Afghanistan- Resistance, Plurality

Ahmed Shah Durrani (1722-1772) was the founder of modern state of Afghanistan. After nine-days of deliberation by Jirga, the participants agreed to crown him as the emir of Afghanistan in 1747[i]. With this decision, Durrani Pushtuns were to rule Afghanistan until the fateful Marxist coup of 1978.Although a state was formed but its power to administer and territorial configuration kept on varying. Islam which plays a vital role in the lives of Afghanis, have always proved to be unifying force in resistance to foreign occupiers. But, In spite of this display of unity against the invaders, infighting within the ruling clan, between different ethnic groups and resistance to state power also marked the modern history of Afghanistan. Knowledge of the ethnic diversity and plurality of Afghan society helps in understanding these conflicting tendencies. Afghan rulers who tried to centralize power always confronted violent opposition from people of different clan and ethnicity. This insurrectionary tendency has a profound lesson for the major powers involved in the ongoing conflict in the region. As plural a country as Afghanistan is, it requires an extra-ordinary understanding of demographic realities in an attempt to produce a viable political solution for Afghanistan.

According to CIA figure, current population of Afghanistan is approximately 28,396,000. For centuries people from different ethnic background have come and settled in the country. By 15^th century, major ethnic groups had settled in the regions where they happen to live today. Inhabiting the region to the south of Hindu- Kush Mountains, Pushtuns make up 42 percent of the population. Ghilzais and Durranis are two major Pushtun tribes. The latter have remained the rulers of Afghanistan since 1747 with control of the government fluctuating between Sadozai [Ahmad Shah Durrani (r1747-1772), Timur Shah (r1772-93), Mahmud Shah (r1800-03, 1809-18) Shah Shuja (r1803-9,r1839-42) Ali (r1818-19)]and Barakzai clan [ Dost Muhammad (1826-39),Muhammad Afzal (1866-67)Abdur Rehman Khan(1880-1901)Habibullah Khan (1901-1919), Amanullah Khan (1919-29) ][ii].On Northern side of Hindu-Kush lives the Tajiks, historically more urbanized than the Pushtuns. They speak Dari and with 27 % of the whole population, they are second largest ethnic group of Afghanistan. Tajiks are credited with the flourishing of Sufism in Afghanistan. Tajik Kart dynasty, which was given responsibility of ruling Herat and western Afghanistan, once the first wave of Mongols invasion ended, by the Persian ruler in 1245, played a tremendous role in flourishing art and Sufism in the country. Northern-Central region is inhabited by Uzbek and Turkic people who collectively make up 12 percent of the whole population. Cultural affinity exists between these ethnic groups and people of Central Asia. Empires from Central Asia have ruled Afghanistan ever since the time of Persian Samanid in 10^th century, based in Bokhara and Samarkand .Hazaras who are 9 percent of total population are descendents of the Mongols and are Shiites. They are located in Central Afghanistan and have been subjected to persecution in the past time and again.

After assuming the throne, Ahmad Shah Durrani started expanding his empire. He increased his territorial control to as far Amu Darya, bordering Central Asia, thus bringing Uzbeks and Turkmen living there under his control. Weakening Mughals failed to be the match for Ahmad and ceded Peshawar and substantial territory west of Sindh river to the ruler of Afghanistan. But infighting weakened the territorial control once Ahmad Shah Durrani died. Timur Shah (r 1772-93) could not hold on to the expanding empire. He had to put down the Pushtun insurgency in the east. His five sons ruled until 1826 when inter-tribal feud brought the Barakzai family to the throne. The feuds were primarily driven by jealousies, lust for power and control. Dost Muhammad became emperor in 1826 after an uprising by Barakzais in order to avenge the death of his brother Fateh Khan who was killed by Mahmud Shah(r1800-03, 1809-18). Mahmud Shah considered Fateh Khan a threat as he had successfully suppressed an uprising in Herat. Power struggle led to the fall of Sadozai family. This tribal infighting continued until the scene was set for first Anglo-Afghan war while the territorial gains by Ahmad Shah Durrani beyond the frontiers of that of contemporary Afghanistan which had united all of the Pushtuns were lost.

