Connect with us

Opinion/Writings

Kashmir: A brief history of political lust

Published

on

Kashmir: a brief history of political lust

“If there is heaven on Earth, it is here, it is here, it is here!” – Firdaus

Little did the heaven know about man’s greed – so little that it carved the heaven into a slaughterhouse where heroes live and rise from time to time, just to be buried forever.

Kashmir, ever since Partition of August 1947 has become an opportunity for Indian political movements to dump their political propagandas, blind to the fact that Kashmir has always belonged to Pakistan. With over three wars fought over the ‘heaven on earth’ – thousands of innocents have lost their lives just for India’s ever increasing lust for supremacy over it’s neighbor. Lust – the thing about lust is that it only grows destroying the concept of believing, fracturing the very reason to live – it destroys hope.

What Maharaja Hari Singh initiated in 1947 was to leave profound scars on the generations to come. The day he dismissed his Prime Minister, Ram Chandra Kak – the Muslim League knew of the horrors to follow so Quaid-e-Azam wrote Maharaja Hari a letter, that he may acknowledge Jinnah’s apprehension of his decision if he may decide to take it. But what Jinnah forgot was that the Maharaja was now in the pinfold of lustrous perks thrown to him by the Indian government. Maharaja rejected Jinnah’s proposal and just like that, thousands of lives were put on the stake, just like that. The extremists took upon themselves to cleanse Jammu and Kashmir off Muslims and by September 1947, Azad Kashmir Government claimed that over 200,000 Muslims were killed.

Then came the decade of death for the Kashmiris. In 1962, troops from China and India clashed in a territory claimed by both. India’s lust for Kashmir set it into war with China. The infamous Sino-Indian war brought the Hindu government to its knees and shoved their arrogance into the earth. But then again, lust never dies. Just three years after defeat, India entered another war over Kashmir – this time with Pakistan. The 1965 war left hundreds of dead on both sides but the traumas felt by the Kashmiris bid farewell to their desire to live peacefully.

The 1987 state elections saw unity of Muslim leaders against the oppression of India backed groups in Jammu. Numerous Muslim parties formed Muslim Union Front contesting directly against the much stronger National Conference supported by the governing Indian National Congress party. Such lustrous greed ruled the Indian Government that when the Jammu Muslims asked for their rights bloodlessly through elections, they were cheated on. The elections were rigged on a high scale, resulting in Jammu’s attempt for a peaceful plebiscite to crush away. Now, Jammu stood firmly with Kashmir. Even the ruler of National Conference party said:

‘I remember that there was massive rigging in 1987 elections. The losing candidates were declared winners. It shook the ordinary people’s faith in the elections and the democratic process’

The 1990s gave rise to a number of freedom parties who were convinced that the Indian forces would never allow Kashmir to join Pakistan without armed struggle. Indian government wasn’t ready to allow such movements to prosper and decided it was their duty to put down such movements with oppression and persecutions. Hundreds of Kashmiris lost their lives just because they weren’t ready to live under the Indian tyranny. Their children were put into prisons, their men executed and their women sold as slaves if any family member was doubted to be a participant in the freedom movement. Pakistan heard the cries of the helpless when the international organizations decided it was India’s internal affairs. The Kargil War of 1999 pushed the Indian forces to almost defeat but then again, the international organizations couldn’t bear to see the Kashmiris given their rights and US president Bill Clinton forced Pakistan to back up.

Even now, the Kashmiris are brutally murdered because they resist Indian rule. The Indian forces on the grounds of terrorism assassinated Burhan Wani, the freedom fighter who stood up for his people. Thousands showed up to his funeral and a wave of protests initiated. Such is the impact of the rebellion that the Indian government enforced an information black out, raiding newspaper printing facilities and seizing copies of newspapers. Leader of the Indian Opposition, Rajya Sabha Ghulam Nabi Azad in the House is quoted to have said that the unrest in Kashmir was unprecedented, something even the 1990s had not witnessed. Over 50 people have died and more than a thousand injured in the curfew imposed by the Indian forces. Pellet bullets are used on Kashmiri protestors that blind them for life. Social media posts are removed if they support Kashmiris. The international organizations are silent on this matter while Kashmir is slowly transforming into ‘hell on earth’.

