The Treaty of Diriyah: A Watershed Moment in Islamic History

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

28-6-26

 

 

 

The Treaty of Diriyah: A Watershed Moment in Islamic History

“If you want to understand today you have to search yesterday.”
— Pearl S. Buck

In the medieval Christian world, monarchy and clergy walked hand in hand, with the Pope ultimately legitimizing sovereigns. The Islamic world, by contrast, operated differently. While there was no formal clergy akin to the Christian priesthood, a highly respected class of learned scholars—the ulama—held significant sway. For centuries, these scholars consistently resisted the monarchy and its preferred interpretations of Islam, often serving as a check on temporal power.

 

All of this changed in 1744. In the town of Diriyah, in the Najd region of central Arabia, a formal alliance was signed between a struggling political force and a new, non-mainstream religious reform movement. This was the Treaty of Diriyah.

 

A History of Resistance

After the four rightly guided caliphs, the Muslim world devolved into absolute monarchy, though rulers continued to dress their authority in Islamic parlance, labeling themselves caliphs. The ulama, throughout the ages, not only resisted but actively fought political pressure from authorities who sought to legitimize their demands regardless of validity. Scholars refused to compromise on religious principles, support unjust policies, or legitimize the absolute authority of kings. They paid dearly for their intransigence with repeated imprisonments, torture, and even death:

• Imam Hanbal, the famous Sunni scholar and founder of the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, endured imprisonment and torture by the Abbasid caliphs but stood firm in his ideals.
• Imam Malik was flogged and tortured by the Abbasid governor of Medina for invalidating an oath of allegiance made under duress.
• Imam Hanifa, founder of the Hanafi school of thought, was imprisoned and likely poisoned by the caliph for refusing to serve as chief judge and legitimize his actions.
• The Shia imams, too, were all persecuted and allegedly poisoned by the political establishments of their times.

 

The Pact That Changed Everything

But the signing of the Treaty of Diriyah fundamentally altered this dynamic. The pact between Muhammad ibn Saud, a local emir, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, a struggling religious reformer, bound them to mutual support. The emir would provide political authority, resources, and military protection, while the reformer would offer religious legitimacy and a mission to influence and ally other tribes. This bond was further strengthened by intermarriage among their offsprings, as was typical of the era.

The Treaty of Diriyah proved to be a watershed moment that would fundamentally reshape the Islamic world. For the first time in Islamic history, monarchy and dynastic politics received formal religious sanction. Today, this legacy makes the Gulf region the only part of the world where absolute monarchy still survives as a dominant political model, a distinction that is hardly enviable.

The alliance gave the House of Saud a higher religious purpose: the purification of Islam. This provided fervent followers with a cause for jihad, enabling them to conquer much of the Arabian Peninsula and establish the First Saudi State. Meanwhile, the fortunes of the Wahhab family improved exponentially; Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, who had been expelled from many places for teachings considered heretical, now had a platform and worldly benefits that persist to this day.

 

The British Question

There are claims, and some evidence, that this treaty was signed at the prompting of the East India Company. Having substantially strengthened its position in India, the Company allegedly sought to pressure the Ottoman Empire to facilitate its trade with its prized possession, the newly subjugated India. The book Memoirs of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy to the Middle East propagates this narrative, though its credibility is suspect. The book argues that Britain, with its renowned divide-and-rule strategy, backed the Wahhabi movement to weaken the Muslim world dominated by Ottoman Turks who were predominantly Hanafi, a school of thought opposed by the Wahhabis. This support fueled sectarian divisions, with radical elements going so far as to label Hanafis guilty of shirk, the ultimate sin.

Despite the book's doubtful origin, later developments such as Saudi relations with the British in the 19th and 20th centuries lend some credence to the theory. During the tumultuous periods of the First, Second, and Third Saudi states, dissidents consistently found refuge in British protectorates when out of power and returned as rulers, a pattern reminiscent of Afghan princes in British India. The Treaty of 1865, the Treaty of Darin (1915), and the Treaty of Jeddah (1927) all confirm the closeness of these relations. The later adventures of Lawrence of Arabia and the Arab Revolt against the Ottomans may well have their origins hidden here.

