This text is a transcript of a discussion about the Pakistani judicial system and the arrest of Imran Khan. The speakers express strong opinions regarding the fairness and impartiality of recent court decisions, criticizing the treatment of political figures and raising concerns about the rule of law. The conversation also touches upon broader political instability in Pakistan and the role of the media in shaping public perception. Overall, the discussion reveals deep divisions and anxieties within Pakistani society concerning its political and legal landscape.

Political Discourse Analysis: A Study Guide

Quiz

Instructions: Answer each question in 2-3 complete sentences.

1. According to the speaker, what is the issue with the way judges are treated within the judicial system?
2. What specific criticisms are made regarding Imran Khan’s arrest and treatment?
3. How does the speaker describe the current political climate, and what does the speaker feel is its cause?
4. What does the speaker say about the role of media in the current political situation?
5. According to the speaker, what is the problem with public support for political figures?
6. What is the speaker’s position on political stability and the military’s influence in government?
7. How does the speaker view the actions and behaviors of some political leaders?
8. What is the speaker’s main criticism of the current political atmosphere in Pakistan?
9. What historical event does the speaker reference when discussing the current political divisions in Pakistan?
10. What solutions does the speaker propose for the political situation in Pakistan?

Quiz Answer Key

1. The speaker criticizes the lack of respect for judges, stating they are not being treated with dignity or with the proper regard for their role, comparing it to a lack of “Brahma of justice” being kept. The speaker says judges are sometimes treated disrespectfully, as though they are “naked.”
2. The speaker criticizes Imran Khan’s arrest, stating he was taken from the Supreme Court in a terrifying manner, and a judge should show some humanity to anyone taken that way. Additionally, the speaker questions the conditions under which Khan was held.
3. The speaker describes a political climate fueled by “cheap thinking” and an “atmosphere of awe” and a lack of respect within the system. The speaker suggests that political leaders’ self-serving behaviors are creating the tense environment.
4. The speaker accuses the media of being sensationalist and biased, sometimes using propaganda and lies to incite hatred and cause devastation.
5. The speaker suggests the public’s support for leaders is often based on lies and theatrics. Furthermore, the speaker believes the public is too easily fooled by individuals who are dishonest.
6. The speaker advocates for political stability in society and believes the military’s interference in government needs to be reduced. Furthermore, the speaker believes political instability is a major deterrent to investment in the country.
7. The speaker criticizes political leaders for being dishonest, manipulative, and for prioritizing personal gain over the well-being of the country. The speaker often describes their behavior as theatrics and dramatics.
8. The speaker’s primary criticism is the lack of respect within the system, the use of violence, the spreading of misinformation, and the lack of accountability of government and political leaders.
9. The speaker references the incidents of 1947 when discussing current divisions, suggesting that the current situation is causing the same kinds of destruction. The speaker notes that these historical incidents are still present in the minds of some people.
10. The speaker proposes that the truth be valued, that people not be hateful, and that there should be political stability and less military influence on government. The speaker also argues that citizens must have the ability to recognize genuine leaders.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the speaker’s critique of the Pakistani judicial system. What specific problems does the speaker identify, and what are the implications of these issues on public trust and the rule of law?
2. Explore the speaker’s criticisms of political leadership in Pakistan. How does the speaker portray the actions and motivations of political figures, and what does this suggest about the state of Pakistani politics?
3. Discuss the role of the media, according to the speaker, in shaping public opinion and political discourse. How does the speaker believe the media contributes to the current state of affairs in Pakistan, and what alternative role does the speaker seem to advocate for?
4. How does the speaker understand the relationship between political leaders, the military, and political stability in Pakistan? What solutions does the speaker propose to address the military’s influence and achieve a more stable political environment?
5. Using examples from the text, evaluate the speaker’s perception of the Pakistani people and their relationship to their political leaders. How does the speaker think the population should engage in politics, and what changes does the speaker suggest the people should make?

Glossary of Key Terms

Brahma of Justice: A reference to the Hindu concept of Brahma, the creator god, and his role in maintaining cosmic order. In this context, it refers to the idea of a higher, impartial force that ensures fairness and righteousness within the judicial system. Dramabaazi: A term used to describe theatrics, performance, or actions that are insincere, manipulative, or intended to create a false impression. Political Stability: A state of consistency and order in a government and its institutions, characterized by a lack of abrupt changes or disruption in political power. Military Interference: The involvement of the armed forces in the political processes of a country, including government actions, elections, or decisions of the judiciary. Cheap Thinking: A reference to shallow, self-serving or manipulative political tactics that prioritize personal gain or partisan interests over the good of the country. Human Seal: The use of people as shields or for protection in dangerous or conflict situations. In this context, it describes a method of protecting a leader by putting civilians in danger. Political Theives: A term for political actors who are corrupt or act in self-interest, often at the expense of their constituents. Executive Order: A directive issued by the president or head of state that carries the force of law. It is often used in situations where action is needed quickly. Qaumi Sata: Urdu term meaning “National Level”. In the context of the text, it refers to the status and conditions of things at the level of the nation. Dramabaaz: A person who engages in theatrics and manipulates situations.

Pakistan’s Political and Judicial Crisis

Okay, here is a detailed briefing document reviewing the main themes and important ideas from the provided text:

Briefing Document: Analysis of “Pasted Text” Excerpts

Document Overview:

This document provides an analysis of a transcript, likely from a Pakistani media program, where individuals are discussing the current political and judicial landscape. The conversation is highly critical of the judiciary, the military, and certain political figures, particularly focusing on the arrest and treatment of Imran Khan and related events. The discussion is often passionate, using strong language and metaphors.

Key Themes & Ideas:

1. Criticism of the Judiciary and Justice System:

• Loss of Faith: There is a pervasive sense of disappointment and disillusionment with the judiciary. The speaker criticizes the Supreme Court’s decisions and actions, suggesting that justice is not being served. One speaker argues the court has become “completely naked,” meaning without any semblance of justice or respect.
• Lack of Respect & Integrity: The speaker is scandalized by reports of judges behaving improperly, suggesting they lack dignity and respect for the office. They suggest that some judges behave as if they are “wearing underwear” on the chair of justice, a metaphor for their lack of decorum.
• Manipulation: The speaker alleges that the judiciary is being manipulated, citing examples of decisions that seem biased or pre-determined. They claim, “This is being managed, when this is a blot on the name of justice…”
• Judicial Bias: The speaker expresses strong concerns about the judiciary’s treatment of individuals, particularly the perceived preferential treatment of some and the harsh treatment of others. A quote illustrates this: “when it is said that a Muslim is being presented in your court I and you are telling him that you are very happy to meet him so tell me after this there will be wishes, there will be peace, it is like the flower of spring.” The speaker here suggests the judiciary has bias, and is not meeting out justice impartially.

1. The Arrest and Treatment of Imran Khan:

• Unjust Treatment: The manner of Imran Khan’s arrest is heavily criticized, described as “terrifying,” and as if the person was “picked up in such a terrifying manner.” There is concern over how he was treated after his arrest and was not shown basic humanity.
• Questions of Security: The speaker raises concerns about Imran Khan’s safety in custody, suggesting that he could be poisoned or otherwise harmed, “it is possible that Maqsood, who is like a peon in Jai, will poison me and in this way the extra person may kill me.”
• Media Manipulation: The speaker also asserts that the narrative surrounding Imran Khan is being manipulated by the media to serve political ends; referring to him as being portrayed as “sitting on a wheelchair, it was not a pretense,” but then, “the next day when he had to appear in the Supreme Court, he was running and climbing the stairs.”

1. Criticism of Political Leadership & Parties:

• Lack of Genuine Leadership: The speaker argues that many political leaders are not genuine, that they are only looking out for themselves and will say anything to gain power.
• Party Division and Weakness: They critique the current government, stating that the parliament is weak and easily manipulated, and the team is not united, “His team is not complete, then how can he talk to the whole?”
• Political Opportunism: The speaker criticizes politicians for their shifting alliances and for using situations for their own personal gain.
• Drama and Deception: The speaker accuses several leaders of engaging in “dramabaazi” (play-acting) and creating fake scenarios to garner sympathy or political advantage.

1. Role of the Military:

• Interference in Politics: The speaker suggests that the military is interfering too much in politics. They want less army interference, “that the interference of the army should be reduced so that the Murius can do well in a proper manner”
• Accusations of Conspiracy: There are allusions to possible conspiracies by the military to harm political leaders like Imran Khan.
• Allegations of Misconduct: The speaker suggests that some individuals in the army are involved in violence and destruction. A quote states, “The number of vehicles that have been stolen from the Army Cantonment, oh my god, look at the effect of those vehicles, so much destruction, I am sure after seeing it. I am feeling very sad”.

1. Foreign Relations and International Perception

• India as a Point of Comparison: India is used as a point of comparison, both in terms of its influence and to contrast Pakistan’s situation. The speaker indicates that Pakistan’s internal problems make them look bad in the world, “whenever there is a big connection, the name of India will come on every tongue”.
• Concerns About External Perception: The speaker expresses worries about how Pakistan’s actions are viewed internationally, especially in light of accusations of human rights violations.

1. Media’s Responsibility

• Spread of Misinformation: The speaker suggests that the media has been spreading lies and hatred, rather than reporting truthful information, and is responsible for some of the tensions present in Pakistan, “Some have used it for hatred and you know the amount of devastation that has happened, it is so much sauce”
• Need for Truth and Responsibility: The speaker urges media outlets to present facts responsibly and to prioritize truth over sensationalism and popularity.

Specific Examples & Quotes:

• On the Judiciary: “He is sitting on the chair of the sahab, he must be so ashamed that even after keeping the Brahma of justice, here even the Brahma is not being kept, here he is completely naked…”
• On Imran Khan’s Arrest: “the way Imran Khan was arrested from outside the Supreme Court, after that, a feeling was developing that it is not known in what condition he will be kept…”
• On Political Leaders’ Deception: “It’s all dramabaazi, he makes himself a plot…”
• On the Military: “the interference of the army should be reduced so that the Murius can do well in a proper manner…”
• On Media Responsibility: “Our media should make efforts to deal with this kind of culture, see, the more life and power there is in irrigation, the more it is beneficial. It is there and that is why we need to stick to the truth…”

Overall Tone and Conclusion:

The tone of the discussion is highly critical and pessimistic, expressing significant concern over the state of affairs in Pakistan. There is a strong call for accountability, truth, and a return to principles of justice and respect for the law. The speakers seem deeply frustrated by what they perceive as a breakdown of institutions and a lack of honest leadership. The document highlights a deep sense of political and social instability within Pakistan, suggesting a pressing need for reforms and authentic leadership.

Pakistan’s Political Crisis: A Critical Analysis

FAQ

• What is the main criticism being leveled against the Supreme Court, according to the speaker?
• The speaker expresses deep concern over the Supreme Court’s perceived lack of impartiality and justice. They cite instances like the treatment of Muslims in court, where a judge’s behavior seemed inappropriate and undermined the gravity of their role, and the way Imran Khan was arrested outside the court as evidence of injustice. The speaker feels that the judiciary is behaving in a nakedly partisan manner, abandoning any pretense of impartiality. There is also criticism that the court is not removing judges in a procedural way, and it’s being influenced by parties.
• How does the speaker use historical examples to support their arguments?
• The speaker draws parallels with the time of Hazrat Umar Farooq, emphasizing how he treated people with respect in court, regardless of their status. This historical precedent is contrasted with the current perceived disrespect shown by some members of the judiciary. They also mention Mahatma Gandhi, highlighting how he brought politics out of the elite drawing rooms and how this made him effective, suggesting that modern leaders should be more in touch with the real issues. Furthermore, they reference the events of 1947 to illustrate a history of violence and division in the region.
• What issues does the speaker raise regarding the arrest and treatment of Imran Khan?

The speaker questions the way Imran Khan was arrested outside the Supreme Court, describing it as terrifying and inhumane. They note a lack of basic humanity in how he was treated, contrasting this with the expected behavior of a judge. They question the narrative that he was in a wheelchair initially but then seen walking normally, implying that this was a staged act. They worry about the lack of security during his detention and fear that he is being purposely exposed to danger, suggesting foul play. Additionally, they question the rationale for his arrest and its impact on justice, given his position as a former leader.

• What are some of the speaker’s concerns about the current political climate in Pakistan?
• The speaker expresses deep concern about the instability in Pakistani politics, seeing a lack of respect and integrity among politicians. They critique those who seek power through manipulation and dramatic tactics rather than genuine leadership. The speaker feels that the Parliament is weak and susceptible to executive influence. There is a fear that the current political situation may result in bloodshed, and a widespread lack of faith in the system. They also criticize the current caretaker government’s inability to provide funds for elections, seeing it as a deliberate effort to stall the process.
• What does the speaker imply about the role of the media in the current crisis?

The speaker is critical of the media, suggesting that they are part of the problem, acting as a tool for manipulation. The speaker feels that the media is enabling “dramabaazi” by showcasing leaders’ manipulated image and actions, contributing to the spread of misinformation and hatred, rather than promoting truth and responsible reporting. The media’s role in creating emotional responses, rather than focusing on facts, is brought up as an issue.

• What does the speaker say about the possibility of elections?

The speaker is suspicious of the current election process, suggesting that the caretaker government’s lack of funds for elections and the timing of the election announcement are part of a strategy to manipulate the outcome. The speaker notes that the demand for elections may not be completed in 90 days, because they feel the people in power are working towards other objectives. There are concerns that the current leadership will take advantage of the situation for their own benefit. They want the focus to be on the future of the country, not just the elections themselves.

• How does the speaker describe the need for honesty and integrity in leadership?
• The speaker repeatedly emphasizes the need for truth, honesty, and integrity in leaders. They criticize leaders who use deceit and manipulation for personal gain and for spreading hatred. They see genuine leadership as being rooted in a respect for human dignity, logic, and justice. The speaker wants people to see through leaders who only make promises of grandeur without realistic plans. They encourage the public to hold leaders to account, and to demand integrity. They express hope that people will be able to recognize those that are genuine.
• What does the speaker believe is the future of Pakistan based on the current trends they have been discussing?
• The speaker is concerned about the future of Pakistan due to the current state of injustice, manipulation, and political instability. They see a lack of political stability which is crucial for the country to grow and attract investment, and fear that the country is on a path to ruin if these problems are not resolved. The speaker’s remarks suggest that they are deeply worried about the future of the country if the culture of corruption and dishonesty continues. They feel that people must learn to look at leadership and situations with logic rather than emotion in order for the country to progress. They want the focus to be on the future of the country, not just elections.

Supreme Court Criticism and Reform

The sources discuss criticism of the Supreme Court, particularly in relation to recent decisions and the perceived behavior of judges [1-4].

Key points of criticism include:

• Perceived bias and lack of impartiality: There is a perception that the Supreme Court is not acting impartially, especially in cases involving certain individuals [1]. Some feel that judges are not showing enough respect for individuals appearing before them [1]. One source notes that it is as if a Muslim is being presented in court and being told that the judge is very happy to see him, and that this behavior is inappropriate [1].
• Questionable conduct of judges: Some sources describe behaviors of judges that are considered unbecoming, such as acting as if they have “underwear on” while in session, suggesting a lack of seriousness [1, 2]. There is discussion of judges holding parties, which is seen as compromising their ability to administer justice [1].
• Arrest of individuals: The manner in which individuals like Imran Khan have been arrested, sometimes outside the Supreme Court, has led to concerns about the judiciary’s role [2]. There is a feeling that the judiciary is not showing enough humanity, especially in the treatment of those arrested [2].
• Judicial System issues: The sources suggest there may be ways to remove a judge, but the process is long and complex [1, 5, 6]. The current methods of justice are questioned and viewed as having been compromised [3]. There are comments about how the judiciary system should be changed [4].
• Influence of external factors: It is suggested that decisions may be influenced by external factors, such as pressure from crowds or political parties [3, 4]. There are comments that some individuals are “doing sushi” which is also affecting the judiciary [7].
• Public perception and trust: The sources indicate a loss of trust in the judiciary, with people questioning their ability to deliver fair justice [3, 4]. There is a feeling that justice is being “murdered” by the current system and that there is a great injustice being done [4].
• Comparison to the past: Some sources compare the current situation to the British rule, suggesting that the judiciary’s behavior has regressed [3].

The criticisms in the sources cover issues of perceived bias, conduct, and the overall integrity of the justice system. The sources highlight a concern that justice is not being served fairly and that the system needs reform [1-4].

Imran Khan’s Arrest and Judicial Concerns

The sources discuss the arrest of Imran Khan and the circumstances surrounding it, raising concerns about the judiciary and the treatment of individuals [1].

Key points regarding Imran Khan’s arrest include:

• Manner of Arrest: Imran Khan’s arrest, particularly the way he was taken from outside the Supreme Court, is criticized as terrifying and inhumane [1]. The arrest is described as having been done in a “terrifying manner,” which is cause for concern about how he was treated [1].
• Concerns About Treatment: There was worry about the conditions in which Imran Khan would be held after his arrest, with questions about whether he would be kept in a “scary yellow cell” [1]. There are also mentions of him being placed in “Mundkadiya,” a term that is not clearly defined in the sources, but seems to denote a disturbing situation [1].
• Humanity of the Judiciary: The sources suggest that judges should have shown some humanity in handling Imran Khan’s case, especially given the manner of his arrest [1]. The sources question whether a judge is showing proper consideration and acting humanely [1].
• Potential for Violence: One source indicates that there is a concern that leaders might be willing to have people killed in order to gain fame or to increase hatred and start movements [2]. The arrest is seen as a way to suppress leaders [2].
• Security Concerns: There are mentions of Imran Khan admitting that he feels his life is in danger, with concerns that a peon could poison him [3]. He believes that he could be killed [3]. There are also concerns that security agencies are involved in his potential harm [3].
• Use of a Wheelchair: One source questions the authenticity of Imran Khan’s use of a wheelchair, noting that he was seen walking and climbing stairs the day after it was said he could not walk [4]. It is suggested this is a drama he is staging [4]. The source indicates that he was seen running and climbing the stairs the next day [4].
• Implications for the Judiciary: The arrest is described as part of a larger issue of the judiciary not acting justly. The perception is that the judiciary is not handling such cases fairly or impartially, particularly in cases where there is a public outcry and potential for unrest [1].

In summary, the sources describe Imran Khan’s arrest as a catalyst for broader criticisms about the judiciary, raising concerns about the treatment of individuals, and the fairness of the legal process. The arrest is seen as inhumane and lacking proper consideration for the person being arrested.

Pakistan’s Judiciary: Crisis of Impartiality and Trust

The sources present a critical view of the Pakistani judiciary, raising concerns about its impartiality, conduct, and overall integrity. Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:

• Lack of Impartiality and Bias: There’s a strong perception that the judiciary is not acting impartially, particularly in cases involving certain individuals [1, 2]. Some believe judges are biased and don’t treat everyone with equal respect [1]. One source notes a judge behaving as if he was very happy to see a Muslim person in court, which is viewed as inappropriate [1].
• Questionable Conduct of Judges: The sources describe some judges’ behavior as unbecoming, including a lack of seriousness and holding parties, which could be compromising their ability to administer justice [1, 2]. One source mentions that a judge was acting as if he had “underwear on” while in session, indicating a lack of decorum [1].
• Concerns About Arrests and Treatment: The manner of arrests, especially of individuals like Imran Khan, has raised significant concerns [2]. The arrest of Imran Khan, particularly how he was taken from outside the Supreme Court, is described as terrifying and inhumane [2]. The sources suggest a lack of humanity in the judiciary, with concerns about the conditions in which arrested individuals are held [2]. One source even mentions that there was concern about whether he would be kept in a “scary yellow cell” [2].
• Judicial System Issues: The sources indicate that there are mechanisms to remove a judge, but the process is long and complex [1, 3]. The overall methods of justice are questioned and viewed as compromised [1, 4]. There are calls for changes to the judiciary system [5].
• Influence of External Factors: The sources suggest that the judiciary’s decisions may be influenced by external pressures, such as from crowds or political parties [4]. There are mentions of individuals “doing sushi,” which seems to negatively affect the judiciary [2].
• Public Perception and Trust: There’s a clear indication of a loss of public trust in the judiciary, with people questioning its ability to deliver fair justice [4, 5]. The system is described as “murdering” justice, and there’s a sense of “great injustice” being done [5].
• Comparison to the Past: Some sources make unfavorable comparisons to the British rule, suggesting that the judiciary’s behavior has regressed [4].
• Specific Cases and Incidents:
• Imran Khan’s Arrest: The arrest of Imran Khan is a major focal point, with criticism of the way he was taken into custody and concerns about his treatment [2]. There are questions about the authenticity of his use of a wheelchair, which is seen as part of a “drama” [6].
• Elections: There are mentions of the elections being conducted on the 14th and that they must be announced by the government one day before, but that the government does not have money for the elections [5, 7].
• Removal of a Judge: One source questions the legality of the Parliament removing a judge in the way they did and that the process as set by the law is a long one [3, 8].
• Weak Parliament: One source indicates that the parliament is weak and that all those who are used to it on TV have their own government so they benefit [9]. The parliament is described as making a face and giving it before it was made [8].

In summary, the sources paint a picture of a Pakistani judiciary facing serious challenges related to its impartiality, conduct, and public trust. The concerns raised by the sources include perceptions of bias, questionable behavior by judges, inhumane treatment of individuals, and external influences impacting decisions. The sources clearly suggest a need for significant reforms in the system.

Pakistan’s Political Instability

The sources discuss several factors contributing to political instability in Pakistan, including issues with the judiciary, the parliament, and the actions of political leaders.

Key points related to political instability include:

• Weak Parliament: The sources describe the parliament as weak and easily manipulated [1]. It is suggested that those who are used to being on television are favored by the government, which is their own [1]. The parliament is also described as having made a face [2]. There are also comments about the parliament’s authority being challenged [2, 3].
• Judiciary Issues: The sources reveal that the judiciary is perceived as being biased and not acting impartially, which leads to a loss of trust in the legal system [4-6]. There are concerns about the behavior of judges and that they are not acting with proper decorum, further undermining public confidence [4, 5, 7, 8]. The judiciary is also seen as being influenced by external pressures [6]. The sources also suggest that the judiciary is “murdering justice” [6].
• Questionable Actions of Political Leaders: The sources criticize the actions of political leaders and suggest that they are contributing to the instability [9]. There are concerns about leaders using violence and hatred to gain fame [9]. The sources also mention that some leaders engage in “drama” and “lies”, which is also creating distrust in the political system [8, 10, 11].
• Imran Khan’s Arrest: The manner of Imran Khan’s arrest and the concerns raised about his treatment has added to the instability in the country [7, 12]. The public perception that this arrest was inhumane has created distrust in the government [7].
• Lack of Political Stability: One source states that there is no political stability in society [13]. The sources mention that until there is political stability, the problems in the country cannot be improved [11, 13]. The sources suggest that this instability is a scary thing [13].
• Interference of the Army: There is a desire for the interference of the army to be reduced so that the country can function better [13]. One source states that Imran Khan has put all his missiles behind the army and that the army is responsible for some of the unrest [14]. The sources also indicate there is a chase on camera emergency and martial arts [15].
• Elections: The sources mention that there is a demand for elections and that they should be done within 90 days [1, 14]. The sources also mention that the government does not have money to hold the elections [6].
• Public Discontent: The sources indicate a general public discontent with the current situation and political leadership [4, 16-18]. There is a call for leaders to be genuine and not deceitful [11, 18].

In summary, the sources indicate that political instability in Pakistan is caused by a combination of factors including a weak parliament, a biased judiciary, questionable behavior of political leaders, and a lack of public trust in the government. The sources suggest that political stability is essential for improving the overall situation in the country.

Pakistan’s Justice Crisis

The sources highlight numerous flaws in the Pakistani justice system, indicating a significant crisis of integrity and effectiveness. Here’s a breakdown of the key issues:

• Lack of Impartiality and Bias: The sources strongly suggest that the judiciary is not acting impartially [1-3]. There’s a perception of bias in favor of certain individuals or groups, while others are treated unfairly [1]. One source notes a judge behaving as if he was very happy to see a Muslim person in court, which is viewed as inappropriate [1].
• Questionable Conduct of Judges: The behavior of some judges is criticized as unbecoming and lacking in decorum [1, 4]. This includes instances of judges not taking their roles seriously [1, 4]. There are mentions of judges holding parties [1] and one source even notes a judge acting as if he had “underwear on” while in session, indicating a lack of professionalism [1]. These actions undermine the perception of justice and erode public trust.
• Inhumane Treatment of Individuals: The manner of arrests, particularly that of Imran Khan, has raised significant concerns about the humanity of the justice system [4]. The sources describe the arrest of Imran Khan as “terrifying” and inhumane [4]. There were also concerns about whether he would be kept in a “scary yellow cell” and in “Mundkadiya” [4].
• Flawed Procedures: The sources indicate that the process for removing a judge is long and complex [1, 3, 5]. There is a concern that the parliament is removing judges in a way that is not legal [3, 5].
• Influence of External Factors: The judiciary is perceived to be susceptible to external pressures, such as from crowds or political parties [2]. The sources indicate that the judiciary is influenced by external factors [2].
• Erosion of Public Trust: There’s a clear indication of a loss of public trust in the judiciary [2]. The public questions the system’s ability to deliver fair justice. The system is described as “murdering” justice [6].
• Inadequate Legal Processes: The sources reveal that the legal processes themselves are seen as flawed. One source questions the legality of the Parliament removing a judge, stating that there is a long process that must be followed [3, 5]. The sources suggest the current methods of justice are not working and call for change [1].
• Perception of Injustice: The sources indicate a widespread perception of injustice, with a sense that the system is not protecting the rights of all citizens [6]. There is a sense of “great injustice” being done [6].
• Comparison to the Past: Some sources make unfavorable comparisons to the British rule, suggesting that the judiciary’s behavior has regressed [2].

In summary, the sources paint a picture of a justice system plagued by serious flaws including bias, unprofessional conduct, inhumane treatment, external influences, flawed processes and an overall lack of public trust [1-4, 6]. The sources clearly suggest a need for significant reforms in the system [1, 6].

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

This excerpt features an interview or discussion where an Indian scholar, Ashis Ray, expresses his views on various topics, primarily focusing on India-Pakistan relations and the political landscape of South Asia. Ray advocates for peaceful coexistence and understanding between India and Pakistan, emphasizing the importance of Gandhian non-violence as a guiding principle. He also discusses internal political issues within both countries, such as India’s secularism, the state of the Indian economy under Modi, and the challenges faced by Pakistan as an Islamic state, including discrimination against non-Muslims and women. Finally, the conversation touches upon the geopolitical standing of leaders and the internal struggles within South Asian nations like Bangladesh, highlighting the complex dynamics of the region.

India-Pakistan Relations: Aspirations, Differences, and Connections

Based on the sources, India-Pakistan relations are characterized by a complex interplay of historical aspirations for friendship, fundamental constitutional differences, specific points of contention, and underlying people-to-people connections.

Here’s a detailed discussion:

• Aspiration for Friendship and Peaceful Coexistence:
• A primary wish expressed in the sources is to see “closeness and friendship between Pakistan and India”.
• The suggested approach to foster this relationship involves first removing misunderstandings and “hateful things,” then discussing friendship, and eventually integrating both nations into a regional framework like SAARC, drawing inspiration from the European Union model.
• The speaker, identifying as a Gandhian, emphasizes the importance of achieving these goals “without violence”.
• Constitutional and Ideological Differences:
• A significant distinction highlighted is that Pakistan chose to become an “Islamic state,” while India adopted a “secular state” framework.
• India’s secularism, as defined by Mahatma Gandhi, means “equal status for all regions” and “religious tolerance,” where Hindus respect Islam and Muslims respect Hindus. This contrasts with Nehru’s initial preference for Western secularism (no place for religion), which Gandhi argued “will not work in India”.
• In Pakistan, the constitution reportedly stipulates a 96% Muslim population and states that a non-Muslim cannot hold the position of head of state or Prime Minister, which is viewed as discrimination.
• While India’s constitution contains “no discrimination,” it is noted that some people in power are currently acting in ways that violate the constitution and equality, and the government is perceived as silent on these matters.
• Specific Points of Contention and Diplomatic Strain:
• Kashmir is referred to as a “dead issue” or “non-issue,” with the assertion that any country or state has the right to determine its own constitution, implying no outside interference should occur regarding Article 370.
• When Article 370 was removed in Kashmir, diplomatic ties strained, leading to both Pakistan and India recalling their respective High Commissioners.
• While cricket is mentioned as a good game, “business is more important than that” in the context of bilateral relations.
• People-to-People Connections and Areas of Cooperation:
• Historically, there have been strong people-to-people connections, such as many Pakistanis traveling to India for “medical treatment,” with thousands going to India for this purpose at one time.
• Despite political tensions, the sources indicate that ordinary people from India and Pakistan can coexist peacefully, as exemplified by a Hindu and a Pakistani Muslim living together “like a family” in Dubai, suggesting that fear is not prevalent among the general public. The speaker believes it will take time for this sentiment to fully develop.
• It is also noted that the ability for people to travel between the countries, for instance, to Dubai, is not problematic for the general public.
• Internal Issues and Non-Interference:
• Internal issues within Pakistan, such as organizations acting with impunity and threatening violence, are recognized as “domestic issue[s] of Pakistan” that need to be “fought internally within Pakistan,” and India “cannot say anything about it” as it is an “internal matter”.
• Current Political Dynamics:
• Regarding Indian leadership, the sources suggest that Prime Minister Modi’s “power has reduced a bit in India” as his party “did not win the last election” with a majority.
• His international standing is downplayed, with the claim that he “does not have any potency” or “importance on the international stage”. His visit to Russia, for instance, was attributed to maintaining historical ties and ensuring India’s significant arms supply (46% of which comes from Russia).
• The Indian economy is described as “very bad” by India’s standards, unlike the higher economic performance during Manmohan Singh’s time.

Religious Tolerance: India-Pakistan Constitutional Divergence

Religious tolerance is a foundational concept in the discussion of India-Pakistan relations, particularly when examining the distinct constitutional frameworks of both nations.

In the context of India, the concept of religious tolerance is deeply embedded in its constitutional philosophy. Mahatma Gandhi’s vision for India’s constitution “did not add any religious flavour to it”. While Jawaharlal Nehru initially favored Western secularism, advocating for “no place for religion” as he was an “atheist non-believer,” Gandhi disagreed, stating that such an approach “will not work in India”. Instead, Gandhi’s definition of secularism for India became “equal status for all regions” and, critically, “religious tolerance”. This means “Hindus will respect Islam, Muslims will respect Hindus,” and this principle was enshrined in the Indian constitution. The sources explicitly state that “in India there is no discrimination in the constitution,” which is highlighted as a “greatness” of the country.

However, despite this constitutional commitment to religious tolerance and equality, concerns are raised that some individuals in power in India are currently “violating the constitution” by acting in ways that compromise equality, with the government perceived as being “silent on this matter”. This suggests a challenge to the practical implementation of religious tolerance in contemporary India.

In contrast, Pakistan “took the decision that it will become an Islamic state”. This choice has direct implications for religious tolerance, as its constitution reportedly stipulates a 96% Muslim population and states that “a non-Muslim cannot become a state here and he cannot become the Prime Minister,” which is explicitly identified as “discrimination”. Furthermore, it is noted that in Pakistan, “we do not give rights against non-Muslims” in many respects.

Despite these significant constitutional and political differences, there is an underlying sentiment that religious tolerance is possible at the people-to-people level. An anecdote illustrates this, describing a Hindu and a Pakistani Muslim living together “like a family” in Dubai, demonstrating that “it is not like this among the general public” that people are “getting scared” of each other based on religion, although it is acknowledged that “it will take some time” for this widespread sentiment to fully develop.

Subcontinental Economies: Challenges and Connections

Economic challenges are a significant aspect of the discussion surrounding India-Pakistan relations and regional stability. The sources highlight various economic issues and dynamics across India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

India’s Economic Situation: According to the sources, the condition of the Indian economy is described as “very bad” by India’s standards. This is contrasted with a previous period, specifically during Manmohan Singh’s tenure, when the economy was “very high”. The current economic state is also mentioned in the context of Prime Minister Modi’s domestic standing, where it’s noted that his power has “reduced a bit” as his party did not win the last election with a majority. Furthermore, it is suggested that “it is difficult for people to get visas”, which can indirectly affect economic activities like cross-border medical tourism and trade.

Pakistan’s Economic and Legal Context: While a general statement mentions that “prices have become such” and it is “a matter of prices in all the countries”, more specific internal challenges relate to long-standing family laws. These laws, which have been in place since at least 1961 and are constitutionally protected, dictate that in property matters, a girl “will get half the share” compared to a male, who “will be double”. This is identified as discrimination and has persisted despite efforts to change it. Additionally, it’s stated that in many respects, rights are “not give[n] against non-Muslims”, which could also imply economic disparities for minority populations.

Bangladesh’s Economic Challenges: The economy of Bangladesh has “fallen a bit,” primarily due to the impact of Covid-19. During the pandemic, Bangladesh’s exports, which are mostly textile exports and on which its economy heavily relies, “had reduced”. This reduction in exports meant that the economy “did not grow that much” even after Covid, leading to a situation where people “need jobs,” and “if someone does not have a job, then they will be unhappy”. It is also acknowledged that “it is not that easy to turn around the economy”.

Cross-Border Economic Activity: Historically, there has been significant cross-border economic activity, such as many Pakistanis traveling to India for “medical treatment,” with thousands going at one time. It’s also mentioned that “the medicines for them were sold from Pakistan”. This highlights a form of mutual economic benefit that has been impacted by strained diplomatic ties and difficulties in obtaining visas. The importance of economic relations is underscored by the statement that “business is more important” than other activities like cricket.

