Unsettling Precedents for Pakistan

#6 by Naqshbandi on September 11, 2003

``complete and deliberate destruction of Iraq`s civilian infrastructure, use of cluster bombs in civilian areas, daisy cutters, depleted uranium bombs and the directly related deaths of at least 10, 000 Iraqi civilians``

Do you have any evidence that Daisy Cutters were used in Iraq?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

zeynab74 # 70

USA will try to buy off Pakistan. But Pakistan cannot persist with support of terrorists and nuclear technology deals. If Pakistani military persists in their nefarious activities USA will have no choice but to dismantle the Pakistani regime.

Pakistan is a lot easier than Iraq in some ways - hostile neighbors India and Iran. Nobody cares if Pakistan is balkanized. Pakistan has no oil.

zeynab74 # 70

Excellent article in Time on Pakistan`s dealings with US

# 38 ijaz_gul

It is indeed unfortunate that the Pakistan government continues to follow up with its centre-periphery relationship with the US, paying no heed to the forewarnings coming even from within the US itself such as by all the people that you mentioned. Our policy makers are obviously living in some kind of a delusional reality, almost believing that all of Pakistan’s problems will vanish away one day like a bad dream.

# 17 dost_mittar

You wrote “ Pakistan need not worry about an American invasion in the short or even medium term. The US hands will be full with Iraq for a long time to come. However, if the Afghanistan situation keeps worsening and more evidence of the Pakistani collusion in supporting taliban keeps emerging, then all bets are off. In the long run, the security of Pakistan lies in not continuing to make itself and its relationship with India a hostage to the Kashmir issue. The support for jihadis in Pakistan will continue to be strong as long as hostility with India continues.”

I totally agree with you, Pakistan would be doing itself a favor if it decides to let the Kashmir issue a back seat for a while. I believe the same contention would be true for India too.

Like I said in my article, ‘Pakistan will never face a US invasion like Iraq’ for various reasons. Apart from the economic disincentive, as you mentioned, the disaster in Iraq should make the US think twice about invading another country soon, specially so with the dwindling support within the US public for such military escapades. I worry not about the US invading Pakistan, but more about Pakistan’s never ending dependency on the US which allows it to manipulate our policies in every way possible and figuratively leaves us caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

# 6 Naqshbandi

In retrospect I do agree with your point about the destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure etc. I must admit to my opinion being inadvertently influenced by the ‘liberal’ voice of the US media in this regard. There’s a price you pay for living in this side of the world I suppose.

#4, #8 stuka

This article was meant to be thought provoking, not necessarily alarming. Although, given the incessantly apathetic attitude of our ruling elite, it would do no one harm to be alarmed for a change....I do believe our policymakers need a real wake up call !

I am sorry to have offended you but my opinion was based on actual statements made by Indian politicians like Brajesh Mishra who said in June this year, `India is a regional power and should be treated like one` and Jaswant Singh who proclaimed last year `Pakistan should not equate itself with India in any way, we are not just a neighbor we are a growing world power`.

That is not to say that this is untrue, India is in a totally different league from Pakistan with its superior social, economic and human resource development and it would do us a great deal of good as Pakistanis if we stop competing with India and focus on developing our own resources. And by the way I too do resent statements like those made by Mr. Advani saying `terrorism in India is an outgrowth of Pakistan`s frustration at its own lack of progress`.

#13 Banjaara

Yes, Shahid Zulfiqar is my father

# 38 ijaz_gul

It is indeed unfortunate that the Pakistan government continues to follow up with its centre-periphery relationship with the US, paying no heed to the forewarnings coming even from within the US itself such as by all the people that you mentioned. Our policy makers are obviously living in some kind of a delusional reality, almost believing that all of Pakistan’s problems will vanish away one day like a bad dream.

# 17 dost_mittar

“ Pakistan need not worry about an American invasion in the short or even medium term. The US hands will be full with Iraq for a long time to come. However, if the Afghanistan situation keeps worsening and more evidence of the Pakistani collusion in supporting taliban keeps emerging, then all bets are off.
In the long run, the security of Pakistan lies in not continuing to make itself and its relationship with India a hostage to the Kashmir issue. The support for jihadis in Pakistan will continue to be strong as long as hostility with India continues.”

I totally agree with you, Pakistan would be doing itself a favor if it decides to let the Kashmir issue a back seat for a while. I believe the same contention would be true for India too.

Like I said in my article, ‘Pakistan will never face a US invasion like Iraq’ for various reasons. Apart from the economic disincentive, as you mentioned, the disaster in Iraq should make the US think twice about invading another country soon, specially so with the dwindling support within the US public for such military escapades. I worry not about the US invading Pakistan, but more about Pakistan’s never ending dependency on the US which figuratively leaves us caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.

# 6 Naqshbandi
In retrospect I do agree with your point about the destruction of Iraq’s civilian infrastructure etc. I must admit to my opinion being inadvertently influenced by the ‘liberal’ voice of the US media in this regard. There’s a price you pay for living in this side of the world I suppose.

#4, #8 stuka

This article was meant to be thought provoking, not necessarily alarming. Although, given the incessantly apathetic attitude of our ruling elite, it would do no one harm to be alarmed for a change....I do believe our policymakers need a real wake up call !

I am sorry to have offended you but my opinion was based on actual statements made by Indian politicians like Brajesh Mishra who said in June this year, `India is a regional power and should be treated like one` and Jaswant Singh who proclaimed last year `Pakistan should not equate itself with India in any way, we are not just a neighbor we are a growing world power`.