 

Intellectual Corruption and Its Legacy

The treaty and the subsequent formation of a semi-theocratic state gave religious legitimacy to the House of Saud and worldly benefits to the House of Wahhab (known as Al al-Shaykh). They still hold the most senior religious positions in the Kingdom, including the Grand Mufti and the Ministry of Justice. But like any subservient government department, they cannot deviate from the official line of the monarchs. Their religious interpretations cannot cross the red lines of their patrons' conveniences. Loyalty to the ruling family assures comforts and privileges that quickly become necessities, ultimately affecting judgments and official opinions. The opulence of clergy in Pakistan riding arrogantly in expensive SUVs might also have origins deeply embedded in this treaty.

Corruption of any kind is bad, but intellectual corruption is arguably its worst form due to the immense harm it can cause. When scholars, experts, or leaders manipulate data, logic, or ethics to serve vested interests, they poison the well of truth, destroy public trust, and normalize unethical behavior at a societal level. Intellectuals hold the highest place in societies because they are supposed to be immune to the temptations of worldly possessions. Vulnerable ulama, however, can serve edicts and justify acts for their immediate benefit rather than for actual righteousness. Such quid pro quos are expected and natural.

Along with legitimizing absolute monarchy, Islam, which once encompassed a whole way of life, was reduced to a set of rituals. Acts of worship (ibadat) were emphasized, while the real problems of common people were ignored. This sanctified and validated monarchy, the root cause of most ills. Oppression, corruption, backwardness, intolerance, instability, and factionalism found fertile ground to germinate and grow in these undemocratic societies. Traveling from Europe to Pakistan in my younger days, I was surprised to find rampant corruption in government departments across the Islamic world, something I never saw in the West.

While much of the world was moving toward democracy and democratic institutions, this religious support for absolute monarchy became a major hindrance to institutional development in the Islamic world. The historical destruction or collapse of nations rarely results from a single catastrophic mistake; instead, it is almost always the culmination of a cascading series of systemic errors. After the banning of the press, the alliance of religious authority with dynastic absolute monarchy was probably the most harmful development in the Islamic world.

 

Conclusion: A Call for Reflection

This single historical event became a pivotal watershed in Islamic history, redirecting its course in a way that ultimately stifled intellectual and political progress. The legacy of this shift is often cited as a root cause of the region's current volatility, institutional fragility, and resistance to reform.

In today's world, if over a billion Muslims, followers of the true faith, have fallen far behind others, they must have done something terribly wrong. The causes of this decline must be identified and corrected. The initial priority should be the decoupling of religious and political authority, a process Europe accomplished centuries ago, which laid the foundation for its long-term development and prosperity.

“Tumhari dastan bhi na rahe gi daastano mein” Allama Iqbal

“Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.”
— Confucius

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Those fateful nine months —14th August 1947 to 14th May 1948

 

Those fateful nine months —14th August 1947 to 14th May 1948

 

Just after the end of the disastrous Second World War and the start of decolonization, on 14th August 1947, the world's first religious-based modern nation-state, Pakistan, was born. To achieve this, the ruling British had to divide India — though some say they tore or ripped it apart. Exactly nine months after this mega-event, another state was born on the basis of religion: Israel, again dividing or tearing apart Palestine this time. In those fateful nine months, these two religion-based countries were created, and the world changed.

Since their births, Israel and Pakistan have had a love-hate relationship, as both consider themselves bastions of their respective faiths. Most surveys in Pakistan report admiration with a tinge of jealousy for Israel, even among personnel of the elite and ruling institutions.

Remarkable commonalities between Pakistan and Israel

In addition to the timing of their births, the commonalities between Pakistan and Israel are striking and astonishing. To begin with, both countries are believers in Abrahamic religions — Judaism and Islam. Despite their current hostility, they have more in common than differences. These two are probably the two closest major religions the world has ever witnessed.

Both countries were created in lands controlled by the British, who were known for their finesse in implementing the divide-and-rule policy.

Historically, Jews were most comfortable living in Muslim-majority countries, and Hindus and Muslims also lived together peacefully by medieval standards for over a millennium. They were much more accommodating of each other than the Christian sects of those times.

In both places, the "other" was demonized — Muslims in Israel and Hindus in Pakistan. The use of the words "Yahood" and "Hanood" became acceptable in Pakistani media with terrible connotations, and Palestinians were given the hatred-arousing name of "terrorists" by the Israelis.

