A pensive thought on the fall of the Soviet Union

 —  Nasir Khan, Nov. 26, 2017

My aim to post this article is not to fall in the easy trap of Stalin bashing, all too common and all too pervasive in the factional perspectives and political leanings that emerged with the success of the October Revolution in 1917 under Lenin and his comrades, but soon became a problem after his death in 1924. My aim is rather to ask our left-wing friends and other readers to look critically at the history of the Bolshevik Revolution after the death of Vladimir Lenin and assess dispassionately the course it took due to internal power struggles that played havoc with the international working class movement in many ways and finally led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The whole world witnessed that it was the Soviet Union that played the major part in defeating the Nazi Germany; however, in 1991, it finally fell due to the inherent contradictions and the conservative bureaucratic structure of the system that no longer was able to keep pace with the advances made in the capitalist countries both in technology and management of the demands of industrial production and expansion in the economies.

In a direct way, Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost were his general admissions that the system needed a drastic overhauling, something with which many of us agreed. But he had no means at his disposal or power to effect such transformations without unleashing those very forces which eventually got the upper hand and gave a death blow to the tottering system.

The stultified party structure that controlled the State and the conservative bureaucratic system that prevailed were no longer able to cope with the new situation. Gorbachev and his project fell, and as a result the Soviet Union breathed its last gasp.

Clearly, the dormant anti-Socialist reactionary forces got their chance, and they did what they wanted to do to put an end to the Soviet Union, which, despite its weaknesses was still a major source of inspiration for the revolutionary and anti-capitalist forces globally. The end of the Soviet Union was certainly not the end of history, as in 1992 one jubilant philosopher of American capitalism, Francis Fukuyama, asserted, but it certainly was the end an era.

For the international communist movement, communist parties and radical trade unions, it was a traumatic experience and many became the victims of disappointment and depression. But history did not stop, it never stops. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the powerful rulers of capitalism have been busy cementing their power by more wars and depredations world-wide for maximizing their profits of the industrial-military complex, and subjugating the weaker countries to their diktat.

The story continues. The war dogs are busy, very busy.

 -------------- 

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/22/mura-n22.html

How the facts about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict get distorted

— Nasir Khan, November 25, 2017

In a comment on a short article of mine, entitled, ‘The House of Saud’, which was published in International Finance, Economic Affairs, International Affairs, on 22nd November 2017, one Mr. Kenn Stepman wrote a comment. I thought what he wrote needed a cordial reply. I am reproducing his comment, followed by my reply for all my readers to see:
¨¨
Kenn Stepman wrote:

 When any group, religious or not, seeks to destroy another using the claim that they alone can exist, it is wrong.

What is tragically happening to the Palestinian Muslim people is what the larger Muslim Middle-East world once would tragically have happen to Palestinian Jews, and others in 1948 to 1967.
When it is declared that no other state but a Muslim state may exist on Muslim land, it lays open the counter claim that god gave these lands to the Jews.

Least we forget, Palestine was a name given to this land by British General Allenby, copying the name from Ancient Rome. When he did, this land was occupied by 25%-40% Christian, 30%-40% Muslim, and 15%-25% Jewish. Israel is still 19% Muslim, and 3% Christian. While Gaza and the West Bank are 3% Christian, 97% Muslim. When you can answer honestly what happened to all of the Jews and nearly all the Christians that lived in these territories? You may have discovered an inconvenient Truth.

—
Nasir Khan’s reply:

Mr Kenn Stepman, I have read your comment. I admit you have a few good points, but much of the rest is bathed in foggy concoctions. However, my way of looking at the political problems of the people of the Middle East, or more specifically the people of Israel and Palestine (thus called by Allenby, or some others, as you mention is a superfluous digression on your part, which in any case is not so important in my sight) face, should be addressed on the basis of imperial links and liaison that patronized the Zionist cause and resulted in the Balfour Declaration (1917); and thereafter came the colonial charade of Mandatory system, a new word imperialist used to divide the areas of the Middle East that were part of the Ottoman Empire before its collapse in the First World War. Now the fallen provinces of the huge empire became possessions of Britain and France as the ‘Mandatory powers’. Britain took the Mandate of Palestine from which it was kicked out by the Zionist terrorists in 1948.