That is not to say that this is untrue, India is in a totally different league from Pakistan with its superior social, economic and human resource development and it would do us a great deal of good as Pakistanis if we stop competing with India and focus on developing our own resources. And by the way I too do resent statements like those made by Mr. Advani saying `terrorism in India is an outgrowth of Pakistan`s frustration at its own lack of progress`.

#13 Banjaara

Yes, Shahid Zulfiqar is my father.

Question: Why Mush wants Niazi`s Revolver back desperately? He could have requested for it!

No, having lost the 1971 war, he wants to steal it so that he can even question the fact of surrender by Niazi and ask everybody to show the proof that any surrender ever happened.

IMA displays Niazi`s revolver- PTI

The Indian Military Academy Commandant, Lt. Gen. T.S. Shergill, showing the revolver handed over by Lt. Gen. A. K. Niazi during Pakistan`s surrender in the 1971 war, at the academy in Dehra Dun on Monday. — PTI

Dehra Dun June 30. The Indian Military Academy (IMA) today displayed before the media the revolver handed over by Lt. Gen. A.K.A. Niazi, during Pakistan`s surrender in the 1971 war and said the security around the museum where it has been kept was being strengthened in view of the theft of a pistol from the National Museum in New Delhi last week.

The pistol, which was earlier believed to have belonged to Lt. Gen. Niazi, went missing on Saturday from the Maritime Heritage Gallery.

The IMA Commandant, Lt. Gen. T.S. Shergill, displaying the revolver and photographs showing its surrender to Lt. Gen. J.S. Aurora, Army`s Eastern Commander in Dhaka, said ``the priceless symbol of our glorious victory was brought to the alma mater and presented to the then IMA Commandant, Lt. Gen. M.Thomas, on December 9, 1982 by Aurora during the golden jubilee celebrations.``

The revolver, which came from the Eastern Command at Kolkotta where it was lying since the surrender ceremony, had been at the IMA museum here since then, he told reporters.

The weapon ``has a very emotive value and is a source of inspiration for out cadets and future Army officers,`` Lt. Gen. Shergill said.

The IMA chief showed a photograph of the handing over of the weapon by Lt. Gen. Aurora to Lt. Gen. M. Thomas in 1982.

On the left side of the weapon is written ``Lt. Gen. Niazi`s personal weapon`` and on the other ``surrendered to Lt. Gen. Aurora PVSM, 1971``.

would like all to read the post for a better historiography on

GENESIS OF RUTHLESS AUTHORITARIANISM AND UNDEMOCRATIC MODE OF GOVERNANCE IN THE EARLY YEARS OF PAKISTAN(1947-’55) [PART I and II]

By M. Waheeduzzaman Manik

#184 by mwzaman on January 3, 2000 1:04am PT

http://www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=00000687&channel=civic%20center&start=0&end=9&page=1&chapter=1

I know that one chapter on our present benevolant dictator would also be added to it by future historiographers which would make our succeeding generations wiser !!

gr8 article by young pakistan auther in dailytimes.pk
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_15-9-2003_pg3_4

Saad Anis

Op-ed: A policy of deceit

Our people have rigid and erroneous opinions on serious issues. Instead of being objective and logical, they are irrational and ignorant. Such an attitude is not surprising, considering the flagrant storytelling prevalent in our educational system

Presenting a distorted version of events to the people is an odious practice but it has been the norm in our country ever since independence. The people are continuously fed propaganda and lies. The objective is to paint a picture that vindicates the stance of the state on the matter at hand, no matter how unjust and incongruous the reality. The history that is taught in educational institutions throughout Pakistan is a case in point; this version of history is replete with half-truths and, in some cases, blatant fibs.

Innumerable examples can be quoted in this regard. Take the Indo-Pak war of 1965. Even today, almost four decades after the altercation, a large majority of our countrymen still believes, in accordance with the propaganda that it has been fed, that India initiated the conflict. One can still vividly recall the many textual lessons recounting how, one night, our devious enemy slipped into our territory unprovoked, with the treacherous aim of destroying our homeland. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

What all such texts fail to mention is the fact that in August 1965, two military operations were launched by the Pakistan government into Indian-held Kashmir. Armed militants infiltrated across the ceasefire line (now the LoC), with the aim of inciting a revolt which would allow the Pakistan army to take Srinagar. It was in reply to these incursions that India launched an offensive on Lahore. It was an act of retaliation, not one of pre-emption. Sadly, we are only told the latter half of the whole affair.

In the same pattern, the Dhaka Debacle, the dismemberment of East Pakistan, makes a truncated appearance in our institutionalised version of history. If the issue is ever brought up, which is rare, it is the usual rant of the entire episode being a conspiracy hatched by the evil Indians. While it is true that India was guilty of gross interference in the Dhaka tragedy, one cannot overlook the fact that the separation of East Pakistan was brought about by decades of West Pakistani dictatorial policies and subsequent Bengali deprivation.

What we are not taught in schools is how Bengali dissent was suppressed when the language issue arose in 1948, or how the substantial Hindu population of East Pakistan was unthinkingly alienated by the Objectives Resolution in 1949. The unfair and unjust treatment consistently meted out to the East is conveniently forgotten.

In 1963, more than half the population of Pakistan comprised Bengalis, whereas the army contained a paltry six per cent Bengali personnel. A similar incongruity plagues the civil services. By 1969, the per capita income of the West was 61 per cent higher than that of the East. The famous dictum that ‘the defence of the East lies in the West’ was a political disaster, whatever its worth in military terms. Instead of highlighting the mistakes made and learning from them, subsequent administrations have embarked upon a futile tirade against Indian interference. None have had the moral courage to point out that the West looked upon East Pakistan as a mere colony.

The advocates of feeding the people a doctored account of history argue that it is imperative for maintaining national morale. They point out that as a nation, we already have to contend with much adversity. Hence presenting a distorted account of history is essential for maintaining high spirits and patriotism. The conclusion is that a biased account of contentious issues is portrayed for the greater good of the country. This is a hollow argument to say the least.

The proponents of this custom do not realise that by keeping the public in the dark, they are endorsing violent jingoism not prudent patriotism. As a result of the misinformation, our people have rigid and erroneous opinions on serious issues. Instead of being objective and logical, they are irrational and ignorant. Such an attitude is not surprising, considering the flagrant storytelling prevalent in our curricula.

Predictably, this approach backfires. Whenever any government tries to adopt a rational policy on any issue, there is a vituperative public backlash. The Kashmir issue is a telling example. Today, the people of Pakistan are unwilling to accept a compromise on Kashmir because of the propaganda they have been fed in the past.

They think the accession of Kashmir to India was illegal, as the majority of the people there are Muslims; rightly it should have seceded to Pakistan. Once again, what most people are unaware of is the fact that according to the rules of partition of the Indian subcontinent, the fate of princely states was to be ascertained solely by their rulers. The populace of the state did not have a say in it, nor were the religious or ethnic affiliations of the people the guiding principles. Thus Maharaja Hari Singh’s accession to India was perfectly legal on that account. In fact, by invoking the same rule, Junagadh, a state with a Muslim ruler but a Hindu majority population, initially acceded to Pakistan. In fact Pakistan still lays claim to the state though it is not an issue that is ever brought up.

Similarly, the Indian army is portrayed as the only perpetrator of inhuman atrocities in the Valley. But the fact is that the militant organisations fighting in Kashmir have also been involved in numerous incidences of violence against the local populace. Owing to the convenient transformation of the Kashmir issue into a religious one, the killing of innocent Kashmiri youngsters by militants simply because the former are not willing to turn to violence has become commonplace. However, our governments ignore this aspect of the conflict.

History is documented so that nations learn from their mistakes. However, by distorting it to suit vested interests, we are nurturing a self-righteous and misinformed population. This policy of deceit will continue to harm the very national interest that it avowedly protects.

Saad Anis is a student at Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Technology

An Encore!
To counter bullukhan`s spam and Harimou`s silly post.

---

#58 by echoboom on September 14, 2003 8:54pm PT
ROMAIR:
This would clear up the garbage being spewed by non-muslims and anti-Islamists.
Zaid, a slave, was adopted BEFORE the beloved-one (pbuh) was a prophet. The wisdom and beauty of the annulment of this practice would be appreciated by all.

Also, inheritence law allow to bequeath 1/3rd of one`s wealth in whichever manner one wants to do so.

Temporal is absolutely right. Thanks to Iranian revolution, Salman Rushdie, Gulf War 1 & 2, and the Twin-towers the yearning for learning is red-hot and we are all, willy-nilly, acquiring madressa education. Even commies, infidels and atheists are scampering to learn.
What they know not is that several rabbis, pundits, bishops/archbishops, mahints, and gurus started learning precisely to counter Islam and ended up its respected adherents and servants.

[Pickthall and Asad, the former Churchills buddy & promising englishman and latter a rabbi,
are well-known translaters of the Qura`an. Asad, a polish jew, was also Pakistan`s first permanent ambassador to UN in 1948.]

There is no other choice for a muslim or an apostate to ignore Islam. The Blanket would just not let go.

THERE IS A DESIGN INDEED!

---

Adoption is forbidden in Islam. But according to authentic Hadiths related by Al-Bukhari, the Prophet adopted a son named Zaid.

Both statements of the prohibition of adoption in Islam and the Prophet`s adoption of Zaid are correct. The explanation of these two apparently contradictory facts lies in their chronological order.

Zaid ibn Haritha was a young child when he was kidnapped by fighters who raided the living quarters of his tribe when their men were out on their business. Zaid was sold as a slave and he ended up in Makkah when he was given as a gift by her uncle to Khadeejah, who later was married to Muhammad, her third husband. At that time, he was 25 years of age. Lady Khadeejah was a rich woman who married Muhammad, having learned much about his character which filled her with admiration. At that time, Muhammad was being carefully prepared by Allah for his forthcoming mission as the last prophet to be sent to mankind. Needless to say, neither he nor Khadeejah knew anything at that time. Prophet-hood came 15 years after his marriage.

Khadeejah made a gift of Zaid to her husband so that he would have a good servant.

Zaid`s father was full of grief when he learned of what had happened to his son. He tried hard to find out where he was carried to. Perhaps, it was a few years before he learned that Zaid was in Makkah, a slave in one of its most distinguished households. He, therefore, traveled with his brother hoping to buy his son`s freedom. When they spoke to Muhammad about Zaid, they requested him to agree to sell Zaid back to them and to accept a reasonable price for him. He made them a different offer saying: ``I will charge you nothing. If he prefers to stay with me, I will not part with anyone who prefers my company.`` They said: ``This is indeed a very reasonable offer.`` When Zaid was called in, Muhammad asked him whether he recognized the two men. On receiving an affirmative answer, Muhammad offered him the choice of going back or staying with him. Unhesitatingly, Zaid chose to stay with Muhammad saying to his father and his uncle, ``I have seen things of this man which make me keen never to part with him.`` When Zaid made his choice, Muhammad took him by the hand and went to the Ka`aba where he addressed the people present saying to them: ``Bear witness that I have adopted Zaid as a son who will inherit me and I will inherit him.`` Zaid`s father was gratified and he went back home with his brother.

