI is one example.

Fifth, the Indian dream to become a trade superpower lies in a shambles because of the dispute. Pakistan will not exploit the Bangalore silicon valley option or grant the Most Favoured Nation Status to India as long as the Kashmir issue is not resolved. Similarly, there is no chance that Pakistan will open its trade corridors to India for the Central Asian countries.

The Indians should remember that besides the Pakistanis, the world has not forgotten the Kashmir issue. This year, British Prime Minister David Cameron admitted that Britain was responsible for many historic conflicts in the world, including that of Kashmir. He stated this during a visit to Islamabad. The fact remains the valley of peace in South Asia will only be reached once the Kashmir issue is not on the table anymore. For this, India will have to sit with Pakistan and find a righteous solution of the dispute, also acceptable to the Kashmiris.

ISI-Bashing: A US Battle Transferred to Pakistan

2011-06-26T15:15:00.000-07:00

By Ahmed Quraishi

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan—What is the right balance between a healthy skepticism of Pakistani military and ISI and between antagonism toward both?

Pakistani media and politicians have to define this balance to avoid unnecessary divisions in Pakistan. These divisions serve to weaken a vital line of defense for the Pakistani state. The United States is orchestrating a get-ISI campaign in the US media. This campaign must not be transferred inside Pakistan, where a US-backed lobby groomed during the past eight years is acting as America’s B-team, mounting a Pakistani version of the American campaign against Pakistani military.

There have always been anti-military leftists and ex-communists in the Pakistani media, promoting extreme ideas such as disbanding the military. This lobby has been vocal but never too much. These days, this lobby has gained a new vigor thanks to the US propaganda against Pakistani military.

The brutal assassination of noted journalist and my friend Syed Saleem Shahzad has laid bare this decades-old feature of Pakistani politics.

The ISI is our principal tool for counterintelligence and information gathering. It is the eyes and ears of our strategic community as we navigate our way through a difficult neighborhood.

The antagonism toward ISI as seen in the past few weeks is not natural to the system but manufactured and sustained through a combination of lack of information, real mistakes, rumors, half-truths, and in some cases outright propaganda. Some of this antagonism is rooted in skepticism toward state power. That’s healthy for any vibrant society. But in Pakistan, the lines between skepticism and animosity have blurred over the years. Expressions of this animosity in some corners of our politics and media surpass anything seen in stable and mature democracies. After all, a democratic system needs a functioning state, including educated voters, independent media, judiciary, military and intelligence. A state could collapse without educated voters, or without a working military and intelligence. Choose your pick.

Shahzad’s brutal assassination brought the unhealthy anti-military antagonism within our system to the surface. It was stunning to watch some leading pundits in our media accuse ISI of killing Shahzad without evidence, and simultaneously ignore strong circumstantial evidence on the involvement of elements close to the terrorists of al-Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban. Shahzad maintained close contacts with sources in the two terror groups, as his scoops on numerous occasions indicate. You can’t blame the foreign media, especially media based in the United States, for giving a spin to any story where ISI is mentioned, since this Pakistani agency has become too independent for American taste. But at least at home we should question all angles and not simply ride the wave.

For example, western media saw in Shahzad’s article that purportedly led to his brutal death an embarrassment for Pakistani military and thus a motive for ISI to eliminate him. Many people in our media picked up this theory. That’s an angle worth probing, but so is the fact that the same article exposes al-Qaeda links to the attack on the naval base in Karachi. If it did it, Al-Qaeda didn’t claim responsibility. Late Shahzad did. Did he fell out with his terror informants? No one knows for sure. But it’s an angle worth probing.

The anti-military antagonism has probably blinded many of us to exploring other important angles. For example, ISI itself was badly burned when two of its ex-operatives were killed by Pakistani Taliban earlier this year while trying to create inroads within the terror group. Likewise, US journalist Daniel Pearl paid with his life for getting too close to unscrupulous elements.

A meeting between Shahzad and officers from the media management wing of ISI last year is cited as evidence that the spy agency was harassing him. The agency’s version is very straightforward: they met Shahzad at a registered government office about a story he did and asked him either to confirm his sources or retract the story because it damaged Pakistani interests. Shahzad declined both demands and that was it. One friend and acquaintance of Shahzad, Mr. Najm Sethi, said the meeting constituted a threat. Another friend of Shahzad, Mr. Ejaz Haider, wrote that his friend mentioned the meeting with ISI but didn’t characterize it as a threat.

It is fair to say that ISI, by virtue of the said meeting, should be included in Shahzad’s murder investigation. But that is quite different from saying ISI is the killer and ignore all evidence that points to other possibilities. That said, we do have a history in Pakistan of secret government agents kidnapping journalists, beating them up and then releasing them, alive. But most of us forget that this culture is not part of what our security agencies want to do. It was thrust on them by governments, often democratic ones. Security agents from various agencies of the government have at different times kidnapped and ‘sorted out’ journalists under orders from several democratic and non-democratic governments in Islamabad. In most of such cases journalists were harassed because powerful figures in government wanted to harass them and used state power for the purpose.

There is also the legacy of how state institutions were used to settle political differences. This burden of history should not be overblown and used to create a wedge between state institutions such as the ISI and ordinary Pakistanis.

A version of this column appeared in The News on 6 June 2011.

Urdu vs English: Are we ashamed of our language?

2011-06-24T21:44:00.000-07:00

Many Pakistanis have been brought up speaking our national language Urdu and English. Instead of conversing in Urdu, many of us lapse into English during everyday conversation. Even people who do not speak English very well try their best to sneak in a sentence or two, considering it pertinent for their acceptance in the ‘cooler’ crowd.

I wonder where the trend started, but unknowingly, unconsciously, somehow or the other we all get sucked into the trap. It was not until a few years ago while on a college trip to Turkey that I realized the misgivings of our innocent jabber.

A group of students of the LUMS Cultural Society trip went to Istanbul, Turkey to mark the 100th Anniversary of the famous Sufi poet Rumi. One day we were exploring the city when we stopped at a café for lunch. The waiter took our orders, and continued to hover around our table during the meal. We barely noticed him until he came with the bill, and asked us:

“Where are you from?”

“Pakistan”

The waiter looked surprised, and then asked whether we had been brought up in England. We answered in the negative, telling him how Pakistan was where we all had grown up and spent out lives. The waiter genuinely looked perplexed now. Finally he blurted out:

‘Then why don’t you speak in the Pakistani language?’

The waiter went on to explain how Turkey, particularly Istanbul was a hot tourist location, luring millions of people of different nationalities from across the globe. However, when the Dutch would come visit, they would speak Dutch. When the French would come, they would speak French. When the Chinese would come visit, they would speak Chinese. Similarly everyone in Turkey spoke Turkish. He claimed he was very proud of his language and culture and failed to understand how someone would not speak the language of their country and choose instead a foreign tongue.

There were around ten of us there, and we were all at a loss of an answer. We had never thought of it that way. It was just something that you took up because of society. Even when people speak in Urdu, they tend to include a lot of English words in their sentences. Why is that? Is it because we are not proud of our national language? I am sure all of us are aware of how beautiful Urdu is, the poetry, grace and rhythm of our language is exceptional.

One excuse that springs to mind is the concept of ‘ westernization’ due to the increased pace of globalization in today's world. Globalization is a factor, and yet the Japanese still speak Japanese, the Thai still speak Thai, the Greeks still speak Greek. China, a powerhouse on the global economic front, despite its many factories and western products production still speaks Chinese. In fact when the Chinese Olympics were held in 2008, the Chinese government actually had to ask its Chinese public to learn a few basic English words to help welcome the world.

I respect how these countries value their sense of identity, culture and language. I was deeply ashamed of what image I was unknowingly portraying of my country. I am very proud of Pakistan and Urdu, as I am sure we all are. No matter the problems, it is still our identity. I understand the irony of this article, since it is written in English. However, it is one way to reach those people who may unconsciously be making the same mistake as I was.

When living in the UK or traveling abroad, I make sure I use Urdu to converse with fellow Pakistanis. At home, I am also trying, though it is admittedly difficult since apparently there is a weird and honestly ‘sad’ association of how ‘cool’, well brought-up and educated a person is with the amount of English he or she speaks. I write this article because it is high time we break such ignorant patterns in our society. Urdu is a beautiful and graceful language and we owe our country the respect it deserves by speaking and portraying our true roots.

Kiya khayal hai?

By Amna Khalid

Pakistan remains host to world's largest refugee population

2011-06-19T16:18:00.000-07:00

Pakistan remains host to the largest refugee population in the world with 1.9 million registered Afghan refugees. An official of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) Qaisar Afridi says that more unregistered members of the registered Afghan families including new born babies have been registered, taking the figure of registered Afghans in Pakistan to 1.9 million from last year's 1.7 million. The Pakistani Ministry of States and Frontier Regions, which deals with Afghan refugees, says that there are nearly one million unregistered Afghan refugees, who are living outside the refugee camps in the country. More than 3.5 million Afghans have returned home from Pakistan with UNHCR's help since 2002. The repatriation movement that followed the fall of the Taliban regime in late 2001 was spontaneous and overwhelming.

Minorities still identify with Pakistan despite persecution

2011-06-08T12:07:00.000-07:00

Minorities in Pakistan connect strongly with a Pakistani national identity, even as they are persecuted on the basis of their religion, revealed a report released by Jinnah Institute.

The report, titled ‘A Question of Faith’, is a study compiled over the period December 2010-April 2011 and documents the deterioration in the political, social and economic status of members of religious minorities in Pakistan.

The rising tide of vigilante violence and extremism is threatening religious minorities in the country, says the report.

The report notes that the assassination of two prominent advocates of minority rights this year has led to an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. It also criticizes the government for backing off from repealing, or even discussing, the country’s controversial blasphemy law.

The report was prepared in consultation with members of several religious minorities across the country, human rights organizations and policy experts.

Hindutvas thieves of history

2011-04-30T19:27:00.000-07:00

By Robert Lindsay

First of all, in its present form, the state of India has no right to exist. Prior to 1947, there was no India. Prior to British colonialism, there was no India. There was really no Hinduism either.

It was British colonizers who made note of the varying South Asian forms of religions and collated them into a supposedly uni-variate object called "Hinduism". It was British anthropologists, colonizers and cartographers who invented this thing called "India".

The whole blasted Hindutva lie is based on the ludicrous notion of a "Bharat India". This Bharat India is a fake nation that has supposedly existed for at least hundreds and usually thousands of years. Its borders vary, but always include all of Pakistan and Bangladesh, not to mention the entirely to the failed state of India.

Yes, you have it right, Hindutvas and Indian nationalism in general rejects the right of either Bangladesh or Pakistan to self-determination. Both are "organic" parts of the Indian nation torn loose from the bosom of the bloody soil of Bharat, in need of a fascist irredentist war of national consolidation to bring them back into the fold.

Surely they claim Sri Lanka too.

There are many other places that lack an independent history. Hindutvas claim Burma, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia and sometimes the Philippines. Bharat India extends past Pakistan, through Afghanistan to Iran and all the way to Azerbaijan. Why Iran and Azerbaijan, you ask sensibly? Because "Hindu" fire temples have been found there, that's why. Everyone else seems to think that these are Zoroastrian fire temples, but whatever.

One theory of the name of Azerbaijan is that jan is a word in Urdu, Farsi and Turkic meaning "life". In many Middle Eastern cultures (except Semitic), fire symbolized life. A burning fire meant a full, living life, and a dead fire meant death.

Azerbaijan had abundant oil and gas deposits even back before drilling was known. Apparently, the oil and gas bubbled to the surface and caught fire in places. Azerbaijan was "land of the fires". This is also the area where Zoroastrianism was said to have originated.

None of these lands have a history of their own. Hindutvas, thieves of historical dreams, claim their histories for them.

In fact, it incredibly extends even further. Hindutvas actually claim to have built Greek and Roman civilization! Yet somehow these brilliant Indians were unable to transport this great knowledge back to India where it could have done some good.

Hindutva lies and propaganda are nasty things. There are over 1 billion people in India, and if the most brilliant of them fall for the Hindutva trash (And they do!) you can imagine what fertile soil the minds of average ignorant Indian is for this garbage.

Pakistan was created by Britain, the evil colonist, they scream. It must be returned to the bosom of Bharat! But no, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali coined the name and the idea, and Ali Jinnah pushed for it. But these two were Islamic fundamentalists, the Hindutvas screech, ready to put 50 million more Hindus to the flames and finish the job the Mughals started.

But no again. Jinnah, the whiskey-loving Muslim, and Iqbal, were secular men. Jinnah was committed to equal rights for all, especially the Hindus of Pakistan. That his successors spat on his dreams is no fault of the great man. Instead of being an evil British plot to tear the heart of Bharat from its bloody chest, the notion of Pakistan was opposed by the sober and worried British.

Yes, Pakistan is a new state, but it is an old civilization. Italy was formed in the 1800's, but it is the inheritor of Roman civilization. The Greeks were not freed from the Ottoman yoke until the same century, yet they are children of Socrates and Plato. Iran did not become a state until 1935, yet it is properly recognized as the descendant of ancient Persian civilization.

Pakistan had a history before 1947 and even before Islam, and it was not necessarily entirely cognate with India's history (however defined!) at all.

Let us keep in mind that in 1947, the colony of India was freed from the British. As a fake new country with no history at all, the parts of that country had a right to self-determination.

At that time, India was composed of about 3,000 princely states. This was the nature of the Indian region before British colonialism, and the British never entirely dismantled it. 3,000 princely states were never incorporated into any kind of non-colonial entity remotely called "India" at any time.

A number of these states refused to join India, and India immediately dragooned an army together and attacked every one of these states full force, causing many deaths and injuries. All recalcitrant states were dragged into the fake new state kicking and screaming.

Kashmir, almost 90% Muslim, wanted to go to the new state of Pakistan, but it's governor was a Hindu who told the people to go to Hell and ordered Kashmir to be part of India. Kashmir had never been an integral part of any non-colonial entity called "India".

In 1947, the UN ordered India to hold a plebiscite on Kashmir so the people could have the right to self-determination. To this day, India has refused to implement this resolution. India must be placed, alongside Turkey, Israel, Indonesia and Morocco, as a colonial international scofflaw.

The entire Northeast of India is made up for the most part of East Asians or Mongoloids. Many are Buddhists and same are animists. In neither race, nor culture, nor history, nor religion do they resemble most Indians. The no-man's land of the Northeast was forcibly incorporated into India by British colonialists in the late 1800's, long after they first colonized India. The area is not even an original colony.

From the start, the entire northeast has refused to join India, and most of the region has been up in arms ever since. It's clear that India has no right whatsoever to this entire region. I include the states of Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and even parts of Assam.

As the fascist Jewish nationalists run amok, turning their corner of Wikipedia into Judeopedia, so their fascist Hindutva allies run amok in their corner of Wikipedia, transforming it into Hindupedia. See the article on the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh for example. Who knew that the tracts, not to mention all of Bangladesh, are really part of India?

As Pakistani nationalists seek to assert their right to construct their own national identity free from fascist Hindutvas, so too to Bengalis from Bangladesh seek to assert their own history. Pakhub is a good spot for young Bangladeshi and Pakistani patriots, mostly secular, seek to ownership of their national narratives from Hindutva hegemony.

The liars of the Right are so wrong to marry fascism and Communism. The Left has always been about national sovereignty, cultural and linguistic freedom and even at the extreme, the right of self-determination.

The Bolsheviks were the originators of these themes, which now play out across our world, especially in Europe, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Colombia, where indigenous peoples and linguistic minorities are granted freedom ranging from cultural and linguistic freedom all the way to tracts of land where they have significant political rights of governance.

On the other side is the Right and fascism and imperialism. All nation-building and wars of national consolidation are objectively imperialist or fascist. Where the Left seeks autonomy of nations, the fascists and imperialists wish to consolidate them all into a single land, crush everyone but the most numerous, and force everyone into one organic nation-state, eradicating centuries of linguistic and cultural history.

Where the Left fights colonialism and imperialism, the Right wages endless rhetorical and actual irredentist and revanchist wars to reclaim the lost lands of yore and subjugate or toss out the new owners.

Where Stalin and Mao crushed nations and imposed Russian and Han hegemony on languages and cultures, they were veering into fascist territory. There can be no progressive claim to such things.

Looking through a slanderous campaign against ISI

2011-04-30T19:25:00.000-07:00

By Momin Iftikhar

With the smoothly whizzing major engines of international media at their command, the US has considerable power of conducting no holds barred dirty campaigns in pursuit of its national objectives. This power is at full display, in all its perfidy, as the US focuses on the endgame in Afghanistan where despite the much-heralded surge , a convincing American comeback seems as distant as ever. Following a spate of derogatory articles in major US papers, the latest fusillade has come from the Guardian in UK which, with exquisite timings, has released the extracts from WikiLeaks, alleging that the US ranks the ISI alongside al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

The campaign against the ISI has been rumbling in the corridors of US powers for quite some times now. It started with muffled accusations that there were rogue elements within its ranks who were surreptitiously supporting Afghan Taliban factions who were at cross purposes to the US strategy in Afghanistan. This propaganda has continued for considerable time now oblivious of the fact that no agency worth its salt can allow things to come to such a level of deterioration because without effective and unimpeachable institutionalized controls, placed over conduct of operations, no agency can exercise its designated mandate. Knuckles seem to be off now with Mike Mullen stating these stark accusations, sitting right in Islamabad in his choreographed interviews to the local media.

Intelligence agencies, the world over are a covert instrument for conduct of state policies in the realm of foreign affairs. In this regard the ISI is no different from the CIA; it has its own national interests foremost and at priority one while it plans and conducts its operations. In this context, while there may be common grounds (interests) where cooperation may be possible but inevitably there would be areas of discord where a clash of interest is bound to arise. As the situation in Afghanistan turns murky with the US dithering over which route to adopt at a number of fast approaching policy forks, the adverse implications for Pakistan are obvious. The propaganda tirade against the ISI is indicative of the clash of Pak-US interests in Afghanistan and a US desire to turn the agency totally subservient to its own interests and desires. This situation calls for serious deliberations upon the consequences of losing our national sovereignty over vital organs of national defence. A failure to do so will unleash catastrophic consequences in relations to our capability of shaping the course of future events in line with our national priorities.

The Raymond Davis affair is a watershed that defines the degree to which the CIA wants Pakistan to succumb while defining the terms of intelligence cooperation. That a CIA contractor, whom President Obama called our diplomat in Islamabad could kill two men in broad daylight in one of the busiest intersections of Lahore and then get away scot-free has bared the extent of CIA unaccounted operations inside Pakistan and the degree of immunity it wants to enjoy. It also indicated how ruthless intelligence operations can be and the extent to which the US moral values are prominent through their absence in shaping of CIA operations. This is a unique situation where the US wants to conduct carte blanche operations on Pakistani territory without restraints; a scenario that perhaps can t be replicated anywhere else in the world. The CIA has gradually expanded its envelope to Pakistan s detriment, and the ISI must do its duty to arrest the situation from further deterioration, notwithstanding the ire that comes forth from the US propaganda machinery.

Conduct of the drone strikes campaign by the CIA, with bare minimum intelligence sharing with the ISI, has also emerged as a caveat where the US agency is overstepping limits. There was a leak in the press recently that boasted of the CIA having developed spy rings in Fata to support the drone attacks independent of interference from the ISI. It ought to be noted though that the brazen and cavalier manner in which the CIA is conducting the drone strikes, unmindful of the tremendous loss of innocent lives, is causing a strong backlash in Pakistan. The number of suicide bombings in Pakistan registers an upsurge in tandem with the frequency of drone strikes, a lamentable and sad phenomenon in which victims on both locations happen to be innocent Pakistanis paying the price for CIA arrogance and lack of respect for human life. The ISI needs to circumscribe the liberty of action demanded, and exercised, by the CIA to counter the trigger happiness of CIA operators which bear an unacceptable price tag for Pakistan. The irresponsible and un-accounted for manner, in which the CIA drone campaign spills innocent blood, makes it a fit case for earning the epithet of a terrorist agency by CIA itself.

The CIA s brouhaha against the ISI maintaining contact with Haqqani faction is pointless as well. An intelligence outfit needs to be in touch with a wide spectrum of entities across the political divide. The CIA is known to be maintaining contacts with all shades of organizations on both sides of the Pak Afghan border, including Taliban leadership, and should not grudge similar practices by the ISI. If Haqqani is causing difficulties for the US military why don t they corner him using their formidable spy rings in combination with awesome technological prowess of which the drones are but one manifest. If they can t seal the Afghan border to stop infiltration by Haqqani led insurgents how do they expect the Pakistan Army and ISI to do it for them when Pakistan has already shed more blood in two years than the combined US casualties in Afghanistan over the span of last ten years.

Afghan refugees celebrate Indian cricket victory by killing a Pakistani nurse

2011-04-06T18:17:00.000-07:00

PESHAWAR: One staff nurse of Lady Reading Hospital (LRH) was killed in aerial firing opened by cricket fans in various parts of city as gloom and despondency was written large on the face of Peshawarites at the news of Indian victory in World Cup Semi Final 2011.

While Peshawarites were in a state of shock due to the defeat of the national team the Afghan refugees were celebrating the Indian victory and opened aerial firing and took out rallies to celebrate the occasion.

In another incident, a resident of Sethi Town area pelted stones at his TV set after the defeat of the Pakistani team and felt pain in the chest. He was taken to nearby hospital for treatment but he expired due to heart attack.

Separately, a petition has been started to expel Afghan refugees from Pakistan and can be found here.
All Pakistani loyal to their country are urged to sign the petition.

Pakistan to start making Boeing Aircraft parts

2011-03-09T21:48:00.000-08:00

(From 2005)

Pakistan to start making Boeing parts next month
ISLAMABAD (May 10 2005): Pakistan would start manufacturing parts of Boeing aircraft from June this year, thus, formally joining the club of aviation parts manufacturers. During a visit of media persons to Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), Kamra, on Monday, it was stated by PAC chief Air Marshal Aurangzeb that Boeing aircraft Co, have set up parts manufacturing unit at the PAC. "At this factory through Boeing offset program, we shall be manufacturing aviation parts for Boeing 747, 767 and 777 aircraft," Air Marshal Aurangzeb said. He said know-how thus gained through this venture will certainly help in establishing JF-17 (Thunder) aircraft production line.

"Around 20 parts of Boeing aircraft would be manufactured here for the Boeing company, which has set up parts manufacturing plant as part of the agreement for supply of 777 aircraft to Pakistan International Airlines," another PAC senior officer said during the visit to the under-installation plant unit.

He said parts of Boeing would be manufactured here and sent to the company for their onward sale and supply.

Technicians of Boeing are working on the installation of the plant which would be completed by the end of this month and would start production from next month, he added.

MUSHAK DELIVERY: Air Marshal Aurengzeb said the delivery of 20 Super Mushak trainer aircraft to Saudi Arabia would successfully complete by September this year.

"We have already handed over a lot of seven aircraft to Saudi Arabia while a batch of another eight aircraft would be handed then over by end of this month," he told a questioner.

The rest five aircraft, making the total to 20, would be handed them over during September, he added.

This supply of the aircraft has not only earned the country a sizable amount in foreign exchange but also would help build the image of PAC for production of quality and reliable lot.

Source:
Business Recorder, May-09, 2005
www.brecorder.com

Pakistan can survive without US aid

2011-02-15T21:42:00.000-08:00

The US has threatened Pakistan that if Raymond Davis is not released, then there is a possibility that US aid to Pakistan will be cut. The Washington Post had speculated that America would stop dialogue at all levels including strategic dialogue, if Raymond Davis was not released quickly. Though, the US administration itself has not said in so many words, yet it is conveying the message through its media or law makers. Meanwhile, the three-member delegation of House of Representatives in their meetings with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and other leaders demanded of the government to release Raymond Davis, who was arrested on 27th January 2011 after shooting dead two Pakistani motorcyclists. Representative Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee reportedly told the Pakistani leaders that Congress was working on the budget, while the representative John Kline hinted that many lawmakers would support cutting aid if the American, who the United States insists has diplomatic immunity, is not freed.

For a change, our Foreign Office has picked up the courage to tell Americans that the matter is with the court. Anyhow, the situation, by and large, is of our own making, as our ruling elite did neither pursue economic policies to make Pakistan self-reliant nor did they learn to live within their means. They had to depend on the US for aid for their failure to generate revenue by taxing the rich and to control tax evasion of more than Rs. 1000 billion. Though belatedly, the political leadership has taken steps by dissolving the jumbo-cabinet and is likely to form a small cabinet, which could be described as humble beginning, yet a lot more needs to be done. It is true that Pakistan is facing fiscal deficit and trade deficit; however the fiscal deficit can be controlled through austerity and other measures like stopping tax evasion and corruption. Trade deficit could be reduced through banning the import of luxury items. Last but not the least, Zardaris, Sharifs, Chaudharys and others who have stashed their wealth in foreign banks and invested in real estate and industries should bring that wealth back.

With all these steps, Pakistan can say no to the IMF and also resist American pressure, and can safeguard its integrity and sovereignty. Yet a lot has to be done, and the ruling and opposition parties must wean away from the habit of amassing wealth through illegal means. The role of our apex court is commendable, but it should not only focus on written-off loans during the last two years but also from 1977, as one would not hear large scale corruption during the tenure of the governments up to 1958 and also during Ayub era. Anyhow, if corruption can be controlled, appointments in public sector organizations are made on merit and losses can be minimized, and due taxes are collected through efficient and honest officers Pakistan can come out of the dependency syndrome within a short period. Supreme Court has also done well to stop renewal of exploration and mining licenses in regard to Reko Diq gold and copper mines, and should not allow squandering the national resources.

Some analysts and ‘brilliant’ panelists are trying to create fear in the minds of the people that if Raymond Davis is not released, the US would stop economic and military aid. Instead of suggesting how to get out of the dependency syndrome and make Pakistan a self-reliant economy, they want Pakistan should tread the beaten track. Let us examine the impact if the US stops its aid and also persuades the IMF not to issue further tranches, what is likely to happen? According to Kerry-Lugar bill, the US is to give $1.5 billion per year, out of which more than 50 per cent is to be spent through NGOs. With America’s economy already in dire straits, and with Republicans’ majority in the Congress, there is possibility of major cut in foreign aid to other countries. And the axe is surely to fall on Pakistan and not Israel or other American allies. As regards reimbursement of Coalition Support Fund, the US has delayed payment for the last one year, and has paid only a few hundred million dollars against the amount of $1.5 billion.

