A Fatal Act-Bad News for India Pakistan Relations pakistani peace keepers have also been penalised .but thats not a big deal.for info of those here who dont know an officer was dismissed for looting ACs from New Guinea in a peace keeping mission.just in 2001 or so a colonel was superseded from promotion for some minor lapse in buying some trophies prohibited by conservation laws.

HP , thanks for you detailed analysis.The essence of the matter is :---

1-The Khalqis and Parchamis are still a crucial element in afghan security forces like police army intelligence and will remain so for next ten to fifteen years.then they have their families and next generations brought up in that state of mind.The same is true for all afghan ministries specially foreign ministry,interior,intelligence,defence,planning etc.

2-In Afghanistan the divide is rural urban.All anti centre movements have come from rural areas like Habibullah Kalkani in 1929,like the tribal insurrections of 1950s,like the ISI & CIA hirelings on 1978 -1992 and the present talibs of 1994-to date.Now the danger is that the taliban factor is threatening to divide afghanistan on ethnic lines.

3-I agree that the leftists were also fallacious like all mean mortals.

4-Whoever has done the blast it will be a reason to make a case against pakistan and isi etc . This is not something unfair or awful.Lets not forget what the pakistani establishment , ironically for many years in league has been doing .yes i have a personal experience also.my dear girl friend was killed by a so called mujahid rocket fired in kabul .

A Fatal Act-Bad News for India Pakistan Relations frankly i have not blamed anyone for the blast . could be any one.

however below is a small piece i wrote a day before the blast .it just summarises my impressions and assessment.i had sent to chowk also the same day 6th June 2008:---

Pakistan Afghanistan Relationship-The Much Misunderstood Affair-

Agha Amin


Pakistan Afghanistan relationship is a story of a series of tragic misunderstandings and manipulations.In order to understand what really happened one has to understand the Afghan point of view as well as the manipulations and misunderstandings on both sides.

Afghanistan was an unnatural creation born out of the conflict of the Mughal and Saffavid Empires in the period 1707-1747 and consolidated in the period 1747-1830.Comprising the Mughal provinces of Kabul and Kandahar and Persian controlled Herat and Kandahar at various alternating times as well as Uzbek controlled territories north of Hindu Kush , independent Afghanistan in its present shape emerged as a buffer state in between British India and Czarist Central Asia and a hostile Persia in the west.

The British adopted the policy of having Afghanistan as a buffer state and assisted the cash starved country with subsidies thus ensuring that Czarist Russia did not annex Afghanistan like it annexed so many Central Asian kingdoms.Rhetoric apart Afghanistan owed its survival to British subsidies first by English East India Company and later by British Empire.In 1919 Afghanistan became really independent but its rulers discovered that they could not survive without external aid.Thus they courted Russia,Germany as well as Britain and managed to survive in a decent manner.Once partition took place the Afghan ruling family mistakenly assumed that they could resume territories first lost to Sikhs in the period 1817-1827 and later assumed by the British.Nevertheless 1953 was the crucial point when Sardar Daud the then strong man PM decided to become a Soviet ally.Around the same time Pakistan had become a US vassal by 1954.Both the countries acted out of spirit of self preservation.Thus the beginning of Soviet and US penetration respectively in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The respective seeking of US and Soviet aid were the beginning of Afghan-Pakistan antagonism and rivalry.Both the country's acted as good watchdogs of their respective masters while using their disputes of Kashmir and Durand Line as cheap galvanising slogans to fool their respective masses .In the next 54 or 55 years from 1953-54 till 2008 both gained nothing .Ksshmir remains with India and Durand Line remains the de fact if not dejure Afghan Pakistan border.

This brief summing up is a result of countless discussions with Afghans of various ethnicity,class and political affiliations from 1975 to 2008 who I met in Moscow,USA,UK,Canada,Pakistan and Afghanistan.Long bearded so called Mujahids,hard drinking Khalqis,sophisticated and urbane Parchamis,rough Talibs,suave Afghan Americans and so on.

While Afghanistan did oppose Pakistan's entry into the United Nations although only for a few days and maintained a somewhat hostile posture towards Pakistan during the period 1947-63 and 1973-1976 the harm that Pakistan's ruling clique inflicted on Afghanistan during the period 1978-2001 far exceeds materially as well as morally what Afghanistan ever did to Pakistan.

This happened not because of any national reasons but because of narrow personal and class reasons.In 1978 Pakistan was ruled by an illegitimate military junta in grip of a serious crisis of legitimacy.The ruling dictator General Zia was no Muslim holy warrior but a petty government servant who had reached the highest corridors of military rank through expert application of the well known methods of flattery sycophancy and hypocrisy.Of humble background Zia was extremely ambitious and employed a religious cloak to hide his intense ambition and lust for power.The 1978 Afghan revolution or leftist coup presented an opportunity of a life time to Zia.

The USA at the same time having beebn forced to exit disgracefully from Vietnam found a good subsidiary vassal in the shape of the Pakistani military junta led by Zia.Right from 1978 the USA under Carter and Brezinski using Zia as a cheap policy tool started conspiring against the de facto leftist government of Afghanistan.The aim being to provoke th USSR and to destroy a progressive regime in Afghanistan.Ironically while the leftist regime in Kabul had an ideoloogy Zia had none except self interest.Propelled by ambition of the typically lower middle class origin man who has reached high positions Zia embarked on a dangerous sub contractor job with USA as a result of which Afghanistan's infra structure was destroyed and the country bled white in the next 30 years.All out of narrow personal reasons.

The USA using the Pakistani military junta as a cheap policy tool started deliberate efforts to sabotage and unseat Afghanistan's de facto government from 1978 and by 1979 these efforts bcame quite significant.The USSR decided to intervene because the matter was not Afghanistan versus Pakistan but USA using a cheap illegitimate tactical garbage collector to indirectly sabotage USSR via Afghanistan.

Now started a grand party of the illegitimte Pakistani military junta.Pakistan got massive transfusions of blood in shape of US Dollars while Afghanistan was bled white.Everything was attacked by paid gangs financed by USA using Pakistan's military junta and th ISI as cheap hirelings ! Bridges were destroyed,dams were attacked,power lines wee destroyed,fields and meadows were mined,orchards destroyed as a deliberate scorched earth policy,civilians attacked and rocketed while they had breakfasts in their apartments in Kabul,the whole country mined.In short everything that had been built in Afghanistan since ages was attacked.All for the narrow class interests of a few generals who bcame billionaires overnight.

There was a secret joy in Pakistan's non Pashtun ruling clique that the proud and upright Pashtuns of Afghanistan were now dislocated and degraded into third rate refugees.Women of Kabul were forced to resort to selling their bodies in Kabul . And above all billions of US Dollars were filling the coffers of the generals.All in name of Jihad.

The USSR on the other hand tried to seriously assist an ideological ally while USA was using mercenaries par excellence as cheap policy tools.Thousands of Afghans were sent for training to USSR and East Europe.Serious efforts made to arm and train the Afghan security forces.Kabul the heart of Afghanistan was destroyed .Many educated Afghans fled to Europe and USA thus causing a fatal brain drain from which Afghanistan never recovered.

The net result of this unholy and notorious US-Pakistani military junta was ensuring that anarchy became the established form of government in Afghanistan from April 1992 when the paid mercenaries of foreign countries entered Kabul in April 1992 after it was voluntarily abandomed by the leftists.The leftists were never exterminated.That is not the Afghan culture.They were accomodated.The Parchamis mostly joined the Jamiat of Masud while the Khalqis joined Hikmatyar 's Hizb e Islami or other more Pashtun dominated parties.During the Talib time also no major change occurred.All who remained in Talib controlled area simply grew beards and no one bohered them.

The manipulation of Afghanistan was ironically now adopted as a regular policy not only by Pakistan's military but by its politicians.In 1992 the then ruling PML in Pakistan gleefully claimed that it had destroyed Afghanistan's army and removed a threat from Pakistan's Western borders.Afghanistan was as a policy used as a cheap and discreet trainin area for Kashmiri Mujahids.Even the PPP regime adopted this ridiculous policy.

Salvation for Afghanistan although somewhat mixed only came in 2001 when the USA directl decided to enter Afghanistan rather than employ Pakistan's military junta, a dubious and unreliable tool , although cheap by western standards.Now the US Dollars came directly to Afghanistan.This was not accepted or digested by Pakistan's military junta.Thus the the new double policy followed by Pakistan's military junta since 2001.Nevertheless for the first time since 2001 US Dollars are now going into Afghanistan pockets ! Now houses are being built in Kabul instead of being rocketed or shelled.The USA is an occupying power but at least some prosperity is being introduced.

Seen with the above premise following are the key elements of the Afghan scene :---

1-The people who were Khalqis and Parchami leftists or who worked in various capacities in the period 1978-1992 , were trained in USSR or Eastern European instutions dominate all Afghan ministries, Afghan Police,Afghan National Army etc.These are the real backbone of Afghan society and Afghan State.All policies have to be made keeping their aspirations in view.Even the USA cannot do without them.

2-Afghanistan is now being built up as a long term US base and for many decades will remain so in case there is no extraordinarry changes in wrld geopolitical scenario.

3-The Russians are major players in Afganistan through old Khalqis and Parchamis in Afghan ministries and army as well as a strong ties with the Northen Alliance through old Parchamis who joined them after 1992.

4-India and Iran are also major balancing actors although not as significant as the first two i.e USA and Russia.

5-There can be no peace in Afghanistan or at least in South and East Afghanistan unless there is a major policy change forced in Pakistan through soft power or other means.

6-Afghanistan may be partitioned into North and South if Pakistani interference continues.That would neither be in Pakistani interest nor Afghan interest.This would further lead to Balkanisation of Pakistan in the long run.

7-In Pakistan the major players are its clique of generals and the intelligence agencies who regard themselves as guardians of Pakistan's ideology as long as their class intetests are threatened.They futher regard Pashtuns particularly as a cheap but useful tool in the ever continuing low intensity war against India.

