Debating Liberal Fascism

[Zarvan]

Break every LAW of ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW and you are the biggest liberal in the eyes of west and Indians in short betray Islam ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW and be a liberal mentality of slaves

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It’s not just Mr Tharoor!​

By Ejaz Haider

Published: July 26, 2011

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

Shashi Tharoor is no fool. Quite the contrary. He is a high achiever and combines brilliance with great marketing skills. So, why would he pen an article in the Deccan Chronicle (“Delusional liberals”, July 21) that seems, on the surface, to be fairly lightweight? Precisely because he is smart.

He knows perception-formation is important; he also knows reinforcing perceptions is crucial; and he knows the basic rule about perceptions: They are quick to form but resistant to change. The last paragraph of his article must, therefore, be seen not as an exercise in naivete but in considered perception-formation and reinforcement. Let me reproduce it here.

“Indians need to put aside their illusions that there are liberal partners for us on the other side of the border who echo our diagnosis of their plight and share our desire to defenestrate their military (italics mine).” He then honours me by capping his article thus: “Nor should we be surprised: a Pakistani liberal is, after all, a Pakistani before he is a liberal.”

India has diagnosed Pakistan’s problem; the Pakistani military needs to be defenestrated (it means to throw something or person out of a window — sigh!); the liberals in Pakistan must share that diagnosis and work in tandem with India to do so. But because they don’t seem to, India must put aside the disillusion that she has any partners in Pakistan.

Let me leave Tharoor here for a while and note that this is an orchestrated exercise. We already know what Aatish Taseer wrote about the Pakistani military so I shan’t recap that. But there was another interesting piece in The Wall Street Journal, “Cut Pakistan loose” (June 9), by Nitin Pai, a young analyst who writes on military and economic affairs. Pai’s argument is that America and the world should cut Pakistan loose because Pakistan comprises two entities, the state and the military-jihadi complex. According to this thesis, the military-jihadi complex formulates policies and the state is a wretched, helpless entity that simply looks on while the military-jihadi complex troubles both the Pakistani state and the rest of the world. Pai concluded that recent developments have created a vertical fault-line between these two entities and Pakistan stands on the verge of a political transformation. This transformation should be allowed a free hand because it might just empower the Pakistani state. To this end, he wanted complete aid and funds cut-off since that money only reaches the military-jihadi complex.

(Read: What would happen if Pakistan and the US severed ties?)

Even a cursory study of the basic literature on what a state is and where it can be located (some of the best minds have been grappling with this) would tell us that Pai’s framework is deeply flawed. He knows it too. But like Tharoor, he too is not teaching a political science class. He is forming perceptions and reinforcing those that make someone predisposed to accepting his argument. His piece is not meant for the Political Science Quarterly but for mass dissemination.

But wait. The smartest of them is yet to come — Ashley Tellis. Tellis, an Indian-American, was adviser to former US ambassador to India, Robert Blackwill. Tellis also contributed immensely to the process that led to the India-US civil nuclear deal and he has been one of the strongest intellectual voices selling India and New Delhi’s vision of itself. He has successfully sold the idea that the US and Indian interests in the region, and especially vis-a-vis Pakistan, are synonymous.

In a recent article in The National Interest, captioned, “Pakistan’s army rule” (June 28), Tellis, after declaring Pakistan a “frenemy”, highlights the civil-military divide within this country, arguing that the US raid to take out Osama bin Laden has not only resulted in a “damaging enervation of Pakistan’s already-frail civilian authority”, but the army’s riposte has further strengthened “the power of the very military that has taken the country to perdition repeatedly since its formation”. No prizes for guessing the common strand in these articles — the civil-military divide and the military’s perfidy. The only way Pakistan can be redirected is by getting rid of the Pakistani military. Once that happens, Pakistan will become a ‘normal’ state and everyone could take the much-needed rest.

The liberals must join the rest of the world — and India — in doing this. But, to return to Tharoor, “Pakistani liberals are particularly prone to the desire to prove themselves true nationalists” because “it is the best way to ensure that their otherwise heretical opinions are not completely discredited by the men in uniform who hold the reins of power in the state”.

In these analyses, terms are bandied about loosely and that is deliberate. No one would call an Indian a “nationalist” in an accusatory tone. Not so with a Pakistani because Pakistani nationalism, as it presumably stands, is a function of the military’s worldview, not Pakistan’s. By this logic, a Pakistani must be a liberal first — as if there is a world-body of liberals that stands above and beyond their states — and a Pakistani only secondarily. The military must be defanged; Pakistan must accept India’s supremacy in the region as also the US interests because those are interests based on some conception of “universal values”. Disputes will be resolved, for sure — on India’s terms.

