Category Archives: Pak

Pakistan’s Journey to Nowhere

After the 9/11, Pakistan became an American alley and started fighting, what then was called, a war against terror. In its initial years, Pak-Army conducted ‘operations’ almost with zero public support against extremism and fundamentalism. From the beginning of this mess to a significant way down, for years, no Pakistani media reported incidents of terror in the country and that’s why initial reports are only available with the international media even today when you Google it.


Over the years, the media started reporting and public seems to stand with law and enforcement agencies in order to eradicate terrorism, but this was not the case, and agitations on Mumtaz Qadri’s execution proved it. Pakistan has lost more than 70,000 its men, women and children along with billions of dollars of resources and had reached nowhere in its combat against terrorism. Three mega developments are important to note down while examining Pakistan’s journey to nowhere.

First; the Soviet-Afghan war in 1979, which changed the very fabric of Pakistani state and society. This provided an opportunity to gain short-term benefits, for example, teaming up with the Western Block against communism and averting the potential of any revolt within the country against capitalism. Also, gaining assistances/funds and avoiding international sanctions, because of being close to the United States of America. But this brought more harm than good. The state and society radicalized during these 10 years, from 1979 to 1989, and what came out was a decision of keeping the irregulars or non-state actors as force multipliers.

Second; meanwhile, Iran had an ‘Islamic Revolution’, which triumphed the Shia political Islam over the Sunni political Islam. This started a battle of proxies, just like the US and Soviet, but definitely on a regional scale. Saudi Arabia, being the traditional rival and nucleus of the Sunni political Islam, started promoting its version of Islam, across the Muslim world and so does in Pakistan. To avert an uprising in the Kingdom, it supported Jihad in Afghanistan, later in Palestine and Kashmir.

Third; these non-state actors played a significant role in the 1989 Kashmir insurgency. Apparently it was started by a Kashmiri nationalist group called Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, better known from its abbreviation, JKLF, but when Hizbul Mujahedeen (HM) took the control of the movement and started slaughtering JKLF, it showed a different picture. Pakistan opted the strategy of Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) after 1971 when the East Pakistan was separated from the rest of the country and conventional means yielded nothing in Kashmir. It worked fine but not after the 9/11. When on the pressure of the U.S Pakistan enforced a ban on Jihadist organizations they started blowing back.

The way forwarded is clear but difficult. Pakistan needs to take a fresh start but this time with educating the masses and restricting the religion to everyone’s personal life. By not prioritizing the short-term benefits over the long term goals. By behaving like a civilized nation instead of a mob of 1.8 million people. As long as the state and society are not on the same page against extremism and terrorism, Pakistan’s success will remain limited.

The author is a researcher and blogger. He has authored On Kashmir and Terrorism and can be reached at @imrankhushaal and

China: Pakistan’s friend or foe

The rhetoric of China-Pakistan friendship is endless but more in Pakistan. In 2013 90% Pakistani said China is our friend. So Pakistan is the world’s most pro-China country. It is almost a custom to paint newspapers with Chinese red and Pakistani green flags in a way that they show two hands are shaking and a friendship is occurring. The more TV plays, “Pak Cheen Dosti Zindabad”, (long live Pak-China friendship), the more Chines companies penetrate into Pakistan from Gwadar to Gilgit and from Karachi to Kashmir. But have we ever tried to dissect Pakistan-China friendship, I believe never because that has become a taboo. Let’s dissect Pak-China friendship.


Pakistan has faced so many challenges since it was created in 1947, and it is still a mess. These challenges can be categorize into three broad categories. Natural disasters, Wars/Conflicts, and Poverty/Crime.

