The Marriottt in Islamabad is no more. This is a reality that many are still finding it hard to come to terms with. The hotel, where wedding guests assembled, where friends chatted, where journalists covering key events gathered, where business deals were struck and from where tourists ventured out to explore Pakistan has been converted into a charred ruin. The last ‘Iftaris’ taking place at it turned into a dark nightmare as a suicide bomber rammed a truck loaded with explosives into its entrance. At least 60 people have died; more than 300 injured. The precise toll is still impossible to determine with bodies still being pulled out from rooms engulfed by an inferno unleashed by the blast.Even in a nation that has become resilient to shock and accustomed to terrorist violence, the attack has created horror. It is being described as the worst suicide bombing yet to take place in the country - Pakistan’s very own 9/11. The bomber is believed to have used 1000 kilograms of high-quality explosives in the attack. There can be no doubt about his intentions. The act has proven too that terrorism is an evil that Pakistan must fight. It is not a war that involves the US, or other powers. It directly affects each and every one of us; we must therefore fight it. The people who died are almost all Pakistanis. Most among them are poor security guards, drivers, waiters, hotel staff - caught as the explosion ripped through the building. Those who killed them are too Pakistanis. They are not aliens, not outsiders. It is our flawed policies that have allowed them to grow and to develop the maddened mindsets of hatred that spurs their actions. It is senseless to point fingers elsewhere. We must wake up to the fact that these people come from amongst us; they target venues within the country and they kill their own countrymen.It is time we accepted this war is our own. There must be no ambiguity about this. The Marriott, for many, was the face of Islamabad. Its destruction is a reminder of the scale of the threat we face. No one in the country is safe, no place secure.The opinions we still hear everywhere, in roadside cafes, in offices - and among the country’s establishment - that the militants who have entrenched themselves in northern areas are ‘good’ people, that force should not be used against them - is one reason why we today face such high levels of peril. Pakistan is now rated as the most dangerous place in the world. All those who have seen the charred graveyard of vehicles, of trees torn apart, of ash covering green belts, of people writhing in hospital beds, will not disagree with this assessment. Yet the fact that so many still believe the forces capable of the mayhem we saw in Islamabad on Saturday deserve some kind of protection, that they deserve to be regarded as men of honour with whom dialogue is possible, explains why they have so far proved invincible. Such thinking needs to change. There must be a consensus across society about the need to act with unity and determination to save what still remains of our wounded country. We must try to breathe life back into it. As inevitably happens after any major incident, rumours, theories, conjecture about why the Marriott was targeted will continue to circulate. There has been vague talk of US nationals being present, of equipment being moved in. This is irrelevant. It is senseless to attempt to decipher the motives driving killers to acts of evil. What is important is to find a way to vanquish them. The President, in the immediate aftermath of the blast, has spoken of the need to turn sorrow into strength, to face the situation with courage. The words express the right sentiments. What is crucial is to find the means to act on them and to ensure that everyone in circles of decision-making is working towards the same goal. The civilian and military government must ensure cooperation and combined planning towards this end.There are now several key challenges ahead. They go beyond the question of immediate arrests or an investigation of the blast itself.These are of course important, but we need to look further and draw up a plan of action that in time will help us build a country where people are safe and where the terror that lurks everywhere in Islamabad and indeed other cities does not forever haunt us. How can this be done? Indeed can it now be achieved at all? These are questions we must face up to. Too much time has already been lost. The actions being contemplated today should have come years, perhaps, decades sooner. After all, suicide bombings were, even five years ago, almost unknown in the country. We must ask ourselves how we so rapidly descended in the abyss of violence we face today. In 2003, 189 people in the country died in terrorist related incidents. In 2007 this figure stood at over 3,500. In 2002, 20 died in two suicide attacks.For 2008 the figure already stands at over 300. Who knows what the toll will be by the time the year reaches its bloody end. An understanding of how this happened, and why it was allowed to happen, is crucial to developing a strategy to deal with the ghastly realty we face.But there are ways to try and overcome terror, provided there is will, and commitment and a shared vision. The measures that are required include an improvement in security and the training of personnel at checkposts. In Iraq, such an enhancement in their skills has helped bring down the number of bombings and the number of deaths. But far more is needed than mere security. The fact is that today, thousands of persons recruited through the years for ‘jihad’ by militant outfits - with or without official patronage - roam in our cities, our towns, our tribal areas. In most cases their only skills involve the use of guns, grenades and bombs. A means has to be found to rehabilitate these people and prevent them from leading still others down the staircase that leads to violence. In times of high unemployment and high desperation such recruitment is taking place rapidly. We must also act decisively against key militants, their outfits and their seminaries. Many in northern areas are able to identify seminaries where killers are trained. Such institutions exist too in our cities.They must be closed down. The immediate task for the government is to build the consensus required to go about this. There is no time to lose, no time to waste. The still smouldering remains of the Marriott are a reminder of the need for urgent action. If we fail now, there will yet be worse to come in the days ahead.
Tuesday 23 September 2008
Pakistan cannot go back to the Future
As Pakistan gets hammered by Taliban and Al Qaeda bombs in Islamabad (the Marriott to be precise), and by Hellfire missiles in FATA, the feeding frenzy in the US press builds to a crescendo. This week Newsweek published an article titled, "Pakistan's Double-Cross" by long-time Pakistan-sufferer, Sumit Ganguly. When Pakistanis read Ganguly's vicious hatchet job on Pakistan (and on history), they should take a deep breath and pause before they react. Despite his boring residual partition rage, Ganguly is not the one that has made Pakistan foreign policy target No 1 for US presidential candidates. It wasn't Ganguly who loathes ordinary Pakistanis so deeply that he thought it okay to reject their overwhelming will, and insist he knew what was good for Pakistan better. It wasn't Ganguly who signed the NRO, or fired the judges. Pakistanis need to learn very quickly that Pakistan's battles will be won and lost by its people, not by Cold War analysts trying to be relevant in Washington DC.
While English-speaking Pakistanis will either seethe with rage at Ganguly, or at the Pakistani "establishment", ordinary Pakistanis will have no reaction at all. It's not just that they can't read English, it's that they can't read period. That's why they don't know what the Magna Carta is. That's why they can't check the roznamcha for a record of their presence at the police station. That's why the FIR system favours the rural and industrial elite. That's why they have to depend on the feudal and industrial elite. That's why they vote for the PPP and the PML-Q. And that is why the rage of these English-speaking Pakistanis is heart-warming but without efficacy. The rage will not free ordinary Pakistanis from the clutches of their political and economic realities.