This is of course bogus in the extreme. But it works. It works because there is a civil-military divide in Pakistan; because the military has primary input in policymaking; because the civilians have, repeatedly, proved themselves largely incapable of asserting themselves. All these are facts. But then there are other facts. Consider.

Most peace initiatives towards India have come while Pakistan was under the jackboot. This should not have happened if the military requires a permanent state of war with India to retain its primacy in domestic affairs. (That has its structural reasons but this is not the place to go into those.) Similarly, Pakistan was pushed into the 1965 war by two civilians, not an army general (even though Ayub Khan should have known better). Pakistan’s nuclear programme is owed to a civilian prime minister, not a general. Pakistan’s decision to test was taken under a civilian prime minister and there’s credible evidence to suggest that the then-army chief was sceptical about it. Pakistan’s Taliban policy — in conjunction with the US — was formulated and implemented under a civilian prime minister and the ISI was opposed to it (in fact, until the Taliban captured Kabul in ’96, former DG-ISI Lt-Gen Hamid Gul (retd) would constantly refer to them as American stooges).

One can go on. But four points need to be kept in mind: One, the civil-military divide is Pakistan’s internal matter and we would do whatever it takes to ensure that this country moves towards effective civilian control of the military; two, this divide does not mean that those of us who are opposed to the military’s primacy would, ipso facto, ignore Pakistan’s security interests. Like every other state in the world, Pakistan is also a self-interested state and the rest of the world must live with this fact; three, we have no intention of defenestrating our military, even as we would continue to kick them to extract obedience; four, we don’t need advice from across the border, especially because the Indian pundits crawled on their bellies when Mrs Indira Gandhi slapped her two-year emergency rule. We have seen worse without giving up or giving in. Thank you!

(To be concluded)

Published in The Express Tribune, July 27th, 2011.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/217721/its-not-just-mr-tharoor/

=============


Excellent riposte by Ejaz Haider

 

[Elmo]

Here's another take on the whole "liberal fascist" issue.

Agnostic, it also mentions the spat between Ejaz Haider and Shashi Tharoor, and the critique is up to par.

I'd suggest reading this in its entirety even though it's a bit long.


Silence Of The Liberal Lambs


Why would a supposedly liberal op-ed writer blatantly paint an aggrieved minority as an aggressive fifth column of a hostile neighbour? And why should such a portrayal encounter sounds of silence instead of being called out as calumny?


It started with a column in the Wall Street Journal by Aatish Taseer which led to a bit of an exchange on Twitter between some Indians, including Shashi Tharoor, former Indian minister of state for external affairs and the Lok Sabha MP for Thiruvananthapuram on one side, and some Pakistanis, including Ejaz Haider, a prominent editor in Pakistan, on the other. The banter on Twitter soon spilled over to op-eds in newspapers. Responding to Tharoor’s column Delusional liberals (Deccan Herald July 21,2011), Ejaz Haider, one of those so described as a delusional Pakistani liberal, wrote:

“Shashi Tharoor is no fool. Quite the contrary. He is a high achiever and combines brilliance with great marketing skills. So, why would he pen an article in the Deccan Chronicle that seems, on the surface, to be fairly lightweight? Precisely because he is smart. He knows perception-formation is important; he also knows reinforcing perceptions is crucial; and he knows the basic rule about perceptions: They are quick to form but resistant to change.” (It’s not just Mr. Tharoor; The Express Tribune, Pakistan July 26,2011)


Ejaz Haider was spot-on: it takes one to know one. He is a practitioner of the same art. His recent column The Marabar Caves complex (The Express Tribune August 3,2011) takes the exercise up a notch by seeming to blatantly portray a dangerous and negative perception of a minority community that is under siege in the Pakistani city of Quetta.

Ejaz Haider is no fool. He wrote what prima facie appears to be an ‘investigative’ op-ed piece, but sticking to his basic charge against Tharoor that perception formation is important, he has broad-brushed the Shiite Hazara people, literally as Iran’s fifth column in Pakistan. In a ruthless but crude manner a target seems to have been painted on the back of the Hazaras — a community, which according to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has lost over 300 members in targeted killings by jihadists, between 1999 and May 2011.