However, Pakistan will have to revise its budget projections, should America stop aid to Pakistan. Look at the position of trade deficit If Pakistan stops importing luxuries and revises its projections of imports at $20 billion (instead of $32 billion), and lowers the target of export to 11 billion (instead of $20 billion). With Pakistani expatriates’ remittances of $10 billion, Pakistan will overcome the problem of current account deficit. According to 2010-11 budget, Pakistan’s estimated tax revenue is Rs.1671 billion; non-tax revenue is 904 that totals Rs.2575 billion. If tax evasion can be controlled and the rich are to pay due tax, there would not be decline in revenue. Finally, all incomes have to be taxed. If agriculture is a provincial subject, let the provinces enact and impose tax on agricultural income. One does not understand that when all citizens whether businessmen, industrialists, doctors, engineers, professionals and salaried class are paying tax on taxable income, why income from agricultural land should be exempted.

The question is who has brought Pakistan to the present pass? The answer is that Pakistan’s incompetent and inept ruling elite by becoming a pawn in the hands of Americans, first by joining defense pacts with the US and the West, then by joining Afghan jihad and finally in the war on terror. One can find American agents in political parties, in media and other institutions as well. Lately, it is military that has given courage to the political leadership to put their act together to safeguard sovereignty of the country. It has to be said that Afghan jihad, and latter the war on terror, which has now become our own war due to flawed policies of the US, especially the CIA. Unfortunately, the US spies and media blame Pakistan for their flawed decisions and failures. Bruce Reidel, a former CIA director, in his book ‘Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America and Global Jihad’, sets out to explain “why successive US administrations have undermined civil government in Pakistan, aided military dictators and encouraged the rise of extremists Islamic movements that now threaten the United States at home and abroad”.

This question has not been phrased properly. First of all, the word ‘encouraged’ should have been replaced by the word ‘sponsored’, as it was America that tried to settle score with the former Soviet Union to avenge the defeat in Vietnam. Secondly, it has always been well-thought out plan of every US administration to support autocrats and military dictators, as it is difficult to deal with the cabinet and members of the parliaments to advance its interests. In developing countries, however, so-called democratic dispensations are no different from military dispensations.

Anyhow, when dictators become unpopular by pursuing American policies and also due to America’s unqualified support to Israel, America issued only one liner statement that ‘he had become unpopular with his people’. It happened with Shah of Iran, Suharto of Indonesia, Ayub Khan of Pakistan and lately Zine al-Abedin of Tunisia. And only incorrigible optimist can hope any change in America’s approach. Pakistan’s rulers should remember Henry Kissinger’s words that “America is dangerous for its friends and foes alike”.

—The writer is Lahore-based senior journalist.

Educational videos explaining how the Europeans inveneted "Hinduism"

2011-02-14T21:38:00.000-08:00

Zalmay Rassoul should be warned in Islamabad

2011-01-24T11:08:00.000-08:00

The Afghan foreign minister Mr. Zalmai Rassoul will arrive in Islamabad next week for discussion on issues relating to the American withdrawal. Afghan Pakistan relations have improved a lot, thanks to Turkish intervention. the main issues to be discussed are regional security, the US pullout plan and reconciliation with the Afghan National Resistance (ANR).

When the Bharati Foreign Minister visited Kabul a couple of weeks ago Krishna and Rassoul discussed the issue of terrorism and that they agreed on the need to deal “firmly with terrorist groups that continue to exist outside Afghanistan‘s borders.”

This sort of nonsense has to be stopped in the tracks. Mr. Zalmai Rassoul has to be told in no uncertain terms that by making Anti-Pakistan statements he was playing with fire, and that such inane talk is not conducive to good neighborly relations.

Hundreds of terrorists come from Afghanistan into Pakistan. Afghanistan hosts Baloch terrorists, Iranian terrorists and every other scoundrel on earth. Millions of Afghan Refugees have squatted in Pakistan for decades and don’t want to leave.

Bharat has no role in Afghanistan and should be evicted. Delhi’s Anti-Pakistan activities have to be stopped–and stopped now.

Both Rassoul and the Pakistan Foreign Minister Mr. Mahmoud Qureshi will head out to Washington next month for crucial talks on the US withdrawal plans in July.

Mr. Rassoul, who is due on January 25, will hold detailed discussions with Pakistan’s President, Prime Minister, Foreign Minister the General Kayani. The topics of discussion will be to create a joint strategy for the joint Pakistan, Afghanistan and US trilateral meeting convened in Washington to seek an end to America’s longest war that has entered its 10th year.

Mr. Rassoul should be clearly told that he cannot hope to build better relations with Islamabad if he continues to bad mouth Pakistan.

Pakistan: A cultural profile

2011-01-03T15:32:00.000-08:00

Landscape and climate:

Pakistan is a long narrow country, about the size of British Columbia, with diverse landscapes and climates. It is bounded by India to the east and southeast, the Arabian Sea to the south, Iran to the west, Afghanistan to the west and northwest and China to the north. Through a system of canals, the river Indus runs through Pakistan, irrigating most of the country. The five rivers of the Punjab flow into the Indus River. The word Punjab comes from panj which means five and ab meaning water, the land of the five rivers.

Pakistan is divided into four provinces: Punjab, Sindh, the North-West Frontier and Baluchistan. Each province is home to different cultural groups who have their own distinctive languages and customs. Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, lies at the base of the Margalla Hill in the Punjab province. A majority of Pakistanis live in this province. Lahore is a major industrial and tourist center known for its forts, gardens and mosques.

Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, is located in Sindh province. It is a principal port and is important for commerce. The mountains of the North-West Frontier are picturesque. The famous Khyber Pass lies in these mountains. Some resorts are located in this area as well. Baluchistan is a province of contrasts. Parts of it are uninhabitable desert and other parts are forested and have many resorts. Baluchistan is rich in important minerals and produces the world's finest onyx, a semi-precious stone.

In the north are some of the highest mountains in the world, may of which are snow- covered all the year round. To the south are some of the hottest deserts in the world temperatures can hover around 50°C. These Southern areas are not irrigated by the rivers and canals that web the rest of the country.

Pakistan is in the warm Temperate zone with hot, dry, summers and cool winters. There are three distinct seasons. The northern areas can experience heavy snowfall and temperatures below freezing point.

Basic facts:

Official Name: The Islamic Republic of Pakistan

Capital: Islamabad

Type of Government: Parliamentary Democracy

Population: 127,962, 000; 416.3 persons per square mile; 32.0 percent urban, 68.0 percent rural (1993 estimate)

Area: 310,404 square miles

Languages: Balochi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Urdu (official), Sindhi, Pakhtun and other minor languages.

Religion: Islam, Christianity, pagan, Bhuddism, other.

Unit of Currency: Pakistani rupee.

Ethnic Composition: Punjabis, Sindhis, Pathans (Pakhtuns), Kashmiris, Baluchis, other.

Date of Independence: August 14, 1947

National Flag:

History:
Pakistan has an ancient history. Pakistan's cultural and social history dates back about 5000 years. Mohenjedaro and Harappa were the two urban centers of the Indus Valley Civilization, one of the oldest in the world. Today, these areas form parts of the Sindh and Punjab provinces of Pakistan.

Over the millennia, the Indus Valley/Pakistan, witnessed the immigration of different groups from the West. The Aryans migrated around 1500 B.C. and mixed with the people known as Dravidians. Parts of Pakistan were visited by successive armies from Greece, Afghanistan and Persia, which is today a province of Iran. The Arab Muslims arrived in the eighth century A.D. and brought the Islamic religion with them. Waves of Arabs and Turks followed, and large numbers of people converted to Islam from Hinduism.

In 1601 the British came as traders to the Indian subcontinent and by 1858 the British government forcibly took control of the area. In the 19th century the Indian National Congress was formed to challenge British rule over Southern Asia. Mohamed Ali Jinnah, the leader of the Muslim League, was one of the key political activists along with Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru in the Congress Party.

In 1945, Jinnah the leader of the Muslim League, demanded a separate nation to distinguish its territories from the British Raj. Pakistan became a sovereign nation State on August 14, 1947. When the British left the region, millions of Hindus and Sikhs fled to India and millions of Muslims came to Pakistan.

Family life:

Pakistani families are very close, often consisting of grandparents, parents and children living together in the same house. The smaller family is becoming more of a reality in the urban centers. The elderly often live with their children and are treated with great respect. Children tend to accompany their parents to most social events. Important events in the family's life are celebrated with relatives and friends.

Pakistani families are usually large because children are considered to be gifts from God or Allah. Teaching children the beliefs of Islam is considered to be one of the most important responsibilities of family life.

This has been the key contributor of Pakistan's overpopulation crisis; however more steps being taken to control population growth rates in the country.

Most Pakistani marriages are arranged. When a couple is married, the bride applies mehndi or henna paste to her hands and feet and the quazi, the religious leader, administers the nikah or marriage contract.

Strong traditions and values influence women's status in the family and in the community. These affect opportunities for education and for work, especially for less privileged women.

When a male baby is born, circumcision is performed in accordance with religious rites. When he is seven days old, the family holds an aqeeqa ceremony, which is a family feast. Both men and women wear the shalwar-kameez, the national dress. This consists of loose pants gathered at the waist and worn with a long shirt. The women's clothing is more colorful, and is worn with a long scarf or dupatta. Some wear a chaddar, which is a shawl or long garment. In the urban areas men are more likely to wear western-style clothes.

Wealthy families and middle-class families live in bungalows or large apartment buildings. Many employ servants to perform various household duties.

In the cities' poorer areas, families live in two or three room dwellings. In rural Pakistan, cooking is still done on small kerosene stoves, clothes are washed on the banks of rivers and water is transported from rivers and wells.

A world of work:
Nearly one-half of the population of Pakistan lives and works on the land. Agriculture constitutes a large sector of the economy. It contributes one-quarter of the Gross Domestic Product and also earns foreign exchange. In most villages, old farming ways continue, though large farms use chemical fertilizers and modern machinery. The main export crops are cotton, rice, grain, sugar cane and jute. Pakistan is one of the world's largest suppliers of cotton, which is its main cash crop. Wheat is the major food grain.

Often due to financial necessity many young children work at factories rather than go to school. The handicraft industry produces handmade carpets, silk fabrics, embroidered textiles, brass work and pottery that are admired and exported all over the world.

Pakistan's industries range from steel plants, sugar refineries, cement works, paper and textile mills, manufacture of cars to electronics factories. The textile sector produces almost 60% of Pakistan total export. The small scale industries that dot the land play a key role in industrial development.

Sports:
Pakistanis are enthusiastic sports fans and families watch many sporting events together. Field hockey, cricket and squash are favorite sports. Pakistani soccer players are among the best in the world, but cricket is the country's passion. Cricket is to Pakistanis what hockey is to Canadians. Pakistan also holds occasional polo competitions.

The foothills of the Himalayas offer opportunities for mountain-climbing, trekking and, in winter, skiing.

In the Arabian Sea Deep sea fishing, sailing and water sports are possible.

A traditional Pakistani sport is kabaddi. It is performed by a group that wrestles, as well as runs, while repeating the word kabaddi in one deep breath.

Health care:
Health care in Pakistan is government sponsored, but over the years private health care providers have become more common. Pakistan has made great strides in reducing mortality rates. It is, however, a constant struggle to meet the health care needs of the rapidly expanding population.

The government's strategy is aimed at primary health care, making essential drugs for common diseases available at affordable prices. Programs of immunization against common diseases have been implemented through outreach and mobile teams. They concentrate on reducing the number of cases of malaria.

Most Pakistanis find medical help at local clinics and hospitals. Some still turn to hakims, herbalists, for traditional medicines for common illnesses. Pakistani women prefer female doctors and men prefer male doctors.

Education:
The official language of Pakistan is Urdu, but most people also speak regional languages. These are Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Kashmiri and Pakhtun. English remains the language of the educated and is used in commerce and government alongside Urdu. Educational facilities have been expanding, but literacy rates are still lower than most countries in the region.

The government has established Islamic schools in certain areas to ensure primary education and knowledge of religion. Locally based traditional schools have existed for centuries. The government encourages families to send children to school by providing scholarships and cash incentives.

In the cities, many students attend private schools which are believed to provide a better standard of education. The children learn Islamic history and the it's basic tenets alongside academic subjects and languages. In urban areas, there are many vocational schools at which students learn a trade after finishing high school.

College and university education depends on the financial and academic ability of the student. Pakistan has an affirmative action policy that favors rural students over urban ones. Pakistani students attend law school, or specialize in engineering, nuclear physics, and agricultural sciences, among other disciplines. Most colleges and universities are co-educational.

Food:
The cuisine of Pakistan is diverse by province and regions, though they are very similar to one another.

Roti (bread), chawal (rice), sabzi (vegetables) and gosht (meat) are the four main components of a Pakistani meal. Naan is the most popular form of bread and is eaten at almost any meal. It is a flat, leavened bread made in a tandoor or clay oven and is normally purchased to supplement the home-cooked meal. Parathas and chapatis both flat round breads, are also favorites.

Rice is eaten often and is usually simple boiled . For special occasions, biryani is made by cooking rice in a yoghurt and meat sauce, and served with saffron. Kheer, a richer and more liquid version of the rice pudding, is cooked with cardamoms, cloves and cinnamon.

Muslims refrain from eating any pork. Most Pakistanis follow this diet restriction rigidly and will even avoid foods cooked with lard. Alcohol is also prohibited in Islam. Many Pakistanis will eat only `halal' meaning `kosher' meat. Chicken, goat and beef are popular either in curried form or char-grilled in a tandoor. Specialties include kebabs, tikka (barbecued spiced chicken), korma (meat curry) and pulao (rice cooked with meat).

Mithai are sweets made of flour and milk or cream and are cooked in sweet syrups. These are very popular and are enjoyed on special occasions. Paan, a mixture of tobacco paste, spices and betel nut spread on a betel leaf, is a common way of ending a meal and is believed to help digestion.

Language and communication:
The division of Pakistan into its four provinces: Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, Kashmir and Pakhtunkhwa was largely done on the basis of the major languages. Each of these principal ethnic groups and mountain tribes has its own language Punjabi, Sindhi, Baluchi, Kashmiri and Pakhtun, respectively as well as pockets of minor languages and/or dialects. Educated Pakistanis are able to read and write in Urdu as well as in English.

Islam has influenced the language and the philosophy of the people. Hence, it is common for Pakistanis to mention God's name in everyday instances. For example, Bismillah means "I begin in the name of Allah" Muslims commonly use this phrase before starting any activity. Inshaallah means "if it is the will of Allah." which is a response to any invitation. This expresses their intent but also suggests that events are not really within their control.

Here is a list of Urdu phrases for you to try:

Huh = Yes

Neyhe = No

Assalaam Alaikum = Peace be upon you (Derived from Arabic)

Wa'alaikum salaam = And May peace be upon you too (Derived from Arabic)

Aap ka naam kya hai? = What is your name?

Meri naam hai....= My name is...(feminine)
Mayra naam hai...= My name is...(masculine)

Shukriya = Thank you

Khuda hafeez = Goodbye/God be with you

Religion and spirituality:
More than 97% of Pakistan's population is Muslim. The remaining 3% is made up of Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Christians, Sikhs and smaller cults and religions some of which are continuations of Indo-European folklore, most notably in the Kalash. Islam is the official religion of Pakistan. A Federal Shariat Court has been set up to review the country's laws in the light of the Islamic penal code. Muslims are guided by the Quran, or Koran, the holy book, which they believe was revealed to the Prophet Mohammed.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism share many common beliefs and traditions. The giving of alms and compassion for the poor are stressed in these religions. Muslims are obliged to give 2.5% of their wealth to the needy. All three religions also stress the transitory nature of life on earth as a preparation for the hereafter.

Devout Muslims must heed the call of prayer five times every day. They pray facing the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. Most Muslims will arrange their schedules according to the prayer times. The prayer is preceded by the required ablution, which means washing the face, hands and feet. Friday is the Muslim holy day and most Pakistanis participate in congregational prayers in the mosque.

Once a year, there is Ramadan, the holy month of fasting. No food or drink is permitted from dawn to dusk. The end of this month is celebrated with special meals and festivities for Eid-al-Fitr. Muslims are also required to perform the Hajj, a holy pilgrimage to Mecca, once in their lifetime if they are financially able to do so. The last day of the pilgrimage commemorates the second major festival of Islamic belief,Eid-al-Adha.

Holidays:

The important festivals of the year are either religious occasions or a commemoration of the creation of the country. Eid-al-Fitr follows the month of fasting, Ramadan. Eid-al-Adha is celebrated in memory of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son to God. These religious holidays vary every year according to the lunar calendar and are occasions for families and friends to visit each other, share gifts and special treats. People dress in their finest clothes for these festivities. Money is donated to the poor and an animal is sacrificed by those who can afford it.

National holidays include:

* Independence Day (August 14);
* Death anniversary of Quaid-E-Azam, Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan (September 11);
* Birthday of Quaid-E-Azam (December 25).

Other holidays are

* Pakistan Day (March 23) which commemorates the passing of the Pakistan Resolution;
* National Defense Day (September 6);
* Labor Day (May 1).

Arts and literature:

Pakistan has a long tradition of art and poetry. The focus of Islamic art is on geometric patterns and designs and is judged to be one of the most complex in the world. Symmetric and elaborate designs grace mosques and the ancient palaces of the Mogul Dynasty, the Muslim empire of India prior to British rule.

The Mogul influence is also evident in Pakistan's architecture with its delicate and sophisticated motifs and designs.

In Pakistani culture, writing has been developed into an art form. Calligraphy is drawn from the Koran and then embellished with elaborate designs. It is often featured on large scrolls hung in the interior of mosques, palaces and Pakistani homes. The fascination with colorful and abstract art forms is apparent in the paintings that adorn the sides of buses and trucks and is a unique characteristic of Pakistani cities.

For entertainment, Pakistani films, as well as dramas made for television and video are popular. Poetry is an integral part of Pakistani culture. Qawwalis, a devotional song, is one of the most revered forms of poetry set to music and is accompanied by a hand clapping chorus. The ghazal is a lyrical form of rhythmic chanting that is set to music and addresses the trials and tribulations of a lover.

Below is a translation of a qawwali: The poetry and the devotion is evident in the lines:

"I have no one to turn to but you (God)
may I be blessed with your Divine attention"

Whereas the romantic verse in the ghazal goes:

"This intoxication that is gradually overpowering me
Is the result of the magic of your eyes."

To learn more:

http://ancientpakistan.info/

http://www.heritage.gov.pk/index.html

http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Personal/Pakistan/PakHistory/timeLinePak.htm

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Pakistani_folklore

Two German scholars fascinated by Pakistan’s cultural diversity

2010-11-01T16:41:00.000-07:00

By Rauf Parekh
Tuesday, 09 Mar, 2010

“Yours is an interesting country; it is full of surprises. You never know what can happen next in Pakistan, and I am saying this in a positive sense. ‘Regulated’ countries are somewhat boring. That’s what makes Pakistan a very ‘colorful’ destination, even from a researcher’s point of view. And what makes a visitor stand minor irritants is the hospitality and general regard for guests in Pakistan,” says Prof Dr Conrad Schetter while sharing with this writer his excitement about Pakistan. He is a professor of development studies and senior research fellow at the Bonn University’s Center for Development (abbreviated ZEF in German). The areas of his interest are quite varied and diverse as they include oriental studies, ethnicity, cultural identities, geopolitics and local governance.

Dr Schetter and Katja M. Mielke, his colleague at ZEF, are on a visit to Pakistan to conduct ‘a fact-finding survey’ for future research projects and bilateral cooperation with Pakistani universities. They are going to visit several universities in Sindh and Punjab. During their visit to Karachi University last weekend, they shared quite interesting views and had scholarly discourse with members of the arts faculty. Later, they took some time out from their busy schedule for an informal chat and here are excerpts from the conversation.

“Regretfully, Pakistan has been a victim of stereotyping in world media and the moment one hears the word ‘Pakistan’, one starts imagining military regimes, nuclear bombs, militants, Taliban and terrorists and what not. But my experience is quite different,” says Dr Schetter. “I have been here four times before and I feel Pakistan is a fascinating place to visit. Quite contrary to the general perception, it is an ‘open’ country. I have been to Iran, Afghanistan, many Central Asian states and I found Pakistan much more open than what the world believes it to be. I have been to Afghanistan around 15 times and have written four books on it. I feel there is a huge difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan. In certain areas and attitudes, they are poles apart.”

He later lets me know that he has written a book on Pakistan too which is going to be published shortly.

“Pakistan’s diversity is amazing, not only from the geographical point of view but also from cultural and lingual perspective. The people of this country seem to live in harmony despite all the ethnic and cultural diversity. We can see them dealing with one another quite amiably in everyday life but once the time for mobilizing them for some purpose comes, especially a political one, the question of ethnicity arises and disturbs harmony.”

His precise and profound analysis of Pakistani society based on his vast study of ethnic and linguistic issues faced by Pakistan was indeed startling.

Talking about their plans for the research projects in Pakistan, he says: “We would love to know the local perspective. We have seen in some cases that society organises itself quite well on a community or ethnic basis and this aspect of development has not been fully studied. By meeting local academics and researchers, we want to know how they feel about their own country. To understand the context and perspective, ethnicity and culture can play an enormous role. Secondly, great changes have taken place in Pakistan in the last few decades which have not been fully taken account of. Our proposed research projects would be taking note of it.”

Katja M. Mielke is a research fellow at ZEF and has taught at different institutions, including German and Russian universities. Besides her native German, she knows Hungarian, Tajik, Russian, Dari, Persian and Uzbek. She has done a course in Urdu and can understand basic Pashto, too — not to mention her fluent and impeccable English. Currently, she is working on her PhD dissertation for which she has conducted the research. The topic of her thesis is ‘Local governance in northeast Afghanistan’. To carrying out the research and conduct field work for her doctorate, she lived in Afghanistan for two years. She has published several research papers in international research publications, including papers on Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Bacha Khan) and cultivation of poppy in Afghanistan.

Sharing some of her interesting experiences in Afghanistan while discussing the surveys conducted for research, she said: “Sometimes people tell the researchers what they want to hear.”

Talking about her impressions of Karachi, she smiled and said: “I have been to Karachi before and it is my fifth trip to Pakistan. I feel Karachi is a ‘liberal’ city. It looks quite peaceful, though I was expecting traffic jams as over 15 million people live here. But it is not that difficult to move around. The campus of Karachi University is quite huge and frankly speaking I was not expecting that much big an area. It was nice to see that many departments and institutes had their separate premises.

“As for research projects for Pakistan in collaboration with German universities, we do not want to give the impression that we are the ‘wise’ guys from the West and are here to tell you people what to do. Rather, we hope to get some local partners to understand the local perspective and study the developmental issues. I feel that most of the attention of the development studies had been concentrated on the tribal areas and the NWFP.

“But I am very hopeful that certain issues can be addressed successfully as we observed during our visit to the Orangi Pilot Project. I was impressed with the pragmatic approach of the OPP. It has really motivated people to solve their own problems by taking the initiative for the waste water management and providing people with the technological aid which they lacked. It is a sphere where some other projects had failed.”

The two scholars are planning to revisit Pakistan next autumn.

The lost territory of Pakistan: The Wakhan Corridor

2010-10-01T00:13:00.000-07:00

By: Naveed Tajammal

The Birth of the new Geographic entity of Afghanistan was based on global events as they started to unfold, and so the British Empires;’’ King Makers’’ from the turn of the 19^th Century set about creating new States, by awarding them new names, and thereby delinking them from their past heritage, Khurassan, too met the same fate as did the Sind Valley, whose integral part it always had been, Sir. Thomas Holdich, writing in 1901 was correct when he confessed the same in his book,” The Indian Borderland’’., ’’We have contributed much to give a National Entity to that Nebulous Community which ‘’WE’’ call ‘’AFGHANISTAN’’(but which the Afghan, Never, CALL, by that name) by drawing a boundary all around it and elevating it into a position of a Buffer State, between ourselves and Russia, all this has been done at great expense, and with infinite pains……….’’.

