|
In one of his article published by NY Times on 16th Feb, 2009 titled “Pakistan Makes Taliban Truce, Makes Heaven”, Jane Perlez termed the Swat deal as an equivalent of surrender by Pakistan to the Taliban. I wonder as to what makes him think on this pattern? Do he really understand the dynamics of Nizam e Adaal? Do he understands what Shariah means to a Muslim? I am sure he never took out time to understand these words and instead consider himself to be an expert on the matter with his own limited knowledge. The implementation of Shariah in Swat is not conceding to the Taliban but to Islam. The same Shariah law in followed in Saudi Arabia and UAE, the two closest allies of America. Ideally, this law should be implemented in all the Islamic countries around the world as this is the true Islamic system and unless it is properly implemented, we will always end up with a lot of crimes and instability. The real question that Jane Perlez should have asked is as to what took so long for the implementation of Shariah rule in Swat? Why he don’t try to understand that it was his own country and its allies that are indirectly responsible for the blood shed in Swat as they exerted maximum pressure on Pakistan not to implement this system. Further in the same above article, the picture of the meeting between the elders of the Swat region and the government has been wrongly dubbed as “Meeting between the government and representatives of Taliban insurgents.” This is a classical example of biased reporting. Jane Perlez is trying to take advantage of his audience lack of knowledge. He thinks that anyone with long beard can be termed as representatives of Taliban with impunity. He should understand that nearly everyone on this part of the world has a long beard and it is part of their culture. Moreover, in the local system, Jirga is a common way of reaching an agreement in which elders of the area come together to negotiate with the government on behalf of the people of their area. This is the same type of meeting taking place. The government of Pakistan is not directly negotiating with any one who is a declared terrorist. This fact has been verified by Jane Perlez in his new story published in NY Times on 21st Feb, 2009 titled “Taliban Truce Seems in Flux in Pakistan”. Since in this section it suited him to bring Sufi Muhammad in action and to show divisions in the overall affair. In this article dated 21st Feb, 2009, he tried to again mislead his audience into believing that the Swat peace deal is not going to hold true for long and that both militants and the government of Pakistan are on different footings. He has ignored the fact that Americans are trying to imitate the same thing in Afghanistan for a long time but they have failed miserably. When the so called super power can not sustain to fight with the Talibans in Afghanistan, how can Pakistan fight with them in Swat where RAW has funding few factions of them with millions of dollars and sophisticated equipments. Instead of trying to sabotage this agreement, Jane Perlez and his newspaper should try to urge his Western supporters to help Pakistan in successfuly implementing this deal. We have already lost hundreds of people to an American imported War on Terror and hence we should not be wasting any more men on it. Let the Americans handle their own mess which they have created around the world. If Americans try to play a responsible role, the world will be a much better place. Moreover, journalists like Jane Perlez should not live in their own self created limited and biased world and try to look at things from the right perspective. Related Articles |
The day the talk of peace started in Swat, the management and specially their propaganda specialist Jane Perlez could hardly digest it. He has left no effort to present this deal as something draconian which no one except him understand. The way he try to present the facts of Swat shows his utter disregard for local customs and his ignorance about the real issues. The perception he try to creates in the mind of his target audience is the one which Bush loved and that is to instill fear. Lets us try to understand what Jane Perlez described and how we think about it. We will rest our case with our readers as they are the best judge of the facts and can verify our claims as well.
-
Subscribe To Us
-
-
Tech Updates- Google Analytics for Mobile App
- Ten Cheapest Laptops and Notebooks 2010
- Free Windows Drivers Download with DriverEasy
- Mobile BroadBand Capex to Cross $70 Billion in 2010
- Apple iPad – Complete Review, Specs, Pics and Video
- TDash.org – A Web Based Twitter Dashboard
- Ovi Maps for Nokia Symbian S60 – Free Download
- Amir Khan is the Brand Ambassador of Etisalat
- Sony Ericsson Xperia x10 – Features Preview
- 20 Most Wanted Blogspot Video Tutorials
- HD3 Black Pearl Watch – The Pirates Treasure
- Top 10 Best Laptops 2010
- Download Avast antivirus 5
- Bharti Names Chris Tobit as CEO Warid Bangladesh
- Google Maps for Nokia N900
-
Download
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Undoubtably its going to get bias reporting but in a way its worse than what the NYT says.
The much vaunted army didn’t win, in fact it suffered pretty badly. Its set up to fight India in a modern war, not counter-insurgency. Some commentators reckon the army will use this time to re-train or at the very least win a few of the other battles before coming back and laying down to law here. The retraining is particularily pertinent as if you look at the recent conflicts with India (and the form any possible conflict with Afghanistan would take) they have been small scale affairs, not armour battles whichare unlikely given nukes on both sides.