  1. Natural disasters; Chines economy is one of the world’s largest economies. It was capable of providing maximum after every natural disaster but it has provided minimum or symbolic. In 2005’s devastating earthquake countries like Cuba and Vietnam came to rescue the victims and later offered medical scholarships to the people of effected areas. Where was Friendly China?
  2. Wars and Conflicts; 1948’s war led to 1965’s and 1965’s war led to 1971’s, when Pakistan lost East Pakistan. Where was friendly China? If Pak-China friendship was real and on ground, not only in Pakistani heads, India would have considered that, but she did not. And most importantly what are Chinese efforts to resolve the Kashmir dispute? Suggesting Pakistan to annex Gilgit-Baltistan for its investment or for selling guns and missiles?
  3. Poverty; How many chines NGOS are there working to end poverty and poverty related problems of Pakistan? Has china offered anything to Pakistan to combat terrorism other than arms and weapons? Perhaps china has nothing in this regard other than weapons but those who are offering free education and secularization of Pakistani society are not Chines.

Economic Expansion looks prime focus of China in 21st-century. It has expanded into as far as Africa and Latin America and as near as Pakistan, Iran and India. But the question is on what cost? Take Pakistani example and you’ll astonish that 21st century Chines Capitalism is more brutal than 17th-century Western Capitalism. Karl Marx called western capitalism, a “vampire-like” if he has seen China he would say worse than vampires because it has undermined people’s aspirations, history, culture, politics and everything one could believe in, just to sell its Barbies and second class smart phone batteries. It has mode Pakistan withdraw from its historical stance on Kashmir. China to invest 46 billion $, has pushed Pakistan really hard. Pakistan under Chines pressure has gone so far that it has tried to declare Gilgit-Baltistan its fifth province.

China has not only pressurize Pakistan to give a legal status to Gilgit-Baltistan but it has also sparked a new anti-Punjab fire in Khabir Pakhtoonkhuwa (KP). If Chinese investment can divide Kashmir or one part of Gilgit-Baltistan from its other parts it can also divide Pakistan. Sindh and Baluchistan already have separatists but KP will be a greater challenge for the federal government if China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), doesn’t satisfy its government and people.

Pak-China friendship has benefited Pakistan but it has more potential to harm than benefit. It has certainly benefitted China as she got Aksai China and Trans-Karakoram Tract and now going to have Gilgit-Baltistan. Pakistan needs to understand China’s 21st-century invasion through economics. If China doesn’t want or can’t help Pakistan to solve the Kashmir dispute, it is impotent in helping Pakistan to fight against natural disasters and terrorism, it can’t help in elevating people’s life in Pakistan and has only there to worsen Pakistan’s geopolitics and offer cyber-crime law, then China is not a friend to Pakistan but a foe.

The writer is pursuing his MPhil at Iqra University Islamabad. He blogs at and can be reached at @imrankhushaal or

To Download PDF Click Here

Pakistan’s Failure in Combating Terrorism

Pakistan has been fighting against terrorism since 9/11, 2001, when the United States of America was attacked by Al-Qaeda. Though its decision was hesitant and because of American pressure, it fought against terrorists and is still fighting. In its combat against terrorism, Pakistan has lost more than 70,000 lives, and still continuing, but it is nowhere near ending terrorism.


Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness is evident from the time it has taken in formulating its (first) National Action Plan, (NAP), to eradicate terrorism, which is more than 14 years. Before the formulation of such a plan, many debated “who is a terrorist”, “who is a mujahid”, “who should be called a martyr and who should not be”, from TV talk shows to all fields of life. And even after a year of NAP, such debates have not lost their heat.

In his speech, before waging the “war on terror”, President Bush told his citizen that, Why the United States of America was attacked, who carried this attack, and what the U.S. is going to do? Unlike the United States, no one tried to give a clear (even false) explanation of “why Pakistan is under attack’, and who is carrying these attacks. Perhaps there was no explanation at all. So, what happened, after every terrorist attack there came different distorted explanations, which painted an elusive and ambiguous picture, just like an abstract painting, to which anyone can attach any meanings. This picture was more or less like this; “no Muslim can kill Muslims so this must be done by non-Muslims”. “India doesn’t want peace in Pakistan so it must be done by RAW”, “America is behind it”. “Israel has done this hideous thing”. So on and so forth.

