Books and Documents

Pakistan Press (14 Mar 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

The Extinction of the Pakistani Woman: New Age Islam's Selection, 14 March 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

14 March 2017

The Extinction of the Pakistani Woman

By Shahzaib Khan

Haqqani Claims His ‘Connections’ Led US to Kill Osama

By Anwar Iqbal

Fear and Loathing in Pakistan

By Fahd Husain

Dealing with the Afghans

By Syed Talat Hussain

Afghanistan Reloaded

By Zaigham Khan

Books, Books

By Dr A Q Khan

Fighting Extremism in Trump’s America

By Jasmine M. El-Gamal

Dirty Politics

By Umair Javed

A Violent Phase

By Huma Yusuf

Going Pink

By Hajrah Mumtaz

Pakistan Cannot Be Isolated

By Hafsa Khaled

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau


The Extinction of the Pakistani Woman

By Shahzaib Khan

 March 12, 2017

If you were a member of an oppressed minority what would you want? Rights? Representation? A voice? An end to persecution? That new lawn print?

The biggest oppressed minority in Pakistan dreams of week-long extravagant weddings, overpriced designer couture and blissful ignorance.

At this earliest of junctures, I hereby qualify that this piece is in no way meant to be an attempt to belittle the commendable, growing feminist discourse in Pakistan and I admit that the piece is in fact an exercise in arbitrary opinionating. However, that should not stop me or anyone else, from voicing their, at least personally, valued opinion. The piece is also aggressively stereotypical in its approach and possibly inadvertently misogynistic at places. There are obviously laudable and significant exceptions to the following view, both women (some found these days commendably reclaiming public spaces such as dhabas) and men. The identification of a macro trend without caring for the micro intricacies however does not render an opinion instantly invalid.

The biggest minority in Pakistan are Pakistani women; and yes, they are an oppressed minority.

Unlike, in 1983 Lahore, where throngs of women charged into burly armed guards of the state to raise their voices, Pakistani women today are not fighting. Content with finding out the predeterminedly unfortunate fate of that burden of a woman on her favourite television soap, the Pakistani woman is taking it easy. This is of course not true for all Pakistani women.

Women’s rights: an indigenous movement

Pakistani women, much as the same as Pakistani society in large have disintegrated into very specific groups of social classes. When a species is about to go extinct it is categorised into different groups depending on its likelihood of extinction. A near-threatened species is one that is likely to be threatened with extinction in the near future but does not face that immediate threat at this time. A critically endangered species, on the other hand, is one which has been categorised as facing a very high risk of extinction. The near-threatened Pakistani woman is excruciatingly upper-middle class and so as to put it objectively is complacent, because she is safe. This woman is less likely to be shot dead on account of not making the chappati round enough, as compared to the critically endangered woman. The critically endangered woman, by the way, is the woman who cooks, cleans and cares for the near-threatened woman. The critically endangered woman is pre-disposed, on account of her lack of finances and her resulting incapacitations, to have a higher than normal likelihood for being shot in the back of the skull on account of a slight misdemeanor and is so preoccupied with striving to exist, that she rather understandably does not have the time to pen an article, share an inspiring tweet, or lead a protest on the road, to claim her rights.

Pakistani society has transcended an already deplorable debate on women’s rights to stir up another debate. The question we find ourselves asking today, much to the dismay of all conceptions of humanity, is not whether a Pakistani woman should, have equal employment opportunities, equal representation in Parliament or be duly recognised for her contribution in domestic capacities but whether Pakistani women have the right to live or not?

It is beneath me, as it should be beneath any human being, to even consider such a question. The problem is that apparently it’s not. It’s not beneath Pakistani men and most ironically Pakistani women to entertain a debate where the right of women to live is construed through the paradigm of ill-defined social acceptability. Pakistani women are found formulating ever new arguments to give credence to their right to live. And that is where the near-threatened women and their striking failure comes into play. The movement for the rights of Pakistani women has been confined to albeit commendably brave tweets and Facebook posts that act as voices of protest every time a woman is shot dead, stabbed or burnt. The foremost blame for this decadency and degradation in the feminist discourse in Pakistan rests with the women of Pakistan, especially the near-threatened. The critically endangered woman is already, as aforementioned, teetering on the edge of existence, she cannot reasonably be expected to come onto the roads when the same costs her next meal. The contribution of the Pakistani man to the current state of women rights in Pakistan is second to none but at the same time they can’t realistically be expected to pioneer its rectification, the majority of the same at least, however justified such an expectation may be. Pakistani society draws a clear distinction between men and women and as such one is not pre-disposed to care for the other. This is by no means a reason to disavow the Pakistani man of the responsibility of fighting to change a situation that he has helped create. But, expecting the average Pakistani man or for that matter the critically endangered woman to lead the movement for the rights of the average Pakistani woman is unrealistic, idealistic and frankly, lazy, however unfortunate this may be.

Global Marches, Strikes Demand Equality on Women’s Day

Often, when a case for legal action is lodged against a party, the petitioner has to establish his or her bona fide as an aggrieved party for the action to be maintainable. Such is the recognition afforded to the idea, that only when you are aggrieved, will you seek change. Pakistani men are not aggrieved.

Pakistani women, the near-threatened, the privileged and the educated, therefore, have a pro-active and pre-disposed responsibility to ask questions, the right questions. They are the ones primarily aggrieved, able and thus mandated with forming the discourse on women’s rights in Pakistan. But if this discourse today is centered around the question of the right of Pakistani women to be allowed to live, the women of Pakistan have been failed, completely and utterly, admittedly by the men first, but ultimately and more importantly by the women of Pakistan themselves.

Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1352954/extinction-pakistani-woman/


Haqqani Claims His ‘Connections’ Led US To Kill Osama

By Anwar Iqbal

13 March 2017

WASHINGTON: Pakis­tan’s former US ambassador Husain Haqqani has claimed that his ‘connections’ with the Obama administration enabled the United States to target and kill Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

In an article published in The Washington Post on Friday, Mr Haqqani defended the Trump team’s contacts with Russia during and after the 2016 US presidential elections and said he also had established similar relations with members of the Obama campaign during the 2008 elections.

Those contacts “led to closer cooperation between Pakistan and the United States in fighting terrorism over the 3 1/2 years I served as ambassador” and “eventually enabled the United States to discover and eliminate bin Laden without depending on Pakistan’s intelligence service or military, which were suspected of sympathy toward Islamist militants”.

