What's new

Tracing hate

Ganymede

FULL MEMBER

New Recruit

Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
78
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
It is believed that Pakistan’s descent into the quagmire of violence, partaken in the name of religion has its roots in 1974 when the otherwise ‘secular’ government of Z A. Bhutto declared (through legislation) the Ahmadi community as a religious minority.

Many Pakistani political historians have also correctly pointed out that the Bhutto government’s move in this regard set off various other scenarios that set the scene for its own dramatic downfall in 1977.

Without getting into the theological debate of whether the Ahmadi community deserved excommunication from the fold of Islam in Pakistan or not, one can, however, reach a political conclusion that this issue has triggered the demise of democratic and non-religious forces that sided with those who originally initiated legislative action against the Ahmadis.

The following examples in this context should also be taken as a warning by democratic parties on both sides of the ideological divide that their ‘pragmatic’ association with fundamentalist and sectarian outfits is akin to digging a hole for themselves.

For example, in hindsight one can suggest the Bhutto regime deluded itself by believing that ousting the Ahmadis from the fold of Islam would appease the religious parties that were constantly criticising the government of being ‘un-Islamic.’

The Ahmadis’ ouster saw the Bhutto government increasingly cornering itself and offering more and more concessions to the religious parties in spite of the fact that most of these parties had been routed in the 1970 general election.

Simply put, parties that were rejected by the electorate in 1970 were actually strengthened by Bhutto’s policy of appeasement; a policy he thought was a clever and pragmatic ploy on his part to co-opt them.

This unwitting and unintentional strengthening of the religious parties by Bhutto was one of the main reasons why these parties managed to unite on a single platform during the 1977 election and then, rather ironically, unleash a violent protest movement against his government that culminated in the declaration of Martial Law by General Ziaul Haq.

What is also ironic is the fact that Zia’s aggressive ‘Islamisation’ process throughout the 1980s was largely built around the unsuspecting blueprint of Political Islam that the Bhutto regime had begun to outline from 1974 onwards.

But before we set out to find exactly what happened in 1974, it would also help to reanalyse the first major movement against the Ahmadi community in 1953.

_________________________________

In one of the most thorough books written on the rise of religious radicalism in Pakistan – ‘Pakistan’s Drift into Extremism,’ – author Hassan Abbas has painstakingly researched and detailed the 1953 incident.

At the time of the creation of Pakistan in 1947, fundamentalist outfits such as the Jamat-i-Islami (JI) and the Ahrar had been discredited and sidelined due to their stand against Jinnah and the creation of Pakistan (both had labeled Jinnah as ‘Kafir-i-Azam’ or the leader of infidels).

But in spite of this, both the parties’ main leadership had decided to migrate to Pakistan.

In 1951 due to a failed ‘communist coup’ attempt by some left-wing military men in league with the Communist Party of Pakistan (CPP) and a group of progressive intellectuals initiated an intense governmental crackdown and bans against left-leaning officers in the military, the CPP and affiliated trade and labour unions.

This created just enough of a void for some radical rightist forces to seep in.

This opportunity was further widened by the disintegration of the ruling Muslim League (ML) that was by then plagued with in-fighting, corruption and myopic and exhaustive power struggles among its top leadership.

In 1953-54 after smelling an opportunity to reinstate their political credentials, the JI and the Ahrar gladly played into the hands of the then Chief Minister of Punjab and veteran Muslim Leaguer, Mian Mumtaz Daultana, who was plotting the downfall of his own party’s prime minster, Khuwaja Nizamuddin.

With a burning ambition to become the Prime Minister after former Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan’s enigmatic assassination in 1951, Daultana was bypassed when the ML government chose the Bengali Nizamuddin as PM whom Daultana considered to be incompetent.


As Chief Minister of Punjab, Daultana was being criticised for the rising rate of unemployment and food shortages in the province.