Leadership and Governance in South Asia

Political leadership plays a pivotal role in shaping the internal affairs and external relations of India and Pakistan, as well as influencing the broader South Asian region. The sources discuss various leaders, their ideologies, decisions, and impact on their respective nations.

Indian Political Leadership

• Mahatma Gandhi:
• His “struggle was right” and he is considered to be “at a different level” compared to other leaders.
• He played a crucial role in shaping India’s secular constitution, ensuring it “did not add any religious flavour to it”.
• He disagreed with Jawaharlal Nehru’s preference for Western secularism (which meant “no place for religion” as Nehru was an “atheist non-believer”), stating it “will not work in India”.
• Gandhi’s definition of secularism for India emphasized “equal status for all regions” and “religious tolerance,” meaning “Hindus will respect Islam, Muslims will respect Hindus”. This principle was enshrined in the Indian constitution.
• Jawaharlal Nehru:
• He preferred Western secularism, advocating for “no place for religion” due to his atheistic beliefs, a view Gandhi opposed for India.
• He is considered by the speaker to be the second most important leader after Gandhi.
• Subhas Chandra Bose and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel:
• Bose is acknowledged as a “great personality”.
• Patel, while brought into the discussion, is considered not to be “at the same level” as Gandhi, Nehru, or Bose.
• Maulana Azad:
• He was an important figure among Muslims in the Congress party and served as its president for many years, which was significant given the “issue with the Muslims” at the time.
• He is considered slightly less than the top three (Gandhi, Nehru, Bose).
• A personal complaint is noted that he primarily used Urdu, Persian, and Arabic, and did not adopt the Hindi language or fully embrace the Hindu community.
• Narendra Modi (Current Prime Minister):
• His “power has reduced a bit in India” as his party “did not win the last election” with a majority.
• His international standing is downplayed, with the assertion that he “does not have any potency” or “importance on the international stage”.
• His visit to Russia is attributed to maintaining historical ties and India’s significant reliance on Russia for arms supplies (46% of defense supplies come from Russia).
• Under his government, Article 370 was removed in Kashmir, which led to significant diplomatic strain, with both Pakistan and India recalling their High Commissioners.
• Concerns are raised that while India’s constitution prohibits discrimination, “people in power are a little different” and are “violating the constitution” by acting against equality, with the government perceived as “silent on this matter”.
• The current economic condition in India is described as “very bad” by India’s standards, unlike the “very high” economy during Manmohan Singh’s time.
• Manmohan Singh (Former Prime Minister):
• His tenure is highlighted as a period when the Indian economy was “very high,” contrasting with the current economic situation.

Pakistani Political Leadership

• Muhammad Ali Jinnah (Implied Founder of Pakistan):
• Upon Pakistan’s formation, the decision was made for it to become an “Islamic state”.
• His speech on August 11th is referenced, where he purportedly stated he had “nothing to do with it” (referring to religion in state affairs), though the speaker notes he kept people suppressed.
• The Pakistani constitution, a result of this foundational decision, stipulates a 96% Muslim population and states that a “non-Muslim cannot become a state here and he cannot become the Prime Minister,” which is explicitly identified as “discrimination”.
• Family laws established since 1961 dictate that a girl “will get half the share” compared to a male in property matters, which is also identified as discrimination and has persisted despite efforts to change it.
• Current Internal Challenges:
• The presence of organizations “whose name is also scary to take” that act with impunity and threaten violence, even within the High Court, indicates a lack of state control over certain elements. This is recognized as a “domestic issue of Pakistan” that must be “fought internally within Pakistan,” as India “cannot say anything about it” due to it being an “internal matter”.

Bangladeshi Political Leadership

• Sheikh Hasina (Prime Minister):While her actions were deemed “good,” the reaction to them was considered “even worse”.
• The current political situation in Bangladesh is described as “not stable,” and questions are raised about the legitimacy of the representatives in power due to a lack of elections.
• Concerns are raised about the economy, which “had fallen a bit” due to Covid-19 affecting textile exports, leading to job shortages and public unhappiness.
• A “Mohammad” figure is mentioned as a “decent man” but lacking “experience of administration”.
• The Prime Minister/Chief Advisor is said to be the Chief Executive but lacks significant power, with actual powers residing in the hands of five people, including the army, indicating a complex power structure.

South Asian Nations: Internal Discord and Governance Challenges

Internal conflicts within India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh are highlighted in the sources, revealing challenges related to constitutional adherence, governance, and societal stability.

In India, despite its constitutional commitment to non-discrimination, the sources indicate that “people in power are a little different” and are “violating the constitution” by acting against the principle of equality. This internal challenge is compounded by the perception that the government is “silent on this matter,” suggesting a lack of action against those violating constitutional principles. Historically, there was also a nuanced internal dynamic, as evidenced by a “complaint” regarding Maulana Azad, an important Muslim figure in the Congress party, for his preference for Urdu, Persian, and Arabic over Hindi, and a perceived failure to fully “adopt the Hindu community as his own”.

Pakistan faces significant internal conflicts rooted in its foundational decision to become an “Islamic state”. This is reflected in its constitution, which reportedly mandates a “96% Muslim population” and states that “a non-Muslim cannot become a state here and he cannot become the Prime Minister,” a clear instance of “discrimination”. Furthermore, Pakistan’s internal legal framework includes “family laws” since 1961 that stipulate a girl “will get half the share” in property compared to a male, who “will be double,” another form of discrimination that has persisted despite attempts to change it. A major internal challenge is the presence of “organizations, whose name is also scary to take,” that operate with impunity. These groups are depicted as capable of threatening violence, even within the High Court, indicating a lack of state control over certain elements. The sources explicitly state that this situation is a “domestic issue of Pakistan” that “will have to be fought internally within Pakistan”.

Bangladesh is also grappling with internal instability. The political situation is described as “not stable,” particularly due to a lack of recent elections, leading to questions about the legitimacy of the current representatives. Economic challenges, notably the reduction in textile exports during Covid-19, have resulted in a shortage of jobs and widespread public unhappiness, which can fuel internal unrest. Additionally, the country’s power structure is complex, with the Prime Minister/Chief Advisor, despite being the Chief Executive, lacking significant power, as actual authority is said to reside in the hands of “five people,” including the army, suggesting potential internal power struggles or a diluted civilian authority.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

The provided text offers a wide-ranging, informal discussion by Rohan Khanna on various external and internal issues facing Pakistan, as presented in a lecture to the ZAK Foundation. Rehan shares personal anecdotes about his spiritual and intellectual journey through different Islamic sects and his interactions with prominent figures, emphasizing the importance of humanity, wisdom, and open dialogue over rigid religious interpretations and animosity. He critically examines Pakistan’s domestic challenges like poverty, unemployment, and the politicization of religion, while also addressing foreign policy concerns, particularly the historical and ongoing tensions with India and the complex relationship with the United States regarding issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rehan advocates for re-evaluating national priorities and fostering understanding through open debate and questioning, suggesting that long-held enmities, especially with India and over Kashmir, have been detrimental to Pakistan’s global standing.

Pakistan’s Challenges: A Nation’s Struggle and Solutions

Pakistan faces a variety of significant challenges, which can be broadly categorized into internal and external issues. The speaker, Rohan Khanna, discusses these problems, often offering his unique perspective and insights.

Internal Issues

Pakistan’s internal challenges encompass social, economic, political, and religious dimensions:

• Socio-Economic Problems: The society is grappling with poverty, unemployment, and inflation. There is a pervasive issue of lack of justice for people, leading to violence where “people get killed” and “grandfathers send their grandsons to some place”.
• Healthcare Crisis: The public health system is in a dire state, with government hospitals lacking beds and patients, particularly in Punjab, resorting to lying on the floor with mattresses. This indicates a very poor condition of health services. The issue of healthcare is further exacerbated by the rapidly increasing population, which strains limited resources. According to a WHO report cited, while one doctor serves 1000 people globally, in Pakistan, one doctor is available for 8300 people.
• Population Growth: This is identified as a major underlying issue affecting health, education, and other departments, as the population is increasing rapidly and resources are scarce. A contributing factor is the societal concept of keeping women inferior and the desire for male children, leading families to continue having children in hopes of having a son. Efforts at “Khandani Mansuba Bandi” (family planning) face resistance from the religious section, which considers it “un-Islamic”.
• Political Instability and Governance: The speaker notes that the “condition of the governors is in front of you” and there is an “atmosphere of agitation”. He highlights a significant gap between political factions, where “political non-work is a very big issue”. He also laments the absence of true democracy, stating that the same people remain in power regardless of the democratic situation, implying a powerful unelected entity or a consistent ruling elite.
• Malicious Use of Religion: This is considered the “biggest problem” currently facing Pakistan, giving rise to “101 problems”.
• The speaker stresses that religion should have its own limitations and should not be used to make others’ lives difficult.
• He warns against sectarian strife, stating that even if “all the infidels” are eliminated, peace will not come due to “war that will start within the Muslim community” over differing beliefs.
• He strongly advocates for the end of the political use of religion, arguing that “as long as religion is used for political purposes, there will be evil”.
• He posits that “religion or Deen is a matter of man and God,” and the state should not interfere in it.
• The political exploitation of Islam has led to “complications” and “problems” in aspects like marriage laws.

External Issues

Pakistan’s external relations and historical conflicts also present significant challenges:

• Global Standing: Pakistan’s current international image is portrayed as very negative, with its condition having become “a symbol in the world that the condition of Pakistan is very bad”.
• Foreign Policy and Alliances:The speaker advises for balance in foreign relations, noting the American principle of not keeping “all the eggs in one basket.” While China is acknowledged as a “great neighbor” with a strong economy, maintaining balanced ties is crucial.
• He points out inconsistencies in Pakistan’s foreign policy, stating that “we have not kept any promise in our Khaza policy”.
• Regarding the relationship with America, the speaker claims that “The war with America started from the time Pakistan was formed,” and that weapons intended for use against the Soviet Union were instead used against India.
• He critically notes that Pakistan was involved in creating the Taliban, and later welcomed the end of Ash Ghani’s rule in Afghanistan, viewing it as breaking “chains of slavery” from America, despite current issues with the Taliban.
• India-Pakistan Enmity and Kashmir:This is identified as the “main center of our treasury policy” and something that has “made us a loser in the world”.
• The speaker argues that Pakistan’s “boat has been ruined by the enmity between India and Hindus,” an animosity that persisted even after partition.
• He expresses his viewpoint on Kashmir as a “non-issue,” stating it should be considered “over” and that Pakistan “neither has Pakistan got Kashmir, nor will it get it, it will never get it, nor can you take it by force”. He suggests that the Kashmir issue was exploited for “political purpose”.
• Historical events like the Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946, by the Muslim League, and subsequent violence leading to the displacement of Hindus from areas like Lahore, are cited as contributing factors to this animosity.
• The speaker refers to Asghar Khan’s statement that “Pakistan and India have fought four wars, and we started all four, India did not start any war”.
• He also highlights the tragic assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, who he believes was killed by a Hindu for his efforts to ensure Pakistan received 55 crores of money for its defense.
• International Conflicts (e.g., Israel-Hamas): The speaker notes the “101 confusions” in Pakistan regarding international conflicts like the Hamas-Israel war. He critiques the notion of “victory” when such conflicts result in widespread death and destruction, as seen in Gaza. He contrasts the high value placed on human life by countries like Israel (e.g., exchanging 30-50 prisoners for one civilian/uniformed person) with the perceived disregard in other contexts.

Overall, the speaker believes that Pakistan’s current situation is very poor, even worse than 60 or 70 years ago. He advocates for fostering unity through humanity rather than through religious divisions and calls for open debate and questioning on all issues, including those considered “prohibited areas,” to find solutions.

Pakistan’s Religious Divides and Political Exploitation of Faith

Pakistan’s challenges are deeply intertwined with issues related to religious diversity, both in terms of inter-faith and intra-faith relations, as well as the role of religion in society and politics. Rohan Khanna, the speaker, offers a nuanced perspective on these matters, stemming from his personal journey through various religious thought processes and his observations of Pakistani society.

Speaker’s Personal Journey and Views on Diversity: Rohan Khanna recounts his lifelong passion to understand the “reality” of different Muslim sects since childhood, questioning their foundations and disputes. His own background is Barelvi, but he later identifies with Deobandi/Wahabi thought, specifically arguing against certain traditional practices. He also studied with prominent figures from Ahle Hadith, like Maulana Ajmal, and was influenced by them. Beyond these, he describes engaging with Shia communities, even convincing them to offer prayers during Muharram processions, and was inspired by Ayatullah Khomeini’s revolution. Rehan states, “I do not have a critical sense about any religion because I have lived in all of them,” implying a broad, non-judgmental understanding of different faiths and sects. His intellectual journey further expanded to include studying the Bible, Ramayana, Gita, and being profoundly inspired by Buddha, whose principles he greatly respects.

Challenges Arising from Religious Divisions:

• Intra-Muslim Sectarianism: Rehan highlights the severe divisions within the Muslim community, recalling childhood experiences where Deobandis/Wahabis labeled Barelvis as “mushriks” (polytheists), while Barelvis accused the others of “insulting the Prophet”. He warns that even if “all the infidels” are eliminated, peace will still not come because of the “war that will start within the Muslim community” over differing beliefs. He advocates for unity based on humanity rather than religious differences.
• Inter-Religious Enmity: The speaker notes that “all religions are sacred, every religion is respectable,” and there should be “no difference with any religion”. However, he laments the “enmity between India and Hindus” that has “ruined” Pakistan’s foreign policy and global standing, an animosity that persisted even after the partition. He cites historical events like Direct Action Day on August 16, 1946, by the Muslim League, leading to violence and the eradication of Hindus from places like Lahore. Rehan also references the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by a Hindu, attributing it to Gandhi’s efforts to ensure Pakistan received its rightful funds for defense.

The “Malicious Use of Religion” as Pakistan’s “Biggest Problem”:

• Political Exploitation: Rehan unequivocally states that the “malicious use of religion is the biggest problem” currently facing Pakistan, giving rise to “101 problems”. He emphasizes that “religion should have its own limitations” and should not be used to “make the life of others difficult”. He strongly advocates for the end of the political use of religion, arguing that “as long as religion is used for political purposes, there will be evil”.
• Religion as a Private Matter: Rehan asserts that “religion or Deen is a matter of man and God,” and the state “has no business to interfere in it”. He criticizes how Islam is politically exploited to make governments “useless” and to introduce “complications” and “problems” into laws, such as marriage laws.
• Misinterpretation of “Deen”: He clarifies that when Allama Iqbal spoke of ‘Deen’ not being separate from politics, it meant “talks of safety, talks of peace and comfort, talks of humanity, talks of Islam,” implying a focus on ethical and humanistic principles, not ritualistic or sectarian practices. He pushes back against the idea that “Islam is religion, the rest are religions,” viewing such distinctions as deliberately made to confuse. He refers to a Quranic verse to emphasize that religion (dhan) is a personal belief between an individual and God.
• Emphasis on Character over Rituals: Rehan highlights the Prophetic emphasis on completing morals, stating that “Iman is what is inside your heart,” and that “God neither looks at your qualities nor your wealth… he sees the passion that is within you”. He believes that the real essence of religion lies in “goodness in your character, kindness, humanity, passion for loving people,” rather than outward appearances like keeping a beard, which he notes is not inherently bad but becomes an “excess” when made into the sole definition of Islam.

Overall, Rohan Khanna’s discussion underscores that while religious diversity exists, the main issues for Pakistan stem from the misuse and politicization of religion, leading to internal strife and hindering progress. He advocates for fostering unity through humanity and calls for open debate on all issues, including those traditionally considered “prohibited areas” within religion, to bring about understanding and solutions.

Pakistan’s Political Religion Problem

Rohan Khanna, in his discussion of Pakistan’s challenges, identifies the malicious use of religion as the country’s “biggest problem” currently, leading to “101 problems” and an endless stream of issues. He advocates for a clear separation between religion and state, arguing that religion should remain a personal matter between an individual and God.

Here’s a breakdown of his perspective on political religion:

• Definition of Religion (Deen): Rehan asserts that “religion or Deen is a matter of man and God,” and the state “has no business to interfere in it”. He clarifies that when Allama Iqbal spoke of ‘Deen’ not being separate from politics, he meant “talks of safety, talks of peace and comfort, talks of humanity, talks of Islam,” rather than the ritualistic or sectarian interpretations that have been politically exploited. For Rehan, the real essence of religion lies in “goodness in your character, kindness, humanity, passion for loving people,” not outward appearances or rigid interpretations. He views the distinction of “Islam is religion, the rest are religions” as a deliberate attempt to confuse.
• The Problem of Politicization:Making Life Difficult: Rehan states that religion “should have its own limitations” and “should not be used to make the life of others difficult”.
• Fueling Internal Strife: He warns that even if “all the infidels” are eliminated, “peace will still not come because after that the war that will start within the Muslim community” over differing beliefs. He recalls his childhood experiences of sectarian labeling, where Barelvis were called “mushriks” by Deobandis/Wahabis, and vice-versa, highlighting the deep intra-Muslim divisions.
• Hindering Governance: Rehan claims that religion is “used for politics here and has been used and is being used” to “make the governments useless.” He likens this to the “blind weapon of corruption,” which is also used as a slogan to destabilize political governments.
• Creating Complications in Law: He specifically mentions how the political exploitation of Islam has led to “complications” and “problems” in aspects like marriage laws.
• Promoting Superficiality over Substance: Rehan laments that religion has been reduced to “rituals” like namaz, fasting, and Hajj. He emphasizes that the Prophet’s mission was to “complete your morals,” and that “Iman is what is inside your heart,” with God looking at one’s inner passion rather than outward qualities or wealth.
• Advocacy for Ending Political Use of Religion: “As long as religion is used for political purposes, there will be evil,” Rehan emphatically states. He believes that Pakistan, with 97% Muslim population, has “no tension about Islam” but faces issues when Islam is “used politically for its own ends”.
• Path to Unity: Rehan argues that if “unity can happen then it can be with humanity” rather than through religious or sectarian divisions. He draws on his extensive personal journey of studying various Muslim sects, the Bible, Ramayana, Gita, and Buddha, stating, “I do not have a critical sense about any religion because I have lived in all of them”. He values open debate and questioning on all issues, including those traditionally considered “prohibited areas” within religion, to find solutions and foster understanding.

Revisiting India-Pakistan Relations: A Call for Humanity

Rohan Khanna discusses India-Pakistan relations extensively, characterizing them as a significant source of Pakistan’s challenges and a “non-issue” that has been politically exploited. He advocates for a fundamental shift in approach, emphasizing open debate and humanity over historical animosity.

Here’s a breakdown of his perspective on India-Pakistan relations:

• Historical Animosity and its Impact:Rehan asserts that Pakistan’s “boat has been ruined by the enmity between India and Hindus”. This animosity, he states, persisted even after the partition, hindering Pakistan’s foreign policy and global standing.
• He notes that “Pakistan was not formed,” but rather, an announcement was made in June 1988 about India and Pakistan becoming two countries, leading to immediate fighting and the martyrdom of “between 10 to 20 lakh people” as Muslims migrated to Pakistan.
• He highlights “Direct Action Day of 16th August 1946” by the Muslim League as a significant event that led to destruction and violence, citing instances like the rape of Bengal’s Prime Minister’s wife and the eradication of Hindus from Lahore. He contrasts this with Delhi, which remains full of Muslims due to the efforts of figures like Mahatma Gandhi.
• Pakistan’s Role in Conflicts:Rehan quotes former Pakistani politician Asghar Khan, stating that Pakistan initiated all four wars fought between Pakistan and India, with India not starting any.
• He recalls his own past “Hindu hatred,” which he overcame by understanding that “our fanaticism, Mashallah, is ahead of them” and that “our Jihadi program is ahead of them”.
• The Kashmir Issue:Rehan labels Kashmir as a “non-issue”. He believes that Pakistan “has not got Kashmir, nor will it get it, it will never get it, nor can you take it by force”. He suggests that it is “better if Pakistan leaves this container”.
• He refers to a political figure who, for their “political purpose,” exploited the Kashmir issue, stating that Pakistan had accepted a two-sided issue.
• Mahatma Gandhi’s Role:Rehan speaks highly of Mahatma Gandhi, noting that he took a “death vow to get 55 crores for Pakistan” and that he “sacrificed his life” to defend Pakistan and ensure it received its rightful funds. He laments that Gandhi is “considered a curse and an abuse here” today, despite his efforts to protect Muslims in Delhi.
• Call for Reassessment and Open Dialogue:Rehan’s central argument is that the “main center of our treasury policy is India enmity,” which has made Pakistan a “loser in the world”.
• He advocates for an “open debate” on all issues, including those traditionally considered “prohibited areas” like religion and Kashmir, believing that “if you ask questions then things will come out”.
• He contrasts the current state of animosity with the potential for unity “with humanity”. He shares his personal journey of studying various faiths, stating, “I do not have a critical sense about any religion because I have lived in all of them”. This broad perspective informs his view that enmity between communities is detrimental and that “the principle of mixing” is preferable to “cutting off and getting angry with other communities or nurturing enmity”.

Pakistan’s Population Challenge: Causes and Consequences

Rohan Khanna addresses the issue of population growth in Pakistan in response to a student’s query, acknowledging it as a significant challenge with far-reaching implications.

He highlights several key aspects of Pakistan’s population situation:

• Impact on Services: Rehan agrees with the student’s observation that rapid population increase is a “biggest major issue” that negatively affects departments like health and education, as national resources become insufficient to meet the growing demand. To illustrate the strain on healthcare, the student points out that according to a WHO report, one doctor serves 1000 people globally, but in Pakistan, one doctor is available for 8300 people.
• Comparison with Bangladesh: Rehan references an example from Shami Sahab regarding Bangladesh’s population growth as a point of contrast. He states that in 1947, West Pakistan’s population was 5.5 crore (55 million) while East Pakistan’s (now Bangladesh) was 4 crore (40 million). By the 1970 elections, East Pakistan had more parliamentary seats due to its population growth. However, Rehan notes that today, Bangladesh’s population growth has “stood at 18%”, implying a stabilization or significant reduction in its growth rate, while Pakistan’s population continues to expand rapidly.
• Societal and Religious Factors: Rehan identifies key reasons for Pakistan’s continued population increase:
• Preference for Sons: He points to the cultural concept of “keeping women inferior” and the persistent societal desire for male offspring, even sharing an anecdote about a cousin who continued having children (five daughters) in the “hope to have a son”. This highlights a deeply ingrained social norm contributing to larger family sizes.
• Resistance to Family Planning: Rehan explicitly mentions that “Family Planning” (Khandani Mansuba Bandi) is considered “very un-Islamic, very bad” by the religious segment of society. This strong religious disapproval makes it difficult for those working in family planning departments to even use the phrase “Khandani Mansuba” without facing backlash, indicating a significant barrier to implementing population control measures. He notes that this religious thinking is conveyed to the common person in the streets, making it a widespread belief that hinders efforts to address population growth.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

The text provides an analysis of the 2024 Indian elections, focusing on the BJP’s performance and Modi’s third term. It suggests that while the BJP secured a victory, it faced setbacks due to factors like diminished appeal of religious polarization after the construction of the Ram Temple and a united opposition. The analysis highlights losses in Uttar Pradesh and other states, attributing them to social issues taking precedence over religious tensions. It also considers the impact of slogans and propaganda from both BJP and the opposition, as well as the influence of regional parties. The author implies that Modi’s third term will require navigating coalition politics and addressing concerns raised by various groups. Finally, the text emphasizes the need for Modi to return to the ideals of “Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas” and avoid arrogance.

Indian Elections 2024: A Study Guide

Quiz

Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences each.

1. What is the significance of Uttar Pradesh (UP) in Indian politics, according to the text?
2. What setback did the BJP experience in the 2024 elections in Uttar Pradesh, and what are the potential reasons mentioned in the text?
3. How did the Ram Mandir issue influence the 2024 elections, and what does the author suggest about its future impact?
4. What are some of the states or regions where the BJP experienced losses or mixed results in the 2024 elections?
5. According to the text, what mistakes did the BJP make in its campaign strategy?
6. How many seats are needed to form a government in the Lok Sabha assembly, and how many seats did the BJP and the Congress win individually in the 2024 elections?
7. What was the significance of the slogan “crossing 400” used by the BJP, and how did the opposition parties counter it?
8. According to the text, what did the BJP fail to do with their slogan ‘Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas?’
9. What is the author’s perspective on Narendra Modi’s public persona and his connection to the ideals of Indian society?
10. How might coalition partners in Maharashtra, Bihar, and Andhra Pradesh potentially affect the Modi government?

Quiz Answer Key

1. Uttar Pradesh is a crucial cultural center, considered a “mini Hindustan.” It holds the highest number of Lok Sabha seats (80), making it a key state for political dominance.
2. The BJP experienced a significant setback in UP, with their seat count dropping from 62 in 2019 to 36 in 2024. This decline is attributed to the diminishing appeal of the Ram Mandir issue and the unity of the India Alliance, which focused on social issues.
3. The construction of the Ram Mandir initially benefited the BJP by addressing a long-standing religious issue. However, the author suggests its political impact has waned, as voters prioritized social concerns in the 2024 elections.
4. The BJP experienced losses or mixed results in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab, among others.
5. The BJP is seen as having grown arrogant with their success, neglecting alliances with parties like Akali Dal in Punjab. Additionally, the “crossing 400” slogan was seen as exaggerated and led to voter complacency.
6. 272 seats are needed to form a government in the Lok Sabha assembly. In the 2024 elections, the BJP secured 240 seats, while the Congress party won 99.
7. The “crossing 400” slogan was meant to convey the BJP’s confidence in securing a landslide victory. However, the opposition used it to spread fear that the BJP would change the Constitution, undermining protections for minorities and weaker sections.
8. The author states that Modi will have to showcase the political strength and greatness of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, giving more importance to their slogan ‘Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas’ but it has failed.
9. The author critiques Modi’s public persona as a “fakir,” noting that his lifestyle often contradicts this image. He also questions whether Modi’s actions always align with the respect and dignity expected of a representative of 1.4 billion people.
10. Coalition partners like Shiv Sena in Maharashtra, Janata Dal in Bihar, and Talaq Deshmukh in Andhra Pradesh may present challenges for the Modi government due to differing political agendas, demands for cabinet positions, and power dynamics within their respective states.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the factors that contributed to the BJP’s performance in the 2024 Indian elections. What strategies worked, and what missteps were made?
2. Discuss the role of religious issues, particularly the Ram Mandir, in the 2024 Indian elections. How did they influence voters’ decisions, and what is their long-term impact on Indian politics?
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of the opposition alliance in challenging the BJP’s dominance in the 2024 elections. What were their strengths and weaknesses, and how did they shape the election outcome?
4. Assess the significance of coalition politics in the formation of the government after the 2024 Indian elections. How will the dynamics between the BJP and its allies impact policy decisions and governance?
5. Explore the author’s critique of Narendra Modi’s leadership style and public persona. How does this critique relate to broader debates about secularism, Hindu nationalism, and the future of Indian democracy?

Glossary of Key Terms

• BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party): A major political party in India, often associated with Hindu nationalism.
• Congress Party: One of the oldest and largest political parties in India, historically associated with secularism and social democracy.
• India Alliance: A coalition of opposition parties formed to challenge the BJP in the 2024 elections.
• Lok Sabha: The lower house of the Indian Parliament.
• Ram Mandir: A Hindu temple constructed in Ayodhya, India, on a site historically disputed between Hindus and Muslims.
• Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas: A slogan meaning “Together with all, development for all,” popularized by Narendra Modi and the BJP, emphasizing inclusive growth.
• Uttar Pradesh (UP): A state in northern India with significant political influence due to its large population and number of parliamentary seats.
• Hindutva: An ideology seeking to define Indian culture in terms of Hindu values.
• Dalits: Members of the lowest caste in India, formerly known as “untouchables.”
• Secularism: The principle of separation of religion from state affairs.

Okay, here’s a briefing document summarizing the key themes and ideas from the provided text regarding the 2024 Indian Elections.

Briefing Document: Indian Elections 2024 Analysis

Subject: Analysis of the 2024 Indian Elections and Modi’s Third Term

Source: Excerpts from “Indian Elections 2024: Modi’s Third Term and Political Analysis”

Executive Summary:

The source analyzes the 2024 Indian elections, focusing on the BJP’s reduced majority and the factors contributing to it. It highlights the surprising performance of the opposition alliance, the waning influence of the Ram Mandir issue, the impact of social and economic concerns, and the perception of BJP’s overconfidence. The document also touches on the role of negative propaganda and the challenges Modi will face in his third term due to reliance on coalition partners.

Key Themes and Ideas:

1. Diminished Mandate for BJP:

• The BJP, while still the largest single party, experienced a significant setback in the 2024 elections compared to 2014 and 2019. Their seats in Uttar Pradesh (UP), a crucial state, dropped considerably.
• “BJP had won 7171 seats from here in the 2014 elections and in the 2019 elections as before, this number was 62 under the leadership of Yogi Adityanath, while this time in the 2024 elections, despite all the services and efforts, BJP has suffered a big setback. Its seats have come down to just 36…”
• This indicates a shift in voter sentiment and a rejection of the BJP’s perceived overreach.

1. Waning Influence of the Ram Mandir Issue:

• The construction of the Ram Mandir, a long-standing issue for the BJP, seemingly lost its electoral charm.
• “…the Ram temple, which raised the radical Hindu mindset, has lost its charm with the construction of the temple…”
• The focus shifted from religious issues to social and economic concerns. The alliance between Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party and Rahul Gandhi’s Congress successfully highlighted social issues over religious tensions.

1. Impact of Social and Economic Issues:

• The opposition alliance, particularly in UP, successfully redirected the focus to pressing social and economic issues.
• “…the unity of India Alliance, Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party and Rahul’s Congress Party has given the people of UP the verdict that our real issue is the social issues and not the religious tension.”
• This suggests that voters were more concerned with tangible improvements in their lives than with religious symbolism.

1. BJP’s Perceived Overconfidence and Missteps:

• The BJP’s slogan of “crossing 400” may have backfired, leading to complacency among its supporters and galvanizing the opposition.
• “This time the slogan of crossing 400 was also an exaggerated slogan of its own…when the echo of 400 crossed was in the mind, many of our people understood that our victory is so sure that even if we do not go to vote in such intense heat, it does not matter, Modi has to win…”
• The article argues that the BJP’s growth reached a point of “arrogance,” leading to missed opportunities in forming alliances.

1. Negative Propaganda and Polarization:

• The opposition successfully used “negative propaganda,” claiming that the BJP intended to change the constitution and undermine the rights of minorities and weaker sections.
• “…Rahul Gandhi and the opposition leadership were found giving this statement in every speech that 400 crossed means that BJP will change the Constitution i.e. Indian law given by our elders or founding fathers, in which there is no provision for intellectuals and weaker sections.”
• While Modi attempted to counter this narrative, the propaganda had a significant impact on voter behavior.

1. Challenges for Modi’s Third Term:

• Modi will have to rely on coalition partners, such as Nitish Kumar and Chandrababu Naidu, to maintain his government. This will require him to address their concerns and demands.
• “From division of offices in the cabinet to their power in the states, they will have to take care of it.”
• He will also need to adopt a more inclusive approach and refrain from “blatant claims.”
• “More than the need for Prime Minister Modi, Modi himself will have to be brought into the limelight and will have to refrain from making blatant claims.”

1. The Nehru-Gandhi Family’s Enduring Influence:

• The article notes the historical significance of the Nehru-Gandhi family in Indian politics, particularly in constituencies like Rae Bareli and Amethi. Despite Smriti Irani’s previous win in Amethi, the seat returned to the Congress party.

Key Quotes:

• “If we take a look at this scenario, then the political awareness of the Indian people has proved to be better than ours.” (Implying that Indian voters were wiser than voters in the author’s country, presumably Pakistan.)
• “Your slogan of crossing 400 times also had some humanitarian or moral value in it, which would remind of his great deeds.” (This suggests the author believes that the 400+ slogan should have been tied to a vision of national greatness rather than simply a number.)
• “Narendra Modi also presents himself as a fakir in the market, but his living style often does not match his claim.” (The author is criticizing Modi’s perceived disconnect between his simple image and his actual lifestyle.)

Conclusion:

The 2024 Indian elections reflect a complex interplay of factors, including religious identity, socio-economic concerns, political strategy, and public perception. While the BJP secured a third term for Modi, its diminished mandate highlights the need for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to governance. The rise of the opposition alliance indicates a renewed focus on social and economic issues, and Modi will face challenges in navigating the demands of his coalition partners.

