Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel

Embed this content in your HTML


Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Channel Catalog

    0 0

    Rare Footage

    Hamid Hussain

    This ten minutes clip of Second World War captures an important chapter of Indian army.  War stories are usually focused on combat soldiers and support services though vital usually don’t get much attention.  However, we all know that if supply corps does not send food in time, a hungry soldier cannot survive even a day or without the help of an orderly of medical corps a minor bleeding wound can end the life of a soldier. 

    This clip provides a window to the role of Royal Indian Army Service Corps (RIASC) contingent in Western theatre in Second World War.  Film caught the day to day functioning of animal transport and also tradition of presentation of ‘nazar’to King. There are three interesting people in the clip. Major Akbar Khan, Risaldar Major Muhammad Ashraf Khan and narrator Z. A. Bukhari. Z.A. Bukhari was from my hometown of Peshawar and his as well as his brother Ahmad Shah Bukhari’s role in early history of Indian broadcasting requires a separate detailed piece.

    RIASC contingent was K-6 Force. This force was sent to France in November 1939 where it stayed until evacuation in June 1940.  It left its animals behind in France during evacuation.  It stayed in England from 1940-44 where it worked with horses and mules brought from France and United States.  Force came back to India and later went to Burma theatre.  It consisted of Force Head Quarters (HQ) and four Animal Transport (AT) companies. Force Commander was Major (Temp Lt. Colonel) R.W.W. Hills and senior Indian Viceroy Commissioned Officer (VCO) was Risaldar Major Muhammad Ashraf Khan, IOM, IDSM. Force was all Muslims mainly Punjabi Muslims of Potohar area with few Pathans and Hazarawal. The discipline and efficiency of the force was exemplary in all phases and all observers praised Indian soldiers. In embarkation and disembarkation everything went smoothly without any loss of animals. In the chaotic retreat from Dunkirk, the discipline was exemplary. In England, the behavior of soldiers was excellent and locals who came in contact with them remembered them even after fifty years.

    Major Mohammad Akbar Khan was 2IC of No: 25 Animal Transport Company (ATC). In 1947, he was senior most Muslim officer of Indian army and given Pakistan Army number 1 (a detailed profile of Akbar and his family is almost complete).  Risaldar Major Muhammad Ashraf Khan served a long career with RIASC.  He had received IDSM on North West Frontier in 1935 operations.  In France, he earned IOM for his cool and calm attitude during extrication.  He received his IOM from the King at Buckingham Palace.  In June 1944, he was appointed Ist Class Order of British India (OBI).  He was a Hazarawal and belonged to the same area of Field Marshal Muhammad Ayub Khan.  He was very well respected by soldiers and junior officers.  When Ayub Khan was removed from the command of 1 Assam Regiment in 1945 in Burma and Lieutenant Colonel Steve Parsons took over, Ayub spent next few weeks in the forty pounder tent of RM Ashraf Khan as his guest before heading back to India.

    (An excellent source of K-6 Force is a two part piece written by Chris Kemptom in Durbar, Vol. 28 & 29, Winter 2011 and Spring 2012.)

    The picture below is a rare photograph of RIASC soldiers in England.


    Photograph: Eid ul Azha prayer at Shah Jehan Mosque in Woking, London, 28 December 1941.  In front rows are soldiers of RIASC and Risaldar Major Muhammad Ashraf Khan with beard in the center.  Picture is from Woking Mission website.

    There is interesting history of Woking mosque and it is linked with history of Muslim Diaspora in London.  This mosque was established in 1913.  In First World War, imam of the mosque Maulana Sadr-ud-Din was involved in the care of wounded and dead in England. Initially, British authorities approved for purchase of a burial plot in Netley near Royal Victoria Hospital where many wounded Indian soldiers were treated. Sadr-ud-Din advised them to change the burial site to near Woking mosque. He met Director General of War Office General Sir Alfred Keogh and Military Secretary to India Office General Sir Edmund Barrow.  In November 1914, three Muslim soldiers were buried in a section of a Christian cemetery.  Later, burial site was selected near Woking mosque. 

    From its inception, this mosque was run by Ahmadi Muslims.  They were declared non-Muslim in 1974 in Pakistan and have been relentlessly persecuted forcing large numbers of them to migrate to other countries. 

    Hamid Hussain

    October 23, 2016

    0 0

    Down memory lane with the life of PA-1 MG Muhammad Akbar Khan

    Major General Muhammad Akbar Khan

    Hamid Hussain

    Major General Muhammad Akbar Khan (1897-1993) was the senior most Muslim officer at the time of independence in 1947.  He was the son of Risaldar Major Fazal Dad Khan (1847-1943).  Fazal Dad was a Minhas Rajput from Chakwal area.  His family’s fortune was linked with Sikh durbar.  After the demise of Sikh rule and emergence of British Raj, family recovered some of the lost fortunes under British patronage.  Fazal Dad served with 12thCavalry and after a long service granted the title of Khan Bahadur.  He was granted a large amount of land by the British and had three estates in Montgomery (Sahiwal), Chakwal and Lyallpur (Faisalabad).  He established a horse stud farm on one of his estate.  Fazal Dad had cordial relations with senior British army and civilian officers.  Commander-in-Chief Field Marshall Lord Birdwood, Archibald Wavell (later Viceroy) and Sir Bertrand Glancy (later Punjab governor) had close relationship with Fazal Dad.  Fazal Dad married four times.  Six sons of Fazal Dad Khan joined Indian army and all were polo players.  

    Five brothers of Major General Muhammad Akbar Khan served in the army.  Major General Muhammad Iftikhar Khan was commissioned in August 1929 and joined 7thLight Cavalry.  He was transferred to 3rd Cavalry when later regiment was Indianized.  During Second World War, he served with newly raised 45th Cavalry. He was nominated as first Pakistani C-in-C.  He died in 1949 in a plane crash at Jang Shahi before assuming the office.  His wife and son also perished in the same crash.   Brigadier Muhammad Zafar Khan was commissioned in 1934.  He retired as Director Remount, Veterinary & Farm Corps (RV&FC). Brigadier Muhammad Yousef Khan was commissioned in 1935. He also retired as Director RV&FC.  Brigadier Muhammad Afzal Khan was commissioned in 1935 and joined 16thLight Cavalry.  Later he transferred to Royal Indian Army Service Corps (RIASC). Major General Muhammad Anwar Khan was commissioned in 1936 in the Corps of Engineers. He was the first Pakistani Engineer-in-Chief (E- in-C) of Pakistan Army.

    Two brothers didn’t join the army and settled in England.  Muhammad Tahir Khan was a lawyer and settled in England. Muhammad Masood Raza Khan was the most enigmatic of all.  He had BA in political science and MA in English literature from Punjab University.  He was enrolled at Oxford.  Although he inherited most of his father’s estate but he was ready to renounce his feudal heritage at an early age.  He was an intellectual but psychologically disturbed.  In an ironic twist, he made an appointment with a psychoanalyst when he landed in London but by mistake they thought he wanted to be trained as a psychoanalyst.  He ended up a leading psychoanalyst of his times, highly respected by other professionals and made wide ranging friends from aristocracy, film and theatre.  He lived in London and travelled widely giving lectures on psychoanalysis.

    Akbar Khan enlisted in the army in May 1914 and served with his father’s regiment 12thCavalry. In July 1915, he was promoted Jamadar and served with the regiment in Mesopotemia.  After the Great War, commissioned officer ranks were opened for Indians.  A Temporary School for Indian Cadets (TSIC) was established at Daly College at Indore.  Forty two cadets started a one year training course on 15 October 1918.  On 1 December 1919, thirty nine cadets qualified but thirty three were granted King’s commission with effect from 17 July 1920. Of the six not granted King’s commission, three resigned, two found unsuitable and one died. 