English-speaking Pakistanis can't change the game, because they don't even know what the game is. Unfortunately, neither do Pakistan's post-modern diplomats. None seem capable of articulating Pakistan's security needs, and the insecurity paradigm it exists in. Instead of driving a Pakistani agenda forward themselves, Pakistani diplomats seem to be like the deer caught in proverbial headlights. Despite his endearing charm, his locomotive train intellect and his superhuman political instincts, the Pakistani ambassador to the US has been most disappointing in his role as Pakistan's primary foreign policy articulator. Even Abdullah H Haroon at the UN in New York seems to have a modicum of tenacity. Conversely, Pakistan's Washington DC office has a sheepish, insignificant and apologetic response to every event of national significance. This has strengthened the false impression in Washington DC that the Pakistani national security establishment is schizophrenic and needs to be beat down and humiliated. That's exactly what's happening in the border areas. And that's exactly what happened at the Marriott on Saturday night.
Whose fault is this scenario? Pakistan's diplomats weren't the ones who decided that they were smarter than 172 million people, nor did they mismanage Pakistan's western borders with gung-ho machismo, nor did they dismantle the tribal codes that could have cooled down the temperatures in FATA.
All that was the fault of retired General Musharraf and the military sub-culture he cultivated that believes it is better than everybody else. There is only one other demographic that thinks as highly of itself. It is, for lack of better terminology, the expats, uncles, aunties and urbanites. This was the demographic that served as Musharraf's primary constituency in 1999 and beyond. Some of us were so sure that the "seven-point agenda" would succeed, we migrated "back home" to make it happen. We can deny it now (because to accept it would be unfashionable) but there was hardly a stammer that night of October 12, 1999 from English-speaking Pakistanis.
It made sense too. We were embarrassed by Rafiq Tarrar's beard, by the incorrigible economic mismanagement of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto's governments, by Nawaz Sharif's Amir-ul-Momineen misadventure, and by our own political and economic irrelevance since the 1970s. We spent the 1980s in the deep freezer, and the 1990s in such a deep sense of shame that Musharraf represented an irresistible escape from the domination of Pakistan's politics by "those" representatives of Pakistan's people: the feudal and industrial elite.
Musharraf's betrayal of the dream of a functional Pakistan, a Pakistani state that is effective, and a Pakistani people that isn't in a constant state of internal strife and angst is a heavy burden. The retired general does not carry it alone. His enlightened moderate cheerleaders carry it with him.
This is why the lawyers' movement was so refreshing and deeply endearing. It was a spontaneous blowback against not only the broken promise of yet another military government, but against the tyranny of whimsical one-man decision-making. It was a validation of the relevance of urban, educated, English-speaking Pakistanis, at home and abroad. For the first time in national history these Pakistanis did not require the military or bureaucracy to back up their sense of superiority. The lawyers electrified English-speaking middle Pakistan in a way that no one, perhaps not even Bhutto Senior, ever had before.
The lawyers won the battle to make integrity politically relevant again. But now that democracy has reared its imperfect and sometimes ugly face, the lawyers can't and won't get everything they set out for. The Pakistani English-speaking set can't believe its all come crashing down so quickly, and that President Zardari has ended up on top. The US media's appetite for hit-pieces on Pakistan (like Ganguly's "Double-Cross" article) only fuels this smorgasbord of angst. And this angst then refuels the fallacy that Pakistani society is unprepared for democracy. This fallacy is borne of impatience, and it needs to be arrested.
Pakistan's economic mess is the fault of bankers being given jobs meant for elected leaders. The national security mess is the fault of generals being too busy reforming local governments, universities, cricket and sports federations to contain threats to Pakistan's national security. The ideological mess is the fault of the diabolical nexus between money and faith, and between money and lack of faith. Amongst all of this, not only is the state more ineffective than ever before, it is now being decimated by the false prophets of the private sector. Events on Wall Street amply demonstrate what the private sector is good for, when left unregulated and guided only by its greed. No, Pakistan's mess is not the fault of democracy.
It is in fact, the fault of the absence of democracy. Ordinary Pakistanis have never had a chance to be fully rid of their default addiction to feudal, aristocratic and family-owned political parties. And the most capable Pakistanis are too busy seething existential anger to understand the nuts and bolts of Pakistan's troubles. Which is why every Iftaar party since 1947 features the same tawdry and asinine prescriptions: "Fix education, and everything will be fixed." "Secularize and everything will be fixed." "Restore the judges and everything will be fixed." Such prescriptions do not belong in serious conversations.
Patriotism does not excuse ignorance and inaction. Columns like this (and responses to it) do not substitute for electoral legitimacy. Long-winded Shakespearian rhetoric does not substitute for substantive knowledge about what's broken and how it will be fixed. Feigning offense and manufacturing controversy over terms like "auntie" and "babu", is just as useless as being enraged at Sumit Ganguly's obvious distaste for Pakistan's dysfunction, and for facts. It distracts from the fundamental challenge Pakistan faces over the next generation. It is whether Pakistan's most capable sons and daughters are going stop being passive participants in Pakistani democracy, and start making real change from the nuts and bolts, up. The alternative is unthinkable. The country can ill-afford another episode of back to the future
While English-speaking Pakistanis will either seethe with rage at Ganguly, or at the Pakistani "establishment", ordinary Pakistanis will have no reaction at all. It's not just that they can't read English, it's that they can't read period. That's why they don't know what the Magna Carta is. That's why they can't check the roznamcha for a record of their presence at the police station. That's why the FIR system favours the rural and industrial elite. That's why they have to depend on the feudal and industrial elite. That's why they vote for the PPP and the PML-Q. And that is why the rage of these English-speaking Pakistanis is heart-warming but without efficacy. The rage will not free ordinary Pakistanis from the clutches of their political and economic realities.
English-speaking Pakistanis can't change the game, because they don't even know what the game is. Unfortunately, neither do Pakistan's post-modern diplomats. None seem capable of articulating Pakistan's security needs, and the insecurity paradigm it exists in. Instead of driving a Pakistani agenda forward themselves, Pakistani diplomats seem to be like the deer caught in proverbial headlights. Despite his endearing charm, his locomotive train intellect and his superhuman political instincts, the Pakistani ambassador to the US has been most disappointing in his role as Pakistan's primary foreign policy articulator. Even Abdullah H Haroon at the UN in New York seems to have a modicum of tenacity. Conversely, Pakistan's Washington DC office has a sheepish, insignificant and apologetic response to every event of national significance. This has strengthened the false impression in Washington DC that the Pakistani national security establishment is schizophrenic and needs to be beat down and humiliated. That's exactly what's happening in the border areas. And that's exactly what happened at the Marriott on Saturday night.
