Books and Documents

Pakistan Press (25 Aug 2017 NewAgeIslam.Com)

Triple Talaq By Garga Chatterjee: New Age Islam's Selection, 25 August 2017

New Age Islam Edit Bureau

25 August 2017

Triple Talaq

By Garga Chatterjee

 India Is Fast Becoming a Mirror Image of Pakistan

By Javaid Bhat

The Sobering Element

By Asha’ar Rehman

Will Gitmo Exist Forever?

By Nisar Ali Shah

Our ‘Civil Society’

By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar

Why The Twain Never Met

By Shahzad Chaudhry

A Reluctant Trump’s Flawed Offensive

By Imtiaz Alam

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau


Triple Talaq

By Garga Chatterjee


On 22nd August, the Supreme Court of India’s five-member bench ruled that instant Triple Talaq was illegal and unconstitutional. This is but a small change in the Muslim Personal Law in the Indian Union which needs much more comprehensive reform. In the 1950s, several laws passed by the Parliament of India were to codify and reform Hindu personal law in India. Muslim personal law was left untouched. The run up to this verdict and its aftermath has been clinched upon by media agencies as a public discussion point. In this case the religious group in question was the minority. These were the Hanafi law following Sunni Muslims of the Indian Union whose practices were in question.

A large swathe of British acquired lands of South Asia was partitioned in 1947. This resulted in two religious communally majoritarian states and as of 2017 three communal states. In each of these entities, what is common among the constitutions is that everybody has the freedom to practice their religion. What is not common is whether a particular religion in an official sense has some special status in the state though unofficially all the three states are religious majoritarian states. This was ‘Hinduism’ in the Indian Union and ‘Islam’ in Pakistan and later in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. In each of these cases there exists in practice a hierarchy in a religious sense about who is a first-class citizen and who is not.

This has important implications if you are a first class citizen, that is, the state has been formed tacitly in your name to secure your benefits in preference to everybody else’s. Then the state speaks in the voice of that first class. That voice is not neutral. It can never be neutral but it is dangerous and sociopathic when it actively marginalises minorities who have no power to defend or to lean on. This marginalisation can take many forms. The most common form of this is not active destruction but the withdrawal of resources and attention. Minorities usually face harshness on most matters except those about their internal religious matters. This lack of harshness is a lack of considering the minority as one’s own. This non-interference leads to neglect and it is the opposite of freedom.

The religious majority is like the only child. Its concerns are everybody’s concerns and they can be reformed on a priority basis. However for the religious minority in any such entity who are left to stew in their own soup, such privileges are not available. They have to shout much shriller than others to make their voices heard or hope to become a pawn in a political game like the triple Talaq issue became one in the hands of the BJP. When that happens, a sordid display of opportunism and cunning is seen.

The religious minority is considered the adopted child in this post partition sub continental religions national imaginary. Thus, Muslims of the Indian Union are children of Pakistan by definition. In certain areas of the Indian Union, Muslims also tend to be children of Bangladesh. Some significant sections of the political class within the Indian Union consider the continued presence of these other’s children as the unfinished project of Partition. This is true for Hindus in Pakistan and particularly true to this day for Hindus of Bangladesh. Pakistan became almost minority free in all practical purposes quite soon after its formation. The anti-Hindu narrative, though used to inculcate religious hate ideology within the Muslim population, has relatively less practical implications when compared to the Bangladesh situation where Bangladeshi Hindus are still form a major proportion of the population. Hindus of Bangladesh and Pakistan belong to India by the same logic and this is a charge they often hear — of dual loyalty.

