Mayan Apocalypse

13th/14th B'ak'tun, 13.0.0.0.0

One of the things that comes up in class when I am working with children is the numerical patterns around dates such as Palindromes or those have some significant attachment. Yesterday's date was such a talking point since it was the winter solstice for those living in the northern hemisphere. However, this event was overshadowed by Mayan doom theories of the impending expiration of the Long Calendar, and with it the end of life, time and the Earth.

Hype

I have mentioned hype before and how I often feel that being swept up in popular hype goes against rational balanced thinking. This is just one of those stories and the apocalypse theories have been stirred in part by those who have taken the Long Calendar as some kind of prophesy. Even the ancient Mayans astronomers and mathematicians using their own Base 18/20 counting system did not make that claim.

One day, scientifically and/or theologically speaking the Earth will end, so this is a subject that isn't about to go away and that I may come back to explore at some further point InshAllah. As it is ... here's a video by NASA with their view on yesterday's doomsday scenario and how Al Hamdulilah, the Earth is still here one day later. 

Christmas Carol

There is something about Christmas that I don't like.

There, I've said it. Actually, there is a lot about Christmas that I don't like, but there are a lot of things about a lot of other things that I don't like too, so I will not escalate my views up to any level that may cause fractious disharmony. If I make an apology, it is for beginning my blog posting with that rather hard line (though I do have my reasons - see here for example).

Since readjusting to a society that is largely irreverent/hostile towards religion, I see an increasing tendency towards conformism. That doesn't always sit comfortably with me and I guess if I was to scrutinise my opinions, then some of these could be described as defined by my position as a Muslim. But there are other positions that are come simply from common sense. My view on Christmas is such and hasn't changed much over the years.

Yesterday, I was at a 'Christmas meal'. It was a social event organised by colleagues and one that I tried to keep an open mind about. I went along to it because in my current job, I am the newbie. I have encountered situations like this previously and I've generally remained polite and kept my opinions to myself. However, the 'celebration' reaffirmed what I already believed about conformism and if I was a Christian then I would be offended at what is done in the name of the Christ. It isn't up to me as a Muslim to save Christmas from depravity, commercialism and mindless destruction. That is the role of those who allow have allowed Christmas to become what it now is. Shame. 

Christmas? Bah humbug.

Santa gives more to rich kids than poor kids.

Education: A Human Right

I begin this posting with a quote that I used this summer for my thesis:

"Hope dims for universal education by 2015 … The total number of children out of school is … 69 million in 2008. Almost half of these children (31 million) are in sub-Saharan Africa, and more than a quarter (18 million) are in Southern Asia." (see The Millennium Development Goals Report, United Nations, 2010).

In their 2010 analysis, The Global Campaign For Education reported that if “current trends continue, the slowdown in progress in enrolments will mean that in 2015 there will be more children out of school than there are today. In addition, too often the quality of education on offer is very poor, leading to early drop-out and illiteracy”.

As we lead up to International Literacy Day, UNESCO report that in 2008, 796 million adults (15 years and older) could not read or write. The Right to Education Project state what many of us have come to expect from education, but one that we don't always see in real numbers.

"As well as being a right in itself, the right to education is also an enabling right. Education ‘creates the “voice” through which rights can be claimed and protected’, and without education people lack the capacity to ‘achieve valuable functioning as part of the living’. If people have access to education they can develop the skills, capacity and confidence to secure other rights. Education gives people the ability to access information detailing the range of rights that they hold, and government’s obligations. It supports people to develop the communication skills to demand these rights, the confidence to speak in a variety of forums, and the ability to negotiate with a wide range of government officials and power holders."

Discordia

Discordia was the Latin incarnation of Eris, the goddess of strife in the Greek mythological traditions and right now, there are many examples of strife around us. 

Without going into a 'depressingly' exhaustive list of trouble spots around the world, the wars in Libya and Syria serve to illustrate a key point. Both countries have resistance movements that stem from this year's Arab Spring and in both places the opposition threaten an older political tradition of despotic rule by singular individuals. Libya and Syria, had so far, manage to avoid general expectations around accountability at home, because, like the remaining Arab world, they are not democratic. The truth is that however Muammar Gaddafi and Bashar Al Assad choose to view this, the resistance is a form of People Power and undoubtedly both will recognise the significance of this. 

