In our country, over the last twenty years, certain types of statements have gained momentum. One of the several statements is that we do not teach our true history in textbooks. In this regard, several people usually criticize social sciences or sometimes Pakistan Studies. Since this “statement war” was related to the war in Afghanistan, it will now end as a result of defeat of the United States and its allies.
It is noteworthy that in the modern world system and its laws according to which the world is living, the official position of the nations regarding the events is a mirror of the attempt to avoid these world laws. Thus, even the most powerful countries in the world have arranged their historical position according to the ideology of necessity and this is their “official history”.
If anyone has any doubts, look at the official history of the United States regarding New Mexico and read the facts from independent sources. Similarly, the way in which the Americans partnered with the Mafia during the formation of the CIA, do its facts match the official or academic history of the United States? Even the CIA, after World War II, left some so-called “wanted Nazis” on the condition that they provide their services against the Soviet Union.
Is it mentioned in American academic history? So it is not that we should hide the truth from the people. The truth comes to light to every nation of the world, but the official position of this nation is in accordance with the global political requirements. And this is a universal trend in this modern age. That is why official history has always been unreliable.
This fact is also known to those who exported this outdated statement about history to us. And they are well aware of those who were hired from our ranks to propagate this statement. But the irony is that the false narrators’ own statements were based on lies.
It is not true that the history presented in the textbooks of Pakistan is ‘false’ but it is that the official history of every country is arranged according to the theory of need. Incomplete truth is also a lie. Without telling the whole truth, the only purpose of putting Pakistan in a quandary is to discredit the nation, both from its state and from its history.
How much the local Liberals, who have been playing this hideous game for the last twenty years, themselves love the “truth” can be gauged from their position in the current situation of Afghanistan. These so-called liberals have not yet been able to persuade themselves to accept the defeat that the American media and world-class intellectuals are unhesitatingly admitting.
Even a well-known person like Najam Sethi last week said, “We have a lot of noise that the United States has been defeated. Yes, it has been defeated. But this is a physical defeat, not a political defeat.” It is being denied even after accepting defeat.
Najam Sethi at one time has been a militant. How can he be unaware of the fact that sometimes physical defeat is a prelude to political defeat and sometimes political defeat is the cause of physical defeat. But the two are inseparable.
Never in the known history of the world has a country that has suffered a defeat in Battlefield escaped a political defeat. In this regard, history is so ruthless that even some physical conquerors suffered political defeats. Take India, for example. In Kashmir, the country has been the physical winner for 70 years, but on the political front, he is still looking for victory.
Now the question is, how United States suffered a political defeat in Afghanistan? If you look closely, this defeat has started alongside the Doha talks. In the war in Afghanistan, the United States and its allies were the sole controllers of the issue. No country other than the United States and its allies dared to show any global activity in Afghanistan.
But soon the Doha talks begins, activities began in Moscow. Afghan stakeholders have made several visits to Moscow. And there, under the Russian umbrella, they openly discussed their future. It is noteworthy that all these periods of conversation took place in a very cordial manner.
Even a man from an American camp like Hamid Karzai seems to be soft-spoken for Moscow and Beijing these days, while he is seen criticizing Washington. Does anyone doubt that Moscow and Beijing’s relations with Washington have reached their worst in recent years?
As soon as the Doha negotiations took place, the United States was virtually defeated. Globally, Russia and China are the only countries that are acceptable to Afghan stakeholders. And that supremacy is America’s gradual political defeat. To prevent this defeat, the only option now left for the United States and its allies, such as India, is to begin a civil war in Afghanistan that they have created in recent years by harboring Afghan ISIS and arming civilians.
They will try to thwart Moscow and Beijing by keeping Afghanistan unstable permanently. But the problem is that there is no tall figure in Afghanistan under whose umbrella any major misadventure can take place. So it seems that after September 11, Moscow, Islamabad and Beijing’s activities in Afghanistan will accelerate. And peace in Afghanistan is in the interest of all three countries.
