There has been urging from the Islamic world and even less domestically for Pakistan to recognize the newly independent state of Kosovo. But as also quite known, countries like Serbia and others in Europe would not approve of such a move.
This could affect our strategic relationship in the West much like the way we had to be careful when dealing with the Northern Cyprus issue in order to save our relations with Greece and the EU. So far it has been successful by Pakistan not recognizing Northern Cyprus.
The same was true in the case of Libya when the Pakistani government was openly hesitant on weather to maintain it's diplomatic relations to the Gaddafi regime or weather to take the side of the new rulers who were at that time rebels due to Gaddafi and his forces being in much control of Libya.
We were urged to recognize the new Libyan regime and from what I read, the Libyan embassy in Islamabad even voluntarily raised the new regime's flag signalling they were ready to accept their most likely new leaders.
But still Pakistan hesitated. Then a few weeks later, the rebels became victorious. Gaddafi was killed and the will of the Libyan people prevailed. That was the right time and until then Pakistan kept a neutral stance. NATO and the EU had recognized the new regime the whole time, but Pakistan waited until the time was just ripe and it worked just fine.
The same example must be learned in regards to Kosovo. Pakistan must reject pressure from both the Balkan and Eastern European countries as well as the Islamic world. If any UN resolution is cast on the recognition of Kosovo, Pakistan must abstain. Only until a compromise between both sides in favor of and against an independent Kosovo is realized, Pakistan should not pick sides.
Though I do favor Pakistan not being involved in affairs that do not concern it, there are still a few interests to protect and strategic alliances to be made/maintained; hence any sort of premature move could have difficult consequences.
Pakistan can start by learning from the Libyan conflict for a "right time" to recognize or not recognize Kosovo.
Friday, December 2, 2011
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Spending our foreign aid the right way
I'm not referring to the foreign aid we receive and are supposed to use on development. I'm referring to the foreign we give to other countries and people when needed.
We as a country have a strange history of giving foreign aid to countries in need. Sometimes it is out of sympathy or sometimes it is a desperate bid to paint a positive image of our country. We have clearly done this the wrong way and seem to continue to do it this way.
Take for example the recent earthquake in Haiti. Pakistan sent both aid and support teams consisting of doctors, aid workers etc. What has Haiti done for us? It is not that I oppose giving aid to those in need, but shouldn't countries that helped us come first? Is not your obligation as a country or even as an individual to first help those who have helped you in your time of need?
So what were we doing when European countries suffered from floods more than once in the past ten years? Europe has given Pakistan millions, perhaps billions of dollars of aid this past decade.
Aside from our people residing in these countries contributing aid and volunteering to help, Pakistan officially never provided any as far as I know. And if we didn't my best guess is that it was on the basis that we are a poor country and can't afford to spare much money.
But strangely enough we gave aid to Haiti, provided three million dollars to the Palestinian Authority in early 2006. Today we waste goodness knows how many millions of dollars on building universities and hospitals in Afghanistan in a failed bid to win popularity there and to counter Indian influence there.
How long does it take our government and people to learn from history to the present day? Afghans have hated us since our independence because they refuse to accept the Durand Line.
Because of this they have attempted to wage several wars against us in an effort to "take back" what they wrongly perceive as theirs. We have hosted the largest Afghan population living abroad for more than twenty years and our image hasn't changed the slightest bit amongst them. Instead we suffer from the problem caused by these refugees.
Even if not for a common alliance with India on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Afghans will never show the least bit of gratitude to Pakistanis.
Instead of wasting millions of dollars on countries that could not and/or did not help us, we should have spent this on helping Europe when dealing with floods themselves or any other natural disaster.
Not only would it have given us an image in Europe besides being a beggar nation so dependent on their charity, but also a reliable partner in Asia. One that not only returns the favor in times of need, but also a useful country to trade with and invest in.
We gave aid to Turkey and China in times of need because they are our closest allies. In these cases we are right to do so considering they have done much for us, especially in times of need. Iran is not considered an ally, nor is it a trustworthy neighbor, but we also remember to return help when in need.
Imagine what we could have achieved by spending the same amounts we waste on Afghanistan or other countries that give us nothing useful in return. If we were a rich and strong country that could afford to help any other country in need, then by all means I would welcome that, but we are not so we have to be careful how we spend our aid.
