Pak Independent

Update

2013-09-26T10:53:00.002-07:00

Pak Independent will be shifting to another domain when the opportunity comes. Due to Google's enforced change of blogspot's new and more difficult layout, I will be forced to switch domains.

Readers will be notified here when this blog has been shifted with the link to the new blog page. The current posts from this blog page will also be found in the new blog. Also due to real life issues I cannot guarantee when this will happen. Apologies to readers for this inconvenience.

Middle Eastern propaganda against Pakistan and Pakistanis and it's hypocricy

2012-07-22T15:03:00.002-07:00

At many times I've come across Muslims from other countries, particularly the Middle East who criticize Pakistan and Pakistanis from being American pawns to being the cause of xenophobia towards Muslims worldwide because of some Pakistanis involvement in terrorism.

We should examine these accusations and see where the hypocrisy in all this comes. Firstly, for them to criticize Pakistanis in being American pawns is a rather far-fetched claim when Arab countries especially those in the Gulf alongside Turkey have American bases within their borders and provided support for the American and British invasion of Iraq.

Iran on the other hand, though not American ally, acts sometimes on behalf of the Russian Federation.
Such as Iran's silence towards Russian atrocities in Chechnya or Iran's support for Armenia against Azerbaijan during the Karabakh war.
Neither did Iran's Islamic regime cut it's ties with India, a country guilty of genocide against Kashmiri Muslims.

Iran also supports the Russian economy by purchasing their products and maintains full ties with Armenia and the Russian Federation.

This goes just as well for Arab countries who have normal diplomatic and trade relations with India and their silence to the situation in Kashmir.
Pakistan on the other hand has supported these countries in the Arab-Israeli wars and as to date has no trade or diplomatic relations with the Jewish state.

These hypocrites also maintain good ties with America, even though America is Israel's biggest supporter and allows Israel to strike at Arab countries by providing them weapons.
Why do these people not see themselves as Russian or American "pawns?" What about the fact that many of these oil rich countries provide the West with a huge percentage of their energy supply?

Even Arab countries such as Syria that developed close ties with the Soviet Union and then the Russian Federation have been silent to Russian support for Armenia against Azerbaijan or India against Pakistan or it's war crimes in Chechnya and other atrocities under communist rule.

Even during the Cold War many Arab countries developed close relations with the USSR when the USSR had been worsening many political problems in the subcontinent and other parts of the world.
Many Muslim nations under Soviet rule suffered from persecution especially the Chechens, yet the Arabs and Iranians silently opened diplomatic and political ties with the USSR.

The second accusation is somewhat more hypocritical than the first. I won't deny that a lot of Pakistanis are radicalized and have been involved in terrorist incidents and activity. But then one also has to look at the broader picture and see who contributes to this radicalization.

While Iran has been for decades supporting Shia radicals in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia has been funding religious madrassas for young Sunni children which radicalize them and encourage hatred of other religions as well as violence and intolerance towards them.

For many decades now, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting proxy wars in Pakistan. Much of the sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis is caused by Iran and Saudi Arabia's support for the two opposing sides.
So Middle Eastern people need to take a look at their governments actions and how the tax money of their relatives and friends back home or even their own tax money if they live in the Middle East is being spent to radicalize Pakistanis.

Readers wanting to learn more on this issue should research the regional proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

There is also another side to this hypocrisy. A lot of the instability in Pakistan is due to many wanted terrorists world-wide such as Saudis and other Middle Eastern nationals hiding in Pakistan's North Western provinces and nearby countries. These people are creating a turmoil for Pakistan and have been behind many bomb attacks against Pakistani civilians within Pakistan and possibly against civilians worldwide.

Their presence and activities in Pakistan has brought a war to Pakistan and added to Pakistan's long list of problems. These include nationals from all over the Middle East.
This news report by press TV gives additional details of the German terrorist killed in Pakistan along with a Turkish terrorist who probably radicalized him.

These Middle Eastern nationals hiding in Pakistan have probably killed many troops and security forces during their stay.
They may have also killed many civilians in their bomb attacks.

So perhaps these Middle Eastern people who accuse Pakistanis for Islamophobia can answer for all the proxy wars their own or their families taxes have contributed to or all those terrorists from their home countries hiding in Pakistan, killing many innocent Pakistanis and foreigners as well as bringing a war to Southern and Central Asia.

Even in Western countries a lot of foiled and successful attacks are carried out by Middle Easterners.
Take for example Air France Flight 8969 which was a hijacking on an Air France plane carried out by North African Arab terrorists or an even better example the hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 in Karachi, Pakistan by Arab terrorists.

Imagine how negatively this incident impacted foreigners impression of safety in Pakistan. Imagine Pakistanis carrying out such an act at a Middle Eastern airport especially on an important airline that flies to that destination.

And with the rise of Islamist militancy in Xiang province of China, certain Muslim countries in the Middle East have been pledging support for the Uighurs while Pakistan has been actively cracking down on Uighur militants hiding within it's borders.

But the biggest hypocrisy is when these Middle Eastern countries get help from Pakistan for their political wars as well as military training and technological aid.
Pakistan has trained many police and military personal from the Middle East including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and others.

Pakistan has also sold many weapons and other military equipment to these countries.
Who can forget Iran's nuclear program taking off, thanks to getting help from some people in Pakistan.

Since many Middle Eastern people despise Pakistanis, they should reject all they import from Pakistan and turn to other peoples they respect and look up to. But instead they hypocritically make full use of what they get from Pakistan while doing their best to pretend it all came from nowhere.

Even Emirates Airlines, one of the world's largest and fastest growing airlines was set up by Pakistan International Airlines (PIA).

It's always important to examine the facts when such hypocrites point fingers and make laughable accusations.
Those Middle Eastern hypocrites and racists who make such accusations against Pakistanis only need to be shown some basic facts such as those mentioned in this post to see the silliness of their own claims and ideas.

Foreign aid workers should be restricted from entering Pakistan

2012-07-07T20:04:00.000-07:00

For more than a year now I've been reading of incidents of foreign aid workers being abducted, assaulted and even murdered in Pakistan. It is well known that the Taliban and other terrorist militants don't check their targets prior to abducting, assaulting or killing them.

But also what is well known is that they target foreigners more so than locals at any given opportunity. Foreigners are much more vulnerable targets than locals since they don't really know much of the whereabouts in large cities, have little or no knowledge of the local languages and how to ensure their own personal safety.

Even local criminal gangs not involved with any political terrorist groups also prefer to abduct foreigners instead of locals. This is true for most third world countries.

Another reason for them being more prone targets is due to the growing anti-Western sentiments in the Pakistani population, particularly anti-American. And thanks to the CIA claiming they've used their agents under the guise of aid workers, they are now more desirable targets for the militants.

There is also the reason that many uneducated people in the third world have the stereotype that all Westerners are rich and so provide good kidnapping ransom.

Even though not all or even most of the aid workers are Western, them being foreign still makes them more vulnerable. With all the reports coming in of them being attacked, it is time for aid agencies to withdraw all foreign aid workers from the country.

Also with so many people in Pakistan looking for jobs, it's better that locals are trained and employed in this profession. I understand that most people in Pakistan are not trained in job skills so agencies will be reluctant to hire them.

But the solution is still to train and hire locals with good references and recognitions. There is no point of giving the job to foreigners who will only be attacked and therefor not be able to get their jobs done.

These foreigners getting abducted and/or killed also adds more burden on our law enforcement agencies who already have enough problems to deal with.

Sending foreign aid workers into Pakistan at times like these is a bad idea to begin with. Hopefully reviewing the incidents, both aid agencies and the Pakistani government will not make these mistakes again.

The Turkish "secular" model is not suitable for Pakistan

2012-07-07T17:33:00.003-07:00

I've come across many Pakistani leftists, both religious and secular who see the modern Turkish republic established by Mustafa Kemal Pasha, also known as the "Ataturk" or "father of Turks," as a role model for modernizing Pakistan.

Most of these people are misinformed and do not understand the history and politics of Turkey.
What has been done to Turkey is not really secularism but rather Westernization, which is separate from secularism. By abolishing the Perso-Arabic script and adopting Latin alphabet as the official alphabet and by abandoning traditional Turkish Anatolian clothes for Western dress, there is not much secularism involved.

Even though we frequently hear of the hijab being banned in public places in Turkey, is that really secularism?
I've read articles and seen news reports on the Internet over the treatment of religious minorities in Turkey and it seems to be even worse than Pakistan.