    Akbar joined new war time raised 40th Cavalry as Second Lieutenant.  This regiment was raised in April 1918 by Lieutenant Colonel James Robert Gaussen D.S.O. of 3rd Skinner’s Horse. Ist Skinner’s Horse contributed one squadron, 3rd Skinner’s Horse two squadrons and 7thHariana Lancers one squadron for 40th Cavalry. Final composition of the regiment was one squadron of Rajputs and half squadron each of Jats, Sikh, Dogra and Hindustani Mussalmans. Nephew of His Highness Agha Khan, Captain Aga Cassim Shah (originally from 3rd Horse) was one of the squadron commanders of the regiment at that time. In December 1920, Akbar was Quarter Master (QM) of the regiment.  40th Cavalry was disbanded in 1921.  In 1921-22 re-organization, 11th Cavalry and 12thCavalry were amalgamated and Akbar was transferred to 11th /12thCavalry.  This new amalgamated regiment was named 5th King Edward’s Own (KEO) Probyn’s Horse. Akbar served with 5th Probyn’s Horse from 1922 to 1934 and was regiment’s Quartermaster from 1927 to 1931.  In May 1934, he transferred to Ist Battalion of 14th Punjab Regiment (now 5 Punjab Regiment of Pakistan army) and participated in the Mohmand Operation.  He served as battalion’s adjutant.  A year later, he was attached to the Royal Indian Army Service Corps (RIASC) to which he transferred on 5 February 1936 and served in Waziristan operation in 1937. His newly commissioned brother Muhammad Anwar Khan was also serving in Waziristan with 4th Field Company.  In 1940, he went to France with Force K6 in France.  He was second-in-command (2IC) of No 25 Animal Transport (AT) Company.   This force was evacuated to UK and then returned to India.  He later served in the Burma Theatre.  He used the suffix of ‘Rangroot’ after his name highlighting his rise from the ranks. He was also known as Akbar Khothianwala and Akbar Khaccharwaladue to his service with mule companies of service corps.  

    Photograph: Courtesy of Major General ® Syed Ali Hamid from the album of his father Major General ® Shahid Hamid. 

    In April 1946, C-in-C Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck presided over a selection board. Several Indian officers were recommended for senior appointments to prepare them for command when British left.  Akbar was recommended by the selection board to be Army Commander but it was probably to have a Muslim among the senior ranks of an Indianized army and not for professional excellence.  Akbar was the only senior Muslim officer at Brigadier rank while the remaining six recommend for promotions and coveted postings were Hindus. Kodandera Cariappa, Rajindra Sinhji and Nathu Singh were recommended for army commander posts.  S. S. M. Srinagesh was recommended for Chief of General Staff (CGS), Ajit Anil Rudra as Adjutant General (AG) and Bakhshish Singh Chimni as Quarter Master General (QMG). 

    Photograph: Courtesy of Major General ® Syed Ali Hamid from the album of his father Major General ® Shahid Hamid. 

    On 15 August 1947, Akbar was promoted Major General and appointed head of the formation called Sind and Baluchistan area.  It was later re-designated Sind area and on 1 January 1948, it was re-designated 8th Division. Karachi sub area was designated 51st Brigade on 1 November 1947 and Quetta sub area re-designated 52nd Brigade in September 1948.  8th Division headquarter was in Karachi and in May 1948, headquarter was moved to Quetta.  Akbar was in command during all these transitions.  His Indian Army (IA) number was 90 and Pakistan Army (PA) number was 1 as he was the senior most officer of Pakistan army. He retired on 7 December 1950 handing over command of 8th Division to Major General Adam Khan. In June 1930, he was appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire (MBE).

    It is not clear why Akbar first transferred to infantry and later RIASC although he had good annual reports when he was serving with 5th Probyn’s Horse.  Early in his career, his squadron commander wrote ‘a very capable young officer ….  commands the respect of all the Indian ranks’.  His commanding officer wrote, ‘Above the average in brains and energy …. keen on his work and good at games ….  a promising Cavalry officer’.  Other annual reports noted, ‘One of the most efficient King’s Commissioned Indian gentlemen I have met’ and ‘an officer of distinct ability who should take a prominent part in the process of Indianisation of the Indian Army’.  Major General commanding at Peshawar wrote in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR),’One of the best of our Indians holding King’s Commission’.  In 1946, Delhi area commander Major General Freeland wrote about Akbar ‘A level headed and most staunch officer. He is more of a commander than a Staff Officer.  I have great confidence in him’.

    Extra Regimental Employment (ERE) with Frontier Scouts, Burma Military Police and RIASC carried additional monetary allowance.  Indian officers were not posted to Frontier Scouts and Burma Military Police that left only RIASC for any Indian officer looking for extra allowance.  The first Indian officer posted to Frontier Scouts was Lieutenant (later Lt. Colonel) Mohammad Yusuf Khan of 6/13 Frontier Force Rifles when he was posted to South Waziristan Scouts in 1937.  Some officers who needed extra money transferred to RIASC (Lieutenant General B. M. Kaul as a junior officer had some financial troubles and decided to leave 5/6 Rajputana Rifles for RIASC).  Akbar was from the landed aristocracy and financial difficulty was not the likely motive for him.  One likely explanation is service consideration.  For first generation of Indian officers, the dream was to end the career with command of a battalion at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.  Akbar was one of the first Indian officers to join a cavalry regiment.  Cavalry was a British preserve and he may have concluded that it was not likely that he would ever command a cavalry regiment. 

    Photograph: Courtesy of Major General ® Syed Ali Hamid from the album of his father Major General ® Shahid Hamid.

    Akbar Khan was among the early generation of Indian lads given commission as officers when officer rank of Indian army was opened to Indians in the aftermath of First World War.  He was from a family that prospered under the benevolence of Raj.  His father received large tracts of agricultural lands for service and in return family sent its sons to serve in Indian army. 

    Acknowledgements:Author thanks Major General ® Syed Hamid Ali for providing many details as well as confirmation of many facts from family members of Akbar Khan, Muhammad Afzal; nephew of Akbar khan, Colonel Zahid Mumtaz for the details of careers of sons of Fazal Dad and Ghee Bowman; a PhD candidate working on his thesis on RIASC contingent in France and England for providing details of service comments in annual confidential reports of Akbar Khan.  All errors and omissions are author’s sole responsibility.


    1-     Chris Kempton.  Pack Mules from India, Force K-7 and Force-6.  Durbar, Volume 29, No.1, Spring 2012.

    2-     Lieutenant Colonel Gautam Sharma.  Nationalization of the Indian Army - 1885-1947.  (New Delhi: Allied Publishers), 1996

    3-     Major General Shaukat Raza.  The Pakistan Army 1947-1949 (Lahore: Wajidalis, 1989)

    4-     Major General Shahid Hamid.  Disastrous Twilight (London: Leo Cooper), 1986

    5-     Linda Hopkins.  False Self: The Life of Masud Khan, (New York: The Other Press), 2008

    6-     Ashok Nath. Izzat: Historical Records and Iconography of Indian Cavalry Regiments 1730-1947 (New Delhi: Center for Armed Forces Historical Research), 2009