We are sadly an overpopulated, impoverished third world country with a limited budget. Even when richer countries than us like the Russian Federation suffered what was possibly the worst set of heat waves in it's recorded history, causing terrible destruction and taking thousands of lives.
But regardless of all this, it sent aid to Pakistan which was suffering from devastating floods at the same time.
Above: A freighter version of a Boeing 747-400 owned by Air Bridge Cargo delivering aid to Pakistan on behalf of the Russian government. Click on images to enlarge.
I really hate to think this plane(s) flew back empty. This was all despite the Russian Federation in grave problems at the time and receiving aid itself from other countries. If only we had been more sensible, we could have donated some simple products that we produce such as medical instruments or any other equipment we could spare from fire proof suits to oxygen masks since we ourselves were not suffering from massive fires or heatwaves at the time. The plane's return flight would not have been an empty one had we done this.
Not sending aid to those who helped us several times in the past while spending/wasting aid on those who never helped us is not only bad gesture, but also morally puts us in dept to those who have.
As for Afghanistan, we don't need to waste out money to "improve" our already tainted image in that country. Granted we have our own interests in Afghanistan to fend off political partnerships and installations planted there by our enemies as well as making future preparations to use that country as a trade route between Pakistan and Central Asia, we are going about this the wrong way.
Should Afghanistan bother us or try to blackmail us in the future with the help of another country, we can fight fire with fire. And if the Afghans threaten to cut us off from Central Asia, we can place an embargo that will be much more damaging for that landlocked country.
I also doubt Central Asian states will be happy of being cut off from the outside world due to Afghanistan's stubbornness and will probably impose an embargo on Afghanistan well. This will further isolate Afghanistan even more till it decides to be reasonable again.
We have to realize that we are the country with the advantage, not Afghanistan. We are a nuclear power, not Afghanistan. We have access to open sea, not Afghanistan.
We do not need to bribe the Afghans with wasted charity to stop them from playing their dirty political proxy games against us. All we need to show them is we turn the tables on them, and we did so in the past.
Our reckless policy of wasting what precious money we can spare to satisfy our obsession of Islamic Ummah or some other useless cause sadly cannot be reversed. But it can serve as a good lesson for returning help to those who did it for us in the past. That is what Islam encourages.
Is it not a contradiction that we call ourselves Muslims but do not live by basic Islamic principles of returning help to those who have given it to us? Instead we divert help to those who simply share this belief as "fellow Muslims" but don't live by it.
We call ourselves Muslim, the Muslims we help for the sake of being Muslims or at least calling themselves Muslim, but we are unwilling to live up by our Islamic principles by not giving aid to countries we owe; hence we contradict ourselves by playing the religious card and not spending our foreign aid the way we should be.
We as a country have a strange history of giving foreign aid to countries in need. Sometimes it is out of sympathy or sometimes it is a desperate bid to paint a positive image of our country. We have clearly done this the wrong way and seem to continue to do it this way.
Take for example the recent earthquake in Haiti. Pakistan sent both aid and support teams consisting of doctors, aid workers etc. What has Haiti done for us? It is not that I oppose giving aid to those in need, but shouldn't countries that helped us come first? Is not your obligation as a country or even as an individual to first help those who have helped you in your time of need?
So what were we doing when European countries suffered from floods more than once in the past ten years? Europe has given Pakistan millions, perhaps billions of dollars of aid this past decade.
Aside from our people residing in these countries contributing aid and volunteering to help, Pakistan officially never provided any as far as I know. And if we didn't my best guess is that it was on the basis that we are a poor country and can't afford to spare much money.
But strangely enough we gave aid to Haiti, provided three million dollars to the Palestinian Authority in early 2006. Today we waste goodness knows how many millions of dollars on building universities and hospitals in Afghanistan in a failed bid to win popularity there and to counter Indian influence there.
How long does it take our government and people to learn from history to the present day? Afghans have hated us since our independence because they refuse to accept the Durand Line.
Because of this they have attempted to wage several wars against us in an effort to "take back" what they wrongly perceive as theirs. We have hosted the largest Afghan population living abroad for more than twenty years and our image hasn't changed the slightest bit amongst them. Instead we suffer from the problem caused by these refugees.
Even if not for a common alliance with India on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Afghans will never show the least bit of gratitude to Pakistanis.
