The Deluge

The time is for solutions. We have heard the media, the critics, the volunteers, as well as the politicians and the controversies. What our country needs is support from its people, its youth, us. Pakistan has been hit by a number of calamities in the past few years. Recently, I visited Swat for a relief effort, and even though as per government, rescue and relief operations have been underway, the situation in the North of Pakistan is still one that speaks of misery and tragedy; helplessness among the people, and indifference of the top leadership. Pakistaniat failed to spring from the corridors of power; however, the average Pakistanis took the responsibility in their own hands.

Many local organizations and youth activists have been fund-raising for the victims of monsoon floods, and donations have been, as always, generous. Just to cite a few examples, the Future Leaders of Pakistan have made relief efforts at a village called Fazil Korana, while, Pakistan Youth Alliance has distributed aid to Nowshera – areas with most affected people. More recently, Islamabad’s civil society collected and donated food packets for a hundred families in Swat and Kalam.

Flood has passed from Swat, and went southwards to Kot Adu and Sindh. So, people are now shifting focus from areas like Swat, Madian-Bahrain and Kalam to Southern Punjab and Sindh. However, the relief effort to Swat on 9^th and 10^th August showed that there has been no electricity in the whole city since over two weeks and the local population has been forced to use generators to survive. In the case of Swat, local residents reported that there has been absolutely no sign of any government assistance, and people have been trying to help each other themselves. Even though the water, which reached four feet in the streets of Swat, has receded back, it has left a number of bridges destroyed, some partially, others completely.

Upon talking to a teacher in a local school in Swat, who hailed from Madian Bahrain, it was learnt that his village was completely cut off from the rest of the country as a result of roads being submerged into water, and the only assistance that has reached these people is from the army. The response has been very lukewarm in places where youth organizations fail to reach; army that came to the rescue has been airlifting mainly people with either hard cash, or influential links, leaving others on their own. On the other hand, there have been similar stories from the residents and relatives of people in Kalam.

In a similar heart-wrenching incident, young people swam to safety in Kalam, while the elderly, women, and children managed to get on the rooftop of a mosque. Upon requesting authorities to airlift the stranded helpless people, it was reported that the helicopters were not available and could not operate in the given situation. Such a response unsurprisingly is creating disappointment, sadness, and desolation among the inhabitants of these areas. No one, among all the people interviewed had seen any reasonable response from the government, and as a result, felt dejected.

The destruction has been colossal. One resident complained that the government found it reasonable to put a ban on Geo, which was at least covering the damage, and now they were unable to tell the world about the difficulties and hardships they faced. Left on their own, the people of Madian Bahrian, Kalam, and Kabal are starving amidst water that they cannot drink. Their houses, cattle, crops, and even children have been swept away by a deluge that has no precedent in history. Further to the misfortune of these people, water that has accumulated is becoming a reason for widespread diseases. Although, water-purification tablets are the top priority among relief teams that are visiting the area, many people are still in dire need of assistance. According to the Principal of Khushal School Systems in Swat, it was learnt that people are coughing blood after drinking contaminated water in Kalam, which has been calamitously hit by the floods.

Most of the people that I managed to talk to were complaining about the apathetic response by the government agencies, and the grim need of food and clean drinking water. As the holy month of Ramadan starts, the hardships of flood-stricken families will only increase, due to lack of eatables, extremely high prices, and the difficultly in delivering and disbursing aid by local youth bodies. Over 100,000 acres of agricultural land flooded in the neighboring areas of Swat and Kalam, not only the present, but the future looks bleak. The floods that have affected 14 million people have caused damage and destruction in so many parts of the country to such a degree, that the relief and rehabilitation efforts will continue for a long time. What people in these calamity-hit areas need, besides the obvious and immediate distribution of food and clean water, is the support, even if symbolic, of their leadership – to make them feel at home in a country they love and call their own.

(First published in The Frontier Post)

With Your Hand In Mine

With your hand in mine,
Did I once walk,
Through Eden's gleanings,
Cheerful and carefree

With the winds of eternity,
Did We once saunter,
Through trees of grandeur beauty,
All, in the confines of our mind

The semblance of the seventh heaven,
Lugubrious to this day, as the first,
Through a kaleidoscope of misery,
An impeccable orchard of Hades

The bare reality of civilization,
Of society and of culture,
Shackled with sinister customs and traditions,
The ravenings and the words, becometh aghast,

Disillusioned and solitary,
Without a voice of reason,
Gazing together into eternity,
With your hand in mine, towards an ethereal desolation

Forever lost, in an oblivious mirage,
Alone and unaware, still as One,
Where the caverns of death shall freeze,
Let the wings unfurl..

The Masquerade of Democracy

The Sindh Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah has labeled 5th July as the “darkest day in the history of Pakistan”. For General Zia-ul-Haq’s coup-de-tat left the Pakistan People’s Party in ruins, only to rise again from the ashes a decade later. And so, by 1988, Benazir Bhutto, the charismatic daughter of the East, became the first woman Prime Minister of a Muslim state; only to be the first one to be thrown out on corruption charges. The decade of 90s saw a successive shift of power between the two leading parties of Pakistan, a tug of war to reclaim the seat of power. Here, the Pakistani nation showed an attitude that is best termed in the words of Kahlil Gibran, who said, and I quote; “Pity the nation... that welcomes its new ruler with trumpeting, farewells him with hooting, only to welcome another with trumpeting again.”, and we have doing that since the day of our birth.

So, why is 5th of July the darkest day of our history? Are there not better contenders in the lugubrious past of Pakistan then a coup-de-tat that is not even the only one? How about 16th December, when this country, did not lose a government, but East Pakistan? Perhaps, September 11, 1948, when the Father of the Nation died? But no, the darkest day was when the government led by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, which had lost much of its popularity by then, was toppled by a military dictator. That way, Pakistan has had many a dark days. Under the veil of democracy, our government has guilefully managed to rewrite history. For it is no longer that we hear the National Anthem, no longer is it that our newspapers and television channels talk about the Father of the Nation, or Pakistan in itself.

It is either 5th July, or 27th December. Either Benazir, or President Zardari, and either Pakistan People’s Party, or the Pakistan People’s Party. The capital has been decorated by not Pakistani flags, but by Pakistan People’s Party flags. The real Bhuttos have been lost in history, while the new ones reign. Instead of building cities and airports in remembrance of the assassinated leader, we have renamed whole cities, roads, and airports, things that were here before the martyr was even born. In an attempt to mould the past, our future has been put at stake, in the hands of the architects of this masquerade of democracy.

The Grand Monarch, Louis XIV, known as an absolute sovereign in France, was much more accessible to his subjects, than the democratic leaders of this country. At the grand palace of Versailles, anyone could just come in and not only move around the palace, but actually go inside the King’s Chamber and meet the King himself. And that was absolute monarchy. Here in Islamabad, we see the opposite. Let alone being inside the President House, it has become impossible to be on the President Road. The democratic leaders have turned the Capital of Pakistan into a land divided; one for the rulers, one for the ruled. Is this what democracy stands for? If the answer is yes, I will gladly say I have nothing to do with such democracy. Fortunately, however, this is not the real democracy, this is a false pretense, which was welcomed by trumpeting, and will be given a farewell of hooting. But perhaps, we still have time, maybe..; just maybe, we are still building our democratic foundations. And like a poor man who cannot get enough of money, we are a country, a nation long ravaged by dictators and military takeovers that is unable to understand what to do with the new found freedom. However, the question that arises in the mind of the average Pakistani citizen is that, whether this freedom is for all, or freedom for the elite?

A geo-strategic shift?

