Connect with us

Politics

Historical Lies and Modern Deceptions: A Continual Struggle for Truth”

Published

on

  1. Historical Lies and Modern Deceptions: A Continual Struggle for Truth”

By Imran Ali Khan

Social media is like a “blind man’s foot on a partridge.” In recent days, PTI’s official pages and its supporters have been actively promoting a statement attributed to PPP leader Qamar Zaman Kaira. This statement is supposedly based on a conversation between Kaira and the army chief. A post attributed to Hamid Mir claims, “The watchman is being made a scapegoat in the alleged assault on a student at Punjab College; an important figure is actually responsible.” Another post allegedly from former U.S. President Trump urges, “My Pakistani friend Imran Khan’s life is in danger; step out to save him.” Additionally, a post linked to Raoof Klasra suggests that Imran Khan is being tortured under the supervision of a colonel in jail.

A significant number of people on social media have shared these posts. Notably, the individuals named in these post Hamid Mir, Qamar Zaman Kaira, and Rauf Klasra have denied their association with them.

News about an alleged assault at Punjab College’s Gulberg Girls Campus spread like wildfire, leading to protests in Lahore, Gujrat, and Rawalpindi, some of which turned violent. Initially, rumors circulated that three watchmen were killed by students, but Gujrat police later confirmed the death of a watchman due to student violence.

In one viral video on social media, protesting students are seen taking valuable items from their college, reminiscent of the style of Bangladeshi thieves. Another video shows not only students but also some outsiders engaging in vandalism.

A committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, IG Punjab, and Advocate General Punjab has compiled a report on the incident. According to this report, the alleged assault did not occur, and students were incited through organized fake news and videos. While this incident is telling, a viral video features a woman claiming to be the mother of the alleged victim, detailing the incident. Did the FIA, police, or the three-member committee record her statement? If not, why?

The Chief Justice of Lahore High Court has ordered the formation of a full bench regarding the alleged assault case. Should we expect the court to summon this woman claiming to be the victim’s mother to testify?

We believe the court should also call the student who appeared alongside Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz during her press conference, where she was abruptly silenced when she began to recount the facts. Questions arise about why her microphone was turned off when she was about to reveal the truth.

The preamble has been lengthy, but it was necessary as we discuss four other alleged rape cases that are currently under scrutiny. Those who firmly believe in the truth of these events rely solely on social media posts without any solid evidence. These are the same individuals who question why there was such a significant protest if the incident didn’t occur, why the police resorted to violence, and why arrests are happening.

Several disgraced YouTubers have also contributed to this narrative, some even chanting calls for revolution, particularly figures like Sabir Shakir, Major Raja Adil, and Shaheen Sahbai.

Now, let’s discuss why lies sell more than the truth in our society. Can we start this conversation by referencing Muslim history?

I have a straightforward answer: the history of Muslims, often incorrectly referred to as “Islamic history” in our context, has been cloaked in religious sanctity. Discussing it now feels risky, fearing someone might emerge from the shadows to issue a fatwa for heresy or blasphemy.

I once tasted the repercussions of such a fatwa during an event led by Bilawal Bhutto in my birthplace, thankfully accompanied by friends like Mir Ahmad Kamran Magsi. Otherwise, I would have faced dire consequences for my comments.

Allow me to digress briefly; if we start discussing the arrival of Muslims or Islam in the Indian subcontinent, it would also be intriguing.

For instance, when Hajjaj ibn Yusuf sought permission from the Caliph to invade Sindh, he cited that the ruler Raja Dahir had seized a ship en route to Sri Lanka, holding captive women who wrote to Hajjaj. Thus began the invasion of Sindh. Hajjaj inscribed the Quran, which remains unchanged after 1,300 years, but why didn’t the letters from the women survive?

The lie concocted to justify the invasion of Sindh has persisted for 1,300 years, and those who oppose it face ridicule, often labeled as descendants of Raja Dahir.