Instead of wasting millions of dollars on countries that could not and/or did not help us, we should have spent this on helping Europe when dealing with floods themselves or any other natural disaster.
Not only would it have given us an image in Europe besides being a beggar nation so dependent on their charity, but also a reliable partner in Asia. One that not only returns the favor in times of need, but also a useful country to trade with and invest in.
We gave aid to Turkey and China in times of need because they are our closest allies. In these cases we are right to do so considering they have done much for us, especially in times of need. Iran is not considered an ally, nor is it a trustworthy neighbor, but we also remember to return help when in need.
Imagine what we could have achieved by spending the same amounts we waste on Afghanistan or other countries that give us nothing useful in return. If we were a rich and strong country that could afford to help any other country in need, then by all means I would welcome that, but we are not so we have to be careful how we spend our aid.
We are sadly an overpopulated, impoverished third world country with a limited budget. Even when richer countries than us like the Russian Federation suffered what was possibly the worst set of heat waves in it's recorded history, causing terrible destruction and taking thousands of lives.
But regardless of all this, it sent aid to Pakistan which was suffering from devastating floods at the same time.
Above: A freighter version of a Boeing 747-400 owned by Air Bridge Cargo delivering aid to Pakistan on behalf of the Russian government. Click on images to enlarge.
I really hate to think this plane(s) flew back empty. This was all despite the Russian Federation in grave problems at the time and receiving aid itself from other countries. If only we had been more sensible, we could have donated some simple products that we produce such as medical instruments or any other equipment we could spare from fire proof suits to oxygen masks since we ourselves were not suffering from massive fires or heatwaves at the time. The plane's return flight would not have been an empty one had we done this.
Not sending aid to those who helped us several times in the past while spending/wasting aid on those who never helped us is not only bad gesture, but also morally puts us in dept to those who have.
As for Afghanistan, we don't need to waste out money to "improve" our already tainted image in that country. Granted we have our own interests in Afghanistan to fend off political partnerships and installations planted there by our enemies as well as making future preparations to use that country as a trade route between Pakistan and Central Asia, we are going about this the wrong way.
Should Afghanistan bother us or try to blackmail us in the future with the help of another country, we can fight fire with fire. And if the Afghans threaten to cut us off from Central Asia, we can place an embargo that will be much more damaging for that landlocked country.
I also doubt Central Asian states will be happy of being cut off from the outside world due to Afghanistan's stubbornness and will probably impose an embargo on Afghanistan well. This will further isolate Afghanistan even more till it decides to be reasonable again.
We have to realize that we are the country with the advantage, not Afghanistan. We are a nuclear power, not Afghanistan. We have access to open sea, not Afghanistan.
We do not need to bribe the Afghans with wasted charity to stop them from playing their dirty political proxy games against us. All we need to show them is we turn the tables on them, and we did so in the past.
Our reckless policy of wasting what precious money we can spare to satisfy our obsession of Islamic Ummah or some other useless cause sadly cannot be reversed. But it can serve as a good lesson for returning help to those who did it for us in the past. That is what Islam encourages.
Is it not a contradiction that we call ourselves Muslims but do not live by basic Islamic principles of returning help to those who have given it to us? Instead we divert help to those who simply share this belief as "fellow Muslims" but don't live by it.
We call ourselves Muslim, the Muslims we help for the sake of being Muslims or at least calling themselves Muslim, but we are unwilling to live up by our Islamic principles by not giving aid to countries we owe; hence we contradict ourselves by playing the religious card and not spending our foreign aid the way we should be.
Monday, October 31, 2011
CIA on recruitment spree in Pakistan
On my previous posts on the Raymond Davis affair, I claimed that Davis and other armed Americans in Pakistan are getting their weapons and equipment with the help of Afghan spies on both sides of the Durand line. Click the link to read the full news clip:
CIA on recruitment spree in Pakistan
CIA on recruitment spree in Pakistan
Friday, October 14, 2011
Why did Raymond Davis shoot two men in Lahore?
This is probably my forth post on Raymond Davis. Who thought we'd see him again in the news ever since he's been long gone away from Pakistan? My reason for posting is his actions are now once again in focus, but this time over an assault charge in the USA. He is due to make his next court appearance in December but meantime more detailed reports have stated that he went into an aggressive behavior against a fifty year old man over a parking dispute. He's been accused of fracturing the victim's face. Reports claimed the victim's wife and two little girls were in the car, his little girls screaming out of fear when Davis assaulted and screamed at him. I don't know how true that is but I did see the victim speaking to a news agency and his face bruised with injuries.