    Hamid Hussain

    October 23, 2016

    Defence Journal, November 2016

    Name Confusion - Two Akbars and two Latifs
    Hamid Hussain
    In the first decade after independence in 1947, several officers of Pakistan army were given rapid promotions.  Officers with same names resulted in some confusion.  Two Akbars and two Latifs were frequently confused.   Two additional officers named Akbar served in different times.  One was Khan Muhammad Akbar Khan, commissioned in different times in 1905 from Imperial Cadet Corps (ICC).  He was attached to Malwa Bhil Corps.  These were limited commissions only for Native Indian Land Forces (NILF).  These officers could not command British soldiers and either served with state forces or attached as orderly officers to senior officers.  He faded away and nothing much is known about him.  Another officer named Akbar Khan was from Punjab regiment.  He commanded 105th Independent Brigade in 1965 war.  He was Director General (DG) of Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) from 1966-71.  In 1971 war, he commanded 12 Division.  He rose to the rank of Lieutenant General and served as Karachi Corps Commander.  He was superseded in 1976, when General Muhammad Zia ul Haq was appointed Chief of Army Staff (COAS).  
    Two Akbars
    Akbar the senior– PA-1 Muhammad Akbar Khan.  His career dealt in detail in previous piece.  
    Akbar the junior- Akbar Khan (1912-1994) was a Pathan from Charsadda area of Khyber-Pukhtunkwa.  He was from the pareech khel clan of Muhammadzai tribe that inhabits the village of Utmanzai.  Akbar was from the last batch of Indian officers commissioned from Royal Military College Sandhurst in February 1934.  Lieutenant General B.M. Kaul was his course mate at Sandhurst and they became friends during their service.  Officers commissioned from Sandhurst were called King Commissioned Indian Officers (KCIOs).  Akbar joined 6/13 Frontier Force Rifles (FFRif.).  This battalion is now One Frontier Force (FF) Regiment of Pakistan army.  He fought Second World War with 14/13 FFRif. (now15FF).  This was a new war time battalion raised in April 1941, at Jhansi.  In new war time raised battalions, officers and men were posted from different battalions, usually from the same group.  Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Felix-Williams, DSO, MC of 1/13 FFRis. was the first Commanding Officer (CO).  There were fourteen officers in the battalion and Akbar at the rank of Major was the senior most of the four Indian officers of the battalion.   Lieutenants H. H. Khan, Fazl-e-Wahid Khan and A.K. Akram were other Indian officers (Wahid won MC).  Battalion was part of 100th Brigade (other battalions of the brigade included 2 Borders and 4/10 Gurkha Rifles) of 20th Division commanded by Major General Douglas Gracey. 
    14/13 FFRif. was one of the few battalions well trained in jungle warfare and performed admirably.  Battalion received three DSOs and 14 MCs.  This included two MCs to Viceroy Commissioned Officers (VCOs); Subedar Bhagat Singh and Subedar Habib Khan.  Battalion was patrolling about 1000 square mile area and many detachments were not in contact with battalion HQs.  Akbar was commanding two companies (B & C) during Irrawaddy crossing and was quite independent in his command due to poor communications with battalion HQs.  Battalion’s defenses fought against the onslaught of Japanese and suffered forty six killed and more than 100 wounded.  Akbar withdrew his two companies into the lines of 9/14 Punjab Regiment.   Akbar fought very well and won his Distinguished Service Order (DSO) in June 1945. 
    At the time of partition in 1947, Akbar was the only serving Pakistani officer with DSO.  The most decorated Muslim officer inherited by Pakistan was now retired Captain Taj Muhammad Khanzada.  He was from 5/11 Sikh and had won MC, DSO and bar.  The most unusual aspect was that he had won DSO at the rank of Captain.  DSO was usually awarded to Major and upward rank.  5/11 Sikh was captured by Japanese and many including Khanzada joined Subhash Chandra Bose’s Indian National army (INA) and was removed from the service.  Khanzada’s battalion mate was Harbakhsh Singh who stayed away from INA.  In 1965 war, Harbakhsh was Lieutenant General commanding western command of Indian army. 
    In September 1947, Colonel Akbar was appointed first deputy director of Weapons & Equipment (W&E) directorate.  He got involved with Kashmir operations when he was appointed military advisor to Prime Minister.  He used code name Tariq during Kashmir operations.  He was given the command of 101 Brigade based in Kohat.  He moved his brigade from Kohat to Uri sector in Kashmir.  In addition to his own brigade, Akbar was also coordinating activities of the tribesmen operating in Kashmir.  He commanded 101 Brigade from April 1948 to January 1950.  After Kashmir operations, 101 Brigade was moved to Sialkot.  In 1950, he attended Joint Services Staff College course in London.  He came under suspicion of British authorities when he met some communists in London.  This information was passed on to Pakistani C-in-C General Gracey who already knew about Akbar and some other officers and called them ‘Young Turk Party’.  In December 1950, he was promoted Major General and appointed CGS. 
    Several officers involved in Kashmir operations were upset at the ceasefire and this resentment evolved into talk about overthrowing the government.  Akbar took advantage of these sentiments and became the leader of the conspiracy.  In March 1951, he was arrested along with several other officers.  A special tribunal convicted and sentenced him to five years in prison.  He was released in 1955.  He joined Pakistan Peoples Party and served as Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s national security advisor.  Akbar was married to Nasim Akbar.  Nasim was a social, educated lady from a very affluent family of Lahore.  She had leftist ideas and it was alleged that Akbar was under the influence of his wife.  Nasim was an ambitious woman and allegedly aspired to become the first lady.  Nasim was present in some of the meetings of the conspirators but she was not charged with any offence.  In fact, many officers were upset when Akbar brought some civilians including his wife into the loop.  The couple divorced in 1959. 
    Akbar has been a controversial figure in Pakistan army history.  Some leftists believe that if Akbar had succeeded in 1951, Pakistan army would have been pushed into the ‘left lane’.   Seven years later, Ayub Khan’s coup decisively put army and the country in the ‘right lane’.  Akbar was well respected by his juniors for his professionalism, gallant performance in war and ease of interaction with juniors.  On the other hand, he had a mercurial temper and at times behaved in a bizarre way.  Several incidents are narrated as evidence of this bizarre behavior but two examples will suffice.  When he was major general, he used to keep a rope at his office table declaring to visitors that some people need to be hanged with this rope.  In February 1972, when he was national security advisor of Prime Minister Bhutto, there was strike by policemen in Peshawar. Akbar phoned commandant of school of artillery at nearby Nowshera asking him to send two 25 pounder artillery guns to sort out policemen.  The order was cancelled by army headquarters.  There was some violent streak in his personality and different interpretations have been offered.  One suggests that in view of family trait of violence, he may have inherited some physical or psychological illness that made him prone to bizarre behavior.  Another theory points towards his clan.  Pathans are generally viewed as having short tempers and even among Pathans, pareech khels are known for even shorter fuses.  The ironies of the times can be judged from the fact that before independence, Akbar portrayed himself as an ardent nationalist and had no love lost for the British.  However, after independence, when he was given his dismissal order by Major General Mian Hayauddin (4/12 FFR), he wrote on the paper that he was a King’s commissioned officer and could not be dismissed even by Governor General.  Long after independence, Akbar was now claiming to be the subject of the King rather than citizen of Pakistan. 
    Two Latifs
    Latif I – Muhammad Abdul Latif Khan was a graduate of Prince of Wales Royal Military College (PWRMC) at Dehra Dun.  He was from the last batch of Indians commissioned from Sandhurst in 1934.  He was commissioned in 1/7 Rajput Regiment with army number of IA-262.  In November 1945, he was awarded MBE and later, he was also awarded Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (OBE).  In 1947, Joint Defence Council (JDC) was formed to arrange for division of armed forces between India and Pakistan.  An army subcommittee headed by Deputy Chief of General Staff (DCGS) Major General SE Irwin was formed.  Latif, then Lieutenant Colonel was appointed secretary of this subcommittee.  He opted for Pakistan and was appointed the first director of Military Intelligence in July 1948.  He was promoted Brigadier and given the command of 103 Brigade (July 1948 to December 1949).  He was promoted Major General and served as commandant of Staff College at Quetta from August 1954 to July 1957.  In October 1958, when Lieutenant General Muhammad Musa was appointed C-in-C, Latif and Major General Sher Ali Khan Pataudi (7Cavalry & 1/1 Punjab) were superseded and retired. 
    Latif II - Muhammad Abdul Latif Khan (1916-1995) was from the princely state of Bhopal.  He attended Indian Military Academy (IMA) Dehra Dun and commissioned in 1936 (IC-105).  He joined 5/10 Baluch Regiment (now 12 Baloch).  In Second World War, he won MC for gallantry in April 1945.  He was the first cadet battalion commander of Pakistan Military Academy (PMA) at Kakul.  His brother in law Major S. Bilgrami (two sisters were married to Latif & Bilgrami) was appointed company commander at Kakul at the same time.  He commanded 5/10 Baluch from November 1948 to February 1949.  He was commanding 5/12 Frontier Force Regiment (FFR) in 1949.  This battalion is now 2FF.  This battalion was part of 101 Brigade based in Kohat and commanded by Akbar.  In February 1950, he was posted GSO-I of 9th Division based in Peshawar, commanded by Major General Nazir Ahmad.  In December 1950, he was promoted to the rank of Brigadier and given the command of 52 Brigade based in Quetta.  He was arrested in March 1951 along with several other officers for conspiracy to overthrow the civilian government. 
    Latif’s role in 1951 conspiracy is interesting.  In 1948-49, he was in agreement with Akbar about removing the civilian government.  He was present in many important meetings of the conspirators.  In the final plan conceived in late 1949, he was to play an important role and also to serve as member of military council after the coup.  They planned to arrest Governor General in Lahore and Prime Minister in Peshawar during their visits to these two cities.   Latif was then commanding 5/12 FFR in Kohat and he was assigned the task to bring two companies of his own battalion along with a squadron of Guides Cavalry to Peshawar to arrest the Prime Minister. He was present at the crucial meeting at Attock rest house on December 04, 1949.  Later, he withdrew from the plan.  In February 1951, Akbar wrote him a letter to clear misunderstanding between the two.  The same month, Akbar came to Karachi to finalize the coup plan and asked Latif to meet him in Karachi.  According to Latif, he tried to get out of the situation but when Akbar asked if he was disobeying orders, he relented.  Government had some inkling about the activities of many officers involved in the conspiracy and tried to disperse some of the officers.  Major General Nazir Ahmad was sent on a course to London.  Akbar was asked to tour East Pakistan starting in early March and Latif’s name was added to the military mission planning to visit Iran.  When Latif came to Karachi for his onward journey to Iran, he was arrested by military police.  He was dismissed from the service and sentenced to prison.  He was released in 1955.  He led a quite life for the next several decades and died in 1995. 
    1-      Lt. Colonel ® Gautam Sharma.  Nationalization of the Indian Army (New Delhi: Allied Publishers Limited, 1996)
    2-      Chris Kempton.  Pack Mules from India, Force K-7 and Force K-6.  Durbar,Volume 29, No. 1, Spring 2012, pp. 14-25
    3-      Daniel P. Marston.  Phoenix from the Ashes: The Indian Army in the Burma Campaign (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 2003)
    4-      Major General ® Akbar Khan.  Raiders in Kashmir (Lahore: Jang Publishers, 1992)
    5-      Zaheeruddin.  Rawalpindi Conspiracy 1951 (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1995)
    6-      Major General (R) Shahid Hamid.  Disastrous Twilight (London: Leo Cooper, 1986)
    7-      Major General ® Shaukat Raza.  The Pakistan army 1947-1949 (Lahore: Wajidalis, 1989)
    8-      Memoirs of Lt. General Gul Hassan Khan (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 1993)
    Hamid Hussain
    May 25, 2012