This indicates an extremist mindset which is an outcome of decades of radicalization and Islamization of political issues in Pakistan. Though it has started from 1949’s Objectives Resolution but till General Zia’s era religion has a relatively lesser influence on politics. In General Zia’s time, everything was Islamized to fight against the Soviets, which gave enormous power to religious parties and groups. From 1979 to 1989, these ten years, when a holy war was fought in Afghanistan, all most all of Pakistan was militarized and radicalized. In 1989, Soviet’s defeat triumphed extremism. In the same year, the insurgency in Kashmir was affected by the overflow of extremism. Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front’s (JKLF) militant struggle for the right of self-determination and independence got Islamized and soon became a Jehad for the incorporation of Kashmir into Pakistan.

Islamization of the Kashmir dispute strengthened the religious parties and weaken democratic institutions. It paved a way for military coups and overthrown the elected governments. Religious parties supported military regimes and, military regimes in return protected their interests. Extremism created a war loving mindset which was not favorable for political leaders but military dictators.

In his efforts to solve the Kashmir dispute, General Musharraf had gone one or two steps away. Retreating from the decade-old stance on Kashmir was his one the biggest mistakes, which led to the start of terrorist attacks inside Pakistan and after that there frequency and intensity increased with every passing day.

Pakistan’s efforts in combating terrorism are linked with its people’s mindset. Terrorism is an ideology and needs to be replaced by a non-terrorist ideology. It is a narrative which needs to be challenged with a counter-narrative. Pakistan has conducted a handful military operations in its Tribal areas, which are being considered successful but it has failed on the ideological front. Failure in preventing a terrorist attack is not just Pakistan’s inability but failure in fulfilling what is needed to be fulfilled after an attack is its specification.

It has failed in bringing madrasa and syllabus reforms. It has failed in implementing NAP’s major portion. And more importantly, it has failed in countering the narrative of terrorists which has given them an advantage of recruiting more and more people for their ranks.

Militancy is not a solution to any of Pakistan problems and certainly not to the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan needs to de-Islamized the Kashmir dispute, which will strengthen its democratic institutions and will reduce support for religious and militant groups and leaders. This could reduce the number of extremist minds in the country. When there will be considerable voices against homegrown terrorists, extremism will then be challenged on the ideological level. And only then a counter-narrative can be successful.

Writer is pursuing his MPhil at Iqra University Islamabad. He blogs at and can be reached at @imrankhushaal or

Will Pakistan Peoples Party rise again?

Many are convinced that Pakistan Peoples Party has gone with the wind, but many others believe it will rise again. Those who are convinced have left its ranks and joined other parties mainly Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf but some also have gone farther and have joined Pakistan Muslim League N. Others who still believe in a miracle have no option but to wait. There is not one group of believers but rather individuals from different groups.


These groups or camps can be categorized as, the conventional, the ideological and the emotional. The conventional or traditional camp wants to enjoy the same old feudal prestige and so it is clinging with PPP. The ideological camp wants to bring a “socialist revolution” in “Islamic Republic of Pakistan” so it is trying to keep PPP alive because in its view the only “Proletariat’s tradition” in Pakistan is Pakistan Peoples Party. The emotional camp is not clear on what it wants but rather what it feels and it feels one day PPP will rise again and it will shout, “Zinda hai Bhutto Zinda Hai”, (long live Bhutto).

What’s on the surface is pretty obvious and can be concluded as a battle between PPP and its enemies. But who really is an enemy of PPP, when it has compromised on everything from its ideology to the assassinations of its former leaders. Is it someone outside or inside PPP. What’s inside is difficult to see and understand. Different factions have derived power from PPP’s “mighty days” but now it has become a liability an introduction which many don’t want to have.

