Where has all the rage gone?
By Tarik Ali.
"And then in November 1968 Pakistan erupted. Students took on the state apparatus of a corrupt and decaying military dictatorship backed by the US (sound familiar?). They were joined by workers, lawyers, white-collar employees, prostitutes, and other social layers, and despite the severe repression (hundreds were killed), the struggle increased in intensity and, the following year, toppled Field Marshal Ayub Khan."
WRONG----Ayub Khan was toppled by his 'allies' because he had done some 'wrong' things from 1964--1969. Lets not get into false premised myth building---it distorts.
1. In 1963 he signed a treaty with China giving part of Pakistan away to China--near K2, to curry favor with the Chinese, in response to American arms supplies to India in the wake of the 1962 war. Also he took arms deliveries from China------obviously angered the Americans, who believed he was their puppet who shouldn't be buying arms from a Communist country.
2. He attacked India in 1965, using arms supplied by the USA, which were originally intended to be used as a bulwark against the spread of Communism in South Asia---The Americans imposed an arms embargo against Pakistan, but allowed arms to be covertly shipped to Pakistan via, Iran, Canada, and Vietnam.
3. Went to Tashkent in the Soviet Union, and signed a peace agreement with India, with Russia as mediators! In 1966----major no no from the USA perspective.
4. I think he went on an interview on British television and described in one part of the interview his attitude towards Britain, 'Your little Island'----given the level of chauvinism and colonialism at that in the UK, with the decline of the much cherished British empire by the elite (read Salman Rushdies early eighties work/essays--before he went into silly fiction----and you begin to see why Britain is back in the empire game, using Israel and America)---a casual remark like that by the head of state of a Third World banana republic who was bought into power by them would again be a no, no.
Just another example which has similar overtones, of Third World leaders being undiplomatic, and the over reaction from the West---The journalist Fazad Bazoft case, and the British request for him to be released after being arrested in Iraq for spying, to which Saddam in 1990 sent a letter with his dead body saying, 'here you are you can have him back'----result the British used the Kuwaitis to deliberately incite the Iraqis to invade Kuwait, and nudged the reluctant Americans to attack Iraq, instead of settling for an embargo, 'Don't go wobbly on me George'. Yes the Israelis were a major component, but lets not underestimate the role of the British.
For these reasons Tarik bhai Field Marshal Ayub Khan was destabilized between 1964-69, and eventually toppled. IT WAS NOT AS A RESULT OF A POPULAR PEOPLES UPRISING. Things like that require organization and money. Same with the anti-Musharaf campaign more recently. Obviously sections of the Pakistan people were not happy with Ayub---out of 136 million at that time, you could find a few million to protest against him, with a little foreign help and organization. BUT tell me Tarik bhai with which government have Pakistanis been totally happy with 100%? With which government have the British people been happy with 100%?---NAME ME ONE. Answer non.
What has got to stop is foreign backed destabilization programs, and for local Pakistani governments to make honest mistakes and move on, but not be toppled.
Champagne Socialist lording it in Bilaat, throwing stones at regimes from South Asia from the safety of Bilaat, whilst never rolling up his sleeve and getting his hands dirty, and being/giving constructive advice as to how to help the people of the region.
kudos and salute to Ayub for surviving 5 years of destabilization. Best leader Pakistan ever had. OK he wasn't perfect, making his sons multi millionaires, and frequently visiting his friend John Perfumo in bilaat the British defense secretary, in private parties in swimming pools with teenage call girls-----but on balance an effective leader.
"When I arrived in February 1969, the mood of the country was joyous. Speaking at rallies all over the country with the poet Habib Jalib, we encountered a very different atmosphere from that in Europe. Here power did not seem so remote. The victory over Ayub Khan led to the first general election in the country's history. The Bengali nationalists in east Pakistan won a majority that the elite and key politicians refused to accept. Civil war led to Indian military intervention and that ended the old Pakistan. Bangladesh was the result of a bloody caesarean."
Yes its fun when you over throw a regime, but not so fun when you have to live through what follows with the next regime. The treatment of West Pakistan towards East Pakistan leading to separation is understandable, especially after March 25th 1971, but independence was not inevitable---Mujib didn't want it. Ayub would have handled the situation a lot better than the ham fisted Yahya and self promoter 'me first' Bhutto. But after the destabilization of the Ayub regime, and his stepping down, things became fluid, uncertain and ........the wrong people made the wrong decisions under stress/duress with a significant amount of outside contribution.
Please don't leave out the contribution of RAW in the creation of Bangladesh. RAW was established in 1968, with British help, and it went to work soon afterwards.
As to the overall point why people seem so docile to the present day genocides by the usual suspects in the West, in contrast to the activism of the sixties----just one word----- JEWS---The contribution of the Jews and their media more specifically, then and now.
In the sixties Jews in France, Europe and America thought it was in their interests to attack American imperialism, and hence you had Jews in the forefront of the radical movement---they were falling over themselves.
BUT NOW, Jews generally on the 'left' and 'right' in inverted commas see GWOT (war against terror) as an Israeli, and thus Jewish struggle. So the Jewish MSM is turned off in relation to this fake war---because it is perceived by them as 'their' war for 'their' interests. All you have to do to verify this fact is go to the Jewish run Human Rights Watch website over the last couple of years, and see that the mention of and pictures of Israeli abuse is missing, and this 'radical' organization based in New York is silent on this one critical matter.
BUT NOW, Jews generally on the 'left' and 'right' in inverted commas see GWOT (war against terror) as an Israeli, and thus Jewish struggle. So the Jewish MSM is turned off in relation to this fake war---because it is perceived by them as 'their' war for 'their' interests. All you have to do to verify this fact is go to the Jewish run Human Rights Watch website over the last couple of years, and see that the mention of and pictures of Israeli abuse is missing, and this 'radical' organization based in New York is silent on this one critical matter.
Tarik bhai when you finally renounce your Jewish Communist champagne socialism 'activism'--funded by 'them'----you will see the truth. Of course I am not here implying for one minute that global protest movements require the participation of and consent of Jews for their legitimacy and eventual success. Your Western centric arguments leave out the fact that the rest of the world is indeed actively expressing rage at various levels and protesting, but with your head in the Western butt, you do not see this. In addition in relation to the West a more coercive police state has been enacted by the Jews, so that logical and natural protest and criticism of the kind you saw in the sixties is now not so possible in countries such as the UK, and USA.
As to the ever radical French, they now have a Jewish President who is a Mossad agent, and the radical French intelligensia dominated by Jews aren't interested in criticising the genocide in Iraq.
