Youth Awareness












Fatima Bhutto still waiting for the Justice

Fatima Bhutto sent her younger brother Zulfiqar Jr. away from Pakistan the day Asif Ali Zardari became the country’s President.

Niece of slain former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto, Fatima Bhutto says in her latest book, her “blood froze” on the day her uncle Zardari became the president.

Zardari was accused of plotting the murder of Fatima Bhtto’s father Murtaza Bhutto. Fatima insists Zardari is the murderer of her father even though he has been acquitted of the charge.

“On 20 September, 2008, on the 12th anniversary of Papa’s death, Asif Zardari took his oath as president of Pakistan. The ceremony had been scheduled for the day before, the 19th, but had been moved on the orders of the new president, who rescheduled his big day for Saturday, Papa’s barsi,” Fatima writes in her just-released memoir “Songs of Blood and Sword”.

“As he stood in front of parliament, which had voted him into the post almost unanimously (in the same highly democratic way that General Musharraf was ‘elected’ president), he paused in his speech and asked for a moment of silence to mark the occasion of his brother-in-law’s death. My blood froze. It was as if he was taunting us.

Murtaza Bhutto was killed Sep 20, 1996, when Fatima was 14, in a shootout with police near his Karachi residence called 70 Clifton.

On Dec 3, 2009, a Karachi court acquitted 20 policemen charged with Murtaza’s killing. Fatima and her mother Ghinwa called the verdict a mockery of justice.

After Benazir’s government was dismissed in 1996, Zardari was detained for having a part in Murtaza’s assassination. However, no charges were ever proved for want of evidence as the scene of Murtaza’s assassination was wiped clean before police investigators could arrive.

“When Zardari announced himself as the PPP’s unanimously chosenpresidential candidate we knew he would stop at nothing to reach the pinnacle of power. There was no turning back for him. Against all odds, he was going to rule Pakistan. We made the decision to take Zulfi out of the country. It was decision we had been avoiding, hoping it would not be necessary, since Benazir was killed in December 2007.

“But as Zulfi was the only surviving male heir of the Bhuttos, we couldn’t take the risk of leaving him vulnerable. Besides Zulfi, the only remaining Bhuttos are (cousin) Sassi and I. We don’t live in a country with a free press, we don’t live in a country with an independent judiciary – or any judiciary for that matter. We have no safeguards against a violent and vindictive government,” Fatima writes.

The book comes at a time when Zardari is set to be deprived of his sweeping powers through a constitutional amendment being tabled in parliament Friday to transfer to the prime minister major powers like the appointment of armed forces chiefs and reduce the president to a titular head of state.

 

 

Advertisements



Sharif Brother's Dual Game exposed

KARACHI: Even as PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif was rallying street support by publicly refusing to back down from demands for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in February and March 2009, the party was privately telling American diplomats that the future of the then-non-functional chief justice was up for negotiation.

“Shahbaz stated that following the restoration, the PML-N was prepared to end the issue and remove Chaudhry once and for all,” reported Lahore Consulate Principal Officer Bryan Hunt in a secret American diplomatic cable describing his meeting with the younger Sharif on March 14, 2009.

“On the issue of former Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, Shahbaz claimed that the PML-N was open to negotiation, provided that Chaudhry was symbolically restored.”

The conversation took place just a day before Nawaz Sharif would join a lawyers’ long march in a dramatic public protest for the reinstatement of judges deposed by Gen Musharraf, a demand that President Zardari had been resisting. In private, however, a different story was being told.

“Shahbaz stressed that his party could not afford the political humiliation of abandoning what had become a long-standing principle in favour of Chaudhry’s restoration,” Mr Hunt reported. “At the same time, Shahbaz claimed to understand that Chaudhry was a problematic jurist, whose powers would need to be carefully curtailed.”

Shahbaz Sharif strategised that as a judge who had taken oath under Gen Musharraf’s first provisional constitutional order, Chaudhry could be removed – once “some sort of face-saving restoration” had been carried out – “by adopting legislation proposed in the Charter of Democracy that would ban all judges who had taken an oath under a PCO from serving.”

A week earlier, in another meeting at the Lahore consulate, Shahbaz Sharif hadproposed an alternative solution: creating the Constitutional Court envisioned in the Charter of Democracy and ensuring that “it be made superior to the Supreme Court. Iftikhar Chaudhry’s restoration … would then have little measurable impact, as the Constitutional Court, staffed by appointees from both parties, could nullify his decisions.”

