Financial Times review of book 'Empires of the Indus'

Empires of the Indus: The Story of a River

By Alice Albinia

John Murray £20 384 pages

FT bookshop price: £16

Review by Paddy Docherty

Empires of the Indus is a magnificent book, a triumphant melding of travel and history into a compelling story of adventure and discovery.

Alice Albinia has taken her obsession with the great river and wrought a captivating account of her explorations through Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and Tibet, taking us hundreds of miles upstream and back in time to the earliest days.

She begins in Karachi in Pakistan, close to where the Indus enters the Arabian Sea.

By the time she reaches the source of the river in Tibet, we have been drawn through an array of peoples, cultures, landscapes and stories.

The book is deftly structured: the further upriver we journey, the deeper into history we go. This approach does not, however, tie Albinia narrowly to the river itself, and she branches off on numerous adventurous diversions around the cultural watershed of the Indus.

These forays, and her evident determination to track down little-known rock carvings or tribal villages, are enlightening.

I was especially taken by her burqa-clad and highly illegal journey through the tribal badlands of Waziristan, for which she surely deserves a medal.

Elsewhere, we follow her as she walks the path of Alexander the Great as he arrived at the Indus, and – clad in a piece of plastic sheet against the rain – tramping through snowy Tibetan mountains.

These exploits serve to illuminate or uncover rich historical evidence. Most notable is the deeply varied nature of the cultures and religions that grew or coalesced around the river: we learn of Sufi saints, river cults and Kalash practices besides Buddhism, Sikhism and Hinduism.

There are some surprising tales of collaboration between Muslims and Hindus and between Muslims and Sikhs – reminders that religions do not have to divide us – and many curious cultural fusions.

Hidden history is brought to light, notably a chapter on the Sheedi people of Sindh, descendents of African slaves now living as modern Pakistanis. Another surprise was the sexual current that runs through the book, from Pashtun catamites to Tibetan polyandry.

The entire journey is linked by a thread of the Rig Veda, the ancient Sanskrit hymns of worship which exalted the Indus as the ”Unconquered Sindhu”, river of rivers. Albinia is an engaging travelling companion with a quietly determined and gently humorous voice, often to be heard persuading bemused army officers or incredulous tribal leaders into letting her into forbidden places or across closed borders.

A reader cannot help but be delighted as she describes her discoveries, such as when she is led to an unexpected prehistoric stone circle in Kashmir:

“I hear myself gasping out loud. The circle is resplendent, majestic, isolated – a solid ring of stones in this silent, empty place. On our left is a sheer brown wall of rock, and the blue slither of the river; to our right, a wider, greener river, and a dark mass of mountains in the distance.

In the east, beyond the point where the rivers meet, snow-topped mountains shine fiercely in the afternoon light. I can almost hear, like a whisper, the footsteps of the people who created this circle.

For the first time in my life I want to get down on my knees and worship at this altar to human endeavour, to the power of Nature.”Her passion is infectious throughout; I felt Albinia’s relief and frustrations, her alarms and compulsions as I read. There is concern, too, for the riverside peoples and cultures, and for the river itself.

At times this anxiety even becomes sadness, a momentary lament for the impact of the modern world on the ancient Indus waters. Ultimately, though, this is an inspiring book, and readers with even a fraction of Albinia’s wanderlust will want to set off on their own explorations.

Paddy Docherty is the author of ‘The Khyber Pass: A History of Empire and Invasion’ (Faber)

Baloch provinces of Afghanistan seek independence

Courtesy: Baloch Voice

Different tribal and ethnic groups are trying to control their areas and declaring their autonomy from a non existing central authority in Afghanistan.
Baloch tribes of Nemroz, Helmand and Farah provinces in South Western Afghanistan have decided to secede from Kabul and to declare their independence, the Balochistan News Service reported on Nov 24, 2001.
The decision was taken unanimously by a tribal Jirga recently held in Nemroz province.
A five-member provisional committee was nominated to take the administrative control of the declared autonomous region with Karim Shagzai Muhammad Hassani as its head.
Baloch provinces of Nemroz, and Helmand.
The region is the agricultural back-bone of Afghanistan for its century’s old agricultural channels along the banks of River Helmand, border with District Chagai (Balochistan) of Pakistan in the south and Iranian Province of Seistan and Balochistan in the west.Both the provinces along with the southern part of Farah province is overwhelmingly inhabited by Baloch tribes like Mengal, Barakzai, Gorgegh, Baranzai, Mohamed Hassani, Naroi, Sanjarani and other Rakhshani tribes.
These are cross border tribes, also inhabiting the Chagai and Kharan districts of Pakistan and the adjoining areas of Iranian province of Seistan and Balochistan.The population of these tribes is said to be more than 1.2 million.
The action to take control of the Baloch areas by tribesmen was prompted by the attempts of a group of former Mujahideen supported by “foreign elements” to occupy Nemroz and Helmand after the withdrawal of Taliban warriors from the area in the first week of this month, a source told BNS.Political observers in the provincial capital Quetta, are of the opinion that Baloch Nationalist parties would welcome independence of these areas or the merger of these Afghan provinces into Pakistan.
Meanwhile, former member of National Assembly of Pakistan Sana Baloch in a statement appealed to western coalition not to consider inclusion of Nemroz, Helmand and Baloch majority areas of Farah provinces as part of southern Afghanistan, in a future political dispensation, in case of impending dissolution or disintegration of Afghanistan.He appealed for an autonomous status for the area.
He declares support to the tribes and said that Baloch tribes across the borders are ready to assist their brothers in Afghanistan if they are attacked or their areas are threatened by hostile forces.Political observers believe that in the eventuality of the disintegration of Afghanistan which is on the cards, Pakistan can claim this area for security reasons. It can also control the area indirectly with the help of its own frontier tribes of Chagai and Kharan.

