Foreign Policy of Dignity

[SQ8]

The majority of Pakistani's, even the ones with a liberal outlook utter this inane phrase a lot stating that being a Pakistani is associated with Islam as Islam is the binding force in this nation.

What they fail to look at is the fact that religion was a reason for the creation of the state but not the purpose. The idea was that there would not be any differences between Muslims, Hindu's, Parsis and Christians becuase all of us will have one single unifying entity called Pakistan and we would simple be known as Pakistani's. Religious differences had already occured in British India where groups were formed based on religion and this should not have happened in Pakistan but alas it occured and look where we are today.

This whole idea of Pakistan falling apart if Islam is not a part of it was always present amongst certain sections of our society but it become a mainstream phenomenon during the late 70's and early 80's. The idea of being a Pakistani is that you belong to a nation called Pakistan which is a lump sum of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan. Had Islam been the core reason for the state, the name Pakistan would not have been used the flag of this nation would not have a white stripe for the other religions that were a part of it.

Simple put, religiousity wrecked this nation.

That is the punch line..
religion has been shoved down Pakistan's throat so much.. that now it has thrown everything out..
Previously ..There was the allure of a potential Second Turkey...albiet more refined.. more balanced.. than the secular reactionary society that Ataturk put out.
But the vision of Pakistan.. had been adulterated.. and finally murdered..
People like zia used religion like a two bit cheap whore(pardon my french) to further their agenda's to stay in power.. and make money..
It sank in the bay of bengal.. and is buried in the mountains of FATA..
and thanks to the element that once opposed creation of Pakistan.. and now have taken it on to destroy it.. what skeletal remains were there are being crushed into nothingness.

So.. ironically.. the very banner of Islam that the turbaned and bearded "badd-lagam" use to burn Pakistan.... will need to be fought with the same fire as well.. now the future of Pakistan is in a revival of Islam.. and I say revival.. since most of what Passes for Islamic revival.. these days.. has very little "Salamti" involved in it.
I have faith in this.. it will happen...

 

[muse]

Absolutely incredible posts from T-Faz, Develepero and Santro -- this stuff makes it worthwhile to show up and read on this forum.

 

[notorious_eagle]

To have an independent foreign policy of dignity, you need an economy that is self sufficient and is not reliant on hand outs from foreign nations and institutions. Pakistan's economy has enormous potential, if the tax system is reformed and enforced, and economic fundamentals are set on the right path. Economic growth of 7-8% is not a far fetched idea for a country like Pakistan, but for that to happen people need to come out of their shells and actually accept the ground reality. Instead of wasting time on politics and petty little issues, people need to grill down our political leaders on their economic policies. If only i wish people come out on the streets like they did for the Raymond Davis issue, Pakistan's economic growth will sky rocket.

 

[muse]

Notorious


Pakistan's problem in that regard has been, other than govt policy, the inability to generate capital surpluses and so it must depend on capital from abroad - and of course it's govt policies are not conducive to attracting surplus capital - people don't trust the individuals who are in powerful positons and of course, business are watching with interest how the federal and provincial governments (and private interests) are dealing with issues such as Gwadar and Mining, not just in Balouchistan but also Sindh, and of course the racket over "water" (read KP and Sindh).

 

[T-Faz]

That is the punch line..
religion has been shoved down Pakistan's throat so much.. that now it has thrown everything out..
Previously ..There was the allure of a potential Second Turkey...albiet more refined.. more balanced.. than the secular reactionary society that Ataturk put out.
But the vision of Pakistan.. had been adulterated.. and finally murdered..

The demise of Pakistan's original vision is written about very often. But I fail to understand that how it can be dead when there are people who are still fighting for it. Be it online, in the mainstream media or in the political arena, you will always find people advocating for a Pakistan that Jinnah wanted.

I believe that what Jinnah wanted is very much alive, not in the state itself but amongst its citizens.

People like zia used religion like a two bit cheap whore(pardon my french) to further their agenda's to stay in power.. and make money..
It sank in the bay of bengal.. and is buried in the mountains of FATA..
and thanks to the element that once opposed creation of Pakistan.. and now have taken it on to destroy it.. what skeletal remains were there are being crushed into nothingness.

Islam will live on no matter what Muslims do or what is associated with it because the fact remains that a large number of Muslims still abide by its core tenets. Unfortunate is the fact that Islam is represented by the extremists only because they are vocal and the rest remain quiet.

