Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
PAKISTAN'S VISION 2025
#81
THE OIC EXTRA ORDINARY SESSION FOCUSSES ON THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN. THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE PLIGHT AND CHALLENGE OF AFGHANISTAN AT A TIME WHEN THE WORLD SHUNS THE TALIBAN GOVERNMENT. THE ISSUE OF THE  SURVIVAL OF THE AFGHAN PEOPLE IS AT STAKE.



PRIME MINISTER IMRAN KHAN ADDRESSES OIC SUMMIT 2021




OIC CONFERENCE
Special Transmission 2021 | 19-12 -2021






PAKISTAN PROPOSES SIX POINT PLAN TO SOLVE AFGHANISTAN's WOES AT OIC SESSION
Imran Khan VLOG




A SUCCESSFUL OIC SUMMIT IN PAKISTAN IS CREATING IMPACT EVERYWHERE



PAKISTAN HOSTS SUCCESSFUL EVENT OF OIC AND INDIAN MEDIA IS UNHAPPY ABOUT IT







c
Reply
#82
AS TODAY IS THE BIRTHDAY OF MUHAMMAD ALI JINNAH IN 1876 THE FOUNDER OF PAKISTAN. IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK BACK AND FORWARD.  REHEARSING REVISIONIST HISTORY HAS BECOME OF VITAL IMPORTANCE AS THE BRITISH RAJ'S  IMPERIAL LEGACY OF  THE INSIDIOUS AND PERFIDIOUS DEMARCATION OF COLONIAL BORDERS IS IMPACTING AFGHANISTAN,  PAKISTAN, INDIA AND CHINA NOW.

THESE BORDERS WERE NOT CREATED BY ABSENT MINDED COLONIALISTS BUT ENGINEERED TO ENSURE THAT THESE REGIONS REMAIN UNSTABLE, VOLATILE AND WAR PRONE SO THAT THEIR DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE SUBVERTED AND MANIPULATED  BY FOREIGN POWERS.  

THIS IMPERIAL  BRITISH LEGACY OF BORDERS OF THE RADCLIFFE,  MC MAHON, DURAND LINES AND THE LOC AND LAC MAY GO WITH THE WIND AS THE  PAKISTANI AND CHINESE ARMIES SQUARE OFF THE INDIAN ARMY.

ONE DAY WHEN THE DUST SETTLES DOWN AND THE JUST NWO IS INAUGARATED IT NEEDS TO MAKE FORMER COLONIAL POWERS LIKE BRITAIN AND FRANCE  MAKE REPARATIONS AS THEY ARE FULLY LIABLE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING CORRUPTION ON EARTH. URGENT ATTENTION IS BEING PAID TO THIS NOW HERE AND ON THE ESCHATOLOGY THREAD.


ALSO ONE OF  THE BOLDEST MOVES PAKISTAN HAS MADE UNDER IMRAN KHAN'S PTI GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN TO RE-DEFINE IT'S HISTORICAL TERRITORIAL CLAIMS WITH INDIA.  THE NEW OFFICIAL MAP IS A POTENTIAL GAME CHANGER AND IT HAS BEEN LAUNCHED AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE POLITICAL AUTONOMOUS STATUS OF INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR SINCE AUGUST 2019. IT HAS BEEN LAUNCHED AT A TIME WHEN THERE IS A MILITARY STANDOFF BETWEEN INDIA AND CHINA OVER BRITISH RAJ ERA DISPUTED BOUNDARIES.     THIS IS THE OFFICIAL PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPONDING TO AGGRESSIVE ILLEGAL INDIAN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS.  IT APPEARS  THIS HAS BEEN SYNCHRONISED WITH CHINA AND SO IT CARRIES ENORMOUS WEIGHT AND THIS WILL BE FOCUSSED UPON. 

IT IS TIME THAT COLONIAL ERA IMPOSED BOUNDARIES IMPOSED ON THE MUSLIM WORLD ARE REJECTED AND ABANDONED.