Of course the Indians will be doing their best to ensure the Brits or yanks don’t train them to do that as no guesses where such guys would go after the Taliban are finished (begins with a K).
The recently elected local government couldn’t manage tensions and has had to capitulate to an armed group (weren’t elements of it formerly in power?), challenging its legitimacy and being more reminesicent of African style bush politics. No monopoly of force is a clear indicator of a weak government in todays modern state set up. If they couldn’t manage competing demands for power they have failed a basic test of democratic government.
The lesson for anyone who wants to destabilise Pakistan currently is stoking insurgency is the way to go. Exploit the fault lines of ethnicity, Shia/Sunni, native/refugee, religion/secularism, rich/poor/feudal. The army can’t fight it without going for a Baloch style campaign which is impossible in the current media spotlight, and the civilian government can’t manage/diffuse it.
Pakistan has to be looking at stopping India (and anyone else who doesn’t like it, Iran could do much with the Shia and its pool of insurgent trainers in orgs like Hezbullah) from wanting to start such operations and hope the Afghans stay in chaos (which of course some alledge its doing) for the next ten years, otherwise all those westerned trained desensitised to conflict soldiers who can’t reintergrate might be sent on the crusade to liberate and reintergrate Pashtun Pakistan areas into Afghanistan.
And of course the militants are still out there. There will be no punishment for the beheadings and violence, no way of co-opting them into any process they have the slightest objection to as hey, they won through force once before. They killed whoever they liked with no consequences for them. Anything they don’t like again you can bet they will have the threat of force to legitimise their demands. As for the residents they have been fought over, suffered from both sides and will now have to see the people that brought them so much hardship get off scot free. No trials for atrosities etc etc. Hell they aren’t even sure if their daughters will be able to go to secondary school or university.
In the short term the peace deal makes sense. Bringing in Sharia (which was already there) is something for the civil government to handle and implement and seems to be the majority wish. But that challenge to its authority will not be forgotten. Likewise these militants will ave to be dealt with, whether that means catching/killing them or Islamic states normal favourite of using them and hoping they become somebody elses problem.
If the locals want a peace deal, then peace deal it shall be. It is no one’s win, and no one’s win is of any use to any one if there was one, if the locals suffer. It is the locals who had a shariyah law, and it is the locals who should have had the shariyah law all along as per their wish instead of having to fight for it. They did not vote under democracy for a govt that will start a war in the region, and so now their words have been correctly listened to by their elected politicians. And that is a part of democracy.
I dont see much wrong with that. If Pakistani Talibans want shariyah law, and the locals too, then Pakistan govt should have no reason to go against Islam. UNLESS they do have a good reason to go against the very spirit and law of Islam on behalf of outsiders (starts with a “U” and ends on “S” and that is not the only culprit here)
If the local voices are not heard then obviously any region would ask for independence, let it be Swat, Kashmir, or any of the 200 independence movements running all across India.
Hence a very critical step taken by the Pakistan govt, and an exemplary one. Lets hope and pray that it stays, and also other deals like this are done, so that Pakistanis can feel that they are part of Pakistan, and Pakistan is a part of them.
Pakistan Zindabad.
Pakistan Dushman Murdabad.
Islam Dushman Murdabad.
Ameen
So its perfectly ok for part of the population to take up arms to get what they want? Is Pakistans democracy unable to have a majority vote for a party that delivers what they want? Didn’t the region go for the polls a while back largely regecting the religious parties for a technocratic Pastun one? (Though largely because it turns out knowing God isn’t as useful as knowing how modern electricity, sanitation and water systems work when it comes to day to day governance.)
The country is in dire straits if the only outlet for change is through repressive violent campaigns - though of course it was no doubt the will of the people that beheaded all those people, banned satilite TV, banned female education (later ret-conned into education above primary school) and destroyed much of the infrustructure those same people whose will we are discussing depend on?
As for no one winning - it isn’t the same as not losing. And when the state doesn’t win it loses. Sometimes the loss doesn’t matter, say the UK gov verses the IRA, as the state is otherwise strong or it concerns a part the majority couldn’t care less about. But when you have a history of military rule, insurgency, seperatism and a bucket full of fault lines running through an artificial (ok less artificial now its terrortorily contiguous) British colonial construction, its damn dangerous.
