پاکستان میں نجی جاسوس شروع سے افسانوی کردار ہی رہے ہیں لیکن اب حال ہی میں لاہور میں ایسی ایک کمپنی قائم ہوئی ہے۔ اس کمپنی کی انتظامی نگراں عائشہ آصف سے بات چیت
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Aah Muzaffar Warsi, a real Aashiq e Rasool (SAWW)
A great "Naat" writer and poet Muzaffar Warsi Sahib has passed away. I once met him at a "mushaira" in my native town. Melodious poetry recitation (with "tarrannum") was his forte. May Allah grant him an exalted place in Jannat Ul Firdaus. Inna Lillahe Wa Inna Illahe Rajaun. Please, pray for his forgiveness.
World Economic Forum - Imran Khan: The face of Pakistan at Davos ( Express Tribune)
World Economic Forum - Imran Khan: The face of Pakistan at Davos (Article in The Express Tribune) By Munizae Jahangir
The most prominent Pakistani at Davos is Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf chief Imran Khan who was the guest speaker at a lunch hosted by defence analyst Ikram Sehgal, who runs a security company in PakistanDAVOS: Every country that matters is here, but where is Pakistan? Pakistanis are found on panels such as “Security Agenda in 2011” and “The Reality of Terrorism” and even there, our representation is weak.
The most prominent Pakistani at Davos is Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf chief Imran Khan who was the guest speaker at a lunch hosted by defence analyst Ikram Sehgal, who runs a security company in Pakistan.
“The moment Nato leaves Afghanistan, things will settle down. There will be peace and then we can deal with the terrorists,” Khan tells a bewildered Western audience, who mostly showed up to get a good look at their favourite cricket star.
Speaking about Pashtuns, he said it was important to make a distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban who are Pashtuns and the Pashtuns should not be attacked. “You must understand the Pashtun mentality. If you kill them (with drone attacks) they will take revenge, so there will be repercussions,” he said. “There are human beings and then there are Pathans,” he joked.
“The Pashtuns of Pakistan and Afghanistan are not a threat to the West, al Qaeda is,” he said to a sceptical audience.
Khan explained that Salmaan Taseer’s murder had exposed the extreme polarisation in society. “If the war on terror continues and the US keeps pressuring Pakistan to flush out Taliban militants, this polarisation of society will be detrimental,” he said.
Apart from his well-known stance on the war on terror, Khan advocated that the present government had lost its moral authority and the time was ripe for change. He warned that if the present “corrupt set up” is tolerated, there may be a revolution made up of young Pakistanis under the age of 30.
“After the National Reconciliation Ordinance was promulgated, the biggest crooks formed the government,” he said, while referring to the country’s top political leadership. He predicted that in the next general election, which he believes will be free and fair, all “the old political faces will be wiped out”.
But Khan also insisted that any form of democracy is better than dictatorship. “I supported Musharraf in the beginning and I admit that it was the biggest mistake I have ever made,” he said. Later in the day, Khan shared panel space with the Indian Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, who forcefully stated that terrorists must be dealt with sternly and there should be swift punishment for those found guilty.
Chidambaram maintained the traditional Indian foreign office line that there are “home-grown modules in India that get support from across the border.”
On a panel titled “The reality of terrorism”, Chidambaram made it quite clear that India was not willing to show flexibility on the issue of terrorism, putting a dampener on the upcoming India-Pakistan secretary level talks at Thimpu.
Another panellist, Tahirul Qadri called upon the West and India to recognise the “root causes” of terror and to immediately resolve outstanding disputes such as Kashmir. However, Chidambaram shot back, “none of the issues (Kashmir or the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine) justify use of terror. This is not the way civilised societies settle their disputes.”
But Khan insisted that the root cause of terror must be dealt with. “The cancer must be treated and not its symptoms,” he said.
While the security debate dragged on at Davos, it was quite clear that no one – those asking questions or those answering them – had found a fresh approach to deal with problems in Pakistan. The same questions were asked and the familiar rhetoric was repeated.