They remain quiet only because they are unsure whether the others will raise their voice with them.

So.. ironically.. the very banner of Islam that the turbaned and bearded "badd-lagam" use to burn Pakistan.... will need to be fought with the same fire as well.. now the future of Pakistan is in a revival of Islam.. and I say revival.. since most of what Passes for Islamic revival.. these days.. has very little "Salamti" involved in it.
I have faith in this.. it will happen...

What ought to happen is that Pakistan, a nation associated with Islam should work towards excellence in all forms present.

Like Iqbal said:

"(Pakistan is) for Islam, an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.”

 

[Vinod2070]

Like Iqbal said:

"(Pakistan is) for Islam, an opportunity to rid itself of the stamp that Arabian Imperialism was forced to give it, to mobilise its law, its education, its culture, and to bring them into closer contact with its own original spirit and with the spirit of modern times.”

He never said this about Pakistan! He just meant a Muslim province within India.

Dr. Sir Mohd Iqbal, M.A., Ph.D. Barrister-at-Law

Lahore 4 March 1934

My Dear Mr. Thompson,

I have just received your review of my book. It is excellent and I am grateful to you for the very kind things you have said of me. But you have made one mistake which I hasten to point as I consider it rather serious. You call me a protagonist of the scheme called “Pakistan”. Now Pakistan is not my scheme. The one that I suggested in my address is the creation of a Muslim Province – i.e; a province having an overwhelming population of Muslims in the North-West of India. This new province will be, according to my scheme, a part of the proposed Indian Federation. Pakistan scheme proposes a separate federation of Muslim Provinces directly related to England as a separate dominion. This scheme originated in Cambridge. The authors of this scheme believe that we Muslim Round Tablers have sacrificed the Muslim nation on the altar of Hindu or the so called Indian Nationalism.

Yours Sincerely,

Mohammed Iqbal

Allahabad Address - ZAMP Wiki

 

[T-Faz]

He never said this about Pakistan! He just meant a Muslim province within India.

Allahabad Address - ZAMP Wiki

Pakistan was originally meant to be a autonomous province within the federal state of India but the rigid stance of the congress meant that it become increasingly difficult for the Muslim League to work with it. Similarly the rising communal tension in British India meant that a new state, rather than a province would be the best solution.

Jinnah too followed this line of a province and even accepted the cabinet mission plan but the friction between the two parties made the creation of Pakistan inevitable.

You have hence proved my point that Iqbal was not made out to be one of the founding fathers of Pakistan but a proponent for a province called Pakistan within the Federal state of India.

 

[Moorkh]

That is the punch line..
religion has been shoved down Pakistan's throat so much.. that now it has thrown everything out..
Previously ..There was the allure of a potential Second Turkey...albiet more refined.. more balanced.. than the secular reactionary society that Ataturk put out.
But the vision of Pakistan.. had been adulterated.. and finally murdered..
People like zia used religion like a two bit cheap whore(pardon my french) to further their agenda's to stay in power.. and make money..
It sank in the bay of bengal.. and is buried in the mountains of FATA..
and thanks to the element that once opposed creation of Pakistan.. and now have taken it on to destroy it.. what skeletal remains were there are being crushed into nothingness.

So.. ironically.. the very banner of Islam that the turbaned and bearded "badd-lagam" use to burn Pakistan.... will need to be fought with the same fire as well.. now the future of Pakistan is in a revival of Islam.. and I say revival.. since most of what Passes for Islamic revival.. these days.. has very little "Salamti" involved in it.
I have faith in this.. it will happen...

I am skeptical that you will be able to fight this fire with fire.
At the end of the day moderates can not outfight the extremists as long as they share the same ideology. In this case it is the supremacy of Islam. While you envision a state where islam is followed in its true spirit, you can not achieve it with the banner of Islam. The banner has already been taken by the extremists who are now maligning it.

Why I say that moderates(in this case you) can not take on the extremists is because they share the same platform. The extremists will simply present themselves as more muslim than the moderates by shouting how they are using all means possible to "fight" for Islam. something moderates wont do. once that happens, the extremists will take all the support and the moderates will fail.

The only way out is to beat the extremists using another ideology and once that is done, implement your view of what the country should be like.

