Awami National Party

[Toramana]

I don't have association with anyone but I know the ANP from very close. I know their ideologies, their goals that they are pursuing, their hate for Islam, their love for freedom of women even pashtun women, their love for dance and drink, their love for many other things which have no association with Pashtoons or Pashtoon society. But one I like about them, they have started using the term "jihad" in their speeches which a good move. It means they have realized how much "jihad" is important in life.

Lol, don't hide behind that facade...You are unhapy with ANP because it played a crucial role in thrashing out the bruts i.e., Taleban that hanged people by poles at khoni chowk (Mingora) and burnt schools, destroyed bridges, and even didn't spare "nimaz-i-jannaza"....

[emkhan]

Lol, don't hide behind that facade...You are unhapy with ANP because it played a crucial role in thrashing out the bruts i.e., Taleban that hanged people by poles at khoni chowk (Mingora) and burnt schools....

You are wrong. I am happy they did that but I unhappy because they did not do anything for their Pashtoons, for their culture, for their pashto language, all they have done and doing is "damtob", I am sure you are well aware of this term.
ANP has become the right hand of ISI in Pukhtunkwa and in Karachi.
The head of the party is disappeared from his village for the last two years and many other MPAs and MNAs.
Some are sitting in England, some in Dubai, some in malaysia...
They are all enjoying looting and luxury life.

[Toramana]

But guys ....having all the regard for ANP for withstanding about one century of oppression and being steadfast on Pashtun rights and their rights to self-rule and self-definition, it can of course be not above criticism...

But it is also a fact that one can expect little objectivity from those affiliated with militant extremist ideologies ...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Go ahead...But one can expect little objectivity from someone driven by the fanatic Ikhwani Ideology...What about your in-laws? Are they still associated with Zial-ul-Haq's legacy ?

A lot of people have written about ANP---You could be another one.

Once again, we will discuss Zia Ul Haq in due time and we can even discuss the Ikhwan. Perhaps you ought to define the Ikhwan for the readers. The historical Ikhwan, for readers, were bedouins that were the sole factor and sole force that empowered the Saudi Monarchy... without their support, the monarchy would not have been able to establish a foothold. Subsequently, when Al Saud wanted to bring in foreign developers to harvest Saudi's wealth, the Ikhwan took a stern stand. They certainly represented a large swathe of indigenous Arab opinion. The Ikhwan were then murdered wholesale.

However, the Ikhwan will be discussed in another setting. For now, and for the next few weeks, I prefer to discuss ANP, its roots, its leading figures, and its evolution as a party.

After all, as I said above... spreading ourselves thin and discussing Ikhwan, Taliban, Zahir Shah, ANP, etc in one breath leads to a wide breath of knowledge with little depth.

Regarding my father in law, you have it wrong, he, like other Ahmadzai Wazirs who Maseed resents, may admire Zia Ul Haq's Baptist like fire for the jihadic involvement... but he had no personal links to him. Rather, if you would like to research my father in law, as you previously stated you wanted to unmask me, then here is a better lead. My father in law is the direct descendent of the Ahmadzai Wazir Mashr who was approached by Nadir Shah to provide a lashkar and retake the Kabul throne, hence the awarding of lands to the Wazirs in Barmal and the fact that many Wazirs and Mehsuds for the matter found their way to Afghanistan and ended up staying there. However, that is another discussion for another day.

Hence:

"He who is everywhere is nowhere."

[BarakzaiAbdali]

But guys ....having all the regard for ANP for withstanding about one century of oppression and being steadfast on Pashtun rights and their rights to self-rule and self-definition, it can of course be not above criticism...

But it is also a fact that one can expect little objectivity from those affiliated with militant extremist ideologies ...

Well once again, you are welcomed to post informative historical sources not written by ANPers like Mr. Marwat (i.e. no propaganda pieces from these AIRRA party fanatics) that truly are a commentary on the party's evolution.

For instance, you are forcing us to infer that Khudai Khidmatgar's modern day incarnation is the ANP. Yet, you provide little proof except for familial insinuations.

I need for than that. I want sources written by western, eastern, native authors etc.

There is enough out there on Taraki, Karmal etc to fill up a library, written by many in the West, I am sure you could provide us some resources in teh same manner on the ANP.

Please no sob stories on Bacha Khan and how he was a saint etc. I want objective discussions ala Scheuer, Pillar, and other informative sources.

[randolph85]

I think what you are getting at, and where we see eye to eye Randolph, is that party politics is rather foolish.

What has it accomplished for America really? In the last election, the voices of Dr. Paul and others were drowned out purposefully... as is being done so again in this election:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_927964.html

To the point where Jon Stewart has had to discuss it.

The issue with party politics is that it allows for the elites to continue and control the tempo and control the policy irrespective of what the people may actually want. In the last election, it was a choice between escalation and permanent bases in Iraq (something Americans are opposed to) and escalation and permanent bases in Afghanistan (something that they are opposed to).

By this same token, when capitalism is infused into the process, this is what occurs:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...0fa_fact_mayer

The general reply is simply an aw shucks and a "gee well this PROVES that a balance is struck with party politics in that for every Koch brother there is a George Soros..." completely and blithely ignoring the fact that perhaps, Americans want neither of these viewpoints hoisted on them.

In this same way, and perhaps in a worse way, in the middle east, south asia, and central asia, the farcical implementation of democracy ends up taking a Khan and just attaching him to a party to ensure that the oligarchial control and lack of meritocracy proceeds uninterrupted.

In the US, the population burden is still low enough, and wealth is still extensive enough to ensure that while Jon Kerry's daughter can land a medical school spot... there are enough spots and enough of a need so that Randolph85 can do so as well.

By this same token, the champions of hoisting this mentality onto Pashtuns is gauranteeing servitude for generations.

Nonetheless, we have to be informed about the history, platform, and evolution of the AMP, Awami Marxist Party.

the american people are so detached from the wars their country have initiated that i don't see foreign policy as a make or break issue for this country. its when the average american is a few cents short of buying a britney spears single from itunes when they start caring, barely. so i don't see it as americans not being informed of the likes of ron paul because of some major across the board blackout of him and his views, its just that most people dont care about him or his less than gung ho politics.

i find good virtues in many of the people and parties i am opposed to. i can see the worth in ahmad shah massoud, the taliban, karzai, zahir shah and others. there are 2 groups which i can never show any interest in, one because of their utter laziness (the anp) and the other because of their brutality (the ttp). the anp unlike these other groups have a long legacy with good foundations, bacha khan. its not so much their secularness that i am opposed to as it is their complete lack of progress and absence of a manifesto for the pashtun people. their hanging on the coat tails of the communist afghan government is what has pretty much damned them in my eyes and there is no redemption short of a public appology. but like i said before, when i see young pashtuns in those rallys, its their enthusiasm and pride that brings them there, not their marxist leanings. i would venture to say most anp members don't even know the history of the movement.

[Toramana]

OK, Ok, thanks for the "details" about your family background...Be original, objective, and analytical, which I expect the least from folk like you driven by that one-dimensional view of things...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

OK, Ok, thanks for the "details" about your family background...Be original, objective, and analytical, which I expect the least from folk like you driven by that one-dimensional view of things...

Well once again, furnish the sources, and remember, 3 single dimensions lay the foundation for a 3 dimensional view. You cannot neglect, x,y, or z.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

the american people are so detached from the wars their country have initiated that i don't see foreign policy as a make or break issue for this country. its when the average american is a few cents short of buying a britney spears single from itunes when they start caring, barely. so i don't see it as americans not being informed of the likes of ron paul because of some major across the board blackout of him and his views, its just that most people dont care about him or his less than gung ho politics.

i find good virtues in many of the people and parties i am opposed to. i can see the worth in ahmad shah massoud, the taliban, karzai, zahir shah and others. there are 2 groups which i can never show any interest in, one because of their utter laziness (the anp) and the other because of their brutality (the ttp). the anp unlike these other groups have a long legacy with good foundations, bacha khan. its not so much their secularness that i am opposed to as it is their complete lack of progress and absence of a manifesto for the pashtun people. their hanging on the coat tails of the communist afghan government is what has pretty much damned them in my eyes and there is no redemption short of a public appology. but like i said before, when i see young pashtuns in those rallys, its their enthusiasm and pride that brings them there, not their marxist leanings. i would venture to say most anp members don't even know the history of the movement.

Exactly, similar to how many young republicans and democrats hardly understand their own party's history and what that would imply for modern American policies.

Think about it like this: A fool with a rocket launcher who is already a pariah can be a local nuisance and may even multiply his ideology... a fool at a DNC or RNC rally casts his vote for a fool in charge of an arsenal of nuclear weapons, tanks, drones, and planes that devastate whole countries. Which is worse?

[randolph85]

Exactly, similar to how many young republicans and democrats hardly understand their own party's history and what that would imply for modern American policies.

Think about it like this: A fool with a rocket launcher who is already a pariah can be a local nuisance and may even multiply his ideology... a fool at a DNC or RNC rally casts his vote for a fool in charge of an arsenal of nuclear weapons, tanks, drones, and planes that devastate whole countries. Which is worse?

very true. its what i have been trying to tell some people. the silliness of "i support the troops, but not the war" makes ur head spin in utter disbelief and wtf'ness. or the fact that in a democratic society where the majority rules, by law, that somehow its population is seen as innocent in the event of an attack by disgruntled foes opposed to their elected governments.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Let us begin with a discussion of Ghaffar Khan himself.