Since the earlier days of Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan has looked towards the prospering west for support on all grounds. However, it has paid heavily for the blind-love of the Western democracies in the form of sanctions from the 70s, to an exodus of Afghan refugees in the 80s that continued in the 90s and continues to this day, and more recently, in the form of domestic instability that has wrecked havoc around the cities of this, once peaceful nation. Road-side killings, suicide bombers, and the largest internal displacement of people in the history of mankind, combined with an eroding sovereignty is not something that we planned for. Is it fair to blame the past for the future? Should we agonize ourselves that had we aligned ourselves to powers that in addition to being sincere with their allies were also closer in proximity to Pakistan, we might have been in a better condition today? The Iron-Curtain fell in 1991, but for Pakistan, as the Soviet Union had been, Russia too, remained a mystery, until perhaps, recently. If we, as any economist would put it, let the bygones be bygones, we see a future.., a future that is promising, a future that does not have a crumbling Pakistan with charlatans occupying the highest echelons of the government, and a future that might conclude the geo-strategic shift of Pakistan’s foreign policy towards the Russian bear from the not-so-soaring American Eagle, that has been broken, beaten, and scarred by its extravagant adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since the late 2008, there has been an inclination towards Russia, from as minor steps as providing Russian news on local television, to as important as state visits. More recently, Pakistani Army Chief, General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani paid an official visit to his counter-part in Moscow. They did not only discuss the need of establishing a better collaboration between the two countries, but discussed a military cooperation and the desire of a “strategic partnership”; something, which Pakistan has desired in the tactical and sporadic relationship with Washington until now. So what do we do? Where are we heading? Will there be a geo-strategic shift? Perhaps, a powerful regional alliance, or a demonizing Western backed war on terrorism, which might lead to ever-deteriorating social, economic, and political condition of the South-Asian region? Fareed Zakria once suggested that, “America has tended to make its strategic missteps by exaggerating dangers”, we on the other hand; however, have tended to make our strategic missteps by confirming those exaggerated dangers in the form of pursuing the Holy Grail of democracy and fighting terrorism with guns and tanks. It is true, as Madge Micheels Cyrus said, “Nonviolence doesn't always work - but violence never does.” It is perhaps about time that Pakistan focuses on regional alliances, as much as, if not more than it focuses on the importance of its partnership with the declining super-power of our day. It is also true, that keeping America at an arm’s length is not realistic, nor desirable. What Pakistan needs today, is austerity in its domestic issues, a top-down policy instead of a bottom-up is the way it works. And a foreign policy that understands the importance of regional powers as much as it does of the global power. Perhaps, the first step has been taken, and maybe in the coming few years, with the prospering future of Russia and China, Pakistan might be a strategic partner of the two, like today, Israel is of America, something we could never become.

“Preconceived notions are the locks on the doors to wisdom”

We learn while we grow, yet some resist change. Where some are always aware of their ignorance, others are ignorant of their ignorance. And so, I was blasted by a kid on how my views are contradictory. For, in his case I listen to “LAAL” a music group that supports socialist, at times, communist ideologies; however, according to him, I support “aristocracy” (which I do) as the best form of government. Impeded by delusions of preconceived notions, many people pounce on the very names of communism and aristocracy. My point here, however, is not to indulge in discussions about these people but rather explain the difference between a “form of government” and an “ideology”, perhaps, as human nature it is, clarify my perspective.

Aristocracy has been in practice since at least the 5th Century BC, nurturing in Athens, to the magnificent empire that encircled the Mediterranean; Communism, on the other hand, remains an ideology that came as a result of the Industrial Revolution. Was communism against aristocracy? Or was it a political movement that sought to overthrow the capitalist society that spurred the conflict between the different classes of society, to a point of no return? My take on this? It was the later. Had I been in favor of communist ideas and stood for capitalism on the other hand, I would have been contradicting myself, something which seems too hard to be understood by the bigotry critics of modern times. Someone once said that “Democracy has become the Holy Grail of Western culture”, and I say, we are following suit. I support Aristocracy against democracy, and communism against capitalism. Now, someone will pounce on me saying that the “aristocrats will never support a communist system over a capitalist one!” – Before you lose your breath, let me assure you, whether aristocrats will or will not support communism as an ideology, is not the point of debate. If aristocracy is against communist ideas, so is democracy. Where communism strives to end the class “conflict”, aristocracy remains a form of government by the “best”. They are entities that are a world apart. I do not favor a comparison between oranges and sofas.

How do we define who is the most able, or the “best” is certainly not possible with a universal suffrage that brings forth people, who, even though are on a higher platform of comfort, are on a higher platform of ignorance as well. Again, before I drift into an endless debate between democracy and its rival forms of government, that rarely are understood in our times, I will remind myself, that the point of this discussion was to explain how someone can support communist ideas on one hand, and stand for aristocracy on the other, without contradicting himself. If the most able rule, and if those who do not seek power, are vested with power, maybe, if they see it fit for the society, a socialist ideology, if not strictly a communist one, might flourish under them. For this, however, one should know the difference between an aristocracy and an oligarchy. I shall end this with a note that, not ignorance, but the ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge.

PS: the coming years might change my take on many a thing, for learning is a lifelong process – but this is how they stand today; might not a few years from now, however.

Democracy

“Dēmokratia”, now known to the world as “Democracy” is a form of government, or the “rule of the people”. The most important question that arise out from this is a simple one, is the government “by the people” is also a government “for the people”? A clear analogy exists here, that calls democracy “rule of the people, by the people, for the people”. What is not so clear, however, is that if this form of government is the “best” for a country in particular, or the world at large. For this, one shall not only glance at the humble beginnings of the much celebrated mechanism of democracy, but perhaps, take into consideration the definitions of Aristotle’s views on the best form of government, and Plato’s immortal words – “democracy passes into despotism”. One may wonder if there a misconception of equality that is being used against the people for the hunger of the seat of power. Maybe, this flaunt of democracy of the modern world not only acts to promote itself, but serves as a shroud on the alternatives to democracy; monarchy, aristocracy, and in Aristotle’s words, Polity.

In the city states of Ancient Greece, Athens progressed much in its social, political, and cultural field. It was a nurturing ground for the queen of sciences, philosophy. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not mere names and figures in the history of the development of philosophy in general, and the uplifting of life in particular. Plato and Aristotle were critical of democracy, and worked much to better understand this strange phenomenon. While in Athens, in the Master’s time, population never exceeded 10,000, there existed a different form of democracy, than what exists in the contemporary world. It was a direct democracy, where all people could participate in openly held debates and forums, affecting their lives. But here, equality was not the equality of today. Here, slaves and women did not have any political right. The philosophers strived for an educated class to become the “philosopher-kings”. One man one vote was not the philosophy of the day and the educated lot of the Greeks understood that equality in front of God, and equality in terms of abilities were two separate notions in the sphere of human life. So Aristotle studied a hundred and sixty constitutions, and divided the form of government in three different parts; what he called, the good constitutions. Monarchy was the form of government where a single monarch worked for the betterment of the whole; Aristocracy, where the privileged class, the nobility strived to uplift the populace at large; and, Polity, where the people ruled for the people. The Master did not finish here; he had in his mind the three anti-theses of these forms of government. When the Monarch regarded his own amusements higher than those of the rest of his people, it was no longer a good form of government, but a bad constitution, a Tyranny. Similarly, aristocrats were not aristocrats but Oligarchs in an oligarchy when they preferred their own tastes over the rest of the community; and a rule by the people turned into a rule by the mob when it strived for its own betterment leaving the society at large on its own, it was what he called, democracy. It was perhaps the influence of his great teacher which was seen here. A mob rule can either lead to anarchy or despotism.

Plato remarked thus; “Democracy passes into despotism.” One may wonder how from the height of liberty can come the deepest forms of repression. Too much power in the hands of democratically elected individuals can yield draconian results. Nazi Germany stood firm behind its Fuhrer. Soon enough, opposition was eliminated and the country steered in one direction and one direction only; destruction of the Third Reich and the social catastrophe that lingered due to the Great War. It is long understood that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” A democracy that empowers the ruling class is in a process of self-destruction. This self-destruction is not in isolation, but like a suicide bomber in the midst of a calm and tranquil gathering, a chaos that tears the social fabric of the whole society. Is history on an agreement with Plato and have a lesson for the civilization? Or does it disregard the words of the great teacher as mere philosophical rhetoric? Any democracy that is “too democratic” in its working has proven Plato to be right in his judgment. Moderation between the polity and aristocracy, that tends to bring closer these two anti-theses of each other from their extremes, might be the answer. Even with the despotic nature of democracy, it tends to survive on its rhetoric of an egalitarian society. Does the slogan of “all men are equal” apply in everything? Everyone has a mind, but not everyone is an Einstein. Let us analyze!

When we talk of the ancient civilizations of the past, the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, Chinese, Greeks and the Romans, we talk of not the general population. It is not an average Athenian that attracts our attention to the cradle of civilization, nor the mere Egyptian labor that depicts the marvels of the Ancient Egyptian architecture, but the very few that belonged to the upper echelons of their societies. Not everyone had the calculating mind of Imhotep in Ancient Egypt, nor did everyone come up to the standard of the dialectical debates of Socrates. Then where is the equality that our democracy talks about? It is probably the love of power that has managed to twist the meaning of equality of mankind before God, the covenants and credo of the religion; to the equality of one man and one vote, the expression and rhetoric of democracy! It is a well known fact that for democracies to excel, the population at large must be aware of the working of their government, the ideas and manifestoes of their representatives, and the impacts of their decisions on the society. How will the population achieve this awareness? The answer lies in education. Without awareness, no one knows when Polity turns into Democracy, and when democracy yields to despotism. Only when the smooth transition is over, is when the masses understand their helpless position in the government. It is by no nature of things that an illiterate person’s decision lies on the same level of understanding as is one that of the educated, noble, and elite of the same society. In the contemporary world, this has turned out to be a taboo, but one must ponder over the idea, if the same illiterate person is not qualified to run a business or be the elector of the advisory body of one, how can he be the judge and elector of those who govern the whole society? How are men of knowledge and understanding become equal to men of ignorance and inexperience? They certainly cannot! As the young are not the judge of the highest matters, so the lower stratum of the society must not be the electors of a government at large. This misconception of the basic idea of equality has given way to flaunt of democracy.

It is said that, “Democracy has become the Holy Grail of Western culture.” There is no argument whether it has, or not. It certainly does occupy the overwhelming majority of our news channels and our decisions. Whether it is used as a pretext to invade a country, or to promote the soaring Eagle of the world, democracy has held its ground firm and strong through the effective use of media as its propaganda instrument, and by suppressing opposition. Will Durant in his book, “The Pleasures of Philosophy” explain that “we are anarchists by nature and citizens by suggestion.” Why is the world after democracy? Is it workable? It certainly might be, in the moderate form with an educated lot of voters. What do countries in today’s world follow? Constitutional Monarchy, Polity, and the worst form of government, for the most illiterate part of the world, democracy. The United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, all have extremely high levels of literacy, and a constitutional monarchy. United States of America, India and Switzerland with not so relatively high forms of literacy tend to follow moderate democracy, while the least of them in literacy, countries like Pakistan tend to fall for the extreme form of democracy. It has certainly become the "Holy Grail" of the Third World countries, who have fallen a victim to this brandish of democracy. Suppression of “undemocratic” forces in these countries and a delusive version of the worst form of government, as the best form of government lead to despotic corrupt rule of the people. Dynastic parties might turn the mob rule into an oligarchy and the state becomes a vicious circle of immorality and exploitation by the people, in the name of the people. The states start to fall apart, and a collapse is inevitable.

One must then figure out the best form of government. Why do the educated class of the world so open to constitutional monarchies? And not the extreme forms of democracy? Why do the aristocrats find their just rule without much opposition when they work for the betterment of the whole? It is perhaps an irony, that the best form of government is one where there are some men who are equal and some “more equal than others”. Where some are the philosopher administrators, as in the case of Confucianism of China, and where others are those who, although not bound to it, are in the working class of the society. People who understand the complexities of the state and government can better judge as to who shall be at the seat of power. In a democracy, where it has become a field of alluring the people on an equal basis of their inequality, it is a game of power. It is rightly pointed, to the contrary of the working of a democracy, by Plato – “Those who do not seek power, are fit to hold it.” It is then perhaps evident, that those of us, who take pleasure in governing the rest of us, must not be the ones who govern us! It is a truism that this is what happens in the contemporary uneducated world, but that is a democracy working on its extreme, what happens in the developed world is either a constitutional monarchy, or a moderate democracy, on the lines of the Polity of Aristotle. Although, aristocracy lost its case long ago, it still remains a good form of the government, and when the people understand this, perhaps an aristocrat government will not be confused and compared with an autocratic regime. Should we bandwagon and follow in the footsteps of those countries that enjoy immensely high rates of literacy and delude our self with an inept form of democracy, a bad form of constitution? Or should we educate our self, and select one of the three good forms of government, as pointed by Aristotle, which remain to this day, as true, as they were in Ancient Greece? A moderate democracy might be the answer, but that is not on the basis of the meaning of equality that we understand today. Perhaps, when aristocrats have helped uplift the lower stratums of society to a more respectable level, a moderate democracy might prove more fruitful. But an oligarchy cannot and will not do that. Nor will a government left on its own go towards moderation.., it will lead to that despotic form of polity that Aristotle called, democracy.

So if “Dēmokratia” in reality is, “the rule of the people, by the people, for the people” then perhaps through educated voter class, and proper checks and balances it might turn out to be a form of government that will not only take into consideration the interests of its own but the society at large. For that, education is a requirement. Whether we want a monarch, an aristocrat, or a democrat, we want a just individual that seeks to uplift the society and culture, and not fall a victim to despotism. Whether moderate democracy is the true answer to the best form of government or not, whether a politician works for the state or not, the educated and enlightened, and they alone, can judge better. Universal suffrage is not the answer in the name of equality for the human race that has no basis of egalitarianism. A philosopher, scientist, or an expert can never be equal in their judgment or thought to their very brothers who are on a lower level of education and knowledge to them. They are certainly equal, in the sense of being a member of the same species, equal perhaps as a man in front of God, but not equal in the delusion of democracy. When the world understands this inequality and come to terms with it, only then maybe it will witness the best form of government.

The Scourge of Society

Flogging and flaying
Of the feeble
In Murky credence
of the pseudo religion

A vicious circle
Of pain and agony
The Scourge, dreadful and horrendous
Of radicalism and violence

A torrent of cursed beliefs
Sanctified by scanty hallucination
Condemned by the scouraged society
Of everlasting humiliation

Mistaken beliefs
Of honor and dignity
In an oblivious mirage
Of a twisted Islamic Nation

Disgrace in the name
Of religion and grace
The future is upon us
Of a society in ruins!

The Hate Springs

Scarlet clouds wrinkle the sky
Mordant droplets grind down memories
Hate devours thoughts forlorn
As the seeds of revulsion fall from the sky

Drop by drop.. As crystals of an atrocious chain,
Ricochet the mind terrain.
Burgeon into fountains of hate,
Where light shimmers into eternal darkness.

Hordes of remembrance stampede the heart
Abhorrent rays mix in a kaleiodoscope of misery
The hate springs rejuvenate
As the seeds of odium sprout from the land

Obliviously drifting with the deluge,
Rupturing the social fabric.
Of sinister traditions and customs,
Where disgust devours desolation.

Submerged under chaotic waters
Yearning for the cloud of freedom
The affliction will nurture
As the mushroom grows..

Rise and Fall of Muslims

One of the most revered and charismatic orators of history, William Pitt, the Elder, declared in one of his magnificent speeches at the House of Commons, that if England did not give way to its American colonies, then the “…Kingdom is Undone!”. Whether his words were true or not, the Kingdom of Heaven in the contemporary world is undergoing a bloodbath. Centuries before Pitt was born, even centuries before his country became a nation, The Romans, Byzantines, Persians and Arabs, all were fighting for glory – and then, God revealed His word. With the advent of Islam, the world was bound to undergo a change. It was God’s will that the Muslims were victorious in the early years of Islam. From Khalid bin Walid to Saladin Ayubi, Muslims were a formidable force to be reckoned with. As Saladin had once united the disunited Muslims to regain their prestige, soon after his death, the Kingdom of Heaven started to fall apart. From then onwards, till the Ottoman’s rise, Muslims were annihilated near extinction by the mighty hordes of the Mongols; nonetheless, with the Ottoman’s rise under Suleman, the Magnificent, Muslims were an axis of power; the Ottoman, the Persian and the Indian Empire being the symbols of Military, Culture and Finance respectively. However, The Golden sparrow of Babur and Aurangzeb was turned into a dead bird by the ever-so-powerful British Empire, and ever since, it seems, the Muslim Kingdom is Undone!

Muslims in the early years of Islam faced countless hardships and opposition from the people they once called their own. When the lavish offers of the most powerful tribe of Mecca were ignored by the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to the most ordinary (if there were any?) of those who embraced Islam, opposition to Islam reached its peak. When persuasion failed, coercion found its way out. Extreme hardships, torture and hurdles in praying and offering religious duties compelled Muslims to perform, what is known in history as one of the greatest emigrations ever. It was the year 622 AD that after hostility reached its peak; the Prophet (PBUH) performed the Hegira and moved to the city, then called, “Yathrib” which today is known as Medina. The Prophet (PBUH) was welcomed in Medina and he soon established a hold in the city. Although the Meccans were determined to get their hands on the followers of Islam, hence, their hostilities only grew. A number of small skirmishes laid the grounds for the first large-scale battle in the history of Islam, the battle of Badr.

The year 624 AD saw the invasion of Medina by an army three times larger than those that the followers of Islam could muster. Battle of Badr was not only a turning point for the Muslims, but it strengthened the foundations of the new force that had now arisen in the Arabian Peninsula. God mentioned the divine intervention in the Holy Quran as follows;

“Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah; thus May ye show your gratitude. Remember thou said to the Faithful: “Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels sent down?” Al-Imran (3:123-124)

The battle resulted in a marvelous victory to the Muslim army, and many important leaders of the Quraish were killed. Many other battles followed the battle of Badr until the Conquest of Mecca when the forces of Islam captured the city they were forced to emigrate from.

As once, at the time of the Battle of Badr, the Meccan armies had marched on the city of Medina; the forces of Islam marched on the City of Mecca in 630 AD, although with a rather different outcome. Meccans surrendered to the Prophet of Islam without a fight, and to the surprise of the surrendered force, a general amnesty was declared in the city. It was this day when Abu-Sufyan, the biggest leader of the Meccan Army, was also given amnesty – as a result he embraced Islam. It was also the day when the foundations of the future Islam Empire were laid down by none other than the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself. Mecca was the most powerful city in the Arabian Peninsula, and when it came under the Muslim control, Islam started spreading at a very fast pace. Although the Prophet (PBUH) passed away only two years afterwards, Islam did not stop there. From Khalid bin Walid to Saladin Ayubi, Muslims came, saw, and conquered.

Under the Second Caliph of Islam, Umar (RA) the Empire started to expand. The Sword of Allah, as he was referred to, Khalid bin Walid was sent to the Syrian front in 636 AD where he won one of the most decisive victories of his career, the Battle of Yarmuk. The Byzantines surrendered Damascus to the Muslim army led by Khalid bin Walid at the battle. It was under the leadership of this brilliant general that Islam was spread into Syria, Egypt and Persia. By the end of the rule of the Second Caliph, Muslims occupied much of North Africa, Persia and the Middle East. With the Empire expanding at a tremendous rate, administrative problems of handling the affairs of such a vast empire came on the front.

Imperial outstretch, as it is at times referred to, the Empire had stretched far and wide, and hence the tentacles of the regional superpower were prone to outside attacks. It was around 1095 that the First Crusades were called for, to retake the city of Jerusalem. Within four years, the Holy City was taken under control by the Christian crusaders resulting in a massacre of Muslims present in the city. The Crusaders were victorious in their first attempt. Forty five years after the Fall of Jerusalem, Muslims recaptured Edessa; as a result the Second Crusade was started. The Christian cavalry did not gain from the Second Crusade and the Muslim army inflicted heavy damages on the Crusaders. Around 1170, Saladin came to power in Egypt and there were calls for another major Crusade against the Muslim Empire from the church.

Saladin reunited the Muslim princes in an effort to regain the lost glory. It was not only his military genius but his truthfulness that earned him a legendary status in Muslim and Non-Muslim lore. Not until the Templers ravaged a trade caravan of the Muslims, did Saladin take on an offensive to recapture the Holy Land and did so in 1187. Three Mighty Emperors took on the Third Crusade against their powerful opponent. Philip II of France, the Holy Roman Emperor and King Richard Lion-Heart of England combined their forces in an attempt to recapture Jerusalem. By 1191 however, King Richard was left without the support of his two rivals, Philip II and the Holy Roman Emperor, and the Third Crusade was unable to recapture the city of Jerusalem, which remained under the military genius of Saladin. Although, the Mongols ravaged Baghdad in particular and Muslims in general, it was not until the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the 20th Century and the creation of Israel, that the Holy City was lost by Muslims again.

He was the grandson of the great Mongol Emperor, Genghis Khan. The Mongol Empire was the largest continuous land Empire in the history of the world, and Hulagu Khan only stretched it further. As the Mongols rose to supremacy, Muslims were pushed in a state of oblivion. By the year 1258, the Muslim Caliph ignored the calls of the Mongol Emperor to surrender, resulting in a siege laid by the Great Khan. In one of the most brutal captures of a land recorded in history, Baghdad became a victim to the horrendous treatment of the victors. It is estimated that at least 800,000 people were massacred, sparing only the non-Muslims. The city burnt for seven days, and what remained of the once great Abbasid city, was only ash. Only decades after the dreadful event of Baghdad, a Turkish leader by the name of “Usman” laid the foundations of the much famous, Ottoman Empire.

As the Byzantine Empire was fading into nothingness, Ottoman Empire was gradually rising. From the late 13th Century to the early 16th Century, Ottoman Empire was the symbol of Muslim military and culture. It was not until 1922 that the successive sultans of the House of Usman lost their crown and the world lost the Ottoman Empire. Along with the rise of the Ottomans, a Muslim descendant of the powerful Mongols was also rising.

Known for constructing towers made of skulls of the captive and massacred, Tamerlane was a fierce warrior who stretched his holdings from India to the Mediterranean. Tamerlane was not in allegiance with the Ottomans, and even had the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire captured in battle. It was this friction between the two rising powers that did not enable Muslim rule to be absolute and far stretched. Tamerlane weakened the “Golden Horde” and their holdings in Russia, ravaged Delhi, and annihilated those who rebelled, as in the case of Isfahan. While Tamerlane is known for his military expeditions, his empire was not the one to last, like that of the Ottomans.

Suleman, the Magnificent, from 1520 to 1566 ruled as the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. It was the peak of the Empire, and an emblem of Muslim might. A great diplomatic negotiator as well as a great general, Suleman concluded peace treaties as well as an alliance with the French King. He invaded Hungary and also captured Tabriz and Baghdad, once the cities under the Mongol rule. The Ottoman rule stretched to the North of Africa, the Balkan states, and much of Middle East. It was this time that the Muslims were an Axis of Power. Ottomans were the sign of Military might while the Persians were known for their culture and the Indian Empire, which was now on a gradual rise, was to be known as the Golden Sparrow of the world.

He was one of the descendants of Tamerlane, and the founding father of the Mughal Dynasty in India. Babur invaded India and in 1526, at the famous battle of Panipat, defeated an army of 100,000 men with only 21,000 warriors. It was not only his military genius, but perhaps, the blood of his great ancestors that helped him in inflicting defeat on such a massive army. Babur was the last in the line of Emperors to construct towers out of skulls of the defeated army. Although he died before he could consolidate his power, it was one of his descendants, who by his administrative skills and military genius made India a stronghold of Muslims. Aurangzeb stretched his empire far and wide and put down revolts and rebellions with sheer force. It was his non-tolerance towards non-Muslims that made him infamous amongst the inhabitants of India. Aurangzeb was the last of great Mughals and soon after, the Empire started to decline gradually.

Although, Aurangzeb had left a powerful realm, it was not something his successors could handle. Internal strife and external pressure combined with bungling rulers left the Mughal dynasty in ruins. There were internal risings and revolts in the subcontinent. Marhattas and Sikhs challenged the Mughal rulers and there was chaos in the empire. By the 17th and 18th century, the East India Company, formerly a trade company of the British Empire had established its foundations in the Indian subcontinent. Till 1857, the Mughal Emperor remained on the throne as the Britons paved their way to absolute control. After the uprising of the Indians in 1857 and the crushing defeat inflicted by the British in the War of Independence, the last of the Mughal Emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar was dethroned; and the Empire abolished. This was the end of a long and prosperous Muslim rule in the subcontinent. Soon to follow was the Ottoman Empire.

In the First World War, the Ottomans sided with the Central Powers; Germany, Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. In this Great War, the Central Powers were defeated by the Allied Powers of Britain, France, Italy and Japan. World War I was the end of the once great Muslim Empire, and now it was left on the mercy of the victors. The Treaty of Versailles sealed shut the fate of the Central Powers, and soon after, Mustufa Kemal a nationalist, abolished the Sultanate; thus formally ending the Ottoman Empire. What followed the demise of these two Empires was a steady decline of Muslims around the world.

The British controlled Palestine from the end of the World War I to 1948, when the United Nations devised a plan to divide the country into two halves and make room for the Jewish people. The plan which was severely criticized and rejected by the Arabs, was as expected, welcomed by the Jews and hence, the Holy Land was divided. Massive aid flowed in for the new Jewish state, and despite being in the heart of the Arab land, Israel was made sure of its survival by military and economic aid. Soon after, a number of wars followed; in 1967 Israel annexed the Golan Heights from Syria, and in the Yom Kippur war of 1973, even with the advantage of a surprise attack, the Arab states were unable to gain victory of the, now dreadful, Jewish state of Israel. Whether Israel was created to keep a “balance of power” in the Middle Eastern region, which was rich in oil, and could have made its monopoly, or to sincerely give a homeland to the Jews, remains a mystery. By this time, Muslim glory and prestige was lost in the void, and what remained was the invasion of two more Muslim countries.

In September 2001, America invaded a whole country, predominantly Muslim, for capturing a “suspect” of a terrorist attack that struck the World Trade Towers. While hundreds of thousands of Muslims perished in the aftermath of the so-called “war on terror”, it was not to end there. Only two years afterwards, America had a nightmare of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” in Iraq, or perhaps, a pleasant dream of “Oil”. Ironically, it was “Operation Iraqi Liberation” which was soon changed to “Operation Iraqi Freedom” because it would have been too obvious. As in the case of Afghanistan, the prescribed goal of America have not yet been achieved, though hundreds of thousands of innocent people have suffered immeasurably at the hands of America on one hand, and Israel on the other.

Operation Cast Lead is what Knesset likes to call it. Three weeks into the operation and more than 900 people are reported dead. Half of those happen to be women and children. Israel plans to “put an end to Hamas’ rocket firing ability into Southern Israel” while the world stands and stare at this inhumane brutality. When the whole world condemned the bloodbath, America was the only veto power to abstain from the resolution. While the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice led a resolution into the United Nations Security Council, 14 out of 15 members embraced it, the one who did not, was ironically the one who brought it, America. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s Prime Minister in an interview to a channel talked about how he “called President Bush” and told him that “The United States could not and cannot sign this resolution” after which the President directed his Secretary of State to abstain from the resolution. While innocent blood is being shed in Gaza, one may look around and see that it is also being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq. While Gaza bleeds, the Kingdom of Heaven seems to be undone!

It is said that every rise has a fall, if this is the fall of the Muslims, there certainly awaits the fall of the brutalities and tortures being committed in the world; the war of terror that is being played on the world stage, disguised as the war “on” terror. The question remains, when? When will the Muslims be able to regain their prestige, their glory, and that formidable stature they once had? When will these massacres of innocent lives end? And, when will the Kingdom of Heaven rejoice in blissful eternity? But perhaps, the French Prime Minister, Georges Clemenceau was right in his saying that “It is far easier to make war than to make peace.”

Pakistan In the Wake of U.S. Elections (2008)

One of the most followed US-elections, not only in Pakistan’s history, but the world history, the 2008 American elections arose hopes and fears around the globe. Political analysts were providing detailed analysis and synthesis of views and statements of the two rival candidates; who were in constant struggle against one another to convince the American public about their respective, economic, social, military, and most importantly foreign agendas. Mr. Barack Obama made history by being the first black President of the world’s oldest and best democracy. The Illinois senator defeated his Republican opponent in one of the most expensive and widely covered election campaigns in world history. John McCain, a republican, following in his party’s footsteps, followed a “realist” view, while the moderate Democrat, Obama, blended his views and would-be neo-liberalist foreign policy with a realistic touch. Republicans and Democrats are two faces of a mighty leviathan, with their respective policies being based on the international relations theories of “realism” and “neo-liberalism”. Although, a difference between the foreign policy of the parties is eminent, American foreign policy has been the global policy since its rise as a superpower. Which party has been better for Pakistan, is a matter of taking a quick glance in history. Pakistan has been the “most allied ally” for several times since the Republican President, Eisenhower first coined the term for the country in the fifties, and it still is the “most allied ally” under the Republican Bush regime. A front line state in the war on terror, President-Elect, Obama has many expectations from the democratic-government of Pakistan, and Islamabad has many hopes. The relations between India and Pakistan have touched a new low in the wake of the Mumbai terrorist attacks and the role of the new US administration to ease tensions between the nuclear rivals is very clear. Building a strategic partnership with Pakistan has to be one of the most important steps that the new American government should look at, from supporting the country with military aid, to providing economic aid, a solid foundation for democratic institutions to function properly and a strong country to fight against the global menace of extremism and terrorism.

Although, American foreign policy is largely the outcome of institutions, such as the Congress and the House of Representatives, Presidents can, and usually do bring about a considerable change with them. The two biggest parties of America, Republicans and Democrats, base their respective policies on sound international relations’ theories of realism, neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism. With individuals joining the parties based on their own views of international politics, and coinciding with the party. Republicans have proven to be considerably different than their counterparts in terms of their economic as well as foreign policies; however, one thing has been common, and that is American foreign policy, has been the global policy, whether it is a Republican or Democrat government.

America’s interests are not only bound to areas around itself, but around the globe. As Richard N. Haas and Martin Indyk in their essay titled “Beyond Iraq” in the January/February 2009, issue of Foreign Affairs call it, the “energy policy is foreign policy”. Whether it is the Middle East, or the Far East, American interests are many, and far away; Pakistan is no exception. Pakistan enjoys a considerable geo-strategic position on the globe, and has been the center of attention for quite a number of times. With the ever-increasing threat of terrorism and extremism on its western border, to the coming US-administration, Pakistan has an ever-increasing role to play.

If one takes a glance in history, it does give one a view that Republicans have proven to be somewhat better for Pakistan, and mostly it was under the Democrats that Pakistan has faced sanctions. When in 1979 the Democrat President, Jimmy Carter laid sanctions on Pakistan for its nuclear program, the Republican Reagan gave gigantic aid to Pakistan that went into containing Russian invasion of Afghanistan. October 1990, under the “Pressler Amendment” the new Republican President, G.H.W Bush suspended all military and economic aid to Pakistan. Under the Democrat government of Bill Clinton, Pakistan faced many more sanctions for not being a democratic country to pursuing its nuclear program. When Al-Qaida struck the U.S., Pakistan’s support was vital, on the helm of affairs was the Republican President, G.W Bush; we were either with them, or with the terrorists. Not only did the economic, but military aid was resumed, and Pakistan was turned into a frontline ally state. Sanctions were waived year after year, and the country saw strengthening relations with America. Eight years from the day, America, in harmony, sang for “Change”. Will the new administration really bring about a drastic change, with respect to Pakistan-US relations? Obama sees the threat in Afghanistan, and has talked about a “responsible pull-out” from Iraq to increase forces in Afghanistan; will this demand a closer cooperation between Washington and Islamabad?

Terrorism is a global phenomenon. The greatest threat to Pakistan, currently, lies on its western border. To counter it, it not only needs to do more, but needs effective training and aid from its Western Allies, along with more Allied forces in Afghanistan. President-Elect Obama, realizes this, and has called for a pull-out of American forces from Iraq, for further deployment in Afghanistan. Obama’s Vice President, Joe Biden has called for more economic aid to Pakistan for strengthening its democratic foundations to successfully curb the menace of terrorism. Although, Obama has talked about sending US troops on Pakistani soil, “with or without the governments permission”, it is only if Pakistan “fails to do the needful”. War on terror is one of the main points of the next American government’s foreign policy, and to bring about a successful end to it. To do the “needful” Pakistan expects a sound coalition, based on equal footing, and America expects unconditional support.

President Zardari, and Prime Minister Gilani expect the new American government to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty, and to provide intelligence to Pakistani government so it can do the needful itself. President-elect Obama and his Vice President, Joe Biden, have called for increased aid to Pakistan, so it can effectively deal with the growing threat of terrorism and support its institutions. President-Elect Obama has also called for an effective solution of the Kashmir problem between India and Pakistan. This, according to the coming American government, will prove to be a strategic outcome of great importance, for Pakistan will be able to concentrate its energies on the western border when it has no threat on its eastern border. Joe Biden has earlier proposed a 15 billion dollar economic aid plan for Pakistan’s crippling economy, which Pakistan not only needs, but deserves. Democrats have usually opposed the idea of “unilateralism” and the policies of neo-con lobby of America, which has undermined the sovereignty of Pakistan. Will these changes in agendas, thoughts, and ideas bring about a change for Pakistan? Or due to increased tensions on the eastern border, Pakistan will have to concentrate on its long term rival, India? Should the Democrat government of America pursue the role of a mediator between the two volatile actors of the South Asian region? Obama’s policy has been very straight about it, yes.

