You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'League' tag.
The Destabilization of Pakistan
The debate is heating up between those who favor and oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan. Put me in the latter camp – I cannot support escalation without first hearing a clear explanation of the strategic changes that would accompany the escalation, along with an explanation of how we’ll address issues of government and development sector corruption. In other words, I think that pumping in more troops without addressing the structural flaws of our approach will yield no results.And since we’re a long way away from solving those problems, I think we should hold off on troop increases.
Building an argument for or against more troops involves answering a number of questions. I’m only going to deal with one sub-point here,but it’s an important one: we need to define more carefully what political and social consequences escalation in Afghanistan might have for Pakistan.
One point that everyone on all sides of the debate loves to make is that x, y, or z maneuver by the US might ‘destabilize Pakistan.’ I think we’re reaching a point where we can talk more precisely about what that means. It’s easy to talk about ‘destabilization’ – it’s a nice buzzword that makes you sound authoritative, and an intimidating prospect to scare your audience or your opponents with. It’s a bogeyman. I myself have used it that way in the past. Admittedly,’destabilization‘ can be shorthand for a range of phenomena that are understood by the parties involved in a debate, but I think in this case we need to bring our use of the word back to more concrete details. The debate about Afghanistan/Pakistan needs to be accessible to as many Americans as possible.
HOW JINNAH AND LIAQAT OF THE PAKISTAN MOVEMENT OUTMANEUVERED THE FIFTH COLUMNS:
The Unionists, The Khaksars and the Frontier Gandhi
Posted on December 7, 2007
by Moin Ansari
HOW JINNAH AND LIAQAT OF THE PAKISTAN MOVEMENT OUTMANEUVERED THE FIFTH COLUMNS
The Defeat of Sir Choutto Rams Zamindara League and the Feudal Unionist Parties in the Punjab
By Moin Ansari
Dec. 27th 2007
The silent majority remains supine and tries to ignore the hate-clans polemical diatribes. We are an emotional people. The pullulating millions should not be swayed by the rantings of a few, however on many occasions the young and the impressionable can actually be beguiled. The nurseries of hate produce the lone assassins and the suicide bombers, not by actually showing them how to murder and maim but, rather by creating an atmosphere of intolerance. The question before all of us is the same question that beduffled the nation in the forties; can the majority take cathartic action against this evil phalanx within us? Can the moderate and progressive forces see through the vacuity of the argument proposed by the fringe? If not the clans hate mongering will lead to us anachronism and obscurantism.
If we cannot expose the true agenda of the hate mongers, it will be an opprobrium to our great heritage. For the sixty years a tiny miniscule minority is engulfed in pure unadulterated malevolence. This hate mongering clan brings up obscure arguments, and selects inexplicable references, and has tried to debase our history. Those of us who have not caviled with the facts must challenge the gross inaccuracies over and over again. Let us all coalesce and destroy the cabal that thrives on the profits of feudalism, slavery, and the illieteracy. Our teeming millions are steeped in penury. Can we mprove their lot?
“Most of this area, now called Pakistan, was under Ranjeet Singh’s empire (1799-1839), and even in notorious anarchic era of 1839-1849 the state was sovereign, maintaining unchallenged monopoly coercive power, but lacked societal will and `ethical idea’ to enforce order and, ultimately, collapsed. If that was not a colonialist expansionist era, that state might have prolonged for long despite the internal chaos.”
The period (1937-1947) chosen by Professor Long is momentous in the making of Pakistan. In the pre-1937 period, the Muslim League was a weak and inert organisation, destitute of leadership, funds and the press. It was seen as a coterie of toadies and sycophants basking in the sunshine of British patronage, passing stereotyped, mild resolutions for the protection of Muslims interests and making speeches in the Assemblies and at the Muslim League annual sessions. Mohammad Ali Jinnah then counted nowhere. He was rebuffed by the stalwart Muslim leader, Fazl-I-Husain in Punjab, and distrusted by the Congress. The British ignored him.
Awami Muslim League
Sajjad Ahmad
July 20, 2008
Shaikh Rasheed Ahmad had announced his resignation from PML Q and announces his own party named “Awami Muslim League” in press conference today in Rawalpindi. He said that he is not looking the government playing a long inning and so he decided not to take part in the by elections.
Shaikh Rasheed, usually call himself a self made person, had faced the defeat in the last general elections and was quick to mark this defeat as the defeat to the party not to him! While taking his decision of retirement from politics back, he announced to make his own political party. He continuously and seriously hit hard on the political parties for not giving the way to the people like him to become a national leaders and thus trying to stop the way of those, who, he believes are the true and best representative of the people. Additionally, he also argued that his new party will change the political atmosphere of the country and will turn the current political system to its right direction.
Taking in view the saying of Shaikh Rasheed Ahmad, it is more acceptable and less illogical what he intend to say. Majority of the concerns raised by Shaikh Rasheed Ahmad are true. Such as middle class politicians are not allowed to come up in the list of leaders. As we all know that the majority of the leading politicians are bringing their sons and daughters to maintain their hold over politics and transferring the leaderships of their parties to the children, in the way that these are not the parties but the personal wealth of these leaders, which they are distributing to their children, before they get retired from the politics or died or get killed by each other. Benazir inherited the political property of her father and refused to give the legal share of this wealth to the rest of her brothers and sisters. As a result, there was never a good relationship between her and Murtaza Bhutto. And the assassination of Murtaza Bhutto, happened during her own rule, and was linked to Zardari, her husband. And she made sure that this wealth will be transferred to her son, even before her death. So the third generation of the Bhutto family the country will be facing in the next couple of decades. Read the rest of this entry »
Recent Comments