MR.JINNAH  THE MAKING OF PAKISTAN





THE LEGACY OF MR.JINNAH  1876-1948
The Pakistan that emerged in 1947 was a mere shadow of what Jinnah had wanted.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1377353

Exactly 70 years to the day, on December 25, 1947, Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah agreed to be photographed reading Dawn – the newspaper he had founded. The headline on the front page of Dawn that day read: ‘71 today’. The trace of a whimsical smile on Mr Jinnah’s lips is unmistakable as he is seen glancing at the newspaper. | Photo: Press Information Department (PID)

The importance of being Mr Jinnah



Ayesha Jalal



IN one of the more unforgettable contemporary recollections of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Beverely Nichols in Verdict on India described the lanky and stylishly dressed barrister as the “most important man in Asia”. Looking every bit like a gentleman of Spain, of the old diplomatic school, the monocle-wearing leader of the All-India Muslim League held a pivotal place in India’s future. “If Gandhi goes, there is Nehru, Rajagopalachari, Patel and a dozen others. But if Jinnah goes, who is there?” Without the Quaid-i-Azam to steer the course, the Muslim League was a divisive and potentially explosive force that “might run completely off the rails, and charge through India with fire and slaughter”; it might even “start another war”. As long as Jinnah was around, nothing disastrous was likely to happen and so, Nichols quipped, “a great deal hangs on the grey silk cord of that monocle”.



If the British journalist overstated Jinnah’s importance, he had put his finger on an essential piece of the sub-continental political puzzle on the eve of British decolonisation in India. Jinnah was a crucial link between the Congress and the Muslim League, which, if broken, could catapult India into disaster.



While regaling journalists at a tea party in his honour at Allahabad in April 1942, two years after the formal orchestration of the demand for Pakistan by the Muslim League, Jinnah had emphatically denied harbouring the “slightest ill-will” against Hindus or any other community. Charged with fomenting hatred and bigotry, he retorted: “I … honestly believe that the day will come when not only Muslims but this great community of Hindus will also bless, if not during my lifetime, after I am dead, [in the] the memory of my name.”



Drawing an analogy between himself and the first man to appear on the street with an umbrella, only to be laughed and scorned at by the crowd that had never seen an umbrella before, he said self-assuredly, “You may laugh at me”, but time will soon come when “you will not only understand what the Umbrella is but … use it to the advantage of everyone of you”.



Jinnah’s prediction that posterity would come to look kindly on the umbrella he had unfurled in the form of his demand for Pakistan remains unrealised. Confusing the end result with what he had been after all along, his admirers and detractors alike hold him responsible for dismembering the unity of India.



But, then, the Pakistan that emerged in 1947 was a mere shadow of what he had wanted. Let down by his own followers, outmanoeuvred by the Congress and squeezed by Britain’s last viceroy, Jinnah was made to accept a settlement he had rejected in 1944 and 1946.



His early death in September 1948 deprived Pakistan of a much-needed steadying hand at the helm during an uncertain and perilous time. With no one of Jinnah’s stature and constitutional acumen around to read the riot act, constitutional propriety and strict adherence to the rule of law were early casualties of the withering struggle between the newly-created centre and the provinces as well as the main institutions of the state.



Repeated suspensions of the democratic process by military regimes have ensured that even after seven decades of independence, Pakistanis are bitterly disagreed on the principles and practices of constitutional government as well as the sharing of rights and responsibilities between the state and the citizen. So, while there is no denying the centrality of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s iconographic location in Pakistani national consciousness, there is a gaping chasm between the nationalist icon and the savvy politician.



Across the 1947 divide, clashing representations of Jinnah and his politics highlight the fissures in the Indian national imaginary. The unanimous rage that exploded as Indian nationalism, whether of the ‘secular’ or the ‘communal’ variety, in the wake of Jaswant Singh’s book on the Muslim League leader is evidence of Jinnah’s negative standing in the Indian psyche.



Left to an adoring following in Pakistan and equally impassioned detractors in India, the clear-headed lawyer who never missed a cue has been reduced to a jumble of contradictions that mostly cancel each other out. Jinnah’s demonisation in the Indian nationalist pantheon as the communal monster who divided mother India contrasts with his positive representation in Pakistan as a revered son of Islam, even an esteemed religious leader (maulana), who strove to safeguard Muslim interests in India. Misleading representations of one of modern South Asia’s leading politicians might not have withstood the test of history if they did not serve the nationalist self-projections of both India and Pakistan.



QUAID-I-AZAM Mohammad Ali Jinnah during his last visit to Dhaka, then East Pakistan. It was during this trip that he declared, at a mammoth public gathering on March 21, 1948, “Having failed to prevent the establishment of Pakistan ... the enemies of Pakistan have turned their attention to disrupting the state by creating a split among the Muslims of Pakistan... If you want to build up yourself into a nation, for God’s sake give up this provincialism.” | Photo: PID.