Religious minorities have a tough time working in civil services in Turkey such as police and other government jobs.
Converting from Islam has severe punishments under Turkish law. Many religious minorities in Turkey need government permission to build religious sites. As Pakistani historian, Umair Khan pointed in his paper, Kemal used religion far more than Jinnah.

This is far from secularism, in fact quite the opposite. Does this not remind some Pakistani readers of the same "Indian secularism?" Where minorities are treated in the worst forms while keeping the country somewhat Westernized, imitating Western pop-culture.

This is not the role model for Pakistan. Those who claim that Ataturk was Jinnah's true model need to prove when Jinnah wanted a Latin alphabet writing system for Pakistan or when he wanted Pakistanis to abandon Shalwar Kameez in favor of Western clothes.

Those who also think Turkey or Ataturk are more secular than Pakistan should read this article.

I am not trying to be negative against Turkey or Turkish people. I might also be wrong about Turkey's reforms by Ataturk and the outcome of it, but all I am expressing is that it does not work for Pakistan. Pakistan must find a secular path without Westernization, retaining it's original culture and striving for maximum religious equality.

The videos below cover the tense situation of Christian minorities in Turkey:

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan - [Not so] Good news! Pakistan has ‘oil’ for 200 years – its coal

2012-06-14T18:02:00.001-07:00

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan - Good news! Pakistan has ‘oil’ for 200 years – its coal

problem is we cannot rely on any type of resource to make our country rich or sustainable when we have an unsustainable population and only growing at an unsustainable rate.

Furthermore much of these resources are taken from Sindh and Balochistan. What are the chances the Baloch and Sindhis will allow these resources to be taken and used for nothing in return to them? The only good outcome from this will less dependency on foreign countries for energy, but with a growing population and rebellion within Sindh and Balochistan what good will this do other than feed internal conflict in Pakistan?

Something to think about.

Overpopulation problem discussed in Lashkari

2012-05-08T22:35:00.001-07:00

I have not even started writing my second and more detailed and accurate post on the Pakistani overpopulation crisis. My first post can be found by clicking here. I have no plans to get to it anytime soon due to studies, but in the meantime here is a good video on the problem in Lashkari:

In favor of anti-alchohol laws in Pakistan

2012-04-19T14:05:00.006-07:00

I don't oppose the consumption of alcohol because of religious reasons. I'm not a religious man and have no such religious commitments. I myself actually drink champagne on an average of two glasses a year when given the opportunity.

A few drinks with a clean meal is actually beneficial for the health. And whenever I consume some champagne, it's never more than one glass on each occasion. I don't recall ever consuming more than one glassful and even if one does it's safe.

But the problem is that most people don't consume two glasses a year when given the opportunity. In many countries there is a limit on what age you should be for drinking, how much should be consumed at most before you drive. But many drinkers don't care about that. They want to learn the hard way by getting jail sentences or their licenses revoked.

This does not end well for other people who have to die or get injured from such preventable accidents until the drunkard learns his/her lesson. In Western countries much of domestic violence and crime can also be owed to alcohol abuse.

An increase in domestic violence and other types of crime are amongst the last things Pakistan needs. Most people in Pakistan have little regard for the laws until they receive full capital punishment for their crimes.

Liquor is available to non-Muslims in Pakistan under license, but I oppose that. The whole reason Islam forbids alcohol, or better yet a large amount, is due to it's affects on the mind that can lead to all sorts of disasters.

But most people don't look at these reasons and simply ban it because Islam discourages it without looking into why it discourages it. It's just like the consumption of pork. Islam forbids it due to health reasons whereas people don't even want to have anything to do with pigs at all simply because Islam forbids consuming pigs as opposed to why it forbids it.

These are the reasons why non-Muslims are permitted to drink alcoholic beverages in Pakistan. But as stated people will not restrict their consumption until their desires are satisfied. In a country where hundreds of thousands of people die every year due to smoking addiction problems and drug abuse, what are the chances of them consuming alcohol with care?

You can never predict what people can do when granted the privilege of drinking alcohol until after they're drunk which can have severe consequences, even fatal.

Not to mention that regular alcohol consumption has bad affects on the health. These are the many factors that alcohol advocates need to take into consideration before pushing for it to be legalized, all in the name of "liberalism."

In Western countries there are even organizations devoted to the prevention of drunk driving and preventing alcohol from falling into the hands of liquor thirsty teens. We don't need people in Pakistan preoccupied with such devotions. We already have enough problems to worry about.

People, especially in third world countries do not take into consideration any sort of consequences for their actions only until after they have suffered through them.

Dealing with boar and other pests in Pakistan suitably

2012-02-25T22:13:00.003-08:00

Though Islamabad's marvelous infrastructure and well planning is a pride for me as a Pakistani, I did have regrets about the city being built in a forested area at the expense of the wild life and possibly the ecosystem.

Now I truly regret the fact that the city was built in such an area especially after reading this news report.

Locating the Pakistani capital-or any city- in the middle of wilderness is the worst mistake any country can make. Even worse is the way the Islamabad authorities seem to be handling the situation of wild boars as per the news report.

The forest and Margalla Hills are the boar's natural habitat. Who are human beings to inhabit their lands and try to get rid of them? But of course since this moral and ethical question will have no meaning to our government and people, the only other way is seeking a beneficial solution.

If the government wants to keep the boar out of the city by killing it, the best solution is to export the meat abroad for food consumption. This could not only reduce the boar problem but also generate profits to the country.

Poisoning wild animals or reducing their habitat could leave an impact on the ecosystem, affecting all of us. Another and even more effective way would be using fenced areas to keep the boars in and use them as garbage consumers. It would be useful for the environment.

But since there are limited funds for that, I would go for the first option which is to kill them for the meat and export it abroad.

An even better solution would be to create large dens to keep the boars in and use the them to consume all the garbage waste in order to recycle it.

Whichever way it is done is not the point. The point is it should be done in a careful method without hurting the environment or the ecosystem. Looking at the ecosystem is the best way to find ways to preserve it and control pests who threaten it.

I may add more to this post later on, but that's all I can think of for now.

Dana Rohrabacher and the American Congress's hypocricy on the Balochistan issue

2012-02-23T17:26:00.007-08:00

I just saw the news report of the self-righteous congressman Dana Rohrabacher and his hypocritical resolution on the Balochistan issue. Though he is right on the human rights violations by the Pakistani military and the ISI, who is he or anyone else in the American government for that matter to criticize another country on human rights violations?

When America has had so many cases of ethnically cleansing the Native peoples on their own lands. When they have so many prisoners in Guantanamo Bay held without trial and kept in terrible prison conditions, still the two-sided American government thinks it can lecture others on human rights issues?

Then there was an even more hypocritical statement made by Rohrabacher that would outrage anyone with common sense and ethics. I'll even quote it to be precise:

"Like in the United States, where we gave a declaration of independence, we have a right to a country separate from Great Britain. That's what self-determination is."

It does indeed frustrate me how the people of North America to this very day pretend they were "occupied" by the British and simply freed themselves as opposed to invading the North American continent, ethnically cleansing it's native people and then declaring themselves a separate state from Great Britain and France.

Do they actually think the world will forget that they are derived from European invaders? This is part of their school history curriculum according to which the brave "Americans" and "Canadians" were always living in North America until the wicked British and French came and "occupied" them after which they "declared independence."

They do not think they descend from these very same "occupiers" who stole the land of the Native Americans and here they invent the terms of "self-determination."

I would educate Mr Dana Rohrabacher a little on self-determination. Self-determination is when the Natives of North America have all their lands back. Self-determination is when the people of Hawaii have their independence movement granted.

If I were a Pakistani senator, I would pass a bill in the Pakistani senate calling for the recognition of Hawaii as a separate state by Pakistan. If I were the Pakistani government, I would call upon the Pakistani ambassador to the UN to petition for the condemnation of America's illegal occupation in Hawaii by the UN.

I would also petition the Pakistani representative in the UN to condemn the cleansing of Natives in North America by the US Government and press for a second petition calling for the sovereignty of Native Americans. That would be the ultimate provocation.

The Chinese should also consider such moves after the West condemned their occupation of Tibet. Show condemnation for France and Spain in the Basque region, show condemnation to America in Hawaii.