***

Have something you want the world to hear?
Say it with Bisouv Opinion: Write for us

Shahzaib Awan

About the author: Shahzaib Awan is the CEO of Bisouv Group and House of Entremuse. He is currently pursuing a bachelors degree in Computer Science from Jacobs University, Germany. He regularly writes for a number of newspapers including The Express Tribune, DAWN, The Nation, and Dusk

Advertisement

Opinion/Writings

Person of the Decade – Raheel Sharif

Bisouv, in its first public issue, salutes the many achievements of the former Chief of Army Staff Raheel Sharif.

Published

on

Raheel Sharif

Through storms of political biases, domestic and foreign insurgencies, and financial and social emergencies, Pakistan has emerged – every time a little stronger. And the people responsible for putting the country in these desperate of situations are plenty and the people responsible for taking the country out of them are, but a few. Bisouv, in its first ever public issue, salutes the latter and in this article, celebrates one of the few – Raheel Sharif.

Currently serving as the first Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition, a 39-nation alliance of Muslim countries headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Raheel Sharif, a former four-star general and Chief of Army Staff (COAS) is arguably the most popular COAS in Pakistan’s history. Born in a country, in which to this day all shots are called, directly or in a de-facto martial law-style, by the military, Raheel Sharif was different – a general who ‘could,’ but never did.

MORE FROM THIS WEEK’S ISSUE: Blinding Justice and a Case of Uniforms

Under his command, the Pakistan Army carried out fierce anti-terrorism operations in North Waziristan in the Operation Zarb-e-Azb, which not only stabilized the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA,) but built the foundation for the government of Pakistan to merge the deprived province into Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa (KP.) Sharif was responsible for expanding the role of paramilitaries, mainly Pakistan Rangers, in the coastal city of Karachi – a move that saw an exceptional decrease in the crime rate in the city and later pulled out the city’s name out of the ‘Most Dangerous Cities in the World’ list. Unlike his predecessors, Sharif wholeheartedly supported the democratically elected government in the deprived, and the largest province of Pakistan, Balochistan and buried the hatred that former dictator Musharraf first initiated in 2006. At the request of the Chinese government and after the Pakistan government’s approval, Sharif created a new brigade-level military unit to help protect and secure the many projects under the Pakistan-China Economic Corridor (CPEC.) Sharif also helped develop Pakistan’s indigenous defence industry, which resulted in the savings of more than $1.14 billion, over a year and half time period

In other feats, under Raheel Sharif, the Pakistan Army operated strictly under its constituted jurisdiction and left foreign, social, and economic policies to the democratically elected civilian government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Under his tenure, Pakistan Army carried out first ever joint military exercises with Russia and supported the government deepen relations with China.

MORE FROM THIS ISSUE: Once a city of gardens, Lahore is now a concrete jungle

Reportedy, Sharif also thwarted a coup attempt in 2014. As disclosed by former United States ambassador to Pakistan Richard Olsen, former head of Pakistan Intelligence Service ISI Zahir-ul-Islam was mobilizing for a coup in September of 2014 during Imran Khan’s infamous Islamabad protest that lasted for months.

“We received information that Zahir-ul-Islam, the DG ISI, was mobilizing for a coup in September of 2014 [during Khan’s protest in Islamabad.] [Army Chief] Raheel [Sharif] blocked it by, in effect, removing Zahir, by announcing his successor,” Olson was quoted in the recently launched book ‘The Battle For Pakistan, The Bitter US Friendship and a Tough Neighborhood’ by Shuja Nawaz in its chapter titling, Mil-to-Mil Relations: Do More. “[Zahir] was talking to the corps commanders and was talking to likeminded army officers… He was prepared to do it and had the chief [Raheel Sharif] been willing, even tacitly, it would have happened. But the chief was not willing, so it didn’t happen.”