The English had always been anxious about weak Afghanistan which could lead to Russian encroachment. Their first alliance with Afghan ruler was with Sadozai’s Shah Shuja (r1803-1809, r1839-42). As the infighting between Sadozai and Barakzai clan led to the elevation of Dost Mohammad to the throne, the British afraid of losing Afghanistan to the Russians ,as the Emir in Kabul received the latter’s envoy, invaded the country in 1839 on the pretext of installing the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan to the throne. Within 8 months they occupied Kandahar, Ghazni and then eventually Kabul. Sporadic resistances were squashed and the British succeeded in installing Shah Shuja on the throne of Kabul. For three years, Shah Shuja tried to prove himself an effective ruler but in vain. Unwilling to accept even the indirect rule of the foreigners, riots broke out in 1842 which resulted in, until then the biggest humiliation for the British Empire. Commander of forces in Kabul, Sir William Macnaghten was massacred along with his companions. General William Elphinestone, who succeeded him, decided to withdraw from Kabul. Of 4500 troops and 12000 civilians who left the Balla Hissar fort, only 1 Englishman and 20 Afghan supporters of Shah Shuja were able to make it Jalalabad a week later[iii]. In spite of this humiliating defeat, the English kept on targeting Pushtun tribes. Between first and second Anglo-Afghan war, 100 such attacks were launched against the tribes on either side of the border[iv].

The second Anglo-Afghan war broke out in November 1878. Sher Ali(r 1863-66, r1868-79) had avoided stationing British military observers in his country. Russians presence in the Constantinople had rung alarm bells in Britain and in order to entrap the English empire, a plan had been hatched by the Russians to invade India through Afghanistan[v]. Peace was concluded between the two empires but the presence of Russian envoy in Afghanistan and humiliation felt by the English as they were denied any such privilege, thus increasing their insecurity, resulted in an invasion on 22^nd of November,1978 . Sher Ali fled to North. Initially victory seemed confirm but the presence of foreigners yet again united the Afghans as people from different tribal and ethnic background rose up against the foreign invaders. British envoy Louis Cavnagri was massacred along with 75 other men by Afghans. More British troops were sent to Kabul to control the situation and Martial law was imposed. Arrests and executions ensued. Such actions could not keep the Afghanis off from showing resistance. Fierce fighting broke out in Kabul which resulted in huge no. of casualties although more on Afghan side. Undeterred, another attack was launched from Herat under the leadership of Sher Ali’s son Muhammad Ayub Khan who massacred over 1000 of British army personnel in Kandahar thus forcing them to retreat to Kabul. In order to secure a safe way out, English searched for credible leader which they found in Abdur Rehman (1844-1901), nephew of Sher Ali.