While back in Pakistan’s semi-autonomous areas, the tribal lashkars and paramilitary forces battle Taliban militants, it seemed like our leadership was making no effort to engage powers of the world on platforms such as the World Economic Forum where perhaps sympathetic ears would have helped. A Pakistani delegation well-prepared to plead their case and defend their position regarding the war against militancy should have been sent. Instead, what the World Economic Forum saw was a cricketer-turned-politician advocating a view that not necessarily represents the official line taken by the government of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 30th, 2011.
The most prominent Pakistani at Davos is Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf chief Imran Khan who was the guest speaker at a lunch hosted by defence analyst Ikram Sehgal, who runs a security company in PakistanDAVOS: Every country that matters is here, but where is Pakistan? Pakistanis are found on panels such as “Security Agenda in 2011” and “The Reality of Terrorism” and even there, our representation is weak.
The most prominent Pakistani at Davos is Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaaf chief Imran Khan who was the guest speaker at a lunch hosted by defence analyst Ikram Sehgal, who runs a security company in Pakistan.
“The moment Nato leaves Afghanistan, things will settle down. There will be peace and then we can deal with the terrorists,” Khan tells a bewildered Western audience, who mostly showed up to get a good look at their favourite cricket star.
Speaking about Pashtuns, he said it was important to make a distinction between al Qaeda and the Taliban who are Pashtuns and the Pashtuns should not be attacked. “You must understand the Pashtun mentality. If you kill them (with drone attacks) they will take revenge, so there will be repercussions,” he said. “There are human beings and then there are Pathans,” he joked.
“The Pashtuns of Pakistan and Afghanistan are not a threat to the West, al Qaeda is,” he said to a sceptical audience.
Khan explained that Salmaan Taseer’s murder had exposed the extreme polarisation in society. “If the war on terror continues and the US keeps pressuring Pakistan to flush out Taliban militants, this polarisation of society will be detrimental,” he said.
Apart from his well-known stance on the war on terror, Khan advocated that the present government had lost its moral authority and the time was ripe for change. He warned that if the present “corrupt set up” is tolerated, there may be a revolution made up of young Pakistanis under the age of 30.
“After the National Reconciliation Ordinance was promulgated, the biggest crooks formed the government,” he said, while referring to the country’s top political leadership. He predicted that in the next general election, which he believes will be free and fair, all “the old political faces will be wiped out”.
But Khan also insisted that any form of democracy is better than dictatorship. “I supported Musharraf in the beginning and I admit that it was the biggest mistake I have ever made,” he said. Later in the day, Khan shared panel space with the Indian Union Home Minister P Chidambaram, who forcefully stated that terrorists must be dealt with sternly and there should be swift punishment for those found guilty.
Chidambaram maintained the traditional Indian foreign office line that there are “home-grown modules in India that get support from across the border.”
On a panel titled “The reality of terrorism”, Chidambaram made it quite clear that India was not willing to show flexibility on the issue of terrorism, putting a dampener on the upcoming India-Pakistan secretary level talks at Thimpu.
Another panellist, Tahirul Qadri called upon the West and India to recognise the “root causes” of terror and to immediately resolve outstanding disputes such as Kashmir. However, Chidambaram shot back, “none of the issues (Kashmir or the territorial dispute between Israel and Palestine) justify use of terror. This is not the way civilised societies settle their disputes.”
But Khan insisted that the root cause of terror must be dealt with. “The cancer must be treated and not its symptoms,” he said.
While the security debate dragged on at Davos, it was quite clear that no one – those asking questions or those answering them – had found a fresh approach to deal with problems in Pakistan. The same questions were asked and the familiar rhetoric was repeated.
While back in Pakistan’s semi-autonomous areas, the tribal lashkars and paramilitary forces battle Taliban militants, it seemed like our leadership was making no effort to engage powers of the world on platforms such as the World Economic Forum where perhaps sympathetic ears would have helped. A Pakistani delegation well-prepared to plead their case and defend their position regarding the war against militancy should have been sent. Instead, what the World Economic Forum saw was a cricketer-turned-politician advocating a view that not necessarily represents the official line taken by the government of Pakistan.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 30th, 2011.