Then the latest reports reveal that Davis has been told by the judge to go through an anger management program and has been banned from carrying weapons in the state of Colorado. The victim and his family along with most witnesses claim Davis behaved aggressively. Some witnesses who seem to have appeared late to the scene claim he hadn't seen Davis throw a single punch at Jeff Maes. Below is a report of the incident after it first happened:
US court indicts Raymond Davis
The judges decision combined with all these claims takes us back to the important question of why Davis acted so recklessly in Lahore by shooting two Pakistani men in an open street on broad daylight.
There were many differing guesses as to why he did it:
-The men were ISI agents. This was the most popular claim though I still see no evidence of this and showed my reasons in another post on the whole affair.
-The men were robbers trying to rob him. This was first made by Davis and then repeated by the American diplomatic mission to Pakistan and was aided by the Pakistani fifth column. This was all rejected by a detailed police report on the incident which revealed Davis shot the victims in the back.
Also according to witnesses Davis had shot the second victim while he attempted to run away from the scene.
It is known that one of the victims Faizan Haider was carrying a pistol and this fact was used as an effort to defend Davis by the American diplomatic mission as well as the fifth columnist Irfan Husain.
But police investigation also revealed that it was a registered weapon and acquired by Haider due to being witness to a crime. In fact he was just returning from court when he was shot dead by Davis.
-Davis killed the two men out of misunderstanding. This was my reason and probably now seems more valid that the rest. Davis claimed the two men were following him. I had maintained the whole time that their path coincided with Davis' which gave him the false impression that they were following him.
When he saw Faizan Haider's gun, he thought he was right and fired out of fear for being attacked.
-Another not so well known reason is that Davis fired to divert attention and let the CIA car escape that was carrying important material which also killed Ibadur Rahman.
This should not be ruled out as it is a tactical move.
But if it was not, then we are left with the other more known reasons. My reason seems strongest now after this incident of aggressive behavior. It shows Davis tends to respond to threats and misunderstandings violently.
His misunderstanding in Lahore is what most likely revealed the CIA's covert operations after he was arrested. After all which secret agent would shoot two people in broad daylight in a crowded street?
Unless the last reason is correct I believe it was his own aggressive behavior that caused him to shoot Faizan Haider and his friend Fahim. This parking lot fight and the judge's order to take anger management reveals his violent nature.
We may learn more in the coming days if more reports of his trial emerge.
Then the latest reports reveal that Davis has been told by the judge to go through an anger management program and has been banned from carrying weapons in the state of Colorado. The victim and his family along with most witnesses claim Davis behaved aggressively. Some witnesses who seem to have appeared late to the scene claim he hadn't seen Davis throw a single punch at Jeff Maes. Below is a report of the incident after it first happened:
US court indicts Raymond Davis
The judges decision combined with all these claims takes us back to the important question of why Davis acted so recklessly in Lahore by shooting two Pakistani men in an open street on broad daylight.
There were many differing guesses as to why he did it:
-The men were ISI agents. This was the most popular claim though I still see no evidence of this and showed my reasons in another post on the whole affair.
-The men were robbers trying to rob him. This was first made by Davis and then repeated by the American diplomatic mission to Pakistan and was aided by the Pakistani fifth column. This was all rejected by a detailed police report on the incident which revealed Davis shot the victims in the back.
Also according to witnesses Davis had shot the second victim while he attempted to run away from the scene.
It is known that one of the victims Faizan Haider was carrying a pistol and this fact was used as an effort to defend Davis by the American diplomatic mission as well as the fifth columnist Irfan Husain.
But police investigation also revealed that it was a registered weapon and acquired by Haider due to being witness to a crime. In fact he was just returning from court when he was shot dead by Davis.
-Davis killed the two men out of misunderstanding. This was my reason and probably now seems more valid that the rest. Davis claimed the two men were following him. I had maintained the whole time that their path coincided with Davis' which gave him the false impression that they were following him.
When he saw Faizan Haider's gun, he thought he was right and fired out of fear for being attacked.