Whose fault is this scenario? Pakistan's diplomats weren't the ones who decided that they were smarter than 172 million people, nor did they mismanage Pakistan's western borders with gung-ho machismo, nor did they dismantle the tribal codes that could have cooled down the temperatures in FATA.
All that was the fault of retired General Musharraf and the military sub-culture he cultivated that believes it is better than everybody else. There is only one other demographic that thinks as highly of itself. It is, for lack of better terminology, the expats, uncles, aunties and urbanites. This was the demographic that served as Musharraf's primary constituency in 1999 and beyond. Some of us were so sure that the "seven-point agenda" would succeed, we migrated "back home" to make it happen. We can deny it now (because to accept it would be unfashionable) but there was hardly a stammer that night of October 12, 1999 from English-speaking Pakistanis.
It made sense too. We were embarrassed by Rafiq Tarrar's beard, by the incorrigible economic mismanagement of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto's governments, by Nawaz Sharif's Amir-ul-Momineen misadventure, and by our own political and economic irrelevance since the 1970s. We spent the 1980s in the deep freezer, and the 1990s in such a deep sense of shame that Musharraf represented an irresistible escape from the domination of Pakistan's politics by "those" representatives of Pakistan's people: the feudal and industrial elite.
Musharraf's betrayal of the dream of a functional Pakistan, a Pakistani state that is effective, and a Pakistani people that isn't in a constant state of internal strife and angst is a heavy burden. The retired general does not carry it alone. His enlightened moderate cheerleaders carry it with him.
This is why the lawyers' movement was so refreshing and deeply endearing. It was a spontaneous blowback against not only the broken promise of yet another military government, but against the tyranny of whimsical one-man decision-making. It was a validation of the relevance of urban, educated, English-speaking Pakistanis, at home and abroad. For the first time in national history these Pakistanis did not require the military or bureaucracy to back up their sense of superiority. The lawyers electrified English-speaking middle Pakistan in a way that no one, perhaps not even Bhutto Senior, ever had before.
The lawyers won the battle to make integrity politically relevant again. But now that democracy has reared its imperfect and sometimes ugly face, the lawyers can't and won't get everything they set out for. The Pakistani English-speaking set can't believe its all come crashing down so quickly, and that President Zardari has ended up on top. The US media's appetite for hit-pieces on Pakistan (like Ganguly's "Double-Cross" article) only fuels this smorgasbord of angst. And this angst then refuels the fallacy that Pakistani society is unprepared for democracy. This fallacy is borne of impatience, and it needs to be arrested.
Pakistan's economic mess is the fault of bankers being given jobs meant for elected leaders. The national security mess is the fault of generals being too busy reforming local governments, universities, cricket and sports federations to contain threats to Pakistan's national security. The ideological mess is the fault of the diabolical nexus between money and faith, and between money and lack of faith. Amongst all of this, not only is the state more ineffective than ever before, it is now being decimated by the false prophets of the private sector. Events on Wall Street amply demonstrate what the private sector is good for, when left unregulated and guided only by its greed. No, Pakistan's mess is not the fault of democracy.
It is in fact, the fault of the absence of democracy. Ordinary Pakistanis have never had a chance to be fully rid of their default addiction to feudal, aristocratic and family-owned political parties. And the most capable Pakistanis are too busy seething existential anger to understand the nuts and bolts of Pakistan's troubles. Which is why every Iftaar party since 1947 features the same tawdry and asinine prescriptions: "Fix education, and everything will be fixed." "Secularize and everything will be fixed." "Restore the judges and everything will be fixed." Such prescriptions do not belong in serious conversations.
Patriotism does not excuse ignorance and inaction. Columns like this (and responses to it) do not substitute for electoral legitimacy. Long-winded Shakespearian rhetoric does not substitute for substantive knowledge about what's broken and how it will be fixed. Feigning offense and manufacturing controversy over terms like "auntie" and "babu", is just as useless as being enraged at Sumit Ganguly's obvious distaste for Pakistan's dysfunction, and for facts. It distracts from the fundamental challenge Pakistan faces over the next generation. It is whether Pakistan's most capable sons and daughters are going stop being passive participants in Pakistani democracy, and start making real change from the nuts and bolts, up. The alternative is unthinkable. The country can ill-afford another episode of back to the future
Thursday 11 September 2008
" Dealling with Afghanistan Crisis "
Recently a panel discussion was made on “Strategies for dealing with Regions in Crisis: Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine-Lebanon, and Africa” and the observations made on the issue of Afghanistan were worth noting. The present situation in Afghanistan and the frontier regions of Pakistan is the accumulated result of developments since December 1979. The process of radicalisation in the region was the outcome of a series of strategic mistakes, including the use of Islamic extremists in the war against the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan.
After 9/11, when the US intervened in Afghanistan, Pakistan had advised against using the Northern Alliance (which was largely a non-Pashtun coalition) to oust the Taliban regime from power. Pakistan’s advice was not heeded. In October 2001, the Taliban dispersed from Kabul to the south and east, back to their home areas. They were not militarily eliminated or defeated.
The south and east of Afghanistan lay mostly dormant and neglected until 2003. It was only after the physical ingress of NATO into the region that the insurgency seriously commenced. Between 2003-2006, the insurgency became organised in five command countries led among others by Mullah Omer, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Mullah Dadullah and Gulbadin Hikmatyar.
The spread and intensity of the insurgency was the result of several factors i.e. (a) natural (Pashtun) local sympathy for the largely Pashtun Taliban; (b) further alienation of the Pashtun tribal leaders due to indiscriminate bombing and military tactics resulting in civilian casualties; political exclusion, specially after parliamentary elections; Tajik and non-Pushtuns control of the Afghan National Army (less now); (c) disenchantment of common people/villages due to counterinsurgency tactics; absence of development; corruption and injustice, especially at local level; selective destruction of poppy crops; and growing insecurity (caught in the cross-fire).
Cross-border support from FATA to the insurgency (mainly recruits, rest and regrouping was only a partial and arbitrary cause for the insurgency. Its major location and motivation was and remains within Afghanistan. Pakistan has taken several measures to check cross-border infiltration (1,000 check posts, over 100 military operations in FATA, capture or killing of 2000 al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders/commanders etc). While there was considerable impact of these measures on cross-border movement, the security environment in FATA, and neighbouring ‘settled areas’ deteriorated sharply. In 2007, al-Qaeda and some Taliban-linked groups turned on Pakistan and its security forces. There were a larger number of suicide bombings in Pakistan than Afghanistan in 2007 with 2000 civilian casualties. The main result was growing popular alienation with the ‘forward strategy’ in FATA. Paradoxically, within the FATA and the NWFP, there was also popular disenchantment with Islamic militancy. The February 18 elections led to success of the secular, Pashtun candidates of the ANP even in FATA.