It is this combination of People Power and Discordia which bring me right to India, the world's largest democracy.

Of late the international media is beginning to pay more and more interest to news threads around Anna Hazare, an ex-military political activist in his 70s, who seems to have mobilised the masses and troubled the Indian authorities with his calls for accountability. The government's reaction to Hazare and his followers suggests that feathers indeed have been ruffled and the crack down is drawing both domestic and international comment. Arrested, and on hunger strike, Anna Hazare, seems to have challenged the established belief that India might not also be as draconian as the rest.

People Power and Discordia, live here too.

European [Dis]Union

Admittedly, Norway is not part of the European Union, so the title of this posting may be forgiven slightly. A part of Europe it is, however, and right now, this Scandinavian country of 4.3 million dominates the news. Not a happy event, sadly, for when a mass murder occurs inspired by racial hatred and right-wing politics, we are obliged to sit up and take notice. 

Our thoughts of course, are always with the victims and their families and no doubt the laws in Norway will follow their due course. But what I feel that Europe is forced to confront, is their sleeping discontent towards it's Muslim population. Not helped, by the actions of certain Muslims, of course, what is even more disturbing is that Europe has not truly escaped the prejudices of their historic past and so it shouldn't be surprising that sympathisers of radical Hitleresque ideologies exist amongst their midst. 

Call it the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Third Reich or the  Bosnia War, historically speaking, Europe has been there before - several times in fact, with the Jews and the Muslims. It starts with fear, propaganda, hate crimes and then state institutions that pass ridiculous laws. All of these steps pave the way to graver acts against humanity. When Belgium moves to ban the veil by drawing alarmist attention to something that I've often felt is rather more individual, can they truly claim that they are doing society a favour? I mean, where is the thin line drawn between outright Islamaphobia and liberal good intent? And if that line is blurred, where is the difference between Islamaphobia and divisive/hateful right-wing intent? In fact, where is the difference between the liberal good and the fascist bad?

Fall of the Pharaoh: Umm Al Dunya

Umm Al Dunya

 

And so the Pharoah in Egypt falls after a 30 year grip on power. I may be forgiven for referring to Hosni Mubarak as a Pharoah, but see a Pharoah, was NOT just a despotic Emperor King who was considered a deity. The word Pharoah referred to a Great House. Does the Great House still hold power? When a House falls, crushed by the weight of its age and ruin, another one can be built in its place. But in Egypt do we see a  rebuilding or another Pharaoh King moving into the Great House? Right now the military has moved in so not much changes; later, perhaps, the old house can be demolished and a new one built by the will of the people.

The Egyptians call their country Umm Al Dunya - Mother of the World.  An ancient cradle of civilisation, social order, technology and writing. There will be many who in years to come will look back at how in 2011 the Egyptian Pharaoh of Old was brought down by a technology and social media of new - Twitter/Blogger/Facebook and the like. Now here's where I do get to see close up what is happening - I know people and have spoken with them, both in person and through electronic communications that this Egyptian revolution is an e-revolution of a kind.

I wonder about the transferability of the UAE model - it's a "minus democracy" model that isn't perfect, but evidently people coming in see prosperity, internationalism, relative freedom and hope. In many ways this is what the Egyptian and Tunisian revolutions were about right? Hope itself? That, I pray, is the message that the people in our Arab neighbourhood carry in the months and years to come.

To Be a Muslim

Pa Bismillah,

I extend my welcome to all Muslim and non-Muslim, old and new. Salaam and Marhaba.

There is the way it is - and the way it is supposed to be. These are very different things.

To be a contemporary Muslim is to know that we live in an imperfect world and that there are many pulls and distractions. Muslims must navigate their faith through the issues that test us daily. That is the way it is.

And of course there is the matter of image. Muslims don't get it easy in the press. Sometimes, Muslims are drawn towards apology and it can be exhausting attempting to apologise for every error made by every Muslim that is reported. Personally speaking, I sometimes feel that I am right out of apology.

I recognise the disappointing reality of inequality - that Muslims make up a good proportion of the world's poorest people who live in the grip of disinformation and confusion. This is not the way it is supposed to be but the way that it is. The modern media feeds on this and the bad press feeds bad policy, the unnecessary wars and continual confusion within.  