Frequently Asked Questions: Indian Elections 2024

• What were the key factors that led to the BJP’s reduced seat count in the 2024 elections compared to 2014 and 2019?
• Several factors contributed to the BJP’s setback. While the Ram Mandir issue had initially boosted support, its impact waned after construction. The unity of the India Alliance, particularly the Samajwadi Party and Congress Party in Uttar Pradesh, refocused the electorate on social issues rather than religious tensions. Additionally, the BJP’s perceived arrogance and failure to effectively engage with allies like the Akali Dal in Punjab hurt their overall performance. Concerns about potential constitutional changes fueled by exaggerated slogans like “crossing 400” also mobilized opposition voters, especially among farmers, Jats, Dalits, and Muslims. The low voter turnout amongst BJP voters due to the assumption of easy victory also played a role.
• How did the Ram Mandir issue influence the 2024 elections?
• The construction of the Ram Mandir initially provided a significant boost to the BJP, seemingly resolving a long-standing religious issue. However, the article suggests that its appeal diminished over time. The opposition successfully shifted the focus back to social and economic issues, arguing that these were more pressing concerns for the electorate. The BJP’s reliance on this issue also appears to have alienated some voters who prioritized other factors.
• What role did alliances play in the outcome of the 2024 elections?
• Alliances were crucial. The India Alliance, particularly the collaboration between the Samajwadi Party and Congress in Uttar Pradesh, proved effective in challenging the BJP’s dominance. Conversely, the BJP’s failure to maintain strong alliances, such as with the Akali Dal in Punjab, weakened their position in certain regions. The BJP will now rely on the support of coalition partners like Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal in Bihar and Chandra Babu Naido’s Talaq Deshmukh’s party in Andhra Pradesh, which could present challenges in terms of policy and power-sharing.
• What impact did the BJP’s slogan of “crossing 400” have on the elections?
• The “crossing 400” slogan appears to have backfired in several ways. It contributed to complacency among some BJP supporters, leading to lower voter turnout. More significantly, it fueled opposition narratives that the BJP intended to alter the constitution to the detriment of weaker sections of society. This fear-mongering campaign effectively mobilized opposition voters and damaged the BJP’s credibility.
• How significant is Uttar Pradesh (UP) in Indian politics, and what were the key takeaways from the election results in this state?
• Uttar Pradesh is a culturally significant region often described as a “mini Hindustan” due to its large population and influence on national politics. It holds the highest number of Lok Sabha seats (80), making it crucial for any party aiming to form a government in Delhi. The BJP’s significant seat reduction in UP, despite its previous dominance, highlights the shift in voter priorities towards social issues and the success of opposition alliances in the state. The loss of key seats like Faizabad (Ayodhya) and Amethi signals a waning of the BJP’s influence in its traditional strongholds.
• What is the significance of the Congress party’s performance in the 2024 elections?
• While the Congress party did not achieve a resounding victory, their increase in seats and the success of the India Alliance demonstrate a resurgence of the opposition. Rahul Gandhi’s leadership and the alliance’s focus on social justice issues resonated with voters, particularly in states like Uttar Pradesh. However, the article suggests that the Congress still lacks a clear and unified leadership, and their campaign promises were sometimes perceived as unrealistic.
• How does the author perceive Narendra Modi’s leadership style and its impact on the BJP’s performance?
• The author expresses a somewhat critical view of Narendra Modi’s leadership. While acknowledging his ability to connect with the masses, the author suggests that Modi’s actions and persona sometimes contradict his claims of simplicity and devotion. The author also implies that the BJP’s perceived arrogance and Modi’s overconfidence contributed to their setback in the 2024 elections. The author believes that Modi needs to showcase the political strength and greatness of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, giving more importance to their slogan ‘ Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas’.
• What challenges and opportunities does the Modi government face in its third term?
• In its third term, the Modi government faces the challenge of governing with a reduced majority and relying on coalition partners. This will require greater negotiation and compromise on policy decisions. They must address the concerns raised by the opposition regarding social justice, economic inequality, and potential constitutional changes. However, the Modi government also has the opportunity to prioritize inclusive growth, strengthen alliances, and regain the trust of voters who may have felt alienated during the previous term. They have to fulfill the slogan of ‘Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas’

Indian Elections Modi Government for the Third Time Darvesh had written while answering a question in the last installment that if he gets a chance to meet the BJP leadership, he will definitely tell them that see the way we have ruined our country and society by using religion for political purposes, you people should learn a lesson from us or else you people will also be affected the same way. If we take a look at this scenario, then the political awareness of the Indian people has proved to be better than ours. They have definitely given BJP a chance to solve the religious castes that are pitted against Hindus to a certain extent, due to which it succeeded in solving the 500-year-old issue of Ram Mandir. Thus, with the construction of Ram Mandir or Temple, the old card of the oppressed class expired. In this way, BJP was badly beaten not only by the whole of UP but also by Ram Ji Kalka of Faizabad, the pure Ayodhya Ram Mandir, by the Dalit representative of Akhilesh Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party. Its rival is the people of Rae Bareli, whom Mrs. Sonia Gandhi had told that Rahul Gandhi is now your son, and she has made him win with a huge mandate. Similarly, the Amethi seat in UP was traditionally with the Nehru-Gandhi family. Mrs. Indira Gandhi also used to win from here. Rajiv Gandhi also used to contest from here, but in the last two elections, BJP has snatched this seat from Congress. Former actress Smriti Irani, who is made the face of BJP, had also visited Medina some time ago and this seat was with her since the last election, but in the current 2024 election, she has lost with a big margin to Sonia Gandhi’s manager or steno Kishori Lal Sharma. Uttar Pradesh is such a cultural center of the whole of India that we can also call it a mini Hindustan. Just as in Pakistan it is said about Punjab that it is necessary to establish a foothold in Punjab for the rule of Islamabad, similarly in India it is generally said that Delhi has been the throne or the 100th seat or the vicinity and the Indian Lok Sabha The maximum number of 80 seats are here. BJP had won 7171 seats from here in the 2014 elections and in the 2019 elections as before, this number was 62 under the leadership of Yogi Adityanath, while this time in the 2024 elections, despite all the services and efforts, BJP has suffered a big setback. Its seats have come down to just 36 and the main reason for this is that the Ram temple, which raised the radical Hindu mindset, has lost its charm with the construction of the temple, while the unity of India Alliance, Akhilesh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party and Rahul’s Congress Party has given the people of UP the verdict that our real issue is the social issues and not the religious tension. A similar mixed situation is the situation in other states, provinces or princely states, Punjab, Haryana, Kashmir, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Jharkhand. BJP has its political status in Punjab, Haryana, Kashmir, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, West Bengal, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Jharkhand. In some places, it has lost more and more. In Tamil Nadu and Punjab, BJP or the ruling alliance could not win even a single seat. In Rajasthan and Haryana, where BJP had a clean sweep, it has lost 9 seats. In Maharashtra, 30 seats have been won by the opposition alliance. However, in Bihar, the ruling alliance has won 30 seats and the opposition has won 9 seats. In Gujarat, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh, BJP has emerged as a strong force. In Andhra Pradesh, the ball is in the hands of Chandra Babu Nado, who is known to be Modi’s strong alliance partner. In this way, the Modi government will benefit from Nitish Kumar’s strong position in Bihar and Sharad Pawar’s success will also go to Modi’s account. Here it may also be relevant to express this opinion that the BJP’s excessive growth had reached a kind of arrogance, so it did not show any enthusiasm in bringing its own allies or many other influential parties together, an example of which is the Akali Dal in Punjab, while Rahul’s party in India has won only 10 seats. The alliance grew from 26 to 37 and then the election promises they made were as if a person was not sure of his victory and he kept on exaggerating every thing, for example, sending Rs. lakh to every poor woman’s account or immediately eradicating poverty from the country and then their all this is a mere gimmick which itself has no specific agenda of envy or jealousy towards the BJP. They do not even agree on leadership till now, to the extent that there have been talks of distributing ministries every year. Hollow promises, false hopes cannot create and bring a strong leadership. In comparison to 2014 and 2019, without any good luck, BJP has got a set back in the 2024 election. This time the slogan of crossing 400 was also an exaggerated slogan of its own, but in our media, there is only a slogan of BJP and Modi. The way negative propaganda is being done to celebrate the victory, this approach also does not come under the purview of the democratic process. In the Lok Sabha assembly of 543, 272 seats are required to form the government and BJP has emerged as the single largest party by securing 240 seats alone against the 37-member alliance, while Rahul Gandhi’s Congress party could not go beyond 999. With reference to the alliance also, while the ruling alliance has won 294 seats, the total seats of the opposition alliance are 232. In such a situation, the talk of the opposition leaders or Modi’s defeat is meaningless, who will now have to showcase the political strength and greatness of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, giving more importance to their slogan ‘ Sabka Saath Sabka Vikas’ but it has failed. More than the need for Prime Minister Modi, Modi himself will have to be brought into the limelight and will have to refrain from making blatant claims. In today’s India, Mahatma You can rid yourself of Gandhi’s ideas as much as you want, but many of the ideals of this saint have originated from the ancient Hindu society and culture, in which the simplicity of Hindu religion, the intellectualism and greatness are displayed. Narendra Modi also presents himself as a fakir in the market, but his living style often does not match his claim. He says that when I meet outsiders in the capacity of PM, then I am not Modi at that time, but I show respect and dignity as a representative of 1.4 billion people, which in our eyes has reached a little beyond his status. And then he changes jackets of different colors and remains a fakir for good clothes. This approach is against the service and devotional ideals of Indian society. Your slogan of crossing 400 times also had some humanitarian or moral value in it, which would remind of his great deeds. In the history of Indian elections, crossing 400 has happened only once, when Mrs. Indira Gandhi sacrificed herself for the unity and rickshaw of her country, so in return Rajiv Gandhi got 404 or 400 crossed. BJP could have also kept the slogan that Modi government for the third time. Anyway, when the echo of 400 crossed was in the mind, many of our people understood that our victory is so sure that even if we do not go to vote in such intense heat, it does not matter, Modi has to win, if 400 is not crossed, then 350 will be crossed. This is the reason why the voting ratio remained very low in the 2024 election, perhaps it could not go above 60. BJP’s voter did not come out of the previous mark. On the other hand, the opposite effect of this slogan was that Rahul Gandhi and the opposition leadership were found giving this statement in every speech that 400 crossed means that BJP will change the Constitution i.e. Indian law given by our elders or founding fathers, in which there is no provision for intellectuals and weaker sections. The past will be over. To avoid Ram Rajya or Hindu Rashtra, all the weaker sections should stand up, otherwise the rule of BJP and Narendra Modi is going to be established. If we look at it from the point of view of reality, the groups of farmers, Jats, Dalits and Muslims gathered together for protection and regional parties also showed their influence. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had realized the threat spread in this regard and he explained it in detail in the last part of his election campaign. He said everywhere that we do not intend to change the constitution or the law and also that we give great importance to secular values. Modi Ji insisted that this is done by the Congress which shows the identity or division of sects in the name of religion. We talk of national unity by bringing everyone together. In this context, he repeatedly referred to Baba Saheb Ambedkar, but he could not stop the propaganda spread against him by Rahul and Indi Alliance. This negative propaganda, which had some or the other false truth, was being spread by the opposition. Due to these somehow or the other, the Indian people have sent their popular Prime Minister to the Delhi assembly for the third time. They will have to take along Bel Fail sahab. They will also have to bear the tantrums of their own people. From division of offices in the cabinet to their power in the states, they will have to take care of it. In Maharashtra, the Hindutva agenda of Shiv Sena matches with that of BJP, but its Hindutva is more than that of BJP. Who is not aware of the thoughts of Bal Thackeray ji? Now his children will move ahead with the same passion. Anyway, their nine seats will be like ‘Ham ki khayal’ for the BJP government. In Bihar, Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal has 12 seats, while in Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu’s Talaq Deshmukh’s 16 seats will be a problem for the Modi government.

इंडियन इंतखाब मोदी सरकार तीसरी बार दरवेश ने पिछली किस्त में एक सवाल का जवाब देते हुए यह तहरीर किया था कि अगर उसे बीजेपी कयादत से मिलने का इफाक हुआ तो व इनसे यह जरूर कहेगा कि देखो जिस तरह हम लोगों ने अपने खिता में मजहब का सियासी इस्तेमाल करते हुए अपने मुल्क और समाज को बर्बाद कर लिया है आप लोग हमसे इबरत हासिल करो वरना आप लोगों का भी वही असर होगा इस पस मंजर में जायजा लिया जाए तो भारतीय जनता का सियासी शऊर हम लोगों से ज्यादा मोर साबित हुआ है उन्होंने हिंदुओं के खिलाफ रवा रखी जाने वाली मजहबी जातियों पर एक हद तक जरूर बीजेपी को पजरा बख्शी है जिसके कारण वह राम मंदिर का 500 साला पुराना इशू हल करने या कराने में कामयाब हो गई यूं राम मंदिर या टेंपल की तामीर के साथ ही मजलूम अत का कदीमी कार्ड एक्सपायर हो गया इस तरह बीजेपी ना सिर्फ यह कि पूरे यूपी से बल्कि फैजाबाद के खालिस अयोध्या राम मंदिर वाले राम जीी कलके से भी अखिलेश सिंह यादव की समाजवादी पार्टी के दलित नुमाइंदे से बुरी तरह पिट गई है इसके बिल मुकाबल राय बरेली के ब यों ने जिन्हें श्रीमती सोनिया गांधी ने यह कहा था कि राहुल गांधी अब तुम्हारा बेटा है भारी मैंडेट के साथ जितवा दिया है इसी तरह यूपी के अमेठी वाली सीट रवायत तौर पर नेहरू गांधी परिवार के पास चली आ रही थी श्रीमती इंदिरा गांधी भी यहीं से जीता करती थी राजीव गांधी भी यहां से लड़ते रहे लेकिन पिछले दोनों इंतखाब में बीजेपी ने कांग्रेस से यह सीट भी छीन ली है साबका अदाकारा स्मृति ईरानी जिन्हें बीजेपी का चेहरा कर दिया जाता है जिन्होंने कुछ अरसा कबल मदीना यात्रा भी की थी और पिछले इंतखाब से ये सीट इन्हीं के पास थी मगर मौजूदा 2024 के इलेक्शन में वो सोनिया गांधी के मैनेजर या स्टेनो किशोरी लाल शर्मा से बड़े मार्जन के साथ हार गई है उत्तर प्रदेश खिता हिंद का ऐसा तहजीब गहवारा है जिसे हम मिनी हिंदुस्तान भी कह सकते हैं पाकिस्तान में जिस तरह पंजाब के मुतालिक कहा जाता है कि इस्लामाबाद की हुकूमत के लिए पंजाब में कदम जमाना जरूरी है इसी तरह भारत में बिल अमोम यह कहा जाता है कि दिल्ली सिंघासन या इक्दर्म या आसपास रही है और भारतीय लोकसभा की सबसे ज्यादा 80 सीटें यहां हैं बीजेपी को 2014 के चुनाव में यहां से 7171 सीटों पर कामयाबी मिली थी और 2019 के इंतखाब में भी हसबे साबिक यह तादाद योगी आदित्यनाथ की कयादत में 62 थी जबकि इस मर्तबा 2024 के चुनाव में बीजेपी को तमाम तर खिदमा और दामों के बावजूद बड़ा सेटबैक पहुंचा है इसकी सीटें घटकर महत 36 रह गई हैं और इसकी बड़ी वजह जहां यह है कि र वायती हिंदू माइंडसेट को उभारने वाला राम मंदिर कार टेंपल की तामीर के साथ ही अपनी कशिश खो बैठा है वहीं इंडिया अलायंस बिलख सूस अखली देश सिंह यादू की समाजवादी पार्टी और राहुल की कांग्रेस पार्टी की एकता से यूपी की जनता ने यह फैसला सुना दिया है कि हमारा असल इशू माशी मसाइल है ना के मजहबी तंग नाए कुछ इसी तरह की मिलीजुली सूरत हाल दीगर राज्यों सूबों या रियासतों की है पंजाब हरियाणा कश्मीर राजस्थान महाराष्ट्र वेस्ट बंगाल केराला तमिलनाडु कर्नाटका झारखंड में बीजेपी अपनी सियासी हैसियत कहीं कम कहीं ज्यादा खो बैठी है बिलख सूस तमिलनाडु और मशर की पंजाब से तो बीजेपी या हुक्मरान इतहाद कोई एक सीट भी हासिल नहीं कर सके राजस्थान और हरियाणा जहां बीजेपी ने क्लीन स्वीप किया था वहां भी निस सीटें खो बैठी है महाराष्ट्र की 30 सीटें अपोजिशन अलायंस ने जीत ली हैं अलबत्ता बिहार में हुक्मरान इतहाद ने 30 और अपोजिशन ने नौ सीटें जीती हैं गुजरात उड़ीसा मध्य प्रदेश में अलबत्ता बीजेपी मजबूत हैसियत में उभरी है आंध्र प्रदेश में गेंद चंद्र बाबू नाडो के हाथ में है जो मोदी के मजबूत इतहाद गल दने जाते हैं इस तरह बिहार में नितेश कुमार की मजबूत पोजीशन का फायदा मोदी सरकार को पहुंचेगा और शरद पवार की कामयाबी भी मोदी के खाते में जाएगी यहां इस अमर का इजहार भी शायद मौजू हो कि बीजेपी की जरूरत से ज्यादा बढ़ी हुई खुद इत मादी एक तरह के गुरूर तक पहुंच गई थी इसलिए उन्होंने अपने तहा दियों को भी या कई दीगर असर सूफ वाली पार्टियों को साथ जोड़ने में कोई सरगर्मी ना दिखाई जिसकी एक मिसाल पंजाब में अकाली दल है जबकि इंडिया नामी राहुल का अलायंस 26 जमां से बढ़ते हुए 37 तक चले गया और फिर उन्होंने जो इंतखाब वादे किए वो ऐसे थे कि जैसे एक शख्स को अपनी जीत का यकीन ना हो और वह हर बात को बढ़ा चढ़ाकर बयान करता चला जाए मसलन यह कि हर गरीब खातून को ₹ लाख अकाउंट में भेजने या फौरी तौर पर मुल्क से फटाफट गरीबी खत्म करने के लनात और फिर इनका इतहाद ऐसा चूचू का मुरब्बा है जिसका स्वाय बीजेपी से हसद या जलन के कोई मुस्त एजेंडा नहीं है इनका तो अभी तक कयादत पर भी इत्तफाक नहीं हत्ता कि विजारत उजमा भी एक-एक साल पर बांटने की बातें होती रही हैं खोखले वादे झूठी उम्मीदें पैदार और मजबूत कयादत नहीं ला सकती 2014 और 2019 के बिल मुकाबल बिला शुभ बीजेपी को इलेक्शन 2024 में सेट बैक पहुंचा है अबकी बार 400 पार का नारा भी जरूरत से बढ़ी हुई खुद इत मादी का मजहर था मगर हमारे मीडिया में बिल मूम बीजेपी और मोदी की वाज जीत को जिस तरह मनफी प्रोपेगेंडा जा रहा है यह तर्ज अमल भी सावती दियानत दारी के जिमरे में नहीं आता है 543 के लोकसभा आवान में हुकूमत साजी के लिए 272 सीटें दरकार हैं और की बीजेपी 37 जमाती अलायंस के बिल मुकाबल तन्हा 240 निशि हासिल करते हुए सिंगल लार्जेस्ट पार्टी की हैसियत से उभरी है जबकि इसके सामने राहुल गांधी की कांग्रेस पार्टी 999 से आगे नहीं बढ़ पाई अलायंस के हवाले से भी जहां हुक्मरान इतहाद ने 294 निशि जीती है वहां अपोजिशन इतहाद की कुल सीटें 232 हैं ऐसे में अपोजिशन के हुक्मरान या मोदी के जवाल की बातें बेमानी है जिन्हें अब अपने नारे सबका साथ सबका विकास पर बिल फेल ज्यादा तवज्जो देते हुए अटल बिहारी वाजपेई की सियासी दम और बड़े पन का मुजहरा करना होगा प्राइम मिनिस्टर मोदी की जरूरत से ज्यादा खुद त मादी को हका शनास में लाना होगा ब्लं बांग दावों से परहेज करना होगा आज के भारत में महात्मा गांधी के विचारों से आप जितनी चाहे जान छुड़ा ले लेकिन इस साधु के बहुत से आदर्श कदीमी हिंदू समाज और तहजीब से फूटे हैं जिनमें हिंदू मत की सादगी वस्ते कल्बी वुसी नजरी और बड़ा पन नुमाया तर है नरेंद्र मोदी भी बजार खुद को एक फकीर के रूप में पेश करते हैं मगर इनका लिविंग स्टाइल अक्सर इनके दावे से मेल नहीं खाता वो कहते हैं कि मैं पीएम की की हैसियत से जब गैरों को मिलता हूं तो मैं इस वक्त मोदी नहीं हो 1 अरब 40 करोड़ की जनता का नुमाइंदा बनकर वकार और डिग्निटी दिखाता हूं जो हमारी नजर में बाज औकात कुछ आगे तक पहुंची होती है और फिर वह रंग बंगी जितनी जैकेट्स बदलते और बढ़िया लिबास के लिए मुत फक्कर रहते हैं ये अप्रोच इंडियन समाज की सेवा और भक्ति भरे आदर्शों के खिलाफ हैं आपकी बार 400 पार के नारे ने भी अपना मुसब्बर नाजर में इसकी कोई मानवीय या मक दियत वाजिया होती जो इनके बहुत बड़े कारनामों की याद दिलाता इंडियन इंतखाब तारीख में 400 पार तो महज एक मर्तबा हुआ है जब श्रीमती इंदिरा गांधी अपने देश की एकता और रिक्शा पर कुर्बान हो गई तो बदले में राजीव गांधी को 404 या 400 पार हुए बीजेपी यह नारा भी रख सकती थी कि तीसरी बार मोदी सरकार बहरहाल जब 400 पार की गूंज दिमाग में छाई हुई थी तो बहुत से अपनों ने यह समझा कि हमारी जीत तो इस कदर यकीनी है कि अगर इतनी शदीद गर्मी में हम वोट डालने ना भी गए तो कोई बात नहीं जीत तो मोदी ने ही जाना है 400 पार ना हुए तो 350 पार हो जाएंगे यही वजह है कि 2024 के इलेक्शन में वोटिंग रेशो निसन कदर कम रही शायद 60 पर से ऊपर नहीं जा सकी बीजेपी का वोटर साबका इनमार्क से नहीं निकला दूसरी तरफ इस नारे का मुखालिफ असर यह हुआ कि राहुल गांधी और अपोजिशन कयादत अपनी हर तकरीर में यह तश्वी बयान करते पाए गए कि 400 पार का यह मतलब है कि बीजेपी हमारे बड़ों या फाउंडिंग फादर्स का दिया हुआ अजमु शन संविधान यानी भारतीय आईन बदल डालेगी जिसमें अकली तों और कमजोर तबकात को दिए गए तजत खत्म हो जाएंगे राम राजिया या हिंदू राष्ट्रिय से बचने के लिए तमाम कमजोर तबकात को उठ खड़े होना चाहिए वरना बीजेपी और नरेंद्र मोदी की आमनियन कायम होने जा रही है अगर हकीकत की नजर से देखा जाए तो किसान जाटों दलितों और मुसलमानों के खद शत इस हवाले से तहफ्फुज या बचाओ की खातिर इकट्ठे हो गए और इलाकाई पार्टियों ने भी अपना असर दिखाया प्राइम मिनिस्टर नरेंद्र मोदी को इस हवाले से फैलाए गए खद शत के मुजम का एहसासो द्राक हो चुका था और उन्होंने अपनी इलेक्शन कैंपेन के आखिरी मराल में इस हवाले से खूब वजाहत की हर जगह यह कहा कि हम संविधान या आईन बदलने का कोई इरादा नहीं रखते और यह भी कि हम सेकुलर वैल्यूज को बड़ी अहमियत देते हैं मोदी जी ने इस अमर पर इसरार किया कि यह हरकत तो कांग्रेस करती है जो धर्म के नाम पर फिरको की पहचान या तकसीम को नुमाया करती है हम तो सबको साथ मिलाकर कौमी एकता की बात करते हैं इस सिलसिले में उन्होंने बार-बार बाबा साहब अंबेडकर का रेफरेंस दिया मगर वह अपने खिलाफ फैलाए गए राहुल और इंडी अलायंस के इस मनफी प्रोपेगेंडा जिसकी कुछ ना कुछ झूठी सची बनदे बाल अपोजिशन के पास थी इन जैसे-तैसे खद शत के कारण भारतीय जनता ने अपने पॉपुलर प्रधानमंत्री को तीसरी बार दिल्ली के इक्दर्म बक में बेल फेल साहब को साथ लेकर चलना होगा अपने इतहाद हों के नखरे भी उठाने होंगे काबीना में उदों की तकसीम से लेकर राज्यों में इनकी तजत का बाल ख्याल रखना होगा महाराष्ट्र में शिव सना का हिंदुत्व का एजेंडा अगर च बीजेपी से से मेल खाता है लेकिन इसकी हिद्दी बीजेपी से ज्यादा है बाल ठाकरे जी के विचारों से कौन वाकफ नहीं है अब इनके बच्चे इसी लगन के साथ आगे बढ़ेंगे बहरहाल इनकी नौ सीटें बीजेपी की हुकूमत के लिए एक तरह से हम ख्याल अदि हों जैसी होंगी बिहार में नितेश कुमार की जनता दल के पास 12 सीटें हैं जबकि आंध्र प्रदेश में चंद्रबाबू नायडू के तलग देशम की 16 नशत मोदी सरकार के लिए मामन होंगी

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

Rohan’s writing laments the historical divisions and violence that have plagued the region of Hindustan. It expresses nostalgia for a time when diverse cultures coexisted peacefully. The text criticizes religious traders and terrorists for disrupting this harmony and instigating conflict. It accuses certain groups of prioritizing profit over the well-being of the country’s inhabitants and highlights perceived injustices against Hindus during the partition. The writing further condemns the treatment of Bengalis, Balochs, and Pashtuns, alleging atrocities and betrayals. Overall, the author conveys a sense of betrayal, loss, and a plea to end cycles of violence and division and speaks of continuing human rights abuses.

Hindustan: A Land Divided – Study Guide

I. Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

1. According to the author, what characteristics have historically defined the land of Hindustan?
2. What event does the author identify as the beginning of the division of Hindustan?
3. How does the author describe the actions of some Hindus following the partition?
4. What specific actions does the author accuse Pakistan of taking against India after partition?
5. What is the significance of the “two-nation theory” in the author’s argument?
6. What happened to the “Bangla brother” mentioned by the author, and what does it represent?
7. What are the Baloch and Pashtun communities currently experiencing, according to the author?
8. What specific historical event involving a Baloch girl does the author reference?
9. How did Pakistan allegedly violate promises of safety made to Baloch leaders?
10. What question about the Baloch people does the author pose at the end of the excerpt?

II. Quiz – Answer Key

1. Hindustan has historically been a land known for its multi-religious, multi-communal, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual identity. It was considered a land of saints, sages, devotees, monks, and Sufis, embodying unity and peace.
2. The author identifies the arrival of “traders of religion” as the beginning of the division, who divided the beautiful land by establishing “furnaces of gunpowder for profit.” This signifies the introduction of religious conflict and violence for self-gain.
3. Despite the violence and killings in Lahore, some Hindus in Delhi showed patience and tolerance, keeping residents or infiltrators close to their hearts. The author also describes them granting loans to the newly formed Pakistan.
4. The author accuses Pakistan of sending terrorists into India after partition, instigating events like the Kargil War, the Pulwama attack, and the Pathankot attack. They also accused them of attacking the Lok Sabha in Delhi, and sending terrorists to Mumbai.
5. The “two-nation theory” is presented as the basis for the mistreatment of religious minorities and internal ethnic groups within Pakistan. The author argues the theory was not aligned with those who were being targeted and oppressed within the newly formed state of Pakistan.
6. The “Bangla brother,” referring to a leader from Bangladesh, was imprisoned by Pakistani authorities despite being elected with a heavy majority. This represents the suppression of Bengali identity and the betrayal of the trust placed in the Pakistani government.
7. According to the author, the Baloch and Pashtun communities are currently experiencing similar oppression and violence to what the Bengalis faced, including military operations, disappearances, and killings of community leaders.
8. The author references the alleged rape of a Baloch girl by a Captain, implying the abuse and exploitation of the Baloch community. They accuse the Captain of now lecturing on Islam in the guise of a priest.
9. Pakistan allegedly violated promises of safety given to Baloch leaders based on the Quran, killing them after guaranteeing their safety. This highlights a betrayal of trust and a disregard for religious oaths.
10. The author asks how many more old and young oppressed Baloch women will be made missing persons, how many military operations will be launched against them, how many Akbar devotees will be killed, and how many more partitions of the beautiful kingdom will they cause, suggesting ongoing and escalating persecution.

III. Essay Questions

Answer each question in a well-structured essay format, citing textual evidence.

1. Analyze the author’s portrayal of religious identity and its impact on the historical narrative of Hindustan. How does the author distinguish between genuine spirituality and the exploitation of religion for political or economic gain?
2. Examine the author’s critique of Pakistan’s actions and policies since partition. What specific events and accusations are central to the author’s argument, and how do they contribute to a broader narrative of betrayal and oppression?
3. Discuss the author’s use of emotional and rhetorical devices to persuade the reader. How does the language and tone contribute to the overall message and intended impact of the excerpt?
4. Compare and contrast the author’s depiction of the treatment of Bengalis and Baloch people within Pakistan. What parallels and differences does the author draw, and what underlying themes do these narratives reveal?
5. Evaluate the author’s perspective on the partition of India and its long-term consequences. How does the author frame the event in terms of loss, injustice, and ongoing conflict, and what solutions, if any, are implied or suggested?

IV. Glossary of Key Terms

• Hindustan: A historical and cultural name for the Indian subcontinent, often used to evoke a sense of shared heritage and identity.
• Iqbal: (Likely referring to Muhammad Iqbal), A poet, philosopher, and politician who inspired the Pakistan Movement.
• Two-Nation Theory: The ideology that Hindus and Muslims of British India were distinct nations with separate cultural, religious, and political identities, leading to the partition of India.
• Partition: The division of British India in 1947 into the independent nations of India and Pakistan, resulting in widespread displacement, violence, and communal conflict.
• Kargil: Refers to the Kargil War, an armed conflict between India and Pakistan in 1999.
• Pulwama and Pathankot: Locations in India that experienced terrorist attacks, attributed to groups based in Pakistan, increasing tensions between the two countries.
• Kasab: Refers to Ajmal Kasab, one of the terrorists involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks.
• Baloch and Pashtun: Ethnic groups residing primarily in Pakistan and Afghanistan, who have faced discrimination and conflict with the Pakistani government.
• Kalat: A former princely state in Balochistan, Pakistan, whose integration into Pakistan was marked by conflict and suppression of Baloch autonomy.
• Akbar Bugti: A prominent Baloch leader killed in a military operation by the Pakistani army in 2006, leading to increased unrest in Balochistan.

Okay, here’s a briefing document summarizing the main themes and ideas from the provided excerpt from “Hindustan: A Land Divided by Religious Traders and Terrorism.”

Briefing Document: “Hindustan: A Land Divided by Religious Traders and Terrorism”

Main Themes:

• Lament for Lost Unity and Cultural Harmony: The author expresses deep sorrow and regret over the division of the Indian subcontinent (Hindustan) and the erosion of its historical multi-religious, multi-cultural, and multi-lingual identity. They yearn for a return to an idealized past where love, peace, and tolerance prevailed.
• Condemnation of Religious Divisiveness and Violence: The author vehemently criticizes those who exploit religion for political and economic gain, accusing them of instigating violence, hatred, and division among people who once lived harmoniously. They accuse these “traders of religion” of replacing “love-filled roses” with “furnaces of gunpowder.”
• Critique of Pakistan’s Actions and Policies: A significant portion of the excerpt is dedicated to criticizing Pakistan’s historical and contemporary actions, accusing the nation of betraying the spirit of unity, engaging in acts of terrorism, and mistreating its own ethnic minorities. The author explicitly mentions events such as the Kargil War, the Pulwama attack, and the treatment of Baloch and Pashtun people.
• Emphasis on Hindu Tolerance and Suffering: The author praises the Hindu community for their patience and tolerance in the face of violence and injustice. They highlight the perceived disparity in the treatment of Muslims in India compared to the treatment of Hindus in Pakistan after the partition.
• Plea for Peace and Reconciliation: Despite the harsh criticisms, the author seems to imply a desperate plea for peace, justice, and unity, urging those responsible for the divisions and violence to reconsider their actions and embrace a more inclusive and compassionate approach.

Key Ideas and Facts:

• Historical Harmony of Hindustan: The author paints a romanticized picture of pre-partition India as a land of saints, sages, and Sufis, where diverse cultures and religions coexisted peacefully. “In the name of humans, Afzal Rihan, our land of Hindustan has always existed for centuries as a beautiful cultural treasure and a great country without any rosary, which is known for its multi-religious, multi- communal, multi-cultural and multi-lingual identity.”
• Religious Traders as Instigators: The author blames “traders of religion” for dividing Hindustan for profit and self-gain. “Alas, when the traders of religion divided this beautiful bouquet of nature, In the land that spews gold, where love- filled roses grew and smelled, there they set up furnaces of gunpowder for profit.”
• Criticism of Pakistan’s Actions: The author lists numerous grievances against Pakistan, accusing them of supporting terrorism, betraying trust, and oppressing minorities. The author mentions events such as Kargil, Pulwama, and Pathankot, accusing Pakistan of attacking India despite gestures of goodwill. “Secondly the great poet who speaks love filled words of poetry came to Lahore as a guest, and as soon as he turned back you stabbed him in the back with the dagger of Kargil, the third one who was the apple of the eye of his people, when he came, you did Pulwama and Pathankot”
• Partition’s Trauma: The author vividly describes the violence and displacement that occurred during the partition of India, portraying it as a period of immense suffering and loss. “Partition happened, Rajal became a slave and got looted in the storm of Sharafabad. Someone should ask them how they were destroyed, how their garden became a desert, how their happy home was torn to pieces, how they created a river of fire and blood”
• Balochistan Allegations: The author accuses Pakistan of committing atrocities against the Baloch people, including enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and the suppression of their political and cultural rights. “What kind of atrocities have been committed against the Baloch? Starting from shedding blood in the state of Kalat, breaking their elected orders with full vehemence, throwing popular leadership in jails and filing false cases against them, looting businesses and sending them to prisons.”
• Hindu Tolerance Contrasted with Treatment in Pakistan: The author emphasizes the perceived tolerance of Hindus in India while highlighting the plight of Hindus in Pakistan, particularly in Lahore. “The greatness of the Hindu religion and its followers is saluted, that despite all these excesses and profit, they went to the extreme of patience and tolerance. When the real residents of Hindustan were being killed and slaughtered in Lahore, even then they kept all the residents or infiltrators in Delhi close to their heart, whoever has a doubt can certainly get the census of the before and after at every two places, Hindus cannot be found even if one searches in Lahore, whereas Delhi is still filled with Muslims”

Overall Tone:

The tone of the excerpt is highly emotional, passionate, and accusatory. The author uses vivid language and strong imagery to convey their sense of loss, anger, and disappointment. The writing is also somewhat biased, presenting a largely negative view of Pakistan and a more positive view of India and the Hindu community.

