Reforming the religious laws in Pakistan.

As some readers might know, the months of July and August of 2009 were rough times for Christians (and possibly other religious minorities) in Pakistan.
The violence against Christians by radical extremists was covered by various news agencies such as this report.

This once again triggered campaigns by Pakistanis and international human rights organizations for the Pakistani government to abolish the blasphemy laws.

Like them, I too endorse banning such laws and harsh penalties. But unlike them, I do not underestimate the power of Pakistan's ultra-radical religious Islamist minority.
As I mentioned in my other posts, the ultra-religious right in Pakistan might be a small minority, but they have a strong influence in the country.

Suddenly reversing or abolishing blasphemy or other strict religious laws will not be an easy task for the government, knowing the severe backlash it would bring from the powerful mullahs.

In my opinion the best solution then is to reform these laws. For example, many reports from Pakistan talk of people coming under false accusations of blasphemy mainly from their rivals.
Many of these false accusations are a result of personal feuds and so to settle scores, people throw false accusations of blasphemy at their rivals such as abusing the Quran or cursing the Prophet Muhammad.

And as already stated above, abolishing these blasphemy laws and penalties will trigger a strong reaction, so the best solution would be to reform these laws and prevent people from using them to persecute their rivals.

A good start would be to pass a bill approving the death penalty for anyone who is proven to have thrown a false accusation(s) of blasphemy against another person or people.

In Pakistan, murder is punishable by death under certain conditions. For someone to throw false accusations of blasphemy at another person is literally trying to get them killed, an indirect form of attempted murder.

Enforcing the death penalty on such individuals may discourage them from misusing these blasphemy laws as weapons.
Additionally, people who are accused of blasphemy must be proven to be guilty of the crime.

For instance, when a certain individual(s) is accused of abusing the Quran, a copy of this abused Quran must be recovered with the fingerprints of the accused individual to prove his/her guilt before punishing him/her.

People who also do harm or attempt to do harm on another individual(s) on the basis of blasphemy must be given the death sentence for their actions. Unless anybody is proven guilty of blasphemy, they must be recognized as innocent by the government and any harmful action carried out against the accused must be punished as a harmful act of assault, murder or attempted murder against an innocent victim.

Despite preaching any religion being legal under Pakistani constitutional laws, the ultra-religious right in Pakistan is also known for it's hostility towards those who convert out of Islam or those who preach another religion besides Islam.

To prevent these extremists from harming missionaries or preachers of others faiths, the Pakistani government should pass a law banning public preaching and public conversions all together.

According to Islamic laws, each persons faith is their own private matter. If the Pakistani government can highlight this fact, they can use it as a justification to ban public religious conversion to protect and equalize religious rights amongst all religious groups.

Anyone who preaches or calls for violence against another person or people like some mullahs did in 2009 against Christians, he/she must also face the death sentence by law for inciting hatred, violence and possible destruction of property.

Because of General Zia Ul-Haq's empowering of the mullahs during his dictatorship, he has managed to leave the scars of his scratches on Pakistan.
Healing these scars has come through a long way, but it may take many years or even decades until they are fully healed.

What I mean by all this is that the fanatical religious imprint left by Ul-Haq has declined in strength slightly over two decades after his death. But it will take some time before Pakistani society is free of the influence of radical Islam.

To free itself of this influence, Pakistan can take certain reformist steps as those suggested in this post to weaken the strength of this religious fanaticism.

Pakistan should not involve itself in Chinese affairs.

There are many mislead, Islamitized Pakistanis who believe in unconditional sacrifice for other Muslims. Muslims who have done nothing significant to help Pakistan weather in Kashmir or any other area.

Sometimes these other Muslim "brothers" create problems for Pakistan such as Arab Al-Queda militants hiding in our country. Or when middle class Pakistanis in Gulf Arab states are treated like slaves by their Arab employees, subject to racism by Arab supremacists (I have experienced that as well); these Pan-Islamist Pakistanis are nowhere to be found when it comes to these issues.

Also when Muslims persecute Muslims such as in Darfur, these Pan-Islamist Pakistanis are again nowhere to be seen or heard of.
These Pan-Islamist Pakistanis who try to develop an inferiority complex amongst the Pakistani population to other Muslims, are silent to the crimes against Muslims by Muslims in Kurdistan, Balochistan etc.

These Pan-Islamist Pakistanis have never condemned the silence of other Muslims to India's policies in Kashmir, nor do they acknowledge the fact that China has been a more loyal ally to Pakistan than most other Muslim countries.

Nor do they condemn their Muslim "brothers" for having full diplomatic and trade relations with India, despite abuses in Kashmir and also within India by Hindutva militants which has killed thousands of people including Muslims.

What about the uprising and violence in Tibet, where were all the Muslims to speak on that?
Pakistan was one of the only countries to support China when other countries tried to boycott them during last summer's Olympics because of the alleged human rights abuse in Tibet.

So why are some complaining now? Even Turkey which has raised voices against China's policies in Xiang, faces similar accusations when it comes to Kurdistan. Where does this hypocrisy end?

Those Pakistanis out there who think Pakistan should sacrifice it's friendship with China for the sake of the Uighurs need to answer quite a few questions.
What have the Uighurs done for Pakistan? When was the last time other Muslim countries sacrificed their economic and political relations with India for the sake of Pakistan?

The Uighurs who live just north of Kashmir have never once volunteered to help their Kashmiri Muslim brothers to my knowledge.

What about Pakistan's own separatist movements in Balochistan; should we by our own hypocritical standards give independence to Balochistan because some there demand it?

What if China decides to condemn our human rights abuses in Balochistan and call for an independent Baloch state? (even though Balochistan is not just Baloch)

Even the Pakistani blogger Moin Ansari, whom I admire, unbelievably thinks he has the right to condemn China's human rights in Xiang but never wrote a single line on Pakistan's human rights abuses in Balochistan.

Most other Muslim countries stand for their own interests while Pakistan goes out of it's way to help Afghanistan, Iran, the Arab states, only to be back-stabbed in the end.

I am not asking Pakistanis to condone the alleged human rights abuse in Xiang, but it's not in our place to complain about another country's policies towards their minorities, when we ourselves have a bad record of mistreating our own minorities in Balochistan, Sindh and elsewhere.

As mentioned, most other Muslim countries stand out for their own interests, it's time Pakistan does the same for once. And our friendship with China is in our best interests.

While all other Muslim countries were silent on Kashmir and turned their backs on Pakistan, China is the only country that has stood by Pakistan and we must be grateful to have a loyal friend like China.

Thankfully, the government of Pakistan shares my view and has taken serious steps that Pakistan not be used as a base to carry out militancy in China. Also thankfully, the majority of educated Pakistanis (save for a small handful of Islamists) agree with me on these issues.

Readers interested in the Xiang issue should also read this article.

Animal cruelty in Pakistan and the Muslim world

I was emailed this picture above last Eid by a friend. It is a parody of how we celebrate Eid-Ul Adha (also known as Bakara Eid in Pakistan). Though the picture itself does not seem to be from Pakistan, it is a strong message on how we treat animals in the third world and Islamic world. Click on image to enlarge.

In all the times I've witnessed animal slaughter in Pakistan, it always seems to me that the person carrying out the slaughter or paying for the slaughter does so according to their own favorite styles, not the way Islam requires.

During Eid Ul-Adha in Pakistan my family did not slaughter animals for the occasion.
This raised many eyebrows amongst friends, relatives, acquaintances etc.