Yes India loses many people (well, less than the traffic accidents but you get the picture) to its own troubles, but no one is suggesting it is about to break up or there is the potential for (well not including those who live in a dream world) non state actors to capture vast %’s of its landmass. Personally I’m baffled why the North and South hang together still and India is a land of such inequality, racial mix, religious mix its stunning that the government hasn’t just fell apart (hell there is time yet with the rise of local based vote banking parties). Why does India seemingly manage things whilst Pakistan seems to want to flurt with far greater danger?
taking up arms question is valid on both sides, and in other parts of the world incliding India, and the UK itself.
You are 110% wrong about knowing God, your comment itself shows you have not even a clue about knowing God, let alone write about which one is better or worse.
You are too quick to say Pakistani talibans banned female education, but not wise enough to find out if and why this was imposed.
I am not sure where you get the mentality of when the state doesnt win, it loses, but it seems to be your own VERY personal logic here. This rule could easily be applied to both sides. It was not the case with IRA for sure. But perhaps you have come to love the indian mentality of “kill em all” and there will be no majority asking for anything, instead of working WITH the people through peace deals.
Dont get too hooked on the traffic incidents matey. India is one of the top when it comes to the number of people dying due to terrorism too.
As far as India breaking up goes, you only need to google and see how many freedom movements are currently active. i am sure you already know it though, but let me know if you are seriously looking for the info on indian separatists, and perhaps then it will dawn to you what “seemingly manage” truly means :)
All in all, sorry to tell you but you at least seem to act like one of those RAW RATS that just can not understand what a “peace” deal is for …..hint is within “” in case you still miss it.
We simply dont need to be fighting our own people, who were only asking to impose the very religion that we follow ourselves. The success of these type of quick courts is overwhelming as compared to the British style courts that are left behind as a legacy of the Brits. I suppose the Brit lovers are still around eh?
Anyway, point is, they shouldnt have had to fight in the first place for these demands. But dont worry, we dont really expect someone with a name of “Chris Hayes” to understand this basic idea about our faith, and about knowing God being the most useful thing (sorry I can not even get myself to compare it to electricity blah blah blah).
.
It is a very simple difference,,, you seem to think it was Swat militants who were wrong to demand and fight for their demand and their right, while majority of Pakistanis think that Pakistan army itself (while acting on behlaf of the US) was wrong to not allow Sharyiah law as per the demand, and it was wrong to fight and kill those who were fighting to impose sharyiah.
.
Lets hope and pray that Pakistan is run by Pakistanis, for Pakistanis as that is the true spirit of democracy.
.
Pakistan Zindabad.
Pakistan Dushman Murdabad.
Islam Dushman Murdabad.
Ameen Sum Ameen.
Sorry few mistakes above, thats what I get for finishing work so late at night!
There should be a post before the one that apologises for the spelling mistakes, but it seems to have dissapeared.
@Chris
Regarding working late, already told you, not good for your health at your age ;)
“Why does India seemingly manage things”
“manage” and here I was thinking you knew English eh ;)
You call this “managing” we call this “plain butchery”. You call it managing, we call it “barbaric, inhumane, terrorising”, whats so “managing” about what happened in Gujrat, in Kashmir, in Punjab, in Orissa….and I am not even mentioning the full picture here….Name a minority, and then just do a google instead of writing essays Chris and you will see the truth about what you call “managing things”.
Chris Hayes your summarisation of the issues currently affecting Pakistan as a state is 100% correct. I am a Pakistani and a Muslim. I can vouch that most pakistani Muslims do not want Shariya Law because they know in their heart of hearts what the consequences of such draconian laws would mean for them, especially in the hands of the corrupt and backward enforcement agencies (if you can call them that).
The fact that religious parties are rejected by the electorate at the Polls every time is firm evidence that Sharia Law is not popular or desired by most of Pakistan public.
However, most Muslims will not publicly admit this if directly asked due to fear of being labeled an “infidel”. The analogy is best described by the ancient fable of “Emperors new clothes”.
India and Pakistan came into being 60 years ago. During this time, Pakistan has lost half of its territory (East pakistan), is still struggling with the basics such as a system of governance and is totally dependent on foreign aid.
On the other hand India has become a world leader in IT and Manufacturing. She is also largely self sufficient and is tipped to be the worlds largest economy in the next 20 years or so.
So achieving the above, despite having a population of over a bilion with a plethora of different religions,languages and cultures, is exemplary “management” indeed.
I think you are wasting your time though debating such issues with ignorant fools who dont have integrity or dignity to accept the truth.
The fact that hundreds of girls schools existed in the first place gives an indication of what the average citizen of Swat wants from life and their view of Sharia Law.
It is Ironic that a person who condones restriction of education for females, belittles the importance of lifes necessities such as electric, etc and claims to give utmost priority to “God” but has no qualms about using technology invented by the Devilish “West” and is proud of his command of “English”.
Leave a Comment