    0 0

    At least 50 young people (mostly police recruits, a few guards) have been killed in another terrible terrorist atrocity in Quetta. A police training college was attacked (not for the first time) by terrorists on a road that has seen literally dozens of attacks and has a checkpoint every few hundred yards . The chief law enforcement officer in Balochistan (the head of the paramilitary Frontier Corps) has blamed the Lashkar e Jhangvi al Alami (the worldwide army of Jhangvi, an anti-Shia group) for this attack. This group is supposedly a splinter of the larger (and until recently, semi-legal) Lashkar e Jhangvi, who are themselves the "militant wing" (implausible deniability) of the even larger (and even more legal) ASWJ (supposedly banned, but recently invited to meet the interior minister, who reportedly assured their chief that he was "a man of Islam and therefore a supporter of Islamic parties"), and so it goes.

    Meanwhile, Pakistan's incredibly efficient and competent "Inter-Services Public Relations" (ISPR) department (headed by a three star general, probably the only military PR department in the world, perhaps the only one in history, to be led by a three star general; we may not produce Guderians and Rommels, but we do produce Bajwas, Mashallah) is on the job to make sure we all understood how:

    A. The army has reacted extremely competently to the attack and the attackers had been killed in short order (this claim has some credibility; our mid-level officers and soldiers are indeed competent, brave and aggressive and deserve some credit)

    B. The attackers were talking to someone in Afghanistan and may have had foreign backing (hint hint cough RAW cough cough), so, dear countrymen, the army is off the hook. WE didnt do it and neither did OUR proxies.

    C. The army chief will surely fly in soon, raising morale, calling the Afghan president for a chat and generally doing stuff (and need we say, the civilians have no clue).

    But what this ISPR effort (with the concurrent appearance of multiple military proxies on TV channels and social media, all claiming that India is behind this attack, as it is behind all attacks) really tells us is that the game remains the same. Even as we were being told that we are the victims of cross-border terrorism and that this was intolerable and no state could allow its neighbors to harbor terrorists who come across the border and kill innocents, OUR terrorists (the good Taliban, the Kashmiri Jihadis) proudly continue killing endless civilians and police and armymen in Kabul, Kashmir, Mumbai, etc.
    The double game must go on. 

    General Asad Durrani, ex-chief of the ISI and proud "intellectual soldier" said it best; the deaths of thousands of innocent Pakistanis are the collateral damage of our successful strategy of "winning" in Afghanistan. Which is itself collateral damage of our eternal "war till victory" with India. Great nations have to be willing to make small sacrifices. And what are a few thousand dead people in the greater scheme of things? and of course, what are a few lies between friends?

    Watch at 9 minute mark onwards. Please do. You will not regret it.

    What more can one say?
    There are, literally, no words.

    Meanwhile, Chori Nisar's meeting with the ASWJ and the good terrorists of various stripes is a clear indication that nothing will change because nothing CAN change. If we are the citadel of Islam and India is our eternal enemy whose current borders we intend to change (by force, there being no other obvious way of doing so), then the rest follows like the cart follows the horse
    We cannot really ban the Islamic parties because they are the truest expression of our Islamic millennial dreams and (more to the point for geniuses like Durrani sahib) the source of our most motivated proxy warriors. We cannot ban the ASWJ because all the Islamists are cousins and you cannot act against one without upsetting the others. Or, maybe because they might attack GHQ if they get upset (believers in the importance of ideas can go with theory #1, pragmatists will prefer #2; either way, these people cannot be targeted too hard). And if we cannot ban the Islamists and we cannot ban the ASWJ, then the Lashkar e Jhangvi will always be around too, because they all support each other and the same swamp that breeds LET types will always breed LEJ types too.
    And so it goes.
    Until the next atrocity.

    PS: some friends will no doubt want to talk about the CIA and the Saudis, but I do believe that while the CIA and the Saudis were our paymasters and teachers for decades, the CIA is no longer interested in promoting Pakistani Jihad and even the Saudis are having second thoughts. The people who are NOT yet having second thoughts are the geniuses like General Durrani (and we can have no doubt that his successors in GHQ feel the same way he does) who feel a thrill of pride at having defeated their second superpower (China will be number 3, inshallah).
    And so it goes.

    By the way, as shown in the above poster, the LET is holding a funeral in absentia for one of its terrorists/militants/freedomfighters killed in an attack in Kashmir that killed soldiers (on a smaller scale) similar to the attack on the police training center in Quetta. To own one and condemn the other would be morally shaky, though perfectly reasonable in terms of war. But the weird thing is, most people in Pakistan (even as many of them accept the necessity and even support the ideals of this war) do not really go about their lives as if we were at war with India. We get upset that our artists are not permitted free travel and opportunities in India or that Modi is not as "soft" with our establishment as past Congress regimes have sometimes been in public pronouncements... but it may be time to think about this: it is possible to have your cake and eat it too, but not forever.. Sure, if we are fighting a 1000 year war for Kashmir (and beyond), then so be it. We will have our successes and our enemies will have theirs. But have we really thought this through

    0 0

    Some people express doubts about the Pakistan army's commitment to eradicating all Islamist terrorist groups. (and there can be no doubt that it IS the Pakistani army that makes such decisions in Pakistan. ..PMLN, PPP, ANP may be in "power" here or there, but security and foreign affairs are ultimately run by the army and if they are not on board, no strategy can possibly work). Others point to the thousands of soldiers killed in the line of duty and insist that the security forces are doing all they can and criticism is just "playing into the hands of our enemies".

    Is there a way to tell who is right?