Xenophobia was effectively used as a tool to justify this divide to an unbelievable extent. The founder of Pakistan, Mr. Jinnah, warned Muslims: "If we do not succeed in our struggle for Pakistan, the very trace of Muslims and Islam will be obliterated from the face of India" (18 Jan 1942). Similarly, the Jewish leaders of Israel repeatedly used the memory of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust for their political purposes.

Both births were bloody and traumatic. Tens of thousands of Palestinians were killed, and millions were uprooted from their homes. They still call it Nakba — a kind of Holocaust. It was even worse in Pakistan, where millions were killed brutally and tens of millions were displaced. These were very painful births.

Both have a terrible record with their minorities. Israelis routinely humiliate and harm Palestinians, whereas in Pakistan, local Christians, Ahmadis, and other minorities are also institutionally persecuted.

Religion and scriptures were used unscrupulously in both instances.

Interestingly, the founders of both nations were so committed to their causes that they were ready to sacrifice millions of their own people — not to speak of their proclaimed enemies.

Ben-Gurion said: "If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel."

When asked about the fate of the Muslims who would be left behind in India, Jinnah stated that he was willing to "perform the last ceremony of martyrdom if necessary" by letting 20 million Muslims be sacrificed in order to liberate the 70 million coreligionists in Muslim-majority regions (Kanpur, March 30, 1941).

Surprisingly, after their creation, one of them declared itself a secular state while the other made itself practically one. Those who preached fear of the majority swiftly converted to being secular and democratic. Jinnah's famous August 11, 1947, speech envisioned a secular Pakistan where "you may belong to any religion or caste or creed… that has nothing to do with the business of the State."

Both Israel and Pakistan became nuclear-powered states and did not sign the NPT. 191 countries have signed it, and only 5 have abstained.

Since their inceptions, Israel has fought five major wars and innumerable smaller but lethal ones. It has fought against all its neighbors and many countries even farther away. Not to the same extent, but Pakistan has also fought multiple wars against its conjoined twin, India, along with multiple Afghan wars, while having tense relations with Iran. Only China, its most generous supporter, has avoided fighting Pakistan. In other words, these two states are among the most violent, involved in unending wars.

All this might not have been as detrimental, but the inculcation of hatred for those they have proclaimed as their enemies and their propensity toward violence might be the most dangerous trends.

Effects and dangers

These nine months did not just create nations; they created a template for modern religious nationalism — a template that has led the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. In the last 35 years since the post-Cold War era, most nuclear standoffs have been among them. Talk and threats of nuclear attacks have happened many times, and the careless manner in which the use of nuclear weapons is mentioned is outright reckless and alarming.

Mutually assured destruction has become the mantra for stability among these states, but it is an extremely erratic one.

Unstable, unpredictable, and unlikely people can reach powerful positions even in countries rated as democracies, and these hate-filled, religious countries are most prone. With violent leaders at the helm in this virulent, nuclear-armed environment, a single miscalculation can be too dangerous, risking all of mankind.

The recent political instability the world is experiencing — whether it's Israel/Iran or India/Pakistan — has both these nations right in the center.

The most important lesson the creation of these ethno-religious nations has taught us is that theocracy and the modern world cannot go or survive together. It's a recipe for disaster, and on a massive scale. It must be corrected.

Suggested corrective measures

No matter how these two political states came into being, they are now a reality and must be accepted. Their places in the comity of nations must be controlled and corrected to lessen their potential for destabilization and violence. To begin with, the world must be defanged with the removal of all nuclear weapons. All ammunition with the capacity for indiscriminate killing — something we call terrorism — must be destroyed. We can start by condemning the historical use of nuclear weapons and carpet bombings, irrespective of the nationalities of the perpetrators. Anyone dropping nuclear weapons over civilians should under no circumstances be called a "near-great president."

The UN should be made into a world government of confederating states and strengthened. A universal constitution with local variations should be enforced across the whole world, controlling the greedy outlaw states and curbing their aggression and avarice. International laws should be drafted clearly and enforced mostly with the power of reason and persuasion, the most powerful tool.

Hatred and demonization of all kinds — not only anti-Semitism — are a must to create a violent frenzy that can result in extreme cruelties, and that must be curtailed. Brutal control of media, demonizing of entire peoples, and justification of occupation and violence must be strongly and collectively resisted. No one country or group should be allowed to have a monopoly on media or other consent-manufacturing tools.

