The Journey of African Americans: From Slavery to Empowerment

The Journey of African Slaves to Freedom in America

Even today, the African American community in the United States continues to face racial discrimination, but over the years, social and political movements have given them newfound confidence and a strong sense of identity.

When any group or minority lives under the oppressive rule of the state or majority, it is denied the opportunity for growth and is often condemned to a life of poverty. Historically, when racism, sectarianism, and caste-based hatred have isolated and segregated a group from society, all paths for their development have been blocked. This often forces the marginalized group into servitude, doing menial labor or carrying out degrading tasks for the dominant classes.

In the Indian subcontinent, this situation can be compared to that of the Dalits. In the United States, African slaves brought from Africa were treated as property upon their arrival, having no rights or identities of their own. Slave owners would even change their names, for names symbolized ownership. Their religion was also altered, and they were converted to Christianity, losing their original cultural and linguistic ties in the process.

In the Southern states of America, these slaves worked in vast plantations and mined for minerals. They had no family life—parents could be sold off to different owners, and children as young as eight or nine were forced to work. Their living conditions were deplorable, often housed in small, unsanitary quarters with very little food. Their lives were governed by fear of punishment and constant labor. It was also law that they could not receive an education, which kept them illiterate and under the complete control of their masters.

When oppression reached unbearable levels, slaves attempted to escape. Occasionally, groups would rebel, but these uprisings were harshly crushed. African slaves and Native Americans had a key difference—Native Americans had tribal identities, cultures, and histories that allowed them to resist in unique ways. To quash their resistance, the U.S. government confined Native Americans to reservations, essentially cutting them off from society. However, this policy was not applicable to African slaves because they had no land or tribal identity to fall back on. Their only unifying factor was their shared black skin, and their proximity to white people only heightened their awareness of the racism they faced.

After the American Civil War in 1863, which abolished slavery, African Americans faced a new set of challenges. How would they secure jobs? How could they break free from the chains of slavery? How could they find new avenues for progress?

It was during this period that a few prominent figures emerged to guide the African American community, one of whom was Booker T. Washington (1856-1915). Born during the era of slavery, Washington worked in a salt factory and a coal mine during his youth. However, his passion for education led him to study at night under the guidance of literate individuals. After emancipation, he traveled 500 miles to attend a school founded by white sympathizers of African Americans.

Once educated, Washington realized that the key to African American advancement lay in education. He went on to establish the Tuskegee Institute, relying on donations from the African American community, which were often modest. Along with his students, Washington helped construct the school buildings and even purchased land for farming. He taught his students not only academics but practical skills such as agriculture and other trades. He also emphasized the importance of maintaining proper etiquette, cleanliness, and discipline, ensuring that his students were not just educated but also well-rounded and respectful.

Washington's philosophy was grounded in the belief that African Americans should work alongside white people and find common ground through cooperation. He argued that African Americans had contributed to American progress through their hard work, whether as domestic servants or through their loyalty and endurance. He believed it was now the responsibility of white Americans to pay back the debt they owed to African Americans by granting them basic civil rights.

However, there were also movements for both integration and self-defense within the African American community. In the 1960s, the Civil Rights Movement succeeded in dismantling the tradition of racial segregation in the Southern states, but underlying prejudices persisted among white Americans. This led to the emergence of groups like the Black Panthers, who engaged in violent confrontations with the police, though the movement was eventually suppressed.

On the other hand, Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement, which advocated for nonviolence, also faced setbacks, especially after his assassination. The legacy of both violent and nonviolent resistance movements is that African Americans found unique ways to express their culture, notably through music and sports. The study of Black History was introduced in universities, and African American historians, such as W.E.B. Du Bois, sought to reconnect with their African roots, even planning works like the Encyclopedia of Africanism.

Though racial prejudice against African Americans remains a significant issue today, the ongoing social and political movements have empowered the community with renewed confidence and a strong sense of identity. Their struggle is far from over, but their journey toward equality and recognition continues relentlessly.

1. Faneuil Hall and Boston’s Wealth from Slavery

Boston's Faneuil Hall symbolizes both revolutionary ideals and the wealth derived from the Transatlantic Slave Trade, underscoring the city's involvement in selling enslaved Africans trafficked through the Middle Passage.

2. Scale and Routes of the Slave Trade

Between 1560 and 1850, 12 million Africans were forcibly transported via the Triangle Trade, with Brazil receiving 4.8 million, the Caribbean 4.7 million, and only 4%—or 388,000—arriving in North America.

3. Horrors of the Middle Passage

The 80-day Middle Passage subjected enslaved Africans to horrific conditions, leading to 15% mortality rates, as survivors like Ottobah Cugoano recounted its dehumanizing brutality.

4. Voices from the Middle Passage

Accounts from those who endured or participated in the Transatlantic Slave Trade provide harrowing personal insights into its human cost and systemic exploitation.

5. Boston’s Involvement in the Slave Trade

Boston’s first slave voyage in 1637, legal slavery in Massachusetts, and over 166 transatlantic voyages established the city as a significant player in the trade of enslaved Africans.

6. The Slave Economy and Boston

Boston supported slavery through exports like rum and sugar and held over 1,000 advertisements for enslaved individuals, exposing its complicity in the Triangle Trade.

7. Peter Faneuil’s Role

Prominent merchant Peter Faneuil profited from slavery-related goods and financed slaving voyages, making slavery central to his economic success despite not being a major trader.

8. Cultural Legacy of Enslaved Africans

Enslaved Africans blended their diverse cultural traditions into vibrant creolized societies, influencing food, music, and rituals in Boston and across the colonies.

9. Calls for Freedom During Revolution

Boston's enslaved people petitioned for freedom during the Revolution, exposing the contradiction of fighting for liberty while maintaining slavery, though change came slowly.

10. Abolition of the Slave Trade

Massachusetts declared slavery unconstitutional in 1783, and by 1808, the transatlantic slave trade was banned in both Britain and the United States.

 

Iran vs Israel

 

Why Are Iran and Israel Enemies?

Iran and Israel, once allies, have become fierce adversaries, particularly since Iran’s Islamic Revolution. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian consulates in Syria and Iran’s counterattacks with drones and missiles exemplify this ongoing rivalry, which has intensified over recent decades. Iran openly expresses its desire to erase Israel from the map, while Israel considers Iran its greatest adversary.

A Historical Shift

Before Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Israel and Iran shared a cooperative alliance. Iran was one of the first nations to recognize Israel in 1948, viewing Israel as a counterbalance against Arab nations. In exchange for oil, Israel provided Iran with technical expertise, training Iranian agricultural specialists and supporting its armed forces.

Changing Relations After 1979

The 1979 revolution marked a turning point, as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his religious regime dissolved previous treaties with Israel. Iran began vocally opposing Israel’s control over Palestinian territories, with its increasingly severe rhetoric aimed at gaining support from regional Arab populations and expanding its own influence.