It had triggered many strong but invalid arguments from them. Their traditional arguments have been if you're a meat eater (which I am), you cannot dismiss the slaughter of animals for Eid as "cruelty."

Another argument they've pressed is that Islam requires it and that the prophet Abraham (Ibrahim) went through a similar process, so to defy the custom is to defy the religion of Islam.

Here is where their arguments loose all validity. Firstly, Islam has had so many interpretations that people have yet to prove who's interpretation is right.
The Shias argue their interpretation, the Sunnis their own etc.

And even if this were a compulsory requirement in Islam (even though it is actually not), why do people cherry-pick this requirement while deliberately leaving out all the other requirements that come along with it?
According to these teachings, animals slaughtered for Eid must be brought in months before the slaughter so that the people carrying out the 'sacrifice' must get attached to the animal and love it to make it feel like a proper sacrifice.

However, this is not the case with a lot of people. They do not want to spend money on the animal's feeding and drinking needs and so they buy it within a few days or a day before Eid.
Neither do some people want to take the effort of taking care of the animal.

Then comes the slaughter part. According to Islamic principles the animal must be blindfolded during the slaughter and the tool being used to slaughter them must be sharp to make the process fast with minimum pain.

From all the animal slaughter I've seen in Pakistan in pictures, videos and actual real life, I have never seen even one animal blindfolded, nor is the process quick and painless.
Instead many people cut the the limbs of the animal before moving to the neck.

At many slaughter houses it seems to me that people actually enjoy torturing the animals. They slowly cut off the wings of hens and their legs. Even when taking out the animals from the cage to weigh it they tug the hens by their wings instead of gently carrying it in their hands.

This is extremely painful for the birds who's wings are sensitive to taking the whole weight of their body when tugged so hard. At many times the people who are carrying out the slaughter cut up the hens as if they are cutting wood, ignoring the hen's cries of pain.

Even before an Eid holiday back in the early 90s I recall a group of boys taking a goat home and tugging it by it's ears.
To many people slaughtering animals for Eid must sound like fun and their religion can be used as the perfect "justification" for this enjoyable sport, even though this is not an Islamic principle, but in fact a tradition made up by people claiming to be an Islamic tradition.

Sure it must be also fun to decorate the animal in plastic jewelry before killing it and to watch it get killed. My neighbor and schoolmates would talk about the "fun" of watching these animals getting killed.
Some of them claimed to have brought up to nine goats home.

Where is the 'sacrifice' in all of this? Bringing home animals the last few days before Eid, not attending to them, not even blindfolding them, but all geared up to watch some fantastic killing and gore.

They use the legend of Hazdrat Ibrahim attempting to 'sacrifice' his son to Khuda/God as an attempt to justify this. What in this universe or any other universe can a human being possess that almighty God/Khuda needs in "sacrifice?"

This tradition has it's roots in pagan rituals, which Islam has decried since it's very beginning.

I am sure Abraham/Ibrahim must have decorated his son in all sorts of fancies and pulled out his coolest looking sword or dagger and geared up to kill his own son (sarcasm).

On the subject of killing his own son, was not Abraham's intent to kill his own son and not the goat? Wasn't that the whole idea behind the sacrifice giving up something you really love?

Even the people who joyfully have animals slaughtered for Eid should ask themselves would they really love these goats, camels or cows more than their own children even for a second?

Should they not be sacrificing something they truly love such their own children or pets? Maybe Allah might throw a cattle or lamb in their place on the last second. Or maybe killing something you love is no fun after all, so go and kill something simpler.

As before, I acknowledge I am a meat eater. But then again I don't tug a goat by it's ears or cut off it's limbs first or use the cheapest kitchen knife to cut it up as Islam requires the knife be really sharp to cut through the animal fast. Nor do I pull a hen by it's wings.

I also try eat organically farmed meat and do my best not to consume factory farmed meat both for health and ethical reasons, even though it's more expensive than regular factory farmed meat. More recently, I've been consuming wild hunted meat.

I also encourage other Pakistanis to buy from government sanctioned meat rather than these private illigal slaughter houses that provide little to no welfare for animals.   

Until the hypocrites who take joy in killing animals for festive occasions meet the full requirements for animal slaughter in Islam, they have no right to use religion as a justification for their inhumane deeds.

Regardless of the requirements of this barbaric man-made tradition is the argument that "animal sacrifice" is actually not sanctioned by Islam. I am more believing of this than any other argument.
What "sacrifice" can a human being offer to an almighty God who or which does not need it? What does an almighty God not have that a human can offer in "sacrifice?"
Kill only when you need to. And when you need to, do it humanely or be prepared to answer for your cruelty if you are a believer. Other than that it is wrong/un-Islamic to make a sport out of killing.

Why has nationalism failed in Pakistan?

Pakistan is a country where a true sense of love for the country and interest in the origins of the people have failed.
Even over six decades after independence, any movement that tries to shine a true sense of pride in the nation fails. Weather this is a non-government organization or a political party that tries to promote unity.

All have failed and there are many but simple reasons behind all of them. Even nationalist or patriotic movements as mentioned in this post are repeating the same mistakes of the past which I will try to explain below.

Using religion as a substitute for national identity:
I found this to be the strongest reason of all. Not all Pakistanis are committed so strongly to religion weather on a political or ethical level. This is true especially for major ethnic groups living in Sindh and Balochistan who do not follow strict practices of Islam at all, but gentler Sufistic traditions.

However, the religious entities in Pakistan have had such a strong influence in the country's politics. Perhaps not as strong as more recent decades, but the fact is they have gained strong influence in the country and they have made Pakistan one of the few countries (perhaps the only country) where religion has been used as a substitute for national identity.

This has led to a great deal of confusion amongst Pakistanis. Many have been programmed to see themselves as Muslims first and part of the greater Islamic Ummah, nothing more, nothing less.
Often, there are other Pakistanis who see themselves as Muslims and only Muslims.

As just mentioned, Pakistan is probably the only country where religion is used as a substitute for national identity.
The closest comparison I can make are some eastern European countries where Orthodox Christianity has been used as a major identity marker amongst European nationalists.

But still, this has only been used as only an identity marker or better put a part of the European nationalist identity in Eastern Europe- never as a substitute.
In fact, Orthodox or protestant Christianity is not even followed amongst many European nationalists - just used as an identity marker!

Even in the Middle East where many Muslim countries have Islam dominating their politics and domestic laws (ie. dress code, ban of alcohol etc.), most people still do not put religion above national identity.
Even Arabs saw where they stood as Arab and where they stood as Muslims. The same can be said for Turks, Persians and other ethnic groups of Iran.

In Iran the Persians and other ethnicities celebrate their New Years, an event inherited from their pre-Islamic Zoroastrian traditions.
Even people I have met from these countries, all have a sense of identity and knowledge of their history, both pre and post Islamic.

This has not been the case for Pakistanis in particular people from outside the Sindh and Balochistan provinces which includes Muhajirs, Punjabis, Pakhtuns/Pathans and Kashmiris.
Most of these mentioned peoples I have noticed are strongly devoted to Islam. They have a great deal of knowledge on the history of Islam and the prophets that lived in the Middle East, but hardly any knowledge on the history of their people, culture or heritage.

Although I never attended a government school in Pakistan, the official recognition of Pakistani history in government schools begins in the seventh century when Muhammad Bin-Qasim, a young Arab general set foot into southern Pakistan and introduced Islam.

