Books and Documents

Pakistan Press (04 Sep 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

A Champion of Pakistan’s Minorities By Akbar Ahmed: New Age Islam's Selection, 04 September 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

04 September 2017

A Champion of Pakistan’s Minorities

By Akbar Ahmed

Spirit of Sacrifice and Pakistan

By S M Hali

The Old Hippy Trail

By Irfan Husain

Two Losers In Afghanistan

By M Ziauddin

Trump’s Puzzling Afghanistan Plan

By Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad

‘Insurgent Peace-Making’

By M Ziauddin

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau


A Champion of Pakistan’s Minorities

By Akbar Ahmed


On Easter Sunday last year a Taliban suicide bomber detonated ten kilograms of explosives and metal ball bearings in a park full of Pakistani Christian families in Lahore, killing 73. The bomber had chosen a spot between two children's rides. 29 of those killed were children, the youngest only 2 years old.

It is with this heartbreaking story that Farahnaz Ispahani introduces her book, Purifying the Land of the Pure: A History of Pakistan's Religious Minorities.The grim figures continue. After the Lahore attack we are reminded that the previous year twin suicide bombings in churches in Lahore killed at least 15 people and sparked Christian outrage and protests across the city.

Again and again, guiding us through the harrowing journey of Pakistan's minorities, Farahnaz takes us back to the example of the Quaid-e-Azam, Mr Jinnah, the towering father of the nation. She quotes in full Jinnah's historic first address to the Constituent Assembly in August 1947 with this defining sentence in it: "You may belong to any religion or caste or creed -- that has nothing to do with the business of the State."She quotes Jinnah's earlier speeches promising religious freedom with sentences like, "Minorities, to whichever community they may belong, will be safeguarded. …They will be, in all respects, the citizens of Pakistan without any distinction of caste or creed."

Here it should be noted that Jinnah himself argued, as Farahnaz states, "[Pakistan] was not intended to be an Islamic state nor was Partition aimed at creating permanent hostility between Hindus and Muslims." As early as 1947, Muslim leaders like Nawab Chhatari from the UP in India, had warned Pakistan's first prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, that if Pakistan moved toward a theocratic state, then Muslims like him in India would face a Hindu India and Ram Raj.

Farahnaz mournfully explains, "Jinnah -- himself a Shia -- nominated a Hindu, several Shias, and an Ahmadi to Pakistan's first cabinet. Now, non-Muslim representation at the cabinet level is limited to symbolic appointments, while Shias face smear campaigns from Sunni Muslims that declare them non-Muslims. And the Ahmadis -- who were some of Jinnah's most ardent supporters in his quest for a Muslim homeland on the Subcontinent -- are completely unrepresented; they live as virtual outcasts within modern Pakistan."

The minorities have suffered the most but there has been a general deterioration of law and order in Pakistan. Tragically, Shia, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians are targets but the horror is universal: schools and even shrines representing mainstream Sunni Islam have been targeted

There is one looming villain in Farahnaz's book and that is the military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq who in her words "forced Islamisation" and "his bigoted worldview" onto her beloved Pakistan. He had seized power from the popular elected Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and imposed a strict martial law. It was his period in which madrasas proliferated and Blasphemy Laws and Sharia Courts were instituted. Pakistan, according to Farahnaz, lurched towards extremism.

In telling us that when Pakistan was first founded, 23 percent of the population came from non-Muslim minority religious groups and now only three percent of the population is non-Muslim, Farahnaz has fallen into a common statistical error. On the creation of Pakistan, West Pakistan had a tiny Hindu population as most of the community had already fled to India, but East Pakistan still had a substantial Hindu population. After the breakup of Pakistan, the tiny Hindu population of West Pakistan, now constituting Pakistan, is all that is reflected in the current low percentage.

In the general deterioration of law and order in Pakistan, not only the minorities are suffering the violence. Tragically, Shia, Ahmadis, Hindus and Christians are targets but the horror is universal: schools and even shrines representing mainstream Sunni Islam have been targeted. Who can un see the video of the savage lynching of Mashal Khan in Mardan?

