Myth Busters

The Pakistani media controlled by fundos has been spreading conspiracy theories and is trying to salvage the extremist ideology and regressive thoughts when this ideology’s very foundations are shaking. It has woven a world around a series of myths and is sticking to it, to embrace an ideology that is losing and is outdated. Worst still, in the emotions and euphoria and the pretention of know-all, the educated urban class buys these myths without introspecting. How the media moulds the thought process of educated classes across the world, and more so in Pakistan, is an ideal manifestation of the fact that three worst illusions are; a) I know for I read it in the newspaper, b) I know for I heard it on the TV, and c) I know for I read it in a book.

With this extensive control of the news media by the fundos, it is imperative that their myths and claims be tested for their reasoning. So here is a counterpoint to six most popular myths, the fundo media lives by.

1. Mehsood and Taliban are US agents

This is funny stuff. No seriously. All these years, these Hamir Mirs and Ansar Abbasis and Irfan Siddiquis have been portraying Mehsood, Fazal Ullah and Taliban as the fighters against the Satan, US. These journalists claimed to have inroads into the Taliban network and were trying to convince us why Taliban are the great saviors we should fall behind. Then post-Swat flogging video, the public opinion started shifting. No matter how you like to twist the debate, the reality is that people of Pakistan, almost unanimously, gave a big shut-up call to the Mullah-described “Islamic Law”.

With Taliban myth being shattered in public view and Taliban’s ambitions about power and a bloody takeover of Pakistani society and government becoming clear, came the new twist – a new fairy tale. The saviors of Islam had been planted by Americans to take control of Pakistani nukes and disintegrate Pakistan.

The irony is that not only the fundo elements in the media but even the self-perceived liberal elements like Nazeer Naji also propagate the same theory. First and foremost, the Pakistan’s fragile federation was in near collapse during last couple of years of Musharraf rule and had it not been for US’s active efforts to save the federation from collapsing even by arm-twisting some of her Mid-Eastern allies, it could well have collapsed. US, of all the countries, cannot afford to let Pakistan fall for a number of reasons. First and foremost, if Pakistan or parts of it fall into the hands of fundos, it will shake the whole region from Indonesia to Morocco and no super power can afford this jitter. Second, in a region comprising Iran, Russia and China, Pakistan is US’s best bet to have influence in the region. And based on chaos theory, one might be able to create chaos but cannot control the outcome of it. So US cannot even think of destabilizing Pakistan for it will start a chain of unpredictable events no one will have control over. So it is not in US interest to break Pakistan.

As far as Pakistan’s nuclear program goes, even there, it has covert US node for decades. At some point in 90s, US realized that for her relationship with Pakistan, she needs to compromise on Pakistan’s nuclear program. If US and West want to stop someone from getting nukes, they go to the length they did with Iran or North Korea. Pakistan did not come anywhere close to it despite the proven record of nuclear technology smuggling and confession of Dr. A. Q. Khan. US also appreciates Pakistan’s concerns vis-à-vis India and her nuclear program, something manifested by President Clinton’s reaction to Pakistan’s nuclear explosions (you need to read/research and dig deep to form an opinion rather than relying on Talat Husain’s of the world). Pakistan, like India, is a nuclear program which US did not want to have in the first place but since it is there, it is willing to accept it for now and deal with it under some later global non-proliferation agreement. The only US and global concern regarding Pakistan’s nukes is their safety and in ensuring that they do not fall in the hands of Taliban.

So US do not want to break Pakistan. She is not interested in denuclearization for now. On the contrary, it is in US interest to have Pakistan to further its interest in the region of the Great Game. Something where our interests converge for now and something we both should benefit from.

Calling Mehsood and Taliban US planted agents is a deceptive ploy to take the focus away from the real issue. The real issue is that, in recent past, under the fundos in Pakistani establishment and in the name of doctrine of strategic depth, Pakistan created a monstrous fire power which is threatening her own existence and our way of living. This ideology of hate dominates our media and coupled with sensationalism and self-pity is trying to divert our attention from the core issue of combating the menace that we face - the menace of Islamization, theocracy and Jihad-brand Saudi Islam.