Sitting in the Gulf, I see examples of how it could be but also how it should not be. Local Arabs, living off the oil boom, are anything but poor. The state apparatus is supportive of the basic needs - the way it could/should be. In Islam, our system of zakat and charity should mean a distribution of wealth and food to the poor and a natural trickle down effect. And yet amongst Muslims globally, we still have serious abject poverty, despite our systems to protect the most vulnerable - like, I say, the way it is supposed to be versus the way that it is. 

The good thing is that despite the bad press, Islam remains strong in the hearts of many Muslims and that Islam continues to draw people to the faith. I think therefore that the way it is supposed to be, is a good place to start. Lauren Booth's decision to become a Muslim is significant because of the profile of her famous brother-in-law, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is often perceived across the Muslim world as an antagonistic crusader who knowingly brought misery to Muslims. Lauren Booth's story of simpler, less dramatic approach, is a timely reminder that Islamic civilisation at its political and cultural height offered its subjects, Muslim or not, a genuine peaceful path. The way that it is supposed to be. 

And, Allah, of course, knows best.

Je Ne Comprends Pas ...

Le monde est un endroit étrange. Je ne comprends pas ...
The world is a strange place. I do not understand it ...

Farcebook

The recent Facebook contoversy has generated a lot of interest, not least because Pakistan and Muslims are in the news yet again. And whereas, there's nothing wrong being Muslim, it's a typical hysteric reaction from many different sides.

The Muslims, in the main, oppose this rather provocative trend of drawing cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad PBUH that has gained pace since the Danish cartoon controversy. The government of Pakistan decided to ban Facebook, Youtube, Twitter etc. in a gesture to control the spread of this, particularly after a "Draw Mohammad Day" was announced and promoted via some of these mediums.

I guess, the rights and wrongs of the ban are one thing. The greater wrong has been the media momentum with which the "draw" brigade has gained voice. There is absolutely no such thing as complete free speech and whereas, I too, use this blog to voice thought and opinon, I know that I concisously filter before I write. I know that there will be an audience somewhere that will read this - and that I can choose to write to inflame or not.

Facebook or Not

The Internet represents a window on the world, that is both cruel and fascinating and as such is the home of many undesirables. Pakistan's decision to ban Facebook, controls only parts of that. The country continues to have problems at home, not least with it's over-dependency on the US, chronic power and supply shortages, a restless population and a real sense of seperation between population and state in the Pashtoon and Baloch belt. In the latter there is an armed resistance movement that opposes the state and in the former, a people divided - with evidence to suggest that paid agents of the state have inflitrated and embedded within local populations so that everyone is caught in the quagmire that is the war on terror.

The cartoonist at the centre of the controversy - has apologised - but in terms of negative publicity, heightened alarm, and entrenched positions ... well the damage is deep, and that isn't as easily undone.

Thirsty World

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. ~ Mohandas K. Gandhi

The fundamental notion that environmental sustainability is only achievable through mass control on population growth, is one that needs some challenge. The reason is simple. People are not the problem. It is consumerism that strips the earth of the ability to recover in time, that is.

One of the 2015 Millennium Development Goals is Environmental Sustainability and interestingly, whilst many of the development goals look at what is happening in the developing world, here is one for the industrialised nations of the world. It is about balance, not necessarily about whole-scale reduction in lifestyle, but that key realisation that as Gandhi says, "is about satisfying need, not greed."

When we consider that fashionable "designer" waters are predicted to be an $86.5 million industry by 2011, let's also bear in mind that 42% of the rural poor around the world, still, don't have fresh, clean drinking water and that 2.6 billion people do not have access to safe clean sanitation on a planet that where the land surface is 70% water. There is plenty of water, but much, much, work to do.

Every 3.6 seconds

More than 30 per cent of children in developing countries – about 600 million – live on less than US $1 a day and every 3.6 seconds one person dies of starvation. Usually it is a child under the age of 5.

Poverty hits children hardest. The first, 2015 Millennium Development Goal is to work towards the reduction by half the proportion of people living on less than a dollar a day and to reduce by half the proportion of people who suffer from hunger.

Some of these are very much connected. For example, there is a natural connection between the goal to improve maternal health care and child health care and movements towards the reduction of poverty focussing on children would be connected to access to universal primary education.