 

[SQ8]

I am skeptical that you will be able to fight this fire with fire.
At the end of the day moderates can not outfight the extremists as long as they share the same ideology. In this case it is the supremacy of Islam. While you envision a state where islam is followed in its true spirit, you can not achieve it with the banner of Islam. The banner has already been taken by the extremists who are now maligning it.

Why I say that moderates(in this case you) can not take on the extremists is because they share the same platform. The extremists will simply present themselves as more muslim than the moderates by shouting how they are using all means possible to "fight" for Islam. something moderates wont do. once that happens, the extremists will take all the support and the moderates will fail.

The only way out is to beat the extremists using another ideology and once that is done, implement your view of what the country should be like.

Which would be?

The reason I advocate islam.. is simple..
while the extremists are louder.. they hold less depth..
their logic is based on shallow arguments.. arguments that are based on hate.

By presenting an alternative to their concepts... and a less edgy ideal of Islam..
it is possible to negate them..
It will not be easy.. persistence will have to be key.. the side that has more patience.. will win out..

 

[Vinod2070]

Pakistan was originally meant to be a autonomous province within the federal state of India but the rigid stance of the congress meant that it become increasingly difficult for the Muslim League to work with it. Similarly the rising communal tension in British India meant that a new state, rather than a province would be the best solution.

Jinnah too followed this line of a province and even accepted the cabinet mission plan but the friction between the two parties made the creation of Pakistan inevitable.

You have hence proved my point that Iqbal was not made out to be one of the founding fathers of Pakistan but a proponent for a province called Pakistan within the Federal state of India.

You guys are having a good discussion and I think it is primarily a Pakistani discussion. I just jumped in because of what I felt was a factual mistake that is very common.

I don't think that Muslim province was to be called "Pakistan". It was a totally different idea compared to the two state solution. Iqbal explicitly makes that point.

 

[Developereo]

There was the allure of a potential Second Turkey...albiet more refined.. more balanced.. than the secular reactionary society that Ataturk put out.

That is my hope as well.

I hope we can find a balanced, middle ground between the ascetic, acerbic secularism of France and Holland on the one hand, and the suffocating religiosity of the Ayatollahs and the Wahhabis on the other. I do believe Ataturk went too far with his suppression of Islamic heritage.

I don't know that there is an existing example of a moderate, tolerant, progressive and inclusive society based on Islam, but that does not mean that such a society is impossible. Indeed, that is our challenge to forge precisely such a society and, for those of us who believe in the essential goodness of Islam, the challenge is an achievable one.

I would wish for a Pakistan where all religions are free to openly practice their faith, instead of being forced to hide it in their basements. Religion is not something to be worn on you sleeve, but it is also not something to be ashamed of.

On the one hand, we want one set of laws for everybody in the country, but we also don't want to force religiously inspired laws onto unwilling citizens. So the compromise is to have a legal system inspired by Shariah, but compatible with Western common law. Needless to say, the more extreme interpretations of Shariah will be rejected. At the end of the day, if the legal system is fair and just, and does not favor one religion over another, it really doesn't matter if it was inspired by Shariah or Western tradition.

 

[Moorkh]

Which would be?

The reason I advocate islam.. is simple..
while the extremists are louder.. they hold less depth..
their logic is based on shallow arguments.. arguments that are based on hate.

By presenting an alternative to their concepts... and a less edgy ideal of Islam..
it is possible to negate them..
It will not be easy.. persistence will have to be key.. the side that has more patience.. will win out..

Choose any of the ideologies out there.

Nationalism, for a start as long as it is separated from islam. Present Pakistan not as an Islamic country but as a country defined by a shared heritage, cultural and otherwise. Stop extending support to Palestine because its a muslim country. Extend the support because of humanitarian reasons. Instead of harping about muslim brotherhood, let the views be presented as humanitarian or pro-Pakistan.

Socialism/Communism - I dont know how well it works out economically but if pitched hard enough, it has a lot of allure. The more downtrodden the target audience, the more attracted they will be to communism. As I see it, most of the extremist recruitment is among the poor and deprived. Let the hope of better living conditions undercut the pitch of going to heaven that the islamic extremists make.

I dont agree with it but even the french variety of secularism might be used as a counter ideology.

Take Turkey as an example. Use any of the means available to separate religion and state and move forward from that.

