#Former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto

[xtruss]

What’s Next for Imran Khan’s Party?

With Pakistan’s popular opposition leader jailed ahead of election, his supporters must find a way forward.

— Foreign Policy | By Michael Kugelman | August 15, 2023

The Legend of Legends, One & Only: Imran Khan

Is Imran Khan Out for Good?

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was jailed for three years last Saturday after a conviction on charges related to selling state gifts. Khan and his supporters insist he is the victim of a witch hunt. The fall from grace for the cricket hero-turned-populist politician mirrors that of many other Pakistani leaders who quarreled with the country’s powerful military.

Some Khan supporters hoped he would somehow buck the trend, pointing to the support he retained in the military’s lower and middle ranks and to the Supreme Court’s decision to order his release after a brief detention in May. But this wasn’t Khan’s showdown to win: In Pakistan, the generals always prevail in civil-military tiffs, no matter how popular or resilient a leader may be.

It’s tempting to consign Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party to irrelevance. The party revolves around its imprisoned leader; most of its top leaders are also behind bars or—under pressure from the military—have quit PTI or left politics altogether. Thousands of party supporters have been arrested since May. Yet PTI still has a political pulse and, in a country known for political comebacks, Khan may not be done either.

PTI has public support, winning by-elections across Pakistan since Khan’s ouster in a no-confidence vote in April 2022, including one in the city of Peshawar the day after Khan’s arrest this week. It also benefits from anti-incumbency sentiment. The ruling coalition that took over from Khan angered the public by mishandling Pakistan’s economic crisis, nearly leading to a default. Recent polling shows most Pakistanis blame the government for economic stress.

On Wednesday, the government handed power to a caretaker administration that will prepare the country for national elections. The elections are scheduled for November, but they may be delayed for a few months due to adjustments following census results—a change that could be motivated by an unpopular government that is in no hurry to hold polls. The delay will anger PTI supporters, but it may also give the party’s leadership time to regroup.

Lawyers supporting former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan denounce his arrest outside the High Court in Lahore, Pakistan, on August 7, 2023 Arif Ali/AFP Via Getty Images

This isn’t to suggest PTI will sweep the elections—but if the party capitalizes on its base’s anger about Khan’s imprisonment and wider dissatisfaction with the government’s performance, it can still make electoral gains. Of course, that will be hard to do if the political establishment’s crackdowns against PTI continue and if steps are taken to rig the election against the party.

PTI could strengthen its electoral prospects if its remaining leadership patches up ties with the military, as Khan has been unable or unwilling to do. This is possible; while in power from 2018 to 2022, PTI worked closely and cordially with the armed forces until Khan’s own relationship with the generals soured. The party leadership faces a conundrum: how to bury the hatchet with the military without alienating its base.

As for Khan, he may be out of the picture for now, but is not necessarily gone for good. If his conviction is upheld, he will be ineligible to contest the next election. But because of a recently amended law that limits disqualifications to five years, he would only have to skip one vote. Khan won’t lapse into irrelevance in jail. Instead, his sentence could bolster the narrative that has helped fuel his popularity: that Pakistan’s corrupt political class has it in for him.

Five years is a long time in Pakistani politics. Circumstances could change, creating new opportunities for Khan. The country’s history is full of leaders who made comebacks after serving jail sentences—including Shehbaz Sharif, who just concluded his term as prime minister this week. Of course, this isn’t always the case. Former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, another charismatic populist, was executed after being imprisoned on charges of plotting to kill an opponent.

Still, in a country where many politicians seem to have nine lives, it would be premature to write Khan’s political obituary.

[morningmantra]

Pakistan: Bhutto's execution case of 1979.. Finally re-examination!

The re-examination of the 1979 death sentence against Pakistan's former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has resumed in the local Supreme Court.

The re-examination of the 1979 death sentence against Pakistan’s former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto has resumed in the local Supreme Court. Islamabad: The death sentence imposed on Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto is still controversial! There are allegations that all this happened in 1979 under the guidance of the then military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq. It is in…

[abirpothi]

Tomorrow We Inherit the Earth: Through Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s lens

COMO Museum of Art in Lahore, Pakistan is the country’s first ever private museum; it centres around the exhibition and promotion of contemporary and modern art. Their latest solo art exhibition by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto under the title ‘Tomorrow We Inherit the Earth: A Study in Textile’ has been showing from the 28th of February, 2023, and will continue till the month of June.

Born on 1st August 1990 in Damascus, Zulfikar is complex and delightful, funny and subversive, and through his art shatters many clichés about who we are and who we are permitted to be. He obtained his MAH in History of Art from the University of Edinburgh in 2014 as well as an MFA from the San Francisco Art Institute in 2016. As dynamic and versatile as he is, Zulfikar does not restrict himself to one artform; he employs performances, videos, printmaking, textile, embroidery, quilting and storytelling to bring life to his art.

He shares the same name as his grandfather Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, former Prime Minister and President of Pakistan. So, it comes as no surprise that he is intererested

‘Pull ups’, archival inkjet print and embroidery, 2016 Courtesy: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto website

in the politics of the world and inculcates this in his art; his work examines the intricate identity politics created through centuries of colonisation and made worse by the current global politics. He investigates the politics of queerness in his performances, as well as how it sits with Islam and the transitional relationship they share. Zulfikar performs drag under the moniker Faluda Islam and addresses sensitive topics of sexuality, religion, and identity.

Zufilkar is a selfless artist who through his initiatives tries to give a voice to the queer community and give them representation; he was one of three curatorial residencies for the year at SOMArts Cultural Center, where he co-curated the exhibition The Third Muslim: Queer and Trans Muslim Narratives of Resistance and Resilience in January and February 2018. During the month-long series of events, The Third Muslim brought together 16 gay and trans-Muslim artists, performers, and intellectuals.

As per his website, Zulfikar’s latest exhibition ‘Tomorrow We Inherit the Earth: A Study in Textile’ is “an investigation into histories of popular resistance, guerrilla warfare and anti-imperialism in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia that are then re-interpreted into an archive of an imagined revolution in a post-utopian and post-human world.”

‘Setting Sun’ by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Courtesy: projectartdivvy The series is created through a three-part process, utilising live performances, videos, and installations made of textiles. Drawing on Shiite Muslim martyrdom and saint worship customs, the tapestries were created “to honour real and imagined queer guerrilla fighters and the weapons they used.”

Zulfikar is unapologetic in his lifestyle and art; which makes his whole being as well as his work even more so genuine and beautiful. So, make sure to pay a visit to the COMO Museum of Art. Better yet, the exhibition is free to everyone so head on over to the museum for an immersive experience with Zulfikar’s work; it will definitely be worth your time.

For More Visit on: Art News

[themovieblogonline]