This still remains a Millennium Promise by the UN. Is it possible?

Five years will tell.

Falsum in Omnibus

I'm a democrat - in that I subscribe to the idea of free citizenry and the right to vote. I live in the UAE, where I am not a citizen and where there is no real tradition of voting, but in the UK, where I was raised, voting has long been a tradition.

Or rather an ever decreasing tradition. There has been a major shift away from voting in all the major Western democracies since the 1960s with the exception perhaps of places like Australia (where benefits of citizenry and the duty to vote are closely linked - even then, it's not what I would call a free choice, which is what one would expect of a democracy.) Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama writes in Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity that social welfare and government involvement in people's lives reduces voter participation. When your bellies are full and the problems seem far away, there's less inclination to vote. If there was a hypothetical election on the Gulf, where nationals are well taken care of - from cradle to grave - I wonder if people would just vote for the status quo? In the UK, the increasing interference in peoples lives by the government has not gotten any easier in all the time that I've known. I wonder, at times, if a society like that can actually call itself truly free?

Political Blur: Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus*

Distant governments, perhaps, are better at motivating people to want change. The UK, voted this week and recieved in return a hung parliament. No outright majority and a scramble by the political parties to form coalitions, partnerships and to play a game of watchmanship and secret meetings. To my distant eyes, it might be fair to say that voter turn out may be influenced (as well as by busy lives) by the perception that at the top it makes no difference. Be it Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat, they will find ways of interfering in individual lives. Political choice is like choosing between McPlasticFoodBurgers and McMoreoftheSame. I guess it was easier when the parties represented widely differing philosophies, but in today's politically safe world of middle-ground electioneering, plastic food for plastic people is the sole political offering.

Mmm ... political blur ... not a very exciting menu, I think.

* false in one thing, false in everything

The Art Of Manipulation

Propaganda. It's an art.

But it doesn't mean that it's any less conniving.

When I hear about some Mullahs on a UK Foreign Office tour of London it rouses my curiosity. The Mullahs are taken on-board the London Eye, where they recline, feet up, Afghan style and are treated especially well. I'm very happy for them and glad for once that Pashtoons are treated hospitably.

This does shape the visitors' opinions and when they hear of British Muslims for the first time, they learn that Muslims make up a part of the working social fabric of British society. The Mullahs are impressed. In southern Afghanistan, where there is poverty, it is perhaps not known so well that there are well-fed Muslims living in Europe. The Mullahs learn just enough to come away with the impression that British Muslims are well accommodated within British Society - free to worship and pursue their lives, and return with a message to Afghanistan that European and American forces in their country are good and are there to help.

The Foreign Office likes these types of Muslims when it serves their purposes.

But then, why do I, also Pashtoon and desiring to build bridges, not swallow this so easily?

A Very Different Reality

Perhaps, this is because it feels manipulative. I suspect that there is a deeper reason for allowing visiting Mullahs to come to Britain, especially at a time when many Brits probably feel saturated by the global Islamic presence. London is great; it's a city with lots to offer and remains one of my favourite places. Unlike the Mullahs, however, when I am in London, I have to push my way through the crowds and there is no special treatment. So a whistle-stop tour in a dynamic city as part of an official visit can create a rather superficial impression - this isn't the UK society that most Muslims that I know, are exposed to.

Consider the history - during my formative years, I came across a deep institutionalised prejudice that still shapes my thinking. This prejudice, which is built into the bricks and mortar of the social institutions we deal with daily, has still not gone away. The reality is that non-European migrants and their indigenous-born children have been at the centre of many discussions in the UK and not all favourable.

A 'Modern' Hysteria

I know what racism looks like; subtle racism, as well as overt and I know how unpleasant and damaging this can be. I am also aware that racism is primarily about ethnicity and that religious hatred is in truth, is a different thing. But look how they have come together.


The modern wave of post 9-11 anti-Muslim hysteria is traced back to an earlier time and I am deeply concious of how Muslims are continuously scapegoated for many of today's social ills. The UK is typical of its sisters in Western Europe in that Muslims have been ghettoised in the large parts to particular urban areas, often run down; where "white flight" is made up of that combination of racial prejudice and religious intolerance.