Mr Haqqani wrote that the friends he made in the Obama campaign team were “able to ask, three years later, as National Security Council officials, for help in stationing US Special Operations and intelligence personnel on the ground in Pakistan”.

Explaining how he responded to those requests, the former ambassador wrote: “I brought the request directly to Pakistan’s civilian leaders, who approved. Although the United States kept us officially out of the loop about the operation, these locally stationed Americans proved invaluable when Obama decided to send in Navy SEAL Team 6 without notifying Pakistan.”

Mr Haqqani recalled that in November 2011, he was forced to resign as ambassador after Pakistan’s military-intelligence apparatus gained the upper hand in the country’s perennial power struggle.

“Among the security establishment’s grievances against me was the charge that I had facilitated the presence of large numbers of CIA operatives who helped track down bin Laden without the knowledge of Pakistan’s army — even though I had acted under the authorisation of Pakistan’s elected civilian leaders,” he wrote in the Post.

Mr Haqqani said the purpose of his cooperation with US officials was to ensure a victory in the fight against terrorists.

“Unfortunately, the United States did not attain victory in Afghanistan, and the Pakistani government’s behaviour toward militant Islamists did not change on a permanent basis. But for the period I was in office, the two nations worked jointly toward their common goals — the essence of diplomacy,” he wrote.

Examine: Maybe it would have been better if Osama were still with us

Mr Haqqani said his article also covered the diplomatic exchanges about visas and the end result of the US pursuit of bin Laden and cited allegations against him over the visa issue.

“There is no new ‘admission’ over the visas as suggested by some in the Pakistani media who choose not to examine the real issue relating to bin Laden living in Abbottabad for years,” he wrote.

When contacted, PPP spokesman Senator Farhatullah Babar said the visa issue had been raised in the past also. “All procedures were followed in the issuance of visas to the Americans and no complaint had been made by any branch of the government,” he said.

Mr Babar clarified that Mr Haqqani now worked independently and was not a spokesperson for the PPP government of the time.

In an email to Dawn, Mr Haqqani said on Sunday that he had “retained complete record of every visa issued to US officials” while he served as ambassador. “I will be compelled to make it public, with authorisations including those by senior military personnel, if conspiracy theories continue to be circulated to target the patriotism of civilians,” he warned.

Reacting to the huge public reaction to his Post article, Mr Haqqani said: “It is time … to stop agitating over visas to Americans and for facing the real question of why Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan and how Americans were able to find him while our intelligence service could not.”

Quoting from a statement that former prime minister Yousuf Raza Gilani made after the May 2, 2011, US raid on an Abbottabad compound that killed Osama, Mr Haqqani said: “The real issue is not how many Americans – our allies and aid benefactors – got visas but rather who gave visa to bin Laden.”

Mr Haqqani said that after he began reading about the Trump administration’s contacts with the Russians, he rummaged through his files and diaries to “retrace my steps as ambassador in the fall of 2008”.

He said he had maintained relations with three teams of American officials, politicians and professional staffers, the Bush administration and the two major-party candidates.

Mr Haqqani said he had met senior members of the Republican and Democratic national committees, more than a dozen senators and congressmen from each party, and several individuals from both sides who were tipped to emerge in senior government positions after the election. “This is totally normal for ambassadors,” he added.

Source: dawn.com/news/1320175/haqqani-claims-his-connections-led-us-to-kill-osama


Fear And Loathing In Pakistan

By Fahd Husain

March 12, 2017

If these are growing pains, they are excruciatingly agonising.

Brawling legislators like PML-N’s Javed Latif and PTI’s Murad Saeed are not at fault — they are mere foot soldiers who operate under the looming shadows of their political generalissimos. These minions bask in their leaders’ reflected glory — or lack thereof as the case may be — and draw the legitimacy of their actions from the approval of the top men. This here is a system born, bred and reinforced in and around individuals and not institutions; a system whose standards are a reflection of personalities, not universal values. This system validates its legitimacy through the prism of individuals whose influence dominates organisations, institutions and often the State itself. Javed Latif and Murad Saeed are insignificant flunkies whose actions in of themselves signify nothing unless seen as an outrageous failure of their overlords.

It is a failure borne of fear and loathing — two intense emotions that should not be defining the contours of national political progression. But they are. If Imran Khan pours scorn on the Pakistan Super League (PSL) final in Lahore, he does so not because he has anything inherently against the tournament but because he sees the Lahore final within the larger context of his battle royale against Nawaz Sharif. In essence then, Khan loathes Sharif more than he loves cricket. His loathing is so visceral that he fears if he lifts his foot off the pedal, Sharif will get a breather. And a breather in a zero sum game — which is what both see it as — is a gift that no person would want to give to his opponent. Khan will willingly trash the game he loves and ridicule foreign players he should be thanking just to stick it to Sharif. Every other thing pales into insignificance including the loutish behavior of his minions like Murad Saeed. The individualisation of politics in a grimly medieval way has started to have devastating repercussions in our society. Institutionalising governance was never a greater challenge.

And what of those voted in to govern? Javed Latif’s despicable utterances against Murad Saeed’s sisters are a stain not just on this man but on his leadership as well. He vomited those words because he knew he could; because he understood that plunging into the gutter was not just acceptable but actually encouraged; because he recognised that the ritual mild condemnations that he received from his leadership would be drowned out by the accolades he would receive from them behind closed doors. Given the ratio of rebukes versus rewards coming his way from his party, he wasn’t too off the mark.

Like Murad Saeed, Javed Latif is an insignificant minion, but even minions are awash in the loathing of Khan as it gushes down from the high ramparts of the PML-N citadel. Sharif loathes Khan more than he can ever loathe the disgusting behaviour of minion Latif; more than he can loathe the shameless justifications of Latif’s vile words coming from his party colleagues; more than he can loathe the gradual transformation of political discourse into verbal manure. Sharif’s loathing of Khan is borne out of a fear — an existential fear that Khan can breach the walls of his fortress and bring his familial empire crashing down.

As we sink deeper into this political soakage pit, a noxious odour of societal debasement overpowers the senses. Something deeply troubling is bubbling up from underneath the layers of this poisonous magma; something that is silently undercutting the basis of our non-infectious optimism about the future of our country; something that is reigniting dread.