I can understand that you feel strongly about using a less edgy ideal of Islam to not only stop the extremists but also negate the damage they have done to the image of Islam.
But as I mentioned in the previous post, moderates will never be able to present themselves as better "muslims" because they wont be fighting the "others". That will seal the deal for the public whos support both the extremists and moderates are vying for.

 

[muse]

With the House of Saud and the Wahabi officialdom in the pockets of the US, the radicals in the US and among the Wahabi are pushing for a confrontation, but the Wahabi may find their days numbered regardless of what they do - without US there is no Saudi Arabia, in fact there is no Wahabi monopoly -- Will the US abandon the Wahabi for the House of Rouhaniyan e Iran?? -- However, there is a another idea at work simultaneous in the region, an idea which suggests that the US has failed to be a honest manager of affairs the UK once managed and perhaps it's time for the UK to do so again, it can't do a more poor job than the US - witness, the emirates, but it all be too late:



Saudi Arabia leads the counter-revolution

Farrukh Saleem
Wednesday, April 06, 2011

ISLAMABAD: House of Saud is the biggest indigenous counter-revolutionary force in the Middle East. Other counter-revolutionary forces in the area include House of Khalifa, the ruling family in Bahrain, House of Al-Sabah, the ruling family in Kuwait, House of Al Said, the ruling dynasty in Oman,

House of Al Thani of Qatar, House of Al-Falasi the ruling dynasty of Dubai, House of Al-Falahi of Abu Dhabi, the Qaddafi family, led by Muammar Qaddafi and his seven sons and Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

House of Saud, fully backed by the military might of the United States of America, has now become the biggest defender of status quo. House of Khalifa has the 5th Fleet of United States Navy headquartered at the Naval Support Activity Bahrain. House of Al Thani has CENTCOM’s forward HQ at Al Udeid Air Base with 8,029 US military personnel and the House of Al-Sabah is host to 25,250 US troops.

Al Mamlakah al Arabiyah as Suudiyah has been an absolute monarchy for 267 years. House of Khalifa, migrating from Saudi Arabia in 1766, have ruled Bahrain for 245 years as a constitutional monarchy.

House of Al-Sabah also migrated from Saudi Arabia and has ruled Dawlat al Kuwayt for 259 years as a constitutional hereditary emirate. The Ayatollahs of Jomhuri-ye Eslami-ye Iran, for the sake of their own strategic interests, are becoming the biggest indigenous revolutionary force in the Middle East. Here are two things about Iran: one; Iran is the largest indigenous conventional military force in the region (under the US-Iraq Status of Forces of Agreement “all US forces will be completely out of Iraq by 31 December 2011”. Two; 40 percent of the world’s seaborne oil shipments pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Back to the revolution. It all began in Tunisia on 17 December 2010. Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-immolation turned the pre-existing individual frustration into collective aggression. Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had to flee.

Middle Eastern Sheikhdoms have two things: barrels of oil and tons of frustration. Individual frustration is now turning into collective aggression. Initial protests are usually about reforms but longtime dictators take these protests as a challenge to their authority. If and when non-violent, reform demanding protests begin to produce martyrs protests have a history of becoming violent-and demanding regime change.

Counter-revolutionary forces in Bahrain and elsewhere will try bribery as well as violence to dilute revolutionary fervor. There will be periods when counter-revolutionary forces will appear to be winning but more often than not demonstrators will come back. There will be cycles of protests, killing of demonstrators, funerals and more protests. Revolutions — more often than not — pass through a series of nightmares before reaching the dream.

Forget Libya because Bahrain is where the real storm is brewing. Iran sees this as a historic opportunity to alter the balance of power in the Persian Gulf. The US is goading the House of Saud to fight it out. King Abdullah bin Abdul-Aziz, at 87, is not well. Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz, at 83, is not well either (rumored to have colon cancer). Prince Nayef bin Abdul-Aziz, the 78 year old hard-hitting, second-in-line to succession to the throne, is overall incharge.

The real power-play is on. If and when Iran gains an upper hand the US will negotiate with the Ayatollahs for a new balance of power. The storm is fast approaching and once it does the Middle East would be the same never again.

 

[T-Faz]

You guys are having a good discussion and I think it is primarily a Pakistani discussion. I just jumped in because of what I felt was a factual mistake that is very common.

I don't think that Muslim province was to be called "Pakistan". It was a totally different idea compared to the two state solution. Iqbal explicitly makes that point.