-Another not so well known reason is that Davis fired to divert attention and let the CIA car escape that was carrying important material which also killed Ibadur Rahman.
This should not be ruled out as it is a tactical move.
But if it was not, then we are left with the other more known reasons. My reason seems strongest now after this incident of aggressive behavior. It shows Davis tends to respond to threats and misunderstandings violently.
His misunderstanding in Lahore is what most likely revealed the CIA's covert operations after he was arrested. After all which secret agent would shoot two people in broad daylight in a crowded street?
Unless the last reason is correct I believe it was his own aggressive behavior that caused him to shoot Faizan Haider and his friend Fahim. This parking lot fight and the judge's order to take anger management reveals his violent nature.
We may learn more in the coming days if more reports of his trial emerge.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Should Bollywood be banned in Pakistan?
Many socially and politically conscious Pakistanis have expressed disapproval of Bollywood and called for it's complete ban in Pakistan.
Bollywood is known for it's anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam propaganda. From what I've read is that Bollywood was officially banned in Pakistan decades ago and the only availability of it is on Indian channels and in the form of piracy.
Bollywood and it's anti-Pakistan themes are also popular amongst the Muhajir community who have an attachment to India.
Throughout Pakistani video and music stores pirated Bollywood music, movies and dramas can be found. This is what anti-Bollywood Pakistanis need to take into consideration before calling for it's complete ban. All the Bollywood movies, dramas and music that are bought and sold in Pakistan do not give profit to those involved in producing these songs, dramas and movies.
All revenue from the sales go to the people who illegally copy and sell them. We would be taking away a large amount of contribution to our economy.
The piracy of Bollywood movies does not help the enemy, only gives them massive losses.
I know that some can argue it is not much of a loss considering Bollywood keeps on growing both in popularity as well as financially.
But I still do not believe that banning the movie industry will solve the problem.
Most likely the piracy companies will only turn to stealing Pakistani dramas and movies which will hurt our already weak movie industry even more. We would suffer economic losses.
These are all my arguments in favor of allowing Bollywood movies to be sold in Pakistan. But it does not mean that I approve of all the anti-Pakistan propaganda many Bollywood films/shows and possibly songs contain.
Because of this I believe in an alternate idea than to those who call for their complete ban. Since piracy of Bollywood generates large sums of profit for Pakistan but nothing for India, I would be against their complete banning but instead have them censored. Any Bollywood film that contains historic revisionism or political propaganda should be banned while leaving out those movies that have no such content.
I have no problems with banning Indian channels in Pakistan since banning them will give no revenue to those who wish to use them to spread anti-Pakistan propaganda.
I believe the availability of Bollywood in Pakistan should be restricted to pirated CDs and DVDs.
And as already mentioned it should be restricted to movies that don't contain anti-Pakistan propaganda. Even better would be to allow movies/shows containing anti-Pakistan propaganda to be sold but have the propaganda content from them removed.
All this will bring benefits to the Pakistani economy and create losses for anti-Pakistan producers in India.
So to answer the question of weather Bollywood should be banned in Pakistan is no but instead to restrict it's distribution in our country.
Bollywood is known for it's anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam propaganda. From what I've read is that Bollywood was officially banned in Pakistan decades ago and the only availability of it is on Indian channels and in the form of piracy.
Bollywood and it's anti-Pakistan themes are also popular amongst the Muhajir community who have an attachment to India.
Throughout Pakistani video and music stores pirated Bollywood music, movies and dramas can be found. This is what anti-Bollywood Pakistanis need to take into consideration before calling for it's complete ban. All the Bollywood movies, dramas and music that are bought and sold in Pakistan do not give profit to those involved in producing these songs, dramas and movies.
All revenue from the sales go to the people who illegally copy and sell them. We would be taking away a large amount of contribution to our economy.
The piracy of Bollywood movies does not help the enemy, only gives them massive losses.
I know that some can argue it is not much of a loss considering Bollywood keeps on growing both in popularity as well as financially.
But I still do not believe that banning the movie industry will solve the problem.
Most likely the piracy companies will only turn to stealing Pakistani dramas and movies which will hurt our already weak movie industry even more. We would suffer economic losses.
These are all my arguments in favor of allowing Bollywood movies to be sold in Pakistan. But it does not mean that I approve of all the anti-Pakistan propaganda many Bollywood films/shows and possibly songs contain.