Farahnaz's bleak picture is somewhat balanced by the many examples of well-integrated and devoted Pakistanis from the minorities. She herself, a Shia, and her distinguished family are good examples. Of the many at hand, takeJimmy Engineer, a Zoroastrian, who is one of Pakistan's most famous painters and widely loved. Dr. Ruth Pfau, a Christian missionary doctor battling leprosy, was held in such high esteem that upon her recent death, the President, along with the Commanders-in-Chief of the armed forces, attended her funeral. Another Christian Pakistani, Dr. James Shera, the first Asian Mayor of Rugby, England, and himself widely loved among the Pakistani community, shared his passion for Pakistan in a moving obituary to Pfau, calling her "Pakistan's Mother Teresa":

"As I watched on television, as the state-run and private television networks of Pakistan broadcast live footage of her funeral, this sight of an exceptional measure for a foreign Christian in this Muslim country overwhelmed my heart and soul."

Farahnaz expresses gratitude to those who inspired her, including her distinguished grandparents, Hassan Ispahani and Begum Ispahani, close associates of the Quaid. Her book pays tribute to three leading Pakistani figures assassinated in the cause of religious freedom--Benazir Bhutto, Salman Taseer and Shahbaz Bhatti, the Christian federal minister.

Farahnaz has held many important positions in her career including that of a member of the Pakistan National Assembly and a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington, D.C. Perhaps her greatest achievement is this book, in which she emerges as the champion of Pakistan's minorities. Whether you agree or disagree with her, there is no denying the courage, clarity and passion with which she reminds Pakistanis of the need to live up to the high ideals of the Quaid.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/02-Sep-17/a-champion-of-pakistans-minorities


Spirit of Sacrifice and Pakistan

By S M Hali


Sacrifice is one of the spirits of Eid-ul Azha. When Prophet Ibrahim (AS) decided to sacrifice his beloved son Ismail (AS), Allah in His beneficence and Mercy ordained Eid-ul-Azha to commemorate the spirit of sacrifice. We are asked to sacrifice an animal on the auspicious occasion and distribute a portion among the poor, friends and relatives. Prophet Ibrahim (AS) was willing to sacrifice his own son but we note that the people of Pakistan, ever since its inception, are willing to make huge sacrifices for safeguarding their independence.

When Pakistan was created, there was a mass exodus of humanity. Muslims from the locations, which formed part of India, decided to move to the promised land of Pakistan. Marauding Hindus and Sikhs set upon the helpless refugee caravans, killing, raping and looting the refugees; notwithstanding that revenge seeking Muslims retaliated by pillaging and killing Hindu and Sikh refugees headed for India. Safe estimates indicate that more than 15 million people were uprooted, and between one and two million were dead.

The second occasion for sacrifice came when in October 1947; India launched troops in Kashmir to annex it. According to the Indian Independence Act of 1947, princely states were to decide by the will of the people to accede to either India or Pakistan but Indian troops forced the Maharaja of Kashmir to sign a letter of accession in favour of India. Volunteers from Pakistan including the Army, tried to liberate Kashmir. Despite their dilapidated arms, they wrested control of one third of Kashmir from India and would have succeeded in liberating the whole of Kashmir had Pundit Jawaharlal Nehru not approached the UN Security Council to implement a ceasefire. Captain Muhammad Sarwar and Naik Saif Ali Janjua are among the prominent Shaheeds of the 1947-48 Kashmir War.

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan should be counted as the country's first Shaheed, since he was suffering from Tuberculosis and both his lungs were perforated like a sieve but he hid his illness from all and persevered despite his frail health to achieve independence for Pakistan. The extreme ailment and exertion took its toll and the Quaid breathed his last soon after gaining independence.

Quaid's able and trusted lieutenant Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan tried to steer Pakistan through its nascent stage, where Indian egocentricity deprived Pakistan of its just share of the assets it was to receive after partition. In the aftermath of the mass exodus of refugees, settling them, feeding and housing them, taking care of a nation whose treasury was empty, Liaquat Ali Khan performed Herculean tasks to settle Pakistan on its own feet but he was brutally assassinated because he was going to abolish feudalism in Pakistan. Liaquat Ali Khan, who was once the richest landowner of undivided India, when he embraced martyrdom, had a handful of rupees in his bank account and no personal property because he had donated all his belongings to the cause of Pakistan?

Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah should be counted as the country’s first martyr. He was suffering from Tuberculosis and both his lungs were perforated like a sieve, but he hid his illness from all and persevered despite his frail health to achieve independence for Pakistan

Major Tufail Muhammad embraced martyrdom on August 7 1958, while defending Pakistan in Lakshmipura. On 6th September 1965, India launched a full scale war on Pakistan. Its land and air forces heavily outnumbered Pakistan's, but the people of Pakistan stood behind its armed forces like a solid edifice in face of the enemy's onslaught and defended Pakistan with some brave tales of valour being emblazoned in the fledgling nation's history. The supreme sacrifice of their lives by Major Raja Aziz Bhatti, Squadron Leaders Sarfaraz Ahmad Rafiqui, Munir ud-din Ahmad, Alauddin Ahmad, Muhammad Iqbal, Flight Lieutenants Younus Hussain and Saifullah Khan Lodhi to name a few, protected Pakistan from India's invasion.

In 1971, war was thrust on Pakistan as India machinated to sever its eastern wing and create Bangladesh. Despite its defeat, Pakistan's armed forces fought with valour and did not demur from sacrificing their lives. Names like Pilot Officer Rashid Minhas, Major Shabbir Sharif, Sawar Muhammad Hussain, Major Mohammad Akram, Lance Naik Muhammad Mahfuz, Wing Commanders Mervyn Lesley Middlecoat, Syed Muhammad Ahmad, Squadron Leaders Khusro, Muhammad Nasir Dar, Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Peter Christy, Hameed Quraishi, Flight Lieutenants, Saeed Afzal, Javed Iqbal and Flying Officer Naseem Nisar Baig emblazoned trails of glory with the supreme sacrifice of their lives.

In the snowy heights of Kargil, in 1999, Captain Karnal Sher Khan and Lalak Jan Shaheed along with numerous others kept the traditions of sacrifices live.

Following 9/11, global terrorism set its firm footprints on Pakistan. The brave people of Pakistan, be they the children of Army Public School Peshawar, Charsadda University or the members of the judicial community in Quetta sacrificed their lives. According to South Asia Terrorism Portal, to date 62,425 Pakistanis have sacrificed their lives while 6,813 members of the law enforcing agencies including Pakistan Army, Rangers and Police have embraced martyrdom. This is directly in line with the spirit of sacrifice enshrined in Prophet Ibrahim's practice.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/02-Sep-17/spirit-of-sacrifice-and-pakistan


The Old Hippy Trail

By Irfan Husain

September 02, 2017

THE other day I was pleasantly surprised when I boarded a Number 10 bus in central London, and saw it bore the garish colours and designs of a Karachi bus.

True, it wasn’t really authentic as it didn’t have passengers clinging to the doors and stacked on top of the roof, but it still brought a smile to my lips. A few painted London buses carried signs like ‘Land of beautiful places’ and ‘Land of highest peaks’, and must have cost tens of thousands of pounds.

Although the initiative was the brainchild of our high commission, it was largely paid for by a corporation to celebrate 70 years of independence. However, apart from pleasing Pakistani expats and visitors, I doubt these buses did anything to motivate Brits to book flights to our shores.

Don’t get me wrong: our country has much to offer visitors in terms of ancient civilisations, colonial architecture, great food, warm hospitality, and stunning landscapes. But the sad truth is that no travel agent in his right mind would recommend a holiday in Pakistan.

There was a time when Pakistan was firmly on the tourist map as foreigners from around the world came to admire sites from Shalimar Gardens to the necropolis of Mohenjo-Daro. European hitchhikers came by road across Iran to Lahore and then on to India, Afghanistan and Nepal. Pakistan was very much a part of the hippy trail.

No one in his right mind would recommend a holiday here.

I was in Lahore in the late 1960s, and with bachelor friends would often visit Falletti’s Hotel to try our luck with the girls stepping off tourist coaches. These were pre-prohibition days, we were young, and Murree beer was cheap.

In those days, PIA, the national airline, and the tourism corporation advertised heavily in the foreign media to attract foreigners to Pakistan. When I last passed by, the PIA office in London’s upmarket Mayfair area wore a seedy appearance, and faded posters from decades ago adorned its windows.

