While American presidential candidate Barack (Hussein) Obama has pledged to shift the war on terrorism back to fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and also Pakistan, the Pakistan’s new coalition government will hold talks with militants believed to have carried out suicide bombings and will use military force as a last resort, media reported, citing political party leaders.

Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif, head of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, said a different approach is needed to deal with militants, the newspaper reported in separate interviews with both leaders.

Both views have alarmed U.S. officials and are being seen as a softening of stance by the new government toward militants, the newspaper said. Suicide bombings in Pakistan have increased and are believed to be in retaliation for U.S.-backed pilot-less Predator drone strikes on militants, the newspaper said. There were 17 suicide bombings in the first 10 weeks of this year, the report said.

The observers believe that any deal that allows armed Islamic extremists to operate on Pakistani soil would run counter to U.S. demands for the government to crack down on militants. The Bush administration contends a failed truce last year allowed al-Qaida to expand its reach into this turbulent, nuclear-armed country, and the U.S. has sounded warnings in recent days about a revival of militant strength.

The government has repeatedly tried to strike peace deals with local pro-Taliban militants, urging them to expel foreign al-Qaida militants the U.S. has warned may use their sanctuary inside Pakistan’s tribal regions to plot terror attacks around the globe.

The negotiation strategy has mostly backfired in the past, with militants failing to honor agreements. A cease-fire in North Waziristan in September 2006, which collapsed in July, was widely seen as a setback in the war against terror, giving the Taliban and al- Qaida a freer hand to stage cross-border attacks into Afghanistan and extends their control of areas within Pakistan.

I have initiated blog http://formyfreedom.wordpress.com/ primarily with two objectives. Firstly to voice for Liberal Values e.g. Rule of Law, Good Governance, Pluralism etc. and secondly to establish a platform to discuss issues of our concern.

I received interesting feedback from friends after uploading few articles on diverse issues. My friend from South Africa Marco and another great friend from Guatemala, Luis, with them I find great deal of understanding on various contemporary issues have made interesting comments. Both of them while encouraging me have also stated their position as “moderate” regarding issues I have raised. Some people labeled me as “liberal extremist”, which in my opinion is an oxymoron.

I have seen “pseudo liberals” around me who think liberalism is just their life style and there are others who are “liberal apologists” who want to have conformity from others while being politically correct and riding with popular sentiments. But when I say a liberal can not be an extremist I have reasons to make this claim. I have yet to encounter a single liberal (even pseudo and apologist) who have ever advocated use of force, violence or any other tool of oppression to achieve the end goals.

The point I want to make is that exercising the right of expressing dissent can not be termed as an extremist viewpoint. When I say that the western multiculturalism and humanistic values are in stark contrast to the some specific religious values, someone can refute my claim with reason and logic and I will never feel offended about it. At the same time, I would like to see my right of disagreement is protected and no body is stabbing me to death, rendering me jobless or using any kind of persecution against me. I think it’s not an irrational or big demand. I show no intolerance towards anyone. In fact I love all humanity irrespective of their true or false beliefs. Hardly can you call a man like me intolerant. On the other hand I encounter countless people who are intolerant towards me. They cannot even tolerate my right to think independently and express myself.

I am against Nazism because it is a doctrine of hate. I am against some specific religious teachings because I find them a doctrine of hate. The former advocated the supremacy of a race the latter promotes the superiority of a religion. They both used violence to advance their objectives and they both had no respect for human lives and their rights. They both believed that since their ideology is right it is okay to kill people and the end justifies the means. My struggle is not against any religion or religious persons. Most of my loved ones, friends and relatives are religious (Devoted Muslims). I fight against the doctrine of hate that has made all of us victims and victimizers for the last so many centuries.

Of course all religious persons are not terrorists. My mother never missed a prayer but I am sure she is a saint. I never met a woman as self-sacrificing, kind and loving as that pure soul. I have met so many wonderful beings among Muslims that I met nowhere. These people are not terrorists just because they are born in a specific country and they think they are belong to a specific religious philosophy. Terrorists are those who follow the teachings of dominance, violence and hatred. The majority of religious people are not even aware of these teachings as they are contended to perform just some rituals.

I believe everybody is free to believe in his/her faith and no one wants to take that right away from them by force. However what they can’t stomach is that others also have the freedom to express their disagreement with their faith. Moreover, those who believe in any specific faith that is dangerous for others, should not be free to do is to practice a great part of their faith. Marriage to minors, beating wives, killing the apostates, chopping hands, maiming, flogging, stoning and other savageries should be banned. In other words you should be allowed to believe in any faith but you should not be allowed to practice it when it’s encroaching on rights of others.

And finally, Marco being a moderate, you can not oppose racism “moderately” nor can you criticize Nazism in a moderate way. South Africans are good people and so are German. It was all about philosophy, which you have been opposing with full vigor and not “moderately”.

What a coincidence, the day record number of women was taking oath as newly elected parliamentarians. The day top model cum actress Ateeqa Odho was busy interviewing the president Musharraf and the elite ladies of the capital city were relaxing after marking the International Women’s Day quite hectically and aggressively, she was dyeing in a local hospital and nobody was there to care for her.    

The tragic and painful death of young artiste Sana Kanwal in a hospital should be a matter of shame for women’s organisations and NGOs which chose not to lend a helping hand to a woman in distress.Sure death comes when it does and is saddening but it is all the more so when organisations that thrive in the name of women, opt to look the other way. This was a case prominently reported yet the Ministry of Women’s Development and the string of other bodies ‘striving’ for women’s rights conveniently ignored it.

Kanwal, a one-time employee of the Pakistan National Council of the Arts (PNCA), died at the Federal Government Services Hospital (FGSH) in the wee hours of the day of a diabetic foot that turned terribly bad. She was 34.

Her journey from the Edhi Home to the FGSH and back was brief. Brought to the hospital unconscious on Sunday, doctors tried their best to save her life but could not. Only seven people attended her funeral. She was buried at the H-11 Graveyard by the Edhi Trust staff.

A homeless woman, Kanwal did not go to the hospital in time for fear of amputation. There was no one to persuade her to go and she had no loved one to look after her. “Who would take care of a totally dependent woman,” she once said.

The infection in her foot spread to her body and she fell unconscious. A ward boy and two volunteers of Edhi Home stood by her side in hospital. They were the ones who arranged for blood and when she passed away, transported her back and arranged her funeral.

A classical dancer and theatre actress, Kanwal used to tell the hospital staff during an earlier stay there, about her son who was in the custody of his father. “Her in-laws accepted her as long as she was able to earn money but when she went down with her diabetic foot, they made her go away,” the staff said. Soon she sought divorce and later married another man who died a few years ago.

Her wound prevented her from moving on her own and at one point she survived by drinking only water for a full week because there was no one to take care of her. She was a Masters in English Literature, capable and independent — a woman who had faith she could see the bad times through.

Kanwal was not a glamorous star and might have longed for fame, however she symbolised many modern ideas. She represented the image of a woman vastly promoted by NGOs encouraging women to know their rights and fight for them. Sana did just that.

She took bold decisions and was determined to fight against all odds yet being all alone she needed to be protected and supported by those who promote independent women. Unfortunately, she was ignored by all organisations waving the women’s rights flags just when she needed help. Surely she could have survived if timely help and support had been forthcoming.

But whatever response came was from some individuals willing to help — a slap in the face of organisations that make only tall claims from five-star forums. Had this been a rape case, it certainly would have attracted attention of NGOs and others. That Kanwal’s case involved a woman who couldn’t walk, who was helpless and needy was perhaps not attractive for women’s organisations.

Two foriegners dancing at kite flying show  held in Islamabad just a day after forigners in Islamabad were made target of deadly bomb explosion.