Potential Biases:

The author’s perspective appears to be strongly influenced by Hindu nationalist sentiments and a deep-seated resentment towards Pakistan. The historical narrative presented is selective and focuses on alleged injustices and betrayals by Pakistan.

Here’s an 8-question FAQ based on the provided text, formatted in Markdown:

FAQ: Understanding the Historical and Contemporary Issues in Hindustan

1. What is the author’s overall sentiment towards the idea of “Hindustan”?

The author views Hindustan as a historically rich, multi-cultural land known for its unity, peace, and spiritual traditions. The author laments the divisions caused by religious exploitation, violence, and external forces, contrasting this with the land’s inherent potential for harmony and love.

2. According to the author, what are the primary factors that have disrupted the harmony of Hindustan?

The author identifies religious traders and terrorism as the main disruptive forces, who for their own profit, have fueled violence and division, undermining the land’s natural unity and tolerance. The text highlights the exploitation of religious differences for political and economic gain.

3. How does the author portray the response of the “Hindu religion and its followers” to the historical violence and division?

The author expresses admiration for the resilience, patience, and tolerance displayed by Hindus in the face of violence and displacement. The author contrasts this with what is perceived as the continued presence and acceptance of Muslims in Delhi, even after significant violence and displacement of Hindus in Lahore.

4. What specific historical events are referenced as examples of the disruption and violence in the region?

The author mentions the Partition of India, the Kargil War, the Pulwama and Pathankot attacks, and attacks on the Indian Parliament and in Mumbai, as examples of the ongoing violence and disruption. These events are cited as evidence of broken trust and continued hostility.

5. What is the author’s critique of the “two-nation theory”?

The author implicitly criticizes the two-nation theory by highlighting the mistreatment and oppression of ethnic groups, such as Bengalis, Balochis, and Pashtuns. The author questions the logic of creating divisions based on religion, given the subsequent internal conflicts and injustices within the newly formed nations.

6. How does the author describe the treatment of Bengalis in the context of the two-nation theory?

The author describes the suppression and violence inflicted upon Bengalis, highlighting their initial support for the creation of Pakistan, and the subsequent betrayal of that trust through imprisonment of leaders and military actions.

7. What specific allegations are made regarding the treatment of Baloch and Pashtun people?

The author alleges atrocities against the Baloch, including extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, military operations, and the exploitation of women. The author suggests a parallel between the treatment of Bengalis and the current treatment of Baloch and Pashtun communities.

8. What is the author’s final concern or question regarding the future of the region?

The author expresses concern about the potential for further partitions and divisions within the region, particularly given the ongoing conflicts and oppression of ethnic groups. The author questions whether those in power are actively pursuing a third partition of the region through their actions.

In the name of humans, Afzal Rihan, our land of Hindustan has always existed for centuries as a beautiful cultural treasure and a great country without any rosary, which is known for its multi-religious, multi- communal, multi-cultural and multi-lingual identity. It has always been called the land of saints, sages, devotees, monks and Sufis, in the words of Iqbal, whose right gave the unity the effect of gold. Whose pockets had filled the pockets of Turks with diamonds. Whose mountains are the essence of the chest. Whose land is full of fruits. Living in the air of which is the life of paradise. That is my country. That is my country. That is the country whose identity for centuries has been that both strength and peace is in the songs of the devotees. The liberation of the inhabitants of the earth is in love. While describing the greatness of the mountains of that country, Hindustan, Iqbal kept singing, O Mala-e-Fasil, Kishangarh, bowing down to your forehead, bowing down to the sky. Alas, when the traders of religion divided this beautiful bouquet of nature, In the land that spews gold, where love- filled roses grew and smelled, there they set up furnaces of gunpowder for profit In this poisonous future of mine and Iqbal, where songs of power and peace were sung, the attackers and the terrorists made it their duty to kill the real countrymen like carrots and radishes, full of profit The greatness of the Hindu religion and its followers is saluted, that despite all these excesses and profit, they went to the extreme of patience and tolerance When the real residents of Hindustan were being killed and slaughtered in Lahore, even then they kept all the residents or infiltrators in Delhi close to their heart, whoever has a doubt can certainly get the census of the before and after at every two places, Hindus cannot be found even if one searches in Lahore, whereas Delhi is still filled with Muslims, who can avoid Moni, the profit filled blood of friends and strangers is made from the profit and connivance of own and strangers Partition happened, Rajal became a slave and got looted in the storm of Sharafabad. Someone should ask them how they were destroyed, how their garden became a desert, how their happy home was torn to pieces, how they created a river of fire and blood, this is not enough, when their father was keeping Bharat in such a condition that he was getting a loan of 55 crores in oath confirmation, when at this time a buffalo of ₹ was coming, then who unleashed an attack on his countrymen, who left no stone unturned in theft, looting and information, who used a strange trick and said that it was the tribals who were found to be creating an army, when their first Prime Minister, after drinking all the sorrows of partition, came to you with a message of love for a new beginning, so that you also, without removing the tension, make you drink the water of the rivers of your land like love, then you people started sending terrorists as soon as his eyes closed and then one word claim And how many innocent people did he become the cause of death, how much wastage happened, secondly the great poet who speaks love filled words of poetry came to Lahore as a guest, and as soon as he turned back you stabbed him in the back with the dagger of Kargil, the third one who was the apple of the eye of his people, when he came, you did Pulwama and Pathankot, what kind of arrow have you people adopted, sometimes you attacked the Lok Sabha in Delhi, sometimes in Mumbai innocent people were killed by terrorists, becoming Kasab you killed like the Qais, what kind of people are you, who by showing generosity like their father, got your 90 Hajj warriors released from their captivity and handed them over to you, conquered the area of ​​thousands of miles and gave you back, but how narrow-minded you are that on the murder of your Masna, where people were found celebrating and celebrating, all this was alien according to your two nation theory, but how did you treat these brothers of yours who not only destroyed your League, but also destroyed it? I had given them thirst, rather I tried my best to make your founder’s sister win, that Bangla brother whom the Bengali community had elected with such a heavy majority, holding him in high esteem. You rewarded the trust of your people by putting their leadership in jails and started cutting the Bengalis into pieces. You instilled such a daring in their young soldiers that not only the British Empire but even Hitler was stunned. Without any hesitation, you people caused another partition of this kingdom of India. What are you doing today with your Baloch and Pashtun brothers? Earlier you used to say that we will change the race of Bengalis due to hunger. Did your Commander in Chief not say openly that how is it possible that my soldiers fight in Bengal, but go to Jhelum to quench their thirst? You have been getting solace from Bengali women that today you people want to give the same Ajit, the same trouble to your Baloch Pashtun brothers and sisters, with the Baloch girl you had The Captain raped, today he is found lecturing on Islam in the guise of a priest. What kind of atrocities have been committed against the Baloch? Starting from shedding blood in the state of Kalat, breaking their elected orders with full vehemence, throwing popular leadership in jails and filing false cases against them, looting businesses and sending them to prisons. Weren’t these Balochs their own, whose leadership was killed with bad Ahdi Safaqi after giving the condition of life safety on the basis of Quran? This question is being raised all over the world that how many old and young oppressed Baloch women will you make missing persons, how many military operations will you launch against them, how many Akbar devotees will you kill, how many more partitions of this beautiful kingdom will you cause? You are not satisfied with two partitions, now you are bent on doing the third one.

इंसानों के नाम अफजल रिहान हमारा यह खिता हिंद सदियों से खूबसूरत तहजीब गहवारा और बिला तस्बी दामन अजीम मुल्क की हैसियत से हमेशा मौजूद रहा है जो मल्टी रिलीजस मल्टी कम्यून मल्टी कल्चरल और मल्टी लैंग्वेज की पहचान का हाम है हमेशा साधुओं ऋषियों भक्तों भक्ष और सूफियों की सरजमीन कहलाया बकौल इकबाल यूनानिमिटी को जिसकी हक ने जर का असर दिया था तुर्कों का जिसने दामन हीरों से भर दिया था बंदे कलीम जिसके पर्वत जहां के सीना रिफत है जिस जमी की बा में फल का जीना जन्नत की जिंदगी है जिसकी फजा में जीना मेरा वतन वही है मेरा वतन वही है सदियों से जिस देश की पहचान यह रही है कि शक्ति भी शांति भी भक्तों के गीत में है धरती के वासियों की मुक्ति प्रीत में है जिस वतन हिंद के पर्वतों की अजमत बयान करते हुए इकबाल गाता रहा ए माला ए फसील किश्वर हिंदुस्तान चूमता है तेरी पेशानी को झुककर आसमा अफसोस जब धर्म के व्यापारियों ने इस हसीन गुलदस्ता फितरत का बटवारा किया तो सोना उगलती सरजमी में जहां गुलाबों के मोहब्बत भरे फूल उगते और महकते थे वहां मुनाफ तों भरे बारूद की भटियां लगा दी मेरी और इकबाल की इस भविष में जहां शक्ति और शांति के गीत गाए जाते थे मुनाफ भरे जहरीले प्रोपेगेंडा हुए हमलावरों और जद हों ने असल देशवासियों को गाजर मूली की तरह काटना अपना कतब बना लिया हिंदू धर्म और इसके मानने वालों की अजमतों को सलाम है कि इन तमाम तर ज्यादति और मुनाफ तों के बावजूद उन्होंने समरो त हम्मल और बर्दाश्त की इंतहा कर दी जब लाहौर में हिंद के असल वासों को मारा और काटा जा रहा था उन्होंने तब भी दिल्ली में तमाम तर आबाद गों या घुस बैठ यों को सीने से लगाए रखा जिसे शक है वो बेशक हर दो मकामा पर पहले और बाद की मर्दम शुमारी मुलाज फरमा ले लाहौर में ढूंढे से भी हिंदू नहीं मिल पाते जबकि दिल्ली आज भी मुस्लिमों से भरा पड़ा है मोनी को कौन टाल सकता है अपनों और गैरों की मुनाफ और मिली भगत से मुनाफ भरा खून अलू बटवारा हो गया रजल कमी मजीन करार पाए और शरफाबाद के तूफान में लुटपुट गए कोई इनसे पूछे कि वो कैसे उजड़े इनका चमन किस तरह सहरा हुआ इनका हंसता बस्ता आशियाना किस तरह तिनके से अलग तिनका हुआ उन्होंने आग और खून का दरिया कैसे किया इसी पर बस नहीं जब इनका बापू मरन भरत रखे इस हालत कसम पुष्टी में 55 करोड़ की खती रकम दिलवा रहा था जबक इस वक्त ₹ की भैंस आ जाती थी तब किसने उसके देशवासियों पर यलगार कर दी चोरी डिके लूटमार और जनाकारी में कोई कसर उठाए नहीं रखी किसने अजब मुनाफ करत से काम लेते हुए कहा यह बलवा तो कबाइली थे जो लश्कर कशी करते पाए गए जब इनका पहला प्रधानमंत्री बटवारे के तमाम दुखों को पीकर नई शुरुआत की खातिर प्रीत का पैगाम लिए तुम्हारे पास आया ताकि आप भी तनाजा न मिटाते हुए अपने खिता के दरियाओ का पानी मैं प्रीत की तरह तुम्हें पिला दें तो तुम लोगों ने उसकी आंखें बंद होते ही आतंकवादी भेजने शुरू किए और फिर एक शब्द दावा बोल दिया और कितने बेगुनाह इंसानों की मौत का बायस बने कितनी बर्बादी हुई दूसरा प्रधानमंत्री कविता के प्रेम भरे शब्द बोलता महान कवि मेहमान बनकर लाहौर यात्रा पर आया तो तुमने इसके पलटते ही इसकी पीठ में कारगिल का खंजर गोप दिया तीसरा जो अपनी जनता की आंखों का तारा था जब आया तो तुमने पुलवामा और पठान कोट कर डा तुम लोगों ने यह क्या तीरा अपनाया कभी दिल्ली में लोकसभा पर धावा बोल दिया कभी मुंबई में हंसते बसते मासूम इंसानों को आतंकवादियों के हाथों भू डाला कसाब बनकर क साइयों की तरह मारा तुम कैसे लोग हो वो जिसने अपने बाप जैसी दरिया दिली का मुजहरा करते हुए तुम्हारे 90 हज सूर माओं को बक्त जुंबिश कलम अपनी कैद से रिहाई दिलवा हुए तुम्हारे हवाले कर दिया फतह किया गया हजारों मुरब्बा मील का इलाका तुम्हें वापस बख्श दिया लेकिन तुम किस कदर तंग नजर छोटे लोग हो कि अपनी इस मसना के जलमान माना कत्ल पर जहां खुशियां और शादिया ने बजाते पाए गए यह सब तुम्हारी टू नेशन थ्योरी के मुताबिक गैर थे मगर तुमने अपने इन भाइयों के साथ क्या सलूक किया जिन्होंने ना सिर्फ यह कि तुम्हारी लीग को ढाका में तश्न दिया था बल्कि तुम्हारे फाउंडर की बहन को जितवा के लिए एड़ी चोटी का जोर लगा दिया था वो बंगला बंधु जिसे बंगाली कौम ने सरा आंखों पर बिठाते हुए इतनी हैवी मेजॉरिटी से मुंतखाब किया था तुमने अपने लोगों के एतमाद का यह सिला दिया कि इनकी कयादत को जेलों में डालकर बंगालियों की तिका बोटी बनानी शुरू कर दी इनके नौज जवानों पर वो मजाल ढाए कि ब्रिटिश साम्राज क्या हिटलर के मजाल भी मान पड़ गए यूं बिला करर तुम लोगों ने इस खिता हिंद का एक और बटवारा करवा दिया आज तुम अपने बलोच और पख्तून भाइयों के साथ क्या सुलूक कर रहे हो पहले कहते थे कि हम भूख बंगालियों की नस्ले बदल डालेंगे क्या तुम्हारे कमांडर इन चीफ ने खुले बंदों यह नहीं कहा कि यह कैसे मुमकिन है कि मेरे जवान लड़े बंगाल में लेकिन जिनसी प्यास बुझाने के लिए जाए जेहलम में बंगाली ख्वातीन से तस्कीन हासिल करते रहे हो कि आज तुम लोग यही अजीत यही तंग अपने बलोच पख्तून भाइयों बहनों को देना चाहते हो जिस बलोच बच्ची के साथ तुम्हारे कैप्टन ने रेप किया आज वो मजज बनकर इस्लाम पर लेक्चर देता पाया जा रहा है बलोच के साथ कैसी-कैसी ज्यादति यां रवा नहीं रखी गई हैं रियासत कलात पर शब खून मारने से शुरू हो जाएं इनकी मुंतखाब हुकूम तों को पूरी टटाई से तोड़ते हुए 1 की धाई में पॉपुलर कयादत को जेलों में थोंस तक और इन पर झूठे मुकदमा बनाने तक वसाय लूटने और तें पहुंचाने तक क्या यह बलोच ही ना थे जिनकी कयादत को कुरान पर जान की अमान का हालत देने के बाद बतरी बद अहदी स फाकी के साथ मौत के घाट उतार दिया गया पूरी दुनिया में यह सवाल उठाया जा रहा है कि मजलूम बलोच ख्वातीन के कितने बुजुर्ग और जवान मिसिंग पर्सन बनाओगे इनके खिलाफ कितने मिलिट्री ऑपरेशन चलाओगे कितने अकबर भक्ति और मारोगे इस खूबसूरत खिता ंद के और कितने बटवारे कराओ ग दो बटवाड़ा जी नहीं भरा जो अब तीसरा करवाने पर तुले बैठे हो

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

This text comprises excerpts from a conversation, likely a recorded interview, between two individuals reflecting on the history of the India-Pakistan partition and its ongoing consequences. The speakers discuss the role of religion in politics, the resulting societal divisions, and the challenges of fostering peaceful coexistence between India and Pakistan. They analyze past mistakes and explore potential pathways toward reconciliation, drawing upon historical events and comparing their situation to other nations. The conversation is deeply introspective, filled with personal anecdotes and historical analysis. The overarching theme is the search for understanding and healing in the wake of traumatic historical events.

Analysis of Pakistani Society and Politics

Quiz

Instructions: Answer each question in 2-3 complete sentences.

1. What is the speaker’s relationship with Mujibur Rahman Shami sahab, and how long has it lasted?
2. According to the speaker, how do they differ from Shami sahab in their opinions?
3. What is the speaker’s view on the current state of their society?
4. What, according to the speaker, is the root cause of fanaticism in their society?
5. What historical slogan did the speaker say was created by their people?
6. What does the speaker identify as failures of the early Pakistani government?
7. How does the speaker describe the power of vote, and its impact?
8. What does the speaker say about the influence of democracy on religious communities?
9. What lesson does the speaker believe can be learned from the historical experiences of European countries?
10. How does the speaker explain the contradictory stances that Pakistan has historically taken regarding India?

Answer Key

1. The speaker describes Mujibur Rahman Shami sahab as their ustaad e mahatma, or great teacher, and states that they have spent approximately 34 years learning from him through reading, writing, and working together. They have a very close relationship.
2. The speaker states that while they respect Shami sahab, they have differences of opinion on issues such as politics and silence. They emphasize that these disagreements are normal and can be a source of learning.
3. The speaker describes their society as troubled, with social divisions, political distance, and family conflicts. They also mention issues such as an increasing population and the presence of external threats that are not being effectively addressed.
4. The speaker attributes the rise of fanaticism to a mix of factors including power struggles, geographic vulnerabilities, and the exploitation of religious slogans for political gain, leading to a climate of hatred and division.
5. The speaker says that they raised a slogan of Islam and said that they would build a system based on Islamic Akhtar, but they failed to prevent extremism from rising.
6. The speaker states that the early Pakistani government failed to maintain its importance, with the bureaucracy, military, and politicians becoming entangled in each other’s work. He said they got busy backstabbing each other, and could not decide who should do what.
7. The speaker says the power of vote was a new power, and when they realized that Muslims were a minority, the system ended up leading to the demand for separate majority areas and created new complications.
8. The speaker argues that democracy can exacerbate divisions within communities, turning differences into fault lines, and that the principle of majority and minority becomes a problem, even down to families.
9. The speaker notes that while European countries experienced intense conflict and bloodshed, they have moved towards cooperation, and that this offers a lesson for Pakistan and India.
10. The speaker explains that despite advocating for a separate state, Pakistan simultaneously sought friendly relations with India and other nations. They also point to examples like how they have argued about the treatment of Muslims in India while ignoring the treatment of minorities in Pakistan.

Essay Questions

Instructions: Write a well-organized essay in response to each question.

1. Analyze the speaker’s critique of the political and social landscape of their society. What specific issues does the speaker identify, and what solutions or remedies might be implied by his discussion?
2. Examine the speaker’s views on the role of religion in politics and its consequences. How does the speaker explain the shift from interfaith conflict to internal strife within their own community?
3. Discuss the speaker’s analysis of the historical events leading up to and following the partition of the region. What key factors does the speaker emphasize, and what implications do they have for understanding the present?
4. Evaluate the speaker’s argument for better relations between their country and its neighbor. What reasons does the speaker give to support his position, and what obstacles must be overcome to achieve this?
5. Explore the speaker’s reflections on the nature of identity, including religious, ethnic, and national aspects. How do these complex and often competing identities influence both individual and collective behavior?

Glossary of Key Terms

Ustaad e Mahatma: A term used by the speaker to describe Mujibur Rahman Shami sahab; translates to “great teacher” or “master.”

Akhlaq: An Arabic word that refers to ethics, morals, or manners. The speaker uses it in reference to Shami’s opinion on morality.

Islamic Akhtar: A concept meaning “Islamic Principles or foundations.” The speaker refers to a time when their people said they would build a system based on this, but failed.

Jamiat: An Arabic word for “association” or “group” often used to denote religious or political organizations.

Mushaira: A gathering where poets recite their work.

UNO: The United Nations Organization.

Ummah-e-Wada: An Arabic term meaning “a unified community.” The speaker references it when mentioning that Jews and Muslims should be one group.

Round Table Conference: A series of meetings between the British government and Indian political representatives in the early 1930s about the future of India.

Pakistan: A Critical Retrospective

Okay, here is a detailed briefing document reviewing the provided text.

Briefing Document: Analysis of “Pasted Text”

Introduction:

This document analyzes a conversation, likely an interview or discussion, between two individuals (referred to as “I” and “you”/ “Shami sahab”), likely conducted in the context of a Pakistani media outlet, given the references to Pakistani political history, and figures. The primary speaker (“I”) expresses a deep personal and intellectual relationship with the other (Shami sahab) whom he calls his “ustaad e mahatma.” The discussion delves into the complex history of Pakistan, its relationship with India, and the internal challenges it faces, particularly focusing on the role of religion, identity, and political choices made throughout its history. The speaker uses a conversational style, interweaving personal reflections with historical analysis.

Main Themes and Ideas:

1. Mentorship and Respect for “Shami sahab”: The speaker establishes a profound respect and affection for “Shami sahab” describing him as a mentor.

• “When respected Mujibur Rahman Shami sahab is my ustaad e mahatma, I have spent a major part of my life, around 34 years, under his study and have learnt a lot from him by reading, writing and working with him…”
• The speaker says that Shami sahab feels like a lover to him, illustrating an unusually close bond and deep respect.
• The conversation is framed as a way to “talk about my sorrows” with Shami sahab, highlighting the speaker’s reliance on the latter for guidance and understanding.

1. Internal Challenges and Failures of Pakistan: The speaker laments the current state of Pakistan, citing problems at various levels.

• “as a lover we are a victim of trouble, socially we are sitting, politically we are far away from each other, in the family we have pitted ourselves against each other.”
• He identifies social division, political polarization, and family conflicts.
• The speaker also touches on the problem of population growth, and the challenges facing them which require careful consideration and correction.
• He claims that they now hate people of their own community.
• He argues that the country is facing “very difficult situations”.
• The speaker criticizes a shift towards “fanaticism” and lack of “sanity” in the society, noting that this did not exist before, suggesting a change for the worst.
• He expresses concern that current system will go away, and that expenditure has become fanatic.

1. Critique of the Founding of Pakistan and Use of Religion: The conversation raises questions about the motivations and consequences of Pakistan’s creation.

• The speaker questions the use of religious slogans to create Pakistan. “if you see, we had raised the slogan of Islam, we had said that we will build such a homework which will be based on Islamic Akhtar, but this slogan of ours and which is Islamic According to Ikhter, we had to create a picture of our base…”
• He claims that the initial goal was to build a society based on “Islamic Akhtar” but blames Maulvis for hijacking the narrative.
• He criticizes the failure to build on the vision of Iqbal and Quaid-e-Azam (Muhammad Ali Jinnah).
• He points out the role of religion and its exploitation by political forces, which led to negative consequences.
• He questions whether including religion in politics in that way was correct. “My question to you is that what was happening to the multi-national and multi-coloured comrades in the 20th century, was it right to include Yes in politics on the basis of a religion in such elections or was it a matter of politics use of religion Was this correct?”

1. The Role of Democracy and Majority/Minority Dynamics: The speaker delves into the challenges of democracy in a diverse and historically conflicted society.

• He acknowledges that the power of the vote is a new power, which caused problems due to the minorities realizing they would be ruled over by the majority. “When the power of vote came, they realized that we are in minority here, now others will rule over us. There was a matter…”
• He argues that the focus on separating majority areas led to complications.
• He challenges the simplistic majority/minority binary, stating that even within a majority, there are divisions.
• He suggests the needs of the poor were ignored in the new political process. “In my opinion, the poor will not be given much importance, nor was the storm of power given…”
• He uses a personal anecdote about Rajput brothers to demonstrate how democracy can exacerbate divisions.
• He questions why there is a need to separate, as Muslims are a large group in south Asia (not just in Pakistan). “I do not understand at all how Muslims were a minority in South Asia, if you estimate today, then 25 crore, if we are here If there are Muslims, there are a similar number in India, there are 20 crore Muslims in Bangladesh…”

1. Historical Context of Partition: The speaker discusses the circumstances surrounding the partition of India and its long-term repercussions.

• He highlights that the British had brought democracy to the region but not the experience with its process. “it would have come with the British, because they had come as the British, they had captured this country and they had brought a regime with them due to which there was no control on the people. It had not been given to the British and people had not experienced it…”
• He claims that limited franchise and local mergers resulted in losses for Muslims due to the strength of Hindus.
• He argues that the feeling of “Mahrooni” (deprivation) then arose.
• He states that the partition was meant to prevent communities from dominating each other, and to find a way of combining them together.
• He posits that things could have been better despite the division and that relations could have been maintained better. “even after the division into these two Hasans, matters could have been settled in a better way, relations could have been maintained better…”

1. Comparative Analysis with Europe and Need for Reconciliation: The speaker makes comparisons with Europe to demonstrate possibility of reconciliation after conflict.

• He argues that like countries in Europe that had fought, countries in the sub-continent should be able to do the same. “And for your Holi, in spite of that, yes a recommendation process has been started and you people are living with some relief, the exam is still going on there but on the date we can do this much in the middle, it works in its own way…”
• He claims that the level of destruction from the partition was not as bad as in Europe, and they still live together now.
• He highlights the need to learn lessons from Europe and for India and Pakistan to live together by being good to themselves.
• He advocates for a future of cooperation and unity between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, suggesting something akin to a “double Asia”. “and when the foundation of this Sir was laid, it was understood that like Gaurav, this would be a double Asia and a parliament would also be formed and a wish and a strong We will be able to progress and live a united future and we will take our own people who come to us to our death dhaba.”
• He points out that if Germany, France, and Britain can do it, then they can too. “If Germany, France and Britain can come together and establish good relations and fight in the future, then Pakistan, India and Bangladesh can also fight in this way, so that we can always protect our cities.”

1. Analysis of Historical Actions and Mistakes: The speaker acknowledges the mistakes made by all sides and calls for introspection.

• He criticizes attacks from both sides, such as Kargil and Pathankot, highlighting the cycle of violence.
• He highlights the need to look into ones self, and pray to God for mistakes. “Is it that we should look inside ourselves and pray to God for our mistakes that we are extending a hand of love towards you and you took it and then I said that a dagger was stabbed in your back from behind so the thing is to look at these things”
• He points out how past actions of all sides were not justified. “we should learn lessons from them when we have made mistakes and mistakes have also been made by those who could not justify our mistakes and we too have made mistakes.”
• He uses an example of a Mushaira (poetic symposium) to show how both sides grieved, and that they should move on from it.
• He emphasizes that they must learn to pamper each other.
• He quotes Quaid-e-Azam that relations between the two countries should be like relations between Canada and America.
• He acknowledges that the first priority after partition was to send chopped bodies on trains, but that Gandhi and Nehru were also against this.
• He suggests that many properties in Lahore are owned by Hindus, yet they cannot use them.
• He argues that the Kashmir issue is unresolved and that taking it to the UN was a mistake. “now you should not have gone to the UN, you would not have given him an opportunity to fight…”
• He claims the journey of past events will not take them anywhere and that they must realize their mistakes.

1. Critique of Division and the Idea of “One Ummah”: The speaker uses historical examples and religious texts to highlight the possibility of unity.

• He questions the need to separate Muslims and Hindus and points out that both communities are still living in each other’s countries today.
• He questions why the solution was seen that they could not live together, pointing out that there are many Muslims living in India.
• He uses an analogy of majority and minority groups and the idea of “one nation” to illustrate how they could have all lived together, instead of dividing.
• He points out that there were many kingdoms in India, and the idea of one united India was new and has been done in a way which causes divides.
• He claims that in all the religious texts he has read, there is no mention of communities and different cadres.
• He recalls a quote from Medina that says that Jews and Muslims will be one Ummah.
• He points out that there was an idea of “one Asia.”
• He points to a passage where it was argued that mixing of different groups allows for more growth.

1. Call for Self-Reflection and a Forward-Looking Approach: The speaker stresses the importance of introspection and understanding to move forward.

• He argues that they have been affected by wrong decisions and by fanaticism.
• He wants to understand why Muslims in India haven’t been wiped out.
• He states that the reasons behind people coming here and there are from their mistakes.
• He seeks an interview to express his thoughts and learn from “Shami sahab”.
• He highlights that the words of Quaid-e-Azam had called for religious equality in Pakistan.
• He points out that Pakistan and India were never supposed to be enemy countries.
• He wants to know why Pakistan and India cannot be as friendly as India is to Bangladesh. “If India can have a friendly relationship with Bangladesh If we can be with Afghanistan, we can be with India, why can’t we do it, we can also do it…”
• He states that they must pay for their mistakes and look at their actions.
• He argues that the state should not be concerned with people’s religions.
• He points out that riots took place during the partition.
• He claims that the political use of religion has been bad and will continue to be, and gives examples in other parts of the world.

Key Quotes:

• “When respected Mujibur Rahman Shami sahab is my ustaad e mahatma, I have spent a major part of my life, around 34 years, under his study and have learnt a lot from him…”
• “as a lover we are a victim of trouble, socially we are sitting, politically we are far away from each other, in the family we have pitted ourselves against each other.”
• “if you see, we had raised the slogan of Islam, we had said that we will build such a homework which will be based on Islamic Akhtar…”
• “My question to you is that what was happening to the multi-national and multi-coloured comrades in the 20th century, was it right to include Yes in politics on the basis of a religion in such elections or was it a matter of politics use of religion Was this correct?”
• “When the power of vote came, they realized that we are in minority here, now others will rule over us.”
• “even after the division into these two Hasans, matters could have been settled in a better way, relations could have been maintained better…”
• “And for your Holi, in spite of that, yes a recommendation process has been started and you people are living with some relief, the exam is still going on there but on the date we can do this much in the middle, it works in its own way…”
• “If Germany, France and Britain can come together and establish good relations and fight in the future, then Pakistan, India and Bangladesh can also fight in this way, so that we can always protect our cities.”
• “Is it that we should look inside ourselves and pray to God for our mistakes that we are extending a hand of love towards you and you took it and then I said that a dagger was stabbed in your back from behind so the thing is to look at these things”
• “we should learn lessons from them when we have made mistakes and mistakes have also been made by those who could not justify our mistakes and we too have made mistakes.”
• “If India can have a friendly relationship with Bangladesh If we can be with Afghanistan, we can be with India, why can’t we do it, we can also do it…”

Conclusion:

The text presents a critical examination of Pakistan’s history, its internal struggles, and its relationship with India. The speaker, deeply influenced by his mentor, “Shami sahab,” calls for a re-evaluation of past decisions, a recognition of shared mistakes, and a commitment to a future of peace and cooperation in the region. The conversation is imbued with a sense of urgency, a desire for reconciliation, and a call for introspection. The text suggests that political exploitation of religion, unchecked democracy, and a failure to learn from history have led to present problems, and that the only way forward is through unity and a sense of shared identity.

Pakistan and India: A Legacy of Division, A Future of Hope

FAQ: Exploring Identity, History, and the Path Forward

• What is the core of the relationship described between the speaker and Mujibur Rahman Shami?
• The speaker expresses a deep, lifelong mentorship and almost reverential relationship with Mujibur Rahman Shami, whom he refers to as his “ustaad e mahatma.” This relationship spans approximately 34 years, encompassing learning through reading, writing, and working together. The speaker views Shami not just as a teacher but also as a mentor and someone he loves and respects. The speaker uses hyperbole and metaphors to express the impact Shami has had on him. He also notes that despite some differences in opinion, he greatly values Shami’s experience and guidance.
• What are some of the key challenges facing their society as described in this discussion?
• The discussion highlights several critical challenges, including internal divisions and hatred, political polarization, a rapidly increasing population, and the external threat of “missiles.” The speakers lament that these challenges have led to societal fragmentation, a sense of being “victims of trouble,” and political alienation. They also note an increase in fanaticism and extremism, which they attribute partly to a failure to uphold their traditions and a misuse of religion in politics. They also address a history of “bedfooting” and infighting between different structures of the state.
• Why does the speaker believe the idea of Pakistan was formed using the slogan of Islam?
• The speaker says they had raised the slogan of Islam when Pakistan was formed, believing that they would build a society based on Islamic ideals. However, they feel they failed to create a true picture of their base following Islamic principles. They indicate that their slogan and its interpretation were hijacked by those not aligned with true Islamic values such as clergy members (Maulvi) and their interpretations were influenced by Ranjit Singh rather than Iqbal’s vision or that of Quaid-e-Azam.
• What role did the concept of “majority” and “minority” play in the political discourse of the time?
• The idea of “majority” and “minority” became a defining point in the political discourse, particularly with the rise of democracy and the power of vote. Muslims, realizing their minority status in a broader context, began to demand separation of majority areas, ultimately leading to the creation of Pakistan. The speaker notes that the concept of majority and minority was taken too far to the extent that even brothers could be divided due to religion. They point out how the definition of majority can be a complex one, noting even majority communities are often divided into multiple parts, and this creates complexities in democracy.
• What are some of the major historical events and figures mentioned in the context of the discussion on India and Pakistan?
• The speakers mention several historical events and figures, including the British rule, partition, leaders like Quaid-e-Azam and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the conflicts in Kargil and Pathankot, the 1965 war, and the post-partition communal violence. They also reference figures like Gandhi and even Ustad Daman to highlight the emotional and social impact of these events. The speaker mentions the Round Table Conference with Allama Sahab and uses Ayodhya as an example as well. They also discuss the complex legacy of Gandhi, Nehru and Jinnah and their influence on the situation.
• What does the speaker suggest about the concept of living together with respect despite religious or ethnic differences?