When Israel intervened in Lebanon’s civil conflict in 1982, Khomeini sent the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to Beirut to back local Shia militias. The Hezbollah militia, which grew from this support, is now a key Iranian proxy in Lebanon.

Present-Day Relations

Iran's current Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, continues the anti-Israel stance, frequently questioning the Holocaust’s narrative and opposing any form of compromise with Israel.

• Is the war between Iran and Israel a war of religion and ideology or is it a struggle for dominance in the region?

The complex relationship between Iran and Israel encompasses a blend of religious, ideological, and geopolitical factors, though many analysts view the conflict as fundamentally rooted in a struggle for regional dominance with religion as a powerful but secondary component.

1. Ideological and Religious Dimensions

• Religious Rhetoric: The animosity includes religious undertones, particularly from Iran's leadership, which often frames Israel as an “illegitimate Zionist entity.” This aligns with Iran's role as a Shia Muslim theocracy, positioning itself against Israel, which it portrays as a Western-backed, secular state in the heart of the Islamic Middle East​.
• Ideological Rivalry: Iran’s revolutionary ideology, which opposes Western influence and promotes a model of Islamic governance, is fundamentally at odds with Israel's democratic system and its alliances with the West, particularly the United States​.

2. Geopolitical and Strategic Motivations

• Regional Dominance: Both nations are vying for influence in the Middle East. Iran has expanded its presence in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen through proxy groups like Hezbollah, which is a key part of its “Axis of Resistance” against Israel. Israel, in turn, seeks to curb Iranian influence by countering these proxies and limiting Iran’s reach, particularly near its own borders​.
• Nuclear Ambitions: Iran’s nuclear program adds another layer, as Israel perceives a nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat. Israel’s preventive measures against this—such as alleged cyber attacks and airstrikes on Iranian assets—reflect a strategic attempt to maintain military superiority in the region​.

3. National Security and Existential Threats

• Mutual Perception as a Threat: Both states view each other as significant threats to their national security. Iran views Israel’s alliance with Western powers, particularly the United States, as a containment strategy aimed at Iran’s isolation. Conversely, Israel sees Iran's support for anti-Israel groups and its military expansion as efforts to encircle and threaten Israel​.

While religion and ideology amplify the tension, the core of the Iran-Israel conflict lies in regional dominance and security concerns. Iran’s support for armed groups in opposition to Israel and its nuclear ambitions challenge Israel’s position, while Israel actively works to counterbalance Iran’s influence. Thus, though religious rhetoric is evident, this rivalry is driven largely by geopolitical strategies and power struggles.

 

Debates Within Iran

Not all Iranians support the government’s antagonistic approach toward Israel. Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani’s daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, suggested in a 2021 interview that Iran reconsider its relationship with Israel, highlighting that alliances with Russia and China overlook the treatment of Muslims in Chechnya and Xinjiang.

There are still more than 20,000 Jewish residents living in Iran

Sadegh Zibakalam, a political science professor at Tehran University, criticized Iran’s policy on Israel, stating it isolates the country on the international stage.

• Do the Iranian people want war or is this a strategy of the ruling Iranian political party to hold on to power?

The general sentiment among the Iranian people tends to be against war, particularly with Israel or the West. Many Iranians prioritize economic stability, improved living standards, and greater social freedoms, rather than conflict. Polls and studies, while sometimes limited in scope due to restrictions within Iran, indicate that a significant portion of the population seeks reform and wishes for normalized relations with other nations, including the West and neighboring countries, rather than confrontational policies​.

Strategy of the Iranian Political Leadership

Iran’s ruling authorities, particularly hardline factions within the government, use anti-Israel and anti-West rhetoric strategically. This approach serves multiple purposes:

• Maintaining Unity and Control: By emphasizing external threats, Iranian leaders are able to promote a narrative of national solidarity against foreign "enemies," which can help divert attention from domestic issues such as inflation, unemployment, and political repression.
• Legitimizing Their Rule: Iran’s Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guard Corps often portray themselves as protectors of Islamic and Iranian values against Western influence, justifying their power and strict policies as necessary for national security.

Public Sentiment vs. Government Stance

The Iranian public's views frequently contrast with those of their government. For example, during major protests, such as those in 2009 (the Green Movement) and 2019 (economic protests), many Iranians voiced dissatisfaction with their government’s foreign policies, especially its involvement in regional conflicts like those in Syria and Yemen. Economic hardships stemming from sanctions and the government’s military expenditures abroad have also fueled domestic discontent​.

The Iranian government’s stance on regional conflicts and its anti-Israel rhetoric are more likely strategies to consolidate internal control and assert regional influence. Meanwhile, the Iranian populace generally favors peace and economic reform over war. This divide highlights the complexity of Iran's internal politics, where the government’s foreign policy often does not reflect popular opinion.

 

Power Dynamics

Though Iran possesses a vast missile arsenal, including the Shihab series and Zolfaghar missiles, Israel’s advanced technology, missile systems, and defense capabilities (such as the Iron Dome) offer it a robust defense against missile and drone threats.

In terms of conventional military forces, Israel’s technological superiority in air and missile defense surpasses Iran’s, despite Iran's greater population and larger standing army.

The rivalry also extends into cyber warfare, where Israel’s sophisticated digital infrastructure makes it vulnerable to Iran’s increasing cyber capabilities. However, Iran’s defense systems remain less advanced, making its own networks susceptible to counterattacks.

This complex, decades-long enmity continues to shape regional alliances and tensions across the Middle East.

Who Holds More Military Power: Iran or Israel?

The military power dynamics between Iran and Israel are complex, influenced by distance, technological capabilities, and differing defense strategies. Despite the 2,152-kilometer gap, Iran has demonstrated the reach of its missiles, proving significant progress in its missile program.

Iran is home to the Middle East’s largest and most diverse missile program, reportedly possessing over 3,000 ballistic missiles, according to U.S. Central Command’s General Kenneth McKenzie in 2022. On the other hand, Israel’s missile capabilities remain less public, though it is widely recognized as having the most advanced missile stockpile in the region. Over the last six decades, Israel has developed missiles, both domestically and through collaboration with allies, notably the United States, and even exports them. Notable missiles in Israel’s arsenal include the Delilah, Gabriel, Jericho series, and Popeye, among others. Israel's "Iron Dome" defense system, however, stands as a unique asset, effectively intercepting a range of incoming threats, including rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.

According to Israeli missile defense engineer Uzi Rubin, the Iron Dome is unmatched worldwide, serving as a reliable short-range defense system. Conversely, Iran, a larger nation by both land and population, presents its own advantages. However, comparing these factors alone doesn't directly translate to greater military power. Israel allocates substantial funds to its defense budget—nearly $24 billion compared to Iran's $10 billion—enhancing its technological and defensive superiority.