Mission Majnu (2023): The “Romeo” Spy

“Romeo” is out on a mission! This time not for his Juliet, but for the sake of his motherland; India! Bollywood brings you an epic fictional spy story that is supposed to have occurred during the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. Titled “Mission Majnu”, this fictional spy-thriller was released on Netflix on January 20, 2023, after facing multiple delays. Co-written by Parveez Shaikh, Aseem Arora, and Sumit Batheja; co-produced by Ronnie Screwvala, Amar Butala, and Garima Mehta; and directed by Shantanu Bagchi, the film stars Sidharth Malhotra in the lead role. Mission Majnu (2023) Official Teaser: Mission Majnu (2023) Synopsis: The story dates back to the early 1970s. India and Pakistan are at war. India’s intelligence agency RAW suspects that Pakistan is making a nuclear bomb. RAW plans to track down Pakistan’s nuclear facility and neutralize it. So, it sends its undercover officer Amandeep Singh (Sidharth Malhotra) to Pakistan to investigate the secret nuclear facility where the bomb is being made. In Pakistan, Amandeep Singh disguises themself as a tailor named Tariq Ali to give light to his secret mission. However, during his mission in Pakistan, he gets attracted to a blind woman named Nasreen (Rashmika Mandanna). They eventually marry. Now, Amandeep a.k.a Tariq will have to balance his undercover mission with his personal life. Will he be successful in this covert mission to Pakistan? Watch till the end to know! Mission Majnu (2023) Official Trailer: https://youtu.be/Gw77Nx4eBMc The Good: Great Lead Coupled With Outstanding Support Sidharth Malhotra has carried out his role of the daredevil spy Amandeep Singh a.k.a Tariq Ali quite competently. Bollywood reports reveal that Sidharth had to go through some intense action stunt training to step into the shoes of this fictitious Indian spy. Rashmika Mandanna as Tariq’s blind love-interest turned wife Nasreen, did well too. However, she had brief appearances in the movie, and her short sequences didn’t give her much space to showcase her talent better. https://youtu.be/Sb8sasFaRTM Kumud Mishra played the role of RAW's senior field agent Raman Singh who was disguised as a Pakistani named Maulvi, and was helping Amandeep carry out his secret mission. Sharib Hashmi played the character of Amandeep’s other ally in Pakistan named Aslam Usmaniya. I must say, these two actors carried out their supporting characters excellently. Zakir Hussain as Amandeep's in-charge, Sharma was hilarious. His character was always dismissive of Amandeep. The way he humiliated Amandeep with his comical dialogues was indeed funny as well as interesting to watch. Other actors included Parmeet Sethi as a RAW officer and Amandeep’s boss, R.N. Kao, Rajit Kapur as the former Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mir Sarwar as Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, Avantika Akerkar as the former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and Avijit Dutt as former Indian politician Morarji Desai. These actors had brief roles in the movie. Still, they lent excellent support. It was indeed a pleasure to watch famous personalities like Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto come alive with the makeup and performances of these actors. Although Indian spy Amandeep Singh a.k.a Tariq Ali is a fictitious character, personalities like Indira Gandhi, Morarji Desai, and Bhutto are world famous and really exist. Awesome Dialogues The dialogues in Mission Majnu have been written by Sumit Batheja. In some instances, the dialogues are great and add to the patriotic essence of the movie. The way Sidharth Malhotra has delivered them is appealing as well. Some of the dialogues are indeed worth applause! https://youtu.be/Dm70ALp_NpA Visually Convincing With Sharp Editing I would say, the only aspect which added a bit of thrill in Mission Majnu is the convincing cinematography by Bijitesh De. The filming was done in Lucknow city located in the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. The sets and backgrounds were made as per the “Pakistani atmosphere”. Being an Indian, I have never been to Pakistan because I am not allowed to. However, upon watching this film, I truly felt that the cinematic atmosphere was created to resemble that of Pakistan; the backgrounds, localities, dressing style of the actors, everything! The editors, Nitin Baid and Sidharth Pande, have kept the film’s duration, 2 hours and 10 minutes with their precise editing. This film does not fluctuate very often and has little space for confusion. Yes, there are some loose moments as apart from being a spy-thriller, this happens to be a love story too. However, the editors have done their best in placing all sequences systematically, thus making the story easy for the audiences to understand. Rabba Janda: A Pleasing Song The tracks in Mission Majnu have been choreographed by Tushar Kalia. The romantic track “Rabba Janda” is melodious. And why not! After all, it has been sung by Jubin Nautiyal who has achieved stardom in the musical world owing to his magical voice. However, there is another patriotic track “Maati Ko Maa Kehte Hain”, sung by the iconic singer Sonu Nigam, which not only lacks melody but lacks rhythm as well. I am highly disappointed that such an iconic singer like Sonu Nigam, who has been regarded as the “King of Melody” and was one of my favorites during the 1990s, has performed so horribly in this track. The background music in Mission Majnu is not so appealing as well. https://youtu.be/KfFbnOXWt4A The Bad: Not A New Story The story of Mission Majnu has been written by Parveez Shaikh and Aseem Arora. There’s nothing new to the story. Bollywood, in the past few decades, has come out with numerous spy-thrillers involving secret service agents on their mission to Pakistan. So, the predictability in the plot makes the story lose its sense of thrill. You will always know what the outcome will be. The Indian spy will complete his mission successfully, whether he lives or dies at the end. More On “The Missing Thrill” The thrill in Mission Majnu diminishes even further because of the manner in which Aseem Arora, Parveez Shaikh, and Sumit Batheja co-wrote its screenplay. A scene goes where Tariq Ali and Aslam Usmaniya stealthily sneak inside a nuclear facility in Pakistan and end up getting caught. The scene has been portrayed in a way that the audience does not experience the level of excitement or thrill that they should have. Also, as the screenplay unfolds, the viewers start feeling that nothing really is impossible for Amandeep a.k.a. Tariq. He seems invincible, ready to take on any obstacle and achieve anything he wishes for. This adds a sense of easiness to the screenplay which in fact makes it even less engrossing. Besides, if you ask me personally, then I would say that such a concept of an “invincible spy” is direly absurd. The action scenes in Mission Majnu, choreographed by Ravi Verma, could have been more exciting. When you watch an action-oriented spy-thriller that involves an Indian secret mission to Pakistan, you have a lot of expectations. One of the action scenes involved Sidharth Malhotra hanging from a train. This scene was intense and entertaining, but it resembled the action scene from the 1970s iconic blockbuster “Sholay” which starred Amitabh Bachchan and Dharmendra. So here, familiarity breeds contempt! The climax of Mission Majnu does add a bit of thrill, but that is just not enough for spy-thriller lovers like me! Apart from “thrill”, the story also lacks patriotism. After all, the fictitious spy Amandeep Singh a.k.a Tariq Ali is on a mission for India. Upon watching Mission Majnu, I found the patriotic essence lacking. You too will probably agree with me, if you watch this movie. I feel the main reason why the patriotic essence faded away is that here Amandeep Singh, in spite of being a spy in Pakistan, married and settled with a blind Pakistani woman. This was actually not expected on his behalf. The fictitious character of Amandeep Singh who disguised as Tariq Ali truly lacked moral sense. I agree with the fact that love knows no boundaries. But when you are a spy in a different country, you got to set your own boundaries! https://youtu.be/_otYHRxJ7JA The Verdict: Shantanu Bagchi has directed this film and his direction is just average. No doubt, he has extracted great performances from the actors. However, he has failed to establish the thrill as well as the feeling of patriotism towards the Indian Motherland in this anti-Pakistani spy-thriller. Indian Cinema has the habit of poking Pakistan every now and then. For decades, Bollywood has produced uncountable anti-Pakistani action-thrillers, spy-thrillers, and whatnot! Bollywood has mainly placed its focus on the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War with movies like Border (1997) and the Kargil War of 1999 with movies like LOC: Kargil (2003). Bollywood also showcases plane-hijacking movies involving Pakistani terrorists and also movies on terrorism events like the 26/11 attacks. However, these are true events and if Bollywood has showcased these events against Pakistan, that cannot be addressed as "Anti-Pakistani” because Pakistan is the nuisance creator here. However, when you make something like Mission Majnu, which is entirely fictional, then this is something that is uncalled for. This film is said to have been “inspired by true events”. However, no such nuclear spying incidents have ever been recorded to have occurred in history. If you ask me, being an Indian I am telling you, this act of deliberately poking another country, that too our arch-rival, is not cool at all! This may only lead to further agitation between the two countries. It is becoming a trend in Bollywood; make an anti-Pakistani movie, and tag it as being “inspired by true events”. I was not born during the early 1970s. Even if such a secret mission did take place at that time, it has been highly dramatized in this movie which makes it absolutely fictional. Also, if such a daring spy like Amandeep ever existed, then where is he now? If he is alive, why has he not been recognized by the Indian media? This is what I am saying from the viewpoint of a film critic. However, if you ask me from the viewpoint of an Indian, I would say that Bollywood has done the right thing by coming out with another taunting movie aimed at Pakistan. When Pakistan creates a nuisance by sending terrorists to our country, then it does deserve to be pinched a bit with movies like this. It is another thing that this movie will be banned in Pakistan. Who can tolerate his or her own degradation? Nobody can! To conclude, I am relieved that Mission Majnu has been released on Netflix. Had it been released in theaters, then it would have been very difficult for this film to keep its audiences engrossed throughout its runtime. Read the full article

[zvaigzdelasas]

The Koh-i-noor, Persian for Mountain of Light, is [not] the biggest diamond in the world[...], but it is arguably the most infamous. For many in India it has always represented the humiliation of colonisation.[...]

The ruling BJP party of Narendra Modi has let it be known that any plans for the Queen Consort to wear the Koh-i-noor at her coronation would bring back “painful memories of the colonial past”. For a country that is involved in top level trade negotiations with Britain at this very moment, this is a powerful statement, and one which the palace will now have to deal with. Does it refashion a new Queen Consort’s crown for Camilla, which would be costly at a time of financial hardship in the country? Can it swap out the diamond for another gem in the collection? [...]

The diamond’s past is something of a blood streak through history. Over the centuries, it has passed through Moghul, Persian and Afghan hands, with gore in every chapter of the story.[...]

In this rather blood-drenched relay race, Britain picks up the baton in 1849. At that time the Koh-i-noor belonged to Maharajah Duleep Singh, a 10-year-old boy-king who reigned over the north of India from his capital in Lahore. The East India Company forcibly separated him from his mother, imprisoned her, and then made him sign a treaty he was ill-equipped to understand, supposedly for his own protection. Duleep’s childish signature on vellum lost him the Koh-I-noor and his kingdom. He would eventually die, broken and broke, on the floor of a Parisian hotel at the age of 55. His story, for many, is an allegory of colonisation. In England, the diamond was somewhat disastrously recut, losing almost half its heft, and though Queen Victoria wore it, no other reigning monarch has[...]