This is how the adoption of Zaid by the Prophet came to pass, long before he became a prophet. Ever since that day, Zaid was called in Makkah and everywhere else as ``Zaid ibn Muhammad.`` This continued to be the case throughout the 13 years during which the Prophet preached his message in Makkah and in the early years of his stay in Madinah. It was later that the verses of the Qur`an which speak of adoption were revealed. These make it clear that adoption is prohibited and that every adopted son or daughter must be called after his or her real father. This automatically abrogated the adoption of Zaid who reverted to his original name, Zaid ibn Haritha, in compliance with Allah`s orders.

The Prophet was very kind to Zaid through their association. He arranged Zaid`s marriage to his own wet nurse Umm Ayman who gave birth to Zaid`s son Ussamah, whom the Prophet loved very dearly. Later on, the Prophet married Zaid to his own cousin, Lady Zainab, who only accepted the marriage to please the Prophet. The marriage was an unhappy one and Zaid reluctantly divorced Zainab. The seal on the prohibition was placed by Allah Himself when He instructed the Prophet to marry Zainab. Thus, the Prophet demonstrated practically the nullification of all adoption. Had adoption been of any significance, it would not have been possible that the Prophet marries a former wife of his former adopted son. The fact that the marriage took place and was specifically ordered by Allah left no doubt whatsoever that adoption is totally forbidden in Islam.

---

What the evil-ones like hamidm, the alcoholic islam-hater, just can`t figure out is that the beloved-one (pbuh) could have married this cousin himself in the first place.

CHOWK is becoming better & better and is a good place to understand Islam. THe evil-ones are providing a yeomens service here--just like Rushdie and Osama did.

Staying in the news is staying alive--in today`s multi-media savvy world.

Ref echoboom #58

Somewhere I read that one of the Moghuls married his half-sister. I can look up the details if you want.

Is this also permissible under Islam?

To the admirers of dictators. Here is one eye opener:

The rewards for being a U.S. terrorist arm in South Asia have been lucrative for the Pakistan military`s officer corps. During the war against the Soviets, Afghanistan supplied 60% of the U.S.`s heroin. Pakistani generals ``were deeply involved`` in this drug trade, and three of them were counted amongst the twelve richest generals in the world.

The most prominent was General Fazle Haq, known as ``Pakistan`s Noriega.`` Haq was appointed governor of the Northwest Frontier Province (bordering Afghanistan) by General Zia-ul Haq, Pakistan`s military dictator during 1977-1988. As governor, Fazle Haq was in charge of Mujahideen military operations. He also protected the production of 200 heroin labs near the border. In 1982, Interpol identified Haq as ``a key player in the Afghan-Pakistani opium trade.`` Haq. who had $3 million in his bank account, was protected from drug investigations by Zia and the CIA.

In 1993, Raoolf Ali Khan, Pakistan`s representative to the UN Commission on Narcotics, said that ``there is no branch of government where drug corruption does not pervade.`` The CIA reported to the U.S. Congress in 1994 that heroin had become ``the life-blood of the Pakistani economy and political system.``

Drug trafficking is just one part of the Pakistani military`s parasitism. The armed forces own an airline, sugar mills, chemical plants, a cereal factory, and several hospitals. Officers and their families are supplied with free servants, education, and medical care, and the best real estate in large cities is reserved for them.

The price for their country`s being a U.S. terrorist base has been paid by the Pakistani people, who for 55 years have been massacred, tortured, denied education (the illiteracy rate in Pakistan is 90%), medical care, housing, adequate nutrition, and political rights. Pakistan ranks near the bottom of the UN`s list of countries by every measure of human development, including infant mortality, life expectancy, the poverty rate, and the population growth rate.
Published in The CCPA Monitor, June 2002
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives

This is another post regarding our benevolent dictators

An Ex-Army Officer Questions the Khaki Agenda

By AH Amin

WE START with the premise that religion was employed by the Muslim elite right from the very beginning to galvanize the Muslim masses. The masses were galvanized to fight and die in the name of Islam, while the elite classes reaped the harvest. While this was the case from the earliest Muslim invasions of India we shall only discuss Pakistan`s power equation in its present historical context.

The Indo Pak Muslims played a leading part in the 1857 rebellion while the vast bulk of the army that rebelled in 1857 was Hindu. After 1857 the Muslim elite adopted a policy of ``loyalism`` to the British.This policy continued till 1947 and after 1947 the British were replaced by the Americans.

Symbolically although it may sound unpleasant one may compare the Indo Pak Muslims of pre 1947 as a damsel, half raped by Hindu and Sikh resurgence saved by an English knight in the shining armour i.e. the ``English East India Company``. It is unheroic, but remains a fact. By 1803 Delhi the old Muslim capital was firmly in Hindu Maratha hands while Muslim majority Punjab and Frontier was firmly under Sikh control. Muslim ruled Sindh and Bahawalpur were only saved from Sikh occupation since the Treaty of Amritsar of 1809 between the English Company and Sikhs forbade Sikh expansion east of Sutlej and in Sindh.

The Indian Muslims were politically backward and saved from political extinction once the British for their own reasons of divide and rule granted them right of separate electorate in 1909.

The major Muslim leader of pre 1947 Mr Jinnah was initially a pork eating, whiskey drinking Indian nationalist but was forced to adopt slogans of Muslim communalism since Gandhi and Nehru sidelined him from main Indian nationalist leadership since Jinnah was not a Hindu, although Nehru was only a born Hindu and an atheist at heart.

Thus Mr Jinnah without the religious slogan was confined to Muslim minority provinces in 1937 elections. The approach of Second World War and Congress`s anti British stand afforded Jinnah with an opportunity to side with the British Raj in WW Two by encouraging Muslim support to British war effort. The British viceroy Linlithgow then asked Jinnah that he must have a concrete slogan. Thus emerged the Pakistan Resolution of 1940.