    Suppose you have no inside information. Just from public sources, can you tell if they are doing all they can? I believe you can. And just off the top of my head, lets look at a couple of things we can use as metrics:

    1. The enemy is identified and targeted AS the main enemy. For example, British security services fighting their own dirty war against the provisional IRA were fighting, first and foremost, the IRA. Their Irish-American supporters, Irish Republic politicians, the KGB, Gaddafi, whatever, could all be blamed for supporting them (they could even be mentioned as the one thing that keeps the IRA going, take X out and they will collapse, etc), but there was no question about who the enemy was.
    Is this true in Pakistan? I don't think so. The main focus of the state's impressive psyops machine seems to be to identify India or Israel or the USA (or all three, or "Hinjews" or whatever) as the cause of our problems, with the actual terrorists (who never happen to be Hindus or Jews or Americans) being nothing more than misguided or paid youth whose own aims and ambitions play no real role in this campaign.
    i.e., on this point, GHQ is clearly NOT doing what any outside observer would expect. They don't spend a lot of time and effort identifying, demonizing and targeting the organizations and people who actually conduct all these attacks.

    2. When a terrorist attack takes place, there is an investigation. It may not be very public, but if you are serious about stopping them, you have to investigate where the perpetrators came from, how and why did they join a terrorist organization, who recruited them, who trained them, who led them, who facilitated them....and you have to go back and roll up all these networks. Only then can you hope to defeat them. This is not rocket science, it is basic police work. Some of this clearly gets done in Pakistan too, but very little of this makes it into the news. Why? Because the facts turned up are inconvenient? Because too much focus on the actual perpetrators and organizations would take away from the "RAW did it" storyline? Because the state still wants to protect some of the Islamist networks? Who knows..
    On this point, I have no real inside information, but if you hang around police officers, you do hear a lot of anecdotes about police officers who were stopped from pursuing this or that lead by the "intelligence agencies". Some of these anecdotes may be self-serving lies. But there IS a lot of smoke. With this much smoke, there may also be fire..

    3. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Follow any paknationalist on twitter and facebook. Count the references to RAW and Mossad. Then look for references to Lashkar e Jhangvi, ASWJ, Jaish e Mohammed, etc.
    Yes. You will find tweets like these (I assure you, this is a representative sample):

    By the way, that last tweet reflects a sentiment that I have heard some people express about another country, one created 200 years after Afghanistan came into being..

    Don't believe the Pakistani army could be stupid enough to STILL play double games with terrorists? Set your mind at rest. See General Asad Durrani in action:

    Read more about our narratives and issues by clicking on the following links: 

    Quetta. Collateral Damage?

    The Narratives Come Home to Roost

    Pakistan: Myths and Consequences  

    0 0
  • 11/08/16--22:42: President Trump
  • How can you not say a few words :)

    Some are just question (not rhetorical questions, I am genuinely curious about some of them)

    1. Trump managed to convince rustbelt voters that they need to stick it to the system. They did.

    2. But now that he will be President, what will his achievements be? Can he get more done than the existing establishment? it is conceivable, but it is not likely. These same voters may not back him next time around.

    3. I am willing to buy some sort of Hayek-ian argument about what revives an economy, but Trump was not making that argument. In terms of economics, trade etc, what will he do that will revive the American rust-belt?

    4. Which of the apocalyptic visions will come true? Will Russia get Ukraine and the Baltics? will Muslims in America get it worse than African-Americans? Will Trump nuke some country in the Middle East? and so on..

    5. Trump has some instincts that are more humane than those of the Republican establishment. For example, he thinks poor people should not die on the streets and maybe they should get medicaid. But he will not be king. He will be president with the SAME Republican House and Senate as before, with a narrow electoral victory behind him. Why would he be able to somehow carry out a revolution? Isnt it more likely that he will mostly end up with the same corrupt, security-statist, police-prison-prosecutor based ripoff that the Republican half of the ruling elite have been practicing for years?

    6. On the other hand, he WILL have some freedom to change things in foreign policy. Harder line against Muslims, almost certain. But will Russia get to expand its empire? What about China? India? Pakistan?

    6. What lesson will the liberal elite learn from this? If any..

    save image

    save image

    save image

    Last picture dedicated to my millennial friends who thought Hillary is the Wall street candidate and at least if Donald wins, the rich will get a bit of their comeuppance :)

    save image

    "dark men in mien and movement, flashing in their mocking mirrors the obscure soul of the world, a darkness shining in brightness which brightness could not comprehend.” (James Joyce, Ulysses)

    PostScript: Cathy Young on surviving the Trumpocalypse
    The Reason also has a theory about the role of PC culture.

    btw, I seriously believe ALL leftists and liberals will do well to stay away from left-liberal social media and journalism for one week. Things will get better for them (and for everyone else) :) Really, the mutually reinforcing freakout is ridiculous (especially since some of the "intellectual elite" assisted in bringing this about through their own "woke" bullcrap)

    PPS: The PC culture post from reason (see above) has triggered some pushback. My response:

    I dont think that this one thing (political correctness) caused her to lose. It was just one factor. But it WAS a factor. I only know of universities through my kids and from social media etc, but it does seem that the better liberal universities have limitations on free speech (including, but NOT limited to insults and smears) that seem to exceed what can be considered reasonable. Beyond any formal restrictions (which also exist) there is a definite social pressure to conform to ideologies that are self-evidently true to their inventors and fans (as all ideologies are) but that seem laughable to outsiders. And you are not supposed to laugh. This pressure not to laugh can be oppressive. Like triggered students themselves, other modern people also tend to make a big deal of such subtle and almost immaterial "oppressions". It is a two way street..
    btw, If i was writiing this article I would not stress PC as such, but the relentless race-baiting ("White privilege" being its mildest form, "performativity of Whiteness" type "academic studies" being its apogee) and the mirror-image stylized (and frequently fake or tendentious) history and cultural studies that are taken for granted as the default truth (just like their mirror image "White man's burden" themes were taken for granted 150 years ago)....all this has made it easier for White racism to make a comeback among decent people (it never went away among the indecent ones). All of which is just one part of why Hillary lost.

    btw, if you think i am completely off base, do read Lena Dunham. 

    save image

    Listen from 3-30 mark onwards (btw, I dont think Bernie could have won, but we will never know)

    0 0
  • 11/15/16--21:37: Stephen Bannon Speaks..
  • Postscript: There is another Bannon profile in (of all places) The Hollywood Reporter that is worth a look. The man is serious. And he thinks he is Thomas Cromwell. Which is interesting, because some of you may remember that Cromwell was beheaded. By Henry the VIIIth, the king he so loyally served.

    Buzzfeed has an article that consists of the verbatim remarks of Stephen Bannon at a Vatican conference in 2014. Since this was pre-Trump, these are not filtered for the presidential campaign (though some of them may still be filtered the way all ideologues filter their public pronouncements keeping "the cause" in view).

    These remarks are interesting. That he is totally committed to a global war with Islam is no surprise. But I urge you to read the rest. And comment. Some of you will no doubt agree with his elite-bashing (and/or his Islam bashing), but there is a lot more in there. And he is now senior adviser to the US president. The worldview is definitely at odds with prevailing Western opinion, but is it "thick enough" and does it overlap enough with reality to stand on its own? and what happens if you try to put it into effect?

    What do you think?

    I think he is wrong on several simple matters of fact, not just on ideology (which i find wrong in any case). The notion of a historic Judeo-Christian West that has stood as one against the Islamic tide for centuries is just bunk. Judeo is a new apellation and he knows it. Christendom, yes, Judeo-Christian, certainly not. Which makes you think that he may have some nasty surprises up his sleeve for the Jews. But since he is focused on first smashing the Islamic threat, he will probably be good to Israel, for now. Those Jews who regard weak-minded liberal Western Jews as traitors (or at least, as softies) may be happy to embrace him. For now. Like Stalin did with Hitler, both parties can think "I am using him, for now, to become stronger". One party will of course turn out to be wrong. But all that is speculation. It may be that he is genuinely ignorant and really does think "Judeo-Christian civilization" has been bravely fighting Islam for 1400 years. We will see.. (Whatever his own inner beliefs, the Alt-Right he has promoted is not shy in its attitude towards Jews...if you check out the Alt-Right sites, you may find their obsession with ovens and trains less than reassuring).