Even before the restoration, Shahbaz Sharif confided, the PML-N leadership would agree to any constraints President Zardari might want placed on Chaudhry, “including curtailment of his powers to create judicial benches, removal of his suo motu jurisdiction, and/or establishment of a constitutional court as a check on the Supreme Court.”

“Although Nawaz publicly has said Chaudhry’s restoration is also a red line,”commented US Ambassador Anne Patterson in a separate report, “no leader in Pakistan really wants an activist and unpredictable Chief Justice. … Nawaz emerges stronger in the public eye and retains the ‘high moral ground’ by defending the judiciary.”

As late as January 22, in fact, PML-N leader Khawaja Saad Rafique had told Mr Hunt that a minimum requirement for saving the coalition with the PPP in Punjab was “full retirement of Chief Justice Hameed Dogar and appointment of Justice Sardar Raza in his place.” Chaudhry did not seem to have been a concern.

But by March 2009 he had become the PML-N’s rallying cry, and the timing clearly had to do with political developments at the time: a February 25 Supreme Court decision had declared the Sharif brothers ineligible for office, and the president had imposed governor’s rule in Punjab.

“Nawaz and Shahbaz Sharif told Principal Officer Lahore that the decision [to declare them ineligible to hold public office], which they claimed was entirely Zardari’s, was a declaration of war; they would … take their battle to the streets. Following the decision, PML-N certainly will participate in the lawyers’ march,” reported a February 2009 cable previously published in the media.

“Before the Court ruling, ‘95 per cent of the party’ had opposed joining the lawyers’ March 16 sit-in because it might lead to violence,” Opposition Leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan revealed privately in a separate conversation at the US embassy.

“Now, the party had little choice but to support them.”

Cables referenced: WikiLeaks # 196903, 195758, 196939, 188203, 193807, 194540. All cables are available on Dawn.com.

SOURCE: http://www.dawn.com/2011/05/20/shahbaz-was-willing-to-have-cj-removed-after-face-saving-restoration.html



{December 17, 2011}   Open Letter to Mr. Nawaz Sharif

Nawaz Shareef

Preseident PML(N)
Raiwind, Lahore, Pakistan

Dear Mr. Shareef
First of all please accept my congratulations on being elected as party president unopposed. This indicates the trust your workers have in your kindself. However
I want to inform you (although you must be aware of it) about the deep concerns of Oversees Pakistanis about the day by day growing relations of PMLN with notorious Terrorist Organizations like Taliban, Sipah e Sahaba and now Laskar e Jhangvi as well.

PMLN is one of the biggest political parties in Pakistan and we want to see it growing day by day through legal and democratic means.
For the last 1 year, there have been dramatic changes in your party’s policy about joining hands with the organisations, banned by previous Governments (including your own Government as well) due to their involvement in terrorism against the state and people.

Firstly there was a “Verbal Move” by your brother and CM Punjab saying “We and Taliban have the SAME goal” whilst every Pakistani knows Taliban are being funded by anti Pakistan powers to weaken Pakistan on one hand and blot the sacred name of Islam on the other hand by their Satanic activities.

Then PMLN drew a shameful agreement with Sipah e Sahaba in June 2008 bye elections while Mr. Shahbaz Shareef was to be elected “Unopposed” from PP 48, Darya Khan, Bhakkar. Molvi Abdul Hameed of Sipah e Sahaba with drew in his favour in exchange for an assurance for releasing all the mass killers and blood thirsty terrorists including Ghulam Rasool Shah and Malik Ishaq which by no chance could be released without the involvement of Government.

Thursday, July 14 was a “Black day” for each Pakistani when Malik Ishaq was released with 100s of bullets fired outside the Jail to give him a “Red Carpet Welcome” by the Punjab Government. All other terrorists had already been released as the government did not peruse their cases. Ishaq himself had acknowledged in Papers to kill more than 100 innocent Pakistanis in target killings, bomb blasts and attack in Mosques. He was also involved in killing of Iranian Diplomats and “Organized” an attack on Sri Lankan Cricket Team, certainly due to the facilities provided to him by the Punjab Government within the Jail. He further managed to kill 8 witnesses against him one by one while he was “under trial” in the so called “Courts” and on each killing, the government acted as a “Silent Spectator”.