In 1805,Napoleon,had declared war on Russia, and by 1807,Fateh Ali Shah of Persia, had accepted the French proposal ,’’To appoint an Army to march on India by the way of Kabul and Kandhar,’ ’The British, however succeeded in thwarting the French Alliance. However, the danger remained, for the future. So the British felt the need for a new Buffer State ,or ‘Corridors’ that led in to the British Indian Empire, From Persia as well from the North, so, Mountsuart Elphinstone,’ of the book fame, ’’An Account of Kingdom of Cabul’’ was sent to meet Shah Shuja in 1809,and a treaty was signed between the British and Cabul Kingdom, by terms of which French and other Europeans were to be rigorously excluded from the ‘Kingdom of Cabul’, However the rupture between, France and Russia, which occurred at this period, removed all fears of an invasion of India by the two powers. Then came the First Afghan War, with it came the threat Again from the Russian side, as by late 1830’s,the tentacles of the Russian Empire were being felt all over the Central Asian Chess Board. The Russian ‘’Menace’ was a cause for watchfulness & anxiety, though the British Boundary till then was limited to Cis-Sutlej Regions, the show of Flag, the rationale of the first Afghan War, was because of a danger that, Russia was again becoming predominant at the court of Shah of Persia,a nd so a apprehension was felt by the British, that there may be a move in the ‘’Corridor’, Persia, by then,was now demanding the return of its Old Provinces of HERAT,KANDHAR & KABUL. And the Russians were ready to help . From the Russian point of View, it was considered that if Persia, took ‘’HERAT’’, she would ultimately absorb Kandhar and Kabul. And that, through Persian Agency and without any cost whatever to the Russian Exchequer, a heavy Strain would be placed on Britian, to meet the new situation. This was seen, in the Persian Policy of the next twenty five years,1832 till 1857, it was solely focused on capture of Herat. By now the Afghan Entity had been created at least on papers, the boundaries had yet to be drawn, all this was done to thwart any claim on the old provinces of Persia by Shah of Persia, with the backing of the Czar of Russia .Dost Mohammad of Kabul, was still not in full command of the new entity, so he appealed , for help from Lord AUCKLAND, the Viceroy of British India. The appeal was to allow him to take over the Trans-Indus regions, and thus force out Rangit Singh ,to remain confined in the CIS-INDUS and Trans-Sutlej belt, and a finale plea for weapons and cash to help him fight the Persians. The Brothers of Dost Mohammad –seeing, the change, in air, sent envoys to the Shah of Persia with Letters of Submission and a request to the Russians for an intervention. Both were pleased. The Russian sent a, Captian Vitavich, So started a new round of the Great Game, and with it came the First Afghan war as had been highlighted above with reasons why. The flexing of British Muscle power, though in vain, as was seen, The greatest disaster suffered by British Arms, in Asia till then, The Russian Empire continued its moves across by the Central Asian Chess board, by 1844, the Sea of Aral had been explored, a massive fort built on the mouth of SYR-DARAYA ,at AK MASJID, the Khanate of Kohkand fell in 1853,Taskent in 1865,Bokhara in 1868,and then, fell Samarkand, followed by Khiva, and soon the Russain were in Contact with old districts across the OXUS which had been part of Bokhara state now with Russians. The internal feuds between the rival candidates of Afghanistan continued meanwhile, Sher Ali was now installed on the throne of Kabul, and his relations with the British improved, as he met Lord Mayo in 1869 and was awarded a subsidy of POUNDS 60,000/. And the work on Demarcation of the new Afghan state on Paper between two Empires took off, between Lord Granville of British Government and Prince Gortchakoff the Russian Ambassador in London, unknown were these things to Sher Ali sitting in Kabul, so between 17^th October 1872 and 19^th to 31^st January 1873,a paper on the new Boundary had been drafted in London between the two representatives, the boundaries as drawn between Persia and Afghanistan and British India are not being discussed in this Article,

The new face of the state of Afghanistan on its North west and North East was to be composed of the following districts, to the North East, Badakhshan, and the District of WAHKHAN From old UPPER KASKAR STATE, the lower was declared by the British as CHITRAL. The old Turkistan now Afghan Turkistan, having the districts, of KUNDUZ,KHULM & BALKH, the new Northern Boundary between the empires would the OXUS river as it followed, a path, from the junction of the Kokcha river to the post of Khoja Saleh ,inclusive of the High Road from Bokhara ,to Balkh, the internal districts of AKCHA.SAR- EPUL,MAIMANA,SHIBARGAN and ANDKHUI. The latter was to be the Extreme Afghan frontier Possession, to the North West, the Desert beyond was to belong to independent tribes of the Turkomans. However this was the British Demand then,.In 1873, the Russains eventually Agreed on it but, not before a long period in which they objected to this NEW map of Afghanistan, as the Russains ,now the legal heirs to the old state boundaries of Bokhara felt cheated out of its Trans-Oxus territories, and also of other districts as they had grave reservations on the Writ of Amir Abdur Rehman of Kabul on them, in 1893, twenty years hence from the date the final papers on the new face of Kingdom of Afghanistan had been drawn, when Amir ABDUR REHMAN of Kabul had tried to impose his Writ in the WAHKHAN ,IN THE greater interest of the British. His Forces had been soundly thrashed by the Czars Cossacks, at Somatash, on the banks of ALLCHUR river further north of Wahkhan .He had then realized how powerless he was to retaliate and so had refused to accept Wahkhan, as his new territory,subsequently, a larger money grant to the tune of RS. 18 lakhs, were offered, to induce him to accept it, with promises of the British intervention if and when anybody tried to dislodge his forces. So a part of our Sindh Valley was taken from us.As stated earlier ,many new states had been created by the British as Buffers, some were front line & some the second line, to safeguard the Northern Gates to the Indian Empire, hence came in being another State, that of DOGRA KASHMIR. In 1846,a Hindu kingdom, but composed of then 90% Muslims, that will be discussed later on. Referring back to the WAHKHAN corridor, the object of this long arm in these high altitudes or on the roof of the world, as it was not much of a buffer, as it could be easily ridden in a hard days ride across from its extreme width. So it presented no vast physical obstacle to an advance of any sort, As that had been catered for earlier by creation of the new Kashmir state, that being the second line. WAHKHAN was a ‘’HEDGE’ as it were over which the CZAR of Russia could not step, without violating Afghanistan, and violation of Afghanistan was to be regarded as a ‘’CASUS BELLI’’.

Since the creation of the Kashmir state our people had been in a state of REVOLT, that by itself was a alarm, to the British ,or, its Policy Makers, the new Maha raja’s of the state like Abdur Rehman in Afghanistan tried to impose their writs, but revolts continued. British tried all methods to keep the situation in control. In 1882, fresh disturbances had been created by the ruler of upper Kaskar State, Pahlawan Bahaduar, who ruled Yasin, Kuh, Ghizer and Ashkuman ranges and lands, Hunza and Nagar inclusive, Mir Ali Mardan Shah held WAHKHAN,AND WAS ALSO RESISTING the Afghan writ, both got removed. Phalwan Bahadaur lost his state, while MIR Ali Mardan Shah, was compensated with Ashkuman,and so in 1906,Yasin,Kuh,and Ghizer were made in one district. Mehtar Abdur Rehman, the eldest son of( Late) Pahelwan Bahadaur, made its ruler. However Hunza,Nagar and Chilas, old territories of the late ruler were made independent of Kashmir ruler, vide Foreign Department letter number.1800 dated 24 July 1901.with express orders that, no official of Kashmir had any Suzerainty, over them, and were forbidden to interfere directly in their internal Administration, as they came directly under the Foreign office of the British Empire.

The second line Buffer State of Kashmir was created by a treaty dated 16^th March 1846 signed at Amritsar. It had 10 Articles ,streamlining the yoke of the British State, through its British East India Company. the clauses like the amount of payment, limits of territories, arbitration ,not to hire or engage the services of any British subject, nor any subject of any European or AMERICAN state, without consent of the British, that the British Government will protect the state of the Maharaja, from external enemies, and the Maharaja acknowledges the Supremacy of British Government, and in token will pay, ONE horse,12 perfect Shawl GOATS, here an Amendment took place, on 13 MARCH 1884,THAT, in Future the Maharaja will, ensure that, he will present instead of 12 GOATS, it would be 10 lbs of PASHM in its natural state, as bought to Kashmir, from, LEH- 4lbs of Picked and Assorted black wool;4 lbs of ditto-ditto grey wool, ditto-ditto, white wool, and 1 lbs each of the three best qualities of white Yarn.

How humiliating could they be when the British wanted to be, such was the nose binding rule of the British on this Hindu Maharaja of the second line Buffer state, now with India.

Lastly our claim on the lost northern territory is very vital keeping in, view, the new geo political affairs, and by our right it should be returned back to our country, but as the verse of Oliver Wendell Homles describes exactly the men, who are needed to achieve this end:

A Time Like This Demands.

Great Hearts,strong minds,true faith, and willing hands;

Men whom the lust of office does not kill;

Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy;

Men who possess opinions and a will;

Men who have honor, men who will not lie.

(The writer has over 26 years of experience in Investigative Historical Research)

Pakistan cannot and should not accept a new wave of Afghan refugees

2010-09-29T17:19:00.000-07:00

Over the past few days, I've been reading of reports of the rise in violence and instability in Afghanistan.
More recently are reports of a tearful Hamid Karzai in his worries of Afghan youth leaving the country.

This cannot only indicate an exodus of young people from Afghanistan, but a complete departure of people of all ages from the country. Why would such a mass exodus be simply consisted of young people? Adults are as prone to violence and kidnappings in Afghanistan, particularly elderly people and women.

That being mentioned, the suggestion of an exodus would only mean a new wave of Afghan refugees fleeing to neighboring countries, particularly Pakistan just like in the first Afghan war against the Soviet Union.
In the first war, Pakistan welcomed millions of Afghan refugees and provided shelter for many of them. This was one of it's biggest mistakes.

Pakistan is an extremely poor and overpopulated country to begin with. The massive flow of refugees only contributed to the overpopulation. Then there's the historical contempt many Afghans have had for Pakistan. Even before the outbreak of the first Afghan war, the country was determined to take Pakistan's western provinces away through various methods.

Even after giving shelter and aid to the refugees all Pakistan was given in return was more hatred and contempt. Many Afghan refugees who fled to western countries and gained good education and descent standards of living, reembarked on their propaganda war against Pakistan.

From Internet forums to social networking websites to video sharing websites the best use they have found amongst many Afghans is hatred towards Pakistan and Pakistani people, particularly Punjabis as they are the largest ethnic group in Pakistan's armed forces and political system.

Even after the fall of the Taliban and the occupation of NATO, Afghanistan had a chance to rebuild.
Instead of calling out for educated Afghan expatriates worldwide to contribute in the rebuilding of the country, the new Afghan government only installed tribal illiterates, religious extremists and others.

Today the ambitions of this new government seems to be nothing more than a repeat of it's previous predecessors: Destroying Pakistan and erasing the Durand Line.
Even instead of tackling key problems Afghanistan faces, many Afghans both in Afghanistan and worldwide are more interested in embarking on a propaganda war against Pakistan and always blaming Pakistan and the ISI for everything that goes wrong in their country.

This is despite the fact that many of them have lived and still live in Pakistan. On the Internet I've encountered many Afghans who bad mouth Pakistan and speak lies against our country.
Many of them weather Pakhtun or Tajik are able to converse in fluent Urdu, obviously due to the fact that they have lived or still live in Pakistan.

When Pakistan accepted the first wave of Afghan refugees, with it Pakistan accepted a rise in crime rates committed by the refugees. Illegal arms and drug trade was also imported with the refugees.
Many jobs and businesses the refugees obtained was only monopolized by them as they hired as many of their own kind as they could instead of giving any opportunity to locals.

Even today Afghans walk into Pakistan to visit relatives as if it's their second country.
Yet all the time Pakistan gets blame for from these people for just about everything wrong in their country from corruption in their own government or drug trade.

Even in her book Empires of the Indus, author Alice Albania briefly mentions the bad mouthing Pakistan and it's ISI get from Afghans for just about any problem they face.
It seems clear in her book that to some such as her, the Afghans have cried 'wolf' too many times when there is no wolf in sight.

Even despite being the world's largest heroine producer and exporter, Afghanistan still seems to somehow hold Pakistan responsible for the drug trade.
Also despite the fact that under the then Pakistani backed Taliban most of the drug development in Afghanistan was close to extinction.

Today the descendants of many former Afghan refugees in Pakistan now living in Europe, North America and elsewhere spread the lies they learned from their parents on the internet against Pakistan.

Accepting a new wave of Afghan immigrants would mean accepting an increase in our country's already uncontrolled population growth. It would mean having to face even more of an already increasing problem of illegal arms, drugs, crime and others that a new wave of refugees are likely to bring with them.

It could also mean planting the seeds of a new upcoming Afghan generation who will carry on the propaganda war against Pakistan just as their forefathers did.

Accepting a new wave of Afghan refugees is simply unthinkable. We made one deadly mistake in the past by accepting the first wave of ungrateful refugees who only gave us more problems in return. We should learn from our past mistake and not repeat the same mistake twice.

Instead, Pakistan should take immediate steps to remove all foreign refugees and seal the Pak-Afghan border in advanced preparation to prevent more refugees from coming.

A billboard inside Pakistan posted by Afghan immigrants calling for the integration Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan to become part of Afghanistan: (click on image to enlarge)

The liberal lynch mob

2010-08-31T20:55:00.000-07:00

Important article on Sialkot killings by Mahreen Khan

This past week has seen columns, in these very pages, promoting a new brand of hatred – self-hatred – inciting loathing amongst Pakistanis for themselves and their culture. Using the horrific Sialkot killings, these “western, liberal” columnists have labeled all Pakistanis as “degenerates” and “barbaric”, hurling abusive and shameful generalizations to justify a verbal lynching of Pakistan, its culture and people.

The thrust of one column was as follows: the Sialkot murders mean that ALL Pakistanis should now view themselves as “human cockroaches” that should be “quarantined” from the rest of the world. So what should the wretched Rwandans call themselves? They wiped out half of their population in a killing spree. Is quarantine enough or should they be culled to prevent them exporting their genocidal tendencies? A liberal fatwa is issued: due to the Sialkot atrocity all Pakistanis are now “undeserving of sympathy”. Not even the ones stranded in swirling waters, bereft of food and shelter, not the millions of hardworking laborers, drivers, and builders who toil in foreign lands to support families back home, not even the ones who have been maimed by terrorists, none of them.

The article “Don’t act surprised” penned by an Englishman resident here for a few years is full of gross generalizations, defective reasoning and inflammatory one-liners: “We (sic) are, and have always been, a barbaric, degenerate nation reveling in blood lust (sic).” Firstly, his arrogance in speaking for all Pakistanis, particularly to emit such defamatory and prejudiced words, is nauseating. Next, the claim that the horrific violence during Partition was “reveled in” and gave “heady, almost orgasmic delight” is a blatant perversion of history. Muslims were more the victims of communal violence, as documented by various noted historians who also describe the role of the departing British colonizers as culpable.

This “bloody” Partition is used by George Fulton to conclude that Pakistan has always been a “barbaric and degenerate nation”. An intellectually feeble extrapolation, as most nations are born out of violence or war. Israel, in 1948, was born out of the terrorisation and forced displacement of Palestinians — tales of which are regaled with much pride to this day by Zionists, their chief leaders even going on to become Israeli prime ministers. Does Mr Fulton think that “Israel is a barbaric and degenerate nation reveling in blood lust”?

He goes on to state that the Sialkot lynchings are typical of Punjabi culture because Maula Jutt movies prove Punjabis are a bloodthirsty, vengeful lot. So the popularity of gore fests like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre prove that Americans, who also spend hours playing violent video games killing, maiming and torturing for entertainment and relaxation, obviously “celebrate barbarity and vengeance” as per the writer. Attributing the propensity for violence to a specific culture or race is the bigoted reasoning of a racist. Africans were also called “degenerates”, “uncivilized barbarians” who deserved to be enslaved due to their “savage” ways.

These columnists would not dare to write in such sadistic terms about western cultures. No, they only prey on weak – pure lynch mob mentality – developing nations like Pakistan, battered by natural catastrophe, war and poverty. The reality is that Pakistanis are inherently no better and no worse than any other people. The best amongst us lay down our lives to rescue those in need, open our homes and hearts to complete strangers, protest peacefully for justice. The worst amongst us are as brutal as the mobs which massacred women and children in the streets of Gujarat, with the Indian police looking on, harbor as much bigotry as the preachers of hate, whether they be Christian, Hindu, or Muslim. When the rule of law is eroded, men, irrespective of race, turn into an unruly mob – as evidenced by numerous studies and the good citizens of New Orleans who looted and rampaged in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina – police officers turn into executioners and ordinary people into accomplices. Pakistanis will and must maintain pressure to obtain justice in Sialkot. They will do so not out of self-loathing or in response to the verbal lynching liberals, but because they believe it is the right thing to do.

Pakistan's ticking time bomb: Overpopulation

2010-08-12T22:37:00.001-07:00

By Frosty Wooldridge

A quick glance at the human misery and suffering brought about by the flooding in Pakistan moves anyone to tears. The regular CNN, FOX and NBC depictions of human tragedy overwhelms anyone's senses.

Every international relief agency from the United Nations to the International Red Cross calls on governments around the planet to send relief, food, water, shelter and medical teams.

Unfortunately, that will not help their short term and long term predicament. At 172 million people in a tiny landmass called Pakistan, that country, without any concern for birth control and family planning-expects to add another 80 million people by mid century. Even today, they cannot feed or maintain clean drinking water for their overloaded population. Ironically, ancient religions such as Islam fail to understand carrying capacity, water, environment, resources and quality of life issues that drill down into the harsh reality that behind all the misery suffered in third world countries stems from two accelerating dilemmas: illiteracy and human overpopulation. Without dealing with overpopulation, no country can deal with illiteracy.

As the third world countries grow by 77 million annually, they cannot educate their citizens and they cannot intellectually move past their cultural paradigms and human suffering.

Dr. Garret Hardin, author, Stalking the Wild Taboo, brings home their dilemma:

"Those of us who are deeply concerned about population and the environment-"eco-nuts," we're called, - are accused of seeing herbicides in trees, pollution in running brooks, radiation in rocks, and overpopulation everywhere. There is merit in the accusation.

"I was in Calcutta when the cyclone struck East Bengal in November 1970.Early dispatches spoke of 15,000 dead, but the estimates rapidly escalated to 2,000,000 and then dropped back to 500,000. A nice round number: it will do as well as any, for we will never know. The nameless ones who died, "unimportant" people far beyond the fringes of the social power structure, left no trace of their existence. Pakistani parents repaired the population loss in just 40 days, and the world turned its attention to other matters.

"What killed those unfortunate people? "The cyclone," newspapers said. But one can just as logically say that overpopulation killed them. The Gangetic Delta is barely above sea level. Every year several thousand people are killed in quite ordinary storms. If Pakistan were not overcrowded, no sane man would bring his family to such a place. Ecologically speaking, a delta belongs to the river and the sea; man obtrudes there at his peril.

"In the web of life every event has many antecedents. Only by an arbitrary decision can we designate a single antecedent as "cause." Our choice is biased - biased to protect our egos against the onslaught of unwelcome truths. As T.S. Eliot put it in Burnt Norton:

"Go, go, go," said the bird, "Human kind cannot bear very much reality."

"Were we to identify overpopulation as the cause of a half-million deaths, we would threaten ourselves with a question to which we do not know the answer: How can we control population without recourse to repugnant measures?" said Hardin. "Fearfully we close our minds to an inventory of possibilities. Instead, we say that a cyclone caused the deaths, thus relieving ourselves of responsibility for this and future catastrophes. "Fate" is so comforting.

"Every year we list tuberculosis, leprosy, enteric diseases, or animal parasites as the "cause of death" of millions of people. It is well known that malnutrition is an important antecedent of death in all these categories; and that malnutrition is connected with overpopulation. But overpopulation is not called the cause of death. We cannot bear the thought.

"People are dying now of respiratory diseases in Tokyo, Birmingham, and Gary, because of the "need" for more industry. The "need" for more food justifies over fertilization of the land, leading to eutrophication of the waters, and lessened fish production - which leads to more "need" for food.

"What will we say when the power shuts down some fine summer on our eastern seaboard and several thousand people die of heat prostration? Will we blame the weather? Or the power companies for not building enough generators? Or the eco-nuts for insisting on pollution cuts?

"One thing is certain: we won't blame the deaths on overpopulation. No one ever dies of overpopulation. It is unthinkable."

As Hardin said, we abhor dealing with reality. In fact, in Joel Kotkin's recent book, he 'celebrates' adding 100 million people to the United States as if it amounts to a "Red Badge of Courage" in a diminishing world. He speaks on NPR with glowing reviews from Jennifer Ludden. He enjoys interviews in papers as he crosses the country to pitch his book. He leads Americans down a primrose path of more denial, stupidity and ignorance of their predicament.

Wouldn't Pakistan be better off with only 30-35 million people? Wouldn't it serve its own citizens to engage birth control and family planning. Wouldn't it better to life within a safe and sustainable country? Would it be much more enjoyable a life experience to live with dignity and equality? Answer: you betcha!

Sacrifices made by Pakistan not fully realised: Pentagon

2010-07-26T05:51:00.000-07:00

Original article post found here.

Watch the video first:

WASHINGTON: The Pakistani military and government don’t get enough credit for the sacrifices they are making in the fight against terror, says a Pentagon report released a day after the US military chief urged Islamabad to be sensitive to American interests.

The report by the American Armed Forces Service noted that since the beginning of the Swat campaign, the Pakistani military has been involved in 16 months of continuous combat against extremist groups in Swat, other areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and South Waziristan.

The report is based on a background briefing by a senior US military official. Although, the report does not identify the official, it is worth noting that the news service’s correspondent accompanied US military chief Admiral Mike Mullen during his recent visit to Islamabad.

It noted that the Pakistani military had more than 140,000 troops involved in the operations — or more than seven infantry divisions. “It’s the longest military campaign in Pakistani history,” a US military official said. “They have never fought anything this hard, for this long.”

The official added that there had been thousands of military and civilian casualties in the affected areas. “The Pakistani military deserves our respect, and frankly, they deserve our support,” the official said. “They are fighting extremist elements that are a threat not just in Pakistan, but across the broader region.”

But the official also pointed out that there were things the US wanted Pakistan to do but it appeared unwilling to do so.

“It is not all straight progress. There are things that the United States would like the Pakistanis to do, but they either cannot or will not at this time,” the official said.

The report noted that counter-insurgency was one of the toughest campaigns to fight, and the Pakistanis — like the Nato and Afghan troops across the border — were learning as they went along.

The official said the Pakistani effort was not perfect and that there were groups that American leaders would like them to go after.

“Still, they have cleared thousands of square kilometres of extremist presence,” he said. “There are still thousands left to do, and the Pakistanis will be the first to acknowledge it.”

The report pointed out that the toughest aspect of this war was getting the civil-military mix correct.

“The mission is to get the people of these regions to side with the government and not the extremists. The government has to be able to deliver basic services to the people and give them a path towards progress, the official said. This is proving to be a tougher and longer slog,” the report added.

The report noted that the tribal areas did not have government trained or funded police, and local tribes provided the only security. Although the Pakistan Army had moved in to provide security, “the military cannot leave the region for fear the extremists will return”.

The report acknowledged that the Pakistani government had made progress in training police for the area, but there still were too few to allow army units to leave.

“The Pakistanis understand that their clearing operations cannot be the totality of what they are doing,” the US official said. “They know they have to develop law enforcement capabilities. They know they have to do development and governance.”

The bottom line was the Pakistanis had a plan for dealing with the problem of violent extremism in the tribal areas, the official said. “But that plan will take time and was hampered by lack of resources,” he said.

“That resonates with me,” the official said. “They are dealing with tens of thousands of violent extremists, and we ought to give them some space and some time, given what they have sacrificed for the last 16 months. The reality is they are headed in the right direction.”

History of Pakistan article

2010-07-18T22:55:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Pakistan lies in the North Western part of South Asia. It is bordered by China in the North, Afghanistan in the North-West, Iran in South-West, Arabian Sea and Indian Sea in the South and India in the East. Pakistan, as evident, is located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East making it an easy linking point between Central Asia and South Asia.

There have been significant immigration movements, in the areas now constituting Pakistan since pre-historic times. The people of Pakistan are descendants of different racial groups and sub-racial stocks, who entered the subcontinent over the past 5000 years, mainly from central and western Asia from time to time. Yet unlike the popular misconception, it always maintained its identity and individuality separate from its neighbor India who claimed that Pakistan was a part of Aakhand Bharat (Undivided India) on the basis of history. Hence its "partition" from India is totally unjustified. But thousands of years of history of the sub-continent tells a different story. It tells us that the areas called Pakistan today had consistently remained as a single, compact and a separate geographical and political entity since ancient times.

Few people would be aware of the true history of Pakistan still; few would know that the oldest stone tool in the world, dating back to 2.2 million years was found at Rabat, about fifteen miles away from Rawalpindi and the largest hand Axe was found in the Soan Valley. And to top it all, the site of the first settled life in the world dating back to the 8th millennium BC has been found at Mehergarh in the Sibi districts of Balochistan. Although Pakistan, as an independent country dates only from August 14th, 1947 and the nation itself can trace its beginnings only to a few centuries ago, yet the territories of Pakistan are heir to one of the richest and the oldest civilizations and settlements of the world.

Indus Valley Civilization

The Indus Valley Civilization or the Harappan Civilization[i] is one of the most fascinating and the oldest civilizations ever known. It flourished between 3000 and 1500 BC by the banks of River Indus or Sindh in Pakistan. This civilization existed along the Indus River in present day Pakistan with its main centers at Mohenjodaro in Sindh, Harappa in the Punjab, Kej in the Baloch territory and Judeiro Daro in the Pathan region. It is generally believed that the inhabitants of Indus Valley Civilization were Dravidians who came to sub-continent from eastern Mediterranean.

This civilization reached its climax around the two metropolitan centers of Mohenjodaro and Harappa. These cities are well known for their impressive, organized and regular layout. They were the centers of arts and crafts. According to John Marshal, the Harappan people were literate and used the Dravidian language [ii] which is one of the world's first known languages. Their chief occupation was agriculture and trade. The civilization is notable for its strong central government, sense for art and architecture and house planning.

Flood is considered to be the destroyer of this culture due to which agriculture got disrupted and trade routes affected which led majority of the population to migrate to other fertile lands. Those who were left behind fell victim to the Aryan invasion. The civilization lasted for fifteen hundred years.

Arrival of the Aryans

In about 1700 BC, Indus Valley people saw the arrival of new horse-riding nomads from Central Asia leading to the eventual decline of their prosperous and sophisticated Indus Civilization. The Aryans came in at least two major waves in Pakistan. The first wave came around 2000 BC and the second wave came at least six centuries later. It was after the second wave of Aryans invasion that they became dominant and their language spread over the entire length and breadth of the region. They entered through the Swat Valley from the northwest mountain passes and pushed the local people or the Dravidians (the supposed people of Indus Civilization) southwards or towards the jungles and mountains in north. They settled first in Punjab and Indus Valley and then spread eastward and southward. Unlike Indus people Aryans were an uncivilized race. Their religious texts and human remains suggest that the Aryans were violent in their invasions. They killed the inhabitants and burnt their cities. A similar view was opined by Stuart Piggot in his book:

"The Aryan advent was in fact the arrival of barbarians into a region already highly organized into an empire based on a long established tradition of literate urban culture".

Besides being sturdy fighters Aryans were also skilled farmers and craftsmen. They were the worshipers of nature and their religious books were called Vedas. Aryans were tall, well-built and; had attractive features and fair complexion while the inhabitants of Indus Valley were black, flat nosed and of short stature. The Indus people submitted to the superior Aryans and became their slaves. This fact later became the basis of Caste system in order of superiority such as Brahmans (priest) Kashatryas (warriors) and Vaisyas (business community and commoners). The Dravidians were placed in fourth and termed as Sudras (slaves).

Persian Empire

In the 6th century BC, Darius invaded Pakistan and made the Indus plain and Gandhara part of his Persian Empire of the Achaemenid, with his capital at Persepolis in Iran. It was from then onwards that the city of Taxila began to grow and the region saw the rise of another great civilization called the Gandhara Civilization covering most of the northern Pakistan with capitals at both Pushkalavati (Charsadda) and Takshka-sila (Taxila).

As part of the Persian Empire, the region once again rose to zenith. Trade with Iran and the west resumed once again, economy flourished, weapons and other objects of daily use were produced. Charsadda and Taxila became the centers of activity. One of the greatest universities of the ancient world was founded at Taxila. It was at this university that Chandra Gupta Maurya got his education, who later founded the Maurya Empire in South Asia. This prosperous Achaemenian Empire that extended from Pakistan to Greece and Egypt, however, collapsed under the onslaught of Alexander of Macedonia.

Alexander's Invasion

Alexander entered Pakistan from the northern route at Swat and conquered the Gandharan region between 327 and 325 BC. He reached Taxila first. The Raja of Taxila knowing Alexander's vast army's reputation gave him a welcome instead of resistance. Alexander stayed at Taxila for sometime then came across Raja Porus who was the ruler of the territories east of Jehlum. He then went up to River Beas from where his army refused to go further, so he then came down through the entire length of Pakistan, crossed the Hub River near Karachi and departed for home dying on the way. Alexander's invasion brought Greek knowledge and science to Taxila.

Up till here it is notable that during each settlements and invasions may that be of the Indus Valley Civilization, Aryans or during the half a millennium period after Aryan's migrations and during the Persian Empire, Pakistan always stood as a separate entity from India and the period covered by these settlements is about 2200 years.

Mauryan Empire

Alexander's untimely demise at Babylon in 323 B.C resulted in the breakup of his vast empire in to two parts (The Byzantine Empire and Bacterian Greeks). The control of this region therefore fell into the hands of native dynasties and tribes. Chandragupta Maurya was the founder of Maurya Empire who marched into the Gangetic plains, defeated the Nanda Kings and established a strong government at a place called Magadha (present Bihar). However, it should be noted that he ruled from India but he was a son of Potohar region and a Prince of Taxila. He followed Jainism. His grandson Ashoka was a Buddhist.

As the Mauryan rulers did not took into Hinduism and promoted either Jainism or Buddhism, they became subject to Hindu's criticism. Hindu's through their scheming and conspiracy managed to put an end to Mauryan Dynasty and instead gave birth to Brahman origin dynasty of Singhas followed by Kanvas and Indras. These dynasties ruled southern and central India but proved to be weak and short lived.

Graeco-Bactrian Rule

The Bactrian Greeks arrived in Gandhara in 185 BC, about 50 years after the death of Ashoka. They were the decedents of Alexander the Great's armies from Bactria (now Balkh, in northern Afghanistan). They built Greek cities at Taxila and Pushkalavati (Charsadda) and introduced their language, art and religion in the country of Gandhara. Their language lasted more than 500 years and their art and religion had considerable influence on the Gandhara Civilization. The most powerful of the Bactrian Greek ruler was Menander (mid-second century BC). The Graeco-Bactrian rule lasted for only a century.

The Sakas

After the Graeco-Bactrian, Pakistan was divided into several small Greek Kingdoms who fell prey to the great wave of Scythians (Sakas) who migrated on an extensive scale. They were the nomads of North Iran. Sakas overthrew the Greek rulers and established their control all over Pakistan. The Sakas settlements were so vast that Pakistan came to be known as Scythia. Gandhara became the center of the Saka domains, and Taxila was chosen the capital. The Sakas or Scythians were tall, large framed and fierce warriors. They were splendid horsemen and expert in lance. Sakas were followed by the powerful Parthians from east of the Caspian Sea, in about 20 AD.

The Kushans

The Kushans from Central Asia established the Kushan Empire in Indus Valley. The third king of this dynasty Kanishka was the most successful ruler. His reforms earned him fame. Like his predecessors he also took active interest in Buddhism. Kushans made Peshawar their capital. The Kushans period is considered the golden age of Pakistan and brought great wealth and prosperity to the region with the development of the Silk Route to China. It came to be known as Kushana-shahar, the land of the Kushans. It was the Kushan kings who gifted the national dress of shalwar(shirt), kamiz(trousers) and sherwani to Pakistan.

After Kanishka's death, his successors failed to keep the Empire intact. The result of which was that some of its parts were captured by Sassanians of Persia. In the 4th century a new dynasty of Kidar (little) Kushans came to power and established their capital at Peshawar. At more or less the same time Gupta Empire came in to power in the neighboring country of India and annexed a vast area of the sub-continent yet it did not went beyond Sutlej and did not included Kashmir. So during the Gupta period, Pakistan was in the hands of Kushans and Sassanians.

White Huns

The Huns were the nomad tribe of China's western borderland who after conquering Central Asia and Iran invaded Pakistan from Central Mongolia. Their chiefs were called 'Khans'. The particular branch of the Huns, which came to Pakistan, is known as Epthalite or White Huns. One of their mighty rulers was Mehar Gul whose capital was Sakala (present Sialkot). They killed Buddhists and burned all the monasteries. Their conquest completely eliminated the Gupta regime. The origin of majority of the Afghan-Pathan tribes and Rajput and Jat clans of Punjab and Sind, according to modern scholars, are descendents from White Huns. The fall of the Hun rulers resulted in emergence of petty kingdoms which caused deterioration in political, social and economic condition until Muslims came in the scene.

Arab Invasion

During the Rajput's period in north India i.e., 7th to 12th century AD the light of Islam penetrated into this part of the world. Islam arrived in Pakistan from two directions, south and north. In 711 an Arab expedition under a 20 year old Syrian Muhammad Bin Qasim arrived by sea to suppress piracy on Arab shipping and established control of the sub-continent as far as north of Multan and built up a kingdom of Al-Mansurah in Sind. Mohammad bin Qasim conquered Sind and ruled it for about three years before being recalled and killed. After Mohammad Bin Qasim's departure, Muslim rule got confined to Sind and southern Punjab only. However, from this period onward Pakistan was divided into two parts for a long time; the northern one comprising of the Punjab and NWFP and the southern one comprising of Multan, Sind and Balochistan under various Muslim rulers.

The Turks

In 10th century AD, Turkish descendants having their capital at Ghazni attacked this region. They migrated from central Asia and played a prominent part in the political life of the sub-continent for about 200 years. The Ghaznavids, a Turkish dynasty which rose in Afghanistan, succeeded the Arabs and under the leadership of Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, established Muslim rule in the sub-continent. Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznah or Mahmud Ghaznavi, son of Turkish King of Ghazni namely Sabuktgin invaded Pakistan from the north. Gandhara, the Punjab, Sind and Balochistan all became part of the Ghaznavid Empire, which had its capital at Ghazni, in Afghanistan and later at Lahore.

With the arrival of Muslims Turks also came the Sufis and dervishes from Central Asia, Iran and Afghanistan who through their teaching spread the message of Islam all over the country. Some of them are Sheik Ismael, Syed Ali Hajveri, Ganj Shakar, Moeen-ud-Ajmeeri, Nizam-ud-Din Oliya, Baha-ud-din Zakiria and Khawaja Moeen-ud-din Chishti. It was due to these pious saints and Sufis that Islam spread to the entire length of the sub-continent. The city of Multan became famous as the city of Saints. Though Ghaznavid rule in Pakistan lasted for over 175 years but Mahmud did not annexed any area beyond Ravi. He contented himself with the annexations of the Punjab only. He was neither a robber nor tyrant as written by some historians. His reputation as a great patron of culture and literature has remained undiminished to this date. It was under his patronage that the well known epic Shahnama was written by Firdawsi.

The Ghaznavid Kingdom came into conflict with the rulers of Ghor who destroyed the city of Ghazna reducing it to ashes. Ghors were Oghuz Turks of Ghor in Afghanistan. Sultan Muhammad of Ghor and his slave lieutenant Qutb-ud-din Aybak raided sub-continent and captured Delhi in 1193. Ghori was a brave soldier and able administrator but not as brilliant as Mahmud Ghaznavi. However, Ghori left a lasting impact on the history of India. He is reputed to be a mild and benovelant man and a just ruler. He had not any heirs. He trained his slaves in warfare and administration. It was Aybak, one of his slaves who became his successor after Ghori's assassination in 1206.

After the death of Ghori, his slave Qutab-ud-Din Aybak established the first Turkish Slave Dynasty (1206-90), which lasted for over 300 years. Aybak was the most trusted general of Muhammad Ghori and was given the administrative control of some of the conquered lands. He initially made Lahore as the capital but later moved to Delhi thatswhy the slave dynasty is also referred as the Sultanate of Delhi. However Aybak's reign was short lived (5 years) and he was succeeded by nine other slave kings. Among his successors, his son-in-law, Iltutmish (1211-36), Raziyya Sultana (1236-1239) and Balban were the most famous. Balban is remembered for his strong centralized government. With his death, the dynasty declined and the final blow came in a form of a Jalaluddin Firuz Khilji. The Sultanate period brought the greater part of the sub-continent under its control and established Muslim Rule on firm grounds.

The Sultanate period also saw the rise and fall of 4 other dynasties in rapid succession: the Khiljis (1290-1320), the Tughlaqs (1320-1413), the Sayyids (1414-51), and the Lodhis (1451-1526). The Khiljis were Turks by origin but had resided in Afghanistan so long that they were no longer regarded as Turks. They took control of the sub-continent in a form of a coup. Among them the Alao-Din-Khilji, was the most famous as he had a great impact on the history of India. He was efficient, imaginative and strong ruler. The Khilji Empire lasted for 30 years. The Khiljis were succeeded by the Tughluqs who consolidated the Muslim rule and revived the empire. The Tughluqs restored the public works of utility such as forts and canals and reestablished law and order. The Sayyids and the Lodhis followed next and their rule remained till 1526 when Babur founded the Mughal Empire.

The Mughals

'Mughal' is the Persian translation of the word 'Mongol' from which we get the English word 'mogul' meaning 'tycoon'. The Moguls were the last of the Mongols. In the 16th century, Zaheeruddin Mohamed Babur, the first Mughal Emperor and a descendent of Tamerlane and Genghis Khan, raided the Punjab from Afghanistan and defeated Ibrahim Lodhi, at the historic battle of Panipat and founded the Mughul Empire. Babur was succeeded by his son, Humayun in 1530. Humayun was ousted by the Sher Shah Suri, who ruled the empire until his death in 1545. Humayun who went into self exile in Persia returned and regained the throne in 1554 but died two years later. He was succeeded by his son Akbar. Akbar was the greatest of the Mughal Emperors and ruled the longest period. He improved the centralized administrative system and was a great patron of art and literature. Mughal art and architecture reached its height under Akbar's son Jahingir reign, and later under his grandson Shah Jahan. They left a heritage of magnificent mosques, palaces, tombs, forts and gardens which can still be seen in Lahore, Multan, Jehlum and other places. Auranzeb succeeded Shah Jahan and who ruled from 1658 to 1707. He was a pious man and an efficient administrator. With the death of Auranzeb, the great Mughal Empire (1526-1857) disintegrated.

In 1739, Nadir Shah of Persia invaded the region and after his death Ahmed Shah Abdali founded the kingdom of Afghanistan in 1747. Then in the early 19th century, the Sikhs pushed the Afghans back to the Khyber Pass. Ranjit Singh, the famous Sikh leader made Lahore his capital and ruled from 1799 to 1839. The Sikh rule collapsed under the British and thus ended the Muslim rule in the subcontinent. However it should be noted that unlike Britishers "Muslim rule in India was established by immigrant elite. The Muslims didn't rule India from a distant homeland, nor were they members of a dominant group within the Indian Social community".

The British Period

The British arrived as merchants with the British East India Company at the beginning of the 17th century and gradually became involved in Indian politics and finally, after the battle of Plassey in 1757, began to conquer the sub-continent. By 1843, Sind was completely in their control. They defeated the Sikhs in 1845 and 1849 in Anglo-Sikh War.

After the First War of Independence in 1857 (also known as the Sepoy Mutiny), the British Government took direct control of Pakistan. This marked the beginning of the British Raj (British Rule), and in the name of Queen Victoria the British continued to expand their empire. Hunza on the Chinese border was the last area to fall into British hands, in 1891; only Afghanistan and some western most areas of Pakistan continued to remain outside their control. They demarcated the Durand Line in 1893 to separate Pakistan from Afghanistan. The British had a strong influence on modern Pakistan. They not only introduced their administrative and legal systems, but also brought with them their culture, language, art and architecture, some of which can still be seen in Pakistan today.

The Struggle for Pakistan

After the unsuccessful First War of Independence in 1857, the British determined to suppress and weaken the Muslims, whom they held mainly responsible for the uprising. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan (1817-98) made one of the first attempts to restore Muslim status by founding the Aligarh Movement. Muslims formed a political party with the name of Muslim League under the chairmanship of Nawab Salimullah Khan in 1906 at Dhaka. Yet it was only when Jinnah assumed the leadership of Muslim League in 1936 that it became a dynamic, national organization of the Muslims.

In 1930, a Muslim poet and a philosopher Dr. Muhammad Iqbal proposed the creation of a separate Muslim state for those areas of the subcontinent with a Muslim majority. His proposal was adopted by Muhammad Ali Jinnah, a British trained lawyer and Pakistan's first head of state. This idea of a separate Muslim state in the sub-continent to be called Pakistan took the form of a resolution adopted by the Muslim League in 1940 at its Lahore session. This was the Lahore resolution that came to be popularly known as Pakistan Resolution. The philosophy on which it was based is called Two Nation Theory, which emphasized on the individuality of Hindus and Muslims stating that these two nations have their own civilization, culture, historical heritage and religion due to which they can not live under a single country. This provided the basis for Pakistan.

The British realized that they would have to relinquish their hold upon the sub-continent so on 20th February 1947; the British Prime Minister Mr. Lord Atlee announced that the British Government would hand over the power of the sub-continent to its natives. It was finally agreed that the sub continent should be partitioned and the power will be handed over to the two states at Independence on the mid-night of 14th and 15th August 1947. Thus the Muslims struggle under the dynamic leadership of Muhammad Ali Jinnah bore fruit; the sub-continent won Independence from English and Pakistan was created as a sovereign and independent Muslim state on 14th August 1947.

It was decided that Pakistan would comprise the eastern (present Bangladesh) and western (present Pakistan) wings of the country. The Muslims living in Indian region had to migrate to Pakistan. This migration was accompanied by terrible violence and bloodshed not to mention various problems of division Pakistan had to face in the hands of uncooperative Indians.

Independent Pakistan

The world has always known two different countries and cultures in the sub-continent; one based on the Sindhu or Indus (Pakistan) and the other on the Ganges Valley (India) known as Bharatvarta. The Sindhu country with its Harappan Civilization had its control from Rupar on upper Sutlej to the lower reaches of the Indus on the Arabian Sea, the territory now covered by Pakistan. The Sindhu Land was always notable for its independent existence, completely detached from Gangetic Valley or India.

Moreover, Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more cultural, commercial and political connections with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Turks than with the Gangetic Valley. During the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, Pakistan remained part of India for a total period of 711 years of which 512 years were covered by the Muslims period and 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly Buddhist) and British periods. Pakistan had remained either independent or part of powers at west and its attachment to India was only an exception.

This may be the reason that there is barely any Hindu architectural influence in Pakistan and instead of Hinduism; Islam shapes the lives of most Pakistanis. Moreover, Hindus themselves have always regarded Yavanas (the inhabitants of Pakistan) in those days as impure and outside the limits of Aryandom. So Pakistan as a part of India is a weak theory having no historical grounding. It was indeed the famous Two Nation Theory formulated by Iqbal and realized by Jinnah that led to the creation of Pakistan in 1947.

Notes:

[i] Called 'Indus Valley' by John Marshall, Mohenjodaro and the Indus Valley Civilization pp.i-iii (London, 1931), and 'Harappan' by Stuart Piggott, Prehistoric India (London: Pelican Books, 1950), p. 132.
[ii] Quoted in Ancient Cities of the Indus, Gregory L. Possehl (ed), Carolina Academic Press, New Delhi, 1979, pp. 105-107.

References:

1. Dani A H. Pakistan: History through the centuries. [Online] [Cited 2009 April 2] Available from: heritage.gov.pk/html_Pages/history1.html
2. Shaw I. Pakistan Handbook. The guide book company Ltd. Hong Kong. 1989.
3. Abdulla A. The historical background of Pakistan & its people. Tanzeem Publishers. Karachi. 1973.
4. Possehl G L (ed). Ancient cities of the Indus. Carolina Academic Press. New Delhi. 1979.
5. Rahman T. Peoples & languages in pre-Islamic Indus Valley. [Online] [Cited 2009 April 2]. Available from:
inic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/peoplesandlanguages.html
6. Haroon A. Muhammad Bin Qasim to General Pervaiz Musharraf: Triumphs, tribulations, scars of 1971 tragedy & current challenges. KRL Post Office Box 502. Rawalpindi. 2000.
7. Piggot S. Pre Historic India. Penguin Books. 1950.
8. Akhtar R (ed). Pakistan Year Book 1974. East & West Publishing Company. Karachi.
9. Elliot H M & Dowson J. The History of India as told by its own historians: The Muhammadan Period. Vol. 1. Trubner & Co. London. 1867-1877.
10. P.M Holt, Ann K.S, Lambton & Lewis B(eds). The Cambridge History of Islam: The further Islamic Lands, Islamic Society & Civilization. Cambridge University Press. 1970.
11. Hardy P. The Muslims of British India. Cambridge University Press. London. 1972.

Ameera Kamal is Islamabad based research writer with a Masters degree in Anthropology from Quaid-e-Azam University, Pakistan. Ameera has flair for writing & research, taste for arts (performing & fine arts) and love for nature. She is deeply concerned about the socio-political scenario in her country in particular and in the region in general. Ameera is a strong advocate of global peace, humanitarian rights, feminism, animal rights and environmental protection. Her major areas of interest include, gender and women development, social and women rights, history and culture, education and health.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Ameera_Kamal

Another set of 'reports' from the Indian media exposed

2010-07-14T01:41:00.001-07:00

Supposedly professional Indian news outfits like the Times of India, Hindustan Times and India Today have recently been publishing dramatic reports about the Pakistani ex-president Pervez Musharraf ‘admitting’ to having deceived the US and ‘unlawfully diverted’ American aid and equipment. An interview the ex-president gave to a Pakistani news channel is vaguely attributed to as source of the ‘revelations’.

An examination of the actual interview revealed, unsurprisingly, that the president said no such thing. In response to a question, he only deliberated on the ludicrous nature of claims that American aid was being ‘misused’. He simply pointed out that new equipment is issued to the regiments and units of the Pakistan Army; not to a particular campaign or theater. Units of the army are regularly rotated out of the Western Front to their peacetime locations in the east [near India] and they cannot be expected to leave their combat gear out in the mountains when being re-posted. THAT cannot and is not considered a diversion of funds or a breach of any agreement or understanding, the general implied.

How Musharraf’s words can possibly be translated into ‘Musharraf admitted that he had violated rules governing the use of the military aid, and justified his actions by saying he had acted in the best interest of Pakistan’ and ‘he said he did not care whether the US would be angered by his disclosure’ is beyond understanding. Musharraf never considered his words to be a ‘disclosure’ of any sort, in fact he was pointing out what he thought was obvious so the notion of him ‘not caring’ about spilling beans doesn’t even apply. Such blatantly conceived un-journalistic distortions are beyond anything resembling professional fault and firmly in the realm of malicious disinformation campaigning.

Some would suggest that Musharraf be careful of what he says in the future. But that’s entirely beside the point since what he said did not remotely resemble what was published by the Indian press and reported by the Indian media in their typical sensationalist fashion. The more worrying development is the increasing number of people, unaware of the instinctive tendency in India to malign their hated rival at every opportunity, end up considering Indian sources to be neutral. The lesson here is simple: the Indian press and media should not to be confused for a balanced or objective source of information in regards to Pakistan.

To drive the point home we have another, slightly more amusing, example of ‘reporting’ from the Indian press. The Times of India ran another interesting piece of late titled ‘Musharraf rewarded militant who slit throat of Indian officer’. The source of the report was apparently the Urdu newspaper column of a rather sensationalist journalist Hamid Mir. It is not common for the mainstream Pakistani press to give much credence to his work and others of the same quality, but the Indian press obviously thinks otherwise. Claims of the Pakistani high command practicing barbarianism, and appreciating beheaded Indian bodies, would be received well in India undoubtedly. But the same couldn’t be said of the preceding paragraph in the referred column, which would perhaps explain why it was conveniently omitted entirely:

“Indian Army killed 14 civilians on February 25, 2000 in Lonjot village of Nakial in Azad Kashmir. Indian commandos crossed the LoC, spent the whole night in a Pakistani village and left early morning. They slit the throats of three girls and took away their heads with them. They also kidnapped two local girls. The next morning, the heads of the kidnapped girls were thrown towards Pakistani soldiers by the Indian Army.”

This was the motivation behind the Indian officer’s supposed mutilation, according to Hamid Mir. Thus, if such utterly unverifiable tripe about something that allegedly happened years ago is suddenly relevant enough for the Indian media to report, then they could have at least quoted it in its context. If Hamid Mir is so credible, why be so selective with his article? Is it because the Indian press considers the allegation of Musharraf rewarding a militant for beheading an Indian army-man more serious than Indian soldiers beheading five innocent girls and throwing their heads at Pakistani soldiers? Obviously, professional integrity or moral accountability is not much of priority.

If raising awareness about breaches of international law in the Disputed Territory was the purpose of the article, wouldn’t it make more sense to draw attention to the Indian Army’s well documented atrocities in the rebel infested territories of Kashmir instead of publishing nonsense, even that distortedly? It would appear the purpose of the once respected Indian press is only to stroke the hate of those who choose to harbor nothing but contempt for Pakistan. Pakistan has genuine reasons to be wary of its large, and fairly obsessed, neighbor after all.

Why Waldman must be sued.

2010-07-14T01:36:00.001-07:00

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

By Mosharraf Zaidi

The buzz being generated by an LSE discussion paper is truly electric. The paper itself is rather unremarkable, alleging long-alleged, long-acknowledged, and long-standing links between Pakistani intelligence and the Kandahari Taliban (those Taliban associated with Mullah Omar and the original extremist political movement that rose in the Afghanistan of the 1990s). What is remarkable however is the vigor and confidence with which the author uses already established theories and facts to libel the president of Pakistan.

Matt Waldman, the Carr Center fellow who wrote the report claims to have interviewed 54 different people, out of which at least nine are Taliban field commanders in Afghanistan, ten are former Taliban government officials, twenty-two are Afghan "elders", and thirteen are foreign diplomats, analysts and experts. In a report that is essentially about Pakistan, Waldman must be the world's unluckiest researcher, having been unable to interview a single one of Pakistan's more than 180 million people. Waldman is at least honest about this, claiming no conversations with Pakistani officials, military officers, or indeed, any ISI agents. Not having spoken to an ISI agent is an aspect of the report that stands out. Because, if there is one thing Waldman's research really tries to prove, it is that the easiest thing to find in Afghanistan, other than finely-cut heroin, are ISI agents.

Remarkably, not a single one of the 54 honest and endearing protagonists in Matt Waldman's story wanted to be cited by name, or go on the record. In the footnote detailing who the nine Taliban field commanders are, he offers no details, stating that "Due to safety concerns each commander insisted on anonymity". This is terribly confusing. Waldman's Taliban commanders don't seem to have any particular safety concerns when blowing up and killing Gen Stanley McChrystal's JSOC boys while they are on patrol in Helmand. But an LSE report with their names in it scares the jihad right out of them?

Of course, Waldman is not the first to ravage Pakistan's policy of supporting religiously-motivated armed groups that support Pakistan's foreign policy objectives through terrorism. Pakistanis and foreigners have both advocated for years about the inherent risks of a strategy that creates monsters than have no pause, or stand-by button. Most of us have based our critique of this approach of using proxy warriors, whether Kashmiri, or Afghan, or Pakistani, on the very real damage they do to Pakistan itself, to the moral case they claim to espouse, to the establishment of a fledgling democracy, and to the prospects for prosperity and peace across the entire region. Matt Waldman tries with his paper to join a long and distinguished list of critics of Pakistani proxy warfare, not with substantial critique, but with rehashed polemics about the inherent evil of Pakistan's flawed national security paradigm.

Waldman is also not the first to draw conclusions from circumstantial facts. Since at least late 2007, Pakistani hypernationalists have been propagating the ideas that the TTP is an externally-funded terrorist coalition. Where else could the TTP possibly get its money, these war-loving, hypernationalists often ask? Waldman does one better. He collates press reports and analysis about the different sources of the Afghan Taliban's income (none of which mention Pakistan, or the ISI) and then asks the same question that Pakistani hypernationalists ask. "How could all this happen without 'external' support?" Of course it can't, according to Waldman's Zaid Hamid-esque logic. Waldman's answer to everything is the ISI.

This too, of course, is hardly novel. Until 2007, even President Karzai spared no occasion to depict Afghanistan as a victim of the ISI. Who can forget Karzai's dramatic performance from December 2006, when Karzai made a famous tearful appeal for an end to Pakistan's "murder of Afghan children"? Though Karzai seems to have found something agreeable about President Zardari and the post-2008 election Pakistan, other frontline Northern Alliance bosses continue to blame Pakistan for everything. Corruption, the drug-trade, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. All come from Pakistan. And everything from Pakistan, of course, is produced in a laboratory by the ISI.

Essentially, Waldman's report restates old allegations and sexes them up. It is really old wine, in a shiny new bottle. There is however one quite spectacularly novel thing about this report. It is a libelous and malicious attack on Pakistani democracy, beginning right at the top, with the President of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari.

Waldman doesn't libel President Zardari accidentally. By including his wild allegation of Zardari's meetings with Taliban jailbirds in his abstract, he loudly proclaims that slurring Zardari, and by extension the Pakistani people, is part of the objective of the report. He states that, "President Zardari and a senior ISI official visited some 50 high-ranking Talibs who were held in a prison in a secret location in Pakistan". He then describes how Zardari assured the arrested Taliban of his support, and their subsequent release in keeping with those assurances. The report's allegations about President Zardari's meetings with the Taliban leaders are derived from a single, unnamed, low- to mid-level Taliban field commander operating in Afghanistan. Any person with a pulse will be able to discern how ridiculous and malicious this allegation is. Yet by the time folks have a chance to consider its qualifications the damage will have been done.