Shashi Tharoor had concluded his column by saying:

“As this otherwise minor editorial spat demonstrates, Indians need to put aside their illusions that there are liberal partners for us on the other side of the border who echo our diagnosis of their plight and share our desire to defenestrate their military. Nor should we be surprised: a Pakistani liberal is, after all, a Pakistani before he is a liberal.”

I submit that Tharoor made the same mistake by classifying at least Ejaz Haider as a liberal that many did with General Parvez Musharraf, when the latter’s pictures holding two dogs were splashed around the world after his 1999 coup d’état. Just as not every dog-cuddling, imbibing and smoking individual is a progressive, not everything that passes for English-language press in Pakistan is liberal, or for that matter, Pakistani.

Many moons ago the Pakistani Army used to be a state within the state, but not any more. The Army is now a state unto itself with some civilian appendages. Many such appendages are working in sync with, if not in the pay of, the Army and some journalists are no exception and work within the ideological framework of the Army, not Pakistan. Calling them Pakistani liberals is a misnomer and diverts attention away from the fact they echo the party line of the behemoth that has a chokehold on Pakistan and its people.

When Ejaz Haider wrote an open letter to General Shujat Pasha, the head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate about the murder of the journalist Saleem Shahzad, many were quick to shower praise on him for his ‘bold stand’ and others went on to sympathize with him for an imaginary persecution at the hands of the ISI. I had cautioned then that just like the pro-judiciary movement was used by the ISI as an ablution ritual to restore ‘credibility’ of many of its associates, including the media personalities, the said open letter was designed to give Haider credibility as a supposedly liberal voice.


In his latest August 3 column, virtually blaming the Hazaras for bringing it upon themselves, Ejaz Haider concludes by saying that “it has become a war of narratives and everyone persists with theirs, deepening the existing fault-lines”. A war of narratives it is indeed, in which, it would seem, Haider has parroted the military’s line. Anyone who has followed Haider’s writings knows that his stories seem to mirror the opinion of the Pakistan Army and this latest column appears to be no exception.

Haider uses anecdotal reports, ostensibly obtained from Hazaras themselves, that Iran is funding the predominantly Shiite Hazara community to use them as proxy. He writes:

“In June this year, about 170 people from the Hazara community were invited by the Iranian government to attend the death anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini. “They were feted by the Iranian government. We don’t know what they were told but this year’s Shab-e Barat saw the biggest-ever celebration known to Quetta’s Shia community. They cut a 40 lbs cake, a novelty. It was an aggressive show,” a Hazara told me.”

He goes on to quote the chairman of the Hazara Democratic Party, Abdul Khaliq Hazara:

“They play in the hands of Iran, our religious leaders … Funds come from Iran through their consulate and we see this action-reaction pattern which takes toll of Hazara life.”

What takes the cake is his use of one single example of a Deobandi prayer leader Abdul Karim Mengal’s assassination, which he claims was the work of the men linked to a Shiite cleric Allama Maqsood Domki.

Amazing that someone on an investigative journey to Quetta would not know the history of the city and its diverse population. The Iranian consulates and cultural centres (called Khana-e-Farhang-e-Iran) are a rough equivalent of the Goethe institutes or Confucius centres and have been functional in several major cities of Pakistan long before any Ayatollah appeared on Iran’s political horizon and were much more high profile venues during King Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi’s days than today. And Quetta-Taftan-Zahedan trade and pilgrimage route has been functional even before the Indo-Pakistan partition. This is an allegation very similar to the one levelled against ‘scores’ of Indian consulates operating in Afghanistan and allegedly supporting the Pakistani Taliban, no less.

Interestingly, Haider makes no mention of the massive presence of the Afghan Taliban in Quetta, especially the Quetta Shura, or the Lashkar-e-Jhangavi (LeJ) in Quetta and its vicinity such as Mastung. He completely glosses over the massive funding received by these terrorist outfits from the Arab governments and individuals. Anyone familiar with this garrison city’s grid plan and its post-1978 demographics would find it hard to believe that the thugs of the Quetta Shura and the LeJ — or for that matter Iranian proxies — can move in or around the city without the knowledge of the security establishment. In addition, any movement of the Taliban to Karachi or northwards to South Waziristan is incomprehensible without the knowledge of the security agencies.