Nations need heroes and Pakistanis have a right to be proud of their greatest hero. But popular memories too need to be informed by some bare facts and meaningful ideas. Fed on improbable myths and the limitations of the great men’s approach to history, Pakistanis have been constrained from engaging in an informed and open debate on whether their country merits being called Jinnah’s Pakistan. Is Jinnah at all relevant to the current Pakistani predicament?



Even the most approximate answer requires training our sights on matters that most concern Pakistanis – rule of law and a balance between state institutions that is conducive to social justice, economic opportunities and peaceful coexistence. Fed on state-sponsored national yarns about the past, Pakistanis are at a loss how to settle matters of national identity and the nature of the state – democratic or authoritarian, secular or Islamic.



The rise of Hindu majoritarianism in secular India and seemingly unending convulsions of religious bigotry amid state paralysis, if not compliance, in Islamic Pakistan is causing widespread dismay, confusion and disenchantment among a cross-section of citizens on both sides of the international border.



This is why reassessing the legacy of the man, who is universally held responsible for a partition that he had assiduously tried avoiding, is so necessary. But to do so meaningfully, one has to go beyond the simplistic distinction between the secular and the religious on which so many of the national myths of India and Pakistan are based.



There is no doubt that after the Muslim League’s election debacle in 1937, Jinnah made a conscious effort to display his Muslim identity. On key public occasions, he donned the sherwani – the traditional Muslim dress – rather than his well-tailored Western suits, and made more of an effort to appear as a mass politician. This was in some contrast to the days when his oratorical powers were restricted to the quiet of council chambers in the central legislature.



But the aloofness that characterised his earlier life did not give way to a new-found affinity with the teeming multitude. A champion of mass education as the key to the democratisation and freedom of India, Jinnah lacked the populist touch of a Gandhi.



Solitary in disposition, he used the distance between himself and his followers to command esteem and, most importantly, authority. Every bit the politician, Jinnah had a keen sense of timing and spectacle. Making the most of the adulation showered upon him by Muslims, he launched a powerful challenge against the Congress’s claim to speak on behalf of all Indians.



THE beautiful Ruttie Jinnah was Mr Jinnah’s second wife. The couple fell in love in Darjeeling in 1916. Two years later, they were married, after Ruttie, who was a Parsi, converted to Islam despite virulent family opposition. | Photo: National Archives, Islamabad







However, even while banding with segments of the Muslim ulema for political purposes, he remained to the core a constitutionalist with a distaste for rabble rousers who made cynical use of religion. He distanced himself from the humdrum of theological disputes about divinity, prophecy or ritual. “I know of no religion apart from human activity,” he had written to Gandhi on January 1, 1940, since it “provides a moral basis for all other activities”. Religion for him was meaningless if it did not mean identifying with the whole of mankind and “that I could not do unless I took part in politics”.



Jinnah’s expansive humanism is in stark contrast with the shocking disregard for the freedom of religious conscience in the country he created, a result of the political gamesmanship resorted to by authoritarian rulers and self-styled ideologues of Islam in post-colonial Pakistan.



In terms of his most deep-seated political values and objectives, Jinnah was remarkably consistent throughout his long and chequered political career. He had begun his journey as a Congressman seeking a share of power for Indians at the all-India centre.



Since Muslims were a minority in the limited system of representation in colonial India, he became an ardent champion of minority rights as a necessary step towards a Hindu-Muslim concordat and Congress-League cooperation. The provincial bias in British constitutional reforms after 1919 tested the resilience of a centralist politician with all-India ambitions.



As a constitutionalist of rare skill and vision, Jinnah tried reconciling communitarian and provincial interests while holding out an olive branch to the Congress. While his insistence on national status for Indian Muslims became absolute after 1940, the demand for a separate and sovereign state was open to negotiation until the late summer of 1946.



Jinnah was acutely aware that almost as many members of the Muslim nation would reside in Hindustan as in the specifically-Muslim homeland. The claim to nationhood was not an inevitable overture to completely separate statehood. An analytical distinction between a division of sovereignty within India and a partition of the provinces enables a precise understanding of the demand for a ‘Pakistan’. On achieving Pakistan, Jinnah was categorical that equal citizenship and an assurance of minority rights would form the basis of the new state.



THE Quaid-i-Azam in conversation with Altaf Husain, the first editor of Dawn Karachi, who visited Mr Jinnah to wish him a happy birthday on December 25, 1947. | Photo: PID.