In 1947 Mr Jinnah concluded that since now the British who had saved the Indian Muslims from Hindu domination were gone he must find new protectors. Thus the US -Pakistan collaboration.

Mr Jinnah`s successors were removed by the military usurper Ayub in 1958 and Ayub attempted to transform Pakistan into a relatively modern state led by a monopoly of industrialists and feudals. The attempt failed in 1969.

Pakistan`s first and only major ideological leader was Mr ZA Bhutto who coined the term ``Islamic Socialism``. Bhutto created Pakistan`s only solid political party and galvanized the masses by slogans of Islamic Socialism and egalitarianism. Bhutto`s ideological appeal and charisma survived his judicial murder by the military usurper Zia.

Bhutto`s party remained engaged in struggle with the military junta and won the 1988 elections held in the aftermath of the dictator Zia`s aircraft crash.

1988 was the turning point in Pakistan`s political history. Bhutto`s opportunistic daughter Benazir exchanged ideology for power. The army and its intelligence set up and a conservative president was given a share in the power and the great Bhutto`s daughter excelled not in socialist policies but in financial deals.

This situation enabled the military junta to replace Bhutto by a military backed Nawaz Sharif twice in 1990 and 1997. By 1997 Nawaz became politically mature and turned the tables on the military sacking first a naval chief on charges of corruption in a submarine deal and then the army chief General Karamat for corruption charges in the Ukrainian tank deal.

Nawaz then led Pakistan while Pakistan detonated its nuclear device in 1998 and then went forward to make peace with India which was sabotaged by the army`s Kargil faux pas.

Nawaz was overthrown by Musharraf in October 1999 once Nawaz was also planning to remove Musharraf.

Musharraf came to power with high ideals and promises to eliminate corruption but ultimately used the army`s coercive anti corruption organ NAB designed to eliminate corruption to buy corrupt politicians to form a pro military party PML Q.

The events of 9/11 proved that the Pakistani military junta had no guts to resist American pressure and the post 9/11 Pakistani policy again proved a watershed since it divorced the army from Islamic ideology and adventurism which the military had used to secure its very personal trade union of generals agenda since 1958.

The following are the salient features of Pakistan`s power equation:

1. All political parties are now directly or indirectly manipulated by the army`s intelligence agencies either by blackmail, by coercive policies of NAB for involvement in corruption cases or by confinement of various political leaders in jail.Nawaz Sharif and company are politically sidelined, financially on the retreat since their businesses are nearly blocked, and keen to compromise with the army who no longer needs them. Benazir has no ideological agenda and wants power. She lobbies in the West that she is West`s best bet against fundamentalism, an idea which no longer sells since General Musharraf has already proved that he is US` s best collaborator. The religious MMA despite all its slogans of Islam is either in league with the military intelligence or blackmailed by the agencies or keen to enjoy the rewards of power.

2. The judiciary has been bought by the army or reduced to impotence.

3. The common man is in the grip of inflation and unemployment and is disillusioned with politics.

4. The smaller provinces i.e. Baluchistan and Sindh are sidelined and can in the future incline towards secession at some stage.

5. The army has destroyed or corrupted all major political and other institutions and is now fully involved in business and commercial activities of all types.

6. The country`s majority province Punjab is led by collaborator politicians who have agreed to be loyal to the military since their corruption has been condoned by the military.

7. The elite classes and the middle classes are by and large in favor of the military junta since it promises order and security.

Out of this the following scenario emerges:

1. The US can very conveniently strike any deal with Pakistan`s military junta ignoring Pakistani masses aspirations and all political parties since no Pakistani party has any ideology or agenda less personal interest.

2. Within 5 years Pakistan would be as irrelevant to the region as Mexico is to North America or Bhutan to India.

3. The Pakistani politicians if need be would as easily compromise with any occupying power whether it is India or US just to continue to enjoy their personal perks and privileges.

4. At some stage the Pakistani military would lose so much of its credibility that it would no longer be able to control the situation. This is because within the next five years war would no longer be the favored form of policy and the existing geopolitical situation would demand that India and Pakistan`s huge military establishments are reduced.

Conclusion

If this was to be the future of a state created in the name of ideology,sacrificing millions in the name of religion, a united India was a better option.

If the Pakistani state was destined to be ruled by corrupt politicians and generals it would have been better if India was not divided.

But British imperial interest and the interests of the elite classes demanded otherwise. Thus the whole farce in the name of religion. Self deception par excellence!

The writer is a former Pakistan Army Officer and a military analyst and has written several books.

Another post for army lovers

How Army Generals will become billionaires, overnight

Special SAT Report

RAWALPINDI: Top Pakistan Army Generals, and their fortunate juniors, who own prime property in the heart of Islamabad’s sister city, Rawalpindi, are on the verge of turning into billionaires over night.

According to well informed insiders a summary is being prepared recommending that Rawalpindi’s busy Peshawar Road and the posh Mall Road, where army officers predominantly own large properties, be declared as Commercial areas, thus multiplying the value of these properties several times over in one stroke.

The question being raised is why this concession is being restricted to these areas? Insiders confide that it is being done because one of the top most Generals owns land right next to the old Frontier Works Organization (FWO) Headquarters on Peshawar Road and wants to put up a gas station and build a commercial plaza, without paying the conversion fee.

Conversion of residential property to commercial is allowed even now but a hefty fees has to be paid by the owner and that restricts many from opting for the change. If the change is ordered by the Government under a new policy, everybody will benefit though the exchequer may lose.

Real estate experts say one General, owner of a major hospital, who has taken possession of the old Supreme Court building on Peshawar Road on the pretext of running a social welfare outfit, will see the value of his land multiply into billions. The same will be true for all those retired or serving property owners in this area.

