TANQEED تنقید

"Most protesters I interviewed said that women — mothers, sisters, wives of the martyred — started the protest on Alamdar Road. It began at the Hazara Nachari Imambargah on Alamdar Road, where dead bodies were brought before burial. Distraught families, community members, and religious and political leaders had gathered there to support the affected families and discuss strategies for political action. It is uncertain exactly who first suggested the idea of refusing to bury the dead as a form of protest — except that it was a man’s voice — but the women present supported the idea. The imam and community elders disagreed, citing the logistical challenges that accompanied a hundred unburied bodies, to which the women retorted: “Here, please wear our bangles! We are going to sit with the dead bodies on Alamdar Road till we negotiate with the government!” That insult to their masculinity provoked the elders’ consent, and soon the families carried the dead bodies to Alamdar Road, the only space in Meherabad large enough to contain them." Ayesha Omar, Sit-ins With The Dead

In a time of media monopolies, propaganda and severe budget cuts for actual reporting, Tanqeed is an independent magazine working to cover the stories and issues others won’t. We strive to maintain a space for independent critical reflection. Help us build an independent magazine. Help us tell our story, your story and the story of Pakistanis and South Asians across the globe. Ally (monthly) – $2.00 Friend (monthly) – $4.00 Comrade (monthly) – $6.00 Family (monthly) – $8.00 If you can’t subscribe or donate online but want to send a check, please email us: [email protected] Click here to find out more about subscribing to Tanqeed.

"Since 2001, a global “war on terror” has been waged under a grand narrative of secularism and civilization combating Islamic fundamentalism, and has dovetailed conveniently with wars conducted under that other grand narrative of supporting democracy against dictatorship. In fact, as the political economist Adam Hanieh argues, there is a single imperialist war on the people of the region at large, a war that stretches from Libya and Egypt in North Africa, to Somalia in East Africa, to Syria and Iraq in West Asia, to Afghanistan and Pakistan in South Asia. It is worth noting that most of these countries have Muslim majorities. [...] Defining a pro-people politics and initiative in this mess is difficult. In Pakistan, an old left, eager not to be on the wrong side of secularism, civilization and democracy, has frequently found itself degenerating into liberalism, siding explicitly or implicitly with imperialism. Some younger radicals have also been prone to confusion. [...] There is no shortage of evidence showing how the U.S. and its Western allies have long pressured Pakistan into military operations and have been calling for the same in North Waziristan in particular. They have repeatedly claimed that their war on the people of Afghanistan has been a failure because the Taliban, who lead an anti-NATO resistance there, have found rear bases and safe havens across the border in Pakistan. Accordingly, the majority of U.S. drone attacks have been conducted in North Waziristan. As the U.S. begins to withdraw some of its forces from Afghanistan, Western powers seek to maintain their presence and power in the region in other ways—including by shifting the focus of the war to Pakistan. Unsurprisingly, a U.S. congressional resolution proposes to make $300 million of the total aid package given to Pakistan under the Coalition Support Funds, contingent specifically upon an operation being carried out by Pakistan in North Waziristan. The total aid, some $900 million for 2015, is intended as reimbursements and compensation from the U.S. to Pakistan for the latter’s support to coalition forces in the region. [...] If the military appears to be strong in Pakistan, it is not only because the institution has a particular self-interest – since the same social forces and fissures that permeate the rest of society permeate the military – but mainly because it has regularly served as a seat of power for the U.S. to acquire the consensus and contradictory unity of the landlords and capitalists. [...] U.S.-led imperialism cannot secure its hegemony over Pakistan without the reigning capitalists and landlords. Similarly, the landlords and capitalists certainly have their own interests, but they are dependent upon imperialism and are unable, and unwilling, to resist it. It is under this contradictory unity achieved by imperialist hegemony that decisions are taken. In the 1980s, the decision was war against the USSR through Islamist militants; now the decision is war against Islamist militants. [...] The principal contradiction in Pakistan is between imperialism and the people of Pakistan. Imperialism is that class force that influences and shapes the nature of other contradictions. Imperialism is responsible for the exacerbation of militancy in Pakistan whether by directly encouraging its growth during the Cold War, or indirectly encouraging its growth by attacking the people of the region in various ways thereafter. Pitting imperialism and its proposed courses of action as the opposite of militancy and extremism simplifies the issues and ignores these deep relations. Meanwhile, the current landed and capitalist ruling classes represented by their two main “civilian” factions (PML-N , PML-Q or PPP) are unable and unwilling to resist imperialism precisely because they are so fundamentally dependent upon imperialism to perpetuate their own interests and rule." Zarb-e-Azb and the Left: On Imperialism’s Materiality

"Activists treated as ‘terrorists’ The violent military attack on tenant farmers on July 3, after several years of relative peace, is an ominous sign, and this event is more troubling given that it occurred two days after the passing of the Protection of Pakistan Act (PPA) in the National Assembly. Currently, the Army is reasserting itself as a force against extremism and terrorism, but the events at the Okara Military Farms show how these powers are used and abused against livelihood movements. In the past ten years, dozens of tenant farmers and AMP leaders have been charged with multiple ‘terrorism’ charges in local anti-terrorism courts. It might come as a surprise to some that counterterrorism bills appear to be are more easily applied against peasant farmers, labor union leaders, and journalists than they are against known militant groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and their leaders, who operate openly throughout Pakistan. Moreover, the rhetoric of “counterterrorism” fails to address the complex and multifaceted problems that confront Pakistanis today. It imposes silence on everyday forms of violence like the increasing rate of poverty, and food insecurity. The current state security discourse represents a major shift away from a class-based analysis to a clash of cultures, and from democratization to militarism. The rhetoric of terror evacuates the discussion of economic inequality and livelihood struggles that fuel popular discontent. Recent academic studies on Pakistan have focused largely on the rise of violence and the growth of religious sectarian networks. Missing in these analyses is a discussion of slow and residual forms of violence that lurks behind these developments. We know that extreme disparities of wealth, diminishing protections for peasant farmers, and large-scale displacement from the countryside have created great insecurity and uncertainty for most Pakistanis. With the PPA, the National Assembly has given the state more recourse to use a militarized response to poor peoples’ struggle for subsistence." Dispossession In The Name Of Security by Mubbashir Rizvi

“Pakistan Has Turned Against Us” | Voices from North Waziristan from Tanqeed Nazar Ali Dawar says the media has portrayed North Waziristan in a way, that has turned the entire country against him and his people.