While Iran has approximately 610,000 active military personnel, significantly more than Israel's 170,000, Israel excels in advanced technology and air force capabilities, boasting 241 fighter jets and 48 attack helicopters compared to Iran's 186 jets and 13 helicopters. Iran has focused heavily on missile and drone capabilities, producing both short- and long-range options. These have occasionally appeared in regional conflicts, including missile strikes attributed to Iranian support in Yemen.

Key missiles in Iran's inventory include the Shihab series, capable of up to 2,000 kilometers, and the Zolfaghar, which can target at ranges up to 700 kilometers. Recently, Iran added the Fateh-110 hypersonic missile with a range of 300-500 kilometers, marking advancements in its missile technology. Yet, while Iran has launched hundreds of missiles, Israel’s history of guerrilla operations on foreign soil showcases a tactical edge.

In terms of cyber warfare, both nations engage heavily, though Israel’s advanced digital infrastructure presents vulnerabilities against Iran's cyber capabilities, balancing the technological disparities with cyber strategies. This sophisticated and multifaceted rivalry between Iran and Israel thus spans missile technology, military budgets, and the shadowy domain of cyber defense, shaping their regional standoff.

 

Can Watching a Film Change Political Beliefs?

We forget what we read in books.

But!
We are often reminded of movies.
The screams are remembered,
Does the movie leave such a deep impression On the us?

Brief History of Film-making

Film making began in the late 19th century with inventors like Thomas Edison and the Lumière brothers, who created early motion picture cameras and projectors. In 1895, the Lumières presented some of the first public screenings of short films in Paris, an event considered the birth of cinema. As technology evolved, so did film techniques, with the introduction of sound in the 1920s, color in the 1930s, and, much later, digital cinematography in the 21st century. Today, films range from blockbusters to indie productions, shaping culture and storytelling across the world.

A Brief on Film’s Story, Characters, and Emotions

A film's story generally follows a narrative arc, presenting conflicts and resolutions that reveal characters’ depth and growth. Characters are designed to engage audiences on an emotional level, often embodying relatable struggles, virtues, and flaws. Films typically evoke a range of emotions—joy, sorrow, fear, anticipation—that connect viewers to the story, helping them experience different lives, cultures, and perspectives. Emotional connections with characters often enhance the impact of the storyline, making viewers feel more engaged and invested.

Role of Emotions in Film

Emotions are a film’s primary tool for connecting with the audience. They help communicate themes, build tension, and deliver meaningful messages. For instance, a well-crafted drama may evoke empathy, while a thriller may stir suspense or fear. By carefully controlling the emotional flow through lighting, music, dialogue, and cinematography, filmmakers can guide viewers’ feelings and attitudes. This emotional journey is central to a film's impact, as it shapes how audiences interpret the story and respond to its message.

How Does a Film Affect a Person?

Films can impact people psychologically and emotionally, sometimes even altering their views and attitudes. Emotional experiences in film allow viewers to "live" the story, fostering empathy or challenging beliefs. This can lead to shifts in personal attitudes, especially regarding societal issues, justice, and interpersonal relationships. By immersing people in scenarios outside their own experiences, films can promote greater understanding, empathy, and sometimes even action.

 

Can Watching a Film Change Political Beliefs?

A recent scientific study suggests that viewing a documentary about a wrongfully convicted individual can foster empathy toward prisoners and increase support for reforms in the U.S. criminal justice system.

The documentary, Just Mercy, recounts the story of Walter McMillian, a 45-year-old African American man from Alabama who was arrested in 1986 for a murder he did not commit. Although McMillian was innocent—he was at a family gathering during the crime—he was sentenced based on false testimony from an eyewitness. Before his conviction was overturned, McMillian spent six years on death row. This true story was adapted into a documentary in 2019 under the title Just Mercy, with Academy Award-winning actor Jamie Foxx portraying McMillian.

Since the 1890s, when the first moving images were introduced, filmmakers have sought to shift public perceptions and moral values through cinema. Now, American scientists have studied the effects of film on empathy and attitudes toward the justice system, exploring how watching a movie can alter an individual's emotional intelligence and ethical stance on criminal justice.

This study, published in the journal PNAS on October 21, revealed that viewing a documentary about the wrongful sentencing and eventual release of an inmate heightened viewers' empathy toward prisoners and increased support for justice system reforms.

Marianne Reddan, a professor at Stanford University and co-author of the study, noted, "[Our study] shows that the film allowed participants to see the world from another’s perspective, even when that individual faced societal stigma. This shift in perspective wasn’t just a fleeting reaction."

Reddan further explained, "This research highlights the importance of exposing people to experiences vastly different from their own, as it contributes to building healthier communities and fostering a robust political framework."

The study recorded an increase in empathy for incarcerated men among viewers of the film, an effect observed across participants with varying political affiliations, whether leaning left or right.

Film, Emotions, and Societal Polarization

Jussi Knaus-Bajow, a film studies researcher at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland, remarked, "The novelty of this study lies in its exploration of how films can alter viewers' perceptions and behaviors—especially how a film like Just Mercy can act as a ‘call to action.’"

The idea that a film can change minds isn’t new. According to Knaus-Bajow, "Filmmakers are like wizards; they have been experimenting with the impact of editing and cinematic techniques on viewers’ perceptions and emotions since the early days of cinema."

British filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock conducted a famous experiment that illustrates this effect: in one scene, a woman with a child is shown, followed by a man smiling, conveying a sense of kindness. In another scene, the same man is shown smiling after a shot of a woman in a bikini, which instead suggests lust.

Knaus-Bajow explains that filmmakers frequently play with this knowledge because films offer a unique, safe environment where viewers can experience unfamiliar emotions. However, this power also places a responsibility on filmmakers regarding their influence over audiences.

Using Just Mercy as an example, Knaus-Bajow describes how it was deployed as a tool to inspire progressive change in the justice system.

On the other hand, he warns, filmmakers can also incite antagonism or hatred, as propaganda films have long been used to dehumanize groups, justify violence or war, and promote false narratives or pseudoscience.

 

Has Film Been Used for Ideological or Political Propaganda?

Yes, film has frequently been used as a medium for ideological and political propaganda. Governments, organizations, and filmmakers have often used film to influence public opinion, from the early days of cinema up to the present. For example, during World War II, both Allied and Axis powers created propaganda films to bolster patriotism and demonize enemies. In more modern times, films still reflect and sometimes promote political agendas or ideologies, shaping how audiences view various social and political issues.

 

The History and Methods of Electoral Manipulation in Pakistan

Dirty Elections

Whether we speak of democracy or elections, the roots of both concepts trace back to ancient Greece and Rome. The word “democracy” itself is derived from two Greek words: "demos," meaning people, and "kratos," meaning power—thus, "the power of the people." It is widely acknowledged that the early model of democracy originated from the Greek civilization.