Miss calculations have a historical relationship with Pakistan Peoples Party on both ends. When Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto the founding chairman of PPP was arrested and later jailed he “miss-calculated” public support for him and waited for them to rush over military’s General Headquarter, but nothing such happened. When his daughter Benazir Bhutto came to Pakistan PPP supporters and voters “miss-calculated” and perceived an end to their miseries. They thought Benazir Bhutto will provide them what Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had promised but could not provide due to his “extra-judicial murder”. But she was assassinated and so does the promise of providing ‘’ROTI, KAPRA, and MAKAN”, (bread, clothing and shelter).

There was another miss-calculation about which many don’t know. It was a perspective from leftists, socialists, and Marxists, who follow Leon Trotsky’s interims policy and are busy in promoting socialist thoughts in Pakistan Peoples Party and workers’ movement, which again in their view is only Pakistan Peoples Party. The saw a revolution, a socialist revolution in Pakistan right after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and declared that there is no existence of Pakistani state. But they confused Pakistani state with the government of that time. So “miss-calculated” a revolution.

Keeping the historical “miss-calculations” in mind, it could be rightly said that those who are seeing PPP’s rise in future are again doing wishful thinking. They are as wrong as Bhutto was when he expected people to overthrow everything to bring him out of his cell. They are as wrong as those innocent people who dreamed Roti, Kapra, and Makan. And as wrong as those “socialists” who gave the perspective of a socialist revolution through Pakistan Peoples Party after Benazir’s assassination.

One important thing which has been neglected while analyzing PPP’s potential rebuild is the reason behind its fall at the first place. This time,  PPP wasn’t divided from the top, it was divided from the bottom. Previously there was no bridge in between so-called center-left and right, between Pakistan Peoples Party standing at center-left and Pakistan Muslim League standing at right and far right, but now there was Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insafe, an NGO turned to political party which got all necessary support and backing and waved from left to right in no time and now has reached far right. But in a short time in its huge swing PTI has won previous feudal lords of PPP, all kind of mafias and also so-called socialists. Even many diehard Jiyalas started believing that PTI is new PPP.

Now the question is still in many circles, will PPP rise again, and if yes, how it will. Some expect Bilawal Bhutto Zardari will act like his grandfather and mother and soon there will be a renaissance of PPP. Others have a much-complicated solution and they believe PPP will rise if it will turn to its basic program which according to them is socialism. But I don’t agree with so called socialists’ blind optimism. I think PPP can’t rise through socialism. As this is no more tradition of working class in this country… but that debate needs a separate blog. Also to opt for a socialist path or to turn to its basic it lacks the will, ability, and leadership. It can rise through the rhetoric of Bhuttoism and under table dealings, like mainstream politics and by injecting a lot really a lot of capital to win feudal, mafias, and Jiyalas back and to create new outlets and stakeholders.

Writer is pursuing his MPhil at Iqra University Islamabad and blogs at go say hello @imrankhushaal

To download this article in PDF CLICK HERE

Modi’s impromptu visit to Pakistan

On 25-th December when many were busy in Christmas and others were observing Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s Birthday here in Pakistan “a few” were celebrating Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s birthday on his granddaughter Mehrun Nisa’s wedding. On the same day, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Lal Modi paid a surprise visit to his Pakistani counterpart. He flew from Kabul and landed at Lahore with his 120 personals team, stayed for a while and flew away. Modi’s visit brought a smile on many faces, but it also disturbed a number of people and parties. Jammat-i-Islami and Hizbul Mujahideen staged protests wherever they managed on short notice and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf tweeted, I mean they tweeted a lot on #Modi.

1290Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (right) talks to his Indian counterpart Narendra Modi during his visit to Lahore.

Right after his departure, strong jolts of the earthquake were felt throughout the region from Afghanistan to Dehli, and many has related them with Modi’s “evil” nature. Notably, Dr. Moed Pirzada a Pakistani anchor at Dunya TV who tweeted “Narendra Modi let whole of Pakistan dance into a ‘Simple Harmonic Motion’ leading to worst Earthquake; God, this was literally hell!” upon which he was called a moron and an idiot, by some two hundred people out of 445 retweets. Anyways that was not something I wanted to talk about.