Seen in the above context there can be no peace in the region unless there is a major change in Pakistan.This would be a complicated and bloody affair.It would require vision and far sightedness in US policy which is sadly lacking.If the situation is not controlled the whole region will be destabilised for many decades to come.

A Fatal Act-Bad News for India Pakistan Relations i have not made any allegations.

my point is that india pakistan relations will suffer .

indians will reciprocate and target will be in pakistan or a pakistani anywhere,most likely afghanistan.

the biggest beneficiary of india pakistan bad relations is usa in first priority

i think general kiani is the most unfortunate chief in pakistan's history and due to no fault of his.may Allah or God support him.

Anti-Americanism in Pakistan and the Taliban Menace RAVI RIKHYE ON ISLAMISATION IN PAKISTAN

More Headache Inducing News From Pakistan's NWFP This is one of those days when your editor feels he is living on Pluto for all that he knows what is happening on Earth, which seems to be about nil. We have often complained about the paucity of our sources. With the commercial part of Orbat.com on life support we have lost approximately 80 of our correspondents and almost all of our network. We had several people in Pakistan - five to be be precise - and now we have zero. It's sad that whereas we know how to get information but have no money, mainstream media which has money seldom knows how to get cost-effective news. For what a western media agency pays to keep one person in Pakistan, we could give you original, up-to-date news on about 60% of the world.

Anyway, enough self-pity. Media says Pakistan Frontier Corps has attacked Pakistan Taliban positions around Peshawar. According to International Herald Tribune the Frontier Corps commander says the operation was launched because people were demanding the government do something, and right there you can see how pathetic is the whole scene. Why do you have to wait till the public demands you do your job before you do your job? Has the Pakistan government really become that ineffective in Peshawar, which is a major Pakistan city and the capital of the NWFP?

Apparently the answer is "yes". We knew the Pakistani Taliban was closing in on Peshawar; we had no clue it has already closed in on Peshawar. We thought this development was two years away. So you can understand why your editor is weeping and moaning about not knowing a thing.

Background: there is a gent who in the last three years has built up a force of several thousand fighters and has taken over so much of Peshawar's surrounding areas that the government has ceased to function. He is allied with another gent, a foreigner, who has a force of unknown size composed of foreign fighters who keep busy attacking the US/partners. The other day the first gent raided the city itself, kidnapped 16 Christians, later released after negotiations. Read $$$$. so the city's inhabitants are understandably feeling insecure.

Okay, so lets put all that aside and go behind the scenes. Point The First: The last three years happens to coincide with the period the Taliban have rebuilt themselves and taken over large parts of Afghanistan. It also coincides with the period Taliban has openly taken over much of NWFP.

Point The Second The garrison city of Peshawar is home to HQ XI Corps, which controls about 60-70,000 troops in the NWFP. We do not know the exact position right now, but when the Pakistan government was supposed to be fighting the insurgents, the Corps had 14 brigades - its own and from other Pakistani corps. Now some of those brigades are in the process of going back to their cantonments because of the peace deal.

Is it not a bit odd that the Taliban now have a choke hold on Peshawar, which is hardly short of troops? What have the troops been doing all this time? And why are they STILL not taking the offensive against Taliban, if for no other reason than which army wants ~5 divisions worth of troops rendered ineffective in their home province?

Pakistan Frontier Corps has been repeatedly defeated in battle by Pakistan Taliban. Please understand this is not a case where the FC has fought and been defeated. The FC has refused to fight. It is officered by regulars from the Pakistan Army, who happen to be overwhelmingly Punjabi. We are willing to bet that when the FC has fought, it is because the men have not dared defy their officers. So understandably, it has made of a show than a real fight. FC doesnt want to fight because it does not see what wrong the Taliban are committing. The Talibs are their brothers - this is not a figure of speech - and the Taliban simply represent majority thinking in the very conservative NWFP. The NWFP folk like neither the Pakistan Government, nor modernization, and they absolutely, completely, utterly hate America. So why should FC fight america's war, especially when the high professional Pakistan Army is increasingly refusing to fight America's war.

Point The Third IHT quotes a state ruling party member (the party is moderate) as saying he believes the Taliban group around Peshawar has been created by Pakistan ISI.

You can take it that any Pakistan group fighting in Afghanistan is ISI. The original Taliban were ISI and so are the new Taliban.

Now we come to Point 4 and this is the part that is seriously disturbing us - but not surprising us. We want you to hold on to your chair because you are going to fall off. Before you hold on to your chair, we'd like to explain something. US likes to pretend that ISI is some kind of independent power in Pakistan and that parts of it are rogue. Please understand that the the ISI is no independent power. It 100% represents the Pakistan Army and to a lesser extent the other services. There are NO rogue elements worth mention in the ISI: almost everything it does is sanctioned by the army's commanders.

This does not mean there are no factions jockeying to advance the power of this general or that general. These are internal disagreements and of no relevance to outsiders. With that in mind:

On information received very recently by your editor (okay, so he is not totally out of it): The Pakistan Army has decided the Islamization of Pakistan will proceed.

Pakistan is already a theocratic state, but it has generally been fairly moderate compared to our Best Friends Forever the Saudis, fairly live and let live. We know our Pakistan readers are going to scoff and say "the Islamization of Pakistan has been going on for 40 years, so what do you mean by "fairly moderate". But a trend can start at one time and take decades to become overwhelming.

But now the Pakistan military has decided its time to go the whole hog. If we go into why, we'll never get this article done. Suffice to say that (a) Pakistan as a nation was a traumatized at the outcome of Partition in 1947-48 (b) it had a breakdown after losing East Pakistan in 1971; and (c) the American intervention in Afghanistan/Pakistan has completed the process. In brief, the Pakistanis are saying clear and loud "we will not be pushed around any more, least of by the US". For a variety of complicated reasons, they see neccessary to redefine their identity, this time as Islamists.

Whoa, whoa, whoa! will say our friends on State's Pakistan desk. You are jumping the gun: trends are there but by no means is what you are saying inevitable. You are wildly exaggerating.

Okay, first lets admit we no longer have any friends in any American government body. We are lying about friends at State, we have no friends anywhere, of any kind.

Second, lets go back to what we say many a time. US to this day talks to those Pakistanis who they can talk to. These are not authentic Pakistanis, they represent an intelligent, widely-read and traveled semi-secular, and humanistic lot who are a tiny, tiny minority in Pakistan. We are not blaming the US, there are all sorts of reasons 99% of countries get things wrong.

We cant go into details, but "our" Pakistani are authentic and you can believe us or not, but we can assure you that the balance between Islamists and non-Islamists in the Pakistan Army has decisively, perhaps irrevocably tipped in favor of the Islamists. (Yes, yes, we know the balance has been tipped for a long time, but unless our readers stop intervening in this debate for now, we'll never get done.) What we are trying to say that what was previously kept hidden in the last eight years for fear of America is gradually coming into the open, though the Pakistanis are still scared of America.

We told you about signals we are picking up that Pakistan is preparing to take its new war against India to the next level; it has already done that in Afghanistan. You can disbelieve us, but you cant disbelieve what your own government is telling you about Pakistan's new intervention in Afghanistan. Talk to any Indian intelligence officer and he will say what we are about Pakistan and India. The war has been on for some years, we have been talking about the next level, this really is not a topic that causes much disagreement in India.

Similarly, you can say that we are exaggerating about the big wave of Islamization that is going to hit Pakistan. But remember: when it hits, we told you first.

Anti-Americanism in Pakistan and the Taliban Menace it is a figment of someones imagination that peshawar was under any threat . it was a case of pleasing the americans to get aid.a white wash.pakistanb is a haven of crooks and all the biggest crooks are in pakistan's tiop echelons both military and civil so what is this operation against.

Anti-Americanism in Pakistan and the Taliban Menace the muslim elite for getting job quotas and political mileage mis-used islam and islamic slogans right from 1858 to date and re now in t____k s___t and will remain so !