A fascinating discussion of the reception Ghaffar Khan recieved when he attempted to cajole BOTH Wazirs and Mehsuds to work with Nehru:

Here is what Victoria Schofield, author of Afghan Frontier: Feuding and Fighting in Central Asia has to say regarding Abdul Ghaffar Khan's getting completely rejected by the Wazir and the Mehsud tribes.

This is EXTREMELY important because it debunks the narrative being told by the Pashtun Marxists, namely that the Bacha Khan legacy is full of wonderment, prophecy, and complete acceptance of the AMP ideals by all he spoke to.

Moreover, it is repeatedly asserted that the Pashtuns of the KP region, in the early 40s were agitating to either become a part of Afghanistan or obey Abdul Ghaffar Khan and stay in a unified India.

Instead we have the following:

"In tribal territory, Curtis realized that Mahsuds in India would not be happy with a united India. 'I do not think they believed we would hand over power in India. But if this came about, they would never agree to continue with a predominantly hindu government, the relationship with which they had with the British" page 236

When Ghaffar Khan too Nehru to meet the Utmanzai Wazirs, Shofeld writes:

"The Utmanzai Wazirs were not impressed by his (Nehru) pledge to 'set them free'... his reception at Razmak was no better. The tribesmen fired on his plane...."

Robin Hodson, the Political Agent for South Waziristan noted that at the Jirga, the Wazirs responded exactly as this, to Nehru (remember he came with Bacha Khan)

"We are not the slaves of the British, and we are certainly not going to be your slaves...using the contemptious word for an indian, kortunai, they said if they had to deal with an indian, it would be Jinnah"

The above appears to debunk the assertion made by the ANPites on here that the jirgas had not made their choice.

Schofeld goes on to write:

"The meeting broke up in disorder. When Nehru was advanced upon by a Mahsud with an umbrella, it was Robin Hodson who stood in to protect him."

"At Wana the Ahmadzai Wazirs refused to meet him... Abdul Ghaffar Khan spoke scathingly of the British officers in Waziristan, calling them 'suave and cunning'. He attributed the docility of the tribesmen to the allowences given them by the British"

She goes on to write that Ghaffar Khan attempted to take Nehru through Afridi territory as well but that

"But the Afridis refused to grant the usual tribal protection"

In regard to how Ghaffar Khan and Nehru were treated in Malakand agency:

"Dung was thrown. Thousands of hostile tribesmen were waiting for them, and, according to Ghaffar Khan, began to throw stones..."

http://books.google.com/books?id=z3K...ristan&f=false


The British appropriately and actually logically responded to Ghaffar Khan in this documentation:

". If anybody really believes this propaganda, or wants to believe it, they have omitted to notice that if I and my officers were so powerful as all this, we would be a great force to be reckoned with! I cannot imagine that even Congressmen in their hearts believe the charge. What they want is to pass on the blame for the hostile reception from themselves, and to find an excuse to sweep away the present methods of control on the Frontier. Nobody of any other persuasion does more than laugh at the assertion, and I gather that the British and foreign pressmen who have been here during the last week saw through these tactics from the beginning."

The rest is as follows:


"The next day Nehru started for Waziristan, where the tribal leaders he saw at Miranshah and Razmak gave him an extremely hostile reception. These were not Jirgas, but the real leaders of the tribes who are of course selected by the tribes on tradition and heredity. Abdul Ghaffar Khan made the usual approach so popular in Congress circles, saying that all had been slaves together and were now going to be free. You can imagine the effect of that sort of talk on a gathering of glowering Pathan tribesmen. The Maliks were further enraged by Nehru losing his temper. What they particularly disliked was talk of a regime of love, coupled with arrogant loss of temper. These people-and in this criticism I include people like Khan Sahib-are far to intense too deal with tribesmen."

[Admin Khan]

Is ANP working for Pashtuns of Lar and Bar's interests?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Is ANP working for Pashtuns of Lar and Bar's interests?

There is a paper that you posted a few months ago that was written by an Australian professor... it gives a general view into the party structure of Pakistan and the relationships to feudal structure... I can no longer find it on PF... If you get a chance, please relink... in it, the Wali Khan- Asfandyar Wali Khan familial nexus is shown to be a part of the whole apparatus that is the Pakistani oligarchial state structure. I would not think that this strucutre, which lacks meritocratic rule would be of any worth to either lar or bar Pashtuns.

I find it rather ironic that Benazir Bhutto is the daughter of Zul fikaar Bhutto and now her son is party head... and Ghaffar Khan bequeathed leadership to Wali and to Asfandyaar Wali... how is that democratic or meritocratic???

[Mandharh]

Is ANP working for Pashtuns of Lar and Bar's interests?

I don't think any party is working for the interest of Lar and Bar's. At least no one from Afghanistan.

[Mandharh]

Well once again, furnish the sources, and remember, 3 single dimensions lay the foundation for a 3 dimensional view. You cannot neglect, x,y, or z.

for a realistic practical conclusion you will need to consider 3 D simultaneously otherwise your results will be flawed severely.