The lack of attention demonstrates the state’s indifference to the plight of the victims of Muslims in India. Therefore, family and inheritance laws that are more regressive then the ones prevalent in Pakistan and Bangladesh are implemented. Similarly, Hindus of Bangladesh are governed by much more regressive laws compared to those that the Hindus of the Indian Union live by. Often, this even means without any law. Until recently, marriages of Hindus in Bangladesh were not registered and divorce has no place in the Hindu personal law of Bangladesh. This is a legacy of Partition. We often think of Partition as an effect of ‘religion’. However, religion both led to Partition and has also shaped religion in South Asia.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/25-Aug-17/triple-talaq


 India Is Fast Becoming A Mirror Image Of Pakistan

By Javaid Bhat


For as far back as one could remember, we have been informed that Pakistanis have a difficult relationship with the basic idea of their country. We are told that the country is divided over the purpose of why their country even came into existence. For one set of people, Pakistan was established to implement the idea of a state governed by Islamic laws. For many scholars of Islam, Pakistan is the only example in world history where Islam and Sharia were to form the constitutional foundations of the polity. But many disagree with this kind of purpose assigned to the ‘Land of the Pure.’ They believe that most countries must grow out of the original idea and evolve to meet the demands of modernity.

They often quote the famous speech by Jinnah in which he gave a ‘secular turn’ to the newly created state. In this speech, Jinnah asked followers of different religions to freely partake in their ideologies of worship, promising them the safe custody of the Pakistani state. The tussle between those two ideas has still not ended: the clash between the two ideologies still haunts the nation. Compared to this, India appeared to be free of this problem... Until yesterday.

Changing Paradigm In India

In India, the basic idea of nationhood seemed to have been settled the day Pandit Nehru gave his famous ‘tryst with destiny’ speech. While voices disagreed with the Nehruvian vision, on the fundamental drive of sovereign nationhood, there was no major controversy. The talking point of the secular-left-liberal constituency in India was the fragile foundation of the idea of Pakistan, and the stable democracy which was taking India forward irrespective of its ‘violent edges.’ Any communal clash, whether it was the Sikh pogroms in Delhi after Indira Gandhi’s assassination, or the Gujarat riots -no matter how horrible in nature — was ‘accepted as an aberration’ in a country as big as India.

The innate spirit of Indians was still tolerant of all points of view. The essence of Hinduism was inclusive; over centuries it accommodated the cultures that arrived in India. Problems of exclusivity, confusion over national direction, and the issue of confusion over the “original idea”, always belonged to the “other” country. India, as a modern secular democracy, was free of that national confusion. India was a palimpsest, and secularism was a given norm. That was the dominant path; until, of course, the ironical ache din arrived on the political horizon of the largest democracy on earth.

Mirror Image of the Other

How the ache din phrase is gradually turning on its head, is indeed proverbial. With a meaning inverse of its literal, it won’t be a surprise if ache din Syndrome comes into shape. The new government in Delhi promised good days for the nation. However, these promised “good days” have compelled the nation to into a state of mind where the country’s collective existence has become a large question mark.

The debate is no more about whether good days have — or will — come for the country or not. Today, India is asking whether it was made for secularism, or for a theocratic state; whether India is going to manifest cultural nationalism, or constitutional nationalism. As Nehru pales into the shadows and Patel rises from relative oblivion; as Gandhi’s statues are clouded with a new doubt and Godse is rising from the dead; India is fast becoming a mirror image of Pakistan.

Countries that get caught up in internal battles waste precious time that can otherwise be used to alleviate suffering of the masses. Countries where innocent children die due to lack of oxygen must have better responsibilities than quarrelling over grandiose philosophical ideas of nationhood

The new Moditva nationalism is challenging every public intellectual and institution to its litmus test of nationalism and the very idea of India. This Moditva nationalism has a different set of heroes and villains. Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts is perhaps more important than what has been put in the constitution. The sanctity of the national flag is now in question. The current wave of nationalism- which bears the visible threat of violence- has exposed the underbelly of India where even the judiciary appears tainted. The old concept of India is being lynched in favour of a new one which has created sharp boundaries of different hues. Worse, many of those in the secular camp are meekly crossing the border into the saffron camp, claiming that they were actually the “pseudo-secular’s” which Moditva followers accusing their opponents of being.

Way Forward

There will be no way forward for India if it becomes the mirror image of the ‘other’. Countries which get caught up in internal battles waste precious time which could be used to alleviate the suffering of the masses. Countries where innocent children die due to lack of oxygen must have better responsibilities than quarrelling over grandiose philosophical ideas of nationhood. Winning ideological battles is pyrrhic if not accompanied by seriousness in poverty alleviation, healthcare improvement, access to education, and much more. As India descends into a battle of definitions, the future seems anything but heart-warming; and it is going to get worse with the fanged cultural nationalism clawing its way with money and muscle across India.

