Master of restraint: A review of book by an Indian diplomat

Master of restraint

 A review of book by an Indian diplomat 

One of the major reasons why some high ups and important people are so much against Nawaz Sharief is his India policy which is in the larger interests of Pakistan yet here you will read about an indian diplomat cum politician. 
He registered his reservation regarding Simla Accord, showed his anger against Bhutto, but like a loyalist of Gandhi dynasty did not criticise Indira, “The Simla Agreement, signed on 2 July 1972, continues to haunt us.”
His candid answer was one which I have not forgotten to this day: ‘Never say that we are the same people. We are not. If we were, then why did we part company in 1947?’ Throughout my stay in Pakistan, I kept his advice in mind.”
For him, Kashmir is a simple issue about a piece of land only. For a politician it is a question of more than 20 million people (more than 75 per cent Muslims, 21per cent Hindus and the rest Sikhs and Buddhists) who are still living in a state of confusion. If we need democracy, peace and freedom for India and Pakistan, why can’t we do so for the people of Jammu and Kashmir? Instead of restraining power, one should support political solutions.
http://tns.thenews.com.pk/k-natwar-singh-master-of-restraint/#.VAMxZdeSxe8

Media Marchers Corporate greed and Sensationalism

Revolution through 

Divided Private Electronic Media & Twitter

The project is On in Pakistan. Ex Interior Minister and Ex-Governor Sindh in a TV show told that it may have foreign handlers. Foreign press pinpointed that Army is behind it. But here I just mention role of Pakistani divided private media who is telecasting ball to ball commentary from last 15 days. Why they are sacrificing their huge advertisements? Who will pay their salaries for august? Marathon transmissions are there along with the bankruptcies of their anchors and intellectuals. From the twisted statement of Javed Hasmi till concocted stories regarding ISPR’s press release sensationalism and twisted facts are part of marathon transmissions. Just imagine, source of many breaking news is Twitter these days which has many fake accounts.  It looks that script writer is following lawyer movement coverage of 2007 -9 and Tahreer Squire Agitation of Egypt. Interestingly one of the leaders of marches is also referring Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. But smartly, he is not telling end story of that so-called revolution to public which had ended at an army rule. Here below, am reproducing an article which will explain twists of electronic and social media.

Corporate greed, sensationalism and an irresponsible media

By Dr. Altaf Ullah Khan Published: October 22, 2010

“Exaggeration is truth that has lost its temper.” Khalil Gibran.

We live in a world of exaggeration. A world blinded by megalomania. We are getting blinder every passing day. We are a case of collective schizophrenia. It is one of the most dangerous ailments of all, but are we the only ones that are blind. We are surely the damned ones.

Read the full article yourself @

http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/2385/corporate-greed-sensationalism-and-an-irresponsible-media/

Current Crisis in Pakistan: Reality is stronger than perception

Current Crisis in Pakistan

 Reality is stronger than perception

Battle of power struggle is once again going on in Pakistan. Everyone knew about forces that are not happy with the first peaceful democratic transition in Pakistan. Shades of local, regional and international power players are visible. From mid 1960s some regional and international power players are deadly against from growing Pak-China relations. In his recent autobiography Indian Ex Foreign Minister Natwar Singh criticized Z A Bhutto for developing Pak China relations. Instead of all odds, Pak china relations are growing day by day. Apart from regional and international actors there are local forces in Pakistan who neither accept rule of law nor supremacy of constitution and parliament. So there are multiple factors involved in current crisis. If one tries to deconstruct the perception than one has to depend on facts or realities.

1.  Marchers are beneficiaries of 2002 rigged election of Musharraf.

2.  Marchers failed to take millions of people on roads

3.  Policy to use threat of resignations from elected assemblies failed due to double standards of PTI. They are still reluctant to resign from KPK where they are in power. PTI member neither resign from KPK nor from Sindh and the Punjab. Reluctance in Resignations of KPK members remain hunt PTI policy.

4.  In famous Sheikh Rasheed and Jamshed Dasti also announced their resignations in the public meetings of PTI but still both are reluctant.

5.  Government failed to resolve F.I.R issue of model town incident.

6.  Imran Khan’s written apology in Court from Ex Chief Justice through his lawyer Hamid Khan and post apology rebuttal

7.  Sensational and lofty claims by both IK and TQ and sorry, sorry statements

8.  Failures of Imran Khan’s appeals regarding Civil disobedience, withdrawing money from Pakistani banks, promoting money laundering, etc

9.  Over emphasis on resignations from PM and CM instead of electoral reforms

10.                   Links of release of Musharraf with both marches  

The drama is near to end, whatsoever is the result but it will be remembered as another naked war of power for sure.  

