April 21, 2015
By Ghalib Sultan
A former political appointee Pakistani ambassador to the US has been resident in the US since 2012. He moved there after a court case investigated his possible connivance in a letter to the US asking them to make defanging the Pakistan military a condition for US support. At that time the term ‘trojan horse’ came to mind. Now this gentleman has given the terms ‘toady’ and ‘turncoat’ a whole new meaning. In an article in the Wall Street Journal dutifully picked by our media he questions the US government’s wisdom of selling helicopters and missiles to Pakistan and ‘advises’ the US against such a step. His reasoning is that Pakistan will use these weapon systems to ‘fight’ India and against the Baluch insurgents.
In his enthusiasm to appeal to a certain segment in the US and to a larger audience in India the former ambassador forgets that Pakistan already has such weapon systems and is using them only in the Counter terror operation being executed by the Pakistan military with much success. He also forgets to state that Pakistan is fully aware of the asymmetry with India and has no desire to enter into an arms race to achieve parity. Pakistan’s full spectrum deterrence is designed to ward off the threat from India and not to ‘fight’ India –unless the former ambassador knows of Indian plans for aggression against Pakistan that lesser mortals are not aware of. Pakistan does not need such US supplied weapon systems to deal with the handful of externally sponsored ‘insurgents’ in Baluchistan. Pakistan is doing a good job of sidelining not only them but also the criminals in Karachi. The US is aware of this reality and it does not take decisions without fully considering the consequences. So they have taken absolutely the right decision and at the right time in terms of US interests.
The former ambassador’s outburst will find resonance among others in the US who never lose an opportunity to do a hatchet job on Pakistan especially its military and intelligence apparatus. He will certainly be lauded in India where he visited recently specifically to bad mouth his country — much to the delight of his hosts. The trouble is that those making verbal attacks on Pakistan to please their masters have fitted themselves into a groove by saying the same old things again and again so one just has to read the name of the author to classify the article and discard it. As the townspeople told the Pied Piper of Hamelin—‘go on fellow do your worst, blow your pipe till you burst’ when they refused to pay for his services. One wonders if there is a profit motive behind such blatant unpatriotic utterances.
April 20, 2015
Attempts are being made to mainstream the preposterous claim that the communal problem in India was imagined. Surely, there is no smoke without fire. To believe that an entire country was founded on a farce is consensual idiocy to say the very least. Perhaps, those who aim to find faults with the thought process of Pakistan’s ideological fathers should widen the scope of criticism to Lala Lajpat Rai and Savarkar. The invocation of Hindutva and the creation of an exclusive definition of Indian citizenship were attributed to the latter while the former was a strong proponent of partitioning Punjab, Bengal and Assam based on religion. The post-colonial reality was that if the British left India and Indians to grapple with issues emerging out of the communal challenges faced, the majority (Hindus) would prevail over the Muslims and push them into a corner. Given the uncompromising and stubborn attitude of the Congress when it came to addressing the Hindu-Muslim problem, such a situation could have easily arisen where the Muslim elite would struggle to find its place in the power structure to in any way represent their community effectively in a united India. Pinning the entire blame on one community—a minority that warranted the use of a ‘microscope’ for the division of the subcontinent is a bit of exaggeration. It was the inability of India’s two popular political forces to inspire trust and forge a consensus on working for the betterment of their people.
Even today the problem is the same and the hostility in the relationship between the two neighbors despite sharing a common history is understandable. The responsibility for the lack of bilateral cooperation on various issues of mutual interest cannot solely be shouldered by the Pakistani side. Fingers cannot solely be pointed towards Pakistan’s ideological roots and the ‘moth eaten’ country’s struggle with stability. Pakistan is a reality. In real life, it isn’t about the cards you’re dealt, it’s about how you play the hand. Or let’s go closer to home. In Nehru’s words, “the hand you’re dealt is determinism, the way you play it is free will”. A sensible way to make use of free will in this case is to try to cooperate with the neighbor-next-door for regional integration and cooperation to safeguard the security objectives of both countries which are intertwined.