Anticipating protests against his provincial government’s failure to rectify the economic crises in Punjab, Daultana began to allude that economic crises in the Punjab were mainly the doing of the Ahmadi community.

The Ahmadis had played a leading role in the creation of Pakistan and were placed in important positions in the military, the bureaucracy, the government and within the country’s still nascent industrial classes.


Daultana did not accuse the Ahmadis directly. Instead, he purposefully ignored and even gave tact support to JI and Ahrar who decided to use the crises in the Punjab by beginning a campaign against the Ahmadi community and demand their excommunication from the fold of Islam.

As JI and Ahrar members went on a rampage destroying Ahmadi property and personnel in Lahore, Daultana was able to shift the media’s and the nation’s attention away from his provincial government’s economic failures.


But his ‘victory’ was short-lived. The Nizamuddin government with the help of the military crushed the movement and rounded up JI and Ahrar leaders.

It then went on to dismiss Daultana. The demand to throw the Ahmadis out of the fold of Islam was rejected.




_________________________________

After the failure and crushing of the 1953 movement, the anti-Ahmadi sentiment receded to the fringes.

However, some religious parties like the JI tried to reignite it many years later during the campaigning of the 1970 election. But there were no takers and the initiative quickly dissolved.

In his book, ‘Bhutto, Zia & Islam,’ Syed Mujawar Shah suggests that JI’s move during the 1970 election was related to the overwhelming support the Ahmadi community had exhibited for Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) in West Pakistan – a party that was being labelled by the JI as ‘atheistic’.

Almost all religious parties and even old conservative outfits such as the many factions of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML) faced rousing defeats during the 1970 election.

But in 1973, fearing marginalisation and a possible exit from the political process, these parties once again decided to repose the ‘Ahmadi question.’

The first shots in this regard were fired in the Azad Jamua Kashmir Assembly in April 1973 when some right-wing members of the Assembly floated a resolution to declare the Ahmadis as non-Muslims.

The resolution did not carry much weight.

Undeterred, the same year religious party members and those belonging to PML floated similar resolutions in the Punjab and Sindh assemblies but these too were shot down by the PPP MPAs who were in the majority in the two assemblies.

Then, when Bhutto was about to host a mammoth summit of Muslim heads of state and government in Lahore, he was approached by Ahmadi religious leader, Mirza Tahir, who told him that religious parties were planning to use the Summit to demonise the Ahmadi community.

Bhutto assured Tahir that nothing of the sort would happen.

A month after the Summit, an organisation called the Rabita Alam-i-Islami that was founded in Saudi Arabia in 1962, passed a resolution declaring the Ahmadis as non-Muslim.

Having the backing of the Saudi monarchy, the resolution also stressed that people of the Ahmadi faith not be allowed to enter Saudi Arabia.

A delegation of Pakistan had also become a member of this organisation and it did not hesitate to sign on the resolution. Bhutto did not think much of it, though.

Unable to make a dent in the assemblies, the religious parties decided to pour out onto the streets.

In 1974 they launched a full-fledged campaign against the Ahmadis. Once again Punjab was the main battleground as the anti-Ahmadi sentiment remained weak in the other three provinces of the country.


The religious parties even managed to obtain fatwas from some well known Saudi Arabian clerics to back their demands to excommunicate the Ahmadis.

One of the founding members of the PPP and a minister in the Bhutto regime’s first cabinet, Dr. Mubashar Hasan, recently went on record to claim that the government knew that the Saudi monarchy was encouraging the campaign.


He suggested that since from 1974 onwards Bhutto had begun to push Pakistan closer to oil-rich Arab monarchies, he largely remained silent on the issue.

Cheered on by the ‘ulema’, mobs in many cities of the Punjab began attacking Ahmadis and their property.

Eight religious parties led by the JI, including the Deobandi Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI) and the Barelvi Jamiat Ulema Pakistan (JUP), and the conservative Pakistan Democratic Party (of Nawabzada Nasarullah) and PML factions, formed an organisation called the Qadiyani Muhasbah Committee (Committee for Exposition of Qadyanism).