Peshawar Road and Mall Road are two of the busiest places in Rawalpindi and properties are pre-dominantly owned by army personnel as this is the center of the military presence, with the Army GHQ located on the Mall Road itself, close to the biggest hotel of Rawalpindi.

There are also reports that conversions in the Saddar Area, which had been limited into a time frame with a cut off date, may now be given a further extension to enable owners to apply if they could not do it so far.

The extension is being done to benefit another top notch General, whose family had earlier shown lethargy in getting its property located near Hati Chowk in Saddar, converted into a new commercial lease.

The management of all properties in military controlled “Cantonment areas” was the sole right of Army authorities but the second Government of Benazir Bhutto cut into this huge commercial asset and changed the old British Act to take discretion away from the Quarter Master General of the Army and the Ministry of Defense.

This Benazir decision raised alarm bells in the GHQ as this meant public scrutiny of whatever would happen in the future in the Cantt areas and was one of the main reasons why the Army hates Benazir Bhutto as an institution.

Under the amended law a policy was drawn up by the Ministry of Defense, but bureaucrats played their tricks with the PPP government and formulated a much softer policy, whittling down the intent of Benazir’s directive in many ways.

One constraint plugged in was that all property owners desirous of converting from old grant to new lease or for converting from residential to commercial must do so within three years.

Secondly, the fee for conversion was to be determined by a Committee headed by Army’s General Officer Commanding (GOC). The other members were Station Commander, Log Area Commander etc. Due to public objections, however, the latter was modified and fixed rates were announced for conversion from residential to commercial.

Most private property owners continued to pay the rather steep fees for conversions. But now if the law is changed and officially a particular area is declared as commercial, it would mean a windfall for the owners.

The summary being prepared under quiet instructions of the top Generals would put the new political government of Mr. Jamali in a difficult position as it would be seen by all as a special favor to the military owners of property.

Interestingly the Ministry of Defense is again headed by a top PPP leader, Rao Sikandar, who has defected from the mainstream PPP to join the Forward Bloc in support of the pro-army government of Mr. Jamali.

But the political leader who will face the toughest time explaining any such decisions would be Information Minister and Rawalpindi’s popular politician Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. He will have to come up with a lot of arguments to convince his voters and constituents, specially living outside the areas which are to be declared commercial.

Another post for the admirers of our army:

Pakistan eaters
Saturday, January 25 2003 @ 07:39 PM CST
Shehla Butt
An analysis shows what the army does to the country that gives the warriors 45% of its budget every year, putting the future generations in a whirlpool of debt. The exalted image of the Pakistan Army that had taken a lifetime to shape up in my mind has been shattered in the past few months, though the fault has entirely been mine. The generals didn`t change a bit in their thoughts in the last five decades; it was my own perception of them, which was wrong all along. I tried to figure out the `achievements` of our warriors in the 55 years of Pakistan`s existence during which the country used to give them 45% of its national budget every year; in the process, putting its population and the future generations in a whirlpool of debt.

Just look at what the military demands and gets from the nation. Besides their gadgets, meant for display and rhetoric alone, there has been an abundance of personal benefits for the military brass. The expensive and often multiple housing properties, the allotment of choice agricultural land, business ventures through on-job connections, fleets of staff cars, duty-free Mercs for the chiefs, thousands of military batmen for household work and quotas for the warriors and their children in every national facility. Add to it the post-retirement jobs for every general and as many brigadiers and colonels as the army chief can accommodate. At present, there are over a dozen generals in foreign ambassadorial assignments alone. The civilian government sector is teaming with hundreds of military officers either still in uniform or on a post-retirement second (or third) stint. This is in addition to tens of thousands of post-retirement military men who are having a second go at employment. This is happening in a country where educated unemployment is a major curse and has forced thousands of talented young men and women to flee the country in search honourable living elsewhere. Our army brass never tires of its competition with the Indian army, yet never compares their own perks with their counterparts in India. Can the generals of the Indian army even dream of the lifestyle of a Pakistani general, serving or retired? After this colossal dole-out, what is the country getting in return?

Has the army ever done the job that it is (over) paid for? In the summer of 1965, Operation Gibraltar was launched by Pakistan`s GHQ to wrest Kashmir from Indian occupation. Not a bad idea. However, the plan fell apart for it was fallacious in its vision, execution and efficiency. The compounded follies allowed India to launch a full-scale offensive on September 6 on the international border, almost taking Lahore while our generals were napping. In the end, it was Tashkent, which provided `Field Marshall` Ayub with face-saving from a disastrous adventure from which he and the country never recovered. As a cover-up, Ayub`s spin-doctors launched an avalanche of propaganda in the local, government-controlled media to hoodwink the nation that the military machine under his command had `defeated` the Indian army that had `sneaked in the dark`.

A similar stupidity was repeated by General Musharraf in 1999 in taking Kargil heights and expecting India to sit back and watch. For India it turned out to be a military, diplomatic and propaganda victory since they found much support amongst the Americans and the Europeans for their viewpoint. Domestically, it resurrected Vajpayee`s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party government from the political grave. Yet Musharraf called the operation `a great military success` in his typical bombastic manner. In any other country, he would have been court-martialled for the disastrous results. Not in Pakistan!