Quetta has a population of roughly a million people. But more importantly the city is home to the Pakistan Army’s XII Corps, ISI regional headquarters, the Balochistan Frontier Corps, a major army selection and recruitment centre and the Pakistan Air Force base Samungli. And last, but not the least, the Pakistan Army’s Command and Staff College, literally a required stepping stone to senior leadership in the army, is at Quetta. Again, this surely is not lost on Ejaz Haider, who, by his own acknowledgement, has taken army-sponsored trips to terror-affected areas and has access to the Army leadership. With the wherewithal at the disposal of the Army it is unimaginable that all they could offer Haider was a single case of Karim Mengal’s killing and that too without a smoking gun. An Iran-sponsored cake is the biggest terrorist threat to the peace in Pakistan? Ayatollahs are no saints but how much more pathetic can the Army’s narrative get?


But Ejaz Haider’s technique here is simple and tried and tested one: paint the genocide of a minority group as a tit-for-tat sectarian warfare and charge the weaker group of getting foreign help. He has written similarly about the Shiite enclave of Upper Kurram Agency, which has been resisting the Taliban onslaught since 2007. In branding the conflict as perennial sectarian battles, he essentially makes a case for the state machinery to not act in defence of the defenceless — a policy that the Pakistan Army has applied in Kurram Agency.

It is actually a quadruple whammy for the persecuted minority communities. First, the state-sponsored terrorists like the LeJ and its assorted incarnations are unleashed on them. Second, the state either takes no action or attacks the victims (e.g. Army airborne attack on Shiite tribes of Kurram Agency in August 2010). Third, it dilutes or pre-empts any national or international sympathy that may appear for the besieged minority populations. Fourth, it creates the spectre of Iranian involvement making the US and allied forces suspicious of, if not outright allergic to, these anti-Taliban groups.

The net result is a perception that the victims have only themselves to blame for their misery, thus justifying and legitimising their slaughter at the hands of Pakistani states’s jihadist assets. I would hope that it is not an op-ed writer's job to order a hit against a community or an individual (though in Pakistan that too has happened). Creating the perception of the aggrieved party as an aggressor sets the stage for its ostracisation and physical elimination. We saw in the case of Salmaan Taseer’s assassination that a frenzy of zealotry was created in the media against him. No one actually called for his murder but many pitched-in to make him a marked man — a perception that was quick to form but hard to shake off.

Which is why, no matter how preposterous and flimsy Haider’s allegations are, they must not go unanswered. For Haider is not naive. On the contrary, he knows exactly what he is doing. Why, indeed, this attention on Quetta in a lightweight yet ominous column? For the answers one has to look at the domestic, regional and international dynamics. Just like Shashi Tharoor wrote his piece with one eye on the 2014 elections and domestic consumption, while also playing to the international gallery where Pakistan runs the risk of becoming the first nuclear-armed failed state and a pariah, Ejaz Haider and the Army have several birds to hit with their one LeJ stone.

The army's primary objective is a demographic change in Quetta. The HRCP and other watchdog groups have documented a significant migration of the Hazaras out of Quetta due to direct threat to their lives and livelihoods. Killings and kidnappings for ransom have forced them to sell houses and properties and move out of Quetta. The objective is to replace them with the state-sponsored jihadist entities like the LeJ and its affiliates.

The influx of the jihadists serves multiple purposes. First, it buttresses the support for the Taliban of the Quetta Shura and allied groups. Among the top few points of contention between the US and Pakistan is the future of the Quetta Shura. The US wants either an opening to talk to the Shura or better yet its elimination — neither of which are acceptable to Pakistan. It is in this context that the movement of the US diplomats has been curtailed, especially in Balochistan and around Quetta. According to a US source, security situation is being cited by the Pakistanis to disallow their movement, despite a recent ‘lifting of ban’ on their travel outside Islamabad.

The same security situation and chaos thus created serves to continue providing safe haven to the Quetta Shura in a thickly populated city, which is difficult to target via drones. This would literally be a repeat of the Army operation in Central Kurram that has been used to disperse and protect the Haqqani network assets among the general population and the camps for displaced people. This cues towards Pakistan’s intent to continue resisting the US pressure to act against the key Afghan Taliban and associated militant groups.

Last but not the least, the ultimate goal apparently is to pitch the LeJ and other terrorist outfits against the Baloch nationalist and separatist movement. The Pakistan Army has come under increasing domestic and international pressure for its genocide of the Baloch. The HRCP and the Human Rights Watch have held the Army responsible for what are tantamount to crimes against humanity. As the US and international pressure ratchets up for Pakistan to withdraw support to the Afghan Taliban groups, sanctions based on multiple grounds remain a tool available to the international community. Along with nuclear proliferation and black-marketing of fissile material, state terrorism against its own people is one such area that is bound to put the Army in a hot seat. This is where Pakistani establishment thinks that its jihadist proxies will come into play.

