Let us think - Our narrative will lead us to?
When
1. A) Blaming and abusing Punjab instead of establishment which comprise military beaurocracy, feudal elite and civil beaurocracy (includes 30% from Pukhtoonkhwa) which has once ousted and now has bowed down Punjabi elite.
1. A) Blaming and abusing Punjab instead of establishment which comprise military beaurocracy, feudal elite and civil beaurocracy (includes 30% from Pukhtoonkhwa) which has once ousted and now has bowed down Punjabi elite.
B) In the last 35 years of bloodshed were supported by pukhtoon religious political leaders like JI, JUI(F) JUI (S) etc. 75% pukhtoon tableeghis. Fazlulla Mangalbagh pukhtoons.
C) Pukhtoon FC fighting vigorously Baloch nationalists.
D) In the back of our minds consider Baloch as subtribe of Pukhtoons and Gawadar as our land.
By abusing Punjab are we not shifting the burden from establishment?
By abusing Punjab are we not shifting the burden from establishment?
If we want Punjabi Pukhtoon confrontation, for independence and that a Don Quexote style, are not we fooling people? Liberation? How and by whom? Is not it a personal subjective wish and expression of hate only with no idea of achievements?
2. Our nationalism is dominantly based on past and history. Futuristic and development aspect is missing. That is why it is lacking vision and planning. Seenakobi and matam kills creativity in youth.
3. Parvez khattak, Sirajulhaq and maolana Fazalrehman are also vocal for provincial rights. Then if secular, democratic and developmental approach is lacking in nationalists there is no need for fill in the blanks.
2. Our nationalism is dominantly based on past and history. Futuristic and development aspect is missing. That is why it is lacking vision and planning. Seenakobi and matam kills creativity in youth.
3. Parvez khattak, Sirajulhaq and maolana Fazalrehman are also vocal for provincial rights. Then if secular, democratic and developmental approach is lacking in nationalists there is no need for fill in the blanks.
Educated youth and political workers should think about it.
Blunt and short statement raise questions. Pakistan was created on UP, CP Hyderabad daccan demand in an abrupt agenda with Islamic slogan. Nazria Pakistan was lacking inhabitant’s socio-economic historical structure. ‘ Insan aur Dharti ki khushbo” was missing and so human developmental approach. Pakistan was created and had to be created. Neither we can go back nor do we opt for. We have to live with and try to reassemble. Great Bacha Khan and Khan Shaheed were left with no space to go ahead in a slogan mongering situation. Highly injustice criticism on both was a response of drowning people in muddy waters. They with all other democratic and liberal forces in NAP tried and pushed to create space but the response of establishment was cued which resulted in breakup. The natural discourse cannot stop. On the other hand the real heirs of the slogan of Muslim league’s Nazria- Pakistan and Qarardade Maqasid were taken in hand by clerics. The development process could only lead to dozens of sectarian political parties aiming to implement their maslak by force. Again an unnatural discourse. Taliban were indoctrinated to use barbaric force and terror. It also did not work to save Nazria Pakistan and qaradade maqasid.
There was another approach by some nationalists to undo rest of Pakistan by geographically dividing it. A childish wish to get a strength up to a level to bulldoze regional and international forces, developed Islamic sentiments in pakhtoons and a powerful interest groups. Still there are such Don Quexotic individuals and groups. They object as why the others are not following them. Followers of JI, JUI, ML PPP etc (70-80%) are already opposing, Economy decides the attitudes and way out. Can pukhtoons think of an insurgency 1/100th of baluchs and that for the fourth time?
Pushing and creating more space compelled ruling elite for 18th amendment. This could not be imagined in 50’s and 60’s. ANP could stress on royalty of hydal power with support of baluch veto which they offered. But I think they were blackmailed by the name issue. The reluctant elite agreed to amendment but the time needed beyond that. A new paradigm with “a new social contract” is the way out of complex web engulfing beings and bringing miseries. Now it is time to make it agenda of today. A new social contract on the basis of humanism, democracy and human rights. A new federal structure formed by the nations according to their needs and requirements. A new structure on the basis of equality of gender and real freedom of belief. A structure with an intention to narrow class differences. A new constitution or amendments to wash out remnants of old paradigm. We should strongly argue that the old social contract could not deliver and is lethal. This will not be achieved in a leap but a road map.
Lar aw bar in the next write up.