The reign of Iron Emir, as Abdur Rehman was known, was marked with terror. He followed the legacy of Sher Ali of national consolidation but his manner was brutal. By transferring population within the country he disturbed the demographic realities. The brutal suppression of Hazaras in the north was followed by an uprising lasting three years from 1891-93. The people of Hazaras refused to surrender and were reduced to enslavement while their land was given to people from other ethnic groups. Tension that still persists between Hazaras who are mostly Shiites and other ethnic groups can be traced back to this brutal policy of Iron Emir. Pagans in the northeastern mountains, known as Kafiristan, were forcefully converted. Uzbeks also rose up against the Emir in 1888 and were dealt heavy handedly. He had to face 40 revolts during his reign as his policies violated the autonomy of other tribes and ethnicities. He was succeeded by Habibullah (r 1901-19).Habibullah’s (1872-1919) reign can be regarded as mixture of conservative and modernist policies. He introduced new ways of communications, shunned by his father, and provided opportunity to the tribal chiefs to have their say in government policies. Integration of tribal chiefs into national affairs had the dual advantage. It not just respected their so cherished autonomy but also provided them legitimate platform where they could express their disagreements. Modern educations and amenities were introduced, although limited to urban areas, but not as swiftly as to disturb the sensitivities of Afghan people. His successor Amanullah (r1919-1929), credited with introducing the first secular constitution of the country, failed to observe such caution. Bent on introducing radical reform, in his effort of imitating Ataturk’s Turkey, he was overthrown by the Traditionalist in 1929. After Zahir Shah (1914-2007) took over, his more experienced prime ministers Muhammad Hashim (1884-1953) consolidated the Afghan state through his authoritarian tactics. Shah Mahmood (1888-1959) who succeeded him introduced political and social liberties. This was the time of radical activism of both Leftist and Islamist. Disenchanted from the government, both wings tried to promote their own views and at times ended up in violent clashes on Kabul university campus. Muhammad Daoud further advanced the social reformist agenda and by the end of his first Prime Minster-ship, high enrollment in schools and women participation in social life could be regarded as an achievement. But his pro-Pashtunistan policy, i.e. to claim the land beyond the Pakistan’s frontier inhabited by Pushtuns, led to Pakistan’s support for the dissident Islamist elements who loathed the progressive stance of the government. Domestic political conflict led to the Marxist coup of 1978. Afghanistan being a highly unsuitable country for Marxist revolution because of its diversity and religious and cultural sensitivities rose up in revolt[vi]. Soviet fear of Islamic uprising within its own domain led to the fateful December 1979 intervention. Afghanistan was once again united against the foreign invaders though ethnic division was conspicuous in the formation of resistance groups. The matters got worse once the Soviets left and these groups started fighting each other to form their own central government. Monarchy which had been able to give Afghanis a symbolic unity was long dead[vii]. The ill-fated policies of states such as USA and Pakistan also complicated matters. Disunity among Afghan resistance groups had initially been deemed favorable by Pakistan as to avoid any future threat of guerilla movement causing her trouble[viii]. But once the Soviets left, this disunity could not be undone. Civil war ensued and neighboring countries started supporting their chosen proxies. Pakistan’s favorite was Gulbuddin Hikmetyar Hizb-Islami but later she switched its support to incipient movement of Taliban. Taliban’s uncompromising conviction of imposition of Shari‘at in Afghanistan by controlling the central state increased the momentum of civil war. Pakistan supported this view for her own strategic purposes and also thwarted any effort by the government of Burhanudin Rabbani to bring Afghan factions together once the Taliban threat became clear[ix]. Eventually once Taliban were able to advance as far as to Kabul, the ethnic divide manifested itself in sheer bloody manner. Offenses in Mazar Sharif in 1997-98 resulted in huge no. of casualties as Pushtuns and Non-Pushtuns, now united in their opposition to Pushtun Talibans, committed ethnic cleansing. During all these years of civil war, Iran, Russia and Central Asian states supported anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. Ethnic cleansing of an extent, never occurred in Afghanistan history ever before, horrified the international community. Ahmed Shah Masud’s forces, who was Tajik by ethnicity, massacred Hazara’s in 1995 whereas Hazara’s massacred Taliban in 1997 and were slaughtered by them the following year. Along with this division on ethnic-line, divisions within the Taliban Pushtuns also surfaced. Taliban’s shura was dominated by Durrani-Pushtuns and this centralization of power was resented by Ghilzais Pushtun who had dominated Afghan Jihad.

As Taliban resorted to guerilla warfare after the fall of Kabul in 2001 and with the increase of insurgency in recent years, peace in Afghanistan seems a distant reality. Two lessons that are to be learnt from Afghan history are totally ignored by the actors involved. Afghans have never succumbed to the foreign invaders. Their mutual hostility to occupation has always brought them together. Although majority of current insurgents are Pushtuns, this Pushtun and non-Pushtun divide in resistance is also result of policies for which no rationale Afghan history can provide. Diversity of Afghanistan does not allow any room whatsoever for one ethnic group to have an absolute authority over the whole country. Tribal-society by nature, centralization of power by one clan, tribe or ethnic group does not provide suitable model of government for Afghanistan. A strong central state would require compromises of autonomy by the other clans and ethnicities which is anathema for Afghanis. Regional countries that have over the time supported the proxies in Afghanistan should learn this lesson for their own good. The conflict will not subside unless an all inclusive government with representation from all ethnic groups is formed. As US forces are not going to stay in Afghanistan indefinitely, it’s the regional actors who have to decide whether they are going to keep playing the dirty game in Afghanistan or will respect the plurality of Afghanistan by stop waging proxies war in this unfortunate country.