Another quote from Rohrabacher in response to the claim that this was a CIA motivated move:

"Anyone who believes that is totally out of touch with reality," Rohrabacher responded. "I've had no discussions with anyone in the CIA about this whatsoever and my guess is that if I did, they would be doing somersaults trying to prevent me from doing this."

Weather his claim is true or false, he can't hide the fact that this was somehow politically motivated. Otherwise how does it explain that America, the EU show concerns about human rights in Balochistan, Xian, Tibet, but strangely not in Kashmir, East Punjab against the Sikhs or some other region where their allies are occupying and oppressing another people, let alone they themselves in the Basque region, or in Ireland or Hawaii?

CIA or not, this was politically motivated with an agenda behind it. Had the Pakistani government been more sensible it would counter this propaganda by questioning America's occupation in Hawaii or the occupation of the Natives in mainland USA. But I don't expect the Pakistani government, regardless of their positive intentions to come up with such an idea.

Why I support Saudi influence in Pakistan in the case of Iran's nuclear program

2012-02-21T20:50:00.015-08:00

I've always viewed external Middle Eastern Islamist influence in Pakistani society to be outright negative. It is partially also responsible for turning Pakistanis into Arab and Iranian stooges. With the Saudis funding the promotion of an Arab supremacist Wahhabi Sunni interpretation of Islam while the Iranians funding a Persian supremacist Shia interpretation of Islam- not just in Pakistan but throughout the Muslim world.

Religiously politicized Shias worldwide hold an attachment to Iran and the Persians. This phenomenon is very strong amongst Pakistani Shias particularly from the Punjab, Pakhtunkhwa and the Muhajir community as per my observation. As I explained in another post, the upper class and upper middle class Muhajirs are not too fond of Pakistan and suffer from an identity crisis.

Since they suffer from an identity crisis and despise the country that doesn't privilege them, the Muhajirs either associate with their religion or their Indian background or sometimes with their imaginary "South Asian" identity.

In the case of those where their religion matters most, the Sunni Muhajirs often live in pretense of Arabs and the Shias in pretense of Persians. Of course this is not to suggest that this mentality is restricted to Muhajirs since much of the Pakistani population live in such beliefs.

Zardari and other politicized Shias are great examples even despite they are not Muhajirs. It has been widely speculated that should a Western or Israeli led attack on Iran occur, politicized Shias worldwide will launch violent, militant uprisings, not to mention many of Pakistan's pro-Iranian obsessed Shias.

Also speculated is that Zardari is indeed pro-Iranian given his Shia background. If true, this means he will resist any foreign intervention on Iran's nuclear program. And using whatever political power he has as president, he is likely to resist any move by the military and the ISI to counter Iranian influence in Pakistan that usually adds to instability.

I wanted to discuss in another post on the issue of Pakistan's enemies throughout the Muslim world which Pakistanis sadly live in denial of. But because I must discuss the danger of Iran's nuclear program, I want to discuss one of these enemies specifically which happen to be the Iranian state.

The Iranian state ever since it's foundation in the mid 1930s alongside other Middle Eastern countries happen to be amongst the most racist countries on Earth. While it's been known for quite some time about the Shia regime in Tehran having an enmity towards Sunni majority Pakistan, people forget that the pro-monarchist Iranians pose an equal problem.

The pro-monarchist Iranians mainly live outside of Iran and include both exiles and non-exiles alike. Many of the pro-monarchists are racial supremacists who think of themselves as "Aryans" and don't even know the proper meaning of the term. Many of them believe they are related to Germans and wish for a Nazi style state. They believe themselves to be descended from a Nordic super race before they were raped by the Arabs and forcefully converted to Islam.

They have a hatred for their neighbors and live in an imaginary superiority complex towards them as discussed by this great but sadly deceased Iranian writer which I happen to be quite fond of.

Many Iranians today desperately try to ignore/cover up the fact that Pakistan is the main source of Iran's nuclear program. Instead they pretend it to be the work their imaginary genius "Nordic" "Aryan" intelligence. And despite the pro-monarchists being anti-Islamic Republic, they do for the most part still endorse their country becoming a nuclear power to impress the world.

Having a history of conquest and military victories in ancient times, many Persians wish for that glory to return to them in the modern era. And what better way to do so than posses the ultimate weapon mankind has ever made?

Many of these racist Iranians also endorse the Islamic regime going to war against the Jewish state because they wish fit in with white nationalists around the world who for the most part are anti-Jewish.

Iranian "Aryan" wannabe racists frequently hate on Jews in a failed bid to amuse white nationalists and to fit amongst them. They call just about everything they despise a "Jewish conspiracy."

They also claim themselves to be a lost white race who were secular, peaceful, tolerant until the Arabs and Turko-Mongols changed their religion, their life-style and their genetics. They also blame Pakistanis and call them Islamic extremists even despite Pakistan's Sharia laws are far less harsh than mullah ruled Iran's Sharia laws.

The racist Persians also spend large amounts of money getting operations to make noses shorter and their facial phenotypes look more European. Many of their men spend large amounts on permanent body hair removal. Many of their women also die their hair blond.

These Persian racists are an equal problem for the region and world stability as much as the Shia Ayatollahs are. The racism of the pro-monarchist Iranians is similar to that of the Hindutva ideology. They along with the Ayatollahs are the main reasons why Iran simply must not have nuclear weapons.

Once Iran gains nuclear weapons, there is little or no chance of turning back. They are a mostly power hungry country bent on bullying their regional neighbors. And once they posses the bomb it will be difficult to disarm them without triggering a full scale nuclear war.

Also should Iran posses nuclear weapons, the entire region will go into an arms race. There have been many rumors that Saudi Arabia seeks nuclear technology from Pakistan should Iran develop a nuclear weapons arsenal.

The Saudis lack the manpower and technology to produce the bomb so they turn to Pakistan to do it. Not that they had any intention to do so before either since they are dependent on America and an American ally.

But since Iran is pursuing nuclear capability, the Saudis will most likely try to justify their own nuclear project. The Saudis have also resisted the enhancement of Iran's nuclear program. If true, it shows they are on the right path to push for a nuclear free zone.

The reason I am in favor of Saudi influence in the case of Iran's nuclear program is because Iran will definitely try to blackmail the Pakistani military to lay off their nuclear program via radical Shia proxies inside Pakistan which may or may not include Zardari. The only way to counter that will be with Saudi influence.

The Saudis are with America and Israel in the case of Iran's nuclear program and they can be helpful in countering Iranian proxies around the world. And because this is a desperate situation which does require intervention even if it is by tyrants, we face a more dangerous tyrant that is trying to gain nuclear weapons.

I had personally maintained that if Israel and NATO don't take out Iran's nuclear program, Pakistan should do it. Pakistan has little to fear from Iran militarily, but Iran will most likely retaliate by blowing the horn out to it's Shia proxies inside Pakistan to retaliate on their behalf.

To curb them will be difficult and will unfortunately require Saudi support. Saudi influence will also bypass any political Shia proxies inside Pakistan's government and defense. These Shia proxies, whom Zardari is likely one of, will resist intervention against Iran's nuclear program. Once Pakistan is free of Shia extremism, we should also cleanse our country of Wahhabi influence as well.

My main point in this post is given the choice of two evils, we must in this scenario pick the more beneficial evil to fight the more dangerous evil.

The ISI seems to have done a great job of giving the Iranian regime a taste of it's own medicine by supporting Jandullah, assuming Jundullah is indeed supported by the ISI and not on speculation.

But looking at a wider geopolitical scale and time line, the downfall of the Ayatollah regime does not mean victory for the region, for another hostile political party may take power and once again be a burden on the region.

Even if they are dealt with separately, they should still be taken down. Though the scenario of racist Persians taking power in Iran is unlikely, given that most of Iran's Muslim majority population will not leave Islam, the Persian racists may try to influence the policies of any new "democratic" regime that will replace the Ayatollahs.

These racist Persians actually believe they were the center of some advanced civilization and everyone else around them were living in caves.

Pride in one's ethnicity and nation is fine. Even more acceptable is the pride in the achievements of your race or nation. But to feel superior or feel the entitlement to better rights just because of who you are is not acceptable.

This is why I feel these fascist Persian "Aryan" groups and their propaganda should be dealt with. Even though Western governments are dealing with the Iranian Islamic regime, they should also keep out these fascist, racist Iranian groups and their ideologies.

If the FBI can put Jewish and Neo-Nazi militant groups on their watch-list, they should also put these "Aryan" wannabe Persian political groups under check.