The use of ancient scriptures as a real estate guide or foreign policy instrument must be snubbed. 3,000-year-old land deeds should not be allowed to supersede the rights of living, breathing human beings. The use of derogatory terms with the potential to invoke violence — like Chosen people, Amalekites, Yellow Peril — must be forcefully stamped out.

Racism of all kinds has been a source of immense suffering throughout history and must be labeled a serious crime.

The pursuit of happiness and human welfare — not religious supremacy or ethnic purity — should become the prime purpose of governance.

The current situation cannot go on forever, so let's not wait for the Armageddon some may be working hard to achieve. If the world is unable to control the violence of religion-based countries, the birth of these two nations will be remembered not as a historical turning point, but as the beginning of the end.

These are the seeds of nuclear suicide. The only corrective is to recognize that nothing — no ancient text, no historical grievance — justifies the annihilation of mankind.

 

Effects of Uncontrolled, Unscrupulous, and Unchecked Pursuit of National Interests

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

23-5-26

 

Effects of Uncontrolled, Unscrupulous, and Unchecked Pursuit of National Interests

“Our true nationality is mankind.” — H.G. Wells

Since its inception not very long ago, nationalism emerged and spread throughout Europe, creating modern nation-states. The pursuit of national interests was defined as a right—indeed, the purpose—of these newly formed nations, without any mention of scruples. These national states dominated much of the globe, along with all their curses and ills. The world as we see it today, with its current boundaries, is the direct result of this brief phase of human development.

Nationalism, an "infantile disease of mankind" according to Einstein, played a very influential role in history by reducing religious wars and their bloodshed, but unfortunately, it started its own new bloody feuds based on national interests.

The pursuance of national interests became a universal purpose of existence for most nation states, yet its definition and boundaries were neither specified nor limited. This led to an uncontrolled and unchecked quest for national interests that caused even more violence than previous causes of conflict. Unfortunately, this chase is still ongoing, along with its bloodshed and cruelty, although the effective use of semantics and euphemism may have only refined the hypocrisy while sharpening the edges of its brutality.

Philosophers and sociologists forgot to define exactly what legitimate national interests are, nor did they explain the appropriate means to achieve them. Psychologists teach that while it is important to know what to do in life, it is imperative to know what not to do. Unfortunately, nation-states ignored any mention of tactics to be avoided or scruples in this struggle for national interests.

This led to a few powerful vested interests seizing and monopolizing the definition of national interests while forcing and coercing the majority to pursue them violently. Military-industrial complexes, along with other business and some religious interests, have ultimately dominated the political scenes of declared democracies, subtly turning them into pitiless plutocracies—a dangerous development. With the development of media and control over information, this violence and brutality have been sanctified, along with the misery they bring. Dangerous short-term interests of a few are declared national interests against the long-term interests of all. Recent soldiers proudly narrating and laughing at their role in genocides and the rape of their subjugated, helpless captives on TV shows exposes how an educated nation can be turned into beasts while pursuing an unscrupulous definition and pursuit of national interests.

The world pays the price when myopic personal interests turn into "national interests" and are violently imposed. Regrettably we see it happening every day.

This unchecked pursuance of national interests has created havoc around the world, causing catastrophes for many while making a few very comfortable and wealthy. Although it would require volumes to enumerate them all, here I will summarily mention a few:

·       This led to the colonial subjugation and humiliation of hundreds of millions while the world was carved up for the benefit of a few powerful nations.

·       A class of privateers was created, whose ship-robbing was glorified after they paid a share of the loot to the sovereign.

·       Opium wars were fought, and drugs were forced upon a significant population of the world by self-proclaimed civilized nations pursuing "legitimate" national interests.

·       The Nazis got tens of millions killed looking for Lebensraum (living space) for Germans.

·       The Vietnam War, with millions killed, was also fought for national interests.

·       The toppling of multiple governments—something still going on relentlessly—is again the pursuance of national interests.

·       Unending wars have been started after the fall of communism for the same reason, causing millions of deaths and displacements.

·       Now, Israel’s national interests are defined as subjugating and annihilating the Palestinians and their supporters, resulting in the destabilization of seven supporting countries, causing chaos and immense loss of lives. All this has been done for the same "noble" purpose. Torture, rape, and other forms of cruelty are hidden under the same euphemistic garb.