The recent news is that your nephew Hamza Shahbaz is to contest from Jhang District, and Shahbaz Government as an exchange would facilitate the release of some more mass killers from the Jails by not persuing their cases and “Gifting” a seat in Senate to Molvi Ludhanvi who is the master mind of most terrorist activities being carried out in Pakistan.
Mr. Shareef!

While the “unchallenged” (rather state sponsored) terrorism is the biggest problem in Pakistan and the poverty strickenpeople are having blood baths every day, PLEASE do not leave the people on mercy of these blood thirsty terrorists.

PLEASE do not embrace these enemies of Islam, Pakistan and the people of Pakistan in an attempt to grab few votes.
PLEASE do not release any more terrorists; we cannot see the innocent blood running in the streets shed by your allies SSP, Taliban and Lashkar e Jhangvi.

The major support for PMLN comes from the business class which is most effected by the terrorism
I do hope Mr. Shareef, as a shroud politician, you would reconsider your party policy and adopt a rightful and democratic path instead of joining the terrorists and indulging into terrorism.
Fire is fire; it kills EVERY ONE

Yours sincerely




In 1995, a former ISI official told reporters that he had arranged meetings between Nawaz Sharif and Osama bin Laden. Nawaz Sharif was allegedly looking to bin Laden to help fund his 1988 campaign for Prime Minister, and was willing to say anything to get it.

“Nawaz Sharif insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with the Osama, which I did in Saudi Arabia. Nawaz met thrice with Osama in Saudi Arabia. The most historic was the meeting in the Green Palace Hotel in Medina between Nawaz Sharif, Osama and myself. Osama asked Nawaz to devote himself to “jihad in Kashmir”. Nawaz immediately said, ‘I love jihad.’ Osama smiled, and then stood up from his chair and went to a nearby pillar and said, ‘Yes, you may love jihad, but your love for jihad is this much.’ He then pointed to a small portion of the pillar. ‘Your love for children is this much,’ he said, pointing to a larger portion of the pillar. ‘And your love for your parents is this much,’ he continued, pointing towards the largest portion. ‘I agree that you love jihad, but this love is the smallest in proportion to your other affections in life.’”

This wasn’t the last we heard of Nawaz Sharif’s friendship with Osama bin Laden. In 2007, ABC News reported that Sharif took bribes from bin Laden to look the other way as militants carried out their plans in Pakistan.

Cloonan says that back in 1999 Mohamed told the FBI he arranged for a meeting between bin Laden and Sharif’s representatives. Following that meeting, Mohamed told Cloonan he delivered $1 million to Sharif’s representatives. Mohamed said the payoff was a tribute to Sharif for not cracking down on the Taliban as it flourished in Afghanistan and influenced the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan, according to Cloonan.

New evidence has surfaced, though, that suggests those meetings were merely the beginning of a long relationship between Nawaz Sharif and Osama bin Laden.

Nawaz Sharif, a two-time former prime minister of Pakistan and current head of one of the country’s major political parties, has met with Osama bin Laden on numerous occasions, and it was in fact the al Qaeda leader who developed the relationship between Sharif and the Saudi royal family, says a former Pakistani intelligence official.




“We in Saudi Arabia are not observers in Pakistan, we are participants.”

Saudi Arabia is the third largest state in Middle East, biggest oil supplier in the world, extremely close and loyal ally of USA, staunch rival of Iran and finally supposedly time tested friend of Pakistan.
Saudis have been playing very active role in Pakistan from the day they recognized her as an independent Islamic state in 1947. From acquiring of nuclear technology in Bhutto era (funding) to the testing of nuclear warheads in Nawaz Sharif era (they promised to support Pakistan’s economy after the tests) Saudis proved their loyalty. On the other hand Pakistan also tried her level best in strengthening the bilateral relations of the two states. From flying of Saudi aircraft in 1969 to the episode of seizure of Holy Kaba, Pakistan also showed their metal.
After USA, undoubtedly Saudi Arabia is the major socially, religiously and politically contributing factor in Pakistan either positively or negatively. Though nowadays her negative factors are more clearly showing their effects on Pakistani society. Even Wiki leaks gave evidence of this symbiotic relationship, when Saudi Ambassador, Adel al-Jubeir, was showing off in front of USA Ambassador,

“We in Saudi Arabia are not observers in Pakistan, we are participants.”

