One of the greatest tragedies of South Asia has been the emergence of ‘Two Nation Theory’, which opposed the Anti Colonial Indian National movement. It was a great help to British colonialists to rule over this vast land. It led to the formation of Pakistan on the basis of Muslim majority (Islam) and the remaining part, India as a secular state with a large Muslim population. These Muslims, who by force of circumstances or by choice chose to stay here in India. It also led to large migrations of Hindus from Pakistan to India and many Muslims to Pakistan, the suffering was horrific.
Now seven decades after the tragedy on one hand we see the plight of Pakistan, sliding down on the scale of democracy, social well being and progress. India which began well and strove on the path of pluralism and development is seeing the resurgence of the ‘Two Nation theory’ in the form of strengthening the communal forces which are sharpening their politics to achieve Hindu Nation. Ambedkar in his book on Partition warned that formation of Pakistan will be the worst tragedy as it may pave the way for Hindu Raj. How true was he! The attempts of Gandhi, Maulana Azad and Congress to prevent the tragedy failed to counter the British Policy of ‘Divide and rule’ greatly assisted by the ideology and politics of Communal forces of that time, Muslim League on one hand and Hindu Mahasabha-RSS on the other.
The Partition debate, the underlying two nation theory keeps surfacing time and over again in both the countries. Sectarian Nationalisms, Muslim and Hindu both, keep blaming each other for this tragedy. They undermine the deep roots of tragedy in the declining sections of society, the feudal forces, assisted by the clergy on both sides. As both these sectarian streams were on the forefront of spreading Hate, against the ‘other’ community, the communal violence went on intensifying and the figures like Gandhi, Maulana Azad could not prevent the ghastly events which followed.
While each communal stream, Hindu and Muslim have their own versions of this event, the holistic picture can be unearthed by seeing the picture through the movement and ideology of emerging Indian Nationalism and its opposition by the declining sections of Landlords and clergy on both sides.
This debate has once again come to the surface with Pakistan’s General Asim Munir. While addressing the Overseas Pakistani Convention in Islamabad, in presence of the top political leaders of the country, he eulogized the “two Nation theory”. He went on to pay tributes to the people who worked for the formation of Pakistan. Seeing one side of the picture he stated, “Our religion is different, our customs are different, our traditions are different, our thoughts are different, our ambitions are different — that’s where the foundation of the two-nation theory was laid. We are two nations; we are not one nation,”
This in contrast to the understanding particularly of Gandhi and Nehru who saw the two major communities and other smaller religious communities as interacting with each other and creating a unique syncretic culture where each component has contributed to the emergence of celebratory Indian culture. Common celebration of festivals at social level and contributions of people to all aspects of Indian culture by people of diverse religions, the unique Bhakti and Sufi traditions being the highest form of these interactions. Gandhi summed it up in his unique, Ishwar Allah Tero Naam, and Nehru articulating it as Ganga Jamuni Tehjeeb.
Two Nation theory was not a sudden articulation. As the National movement started emerging from amongst the sections of society associated with Modern Education, industries, and communication, Indian Nationalism towered over all other fissiparous ideologies. As pointed out, the other sections not associating with it and hanging on the feudal and pre-modern values threw up Muslim league on one side and Hindu Mahasabha on the other. They were exclusionist and veered round propagating the caste and gender hierarchy, standing opposed to education for dalits and women.
The British subtly supported these trends as these were helpful for them in suppressing the National movement. One talked of Islamic Nation and the other of the Hindu Nation. Immediately after the formation of Indian National Congress the opposition to this came up in the form of Rajas and Nawabs pledging their loyalty to British rulers. Gradually these parallel streams emerged and Muslim League was formed in 1906. This was encouraged by the British. On the other side Punjab Hindu Sabha came in 1909, Hindu Mahasabha in 1915 and RSS in 1925. Both these criticized Gandhi to the hilt. Formally Two Nation theory was articulated by Vinayak Damodar savarkar and that became the guiding light of Hindu Nationalism. Muslim nationalism started talking of Pakistan by 1930 and strongly articulated in 1940 BY Jinnah in 1940.
Today RSS ideologues (BJP leaders and RSS leader, Ram Madhav: Decoding General, IE 19 April 2025) are presenting as if ‘Two Nation theory’ was only the making of Muslims through Muslim League. They underplay the great role of Allah Baksh, Maualana Azad and Khan Abdul Gaffer Khan who were opposed to the demand of Pakistan’s. Pakistan which was formed on the ‘Two nation theory’ just after 25 years of existence broke down into BanglaDesh and Pakistan. That was the grave of “Two Nation Theory” Their abysmal condition is very obvious today.
While in India Hindu Nationalism was quietly being nurtured in the silent manner, its first dangerous manifestation came when RSS trained Godse put three bullets in the bare chest of Father of the nation. Its further starkly visible form came up the decade of 1980 with the most divisive campaign for demolishing Babri Masjid.
A Pakistani poet Fahmida Riyaz at this point wrote Arre Tum bhi Hum Jaise Nikle, Ab tak Kahan chhupe the bhai. (Oh you have turned out to be like us, where were you hiding so far!). After this the attacks on the concept of secularism, inclusive politics and values of Indian Constitution were intensified and now the emotive issues have taken the center state. The product of “Two Nation theory” Pakistan, is in the grip of Mullahs-army and has been servile to America. The other component of Two nation theory, Hindu Nation has also more or less occupied the center stage in India. Values and outcome of Nationalism on both sides of the divide are same, only form is different. The Criticism of ‘two Nation theory’ and attributing it only to Muslims and Muslims is half the truth!
In 2022, Pope Francis created a will expressing his desire that just one word be inscribed on the stone marking his burial place: Franciscus.
Franciscus, Latin for Francis, is the name Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose when, twelve years ago, cardinals elected him to become the Bishop of Rome. He sought union with Saint Francis, known as one who lived on the margins, who discarded his worldly clothes, and who kissed the lepers. Pope Francis longed for “a church that is poor and is for the poor.” He recognized, as Bishop Robert McElroy once expressed it, that “too much money is in the hands of too few, while the vast majority struggle to get by.”
As the spiritual leader of the world’s 1.4 billion Catholics, Pope Francis unified people of different generations. He encouraged genuine love for humans—“Todo, todo, todo.” Or, as the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.’s personal physician, the late beloved Chicagoan Dr. Quentin Young would often say, “Everybody in, nobody out.”
Pope Francis exhorted people to set aside the futility of war and to always care for those who bear the worst brunt of war, particularly the children. His were the words of a man whose heart aches for children who are being punished to death, sacrificed by powerful people whose lust for greed and power overcomes their capacity for compassion.
“Yesterday, children were bombed,” Pope Francis said in his final Christmas message last December. “Children. This is cruelty, this is not war.” He added, touching the cross he wore around his neck, “I want to say this, because it touches my heart.”
Pope Francis was speaking about the children of Gaza, who have been orphaned, maimed, sickened, starved, forcibly displaced, traumatized, and buried under fire and rubble. In excerpts from the book Hope Never Disappoints. Pilgrims Towards a Better World, published in November 2024, he was blunt about Israel’s accountability, writing: “What is happening in Gaza has the characteristics of a genocide. It should be investigated to determine whether it meets the definition formulated by jurists and international bodies.”
On Easter, the day before his death, Pope Francis expressed in a written message: “I appeal to the warring parties: Call a ceasefire, release the hostages, and come to the aid of a starving people that aspire to a future of peace!”
During the current war, beginning in 2023, Pope Francis developed a strong relationship with parishioners of the Church of the Holy Family in Gaza. By holding virtual gatherings with the hundreds of people sheltering in the church, he was able to stay in daily touch with the realities they faced under Israel’s siege and bombardment. On days when he learned that the bombing was particularly heavy, Pope Francis would call to check in on them as many as five times a day.
Pope Francis carried his antiwar message to the seats of power in places around the world. In September 2015, exasperated by the superpowers’ desire to control others through militarism, he posed a simple question to the U.S. Congress: “Why,” he asked, “would anyone give weapons to people who use them for war? . . . The answer is money, and the money is drenched in blood.”