Islamic Scholar and founder of the Jamat-i-Islami holding a press conference in 1974 demanding that the government declare the Ahmadi community non-Muslim.

The organisation vehemently criticised the Bhutto government for ignoring ‘the aspirations of the people’ by not heeding to the calls of the ulema.

The ‘people’ in this case, of course, were the raging mobs led by local clerics and student-wings of the religious parties rampaging across the streets in the Punjab committing murder and arson.

Shaken by the sudden, but well orchestrated violence of the mobs, in June 1974, 37 MNAs in the National Assembly moved a resolution demanding the excommunication of the Ahmadis from Islam.

It should also be kept in mind that the Punjab in the 1970s held the PPP’s largest vote bank and support base.

Prime Minister Bhutto soon broke his silence and decided to allow the National Assembly to debate the issue.

At the same time a government delegation led by Kausar Niazi, held a series of meetings with the ulema belonging to Sunni (both Deobandi and Barelvi) sub-sects, and the Shia sect.

The parliamentary committee that came into being after the talks agreed to listen to the leaders of the Ahmadi community who wanted the committee to hear their side of the argument as well.

Bhutto’s hand in this context was also influenced by the fact that by 1974 his regime had begun to forge a series of economic and political links with oil-rich Arab monarchies.

These monarchies had begun to assert themselves with the help of the rise and pouring in of ‘Petro-Dollars’ after the 1973 Arab-Israel War and the oil crises that followed.


After going through the report on the meetings the government’s team had had with the Sunni and Shia ulema, Bhutto finally gave the green light to the PPP majority in the National Assembly to approve the passage of the anti-Ahmadi resolution.

Soon, the excommunication of the Ahmadis became part of the 1973 constitution (Second Amendment).



The Ahmadi community that had overwhelmingly supported the PPP was shocked.

Though the violence stopped after the passage of the resolution, a large number of Ahmadis who were actively involved in the fields of business, science, teaching and the civil service began to move out of Pakistan, leaving behind the less well-to-do members of the community who till this day face regular bouts of violence and harassment.


In another series of ironies, in 1977, the parties that had rejoiced the introduction of the Second Amendment were out on the streets again – this time agitating against the very government and man who had agreed to accept their most assertive demand.

In the final act of this irony, in April 1979 the same man was sent to the gallows (through a sham trial) by the military dictatorship of Ziaul Haq, who decided to stay on to ‘turn Pakistan into a true Islamic republic,’ and would go on to explain how Bhutto had become ‘a danger to both Islam and Pakistan.’

In 1984 the Zia dictatorship further consolidated the state of Pakistan’s stand against the Ahmadis by issuing an ordinance (Ordinance XX), which prohibited Ahmadis from preaching or professing their beliefs.

The ordinance that was enacted to suppress ‘anti-Islamic activities,’ forbids Ahmadis to call themselves Muslim or to pose as Muslims. Their places of worships cannot be called mosques and Ahmadis are barred from performing the Muslim call to prayer, using the traditional Islamic greeting in public, publicly quoting from the Qur’an, preaching in public, seeking converts, or producing, publishing, and disseminating their religious materials. These acts are punishable by imprisonment of up to three years.


_________________________________

As a new generation of Pakistanis is growing up amidst the still on-going violence against the Ahmadi community, many of them have emerged with a number of questions, especially on social media.

The following are some of the questions being asked: How exactly was Islam and Pakistan saved by what happened in 1974? How did all this help Pakistan become a better place and a more robust democracy? And are not the Muslim sects and sub-sects who all joined in to throw the Ahmadis out of the fold of Islam now trying to do the same with each another?

But to me the most pertinent question remains, what were all the revolutionary leftists, secular liberals and progressive Muslims up to when all this was going on?