What makes Waldman's attack on Zardari particularly toxic is that it serves no purpose other than to paint the last decent thing about Pakistan in Westerners' eyes--Pakistani democracy--with the same colour as everything else here has been painted. That is immeasurably lethal, and its collateral damage is not just political, but economic too. Denials of the report's claims from Farahnaz Ispahani, Farhatullah Babar and Gen Athar Abbas don't go nearly far enough in countering Waldman's defamatory work.

Pakistan's national security paradigm deserves to be discussed, dissected, and deconstructed by Pakistanis and friends of Pakistan that wish this country a more secure future. This country has been an insecure, fidgety, spasmodic, neurotic, and obsessive-compulsive neighbour. Pakistan's military needs to be held to account for the money it spends, and the decisions it takes, by Pakistan's elected representatives. Pakistan's intelligence agencies have spent far too much blood and treasure trying to manipulate the hearts and minds of people, in Pakistan, and abroad into wars that are unwinnable, unloseable, and unendable. They should be reigned in and become more focused on protecting the life and property of Pakistanis.

When informed commentators, whether they are Pakistani, or not, write about Pakistan's problems, good sense must prevail. Freedom of speech does not only apply to journalism, but to academic discourse too. Pakistanis should embrace the critical lens that is being placed on their country. Clearly, we have failed ourselves. It cannot hurt to have some help in understanding the mess we've created. Honest critical analysis of Pakistan should be welcomed.

The difference between critical analysis and malicious slander however is quite stark. By deliberately targeting President Asif Ali Zardari, Matt Waldman has not simply bad-mouthed Mr Zardari. What Waldman has done is much worse. He has slandered the symbol of the Pakistani federation. One can't be anything but certain that President Zardari has never visited Taliban leaders in jail. If that is a certainty, then so must be a lawsuit. Accusing the Pakistani president of meeting with international outlaws, to offer them his support is outrageous, and is designed to injure Pakistan. It must be resisted with the full power of Pakistan's substantial legal human resources in courts of law in the United Kingdom. There is a big difference between accusing clandestine services of behaving badly and accusing the president of a country of aiding and abetting international outlaws. Without legal liability to deter it, this blurring of lines will become epidemic. Matt Waldman needs to be sued for libeling the President of Pakistan.

The writer advises governments, donors and NGOs on public policy. www.mosharrafzaidi.com

The video below shows Waldman's desperate attempts to defend the validity of his false claims including making excuses where in the end his last resort appears to be quoting Ahmed Rashid:

Ex-Afghan intelligence chief behind anti-Pakistan propaganda

2010-06-14T01:47:00.000-07:00

Read original post here.

Monday, June 14, 2010
By Our correspondent
ISLAMABAD: The former chief of Afghan intelligence gathering outfit Amrullah Saleh has taken up the full-time job to malign Pakistan on one end while providing all sorts of assistance to terrorists to step up activities on the soil of Pakistan on the other.

He throughout had been in league with Indian Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) to destabilize Pakistan but has been recently ousted by Afghan President Hamid Karzai due to his dubious role in the affairs of the state. Amrullah has also assumed the task of creating difficulties for the Afghan administration. The story carried by the Sunday Times and so-called report against Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) by London School of Economics are the handiwork of Amrullah Saleh.

Well placed diplomatic sources told The News that Amrullah Saleh has threatened his leadership that he would bring the peace fragility back in the region to the previous level since he was refused a free hand to play the Indian game in the region.

Amrullah has been brought up and groomed by the Indian intelligence organisation and he had been involved in anti-Pakhtun activities throughout his career. He was the head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security (NDS). He was appointed to the position by President Hamid Karzai in early 2004, succeeding Muhammad Arif Sarwari.

Saleh is an ethnic Tajik from Panjshir, and worked for the Northern Alliance under Ahmad Shah Masood. In 1997 he was appointed to lead the Northern Alliance’s Dushanbe office, where he served as the main conduit linking the CIA to Masood.

With the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States and the beginning of US bombing against the Taliban, Saleh returned to Afghanistan towards the end of October to help lead Northern Alliance intelligence, serving as the special assistant to intelligence chief Muhammad Arif Sarwari. The Northern Alliance subsequently took over Afghanistan’s existing intelligence apparatus. While Sarwari became director, Saleh was appointed to head Department One, whose duties included liaison with foreign military, diplomatic and intelligence organizations.

Sarwari and Saleh reportedly had a falling out over the latter’s enthusiasm for greater reform, leading to Saleh’s assignment to a lesser post in late 2003. Sarwari was removed from his post as leader of the NDS in early 2004 amidst various criticism that he had, amongst other things, abused his powers, worked against the government and that the NDS had committed human rights violations. President Hamid Karzai appointed Amrullah Saleh in his place in February 2004. Saleh resigned from the NDS on June 6, 2010 after a Taliban attack against the national peace jirga held by President Karzai. He was temporarily replaced by Engineer Ibrahim Spinzada. Saleh has been accused of following the footprints of his predecessor.

Response to the map that keeps spreading on anti-Pakistan websites and videos

2010-05-27T16:21:00.001-07:00

I've seen the maps pictured below on the internet for quite some time now. It can also be seen on Indian and Afghan websites as well as YouTube videos posted by Indians and Afghans.

The claim I kept reading was that it was created by someone in the American state department, an alleged 'expert' on the region. Utter nonsense!
I believed it was some ignorant person from the state department at first, but seeing it circulating so much amongst the Indians and Afghans, I concluded it was fabricated by one or both of them and claimed to be American made to give their claims more credibility.

But studying the maps more carefully, it is most likely Afghan made, since the maps show Kashmir as part of Afghanistan. Many Afghans on the Internet have extended their claims to the Kashmir province of Pakistan as well as the Northern Areas.
As far as I know, the Indians have not approved their Afghan puppets for claiming Kashmir, since they themselves have a claim on that province, so the map is indeed most likely Afghan drawn.
If it has been re-posted by some Indians on the Internet, it's most likely they have missed the Afghan extension onto Kashmir out of ignorance in their quest to promote Afghan claims on Pakistani territory.

Being in Afghanistan for almost a decade, I doubt the Americans would be so ignorant to the history and reality of the region by now; especially on it's ethnic diversity.
Even many speakers who come on American news networks such as CNN speak of the historic ethnic division in Afghanistan that has contributed much to the civil unrest in the country.

There are a couple of facts that readers should know if they don't already:

-Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country, more so than Pakistan and so is India.

-The claim Afghans have made on the Pakistani provinces of Balochistan and Pakhtunkhwa (then known as the Northwest Frontier Province) based on ethnic lines are invalid, knowing that the Pakhtuns and Baloch are more numerous in Pakistan than Afghanistan.
Additionally, Afghanistan's ethnic minorities such as Uzbeks, Turkmens, Tajiks are divided across a border from the mostly nation-states of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. For Afghanistan to claim territories in a neighboring country on ethnic lines will only put it's own borders into question, also on ethnic lines.

Below are ethnic demographic maps of Afghanistan: (click on maps to enlarge)

Here is a possible future map of Afghanistan, knowing that ethnic tensions in that country have been much stronger than they ever have been in Pakistan and still are:

India, which has worked side by side with Afghanistan over decades in the propaganda war against Pakistan has always been a strong advocate of abolishing the Durand Line and calling for Afghanistan's takeover of Pakistan's western provinces.
This is only a blow to Indian interests if both Indian and Afghan claims regarding the Durand Line are mirrored back at them.

For example, there have been talks of small movements in the state of Bengal to break away from the Indian union and unite with Bangladesh. Most readers also probably know of the Khalistan movement, which is a movement for the self-determination of Sikhs in India.
It soared in the 1980s. Additionally there was a movement (and still might be) in South India for the Dravidians to form their own separate state.

Below is a video briefly discussing the issue of separatism in India and possibly a future map of the country divided into smaller states:

India is possibly the most ethnically and racially diverse country on Earth. It's languages belong to different unrelated language families.
People with Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Australoid and other can be found, pointing to unrelated ancestries. According to a website covering the genetic diversity in India, Indians scientists were quoted stating that India is the most genetically diverse country on Earth.

Afghanistan is also genetically diverse, containing mainly Caucasoid people and Mongoloid people such as Turkmens, Uzbeks and Hazaras.
Linguistically speaking, Afghanistan's languages belong to the Indo-European and Altaic families, two unrelated language families until proven otherwise.

Pakistan is diverse too, but hardly in comparison to it's neighbors. Unlike it's neighbors, almost all of Pakistan's population belong to the Indo-Iranic family. This means 99% of Pakistan's languages descend from a common proto-language and so do it's people, descending from common ancestors who spoke this proto-language(s).

The only people who are distinct are the Brahui Dravidians in South Western Pakistan, the Hunza people who speak a language isolate of unknown origin, meaning their language does not belong to any established language family.
The third distinct ethnic group of Pakistan are the Baltistanis who speak a Sino-Tibetian language meaning their language related to Chinese. They may also share a common ethnicity with the Han Chinese people.
But genetically speaking these three mentioned peoples do not stand much distinct from the rest of the Pakistani population according to a research created by an American university.

Below are videos discussing the border issues between Afghanistan and Pakistan. They do not touch much on ethnicity, but rather the Durand Line treaty, which Afghans at some time have claimed to be invalid from the start, at other times they claim it expired in 1993.

Though this issue of ethnic division has been discussed several times on various Pakistani blogs and websites before, the enemies have not cut short of their lies; hence it becomes necessary to keep raising the facts to prevent the enemies from twisting them into half-truths or lies to suit their agendas.

An important note to add is that though the Hazaras have been placed amongst the Iranic peoples on the maps, this classification is due to the Iranic language they today speak.
Ethnically speaking, the Hazaras share common roots with the Uzbeks, Turkmens and other Turkic peoples.

The Ariana-Afghanistan scam

2010-03-02T01:08:00.001-08:00

I've never been fond of using Wikipedia as a source of information ever since I learned how it is really run. But I have to admit, I do sometimes like the references they use as evidence for their content(s).

In the case of ancient Ariana, they cite Strabo's Geographica book four as their reference, which supposedly marks out the borders of Ariana with accuracy.

The reason for my discussing this is because there has been a new propaganda campaign by Afghans to claim Ariana as the ancient name of Afghanistan. The claim is that the modern Afghan state is nothing more than a continuation of ancient Ariana which has existed for thousands of years.

Using the citation of Geographica on the wiki, I decided to further research this book. According to sources, Geographica was written by Strabo, an educated citizen of the Roman empire. The book itself is supposedly consisted of seventeen volumes and was written no time earlier than 20BC.

Also according to sources, detailed descriptions of Ariana are found in Geographica's book fifteen, chapter two, sections one to nine.
Though I don't posses a hard copy of Strabo's Geographica translated into English (the original version was in Greek), I have found what an online reproduction of the Loeb classical Library edition published in 1932.

Here is a quote I want to share of this translation of Geographica's book fifteen chapter two:

"After India ("India" in this case refers to the name coined for the Indus river region by the ancient Greeks, most accurately the provinces of Punjab and Sindh; not the modern country that is known as India, which took up the name used by the British to refer to the entire subcontinent), one comes to Ariana, the first portion of the country subject to the Persians after the Indus River and of the upper Satrapies situated outside the Tarus. Ariana is bounded on the south and on the north by the same sea and the same mountains as India; and from this river it extends towards the west as far as the line drawn from the Caspian Gates to Carmania, so that its shape is quadrilateral. Now the southern side begins at the outlets of the Indus and at Patelene, and ends at Carmania and the mouth of the Persian Gulf, where it has a promontory that projects considerably towards the south; and then it takes a bend into the gulf in the direction of Persis."

According to this site, the Caspian Gate is mentioned in several ancient sources as a mountain pass on the road between Rhagae in modern Iran and the Parthian capital on the border region between Turkmenistan and Iran.

This coincides with Wikipedia's [sourced] statements that Ariana most likely consisted of Iran and western Afghanistan. Ariana's borders have not yet been strictly defined and they are still disputed amongst scholars.
But in any case the historic consensus is that Ariana cannot have been centered only within Afghanistan and the western Pakistani provinces that Afghans have claimed for decades and still claim.

The above quote from Geographica's fifteenth book and other mentioned/linked sources directly contradict Afghan claims on Ariana being their country's ancient name.
If Afghans are willing to continue making these false claims on being the direct heirs to Ariana, they cannot do so without extending their claims to Iranian territory and parts of Central Asia.

Why should Afghanistan be allowed to claim itself as a modern form of Ariana? Why not Iran or Pakistan or countries on the eastern Caspian sea shores? Given that these territories consisted of the modern countries/territories mentioned?
Already some Iranians claim Afghanistan be be part of "greater Iran" possibly based on the Ariana region.

It is common to see people claiming ancient names of people(s) and places as part of their heritage without any proof or evidence.
Afghans can also be found claiming other historic names of peoples and places for themselves such as claiming descent from the Parthians despite the Parthians having their capitals in Eastern Iran.

Afghans also claim Scythian descent, despite Scythians being a separate Iranic people from Pakhtuns, Tajiks or Persians. The map below shows the spread of the Scythian and Parthian empires mostly over Iran Central Asia as well as Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Western India.

Who are the Afghans to be claiming this all exclusively as part of Afghan history? Most of these mentioned peoples and places are now extinct. Boundaries of states and nations change over time. Races appear and disappear from Earth or assimilate into larger/stronger races forming a new race which is an element of two or more. Good examples of these are the Tocharians forming with Turko-Mongol tribes forming the modern-day Uyghurs.
Or the ancient Europeans who invaded South Asia and mixed with the local population forming the modern-day Pakistanis.

Many Afghans who believe Afghanistan to be ancient Ariana and Pakistan a brand new state only sixty plus years old with no ancient history and holding on to "ancient Afghans lands" are misinformed and don't have a proper insight to the history of the region or just plain ignorant.

By this same token, Pakistan can also lay claims to ancient territories such as Sapta Sindhu, which is the ancient Sanskrit name for most of Pakistan and the Ganges river belt in Northern India which translates to "land of the rivers" since Pakistan and the Ganges valley are home to several rivers. Some are larger, others are smaller.

Recent findings have lead to theories that the ancient Sumerians referred to the Indus Valley/Pakistan as "Melluha" which possibly meant land of the waters, though these are just theories.

All theories and claims by countries over ancient settlements and peoples must be backed up by evidence. Weather this evidence is artifacts, ancient texts, fossils or any other form of evidence.
The Afghan claim over Ariana has none of these, while the idea of Ariana spanning through Afghanistan, across the Middle East/South Asia/Central Asia has plenty of evidence contradicting the Afghan claim, the above information being only one of them.

Many Afghans uneducated in history and other ignorant people think of Afghanistan as some sort of six thousand year-old state. This is possibly because the name "Afghanistan" has been around for two and a half centuries while the name Pakistan has been around for about a little over half a century.

The history of the Afghan state begins in 1747 AD. The country was formed by Ahmed Shah Durrani, a Pashtun leader who conquered various provinces including that of Turkic and Tajik speaking people and forged them into one state.

Ever since 1747 the history of the Afghan state has seen many invasions and wars, which is too long to discuss in detail. The main point is that Ariana is in no way a "predecessor" to Afghanistan, nor is the Afghan state six thousand years old as some of it's people claim.

This post ends with a quote from the CIA world fact book on the background of the the modern Afghan state:

Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747. The country served as a buffer between the British and Russian empires until it won independence from notional British control in 1919.

Fake Greek and Macedonian claims over Northern Pakistanis

2009-12-07T17:04:00.000-08:00

The following content is from an article published by a newspaper in the summer of 2008.

‘Descendants’ of Alexander help to boost Macedonian identity

This morning, an unusual delegation from the Himalayan foothills bids a quiet farewell to the Republic of Macedonia.

Prince Ghazanfar Ali Khan, his wife Princess Rani Atiqa and their entourage claim descent from Alexander the Great’s conquering army, which reached their Hunza tribal homeland in northern Pakistan 23 centuries ago.

The fair-skinned, blue-eyed Hunza people, whose own accounts trace their descent to Alexander’s march-weary troops, are renowned for their longevity and their high literacy rate.

Officials initially rolled out the red carpet for the septuagenarian prince and his entourage, who have toured cultural and historical sites since arriving at Skopje’s Alexander the Great airport on July 11. Nikola Gruevski, prime minister, met the delegation, while a Macedonian Orthodox archbishop blessed it.

Hunza folklore gave a shot in the arm to the ex-Yugoslav country of 2m – still embroiled, 18 years after independence, in a frustrating “name dispute” with Greece, whose northern province is also called Macedonia.

Greece has made sure Macedonia cannot join Nato without a compromise name change. The latest round of United Nations-led talks in New York produced no breakthrough.

Mr Gruevski, who won a landslide re-election victory in June, has raised the ante by this week demanding recognition for a Macedonian (Slav) ethnic minority in officially homogeneous Greece.

But Mr Gruevski’s critics have dismissed the Hunza visit as shallow populism and after ridicule in local newspapers, the youth and sport agency cancelled the princely couple’s planned appearance in Skopje’s main square last night.

The visit’s main organiser was Marina Dojcinovska, a Skopje-based travel journalist who made a film about the far-flung tribe of “Macedonians” in 2005.

“This is a very special occasion for all Macedonians,” Ms Dojcinovska said.

In fact, citizens proved divided about how literally to take their ancient origins. Their Macedonian language is closest to Bulgarian and other South Slavic tongues – pointing to roots in the tribal migrations about a millennium after Alexander.

Ana Petruseva, country director for the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, said of the Hunza visit: “Everyone who’s a bit more educated is laughing at this.”

The Hunza of today, who are mostly Muslim, had not heard of modern Macedonia until 12 years ago, when an expatriate Macedonian linguistics professor drew their attention to it.

Ilija Casule, an associate professor at Australia’s Macquarie University, said he recognised common grammar and terms for body parts between the Hunza people’s Burushaski and Indo-European languages.

But there are plenty who question just how robust the links are. Most linguists classify Burushaski as an “isolate” unrelated to other languages. DNA research has also debunked claims of genetic links between Macedonians and the Hunza.

“Macedonia’s doing what other European countries did in the 19th century … elevating folk tales to official history,” said Sam Vaknin, an Israeli economic adviser in Skopje. “This belated adolescence has been exacerbated by Greek insecurities bordering on sadism.”

Greece plays the same game, funding cultural centres and schools for the Kalash, another set of Alexander claimants in Pakistan and Afghanistan. In the 1930s, scientists in Nazi Germany also combed the Himalayas in search of lost Aryan cousins.

Athens accuses Josip Broz Tito, the Yugoslav communist leader after the second world war, of “inventing” Macedonian ethnicity in the hopes of grabbing a piece of the Aegean coast.

Yet Skopje’s popular identification with Alexander did not blossom until after the 1990s Yugoslav break-up, Macedonians argue.

Sensing threats on all sides, Macedonian patriots have become more stubborn on identity, calling themselves “Alexander’s descendants” even though the ancient conqueror personally had no known children.

Aleksandar Dimiskovski, a business consultant in Skopje, says: “The [Hunza] visit provides affirmation of our ties to the former Macedonia of Alexander the Great. Approval from these people confirms that the legacy of ancient Macedonia belongs to the Republic of Macedonia, not just to Greece.”

That is a view that remains very much in contention. Bulgaria refuses to recognise a separate Macedonian language. Serbia’s church keeps Macedonians out of the worldwide Orthodox communion. And an ethnic Albanian minority of roughly 25 per cent challenges the young state’s internal stability.

Facts on the pre-Muslim ancestors of Pakistanis, and the pre-1947 non-Muslim popylation

2009-11-30T19:58:00.000-08:00

- Before the advent of Islam, the majority of people in the region of Pakistan practiced Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (and its derivatives like Mithraism, Saurism, Manichaeism, etc.), Animism (nature worship) including Greek/Hellenic Paganism, Shamanism and other deities.
See NWE: Greek mythology

- Harappans ate beef, buried their dead, and had no "Hindu" temples/idols/deities.

- RigVedic Aryans forbade idolatry, ate beef, sacrificed cows, had no caste system, and were culturally closer to ancient Iranic Avestan speakers.

- Under Persian rule, Zoroastrianism started to spread.

- Similarly, Greek Paganism (Hellenism) spread under the Greeks.

- Mauryan Ashoka introduced Buddhism.

- Buddhism was later also propagated along with Zoroastrianism, Animism, Shamanism, and Hellenism under the Bactrians, Sakas/Scythians, Parthians, and Kushans for many centuries.

- Hephthalites/White Huns were not very fond of Buddhism but it still remained popular among the masses.

- The Hellenized-Iranicized Brahmanist and Shaivite converts were a minority in Pakistan.

- Kafirs of Kalasha, the only people in Pakistan who have retained their ancient religion are an example of the non-'Hindu' religions practised by the ancestors of Pakistanis.

- Many different Gangetic holy 'Hindu' texts call Pakistan region and its people as outlandish, sinful, outcast, mlechas, etc.

- The pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis never called themselves "Hindu" nor practised any religion similar to present-day "Hinduism". Thus, the pre-Muslim ancestors of most Pakistanis had nothing to do with so-called "Hinduism".

- The fact is there is barely any trace of "Hindu" past in Pakistan region yet there are plentiful of Buddhist and other non-"Hindu" archeological remains in Pakistan region. The very few Hindu temples found in Pakistan region cannot be dated past the 9th century AD.

- When Muslims invaded Pakistan region the majority of its people were Buddhists (as testified in Chachnama), so much so that the word for idol became "budh".

- The word/term Hindu/Hinduism is a recent construct. It were the Muslim invaders (Ghorids) who for the first time in history imposed the foreign term Hindu on the many different, unrelated peoples and religions of south Asia. The term Hinduism was given by the British colonialists. Not a single pre-Muslim/British era Vedic, Brahman, Buddhist, Jain, or any other South Asian scripture/inscription mentions the word Hindu/Hinduism. Similarly, Sanata Dharma was a term invented in the 19th century AD by Gangetic Brahmans in their desperate attempt to replace the Muslim/British term Hindu/Hinduism.

- Terms such as "Hindu"/"Hinduism"/"SanataDharma" are artificial in nature because of its foreign origins and contradictions in its beliefs/practices. Just because we call all Europeans or their descendants as "Goras" or "Engraiz" (English) it does not make them one people as they have many racial, religious, linguistic, cultural, and historical differences. Take for example the Finno-Ugric peoples of Scandinavia. Though the average Finno-Ugric peoples of Europe resemble the rest of Europeans in physical features (skin color, eye color, hair colors, facial structure), they have a significant contribution of Asian ancestry in their gene pool. This is most notable in their non-Indo-European languages. Also notable is the Finno-Ugric peoples distinct pre-Christian Uralic Asiatic cultures & mythologies which differs from Viking, Celtic and other pre-Christian Indo-European cultures & mythologies of Europe.

-By the same token, if the Ghorid Muslim invaders imposed the foreign word/term Hindu on the non-Muslim peoples of south Asia it does not mean that they were one people since there were/are countless different religions, cultures, histories, languages, and races in south Asia.

- Also, by the time of Ghorid invasions (12th century AD), Pakistan region was already mostly Muslim. Most of Pakistan region was a part of Arab empires previously (later also ruled by local Muslim kingdoms). Arabs never called them Hindus. So the Ghorid imposition of the artificial term "Hindu" was mostly for present day north India for their ruled non-Muslim subjects.

- A small, but significant minority of Pakistanis are descendants of Semitic, Persian, Turko-Mongol and Afghan invaders/migrants, who just like the rest of the ancestors of Pakistanis were Zoroastrians, Animistic Pagans (ie. Shamanic), and Buddhists before Islam.

- It was mostly due to Islamic Sufism that the ancestors of Pakistanis converted en masse to Islam.

- Pre-1947 region of present-day Pakistan only had less than 15% non-Muslims, out of which half were Sikhs. Many of the Hindus were actual migrants from the region of present day India during the British rule. For example, most of the Hindus in pre-1947 Karachi had migrated from Gujarat and Rajasthan during British rule because of Karachi's economic boom then. The other remaining Hindus of local origin were converts due to Shankarcharya's missionaries from India region during post- 9th century AD period.

- The pre-1947 non-Muslim population in present day region of Pakistan had: 6% Hindu and 10% Sikh in W. Punjab, 9% Hindu and 2% Sikh in Sindh, 1% Hindu and 2% Sikh in NWFP, and 2% Hindu in Baluchistan.

- According to the UN and other respected organizations, 12 million is the total estimate of migrations from both India and Pakistan (East Pakistan included) of Muslims, "Hindus" and Sikhs combined at the time of independence. So if "Hindus" and Sikhs are taken as 50% of that figure (although there were much more migrations of Hindus/Sikhs than Muslims) of population, that would make about 6 million Hindus-Sikhs in both East and West Pakistan that migrated to India. Now, we know that there was almost an equal (50% each) number of migrants leaving East and West Pakistan (although Hindu population in East Pakistan was much higher), that would make the Hindu-Sikh population in West Pakistan about 3 million. Now we know that West Pakistan's population at that time was about 25-30 million which makes the total Hindu-Sikh population about 10-12% (+ add the current 1.5%) in West Pakistan before partition. Also, it is estimated that out of the non-Muslim population in West Pakistan, +40% were Sikhs, so that leaves Hindus with even lesser numbers.

-We know that Sikhs do not consider themselves as Hindus and they are fighting for independence from India.

A Shaman in the Hunza Valley, Northern Pakistan drinking blood from a beheaded goat.

Shaman from the Hunza Valle, Northern Pakistan y performing a dance. Probably ritualistic.

Another Shaman form the Hunza Valley, Northern Pakistan performing dance.

Shaman in the Hunza Valley, Northern Pakistan playing a flute.