---

NOTES

[i] Runion L Meredith, The history of Afghanistan,Greenwood press 2007

[ii] Wahab S and Youngerman B, A brief history of Afghanistan, 2^nd Ed, Infobase Publishing 2007.

[iii][iii] Ibid

[iv] Ahmed E and Barnet j R. A reporter at Large. Bloody Games . They New Yorker, April 11. 1988 p.44

[v]Wahab S and Youngerman B, A brief history of Afghanistan, 2^nd Ed, Infobase Publishing 2007.

[vi] Ahmed E and Barnet j R. A reporter at Large. Bloody Games . They New Yorker, April 11. 1988 p.44

[vii] Ibid

[viii] Rashid, Ahmed (2000). Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia. London: I. B. Tauris

[ix] Ibid

Dead End

The whole thing is very tense. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of joint chief of staff of US armed forces, accusations against Pakistan secret service Directorate for Inter-services Intelligence for its alleged active role in the attacks against Americans in Afghanistan has caused the diplomatic uproar. The debates are being held at higher level, accusations hurled, even the threats being directed at each other where America as usual is threatening to cut the aid and undertake " all the possible options" whereas Pakistan, as usual, vociferously speaking out against any possible attempt to violate its sovereignty, a joke in itself indeed. The latest revelation by Carlotta Gall, on 26th of September 2011, in New York times about the Pakistan's security forces direct assault on American forces after a meeting to solve the border dispute in Teri Mengal on 14th of May 2007 ended, resulting in the killing of Major Larry J Bauguess and eventual hiding of the details of the event by Americans in order to avoid any confrontation with Pakistan at that time, sheds light on overall worsening of diplomatic ties which made this exposure possible. The timing is important.

But apart from all this diplomatic meneauvoring, an anatomy of the event is necessary to understand what makes the current episode important and how potential it can be in shaping the future scenario.

Two articles published on 23th of september 2011 by Michael Semple and Jeffery Dressler on Foreign Affairs and Foreign Policy respectively are important in two way. One, the projection of Haqqani network from mere militia status based in North Waziristan, carrying out cross-border attacks against Americans in Afghanistan ,to more bigger entity supervising " North Waziristan Militant Complex". Second, enjoining an autonomy on it regarding the execution of its operations with no approval whatsoever from the main Taliban leaders in its recent attacks. This indeed is going to cause serious problem to Pakistan. Haqqani Network is being referred to as one among those militant organization who are going to profit from the war and have no plan to engage politically. This distinct categorization of Haqqani Nerwork from Taliban have major implications for Pakistan because of its alleged association with the Network. Since 2008, 15 major attacks have been attributed to Haqqani network. These include july 2008 attack on Indian Embassy, Intercontinental hotel in Kabul, 20 hour long assault on American Embassy on 13th of September 2011 . Americans are frustrated. The domestic politics of America have major say in the events unfolding at the moment. Obama has to give his public something before election. The economic situation at home is not going to allow much flexibility in carrying the war further. The important point here is that, if the attacks on Americans do not cease and Pakistan fails to take any action against the Haqqani network, will America be forced to take stronger action than it has been taking till now?
On 23th of September, 3 days after Admiral Mike Mullen briefing to the Senate, a drone attack in North Waziritan killed 6 militants from Haqqani network. The latest attack occurring on 27th of the same month.
The gravity of the accusations were timely comprehended by Pakistan. Apart from the apparent display of anger, Pakistan sought the help of Saudia Arabia and China in diffusing tension with USA. Pakistan situation is becoming extremely complex. In fact, the complexity originates from the failure of Pakistan in producing a coherent viable strategy regarding Afghanistan. To date, its still not sure what exactly are Pakistan's objective. In response to American accusations against Pakistan, Pakistan Today reported on 28th of September, that Pakistan has shown willingness to help mediating between Haqqani and US. The offer is not new as Pakistan has repeatedly refused to take military action in North Waziristan against Haqqani and have insisted for opting for negotiations, which American probably finds suspicious. Marc Grossman's, US special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, call to Hussein Haqqani, Pakistan's ambassador to USA, in response to the offer throws light on the dilemma Americans face as well. They can't survive in Afghanistan without Pakistan. But domestic political and economic imperatives have also to be taken into account.