The 1999 coup was not done to dismiss `corrupt` politicians or sanitise the political scene or restore the country`s pride. Generals in Pakistan always emerge `faultless`. What if they cannot defeat the Indians or liberate Kashmir? They can surely defeat their own countrymen and capture the Prime Minister`s House and parliament in no time! A short recap of 1971, lest we forget the humiliation engraved on our hearts. Then, like in 1965, the military as well as the civil leadership was in army hands. It was November 1971; war clouds were looming over the subcontinent after Indira Ghandhi had publicly declared her desire to capitalise on the `opportunity of a century`. Lt General Amir Abdullah Khan a.k.a. `Tiger` Niazi thumping his chest in front of the foreign journalists, declared that the enemy tanks would have to roll over `his chest` before entering Dhaka. But the enemy did not trouble Niazi`s fragile chest. It captured Dhaka in no time, without him having to offer a fight! Niazi happily handed over his revolver to Lt-Gen Jagjit Singh Arora at the Paltan Maidan ceremony. Rest of Pakistan was just stunned with disbelief and dejection.

The disgraced Tiger Niazi, instead of committing a suicide to salvage some honour for himself and his country, held a kebab party for his victorious enemy counterpart. I am not left with any words to shame him. Other commanders like Maj-Gen Farman Ali, fled for their lives and left 90,000 soldiers of the largest Muslim army in the world to surrender in abject humiliation. With the Indian army concentrating its troops on the East, our GHQ cannot claim that their forces were `heavily outnumbered` in West Pakistan. Yet we lost thousands of kilometers of territory in Shakargarh sector in the Punjab, hundreds of soldiers (perhaps more) were martyred in the deserts of Rajasthan in an abortive `offensive` and strategic heights were lost in Kashmir (that were never regained). It was rather kind of Indira Gandhi (more likely it was American pressure to keep its anchor in Pakistan for future needs), which saved Pakistani Army from total rout. Generals Yahya, Hamid, Pirzada, Mitha etc. were in no position to do anything to save Pakistan. `Brave` Yahya, the C-in-C himself was too drunk, sitting in the laps of entertaining women like Aqleem Akhtar Rani, to be able to think or act.

Yet no heads rolled, no court martial, not even any a mock trial. The diluted Hamoodur Rehman Commission Report was hidden away from the people of Pakistan for 30 years, even denied of its existence. Then it was partially released

---

only when the `Times of India` had put the contents on the Internet for the whole world to see. You would have thought there would be some remorse, some apologies to the nation. ``Come off,`` said Musharraf, the Generalissimo currently in charge, ``the 1971 defeat was not a military defeat. It was the politician`s fault`` (hinting at Zulfikar Ali Bhutto). Having said that, he and his men had plenty of other jobs to do, the most important being the complete conquest of their own countrymen. From Ayub`s losses in 1965, to Yahya in East Pakistan and Kashmir, to Ziaul Haq`s loss of Siachen Glacier to Musharraf`s retreat from Kargil and Afghanistan, there is no shortage of military `achievements`. To compensate, from time to time the army launches military operations to conquer its people. In 1970s it was the operation against the civilians in Balochistan, in the 1990s it was the city of Karachi and now, it is the tribal territories of the Pushtoons, at the behest of our American masters.

The helpless and downtrodden people of Pakistan can do little else to influence their own destiny. For the few who dare to oppose the generals, there is always something to sort them out -- the National Accountability Bureau, some hastily discovered corruption/criminal charges, exile or the gallows! It is sufficient for the generals that a few dozen political prostitutes are always around them, eager to sell themselves out and dance to GHQ tunes to give the generals a fake aura of credibility. The army has always insisted on making every civil institution accountable to them yet has never submitted itself to any civilian check. There is always that bogus logic given to us that the military has a foolproof `internal` accountability system. But like the politicians of our country, the generals as well are neck deep in corruption. Dare anyone ask how the sons of Generals Akhtar Abdur Rehman and Ziaul Haq became billionaires? The late General Fazle Haq was quoted to be the richest general in the world in his days. The Afghan war of 1980s made many generals and brigadiers filthy-rich in Pakistan, from kickbacks and even worse crimes that better not be discussed here.

Why is there no talk about the one billion dollars spent on that white elephant called the Al-Khalid tank project. After spending all that money, what was the need to look for tanks from Ukraine and that too under suspicious financial deals? And why is no one taking General Mirza Aslam Beg to task, making him accountable for the 100 million rupees of public money that he squandered on political dish-outs. Benazir Bhutto in her tenure as prime minister once offered the chief of army staff General Waheed Kakar, a `gift` of a denationalised industrial unit, at a throwaway price. What for? It was evidently a political bribe, but was happily accepted and the general was rich by a few tens of million rupees almost overnight. Ojhri camp (ordinance depot) disaster took over a thousand civilian lives in Islamabad and Rawalpindi and billions of rupees worth of damage was done but none of the generals responsible for it was held accountable. The list is endless.

Talking about courts of law in Pakistan touches the sorest of nerves. What the generals have done to the 1973 Constitution of Pakistan was high treason. Period! But imagine their bravado; they not only got away without any fear but have trumpeted around with unabashed arrogance and contempt. This was only possible because the superior courts of Pakistan have become partners in crime with the military generals in subverting the rule of law. Who should the people of Pakistan turn to, for justice? A few weeks ago I was attending a course in one of the universities in the UK, where I happen to meet a group of Muslim students. One of them, a Malaysian, commented on a news item, which reported the killing of a dozen Pakistani Army soldiers by Pakistani tribesmen and their allies fleeing American persecution. In turn, some of the `rebels` had also died. It was a shameful incident in which Muslims on both sides were killed, at the behest of the Americans. The Malaysian student asked me: ``Has Pakistani army become a mercenary army now?`` ``Aren`t you fighting for America and killing fellow Muslims simply because America is giving you a few million dollars?`` she asked. Mercenaries? Beyond my wildest of dreams, I had never thought of Pakistani army being labelled a mercenary army. To me, they have always been soldiers of Islam and defenders of the nation. Yet the accusation had substance and I had no answer to it. My head just hung in shame.