Kalash ritualistic dance from the Chitral Valley, Northern Pakistan

The land and people of Balochistan

2009-11-30T18:48:00.000-08:00

In spite of the intrinsic hostility of its landscape and climate, archaeological discoveries have confirmed that Balochistan was already inhabited in the Stone Age, and the important neolithic site at Mehrgarh is the earliest (7000-3000 B.C.) on the subcontinent. Until its overthrow by Alexander the Great, Balochistan was part of the Persian Empire, whose records refer to it as "Maka".

In 325 B.C. Alexander led part of his army back from his Indus campaign to Babylon across the Makran Desert at the cost of terrible suffering and high casualties. Thereafter Balochistan lay for centuries on the shadowy borderlands of the Zoroastrian rulers of Iran and the local Buddhist and Hindu dynasties of northwestern subcontinent.

Balochistan coast.

Islam was brought to Balochistan in 711 when Muhammad bin Qasim led the army which was to conquer Sindh across the Makran route, but the area was always too remote for firm control to be exerted by any of the later local dynasties. It accordingly receives only very passing mention in the court histories of the time. The connections of the inland areas were variously with Iran, Afghanistan and India, those of coastal Makran rather across the Arabian Sea with Oman and the Gulf.

The name "Balochistan" only came into existence later with the arrival from Iran of the tribes called Baloch. Just how and when they arrived remains a matter of hot debate, since the traditional legends of their Middle Eastern origins, supposed to have been in the Aleppo region of Syria have been further confused by cranky theories either that like the Kashmiris & Pathans they may descend from the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, or that they originated from Babylon, since "Baluch/Baloch" is phonetically similar to the names of the god Baal or the Babylonian ruler Belos.

Better evidence is suggested by the Balochi language which belongs to the same Iranic group of Indo-European as Persian and Kurdish. This suggests that the Baloch originated from the area of the Caspian Sea, making their way gradually across Iran to reach their present homeland in around A.D. 1000, when they are mentioned with the equally warlike Kuch tribes in Firdausi's great Persian epic, the Book of Kings:

Heroic Baloches and Kuches we saw,
Like battling rams all determined on war.

Warlike the history of the Baloch has certainly always been. As the last to arrive of the major ethnic groups of Pakistan they were faced with the need to displace the peoples already settled in Balochistan. Some they more or less successfully subjugated or assimilated, like the Meds of Makran and other now subordinate groups. From others they faced a greater challenge, notably from the Brahui tribes occupying the hills around Kalat.

Map of Pakistan's Balochistan.

The origins of the Brahuis are even more puzzling than those of the Baloch, for their language is not Indo-European at all, but belongs to the same Dravidian family as Tamil, Malayalam and the other languages of south India spoken over a thousand miles away. One theory has it that the Brahuis are the last northern survivors of a Dravidian-speaking population which perhaps created the Indus Valley civilization, but it seems more likely that they too arrived as the result of a long tribal migration, at some earlier date from peninsular India.

As they moved eastwards, the Baloch were initially successful in overcoming the Brahuis. Under Mir Chakar, who established his capital at Sibi in 1487, a great Baloch kingdom briefly came into existence before being destroyed by civil war between Mir Chakar's Rind tribe and the rival Lasharis, whose battles are still celebrated in heroic ballads. Although the Baloch moved forward into Punjab and Sindh, the authority of the Moghuls stopped them establishing permanent kingdoms there, although the names of Dera Ghazi Khan in Panjab and Dera Ismail Khan in NWFP are still reminders of the Baloch chiefs who conquered these lands in the 16th century. The Baloch who settled in the plains gradually became largely detribalised, forgetting their native language and increasingly assimilated to the local population, with their tribal origins remaining little more than a proud memory.

In Balochistan itself, which came only briefly under the authority of the Moghals, the tables were turned on the Baloch by the Brahuis who succeeded in re-establishing their power in Kalat. Throughout the 18th century, the Khans of Kalat were the dominant local power, with the Baloch tribes settled to the west and to the east of them being forced to acknowledge their suzerainty.

The greatest of the Khans was Mir Nasir Khan (1749-1817), whose military success owed much to the regular organization of his army, with its separate divisions recruited from the Sarawan and Jhalawan areas which constitute the northern and southern parts of the Brahui homeland. The Khanate of Kalat became the nearest thing there has ever been to an independent Balochistan. This extended beyond the modern boundaries, since Mir Nasir Khan's authority ran as far as the then insignificant town of Karachi. Although dominated by the Brahuis, they themselves became increasingly "Balochified". Today, for instance, the Brahui language only keeps the first three of its old Dravidian numbers. From "four" upwards Brahuis count in Balochi, in which most are anyway bilingual.

With the British expansion into northwestern subcontinent and their disastrous first Afghan war (1839-41), internal power struggles within Kalat prompted the first British military interference, and the signing of a treaty in 1841. The British annexation of Sindh in 1843 from the Talpur Mirs, themselves a dynasty of Baloch descent, and the subsequent annexation of Panjab meant that Kalat and the other regions of Balochistan were now part of the sensitive western borderlands of British India, where the possibility of Russian interference induced a permanent state of imperial neurosis. Although the eastern Baloch tribes were partially pacified by the efforts of Sir Robert Sandeman, it was thought easiest to leave the Khan and his subordinate chiefs in control of most of the rest of Balochistan.

A further treaty was signed in 1876, which forced the Khan to 'lease" the strategic Quetta region to the British but left him in control of the rest of his territories with the aid of a British minister. Granted the rank of a 19-gun salute to mark the size if not the wealth of Kalat, the Khans were for a while content to pursue the eccentric Iifestyle characteristic of so many south Asian princes of the time. One Khan became legendary as a passionate collector of shoes, and made sure no pair would ever be stolen by locking up all the left shoes in a dungeon below the Fort at Kalat.

With the last ruler of Kalat, Mir Ahmad Yar Khan (1902-79), the Khanate again briefly entered the political arena. Exploiting the opaque clauses of the 1876 treaty, which left some doubt as to just how independent Kalat was supposed to be, he hesitated to join Pakistan in 1947. The brief independence of Kalat finally ended in 1948 when the Khan signed the necessary merger documents, followed by his formal removal from power and the abolition of the state's boundaries in 1955. The present shape of Balochistan was finally rounded out in 1958 when the Sultan of Oman sold Gwadar, given to one of his ancestors by the Khan of Kalat, back to Pakistan.

The land and people of Sindh

2009-11-30T17:29:00.000-08:00

The land of Sindh has a hoary past with some of the most striking episodes in history having occurred in its bosom. It has given a slightly different variation of its name to our neighboring country and to the religious majority of its inhabitants. Both the words India and Hindu are derived from Sindhu, which, in Persian became Hind and Hindu (the letter H substituted for S) and in Greek and Roman, Ind (the letter S of Sindh having being dropped). The meaning of the word Sindhu is water, referring to the great river. There is an old belief among Muslims that four rivers had sprung from Heaven: Neel (Nile), Furat (Euphrates), Jehoon (Juxartes) and Sehoon (Sindh).

Ancient city of Mohinjadarro, Sindh, Pakistan.

The Aryans called the whole of Pakistan, Kashmir and East Afghanistan as Sapta Sindhu -- the land of seven rivers. In Rigveda it is referred to as Sapta Sindhva, while India is named Bharat Varsa (the land of the sons of Bharat, a legendary Emperor).1 Thus, even for the Aryans there were two countries in this sub-continent: Sapta Sindhva and Bharat Varsa. The Assyrians in the 7th century B.C. knew the north-western part of the sub-continent as Sinda. However, when India began to be called Hind by Persians and Arabs, and Ind by Greeks and Romans, the local people continued to call their land, Sindh. This distinction continued for centuries. Arab geographers, historians and travelers also called the entire area from the Arabian Sea to the range of Kashmir mountains Sindh.3 As such, there were always two countries in the sub-continent -- Sindh and Hind. The present Pakistan (including Kashmir and a major portion of Afghanistan) constituting one country, and India, another.

As regards the composition of the population of Sindh Province (before Partition) the two main stocks that inhabit Sindh are related to, and common, one with the Punjab and another with Balochistan. The majority stock is that of Rajputs and Jats who are the descendants of Sakas, Kushans and Huns who also constitute the majority of the population the Punjab. During Kalhora rule a number of Jat tribes such as the Sials, Joyas and Khawars came from the Punjab and settled in Sindh. They are called Sirai i.e., men from the north and speak Siraiki language.

Two main Rajput tribes of Sindh are: the Samma, a branch of the Yadav Rajputs who inhabit the eastern and lower Sindh and Bahawalpur; and the Sumra who, according to the 1907 edition of the Gazetteer are a branch of the Parwar Rajputs. Among others are the Bhuttos, Bhattis, Lakha, Sahetas, Lohanas, Mohano, Dahars, Indhar, Chachar, Dhareja, Rathors, Dakhan, Langah etc.4 The Mohano tribe is spread over Makran, Sindh and southern Punjab. They are also identified with the 'Mallah' of the Punjab and both have in common a sub-section called Manjari. All these, old Sindhi tribes are known under the common nomenclature of Sammat.

The smaller stock is that of Balochi tribes settled in various parts of Sindh mostly during the last five hundred years or so Since they were martial people and ruled over Sindh for some time before the arrival of the British, they acquired vast lands in the province with the result that a large number of present-day Sindhi landlords are of Baloch origin. According to the 1941 census, which was the last one held before independence Balochis formed 23% of the total Muslim population of Sindh. Among the Balochi tribes inhabiting Sindh are the Rind, Dombki, Jakhrani, Leghari, Lashari, Chandio, Karmati, Korai, Jatoi, Burdi, Khosa, Jamali, Umrani, Bugti, Marri, Mazari, Talpur, Brohi, Nizamani, Buledhi, Karrani, Bozdar, Nukharni, Magsi etc. These tribes are spread over Balochistan, Sindh and the south-western districts of the Punjab.

Yet a third stock of Sindhi population comprises of the descendants of Muslim conquerors, administrators and missionaries who were mostly Arabs, Persians, Turks or Mughals. They are a tiny minority settled in cities and towns but so deeply absorbed and blended with the other components of the population that all the three together have evolved a distinct language and culture. Of this third element Arabs have contributed alot to the development of Sindhi language and literature and to the advancement of its intellectual and cultural activities.

Since the early history of Sindh is intimately related to the history of the Punjab and other provinces of Pakistan it need not be dealt with at length. Only a brief account shall be attempted here, without mentioning the Indus Valley civilization which will be discussed some other time.

Dawn of history reveals an Aryan dynasty in power in Sindh. In the Mahabharata (12th or 13th century B.C.) Jayadrath, King of Sindh appears as a partisan of Panduas against their cousins Kauruas. Next historical mention of Sindh is found about 575 B.C. during the time of Achaemenian dynasty. The Iranian General, Skylax, explored Indus in a flotilla equipped near Peshawar, conquered the Indus Valley and annexed it to the Empire of Darius the Great. The conquered province of the Punjab and Sindh was considered the richest and the most populous satrapy of the Empire and was required to pay the enormous tribute of fully a million sterling. Next historical record is that of Alexander's invasion in 326 B.C. A tribe called Mausikanos whose capital is usually identified with Alor (Rohri) is said to have submitted. According to Greek historians the territories of this chief were the most flourishing of all that the Greeks had seen. A few centuries later Roman historians have mentioned Sindh as a rich country. Patala in lower Sindh was known to them as an emporium of trade.

Alexandrian period was followed by that of the Mauryas (3rd century BC) whose fall brought in Graeco-Bactrians (2nd century B.C.). They ruled over the whole of Pakistan with their capital at Taxila. Their coins are still found in the old towns of Sindh. The Graeco-Bactrian period was followed by that of the Scythian (Saka) invasion in the first century BC. "They settled here in such large numbers that Sindh became known as Indo-Scythia and to this day a large proportion of the population is certainly Scythian."5 Two Scythian tribes, the Jats and Meds, are mentioned as having invaded the Punjab and Sindh. Some of the present day Mohanas of Sindh and Balochistan call themselves Med. "In 60 AD Sindh was occupied by Scythians, ruled perhaps from far away Taxila."6

The first century A.D. witnessed the arrival of the Kushans who, along with the Scythians (Sakas) and later Parthians, ruled over Afghanistan and Pakistan for about four centuries from Peshawar. The next great holocaust occurred in the 5th century A.D. with the Hun invasion which surpassed all previous records in its intensity and vastness. Their invasion ushered in the Rajput era which lasted till the 7th century A.D. in Sind (80 years before the arrival of Mohd. Bin Qasim); till the end of 10th century AD in the Punjab and NWFP (upto the arrival of Mahmud Ghaznavi) and till the end of 12th century in northern India when Mohammad Ghori defeated Prithviraj in 1192 A.D.

Before lmaduddin Mohammad Bin Qasim's arrival here, Rajputs were the ruling race in Sindh and in the rest of northern India. The last Rajput ruler of Sindh was Raja Sahasi II whose dominions extended up to Kashmir. He was a contemporary of Prophet Mohammad and professed Buddhism as did his father Siharus. The rule of Raja Sahasi II ended in 632 A.D. the year Prophet Mohammad died. He was succeeded by his Brahmin chamberlain, Chach, who had become a favourite of Sahasi's wife. Chach ruled over Sindh for about 68 years from 632-700 A.D. His son Dahir was the ruler when Mohammad Bin Qasim arrived here in 711 A.D.

The line of rulership before Islam runs thus: Siharus, Sahasi II, Chach, Dahir. The first two were Buddhist Rajputs and the last two Hindu Brahmins. The new Brahmin rulers were extremely hostile towards the Buddhists who were in substantial numbers in Sindh at that time and they had ruthlessly suppressed the Jats and Meds who formed the bulk of the peasantry. Humiliating conditions were imposed on the Jats depriving them of many civil rights. "When Chach, the Brahmim chamberlain who usurped the throne of Rajput King Sahasi II went to Brahmanabad, he enjoined upon the Jats and Lohanas not to carry swords, avoid velvet or silken cloth, ride horses without saddles and walk about bare-headed and bare-footed."7 It was because of this background that Mohammad Bin Qasim received cooperation from the Buddhists as well as the Jats and Meds during his campaign in Sindh. Among others who did not oppose Mohammad Bin Qasim's advance and made peace with him was the Bhutto tribe.8 In fact he was hailed as deliverer by several sections of local population. The humble position of the Buddhists in Sindh seeking support from outside can be read in the Chach Nama.

"Mohammad Bin Qasim's work was facilitated by the treachery of certain Buddhist priests and renegade chiefs who deserted their sovereign and joined the invader. With the assistance of some of these traitors, Mohammad crossed the vast sheet of water separating his army from that of Dahir and gave battle to the ruler near Raor (712 A.D.). Dahir was defeated and killed."9

View of Clifton area. Karachi, Sindh, Pakistan.

THE JATS OF SINDH

Before commencing a review of the Muslim period of Sindh's history, we shall speak briefly of the Jats of Sindh (Pakistan) who were known all over Iran and the Middle East for their sturdy constitution and industrious nature. They have a colourful history and an adventurous past.

The author of Mujmaul Tawarikh has quoted an extinct Sanskrit work according to which the original inhabitants of Sindh were Jats and Meds. Early Arab writers on Sindh also say that Jats and Meds were important tribes in their time. Ibn Khurdabah mentions 'zutts' as guarding the route between Kirman and Mansura while Ibn Haukal writes: "Between Mansura and Makran the waters from the Mehran form lakes and the inhabitants of the country are the South Asian races called Zutt. The Chinese traveller Yuan Chwang who visited this region in the 7th century A.D. also mentioned Jats.

"The Jats claim to be included in the 36 royal Rajput tribes. Some of them state that their forefathers came from Ghazni. But it is generally accepted that they are the descendants of the ancient Getae, or Jeutchi, from Scythia. Some authorities consider that they entered the sub-continent some time in 1500 BC and are the same as the Jattikas mentioned in the Mahabharata, and also identical with the Jatti of Pliny and Ptolemy. Their original home was on the Oxus."10 According to the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the Jats of the lower Indus comprise both Jats and Rajputs, and the same rule applies to Las-Bela where descendants of former ruling races like the Sumra and the Samma of Sindh and the Langah of Multan are found. At the time of the first appearance of the Arabs they found the whole of Makran in possession of Jats (Zutts).

According to a 'Hadis', Hazrat Abdulla Bin Masood, a companion Prophet saw some strangers with the Prophet and said that their features and physique were like those of Jats.11 This means that Jats we in Arabia even during the Prophet's time. Hazrat Imam Bukhari (d. 875 A.D. - 256 A.H.) writing about the period of the Companions in his book "Al adab al Mufarrad" has stated that once when Hazrat Aisha (Prophet's wife) fell ill, her nephews brought a Jat doctor for her treatment. We hear of them next when the Arab armies clashed with the Persian forces which comprised of Jat soldiers as well. The Persian Command Hurmuz used Jat soldiers against Khalid Bin Walid in the battle of 'salasal' of 634 A.D. (12 hijri). This vvas the first time that Jats were captured by the Arabs. They put forward certain conditions for joining the Arab armies which were accepted, and on embracing Islam they were associated with different Arab tribes.12 This event proves that the first group of Pakistanis to accept Islam were Jats who did it as early as 12 hijri (634 A.D.) in the time of Hazrat Omar.

The Persian King Yazdjard had also sought the help of the Sindh ruler who sent Jat soldiers and elephants which were used against the Arabs in the battle of Qadisia.

According to Tibri, Hazrat Ali had employed Jats to guard Basra treasury during the battle of Jamal. "Jats were the guards of the Baitul Maal at al-Basra during the time of Hazrat Osman and Hazrat Ali."13 Amir Muawiya had settled them on the Syrian border to fight against the Romans. It is said that 4,000 Jats of Sindh joined Mohammad Bin Qasim's army and fought against Raja Dahir. Sindhi Jats henceforth began to be regularly recruited in the Muslim armies.

"Some of the Zutt deserters from the Persian army were transplanted in 670 A.D. by Caliph Muawiya from Basrah to Antioch. When the Arabs conquered Sindh, another batch of Zutts whom the conquerors had uprooted from their native pastures seem to have been sent to Syria by Hajjaj (691-713 A.D.) and eventually sent on by the Caliph Walid 1(707-15 AD) to join the previous batch of Zutt deportees at Antioch whence some, again, were sent on by the Caliph Yazid II (720-24 A.D.) to Massisah in Cicilia…. But the bulk of Hajjaj's deportees from Sindhi seem to have been settled in Iraq. In the reign of Abbasid Caliph Mansur (813-33 A.D.) they broke into a rebellion which it took him and his successor Mutasim 833-42 AD), the best part of 20 years to quell….. Whether there had or had not been a voluntary immigration as well as a compulsory deportation of Zutt to Iraq from Sindh, we may take it that in the course of the first two centuries of Arab rule, manpower from western subcontinent (i.e., Pakistan) had it in one way or another been pouring into a south-western Asia that, on the eve of the Arab conquest, had been depopulated by the two last and most devastating of the Romano-Persian wars."14

This statement of Tonybee is revealing in that it shows the close relations Pakistan had with the Middle East. Sindhis began to settle in areas as far away as Iraq and Syria which were depopulated by wars between the Persians and the Romans.

The origin of European gypsies is also traced to Sindhi Jats. Harun-ur-Rashid had recruited Jats to reinforce Cilician fortress. When the Romans descended on Ayn Zarbah in 855 A.D. they carried off into East Roman territory the Jats together with their women, children and buffaloes. This detachment of the Jats was the advance guard of the gypsies of Europe.15 They continued to pour into Europe in small batches at various stages subsequently.

THE ARAB PERIOD

Turning to the history of Sindh, it may be divided into seven periods: (1) Pre-Muslim; (2) Arab Rule; (3) Middle Ages from Mahmud Ghaznavi to the establishment of Mughal Rule; (4) Mughal Period; (5) Kalhora period; (6) The Talpur Period; and (7) The British Period. We shall deal with briefly discussing only certain salient features of each period.

We have already spoken of the Indus Valley Civilization and the pre-historic period in an earlier chapter. Between the fall of the Mauryan Empire and the arrival of the Arabs i.e., roughly 200 B.C. to 700 A.D., a span of 900 years, Sindh and other parts of Pakistan experienced wave after wave of hordes from Central Asia settling down in these regions. The Bactrians, Sakas, Kushans, the Pahlavas and the Huns etc., came, conquered and settled here. From these stocks, mingled with indigenous blood, ultimately emerged the new Kshatrya ruling class of Hindus later called Rajputs and the peasant class of Jats and Gujjars. 16 The most outstanding aspect of this pre-Muslim period is that Sinh was intimately connected with the rest of Pakistan and not with India. It had either independent kingdoms or kingdoms in common with Pakistan.

Several reasons are ascribed to the Arab desire to conquer Makran 17 and Sindh. Firstly, Sindhi Rajas had helped the Persians in their wars against the Arabs. Sindhi forces participated in the battles of Nehawand, ‘Salasal’, Qadisia and Makran and fought against the Arabs. Secondly, when after the conquest of Persia by the Arabs some of their rebel chiefs began to seek refuge in Sindh, its Raja refused to surrender them to the Caliphs inspite of repeated requests. Thirdly, since Arab traders were being constantly harassed by pirates from the Makran and Sindh coasts, a foot-hold in these areas considered necessary to safeguard Arab maritime interests.

The first naval expedition undertaken by the Arabs in this ocean was during Hazrat Omar's caliphate in 636 A.D. - 15 A.H. under the command of Osman bin Abi'Aas, the Governor of Bahrain and Oman. He attacked Thana, a port near modern Bombay. A little later he sent another naval expedition to Debal in Sindh under the command of his brother Mughira. Raja Chach was the ruler of Sindh at that time and his kingdom was well defended. Mughira was defeated by the Raja's forces and killed in action.

During Hazrat Omar's caliphate the Governor of Iraq also sent an expedition by land to Makran under the command of Rabi Bin Ziad Haris. Though Makran was conquered but the victory was short-lived, as the locals recaptured the country. Makran was, however, permanently conquered during the last days of Hazrat Omar's caliphate in 642 AD - 43 AH. under the command of Hakam Taglabi. Hazrat Osman, the third Caliph had sent Hakim bin Jabala to Sindh in 650 A.D. to collect information. Before him Sahar-al-Abdi had visited Sindh for the same purpose in 643 A.D. during Hazrat Omar's last days.18 The next Arab general to enter Pakistan by land was Muhlib bin Sufra who came through the Khyber Pass in 665 A.D. -65 A.H.

The real story, however, begins with Hajjaj Bin Yusuf who was Governor of Iraq. The story of Arab merchants returning from Ceylon to Basra having been looted by Sindhi pirates is well-known. It is related that some of the women who were being carried away by the pirates implored Hajjaj to rescue them.

Hajjaj took serious notice of the incident and wrote to Dahir, the ruler of Sindh, for the release of captives as well as the goods which were being sent to the caliphate as presents by the ruler of Ceylon. Not receiving a favourable reply, Hajjaj, with the permission of Caliph Walid, sent a force to Debal under the command of Abdulla bin Nabhan. This force was annihilated by Dahir's army and its commander killed in battle. (According to Dr. Daud Pota the tomb of Abdullah Shah at Clifton in Karachi is of this General, Abdulla bin Nabhan).l9 Again, Hajjaj sent a bigger expedition to Debal, to oppose which Dahir sent his son Jaisia with a fairly large contingent. For the second time Arabs were defeated and their commander Badil bin Tuhfa killed in action at Debal. (According to the British historian Eliot, Karachi and the island of Manora constituted the city of Debal).

Hajjaj was infuriated and perturbed at the developments. Having realised that the ruler of Sindh was a powerful monarch, he started making large-scale preparations and took personal interest in the matter
since the issue had now become one of prestige. The selection of a commander for this expeditionary force had also to be made with due care keeping in view all the aspects of the problem. Hajjaj's choice fell on the young 20 year old (according to some 17) Mohammad Bin Qasim. The army and its Commander were given rigorous training for over one year in the desert of southern Iran which had similar climatic conditions to those of Sindh. Through intelligence reports, all the strong and weak points of the enemy and details of their weapons and defences were collected, studied, and the Arab army equipped accordingly. Hajjaj bin Yusuf went through through the minutest details and after thorough study of the maps of Sindh, guided Mohammad Bin Qasim on the strategy to be followed. Not content with this, Hajjaj made arrangements to convey his messages and orders to Mohammad Bin Qasim from Basra to any point in Sindh within a week. Orders were that Mohammad Bin Qasim should not attack any city or fort or engage his forces in any large-scale battle with the enemy without getting orders from Basra. Even instructions concerning the day and time of attack and weapons to be used in a particular place or battle were sent by Hajjaj.

This time Arab armies triumphed and the triumph proved permanent. We shall not go into details which are available in all histories and mention only a few points which have not been high-lighted.

MOHAMMAD BIN QASIM'S RULE

As mentioned elsewhere, Sindh had a large Buddhist population at this time but the ruler, Dahir, was a Brahmin. It is said that the Buddhists been receiving constant information from their co-religionists in Afghanistan and Turkestan about the extremely liberal treatment meted out to them by the Arab conquerors of those regions. In view of these reports, the Buddhist population of Sindh decided to extend full cooperation to Mohammad Bin Qasim and even acclaimed him as liberator from Brahmin tyranny. Several principalities in Sindh were ruled by Buddhist Rajas. The Buddhist ruler of Nerun (Hyderabad) had secret correspondence with Mohammad Bin Qasim. Similarly, Bajhra and Kaka Kolak, Buddhist Rajas of Sewastan, allied themselves with Mohammad Bin Qasim.20 On similar grounds, Jats also joined the Arabs against Dahir.