·       The recent unfinished assault on Iran was done for the same reason, and God knows how it will end or what further catastrophe it might cause.

Voltaire warned us that although individual killing is prohibited and punished, collective slaughter is glorified. Unfortunately, we have not been able to remedy this malady in the last 250 years.

We have strict dos and don'ts for individuals to follow, but none for nations with much greater potential to harm—even to end mankind many times over. Just as three centuries ago it was in the national interest of the British to subjugate and loot India, and they went ahead relentlessly, causing immense suffering, so too is it in the interests of a common thief or robber to steal and loot others. But can that be justified? If a small, inconsequential theft is not justifiable, how can the snatching of trillions of dollars of Venezuelan oil be justified?

This legitimacy of pursuing unscrupulous national interests has led to the greatest atrocities and crimes in the history of mankind, surpassing the days of the barbarians and beyond. This cannot go on, as it threatens the very existence of humanity. The greedy and violent nations (for land and resources) must be brought under the law, just as individuals are across the world. Bringing ordinary, jungle-dwelling, uncontrollable humans under some kind of order and law was a great step toward civilization, and now we must extend that control to nation-states as well. Just a reminder: the first laws were enacted only around 10,000 years ago—a moment in geological terms.

The world must form a body with the power to define the legitimate and the unacceptable national interests and draw clear boundaries around the acceptable means to achieve them. Unacceptable and illegitimate modalities must also be clearly defined and stated.

Attacks on other nations, interventions, blockades, breaches of sovereignty, and executions/kidnappings of their leaders must also be declared illegal, requiring forcible resistance.

Perpetrators of false-flag operations by nations having absolute supremacy of firepower must be identified and exposed so that they stop using this treacherous tactic. In addition, a balance of power must be established in places where the germination of violence is a possibility.

The unscrupulous and unapproved violent pursuit of national interests has caused much misery in the past and has the potential to end humanity. This must be labeled illegitimate and unacceptable for the world. The crime-committing country must be ostracized and sanctioned by law-abiding countries.

We do not need great forces for this; the tremendous power of persuasion and legitimacy, along with the decency of a common man (not nations), can take care of this greatest threat to civilization. Fortunately, with the advent of social media, the monopoly over mind-making and consent-manufacturing held by the elite has been seriously shaken and must never be reallowed.

I would like to end with a lovely poem by John Lennon, although I do not see his dream or mine being fulfilled anytime soon:

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

“Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, and ages, it is the rule.”
Friedrich Nietzsche

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Pakistan Was Made for Pakistanis, Not Imperialists

 

Dr. Umar Khan

khanmomar@hotmail.com

Dr. Khan belongs to a Lahore based Think Tank.

19-5-26

 

Pakistan Was Made for Pakistanis, Not Imperialists

“A nation is not merely a territory; it is the people who unite to build a shared future.”

After the recent Israeli and American assault on Iran, Pakistan, after years of relative irrelevance, moved to the centre stage by arranging a ceasefire and peace talks in Islamabad. After decades of emitting mostly bad news, this was a tremendously positive development, bringing Pakistan into spotlight favorably as a peacemaker helping to end a dangerous war.

After years of political instability, extremism, allegations of exporting terrorism, and a faltering economy, receiving this kind of positive attention was encouraging. However, it also brought back some unpleasant memories. These strange cycles started soon after Pakistan’s inception.

The Muslims of India, after tremendous struggle and against overwhelming odds, managed to create Pakistan — a country where their political and economic rights would be protected from what they feared could become a hostile Hindu-majority India. In Pakistan, Muslims were supposed to have democracy, safety, security, prosperity, self-esteem, and good relations with all neighbors. In Pakistan freedom, human rights, and the collective will of the people was to be the priority.

Muslims in India had been severely abused, marginalized, and left poor and backward. All of this was supposed to be corrected with the creation of the world’s first religion-based state, a process that uprooted millions and caused a big loss of life.

Despite the welfare of Indian Muslims being its primary objective, strange things began happening immediately after Pakistan’s creation. Pakistan became a bulwark against communism, launching campaigns against communists by arresting and persecuting famous figures such as Sahir Ludhianvi and Sajjad Zaheer. The welfare of Pakistanis took a back seat, while this ideological battle became sanctified, earning accolades from the very former colonizers and subjugators responsible for many of the region’s centuries-old problems.