Pakistan is paying a very heavy price for this relationship in the form of ongoing sectarianism, extremism, Talibanization of Pakistan and constant political chaos as they keep on supporting corrupt politicians of the state.
Throughout history Saudi Arabia’s main focus in their foreign policy was on the spread of Wahabism and containing of influence of Iran in Muslim world. They make huge donations from USA to developing states around the globe with one condition that they will be allowed to send their preachers and scholars to preach their Wahabist ideology. They provide funds for building mosques and research centers. Wahabis are devoted believers of force or extremism in Islam.
Madrassa system of Pakistan based on Wahabist ideology was completely funded by the Saudis. Young boys were taught glorified image of jihad and even were physically trained for the future purpose of jihad. Taliban were the direct outcome of this Madrassa system. They support and propagate Terrorism which is against the teachings of Holy Prophet (PBUH) who actually taught, peace and harmony.
Saudi Arabia funds extremist activities all around the globe especially Taliban in Pakistan. The former Director of CIA James Woolsey described Saudi Arabian Wahabism as “the soil in which Al-Qaeda and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing.” Until recently they themselves had to suffer extremist activities in their own state, they pulled back a bit but still all the global Saudi charities, which are headed by the Saudi cabinet ministers, are still actively fanning radicalism.
Pakistan is a victim of proxy war of two Middle Eastern states. As Iran supporting the Shiite Muslims of Pakistan and Extremist groups of Sunnis, being supported by Saudis, gave rise to the sectarianism in Pakistan, resulting in total wipe out of the highly skilled and educated lot of Pakistan, like doctors, scholars and even high profile political figures. This proxy war especially accelerated after the Iranian revolution, Saudis wanted to contain their influence in Middle East. During 80s and 90s they funded many extremist organizations for instance Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) which started propagating against the shiites in Pakistan. In response Iran funded Tehreek-e-Fiq-e-Jafariya.
This interference not only paved the way for many more coming future extremist cells and groups but also gave rise to the Taliban regime (current disastrous turmoil of the state). That ongoing war between both states neither affected Iran nor Saudi Arabia but it destroyed the peace and social infrastructure of Pakistan. Saudis are even not satisfied with President Zardari as he wants to maintain good relations with Iran. Saudis are scared of Pakistan, Iran and Iraq (under Shia authority) triangle. Saudis also called him “rotten head.” Shows the state of mind of the Saudi regime.
Saudi Arabia is playing active role in Pakistani politics as well.One of its main examples was bailing out of Nawaz Sharif from the hands of Musharaf. He and his family was not even given political asylum but also provided with business license, main reason behind the Sharif family’s complete allegiance to Saudi Arabia, they not only saved his neck but his economic interests are also tied to the Saudis. Now Sharif brothers keep their eyes closed over the jihadi activities and invisibly support them.
Saudi Arabia, constantly supports the corrupt and dishonest politicians of Pakistan. Whenever there is a deadlock, case is referred to Saudis, as ultimate authority. Saudis are enjoying the status of puppet masters causing worst political turmoil resulting Pakistan to lose its prestige and honor in international platforms. Ironically, they themselves also do not trust these politicians, during flood crisis, they gave aid to the flood victims in the form of food and other daily use articles instead of liquid money, even this was made possible when General Kiyani himself went to Saudi Arabia and gave his guarantee.
Recently, it’s being speculated that being a close ally of USA Saudi Arabia played the role of mediator in deal between USA and the families of the victims of Raymond Davis case, though Saudia denied it but PM Gilani gave the hint of Saudis’ involvement. Again this was a direct hit on the sovereignty of the state. Though this was the case of Punjab government, Shabaz Sharif referred it to the federal authority and they to Supreme Court and one day before his release Nawaz Sharif suddenly left for UK in pretext of bad health conditions. Ironic still Saudis deny their involvement.
This over all analysis of the current relation shows that now Saudis are interfering way too much, first it was only being run by USA now Saudis are also deeply involved. Saudis’ positive contribution cannot be neglected or forgotten but we need some space. We need some air to breath. This constant involvement is causing Saudi Arabia to lose her good reputation in Pakistan. People know how deep USA and Saudi relations go and most of the time it is speaking the language of USA on Pakistan’s part.