Pope Francis emphasized the stewardship so vitally needed for future generations to have a habitable planet, sounding an alarm about the need to address climate change. “The world in which we live is collapsing and may be nearing the breaking point,” he stated in a magisterial document released in October 2023. “Despite all attempts to deny, conceal, gloss over, or relativise the issue, the signs of climate change are here and increasingly evident.”
The Pontiff likewise denounced the use of atomic energy for the purposes of war, and declared possession of nuclear weapons to be immoral, asking: “How can we speak of peace even as we build terrifying new weapons of war?”
In accordance with his wishes, Pope Francis will be buried in a basilica dedicated to the Virgin Mary, a place he went to pray before and after each of his forty-seven “apostolic missions.” The Basilica of Saint Mary Major is located in one of Rome’s poorer neighborhoods, a church in a neighborhood with refugees. Francis has entrusted himself to the protection of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
I’d like to think that those words, “Todo, todo, todo,” will break down the barriers creating illusory divisions between us, leading us toward true egalitarianism, embracing Earth and one another, grateful always for the chance to “choose life, so that you and your descendants can live.”
Beloved Franciscus, “Oremus.” Let us pray.
Kathy Kelly (kathy.vcnv@gmail.com) is board president of World BEYOND War.
It is by no means an exaggeration to mention that the Catholic Church that existed before modernity loomed in Europe was culpable of many atrocities which are heinous and the dogma that prevailed within the corners of the Vatican was a contrast to the love and compassion preached by Christ. Popes known as the ring bearers or Vicar or Christ in the Renaissance led more mundane lives leading armies across Europe as quintessential examples of the temporal power.
Against the backdrop of such a dubious history, the contributions rendered by Pope Francis will immortalize him as a pope who tried to swim against the stream in a manner, in which he took the plunge in changing Church doctrines by the needs of the people. His reign in the Papacy saw a robust development of Liberation theology’s influence in the corners of the Vatican which was not the case before Pope Francis.
Liberation Theology
Liberation theology refers to theologies that proclaim that salvation involves a total liberation involving political, economic, and spiritual freedom. The gospel demands an end to oppression and a recognition of the exploitation of the poor, women, and minorities. Liberation theology is similar to the Social Gospel movement in these aspects. Still, it is more radical in its demands for societal change and in its use of Marxist and feminist social criticism. Developed in the context of Latin America challenging the much traditional views of the Church, liberation theology grew in harmony with the leftist currents. Liberation theology, nourished by its pioneers like Gustavo Gutierrez, the one who coined the term and Juan Luis Segundo shacked the traditional pillars of the Vatican as some of the old order viewed it suspiciously.
The predecessors of Pope Francis shared an abominable attitude towards liberation theology making it a heresy within the Catholic Church. Overwhelming opposition shown by both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict the 16th on liberation theology was rooted in their reluctance to admit the political aspect of it. Especially, The Vatican, headed by Pope John Paul II, refuted its core beliefs. To portray Christ as “a political figure, a revolutionary,” the pope said in 1979, violates Church catechism.
Pope John Paul’s successor Pope Benedict XVI was one of the ardent critics of liberation theology. Before he ascended to the papacy Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which until 1965 had been known as the Office of the Inquisition), looked at the alternative narratives outside the church. Liberation theology became his prime concern, which he perceived as a singular heresy because Ratzinger did not want to accept the liberation theology’s interpretation of Christ’s crucifixion as a political event. In 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger released a sharp denunciation, in a paper titled “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation.’” The simplicity and egalitarian culture of the “people’s church,” Ratzinger wrote, intentionally mocked “the sacramental and hierarchical structure” of the Roman Church—the splendour of which “was willed by the Lord Himself.” On its own, the phrase “liberation theology” is unobjectionable, but it is the church’s “first and foremost” duty to liberate people from “the radical slavery of sin.” Not from poverty.
Sri Lanka’s only liberation theologian Rev. Fr. Tissa Balasuriya was not spared from Cardinal Ratznger’s ire when Fr. Balasuriya’s book titled “Mary and the Human Liberation” was sent to the Vatican based on the allegations that Balasuriya’s depiction of Mary as a strong revolutionary woman challenges century of European iconography in which Mary is portrayed as docile and voiceless.
Pope Francis’s Admiration for Liberation Theology
The archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who followed Ratzinger as Pope Francis reversed the church’s pessimism of Liberation theology to an optimistic outlook. The irony is Pope Francis was not trained to be a revolutionary priest emulating the liberation euphoria that spread across Latin America. Rather he was born and raised in Peronese Argentina where he witnessed the level of disparity that prevented the poor from entering the higher echelons. At the same, he witnessed how Argentina went through crony capitalism which resulted in an unmitigated disaster. In fact, what Neoliberalism did to Argentina was the wake-up call to Pope Francis to welcome liberation theological insights to his personal philosophy. After becoming the pope as the leader of the Catholic world in 2013, Pope Francis stated No one can accept the premises of Neoliberalism and consider themselves Christian.
Pope Francis’s vehement criticism of Neoliberalism should be understood in the context of his background in which his native Latin America was ravished by neoliberal policies. Pope Francis contended that Neoliberalism corrupts democracy by denying the fullness and interdependency of humans.
One of the most revolutionary steps taken by Pope Francis was to invite native Americans to the Vatican in 2019. This was an addendum to the Vatican’s apology issued in 2015 for the colonial sins and leaders who visited the Vatican from Native American tribes wore traditional dress, some with their faces painted—debated a range of issues related to capitalism, natural resources, and sustainability.
It goes without saying that the Pope’s practice of liberation theology met severe resistance from the conservative sects within the Catholic Church. Mainly the traditionalist sect led by American cardinal Raymond Leo Burke often critiqued the more nuanced theological views of Pope Francis by deepening the schism between Old Europe and the Global South. The worthy cause championed by the late Pope Francis has come to a perilous situation after its demise which opened the path for traditionalists in the church to consolidate their power. It should be noted that if the papacy falls to the hands of a more conservative cardinal like Raymond, the existing chasm between the Global South and North would reach its nadir. By all means, liberation theology’s finest era continued to flourish under the papacy of the late pope, the people’s priest who devoted his whole life to the real cause of Christ.
Dr Punsara Amarasinghe is a lecturer at the Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University
On Tuesday, Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attended a meeting with leading members of Congress at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, where he pledged to bomb food and aid distribution centers in Gaza, claiming his proposals met with support on the part of the lawmakers.
“I had the honor and privilege of meeting with senior Republican Party officials at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate,” Ben-Gvir said in a post on X. “They expressed support for my very clear position on how to act in Gaza and that the food and aid depots should be bombed in order to create military and political pressure to bring our hostages home safely.”
Ben-Gvir was expressing the actual policy of the Israeli government, which aims to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population from Gaza through deliberate starvation.
On Tuesday, the total Israeli blockade of all food, water, electricity, and medical supplies into Gaza reached its 50th day.
In a statement, the UN relief coordination office said this is now the longest period without any supplies entering the Gaza strip since the start of Israel’s onslaught in October 2023.
“Right now, it is probably the worst humanitarian situation ever seen throughout the war in Gaza,” UN spokesperson Jens Laerke said Tuesday, noting that the entire population of Gaza is facing acute shortages of food, medicine, fuel and clean water.
“Hunger is spreading and deepening—deliberate and man-made,” UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said in a statement Tuesday. “Gaza has become a land of desperation … humanitarian aid is being used as a bargaining chip and a weapon of war.”
Gaza’s bakeries have been forced to shut down, and the entire health system is collapsing amid a lack of medical supplies. “Two million people—a majority of women and children—are undergoing collective punishment,” Lazzarini said.