    His whole theory about the only right kind of capitalism being "Judeo-Christian" seems shaky to me as well (though in this case he may not know it; i.e. these may be his sincere beliefs) but I will let experts comment. In fact, the whole banks and crony capitalist issue I will leave to the better informed. I dont think that is the scary part.

    The notion that "strong nations make good neighbors"is high grade, class A bullshit and he likely knows it, but who knows. He may not be that well informed. And his notion that Putin and the West can join hands in a grand White Christian alliance to first beat the shit out of Muslim barbarians is also bunk. Putin would much rather eat the Baltics, the Ukraine and maybe even Poland before he seriously starts any extermination campaign in the Stans.

    China and Japan get no significant mention.

    India gets approvingly cited for electing Modi, but in the greater scheme of things must surely prepare for Christianization if team Bannon wins the war (when push comes to shove, would you expect Bannon to stand with the Evangelicals or with Hindu nationalism? Do the math). Interin calculation is another matter. See Stalin and Hitler above. Some in India will no doubt see possibilities in the medium term. I don't because I think this is a flaky worldview that will damage the USA and the current system and not build anything better. India still needs the current system to grow in. Thats just my opinion.

    Overall, the current world system is to be trashed. In the melee that follows, what civilizations have the coherence and the strength to fight it out. And who wins? is a less violent reform possible? Is HE a less violent reformer?
    I still hope (and even expect) that we will not go too far from the current (irredeemably corrupt?) system, but here you have it: the senior adviser to Donald Trump, President Elect. President Elect IN the current system.

    Image result for Bannon

    Chunks of his remarks pasted below. The original is at Buzzfeed. 

    The remarks — beamed into a small conference room in a 15th-century marble palace in a secluded corner of the Vatican — were part of a 50-minute Q&A during a conference focused on poverty hosted by the Human Dignity Institute, which BuzzFeed News attended as part of its coverage of the rise of Europe’s religious right. The group was founded by Benjamin Harnwell, a longtime aide to Conservative member of the European Parliament Nirj Deva to promote a “Christian voice” in European politics. The group has ties to some of the most conservative factions inside the Catholic Church; Cardinal Raymond Burke, one of the most vocal critics of Pope Francis who was ousted from a senior Vatican position in 2014, is chair of the group’s advisory board.

    The transcript begins 90 seconds into the then-Breitbart News chairman’s remarks because microphone placement made the opening mostly unintelligible, but you can hear the whole recording at the bottom of the post.
    Here is what he said, unedited: (Big chunks, but not all, you have to go to the site to read the full thing, i recommend you do, i had no time to focus on the best excerpts)

    Steve Bannon: [World War I] triggered a century of barbaric — unparalleled in mankind’s history — virtually 180 to 200 million people were killed in the 20th century, and I believe that, you know, hundreds of years from now when they look back, we’re children of that: We’re children of that barbarity. This will be looked at almost as a new Dark Age.

    But the thing that got us out of it, the organizing principle that met this, was not just the heroism of our people — whether it was French resistance fighters, whether it was the Polish resistance fighters, or it’s the young men from Kansas City or the Midwest who stormed the beaches of Normandy, commandos in England that fought with the Royal Air Force, that fought this great war, really the Judeo-Christian West versus atheists, right? The underlying principle is an enlightened form of capitalism, that capitalism really gave us the wherewithal. It kind of organized and built the materials needed to support, whether it’s the Soviet Union, England, the United States, and eventually to take back continental Europe and to beat back a barbaric empire in the Far East.

    That capitalism really generated tremendous wealth. And that wealth was really distributed among a middle class, a rising middle class, people who come from really working-class environments and created what we really call a Pax Americana. It was many, many years and decades of peace. And I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.

    “I believe we’ve come partly offtrack in the years since the fall of the Soviet Union and we’re starting now in the 21st century, which I believe, strongly, is a crisis both of our church, a crisis of our faith, a crisis of the West, a crisis of capitalism.”

    And we’re at the end stages of a very brutal and bloody conflict, of which if the people in this room, the people in the church, do not bind together and really form what I feel is an aspect of the church militant, to really be able to not just stand with our beliefs, but to fight for our beliefs against this new barbarity that’s starting, that will completely eradicate everything that we’ve been bequeathed over the last 2,000, 2,500 years.

    Now, what I mean by that specifically: I think that you’re seeing three kinds of converging tendencies: One is a form of capitalism that is taken away from the underlying spiritual and moral foundations of Christianity and, really, Judeo-Christian belief.

    I see that every day. I’m a very practical, pragmatic capitalist. I was trained at Goldman Sachs, I went to Harvard Business School, I was as hard-nosed a capitalist as you get. I specialized in media, in investing in media companies, and it’s a very, very tough environment. And you’ve had a fairly good track record. So I don’t want this to kinda sound namby-pamby, “Let’s all hold hands and sing ‘Kumbaya’ around capitalism.”

    But there’s a strand of capitalism today — two strands of it, that are very disturbing.
    One is state-sponsored capitalism. And that’s the capitalism you see in China and Russia. I believe it’s what Holy Father [Pope Francis] has seen for most of his life in places like Argentina, where you have this kind of crony capitalism of people that are involved with these military powers-that-be in the government, and it forms a brutal form of capitalism that is really about creating wealth and creating value for a very small subset of people. And it doesn’t spread the tremendous value creation throughout broader distribution patterns that were seen really in the 20th century.

    The second form of capitalism that I feel is almost as disturbing, is what I call the Ayn Rand or the Objectivist School of libertarian capitalism. And, look, I’m a big believer in a lot of libertarianism. I have many many friends that’s a very big part of the conservative movement — whether it’s the UKIP movement in England, it’s many of the underpinnings of the populist movement in Europe, and particularly in the United States.

    However, that form of capitalism is quite different when you really look at it to what I call the “enlightened capitalism” of the Judeo-Christian West. It is a capitalism that really looks to make people commodities, and to objectify people, and to use them almost — as many of the precepts of Marx — and that is a form of capitalism, particularly to a younger generation [that] they’re really finding quite attractive. And if they don’t see another alternative, it’s going to be an alternative that they gravitate to under this kind of rubric of “personal freedom.”

    “Look at what’s happening in ISIS … look at the sophistication of which they’ve taken the tools of capitalism … at what they’ve done with Twitter and Facebook.”
    The other tendency is an immense secularization of the West. And I know we’ve talked about secularization for a long time, but if you look at younger people, especially millennials under 30, the overwhelming drive of popular culture is to absolutely secularize this rising iteration.
    Now that call converges with something we have to face, and it’s a very unpleasant topic, but we are in an outright war against jihadist Islamic fascism. And this war is, I think, metastasizing far quicker than governments can handle it.

    If you look at what’s happening in ISIS, which is the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant, that is now currently forming the caliphate that is having a military drive on Baghdad, if you look at the sophistication of which they’ve taken the tools of capitalism. If you look at what they’ve done with Twitter and Facebook and modern ways to fundraise, and to use crowdsourcing to fund, besides all the access to weapons, over the last couple days they have had a radical program of taking kids and trying to turn them into bombers. They have driven 50,000 Christians out of a town near the Kurdish border. We have video that we’re putting up later today on Breitbart where they’ve took 50 hostages and thrown them off a cliff in Iraq.

    That war is expanding and it’s metastasizing to sub-Saharan Africa. We have Boko Haram and other groups that will eventually partner with ISIS in this global war, and it is, unfortunately, something that we’re going to have to face, and we’re going to have to face very quickly.

    So I think the discussion of, should we put a cap on wealth creation and distribution? It’s something that should be at the heart of every Christian that is a capitalist — “What is the purpose of whatever I’m doing with this wealth? What is the purpose of what I’m doing with the ability that God has given us, that divine providence has given us to actually be a creator of jobs and a creator of wealth?”
    I think it really behooves all of us to really take a hard look and make sure that we are reinvesting that back into positive things. But also to make sure that we understand that we’re at the very beginning stages of a global conflict, and if we do not bind together as partners with others in other countries that this conflict is only going to metastasize.