Continue Reading

Opinion/Writings

Blinding Justice and a Case of Uniforms

Former dictator and president Pervez Musharraf has been sentenced to death by a special court in a high-treason case. What does it mean for Pakistan and its institutions?

Published

on

General Pervez Musharraf

‘Former Dictator Pervez Musharraf has been sentenced to death,’ read the English newspaper in bold against white, folded cleanly, and displayed on one of many wooden stands that housed every publication from Urdu masalas to the high-end European fashion magazines, ‘The time for democracy is now,’ read another. The Musharraf High-Treason Verdict had taken the country by a storm, so much so, it had everyone talking – some had been left appalled by the traitorous decision to hang the former Chief of Army Staff and President and some welcomed it with open arms, all in all, the public response was mixed, but for the first time in the country’s history, the powerful armed forces were being discussed and this time behind no curtains.

General Pervez Musharraf had been handed down a death sentence by a special court, in absentia, in a high-treason case that took six years to complete. The special court, in its detailed judgment that it published days later, directed law enforcements of the country to apprehend Musharraf, who is currently receiving medical treatment in the United Arab Emirates, to ensure the death sentence is carried out and if the convicted is found dead beforehand, “his corpse be dragged to D-Chowk [in front of the Parliament House,] Islamabad, Pakistan, and be hanged for three days.”

READ MORE: Remembering Pakistan’s first foreign agent Fatima Jinnah

The decision was first of its kind for Pakistan, a country more or less ruled, rather dictated, by the military for most of its history. “It’s almost unbelievable that a former dictator has been sentenced to death in a country where the military enjoy absolute immunity legally, financially, and socially,” commented one Mustafa reading the partially banned newspaper DAWN. “If anything, I am hopeful for the future of the country.” But not everyone shares Mustafa’s sentiments especially the military and the serving government.

The army’s public relations reacted angrily to Musharraf’s verdict, saying in a statement that someone who served the country for over 40 years, fought battles, and made sacrifices in the defense of the country “can surely never be a traitor.” DG ISPR General Asif Ghafoor went on to state that the verdict “[has] been received with a lot of pain and anguish by rank and file of Pakistan Armed Forces,” and noting the military expects justice will be dispensed in line with the constitution saying, “The due legal process seems to have been ignored.”

The serving government under the populist leader Imran Khan has also been critical of the court’s decision. Farogh Naseem, former Minister of Law, went on to say that the government is the process of filing a reference against Judge Waqar Ahmed Seth, one of the three judges responsible for handing Musharraf the death sentence, under Article 209 of the constitution in the Supreme Judicial Council for the inhumane comments that came with the detailed verdict. Imran Khan’s party, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI,) however, wasn’t always in support of Musharraf, so much so, Khan had lambasted the former dictator in a number of public rallies and gatherings before coming into power. In a recorded interview with Hamid Mir, one of Pakistan’s top journalists and anchors, Khan can be heard saying that Musharraf should be hanged for breaking the constitution not once, but twice. “Khan had a change of heart,” commented a legal mind on the condition of anonymity. “The only reason the man is the prime minister of Pakistan is because of the backstage handshake his party has cemented with the military. How else could someone like Khan come into power after only five or six years of political rallies?”

READ MORE: Mr Khan, keep your Naya Pakistan to yourself 

All-in-all, the death sentence handed to Musharraf is unlikely to be carried out right away as he is currently not in the country and has no plans of coming back anytime soon to face the death sentence. Despite that, independent Pakistani analysts believe that for Pakistan, as a whole, the verdict is a good and concrete step towards a true democracy. “The Pakistan Army and its associated parties have been ruling the country directly and indirectly,” commented another legal mind on the same condition of anonymity. “The verdict has shaken the very foundation of this so called “democracy” and has the generals as well as the government running. This is surely a victory for the sane ones. No wonder the verdict has taken the country by a storm.” To some extent, it’s an open secret that the country’s powerful military has been calling the shots ever since Ayub Khan imposed the first ever martial law that the country saw and to this day, the military has never as much as flinched before branding the critical politicians and journalists as ‘traitors’ and ‘foreign agents’ working for either India’s RAW or Israel’s Mossad.