Each country including Pakistan should play it's role in dealing with the Iranian nuclear program carefully and put aside it's differences with America and Israel in the case of Iran's nuclear program the way Saudi Arabia is co-operating with them.

If Pakistan doesn't, all hell in the region and the world may break loose.

Is Dr Aafia Siddiqui really the "daughter of the nation?"

2012-02-07T16:31:00.001-08:00

It's not that I don't sympathize with this woman and her family. I feel terrible of the fact that somebody's life is being wasted because the fascist US Government suddenly decides they are a terrorist without even proving it.

By all means this woman deserves a fair trial- and one in an international court or Afghan court given the fact that her alleged crimes were committed in Afghanistan, not in America.

But why has she suddenly been declared "the daughter of the nation?" Out of all the thousands of Pakistanis who suffer the injustice of being imprisoned, raped, tortured, assassinated by the hands of our own brutal government and military, why does this one become "the daughter of the nation?"

Are all those other Pakistanis not worthy enough to be the sons and daughters of Pakistan? The best answer I can come up with should be obvious to others and that is because she was illegally imprisoned by a Western power and not our own or another "brotherly" Muslim country, she has become the "daughter" of the nation.

After all what of those hundreds of Pakistani expats detained and/or executed in Gulf Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia on dubious charges? They are not given the same attention let alone even given the title of "son/daughter of the nation."
Let's also not forget the reports that Dr Siddiqui was not even abducted by the Americans but handed over voluntarily by the then Musharraf led regime.

It's the same as I emphasize all along. If our own leaders imprison and torture our citizens, it does not get the same attention as a case like that of Dr Aafia Siddiqui gets. Nor do they get any saintly title as Dr Siddiqui did. Nor do all those middle and lower class Pakistanis mistreated in Arab countries get that sort of attention or mass sympathy in comparison to those such as Dr Aafia despite that they as working class people are in a more vulnerable position and have little legal- if any- security.

Do all those other Pakistanis imprisoned both in Pakistan and other "brotherly" Muslim countries not have families the way Dr Aafia has? Do their families including spouses and children and siblings and parents suffer the fear of never seeing their loved ones again or even worse found badly beaten/mutilated?

The case of Dr Aafia Siddiqui is just one of many examples of our double standards as Pakistanis when it comes to giving sympathy and support when we strike the judicial hammer of justice.

Because whenever the West or some non-Muslim entity commits injustice against us, we are suddenly victims, but when our own kind or other Muslims commit acts of injustice against us, worse in most cases, we save our screams for the next "infidels" to commit a similar kind of injustice.

This double standard of ours is what I call a form of religious extremism. Support and outcries for Muslim causes that often turn violent but utter silence to abuses done to us by our own leadership- even when we elected them- to utter silence on worse injustices committed against by fellow Muslims.

For it's part political Islam just like Western foreign policy has no shortage of double standards and hypocrisy.
At least in the Islamic world most people will admit they follow some sort of dictatorship weather by their religious teachings or a government imposed upon them.

In Western countries on the other hand aside from Neo-Nazis and other White nationalists, the mass population do not believe let alone admit that they are not programmed by their Zionist influenced school system which indoctrinate them with the mentality of "Jews are always right because of the Holocaust" or that punishing Holocaust denial is a violation of free speech, which the West seems to champion itself on, particularly the liberal fascists living there.

Many compared the shameful release of Raymond Davis as an example of the corrupt American justice system.
To an extent I can agree with that since America pays to release a killer while imprisoning innocent people even before proving them guilty.

But the fact was that it was the PPP that was responsible for ordering his release and using our own laws of blood money which I have expressed disapproval of in my other posts long before the Raymond Davis incident even occurred.

Now let's not jump on the government blaming and bashing game as we always do. The fact is we are guilty of electing the PPP and the crook Zardari. And even those who didn't elect the PPP, they have their democracy, the rule of the majority.

We have ourselves to blame for Davis's release. Many circles in our government and public, including political parties, challenged the blasphemy law, but I don't remember anyone challenging or publicly calling for abolishing these diyat/blood money laws.

The military might have had a role too in Davis's release, but they did do it to remain per the law by taking orders from the PPP. Had the military been trying to be break the law, they would never have let a high prize like Davis go. They (the military) are so far playing along with the democracy game for what ever reason and no coup has occurred despite the current memo scandal.

It's easy to blame the Americans when we ourselves install one crooked regime after another or do nothing to reform our own medieval laws. Our double standards and hypocrisy are so strong that we do not even see it.

That being mentioned, it takes us back back to the question is Dr Aafia Saddique really the "daughter of the nation?" and I answer it as a simple no based on the circumstances I have mentioned above. At most she is no more/less a daughter than all the Pakistanis imprisoned under unjust reasons and/or imprisoned without a fair trial, be it in Pakistan or some other Muslim country.

Turning Gwadar into a tourist resort instead of a port city

2012-01-20T00:26:00.002-08:00

In a previous post on Gwadar, I wrote against it's expansion mainly due to environmental dangers and increase in ethnic/political conflicts.

But seeing the unique location of Gwadar on a sparsely populated paradise-like area on the sea, free of industrialization and pollution unlike much of Pakistan, the town could actually turn into a successful tourist resort like the Northern Areas of Pakistan as well as like parts of the Kashmir province.

Much like the Gwadar seaport, the towns of the Northern Areas and Kashmir province still have plenty of nature which are typical tourist attractions. Prior to the arrival of militancy in the Swat region, the area was also a tourist attraction not just because of nature, but also for providing availability in sports activities.

Gwadar being on a sea coast and not filled with bustling waters, but rather clean and safe waters to swim in could provide excellent water sports for tourists. But at the same time we must be careful from creating a tourism industry which turns into unsustainable tourism and actually damages the local environment and biodiversity.

Gwadar with it's sunshine and mild temperatures during winter would provide an excellent getaway for European tourists seeking to escape the cold.

Gwadar should be connected to Europe via Karachi and Muscat. When I oppose the expansion and industrialization of Gwadar, I also oppose the expansion of the airport to accommodate wide-body planes which will increase noise and disturb the town's peaceful nature not to mention an increase in air pollution.

Turning the town into a tourists resort is the best alternate to turning it into a busy hustling port city that may as well end up like Karachi.

Karachi once upon a time:

Karachi today:

Gwadar today:

Gwadar in the future:

This is why I feel we Pakistanis must abandon our senseless ambitions of urban expansion and industrialization. Instead we must show more concern for our environment before we are destroyed by our own carelessness along with our country. We must control and reduce our growing population before we get destroyed. Our survival as living beings depends on the survival of our ecosystem. Gwadar must not become another seaport like Karachi.

Gwadar instead should follow the role of Pakistan's Northern Areas and become a successful tourist resort.

Pakistan should wait before deciding weather or not to recognize Kosovo until a mature time

2011-12-02T17:08:00.000-08:00

There has been urging from the Islamic world and even less domestically for Pakistan to recognize the newly independent state of Kosovo. But as also quite known, countries like Serbia and others in Europe would not approve of such a move.

This could affect our strategic relationship in the West much like the way we had to be careful when dealing with the Northern Cyprus issue in order to save our relations with Greece and the EU. So far it has been successful by Pakistan not recognizing Northern Cyprus.

The same was true in the case of Libya when the Pakistani government was openly hesitant on weather to maintain it's diplomatic relations to the Gaddafi regime or weather to take the side of the new rulers who were at that time rebels due to Gaddafi and his forces being in much control of Libya.

We were urged to recognize the new Libyan regime and from what I read, the Libyan embassy in Islamabad even voluntarily raised the new regime's flag signalling they were ready to accept their most likely new leaders.

But still Pakistan hesitated. Then a few weeks later, the rebels became victorious. Gaddafi was killed and the will of the Libyan people prevailed. That was the right time and until then Pakistan kept a neutral stance. NATO and the EU had recognized the new regime the whole time, but Pakistan waited until the time was just ripe and it worked just fine.

The same example must be learned in regards to Kosovo. Pakistan must reject pressure from both the Balkan and Eastern European countries as well as the Islamic world. If any UN resolution is cast on the recognition of Kosovo, Pakistan must abstain. Only until a compromise between both sides in favor of and against an independent Kosovo is realized, Pakistan should not pick sides.

Though I do favor Pakistan not being involved in affairs that do not concern it, there are still a few interests to protect and strategic alliances to be made/maintained; hence any sort of premature move could have difficult consequences.