The new government is committed to adopting a new strategy to end suicide bombings, pacify FATA, halt the spread of Taliban and militant influence, while continuing to cooperate and support the stabilisation of Afghanistan. Negotiations to halt the violence have been opened at several levels. The cause of violence in each of the FATA agencies is different. In the Swat district, the underlying cause was land-disputes and demand for speedy justice. The most critical negotiations relate to South Waziristan, where Baitullah Mehsud and the ‘Pakistani Taliban’ are located.
The concept of these peace deals is collective responsibility on the tribes for the maintenance of law and order in their areas. Of course, the tribal leaders have to bring in the insurgents active in their area into these peace agreements. The effect and implementation of these agreements will be slow. No doubt, there will be periodic reversals. The strategy is comprehensive with military, political and economic elements. The local militias, specially the FC will need to be strengthened and equipped to assume larger security functions. The Pakistan Army will be located in identified positions and posts and respond to security threats as and when required.
The widespread assertions that the peace talks with FATA tribes and militants have led to an increase in cross-border attacks in Afghanistan is at best premature. The rising incidents in Afghanistan are mostly at a distance from the border. Anyway, fighting always escalates during the spring/summer. In response to these concerns, specific clauses are being added to the agreements, specially within South Waziristan, committing the tribes to prevent cross-border attacks and surrender or expel al-Qaeda elements and other foreigners.
While there have been some well-publicised complaints from coalition commanders about rise in cross-border attacks, Pakistan too has many reasons for complaint. At the operational level Pakistan confronts (a) insufficient check-posts and troops on the Afghan side of the border. Pakistan has established 1200 check-posts; there are less than 100 on the other side; (b) inadequate real time intelligence sharing by the coalition and Afghan government; (c) coalition and Afghan National Army incursions into Pakistan territory; (d) non-supply of equipment requested by Pakistan for counterinsurgency purposes (night vision, UAVs, electronic surveillance, helicopters); (e) inflow into Pakistan (FATA) of foreign fighters - Uzbeks, Chechens etc - from and through Afghanistan; (f) attacks on Pakistan territory, specially artillery and aerial attacks (without warning or coordination), most seriously, the recent attack on Pakistani check-posts killing 12 Pakistani soldiers.
At the political level also, Pakistan faces several problems with the Afghan government and, at times, with coalition partners; including (a) non-recognition of the border by Kabul. (If there is no border, how can there be “cross-border”?); (b) opposition to border control measures e.g. fencing of parts of the border, distinction of biometric ID cards to check 40,000 daily legal crossings; (c) reluctance or refusal to relocate Afghan refugee camps close to the border to the other side, (as an effective means of reducing the cross-border problem and allegations regarding “safe havens” in Pakistan); (d) the presence of Indian Consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad involved in activities negatively affecting Pakistan’s security and stability; (e) provocative statements by Afghan leaders and officials blaming Pakistan for all of Afghanistan’s security problems, including the recent atrocious threat from Karzai to intervene in Pakistan territory; and (f) threats mainly from US legislators to cut off “assistance” to Pakistan and unjustified delays in reimbursements.
Pak-US cooperation is currently under strain. The political and operational challenges being confronted in the campaign to eliminate terrorism and to stabilise Afghanistan need to be addressed urgently through a strategic dialogue between Pakistan and the US. The US-NATO also need to review their strategic objectives vis-à-vis Afghanistan and to redefine “success”. They will not be able to transform Afghanistan overnight into a modern democracy; not be able to change the conservative Islamic ideology and beliefs of the people of Afghanistan; and they will not be able to eliminate or ignore the major power components in Afghanistan, specially the Pashtun tribes. The new strategy will need to be truly comprehensive, including political, economic and military components.
The political strategy should aim at reconciliation. It should be designed to (a) isolate the violent extremists from the moderate or non-violent or non-involved majority; (b) win hearts and minds, through practical assistance (health, food, housing, agricultural support); (c) build peace from the grass roots, district by district, village by village; (d) utilise traditional modalities for dispute-settlement and accommodation (e.g. jirga system).
The economic strategy should utilise the “power of finance” to win the cooperation of tribal and local leaders; implement urgently needed locally-required reconstruction and job creation projects as the priority; improve transport and communications; encourage local entrepreneurship; find a viable solution to the poppy problem (e.g. buy up the crop of small farmers).
The military component should remain the option of last, not first, resort. While the larger presence of coalition forces may be required in the short-term, given the Afghan antipathy to foreigners, these should be progressively replaced with strengthened elements from the Afghan National Army and especially local militias. The major military targets should be the al-Qaeda terrorists, hard-core militants and criminal elements; not part-time (Taliban) fighters.
None of the components of the strategy will work unless governance and the system of justice is improved throughout Afghanistan
After 9/11, when the US intervened in Afghanistan, Pakistan had advised against using the Northern Alliance (which was largely a non-Pashtun coalition) to oust the Taliban regime from power. Pakistan’s advice was not heeded. In October 2001, the Taliban dispersed from Kabul to the south and east, back to their home areas. They were not militarily eliminated or defeated.
The south and east of Afghanistan lay mostly dormant and neglected until 2003. It was only after the physical ingress of NATO into the region that the insurgency seriously commenced. Between 2003-2006, the insurgency became organised in five command countries led among others by Mullah Omer, Jalaluddin Haqqani, Mullah Dadullah and Gulbadin Hikmatyar.
The spread and intensity of the insurgency was the result of several factors i.e. (a) natural (Pashtun) local sympathy for the largely Pashtun Taliban; (b) further alienation of the Pashtun tribal leaders due to indiscriminate bombing and military tactics resulting in civilian casualties; political exclusion, specially after parliamentary elections; Tajik and non-Pushtuns control of the Afghan National Army (less now); (c) disenchantment of common people/villages due to counterinsurgency tactics; absence of development; corruption and injustice, especially at local level; selective destruction of poppy crops; and growing insecurity (caught in the cross-fire).
Cross-border support from FATA to the insurgency (mainly recruits, rest and regrouping was only a partial and arbitrary cause for the insurgency. Its major location and motivation was and remains within Afghanistan. Pakistan has taken several measures to check cross-border infiltration (1,000 check posts, over 100 military operations in FATA, capture or killing of 2000 al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders/commanders etc). While there was considerable impact of these measures on cross-border movement, the security environment in FATA, and neighbouring ‘settled areas’ deteriorated sharply. In 2007, al-Qaeda and some Taliban-linked groups turned on Pakistan and its security forces. There were a larger number of suicide bombings in Pakistan than Afghanistan in 2007 with 2000 civilian casualties. The main result was growing popular alienation with the ‘forward strategy’ in FATA. Paradoxically, within the FATA and the NWFP, there was also popular disenchantment with Islamic militancy. The February 18 elections led to success of the secular, Pashtun candidates of the ANP even in FATA.