Secondly, it is generally believed that Mohammad Bin Qasim conquered areas only up to Multan. No, he conquered almost the entire Pakistan which then formed part of the Kingdom of Sindh. According to Chach Nama, after conquering Aror (near Rohri), Mohammad Bin Qasim advanced towards Bhatia, an old fort on Beas which was under the command of Chach's nephew. After conquering Bhatia the Arabs laid siege to Iskandla on river Ravi and took it. Chach Nama further states that Mohammad Bin Qasim proceeded to the boundary of Kashmir called Panj Mahiyat, at the upper course of Jhelum just after it debouches into the plains.21 "With a force of 6,000 Mohainmad Bin Qasim, a youth of 20, conquered and reorganised the whole of the country from the mouth of Indus to the borders of Kashmir, a distance of 800 miles in three years 712-15 A.D.22

"Waihind (neat Attock) which was one of the oldest cities of the sub-continent was included in the kingdom of Sindh."23 "Mohammad Bin Qasim made Multan the base for further inroads and garrisoned Brahmanpur, on the Jhelum, the modern Shorkot, Ajtabad and Karor; and afterwards with 50,000 men marched via Dipalpur to the foot of the Himalayas near Jelhum."24

It is recognised by all historians that Mohammad Bin Qasim's rule was most liberal and his treatment of non-Muslims extremely just and fair. He not only appointed "Hindus" to senior administrative posts but left small "Hindu" principalities undisturbed. Brahmins had become so loyal to him that they used to go from village to village and urge people to support the Arab regime. When Mohammad Bin Qasim was recalled from Sindh by the Caliph in very unhappy circumstances, the "Hindus" and Buddhist of Sindh wept over his departure; and when he died they erected a statue in his memory and worshipped it for a long time. Mohammad Bin Qasim’s two sons had a distinguished career. Arnroo became Governor of Sindh and Qasim was Governor of Basra for fifteen years.25

But the early Arab period is not one of peace and tranquility. With the recall of Mohammad Bin Qasim the province returned to chaos and confusion. After a few years of anarchy governor Junaid restored normalcy. A short while later, due to bad administration, chaos prevailed again. Conditions were so critical that the next governor, Hakam bin Awanah established a new city called 'Mahfooza' (place of safety) in 732 A.D. - 113 A.H. where all the Muslims collected for safety. Later on, after restoring order and reorganising most of the Province, Hakam’s general Amroo (the son of Mohammad Bin Qasim) built another city 'Mansoora' (victory) near Shahdadpur in 737 A.D. - 119 AH. which became the capital of the Arab kingdom. Because of these unsettled conditions Sindh had to be conquered again and again.

"In Sindh the recall of Mohammad Bin Qasim was followed by a "Hindu" reaction which almost wiped out the results of the first victories. When Hakam bin Awanah was appointed Governor of Sindh, he found that the natives had rebelled and apostasized. He built two cities, Mahfuzah and Mansurah in the north and south of Sindh, to provide places of security for Muslims.'' 26

From the departure of Mohammad Bin Qasim in 715 A.D. to the fall of the Umayyad caliphate in 750 A.D., a period of 35 years, Sindh had nine governors. They were Habib Bin Mohlab, Amro Bin Muslim Bahili, Bilal Bin Ahwaz, Junaid Bin Abdur Rehman Marri, Tamim Bin Zaid Atbi, Hakam Bin Awanah Qalbi, Amroo Bin Mohainmad Bin Qasim, Yazid Bin Arrar and Mansur Bin Jamhur Qalbi. During this period "Governor Junaid again conquered all the territory up to Beas and Ravi in the north-east, Kashmir in the north, Arabian ocean in the south, Malwa in the south-east and Makran in the west."27

Umayyad caliphate was replaced by that of the Abbasids in 750 AD, Sindh became part of the Abbasid dominions. It remained under Baghdad’s control during the Abbasid Caliphs Saffa, Mansoor, Hadi, Haroon, Mamoon, Mutasim, Wasiq and Mutawakkil. In the reign of the last mentioned Caliph, the Governor of Sindh, Umar Hibari, became practically independent owing nominal allegience to the Caliph. Earlier, during the caliphate of Mamoon-ur-Rashid, Sindh Governor Bashar Ibn-e-Dawood had revolted and withheld the payment of revenues, but the revolt was quelled judiciously. It may be of interest to note that the postal and intelligence services of Sindh were directly controlled by the Caliphs.

The man who governed Sindh (then covering major portion of present day Pakistan) for the longest period was Dawood bin Yazid bin Hatim who died in 821 A.D. Two members of the famous Baramaka family of Abbasid Prime Ministers ruled over Sindh as Governors during this period. One was Musa Barmakh and the other his son Omar Barmakh. The Barmakh family were said to be originally Kashmiri Buddhists who had migrated to Balkh (now in northern Afghanistan) and after accepting Islam, went to Baghdad where several members of the family had distinguished career. Two of them, Yahya and Jafar, became Prime Ministers of Haroon-ur-Rashid. (The word Barmakh is derived from the Sanskrit word ‘par mukh’ meaning sardar).

During the 105 years of Abbasid period when Sindh formed part of their dominions (750-855 A.D.) thirty-one Governors were appointed. The Hibari dynasty which had become independent lasted from 855 A.D. to 1010 A.D. i.e., till the annexation of Sindh by Mahmud Ghaznavi. It was the last Arab government. One of its rulers Abdulla bin Omar Hibari (d. 893 AD) ruled for about 30 years and made great contribution to the cultural and economic development of the province. It was during the Hibari period that Sindh severed its relations with the caliphate; and it was during this period that two separate states emerged in Sindh: one had its capital at Mansura and the other at Multan. In addition, several small "Hindu" states had also sprung up. It was again during the Hibari rule that the Fatimid Caliph Obidullah-aI-Mahdi sent the first Ismaili missionary, Haishan, to Sindh.

MISSIONARY WORK

Sindh being the eastern-most province of the Umayyad, and then of the Abassid Caliphates with loose control from the centre, its political as well as religious life was highly perturbed. In the political field due to internecine quarrels, Muslim governments in the area were divided into two sections: The upper region had Multan as its capital and the capital of the lower region was Mansura near Shahdadpur. Sindh also became an arena of religious acrimonies because of the large number of Ismaili missionaries who visited this country and the herectics who took refuge here. The first Ismaili missionary to visit Sindh was Haisham who came to Sind in 877 A.D. - 270 A.H. He was sent by the founder of the Fatimid caliphate, Obaidullah-al-Mahdi. Among other prominent Ismaili missionaries to visit Sindh were Hazrat Abdullah (1067 A.D.), Pir Sadruddin (1430 AD), his son Kabiruddin, his brother Tajuddin and Syed Yusufuddin, all of whom gained considerable following in Pakistan. Pir Sadruddin had his grand lodge in Sindh and it was he who conferred on the new converts the title of Khwaja (Khoja), meaning honourable. According to Dr. Arnold a number of Ismaili missionaries were sent to Sindh from the famous "Alamut" fort which was the headquarter of Hasan Bin Sabbah who lived in the late 11th and early 12th century A.D.28 Abdullah-al-Ashtar Alvi, a great grandson of Hazrat Ali was among those who had religious differences with the Caliph, was considered a heretic and took refuge here. Because of sheltering him, the Governor of Sindh, Omar bin Hafs was transferred to North Africa by the Caliph. Hazrat Abdullah Ashtar's tomb at Clifton on the sea-shore near Karachi is still visited by devotees.

A large number of Sunni missionaries also visited Sindh during the Arab period. The Omayyed Caliph Hazrat Omar bin Abdul Aziz is said to have sent a number of them who were successful in converting several Sindhi landlords. The Abbasid Caliph Mahdi also sent some missionaries who converted a number of Rajas and prominent "Hindus" up to Peshawar. Mohammad Alfi who came with Mohammad Bin Qasim and was among the most successful missionaries, later became adviser to the Raja of Kashmir and settled there.

As already stated, during the major portion of Arab rule, Sindh and southern Punjab were rent by political as well as religious rivalries. Since every development in the Middle East had its direct impact on this region, the Fatimid-Abbasid political rivalry with its religious manifestation in the Ismaili-Sunni controversy, found its full echo here, particularly in the 10th century A.D. (early 4th century hijri). Ismaili, or according to some, Carmathian rulers were installed in the upper region whose capital was Multan. It is related that the Fatimid Caliph Imam Abdul Aziz Billah had sent a misionary Jalam bin Shaiban from Cairo to Multan with a sizeable army in 372 hijri (985 A.D.) to establish Ismaili rule which he did, and himself became head of the state. At this time the rulers of Makran and Mansura were also Ismailis. The Sumra family of Sindh which had accepted Ismaili Islam owed allegience to the Fatimid Caliphs of Cairo, sent them presents and zakat and read their name in Friday 'Khutba'. After the fall of the Fatimids, Sindhi Ismailis attached themselves to the Mustali branch of the Ismailis who were functioning from Yemen. (Members of the 'Mustali’ branch are called Bohris in the sub-continent). The history of this period is so confused that it is difficult to state with any certainty as to when and how long Ismaili and Carmathian rulers held sway at Mansura and Multan. There were frequent changes accompanied by enlargement or shrinkag of territories. Ferishta speaks of Shaikh Hamid Lodhi as the first ruler of Multan converted to Carmathian faith. Haig says that Multan was seized by Abdullah, the Carmathian, about 287 hijri (900 A.D.). Ibn-e-Haukal visited in 367 hijri but does not mention the Ismailis and says that the rulers of Multan and Mansura recognised the authority of Baghdad. Al Maqdasi visited Multan in 375 hijri and wrote that the people of Multan were Shias, presents were sent to the Fatimids of Egypt and Ismailis were claiming an increasing number of converts. Al Beruni writing about the 424 hijri says "the rise of the Carmathians preceded our time by almost 100 years i.e., in 324 hijri." Whatever the fortunes of the rulers, there is some ground to believe that Ismaili form of Shiaism continued to be dominant in Sindh and southern Punjab for a considerable time.

"Propaganda under the Fatimid 'Dawat' in the subcontinent is traced back to the time of Fatimid Caliph al Mustansir. Ismailis had indeed been sent to the subcontinent at a much earlier date. Their field of labour was in Sindh, in a district of Multan. Their chief dai was in correspondence with Caliph Muizz (953) and the community had not only increased in numbers, but it had attained power in Multan during his Imamate. The community recognised the Fatimids as Imams but the initiative in Sindh may have been taken by the Carmathians. Later history links Multan and Sindh with the Nizarian Dawat"29

"Ivanow describes the Ismaili population in south Asia as the most ancient and interesting. Sons of Mohammad Ibn Ismail had sought refuge in Qandahar, then a part of Sindh. Sindh early became a dist. or Jazira, of the Ismaili 'dawat'. During the Imamats of Al Muizz (953) its chief dai was in direct communication with the Imam." 30

SINDH'S PROGRESS UNDER ARABS

However, in spite of political chaos and religious confusion, Sindh made great progress in the literary and economic fields during this period. Sindhi scholars and doctors made a mark not only in their own country but in the entire Muslim world. Mathematicians and philosophers from Sindh visited Baghdad in large numbers and made outstanding contribution to the promotion of learning among the Arabs. Several physicians were called from Sindh for the treatment of Caliphs among whom were Ganga and Manka who treated Haroon-ur-Rashid. The latter was a member of Bait-ul-Hikmat of Haroon-ur-Rashid. Another Sindhi doctor who made a mark in the Muslim world was a newly converted Muslim, Saleh bin Bhahla (Bhalla).

Among the notable Sindhi ulema were: Maulana Islami who hailed from Debal, accepted Islam during Mohammad Bin Qasim's days and was sent by him as envoy to Raja Dahir for negotiations. Abu Maashar Sindhi was Muslim world's noted scholar of 'seerat and 'fiqh'. He lived at Medina for a number of years and later shifted to Baghdad where he died. He was so much respected that on his death Caliph Mehdi led the funeral prayers. His son Abu Abdul Malik was also an eminent scholar and had settled down in Baghdad. Hafiz Abu Mohammad Khalaf bin Saalem who was a ‘hadees’ scholar had migrated from Sindh to Iraq where he attained fame. Abu Nasr Fateh Bin Abdulla Sindhi was known for his proficiency in ‘hadees,’ 'fiqh' and Ilm-e-Kalaam. He wrote 'Tafseer' in Sindhi and rendered Islamic teachings in such beautiful and forceful Sindhi verse that it gained immense popularity both among Hindus and Muslims. Another ‘aalim’ Ishaque Sindhi, was among the most revered muftis of the Abbasid period. Imam Auzai of Sindh was considered an authority on religion in the Muslim world. Mohammad bin Ali Shwarib, the Qazi of Mansura and his son Ali bin Mohammad bin Ali Shwarib were also renowned scholars.

Among the Sindhis who earned eminence in the Muslim world as Arabic poets during this period were Abul Ata Sindhi, Haroon bin Abdulla Multani, Abu Mohammad Mansuri who hailed from Mansura, Mansoor Hindi, Musa bin Yakub, Saqafi, Abu Zila Sindhi, Kashajam bin Sindhi bin Shahak etc. Sindhi bin Sadqa was a 'Katib', a writer as well as a poet. Some of them wrote in Sindhi as well as in Arabic. It is said that at the request of a Sindhi Raja, Mahrook, who embraced Islam, the Quran was translated into Sindhi during the reign of Abdulla bin Omar Hibari. Due to the patronage extended by early Abbasid Caliphs and their Baramaka Prime Ministers, a number of Sindhi Pandits and Veds went to Baghdad and engaged themselves in scientific and literary pursuits. They translated a number of Sanskrit books on mathematics, astronomy, astrology, medicine, literature and ethics into Arabic. Prominent among them were Bhalla, Manka, Bazeegar (Bajaikar), Falbar Ful (Kalap Rai Kal), Ibne Dahan, Saleh bin Bhalla, Bakhar, Raja, Makka, Daher, Anko, Arikal, Andi, Jabbhar, etc. Some of these Pandits taught the Arabs, numerals.31

In about 780 A.D. - 154 A.H. when a deputation of Sindhi Pandits visited Baghdad, they carried with them a Sanskrit work known as 'Siddhanat’ which, after translation in Arabic, became known as AI-Sindh-Hind.

Sindhi accountants were also popular in the Arab world. According to Jahez (d. 874 A.D. - 255 A.H.) all the 'Sarrafs' (money-changers) in Iraq were Sindhi treasurers. They were proficient in accounting and exchange business and were also honest and loyal servants.

The Arab rulers of Sindh-Multan were extremely liberal, spoke Sindhi and treated their subjects well. They never encroached upon the religious liberties of the "Hindus" and Buddhists and appointed them to positions of responsibility. Mohammad Bin Qasim had appointed Sisakar, the Prime Minister of Raja Dahir, his own Prime Minister, and Kiska, another Hindu, his Revenue Minister. The entire history of Sindh under the Arabs is replete with instances of "Hindus" holding positions of great responsibility and honour. Three per cent of the country's revenues were given to Brahmins as stipends. When some of the district administrators informed the Government that they were experiencing shortage of cows and bulls which were needed for agricuiture and transport, Government prohibited cow slaughter.

In the economic field also Sindh made considerable progress. Agriculture received great impetus with foodgrains being exported tothe Middle East. A number of new varieties of fruits were cultivated among which the bananas of Sindh were extremely popular in the neighboring countries. Camphor, neel, banana, coconut, dates, sugarcane, lemons, mangoes, almonds, nuts, wheat and rice are mentioned by almost all visitors as grown in plenty in Sindh. Bishari Maqdasi writes that there were innumerable gardens in Sindh and the trees were tall and luxuriant. The whole city of Mansura was covered with almond and nut trees.

The cities established by the Arabs "flourished as great centres of trade and learning. A busy trade grew up and the merchants of different nationalities carried Indian goods through Sindh to Turkestan and Khurasan imported horses into Sind."32 Debal, Nairun Kot, Sehwan, Khuzdar, Aror, Multan and Mansura were flourishing commercial centres. Arabs had more trade with this country than with Gujrat, Malabar and Bengal. A large proportion of merchandise was transported from the Punjab by rivers. 700-800 maunds of goods were sewn in jute cloth, put in leather bags oiled from outside to prevent water penetrating and put in the rivers. 33

"On account of their favourable geographical position the ports of Sindh played a vital role, even before the Arab invasion, in the commercial intercourse between the countries to the west (Iran, South Arabia, Ethiopia) and to the east of the Indus delta, as well as in the export of commodities manufactured in Sindh itself. This role gained momentum after Islam had reached Sindh. The author of Hudud al'Alam mentions that there were plenty of merchants in Sindh, stressing that many a citizen of the coastal areas were engaged in sea trade. The cities of Daibul and Mansura were major trade centres of Lower Sindh at the turn of the first and second millennia. In the first centuries of the second millennium, Thatta came in the fore as another major economic and political centre of the country: in the opinion of some scholars, the city in its prime had a population of 280,000."34

Leather and leather goods industry also made great progress during this period. The coloured and soft leather of Sindh was known all over the world markets as Al-Sindhi. According to 'Muruj-uz-Zahab', the shoes of Mansura were very popular in Iran and the Arab world. Imam Hanbal relates that a large number of shoes were imported from Mansura into Baghdad where they were in great demand among the royal family and the gentry. But, he remarks, they were very showy.

Arabs also took keen interest in animal husbandry. They improved several breeds of camels, horses, cows, bulls and buffaloes. Sindhi buffaloes were so popular that Arabs used to transport them to their home towns when returning from Sindh.

Building of cities and construction of roads and houses was a hobby with the Arabs. They built several new cities such as Mahfooza (in 732 A.D), Mansura (737 A.D.), Baiza (835 A.D.), Jundrore near Multan (in 854 AD) and several others. They also improved and expanded the existing cities by constructing satellite towns. A bridge called "Sukkar-al-Maid" was built over the Indus near Sukkur.

A number of Arab tribes of Quraish, Kalb, Tameem, Saqeef, Harris, Ael-e-Utba, Aal-e-Jareema and Asad, and several prominent families of Yemen and Hejaz had settled in Sindh. Masudi (915 A.D. - 302 A.H.) writes that he met many descendants of Hazrat Ali in Mansura who were in the line of Omar bin Ali and Mohammad Bin Ali. He also mentions that there was fertility and opulence here and people were healthy. Some authorities have expressed the view that the wife of Hazrat Imam Hussain, who other of Hazrat Imam Zainul Abdin from whom the line of Hussaini Syeds is traced, was not a Perstan as is generally believed, but a Sindhi lady of noble family."35

Bishari writes that the people of Multan were prosperous, they did not drink wine and their women did not use cosmetics. Both Arabic and Sindhi were spoken. Regarding Mansura he states that the people were very well-read, courteous and religious. The city had a large number of scholars and the general standard of morals and intelligence was high. Mansura remained the capital of Sindh from 737 A.D. - 120 A.H to 1026 A.D. - 416 A.H. for about 300 years till its conquest by Mahmud Ghaznavi. In late 3rd century Hijri when Multan became the capital of the northern kingdom, Mansura remained the capital of only the south i i.e., modern Sindh. It survived till the Tughlaq period in the 14th century A.D. when it disappeared due to change in the course of river Indus.

As during the time of Darius when Sindh constituted the 20th Satrapy of the Achaemenian Empire and considered an extremely rich province, so also during the Arab rule Sindh was regarded a prosperous part of the Caliphate and paid a million dirham per annum as revenue to the Government at Baghdad.

REFERENCES:

1. The Wonder that was India, By A.L. Bhasham
2. The peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky
3. Arab-o-Hind ke Talluqat, By Sulaiman Nadvi.
4. The Gazetteer of Pakistan: The Province of Sind, edited by T.H. Sorly
5. Gazetteer of the Province of Sind, compiled by E.H. Aitkin
6. Ancient Trade in Pakistan, By Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Pakistan Quarterly, Vol VII #1957
7. Sindhj Culture, By U.T. Thakkur.
8. Tareekh-Sind, By Manlana Syed Abu Zafar Nadvi.
9. An Advanced History of India, Part II, By R.C. Majumdar, H.C. Roychandra and Kalikinkar Ditta
10. The Land of five rivers and Sind, By David Ross
11. Arab~o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Suiaiman Nadvi;
12. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part I, By Ijaaul Haq Quddusi.
13. Dr. Mohammad Ishaque in Journal of Pakistan Historical Society Vol 3 Part1
14. A Study of History, Vol VII, By Arnold Toynbee.
15. Ibid.
16. Sind: A General Introduction, By M.T. Lambrick.
17. A greater portion of the area now called Baluchistan was then known as Makran. The word Baluchistan came into vogue much later.
18. Journal of Pakistan, Historical Society, Vol.111, Part 1
19. Tauzeehat-e-Tareekh-e-Masoomi.
20. Muslim Community of the Indo-Pakistan subcontinent, by Dr. I.H Qureshi
21. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, by Aijazul Haq Quddusi
22. The Making of India, By Dr. Abdulla Yusuf Ali.
23. Jaunat-us-Sind, By Maulai Shaidai.
24. Imperial Gazetteer of India.
25. Ibid.
26. Indian Muslims, By Prof. M. Mujeeb.
27. Tareekh-e-Sind, Part 1, By Aijazul Haq Quddusi.
28. The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Arnold
29. Shias of India, By John Norman Hollister.
30. Ibid.
31. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulaiman Nadvi
32. Sindhi Culture, By U.T. Thakut.
33. Tareekh-e-Sind, By Maulana Abu Zafar Nadvi.
34. The Peoples of Pakistan, By. Yu. V. Gankovsky.
35. Arab-o-Hind ke Tallukat, By Syed Sulairnan Nadvi.

Indian hijacking of Pakistan's history

2009-11-29T14:24:00.000-08:00

Although the modern-day states of India and Pakistan were created around the same time (Pakistan on August 14, 1947 and India August 15 1947) out of the British Raj, Indians desperately try to steal Pakistan's heritage, particularly the Indus Valley Civilization! This Indian hegemonic agenda is based on myths and false propaganda for religious and nationalistic imperialism.

Also there are many Pakistanis, particularly Islamists, who narrow-mindedly deny/ignore Pakistan's glorious pre-Islamic past. Harappans were certainly the ancestors of most Pakistanis who absorbed or adopted the many waves of invaders/migrants through out the centuries.

Indus Valley Civilization was mostly based in the region of Pakistan. The names used for the Civilization are "Indus Valley" or "Harappan" both in Pakistan. The most largest and important cities are Harrappa and Mohenjodaro, both in Pakistan. Even in the case of the Hakra/Ghaggar river (presently extinct), a tributary of Indus itself, it has far more on the Pakistani side than on the Indian side.

The proto-Indus site is also located at Mehrgarh in Pakistan. Indus Valley Civilization, at it's peak, had colonies stretching from Turkmenistan to north Mahrashta, and from southeast Iran to western UP. About 85% of Indians (originating outside of North Western India) have nothing to do with the Indus Valley Civilization, where their ancestors were nomadic forest-dwelling hunters and gatherers at a time period when the sophisticated Indus Valley Civilization was flourishing.

Indus/Harappan religion was not what is today called "Hinduism" which is a termenology of British oirigns. (See here http://pakistanipatriots.blogspot.com/2009/07/hinduism-is-fiction-created-by-british.html).
Not a single "Hindu" temple, idol, or statue has been found at the excavated Indus sites. Harappans buried their dead, ate beef, and were not Vedic (the Vedic in turn were also not "Hindu"). The "Great Bath" was common in many civilizations such as among the Greaco-Romans and the Mesopotamians. Decpicted on some Indus seals, the "deity" wearing the horned head-dress looks nothing like Shiva, and similar deities were common in other civilizations like the Celtic "Cernunnos". Bull seemed to be sacred among Harappans similar to Mesopotamians and Minoans, but not the cow.

A people may evolve by adopting new ideas/beliefs, change with political enviorenment, and racially get mixed with other peoples, but that does not erase their history. Pakistan-- the land and people of Indus directly inherits one of the greatest ancient civilizations of the world, just the same way present-day Iraq, Greece, and Egypt (all three countries and names also of recent origin) inherits their own great ancient civilizations.

It is irrelevant that the descedents of Harappans are now mostly Muslims (Pakistanis). Descedents of ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians are also now mostly Muslims, descedents of ancient Greeks and Romans are now mostly Christians. It is time that all Pakistanis take pride in their past, and protect their heritage from the theivery of other countries like India.

-- Article contributed by Asad Jatoi.

The Afghan-Pakistani border is a settled issue.

2009-11-29T12:17:00.000-08:00

About twenty-three miles south of Pillar XII, which is erected on the Saricol range of Pamir, lies the beginning of the “North West Frontier”. Pillar XII is located at latitude 37o20′5″N and longitude 74o24′50″E. It was erected by a joint Anglo-Russian Commission in September 1895, on the left bank of a tributary of the Tegermen-Su river, one mile from its mouth; and it is the last among pillars, which carry the Russo-Afghan frontier from the eastern end of Lake Victoria (Wood’s Lake) to the Chinese frontier.

The protocol embodying the final agreement was signed on July 22, 1887 and is known as the Pamir Agreement. The demarcated boundary according to the ‘The Pamir Agreement’ remains unchanged to this day. This border was internationally recognized as the border between the former Soviet Union and Afghanistan. Today this boundary is the internationally recognized border between the Central Asian countries (former Soviet republics as successor independent states of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan) and Afghanistan.

The Afghan frontier turns west from Pillar XII and follows the northern ridge of the Sarikol Range bordering the Taghdumbash Pamir. It then curves southward over the Wakhjir Pass to join the present Pakistan-Afghan frontier, which is often referred to as the Durand line. While negotiating the Durand Line, Amir Abdul Rahman Khan of Afghanistan had received a British mission in a formal Durbar which was held in November 1893, in the Salam Khana Hall, where the civil and military officers of Kabul and chiefs of various tribes were present.

The Amir in his speech gave an outline to the audience of all the understanding which had been agreed upon and the provisions which had been signed, and urged upon them the necessity for adhering firmly to British alliance. He pointed out that the interests of Afghanistan and England were identical.

The Amir further told the audience that it was for the first time that Afghanistan had a definite frontier which would prevent future misunderstandings and would render Afghanistan strong and powerful after it had been consolidated with the aid in arms and ammunition which would be received from the British.

The demarcation of the Durand Line was carried out in fulfilment of the Anglo-Afghan agreement’ of November 12, 1893 between Amir Abdul Rahman Khan of Afghanistan and Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, Foreign Secretary to the Government of the British Raj (the former British colony in South Asia now composed of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh).

The demarcation of the Indo-Afghan frontier, as defined in the above mentioned agreement, was divided into sections and was carried out for the most part by the joint Anglo-Afghan Commission during the year 1894-1896. In 1947, the Indian sub-continent emerged as two independent dominions of India and Pakistan. West Pakistan by right of its location inherited the former North West Frontier of British India and the Indo-Afghan boundary established vide the agreement of 1893.

There are some circles who continue to spread disinformation that the agreement was signed under duress and has a validity of 100 years. Unfortunately, the propaganda emanates from a country in the neighbourhood of Pakistan. This country also instigates anti-Pakistan elements in the Afghan government to issue controversial statements undermining Pak-Afghan relations. A host of websites of this country also disseminate anti-Pakistan propaganda. It is therefore necessary to put the facts in the correct perspective as follows:

– The International Border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is based on the map attached with the original Agreement of 1893.

– Clause 6 of the Agreement clearly states that the agreement is regarded by both the parties as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them. The Agreement has been reaffirmed by successive Afghan rulers.

– 1905 Treaty with Amir Habibullah Khan continuing the Agreements which had existed between the British Government and Amir Abdul Rahman Khan. Para 2 states “I also have acted, am acting and will act upon the same agreement and I will not contravene them in any dealing or in any promise.”

– Treaty of peace between the British Government and the Independent Afghan Government concluded at Rawalpindi on 8th August 1919. Article 5 states that “the Afghan Government accepts the Indo-Afghan frontier accepted by the Late Amir.”

– Friendly and Commercial Relations treaty between Great Britain and Afghanistan at Kabul on 22 November 1921. Article 2 of the treaty states that, “The two high contracting parties accept the Indo-Afghan frontier as accepted by the Afghan Government under Article V of the treaty concluded at Rawalpindi on 8th August 1919.”

– Notes were exchanged between His Majesty’s Government and Afghan Minister in London, 1930 (His Highness General Shah Wali Khan to Mr. Arthur Henderson), Afghan Legation 6th May 1930. Both parties ~greed that it was their understanding that the Treaty of Kabul of 22 November 1921 continued to have full force and effect.

– On 13 June 1948, Shah Wali Khan, the Afghan envoy to Pakistan declared, ” Our King has already stated, and I, as the representative of Afghanistan, declare that Afghanistan has no claims on frontier territory and even if there were any, they have been given up in favour of Pakistan. Anything contrary to this which may have appeared in the press in the past or may appear in the future should not be given credence at all and should be considered just a canard.”

The Pak-Afghan International Border has sound technical and legal background. According to international law, treaties of the extinct state concerning boundary lines remain valid and all rights and duties arising from such treaties of the extinct state devolve on the absorbing state. Pakistan is a successor state of British India. The following is worth mentioning:

– A country to country treaty does not need any revision unless both parties desire change.

– International Agreement once finally concluded can be revoked only bilaterally and not unilaterally.

– Unless otherwise provided in the concluded treaty about its duration, the treaty becomes of a permanent nature. This is applicable to the 1893 Treaty Agreement.

– International Law does not lay down the maximum life period of one hundred years for an internationally concluded border agreement between the two states, when fixed border validity has not been mentioned in its text.

It goes beyond doubt to say that the international border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is a settled matter and is globally accepted. It is supported by International Law and the treaty of 1893 has been ratified several times by successive Afghan governments.

Durand Line / Treaty

As long as Afghanistan refuses to accept the Durand Line as the permanent international boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan, there is no reliable way to combat extremism and terrorism in the region.

Durand Line – the present border between Afghanistan and Pakistan – was agreed to as official boundary line between the British Raj and Afghanistan on 12 November 1893. Sir Henry Mortimer Durand from the British side and Amir Abdul Rahman Khan from the Afghan side signed the historical document.

Pakistan and Afghanistan, as successor states, are bound to honour this agreement.

The present spread of religious intolerance and extremism in the region is, in great part, attributable to the fact that the successive and successor governments of Afghanistan have declined to accept the Durand Line as permanent boundary between the two countries. Uncertainty of the boundary rules and impermanent nature of the physical border are playing in favour of extremist elements on both sides of the dividing line.

Moreover, there was a whisper campaign a while ago that the Durand Line agreement was valid for 100 years and after that the document is legally null and void now. The original text shows that there is no time-expiry clause in the agreement.

Here is the complete text of the agreement:

Agreement
between
His Highness Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, G.C.E.I
Amir of Afghanistan and its Dependencies, on the one part,
and
Sir Henry Mortimer Durand, K.C.I.E., C.S.I.,
Foreign Secretary to the Government of India,
representing the Government of India, on the other part

Whereas certain questions have arisen regarding the frontier of Afghanistan on the side of India, and whereas both His Highness the Amir and the Government of India are desirous of settling these questions by a friendly understanding, and of fixing the limit of their respective spheres of influence, so that for the future there may be no difference of opinion on the subject between the allied Governments, it is hereby agree as follows:

1. The eastern and southern frontier of High Highness’s dominions, from Wakhan to the Persian border, shall follow the line shown in the map attached to this agreement.

2. The Government of British India will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of Afghanistan, and His Highness the Amir will at no time exercise interference in the territories lying beyond this line on the side of India.

3. The British Government thus agrees to His Highness the Amir retaining Asmar and the valley above it, as far as Chanak. His Highness agrees on the other hand that he will at no time exercise interference in Swat, Bajaur or Chitral, including the Arnawai or Bashgal valley. The British Government also agrees to leave to His Highness the Birmal tract as shown in the detailed map already given to High Highness, who relinquishes his claim to the rest of the Waziri country and Dawar. His Highness also relinquishes his claim to Chageh [now, Chagai. Ed.].

4. The frontier line will hereafter be laid down in detail and demarcated, wherever this may be practicable and desirable, by Joint British and Afghan Commissioners, whose object will be to arrive by mutual understanding at a boundary which shall adhere with the greatest possible exactness to the line shown in the map attached to this agreement, having due regard to the existing local rights of villages adjoining the frontier.

5. With reference to the question of Chaman, the Amir withdraws his objection to the new British Cantonment and concedes to the British Government the rights purchased by him in the Sirkai-Tilerai water. At this part of the frontier, the line will be drawn as follows:

From the crest of Khwaja Amran range near the Pasha Kotal, which remains in British territory, the line will run in such a direction as to leave Murgha Chaman and the Sharobo spring to Afghanistan, and to pass half way between the New Chaman Fort and the Afghan outpost known locally as Lashkar Dand. The line will then pass half way between the railway station and the hill known as the Mian Baldak, and, turning southwards, will rejoin the Khwaja Arman range, leaving the Gwasha Post in British territory, and the road to Shorawak to the west and south of Gwasha in Afghanistan. The British Government will not exercise any interference within half a mile of the road.

6. The above articles of agreement are regarded by the government of British India and His Highness the Amir of Afghanistan as a full and satisfactory settlement of all the principal differences of opinion which have arisen between them in regard to the frontier; and both the Government of British India and His Highness the Amir undertake that any differences of detail, such as those which will have to be considered hereafter by the officers appointed to demarcate the boundary line, shall be settled in a friendly spirit, so as to remove for the future as far as possible all causes of doubt and misunderstanding between the two Governments.

7. Being fully satisfied of His Highness’s good-will to the British Government, and wishing to see Afghanistan independent and strong, the Government of British India will raise no objection to the purchase and import by His Highness of munitions of war, and they will themselves grant him some help in this respect. Further, in order to mark their sense of the friendly spirit in which High Highness the Amir has entered into these negotiations, the Government of British India undertake to increase by the sum of six lakhs of rupees a year the subsidy of twelve lakhs now granted to His Highness.

(Signed) H. M. Durand

(Signed) Amir Abdul Rahman Khan

Kabul, the 12th November 1893

Note: Original agreement is available in the national archive of Pakistan. This report has been produced from the copy available at the Area Study Center, Peshawar University.

Published with permission.

One Lakh = 100000

Views on the issue of Pak-Afghan border:

– Following independence, the NWFP voted to join Pakistan in a referendum in 1947. However, Afghanistan’s loya jirga of 1949 declared the Durand Line invalid as they saw it as ex patre on their side since British India ceased to exist in 1947 with the independence of Pakistan and the Republic of India. This had no tangible effect as there has never been a move to enforce such a declaration. Additionally, world courts have universally upheld uti possidetis juris, i.e, binding bilateral agreements with or between colonial powers are “passed down” to successor independent states, as with most of Africa. A unilateral declaration by one party has no effect; boundary changes must be made bilaterally. Thus, the Durand Line boundary remains in effect today as the international boundary and is recognized as such by nearly all nations. Despite pervasive internet rumors to the contrary, U.S. Dept. of State and the British Foreign Commonwealth Office documents and spokespersons have recently confirmed that the Durand Line, like virtually all international boundaries, has no expiration date, nor is their any mention of such in any Durand Line documents. (The 1921 treaty expiration refers only to the 1921 agreements.)

– Afghanistan was created in 1747 AD by the Punjab-born (city of Multan in present-day Pakistan) Pashtun named Ahmed Shah Abdali. The fact is Abdali conquered the Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Balochis, Punjabis, etc. This was a forceful occupation of various lands/peoples subdued to the Abdali monarchy. Per Encyclopedia Britannica, “Ahmad Shah began by capturing Ghazni from the Ghilzai Pashtuns, and then wresting Kabul from the local ruler. In 1749 the Mughal ruler ceded sovereignty over Sindh Province and the areas west of the Indus River to Ahmad Shah in order to save his capital from Afghan attack. Ahmad Shah then set out westward to take possession of Herat, which was ruled by Nadir Shah’s grandson, Shah Rukh. Herat fell to Ahmad after almost a year of siege and bloody conflict, as did Mashhad (in present-day Iran). Ahmad next sent an army to subdue the areas north of the Hindu Kush. In short order, the powerful army brought under its control the Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik, and Hazara tribes”.

– Now many people can argue that Afghanistan’s creation was illegal because the land belonged to Persian-based Safavids/Sassanians/etc and South Asian-based Mughals/Mauryas/etc until Abdali’s creation in 1747 AD. But the fact of the matter is people and its lands constantly evolve to new geo-political environments changing boundaries and nationhoods. Prior to 1747 AD, the region of Afghanistan was ruled by Persian Achaemenians and Sassanians, Greeks, Scythians, Hepthalites, Arabs, Turkics, Mongols, and many others (currently by NATO). Mauryas and Mughals ruled a large portion of present-day Afghanistan (almost all of Pashtun areas). By the way, the Muslim rulers of South Asia were mostly Turko-Mongols originating from Central Asia who also ruled the Pashtuns.

– Afghanistan’s creation was legal in the same way Pakistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc. were created later on. The boundaries between Iran and Afghanistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan/Uzbekistan/Turkmenistan, etc were created by the British and Russians. So the few Afghans beating the drum of Durand Line (Pak-Afghan boundary) is pointless. By the same token, all boundaries of Afghanistan are questionable. Why should only Pashtun areas of Pakistan be merged to Afghanistan? Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country like Pakistan. Should Tajikistan lay claim to Tajik lands of Afghanistan, Uzbekistan to Uzbek lands in Afghanistan, Turkmenistan to Turkmen lands in Afghanistan, etc.?

– The mostly ethnicity-based countries like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, & Turkmenistan have much more stronger claims to Tajik, Turkmen, & Uzbek lands of Afghanistan because Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country like Pakistan, so a multi-ethnic Afghanistan has no right to claim only Pashtun lands of Pakistan. How about Pakistan claiming Pashtun lands of Afghanistan instead since Pashtuns are being oppressed in Afghanistan, Pashtuns in Pakistan are comparatively much more prosperous, and Afghans are desperate to flee to Pakistan. By the way, Pashtuns are not the only ethnic group divided between two countries, e.g. Azeris are divided between Iran and Azerbaijan, Tajiks between Afghanistan and Tajikistan, Uzbeks between Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, Turkmens between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, Balochis between Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan, Kurds between Iran, Turkey, Iraq and Syria, Arabs between many different countries, etc.

– If Durand Line of boundary is artificial then how valid are the boundaries between Afghanistan and Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, etc…. or all countries of Middle East (Sykes-Picot treaty).. created by former European colonialists such as the British, French, and Russians. Lets not forget the “Great Game” on how the Brits and Ruskies created Afghanistan’s boundaries as a buffer zone between them. We know how the Soviets created Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan… “In 1886 a Russian army fresh from its conquest of the Oasis of Merv, in today’s Turkmenistan, occupied the Panjdeh Oasis near Herat. It was also the time of The first Great Game. Britain immediately warned Russia that any further advance towards Herat would be considered as inimical to British interests. As a consequence of the May 1879 Treaty of Gandamak after the Second Afghan War, Britain took control of Afghanistan’s foreign affairs. After the Panjdeh incident a joint Anglo-Russian boundary commission, without any Afghan participation, fixed the Afghan border with Turkestan, which was the whole of Russian Central Asia, now Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan (though Tajikistan being part of Turkestan is questionable since Tajikistan is not a Turkic-speaking country). Thus as a consequence of the competition between Britain and Russia, a new country, the Afghanistan we know today, was created to serve as the buffer.” …..Now on the Afghan-Iran boundaries created by the British/Russians, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, “In 1863 Dost Mohammad retook Herat from Iran with British acquiescence…. The boundary with modern Iran was firmly delineated in 1904, replacing the ambiguous line made by a British commission in 1872″.

– In 1947 and beyond the Congressite followers of Badshah Khan continued to ask the Gandhi question “The Pathans should have had a choice between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India”. The Muslim League had correctly argued that the British had no right to ask that particular question, since they did not ask Nagaland if it wanted to join Burma, nor did they ask Tamil Nadu if it wanted to join Sri Lanka. Thus the Durand Line became the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

– Knowing the bitter enmity between Tajiks/Hazaras and Pashtuns in Afghanistan, Tajiks/Hazaras will never allow Afghanistan to become 75% Pashtun (from 40%) by only integrating Pashtun areas of Pakistan.

– The word Afghan in the past might have referred to a Pashtun tribe(s), but that meaning evolved to another one. Today, an Afghan is defined as only a citizen of present-day Afghanistan regardless of ethnicity. There are countless other examples on how a word’s meaning evolves to a different one over time.

– NWFP of Pakistan is not all Pashtun, large areas of this land are Hindkowi, Shina, Khowari, Gujjar, etc. most linguistically related to Punjabi. Majority of Balochistan is Baloch who also have bitter rivalry with the Afghans and do not want to be part of Afghanistan.

– Millions of Pakistani Pashtuns inhabit in the provinces of Punjab and Sindh such as cities of Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad… not to mention millions of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Since the 1980s the Durand Line has been a porus line for men and material. During the Soviet occupation of Western/Northern Afghanistan, some portions of Eastern/Southern Afghanistan (at least the Pashtun portions) literally became part of free Afghanistan, a satellite of Pakistan. 6 million Afghans came to Pakistan as refugees. More than one million Afghan children were born in Pakistan.

– Pashtuns have much more in common with Pakistanis than with Afghans plus there are much more Pashtuns in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Pashtuns are linguistically Indo-Iranic. Linguistically, Pakistanis are 99% Indo-Iranic, whereas Afghans are only 84% Indo-Iranic. Punjabi, Sindhi, Balochi, Kashmiri, Urdu (Undri), Pashto, & Dari are Indo-Iranic languages which means they are related to each other and have a common origin. About 16% of Afghans are linguistically Altaic such as the Uzbeks, Turkomens, etc. These Altaic Afghans are linguistically distinct and unrelated to the Indo-Iranic peoples. Additionally, Pashtuns are racially mostly Caucasoid. Pakistanis are also mostly racially Caucasoid (slightly mixed with a little Dravidoid, Mongoloid, Negroid and other few foreign bloodlines). On the other hand, Afghans are only 66% Caucasoid. Hazaras, Turkomens, Uzbeks, (and few Tajiks) etc. are mostly Mongoloid by race.

-Despite the Hazaras being linguistically Indo-Iranic, they share a common Altaic background with Uzbeks, Turkmens, Mongolians and other racially Altaic peoples.

Just how 'indiginious' is India's weapons technology?

2009-09-13T16:19:00.000-07:00

Indian propagandists over the past decades have been propagating & exaggerating foreign involvement in Pakistani weapons projects (including nuclear) while staying silent and working to cover-up any foreign involvement in their own weapons programs.

They have done a fairly good job at it, because now days it's very difficult to dig out sources which point towards serious Soviet involvement in India's nuclear weapons program; hence the Indians have been able to portray it as 'indigenous' along with other hi-tech weaponry they possess.

They have launched this propaganda all over the Internet including wikipedia, or quoting their self-proclaimed "analysts" like the person who goes under the name B. Raman who has a favorite past time in spreading and exaggerating the weaknesses of Pakistani military tech.

Not only have they been very successful at deliberately exaggerating/falsifying foreign assistance to Pakistani weapons programs, but also it appears they have even imported foreign weaponry and simply given an Indian name to it to make it look 'indigenous', without having any involvement in it's construction at all!

Additionally, they have been on a propaganda campaign to claim success in alot of their tested weaponry and missiles, when most of them have miserably failed. The videos posted below proves the failure about Indian missiles along with other "indigenous" equipment allegedly made by India when some of them appear to be exact duplicates of European military equipment. Can this be a coincidence, or simply imported equipment with an India tag labeled to it?

The videos below contain direct statements from Indian "scientists" & "engineers" as well as clear coverage from the Indian media.

Indians who also whine and cry about Pakistan being crushed in another Indo-Pak war without alliance to America or China or other countries, should know a few things.

1) The first Indo-Pak war took place in 1947, before China and Pakistan forged an alliance. India on the other hand was already allied with the USSR and also the British had left most of their military equipment with India than Pakistan at the time of their departure from the subcontinent. Despite all this plus the larger size of the Indian military, they were unable to take all of Kashmir away from Pakistan.

2) Another full scale war will involve nuclear weapons, which will be enough to destroy BOTH countries. Additionally because India is much more densely populated than Pakistan, more people in India will suffer/die in the event of nuclear exchanges between both countries.

3) Those who rejoice in the 1971 war, already know it was an unjust fight. The Pakistani military was at civil war and a thousand miles within enemy territory.
It would be no different for Pakistan to enter East Punjab during the Khalistan movement uprising and aiding Sikh separatists or attacking India during a full scale civil war and then boasting 'victory.'
Conclusion: 1971 war doesn't really count since it was not a straight one-on-one war.

Below are the videos mentioned in this article and here are some rare sources on the aid given by the Soviet Union & Israel to India's "indigenous" nuclear weapons and other weapons programs:
http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=18265
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/india/bmd.htm

http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=61

There was no 'partition' of "India"

2009-09-03T17:46:00.000-07:00

THERE WAS NO “PARTITION”: For Britain ” ‘Indian’ Empire” included Somalia, Iraq, Burma, Singapore etc. For the French “India” included Vietnam (Indo-China). For the Dutch “India” included “Indo-n-asia”.

Some truly educated historians and many educated Pakistanis in particular take deep umbrage and dislike the usage of the term “partition” because “partition” implies the division of a whole. As the maps show, the term “India” was very ephemeral and put in vogue by the British. Before British times, there was no such word. Because there never was a country called “India” there was no "partition"

“India is no more a country than the Equator“ Winston Churchill
Initially when Lord Clive of the East Indian company defeated Shirijud Daulah, he called it British Bengal. When the British formally came to the Subcontinent in 1857, they encountered more than 570 states. When they left the Subcontinent they left more than 570 independent states and two dominions, India and Pakistan. The states on the banks of the Indus decided to live together as Pakistan, as they had lived together for thousands of years. The states on the Gangetic plain banded together to form “Bharat”. The state on the Brahamaputra became its own state.
Maps showing various sovereign, independent states in the Subcontinent during the British Raj:

Each state had its own currency, laws, jails, flag, crest, passport, military, treasury, and British forces were not allowed to enter the state. Many were ruled by Muslims rulers like Hydrabad, Bhopal, Junagarh etc. Maps showing various sovereign, independent states in the Subcontinent during the British Raj.

The separation of Burma is not called “partition”. The independence of Sri Lanka is not called “partition”. the removal of Iraq from the British Indian Empire is not called “partition”. The independence of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan is not called “partition”. Aden and Somalia becmae independent in the British Indian Empire and are not lamented as being “partitioned” off. For the French, sperating Vietnam from their Indian Empire is not called “partition”. For the Dutch, removing Indonesia from Dutch “India” is not called separation.

The Western states had lived together in the Valley of the Indus for more than 5000 years together so it was natural for them to live together

THE BASIS FOR THE THESIS
“Pakistan” existed 5000 years ago. 5000 years ago Pakistan was probably not called “Pakistan”. China 5000 years ago was also called something else. Egypt 5000 years ago was called something else.

Kushan Parthian maps show different parts of the world.

The British Indian Empire included Somalia, Iraq, Aden, Burma and other states. Then there was the French “Indian” Empire, Dutch “Indian” Empire, “Portuguese” Indian Empire and even a Dansih “Indian” Empire. Each one had a different meaning of “India”.The French “Indian” Empire included Vietnam etc. The Dutch Indian Empire included parts of the Subcontinent and Indonesia. Columbus called America “India” and the local inhabitants Indian. Other islands in the new world were called East Indies. South East Asia was called Indo-China

The French “Indian” Empire included parts of the Subcontinent and (Indo-China) Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos in it

The Dutch “Indian” Empire included Indonesia in it

Portugese map shows. Notice Pakistan labelled Sindh and "India" as Hind. Also note that the name "Hind" is derived from Sindh. So yes, even the roots of the words "Hind" "Hindi" "Hindu" "Hindustan" all originate in present-day Pakistan. These words are a result of the corruption of the original name "Sindu" meaning land of the rivers which was Pakistan's name in 3000 BC.

Independent princely states during 17th century British presence:

Map of Timur's empire, which included Pakistan, but not "India"

THERE WAS NO PARTITION
The Pakistan proposal “Now or Never” was not based on any partition. It was based on the Muslim majority areas coming together.

Countless maps of pre-47 Pakistan can be found including different time eras most of them excluding present-day "India"

“Notwithstanding [a] thousand years of close contact, nationalities which are as divergent today as ever, cannot at any time be expected to transform themselves into one nation merely by means of subjecting them to a democratic constitution and holding them forcibly together by unnatural and artificial methods of British Parliamentary statutes. What the unitary government of India for one hundred fifty years had failed to achieve cannot be realized by the imposition of a central federal government. It is inconceivable that the fiat or the writ of a government so constituted can ever command a willing and loyal obedience throughout the sub-continent by various nationalities, except by means of armed force behind it. Quaid E Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah: Founder of modern-day Pakistan and the Father of the state.

THE PROOF OF THE THESIS
How could a country be partitioned from "India" when it has existed for more than 5000 years as a separate entity. One hundred and Fifty years as part of the British empire does not make “India” a country

Pakistanis and historians detest the word that incorrectly describes the genesis of the country that has existed since time immemorial.

So why do people believe this whole falsified term "partition of 'Inida'" Indians have been involved in a massive propaganda campeign for the past 60 years including making movies, writing books, articles, propmoting historic distorsion.

Hitler had a saying. Speak a lie, keep repeating it and everyone will believe it.

The term “india” stems from the Arab usage of the word Hind from for the inhabitants who lived on the Sindhu (Indus) river. From Sindh to Hindh. In time all residents beyond the Indus were also called Hindus.

The Western states, Kalat, Bhawalpur, and provinces Punjab, Sindh, Baluchistan, and NWFP banded together to form “Pakistan” and decided to live together as one country just like they had lived together for thousands of years before the British arrived in the Indus Valley Civilization that existed almost entirely on the banks of the Indus. The states of the Gangetic Civilization that existed on the banks of the Ganges banded together to live form Bharat(constitutional name of “India”). Pakistan had objected to the name “India” being used by Bharat.

These maps show the British Indian Empire which included many states. The other maps detail the condition of the Subcontinent on the eve of the British departure.There never was a country called “India.” The Arabs never ventured past Sindh. The nomenclature was for those on the river Indus as Sindhu or Hindu. ”India” is a colonial derivative of the word. During British Times vast areas of Asia came under the jurisdiction of Britain. Iraq, Somalia, Burma and 526 states in the Subcontinent were all part of the British Empire. When the British were leaving all the parts were made independent.Of these, Somalia, Iraq, Burma, and Pakistan are some of the countries that got liberated. There never was any partition because there never was a “whole” to divide.
At one point Afghanistan was also part of the British "Indian" Empire. Curzon’s retreat from Afghanistan, and its separation from the “Indian” Empire was not called “partition”.

The separation of Iraq from the Indian empire was not called partition. The separation of Aden from British India was not called partition. the separation of the gulf states from “India” was not called partition. The independence of Burma from the British raj in 1933 was not called “partition”. Why is the Pakistani independence called “partition”, as if it was part and parcel of a “whole”.

THE FOUR SUPERPOWERS OF EARLY HISTORY: China, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan. The Nile, the Tigris-Euphrates delta, the Yangtze Delta, and the Indus, are the wombs of all civilizations on our earth. These river valley spawned and nurtured humanity. Imagine a world with four superpowers at peace with each other. Imagine a planet where each civilization was immersed in humongous construction projects, urban edification and trade. . How did these proto-world powers interact with each other? Imagine a civilization without any implements of war. Let us look into pre-history and peek into the “seeds” of time. Let us look at the valleys of the world that engendered the Superpowers of the ancient world..

PAKISTAN 5000 YEARS AGO:-The Indus Valley Civilization of South Asia was one of the inceptive civilizations on the planet. It was contemporaneous with the Chinese, Egyptian, and Sumerian civilizations. These were the times when the Egyptians were building huge monuments to their God-kings,the pyramids and the Sphinx. These were the centuries when the Chinese were building palaces for the Shun dynasty. These were exciting eons in the Holy lands too.

These were the centuries when Moses was battling the pharaohs, Abraham was building the Kaaba, David was ruling the kingdom, and Solomon was building the Temple of Yahweh. It was during these centuries that the Indus Valley Civilization flourished and reached its zenith in South Asia.

The IVC built well planned municipalities for its citizens. While the Egyptians spent three generations of their labor force (estimated between 20,000-10000) building useless mausoleum-pyramids to bury the God-kings, the Harappans were successful in eradicating, disease, hunger, and malnutrition.

The Harappans of the IVC did not build huge commemorative, deifying, dedicatory, cenotaphs. The Harappans of Meluhha-IVC built the finest cities of the third millennium BCE.

Because the Subcontinent was never “one” country, there are deep fissures in “Bharat.” The Kashmiris, the Naxalites, the Northeastern states, as well as East Punjab, and Tamil Nadu on the South all want to revert to the pre-1947 era.