goonga,

There's a very interesting article by pavocalry on FP re the Afghan war. The answer to your question may be that the veteran Mujahideen were fighting a 'proxy war' while the neo-Taliban are fighting an 'ideological war'.

flag objectionable content

Zee, GT;

Thats true that we dont find any jihadi recruiters in current circumstances as we were used to observe during afghan war and taliban time. Does not it imply that tribals are fighting alone in absence of other to-be-recruited mujahideens? and if they are not alone then they have only arabs(uzbeks etc) with them. LMP were different they had all pakis as only students and they denied all others to participate in movement except few uzbeks. but LMP students were not traditionally hired and not even supported by most of their families.

Keeping it in mind isnt and observing that the most of the mujahideens from Punjab( I know them only) which have been busy in jihad earlier are not going back, isnt it a weaker movement this time?

Token Q: why these veterans are not interested now? any guess though I know I could know by asking them directly but right now what do you think?

flag objectionable content

Zee:

" Yes GT, that is correct."

OK so let me digest this. I shall then get back to you.

Regards.

flag objectionable content

... in fact it is a great summation of what I was saying. Thanks. I should learn crystallizing from you

flag objectionable content

Yes GT, that is correct.

flag objectionable content

Zee:

Thanks. Very interesting. You say:

".... there are no intermediaries who are selling this as Islamic Jihad to recruit. This is instinctive. These are all volunteers ..."

The tribals are fighting to get NATO out from Afghanistan. No one is "selling" it as Islamic Jihad because it need not be "sold". It is indeed congruent to the concept of "jihad" as it asks Muslims to fight against oppression and occupation of "their land". Therefore, it is instinctive for Muslims and hence you have volunteers. As far as India is concerned, if Muslims perceive that the Indian state is siding with the occupiers, then instinctively they will fight against the Indian state ... irrespective of local socio-politico-economic situation. Hence, you say in an earlier post, India's foreign policy is important. Have I got this right?

flag objectionable content

GT,

1. I do agree that the movement should not be called jihadi. That may or may not come later. For now let us simply stick to the term "movement", unless you have a better term.

Yes I think 'movement' is the correct terminology to be used. Although Jihad itself is nothing else but a 'movement', but let's avoid it for now because of its negative connotations.

2. There are two issues here: (a) the tribals fighting for "their way of life" (call it Islamic if you may, though masadi will disagree. HP would simply dismiss it as "thuggery" perhaps.); (b) the fight being sold outside the area as "Islamic Jihad" by recruiters. Who are these intermediaries facilitating (b)? Do they belong to the "elites" in Pakistan (Generals as you suggest in your reply)? I cannot believe that they belong to LMP, for LMP dealt with very Pakistani centric issues. This aspect has never been dealt with thoroughly in any of the discussions in chowk.

Firstly, the tribals are not fighting for their way of life. They already had their own way of life since centuries. No one's laws has ever applied to them but their own. So what're they fighting for? That's the question.

They're fighting for their kin in Afghanistan. It is their way ... the honourable way. They will not sit pretty in Pakistan with generous grants from Federal Authority while the Pakistani state helps Nato in massacring their neighbours and lingual/cultural twins en mass.

Secondly, there are no intermediaries who are selling this as Islamic Jihad to recruit. This is instinctive. These are all volunteers. The Lal Masjid People never recruited, nor propagated war except delivering those Friday sermons where they railed against obscenity etc. I have seen many interviews of Rashid Ghazi where he told of turning away people (including women) willing to fight and bomb.

Thirdly, yes the Lal Masjid People only had a totally constitutional and legal domestic agenda. Theirs was limited to Swat first and later the rest of Pakistan for implementation of Sharia (which is not just criminal jurisprudence of chopping off arms etc but a social justice system), but nothing beyond that.

Most amazingly, the Waziristan people who were sort of aligned with Lal Masjid didn't even have a domestic agenda. All they wanted was to be free to fight in Afghanistan. Now, however, I'm afraid the escalation is turning it all into a global agenda which to begin with only the Afghan-Arabs (commonly known as Al-Qaeada) followed.

3. If I were to ignore point (b) in 2, then the issue (as I think) is really a question of local governance and decentralization of power. In the interacts following my questions to you in unplugged, we discussed question 4 (as posed to you). I put forth the idea of more power to panchayats. It was of course opposed. But I do not see a way out. In any case, would you agree somewhat?