After the 1971 war, the border with India became far more restrictive for tourists, and the Iranian revolution of 1979, as well as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the same year, virtually stopped all overland traffic from Europe. In Pakistan, Zia and his vicious public flogging and draconian laws put off foreign tourists.

Now, of course, years of unrelenting terrorist attacks have taken a heavy toll on Pakistan’s image abroad. Out of preferred foreign destinations, we are probably near the bottom of the list.

Sri Lanka, during a quarter century of civil war, still attracted tourists. Now, with the war finally over, over two million visited the lovely island last year. India pulls in nearly 9m. Pakistan welcomed half a million last year; but bear in mind most of these were visitors of Pakistani origin.

During an English cricket team’s tour of Pakistan in the 1980s, Ian Botham said: “Pakistan is a country I’d send my mother-in-law to as a present.” This crack caused outrage among more literal-minded Pakistanis, but it contains an element of truth from a foreigner’s perspective.

When visitors ask what I would recommend as evening entertainment, I must confess that all I can suggest is some restaurant. Movies? Theatre? Nightclubs? Bars? Sorry. The best I can do is to give them a bootlegger’s number. True, we cannot order our society to accommodate foreign tastes, even though other Muslim countries do make it possible for visitors to get a drink in their hotel bars and restaurants at least.

When some documents surfaced to show that the Chinese visualised a string of coastal holiday resorts as a peripheral part of the CPEC initiative, noisy protests from the right wing caused strenuous back-pedalling. But surely providing some entertainment for Chinese visitors would be no bad thing.

In our eagerness to prove we are the most devout Muslims in the world, we forget the hypocrisy at the dark heart of our society. Alcohol consumption has soared since prohibition was imposed four decades ago; drug addiction has ruined millions of lives; prostitution is rampant in some of our most prestigious urban areas; and many fortunes have been built on drug smuggling and corruption.

Everybody in Pakistan is aware of these realities, and yet we pretend that they don’t exist. The bars of the wealthy are well-stocked with smuggled booze, yet hundreds of people are killed and blinded by home-made hooch every year because prohibition does not give them access to properly distilled liquor.

Similarly, the fiction at horse races is that no betting takes place. And yet bookies thrive while the state is deprived of the taxes on gambling collected in other countries. Clubs for the elites have card rooms where millions are won and lost every day, but small-time gamblers are regularly busted.

Source: dawn.com/news/1355511/the-old-hippy-trail


Two Losers in Afghanistan

By M Ziauddin


The Himalayan confrontation that the Indians very prudently decided to diffuse on the Chinese terms indicates that no matter how much help it expects to get from the US for fighting Washington's proxy war against China New Delhi would resist the temptation of taking on its bigger and stronger neighbour at least at this point in time.

And considering its own current economic situation India is hardly likely to spare more than the already committed $3 billion for Afghanistan.

When the China-India Himalayan stand-off started around mid-June this year the Indian Army Chief, General Bipin Rawat boasted that it was ready to fight a two-and-a-half front war meaning thereby that India could successfully meet the challenges posed by Pakistan across the Line of Control (LoC),by China across its Himalayan borders and by the freedom struggle going on in the Indian Occupied Kashmir (IOK) all at the same time.

India is losing out to China as the latter uses its economic strength in trying to create a single regional market under the One Belt, One Road initiative

He was followed immediately by his defence minister who warned China with decidedly misplaced confidence that India is not what it was in 1962 when the Chinese troops had routed the Indian Army that had trespassed the Chinese territory. In that conflict China had pushed Indian troops back into their own region and then voluntarily withdrew across the boundary line to its own area. What, however, the Indian defence minister forgot to consider was that China too was not what it was in 1962.

This realization finally dawned on India after its three month long eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation at Doklam (claimed by Bhutan but China has historical documents to prove it was originally Chinese territory) near what is called the 'Chicken Neck', a short, narrow strip of land that provides mainland India access to its northern states.

Finding that the stalemate was only eroding its domestic credibility and would expose its vulnerabilities if tested at the Himalayan heights New Delhi had meekly complied with Beijing's suggestion and withdrew its troops from the Chinese territory.

By way of a face-saver for New Delhi Beijing offered to discuss with India the 'dispute' between China and Bhutan over Doklamafter the pull back and for India's sake it also did not spell out whether or not it intended to continue with the construction of the road.

China was, however, too candid in its assessment of the development. According Beijing India pulled back all its "trespassing border personnel and equipment from Dong Lang (Doklam) region on Monday (August 28, 2017) afternoon around 2:30 p.m. local time, ending a two-month military standoff triggered by India's illegal incursion. The Chinese personnel onsite have verified this situation.

"About two months ago, the Indian military trespass grossly encroached on China's territorial sovereignty, and trampled on the fundamental principles of international law and basic norms governing international relations.

"Now the withdrawal of Indian troops has laid a foundation for further development of the China-India relation. It is good to see that the two countries have solved the conflict peacefully."

"We believe that it serves the interests of China and India to resolve this incident peacefully via diplomatic means," said Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson HuaChunying on a daily press briefing on August 28. "It also demonstrates China's sincerity and attitude in preserving regional peace and stability as a responsible major country," Hua said.

"The Age of Hegemony has become history. All countries need to see that no matter who they are dealing with, the fundamental basis is mutual respect, mutual benefit, and win-win cooperation.

"We hope that India could earnestly abide by the border-related historical treaty and basic norms of international law and work with China to ensure peace and stability in the border area on the basis of mutual respect for each other's territorial sovereignty, and to promote the healthy development of bilateral relations," Hua told the press briefing.

On the same day, Chinese Defence Ministry spokesman Wu Qian commented on India's withdrawal, saying, "We remind India to learn from this incident, to comply with historical border agreements effectively as well as the basic principles of international law, and work with China to maintain peace in the border region."

A researcher in South Asian studies at the China Institute of International Studies, said India "made a wise choice" because it realized that it would harm its interests if its personnel and equipment continued to stay in Dangling.

India suspects that if China completes the road in question, it would be easier for Chinese forces to cut off the narrow strip of land that connects India's heartland to its north eastern states in the event of a war.

India is also worried over the gains that China has recently made in other South Asian states. Most notably, in July, a state-owned Chinese firm secured a 70 percent stake in the deep-water port of Hambantota in Sri Lanka. Colombo agreed to that deal over India's objections. India frets about China's naval bridgehead in Sri Lanka for two compelling reasons. First, the port facility will help China extend its political influence in the country. Second, owing to the port's strategic location, it could let China monitor Indian shipping and naval activities in the region.

China has also made inroads into Bangladesh and Nepal. In recent years, it has become the largest arms supplier to Bangladesh; last year, it sold two submarines to the country. And as India supported a tacit fuel blockade of Nepal, Beijing quickly came to its assistance, eroding India's standing there.

In the cases of Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and Pakistan China has been able to make headway largely because it can draw on far greater economic resources than India can.

Clearly, India is losing out to China in South Asia as the later using its economic strength is trying to create a single regional market to start with as it pushes wider into the world with its One Belt, One Road initiative.

On the other hand America's global hegemony has already received a big jolt when after having egged on Georgia and Ukraine to take on Russia, Washington left the two on their own when Moscow moved in with its troops. These two losers, therefore, can hardly be expected to come up with a win in Afghanistan in the foreseeable future.

Source: /dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/02-Sep-17/two-losers-in-afghanistan


Trump’s Puzzling Afghanistan Plan

By Mian Nadeem Ijaz Ahmad

September 2, 2017

US President Donald Trump has finally come out with a plan for Afghanistan. From the moment it was announced it has resembled more of a puzzle and less of a plan. Afghanistan has been put on notice that its troops need to start doing all the major fighting, handling governance and controlling corruption — in other words, there will be no more free lunches.

Other elements of the plan seem to be confused, clichéd, lack historical analysis and and make little political or military sense. There is lacklustre advisory capacity by the State Department and Pentagon, if they indeed provided input for the plan whose main parts have been explained by Mr Trump.

If conditions on the ground and not timelines will decide strategy and troop levels, then Washington is in situ for another four more presidential terms. This timeline will further increase if the US wants the Taliban not to wait it out — they live in a country and do not have to cross the Atlantic. Can 4,000 additional forces in addition to the existing 8,400 break the stalemate with the Taliban? Afghanistan has a total of 34 provinces, meaning an additional 117.64 troops per province — that can only be a winning number if they are all supermen.

Remember there was a stalemate there even when the US and Nato deployed 140,000 soldiers. So how can one expect 4,000 troops to change the equation? It just defies military logic. The additional forces, as envisaged by the Trump plan, will undertake counter-terrorism operations and train Afghan forces. Doesn’t it imply that the existing forces on garrison duty were twiddling their thumbs? In all probability, the additional troops will repeat history of ‘General Custer’s Battle of Little Big Horn’.

Military Autonomy And No Micro Management

Trump’s contention that the troops in Afghanistan had no autonomy to attack the Taliban and other terrorists and were micromanaged by Washington is baffling.

Are US troops sitting in guard posts then? Who dropped the Mother of All Bombs, conducted anti-insurgent operations and carried out drone attacks and air raids? Definitely US troops and not some aliens. Moreover, classic military micro management is having a four-star general commanding 8,400 troops — no change is envisaged in this policy.

By removing the need for so-called micromanagement appears to be a scapegoat ploy. The US commander on the ground will be the fall guy for the commander in chief safely ensconced in the White House, Joint chiefs in Pentagon and diplomats in the State Department. Even with 12,400 troops General Nicholson cannot win or break the stalemate. The result then is a new four-star commander in Afghanistan.

Political Talks With Taliban

The goal of reaching a political settlement with the Taliban is hardly new. The US has been advised this time and again by Pakistan and other mature stakeholders. However, by ruling out any timeline for a withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan the prospects of such a settlement are dim. This would have been a workable option between the years 2002 and 2008 when the ground position was favourable. In the present circumstances the Taliban are unlikely to negotiate on these terms.

The plan appears to be relying on the inclusion of some Taliban in a broad settlement following an effective military engagement. But the Americans seem to have forgotten that the Taliban represent 60 per cent of the Afghan population and no settlement is possible without them. Moreover, by eliminating the Taliban leadership with drone attacks they cannot expect to reach a settlement.

The Quadrilateral talks or the 2+2+1 process involving Pakistan, Afghanistan, the US, China and the Taliban failed when Taliban leader Mullah Mansoor was killed on 21st May 2016.

Replacing Pakistan with India

This portion of the plan is what happens when history, regional environment and geography are ignored while formulating policy options. Pakistan has suffered most from the battle to preserve the independence of Afghanistan since the Soviet invasion in 1979. Up to 60 per cent of the Afghan population took shelter in Pakistan as refugees. Of these, three million still remain in our country.

The Taliban under the guise of the ‘Mujahedeen’ were created by the US to fight the Soviet Union. When US forces invaded Afghanistan in December 2001 it was Pakistan, which provided all logistical support and suffered a violent blowback effect along its western border. The Taliban were defeated in 2001 with Pakistan’s support. At that time if Washington had heeded Islamabad’s advice for negotiations from a position of strength, the US would not be in the present Afghan quagmire.

Pakistan has lost 60,000 troops and civilians in the fight against the Taliban since 2001. This figure does not include the fatalities caused by US drone attacks on its soil.

Trump’s claim of giving Pakistan $30 billion or so must be debunked. In fact, the United States owes Pakistan over $120 billion. Pakistan has cleared all sanctuaries and hideouts of terrorists along its western border. These terrorists are now striking us from safe havens in Afghanistan, yet US forces do nothing to stop them.

India was a strong supporter of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Its interference in Afghanistan has destabilised the region and made the conflict more intractable. Ample evidence exists of Indian-sponsored terrorism from Afghan soil. Trump should not look at India with only mercantile benefits. By arraying India against Pakistan the US leader is disturbing a delicate nuclear equilibrium and exacerbating regional rivalries.

No Nation-Building

The world would appreciate it if the Americans stopped building democracies in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and many others. Millions of people would still be alive if this realisation had come earlier. There would have been no Islamic State or Da’ish, al Qaeda and many other violent outfits, if the US was killing actual terrorists. Even 9/11 would not have happened if the world led by the US had not walked away from Afghanistan after the Soviet defeat. Now maybe Afghanistan should sort out its own destiny.


In a recent comment on the Afghanistan plan, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said his country intends to replicate the lessons of fighting the Islamic State. Iraq and Syria are not Afghanistan. Nor is the IS or al Qaeda like the Taliban. Afghanistan remains a mess because in March 2003, the US invaded Iraq. Nothing could have been more tragic than that. What is happening in Spain, France, Belgium, the UK, Syria, Turkey and other parts of the world is a spinoff from the US plan to invade Iraq and not first finish its project in Afghanistan.

Source: /tribune.com.pk/story/1497122/trumps-puzzling-afghanistan-plan/


‘Insurgent Peace-Making’

By M Ziauddin

September 2, 2017

The US-backed Afghan government is not winning the war. Neither are the Taliban anywhere close to winning it. The Ghani government is said to control roughly about 60 per cent of Afghan territory while the Taliban are said to hold the rest.

The long-drawn stalemate is said to be eroding the morale of the two parties in conflict and at the same time both the government party as well as the Taliban are said to be afflicted by divisive forces and a leadership crisis.

A recent British study has found the Taliban movement to be in disarray. The new leader, Haibatullah Akhundzada, is widely viewed as weak and ineffective.

Several factions within the Taliban are said to be vying for power. The Mansour network, which is based in Helmand and claims to be backed by Iran and Russia, is said to have risen to become the most dynamic group within the Taliban.

The levels of morale within the Taliban are said to vary. The boost to morale from the 2016 battlefield successes was reportedly dampened by the high cost at which they were gained, as well as the alienation of many Taliban from their leadership and the sense that many had no stake in those gains.

The expulsion of Afghan refugees from Pakistan is said to be putting added pressure on the Taliban.

According to the study, there is growing disaffection within the Taliban about the armed campaign. Many are said to feel that the war has lost direction and purpose, and is corrupting the movement.

A new approach to peace talks is needed, the study concludes. This would harness and mobilise the large numbers of disaffected Taliban, in order to get around the leadership’s stonewalling. These developments within the Taliban are said to present an opportunity for ‘insurgent peacemaking’.

The collapse of leadership authority under Haibatullah, the resurgence of factionalism and the rise of the Mansour network, as well as the powerlessness of the Taliban leadership to stop Pakistan from expelling Afghan refugees, have expanded the political space available to pro-peace insurgent Taliban.

However, according to the study Ready for Peace? The Afghan Taliban after a Decade of War by Theo Farrell and Michael Semple, none of this is to suggest that insurgent peace-makers would accept an Afghan government, which most Taliban abhor.

Rather, insurgent peace-making is based on the idea of autonomy from both government and anti-government war-makers, and on disillusioned Taliban extricating themselves from unproductive violence, without accepting the status quo.

Little is said to be inevitable about the trajectory of Taliban politics. For senior Taliban dissidents to make an effective contribution to reducing violence they will need to maintain the respect and support of their comrade networks.

The Afghan government response could make this more likely by subtly engaging with them as serious political actors and allowing them to portray themselves as upright mujahideen, or it could make it less likely by treating them as mere defectors who have submitted.

The emergence of Taliban dissent is also said to pose a challenge for the Pakistani authorities. This suggests that if there is progress towards insurgent peace-making it will be as an outcome of the Taliban’s own internal political dynamic rather than in response to Pakistani encouragement.

In 2016, the authors of this study held discussions with seven Taliban figures representing different constituencies within the movement. The context for these discussions was the failure of existing mechanisms to deliver negotiations, and reports that the new Taliban emir had failed to exert his authority.

Multiple interviewees stated the doctrine of obedience to the emir is observed less and that the governance structure is breaking down.

The purpose was to explore the new Taliban leadership landscape and, within this, the potential for restarting peace talks. The discussions were held over 10 days in a location outside the immediate region. The method centred on lengthy and iterative one-to-one interviews.

Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1497115/insurgent-peace-making/


URL: http://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/a-champion-of-pakistan’s-minorities-by-akbar-ahmed--new-age-islam-s-selection,-04-september-2017/d/112419


Compose Your Comments here:
Email (Not to be published)
Fill the text
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.