Similarly, labeling the rule of the Ghulam, Lodhi, and Mughal dynasties as Islamic regimes is another white lie. This falsehood continues to be propagated through our educational curriculum. The invasions by figures like Mahmud Ghaznavi are mischaracterized as Islamic campaigns. When Mahmud Ghaznavi invaded Multan, an Ismaili Muslim government was in power, and his forces committed massacres and looted, taking thousands of women and young men as slaves to Ghazni for sale.

Referring to the educational institution of Raja Parhalad as a temple of monotheism is yet another falsehood. The partition of the subcontinent occurred over fears that Hindu majorities would infringe on the rights of the Muslim minority. This claim was debunked in April 1947 by Muhammad Ali Jinnah during an interview with American journalists, where he warned, “America should remember that Pakistan, created by partition, will prove to be an ally against the godless Soviet Union.”

This interview exposes the true nature of the partition. The blame for the riots during partition lies with Hindus and Sikhs, another misleading narrative. The riots were initiated by Muslims, leading to the massacres of Hindus and Sikhs in places like Rawalpindi and Lahore’s Shah Alam Market.

For those interested in details about these matters, refer to the works of Husain Haqqani, Muhammad Hafeez Khan, and Kuldeep Nayar.

Among the many lies that have persisted in our political history are claims that the Jamaat-e-Islami participated ideologically in the formation of Pakistan, or that Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his family were Indian agents, or that G.M. Syed was a traitor and an enemy of Islam. It’s also claimed that Bhutto’s original name was Ghasiram and that he wasn’t genuinely a Muslim.

Secularism is viewed as godlessness, and its advocates are believed not to trust sacred relationships.

Since the onset of the Zia regime, the creators of fifth-generation warriors have branded democracy and democratic systems with every available insult in the market. Those who perceive the two-party system as against the military establishment’s interests have cultivated a lie that they now must reap.

In short, lies have always been sold in our society with pride. There is much more to say on this topic, but that can wait for another time.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

People want to change the Constitution. What’s next?

Published

on

By

The right and the left don’t agree on how they’d like to change the Constitution, but they do agree that changes need to be made.

President Joe Biden, in his farewell address, called for an amendment “to make clear that no president, no president is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office.”

That’s a clear nod to the Supreme Court’s granting of new immunity to presidents at the request of President-elect Donald Trump in 2024 when he was facing federal prosecution.

Separately, CNN has previously reported that Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York made a last-minute push to convince Biden to certify an Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment. The amendment passed in the needed three-quarters of US state legislatures, but it took too long — decades instead of the seven years the amendment’s authors originally allowed.

Trump, meanwhile, has promised to challenge the 14th Amendment with an executive order rescinding the principle of birthright citizenship. He’s admitted that ending birthright citizenship could require going “to the people.”

And there are several distinct efforts to call a full-on convention of the states, the first in American history, to propose amendments. Conservative efforts have targeted a Balanced Budget Amendment they’ve long envisioned or, more generally, to limit the power of the federal government. Supporters of new gun laws have called for a convention to consider an amendment related to firearms.

What does it actually take to amend the Constitution? Here’s a breakdown:

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump is imposing MAGA rule on the government hour-by-hour

Published

on

By

President Donald Trump is acting on his campaign promises at the fastest clip in modern memory — sending almost hourly shockwaves through the government, the legal system, the science community and around the world.

Trump’s three-day sprint through his to-do list contrasts sharply with the disarray and empty fights that marred the start of his underperforming first term.

In his zeal to make good on his pledges, Trump is delivering gift after gift to his most loyal supporters, making progress toward conservative goals developed, in some cases, over many years, in an extraordinary display of populist, nationalist, right-wing ideology.

Continue Reading

Politics

Hegseth’s ex-wife gives new statement to FBI amid scrutiny over his nomination

Published

on

By

Pete Hegseth’s ex-wife recently gave a new statement to the FBI about the defense nominee’s alcohol use, according to two sources familiar with the matter, an issue that has become a source of controversy during his confirmation process.