One must remember that till the late 1970s, the left and the liberal in Pakistan had far more influence in educational institutions, political parties, the media, and the bureaucracy, even in the armed forces than ever.

The Muslim League and the generation of Pakistani leaders and the military that took the reigns of the country soon after its creation in 1947, were steeped in the ‘modernistic and progressive Islam’ of scholars like Sir Syed Ahmad Khan and Alama Iqbal (The Aligarh Generation).

They might have been vehemently opposed to leftist ideologies, multi-party democracy and multiculturalism; they were equally suspicious of the more radical strains of both political and social Islam.

That’s why its response to the 1953 Anti-Ahmadi riots is now a well documented (and quotable) part of history.

Not only did the government and the military crush the riots, it sent the main perpetrators packing.

Some of them were even given death sentences, including JI’s Abul Ala Maududi (though he was later pardoned).

Then to determine the claims of the anti-Ahmadi clergy and scholarship, the government chose a respected, learned and neutral judge to hear them out, Chief Justice Munir.

After hours and hours of holding interviews with a number of Sunni and Shia ulema, Justice Munir concluded that each one of his interviewees had their own, unique interpretation of who or what a good Muslim was.

The ulemas’ demand to declare the Ahmadi community as non-Muslim was rejected on the findings of the lengthy report that Munir produced from these interviews (called the Justice Munir Report).

This might be explained as the liberal response to the issue. But what was the left’s response?

The left in Pakistan that would reach a peak in the late 1960s, and was fond of understanding politics and society based on thorough Marxist analysis, failed to gage the impact the religious parties would go on to have in the coming political struggles in the country.

The focus of the Pakistani left at the time remained to be the elimination of feudalism in Pakistan by infiltrating left-liberal bourgeoisie parties that would then be ideologically redirected and used to overthrow the resultant capitalist order with a communist revolution.

In fact it was in the late 1960s that the Pakistani left for the first time got down to also seriously analyse the role of the religious parties in its study of class struggle in Pakistan.

The trigger in this respect was the appearance of anti-left literature bundled out by the fundamentalist JI.

The JI had declared socialism to be ‘an atheistic conspiracy against Pakistan and Islam’

Leftist intellectuals like Safdar Mir and Hanif Ramay while writing for progressive Urdu weekly, ‘Nusrat,’, retaliated by describing the religious right in Pakistan as being ‘agents of imperialist forces (the US)’ and ‘lackeys of feudal lords, military generals and capitalist exploiters.’

‘Nusrat’ also reproduced old articles written by Maududi in which he had attacked Jinnah and denounced the creation of Pakistan.

Then in 1969 famous leftist poet and author, Faiz Ahmed Faiz, took the Pakistani left’s analysis of religion a step further by writing a fluent treatise on the culture of Pakistan.

He dismissed the religious right’s wish to turn Pakistan into ‘an abode of Islam,’ and also its claim that ‘secularism was like the Trojan horse from which anti-Islam forces wanted to infiltrate Pakistan and break it.’

Faiz suggested that Pakistan did not have a monopoly to define Islam.

In his paper he insisted that Pakistani culture was not just Islamic, but a mixture of many ethnic, sectarian, religious and western cultures that it had inherited after 1947.



Nevertheless, by the early 1970s much of the affective political and intellectual left had been co-opted by the PPP.

So when in 1974 Bhutto began to concede vital ground to the religious right, many leftists mostly remained quiet (sectioning their leader’s so-called pragmatic manoeuvres).

Those who opposed him (like Meraj Muhammad Khan and J A. Rahim were beaten, arrested and thrown into jails), while others had become just to fragmented due to the petty ideological battles between the Stalinists, Maoists, Trotskyites, Leninists, etc. This was a petty display of leftist sectarianism.

By the time Zia issued his Ordinance XX in 1984, both the left and the liberal were too embroiled in fighting the dictatorship on many fronts.

And anyway, his Ordinance seemed softer compared to the laws he would go on to enact in the name of Islam.

