Abdul Ghaffar Khan

[gadoonwal]

When I say nonviolent and pacifist I mean to contrast this with Turangzai's approach. Whatever their relationship whether it was good or bad does not concern me, but I am more focusing on the variant approaches.

Would we say Bacha Khan did resemble Ghandi in his approach of popularizing the conflict and trying to shame the Brits into leaving/granting independence? Or are we misjudging his approach to the matter?

Bacha khan started his struggle long before Ghandi.
Ghandi was in south-africa when Bacha khan and his khudy khedmatgar started their struggle.

[Smarty]

your post was deleted and will be deleted cus you are out of track all the time.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Bacha khan started his struggle long before Ghandi.
Ghandi was in south-africa when Bacha khan and his khudy khedmatgar started their struggle.

Yeah, so I want to focus on this comment and this comment in your other post:

Yes,he was nonviolent.
He himself said that he is the follower of nonviolent philosophy cus our prophet (pbuh) was nonviolent.

First I want to clarify our terminologies. We should perhaps remove the word violent from our lexicon. Violent implies a sort of aggressive posturing which we both and others agree on is not the case when a nation is invaded.

For example its easy to give an emotional response and say Bacha Khan was peaceful and nonviolent or that Isa (A) was peaceful and not violent etc.

But lets give another example, lets use Omar Mukhtaar of Libya. Most people, secular and religious agree Mukhtaar was living his life peacefully and that Italians were doing many wrongs in Libya and that Mukhtaar then took up arms against them.

While Mukhtaar's taking up arms was a violent act, its not like he is violent in the way an aggressive person is... his violence was responsive to the Italian violence.

So Gadoonwal Saib, we would then say that Bacha Khan preferred Pacifist resistance and Turangzai and Fariq-e-Ipi and Akbar Khan of Afghanistan preferred taking up arms in resistance. Would you agree on this assessment?

Also would we say Muhammad (S) was always pacifist? I think if we study his life we can see in Kandaaq, Badr, Uhud, etc that this was not the case right? There were instances of pacifism (e.g. when he enforced Hudaiybiah treaty even against Umar's wishes and took the 10,000 saints back to Medinah) and instances of armed response?

And once again, I am not faulting Ghandi or comparing Ghandi and Bacha Khan in terms of religious identity.

For example, I also admire greatly Martin Luther King... he advocated nonviolent pacifist resistance for African Americans... I could never malign him, but I am just making a point about different resistance approaches and their successes and failures.

So we would group the following great leaders into pacifist category:
Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Bacha Khan

And we would group the following leaders into armed resistance category right?
Akbar Khan, Mir Wais Neka (armed resistance against Gurgin), Turangzai, Faqir Da Ipi.

I await input from Badlun and others but I want to see if we can agree on these assessments before we proceed to the next part of the discussion.

[Badlun]

This is a very important discussion. Violence and war must be differentiated. Wars should be fought by professional armies not by civilians. Civilians when commit war like acts are called violence or terrorism. This is the problem that Taliban or Al Qaeda without having a state and power, engage in wars which are then termed violence or terrorism. Muhamamd as an Arab political leader did not fight wars till the time he had a state and power in Madinah.

Gandhi, Bacha Khan and MA Jinnah got independence without war and this is why it is a model for the world. Today if Taliban wants to rule Afghanistan, they should resort to non violent ways like elections, campaigns, publicity, propaganda, media etc not violence and terrorism. War is a reality but it must be fought by professional persons under a command not by groups of bandits and hooligans.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is a very important discussion. Violence and war must be differentiated. Wars should be fought by professional armies not by civilians. Civilians when commit war like acts are called violence or terrorism. This is the problem that Taliban or Al Qaeda without having a state and power, engage in wars which are then termed violence or terrorism. Muhamamd as an Arab political leader did not fight wars till the time he had a state and power in Madinah.

Gandhi, Bacha Khan and MA Jinnah got independence without war and this is why it is a model for the world. Today if Taliban wants to rule Afghanistan, they should resort to non violent ways like elections, campaigns, publicity, propaganda, media etc not violence and terrorism. War is a reality but it must be fought by professional persons under a command not by groups of bandits and hooligans.

I would say that Orwell's history is questioning your assessment. His work alongside British Imperial logs, Churchill's writings indicate that they feared the people like Surya Sen more than they did Ghandi. Additionally, the Brits were spending resources fighting on multiple fronts at the same time.

I would add that you are making a massive generalization that no single historian would ever ever ever agree with whether he was secular, liberal, Christian, jewish, Irish, Islamist etc.. I mean its more than a little naïve to think there only professional armies will fight wars. Human history has shown (e.g. Simon Bar Kochba, Germans under Herman (Arminius), even Mir Wais Neka, Vietcong, even Washington's non uniformed local militias) that there is no rule amongst humans that says they must suddenly put on suits and boots and declare a professional army to fight a guerilla war.

