For the benefit of Hon Members, I copy further correspondence with the Dr H Nizamani of Canada whose article was posted earlier.
Dear Niaz Sahib,
Thank you for your detailed reply. We'll agree to disagree, however, it may turn out that we agree more than we disagree. You've raised number of points that mention unsavory character of self-proclaimed custodians of Islam in Pakistan. I've put my very comments on those points within the text below. My article, and I'll repeat, was not an analysis of the Taliban's politics. IT was about the reasons which are provided for the military action. IT doesn't mean, as I mention in my piece, that I think the Taliban type of force can be tackled exclusively through non-violent means. People like me have been anti-Taliban when they were darlings of the GHQ. And I am still against the Taliban version of the society and their method of politics.
________________________________________
From:
SNiaz@emailsrvc.com
To:
hnizamani@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: Your article; On war and its justifications
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:06:37 +0400
Dear Dr Nizamani,
I am a Pakistani, no more no less. I have seen Pakistan since her birth 1947 and am therefore fully conversant with of all of the happenings that you quote. It pains me deeply whenever I see Pakistan in trouble.
There are too many politicians and Taliban apologists around in Pakistan and abroad who are trying to confuse the issue by disguising the plain truth that Taliban and allied extremists parties (including sectarian parties such as Lashkar Jhangvi and SSP) have a single point agenda, which is to take over Pakistan by force and convert it into a hypothetical medieval state. This has nothing to do with Islam; it is purely a grab for power with the intention of imposing a dark age Pashtun tribal culture on rest of the population with brute force because they would never succeed thru ballot box. You obviously dont see it that way.
CAN YOU FIND A PASSAGE IN MY ARTICLE WHERE I HAVE SAID WHERE I HAVE SAID THAT THE TALIBAN DON'T BELIEVE IN THEOCRATIC STATE AND THAT METHODS ARE PEACEFUL? I DON'T THINK YOU'LL FIND THAT IN MY PIECE.
Firstly, in the last elections it was the secularist parties such as PPP and ANP that won from Swat; if TSNM had come to power thru elections, your argument would have sound bases. It is therefore incorrect to assume that there is a broad based public support in Swat for Taliban or TNFSM Taliban have taken over thru force of arms.
SAME AS ABOVE. WHERE IN MY PIECE HAVE I WRITTEN THAT THE TALIBAN HAVE POPULAR SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF SWAT?
Secondly, TTP as well as Fazlullah of Swat and Sufi Mohammeds commander, Muslim Khan declared in an interview that their aim is to take over Pakistan. ANP leadership claims that Fazlullah asked them to oppose action in Swat, let them capture Punjab and they would allow ANP to form Pakhtunistan. When ANP were negotiating with Sufi Mohammed they had men with suicide jackets sitting either side of them!
For the sake of peace, ANP government went ahead and reached an agreement. Fazululah however did not keep his promise to disarm claiming that Islam gives everyone right to arm themselves. It is therefore an incorrect premise that simply because Taliban/Swati extremists are refusing to accept Pakistan constitution; they are being punished for it. Taliban dont believe in Pakistan at all and totally ignore to accept writ of Pakistan government despite elected ANP government bending over backwards to avoid bloodshed.
However, in the typical manner similar to all Taliban apologists, ignoring all else, you were comparing it with the Martial Laws and saying the Swatis are being single out for their disobeying Pakistan constitution. Nothing can be further from the truth.
I DIDN'T, AND WOULDN'T USE, TERMS AS SWATIS. I DIDN'T FOCUS ON DISOBEYING OF THE CONSTITUTION ALONE. I LISTED THREE COMMON REASONS USED FOR THE MILITARY ACTION.
Previously the constitution was abrogated thru usurpation of power by a single person with no threat to Pakistan territorial integrity.
THIS IS WHERE WE'LL HAVE FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT. IN MY ESTIMATION A SINGLE PERSON CAN SURELY ATTEMP TO USURP POWER BUT IS UNLIKELY TO SUCCEDD UNLESS THERE IS CREDIBLE BACKING FOR HIS/HER SUCH ACTS. SECONDLY, IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR ARGUMENT CORRECTLY, IT IS NOT ONLY ABOUT PAKISTAN'S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY. EVEN IF WE SHIFT THE GOAL POST AND REDUCE IT TO TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY THEN TWO ISSUES ARISE. FIRST, THE TALIBAN CLAIM TO TURN PAKISTAN INTO AN ISLAMIC STATE NOT BREAK IT UP.SECONDLY, PAKISTAN WAS DISMEMBERED IN 1971 WITH A LONG SIMMERING ALIENATION OF BENGALIS THAT WERE DIRECT RESULTS OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL RULE, LACK OF FEDERATION, AND LACK OF PLURAL POLITICAL SYSTEM.
You have every right to your point of view; however, articles such as yours published in widely read newspapers create doubt in the minds of the ordinary Pakistanis because Taliban have successfully managed to exploit Islam for their nefarious purposes.
This is a war for the survival of Pakistan as a state; I have no idea to which country you belong and whether you deliberately chose to spin the facts to prove your point; in my book you article is bordering on sedition against the state of Pakistan.
ACCORDING TO PAKISTAN'S LAW SEDITION IS A CRIME PUNISHABLE BY DEATH. UNFORTUNATELY CRITICAL THINKING IN PAKISTAN HAS BEEN CHOKED USING SEDITION AS PRETEXT. I DON'T THINK IT HAS SERVED THE COUNTRY WELL. AS THAT FAMOUS GUY PUT IT: PATRIOTISM IS THE LAST REFUGE OF.... SO LET'S AGREE TO DISAGREE BUT I WONT JUMP TO ACCUSE PEOPLES' PATRIOTISM BECAUSE THEY DISAGREE WITH ME. BUT THAT'S MY PERSONAL STYLE. SINCE I'M NOT SUPPORTER OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT THE LAST THING I WANT TO SEE IS PEOPLE LAWFULLY HANGED ON THE FLIMSY GROUNDS LIKE 'SEDITION.'
Normal curtsey however demands polite words if nothing else and I sincerely apologize for the rude words in my earlier e-mail. Let us agree to disagree.
Yours faithfully,
Syed Niaz
From: Haider Nizamani [mailto:hnizamani@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:05 PM
To:
sniaz@emailsrvc.com
Subject: RE: Your article; On war and its justfications
Dear Mr Syed Niaz,
Thank you for taking the time out to read my piece and consider it worthy of your comments.
I think you've misunderstood and/or miscontrued my argument. It could well be because of lack of clarity on my party. I haven't talked of any reason. I have critically analyzed/put into context three reasons that are often cited as the grounds for carrying out the current military action. You've repeated some of them in your belligerent and somewhat impolite email.
Best wishes,
Haider Nizamani, PhD
School for International Studies
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver Canada