Source: dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/25-Aug-17/the-idea-of-india


The Sobering Element

By Asha’ar Rehman

August 25, 2017

IT is quite unpleasant to a see a personal favourite suffering a setback on health grounds when she had been all poised to lead yet another attempt at ensuring her family’s existence and their continued participation in power politics. This could well turn out to be a significant development, a twist which could define the tone of exchange on the NA-120 battlefront. A Kulsoom Nawaz under treatment for throat cancer could bring greater sobriety to the vote scheduled for Sept 17.

There were initially fears of matters turning into a classic mudslinging match given the timing immediately after the disqualification of Mian Nawaz Sharif. The disqualification saw frayed tempers on both sides of the political divide; even the fielding of women from the two main contesting parties, the PML-N and PTI, got a mixed reception.

There were those who quickly recalled how women candidates in the field had drawn the worst of election campaigners in the past. But mercifully, the dominating view was that the presence in the contest of a senior national-level PTI leader, who had a long professional career as a doctor behind her, and a person as prominent as the wife of a three-time prime minister on the other end would ensure adherence to a code of conduct based on decency even amid the intense lobbying for votes. The news that Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz is not well and under treatment away from home will encourage calls for restraint.

One immediate reaction to the news of Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz’s illness was that it provided Mian Sahib with a reason to suspend political activities in Pakistan.

The Sharifs have had problems with their health in recent years, London acting as a frequent destination for medical reasons. Each time a Sharif family member has been away for medical consultation there has been great mystery attached to it. Routinely, there have been predictions of how the doctor is soon going to declare someone unfit for further participation in politics and (there never being a dearth of wishful well-wishers of this country) how the forced termination of a political career is going to be the remedy that Pakistan had been long waiting for.

The Sharifs have defied these desired results prepared in labs away from their little world where they hid their private sufferings from the public. They have surprised those who had written them off on medical grounds. They have, quite remarkably, been able to protect their privacy with silence. So much so that many were slightly taken aback by the latest instance in which the Sharif family members appeared to share the news about Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz’s ailment with the people promptly.

How could they let the people know so abruptly when this could have an adverse effect on the former first lady’s chances in the polls, some asked. Others quickly put the ‘leak’ down to the ‘confusion’ in the Sharif camp which, post-disqualification, is said to be no more very sure about which news to allow out and which stories to try and sit on.

A saner explanation was that this was not something which could be kept concealed considering the campaign expectations of Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz. A delayed display of it could prove costly for the PML-N, especially post-disqualification when people ‘expect’ the party to be upfront and transparent in its decisions. Discovering her ailment later on could give the impression that the party was (still) keeping its supporters in the dark about certain matters.

The public side of it apart, in the context of the family’s own battles, fate could not have chosen a more dramatic moment to come up with this revelation — that is, presuming that there was no prior suspicion about the ailment even within the family, this was the first time everyone was hearing about it afflicting Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz.

These could be the most trying times for the Sharifs in history. According to one popular account, the sole Sharif family concern right now is survival. There are rumours about an impending implosion which could separate the Sharifs marked as ‘used’ and ‘useless’ from the Sharifs who could still be employed in serving politics and the political interests of Pakistan. The latest turn, on account of the doctor’s chit from London, could have an impact on shaping attitudes in the family, within the party which is pretty much a family affair, and beyond.

This was bound to be seen as an omen of some kind. What did this sign mean? When family is party and party is family not even the most superstitious could take it as a divine signal asking the Sharifs to employ people from outside the family in crucial resistance battles. Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz, was of course, the best choice to retain NA-120 for the household unless Shahbaz Sharif or Maryam Nawaz could realistically be fielded in the constituency. Then what other message could the timing of this ailment be associated with?