Additionally, I would say that this is the discussion we are moving toward. We have to define victory and "independence." If Independence is trading the British master for another master then that is not true independence. We might then say that FATA was more independent for instance than mainland KP... therefore Turangzai and Faqir Da Ipi might be considered as having achieved a modicum of success more than Bacha Khan.

Finally, it is often the victors that write the take on history. This means that if the British had won the American War for Independence, Washington and his men might have been seen as seditionists and brigands and hooligans.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This is a very important discussion. Violence and war must be differentiated. Wars should be fought by professional armies not by civilians. Civilians when commit war like acts are called violence or terrorism. This is the problem that Taliban or Al Qaeda without having a state and power, engage in wars which are then termed violence or terrorism. Muhamamd as an Arab political leader did not fight wars till the time he had a state and power in Madinah.

Gandhi, Bacha Khan and MA Jinnah got independence without war and this is why it is a model for the world. Today if Taliban wants to rule Afghanistan, they should resort to non violent ways like elections, campaigns, publicity, propaganda, media etc not violence and terrorism. War is a reality but it must be fought by professional persons under a command not by groups of bandits and hooligans.

For that matter, Che Guevara and Castro had no official state army in Cuba or in Bolivia amongst etc. yet it would have been a bit too much to say that Cuban's should have had to wait for some sort of random professional army to rescue them from Batista right?

[khushal]

This is a very important discussion. Violence and war must be differentiated. Wars should be fought by professional armies not by civilians. Civilians when commit war like acts are called violence or terrorism. This is the problem that Taliban or Al Qaeda without having a state and power, engage in wars which are then termed violence or terrorism. Muhamamd as an Arab political leader did not fight wars till the time he had a state and power in Madinah.

Gandhi, Bacha Khan and MA Jinnah got independence without war and this is why it is a model for the world. Today if Taliban wants to rule Afghanistan, they should resort to non violent ways like elections, campaigns, publicity, propaganda, media etc not violence and terrorism. War is a reality but it must be fought by professional persons under a command not by groups of bandits and hooligans.

The decline of the British Empire started much before Ghandi or Bacha Khan. The Brits left India purely for economic reasons, Hitlers wars had left the Brits Bankrupt. "They also left Jordan in 1946, Palestine in 1947, Sri Lanka in 1948, Myanmar in 1948, and Egypt in 1952," etc. The Quit India movement organized by Ghandi was crushed, it was just that the Brits had long realized that India and the other colonies in Asia, Middle east and Africa were no longer governable in the long run because they were financially strapped. If it wasn't for America coming to their rescue, they couldn't have even done an organized withdrawal.
Even Indians know that Hitler had more of an impact of the Brits withdrawal from India than Ghandi.
http://www.susmitkumar.net/index.php...=100&Itemid=86

By the way the oldest democratic country in the world was created by what the Brits at the time called bandits, hooligans and terrorists.

[Badlun]

What is and what should be, are two different things. I know there are guerrilla wars, there were wars of independence by people not by armies but the way Bacha Khan and Gandhi and Jinnah did is another model.

British were weak but they continued to rule for a long time and if these leaders did not struggle, British would never give the independence in a plate.

[khushal]

Ghandi and Bach Khan were such failures, not only was Hitler responsible for the British withdrawal of India, but the pacifist duo could not even stop the Brits from partitioning the subcontinent which was their main goal.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

What is and what should be, are two different things. I know there are guerrilla wars, there were wars of independence by people not by armies but the way Bacha Khan and Gandhi and Jinnah did is another model.

British were weak but they continued to rule for a long time and if these leaders did not struggle, British would never give the independence in a plate.

This is true Badlun... I agree with your statement on What IS and what SHOULD BE.

One reason I admire Scheuer is that he is not an idealist.... he is pragmatist. He says "no nation state has the inherent right to exist." He means that no one will recognize your right if you do not have the might to back that supposed right. This is what made him clear, cogent, and deadly for his adversaries giving the CIA many chances that they did not take to kill their enemies.

In this same vein, we can talk all we want about what war should be... about Geneva Conventions etc. But what we see in recent years is that war brings out the worst in man and that it is not like a football/soccer game where you can impose artificial rules (heck even in soccer the professionals have slick ways of harming their colleagues and sometimes only the fast camera can catch the side punch to ensure the player gets the red card... but I think you know what I mean).

I would also like you to comment on Orwell's thesis though. What are your thoughts on what he has to say in his essay and what his commentary about Ghandi means to you (since Orwell really was not an imperialist himself and resigned subsequently).

I think the pattern though that emerges is that people have to define success.