The Muslim province was going to be called Pakistan as it would have been a combination of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh & Balochistan.

Chaudhary Rehmat's idea was entirely different though, he asked for three states called Pakistan, Usmanistan and Bangistan.

The name didn't refer to the a separate state initially, just a province but the likes of Rehmat Ali did want a state rather than a province from the beginning.

 

[muse]

A complete planted piece -- It's not just in Pakistan that people are confused, the same is true of policy makers in the US, Mr. Gates may indeed realize that the US must disengage and withdraw, so that it can have a chance to reengage on very different terms, but others are not persuaded by such ideas -- readers will note that the Wahabi princes and the US agree on a way out of the Arab spring, by attacking Iran's popularity:


Defense Chief on Mission to Mend Fences With Saudi King
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: April 6, 2011


RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — After a rebuff last month from King Abdullah, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates met privately with the Saudi ruler for an hour and a half on Wednesday in an attempt to thaw ice-cold relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Mr. Gates described the one-on-one session to reporters afterward as an “extremely cordial, warm meeting,” but his comments lasted barely a minute before he was whisked away by aides. Mr. Gates did have time to say that he declined to raise with the king one of the most contentious issues separating the two countries: the Saudi decision to ignore President Obama last month and send in Saudi troops to crush an uprising in neighboring Bahrain.

No one from the American side was in the one-on-one meeting, and King Abdullah was accompanied only by the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, who served as interpreter for both men. Mr. Gates’s aides said beforehand that they expected the meeting to be lengthy and tense, but Mr. Gates, a former director of Central Intelligence, had not briefed them on any particulars as of Wednesday night in Riyadh.

Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia are in their worst state since the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, but the Obama administration is trying to quietly manage the rupture. To that end, Mr. Gates and his aides spoke publicly before and after the meeting of the common ground between the two countries: The fear of an ascendant Iran and Washington’s recent $60 billion arms sale to Riyadh.

“I think the relationship is in a good place,” Mr. Gates told reporters. “We talked about developments all over the region. Obviously we talked about Iran.”

Both the United States and Saudi Arabia say they are concerned that Iran’s Shiite rulers will take advantage of the revolts sweeping the Middle East to foment Shiite movements against Sunni rulers, as the Saudi royal family fears may happen in Bahrain. “We already have evidence that the Iranians are trying to exploit the situation in Bahrain,” Mr. Gates told reporters, repeating assertions he has made before, although he provided no details. “And we also have evidence that they are talking about what they can do to try and create problems elsewhere as well.”

The $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia, which includes new F-15 fighter jets as well as a wide array of missiles, is in large part intended as a defense against the threat of missiles from Iran.

Despite the arms sale, the United States and Saudi Arabia remain at odds not only over Saudi troops in Bahrain but also President Obama’s decision to support the protest movement in Egypt rather than its president, Hosni Mubarak. In the view of the angry Saudis, Mr. Obama abandoned the Egyptian leader.

After Mr. Mubarak was out of the office, the Saudis cancelled planned visits to Riyadh by Mr. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying the king was not well. But both Pentagon and State Department officials were left wondering if the king was more upset than ill. A subsequent phone call from Mr. Obama to the king asking that Saudi troops not enter Bahrain did not go well. An Arab official later said that King Abdullah’s willingness to listen to the Obama administration had “evaporated” since Mr. Mubarak was ousted.

On Wednesday at his palace, the king, who is in his 80s, looked thin but appeared in good spirits. He recently returned to Saudi Arabia after months of medical treatment in New York and Morocco for an unspecified ailment.

Mr. Gates’s aides said the defense secretary did discuss Bahrain with the king in an abbreviated group session before the longer one-on-one meeting, but it was in general terms.

The two countries disagree fundamentally on Bahrain. The Saudis believe that a Shiite uprising next door might encourage a similar revolt among Saudi Arabia’s own Shiite minority population, which the Obama administration does not dispute. But the United States wants Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to adopt political reforms that might lead to a larger voice for Shiites under Sunni rule.

The disagreement came home to Mr. Gates vividly last month, when he had talks with the ruling family of Bahrain and then asserted that he was confident they were headed toward reform in the face of protests. Within two days, the Saudis had sent in troops.

Mr. Gates left Riyadh on Wednesday night for Baghdad, where he was set to meet with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq and some of the 47,000 American troops still in the country.