When I attended private school in Karachi during my childhood back in the 1990s, I noticed many of my classmates had strong religious views. There was prejudice amongst people against those of different faiths. Even Shias were thought of as non-Muslims by some.

When I once told a classmate that my family does not slaughter goats for Eid Al-Adha (known as Bakara Eid in Pakistan), it drew an interest from quite a few of the students, many asked are you even a Muslim?

Even during times that we were not taking regular lessons, we watched movies on Prophet Muhammad or heard many tales of Islam from story books read out by teachers.

I lived in the United Arab Emirates twice and during my second time period there, I attended a predominantly Arab school.
I found that all the Arabs of different faiths got on with each other on the basis of common Arab identity. They never saw non-Muslim Arabs as outsiders.

In fact, many Arab Muslims saw me as the outsider due to me being a Pakistani. Even in the most radical Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, most of the Arabs take deep pride in their Arab identity and the tribe they come from.

Arab nationalist movements from Palestine and other Arab countries stand for Arab self-determination and do not use religion as a substitute for this feeling of Arab nationalism.

All Arabs are included in these movements including non-Muslim Arabs.

Many of the Arabs I've met acknowledge themselves as Semites. Even the most Islamic Iranians and Turks I met, took deep pride in their nationalities and histories, but never have I seen the case with Pakistanis.

Even according to a friend of mine who studied at a university in Montreal, the Pakistani students association there exhibited Pakistani cultural events through Islamic holidays.

Even when I do join friends or newly met people to form patriotic groups of Pakistanis to spread awareness of Pakistan's history and identity- including prehistory- Islamists always try to breach in, insisting that Islam be made the equivalent of Pakistani patriotism and that Islamic history be the main and most important era in the history of Pakistan.

All these people with Islamic mindsets are a product of programing political Islam into the brains of Pakistanis.

While it's true that one of the reasons of modern Pakistan not joining the British designed confederation of "India" as a means to secure the future of Muslims, many Pakistani leaders and their brainwashed puppets have exploited and twisted around this idea to suit their own agenda and self-satisfaction.

Until Pakistanis come face to face with reality and realize no other country (even Saudi Arabia) substitutes national identity with religion, no nationalistic or patriotic ideologies will succeed also given the fact that a significant number of Pakistanis in Sindh and Balochistan will never trade their identity over a religion.

In the long run, trying to embed religion into nationalism or patriotism will only backfire.
One is because not all Pakistanis are Muslim.

Secondly, even the Muslim majority is divided into mainly Shia and Sunni, which has triggered bitter violent conflicts between them inside Pakistan.

Thirdly because religious fundamentalism is not as strong in Sindhis and Balochis, who follow Sufistic traditions and take deep pride in their culture and heritage.
They have often resented the state's Islamitization practices and will never trade their ethnic identity for a religion.

Lack of education on the Pakistani identity:
Though religious extremists have not always succeeded in hijacking political or patriotic movements; the secular movements themselves have failed as well due to lack of understanding of the Pakistani identity; hence they have nothing to base their nationalistic movements on.

Take for example The Young Pakistan Flag Movement which was formed in 2009. Here is a video on them:


At about 0:50 the group's founder indicates a similar point: That many groups with similar ambitions have failed.
What the group and it's founder don't realize is that they are repeating the same mistakes of the past.

As seen in the video, they are trying to unite people on the basis of our flag in which the provinces of Pakistan united on to force out the British rulers.

But the problem is that today the Pakistani flag has different meanings to different people. To provincial nationalists (which shall be discussed in the next section below), the flag is a symbol of Punjabi imperialism.

To certain non-Muslims of Pakistan, the flag is a symbol of Islamic imperialism. These non-Muslim Pakistanis have most likely suffered discrimination, hence they feel as aliens in their own country.

And to some Pakistanis, the flag is just a flag, unless it carries a theme behind it. But this theme has been usually occupied by political Islam, which I pointed out in the above section of this post.

Unless a proper meaning can be placed behind a patriotic, flag waving movement, it will have little or no impact.

For example the Palestinian flag carries on it the colors of Arab revolt.
Other Arab countries have similar flags with the same colors and their themes have been the self-determination of Arabs without the interference of outside forces which were mainly the British, the French and the Ottomans.

Even Turkic-speaking countries such as Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan etc. have moons and stars on their national flags- the traditional pre-Islamic symbols of the Turko-Mongol peoples.

Pan-Turkic nationalist movements have themes behind their flags and the gray wolf symbols-which no Pakistani movement has behind since the flag itself has different or no meanings behind it as a pointed out.

Even celebrations of independence day in my school in Karachi was filled with flag waving, pictures of the Quide-i-Azam and traditional Pakistani patriotic songs-all of them in Urdu. None which sang of the provinces and cultures that Pakistan is consisted of.

None which speak of the history and heritage of the land or the people. All sang of the greatness of the nation, but not even why it is great.

And never during my school years in Pakistan, was there any proper insights to the history of Pakistan besides the events which led to independence in 1947.

We once went on a field trip to a world history museum, which had sections devoted to the Indus Valley Civilization, but I do not even recall even one teacher explaining it's significance to Pakistan or even classroom discussions devoted to Pakistani history.

Most of our history classes were dominated by Western and Islamic history. We even studied Egypt's pre-Islamic history, but not our own!

Even the national anthem of Pakistan is in an old form of Urdu which is mostly incomprehensible even to a speaker of modern day Urdu.
So even the national anthem of Pakistan has no meaning today to the average Pakistani, unless they read the English translation of the song.

But then again, most Pakistanis do not speak English.

But now with the age of the Internet, it is possible to research the history of Pakistani people and answer the critical questions such as who are we as Pakistanis? Where did we come from? Who were our ancestors? What were our land and people before 1947? How can knowing who we are help us work together and unite as a nation?

Many of these questions have been wrongly answered, again due to lack of knowledge and misinformation of our history.
There groups such as "paknationalists" who continue the same slogan that Pakistanis are an "element" of Arabs, Turks (or better Turko-Mongols), Persians and Aryans.

Readers who wish to learn about Pakistani history can get some basic information on my History of Pakistan blog and search the history of Indo-Iranic peoples, which most Pakistani people today consist of save for Brahuis, Baltistanis and the Hunza.

With this, I would like to move on to the next reasons on the failure of nationalism in Pakistan.

Provincialism and Pan-South Asianism:
Some readers might have already noticed that these two ideologies contradict each other, but sadly this has not been the case for blind provincial chauvinists and their Indian masters.

Though I do not advocate provincial nationalism and strongly despise it, I perfectly understand the viewpoints of provincial nationalists and place the blame directly on the governments reckless and selfish policies as well as the silence of the people.

Provincial nationalism has not only been bread due to the economic imbalances of Pakistan's provinces (thanks to the carelessness of the government and the military) but also due to the fact that their heritage and culture are being shut out in the name of "unity."

The provincial languages have been endangered due to Urdu domination. Though a multilingual country like Pakistan does need a Lingua Franca, this lingua franca has been used at the expense of Pakistan's other Indo-Iranic languages.

In the 60 years of Pakistan's post independence era, little or no attention is paid to Pakistan's various provinces which the country is composed of.

Many provincial nationalists (including those in my family) have ignorantly propagated that the people of Sindh, Balochistan, Kashmir, Punjab and the NWFP have "nothing in common."

But on the other hand they have strangely promoted Pan-South Asianism, propagating that the people of South Asia are "one" and that they were "'forcefully' separated by the British."

Many provincial nationalists who have promoted Pan-South Asianism see India as the friend of it's enemy, the Pakistani government.
The contradiction Pan-South Asianism is to provincial nationalism in Pakistan is that if provincial nationalists cannot tolerate a single Pakistani state, how will they live in a gigantic South Asian state of over a billion people?

Pan-South Asianism has also played a deep role in confusing Pakistanis about their history and identity.

Some Indians have also propagated that the people of Pakistan are simply "Indian Muslims" with a separate state. When I disproved this, these very same Indians emotionally reacted claiming there is no Pakistani and that Kashmiris, Sindhis, Punjabis, Balochis and Pathans (Pakhtuns) are all distinct.

By now all readers must see the contradiction between these two claims.

All this takes us back to my earlier points. Islamist Pakistanis that I've argued with have propagated the same that without Islam, Pakistan cannot stay united. I refuted their claims in this post.

This argument of theirs takes us back to the other points that there is lack of education on Pakistani culture, on how Kashmiris, Punjabis, Balochis, Pakhtuns, Sindhis and others are related to each other.

Lack of education on our common history has also lead us to ignorantly believe that we all share the same landmass coincidentally.

This brings us forward to provincialism and Pan-South Asianism. Islamists have long propagated that without Islam Pakistan would be different provinces or simply a "part of India."
Now anyone with brains and common sense can see the contradiction of these two claims.

Conclusion:
With the age of the Internet and availability of free knowledge, it is very easy to research the people of Pakistan, their history & origins and how closely they are related to one another.

All this is available and free to access in the age of the Internet without the mullah screaming in your ear there is Islam and nothing more to life.

When patriotic movements in Pakistan bring actual meaning to being Pakistani which is really the common history, culture, heritage, genetics and linguistics of the people, they are bound to succeed.

A patriotic or nationalistic movement must also be careful not to shut out the closely related, but distinct cultures and languages of Pakistan's various ethnic groups as the state has recklessly done over the past few decades in the name of "unity."

Patriotism MUST include and respect all the religious and cultural identities of Pakistan's populations.

It must be careful not to ask Balochis, Kashmiris, Pakhtuns, Sindhis and Punjabis that they and their identities are respected and won't be put aside when it comes to national unity.

Instead of telling them they are not Kashmiris or Sindhis or Balochis or Pakhtuns or Punjabis  or any other ethnic groups, they should be told they are Pakistanis in the form of Kashmiris, Sindhis, Balochis, Pakhtuns, Punjabis and others.

A Pakistani nationalist movement should remind Balochis, Pakhtuns, Kashmiris, Punjabis, Sindhis and others that their identities are part of one larger Indo-Iranic identity.

Those who argue against this can maybe try to answer why any themeless patriotic movements or movements combined with religion have failed and brought only division amongst Pakistanis?

I would like to end this post with the video below that discusses my solution to reforming Pakistani nationalism:

Overpopulation: The main cause of Pakistan's problems and possible solutions to this crisis.

Pakistan is a truly unique country with a rich natural heritage. It has all the climates and landscapes of the world. From hot sandy deserts in the south to arctic cold glaciers and high mountain ranges in the north and the northwest with heavy snowfalls and thick, dense forests.

It has natural drinking water from it's mountains and rivers, saltwater to extract salt for use and to sell. Pakistan has full access to open sea, a better access than most European countries since they need to pass their ships through each others waters to export/import products.

Pakistan also has large reserves of oil, petroleum, coal and natural gas, yet it not only uses up these resources every day, but also heavily relies on imports of extra oil (and possibly gas) from the Gulf region.

Having access to open deep sea, Pakistan also has access to rich fishing resources and similar sea food products.

Pakistan has a large irrigation system providing huge access to clean water for drinking and agriculture. It could also have been used for forestation and preserving natural habitat.

Technologically Pakistan has made some fair amount of achievements. It has amongst the most brilliant scientists and inventors and has made many significant contributions to the world.
In the year 2007 Boeing purchased over a hundred million dollars worth of aircraft components from Pakistan, including engine parts for the GE94 engines used on their B777 aircraft series.

Brain, considered to be the world's first successful PC virus was written in Pakistan by two brothers Basit and Amjad Farooq Alvi in 1986. 

Pakistan is one of the largest producers and exporters of surgical instruments for hospitals worldwide, including European and Chinese hospitals.

Pakistan has also managed to produce nuclear weapons, a goal few countries on the planet have achieved.

With all these facts given, why is Pakistan then one of the poorest and polluted countries on Earth? The obvious answer no one wants to know: overpopulation.

In the first few years of independence from British rule, Pakistan's population was only around thirty-four million people. This rose steadily thirty-seven million.

By the 1980s it's population reached eighty-four million. Now it's around one-seventy million.

Create a scenario in which the population had stayed below forty million. Most people would have access to basic human needs. Because there would be less people, there would be a large supply of food and water for each person.

And because there would be an extra supply of resources, the price of food would be much lower and affordable.

Transportation and fuel would be be cheaper (and it was) because there are less people buying and consuming fuel with a small population. With less people consuming fuel, there would be plenty of fuel reserves to export and gain profit from.

The Gulf Arab states have small populations and huge reserves of oil deposits. Imagine if Saudi Arabia's population was 150 million instead of less than forty million.
More oil would be consumed, the prices would be much higher, there would be less extra oil left to export.

Had Pakistan's population stayed within forty million, there would be plenty of resources to export. Balochistan and Sindh, Pakistan's southern provinces are filled with rich reserves of coal, gas and oil.
Both provinces could consume, share and export these resources had the population remained at a sustainable number.

Punjab on the other hand has rich reserves of meat and agriculture which could feed the entire Pakistani population and extra reserves could be exported.

Plenty of profits would have been generated from all this. Indeed, Pakistan could have become as rich if not richer than the Gulf Arab states had the population stayed within the limit of forty million people.

Let's pretend as an example Pakistan's water resources can provide for the needs of about fifty five million people. And let's now pretend the population of Pakistan is around thirty seven to thirty nine million. That provides more than enough water to keep the population going.

The extra water could have been be exported, used for plantation and many other positive uses.

Before continuing to finish reading the rest of this post, I would like readers to watch the following videos which discuss the problem of overpopulation on a global scale:


For many years I saw and still do see overpopulation as the cause of Pakistan's problems and many people from my country disagreed with me (surprisingly upper class, educated).

Their beliefs were the typical replies of denial. Some such as that people with more children "have their own view points" or others that it's unfair to tell poorer people to have less children when rich people can have a larger number.

But the most arguments I've heard from Pakistanis is that population growth does not affect the country as there are countries with much larger populations but in similar conditions to Pakistan or some even better.

I disagreed the whole time. The first laughable "politically correct" points do not even really count as arguments since you cannot counter a scientific or statistic fact with political correctness.

But in regards to countries with bigger populations such as China or America, they cannot be compared to Pakistan. For one their landmasses are much bigger. Secondly, they have much more resources and are technologically more advanced than Pakistan. China has also successfully managed to contain it's birth rates through it's one child policy and though America faces a more difficult situation, it still has a much higher income per capita than Pakistan, a larger landmass and larger amount of resources to support it's population compared to Pakistan.

It is simply senseless to compare different countries in completely different conditions on the basis of common high populations and high birth rates.