Last week, the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor published a damning account of Gaza teetering on the brink of famine:
Euro-Med Monitor’s field team in the Gaza Strip has observed alarming indicators pointing to a severe food crisis that may soon reach the level of famine. The ongoing Israeli blockade has caused a severe and persistent shortage of essential food items necessary for survival, including grains, proteins, and fats. Much of the enclave’s remaining agricultural and food infrastructure has either been bombed or otherwise destroyed, and/or is currently under Israeli military control. As a result, people have been forced to sell their most basic belongings just to secure food, signaling the onset of a breakdown in their ability to endure the hunger.
Families in the Gaza Strip have been forced to cut the number of their daily meals, resulting in noticeable weight loss among residents. In the near-total absence of fresh and nutritious food, most people now rely almost entirely on the enclave’s limited supply of canned goods, while many others have become fully dependent on food banks for their daily meals. However, these food banks have come under intensified Israeli military attacks in recent weeks, further depriving residents of access to even the most basic food necessities.
In a statement published April 17, a group of humanitarian organizations including Oxfam and Save the Children published a statement warning that the “humanitarian aid system in Gaza is facing total collapse.”
The statement declared that “This is one of the worst humanitarian failures of our generation. Every single person in Gaza is relying on humanitarian aid to survive. That lifeline has been completely cut off since a blockade on all aid supplies was imposed by Israeli authorities on 2 March.”
The statement noted that “More than 400 aid workers and over 1,300 health workers have been reported killed in Gaza since October 2023, despite the requirement under international humanitarian law for humanitarian workers to be protected.”
The statements by Ben-Gvir make clear that the Israeli military’s attack on humanitarian organizations is a deliberate policy, aimed at provoking famine throughout the region.
Ben-Gvir’s trip to Mar-A-Lago is part of a tour throughout the United States, involving a visit to Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut on Wednesday. Ben-Gvir’s office said that among the congressmen in attendance was Republican Congressman Tom Emmer, the third-highest-ranking member of the US House of Representatives.
On Wednesday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reiterated the position of the Netanyahu government that “no humanitarian aid will enter Gaza.”
The visit by Ben-Gvir follows two weeks after the trip by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with US President Donald Trump at the White House, where Netanyahu declared that the Israeli government is “working on” Trump’s pledge to ethnically cleanse Gaza.
This plan is being implemented through the deliberate starvation of the Palestinian population, the daily bombardment and mass killing of the civilian population, and the active preparations for the full, permanent, military occupation of the Gaza Strip and the creation of the infrastructure to forcibly displace and transfer the Palestinian population outside of Gaza.
Last month, NPR, the Financial Times, and Haaretz reported that the Israeli military has drawn up a plan to fully occupy the Gaza Strip, internally displace the remaining population, and provide only the “minimum caloric amount necessary for survival,” in the words of Haaretz.
One month ago, the Israeli security cabinet formally voted to establish an office dedicated to overseeing the ethnic cleansing of Gaza.
Defense Minister Katz stated that the bureau would manage the “departure to third countries, including securing their movement, establishing movement routes, checking pedestrians at designated crossings in the Gaza Strip, as well as coordinating the provision of infrastructure that will enable passage by land, sea and air to the destination countries.”
In 2007, Ben-Gvir was convicted by an Israeli court of racist incitement and support for groups on terrorism blacklists. Since 2023, his policies of ethnic cleansing and mass killing have been adopted by the Israeli government in its genocidal onslaught on Gaza, using the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack as a pretext.
According to Gaza’s health ministry, at least 51,300 Palestinians have been killed in the genocide to date, with 1,928 Palestinians since Israel unilaterally abrogated a ceasefire agreement on March 18.
On Wednesday, Israeli airstrikes killed 25 people, including 11 people in a school that was transformed into an emergency shelter. This followed the killing of at least 17 people, mostly women and children, in strikes on Tuesday.
Despite the ongoing famine, coverage of the humanitarian situation has almost totally dropped from news coverage in the United States. And after having overseen the Gaza genocide under President Joe Biden, the Democrats have voted repeatedly against any restrictions on US arms sales to Israel under the Trump administration.
On April 22 in one of the most inhuman terrorist attacks seen in India, terrorists killed 26 entirely innocent tourists and injured several others in the tourist resort of Baisaran Meadow, located in the famous Pahalgam area of Kashmir.
While the terrorists fired indiscriminately initially, it soon became clear that they were targeting tourists in particular, and among them they were more specifically targeting Hindu men.
In such a situation the local Muslim people may have stayed back quietly, considering that their position was safe, but this is not the way Syed Adil Hussain Shah looked at the situation. A local youth from a remote village who earned his livelihood from providing mules to tourists, Adil just could not bear to see innocent people being killed in such a cruel way. Forgetting the threat to his own life, in anguish he shouted at the terrorists—why are you killing innocent persons. The terrorists responded by shooting at him too and he died on the spot.
However some eye witness accounts have stated that Adil went much beyond merely raising his voice. A woman tourist said that he had started fighting the terrorists despite being unarmed himself and according to another account he tried to snatch the gun of one of the terrorists(see report in Dainik Tribune, April 24).
Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, went to attend the last rites of Adil and to console the family. He praised the exceptional courage and deep humanity of Adil. Despite the terror conditions, hundreds of people gathered to pay their homage to the brave youth.
While Adil made the supreme sacrifice, several other local (Muslim) persons also took risks to rescue endangered tourists and provide shelter to them. An elderly tourist from Gujarat told the reporter of Dainik Bhaskar newspaper that in the midst of firing local shopkeepers and mule-owners appeared like angels to rush injured persons to hospital. Another family from Maharashtra told the newspaper that at the time of the attack a taxi driver, also named Adil, provided them shelter and later arranged for food. A trader from Chattisgarh had come with an 11 member group, including children, for a holiday. He told the newspaper that a local trader Nazakat Ali had rescued them from a dangerous situation at the time of firing. At the same time, several mosques had opened their doors and arranged food for stranded tourists and other passengers in the aftermath of the terror attack (See Dainik Bhaskar April 24).
All over Kashmir protests and shutdowns have been organized to condemn the terrorist attack and to express grief for the victims of the tragedy. Candles were lit at several places to honor the memory of the innocent people who had been killed so suddenly and in such a cruel way. At Makka Market the Union President said, “There is mourning in the whole of Kashmir. Our guests have been killed.” Another protester in Kashmir said, “Imagine the trauma of a child whose father was killed in front of him.” He said what distressed him most was that the attackers used the name of religion and Kashmir in the attack.
There is some evidence that this terrorist attack has a wider aim of not just disrupting peace and tourism (a leading source of livelihood here), but in addition disrupting inter-faith harmony in India. Just a few days before the attack, on April 16 the Pakistan army chief Gen Asim Munir had gone out of his way to make highly controversial and inflammatory remarks on big dividing lines between Hindus and Muslims and their alleged inability to live together in harmony.
Hence this is a particularly important time in India to protect inter-faith harmony, and all those Muslim residents of Pahalgam who rushed to the rescue of threatened Hindu tourists, in at least one case the rescuer even sacrificing his own life for the cause, have shown the way forward for maintaining inter-faith harmony. The people of Kashmir have also come out in large numbers to voice their strong opposition against violence in the name of religion. By rejecting those who are trying to provoke violence and disharmony, and by strengthening inter-faith harmony and peace, people of the entire country can give a befitting reply to those enemies of humanity who are trying to provoke disharmony and violence.
Bharat Dogra is Honorary Convener, Campaign to Save Earth Now.
What happened yesterday in Pahalgam will be etched into the memory of this valley for years to come.In the lap of Kashmir’s mountains an unimaginable act of violence unfolded. Armed infiltrators opened fire with no warning, no mercy, and no humanity indiscriminately targeting locals and tourists alike. Many lost their lives in a matter of moments. Families were torn apart and what remained was a shattered sense of calm in a region already exhausted by decades of pain.
While investigators are still trying to piece together who these attackers were and what agenda they followed, social media wasted no time in drawing its own conclusions. Before the facts could surface, a new storm of hate took over online platforms with many accusing the local Muslim community of supporting or sheltering the perpetrators.