Divisions and Spoils

And then there is Afghanistan, where the military campaign is the physical front of the ideological racial and religious divide that I speak of.

President Hamid Karzai, speaks of it too, in an ever increasingly louder voice. If the Mullahs who visited London speak favourably of the military campaign in Afghanistan, then perhaps, this once, I can be forgiven for being a sceptic. There are, after all, many genuine concerns over the effectiveness of the foreign military presence, their behaviours and their governments' intentions.

Afghanistan is in need and no society is perfect. But I think it is particularly unfair to take people from a fatigued, war-torn society where a foreign military campaign is eyed with distrust and where development of social infrastructure is - lets face it - hardly without condition - to become the voice of that failing campaign. Favouring some hand picked Mullahs like this is highly manipulative and the British tactic of patronage and favouritism is how a small island nation managed to colonise half the planet.

Create the divisions and exploit the spoils.

It is an art. Though no less dishonourable.

The Colour of Blood

I have a friend* who has a done a most wonderful thing. A month ago he added to his family by travelling to Africa and adopting an orphaned child.

There will always be the argument about taking children out of their cultures - but there can never wholly be an absolute right or an absolute wrong when what stares you back in the face is a two month old child, severely undernourished, sick and weak. What choice do we make when faced with this dilemma?

Perhaps the 'ideal' solution is to move to the country so that a child can be raised amongst their own cultural kind, but it is never that easy - conflict zones have their own dangers and people often make the choice to move to places where opportunities and resources are more plentiful.

Anyway, here in the UAE, there are the usual immigration rules. The child was allowed in, but yesterday, the now three month old child had to leave the country to make a border crossing to revalidate his visa. Three months old. This would not be the case had the child been a British, US, Canadian, Australian or New Zealand national.

Intercontinental adoptions aside, one day, I hope, that extra privileges are not determined by things like colour of skin, passport or national identity. After all, African, Asian or white European cut the surface and then observe underneath - we all have the same colour of blood.

*he is a Pashtoon, point of fact

The Great Game

The 'Great Game' (covering the period between 1813-1907) was the historic rivalry between Russia and Britain over influence in Central Asia, including Persia and Afghanistan.

For a while there were less aggressive policies by the Imperial Powers, however following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 a second phase of rivalry between the Soviet and British influence ensued in Afghanistan.

Fast forward to the present. Today Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the US of playing a "double game" in Afghanistan. He said the US had "created terrorists and now say they are fighting them", as he appeared with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

Hamid Karzai, on the surface remain US-friendly. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, also in Kabul today, has too accused Iran of a "double game" by stating that they were giving the Taliban low-level support.

Meanwhile Pakistan continues with it's double policy of support/fight the Taliban.

The Great Game(s) continue.

The Enemy of My Enemy ...

The Enemy of My Enemy ... is My Friend?

In the way that NATO, Afghanistan and Pakistan sometimes speak of "good" Taleban and "bad" Taleban; one set to be supported, the other set to be opposed, you have in and amongst them, a new regional emergence - the Lashkars. Today they are "good", because they are pitted against Taleban forces.

The Lashkars may have their point, but they are armed, angry and they are dangerous and operate outside the realm of the state but claiming that they are there to restore order. I shouldn't even have to explain the connection between vigilantism and mob 'law'. Tribal militias may occupy a kind of popular romanticism in the minds of those suspicious of the the Taleban, but however we look at it the fact that militias exist at all points squarely at the failure of the state to be able to protect its people in the first place.

When a frustrated mob takes over, unless they organise themselves quickly, they remain just that - a frustrated mob. Pakistan continues with a dangerous policy that may come back and hurt. The enemy of my enemy might not necessarily be my friend either.

The militia claim that they "have not had a minute's help" from the government

Nuclear Neighbourhood

With a fifth of the world's population between them, deep distrust and the never ending threats and posturing, a question on a BBC forum that caught my interest was, "Should Pakistan and India engage in dialogue?" It's a valid question especially considering that there are many who are deeply apathetic about the situation in South Asia and for varying reasons feel that talking to the neighbour has never quite yielded desirable outcomes. Personally, whatever we think of the political game play, it would be very worrying if Pakistan and India didn't speak. Why is this so? Well it's because they are nuclear powers for one.