Is success:

1) Absolute freedom and autonomy but no promise of economic and social structural stability. The notion is that freedom is priceless and not worth any compromise whatsoever because out of it will one day grow strength even if it is not immediate
2) Limited freedom but economic and social growth perhaps one day leading to more autonomy but no guarantee and your land may be used for the benefit of others at times to the detriment of your own (think Okinawa)
3) An outside force completely governing in the manner of the British/Russians etc. so that their interests are the predominant interests and any benefits for the occupied are secondary

?

So I would venture to say that Faqir Da Ipi and Turangzai and Mir Wais and Che Guevara and Washington and William wallace would go with 1) Maybe even Putin too as well as his historical ideological adversary Stephan Bandera

Hamid Karzai would go with 2)

The current Chechyan President would go with 3)

If we take 1) as the definition then what we would say is that the an empirical observation shows that:

Afghans were more successful than Turangzai/Faqir Da Ipi who in turn were more successful than Bacha Khan based on the gradient of Pashtun ascendancy and autonomy... would we not?

And I would think Orwell's argument regarding Ghandi substantiates this.

But I want to hear your thoughts.

[Badlun]

This is true Badlun... I agree with your statement on What IS and what SHOULD BE.

One reason I admire Scheuer is that he is not an idealist.... he is pragmatist. He says "no nation state has the inherent right to exist." He means that no one will recognize your right if you do not have the might to back that supposed right. This is what made him clear, cogent, and deadly for his adversaries giving the CIA many chances that they did not take to kill their enemies.

In this same vein, we can talk all we want about what war should be... about Geneva Conventions etc. But what we see in recent years is that war brings out the worst in man and that it is not like a football/soccer game where you can impose artificial rules (heck even in soccer the professionals have slick ways of harming their colleagues and sometimes only the fast camera can catch the side punch to ensure the player gets the red card... but I think you know what I mean).

I would also like you to comment on Orwell's thesis though. What are your thoughts on what he has to say in his essay and what his commentary about Ghandi means to you (since Orwell really was not an imperialist himself and resigned subsequently).

I think the pattern though that emerges is that people have to define success.

Is success:

1) Absolute freedom and autonomy but no promise of economic and social structural stability. The notion is that freedom is priceless and not worth any compromise whatsoever because out of it will one day grow strength even if it is not immediate
2) Limited freedom but economic and social growth perhaps one day leading to more autonomy but no guarantee and your land may be used for the benefit of others at times to the detriment of your own (think Okinawa)
3) An outside force completely governing in the manner of the British/Russians etc. so that their interests are the predominant interests and any benefits for the occupied are secondary

?

So I would venture to say that Faqir Da Ipi and Turangzai and Mir Wais and Che Guevara and Washington and William wallace would go with 1) Maybe even Putin too as well as his historical ideological adversary Stephan Bandera

Hamid Karzai would go with 2)

The current Chechyan President would go with 3)

If we take 1) as the definition then what we would say is that the an empirical observation shows that:

Afghans were more successful than Turangzai/Faqir Da Ipi who in turn were more successful than Bacha Khan based on the gradient of Pashtun ascendancy and autonomy... would we not?

And I would think Orwell's argument regarding Ghandi substantiates this.

But I want to hear your thoughts.

Barakzai like some other members here, one day I would definitely love to meet in person as always reading such posts give me tremendous pleasure to have people like you with us.

My thoughts will give a new dimension by merging NO 1 and NO 2 options of independence and interdependence. Afghanistan never a colony or state of US but a sovereign state yes interdependent with US or EU or NATO or Japan or even China, Iran and Pakistan or Russia but never with Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is also foreigner on my land and US also but for defeating Al Qaeda I need US, thus US presence on my land is not against my independence. Once I do not have Al Qaeda or Taliban then I will say goodbye to US and will continue international cooperation with US and others in this global village. Al Qaeda supported by Taliban or vice versa is against my cultural , social and political identity so it is my enemy NO1.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai like some other members here, one day I would definitely love to meet in person as always reading such posts give me tremendous pleasure to have people like you with us.

My thoughts will give a new dimension by merging NO 1 and NO 2 options of independence and interdependence. Afghanistan never a colony or state of US but a sovereign state yes interdependent with US or EU or NATO or Japan or even China, Iran and Pakistan or Russia but never with Taliban or Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda is also foreigner on my land and US also but for defeating Al Qaeda I need US, thus US presence on my land is not against my independence. Once I do not have Al Qaeda or Taliban then I will say goodbye to US and will continue international cooperation with US and others in this global village. Al Qaeda supported by Taliban or vice versa is against my cultural , social and political identity so it is my enemy NO1.

Merging 1 and 2 would be a great idea, but its once again a faith based concept. If we are to be scientific about it, we require tangibles. and the tangibles here are historical precedent.