The speaker argues that despite historical clashes and divisions, it is vital to learn to live together with mutual respect. They provide examples of how Europe has overcome conflicts to build a peaceful environment. They mention that just because there are differences between people this does not mean it has to be a reason for conflict. The speaker questions how there is such an issue in living together when Muslims today live in India in very large numbers. He further discusses how religion was used in politics and it should not have been a reason for separation.

• What does the speaker think about the future of Pakistan and India?
• The speaker emphasizes the need to move forward and foster better relationships between India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, much like the relationship between Canada and America. He advocates for overcoming the losses incurred due to division by understanding each other and working together. They feel that there is no need for a constant state of enmity between Pakistan and India, and note it is detrimental. He argues that the two nations should not have emerged as enemies and that both should work together. The speaker also refers to the fact that Europe is moving together and that India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should as well.
• What is the speaker’s perspective on accountability and learning from mistakes?
• The speaker stresses the importance of self-reflection, recognizing one’s own mistakes, and learning from historical errors. They acknowledge that both sides have made errors and that it is crucial to acknowledge them, rather than constantly blaming each other. The speaker laments their own failures and how they should have learned from their errors earlier. He stresses that both sides have to own their mistakes.

A Nation Divided: Shami’s Reflections on Pakistan

Okay, here is a timeline and cast of characters based on the provided text:

Timeline of Main Events and Discussions

• Long-Term Relationship & Mentorship: The speaker has spent 34 years learning from Mujibur Rahman Shami, considering him a mentor (“ustaad e mahatma”) and a figure of profound respect and affection.
• Current Situation Assessment (August – unspecified year): The speaker and Shami discuss the current state of their relationship and the problems facing their society. They acknowledge:
• Their relationship is strained socially, politically and within their families.
• There’s an increase in hatred, not just between communities, but within communities.
• They recognize a sense of fanaticism taking hold.
• They feel targeted by “missiles” (likely metaphorical, representing challenges).
• The existing system is failing.
• Historical Roots of Current Problems: They discuss the historical context behind their current problems
• The creation of Pakistan and the use of Islamic slogans.
• They discuss how the initial vision of Pakistan was diverted.
• They look back to the initial leadership and governance of Pakistan, and the decline of its bureaucracy, military, and political structures.
• They discuss the rise of extremism as a result of these issues.
• The introduction of the concept of “vote,” where the Muslim community realized they were a minority in the greater India and began demanding separate areas for self rule.
• They discuss the concept of a majority and how it is understood in the country, and the influence of democracy on this.
• They reference the concept of a minority, and how in South Asia, there was a sizable population of Muslims – but it still resulted in their being a minority.
• They reflect on the creation of a separate electorate for Muslims, and how this led to problems.
• Reflection on Partition and its Aftermath: The conversation addresses the violence and displacement resulting from the partition of India and Pakistan, specifically:
• The displacement of Hindus and Sikhs from parts of Pakistan, and Muslims from parts of India
• The movement of chopped bodies on trains
• Gandhi and the idea that he was a friend to Muslims
• Pandit Nehru and how he is perceived as less friendly to Muslims
• There was an idea that India and Pakistan could work together as partners, but this was abandoned.
• The discussion notes how other European countries have been able to move past conflicts and reconcile, despite their historical wars.
• Kashmir Conflict: They discuss the historical and ongoing conflict over Kashmir:
• The speaker criticizes the decision to take the Kashmir issue to the UN.
• They acknowledge their own mistakes and those made by others, calling for honesty and introspection.
• They want to understand how this dispute evolved over time, and how there is no accountability for the mistakes of the past.
• They want to discuss how both sides have contributed to the conflict, and to try to reach a new understanding.
• The concept of war and the idea that they have failed to learn from history.
• They speak to how, after 1965, neither side has been willing to speak to their mistakes.
• Questioning the Idea of Separate Nations: They ponder if partition based on religion was a mistake, and discuss the current state of Muslims in India
• They look at other religions and cultures, and how these differences are not the basis for hostility.
• They cite ideas from Lajpat Rai and Savarkar, and ask if Muslims should have been segregated into their own areas.
• The speaker reflects that it was not that everyone wanted their own segregated area, but the minority of Muslims demanded it, so the rest went along.
• They question the validity of having a nation-state based on religion and how the concept of a majority does not always equal a superior position.
• Historical Islamic Precepts: They discuss historical and religious teachings which promote unity, citing both:
• The historical concept of “Ummah-e-Wada” which indicates all the major religions will come together as one.
• They discuss a historical instance in which this message was suppressed.
• There is mention of Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad who fought for the unity of India.
• Call for Self-Reflection and Change: The speaker emphasizes the need for self-reflection, honesty, and learning from past mistakes, and also asks that the interviewee gives a simple explanation of their thoughts.
• They call for a rejection of the idea that only one side can be seen as the victim.
• They reference a speech by Quaid-e-Azam on the 11th of August that all Pakistanis would be considered equal regardless of their background or religion.
• They want to build a relationship like that between Canada and America, and that this was the original intent.
• They acknowledge there are many princely states, but they should be united.
• The speaker feels that the partition was a political one and not based in animosity.
• They question why Pakistan cannot work alongside India, just as European countries were able to move on from conflict.
• They note the problems have mostly been caused by both sides and that blame should not be placed on one.
• Current Challenges and Future Vision: They discuss the need to work together and move past the division.
• They reflect on how political use of religion is a problem
• They discuss how, in the Middle East, there are many similar problems with religion.
• They make mention of the existence of Pakistan as not just a concept, but a real entity.
• They reflect on the history of India as being composed of many kingdoms.
• They express the desire to work to better the countries rather than keep fighting and rehashing the past.
• They state that one cannot move forward if they continue to speak to the past.
• They question why India and Pakistan cannot work together when there are other countries in the region that work well together.

Cast of Characters

• Mujibur Rahman Shami: A highly respected figure, considered a mentor (“ustaad e mahatma”) by the speaker. He is described as someone the speaker has studied under for 34 years, someone who elicits deep respect, affection and is seen as wise.
• The Speaker (Unidentified): The person recounting the events and conversation. He is a long-time associate and student of Mujibur Rahman Shami. He is deeply concerned about the state of affairs in his society, politically, socially, and within families. He is trying to understand the root causes of the problems and seeking a way forward. He is also trying to facilitate a discussion between him and Mujibur Rahman Shami so the public can hear both viewpoints.
• Quaid-e-Azam: A key historical figure, founder of Pakistan. His original vision and intent for the country are referenced, with an ideal of equality for all citizens regardless of religion and as the architect of a more prosperous Pakistan. The discussion also includes his remarks about the relationship between India and Pakistan being like that of the US and Canada.
• Iqbal: Referred to as a historical figure who had an ideal for Pakistan that was not followed.
• Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: The first Prime Minister of India. He is portrayed with some ambivalence, seen as having made mistakes regarding the Kashmir conflict, and some question if he was as friendly to Muslims as his contemporary, Gandhi. The conversation notes how, after partition, his policies were not viewed favorably by the Muslims of India and Pakistan.
• Gandhi: A major historical figure in the Indian independence movement. He is portrayed as a friend to Muslims, with some of the people mentioned in the text noting how he would engage in Yagya for Muslims.
• Ustad Daman: A poet who recited in a mushaira that was held in India after partition, and who expressed a deep sorrow over the bloodshed and division of the country.
• Mount Lytton: (Likely a reference to Louis Mountbatten, the last Viceroy of India) The text references how he was advised against the partition of Punjab and Bengal.
• Lajpat Rai & Savarkar: Historical figures whose views about the separation of Hindus and Muslims are referenced as an alternative model of the time.
• Allama Sahab: This is probably Muhammad Iqbal who wrote the “nazm” that was referenced about creating a new Ayodhya.
• Dr. Javed Iqbal: A historical figure who was shown a “khat” after his marriage was said to have occurred in “hell.”
• Abdul Kalam Azad & Maulana: These are likely both references to Abul Kalam Azad, who is noted as fighting for the unity of India.
• Vajpayee: Was the former Prime Minister of India who visited Lahore
• Modi: Is the current Prime Minister of India who visited Pakistan

Let me know if you have any other questions or want to explore this further!

Partition’s Legacy: Muslim-Hindu Relations in South Asia

The sources discuss the complex and often fraught relationship between Muslims and Hindus, particularly in the context of the partition of India and Pakistan, and its aftermath. Here’s an overview of the key points:

• Historical Coexistence and Conflict: Muslims and Hindus have coexisted in South Asia for centuries, but this relationship has also been marked by periods of conflict [1, 2]. The sources mention that Muslims ruled in the area for a thousand years, before British rule [1].
• The Impact of British Rule: The British introduced a system of voting which made Muslims realize they were a minority and would be ruled by others [1, 3]. This realization led to the demand for separate majority areas, ultimately resulting in the partition [3].
• The Partition of India and Pakistan: The partition was a traumatic event, marked by violence and displacement [2, 4]. There were massacres and the movement of populations [4, 5]. Trains arrived carrying chopped bodies, and there were also retaliatory attacks in India [4]. There was an exchange of populations, with Muslims moving to Pakistan, and Hindus and Sikhs moving to India [5]. The text notes that in Lahore more than 80% of properties were owned by Hindus, but no Hindus remain there today, while in Delhi there are still Muslim neighborhoods [4].
• The Use of Religion in Politics: The sources discuss how the slogan of Islam was used to create Pakistan [6]. This use of religion in politics is seen as a cause of the fanaticism that emerged [6]. The idea of separating communities based on religion is also discussed [7, 8]. It is argued that the concept of ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ became problematic after the partition, creating divisions even within communities [3].
• Extremism and Hatred: The sources highlight the rise of extremism and hatred, not just between communities but within them [6]. The text notes that “earlier we used to hate other communities, now after that we have started hating our own people” [6].
• The Issue of Kashmir: The sources mention the ongoing dispute over Kashmir [5]. It is presented as an issue that has fueled conflict between India and Pakistan [5]. It is noted that the decision to bring the issue to the UN was a mistake, and that the parties should have resolved it themselves [5].
• Contradictions and Missed Opportunities: Some of the speakers seem to suggest that the logic of partition was flawed because the people of the subcontinent had co-existed for so long, and that the idea of the partition as a solution was misguided [7, 8]. There were also opportunities to improve relationships that were lost [9]. It is argued that despite the partition, the people of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should have worked to foster friendly relationships [9, 10]. The text suggests that they could be like the relationship between Canada and the USA [4, 11]. The idea of a united future was considered at the time of partition [9].

The sources emphasize that the conflict between Muslims and Hindus was exacerbated by political maneuvering and the use of religious identity for political gain [6, 12]. The sources also suggest that the focus should be on moving forward with mutual respect and cooperation, rather than dwelling on past grievances [2, 9].

The Creation of Pakistan

The sources discuss the creation of Pakistan as a complex event rooted in historical, political, and social factors, marked by both the desire for self-determination and the tragic consequences of partition [1-3].

Here’s a breakdown of the key points regarding Pakistan’s creation:

• The Two-Nation Theory: The idea of separating majority areas and working separately emerged when Muslims realized they were a minority in British India [1, 4]. The British system of voting highlighted this minority status, leading to the demand for a separate state [2]. The slogan of Islam was used to create a picture of a state based on Islamic principles [1].
• The Role of Political Leaders: Leaders such as Quaid-e-Azam played a key role in advocating for a separate Muslim state [1, 2]. The sources suggest that this was the result of the British system of voting and a realization of being a minority in India [2-4].
• The Partition of India: The sources make it clear that the partition was a traumatic and violent event [3, 5, 6]. There were massacres and displacement, with trains arriving with chopped bodies and retaliatory violence on both sides of the border [3, 7]. The exchange of populations led to many Muslims moving to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs moving to India, with a great deal of suffering and loss of life [3, 8].
• Flawed Implementation: The sources suggest that the partition was not well-executed [1, 2]. The division led to the rise of extremism and hatred, not just between communities but within them [1, 2]. The sources question whether the idea of dividing the subcontinent was the correct decision, or if the different groups could have found a way to live together peacefully [3, 6, 9].
• Missed Opportunities and Contradictions: The sources note that the partition of India and Pakistan was not inevitable and that, if handled differently, the different communities could have lived together in peace. They cite the examples of how European nations have overcome historical conflicts and developed positive relationships [6, 10, 11]. The sources suggest that the idea of a united future for the subcontinent was also a possibility [10, 11].
• The Kashmir Dispute: The sources highlight the ongoing dispute over Kashmir as a major point of conflict between India and Pakistan since the time of the partition [8]. The decision to take the issue to the United Nations is seen as a mistake that has complicated the relationship between the two countries [8, 9].
• The Legacy of Partition: The sources make it clear that the legacy of partition continues to impact the region, with ongoing tensions and conflicts. The sources emphasize the need to move forward with mutual respect and cooperation, rather than dwelling on past grievances [5, 10]. The sources also suggest that the relationship between Pakistan and India should be based on mutual respect and cooperation, like the relationship between Canada and the USA [7, 11].

Religious Fanaticism and the Partition of India

The sources discuss political fanaticism in the context of the creation of Pakistan and the subsequent conflicts between Muslims and Hindus in the region [1]. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• The Role of Religious Slogans: The sources state that the slogan of Islam was used to create Pakistan [1]. This use of religion in politics is presented as a cause of the fanaticism that emerged [1]. The sources suggest that this type of political rhetoric, using religious slogans, led to an environment of extremism and hatred [1].
• Exacerbation of Existing Divisions: The sources indicate that political fanaticism heightened the existing tensions between different communities [1]. The sources mention that “earlier we used to hate other communities, now after that we have started hating our own people” [1]. This highlights how fanaticism can lead to internal divisions within a society, where people begin to turn against each other, not just those of other religions [1].
• Fanaticism as a Deviation from Sanity: The sources describe fanaticism as an extreme reason that has entered into people’s thinking [1]. They suggest that this has led to a loss of sanity [1]. The text implies that this kind of extreme thinking is a deviation from rational thought and behavior [1].
• The Impact of the Partition: The partition of India and Pakistan is seen as a major turning point that exacerbated political fanaticism [1, 2]. The violence and displacement of the partition created deep-seated resentment and anger that was easily manipulated by political figures [1]. The sources suggest that the trauma of the partition fueled the flames of fanaticism, making it more difficult for communities to coexist peacefully [1, 2].
• The Cycle of Violence: The sources note that, once started, this fanaticism led to a cycle of violence and hatred [3, 4]. The sources suggest that mistakes were made by all sides, and that this cycle of blame and retribution made it difficult to move forward [5, 6]. The sources point to the need to recognize past mistakes, not to try and justify them [3, 5].
• The Political Use of Religion: The sources also point to the role of political leaders and the political use of religion [7, 8]. They suggest that the political process in the region became a debate about partition and the use of religion for political gain [9]. This political strategy increased divisions and hatred, further fueling fanaticism [1, 9].
• Missed Opportunities for Unity: The sources indicate that there were missed opportunities to avoid fanaticism and violence. The text suggests that, instead of dividing the country, the political leaders could have worked to unite the people and build a society where all communities could live together [6, 10]. The sources point to the examples of other countries, like in Europe, who have overcome such divisions and created peaceful relationships [3, 10].

In summary, the sources portray political fanaticism as a dangerous force that was fueled by the use of religious slogans, the traumatic experience of the partition, and the political exploitation of divisions between communities. The sources suggest that overcoming this kind of fanaticism requires recognizing past mistakes, promoting mutual respect, and rejecting the politics of division.

Religious Politics and the Partition of India

The sources discuss the complex and problematic role of religious politics in the context of the creation of Pakistan and the subsequent conflicts in the region [1-16]. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• The Use of Religious Slogans for Political Gain: The sources highlight how the slogan of Islam was used to create Pakistan [2]. This is presented as a prime example of how religion was used for political mobilization and the creation of a separate nation [2-4]. The sources suggest that this use of religion in politics led to the rise of fanaticism and extremism [2, 3].
• Religion as a Basis for Division: The sources point out that the idea of separating communities based on religion was a major factor leading to the partition of India and Pakistan [3-5]. The British system of voting made Muslims realize they were a minority, leading to the demand for separate majority areas [4, 5]. This created the idea that religious identity should be the primary basis for political organization and national identity [4, 5].
• Fanaticism and Extremism: The sources state that the use of religious slogans in politics led to an environment of extremism and hatred [2, 3]. This resulted not only in conflicts between different religious communities, but also within them [2]. This political fanaticism is presented as a deviation from sanity and rational behavior [2].
• The Problematic Concept of Majority and Minority: The sources question the logic of partition and the idea of religious majorities and minorities [4, 5]. It is argued that this division created problems, even within the communities themselves [4]. The sources suggest that the concept of ‘majority’ and ‘minority’ became a tool for political manipulation and division [4, 5].
• Contradictions and Missed Opportunities: Some of the speakers in the sources indicate that the logic of partition was flawed, and that the people of the subcontinent could have co-existed peacefully [6, 7]. They suggest that the use of religion as a basis for political identity was misguided and that the political leaders could have worked to unite the people [7]. It is also suggested that the people of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh could have fostered friendly relationships like the relationship between Canada and the USA [8, 9].
• The Kashmir Conflict: The sources also point to the ongoing dispute over Kashmir, which is linked to religious politics [10, 11]. The sources note that this dispute has further fueled the conflict between India and Pakistan. The sources criticize the decision to bring this matter to the UN [10].
• The Legacy of Religious Politics: The sources show that the legacy of using religion in politics is one of division, conflict, and missed opportunities [1-16]. The sources emphasize the need to move forward with mutual respect and cooperation, rather than dwelling on past grievances [6-8].

In summary, the sources present religious politics as a divisive force that has had a negative impact on the region. The sources suggest that the use of religious slogans for political gain, the creation of political divisions based on religious identity, and the resulting fanaticism and extremism have been detrimental to the people of the subcontinent. The sources emphasize the importance of learning from past mistakes and promoting unity, mutual respect and cooperation [6-16].

India-Pakistan Conflicts: Partition’s Legacy and the Path to Peace

The sources discuss regional conflicts, particularly those between India and Pakistan, in the context of the partition and its aftermath [1, 2]. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• The Partition of India: The partition of India and Pakistan is presented as a major source of regional conflict [1, 3]. The sources describe the division as a traumatic event that led to widespread violence and displacement [3, 4]. The creation of separate majority areas for Muslims and Hindus based on religious identity resulted in mass migrations and massacres, creating a legacy of animosity and distrust [1, 5]. The sources state that the partition was not well-executed and that it exacerbated existing tensions [3, 5, 6].
• The Kashmir Dispute: The ongoing dispute over Kashmir is highlighted as a significant point of conflict between India and Pakistan [2, 7, 8]. The sources indicate that the decision to involve the United Nations in the Kashmir dispute was a mistake, as it complicated the issue [2]. The sources suggest that the conflict over Kashmir has been a major factor in the ongoing tensions between the two countries [2, 8].
• Missed Opportunities for Unity: The sources suggest there were missed opportunities for unity in the region [1, 6, 9]. The text indicates that, if handled differently, the different communities could have found a way to live together peacefully [6, 9]. The sources present examples of other nations, like those in Europe, who have overcome historical conflicts and developed positive relationships [9]. The sources note that the relationship between Pakistan and India should be based on mutual respect and cooperation, like the relationship between Canada and the USA [4, 10].
• Fanaticism and Extremism: The sources note that the use of religious slogans in politics led to an environment of extremism and hatred [1]. This fanaticism is not only between different communities but also within them, as people began to hate their own [1]. The sources suggest that this extreme thinking has led to a loss of sanity, with violence and displacement fueled by the political manipulation of religious identity [1, 8].
• Cycle of Violence: The sources mention a cycle of violence and retribution [1-3]. Mistakes were made by all sides in the conflict and this cycle of blame made it difficult to move forward [3, 8]. The sources suggest that this has perpetuated the conflicts in the region [1, 10]. The text emphasizes the need to recognize past mistakes, not to try and justify them [8].
• The Role of Political Leaders: The sources suggest that political leaders in the region have played a role in exacerbating tensions [3]. The political use of religion and the focus on partition led to a cycle of blame and hatred [1, 5, 8]. The sources imply that the political process became a debate about partition, using religion for political gain, which increased divisions and hatred [1, 5].
• Cross-Border Issues: The sources mention cross-border issues like terrorism and the movement of people that have complicated the relationship between India and Pakistan [4, 9, 10]. The sources describe how, despite attempts at peace, such as when Vajpayee visited Lahore, devastating attacks like Kargil and Pathankot have happened [10]. These issues are presented as symptoms of the larger regional conflicts rooted in the legacy of partition and the political manipulation of religious identities [10].
• The Need for Reconciliation: The sources emphasize the need to move forward with mutual respect and cooperation [9, 10]. The text suggests that the countries in the region should focus on building good relations and working together for the benefit of all [10, 11]. The sources call for an end to the cycle of violence and blame [8, 10].

In summary, the sources describe regional conflicts as a product of the historical trauma of the partition, the unresolved dispute over Kashmir, and the political use of religion. The sources emphasize the need to overcome past grievances and to move forward with mutual respect, cooperation, and a focus on building peaceful relationships in the region. The sources offer that if nations in Europe that have a long history of war and violence can achieve peace, then India, Pakistan and Bangladesh can do the same [9].

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

The provided text highlights concerns about the state of democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights in Pakistan. It argues that true democracy necessitates freedom of speech, which is often stifled in the country. The speaker expresses solidarity with marginalized communities, such as the Baloch and those affected by the merger of FATA into KP, who face systemic discrimination and lack basic rights. The text also addresses the plight of Afghan refugees in Pakistan, alleging inadequate protection and denial of rightful compensation. Ultimately, the speaker urges the government and media to amplify the voices of these oppressed groups, address their grievances, and ensure their fundamental rights are respected.

Study Guide: Democracy, Expression, and Human Rights in Pakistan

I. Quiz (Short Answer)

1. According to the text, what is an essential component of democracy?
2. What does the text suggest about the state of democracy in Pakistan?
3. What specific right does the law supposedly grant to citizens, according to the text?
4. Which community led by Manzoor Pashteen is mentioned as facing problems?
5. What human rights issues are mentioned in relation to the Baloch people in Balochistan?
6. How does the text describe the human rights situation under the Taliban government in Afghanistan?
7. What was the impact of the attack on Afghanistan, and its related consequences, on Pakistan?
8. What are some of the issues facing the people of FATA after its merger into KP?
9. According to the text, what should be done to support the oppressed sections of society?
10. What is mentioned regarding the response of the community to the violence it has faced?

II. Quiz Answer Key

1. Freedom of expression is stated to be an essential component of democracy, highlighting the importance of individuals being able to voice their opinions without fear.
2. The text implies that democracy in Pakistan is flawed, characterized by restrictions on expression and stifling of dissenting voices.
3. The law supposedly grants the right to assemble and express one’s views, provided it is done without violence.
4. The Pashtun community, led by Manzoor Pashteen, is specifically mentioned as having faced significant problems.
5. The text mentions recent incidents involving the Baloch people in Balochistan, suggesting human rights violations are taking place and that the populace knows about this.
6. The text depicts the human rights situation under the Taliban government in Afghanistan as dire, characterized by extensive violations without historical precedent.
7. The attack on Afghanistan resulted in many refugees seeking asylum in Pakistan, and the war created many ongoing problems.
8. The people of FATA, after its merger into KP, are facing issues such as a lack of compensation, unemployment, and inadequate infrastructure, education, and employment opportunities.
9. The text argues that the voices of oppressed sections of society should be amplified, and their concerns addressed with government intervention and media attention.
10. The community has consistently opposed violence and condemned it, even in the face of immense suffering, imprisonment, and death.

III. Essay Questions

1. Analyze the text’s critique of democracy in Pakistan. What specific examples are used to support the claim that freedom of expression is limited?
2. Discuss the human rights issues raised in the text concerning specific groups in Pakistan (e.g., Baloch, people of FATA). What recommendations does the text offer for addressing these issues?
3. Compare and contrast the text’s depiction of the human rights situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban government with its portrayal of human rights in Pakistan.
4. Evaluate the text’s argument that supporting oppressed groups and giving prominence to their voices is essential for a functioning democracy.
5. Assess the role of the media in highlighting and addressing human rights issues in Pakistan, according to the perspective presented in the text.

IV. Glossary of Key Terms

• Democracy: A system of government in which power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or through elected representatives.
• Freedom of Expression: The right to articulate one’s opinions, ideas, and beliefs without fear of censorship or retaliation.
• Human Rights: Basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, from birth until death.
• FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas): A former semi-autonomous tribal region in northwestern Pakistan, now merged with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province.
• KP (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa): A province in northwestern Pakistan.
• Balochistan: The largest province of Pakistan, located in the southwest of the country.
• Taliban: An Islamic fundamentalist political and military organization currently ruling Afghanistan.
• Oppressed Section: Refers to groups within a society that are subjected to unjust treatment, control, or marginalization.
• Compensation: Something, typically money, awarded to someone as recompense for loss, injury, or suffering.
• Infrastructure: The basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g., buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for the operation of a society or enterprise.

Pakistan: Democracy, Expression, and Human Rights Analysis

Okay, here’s a briefing document summarizing the main themes and ideas from the provided excerpt from “Democracy, Expression, and Human Rights in Pakistan.”

Briefing Document: Democracy, Expression, and Human Rights in Pakistan

Source: Excerpts from “Democracy, Expression, and Human Rights in Pakistan”

Date: October 26, 2024

Summary:

This document presents a critical perspective on the state of democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights in Pakistan. The speaker argues that a true democracy necessitates freedom of expression and criticizes the restrictions placed on certain groups and issues within the country. The document highlights the plight of marginalized communities, including the Pashtuns, the Baloch, and Afghan refugees, emphasizing their lack of basic rights, compensation, and opportunities. It also touches upon the situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban, highlighting the severe human rights violations occurring there. The speaker calls for greater media attention, government action, and public support to address the grievances of these oppressed sections of society.

Key Themes and Ideas:

• The Intertwined Nature of Democracy and Freedom of Expression: The speaker asserts that democracy is fundamentally dependent on the freedom to express oneself. The absence of free expression signifies a deficiency in the democratic system. “In a country where there is democracy, there is also freedom to express. There is no concept of democracy if there is no freedom to express.”
• Restrictions on Expression in Pakistan: The speaker criticizes what they perceive as limitations on freedom of speech and assembly in Pakistan, particularly concerning sensitive issues or specific groups. “If one wants to say something, then people start getting stifled. There is a restriction on a particular issue.” The speaker contrasts this with the legal right to assemble and express views peacefully, arguing that suppressing dissenting voices through power is “against democracy and the law. It is against humanity.”
• The Plight of Marginalized Communities: The document focuses significantly on the hardships faced by specific groups within Pakistan, including:
• Pashtuns: The speaker references Manzoor Pashteen and his movement, noting the “major problems” faced by this community.
• Baloch: The speaker mentions the treatment of the Baloch people in Balochistan, referring to “recent incidents” that are reportedly known to the public through media coverage.
• Afghan Refugees: The speaker highlights the long-term presence of Afghan refugees in Pakistan following the conflict in Afghanistan and expresses concern that they are not receiving the rights or compensation they are entitled to, despite promises from international organizations.
• Lack of Basic Rights and Opportunities: A recurring theme is the denial of basic rights, adequate compensation, infrastructure, education, and employment opportunities to marginalized groups. Specifically, the merger of FATA into KP is mentioned in the context of unfulfilled promises of compensation and lack of economic opportunities.
• Human Rights Violations in Afghanistan under the Taliban: The speaker draws a comparison between the situation in Pakistan and the situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban, citing the “human rights violations that are happening under the Taliban government” as unparalleled in Afghan history. The speaker was also disturbed with how Afghans were deported to Afghanistan.
• Call to Action: The document concludes with a plea for greater attention to the voices of the oppressed, urging the media, the government, and the public to support their cause. The speaker emphasizes the non-violent nature of these communities and the need for the government to address their problems and find solutions. “This voice should be given prominence. We should raise our voice in their support. Our media should also write for them.” The speaker also notes the massive support that these populations have.

Important Considerations:

• Perspective: It is important to note that this document presents a specific viewpoint, likely that of a human rights advocate or a member of a marginalized community. It is crucial to consider other perspectives and contextual information to gain a comprehensive understanding of the issues discussed.
• Generalizations: The speaker makes some broad generalizations about the treatment of certain groups. Further investigation is needed to verify the accuracy and extent of these claims.

This briefing document offers a starting point for understanding the complex issues of democracy, freedom of expression, and human rights in Pakistan, particularly as they relate to marginalized communities. It is essential to consult a variety of sources and perspectives to develop a well-rounded understanding of these issues.

Frequently Asked Questions about Democracy, Expression, and Human Rights in Pakistan

1. What is the fundamental connection between democracy and freedom of expression in the context of Pakistan?

In a genuine democracy, freedom of expression is essential. The source emphasizes that democracy is meaningless without the right to voice opinions, assemble peacefully, and express views without the fear of stifling or restriction. The ability for individuals and groups to express dissent and advocate for their rights is seen as a cornerstone of a functioning democratic society.

2. What are some examples of restrictions on freedom of expression that exist in Pakistan, according to the source?

The source mentions a tendency to stifle opinions, restrict expression on particular issues, and hinder the rights of individuals and political groups to assemble and express their views peacefully. The speaker critiques actions taken by those in power to suppress or obstruct dissenting voices, highlighting a discrepancy between the legal right to express oneself and the practical reality.

3. What specific communities are identified as facing human rights challenges in Pakistan, and what are those challenges?

The source specifically mentions the community led by Manzoor Pashteen, the Baloch people in Balochistan, and the people of the former Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) now merged into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP). The Baloch are described as facing mistreatment, while the people of FATA have allegedly not received promised compensation, lack infrastructure, educational institutions, employment opportunities, and basic facilities.

4. How does the situation in Afghanistan, particularly under the Taliban government, relate to the discussion of democracy and human rights in Pakistan?

The source contrasts the lack of democracy and widespread human rights violations under the Taliban government in Afghanistan with the principles that should be upheld in Pakistan. The treatment of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and the discomfort caused by deportations to Afghanistan are also mentioned, highlighting concerns about the protection of vulnerable populations.

5. What criticisms are raised regarding the treatment of internally displaced persons (IDPs) from FATA after the region’s merger with KP?

The source alleges that many people from FATA have not received the compensation promised to them following the region’s merger with KP. Further, the source claims that the area lacks adequate infrastructure, educational institutions, employment opportunities, and basic facilities, leaving residents feeling as though they lack the rights afforded to citizens.

6. What is the speaker’s call to action regarding the issues faced by marginalized communities in Pakistan?

The speaker urges support for the oppressed and marginalized sections of society. They call for giving prominence to their voices, raising awareness about their issues, and advocating for their rights. They specifically call on the media to report on their situation and for the government to listen to their problems and find solutions.

7. How is the non-violent approach of certain communities emphasized in the context of their struggles for rights?

The source highlights that the communities they are discussing, despite facing significant suffering, imprisonment, and even death, have consistently opposed violence and condemned it. Their commitment to non-violent means of advocating for their rights is presented as a testament to their dedication and a justification for their voices to be heard.

8. What actions does the source suggest should be taken by the government and media regarding marginalized communities in Pakistan?

The source urges the government to listen to the problems of marginalized communities and find solutions to them. The source also calls on the media to write about these communities, give prominence to their voices, and raise awareness about their struggles. The goal is to ensure that their concerns are addressed and their rights are protected.

In a country where there is democracy, there is also freedom to express. There is no concept of democracy if there is no freedom to express. There is a strange kind of democracy in our country. If one wants to say something, then people start getting stifled. There is a restriction on a particular issue. The law gives the right to assemble and express one’s views. If there is no violence, then any planet, any party, any political group has this right. To give them respite through power is against democracy and the law. It is against humanity. So when he gave this plan of the strike, these people created a lot of ruckus and also hid. The community which Manzoor Pashteen is leading now has already faced major problems. The way the Baloch are being treated in Balochistan, the people know about the recent incidents of the people. All the people have been listening to the media. When the attack on Afghanistan took place, many people who We took refuge here, a long time has passed, the war is still going on there, till now we have seen that the Taliban government has come, democracy is not found there even after searching, democracy is not a thing at all, in fact the amount of human rights violations that are happening under the Taliban government cannot be compared in the history of Afghanistan, the way people were thrown from here and sent there, this thing was very uncomfortable for the Afghans, although we have been taking from the big Amjad International Committee that we protect the Afghan refugees, we bring compensation and bring it back, but they do not give the rights to those who are entitled, FATA has been merged into KP, there are many people, they have not been given the compensation that was promised to them and they are unemployed, there is no infrastructure there, there is no industry there, there are no good educational institutions for them, there are no places for their children, there are no employment opportunities, they do not have the right that they are not citizens of Pakistan, why should they not be given their basic facilities, why should they not be given their rights Labourers should not be given wages. This is the voice of this oppressed section. This voice should be given prominence. We should raise our voice in their support. Our media should also write for them. They are the people who have always opposed violence and condemned it. If they had done violence, even then there was objection to those thoughts. They suffered so much, many of their people were put in jail and killed, in spite of that they did not follow the path of martyrdom. So many people of Badshah Khan’s Talimabad Khar come out in their defense with them, so many people of such a huge population should be united. Their voice should be heard. Their government should listen to their problems and find solutions to them.