Elections also find their earliest expression in ancient Greece and Rome. Athens, for instance, was a democratic state, where electoral reforms were established on democratic principles. Much of this credit goes to Cleisthenes, a lawmaker from ancient Athens, who laid the foundation of Athenian democracy around the 5th century BCE. Under his reforms, all male citizens of the state were granted the right to vote. For this reason, historians have bestowed Cleisthenes with the title of "The Father of Democracy."

Similarly, in medieval Bengal, during the Pala dynasty, Emperor Gopala was elected through a formal voting process in the 8th century CE. The 17th century saw the rise of elections in Europe, followed by North America in the 18th century. However, even within these democratic systems, women were denied the right to vote until the 20th century. Women fought long and hard to secure this fundamental human right.

The Evolution of Voting in the Indian Subcontinent

In the Indian subcontinent, the concept of governance by consensus predates formal voting systems. The Panchayat system, prevalent from around 500 BCE during the Mauryan era, functioned without formal voting, but the community’s acceptance was crucial for the Panchayat's legitimacy.

For thousands of years, the subcontinent was governed by monarchies, feudal states, and princely systems. Afterward, the East India Company ruled, and following the 1857 War of Independence, Britain formally made India its colony.

It wasn’t until 1909, with the introduction of the Indian Councils Act, that the British Parliament granted limited electoral rights to the local population. This Act is known as the "Minto-Morley Reforms," named after Lord Minto, the Governor-General of India, and Lord Morley, the Secretary of State for India. The democratic systems we see today in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh have their roots in these British reforms. The elections held in 1920 were the first where limited voting rights were granted to the Indian people, but suffrage was restricted to property owners and tax-paying citizens.

The Birth of Pakistan and Early Electoral History

When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, it did not have a constitution of its own. To address this, the Government of India Act 1935 was amended and adopted as the interim constitution. Before Pakistan’s independence, Lord Mountbatten issued an order on July 26, 1947, establishing the new Constituent Assembly of Pakistan. This assembly, composed of members elected in 1945 from areas becoming part of Pakistan, became responsible for drafting the nation's constitution.

The assembly's inaugural session took place on August 10, 1947, in Karachi, and Jogendra Nath Mandal was elected as the temporary president. This assembly was tasked with drafting Pakistan’s new constitution, while the 1935 Act served as the provisional legal framework.

On March 12, 1949, Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly adopted the Objectives Resolution, a foundational document for the future constitution. It laid the groundwork for an Islamic democratic state, diverging from the European-style democratic systems. In 1985, under General Zia-ul-Haq's rule, the Objectives Resolution was incorporated into the Pakistani Constitution through the 8th Amendment, giving it formal legal status.

Electoral Fraud in Pakistan: A Recurring Theme

Historically, electoral fraud has occurred at various levels in Pakistan, often involving state institutions, the establishment, polling officers, and political parties. In fact, allegations of election manipulation surfaced soon after the creation of Pakistan. One notable case occurred in Sindh’s Dadu district, where the electoral contest between G.M. Syed and Qazi Muhammad Akbar was marred by accusations of rigging.

Between 1947 and 1958, Pakistan did not hold direct national elections, though sporadic provincial elections were held, but their credibility was often called into question. For instance, in 1951, Punjab held its first elections, but with voter turnout below 30%, the legitimacy of the process was dubious.

In the same year, Major General Akbar Khan attempted a failed coup against the elected government, marking the first conspiracy against civilian rule. These early years were marked by political engineering, leading to manipulated outcomes in both provincial and national assemblies.

The Ayub Era: Controlled Democracy

In 1958, General Ayub Khan seized power, suspending the constitution and imposing martial law. Ayub Khan’s regime is infamous for introducing "controlled democracy." In 1960, he held a national referendum, receiving 95.6% approval, which paved the way for his continued rule. He introduced a new constitution in 1962, establishing a presidential system of governance.

During his tenure, elections were held in 1962 and 1965, but voters did not directly elect members of parliament. Instead, representatives of local councils were responsible for electing parliamentarians. In the 1965 elections, Ayub Khan faced opposition from Fatima Jinnah, but allegations of electoral manipulation marred the process. The opposition accused the government of widespread intimidation, manipulation, and control over the election process.

The 1970 Elections: A Moment of Transparency

The first general elections based on direct adult suffrage in Pakistan were held in 1970. Intelligence agencies had assured General Yahya Khan that no single political party would win a majority, ensuring that he would remain the central figure of power. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of the Awami League could only field seven candidates from West Pakistan, while Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s Pakistan People's Party (PPP) could not secure even a single candidate in East Pakistan. The 1970 elections are widely regarded as the most transparent and impartial elections in Pakistan’s history. However, the post-election manipulation became evident when the majority-winning Awami League was denied the transfer of power, leading to the country’s eventual disintegration. Despite the tragic outcome—the division of Pakistan—no one has ever questioned the fairness of those elections, which are still considered the most transparent in the nation's history.

The third Constitution of Pakistan was promulgated on August 14, 1973, and on the same day, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto took oath as Prime Minister under this new framework. The Constitution introduced a bicameral system, establishing the Parliament with an upper house (Senate) and a lower house (National Assembly). It declared Islam as the state religion and officially named the country the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

After the fall of Dhaka, the newly formed National Assembly was scheduled to complete its term by 1978. However, consumed by his growing popularity, Bhutto dissolved the assembly a year early and called for general elections in 1977. While he likely would have won even without interference, the elections were marred by allegations of severe rigging. The term "jharloo" (meaning rigged or fraudulent) became synonymous with the 1977 elections. The Pakistan National Alliance (PNA) refused to participate in elections in Balochistan, citing the ongoing military operations in the province, and later boycotted the provincial elections, accusing the government of massive electoral fraud. This led to widespread protests, particularly in urban areas, with violence escalating rapidly. By early July, a compromise between the PNA and Bhutto's government had been reached, agreeing to fresh elections under a neutral caretaker government in October. But on July 5, 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq imposed martial law.

In September 1977, Bhutto was arrested on charges of ordering the murder of Nawab Mohammad Ahmad Khan. On March 18, 1978, the Lahore High Court sentenced him to death, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court on February 6, 1979. On April 4, 1979, Bhutto was executed in Rawalpindi Jail.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto served as Prime Minister for 3 years, 10 months, and 21 days.

Reflecting on the 1977 elections, the then-Chief Election Commissioner, Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan (father of Wasim Sajjad), remarked that the ruling party's candidates had severely undermined the electoral process through the reckless use of their authority and state machinery.