This is not Islam

We cannot turn a ‘Blind Eye’ to the hastily increasing religious extremism and intolerance in our society. Sectarian violence and religious extremism is an unpredictable menace. History is sated with incidents of such sorts in various countries. The chauvinists and the evil minded selfish natured people are behind this repulsive act. Unfortunate is the fact that usually the Muslim countries are being constantly accused of promoting these evil acts and take ‘jihad’ in terms of terror.

In the case of Pakistan, Islam is considerably more complicated, bound up as it is with languages, lineages, sects and local and regional identifications. Pakistan played a critical role in the 1979 war ofAfghanistan and risked its own stability. Unfortunately the government failed to address the after effects of the war and did not realize the future destruction it may bring to their land. The recent wave of growing religious extremism in our country can be attributed to internal and external factors.

Internally, real threat in Pakistan emanates from domestic and internal security issues in the name of sectarian violence and religious extremism. Pakistan unfortunately has always been affected by these overwhelming threats. The tragic consequences of 9/11 led to a U-turn in the world political affairs and world saw the dawn of imperialism by super power in the name of ‘war against terror’. Pakistanbeing an important member of the world community came into the fierce brunt of this tide of change. What should be understood before going ahead is that foreign forces can never dare to impede in domestic affairs of any state until and unless that states inherent weaknesses and gaps provide them with the opportunity. The decision by our political rulers to be the front ally with U.S. even before the investigation were tend to be completed proves it to be bees in bonnet of our political system.

The 10 years havoc of this war have plunged our state into harm of political, economic, social and religious chaos. Further, the dissection on the issue of blasphemy law, Raymond Davis case, Kerry Lugar Bill etc. has added fuel to the fire. The gap between the government and the society is widening. In contrast to political strategic talks carried out by our government with U.S; a recent poll shows 57% of our population does not opine positive about U.S. policies in our region. This invites other countries in and now it is like a piece of cake for the external powers to further divide an already divided nation. And so far they have done it quite successfully.

Transaction of power from military to civilian government in 2008 dashed the hopes of populace as it brought only the ‘New Faces’ in the corridors of power with the ‘Old Policies.” If Mushrraf was accused for his involvement in Aafia Siddiqi’s case and his support for U.S. than same is the outlook of the present democratic government in U.S. National Raymond Davis case. If Mushrraf agreed to makePakistan a ‘front line state’ in U.S. War against Terrorism same strategy is adopted by Zardari & Co. This gave further rise to religious extremism in Pakistan. Currently, Pakistan in surrounded by tons of problems. And to top it all off Drone attacks, presence of NATO forces in Afghanistan and ‘Ethnic Cleansing Policy’ of west against Muslims throughout the world i.e. in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine etc. played a major role in growing militancy among Muslim youth. It is now a dire need to instantly address this issue and require sincere and utmost efforts from the government to eliminate this curse.

Recent divulgences by Wiki leaks about Pakistani leadership have left no doubts in terms of proving that our leadership is actually paralyzed and follow the instructions from the so called Super Power. Now the question before us is: How Pakistan’s support for U.S-led war on terrorism gave rise to religious extremism in the country? What problems we as a nation are facing due to this religious extremism? What should be the policy of the government to control it? Before discussing these questions at length it is indispensable to discuss the background of this curse and how it originated and got its roots in Pakistan.

Today we are getting the taste of our own medicine in the form of terrorism. Back in 1979, millions of Jehadi’s were trained in Pakistan to achieve U.S. interests of containing Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Soon after the war ended these Jehadi’s were left ruined by their Masters. All hell broke loose when these Mujahideen were tagged as ‘Terrorist’ all of a sudden after 9/11. The reaction from these Jehadi’s was thus quite evident. Whenever people are used and deprived of their basic rights they tend to be attracted towards the extremes of revolt. In Pakistan majority is deprived of basic necessities and prosperous life. It is quite easy to ensnare people who are already frustrated and looking for an explanation for their grievances. What is demanded contemporarily is a new breed of intellectuals capable to guide the people to a meaningful change. Awareness about the true concept of Jihad and the difference between Jihad and terrorism is necessary.