But is dread really dread if it doesn’t trigger fear? When Sharif and Khan loathe each other more than they loathe the absence of the rule of law; when they loathe each other more than the sapping of institutional strength and when their mutual loathing can trample every other thing under its mighty hoofs, then this is not political rivalry — it is a tribal fight between two Sardars which has seeped deep into their rank and file. And it plays out naturally because we are after all still in many ways a tribal society in which archaic feudal values are celebrated — values like absolute loyalty to the Sardar not to a vague concepts like law and morality.

Imran Khan bars party members from sharing public forum with PML-N’s Javed Latif

How many among us realise that this feudal, tribal system is anathema to a modern progressive society? How many of us actually believe that we must shun these medieval values if we have to mature into a modern post-agrarian society in which citizens are valued not for their personal loyalty to a Sardar or a leader, but for their observance of the laws of the land and of basic human morality? How many of us indeed would want our individual whims and fancies to be subsumed within the ambit of laws that regulate our behaviour regardless of our social standing within society?

If we are reinforcing these primitive values — which we do every time minions like Javed Latif and Murad Saeed act up in the name of their political sardars — we are in essence sliding down the evolutionary ladder of actual human development. Such a slide cannot be halted by progress that money can buy but by investing in institutions and the absolute rule of law. If there is little or no progress on this front, no amount of bricks and mortar projects can save us from being relegated to the dustbin of the future.

This dismal theatre of the absurd plays out every day in front of the cameras as we watch and applaud like idiots inebriated by the sheer entertainment value of the farce. There is something rotten in this State of Pakistan and if we do not put a halt to this fear and loathing we should be prepared to lose more than just our sense of direction.

Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1352951/fear-loathing-pakistan/


Dealing with the Afghans

By Syed Talat Hussain

March 13, 2017

Our shut-open-shut border policy towards Afghanistan needs a serious review. More than a review, it needs context, aim-identification and proper juxtaposition within our long-term strategic worldview.

We ought to have some sense of where we are going with the present set of steps vis-a-vis Afghanistan, and whether, in the medium and long terms, these steps will be in alignment with how we want to see our ties shape up with this important yet troublesome state.

That we had to do something when gangs from across the border attacked our cities and sent in terrorists who killed our precious women, children and men was pretty much a foregone conclusion. No less obvious was what needed to be done: we had to send a signal to Kabul that it had to somehow control these gangs or else be penalised.

Closing the border was a people-centred punishment and knocking out hideouts was a state-centred action. Both combined did produce the result of getting Kabul to focus its attention on the fact that its territory was producing terrorism that was intolerable and for which our patience was running out.

Also the new army chief, General Qamar Javed Bajwa, didn’t have to consult anyone and could order forces to pound potential and actual sanctuaries. The display of a quick response and the consistency of its use – despite protests, threats and diplomatic theatrics from Kabul – indicated that a new normal had been introduced in our equation with Afghanistan: the gloves will come off easily every time we suspect or have information about terrorists operating out of Afghanistan who strike inside our country. This policy also keeps the option of a hot pursuit on the table just to reinforce the message that the old ‘talk, talk and no action’ phase is over.

However, having introduced this new element in our relationship with Afghanistan, we need to now consider how these strong-arm actions fit into the larger framework of our ties with a country whose internal happenings have a direct bearing on our core security goals. There is no embarrassment in admitting the fact that these steps towards Afghanistan – the use of force to convey our anger and anguish – have been taken in haste. They became inevitable after the wave of terror that had taken everybody in the country by surprise and had engendered fears that perhaps we could descend into the Middle East-like chaos. But now that these steps have been taken, they have to be squared with the needs of our long-term ties with Afghanistan.

Clearly we don’t want a hostile, embittered Afghanistan whose government – regardless of how compromised and weak it may be – is able to sell to a willing public the idea that Pakistan is an enemy state. We also don’t want the dynamics of trade between the two countries to be so badly affected that the scope of it is reduced rather than enhanced. We certainly don’t want the population across immediate border towns – whose livelihood and economy depends crucially on the flexibility of to-and-fro movement – to become agitated and hostile.

With these ‘don’ts’ in mind, it is only logical to suggest that restriction across the border – from legitimate to illegal crossings– must not be used as a favourite tool to express diplomatic or military displeasure. People-to-people hostility runs counter to the idea that this border needs to be kept calm and the population in its immediate vicinity must be reasonably assured that they won’t pick the cost of the dark deeds of terrorists. Of course, border crossings should be more tightly regulated. Border fencing is a great idea and must be followed up without any reservation or second thoughts. Indeed, in times of threats or heightened frustration – with Kabul’s insouciance towards our suffering and pain at the hands of terrorists – these crossings can be paced down. But to shut them down at the drop of a hat is a policy that does not serve any long-term purpose.

Also, carrying out strikes across the border on sanctuaries will remain a policy of somewhat limited and diminishing gains as gangs operating from across could easily shift their bases inward or relocate to another position of advantage. Their existence – especially since it is bankrolled by India and some Western intelligence agencies apart from Kabul’s own intel apparatus – is not meant to be a stop-gap arrangement. It is a long-term plan to stir mischief in Pakistan and to stretch the army’s resources from east to west. So, in all probability, these groups will stay there – all the more because Kabul, by its own admission and by our own acknowledgement, continues to insist that it has no writ over these havens.

This creates the policy challenge of making a demand on Kabul through punitive action that we know it cannot (or will not) fulfil. How do we enhance our capacity to stop these gangs from making it across the border and striking in the mainland? We cannot be lobbing off mortars and pretend that all of them are demolishing terrorists bases. We, therefore, need to seriously work on fixing our border by fencing it and also by building a strong and robust special border force – the foundation of which is already available in the shape of the Frontier Corps.

The FC needs to be developed as a defence and sword arm of the nation for our border with Afghanistan. It is a motivated force with remarkable achievements under its belt in the first and most complex phase of Fata operations. If it wasn’t for its contributions, the vast stretches of Fata where we raise the national flag now would still have been out of our reach. It needs to be equipped, financed and its command structure must be adjusted to the new role.

Equally important is the work on and with the tribes that straddle the border or are in close proximity to the border. History suggests that these tribes are as much a first line of defence for us as they are potential transmission belts of trouble that travels down the way the Kabul River flows. Some of these tribes – such as Salarzai in Bajaur – were bedrocks against mass-scale Taliban raids and paid a heavy price for standing for a terror-free country. We used them as tribal Lashkars and then, at the first light of the dawn of Taliban defeat, abandoned them. This was pathetic. These tribes need to be engaged – not to start a new phase of lashkar raising but to build a common cause of monitoring, supervision and effective people-driven control of the border. Informal trade (let us not call it smuggling) will always allow the possibility of miscreants slipping in. But that in no way should stand in the path of building a human fence against organised raiders. This needs to be done quickly and with sincerity of purpose that goes beyond grabbing headlines and photo opportunities.

But, in the end, all these measures will not be effective in dealing with the Afghanistan challenge if we do not activate the diplomatic front at all levels. Bombs and guns are instruments of violence from which lasting peace can only emerge if the opponent is completely vanquished. In situations where total victory isn’t possible, kinetic means become long-term nightmares.

Pakistan stands to suffer the most from a breakdown of ties with Afghanistan. We have sent the right signals to Kabul and to the world through our border closure and strikes on sanctuaries. Now diplomatic channels need to be activated to arrest Afghanistan’s general drift towards chaos which can be evidenced by the Daesh attack on the Kabul military hospital. We need to take the lead on bilateral, trilateral, quadrilateral, and multilateral engagements to discuss and debate Afghanistan’s situation.

We have wasted too much time waiting for the Taliban to arrive on the table and have reduced the vast spectrum of Afghanistan’s diplomacy to the keyhole of delivering ‘good Taliban’ – a holy grail that is not in sight.

Let us redefine the parameters of peace in Afghanistan by expanding the diplomatic horizons and making a serious concerted pitch for some stability and sanity in our soft underbelly. Without the conflict ending on Afghan soil, our border management efforts will remain a mere firefight and have to be the main goal of our Afghanistan policy which we need to pursue relentlessly.

Source: .thenews.com.pk/print/191934-Dealing-with-the-Afghans


Afghanistan Reloaded

By Zaigham Khan

March 13, 2017

It must be a very painful time for those at the helm of the state of Pakistan as all of their hopes, aspirations and dreams about relations with Afghanistan have gone up in smoke and their worst nightmares are now harsh facts on the ground. After seven decades on the roller coaster, Pak-Afghan relations are on the drawing board yet again. It appears that the huge tribe of Afghan experts, within and outside the government, only led us astray.

Afghanistan, it appears, has finally crossed the dreaded redline and our western frontier is now a source of bigger trouble than the eastern border. As the encirclement becomes a reality, Pakistan is trying to reframe its relations with its westerly neighbour as a hostile state.

Most Pakistani analysts blame the whole situation on Pakistan’s policies which, in their opinion, have delivered Afghanistan into the hands of our mortal enemy – India. This line of argument is popular with Afghans as well who deny enjoying any agency or control over themselves, blaming everything that has happened in their country on outsiders. Except defeating superpowers of course; that they did all alone. Afghan-Pakistan relations are in fact a tango that has been played by the two states together. Even as both are bleeding, the dance has become even more feverish.

There is a very harsh reality that most Pakistanis find hard to understand. Afghanistan does not see Pakistan as a friend – it never has and, perhaps, it never will. More than the realities of international relations, this fact is rooted in how Afghans define their identity. Ever since Pakistan was created, Afghanistan has defined its identity in opposition to its neighbour. This is not unusual as nations construct identities not only by defining who they are but also by outlining who they are not – or the ‘other’.

Pakistan, interestingly, has long idealised Afghans and Afghanistan. This attitude dates back to the colonial period, when Indian Muslims saw Afghanistan as a free Muslim country with which they had a shared history and blood relations, conveniently forgetting that this relative freedom was granted by the two empires to maintain a buffer and also because there was not much to be gained economically by occupying Afghanistan.

Pakistan had to face a rude shock when Afghanistan opposed the very existence of the newly born Muslim state to its east and became the only country to oppose Pakistan’s membership to the UN. It also refused to accept the Durand Line as an international border though it did not have any case worth contesting at any international forum. While Pakistan remained obsessed with India, Afghanistan felt free to foment separatism, supporting centrifugal movements – both political and violent.

After three decades, Pakistan got a chance to shape Afghanistan in its own image after communists took control of Kabul and Soviet tanks rolled in to support them. There is a broad agreement in Pakistan that Ziaul Haq made a huge blunder by throwing Pakistan headlong into the CIA’s war in Afghanistan.

Afghans, however, do not see it that way. They think that they did a great job by defeating a superpower and adding a new grave to their famed graveyard of the empires. Almost all of the Afghan ruling elite, as well as most leaders of the insurgency, can trace their lineage to the Afghan war. Hamid Karzai, himself a warlord of that period, thanks Pakistan for its support to the Mujahideen.

So in the opinion of the Afghan elite, Pakistan turned evil when it ‘foisted the Taliban on the Afghan people’. Most educated Pakistanis, including this columnist, agree that Pakistani support for Taliban was a dark chapter in history. However, it is very hard to deny that the Taliban were a popular social movement in Afghanistan at the time. They emerged spontaneously as many similar movements in the past and their victories needed minimal support from Pakistan. The great Mujahideen who had just inflicted a humiliating defeat upon a superpower were themselves humiliated by the madrasa students, not because Pakistan supported them but because the people of Afghanistan were fed up with the Mujahideen and they saw the Taliban as their only hope.

While the Taliban were the only Afghan government not enjoying good relations with India, they did not prove less troublesome for Pakistan. They provided protection to Pakistani sectarian terrorists and brought the US military to the region by harbouring Osama bin Laden. The hostility the Taliban harboured towards Pakistan is evident from the book written by Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan.

The Northern Alliance and other former Mujahideen who dominate the Kabul establishment have not forgiven Pakistan for its support to the Taliban. Relations have been further soured due to Pakistan’s support for Taliban after 9/11.

However, by trying to benefit from the Indo-Pak rivalry for their own interests, the Afghan ruling elite have also complicated the regional situation and seriously compromised Afghan national interests. After all, Pakistan hosted 10 percent of its population, kept its 2500-kilometre long border open for Afghan nationals and allowed almost 50,000 Afghans to travel to Pakistan every day to work, study, seek medical treatment and fulfil their other needs. Pakistan had even tolerated an Afghanistan-based smuggling industry worth billions of dollars being maintained in the name of transit trade without insisting on a fair use policy. Think of a country that houses 20 million Pakistanis (10 percent of our population) and extends these kinds of favours.

Some eight years ago, the Kabul government decided to take confrontation with Pakistan to the level of the people. It started harassing Pakistani travellers, even those visiting on valid visas. It became almost impossible for a common Pakistan to have a cup of tea at a cafeteria in the Afghan capital. Afghanistan also barred Pakistanis from visiting Afghanistan without valid documents, while expecting Pakistan to keep its borders open to all Afghans. It has also restricted trade with Pakistan by putting up tariff and non-tariff barriers.

All the good, the bad and the ugly was done with only one aim in mind – to keep India out of Afghanistan. But India has arrived with its spooks, and with the openly stated aim of fomenting trouble in Pakistan.

It is painful to see millions of common Afghans suffering due to the deterioration of relationship between the two states. I have previously argued for the rights of Afghan refugees in this space, but unfortunately nation-states do not show much sympathy to citizens of hostile states. On Pakistan’s border with India, hardly a few hundred people travel on both sides every day, visas are hard to get and every traveller is considered suspect.

While relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan have hit rock bottom, we should try to make a distinction between the Afghan government and its people. Both Afghanistan and Pakistan have much to gain from good relations with each other. In the short run, however, it will be good if they could resist the temptation to harm each other.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/191935-Afghanistan-reloaded


Books, Books

By Dr A Q Khan

March 13, 2017

Nothing about the Panama leaks or cricket from me: four books containing valuable information will be discussed instead. However, first something about the successful Economic Cooperation Organisation meeting held in Islamabad.

The Prime Minister, Sartaj Aziz, Tariq Fatemi and their colleagues deserve praise for successfully organising this conference. The participation of the presidents of Turkey and Iran and senior officials from Central Asian countries clearly demonstrates the importance of Pakistan in the eyes of these countries. One reason for this respect is our status as a nuclear power. Many Pakistanis who have travelled abroad tell me that the nationals of Islamic countries show great respect for them and stress that they greatly appreciate the fact that Pakistan was able to achieve – 33 years ago – what none of them have been able to do till now. We are not only a nuclear power, but also a missile power. Because of this combined capability, our adversaries dare not indulge in any misadventure against us. Yes, Pakistan Zindabad and Pakistanis Paendabad.

With the development of the ECO nexus, we can expect many important foreign dignitaries. In order to avoid any inconvenience to the general public – tightened security checks and road blocks – the government should follow the example set by China and establish a series of guest houses following the pattern of the Diao Yutai State Guest House in Beijing. This is a well-constructed, purpose-built structure of excellent quality, has beautifully laid out gardens and many services like an auditorium, conference room(s), a kitchen, a restaurant, laundry facilities, a gift shop and a barber/beauty parlour.

Now back to books. The first is entitled ‘America’ and is written by a young, talented Pakistani analyst, Israr Ahmad Kisana. The book has been published by Afzaal Ahmad of Sang-e-Meel Publications, Lahore. It contains articles previously published by the author in the dailies Nawa-e-Waqt and Jang. Kisana has dealt with the situation before and after 9/11 and the psyche of the Americans.

He has done a great job of analysing the US politics, and has, in particular, discussed Musharraf’s visit to the US and his subsequent behaviour as President Bush’s lackey – selling our sovereignty for a few dollars. Even Gen Colin Powell, former US national security adviser, was shocked when Musharraf, not only agreed to their demands, but also added many more important facilities – an airport, port facilities, air space passage – of his own. Musharraf’s decision to hand over the air bases was what really infuriated CAS Air Chief Marshal Mushaf Ali Mir. In short, this book is a treasure of information and both Kisana and Ahmad deserve commendation for it.

The second book is a special edition of the monthly ‘Tameer-e-Afkar’ and consists of 576 pages. It is an excellent monthly publication and this special edition is no exception. It deals with Islamic affairs like education, culture and research and contains many research papers. The editor is Prof Dr Syed Azizur Rahman and the publishing authority is Zawwar Academy Publications, Nazimabad, Karachi. This book is a must read for all religious scholars and should be kept in the libraries of all religious schools and all other schools that have religious departments. Rahman is a former colleague of my dear friend, late Prof Dr Mahmood Ghazi, founder of the International Islamic University in Islamabad.

The third book has as its subject our most respected and dear Holy Prophet, Rasul-e-Azam (pbuh). It has been compiled by the famous religious scholar Prof Khayal Aafaqui and has been published by Bait us Salam, Karachi. It is actually like a Seeratun Nabi. Prof Aafaqui has done a lot of research and investigation before compiling this book. He has read almost all the well-known books on Seeratun Nabi, the caliphs, Ahadees etc.

It is a very informative book and is of important interest to Islamic scholars and educational institutions. Unfortunately, however, it lacks a table of contents section. Aafaqui informed me that this would be added in the next edition.

The fourth book is written by an eminent cardiologist, a medical specialist and my dear friend, Dr Abdul Rashid Seyal, from Multan. He has been very successful in treating cancer and thalassaemia. For those of you who might want to utilise his services, his clinic is opposite Sharif Plaza in Multan. This book is in Urdu and is entitled ‘Ramuze Takhliq’ (secrets of creation).

The book contains informative articles on the miracle of the Quran, the journey of life, unseen faith, the Quran and the philosophy of life, the ascension to heaven of our Holy Prophet (pbuh), the Quran and the creation of Adam, the undisputed truth of the Quran, Be (Kun Faya Kun) and many articles and lectures. It is a treasure of knowledge and of interest and importance to Islamic scholars and educational institutions.

Seyal has written many books, some of which are being taught in the US. His books ‘Divine Philosophy and Modern Day Science’, ‘Poetic Stance of The Holy Qur’an: Philosophical Discernment In the light of Modern Day Science’ and ‘Faith in the Unseen’ are very popular. He has also published many research papers in well-known scientific journals.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/191936-Books-books


Fighting Extremism in Trump’s America

By Jasmine M. El-Gamal

March 13, 2017

I am a first-generation American Muslim who has spent my career in public service, including as a translator in Iraq and a policy adviser at the Department of Defence, and what I have learned is this: The enemy we face as Americans is not limited to one race or religion. Our enemy is extremism of all kinds, and the best way to fight it is to embrace our diversity and the strength it gives us.

During his first address to Congress, President Trump specifically and rightly denounced racism in the context of Black History Month, and anti-Semitism in the context of the abhorrent vandalism of Jewish cemeteries. But when it came to Purinton’s attack on two young Indian men, the president simply referred to “the shooting in Kansas.” Choosing not to label Purinton’s attack terrorism or extremism, while simultaneously labelling every violent attack by a Muslim as such, further compounds the false argument that one faith holds a monopoly on terrorism. That narrative ignores two beliefs common to all forms of extremism — that human beings are not created equal and that our labels transcend our shared humanity.

The FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics report documented 558 anti-Muslim incidents and offences in America in 2015, a 45% increase, on average, from 2012, 2013 and 2014. Similarly, a 2016 report by the Centre for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San Bernardino, revealed 196 anti-Muslim incidents in 2015 in the 20 states surveyed, compared to 110 in 2014. By contrast, there were three attacks that year by Muslim extremists in America — in San Bernardino, in Chattanooga,Tenn. and in Garland, Texas.

It was in this environment, following the San Bernardino shooting, that then-candidate Trump cited Pew and “other research” in claiming that “there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.” In the same statement, he said that “without looking at the various polling data, it is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension.” Such rhetoric from an influential public figure, simultaneously vague and combative, contributes to a permissive atmosphere for anti-Muslim sentiment and, more dangerously, in which Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim are attacked because of how they look.

President Trump’s prolific use of Twitter to speak directly to the American people, as well as his “tell it like it is” communication style and penchant for bestowing nicknames that stick, indicate he knows better than most people that words matter. He should also know that in his position, his words could now mean the difference between life and death for those he chooses to demonise.

To be clear: I am not advocating that we ignore the dangerous strain of extremism perpetrated in the name of Islam. But disregarding America’s long and dangerous history of right-wing and other forms of extremism simply exacerbates the false perception that the only threats to our homeland — indeed, to the West as a whole — are those arising from extremist Muslims.

The dehumanising of Muslims in America today is, sadly, not unique. Scapegoating of the past includes the shameful internment of individuals of Japanese descent during World War II and the anti-Semitism that partly influenced US policy towards Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. The historical struggles of minorities make me wonder what dangers lie ahead for my own family, from my hardworking immigrant mother to my second-generation American nieces and nephews. What headlines will we have to hide from them? What obstacles will they face in order to belong?

I want Trump to know that my fellow Muslims in America are not part of the problem; we are not “the other.” Only by condemning violence against Muslims as forcefully as violence by Muslims does the current administration stand a chance of turning the tide against the real enemy: all forms of extremism, regardless of faith or colour. The writer, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, was a translator in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom and advised three Defence secretaries as Country Director for Iraq, Lebanon and Syria from 2008 to 2013.

Source: pakobserver.net/fighting-extremism-in-trumps-america/


Dirty Politics

By Umair Javed

13 March 2017

IMAGINE a situation where you harbour a strong dislike for one of your colleagues. You might try to undercut them through passive-aggressive office politics, or you might try to highlight their shortcomings in front of other colleagues. What most will never think to do is abuse their family in public.

This isn’t because it’s an unnatural or unprecedented action. We learn and regurgitate all kinds of crass behaviour in everyday life. What stops us from acting out our most base and primal emotions are two connected things — a general sense of context-specific propriety (i.e. how to act in particular settings), and a general fear of reprisal from superiors or peers.

If our sense of entitlement is unencumbered by both of these, we’ll be far more primal in our public interactions.

The framework of entitlement goes a long way in explaining the lurid, misogynistic words of a PML-N MNA.

The framework of entitlement goes a long way in explaining both the lurid, misogynistic words of a PML-N MNA from Sheikhupura and the non-apology that came more than 24 hours later. The person in question knows full well that the immediate cost of abusing a colleague is minimal. At the time of writing at least, the party had said nothing substantial on the issue. There was no immediate reprimand from the top leadership. He bears no occupational cost of his words as a legislator, and since his voters in Sheikhupura city evaluate him on a different criterion altogether, they will not punish him for what he said in Islamabad.

The behaviour exhibited here is not unique to this particular politician. Just in the last few years, there were several major incidents of politicians being accused of acts far more heinous than swearing at a colleague. In Faisalabad three years ago, police booked three sons of a ruling party MNA for his involvement in a gang rape. In the Kasur child abuse scandal, there were frequent reports of protection being offered to the culprits by local politicians. Last month, two armed groups belonging to the ruling party attacked each other during city council proceedings.

These and many more instances point to the entrenchment of violence and criminality in local politics. They also highlight the general sense of entitlement and disregard amongst vast sections of the political elite. Much of this can be traced back to the changing nature of political competition, and an interconnected shift in the social profile of politicians seeking elected office.

Till the 1970s, the limited scope of democratic politics allowed only the colonial-era landed elites to compete for political office. Since then, the country has seen urbanisation, the emergence of new elites, and various bouts of partial democratisation. Elections have been held regularly, and thus political competition has become far more pervasive.

As a result, these last four decades have been marked by cut-throat competition amongst new elites, seeking to displace older ones, and enhance their social and economic position through political power.

A good example of this can be found in Nicolas Martin’s recent study on rural and peri-urban politics in Sargodha. The anthropologist focuses on the processes through which upwardly mobile agro-commercial businessmen have displaced the old landed gentry in local politics. Since they face more competition for power now than the old gentry ever had to face, they resort to all sorts of illegal and criminal tactics to reproduce their privileged positions.

This involves redirecting financial resources for patronage and vote-buying, moulding local state institutions (such as the Thana and Kutchery) to do their bidding, or relying on outright violence to intimidate and harass opponents and voters. Similar work by Matthew Nelson also confirms the countrywide presence of informal networks based on a nexus between money, criminality, and political power.

What’s important to note here is that this trend of criminality and violence is pervasive enough to not be about a particular set of individuals, or even a party (though the ruling party appears to have more than their share of such characters). Once successful, political entrepreneurs bargain their popularity, their patronage networks, and their ability to win with political parties for greater access and resources. This ensures a self-perpetuating cycle.