Pakistan onboard. Destination: democracy. The PPP and the PML are at each others’ throat no more. Celebrate, Asif’s and Nawaz’s political maturity. Celebrate; the PPP and the PML are bound by the ’spirit of democracy’. Celebrate moderation’s victory. Celebrate the end of ‘divide and conquer’. Get ready to celebrate the rule of law too. Celebrate elections. We can hold peaceful elections and elect our leaders too. Celebrate, this was the first election fought and won on issues. Celebrate, Pakistan’s largest political parties will jointly be tackling Pakistan’s problems. Celebrate, Asif and Nawaz are genuinely sharing power–now that’s a first.

Celebrate the civil society’s coup. Celebrate, the ‘revenge of democracy’. Celebrate the development of multiple centers of power. Celebrate the electronic media. Celebrate the lawyers’ movement. Celebrate the quiet, peaceful revolution.

“Forget everything else. Celebrate. This is Pakistan’s moment. This is Pakistan’s moment of glory. Pakistanis have always voted for democracy–and against fundamentalist parties–so make that known to the world. Let Kerrys and Bidens come and go, let them see the celebration Pakistanis are engaged in. Let them go and tell their masters. Let the world know that Pakistan is moving up…up and up. Let the Islamic suicide bombers do whatever they want to do because sooner rather than later they will all be sidelined by the mainstream celebration. Be happy and the world will see you happier.”

The moment of truth for President Musharraf has arrived. The tripod–the PML-Q his civilian façade, a divided opposition and the intelligence apparatus–that sustained his rule is no more. The PML-Q (The King’s Party) was rejected in the election and the opposition is divided no more.

November 3 is when Pakistan cried. Celebrate, that also happens to be the day when Pakistan’s judiciary for the first time in its checkered history stood up to decree the imposition of martial law as illegal. March 9 is when Pakistan cried. Celebrate, that also happens to be the day when the PPP and the PML-N joined hands to end Pakistan’s protracted nightmare.

Yes, our problems are humongous. Challenges gigantic. Inflation has gone through the roof. And, we have seen nothing yet. Wait till diesel goes up by Rs15 a liter. Wait till electricity tariff goes by an additional 25 percent? Wait till a naan sells for Rs 8 each. Who will control the specter of food inflation? Who will fund Rs400 billion fiscal deficit? Who will fund $12 billion current account deficit?

Yes, United States Air Force’s (USAF) Air Operations Center is busy planning. USAF’s Air Expeditionary Wings are preparing for operational missions within our geographical territory. Thunderbolts, Fighting Falcons, Nighthawks and Predators are being readied.

Asif and Nawaz would now have to persuade their respective constituencies that this is our war too. People out there coming in and killing our children in Lahore cannot be ‘our people’. People attacking Pak Navy cannot be ‘our people’. People who killed Benazir Bhutto cannot be ‘our people’. Asif and Nawaz must clear all ambiguities. The bigoted and fanatics wants to turn Pakistan into a 7th century Saudi Barbria and engaged in brainwashing the masses to side and be part of killing cult are even not our people. This is our war too.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. When America invaded Iraq the world opinion was split. On the war in Afghanistan, there is a global consensus that terrorist threats emanating from the Pak-Afghan border have to be eliminated. We have got to help the world feel safe–make it safe–or the world would do it its own way. We are either with the world or against it.

India’s democracy has a 60-year track record of taking care of dynastic politics, severe food shortages, poverty, chronic unemployment, an inefficient bureaucracy, prime ministerial scandals, bribes, tax evasions, embezzlements and an abundance of secessionist as well as faith related violence. Our democracy can too. Finally, can Asif and Nawaz give us an accountable government? Doomsday theorists are doing what they do best; spread rumors of an imminent collapse. I am convinced that a grand reconciliation is afoot. I am convinced that our democrats can beat the odds. Beat the odds only if they stay united, that is. Of the 192 member states of the UN an overwhelming majority solves their problems through democracy. We can too

The summit of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) at Dakar has adopted a charter of reform which will be subject to agreement later by the central powers of the organization because of their financial dominance. Meanwhile it is interesting to note how the 57 states perceived the issues confronting the Muslims of world. The Dakar Declaration passed on Thursday may not satisfy the common Muslim man in the street because his expectations remain essentially confrontationist and could even come to clash with the “passive” nature of the OIC.

The full text of new Charter is still to be made public but it was adopted to make changes in the OIC secretariat and speed up the process of decision-making in the organization. On the political side, apart from the platitudinous and ineffectual complaints about the Palestinian issue, the following “surprising” assertion was made: “We continue to strongly denounce all forms of extremism and dogmatism which are incompatible with Islam, a religion of moderation and peaceful coexistence”. The Declaration proposes “a major international gathering on Islamic-Christian dialogue involving governments among other players”.

There is a condemnation of terrorism — but not without indirectly permitting it in Palestine — followed by a pledge “to work harder to make sure that Islam’s true image is better projected the world over”. In his speech the Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono actually exemplified the confusion that prevails in the Muslim mind: he began with the assertion that Islam was being associated with violence and accepted that Muslim societies were subject to “protracted conflicts”, and then sprang on the gathering the conclusion that Muslims must fight against “Islamophobia” in the West.

There is a need to accept the phenomenon of extremism in Muslim societies. But any discussion of extremism and violence will immediately come to the conclusion that it is in fact a reaction to what is being done to the Muslims by “others”. Yet the main victim of this extremism is the Muslim population itself, pointing once again to the indigenous nature of extremist thinking. One has also to understand the repeated failure of inter-religious dialogue, given the fact that large sections of the Muslim clergy actually believe that Christianity is invalid by reason of the “changes” introduced in its sacred texts. A dialogue is possible only if we accept the faith of the other as a valid faith. Muslims also believe that Hindus and other non-middle eastern religions are false and its their divine mandated duty to eradicate them.

Then comes the phenomenon of Islamophobia. All Muslims are agreed that it exists in Western societies but they are not prepared to understand it as a “reaction” to the changing sociology of the expatriate Muslims against whom this “phobia” is directed. Because of the full citizenship granted to the expatriate Muslims in the West — as opposed to the Middle East where Muslim foreign workers have no rights — Muslims think they are exempt from the obligation of “integration” with local culture. Influenced by the Western concept of “multiculturalism”, they assume an aggressive identity ready to challenge the foreign policy of the host state. The fear this arouses in the West is not good for the future of the expatriate Muslim community. Islamophobia is reactive and will go down if the expatriate Muslim accepts a level of assimilation not incompatible with moderation.

The negative reaction of the Muslims to the OIC is uncalled for. Most of them want it to be a military organization, ready to go to war against states that persecute the Muslims. They want it to be like NATO while OIC has not been conceived as a military organization. It is not even a common market like the European Union or ASEAN. It is at best a forum of opinion with some financial strength which still has a long way to go. The new reform says that OIC must have a “solidarity fund” at the disposal of the organization to enable it to help member states troubled by human disasters. The last time the call was made for $10 billion, only $2 billion were collected, all from Saudi Arabia.

It has been proposed that OIC resolutions should be passed with a two-thirds majority of the members present, and not by unanimity as heretofore. Most of the anger felt at the level of the masses against the OIC has sprung from this conditionality. But one can hardly expect great developments to flow from the reform since the organization will remain unable to intervene in intra-Muslim conflicts, which means that in situations like the Muslim-kills-Muslims genocide in Sudan only the Western charities will be able to play any meaningful role. The OIC is sitting uncomfortably on top of a motley number of states not actually at peace with one another.

The greatest weakness of the OIC springs from the alienation of the Muslim masses from the states they live in. The rulers that come together at the summit feel uncertain about the people they rule. And what the Muslim masses want is often distorted by bigotry and irrationality. Of course they have sources of inspiration that lead them to this insane approach.

I’m just feeling appalled after reading that a conference aimed at easing tensions with Germany’s 3.4 million Muslims began in Berlin on other day with the interior minister calling for schoolchildren to learn more about Islam. Yes, its appalling news for me as I everyday witness the “fruit” of such teaching around me and people like me are seeing Europe as only ray of hope for the humanity, which under threat from madness of the quest of subjugating entire planet .According to news story Wolfgang Schaeuble told the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung’s online edition that we are tackling hate preachers with all possible methods. With religious studies about Islam we are giving them some competition, so to speak. “Because if we send children to religious education in state schools, this will be different from religious practice in mosques,” the conservative minister said. At present the content of lessons about religion is worked out by schools in coordination with religious officials, but at present only with Christian and Jewish ones — something which Schaeuble said he planned to rectify.Bekir Alboga, head of a German Muslim council, said that children should be taught about Islam throughout the country and criticised the lack of teachers qualified to do so. “This is a failure in Germany — a failure of the state,” Alboga told the regional Ruhr Nachrichten daily. The comments came as the German government on Thursday held the third in a series of meetings on improving relations with the Muslim community, the vast majority of who are of Turkish origin.

The conference was expected to be marked by tensions between the various Islamic groups attending over a proposed joint statement stressing that Muslims living in Germany should adhere to the country’s laws and basic values. A recent official study showing one in seven Muslims in Germany — and one in four among young Muslims — has a radical political outlook, although 90 percent oppose terrorism reading a news A conference aimed at easing tensions with Germany’s 3.4 million Muslims began in Berlin on Thursday with the interior minister calling for schoolchildren to learn more about Islam.

“We are tackling hate preachers with all possible methods. With religious studies about Islam we are giving them some competition, so to speak,” Wolfgang Schaeuble told the daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung’s online edition.

“Because if we send children to religious education in state schools, this will be different from religious practice in mosques,” the conservative minister said. At present the content of lessons about religion is worked out by schools in coordination with religious officials, but at present only with Christian and Jewish ones — something which Schaeuble said he planned to rectify.

Bekir Alboga, head of a German Muslim council, said that children should be taught about Islam throughout the country and criticized the lack of teachers qualified to do so. “This is a failure in Germany — a failure of the state,” Alboga told the regional Ruhr Nachrichten daily.

The comments came as the German government on Thursday held the third in a series of meetings on improving relations with the Muslim community, the vast majority of who are of Turkish origin.

The conference was expected to be marked by tensions between the various Islamic groups attending over a proposed joint statement stressing that Muslims living in Germany should adhere to the country’s laws and basic values.

A recent official study showing one in seven Muslims in Germany — and one in four among young Muslims — has a radical political outlook, although 90 percent oppose terrorism. Now the question is how a country where all sort of hate speeches are banned would accommodate such demand. If Alboga is aware of what he is professing about than he’s leading Germany towards hara-kiri  as 90 percent, those are under delusion  now would not remain so after having first hand knowledge and information about the core of their philosophy.A recent article in the Washington Post, written by Nina Shea of Freedom House should be an eye-opener for the ilk of Albogra as she laid bare Saudi hypocrisy in claiming to have removed hateful material from textbooks, when in fact that material remains. The Saudis export such material in large quantities to Muslims in other countries. But while the article suggests that this is a Wahhabi problem, in fact much of the objectionable material is actually derived from the Qur’an and from traditions of Muhammad considered authentic by Muslims.The blockquotes below are from the Saudi textbooks as reported by Shea; interspersed are relevant Qur’anic verses and other material showing that all this is not just Wahhabi invention:“Fill in the blanks with the appropriate words (Islam, hellfire): Every religion other than ______________ is false. Whoever dies outside of Islam enters ____________.”This is straight from the Qur’an: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual good)” (3:85).“Whoever obeys the Prophet and accepts the oneness of God cannot maintain a loyal friendship with those who oppose God and His Prophet…”“O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.” (Qur’an 5:51)“They are the Jews, whom God has cursed…”“The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah…Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!” (Qur’an 9:30)“The clash between this [Muslim] community (umma) and the Jews and Christians has endured, and it will continue as long as God wills.”“The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah…” (Sahih Muslim book 1, no. 30)“It is part of God’s wisdom that the struggle between the Muslim and the Jews should continue until the hour [of judgment].”“Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”‘” (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 177)“The greeting ‘Peace be upon you’ is specifically for believers. It cannot be said to others.”“Such non-Muslim subjects…are not greeted with ‘as-Salamu ‘alaykum’ [peace be upon you]…” (’Umdat al-Salik, o11.5 (3-4); this manual of Shafi’i law was endorsed in 1991 by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, which is not a Wahhabi institution, as conforming “to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community.”)“Jihad in the path of God — which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it — is the summit of Islam….”“A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, “Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward).” He replied, “I do not find such a deed.” (Sahih Bukhari, vol. 4, bk. 52, no. 44)How can Western authorities face the implications of all this? Such verses as those quoted above and others that are used by jihadists to recruit and motivate Muslims to commit acts of violence should become widely known among government and law enforcement officials. They could then ask the questions of Muslims in the West that should have been asked since 9/11 and before that: how do you understand this material? What concrete, practical steps have you taken to counter the literalist understanding of the Qur’an and Hadith that jihadists are using to incite Muslims to violence? When will you issue an explicit statement acknowledging that jihadists use these passages and others in this way, rejecting their understanding and use of them, and proposing a viable alternative?The longer this is not done, the longer this material will continue to play a quiet and unnoticed role in the proliferation of jihad terrorism worldwide. 

Tuesday’s bomb attacks in Lahore go to show that the democracy emerging anew in Pakistan is going to have a very hard time to give people a peaceful and secure life. In fact, it would be a much harder time than what the dictatorial regime of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf faced, because dictatorial regimes have their own harsh way of dealing with violence  in terms of summary or manipulated trials, fake encounters to bump off suspects, third degree methods and military excesses. The democracy will have to deal with elements and forces indulging in violence in a democratic fashion that is, in accordance with laws, rules and procedures.

Terrorist and religious fanatic organisations in Pakistan are very dangerously armed, thanks to free supply of arms by the world powers for serving their own strategic interests and thanks also to the well-organised smuggling networks for supply of arms from anywhere to anywhere in the world. There is a good deal of money earned from illegal drug trade also going into purchase of arms. It is ironical that the Islamic religious fanatic and terrorist organisations do not find it morally wrong to use illicit means to acquire arms to fight for their sacred causes But then that is the reality, and Pakistan has to deal with this reality, in spite of the fact that Afghanistan is no longer under its clutch and many channels that were opened in that country have been closed for the flow of cash and arms for the terrorist and fanatical organisations operating in Pakistan.

On the other hand, we have the re-emerging democracy in Pakistan not finding its ground. Political disputes between the two major parties, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) seem to be lingering and could damage the united fronts image among the voters that have elected them with the hope that dictatorship will make an exit with the arrival in force of their representatives, no matter which political party banner. Positive perceptions among the Pakistani people are very important, because if people start losing their faith in the two parties and their leaders, democracy will have another round of trouble, which may mean some more years of an autocratic regime. Even if it does not mean an indefinite continuation of the Musharraf regime, some other dictator will emerge from the army and take over power, if the mood in the Pakistani public is one of despondency and disenchantment with political parties and political leaders.

Therefore, a great responsibility lies on the shoulders of the leaders of the PPP and PML-N, Mr Asif Zardari and Mr Nawaz Sharif, respectively, not to allow anything to happen that would create negative perceptions in the minds of the public. The fight over several issues between them has sent out a wrong message to their electors that the two parties would not be able to work together for a long time, and political instability may result, creating a vacuum and a free space for another long tenure of dictatorship. After all, dictatorships and military coups have been the fate of Pakistan.

But the country’s political history is also marked by misrule by political parties. The regimes of the late Benazir Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif were known to be lacking in vision to take the country forward in terms of development. Although they won the trust of the electorate attacking dictatorial regimes, they themselves ran regimes that became infamous for political oppression, police excesses and corruption.

If the two major political parties do not end their bickering, old memories could be revived among the people of the evil-doings of their regimes, which could be very inviting not only for present and future dictators but also for the terrorist and fanatic organisations, like the one that blew up targets in Lahore on Tuesday.