April 14, 2015
The fight against extremism is far too important to allow the narrative to overtake the facts.
Tarek Fatah is a high-profile Muslim critic of Islam.
He is admired by some and detested by others for his outspoken views, including unflinching condemnation of anti-Semitism in the name of Islam. However, a review of Fatah’s response to the recent murders of two New York City police officers calls into question his credibility as a voice of tolerance and moderation.
As reported by The New York Post, two NYPD cops were gunned down on Saturday December 20 “after a career criminal drove from Baltimore to Brooklyn to kill police officers in a twisted bid to avenge the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.” The deceased officers are Rafael Ramos, who leaves behind a wife and two sons, and Wenjian Liu, whose wife of two months said goodbye to him for the last time earlier that day.
Ismaaiyl Brinsley, the killer, was a 28-year-old African- American, who ultimately turned the gun on himself.
Read Full Article: Tarek Fatah calls White Americans and Canadians racist
April 14, 2015
Ms Fair is anything but fair. She is obsessed with Pakistan and never loses an opportunity to vent her fury. Maybe it’s a case of — ‘hell hath no fury like a woman scorned?’. Whatever the reason she invariably becomes most unreasonable in her attacks not only in her articles but also on the social media. Maybe this is her only form of enjoyment and if so she should just carry on. Most of her readers and followers understand her obsession and no longer take her seriously — at least in Pakistan.
Her latest article — Ground Hog day in Pakistan — is a gem. Fortunately the average Pakistani does not know what a ground hog or ground hog day is nor do they know of the American fascination for it. So ‘ground hog day’ does not fly. It confuses and in any case hogs in any form are not acceptable.
April 10, 2015
So once again its about freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
A professor at LUMS, Dr.Anne-Christine Habbard, wanted to launch an open dialogue on Balochistan specifically calling upon the issue of human rights and abuse of power by the Pakistani security against the peaceful people of Balochistan. There is no point is delving into the details about the situation in Balochistan. To most educated people who like to read and do research before forming an opinion about an issue things are (and should be very clear). To put things in to correct perspective in the simplest manner I will do the lazy thing and just copy paste a comment I read online under one of the articles on the tragedy of this LUMS event be canceled by the men from the establishment!
April 7, 2015
This is in response to an article titled “Pakistan’s Selective Fight against Terrorism Threatens U.S. Security Goals in South Asia” published by the Heritage Foundation on March 27. Heritage Foundation is a U.S. based think tank promoting conservative public policies and a strong national defense. Their dubious standard of research can be judged by the fact that the think tank gained prominence in 2013 for releasing a report against immigration reform that said immigration legislation pending in the Senate would cost $ 6.3 trillion over 50 years as immigrants consumed federal benefits without making up for it in taxes. A similar report published in 2007 by Heritage helped sink a comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate by quoting the cost as $ 2.7 trillion. The report failed to account the economic benefits from immigration and was criticized by both left and right. The co-author of this disputed report came under fire due to his earlier racist claims about immigrants having low IQs and how they should be kept out of the country.
April 7, 2015
Once again, paranoid analyses of the future of peace within Afghanistan are surfacing: analyses that pin most of the blame on Pakistan. Rife with trite observations, frozen in time and repetitive, these analyses are wanting in terms of substance. The fluid dynamics of Pakistan’s own internal security landscape seem to be missing altogether—that the country’s challenges have risen to hitherto unprecedented levels is also conveniently left out of the discussion. Pakistan is seen invariably as a volatile partner, a partner that should not be trusted completely.
Passing off the country’s vulnerabilities as an intentional effort to undermine and sabotage the strengthening of peace within Afghanistan is a little unjust to say the very least. We live in the NOW and reflect on the past to prepare ourselves for the future. Even if this line of argumentation is to be humored to a degree, what good will pursuing such a mindless strategy achieve for Pakistan in the NOW? That is to say, in an era when terror groups collude on goals and draw synergies from each other. Perhaps, it is important to remind those who are fearful of Pakistan’s ‘double game’ of the existence of a porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the impact of spillover.