General Zia-ul-Haq:

In 1979, General Zia-ul-Haq imposed a ban on all political parties, marking the beginning of an era in which he wielded unchecked authority. By 1981, he had established the Majlis-e-Shura, becoming the ultimate decision-maker in Pakistan’s political landscape.

That same year, local elections were conducted under the supervision of the military, but the political climate was already tense following the controversial execution of Pakistan People's Party (PPP) chairman, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, on April 4, 1979. Despite Bhutto’s death, the PPP's underground leadership formed groups under the name "Awami Dost" to resist Zia's autocratic rule and his skewed vision of democracy. Surprisingly, candidates aligned with Zia suffered a humiliating defeat in the local elections, prompting him to nullify the results under a special Martial Law order.

In the 1983 local elections, Zia tightened his control by scrutinizing each candidate. Under direct orders, returning officers disqualified any nominee suspected of having ties to the PPP, ensuring that opposition voices were systematically silenced.

Zia had initially promised to transfer power to the people within 90 days, but he repeatedly postponed general elections, citing the need to create an electoral environment that would yield "positive" results and produce compliant representatives. In December 1984, he extended his presidency for five more years through a controversial referendum, which opposition alliances like the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) urged the public to boycott. As poet Habib Jalib famously remarked about the eerie stillness on the day of the referendum:
"The city was silent—was it the jinn or the referendum?"

Despite widespread calls for a boycott, the Election Commission in Islamabad reported that over 90% of the votes cast were in Zia’s favor.

In February 1985, under Zia's directives, non-party-based elections were held, and despite the opposition boycott, the elections were relatively transparent. These elections laid the groundwork for Pakistan’s "electables" and the culture of clan-based politics, which would continue to shape the country’s political landscape. However, by May 29, 1988, Zia dissolved the National Assembly and dismissed the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Khan Junejo.

Zia remained in power for 11 years, and his legacy is marked by the rise of extremist ideologies that overshadowed Pakistan’s previous commitment to tolerance and pluralism. His reign ended abruptly when he died in a mysterious plane crash on August 17, 1988.

Following Zia's death, Pakistan's political landscape shifted. The 1988 general elections, initially planned as non-party elections by Zia, instead restored the country to the path of democracy. On November 16 and 19, 1988, elections were held for the National and Provincial Assemblies, respectively. Benazir Bhutto, who had returned to Pakistan in April 1986, dominated the political scene and led the PPP to victory, reversing Zia’s 11 years of authoritarian policies. The electoral campaign was relatively peaceful, and on December 4, 1988, Benazir became the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim-majority country, after forming a coalition government with smaller parties and independent groups.

The 1990s and the Rise of Political Manipulation:

By 1990, systematic efforts were made to prevent the PPP from returning to power. General Aslam Beg and General Asad Durrani distributed 140 million rupees from Mehran Bank to PPP’s opposition candidates. As a result, the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad (IJI) won 106 seats, while the PPP and its allies in the Pakistan Democratic Alliance (PDA) secured only 44 seats.

In early 1993, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attempted to revoke the President's authority to dissolve the National Assembly. In response, President Ghulam Ishaq Khan dissolved the assembly. Fresh elections were held in October 1993, where the PPP won the most seats but fell short of a majority, securing 86 seats compared to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), which won 73 seats.

The 1997 general elections are remembered for giving Nawaz Sharif an overwhelming mandate, which many claim was pre-determined. President Farooq Leghari appointed an interim government under Meraj Khalid, consisting largely of Benazir Bhutto’s adversaries. As journalist Najam Sethi later admitted in a televised interview, the interim government’s task was to ensure Sharif's victory. These elections, held on February 3, 1997, saw the PPP reduced to a mere 18 seats.

General Pervez Musharraf and the 2000s:

In 1998, Nawaz Sharif bypassed senior military officials to appoint Pervez Musharraf as Chief of Army Staff. On October 12, 1999, Musharraf overthrew Sharif’s government and established a technocratic administration. Following a controversial referendum in June 2002, Musharraf extended his presidency for five years.

The general elections of October 10, 2002, were conducted under Musharraf’s military regime. The elections introduced a condition requiring candidates to hold a bachelor’s degree, effectively barring many seasoned politicians from contesting. Both the PPP and PML-N faced significant restrictions, with their leaders Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in exile. To navigate these constraints, the PPP ran under the banner of the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians (PPPP), led by Amin Fahim. Meanwhile, the PML-N splintered into factions, with one side remaining loyal to Sharif, while another aligned with Musharraf, forming the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), known as the "King’s Party." The emergence of PML-Q ended the dominance of the traditional two-party system between the PPP and PML-N.

In the 2008 elections, although only partially free, the victorious party was not allowed to assume power until they guaranteed Musharraf a safe exit. A report by the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) revealed that in 61 constituencies, the number of votes cast exceeded the number of registered voters, with some areas recording voter turnouts as high as 112%.

Electoral Corruption and the Rise of "Electables":

Over time, "electables" became central to Pakistan’s electoral politics. These candidates, often wealthy landlords or individuals with strong community ties, wielded substantial influence within their constituencies, regardless of party affiliation. Their personal vote banks allowed them to switch political loyalties as needed, undermining party-based politics. Zia’s non-party elections and Musharraf’s policies further entrenched this culture, shifting the focus away from ideological politics toward power dynamics dominated by electables.

With such candidates dominating the scene, political parties were forced to nominate electables, who, once elected, pursued personal interests rather than party agendas. As a result, ideological politics faded, giving way to power politics, where the real selection of candidates often rested with non-political forces rather than the electorate.

The Road Ahead – Elections in 2024:

The upcoming 2024 elections appear to be a repeat of past electoral manipulations, albeit with new tools and strategies suited to the modern era. While attempts to stifle dissent seem strong, the growing influence of social media, with over 126 million broadband users, presents a challenge to traditional control mechanisms. Shutting down dissent in an open-source digital environment will be difficult, forcing authorities to rethink their methods of influence.

As new voters register and younger generations become politically active, the shifting dynamics may impact the outcome. In the 2018 elections, for instance, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) saw its vote share rise by 9.2 million, while the PML-N’s votes decreased by 2 million. The impact of these changes will be critical as Pakistan approaches its next general election, where the role of social media and the participation of a young electorate may shape the country’s political future.

In Pakistan’s turbulent political history, no Prime Minister has completed a full five-year term, while four military dictators ruled for an average of eight years each. The constant alternation between democracy and dictatorship has hindered the development of a stable political system, and the upcoming elections will once again test the resilience of Pakistan’s democracy.

Reference 

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY 

Nawazuddin Siddiqui Success Story

How Success is Achieved

Success doesn’t come served on a silver platter. It requires dedication and relentless effort. When you’re on the verge of defeat, that’s when you have to rise and fight again.

Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s Journey to Stardom:

Nawazuddin Siddiqui was born on May 19, 1974, in Budhana, a small town in Muzaffarnagar district, Uttar Pradesh, India, into a Muslim farming family of landowners. The eldest among eight siblings, Nawazuddin completed his Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Haridwar’s Vishwavidyalaya. He worked as a chemist for a year before moving to Delhi in search of better opportunities.

His interest in acting sparked after watching a play, leading him to join the National School of Drama. After completing his acting course, he moved to Mumbai in 1999, embarking on a long journey of struggle.

Today, Nawazuddin Siddiqui is celebrated as an acclaimed actor and a superstar, but behind this fame lies a truly inspiring journey of resilience and grit.

Upon arriving in Mumbai, Nawazuddin landed minor roles, appearing as a background character in films like Sarfarosh and Munnabhai MBBS. Despite his efforts, substantial roles eluded him. In 2003, he featured in a short film, Bypass, alongside Irrfan Khan. He attempted to make his mark in theater, but this endeavor too met with little success.

During these initial years, he lived with four others in a shared room and survived by performing small plays. By 2004, he found himself in dire financial straits, unable to afford his rent. He sought shelter with a senior, who agreed to host him on the condition that Nawazuddin would cook for him — a role more akin to a cook than a roommate.

Nawazuddin’s resolve was unshaken. A graduate in science and a trained chemist, he could have easily returned to his previous career. Yet, he chose to endure, setting aside pride and personal dignity to pursue his dream.

From 2004 to 2007, he continued receiving minor roles, such as his appearance in Black Friday. His brief role in a song in 2009 marked another small step forward. In 2010, he finally garnered recognition with a journalist role in Peepli Live, which began to establish him as an actor. In 2012, he starred in Patang, a performance that earned him the prestigious Thumbs Up Trophy. The film was a massive success in the United States and Canada.

Nawazuddin’s breakthrough came in 2013 when he played a leading role in the second part of Gangs of Wasseypur. That same year, his film The Lunchbox premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, where he won multiple awards. He also won the Best Supporting Actor Award in 2013, and his work in Raman Raghav 2.0 (2016) earned him accolades, including the Fancine Malaga Award and the Asia Pacific Screen Awards. In 2018, his portrayal in Manto earned him the Best Actor Award at the Asia Pacific Screen Awards. His Netflix series, Sacred Games, received global acclaim, with renowned author Paulo Coelho commending his performance.

Nawazuddin is now a prominent figure in both Indian and international cinema, yet he has remained deeply connected to his roots. He is committed to improving the lives of farmers in his hometown of Budhana, Uttar Pradesh. Introducing modern agricultural technologies, he has implemented new irrigation methods that have greatly benefited the local farming community. In 2021, he took a break from his busy filming schedule to spend considerable time in Budhana.

During his visit to the Cannes Film Festival in France, Nawazuddin met with farmers and learned about cost-effective and water-efficient irrigation technologies. He brought these techniques back to his village, advocating for the use of jet pipes to simulate rainfall, a natural and highly effective method of irrigation.

Nawazuddin’s enduring connection to his roots reflects his noble character. In a recent interview, he shared, “My own family still hasn’t fully accepted my grandmother because she belonged to a lower caste. Despite my fame, it doesn’t matter to them; they see it as part of their identity and take pride in it.”

Such resilience and commitment to his beginnings have cemented Nawazuddin Siddiqui’s legacy not only as an actor but also as a figure of humility and perseverance, a true inspiration to millions.

Reference:

https://www.bbc.com/urdu/articles/cv2kr1zz8zvo

https://www.koimoi.com/bollywood-news/nawazuddin-siddiqui-recalls-getting-dragged-by-collar-when-tried-eating-with-lead-actors-of-films-junior-artists-eat-separately-the-supporting-artists-have-their-own-space/

Imran Khan! A Diplomatic Blunder

Aspirations for an Independent Foreign Policy: Hopeful or Unrealistic?

This article examines Imran Khan's vision for an independent foreign policy, evaluating its feasibility and implications through a comparative lens.

Pakistan's First Challenge: The West or China?

Pakistan’s economic interests are deeply tied to the West. The European Union grants Pakistan the GSP Plus status, offering tax exemptions that enable Pakistan to export 35% of its products to Europe—significantly more than to either the U.S. or China. Losing this status could cripple Pakistan’s textile industry and leave the country struggling to afford essential imports, such as oil.

After the EU, the U.S. ranks as Pakistan's second-largest trading partner, importing $6 billion in goods annually—the highest volume from any single country. Additionally, the U.S. holds the largest share and influence within the IMF, a critical lender for Pakistan. Consequently, straining relations with the U.S. is no trivial matter.

The U.S., Afghanistan, and Pakistan

Regarding the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Imran Khan's comments on “breaking chains” appeared somewhat naive, casting doubt on Pakistan’s stance. It signaled to the U.S. that Pakistan might have maintained a double game regarding Afghanistan. Despite being a “non-NATO frontline ally” after 9/11 and receiving $33 billion in aid, Khan’s rhetoric suggested otherwise, perpetuating a motivational yet idealistic approach even as Prime Minister. His inclination towards idealism overshadowed pragmatism, often hindering tangible achievements.

 

Historically, Pakistan’s foreign policy leaned towards the West. Despite ups and downs, Pakistan has remained within this bloc, receiving substantial economic and military aid from the West, which it failed to leverage effectively. Transforming this alliance to pursue an independent foreign policy is neither a quick shift nor within the capacity of a single leader or a mere visit to Russia. Even the U.S. has acknowledged that recent maneuvers reflect the personal ambitions of Imran Khan, not Pakistan’s state policy. 

Imran and China

Imran Khan’s approach to foreign policy was marked by rhetorical posturing rather than substantive success. His first major move, submitting the CPEC agreements to the IMF, antagonized China—a strategic investor in Pakistan’s critical sectors during economically challenging times. The agreements aimed to boost sectors of Pakistan’s economy, yet Pakistan's administration failed to harness these benefits effectively. Notably, countries like Sri Lanka, which channeled foreign loans into non-productive projects, suffered immense economic strain; Pakistan is at risk of a similar fate.

 

China values confidentiality in its economic agreements, particularly when involving countries like the U.S., which criticizes China’s global investments as strategic coercion. The revelation of CPEC details to the IMF was seen by China as an indirect leak to the U.S., risking further criticism of its investments.

Turkey or the Arab World?

 

Imran Khan’s attempt to forge an alliance with Iran, Turkey, and Malaysia created tensions with Pakistan’s longstanding Arab allies. A particular misstep was relaying sensitive information about Saudi leadership to Erdogan, estranging key economic partners in the Gulf, whose support is crucial for Pakistan’s workforce and remittances, worth $14 billion annually. Additionally, Saudi Arabia provides direct financial aid to Pakistan, which was jeopardized when Pakistan’s Foreign Minister issued veiled threats about the bilateral relationship.