The mutual dependence between often-violent politicians and political parties creates a highly disadvantageous situation where local elites operate with an unending sense of entitlement, while party leaders reap benefits off their electoral victories.

Consequently, since in many areas such politicians are crucial for a party’s continued success, the leadership will rarely, if at all, ever discipline them for their transgressions. If one were to venture a guess, there are probably only a few places (such as Lahore), where the ruling party has the autonomy and structure to bench or discipline local elites and not face a political penalty. Everywhere else, the power balance is tipped in the candidate’s favour.

When seen as a set of systemic processes rather than individual sins, the country’s political culture, and hence its democratic future, appears bleak. Is the capture of political office by self-serving (and often criminal) elites a foregone conclusion, especially since we know interventions to ‘clean the system’ from above have not worked?

At this time, the greatest responsibility for cleaning up politics lies with the leadership of all parties in general, and the ruling party in particular. A party leadership that claims to be working for a ‘bright future’ cannot stand silent while those winning on its ticket make a mockery of the legislature and the decorum of public office.

While it may have to face some negative consequences for disciplining local elites, there can be no better time for it to start than the present. Otherwise its inaction towards such gross violations of conduct, not just on this occasion but on so many in the past, suggests active complicity more than passive incompetence.

Source: dawn.com/news/1320105/dirty-politics


A Violent Phase

By Huma Yusuf

13 March 2017

LAST week, with two hours to spare in Oslo, Norway, I had the choice of visiting a Viking ship museum, palace gardens and, on a more surreal note, the 22 July Centre — an exhibit about the twin terrorist attacks that took place in the city and Utoya island in 2011 (I opted for the gardens).

The centre opened in 2015, four years after Anders Behring Breivik detonated a car bomb at a government office, killing eight people, and then went on to open fire at a political party’s youth wing’s gathering on Utoya island, killing 68 people, mostly teenagers. The exhibition includes objects used by Breivik during the attacks — including his fake police ID and remains of the van containing the bomb — and a memorial to the victims, including photographs, phones and cameras left by the teens on the island.

The exhibit stirred controversy at the time of its launch, with opponents arguing that it would become a ‘hall of fame’ for Breivik. Others argued that Norway should forget the unprecedented incident and move on. However, speaking at the inauguration, the prime minister argued that Norwegians had a moral obligation to remember the events, commemorate victims, and use the incident as a reminder to “continue to fight against hate rhetoric and extremism”.

How should we remember our victims of terrorism?

Many countries have grappled with how to commemorate the victims of terrorist attacks. There was relative consensus on the decision to have the Freedom Tower replace the World Trade Centre in New York City, though it was marred by the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ controversy. Victims’ families in Paris, meanwhile, welcomed the unveiling of commemorative plaques on the one-year anniversary of the November 2015 terrorist attacks, saying they did not want their loved ones erased from public memory.

No matter the circumstances or location, such memorials are challenging to design, requiring a careful balancing act between remembering and forgetting, commemorating victims without glorifying the event, respecting victims’ families’ personal memories while acknowledging the impact on a nation’s collective conscience. It is possible for countries that have experienced one-off, high-impact attacks to navigate the sensitivities and eventually instal memorials, but how should a country like Pakistan, which has lost tens of thousands of innocents to hundreds of heinous attacks, remember the victims?

Following attacks, victims are referred to as Shaheed, and prayers and vigils are organised. Victims of the APS attack have received more attention: a monument in their honour is under construction at the Directorate of Archives and Libraries in Peshawar, which also houses the slain students’ personal belongings such as books, pens and glasses. A monument in the students’ memory was also unveiled in Ankara. This paper has published a moving online memorial to the students. But all the victims of terrorist attacks are equally deserving of commemoration — we cannot relegate them as statistics denoting a particularly dark chapter in Pakistan’s history.

Here’s the rub: memorials typically embody clear narratives. Before Pakistan can commemorate its victims, it must reckon with the origins of homegrown militancy, the state failures that resulted in a decade (possible more?) of horrifying bloodshed, the policies that backfired and ultimately claimed innocent Pakistani lives, and the challenges of reconciling doctrinal difference through democratic inclusion and rule of law.

Memorials will require Pakistan to disambiguate its attitude towards the extremism that claimed innocent lives. There are still voices that defend the actions of militant groups such as the TTP and see violence as a necessary evil. More problematic would be commemoration of the victims of sectarian attacks, some of whom are perceived by certain compatriots as misguided or even heretical. APS victims have likely received due attention be­­cause there is no disagreement about the horror of that attack and the fact that murdering schoolchildren is brutal and unjustifiable.

For all the difficulties that remembering presents, Pakistan must not forget this phase in its history, its unfortunate victims, and the shaping circumstances. As a nation, we are quick to amnesia, and willing to let our history be rewritten and reinterpreted to cynical ends. It will be hard for individuals to forget the terrorism that the nation has endured. But we must remember collectively, publicly, to ensure that this painful stage in our trajectory is not co-opted or corrupted in the service of future agendas and misadventures.

Memorials would also present the government with an opportunity to restore dignity to citizens who are too often subsumed by bureaucracy, clan or tribe identity, and the vagaries of political elites. An effort to acknowledge everyone who has been affected by terrorism will demonstrate sincere regard for every Pakistani life, and serve as a reminder that the state takes its responsibility to ensure the protection and prosperity of its citizens seriously.

Source: dawn.com/news/1320104/a-violent-phase


Going Pink

By Hajrah Mumtaz

13 March 2017

PUBLIC transport anywhere in the country is a nightmare, and one can only feel sympathy for the millions dependent on it. Barring a couple of big-ticket projects in Islamabad and Lahore, there are the problems of tattered, privately owned vehicles that care as little for safety standards as they do for the traffic rules. On top of that, there is pressure posed by the millions upon millions dependent on buses, vans and rickshaws for transport.

The world offers to women a special little place of their own, though, and public transport is no different. We face all the problems that men do, plus the additional one of sexual harassment. As is well recognised, the issue is of such magnitude that women who can and want to earn, or perhaps further their education, can be disallowed by the patriarchs from doing so. And, I can’t imagine any female in this country contemplating the prospect of getting on a bus or van with anything other than anxiety.