Because of this I believe in an alternate idea than to those who call for their complete ban. Since piracy of Bollywood generates large sums of profit for Pakistan but nothing for India, I would be against their complete banning but instead have them censored. Any Bollywood film that contains historic revisionism or political propaganda should be banned while leaving out those movies that have no such content.
I have no problems with banning Indian channels in Pakistan since banning them will give no revenue to those who wish to use them to spread anti-Pakistan propaganda.
I believe the availability of Bollywood in Pakistan should be restricted to pirated CDs and DVDs.
And as already mentioned it should be restricted to movies that don't contain anti-Pakistan propaganda. Even better would be to allow movies/shows containing anti-Pakistan propaganda to be sold but have the propaganda content from them removed.
All this will bring benefits to the Pakistani economy and create losses for anti-Pakistan producers in India.
So to answer the question of weather Bollywood should be banned in Pakistan is no but instead to restrict it's distribution in our country.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Pakistan needs a new and more effective national anthem
Pakistan's national anthem is one strange anthem that lacks passion and patriotism. For one it is in an old, outdated, Persian influenced dialect of Urdu that Pakistanis do not understand save for a few words.
Because of this the anthem has been ridiculed and mocked by many. Due to it's Persian influence, it is propagated by many to be in the Persian/Farsi language when that is clearly not the case. Even though there are national anthems of countries that the majority of the population does not understand, it doesn't mean Pakistan needs such a useless national anthem.
Not only are most of the words incomprehensible and meaningless to the country's unity, but the rhythm of the national anthem is also weak and does not hold a sense of patriotism.
Pakistan is a country that currently lacks unity and struggles with ethnic tension as well as political and religious divides. A powerful national anthem is one that contain two main important components:
1) A strong theme that is acceptable to all it's citizens. It must have ideologies that speak in favor of progress, unity and similar ideas that appeals to the entire population free of discrimination in any area be it religion, ethnicity or any other.
2) It must have a powerful rhythm. A rhythm is equally important to the self-respect and patriotism of a country by it's people. Many national anthems are weak in this respect and that includes Pakistan's current national anthem. I find patriotic songs are even more popular amongst Pakistanis than is the national anthem.
A new national anthem should be created fitting both categories and inclusive of all our main ethnic groups. If it is not inclusive of all our religions, then religion should be left out since Pakistan was meant to be a secular state.
An even more preferable and suitable national anthem would be one that encourages our unity as a predominantly Indo-Iranic people be it Baloch, Pakhtun (Iranic), Sindhi, Punjabi (Indo-Aryan) or Kashmiri (Dardic).
Such an anthem would significantly contribute to the feeling of patriotism towards our country and common ancestry as Indo-Iranic peoples. It should be made available and singable in all our country's spoken languages. A day should come when our new national anthem is created and finalized and set to be played on our independence anniversary on fourteenth August.
The current national anthem does not suit the needs of a country and lacks the main components a powerful and patriotic national anthem needs to promote unity and pride amongst the people.
I look forward to the day this useless anthem is scratched out in favor of a new and effective national anthem.
Below are examples of national anthems (note that some of these are not officially in use) that are strongly patriotic if one searches their lyrics. These are examples we need to learn from in order to come up with our new national anthem for it would be disaster if a new anthem is a failure like the current one:
Because of this the anthem has been ridiculed and mocked by many. Due to it's Persian influence, it is propagated by many to be in the Persian/Farsi language when that is clearly not the case. Even though there are national anthems of countries that the majority of the population does not understand, it doesn't mean Pakistan needs such a useless national anthem.
Not only are most of the words incomprehensible and meaningless to the country's unity, but the rhythm of the national anthem is also weak and does not hold a sense of patriotism.
Pakistan is a country that currently lacks unity and struggles with ethnic tension as well as political and religious divides. A powerful national anthem is one that contain two main important components:
1) A strong theme that is acceptable to all it's citizens. It must have ideologies that speak in favor of progress, unity and similar ideas that appeals to the entire population free of discrimination in any area be it religion, ethnicity or any other.
2) It must have a powerful rhythm. A rhythm is equally important to the self-respect and patriotism of a country by it's people. Many national anthems are weak in this respect and that includes Pakistan's current national anthem. I find patriotic songs are even more popular amongst Pakistanis than is the national anthem.