As a Kashmiri, as a human being, I ask: how long must we bleed before someone hears us, not blames us?
The Horror on the Ground
Eyewitness accounts from the scene paint a picture that’s hard to even imagine. Screams echoed through the valley. Blood stained the earth that just hours before had seen children playing and tourists snapping pictures of the river flowing by. Among the many heartbreaking visuals circulating, one stood out in tears barely able to speak, describing how the terrorists questioned her husband’s identity. They said he “didn’t look like a Muslim” and shot him dead right in front of her.
This was not just an attack. This was a targeted massacre. A deliberate act to instill fear and to create division using religion as a weapon. And perhaps most dangerously to turn communities against one another. But as the bullets tore through bodies they didn’t distinguish between Hindu or Muslim, some of those killed were Kashmiri Muslims. Some were Hindu tourists. All were innocent.
A Valley Known for Warmth, Now Under Suspicion
What followed the attack has been just as devastating in a different way. Instead of unified grief and call for justice, the internet erupted with hate, hashtags blaming Muslims, trolling Kashmiris, and wild theories about “locals helping terrorists” began trending. It’s a story we’ve seen before, grief gets hijacked by propaganda and the victims are made suspects.
Let me say this with complete clarity that Kashmiris especially the Muslim community had no hand in this attack. We condemn this in the strongest terms possible. Not because we feel obligated to defend ourselves but because we are just as devastated. We are the ones lighting candles. We are the ones burying the dead and we are the ones being accused all at the same time.
Kashmiris are known across the world for their hospitality, for serving kehwa to strangers, for offering rooms to stranded travelers, for treating guests as family. It is simply impossible to believe that the same people would turn into monsters overnight. That narrative is not just false. It is malicious.
The Intent to Divide, But Not On Our Watch
This incident feels like a deliberate attempt to disturb the fragile social fabric that still holds Kashmir together. Over the years despite everything, Hindus and Muslims in the valley have lived side by side celebrated festivals together and mourned together. Attacks like this and the divisive response that follows seem designed to break that bond.
But it won’t work because we refuse to hate our neighbours. We know each other too well. We’ve shared food, laughter and pain. And now, we must share the burden of this tragedy not by blaming each other but by standing together.
Kashmiri Muslim leaders, social activists and citizens across the valley have publicly condemned the incident.Candlelight marches have been held not just by the public but also backed by political leaders, many of whom belong to the very communities being wrongfully accused. That unity matters. It shows the world that we are not divided, and we will not allow terrorists or hatefilled tweets to divide us.
This isn’t the first time Kashmiris have spoken out against terrorism. Every time such horror has struck whether from across the border or within the people of this land have risen to condemn it. We have mourned, marched, and we demand justice because we have suffered enough.
The Missing Conversation: Security Lapses
While blame is being thrown around so freely on the internet, very few are talking about something that desperately needs to be addressed that is “the lapse in security”.
Pahalgam is not just a local destination it’s one of the most popular tourist spots in Kashmir and it lies close to the border. With heavy footfall and a known risk of cross border infiltration, it should be under constant surveillance. Yet, according to multiple accounts, army bunkers in the region were either unmanned or inadequately staffed. There were reportedly no active patrols in the mountain zones where the attack took place.
Why weren’t troops stationed to safeguard the area especially when the flow of tourists has recently increased.
The role of the defence forces cannot be ignored in this situation. This isn’t about blaming them, it’s about accountability. The protection of civilians is the state’s responsibility. If gaps existed that allowed this attack to happen, those must be examined and addressed with urgency. We need answers and we need change.
A Cry for Peace and Dignity
More than anything, what Kashmiris want right now is peace. We are exhausted. For decades, we have lived under the constant fear of violence from one side or the other. We have lost lives, livelihoods and even our voices. But through it all we’ve kept hoping and hoping that one day we will be allowed to live freely and safely like everyone else. We are not asking for sympathy but for understanding. We are not asking for praise. We are asking for fairness.
And we are certainly not asking to be judged by the actions of murderers we had no part in protecting or supporting.
The government must introspect. The investigation must be swift, honest and transparent. And the narrative especially on digital platforms must be reshaped with facts not fears.
The victims of this attack were human beings. Their lives mattered. Their deaths must not be turned into political fodder. We must honour them by demanding truth and standing united not by deepening divides.
Final Words
Pahalgam is grieving. Kashmir is grieving. But amidst the mourning a dangerous fire of division is being lit. We, the people must be the ones to put it out not with more words but with actions, solidarity, empathy, and with courage.
Because no matter where we come from or what faith we follow, terrorism is our shared enemy and peace is our shared right.
Let’s not allow bullets to decide our futures. Let truth, justice and humanity lead us forward.
Aaqib Javid is a medical student in biotechnology from Trathpora, Kupwara, Kashmir
In the death of Pope Francis, the world has lost one of the greatest personalities of modern times! We are saddened that he is no longer in our midst!
He was truly a compassionate pastor with a warm, loving heart for the poor and marginalised, the excluded and the exploited, the refugees and the migrants, the LGBTGIA+ community, the victims of war and human trafficking and in fact, with all sub-alterns and those who live on the peripheries of society.
Pope Francis transcended boundaries and exclusiveness, divisions and discrimination of every kind. He was convinced that humans should build bridges and not walls, to reach out to others, particularly the lost, the last and the least. His Encyclical ‘Fratelli Tutti’ speaks strongly about this.
Pope Francis was deeply troubled by what is happening to the environment. He cared for our common home and wished that all take responsibility to ensure that our planet earth is liveable for all. His writings ‘Laudato Si’ and ‘Laudate Deum’ on the environment, bear testimony to his concern.
Pope Francis was a man of peace! He spoke out unequivocally against every war and the industrial military complex; he took a strong stand against the ‘culture of death’. He spoke directly to the most powerful people on earth reminding them of what they should be doing. His last tweet on 20 April evening began with “I would like us to renew our hope that peace is possible…”
Above all, Pope Francis was a man of God, sent to be a pilgrim on earth; to motivate all of us with a newer, deeper and more meaningful hope! He was a complete human being who left no stone unturned to make our world a more just, peaceful and humane place for all! He was and is a SAINT!
Millions all over will miss him! In his death the world is orphaned!
Fr. Cedric Prakash SJ is a human rights, justice, reconciliation & peace activist/writer Email: cedricprakash@gmail.com
Millions of Catholics are mourning the passing of Pope FrancisI.
After having courageously pronounced his last words Buona Pasqua (Happy Easter) on Easter Sunday, he blessed the crowd of thousands of people from his balcony.
A powerful message was read on his behalf:
“There can be no peace without freedom of religion,
freedom of thought,
freedom of expression and respect for the views of others.”
From the inception of his Vatican mandate in March 2013, Pope Francis I has been portrayed by the international community as a left-leaning champion of “Liberation Theology” committed to world peace and global poverty alleviation.
But there is “more than meets the eye.”
Prior to his election by the papal conclave, the role of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Argentina’s “Dirty War” was known and documented.
It was known to the US State Department. It must have been known to one or more of the 115 “Cardinal Electors” of the Papal Conclave which convened at the Sistine Chapel on March 12, 2013.
Needless to say, both the Catholic Hierarchy as well as the international community turned a blind eye.
And the media with some exceptions has over the years remained silent.
Who was Jorge Mario Bergoglio before he became Pope?
Jorge Mario Bergoglio not only supported the military dictatorship, he also played a direct and complicit role in the “Dirty War” (la guerra sucia”) in liaison with the military junta headed by General Jorge Videla, leading to the arrest, imprisonment, torture and disappearance of progressive Catholic priests and laymen who were opposed to Argentina’s military rule.
“While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976 were released five months later, after having been tortured, six other people associated within their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos).”
In a bitter irony, the two priests sent to the torture chamber were committed to the Theology of Liberation against which Bergoglio at the time was firmly opposed.
Lest we forget, shortly after his investiture in March 2013, Pope Francis was described by the British media of having brought “Liberation Theology into the Vatican”, in the footsteps of Francis of Assisi.