Double standards of so-called independent electronic media in Pakistan

Double standards of so-called 

independent electronic media

 in Pakistan

Just imagine role of our so-called supper media. on the one hand instead of court orders GEO is still almost closed but on the other hand supper media is raising his voice for FIR of model town. they cannot raise voice for fellow media but they are independent enough to fix government. remember, like east Pakistan's events, future historian will right about this contradiction. you can make fool your viewers for a while only. History will remember these anchors and media owners etc Otherwise for sure. it is one of the shameful acts of our media and journalist organizations. You cannot stop future zamier niazi for writing on it. after apologising and giving fine and court orders situation is still stand still.

Mushraff & Bugti: You reap what you sow

You reap what you sow

Today is 26^th august and it is 8^th death anniversary of  the controversial Akbar Bugti who was killed in the age of 79 during hey days of Musharaff in 2006. He was 13^th Governor of Baluchistan (Feb 15^th 1973 till Jan 3^rd 1974), 5^th Chief Minister of Baluchistan (Feb 4^th 1989 till August 6^th 1990) and 19^th Tumandar of his Bugti Tribe.  He was not only controversial in Pakistani politics but also had scandalous fame among Baloch nationalists especially NAP. His critical views regarding leftist NAP, Bazenjo, Mengal, Marri are part of history. In 2007, a senior nationalist cum leftist Baloch leader himself told me that ‘we were against bugti but now we cannot organize a public meeting without his picture in background’. Killing of Sardar Bugti is among notorious 4 examples of good governance during Musharff era. The other three were 1- rigged election 2002 (MQM, IK, Qadari, Sheikh Rasheed and Gujrati Chudhries will not talk about it as they were major beneficiaries) 2- May 12 killings 3- Red Mosque mishandlings. Just imagine, today is a hearing of Mushraff Case too.  You reap what you sow. Era of Mushraff is remembered as an era which weakened Pakistani institutions from within especially Parliament, Army and Courts. 

Minus One Formula: A Favorite Pie of Establishment

Minus One FormulaA Favorite Pie of Establishment

After two unsuccessful efforts establishment is again ready to test minus one formula these days. From 2007 till 2009 it was for the betterment of Judiciary. But it did not work and the State had to reinstate Chief Justice Iftiqar Muhammad Chudhry finally. Its 2^nd victim was President Asif Ali Zardari but this time not for the betterment of judiciary but for Good Governance. After so many attempts, minus one formula did not succeed and President Zardari completed his term. But still there are forces who still want to test notorious minus one formula. Why minus one formula is still a favorite pie for establishment again and again. Its new victim is Nawaz Sharief. This time it is neither for the betterment of Judiciary nor for the Good Governance but for national Government. What will we gain from applying that formula? Bogus arguments in favor of minus one formula remain same either it works against Chudhry or Zardari or Nawaz.Instead of emphasizing on the issues of Justice, Good Governance and reconciliation why we waste our time on such issues which only satisfy insecurities of certain people.

 

New Review of Mollana Obaidullah Sindhi in Jang by Anwer Sen Roy

New Review of Mollana Obaidullah Sindhi

 in Jang by Anwer Sen Roy

Sole distributor READINGS Lhore. One can book his copy even online at www.readings.com.pk or can order at 111126657

Click here and read

http://magazine.jang.com.pk/detail_article.asp?id=24489

We Donot Need Enemies

New champions of democracy and arch of terrorism

New champions of democracy and arch of terrorism

Now days, we have some new supporters of democracy and revolution. TQ and Ik are at forefront while Sheikh Rashid, Gujrati Chudhries, APML, MWM and MQM are in 2^nd line. The common factor between all players is dictator Musharff. They all participated in notorious rigged election of 2002 yet these days they are struggling for a free and fair election process. Both have a powerful support in So-called Free Media (private media) so it might be a project to access power of media as a parallel pillar in power politics of Pakistan. In both processions in spite of lofty claims (million marches) few thousand people are participating but national and some international media is giving extensive compassionate coverage.

It is not the first time in Pakistan. There is a list of events where unconstitutional methods were adopted in past. In all such events we can easily draw a foreign link too. So is the current issue.

Read and enjoy. Article is Published in weekly HumShari..Issue 18 August

http://humshehrionline.com/?p=6625#sthash.H1uITVTB.dpbs

Download from here

Iqbal, Jinnah, Gandhi & failed Civil disobedience Movement: A rejoinder for IK

Iqbal, Jinnah, Gandhi & failed Civil disobedience Movement: A rejoinder for IK

Ik is among the important political actors in Pakistan and His party got 3^rd position in 2013 elections which he snatched from MQM. Last day he did a speech which raised some questions. His speech was in frustration or in search of finding respectable retreat or a calculated move, but it is not the subject here. Before this speech we have no example in recent past except Altaf Hussein’s abrupt speeches. May be both have same advisors. Here I need to deconstruct myth of disobedience movement, a metaphor used by Ik recently in his 17 August speech.  What was the stand of numerous important leaders like Allama Iqbal, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Moti lal Nehru, C R Das, Mahatma Gandhi, Aine Besant etc regarding Satya Garah (disobedience movement). I am reproducing my article published in Express (Karachi edition only) at 14 August 2014.

Muslim league and congress had created two Nation States with a political cum constitutional struggle in 1947. Right from early 20^th century we have two mindsets in our political history. One mindset was ready to use even minimum democratic spaces available in given circumstances and the other mindset wanted to use unconstitutional methods as a weapon against rulers as well as State. There are very sacred names in it but in analysis we have to show little cruelty.Those who boycott elections during 1920s either ruined themselves in history or later on they had to join both parties as subservient players.

In August, 67 years back, after an agreement at 3^rd June 1947 British parliament passed a law, Act of independence 1947 and created two new Nation States, Pakistan and India. At that point Congress demanded division of the Punjab and Bengal on religious basis. Just imagine, the demand came from secular Congress and it was passed by a parliament who claimed that it was mother of democracy.  The world witnessed not only unprecedented killings and rioting but also migration of 20 million Muslim, Hindus & Sikhs. It was Quid e Azam Muhammad Ali jinnah who remained reluctant on the issue of division of Bengal and the Punjab.Why British parliament failed to access fatal impacts of partition of Bengal & the Punjab is still haunting all rational beings especially people of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.  

In the first half of 20^th century numerous parties were in struggle. Some were active at provincial level and few at federal level.  From Act of India 1919 British Indian administration introduced selective system of elections at provincial level. Franchise was limited and less than 16% population had right to vote. At that particular moment, Mohan Das Gandhi in 1920 launched Satya garah (Disobedience movement). Jinnah was, at that time member of All India Congress and all India Muslim league. In that period numerous people could join more than one party. In 1920, K M Minshi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and two dozen people left Congress when under the pressure of Mahatma Gandhi Congress adopted unconstitutional methods on the name of boycott of British. in early 1920s, under Act of 1919 an election process had been started. There were two mindsets regarding participation in provincial elections. one was in favour of boycott and other wanted to join it with reservations. In 1922, when Khilafat, Hijrat, Non-cooperation movements failed than Congress split again and Motilal Nehru, C R das like people made Swaraj Party. That party participated in elections instead of opposition of Mahatma. Interestingly All India Central Khilafat committee also followed Gandhi ji yet numerous provincial khilafat committees esp. Punjab Khilafat committee did not follow Delhi and their leaders participated in provincial elections throughout 1920s.  In the final decades Muslim League & Congress played their cards smartly by participating in elections yet those who boycott assemblies either rejected in politics or later on they had to join both parties. Allama Iqbal & Jinnah was among those who participated in elections while Mahatma Gandhi boycotts elections. Congress did Stya Garah 3 times and it proved continuous failures. Due to satya Garah of early 1920s Congress was divided in two sections. In 1930 Mahatma again did salt march. Also that Salt march was a failure (read patrick French Partition of India:Liberty or death) yet the movement finished at notorious Gandhi-Irun Packt of 1931. 3rd Satya Garah was Quit India movement which fesseled out in less than three weeks.  That Movement created ample space for Muslim league. 

Read the complete article here

http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/index.aspx?Issue=NP_KHI&Page=Magazine_Page016&Date=20140814&Pageno=16&View=1

For complete unpublished version u can click here
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2014/08/constitution-law-democracy-and-august.html

Myth of Civil Disobedience & IK

Myth of Civil Disobedience & IK

Our intellectuals at media have no idea of civil disobedience movement and its pathetic failure but they are as usual either relying on wikipedia or mixing it with salt movement of 1930. what a shame. Civil disobedience movement was started in 1920 and it was jinnah who opposed it while Iqbal did not join it too.

Civil disobedient of 1920s was a failed movement. It was first presented by Mahatma Gandhi in Home Rule League meeting where Aine Besant opposed it and according to Kanji Dawarka Das (Ten Years to Freedom)  Aine told Mahatma, if ever you succeed , even then you would be its first victim. After that meeting Mahatma presented it in Nagpur session of Congress in 1920. At that meeting, Quaid e Azam left Congress. Allama Iqbal & jinnah had reservations so they opposed it. The movement failed when after Chura Churi incident Mahatma unilaterally called off it in 1922. Mian abdul Bari was the first person who raised his voice and declared unilateral act of Gandhi a dictatorial act. Than Congress leaders like C.R.Das , Moti Lal Nehru and many more left Congress and formed Swaraj Party.

So Ik left path of Iqbal and Jinnah and adopted path of Mahatma. In 21^st century even Mahatma cannot repeat it. He fails to find a way of respectable retreat. Gulu Journalists and Gulu Khans are his weakness but in next two days he will try to find new ways of retreat. In this process poor Khan is losing his credibility. 
Political Parties, Government, State & Media should give IK a Shut up Call. What he said is important but its timing is more important. Is it a calculated move? What are the motives? Just rethink
Tomorrow is a session of parliament. Including Musharaf case two cases r in Supreme Court. Ik and Qadari will use this opportunity. Role of media will be important. Be Aware of Gulu media

Flipside of Azadi March. King ...Gulu Khans and Gulu Anchors

If a leader forgets his followers than what can you expect from him. The King Khan is leading a march and he came from Lhore to capital at 15th August. The moment he entered in capital, one of the wagons of his supporters fall in a deep pit near Shakarparian. 10 workers were killed and at that moment IK sent his condolence by twitter. They were supporters and participants of PTI azadi march yet in speeches not a single speaker paid condolence for them. IK, the Captain also forgot them and in his speech we hear about Gujranwala incident in which no one was killed yet IK did not say a single word about his 10 workers who lost their lives in the procession. Gulu-Khans remained busy in raising slogans against sitting elected government while Gulu-Anchors too were not ready to talk about loss of 10 lives.

Constitution, Law, democracy and august 14th

Unpublished

Constitution, Law, democracy and august 14th

Today is 68^th Birthday of Pakistan. Muslim league and congress created two countries with a political cum constitutional struggle. Yet right from early 20^th century we have two mind sets. One who was ready to use even minimum democratic spaces available in given circumstances and the other who want to use unconstitutional methods as a weapon against rulers.  Those who boycott elections either ruined in history or had to join both parties as subservient players.

In August, 67 years back after an agreement at 3^rd June British parliament passed a law, Act of independence 1947 and created two new Nation States, Pakistan and India. At that point Congress demanded division of the Punjab and Bengal on religious basis. Just imagine, the demand came from secular Congress and it was passed by a parliament who claimed that it was mother of democracy.  The world witnessed not only unprecedented killings and rioting but also migration of 20 million Muslim, Hindus & Sikhs. Why British parliament failed to access fatal impacts of partition of Bengal & the Punjab is still haunting all rational beings especially people of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan.  

In the first half of 20^th century numerous parties were in struggle. Some were active at provincial level and few at federal level.  From Act of India 1919 British Indian administration introduced selective system of elections at provincial level. There were two mind sets regarding provincial elections and at that point numerous people left All India congress due to that development. In 1920, K M Minshi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah and two dozen people left Congress when under the pressure of Mahatma Gandhi Congress adopted unconstitutional methods on the name of boycott of British. In 1922, when Khilafat, Hijrat, Non-cooperation movements failed than Congress split again and Motilal Nehru, C R das like people made Swaraj Party. That party participated in elections instead of opposition of Mahatama. Interestingly All India Central Khilafat committee also followed Gandhi ji yet numerous provincial khilafat committees esp. Punjab Khilafat committee did not listen Delhi and their leaders participated in provincial elections throughout 1920s.  In the final decades Muslim League & Congress played their cards smartly by participating in elections yet those who boycott assemblies either rejected or had to join both parties. Allama Iqbal & Jinnah was among those who participated in elections while Mahatma Gandhi boycotts elections.

Download and read whole article here

Consciousness and Intellectuals

Consciousness and Intellectuals 

click & read

http://www.express.pk/story/278688/

Newspaper link is

http://www.express.com.pk/epaper/PoPupwindow.aspx?newsID=1102365827&Issue=NP_LHE&Date=20140812

Secret Affairs: Use of Religion (Islam) in National & International Politics

Rationality vs. State Craft

Secret Affairs
Use of Religion (Islam) in national & International Politics

These days a Canadian Islamist is in Pakistan and with the help of a pro-Taliban Khan, he is ready to initiate a revolution. The resonance of this revolution will be heard from Pak-afghan borders to Syria. Revolutionaries and freedom lovers will gather in the capital at 14^th August 2014 and will announce “New Pakistan” at 15^th August which is Indian Independence Day. In this scenario it will be interesting to know history of misuses of Islam by national and international power players. The man who wrote this is a British citizen and he wrote a book “Secret Affairs: Britain's collusion with radical Islam”. Today in British newspaper Independent, a reviewer explain it as follows

“The part played by officials in the growth of terrorism in Britain is a relatively small-scale affair compared to what went on abroad. Successive UK governments had nurtured and promoted extremists for reasons of realpolitik often at a terrible cost to the population of those countries. Mark Curtis, in his book on "Britain's collusion with radical Islam", charts this liaison.

Some more reviews will help you to understand it.

“Startling and deeply disturbing evidence about how, in an effort to preserve declining influence in the world’s oil-producing regions, the government has lent frequent and critical support to the states that have been the primary sponsors of radical Islam and the terrorism that it spawns...’
Noam Chomsky

“Sensational in the best sense, Secret Affairs examines the darkest corners of the imperial past to reveal the truth behind today’s news.”
John Pilger

“This valuable and important book presents a far more accurate and balanced picture than the shallow simplicities fed by Bush’s so-called war on terror.”
Michael Meacher

Playing with religions and ideologies is not new but after the creation of Nation Sate phenomenon it is unprecedentedly in use by modern Statecraft. Small or relatively less influential Sates use it internally or at their borders but super powers use it extensively as foreign policy initiatives. That is the message mark Curtis gives us in his book “Secret Affairs: Britain's collusion with radical Islam”. He uses case study of Britain and Islam yet you can replace Britain with Russia, US, Germany, France etc. and likewise you can replace Islam with Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism etc. As everything is fair in love & war so these powers are smart enough to play with Religions, Sub-religions (Sects or School of thoughts), Nationalisms, Sub-nationalisms, Languages & Dialects. While reading this work, don’t stick at Britain and Islam but tries to understand the phenomenon. One should remember that unlike Judaism and Hinduism, religion of Islam means 1.6 billion people and 57 Nation States (49 with clear Muslim majority and 8 with significant Muslim population). So when big powers play with Islam, it is primarily due to their significant presence in numerous Nation States rather than their Faith. For instance imagine, if Islam have presence in two or three countries like Hinduism than big powers have no interest in it. Islamists interpret this fact oppositely and instead of emphasizing on heavy Muslim presence in the world of Nation States, they twist it smartly towards Faith, Islam. As Marx did with Hegel, one has to turn that Islamist twist on his head.

Mark Curtis is a British historian and journalist who studied at the London School of Economics, before becoming a researcher at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. He is a former director of the World Development Movement. n 1998 Mark Curtis published The Great Deception: Anglo-American Power and World Order, a work whose stated goal was to shed light on various myths of Anglo-American power in the post-Cold War era. In 2008 he wrote a book under the title “Dirty Wars: Britain's Collusion with Radical Islam” (288 pages) and it was published by Verso. In 2010, perhaps he expanded that work and wrote a book “Secret Affairs: Britain's collusion with radical Islam” published by Serpent’s Tail, an imprint of Profile Books Ltd London. In 2012 the publisher published its updated edition (462 pages). Why the publisher replaced its name from “Dirty wars” to “secret affairs” is an interesting question. May be it shows the difference between blunt Verso and moderate Profile Books.

Introduction to Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam

During the recent upheavals in the Middle East, known as the ‘Arab Spring’, one important aspect of British foreign policy has been ignored by the mainstream media: British collusion with radical Islamic actors to promote oil and other commercial or strategic interests. Indeed, this policy has a long history, which this book will tell, and has contributed not only to the rise of radical Islam itself but also to that of international terrorism, which the British government’s new National Security Strategy identifies as the country’s biggest threat. The intelligence agencies say they have prevented twelve terrorist plots in Britain over the past decade, and claim there are 2,000 known terrorist suspects organised in 200 networks.
Counterterrorism officials have also warned of a ‘huge spectacular’, and shooting and hostage-taking raids involving gunmen with bombs. The extent of this threat is all too easily exaggerated for political purposes – the former director of MI5, Stella Rimington, has, for example, accused the government of ‘frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties’. But Britain, along with many other countries, clearly does face a threat from radical Islamic groups. The July 2005 London bombings, which killed 52 people, constituted the first ‘successful’ attack by Islamists in Britain, and the British courts have convicted over 80 individuals who planned to kill British citizens in acts of terrorism. Meanwhile, Britain’s most senior military figure has called the threat posed by Islamist extremism ‘the struggle of our generation – perhaps our Thirty Years’ War’.
How we got to this point has been the subject of much speculation as to how ‘home-grown’ British citizens can turn to terrorist violence and be prepared to blow themselves up. Right-wing commentators typically blame liberal culture, arguing that laws have not been tough enough to clamp down on extremism, or even that multi-culturalism has made it impossible to challenge people of a different faith. The government has been widely attacked since 7/7 for failing to clamp down on a number of Islamist radicals in Britain – most notoriously, Abu Hamza, the former preacher at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, who was allowed to openly encourage numerous young Muslims to espouse violent jihad. For others, and many on the political Left, the terrorist threat has been fuelled by British military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan and Whitehall’s siding with Israel in its conflict in occupied Palestine. These are surely major factors: in April 2005, for example, the Joint Intelligence Committee stated, in a report leaked the following year, that the Iraq conflict ‘has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term. It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.’ This followed a joint Home Office/Foreign Office report, called ‘Young Muslims and Extremism’, which was also leaked and which stated that there was ‘a perceived “double standard”’ among many Muslims in Britain who believe that British foreign policy, in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir and Chechnya is ‘against Islam’.
But there is a big missing link in this commentary, and Britain’s contribution to the rise of the terrorist threat goes well beyond the impacts its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have had on some individuals. The more important story is that British governments, both Labour and Conservative, have, in pursuing the so-called national interest’ abroad, colluded for decades with radical Islamic forces, including terrorist organisations. They have connived with them, worked alongside them and sometimes trained and financed them, in order to promote specific foreign policy objectives. Governments have done so in often desperate attempts to maintain Britain’s global power in the face of increasing weakness in key regions of the world, being unable to unilaterally impose their will and lacking other local allies. Thus the story is intimately related to that of Britain’s imperial decline and the attempt to maintain influence in the world.
With some of these radical Islamic forces, Britain has been in a permanent, strategic alliance to secure fundamental, long-term foreign policy goals; with others, it has been a temporary marriage of convenience to achieve specific short-term outcomes. The US has been shown by some analysts to have nurtured Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaida, but Britain’s part in fostering Islamist terrorism is invariably left out of these accounts, and the history has never been told. Yet this collusion has had more impact on the rise of the terrorist threat than either Britain’s liberal culture or the inspiration for jihadism provided by the occupation of Iraq. The closest that the mainstream media have got to this story was in the period immediately after 7/7, when sporadic reports revealed links between the British security services and Islamist militants living in London. Some of these individuals were reportedly working as British agents or informers while being involved in terrorism overseas.
Some were apparently being protected by the British security services while being wanted by foreign governments. This is an important but only a small part of the much bigger picture which mainly concerns Britain’s foreign policy. Whitehall has been colluding with two sets of Islamist actors which have strong connections with each other. In the first group are the major state sponsors of Islamist terrorism, the two most important of which are key British allies with whom London has long-standing strategic partnerships – Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Foreign policy planners have routinely covertly collaborated with the Saudis and the Pakistanis in their foreign policy, while both states are now seen as key allies in what was until recently described as the War on Terror. Yet the extent of Riyadh’s and Islamabad’s nurturing of radical Islam around the world dwarfs that of other countries, notably official enemies such as Iran or Syria. As we shall see, Saudi Arabia, especially after the oil price boom of 1973 which propelled it to a position of global influence, has been the source of billions of dollars that have flowed to the radical Islamic cause, including terrorist groups, around the world. A good case can be made that al-Qaida is partly a creature of Britain’s Saudi ally, given the direct links between Saudi intelligence and Bin Laden from the early years of the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Pakistan, meanwhile, has been a major sponsor of various terrorist groups since General Zia ul-Haq seized power in a military coup in 1977 – military support brought some groups into being, after which they were nurtured with arms and training. The 7/7 bombers and many other would-be British terrorists are partly the product of subsequent decades of official Pakistani patronage of these groups. And today it is the Pakistan-based networks which pose the largest threat to Britain and which are at the centre of global terrorism, having become perhaps even more important than al-Qaida, despite the Western media’s focus on Bin Laden. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are partly British creations: Saudi Arabia was bloodily forged in the 1920s with British arms and diplomatic support, while Pakistan was hived off from India in 1947 with the help of British planners. These countries, while being very different in many ways, share a undamental lack of legitimacy other than as ‘Muslim states’. The price paid by the world for their patronage of particularly extreme versions of Islam – and British support of them – has been very great indeed. Given their alliance with Britain, it is no surprise that British leaders have not called for Islamabad and Riyadh to be bombed alongside Kabul and Baghdad, since the War on Terror is clearly no such war at all, but rather a conflict with enemies specially designated by Washington and London. This has left much of the real global terrorist infrastructure intact, posing further dangers to the British and world public.
The second group of Islamist actors with whom Britain has colluded is extremist movements and organisations. Among the most influential of the movements that appear throughout this book is the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt in 1928 and has developed into an influential worldwide network, and the Jamaat-i-Islami (Islamic Party), founded in British India in 1941, which has become a major political and ideological force in Pakistan. Britain has also covertly worked alongside the Darul Islam (House of Islam) movement in Indonesia, which has provided important ideological underpinnings to the development of terrorism in that country. Though Britain has mainly collaborated with Sunni movements in promoting its foreign policy, it has also at times not been averse to conniving with Shia forces, such as with Iranian Shia radicals in the 1950s, and before and after the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979.
Britain has, however, also worked in covert operations and wars with a variety of outright jihadist terrorist groups, sometimes linked to the movements just mentioned. These groups have promoted the most reactionary of religious and political agendas and routinely committed atrocities against civilians. ollusion of this type began in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when Britain, along with the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, covertly supported the resistance to defeat the Soviet occupation of the country. Military, financial and diplomatic backing was given to Islamist forces which, while forcing a Soviet withdrawal, soon organised themselves into terrorist networks ready to strike Western targets. After the jihad in Afghanistan, Britain had privy dealings of one kind or another with militants in various terrorist organisations, including Pakistan’s Harkat ul-Ansar, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and the Kosovo Liberation Army, all of which had strong links to Bin Laden’s al-Qaida. Covert actions have been undertaken with these and other forces in Central Asia, North Africa and Eastern Europe.
Although my argument is that Britain has historically contributed to the development of global terrorism, the current threat to Britain is not simply ‘blowback’, since Whitehall’s collusion with radical Islam is continuing in order to bolster the British position in the Middle East. Planners not only continue their special relationships with Riyadh and Islamabad, but they have also recently been conniving with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Islamists and their supporters in Libya. In a different way, the British are now also in effect collaborating with elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan in a desperate effort to find an exit from an increasingly disastrous war. The roots of British collusion with radical Islam, as we will see in the first chapter, go back to the divide and rule policies promoted during the empire, when British officials regularly sought to cultivate Muslim groups or individuals to counter emerging nationalist forces challenging British hegemony. It is well known that British planners helped create the modern Middle East during and after the First World War by placing rulers in territories drawn up by British planners. But British policy also involved restoring the Caliphate, the leadership of the Muslim world, back to Saudi Arabia, where it would come under British control, a strategy which had tremendous significance for the future Saudi kingdom and the rest of the world. After the Second World War, British planners were confronted with the imminent loss of empire and the rise of two new superpowers, but were determined to maintain as much political and commercial influence in the world as possible. Although Southeast Asia and Africa were important to British planners, largely due to their raw material resources, it was the Middle East, due to its colossal oil reserves, over which London mainly wanted to exert influence. Yet here, a major enemy arose in the form of popular Arab nationalism, led by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, which sought to promote an independent foreign policy and end Middle Eastern states’ reliance on the West. To contain the threat, Britain and the US not only propped up conservative, pro-Western monarchs and feudal leaders but also fomented covert relationships with Islamist forces, notably the Muslim Brotherhood, to destabilise and overthrow the nationalist governments.As Britain withdrew its military forces from the Middle East in the late 1960s, Islamist forces such as the Saudi regime and, once again, the Muslim Brotherhood, were often seen as proxies to maintain British interests in the region, to continue to destabilise communist or nationalist regimes or as ‘muscle’ to bolster pro-British, right-wing governments. By the 1970s, Arab nationalism had been virtually defeated as a political force, partly thanks to Anglo–American opposition; it was largely replaced by the rising force of radical Islam, which London again often saw as a handy weapon to counter the remnants of secular nationalism and communism in key states such as Egypt and Jordan. After the Afghanistan war in the 1980s spawned a variety of terrorist forces, including al-Qaida, terrorist atrocities began to be mounted first in Muslim countries and then, in the 1990s, in Europe and the US. Yet, crucially for this story, Britain continued to see some of these groups as useful, principally as proxy guerilla forces in places as diverse as Bosnia, Azerbaijan, Kosovo and Libya; there, they were used either to help break up the Soviet Union and secure major oil interests or to fight nationalist regimes, this time those of Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia and Muammar Qadafi in Libya. Throughout this period, many jihadist groups and individuals found refuge in Britain, some gaining political asylum, while continuing involvement in terrorism overseas. Whitehall not only tolerated but encouraged the development of ‘Londonistan’– the capital acting as a base and organising centre for numerous jihadist groups – even as this provided a de facto ‘green light’ to that terrorism. I suggest that some elements, at least, in the British establishment may have allowed some Islamist groups to operate from London not only because they provided information to the security services but also because they were seen as useful to British foreign policy, notably in maintaining a politically divided Middle East – a long-standing goal of imperial and postwar planners – and as a lever to influence foreign governments’ policies.