The Quaid-i-Azam was checkmated at the end game of the Raj by the votaries of unitary and monolithic sovereignty. Yet his constitutional insights into the imperative of forging a new Indian union once the British relinquished power at the centre resonated well with a long South Asian political tradition of layered and shared sovereignties.



The four decades since the end of World War II were the heyday of indivisible sovereignty across the globe. Since the late 1980s there has been a perceptible weakening in the hold of that dogma. Jinnah’s legacy is especially pertinent to the enterprise of rethinking sovereignty in South Asia and beyond in the 21st century. If Pakistan and India can shed the deadweight of the colonial inheritance of non-negotiable sovereignty and hard borders which has been at the root of so many of their animosities, a South Asian union may yet come into being under the capacious cover of Jinnah’s metaphorical umbrella.



His expectation that Hindus quite as much as Muslims would one day bless the memory of his name remains unfulfilled. But moves in that directi on have been in evidence more recently. In 1999, the Indian prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, made a point of visiting the venue where the Lahore Resolution of 1940 was adopted by the Muslim League. This was followed in 2005 by Hindu nationalist leader Lal Krishna Advani’s homage to the founding father of Pakistan at his mausoleum in Karachi.



On the 141st birthday of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, it is worth recalling Bengali Congress leader Sarat Chandra Bose’s obituary comment, paying “tribute to the memory of one who was great as a lawyer, once great as a Congressman, great as a leader of Muslims, great as a world politician and diplomat and, greatest of all, as a man of action.”




The writer is Mary Richardson Professor of History and Director of the Center for South Asian and Indian Ocean Studies at Tufts University, Massachusetts, United States of America.







FOUNDING FATHERS 1947-1951


While Jinnah’s unusual role makes him a unique figure, it also represents a weakness of our freedom movement.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1352119/specia...-1947-1951

Dr Syed Jaffar Ahmed


It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness ... We were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way…

THESE lines were written by Charles Dickens in the background of the French Revolution. These hold true in a very different historical setting in which Pakistan was created and started its journey. It was a journey which began amidst conflicting rays of hope and despair, and belief and incredulity.Pakistan emerged on the map of the world as the solution of the communal question that had declined to be addressed within a wider united Indian framework that had made partition inevitable.

The founding fathers had cultivated a very promising image of Pakistan, a country that would be a social welfare and modern democratic state, radiating all the virtues a common Muslim believes to be found in what was believed to be an Islamic state. The reality of Pakistan, however, unfortunately proved to be the nemesis of what had been cultivated.

Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan addresses members of the All-India Muslim League at a meeting in April 1943, in Delhi, as Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah looks on. — Dawn/White Star Archives

A lot of Pakistan’s saga has to do with its leadership.
Historians generally enter the historical theatre by first identifying the characters in a given drama whose more deep-seated urges and social context unfold only later. That is why the historians undertaking the social and political history projects are also compelled to give due place to the historical figures playing some crucial role.

Pakistan’s hopes and despair after independence had also much to do with its leaders, the founding fathers. But who could be counted among them?

Our freedom is known for its being the work of just one individual, the Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Leonard Mosley called the creation of Pakistan a “one-man achievement”. More comprehensive was Stanley Wolpert’s depiction of Jinnah’s role in the creation of Pakistan: “… few individuals significantly alter the course of history. Fewer still modify the map of the world. Hardly anyone can be credited with creating a nation-state. Jinnah did all three.”

However, while Jinnah’s unusual role makes him a unique figure, it also represents a weakness of our freedom movement which did not create a wider section of big leaders. Those who accompanied Jinnah were mostly not even his pale shadows.

This weakness came to be exposed when Jinnah died 13 months after independence. Beverly Nichols had foreseen the danger: “If Gandhi goes, there is always Nehru, or Rajgopalachari, or Patel or a dozen others. But if Jinnah goes, who is there?”And really when Jinnah went, there was no one there.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah speaks at a civic reception held in his honour by the Karachi Municipal Corporation (KMC) at the KMC headquarters on August 25, 1947. Mayor Hakeem Muhammad Ahsan is seen on the right, while Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan and Sir Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah are on the left. — Dawn/White Star Archives

Liaquat Ali Khan did come of age and certainly his stature increased but there was no question of him filling the space left by Jinnah. Despite having been a trusted lieutenant, Liaquat did not command the level of authority that Jinnah did. One can only say that after Jinnah’s death, he naturally came under more political limelight. Pakistan, as such, began with a very limited political resource.