Pakistan can start by learning from the Libyan conflict for a "right time" to recognize or not recognize Kosovo.

Spending our foreign aid the right way

2011-11-24T01:02:00.000-08:00

I'm not referring to the foreign aid we receive and are supposed to use on development. I'm referring to the foreign we give to other countries and people when needed.

We as a country have a strange history of giving foreign aid to countries in need. Sometimes it is out of sympathy or sometimes it is a desperate bid to paint a positive image of our country. We have clearly done this the wrong way and seem to continue to do it this way.

Take for example the recent earthquake in Haiti. Pakistan sent both aid and support teams consisting of doctors, aid workers etc. What has Haiti done for us? It is not that I oppose giving aid to those in need, but shouldn't countries that helped us come first? Is not your obligation as a country or even as an individual to first help those who have helped you in your time of need?

So what were we doing when European countries suffered from floods more than once in the past ten years? Europe has given Pakistan millions, perhaps billions of dollars of aid this past decade.

Aside from our people residing in these countries contributing aid and volunteering to help, Pakistan officially never provided any as far as I know. And if we didn't my best guess is that it was on the basis that we are a poor country and can't afford to spare much money.

But strangely enough we gave aid to Haiti, provided three million dollars to the Palestinian Authority in early 2006. Today we waste goodness knows how many millions of dollars on building universities and hospitals in Afghanistan in a failed bid to win popularity there and to counter Indian influence there.

How long does it take our government and people to learn from history to the present day? Afghans have hated us since our independence because they refuse to accept the Durand Line.

Because of this they have attempted to wage several wars against us in an effort to "take back" what they wrongly perceive as theirs. We have hosted the largest Afghan population living abroad for more than twenty years and our image hasn't changed the slightest bit amongst them. Instead we suffer from the problem caused by these refugees.

Even if not for a common alliance with India on the basis of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," Afghans will never show the least bit of gratitude to Pakistanis.
Instead of wasting millions of dollars on countries that could not and/or did not help us, we should have spent this on helping Europe when dealing with floods themselves or any other natural disaster.

Not only would it have given us an image in Europe besides being a beggar nation so dependent on their charity, but also a reliable partner in Asia. One that not only returns the favor in times of need, but also a useful country to trade with and invest in.

We gave aid to Turkey and China in times of need because they are our closest allies. In these cases we are right to do so considering they have done much for us, especially in times of need. Iran is not considered an ally, nor is it a trustworthy neighbor, but we also remember to return help when in need.

Imagine what we could have achieved by spending the same amounts we waste on Afghanistan or other countries that give us nothing useful in return. If we were a rich and strong country that could afford to help any other country in need, then by all means I would welcome that, but we are not so we have to be careful how we spend our aid.

We are sadly an overpopulated, impoverished third world country with a limited budget. Even when richer countries than us like the Russian Federation suffered what was possibly the worst set of heat waves in it's recorded history, causing terrible destruction and taking thousands of lives.

But regardless of all this, it sent aid to Pakistan which was suffering from devastating floods at the same time.

Above: A freighter version of a Boeing 747-400 owned by Air Bridge Cargo delivering aid to Pakistan on behalf of the Russian government. Click on images to enlarge.

I really hate to think this plane(s) flew back empty. This was all despite the Russian Federation in grave problems at the time and receiving aid itself from other countries. If only we had been more sensible, we could have donated some simple products that we produce such as medical instruments or any other equipment we could spare from fire proof suits to oxygen masks since we ourselves were not suffering from massive fires or heatwaves at the time. The plane's return flight would not have been an empty one had we done this.

Not sending aid to those who helped us several times in the past while spending/wasting aid on those who never helped us is not only bad gesture, but also morally puts us in dept to those who have.

As for Afghanistan, we don't need to waste out money to "improve" our already tainted image in that country. Granted we have our own interests in Afghanistan to fend off political partnerships and installations planted there by our enemies as well as making future preparations to use that country as a trade route between Pakistan and Central Asia, we are going about this the wrong way.

Should Afghanistan bother us or try to blackmail us in the future with the help of another country, we can fight fire with fire. And if the Afghans threaten to cut us off from Central Asia, we can place an embargo that will be much more damaging for that landlocked country.

I also doubt Central Asian states will be happy of being cut off from the outside world due to Afghanistan's stubbornness and will probably impose an embargo on Afghanistan well. This will further isolate Afghanistan even more till it decides to be reasonable again.
We have to realize that we are the country with the advantage, not Afghanistan. We are a nuclear power, not Afghanistan. We have access to open sea, not Afghanistan.

We do not need to bribe the Afghans with wasted charity to stop them from playing their dirty political proxy games against us. All we need to show them is we turn the tables on them, and we did so in the past.

Our reckless policy of wasting what precious money we can spare to satisfy our obsession of Islamic Ummah or some other useless cause sadly cannot be reversed. But it can serve as a good lesson for returning help to those who did it for us in the past. That is what Islam encourages.

Is it not a contradiction that we call ourselves Muslims but do not live by basic Islamic principles of returning help to those who have given it to us? Instead we divert help to those who simply share this belief as "fellow Muslims" but don't live by it.

We call ourselves Muslim, the Muslims we help for the sake of being Muslims or at least calling themselves Muslim, but we are unwilling to live up by our Islamic principles by not giving aid to countries we owe; hence we contradict ourselves by playing the religious card and not spending our foreign aid the way we should be.

CIA on recruitment spree in Pakistan

2011-10-31T22:08:00.001-07:00

On my previous posts on the Raymond Davis affair, I claimed that Davis and other armed Americans in Pakistan are getting their weapons and equipment with the help of Afghan spies on both sides of the Durand line. Click the link to read the full news clip:
CIA on recruitment spree in Pakistan

Why did Raymond Davis shoot two men in Lahore?

2011-10-14T02:06:00.000-07:00

This is probably my forth post on Raymond Davis. Who thought we'd see him again in the news ever since he's been long gone away from Pakistan? My reason for posting is his actions are now once again in focus, but this time over an assault charge in the USA. He is due to make his next court appearance in December but meantime more detailed reports have stated that he went into an aggressive behavior against a fifty year old man over a parking dispute. He's been accused of fracturing the victim's face. Reports claimed the victim's wife and two little girls were in the car, his little girls screaming out of fear when Davis assaulted and screamed at him. I don't know how true that is but I did see the victim speaking to a news agency and his face bruised with injuries.

Then the latest reports reveal that Davis has been told by the judge to go through an anger management program and has been banned from carrying weapons in the state of Colorado. The victim and his family along with most witnesses claim Davis behaved aggressively. Some witnesses who seem to have appeared late to the scene claim he hadn't seen Davis throw a single punch at Jeff Maes. Below is a report of the incident after it first happened:

US court indicts Raymond Davis

The judges decision combined with all these claims takes us back to the important question of why Davis acted so recklessly in Lahore by shooting two Pakistani men in an open street on broad daylight.

There were many differing guesses as to why he did it:

-The men were ISI agents. This was the most popular claim though I still see no evidence of this and showed my reasons in another post on the whole affair.

-The men were robbers trying to rob him. This was first made by Davis and then repeated by the American diplomatic mission to Pakistan and was aided by the Pakistani fifth column. This was all rejected by a detailed police report on the incident which revealed Davis shot the victims in the back.
Also according to witnesses Davis had shot the second victim while he attempted to run away from the scene.

It is known that one of the victims Faizan Haider was carrying a pistol and this fact was used as an effort to defend Davis by the American diplomatic mission as well as the fifth columnist Irfan Husain.
But police investigation also revealed that it was a registered weapon and acquired by Haider due to being witness to a crime. In fact he was just returning from court when he was shot dead by Davis.

-Davis killed the two men out of misunderstanding. This was my reason and probably now seems more valid that the rest. Davis claimed the two men were following him. I had maintained the whole time that their path coincided with Davis' which gave him the false impression that they were following him.
When he saw Faizan Haider's gun, he thought he was right and fired out of fear for being attacked.

-Another not so well known reason is that Davis fired to divert attention and let the CIA car escape that was carrying important material which also killed Ibadur Rahman.
This should not be ruled out as it is a tactical move.

But if it was not, then we are left with the other more known reasons. My reason seems strongest now after this incident of aggressive behavior. It shows Davis tends to respond to threats and misunderstandings violently.

His misunderstanding in Lahore is what most likely revealed the CIA's covert operations after he was arrested. After all which secret agent would shoot two people in broad daylight in a crowded street?