The new government is committed to adopting a new strategy to end suicide bombings, pacify FATA, halt the spread of Taliban and militant influence, while continuing to cooperate and support the stabilisation of Afghanistan. Negotiations to halt the violence have been opened at several levels. The cause of violence in each of the FATA agencies is different. In the Swat district, the underlying cause was land-disputes and demand for speedy justice. The most critical negotiations relate to South Waziristan, where Baitullah Mehsud and the ‘Pakistani Taliban’ are located.
The concept of these peace deals is collective responsibility on the tribes for the maintenance of law and order in their areas. Of course, the tribal leaders have to bring in the insurgents active in their area into these peace agreements. The effect and implementation of these agreements will be slow. No doubt, there will be periodic reversals. The strategy is comprehensive with military, political and economic elements. The local militias, specially the FC will need to be strengthened and equipped to assume larger security functions. The Pakistan Army will be located in identified positions and posts and respond to security threats as and when required.
The widespread assertions that the peace talks with FATA tribes and militants have led to an increase in cross-border attacks in Afghanistan is at best premature. The rising incidents in Afghanistan are mostly at a distance from the border. Anyway, fighting always escalates during the spring/summer. In response to these concerns, specific clauses are being added to the agreements, specially within South Waziristan, committing the tribes to prevent cross-border attacks and surrender or expel al-Qaeda elements and other foreigners.
While there have been some well-publicised complaints from coalition commanders about rise in cross-border attacks, Pakistan too has many reasons for complaint. At the operational level Pakistan confronts (a) insufficient check-posts and troops on the Afghan side of the border. Pakistan has established 1200 check-posts; there are less than 100 on the other side; (b) inadequate real time intelligence sharing by the coalition and Afghan government; (c) coalition and Afghan National Army incursions into Pakistan territory; (d) non-supply of equipment requested by Pakistan for counterinsurgency purposes (night vision, UAVs, electronic surveillance, helicopters); (e) inflow into Pakistan (FATA) of foreign fighters - Uzbeks, Chechens etc - from and through Afghanistan; (f) attacks on Pakistan territory, specially artillery and aerial attacks (without warning or coordination), most seriously, the recent attack on Pakistani check-posts killing 12 Pakistani soldiers.
At the political level also, Pakistan faces several problems with the Afghan government and, at times, with coalition partners; including (a) non-recognition of the border by Kabul. (If there is no border, how can there be “cross-border”?); (b) opposition to border control measures e.g. fencing of parts of the border, distinction of biometric ID cards to check 40,000 daily legal crossings; (c) reluctance or refusal to relocate Afghan refugee camps close to the border to the other side, (as an effective means of reducing the cross-border problem and allegations regarding “safe havens” in Pakistan); (d) the presence of Indian Consulates in Kandahar and Jalalabad involved in activities negatively affecting Pakistan’s security and stability; (e) provocative statements by Afghan leaders and officials blaming Pakistan for all of Afghanistan’s security problems, including the recent atrocious threat from Karzai to intervene in Pakistan territory; and (f) threats mainly from US legislators to cut off “assistance” to Pakistan and unjustified delays in reimbursements.
Pak-US cooperation is currently under strain. The political and operational challenges being confronted in the campaign to eliminate terrorism and to stabilise Afghanistan need to be addressed urgently through a strategic dialogue between Pakistan and the US. The US-NATO also need to review their strategic objectives vis-à-vis Afghanistan and to redefine “success”. They will not be able to transform Afghanistan overnight into a modern democracy; not be able to change the conservative Islamic ideology and beliefs of the people of Afghanistan; and they will not be able to eliminate or ignore the major power components in Afghanistan, specially the Pashtun tribes. The new strategy will need to be truly comprehensive, including political, economic and military components.
The political strategy should aim at reconciliation. It should be designed to (a) isolate the violent extremists from the moderate or non-violent or non-involved majority; (b) win hearts and minds, through practical assistance (health, food, housing, agricultural support); (c) build peace from the grass roots, district by district, village by village; (d) utilise traditional modalities for dispute-settlement and accommodation (e.g. jirga system).
The economic strategy should utilise the “power of finance” to win the cooperation of tribal and local leaders; implement urgently needed locally-required reconstruction and job creation projects as the priority; improve transport and communications; encourage local entrepreneurship; find a viable solution to the poppy problem (e.g. buy up the crop of small farmers).
The military component should remain the option of last, not first, resort. While the larger presence of coalition forces may be required in the short-term, given the Afghan antipathy to foreigners, these should be progressively replaced with strengthened elements from the Afghan National Army and especially local militias. The major military targets should be the al-Qaeda terrorists, hard-core militants and criminal elements; not part-time (Taliban) fighters.
None of the components of the strategy will work unless governance and the system of justice is improved throughout Afghanistan
Saturday 6 September 2008
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Buddhist Remains at Takht Bhai - Review
On the last weekend in the month of August i have paid a visit to the " Takht Bhai Buddhist Remains" located at Takht Bhai (District Mardan). Information about the sites are as under;
Takht means “throne” and bahi, “water” or “spring” in Persian/Urdu. The monastic complex was called Takht-i-Bahi because it was built atop a hill and also adjacent to a stream. Located 80 kilometers from Peshawar and 16 kilometers Northwest of the city of Mardan, Takht-I-Bahi was unearthed in early 20th century and in 1980 it was included in the UNESCO World Heritage list as the largest Buddhist remains in Gandhara, along with the Sahr-i-Bahlol urban remains that date back to the same period, located about a kilometer south.
I have been there in 30th August 2008 and it is surprisingly well maintained and thankfully safe. Researchers believe that the monastery of Takht-i-Bahi was first mentioned by General Court, the French officer of Maharaja Ranjit Singh in 1836 and it is the most impressive and complete Buddhist monastery in Pakistan. Takht-i-Bahi consists of numerous chapels and stupas sticking to the high, rocky spurs. Just for reader information, a stupa is a Buddhist mound like structure and usually has a square base, a hemispherical dome, a conical spire, a crescent moon and a circular disc. Stupas were erected over the remains of Buddha, his disciples and other saints. They also hold objects traditionally associated with Buddha.