Why is it that nearly 100,000 Pakistani soldiers are fighting fellow Muslims in the tribal belt under supervision of the Americans? They have no business in being there. Their job is in Kashmir or for that matter in Gujarat (if they have any spine). Thousands of Muslims were burnt alive by Hindu fanatics right at our doorstep but Pakistan, with more than a half million army equipped with nukes and missiles, could nothing to save them. No point in running away from the charges. These issues need to be addressed with honesty and introspection. Of course an easy way out would be to dismiss everything by the usual bombast and rhetoric or blame people like me to be `mutineers`. But when your life-long supporters turn into bitter critics, it is time for serious thoughts. (Weekly Independe

ROMAIR:
This would clear up the garbage being spewed by non-muslims and anti-Islamists.
Zaid, a slave, was adopted BEFORE the beloved-one (pbuh) was a prophet. The wisdom and beauty of the annulment of this practice would be appreciated by all.

Also, inheritence law allow to bequeath 1/3rd of one`s wealth in whichever manner one wants to do so.

Temporal is absolutely right. Thanks to Iranian revolution, Salman Rushdie, Gulf War 1 & 2, and the Twin-towers the yearning for learning is red-hot and we are all, willy-nilly, acquiring madressa education. Even commies, infidels and atheists are scampering to learn.
What they know not is that several rabbis, pundits, bishops/archbishops, mahints, and gurus started learning precisely to counter Islam and ended up its respected adherents and servants.

[Pickthall and Asad, the former Churchills buddy & promising englishman and latter a rabbi,
are well-known translaters of the Qura`an. Asad, a polish jew, was also Pakistan`s first permanent ambassador to UN in 1948.]

There is no other choice for a muslim or an apostate to ignore Islam. The Blanket would just not let go.

THERE IS A DESIGN INDEED!

---

Adoption is forbidden in Islam. But according to authentic Hadiths related by Al-Bukhari, the Prophet adopted a son named Zaid.

Both statements of the prohibition of adoption in Islam and the Prophet`s adoption of Zaid are correct. The explanation of these two apparently contradictory facts lies in their chronological order.

Zaid ibn Haritha was a young child when he was kidnapped by fighters who raided the living quarters of his tribe when their men were out on their business. Zaid was sold as a slave and he ended up in Makkah when he was given as a gift by her uncle to Khadeejah, who later was married to Muhammad, her third husband. At that time, he was 25 years of age. Lady Khadeejah was a rich woman who married Muhammad, having learned much about his character which filled her with admiration. At that time, Muhammad was being carefully prepared by Allah for his forthcoming mission as the last prophet to be sent to mankind. Needless to say, neither he nor Khadeejah knew anything at that time. Prophet-hood came 15 years after his marriage.

Khadeejah made a gift of Zaid to her husband so that he would have a good servant.

Zaid`s father was full of grief when he learned of what had happened to his son. He tried hard to find out where he was carried to. Perhaps, it was a few years before he learned that Zaid was in Makkah, a slave in one of its most distinguished households. He, therefore, traveled with his brother hoping to buy his son`s freedom. When they spoke to Muhammad about Zaid, they requested him to agree to sell Zaid back to them and to accept a reasonable price for him. He made them a different offer saying: ``I will charge you nothing. If he prefers to stay with me, I will not part with anyone who prefers my company.`` They said: ``This is indeed a very reasonable offer.`` When Zaid was called in, Muhammad asked him whether he recognized the two men. On receiving an affirmative answer, Muhammad offered him the choice of going back or staying with him. Unhesitatingly, Zaid chose to stay with Muhammad saying to his father and his uncle, ``I have seen things of this man which make me keen never to part with him.`` When Zaid made his choice, Muhammad took him by the hand and went to the Ka`aba where he addressed the people present saying to them: ``Bear witness that I have adopted Zaid as a son who will inherit me and I will inherit him.`` Zaid`s father was gratified and he went back home with his brother.

This is how the adoption of Zaid by the Prophet came to pass, long before he became a prophet. Ever since that day, Zaid was called in Makkah and everywhere else as ``Zaid ibn Muhammad.`` This continued to be the case throughout the 13 years during which the Prophet preached his message in Makkah and in the early years of his stay in Madinah. It was later that the verses of the Qur`an which speak of adoption were revealed. These make it clear that adoption is prohibited and that every adopted son or daughter must be called after his or her real father. This automatically abrogated the adoption of Zaid who reverted to his original name, Zaid ibn Haritha, in compliance with Allah`s orders.

The Prophet was very kind to Zaid through their association. He arranged Zaid`s marriage to his own wet nurse Umm Ayman who gave birth to Zaid`s son Ussamah, whom the Prophet loved very dearly. Later on, the Prophet married Zaid to his own cousin, Lady Zainab, who only accepted the marriage to please the Prophet. The marriage was an unhappy one and Zaid reluctantly divorced Zainab. The seal on the prohibition was placed by Allah Himself when He instructed the Prophet to marry Zainab. Thus, the Prophet demonstrated practically the nullification of all adoption. Had adoption been of any significance, it would not have been possible that the Prophet marries a former wife of his former adopted son. The fact that the marriage took place and was specifically ordered by Allah left no doubt whatsoever that adoption is totally forbidden in Islam.

---

What the evil-ones like hamidm, the alcoholic islam-hater, just can`t figure out is that the beloved-one (pbuh) could have married this cousin himself in the first place.

CHOWK is becoming better & better and is a good place to understand Islam. THe evil-ones are providing a yeomens service here--just like Rushdie and Osama did.

Staying in the news is staying alive--in today`s multi-media savvy world.