Senate Armed Services Chairman Roger Wicker and the ranking Democratic member Jack Reed were briefed on Samantha Hegseth’s statement, which has not been previously reported, on January 16, two days after the committee held Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing, the sources said. Wicker and Reed were initially briefed about the FBI’s background check before the confirmation hearing, according to another source familiar with the matter. Since then, the FBI has interviewed Samantha Hegseth and has included her statement in its supplemental review.

Wicker said in a statement late Wednesday night that reports “regarding a confidential briefing on the FBI background investigation of Pete Hegseth that I received last week are starkly and factually inaccurate” and that he stands by Hegseth’s nomination.

“It is disturbing that a sensitive, longstanding process used by committee leadership to vet presidential personnel is being litigated in the press by anonymous sources with ulterior motives,” Wicker said, noting that he has been briefed three times by the FBI about their background check into Hegseth.

On Thursday, following CNN’s report, Reed disputed Wicker’s characterization of the FBI briefing process.

“As a rule, I do not publicly discuss the contents of an FBI background investigation,” the ranking Democrat said in a statement. “However, two things are true in this case: one, during my time in the Senate, the FBI has never before needed to deliver multiple briefings on a Defense Secretary nominee, and, two, the recent reports about the contents of the background briefings on Mr. Hegseth are true and accurate.”

Democrats pressed Hegseth during his confirmation hearing about allegations of both sexual misconduct and excessive drinking. Hegseth has repeatedly denied all allegations of misconduct, including having a drinking problem, but has said he would not drink while serving as secretary of defense if he’s confirmed.

The FBI connected with Samantha Hegseth and she gave a statement in which she discussed concerns about Pete Hegseth’s drinking, the two sources said. One source familiar with the statement said Samantha Hegseth told the FBI, “He drinks more often than he doesn’t.”

The source familiar noted that Samantha and Pete Hegseth have been divorced since 2017.

“There’s nothing new here and we look forward to the confirmation vote,” Tim Parlatore, Pete Hegseth’s lawyer, told CNN.

Samantha Hegseth has not responded to CNN’s request for comment. The FBI declined to comment.

Reed and Wicker received the briefing days before the committee vote to advance Hegseth’s nomination to the floor of the Senate. The vote was along party lines with Reed voting against Hegseth’s nomination and Wicker voting to advance him to the floor.

Hegseth’s former sister-in-law, Danielle Hegseth, submitted an affidavit to the Senate about Pete Hegseth’s conduct that became public Tuesday, accusing Hegseth of being “abusive” toward his second wife, Samantha Hegseth.

Danielle Hegseth, who was married to Pete Hegseth’s brother from 2011 to 2019, did not specify the nature of the abuse in the affidavit, writing that she did “not personally witness physical or sexual abuse by Hegseth” but that Samantha Hegseth at times feared for her safety and had a code word if she needed help to get away from her husband.

Danielle Hegseth also alleged that she witnessed Hegseth abusing alcohol at multiple family gatherings, and that she witnessed him drinking to excess in public twice during 2013.

Parlatore said in a statement to CNN Tuesday that Danielle Hegseth “hates Pete and there is no truth to any of this. Most of what she is saying are things she didn’t in fact witness.”

During his confirmation hearing last week, Hegseth acknowledged he was “not a perfect person” but claimed that the allegations against him, including a claim he sexually assaulted a woman in 2017, were part of a “coordinated smear campaign.”

Democrats pressed Hegseth during the hearing on allegations of both sexual misconduct and excessive drinking.

Following the disclosure of Danielle Hegseth’s affidavit Tuesday, Democrats complained that the information was not part of the FBI’s background investigation that was briefed to the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Danielle Hegseth submitted the affidavit after a request from Reed.

This story has been updated with a statements from committee members

Continue Reading

Trending