Lt-Gen Sami Anan will have the final say
ISLAMABAD: Air Marshal Muhammad Hosni Sayyid Mubarak has been the President of Jumhuriyah Misr al-Arabiyah for 30 years. At 82, the president has plans of gifting the presidency to Gamal Al Din Mohammed Hosni Sayed Mubarak, his younger son, as if the Arab Republic of Egypt is the president’s personal estate.
Martyrs are needed for incidents. Incidents are needed for revolutions. And, revolutions are needed for progress. Revolutions are about public discontent leading to breakdown of the established order. Revolutions are spontaneous with roots in areas that are disenfranchised both politically and economically. Revolutions begin outside the centres of power in areas where government writ is weak and then move towards the centre of power.
The uprising in Egypt began in Cairo, Hosni Mubarak’s centre of power, and then spread eastwards to Suez, northbound to Mansoura and westwards to Alexandria. Intriguingly, protesters in Cairo, Suez, Mansoura and Alexandria specifically targeted police stations and local chapters of the National Democratic Party. Interestingly, protesters were all without guns.
An uprising spurting from within the centre of power clearly indicates that a powerful faction from within the leadership is either guiding or managing the outbreak. It isn’t a revolution but a war of succession. In all probability, a powerful faction very close to the centre of power disagrees with Hosni Mubarak’s plans of gifting the presidency to Gamal and the entire upheaval is being stage managed to bring about the desired result.
The Egyptian theatre now has four key players — Lt Gen Sami Annan, Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Army, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, Defence Minister, Air Marshal Ahmed Shafiq, Minister for Civil Aviation, and Lt Gen Omar Suleiman, the intelligence chief. Of the four, Lt Gen Annan commands 468,000 troops, Field Marshal Tantawi oversees 60,000 Republican Guards while Lt Gen Suleiman is rumoured to be ailing.
President Mubarak is playing out the last of his tricks. If protests continue even after the dissolution of the parliament, chances are Mubarak would be eased out. Lt Gen Sami Annan will have the last word and Air Marshal Ahmed Shafiq may be a good compromise candidate to replace Mubarak.
Martyrs are needed for incidents. Incidents are needed for revolutions. And, revolutions are needed for progress. Revolutions are about public discontent leading to breakdown of the established order. Revolutions are spontaneous with roots in areas that are disenfranchised both politically and economically. Revolutions begin outside the centres of power in areas where government writ is weak and then move towards the centre of power.
The uprising in Egypt began in Cairo, Hosni Mubarak’s centre of power, and then spread eastwards to Suez, northbound to Mansoura and westwards to Alexandria. Intriguingly, protesters in Cairo, Suez, Mansoura and Alexandria specifically targeted police stations and local chapters of the National Democratic Party. Interestingly, protesters were all without guns.
An uprising spurting from within the centre of power clearly indicates that a powerful faction from within the leadership is either guiding or managing the outbreak. It isn’t a revolution but a war of succession. In all probability, a powerful faction very close to the centre of power disagrees with Hosni Mubarak’s plans of gifting the presidency to Gamal and the entire upheaval is being stage managed to bring about the desired result.
The Egyptian theatre now has four key players — Lt Gen Sami Annan, Chief of Staff of the Egyptian Army, Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, Defence Minister, Air Marshal Ahmed Shafiq, Minister for Civil Aviation, and Lt Gen Omar Suleiman, the intelligence chief. Of the four, Lt Gen Annan commands 468,000 troops, Field Marshal Tantawi oversees 60,000 Republican Guards while Lt Gen Suleiman is rumoured to be ailing.
President Mubarak is playing out the last of his tricks. If protests continue even after the dissolution of the parliament, chances are Mubarak would be eased out. Lt Gen Sami Annan will have the last word and Air Marshal Ahmed Shafiq may be a good compromise candidate to replace Mubarak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