But one can’t really separate all these laws. They are eventually a legacy of the 1974 move.

They are sides of the same coin. A coin that has only grown in value and currency, sapping the genius and energy from things like democracy, pluralism and multiculturalism can infuse in a society.

Tracing hate | DAWN.COM
 
Contrary to the popular "folklore" the hatred in fact was first created and ignited by the Qadiyanism itself when its founder - Mirza declared non Qadiyanis as Kafir at least a 100 years before Pakistan did the same.

asdqt1.jpg

asdqt-110.gif

asdqt-150.gif

asdqt-151.gif

asdqt-151-b.gif

ak1.jpg

anw-khil-150.gif



Above document was published in 1912 over a 100 years ago.
 
@Aeronaut

Its not the states job to meddle in the religious affairs of the people. the excommunication instigated (or rather encouraged)hatred against fellow Pakistanis based on religious beliefs which frankly goes against the founding principles upon which the state of Pakistan was founded. That opened up a can of worms and the situation escalated into different factions calling others non Muslim and issuing fatwas left and right. Also, what purpose did the act serve other than marginalizing a community that had given so much to the state of Pakistan? Oh right, we were left with the "good" imported arabized version of Islam(complete with zam zam water and dates), you know the one that has done Pakistan a world of good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Aeronaut

Its not the states job to meddle in the religious affairs of the people. the excommunication instigated (or rather encouraged)hatred against fellow Pakistanis based on religious beliefs which frankly goes against the founding principles upon which the state of Pakistan was founded. That opened up a can of worms and the situation escalated into different factions calling others non Muslim and issuing fatwas left and right. Also, what purpose did the act serve other than marginalizing a community that had given so much to the state of Pakistan? Oh right, we were left with the "good" imported arabized version of Islam(complete with zam zam water and dates), you know the one that has done Pakistan a world of good.

State represents people, people wanted to do what ahmadis did to them a 100 years ago.

And, no one has encouraged violence against minorities even Ahamadis, its unacceptable and those who do are absolute idiots.
Case closed!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Contrary to the popular "folklore" the hatred in fact was first created and ignited by the Qadiyanism itself when its founder - Mirza declared non Qadiyanis as Kafir at least a 100 years before Pakistan did the same.

asdqt1.jpg


Above document was published in 1912 over a 100 years ago.

That is actually the first time I have read or heard about it. New to me.

Interesting.
 
only in Pakistan where minorites owning news channels and newspapers blackmail the majority and spread hate against them on daily basis....then cry out foul....what a shame...


the sort of bizari language that mirza qadiani has used against muslims...even pimps dont use it....if i share it here...i will get an instant ban..

he abused hindus and their religious figures...

look at this man....look at his cursed face....he is not even fit to be a father in law.....will any qadiani lady want a father in law that looks like mirza ghulam of qadian?....greeting her daily on breakfast table and looking at her with evil eyes


(Hazrat) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (A.S) by Moubashar, on Flickr



Imam Mahdi The Guided One by k.perine, on Flickr
 
So, the short version of the OP is that Bhutto sacrificed the Qadianis to appease the Arab sheiks whose oil money he wanted. This makes sense because Bhutto was immensely popular by himself; he never needed to appease the local mullahs to gain popularity.

Also, according to the article, the people were never really bothered about this issue; it was just the religious troublemakers who drummed up the matter as a show of force. Bhutto relented to appease the oil sheikhs, but the local mullahs took home the wrong message and got emboldened instead.

Unfortunate!
 
some quotes of mirza ghulam qadiani from his own books...go buy the books and read them yourself too......

express news should publish these too and tell the majority what qadiani minority thinks about them.