In 1947 the government of a newly independent India asked for the diamond’s return. In 1976, as Britain sweltered in a heatwave, Benazir Bhutto’s father, the then prime minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, asked for the diamond’s return, reasoning that it was part of Lahore’s heritage. In a blistering letter he said its return would “be symbolic of a new international equity strikingly different from the grasping, usurping temper of a former age”. Such requests, and others like it, have been assiduously sidestepped, with the reply that its history is so complicated, Britain would not know to which country it belonged.

14 Oct 22

[mariacallous]

Pakistani politics have always revolved around the country’s military. Civilian politicians compete for support while criticizing—or seeking covert help from—a ubiquitous security establishment. Since his ouster as prime minister last April, cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan has become the latest to challenge this system. But Khan’s polarizing rhetoric is only adding to Pakistan’s chaos—not marking the advent of a revolution.

The government elected after Khan’s removal via a no-confidence vote initially tolerated the former prime minister’s attacks on generals, judges, and political rivals in addition to his conspiracy theories about his ouster being the result of a U.S.-backed plot. Unlike previous civilian leaders who fell afoul of the military, Khan was not immediately arrested, charged with corruption, or disqualified from future elections by judicial fiat. But now, Khan and his close aides are beginning to face the wrath of the state apparatus. Both the security establishment and the civilian government seem to have realized that Khan’s populist influence will not diminish without prosecuting him and his associates.

On Oct. 12, Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency charged Khan with violating laws barring foreign funding for political parties. Since Khan first ran for public office in 1997, he has raised funds for his Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party from foreigners and overseas Pakistanis, many of whom had donated to charities he started after retiring from cricket in 1992. Although some of this fundraising has likely always violated Pakistani law, prosecutors long held off disciplining Khan or his party because they enjoyed the establishment’s blessings.

Khan’s support base comprises middle-class urban Pakistanis disenchanted with the country’s two traditional political parties, the center-right Pakistan Muslim League (PML)—dominated since the 1980s by the family of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif—and the center-left Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), led by members of the family of late Prime Ministers Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto.

Prime ministers from both the PML and PPP have been ousted from office multiple times by the Pakistani military, which routinely influences Pakistan’s superior judiciary. Supreme Court judges then often provide legal cover for otherwise undemocratic and unconstitutional actions initiated by generals. The Supreme Court endorsed Pakistan’s four military coups in 1958, 1969, 1977, and 1999, as well as accepted the generals’ right to suspend the constitution under its so-called doctrine of necessity. On other occasions, the military orchestrated palace coups in 1990, 1993, and 1996, resulting in dismissal of elected prime ministers by the president and with the support of the Supreme Court. In 2012 and 2017, prime ministers were removed from office at the behest of the military through direct intervention by the Supreme Court. Together, the Pakistani military and judiciary have never allowed a PML or PPP prime minister to stay in office for the full five-year term of parliament.

Khan presented himself as the military-backed alternative to the PML and PPP’s perceived corrupt, dynastic politics. His populist rhetoric appealed to young middle-class Pakistanis as well as those who had been more comfortable during the country’s past periods of military rule than under its civilian democrats.

Khan at first failed to get traction as a politician, losing all seats his party contested in the 1997 parliamentary elections. He managed to enter parliament in 2002 in elections organized by the military regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Only in 2013 did Khan’s party win a significant number of seats in parliament for the first time. In 2018, he finally translated his celebrity status into high political office with direct help from Pakistan’s intelligence services and the military. In that year’s elections, the PTI emerged as the single-largest party in the lower house of parliament, but it could not form a government without the support of smaller parties. The military overcame this last hurdle by advising three such groups to form a coalition with the PTI.

Khan’s ascent to the office of prime minister became possible because of a controversial Supreme Court ruling that disqualified Nawaz Sharif without trial as well as a spate of corruption cases hobbling most of Khan’s other opponents in the PML and PPP. To get to this point, the military had ensured favorable media coverage for Khan and his party, helped prosecute his opponents, and directed locally influential candidates to join the PTI. Opponents and foreign observers also alleged selective rigging on election day.

Those corruption cases against PML and PPP leaders failed to make much headway in trial courts and are currently being thrown out for lack of evidence. But Khan continued to rail against his opponents, telling his supporters that Pakistan was destined for greatness under his leadership. Like most populist leaders, however, he had no answers for Pakistan’s problems and governed poorly. Khan often addressed the nation on television and rallied his supporters with a mix of Islamist and nationalist grandiloquence. The military gradually lost faith in the former prime minister as Pakistan’s economy took a nosedive and its foreign relations suffered.

The value of the Pakistani rupee eroded after Khan reinstated fuel subsidies that had been eliminated as part of the country’s commitments under an International Monetary Fund program. Khan had managed to antagonize the leaders of China, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates so much so that these traditionally friendly countries would not help Pakistan service its $126 billion in foreign debt. His open support for the Taliban and criticism of U.S. leaders and policy, meanwhile, left Pakistan with little support in the United States.

Ever the narcissist, Khan ran a one-man show­—shuffling his cabinet often and skipping sessions of parliament. He also displayed little respect for lawmakers or the generals who helped bring him to office. Meanwhile, Khan’s opponents peeled off support from his coalition and—once the military withdrew its backing by publicly declaring itself politically neutral—ousted him in the April no-confidence vote. Khan’s effort to nullify the vote by claiming that it was U.S.-backed regime change did not survive legal challenges.

Out of office, Khan has turned on his former benefactor, the military high command, claiming that Pakistan’s army chief ousted him to bring “traitors” back to power at the behest of the United States. Khan feels no need to offer evidence of his conspiracy-mongering because his followers have become a personality cult, willing to follow him to the gates of hell. But despite Khan’s vaunted popular support and vast social media presence, his promises to mobilize a revolution will most likely remain unfulfilled.

Pakistan has had popular leaders who challenged the military’s dominance on politics and policy before. They did not succeed in weakening this stranglehold—and Khan’s chances are no better. In railing against the military leadership, Khan is simply doing what Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif did before him. All three of them rose to power with the help of the military and then turned around to confront it.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif attracted huge crowds at rallies, yet their parties survived only through compromises with the Pakistan Army. However, unlike them, Khan’s opposition to the military’s role in Pakistani politics is not rooted in conviction. Bhutto and Sharif, as well as their supporters, firmly believed in democracy and civilian supremacy over the military rooted in Pakistan’s constitution; their collaboration with the military was strategic and did not reflect ideology. Khan and his supporters, by contrast, hope that the Islamist, anti-American elements of the military will intervene to help Khan return to power.

That is unlikely to happen. Pakistan’s military is not prone to factional divisions and remains unified despite Khan’s provocations. The former prime minister’s cult followers might believe he is the only patriotic and honest political leader in Pakistan, but the military seems to have moved on.

Unlike Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, or many other Pakistani politicians, Khan has never faced adversity in his career—so far. He has never faced criminal cases or gone to prison. Nor has he been banned from holding public office, appearing on television, or traveling—restrictions that others daring to take on Pakistan’s establishment have faced in the past. Khan may have a political future if he gets through the hardships that await him. He remains popular with his base and was recently able to win back most—though not all—of the parliamentary seats in recent by-elections on seats vacated by the PTI.

As Khan and others nurtured by Pakistan’s military establishment turn against it, some might be tempted to write the obituary of military dominance in the country’s politics. As someone who has advocated and fought for the supremacy of civilian rule and constitutional democracy in Pakistan for decades, I am not sure Khan’s agitation will truly change how Pakistan functions. The country is likely to witness some more chaos—rallies and media noise by Khan’s supporters, political disputes playing out in court, the specter of debt defaults, continuing inflation and erosion of the value of the Pakistani rupee, threats of violence by the Pakistani Taliban, and extreme political polarization—before the military steps in again, most likely indirectly, to restore order.

[rainbowandstardust]

Death, a reappearing event in the Gandhi family

The Nehru-Gandhi family governed India for almost 50 years out of the total 74 years since our independence. As we approach our 75th Independence day, we should learn about the period of deaths the history of our politics saw in the early years. All of this started with the assassination of the father of India-"Mahatma Gandhi" who was not in politics but his death was the beginning of a series of deaths. First, let's rewind a little bit.

While there are various theories revolving around how the Gandhi name was acquired. The first story that I was told as a kid which has now been proven to be wrong by the internet goes as follows, Feroze Jehangir Ghandy was a Muslim and Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India did not approve of an inter-religion marriage of his daughter Indira Gandhi, the first and only woman prime minister of India. Mahatma Gandhi decided to adopt Feroze and then convince Jawaharlal Nehru to marry him with Indira. His name changed to Feroze Gandhi and Indira Nehru became Indira Gandhi. Thus, started the legacy of The Gandhi Family.

On further research from different articles on google, a different story was discovered. Feroze Ghandy was a Parsi and a politician along with being an activist who was inspired by the works of Mahatma Gandhi and hence changed the spelling of his surname. He married Indira Nehru who then became Indira Gandhi.

The first death the Gandhi family saw was Mahatma Gandhi's assassination which occurred on 30th January 1948 when Nathuram Godse shot 3 bullets for what he thought would lead him to be celebrated across the whole nation. Instead, he was hanged.

Indira Gandhi one the day of her death. She was wearing a beautiful saffron saree.

Then followed Indira Gandhi. While some people celebrate Indira Gandhi's era some believe it to be the darkest period of Indian democracy. She was shot 33 bullets on 31 October 1984 by her two Sikh bodyguards Satwant Singh and Beant Singh. Operation Blue Star was ordered by Indira Gandhi and was carried between 1 June to 8 June 1984. It was to remove leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his followers from the buildings of the Harmandir Sahib complex in Amritsar, Punjab. This operation led to many casualties from both sides and the reason many people turned against Indira Gandhi-The Iron Woman of India. Allegedly Indira Gandhi had predicted her own death a day before in her speech given at Bhubaneswar. She said, "I am here today, I may not be here tomorrow. Nobody knows how many attempts have been made to shoot me I do not care whether I live or die. I have lived a long life and I am proud that I spend the whole of my life in the service of my people." The Sikh bodyguards were to be removed after the blue star operation but Indira believed this would create her image as anti-Sikh, a life-threatening mistake she did. Following her death, riots broke out across the whole country.

Rajiv Gandhi was in Contai, 150 km away from Calcutta when Indira Gandhi was shot. He was asked to be the next prime minister following his mother's demise.

Rajiv Gandhi on the day of his death.

This was not the end of the circle of death looming over the Gandhi family. The successive prime minister Rajiv Gandhi took the office in 1984. He was the youngest prime minister of India at the age of 40 and governed from 1984-1989. Like Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi also anticipated his own death a few moments before the bombing. Neena Gopal asked Rajiv whether he felt his life was at risk, to which Rajiv Gandhi said, "Have you noticed how every time any South Asian leader of any import rises to a position of power or is about to achieve something for himself or his country, he is cut down, attacked, killed look at Mrs. Indira Gandhi, Sheikh Mujib, look at Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, at Zia-ul-Haq, Bandaranaike."

Gopal says within minutes of making the statement that hinted he was aware that he was a likely target of dark forces at play, Rajiv himself would be gone (Statement from India today). Following the Civil war in Sri Lanka, Rajiv Gandhi sent the military to end the uprising. Many soldiers lost their lives and LTTE could not be stopped. India then stopped its involvement in the Sri Lankan civil war, but LTTE became the enemy of Rajiv Gandhi.

He was campaigning in Madras on 21 May 1991. When he was on his way to deliver his speech, Thenmozhi Rajaratnam bent down to touch his feet and took out RDX explosive-laden belt from underneath her dress. Rajiv Gandhi, his assassin, along with 14 others died in the suicide bombing orchestrated by LTTE.

The LTTE leveraged genuine issues of linguistic discrimination, political disenfranchisement, and anti-Tamil riots in the island nation where Sinhalese-Buddhists are a majority — but adopted the politics of violence and terror as the method to attain their objective. And it was this terror that cost India’s former PM his life. (Hindustan Times)

LTTE then lost its support from Tamil. “Rajiv Gandhi was expected to come to power in the 1991 general elections. The results showed that in his death, he was stronger than in his life,” says Thiyagu.

Sanjay Gandhi in his plane

This was not all. Prior to these assassinations occurred the death of Sanjay Gandhi, the youngest son of Indira Gandhi. During the emergency period in India, Sanjay Gandhi is believed to have a really strong hold on what was happening around the country. He had a liking for adventures and did acrobats in planes. One day prior to his death he was travelling in the same plane with Maneka Gandhi who then came home and informed Indira about the plane ride, telling her to stop Sanjay from flying in that plane again. Indira talked to Sanjay about the safety of the plane. To which he replied that it would be fixed in 2-3 days. The very next day i.e 23 June 1980 Sanjay died in a plane crash. One more person who was flying the plane along with him died. He was supposed to be his mother's successor in politics.

There are many conspiracy theories regarding some of which state that Indira had her son killed. I don't think a mother and one like Indira Gandhi can do such a thing. After his death she said. "It feels like my right arm has been taken away." No one can understand the love of a mother. Moreover, there are no strong arguments backing up this conspiracy theory. One must keep in mind that Sanjay had a liking for adventures and he had been doing such acrobats in the planes for a long time. But, he was still not so experienced. It is most likely that it was an accidental death.

Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi

Flashforward to 2021 when Sonia Gandhi is the leader of the Indian National Congress, Rahul Gandhi is often portrayed as a person who is dumb in front of the public. One cannot neglect the fact that he and his sister, Priyanka Gandhi, and his brother, Varun Gandhi had a very traumatic childhood. At the mere age of 10, Rahul Gandhi saw his uncle's death followed by his grandmother who was killed by people he thought were his friends. In one of his interviews, he said he thought they were his friends. They once taught him to play badminton and out of anger, they killed his grandmother. Following Indira's death, Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi were homeschooled for security reasons. This led to their seclusion from society. After this when he was studying at Harvard he heard the news of his father's death. He shifted to Rollins College in Florida again for security reasons. The amount of trauma this family faced is a lot. Their childhood had been full of deaths and social seclusion. No one can even imagine the trauma surrounding the Gandhi family. Sonia had pleaded with Rahul not to take up politics, "I begged him not to let them do this. I pleaded with him, with others around him, too. He would be killed as well. He held my hands, hugged me, tried to soothe my desperation. He had no choice, he said, he would be killed anyway." What has politics ever given Rahul? It has taken away everything from him.

-Vrinda Kwatra

[worldhistoryfacts]

Nusrat Bhutto cries out after her husband, former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was executed in 1979. Bhutto was overthrown in a military coup by General Zia ul-Haq in 1977 after Bhutto’s party won an election by margins that were much higher than seemed realistic given the pre-election polling. Zia then accused Bhutto of complicity in a political murder. Despite evidence that seemed to exonerate him, Bhutto was found guilty and, after his appeals were denied, executed.

{WHF} {HTE} {Medium}

[dark-and-twisty-01]

Aircraft Crashes: accidents or murder?

The past nine decades, various fatal air crashes have spawned conspiracy theories that linger as haunting historical mysteries. Five cases produced official verdicts of criminal activity, but no suspects were ever indicted. The remainder are listed as accidents, but nagging doubts remain. These cases include:

July 4, 1923 Actor-pilot Beverly “B.H” DeLay and passenger R.I short (president of the Essandee Corporation) died while performing aerial acrobatics at Venice Beach, California. Time Magazine reported that half-inch bolts in the wings of DeLay’s aircraft had been switched with smaller bolts, causing the wings to collapse during flight. Gunshots of unknown origin had also been fired at DeLay days earlier, during a performance in Santa Monica. Journalists linked the crash to bitter litigation between DeLay and C.E Frey, a rival who claimed ownership of an airstrip purchased by DeLay in 1919. Several Frey employees were jailed for sabotaging that airfield, but no one was indicted for DeLay’s murder.

October 10, 1933 A United Airlines Boeing 247 aircraft travelling from Cleveland to Chicago crashed near Chesterton, Indiana, killing all seven persons aboard. Witnesses reported hearing a mid-air explosion at 9:15pm and watching the plane plummet into flames from 1,000 feet. Investigators from North-western University and Chicago FBI office concluded that a bomb had detonated in the plane’s baggage compartment, but no suspects were ever identified.

March 29, 1959 Barthelemy Boganda, first prime minister of the Central African Republic (C.A.R) and presumed to win election as president when France released control of his nation in 1960, died with all others aboard when his plane crashed 99 miles west of Bangui. No cause of the crash was officially determined, but suspicion of sabotage persists. On May 7, 1959, the Paris weekly L’Express reported discovery of explosive residue in the plane’s wreckage whereupon the French high commissioner banned sale of that issue in the C.A.R. In 1997 author Brian Titley suggested that Boganda’s wife, Michelle Jourdan, may have killed hi to avert divorce and collect a large insurance policy.

November 16, 1959 National Airlines Flight 967 vanished over the Gulf of Mexico with 42 persons aboard while en route from Tampa, Florida, to New Orleans. The final radar contact with Flight 967 was recorded at 12:46 am. Searchers found scattered wreckage with corpses near that point, but most of the aircraft was never recovered. Suspicion focused on passenger William Taylor, who boarded the plane with a ticket issued to ex-convict Robert Vernon Spears. Authorities surmised that Spears had tricked Taylor, a friend from prison, into boarding the plane with a bomb, thus permitting Spears to collect on a life insurance policy purchased in his name. Police later arrested Spears in Phoenix, driving a car registered to Taylor, but he subsequently vanished and was never charged with any crime pertaining to the crash.

September 18, 1961 Dag Hammarskjold, second secretary-general of the United Nations, died with 15 others when his plane crashed near Ndola, Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), during a diplomatic tour of the strife-torn Congo. Security was tight during the tour, including use of a decoy aircraft, and Hammarskjold’s pilot filed no flight plans on the trip. Officially, the crash resulted from a pilot’s error in approaching Ndola’s airfield at the wrong altitude after nightfall. Many observers suspected a bomb or rocket attack. In August 1998, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, chairman of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, announced that recently uncovered letters implicated South African intelligence officers, Britain’s MI5, and the American CIA in Hammarskjold’s death. One letter claimed that a bomb in the plane’s wheel bay was set to explode on landing. In July 2005, Norwegian major general Bjorn Egge told the newspaper Aftenposten that an apparent bullet hole in Hammarskjold’s forehead was air brushed out of photos later published showing his corpse.

October 16, 1972 House majority leader Thomas Hale Boggs, Sr., was campaigning for Representative Nick Begich when their airplane vanished during a flight from Anchorage to Juneau, Alaska. Also aboard were pilot Don Jonz and Begich aide Russell Brown. The plane was never found. Begich won November’s election with a 56-percent margin, but his presumed death left GOP rival Don Young running unopposed in a special election to fill Begich’s vacant seat in Congress. Some conspiracy theorists link the disappearance to Bogg’s outspoken criticism of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (who died in May 1972), but Begich’s children blamed President Richard Nixon, claiming that the crash was staged in a vain attempt to thwart congressional investigation of the unfolding Watergate scandal.

August 1, 1981 Brigadier General Omar Torrijos Herrera, “Supreme Chief of Government” for Panama since 1968, died with several others when his plane exploded in mid air during a storm. Slipshod radio coverage delayed the report of his plane’s disappearance for nearly a day, and several more days elapsed before soldiers found the wreckage. Florencio Flores succeeded Torrijos as commander of Panama’s National Guard and de facto ruler of the country.

October 19, 1986 Samora Moises Machel, president of Mozambique and leading critic of South Africa’s racist apartheid system, died with all board when his plane crashed near Mbuzini, in South Africa’s Lebombo Mountains. At the time, Machel was returning home from an international conference in Zambia. The Margo Commission, an investigate panel including representatives from several nations, blamed the crash on pilot error, a verdict flatly rejected by the governments of Mozambique and the Soviet Union Russian members of the commission filed a minority report claiming that Machel’s plane was lured off-course by a decoy radio beacon, set up by South African intelligence officers. Machel’s widow, Graca, remains convinced that was murdered. In 1998 she married then-South African president Nelson Mandela.

 August 17, 1989 General Muhammad Ziaul-Haq, ruler of Pakistan since he overthrew predecessor Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977, died with several other generals and U.S. ambassador Arnold Raphel when their plane crashed shortly after take off from Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Witnesses reported a smooth lift off, followed by erratic flying and a steep nosedive. FBI agents called the crash accidental, but persistent conspiracy theories blame a wide range of suspects, including the CIA, Russia’s KGB, Israel’s Mossad, India’s RAW Intelligence agency, Afghan communists, ad Shi’ite Muslim separatists.

April 6, 1994 Unknown snipers shot down a government aircraft at Rwanda’s Kigali airport, killing Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana, President Cyprien Ntaryamira of Burundi, and all others aboard. The resultant political chaos led to full-scale genocide in Rwanda, where ruling Hutu tribesmen slaughtered rival Tutsis, and sparked civil war in Burundi.

July 19, 1994 Alas Chiricanas Flight 901 exploded while en route from Colon, Panama, to Panama City, killing all 21 persons aboard. Authorities found evidence of a bomb, blaming the crime on terrorists. Suspicion focused on Jamal Lya, the only passenger who corpse remained unclaimed after the bombing. Soon afterward, an unknown spokesperson for a group calling itself Ansar Allah (“Followers of God”) claimed credit for the attack, but investigators could find no other trace of the organization.

July 17, 1996 Trans World Airlines flight 800 left New York’s JFK Airport, bound for Paris, at 10:19pm Twelve minutes later it exploded in mid-air, killing all 230 persons aboard and littering the ocean with wreckage offshore from East Moriches, New York. Despite initial speculation of a terrorist attack, the National Transportation Safety Board issued a final report in August 2000, blaming the explosion on a presumed electrical short circuit that ignited fumes in the aircraft’s centre wing fuel tank. Meanwhile, multiple eyewitnesses on land reported seeing “a streak of light” rising from sea level toward the airliner before it exploded. Initial examination of the wreckage revealed apparent residue from three different explosive compounds, PETN, RDX, and nitro-glycerine but authorities claimed to find no evidence of impact from a rocket or missile. Some conspiracy theorists maintain that Flight 800 was shot down by terrorists, while others suggest a disastrous mistake during an offshore U.S. Navy training exercise involving surface-to-air missiles. The case is officially closed.

October 25, 2002 Minnesota senator Paul Wellstone died with seven others, including his wife and three children, when his aircraft crashed near Eveleth, Minnesota. Wellstone was near the end of his campaign for a third Senate term, his death coming 11 days before the scheduled balloting. Initial reports blamed icing of the aircraft's wing, but that suggestion was later rejected. Federal investigators finally named pilot error as the “likely” cause of the crash, claiming that deceased First Officer Michael Guess was “below average” in proficiency. In fact, Guess had been fired from two previous flying jobs for incompetence. Jim Fetzer, a philosophy professor at the University of Minnesota Duluth, published a book in 2004, blaming Wellstone’s death on unnamed members of President George W. Bush’s administration.

 July 30, 2005 Dr. John Garang De Mabior, vice president of Sudan and former head of the rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Army, died when his helicopter crashed in southern Sudan. Circumstances of the crash remain unclear, and Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni blamed “external factors” for the incident. Foreign observers note that Garang’s death helped bring an end to Sudan’s long-running civil war.

[thevividgreenmoss]

...Anyone who knew Eqbal in conditions of struggle knew subliminally that his loyalty and solidarity were unquestionable. He was a genius at sympathy. When he used the pronoun "we," you knew that he spoke and acted as one of us, but never at the expense either of his honesty or of his critical faculties, which reigned supreme. This is why Eqbal came as close to being a really free man as anyone can be. 

This isn't to say that he was indifferent to the problems of others, or blessed in that he didn't have problems of his own. This was very far from true. But he did give one the impression that he was always his own man, always able to think and act clearly for himself and, if asked, for others. His subcontinental origins in Bihar and Lahore steeped him both in the travails of empire and in the many wasteful tragedies of decolonization, of which sectarian hatred and violence, plus separatism and partition, are among the worst. 

Yet retrospective bitterness at what the white man wrought and at what his fellow Indians and Pakistanis did were never part of Eqbal's response. He was always more interested in creativity than in vindictiveness, in originality of spirit and method than in mere radicalism, in generosity and complexity of analysis over the tight neatness of his fellow political scientists. The title of one of his most spirited essays, on Regis Debray, was entitled "Radical but Wrong." 

When I dedicated my book Culture and Imperialism to him, it was because in his activity, life, and thinking Eqbal embodied not just the politics of empire but that whole fabric of experience expressed in human life itself, rather than in economic rules and reductive formulas. What Eqbal understood about the experience of empire was the domination of empire in all its forms, but also the creativity, originality, and vision created in resistance to it. Those words-" creativity, " "originality," "vision"-were central to his attitudes on politics and history.

Among Eqbal's earliest writings on Vietnam was a series of papers on revolutionary warfare which was intended as a refutation of standard American doctrine on the subject. U.S. counterinsurgency experts see in Vietnamese resistance a sort of conspiratorial, technically adept, communist and terrorist uprising, which can be defeated with superior weapons, clear-cut pragmatic doctrines, and the relentless deployment of overwhelming military force. What Eqbal suggested was a different paradigm: the revolutionary guerrilla as someone with a real commitment to justice who has the support of her or his people, and who is willing to sacrifice for the sake of a cause or ideology that has mobilized people. What counterinsurgency doctrine cannot admit is that the native elites whose interests are congruent not with their country's but with those of the United States are not the people to win a revolutionary war. In confronting the arch-theorist of this benighted view-none other than Samuel Huntington-Eqbal. Put it this way:

In underdeveloped countries the quiescence which followed independence is giving way to new disappointments and new demands which are unlikely to be satisfied by a politics of boundary management and selective cooptation-a fact which the United States, much like our ruling elites, is yet unable or unwilling to perceive. There is an increasingly perceptible gap between our need for social transformation and America's insistence on stability, between our impatience for change and America's obsession with order, our move toward revolution and America's belief in the plausibility of achieving reforms under the robber barons of the "third world," our longing for absolute national sovereignty and America's preference for pliable allies, our desire to see our national soil freed of foreign occupation and America's alleged need for military bases.... As the gap widens between our sorrow and America's contentment, so will, perhaps, these dichotomies of our perspectives and our priorities. Unless there is a fundamental redefinition of American interests and goals, our confrontations with the United States will be increasingly antagonistic. In the client states of Asia and Latin America it may even be tragic. In this sense Vietnam may not be so unique. It may be a warning of things to come.

What emerges in these writings is the opposition between conventional and unconventional thought and of course the even deeper opposition between justice and injustice. In his preference for what the unconventional and the just can bring peoples by way of liberation, invigorated culture, and well-being, Eqbal was firm and uncompromising. His distrust for standing armies, frozen bureaucracies, persistent oligarchies allowed no exceptions. Yet at the same time, as he showed in his great essay on Debray, it is not enough to be unconventional if that means having no regard for tradition, for the goods that women and men enjoy, for the great stabilities of human life. Eqbal was shrewd and illusionless enough to realize that overturning societies for the sake of revolution only, without sufficient attention to the fact that human beings also love and create and celebrate and commemorate, is a callous, merely destructive practice that may be radical but is profoundly wrong. 

...No one has more trenchantly summarized the various pathologies of power in the third world than Eqbal in the three summary essays he wrote for Arab Studies Quarterly in 1980 and 1981.9 Once again, unlike many of the second-thoughters and post-Marxists who populate the academic and liberal journals today, Eqbal remained true to the ideals of revolution and truer yet to its unfulfilled promise. To have heard him lecture over the years, passionately and sternly, about militarism in the Arab world, in Pakistan, in Algeria and elsewhere, was to have known the high moral position he took on matters having to do with the sanctity and potential dignity of human life either squandered or abused by strutting dictators or co-opted intellectuals. Creativity, vision, and originality of the kind appreciated by Eqbal in his great friend the Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz are the measure for political life, not the trappings of honor guards, fancy limousines, and enormously bloated and all-powerful bureaucracies. 

The measure is the human being, not the abstract law or the amoral power.

I think it must have been difficult to hold on to such ideals and principles. Most of Eqbal's written work, and indeed his activism, took place in dark times. Not only did he take full stock of the devastations of imperialism and injustice all over the globe, but in particular he more eloquently than anyone else inventoried the particular sadness and low points reached by Islamic cultures and states. Yet even then he managed to remind us that what he mourned is no mere religious or cultural fanaticism, as it is usually misrepresented in the West, but a widespread ecumenical movement. Moreover, though not an Arab himself, Eqbal reminded Arabs that Arabism, far from being a narrow-based nationalism, is quite unique in the history of nationalisms because it tried to connect itself beyond boundaries. It came close to imagining a universal community linked by word and sentiment alone. Anyone who is an Arab in his feelings, in his language and his culture, is an Arab. So a Jew is an Arab. A Christian is an Arab. A Muslim is an Arab. A Kurd is an Arab. I know of no national movement which defined itself so broadly. 

In such a situation and with such a heritage, Eqbal saw the degradation of ideas and values that grip Arabs and Muslims alike. Let me quote him again. This is in the aftermath of the Gulf Way in 1993:

We live in scoundrel times. This is the dark age of Muslim history, the age of surrender and collaboration, punctuated by madness. The decline of our civilization began in the eighteenth century when, in the intellectual embrace of orthodoxy, we skipped the age of enlightenment and the scientific revolution. In the second half of the twentieth century, it has fallen. I have been a lifelong witness to surrender, and imagined so many times-as a boy in 1948, a young man in 1967 ... and approaching middle age in 1982-that finally we have hit rock bottom, that the next time even if we go down we would manage to do so with a modicum of dignity. Fortunately, I did not entertain even so modest an illusion from Saddam Hussein's loudly proclaimed 'mother of battles."

This on the one hand and on the other the multiple degradations of what he once called the fascism and separatis clearly identifiable, seemingly hostile but symbiotically linked trends, in his Pakistan. Former Pakistani prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his family, former president General Muhammad Zia ul-Haq, and their coteries plundered the land, demoralized the population. They tried to subdue the country I s insurrectionary constituent cultures and failed, but at the price of more blood and treasure. And everywhere, as throughout the Muslim world, they provoked, if they did not actually cause, the rise of Islamism, which as a secularist Eqbal always deplored. 

But ever the fighter and activist, he did not submit in resignation. He wrote more and more in earnest and in 1994 undertook his grand project of founding a new university in Pakistan-Khaldunia, aptly named after the great Arab historian and founder of sociology, Ibn Khaldun. In this project and his enthusiasm for it, Eqbal was no Don Quixote, tilting at windmills, but like Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, he took as his motto "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will. This was part of the man's rareness, knowing how to rescue the' best available in a tradition without illusion or melodramatic self-dramatization. For him, Islam, Arabism, and American idealism were treasures to be tapped, despite tyrants like Zia ul-Haq and Henry Kissinger, whose manipulations and cold-blooded policies debase and bring down everything they touch.

Edward Said, Introduction to Eqbal Ahmad’s Confronting Empire

[ruminativerabbi]

One Law for All

Like all of you, I’m sure, I was very surprised to wake up the other day to news about the raid on Mar-a-Lago, Florida home of former President Trump. Whether or not possession of any or all of the seized documents rises to the level of an actual criminal deed that could lead former President Trump to prison is a question best left to experts. But behind the details of the raid, most of which still remain shielded from the public as I write today, lie two truly foundational democratic principles: one, that one set of laws must apply to all, citizens and “mere” residents alike and, two, that that principle must apply even to the wealthiest and most powerful.

To Jews, this notion will sound familiar because of its roots in Scripture. Indeed, when the Torah proclaims (at Exodus 12:49) that “one torah (meaning in this context, one set of laws) must apply both to citizens and to the strangers who dwell in their midst,” it could hardly be clearer. And when, later on in the text (at Numbers 15:15–16) the idea is fleshed out in slightly more detail (“One set of laws must apply to you and the strangers who dwell alongside you, one set of laws for all generations: just as you appear [in judgment] before God, so must also such strangers in your midst. One torah and one set of legal principles shall apply equally to all of you and to the strangers who dwell with you”), it sounds almost axiomatic. What else could be the case? That there be a different set of rules for one group within society and another for others? That was the case in medieval times when serfs had one set of rules to obey and nobles another. But we Americans, relying on the biblical idea as foundational to our own approach to law, would rightly consider a justice system in which the rich are judged differently than the poor to be corrupt and unjust. As well such a system would be!

And so we come back to Mar-a-Lago. Whether our former president committed a crime remains to be seen. He certainly hasn’t been indicted in a court of law, let alone convicted in one, and so must be presumed innocent until actually proven guilty. But the thought that a former President should somehow be exempt from the rules that govern the rest of the citizenry (other than in ways in which the Constitution specifically enshrines in law as specific perquisites of the office)—that notion should rightly be rejected by all. One torah has to apply to all—to the least powerful and to the most, to the wealthiest and to the least well-off, to the famous and to the least well known. That is what it means to live in a nation governed by law!

I came across a remarkable document the other day, a list of world leaders who were subsequently convicted of crimes after having left office and/or imprisoned. It’s a long list! Some stories were vaguely familiar to me—the remarkable tale of former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, for example, who was put on trial thirty-two different times until the state finally secured a conviction in 2012 for tax evasion. And I certainly remember the case of former Pakistani Prime Minister  Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was executed in 1979 after having been convicted of having arranged the murder of a political opponent. As do I also recall the conviction of Nicolas Sarkozy, President of France from 2007 to 2012, who was convicted of corruption in two different trials and sentenced to years in prison. And which of us can forget Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel from 2006 to 2009, who was convicted on bribe-taking and obstruction of justice charges and who was also sent to prison?

The list is actually remarkable, but it gives up its secrets only very slowly. (To take a look, click here.) Lots of the convicted leaders, it is true, were simply on the wrong side of history. Philippe Pétain, the vile collaborator who basically spent the Second World War on his knees in the service of his German masters, was tried and convicted of treason after the war and sentenced to death. (Because of his advanced age, his sentence was commuted to life in prison. Odd how none of the French Jews sent east under his watch had their death sentences commuted because of their old age.) In a similar category falls Karl Dönitz, German head of state for the eight days between Hitler’s suicide and V-E Day, who was convicted of committing war crimes and sent to prison for a decade. Still others—like Louis XVI, king of France, who was beheaded in 1793 as punishment basically for being king of France—seem unjustly to have been executed, at least in retrospect. And other leaders’ stories are so peculiar truly to beggar the imagination. (I could mention in this regard, for example, the trial specifically of Pope Formosus, Pope from 891 to 896, for whose posthumous trial on charges of unworthy behavior his cadaver was exhumed from its grave, dressed up in papal garments, and then made to sit up in court on a huge throne as the proceedings against him unfolded. When found guilty, his corpse was stripped naked, three of his fingers—the ones he used to bless people—were chopped off, and the rest of him was unceremoniously dumped in the Tiber.)

But far more prevalent on the list are individuals—almost entirely men—who were just criminals: people who saw the opportunity to profit financially or politically by breaking the law and took it, only to be found out later on and forced to pay the price. Of these, there appear to be no end. (As noted, it’s a very long list.) But contemplating that list, horrible though the stories it references may be, is also comforting. The notion that even the mightiest cannot protect themselves from the consequences of their own poor behavior—not permanently and never completely—speaks well for our human society. There will always be those who allow themselves to succumb when the siren call of illicit gain beckons. Success as a politician does not imply imperviousness to greed. Being liked by the populace is not necessarily a sign of inner virtue, merely of good P.R. and a flair for politicking. The first kings of Israel were chosen by God and anointed by God’s prophets. And even they occasionally faltered when tempted to preference personal gain over the national good! So how can lesser mortals not occasionally falter in that same way?

What exactly the FBI found at Mar-a-Lago remains to be revealed. What precisely they were looking for is also unknown. Many theories have been put forward, but only very few details have actually been released. We must assume that the Attorney General Garland cannot possibly not have understood what a gigantic can of worms he was opening up by authorizing the FBI raid. What precisely former President Trump imagined there might be or could be to gain by holding onto documents unambiguously labelled as “top secret” despite the possibility of being charged under the Espionage Act for having done so has not been made even slightly clear.

All that being the case, what we don’t know is a lot more than what we know! But what I do know is that the notion that one set of laws must apply to all—and that commonality of responsibility under the law is crucial to the concept of democracy—that both those ideas are foundational in any democratic setting, most definitely including ours in this country. What happens next, who knows? But that no one gets a pass on breaking the law just because of status, wealth, power, or position within the political hierarchy of the political parties of our nation—that is encouraging and heartening. And, in a day when all Americans seem to do is worry about the health of the republic, being heartened and encouraged is a very good thing indeed!

[historysisco]

On This Day in History December 27, 2007: Former Pakistani Prime Minister Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto (June 21, 1953 - December 27, 2007) was assassinated in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Bhutto was the first woman leader of a Muslim nation in modern history having served as Pakistan’s Prime Minister from 1988 to 1990 and again from 1993 to 1996.She was the daughter of Pakistan’s first democratically elected Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

For Further Reading:

The official website for Benazir Bhutto 

Benazir Bhutto assassination: How Pakistan covered up killing by Owen Bennett Jones from BBC News dated 27 December 2017

Benazir Bhutto’s 11th death anniversary: a lady larger than life by Imad Zafar from the Asia Times dated December 27, 2018

Who killed Benazir Bhutto? The theories behind the murder by Agence France-Presse dated December 27, 2017

The day Benazir Bhutto was killed by Kamal Hyder from Al-Jezeera dated December 27, 2017

[maazshera]

Type of plot that Bhutto faced being hatched: PM

Type of plot that Bhutto faced being hatched: PM

The PM carefully reads out from pages with reference to the conspiracy against the government ISLAMABAD: Prime Minister Imran Khan Sunday likened himself to former premier and PPP founder chairman Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (ZAB), who was, what he claimed, hanged for attempting to give the country an independent foreign policy. He waved a letter to a large public rally here, and disclosed that his…

[xtruss]

Why Taliban Should Thank US Not Only for Billions’ Worth of Weapons, But Also for Nuclear Pakistan

— Ekaterina Blinova | Sputnik | September 8, 2021

The Taliban* have managed to lay their hands on billions’ worth of sophisticated Western-made weapons amid the hurried retreat of the Afghan National Army. However, a broader problem cited by American and European military specialists and policymakers is that the Afghan insurgent group may also gain access to military nuclear technologies.

Col. Richard Kemp, a former British commander, on 16 August raised the red flag over the possibility of Taliban elements one day seizing nuclear materials and technology from Pakistan. These concerns were also shared by former National Security Adviser John Bolton in his 23 August op-ed for The Washington Post. The next day, a group of American lawmakers sent a letter to Joe Biden asking the president: "Do you have a plan to ensure that Afghanistan, under Taliban occupation, will never acquire a nuclear weapon?"

How US Turned Blind Eye to Pakistan's Nuclear Arms Programme

While the possibility that the Taliban could get access to Pakistani nukes has triggered serious concerns in the US and Europe, American politicians have shied away from discussing how Islamabad emerged as a nuclear power. While Bolton has specifically lambasted Pakistan for "recklessly" pursuing nuclear weapons for decades, newly released documents suggest Washington knew about Islamabad's nuclear bid, but did nothing to stop it.

In mid-August 2021, Pakistani President Arif Alvi revealed that the country had developed a "nuclear deterrent" by 1981, long before its 1998 underground atomic tests. In the aftermath of Alvi's remarks, the National Security Archive, a Washington-based non-profit archival institution, released a series of documents shedding light on the US handling of the Pakistan nuclear problem.

A Pakistani-made Shaheen-III missile, that is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, is on display during a military parade in Islamabad, Pakistan, Friday, March 23, 2018. AP Photo / Anjum Naveed

A US memo dated 28 March 1978 provides the earliest known indication of Washington's recognition of Pakistan's uranium enrichment programme. In June 1978, the CIA document suggested that Pakistan would "probably… be capable of assembling a nuclear device in the early 1980s", adding that the country "will not have a credible nuclear weapons option until at least the mid-1980s".

However, in January 1979, US State Department officials admitted that Islamabad was “moving more rapidly toward acquisition of nuclear capability than we had earlier estimated", having learned that Pakistan had initiated a uranium enrichment programme using gas centrifuge technology.

The 18 January 1979 State Department memo specifically cited the 1976 Symington Amendment which banned US economic and military assistance to countries illegally transferring or acquiring nuclear enrichment technology. While the memo highlighted that Washington must persuade Pakistan to nix its enrichment and reprocessing programme, it noted that "termination of aid [to Pakistan] would further complicate our position in the turbulent Persian Gulf region" and "would not contribute to achievement of our non-proliferation objectives". As a result, the Jimmy Carter administration turned a blind eye to Pakistan's nuclear development as well as transfer of materials and technologies to Pakistanis by other state and non-state players. I

President Jimmy Carter, claiming success for his human rights policies, is applauded by aides Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anne Wexler in Washington, Dec. 6, 1978. AP Photo / Harvey Georges

The reason behind Washington's unusually soft approach to Islamabad at the time was because the Cold War-era US leadership regarded Pakistan as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and India, the USSR's regional ally, says Bharat Karnad, a national security expert and emeritus professor of National Security Studies at New Delhi's Centre for Policy Research.

"In 1979, Pakistan gained significance as a frontline state, and permitted the US Central Intelligence Agency to join with Pakistan army’s Inter-Services Intelligence to fund and mobilise the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviet occupation troops in Afghanistan", remarks Karnad.”

It is unclear when the CIA actually learned about Islamabad's nuclear programme. However, the first signs of Islamabad's bid to build atomic weapons emerged in the mid-1960s, when Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto pledged that the nation would prefer "to eat grass and leaves for a thousand years" in order to create its own nuclear bomb rather than see neighbouring India get one. India's subsequent decision to kick off a nuclear project in 1967 and Islamabad's loss of East Pakistan in 1971's Bangladesh Liberation War prompted Pakistan to accelerate its efforts.

Afghan mujahideen prepare a rocket attack on the government troops in Shaga, Eastern Nangarhar province, on January 15, 1989 during the Afghan Civil War opposing the Islamic Unity of Afghanistan Mujahideen and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA) supported by Soviet Union. AFP 2021

The National Security Archive notes that it was Abdul Qadeer Khan, a Belgian-educated metallurgist, who played a crucial role in building Pakistan's enrichment facilities. The engineer had stolen major elements of gas centrifuge technology when he worked in the Netherlands at the uranium firm Urenco in the 1970s. However, the CIA asked the Netherlands in 1975 not to prosecute Khan when he came under suspicion, according to ex-Dutch Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers. The intelligence agency explained that they wanted "to follow and watch Khan to get more information", according to Lubbers. Still, there are still many unknowns with regard to the CIA's efforts to trace Khan's activities, since the intelligence "has declassified next to nothing" concerning the issue, according to the National Security Archive. When the non-profit filed a FOIA for documents from 1978 concerning A. Q. Khan and Pakistani nuclear enrichment activities, the agency took "a neither confirm-nor-deny position that it had any such records".

Karnad does not rule out that the CIA was aware of Islamabad's secret nuclear weapons programme. According to him, the US did not prevent the transfer of atomic technologies to Pakistan because they apparently sought to reshuffle "a military balance on the subcontinent" vis-à-vis the USSR and pro-Soviet India, which conducted its first nuclear weapons test in 1974.

"America’s longstanding nonproliferation ideals were consigned to the dust heap", Karnad notes. "When international affairs are conducted without moral or policy scruples or inhibitions of any kind, then this is the kind of 'end of the world' scenario the world has to end up reasonably contemplating.”

Could Taliban Get Access to Pakistan's Nukes?

Meanwhile, the probability of the Taliban getting access to Islamabad's nuclear secrets and stockpiles has prompted a heated debate among international observers.

"For me that is absolutely out of the question for many solid reasons that Taliban get hold of Pakistan's nuclear material", argues Abdullah Khan, director of the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies. "For what reason would they need nuclear weapons? At the moment for the Taliban the major issue is governance.”

However, one cannot be one hundred percent sure that the Taliban would never get access to Pakistani nuclear weapons technologies, believes Dr Michele Groppi, teaching fellow of Challenges to the International Order at the Defence Studies Department, King's College London.

"We have to keep an eye on it", he says. "But I don't think this prospect is particularly worrisome in the short run. In the longer term, however, we have to see".

But if the Taliban were to gain access to nuclear arms, this could "really angered China", Groppi believes. According to him, the Afghan insurgents are not interested in upsetting Beijing, at least for now, since they expect that the People's Republic will invest in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the Taliban leadership has already signalled its willingness to participate in the China-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

Listen to this by birth “Boak Bollocks, Braindead, Disgraced and World’s Deadliest War Monger John Bolton” in this video clip. He thinks that Pakistan’s ‘Nuclear Weapons’ are scattered on the streets and TALIBAN will get them freely and they destroy the whole World. WTF? This idiot definitely carries his brain in his “Incurable Cancerous Swelled Scrotums.”

"Vis-à-vis Pakistan, the issue is not about the weapons but the increasing radicalisation of the society", deems Shreyas Deshmukh, research associate with the National Security Program at the Delhi Policy Group, a think tank in New Delhi, India. "Today we can see there is major support coming from lower and middle class of the Pakistani society for the Taliban, and it was there in the late 1990s as well. Therefore the fear of not only the Taliban but any extremist elements getting their hands on nuclear material from Pakistan is real." Here ‘Hypocrite Shreyas Deshmukh’ didn’t talk about the Saffron terrorism of Hindutva, RSS and so many others Hindu Terrorist Groups in India who are actively overwhelmed extremist Indian government and terrorizes the neighboring countries. Uranium was stolen and security of nuclear sites were breached many times.

Here is another idiot on Twitter: John Sipher@john_sipher! While I want to say “you reap what you sow,” a radical takeover in Pakistan (like in Afghanistan) would be a disaster that would draw us in completely. It’s six times the size, has a massive army and nuclear weapons. We cannot turn away. This idiot needs to put attention to his own filthy backyard. He should put his efforts to stop those fascists who are destroying America and America has more than 5000 Nuclear Weapons in his backyard. Pakistan is much more smarter than the United States who smartly kicked US ass in Afghanistan. He should ask current and past ‘Generals and Presidents’ as well.

Deshmukh notes that Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP)*, a terrorist group located on the Afghan-Pakistan border which helped the Taliban to fight against Afghan government forces, carried out several attacks between 2008 and 2015, targeting Pakistani security infrastructures "including a major attack on Mehran Naval Air Base which also holds nuclear assets". Here again ‘Hypocrite Deshmukh’ didn’t want to open his bloody diarrheal mouth about “FASCIST HINDU EXTREMISTS: RSS, SANKPARIVAR, VISHVA HINDU PARISATH, SHIVE SHENA AND THE WORLD’S MOST WANTED FASCIST CRIMINAL PRIME MINISTER NARENDRA MODI.”

"Nuclear deterrence in general is holding not because of the number of weapons but fear of the escalation ladder which cannot be controlled and end up in unimaginable consequences", he says. "Therefore, lone terrorist attacks like on Mehran base also increase the probability of nuclear terrorism".

In addition to this, Afghanistan lies between four declared nuclear states, the Indian scholar emphasises, suggesting that "if the instability persists in [the Central Asian state] it can be a hub for the black market for nuclear materials". NOPE! It wouldn’t be “THE CENTRAL ASIAN STATE,” it would be the “INDIA, THE RAPES CAPITAL OF THE WORLD” whose nuclear sites were breached many times in the past and URANIUM was stolen. Therefore “RANDIAN Shreyas Deshmukh” needs to STFO.

[timespakistan]

Sindh Assembly unanimously condemns Israeli aggression in Gaza The Sindh Assembly on Friday unanimously passed a joint resolution to condemn the recent Israeli aggression resulting in the killings of innocent Palestinians. At the request of Sindh Chief Minister Syed Murad Ali Shah, the House suspended its agenda for the day to discuss and pass the resolution to express solidarity with the oppressed Palestinians. All the parliamentary groups in the legislature jointly presented the resolution. The treasury and opposition legislators who took part in the discussion on the resolution unanimously condemned the Israeli atrocities and urged the government to play its due role to rattle the conscience of the international community regarding the freedom struggle of the Palestinians. Speaking on the resolution, the CM said that had there been leaders like Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Yasser Arafat, and Shah Faisal in the Muslim Ummah at present, the oppressed Palestinians would not have to see the situation they had been witnessing. He expressed gratitude to both the treasury and opposition lawmakers for the joint resolution in the Sindh Assembly in support for the Palestinians. Israel was a proven terrorist state in the world, Shah said, adding that Israel had been committing aggression with impunity as it felt no need to issue any explanation after attacking Palestinians. The CM lamented that the Muslim World had been bereft of bold leaders who had the courage to vocally raise their voice against such naked aggression. He said that after the demise of leaders like Bhutto, Faisal and Arafat, the case of the Ummah on the Palestinian issue had been weakened. He recalled that former prime minister Benazir Bhutto had refused to take permission from Israel to visit Gaza. “The Ummah would not have to face such a situation had such leadership been alive today,” he said. He also mentioned that some Arab countries had established ties with Israel. The CM emphasised that Pakistan needed to do more efforts on the diplomatic front to help the people of Palestine. He also appreciated the ceasefire announced between Israel and Palestine. He said that the Sindh government had brought forward the resolution to press the Pakistani government to do more to highlight the issues of the oppressed people of Kashmir and Palestine waging struggle for freedom of the native land. Opposition legislator of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) Mangla Sharma, who also read out the resolution in the assembly, condemned the aggression committed by Israel against the Palestinians. She bemoaned the fact that the Israeli acts of violence against innocent civilians of Palestine even continued during the holy month of Ramazan and Eidul Fitr. She remarked that Israel was in a habit of attacking the people of Palestine after every few years. She added that Israel also attacked offices of media houses during the latest instance of aggression. Pakistan Peoples Party lawmaker Sharmila Farooqui said the Israeli brazen attacks had killed scores of innocent Palestinians and rendered thousands others homeless. She said Pakistan should come to the support of the innocent residents of Gaza facing sheer aggression by Israel. The MQM-P parliamentary party leader, Kanwar Naveed Jameel, said the lives of innocent people of Palestine became miserable the day Israel came into existence. He said the Palestinians had to live their lives in the shadow of fear and guns. He recalled that Pakistan had come into existence in the name of Islam and so the country were under a solemn obligation to actively help the innocent people of Palestine. Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf MPA Firdous Shamim Naqvi said that an influential lobby had created the issue of Palestine as Muslims and Jews used to live peacefully in the same land before 1948. He added that Muslims had to face aggression as they had not been following their religion. He said the Muslim Ummah should increase its strength to compete against Israel. He said Muslims were in majority in both Kashmir and Palestine but even then they had to face oppression. https://timespakistan.com/sindh-assembly-unanimously-condemns-israeli-aggression-in-gaza/19300/