The complex of Takht-i-Bhai is impressively situated on a rocky spur (hill) some 300-500 feet above the Peshawar plain. From the top of the hill behind monastery, one can look down across the plains as far as Peshawar on one side and up to the Malakand Pass and the hills of Swat on the other and towards north is the Hindu Kush. This site has produced fragmentary sculptures in stone and stucco (a material made of an aggregate, a binder, and water which is applied wet, and hardens when it dries) that indicate the highly developed sculptural sense of their creators.
But the most remarkable feature is the design and arrangement of the range of small shrines, which surrounds the main stupa-court. The main stupa court at Takht-i-Bhai contained subsidiary stupas but was lined on three sides with larger and smaller image chapels with significant parts of their superstructure still intact. Much of the friezes and statuary was removed between 1907 and 1913, some of which can be seen on site and in museums in Pakistan.
The Vinaya text (a word in Sanskrit, with literal meaning ‘humility’) which is the textual framework for the Buddhist monastic community, or sangha, throws light on the architecture of the monastery. The village is built on the ruins of the ancient town, the foundation walls of which are still in a tolerably good formation. As a proof, that it was in the past occupied by the Buddhists and Hindu races, coins of those periods are still found at the site, the monks constructed it for their convenience. Spring water was supplied to them on hilltops; living quarters for ventilators for light and alcoves for oil lamps were made in the walls. From the description of Song Yun, a Chinese pilgrim, it appears that it was on one of the four great cities lying along the important commercial route to India. It was a well-fortified town with four gates outside the northern one, on the mound known as Chajaka Dehri which was a magnificent temple containing beautiful stone images covered in gold leaves. Not far from the rocky defile of Khaperdra did Ashoka build the eastern gate of the town outside of which existed a stupa and a sangharama.
The group of buildings unearthed after archeological excavations at Takht-i-Bahi may include; the court of many Stupas, the monastery, the main stupa, the assembly hall, the low-level chambers, the courtyard, the court of three stupas, the wall of colossi and the secular building. In 1871, Sergeant Wilcher found innumerable sculptures at Takht-i-Bahi. Some depicted stories from the life of Buddha, while others more devotional in nature included the Buddha and Bodhisattava.
The Court of Stupas is surrounded on three sides by open alcoves or chapels. The excavators were of the view that originally they contained single plaster statues of Buddha sitting or standing dedicated in memory of holy men or donated by rich pilgrims. The monastery on the north was probably a double storied structure consisting of an open court, ringed with cells, kitchens and a refectory. Walking further, you will come across the monastery court which was a residential area and as such a small number of sculptures were recovered. However, a beautiful emaciated Siddhartha in three parts was discovered. Likewise the other courts with Buddha’s images in stucco are equally interesting and they were used either for meditation, meetings or storage.
Regarding the current condition of this majestic site, although it is in good shape today, archeologists are warning that the site is in danger of collapse if an earthquake hits the region. The structure has been damaged by the quarrying operations, blasting activities and shock waves in the 90s. Some walls at the ruins have been affected by rainwater, which began accumulating after passages in the ruins were paved as part of a maintenance project. The provincial archeology department has only five engineers to look after 74 ruins in the province, which is not enough to keep them all in proper repair. Although the Government of Pakistan has taken a number of steps to protect the ruins (including buying the quarrying company in 2002 to stop blasting and shock waves nearby) but much more needs to be done otherwise we will only find Takht-I-Bahi in history and archeology books.
A park and other allied facilities for the visitors are close to completion neighbouring this great sites of the buddhist time.....
44pc Pakistanis reject all Presidential candidates
Polling for the presidential election will be held today. The contest will be between Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan Peoples Party, retired Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui of Pakistan Muslim League (N) and Mushahid Hussain Syed of Pakistan Muslim League (Q). Polling would be held simultaneously at the Parliament House and the four Provincial Assemblies from 10 in the morning till 3 in the afternoon. The unofficial results would be announced soon after the counting is complete. The Election Commission has finalised arrangements for holding the polling for the presidential election.
However Public opinion findings on the forthcoming Presidential Elections reflect a growing sense of alienation between the public at large, the society and the political system and political parties. When asked as to which of the nominees of the major political parties would they like to have as their next President none of the three was able to get popular acclaim, with the single largest response saying they wanted a non-party President.
Thirty four percent gave that response when asked which party nominee they wanted to see as President and even a higher number at 44 percent gave the same response when presented with a list of candidates.
Ironically the Constitution of Pakistan is closer to the position of the ordinary man on the street. The office of the President is that of the Head of the State and is supposed to be above party politics, exercising little executive power. The chief executive authority and associated ‘politics’ is supposed to rest with the Prime Minister. A deeper analysis of survey findings shows the continuation of a pattern of attitudes among Pakistani public – unexpected but consistent support for upholding rule of law and the Constitution of the country. In nominating a much respected former Chief Justice of Supreme Court, PML-N tried to reflect that public view. But survey findings show that their nominee was still seen as politicizing the office. He is seen largely with the same sentiment as the two partisan politicians nominated by the other two major parties, including Asif Ali Zardari and Mushahid Hussain.
Give a choice between party nominees and a list of hypothetical non-party persons, popular sentiment favors a non-party President. With Election so close, this is not a real possibility. Nor is the President elected by popular vote in Pakistan. Its constituency is limited to less than 2000 members of the Parliament, most of who are subject to their party decision which may or may not be reflective of popular sentiments.
These findings are based on a recent national survey conducted by Gallup Pakistan (Pakistan Institute of Public Opinion) the Pakistani affiliate of Gallup International. The sample size was approximately 2000 men and women statistically chosen from all four provinces of the country comprising a cross-section of all ages, socio-economic and linguistic groups. Interviews were carried face to face between August 31 and September 1, 2008. Error margin is estimated to be approx.+ 3-5 percent at 95 percent confidence level. -SANA
However Public opinion findings on the forthcoming Presidential Elections reflect a growing sense of alienation between the public at large, the society and the political system and political parties. When asked as to which of the nominees of the major political parties would they like to have as their next President none of the three was able to get popular acclaim, with the single largest response saying they wanted a non-party President.
Thirty four percent gave that response when asked which party nominee they wanted to see as President and even a higher number at 44 percent gave the same response when presented with a list of candidates.
Ironically the Constitution of Pakistan is closer to the position of the ordinary man on the street. The office of the President is that of the Head of the State and is supposed to be above party politics, exercising little executive power. The chief executive authority and associated ‘politics’ is supposed to rest with the Prime Minister. A deeper analysis of survey findings shows the continuation of a pattern of attitudes among Pakistani public – unexpected but consistent support for upholding rule of law and the Constitution of the country. In nominating a much respected former Chief Justice of Supreme Court, PML-N tried to reflect that public view. But survey findings show that their nominee was still seen as politicizing the office. He is seen largely with the same sentiment as the two partisan politicians nominated by the other two major parties, including Asif Ali Zardari and Mushahid Hussain.