I want to talk about, why Modi has visited Pakistan “after threating Pakistan to holding hands with Nawaz” as Dawn calls it. A lot of people are talking about the reasons which compelled Indian Prime Minister Narendra Lal Modi to visit Pakistan and many believe he has visited Pakistan because of his deteriorating reputation in India and to give a message to multinational corporations; interested in investing in India or already have invested, that he is not a failure on diplomatic front and India is as safe for investment as any other developed democratic country in the world.

I agree to this, but this is not the only thing for which he has visited Pakistan after threating Pakistan in 2011, and taking a real hard line against it. He has visited because of some more serious issues, which involve the US, China, Russia, Pakistan, India and Syria in a way. Before reaching Kabul, on Thursday, he was in Russia as Indian Express has reported that, “As Prime Minister Narendra Modi commences a two-day visit to Russia on Wednesday for the annual summit talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, New Delhi is expected to focus on nuclear energy, hydrocarbons, defence and trade.” Terrorism, defence and trade are points of agreement between India and Russia and fields where they are cooperating and will enhance their cooperation in the future. On the other hand cooperation and expected cooperation between Russia and China in combating terrorism in Syria and Trade, has also seen. China has also invested in India and going to invest more. And same is the case with Pakistan. So the trade is common between Russia, China, India and Pakistan.

China is going to invest more than $46 billion In Pakistan according to different media reports. This mega venture involves Kashmir in the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and China’s worry isn’t something easily fixable. Pakistan and India has a dispute over Kashmir and Kashmir includes Gilgit-Baltistan, the region which connects Pakistan with China. Despite the demand of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan could not incorporate it as a province and has granted a semi-provincial level, which is ‘okay’ for administrative purpose but didn’t fix China’s reservations. China’s worry is real and genuine and contestation on Kashmir could cause her serious damages in the future. So to be on the safe side, China wants Pakistan to declare Gilgit Baltistan’s status which is not possible until Pakistan and India reach some consensus.

Here comes the assumption part as we don’t know what is really happening behind the scene. So it is possible that China could have talk to Russia to talk to India or it could have directly talked to India to reach an understanding with Pakistan, as it (China) has talked to Pakistan. Pakistan’s green signal can be seen from two statements of past couple of days, first, “Pakistan Joins Russia, Condemns Any Attempts to Topple Assad in Syria, Pakistan opposes any efforts to topple the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Pakistan’s foreign secretary said on Wednesday.” Second, “Issues are resolved with talks, not war: Pervaiz Rashid, He told China had suggested the same solution for Kashmir dispute which it used for Hong Kong, Taiwan and Macau.”

So Indian Prime Minister Narendra Lal Modi’s Pakistan visit was not just to eat Pakistani Prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s birthday cake or to greet Mehrun Nisa or even rebuild his damaged reputation in his country but it was “supposedly’ also about a step towards some game-changing phenomena. It could also be towards solving or further complicating Kashmir Issue. What it was really about, let’s wait and see.

The writer is pursuing his MPhil at Iqra University Islamabad, blogs at and can be followed @imrankhushaal

To Download This And Related Articles Click Here

Why couldn’t 1989 insurgency liberate Kashmir?

By: Imran Khushal

Militant movements or guerrilla warfare has played a vital role in transforming the realities almost all the time, particularly in the 20th-century world. After the Second World War, starting from Chines Revolution where Mao’s People Liberation Army (1945-1949) not only defeated the three time bigger opponents and conquered the third largest nation in the period of just four years but also brought one billion under the rule of Communism and influenced the communist movements in many nations like India (Naxalite movement), Vietnam (Vietcong), Malaysia, Philippines etc. to Mujahideen in Afghanistan (1979-1989) who failed soviet war machine to occupy this mountain-rugged nation and weakened its economy which assisted in the fall of Soviet Union in 1991.