    They have a Twitter account up today, ISIS does, about turning the United States into a “river of blood” if it comes in and tries to defend the city of Baghdad. And trust me, that is going to come to Europe. That is going to come to Central Europe, it’s going to come to Western Europe, it’s going to come to the United Kingdom. And so I think we are in a crisis of the underpinnings of capitalism, and on top of that we’re now, I believe, at the beginning stages of a global war against Islamic fascism.
    “With all the baggage that those [right-wing] groups bring — and trust me, a lot of them bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially— but we think that will all be worked through with time.”
    Benjamin Harnwell, Human Dignity Institute: Thank you, Steve. That was a fascinating, fascinating overview. I am particularly struck by your argument, then, that in fact, capitalism would spread around the world based on the Judeo-Christian foundation is, in fact, something that can create peace through peoples rather than antagonism, which is often a point not sufficiently appreciated. Before I turn behind me to take a question —

    Bannon: One thing I want to make sure of, if you look at the leaders of capitalism at that time, when capitalism was I believe at its highest flower and spreading its benefits to most of mankind, almost all of those capitalists were strong believers in the Judeo-Christian West. They were either active participants in the Jewish faith, they were active participants in the Christians’ faith, and they took their beliefs, and the underpinnings of their beliefs was manifested in the work they did. And I think that’s incredibly important and something that would really become unmoored. I can see this on Wall Street today — I can see this with the securitization of everything is that, everything is looked at as a securitization opportunity. People are looked at as commodities. I don’t believe that our forefathers had that same belief.

    Harnwell: Over the course of this conference we’ve heard from various points of view regarding alleviation of poverty. We’ve heard from the center-left perspective, we’ve heard from the socialist perspective, we’ve heard from the Christian democrat, if you will, perspective. What particularly interests me about your point of view Steve, to talk specifically about your work, Breitbart is very close to the tea party movement. So I’m just wondering whether you could tell me about if in the current flow of contemporary politics — first tell us a little bit about Breitbart, what the mission is, and then tell me about the reach that you have and then could you say a little bit about the current dynamic of what’s going on at the moment in the States.

    Bannon: Outside of Fox News and the Drudge Report, we’re the third-largest conservative news site and, quite frankly, we have a bigger global reach than even Fox. And that’s why we’re expanding so much internationally.

    Look, we believe — strongly — that there is a global tea party movement. We’ve seen that. We were the first group to get in and start reporting on things like UKIP and Front National and other center right. With all the baggage that those groups bring — and trust me, a lot of them bring a lot of baggage, both ethnically and racially — but we think that will all be worked through with time.
    The central thing that binds that all together is a center-right populist movement of really the middle class, the working men and women in the world who are just tired of being dictated to by what we call the party of Davos. A group of kind of — we’re not conspiracy-theory guys, but there’s certainly — and I could see this when I worked at Goldman Sachs — there are people in New York that feel closer to people in London and in Berlin than they do to people in Kansas and in Colorado, and they have more of this elite mentality that they’re going to dictate to everybody how the world’s going to be run.

     “Putin’s … very, very very intelligent. I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of.”
    Now, with that, we are strong capitalists. And we believe in the benefits of capitalism. And, particularly, the harder-nosed the capitalism, the better. However, like I said, there’s two strands of capitalism that we’re quite concerned about.

    One is crony capitalism, or what we call state-controlled capitalism, and that’s the big thing the tea party is fighting in the United States, and really the tea party’s biggest fight is not with the left, because we’re not there yet. The biggest fight the tea party has today is just like UKIP. UKIP’s biggest fight is with the Conservative Party.
    The tea party in the United States’ biggest fight is with the the Republican establishment, which is really a collection of crony capitalists that feel that they have a different set of rules of how they’re going to comport themselves and how they’re going to run things. And, quite frankly, it’s the reason that the United States’ financial situation is so dire, particularly our balance sheet. We have virtually a hundred trillion dollars of unfunded liabilities. That is all because you’ve had this kind of crony capitalism in Washington, DC. The rise of Breitbart is directly tied to being the voice of that center-right opposition. And, quite frankly, we’re winning many, many victories.
    On the social conservative side, we’re the voice of the anti-abortion movement, the voice of the traditional marriage movement, and I can tell you we’re winning victory after victory after victory. Things are turning around as people have a voice and have a platform of which they can use.

    “That center-right revolt is really a global revolt. I think you’re going to see it in Latin America, I think you’re going to see it in Asia, I think you’ve already seen it in India.”
    And you’re seeing that whether that was UKIP and Nigel Farage in the United Kingdom, whether it’s these groups in the Low Countries in Europe, whether it’s in France, there’s a new tea party in Germany. The theme is all the same. And the theme is middle-class and working-class people — they’re saying, “Hey, I’m working harder than I’ve ever worked. I’m getting less benefits than I’m ever getting through this, I’m incurring less wealth myself, and I’m seeing a system of fat cats who say they’re conservative and say they back capitalist principles, but all they’re doing is binding with corporatists.” Right? Corporatists, to garner all the benefits for themselves.

    And that center-right revolt is really a global revolt. I think you’re going to see it in Latin America, I think you’re going to see it in Asia, I think you’ve already seen it in India. Modi’s great victory was very much based on these Reaganesque principles, so I think this is a global revolt, and we are very fortunate and proud to be the news site that is reporting that throughout the world.

    Bannon: It’s exactly the same. Currently, if you read The Economist, you read the Financial Times this week, you’ll see there’s a relatively obscure agency in the federal government that is engaged in a huge fight that may lead to a government shutdown. It’s called the Export-Import Bank. And for years, it was a bank that helped finance things that other banks wouldn’t do. And what’s happening over time is that it’s metastasized to be a cheap form of financing to General Electric and to Boeing and to other large corporations. You get this financing from other places if they wanted to, but they’re putting this onto the middle-class taxpayers to support this.

    “I’m not an expert in this, but it seems that [right-wing parties] have had some aspects that may be anti-Semitic or racial … My point is that over time it all gets kind of washed out, right?”
    And the tea party is using this as an example of the cronyism. General Electric and these major corporations that are in bed with the federal government are not what we’d consider free-enterprise capitalists. We’re backers of entrepreneurial capitalists. They’re not. They’re what we call corporatist. They want to have more and more monopolistic power and they’re doing that kind of convergence with big government. And so the fight here — and that’s why the media’s been very late to this party — but the fight you’re seeing is between entrepreneur capitalism, and the Aspen Institute is a tremendous supporter of, and the people like the corporatists that are closer to the people like we think in Beijing and Moscow than they are to the entrepreneurial capitalist spirit of the United States.
    Harnwell: Thanks, Steve. I’m going to turn around now, as I’m sure we have some great questions from the floor. Who has the first question then?

    Q..... from your point of view especially, your experience in the investment banking world — what concrete measures do you think they should be doing to combat, prevent this phenomenon? We know that various sums of money are used in all sorts of ways and they do have different initiatives, but in order to concretely counter this epidemic now, what are your thoughts?

    “For Christians, and particularly for those who believe in the underpinnings of the Judeo-Christian West, I don’t believe that we should have a [financial] bailout.”
    Bannon: That’s a great question. The 2008 crisis, I think the financial crisis — which, by the way, I don’t think we’ve come through — is really driven I believe by the greed, much of it driven by the greed of the investment banks. My old firm, Goldman Sachs — traditionally the best banks are leveraged 8:1. When we had the financial crisis in 2008, the investment banks were leveraged 35:1. Those rules had specifically been changed by a guy named Hank Paulson. He was secretary of Treasury. As chairman of Goldman Sachs, he had gone to Washington years before and asked for those changes. That made the banks not really investment banks, but made them hedge funds — and highly susceptible to changes in liquidity. And so the crisis of 2008 was, quite frankly, really never recovered from in the United States. It’s one of the reasons last quarter you saw 2.9% negative growth in a quarter. So the United States economy is in very, very tough shape.

    And one of the reasons is that we’ve never really gone and dug down and sorted through the problems of 2008. Particularly the fact — think about it — not one criminal charge has ever been brought to any bank executive associated with 2008 crisis. And in fact, it gets worse. No bonuses and none of their equity was taken. So part of the prime drivers of the wealth that they took in the 15 years leading up to the crisis was not hit at all, and I think that’s one of the fuels of this populist revolt that we’re seeing as the tea party. So I think there are many, many measures, particularly about getting the banks on better footing, making them address all the liquid assets they have. I think you need a real clean-up of the banks balance sheets.