That was a nonsensical statement (“fake news”): In 1976, Bergoglio’s intent (in liaison with the military junta led by General Jorge Videla) was to crush Liberation Theology.
In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.
Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish (who were “disappeared”), (El Mundo, 8 November 2010)
All this was known prior to his investiture. Why was it not revealed to the broader public? Catholics around the world are totally unaware of “who Pope Francis I was”, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
The following article was first written in March 2013 following the election of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as Pope Francis I by the Vatican conclave.
—Michel Chossudovsky, April 21, 2025
Pope Francis and the Dirty War
Global Research TV (GRTV) Michel Chossudovsky and James Corbett
“Washington’s Pope”? Who Is Pope Francis? Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Argentina’s “Dirty War”
By Michel Chossudovsky, March 14, 2013
Author’s Note: The following article was published two days after the announcement of the decision of the Papal Conclave convened at the Sistine Chapel on March 12, 2013.
I lived through the first months of Argentina’s military government.
Much of my research goes back to March-June 1976, during my stay in Argentina as Visiting Professor at the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba.
Three years earlier, I lived through the Chilean military coup of September 11, 1973.
Apart from minor corrections, no changes were made to this article. The Appendix on declassified documents was added.
Who Is Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
In 1973, he had been appointed “Provincial” of Argentina for the Society of Jesus.
In this capacity, Bergoglio was the highest ranking Jesuit in Argentina during the military dictatorship led by General Jorge Videla (1976-1983).
He later became bishop and archbishop of Buenos Aires. Pope John Paul II elevated him to the title of cardinal in 2001.
When the military junta relinquished power in 1983, the duly elected president Raúl Alfonsín set up a Truth Commission pertaining to the crimes underlying the “Dirty War” (La Guerra Sucia).
The military junta had been supported covertly by Washington.
U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger played a behind the scenes role in the 1976 military coup.
Ironically, a major trial opened up in Buenos Aires on March 5, 2013 a week prior to Cardinal Bergoglio’s investiture as Pontiff. The ongoing trial in Buenos Aires is:
“to consider the totality of crimes carried out under Operation Condor, a coordinated campaign by various US-backed Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s to hunt down, torture and murder tens of thousands of opponents of those regimes.”
The military junta led by General Jorge Videla (right) was responsible for countless assassinations, including priests and nuns who opposed military rule following the CIA-sponsored March 24, 1976 coup which overthrew the government of Isabel Peron:
“Videla was among the generals convicted of human rights crimes, including “disappearances”, torture, murders and kidnappings. In 1985, Videla was sentenced to life imprisonment at the military prison of Magdalena.”
Wall Street and the Neoliberal Economic Agenda
One of the key appointments of the military junta (on the instructions of Wall Street) was the Minister of Economy, Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, a member of Argentina’s business establishment and a close friend of David Rockefeller.
The neoliberal macro-economic policy package adopted under Martinez de Hoz was a “carbon copy” of that imposed in October 1973 in Chile by the Pinochet dictatorship under advice from the “Chicago Boys”, following the September 11, 1973 coup d’Etat and the assassination of president Salvador Allende.
Wages were immediately frozen by decree. Real purchasing power collapsed by more than 30 percent in the 3 months following the March 24, 1976 military coup. (Author’s estimates, Cordoba, Argentina, July 1976).
The Argentinean population was impoverished.
Henry Kissinger, not to mention the late David Rockefeller, had meetings with the Junta. Under the helm of Minister of Economy Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz, central bank monetary policy was largely determined by Wall Street and the IMF.
The currency market was manipulated. The Peso was deliberately overvalued leading to an insurmountable external debt. The entire national economy was precipitated into bankruptcy.
Wall Street and the Catholic Church Hierarchy
Wall Street was firmly behind the military junta which waged “The Dirty War” on its behalf. In turn, the Catholic Church hierarchy played a central role in sustaining the legitimacy of the military junta.
The Order of Jesus –which represented the Conservative yet most influential faction within the Catholic Church, closely associated with Argentina’s economic elites– was firmly behind the military junta, against so-called “Leftists” in the Peronista movement.
“The Dirty War”: Allegations Directed Against Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Condemning the military dictatorship (including its human rights violations) was a taboo within the Catholic Church. While the upper echelons of the Church were supportive of the military junta, the grassroots of the Church was firmly opposed to the imposition of military rule.
In 2005, human rights lawyer Myriam Bregman filed a criminal suit against Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, accusing him of conspiring with the military junta in the 1976 kidnapping of two Jesuit priests.
Several years later, the survivors of the “Dirty War” openly accused Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of complicity in the kidnapping of priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio as well six members of their parish, (El Mundo, 8 November 2010).
Bergoglio, who at the time was “Provincial” for the Society of Jesus, had ordered the two “Leftist” Jesuit priests and opponents of military rule “to leave their pastoral work” (i.e. they were fired) following divisions within the Society of Jesus regarding the role of the Catholic Church and its relations to the military junta.
While the two priests Francisco Jalics y Orlando Yorio, kidnapped by the death squads in May 1976, were released five months later after having been tortured, six other people associated with their parish kidnapped as part of the same operation were “disappeared” (desaparecidos). These included four teachers associated with the parish and two of their husbands.
Upon his release, Priest Orlando Yorio “accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over [including six other people] to the death squads … Jalics refused to discuss the complaint after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Associated Press, March 13, 2013, emphasis added),
“During the first trial of leaders of the military junta in 1985, Yorio declared, “I am sure that he himself gave over the list with our names to the Navy.” The two were taken to the notorious Navy School of Mechanics (ESMA) torture center and held for over five months before being drugged and dumped in a town outside the city. (See Bill van Auken, “The Dirty War” Pope, World Socialist Website and Global Research, March 14, 2013
Among those “disappeared” by the death squads were Mónica Candelaria Mignone and María Marta Vázquez Ocampo, respectively daughter of the founder of of the CELS (Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales) Emilio Mignone and daughter of the president of Madres de Plaza de Mayo, Martha Ocampo de Vázquez. (El Periodista Online, March 2013)
María Marta Vásquez, her husband César Lugones (see picture above) and Mónica Candelaria Mignone allegedly “handed over to the death squads” by Jesuit “Provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio are among the thousands of “desaparecidos” (disappeared) of Argentina’s “Dirty War”, which was supported covertly by Washington under “Operation Condor.” (See memorialmagro.com.ar)
In the course of the trial initiated in 2005:
“Bergoglio [Pope Francis I] twice invoked his right under Argentine law to refuse to appear in open court, and when he eventually did testify in 2010, his answers were evasive”: “At least two cases directly involved Bergoglio. One examined the torture of two of his Jesuit priests — Orlando Yorio and Francisco Jalics — who were kidnapped in 1976 from the slums where they advocated liberation theology.
Yorio accused Bergoglio of effectively handing them over to the death squads... by declining to tell the regime that he endorsed their work. Jalics refused to discuss it after moving into seclusion in a German monastery.” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005 emphasis added)
The Secret Memorandum
The military government acknowledged in a Secret Memo (see below) that Father Bergoglio had accused the two priests of having established contacts with the guerilleros, and for having disobeyed the orders of the Church hierarchy (Conflictos de obedecencia). It also stated that the Jesuit order had demanded the dissolution of their group and that they had refused to abide by Bergoglio’s instructions.
The document acknowledges that the “arrest” of the two priests, who were taken to the torture and detention center at the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA, was based on information transmitted by Father Bergoglio to the military authorities. (signed by Mr. Orcoyen) (see below).
While a former member of the priests group had joined the insurgency, there was no evidence of the priests having contacts with the guerrilla movement.
“Holy Communion for the Dictators”
The accusations directed against Bergoglio regarding the two kidnapped Jesuit priests and six members of their parish are but the tip of the iceberg. While Bergoglio was an important figure in the Catholic Church, he was certainly not alone in supporting the military junta.
According to lawyer Myriam Bregman:
“Bergoglio’s own statements proved church officials knew from early on that the junta was torturing and killing its citizens”, and yet publicly endorsed the dictators. “The dictatorship could not have operated this way without this key support,” (Los Angeles Times, April 1, 2005 emphasis added)
The entire Catholic hierarchy was behind the US-sponsored military dictatorship. It is worth recalling that on March 23, 1976, on the eve of the military coup:
“Videla and other plotters received the blessing of the Archbishop of Paraná, Adolfo Tortolo, who also served as vicar of the armed forces. The day of the takeover itself, the military leaders had a lengthy meeting with the leaders of the bishop’s conference. As he emerged from that meeting, Archbishop Tortolo stated that although “the church has its own specific mission . . . there are circumstances in which it cannot refrain from participating even when it is a matter of problems related to the specific order of the state.” He urged Argentinians to “cooperate in a positive way” with the new government.” (The Humanist.org, January 2011, emphasis added)
In an interview conducted with El Sur, General Jorge Videla, who is now [passed away in May 2013] serving a life sentence for crimes against humanity confirmed that:
“He kept the country’s Catholic hierarchy informed about his regime’s policy of “disappearing” political opponents, and thatCatholic leaders offered advice on how to “manage” the policy.
Jorge Videla said he had “many conversations” with Argentina’s primate, Cardinal Raúl Francisco Primatesta, about his regime’s dirty war against left-wing activists. He said there were also conversations with other leading bishops from Argentina’s episcopal conference as well as with the country’s papal nuncio at the time, Pio Laghi.
It is worth noting that according to a 1976 statement by Archbishop Adolfo Tortolo, the military would always consult with a member of the Catholic hierarchy in the case of the “arrest” of a grassroots member of the clergy. This statement was made specifically in relation to the two kidnapped Jesuit priests, whose pastoral activities were under the authority of Society of Jesus “provincial” Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (El Periodista Online, March 2013)
In endorsing the military junta, the Catholic hierarchy was complicit in torture and mass killings, an estimated “22,000 dead and disappeared, from 1976 to 1978 … Thousands of additional victims were killed between 1978 and 1983 when the military was forced from power.” (National Security Archive, March 23, 2006)
The Role of the Vatican
The Vatican under Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II played a central role in supporting the Argentinian military junta.
Pio Laghi, the Vatican’s apostolic nuncio to Argentina, admitted “turning a blind eye” to the torture and massacres.
Laghi had personal ties to members of the ruling military junta including General Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Eduardo Massera.
Admiral Emilio Massera, in close liaison with his US handlers, was the mastermind of “La Guerra Sucia” (The Dirty War). Under the auspices of the military regime, he established:
“an interrogation and torture centre in the Naval School of Mechanics, ESMA [close to Buenos Aires], … It was a sophisticated, multi-purpose establishment, vital in the military plan to assassinate an estimated 30,000 “enemies of the state”. … Many thousands of ESMA’s inmates, including, for instance, two French nuns, were routinely tortured mercilessly before being killed or dropped from aircraft into the River Plata.
Reports confirm that the Vatican’s representative Pio Laghi and Admiral Emilio Massera were friends.
The Catholc Chiurch: Chile versus Argentina
It is worth noting that in the wake of the military coup in Chile on September 11,1973, the Cardinal of Santiago de Chile, Raul Silva Henriquez, openly condemned the military junta led by General Augusto Pinochet. In marked contrast to Argentina, this stance of the Catholic hierarchy in Chile was instrumental in curbing the tide of political assassinations and human rights violations directed against supporters of Salvador Allende and opponents of the military regime.
The man behind the interfaith Comité Pro-Paz was Cardinal Raúl Silva Henríquez. Shortly after the coup, Silva, … stepped into the role of “upstander,”a term the author and activist Samantha Power coined to distinguish people who stand up to injustice—often at great personal risk—from “bystanders.”
… Soon after the coup, Silva and other church leaders published a declaration condemning and expressing sorrow for the bloodshed. This was a fundamental turning point for many members of the Chilean clergy… The cardinal visited the National Stadium and, shocked by the scale of the government crackdown, instructed his aides to begin collecting information from the thousands flocking to the church for refuge.
Had the Catholic hierarchy in Argentina and Jorge Mario Bergoglio taken a similar stance to that of Cardinal Raul Silva Henriquez, thousands of lives would have been saved.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not, in the words of Samantha Power, a “bystander”. Neither was Pope Francis I “a Man of the People” committed to “helping the poor” in the footsteps of Saint Francis of Assisi, as portrayed in chorus by the Western media mantra.
Quite the opposite: his endeavors under the military junta, consistently targeted progressive members of the Catholic clergy as well as committed human rights activists involved in grassroots anti-poverty programs.
In supporting Argentina’s “Dirty War”, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has blatantly violated the very tenets of Christian morality which cherish the value of human life.
“Operation Condor” and the Catholic Church
The election of Cardinal Bergoglio by the Vatican conclave to serve as Pope Francis I will have immediate repercussions regarding the ongoing “Operation Condor” Trial in Buenos Aires.
The Church was involved in supporting the military junta. This is something which will emerge in the course of the trial proceedings. No doubt, there will be attempts to obfuscate the role of the Catholic Hierarchy and the newly appointed Pope Francis I, who served as head of Argentina’s Jesuit order during the military dictatorship.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio: “Washington’s Pope in the Vatican”?
The election of Pope Francis I has broad geopolitical implications for the entire Latin American region.
In the 1970s, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was supportive of a US-sponsored military dictatorship.
The Catholic Hierarchy in Argentina supported the military government. The junta’s program of torture, assassinations and “disappearances” of thousands of political opponents was coordinated and supported by Washington under the CIA’s “Operation Condor.”
Wall Street’s interests were sustained through Jose Alfredo Martinez de Hoz’s office at the Ministry of Economy.
The Catholic Church in Latin America is politically influential. It also has a grip on public opinion. This is known and understood by the architects of US foreign policy as well as US intelligence.
In Latin America, where a number of governments are now challenging US hegemony, one would expect –given Bergoglio’s track record– that the new Pontiff Francis I as leader of the Catholic Church, will play de facto, a discrete “undercover” political role on behalf of Washington.
With Jorge Bergoglio, Pope Francis I in the Vatican –who faithfully served US interests in the heyday of General Jorge Videla and Admiral Emilio Massera— the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Latin America can once again be effectively manipulated to undermine “progressive” (Leftist) governments, not only in Argentina (in relation to the government of Cristina Kirschner) but throughout the entire region, including Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
The instatement of “a pro-US pope” occurred a week following the death of president Hugo Chavez.
“Regime Change” at the Vatican
The US State Department routinely pressures members of the United Nations Security Council with a view to influencing the vote pertaining to Security Council resolutions.
US covert operations and propaganda campaigns are routinely applied with a view to influencing national elections in different countries around the world.
Similarly, the CIA has a longstanding covert relationship with the Vatican.
Did the US government attempt to influence the outcome of the election of the new pontiff?
Firmly committed to serving US foreign policy interests in Latin America, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was Washington’s preferred candidate.
Were undercover pressures discretely exerted by Washington, within the Catholic Church, directly or indirectly, on the 115 cardinals who are members of the Vatican conclave?
Author’s Note
From the outset of the military regime in 1976, I was Visiting Professor at the Social Policy Institute of the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina. My major research focus at the time was to investigate the social impacts of the deadly macroeconomic reforms adopted by the military junta.
I was teaching at the University of Cordoba (under an ILO contract) during the initial wave of assassinations which also targeted progressive grassroots members of the Catholic clergy. The junta had assigned Argentina’s Air Force to oversee and protect the Universidad Nacional.
The Northern industrial city of Cordoba was the center of the resistance movement. I witnessed how the Catholic Hierarchy actively and routinely supported the military junta, creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear throughout the country. The general feeling at the time was that Argentinians had been betrayed by the upper echelons of the Catholic Church.
Three years earlier, at the time of Chile’s September 11, 1973 military coup, leading to the overthrow of the Popular Unity government of Salvador Allende, I was Visiting Professor at the Institute of Economics, Catholic University of Chile, Santiago de Chile.