The public response to the verdict was mixed, it rather pleased the general population than anger them, as is Musharraf’s reputation in Pakistan with one section of the population hailing him as a hero who saved Pakistan from its most desperate of times and corrupt politicians while others look down on him as a traitor who sold, maimed, and killed his own people to please the West in order to solidify his position. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that after former dictator Zia-ul-Haq, Musharraf is the most hated leader in Pakistan and he has richly deserved the title: from the murder of former Governor and Chief Minister of Balochistan Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti in 2006 to his short-sighted diplomacy and politics, which pushed Pakistan into the whole Afghan quagmire resulting in the loss of thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and a broken international image that deprived Pakistan of tourism, international sports, business, and commerce.

The verdict has also developed major differences between the two most powerful institutions of the country: the military and the judiciary. The matter of the extension of General Javed Bajwa, serving Chief of Army Staff of Pakistan, was the first blow the judiciary had handed the military in Khan’s time ordering the government to ask the approval of the Parliament in order to get a three year extension in Bajwa’s tenure. In the past, as well, the judiciary and the military have been doubtful of each other – Musharraf himself was forced to resign as president following his dismissal of the then-Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudry.

Whatever may happen in the near future, the verdict has clearly suggested, rather shown, that no one is above the law in Pakistan – anyone, including General Pervez Musharraf, once one of the most powerful men in the world.

Continue Reading

Opinion/Writings

Remembering Pakistan’s first foreign agent Fatima Jinnah

“They call her the Mother of the Nation,” sniffed Ayub. “Then she should at least behave like a mother.” For Ayub, well-behaved women didn’t make history.

Published

on

Fatima Jinnah

Soon after Liaquat Ali Khan’s assassination and Pakistan’s plunging into absolute political and economical abyss, The Mother of the Nation Fatima Jinnah decided to retreat to her Flagstaff House in Karachi. Her hair textured shades of grey and her eyes a little more tired than usual, Miss Fatima had fallen silent for a moment. With the memory of her dear brother fresh in her mind, she found herself aghast over the wreck they had made of her brother’s Pakistan, but the silence endured.

The silence endured Iskander Mirza’s mocking of the constitution, the silence endured the fading of the once-great Muslim League, the silence endured when the country entered its first martial law, and the silence endured the mistreatment of the East by the West. Miss Fatima was, in fact, one of the fiercest critics of the government’s neglect towards East Pakistan, so much so, when her good conscious couldn’t allow it anymore, she broke the silence.

READ MORE: Mr Khan, keep your Naya Pakistan to yourself

“The Big Stick” The Times called her as white-haired Miss Jinnah, 71, the candidate of five usually disunited opposition parties, entered the arena facing the powerful dictator Ayub Khan. Thousands over thousands chanted Jinnah’s name once again as Miss Fatima’s razor-tongued attacks on Ayub’s illegitimate reign left the authorities in utter shock. The eastern city of Dhaka cried END TO DICTATORSHIP as students enthusiastically proclaimed Miss Jinnah Week and in Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city, unrest forced the government to close all the schools indefinitely. Miss Jinnah’s sentiments saw the legal community come into one as well and when they did, they were quickly denounced by Ayub as “mischief-mongers.” In reply, the Karachi Bar Association overwhelmingly adopted a resolution urging “the party in power to get rid of the notion that wisdom, righteousness and patriotism are the monopoly of their yes men.” The media, for once, also refused to follow the dictator’s orders and the usually complaisant newspapers editors defied the regime’s attempts to make them endorse a restrictive new press law. Ayub soon started regretting ever calling the elections in the first place and on the other hand, Miss Jinnah was never stronger. It is often said, and advised, never to tackle a tiger into a corner for when the tiger stings, and it will, the hunter becomes the hunted. And Pakistan had found her tiger in Miss Jinnah.

