The bold narrative but have twists, misconceptions, biases regarding history and politics of Pakistan which is counter productive.
A Human Rights Perspective on Pakistan: A Conversation with Asma Jahangir
Published on May 19, 2016
Although both Hussain Haqqani & Asma Jhangir argued boldly but in their historical analysis they neither mention colonial legacy nor refer cold war between US and USSR (1946-1992) which looks strange. Policies regarding FATA, Gilgit Baltistan, larger than State administrative power, Use of religion, sectarianism, extremism have linkages with colonial legacy and cold war politics. Can we analysis FATA without understanding its genesis? How British forces annexed Afghanistan in 2nd anglo-afghan war of 1879 and installed a hand picked King after killing Sher Khan is a known fact. Formation of independent Afghanistan, establishment of FATA and carving of a new province NWFP were part of a one dimensional colonial policy and Pakistan got these bad policies as gifts of Empire. Afghanistan signed Durandline agreement in 1894 and at least two times Afghanistan rulers had endorsed it in 1919 and 1938. But after creation of Pakistan Afghan government took reverse position. It was Afghanistan that neither accepted Pakistan as sovereign state nor accepted durandline as international border and it is beginning of another cold war between two countries. But you will not find any single statement regarding this Pak-Afghan background. Both personalities did talk about FATA but missed the background. They even fail to talk about infected Afghan Jihad and its impact, post Geneva withdrawal without any contingency plan which looks strange too.
Religious extremism is another issue which was discussed extensively in this talk without mentioning its back ground. in our region During 19th century and in first half of 20th century British and German agencies used religion against each other especially in our region. Resonance of Hindu conspiracy was recorded in infamous sedition report of 1917 prepared by British officers known as Sedition committee, 1918; . It is not the lonely evidence of use of religion or sub-religions in State craft and if we read Mi6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service, 1909-1949 you can well understand why religion especially Islam remain important in disintegrating numerous regions including Middle East. In that game both UK and France were partners in arms. Since beginning of 1920s we witnessed extensive use of Islam in favor or against communism. From central Asia, Far-East, Africs, Middle East till Pak-Afghan-Iran regions Islamist groups were strengthen by UK and USSR . The policy continued after 2nd WW in the leadership of new master USA. In 1976 Pak-Afghan-Iran region had a chance to reverse Durand Line policy and it is recorded by Benazier Bhutto in the book FOREIGN POLICY IN PERSPECTIVE. But all the three rulers i-e Shah Iran, President Dawood & Z A Bhutto were removed smartly . Who's who were involved in those events from France, USSR, UK and USA are known facts. So late 1970s was beginning of sectarian wars in the region. How can we analysis rise of religious extremism without mentioning above stated events?
They talk about Ahmadis but failed to mention for once Brelvis who are in majority but still have no say in Pakistan. They are followers of Sufis but sufi literature is still out of textbooks since colonial times.
Both personalities pinpointed civil military tensions but did not mention support of UK and USA for dictators in Pakistan. During last military rule in Pakistan (period of General Musharaff ) we witnessed huge support not only from London and Washington but also from donor community. He was the military dictator who expelled both popular leaders yet enjoyed the ride. The double play or double standards regarding state of democracy in Pakistan by US and UK remained out of discussion.
Support for Altaf Hussain was another weak area where discussion could not match the caliber once again. Pinpointing Pakistan's Military Intelligence (M.I) behind the ban of Altaf may be true yet none of them did not mention neither genesis of same person by General Zia nor barbaric rule of MQM in Karachi.
Although recording of question answer part was poor yet in an answer Asma reminded foreign journalist regarding bad impact of Patriot type laws on the struggle for human rights. Her support for lower judiciary in comparison of higher judiciary looks strange but it may be because of her family background. Regarding Panama Leaks H H mentioned Offshore company of A Q Khan and Asma exposed stand of opposition too yet both failed to acknowledge role of EU in this regard.
In this talk you can easily find anti-Punjab syndrome. The most interesting part was an argument raised by H H and praised by the A J i-e the stigma of Indian agent is for people/intellectuals/leaders of small provinces while stigma of CIA agent is for Punjabis. There are hundred of examples of Punjabis who were called Indian agent by the State in last 68 years including left workers but praise for a CIA agent was visible in the argument. A J supported democratic continuity yet called Punjab government, the most conservative provincial government in Pakistan. On the one hand A J called Baluchistan government in total control of army and in the presence of this argument she contradict her stand regarding the Punjab government. The talk has many contradictory statements so it is better to listen it first. This may be the best example to understand gapes in counter narrative itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment