Our Announcements

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

Archive for March, 2016

WAKE-UP PAKISTANIS: RAW Spies in Nawaz Sharif’s Sugar Mills:List of Names:Documentary Evidence:RAW Spies Are Already Working For Nawaz Sharif







Research and Analysis Wing of India

RAW Spies

RAW Spy Employed in Nawaz Sharif’s Sugar Mill


IMG_1021 (4)





Names of Indian Spies in Nawaz Sharif’s Sugar Mills:List of Names:Documentary Evidence










No Comments

Sindh Babies Die of Starvation & Malnutrition: Euro-Sindhi Bilawal Zardari to Spend Rs 2.5 Crore Looted for Bhutto’s Death Anniversary


Pakistan Think Tank Super Sleuth Obtained this Sindh Government Document


IMG_1014 (1)











Bilawal Zardari to Squander Rs.2.5 Crores on ZA Bhutto’s Death Anniversary

Thar Babies Are Still Dying of Starvation and Malnutrition 

Euro-Sindhi Bilawal Zardari Will Skim from Sindh Development Funds

Bilawal Zardari is a ZARDARI

Like Grand Father,Hakim Ali Zardari, Bambino Hijacker, Asif Ali Zardari,Pakistan Army’s Internal EnemyNo.1,

Like FatherZardari,  like Son Bilawal Zardari.












Sindh Government Spending on Lavish Dinners,while Thousands of Thar Babies Die of Starvation and Malnutrition





CM House meeting for Thar famine, and Lavish Lunch by sherdilk2




CM House meeting for Thar famine, and Lavish Lunch


The Sindh Corruption Tree

Parasitic Dynastic Politics Led By Sindhi Waderas of Zardari Family


Sajwal Khan Zardari, Grand father of Hakim Ali Zardari

Haji Hussain Zardari,father of Hakim Ali Zardari

Hakim Ali Zardari, the patriarch of Zardari family

Asif Ali Zardari, son of Hakim Ali Zardari and husband of Benazir Bhutto

Benazir Bhutto, wife of Asif Ali Zardari

Bilawal, son of Asif Ali Zardari and Benazir Bhutto

Azra Peechoho, daughter of Hakim Ali Zardari

Faryal Talpur, daughter of Hakim Ali Zardari

Abid Ali Zardari Assistant Editor Sindh Awaz Sindhi Magazine


Zardari Family’s Ingrained or Genetics of Corruption, an Inheritance of Bilawal Zardari


In October 1998, Pakistan indicted Mr. Zardari and Ms. Bhutto for accepting kickbacks from the two Swiss companies in exchange for the award of a government contract. On April 15, 1999, after an 18-month trial, Pakistan’s Lahore High Court convicted Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari of accepting the kickbacks and sentenced them to 5 years in prison, fined them $8.6 million and disqualified them from holding public office. Ms. Bhutto, who lived in London, denounced the decision. Mr. Zardari remained in jail.

It has been reported that the government of Pakistan claims that Ms. Bhutto and Mr. Zardari stole over $1 billion from the country. During the period 1994 to 1997, Citibank opened and maintained three private bank accounts in Switzerland and a consumer account in Dubai for three corporations under Mr. Zardari’s control. There were allegations that some of these accounts were used to disguise $10 million in kickbacks for a gold importing contract to Pakistan. According to the New York Times, in December 1994, the Bhutto government awarded Abdul Razzak Yaqub, a Pakistani gold bullion trader living in Dubai, an exclusive gold import license.

Asif Zardari waited for more than 5 years for the start of his trial on charges of killing his brother-in-law, Murtaza Bhutto in 1997. The law stipulates that detainees must be brought to trial within 30 days of their arrest. Under both the Hudood and standard criminal codes, there were bailable and non-bailable offenses. Bail pending trial is required for bailable offenses and permitted at a court’s discretion for non-bailable offenses with sentences of less than 10 years. In practice, judges denied bail at the request of police, the community, or on payment of bribes. In many cases, trials did not start until 6 months after the filing of charges, and in some cases individuals remained in pretrial detention for periods longer than the maximum sentence for the crime for which they were charged.




p style=”text-align: center;”> 

No Comments

Iman bil Gaib aur Aqal ka talaq by Javed Ahmed Ghamidi Sahib














No Comments

Self-righteousness by Roman Ahsan








Self Righteousness

Roman Ahsan

Roman Ahsan's profile photo
Self-righteousness—be it among individuals or communities—is disastrous. It is a deadly affliction if it affects a person. It turns into a scourge if it takes a community into its grip. It is a trait of personality that the victim is hardly able to distinguish, hence has to be made evident to him or her by a variety of means. In simple words, selfrighteousness is self-love and in more complex terms it is egotism, vanity, elitism and the habit of being selfish in righteousness. Such people are least amenable to correction and conversation with them could reach a dead end very soon. Preachers often fall into this trap because they labour under an overbearing sense of moral superiority of their own faith and ideology. They tend to see all other faiths morally inferior, odious and vicious. It is why preachers do not see beyond their own nose. Doctrines other than their own appear to them bereft of virtue, illegitimate and lacking in logic and reason.

Nobody is without imperfections. But a self-righteous person feels no scope for any input into his life from others. For him, he is hundred percent perfect, smarter than all and virtuous to the core. It is only the other person who can see an individual’s blind spots. It is where one has to give up his vanity and be open to criticism and introspection. A self-righteous person is immune to such criticism and is lost in his own vainglorious world, thumb-nosing what others say or do, heaping scorn on likes and dislikes of others.

Sanctimonious or what is called in common parlance ‘holier than thou’ attitude flows directly from self-righteousness in people practicing a religion.’ The innate feeling of superiority cocoons them into a shell, convincing them of there being no need for them to
look anywhere other than their own doctrines, practices and traditions. Sufferers of this complex thus do not usually concern themselves with proving their superiority to others and take it for granted that it is too manifest to be ignored. We the Muslims need to introspect, if we are being or have been led on this path.

No Comments

Pakistan’s Founding Fathers 1940. What were they thinking?



What were they thinking?

Dr.Adil Najam

March 1940: What were the Founding Fathers of Pakistan thinking about the minorities 

Tomorrow we will go through the motions of celebrating Pakistan Day. With song, slogan and sincere banality we will commemorate the single most important founding document of our republic.  
A document that too many of us have never read. A document that too many others believe they know so well that they do not need to read. A document whose eventual impact its drafters could not have imagined. A document whose intent seems lost on those whose lives it transformed.

Today, let us (re-)read that document. 

March 22, is not a bad day to do so. The 27th Annual Session of the All-India Muslim League actually began in Lahore on March 22, 1940, at what was then called Minto Park and has since been renamed Iqbal Park. 

Although we celebrate Pakistan Day on March 23, formal discussion on what was originally called the Qarardad-e-Lahore (Lahore Resolution) began on March 22, it was formally proposed by Sher-e-Bengal (Lion of Bengal) Fazlul Haq on March 23, and was not officially adopted until March 24. Newspapers of the time dubbed it the “Pakistan Resolution” (Qarardad-e-Pakistan), and from then onwards that is what it became.

The resolution itself is not very long: a little more than 400 words, five paragraphs. Ambiguous as it was designed to be, it is remarkably well-crafted.

The first paragraph sets the context by “approving and endorsing” decisions already taken by the Muslim League’s Council and Working Committee. Importantly, it “emphatically reiterates that the scheme of federation embodied in the Government of India Act 1935, is totally unsuited to, and unworkable in the peculiar conditions of this country and is altogether unacceptable to Muslim India.”

The second paragraph is also about context. It very strategically reminds the viceroy that he has already agreed to reconsider the 1935 Act and goes on to very clearly assert that “Muslim India will not be satisfied unless the whole constitutional plan is reconsidered de novo and that no revised plan would be acceptable to Muslims unless it is framed with their approval and consent.” 

It is the third paragraph that lays out the substance of what today’s Pakistan has come to see as the gist of the resolution. It deserves to be quoted in full: 

“Resolved that it is the considered view of this Session of the All-India Muslim League that no constitutional plan would be workable in this country or acceptable to the Muslims unless it is designed on the following basic principles, viz., that geographically contiguous units are demarcated into regions which should be so constituted, with such territorial readjustments as may be necessary, that the areas in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North Western and Eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute independent states in which the constituent units should be autonomous and sovereign.”

Much, of course, has been written about this part. Stanley Wolpert (Jinnah of Pakistan, 1984) points out that “Pakistan was not explicitly mentioned; nor was it clear from the language of the resolution whether a single Muslim state of both “zones” had been envisioned or two separate “autonomous” independent states.” Also ambiguous was the role of the ‘centre’ and whether these states were to be part of a larger federation or not. 

But all of that was to come much later as history overtook events as well as intent. We were still, then, in 1940; 1947 had not yet been imagined; and 2014 was unimaginable.

To me, however, the fourth paragraph is equally insightful about what was on the minds of our founding fathers on that spring day in Lahore as they debated the resolution amidst a crowd of over 100,000. This paragraph – which remains poignant in terms of today’s Pakistan – also deserves to be quoted in full: 

“That adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units in the regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultations with them and in other parts of India where the Mussalmans are in a majority adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards shall be specifically provided in constitution for them and other minorities for the protection of their religious, cultural, economic, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them.”

The final paragraph – in carefully crafted language – gave authority of the League’s working committee to settle the details of whatever was to happen within the “basic principles” of the resolution. 

It seems to me that there were only two ‘basic principles’ in this founding document (as contained in the third and fourth paragraphs).

First, independence – whether of a single or multiple states; whether within or outside of a federation – of the Muslim nation. Indeed, this principle of ‘nationhood’ – and a total rejection of wanting to be seen as a religious or communal minority – was the centrepiece of Jinnah’s long and powerful presidential address on March 22, 1940; exactly 74 years ago, today. 

Stanley Wolpert has described the speech as “truly a stellar performance, worthy of the lead role he alone could command” and the Times of India reported that “such was the dominance of his personality that, despite the improbability of more than a fraction of his audience understanding English, he held his hearers and played with palpable effects on their emotions.” 

However, it is not his style but the substance of what he said that is of import today: the rejection of a communal minority status and the demand for nationhood: “The Musalmans are not a minority. The Musalmans are a nation by any definition. The problem in India is not of an inter-communal but manifestly international character, and it must be treated as such… the only course open to us all is to allow the major nations separate homelands.”

The second principle – an emphasis on minority rights – may surprise the modern Pakistani reader of the resolution but flowed directly from the first even though it was more difficult to reconcile. Historian Ayesha Jalal explains these “contradictions between Muslim interests in majority and minority provinces” at length in her very elegant analysis (The Sole Spokesman, 1985). Indeed, the resolution did not fully reconcile this contradiction and history went on to play its hand as it did. 

But let us return now to 2014. Reading the text today, one finds an implied promise our founding fathers had made on our behalf: that the rights of minorities would be safeguarded. They were concerned, quite clearly, about the rights of Muslims in what would eventually become India, but in reaction to that concern they had explicitly made a promise in this founding document about the rights of non-Muslims in what is now Pakistan. It is a promise that remains unfulfilled.

So, what was it that our founding fathers were thinking of as they met in Lahore 74 years ago? A desire for independence so that our sense of nationhood could flourish. And an attention of the rights of minorities as only those who have been minorities themselves can appreciate.

Divided, torn, scarred, untrusting, angered and gnawing at each other as we are today, maybe we should be thinking of the very same things again.

The writer has taught international relations and public policy at Boston University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and was the vice chancellor of LUMS.

Twitter: @adilnajam 

No Comments