जिस मुल्क में जम्हूरियत होती है वहां आजादी इजहार भी होती है डेमोक्रेसी का कोई तसवर नहीं है अगर आजादी इजहार ना हो हमारे मुल्क में अजीब किस्म की जम्हूरियत है य कोई भी बात कहनी हो तो कने लग जाती है फला मसले पर बंदिश हो जाती है आईन ये हकता है इतमा का इकट्ठे होने का अपने ख्यालात का इजहार करने का अगर वायलेंस नहीं है तो कोई भी ग्रह कोई भी पार्टी कोई भी सियासी जमात यह हक रखती है ये उसको कुशल देना ताकत के जरिए ये जम्हूरियत और आईन के खिलाफ है इंसानी ब याकूब के खिलाफ है तो उन्होंने जब ये रके का प्लान दिया तो इन लोगों ने काफी इतरात किए और बस लुकिया भी की मंजूर पश्तीन अब जिस तबके की कयादत कर रहे हैं उनके साथ पहली बड़ी तियां हो चुकी है ों के साथ और बलूच के साथ जो सलूक हो रहा है बलूचिस्तान में भी पिछले दिनों पर्सन के वाकत भी सारे आवाम जानते हैं हमारे मीडिया में सारी श्रोता आई हुई है सन की फोसे जब अफगानिस्तान प काब हुई थी बहुत से लोग जिन्होंने पनाह ली थी इधर एक जमाना बीत गया अब वहां लते जंग अभी तक चली आ रही है अभी तक देखि तालिबान की हुकूमत आई है उसमें डेमोक्रेसी ढूंढे से नहीं मिलती है कोई चीज ही नहीं है डेमोक्रेसी वाली बल्कि ह्यूमन राइट्स की जितनी वायलेशन तालिबान की हुकूमत में हो रही है इसकी तो मिसाल नहीं मिलती अफगानिस्तान की हिस्ट्री में लोगों को यहां से जिस तरह को में फेंक के वहां भेजा गया तनों को अफगान को ये चीज बत अजियत नाक थी हालांकि हम लबी चौड़ी अमजद इंटरनेशनल कमटी से लेते रहे हैं कि हम अफगान रिफ्यूजी की हिफाजत करते हैं हम मुआवजे लेके खा आ जाते हैं लेकिन जो हकदार है उनको हक अदा नहीं करते फाटा को केपी में मगम किया गया कई सायल है उनको वो फिटी नहीं दी गई जो उनके साथ वादे किए गए थे व उसमान खते हैं वहां कोई इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर नहीं है वहां कोई इंडस्ट्री नहीं है उनके लिए अच्छे तालीमी इदार उनके बच्चों के लिए नहीं है रोजगार के बके नहीं है उन्हो का ये हक नहीं है कि वो पाकिस्तान के शहरी नहीं है उनको क्यों उनकी बुनियादी सहूलियत ना दी जाए उनको उनके ू क्यों ना दिए जाए मजदूर मतीन दर इस दबे हुए तबके की आवाज है इस आवाज को सरबला किया जाना चाहिए उनकी आवाज में हम आंगी करनी चाहिए हमारे मीडिया को भी चाहिए कि उनके लिए लिखे बोले वो लोग हैं जिन्होंने हमेशा वायलेंस की मुखालफत की और उसकी मजम्मत की है अगर वो वायलेंस करते फिर भी इतराज था वो उन विचारों ने इतनी मारे खाई उनके कई लोगों को जेलों में रखा गया मारा गया इसके बावजूद उन्होंने शद की राह नहीं अपनाई उन्होंने बादशाह खान की तालीमाबाद खर की इतने ज्यादा पखत निकलते हैं उनकी हि मायत में उनके साथ तो इतनी बड़ी आबादी के इतने उनके जिर्गे को मकत होना चाहिए उनकी आवाज सुनी जानी चाहिए उनके हुकूमत को चाहिए कि उनके मसाइल सुने और उन्हे हल

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!

The transcript from the YouTube channel “” provides an analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, asserting that the current situation stems from the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 following the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent Two-Nation Theory. The speaker argues that early Palestinian leadership, focusing on conflict rather than development, led to their current reduced circumstances, contrasting this with the initial gains made through agreements like the Oslo Accords under Yasser Arafat. The text heavily criticizes Hamas, labeling it a radical, violent organization that rejected peace treaties and used the civilian population as shields, citing the October 7, 2023 attacks as a catalyst for the recent conflict. Finally, the speaker advocates for a US-led Gaza peace plan as the immediate priority to end bloodshed, arguing that opposition to the plan for not guaranteeing a Two-State Solution is misguided in the face of ongoing violence.

The Gaza Peace Roadmap and Hamas Criticism

The Gaza peace plan (referred to as the Gaza Aman Mansuba or peace roadmap in the sources) was drafted to stop the ongoing bloodshed and the Gaza War, which is described as having been raging for two years.

Key aspects and context of the Gaza peace plan, according to the sources, include its creation, goals, implementation challenges, and overwhelming support:

Origin and Sponsorship of the Peace Plan

The outlines of the Gaza peace plan were prepared by the team of American President Trump with the cooperation and assistance of Arab countries. The fundamental goal of the plan is to immediately stop the conflict and end the bloodshed.

The process involved:

1. Persuading Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to accept the road map. President Trump reportedly applied pressure to ensure the Israeli Prime Minister accepted his peace roadmap.
2. Gaining the confidence of the leadership of eight Islamic Arab nations.

Context of Conflict and Hamas’s Role

The peace plan emerges from a historical conflict, described as dating back nearly 75 years. The immediate need for the plan stems from the consequences of the terror and savagery displayed by Hamas when they infiltrated Israel on October 7, 2023 (referred to inaccurately in the source as 1923).

Before this attack, the situation was reportedly improving, with Gaza residents receiving significant facilities from Israel, including a large portion of their electricity, water, and food. Thousands of Palestinians also traveled daily to Israel for employment.

The sources heavily criticize Hamas for:

• Disregarding previous agreements made with Israel—agreements that were conditioned on the Palestinian Authority recognizing Israel and not attacking its security.
• Rejecting dialogue and preferring bloodshed, which achieves nothing for the common people.
• Using ordinary Palestinians as human shields (Bataur Dhaal) for their terrorist activities.
• Using populated civilian areas, including hospital basements (as bomb depots), schools, colleges, mosques, and churches, for their activities.

The common people of Gaza are currently caught between Israel and Hamas.

Efforts to Pressure Hamas

Currently, the leadership of three nations—Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar—are reportedly engaged in efforts in Doha to explain to the Hamas leadership there that their path of bloodshed has failed to achieve anything for the common Palestinian people and will continue to fail.

These nations, described as sympathetic to Hamas (Hamas ke Humdard), are urged to pressure the Hamas leadership to accept the Gaza peace plan, just as President Trump pressured Netanyahu. Hamas is being advised to recognize the suffering of the common Palestinian people and not make their decision a matter of personal interests or ego (Ana). Accepting the plan is presented as the only way for the Palestinian people’s suffering to be alleviated and possibly for the Hamas leaders’ lives to be spared.

It is warned that if the plan is rejected, the resulting destruction will impact the Palestinian people and the entire Arab Muslim world. Suggestions have even been made that nations like Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan should send forces to Gaza, implying their fight would be against Hamas, not the Israelis, if Hamas does not yield.

Support and Criticism of the Road Map

The sources emphasize that the entire West, the entire Muslim and Arab World, and specifically the Palestinian Authority and its President, Mahmoud Abbas, are supporting this peace roadmap.

Regarding criticism, some individuals are raising objections to the American peace plan, particularly because it reportedly does not guarantee a two-state solution. However, those raising objections are reminded that the plan’s immediate and fundamental purpose is to halt the bloodshed and the war, and it should be viewed in that specific context, akin to extinguishing a fire engulfing a loved one. It is also asserted that the reported changes to the peace plan are not fundamental or intrinsic (Jauhari) in nature.

Ideological Roots of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, described in the sources as a history spanning nearly 75 years, has deep roots stemming from the establishment of both states and subsequent ideological divisions.

The current conflict is characterized by an ongoing war, which has reportedly been raging for two years, causing widespread devastation in Gaza.

Historical Context and the Two-State Establishment

The foundation of the conflict is traced back to the period following World War II:

• 1948 Statehood: Following the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the British Empire established the modern state of Israel on May 14, 1948.
• Two-State Announcement: Simultaneously, under the UN umbrella, two states—Israel and Palestine—were announced in the region of Canaan (“Aze Canaan”), following the concept of the Two Nation Theory.
• Divergent Paths: The Jews embraced what they received as a “gift” (Nemate Iz) and worked diligently to make their state great. Conversely, the Palestinians focused less on developing their people or securing their future, instead adopting a mindset of denying their neighbor (Israel) peace and tranquility. The result of this hatred and enmity is that Palestinians now possess far less than what they were happily receiving in 1948.

Ideological Struggle and the Rise of Extremism

The sources attribute the ongoing failure to establish a stable state for the Palestinians to extremism, non-tolerance, and fanaticism (Adem Tashaddud aur Jununiyat).

The Role of the PLO and Dialogue:

• Leaders who spoke of sense and reason were often labeled as sellouts or enemy agents in the traditional Muslim mindset.
• Initially, Yasser Arafat (PLO/Al-Fatah) was deemed a hero for the struggle of freedom (“Jaddojahad Azadi ka Memar”) when he engaged in terrorism and carried out suicide attacks on Jewish civilians. However, these actions failed to bring tangible benefits or happiness to the Palestinian people.
• When Arafat eventually followed the lead of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, abandoned terrorism, and pursued dialogue—extending a hand of friendship to Yitzhak Rabin—the suffering Palestinian people experienced a newfound stability (Nouka Hastakam Nasib Hua).
• The Palestinian Authority (PA) was established under the Oslo Accords. Agreements stipulated that the aid and facilities provided were conditional on the PA recognizing Israel and not attacking its security.

The Emergence of Hamas:

• This path of peace was intolerable to the fanatic mindset. Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas were accused of being traitors and Israeli agents.
• A new fanatic organization, Hamas, was born, founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin (aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood).
• Hamas rejected all agreements made with Israel. They began presenting terrorist activities using new tactics and attacked Arafat and the PLO. This resulted in the Palestinian Authority being split and losing credibility worldwide.

The October 7 Attack and Immediate Consequences

The conflict escalated severely following the massive infiltration of Israel by Hamas forces on October 7 (referred to in one source as 1923, though context suggests 2023).

• The Attack: Hamas displayed “savagery and terror” inside Israel. While this act was temporarily celebrated in Gaza, Hamas failed to anticipate the severity of the Israeli reaction.
• Pre-Attack Conditions in Gaza: Before October 7, the situation was reportedly improving. Gaza residents received essential services, including most of their electricity, water, and food, from Israel. Thousands of Palestinians entered Israel daily for employment.
• Current Suffering: Now, the oppressed people of Gaza are paying the price for the terror, caught between Israel and Hamas.

Hamas Tactics and Civilian Vulnerability

The sources severely criticize Hamas for their actions and tactics, which directly endanger Palestinian civilians:

• Hamas uses ordinary Palestinians as human shields (Bataur Dhaal) for their militant activities.
• They utilize densely populated civilian areas, including hospital basements (as bomb depots), schools, colleges, mosques, and churches, for their criminal objectives.
• When Israel targets these locations, Palestinian civilians are inevitably killed.

Efforts Towards Resolution

The overwhelming need to stop the bloodshed, which has caused suffering to the common people of Gaza, led to the drafting of the Gaza peace plan (Gaza Aman Mansuba).

• This peace roadmap was prepared by American President Trump’s team with cooperation from Arab countries.
• The fundamental and immediate goal of the plan is to stop the bloodshed and the Gaza War.
• Widespread Support: The entire West, the entire Muslim and Arab World, and specifically the Palestinian Authority and its President, Mahmoud Abbas, are supporting this peace roadmap.
• Pressure on Hamas: Nations sympathetic to Hamas (Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar) are currently engaged in discussions in Doha, urging Hamas leadership to recognize the suffering of the common Palestinian people and accept the plan, as rejecting it will result in destruction impacting the entire Arab Muslim world.

The peace plan is advocated as a necessary measure to extinguish the current fire, even though some critics object because it reportedly does not guarantee a two-state solution.

Hamas: Ideology, Terror, and Civilian Shields

Hamas is defined in the sources as a new fanatic organization (nai junooni tanzeem) founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who was aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood (Akhwan Muslimoon).

The sources detail several aspects of Hamas’s activities, focusing on their use of terror, rejection of agreements, and tactics that endanger Palestinian civilians:

Ideology and Rejection of Peace

Hamas is fundamentally rooted in a fanatic mindset, characterized by extremism, non-tolerance, and fanaticism (adam tashaddud aur jununiyat).

• Rejection of Agreements: Hamas rejected all agreements made with Israel, including those previously signed by the Palestinian Authority (PLO/Yasser Arafat). These earlier agreements had conditioned aid and facilities on the Palestinian Authority recognizing Israel and not attacking its security.
• Embracing Bloodshed: Hamas chose to reject dialogue, preferring a path of “bloodshed” (khoon kharabe), which one source describes as raising a “new storm of bloodshed” (khoon kharabe ka naya toofan).
• Internal Conflict: Hamas actively attacked the established Palestinian Authority and its leadership (Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas), labeling them as “traitors” and “Israeli agents”. This resulted in the Palestinian Authority being split into two parts and losing international credibility.

Terrorist Activities and Attacks

Hamas is noted for engaging in terrorist activities (terrorist carwaion) using new tactics. The most immediate and severe act detailed is the large-scale infiltration and attack on Israel:

• October 7 Attack: On October 7 (cited as 1923 in one source, but contextualized as the current conflict), Hamas forces infiltrated Israel and displayed savagery and terror (vaishat-o-dahshat).
• Consequences: Although Hamas celebrated this attack in Gaza temporarily, they failed to anticipate the severity of the Israeli reaction. The oppressed common people of Gaza are now paying the price for this terror.

Tactics Involving Civilians

The sources heavily criticize Hamas for its methods, which intentionally place Palestinian civilians in harm’s way, suggesting that Hamas is indifferent to the suffering of the people of Gaza.

• Using Human Shields: Hamas uses ordinary Palestinians as human shields (Bataur Dhaal) for their militant activities.
• Using Civilian Infrastructure: Hamas utilizes densely populated civilian areas for its “criminal objectives” (majmoom maqsadi). These locations include:
• Hospital basements (used as bomb depots or barood khanon).
• Schools, colleges, mosques, churches, and other public places.
• Resulting Casualties: When Israel targets these locations used by Hamas, Palestinian civilians are inevitably killed. The common people are reportedly not even told by Hamas how they establish their bases (gahen) in heavily populated areas and consequently cause civilian deaths.

Current Situation and Pressure

Currently, nations sympathetic to Hamas—Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar—are attempting to pressure Hamas leadership in Doha to accept the Gaza peace plan. They are arguing that Hamas’s path of bloodshed has failed to achieve anything for the common Palestinian people and that rejecting the peace plan would make the decision a matter of personal ego (ana). It is suggested that accepting the plan is the only way to alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people and potentially spare the lives of the Hamas leaders.

The Two-State Solution and Gaza Peace Plan

The two-state solution forms both the historical foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and a central point of current controversy surrounding the proposed Gaza peace plan.

Historical Foundation (1948)

The concept of two separate states in the region was established following the end of World War II:

• Establishment of Two States: Following the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the modern state of Israel was established on May 14, 1948. Simultaneously, two states—Israel and Palestine—were announced (announce ki) in the region of Canaan (Aze Canaan) under the umbrella of the United Nations (UN).
• Basis: This division was carried out according to the Two Nation Theory (Two Nation Theory).
• Divergent Development: While the Jews embraced what they received and worked to make their state great, the Palestinians are described as failing to focus on developing their people or securing their future, instead prioritizing enmity toward their neighbor. This historical trajectory has led to the unfortunate result that Palestinians are now worse off than they were in 1948.

Current Feasibility and Criticism

According to the sources, the prospects for establishing a separate Palestinian state within the original boundaries announced decades ago currently lack any concrete appearance (koi thos soorat دکھائی nahi de rahi).

The implementation of the current Gaza peace plan (Gaza Aman Mansuba), drafted by President Trump’s team with cooperation from Arab countries, has drawn specific criticism regarding the two-state solution:

• Objections to the Plan: Some individuals are raising various objections (mukhtalif nau aitraaz) to the American peace plan, specifically because it reportedly does not guarantee a two-state solution (two states hal ki guarantee nahi hai).
• Prioritizing Peace: Those defending the peace plan counter these objections by emphasizing that the plan’s basic objective is to stop the ongoing bloodshed (khoon rezi ko rukwane ke liye) and the war that has been raging for two years. They argue that the plan must be viewed in the context of extinguishing an immediate “fire”.

Despite the debate over its inclusion, the sources indicate that the entire West, the entire Muslim and Arab World, and specifically the Palestinian Authority (PA) and its President, Mahmoud Abbas, are currently supporting this peace roadmap.

Gaza War Dynamics and Regional Peace Efforts

The regional dynamics surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the current Gaza War involve historical enmities, shifting political alliances, and concentrated diplomatic efforts by global and Middle Eastern powers aimed at implementing a peace plan.

Historical and Ideological Dynamics

The conflict is rooted in a history spanning nearly 75 years, defined by ideological differences following the announcement of the states of Israel and Palestine in 1948.

• Divergent Paths: While Israel embraced its statehood and began development, Palestinians adopted a mindset focused on denying peace to their neighbor, a stance characterized by “extremism, non-tolerance, and fanaticism” (adam tashaddud aur jununiyat).
• Rejection of Dialogue: Leaders who pursued dialogue, like Yasser Arafat when he embraced the path taken by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, were often labeled as “sellouts” or “enemy agents” in the traditional Muslim mindset.
• Internal Palestinian Division: The rise of the fanatic organization Hamas (aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood) led to a split within the Palestinian Authority (PA), attacking Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. This severely undermined the PA’s international credibility and its ability to maintain agreements conditional on recognizing Israel and ensuring its security.

Diplomatic Efforts and the Gaza Peace Plan

The escalating violence has spurred international and regional diplomatic cooperation focused on an immediate cessation of hostilities through the Gaza peace plan (Gaza Aman Mansuba).

• US-Arab Cooperation: The outlines of the peace plan were prepared by American President Trump’s team with the cooperation and assistance of Arab countries (Arab muallik ki muavanat).
• Securing Regional Buy-in: This plan required gaining the confidence of the leadership of eight Islamic Arab nations.
• Broad Regional Support: The sources emphasize that the peace roadmap enjoys overwhelming regional and international support: the entire Muslim and Arab World, the entire West, and specifically the Palestinian Authority and its President, Mahmoud Abbas, are supporting this plan.

Pressure on Hamas Leadership

A significant dynamic involves three key regional nations that are generally considered sympathetic to Hamas (Hamas ke Humdard) actively attempting to influence its leadership:

• Nations Involved: The leadership of Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar are currently engaged in efforts in Doha.
• The Message: These nations are attempting to persuade the Hamas leadership that their preferred path of bloodshed has failed the common Palestinian people and will continue to fail. Hamas is being urged to acknowledge the suffering of the people of Gaza and not make the decision to reject the plan a matter of personal ego (ana) or interests.
• Consequences of Rejection: It is warned that if Hamas rejects the peace plan, the resulting destruction will extend its effects beyond the Palestinian people to the entire Arab Muslim World.

Suggested Military and Enforcement Dynamics

In the event Hamas refuses the peace plan, the sources suggest a potential military dynamic involving regional forces:

• It has been suggested that nations like Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan should send their forces to Gaza.
• The sources clarify that the implied purpose of these forces would be to fight against Hamas, not the Israelis, thereby pressuring the militant group to yield. This is also noted in the context of Indonesian President’s reported offer to send 2,000 troops to Gaza.

इंसानों के नाम अफज़ार रिहान खून रेज़ी या गज़ा अमन मंसूबा अरब इसराइल तनाज़ा को आज तो पैदा नहीं हुआ यह पर्न सदी का किस्सा है दूसरी जंग अज़ीम इख्ताम पज़र होने के बाद ब्रिटिश अंपायर ने 1917 के बलफोर डेकोरेशन की मुताबिकत में अपने अहदो पेमान की पासदारी करते हुए 14 मई 1948 को मौज इसराइली रियासत ही कायम नहीं की बल्कि जिस तरह 15 अगस्त 1947 को जूबी एशिया में टू नेशन थ्योरी के तहत हिंदुस्तान का बंटवारा करते हुए पाकिस्तान कैंप करवाया बिल्कुल इसी तरह अज़े कनान में इसराइल और फस्तीन के नामों से दो रियासतें अनाउंस की और यह सब यूएन की छतरी तले किया गया यह अलग बात है कि इसराइल को जो कुछ मिला इसी को यहूद ने नेमते इज़ गिरतानते हुए मेहनत और सच्ची लगन से अज़मतर बनाने की जद्दोजहद शुरू कर दी जबकि फिलिस्तीनियों ने अपने लोगों पर ध्यान देने या इनका मुस्तकबिल संवारने का सोचने की बजाय अपने दिमागों में यह धुन पाल ली कि हमने किसी भी तरह अपने हमसाए को नहीं छोड़ना उसे सुकून से जीने नहीं देना इसी नफरत और दुश्मनी का यह नतीजा निकला कि 1948 में उन्हें जो कुछ बखुशी मिल रहा था आज वो इससे भी कहीं कमतर पर आ चुके हैं बल्कि सच तो यह है उन्हें पौन सदी कब अपनी जो अलग फिलस्तीनी रियासत मिल रही थी आज बिलफेर इन्हीं खतों में इसके कयाम की कोई ठोस सूरत दिखाई नहीं दे रही हम नफरत हकारत या गुस्से और जुनून की फिजा से निकल कर ठंडे पेटों गौर करें तो इसकी वजह या कारण समझने में देर नहीं लगेगी इसकी वजह है अदम तशद्द और जुनूनियत जो जितना बड़ा खुदसर और जुनूनी होता है हमारी मुस्लिम साइकी में वही हमारा हीरो या महबूब लीडर कहलाता है जो अकलो शूर की बात करें वो हमारे रवायती मुस्लिम माइंडसेट में बकाऊ माल या दुश्मन का एजेंट करार पाता है पीएलओ या अलफतह के लीडर यासर अल्फात की मिसाल ही मुलाजा फरमा ली जाए जब तक वो शख्स हसद मुनाफत और जुनूनियत के ज़रे असर टेररिज्म के बम फोड़ता रहा यूदी नौजवानों बच्चों बूढ़ों और खवातीन पर खुद हमले करवाते हुए इनके चीथड़े और उड़ाता रहा वो हम सबका हीरो और जद्दोजहद आजादी का मेमार कहलाया हालांकि इन तमाम हरकात से वो फस्तीनी आवाम के लिए ना हकीकी खुशियां ला सका ना इनके मफाद में कुछ हासिल वसूल कर सका फिर जब मिस्री प्रेसिडेंट अनवर सदाद की पैरवी में उसने दहशतगर्दी को खैरबाद कहते हुए मुकालमे की राह अपनाई इजहाक राबन की तरफ प्यार मोहब्बत और दोस्ती का हाथ बढ़ाया तो दुखी फिलिस्तीनी आवाम को एक नौका हस्तकाम नसीब हुआ ओस्लो अकार्ड के तहत फिलिस्तीनी अथॉरिटी का क्या वक पज़र हुआ लेकिन जूनियत के माइंडसेट को कैसे ही अमनो सलामती की राह गुवारा हो सकती थी कहा गया कि पीएलओ यासिर अरफात और महबूद अब्बास बिक गए हैं यह फस्तीनियों के गद्दार हैं यूं एक नई जुनूनी तंजीम हमास का जुर हुआ जिसका फाउंडर शेख अहमद यासीन अखवान मुस्लिमून की ठाट का हमल था इन लोगों ने टेररिस्ट कारवाइयों को नए हथकंडों से पेश करना शुरू किया साथ ही अरफात और इसकी पीएलओ को इसरली एजेंट के दानते हुए इस पर हमले शुरू कर दिए एक मौका पर तो यासर अरफात इनके हाथों कत्ल होने से बम मुश्किल बचे नतीजा ये निकला कि ना सिर्फ फिलस्तीनी अथॉरिटी दो टुकड़ों में बट गई बल्कि दुनिया भर में इसकी साख दो टके की हो गई यासर अरफात पीएलओ या फिलस्तीनी अथॉरिटी को जो कुछ मिल रहा था वो इस शर्त से मशरूफ था कि आप लोग इसराइल को तस्लीम करते हुए इसकी सलामती पर हमलावर नहीं होंगे पीएलओ चीफ ने यह मुयदा अपनी जाती हैसियत से नहीं फिलस्तीनी सदर या कायद की हैसियत से किया था जिसकी पासदारी तमाम फिलस्तीनियों पर आयद होती लेकिन हमास ने दहशतगर्दी की अपनी दुकान चमकाने के लिए इसराइल के साथ किए गए तमाम मुयदों को अपने जूतों की नोक पर रखा और खून खराबे का नया तूफान उठा दिया 7 अक्टूबर 1923 को यमे कपूर के रोज आज से ठीक दो बरस का हमास वालों ने इसराइल के अंदर घुसकर जिस वैशतो दहशत का मुजाहरा किया इसका कोई जवाज नहीं बनता था अगरचे वक्त तौर पर तो इस रोज गजा में हमास की तरफ से खुशियों के शादियाने बजाए गए मगर इन नाकबत अंदेश लोगों ने जरा इतराक ना किया कि इस पर इसराइली रद्दे अमल कितना शदीद आएगा और फिर जब वह आया तो इन लोगों ने फौरी मजलूमियत की चादर ओढ़ ली अब इस दहशत की कीमत गजा के मजलूम फिलिस्तीनी आवाम चुका रहे हैं इनकी जो बर्बादी हो रही है वो पूरी दुनिया को गमना किए हुए हैं गजा के आवाम चक्की के दो पार्टों में पिस रहे हैं एक तरफ इसराइल है और दूसरी तरफ हमास अमास को इससे कोई गज़ नहीं कि गजा के आवाम पर क्या बीत रही है 7 अक्टूबर से कब अहले गजा को खुद इसराइल की तरफ से क्या-क्या सहूलियात में असर थी जरा इसकी तफसीलात मुलाहजा फरमा लें बिजली पानी खुराक सबका बड़ा हिस्सा इसराइल की तरफ से मयस्तर था हजारों फस्तीनी रोजगार के लिए रोजाना इसराइल जाते और अपने बाल बच्चों के लिए रोजी कमा कर लाते सुरते हाल मजीद बेहतरी की तरफ बढ़ रही थी लेकिन पिछले दो बरसों में इन लोगों कीिंदगियां बर्बाद होकर रह गई हैं मुशद्द जिहादी तंजीम हमास अपनी कारवियां डालने के लिए आम फिलस्तीनियों को बतौर ढाल इस्तेमाल करती है अस्पतालों के तहखानों में बारूदखानों से लेकर स्कूल कॉलेजेस मसाजिद चर्चेस और दीगर पब्लिक मकामात तक को वो अपने मजमूम मकासद के लिए इस्तेमाल करते हैं ऐसे में जब इसराइली टारगेट हमले होंगे तो कौन मरेंगे फिलिस्तीनी आवाम आम लोगों को बताया ही नहीं जाता कि हमास वाले किस-किस तरह पुरजूम आबादियों में अपनी गाें बनाकर आवाम को मरवाते हैं यह है वो पसमंजर जिसमें अरब मुालिक की मुआवनत से अमकी प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप की टीम ने खून रेजी को खत्म करवाने के लिए गजा अमन मंसूबे के खदो खाल तैयार किए जिन पर माबाद आठ इस्लामी अरब मुालिक की कयादतों को इतमाद में लेते हुए इसरली प्राइम मिनिस्टर नितिन याू को कायल किया गया अब कहा जा रहा है कि अजीब टर्की और क़तर की कयादत दोहा में मौजूद हमास कयादत को यह समझा रही है कि खून खराबे से आम लोगों को जिस तरह पहले कुछ हासिल नहीं हुआ इसी तरह आइंदा भी कुछ नहीं मिलेगा लिहाजा बेहतर है कि तुम लोग आम फिलस्तीनी आवाम के दुखों का इतराक कर लो और अपनी अना और जाती मफादात का मसला ना बनाओ यही वाद रास्ता है जिस पर चलकर तुम लोगों की जान बखशी भी हो सकती है और फिलस्तीनी आवाम के दुखों का मुदावा भी अमेरिकी प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप ने दबाव डालते हुए इसराइली प्राइम मिनिस्टर से जिस तरह अपना अमन रोड मैप मनवाया है हमास के हमदर्द तीनों मुालिक का फर्ज बनता है कि वह भी इसी तरह हमास की आदत पर दबाव डालते हुए इसे गजा अमन मंसूबा मनवाएं बसूरते दीगर जो तबाही आगे चलकरानी है इसके असरात फिलिस्तीनी आवाम के अलावा पूरी अरब मुस्लिम वर्ल्ड तक पहुंचेंगे जिस तरह इंडोनेशिया के प्रेसिडेंट ने अपने 2000 ट्रूप्स गजा भेजने की पेशकश की है इसी तरह पाकिस्तान टर्की इजिप्ट और जॉर्डन भी अपनी फर्सेस यहां भेजे हैं जाहिर है इनकी लड़ाई गजा में इसराइलियों से नहीं हमा से होगी ऐसी नौबत आने से कब ही क्यों ना इन नामद जिहादियों को दबाव डालते हुए नत डाल दी जाए हमारे जो लोग इस अमरी अमन मंसूबा पर मुख्तलिफ नौ एतराज उठा रहे हैं बिलखसूस इस हवाले से कि इसमें टू स्टेट्स हल की गारंटी नहीं है इन पर यह अमन वाजे रहना चाहिए कि ये अमन मंसूबा बुनियादी तौर पर दो बरसों से जारी गजा जंग या खून रेज़ीजी को रुकवाने के लिए है और उसे इसी तनाज़िर में मुलाहजा किया जाए और इसकी मिसाल ऐसे ही है जैसे आपके किसी अजीज को आग लगी हो तो आप फौरी तौर पर इस आग को बुझाने का एतमाम करें यह अम्र भी वाज़ रहे कि जब पूरा मगरब पूरी मुस्लिम और अरब वर्ल्ड बिलखसूस खुद फिलस्तीनी अथॉरिटी और इसके प्रेसिडेंट महमूद अब्बास इस अमन रोड मैप की हिमायत कर रहे हैं तो दूसरे कौन होते हैं मुखालफत करने वाले 20 डकाती मंसूबे में जिस नौ की चेंजेस का नाम फेक प्रोपोगेंडा किया जा रहा है इसकी नयत कतन जोहरी नहीं है इस पर बहस अगली निशिस्त

انسانیت نام، اظفر ریحان، خونریزی، یا غزہ امن منصوبہ، عرب اسرائیل تنازعہ، آج پیدا نہیں ہوا؛ یہ انیسویں صدی کی کہانی ہے۔ دوسری جنگ عظیم کے خاتمے کے بعد برطانوی سلطنت نے 1917 کے اعلان بالفور کے تحت اپنے وعدے کو برقرار رکھتے ہوئے نہ صرف 14 مئی 1948 کو اسرائیل کی ریاست قائم کی بلکہ جس طرح 15 اگست 1947 کو دو قومی نظریہ کے تحت ہندوستان کو جنوبی ایشیا میں تقسیم کر کے پاکستان قائم کیا، اسی طرح اسرائیل اور اسرائیل کو دو ریاستوں کے نام سے ریاست بنانے کا اعلان کیا۔ یہ سب اقوام متحدہ کی چھتری تلے کیا گیا۔ یہ الگ بات ہے کہ اسرائیل کو جو کچھ بھی ملا، یہودیوں نے اسے نعمت سمجھتے ہوئے محنت اور سچی لگن سے اسے عظیم بنانے کی جدوجہد شروع کی۔ جب کہ فلسطینیوں نے اپنے لوگوں پر توجہ دینے یا اپنے مستقبل کو سنوارنے کے بارے میں سوچنے کے بجائے اپنے ذہنوں میں یہ خیال پرورش کیا کہ وہ اپنے پڑوسی کو کسی صورت نہیں چھوڑیں گے، اسے سکون سے نہیں رہنے دیں گے، اسی نفرت اور دشمنی کا نتیجہ ہے کہ 1948 میں انہیں جو بھی خوشیاں مل رہی تھیں، آج وہ اس سے بہت پیچھے رہ گئے ہیں۔ درحقیقت سچ یہ ہے کہ وہ علیحدہ فلسطینی ریاست جو انہیں نصف صدی قبل مل رہی تھی، آج ان خطوط میں اس کے قیام کی کوئی ٹھوس تصویر نہیں ہے۔ نفرت، حقارت، غصہ اور جذبے کے ماحول سے نکل کر ٹھنڈے پیٹوں سے سوچیں تو اس کی وجہ یا اسباب سمجھنے میں دیر نہیں لگے گی۔ اس کی وجہ انتہائی تکبر اور جنونیت ہے۔ ایک شخص جتنا زیادہ خود پسند اور پرجوش ہے، ہماری مسلم نفسیات میں اسے ہمارا ہیرو یا محبوب لیڈر کہا جاتا ہے۔ بہادری کی بات کرنے والے کو ہماری روایتی مسلم ذہنیت میں فضول یا دشمن کا ایجنٹ سمجھا جاتا ہے۔ پی ایل او یا الفتح کے رہنما یاسر الفت کی مثال پر غور کیا جانا چاہیے۔ یہاں تک کہ وہ شخص حسد، خود غرضی اور جنون کے زیر اثر یہودی نوجوانوں، بچوں، بوڑھوں کی زندگیوں پر دہشت گردی کے بم پھٹتا رہا اور اس نے خود عورتوں پر حملوں کا منصوبہ بنایا اور انہیں ٹکڑے ٹکڑے کر دیا۔ انہیں ہمارا ہیرو اور آزادی کا ستون کہا جاتا تھا۔ تاہم ان تمام اقدامات کے ذریعے وہ نہ تو فلسطینی عوام کو حقیقی خوشی پہنچا سکا اور نہ ہی ان کے مفاد کے لیے کچھ حاصل کر سکا۔ پھر جب مصری صدر انور صداد کے زیر اثر انہوں نے دہشت گردی کو نعمت قرار دیتے ہوئے مذاکرات کا راستہ اختیار کیا۔ اس نے اسحاق ربان کی طرف محبت اور دوستی کا ہاتھ بڑھایا اور پریشان حال فلسطینی عوام کو نیا ہاتھ ملا۔ فلسطینی اتھارٹی کے پاس اوسلو معاہدے کے تحت کیا وقت تھا؟ لیکن جنید کی ذہنیت کو امن و سلامتی کی راہ پر گامزن کرنے کی اجازت کیسے دی جا سکتی ہے؟ کہا گیا کہ پی ایل او، یاسر عرفات اور محبوب عباس بیچ چکے ہیں۔ وہ فلسطینیوں کے غدار تھے۔ اس طرح ایک نئی جنونی تنظیم حماس کا قیام عمل میں آیا جس کے بانی شیخ احمد یاسین اخوان مسلمانوں کے غرور پر حملہ آور تھے۔ ان لوگوں نے دہشت گردی کی کارروائیوں کو نئی تحریک دی۔ انہوں نے حربے استعمال کرنا شروع کر دیے اور عرفات اور ان کے پی ایل او کو اسرائیلی ایجنٹ فراہم کر کے حملہ کرنا شروع کر دیا۔ ایک موقع پر یاسر عرفات ان کے ہاتھوں مارے جانے سے بال بال بچ گئے۔ نتیجہ یہ ہوا کہ نہ صرف فلسطینی اتھارٹی دو ٹکڑوں میں بٹ گئی بلکہ دنیا بھر میں اس کی ساکھ بھی بے وقعت ہو گئی۔ یاسر عرفات اور پی ایل او یا فلسطینی اتھارٹی کو جو کچھ مل رہا تھا وہ اس شرط پر تھا کہ وہ اسے قبول کرتے ہوئے اسرائیل پر حملہ نہیں کریں گے۔ پی ایل او کے سربراہ نے یہ مسئلہ اپنی ذاتی حیثیت میں نہیں بلکہ فلسطینی صدر یا قائد کی حیثیت سے اٹھایا تھا جس کی ذمہ داری تمام فلسطینیوں پر عائد ہوتی۔ لیکن حماس نے اپنی دہشت گردی کی دکان کو پنپنے کے لیے اسرائیل کے ساتھ تمام معاملات کو اپنے جوتے کی نوک پر رکھا اور خونریزی کا ایک نیا طوفان کھڑا کردیا۔ 7 اکتوبر 1923 کو یوم کپور یعنی آج سے ٹھیک دو سال پہلے حماس کے لوگ اسرائیل کے اندر داخل ہوئے اور دہشت گردی کے مظاہرہ کا کوئی جواز نہیں تھا۔ گو کہ اس دن حماس نے غزہ میں خوشی کے گیت گائے لیکن اسرائیلی جبر کی شدت سے ناواقف ان لوگوں نے یہ بھی نہیں سوچا کہ اسرائیلی جبر کس قدر شدید ہو گا۔ اور جب آیا تو ان لوگوں نے فوراً اپنے اوپر ظلم کی چادر اوڑھ لی۔ اب اس دہشت گردی کی قیمت غزہ کے مظلوم فلسطینی عوام ادا کر رہے ہیں۔ ان کی تباہی سے پوری دنیا سوگوار ہے۔ غزہ کے عوام کو چکی کے دو حصوں کے درمیان کچلا جا رہا ہے۔ ایک طرف اسرائیل ہے اور دوسری طرف حماس۔