Imran and Kashmir

On Kashmir, Imran Khan's foreign policy faced severe setbacks. Although he spoke passionately about the Kashmir issue in the United Nations, during his tenure, Indian Prime Minister Modi revoked Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and annexed Ladakh as a separate union territory under India. In comparison, during Nawaz Sharif’s tenure, Modi refrained from such aggressive moves. Ironically, Imran Khan now lauds India’s independent foreign policy, seemingly highlighting the contrast with his own struggles.

Visit to Russia: Wrong Time, Wrong Place

 

Khan’s visit to Russia amid a burgeoning conflict was a strategic misstep. Western economies, with whom Pakistan shares crucial trade interests, were unified against Russia. Meanwhile, Khan’s negotiations on wheat and gas with Russia were viewed as impractical agreements that neither served Pakistan’s immediate needs nor aligned with its primary economic partnerships.

Evaluating Imran Khan’s Foreign Policy

 

The U.S. has been quick to observe that the inconsistencies in Pakistan’s foreign policy are largely Khan’s personal missteps. Khan’s desire for an independent policy is fueled by an idealism that sometimes ignores practical realities. He aspires to replicate his personal achievements in public policy, but as a leader of a debt-laden nation, grand plans for independence are ungrounded. Unlike cricket, politics demands continuous performance, strategic insight, and collaborative strength, rather than individual heroics.

 

While Khan has managed to reframe his political setbacks as a struggle against “foreign conspiracy,” echoing Bhutto’s legacy, he falls short of Bhutto’s stature in international politics. His efforts to portray himself as a nationalist leader clashing with American influence may hold appeal domestically, yet they lack the geopolitical weight that made Bhutto’s stance historically significant.

 

A Psychological Profile of Imran Khan

 

Imran Khan’s worldview, shaped by personal successes, fuels his belief that he can achieve equally grand results for the nation. However, politics requires more than conviction; it demands a grounded understanding of economic and geopolitical realities. While he envisions himself as a global leader on par with those like Bhutto, he overlooks that a nation's independence in foreign policy rests on a self-sufficient economy. Idealism alone cannot liberate a debt-dependent nation.

Ultimately, Khan’s rhetoric may resonate with those disillusioned with Pakistan’s current alliances, yet his actions highlight the limitations of an approach rooted in lofty ideals over pragmatic statecraft.

General Rani! The Ugly Face of Nationalism

The Story of General Rani

Born in 1932 in Gujarat, British India, Aqleem Akhtar hailed from a conservative family. Even in her early years, Aqleem exhibited interests and hobbies more commonly associated with boys. She left school after completing her matriculation, and soon after, her family arranged her marriage to Ghulam Raza, a police officer in Karachi, who was twice her age. Though she was unhappy with this marriage, Aqleem conformed to family pressures, maintained her modest appearance by wearing a veil, and had six children.

During a visit to Murree, however, an unexpected gust of wind blew the veil from her face, igniting a spark long suppressed within her. She decided to cast aside her veil and rebel against the constraints that bound her. This marked the beginning of her defiance, which eventually led to a separation from her husband. When she sought support from her family, they only offered assistance on the condition that she reconcile with her husband. Aqleem resolved to live life on her own terms, and with that decision, her journey from Aqleem to “General Rani” began.

Disillusioned with her family, Aqleem began associating with wealthy individuals, leveraging these connections as stepping stones until she ultimately reached General Yahya Khan. Recognizing General Yahya's vices—particularly his susceptibility to alcohol and pleasure—Aqleem used her influence to the fullest. She captivated Yahya to the point that those seeking favors from him would approach Aqleem first, leading her to gain widespread influence. Yahya, despite being a competent and strategic officer who became Pakistan’s youngest major general, fell to the lure of indulgence, leaving a controversial legacy in the country’s military history. Tragically, his vices overshadowed his accomplishments, and he inflicted irreparable damage upon Pakistan. Yet, despite this, Pakistan continued to honor him with a pension and military accolades until his death in 1980. Such leniency has contributed to the country’s setbacks, as failures to hold individuals accountable for their mistakes often prevent a nation from learning valuable lessons from its past.

Aqleem, henceforth known as “General Rani”—likely a moniker bestowed by a shrewd and eloquent lawyer, perhaps even Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto—became a celebrated yet enigmatic figure. It was General Rani who famously introduced the renowned singer Noor Jehan to General Yahya. Noor Jehan, known as the Queen of Melody, was simultaneously inspiring Pakistan’s soldiers and distracting its most senior military leader. When generals succumb to distractions, the morale and focus of those serving under them are bound to suffer.

In the wake of Pakistan’s military defeat in 1971, Yahya was stripped of his power, and General Rani found herself imprisoned. Her case was championed by the prominent lawyer S.M. Zafar, and she was later released in a deal with Bhutto, who was keen to erase or conceal memories of the events that had led to the tragedy of Bangladesh’s secession. Without this deal, many revered figures of the time might have seen their reputations exposed.

When the Hamoodur Rahman Commission later inquired about Aqleem Akhtar’s involvement with Yahya, he dismissed her as a "sisterly figure." But during Bhutto’s tenure, General Rani lived under a shadow of restraint. Her influence and knowledge posed potential threats to the stability of the young state, forcing her into a quiet, nearly invisible life. In the 1990s, a movie titled Madam Rani was made, inspired by her life. General Rani passed away in Lahore in 2002 after a battle with cancer. 

Among her children, Arusa Alam stands out as a prominent defense journalist and the mother of well-known Pakistani singer Fakhr-e-Alam.

Arusa’s close friendship with Captain Amarinder Singh, the Congress leader and Maharaja of Patiala, garnered her significant attention in India and Pakistan. In India, she has been controversially labeled as an agent of Pakistan’s ISI. The renowned Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir has also hinted at her in less-than-flattering terms.

Every December 16th, as Pakistan remembers the fall of Dhaka, the names of such figures inevitably resurface—those whose actions are seen as having shaped the country’s defeat.

Jerusalem is Converging Point of Three Big Religions

Jerusalem: The Sacred Land and Its Tumultuous History

Jerusalem! Oh, Sacred Land! How testing has your sanctity proven for humanity?

Jerusalem is a unique city where the three major monotheistic religions lay claim to its sanctity. When religion and faith come into play, logic and reason often yield. For over three thousand years, Jews have held deep religious ties to the city; Christians for two thousand years, and Muslims for fourteen hundred years. The city houses 1,204 synagogues, 158 churches, and 73 mosques. Within its walls stand the Jewish Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, and the Western Wall. For Christians, it is where Jesus Christ was crucified at Golgotha and where they believe he will be resurrected. Christians make pilgrimages to Jerusalem to seek purification from sin; the Bible mentions Jerusalem 632 times.

 

For Muslims, Jerusalem is the third holiest city after Mecca and Medina. It is home to the first Qibla and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where Prophet Muhammad embarked on the Night Journey, as recounted in the Quran: 

"Glorified is He who took His servant by night from Al-Masjid Al-Haram to Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs; indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing" (Surah Al-Isra, Ayah 1).

 

According to Hadith, the Kaaba was the first mosque built on earth, and Al-Aqsa followed 40 years later. Muslims initially faced Al-Aqsa during prayers.

 

Jerusalem has endured 2 complete destruction, 23 sieges, 44 captures, and 52 attacks.

A Brief Timeline of Jerusalem’s History:

• 5000 BCE: Archaeologists trace human habitation in Jerusalem back to seven thousand years ago, making it one of the oldest cities.
•  1700 BCE: The Canaanites constructed stone walls to manage water in Jerusalem’s east.
•  1550–1400 BCE: The Egyptians annexed the region.
•  1000 BCE: Prophet David conquered the city, establishing it as the capital of his kingdom.
•  960 BCE: David’s son, Prophet Solomon, built the First Temple, known as Solomon’s Temple.
•  589 BCE: Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the city and exiled the Jews.
•  539 BCE: The Persian ruler Cyrus the Great captured Jerusalem, permitting the Jews to return.
•  30 CE: Roman soldiers crucified Jesus Christ.
•  638 CE: Muslims conquered Jerusalem for the first time.
•  691 CE: The Umayyad ruler Abdul Malik constructed the Dome of the Rock.
•  1071 CE: The Turkish commander Atsiz seized Jerusalem from the weakening Fatimid dynasty.
•  1095 CE: Byzantine rulers appealed to Pope Urban II to liberate Jerusalem, sparking the Crusades.
•  1099 CE: Crusaders finally captured Jerusalem, slaughtering most of its Muslim inhabitants.
•  1187 CE: On October 2, during the Night of Ascension, Salah adDin Ayyubi recaptured Jerusalem, raising the crescent in place of the cross and offering general amnesty to the Christians upon payment.

• 1229 CE: Frederick II acquired Jerusalem peacefully.
•  1244 CE: Muslims regained control.
•  1517 CE: Sultan Selim I integrated Jerusalem into the Ottoman Empire.
•  1917 CE: British General Allenby entered Jerusalem, defeating the Ottomans.

• 1947 CE: The UN divided the city into Palestinian and Jewish sectors.
•  1948 CE: Israel declared independence, splitting the city between Israel and Jordan.
•  1967 CE: After the SixDay War, Israel gained control of both parts of Jerusalem.
•  1993 CE: The Oslo Accords led Palestine to recognize Israel and vice versa.
•  1995 CE: Oslo II divided the West Bank into Areas A, B, and C, granting the Palestinian Authority additional powers.
•  2020 CE: President Trump supported moving the US Embassy to disputed Jerusalem, fueling Israel’s expansion into Palestinian territories under the guise of a peace agreement.

 

A Brief Modern History of Jerusalem and the Ongoing Conflict

Post-WWI to Israel's Establishment:

After World War I, Britain defeated the Ottoman Empire and took control of Jerusalem, leading to a wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine. 

Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera

Jews began establishing communities and ultimately launched militant movements for an independent Jewish state. In 1948, as Britain withdrew, the United Nations proposed a partition of Palestine into Jewish and Muslim states, declaring Jerusalem an international city. However, Israel later seized additional Palestinian territories by force. In recent years, under the so-called "peace plan" by President Trump, Israel gained support for further annexation, swiftly advancing its territorial expansion with minimal opposition beyond diplomatic resistance.

Current Crisis: Forced Evictions and East Jerusalem 

Currently, Israeli authorities are evicting Palestinians from their homes in East Jerusalem—a deeply complex issue. Palestinians argue they have lived there since the 1950s, holding documentation from Jordan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Jewish organizations, however, claim they inhabited these homes as far back as 1885, later losing them in the 1948 war. Israel captured East Jerusalem in the 1967 Six-Day War; prior to that, it was under Jordanian control. Israeli courts have already evicted Palestinians from these homes under a revised property law.

Today, Muslims make up 60% of East Jerusalem’s population and aspire to establish it as their capital.

The area contains the historic Old City and numerous sacred sites, including the Al-Aqsa Mosque, the Dome of the Rock, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the Western Wall. 

Demographics and Geography of Jerusalem and Gaza 

Jerusalem’s population stands at approximately 936,000, including 550,000 Israelis and over 350,000 Palestinians. 

Gaza, located along Palestine's western border, covers a mere 365 square kilometers and is home to two million people, with a staggering density of 6,000 individuals per square kilometer, making it the world’s third most densely populated area. 

Bordered by Israel on the east and the Mediterranean Sea to the west, Gaza’s southern corner adjoins Egypt via the Rafah border crossing, which remains tightly closed, leading to severe shortages of water, electricity, and medicine.

Although Gaza falls under Palestinian administration, it is effectively governed by Hamas, a Sunni political and military group founded in 1987. Hamas gained control of Gaza following its 2006 election victory and has maintained an armed presence, launching rockets toward Tel Aviv. While some speculate these rockets are smuggled from Egypt through tunnels, Israel contends that weapons are produced in local factories with assistance from Iranian military experts. Qatar and Turkey are also known to support Hamas at multiple levels and have even advocated for its recognition as a peaceful political party.

Hamas vs. Israel: The Military Dynamics 

Hamas targets Israel with rockets, most of which Israel intercepts using its Iron Dome system, developed by the Israeli company Rafael. The system intercepts missiles fired from ranges of 4 to 70 kilometers, achieving roughly an 80% success rate. However, it does not guarantee total protection, prompting Israel to retaliate with airstrikes on Gaza, where civilians often bear the brunt of the attacks. For both sides, this conflict holds religious significance, with combat seen as a sacred duty. Despite Hamas's limited resources, Israel is a highly advanced state, backed by powerful Western nations and a strong network of lobbying groups in the United States. Israeli drones and technology lead global markets, supplying advanced capabilities to numerous countries.

 

While countries like Algeria, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Brunei, Malaysia, and Indonesia do not recognise Israel, advancements under the Trump administration (including formal recognition by the UAE and covert cooperation with Saudi Arabia) have diluted Arab pressure. Egypt and Jordan, which recognised Israel three to four decades ago, have neutralised their regional opposition, and following the UAE’s move, it is anticipated that other Gulf states may soon follow.

Hamas remains Israel’s primary remaining adversary, one Israel aims to dismantle as quickly as possible, regardless of civilian casualties. Both sides view the struggle as a religious duty, adding layers of complexity to a conflict that has already seen far too many innocents lost.