Give a choice between party nominees and a list of hypothetical non-party persons, popular sentiment favors a non-party President. With Election so close, this is not a real possibility. Nor is the President elected by popular vote in Pakistan. Its constituency is limited to less than 2000 members of the Parliament, most of who are subject to their party decision which may or may not be reflective of popular sentiments.
These findings are based on a recent national survey conducted by Gallup Pakistan (Pakistan Institute of Public Opinion) the Pakistani affiliate of Gallup International. The sample size was approximately 2000 men and women statistically chosen from all four provinces of the country comprising a cross-section of all ages, socio-economic and linguistic groups. Interviews were carried face to face between August 31 and September 1, 2008. Error margin is estimated to be approx.+ 3-5 percent at 95 percent confidence level. -SANA
Tuesday 2 September 2008
" Ongoing battle between security forces and militants "
Fierce clashes are taking place between security forces and militants in Bajaur and Swat. While the former is resorting to gunship helicopters, artillery and mortar fire and causing colossal collateral damage, the militants are attacking police stations and military targets and making use of suicide bombers and bomb attacks. After suicide attack in Wah on 21 August, another attack took place in Swat on 23rd killing 70. Bomb blasts in Attock on 24 August destroyed a market selling CDs and another blast occurred in a hotel in Sihala. 22 suicide attacks took place from January-July 2008 killing 332 people. 60 cases had taken place in 2007 killing 770. Baitullah is hounded and despite reports of his poor health he is not giving up and has reportedly nominated his three successors to carry forward the agenda of Tehrik-i-Taliban. He claims to have 1000 suicide bombers lined up; besides ANP ministers and Sherpao, certain federal ministers including Zardari have been put on the hit list. Sectarian frenzy in Kurram continues and death toll climbs each day. Matani and Badhber townships near Peshawar are still restive. People rendered homeless are living under appalling conditions and relief measures are inadequate.
Announcement of policy of dialogue by PPP government soon after taking over power was a ruse to segregate non-militants from militants within the tribal belt and after winning over the former pitching them against the latter. Policy of selective use of force was abandoned and several fronts opened up at a time. Excessive force has been purposely used in Swat and Bajaur to force the local residents to leave their homes and move elsewhere to deny the shield provided by them to the militants. Latter’s hideouts are now being pounded more vigorously to force them to surrender. Anti-Taliban lashkars have also been formed to combat the Taliban in each agency.
Taking a cue from military strategy, that offence is the best defence, PM Gillani used military language saying that war on terror cannot be won defensively but the battle had to be taken to the doorsteps of the extremists. He naively added that ‘we are not attacked from outside military but from within’. While USA sent its forces across seven seas to save its most secured homeland from terrorism, our rulers instead of keeping the flames of war outside and gaining perimeter of security have chosen to apply this strategy on its own soil. He is either totally clueless or deliberately chooses to be ignorant about the nefarious activities of RAW-RAM-CIA-Mossad nexus based in Kabul working as a close-knit team to destabilise Pakistan. His pearls of wisdom to confront the faceless enemy through public support must have been music for our adversaries. His three-pronged strategy resembles Musharraf’s two-pronged strategy except that in the latter’s concept, one prong was to be implemented by USA to address root causes of terrorism. Gillani has chosen to free USA of its responsibility and has taken the entire load on his shoulders.
Bad policies of rulers compel extremists to resort to suicide attacks. Instead of policymakers, the poor suffer as has happened in each suicide or bomb attack. In Wah attacks, 70 poor labourers died while the same number got injured. Rulers as usual spoke in harsh tones describing the act as despicable and cowardly and vowing that they would never bow before extremists and that they will be brought to justice. Rehman Malik threatened that Bajaur operation would continue till the elimination of all ant-state elements. While conveying their concerns in strongest words they ignored what atrocities were being perpetrated on the people of FATA. 300,000 people have been uprooted from Bajaur alone and all told 700,000 are living under open sky in miserable conditions.
What if the 7 lakh displaced persons had crossed over to Afghanistan? In 1971, one of the chief excuses behind Indian invasion was refugee issue. Instead of condemning the illegal occupation of Afghanistan and exerting moral pressure on USA to withdraw its forces to end extremism and terrorism in the region, they are callously strengthening their hands and inadvertently allowing them to destabilise Pakistan. To befool the people they keep singing US-tutored song that ‘war on terror is not America’s war but Pakistan’s own war’. Some English newspapers are dutifully promoting this theme.
It must not be forgotten that the militants charged with ideological motivation have much greater war stamina than the army. They can afford to keep fighting for years under adverse conditions. They had kept fighting the Soviet forces for ten years till they were defeated and withdrew in humiliation. Can our army afford to fight the so-called faceless enemy that long and waste so much of its war munitions purchased at an exorbitant price meant for actual war. We had run short of ammunition and spare parts in both wars with India and we still do not have more than one month war stamina. Untrustworthy USA is known for closing the tap when its support is needed the most.
In a ten-year Iran-Iraq war instigated by USA, the two neighbouring Muslim countries kept fighting relentlessly without achieving any results. The bloodiest battles were fought in Fao Peninsula where the American imagery satellite would pass on information to each side to ensure that none could achieve a breakthrough. The idea was to kill two birds with one stone by bleeding both and making them lose their warrior elements and munitions and make Israel the unchallenged power of Middle East. Taking advantage of the war, Israeli planes destroyed Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak. USA is playing the same strategy in Pakistan to weaken Pak Army and best fighters of tribal belt by pitching the two against each other and having bled the two sufficiently, quietly extract nuclear teeth and make India the dominant power of South Asia.
The American leadership having ditched Musharraf after making best use of him for nine years has now expressed its full confidence in PPP government and assured them to work in close collaboration. $1.5 billion annual aid has already been promised and few F-16s have been handed over to use them against the militants if required. Having enflamed FATA and Frontier Regions the stage is gradually being prepared for a civil war. Our rulers at the behest of their so-called mentors are prodding the pro-government tribal elders to battle the militants and eliminate them. Once the civil war breaks out it would give a good reason to the international peace-keeping forces to step in to provide security and relief and rehabilitate the devastated areas. They have resorted to this gory drama in several countries in Africa to extract gold, oil and other mineral resources and to keep Horn of Africa under US influence. Probe of Benazir by UN is yet another ruse to force their entry and stay put for a long time till the achievement of all their objectives.