Unless the last reason is correct I believe it was his own aggressive behavior that caused him to shoot Faizan Haider and his friend Fahim. This parking lot fight and the judge's order to take anger management reveals his violent nature.

We may learn more in the coming days if more reports of his trial emerge.

Should Bollywood be banned in Pakistan?

2011-10-10T23:58:00.002-07:00

Many socially and politically conscious Pakistanis have expressed disapproval of Bollywood and called for it's complete ban in Pakistan.
Bollywood is known for it's anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam propaganda. From what I've read is that Bollywood was officially banned in Pakistan decades ago and the only availability of it is on Indian channels and in the form of piracy.

Bollywood and it's anti-Pakistan themes are also popular amongst the Muhajir community who have an attachment to India.

Throughout Pakistani video and music stores pirated Bollywood music, movies and dramas can be found. This is what anti-Bollywood Pakistanis need to take into consideration before calling for it's complete ban. All the Bollywood movies, dramas and music that are bought and sold in Pakistan do not give profit to those involved in producing these songs, dramas and movies.

All revenue from the sales go to the people who illegally copy and sell them. We would be taking away a large amount of contribution to our economy.
The piracy of Bollywood movies does not help the enemy, only gives them massive losses.

I know that some can argue it is not much of a loss considering Bollywood keeps on growing both in popularity as well as financially.
But I still do not believe that banning the movie industry will solve the problem.

Most likely the piracy companies will only turn to stealing Pakistani dramas and movies which will hurt our already weak movie industry even more. We would suffer economic losses.

These are all my arguments in favor of allowing Bollywood movies to be sold in Pakistan. But it does not mean that I approve of all the anti-Pakistan propaganda many Bollywood films/shows and possibly songs contain.

Because of this I believe in an alternate idea than to those who call for their complete ban. Since piracy of Bollywood generates large sums of profit for Pakistan but nothing for India, I would be against their complete banning but instead have them censored. Any Bollywood film that contains historic revisionism or political propaganda should be banned while leaving out those movies that have no such content.

I have no problems with banning Indian channels in Pakistan since banning them will give no revenue to those who wish to use them to spread anti-Pakistan propaganda.
I believe the availability of Bollywood in Pakistan should be restricted to pirated CDs and DVDs.

And as already mentioned it should be restricted to movies that don't contain anti-Pakistan propaganda. Even better would be to allow movies/shows containing anti-Pakistan propaganda to be sold but have the propaganda content from them removed.

All this will bring benefits to the Pakistani economy and create losses for anti-Pakistan producers in India.
So to answer the question of weather Bollywood should be banned in Pakistan is no but instead to restrict it's distribution in our country.

Pakistan needs a new and more effective national anthem

2011-10-04T20:55:00.000-07:00

Pakistan's national anthem is one strange anthem that lacks passion and patriotism. For one it is in an old, outdated, Persian influenced dialect of Urdu that Pakistanis do not understand save for a few words.

Because of this the anthem has been ridiculed and mocked by many. Due to it's Persian influence, it is propagated by many to be in the Persian/Farsi language when that is clearly not the case. Even though there are national anthems of countries that the majority of the population does not understand, it doesn't mean Pakistan needs such a useless national anthem.

Not only are most of the words incomprehensible and meaningless to the country's unity, but the rhythm of the national anthem is also weak and does not hold a sense of patriotism.
Pakistan is a country that currently lacks unity and struggles with ethnic tension as well as political and religious divides. A powerful national anthem is one that contain two main important components:

1) A strong theme that is acceptable to all it's citizens. It must have ideologies that speak in favor of progress, unity and similar ideas that appeals to the entire population free of discrimination in any area be it religion, ethnicity or any other.

2) It must have a powerful rhythm. A rhythm is equally important to the self-respect and patriotism of a country by it's people. Many national anthems are weak in this respect and that includes Pakistan's current national anthem. I find patriotic songs are even more popular amongst Pakistanis than is the national anthem.

A new national anthem should be created fitting both categories and inclusive of all our main ethnic groups. If it is not inclusive of all our religions, then religion should be left out since Pakistan was meant to be a secular state.

An even more preferable and suitable national anthem would be one that encourages our unity as a predominantly Indo-Iranic people be it Baloch, Pakhtun (Iranic), Sindhi, Punjabi (Indo-Aryan) or Kashmiri (Dardic).

Such an anthem would significantly contribute to the feeling of patriotism towards our country and common ancestry as Indo-Iranic peoples. It should be made available and singable in all our country's spoken languages. A day should come when our new national anthem is created and finalized and set to be played on our independence anniversary on fourteenth August.

The current national anthem does not suit the needs of a country and lacks the main components a powerful and patriotic national anthem needs to promote unity and pride amongst the people.
I look forward to the day this useless anthem is scratched out in favor of a new and effective national anthem.

Below are examples of national anthems (note that some of these are not officially in use) that are strongly patriotic if one searches their lyrics. These are examples we need to learn from in order to come up with our new national anthem for it would be disaster if a new anthem is a failure like the current one:

ISI "harassing" Pakistani expatriates?

2011-10-04T19:37:00.000-07:00

A few months back I found news articles from the American press about the ISI monitoring and allegedly "harassing" Baloch separatists hiding in America.

Unfortunately I am unable to locate and link these but wish to do so as soon as I find them. But regardless my memory on their message is quite clear. America and the West have always had their set of double standards when dealing with fugitives and separatists.
Even their covert operations around the world by their intelligence agencies is perfectly normal because to them it's dealing with terrorism and they have the full rights to do whatever they please to suit their interest.

After all that is what the American government has stated repeatedly that they will do whatever it takes to protect American lives. They usually state this when confronted on civilian casualties and other collateral damage.

When there are Al-Queda terrorists suspected of hiding in a certain country, either it is bombed and invaded or American intelligence agencies are dispatched to target these suspects. These operation are done with no regards to international law.

Even the European side has it's share of hypocrisy when dealing with Basque separatists or Irish Republican Army (IRA) members. They must be found and caught at all costs according to European governments.

Readers may not know, but there are plentiful Baloch and Sindhi separatist organizations in Western countries, some with close ties to the Indian intelligence and to the Afghan government.

There was even a case of the Pakistani government seeking extrication of a Baloch separatist leader from the Swiss government.

That case is still pending. But of course when Western governments need to go hunting for fugitives, they step up their extradition cases. And if not valid, they dispatch their spies to become the judges, jury and executioners.
If a fugitive wanted by the West is in a country that refuses to extradite him/her, that country is "guilty" of "harboring terrorism."

So why is it then that when Pakistan is dealing with separatists; especially those acquainted with it's traditional enemies -India and Afghanistan- that it is not entitled to track down these individuals? Also given that Western countries do not simply extradite criminals wanted by the countries they left.

They host them on "humanitarian grounds" and claim that they are "persecuted" in their home countries. In many cases this is true. But what happens when proven criminals such as Altaf Hussain run abroad and claim asylum to escape justice in their home countries?

Even amongst advocates of greater autonomy for the Pakistani provinces are brutally abducted, tortured and killed. But why is it that when Western governments and intelligence agencies behave like this, it is perfectly normal and justified in the name of protecting sovereignty?

So why is it any different when the Pakistani ISI is seeking out Baloch separatists working on behest of the Indian and Afghan governments and threaten the integrity of Pakistan? Plus it is unlikely America has agreed to extradite them otherwise there would be no place for them in America.

So since America does not extradite people wanted in other countries but insists other countries give it such a courtesy, what is the big deal about the ISI tracking these fugitives which the US media describes as "harassing?" Add to that the CIA has a history of illegal covert operations to target alleged terrorists.

The ISI is doing the same in this case. But because the ISI is doing it, it is dubbed by the hypocrite American media as "harassment."
Especially when it was clearly mentioned in those reports that the alleged "victims" were Baloch separatists.

There's little doubt in my mind that the ISI was doing what it was supposed to and that is protecting the sovereignty of Pakistan. They are going about this wrong way. They need to dismantle such activities through negotiations and should turn to military tactics only as a last resort. But because it was the ISI doing this to pro-Indian/Afghan Baloch separatists and not the CIA doing this to Al-Qaeda operatives, it is "harassment" at least according to the US propaganda media.

One has to remember that many Baloch and Sindhi organizations, though not all, have this same set of double standards and hypocrisy. When they get help from the Indian government or the Afghan Mellat, they try to justify it.