2. Benazir turned anti-US and so US killed her

If the first myth is funny, second one is sad. All these Hamid Mir’s and Ansar Abbasis and Irfan Siddiquis were up in arms against Benazir Bhutto when she landed in October. Read their pieces in newspapers or their talk on TV channels in months leading to her death and you will hear them labeling her as a US stooge, a corrupt leader who has landed through a US-brokered deal with a dictator to quench her thirst for power. So much so, that they even tried to justify the attack on her welcome by linking it to her support for Lal Masjid operation (needless to say these perverts always try to justify the terrorist attacks on one pretext or another). But then she was killed and the nation in mourning, sympathizing with Benazir Bhutto’s cause and awakening to her sacrifice for the noble principles and ideology she stood for, made it impossible for these fundos to oppose her. So what did they do? They played if you cannot beat them joined them. Benazir Bhutto, the stooge of West, over night became the rebel against US who has been killed by Americans for she was a roadblock in their interests. Now more than her own party and people, these fundos became the self-proclaimed saviors of her ideology. Hamid Gul (a man nominated by BB herself in the letter mentioning her killers), Ansar Abbasi and Hamid Mir were all out spreading theories of Benazir turning against West and thus being killed. They came up with their private talks with Benazir, in which BB confessed to them secretly of her displeasure of US policies and her intent to stand against US. Her opinions, of which neither her family, nor her political colleagues or political strategists were aware of, were shared by her with the journalists who stood on the other side of the political divide (am I the only one who finds it hard to digest?). More importantly, when Bait Ullah Mehsood was named in her assassination, these fundos were at the forefront of defending that “American Agent” and claiming he respected Benazir. Give me a break!

3. We face terrorist threat because we decided to side with US in War on Terror

This is simple. It has its roots in psychology of power. When an entity/movement becomes strong enough, it lays its claim to power. We have raised the Jihad Inc. for over three decades. With an estimated 1.2 Million trained militants (larger than Pakistan Army) and huge stakes in drugs, smuggling and arms business, the mafia was to lay claim to absolute power no matter what. 9/11 and US attack on Afghanistan just triggered the events a bit. 9/11 or not, sooner or later, the junior partners in strategic depth doctrine (Jihadis) had to lay claim to the senior partner status realizing their ever growing muscle. This is how power-play works in human societies. And if you need any more proof, Talibans behavior post-Swat deal, extending their influence to Buneer, should be enough to highlight their real motive – power and control. It is not about ideology. It is not about Islam. It is a power play and this is how it works in the real world, away from the utopia created by conspiracy theorists.

4. Suicide bombers are produced in retaliation to killings by Drone attacks

Not even once have I been given evidence that the suicide bomber was actually someone related to a person who died in a drone attack. If anyone has ever seen them establishing this link, please illuminate me. First, you have to establish this link which in their rhetoric these fundo journalists never bring. Then, even if it is a reaction to drone attacks, then the suicide bomber should go to Americans to blow himself or attack Pakistan Army or Govt. installations. It makes no sense to blow up markets or hotels in Pakistan. It is a ploy to ensue fear, an age old tactic in power politics. They want to demoralize us to make their takeover easy – but budge we would not.

5. Drone attacks are a violation of Pakistani sovereignty

This one is also funny. The attacks take place in areas a) where Pakistan government has lost her sovereignty and b) which host the elements which are trying to take over the Pakistani state. Last I knew, based on commonsense, if someone is bombing your enemy who has taken over your areas, it is not a violation of your sovereignty. If these Hamir Mirs and Irfan Siddiqui were in the 40s France, they would have been cursing the Allied Forces fighting Nazis to liberate France from German invasion. Isn’t it the most nonsensical argument? Also, we never hear directly from general public of those areas against these attacks. In private talks, some of the tribals have told me that they are happy that US is bombing the people who have taken their towns hostage. I am not saying that those people represent the public opinion there. All I say is that there is more to it then we hear on Geos and Aajs.