Our rulers are worried about the stability of Afghanistan and security of occupation forces and are not bothered about the stability of Pakistan. They are least concerned about hundreds of Pakistanis handed over by Musharraf regime to USA languishing in Bagram and Guantanamo Bay prisons without access to justice. Dr Aafia is one case of cruelty and high-handedness of Americans which has come to light. While forcing the Pashtun and Baloch to turn their guns towards own army, they refuse to free themselves of the tight embrace of enemies of Pakistan that are relentlessly stabbing us in the back and consider them genuine friends. They have bought friendship of untrustworthy USA and India and enmity of own people who have remained loyal and patriotic towards Pakistan.
PPP leadership is too willing to play US game and turn Pakistan into an Indian satellite in return for power and monetary benefits. If the nation is to be blessed with Zardari as the president what was so wrong with his predecessor? Having sold their souls to grab power and pelf these soulless rulers are mere puppets dancing to the tunes of their mentors. We just celebrated our 61st independence day with fervour not realising that charlatans have quietly bartered away our sovereignty.
Announcement of policy of dialogue by PPP government soon after taking over power was a ruse to segregate non-militants from militants within the tribal belt and after winning over the former pitching them against the latter. Policy of selective use of force was abandoned and several fronts opened up at a time. Excessive force has been purposely used in Swat and Bajaur to force the local residents to leave their homes and move elsewhere to deny the shield provided by them to the militants. Latter’s hideouts are now being pounded more vigorously to force them to surrender. Anti-Taliban lashkars have also been formed to combat the Taliban in each agency.
Taking a cue from military strategy, that offence is the best defence, PM Gillani used military language saying that war on terror cannot be won defensively but the battle had to be taken to the doorsteps of the extremists. He naively added that ‘we are not attacked from outside military but from within’. While USA sent its forces across seven seas to save its most secured homeland from terrorism, our rulers instead of keeping the flames of war outside and gaining perimeter of security have chosen to apply this strategy on its own soil. He is either totally clueless or deliberately chooses to be ignorant about the nefarious activities of RAW-RAM-CIA-Mossad nexus based in Kabul working as a close-knit team to destabilise Pakistan. His pearls of wisdom to confront the faceless enemy through public support must have been music for our adversaries. His three-pronged strategy resembles Musharraf’s two-pronged strategy except that in the latter’s concept, one prong was to be implemented by USA to address root causes of terrorism. Gillani has chosen to free USA of its responsibility and has taken the entire load on his shoulders.
Bad policies of rulers compel extremists to resort to suicide attacks. Instead of policymakers, the poor suffer as has happened in each suicide or bomb attack. In Wah attacks, 70 poor labourers died while the same number got injured. Rulers as usual spoke in harsh tones describing the act as despicable and cowardly and vowing that they would never bow before extremists and that they will be brought to justice. Rehman Malik threatened that Bajaur operation would continue till the elimination of all ant-state elements. While conveying their concerns in strongest words they ignored what atrocities were being perpetrated on the people of FATA. 300,000 people have been uprooted from Bajaur alone and all told 700,000 are living under open sky in miserable conditions.
What if the 7 lakh displaced persons had crossed over to Afghanistan? In 1971, one of the chief excuses behind Indian invasion was refugee issue. Instead of condemning the illegal occupation of Afghanistan and exerting moral pressure on USA to withdraw its forces to end extremism and terrorism in the region, they are callously strengthening their hands and inadvertently allowing them to destabilise Pakistan. To befool the people they keep singing US-tutored song that ‘war on terror is not America’s war but Pakistan’s own war’. Some English newspapers are dutifully promoting this theme.
It must not be forgotten that the militants charged with ideological motivation have much greater war stamina than the army. They can afford to keep fighting for years under adverse conditions. They had kept fighting the Soviet forces for ten years till they were defeated and withdrew in humiliation. Can our army afford to fight the so-called faceless enemy that long and waste so much of its war munitions purchased at an exorbitant price meant for actual war. We had run short of ammunition and spare parts in both wars with India and we still do not have more than one month war stamina. Untrustworthy USA is known for closing the tap when its support is needed the most.
In a ten-year Iran-Iraq war instigated by USA, the two neighbouring Muslim countries kept fighting relentlessly without achieving any results. The bloodiest battles were fought in Fao Peninsula where the American imagery satellite would pass on information to each side to ensure that none could achieve a breakthrough. The idea was to kill two birds with one stone by bleeding both and making them lose their warrior elements and munitions and make Israel the unchallenged power of Middle East. Taking advantage of the war, Israeli planes destroyed Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak. USA is playing the same strategy in Pakistan to weaken Pak Army and best fighters of tribal belt by pitching the two against each other and having bled the two sufficiently, quietly extract nuclear teeth and make India the dominant power of South Asia.
The American leadership having ditched Musharraf after making best use of him for nine years has now expressed its full confidence in PPP government and assured them to work in close collaboration. $1.5 billion annual aid has already been promised and few F-16s have been handed over to use them against the militants if required. Having enflamed FATA and Frontier Regions the stage is gradually being prepared for a civil war. Our rulers at the behest of their so-called mentors are prodding the pro-government tribal elders to battle the militants and eliminate them. Once the civil war breaks out it would give a good reason to the international peace-keeping forces to step in to provide security and relief and rehabilitate the devastated areas. They have resorted to this gory drama in several countries in Africa to extract gold, oil and other mineral resources and to keep Horn of Africa under US influence. Probe of Benazir by UN is yet another ruse to force their entry and stay put for a long time till the achievement of all their objectives.
Our rulers are worried about the stability of Afghanistan and security of occupation forces and are not bothered about the stability of Pakistan. They are least concerned about hundreds of Pakistanis handed over by Musharraf regime to USA languishing in Bagram and Guantanamo Bay prisons without access to justice. Dr Aafia is one case of cruelty and high-handedness of Americans which has come to light. While forcing the Pashtun and Baloch to turn their guns towards own army, they refuse to free themselves of the tight embrace of enemies of Pakistan that are relentlessly stabbing us in the back and consider them genuine friends. They have bought friendship of untrustworthy USA and India and enmity of own people who have remained loyal and patriotic towards Pakistan.
PPP leadership is too willing to play US game and turn Pakistan into an Indian satellite in return for power and monetary benefits. If the nation is to be blessed with Zardari as the president what was so wrong with his predecessor? Having sold their souls to grab power and pelf these soulless rulers are mere puppets dancing to the tunes of their mentors. We just celebrated our 61st independence day with fervour not realising that charlatans have quietly bartered away our sovereignty.
Monday 1 September 2008
As time Pass!!!
Former enemies Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam) are getting close to each other after PML(N) torn apart their ways from the ruling colation. This prove that "There is no constant enemy or friend in Politics"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)