Unfortunately, the League had during the freedom movement remained a platform giving voice to Muslim political separatism; it was more of an umbrella under which Muslims of all shades could assemble. At best it was a movement. But a political party it was not. No widespread structures; no committed and trained cadres.

Soon after independence, it was proposed in the League’s Council to liquidate the party and allow diverse elements within it to form more natural organisations built around various ideological preferences and political programmes. This was not approved and in the later years, short-sightedness of certain leaders even compelled them to argue that League and League alone had the right to rule the country. Most of the prominent Leaguers had not emerged above the provincial politics and even in the provincial arenas most of them had been pitted against each other. With such inherent weaknesses League could not withstand the pressures of the civil and military institutions which had lost no time in adjusting themselves to govern the state.

A major failure of League leadership in those formative years was its total neglect of the fact that a major segment of the effective political leadership in the regions which comprised Pakistan could be a great help in building the country.

The leaders one is referring to either did not go along Muslim League during the Pakistan movement, and some of them had their reservations also about the new country, yet once Pakistan came into being, their relevance had not diminished but had in fact increased given the fact that they were the sons of the soil, had their strong social and political bases and were looked upon with respect by sizeable followers.
This marginalised elite included the likes of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Abdul Samad Achakzai, G.M. Syed, and Ghous Baksh Bizenjo. Engaging this elite could not only have been helpful but was perhaps essential for realising the project promised by the League.

If Pakistan had to be made a genuine federal state, for which Jinnah had fostered the most convincing arguments, it was this stuff of politicians which was needed to be brought in to make it a reality. That they did not support the Pakistan movement is not of much significance because we all know that after independence the state lost no time in courting the support of those religo-political organisations and even sectarian outfits that had opposed the Pakistan idea more vocally and with stronger arguments. Had it happened otherwise, the size and worth of the real critical mass Pakistan would have found in its political domain would have been radically different.

Ghaffar Khan, on partition, openly announced his loyalty to the new country. At one point Jinnah even
offered his brother, Dr Khan Sahab, the governorship of the province, but these moves were frustrated.
G.M. Syed was certainly on the other side of the political fence, yet he was someone who had once described himself as a soldier of Jinnah, and had described the latter as his general. His differences with the League emerged only on the eve of partition and that was also confined to the narrow provincial politics of electioneering. He could be brought to the negotiation table but the League preferred to let such political elites be marginalised.

Even leaders within the League who stood for provincial rights or advocated civil liberties and social reforms were also gradually shown the door. Thus, some of the earlier opposition parties came out of the League fold. Suhrawardy, Fazlul Haq, Maulana Bhashani, Pir Sahab Manki Sharif, Iftikhar Hussain Mamdot, Mian Iftikharuddin, and several others were all once part of the League, where their space kept shrinking.
An already weakened political class thus became weaker and the emerging civil-military power found it ever easier to establish its dominance.

The civil servants had the experience of administering the colonial state. They employed their experience
to restore a state apparatus that characteristically was not any different from the colonial model.
With the induction of the first Pakistani commander-in-chief of the army, General Ayub Khan, a civil-military alliance emerged which soon became more of an oligarchy. Within a couple of years of independence, the initial signs of the policies and the perceptions the state had to pursue started coming to the fore.
The mismanagement of the partition by the colonial rulers, the leaving of a number of matters unsettled, and particularly the issue of Jammu and Kashmir, created in the very beginning animosity between Pakistan and India. A war was fought between the two over Kashmir in October 1947. Though a ceasefire was enforced 14 months later, the matter has not been resolved even in 70 years and even after fighting three wars. The relationship between the two countries stands frozen in 1947.

Dilip Hiro has rightly titled his recent book on the subject as The Longest August.The adverse relationship between the two countries provided to our rulers and the ruling institutions the pretext to develop Pakistan as a national security state with a political economy of defence as its founding philosophy. The priorities of the state were designed to support what the state had accepted for itself. Things that define a modern social welfare, democratic state became insignificant.

The precarious condition in which Pakistan found itself after independence enabled the civil services to take the initiative in their own hands. Keith Callard writes that “the circumstances of partition and its aftermath demanded strong central action to establish government control over the new state”.

Pakistan, as opposed to India was a new, seceding state, while India was a successor state which had inherited the entire state apparatus that existed before partition.Thus, the lines were drawn from the very beginning regarding who was to be the actual power-holder and the decision-maker for the state and who had to play a secondary role simply to provide a political democratic colour to this peculiar form of statecraft.