It's only now that people are starting to see what I see. As an example this Dawn news report of an announcement from a Pakistani minister.

I have heard of similar news reports, but am unfortunately unable to locate them on the Internet currently.

Another typical argument I've heard is that investment in education is the solution to controlling population. Many think with literacy, people will have more awareness.
To an extent I can agree with this, but I do not think illiteracy is the only cause of overpopulation in Pakistan.

According to this site, Mongolia's literacy and education rates have been relatively low until as recently as the mid 90s or at least that's what it seems to indicate.
I don't know how reliable or accurate it is, but for a country that has been isolated, unaffected by globalization and has a mostly nomadic population, it should not be surprising that much of Mongolia's population is uneducated. By this I mean lack of schooling, not just the inability to read and write.

Even despite much of it's population being nomadic and uneducated, Mongolia has just over three million people and is larger than Pakistan in landmass.

How are these two countries where most of their populations have not been through proper schooling at almost opposite ends in terms of number of people??
Mongolia at just about over three million while Pakistan somewhere just below one seventy million.

The point I'm trying to make is that the lack of education does not seem to have sent Mongolia's population into a skyrocketing growth rate; hence lack of education might not be the source of overpopulation, nor may it's best solution be further investment in full time schools, universities and other educational institutions.

Another example is that overpopulation is also occurring in America. America's population growth rate is not much less than Pakistan's. How can this be? Isn't America a country with good education facilities?

Even educated middle class families in Pakistan have high birthrates.  Many even gain jobs in management, medical services, mechanics etc. I've come across middle class families where parents are educated along with all their off-springs, yet the number of people per household is fairly high.

It brings me to the same conclusion: schooling does not seem to cut down on birth rates.
Now one would ask what is then the cause and solution to overpopulation problems in Pakistan?

Though I like most others was ignorant to the causes of overpopulation, like others I've recently come to realize what the problem is: Fertility of the land.

By this I mean the land's conditions to accommodate human habitation and growth.

A lot of factors that go into this need to be understood. These include a landmass's climate, food, water and other natural resource availability. The more hostile the climate of a land, whether hot or cold, the less humans will be encouraged to live there. This is true for most living creatures who migrate, hibernate and reciprocate according to climates and seasons.

Australia is a good example of this. Despite being one of the world's biggest countries, it has a small population of just over twenty one million people. Not coincidentally, Australia has a limited supply of fresh water, an extremely dry landscape, mostly unsuitable for farming and difficult for humans to live in. All this these have restricted population growth rates in Australia.  

The Scandinavian countries are another good example of this. They have extremely cold climates, discouraging human population growth there. The lack of sunlight also contributes to depression and high suicide rates.

But at the same time all this has done wonders for them since the natural resources in Scandinavia grossly outnumber the human inhabitants living there.

Today the Scandinavian countries are amongst the best and safest to live in due to their small and sustainable populations.

The Gulf Arab states are also another good example of this. The hot and dry climates not only make agriculture mostly impossible but also makes human habitation difficult with extremely high temperatures.

Much of the Gulf Arab countries are dry deserts and mostly uninhabited. This is both due to lack of food and water resources as well as extremely hot and dry climates.  Saudi Arabia is the largest country without even a single river.

Such conditions have limited population growth in the Gulf Countries. That has also done wonders for them since the discovery of oil and a small population has brought riches to the Gulf Arab states. This would not have been possible had these countries had high fertility. They would be overpopulated and would be consuming most of their energy resources with little or none to export and profit from.

The situation in the subcontinent is different. Most of the subcontinent has an extremely fertile landmass which support food and water production, making it an extremely overpopulated region.

Even inside Pakistan, different parts of the country have vast differences in population demographics and growth rates which are again determined by the conditions of the landmasses.

The Kashmir province has a mostly rough and rugged terrain making mobility dangerous and difficult.
Mobility and living conditions are made even more difficult during the winters. Agriculture also becomes restricted during the frost season with all the fertile farms being covered in snow.

Today the Kashmir province along with the Northern Areas district has a total population of around only ten million people.

Balochistan is the least inhabited province of Pakistan with a population of just over eight million people. Despite being the country's largest province, Balochistan has a mostly dry climate with limited rainfall and cold, frosty winters in it's northern parts.

All these factors have made agriculture difficult in the province, meaning a restriction in the food and water supply and so restricting population growth. But in the other provinces of Pakistan, especially Sindh, Pakhtunkhwa and Punjab, quite the opposite is true.

The climates of these provinces are mostly humid. Almost every parts of these provinces are habitable, save for Punjab's northern areas or other mountainous areas in Sindh, Punjab and Pakhtunkhwa.

These provinces also have rainfalls, especially during monsoon seasons. Most of these areas were also heavily forested, especially Punjab. These areas provided the human inhabitants with large food and water supplies for generations. Most of Sindh and Punjab's and perhaps even Pakhtunkhwa's agricultural lands are from deforestation.

Today the vast majority of Pakistanis live in the provinces of Sindh, Punjab and Pakhtunkhwa and are also experiencing threateningly high birthrates.

The lesson to be learned from all of this is that humans will enrich themselves from the lands they live on as much as they can and grow as much as the land(s) and it's conditions will allow them to.

Regardless of education, the vast majority of humans will follow their natural instinct of greed and desire to gain and grow as much as they can unless there is interference.

The interference can be  of any kind. It can be from a higher power- such as the case of the Chinese government's enforced law of allowing only one child per family in China. It can also be from wars and natural disasters such as Iran loosing up to three million fertile male adults from the war with Iraq or suffering from various earthquakes both before and after the war.

All these factors severely disrupted Iran's population growth rates. Today Iran has a population of less than eighty million people.

Of course those who agree with me that overpopulation is the main cause of problems in Pakistan will most likely now state that stopping the growth of the population is the solution.

I disagree with this idea as well. Simply halting the population growth rates won't solve the problems of Pakistan, for the country will still be left with around one seventy to one eighty million people and not enough resources and finances to support them.

Add to that further deforestation and waste from consumption.
The solution is to depopulate Pakistan until the population falls to lower than fifty million or even less than forty million.

Some may think it's an unrealistic goal, but if Pakistan is to rid itself of it's current problems, I can guarantee almost none will be solved until the population is brought back down to what it was in the first few decades of independence.

Depopulation in a country occurs when the death rates are higher than the birth rates, meaning there are more people dying than there are people being born.
In Pakistan the birth rates are currently fairly higher than the death rates, so depopulation has not been achieved as of yet.

There are many ways to reach depopulation and I'm sure many people will have their strategies but the important thing is they all have to reach the same goal.

Of course we cannot increase the death rates by killing people, but there are still ways to make the death rates higher than birth rates.

Some are:

-Making the death sentence unconditional for murderers, rapists, drug dealers, child abusers and similar criminals. I have explained why it should be done in this post.

-Making Euthanasia legal, which I will explain in another post.

-Legalizing abortion.

I also feel a strong one would be to promote adoption. Many people in Pakistan who wish to have children can do so by adopting children instead of unnecessarily increasing the population.

This would not only decrease population growth rates but also reduce the number of orphaned children in Pakistan.

I recall between the late 90s and early 2000s, a house cleaner who would come to my house in Karachi to do some chores. He announced that he and his wife recently had a daughter.
I straight forwardly told him that this was a bad idea since it would be costly and contribute to overpopulation.