So what's important here is that, will America government be able to pressurize Pakistani's enough to force them to take action against Haqqani network, failing to do, what exactly will be their response? They can not afford the cross-border attacks against them.These attacks, which cast doubt to any American claim of even minimal victory in Afghanistan, require taking action against Haqqani, but they can not afford to lose Pakistan as well. The former objective requires confrontational strategy whereas latter one requires her to bring her tone down. Pakistan's dilemma is that its failure to revise its policy of strategic depth ultimately push her in supporting the militias and keep them as assets. So, if Pakistan does not revise its policy, keeps on sticking to its confrontational tactics, keep her utility alive through proxies instead of constructive political engagement and trying to enforce Pushtuns ( Taliban), who makes up 40 percent of total afghan population, over the other ethnic group, how will she be able to confront the pressure of USA? The cross-border attacks won't cease. Its seems unlikely, given the above scenario, that Americans and Pakistanis can pursue their objectives together. Its a dead-end situation. Its an alliance of entirely divergent objectives.Even if the tension is diffuse for sometime, it can't be avoided indefinitely. How long can Pakistan keep off the pressure of USA, that is to see, but Pakistan is running short of time.

Untitled

I am not surprised, and i had this idea that i would not be surprised, at coming across people defending the inhuman action of the 5 rangers in Karachi on 8th of this month. Its a natural tendency in people to see things in order and when they are not, he is ready to see it at whatever price,though most of the time not paid in indivdual capacity. So what has happened is that for some people, the cold-blooded slaughtering of that young man was a necessary price to pay in order to discourage others from taking part in criminal activities. But the question is, on what basis can one judge the victim has a criminal? Moreover, even the criminals have the right to defend themselves.
Also the question is, what exactly shapes this mentality of the people believing in street justice? In my opinion, people have lost faith whatsoever in the justice system. They know justice won't be delivered so whatever comes as a discouragement to criminals, take it! But, this is not the end of the story, and it can't be. whose actions they are defending as the rightly done street justice deliverance, and thats of the State. Of the very State who has perpetuated this state of inequality, poverty and intolerance which motivates people to indulge in criminal acts. How much really do we spend on education ( less than a year per capita on defence, 6 times less than per day expenditure on President, Prime Minister and same for Senate/ National Assembly)? On energy, infrastructure, industry? How much do we really spend on PEOPLE?
The irony is, haves-not believe their self-interest is in to get whatever they need forefully or un-forcefully, no matter how they get it take it, Those who have believe their self-interest is in to stay in their houses with their money and amenities and let the montrosity do the cleansing job on the streets. But what should be realised , the former and the latter should understand that there is no such contradiction in the real interests.The former needs financial, social and economic security and this can only be realised once the State treats it citizens equally and provides a uniform playing ground for everyone where everyone could get what one strives for. The latter needs security of life, security against what could do damage to his/her belongings, and that can only be attained once the have-nots are given their legitimate share. One is not born criminal. This tendency in human beings to act violently is only stimulated when one is insecured. The very motivation to act violenty has to be exterminated. And this is the real interest of haves and haves-not. How could an institutions which is responsible for giving birth to the motivation to do crime could provide justice against crime? State has failed to provide us justice, it was doomed to. How could it whose existance is based on commiting violence against its own people? We can't keep financing our own slaughtering.
Fear shall do no good to us, for the death shall overtake us sooner or later. But as long as we are alive, lets make it a dignified life.