6. Israel-Palestine conflict is the biggest reason Muslims hate US

It is a sensitive subject. I believe most humans want a just and free world. On a personal note, I think that Palestinians have been wronged and they must get a fair deal. But blaming hatred among Muslims of US on this sole issue is untrue. In fact, to me it is not even the major cause of the hatred. The hatred stems from a multitude of reasons. First and foremost is the desire of elite in Muslim world to preserve their way of living with which they are comfortable and which ensures their hegemony. They think of modern world ideals of free speech, democracy, human rights, women rights etc to be directly in conflict with their interests and hegemony and since these elite controls the avenues of expressions (i.e. media) in the Muslim World, these avenues spills hate towards America and the West. Second, everyone hates the handsome guy in high school who scores As and dates all the pretty girls. For this reason, everyone is naturally envious and jealous of Americans, including Europe. Third, masses of Muslim world, mostly deprived of their fair share, are skeptical of US for her support for the dictatorship and tyrannies across the Muslim World. CIA staged coups in many Muslim countries (including Iran) and US’s shameless support to tyrannies and monarchies in crushing the popular movements has made masses skeptical of US. They hate the orders that exist in their countries and they see US support as a main cause of those orders survival. Through out the history, US has been reluctant in her support for democratic governments in Muslim World and third world, and has sided with establishments and tyrannies. This is the biggest cause of Anti-US sentiments in the Muslim World. And this is something which Americans need to address, if they want to build bridges with 1.6 billion Muslims of the world rather than a handful Sheikhs and Generals (who by the way will keep playing a double game to resist modernity that comes with US influence).

Pakistan Wins the T20 World Cup

Speechless and in joy. Dancing and singing. Congrats to all Pakistanis. It's the beginning of our recovery from the dark days of extremism and tyranny. We are a nation which deserves a lot rather than being bogged down by hypocrisy, hate, and conspicuous mindset. We are a nation of champs and we can be part of the world and make our mark.

CONGRATULATIONS PAKISTAN AND OUR CRICKET TEAM. I wouldn't say more and will let the pictures speak for themselves.

Let us get rid of Asif Ali Zardari!

In 2007, Pakistan faced a multitude of crisis. First and foremost was the internal insurgencies and halfhearted response of Musharraf regime to Taliban threat had put the country on the brink of oblivion. On top of it, Army's reputation as an institution was at an all time low which made it impossible for it to go after Taliban. Add to it the public opinion that was bitterly divided on fighting Taliban insurgency and the deep distrust that existed in world capitals because of Mush's double crossing. Amidst these circumstances, Benazir Bhutto risked her life to go back and help Army fight the battle that was to be fought. The Army, she came back to protect, could not save her life and she lay in blood on a dirt track in Rawalpindi.
After her demise, Asif Zardari was brought to the center stage and started working on fighting Taliban, resolving Balochistan crisis, and removing Pakistan's international isolation.
As things stand right now, Army's image as an institution has been miraculously restored, nation is united in fighting Taliban, Balochistan has a hope for peace, and international community is falling behind Pakistan's fight with material and moral support. And this precisely is why the power players in Pakistan should accelerate their attempts to get rid of Asif Ali Zardari.
It will be in line with our national character and history. In 1971, when the Army was defeated and India asserted its military superiority, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the man himself, came to the rescue. He got 90,000 armed personal free from prison camps in India, got thousands of miles of captured area back, took Pakistan out of international isolation, and to strengthen defense pioneered the nuclear program. When all was in place, we were quick to get rid of him dragging him to gallows and sending him to the graveyard of Garhi.
Again in late 80s and early 90s, when the days of reliance of American aid were coming to an end as a result of end of cold war, economy was stagnant and energy to run it non-existant, and India's advantage in conventional warfare was hard to breech, came Benazir Bhutto to the rescue. Energy was being produced in surplus, telecommunication and banking sectors were regularized, and more importantly the country got most sophisticated missile program which till today acts as a deterrence against external aggression. Once she did her part, we got rid of her and put her to a life of misery which ended with her killing in Liaquat Bagh.
So now we must do the same. We have been preparing for it for long. No one mentions corruption of Shaukat Aziz which was ascertained by the Supreme Court. No one mentions the wrong-doings of Nawaz Sharif from tax-evasion to illegal use of electricity. No one even bothers mentioning about his conviction in not one but two cases. All we focus on is Zardari's corruption, never proven in any court of law anywhere in the world. They say Nawaz's conviction doesn't matter because it was under the hostile courts of Musharraf (of which Iftikhar Chaudhary was a part of:)). What they ignore is that Zardari's cases were not registered in or tried under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto courts either. They were under 2 consecutive hostile regimes for 11 years without conviction. Media talks of NRO yet is so touchy over the Jeddah deal and media. NRO mind you was an ordinance for people against whom nothing had been proved for 11 years, Jeddah deal a pardon to convicted. Task of these Jiyalas leaders is to get us out of the ditch. They do their duty and we get rid of them (often physically). So it is time to accelerate our attempts to get rid of Asif Ali Zardari.
Bureaucracy showed on March 15th where it stands. Courts are controlled by Zardari's arch-rivals. Elements in military and intelligence services have been anti-Zardari. It's only the top-brass of Armed Forces which needs to be brought on board. They must realize that traditions are more important than showing gratitude for Zardari's service. As far as Americans are concerned, they can live with any "friendly" regime in Pakistan, even the one brought up as a result of a Khomeini style coup. Can Army stand this coup is a million dollar question? For now, let us focus on getting rid of the man.