In the immediate wake of the coup in Chile, I witnessed how the Cardinal of Santiago, Raul Silva Henriquez –acting on behalf the people of Chile and the Catholic Church– courageously confronted the military dictatorship of general Augusto Pinochet.
Across campuses, mosques, and social platforms, a new generation is asking dangerous questions: Why must our foreign policy serve imperial interests? Why is our media allergic to speaking the truth about the occupation?
The generals in Islamabad—ever resplendent in starched uniforms and an exaggerated sense of self-importance—are once again casting furtive glances toward Tel Aviv. Their ambition? To inch closer to the sanctum of global approval, to gain access to the corridors of Zionist power and, perhaps, to be recognized as respectable players in an increasingly transactional world order. For a cadre so obsessed with “strategic depth,” their diplomatic trajectory often resembles not strategy but supplication.
This is not merely a matter of curiosity or engagement. It reflects a deeper pathology: a blend of opportunism, insecurity, and postcolonial mimicry that has long defined Pakistan’s military and bureaucratic elites. The push for normalization with Israel is not grounded in democratic deliberation or national interest. It is a top-down enterprise, cultivated in air-conditioned conference halls, Western think tank circuits, and discreet backchannel rendezvous in Gulf capitals—worlds apart from the lived experiences and moral sentiments of ordinary Pakistanis.
This infatuation isn’t new. It reached farcical proportions during 2019–2020, when parts of the Pakistani media—habitually lethargic in covering domestic injustice, poverty, or state repression—suddenly became animated in their praise of Israeli technology, agriculture, and “shared democratic values.” It felt as if some invisible editorial hand had descended from Mount Herzliya. The usual suspects—retired military officers, neoliberal commentators, and urbane NGO functionaries—rallied to declare normalization not only desirable but inevitable.
In the background, the Abraham Accords were being carefully choreographed by Washington and Tel Aviv, hailed as diplomatic breakthroughs while Arab autocracies were nudged, coaxed, or compelled into smiling photo ops. Yet the crown jewel—the real geostrategic trophy—was always Pakistan: nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority, and governed by elites perpetually craving Western validation.
Into this mix entered Pakistan’s national security establishment with its preferred toolkit: coercion, manipulation, and an increasingly liberal-friendly vocabulary. Selling normalization to a deeply pro-Palestinian public required more than realpolitik. It required a narrative facelift. Enter the urban liberal intelligentsia—those fluent in the language of global capital and moral relativism—tasked with rebranding capitulation as “pragmatism.” Dissent was recast not as a principled position, but as retrograde, anti-Semitic, or hostile to globalization.
This was more than disingenuous—it was insulting to public memory.
Because the Pakistani people had not forgotten. They had not forgotten Gaza, Jenin, or Sheikh Jarrah. They remembered the children buried under rubble, the olive groves torched by settlers, and the suffocating siege that has strangled Palestinian life for decades. No amount of cyber-startups or desalination plants can whitewash the realities of apartheid and occupation.
So when the state attempted to rebrand normalization as a path to modernity, the public called their bluff.
And, to the dismay of Rawalpindi’s brass, Prime Minister Imran Khan refused to play along. Despite being ushered into power with the quiet blessing of the military, Khan demonstrated rare autonomy on the question of Israel. He repeatedly and unequivocally rejected normalization, citing the occupation of Palestinian territories and the moral imperative to support the oppressed.
Khan may not have articulated a comprehensive critique of Zionism or Western imperial structures, but he recognized a red line when he saw one. Under his administration, Pakistan upheld a principled stance: there would be no recognition of Israel so long as Palestinians remained besieged and stateless. In an age of transactional diplomacy, such a position was not only rare—it was radical.
Unsurprisingly, it unsettled more than just Islamabad’s elite. It likely irked Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh, and Abu Dhabi—actors with whom Pakistan’s military leadership had been quietly exploring “realignment” and “shared interests.”
What followed bore the hallmarks of a political takedown. Khan was ousted, arrested, and prosecuted in a series of trials that many observers—domestic and international—have likened to kangaroo proceedings. He now languishes in a high-security prison, a facility usually reserved for violent offenders. The official narrative attributes his downfall to legal violations and political unrest. But to anyone reading between the lines, the specter of international pressure—especially from the Zionist-Western axis—is difficult to ignore.
Of course, this wasn’t the military’s first betrayal of the Palestinian cause. That dubious honor belongs to General Zia-ul-Haq, who in 1970 participated in the suppression of the Palestinian resistance during Black September in Jordan. Thousands were killed as Zia, then a relatively obscure officer, assisted the Hashemite monarchy in crushing the PLO. The man who later wrapped himself in the cloak of Islamization was once complicit in the massacre of fellow Muslims—at the behest of Arab autocrats.
That episode was not an anomaly; it was a precedent. Pakistan’s military elite long ago made a Faustian bargain: serve the interests of Gulf monarchs and Western patrons in exchange for dollars, prestige, and insulation from domestic accountability. In that calculus, Palestinian suffering has remained expendable.
Fast forward to the most recent Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) summit on Gaza. One might expect that, in the face of a live-streamed genocide, Pakistan would assert a position of moral clarity. Instead, Islamabad’s delegation treated the summit as if it were a technical seminar. Their standout achievement? Quietly lobbying to remove clauses that would have held Israeli officials accountable for war crimes. A low point, even by the standards of Pakistani diplomacy.
Israel took notice. Media reports from Tel Aviv celebrated Pakistan’s behind-the-scenes efforts. In a room filled with transactional politics, Islamabad appeared determined to outdo them all in moral equivocation.
Meanwhile, the Pakistani public was staging vigils, organizing fundraisers, and marching in solidarity with Palestine. From the streets of Karachi to the hills of Khyber, moral clarity was not only alive—it was surging. And from his prison cell, Imran Khan released a statement through his sister, calling on Muslim-majority nations—especially Pakistan and Turkey—to form protection forces for Gaza and the West Bank. He even proposed a no-fly zone over Gaza, echoing norms of international humanitarian law that the so-called “international community” rarely enforces.
This was not an isolated remark. Khan had made similar appeals before, but this time it resonated more deeply. Why? Because it aligned with a rising public sentiment: that the Pakistani military—rather than suppressing journalists, student unions, and political activists—might one day consider defending actual victims of oppression.
This divergence has now crystallized into a deeper national contradiction.
On one side stand the military, feudal elites, and their liberal apologists—those who see appeasing Tel Aviv and Washington as a strategic imperative. Their pundits dress up normalization in economic and modernist vocabulary, even as Israeli bombs level hospitals. Their intellectuals preach caution, even as children are buried under rubble.
On the other side stand the people: a population that, despite relentless propaganda, remains morally grounded. They reject apartheid. They oppose genocide. And increasingly, they demand action—not just symbolic gestures, but meaningful resistance.
Calls for a volunteer army to defend Palestine may sound utopian to some, but they reflect a growing disillusionment with Pakistan’s security establishment. The question is no longer why the military is silent on Gaza. It’s why it continues to serve everything but the public will—whether in foreign policy or at home.
Because this is not just about Palestine. It is about the soul of Pakistan’s foreign policy. Will it remain scripted in Western capitals and proofread in Tel Aviv? Or will it finally reflect the ethical compass of its own people?
The values at stake—justice, solidarity, dignity, resistance—are not abstract. They were part of Pakistan’s founding narrative, however inconsistently upheld. And for much of the public, they remain non-negotiable.
History will judge. And when it does, it will not be kind to those who stood idle—or complicit—as a genocide unfolded. The military may still dominate the national narrative, but narratives are slippery things. They seep through cracks, they circulate digitally, and they gather force.
Across campuses, mosques, and social platforms, a new generation is asking dangerous questions: Why must our foreign policy serve imperial interests? Why is our media allergic to speaking the truth about the occupation? And why does our military continue to protect elite privilege while the world burns?
The answers are uncomfortable. But they are necessary.
