We are Allah Prast, and not Maharaja Prast. Nationalists are called: Pro-India, anti-Islam, traitors. https://youtu.be/6wFUTVikOO4
We want to protect our identity, resources, history, economic, Political, and social rights. Foot soldiers are exposed.
What horrible thing did you read today that shocked you?
Software Engineer | Traveller | Foodie1y
A 19-year-old Pakistani girl, Ayesha Rashan was admitted to Chennai's MGM Healthcare hospital with a severe case of heart dysfunction. After a wait, they were informed that the little girl would receive a heart transplant from a 69-year-old man. The surgery happened in January this year in Chennai, free of cost, and the girl was discharged last week and is doing well now.
Ayesha Rashan
The surgery was supposed to cost 35 lakh rupees but was fully funded by Aishwarya Trust, the doctors and the hospital itself. This was supposed to be good news but people in Pakistan are not happy about it. The 69-year-old man is a resident of Delhi who was declared brain-dead and had his heart taken out and transplanted to Ayesha Rashan. But this has infuriated some Pakistanis because it was a sin for Ayesha, who is a Muslim, to accept the heart of a Hindu man who has “bowed down before Hindu idols”. The heart inside her belongs to a Hindu, and therefore, it is a sin. According to them, the girl should have embraced death rather than going through the heart transplant procedure.
I cannot imagine how some people put their religion and religious beliefs ahead of someone’s life. For them, their religion and its orthodox practices are more important than somebody’s life. They are saying that an organ transplant is haram and against the wishes of Allah. While we should be celebrating the lengths Science has progressed and congratulating the doctors, the hospitals and the trust in making this surgery possible, both scientifically and financially, some people are lamenting because of absurd, baseless reasons.
The UN Resolutions Only Give us a Right of Accession. We Live in an Occupied Territory. https://youtu.be/hapSchQ0qoE
On Pakistan’s suggestion, our right to independence was limited to accession to Pakistan or accession to India.
The UN Resolutions Only Give us a Right of Accession
Dr Shabir Choudhry
Delivered at the UKPNP Conference, Luton, England – 25 November 2025
We Live in an Occupied Territory**
Many distinguished speakers before me have rightly highlighted the denial of fundamental rights, the absence of basic facilities, and the political repression endured by the people living in the territory occupied by Pakistan. Others have discussed the right to self-determination—an issue frequently misunderstood or deliberately distorted. Today, I want to clarify what the United Nations actually promised the people of Jammu and Kashmir, and what it did not.
1. The Myth of the “Right to Self-Determination”
Let me make this absolutely clear, without fear or hesitation:
The people of Jammu and Kashmir were never granted a right to self-determination under the UN resolutions.
In the first UNCIP Resolution of 13 August 1948, the term used was “future status” of Jammu and Kashmir. That phrase—future status—by definition included three possibilities:
1. Accession to Pakistan
2. Accession to India
3. Independence
In diplomatic language, “future status” allows for independence.
However, once Pakistan realised that “future status” could lead to an independent Jammu and Kashmir, they immediately objected. Consequently, Pakistan officially requested that the term “future status” be replaced with the limiting phrase:
“accession to Pakistan or accession to India.”
This Pakistani demand was accepted in the next UN Resolution on 5 January 1949.
Thus, because of Pakistan’s insistence, the UN no longer spoke about the “future status” of the State but restricted it to accession only.
2. Pakistan Blocked Independence at the United Nations
It is a painful historical truth that Pakistan—the country which calls itself our “advocate”, our “brother”, and our “defender”—was the one who eliminated the possibility of an independent Jammu and Kashmir at the UN.
Because of Pakistan’s intervention:
• Independence was removed from the UN framework
• The people of Jammu and Kashmir were offered only two options
• Accession to Pakistan
• Accession to India
This is not a matter of opinion. It is a historical fact recorded in UN documents.
3. My Stand: I Reject the Right of Accession
I want to say publicly and loudly:
I reject the right of accession.
My struggle has always been—and remains—for:
A united, independent, democratic, and secular State of Jammu and Kashmir.
I do not accept accession to Pakistan. I do not accept accession to India.
I accept only the sovereignty of my homeland.
4. Pakistan Offers Only One Option
The UN might offer two options, but Pakistan offers only one:
Join Pakistan.
If a Kashmiri demands democracy, secular governance, human rights, or national dignity, then immediately he is labelled:
• Pro-India
• Anti-Islam
• Anti-Pakistan
• A traitor
This is not an accident. It is a carefully engineered narrative created by the Pakistani establishment to incite ordinary people against Kashmiri nationalists.
This environment encourages hatred, violence, and in some cases, the killing of people who demand freedom and dignity. It is psychological warfare backed by religious manipulation.
5. UKPNP’s Clear and Consistent Position
The UKPNP stands firmly for:
• A united and independent Jammu and Kashmir
• A democratic and secular political system
• Non-violence
• Opposition to extremism and terrorism
· Peaceful struggle
· The state has no religion
· Religion is a personal matter for citizens.
Regardless of what the foot soldiers of the occupiers claim, our ideals are rooted in peace, dignity, and national sovereignty.
6. Why Our Region Suffers: Because It Is Occupied
Speakers before me have talked about the terrible conditions of health, infrastructure, communication, education, and employment. Yes—these problems exist. But they are not random.
They are the direct consequence of Pakistan’s illegal occupation.
Consider the following realities:
• Pakistan controls our Assembly.
• Pakistan controls our budget.
• Pakistan controls our bureaucracy.
• Pakistan controls 25 key sectors of our economy.
• Pakistan exploits our natural resources, especially hydropower and foreign remittances
In the hydropower sector alone, Pakistan extracts more than Rs 1 trillion per year from our rivers. Yet they spread the lie that “Pakistan feeds Azad Kashmir.”
No, we feed Pakistan.
Pakistan owes us billions.
7. Treason Factories and the Politics of Suppression
Soon after the creation of Pakistan, the military-bureaucratic establishment established what I call “treason factories”. Their purpose was to silence, discredit, and eliminate those who opposed Islamabad’s wrong policies.
These factories still operate today, controlling:
• Politics
• Religion
• Media
• Economy
• Social life
• Foreign policy
• Defence policy
Their Kashmir policy has caused death, destruction, division, and unimaginable suffering. But they refuse to learn. They continue to export extremism and fabricate narratives through paid agents and local collaborators.
8. Our Struggle Is Where We Stand
My respected friend Sadiq Subhani rightly said:
“Our struggle is on this side of the divide.”
We cannot liberate Jammu when we ourselves are shackled in Pakistani-occupied territory.
We cannot liberate Gilgit-Baltistan when we are denied basic rights in so-called “Azad” Kashmir.
However:
• Jammu must fight against India’s occupation
• The Valley must fight against Indian control
• Ladakh must fight against the force that occupies it
• Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan must fight against Pakistani occupation
We must coordinate, support one another, and work for a united goal, but each region must fight its own occupier.
9. Conclusion
The struggle for a united and independent Jammu and Kashmir is not only political—it is moral, legal, historical, and just. The UN did not give us the right to self-determination because Pakistan blocked it.
But no power can block the will of a nation determined to be free.
We demand:
• Freedom
• Dignity
• Sovereignty
• National unity
• Human rights
• An end to occupation
And no manufactured narrative, no establishment propaganda, and no treason factory will change this truth.
Thank you.
Summary of the UKPNP Conference- Our struggle is against the country that occupies us. https://youtu.be/AAkSDfHGGvI
The use of religion and guns proved to be disastrous. Pak treason factories are activated against those who challenge the occupiers.
The Hadith of the Horse: Intention, Morality, and the Ethics of Possession.
An Analytical Reflection, Dr Shabir Choudhry
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet (ï·º) said, "A horse may be kept for one of three purposes: for a man it may be a source of reward; for another it may be a means of living; and for a third it may be a burden (a source of committing sins). As for the one for whom it is a source of reward, he is the one who keeps his horse for the sake of Jihad in Allah's Cause; he ties it with a long rope on a pasture or in a garden. So whatever its rope allows it to eat, will be regarded as good, rewardable deeds (for its owner). And if it breaks off its rope and jumps over one or two hillocks, even its dung will be considered amongst his good deeds. And if it passes by a river and drinks water from it, that will be considered as good deeds for his benefit) even if he has had no intention of watering it. A horse is a shelter for the one who keeps it so that he may earn his living honestly and takes it as a refuge to keep him from following illegal ways (of gaining money), and does not forget the rights of Allah (i.e. paying the Zakat and allowing others to use it for Allah's Sake). But a horse is a burden (and a source of committing sins for him who keeps it out of pride and pretence and with the intention of harming the Muslims." The Prophet (ï·º) was asked about donkeys. He replied, "Nothing has been revealed to be concerning them except this comprehensive Verse (which covers everything) :--'Then whosoever has done good equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ant), Shall see it (its reward) And whosoever has done evil equal to the weight of an atom (or a small ) ant), Shall see it (Its punishment)." (99.7-8)
Sahih al Bukhari 3639.
Introduction
This narration by Abu Huraira (Sahih al-Bukhari 3646) presents a profound insight into Islamic ethics, specifically the role of intention (niyyah) in transforming ordinary actions into acts of worship—or sins. The Prophet Muhammad (ï·º) describes how a simple animal, such as a horse, depending on how it is used, may become:
1. A means of reward
2. A means of livelihood
3. A means of sin and burden
This hadith is one of the most elegant and comprehensive illustrations of the Islamic principle that nothing in life is neutral; it gains value from how it is used, why it is kept, and the intention behind it.
Although the context refers to horses, the underlying message applies today to modern tools, weapons, wealth, technology, vehicles, and even social status.
1. A Horse as a Source of Reward
The first category described by the Prophet (ï·º) is the person who keeps a horse for the sake of Allah, specifically for the defence of the community. At the time, a horse was equivalent to a modern military vehicle or strategic asset.
What is extraordinary is the extent of reward:
• Whatever the horse eats
• Wherever it wanders
• Even its dung
• Even drinking from a river without the owner’s knowledge
—all are recorded as good deeds.
This highlights several concepts:
a. Intention multiplies reward beyond action
Once a sincere intention exists, every consequence of that intention becomes a reward, even actions the owner never consciously performed.
b. Divine generosity
Allah’s mercy is such that He rewards not only intentional acts of worship but even the incidental and automatic effects of those acts.
c. Defence of justice is an act of worship
The hadith frames community defence not as war mongering, but as a noble responsibility undertaken for Allah’s sake, rooted in justice, protection, and peace.
2. A Horse as a Means of Honest Livelihood
The second category is the person who keeps a horse to earn a lawful living.
Here, the Prophet (ï·º) clarifies:
• It is permissible to own wealth, tools, or animals for work
• Earning a halal income is itself an act of worship
• A horse becomes “a shelter”—a means of dignity and independence
• The owner must not neglect Allah’s rights, such as charity
• The animal should not become a tool for exploitation or injustice
This is highly relevant today:
• A shopkeeper’s business
• A farmer’s tractor
• A driver’s car
• A student’s books
• A programmer’s laptop
• Any tool used to make an honest living
All can be sources of reward if used ethically.
3. A Horse as a Burden and Source of Sin
The third category is a powerful moral warning. A horse becomes a burden when:
• It is kept out of pride
• It becomes a symbol of status and arrogance
• It is used for showing off
• It becomes a means of harming or intimidating others
This is as relevant in our time as it was then. Modern equivalents include:
• A luxury car kept purely for vanity
• Weapons kept for intimidation or oppression
• Wealth used to humiliate the poor
• Technology used for mischief, spying, or manipulation
• Clothing, houses, or businesses kept for pride rather than necessity
In Islam, possession is not condemned; pride, abuse, and vanity are condemned.
This hadith, therefore, addresses the deep psychology of ownership, reminding believers that the value of wealth is determined by the heart that controls it.
5. Broader Lessons for the Modern World
This narration, though centred on horses, contains timeless wisdom that applies to contemporary life and society.
a. Intention determines value
A tool can be:
• worship
• livelihood
• corruption
Depending on how one uses it.
b. Wealth is morally neutral
Islam neither glorifies poverty nor idolises wealth.
It glorifies responsible stewardship.
c. Possessions must never become instruments of arrogance
Status symbols—then horses, now cars, houses, brands—can corrupt the soul.
d. Even unintended good is rewarded
Allah’s mercy extends beyond conscious deeds.
e. Accountability is universal and meticulous
Nothing escapes the divine scale.
6. Conclusion
This hadith encapsulates the Islamic philosophy of wealth, intention, and moral responsibility. A simple horse—the 7th-century equivalent of modern technology, property, or capital—can elevate a person spiritually, support an honest livelihood, or drag them into sin.
Its value lies not in the object itself, but in:
• the purpose for which it is kept
• the humility with which it is owned
• the ethics with which it is used
The Prophet’s (ï·º) message is timeless:
Human beings must control their possessions.
Their possessions must never control them.
The Emerging ‘New Tan’: Geopolitical Fault Lines and the Reconfiguration of South Asia
By Dr Shabir Choudhry
Introduction
About fourteen years ago, at a small meeting in London, I remarked that I could visualise another “Tan” emerging in the region. The term “Tan” was a reference to the suffix shared by many Central and South Asian states — Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and others — signifying territorial and often ethnic-political entities that were shaped or reshaped by imperial powers.
At the time, some thought my remark was speculative. But today, as tensions intensify between India and Pakistan, and as Afghanistan’s instability once again becomes a catalyst for regional turmoil, that prediction seems increasingly prescient. The possibility of another “Tan” — a newly defined territorial entity in or around Pakistan’s western belt — appears more plausible now than ever before.
Colonial Engineering and the Politics of Partition
To understand the logic behind a potential “new Tan,” we must revisit the imperial legacy of divide and rule. When the British left the subcontinent in 1947, they did not leave behind a united, peaceful South Asia. Instead, they left behind a fractured political geography — an India and a Pakistan divided not just by borders but by narratives of religious and civilizational opposition.
The creation of Pakistan, in this reading, was not merely an accident of communal politics but part of a deliberate imperial strategy: to prevent the emergence of a unified, resource-rich, and militarily capable power that could challenge Western strategic interests in Asia. Pakistan was to serve as both a buffer state and a proxy, containing India to the east and influencing Afghanistan, Iran, and Central Asia to the west.
For decades, Pakistan played this role effectively — as a Western ally during the Cold War, a partner during the anti-Soviet jihad in the 1980s, and a frontline state in the so-called War on Terror after 2001. But this usefulness has steadily diminished as Pakistan’s internal weaknesses have multiplied.
Pakistan’s Strategic Decline
Today, Pakistan faces multiple and simultaneous crises:
• Economic collapse driven by debt, corruption, and mismanagement.
• Political fragmentation with deep civil-military divides.
• Ethnic and regional discontent in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Sindh, and Punjab.
• Erosion of international credibility, as the country’s traditional allies — particularly the US and Gulf monarchies — reassess its strategic worth.
In geopolitical terms, Pakistan has become a problem rather than a solution for Western interests. It can no longer be relied upon to maintain regional balance or to act as a stabilising partner in Afghanistan or Central Asia.
Thus, from a strategic standpoint, the logic that created Pakistan may now favour the reconfiguration of Pakistan itself.
The Idea of a ‘New Tan’
The term “New Tan” refers not to a specific map but to an emerging geopolitical concept — the potential carving out of another entity from Pakistan’s northwestern and western territories to serve as a new buffer zone between global powers.
The territories that could form this “Tan” — parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the former FATA region, parts of Balochistan, and perhaps adjoining areas of eastern Afghanistan — are already zones of chronic instability. They are ethnically connected (predominantly Pashtun and Baloch), politically alienated from Islamabad, and strategically valuable because they sit on the fault line between South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
In essence, a new “Pashtunistan” or “AfPak Tan” could emerge under the following conditions:
1. A major war between India and Pakistan weakens the Pakistani state apparatus.
2. Western or regional powers intervene to “stabilise” the border regions.
3. Local militias and ethnic movements exploit the chaos to assert autonomy.
4. The international community, citing “security and governance” concerns, recognises a new de facto arrangement.
This process would not be entirely new — it would echo the imperial restructuring of borders that created Pakistan itself in 1947.
In essence, a new “Pashtunistan” or “AfPak Tan” could emerge under the following conditions:
1. A major war between India and Pakistan weakens the Pakistani state apparatus.
2. Western or regional powers intervene to “stabilise” the border regions.
3. Local militias and ethnic movements exploit the chaos to assert autonomy.
4. The international community, citing “security and governance” concerns, recognises a new de facto arrangement.
This process would not be entirely new — it would echo the imperial restructuring of borders that created Pakistan itself in 1947.
Historical Parallels: The Durand Line and the British Frontier Policy
The Durand Line, drawn by the British in 1893 to divide Afghanistan from British India, remains one of the most contentious borders in the world. It split Pashtun tribes and sowed the seeds for a century of cross-border tensions. When Pakistan inherited this line, it also inherited the Pashtun question — a persistent challenge to its national unity.
Similarly, the British also manipulated the Baloch frontier, separating it from Iran and Afghanistan to create a controllable buffer. These policies were part of the “Great Game” — the 19th-century contest between Britain and Russia for influence in Central Asia. Today’s geopolitical dynamics — involving the US, China, Russia, and regional actors like India and Iran — mirror that old contest in many ways.
Just as the British once created Pakistan to serve their interests, the current configuration of global power could lead to another artificial construct to serve new strategic goals — such as containing Chinese influence or managing transnational militancy.
Contemporary Catalysts: War, Militancy, and Realignment
Several developments now point toward a possible reconfiguration of Pakistan’s borders or internal structure:
1. India–Pakistan Escalation
A military conflict between India and Pakistan could trigger internal fractures in Pakistan, especially if the army is stretched across multiple fronts — the eastern border with India, western border with Afghanistan, and internal insurgencies in Balochistan and KPK.
2. Afghan Factor
The Taliban regime in Kabul, facing its own legitimacy crisis, may exploit Pakistan’s vulnerabilities to assert territorial claims or expand influence into the former FATA region. A resurgent cross-border Pashtun movement could align with this momentum.
3. Western Strategic Shifts
The US and its allies, seeking to counterbalance both China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Russia’s outreach in Central Asia, may view a restructured “buffer zone” as a means to reassert control — without the liabilities of direct occupation.
4. Internal Ethnic Pressures
Movements like the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) and the ongoing Baloch insurgency indicate deep-rooted alienation. These could form the grassroots justification for an externally encouraged redrawing of the map.
Can Pakistan Control the Situation?
Theoretically, Pakistan’s military establishment remains powerful. However, control is not stability. Islamabad can impose short-term order but cannot eliminate the structural causes of disintegration — economic dependency, ethnic suppression, and geopolitical manipulation.
Pakistan’s strategic geography, once its greatest asset, has become its Achilles’ heel: every external actor — from Washington to Beijing, from Tehran to Delhi — views Pakistan not as a partner but as a piece on the chessboard.
Unless Pakistan embarks on genuine internal reform — political federalism, economic transparency, and regional reconciliation — it may not be able to prevent further fragmentation.
The Strategic Logic Behind the ‘New Tan’
From a geopolitical lens, a new “Tan” would serve multiple objectives for external powers:
• For the West: A manageable buffer state replacing an unreliable Pakistan.
• For India: The neutralisation of Pakistan’s western threat and the weakening of its military establishment.
• For Afghanistan: Potential realisation of Pashtun irredentist claims.
• For China: A complication — but also an opportunity to consolidate its CPEC routes through secure zones.
In essence, the emergence of another “Tan” would reflect the rebalancing of global interests — a new round of the “Great Game” where borders are redrawn not for the people, but for strategic utility.
Conclusion: The Future of the ‘Tans’
When I spoke of another “Tan” more than a decade ago, it was not a prophecy but an observation of historical patterns — the way empires engineer states to serve their agendas. The British once created Pakistan to secure their imperial interests; today, the decline of Pakistan’s strategic value makes it vulnerable to the same logic that brought it into being.
The potential emergence of a new “Tan” — whether in the form of a Pashtun corridor, a semi-autonomous frontier zone, or a Western-managed security belt — would not be a surprise but a continuation of the unfinished colonial project.
The tragedy, however, is that once again, the people of the region — Pashtuns, Baloch, Punjabis, and others — may bear the human cost of geopolitical games waged in distant capitals.
Unless Pakistan redefines its purpose — not as a proxy for others, but as a sovereign, inclusive, and just state — it risks becoming, once again, the object rather than the author of history. End
Dr Shabir Choudhry is a London-based political analyst, author, and expert on South Asian affairs, with a focus on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Kashmir.