UNTITLED

“Come on, Stupid! It was not a murder! It was just a negligence! I mean, yes, the guy was unarmed, was dragged by pulling his hair towards us by this fellow from our sister organization, ( trust me,they ain’t that good as we are, when it comes to killing, they just celebrate while the two brothers are being thrashed to death, lots of gore, but not as much as we can ensure), fear pulled the heart of the bloody guy to his throat, o yes! He was pleading for mercy, was about to get into the mobile, but, pardon! We have been on killing spree for quite some years now. I mean, the negligence is we should have thrashed that camera too. Why let our financiers, 180 million idiots, be disturbed with such visions, they know we kill, and they know we are very good at it”

The day went fine, I mean, there was laughter, jokes being cracked, everybody up-to he or she usually is, just now and then, the sound waves carrying the tragedy of the young fellow cold-bloodedly slaughtered in Benazir park struck the ears, but that’s it! It just strikes the ear. Why does not it strike the heart? I don’t know, perhaps, it can’t strike something which ain’t there at the first place.

Speaks volume, really, speaks volume! We have accepted it. We have accepted this state of being held hostage to these savages.

I happened to talk to this random guy. While speaking out what he thought about what had happened yesterday, he just ended it with this sentence, “ People are busy?”, but busy doing what? What really are we running after? A guy gets murdered, it’s there on television, aired time and time again, we know who have done it, but we are busy doing what? His mother shows up on television, that inexplicable pain and hatred for the bastards , yet it ain’t potent enough to shake us even a little inch? I really don’t intend to dwell further into it, but really, we know this is the way it is, this is the natural way things are supposed to be, because we have not seen them in any other way.

And the statements by the government esp. by prime and interior minister, somehow trying to make sense of this murder, showering Namak on Zakham, with their pathetic and arrogant bold-faces, by claiming the guy might have had been involved in criminal act. This is what you call solidarity stupid! Could not learn from your scriptures, could not learn from your sufis and sages, learn from the evil of the evils, learn from the butchers, may you learn it from darkness. Learn how when you are stripped naked with your mischeives, how to protect or be protected by your fellows.

Mahmood Mamdani writes in his book Good muslims Bad Muslims, about two kinds of violence, one that makes sense ( perpetrated by state) and one which does not ( non-state actors). The State has operated at such a level that perhaps we will never be able to deconstruct the myths and ideologies. Why do we get terribly enraged at the news of violence, perpetrated by the militants we mostly never get to see, given to us by the State? I do not mean to say that militants ain’t there! but that’s an attack on us? But what about this incident? Why isn’t an attack on us? Why this action isn’t as evil as those of militants? PM not going to declare so, no one in the government is going to say, because they themselves are oithe part of the system just like these butchers! It’s we who have to stop making this distinction. An act of violence no matter committed by whosoever is an act of violence! There shall be no distinction in delivering justice! But here again comes an irony, the ones responsible for delivering justice are themselves part of the system! No one really wants to be amputated even when he/she knows the cancer in the very part of the body needs to be amputated would contaminate the whole body. At least this is what I know from my experience of last 24 years as a human being.
I have no hope for justice against the crime perpetrated by the State. There is no point in having one. Will they deliver justice the way they have been doing in tribal areas ( in their language of how to deliver justice) in the cases where part of the state or establishment is itself involved. They can’t. They will never. But if whats going on in tribal area is what you call delivering justice, then roll your tanks over these five bastards and then I will say justice has been done.
So, no more distinction, or the monster this state has become will swallow us all and we will keep justifying or making sense of its act in this blindness, the myths and fabricated sanctification has caused.

No Surprise!