But when the Pakistani ISI gives the same support to ethnic and religious minorities in India and Afghanistan, they dub it as "supporting terrorists."

In this case until we can carefully study the cases of the ISI "harassing" Indian/Afghan backed Baloch separatists hiding in America, it should be interpreted as protecting Pakistan's sovereignty from those seen as dangerous obstacles to the country's harmony and not some innocent victims as anti-Pakistan lobbies around the world depict it as.

India's 2008 space probe launch and what Pakistan's response should be

2011-09-28T00:02:00.001-07:00

As we all know in 2008, India launched a space probe to the moon giving much pride and joy to the Indian people. Perhaps for the duration of the launch and journey it helped distract them from the realities of their country.

There are some Pakistanis who also suffer from false pride in things such as having an advanced air force or something else that does not entirely benefit the country despite the pride it gives.
Heck I myself suffered from pride in having a strong military and other things that distracted me from the realities of my country.

The space launch and other things like that are what blinds many Indians especially those in the elite class from the miserable conditions of their country and incites them with this false pride and ignorance to the fact that their country is the opposite of what they want to believe it is.

There were a few reactions from the Pakistani side to follow in pursuit. No doubt in my mind that many from the Muhajir community were thrilled to hear of their ethnic brethren across the border showing the Pakistanis (mainly Punjabis) competition.

As mentioned, some reactions from Pakistanis were hopes that Pakistan may follow in a similar space launch in the near future. This is where my concerns arise and my purpose of this post to disagree. The Indians are in no position to spare an average amount of 79 million dollars in purchasing rockets from the Russian Federation when they are the world's leader in poverty, HIV and hunger.

All the money it invests in unnecessary things to impress the world would be much more useful when invested into population control. Already by mid century the country is expected to reach two billion people at the growth rate it is at.

Instead of trying to match India pride for pride, Pakistan needs to be more wise and not waste it's precious budget into such foolishness. Let's face it. Doing what India did in 2008 or at other times won't change the fact that we are an impoverished third world country ourselves. Nor will it fool other people around the world from the reality of what we are.

Already we waste plenty of our budget on our military. It is not that I oppose maintaining our defense given that we are in a dangerous region of hostile neighbors and also live in a dangerous time era.
It's the overspending of money on things like military housing and VIP transportation that does not really contribute to defense.

Pakistan should not take such kinds of steps in wasting money on projects for the sake of preserving a positive image. No image can be more positive than being a safe, stable and most importantly sustainable country.
Just because the Indians are behaving foolishly and trying to distract the world from their worst conditions by taking pot shots at Somali pirates or sending rockets to the moon does not mean Pakistan has to waste it's money and resources doing the same.

Pakistan actually could create a better impression of itself by diverting money into population reduction and enhancing natural ecosystems instead of importing foreign technology and parading it as if we built it ourselves. That would actually make us look cheap at least to those who know our country's conditions.

Both the government and people of Pakistan need to snap out of their ignorance and refuse to drop to the level of the Brahman elites of India who pride themselves in trying to impress and deceive the rest of the world from what they really are.

This means Pakistan should have no such childish aims or ambitions on investing in projects that really do us no good. Simply exploring the moon will not benefit our country or take care of our problems whereas investing in population reduction and environmental and educational reforms will.

Below is a video that partially discusses India's space probe launch and anti-piracy activities in the Indian ocean:

America should satisfy Pakistan's trade needs if it is so concerned about keeping it's enemies under sanctions.

2011-09-16T11:11:00.000-07:00

Recently the American government has raised concerns about Pakistan's upcoming gas pipeline deal with Iran to meet it's energy needs.
Iran has for a long time been facing sanctions from America and the West ever since the 1979 revolution and the sanctions have been increased with the support of the EU due to Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program.

The Americans are naive and arrogant to believe that countries outside of the G8 will go about their sanction agenda. When the USA sanctioned Pakistan over it's testing of nuclear weapons in 1998, it somehow expected the same from China.

China was not part of the joint bid to put sanctions on Pakistan and hurt it's own economy just to satisfy America and neither will Pakistan right now sacrifice it's energy needs for the same reason.
Pakistan is not part of the G8 nor is it under any oath to be a part of any joint sanction program against any country sanctioned by the EU/US/G8 etc.

It is not that I wish to be supportive of Iran's government or many of it's people who have a deep rooted hatred towards Pakistanis.
I am just concerned about the interests of Pakistan and at America's arrogance to think Pakistan should sacrifice it's energy needs just to please them.

Also it is again necessary to mention that Pakistan would not need to import energy resources had it's population stayed at a sustainable number. It is a terrible tragedy that even with all the resources we have to sustain our country, we exploited them by not keeping our overpopulation crisis in check and only continue to let it grow.

If America really wants to stay committed to sanctioning Iran by all countries, it should provide any country that is trading with a sanctioned enemy an alternate solution.
In the case of Pakistan America should seek an alternate and sustainable energy supply for Pakistan. How it should be done is America's sole problem.

It can either broker a deal with Saudi Arabia or another Gulf Arab state to supply the extra energy to Pakistan at lower costs with America paying to make up for the discount prices. Whichever the best solution would be is America's worry as I mentioned, not Pakistan's.

This is something for the American government to plan for and discuss a solution to present Pakistan with before dictating it's terms of trade to other countries.

My thoughts on the killing of Asfar Shah by Pakistani rangers in June

2011-09-14T23:48:00.000-07:00

Most people already saw what happened on video where rangers were reported to have killed an unarmed civilian in Karachi in cold blood. I saw the actual video clip on YouTube, not the version edited by news agencies and I'm not going to embed it in the post in compliance with blogger's terms of service.

I also had a discussion about it while chatting on the phone with one of my friends. It appears the public opinion is on the side of the victim and his family and totally against the rangers- with good reasoning but not entirely.

As mentioned I saw the entire video and also worthy of mentioning is that it's probably the first time I've seen a human being gunned down. Judging from the video, I concluded that both the victim and the shooting ranger were at fault.

Everyone seemed to be focused that the ranger fired at the victim when he was unarmed and seemed to pose no threat. I partially agree, especially that even after unnecessarily shooting him once he fired a second time.

But nobody focused on the fact that the victim refused to comply with the rangers orders and surrender. When they repeatedly raised their guns at him and told him to stay away from them, he continuously rushed towards them.
Nobody takes into consideration that he was accused of being a thief. Weather true or not, arresting a suspect usually requires at least one armed personnel in case the suspect poses a threat.

So already under the impression that he was a thief, the rangers kept their guard but instead of using his common sense and at least keeping his distance, the victim kept trying to snatch one of the rangers' guns. He was warned multiple times and even physically pushed back to keep him at a safe distance which he refused and continued to try and snatch the gun.

Whichever country such kind of an incident takes place in, a suspect who tries to resist arrest and trying to physically disarm a law enforcement personnel will be treated with additional suspicion by resisting.
In some countries resisting arrest is considered a crime and a suspect can be additionally charged for that. And if the law enforcing officer fires after more than one warning, he/she may not be held accountable for shooting the suspect.

That was the fault of Mr Asfar Shah. He should have at least kept a distance as he was ordered to if not keep his hands raised and be searched, questioned and then released when no evidence can be found to launch a case against him.

That was his fault. The fault of the ranger was using excessive force. For his own good he should have fired a warning shot before actually shooting the victim.
And even if he was justified under the law of shooting in possible self-defense because the victim would not keep his distance even after being warned, he still fired a second shot unnecessarily.

He is clearly guilty of using excessive force and added to that it was the rangers' responsibility for getting him medical aid as ensuring public safety is their job.
The courts decision to punish the rangers is quite justified after it is clear excessive force was used and the victim was left to die.

But the public as usual only saw the entire incident with the rangers as the aggressors while completely disregarding the fact that the victim was partially to blame for the shooting. As usual the public placed the entire blame on the rangers. This is actually part of the public greater game of always blaming everything on the government.

Conclusively I am in favor of punishing the rangers for such a misconduct but I wished to point out the facts that partially led to the victim's tragic death.

Why I oppose lifting visa requirements and restrictions by India and Pakistan on each other's citizens

2011-08-31T02:06:00.003-07:00

I've read and heard quite a few times of complaints by people on how many families got separated during the so-called "partition" of "India."
Amongst Pakistani citizens I've heard it mostly coming from Muhajirs who migrated from different parts of modern-day India. Amongst Indians, it's just about everyone since many Indians see Pakistan as a missing organ of "greater India" or the mythical "Bharatavarsha," not to mention all the Sikhs and "Hindus" who migrated out of Pakistan at the time of independence.