One immediate reaction to the news of Mrs Kulsoom Nawaz’s illness was that it provided Mian Sahib with a reason to suspend political activities in Pakistan and leave for England for a longish period to be with his ailing wife. The route provided him an escape from his current state of ‘inactivity’ — one perception being that Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was struggling desperately for direction post-disqualification.

The possibility continues to be discussed in Lahore; the intensity of the debate varies. There has since been movement within the Nawaz camp. An effort is said to be in preparation to amend laws that had justified Mr Nawaz Sharif’s dismissal from power for a third time. But not too many are hopeful that the idea has a future in a country where political groups are increasingly collecting against the PML-N, indicating through their statements that this was the most patriotic thing to do in Pakistan right now.

The amendment — even if it were to be granted that the PML-N really meant to earnestly go for the change — seems so out of reach in the circumstances. The scenarios which discuss various Nawaz Sharif exit options seem more relevant. It’s tough. Between a wife who promises to win it for him and one who appears to be saying that she has had too much of it.

Source; dawn.com/news/1353806/the-sobering-element


Will Gitmo Exist Forever?

By Nisar Ali Shah

August 25, 2017

One is often reminded that the US president is the most powerful man on the planet. Yet, former US president Barack Obama dismally failed to close down the notorious Guantanamo Bay detention centre. He repeatedly promised and desperately wanted to shut it down and take the credit for being an inspired human rights champion.

Had he succeeded in fulfilling his promise, his name would have gone down in the history of his country as a great leader. However, he was not powerful enough to persuade Congress to follow through with his vision.

This shows the powerlessness of a president – in this case Obama – who needed to fulfil his election pledge, but could not. So, the conflict in the power base in the US seems to suggest that a president is not quite omnipotent at home or abroad after all.

George W Bush had opened this detention facility on January 11, 2002 and, so far, there has been no sign of its closure in the foreseeable future. Instead, Donald Trump, the current US president, has promised the opposite and stated that he will “load it with more bad dudes”.

Will Guantanamo exist forever? The long-suffering inmates are getting old and infirm after 16 years of courageously enduring physical abuse and psychological mistreatment at various levels.

The scandal of Guantanamo – a blot on the US, which has frequently lectured the entire world about rights violation – shamelessly continues.

Amid torture and the ins and outs of the darkest CIA secret prisons around the world, the inmates rely on the international community to do something to secure their release.

For instance, sustained political campaigns have been mounted in Britain and have succeeded in securing the release of British detainees in Guantanamo, including Shaker Aamer. Since then, there has hardly been any mention of the detention facility.

Both the broadcast and print media are preoccupied with Brexit or a difficult divorce from the EU, which is a highly emotional political issue. Therefore,  stories concerning the plight of victims of torture in Guantanamo do not qualify for any space in the mainstream media.

So far, nine detainees have died in custody at Guantanamo. Although gradually in reduced number,  there are still 41 others languishing at the detention centre.

During the Bush administration, the number of prisoners released was 532 and Obama released another 198. Many were tortured in secret prisons overseas before being transferred to Guantánamo number. Only five percent were ‘captured’ by US troops as terror suspects and others were sold to the US for a bounty.

The inmates have not been charged with an offence. They were caught at the wrong time and at the wrong place.

The US argues that if these inmates are released, they would endanger the security of the US as an act of revenge. But 59 countries have accepted the detainees who, surprisingly, have not posed even the slightest risk to the security of any country.

Trump wants to “make America great again”. This sounds like a good idea – a very good idea indeed – but he will have to do some noble acts on his way to achieving that goal. The starting point could ideally be to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention centre by overriding objections from Congress.

The second good deed that Trump could perform is to hand over the illegally-occupied Cuban territory on which the prison is based back to Cuba.    By doing this, he will be able to kill two birds with one stone and simultaneously make America great again.

Half a billion dollars are paid every year by taxpayers to operate Guantanamo. If Trump is ready, willing and serious about making America great again, he could do himself and his country a favour and save this huge amount and spend it on the needy and on improving health services.   