یہ کوئی ڈھکی چھپی بات نہیں ہے کہ غزہ کے لوگ کن حالات سے گزر رہے ہیں۔ 7 اکتوبر کے بعد سے غزہ کے عوام نے خود اسرائیل کے ثمرات کب حاصل کیے؟ تفصیلات پر غور کریں۔ بجلی، پانی اور خوراک سمیت ہر چیز کا بڑا حصہ اسرائیل فراہم کرتا تھا۔ ہزاروں فلسطینی روزانہ روزگار کے لیے اسرائیل جاتے تھے اور اپنے بچوں کے لیے روزی کماتے تھے۔ حالات مزید خوشحالی کی طرف بڑھ رہے تھے لیکن پچھلے دو سالوں میں ان لوگوں کی زندگی اجڑ گئی ہے۔ عسکریت پسند جہادی تنظیم حماس اپنی کارروائیوں کے لیے عام فلسطینیوں کو ڈھال کے طور پر استعمال کرتی ہے۔ وہ اسپتالوں کے تہہ خانوں میں گولہ بارود کے ڈپو سے لے کر اسکولوں، کالجوں، مساجد، گرجا گھروں اور دیگر عوامی مقامات تک ہر چیز کو اپنے مذموم مقاصد کے لیے استعمال کرتے ہیں۔ ایسے میں جب اسرائیلی ٹارگٹڈ حملے ہوں گے تو کون مرے گا؟ فلسطینی عوام۔ عام لوگوں کو یہ بھی نہیں بتایا جاتا کہ حماس کی افواج آبادی والے علاقوں میں اپنے اڈے کیسے قائم کرتی ہیں۔ وہ لوگوں کو مارتے ہیں۔ یہ وہ منظر نامہ ہے جس میں عرب رہنماؤں کی رضامندی سے امریکی صدر ٹرمپ کی ٹیم نے خونریزی کے خاتمے کے لیے غزہ میں امن کے لیے منصوبے تیار کیے تھے۔ اس پر اسرائیلی وزیراعظم نتن یاؤ نے آٹھ اسلامی عرب رہنماؤں کی قیادت کو اعتماد میں لے کر قائل کیا۔ اب کہا جا رہا ہے کہ ترکی اور قطر کی قیادت دوحہ میں موجود حماس کی قیادت کو سمجھا رہی ہے کہ جس طرح ماضی میں خونریزی سے عام لوگوں کو کچھ حاصل نہیں ہوا، اسی طرح مستقبل میں بھی کچھ حاصل نہیں ہو گا۔ اس لیے بہتر ہے کہ آپ لوگ عام فلسطینی عوام کے دکھوں کو قبول کریں اور اسے اپنی انا اور ذاتی مفادات کا مسئلہ نہ بنائیں۔ یہی وہ واحد راستہ ہے جس پر چل کر آپ کی جانیں بھی بچائی جا سکتی ہیں اور فلسطینی عوام کے دکھوں کا مداوا بھی کیا جا سکتا ہے۔ امریکی صدر ٹرمپ نے جس طرح دباؤ ڈال کر اپنا امن روڈ میپ اسرائیلی وزیر اعظم سے مان لیا، وہ تینوں حماس کے ہمدرد ہیں۔ حکمرانوں کا فرض ہے کہ وہ اسی طرح حماس پر دباؤ ڈالیں کہ وہ غزہ امن منصوبے کو قبول کرے۔ اس کے بعد جو تباہی ہونی ہے اس کے نتائج فلسطینی عوام سے آگے پوری عرب مسلم دنیا تک پہنچیں گے۔ جس طرح انڈونیشیا کے صدر نے غزہ میں دو ہزار فوجی بھیجنے کی پیشکش کی ہے اسی طرح پاکستان، ترکی، مصر اور اردن نے بھی اپنے فوجی بھیجے ہیں۔ واضح طور پر، غزہ میں ان کی لڑائی حماس کے خلاف ہو گی، اسرائیلیوں کے خلاف نہیں۔ اگر ایسی صورت حال پیدا ہوتی ہے تو ان نام نہاد جہادیوں کو سر تسلیم خم کرنے کے لیے دباؤ کیوں نہیں ڈالا جاتا؟ ہم میں سے جو لوگ اس امریکی امن منصوبے پر مختلف اعتراضات اٹھا رہے ہیں، خاص طور پر اس بنیاد پر کہ یہ دو ریاستی حل کی ضمانت نہیں دیتا، انہیں یہ سمجھ لینا چاہیے کہ یہ امن منصوبہ بنیادی طور پر دو سال سے جاری غزہ کی جنگ اور خونریزی کو روکنا ہے، اور اسی تناظر میں اس پر غور کیا جانا چاہیے۔ اس کی مثال ایسی ہے جیسے کسی عزیز کو جلا دیا جائے۔ آپ کو فوری طور پر اس آگ کو بجھانے کو یقینی بنانا چاہیے۔ یہ بھی واضح رہے کہ جب پورا مغرب، پوری مسلم اور عرب دنیا بالخصوص خود فلسطینی اتھارٹی اور اس کے صدر محمود عباس اس امن روڈ میپ کی حمایت کر رہے ہیں تو پھر اس کی مخالفت کرنے والے دوسرے کون ہیں؟ 20 ڈاکو پلان میں 9 تبدیلیاں، جن کا نام فرضی پروپیگنڈہ کے طور پر استعمال کیا جا رہا ہے، وہ اتنی جان بوجھ کر نہیں ہیں جتنا کہ وہ ہیں۔ اس پر بحث آئندہ اجلاس میں ہوگی۔

The YouTube video transcript, “Trump’s flattery:How dangerous for USA & other Nations | ,” presents a critical analysis of former President Donald Trump’s personality, specifically focusing on his susceptibility to flattery and its potential danger to both the United States and the world. The speaker, , argues that Trump’s craving for praise and accolades, particularly the Nobel Peace Prize, makes him vulnerable to manipulation by foreign leaders like those from Pakistan, Israel, Russia, and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy, who strategically offer him praise to further their own interests. The discussion draws parallels between Trump’s temperament and that of historical figures like Adolf Hitler, suggesting that a leader obsessed with adulation can undermine democratic institutions and ignore human rights abuses committed by those who flatter him, such as Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu. The text highlights how world leaders have learned to exploit Trump’s vanity to secure favorable treatment, even if it goes against American values or global stability.

Trump’s Flattery Addiction and International Exploitation

The discussion of President Trump’s flatterers, according to the sources, revolves around his extreme fondness for praise (khushamad pasandi) and rejection of criticism, which foreign leaders exploit for political and diplomatic gain.

Trump’s Disposition Towards Flattery

President Trump is characterized as a self-obsessed individual (khud pasand shakhs) who is always hungry for praise. His temperament dictates that criticism is like a stone being thrown at his head. For self-obsessed leaders, the measure of another person’s worth is directly proportional to the amount of flattery (chaplusi) they offer. Conversely, anyone who speaks the “bitter truth” (talkh sachchai) is deemed bad.

Motivations for Flattery

A crucial factor driving international praise is President Trump’s singular mission to secure the Nobel Peace Prize, a goal intensified by his jealousy of Barack Hussein Obama. Recognizing this specific ambition, world leaders tailor their flattery by declaring him worthy of this honor.

Key Flatterers and Their Strategies

Several countries and leaders utilized flattery, panegyrics (madasraai), and odes (qasida goi) to secure favorable treatment or to simply navigate diplomatic relations with Trump:

1. Nations Seeking Favor (Pakistan and Israel)

Pakistan and Israel are described as “lucky countries” because their leadership wisely decided to formally nominate President Trump for the Nobel Prize. This action successfully “won his heart” (dil jeet liya). After receiving the nomination, Trump’s attitude changed, and those who previously seemed like “poison” to him (i.e., critics or antagonists of these nations) ceased to be viewed negatively.

2. Warring Nations (Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Others)

Other warring nations (mutaharib umaalik), including Azerbaijan and Armenia, also began reciting odes of praise (kaside padna). They declared Trump to be the deserved recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize and the world’s greatest standard-bearer (alambardar) and contractor (thekedar) of global peace and security.

3. Known Criminals (Putin and Netanyahu)

The Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu are explicitly mentioned as knowing how to exploit Trump’s psychology (nafsiyat).

• Both are described as declared criminals by the international courts of justice and responsible for the murder of innocent people and children.
• Despite their severe crimes (such as Putin’s forces allegedly taking 20,000 Ukrainian children), they continuously employ praise and ode-reciting (qasida goi).
• Because they flatter him, President Trump reportedly overlooks their atrocities (mazalim) and continues to speak in their favor.
• Putin, specifically described as a cruel person (saffaq shakhs), openly recognized this weakness. During a press conference in Alaska, Putin praised Trump’s love for peace (aman pasandi), even asserting that if Trump were the American President in 2022, the Russian attack on Ukraine would not have occurred.

4. Diplomatic Compliance (Zelensky and European Leaders)

Ukrainian President Zelensky learned the necessity of flattery after a negative initial visit to the White House. On his first visit, he spoke freely about facts, which resulted in him being humiliated by Trump and his sycophants (chamchon).

• On his subsequent visit to Washington, Zelensky came fully prepared.
• He first recited an ode to Trump’s peace-loving efforts (aman pasandi ka qasida padha).
• He also brought the leaders of seven critical European countries. These European leaders, too, engaged in cautious praise (madasraai) of the American President, ensuring that no sensitive issue or dissenting point would offend the “American Emperor’s delicate disposition” (tabah nazak).

5. Failure to Flatter (Narendra Modi)

The sources illustrate the immediate consequences of withholding praise using the example of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

• Modi was considered Trump’s “closest friend” (sabse qareebi mitra) as long as he supported slogans like “Ab ki baar Trump sarkaar”.
• However, the day Modi refused to credit Trump for the India-Pakistan ceasefire, he became unwelcome (raanda dargah).
• Following this refusal, President Trump began imposing tariffs and restrictions on Modi, even though the sources suggest these actions lacked justification, especially compared to the favorable treatment received by nations like Russia (from whom the US buys resources).

American Democracy: Value and Vulnerability

American democracy is described in the sources as a foundational pillar of modern civilization, but its future stability is presented as vulnerable to exploitation by domestic and international actors.

The Value and History of American Democracy

American democracy (अमेरिकन डेमोक्रेसी) is historically recognized as the “diadem on the forehead of humanity” (इंसानियत के माथे का झूमर). Its history is rooted in the struggle for human rights and freedoms and against slavery. Today, it serves as the greatest solace (सबसे बड़ी ढारस) for the safety and sovereignty of weaker nations worldwide.

Threats to the Democratic System

Despite its importance and history, the sources warn that American democracy is not immune to compromise:

1. Vulnerability to Opportunists: American democracy can be misled (बहकावे में आ सकती है) by glib-tongued, opportunistic, and dictator-minded people (चल जुबान मौका प्रस्त और डिक्टेटर ज़हनियत लोगो).
2. Shaking the Foundations: These individuals may raise the slogan of “Greater America” but simultaneously work to shake the very foundations (चूलें हिला कर रख दें) of the American democratic system (अमकी जमहूरी सिस्टम).
3. Tarnishing Greatness: Such actions lead to them leaving the White House having tarnished the brilliance (ताबनाकी पर स्याही मलते हुए) of American greatness.

Prioritizing Personal Gain over Democratic Interests

A specific threat highlighted in the sources is the prioritization of a leader’s personal ambition over the health of the democratic system. President Trump’s singular mission is described as obtaining the Nobel Peace Prize, a goal he pursues even if “American Democracy and American interests go to hell” (अमेरिकन डेमोक्रेसी और अमेरिकन इंटरेस्ट जाए भाड़ में).

Compromise of American Values

The widespread use of flattery (खुशामद) by foreign leaders, even those labeled as declared criminals responsible for mass atrocities (like Putin and Netanyahu), raises a fundamental question about the future integrity of American values (अमकी इकदार). The sources ask whether the exploitation of a U.S. President’s psychological weaknesses—such as Russia’s President Putin publicly praising Trump’s love for peace—constitutes the disparagement of American values, for which President Trump himself is held responsible.

Trump’s Nobel Obsession and Foreign Manipulation

The pursuit of the Nobel Peace Prize by President Trump is a central theme in the sources, described as a singular, overriding mission driven by jealousy and personal ambition.

The Central Mission and Motivation

President Trump’s Mindset: The sources state that the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, is preoccupied with one thought: how to secure the Nobel Peace Prize “by hook or by crook” (bai huk aur bai kruk).

Driving Force (Jealousy): This ambition is primarily fueled by his intense jealousy or envy (hasad) of former President Barack Hussein Obama.

Prioritizing Personal Gain: Trump adopted this mission upon entering the White House for his second term, declaring that he must achieve the “feather of the heron” (sarkhaab ka yeh par) on his head (a metaphor for the prize). This pursuit takes precedence over national interests, as he is focused on securing the award “whether American Democracy and American interests go to hell (अमेरिकन डेमोक्रेसी और अमेरिकन इंटरेस्ट जाए भाड़ में)”.

Exploitation by Foreign Actors

World leaders, recognizing Trump’s obsession and his desire for praise (khushamad pasandi), have utilized the Nobel Prize nomination as a tool for diplomatic advantage and flattery.

Successful Flatterers (Pakistan and Israel):

• Pakistan and Israel are called “lucky countries”.
• Their leaderships made the “wise decision” (danishmandaana faisla) to formally nominate President Trump for the Nobel Prize.
• This act successfully “won his heart” (dil jeet liya).
• Following the nomination, individuals or issues previously seen as “poison” to him (i.e., those critical of Pakistan or Israel) ceased to be viewed negatively.

Other Nations Seeking Favor:

• Other warring nations (mutaharib umaalik), including Azerbaijan and Armenia, began reciting odes (kaside padna).
• To advance their own interests, they declared President Trump the deserved recipient of the Nobel Prize and the world’s greatest contractor (thekedar) and standard-bearer (alambardar) of global peace and security.

Putin’s Exploitation:

• Russian President Vladimir Putin, described as a cruel person (saffaq shakhs), recognized this weakness (kamzori).
• During a press conference in Alaska, Putin played into this ambition by praising Trump’s love for peace (aman pasandi).
• Putin went so far as to assert that had Trump been the American President in 2022, the Russian attack on Ukraine would not have occurred. The source suggests that anyone interested in international issues would be astonished by this “major lie” (itni badi chhodi gayi dar sutni).

The pursuit of the Nobel Prize thus became a mechanism through which foreign governments could manipulate President Trump’s self-obsession for their political and diplomatic gain.

Flattery and the Self-Obsessed Leader

The relationship between leadership and flattery, as detailed in the sources, is defined by the dangerous intersection of a leader’s psychological need for praise and the strategic exploitation of that need by both domestic and international actors.

The Psychology of Self-Obsessed Leadership

The sources characterize President Trump as a self-obsessed individual (khud pasand shakhs) who is inherently fond of flattery (khushamad pasandi) and always hungry for praise (tariif ka bhukha). This specific type of leadership exhibits an extreme aversion to criticism:

• Rejection of Truth: For such a leader, anyone who speaks the “bitter truth” (talkh sachchai) is automatically considered bad.
• Aversion to Criticism: Criticism is viewed by this leader as a painful assault, “like a stone being thrown at his head”.
• The Measure of Worth: The leadership structure determines an individual’s value based entirely on compliance and praise. The sole “measure of worth” (kadar afzaai ka paimana) used by self-obsessed leaders is that “the one who flatters (chaplusi) the most is the best”.

Flattery as a Diplomatic and Political Tool

Recognizing this weakness, foreign leaders strategically employ flattery, panegyrics (madasraai), and odes (qasida goi) to gain diplomatic favor, secure political concessions, or avoid condemnation.

1. Securing Favorable Treatment: Nations that offered formal praise, such as Pakistan and Israel, secured favorable standing by deciding to formally nominate the President for the Nobel Peace Prize. This act successfully “won his heart” (dil jeet liya), causing him to change his attitude toward the nations, viewing antagonists no longer as “poison”.

2. Overlooking Atrocities: Flattery allows leaders to overlook severe transgressions by allies. The sources cite Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu—both labeled as declared criminals by international courts and responsible for the killing of innocent people and children. Because these leaders understand the President’s psychology (nafsiyat) and engage in continuous flattery and ode-reciting, President Trump reportedly overlooks their atrocities (mazalim) and speaks in their favor. Putin specifically exploited this by praising Trump’s “love for peace” (aman pasandi).

3. Navigating Diplomacy: Leaders who failed to use flattery initially were severely punished. Ukrainian President Zelensky, during his first visit to the White House, spoke the facts freely and was subsequently humiliated by the President and his sycophants (chamchon).

• On his second trip, Zelensky demonstrated a changed approach, first reciting an ode to Trump’s peace-loving efforts (aman pasandi ka qasida padha).
• He also brought the leaders of seven crucial European countries, who ensured their communication used “cautious praise” (madasraai) and a very careful style to prevent any sensitive issue from offending the “American Emperor’s delicate disposition” (tabah nazak).

Consequences of Withholding Praise

The leadership’s reaction to a lack of flattery can be swift and punitive. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was considered Trump’s closest friend (sabse qareebi mitra) only as long as he supported slogans like “Ab ki baar Trump sarkaar”. The moment Modi refused to credit Trump for the India-Pakistan ceasefire, he immediately became unwelcome (raanda dargah). Following this refusal, President Trump began imposing tariffs and restrictions on Modi, even if those actions lacked clear justification.

Ultimately, the sources present this reliance on flattery as a major threat to democratic values, questioning whether the exploitation of the President’s psychological weakness constitutes the disparagement of American values (Amki ikdar).

Flattery and Exploitation in Trump’s Foreign Relations

The dynamics of international relations, as described in the sources, are currently dominated by the manipulation of American leadership weaknesses and the strategic deployment of flattery to secure national interests and avoid scrutiny.

1. Exploitation of Presidential Psychology

The central dynamic in current international relations revolves around foreign leaders exploiting President Trump’s defining psychological traits: extreme fondness for praise (khushamad pasandi) and a deep-seated jealousy (hasad) of Barack Hussein Obama.

• Flattery as Diplomacy: World leaders recognize that the President is a self-obsessed individual (khud pasand shakhs) who is always hungry for praise (tariif ka bhukha). This makes flattery (chaplusi) the most effective diplomatic tool.
• Targeting the Nobel Prize: Specifically, international actors exploit Trump’s singular mission to secure the Nobel Peace Prize, a goal he pursues even if it compromises “American Democracy and American interests”.

2. Strategic Use of Flattery by Foreign Nations

Nations deploy formal praise, panegyrics (madasraai), and odes (qasida goi) to gain favor, secure concessions, or manipulate U.S. policy:

• Gaining Favor and Changing Attitudes: Pakistan and Israel are cited as “lucky countries” because they made the “wise decision” (danishmandaana faisla) to formally nominate President Trump for the Nobel Prize. This act “won his heart” (dil jeet liya), causing him to cease viewing those critical of these nations as “poison”.
• Advancing National Agendas: Other warring nations (mutaharib umaalik), including Azerbaijan and Armenia, began reciting odes, declaring Trump the worthy recipient of the Nobel Prize and the greatest contractor (thekedar) and standard-bearer (alambardar) of global peace and security to advance their own work.

3. The Dynamics of Immunity and Accountability

A concerning dynamic is the ability of leaders labeled as criminals to escape U.S. scrutiny by using flattery:

• Overlooking Atrocities: Leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin (described as a cruel person—saffaq shakhs) and Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu are explicitly named as understanding the President’s psychology (nafsiyat). Although both are described as “declared criminals” by international courts of justice and responsible for the murder of innocent people and children (such as Putin’s forces reportedly taking 20,000 Ukrainian children), the President “overlooks their atrocities” (mazalim) and “continues to speak in their favor” because they constantly engage in praise and ode-reciting.
• Manipulation by Putin: Putin actively used this dynamic during a press conference in Alaska, praising Trump’s “love for peace” (aman pasandi) and claiming that the Russian attack on Ukraine would not have occurred if Trump had been the American President in 2022. The sources suggest this was a “major lie” (itni badi chhodi gayi dar sutni).

4. Consequences of Failing to Flatter

The immediate imposition of penalties on leaders who fail to offer the expected praise demonstrates the strict conditional nature of these international relationships:

• Punishment for Withholding Credit: Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was considered Trump’s closest friend (sabse qareebi mitra) only as long as he supported Trump slogans. When Modi refused to credit Trump for the India-Pakistan ceasefire, he immediately became unwelcome (raanda dargah). Following this refusal, President Trump began imposing tariffs and restrictions on Modi, even though the source suggests these actions lacked factual justification.

5. Shifts in Diplomatic Protocol (The Zelensky Example)

The necessity of flattery has even restructured diplomatic interactions with allies:

• Learning the Hard Way: Ukrainian President Zelensky initially spoke the facts freely during a White House visit and was subsequently humiliated by the President and his sycophants (chamchon).
• Protocol Change: On his next visit, Zelensky demonstrated a changed dynamic: he first recited an ode to Trump’s peace-loving efforts before conducting business. He also brought seven key European leaders, who collectively engaged in “cautious praise” (madasraai) using a very careful style to ensure no sensitive or dissenting point offended the “American Emperor’s delicate disposition” (tabah nazak).

These dynamics raise fundamental questions about the future of “American values” (Amki ikdar), with the sources asking whether the exploitation of the President’s psychological weakness constitutes their disparagement.

इंसानों के नाम अफजार रिहान प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप की खुशामद पसंदी बाहर ऐसे लोगों से मिलने या देखने का इत्तेफाक हुआ है जो बजा मरजा मरंज चीनी हुलिए के साथ जुबा दस्तार में मलबूस होंगे लेकिन जब इनकी असलियत सामने आएगी तो दरिंदगी मुलाहजा करते हुए आप कानों को हाथ लगाएंगे ऐसे जैसे एराम में लिपटा हुआ शैतान हमारी मुल्की आलमी सियासत में भी इस नौ के नमूने हर दौर में मौजूद होते हैं बस पहचानने वाली निगाह होनी चाहिए जर्मन कौम ने क्या कभी सोचा होगा कि यह आवामी हिमायत में लच्छेदार तारीर करने वाला बजा सियासतदान नुमा अंदर से कितना भयानक डिक्टेटर या खूनखार है अमेरिकन डेमोक्रेसी बिलाशबा सदियों से इंसानियत के माथे का झूमर है जिसकी तारीख दुनिया में गुलामी के खिलाफ इंसानी हक और आजादियों के लिए जद्दोजहद की एक दास्तान है आज दुनिया भर में कमजोर अकवाम की सलामती और सावर्टी के लिए सबसे बड़ी ढारस है खामियां या कोताहियां कहां नहीं होती आइडियलिज्म तो एक तस्सवुर है जिसका ख्वाब हमेशा दिखाया जाता रहा और दिखाया जाता रहेगा इस सबके बावजूद अमेरिकन डेमोक्रेसी भी चल जुबान मौका प्रस्त और डिक्टेटर ज़हनियत लोगों के बहकावे में आ सकती है जो बजा ग्रेटर अमेरिका का नारा बुलंद करते हुए इसी अमकी जमहूरी सिस्टम की चूल्हे हिला कर रख दें यूं अमकी अजमत की ताबनाकी पर स्याही मलते हुए वाइट हाउस से रुखसत हो रियासत हाय मुत्तहदा अमेरिका के मौजूदा प्रेसिडेंट डोनाल्ड ट्रंप के दिमाग में इस वक्त एक ही धुन सवार है कि जैसे तैसे बाई हुक और बाई क्रुक अमन का नोबेल प्राइज अपने नाम करवा लूं उन्हें सबसे ज्यादा जलन या हसद सदर बराक हुसैन ओबामा से है अपनी दूसरी टर्म में वाइट हाउस दाखिल होते ही उन्होंने अपना यह मिशन अपना लिया कि चाहे अमेरिकन डेमोक्रेसी और अमेरिकन इंटरेस्ट जाए भाड़ में मुझे अपने सर पर सरखाब का यह पर सजाकर ही छोड़ना है पाकिस्तान और इसराइल दो ऐसे खुशकिस्मत मुालिक हैं जिनकी कयादतों ने बरव दानिशमंदाना फैसला करते हुए प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप की नोबेल प्राइज के लिए बाजाब्ता नामजदगी की यूं इस हीले से इनका दिल जीत लिया जिसके बाद उन्हें पाकिस्तान और इसराइल पर हमलावर होने वाले ज़हर लगने लगे यही वजह है कि इसके बाद अज़र भाईजान या आर्मीनिया की क्या हो या दीगर मुतहरब उमालिक सभी अपना काम निकालने के लिए प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप को नोबेल प्राइज का हकदार आलमी अमनो सलामती का सबसे बड़ा ठेकेदार और अलमबरदार करार देने के कसीदे पड़ना शुरू हो गए हैं हालत यह है कि रूसी सदर पुटन जैसे सफाक शख्स ने भी ट्रंप की इस कमजोरी को भांपते हुए अलास्का में अपनी प्रेस कॉन्फ्रेंस के दौरान ट्रंप की अमन पसंदींदी का राग अलापा और यहां तक कह दिया कि अगर 2022 में ट्रंप अमेरिकन प्रेसिडेंट होते तो यूक्रेन पर रशियन अटैक की नौबत ही नहीं आनी थी अब इंटरनेशनल इशू से इंटरेस्ट रखने वाला कोई भी शख्स इतनी बड़ी छोड़ी गई दर सुतनी पर सर पकड़ कर बैठ जाएगा बिलाशबा कोई भी खुद पसंद शख्स हमेशा अपनी तारीफ का भूखा खुशामद पसंद होता है तनकीद तो इसके लिए ऐसी ग्राह होती है जैसे किसी ने इसके सर पर पत्थर मार दिया हो यूक्रेन के प्रेसिडेंट जेलस्की जब पिछली मर्तबा वाइट हाउस पहुंचे तो उन्हें अमेरिकन प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप की इन अ आला हसूसियात या असलियत का एहसासो इतराक ना था जिनके कारण वह खुद को और उन्हें जमूरी सदूर समझते हुए आजाद रवी से कुछ हकायक बयान करने लगे फिर क्या था जो इनके साथ हुई और जो प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप के चमचों ने की वह कानों को हाथ लगाते होते हुए बड़े बेआबरू होकर तेरे कुचे से हम निकले की तस्वीर थी अब की बार वो सोच समझकर पूरी तैयारी के साथ वाशिंगटन आए सबसे पहले प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप की अमन पसंदी का कसीदा पढ़ा और मीडिया की जानिब मुंह करते हुए बताया कि प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप रशिया यूक्रेन जंग रुकवाने के लिए पुरजोर जद्दोजहद कर रहे हैं अपने साथ सेवन अहम तरीन यूरोपीय मुालिक के कायदीन को भी वाइट हाउस लेकर गए कि मुबादा कोई बात अमेरिकी शहंशाह मुअज्जम की तबाह नाजक को गरा गुजरे तो यूरोपी कयादत मिलकर मामले को संभाल ले इन सब ने भी बारी-बारी अमेरिकन प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप की मदासराई करते हुए बड़े ही मोहतात असलूब में अखलाफी पॉइंट्स उठाए जैसे कि ट्रंप रशियन प्रेसिडेंट व्लादमीर पुटन की वकालत करते हुए जब यह कह रहे थे कि हमें सबसे पहले अमन के एक मुतफिका प्लान पर अथवाक राय कर लेना चाहिए इसके बाद ही जंगबंदी का ऐलान हो सकेगा जिस पर जर्मन चांसलर ने पूरी तमीजो तहजीब के साथ डोन्ड ट्रंप की खिदमत में यह गुजारिश की कि जनाबे सदर ऐसा मुमकिन नहीं हो सकेगा पहले जंगबंदी हो दीगर तमाम मामलात इसके बाद ही तय किए जा सकते हैं खुद पसंद लीडरान की भी क्या उल्टी खोपड़ी होती है दूसरे की कदर अफजाई का इनके पास पैमाना यह होता है कि जो जितनी चापलूसी करे वो इतना अच्छा है जो तल्ख सच्चाई बयान करे वो बुरा है इंडियन प्राइम मिनिस्टर नरेंद्र मोदी जब तक अब की बार ट्रंप सरकार के नारे लगवाते रहे तब तक इनके सबसे करीबी मित्र थे जब उन्होंने पाक भारत फायरबंदी का क्रेडिट ट्रंप को देने से इंकार किया इसी दिन से वो ऐसे राइंदा दरगाह हुए कि प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप इनकी तजील का कोई मौका जाने नहीं दे रहे उल्टी टेरिफ की सूरत में इन पर ऐसी बंदिशें आयतद करते जा रहे हैं हकायक की कसौटी पर जिनका कतई कोई जवाज नहीं अगर वो प्यूटन से सस्ता ऑयल खरीद रहे हैं तो क्या खुद अमेरिका कई माियात और धाते अब तक इन्हीं से खरीदता नहीं पाया गया दीगर कई मुालिक की मिसालें भी मौजूद हैं जो यही कर रहे हैं लेकिन उनके साथ यह एटीट्यूड नहीं है दुनिया में किसे मालूम नहीं कि वलादमीर पटन और बेंजमिन नतिन याू कितने बेगुनाह इंसानों के कातिल हैं मासूम बच्चों के खून भी इन दोनों की गर्दनों पर हैं प्यूटन के फौज तो यूक्रेन के 20,000 बच्चों को उठाकर ले गई हैं जिनके वालदन और खानदान वाले बुलबुला रहे हैं खुद ट्रंप की बेगम मिलानिया इस सिलसिले में प्यूटन को दुख भरा खत भी लिख चुकी हैं प्यूटन और नेथन याहू दोनों लीडरान आलमी अदालते इंसाफ के डिक्लेयर्ड मुजरिम है मगर ये दोनों क्योंकि प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप की नफसियात को समझते हुए इनकी मदद सराई और कसीदा गोई से काम लेते हैं इसलिए प्रेसिडेंट ट्रंप को इनके मज़ालिम नजर नहीं आते वह इनके हक में बदस्तूर बोलते चले जा रहे हैं अभी अलास्का में प्यूटन ने जो कुछ किया इस पर बहुत सी बहस की जरूरत है क्या यह दर हकीकत अमकी इकदार की तजी नहीं है जिसके जिम्मेदार खुद प्रेसिडेंट ट्रम्प