India 'not a threat to Pakistan': Zardari

By Barbara Plett
BBC News
Sept 5

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari says India has never been a threat to Pakistan, and that militants in Indian-administered Kashmir are terrorists.
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he also seemed to acknowledge that his government has given consent to US air strikes in Pakistan.
The unorthodox views run counter to those held by Pakistan's military, which views India as a threat.
India and Pakistan have fought three wars but have made recent peace moves.
Deep suspicions
Pakistan's powerful military has long-defined India as an existential threat, and in the past it has given covert backing to the militants in Kashmir.
The two regional rivals did take part in a faltering peace process under the former president, General Pervez Musharraf. But suspicions always ran deep, and relations have soured recently.
Mr Zardari's comments thus mark a radical break with the past.
The Wall Street Journal also reports that Mr Zardari acknowledged that the US was firing missiles at militant targets inside Pakistan with his government's consent.
"We have an understanding, in the sense that we're going after an enemy together," it quotes him as saying.
But the Pakistani army is adamant that coalition forces do not have permission for such cross-border raids.
These incursions have stoked enormous anger in Pakistan - and Mr Zardari's comments may do the same.

Why Begum Khaleda and Sheikh Hasina should talk

The Daily Star

October 4, 2008

By Harun ur Rashid

A lot of articles have appeared in the newspapers recently on the proposed face- to-face dialogue between the two former prime ministers. Some writers and politicians doubt whether any fruitful outcome would emanate from their talks.
Barrister Rafique-ul Huq first raised the matter, expecting that a new dawn could rise in restoring healthy political environment in the country if the two national leaders talked to each other.
This is a commendable initiative, coming from an eminent barrister who, as a citizen of the country, has the right to propose such a meeting.

Furthermore, his standing is greater than other people's because he represented both the leaders before the courts at a difficult time in their personal lives.
The leaders will not talk about their personal matters, or about removing their dislike for each other, but about promoting representative democracy in the country.

There is a saying that the interests of a political party come before self-interest, and the interests of the country come before the interests of a political party.
Briefly, politics in the country since 1991 was characterised by and large by the following unsavoury practices:
-The mutual dislike for each other continued unabated between Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina. They did not speak to each other for years. As a result, confrontational politics prevailed.
-If one lady won the election and ran the government, the other lady and her party MPs boycotted the parliament on allegation of the election being rigged and non-cooperation in the parliament by the ruling party.

The issues were raised on the streets and violence would erupt among the supporters of rival parties.
-The prime minister became an authoritarian leader because of dynastic reasons. One is the wife of a slain president and the other lady is the daughter of assassinated president and founder of the nation.

Hardly any cabinet minister or MP had the courage to express different views on the prime minister's decisions.
-Politics became a big commercial investment because if one could become an MP, it was a gateway for him/her to make money by being corrupt and abusing power and privilege. If MPs and ministers became corrupt, bureaucrats were not far behind them.
Suspected corrupt ministers and MPs were never dismissed or put on trial, and corrupt individuals and musclemen moved freely under the patronage of influential politicians. Criminalisation of politics became a routine affair. A section of ministers and MPs had allegedly pampered criminal elements to make money by extortion as long as they could bring enough votes for politicians during the elections.
State institutions became weak, and it is alleged that successive governments appointed their own people in the state institutions.

In the perception of the public, there was almost a complete breakdown of integrity of some of the state institutions. Bureaucracy became politicised, and those who "did not go with the flow" were marginalised.
Given the confrontation between the two major parties since 1991, democratic norms and traditions totally disappeared from ethical standards of most of politicians.
Democracy in the country was dominated by tyrannical rule of the majority and a recalcitrant minority. The conduct of both parties had alienated an overwhelming majority of common people, and when 1/11 came there was a relief in the country.
But everyone realises that the caretaker government has been a stop-gap one and that an elected government has to run the country, and, therefore, politicians have an important role to play in restoring representative democracy in the country.
What should they talk about?It is assumed that the two leaders must have gone through a process of self-analysis and introspection when they were in prison. Socrates said that an unexamined life is not worth living.
The leaders must have taken stock of the past deeds of their parties' stalwarts and realised that there must be a new beginning in politics, which will not be influenced by money, muscle and corrupt elements.
Broadly, they need to talk about the following:

Acceptance of the outcome of a fair election with grace.
Role of ruling party and opposition in parliament.
No boycott of the sessions of parliament.
Political issues not to be settled on the streets.
Some guidelines for conduct of supporters during hartal.
Revision of the Constitution.

A few words about revision of the ConstitutionThe 1972 Bangladesh Constution provides for representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to rule of law (not merely rule by law) that places constraints on the government leaders on the extent to which the will of majority can be exercised against the rights of minority parties.
37 years of governance have demonstrated the pitfalls, and misinterpretation, of the provisions of the Constitution. Some of the amended provisions (such as Article 70) tend to be totally against the democratic norms of the Consitution, and they need to be deleted.
What is imperative is that provisions of the Constitution must be made explicity clear, with checks and balances on the separation of powers among the organs of the state --executive, legislative and judiciary. There exists an imbalance between the powers of the president and those of the prime minister, which needs to be rectified.
It does not matter whether their parties or members of civil society initiate the process of talks, if the two former prime ministers can arrive at a consensus on the issues mentioned above it will augur well for the country.
Politics is the art of the possible, as Bismarck said. Both the prime ministers have served the people, and it is always the politicians in all countries who provide service to the community. Politics is the highest call of service to people.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.