Here's a comment left by a contributor called Vejain (at 11:56am on 17 Feb 2010) on Soutik Biswas's blog that he writes for the BBC. The comment is in relation to the stalemate between India and Pakistan:

The US is responsible for creating this morass of mind-boggling proportions. Had it not been for US's insatiable thirst for showing its might to the "commies" it would not have got involved in Vietnam and Afghanistan. After it was ignominiously defeated by the North Vietnamese with China's help, the US tried a different tack. As USSR was perceived a bigger threat to capitalism and as there is no love lost between China and USSR, why not get China on its side? Thus the policy of "engaging" China rather than isolating it. To be bedfellows with China they used Pakistan as the go-between. As a result of this 'engagement' China became the world's factory for manufactured goods - at the cost of decimating industries of the West and almost destroying their economies.

CIA and its progeny ISI did manage to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, but in the process created the Taliban monster. Now the US is facing two self-inflicted monsters – Chinese hegemony and ISI delinquency. One has destroyed its economy and the other is thwarting its efforts in Afghanistan by inventing the so-called good Taliban and bad Taliban!!

Food for thought, I guess.

History and Future

America is history, Karzai is history, the Taliban are the future

Former ISI head Gen Hamid Gul

In the wake of the current US-led surge in Afghanistan, is the cat finally out of the bag? Is Pakistan admitting its intent? There are voices similar to Hamid Gul's, despite government policy being outwardly pro-American and many who hope that the Americans go away and leave the region alone. Pakistan, typically is self interested. When we consider the repeat blunders made by NATO allies, including those since the recent step-up in operations in Afghanistan under the banner of Operation Moshtarak, then the Taleban sympathisers in the Pakistan ISI are having it handed to them.

Yesterday's air-strike in Urūzgān is one of many, many errors by NATO. There is no such thing as collateral damage. Dead civilians whether men, women or children, are dead. They don't come back. Consider this the tip of the ice-berg:

• July 2008: Raid in Nangarhar mistakenly kills about 50 civilians at a wedding party
• Aug 2008: Up to 90 people, including 60 children, killed in Herat province, UN says
• Nov 2008: Raid on a Kandahar village destroys a housing complex leaving nearly 40 civilians dead
• May 2009: US says 26 civilians died in raid in Farah province; Afghan officials say 140 died
• Sep 2009: Up to 142 civilians die in Kunduz province when hijacked fuel tankers are bombed

Source: various reports from the BBC over the past few days

London Calling

The Taliban leadership do not have as their principal aim al-Qaeda's violent global jihadist agenda

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband

Mmm ... tunes change ...

In 2001, the Americans blurred the lines between the Taliban/Al Qaeda and in the process also confused Pashtoon interests with terrorism. It was always complex, but the net result is, nine years later, Pashtoons feel unrepresented, out of favour and vilified. The London Conference on Afghanistan is primarily about handover/withdrawal - call it what you like. At least that is the mood today.

From the BBC:

Talking with the Taliban is emerging as the big issue at the London conference. At first glance, it appears a simple idea - weaken the insurgency by luring away low and mid-level Taliban fighters. This - it is argued - could be done by offering jobs and a general amnesty for the insurgents. But it will be difficult - if not impossible - to pull off.

Part of the problem is that international forces (and the Afghan government) are struggling to understand who they are fighting and what is actually fuelling the insurgency here. And that raises the question: if you do not fully understand who you are fighting, can you hope to win them over?

Photograph from the Boston Globe

Hope and Remembrance - Bacha Khan

Yesterday, I spoke of despair. Today I shall speak of remembrance, and with it, hope. In fact, I started 2010 with a message of hope. As much as I believe in peace, I believe in hope. If you take away hope from people, then what is the reason for them to go on?

On this day, in 1988, Bacha Khan, Leader, Philosopher, Activist and Soldier of Peace died. Bacha Khan's words, whilst sometimes reflected the difficulties of the moment, offer a vision of peace and hope. His message, is one that I have repeatedly come back to on these pages. There is another way, and that is the way to peace, freedom and hope.

نن پښتون تە ټـوپک نە ،
د قلم ضرورت دى
باچا خان
Nan, Pukhtoon ta topak na, da qalam zaroorat de.
"Today Pashtoons do not need guns. They need pens."
Bacha Khan

Tor_Khan تور خان