So let the generals continue their overtures to Zionist power. Let the elite dream of tech partnerships and direct flights to Ben-Gurion. But they should know this: the public is not with them. The people are watching. They are remembering. And they are no longer silent.
If that reality unsettles Rawalpindi, so be it. Accountability begins with discomfort. And Pakistan, at long last, may be inching toward both.
– Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Law, Religion, and Global Politics and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decolonization (CSID), Islamabad, Pakistan.
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, May 2025, pp. 62-63, 69
Special Report
By Dr. Swee Chai Ang
IN TWO YEARS, I will have spent half a century working as a surgeon for the National Health Service, following my arrival in the United Kingdom as a tiny woman refugee from South-East Asia. I’ve spent nearly as much time, forty-three years, as a doctor with the Palestinians, and they are still undergoing genocide and threatened with ethnic cleansing. In 1982, I returned from my first medical mission to Lebanon and co-founded Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP). I have not looked back since. Helping Palestinians and the British public has defined my career, but it was not an obvious path from my childhood.
I grew up supporting Israel, not knowing that the Palestinian people even existed; they were simply labelled as terrorists. This all changed when I volunteered as a surgeon to the wounded in Lebanon in 1982 with Christian Aid. I was seconded to work in Gaza Hospital in Shatila, a Palestinian refugee camp in Beirut, adjacent to the Sabra neighborhood, during the ceasefire in August.
I spoke to my patients and their loved ones and learned of the ethnic cleansing of 50 percent of the indigenous Palestinians—750,000 persons in 1948. Until then, I had never heard of their Nakba, the catastrophe, during which 78 percent of historic Palestine became Israel and the indigenous population was forced to flee at gunpoint. I share the year of my birth with the Nakba, an entire lifetime without justice for Palestinian refugees.
Many of the ethnically cleansed Palestinians had fled to Shatila refugee camp, one of 12 in Lebanon, during the Nakba. When I met them, they had already been living as refugees for 34 years. In all that time, a third of a century, they had never been allowed to return to their homeland, even though they had a right to do so under international law.
In these camps, entire lives have been lived. They live as refugees, give birth to refugees and many die there as refugees. This third stage became crystal clear in September 1982, a month after I began volunteering there, when thousands of Palestinians were murdered in cold blood in the Sabra and Shatila massacre in a mere three days. I witnessed and survived that massacre with them.
I left Lebanon in November 1982 to give evidence to the Israeli Commission of Inquiry into the role of the Israeli army in Lebanon. I had gone to Lebanon as a surgeon to help patients, as any doctor would, but having seen what I’d seen, I could not stay silent about the sheer inhumanity and brutality of the killing by a pro-Israeli Lebanese Christian militia working under the control of the Israeli army. My eyes were opened in 1982, and everything I have lived through in the subsequent 43 years has only confirmed that realization.
On my return to the UK, I co-founded MAP, which celebrated its 40th anniversary last year. Since then, I have led many medical missions to Lebanon and Gaza. It is telling that MAP even needs to exist. How many other people across the world need a dedicated medical aid organization at all, let alone one that needs to keep running, decade after decade?
The latest onslaught on Gaza, described by the International Court of Justice as a “plausible” genocide, is just one of countless assaults on the Palestinian people. Exile, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, plausible genocide—these are the practices that stick with me, as it would stick with anyone who had spent decades returning over and over to the camps instead of simply hearing regurgitated and misleading narratives peddled in the media.
On exile and ethnic cleansing—seven million Palestinians live in wretched conditions in the 58 UNRWA Palestinian refugee camps scattered all over the Middle East, created in 1949 under the directive of the U.N. Security Council to mitigate the extreme suffering of the refugees of the Nakba. They have not been allowed to exercise their right of return to their homeland. In fact, 70 percent of those in Gaza are refugees from other parts of Palestine.
Since Oct. 8, 2023, Palestinians in Gaza have been ruthlessly murdered by relentless bombings. They were ordered to flee their homes and found themselves in makeshift tents, in the same way that their parents and grandparents were. They were displaced multiple times and bombed even as they fled, as were their homes, leaving them nothing to return to. Food, water, fuel and medicine were blockaded, acts that were described by Western leaders as Israel’s right of self-defense.
By Feb. 3, 2025—sixteen months into the genocide—more than 61,709 Gaza civilians were already confirmed killed. The true figures are much higher when factoring in indirect deaths and people buried beneath the rubble. Children were frozen to death in tents, infectious diseases became rampant, including polio, due to lack of sanitation; 35 out of 36 hospitals have been attacked; 2.1 million persons displaced; 35,055 children made orphans; 1,367 entire families removed from the civil registry; 1,047 health workers killed. The list goes on.
The world watched, breathless, when a fragile ceasefire was reached on Jan. 19, 2025. I watched with tears as half a million Gazans forcefully displaced to southern Gaza left their tents and walked back toward their homes demolished by bombs in northern Gaza. The roads were bulldozed and covered with rubble and debris. And yet, they had survived against the odds, after 15 months of drone attacks, large bombs, starvation and diseases, and they were determined to return to reclaim northern Gaza and to rebuild their lives.
For a short period, President Donald Trump was seen as the “hero” who forced a ceasefire, stopped the bombs and gave hope to the people whose lives were completely shattered. The genocide had stopped. Food trucks were allowed into northern Gaza.
Not quite yet.
Trump swiftly announced his ethnic cleansing plans to send 2 million Gazans into Egypt and Jordan to build the “Gaza Riviera.” This plan may lack shame in its explicitness, but it is by no means novel in its goal to dispossess Palestinians from their land. This has been ongoing since 1948.
And then there is apartheid. Once a word that was hotly contested, but after a slew of reports from basically every major human rights organization, it is now no longer questioned. Now that Israel has escalated its West Bank aggressions in its Operation Iron Wall, the reality of apartheid across the occupied Palestinian territory is once again in the spotlight.
Would refusal to be ethnically cleansed justify the resumption of genocide? What is there to say? Desperate Israeli apologists cling to whatever they can. Ignoring the International Court of Justice’s provisional measures, they point to the word “plausible,” as though this negates the following word: “genocide.” But that sort of spin doesn’t work on doctors like me who have journeyed for years with the Palestinians—it doesn’t matter how misleading media coverage is, there’s no way to spin the condition we’ve seen our patients in, the same wounds now as the ones I first saw in 1982.
And then there is the scale of destruction. All means for human life and survival have been destroyed: hospitals, schools, solar panels, water tanks, farms, orchards, factories as well as homes, all destroyed. And the cessation of bombs does not mean the cessation of aid blockades. Even now, Israel’s restriction of aid is still causing man-made famine, which not only kills by starvation, but also brings diseases to the emaciated bodies of starving Palestinians. All this makes genocidal apologism simply pathetic.
But despite all this, there is an unbreakable spirit. I saw it in Shatila in 1982 when destitute, homeless orphans defiantly raised their hands to make the victory sign in the face of death, and I see it now in Gaza and their friends.
Last year, I was in Lebanon operating on patients who were blown up by Israel’s pager attacks there. Several thousand civilians were injured when their pagers exploded. Their hands were mutilated; one or both eyes blown out; some had multiple shrapnel wounds across their torsos. Some had nasty brain and facial injuries. But despite the similarity of all these cases, one conversation stood out.
I told a patient with a mutilated hand how I felt sad for him. He replied: “Please do not feel sad doctor, I have no regrets suffering these injuries. This is the price I pay for standing with humanity and justice in Gaza.”
Almost 43 painful years have passed since the Sabra and Shatila massacre. But the spirit I saw then had been alive despite that horrific massacre, and it is still alive now. Despite everything, it lives on. The demolition site which Gaza is today will be rebuilt, olive trees replanted, and the laughter of children will be heard once more. A 77-year-old Gazan farmer was arrested and tortured for more than 40 days, his entire farm was demolished, and his animals killed. He has already started to clear the rubble, to replant 2,500 olive trees. The trees will outlive him and be there for his children and for Palestine—forever.