Both the non-Muslims who left the country and those Muhajirs who came to Pakistan claimed to have escaped persecution. If they were really being persecuted, why go back to the country they were being persecuted in?
The call for the right to cross the border free of restrictions has mainly been due to wanting to see their relatives who did or did not migrate.

The call to lift the visa restrictions poses serious problems for both countries. Pakistan long suspects RAW agents of infiltrating into it's borders and their close links to terrorist groups such as the MQM and rebels in Balochistan. Though I do not firmly believe it, I cannot rule out the possibility. Knowing reports coming out of the Pakistani government and media on suspicious foreigners; especially Americans, I have little doubt that the RAW has it's own set of activities in the country.

India for it's part has a history of blaming the Pakistani government and ISI for domestic terrorism in the country by Kashmiri insurgents and local religious terrorists, including Sikhs, Muslims and "Hindus."
Weather true or not, Indian citizens cannot be waving their government's warmongering flag and then calling for the ease of visa restrictions. Both countries have put the visa restrictions for good reasons.

And as we know, the Muhajirs on the Pakistani side are asking for the restriction to be removed so they can visit their relatives and their relatives visit Pakistan with ease. Such people on both sides feel that the country functions around them. How can you claim persecution as an excuse for immigrating out of one country and then suddenly wishing to go back? Are you not afraid of being persecuted again?

As I wrote in my previous posts on the Muhajirs, I don't buy their persecution stories. There may be truth to some riots/attacks by both sides, but highly exaggerated. How else does one explain the majority of Muslims who stayed back in India?
I'm also tired of hearing and reading the claims "we left for Islam" and "we left for the sake of Pakistan."

Everyone claims they sacrificed for the sake of India or Pakistan by immigrating. If you chose to leave, you did so at your own discretion. You've made the 'sacrifice' you feel relentlessly heroic about. No point complaining about it now.

Why should the whole country put it's security at risk just because you want your family members to visit you without restriction?
Most importantly why did you "sacrifice" your life in the opposite country if you're suddenly so keen to visit back and forth without restriction? Clearly there is no sacrifice in any of this if you suddenly want to back and complain about the restrictions.

If the Pakistani government can put restrictions on Americans, including diplomats, why would they suddenly ease visa restrictions and movements on Indian visitors to Pakistan?
Those in India and Pakistan who want to cross the border without restriction may as well permanently go since they seem to be keen on the other country and seemed to have suddenly lost their fear of persecution, not to mention they won't have to face restrictions if they can apply for and be granted permanent citizenship.

Pakistan has a good reason for restricting Indian nationals for visiting especially at this current situation in combating terrorism and I'm sure the Indian side has it's own reasons for the same restrictions on Pakistani nationals.

As for marriages between citizens of the two countries, they must decide which country to settle in as couples or choose a third neutral country.
If Muslims in India immigrated to Pakistan, they did so by their own free will and the same is true for non-Muslims who left Pakistan so it is time they lived with their decision and stop complaining.

Militants kill 'US spy' in N Waziristan

2011-08-24T13:43:00.000-07:00

Another of many countless cases of Afghans caught assisting US covert operations which I clearly discussed several times in my posts on Raymond Davis

Read full article in the link:
Militants kill 'US spy' in N Waziristan

Why I think the death sentence should unconditionally be enforced in Pakistan

2011-08-21T20:24:00.000-07:00

I want to share a story with readers that took place in the summer of 2001.
My younger paternal cousin had a house maid for many years working for his parents. Her name was Mariam. She took care of my cousin since he was an infant.

Mariam was hired again to work at their house when they would visit Karachi from America.
During their stay in 2001, Mariam ran into difficulties with her husband George (both were from Christian backgrounds).

My cousin would tell me about the days Mariam would come running to their house with injuries sometimes bleeding with George chasing her from not far behind.

Even I myself would see the injuries he inflicted upon her. But the worst came one day when my housekeeper came to my room telling me how Mariam had been killed by George that morning.
Further details of the murder were given to me by Mariam's family. Mariam was stabbed to death by George at a bus stop.

A nearby truck of (possibly construction or delivering construction items) workers stopped to help but it was too late. George was grabbed and handed over to a nearby police patrol. Later he was put on trial under Islamic Sharia law.

The court found him guilty of deliberate murder and put his fate in the decision of Mariam's family.
According to sharia law in Pakistan, a person guilty of murder is to face the death sentence unless the victim's family forgives him/her.

Then came along Jamaat-i-Islami. They offered to free George provided he joined them.
Sheila, Mariam's mother was promised a sum of eighty thousand Pakistani rupees by Jamaat-i-Islami for pardoning George and was offered fifty thousand rupees in advance.

Sheila pardoned George and accepted the money. Next, George was released, converted to Islam and recruited by Jamaat-I-Islami.

Imagine the killing machine Jamaat could create out of a madman like George. Now imagine if the court didn't need Mariam's family's permission to put him to death. This could have prevented him from being used by Jamaat for their militant activities.

This could prevent many thousands, perhaps millions of murderers from escaping and being a threat to society. Worse, more and more people like George could be recruited by illegal gangs and militant organizations.

This not only applies to murderers, but others who have similar inhumane, barbaric practices.
I recently saw a movie on human trafficking. More specifically, it was about young women from poorer countries abducted by gangs and leased for prostitution. Though the movie was fictional, it's plot is based on true daily events.

The movie itself was very realistic and showed the misery and terror these innocent young women faced; even worse than death.
But even when rescued, these women lived in fear of their captors; one was even assassinated to prevent her from giving the police information about their whereabouts.

In regards to Pakistan, I've read on cases of young girls being held captive and leased for prostitution. This is a common problem especially in undeveloped third world countries. Imagine if such criminals were simply put to death for their inhumane practices.
Their victims would not then have to live under the threat and fear of their oppressors returning.

In Pakistan as in many other Muslim countries, there are countless cases of individuals having their hands chopped off by the law for stealing. Yet I read cases of people who bury women alive, who trade in drugs, commit rape and child abuse all getting jail sentences instead.

Another case was in 2004 of mullahs throwing acid in a boy's face, permanently blinding him. All these mentioned peoples were sentenced to life in prison instead of being put to death.

My point is that if people who commit minor crimes like theft can be given such harsh punishments, why are such dangerous people like murderers, violent gangsters, rapists etc. given only prison sentences?

In my opinion jail sentences should only apply to those who commit minor crimes such as theft, fraud, false alarms, corruption etc.
It is also in my opinion that the death sentence should not be used as a punishment, but rather a means to protect society. It should not apply to only those that have committed murder, but also to those who inflict severe cruelty onto others or those have attempted murder.

From what I was told, the penalty in Malaysia for trafficking or possessing illegal drugs is death.
Pakistan being a country full of dangerous people should impose the death sentence unconditionally to reduce the number of crime rates and to cut down on it's massive population.

Also, the death sentence can prevent the jails in Pakistan from overflowing and save plenty of money and resources from being wasted to keep criminals alive.
A few months back, about two men were convicted for amputating a woman's ears and nose. They were found guilty and sentenced to suffer the same fate.

Imagine the extra amount spent on giving the amputated men special care in prison due to their disability. Now imagine if they were simply put to death, the state would save a lot of tax money instead of keeping them alive.

All people guilty of doing things harmful to their society including human and drug trafficking, committing murder, plotting murder, committing or promoting violence, inciting hatred should be put to death if found guilty.

Not only will the death sentence prevent criminals from continuing their actions, but will also discourage other people with similar intentions from carrying out their own crimes.

In 2008 the Pakistani government headed by Zardari legalized the death sentence for cyber terrorism. This again is all the more reason to make it applicable and unconditional for the other crimes that I have mentioned.

Even child abusers who rape children, sell/trade child pornography or arrange marriages for underage minors should face the death sentence. Children and women are amongst the most vulnerable victims of crime in Pakistan.

I believe killers should have at least half of their belongings given to the families of their victims as compensation automatically after being proven guilty of their crime and before being put to death. The other half of their belongings can be passed on to their own family members as normal inheritance.

With the death sentence enforced, it will also significantly reduce the workload for law enforcement organizations which struggle to fight crime in a highly populated country like Pakistan.