Obama's Address to Muslims

Above is the video of the full speech. A powerful speech by a good orator. Here are my two cents.

It’s hard to go against popular sentiments. And in the blogosphere communities of both West and Muslim World, Obama’s speech to the Muslim World and the reaction of those who heard it and cared is extremely positive. But I will say what I think nonetheless, not because I have a strong belief in perfection of my beliefs but because I think these are the points we need to seriously deliberate upon in both the Muslim World and the West.

I always knew behind all this talk of equality, pride etc amongst many in the Muslim world was a petty need for recognition. But I didn't think, this need was so shallow and so desperate. I mean a clap every time President Obama said Assalam u alaikum or recited a verse from Quran. Was that all that they needed to publically applaud an American President?

I believe this speech was an honest and sincere attempt on part of President Obama to bring Muslim World and West closer. The problem is, the main hypothesis of his philosophy is flawed.

Obama’s address to me sounded as a call for truce with status quo in the Muslim World. It was an address to the haves of the Muslim World. The haves who, in their sheer confusion, and quest for control over the resources of their region (more so by snatching them from have-nots in their own regions) have created Al Qaeeda and extremism. They created the monster which now endangers the whole world as well as frightens them. Every time you hear some smart analyst on CNN who is getting response from the Muslim World on the speech via Twitter, be mindful, it is not the response of the mainstream but of rich who could afford to twitter and blog there. The majorities of Muslim world are poor, mostly peaceful, struggling to get a living of their own when their resources get plundered by autocratic/dictatorial establishments, and are not bugged by the Anti-West cliché. Mr. Obama, like the local prevalent establishments, thinks that a solution can be found bypassing these have-nots. All I can say is, this solution will be devoid of any stability.

Realizing the debris of colonial past, all Mr. Obama offered was a clean chit to all the relics of that very colonial system. The monarchs and autocrats who were the direct descendants of the colonial era have been given a clean chit again and this time in public. If this is going to be the official American policy then the beacon of liberty and hope for the world has decided to make a truce with oppressor, back-stabbing the significant majorities of those societies in their struggle for democracy and human rights.

The biggest victims of his speech were the secular movements in the Muslim World. A liberal president has capped the flow of liberalism in the most reactionary region of the world by this speech. For those who wanted to have an open debate on the role of religion in state and society in the Muslim World, this speech has been a blow. The most liberal president of the Secular West recognizes religion, emphasizes on religion to great extent, and wants to work with in it. "God of clergy" is here to stay. God of Abraham will have to live with the unrest caused in his name.

Neither West nor Muslim world can afford to have this short-term approach. Excluding the forces of progression in Muslim World, being muted on the spread of democracy, and leaving autocracy and theocracy unchecked would not deliver the stability we long for. I agree US does not have the means to deliver democracies to the Muslim World, nor will an imposed democracy work. But at the same time, publically abandoning her commitment to democracy and human rights will be a severe blow to the causes of liberation and human rights.

As for the Muslim World, even when we have got the presidential node of a global president for the status quo, should we continue the same path which has thrown us into the abyss of non-existence (reality is we really don’t matter except for the ability of a handful amongst us to destroy) or do we need to build a more vibrant and more tolerant society. Can we live with the system that for its own protection created the monsters like Al Qaeeda, Taliban and Ikhwan or do we need to change the course? Do we need to have a dispassionate debate on what use of religion in society and polity has done to us over the years? And above all, can we build a stable society and system without giving the majority (have-nots) their due share? To me, we need to work for a renaissance of our own or the tide of time will impose it on us with us having no control over its dynamics.

Both America and Muslim World can opt for a short term solution of making a truce with the status quo. In my opinion, it would not work and will hit us harder later. We can also seek long term solutions in which both sides will need to change radically and drastically. Whether Obama becomes the first president of world shaped on American ideals (rather than the British Colonial ones) or he becomes the first president of post-America century? Whether Muslim World keeps falling into the pit of violence and decomposition or becomes a vibrant entity in human evolution? Both sides have to make their own choices.