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/225841-Will-Gitmo-exist-forever


Our ‘Civil Society’

By Aasim Sajjad Akhtar

August 25, 2017

ABOUT 20 years ago, ‘civil society’ was touted as the final frontier of democratisation. Even before it came to Pakistan, ‘civil society’ had birthed a purportedly independent workers movement in Poland called Solidarity which triggered the end of the Cold War. The defining feature of ‘civil society’ was that it was not the state — more specifically, it was in the realm of ‘civil society’ that individual liberties could best be defended from bureaucratic state apparatuses.

It wasn’t necessarily discussed openly at the time, but the alter ego of civil society was the ‘free market’. If civil society was the realm of political freedom, then the ‘free market’ was its economic counterpart. It is no surprise, therefore, that with the decline in fortunes of the ‘free market’ globalisation brigade, the ‘civil society’ star has also faded.

Just as it has become clear that the ‘free market’ does not guarantee all human beings economic progress, it is plainly evident that a conflict-free ‘civil society’ does not exist. In fact, the very binary of civil society versus the state has proven to be greatly misleading. Approaching the end of the second decade of the 21st century, the state is as powerful as ever before, hand-in-glove with the most influential segments in ‘civil society’, both doing their best to ensure that the ‘free market’ flourishes without impediment.

A conflict-free ‘civil society’ does not exist.

Notwithstanding the simplistic notion of ‘civil society’ propagated throughout the 1990s, Western social theorists from Hegel to Marx to Gramsci had developed complex philosophical treatises on the subject over the previous century and a half. Despite their differences, all of these critical theorists noted the great internal differentiation in ‘civil society’, with Marx and his followers consistently asserting how class and other divisions expressed in state institutions actually had their roots in ‘civil society’.

Many of these classical social theories have been reformulated to explain contemporary realities, particularly by scholars seeking to explain non-Western contexts that Marx, Hegel and other Western philosophers largely neglected (or misunderstood). Unfortunately, the vibrancy of debates in intellectual circles stands in complete contrast to our static popular discourses.

In Pakistan, ‘civil society’ reached its zenith during the so-called lawyers movement. Originally an anti-dictatorship mobilisation in which the legal fraternity assumed the vanguard role, the movement took on a much more parochial, right-wing face following Gen Musharraf’s deposal in August 2008.

During its initial phase, the movement featured progressive students, political workers and ordinary citizens from all walks of life. Even then, however, the blanket term ‘civil society’, which was widely used by the emergent TV media to describe the protesters, was conveniently vague. As noted, ‘civil society’ is a realm of competing interests, and to actively deny these competing interests and instead depict ‘civil society’ as an apolitical mishmash of well-meaning people is anything but an innocent oversight.

Following Iftikhar Chaudhry’s final restoration to office in 2009, the legal fraternity has reverted to type, bitterly divided along a host of lines. The most recent images of lawyers taking on the Lahore police on Mall Road precipitated widely divergent responses, both from within the legal fraternity, and within the rest of ‘civil society’ at large. Either way, the evidence confirms that the fraternity comes together only in fits and starts, and, more often than not, lawyers wear their competing political affiliations on their proverbial sleeves.

What is important to recognise is that the ‘lawyers movement’ greatly popularised the ‘civil society’ concept. Until the early 2000s, the (largely apolitical) terminology of ‘civil society’ was monopolised by those of an urbane, secular persuasion associated with the donor-funded NGO. They too tended to see ‘civil society’ in opposition to the ‘state’, and were either unwilling or unable to connect the dots between the politics of aid and the manner in which their ‘developmental’ interventions were paving the way for hegemonic neoliberal ideologies.

Of course, this liberal segment’s political leanings came to the fore following the onset of the so-called war on terror; it was all of a sudden ready to empower the state, cheering on military operations against ‘terrorists’ in faraway places, and even expressed gratitude that Washington had invaded Afghanistan and promised to do away with the Taliban. Sixteen years later, we all know how successful that particular method of ‘civilising’ society has proved.

Indeed, if there is any evidence of just how divided ‘civil society’ is, then we look no further than the recent call made by Sami-ul-Haq — who by all means represents another set of political, economic and ideological interests in ‘civil society’ — for the state to reassert its commitment to jihad across the board. And what if we actually started debating how America, China, Saudi Arabia and other external powers cultivate their own interests in ‘civil society’?

SKource: dawn.com/news/1353803/our-civil-society


Why the Twain Never Met

By Shahzad Chaudhry

August 25, 2017

US Secretary for Defence General (r) James Mattis said this recently to Trump on Afghanistan: “We haven’t fought a 16-year war so much as we have fought a one-year war, 16 times”. There isn’t a more apt description of the war and there isn’t a more telling admission of a failed military strategy than what Mattis was brave enough to acknowledge.

The US’ war in Afghanistan began on an impulse – ‘smoke ‘em – but then got sidetracked with Iraq. Sixteen years later, their challenge remains to extricate from the mess which has become America’s longest war. A trillion dollars down and 2000 American lives after, the Taliban still prevail. In the US they already call it the unnecessary war with President Trump recalling his instinct of pulling out at first opportunity. Still others seek a final push, a la Vietnam, only for another ‘Linebacker’ to enact space for a negotiated end. The lasting memory of eviction from Saigon wasn’t pretty but so frustrated stand the Americans that as sordid a memory as that could do to save them uncalled for trouble. So much for the American commitment.

To the war then, and I have said this repeatedly over the years: there hasn’t been a war fought worse than the one in Afghanistan. And this isn’t any kneejerk spite to a presumed slight in Trump’s address, rather a bare-bone analysis of the operations conducted in the name of war. The US/Nato forces lacked clear direction and objectives. Mission creep and shifting goalposts marked the absence of any end-state. Novel formulations of COIN and CTR were hawked among Washington backers to establish positional and financial eminence by individuals tasked to prosecute war. Fed on disciplined environs of Europe, what they found in Afghanistan was befuddling. A fourth generation war, fought in entirely alien cultures, with twenty-first century tools, against medieval opponents, following SOPs outlined from COIN compendiums produced in the cools of Washingtonian Seminars, was not how you won wars. It will always be a dirty, one-on-one, hand-to-hand combat in which your whole being is soiled.

The US at one time had a 100,000 plus soldiers in Afghanistan; with Nato, the number went over 150,000. Over 16 years they lost 2000 men with little to show for success except holding aloft the skeletal structure of a government, only nominally Afghan. Remove the crutches and see this house of cards falling. That may also have to do with inherent vulnerabilities of the Afghan polity and its society, but with such vulnerability only pretensions remains. Little has been done in the last sixteen years to alleviate this weakness. In comparison, Pakistan got into the act only in 2008, lost more than 6000 of its officers and men in operations but delivered a politically, militarily, socially and economically more stable Pakistan than was in 2007/8. Not all is done, and there is still more to achieve in what Pakistan assumes will be a generational effort, but Pakistan isn’t looking to extricate. More importantly, it is winning. And, this may be difficult to digest by a superpower.

Again, the definition of a victory too is fleeting in this kind of war. There are no definable end-states; there are only relative states of comfort for a nation to exercise its common will. Usually when societies lose their anchor, it may mean incremental weaning away to what should be a citizenry based on standard principles of law and social norms. And this will need a host of things from ideational to educational to attitudinal which a people will need to be re-imbued with. The US hardly spared any effort in this direction, instead meandering between eliminating – nay smoking out – the Taliban, and nation-building, to COIN to CTR to now killing the Taliban again.

But Trump wasn’t only trumpeting a speech; he rightly stated what may in time become a true reflection of a possible end-state which can help US extricate from this quagmire. He hopes to achieve a suitable political environment in Afghanistan aided by a recovered economy – for which he elicited India who are making billions off the US – and a weakened Taliban ready to negotiate (this task befalls to Pakistan for having been paid billions in the past) so that a survivable, sustainable Afghanistan can be America’s legacy. And importantly for it to not be shamed for another cut-and-run job as in Iraq and Vietnam where the images still haunt the collective American memory. With Daesh a reality in Khorasan, for the moment this is a very reasonable goal to aim for. However to get there is what will count.