It is not sufficient to ban these organizations. To eliminate them the root cause should be addressed for the complete propagation of violence from the society. Mohammad Aamir Rana in his book “A to Z of Jihadi Organizations in Pakistan” also revealed some realities about the links between Jehadi and sectarian organization in our country. Government should implement a strict law for all the organizations and religious institutes. Any organizations which will be found involved in promoting or blurring the wrong Islamic concepts should be dealt severely. The vigorous enforcement of laws is desired in every respect. Most of the children getting education in these madrassas are from the rural areas of Pakistan. Rural areas of Pakistan are the hub of feudalism. Feudals mostly believe in violence and consider it a best ‘Retention Policy’. The government must act against such families who have been busy in curbing other individually through violence. The spread of education is another aspect which can create awareness among the people. The religious organizations usually target those people who are illiterate so the technique of brainwashing can be applied on them simply. Therefore education is an impotent tool which the government can use to ward off any presence of evil mindedness from the society. Different peace projects should be started between the people of different sects to reduce sectarian differences. If a peace project like “Aman ki Asha” could be started between the two rival states to reduce the differences. Why cannot we start peace projects between different sects and religions living in our society? In this way confusions and delusions regarding different concepts of Islam and other religions can be reduced.

Last but not the least Pakistan should adopt a balanced and valiant foreign policy. Instead of relying on West and IMF for our economic development we should utilize our own resources and manpower. Furthermore, it is now time to understand the veiled conspiracy behind the concept of “New World Order” introduced by west. This is actually a “New World Order Free from Islam” as apparent from the situation. It is a concept which propounds diplomatic immunity for a murderer like Raymond Davis and rebukes an innocent Muslim like Aafia Siddiqui.

As stated time and again, culture of violence is a real menace for Pakistan. It is indeed a complex matter which really needs to be resolved as early as possible through effective policies.
By: Saira Bukhari



Shahzeb Jillani

By Shahzeb Jillani South Asia Editor, BBC World Service

Indian army soldiers attacking Naya Chor in Sindh in support of Bengali rebels of the liberation army during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

I was born in the middle of a cold winter night in December 1971 in Sindh, Pakistan. There was a blackout and bombs were falling.

Pakistan was losing a war and it was also losing its eastern half, separated from the rest of the country by more than 1,600km (990 miles) of India.

After nine months of internal strife and a military crackdown against Bangladeshi separatists, the full-scale war with India was swift and decisive. It lasted just 13 days.

The defeat of the Pakistani army on 16 December 1971 was a triumph for India and the Bengali insurgents it had assisted.

For Pakistan, it was perhaps the darkest moment in its history and the ultimate humiliation. The army stood accused of mass murder, torture and rape. Tens of thousands of Pakistani soldiers were taken prisoners of war.

Forty years on, I decided to examine the legacy of this brief but bitter war.

Growing up in Pakistan, we did not talk much about the war at home. In school, we seemed to rush through that period of our history.

On a recent visit to my old school in Karachi, I picked up an officially approved history book.

The book recognises that East Pakistanis felt culturally subjugated and economically exploited by their dominant Western half.

But it suggests the causes for separation include India, Hindu propaganda and international conspiracies.

At my old school I asked a group of teenage students if they had heard of the Bangladeshi accusations of genocide or widespread rape by the Pakistani army.

“That’s wrong, that’s propaganda!” several said.

“The Pakistani army is a professional army. They are Muslims. They couldn’t have done that to their brothers and sisters over there.”

‘Foolish operation’

But if Pakistan has tried to treat the events of 1971 as a closed chapter, in Bangladesh, the wounds of the war are very fresh.

On my first ever visit to Dhaka, it was immediately clear that the Bangladeshi

Professor Serajul Islam Choudhury remembers colleagues at the Dhaka University memorial

narrative of 1971 remains firmly focused on the violence unleashed by the Pakistani army.

Many Bangladeshis still feel very bitter about their treatment by West Pakistan, with discriminatory policies over economics and language.

In 1971, the West Pakistan leadership appeared to have made up its mind to answer this resentment with military force.

“It makes me think how foolish the entire operation was, how mad it was and how tragic it was,” said Serajul Islam Choudhury, a professor at Dhaka University.

“There’s no possibility of bringing down an entire people by the military coming from abroad. The loss we suffered was enormous.”

As he stared at the list of names on a memorial honouring the teachers, students and staff of Dhaka University who died in 1971, his emotion is palpable.

“To this day, I feel very sad thinking of my colleagues who were killed during the military operations.”

Lasting 13 days, the Indo-Pakistan war is considered one of the shortest wars in history. Pakistani forces surrendered on 16 December 1971.

 

The Bangladeshi government says that three million people were killed during the nine months of conflict. Some say that figure is too high and unverifiable.