In case of India, definitely the more decentralization, the better. I think Panchayats are great, as are Jirgas. The current judicial systems suck in such inequality. Unless the State can dispense justice for all, the people's justice at the lowest levels is the answer.

In the context of Muslims in India, it is even more necessary because they're a minority with a bigger sense of disenfranchisement. And the problem with Muslims is they fight. Sooner or later.

Regards.

flag objectionable content

Dear Goonga:

The restoration of the judges is very important. However, do keep in mind that this restoration, if it comes about, will be more "symbolic" than any "real" change in the structure of governance in Pakistan. That "real" change can only come about by the characteristic of the democratic movement that is fighting for the "restoration of judiciary". In particular, the movement for democracy has to go beyond lawyers and students, it has to go into the rural regions. Plus the set of demands have to go beyond the simplistic "restoration of the judiciary".

It seems to me that the movement is petering out and that is sad. Furthermore, I had hoped that the movement would seek larger coalitions. In particular, I was sad to note that it was confined very much to the upper elechons of society. Rejecting participation from Lal Masjid Supporters (LMP as I call it) was a bad tactic. At least IMO.

flag objectionable content

Dear Zee:

I have had some time now to go over your response. I have also gone through some of your interacts with majumdar and goonga. I cannot say that I agree or disagree with your perspective, for you well know I find binary processes difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, your posts have re-kindeled some of my previous hypotheses.

1. I do agree that the movement should not be called jihadi. That may or maynot come later. For now let us simply stick to the term "movement", unless you have a better term.

2. There are two issues here: (a) the tribals fighting for "their way of life" (call it Islamic if you may, though masadi will disagree. HP would simply dismiss it as "thuggery" perhaps.); (b) the fight being sold outside the area as "Islamic Jihad" by recruiters. Who are these intermediaries facilitating (b)? Do they belong to the "elites" in Pakistan (Generals as you suggest in your reply)? I cannot believe that they belong to LMP, for LMP dealt with very Pakistani centric issues. This aspect has never been dealt with thoroughly in any of the discussions in chowk.

3. If I were to ignore point (b) in 2, then the issue (as I think) is really a question of local governance and decentralization of power. In the interacts following my questions to you in unplugged, we discussed question 4 (as posed to you). I put forth the idea of more power to panchayats. It was of course opposed. But I do not see a way out. In any case, would you agree somewhat?

Regards.

flag objectionable content

nb,

That's the point. I have seen perfectly fine people turn into monsters on Chowk and I just don't want to fall into that trap. There are baits all around, but certainly Chowk means a bit more than always tripping into baits. It is actually upto us.

I had left for 2 years, but came back. I honestly think Chowk has some wonderful people, always around, within reach. Why should I not learn from them? Leaving is not the answer.

Regards.

flag objectionable content

i agree with you. after i come back from inja, i'm going in a week, i want to get a block put on my computer for chowk and give someone else the password.
i mean, zeemax, i'm still ashamed that after all these years, i gave in and cussed. but it was only to be expected, in a hostile environment, you cannot have any finer feelings.

flag objectionable content

Post by nb,

No it's only the quality of interaction on Off-the-Wall. The atmosphere there is just too full of hostility to do anyone good.

flag objectionable content

benazir's death has affected many of us in many different ways...this is a fallout too, isn't it?

flag objectionable content

Post by nb,

No nb, do stay ... don't go. You're most welcome. It's nice and quiet here, isn't it?

It's just that Chowk is different for different interactors. There're some who take interaction seriously, while others who use it for casual chatting. Nothing wrong with either of-course. It was just getting too noisy.

However, it was only I who left, though some like-minded interactors visit from time to time.

flag objectionable content

I only want to ask zeemax a question, and then I will go, so no need to jump up and down at me, people.
zeemax, why did you decide to leave up? though i can disagree with you, you always have a good analysis. i have told you that already. i don't get it.

flag objectionable content

Pakistani state's interests in Afghanistan were the same as the Tribals. Now these are at opposite ends.
Tribals have aligned with Taliban while Pakistani state considers Taliban its enemy

I am not sure whats outcome in Afghanistan but When Pakistani state realign its support and enemies from taliban, afghanistan, and tribals then situation triabals may not stand in enemy lines. this can be only after a regime change (no mush).

state cant afford declaring afghanistan an enemy as well but taliban, remaining enemies, may not survive and die out eventually.

flag objectionable content