Writers subservient to the military-industrial complex of Pakistan appear willing to literally throw the vulnerable to the wolves. The only thing more despicable is the silence of the liberal lambs at the outrage peddled as objective journalism. The only thing more despicable is the silence of the liberal lambs at the outrage peddled as objective journalism.

 

[VCheng]

I would love to respond, but it will be too controversial.

 

[Elmo]

I would love to respond, but it will be too controversial.

Go ahead. Do it.

As your signature says, "Ridicule is the burden of the genius" what are you afraid of?

 

[VCheng]

Go ahead. Do it.

As your signature says, "Ridicule is the burden of the genius" what are you afraid of?

Oh I can take the ridicule. It is the threatened BAN that keeps me quiet.

 

[T-Faz]

Liberal fascist = whores in pleasing packaging...

Islamist whores?? isn't it contradictory?

Anyways, i would like to have both whores out of the country on ASAP basis..

Some are already out.

I can name you many Islamist whores but you can't name me one Liberal whore.

Islamic whores are the likes of those countless Mujahideen who were doing someone else's dirty work for some stingers, power and some money.

They do this to this day, sometime the money flows in from the West, sometimes the Gulf and these whores dont stop.

No offence to the real hoes out there though.

 

[Elmo]

Oh I can take the ridicule. It is the threatened BAN that keeps me quiet.

Hunh - who threatened you with a ban?

I didn't - so spout and not be such a pansy.

 

[VCheng]

I think the correct phrase is "ideological whores" that encompasses the many shills in the many fora on PDF.

 

[VCheng]

Hunh - who threatened you with a ban?

I didn't - so spout and not be such a pansy.

Ok, fair enough.

I will be back with a detailed answer.

 

[VCheng]

They are 'whores' on both sides, both the liberal fascists who 'whores' themselves to the West and the PPP, as well as those who 'whore' themselves to the terrorists and Khilafat fantasies.

Let me make one thing clear - just as there is no room for posts supportive of religious extremists advocating in favor of violence against the State, there will be no tolerance for liberal fascists advocating/justifying violence against the state through foreign military interventions.

Both sides are traitors and individuals on both sides should be tried for treason.

This thread will be left open for a little while longer for responses, after which it will be deleted.

Some of you think the current title is not appropriate, well I certainly don't see how the last one was.

Neither drone attacks nor ground raids, including the one to get Osama, are officially supported by the GoP or the Military. They are both also strongly opposed by a significant majority of Pakistanis. As such, both drone attacks and ground troops operating in Pakistan without Pakistani authorization are acts of foreign aggression, and support/justification for them will not be tolerated on this forum, nor should it be tolerated in the Pakistani media or Pakistan.

They are acts of treason, as are those by terrorists.

AM, can you please explain what your comment in bold means, so that I may censor, if needed, my expressions accordingly, BEFORE there is a problem. Thanks!

I am up for it, providing the chest thumpers from both sides are kept in check!

I think it is important to realise that Pakistan and its people have the same right to pursue thier national interests just as much as any other state including the US.

The problem is far deeper than a failure of government leading to an abdication of sovereignty.

The whole society has been hijacked and being led down a path of extremism that is pulling in countries like the US and India by virtue of exporting its virulent ideologies. Failure to deal with these elements by Pakistani institutions is making the case for foreign interventions, direct and indirect.

It is simple: Either the Pakistanis clean up their own house, or others must do it. There is no third way.

Go ahead. Do it.

As your signature says, "Ridicule is the burden of the genius" what are you afraid of?

Okay, so I refreshed my memory, and gathered a few salient reminders for a brief recap.

Now I have to define a fine line between what I want to say, and what is allowed to be said on PDF.

 

[Developereo]

Here's another take on the whole "liberal fascist" issue.

Agnostic, it also mentions the spat between Ejaz Haider and Shashi Tharoor, and the critique is up to par.

The article by Ejaz Haider focussed on the substance of the Indians' relentless attack on Pakistan's military, which is the only institution in Pakistan that appreciates India's real intentions towards Pakistan.

On the other hand, the article you posted is just pathetic character assasination.

While the India-appeasement crowd in Pakistan is naively eager to believe anything coming out of India -- especially if it maligns Pakistan's military -- the facts on the ground do not change. As Haider mentioned, India is engaged in a relentless campaign of defamation and diplomatic assaults on Pakistan and their primary targets are the military-security complex which is most aware of their activities.