    Questioner: Thank you.

    Bannon: Great question.

    Questioner: Hello, Mr. Bannon. I’m Mario Fantini, a Vermonter living in Vienna, Austria. You began describing some of the trends you’re seeing worldwide, very dangerous trends, worry trends. Another movement that I’ve been seeing grow and spread in Europe, unfortunately, is what can only be described as tribalist or neo-nativist movement — they call themselves Identitarians. These are mostly young, working-class, populist groups, and they’re teaching self-defense classes, but also they are arguing against — and quite effectively, I might add — against capitalism and global financial institutions, etc. How do we counteract this stuff? Because they’re appealing to a lot of young people at a very visceral level, especially with the ethnic and racial stuff.

    Bannon: I didn’t hear the whole question, about the tribalist?

    Questioner: Very simply put, there’s a growing movement among young people here in Europe, in France and in Austria and elsewhere, and they’re arguing very effectively against Wall Street institutions and they’re also appealing to people on an ethnic and racial level. And I was just wondering what you would recommend to counteract these movements, which are growing.

    Bannon: One of the reasons that you can understand how they’re being fueled is that they’re not seeing the benefits of capitalism. I mean particularly — and I think it’s particularly more advanced in Europe than it is in the United States, but in the United States it’s getting pretty advanced — is that when you have this kind of crony capitalism, you have a different set of rules for the people that make the rules. It’s this partnership of big government and corporatists. I think it starts to fuel, particularly as you start to see negative job creation. If you go back, in fact, and look at the United States’ GDP, you look at a bunch of Europe. If you take out government spending, you know, we’ve had negative growth on a real basis for over a decade.

    And that all trickles down to the man in the street. If you look at people’s lives, and particularly millennials, look at people under 30 — people under 30, there’s 50% really under employment of people in the United States, which is probably the most advanced economy in the West, and it gets worse in Europe.

    And that’s what I think is fueling this populist revolt. Whether that revolt is in the midlands of England, or whether it’s in Middle America. And I think people are fed up with it.
    And I think that’s why you’re seeing — when you read the media says, “tea party is losing, losing elections,” that is all BS. The elections we don’t win, we’re forcing those crony capitalists to come and admit that they’re not going to do this again. The whole narrative in Washington has been changed by this populist revolt that we call the grassroots of the tea party movement.
    And it’s specifically because those bailouts were completely and totally unfair. It didn’t make those financial institutions any stronger, and it bailed out a bunch of people — by the way, and these are people that have all gone to Yale, and Harvard, they went to the finest institutions in the West. They should have known better.

    And by the way: It’s all the institutions of the accounting firms, the law firms, the investment banks, the consulting firms, the elite of the elite, the educated elite, they understood what they were getting into, forcibly took all the benefits from it and then look to the government, went hat in hand to the government to be bailed out. And they’ve never been held accountable today. Trust me — they are going to be held accountable. You’re seeing this populist movement called the tea party in the United States.

    “I certainly think secularism has sapped the strength of the Judeo-Christian West to defend its ideals, right?”

    Bannon: Could you summarize that for me?

    Harnwell: The first question was, you’d reference the Front National and UKIP as having elements that are tinged with the racial aspect amidst their voter profile, and the questioner was asking how you intend to deal with that aspect.

    Bannon: I don’t believe I said UKIP in that. I was really talking about the parties on the continent, Front National and other European parties.

    I’m not an expert in this, but it seems that they have had some aspects that may be anti-Semitic or racial. By the way, even in the tea party, we have a broad movement like this, and we’ve been criticized, and they try to make the tea party as being racist, etc., which it’s not. But there’s always elements who turn up at these things, whether it’s militia guys or whatever. Some that are fringe organizations. My point is that over time it all gets kind of washed out, right? People understand what pulls them together, and the people on the margins I think get marginalized more and more.
    I believe that you’ll see this in the center-right populist movement in continental Europe. I’ve spent quite a bit of time with UKIP, and I can say to you that I’ve never seen anything at all with UKIP that even comes close to that. I think they’ve done a very good job of policing themselves to really make sure that people including the British National Front and others were not included in the party, and I think you’ve seen that also with tea party groups, where some people would show up and were kind of marginal members of the tea party, and the tea party did a great job of policing themselves early on. And I think that’s why when you hear charges of racism against the tea party, it doesn’t stick with the American people, because they really understand.

    I think when you look at any kind of revolution — and this is a revolution — you always have some groups that are disparate. I think that will all burn away over time and you’ll see more of a mainstream center-right populist movement.

    “Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand.”

    Question: Obviously, before the European elections the two parties had a clear link to Putin. If one of the representatives of the dangers of capitalism is the state involvement in capitalism, so, I see there, also Marine Le Pen campaigning in Moscow with Putin, and also UKIP strongly defending Russian positions in geopolitical terms.

    Bannon: I think it’s a little bit more complicated. When Vladimir Putin, when you really look at some of the underpinnings of some of his beliefs today, a lot of those come from what I call Eurasianism; he’s got an adviser who harkens back to Julius Evola and different writers of the early 20th century who are really the supporters of what’s called the traditionalist movement, which really eventually metastasized into Italian fascism. A lot of people that are traditionalists are attracted to that.
    One of the reasons is that they believe that at least Putin is standing up for traditional institutions, and he’s trying to do it in a form of nationalism — and I think that people, particularly in certain countries, want to see the sovereignty for their country, they want to see nationalism for their country. They don’t believe in this kind of pan-European Union or they don’t believe in the centralized government in the United States. They’d rather see more of a states-based entity that the founders originally set up where freedoms were controlled at the local level.
    I’m not justifying Vladimir Putin and the kleptocracy that he represents, because he eventually is the state capitalist of kleptocracy. However, we the Judeo-Christian West really have to look at what he’s talking about as far as traditionalism goes — particularly the sense of where it supports the underpinnings of nationalism — and I happen to think that the individual sovereignty of a country is a good thing and a strong thing. I think strong countries and strong nationalist movements in countries make strong neighbors, and that is really the building blocks that built Western Europe and the United States, and I think it’s what can see us forward.

    You know, Putin’s been quite an interesting character. He’s also very, very, very intelligent. I can see this in the United States where he’s playing very strongly to social conservatives about his message about more traditional values, so I think it’s something that we have to be very much on guard of. Because at the end of the day, I think that Putin and his cronies are really a kleptocracy, that are really an imperialist power that want to expand. However, I really believe that in this current environment, where you’re facing a potential new caliphate that is very aggressive that is really a situation — I’m not saying we can put it on a back burner — but I think we have to deal with first things first.

    Questioner: One of my questions has to do with how the West should be responding to radical Islam. How, specifically, should we as the West respond to Jihadism without losing our own soul? Because we can win the war and lose ourselves at the same time. How should the West respond to radical Islam and not lose itself in the process?

    Bannon: From a perspective — this may be a little more militant than others. I think definitely you’re going to need an aspect that is [unintelligible]. I believe you should take a very, very, very aggressive stance against radical Islam. And I realize there are other aspects that are not as militant and not as aggressive and that’s fine.
    If you look back at the long history of the Judeo-Christian West struggle against Islam, I believe that our forefathers kept their stance, and I think they did the right thing. I think they kept it out of the world, whether it was at Vienna, or Tours, or other places… It bequeathed to use the great institution that is the church of the West.

    Because it is a crisis, and it’s not going away. You don’t have to take my word for it. All you have to do is read the news every day, see what’s coming up, see what they’re putting on Twitter, what they’re putting on Facebook, see what’s on CNN, what’s on BBC. See what’s happening, and you will see we’re in a war of immense proportions. It’s very easy to play to our baser instincts, and we can’t do that. But our forefathers didn’t do it either. And they were able to stave this off, and they were able to defeat it, and they were able to bequeath to us a church and a civilization that really is the flower of mankind, so I think it’s incumbent on all of us to do what I call a gut check, to really think about what our role is in this battle that’s before us.

    0 0
  • 11/21/16--06:19: