No abstract

AbstractThis paper looks at Jama'at-i Ahmadiyya's political involvement in the Kashmir crisis of the 1930s under its second and most influentialkhalīfat al-masīh, Mirza Bashir al-Din Mahmud Ahmad, who took over the movement in 1914, six years after the death of his father, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Communal tensions springing from the Kashmir riots of 1931 provided Mirza Mahmud Ahmad with an opportunity to display the ability of his Jama'at to manage an international crisis and to lead the Muslim mainstream towards independence from Britain. Mahmud Ahmad's relations with influential Muslim community leaders, such as Iqbal, Fazl-i Husain, Zafrulla Khan, and Sheikh Abdullah (Sher-i Kashmīr), enabled him to further both his religious and political objectives in the subcontinent. This paper examines Jama'at-i Ahmadiyya's role in establishing a major political lobby, the All-India Kashmir Committee. It also shows how the political involvement of Jama'at-i Ahmadiyya in Kashmir during the 1930s left Ahmadis susceptible to criticism from opposition groups, like the Majlis-i Ahrar, amongst others, in later years. Ultimately, this paper will demonstrate how Mahmud Ahmad's skilful use of religion, publicity, and political activism during the Kashmir crisis instantly legitimized a political platform for Jama'at-i Ahmadiyya's entrance into the mainstream political framework of modern South Asia, which thereby has facilitated the development of the Ahmadi controversy since India's partition.

Conflicts are caused by various reasons. When competing groups’ goals, objectives, needs or values clash the aggression and violence is a result. Afghanistan as multi ethnic state enjoyed internal flexibility till socialist revolution (1978) that changed its social fabric due to ideological clash. In bipolar world this conflict invited the involvement of external actors (USSR & USA). Even after the withdrawal of Soviet troops this conflict sustained till 1992. The Mujahidin who had become new masters of the war torn country added fuel to the fire by converting an ideological clash into an ethnic one. Taliban replaced the Mujahidin but their religious orthodoxy also failed to bring national cohesion.The long sustained conflict has direct bearings on national and individual life of people of Afghanistan who have lost their ability to work together. All attempts made on national cohesion and integration so far have failed. People do not rely and trust each other and they have lost their motivation to work together and to rebuild their institutions and economy. It is the legacy of the long war that is still going on. A closer look at the last 35 years traumatic history of the country clearly illustrates the complexity of the problem due to clash of divergent aims and objectives of several parties.

No abstract

This paper aims to identify the factors responsible for reluctance of centre to decentralise power and imitation of the same trend in provinces while dealing with minority ethno-lingual identities. The paper explores questions: what is the nature of federalism in Pakistan? How federal question is dealt in the three constitutions of the republic? How differently ethnic groups responded to various federal arrangements orchestrated by the managers of the state over the years? Objectives of the study are to develop an understanding into the challenges posed to federalism in Pakistan and to develop a more inclusive approach for addressing the federal question. The discussion generated in this study is based upon qualitative analysis of existing published literature in the form of books, research articles, reports, and official documents. The narrative upon which the federation of Pakistan has been constructed is self-contradictory. The paper not only exposes the contradictions of this narrative but also includes societal perspective on the ethnic diversity and federation of Pakistan. It has been concluded that the crisis generated by over-centralisation of the state could only be resolved by ensuring the fundamental federal values like decentralization, provincial autonomy, and devolution within the provinces to the grass root level.