This dichotomy has been fairly visible since the beginning. Liaquat was its first victim. He was made to go to the United States to build what he, upon putting his first step on American soil, described as “a spiritual bridge between his country and the US”.

Towards the end of 1951, he had started cultivating the idea of pursuing a policy deviating from the earlier appeasement of the US. His assassination in October that year cleared the way for enhanced efforts to court the American support.

Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah and Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan attend a press conference in Cairo in December 1946. They appeal to the leaders of the Muslim World to support India’s Muslims in their struggle for independence. — Dawn/White Star Archives

That Liaquat had begun to be isolated within a couple of years is apparent from what was designated as the Rawalpindi conspiracy case.The outgoing commander-in-chief, General Gracey, had already informed the incoming C-in-C Ayub Khan about a group of young Turks within the armed forces. Defence Secretary Iskander Mirza had also made a comment to the British Defence Attaché in Karachi with respect to the nationalistic aspirations among young officers.The prime minister was kept uninformed and subsequently came to know of this remark through the civilian channel of the police. Ayub and Mirza thus kept the prime minister in the dark. The conspiracy behind the conspiracy tells its own story.

In this photograph taken by Khatir Ghaznavi, Saadat Hasan Manto is deep in composition, as he holds a cigarette in his left hand at his residence, Laxmi Mansion, in Lahore in January 1948. — Manto Family Archives in the possession of Nusrat Jalal, Lahore

Pakistan’s drift towards authoritarianism from its very inception was detected gradually by historians and there has been a great deal of political literature on it since. But it’s a fact of history that the first who noted it were also the first who had to bear the ramifications of authoritarianism.
These were our working classes, our intelligentsia, writers and poets.

Who can forget the writings of Manto and Qasmi and the poetry of Faiz and Noon Meem Rashid articulating the trials of their times. Shouldn’t they too be counted among the founding fathers of our country?
The writer is Adjunct Professor at Pakistan Study Centre, University of Karachi.






Reply
#83
ISLAMABAD- TEHERAN-ISTANBUL RAILWAY CORRIDOR &
GILGIT SKARDU ROAD
Reply
#84
THE FRONTIER WORKS ORGANISATION FWO OF PAKISTAN  WHICH BUILT THE KKH WITH CHINA IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE MODERN WORLD. THE REASON THIS VIDEO HAS BEEN POSTED IS NOT TO PROMOTE GLORY. RATHER IT IS TO INSPIRE THE PAKISTANI NATION TO EMBARK ON THE LONG MARCH FOR A MASSIVE NATIONAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAMME. 

PAKISTAN NEEDS TO ESCAPE FROM THE FACTORS AND FORCES HINDERING IT'S DEVELOPMENT.  THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE BY LOOKING BEYOND PARTY, ETHNIC AND  LINGUISTIC AND SECTARIAN POLITICS. THE COUNTRY'S LEADERSHIP MUST WORK WITH THE MASSES TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL ASPIRATIONS.

WHERE MEN AND MOUNTAIN MEET 



Reply
#85
RUSSIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN IS COMING TO PAKISTAN WITH A NEW PACKAGE




FOR THE FIRST TIME, WE ARE BUILDING 10 DAMS IN 10 YEARS THIS WILL BE THE “DECADE OF DAMS": PM IMRAN






IMRAN KHAN SHOULD PREPARE TO STOP KAZAKHSTAN FORMULA IN PAKISTAN  
Reply
#86
GLOBAL VISION 2000 WILL GO THE EXTRA MILE TO FATHOM THE REALITIES OF THE STATE OF THE UMMAH. IF IT NECESSITATES HISTORICAL REVISIONISM SO BE IT. THE STAKES ARE HIGH BUT THE TRUTH NEEDS TO EMERGE AND STAND OUT.  HERE WE LOOK AT THE WORK OF DR.ISHTIAQ AHMED ON THE RISE OF THE 2 NATION THEORY AND THE CREATION OF PAKISTAN OUT OF BRITISH INDIA AS AN UNIQUE ISLAMIC IDEOLOGICAL TERRITORIAL GARRISON STATE.



HIS MAIN ARGUMENT IN ESSENCE IS THAT PAKISTAN WAS CREATED IN THE 1940S AS A BUFFER STATE BY THE DYING BRITISH EMPIRE TO PREVENT AN UNIFIED INDIAN STATE WITH PRO COMMUNIST LEANINGS ALLYING WITH THE SOVIET UNION. A PROVOKING THOUGHT FOR MUSLIM LEADERS AND LEADERSHIP IS THAT THE BRITISH RAJ WAS RUN BARELY BY 50000 WHITE BRITISH ARMY OFFICERS. HIS WORK IS BASED ON PRIMARY SOURCES.