انسانوں کے نام پر صدر ٹرمپ کے چاپلوسی کے دلدادہ اظفر ریحان کو باہر ایسے لوگوں سے ملنے یا دیکھنے کا موقع ملا ہے جو انتہائی چینی شکل کے ساتھ پگڑی میں ملبوس ہوں گے لیکن جب ان کی حقیقت سامنے آئے گی تو آپ ان کی بربریت پر غور کرتے ہوئے اپنے کانوں کو ہاتھ لگیں گے، جیسے ماسک میں لپٹا شیطان۔ اس قسم کی مثالیں ہماری قومی اور بین الاقوامی سیاست میں ہر دور میں موجود ہیں، بس ایک باریک بینی کی ضرورت ہے۔ کیا جرمن قوم نے کبھی سوچا ہوگا کہ عوامی حمایت کا مظاہرہ کرنے والا یہ شوخ سیاست دان اندر سے اتنا خوفناک آمر یا خون چوسنے والا ہے؟ امریکی جمہوریت بلاشبہ صدیوں سے انسانیت کے ماتھے پر وہ فانوس بنی ہوئی ہے جس کی تاریخ دنیا میں انسانی حقوق اور غلامی کے خلاف آزادی کی جدوجہد کی داستان ہے۔ آج، یہ دنیا کے کمزور طبقات کی حفاظت اور سلامتی کے لیے سب سے بڑا سکون ہے۔ خامیاں یا خامیاں کہاں ہیں؟ آئیڈیل ازم محض ایک تخیل ہے جس کا خواب ہمیشہ دکھایا گیا ہے اور دکھایا جاتا رہے گا۔ ان سب باتوں کے باوجود امریکی جمہوریت کو ایسے لوگوں سے بھی گمراہ کیا جا سکتا ہے جن کی چیٹر باکس اور آمرانہ ذہنیت ہے، جو گریٹر امریکہ کا نعرہ لگا کر اس امریکی جمہوری نظام کی بنیاد ہی ہلا دیتے ہیں۔ اس طرح امریکی وقار کی ساکھ کو داغدار کرتے ہوئے اسے وائٹ ہاؤس چھوڑ دینا چاہیے۔ اے امریکہ۔ امریکہ کے موجودہ صدر ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ کے ذہن میں اس وقت صرف ایک ہی چیز ہے: کسی نہ کسی طرح امن کا نوبل انعام حاصل کرنا وہ صدر باراک حسین اوباما سے سب سے زیادہ حسد یا حسد کرتے ہیں۔ اپنی دوسری مدت کے لیے وائٹ ہاؤس میں داخل ہوتے ہی انھوں نے یہ مشن اپنایا کہ چاہے امریکی جمہوریت اور امریکی مفادات جہنم میں کیوں نہ جائیں، میں یہ تاج سر پر رکھ کر نکلوں گا۔ پاکستان اور اسرائیل دو ایسے خوش نصیب ممالک ہیں جن کے رہنماؤں نے دانشمندانہ فیصلہ کرتے ہوئے صدر ٹرمپ کو نوبل انعام کے لیے نامزد کیا۔ اس طرح اس نے اس چال سے اس کا دل جیت لیا جس کے بعد وہ پاکستان اور اسرائیل پر حملہ کرنے والوں کو زہریلا سمجھنے لگا۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ آزر بھائی جان ہو یا آرمینیا یا دیگر معزز ممالک، سبھی نے صدر ٹرمپ کی تعریفیں شروع کر دی ہیں، انہیں نوبل انعام کا حقدار، عالمی امن و سلامتی کا سب سے بڑا ٹھیکیدار اور پرچم بردار قرار دے کر اپنا کام کرنے لگا ہے۔ صورتحال یہ ہے کہ روسی صدر پیوٹن جیسے صاف گو شخص نے بھی ٹرمپ کی اس کمزوری کو محسوس کرتے ہوئے الاسکا میں پریس کانفرنس کے دوران ٹرمپ کی امن پسند طبیعت کی تعریفیں گائیں اور یہاں تک کہہ دیا کہ اگر ٹرمپ 2022 میں امریکی صدر ہوتے تو یوکرین پر روسی حملہ نہ ہوتا۔ اب جو بھی بین الاقوامی مسائل میں دلچسپی رکھتا ہے وہ اتنے بڑے سوراخ میں سر پکڑ کر رہ جائے گا۔ بلاشبہ، کوئی بھی خود تعریف کرنے والا شخص ہمیشہ تعریف کا بھوکا رہتا ہے اور چاپلوسی کو پسند کرتا ہے۔ تنقید اس کے لیے ایسی ہی گھناؤنی ہے جیسے کسی نے اس کے سر پر پتھر مار دیا ہو۔ جب یوکرین کے صدر زیلٹسکی آخری بار وائٹ ہاؤس گئے تھے تو انہیں امریکی صدر ٹرمپ کے یہ اعلیٰ جذبات یا حقیقت کا ادراک قابل قبول نہیں تھا جس کی وجہ سے انہوں نے خود کو اور خود کو عوام سے دور سمجھتے ہوئے آزاد راوی کو کچھ حقائق پر مبنی بیانات دینا شروع کر دیے۔ پھر اس کے ساتھ کیا ہوا اور صدر ٹرمپ کے سفاکوں نے جو کیا وہ ہمارے کانوں کو ہاتھ لگاتے ہوئے ‘ہم نے آپ کے کونے کو بڑی بے عزتی میں چھوڑ دیا’ کی تصویر تھی۔ اس بار وہ بہت غور و فکر اور پوری تیاری کے بعد واشنگٹن آئے۔ سب سے پہلے انہوں نے صدر ٹرمپ کی امن پسند طبیعت کی تعریفیں کیں اور میڈیا سے خطاب کرتے ہوئے بتایا کہ صدر ٹرمپ روس یوکرین جنگ کو روکنے کے لیے بھرپور کوششیں کر رہے ہیں۔ وہ سات اہم یورپی ممالک کے رہنماؤں کو بھی اپنے ساتھ وائٹ ہاؤس لے گئے تاکہ اگر امریکی شہنشاہ معظم کی بے عزتی کو کچھ ہوتا ہے تو یورپی قیادت مل کر معاملہ سنبھالے۔ ان سب نے ایک ایک کر کے امریکی صدر ٹرمپ کو تنقید کا نشانہ بناتے ہوئے نہایت نازک انداز میں اخلاقی نکات اٹھائے، جیسے ٹرمپ روسی صدر ولادیمیر پیوٹن کی وکالت کرتے ہوئے کہہ رہے تھے کہ ہمیں پہلے امن کے لیے متفقہ لائحہ عمل پر اتفاق رائے پر پہنچنا چاہیے، اس کے بعد ہی جنگ بندی کا اعلان کیا جا سکتا ہے، جس پر جرمن چانسلر نے صدر ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ سے کہا کہ یہ تمام تر احترام کے ساتھ صدر ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ سے درخواست نہیں کی جائے گی۔ ممکن ہے پہلے جنگ بندی ہو، باقی تمام معاملات کا فیصلہ اس کے بعد ہی ہو سکتا ہے۔

کیا پاگل دماغ ہے لیڈروں کے! دوسروں کی تعریف کرنے کا ان کا معیار یہ ہے کہ جتنا زیادہ خوشامدی ہے، اتنا ہی اچھا اور سخت سچ کہنے والا برا ہے۔ بھارتی وزیر اعظم نریندر مودی ان کے قریبی دوست تھے جب تک کہ وہ ٹرمپ حکومت کی حمایت میں نعرے لگاتے رہے۔ انہوں نے پاکستان اور بھارت کے درمیان جنگ بندی کا کریڈٹ ٹرمپ کو دینے سے انکار کردیا۔ اس دن سے وہ اس قدر عزیز بن گئے کہ صدر ٹرمپ ان کی توہین کا کوئی موقع ہاتھ سے جانے نہیں دے رہے۔ ریورس ٹیرف کی صورت میں وہ ان پر ایسی پابندیاں عائد کر رہا ہے جو حقیقت کی کسوٹی پر بالکل ناقابلِ دفاع ہیں۔ اگر وہ پیوٹن سے سستا تیل خرید رہے ہیں تو کیا خود امریکہ اب تک ان سے بہت سے سامان اور سامان خریدتا ہوا نہیں پایا؟ بہت سے دوسرے ممالک کی مثالیں موجود ہیں جو ایسا کر رہے ہیں، لیکن ان کا یہ رویہ نہیں ہے۔ دنیا میں کون نہیں جانتا کہ ولادیمیر پوٹن اور بنجمن نیتن یاہو اتنے بے گناہوں کے قاتل ہیں۔ ان دونوں کی گردنوں پر معصوم بچوں کا خون بھی ہے۔ لیکن پیوٹن کی فوج یوکرین سے 20 ہزار بچوں کو لے گئی ہے جن کے والدین اور خاندان کے افراد مشکل میں ہیں۔ ٹرمپ کی اہلیہ میلانیا نے خود پوتن کو اس حوالے سے ایک افسوسناک خط لکھا ہے۔ پیوٹن اور نیتھن یاہو، دونوں رہنماؤں کو بین الاقوامی عدالت انصاف نے مجرم قرار دیا ہے۔ لیکن چونکہ یہ دونوں صدر ٹرمپ کی فطرت کو سمجھتے ہوئے ان کی تعریفیں گاتے ہوئے ان کی مدد کرتے ہیں، اس لیے صدر ٹرمپ کو ان کے مظالم نظر نہیں آتے اور ان کے حق میں بات کرتے رہتے ہیں۔ پوٹن نے الاسکا میں کیا کیا اس پر بہت بحث کی ضرورت ہے۔ کیا یہ حقیقت میں امریکی سالمیت کی توہین نہیں جس کے ذمہ دار خود صدر ٹرمپ ہیں؟

The YouTube transcript from the channel “” details a twenty-point Gaza peace roadmap proposed by an American president, after consultation with eight Islamic and Arab nations, as a necessary measure to stop ongoing bloodshed. The plan outlines provisions for a ceasefire, reconstruction, and establishing future political possibilities for a Palestinian state, though a two-state solution is not explicitly guaranteed, as seen in the Israeli Prime Minister’s subsequent statement. A major focus of the roadmap is the disarmament and removal of Hamas from any governing role in Gaza, offering members amnesty if they surrender their weapons and agree to peaceful coexistence. The text further questions the guarantees of Israeli compliance once their objectives are met and emphasizes that the root of the conflict lies in religious hatred, suggesting that only inter-religious dialogue can secure lasting peace.

Trump’s Twenty-Point Gaza Peace Roadmap

The Gaza peace plan discussed in the sources is a 20-point Gaza peace roadmap presented by U.S. President Donald Trump. This plan emerged following intense global pressure after 64,000 people were killed.

Development and Support

The roadmap was developed by President Trump’s team, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, in consultation with eight Islamic and Arab countries. Initially, 21 points were prepared, which were then consolidated into the 20-point plan presented to Israel.

The eight nations involved include:

1. Three non-Arab countries: Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan.
2. Five Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

The foreign ministers of these eight countries issued a joint declaration providing strong support for Trump’s Gaza ceasefire roadmap, calling it crucial or indispensable for peace and security in the region.

Core Objectives and Provisions

The fundamental objective of the Gaza peace roadmap is the cessation of the bloody war that has lasted for two years, claimed many innocent lives, and devastated Gaza, turning cities and towns into ruins.

Key points and specific details of the plan include:

• Non-Occupation and Security (Point 16): The plan explicitly clarifies (Point 16) that Israel will neither occupy Gaza nor annex any part of it. As Israeli security forces withdraw in phases, International Defense Forces will take phased control to establish stability.
• Disarmament and Governance (Point 13): Hamas or any other violent group will have no direct or indirect role in the governance of Gaza. The plan mandates the destruction of all major terrorist infrastructure, including tunnels and arms manufacturing factories. Gaza will be demilitarized, with weapons made unusable under the supervision of impartial observers.
• Hamas Amnesty (Point 6): Point 6 outlines that Hamas members who agree to peaceful coexistence and surrender their weapons will be granted general amnesty after the completion of hostage releases and prisoner exchanges. Those who wish to remain in Gaza will be allowed to do so, while those who want to leave will be provided safe passage and facilities to travel to countries willing to accept them.
• Sustaining Operations: Even if Hamas rejects the peace roadmap or uses delaying tactics, the International Defense and Stability Forces will continue peaceful aid operations in the territories handed over to them.
• Inter-Religion Dialogue (Point 18): Point 18 is considered the plan’s most positive provision, aiming to launch an inter-religion dialogue process. The goal is to fundamentally change the mindset of Israelis and Palestinians, eliminate mutual hatred, and highlight the benefits of peace. This religious hatred is identified as the root cause of all the bloodshed and conflict.

The Two-State Solution and Statehood

Point 19 addresses the issue of Palestinian statehood, included out of respect for the desires of the eight Islamic/Arab nations. This point states that the potential for establishing a Palestinian autonomous state will emerge when progress is made in the reconstruction of Gaza and the Palestinian Authority completes necessary reforms. The plan indicates that the U.S. will initiate negotiations between America, Israel, and the Palestinians to define a political horizon for peaceful coexistence.

However, the possibility of a two-state solution faces significant internal opposition within Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, during a joint press conference with President Trump, switched to speaking in Hebrew to assure his countrymen that accepting the Gaza peace plan “absolutely does not mean” that Israel is moving toward accepting a two-state solution in the region.

The source also suggests that due to the destruction of mutual trust following the events of October 7, 2023, a two-nation theory or a two-state solution may no longer be possible.

Concerns and Targets

The source highlights several key concerns and identifies the main target of the roadmap:

• Targeting Hamas: The primary target of the Gaza peace plan is identified as Hamas.
• Hamas Rejection: It is speculated that Hamas may reject the plan, viewing it as the death of its political strength or power. This rejection is also described as stemming from helplessness, as Hamas allegedly no longer receives adequate external support. Nevertheless, extremist groups within the Arab and non-Arab Muslim public might still offer some support.
• Israeli Commitment: There is skepticism regarding whether Israel, once its immediate goals (like securing the release of all hostages or “straightening its own interests”) are achieved, will fulfill other commitments and refrain from attacking neighboring Arab or Muslim countries, especially after American pressure subsides.
• Goal Ambiguity: Questions are raised as to whether the plan is merely “rhetoric” designed to crush the resistance movement like Hamas and safeguard Israeli interests. It is also questioned whether Israel seeks to achieve its targets—which it failed to achieve by killing 64,000 innocents—by now leveraging Muslim forces to fight the Muslim resistance movement.

Trump’s Gaza Peace Roadmap and the Two-State Solution

The sources discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily through the lens of the necessity, implementation, and objectives of the 20-point Gaza peace roadmap presented by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Characteristics and Severity of the Conflict

The conflict is characterized in the sources as a bloody war that has continued for two years. It has resulted in the deaths of 64,000 people and has had a devastating physical impact on Gaza, turning cities and towns into ruins. The infrastructure has been destroyed.

The fundamental cause of all the bloodshed and conflict is identified as religious hatred. The source emphasizes that unless there is a conscious effort toward improvement and purification regarding this religious animosity, any peace schemes developed will ultimately fail.

Destruction of Trust and the Two-State Solution

The sources suggest that the possibility of achieving a two-state solution has been severely compromised. Following the tragic events of October 7, 2023, it is believed that not only was there loss of life, but the mutual trust between the two communities was destroyed. Consequently, it is argued that neither a two-nation theory nor a two-state solution may be possible now.

Despite this skepticism, the Gaza peace roadmap does address the issue of statehood (Point 19) out of respect for the desires of the eight Islamic/Arab nations consulted. This point suggests that the potential for establishing a Palestinian autonomous state will emerge when:

1. Progress is made in the reconstruction of Gaza.
2. The Palestinian Authority completes necessary reforms.

The plan stipulates that the U.S. will initiate negotiations among America, Israel, and the Palestinians to define a political horizon for peaceful coexistence.

However, the idea of accepting a two-state solution faces intense internal pressure within Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explicitly assured his countrymen that accepting the Gaza peace plan “absolutely does not mean” that Israel is moving toward accepting a two-state solution in the region.

Efforts to Resolve the Conflict

The core objective of the Trump Gaza peace roadmap is the cessation of the bloody war. To address the underlying tensions and move toward stability, the roadmap includes several provisions:

• Addressing Religious Animosity: Point 18 is considered the plan’s most positive provision, aiming to launch an inter-religion dialogue process. This process is designed to fundamentally change the mindset of Israelis and Palestinians, eliminate mutual hatred, and highlight the benefits of peace both mentally and intellectually.
• Targeting Hamas and Demilitarization: The primary target of the Gaza peace plan is identified as Hamas. The plan mandates that Hamas or any other violent group have no direct or indirect role in the governance of Gaza. Furthermore, Gaza will be demilitarized, requiring the destruction of major terrorist infrastructure, including tunnels and arms manufacturing factories. Weapons will be made unusable under the supervision of impartial observers.
• Security Guarantees: The plan clarifies that Israel will neither occupy Gaza nor annex any part of it. Instead, as Israeli security forces withdraw in phases, International Defense Forces will take phased control to establish stability.

The sources also raise concerns about Israel’s potential future actions, questioning whether, once its immediate interests are secured, Israel will uphold its commitments when American pressure is removed. There is also speculation about whether the peace plan is primarily “rhetoric” designed to crush the resistance movement like Hamas and safeguard Israeli interests.

Two-State Solution: Opposition and Conditional Inclusion

The discussion of the Two-State Solution in the sources revolves around its current feasibility, the opposition it faces, and its conditional inclusion in the U.S. Gaza peace roadmap.

Opposition and Loss of Trust

The sources indicate that the Two-State Solution faces strong political opposition within Israel:

• Netanyahu’s Assurance: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explicitly assured his countrymen, speaking in Hebrew during a joint press conference, that accepting the Gaza peace plan “absolutely does not mean” that Israel is moving toward accepting a two-state solution in the region.
• Internal Pressure: This assurance points to the recognition of significant public pressure within Israel that does not want to even consider talks of a Two-State Solution.
• Feasibility Post-October 7: The sources argue that the tragic events of October 7, 2023, led to the destruction of mutual trust between the two communities. Consequently, it is suggested that neither a Two-Nation Theory nor a Two-State Solution may be possible now.

Inclusion in the Gaza Peace Roadmap

Despite the skepticism regarding its current viability and Israeli opposition, the question of whether the Trump Gaza ceasefire roadmap will assist in achieving the two-state solution is a key concern.

The roadmap addresses statehood via Point 19, which was included out of respect for the desires of the eight Islamic/Arab nations consulted during the plan’s development.

Point 19 outlines the conditions under which a form of Palestinian statehood could emerge:

• The potential for establishing a Palestinian autonomous state will be created when progress is made in the reconstruction of Gaza.
• The Palestinian Authority must complete necessary reforms.

Once these conditions are met, the plan states that the U.S. will initiate negotiations among America, Israel, and the Palestinians to define a political horizon for peaceful coexistence.

In essence, while the Gaza peace roadmap’s fundamental objective is the cessation of the bloody war, it conditionally introduces the concept of a Palestinian autonomous state linked to reconstruction and governance reform, even as key Israeli leaders oppose the formal acceptance of a Two-State Solution.

Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan Targeting Hamas

The role of Hamas is central to the Gaza peace plan, as the movement is identified as the primary target of the 20-point roadmap presented by President Donald Trump.

The plan seeks to eliminate Hamas’s role in governance, dismantle its military capabilities, and provides specific conditions for the future of its members.

Elimination of Political and Military Role

The peace roadmap explicitly aims to remove Hamas from any position of authority and to ensure the complete demilitarization of Gaza.

• Governance Exclusion: According to Point 13 of the plan, Hamas or any other violent group will have no direct or indirect role in the governance of Gaza.
• Infrastructure Destruction: The plan mandates the destruction of all major terrorist infrastructure, including tunnels and arms manufacturing factories.
• Demilitarization: Gaza must be demilitarized, with all weapons made unusable under the supervision of impartial observers.

Provisions for Hamas Members

The roadmap includes specific provisions (Point 6) regarding the treatment of Hamas members, contingent upon their cooperation:

• General Amnesty: Hamas members who agree to peaceful coexistence and surrender their weapons will be granted a general amnesty and a guarantee of life security. This provision becomes effective after the completion of hostage releases and prisoner exchanges.
• Options for Residence/Exit: Those members who wish to remain in Gaza will be allowed to do so. Those who wish to leave will be provided safe passage and facilities to travel to countries willing to accept them.

Predicted Reaction and External Support

The sources predict that Hamas will likely reject the peace roadmap:

• Rejection as “Death of Power”: It is speculated that Hamas may reject the plan, viewing it as the death of its politics or power.
• Helplessness: Hamas’s potential rejection is also described as stemming from helplessness, as it allegedly no longer receives adequate external support.
• Continued Support: Despite the lack of official external support, extremist groups or organizations within the general Arab and non-Arab Muslim public might still offer support to Hamas to some extent.

Concerns Regarding the Plan’s Intent

A significant question raised in the sources is whether the peace plan is merely “rhetoric” designed to crush the resistance movement like Hamas and safeguard Israeli interests. This skepticism suggests that the plan’s ultimate goal is the complete neutralization of Hamas.

Gaza Peace Roadmap: International Support and Resistance

The discussion of international support in the sources centers on the diplomatic backing and consultation process surrounding the 20-point Gaza peace roadmap proposed by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Support from Islamic and Arab Nations

The peace roadmap was developed under intense global pressure, which followed the reported deaths of 64,000 people. President Trump’s team, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, developed the plan in consultation with eight Islamic and Arab countries.

The foreign ministers of these eight nations subsequently provided strong support for Trump’s Gaza ceasefire roadmap.

The eight countries involved in the consultation and declaration of support include:

1. Three non-Arab countries: Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan.
2. Five Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

These foreign ministers issued a joint declaration supporting the ceasefire roadmap, labeling it as crucial or indispensable (ناگزیر یا قلیدی) for peace and security in the region.

The inclusion of Point 19 in the roadmap, which discusses the potential for establishing a Palestinian autonomous state, was done out of respect for the desires of these eight Islamic/Arab nations.

Security and Stability Forces

Beyond diplomatic support, the plan mandates the introduction of International Defense Forces to take phased control of Gaza as Israeli security forces withdraw in phases. These forces are intended to establish stability in the region.

Furthermore, if Hamas rejects the peace roadmap or uses delaying tactics, the International Defense and Stability Forces will continue to carry out peaceful aid operations in the territories handed over to them.

External Support for Resistance Groups

While the peace plan itself has significant international backing from the specified nations, the sources suggest that the resistance movement, Hamas, faces a decline in formal external assistance:

• The predicted rejection of the plan by Hamas is partly attributed to the fact that the movement allegedly no longer receives adequate external support (کما حوقہو کوئی بیرونی سپورٹ حاصل نہیں رہی).
• However, the sources note that extremist groups or organizations within the general Arab and non-Arab Muslim public might still offer support to Hamas to some extent.

انسانوں کے نام قرضہ جنگ بندی منصوبہ کامیاب یا ناکام 64 ہزار انسانوں کو مروانے کے بعد بالاخر عالمی دباؤ پر امریکی پریزیڈنٹ ڈونلڈ ٹرمپ نے اٹھ اسلامک عرب ممالک کی مشاورت سے اپنا 20 نکاتی غزہ امن روڈ میپ پیش کر دیا ہے۔ ان اٹھ ممالک میں تین غیر عرب ٹرکیا، انڈونیشیا اور پاکستان ہیں جبکہ سعودی عرب، ایجپٹ، جارڈن، قطر اور یونائٹڈ عرب امارات سمیت پانچ عرب ممالک شامل ہیں۔ جنہوں نے پریزیڈنٹ ٹرمپ کی ٹیم جس میں ان کے دمات جرڈ کشنر بھی شامل ہیں کے ساتھ مل کر غزہ روڈ میپ کے 21 پوائنٹ تیار کیے تھے جنہیں اسرائیل سے منوانے کے لیے 20 نکاتی منصوبہ بنا دیا گیا ہے یا قرار دیا گیا ہے ان اٹھ ممالک کے فارن منسٹرز نے اپنے مشترکہ اعلامیہ یا جوائنٹ ڈیکلریشن میں ٹرمپ کے غزہ حسیز فائر روڈ میپ کی بھرپور حمایت کرتے ہوئے اسے خطے میں امن و سلامتی کے لیے ناگزیر یا قلیدی قرار دیا ہے ٹرمپ کا یہ غزہ امن روڈ میپ ہے کیا کیا اس اس کے نتیجے میں غزہ کی خون ریزی واقعی بند ہو جائے گی۔ اس سے فلسطینی عوام کو کیا ملے گا؟ کیا یہ منصوبہ دو ریاستی حال میں معاونت کرے گا؟ کیا بشمول حماس عام عرب اور مسلم عوام اس کی مخالفت میں کہیں اپنی ہی ریاستوں یا حکومتوں کے خلاف کھڑے تو نہیں ہو جائیں گے؟ کیا یہ لفاظی حماس جیسی مزاحمتی تحریک کو کچلنے اور اسرائیلی خواہشات کو تحفظ دینے کے لیے تو نہیں ہیں۔ سوال یہ ہے کہ خود پسند اور منہ زور اسرائیل 64 ہزار بے گناہوں کو مارتے ہوئے اپنے ٹارگٹ سانوس اچیو نہیں کر سکا۔ کیا اب وہ مسلم فورسز کو مسلم تحریک مزامت سے لڑوا کر حاصل کرنا چاہتا ہے؟ جس طرح لوہے کو لوہا کاٹتا ہے کیا اسی طرح اب مسلم کو مسلم کاٹے گا؟ اس امر کی کیا گارنٹی ہے کہ اسرائیل اپنے تمام یرغمالی چھڑوانے یا اپنا الو سیدھا کروانے کے بعد فلسطینیوں کو ٹھینگا دکھاتے ہوئے دیگر معاملات سے منحرف نہیں ہو جائے گا۔ اسرائیلی پرائم منسٹر نے امریکی پریزیڈنٹ کے دباؤ پر واشنگٹن سے دوہا کال ملاتے ہوئے قطری پرائم منسٹر سے اپنے ناجائز حملے کی معافی مانگی ہے قطری سرزمین کی خلاف ورزی اور ایک سکیورٹی گارڈ کی ہلاکت پر ازار افسوس کرتے ہوئے مرنے والے کے خاندان کو معاوضہ دینے اور قطر پر دوبارہ حملہ نہ کرنے کا عہد کیا ہے لیکن اس امر کی کیا گارنٹی ہے کہ جب امریکی پریشر ہٹے گا اسرائیل اپنے اس عہد کی پاسداری کرتے ہوئے ائندہ کسی دوسرے عرب ہمسائے یا مسلم ملک پر حملہ اور نہیں ہوگا جیسے کہ پریزیڈنٹ ٹرمپ کے ساتھ مشترکہ پریس کانفرنس کرتے ہوئے بنجمن نتن یاہو نے ایک دم انگریزی روک کر عبرانی زبان میں اپنے ہم وطنوں کو یہ یقین دہانی کروانا ضروری سمجھا کے اس غزہ امن منصوبے کو قبول کرنے کا یہ مطلب قطعی نہیں ہے کہ ہم خطے میں دو ریاستی حل کو قبول کرنے جا رہے ہیں۔ اس سے اسرائیل کے اندر عوامی سطح پر موجود اس دباؤ کا ادراک کیا جا سکتا ہے جو ٹو سٹیٹس حل کی بات بھی نہیں سننا چاہتا اور یہ درویشس 7 اکتوبر 2023 سے فہم واضح کرتا چلا ا رہا ہے۔ کہ اس بدترین سانے کا افسوسناک پہلو یہ بھی ہے کہ اب دوبارہ کبھی کیمپ ڈیوڈ یا اسدو اکارڈ جیسا کوئی معاہدہ اسرائیلیوں اور فلسطینیوں کے درمیان نہ ہو پائے گا۔ کیونکہ سا اکتوبر کے روز محض 1200 بیگم اسرائیلیوں کا ہی خون نہیں ہوا بلکہ ہر دو فرقوں کے بیچ رہے صح اعتماد کا خون بھی اسی دن ہو گیا۔ نتیجتا اب یہاں ٹو نیشن تھیوری چلے گی نہ ٹو سٹیٹس حل ممکن ہو پائے گا۔ اگرچہ ٹرمپ امن روڈ میپ میں اٹھ اسلامک عرب ممالک کی خواہش کے احترام میں انیسواں پوائنٹ یہ واضح کرتا ہے کہ جب غزا کی تعمیر نوع میں پیشرفت ہوگی اور فلسطینی اتھارٹی اس حوالے سے اصلاحات مکمل کر لے گی تب فلسطینی خود مختار ریاست کو قائم کرنے کے امکانات پیدا ہو سکیں گے۔ امریکہ، اسرائیل اور فلسطینیوں کے درمیان مذاکرات شروع کروائے۔ گا تاکہ پرامن بقائے باہمی کے لیے ایک سیاسی افق طے کیا جا سکے۔ یہ امر بحال صورت واضح رہنا چاہیے کہ غزہ امن روڈ میپ کا بنیادی مقصد دو برسوں سے جاری اس خون ریز جنگ کا خاتمہ ہے جو اتنے بے گناہوں کی جانیں لے چکی ہے جس سے غزہ کا توڑا بورا بنایا جا چکا ہے۔ ہنستے بستے شہر اور قصبے کھنڈرات کے ڈھیر دکھتے ہیں۔ تباہ حال انفراسٹرکچر میں خامہ بستیوں کی باتیں ہو رہی تھیں بلکہ اس نوع کی تجاویز زیر بحث تھیں کہ اگر حماس والے اپنی بقا کے لیے اپنے عوام اور یرغمالیوں کو بطور ڈھال استعمال کر رہے ہیں تو کیوں نہ ان عوام ہی کو مختلف گروہوں اور ٹکڑیوں میں بانٹتے ہوئے دیگر مختلف ممالک اور خطوں میں بسانے کا اہتمام کر دیا جائے۔ نتیجتا اسرائیل غزہ ہی نہیں ویسٹ بینک کا الحق بھی اپنی ریاست کے ساتھ کر لے۔ اب کم از کم ٹرمپ کے اس امن منصوبے میں یہ صراحت واضح طور پر کر دی گئی ہے کہ بحوالہ پوائنٹ نمبر 16 اسرائیل نہ تو غزہ پر قبضہ کرے گا اور نہ ہی اس کے کسی حصے کو اپنے میں زملے گا۔ اسرائیلی سکیورٹی فورسز جیسے ہی مرحلہ وار غزہ سے انقلاع کریں گی۔ انٹرنیشنل ڈیفنس فورسز مرحلہ وار اس کا کنٹرول لیتے ہوئے یہاں استحکام قائم کریں گی۔ اگر حماس اس امن روڈ میپ کو مسترد کر دے گی یا تاخیری حربے اختیار کرے گی تب بھی انٹرنیشنل ڈیفنس اور سٹیبلٹی فورسز ان خطوں میں پرامن امدادی کاروائیاں جاری رکھیں گی جو ان کے حوالے کر دیے گئے ہوں گے۔ درویش یہاں یہ امر واضح کرنا چاہتا ہے کہ اس غرضہ امن منصوبے کا اصل نقصان نہ تو کسی عام فلسطینی کو ہے اور نہ اسرائیلیوں کو۔ اس کا اصل ٹارگٹ صرف اور صرف حماس ہے۔ جس کے ٹیرسٹوں کو اگرچہ عام معافی اور لائف سیکیورٹی کی ضمانت دی گئی ہے۔ شک نمبر چھ کے مطابق وقت یرمالیوں کی رہائی اور قیدیوں کے تبادلے کی کاروائی ہونے کے بعد حماس کے وہ ارکان جو پرامن بقائے باہمی پر راضی ہوں اور ہتھیار ڈال دیں انہیں عام معافی دی جائے گی جو غزہ میں رہنا چاہیں گے اور جو چھوڑنا چاہیں گے انہیں محفوظ راستہ دیا جائے گا اور قبول کرنے والے ممالک جانے کی سہولت دی جائے گی اس کے باوجود درویش کا گمان ہے کہ حماس چونکہ اس منصوبے کو اپنی سیاست یا طاقت کی موت سمجھ رہی ہے اس لیے وہ اسے مسترد کر سکتی ہے یا کر دے گی حالانکہ یہ اس کی بے بسی بھی ہے کہ اب اسے کما حوقہو کوئی بیرونی سپورٹ حاصل نہیں رہی البتہ عوامی سطح پر عرب اور غیر عرب مسلم عوام میں موجود شدت پسند گروہ یا تنظیمیں ایک حد تک اب بھی حماس کو سپورٹ کر سکتی ہیں یا کر رہی ہیں۔ شک نمبر 13 کے مطابق حماس یا کسی دوسرے تشدد گروہ کا غزا کی حکمرانی میں براہ راست یا بالواسطہ کوئی کردار نہیں ہوگا۔ دہشت گردی کے تمام وڈے ڈھانچے، بشمول سرنگیں اور ہتھیار بنانے کی فیکٹریاں تباہ کر دی جائیں گی۔ غیر جنمبدار مبثرین کی نگرانی میں اسلاح کو نکارہ بناتے ہوئے غذا کو غیر مسلح کیا جائے گا۔ درویش کی نظر میں اس روڈ میپ کی سب سے خوبصورت شک ایک 18 ہے جس کے مطابق ایک انٹر ریلیجن ڈائیلاگ کا عمل شروع کیا جائے گا تاکہ اسرائیلیوں اور فلسطینیوں کی ذہنی کایا پلٹ کرتے ہوئے باہمی منافرتوں کو ختم کیا جائے اور ذہنی و فکری طور پر امن کے فوائد اجاگر کیے جا سکیں۔ تمام تر خون ریزی و فساد کی جڑ یہی مذہبی منافرت ہے۔ جب تک اس حوالے سے شعوری بہتری و صفائی نہیں ہوتی اپ لاکھ سکیمیں بنا لیں سب فیل ہو۔