So when on Women’s Day last week a private company inaugurated a women’s-only taxi service, it offered a choice to half of Karachi’s population that must be welcomed. Paxi Pakistan, with its fleet of pink Suzuki Every vans and Nissan Clippers, is a service for women, by women. Given the plan to make it possible to hail the cabs through a smartphone app, phone call or SMS once operations start on March 23, it should bring about much-awaited relief to those sections of the population that can afford taxi rides.

The world offers to women a special little place of their own.

And it’s not just the customers that will benefit. The press reports of the launch carried numerous accounts of the female drivers who have all kinds of educational and social backgrounds. For all these employees, the service is an opportunity to earn a livelihood, while also carving out for women a sliver more of public space.

The initiative is praiseworthy, but it is not the first. In 2012, the Lahore Transport Company launched a Pink Bus Service for women on three routes in the city. But a year later, two of these buses stopped plying their routes on the complaint of running into losses because there wasn’t a sufficient passenger load. The effort was renewed in 2014 when the service was ‘re-launched’, but by now the buses have again all but disappeared.

Again in Lahore, in 2015, environmentalist Zar Aslam launched her own rickshaw service exclusively for women, starting with just one pink vehicle with herself behind the wheel. Her reasons, too, were the persecuting male gaze: she noticed how the female employees of her environmental protection non-profit viewed their journeys with trepidation. Thus the Pink Rickshaw scheme, finding new ways to empower women.

While their business models may be imperfect, the value of such initiatives cannot be overemphasised in a culture and environment where women face all sorts of violence and harassment, and where recourse to the law has little meaning. As noted earlier, these schemes are providing not just services to the sisterhood but also employment.

But it is also possible to argue that there is a pernicious underbelly to such rosy conveniences. It can be argued that by reserving vehicles for women, or parking spaces, as a mall in Karachi has done, or compartments in trains, or whatever, notions of gender segregation are being reinforced. Women are further ‘otherised’, excised from public space. And, by implication, if they venture into public spaces and run into trouble, the burden of fault is placed on them. Women are at risk from men and therefore must be separated from them in the interests of their own safety. This is no different from the argument behind veils, or of forcing women to live within the confines of their homes and attain neither an education, nor work.

Women-only services in public transport are boons in the short term. But in the long term, the central problem remains unaddressed: men’s propensity to harass and persecute. Any long-term solution to the vulnerability of women in such spheres has to involve getting the male segments of society to rein in their worst impulses, in strengthening respect for privacy and the rule of law. This is to say nothing of the right to move around freely and safely, and to live life in dignity.

Women everywhere in the world, at all tiers of society, risk being harassed in ways big and small. Where the problem is less endemic, this has been achieved through raising in general a society’s respect for personal freedoms and individual rights, and secondly by enforcing the law. Means of getting complaints to the right quarters, be it the police or complaints commissions (in case of workplaces, for example), must be simplified and widely known.

While for now women can look forward to the prospect of rides reserved for them, the long-term concerns urgently need to be addressed, too.

Source: dawn.com/news/1320103/going-pink


Pakistan Cannot Be Isolated

By Hafsa Khaled

March 13, 2017

There was a sense of purpose and renewal among the Economic Cooperation Organisation (ECO) leaders when they gathered in Islamabad recently, to participate in the 13th ECO Summit. The leaders gathered to pledge expansion of trade, connectivity and economic relations in the region. For Pakistan, it was a double celebration as the summit dispelled the negative endeavours of India towards pushing Pakistan into isolation, the plans that fell flat on our neighbour’s face. By exacerbating the propaganda by using the Uri attack as a tool, India only got successful in the cancellation of last year’s Saarc summit. But the good news is that Pakistan cannot be left alone because of its strategic importance and the bright economic future.

This was evident when Pakistan hosted multinational AMAN-2017 naval exercises in which 37 countries took part including the US, China and Russia. The international community is aware of the fact that isolating Pakistan will not be beneficial for their own national interests as it is fast becoming a stronger economy with a vast potential of being a beneficial foreign investment destination. Similarly, by hosting the ECO Summit a positive signal has been sent. Pakistan hosted the high-profile regional summit smoothly. Recently, there is a fresh wave of security threat and the situation deteriorated to the point that a military-led national operation had to be initiated. But the successful conduct of ECO and the PSL final, demonstrated that the state can establish relative calm. With these events being held successfully Pakistan has proved that it is able to deliver on its regional and international hosting responsibilities.

The summit was attended by all 10 member states and the importance of prosperity of the region was emphasised. The theme of the summit was “Connectivity for Regional Prosperity” that focused on cooperation in the fields of trade, energy and transport. It also adopted the Islamabad Declaration and Vision 2025. The declaration calls for development of transport and communication infrastructure, facilitation of trade and investment, promotion of connectivity with other regions, effective use of energy resources and undertaking measures for making the ECO effective and efficient. Other than that the Islamabad Declaration envisages doubling of the current level of intra-ECO trade in the next three to five years through implementation of the ECO Trade Agreement and other ECO trade arrangements.

The plans for enhancing the connectivity in the ECO region are convergent with China’s One-Belt-One-Road project and the CPEC initiative. By the initiation of CPEC, there will be more availability of transit routes for the enhancement of trade among the ECO members. Pakistan has already offered its ports and routes for trade purposes. Pakistan has always sent a message of regional peaceful coexistence and trade. This summit may become a small step towards the establishment of an impressive regional vision. This can only be achieved when meaningful actions are taken by the member states to support the talk of peace and trade.

It was unfortunate that Afghanistan chose to downgrade its participation and showed its grievances towards Pakistan. The ECO was a regional gathering and Pakistan was only a host and this was not the appropriate forum to show the displeasure on the border closure. Afghanistan should quit playing the role of a spoiler at the behest of India, and should rather seek cooperative solutions. This would be beneficial for its own interests because terrorism is a dilemma for both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Both the countries should work together to establish peace and Afghanistan should be more forward-thinking in its approach, instead of pleasing India. Pakistan has proved its worth yet again and dismissed the notion that it can ever be isolated. In fact, the presence of an array of international leaders in Pakistan suggests that some neighbouring countries’ agenda to isolate Pakistan is a total failure and will not go too far.

Source: tribune.com.pk/story/1353610/pakistan-cannot-isolated/


URL: http://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/the-extinction-of-the-pakistani-woman--new-age-islam-s-selection,-14-march-2017/d/110382


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.