"My enemies are dirty swine and their women are more wretched than bitches."
(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 14, P. 53; Najmul Huda, P. 10, 53)

"All Muslims regard my books with reverence and care and benefit from their sublime thoughts except those who are the offspring of prostitutes (bastards); God has put a seal upon their hearts and they do not accept me."
(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 5, Page 547-548; Mirat-o-Kamalat-i-Islam, P. 547;
Aeena-e-Kamalat Islam, P.547-548)
[Mirza Ghulam translated this Arabic word as "Bastard" in
Roohany Khazaen Vol. 11, P. 282)

"The one who has no belief in our ultimate victory is fond of becoming bastard and he is bound to be product of fornication."
(Roohany Kazaen, Vol. 9, P. 31; Anwar ul Islam, P. 30)

"Are they prepared to swear? No, they'll never do so because they are liars and are derooting the corpse of falsehood like dogs."
(Supplement to Anjam-e-Atham, P. 25; Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 11, P. 309)

His eulogy about Maulvi Saadullah Ludhianwi was:

"I look a sinful man among debauched who is more scoundrel and an execrated being like Satan... He who is called Saadullah by the ignorant is slanderer, wicked and a falsifier... You injured me, bastard. I won't be truthful if you won't have a disgraceful death."
(Haqiqat-ul Wahi, P. 14-15; Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 22, P. 734-735)

"If Abdullah Athum is saved from death (as per Mirza's prophecy) and if all the world say the Christian was correct, then the bastard will not follow the right path."
(Roohany Khazaen, Vol. 9, P. 32)

"Abdul Haq is not content with our victories. He is itching to become a bastard."
(Anwar-ul-Islam, P. 30)

"There is nothing more foul than a pig in the world. But the ulema who oppose me are more foul than pigs."
(Anjam-i-Atham, P. 21)

"You have inflicted pain on me with your foulness. You are not truthful. I pray that you die in shame, you son of a harlot."
(Anjam-i-Atham, P. 288)

"This bastard of a doctor does not thread the straight path."
(Anwar-ul-Islam, P. 30)

He called Shaikhul Islam Saanaullah of Amristar:
"O, the son of wind, o traitor..."
(Ijaz-i-Ahmadi, P. 43/77)

The puzzling thing is that he himself wrote:

"I have never abused anyone."
(Moahiburahman, P. 18)

"He is worst who is abusive, his heart is as ****** as Latrine."
(Sar-e-Sumain, P. 74)

"Abuses and rebukes are not the acts of a believer and a believer can not be a curser."
(Azalat-ul-Auham, P. 66)
 
State represents people, people wanted to do what ahmadis did to them a 100 years ago.

And, no one has encouraged violence against minorities even Ahamadis, its unacceptable and those who do are absolute idiots.
Case closed!
The state also has to act responsibly when it's people are being led the wrong way. There are umpteen instances when the people wanted something but the state ie the leaders of the country knew what's best and went against the people.

This is one of the leaders of the state abdicating it's responsibility as a responsible state. The people are in no position to give back in wrong what mirza did 100 years ago. The state has no right whatsoever to decide who is Muslim and who is no. The state has no right to excommunicate anyone. Religion should be a private matter between man and god. The state can only make sure that this private communion between the two is facilitated or at the very least not obstructed.
 
only in Pakistan where minorites owning news channels and newspapers blackmail the majority and spread hate against them on daily basis....then cry out foul....what a shame...


the sort of bizari language that mirza qadiani has used against muslims...even pimps dont use it....if i share it here...i will get an instant ban..

he abused hindus and their religious figures...

look at this man....look at his cursed face....he is not even fit to be a father in law.....will any qadiani lady want a father in law that looks like mirza ghulam of qadian?....greeting her daily on breakfast table and looking at her with evil eyes


(Hazrat) Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani (A.S) by Moubashar, on Flickr



Imam Mahdi The Guided One by k.perine, on Flickr
@FaujHistorian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, the short version of the OP is that Bhutto sacrificed the Qadianis to appease the Arab sheiks whose oil money he wanted. This makes sense because Bhutto was immensely popular by himself; he never needed to appease the local mullahs to gain popularity.