Radical Islamic forces have been seen as useful to Whitehall in five specific ways: as a global counter-force to the ideologies of secular nationalism and Soviet communism, in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan; as ‘conservative muscle’ within countries to undermine secular nationalists and bolster pro-Western regimes; as ‘shock troops’ to destabilise or overthrow governments; as proxy military forces to fight wars; and as ‘political tools’ to leverage change from governments. Although Britain has forged long-standing special relationships with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, it has not been in strategic alliance with radical Islam as such. Beyond these two states, Britain’s policy has been to collaborate with Islamist forces as a matter of ad hoc opportunism, though it should be said that this has been rather regular. Time and again, the declassified planning documents reveal that British officials were perfectly aware that their collaborators were anti-Western and anti-imperialist, devoid of liberal social values or actually terrorists. Whitehall did not work with these forces because it agreed with them but simply because they were useful at specific moments. Islamist groups appeared to have collaborated with Britain for the same reasons of expediency and because they shared the same hatred of popular nationalism as the British. These forces opposed British imperialism in the Middle East just as they do the current occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, but they have not generally opposed the neo-liberal economic policies pursued by the pro-Western, British-backed regimes in the region. Crucially, British collusion with radical Islam has also helped promote two big geo-strategic foreign policy objectives. The first is influence and control over key energy resources, always recognised in the British planning documents as the number one priority in the Middle East. British operations to support or side with Islamist forces have generally aimed at maintaining in power or installing governments that will promote Western-friendly oil policies. The second objective has been maintaining Britain’s place within a pro-Western global financial order. The Saudis have invested billions of dollars in the US and British economies and banking systems, and Britain and the US have similarly large investments and trade with Saudi Arabia; it is these that are being protected by the strategic alliance with Riyadh. Since the period of 1973–75, when British officials secretly made a range of deals with the Saudis to invest their oil revenues in Britain, as we shall see, there has been a tacit Anglo–American–Saudi pact to maintain this financial order, which has entailed London and Washington turning a blind eye to whatever else the Saudis spend their money on. This has been accompanied, on the Saudi side, by a strategy of bankrolling Islamist and jihadist causes and a ‘Muslim’ foreign policy aimed at maintaining the Saud family in power.
In promoting its strategy, Britain has routinely collaborated with the US, which has a history of similar collusion with radical Islam. Given declining British power, Anglo–American operations changed from being genuinely joint enterprises in the early postwar years to ones where Whitehall was the junior partner, often providing specialist covert forces in operations managed by Washington. At times, Britain has acted as the de facto covert arm of the US government, doing the dirty work which Washington could not, or did not want to do. This said, the British use of Muslim forces to achieve policy objectives goes back to the empire, thus predating the US. Equally, in the postwar world, Whitehall has sometimes acted independently of Washington, to pursue distinctly British interests, such as the plots to overthrow Nasser in the 1950s or the promotion of Londonistan in the 1990s.
My argument is not that radical Islam and violent jihadism are British or Western ‘creations’, since this would overstate Western influence in regions like the Middle East and Southeast Asia, where numerous domestic and international factors have shaped these forces over a long period. But British policy has contributed to the present threat of terrorism, although this dare not be mentioned in mainstream British culture. It is only the anti-Soviet jihad in 1980s Afghanistan that is well-known as contributing to the emergence of terrorist groups. Even here, much more attention has been paid to the covert US role than the British. As for the rest of history, there is virtually complete silence, similar to the darkness that prevails over other episodes in Britain’s recent foreign policy, where less than the noblest of intentions were in evidence. The British public has been deprived of key information to understand the roots of current terrorism and the role that government institutions, who pose as our protectors, have played in endangering us.
My understanding of Islamic radicalism is based on the definition of the widely-respected French expert, Olivier Roy, in that it involves a return of all Muslims to the true tenets of Islam (usually called ‘Salafism’ – ‘the path of the ancestors’ – or ‘fundamentalism’) and a political militancy that advocates jihad, in the sense of a ‘holy war’ against the enemies of Islam, who could include Muslim rulers. Roy defines Islamism as a brand of modern fundamentalism that seeks, through political action, to create an Islamic state by imposing Islamic (‘sharia’) law as the basis for all society’s laws. Islamists see Islam not merely as a religion, but as a political ideology which should be integrated into all aspects of society. With this analysis in mind, throughout this book I use the terms ‘radical Islamic’, ‘Islamist’ and ‘fundamentalist’ interchangeably. ‘Jihadists’ are understood as those engaged in violent activities to achieve Islamic states. This book results partly from several months’ research at the National Archives in London, where I looked at the British declassified files on policy towards countries in the Islamic world. he research for a subject as large as this can perhaps never be exhaustive, and there are also many unknowns in British policy in some of the episodes considered here. I invite others to complete the picture in these areas.
 

 Contents & first 6 pages & Titles