The current Afghan war will always be looked upon as two separate wars fought in parallel on the two sides of the Durand Line by two allies against a similar enemy. The two could however never come around to coordinating their military manouvre with complementary tactical actions or operational objectives. The objectives on both sides hardly ever converged despite tactical pronouncements such as the hammer and anvil, joint intelligence, and coordinated operations.

In a classic fratricide, later deliberately kept up with, the US forces had no qualms taking on Pakistani posts in Salala in November of 2011 while killing dozens of soldiers even after they had learned that they were attacking Pakistani military’s positions. The price paid by the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan has been ever more disastrous in. This shall remain the most enduring tragedy for a people who have been subjected to live the nightmare in the name of fighting a global war.

Superpower interests may wane and wander but the reality of a destroyed society and fractured people will continue to haunt those whose life may never normalise. Three million Afghans have been forced into Pakistan to seek refuge, which brings along attendant social, economic and security complexities. Will Afghanistan survive this exercise in demolishment? Sadly only a chimera of a state remains with little substance as Pakistan too gets buffeted by its consequent malice.

It is in this backdrop that Trump spoke of his new policy. And while he may disapprove of one or the other thing by Pakistan, our task is cut as Pakistan plods on fighting the menace meant to take it down. Of that there are no two opinions – it will not happen. The nation and its forces are sworn to overcome the challenge. Our timelines may not match and the US may seek different priorities but to Pakistan what will sustain will be what comes first in its own interests. That is unlikely to change. In the meanwhile, the US may look to stabilise Afghanistan from the inside in all dimensions of Afghan nationhood so that eventual peace may sustain. Mutual accommodation and congruence of objectives can only be rational.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/225839-Why-the-twain-never-met


A Reluctant Trump’s Flawed Offensive

By Imtiaz Alam

August 25, 2017

What can you expect from an unhinged and unpredictable American president? Anything: from extremely divisive remarks equating white supremacist fascists’ violence with defenders of civil liberties in Charlottesville to terming the Afghan war a “complete waste” and then repeating a failed strategy for an “honourable and enduring outcome”. So, should we take him seriously now?

Indeed, we must since it has not come from what The New York Times has editorially termed as “The failing Trump Presidency”, but from the mightiest militarist empire. Trump “follows his instinct”, as he said, but the decision has been taken by the compulsions of the Oval Office that is now entirely being dominated by a battery of the military commanders after the exit of his original team. Defense Secretary Gen Mattis is the architect of the new strategy with input by US National Security Advisor Gen McMaster; the entire top brass of US military establishment was on board when it was finalised at Camp David. Faced with the dilemma of “the consequences of rapid exit (that) are predictable and unacceptable”, in Trump’s words, which would have created a vacuum terrorists would have instantly filled, the US imperial military establishment has been trapped in the enigmatic quagmire of warfare that is a means of living for warring-Afghans-by-rotation.

After all, what is so new about the rephrased Afghanistan and South Asia strategy that my friend Jyoti Malhotra is so enamoured with the metamorphosis of the Af-Pak theatre into “AfPakIndia”? Almost all the elements are similar to what was pursued by the two previous US administrations – though at much lower military engagement. Discarding nation-building, which has cost over $100 billion (more than the Marshal Plan), and taking off the façade of promoting freedom and democracy, now emphasis is being laid on some kind of fire and fury to extract an “honourable” exit out of a still elusive shameful compromise with the Taliban. The onus is being shifted onto the non-Nato ally for the failure of the US military strategy. Trump accused Pakistan of “housing the very terrorists that we are fighting” despite getting billions of dollars.

Repeating almost what was jointly stated during Prime Minister Modi’s last US visit – to also remind Pakistan of the potential double-jeopardy – Trump has tried to lure India to increase its engagement on its own cost, ironically out of its $45 billion trade surplus with the US. There is no more a ‘blank cheque’ available for the corruption-ridden Kabul government that has survived with the backing of foreign troops and at the annual cost of $35 billion. It has rather been asked to pay for some of its military and administrative expenditures by bartering trillion dollar worth mineral resources for an imperialist militaristic reward.

The mission is ‘killing the terrorists’ with no restraints on the soldiers to coerce the Taliban into a negotiated political settlement, regardless of the nature of the political outcome. The elusive ‘win’ – which remains undefined – could not be achieved by the Obama administration with 100,000 Isaf troops and equal numbers of private contractors. Trump’s commanders are being tipped to achieve it with 12,400 American troops and 13,000 Nato troops. It may partially help turn around what Commander of US-led forces in Afghanistan Gen Nicholson termed as a “stalemate” with extremely excessive use of fire power and greater bloodshed of the valiant Afghans. The Taliban have survived the surge and now control approximately 40 percent of territory across Afghanistan. In response to President Trump’s challenge, the Taliban have vowed to “make Afghanistan a graveyard for America”.

By vociferously amplifying Pakistan’s soft policy towards the Afghan Taliban and certain other terrorist outfits, the US president has put Rawalpindi on a precarious notice to eradicate whatever sanctuaries may have been left. The previous US administrations had been raising this issue quite repeatedly, but the partnership had not altogether floundered. While US Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen Dunford recognised the strategic importance of Pakistan for peace in Afghanistan, the US is inclined to use various means to twist Islamabad’s arm. This must be worrying for Pakistan and it will have to take some pre-emptive and remedial measures, besides recalibrating its erstwhile Afghan Taliban policy.

High-level consultations between top military commanders of the US and Pakistan have taken place. DGPR Gen Ghafoor told Afghan journalists that “we have told (American military officials) that we have taken action against the Haqqani Network and all other terrorist groups, including the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan”. He was probably referring to US Centcom commander’s visit to Pakistan last week. In his meeting with the US Ambassador to Pakistan, COAS Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has reiterated that “peace in Afghanistan is as important for Pakistan as for any other country”. He emphasised: “collaboration and synergy of effort(s) between all stakeholders is the key to success to bring this long drawn war in Afghanistan to its logical conclusion”.

The COAS gave a sensible response by rightly emphasising the acknowledgement of Pakistan’s contribution and sacrifices in the war on terror, rather than any temptations regarding US financial assistance. The COAS knows the US cannot ignore the strategic importance of Pakistan nor can it afford to extend the Afghan war to Pakistan. And Pakistan cannot afford to annoy the US – to the benefit of India.

As the stated national policy so warrants, Pakistan has to firmly decide in its own national interest that its soil will not be used by terrorists against any country. Let the US find no footprints of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Let the Afghan Taliban not become our liability. If requested, Pakistan can try to use whatever influence it has left with the resurgent Afghan Taliban, who have diversified their international connections, to come to negotiation table. A specific strategic approach by some has been to see the Afghan Taliban as a kind of countervailing force to keep our northern backyard secure and counter India’s moves of using the TTP outlaws in its proxy war against Pakistan. But the Afghan Taliban have never extended a helping hand to check the TTP.

While Islamabad must demand reciprocity from the US-Afghan side in nabbing TTP outlaws, it should also make it clear that it doesn’t want the exclusive return of the Afghan Taliban in Kabul. That would just end up reinforcing violent extremist forces in Pakistan, which still pose a formidable threat to our internal security.

The fact is that, from the Soviet Union to the US-led Nato, everyone has failed in Afghanistan. Even if Pakistan fully sides with the US, there is no military solution to the Afghan conflict. Neither a takeover of Kabul by the Taliban nor a coalition of warlords and hodgepodge elements in the Unity Government can make peace endurable. Instead of making Afghanistan a theatre of various international powers or a tug of war between regional countries, all must join hands to defuse this perpetual volcano of destabilisation. India should learn from Pakistan’s mistakes and think of turning this unnecessary adversity into an opportunity for peace and cooperation in the region.

Ultimately, Pakistan’s only interest with Afghanistan is that the Pak-Afghan border is secured and duly recognised by the two sides while allowing free movement of people and goods across the Durand Line. Peace in Afghanistan is inseparable from peace in Pakistan; so should it be between India and Pakistan as well.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/225837-A-reluctant-Trumps-flawed-offensive


URL: http://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/triple-talaq-by-garga-chatterjee--new-age-islam-s-selection,-25-august-2017/d/112322


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.