A new national anthem should be created fitting both categories and inclusive of all our main ethnic groups. If it is not inclusive of all our religions, then religion should be left out since Pakistan was meant to be a secular state.
An even more preferable and suitable national anthem would be one that encourages our unity as a predominantly Indo-Iranic people be it Baloch, Pakhtun (Iranic), Sindhi, Punjabi (Indo-Aryan) or Kashmiri (Dardic).
Such an anthem would significantly contribute to the feeling of patriotism towards our country and common ancestry as Indo-Iranic peoples. It should be made available and singable in all our country's spoken languages. A day should come when our new national anthem is created and finalized and set to be played on our independence anniversary on fourteenth August.
The current national anthem does not suit the needs of a country and lacks the main components a powerful and patriotic national anthem needs to promote unity and pride amongst the people.
I look forward to the day this useless anthem is scratched out in favor of a new and effective national anthem.
Below are examples of national anthems (note that some of these are not officially in use) that are strongly patriotic if one searches their lyrics. These are examples we need to learn from in order to come up with our new national anthem for it would be disaster if a new anthem is a failure like the current one:
ISI "harassing" Pakistani expatriates?
A few months back I found news articles from the American press about the ISI monitoring and allegedly "harassing" Baloch separatists hiding in America.
Unfortunately I am unable to locate and link these but wish to do so as soon as I find them. But regardless my memory on their message is quite clear. America and the West have always had their set of double standards when dealing with fugitives and separatists.
Even their covert operations around the world by their intelligence agencies is perfectly normal because to them it's dealing with terrorism and they have the full rights to do whatever they please to suit their interest.
After all that is what the American government has stated repeatedly that they will do whatever it takes to protect American lives. They usually state this when confronted on civilian casualties and other collateral damage.
When there are Al-Queda terrorists suspected of hiding in a certain country, either it is bombed and invaded or American intelligence agencies are dispatched to target these suspects. These operation are done with no regards to international law.
Even the European side has it's share of hypocrisy when dealing with Basque separatists or Irish Republican Army (IRA) members. They must be found and caught at all costs according to European governments.
Readers may not know, but there are plentiful Baloch and Sindhi separatist organizations in Western countries, some with close ties to the Indian intelligence and to the Afghan government.
There was even a case of the Pakistani government seeking extrication of a Baloch separatist leader from the Swiss government.
That case is still pending. But of course when Western governments need to go hunting for fugitives, they step up their extradition cases. And if not valid, they dispatch their spies to become the judges, jury and executioners.
If a fugitive wanted by the West is in a country that refuses to extradite him/her, that country is "guilty" of "harboring terrorism."
So why is it then that when Pakistan is dealing with separatists; especially those acquainted with it's traditional enemies -India and Afghanistan- that it is not entitled to track down these individuals? Also given that Western countries do not simply extradite criminals wanted by the countries they left.
They host them on "humanitarian grounds" and claim that they are "persecuted" in their home countries. In many cases this is true. But what happens when proven criminals such as Altaf Hussain run abroad and claim asylum to escape justice in their home countries?
Even amongst advocates of greater autonomy for the Pakistani provinces are brutally abducted, tortured and killed. But why is it that when Western governments and intelligence agencies behave like this, it is perfectly normal and justified in the name of protecting sovereignty?
So why is it any different when the Pakistani ISI is seeking out Baloch separatists working on behest of the Indian and Afghan governments and threaten the integrity of Pakistan? Plus it is unlikely America has agreed to extradite them otherwise there would be no place for them in America.
So since America does not extradite people wanted in other countries but insists other countries give it such a courtesy, what is the big deal about the ISI tracking these fugitives which the US media describes as "harassing?" Add to that the CIA has a history of illegal covert operations to target alleged terrorists.
The ISI is doing the same in this case. But because the ISI is doing it, it is dubbed by the hypocrite American media as "harassment."
Especially when it was clearly mentioned in those reports that the alleged "victims" were Baloch separatists.
There's little doubt in my mind that the ISI was doing what it was supposed to and that is protecting the sovereignty of Pakistan. They are going about this wrong way. They need to dismantle such activities through negotiations and should turn to military tactics only as a last resort. But because it was the ISI doing this to pro-Indian/Afghan Baloch separatists and not the CIA doing this to Al-Qaeda operatives, it is "harassment" at least according to the US propaganda media.