It was only the beginning. The anti-communist world found Pakistan to be its most eager partner, especially after communism was portrayed as inherently incompatible with Islamic beliefs.

At the outset of the Korean War, the bloodiest conflict since World War II, Pakistan supported the allied side without directly contributing forces.

During the Suez Crisis, Pakistan joined the users’ conference supporting the Franco-British-Israeli aggression against newly independent Egypt — an Islamic country. This strange decision by the Pakistani government still affects Egyptian perceptions of Pakistan negatively.

Later, Pakistan joined SEATO and CENTO, officially embracing the cause of the capitalist and imperialist world. It also secretly provided airbases to the United States against the USSR, further deepening its involvement. A U-2 spy plane launched from a U.S. airbase in Pakistan was shot down over the USSR, making Pakistan a target for Soviet hostility — something that may have contributed to its dismemberment in 1971.

During the 1962 Sino-Indian War, Pakistan, reportedly under U.S. pressure, refused to take advantage of India’s military disarray to secure the disputed territory of Kashmir. Interests of Pakistan took the back seat during the rule of Field Marshal Ayub Khan.

In 1971, while facing a terrible civil war at home and yet another financial crisis, Pakistan engineered a diplomatic miracle by helping bring the United States and China together. This single act placed enormous pressure on America’s Cold War rival, the USSR. Despite this invaluable service, and Kissinger’s eagerness, General Yahya Khan secured no meaningful benefits for Pakistan or Pakistanis. Perhaps his legitimacy as an unelected ruler was enough for him.

Later, during the 1980s, Pakistan became a frontline state fighting a proxy war for the United States in Afghanistan against the USSR. Once again, this service was provided under military rule. This landmark war was won by the West at a remarkably low financial cost — less than US$10 billion — not counting the immense price paid by Pakistan and Pakistanis, whose social structure and national fabric were devastated by violence, extremism, drugs, and militancy.

Pakistan is still suffering the effects and complications of that Afghan war.

In modern history, few major conflicts have been fought so cheaply by a superpower. Ironically, America’s later Afghan war became a failure costing over a trillion dollars. General Zia-ul-Haq did, however, secure his legitimacy for a decade — at enormous cost to the nation.

History repeated itself in the early 21st century when Pakistan fought another Afghan war for peanuts, while another military ruler, General Musharraf, gained international legitimacy.

Now Pakistan is involved in another diplomatic miracle by mediating in the U.S./Israeli conflict with Iran, gaining international attention and admiration. After a long time, Pakistan has entered the global headlines positively. Let us see what this brings for ordinary Pakistanis, beyond financial and political bonuses for a few generals.

In these 80 years, despite larger-than-life achievements and participation in international conflicts, Pakistan remains a basket case known for its economic and social crises. Pakistan’s rankings in education, healthcare, infant mortality, per capita income, human rights, democracy, press freedom, judicial independence, and many other indicators remain among the lowest and continue to deteriorate.

Apparently, the state has absolved itself of responsibility toward its citizens while focusing primarily on international affairs.

The situation has become so bleak that, in this supposed land of opportunity and Muslim dreamland, much of the younger generation has lost hope and dreams only of leaving the country to build lives abroad. Many have already left, while others continue trying.

Ironically, alongside this rush to emigrate, traveling on a Pakistani passport has itself become a nightmare because of Pakistan’s poor international standing. This is understandable: no one respects people whose own government appears not to respect them.

Now, Pakistan’s mediation on the highest international stage is strangely represented by an army chief serving on extension and associated with questionable democratic credentials. This has exposed the weakness of Pakistani democracy, often described as “hybrid,” thereby belittling the Pakistani nation itself.

It suggests that Pakistanis supposedly lack the ability to govern themselves and perpetually require a strongman to guide them like a flock of sheep. Ironically, this was the same colonial logic the British used to justify exploitation and domination.

A general running a country’s foreign policy is a profound public humiliation.

Unfortunately, most of Pakistan’s sources of pride and achievement remain military or international in nature. Most civilian achievements occur not because of a supportive environment created by the state, but despite it.

The callousness, disrespect, and contempt shown by the state toward its citizens have become so extensive that merely due to the possible arrival of international dignitaries for peace negotiations, the twin cities of Rawalpindi and Islamabad were effectively sealed for over a week, turning them into giant open-air prisons. This caused tremendous financial losses and severe restrictions on personal freedom for residents.