ONE QUESTION THAT ARISES IMMEDIATELY IS HOW THE BRITISH STATE WHICH IS THE LEGACY STATE OF THE BRITISH RAJ CAN BE MADE ACCOUNTABLE FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. THESE QUESTIONS NEED TO BE ASKED AS FORMER IMPERIALISTS NEED TO BE MADE TO REALISE THAT THEIR ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND PENALTIES.



THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR ERA NEED TO BE CHARTED  OUT.  AGAIN THOSE FOLLOWING THIS STORY NEED TO GET MULTI-LINGUAL OR MULTI-SKILLED IN THEIR RESEARCH.









PAKISTAN THE GARRISON STATE 

Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed






THE BLOODY PATH OF PUNJAB PARTITION WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED DETAILS

Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed







THE UNTOLD STORY OF THE PARTITION OF PUNJAB 1947



































JINNAH: HIS SUCCESSES, FAILURES AND ROLE IN HISTORY











PARTITION OF INDIA AND THE ROLE OF QUAID E AZAM

Professor Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed













JINNAH OR THE BRITISH : WHO CREATED PAKISTAN?

Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed

Abbas Haidar









DECODING JINNAH











EAST PAKISTAN's REAL STORY





LET's FINISH 'THE STORY OF PAKISTAN'






STORY OF THE SUBCONTINENT

Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed








SIR SYED AHMED KHAN AND THE FREEDOM STRUGGLE







SIR SYED AHMED KHAN (1817 - 1898), THE TWO NATION THEORY, EDUCATION AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION







ALLAMA IQBAL AND THE TWO NATION THEORY






THE JINNAH -GANDHI CLASH AND THE KHILAFAT ISSUE







1857 SEPOY MUTINY OR WAR OF INDEPENDENCE ?


Reply
#87
FROM THE GLOBAL VISION 2000 PERSPECTIVE THE WORLD NEEDS TO BE PUT ON NOTICE. THE WORLD WE KNOW DRAWN UP BY RIVAL NON MUSLIM POWERS IS OVER. ALSO THE PREDOMINANT WESTERN CONTROL OF THE WORLD IS OVER. IN TERMS OF UKRAINE IT IS NOT ONLY THE RUSSIANS WHO HAVE REVISIONIST HISTORICAL TERRITORIAL CLAIMS.

THE MUSLIM WORLD ALSO HAS TERRITORIAL CLAIMS THAT NEED TO BE SETTLED JUSTLY AND VARIOUS POWERS NEED TO LEAVE. ONE OF THESE IS KASHMIR WHICH HAS BEEN TURNED INTO THE VALLEY OF SORROWS. ANOTHER IRONICALLY FORGOTTEN AREA IS THE UKRAINE IN WHICH THERE  USED TO EXIST THE CRIMEAN MUSLIM KHANATE. THE CRIMEAN TATARS WERE ETHNICALLY CLEANSED FROM THE AREA BY STALIN.  I HAVE NO SOFT SPOT EITHER FOR THE RUSSIANS WHO HAVE MUSLIM BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS. EVEN IN OUR TIMES HAVE WE FORGOTTEN THE RUSSIAN TREATMENT OF CHECHNYA?

IF RUSSIA CAN UNILATERALLY GO IN WHAT IS STOPPING PAKISTAN GOING INTO INDIAN OCCUPIED KASHMIR? THE SOVEREIGNTY AND DIGNITY OF MUSLIM PEOPLE WILL NOT BE DELIVERED BY SOUND BITES AND MARCHES BUT BY MILITARY POWER AND JIHAD ALONE IN A WORLD DOMINATED BY THE DOCTRINE OF MIGHT BEING RIGHT.  AS OUR UNITED STATES OF ISLAM ARMY THREAD REVEALS ISLAMIC MILITARY DOCTRINE WAS NEVER BASED ON NUMBERS ALONE. ISLAMIC ARMIES MARCHED AND FOUGHT SUCCESSFULLY COUNTLESS BATTLES AGAINST OVERWHELMING ODDS AND WON. THAT LESSON MUST NOT BE EVER FORGOTTEN.