Exactly when Soviet was defeated in 1989 in Afghanistan, an insurgency broke out in Kashmir. Definitely, Kashmir had background and conditions which led to the insurgency in 1989 but the success of Mujahideen in Afghanistan played like a catalyst. In the mid 80’s when Sheikh Abdullah’s National Conference allied to All Indian National Congress, radical groups and parties gained grounds and later momentum and soon an insurgency gripped Srinagar in 1989, under the banner of Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front commonly known as JKLF, which demanded a “Sovereign Kashmir’’, in their slogans like “Kashmir Bannay Ga Khudmukhtar”, and “Hum Kia Chahtay, Azaadi”, from both India and Pakistan.

So If Fidel Castro, Che Guevara and his group of 82 were able to overthrow the corrupt rule of Fulgencio Batista and defeat his army of more than 20,000, after 1955 in Cuba, why couldn’t Maqbool But and His companions do the same thing in Kashmir? If Vietcong could defeat France in Battle of Dien Bien Phu and forced American to leave why JKLF couldn’t defeat India and liberate Kashmir?

Well, in Kashmir’s case, even though JKLF was fighting for a sovereign Kashmir it was fighting only against Indian occupation which made it suspicious in the eye of other Kashmiri nationalists in general and Kashmiri non-Muslims in Particular, where it lacked general public support and due to lack of resources and dependency on Pakistan, soon it was weakened and divided. In the absence of a clear political aim, a perfect propaganda, sustainable resources and public support along with other deficiencies, JKLF was replaced by Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) in couple of years, and insurgency’s theme became “Kashmir, Bannay Ga Pakistan”, (Kashmir will become a Part of Pakistan), from “Kashmir, Bannay Ga Khud Mukhtar”.

By comparing Kashmir’s insurgency of 1989 and the July 26 Movement of Cuba, we see one essential difference in two guerrilla approaches, and that is of recognizing and challenging the instant enemy. General Batista was nothing but an American puppet, similarly government in Srinagar was nothing but an Indian installation. Where JKLF tipped was neglecting Pakistani Installations in Muzaffarabad and Gilgit-Baltistan. They rallied to fight against occupation and yet they fought against only one kind of occupation and “favored” or “neglected” other kind of occupation. They depended on Muslim fighters and gave an impression of liberating Kashmir to build a theocratic state or joining Pakistan an already theocratic state. Where non-Muslims feared and preferred to remain in a “Contested, but Secular Land” instead of living in a “Liberated, but non-secular state”, or predominantly Muslim theocratic state.

Another reason for the failure of 1989 insurgency can clearly be seen in the divided status of Jammu and Kashmir. Insurgency broke out and remained in one “part of the state” i.e. Valley, against “one occupier” i.e. India, by “one religious group” i.e. Muslims. So here arises a fundamental question, can Kashmir be liberated without its unification and can Kashmir be united without liberation? One of the Kashmiri nationalist parties tried to answer this question in 1992 when they opposed militancy and insurgency in Kashmir. They renamed their party after a split in old party. It was called United Kashmir People’s National Party, or (UKPNP) which then gave an idea of the unification and creation of United States of Kashmir, by combining all its divided parts which are under Chines, Indian and Pakistani control. As per UKPNP’s philosophy, former states of Burushal, Dardistan, Boloristan, Ladakh, Purig, Kishtwar, Duggart, Poonch and Kashmir, should be united in order to get what they called United States of Kashmir.

Recently in South Kashmir, a new wave of militancy struck a handful number of college and university students who see Jihad as the only way forward ignoring the historical lesson of JKLF and 1989 insurgency. If Kashmir could not be liberated in 1989, through a militant struggle, in the 20th-century, when plenty of countries opted guerilla warfare and got independence from their occupiers all over the world, it can’t be liberated through militancy in the 21st century, which is clearly not a century of guerrilla warfare.