I do not find it surprising when I think about the current state of our society, which, as a matter of fact, has been consistently moving on terrain underlined by crisis and miseries, that the most of the channels which are being aired from within Pakistan are news channels. This fact lends considerable credibility to the notion that we “the masses” are best at making “news” as far as our collective social endeavors are concerned. I must add here, when I speak of “news”, it takes its definition from the portrayal by the media of all the happenings in our country, which unfortunately happens to be overwhelmingly tragic and unfortunate.Right from the top where those who “matters” are stationed to an alienated layman, although there is a lot of justification for his exoneration since the circumstances within which he plays his part are beyond his control, we are just making “news”. Be it corruption, deception, plunder, murders, street-crimes, capital punishments etc, its like everyone who happens to dwell within the boundaries of this country, has been injected with doses of restlessness, impatience, intolerance and in worst cases violence, which are getting frequent.

But again, there is nothing to be surprised about. When among those who “matters” are the ones who bravely defends the murder of innocent women as a part of tradition, are the ones who audaciously defend corruption, are the ones who reinforces in the minds of masses the idea of personality-worshiping and slavery by preserving and promoting families-dictatorships within the “political” parties in the name of democracy, are the ones who after arrested from the brothel house and literally dragged handcuffed are awarded with state-ministry and so on and on, then its in fact surprising to see one surprised at our current state of society. I must say, that this “surprise” is in fact the most” supreme” of hypocrisy among the ones we have in our credit. Pity the ones, who are not ready to acknowledge the fact they belong to a society which has degraded to abysmal state of deterioration. Talk of Somalia? How different were the streets of Sialkot tainted with the blood of two brother, brutally mutilated before a crowd who if were not participating physically in executing the murder were either boasting the killers or filming. And the Police! The exact definition of “ to police” in Merriam Webster is

“the internal organization or regulation of a political unit through exercise of governmental powers especially with respect to general comfort, health, morals, safety, or prosperity”

Do I need to say anything more? With all heinous activities, they are the ones who are entitled to be “martyred” when killed in a “terrorist” attack.

Absolutely no surprise. At least that’s what my rational reflections make me believe. It’s a complete subversion of social and political order and we must accept it. The forces which makes up our political order produces and reinforces this “subversive” state of political affairs. Our “society” if there is any left, is in its current state, apart from the factors beyond the scope of my present writing, because of deliberate political maneuvering and reinforcement of the current subversive state. Pity the ones, who are not ready to accept it.

The prime minister says things have not gone as bad in Pakistan as there in Tunis or Egypt. Again, the statement is not surprising. He can so say because, first of all, he has to, secondly because he knows his statement will fall upon ears who actually believe that things have not gone as bad in Pakistan as in middle east. Thirdly, because its perhaps our habit to take refuge from reality in someone else’s misery falsely assuring ourselves that things have not yet gone “THAT” bad.

I firmly believe that a moral and ethical order can not be constructed in a society which is being deliberately kept economically insecure. So the social chaos can be primarily blamed at the ones of who matters. But there can be no justification whatsoever for not recognizing the depth of the crisis and state of degradation we are in and worst than then fantasizing the golden days to come. If one is not willing to look at mirror how ugly one’s face is, then relying on other’s observation is surely going to keep one in an illusion of looking fine. And that’s we have been doing all along. Its in fact I would say naturalization of crisis. The crisis has become way of life. And this mentality is reinforced by our collective “un-recognition” of our tragic state of affairs. Not analyzing what historical and political forces and events have brought us to our current state, our apathy to our own miseries, have perhaps ingrained this idea in our sub-conscious as if it was always supposed to be like this. The observation stands true for serfdom. What else the so the called Urban class is anyway, a whole mass of people, controlled, legitimizing the rule of draconian “those who matters” with their existence. Until and unless, we recognize the mess we are in, I think, there is no hope to undo the subversive social and political order.

We are not heading towards any golden age! Our silence ain't going to bring any golden age for Islam! We ain't going to control the UN!
We are not free! We are in the worst social state! We are surviving because " the imperial center" wants us to survive, though in a certain shape. We are not sovereign. Perhaps we are not even " we" yet, in real sense of the term.

We should wake up and the first vision of that awakening is realization. Realization of our crisis. We should come out of fantasy world. We should!