One has to remember that many Baloch and Sindhi organizations, though not all, have this same set of double standards and hypocrisy. When they get help from the Indian government or the Afghan Mellat, they try to justify it.
But when the Pakistani ISI gives the same support to ethnic and religious minorities in India and Afghanistan, they dub it as "supporting terrorists."
In this case until we can carefully study the cases of the ISI "harassing" Indian/Afghan backed Baloch separatists hiding in America, it should be interpreted as protecting Pakistan's sovereignty from those seen as dangerous obstacles to the country's harmony and not some innocent victims as anti-Pakistan lobbies around the world depict it as.
Unfortunately I am unable to locate and link these but wish to do so as soon as I find them. But regardless my memory on their message is quite clear. America and the West have always had their set of double standards when dealing with fugitives and separatists.
Even their covert operations around the world by their intelligence agencies is perfectly normal because to them it's dealing with terrorism and they have the full rights to do whatever they please to suit their interest.
After all that is what the American government has stated repeatedly that they will do whatever it takes to protect American lives. They usually state this when confronted on civilian casualties and other collateral damage.
When there are Al-Queda terrorists suspected of hiding in a certain country, either it is bombed and invaded or American intelligence agencies are dispatched to target these suspects. These operation are done with no regards to international law.
Even the European side has it's share of hypocrisy when dealing with Basque separatists or Irish Republican Army (IRA) members. They must be found and caught at all costs according to European governments.
Readers may not know, but there are plentiful Baloch and Sindhi separatist organizations in Western countries, some with close ties to the Indian intelligence and to the Afghan government.
There was even a case of the Pakistani government seeking extrication of a Baloch separatist leader from the Swiss government.
That case is still pending. But of course when Western governments need to go hunting for fugitives, they step up their extradition cases. And if not valid, they dispatch their spies to become the judges, jury and executioners.
If a fugitive wanted by the West is in a country that refuses to extradite him/her, that country is "guilty" of "harboring terrorism."
So why is it then that when Pakistan is dealing with separatists; especially those acquainted with it's traditional enemies -India and Afghanistan- that it is not entitled to track down these individuals? Also given that Western countries do not simply extradite criminals wanted by the countries they left.
They host them on "humanitarian grounds" and claim that they are "persecuted" in their home countries. In many cases this is true. But what happens when proven criminals such as Altaf Hussain run abroad and claim asylum to escape justice in their home countries?
Even amongst advocates of greater autonomy for the Pakistani provinces are brutally abducted, tortured and killed. But why is it that when Western governments and intelligence agencies behave like this, it is perfectly normal and justified in the name of protecting sovereignty?
So why is it any different when the Pakistani ISI is seeking out Baloch separatists working on behest of the Indian and Afghan governments and threaten the integrity of Pakistan? Plus it is unlikely America has agreed to extradite them otherwise there would be no place for them in America.
So since America does not extradite people wanted in other countries but insists other countries give it such a courtesy, what is the big deal about the ISI tracking these fugitives which the US media describes as "harassing?" Add to that the CIA has a history of illegal covert operations to target alleged terrorists.
The ISI is doing the same in this case. But because the ISI is doing it, it is dubbed by the hypocrite American media as "harassment."
Especially when it was clearly mentioned in those reports that the alleged "victims" were Baloch separatists.
There's little doubt in my mind that the ISI was doing what it was supposed to and that is protecting the sovereignty of Pakistan. They are going about this wrong way. They need to dismantle such activities through negotiations and should turn to military tactics only as a last resort. But because it was the ISI doing this to pro-Indian/Afghan Baloch separatists and not the CIA doing this to Al-Qaeda operatives, it is "harassment" at least according to the US propaganda media.
One has to remember that many Baloch and Sindhi organizations, though not all, have this same set of double standards and hypocrisy. When they get help from the Indian government or the Afghan Mellat, they try to justify it.
But when the Pakistani ISI gives the same support to ethnic and religious minorities in India and Afghanistan, they dub it as "supporting terrorists."
In this case until we can carefully study the cases of the ISI "harassing" Indian/Afghan backed Baloch separatists hiding in America, it should be interpreted as protecting Pakistan's sovereignty from those seen as dangerous obstacles to the country's harmony and not some innocent victims as anti-Pakistan lobbies around the world depict it as.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)