7 July 2003

Pakistan’s Islamic Factor

A.H Amin

History proves that religion has been repeatedly used by various classes to secure their personal or class aims and objectives ! Religion as a political factor to unite Indians against the British was introduced in politics by Gandhi ! Gandhi represented the Hindu middle and professional classes funded by the business classes who were western educated , outwardly secular in outlook but relied on Hindu religious symbols to achieve their political ends ! When Gandhi sidelined Mr Jinnah from main congress leadership after 1921-22 Mr Jinnah also abandoned his initial ideology of Indian nationalism based on constitutionalism and adopted Islam as his slogan ! In most of his political speeches Mr Jinnah stressed on the fact that the Indian Muslims were a separate nation and their unique religious and social practices entitled them to have a separate country ! This slogan was convenient and politically expedient to unite the pre 1947 Indo Pak Muslims against the Hindu dominated congress ! In 1947 while addressing the constituent assembly of Pakistan Mr Jinnah clarified that his idea of Pakistan was a secular state where Muslims and non Muslims would politically speaking only be Pakistanis and religion would be a private matter !
Mr Jinnah’s line of reasoning was not immediately questioned by the religious right since Jinnah was an indisputed leader but the question whether Pakistan was a secular state or an Islamic state was hotly debated in the constituent assembly of Pakistan from 1948 till 1956 ! The Muslim League and most other parties of this time were dominated by the professional middle classes or landlords who had merely viewed religion as a slogan to galvanise the masses and never wanted a theological state ! The landlords wanted to get rid of a Hindu money lending class and a land reform threatening congress party while the middle classes enthusiastically supported Pakistan because they viewed the new state as one with greater opportunities of advancement for their class since the Hindus who were more educationally advanced were eliminated from the competition !
The religious parties which had initially opposed Pakistan’s creation based on the idea that partition would only divide Indian Muslims now turned the table on the Muslim League by demanding that since the Muslim League itself declared that the Indo Pak Muslims needed a separate country to practice Islam , the new country must be based on the Islamic Sharia ! The non religious feudal and middle class Muslim Leaguers led by Liaquat Ali Khan initially outmanoeuvred the Islamists by moving the Objectives Resolution which paid lip service to Islam while preserving Pakistan’s initially envisaged secular ethos ! The Islamists however were not pacified and the 1953 Anti Qadiani riots proved that the Islamists were a force to be reckoned with ! However massive US aid from 1954 to 1965 marginalised the Islamists and strengthened the secular forces under the military dictator Ayub Khan ! In 1970 the Islamists were again unable to gain much except in NWFP and Baluchistan and the neo-socialist PPP and the nationalistic Awami League swept West and East Pakistan !
Islamists parties were strengthened in between 1971-77 because of the 1971 defeat and because of some of Mr Bhuttos policies ! In 1977 the religious right gained a new benefactor in shape of USA who viewed the Islamist dominated anti Bhutto Pakistan National Alliance as a safer bet than an anti US charismatic leader like Bhutto ! Thus the 1977 agitation and the Zia military coup of 1977 which toppled Mr Bhutto !
Pakistan’s military dictator decided keeping in view the immense political strength of the anti Zia PPP that his best bet to survive was use of Islam as a political slogan ! Thus Zia’s Islamisation measures and the various stunts and ploys employed by the military junta to demonstrate that Zia was a true soldier of Islam !
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan further strengthened Islamist forces not only in Pakistan but at an international level ! Out of the Afghan War of 1979-88 emerged a promiscuous alliance of convenience like a Mutah marriage ! Financed by the CIA and the Saudis , with Islam as slogan , and Jihad as the modus operandi ! The Islamists because of sheer expediency became the darlings of Pakistan’s ISI and USA’s CIA ! Many billions were pumped to support the anti Soviet Jihad ! Islamist forces were able to consolidate themselves with lavish funds,advanced weaponry and elaborate organizational networks !
All changed after the Soviet withdrawal from Afganistan ! The islamists now became a liability for USA and the Pakistani elite ! The dirty war was over ! The Islamists had done their job ! Now they must not be allowed to reap the harvest ! Thus a reversal of policies !
By 1991 however the Pakistani elite realized that USA no longer needed them and as a result Islamist forces once again received a boost ! Both Nawaz and Benazir governments made many efforts to endear themselves to the USA but the USA snubbed both ! Islamist forces as a result re-organised ! In 1994-96 Pakistan’s government once again used religion as a slogan once the Afghan Talibans were cultivated ! For some time the Americans also saw the taliban as a safe bet for oil pipelines ! However by 1998 the Americans realized that the Talibans were not good enough puppets and must be removed ! During all this time Pakistan’s economy rapidly weakened because of US embargoes and economic policies ! The politicians and the military and intelligence bosses once again fell back on Islamist forces which were used to fight the bloody undeclared wars in Kashmir ! The Kargil adventure of 1999 was the highpoint in this drama once regular Pakistan Army volunteers were employed in the name of Islam with diasastorous consequences !
By October 1999 once Musharraf usurped power Pakistan was a sidelined state till the 9/11 incident which proved a heaven sent opportunity for Pakistan’s military junta just like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan had done for Zia the junta !
Pakistan’s military junta now made a U turn and collaborated with the USA in fighting a war against Islamists ! In 1979-89 the same military junta was with the Islamists because it meant US aid ! Now the same military junta viewed the Islamists as persona non gratas simply because it meant getting US aid ! The same state continues till to date !
The chain of historic events above mentioned demand analysis ! From 1937 till 1947 the pre 1947 Muslim elite employed “Islam” as a slogan to galvanise the Muslim masses based on the emotional Pakistan slogan based on Islam ! Once Pakistan was achieved the same elite immediately made a U turn and declared that Pakistan was a secular state without justifying why 1 million Muslims were sacrificed to create a Muslim state where religion would be a personal matter ! Thus HAFEEZ Jullundhri noted with sarcasm ‘ Qaafle lut gaiy barbad ho gayay to kia hooa , Mutmain hain Qaafla Salaar apnay Kaam Say !
Between 1947 and 1976 religion was ditched as US aid came and the middle classes and the higher classes enjoyed great prosperity partly because of international aid and more because of elimination of the rich Hindus by mass genocide and control of evacuee property !
In 1977 religion was employed as a slogan because the middle and higher classes united with the Islamists simply because Mr Bhutto’s policies were a threat for the urban classes in Karachi ,Multan and Lahore because of a variety of reasons including nationalization,quota system,liberal outlook etc ! The USA financed the Islamists against Bhutto because they thought that the Islamists were asafer bet than Bhutto !
Between 1977 and 1989 Pakistan’s military junta used Islam as a tool because it suited their political and economic ends i.e because of the PPP as a political threat and the US military and economic aid in Afghan War !
Between 1989 and 1999 the Islamists once again received a boost because US stopped their aid and the civil and military elite once again picked up the slogan of Islam in danger !
Between 2001 and to date Pakistan’s military junta once again made a U turn and adopted an anti Islamist policy simply because it meant US economic and military aid !
The elections of 2002 strengthened Islamists forces thanks to the U turn of Pakistan’s military government after 9/11 ! The resultant sense of betrayal strengthened the Islamists morally ! The Islamists for the first time emerged as a strong constitutional force which challenged Pakistan’s military junta in Pakistan’s parliament ! Thus the MMA stand on LFO and against Musharraf’s US appeasing policies !
There is no doubt that a storm is gathering in Pakistan Iran Afghanistan and the Arab world which this time will not subside ! This storm is gathering because the Muslim elite has repeatedly used Islam as a convenient slogan , picked up at will to get aid from USA and abandoned at whim once it meant not getting US Dollars !
The Islamists are on a strong footing today ! This the start of a drama that would carry on in many acts ! Since religion was used as a cheap slogan by the elite , now it appears that the elite would have a harder time in manipulating the common man !
Inflation , rising population , unemployment is strengthening the Islamists forces in Pakistan and Afghanistan by leaps and bounds ! The US invasion of Iraq ahs further strengthened the Islamist forces since it has proved to be a spur for forces of resistance led by Islamists!
One Million dead in 1947 to create a country of Muslims !Two million dead in Afghanistan from 1978 till 2003 ! 100,000 dead in Kashmir from 1989 till to date ! 500 dead in Kargil ! The many thousands dead in Palestine,Algeria,Egypt , Iraq , all in the name of Islam ! To make the Islamic world a safer place for miltary dictators who order military volunteers in the name of Islam but pose as liberals to get US aid ! Kings and princes who gamble in Monaco and womanise in Paris but stage behaedings of small time drug dealers to give cheap thrills to the common man !
The day when the Muslim common man would question military dictators or kings about what they did to the aid money they got or the oil money they wasted in gambling or enjoying is not very far away ! Inshallah I hope !
In the next ten years a long bloody war would be fought between the Islamists and the opportunist forces in Muslim world which have agaian and again used Islam as a cheap tool to drug the masses ! Now the Muslim common man cannot be fooled or amused by cheap slogans or beheadings of petty criminals ! Now they want the heads of their rulers who have used Islam in the most Machiavellian manner for achieving their cheap personal and dynastic ends ! This the decade of the decisive war between Islamists and anti Islamists ! This war will not be won by superior weaponry or cheap slogans ! This war will be fought in the shadows , covertly and more motivated forces would finally carry the day ! Many Roman Empires and many great dynasties would be destroyed in the process ! When the common man fearlessly snipes at the US soldiers in Baghdad or when the common man defies Rangers and so many other military entities and goes on with suicide bombings , wars can no longer be won by conventional forces with better weapons bu t weaker hearts ! The human heart is the most decisive weapon and the USA alienated it after 9/11 !

Forgotten President & Shape of Things to Come? the present government and that includes army politicians , all was brought under a secret protocol with usa that it would launch an offensive in tribal area.denying freedom of manoeuvre to al qaeda , thus reducing pressure on us forces in afghanistan.above all to help the republicans win in 2008 elections.F 16s have been despatched fo the punjabi airforce against pashtuns

militarily the action will fail that is beyond doubt

A Meeting with Che Guevara an uncle of mine was from last batch of ICS exam and first batch of pakistani foreign service.he was also in algeria in the embassy of pakistan.later he became blind and i used to read the newspaper for him.he was a classfellow of famous historian Ganda Singh.He also told me that he saw Che Guevera and there was a very strange and inexplicable charm in im.something he thought was a very strong and supernatural charm and energy.

The Puppet Speaks pakistan is a s much a US puppet as Afghanistan's Karzai.The army is dog catcher of USA and so are the politicians.After all who told mush to do the NRO .Pakistan has been doing business in name of Afghanistan as dog catcher of USA since 1979.That is the hard fact.Frankly what is the difference between karzai and gillani or musharraf ? Nil ! They are the same breed who can stand any amount of kicking .All are playing double games and its all about money .

Aitzaz’s Monumental Blunder if martial law pakistan's situation would worsen and its balkanisation accelerated.the army will then be confined to punjab only doing USA's dog catching jobs while other provinces would be controlled by regional warlords.as it appears now that day is not far off with Inshallah or without Inshallah.The fate of Pakistan's por man is the same whether its a lean kiani or a hindu dhoti parshad.

Aitzaz’s Monumental Blunder i dont know if this is an eulogy of rahman malik or a qaseeda in rehman malik's honour.

the fact remains that iftikhar chaudhry that punjabi soldified by baloch and pashtun values of uprightness defied musharraf and the army as well as its int agencies.the moral authority of musharraf was eroded.the islamists and al qaeda by brillianly assaulting the army also eroded its value like the indomitable baloch in 1960s and 197os and the mukti bahini in 1971.all these are facts.the pakistani politicians have been thoroughly discredited by the NRO however.pakistan is condemned to be looted to the brim till balkanised and balkanised it shall be with all these clowns civil and military.politically as well as militarily pakistan is a third rate tactical garbage collector and vassal of USA and aits all a hoax .whats going to happen is that the PPP and PML will make ammends to being out of power for many years,make billions and stash them and the mad looting party will continue,that mad looting party which was the raison d etre of pakistan.

Attack in Mohmand we have very distorted perceptions here on the chowk.recent research has proved that aurangzeb ennobled more hindus and more marathas than any muslim king in india. with all the education we remain very narrow and tribal.its hypocrisy when a low caste hindu does well and is promoted to be a high caste one as happened with sivaji.

Attack in Mohmand yes HP Sain.This is going to be a very hot summer and you will see that the paki generals and the paki politicians would roll real imperial b___ls.However lets up that Afghanistan becomes more riskier and business costs go up.With every blast unit rates increase in afghanistan and more than 80 % sub contractors of US Army in Pashtun belt are persons who are talibs at night and respectable engineeers during daylight.I hope that property in pakistan becomes dirt cheap as it was in kabul in talib times and all beautiful women become widows so that its possible to have good time.

Attack in Mohmand The Destruction of Democracy in Pakistan- A Historic Analysis



Extracts from "The Politics of Indo-Pak Muslims — A Political and Psycho Social Study" a book written by A H Amin dealing with the Indo-Pak Muslim politics from 1858 to 2000.

June 2000



In 1947 once India and Pakistan emerged as modern democratic states on the world map the expectations of the world and of people living in both the countries were high. The independence of both the countries was the result of a gradual process of political reforms initiated in 1909. Contrary to the impression in certain quarters India was never groaning under the British heel! The country as a matter of fact was conquered by the British employing an army which was some 75% Indian and 25% European. The process was gradual and spanned some 130 years starting from around 1757 and continuing till almost 1880. In most of the places the "English East India Company" which ruled the subcontinent till 1858 was actually welcomed. The reasons were complex. Prior to the company's entry the country was in the grip of anarchy and internal turbulence. The company was perceived as a better master in the relative sense by both the Hindus and Muslims in comparison with the predatory Hindu Marathas and the Muslim Afghans who were not bothered about religion and targeted anyone who had movable wealth of any type whether precious metals, livestock, young women etc! By an irony of history in the post-1947 and even in certain pre-1947 history books these Maratha and Afghans were depicted as heroes by Hindus and Muslims respectively! To come back to the point from which we have drifted with due apologies, democracy was destroyed in Pakistan by 1954 while India emerged as world's largest successful democracy at least in terms of population.



At first sight political observers were surprised and western analysts and political scientists who think that they are the final authority on all arts and sciences by virtue of being from the civilised world started writing with authority books highlighting reasons for failure of democracy in Pakistan. I read a book which was very recently published and was shocked to find that men like "Ghulam Mohammad" and "Ayub" were being portrayed as innocent well wishers and very honest and simple people trying to save Pakistan! Reading that book whose American author at least at first sight appears to be on the payroll of the Pakistani government or some of its agencies, I was compelled to pen these reflections for a dear friend who wanted a straight unbiased account without unduly condemning or upholding anyone!



The first fact which matters in this whole discussion is very simple. Straight from the history, a concrete observable and very visible fact. The British were the last to come to the present Pakistan i.e. the pre-1971 "West Pakistan"! It is important to note that the British were the first to come to the old pre-1971 "East Pakistan", now Bangladesh. The most populous province of present Pakistan i.e. Punjab was annexed by the English East India Company in 1849. Sindh was annexed in 1843. The NWFP in 1849 was a part of the Punjab and was, therefore, annexed in 1849. Parts of Balochistan were annexed in 1880, while larger tracts of this population wise very small province were ruled by puppet princely states.



Most studies dealing with reasons for failure of democracy in Pakistan remain substance less and inconclusive because their analysis revolves around the first post-1947 decade and about four pre-1947 decades. On the other hand the pro-establishment historians of Pakistan concentrate either on the post-1858 period or the pre-1707 period. Both the approaches are thus narrow and without a solid rationale.



The Muslim question in Indo-Pak subcontinent was unique. In the Middle East or North Africa or in Central and West Asia the complications were never as severe as in Indo-Pak. Initially the Muslims of Turco-Persian descent dominated the region for some 650 years. During this period solid Muslim majorities were created in the north west and the eastern part of the sub-continent. In the late seventeenth century two indigenous communities challenged the Muslims but pluralistic Mughal state. These were the Marathas in the south west and the Sikhs in the north west, the former being a more formidable challenge and the latter being a less formidable challenge, at least during the first one hundred years. The Marathas launched a low intensity war which was much later copied in Spain (1808-14), in Vietnam and Afghanistan etc. The Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb who may be compared to USSR's Brezhnev tried to crush the Maratha insurgency employing all the diplomatic political and military expedients for some fifty years (1660-1707) but failed. The study of this period is extremely thought-provoking. Divide and rule was as craftily followed by Aurangzeb as the British did in the post-1757 period. Many Marathas were ennobled and there were four times more Hindu Maratha nobles in the Mughal Empire than total of all Muslim nobles from present Pakistan! Aurangzeb's policy only partially succeeded; and militarily the Marathas were not crushed. Aurangzeb died without having succeeded in suppressing the Marathas. The Maratha insurgency was a decisive event in Indo-Pak history! Many Hindus in today's India condemn the Marathas as predators and robbers while history text books in Pakistan speak about the Mughal's fighting the Marathas as if Aurangzeb was a President of Pakistan or as if his army was from Jhelum or Attock or Sargodha or Chakwal! (The areas from where the predominantly Punjabi Muslim Pakistan Army is recruited). Both the attitudes are fallacious. Without Sivaji's brilliant generalship the Hindu would never have regained that enigmatic but absolutely crucial feeling of confidence and resolution which was shattered when the Turk Muslims defeated the Hindu Rajputs at the Second Battle of Tarain in 1192. The Muslim Turk emerged victorious at Tarain not because it was inevitable or because the Hindu Rajput was less brave but because the Turkish tactics were dynamic and unorthodox. Just one year earlier the Hindu Rajputs at the same place had inflicted a severe defeat on the same Turkish Muhammad Ghori. 1192 marked the beginning of an era in which the Hindus were slowly but convincingly overtaken and overwhelmed by a subtle but powerful feeling that the Muslim Turks were bound to win. This change in attitude was not sudden but dated from 1192 just like the British psychological ascendancy took off in 1757 or 1764. By 1235 this Hindu inferiority complex which was only a temporary feeling in 1192 became a firmly ingrained and as what the psychologists call internalized feeling! The Hindus were recruited in the army by the initially 2 or 4% Muslim Turks who permanently settled in North India but the feeling that the Muslim Turk was invincible was overwhelming! By 1660 when Aurangzeb was fighting the Maratha a large part of his army was Hindus recruited from the Gangetic plain but the Hindu was shy of facing the Muslim Mughal on the battlefield. If we date the Hindu inferiority complex from 1235 and draw a straight unbroken line till 1660, the total period in years comes to 425 years. Thus when Shivaji started his titanic struggle he was challenging 425 years of psychological ascendancy firmly ingrained in the Hindu head. An illogical and irrational but formidable and overwhelming inferiority complex! Just like the one which plagued all Indians whether Muslim, Hindu or Sikh in relation to the British from 1764 till at least 1905 or even till 1919 or 1941! Muslim historians taunt Sivaji for not facing the Mughals in a conventional battle, while forgetting that Sivaji was carrying 425 years burden on his shoulders! Pakistani Muslims identify with the Mughals forgetting that in 1680 ethnically at least most of the races inhabiting present Pakistan were of little consequence to Aurangzeb by virtue of representation in the Mughal army or the nobility! There were more Hindu Rajputs in Aurangzeb's army than Muslims from the area between Chenab and Jhelum Rivers (the present area from where some 75% of Pakistan Army is recruited). Thus Sivaji by effectively fighting the Mughals in Deccan and Maharashtra from around 1660 to 1680 shattered at least partially a myth of inferiority which had plagued the 80% Hindu majority to a devastating state of political and military docility timidity and inertia! Sivaji's insurgency became institutionalised and was carried on by his descendants with greater success. Sivaji was the undoubted father of Hindu military resurgence in India! Someone may feel that we have drifted from the main course. This is not true because we are examining the origins of modern Indo-Pak.



The Mughal Empire's apparent decline started in 1707 but the foundations of this decline were laid by Sivaji. In the years 1707-1757 the Marathas steadily expanded their territory. The Mughals having failed to destroy them had tacitly acknowledged their de facto existence as a power to be reckoned with. Thus the Marathas assisted the great Mughal noble Syed Hussain Ali of Barha in his advance to Delhi by contributing 11,000 soldiers arriving at the imperial city on 16 February 1719 as allies! The Sayyid and his brother Abdullah deposed the Mughal King on 28 February! In 1728 these indomitable soldiers of fortune humbled the so-called greatest Muslim General in India i.e. the Nizam of Hyderabad at Palkhad (11 March 1728)! In March 1737 they raided Delhi but returned without entering the city since they did not want to get involved in a conventional battle. However, like the Afghans did many years later, they looted the suburbs! In 1760 they defeated the Nizam decisively at Udgir (3 February 1760). It is interesting to note that the Mughal-Maratha conflict was not a Hindu-Muslim contest as many subsequent religiously biased historians portray. Outside their Maratha indigenous territory the Marathas were predators and did not distinguish between Hindu or Muslim. Just like the Afghans once they crossed the Khyber Pass or the Indus River! Many Hindus formed part of the Mughal Army while many Muslims fought in the Maratha Army. These included Hindustani Muslims, Deccani Muslims, Arabs, Baluch, Pathans, Rajputs etc. At Udgir the principal Maratha General was a Muslim, Ibrahim Gardi! Communalism as a phenomena appeared only in the post-1858 era as a direct result of British policies. Religion was not the issue, the issue was power, movable wealth and thus Delhi was looted by equal fervour by Iranian Muslims, Afghan Muslims, Hindustani Pathan Muslims and the Hindu Marathas! This fact is never taught in the schools and colleges at least in Pakistan. About India, may be an Indian can make us wiser, but I am sure that at least the fact that Marathas of the post-Sivaji period were looting both Hindus and Muslims with equal fervour must he being suppressed or at least down played or simply skipped!