IMRAN KHAN CLEARS WHY HE IS VISITING RUSSIA WHILE US UKRAINE GET READY TO FIGHT




UKRAINE ASKS PAKISTAN AND IMRAN KHAN TO PLAY THE ROLE WITH RUSSIA
Reply
#88
IMRAN KHAN BRAVE DECISION :
PAKISTAN BRIGHT FUTURE IS AHEAD 



IMRAN KHAN ORDERS PAKISTANI AIR FORCE TO DOWN ANY DRONE OF US AND INDIA




NOT YOUR SERVANTS PM IMRAN KHAN TELLS US AND ALLIES
Essa Naqvi



PM IMRAN KHAN HOLDS OVER 3 HOUR LONG MEETING WITH PRESIDENT PUTIN




PRIME MINISTER MEETS GRAND MUFTI OF RUSSIA

Rawil Gaynetdin at Moscow Cathedral Mosque - 24 Feb 2022





PM IMRAN KHAN’s ADDRESS TO THE RUSSIAN BUSINESS COMMUNITY AT  BANQUET DINNER
Reply
#89
EVERYONE MUST REACH ISLAMABAD ON 27TH MARCH 2022 AGAINST US PUPPETS  - Khan
Reply
#90
THE COINCIDING OF PAKISTAN DAY'S MILITARY PARADE WITH THE OIC AND THE PRESENCE OF THE CHINESE FOREIGN MINISTER IS A HUGE DEVELOPMENT ON THE WORLD STAGE. IS THE SLUMBERING MUSLIM GIANT AWAKENING AT LAST.

GLOBAL VISION 2000 IS WORKING ON THIS BREAKING STORY AND IT's SIGNIFICANCE AT A TIME WHEN GEO TECTONIC PLATES ARE COLLIDING.   AT A TIME WHEN THE WORLD WANTS TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE DOLLAR AND US HEGEMONY TO A MULTIPOLAR WORLD.



POSTSCRIPT

TODAY IS THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE MARCH 23 1940 LAHORE DECLARATION. THIS LAID THE BASIS FOR THE CREATION OF PAKISTAN THE NEW HOMELAND FOR INDIAN MUSLIMS. IT ALSO PAVED THE WAY FOR HIJRA FOR MILLIONS OF INDIAN MUSLIMS. INDEPENDENCE FROM A RUTHLESS COLONIAL POWER WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY PARTITION AND FORCED MILLIONS TO ENGAGE IN THE PATH OF PROPHETIC MIGRATION FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR FAITH. 

THIS MUST NOT BE FORGOTTEN AND MUSLIMS NOT ONLY IN THE INDIAN SUBCONTINENT BUT GLOBALLY NEED TO RESURRECT THE CONCEPT OF HIJRA IF THEY FIND THEIR FAITH BEING PERSECUTED. GLOBAL VISION 2000 SALUTES THE MEMORY AND SACRIFICES OF THOSE MUHAJIREEN IN 1947 AND INDEED THE GREAT PROPHETIC HIJRAS THAT THEY FOLLOWED. 

THIS EXPERIMENT HAS NOT GONE ACCORDING TO PLAN  NOR HAS IT BEEN COMPLETED. IT IS THE TURN OF THE NEW GENERATION TO COMPLETE THE UNFINISHED TASK OF BUILDING AND TRANSITIONING TOWARDS THE ISLAMIC  STATE OF PAKISTAN BY MOVING AWAY FROM THE CURRENT  FAILED SECULAR MODEL.     





PM IMRAN KHAN SPEECH IN OIC SUMMIT  22 Mar 2022



IMRAN KHAN IS FOLLOWING THE PATH OF ZIA UL HAQ
TO UNITE THE OIC 





PAKISTAN DAY PARADE - 23 MARCH 2022



PAKISTAN DAY SONG  23rd MARCH 2021 | ISPR
AIK QAUM  AIK MANZIL 



DEFENCE AND MARTYRS’ DAY SONG  
HAR GHARI TAYYAR KAMRAN 





IMRAN KHAN SET A NEW BENCHMARK FOR OIC AGAINST US AND INDIA



INDIA IS GETTING ANGRY AFTER OIC MAKING STANCE ON KASHMIR AGAINST INDIA





CHINESE FM VISITS INDIA BEFORE THE NO MOTION TRUST IN PAKISTAN




CHINA IS NOW READY TO DOMINATE AGAINST INDIA IN ARUNACHAL AND LADAKH



RUSSIA IS PLAYING AN IMPORTANT MOVE AGAINST THE US OVER UKRAINE WITH THE ARAB WORLD
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)