He claimed one child was enough and he wanted nothing more. A few years later he announced he had a son. I pointed back to his earlier claim that he would have no more children.

His reply was that now that he has one child of each gender, he wants no more. Let us imagine if he and his wife adopted an infant boy instead of giving birth to a second one. It would have made a huge difference.

And the chances of him having done that would be strong had child adoption been publicly promoted in Pakistan.
Politicians can set an example by adopting a first or second child at infancy to promote the practice amongst all classes of Pakistan.

There are also benefits for families who adopt children in both health and favoritism. For example couples that consist of first cousins are better off in adopting healthy children instead of giving birth to children who will most likely be deformed.

Adoption of Pakistani children should also be promoted amongst Pakistani expatriate communities especially those who wish to raise their children as Muslims or wish for their children to be of the same race as their own.

There are many newspapers, magazines, websites and other forms of media used by Pakistani expatriate communities to stay in touch with what happens at home from news to events.
Such media should be taken advantage of to promote adoption of Pakistani children amongst expatriates.

I recently read that the Pakistani government's newest population control program was financing couples with just one child, including education and other needs. Why not provide this finance to couples who adopt children?

In terms of favoritism, I notice many men and women in Pakistan and Asia would like to have spouses who have certain features different from their own and would like their children to appear a certain way after their spouses.

Sometimes, I see marriages between Pakistanis of different racial phenotypes, including those within my family.
On the other hand in Western countries many couples also wish for their children to look a certain way such as having more tan.

Other times, people go after genetic donors possibly to select what kind of children they'd have.
Other richer people such as Micheal Jackson are said to have genetically customized their children to have light eyes and other features that suited him.

But the problem is that most people can't afford to genetically modify/customize their children, so why not go for adoption? Adopt a child that suits your favorite appearance.

While all these are very helpful suggestions, they will not help decline the population in any significant way.

That is why I  propose that the strongest solution would be a reduction in the food production. As I pointed out the problem, that is countries and regions with high fertility, especially in the supply of food and water have rapid population growth rates to match the supplies.

Even history shows that the earliest known major civilizations all started on fertile lands that provided large quantities of food and fresh water.

The fact is that around one eighty million Pakistanis have access to less expensive food sold in the domestic market. Even if they can only afford a small amount, they still have access to it. Otherwise there wouldn't be one eighty million Pakistanis alive today.

And the reason why food is sold cheap for the past sixty years is because much of our landmass is able to produce food in these massive scales.
In countries that do not have such high fertility, food and water are usually sold not so cheap.

In Pakistan, food producers are taxed when selling their products abroad, especially during times of disasters such as the 2010 floods. These taxations discourage them from exporting abroad and pressures them to sell domestically.

This makes food availability cheap to the population and only further contributes to it's growth.

If this trend could be reversed of exporting our food resources with decreased taxes on the farmers and vendors while taxing the domestic sales, it could reduce population growth in Pakistan.

Everyone may be effected in Pakistan, but for families with few or no children, the taxation will have very little effect. 

Increasing food exports could also increase our budgets in infrastructure, law enforcement, education facilities and other developments. The increased taxation could also be invested in birth control to further strengthen it.

I do not wish to be misunderstood as advocating starving the people. What I'm proposing is making food availability even more difficult so the masses will be busier trying to afford food than producing more children. Making food less available and more expensive to the point that people will be preoccupied just to consume food and stay alive.

The upper class in Pakistan will also be affected by the food taxation, but since they have few children per family, they will not be affected by much. Even profits gained from exporting food should be invested in birth control.

Imposing a one child policy on the masses will only cause backlash and rebellion. The masses will control their birthrates only at their own discretion, not on what is sustainable for them and the environment. Therefor, reducing the food availability will probably be the most effective way to halt this unsustainable growth.

Had our government and leading elites realized the causes of overpopulation and put a limit on the domestic sales of the produced food, our situation would have been much better today.

Our government probably wouldn't even need to have set up birth control programs to combat this unsustainable growth had the food production been controlled.

Some people might see my plan as cruel and inhumane. But if such a plan is not carried out, the population will continue to grow at this alarming rate. This will result in even worse and inhumane living conditions.

Since much of the Pakistani masses will refuse to limit their birthrates to one child per family at the most, it must be enforced upon them in the way they cannot resist; by cutting down on the food production.

Unless there is a promising population decline rate, a drastic curb in the food and other resource availability has to be enforced. My main point is that since an increase in agriculture leads to an increase in population, a gradual decline in agriculture should result in a gradual decline in population.

To understand this better, read A Summary of Human Population Dynamics.
 
I've read recent reports of Pakistani scientists trying to increase the food production by strengthening the fertility on the lands. If true, this will only help grow the population, not decrease it.

Another useful measure would be to deny any charity to the poor unless they agree to sterilize themselves as well as their children first.  The lower classes in Pakistan have the largest families by ratio which has made them so poor and severely deteriorated the country's conditions.

As a result much of Pakistan's natural habitat and ecosystems have been destroyed.

Another possibility would be to contaminate the food and water supply with contraceptive substances. There are contraceptive pills that are available to purchase.  These pills are made of powder if I am correct. The powder from these pills that can be fed into the water supply, though I am not certain of it's environmental consequences.

There might be natural substances that can perhaps be fed into the food and water supply and help halt birthrates. But since I am not a biochemist nor read up on the subject of biochemistry, I am not sure exactly how this would work.

There might be many other ways to reduce population in Pakistan, other ways I cannot think of currently.

There are many who claim that corruption is the cause of poverty other problems in Pakistan too.
I don't find this argument very convincing. Many Eastern European and Arab countries are plagued with corruption. But it has had much less consequences on the peoples of East European and Arab countries due to their much smaller populations. 

Most oil-rich Gulf Arab states have governments who spend most of their country's income on luxuries while only a fraction of the GDP is spent on the people.

But this fraction is more than enough for the populations of Gulf Arab states since their numbers are incredibly low.
Poverty is close to nothing amongst the local populations of the Gulf. Even Mediterranean Arab countries which have very few natural resources to export and profit from have much higher living standards than Pakistan due to their lower populations.

There are some countries that are not overpopulated and still suffer from poverty and mass starvation but that is usually to social instability.
This is not the case for Pakistan, which is in a mostly stable social situation unlike other countries which are at full scale civil war and have no governance at all. The only "governance" such countries have is the influence of powerful and corrupt warlords.

Pakistan's main problem is overpopulation alone which has caused most of the other problems.

Whichever way Pakistan's population can be curbed, it must be done at all costs. All finance and resources spent on charity and human development must be put into reducing the population by millions. That's what it will take. All welfare and humanitarian organizations in Pakistan must put their maximum efforts and resources into population reduction. All donations spent on human development should be invested immediately into birth control regardless of which method is best in doing this.

To spend money and resources on poor people is pointless if their misery is going to continue and only worsen due to high population and birthrates with an unequal amount of resources; therefore the best and only way to abolish poverty is to reduce the population to a sustainable number.

If all this is not done now, there may come a time in the near future that the situation will be out of control and will have devastating consequences, with no solution to solving the country's problems when there's just too many people.
Having an enormous amount of people will make birth control the more difficult since the average couple in Pakistan has several children.

Those several children in just about two decades after their own birth will give birth to several children of their own. Indeed two parents could become grandparents to dozens of grandchildren. The math of exponential growth is quite simple.