And the mainstream Bangladeshi narrative is also accused of omitting alleged atrocities perpetrated by Bengali separatists against communities who were deemed loyal to Pakistan.

Entire villages are reported to have been attacked, homes burnt and families killed.

Aly Zaker was among thousands of Bengalis who took up arms to fight for independence.

“Our target was the Pakistan occupation force and their cohorts, who were created within the confines of Bangladesh with quislings,” he says.

He believes that minorities only faced retribution after they had acted as proxies of the Pakistani army and killed Bengalis.

Existential fear

As I learned more about 1971, it seemed to me that many of the geopolitical patterns of Pakistan and the region were formed during that conflict.

Back then, the Pakistani army was accused of forming militia groups to do its bidding in East Pakistan. Since then, it has been seen to use similar tactics in Afghanistan and Kashmir.

Many warn that the dangerous nexus between the military and jihadi militant groups is now threatening Pakistan from within.

Ikram Seghal, a defence analyst who lectures in Pakistani military colleges, believes the biggest internal challenge to Pakistan today is terrorism.

But like many in the military, he sees India as the principal external threat.

“If you look at the Indian armed forces deployment along the Pakistani border – their forward bases, their armoured divisions, their strike divisions – they can mobilise and go to war with us in 72 hours.

“While for us, short of a nuclear strike, we cannot hold them.”

This existential fear of a bigger, hostile India is central to Pakistan’s security paradigm. In 1971 this fear was reinforced by the crucial role India played in the break up of Pakistan.

For India, the situation became serious when nearly 10 million Bengali refugees crossed the border into its territory. There was a humanitarian crisis, but also an opportunity to cut Pakistan down to size.

An elderly refugee walks alongside Indian troops advancing into the East Pakistan (Bangladesh) area during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971
An elderly refugee walks alongside Indian troops advancing into East Pakistan (Bangladesh) during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971

Pakistan’s army today

AK Khandker is a senior minister in the Bangladeshi government and served as a separatist commander in 1971.

He says India started providing weapons and training to the rebels in May of that year, and stepped up the programme after signing a pact with the Soviet Union in August.

According to Mr Khandker, the attacks by Indian-trained separatist fighters were so effective, that by November “the Pakistani army was physically and morally exhausted.”

Today he says that without India, the independence of Bangladesh “would have been extremely, extremely difficult”.

“The help that India gave to us, we are so grateful to them,” he says.

 

One might expect that the Pakistani army’s failure in 1971 would have diminished its power in the country. But in my lifetime, its influence in shaping and running the country has grown exponentially.

It seems the conclusion the Pakistani army drew from its defeat in 1971 was to grow stronger; to exercise more control over civilian affairs.

Many in Pakistan still regard the army as a saviour, the glue that holds the country together, saving it from corrupt politicians and enemies like India – and increasingly America.

But others feel it was the army’s tight grip on power that contributed to the break up of Pakistan in the first place.

They believe that the military has stifled the country’s democratic development, undermining its very fabric.

“I’m a soldier and proud of being a soldier. But all the ills of Pakistan are because of the armed forces intervention in the civilian affairs,” says Lt Gen Abdul Qadir Baloch.

He retired from the army just a few years ago and is now a member of parliament.

“If the army had not imposed as many martial laws in this country – four so far – we would have had 15 to 20 elections by now and a much better lot of politicians than the sort of pygmies we have got today.”

 




I have seen many families living abroad, facing the issues of kids, as their kids

You should have a friendly relationship with your kids

are over-reacting, and doing everything according to there wish, leaving behind the culture, and moral values we have.  Not many are aware of the steps needs to be taken when you’re setting the limits for your kids (illegal in that environment) without letting them retaliate or be aggressive.

First thing you need to do is, setting up your own standards, and values, you need to be absolutely sure what you wanna do, how much freedom you want your kids should enjoy, and at which point you want to draw the line.

Settings role model is always important when you are going to change anything, specially in case of kids, as they always try to replicate the acts / events happening around them. Be  good & helpful leader / role model for your kids, so that they start liking you, and try to be like you.

Environment is always helpful to change the mindset of any individual. Be it elder ones or kids. So you should prepare an environment that you want your kid to be familiar. Out of 24 hours a day, categories the hours he/she spent at the place and then make it easy for them to get familiar soon.

You should pick the people your kid is going to be interacted with without exposing your intentions. Interact with him/her ask them for their choices, and manage accordingly.