Yes, I know that Karl Rove is reputed to have said, about the Pax Americana that:

"in what we call the reality-based community, there is a belief that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

but sadly for Rove, what has emerged is that the reality based community knew and understood the confines and outer limits of history and its action reaction paradigms.

There are those out there that identify with Rove's pseudo reality... but as I said, one must either be intrepid or full to the brim with hubris to plod along under this belief.

Why do I mention this above? Its because merging 1) and 2) relies on the showmanship of good faith that those that would support Afghanistan would

A) Have learned their lesson regarding utilizing fundamentalism toward their own ends
- They have not-hence their arms still making the rounds in Syria amongst those that they identify as "good rebels"
- Their knowing full well that the sunni insurgency was on the way in Iraq but letting it spread just enough to counter balance the Iran-Syria-Lebanon-Russia nexus and now stepping in to cause more destruction
- Maintaining a schizophrenic relationship with Pakistan which is a bastion of fundamentalism and knowing that each Army operation has done little to stall the offensive in southern Afghanistan that they theoretically link to FATA.
- Undoing secular states to create and foment an environment that would permit the ideological comrades of the people you say are outsiders to flourish in various states (think when the State Dept facilitated Mubarak's fall, removed Gaddafi, etc).

B) It runs on the assumption that 90% plus of Pashtuns agree with your view of who are outsiders and who are really outsiders... I think you yourself have lamented that 90% of Pashtuns actually do not agree with your view on these subjects... meaning once again it would invert Turangzai and Faqir Da Ipi's realities on new 1) and perhaps more place you in line with number 2.

C) It makes the assumption that interdependence is all that would be asked of the occupied nation when we see in Okinawa that this is not the case at all. Interdependence for instance does not demand that a nation cede completely on judicial review and action on crimes committed by anyone (including outsiders) on its land.

D) Most importantly and pertinently is that it assumes that your number 1 enemy and the interdependent super power have no relationship to one another and as if in historical terms, the NO 1 enemy emerged out of nowhere and just "poof" entered Afghanistan randomly.
- The reality is that NO1 enemy exists and thrives solely based on the actions and reactions (even according to the CIA) of the candidate for interdependent super power. They were created in the dynamic environment of two clashing superpowers in our lands and they flourished because those same interactions occurred globally.
- We see that branch groups of NO1 enemy are garnering arms + support + strategic gains ala the candidate for interdependent superpower.
- The same super power policies that are the lifeline for NO1 enemy are still in vogue in the Arab world and are actually strengthening it


Therefore, this is why I think Turangzai and Faqir Da Ipi and others, as well as Amanullah were clear and cogent that the lack of being able to predict the chess moves of a super power or empire make the argument of being its satrapy a weak one.

We actually even see this phenomena in Post Marshall Plan Germany even now. The Five Eyes Spy Networks still monitor Germany and we can see that a predilection towards German Nationalism or even holding certain views in contradistinction to the installed Post Marshall Plan government can be dangerous to one's freedom and result in incarceration.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/31/UK-and-US-Spying-on-Germany

This also includes limiting these nation's economic dominance. Fascinatingly enough, republicans here in the states talk about free market economies and capitalism resulting in more freedom but what we see instead is that the weaker nations and the rising nations are subject to economic espionage at the prodding of these same hypocrites as well:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/05/us-governments-plans-use-economic-espionage-benefit-american-corporations/

Whatever else is true, one thing is unmistakable: the report blithely acknowledges that stealing secrets to help American corporations secure competitive advantage is an acceptable future role for U.S. intelligence agencies.

What this in essence amounts to is that an agreement of interdependence demands that both parties in a contract be able to enforce the contract agreement.

The current reality is that might makes right and that history has not ever shown any of the subsidiary states rising to the level of being able to enforce their own needs, wants, and rights.

Additionally, I would think if the world were surveyed, cultural imperialism is far less seen as a tactic used by insurgent groups but far far more associated with a super power:

https://www.utexas.edu/courses/kincaid/AI/readings/Cultural%20Imperialism.pdf

Now, do not get me wrong, I understand that you were clear about what you view as your interests and I agree fully that those are your interests and that the notion of merging 1 and 2 or in the least adhering to 2 in the hopes that 1) comes about accords with your goals.

But for our wider audience the decisions they are going to make are to take the Orwell quote in tandem with our known history of Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Turagnzai, Faqir Da Ipi, Akbar Khan of Afghanistan, Abdullah Achakzai etc and at least have to think a bit harder about how to substantiate the notion that Sorkh Posh in any way contributed to freedom more than say, Turangzai's armed rebellion.

Once again, though, I would like you to give us your thoughts on Orwell's comments, especially regarding his insider views on Ghandi.