In 1751 the Muslim ruler of Oudh Nawab Vizir Safdar Jang requested Maratha help against the predatory Muslim Hindustani Pathans of Rohailkhand and Farkhabad who had gloriously plundered the culturally and predominantly Muslim dominated cities of Allahabad and Lucknow. The Marathas readily assisted the Muslim Nawab and defeated the Pathans, occupied and looted the Pathan tracts of Rohailkhand and Farkhabad and killed all combatants they could find! For this excellent service the Muslim ruler of Oudh allowed them to keep half of the Bangash Pathan territory in the Upper Doab area of UP! Where is any trace of ideology or the Two Nation Theory in all these proceedings? Many Pakistani historians assert that Hindus and Muslims in India were two nations since 711-A.D! In 1756 Ahmed Shah Abdali who was five years later hailed as saviour of Muslims in India invaded India and plundered Muslim Delhi and Hindu Muttra! The Mughal Empire by this time was militarily an almost dead entity! Thus in 1758 the Mughal paymaster general Safdar Jang was forced to invite the Marathas to Delhi to save Delhi from being again looted by the Muslim Afghans! The situation was ironic i.e. both Muslim Afghans and Hindu Marathas were basically predators! The only difference being that the Afghans were more course and uncouth while the Marathas were a little more refined, but only relatively! By 1760 the same Muslim state Oudh which had requested the Marathas to destroy the Rohailkhand and Upper Doab Hindustani Muslim Pathans in 1751 now viewed the Marathas as a threat to their state and decided to ally with the hated Sunni Muslim Afghan and the Sunni Muslim Rohailkhand and Upper Doab Hindustani Muslim Pathan! The Nawab of Oudh was a Shia Persian speaking Hindustani Muslim! Responding to the Mughal SOS call the Marathas who may be compared to the Germanic or Slav mercenary soldiers of the declining Roman Empire moved north with a large army, marching through Delhi in a more civilised manner than the Afghans, occupied Punjab in April 1758. Punjab till then had been occupied by Ahmad Shah's son as governor. The Afghans had systematically looted this Muslim majority province ever since they had occupied it and were rightly hated by the Punjabi Muslims and the Mughal nobility! This fact is not taught in any school or college in Pakistan! But thank God some Punjabi Muslim poets have done a great service to the cause of Pakistan's otherwise highly distorted history by having left certain immortal verses composed in Punjabi poetry! These verses tell the story of the sufferings of the previously highly prosperous people of Punjab both Hindu and Muslim! The Sikhs were hated by the Afghans since they used to rob the Afghans of the booty of looted Delhi once the Afghans used to return to Afghanistan! Once the Marathas captured Punjab i.e. the area till Indus river Ahmad Shah raised the slogan "Islam in danger" and invaded India, crossing the Indus in August 1759. The Marathas withdrew from Punjab and a long campaign followed which is outside the scope of this essay. However in brief the Marathas were defeated by the combined Afghan - Hindustani Pathan -Oudh Muslim + Hindu army at the famous Battle of Panipat in January 1761. Victory of the Afghans at Panipat was indecisive since the bulk of Afghan soldiery was interested in booty and so they frustrated Ahmad Shah's desire to establish an empire in Delhi! Thus after Ahmad Shah again sacked Delhi on 22 March 1761 (a fact which is not taught in any Pakistani school or college) following Panipat his army was close to a muting, fed up with the hot Indian summer, and anxious to carry all the booty they had collected at Panipat and at Delhi! Ahmad Shah was thus forced to return to Afghanistan leaving a Hindustani Muslim Pathan Najib Khan as his agent at Delhi! The Sikhs raided Ahmad Shah Abdali's heavy baggaged army on the way back to Afghanistan!



A Muslim poet of Delhi complimented them for doing so!



" What is the harm if one robber robs another! "



Within ten years of Panipat the Marathas again entered Delhi in 1772 while escorting the Mughal Emperor Shah Alam. From 1785 onwards the Maratha influence was again paramount at Delhi. In 1788 Delhi was again looted by the Saharanpur Hindustani Muslim Pathan Ghulam Qadir Khan Rohilla, who raped many Mughal females, made the Mughal King Shah Alam sing like a prostitute and finally blinded the King! The Marathas occupied Delhi in 1788 and defeated and executed the tyrannical predator Ghulam Qadir Khan on 03 March 1789 following a battle in which they had defeated him in December 1788. From 1789 onwards the Mughal Emperors new custodian was Sindhia, his Hindu Maratha rescuer who protected the Mughal King and also gave him a respectable retainer of Rs 600,000/- an year. The same situation continued till September 1803 when the Marathas lost Delhi to the forces of the English East India Company and the Mughal King became the pensioner of the East India company while being recognised as the de jure Emperor of India just like the Marathas did. The same status continued till 1857 when the great rebellion of 1857 took place.



It may be noted that the advent of the European factor in 18th century was the major factor which complicated the whole state of affairs. Hypothetically speaking if the Europeans, British, French or Portuguese may not have become a major political force in India there may have been no complications about sovereignty and legitimacy in India. The cardinal trend in 1757 was emergence of three different power blocks i.e. the indigenous Marathas, the Northern Muslim Afghan predators and the Opportunist ex-Mughal governors of Oudh and Hyderabad, to which Hyder Ali of Mysore who emerged as a force to be reckoned with around 1770. Out of these the most inherent but stable was the Marathas followed by the Afghans whose ambitions were not anything like empire building but merely carrying away movable wealth. If we take the European factor out then most probably the issue of political supremacy may have been settled by sword leading most probably to the following scenario"-



a. A Hindu Maratha block in Central Western and the Western Gangetic plains.



b. A Muslim block in the north and east in Bengal, Bihar and Oudh.



c. Another Muslim block in the south comprising Hyderabad, Mysore or Hyderabad or Mysore terminating any of the either two.



d. Afghan domination west of Indus and a Sikh dominated state between Indus and Sutlej.



It is natural that the above mentioned situation would have led to another struggle in which the military factor would have decided the issue but the result at best would have been a draw and not a Muslim dominated political system as had been the case earlier since 1192.



The above situation was highly unlikely since the Europeans were all set to attempt to colonize and politically dominate India as was apparent in 1757 by the simple observable facts of their naval and military presence at Madras, Bombay, Goa etc.



Till 1857 there was a certain confusion about legitimacy and political sovereignty in India. The English East India Company was the unchallenged master politically and militarily but at least legally the Mughal Emperor at Delhi was the de jure ruler of India while the English East India Company was at least technically his servant and ruling in his name! The rebellion of 1857 removed this confusion. The British Crown abolished the Company's role and assumed direct control of India's government. The question of military primacy which till 1857 was the main reason for the East India Company was settled. For a hundred years the British Company which had evaded the question of clear cut political sovereignty and procrastinated was removed from the helm of the affairs. The fiction of Mughal sovereignty which had outlived its validity in 1789 or in 1803 was removed. The British reality of being the sole master of India which had a solid de facto basis since 1803 became a de jure fact only in 1858.



It is important to note that in 1857 both Hindus and Muslims fought for the Mughal King and most of the regiments of the Bengal Army which had rebelled converged to Delhi and Lucknow, two political centres of Muslim political power. Both the Mughal Emperor and the Oudh Queen promised that the future state would be a pluralistic state and both Hindus and Muslims would have equal say in the state of affairs. This means that till 1857 the Hindus accepted the political legitimacy of Mughal and Oudh Nawab rule in India. Some 75% of the Bengal Army units which fought at Delhi and Lucknow were Hindu. Further three fourth of the total regiments which had rebelled successfully and escaped being disarmed or disbanded fought either at Lucknow or Delhi. Only four or five regiments fought for the Hindu Maratha Nana Sahib at Cawnpore.



The post-1858 period proved to be a watershed since before 1858 Indians thought in terms of the "military option". The East India Company came to dominate by military domination and could only be removed by a military effort or an "armed insurrection" to use the exact revolutionary word. But the British armed response to 1857, which saw the British fielding the biggest regular British army anywhere outside Britain in the history of British army till 1858, proved that militarily it was not possible to evict the Britishers. On the other hand the British initiated a series of measures which may be called a "Political Response" to the Indians initiated as a result of an analysis of 1857-58 which convinced the British that Indians must not be totally excluded from the process of governing India as they were before 1858. It would, however, be unfair to assert that this response was a strictly mechanical response to the rebellion of 1857. As early as 1818 Lord Hastings one of the British Viceroys of India had thus said: "the time is not very remote when England will wish to relinquish the domination which she has gradually and unintentionally assumed over this country, and from which she cannot at present recede".



A vacuum was created in India following 1858. All the men who could offer an alternative choice to the British by virtue of a claim to legitimate political authority were either dead or imprisoned. A class of loyalists i.e. men who had actively helped the British or had remained neutral now emerged and grabbed the empty places of leaders of Indian public opinion. These men were mostly from the presidency towns of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. Some of them were from the North West Provinces or the non-regulation province of Punjab. All the rehabilitated Taluqdars (large landholders) of Northwest Provinces, whose lands were restored after the rebellion also joined the ranks of loyalists. In brief "Loyalism" in the post-1858 scenario meant accepting the British rule in India in totality, and to avoid any conflict with the British government, keeping in view the fact that the British were India's benefactors". The Loyalists were drawn from all classes Hindu, Muslim and Sikh and they formed various organisations like the "British-Indian Association" established in 1881, which was a group of the feudals of the Northwest Provinces (later UP).



After 1857 provinces like Bengal and Bombay became more prominently involved in Indian politics. This led to the creation of the Indian National Congress in 1885. This party was initially a British encouraged project and was formed with official blessings. The British rationale behind helping this party was to assist in the creation of an organisation which could act as a safety valve, and assist as a tension discharge mechanism. Resentment against British rule was mounting in certain classes and "terrorism" was used as a weapon by many Indians against various British officials. The British thought that by having a political party many Indians may channelise their resentment in a peaceful manner rather than resorting to the pistol or bomb. The British grand design behind the creation of Congress failed, however, and by the 1890s the Congress became more vocal, blunt and radical in their outlook and demands than the British could tolerate. Initially, the Congress was largely based in Bombay, Calcutta and Madras and the Bengali Hindus who had the highest literacy rate in India were dominating it.



Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan who was the most prominent leader of the Indian Muslims in general and the Hindustani Muslims in particular started opposing the Indian National Congress from the very beginning. His contention was that the Congress was a Hindu dominated party and that Muslims should keep away from it. Closer scrutiny, however, reveals that Sir Sayyid opposed the Congress because he felt that by aligning themselves with the Congress the Indian Muslims will not be able to take full advantage of the new avenues, which cooperation with the British keeping in view Sayyid Ahmad's policy of "Loyalism" was possible. This perception was clear in Sayyid Ahmad's speech delivered at Lucknow in 1887 in which he attacked the Congress not as a Hindu party, but as an essentially Bengali party. The Bengalis according to Sayyid Ahmad were lower in social ranking when compared with the UP Muslim and Hindu Rajputs etc. Thus he said:-



"Would our aristocracy like that men of low caste or insignificant origin, though he be B.A. or M.A. and have the requisite ability, should be in a position of authority above them, and have the power of making the laws that affect their lives and property? Never! Nobody would like it. Think for a moment what would be the result if all appointments were given by competitive examinations. Over all races, not only over Muslims, but over Rajas of high position and the brave Rajputs who have not forgotten the swords of their ancestors, would be placed as ruler a Bengali who at sight of a table knife would crawl under his chair. If you accept that the country should groan under the yoke of Bengali rule and its people lick the Bengali shoes, then, in the name of God! Jump into the train, sit, down, and be off to Madras, be off to Madras!" (The venue of the Congress session was Madras). Sayyid Ahmed Khan also foresaw that in case democracy was introduced in India the Hindu being the majority would dominate. Thus be said:-



"Where caste distinctions flourish, where there is no fusion of races, where religious distinctions are still violent, where education in its modern sense has not made an equal or proportionate progress among the population, the larger community would totally over ride the smaller community".



Later on, Muslim historians quoted the above quoted passage of Sayyid Ahmad Khan's speech a hundred times to justify the creation of Pakistan. The fact that Sayyid Ahmad Khan was speaking for the UP Muslims is forgotten! The Muslims were a 15% minority in Northwest Provinces (UP from 1901) but they were a 57% majority in Punjab some 55% in Bengal. Syed Ahmad was more concerned with the 15% minority!



Sayyid Ahmed Khan diagnosed the problem but did not recommend any solution, except the policy of "Loyalism". In the post-1947 Pakistan the official line was to present Sayyid Ahmad Khan as the father of the Two Nation Theory, i.e. Hindus and Muslims are two distinct and separate nations. The aim of this discussion may outwardly seem irrelevant but "Loyalism" as a policy or a doctrine had a very negative impact on the Muslims in the long run. The Hindus since 1858 became organised as a party in the shape of the "All India Congress". Many Muslims joined the Congress but the majority stayed away from it, not because it was a Hindu party but because they did not want to annoy the British in any way. Thus no All India Muslim political party was established and Muslim politics remained regionalised. Sayyid Ahmad Khan established various loyalist organisations but these were largely Hindustani Muslim parties. The Punjabi Muslims formed their own association, the Sindhi Muslims their own, the Bengalis their own and so on.



There was another major difference between the Hindus and the Muslims. The Muslim leadership largely consisted of large land owners while the Hindu leadership was dominated by the Hindu Business and Middle class consisting of educated lawyers and professionals from Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The Hindu educated middle class was formed some 75 years before the Muslims by virtue of acquiring western education at the Bombay, Madras and Calcutta universities established in 1857. Keeping in view this basic difference, the landlord interest lay as a class in staying loyal to the British, while the professional business and middle classes had less reason to please the British.



Sayyid Ahmed Khan's anti- Congress stance is very often glorified by the pro-establishment historians in Pakistan. That this particular approach did not damage the Muslim cause in India is not the issue of our discussion. We are concerned with loyalism and even sycophancy which damaged the Indian Muslims in the long run. Its aim was to please the British, see no need for any political organisation that had realistic and tangible aims and above all was based on the faulty premise that the Hindustani Muslims were destined to lead India. The rise into prominence of men who had assisted the British in suppressing a major indigenous bid for independence, introduced opportunism and sycophancy as the cardinal keywords of success in Indian politics. It must be remembered that initially both the Hindus and Muslims were overwhelmed by the philosophy of loyalism. But the Hindus by 1898 or by 1907 had freed themselves of this philosophy! The immense terror created by ruthless British reprisals of 1857-58 became a weak element of deterrence by 1907. Even if "Loyalism" was a pragmatic philosophy in 1860 or 1880, it should have been abandoned by 1910 or 1914. Unfortunately, the principal Muslim party with an All India potential i.e. the Muslim League remained dominated by Loyalist leaders and organisationally remained very weak as compared to the Congress. A subtle aspect in this whole irony was that intellectually speaking, the potential to organise as a formidable party was present in the Muslims. But the men who dominated Muslim politics from 1857 right till 1938, at least, were sycophants par excellence! Having a constructive, tangible and concrete manifesto and an organisation with grass root basis of Muslims would have annoyed the British masters and was, therefore, unnecessary! Thus a policy of Loyalism pursued for an over extended and out of proportion duration stands out as the principal cause of inability to organise a purposeful All India Muslim Party in India right till 1938! Even if Sayyid Ahmad Khan had lived till 1910, he may have seen the urgency to do so. If Congress was perceived as a threat to Muslims all over India; "why was an all India Muslim party with grass roots basis not organised?" This is a question which few have asked and which no pro-establishment historian in Pakistan can answer? If Congress could bring Hindus and even some Muslims all over India from Cape Comorin to Peshawar on one common platform, why could not the All India Muslim League do it? Another reason may be found in the ethnic differences. The Hindustani Muslim was the key component of the Muslim League and ethnically they could not view the Punjabi Muslim or the Bengali Muslim as an equal. From 1906 to 1937 no serious effort was made to make the Muslim League an all India Party. The Muslim League betrayal of the Muslim majority provinces at Lucknow in 1916 does not in any way give the picture of an All India Muslim party representing at least the Punjabi and the Bengali Muslims. The Jinnah-Sikander Pact of 1938 was a political short cut taken due to Muslim League's failure to organise, as an all India party from 1906 to 1938. It is true that by 1938 or 1940 the Indian Muslims realised the need to organise on All India basis. The British also gave their blessings to this thought keeping in view the operational dictates of the Second World War and the Muslim League became an All India Muslim party. But organisationally no change had taken place. Opportunist men of the Unionist Party who had loyally served the British since 1919 had merely switched sides. The Muslim League had no social programme and thereby posed no threat to the Muslim feudals who joined it between 1940 and 1946. Organisationally speaking the principal cause of the failure of democracy in Pakistan was the All India Muslim League, which seriously speaking was the apology of a political party. Democracy survived in India because the Congress was a solid organisation, organised painstakingly and deliberately since 1885. If Congress was a Hindu dominated party, what was stopping the Indian Muslim Leaders from organizing one All India party which could protect the All India Muslim interests against the alleged Congress ulterior designs? 1919-23 offered a chance but the Indian Muslims lost it by dissipating their energy in the powerful but unrealistic agitation of the Khilafat Movement. The leaders of Khilafat Movement were men of substance but their political aims were highly unrealistic and in the final reasoning exhausted the Indian Muslims by 1923 without any worthwhile gain. Mr Jinnah was not a loyalist but his insistence on following purely constitutional methods in 1920 robbed the Indian Muslims of the opportunity to have any inspiring political ideals. Few people are ready to admit in today's Pakistan that it was Mr Jinnah's identification with the Pakistan slogan in 1940 which made him a popular leader. By a coincidence the Muslim adoption of a tangible political aim went hand in glove with British perceptions about India in 1940 and "Loyalism" "Substance" and "Popular Euphoria" were strangely synchronised for the Indian Muslims in the period 1940-47. "Pakistan" was a substantial political aim, the British also did not view it as a seditious slogan! It inspired the Muslim masses, and it went in consonance with the British policy of 1939-44 to corner the Congress! Mr Jinnah may be compared to Lenin using the Germans to get to Finland and later on defying the Germans! The political aim was achieved, and Pakistan was created. But in reality a political ideal was achieved not because the Muslim League was a wonderful organisation but because events had moved in such a manner that the British perceptions about the future of India had changed. Congress defiance in 1939-44 while the British masters already involved in a desperate war made the Muslims a valuable ally and forced the British to take Mr. Jinnah more seriously. Popular enthusiasm played a major role and this popular enthusiasm also went in line with the official British policy of 1940-45. Thus the demand for Pakistan was not viewed by the British as an anti-government movement in any way. By 1940 the British resolve to hold on to India was much weaker than in 1919. So there was no struggle for Pakistan in the real political sense and when something is achieved without a struggle, individuals tend to dominate and organisations become weak. Thus the post-1947 bureaucrats and army officers revered Jinnah and openly despised the Muslim League. The Hindustani Muslims who had stood by Jinnah through 1937-39 because of Nehru's limited perception retarded him from letting them have few crumbs of minor political office, while the Congress was in power, became irrelevant in post-1947 Pakistan's politics. The Muslim League which was described as the party which had led the Indian Muslims in their struggle for independence disintegrated into six or ten different political parties by 1954! These views may be hard to digest for a Pakistani who has been brain washed by the pro-establishment history textbooks followed as the sole authority in the schools and colleges! The Muslim League cannot be glorified merely because it was a Muslim party. It is an irony of modern history that there is little heroism or substance in modern Indo-Pak Muslim history, and a lot of opportunism, sycophancy and greed for office. Till 1858 the Muslim leadership stood for defiance, heroism and high ideals. After 1858, however, the leadership was dominated by men with slavish ideas. Sayyid Ahmad Khan's loyalism removed the qualitative edge which the Muslims held till at least 1858. It is an irony of history that the Hindu who was initially viewed by many prominent British administrators and thinkers as mild and timid, assumed the role of a defiant patriot in the early twentieth century! All Muslims were not like this, but those who lead them, who represented them etc were mostly opportunists and self-seeking men. There were exceptions like the Khilafatists who openly defied the British but their objectives were highly impractical and unrealistic.



Mr Jinnah himself described most of the Muslim leaders as "spineless people who will consult the Deputy Commissioner about what they should do". It was disgust with Muslim leadership which so much disillusioned Mr Jinnah that he decided to go and live in England.



In today's Pakistan the Muslims from Muslim minority provinces of pre-1947 India take great pride in the fact that they did not desert the Muslim League in the 1937 elections unlike the Muslims of Muslim majority provinces. Careful scrutiny, however, does not prove that the Muslim minority provinces were more patriotic and therefore, voted for the Muslim League, as is now asserted by many Hindustani Muslim intellectuals in Pakistan. The simple fact is in 1937, qualitatively, socially or keeping in view the respective political objectives, there was no difference between the Muslim League, the Unionists, the Krishak Prajak Party, the Sind Azad Party, etc etc. All these parties consisted of loyalists and men with proven record of loyalty to the British. By voting for the League a Muslim could not claim to be ideologically or qualitatively superior to a Muslim who voted for the Unionists or for the Sind Azad Party. The other reason why Muslim League did well in the Muslim minority provinces was simply because the Muslim League was a Muslim minority Province dominated party. On the strictly provincial level just like in Muslim majority provinces the Muslims from the Muslim minority provinces feared Hindu domination and voted for the Muslim League. In the United Provinces the feudal Muslims who had the greatest social standing did not dare to join the Congress since the Congress was not a loyalist party and the feudals did not have the guts to join the Congress and annoy the British. Another reason why the Muslim minority province Leaguers stayed loyal to India was because the Congress enjoyed very comfortable majorities in all Muslim minority provinces and did not offer much to the Muslim Leaguers who had won seats in UP in the 1937 elections. Thus Congress's stand that UP Muslim Leaguers would be considered for ministerial office only if they left the league was too narrow a response and forced the UP Leaguers to stick to Mr Jinnah.



The Muslim Leagues inability to form any Ministry in any province in the aftermath of the 1937 elections led to an important change in the party's orientation. A change which may be described as a major reason for destruction of democracy in Pakistan. Before 1937 the Muslim League was a largely Muslim Minority Province dominated party. The Hindustani Muslims of United Provinces dominated the party while Mr Jinnah the party leader also identified himself with a Muslim Minority province i.e. Bombay. Since there was no conception about a separate state based on religious majority, both the British and the Muslim League leadership erroneously believed that the principal leaders of Muslim League should be from the two Muslim minority provinces of Bombay and UP. The Muslim League's attitude towards the Muslim majority provinces was that of arrogance and condescending paternalism as amply proved at the time of Lucknow pact where the Muslim League by accepting lower percentage sacrificed the Muslim majority in the two major Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. Thus the Muslims of the Muslim majority provinces perceived the All India Muslim League as a party which was dominated by Muslim minority provinces particularly Bombay and UP. They further felt that the Muslim League was not an all India party since before 1937 it had shown little interest to open its doors to the Muslims of the Muslim majority provinces. By 1936 Mr Jinnah had realised that without cooperation of the Punjabi Muslims as well as the Bengali Muslims it was not possible to make the Muslim League an All India Party. Thus in April 1936 Jinnah requested Fazli Hussain to be the President of the All India Muslim League session at Bombay. Jinnah wrote to Fazli Hussain that "it was the unanimous desire of the League's council and I along with many others feel that at this moment no one can give a better lead to the Musulmans of India than yourself.......;". but Fazli Hussain was too sharp to be impressed by this outwardly generous but politically slippery gesture.



Today it is fashionable specially in Pakistan to criticise the Unionists as Toadies. A dispassionate glance at facts, however, proves that before 1936 the Muslim Leaguers were happy to do drawing room politics and the Muslim League was a Muslim minority province debating club. From its foundation in 1906 till 1936 the League made no attempt to expand in Punjab and all its leaders did in Punjab was to visit Lahore and to meet a few urban intellectuals and lawyers like Iqbal and Shafi etc. Yet the Muslim minority province Muslim historians keep on repeating like parrots that the Unionists were Toadies, without admitting that all Leaguers from the Muslim minority provinces minus Jinnah were also Toadies. If the Unionists were dominated by the feudals, so was the Muslim League. The difference between the two was not on any social issue but based on cultural differences. The Leaguers from UP and Bombay deep in their hearts regarded the Punjabis, Sindhis and Pathans as uncouth; just because they spoke in a different accent and dressed differently. Thus the League remained a Muslim minority province party. But then the elections came and suddenly Fazli Hussain the uncouth Punjabi Dagga becomes important. An ad hoc reorganization by the League made them ready to contest only seven Punjabi Muslim seats out of which they won one of the Muslim seats out of the total of 75. Mr Jinnah had under estimated the Unionists. Before the elections he had remarked that Fazli (Sir Fazli Hussain) thinks he carries the Punjab in his pocket, Raja Sahib I am going to smash Fazli! Fazli Hussain had warned Mr Jinnah to keep his finger out of the Punjab pie! Fazli Hussain was not a Toady like Shafi or Khizr Hayat, nor did he lack brains like Sikander Hayat! Fazli was a man of intellect from the Punjabis of South of Chenab River! Mr Jinnah was a great man but it is a fact of history that great men do not like men of independent views. Thus Mr Jinnah finally described the Punjab in disgust in the following words "I shall never come to the Punjab again; it is such a hopeless place". This was not the appropriate response since it was largely the League's perceptual fault in mistakenly assuming that having few Lahore-based lawyers like Iqbal Barkat Ali and few others were sufficient to sweep Punjab. It was Mr Jinnah's good luck that Fazli Hussain died in 1936. The historian Ayesha Jalal is not wholly wrong when she says that "in October 1937 Sikandar Hayat (Punjab) and Haq (Bengal) rescued Jinnah from political oblivion by allowing him to speak for Punjab and Bengal at the centre". But this was the turning point because the Muslim League became an All India Muslim Party although without any worthwhile qualitative improvement. According to the Jinnah-Sikander Pact concluded at Lucknow in 1937 all Muslim members of Unionist Party also automatically became members of the Muslim League. Mr Jinnah was also accepted by the premiers of Assam, Bengal and Punjab as spokesman of all Indian Muslims at the All India level. At the provincial level in Punjab, however, the League was now Unionist dominated and this was resented by urban politicians like Iqbal who predicted that the provincial Muslim League of Punjab was now simply a Unionist creature.



The Jinnah-Sikandar Pact was basically a "Mutah" marriage of convenience. Mr Jinnah was interested in being the leader of the Muslims of an All India level. From the point of view of 1937 elections this was not the case but the premiers of Bengal and Punjab assisted Mr Jinnah in reaching the place of a leader of Muslims at an all India level. The premiers of Bengal and Punjab were interested in consolidating their position in their provinces by eliminating the provincial Muslim Leagues which was a major threat to Haq and at least in 1937 a minor irritant for Sikandar Hayat, Haq and Sikandar's abdication of a role at the centre to Mr Jinnah was not an act of philanthropy or a result of Islamic fervour but a delegation of mundane legislative dabbling to Mr Jinnah so that both of them could devote maximum time to their provinces. In 1937 having an All India Muslim League's role was an irrelevant and insignificant business since the British were firmly in control and their departure from India was not regarded as a decade long affair but perhaps a half century or quarter century affair. Thus the office of provincial government was regarded by all Muslims whether from Muslim minority or Muslim majority provinces as the ultimate ambition.



The year 1937 was important in another sense for the Indian Muslims. A major qualitative change was instituted in this year. From 1937-38 onwards the Muslim League was no longer a Muslim minority province dominated as it was before 1937. Mr Jinnah had realised that without cooperation with the Punjabi and Bengali Muslim leaders like Sikandar and Haq, however, much he may have despised them inwardly he could not become an All India leader. The Muslim League constitution was also revised and the seats of Punjab and Bengal in the Muslim League Council were increased as a result of which from 1938 onwards Punjab had more members than UP whereas before 1938 Punjab had as many members as UP.



By 1938 thus Mr Jinnah through a cosmetic political arrangement enjoyed the prestige of being an All India Muslim leader. The Jauhar brothers, Fazli Hussain and all independent or Unionist Muslims who could rival Mr Jinnah in terms of charisma or intellect were all dead. The Muslim majority provinces were ruled by men who thought in provincial terms and were happy that their provincial Muslim League, rivals were no longer a political threat. The Muslim League meanwhile, had no political programme for the Indian Muslims except opposing the Congress.



The outbreak of the Second World War changed the whole political scenario in 1939. Congress opposition to the British decision to bring India in the war against Germany and Japan forced the British to ally with the Muslim League in order to support the war effort. The Pakistan or Lahore Resolution of 1940, a political act envisaging the partition of India into Muslim majority and Hindu majority states was a political decision aimed at uniting the Indian Muslims and in giving the Indian Muslims a tangible political programme. Being a great pragmatist Mr Jinnah realised that religion was a great slogan and adopted it as the political creed of the Muslim League. In today's Pakistan Mr Jinnah's position is sacred and it is not possible to submit any of his actions to any rational assessment. In 1940, however, people with independent mind were well aware that apart from the outward idealism the Pakistan idea was a brilliant political slogan designed to make the otherwise manifesto less Muslim League a popular party. The Pakistan slogan gave the Muslim League for the first time in its history the role of a politically significant party outside UP, Bombay or Madras. Fear of Hindu domination united many Muslim politicians from culturally diverse regions like UP, Bengal, Punjab, NWFP, Sind, etc. The Muslim landlords now wanted a country of their own, the Muslim lawyers and urban commercial classes saw a land of opportunity in a free country which was Muslim majority, and the Muslim masses were galvanised by a brilliant slogan created by politicians. The Muslim League aim was a free Muslim majority country and not "Democracy". Democracy was a British imposed system. The Hindu was more comfortable with "Democracy" since he was in the majority. The two different respective positions of the two communities were natural and logical. The Muslims being 50 years behind Hindus in education and commerce were struggling for survival, while the Congress aim was political power, hence the divergence in political outlook. Mr Jinnah was definitely the only man of substance. But how could he have an egalitarian programme envisaging land reforms etc when 98% of the Muslim Leaguers were loyalists feudals and men of commerce. Loyalism was a pre-Jinnah policy! Ethnic diversity of the Muslims and distance between the Muslim majority provinces in the east and west were dictates of Geography. Karl Marx made a very profound observation in one his writings done in 1852 which very exactly describes Mr Jinnah's position. Marx thus said: "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past". Mr Jinnah was a brilliant leader but he was leading a ragged, poorly educated and battered community united by fear of extinction or exploitation by a much larger religious group. Mr Jinnah was a human being and ambitious to be an All India leader. But there is nothing wrong in being ambitious, for Mr Jinnah was one of the few Muslims and perhaps the only one in 1938-47 who had the talent and genius to be an All India leader. His aim was survival of the Muslim community in the political sense. Democracy was just accidental. The Muslim League was not an organized party but a collection of diverse personalities from different ethnic groups organised on one platform under the slogan of religion on a temporary basis. Within the party, the Punjabi Muslims, the Hindustani Muslims and the Hindustani Muslim leaders, all had their distant political ambitions. Since the Muslim League was a compromise between regional Muslim parties at the provincial level and Mr Jinnah at the All India level the division of power formula went through fairly well till 1942 in Bengal and till 1944-45 in Punjab. The subtle aspects of the Muslim League's peculiar position in the period 1937-46 are today either deliberately suppressed or ignored in today's Pakistan. The simple fact is that the Muslim League was not a party but a temporary alliance of divergent Muslim political provincial interests in response to the fear of Hindu domination in the wake of British withdrawal from India. The Congress, whatever its sinister or anti-Muslim policies or its Hindu dominated composition was a sound political party unlike the Muslim League. Mr Jinnah knew this fact and steered a difficult course walking on a political tight rope while dealing with four different provincial Muslim leaderships. The position of the UP Muslims in this situation was complicated and interesting. Regionally speaking they were clear that in case of establishment of Pakistan they would be an ethnic minority. Liaquat, their principal leader thus pursued a policy of total loyalty to Mr Jinnah. He had no provincial government to look after unlike the premiers of Bengal, Sindh, Punjab etc and thus became Mr Jinnah's number two. Between 1937-40 Pakistan was only a slogan or a distant likelihood and no Muslim leader of significance was really keen to be Mr Jinnah's number two. After 1940 and particularly after 1944 when Pakistan became a more likely possibility, Liaquat's position had been strengthened and no politician from any of the Muslim majority provinces could rival his claim as Jinnah's successor.



The changes in between 1937 and 1946 which made the Muslim League a successful party were the result of two factors. First, was the Jinnah-Sikandar Pact and the second, was the great emotional appeal of the Pakistan slogan. On the organisational level, however, the party did not really improve. Its pre 1937 nucleus were the two Muslim minority provinces of UP and Bombay. From 1937 the focus shifted to the Muslim majority provinces of Punjab and Bengal. However, the rise of the party in Punjab and Sind was not matched by a significant increase in number of members or branches. The major change which took place was that as the various feudal politicians in Punjab and Sind realised the strength of the Pakistan slogan they switched their allegiance to the Muslim League. The genuine Punjabi Urban Muslim Leaguers were dumped! The resultant sweeping Muslim League victory in 1946 elections in Punjab and Sind was not the result of an idealistic change in the hearts of the shrewd feudals but a realistic and pragmatic appraisal that Pakistan was inevitable and the Pakistan slogan had tremendously stirred and galvanised the Muslim common man. Thus, the most crucial reason for failure of democracy in Pakistan was the All India Muslim League. It was an apology of a party, a Sigheh arrangement and a short-term tactical reaction to the correctly perceived threat of Hindu domination! Later on it became fashionable to say that the Pakistani people were not ready for democracy! Actually, it was the Muslim League which was an apology of a party and as soon as the Muslim landlords got a country where Muslim landlords could kick the Muslim masses, Muslim League the undoubted failure evaporated like vapours! Pakistan was Mr Jinnah's achievement and he was rightly called the "Great Leader" but to achieve what he did he was forced to make many compromises between 1937 and 1946 and bring many opportunist turncoats and reactionaries in the Muslim League paving the way for the destruction of democracy! Even if he had lived beyond 1948 there would have been a reaction and Muslim League would have disintegrated. In war we unite and in peace we divide is the philosophy of opportunism. The Noons, Tiwanas, Mamlots, Hayats, Syeds and Khuhros could not compete intellectually with Nehru or talk without being obsequious like a butter to the British Viceroy! That is why they preferred to accept the brilliant dictatorial but substantial Mr Jinnah as a leader. The same leaders immediately after independence started malingering and even defying Mr Jinnah and the hated UPite Prime Minister! It was Mr Jinnah's good luck that he lived only till September 1948. Liaquat, was more unlucky and the Pakistani people the unluckiest lot. The Middle class and the upper classes got a country where they could exploit or became civil servants without competition with the more competitive Hindu!



Now, we come to the more direct reasons for the failure of democracy in Pakistan. The individuals most directly responsible for the failure of democracy were the civil servants and generals. Lets compare the presence of these culprits with the Indian scenario. There were potential Ghulam Mohammads, Mohammad Alis, Sikandars and Ayubs within the ranks of the civil service and army in India also. If we compare the organisation or presence of the ruling party i.e. Congress or League with a cylinder and equate Ghulam Mohammad and Sikandars etc with germs we find that the outer wells of the cylinder or pipe of Congress were too strong for such germs to infiltrate and contaminate/poison the flow of the current of democracy in India; whereas in Pakistan the outer walls of the cylinder or pipe of Muslim League were weak and these germs penetrated it and polluted/poisoned the whole system. The problem was not the mere presence of these men, for there were similar men in India also, but their success in Pakistan and failure in India. The centre of gravity in both the cases was the ruling party i.e. the Congress and the League. The Congress succeeded in keeping the civil servant and the general in his place whereas the League failed. History was kind to Mr Jinnah that he died in 1948 and today Pakistan historians console themselves by stating that had Jinnah lived democracy would have survived in Pakistan. This assertion is not as sound as people outwardly take it on its face value. Right from independence onwards resistance developed and Mr Jinnah was defied albeit very tactfully and subtly by the provincial Chief Ministers of Sindh and Punjab. The Muslim landlords had got their piece of territory. The prime motivation to join the Muslim League had been escaping the Hindu Bania, who economically dominated both Punjab and Sindh. Democracy never was the "ideal", it was only a British import and Muslim elite had accepted it only to preserve the position of social dominance! The Muslim middle class which had thronged MAO College Aligarh and Islamia College Lahore was also content that now the hated Hindu who was a tougher opponent in the civil service examination was no longer in Lahore or Multan or Karachi! The divergence in outlook was much more wide than the ruling class in Pakistan wants the common man to know. The Hindu even before independence was dominating the civil service, the business, finance and education. Those who joined Congress had higher ideals than those who joined the League or voted for it. The deprived were in both communities Muslim and Hindu, as a matter of fact they were the vast majority. But politically, the UP Muslims before 1880s had enjoyed an unfair advantage monopolising government jobs out of proportion. The Punjabi Muslim had a different start i.e. before 1849 they were grooming under the Iron heal of Sikh rule whereas after 1849 they were slowly progressing towards a position of political influence commensurate with their population. Thus Muslim separatism developed in UP where the Muslim elite wanted to pressure the unfair advantage that they had enjoyed since Mughal times. Another Muslim separatism of a lower intensity developed in urban areas of Bombay, Calcutta and Lahore. Here the Muslim, newly rising class of lawyers and government officials felt insecure by the presence of the more prosperous Hindu, who was more educated, more cultured and more enlightened.



Thus the Muslim aspirations by 1940s were creation of a state where they would get greater opportunities as far as the middle class and more political power as far as the feudals was concerned. "Islam" "Democracy" etc were just discardable slogans to attract the idealists or to galvanise the masses.

Attack in Mohmand the English East India Company that white knight in shining armour did save the Muslims of Delhi from the Marhattas in 1803 and those of Punjab and Peshawar Bannu DI Khan and Hazara in 1849.The Sikhs were the most organised military force in India and the only ones to defeat the British Company in a single battle involving more than one division in whole of Indo Pak.

Having said that it is a plain truth that both Afghanistan and Pakistan are controlled by USA through vassals like Karzai,the Paki generals and the NRO shackled PPP.After all the PPP was allowed to come into power after a USA brokered deal with USA after it entered into secret protocol with USA alongwith the army generals that it would be the best dog catcher of USA against the Islamists.Now whats happening is a staged drama with the PPP selling the idea that it has to be a minor subsidiary tactical garbage collector of USA against the anti US forces.Karzai,Gillani the PPP are all playing roles decided by USA.Karzai made ther threat with US blessings and we have a defence minister whose expertise is manufacturing shoes and in being a sycophant of generals.The army also knows that it cannot survive without USA.An independent judiciary is regarded as a threat by all including USA whose secret agreement with PPP and Musharraf guarantees non return of Iftikhar , the PPP and the army generals.The drama goes on .Nawaz Sharif appears to be the only odd man out.

Attack in Mohmand who is the caesar and who is the man with lean and hungry looks.the closest resemblance is Jamshed Gulzar Kiani.Neither is Musharaf fat.Or are you referring to Zardari.I know you since 25 years but you have become philosophical in ur old age.