In no time, Miss Jinnah had Ayub running scared for after six years of insisting that Pakistanis were not ready for democracy, Miss Jinnah’s fierce campaign had only shown Ayub that he was the only one not ready for it. Miss Jinnah had managed to focus every form of discontent in the country and political gurus predicted the election was hers. To brake her bandwagon, Ayub abruptly decreed that elections would be held January 2, instead of March, as originally scheduled. Explaining lamely that the situation is “a little tense,” the government also rescinded a law specifying that political rallies must be open to the public. And when it didn’t work, Ayub, as uniformed cowards do, set out to portray Miss Jinnah as pro-Indian and pro-Pakhtoonistan. Dozens of columnists were paid to paint Miss Jinnah in colors of blue and saffron. In one pamphlet, Miss Jinnah was accused of conspiring against Pakistan alongside Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan by trying to establish Pakhtoonistan and in another episode, full page government ads claimed “Miss Fatima Jinnah was greeted in Peshawar with the slogans of ‘Pukhtoonistan Zindabad.’”

At closed meetings with groups of electors, Ayub answered practical questions sensibly enough, but kept lashing out at the opposition with growing anger. “They call her the Mother of the Nation,” sniffed Ayub. “Then she should at least behave like a mother.” For Ayub, well-behaved women didn’t make history.

Despite the usual dirty tricks, Miss Jinnah marched on. To Ayub’s claim that he was trying to develop “basic democracy,” Miss Jinnah replied: “What sort of democracy is that? One man’s democracy? Fifty persons’ democracy?” As for Ayub’s charge that the country would revert to chaos if he was defeated, his rival snapped: “You can’t have stability through compulsion, force and the big stick.”

READ MORE: Paris

The stage was set. It was the great Miss Jinnah against a field marshal who had never won a war, a president who was never elected, and an army chief only because his superiors had died in an air crash. Not in a thousand years could Ayub overtake Miss Jinnah but he did, anyway. Miss Jinnah lost the election amid allegations of mass rigging. Her only mistake was that she endured in silence.

And so did Pakistan. First, by perpetuating military rule, its democracy suffered. Ayub had given the armed forces a right, so much so, a privilege to rule the country. The army began to think that it was their duty and responsibility to take over the country whenever they thought right. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, a prominent figure in Ayub’s government, was only the first politician used and thrown away by the army.

East Pakistan, which gave Miss Jinnah a spectacular welcome and where Miss Jinnah secured an astounding victory in the polls would be condemned to the most brutal blood and gore just seven years later, tearing the country in two. Bengalis had dominated Miss Jinnah’s electoral alliance. It is now left for us to wonder what could have been, had they been given their say. And let’s not forget that East Pakistan’s situation was much like KPK’s today: Bengali rights groups were only ever addressed with a stick and abuses, their rallies were censored, their foreheads carved with the words ‘traitor,’ and their houses searched and ripped apart in the dark of the night.

In Karachi, where the Urdu-speaking community came out for Miss Jinnah in droves and where, like East Pakistan, Miss Jinnah had swept the city, the voters were rewarded by a ‘victory parade’ led by Ayub’s goons. They were beaten red and blue, their houses raided, and their places of work destroyed and sealed. Karachi soon erupted in ethnic rioting that saw over thirty dead. It would be the first of many.

The aftershocks of Miss Jinnah’s rigged defeat against the tyrant Ayub are still felt to this day. Pakistan and her people have suffered greatly because of one man’s greed but all hope is not lost. By not forgetting Miss Fatima’s struggle against dictator Ayub and by revisiting Miss Jinnah’s fierce campaign against him, we, as a nation, can learn from our mistakes and flourish.

A dictatorship, a puppet government, or a selected one can never be healthy for a young nation’s growth.

***

About the writer: Shahzaib Awan currently heads the Bisouv Publications and House of Entremuse Media Group. He’s an ex-Aitchisonian and is currently studying Computer Science at Jacobs University, Germany.

***

Have something you want the world to read: Submit your writings here!

Continue Reading

Trending