Also, according to the article, the people were never really bothered about this issue; it was just the religious troublemakers who drummed up the matter as a show of force. Bhutto relented to appease the oil sheikhs, but the local mullahs took home the wrong message and got emboldened instead.

Unfortunate!


Let's make sure we separate the religious views of Ahmadis from their loyalty to Pakistan and Pak army.


1. Religious views of Ahmadis.
As some posters have already said that Ahmadis do not consider non-Ahmadis as full Muslims (or non-Muslims in extreme cases).

I was personally shocked when I went over to my Ahmadi neighbor's house to offer condolences when his grandfather passed away. Apparently they do not like when a non-ahmadi Muslim wants to say good things about their recently deceased relatives.

Anywho! long stroy short.

Ahmadis do not consider the rest of us Muslims as equal to them unless we convert to their faith. Which I thought was not very tolerant outlook.

However Ahmadi views are limited to saying someone kafir and that's all.

I have not read or heard that any Ahmadi Khalifa has issued a fat fat fatwa to kill a non-Ahmadi.

this I feel is a much more tolerant view compared to our own Mullahtic Mullahs or the Shia Mullhatic Mullahs.


2. Ahmadis as citizens of Pakistan

They are the most loyal citizens, generally hardworking, and educated lot. They consider it an honor to serve in Pak army and defend our motherland.


Thus the Ahmadi issue is the matter of hearts, and their beliefs how terrible they may be are limited to them as persons.

They do not pose an existential threat to Pakistan and never will be.

On the other hand, Sunni and Shia Mullahs are more loyal to Saudi and Iran than they ever will be to Pakistan.

And thus both Sunni and Shia extremists are the ones who pose existential threat to our motherland.


So the choice is ours to decide whom to punish and lock up on the jails, and whom to allow to prosper in our country.


peace.
 
Sunni and Shia Mullahs are more loyal to Saudi and Iran than they ever will be to Pakistan.

While I agree with the rest of your post, we must be careful not to generalize and stereotype Sunnis and Shias either. I don't know that there is any ulterior loyalty to foreign countries: the extremists are simply taking advantage of lax law enforcement to proclaim their power, like any two-bit gangster.

The recent shooting of polio vaccination workers is an example: when the State law enforcement apparatus is asleep on the job, every criminal will take advantage.
 
Excellent article I read it on Dawn

yeah. NFP does a good job overall.

However one thing that he ignores or white-washes is the despicable role of leftists in the early years of Pakistan.

From the high and mighty commies like Faiz to lowly leftie terroist thugs in the universities, to the corrupt surkha union leaders, they all pushed Pakistan into the hands of Mullahs.

Had these zameer farosh surkha lefties been loyal to Pakistan, they would not have created fishers in a country that was very young and very weak.


Sadly!

These lefties were educated lot, they should have used their brains a bit and not let Che guera types to destroy Pakistan from within.


But no, these lefties encouraged and thus led to the first coup attempt in the army. They destroyed universities by turning our young minds into monstrous castros and Chavezes.

These vermin are the reason why Pakistan failed to become south korea.
And
these very vermin are hell bent for the last 50+ years to turn Pakistan into another north korea or any other commie jannat.

Here are a couple of simple questions for you and other readers.


1. If commies are anti-business, who do you think businesses will rely for grass root support.
---------- Answer: Mullahs
2. If commies are anti-military, who do you think military will rely for grass root support?
----------Answer: Mullahs.


Off course Mullah support didn't come cheap. But every Tom Dick and Harry including uncle Sam has used and bought Mullahs from 1900's all the way to 1990s when it was certain that commies are dead.

Heck even Gandhi Ji slept with Mullahs during Khilafat movement. So you see this thingy is not new.


And this my friend is missing from the NFP essays. He will not put the blame on lefties and commies.


Thank you
 
Back
Top Bottom