In the wake of the recent terrorist activity in Mumbai, Pakistan-India relations have touched a new low. Inflammatory and irresponsible comments from Pakistan’s neighbour have created considerable amounts of tensions in Islamabad, and the focus has shifted from the War on Terror it was fighting. The new American government does not want that. For the very reason, Obama’s policy has been to bridge the gaps between the nuclear armed neighbours and as a result, secure the Allied forces supply lines, and enhance cooperation from Pakistan. With terrorism expanding like cancer cells from one country to another, Pakistan has a very difficult task to accomplish. The coming U.S. government has offered unconditional support for a serious effort in return from Pakistan; to achieve that, a strategic partnership between the two countries is a requirement.

A lot of Pakistani’s do not see in America a reliable ally. They feel betrayed, and left alone at times of their need, and used at times of America’s. For the very reason, America needs to build a long-term strategic partnership with its “most allied ally” for its unconditional support, and for the destruction of terrorism. Obama should make it clear that America is not against Islam or the spread of Islam, but the terrorist activities being taken under the name of Islam; that America is not on a crusade against Islam, but on a crusade against extremism and terrorism. Islamabad does not favourably look at the nuclear deal given to its long-time hostile neighbour and it does not appreciate, rather feels betrayed, when America opposes the nuclear cooperation between China and Pakistan. Where Pakistan needs to share intelligence and act as a responsible state, America needs to do the same. With the Democrat government about to take oath on the 20th of January, 2009, many in Islamabad hope to see the same. Pakistan looks for a sound strategic alliance with America, and does not look forward to be used as an instrument of change, rather a partner for change. Whether it was the Republican John McCain, or the now President-Elect Barack Obama, Pakistan, in the wake of U.S. elections is bound to undergo a change. What Pakistan looks for, and what Obama asks for, has been all over the media for the past months, how Washington and Islamabad will join hands to make a stronger commitment and a solid strategic partnership is a question of great importance, and can only be answered by time.

With the focus again shifting, this time from Iraq to Afghanistan, one thing is sure; Pakistan has a greater role to play in this part of the world. When policies will change in Washington; the neo-cons giving way to the neo-liberalists, they will affect policies in Islamabad. President-Elect Barack Obama will take office on the 20th of January, 2009, and the change that America needs, and the change that the world needs, may come. How far American policy will affect Pakistan is not a question, but how “will” American policy affect Pakistan-US relations is the question. The two faces of the mighty leviathan, Democrats and Republicans fought tooth and nail to get to the seat of power, and Democrats proved their mettle by winning the elections. As a superpower, it is but sure that the American interests engulf the whole world, its policy has to be the global policy, but the coming Democrat government sees the main point of focus in Afghanistan and not Iraq. It wants to strive to negotiate, unlike the Republican nominee, John McCain, who was against all negotiations with respect to Iran. Obama’s government wants to focus on Afghanistan, and curb terrorism from its roots, and for that, it looks to Pakistan’s cooperation. Obama wants to pursue the role of a mediator to come across a successful proposal for the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan. For the first time, it looks in years that America is looking sincerely towards issues of great importance, and to help resolve them; through politics and diplomacy, and not unilateralism. President-Elect Barack Obama with his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, are a new energetic team on the helm of not only American, but world affairs. Pakistan, in today’s world is at a critical point, and the new government of America realizes that, it realizes the needs of Pakistan as an ally, and most importantly as a country with the given geo-strategic importance. Pakistan looks for a strategic partnership with America, and Obama calls for a change, the essence of the American foreign policy might remain the same, but the majority of Democrats will bring about a change, and that change is bound to affect countries that are critical to American interests. U.S. does not look forward to a disintegrated, weak ally; it looks forward to a strong committed country to fight terrorism; peace in the South Asian region, and democracy in Pakistan. With so much at stake, and many hopes on the verge, one can be only cynical if one believes things to turn a hundred and eighty degrees and a sudden change to happen. Much might be available for Islamabad, and much might be given to Washington, but yet, many pages might remain untouched and many rocks unturned.

The Twilight Robe

Like the day breaks,
With the first rays,
Of a morning sun,
From behind the silhouette,
Of a mighty Kingdom.

The trees sway,
With the gentle breeze,
Of the morning wind,
From forests that echo,
Of a life begun.

Yonder in the meadows,
With swords drenched in blood,
Of voices defied,
From child to a warrior,
Of a dead Kingdom.

Like the twilight robe,
With the fading rays,
Of a dying sun,
From a descending horizon,
Of a life never begun!

The Next Cold War

Six years of brutality and human suffering of an unprecedented level resulted in the victory of the Allies against the Axis. While the world was still questioning and debating if 70 million lives along with the total destruction of infrastructure in the world were worth it, two new superpowers were emerging. In a way, World War II had set the stage for a new war - a war between the two leviathans of the time; the war which we now refer to as the Cold War. Forty six years of hostility ended with the demise of the Soviet Union and the world witnessed a decade of relatively peaceful times. America, in the changing world politics of the new millennium, saw its constantly weakening position. The rising dragon now sees itself as the next economic hegemon, and the emerging Russian bear is much obliged by the status of an energy superpower. While America still enjoys its status of a superpower in a unipolar world, tensions are rising under the surface. SCO is looked over as a rival to the ever-so-powerful NATO and a glimpse of a developing arms race can be seen in the current scenario. Hidden objectives to contain the growing economies of the world by the declining power, America, are failing and creating a feeling of discontent. The recent Georgian conflict may very well mark the beginning of the next Cold War. The world might witness a shift from unipolarity to bipolarity and finally settling to multipolarity. Regionalism and proxy wars might shift the balance of power in the world, forcing history to repeat itself with the commencement of the next Cold War.

To understand the future, one must take a glance in the past. When America replaced the British Empire to become the superpower, the rivalry started between USA and the Soviet Union. It was a rivalry that resulted in the Cold War. A war of ideologies, where the Stalinist Russia pursued a policy of expansionism, for the growth of Communism and America followed the “Truman Doctrine” for the rollback and containment of Communism. The world was divided into predominantly two blocs, the Capitalists, following the ‘Truman’ path and the Communists, hailing the Stalinist Russia. The Cold War went through many different phases, from straightforward hostility to years of relative peace, known as détente. When the Soviet Union blocked all passages to Berlin, we saw America rescuing people through airlifts. The Cold War witnessed three major proxy wars. The Korean War of 1950-1953 saw the two giants playing their cards of foreign soil. America’s invasion of Vietnam was a golden period for the USSR to supply aid in form of military to counter the Americans. The year 1962 saw the world at the brink of a Third World War, the Cuban Missile crisis was a low point for Russia, and so the hostility only multiplied. USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979 and here America saw the perfect time to settle the scores of its humiliating defeat in Vietnam. The battleground was Afghanistan, and the war was between the two superpowers. America used Pakistan as a training camp for raising militants to fight the Red Army. Bloody tribal revolts and persistent resistance in Afghanistan not only left the Red Army broken, beaten and scarred, it also had similar effects on the Soviet economy.

If the proxy wars hurt the Americans, it ruined the Soviets. Near 0% GPD growth rate forced the Soviet Union to put an end to the hostilities around the globe; it was simply not affordable anymore. 1991 marked the complete collapse of the Soviet economy and the Soviet Union, it also proved to be the end of the Cold War. The newly born Russian state completely shifted its focus from military to economic buildup; however, America reigned supreme in all aspects. There was no rival to the sole superpower left anymore and USA pursued its agenda of a New World Order.

1991-2001 – a decade of relative peace and tranquility defined the international politics. There was no rival to America, no one to challenge its global policies or question its actions. While Russia and China along with other countries of the world subdued to the only power, they also formed a policy of non-confrontation and focused on economic buildup. The Russians along with the Chinese, in the decade of peace, were only building their fractured economies; however, the Americans were experiencing unrivaled dominance till 2001, until tragedy struck.

September 11, 2001, for the first time in history, America was attacked on its very own soil. The country which was struck, and struck hard by a terrorist organization, reacted with all its might to teach a lesson to elements that defied American supremacy. Within a matter of days, Afghanistan was rubbled to the ground, clearly marking President Bush’s words;

“Either you are with us, or with the terrorists.”

It was this action that also raised questions about the unrivaled military prowess of America. By the time, Chinese economy along with the Russian economy had also made solid foundations. After the hunger for oil forced America to start “Operation Iraqi Freedom”, voices found their way out. America was in two wars now, and clearly, not very comfortable. When Russia threatened to VETO the Iraqi invasion in the United Nations’ Security Council, America simply bypassed it, in the name of preemptive strike. The weak position of America was also made clear when the former Cold War opponent embraced Iran in total opposition to America. It was not only about Russia, but the Chinese dragon was also rising.

Staying out of world politics and focusing only on a stronger economy, China is seen by America as a major threat to its global domination. According to the CIA fact book, Chinese GDP growth rate was the highest in 2007, sitting at an overwhelming average of 11.4%. With an inflation rate of merely 4.8%, the Chinese common man is growing rapidly along with his country. Currently, second only to the American economy, China is expected to overtake the current superpower in a matter of 10-15 years. One of the outcomes of these developments is a hazy silhouette of the next Cold War in the near future.

“What has brought Russia back in the world politics?” was a question posed by a journalist to former President now Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin; to which the former KGB officer replied;

“Thanks to a hundred dollars a barrel.”

With Russia emerging stronger than ever before, the atmosphere of the first Cold War is engulfing the world. According to an article published in Asia Times, 2007, The US is “focusing on Russia”. US-Russian relations have nearly reached a new low level after the Georgian crisis and America sees in Russia a strategic “threat”. With an estimated 16,000 nuclear warheads, Russia’s nuclear stockpile far exceeds the American arsenals. The deployment of Russia’s most advanced air defense system, the S-400 and an upgrade to its nuclear capabilities to defy American anti-ballistic missiles, Russia is clearly negating the uni-polar world. With the successful deployment of the world’s most advanced nuclear missile, Topol-M; Russia has managed to raise hair inside American military circles. A powerful military accompanied with a booming economy, Russians are clearly on the chessboard of international politics.
8.1% of GDP growth rate, according to CIA fact book, has strengthened the Russian economy and brought it back on its feet. Being the largest country in the world, the former Soviet Union is hailed as the world’s energy superpower. With oil exports of over 5 million bbl/day, the energy superpower is unrivaled and unmatched in its mineral reserves. Majority of the Europe, dependent on Russian oil and gas has found itself under heavy influence of the mighty leviathan. America is trying its best for maintaining its influence on the smaller states; other Great Powers have started to counter it, because of which tensions are now rising under the surface.

Where America is putting hefty amounts of money in the Central Asian States to gain their favor, Russia and China have also started to put billions of dollars in the mineral rich states of Central Asia. NATO of the East, as it is referred to is one of the most grave concerns of our superpower.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the brainchild of China has become a formidable force to be reckoned with only after seven years of its inception. Two nuclear powers, one of them a former superpower, and one a future economic giant along with the heartland states of the world, full of natural resources have made SCO a direct rival of NATO. While America is trying hard to ‘detach’ Central Asian States from the SCO platform, its attempts are failing. Sino-Russian fraternity has touched new heights and America is no longer looked up to or at with an intimidated attitude.

With all these developments, the ground for future hostility and a Cold War do not seem to be far from sight. An arms race has begun again between the former rivals. When America tested the world’s most powerful non-nuclear bomb and named it the “mother of all bombs”, Russia broke the record with their “father of all bombs”. Tu-160 strategic air force bombers accompanied with Project-941, nuclear submarines, have given a strong footing to Russia. When America deployed its anti-ballistic missiles, Russia deployed Topol-Ms; defying the American defense systems. All of these developments prove to the world that the seed of discontent had always been there, a new Cold War is in its embryonic stages. Besides the military buildup, economic giants like China are also in a state of discontent with the current superpower. Accusations of “dumping” put by the United States have raised voices in China questioning the motives of America. Rising tensions under the surface came out to be glaringly visible after August 07, 2008.

When Georgia tried to capture two of its breakaway provinces, where Russian peacekeepers managed peace, by force; Russia, for the first time retaliated with considerable force. Russian tanks rolled in the heart of Georgia, and a war started. While acting as the superpower, America condemned Russian assault, Russia barely noticed. American Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice assured American support to Georgia by saying;

“The international community respects the national integrity of Georgia.”

Not bowing to American pressure, the Prime Minister of Russia, Vladimir Putin, in total defiance uttered the following words;

”The international community can forget about the national integrity of Georgia.”

The five point policy that will guide the future Russian foreign policy is the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union that any country has defied the unipolarity in the world. If today the world is not in the state of a cold war, it clearly is under the shadows of the next Cold War. As said before, to understand the future, a cursory glance in the past is must. With the current scenario and the past before us, it becomes easy to predict the future.

According to the Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, a unipolar world is no longer acceptable to Russia, or the other major powers. A declining America with a rising Russia can bring back the bipolarity of the first Cold War era, but a rising China predicts a multipolar world. Formation of coalitions has resulted in regionalism. SCO, NATO, ASEAN, WTO and OICD have completely shifted the policies of countries. Instead of looking towards a country, States have adopted the policy of regionalism; of coalitions within regions; therefore, in a way, creating multiple poles of power within the world, in constant battle with each other.

Proxy wars, the sorts of which were witnessed in the first Cold War are also a possibility if the current scene heads towards the next Cold War; indirect wars on foreign soils to weaken each other is the only method of fighting in a Cold War.
The world is witnessing a global shift in the balance of power between the major powers of the world, an immense pressure on the superpower and the shadows of the next cold war. Economies and voices rising, against the once formidable victor of the first Cold War has put it in a fragile position. If history repeats itself and if every rise has a fall, American rise may only fall after the next Cold War; the vestige of which lies just in the corner.

Torture, Torment and Tribulation

Bow! To My new creation!
Never! To this clay illusion!
In defiance he stood
As all hell broke loose

Perdition consumed,
Like a hungry beast.
A fiery deluge devoured,
Like a wild serpent.

Conflagration under crimson skies
A great fire on the emerald streams
Stones fell on the mortal hands
As the devil took his last stand

Vanity in vain,
Fate concealed,
Unaided he slither,
Ravaged, silent and alone

Shattered dreams,
In dark flames of eternity
Torture, torment and tribulation...
...Reigned supreme!

Remembrance

Unchecked motives,
And bloody weeds of suicide,
A thousand awry ambitions,
And blurry perspectives of heaven..

Kill God's..
And inflict misery,
A thousand innocent souls,
And bruised and battered the bodies lay..

Holocaust!
... In the name of God?
Raise hell!
... In the name of God?
Lower bodies and dig mass graves,
And justify it all, all in the name of God..

Remembrance lingers,
And ambitions are long dead,
A thousand lonely suicides,
And a handful of elegies for the dead..


~ Words for the victims of the suicide attack on Marriott hotel, Islamabad. 20/09/08.

As The Black Wind Withers

I shut the coffin's lid,
And the light dies in your eyes,
As you ebb into the deepest abyss,
The dust echoes mournful cries.

Pitiful visions appear,
And the earth heaves a sigh,
As the black wind withers,
The cold dark sun dies.

No change, no pause, no hope! Yet I endure,
The lamentable loss of you.
The sun has perished, and no hope comes,
From across the lightless fissures of consciousness.

Icy winds turn us into ashen white ghosts,
And the trees subdue to the great cold,
As the oceans freeze,
The wind of extinction engulfs us.

I open your coffin,
And gaze into your long dead eyes,
As they clench me into misery,
The last of me.., dies.

Religious Extremism

Extremism is an ideology to hold extreme opinions or to take extreme actions. Sometimes referred as fanaticism, this ideology originated in the twentieth century, the extremist belief had little or nothing to do with religion. Although with Jewish Zionism and more recently the struggle in the name of Islam, extremism took a whole new turn. Religious extremism can be defined as, excessive enthusiasm, unreasoning zeal, or wild and extravagant notions, on religion; religious frenzy. It can be on individual level and on a much larger organizational level. Religious extremism finds its roots in the suppression of minorities, resulting in the uprising and instigating revolt in them. It can also be because of some theological viewpoints of a group. Views that compel them to fight those who they consider as infidels or the enemies of God and finally to receive everlasting rewards in the afterlife. Examples of these can be the most wanted terrorist organization in the world, Al-Qaeda, the suicide bombers in Pakistan, and on a much organized and secure level, the Zionist and Christian extremist groups. 

Al-Qaeda (which has been the focus of the world since 9/11 and the sole reason for the initiation of War on Terror) is an international group of extremist militants. According to the United Nations, it is a terrorist organization. Headed by Osama-Bin-Laden, Al-Qaeda‘s origin is more or less ambiguous. According to the writer and journalist, Adam Curtis, Al-Qaeda is an American invention. It was created to be used as a trigger to start the War on Terror, or the crusade against Muslims, as it was once referred to after 9/11 by George W. Bush. Whether it is an American invention or not, is a debatable issue. What we do know of the organization is the fact that it has been involved in matters of religious extremism. Incidents like the World Trade Center bombing, to taking innocent lives in countries it consider as “Enemies of Islam” cannot be justified under Jihad. Al-Qaeda usually resorts to suicide attacks or systematic simultaneous bombings in areas it consider as targets. Although not every attack is triggered by Al-Qaeda, but usually the blame is put on it. The question is what promotes Al-Qaeda to act in such a manner? What is the force compelling them to take innocent lives? Is it the fundamentalist Islamic approach? To be simple and precise, no, it isn’t. Then what exactly is the reason? The reason is the closed militant mindset. Certain power groups brainwash young minds and justify these heinous acts as Jihad. On another note, media also has a major role to play in it. When Irgun explodes the King David hotel resulting in massive innocent lives, it is not commended on a global level, it is not referred to as “Jewish Extremism” not only that, it’s year anniversary “celebrated” by Israel does not make news. And then we witness a suicide attacker, who due to many a reasons of illiteracy and hunger, manages to act is the way he is brainwashed to, the Media refers to it as “Islamic Extremism”. Is this a prime example of double standard on the part of media and the world against Islam? Yes. 

We witness, Menachem Begin, the supreme commander of the world renowned Zionist Terrorist Organization, Irgun, receiving the Noble Peace Prize. Irgun along with Hagganah are the leading Jewish Terrorist organizations, which not only refer to Non-Jews as “gentiles” but have carried operations of terrorism and extremism on a global level for years. What drives these organizations to take these extreme actions? The Zionist movement focuses on military might and suppression of Non-Jews in the land given to them by their religion, the land of Israel. On a democratic level, these extreme actions of terrorism can never be justified. Though religious frenzy and fanaticism has always proved the golden words, that, “end justifies means”.

 

Extremism is a label put on a group of people for political or religious benefits by a stronger nation or a group. Whether is it Judaism, Christianity or Islam, extreme actions result in extreme reactions. Suppression results in frustration and fanaticism. Some views lie in the North and some in the South, some to the extreme right and some to the extreme left, a conflict of views is eminent. Neither one might be wrong, because usually, the truth lies in the center. Finally as Micheels-Cyrus indicated; “Nonviolence doesn't always work - but violence never does.”

The Rise of the United States of Abhorrence

With the fall of Soviet Union, America emerged as the sole superpower of the world. A hundred and sixty two years of isolation helped America build her economy and military might. By the end of the Second World War, the country came out as a formidable force in the world; a sleeping giant out of a long period of hibernation. The leviathan nation stood upon an enormous energy deposit, which made her self-sufficient in almost every field; and thus helped America in her policy to stay out of world politics for as long as she had.

With the sphere of influence that spans the whole globe, it isn't hard to imagine why countries look at America as their protector of rights and the messiah of freedom. It isn't hard to imagine why countries like Israel, England and Pakistan will not accept USA as their leader; when America itself is obliged to act as one.

"Free nations are peaceful nations; free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." ~ George W. Bush, President, USA.

The irony lies in the fact that America currently has the second largest active and non-active stockpile of WMDs, and to this day remains as the only country to have used nuclear weapons against another nation. Yet it remains the embodiment of peace, freedom, liberation and sovereignty. The question is why? Not only why the double-standard, but why the whole world turns a blind eye to it? The answer lies in the strong economy of our superpower, the formidable military power and the constant manipulation of facts & figures through media by the Bush Administration.

"Freedom is the non-negotiable right of human dignity." ~ George W. Bush

It very well is, but then again;

"There ought to limits to freedom." ~ George W. Bush

Is this contradiction? Or is it an example of hypocrisy and double-standards on part of the ruling regime of America? How America has affected the globe and/ world politics can be answered through various real-life examples.

The Great Depression resulted in not only the stock market crash of USA, but the collapse of world economy at an unprecedented level. As it was still helping Europe to recover from the disasters of First World War, the stock market crash left America with a great depression of herself. With the aid cut to England and her allies, who practically ruled the majority of the world; it resulted in a catastrophe of an unparalleled level.
This did not only prove that American economy was the backbone of the world, but that survival of other countries without American support was not a reality.

July 16, 1945 saw the first ever test of a nuclear weapon, nicknamed "Trinity". Soon after, the Soviet Union had also claimed itself as a nuclear state, and an arms race started between the then superpowers; something that has become a global phenomenon today.

After the Second World War, the world found itself a chessboard on which two players tried to dominate one another in a Cold War. Whether at the time Capitalism dominated Communism or not, the globe transformed into two blocks and sided with either the Soviets or the Americans. And the defeat of Communism brought an end to the bi-polar world. Now the world had only one power to look up to, only one nation, USA. Not very surprisingly, Capitalism engulfed the world with America as its torch-bearer.

Education brought drastic changed in America and a local network between Universities soon transformed into the World Wide Web. The whole planet was now a global village. Something which again originated from the heart of America, took the whole world by amazement and the followers' faith strengthened.
If it was America's security at stake, the planet itself felt insecure. September 11, 2001, our superpower was taken by surprise.

"Freedom itself was attacked this morning by a faceless coward, and freedom will be defended." ~ George W. Bush

And it wasn't the freedom of a single state, but the whole world. A country unable to figure out a hi-jacked plane en route to attack the WTC, within no time pointed her finger to Osama Bin Laden, in Afghanistan. A third world country was bombed to dust, for a single individual, labeled as a 'prime suspect'. Thousands perished and millions supported, because it was the world freedom at stake. Iraq was her next target and WMD was the accusation. No wonder if American security was under threat, the world security too was intimidated. If oil was America's interest so were the worlds. We witnessed another nation decimated to the ground and through media, the WMD accusation, cleverly removed from the gullible minds of people.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." George W. Bush

With those words coming from the Head of the superpower which nation will not follow? Aid and security concerns are more than enough for any country to deliberately catch cold when Mr. Bush sneezes. Though obviously this cannot be taken as a threat or a statement that would question security and peace in the world, because it s coming from "freedom itself". It isn't hard for us to imagine how the declining price of dollar is affecting the ever-growing commodity prices in the world; and how in a hierarchy America always finds itself at the top of the chain.
They say, "Might is Right" and it has been proved since time immemorial, the world is in a state of anarchy, and the survival of the fittest is mother nature's unshakeable law.

Finally as Bush said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." The world did not take time to make its realistic decision.

Heaven Laid In Tears!

In isolation and desperation
Where Words weep
and tears that speak
Of misery and regression

Words gone unsaid
Waiting for the last breath
Locked inside a cage
Where we envy the dead

Washed away by the rivers of time
Dreams of Forbidden Eden
The unnumbered days Of Mirth
An endless prime

Smeared away by betrayal
Unanswered prayers for years
A mournful portrayal
...Of Heaven Laid in Tears

On life's unfathomable sea
We go, lonesome and tired
Godspeed to us!
For that is all which is now required!

Funeral Symphony

On the isolated shore

Where heaven cried

And the earth sigh'd

Vengeance, I swore

Hypocrisy on the cross

Unbearable to the feeble mind

This scenery of loss

I buried you with the dead mankind

Requiem for a dream

And now for you..

This Funeral Symphony

Reigned supreme

Misery I inflicted

Through this lovelorn rhapsody

On the desolate soul

This morphine cloud, the only remedy

Devoured by this hatred

Bells chimed and the fiddle played

The horrid Funeral Symphony forever

I was now emptier than ever

Frozen Beyond the Echoes of Laughter

Looking over that lonesome cliff

Creeps in memories of olden days

Where once sunrays glittered

Now lay dreams.. shattered

Once again.. arcane rain fell

And the tormented souls,

bid their farewell

Life succumbed to mere oblivion

And the loss of innocence

Gave birth to pestilence

We were now,

Frozen beyond the Echoes of Laughter

"Blazing furies of rage

Last of all the age

So Merry the face of death"

Whispered the Sage

Embrace us, eternal slumber

Forsaken by the world

We were now,

Frozen beyond the Echoes of Laughter

Farewell, the days of mirth

Hail misery.. and the profoundest hell

And hail the somber, mournful meadows..

"Wasn't it all the same.. since our birth?"