We often hear and read about the government doing nothing for the people and to some extent it is true. But what can the government or any organization really do for people that have just too many children?

It brings us to the same issue of denial. Despite the corrupt politicians and military dictators that Pakistan has suffered through, the country could still have flourished and developed. All this could have been achieved had the population stayed below forty million people.

Pakistan would have at least been far better off than what it is currently.

Our older generations tell us of much better times in Pakistan when the cities were clean, safe, peaceful and the country was much more civilized with most people enjoying a decent living standard. The environment was much friendlier, including maritime environment.
They will tell us all this but they will usually not tell us the real reason why it was so different: The population back then was much less and stable.

With a growing population, Pakistan can expect increasing poverty, inflation, crime, pollution, shortages, unemployment, turmoil, environmental denigration, foreign dept, dependency on foreign aid and many other horrors that overpopulation brings with it.

More than fifty years on after surpassing the maximum population our country could sustain, we have still not figured out the real cause of Pakistan's problems -not just because we're stupid and blind but also because we have lived in denial.

People don't want to tell others not to have children because they themselves want children of their own and don't want to sound like hypocrites so they stay all quiet about it.
Instead the people weather the street beggars or the rich, spoiled elites like to play the fun and easy part by tossing the entire blame on the government without taking a second look at themselves.

I could very well be wrong about overpopulation being the source of Pakistan's problems and I'm sure there are still those that argue against it.

But until now I have seen no credible evidence against this.
None of those who argue against me on this issue have provided any solid or convincing evidence to support their arguments, and so I strongly stand on this belief until or unless convinced otherwise.

To get more brief insights into how agriculture causes overpopulation read An expansion of the demographic model: The dynamic link between agricultural productivity and population
and watch this video.
 

My concerns and opposition to the expansion of the Gwadar port

Above: An image of the Gwadar port present day. In a few years it may look nothing like that, but an overpopulated, polluted city like Karachi.

Background:
In the early decades of Pakistan's independence from British rule, Karachi was nothing more than a small, pleasant, clean seaport town. But ever since the expansions and rapid increase of population, the city has become a disaster.

Gwadar the port city in Pakistan's Balochistan has also been mostly the same, but with the recent expansion, I fear it could turn into another Karachi in a matter of a few years.

Political reasons:
Given the current politics in Balochistan with tensions between Baloch nationalists and the Pakistani government, the expansion of the Gwadar port could only further inflame the political situation.
With the Gwadar port expanded, countries from all over the world will be using it as a major transit point- increasing the traffic in an area which has mostly remained undisturbed throughout it's history.

In the recent years, many Baloch nationalists have resented the movement of people from other parts of Pakistan and taking up property and high positions.
The biggest resentment has been the extraction of many resources such as oil and petroleum without the people of Balochistan (including Balochis, Pakhtuns, Brahuis and others) gaining anything from this extraction.

Imagine how they would react to foreigners then who would come in massive movements, disturbing the peace and quiet of Balochistan.

As a reaction to this, certain Baloch rebel groups have started attacks on government and installations. By spending money on expanding Gwadar, the government may only generate loss should the rebels attack important infrastructure in the Gwader area.
Who would pay to replace all this if the rebels destroy them? Building the infrastructure there would have been a waste of money and resources in the first place.

Even with new proposed negotiations with the rebels, the Pakistani government has lost the trust of many Baloch people, by expanding the Gwadar port and globalizing an undisturbed region only more trust will be lost. And without trust, how will there be stability within Pakistan?

Expanding Gwadar will only further destabilize the political situation.

Environmental reasons:
Karachi also started out like Gwadar. A quite and peaceful town also used as a port. Even in the first few decades of independence, Karachi was a relatively clean, peaceful city much like Gwadar is today.

Now look at it. A complete disaster. One of the most crowded, filthiest, polluted, undeveloped cities in the world.

The creeks and and mangroves around Karachi were clean and undisturbed at one time. Even the water around the harbor was clean and safe to swim in. Today they are completely polluted.

Much of Pakistan especially the urban areas are densely populated and polluted which has led to environmental disasters and deforestation. Much of the natural habitat around Karachi is being destroyed or already has been.

Balochistan is one of the last undisturbed places of Pakistan, where the seawater is relatively clean, providing safe and healthy fish products and access to clean sea.

With the mindless expansion of Gwadar, the city may as well end up like Karachi. This may generate plenty of profits for the economy, but our well being does not simply depend on money.
A good environment is necessary for the survival of any nation. For a good environment a sustainable population number is needed, something Pakistan has far surpassed and needs to immediately reduce to avoid disaster.

With Gwadar expanded, we might be killing a lot of fishing industries and damaging our environment, which will have terrible consequences on the long run.

If we are to expand Gwadar, we should ensure we make it like a Gulf Arab city such as Muscat. Even making it like Dubai will have a negative impact.

Either we must come up with a solution to prevent Gwadar from turning into another Karachi or we must abandon the expansion all together.

The forgotten heros of Pakistan: The Police.

Above: Relatives of a dead police officer mourning.

The police in Pakistan are amongst the most hardworking people when it comes to law enforcement and security.
The problem is that most of the Pakistani public ignores their risky efforts to protect the country and simply focus on the negative side of the police.

Most people only talk about corruption, fraud, brutality and bad performance when discussing the role of the police. But all these things have a cause behind them, and that is that despite their efforts and the daily suffering they endure during their difficult duties, the police in Pakistan are paid terribly, much less given any credit for their efforts.

Even their police stations are mostly in such poor conditions, hardly a place for anyone who'd want to work in a pleasant atmosphere.
Additionally, these people are poorly equipped and trained, yet they have to fight against the most dangerous criminals while being vulnerable to them.

While it's true the negative side of the police cannot be ignored, Pakistanis only seem to want to focus on that side.
Imagine for a minute if the police was not active even for a day in a major Pakistani city. All hell would break loose. It would be an open season for looting, killing, kidnapping, terrorism etc.

The main problem arises from the poor salaries of the police. They are paid much less for their risky, difficult tasks then they actually deserve. Because of these poor salaries, they are forced to accept bribes as a means of survival and to provide for their families.

Those rich, spoiled, upper class, Westernized Pakistanis who criticize the police should take into account their poor conditions and remember the last time they themselves bribed the police or sought help from a friend or a relative in the government when they got into trouble with the law.

Another thing the Pakistani elites don't realize is that the police in third world countries work much harder and face many more difficulties than the police in first world countries.

In the third world, where crime rates are higher, the police struggles much harder and are more prone to attacks while combating criminals and terrorists.
In present times after the outbreak of the current so-called "War on terrorism," many police personnel have been targeted and killed.

There has been hardly any solidarity if any for those who have struggled and died to protect citizens in Pakistan. And even when the police do something positive to prevent further terrorist attacks or robberies, there is no sign of encouragement or appreciation from the people.

Those who contest these claims should take up the positions of the Pakistani police even for a week and realize the difficulties there is in such a career.
I'll grantee the vast majority of police critics will resent the miserable working conditions they are placed in- including poor salaries, leading the police critics themselves to accept bribes as a means of survival.

In America, in emergency situations like the 911 attacks, the government and people honored the efforts of their law enforcement and emergency agencies, it's time Pakistanis do the same to promote and encourage their positive actions.

Why Pakistan should NOT sign any nuclear disarmement treaties.

In Obama's recent count down campaign to push for global nuclear disarmament, I received an email sent to me some months ago which linked to a petition for all nuclear armed countries to disarm their warheads.