In my life and my humble work as a writer and political activist, I have never judged people because of their religious dogmas or identities. That is for me, a bit too naive for any serious historian and political analyst to indulge in. Assailing any religion and its followers goes against my basic political stance and my humanist outlook. Neither, am I going to comment on the whole history of the Middle East and the relations between its different religious communities, as you tried to do. That is not history; that is, playing poker with history and the facts. Many have done that, and in the process of doing so have put themselves into those mental ghettos and iron shackles from which they are not able to extricate themselves. Luckily, I am not one of them. At least, that is how I see myself!

I am fully aware how the Zionists have been able to blur the distinction between Jews and Zionists – one a religious community and the other a supremacist political ideology. If you have not read, then, perhaps you may find the following two books by two Israeli historians of some use in understanding the issues in the conflict:

1. Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine

2. Avi Shlaim, Israel and Palestine

I hope you will find much useful material in these two books.

Once you have done that then you may write your comments, which I will be happy to discuss with you or anyone else. I do not discuss fables and hearsay in my texts.

As far as I am concerned, I have endorsed the views expressed by those Israelis and Palestinians who think the question of the two-state solution has become almost irrelevant because of the Israeli expansion since 1967. There is much food for thought in such propositions. There is nothing much left for the Palestinians any more, despite all the empty rhetoric thrown out by some people.
However, I agree with the late Palestinian writer and political activist, Edward Said, that the only solution was a one-democratic-state in the area where both Jews and Arabs could live in a free and truly democratic state. To do so, first steps will be to create one democratic state; thus ending the Zionist entity called Israel in its present form, and its eschewing of any claims to be a Jewish state. It is common knowledge that in a democratic state, the citizens can follow their religions; but a democratic state has not religion. A democracy can never be a theocracy!

In a truly democratic, secular state, Jews, Arabs and other believers or non-believers will have equal rights and obligations. We have the Nordic countries, for instance, where people from all parts of the world have come to live over the last few decades and all religions and followers of religions are not under any social or political restraints. There is freedom in the real sense. There is every possibility that such a state for Jews and Palestinians may become a catalyst of a new dawn for the whole of the Middle East and bring some much-needed fundamental changes in the political structures and mouldy world-views that have no relevance to this age.

I do not speak for or on behalf of any community. I am an independent writer and a Socialist. I speak in the interest of all, not some chosen few.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1876/part-played-labour/

Another hate-monger against the Ahmadi religious minority in Pakistan

 Nasir Khan, October 15, 2017

Muhammad Safdar Awan is a politician and a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan. He has made an extremely venomous hate speech against the Ahmadis, who are an oppressed and victimized religious minority in the 'Islamic Republic' of Pakistan.

What this legislator said would be horrifying in the sight of every civilized person in this age and in these times. But ironically, such people have power and influence in Pakistan, a country where Islam has routinely been used as an easy weapon for inciting hatred against other religious minorities and thus provoke ordinary Sunni Muslims, who are a dominant majority in Pakistan, to commit all sorts of crimes against them.

I condemn the obnoxious and toxic nonsense of this hatemonger in the clearest possible words and ask my international friends and comrades to do the same. This person should be stripped of his immunity for using the National Assembly for his criminal utterances and be tried for his hate speech and criminal incitement.

 

Nawaz Sharif's Son-in-Law Seeks Sacking of Ahmadiyyas from Pakistan Army

Safdar gave references of appointment of and promotion of military officers who he said were members of the Ahmadi community and said that they

news18.com

Forcible conversion of Hindu girls to Islam in Pakistan and then marrying them

Nasir Khan, October 5, 2017

One gruesome aspect of the Islamic fanaticism in Pakistan that started right after the partition of India in 1947 was the vulnerability of the religious minorities of Pakistan. We know what happened in the communal frenzy and violence when large scale migration of some 15 million people took place; Hindus and Sikhs migrated to India and Indian Muslims came to Pakistan.

The communal killings of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs were over one million. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people became victim of the hatred caused by the partition of India, and countless women from all religious communities - Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs - were raped, sexually abused, humiliated and in some cases were also 'converted' to the religions of their new owners. When a female victim has no options left, the owners can do whatever they want to do with her, including forcing their own own religion on her. Such violence perpetrated upon women cannot be termed as conversion; it is criminal coercion and a cowardly act.

The Hindu minority of Pakistan has been a special soft target of Islamic preachers, missionaries and Islamic fanatics. This has been going on for the last 7 decades. The cases of Hindu girls being abducted from their homes and then made brides for some Muslim men after 'converting' them to Islam have been going on unhindered. The following video shows the utter bestiality committed by so-called Muslim men against a Hindu girl.