Will anyone answer for or justify this brutality by the state?

We must ask why Pakistan performs so effectively internationally while failing so miserably domestically. A political entity created to serve and nurture the Muslims of India appears to have lost its direction.

I wish Pakistan would earn appreciation for developing human potential, strengthening its economy, and improving the lives of its citizens rather than for participating in foreign adventures. A country that fails to serve its people and create conditions that allow them to thrive loses its raison d'être — its very reason for existence.

Pakistan has served imperialist interests exceptionally well while neglecting Pakistanis, and this must stop. There has to be an expiry date on prioritizing foreign agendas or personal interests over national interests.

The state of Pakistan must begin focusing on the welfare and interests of Pakistanis instead of reinforcing the arguments of those who claim that the creation of Pakistan was an imperialist project from the beginning.

 We must start measuring all its achievements by evaluating the socioeconomic conditions of Pakistanis, and nothing else, without any distractions.

 

 

khanmomar@hotmail.com

 

 

 

Mentally sick rising in political systems

 

A lunatic gets elected and then reelected in the world’s most powerful country controlling the deadliest arsenal.

A racist, war mongering psychopath gets elected repeatedly in the “only” democracy in the middle east resulting in unending wars, killings and suffering.

Now this combination is endangering the world and survival of humanity with the WW3

Humanity will have to control the hold of demagoguery and hate mongering in the type of democracy that has evolved in the west.

Prevailing form of democracy has to devise ways to counter these dire risks because its present form can lead to end of humanity leaving only cockroaches to survive.

مہلک ترین ہتھیاروں کو کنٹرول کرنے والے دنیا کے سب سے طاقتور ملک میں ایک پاگل منتخب ہوتا ہے اور پھر دوبارہ منتخب ہوتا ہے۔

ایک نسل پرست، جنگ کو جنم دینے والا سائیکو پیتھ مشرق وسطیٰ میں "واحد" جمہوریت میں بار بار منتخب ہوتا ہے جس کے نتیجے میں نہ ختم ہونے والی جنگیں، ہلاکتیں اور مصائب ہوتے ہیں۔

اب یہ دونوں WW3 کے ساتھ دنیا اور انسانیت کی بقا کو خطرے میں ڈال رہے ہیں۔

انسانیت کو مغرب میں جس قسم کی جمہوریت تیار ہوئی ہے اس میں بدتمیزی اور نفرت پھیلانے پر قابو پانا ہو گا۔

جمہوریت کی مروجہ شکل کو ان خطرناک خطرات سے نمٹنے کے لیے طریقے وضع کرنے ہوں گے کیونکہ اس کی موجودہ شکل انسانیت کے خاتمے کا باعث بن سکتی ہے جس سے صرف کاکروچ باقی رہ جائیں گے۔

Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Defence Pact

 

Finally it came out in open how and why out of nowhere Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Defence Pact was signed on 17th September 2025.

It appears to be in preparation for the Israeli/US invasion of Iran.

آخر کار یہ بات کھل کر سامنے آگئی کہ 17 ستمبر 2025 کو پاکستان سعودی عرب دفاعی معاہدے پر کیسے اور کیوں دستخط کیے گئے۔

ایسا لگتا ہے کہ یہ ایران پر اسرائیلی/امریکی حملے کی تیاری تھی۔

Netanyahu’s biggest victim?

 

Racist religious fanatic Netanyahu, PM of Israel since ages, one of the most prominent politicians since half a century has harmed many,

a.      Palestinians.

Tens of thousands or many times more have been killed, maimed, starved and made homeless. The worst genocide of this century absolute catastrophe, holocaust.

b.      US.

From a disciplined extremely powerful state, Netanyahu has made it look like a lackey of a religious based country comparable to a nefarious criminal. Lost much of its aura, standing, stature and respect.  

c.       Israel.

Destroyed a 2 thousand years legacy converting in the eyes of the world from a victim to a brutal genocidal monster. Exposed the abnormal and unbelievable control it exerts over a super power. Many of these might have detrimental effects spanning generations.

d.      The whole world.

By destabilizing the world, exposing it to nuclear threat, jeopardizing the oil market and making the world immune to genocides probably the world’s civilizational development has been severely damaged.

This list might change if he manages to convert these conflicts into nuclear for which he is working hard.

Please help me understand.