I did not sign the petition as this poses a serious threat to Pakistan's security and sovereignty.
Without a nuclear arsenal, Pakistan is a prone to attacks by India or any other hostile power in the West.

Though Pakistan might have a better trained and technologically more advanced military than India, it's main problem is that it's grossly outnumbered.

Even with it's superior missiles, Pakistan can only temporarily hold off a massive ground invasion by the Indian armed forces.
A note to add is Pakistan's northern provinces are a major protection for the country from air and ground raids due to it's higher altitude and rougher terrain. Southern Pakistan is still vulnerable due to it's mostly flat terrain.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars and India's population even voted in BJP Hindutva fanatics, who dream of their imaginary "greater Bharat" and have openly made threatening, undiplomatic statements against Pakistan.

Their will to destroy or swallow our country is not at all weak. The only thing holding them back is the risk of nuclear war, which will leave both our and their country in complete destruction.

Should Pakistan ever disarm it's nuclear arsenal, there is nothing to guarantee India will not make future attempts to go to war.
And even when India is not a threat, what is to grantee that a Western or Middle Eastern allaince will not wadge war against Pakistan?

Already we face the threat of NATO in neighboring Afghanistan who have challenged our sovereignty in the past by attempting to illegally send ground forces into our north western provinces.

Had Pakistan not had one of the most sophisticated defense forces in the world, NATO would not hesitate to occupy the sparsely populated areas of our country in the name of fighting terrorism.
Even if other countries including India agree to disarm their warheads, Pakistan is in serious danger if it does the same.

As already explained above, Pakistani forces are heavily outnumbered by their Indian counterparts, but with nuclear weapons, there is no chance of a winner on either side. A conventional war will simply be too unpredictable for Pakistan.

In a similar comparison, America might have bigger and stronger forces than North Korea, but does not risk waging a war against this weaker nation due to North Korea's nuclear capabilities, which can most likely reach America's western coastal cities.

A nuclear war has never been fought and probably never will be as long as both sides are armed with nuclear warheads. The same case will be with Pakistan and any foreign aggressor that may threaten it.

It's the same comparison when one tall, strong man is outnumbered by ten short, skinny men. But when all the men have guns with enough bullets to kill each other off, the balance of power is more or less equal.

A possible way to solve the Hunza lake problem

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/road-link-with-china-faces-threat-130

The above is a link to a Dawn newspaper article about a man-made lake in the Hunza Valley region, that is increasing at about 1.5 meters a day.

According to reports that I've read, there are plans to contain the water by creating a damn.
Though I'm no expert on situations like these, an idea came to my mind which I think could be a good solution.

Instead of trying to contain overflowing water, the Pakistani government can install water extraction pumps at a suitable rate according to the rate at which the water in the lake increases per day.

The extracted water could be supplied to the population or farming or used for other means as there are many ways to make full use of extracted water.

And since the lake keeps rising per day, the extracted water could keep the water levels balanced at the same time it could give possibly an unlimited supply of fresh water.

Even if the amount extracted is insignificant, it could be saved as the amount builds up. This could start a new system of water supply even if temporary.

Always blaming the government has become a drug addiction for Pakistanis.

For many years now, whenever something goes terribly wrong in Pakistan, the first reaction of the population is to always pin the blame entirely on the government.

It doesn't matter what the government does to improve the situation, everything is supposedly always their fault.

Take for example the current war against religious extremism, no matter how many Pakistani soldiers and policemen/women have died fighting these terrorists, it's still the governments fault for "not doing enough." Is it ever enough?

And even when the government puts in it's best efforts such as troops killing as many militants as they can, foiling many terrorist attacks, there is hardly if any sign of appreciation.
Instead there is blame after blame weather the government acts or not. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

There are also many crazy conspiracy theorists in Pakistan who claim the ISI is training these terrorists to carry out the attacks. They claim this without any proof or even the slightest bit of solid evidence. Why would the ISI train and support the very people who are killing their own troops and blowing up their own offices?

These conspiracy theorists are obviously parroting the Hindutva propagandists next door who attract a large following of Pakistanis through Bollywood and other means.

Other conspiracy theorists like Ahmed Rashid repeat similar claims for profit since he's sold many books on this topic.

Even the high prices and the wide scale poverty is the fault of the government. While it's undeniable that the government, especially the armed forces of Pakistan have a history of corruption and human rights abuse, they have been made the scapegoat for just about every problem in the country.

Weather the government is democratically elected by the people or a dictatorship, everything is their fault.
For the poor, the government is totally at fault for their positions, while for the rich, the government is totally at fault for not doing enough to protect them and improve the country.

The truth is that the main cause of poverty in Pakistan is overpopulation, which I discussed in this post.

What right does a middle or lower class man with six or more children have to blame the government for his poverty when he makes enough income to support only one or two children? Even when many lower and middle class Pakistani men do not allow their wives to work outside of the household?

For the typical rich, spoiled, Westernized Pakistani elite, who is he/she to blame the government for the problems of the country?
The rich elites only pay taxes because they are forced to as they earn a sizable income.

The rich elites hardly contribute to Pakistani society. They send their children to English schools where they are Westernized and are hardly aware of what goes on in their country.
Many of these elites frequently break the law by bribing their way through or getting help from a friend or relative who works in the government.

Even with all this, the hypocritical elites still have the courage to accuse the government of corruption and the cause of every problem in the country.

Even during the intense war against the Taliban, there are demonstrations in front of Pakistani embassies by the expatriate communities.

Even when the Swat girl incident happened, somehow it was the governments fault with the blame going at them.

This recent news article is similar to the point I'm making. With TV shows trying to get higher ratings by bashing a democratically elected government the people themselves are guilty of installing. Amongst the people, many bash the government to feel not left out by their peers.

There's another recent article written covering government bashing to gain more popularity (and also to deflect guilt from one's self or organization in my opinion).

I do not advocate how Pervez Musharraf took power in Pakistan through illegal military force, but I have to admit he was a far greater leader then the elected Pakistani leaders in the recent decades.

Under Musharraf the Pakistani economy gained a steady recovery. Seats in the parliament were reserved strictly for women and religious minorities and religious extremists were given a strong response.

Even in newspapers I remember reading sometime around 2002-2003 where there were more than one cases of Musharraf ordering protection for women targeted by their husbands/families for honor killings. Still no gratitude.

I remember in 2006 passing by a protest by a women's rights group protesting against Musharraf for the poor treatment of middle class women in Pakistan. Despite all his efforts, give him no credit; just more blame.

Even during the 2007 Lal-Masjid incident in Islamabad where Taliban terrorists took over an important Mosque in Islamabad, blame after blame just struck Musharraf despite all his efforts to have the terrorists taken out without any of the hostages being harmed.

Most people, especially the elites, always focus on the negative side. Instead of supporting Musharraf's reforms, they elect Asif Zardari, who has been a longtime suspect in a history of corruption in Pakistan.
Today Zardari with his corruption record and his government are hounded and blamed by Pakistanis for the problems of the country.

If the case is such, then perhaps Pakistanis need to act independently of the government to improve the country since they see the government as an unreliable force no matter who is elected by the people. The people blame the same government they themselves elected.

Somewhere this cycle should stop and the people should support the government when they are doing something positive otherwise there will be no progress. Already people should know by now this cycle of hounding and blaming the government has achieved nothing.