While the chattering classes may think it is chic and 'progressive' to appease India, the good news is that they mostly talk amongst themsleves and are soundly ignored by the majority of the population who fully understand the growing Indian threat.

 

[Elmo]

The article by Ejaz Haider focussed on the substance of the Indians' relentless attack on Pakistan's military, which is the only institution in Pakistan that appreciates India's real intentions towards Pakistan.

On the other hand, the article you posted is just pathetic character assasination.

While the India-appeasement crowd in Pakistan is naively eager to believe anything coming out of India -- especially if it maligns Pakistan's military -- the facts on the ground do not change. As Haider mentioned, India is engaged in a relentless campaign of defamation and diplomatic assaults on Pakistan and their primary targets are the military-security complex which is most aware of their activities.

While the chattering classes may think it is chic and 'progressive' to appease India, the good news is that they mostly talk amongst themsleves and are soundly ignored by the majority of the population who fully understand the growing Indian threat.

Have you been a close follower of Mr Ejaz Haider's column - from your post I can tell you are not. He's one of the most vicious, vile people out there in the media - great writer nonetheless. I do agree with his writings from time to time, and then not.

I think the point this particular blog post was making came down a bit too deep down and you probably couldn't get it. It was going one step beyond the rhetoric and seeing how things have been played out the way they are in the mainstream media and the reasons for it.

Ejaz Haider is known for his vitriol against the military but of late the tone he has adopted is one so radically different from his in the past that people have been forced to sit up and notice.

It's alright for him to psycho-analyse Shashi Tharoor, but when an Indian does the same it becomes character assassination?

As for the rest you wrote, I do not believe in our military or what it has to say. I am not a liberal. I am not a fascist. I am not an India appeaser. Stop putting labels on people.

 

[Elmo]

Okay, so I refreshed my memory, and gathered a few salient reminders for a brief recap.

Now I have to define a fine line between what I want to say, and what is allowed to be said on PDF.

Thanks for refreshing mine as well. I think I created this thread by cropping posts off the other one by Rabzon. I know the purpose of this thread and it is to debate LIBERAL and NON-LIBERAL FASCISM.

If you are done being so meek and submissive, which you aren't, just post your reply

[Everyone gets banned - from one time to another. You dont have to modify your thinking/leaning to conform to anyone. Stick to the forum rules, and none of them mention how one is supposed to be thinking about issues a certain ways.
This should be enough clarification and hopefully in the future you would not have to bring this up again.
Let's return back to the topic.]

 

[Developereo]

Have you been a close follower of Mr Ejaz Haider's column - from your post I can tell you are not. He's one of the most vicious, vile people out there in the media - great writer nonetheless. I do agree with his writings from time to time, and then not.

I think the point this particular blog post was making came down a bit too deep down and you probably couldn't get it. It was going one step beyond the rhetoric and seeing how things have been played out the way they are in the mainstream media and the reasons for it.

Ejaz Haider is known for his vitriol against the military but of late the tone he has adopted is one so radically different from his in the past that people have been forced to sit up and notice.

It's alright for him to psycho-analyse Shashi Tharoor, but when an Indian does the same it becomes character assassination?

As for the rest you wrote, I do not believe in our military or what it has to say. I am not a liberal. I am not a fascist. I am not an India appeaser. Stop putting labels on people.

You are right, I don't know much about Ejaz Haider's writing, nor is it relevant to my point, which was that the Indian 'critique' focusses on his character and fails miserably to address the claims made in his article. Regardless of his history, he is spot on with his analysis of the systematic Indian campaign against Pakistan's security establishments. I am not defending him, but the premise of his article.

Ejaz Haider's article specifically focusses on a number of Indian individuals -- not to psychoanalyze them as you allege -- but to demonstrate the Indian agenda at work. He supports his case with specifics.

As for Indian appeasement, my comment is aimed, not at you specifically, but at anyone -- and there are many in Pakistan -- who promote the mantra of poor innocent India being unfairly maligned by Pakistan army for their nefarious ends. As much as I had hoped for peace between India and Pakistan, I am increasingly convinced that India has never been, and will never be, friendly to Pakistan. While there are well-meaning individuals within India, they are a shrinking minority unable to stem the tide of jingoistic nationalism sweeping that country. Far from mending fences with Pakistan, the new India sees Pakistan as the country to subdue and conquer, figuratively, to prove India's dominance to the rest of south Asia and -- especially -- to China.

The relevance to liberal fascism is that many of the individuals who chastize the Pakistani public and military -- usually by parroting Western propaganda verbatim -- are also the same ones who parrot Indian propaganda.