One thing everyone should keep in mind that the environment around the kids, the people interacting with him/her, the material (study/playing/etc) he/she is using, programs they are watching on tv and websites they are visiting on internet, all of the above leave a strong impression on kids, so you need to manage all these things yourself and give the impression that you are giving importance to them and showing interest in their activities, by doing this, his/her behavior won’t be aggressive if you ask them to do something  against their will. They will consider that as an advise.

parents can’t completely protect their children from all negative influences. 1Nor are there any guarantees that children will choose the right path in life. However, there are ways that a parent can help a child develop a strong moral conscience in spite of value differences with the other parent.

As explained above, the starting point in nurturing your child’s conscience is to model morality. It’s not so much what parents tell their children about how to live, but what parents do that makes the most significant impact on them. Be the kind of person you want your children to be. Live a God-centered life — a life of truth, love, and trust in God. And when you fall short of these standards, don’t be too proud to ask your child for forgiveness. Kids often learn more from a parent’s asking for forgiveness than from a parent’s attempts to be “perfect.”

As you try to be a good example for your children, also prepare them to handle future circumstances they may face in the other parent’s home. Acknowledge that these situations are opportunities for growth and building good character. For example help your children see how some secular videos fail to support values such as love, purity, and responsibility. Avoid lecturing them and bad-mouthing the other parent, but patiently help your children think through the issues they will face and the choices they may have to make in the years to come.

Not only is it important to proactively prepare your children for future situations, it is equally important to use teachable moments in everyday life to reinforce appropriate behavior.

These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.” Ordinary moments with your children such as having dinner, doing yard work, or reading a bedtime story can present opportunities to instill the right values in your children.

Setting age-appropriate rules and consequences in your own home will reinforce good values. Explain the reasons behind the rules (based on Quranic/cultural values) and make clear the consequences of wrong behavior. For example, lying should not be overlooked. It should be addressed and appropriate consequences enforced. By experiencing the consequences of his actions, a child realizes he needs to change his behavior or attitude. This ongoing training will continue to instill moral values in his conscience.

Parents should not only point out when children do wrong, but they should also acknowledge and praise children for making right choices. Applauding your child’s positive behavior strengthens a sense of right and wrong and motivates him to continue doing the right thing.

Nurture a healthy relationship with your children by spending time with them and listening to them. Parents who take time to sincerely hear their children give them a sense of value. It tells them they are loved and that their thoughts and feelings are important. Children pick up the values of the people whose love they feel.

 




 

If you ask a layman the difference between purchase and procurement, he may

Best Purchaser tends to buy best available product in lowest possible price

laugh saying the two are same and even question your level of knowledge. But repeat the same question to someone who is a manager in the purchase section of a large organization and he may come up with a lengthy answer. Yes, there are companies who still use the term purchase over procurement but there are striking differences in the two terms that will be explained in this article.

There are many who believe that purchase is that part of procurement that deals with the actual transaction of goods or services. There are other parts of the whole procurement process that include sourcing, bargaining, and logistics etc. Purchasing in earlier times was a routine job performed at the clerical level. Those were the times when there were limited suppliers and also limited quality of materials available. Prices used to be fixed and no bargaining was possible.

Times have changed today. Inventory management has become a specialized job that requires more than just placing orders with a vendor. Procurement today requires buying goods and services at the best possible rates at the right time, in right quantity, at the best possible quality, from the best available source so that the process results in maximum benefit for the organization. When it boils down to repeat purchasing through the same channel in the same manner, it can be called purchasing as no more brains are involved.

There are people who use the terms, procurement and purchase interchangeably, but with so much at stake, it is not justifiable to equate procurement with the simple act of purchasing. While purchase is more of an administrative function in a company, procurement has come to the level of strategic function as a lot hinges upon successful completion of the entire process called procurement.

 

In brief:

Purchase vs Procurement

• In corporate world, the word procurement has come to be referred to the set of activities that need to be performed to acquire the right material from the right vendor at the best possible rates at just the right time to maximize benefits for the company. On the other hand, purchase is just the transactional part of the entire process called procurement.

• Purchase is the most basic form of procurement

• Procurement involves much more than simple acquisition of goods and services as negotiation as well as logistics is also encompassed in this term.

 




A Symbolic Depiction of Continual Struggle

The Generations Striving for a Prosperous & Progressive Pakistan



et cetera
%d bloggers like this: