Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
21

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

knockout artist it says in text mafahimat not mahahimit or u mean
mafahimat=understanding+hormaony

22

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

mafahimat=peace full understanding
Sorry I misspelled it.

23

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

bhai saab yeh kya tha? konsi language hai yeh? Do you always write like this?

24

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

thnx knockedout rocks 4 correcting nd golden asif i think i always write like this... slang but if u want ask any think plz do ask i will take my time to write in grammer english and reply......sorry 2 al doz who may hav not understud but sorry i fink shorter nd simple ....ez lyf ..time savin..............lol 2 golden asif

25

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

waisey main bai saab nahi hoon

26

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

^ o oo larki..hmmmm
interested in politics... nice

27

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

dont hv 2 b a man to b politician....lol ..jus kidin i aont a politician but i luv knockin politician on deir own campiagns.................lol

28

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

waisey bezanir is women azwel nd she iz an politician....whoz in fava of her goin bak 2 pak... who finks she mad a ryt decion 2 go bak who finks she mad rong decision abou goin bak 2 pak

29

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

Every pakistani has the right to back at any time.
She was away(in exile) for her own reasons. She thought she would be wrongly prosecuted. She was involved in some question able things.
Now when she saw mush is going to give her favor and he would let her cases go. She went back.

30

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

dont u question ur self som time or her herself dat how many ppl r killed 4 her....basically till i m aware of she knew al da blasts and stuff was gona tak place so she cud hav don it in another way also wa waz da point of doin da rally for 10 hours ..y cudnt she com out da airport nd staright away 2 da house.. l8er on der wz lyf to do da rallies................wel das my view i m lukin forwrd 2 ur views guyzzzzzzzzzzz

31

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

What could I say besides politics is a dirty business. She had show/see her approval among people.
And as far his affairs with Govt./mush she was deceived.
Her friends gave her wrong advise.

32

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

What's imrahn upto?

33

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

All the good things. Nothing but positive ideas about pakistan.

Punjabian di Thread
34

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

As usual, supporting and sympathizing with terrorists, suicide bombers and beheaders. It is hard to believe that he supports those that are killing barbers, bombing CD and video shops, blowing up girls schools and murdering muslim Pakistani civilians and security forces.

35

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

Yes, exactly.

36

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

Great interview by Javed Malik.

Let's not act like military analyst. Just consider a politician telling a doctor how to operate and prepare for an operation. Military is taking loss by the day, they know what they are doing. They are fighting the right enemy, finally. May Allah Bless them and may Allah bring them success in coming day. Inshallah

37

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

Imran Khan seems to be confused out of his mind... Someone should ask him how he intends to deal with the crisis at hand.

38

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

Imran Khan's logic is completely flawed. He is perpetuating the myth that the tribals can not be defeated because they were not by the British. The tribals have been and still can be defeated militarily. The British were more interested in using them as a buffer in their great game against Russia and that is what they did. How can they be considered patriotic Pakistani when they consider themselves a separate country, don't follow Pakistani law and act against Pakistani national security interests? Protecting Al-Qaida and waging war against US and Nato forces in Afghanistan are acts against Pakistani national security as they put entire Pakistan under risk of attack by US and NATO forces.

He gives example of tribals fighting in Kashmir in 1947 but lets not forget that endeavor was failure primarily because tribals were more interested in looting, killing and raping than actually fighting the war and winning it. They were initially successful in invading Kashmir valley but as soon as Indian troops arrived to fight them the entire Lashkar disappeared overnight and ran away hiding their tales. The reason Pakistan did not use their regular army at the time was because of political reasons. They wanted the invasion to look like local uprising than invasion by a foreign force.

His reasons for suicide bombing are also wrong. The motivation of suiciders are religious not economic or social. For them, it is a short cut to heaven and any innocent people that they murder are also sent to heaven. In their twisted logic they are doing a favor to the people they are killing.

Notice how he did not condemn any bombing and murder by the terrorists in Swat, Lal Masjid or tribal area. He does not criticize the Balochistan operation and the only terrorists in the country in his eyes are MQM. I say that is very myopic for someone wanting to represent all of Pakistan. He kept parroting the bad American and bad American agent line. Does he not realize the problem is internal to Pakistan with the Islamists forcing the agenda on the rest of the population through violence?

The only thing I agree with him is the general and gradual decline in rule of Law, governance and lack of Justice in Pakistan. However, I disagree with him that the solution is to allow violent groups a free hand and appeasement. The solution is to enforce writ of government and rule of law over all areas in Pakistan .

39

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

Here is an op-ed in Daily times that refutes Imran’s logic:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\10\30\story_30-10-2007_pg3_2

VIEW: Whose war is this? —Rasul Bakhsh Rais

Our security forces have been fighting a war against the Taliban in the tribal areas that has now extended beyond that troubled zone into some of the settled regions. The latest district to join the list of strife-stricken areas is Swat where fierce clashes have occurred along with gruesome beheadings and suicide bombings. What do the insurgents want and why have they taken up arms against the state?

These questions generally produce confused answers that don’t stand the test of any logic or reason. For instance, the Taliban and their supporters portray themselves as holy warriors fighting for the enforcement of Islamic law and defenders of Pakistan against foreign interference while they are actually attempting to de-legitimise the state by appropriating concepts of nationalism, sovereignty and Islam. Taliban elements throughout the country have similar views.

Sadly, what is happening in the periphery is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a larger more complex project of capturing the state by eliminating its authority, starting with regions where its presence has been weak. Religious groups throughout the country extend support to the militants in many ways such as attacking the state in the media for “provoking” trouble.

If that is not the case, **why have religious groups, religious political parties and their spokesmen who are vocal on every other issue not said a word against the insurgents and their brutalities against our security forces? Their silence is a political statement of latent support to the religious insurgency. In a convoluted logic, they often blame security forces and the government for the conflict situation more than the violent armed groups that have committed and continue to commit unspeakably cruel acts against anyone they can capture and label as a state employee or sympathiser.
**
**It is not difficult to understand this silent, latent support of religious groups to the insurgents, but what is hard to grasp is the silence of some of the mainstream political parties, intelligentsia and other opinion-making sectors. With the exception of the Pakistan People’s Party and its chairperson, other parties, like the PMLN and regional parties, are ambivalent on the issue of religious violence. They appear to be taking perverse pleasure in watching the Musharraf regime being challenged by religious extremists and their armed fronts. **

If these parties were in power, their politics and their response to the Taliban insurgency would not have been any different, and they would adopt the same policies as the ones in force right now. It is not hard to see how political opportunism clouds their judgement on the issue of religious violence and Talibanisation. Their political tunnel vision does not allow them to see beyond their immediate political interests. These opposition parties want Musharraf to face the music alone because of their belief that the president has created this mess by supporting the US-led War on Terror.

Is it true that religious violence in Pakistan started after the Americans intervened in Afghanistan and removed the Taliban from power? Not really. The sectarian conflict, perhaps the worst in our history, that continues to simmer and burst out occasionally, started in the early 1980s. The sectarian militias are still with us, lying low, camouflaged. There has never been a careful social or policy analysis of the origin of the militant sectarian mindset. In the usual conspiratorial analyses, “hidden forces” and “external powers” are blamed. And as the security forces, with their logistical and administrative limitations, face the terrorists, society at large remains unmoved.

There seems to be a similar attitude towards Talibanisation and the growing insurgency. Nothing can be more distorted than the view that the war our security forces are fighting is not our war but one undertaken to safeguard American interests. This view is put forward only by elements whose interests are tied with the religious extremists and the Taliban, as the latter do no renounce war against the state if it is sanctioned by their religious beliefs. What they do not understand is that armed conflict against the state, no matter what the nature of grievances, is not justifiable under law, reason or even religion. The principle of the just cause does not apply against the nation-state.

It would be unrealistic to assume that states do not commit wrongs against their own people; they do in many ways. But there are universally accepted, lawful and civilised means of registering protest and defying unjust laws through civil disobedience.

The armed struggles that religious groups in Pakistan want to engage in are things of the past, as they have proven destructive for societies. Lessons need to be learnt from Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq. Destruction of the state in these countries has resulted in terrible conditions with millions slaughtered and even more driven out of their homes and jobs. Most Pakistanis are not alive to the dangers posed by ethnic and religious militancy, whatever the roots and causes. Has any group or political party organised a public demonstration against the beheading of women, security personnel and opponents of the Taliban? None. This is a sad state of affairs that speaks volumes about the complacency of Pakistani society.

The general public and more responsible sectors of the Pakistani society do not understand the long-term, and even immediate, ramifications of the rise of Talibanisation for the state and society. If these groups carve out territories to enforce their religious vision or intimidate people to submit to their religious and political will, the state and its jurisdiction would diminish. The success of one religious or political group would create many that would mirror its tactics in undermining the state.

Pakistan faces a grim challenge from religious groups trying to act like the state in some regions of the country.

What should the state do?

It must reassert its authority and regain its sovereign control through whatever means necessary, starting with political negotiations. But negotiations must be held with a clear purpose in mind i.e. the disarmament and disbanding of these groups and nothing else. If they were allowed to have their way and end up creating and running mini-states within the Pakistani state, the country could become a very dangerous place. Many observers believe that the situation has already reached this unpleasant point.

**The war our security forces are fighting is our war, a war for the future of Pakistan. The alternative of allowing mini religious fiefdoms would be self-destructive. This message has been lost to the public and the politicians due to the strong anti-Musharraf sentiment in the country, and because divisions within the regime are persistently holding the government back from effectively responding to the threat. The state is already late with too little in its hands to counter growing Talibanisation that presents a grave threat to national security.
**
The author is a professor of Political Science at the Lahore University of Management Sciences. He can be reached at [email protected]

40

Re: Imran Khan with Javed Malik on Swat and Tribal Areas

so can one battalion of pak army defeat an other battalion of army ??

**What imran khan is crying about is "those people are our extended army, with out pay"
he also said "1500 km border is safe because of them"
and he said"they took kashmir back from india in 1948"

he said "they are patriots more then us"
**