This writer in the clearest possible language condemns this barbarity and appeals to all Pakistani politically active democratic people, human rights activists and organizations to oppose these criminal actions of some misguided Muslims and do their best to speak out on behalf of the Pakistani Hindus and their girls. The Hindu girls of Pakistan are our daughters and sisters; we should not let them be the prey of such misguided predators who call themselves Muslims.

----
Conversion of Hindu Girls in Sindh, Pakistan - BBC URDU

https://www.facebook.com/bhawan.das.73/videos/1963457190577298/

The Islamic laws and modern legal systems

–Nasir Khan

Those who are well-acquainted with the Sharia laws and modern legal systems should be in a position to show what the Sharia laws of Islam are and how they are inadequate to protect and safeguard people and their rights in these times.

No doubt, during the early period of Islamic rule, the system of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqah) that developed had its basis in the Qur’anic legislation and they were progressive and innovative according to the standards of those times. Prominent Muslim jurists (fuqhah) used various devices, such as ijtihad, analogy, istihsan, ijma, istidlal, to extend the laws and their application.

But around the 13th century things changed and Islamic jurisprudence came to a standstill. It was no more able to move with the changing times. And that condition still prevails. In addition, the Sharia law has become more regressive and inequitable in places where it has been enforced, especially in matters of women’s rights, male domination, criminal offences, etc. etc.

Many ordinary people who have their traditional Islamic identity and customs don’t have the slightest clue about the Sharia laws. Their way of thinking is shaped not by any independent thinking or observations, but by what they hear in the sermons of their clergy and religious preachers. Their thinking in such matters is very simple: The Sharia laws are made by God; therefore they are always the best for all! Once they become the laws in our countries, justice and truth will prevail; injustice and violations of human rights will disappear. The true rule of God on earth will appear. The lion and the goat will drink water from the same pond!

In sum, this is all what they think and nothing more. But unfortunately all this is illusory and has no basis in reality. Now the big question is: How to remove such daydreaming and misunderstandings? The answer lies in giving the correct information. That involves a gradual and systematic educational process. This can be performed by those who know the inadequacy of the Sharia laws that don’t and can’t meet the needs of people in this age. To do so is not an easy task for many reasons. However, it is essential to impart such information in a polite and humane way without resorting to abusive or aggressive language or making any attacks on traditional religious beliefs and customs.

The role of Mr Jinnah in a historical perspective

Nasir Khan, September 3, 2017

For many historians of the Indian subcontinent Mr Jinnah’s role both as a leader and a statesman in pre-partition India is controversial. Personally, I have never accepted even for a second his communalist perspective that led to the demand for Pakistan. Right from the start, the “Two Nation Theory” was hollow and untenable, which in practice became a dead albatross round the necks of the people of the Indian subcontinent and is still choking them.

During the Second World War, the British used the leaders of the Muslim League to weaken the demands of the Indian National Congress for independence when Gandhi launched the Quit India Movement and a major civil disobedience movement became a threat to the British in India. At that critical juncture in the national struggle for India’s independence, the British were able to resort to lure the leaders of the Muslim League to reject the struggle for independence and side with the British, which they did under Mr Jinnah. Thus the groundwork for the partition of India was becoming a reality under the patronage of the British. That’s exactly what they did in 1947 and divided India on Hindu-Muslim lines as two different nations, thus defying both common sense and practical issues involved in such a partition plan.

The religious card had served Mr. Jinnah well and he succeeded in his ambitious plans. But at what a cost! The Muslims spread throughout the length and breadth of India were left in an extremely vulnerable position and the subsequent history of the subcontinent has shown how the Indian Muslims become marginalized and left at the mercy of Hindutva forces and militant reactionary Hindus. In fact, these people were sacrificed for a cause which proved to be a disaster for all.

Now coming to Mr. Jinnah’s role as the Governor-General of the newly-established state of Pakistan, Mr Jinnah was aware that the reality of Pakistan as a state was different from the rhetorical propaganda that was used for the creation of such a state before the partition of 1947. This new country didn’t have only Muslims, but also had large religious minorities of Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and followers of other faiths! He could no longer repeat the previous slogan of Pakistan only for the Muslims. Now, Pakistan had followers of different faiths.

To meet the needs of all religious communities, he made his famous speech in which advanced his views for a state where religion was not to affect the democratic state or to impose only one religion on the people of this country. That was a realistic assessment of the situation in the new country. But he was an ailing person; he didn’t live long enough to lay the foundations of any such policy as the guiding principles that could have led Pakistan in a direction than the one it followed after his death in 1948.