So the only way forward is the political one. Kashmiri and non-Kashmiri, all those who are interested in peace in South East Asia, should behave politically. United Nations should force Pakistan and India to hold a plebiscite in Kashmir after withdrawal of their militaries. Nationalists should put pressure on both India and Pakistan to include independence as a third option. And also, participate in “fair or rigged” all kind of electoral processes, in all parts of “state”, under Indian as well a Pakistani administration to spread their message across Jammu and Kashmir.

Writer is pursuing his MPhil at Iqra University Islamabad, blogs at and can be followed @imrankhushaal

TO Download This And Related Articles Click Here 

Muslim Conference; from Military Democracy to Militant Democracy

By: Imran Khushaal Raja

Catch all parties, usually do not have any well-defined ideologies, because they do not need them, but if by chance, they have one, it would be so something which even philosophers and political scientists are sometimes not aware of. All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference’s military democracy is such a case.


Days ago in a discussion on democracy with our “Civil Society and World Politics’’ course’s moderator, Dr. Ejaz Bhatti, we discussed different types and shades of democracy. I asked doctor’s opinion on military democracy and he was as astonished as anything. Maybe it was natural of him. Maybe someone else in his place would have listened to this animal first time. After all, political scientists are also human beings and not bound to know everything.

Anyways, military democracy a term introduced by L. H. Morgan to designate the organization of power in ancient Greek society at the stage of the disintegration of the primitive commune system and he defines it, “the military state of society, and the system of administration consisting of an elective and removable supreme chief, a council of elders and a popular assembly.”

But a stub article on Wikipedia, titled, “ Atique Ahmed Khan’’, claims that “he is the founder and visionary of the ideology “Military Democracy” (civil-military governance) which is designed to get efficient governance and obstruct martial law or military coup in Pakistan.” Interestingly the term was most definitely coined under some martial law, because Muslim Conference served every dictator, from Ayub Khan to Prevez Mushraf. So the only way of obstructing a martial law as Muslim Conference head proposed, is to make a dictator, the supreme chief.

After reading the Frederick Engels’s characterization of military democracy it seems clear that Muslim Conference’s head, seeks no difference in barbaric Greek Heroic Age and 21st Century, he also finds no difference barbarians of that time and people of this age living in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. I am afraid he might not also be thinking of Kashmiris as plunders who are not engaged in productive work and in his view are possibly involved in the regular profession of plundering.

According to Frederick Engels, the Greek Heroic Age was a typical example of military democracy. He characterizes it as follow, “The military commander, the council, and the popular assembly formed the organs of military democracy, military because war and the organization of war were now the regular functions of life of the people. The wealth of their neighbors excited the greed of the peoples, who began to regard the acquisition of wealth as one of the main purposes in life. They were barbarians: plunder appeared to them easier and even more honorable than productive work. War, once waged simply to avenge aggression or as a means of enlarging territory that had become inadequate, was now waged for the sake of plunder alone, and became a regular profession. The growth of slavery had already begun to brand working for a living as slavish and more ignominious than engaging in plunder.”

Today on my breakfast table I was smirking on Nawa-e-Waqat’s editorial and columns. Unexpectedly, right there I saw a column of Attique Ahmed Khan, head of All Jammu and Kashmir Muslim Conference and ex-prime minister of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. In his column, there was nothing worth mentioning, but his email address, which is,

So, I started relating the idea of military democracy and the content of his speech in a rally of Jamaat-ud-Dawa in Islamabad lately, in which he has said, Pakistan People’s Party and Muslim League have abandoned us (Muslim Conference) and now we have no option but to stand with Jamaat-ud-Dawa. Now, Hafiz Saeed and Jamaat-ud-Dawa’s democracy is not unknown to anyone who got senses.

So in short Muslim Conference’s head and so-called founder and visionary of military democracy is now protecting that hypothetical supreme chief through militant democracy of true militants.

The writer is pursuing hisMPhill at Iqra University Islamabad, blogs at and works with Institute for Social and Economic Justice (ISEJ). He tweets @imrankhushaal